..'_ NW1 fiffififi. {5.3!} m... ....%N.§4.....N:. N ,' 11...»...“11... II.‘ 1&1: 1‘41 . "i . m‘ W. 1-1.“... Nii ‘ - 1 "MCI 'fir' F: m- _ Jm: 35}.qu $431.11.?” '..... l3NN NNNNNN N3.3 NNN. . 3.3 I'N.‘ ..:.~;‘I .' ;. .... . , iiI' ..IIII."I1.E..I'v.11": 1.1;: .; .' . . .1 N “'.....I “NI. "NIIN N3 “A N... INN" .' ENNNI NNIHNNNNNNNNNN .1 11%;. H.NN NNNW NWMW'N‘.NMNENNTNTffiEigxifi' . N'N ..1. . ."NNNNNNNN .N..-..... NI. 1 N. 1...»... . H NNNNN '3 \NNNBNZ. 1...... I-z-I!“ .g..:‘.:1:.f?, 513 1"I -‘~. . I .. ... N. .1... .III II I NIH I M 1:. III 1511 11-1 'N INNNWWNMINW IW11ngE Jufiifififl ..NN. l.N... .. Nuim. .: 9 III Mi:- ..1‘. .v. a . . . -3.," -‘Y- ‘..".zt... [le' ‘15 NEW "“me '1 "8]“. 1! "It" ‘N‘Efi .27- if)»; .I. J. 11... ..Au 1,. .11 1...»... ”.3.. 4. «ms—51" . IIN‘HIII'. NM..." N.NN1 0......II ..N.......... ‘.....N.I' ..3. .. ...I'm“.... .' ..171 Ni!3 133.3? :‘m u! ..3.-313.733.1I 1.103133"... 43%;? ..pI' WA‘NLILH . ‘1?- .,._. IL; IN. 1.171..“ '.i'ir'“ 9.2 MINI". .I .I ‘. N”... 111'INS1N‘"-INNN 3W3?" ‘N'N ‘7‘.va «Li-Hg" . .. N'NNN‘ I. N... ”(II ..I f 9.; 11". .NIDJNE 6?)..71Efi. ,1_ .11.. - . M... ..E ..N .11.... l ..11 .n 1.. “JUN” -. It. N..I. 'It§,« 3. *rI‘I '..LIzNN‘JfiE." 2"; 5 FINN". N 7 . ..3.. 3‘ 1'." N N... ,1 3m”?! 1' N. "9 I'NE‘ICNNNN-Ngfigi z I 12"." H "N ' "3N? " 3:33'1' " 3 U 5 :""‘:-"~.' - =51 ’I. 2. .._. .7. ’...N ‘. '9'" Mb). ‘. ”4.3%”. ”.3.... .N.NI. I'NI ..IE. N'NII I N .3....“ m. 11"“; j. I-I‘ ‘..... ”15%. ’L HEW? -m'fi- j? - 4'};- . . N ‘NNMH' ‘5' N'L'N ”3.33 l' "' ' .~' I" ' . =~= “B .1 ’.....NN I I. VI... .. ..N..NII...NN.‘N‘. '... .3..” :11“. A... "1.1... 1. UN...“ 3...?ng é...11NINNNN.31NNNNI4't§ 2.... ...I I. .3 ' I 3:731. N... N N ININN. lH "N. N" N 33311:] .63} NNNN [INN—LN] NNWT'NNNN is? a NHQNINN “5%,” NINE" fig.“ .. 1'..." .. .1... .J.I. .. . .......fl "'.....“ T1911......‘. 1,. N'NNgN ‘ . ‘1" '.. N. I. ..m.“ IN”..N'NN34 I £141.11... N N 0.1 JNNNN I , '. . ‘~I-’ . " N ' WWI... 1.11..” 1M .1731... .IW MN...“ .1... fl . I 1...I'.. ..N "I 5:311! . . . . N1. - “N... N}. INNNN I.” .N. H‘NMN . INN”... . ... ... m... N!“ ..E‘E Lil .5396th (1?... 3‘94?" 1 % .III .I h" .1... N. I fuN'l. a. ' 0‘” NNNNNNNIN III"! 1' ' NLN I I. ..NNN NNNI‘ ..lf' ‘.. .N‘ N ..w II NI.N .... '..... N.... .U .3“. l.NI 3-". IINNI - IN; I...‘ 1'“ .‘i' NNIIIII' 1" '.. ‘%V II. ' _ "I?“ rung. 1 I‘I. ‘ “"~‘ ...!'EI.I.7“I' . 1.: .1 .. "N .1' .. ‘.....I:N; .... KN...“ ... 1...”. INNNNNNN NINN' N“. .NINNNNNNN’ .IlwhnN u. NN‘N'lN '."IIINH‘I‘ i' ‘A ' ' ..II'”...I.."Wj . INNNNIN ‘lN | N. ‘4' IN\'JN N... Y I. Ile I... I... «111.1115. I . f“ ‘ratfilS This is to certify that the thesis entitled AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS presented by Donald Tobias has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree inEdncatiQnal Administration and Higher Education f / 7/7 @Zzflz g (221 Major prof DatemiLrJl—ZLJ9 7 9 0-7639 llililllllilflllllllflllflllllfllllfljllHll OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. \ [1“: ['57) AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS By Donald Tobias A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS By Donald Tobias Major Findings Question I. What is leadership effectiveness of the Com- munity School Director as perceived by: Community School Directors Board of Education Chairmen Public Agency Administrators Private Agency Administrators Public-Private Agency Administrators [110007) All groups rated Directors high with only a few items not displayed in the excellent range and those displayed at the high point of the good range. Question 11. Is there a significant difference among the five groups' perceptions? Two items were found to have statistical difference among groups at the .05 level, they were item l0, Verbal Fluency, and item 23, Appearance. Question III. In what aspects of leadership are Community School Directors most and least effective as perceived by all groups? While there are differences among groups on two items, all means are high. Items Attitude Toward His Job, Technical Competence, Donald Tobias Achievement Drive, Innovativeness, and Appearance received the highest scores. Items Flexibility, Openness, Success in Conmunicat- ing Expectation, Evaluating Ability, and Managerial Ability. Question IV. Which items do each group rate as being most important to the Community School Director's leadership effectiveness? Four items received high rankings from three or more role groups. They were Attitude Toward His Job, Technical Competence, Managerial Skill, and Leadership Skill. Question V. What differences exist between the perceptions held by Community School Directors of items most important to Leadership Effectiveness in this study compared to Becker's study? There was a great deal of similarity in the items ranked most important by Community School Directors in both studies and in par- ticular the top five items. Question VI. Is there a significant difference in the items on which Community School Directors rate them- selves high as compared to those rated high in the Becker study? Of the 23 items Becker found significantly higher ratings on 10 items, seven at the .OOl level of confidence. This study, on the other hand, shows only one item with a greater mean--Technical Competence and that at the .05 level of confidence. Conclusion The data generated by this study and the research questions answered indicate a positive response by all groups who rated the effectiveness of the Community School Director. In the simplistic sense that professionalism, respect, knowledge, etc. add to the Donald Tobias opportunities for people to work together, this study suggests that inter-agency cooperation is most possible. In particular, when there is such a high level of congruence on items important to effective leadership. Generally the Community School Director is judged effective because of personal characteristics, i.e. attitude, drive, appearance, technical communicating, managering, and leading. I find this dichotomy appropriate for revolutionaries, but questionable for man- agers in complex organizations. The Community Education literature is replete with examples of individual overcoming institutional norms for the benefit of the disinfranchised and that may be the role model that has developed. A singular rather than pluristic mode for problem solving, decision-making, etc. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my thanks to the C.S. Mott Foundation and the National Center for Community Education for their support and the opportunity to expand my horizon. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr. Carl Brautigam for his patience and counsel, his efforts typify the best in academic advise- ment. Drs.‘ Hickey, Shaw, and McGee have been generous with their advice and accommodating in sharing their time. Dr. Clyde Campbell, who served as my mentor during my course work, and gave much of him- self to further my development. Special expression of gratitude is extended to the Mott Fellows who toiled and grew beside me. Their willingness to share themselves made it all worthwhile. Further, the staff of the Syracuse University Center for Community Education has been a source of support, guidance, and mostly friendship. In particular, the efforts of Maureen Szlemp who provided editing and typing assistance that went beyond common expectations. And finally, I need to acknowledge the support and trust of my family, Connie, Mathew, and Megan, who shared with me a dream for four years. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................ v Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 Introduction .................... 1 Statement of the Problem .............. 3 Importance of the Study ............... 3 Questions to be Studied ............... 6 Design of the Study ................. 7 Population .................... 7 Sample ...................... 7 Procedure .................... 8 Definition of Terms ................. 9 Limitations of the Study .............. ll Summary ....................... 13 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. l4 Introduction .................... l4 Early Efforts in Community Education ........ l4 The Community School Director ............ 21 Perception ..................... 35 III. METHODOLOGY ...................... 39 General Overview of Data Collection ......... 39 Procedures ..................... 4l Summary .............. ' ......... 43 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ........... 44 Data Collection Procedure .............. 44 Issues for Investigation .............. 48 Data Analysis .................... 49 iii Chapter Page V. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... 65 Review of Problem .................. 65 Findings and Conclusions .............. 67 Summary ....................... 71 Recommendations for Further Study .......... 72 APPENDICES .......................... 74 A Cover Letter .................... 75 B Questionnaire .................... 77 C Item Tables ..................... 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 94 iv Table TO. IT. 12. LIST OF TABLES Personal Data of Respondents to Questionnaire on Community School Directors' Leadership Effec- tiveness ....................... Community School Director Image Profile, Community School Director .................... Community School Director Image Profile, Board Chairman ....................... Community School Director Image Profile, Public Administrators .................... Community School Director Image Profile, Private Administrators .................... Community School Director Image Profile, Public- Private Administrators ................ Average Mean Scores of All Groups Rating Community School Director Effectiveness ............. Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director as Perceived by All Groups .......... Item Selected as Being Most Important to the Community School Director's Leadership Effectiveness ...... Summary and Analysis of Variance Table for Community School Directors ................... Comparison of Community School Directors' Perceptions and Community School Directors' Effectiveness ..... Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient on Ranks of Total Items Selected as Being Most Important to C50 Leadership Effectiveness ....... Page 47 50 52 52 53 54 55 56 57 60 61 63 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction The community education concept continues to enjoy rapid expansion as school systems both inside and out of the continental United States adapt this philosophy. Presently, some 1200 school systems claim involvement in this educational philosophy with that number expected to double by the end of 1980.1 Rapid expansion has increased the need for training educators in Community Education. This training has taken several forms, including year-long intern- ships with the National Center for Community Education, University Fellowship, and short-term training programs through the National Center for Community Education and universities participating in the Regional Center Network for Community Education.2 As training programs emerged, their content and objectives developed around needs anticipated by leaders in Community Education. Little was done to substantiate these needs with hard data until recently. The Becker study (1972) questioned community school directors, central office administrators, building administrators, and teachers about factors that are important to successful 1Mott Foundation, "Five Year Plan," l972. 2Larry Decker, "Foundations of Community Education" (Midland: Pendell Publishing, 1972), pp. 56-57. I leadership by the community directors. The factors under question were: attitude toward job, leadership skill, technical competence, innovativeness, and managerial skill.3 In addition, the Weaver Study (1972), conducted for the Mott Foundation, involved interviewing 245 community educators in 20 Regional Centers to determine the goals of Community Education. Those findings were reported as being primary goals if more than 50 percent of respondents concurred. Weaver found that of the 40 primary goals, seven related directly to programming, while the remainder dealt with process. Weaver explained the concern for process as a by-product of the new emerging model for community education. Weaver went on to indicate future implications: The implications of the 'emerging' model of community education are clear. The community education program of the future will be developed cooperatively between the community and the school with a guarantee of accountability to the community. Community education will involve processes aimed at utilizing the available educative resources to assure an 'organized' community. In such a setting, the resource of the school will be utilized along with those of all othir agencies and institutions serving an educative purpose. Weaver's recommendations were for further research in improved training strategies geared to improving leadership and management skills.5 3William Becker, "A Study of the Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director, Ph.d. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972, p. 82. 4Donald Weaver, "Strategies for Training Community Education Leaders--A Working Paper," National Center for Community Education, pp. 27-28. (Mimeographed.) 51bid., pp. 22-25. Many of the studies recently completed give strong and thought-provoking recommendations for future training programs for community school directors, but few have measured the current effec- tiveness of such components as leadership as they are perceived by community school directors and co-workers. Statement of the Problem This study seeks to determine and compare the leadership effectiveness of the community school director as it is perceived by himself and by representatives of selected agencies within the community in which he is employed.‘ Previous data gathered in the Becker study makes it unnecessary to study the perceptions of the effectiveness of the director within the school structure. Using the same selections process and the same questionnaire allows for com- parisons with the Becker study on self-perceived leadership effec- tiveness of Community School Directors. Importance of the Study Since the publication of the Minzey and LeTarte book frgm_ Program to Process, an increased emphasis has been given to involve- ment with the community. Previously some community school directors considered themselves successful if they were effective within the school structure and gave only secondary consideration to responsi- bilities outside that structure. At the same time, these directors were expected to maintain an operational organization rather than simply to provide services within the organization.6 Becker's 6Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassaChfisetts, 1968), p. 215. suggestions for measurement of this activity both within and outside the school structure seem as important now, or even more so, than when he wrote them. The Becker study completed the internal measure- ment of community school directors' effectiveness but did not eval- uate the director in the eyes of the professional community outside the school structure.7 James Thompson challenges educational administrators gener- ally to look outside the organization for indicators of community understanding and approval. Thompson states: My personal belief is that we tend to stress internal relations and structures to the point where we fail to see the significance of external relations or thg inter- action between internal and external activities. This concern parallels that of James B. Conant when he said: The nature of the community largely determines what goes on in school. Therefore, to attempt to divorce the schools from the community is to engage in unrealistic thinking, which might lead to politics that could reek havoc with the school and the lives of children. The community and the school are inseparable... Many writers have raised the concern over school-community relations, or the lack thereof, but have suggested only rededication of traditional roles in achieving these goals. Minzey and LeTarte suggested a new role for schools and con- sequently for new personnel when they defined community education as: 7Dr. William Becker, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 8James Thompson, Administrative Theory in Education, ed. Andrew W. Halpin (New York: CbTTier-McMillan Company, 1958), p. 37. 9James B. Conant, "Community and Schools are Inseparable," The School and Community Reader (New York: The McMillan Company, 1963). p. 53. . a philosophical concept which serves the entire community by providing for all the educational needs of its community members. It uses the local school to serve as the catalyst for bringing community resources to bear on community problems in an effort to develop a positive sense of community, improve community living, and develop the community process toward the end of self-actualization.10 This definition went beyond new emphasis for teachers and principals and necessitated recognizing the need for a community school director--someone to administer new programs and develop outreach activities. Resource and needs identification necessitate inter- action with a variety of agency personnel to be effective. This group of professional administrators has not been examined relative to their perception of the effectiveness of the community school directors. Becker suggested that a valid indicator of successful school administrators can be obtained by rating individual and peer percep- tions of effectiveness. Becker used Mitzel's three criteria for administrator effectiveness: 1. product criteria-~attainment of pre-determined or long term goals 2. presage criteria--such factors as intelligence, degrees held, training, etc., which presumably affect perfor- mance 3. process criteria--variables over which an adminis- trator has some control, such as behavior and attitudes in effect during a given act of leadership.H 10Jack Minzey and Clyde LeTarte, Community Education: From Program to Process (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing, 1972), p._19. HHarold E. Mitzel, "Teacher Effectiveness," Encyclopedia of Education Research, 1960, p. 1481, as cited by William Becker. The author concurs with Becker in the rejection of the first of these categories, due to limitations precluding longitudinal study in this area. Further, the researcher would agree that pre- sage and process criteria could supply sufficient data in the study of perceived leadership effectiveness of the community school director. 12 Questions to be Studied This study answered six questions relating to perceived leadership effectiveness. What is the leadership effectiveness of the community school director as perceived by these members of the school district? Community School Directors Board of Education Chairman Public Agency Administrators Private Agency Administrators Public-Private Agency Administrators Is there significant difference among the five group's In what aspects of leadership are Community School Directors most and least effective as perceived by all Which items do each group rate as being most important to the Community School Director's leadership effective- I. A. B. C. D. E. II. perceptions? 111. groups? IV. ness? 12 Becker, op. cit., p. 9. V. What differences exist between the perceptions held by Community School Directors of items most important to Leadership Effectiveness in this study compared to the Becker study? VI. Is there a significant difference in the items on which Community School Directors rate themselves high as com- pared to those rated high in the Becker study?13 Design of the Study The study was designed to test the congruence of perceptions of community school directors and agency administrators regarding community school directors' effectiveness. Further, community school directors' self perceptions will be compared to those found in the Becker study. Population The population of this study consisted of community school directors and agency administrators representing 20 communities. Sample Included in the study sample were 20 sets of community school directors and three agency administrators from selected Michigan School Districts. The population for this study was drawn in the same manner as that of the Becker study to preserve the integrity of replicated results. The major difference between this population and Becker's 13Ibid., pp. 65-66. is that this sample is limited to the State of Michigan and Becker's were national. The sample of Community School Directors meets the same criteria used in the Becker study with the addition of the cri- terion of residence in Michigan and the agency administrators sampled were from community school districts represented in the p0pulation. Consequently, the population was composed of participants who attended one of the "Institutes for Community School Directors" of 14 the National Center for Community Education. Further, this popu- lation was selected from those who responded to the Survey Reggrt of Mott Leadership Prggrams.15 This population shared a commonality in preparation since these "Institutes for Community School Directors" in Flint are the largest suppliers of trained practitioners as well as the general model for other training programs at Mott Regional Centers. There- fore, the result of this study may be applicable to the general field. Procedure Data for this study were gathered by mail after an initial letter of explanation and request for participation was sent. This letter contained a questionnaire for community representatives. The director was instructed to have a community council member distribute copies of the questionnaire to appropriate agencies. These question- naires were then mailed directly back to the author by respondents. 14Ibid., p. 11. 15William D. Coats, Survey Report of Mott Leadership Program (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Education Feedback Center, Western Mithigan University, 1970). The instrument used for this study was basically the Admin- istrator Image Questionnaire16 developed by the Educator Feedback Center, Western Michigan University. This instrument was designed to measure perceptions of leadership effectiveness in the Becker study and was duplicated to preserve the integrity of comparisons between that study and this study. Some adjustments were necessary to phrase questions appropriately for agency administrators. These adjustments were made with the approval of the Educator Feedback Center as well as of Dr. William Becker. Analysis of data was conducted appropriately to those areas being examined. Data were organized to provide profiles of the com- munity school directors' effectiveness as seen by each group and by the director himself. Additionally, data on the perception of the effectiveness of other administrators was compared with data gathered on community school directors. The Michigan State University Bureau of Educational Research supplied assistance in the analysis of data. Data gathered were subjected to an analysis of variance model for indication of variance in perceptions. Finally, related data from other studies were investigated as indicators, predicting possible interrelationships. Definition of Terms Community School Directors.--For the purpose of this study, the term community school directors identifies administrators respon- sible for community education operation and administration either in 16See Appendix A. 10 a single school or in a school system. The term Community School Coordinator may be used interchangeably when it identifies an admin- istrator with system wide responsibility. Public Agencies.--For the purpose of this study, public agencies are defined as those that receive public funds, whose exis- tence is a result of public policy, that provide services available to the community, and that have either a cooperative or a program- ming relationship with the local Community Education Program. These agencies may include political agencies such as City Hall, Township Board of Governors, County Offices, and Police Departments. Private Agencies.--For the purpose of this study, private agencies will be defined as those that receive private funds (dona- tions, grants, receipts from fund raising activities, etc.), that provide services available to a selective community that develop their own policy and that have either a cooperative or a programming relationship with the local Community Education Program, i.e., YMCA, YWCA, neighborhood corporations. Public-Private Agencies.--For the purpose of this study, public-private agencies are defined as those that receive both pri- vate and public funding, are governed by public bodies, provide services available to a variety of communities, and have either a cooperative or a programming relationship with the local Community Education Program, i.e., libraries, volunteer fire departments. 11 Board of Education.--For the purpose of this study, Board of Education is defined as that body elected by the people of a school district as their legal representatives in those matters concerning the operation of that school district. Further, this study will deal only with that person formally recognized as the chief spokes- man for the board, be he president, chairperson, etc. Limitations of the Study This study was limited to community school directors who have attended the National Center for Community Education, Flint, “Community School Directors' Institute" and who were included in Dr. William Coats, Survey Report of Mott Leadership Programs, 1970. That study was concerned with the following areas: I. Involvement in Community Education A. Involvement in Community Education program(s) which attempt to determine community needs and then to develop and extend educational programs and facil- ities related to these needs to all citizens of the community. B. Involvement in Community Education program(s) meet- ing the criteria in (A) above but which also have: 1. A formal director 2. Some form of citizens advisory council 3. Extended day school programs 11. Change in Status Leadership Position III. Change in Work Toward Advanced Degrees IV. Value of Various Components of the Mott Fellowship Experience V. Current Ideas or Practices Influenced by Mott Fellowship Experience 12 VI. Relationship of Mott Intern Program to the National Community School Education Association VII. Impact of the Mott Intern Program on Regional Community Education Centers17 Data from the Coats' study were used only as they were related to the questions of this study. A further limitation of this study was the limiting of the sample to the State of Michigan. Michigan has served as an early indication of many trends and philosophies within Community Educa- tion. Examples of this are the adoption of the Michigan Plan for reimbursement of Community School Directors' salaries, adoption of the Flint, Michigan Model for structuring and classifying Community Education Programs, as well as adoption of classification, salary, and job description based on Michigan models. Flint, Michigan, has generated many of the innovations in Community Education through the efforts of C.S. Mott, Frank Manley, and the Mott Foundation, who developed and assisted in financing a philosophy that grew larger than a city's boundaries. (Flint now houses the National Center for Community Education and Michigan is the home of four Regional Centers for Community Education and seven universities offering degrees and/or coursework in Community Education.) This author also recognized those limitations that exist with the use of mailed questionnaire, as well as information retrieval and accuracy of responses. 17Coats, op. cit. 13 Summar This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter deals with background information as well as limitations, definitions, procedures, and questions to be answered. The second chapter is the review of related literature. It covers historical review of community education, the role of the community school director, and the diffusion of this administration role. Material relating to agency cooperation and leadership styles are also included. The third chapter deals with the presentation of the data and its analysis. This includes a general reporting of the data, in graph and written form, as well as specific questions and comparison relating to the focus of the study. Finally, chapter four contains a review of the problem, findings, and conclusions relevant to that problem. In addition, recommendations and implications for further study are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Of particular interest in this study is the evolution of the community education concept and its effects on the community school director. While the community school concept has existed for some time, the position of Community School Director is relatively new. Yet there have been significant changes in role expectation, train- ing and recruitment. Consequently, the review of literature will examine the evolution of the community education concept and the development of the Community School Director's position and further the area of perception and perceptual psychology. Early Efforts in Community Education Early community schools were based to a great extent on the writings and thoughts of men such as John Dewey and his contempor- aries. Dewey states in Experience and Education that "the principles of interaction and of continuity"1 are prerequisites to education which should be life-experience oriented. Dewey schools were estab- lished in pursuit of this philosophy. These are noted as early 1John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 51. 14 15 examples of community schools since they were organized for life- experience in the communities in which they existed. The difference in staff for these schools, however, was not in the addition of personnel who would have responsibilities beyond the classroom or traditional administrative role. The Community Education concept was based on enlarging the scope of the curriculum for those enrolled in school so that the relevance of their school day exercises was increased. Therefore, the staff of the school would need to be more aware of the possibilities for life-experience available in the community as well as gaining an awareness of the needs of their pupils. This direction was a change from the traditional textbook method in building experience for all as had been formerly followed. (Education history records, of course, that few educators strove to make even this departure a reality.) The difference between this community school and more recent developments is fairly apparent when looked at in light of the above reference to Dewey. (Dewey is referred to not as the only spokesman for the progressive education movement, but as an example because he is probably the most notably recognized.) Early community school development related primarily to curriculum changes within the school structure. The child involved in the school program was to have a more realistic experience with learning. His activities would not be second hand from a textbook, but first hand dealing with actuali- ties surrounding him. 16 An example of how this curriculum would be used by a teacher would begin by identifying a learning opportunity in the community. The neighborhood park would provide students with a variety of opportunities to use classroom skills in a practical manner, i.e., planning, maintenance, as well as interaction with community members. The early community school was a departure from historical methods more in relation to curriculum teaching methods and learning place. The same constituency was served and the same goals were held for these students. Significantly, this activity signaled the recognition that education could be improved if community resources were used. There have been and continue to be many examples of school programs which stress community involvement, social action, and change. The American Association of School Administrators has urged schools toward "continuing rebuilding and improving of group life" 2 Various through greater cooperation with local people and agencies. parts of the United States have witnessed community school develop- ment. In Michigan, the Kellogg Foundation and the Michigan Depart- ment of Public Instruction cooperated in a community school project beginning in 1945. The purpose of this venture can be summed up by this statement from the project's Advisory Committee Minutes of December 14, 1948: "The general aim has been to see if the school 2Schools in Small Communities, American Association of School Administrators (Washington, DLC., 1939). Pp. 43-44. 17 could serve as the focal point in a program of community self- improvement in all areas of living."3 A more in-depth look at this project would provide an example of some of the early efforts in the establishment of community schools. It will also provide some proof of the lack of such pro- fessional help as a Community School Director to aid in the develop- ment of the effort. In the community school service program the development of each of the communities originally involved--Stephen-l son, Mesick, Elkton, Rockford, and Concord--indicates that school personnel involved were not assigned specifically to the development of the community school. Rather than a regular assignment, school staff people served in a consultative capacity. "Key People"4 in each of the communities were sought to form committees which would determine local goals. These key people represented the major organ- izations and groups in the community. In Stephenson, Michigan, for example, a committee was selected at a mass meeting. This committee of 15 invited all the social, civic, economic and religious organ- izations of the community to establish a permanent organization which served as a council. The council then nominated and elected officers, established standing committees, and set about learning their community and establishing goals and plans for working on community problems.5 3Maurice F. Seay and Ferris N. Crawford, The Community School and Community Self-Improvement, Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction (Lansing, Michigan, 1954). 41616.. pp. 33-35. 5 Ibid., p. 43. 18 In tracing the progress made by these communities it may be noted that full-time personnel were hired to run specific activities or programs. For example, in Concord, a full-time director was hired for the recreation program desired.6 But at no time was there full-time personnel hired for work in coordinating or leading the community school development. Leadership skills of these people were developed or enhanced by workshops planned primarily through the State Public Instruction Department's Community Service Program's Advisory Committee.7 Leadership programs were offered for all levels and types of participants in the community school effort, from student through superintendent in the educational structure and local representation from businessmen through housewives. Elsie R. Clapp initiated the development of community schools in Kentucky. The efforts of the community school there were similar to those noted above. It was based on Ms. Clapp's feeling that, "A community school is a used place, a place used freely and 8 But still informally for all the needs of living and learning.“ there was no professional school staff member responsible for com- munity school development. The efforts toward the development of community schools could be spotted in many communities in the United States during the 61bid., p. 49. 7 8Elsie R. Clapp, Community Schools in Action (New York: Viking Press, 1939), p. 89. Ibid., PP. 75-98. 19 1930's. Why this effort though? What brought about these attempts at new approaches to the community? The problems facing the era are a good indication. The nation was in the grips of a severe economic situation which was testing the survival of the people. The traditional systems and institutions had failed and new angles and approaches to the survival of the people and communities were needed. One approach was an attempt to bring the forces of the entire community to bear on its own problems. Simply put, this involved utilization of all available resources through mobilization of all the people. The public school was selected as the vehicle because it was a common denominator. It was an institution actually sup- ported by all the population through taxation and theoretically working for the good of all the people. And it was within reach of all of the communities' populations. What could motivate the people to their own cause? As noted above, the state of the national economy affected everyone and this could serve as a point of departure. To even approach the objective of people gathering, planning and participating for their own good was a tough problem. And the problem became tougher as the real issue became clearer, the real issue being the development of the individual. Here, then, was the baseline for all the community school structure to be built on. The understanding, growth, and development of self was the prime objective, each individual pursuing a course to help him realize his fullest potential. 20 The next step would be effective construction and use of the individual in groups which would discern the problems facing the community. The groups would prioritize the problems and propose means for successful solutions of them. Warren Bennis notes that "planned change entails mutual goal setting."9 People‘mg§t_come together if they are to effectively plan for change. Naturally, the community is an ongoing concern which cannot be treated as a clinical experiment. All of the various aspects of the community aren't as easily handled as the statements above would purport. The individuals of the community are all at different levels of self-development and self-fulfillment. The institutions, organizations, and corporate concerns of the community, too, are at various stages of development and fulfillment. For these reasons, the community school aim of solutions to community problems through community self-development is a lofty and perplexing one. Many fronts for attack and viable defenses must be established. The process of community education must be planned, scheduled, operated, evaluated, and reoriented to suit the community, its people, and problems. Attitude change, behavioral change, and social reconstruc- tion are three phases outlined by one researcher in community educa- 10 tion. In the final analysis, "community development is an 9Warren Bennis, Kenneth Benne, and Robert Chin, The Planning of Change (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 154. 10Allen A. Ahola, "A Study of the Relationships Between the Community School Concept and Selected Public Attitudes" (Ph.d. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969). 21 11 educational process," and the school can be the base for this process. The Community School Director None of the examples of early community schools included a professional position on the school staff specifically designed to carry out various community related projects. This was not the case, however, in Flint, Michigan. Originally the community school director was responsible for the supervision of Community Education programs at the school building. The term community school director derives from community education which does not appear in the liter- ature until 1951.12 Not until the early 1960's when a relatively large number of school districts and communities began to adopt Community Education did the term Director of Community Education come into widespread acceptance. This person had a primary responsi- bility to implement Community Education in the school system and community, and usually had supervisory responsibilities for volunteer and evening staff. The early directors of community schools had minimal job qualifications and professional requirements. Frank Manley described the typical early director in an interview with Richard Pendell: All our directors were handpicked. We didn't go through the personnel department or give tests to appli- cants. We picked out people who had a feeling for our program, people that were really human and felt that they llWilliam Riddle and Loureide Riddle, The Community Develop- ment Process (New York: Holte, Rinehart, and Winston,71962). 12William Becker, "A Study of the Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972). 22 wanted to do something for their fellow men, people who were dedicated and had the right kind of attitude, people willing to work...We were looking for real people who had a real purpose in life, people who wanted to help people help themselves (p. 27). 13 Educational policy and the public system in Flint developed quite similarly to the rest of the United States through the 1920's. The curriculum called primarily for the basics, that is, reading, writing, and arithmetic. The only organization that had much con- cern for education in Flint other than the Board of Education was the P.T.A. Interviews with people who had knowledge of the Flint schools at this period note that the Board of Education was extremely conservative in make—up and this showed through in their operational philosophy and policies. In 1929, Frank J. Manley came to Flint as Director of Physi- cal Education for the Flint Public Schools. From the time of his arrival he talked with various school officials about using school buildings and grounds for recreational programs over and above those offered as part of the school curriculum. His idea was to offer youngsters an opportunity to be involved in recreational pursuits which would in time help to drop delinquency rates. However, the Board of Education was unwilling to expend their own funds or buildings for such a project. They did consent to supervised use of school grounds as long as they had no fiscal responsibility. So, in 1929 he organized, through and with the help of P.T.A and Child Study groups, playgrounds at various school locations around the 13Frank J. Manley, "Chronological Development of the Mott Foundation Program," Flint Board of Education, October 8, 1956. (Private papers.) 23 city. With volunteers from these organizations the activities were operated and culminated that year in the first half-day, city-wide, "Play Day." This activity included participants from all the city in selected competitive events. This was the start of what has come to be the model community school system in the United States. Frank Manley went beyond presenting his plan to school related groups and personnel. He pursued civic, fraternal, and service clubs and organizations. One such presentation in June of 1935 at the Flint Rotary Club, resulted in his idea being heard by Charles Stewart Mott. Mr. Mott had formed a foundation some years earlier and had contributed to many charities and organizations with the same general aims as those expressed by Mr. Manley. Mr. Mott had several attributes which were to eventually mean a great deal to the community school effort. First of these was his position of prestige among Flint leaders; second, the financial power of the Mott Foundation; and third, the notion of civic responsibility. Mr. Mott's reception of Mr. Manley's idea for more recrea- tional opportunities resulted eventually in an agreement with the Board of Education to allow use of school buildings after regular school hours. In 1935, the Mott Foundation made a grant of $6,000.00 for the opening of five schools which would use $1,000.00 each for salaries and operations and $1,000.00 to be used for various recrea- tion.programs. This was the first grant made available to Manley for recreation programming. With the availability of space and funds Manley hired the first staff for the program. As it turned out, these people were the forerunners of today's Community School Director. 24 Placement of "Building Directors" in schools was done on a regional basis. The city was divided so that there were community school activities available to everybody in the city at a school site reasonably close to their home. The hours of operation ran from seven to nine p.m. Activities included softball, basketball, volleyball, and other active programs. Eventually classes relating more to daily life were included. Such topics as basic cooking, homemaking, and home improvement workshops were offered. Instructors for these activities were drawn from the community. While recreation programs flourished, delinquency continued to be a community problem and steadily increased. Recreation wasn't the answer to this problem. The activities did not involve the parents--thus a major constituent wasn't being reached. This was a new concern. None of the activities were designed to effect any particular change in participant's behavior. The discovery of the problems at home and the realization that delinquency was not being solved, required new thinking. Instead of just offering programs of a recreational nature, the new emphasis was on developing programs and activities which would relate specifically to the needs of all people. The community school's approach to delinquency changed. Recreation was still a very important part of the program, but it was not assumed to be the solution. The demand for developing pro- grams was to come from the expressed needs of the community. There appears to have been differences between earlier community schools 25 and Flint's efforts. Four major departures from earlier community schools seem apparent in the development of Flint's community school effort: 1. The initial effort came from a desire to reduce juvenile delinquency. 2. The Flint community schools assume a responsibility for community residents other than those enrolled in the K-12 program. 3. The public school facilities were given a much broader use. 4. The public school served as a base of leadership for social action. The "Building Directors" used in the program were selected primarily for their interest and potential for being able to know and to work with the community. No job description existed for these employees. Rather they were expected to follow the directions of Manley. From the time he first approached Flint school officials to open the schools afternoons and evenings, he worked for more effort and commitment. A11 contacts with early “Building Directors" indi- cate that the strength of Manley carried the program forward. Action was his concern. He wanted the men to get out and know the people in their communities and devise programs and activities to facilitate them. Evaluation was subjective at best and often done by an intui- tive process. The entire thrust of the program was to work with people and have no regard for what is or was or what the rules say should or shouldn't be done. Personal contact was the key to the "Building Directors”'success, not only in their operations in the community, but in the leadership they provided. 26 This practice of using part-time people as "Building Direc— tors" continued until 1951. At this point a full-time Community School Director was appointed. William Menardo was at first called a Community School Services Director, but this was later shortened to Community School Director. From this time on the position of Community School Director grew as a full fledged member of the school staff. The inclusion of this position in the regular school staff was the first solid professional commitment to the community school made by a school system because the concept was acknowledged to require a specialist in order to succeed. Two other major accomplishments besides recognition of the "Community School Director" were made with the appointment at Freeman Community School. Now community school activities were no longer on a regional basis. The community to be served was described by the attendance boundaries of that particular school. The efforts of the Community School Director could now be more specific. The second accomplishment was closely aligned to the recognition of this need to be full-time in the school. Now the Community School Director was a part of a professional staff. He was in a position to work with the K-12 school personnel; he had access to all school facil- ities and equipment, and he had a base from which he could work and with which he could be identified. From 1952 to 1958 additional full-time Community School Directors were added to the Flint schools. In each case they were men with at least a B.A. and teaching certificate who had one-half time teaching responsibility. While these Community School Directors 27 were added, however, part-time personnel continued to be used. More and more teachers were among those in the part-time ranks than in earlier years. Wages for these people ranged from $1.00 to $2.50 per hour. Many part-time people worked with Community School Direc- tors in the supervision of various activities and were hired as Community School Directors later. Gradually, as the role changed and the Community Education concept became accepted, the director assumed more responsibilities and needed a variety of skills. Job descriptions for the Director of Community Education were written in 1969 by Gerald Keidel. A Community School Coordinator (Director of Community Education) is expected to develop (when necessary) and coordinate (when possible) programs which will ultimately lead to the betterment of individuals and the strengthening $3 EEZdSSTifllti'faifii‘éSkii 33.1.23 Sflofilaifii‘eiéi?ia"m In smaller districts the placement of a Community School Director in each building isn't feasible. Economic factors or the size of the population may dictate the assignment of one or a few Community School Directors to handle the entire district-wide job. In many smaller districts the pattern has been to appoint one Com- munity School Director who is assigned directly to the superintendent or other central office personnel. The Director is then responsible for district-wide community education operations. Naturally, like any other newly appointed staff person the Community School Director is expected to prove himself. If the 14Mott Leadership Program Staff, Notebooks for Community Education Practitioners (Flint, Michigan: National Center for Com- munity Education), 1972, p. 48. 28 appointment is the district's first move toward community education, there is a dual evaluation. First, the individual is on trial in terms of his personal abilities. This is a normal probation when any new person is added to a staff. The second aspect of evaluation is the crucial one. An evaluation of a new professional role is being carried on as well. The ramifications and effects of this new position are being closely judged. What are the expectations for a Community School Director? Each district, of course, has peculiarities they must plan for, but Boise, Idaho and Salem, Oregon, provide examples that typify most configurations. In Boise there is a system-wide Community School Director who serves in a line relationship to the Superintendent of Schools. The general responsibilities of this position are direction and oper- ational aspects of the community education program. Contact and programmatic liaison with all aspects of the community are the major emphasis of this position. In order to effectively carry this out, however, it is implied that the position is one of leadership and all operations must be carried out with the awareness and close operation of other school staff. The Boise Community Schools maintain positions entitled Community School Coordinators which are staff positions at local school buildings. The role of the Coordinator is more closely aligned to community director, but his role in close liaison and 15Community School Director Job Description (Boise Community Schools, Boise, Idaho, 1971). 29 operation with personnel at the building level is clearly defined. The Community School Coordinator is a half-time teacher in addition to his community responsibility.16 The Salem, Oregon Community Schools maintain a position similar to that of Boise, only with a title of Community Schools Supervisor.17 Again, the general responsibilities of the position relate to community involvement. High priority is given to the relationship of the Community Schools Supervisor and his staff to the existing school. The Brigham Young University Center for Community Education outlines three general functions for the Community Education Coordin- ator at the central office level and five functions for the Community School Director at the building staff level. The functions of the Coordinator include:18 1. To supervise the work and programs of the Community School Directors at the school level and to stimulate the broadest possible neighborhood leadership involvement and the participation of community public and private human service agencies in each community school program. 2. To work with the school administration in properly relating the Community School Director to the principal of his "51616. 17Community Schools Supervisor Job Description (Salem Com- munity SchoOls, Salem, Oregon, 1971). 18Community Education Concept (Center for Community Educa- tion, BrighamTYoung University, Provo, Utah, 1971). 3O respective school and all other problems relating to integrating the Community Education Program into the public school system. 3. To serve as a liaison and catalyst for the public school system in making the Community Education Program representative of and responsive to the needs of local government, major economic groups, and the public and private human services agencies, and in particular to maintain close contact with representatives of the various neighborhood self—development groups both on a neighborhood and school system-wide basis. The functions of the Community School Director include:19 1. To develop and supervise a broad range of educational, community development, and recreational programs for pre-school to senior citizen age groups to be conducted on school premises or in the school neighborhood after normal school hours and on Saturdays, and during the summer vacation periods. 2. To periodically survey, on a house-to-house basis, the needs and desires of the residents in the area served by the school, and to adapt and develop programs offered on the basis of changing needs and demands. 3. To develop systematic methods of liaison and joint planning and effort with the public and private human services agencies, including programs with the police, sheriff's department, and courts. 4. To develop maximum usage and utilization of offerings and to provide individualized attention and support as needed. 1916m. 31 5. To stimulate neighborhood self-help and in particular to maintain close contact with representatives of the various neighbor- hood self-development groups both on a neighborhood and school system- wide basis. The functions of the Community School Director include:20 1. To develop and supervise a broad range of educational, community development, and recreational programs for pre-school to senior citizen age groups to be conducted on school premises or in the school neighborhood after normal school hours and on Saturdays, and during the summer vacation periods. 2. To periodically survey on a house-to-house basis the needs and desires of the residents in the area served by the school, and to adapt and develop programs offered on the basis of changing needs and demands. 3. To develop systematic methods of liaison and joint plan- ning and effort with the public and private human services agencies, including programs with the police, sheriff's department, and courts. 4. To develop maximum usage and utilization of offerings and to provide individualized attention and support as needed. 5. To stimulate neighborhood self-help and self-development movements to deal with problems of change and obsolescence, and to promote more effective use of available community resources by neighborhood groups themselves sponsoring positive change. ZOIbid. 32 The Worcester Massachusetts Community School Director is to "take the people from where they are, discover where they want to go, 2' In Springfield, and then help them to arrive at their destination." Ohio, the role of the Community School Director is to develop a community school setting "to be used freely and informally by students and adults."22 The functions outlined here emphasize the major concern for Community Educators--effective leadership as it relates to the com- munity and the established educational structure. Over the years there have been many examples of excellent cooperation involving the schools and community in joint ventures. In the area of adult education, for example, the achievements of the Appalachian Adult Basic Education Demonstration Program have been notable. Adult participants in the projects indicate a posi- 23 tive change in their lives because of their participation. School administrators in the area serving the same people indicate that there is more support for the schools by virtue of the peOple's involvement.24 2.lCommunityiElementai-y School Director Job Description (Public Schools, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1968). 22Coordinator of CommunityiSchools Job Description (Spring- field County Schools, Springfield, Ohifi, 1969). 23Achievements of the Kentucky Adult Basic Education Program (Appalachian‘AdUTt Basic Education DemonstrationTCenter, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky, 1969), p. 113. 24 Ibid., pp. 168-180. 33 In many communities recreation leaders have taken the ini- tiative in developing cooperation and community involvement. An example of a community which strove to overcome obstacles to total community effort is Alma, Michigan. In Alma, as in many communities, a parks and recreation department existed as part of the city govern- ment. When the school district adopted the philosophy of working ‘ toward becoming a community education system, a Coordinator of Com- munity Education was appointed. The Director of Parks and Recreation and Coordinator of Community Education worked cooperatively in plan- ning and operating activities. However, when this arrangement had been in operation about a year the Coordinator of Community Educa- tion took another position. The Board of Education and the City Council, having seen the benefits of their cooperation, decided to name one person as a city-wide, system-wide Coordinator of Community Education. In this way they would be able to affix responsibility on one individual and limit any duplication of effort. The move met with much success. The cooperative efforts of the two institutions and resultant growth in participation and involvement at some reduc- tion in cost has done much to spur the acceptance of community education in Alma. In early community school efforts staff members already on the job carried the burden. Home economics, teachers, agriculture teachers, and coaches were usual choices for assignments involving the community. (Early community school directors were often physical or recreation personnel.) Oftentimes the choice of these people for this task was based on a need in that area. Home related programs, 34 agricultural projects or recreational activities were and still are a basis for initiating or carrying out community school programs. Unfortunately, once the activity or program in which these people had an expertise was finished they were expected to remain responsi- ble for continued involvement. In most cases, a professional with training or background in community education leadership wasn't retained and any success the initial efforts may have attained was lost. Community schools formed in the '30's often centered around a very real economic or subsistence issue. It was a simple matter to appoint a professional staff member who had expertise to solve a problem which was so apparent. Today the problems are just as real but they are seldom apparent to a public unwilling to see them and less willing to deal with them. Appointing leadership to effectively meet the needs presented by this situation is more complex than it formerly was. "The effectiveness of a community school program is, in large measure, dependent upon the cooperation and support of the "25 because "the com- 26 school staff and the people of the community, munity development process is clearly education." These statements indicate the importance of the school and community drawing together. Making this combination a reality takes effective leadership and the Community School Director is responsible for fulfilling this role as 25Maurice Seay and Eugene Richardson, "Overcoming Barriers to Community Schools," Society for the Study of Education, Fifty- Second Yearbook (Chicago, Illinois, 1953), p. 278. 26Ibid. 35 a professional leader. "Autocratic and authoritative leadership"27 can stifle and block the development of this cooperation. This statement, coupled with the above mentioned educational process of community education, indicates the importance of the leadership effectiveness a Community School Director must demonstrate in the educational setting as well as the community. Successful community school development has followed the presence of active leadership. Leadership, in many cases, came out of necessity. For example, the depression demanded leadership for survival and this leadership created the community school and com- munity social action in many areas. World War II and the economic success of the post war years have delayed real growth in community schools until the recent renewed interest in social welfare. More current humanistic concern is again creating a climate for community school growth. Educational philosophers such as Ernest Melby, Edward Olsen and others, indicate the continued need for professional leadership in the person of the Community School Director if the community school is to move ahead successfully. Perception One assumption of perceptual psychology is that the behavior of individuals is the result of perceptions of themselves, their environment, and others at a given moment. Combs defines psychology as: The perceptual view of human behavior holds that the behavior of an individual is the function of his ways 27Ibid. 36 of perceiving. That is to say that how any person behaves at a given moment is a direct expression of the way things seem to him at that moment. People do not behave according to the facts as they seem to an outsider. How each of us behaves at any moment is a result of how things seem to us. What a person does, what a person learns is, thus, a product of what is going on in his unique and personal field of aware- ness. People behave in terms of the personal meanings existing for them at the moment of action.2 Physical behavior is a consequence of the physical world and it can be assumed that interpersonal behavior reflects a person's perception of others. Taguiri and Petrullo describe this relation- ship saying, "Indeed, when we speak of personal perception or know- ledge or persons, we refer mostly to the observations we make about intentions, attitudes, emotions, ideas, purposes, traits--events that are, so to speak, inside the person."29 Newcomb describes this view saying "it seems to be fact that we make our most important 30 judgments of others in terms of their attitudes." Coleman says that "accurate interpersonal perceptions result in successful rela- 3] Inter- tionships while inaccurate perceptions produce failures." personal behavior, then, to be situationally appropriate should be a result of accurate perceptions of attitudes. 28Arthur W. Combs, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming_(Washing- ton, D.C.: Association for Superv151on and Chrriculum Development, 1962), p. 67. 29Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo, eds., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (Stanford, California: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1958), p. x. 30Theodore M. Newcomb, "The Cognition of Persons as Cogni- zers," in Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, eds. Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo (Stanford, California: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1958), p. 180. 3'James c. Coleman, Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior (Chicago: Scott Foresman afid Company, 1960), p. 351. 37 Chris Argyris associates effectiveness with real relation- ships or “those relationships in which one enhances his awareness 32 of self and others, thus providing for mutual acceptance." This situation demands leadership reflective of reality: Reality-centered leadership is not a predetermined set of best ways to influence people. The only predisposition that is prescribed is that the leader ought to first diagnose what is reality and then to use appropriate leader- ship patterns. In making his diagnosis, he must keep in mind that all individuals see reality through their own set of colored glasses. The reality he sees may not be the reality seen by others in their own private world. Reality diagnosis,therefore, requires self-awareness and awareness of others.33 All this would suggest that perceptions lead to behavior and behavior to effectiveness. Robert Rosenthal's study in student-teacher relationships confirms that degree of student success is dependent on the teacher's perceptions of individual competence.34 Studies 35 36 discovered a direct by Truax and Dickenson and Christensen relationship between achievement and teacher warmth, understanding, and honesty. Combs, in extensively studying prospective school 32Chris Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness (Holmwood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, Inc.), p. 21. 33Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 207. 34Robert Rosenthal, Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research (New York: Appleton-Century:Cr6fts, 1966). 35C.B. Truax and W. Dickenson, "Group Counseling With College Underachievers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLV (1966): 245-247. 36C.M. Christensen, "Relationships Between Pupil Achievement, Pupil Affect-Need, Teacher Warmth and Teacher Permissiveness," Journal of Education Psychology, X0 (1960): 169. 38 counselors, has found that effective counselors can be recognized by virtue of perceptual organization analysis.37 These studies represent a framework for examining the individual's and others' perception and effectiveness, which is the basis for this study. The study of the relationship between the Community School Director's perception of his effectiveness and his actual effectiveness is grounded in this theoretical construct. 37Arthur Combs and Daniel Soper, "The Perceptual Organization of Effective Counselors," in Florida Studies in the Helping Profes- sions (Gainesville, Florida: The University of Florida Press, 1969), pp. 24-27. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY General Overview of Data Collection The major purpose of this study was to determine the leader- ship effectiveness of the Community School Director as perceived by certain groups of agency administrators. In order to achieve this purpose, data were collected from respondents in 20 different community school settings from within four community education service areas in Michigan. The basis for a given school's selection was identification as one having a practicing community education program by a Mott regional community education center and then random selection. The data available for the analysis came from responses to the Administrator Image Questionnaire (validity and reliability established by Western Michigan University Research Center) as returned by the population mentioned above and from a companion Identification Form. Additional data were obtained from the data referred to in this study--A Study of the Leadershingffectiveness of the Community School Director by William Becker.1 The Becker study will be used for the purpose of comparing Community School 1William Becker, "A Study of the Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972). 39 4O Director's self perceptions of effectiveness as found by Becker and as found in this study. Further, while Becker's study examined per- ceptions of public school personnel relative to community school director effectiveness, this study will examine perceptions of indi- viduals outside the public school. In each of the separate cases from which data were collected, responses were returned from the Community School Director and from members of three groups--private agency administrators, public agency administrators, and public-private agency administrators-~all of whom were familiar with the Community School Director and his role. The collected data were tabulated and key punched for processing on the SPSS computer system at Syracuse University. The data were processed to yield several points of information. The initial run of the data consisted of a tabulation of each group's responses to the Administrator Image Questionnaire. This information was computed to provide a frequency distribution of the means of each group's rating of the Community School Director on each item on the questionnaire. This run also provided tables on the demographic data returned through the Identification Form. Eight independent vari- ables were sought for determination of their relationship to the criterion measure, the Community School Director's perceived effec- tiveness. The independent variables included: 41 Demographic data: 1. 2. 3. Number of respondents in each group. Sex-percentages of male and female in each group. Age-percentages in each category in each group. Categories: under 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Marital status-percentages single or married in each group. Years-percentages in present position for each category in each group. Categories: 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more Situational Variable: Socio-economic status of community-percentages in each category in each group. Categories: Low Average High Procedures Each of the Regional Centers for Comunity Education was contacted and asked to supply a list of those public schools iden- tified as having both community education programs and full time Community School Directors. From these lists, 20 school districts were selected at random to represent each of the four regions. 42 A cover letter was sent to the Community School Director of each school asking for his cooperation in completing the Administrator Image Questionnaire and Identification Form. Additionally, each Community School Director was asked to distribute Administrative Image Questionnaires to agency administrators in three categories, i.e. public, private, public-private. In all cases pre-stamped envelopes were enclosed and all responses were returned directly to the researcher. The response rate was 100 percent due probably to several factors. First, the study was endorsed by both the National Center for Community Education and the respective Regional Centers for Community Education. Second, the researcher was well known to the majority of participants on both a personal and professional basis. Third, it is doubtful that Community School Directors would involve agency administrators with whom they were not well acquainted. And last, all participants received a postcard one week after the original mailing and a phone call at the end of the second week. In a few instances second and third phone calls were necessary. All questionnaires were coded so replies could be specifically tallied. The second run of the data was programmed to yield a one-way analysis of variance. The analysis of variance between each of the three group ratings of the Community School Director's perceived effectiveness was chosen so that the significant differences between group ratings could be discerned. 43 Data available through William Becker's A Study of the Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director2 were compared with data from similar groups in this study. Comparisons between administrators and Community School Directors are analyzed for significant differences indicated. Summary This study examines a few, randomly selected school district sites, gathering data concerning perceptions of one employee's effectiveness. Instrument is provided by previous research and analysis will be by groups i.e. professions and among groups exam- ining for significant difference. Demographic data will serve to update profiles of respective groups and allow comparison to previous studies. 2wmiam Becker, op. cit. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the data collected and its analysis organized according to the research questions in Chapter I. Data Collection Procedure The major purpose of this study was to determine the leader- ship effectiveness of the Community School Director as perceived by selected agency administrators. In response to this question, data were collected from respondents in 20 different Community School sites in the State of Michigan. Each site was randomly selected from those identified by Regional Centers for Community Education. Within each site, five respondents were identified by role, i.e. community school director, school board members, public agency administrator, private agency administrator, and public-private agency administrator. The collected data were coded, key punched, and processed using SPSS program at Syracuse University to produce frequency dis- tributions, analysis of variance, and correlation of coefficients. The data to be analyzed came from those responses to the Administrator Image Questionnaire and the Identification Form com- pleted by the selected population. For the purpose of comparison, 44 45 additional data were obtained from A Study of Leadership Effective- l ness of the Community,School Director by William Becker. The first analysis of data included a presentation of each role group's response to the Administrator Image Questionnaire. This analysis was done using each group's mean scores by item to provide frequency distribution tables rating the Community School Director. Further, during this period of analysis the responses pro- vided by the Identification Form were tabulated to determine rela- tionship to the criterion measure, Community School Director's perceived effectiveness. They are: Demographic Data: 1. Number of respondents in each group. 2. Sex-percentages of male and female in each group. 3. Age-percentages in each age category in each group. Categories: Under 25 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 4. Marital status-percentages single or married in each group. 5. Years-percentages in present position for each category . in each group. Categories: 7' more 1William Becker, "A Study of Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director" (Ph.d. dissertation, University of Mich- igan, 1972). 46 Situational Variable: l. Socio-economic status of community-percentages in each category in each group. Categories: Low Average High All groups represent what would seem to be an inordinately high level of male responses compared to female. Responses to age indicate all groups to be evenly distributed across the middle three ranges, although there are differences when individual groups are compared to total averages. Community School Directors tend to be much younger, while three of the other four groups, i.e. Board Chair- man, Public Administrator, and Public-Private Administrator have 60 percent or better respondents in the middle to high range. Responses to the question of marital status would indicate all groups are relatively the same: married. Variation on this variable is greatest between Community School Directors (95 percent married) and Private Administrators (84 percent married). The variable years in Present Position indicates that all groups are relatively new to their present position, (67 percent indicating four or less years). Community School Directors show a slightly higher percentage than two groups--Board Chairman and Public-Private Administrators, while public administrators indicate over half the respondents were new (1-2 years) to their position. The 20 sites selected were judged average relative to socio- economic level by more than three quarters of the respondents. 47 Table l.--Persona1 Data of Respondents to Questionnaire on Community School Directors Leadership Effectiveness. . Public £33133” cggggan 13.11.15 Pill??? Pill??? Total Director istrator istrator istrator Total N=20 N=20 N=20 N=20 N=20 N=lOO # % # % # % # % # % # % SEX Male 19 95 19 95 19 95 17 9O 16 84 90 91.8 Female 5 l 5 l 5 2 10 3 16 8 8 No Response 0 O O 1 2 AGE Under 25 O l 5 2 10 O 3 15 6 6 25-35 12 6O 4 20 5 25 8 43 5 25 34 34 36-45 7 35 5 25 5 25 7 37 6 3O 30 30 46-55 0 9 45 8 4O 2 10 6 30 25 25 56-65 1 5 1 5 O 2 10 O 4 4 No Response 0 O O l O 1 l MARITAL STATUS Married 19 95 20 100 18 90 16 84 19 95 92 92 Single 5 O 2 10 3 16 l 5 7 7 No Response 0 O O 1 O 1 1 YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION 1-2 7 35 6 32 11 55 5 25 9 47 38 39 3-4 7 35 5 26 4 20 9 45 3 16 28 28 5-6 5 25 2 32 2 10 1 5 2 10 12 12 7 or more 1 5 6 10 3 15 5 25 5 27 20 21 No Response 0 1 O 1 2 SOCIO- ECONOMIC STATUS OF COMMUNITY Low 3 16 1 5 1 5 l 5 O 6 6 Average 15 79 12 60 14 7O 15 79 19 95 75 75 High 1 5 7 35 5 25 3 16 l 5 17 17 No Response 1 O O 1 2 2 48 These demographic data compare favorably with that presented by William Becker's “A Study of Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director" with two exceptions where there are sub- stantial differences. Becker found a higher percentage of women respondents and a much greater percentage of low socio-economic communities in the sample identified (see Appendic C). A second programming of data provided an analysis of vari- ance between each of the groups rating Community School Directors' perceived effectiveness. These results were examined for signifi- cant differences between groups and were reported. Additionally, tests were performed comparing Becker's study to this one. Scores on each of the 23 items and correlations of coefficient were compared to determine the relationship of the most important rankings produced by Becker's study and this one. Issues for Investigation The major issues presented for investigation in this study were: 1. What is leadership effectiveness of the community school director as perceived by these members of the school district? Community School Directors Board of Education Chairman Public Agency Administrators Private Agency Administrators Public-Private Agency Administrators mcnw> 2. Is there significant difference among the five groups' perceptions? 49 3. In what aspects of leadership are Community School Directors most and least effective as perceived by all groups? 4. Which items does each group rate as being most important to the Community School Director's leadership effective- ness? 5. What differences exist between the perceptions held by Community School Directors of their effectiveness and other administrators perceptions? 6. Is there a significant difference in the items on which Community School Directors rate themselves high as com- pared to those rated high in the Becker study? Data Analysis Question 1 asks for perceptions of each of the five groups regarding the effectiveness of the Community School Director. The data collected were computed for mean scores on each item by each group answering the Administrative Image Questionnaire. These means were organized to present a Community School Director Image Profile presented in the following charts. Table 2 indicates how the identified Community School Direc- tors perceive themselves. The low ratings on items, Success in Communicating Expectations, and Managerial Skill, may indicate some interrelatedness, as do the next lowest groups--Verba1 Fluency, Maintenance of Staff Morale, and Managerial Skill. The two highest 50 Table 2.--Community School Director Image Profile, Community School Director. Sea], ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Excellent h-h-b-b-h-h-b-k-b dNOO-bU‘IO‘VCDKD Key to Items 1. Verbal Fluency l4. Fairness 2. Consideration of Others 15. Maintenance of Staff Morale 3. Attitude Toward His Job 16. Sense of Humor 4. Technical Competence 17. Decision Making Ability 5. Achievement Drive 18. Evaluating Ability 6. Supportiveness 19. Managerial Skill 7. Flexibility 20. Awareness 8. Performance Under Stress 21. Self Control 9. Openness 22. Leadership Skill 10. Encouragement of Self 23. Appearance Participation ll. Ability to Delegate Responsi- bility 12. Innovativeness -_l w . Success in Communicating Expectations 51 rated responses--Attitude Toward Job, and Technical Competence-- might be explained by their personal orientation. Table 3, the result of the group identified School Board Chairman, displays the rating of the Community School Director. This group rated the item Attitude Toward Job highest, followed by Achievement Drive and Appearance--all items that reflect the pro- motional aspect of program development. The profile indicates a low rating on Maintenance of Staff Morale followed by Ability to Delegate Responsibility, Success in Communicating Expectation, Sense of Humor, and Evaluating Ability. The trend here seems to revolve around managerial responsibilities of a supervisory nature. Again, the low rating associated with communication could impact many other areas in terms of human relations or lack of successful interaction. The ratings by Public Administrator of Community School Directors are profiled in Table 4. Low ratings were given to items Openness and Maintenance of Staff Morale with item Success in Com- municating Expectations only slightly higher. These items are con- sistent with those rated low by both Community School Directors and School Board Chairmen. Communications with Staff and Maintenance of Morale seem to indicate concern about supervisory/staff relations. High ratings were given to items Attitude Toward Job, and Appearance, again supportive of earlier profiles rating personal attributes among the highest. As shown in Table 5, the lowest rating given by private admin- istrators was to the item Awareness, and was followed by the item Maintenance of Staff Morale. Again the highest rating was given to 52 Table 3.--Community School Director Image Profile, Board Chairman. Scale ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Excellent / bhb-fihbbbh de-bmmflmko Good Poor (See Table 2, p. 50, Key to Items.) Table 4.--Community School Director Image Profile, Public Administrators. Scale ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Excellent 4.9 de-DU‘IONNCD 67 8 wa-h-D-fi-b-h-hh-b \\:... 1: o o 1 (See Table 2, p. 50, Key to Items.) 53 Table 5.--Community School Director Image Profile, Private Admin- istrators. Scale ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 / Excellent de-DU'IONNCDND CD 8 wa-D-b-b-b-b-b-D-b-P \\..;. Poor (See Table 2, p. 50, Key to Items.) the item Appearance, followed by the item Attitude Toward Job. Private Administrators are the only group to rate Awareness low but give Evaluating Ability a lower rating which is not as low as previous groups. Table 6 profiles the ratings generated by the group called Public-Private Administrators. This table presents some of the lowest ratings collected. The lowest rated was Maintenace of Staff Morale followed by items Verbal Fluency, Flexibility, Encouragement of Staff Participation, and Evaluating Ability. Again, a pattern that would suggest that activities between the Community School Director and staff are less than effective. High ratings were given to items Attitude Toward Job followed by Technical Competence and Appearance. These items 54 Table 6.--Community School Director Image Profile, Public-Private Administrators. Scale ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Excellent 4.9 m 8 wwwa-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b amwnmmuoo muooto -o o o 1 (See Table 2, p. 50, Key to Items.) re-occur across the groups and seem to indicate strong personal qualities relative to effectiveness. Table 7 represents the average mean scores of all groups rating Community School Director effectiveness. While all means indicate ratings in the good to excellent range, of particular interest is the variation between items. Item three, Attitude Toward Job, ranked highest while items 23, Appearance, and 24, Technical Competence, ranked second highest. The item ranked lowest was 15, Maintenance of Staff Morale, followed by items 13, Success in Communicating Expectations, and 18, Evaluating Ability. 55 Table 7.--Average Mean Scores of All Groups Rating Community School Director Effectiveness. Sca1e ITEMS Steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Excellent 4. amwammuooxo 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 Good 3. 3. com / Poor (See Table 2, p. 50, Key to Items.) The remainder of the items fell within a .3 spread of means. When viewing these scores by role or collectively, there appears to be consistent rating (high and low) of these six items. Chapter V will examine this trend in more detail. Table 8 displays the individual means recorded for each group. Overall, Public-Private Administrators and Community School Directors tended to represent lower scores while Board Chairmen and Public Agency Administrators tended to rate slightly higher. Items Attitude Toward Job, and Appearance, are rated high by most groups and item 15, Maintenance of Staff Morale, was one of the lowest. Table 9 indicates which items were selected by each role group as being most important to a Community School Director's 56 coumcumwcwsu< mpm>wca-uepnaaiim ”copmcumwcwsu< aucmm< mpm>wtauie "Lopecummcwse< >ucmm< uppnzaiim ”coscwmgu utmomiiN mmcouumcwo Foogum appeaseouiip ”mmcwumm A.mEeeH op sex .om .a .N ppeep mmmv m P n.m F m.m v mp NP m m mp m.m F N N em mN mmp uooo P meN mN m c m P p P mp P m P.¢ p v P vN N am m e MN N m N.¢ mN m m m m mm? P P em N MN e e p N MNF N m.¢ emN muN mN e mmp e c e em ¢.¢ m N Q‘LOMN ‘- F up m.¢ mN m mm m.¢ m m ~.¢ e MN w.¢ m.¢ o.m mN NN FN ON mp mp up mP mp ep m— Np FF 0? m m n m m e m N F mamum mZNHH . mpmom A.xmx mom .cmnE:= Emu? m>wuumammc as» Educ: cope: m? azocm some an =m>wm maven; mghv .mnaogo PF< Na cm>Pmocma mm couuwewo Foogum muP::EEoo we» Co mmm=m>wuumcmu aegmcmoamguu.w mpnmp 57 .aaogm sumo Na EmuN Nagy co>Nm :oNuNmoa any wuauNueN meeaNoo mg» cu acmumnuu mNucmesc mgNiiouoze m.m oN N.N N o.m m o.oN c N.N N N.@ e oncoammm oz .eN N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N o o eueeeeeee< .NN N.N mN N.@ e N.NN N o.m m o.oN o N.N m NNNxm aNgmcuunoa .NN m.o N N.N N o o o o o o c c Nocucou NNom .NN N.N cN o o N.N N o.m m N.N N N.@ e mmucmcaz< .oN m.m mN N.N m N.N m o.m m N.NN N N.N m NNNNm NuNcmmmcuz .aN N.N oN N.N N N.@ e c.m m N.N N N.N N xuNNNn< chueaNa>u .mN N.o cN o.mN m o.m m N.N N o.m m o.m m NNNNNE< chxmz :onNumo .NN o.N o N.N N o o N.N N o.m m N.N N Lesa: No mmcmm .mN o.o N o o o o N.N N N.N N o a mngo: NNopm No oucucoucNmz .mN m.o N N.N N o o N.N N o o o o mmmchNN .eN o.N o N.c e c o N.N N o o N.N N mcoNuauucaxm chuouNcaseou :N mmauuam .mN o.N NN N.NN N N.N m o.m m o.m m o.m m mmwcm>Num>och .NN N.N NN N.N N m.m N N.N N o.m m N.@ e NNNNNaNm -eoamem eNeNeNeo o» NuNNNe< .NN o.o N o o N.N N o o N.N N o o :oNuugNuNucmN NNmum No acmemmmcaoucm .oN m.N N o o o.m m m.m N N.N N N.N N mmmccuao .m m.e mN o o N.N N m.m m o.m m N.e e mmmcum smog: manuscomcma .m N.m NN N.N c o.m . m N.m e o.m m o.m m NNNNNaNmeN .N m.o N N.N N o o o o N.N N o o mmmca>Nucoaasm .o N.N NN m.m m o.m m N.o e o.oN o N.N e m>Nco ucmsm>mNgu< .m o.¢ NN o.oN w N.N m o.oN m N.@ e o.oN m mucouoasou NmuNcgumN .e N.oN Nm N.@ e m.mN N N.NN N N.NN N o.oN 0 new mN: ocmzoN muauNuu< .m N.N oN N.N N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.@ e mcoepo No coNNosmoneou .N N.N m m.m N N.N N N.N N o o N.N N NucmsNu Noncm> .N N N N N N N N N N N N N oomuz omuz omuz omuz oeuz oouz councumN couchmN coumcumN couucho -eNec< icNee< icNEu< :oELNmsu Noogum smNN NNNoN ouu>Nca mNN>Nca uNana venom NuNcassou -uNNaaa N.Nmmcm>NaumNNu aszcocomN mcoaucho Noosum NNNcaeeou as» o» ucmuconeN Nae: chom mm vmuumNom smuN--.m oNnoN 58 effectiveness. The table indicates both the percentage identifying each item and the number of responses to each item. Each respondent in this study was asked to circle those three items thought to be most important. Table 9 indicates both role group selections and total selections. Item 3, Attitude Toward Job, received the greatest number of responses in four out of five groups. Public-Private Administrators were the only exception on this item. Item 4, Technical Competence, was selected among the top three by four out of five groups, excluding Board Chairmen. Item 5, Achievement Drive, was selected by only one group, Board Chairmen. Performance Under Stress, item 8, was among the highest selected by the group Public Administrators. Item 12, Innovativeness, was selected by two groups, Private Administrators and Public-Private Administrators. Item 17, Decision Making Ability, was selected by only one group, Public-Private Administrators, although it received the greatest number of responses in this category. Item 19, Man- agerial Skill, received a high number of responses from three groups, Community School Director, Board Chairmen, and Private Administrators; Item 22, Leadership Skill, was selected by the same three groups. When examining total selections, the top four categories are Attitude Toward Job, Technical Competence, Managerial Skill, and Leadership Skill. Chapter V will examine the results of these selected items and the ratings of Community School Directors' Effectiveness. In order to determine if differences exist between group ratings of the Community School Directors' perceived leadership 59 effectiveness, a one by four analysis of variance model was employed. In Table 10 the means for each group have been presented for each item responded to on the Administrator Image Questionnaire. As indicated on the table, the F ratio was computed for each item. If there is a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence or greater, the item is asterisked. Individual tables of Summary Data and Analysis of Variance Data on each item can be found in Appendix C. Two items, Verbal Fluency, and Appearance, showed significant difference that would be expected by chance. A review of the group means indicates Private Administrators tended to rate the Community School Director higher. The final area of consideration is the comparison of the Becker findings and those generated by this study. The means for each item were recorded and then used to compute scores for the purpose of determining if there were significant differences and which means were higher. Table 11 indicates the comparison of the two studies. Of the 23 items Becker found significantly higher ratings on ten items, seven at the .001 level of confidence, i.e., Attitude Toward Job, Flexibility, Openness, Innovativeness, Fairness, Maintenance of Staff Morale, and Managerial Skill. Further, Becker showed two items--Encouragement of Staff Participation and Leadership Skill-- at the .01 level of confidence and one item--Consideration of Others--at the .05 level of confidence. This study on the other hand shows only one item with a greater mean--Technical Competence-- and that at the .05 level of confidence. 60 mo. v o .4. «NNN.m No.¢ mo.e ow.e mN.e mo.e mN.e mocmcoooo< .mN Nm¢.N Nm.¢ om.o mN.¢ om.e om.e oN.¢ NNNxm oNsmgoomoN .NN Nwm.o oN.e oN.¢ oN.e mm.e mN.¢ oc.e Nocucou NNmm .NN mNm.o NmN.¢ oN.e mm.m wmm.¢ oN.e mN.e mmocoso3< .ON mNN.N eN.e mN.¢ mN.e om.e 0N.¢ ow.m NNNxm NoNcomwcoz .mN mON.o NNo.e oa.m mmN.e om.¢ mmo.e mo.m NuNNNo< chuoaNo>u .NN Nmo.o MNm.¢ wmm.¢ mm.¢ mm.e mN.¢ om.e >.NNNNNE chxoz :onNooo .NN NNN.o NNN.¢ oN.¢ 0N.¢ mN.¢ mmo.e om.< Loss: No omcom .mN NNN.o Neo.m aNN.m mmo.¢ mo.¢ Nem.m om.m mNoLoz Nmoum No monocoacNoz .mN mNm.o Nmm.¢ mN.e ¢¢¢.e m¢.¢ m¢.e oN.¢ mmmchou .NN mom.N NoN.e 0N.o mom.e mN.e mo.¢ mN.m mcoNu . umuumoxm chumoNcsseou :N mmouusm .mN omo.o mm.e oe.e o¢.¢ oe.e o¢.e om.e mmoco>Num>och .NN mwo.o NNN.¢ mo.¢ om.¢ mm.¢ mo.e moN.e NuNNNoncoomom ouomoNoo oa NJNNNo< .NN Nw¢.N mNN.¢ coo.m NN.¢ m¢.¢ ¢.¢ moN.¢ :oNuooNoNpLoN NNoam No acoEmmocaoucm .oN «No.N NN.¢ mo.¢ oo.e mo.¢ mm.e oo.¢ mmoccooo .m mN¢.o MN.e oN.¢ ON.o mm.e mm.¢ mN.e mmocum Loos: mucosgowgoa .m eNm.o NoN.¢ om.m mmn.e mN.¢ ON.¢ oN.e N£22.53: .N moN.o mm.¢ o¢.¢ mm.¢ oe.¢ mN.e ov.¢ mmoco>Npcoooam .m mNN.o m¢.¢ mN.¢ oe.¢ mm.¢ om.e mm.e o>NLo ucoso>oN=o< .m Now.o mm¢.¢ om.e N¢.¢ oo.¢ mm.¢ om.¢ monopooEou NooNccuoN .v Nmo.N mm.¢ mN.¢ om.e om.e ow.e mm.¢ now mN: ocozoh ooauNuN< .m mmN.o om.e mN.¢ o¢.e om.e mm.¢ om.e msoguo No :oNuoLooncou .N «0mm.N NN.¢ mm.m me.e o¢.¢ mm.e mm.m NocoaNN Nongo> .N copocumN -cNEo< couoLNmN goumcumN :oELNogu copoocNo N NopoN ouo>NLa icNEo< icNEo< venom Noocom EoNN u ouo>NLa uNNoaa NNN:=EEou NNnaa mz No mNmzNoc< one NLoEE=mui.oN mNoaN 61 Table 11.--Comparison of Community School Directors Perceptions and Community School Directors Effectiveness. Tobias/ —- Item Becker N X SD t Tobias 20 3.950 .510 .105 verba' F'"e"CY Becker 37 3.945 .695 Consideration of Others 823:2: g9 4.236 '33; '587* Attitude Toward His Job $2212: 39 2'3? '33: '8'°*** Technical Competence 322:2: g9 4.338 ’2;? '508* . . Tobias 20 4.35 .671 .379 A°“'eveme"t ”I've Becker 37 4.378 .748 - Tobias 20 4.40 .598 .152 S”pp°rt've"ess Becker 37 4.459 .681 . . . Tobias 20 4.10 .788 .801*** F'ex'b"'ty Becker 37 4.378 .710 Performance Under Stress 522:2: g9 4.223 'g;; '760 Tobias 20 4.00 .726 .067*** Openness Becker 37 4.277 .691 Encouragement of Staff Tobias 19 4.105 .658 .379** Participation Becker 37 4.297 .766 Ability to Delegate Tobias 19 4.105 .658 .541 Responsibility Becker 37 4.135 .741 . Tobias 20 4.30 .571 .963*** I""°Vat've"ess Becker 37 4.54 .640 Success in Communicating Tobias 20 3.75 .639 .870 Expectations Becker 37 3.864 .843 . Tobias 20 4.10 .788 .725*** Fal'"ess Becker 37 4.54 .549 Maintenance of Staff Tobias 20 3.90 .718 .923*** Morale Becker 37 4.189 .765 Table 11.--Continued. 62 Tobias / Item Becker N x 50 t Tobias 20 4.30 .732 .873 sense °f “”m°r Becker 37 4.243 .882 Decision Making Ability 522:2: 39 fi°g43 °§(; '091 Evaiuaiins Abiiiiy £32.12? 39 2:337 :23? '4‘” . . ' 2 . . . *** 82.12: .9 2.33 332 Tobias 20 4.25 .786 .968 Awareness Becker 37 4.305 .699 Tobias 20 4.00 .726 .245 S€1f Control Becker 37 4.081 .881 . . ' . . . ** Leidiiihii Ski“ $23.12? 39 2433 .3951 "’4 Tobias 20 4.25 .716 .827 Appearance Becker 37 4.297 .730 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 It would seem that the Community School Director enjoys higher ratings of effectiveness from the earlier study than the current one with the notable exception of Item Technical Competence. Chapter V will deal with the possible explanations of these findings. Table 12 displays a comparison of the rankings of the items relative to the question of importance to Leadership Effectiveness. The Spearman score of .640 indicates a significant positive relation- ship at the .01 level of confidence. 63 Table 12.--Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient on Ranks of Total Items Selected as Being Most Important to C50 Leadership Effectiveness. Item Tobias Becker 02 1 18 21 9 rs = .640* 2 10.5 6 20.25 3 1 0 4 5 9 5 8 9 6 20.5 23 6.25 7 9 0 8 .5 20 182.25 9 15 18.5 12.25 10 20.5 14 42.25 11 10.5 12 2.25 12 6.5 4 6.25 13 16.5 18.5 4 14 19 17 4 15 22.5 7 240.25 16 16.5 15 2.25 17 8 10.5 6.25 18 12.5 16 12.25 19 3.5 3 .25 20 12.5 10.5 4 21 22.5 13 90.25 22 3.5 2 2.25 23 14 22 64 24 *p < .01 64 The top five rankings from both studies are very similar, Attitude Toward His Job, Technical Competence, Innovation, Managerial Skill, and Leadership Skill. The remainder of the rankings are quite similar. Item 23, Appearance, which was rated much lower in the Becker study and Item 10, Encouragement of Staff Participation, which was rated much lower in this study. CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will present a review of the problem and the subsequent research questions. Each question is followed by a sum- mary of the findings and the relevant conclusions. The chapter con- cludes with recommendations for further study and implications of this study. Review of Problem While community education may be steeped in many long standing assumptions regarding social interaction, its study as a discipline is relatively recent. Further, the role of Community School Director has evolved over the last 40 years with little investigation of the effectiveness of this position. The first school employees to be employed full time as Community School Directors were hired in 1951. Today there are in excess of 1,500 men and women employed in this area. Originally this group was charged with recruitment and supervision of youth and broadened activities to eventually cover all members of the com- munity. Weaver suggested that changing social conditions were dic- tating changes in how and who the Community School Director related 65 66 to.1 Further, Minzey and LeTarte included Inter-Agency Cooperation as one of the six components of Community Education.2 In recent years notions of inter-agency cooperation, multi- service facilities, and shared administration of activities, have pushed the Community School Director in new directions. Earlier models indicated the Director's primary function was to serve school- based educational needs, later this changed to include school/ community relations or liaison. Most recently new responsibilities have placed a higher premium on inter-agency relationships. The success of the individual Community School Director has historically been judged by educators and those clients of community education programs. Yet the decision for agencies to merge or coop- erate are often based less on policy or the efficacies of each pro- gram than perceptions of professional counterparts. Such motivation is commonly a desire to be associated with a successful program or with a successful Community School Director. The interwoven effect of Director and Program is attested to in much of the literature on leadership and is most likely a factor here. The problem, then, is to determine how agency personnel rank the perceived effectiveness of the Community School Director and how such rankings compare with self-perceptions. Such an examination 1Donald Weaver, "Strategies for Training Community Education Leaders--A Working Paper," National Center for Community Education. (Mimeographed.) 2Jack Minzey and Clyde LeTarte, Community Education: From Program to Progress (Midland, Michigan: Pendéll Publishing), 1972. 67 presents an opportunity to assess in part the inter-face between these two groups of professionals and may suggest other relationships that could exist. Findings and Conclusions Question I. What is leadership effectiveness of the Community School Director as perceived by: Community School Directors Board of Education Chairmen Public Agency Administrators Private Agency Administrators Public-Private Agency Administrators MOON) Finding: Data relevant to Question I are found on Tables 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8. Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 indicate the results of the questionnaire by groups plotted on Image Profile Charts. All groups rated Directors high with only a few items not displayed in the excellent range and those displayed at the high point of the good range. Tables 7 and 8 give further evidence displaying average combined mean scores and frequency of response. It should be noted that the Administrator Image Questionnaire used in this study is so designed that perceived ineffectiveness on any item may come from two sources: (1) poor administrator attitude, and (2) ineffective administrator behavior.3 Groups identified as Board Chairmen and Public Agency Administrator, tended to rate all items higher. Conclusions: An examination of findings indicates that each group rated the Community School Director as having very good admin- istrator attitudes and as being an effective administrator. Overall, 3Interpretingand Utilizing_Your Administrator Image Profile (Educator FeedbéEk Center, western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan), 1970. 68 these would suggest a positive image among other agency administra- tors and opportunities for parity of interaction and in particular with public agency administrators. Question II. 15 there a significant difference among the five groups' perceptions? Findings: An analysis of variance was conducted for the purpose of examining F scores for significance. Two items were found to have statistical difference among groups at the .05 level; they were Item 1, Verbal Fluency, and Item 23, Appearance. This data is displayed both in Table 10 and in Appendix C in more complete form. Conclusion: While all groups indicate agreement on all but two items, it would support the belief that groups generally hold the Community School Director in high regard relative to effective- ness. In those two cases where differences were found, the Community School Director group showed the lowest mean and the Private Admin- istrator group indicated the highest. Question III. In what aspects of leadership are Com- munity School Directors most and least effective as perceived by all groups? Findings: In Chapter IV, Table 10 presents the combined means for all groups on all items, and while there are differences among groups on two items, all means are high. Items Attitude Toward His Job, Technical Competence, Achievement Drive, Innovative- ness, and Appearance received the highest scores. Items Flexibility, Openness, Success in Communicating Expectation, Evaluating Ability, 69 and Managerial Ability received the lowest scores. While these items represent the extremes, it should be noted all responses were high and the range of mean scores was .73. Conclusion: The profile that emerges from this data would suggest a successful Community School Director has a highly developed personal sense of direction and means. The items rated highest reflect personal rather than inter-personal attributes. Those items listed as least effective are inter-personal and reflect potential problems in collective endeavors. Generally the responses indicate a high degree of effectiveness, but less effective in areas requiring group inter-action, i.e. communication, evaluation, managerial, openness, and flexibility. Question IV. Which items do each group rate as being most important to the Community School Director's leadership effectiveness? Findings: Every respondent was asked to identify the three most important items relative to leadership effectiveness. Table 11 presents this data, with percentage of respondents identifying each item by role group. The Community School Directors identified Atti- tude Toward His Job, Technical Competence as the two highest and Managerial Skill and Leadership Skill tied for the third highest rating. Board Chairmen rated Attitude Toward His Job and Managerial Skill the highest, and Achievement Drive and Leadership Skill next highest. Public Administrators rated Attitude Toward His Job highest, followed by Technical Competence and Performance Under Stress. Private Administrators again rated Attitude Toward His 70 Job highest, followed by Leadership Skills, Managerial Skills, Innovativeness, and Technical Competence. Public-Private Adminis- trators ranked Decision Making first, followed by Innovativeness and Technical Competence. Four Items received high rankings from three or more role groups. They were: Attitude Toward His Job, Technical Competence, Managerial Skill, and Leadership Skill. Conclusion: The similarity in responses is most interesting. In particular is the amount of agreement on Attitude Toward His Job. The responses by all groups would indicate a balance between per- sonal attributes and management skills, while Public Administrators and Public-Private Administrators seem to favor those items of a more individualistic nature. Question V. What differences exist between the percep- tions held by Community School Directors of items most important to Leadership Effectiveness in this study compared to Becker's study? Findings: The Spearman Rank Order of Correlation Coefficient indicates a score of .640 indicating a significant positive relation- ship at the .01 level of confidence. That is to say that there was a great deal of similarity in the items ranked most important by Community School Directors in both studies and in particular among the top five items. Conclusion: It appears that there has been little change in the perceptions of the Community School Directors during the years between these studies (data gathered in l969--Becker, l972--Tobias) relative to which items are most important to Leadership Effectiveness. 71 In both cases, the items selected as most important reflected a balance of personal skill and managerial competence. Question VI. Is there a significant difference in the items on which Community School Directors rate themselves high as compared to those rated high in the Becker study? Findings: Of the 23 Items, Becker found significantly higher ratings on ten items, seven at the .001 level of confidence, i.e. Attitude Toward Job, Flexibility, Openness, Innovativeness, Fairness, Maintenance of Staff Morale, and Managerial Skill. Further, Becker showed two items--Encouragement of Staff Participation, and Leader- ship Skill, at the .01 level of confidence and one item, Considera— tion of Others, at the .05 level of confidence. Tobias on the other hand shows only one item with a greater mean, Technical Competence, and that at the .05 level of confidence. Conclusion: While Becker's study indicates higher responses, the high mean in this study for the Item Technical Competence might be explained as a variation induced by increased awareness of the importance of the item. Becker's items on the other hand, relate for the most part to human and management skills. Summary The data generated by this study and the research questions answered indicate a positive response by all groups who rated the effectiveness of the Community School Director. In the simplistic sense that professionalism, respect, knowledge, etc. add to the opportunities for people to work together, this study suggests that 72 inter-agency cooperation is possible, and, in particular, when there is such a high level of congruence on items important to effective leadership. On the other hand, there appears to be a pattern among groups when rating effectiveness. Generally the Community School Director is judged effective because of personal characteristics, i.e. attitude, drive, appearance, technical skills, andfappearance, while seen as less effective in communicating, managering, and leading.. This dichotomy may be appropriate for revolutionaires, but is ques- tionable for managers in complex organizations. The Community Edu- cation literature is replete with examples of individuals overcoming institutional norms for the benefit of the disinfranchised and that may be the role model that has developed. A singular rather than pluralistic mode for problem solving, decision making, etc. seems desirable. The comparisons with Becker's study indicate strong similar- ities in describing what should be and indicate great differences in evaluating overall effectiveness. This might be explained in part by the increased discussion of the variety of roles a Community School Director must play. Additionally, the population for this study come from a geographical area that places great importance on training and acquisition of technical competence. Recommendations for Further Study 1. A follow-up study examining the relationship between agency administrator and Community School Director, using participant observation methodology for a more precise description. 73 2. A study examining Community School Directors' management style and organizational expectations and perhaps a second comparison to community expectations. 3. An examination of training programs, participant role- models and congruence of expectations and practice. 4. A study of organizations other than schools in order to determine leadership styles exist. APPENDICES 74 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER 75 Community Education continues to spread rapidly across the United States, as I'm sure you are aware. This increased popularity has generated a number of questions related to the best approaches for training of Community School Directors. I've undertaken to clarify some of those areas that may warrant new or renewed consideration for the training of the Community School Director of his counterpart. Toward that end I am conducting a study of the perceived leadership effectiveness of the Community School Director. This study will compare self-perception with those of Chief Administrators of Agencies. You have been selected to be part of a small select sample to deter- mine these directions. For this reason it is imperative that you contribute five minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire. In addition, individuals from four groups will be asked to fill out and return the same questionnaires. The four groups from which individuals will be selected to participate include: Chief Admin- istrators of Public Funded Agencies, Chief Administrators of Private Funded Agencies, Chief Administrators of combined Public-Private Funded Agencies, and Chief Administrators for Boards of Education. In order to facilitate the administration and collection of this study I've enclosed the appropriate materials and directions, assum- ing your willingness to participate. Confidentiality of responses will be respected and protected. Please follow the enclosed instruc- fions and see that all materials are returned no later than April 8, 974. Let me thank you in advance for your cooperation, and assure you that this study will represent part of the recommendations for Training Programs for practicing Community School Directors. Sincerely, Donald Tobias Assistant Director for Training DT/df 76 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 77 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR IMAGE QUESTIONNAIRE In order to make administration of this questionnaire as simple and quick as possible, please follow the directions given below. Instruction for: Community SchooliDirector 1. Fill out the white form and questionnaire and return it to the distributor described below. Request another person, such as a colleague, teacher or secretary to distribute the questionnaire kits. ,Questionnaire Kit Distributor: 1. Each kit contains: a. a letter explaining the study b. an information form c. a Community School Director Image Questionnaire d. an envelope for returning the questionnaire Distribute kits to chief administrators in each of the following categories who are familiar with the Community School Director's position and have an opportunity to observe or work with them: a. Boards of Education b. Public-funded agencies examples--Department of Social Services Law Enforcement Agency Department of Mental Health c. Private-funded agency examples--United Fund YMCA UWCA Big Brothers Churches 78 79 d. Public-Private funded agency examples--Recreation Programs Drug Programs Youth Programs 3. Ask each person to completely fill out the material and return it to you as soon as possible so you may put all the questionnaires in the enclose manila envelope and return them immediately. Thank you for your help. Donald Tobias Assistant Director for Training 80 March 29, 1974 Dear Participant: I am sure that you are aware that Community Education continues to enjoy rapid growth and success across the country. With this growth, close examination of the role of the Community School Director is becoming more important. In order to better assist in the training of Community School Directors, a study of leadership effectiveness is being undertaken. Because of your familiarity with Community School Programs and their Directors, you are being asked to fill out this questionnaire con- cerning the Director with which you work. All these questions are related to the Community School Director's leadership effectiveness. All responses will be kept confidential. Personal identity with collected data will not be made. Please complete the questionnaire and return it to the distributor as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Donald Tobias Assistant Director for Training DT/df 81 Position held (check one) Community School Director Board of Education Chairman Public Agency Administrator Private Agency Administrator Public-Private Agency Administrator Age Sex Married Single Socio-economic status the of community in which you work: Low Average High Number of years you have been in present position If agency administrator, number of years you have been in administration If agency administrator, number of years you have been aware of the community education program 82 Community School Director Image Questionnaire Please respond to the following questions honestly and frankly. Do not give your name. All responses are anonymous. Neither the community school director about whom these questions are asked nor anyone else will ever be able to associate your responses with you. Immediately after completion, your responses along with responses of others from your group, will be sent to Western Michigan University for analysis. Fill in the blank which represents your reaction to each question. Be sure to fill in only one blank for each question. If you change your answer, be sure to throoughly erase the incorrect mark. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION CONCERNING THIS ADMINISTRATOR'S-- Average Excellent Poor Fair Good 1. VERBAL FLUENCY: (Does he express his ideas smoothly? Is he articulate?) 2. CONSIDERATION OF OTHERS: (Is he patient, understanding, consider- ate, and courteous?) 3. ATTITUDE TOWARD HIS JOB: (Does he show interest and enthusiasm toward his work?) 4. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: (Does he have a thorough knowledge and understanding of his field?) 5. ACHIEVEMENT DRIVE: (Does he have the initiative and persistence needed to accomplish meaningful goals?) 6. SUPPORTIVENESS: (Does he support those responsible to him?) 7. FLEXIBILITY: (Is he able to adjust rapidly to changes in plans or procedure?) 8. PERFORMANCE UNDER STRESS: (How does he function under pressure?) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 83 OPENNESS: (Does he consider diver- gent views?) ENCOURAGEMENT OF STAFF PARTICIPA- TION: (Does he encourage you to raise questions and express opinions?) ABILITY TO DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY: (Does he assign tasks to personnel capable of carrying them out?) INNOVATIVENESS: (Is he willin to try new approaches or methods?§ SUCCESS IN COMMUNICATING EXPECTA- TIONS: (Does he clearly define and explain what is expected of staff members?) FAIRNESS: (Does he treat staff members in an unbiased and impar- tial manner?) MAINTENANCE OF STAFF MORALE: (Does he create a feeling of unity and enthusiasm among those in contact with him?) SENSE OF HUMOR: (Does he have a sense of the ridiculous? Does he laugh at his own mistakes?) DECISION MAKING ABILITY: (Does the evidence indicate that he is able to make constructive decisions?) EVALUATING ABILITY: (To what extent does he objectively eval- uate programs and practices?) MANAGERIAL SKILL: (Does he coor- dinate the efforts of those responsible to him so that the organization operates at peak efficiency?) Poor Fair Average Good Excellent 84 20. AWARENESS: (To what extent is he conscious of the problems that exist on your level?) 21. SELF-CONTROL: (Does he maintain control of his emotions when things are not going right?) 22. LEADERSHIP SKILL: (Does his leadership result in the attain- ment of mutually acceptable goals?) 23. APPEARANCE: (Are his grooming and attire in good taste?) 24. IF YOU WISH, PLEASE MAKE ANY COMMENTS YOU FEEL PERTINENT TO THIS STUDY: When you've completed the questionnaire, please circle the three items you feel are most important to the Community School Director's Leadership Effectiveness. APPENDIX C ITEM TABLES The following abbreviations have been used throughout these tables: CSD Community School Director BC Board Chairman Pub. A = Public Administrator Pri. A = Private Administrator Pub/Pri A = Public Private Administrator 85 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: Pub. Pri. pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A TOta] ITEM l.—-Verbal Fluency N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 3.95 4.35 4.40 4.45 3.95 4.22 Variance .260 .449 .252 .366 .787 .423 5.0. .510 .670 .502 .605 .887 .650 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 4.96 4 1.24 2.930* Within Groups 40.20 95 .423 TOTAL 45.16 99 *p < .05 ITEM 2.—-Consideration of Others N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.30 4.35 4.30 4.40 4.15 4.30 Variance .537 .345 .537 .779 .766 .591 5.0. ' .733 .587 .733 .883 .875 .769 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups .70 4 .175 .295 Within Groups 56.30 95 .593 TOTAL 57.00 99 ITEM 3.--Attitude Toward His Job N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean . 4.55 4.80 4.80 4.50 4.75 4.68 Variance .576 .468 .274 .684 .197 .37 5.0. .759 .410 .523 .827 .444 .61 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.66 4 .415 1.092 Within Groups 36.10 95 .380 TOTAL 37.76 99 86 87 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 4.--Technica1 Competence N 20 20 20 19 20 99 Mean 4.50 4.35 4.60 4.42 4.60 4.49 Variance .263 .661 .253 .480 .358 .395 S.D. .513 .813 .503 .693 .598 .629 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups .966 4 .241 .601 Within Groups 37.782 94 .402 TOTAL 38.748 98 ITEM 5.--Achievement DrIVe N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.35 4.60 4.55 4.40 4.25 4.43 Variance .450 .463 .366 .884 .513 .530 S.D. .671 .681 .605 .940 .716 .728 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.66 4 .415 .775 Within Groups 50.85 95 .535 TOTAL 52.51 99 ITEM 6.--Supportiveness N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.40 4.25 4.40 4.35 4.40 4.36 Variance .358 .724 .358 .555 .568 .495 S.D. .598 .851 .598 .745 .754 .704 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups Within Groups Total 88 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 7.--F1exibilii;y N 20 20 20 19 20 99 Mean 4.10 4.20 4.25 4.37 3.90 4.16 Variance .621 .695 .513 .468 .832 .627 5.0. .788 .833 .716 .684 .912 .792 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 2.443 4 .611 .974 Within Groups 58.971 94 .627 TOTAL 61.414 98 ITEM 8.--Performance Under Stress N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.15 4.35 4.35 4.20 4.10 4.23 Variance .555 .555 .450 .800 .726 .603 5.0. .745 .745 .671 .894 .852 .777 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.06 4 .265 .429 Within Groups 58.65 95 .617 TOTAL 59.71 99 ITEM 99-Openness N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.00 4.35 4.05 4.40 4.05 4.17 Variance .526 .450 .997 .674 .682 .668 S.D. .726 .671 .999 .821 .826 .817 ‘Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 2.86 4 .715 1.074 Within Groups 63.25 95 .666 TOTAL 66.11 99 89 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM lO.--Encouragement of Staff Partitipatiou N 19 20 20 19 18 96 Mean 4.11 4.40 4.45 4.21 3.94 4.23 Variance .433 .568 .471 .842 .526 .578 S.D. .658 .754 .686 .918 .725 .761 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 3.317 4 .829 1.461 Within Groups 51.642 91 .567 TOTAL 54.959 95 ITEM 11.--Abi1ity to Delegate Responsibility N 19 20 20 20 20 99 Mean 4.11 4.05 4.35 4.30 4.05 4.17 Variance .433 .997 .348 .326 .892 .593 S.D. .658 .998 .587 .571 .944 .769 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.641 4 .410 .683 Within Groups 56.439 94 .600 TOTAL 58.080 98 ITEM 12.--Innovativeness N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.30 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.38 Variance .326 .358 .568 .358 .463 .399 S.D. .571 .598 .754 .592 .681 .632 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups .160 4 .040 .096 Within Groups 39.400 95 .415 TOTAL 39.560 99 .455 9O Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 13.--Success in Communicating_Expecta- tions N 20 20 20 19 20 99 Mean 3.75 4.05 4.15 4.37 4.20 4.10 Variance .408 .576 .555 .579 .589 .561 S.D. .639 .759 .745 .761 .768 .749 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 4.119 4 1.030 1.903 Within Groups 50.871 94 .541 TOTAL 54.990 98 ITEM 14.--Fairness N 20 20 20 18 20 98 Mean 4.10 4.45 4.45 4.44 4.25 4.34 Variance .621 .471 .366 .732 .513 .535 S.D. .788 .686 .605 .856 .716 .731 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.993 4 .498 .929 Within Groups 49.894 93 .536 TOTAL 51.887 97 ITEM 15.--Maintenance of Staff Morale N 20 19 20 17 19 95 Mean 3.90 3.95 4.05 4.06 3.79 3.95 Variance .516 1.39 .787 1.06 .620 .838 S.D. .718 1.18 .887 1.03 .787 .915 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups .940 4 .235 .272 Within Groups 77.796 90 .864 TOTAL 78.736 94 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 16.--Sense of Humor N 20 19 20 20 20 99 Mean 4.30 4.05 4.25 4.20 4.10 4.18 Variance .537 1.39 .724 .800 .411 .742 S.D. .733 1.18 .851 .894 .641 .862 Source of Variance ss d.f M.S F Between Groups .830 4 .207 .271 Within Groups 71.897 94 .765 TOTAL 72.727 98 ITEM l7.--Decision Making AEility_ N 20 20 20 20 19 99 Mean 4.30 4.25 4.35 4.35 4.37 4.32 Variance .326 .724 .450 .661 .357 .486 5.0. .571 .851 .671 .812 .597 .697 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups .186 4 .046 .092 Within Groups 47.471 94 .505 TOTAL 47.657 98 ITEM 18.--Evaluatiug Ability N 20 19 20 19 20 98 Mean 3.95 4.05 4.30 4.16 3.90 4.07 Variance .471 .719 .642 1.03 .832 .727 S.D. .686 .848 .801 1.01 .912 .853 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 2.076 4 .519 .706 Within Groups 68.424 93 .736 TOTAL 70.500 97 92 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSD BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 19.--Managerial SkiTl N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 3.80 4.20 4.30 4.25 4.15 4.14 Variance .274 1.12 .557 .724 .871 .706 S.D. .523 1.06 .733 .851 .933 .841 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 3.140 4 .785 1.115 Within Groups 66.900 95 .704 TOTAL 70.040 99 ITEM 20.--Awareness N 20 20 19 20 20 99 Mean 4.25 4.10 4.37 3.95 4.10 4.15 Variance .618 1.15 .468 1.10 .726 .803 S.D. .786 1.07 .684 1.05 .852 .896 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 2.006 4 .502 .615 Within Groups 76.721 94 .816 TOTAL 78.727 98 ITEM 21.--Self Control N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.00 4.15 4.35 4.10 4.10 4.14 Variance .526 .871 .345 .621 .516 .566 S.D. .726 .933 .587 .788 .718 .752 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 1.34 4 .355 .582 Within Groups 54.70 95 .576 TOTAL 56.04 99 93 Summary Data and Analysis of Variance of Data on: (Continued) Pub. Pri. Pub/ CSO BC A A Pri. A Total ITEM 22.--Leadership Skill N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.10 4.30 4.60 4.25 4.30 4.310 Variance .411 .537 .253 .513 .537 .459 ' S.D. .641 .732 .503 .716 .733 .677 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 2.64 4 .660 1.467 ’ Within Groups 42.75 95 .450 A TOTAL 45.39 99 1.110 ITEM 23.--Appearance N 20 20 20 20 20 100 Mean 4.25 4.65 4.75 4.80 4.65 4.62 Variance .513 .345 .197 .468 .239 .319 S.D. .716 .587 .444 .410 .489 .565 Source of Variance ss d.f. M.S. F Between Groups 3.760 4 .940 3.212* Within Groups 27.800 95 .293 TOTAL 31.560 99 1.233 *p <.05 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Argyris, Chris. Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effec- tiveness. ‘HBmewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, The. . Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Bennis, Warren; Benne, Kenneth; and Chin, Robert. The Planning_of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. (HappsElsie Ripley. Community Schools in Action. New York: Viking Press, 1936. Coleman, James C. Personality Dynamics and Effective Behavior. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1960. Combs, Arthur W. Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and CurriCfilum Development, 1962. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1963. Minzey, Jack and LeTarte, Clyde. Community Education: From Program to Process. Pendell Publishing, 1972. Mott Leadership Program Staff. Notebooks for Community Education Practitioners. Flint, Michigan: National Center for Com- munity Education, 1973. Riddle, William and Riddle, Loureide. The Community Development Prggegg. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Rosenthal, Robert. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Croffs, 1966. Taguiri, Renato; and Luigi, Petrullo. Person Perception and Inter- personal Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford UhiVersity Press, 1958. 95 96 Thompson, James. Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by Andrew W. Halprin. New York: Collier-McMillan Company, 1958. Articles, Journals, and Periodicals Christensen, C.M. "Relationship Between Pupil Achievement, Pupil Affect-Need, Teacher Warmth and Teacher Permissiveness." Journal of Educational P§ychology, XI (1960). Conant, James B. "Community and School Are Inseparable." The School and Communitnyeader. New York: The McMillan Company, 1963. Decker, Larry. Foundations of Community Education. Midland, Michigan: Pendell Roblishing, 1972. Mitzel, Harold. “Teacher Effectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educational Review. New York: McMillan Company,_1960. Newcomb, Theodore M. "The Cognition of Persons and Cognizers." In Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Edited by Renato Taguiri and Luigi PetrUTlo. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958. Schools in Small Communities. Washington, D.C.: American Associ- ation 0f’School Administrators, 1939. Seay, Maurice and Richardson, Eugene. Overcoming Barriers to Com- munity Schools. Society for the Study of EdUcation. Fifty- Second Yearbook. Chicago, Illinois, 1953. Truax, C.B., and Dickenson, W. "Group Counseling With College Under- Achievers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, VL (1966). Reports Achievements of the Kentucky Adult Basic Education Program. Morehead, KentuCky:’_Appa1achian Adhlt Basic Education Demonstration Center, 1969. Coats, William 0. Survey Report of Mott Leadership Programs. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Educator Feédback Center. Western Michigan University, 1970. Combs, Arthur and Soper, Daniel. "The Perceptual Organization of Effective Counselors." In Florida Studies in the Helping Professions (Gainesville, FToFida: The Univer§ity Of Florida Press, 1969). 97 Community Education Concept. Regional Center for Community School Development. BFigham Young University. Provo, Utah, 1971. Interpreting and Utiliziug Your Administrator Image Profile. Kala- mazoo, Michigan: Educator Feedback Cénter,IWestern Michigan University, 1970. Job Description--Community School Director. Boise, Idaho Community Sch6615. *Boise, Idaho, 1971. - Job Description--The Community Elementary School Director. Public Sch001 of Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester, Massachusetts, 1971. Job Description--Community Schools Supervisor. Salem, Oregon Public Schools. Salem, Oregon, 1971. Job Description--Coordinator of Community Schools. Springfield, Ohio Community—Schools. Springfier,Ohio, 1969. Seay, Maurice and Crawford, Ferris N. The Community School and Community Self Improvement. Department of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, 1954. uupublished Materials Ahola, Allen A. "A Study of the Relationships Between the Community School Concept and Selected Public Attitudes." Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Becker, William E. "A Study of the Leadership Effectiveness of the Community School Director? Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972. Manley, Frank J. "Chronological Development of the Mott Foundation Program." Flint Board of Education. October 8, 1956. (Private Papers.) Mott Foundation. "Five Year Plan." Flint, Michigan: National Center for Community Education, 1973. Weaver, Donald. "Strategies for Training Community Education Leaders--A Working Papers." Flint, Michigan: National Center for Community Education, 1972. (Mimeographed.)