-,-.-..-.........,_, _.
’ :‘1'

ACTUAL AND IDEAL ROLES IN CURRICULUM PLANNING
AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
OF SELECTED SCHOOLS

Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Lynn C. Oberlin
I965

:jiESIS

IlllHHllllUllllllllUllll”IIHIIWHIIHIHIHILIlllllHl

3 1293 10396 785

0-169

3'31“:

L
LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

   
   
   

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled " ' ‘l'
"Actual and Ideal Roles in Curriculum
Planning as Perceived by Teachers and
Administrators of Selected Schools”
presented by
Lynn C. Oberlin A H 1

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed degree mm

 

    

géVVZ’,€.? 77/,1/1Z6/p-7/ /

“Major professor /f

 

October 7, 1965

Date }

ABSTnACT
CTUAL Ana IDSAL Betas IN CURRICULUM
PLANNING AS PIaCCIVCD B! T; Cdjhs
AAD AUnIsIsrsarons or ssLsCICD SCHOOLS

by Lynn C. Oberlin

The purpose of this study was to determine if teachers
differed from administrators in their perceptions of the
"actual" and "ideal" roles of teachers, administrators,
students, and the community in curriculum planning, and
to determine if teachers and administrators perceived the
"actual" roles of these groups as being different from the
"ideal" roles.

The instrument used in this study was developed by
using a preliminary questionnaire with a group of 100
teachers and administrators which was highly similar (in
terms of the ratio of teachers to administrators and the
size of the school districts) to the group used in the
final study. Each of the 140 (70 "actual" and 70 "idea1")
questions was examined by item analysis and 56 (28 "actual"
and 28 "ideal") of them chosen to become the final form of
the "Questionnaire on Curriculum Responsibilities."

The population for this study came from three areas of
Michigan: (1) a county located in metrOpolitan Detroit.
(2) a county in western hichigan. (3) and the upper
peninsula. Schools within these areas were selected by

size. A total of eleven districts were used. One-third

Lynn Oberlin

of the teachers and enough administrators to establish a

one to ten ratio in each district were mailed questionnaires.

The questionnaires were scored as eight separate tests

and the coefficients of reliability computed with the Kuder

Richardson formula 20 ranged from .770 to .883.

From the data. the following conclusions about the

pOpulation of this study were drawn:

1.

Administrators perceived the "actual" roles of
teachers and students in curriculum planning to

be more extensive than teachers perceived these
"actual" roles to be.

Administrators perceived the extent of the "actual"
roles of administrators and the community in our-
riculum planning to be the same as teachers per-
ceived the extent of these "actual" roles to be.
Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of
administrators, students. and the community in
curriculum planning as being more extensive than
teachers perceived these "ideal" roles to be.
Administrators perceived the extent of the "ideal"
roles of teachers in curriculum planning to be the
same as teachers perceived the extent of these
"ideal" roles to be.

Administrators perceived and teachers perceived
the "ideal" roles of teachers. students, and the
community in curriculum planning as being more

extensive than the "actual" roles of these groups.

10.

Lynn Oberlin

Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of
administrators in curriculum planning as being

more extensive than the "actual" roles but teachers
perceived the "actual" roles of administrators in
curriculum planning as being greater than the
"ideal" roles.

Teachers differed by geographical areas in their
perceptions of the roles of teachers and administra-
tors in curriculum planning. Significant differences
were found in the "actual" and "ideal" roles of
teachers, and in the "ideal" and the differences
between "actual" and "ideal" roles of administra-
tors. No geographic pattern was discovered.
Teachers did not differ by geographical areas in
their perceptions of the roles of students and the
community in curriculum planning. This included
"actual." "ideal," and the difference between
"actual" and "ideal" roles.

Administrators did not differ by geOgraphical

areas in their perceptions of the roles of
teachers. administrators. students. and the com-
munity in curriculum planning. This included
"actual." "ideal." and the differences betwen
"actual" and "ideal" roles.

Teachers differed by schools in their perceptions
of the roles of the community in curriculum
planning. This included "actual." "ideal." and

the differences between "actual" and "ideal" roles.

Lynn Oberlin

11. School size was not an important factor in the way
in which teachers perceived the extent of the
"actual" and "ideal" roles. or the differences
between the "actual" and "ideal" roles of teachers,
administrators, students, and the community in
curriculum planning.
More studies are needed to help more clearly define
and bring about a better understanding of roles in curriculum
planning. With the agreement between teachers and administra-
tors that teachers. students. and the community should have
greater roles in curriculum planning, research is needed to

find why greater roles have not been extended to these groups.

ACTUAL AJD IDfiAL ROLES IN cURRICULUH
PLAHKIKG AS PSRCEIV£D BI TEACHERS

AKD ADHIKISPRATORS OF SELECTSD SCHOOLS

By

I ’ .
Lynn C) Oberlin

A THSSIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
College of Education

1965

ACKNOHLEDGMSNTS

The writer is indebted to many people for the
successful completion of this study. Dr. George Myers.
chairman of the guidance committee. gave freely of his
time in offering encouragement and assistance in the
writing of this study.

The members of the guidance committee, Dr. Jean
LePere, Dr. Troy Stearns, and Dr. Orden Smucker. offered
suggestions and help which made this study more meaning-
ful.

Dr. Burton Thorn, former chairman of the guidance
committee. helped with the original planning of the study.

The teachers and administrators of the eleven
scnool districts used in this study. who took time to
complete the questionnaire on which this study is based.
made an essential contribution. Because of the nature
of this material. these pe0ple and school districts must

remain anonymous.

ii

Page
ACKfiOHLSDGhSNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter

I. TH PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED . 1

Ch

The Purpose of This Study

The Need of This Study

The Limitations of This Study
Definition of Terms

dypotheses

The Organization of This Study

II. HLIVILSN OF LITLL‘RAI‘URL‘: . . . g g o o o o o o 8

Theory
Research

III. POPULATION AND PBOCSDURE . . . . o . . . . 25

Development of the Instrument
Population of the Study
Procedure Used in This Study
Analysis of the Data

IV. ANALLSIS OF T33 DATA . . . . . . . . . . . #4

The Roles of Teachers

The Roles of Administrators
The Roles of Students

The Roles of the Community
Summary

V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . 109
Summary
Conclusions
Implications
BIBLIOGRAPdY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 120

APPENDICES O O O O O I O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O 121‘

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. NATIOI VAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION STRATIFICATION
OF SCIIOOL SIS? GIFTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 30

2. STRATIFICATION OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS USED IN
TdIS STUDY. 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 30

3. INFORMATION ABOUT SCHOOL DISTRICTS USED IN
THIS STUDY 0 O O C O O O O I O C O O C O O O 37

1+. Tc'ST AND II‘UIM VAnIAIIC 33 FOR TEST TEST OF TziF.
"ACTUAL" ROLES OF TSACHERS. . . . . . . . . 45

5. TSST AND ITEM VARIANCE FOR THE TLST OF THE
"IDEAL" HOLES OF TEACIIEB S . . . . . . . . . 46

6. AUArs OF TDACHZTG scoass FOR THE ssr OF THE
"ACTUAL" HULes or TEACHERS. . . . . . . . . A7

7. ANALYSIS or VARIANCE BI AREAS OF TEACHERS'
scoass FOR THE TEST OF ms "ACTUAL" HOLES
or TEACHERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8. MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THC "ACTUAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS . . . . . #9

9. AAALISIS or VARIANCE BI AHSAS OF ADMINISTRA-
ross' scoass FOR mas TSST OF THE "ACTUAL"
ROLES OF TSACchS . . . . . . . . . . . . . #9

10. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SC? OOLS OF TEACHERS'
SCORuS FOR Tn* TCST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLb" ‘
OF TEACL'IFJ‘I‘IS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 50

ll. MEANS OF TEACHSSS' SCORCS FOR Tdfl TSST OF THE
"IDEAL" ROLL—3b” OF THACHERS o o o o o o o o o 51

12. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AB‘“” OF TEACHERS'

SCORES FOI TITS TEST OF THE "IDEAL" HOLES

OF {PiACdLJi-ib O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 51
13. MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST

OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACflEBS. . . . . . 53

iv

Table

11+.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

2?.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF ADMINIS-
TRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE
" IDSAL" HOLES OF TSAC’AJA'SA—is . O . O . O O O 0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF
TISACHEJ'I-is. O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETNEEN TEACHERS'
SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND
THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFER-
ENCES IN TE CHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF
THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS
OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF
TiACHE‘IiSO O O O O O I I O O O O C O O O C .

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS'
SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND THE
TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE
TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF

TEACHERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCSS FOR THE TEST OF THE
"ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADRINISTRATORS. . . . . .

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST OF THE
"IDEAL" ROLES OF ADEINISTRATORS . . . . . .

MEANS OF TEACHERS' CORES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADHINISTRATORS. . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES
OF ADI'iINISTfiATORS o o o o o a o o o o o o o

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF ADMINIS-
TRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL
ROLE OF ADMINISTILATORS. o o o o o o o o o 0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES
OF ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

56

57

57

59

59

6O

61

63

63
61+

61+

65

Table

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33-

31+.

35.

36.

37-

38.

39.

40.

Page

MLANS OF TiACHddS' 30353 FOR THE TEST OF
'35 "IDSAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS . . . . 67

AKALISIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHEHS'
330333 FOR T33 TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES
OF ADI‘AINISTBAEO RS 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 67

MEANS OF ADHINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE
TSST OF T35 "IDEAL" HOLES OF ADMINISTRA-
TOR-3. C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 68

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BI ARiAS OF ADMINIS-
TRATOHS" 300353 FOR Tii TEST OF Tda
"IDEAL" BOLzs OF ADMINISTRATOBS . . . . . . 69

ANALISIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHEBS'
SCORSS F03 THE TSST OF THE "IDEAL" HOLES
OF wt'ZINISTfiATORS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 69

MEANS OF Tdi DIFFERENCES BSTJSEN TEACHERS'
SCORSS ON T33 TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND
THE TLST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF ADMIN-
ISI‘RAI‘OHS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7].

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FEddNCLS IN TEACHEHS' SCORES FOR THE
TmSTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" HOLES
OF ADI’IINISTRIATORS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 71

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE
DIFFERENCfiS IN TSACASHS' SCORES FOR THE
TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES
OF ADMINISTRATOBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

MEANS OF Tfld DIFFSHENCES BETWEEN ADMINIS-
TRATOHS' SCOBJS ON THE TEST OF THE "AC-
TUAL" AND TdS TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES
OF ADI‘IINISTRAI‘ORS o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7“

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR
Tifi TdST OF TdE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL"
HOLES OF ADI'IINISTRATOBS o o o o o o o o o o 071'"

TSST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR £3 TEST OF
THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS. . . . . . . 75

TEST AND ITEM VABIANCES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS . . . . . . . 76

MEANS OF TEACHEBS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS. . . . . . . 77

v1

Table
1&1.

1+2.

43.

44.

1+5.

46.

47.

48.

#9.

50.

51.

520

53-

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" HOLES
OF SPUDCJIJTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE
TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS. . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF ADMINIS-
TRATORS' SCORES FOR TEE EST OF THE "AC-
TUAL" dOLES OF STUDENTS . . . . . . . . . .

ANALISIS OF VARIANCE B‘ SCHOOLS OF TEACHEBS'
SCORES FOd THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES

OF STU’DEJTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

MEANS OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR TEE TEST OF
THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIAKCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" HOLES
CF SEUDEH’PS O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE
TEST OF TEE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BI AREAS OF ADMINIS-
TdATOdS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE
"IDEAL" HOLES OF STUDENTS . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF VABI WCE BI SCHOOLS OF TEACHEHS'
SC dES FOB TEE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" HOLES
OF S'DUJI-‘JEIQTS O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

MEANS OF THE DIFFEEENCES BETNEEN TEACHERS'
SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND
THE TEST OF TEE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFER-
ENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF
THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCdOOLS OF THE DIFFER-
ENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF
THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS.

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADMINISTRAP
TORS' SCORES ON THE TEST OF TEE "ACTUAL"
AND THE TEST OF THE “IDEAL" ROLES OF STU-

DEI‘ITSoo0.000.000.0000...

vii

Page

78

79

8O

8O

82

82

83

83

85

85

86

86

88

Table
5’4.

55-

56.

57-

58.

60.

61.

62.

63.

61+.

65.

66.

67.

Page

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR
HE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" ND "IDEAL"
ROLES OF STUDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY . . . .

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY. . . . .

MEANS OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF
THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY . . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES
OF THE COI'II'IUIHITYo o o o o o o o o o o o o o

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY. . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF ADMINIS-
TRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL"
ROLES OF TIIE COI‘II’IUN ITY. o o o o o o o a o 0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES
OF TZIE COI’LI‘IUNITI o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

DIFFERENCES BETNEEN SCHOOL MEANS OF THE TEACHERS'
SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES
OF TIL}; COMMUNITY. o o o o o o o o o o o o o

mums OF TEACHERS' seer-:33 FOR THE TEST OF THE
"IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COIQ'IUNITY. o o o o . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE
COILI’IUNIH o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY . . .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF ADMINISTRAP
TORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"
ROLES OF THE COI‘II'IUNITY. o o o o o o o o o 0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS'

SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES
OF TILE COI‘II'IUNITY. o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

viii

88

9O

9O

92

92

93

93

9h

95

96

96

98

98

99

Table

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73-

71+.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCHOOL KEANS OF THE
TEACHERS' SCORES FOR TEE TEST OF THE
"IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY . . . . . . 100

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHERS'
SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND
THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE
COI’D’IUNIH. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 100

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE
TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES
OF TIIE COI’E‘IUNITX o o o o o o o o o o o o o 101

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE
TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES
OF TIES COIII‘IUIIITY o o o o o o o o o o o o o 103

DIFFERENCES BETNEEN SCHOOL MEANS OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE
TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES
OF TZ‘IE COI‘II‘IUNITY o o o o o o o o o o o o o 103

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADMINIS-
TRATORS' SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND TEE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE
COAII'IUNITIO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 105

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIF-
FERENCES IN ADI'IINISTRAI‘ORS' SCORES FOR
THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND THE "IDEAL"
ROLES OF THE CONNUNITY . . . . . . . . . . 105

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Letter from Glen Robinson. Assistant
Director. Research Division, N.E.A. . . . . 124

B. Letter Asking Superintendent's
Permission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

C. Letter to Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D. Follow-up Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

d. Questionnaire on Curriculum Responsibilities
(preliminary form). . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

F. Questionnaire on Curriculum Responsibilities
(final form). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

CHAPTER I
THE PhOELEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Many times the curriculum of the public schools
has appeared to just happen. No one seemed to know who
was reSponsible and as long as everything ran smoothly,
generally no one cared. When the schools were under
criticism, the curriculum became an important subject
for discussion. At this time, the various roles played
in curriculum planning were generally debated. Different
peOple involved in the same situation often perceive the
roles they actually played to be quite different. Their
perceptions of the roles which others have played generally
lacked agreement. When the discussion centered on what
roles different groups should play in curriculum planning,
no conclusions were usually reached. The circular pattern
would generally become complete as people settled back to

let the curriculum Just happen and not really care whose

job it was.
The Purpose of This Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if teachers
differed from administrators in their perceptions of the
roles of teachers, school administrators, students, and the

1

community in the process of curriculum planning, as these
roles exist and as they should exist in certain selected
schools. It was also part of the purpose of this study to
determine if teachers and administrators perceived the
extent of the roles of teachers, school administrators,
students, and the community, as these roles exist, as being
different than the way in which they perceived these roles
should exist. This study also involved the construction of
a questionnaire to measure the perceptions of teachers and

administrators on the above mentioned items.

Limitations of This Study

This study was limited geographically in that the
pOpulation was obtained from eleven schools in three areas
of Michigan. The schools were not selected by random
methods. Another limitation was the fact that all the
various administrative positions were grouped together
under the title of "administrators." This study was de-

signed to be limited to the area of curriculum planning in

the public schools.

The Need of This Study

In education people often have Operated on certain
assumptions. One of these assumptions often was that the
staff (teachers and administrators) of a school all knew
and agreed on the roles that various groups played in the

process of curriculum planning. Another assumption was

l‘

\ V

I

\4)

that the roles these groups played are the ones which
everyone, including the staff (teachers and administrators),
believed they should have played. While these assumptions
were being used as a basis for Operation, teachers may
actually have differed greatly from administrators in the
way they perceived the roles of different groups in cur-
riculum planning. Neither teachers nor administrators may
have perceived the roles of the various groups as being
ideal. If teachers differed from administrators in the
way they perceived these roles should be, there may well
be a situation in which teachers and administrators are
working toward different goals while working under the
assumption that they are working for a common goal.

This study may help to clarify some of the confusion.
It should not only show how teachers and administrators
differed in their perceptions of the extent of the roles
which various groups have and should have played in the
process of curriculum planning but it should also show what,
if any, common perceptions were shared by teachers and
administrators. It should likewise show which, if any,
groups were perceived as having played the role in our-
riculum planning to the extent to which teachers or
administrators feel that they should. This study will
provide factual information where it has been lacking.
It will show where common perceptions were, which may
provide a place from which to start. Differences will be

known and recOgnized.

Definition of Terms

To clarify this study the following terms were
Operationally defined.

Teacher - A teacher is any employee of a school dis-
trict who is required to possess a valid Michigan teaching
certificate and who does not have authority over other
certified employees. This would include such a person
as a classroom teacher of subject or grade level, or a
special teacher such as those who teach music or art.

Administrator - An administrator is any employee of
a school district who is required to possess a valid
Michigan teaching certificate and who does have authority
over other certified employees. This would include such
a person as a Superintendent, Principal, Curriculum Co-
ordinator, Director of Instruction, or Supervisor.

Student - A student is any person who is attending
and on the membership role of a school district.

Community - The community is made up of all the
people who live within the boundaries of a school district.

School Program — The term "school program" was used
interchangeably with the term "curriculum" and referred to
the course of studies and all eXperiences involving students
which were controlled by the school.

Curriculum - The term "curriculum" was used inter-
changeably with the term "school program" and referred to
the course of study and all experiences involving students

which were controlled by the school.

Extra-Curricular Activities - Extra-curricular

 

activities referred to the part of the school program
commonly non-credit or held outside of regular school
hours. This included such school-wide activities as band,
chorus, and safety patrol even if they used regular school
time.

Actual — The term "actual" was used to refer to the
roles of the various groups, as these roles were perceived
to exist by teachers and administrators.

22321 - The term "ideal" was used to refer to the
roles of the various groups as teachers and administrators
perceived these roles should exist.

Area g - Area 3 is a county located on the eastern

 

side of the state of Michigan from which certain schools
used in this study were selected. This county is within
the metropolitan area of Detroit.

Area fl - Area w is a county located on the western

 

side of the state of Michigan from which certain schools
used in this study were selected.

‘Agea §'- Area N included all of the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan. Certain schools used in this study were
selected from this area.

School Size 1 - School size I referred to a school
district which enrolled from 6,000 to 11,999 students.

School Size g - School size 2 referred to a school
district which enrolled from 3,000 to 5,999 students.

School Size 3 — School size 3 referred to a school

 

district which enrolled from 1,200 to 2,999 students.

School Size 3 - School size # referred to a school
district which enrolled from 300 to 1,199 students.

.20.._hoo._1s .11 .22 .2 .2 2.1. .2 .2 _2 .2 .22 and
£3 - These symbols referred to individual school districts

and were formed by combining the above defined area letters

and school size numbers.
Hypotheses

During this study the following hypotheses were

tested.

1. Administrators perceive the "actual" roles of
teachers, administrators, students, and the com-
munity in curriculum planning to be greater than
teachers perceive these "actual" roles to be.

2. Administrators perceive the "ideal" roles of
teachers, administrators, students, and the com-
munity in curriculum planning to be greater than
teachers perceive these "ideal" roles to be.

3. Teachers perceive the "ideal" roles of teachers,
administrators, students, and the community in
curriculum planning as being greater than they
perceive the "actual” roles of these groups to be.

4. Administrators perceive the "ideal" roles of
teachers, administrators, students, and the com-
munity in curriculum planning as being greater
than they perceive the "actual" roles of these

groups to be.

Organization of This Study

The balance of this study was organized into four
chapters.

Chapter II Review 23 Literature — In this chapter
literature including both research and theory which relate
to the same area as this study is reviewed.

Chapter III Pepulation and Procedure - The deveIOp-
ment of the instrument used in this study is discussed in
the third chapter. methods used for selection of the
pOpulation and a brief description of each school district
used in this research is given. The procedures which were

followed are reviewed.

Chapter IV Ahalvsis g; the Data - Data are reported

 

 

in chapter IV under the four general areas of
l. The Roles of Teachers.
2. The holes of Administrators.
3. The Roles of Students.
2. The Roles of the Community.

These areas refer to the various roles in curriculum study.
Each of the hypotheses were tested in each of the above areas.
Chapter 3' Summary, Conclusions, and Implications -

Material is summarized, conclusions and implications are

drawn, and recommendations are made in the final chapter.

PCPULATIOL AXD P30333733

An important part of any study is the selection of the
instrument by means of which measurements are to be made.
No suitable instrument existed to measure the teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of the extent of the roles of
teachers, school administrators, students, and the community
in the process of curriculum planning, as these roles exist
and as they should exist. A part of this study was the

development of such an instrument.

DeveIOpment of the Instrument

A series of statements about teachers, administrators,
students, and people in the community in various curriculum
roles was written. Kany of these were similar with only the
name of the group to which it applied changed. Seventy of
these statements formed the basis for the "Questionnaire on
Curriculum Responsibilities (preliminary form)." A copy of

"I

this questionnaire is in Appendix 2 of this study.
These seventy statements are divided among the follow—
ing groups: Nineteen to the roles of teachers, nineteen to

the roles of school administrators, sixteen to the roles of

25

students, and sixteen to the roles of the people in the
community. After each of the se statements, the person
reSpondin; was astcd to check one of the following: Never,
se dom, about i the tim:, ”11 , or alway..

cents app ared in two sets.

(I)

jach of the seventy stat
In Set I the reseondent was instructed "Please answer the

following statements as they apply to your present situation

SD
(J)
:15

n educator. In Set II the seventy statements were
changed so as to include the word "should" and the respondent
was instructed "Please ansrer th. e following 5 at— ments as

you feel they should be applied in your present situation.

An introductory page defining terms used in the questionnaire
was added.

The prelipinary form of the "Questionnaire on Curriculum
”esponsibilities" was reministered to 100 teachers and
administrators. This group was highly similar to the one
used in the final study. The te acher-adminis trator ratio
and the size of the school districts were controlled.

The questionnaires w“re checked and scored by allowing
four points for each "alnay 3" response, three points for each
"usually" response, two points for each "about i the time"
reSponse, one point for each "seldom” response, and no points
for each "never" reSponse. Separate scores were computed for
the roles of teachers, administrators, students, and the people
in the commuhity for both Sets I and II. This meant a total
of eight scores from each test.

Each of the 140 statements on the questionnaires was

examined by item analysis using the method of summated

27

ratings. Of the 100 questionnaires, the 25 with the highest
scores made up the high group and the 25 with the lowest
scores made up the low group. The questionnaires were re-
grouped for each of the eight sections and "t" scores were
computed for each item. The general formula for computing

this ratio is

 

 

t=EZH-XL
8,2 3L2
_;. + _.i
nj nL
where?H = the mean score on a given statement for the

high group

'2. = tne mean score on a given statement for the
low group

Si = the variance of reSponses of the high group

to the statement

U)
ll

L the variance of the responses of the low group
to the statement
n- = the number in the high group
n = the number in the low group.1
Since the number in both high and low groups was the same,

the simpler computation formula was used. This formula is2

20% - 32,92 + Z(XL - ELF
n (n-17

 

 

 

1Allen L. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Con-

struction, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1957).
pp. 152-53.

2Ibid.. p. 153.

 

10.7

0
re
ff

0‘
U)

ite:
fill

retu

u)

r‘
O

qu-

L‘
one

in each set and the it

in S

In of tLese statement

The "t" values on the 1H? iters rangec from 1.43 to
a. Selection of iters for the final questionnaire was

just a matter of picking the highest questions, as each

3 A ..1‘~. I ’- r~ *a 4- ‘A . ‘- ‘A - . ~, 0 {K
set II. -nis agent tle anJ item selected ior one sct

be used in the other. Some itens had high scores in

" L’ '~/' ‘ r ‘- '.' r r q- ." . ‘q 1 _ m‘ , A." , 1.
sat and relatit,ld Ion scores in the otner. Inc length

he duestionnaira also had to be reduced if it were to

ailed out nd nan; returns received by mail. Certain

3 had been called ambiguous and skigped by many who had
ed out the uuestionnaire. As this invalidated some
rns, these itcns did not seen desirable for the final

‘-

based on

H
t ,
l j
_‘J
O
H)
}_.
:3
L.)
H
C i
'D
}—-’
(D
J
C t'
P.
O
D
O
H)
‘40
C?-
C)
‘5
[’1
,i)
0)

13102251 ~i

\

following:
1. A hi9h "t" score on both Set I and Set II. (The
low:s "t" score on an item for the final question-

naire was v.67. This itee had a higher "t" score

2. Itens wnicu man" had coeplained of as being ambiguous
and which man; had left unanswered, were not con-

sidered for the final questionnaire.

\
(13
H

nce the questionnaire was to ce Shortened, items
chosen were distinctly different from each other.

Fron the original 140 items, 55 were chosen for the

.stionnairc on Curriculum Ecsponsibilities (final form).”

.ppeared in each of the four groups

0)
Q)

'n Set I were identical with those

U)

T“!

U)
H

et II exce.t for the rewordin; to include the word "should"

'he directi0ns remained the same
as in the preliminarr fora and one tea was added to the
test vocabulary. A cos; of the final form of tie "Question—

naire on Curriculd; responsibilities" is in Appendix F of

t’is ptper.
Population of the Stud;
it 'ds C czswd t1 t this stud‘r would draw its popula-
L .

an. The area
called urea Y is a single county located in the Hetropolita
Detroit ar;a fifllCh is in eastern Hichigan. Area W is a
single county located in western fiichigan. Area 3 includes
the entire upper peninsula of LiCh :an.

School districts within these three areas were selected
by size. The method of grouping schools by size which is
used in this study follows quite closely one used by the
hational Qducation Association for salary studies and teacher
opinion studies. This s stcn is based on student enrollment
and is shown in Table I.

Since many of the divisions in the plan used by the
National fiducation Association do not exist in some of the
areas used in this study, it was decided to use schools from
the strata V, VI, VII, and VIII. These were renumbered and
used in this study as school size 1 with 6,000 through
11,999 studen 3, school size 2 with 3,000 through 5,999
students, school size 3 with l,200 through 2,999 students,
and school size h with 300 through 1,199 students. This

information is shown in Table 2.

d.
mxfri 1
-‘xi’--.l
vb «aw-.7».- ms-«Ic'
;:-1~‘\daOo-‘Q.l- .-4L—/"v~/.‘1-;b-‘ ‘1‘DJVJL-1L bg‘t
on"**?ro‘arf‘ o? ?"V”.T “"J'f'oa
U... n£kb¢fi ‘JIL-‘\V-O V‘ JV.~V .—J JI.d-_JAI‘~)

Stratum Enrollment

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 and Cver

Fl
(1 5-4 t—4 1
F4 <3 \4 +4 +4
0 O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O I O O
O O I O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
H F) Kn
b) (R N) \ o
(3 O C) (D O
O C) O O C)
O O O O O
I l I I I
H N l‘ ‘ 0
kn H #7 \J V
\O \O \O \Q \0
\Q \ O \3 \i) \L)
\O \O \O ‘ ' \J

‘44
N
+4
r1
0
O
O
O
O
O
H
m
(3
<3
I
N
To
\0
\o

‘24
4
F!
p4
r4
0
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
J
0
<3
I
H
H
\o
m)

:1: o o o o o o o o o o o o o I’D - P99
5 o o o o o o o o o o o o o l - 50

Letter fFOl len dotinson, Assistant Director, Research
DiviSion of the rational :ducation Association, Hashington,
D. C., January 22, 1915. (A COpy of this etter is in
Appendix A of this study.)

11.1, a “cpvn-rfi .

r“ v
C
T " ,‘ ‘7 'fi""":‘ C...
NIT-J'v‘D I-‘ LOO‘.“ ‘J

School Size Number Tirollment

l o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6.000 - 11,999
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 - 5,999
3 o o o o a o o c o o o o o 1.200 - 29999

h . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 - 1,199
CflC school district for each school size classification
was selected from each of the three areas with the exception
that Area H contained no school district as large as school

size number one. Eleven different school districts actually

31

participated in this study and will be identified by the

area letter and school size number. For example, the district
with from 3,000 through 5,999 students located in the county
in western Michigan used in this study was referred to as
school WZ.

In selecting the actual districts. state equalized
valuation per membership pupil and the estimated total
eXpense per membership pupil. as well as district size was
considered. School districts were selected so as to produce
variety in the above mentioned items. A brief description
of the school systems used in this study follows.

School district El is located Just outside of the city
limits of Detroit. During the l96h-65 school year. 1 high
school, 2 Junior high schools. and 7 elementary schools were
Operated with a total student enrollment of 9855 and a staff
of 417 teachers.1 The state equalized valuation was $7,676
per membership pupil and the estimated total expense was $#6#
per membership child. The total tax rate for all school
purposes was 36.30 mills.2

School district 52 is located about ten miles from down-
town Detroit. The district's 1 high school (grades 7-12)
and 6 elementary schools had a student enrollment of #361

and employed a staff of 195 teachers during the 1964-65 school

 

lMichigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, l96#—65,
(Lansing, hichigan: Michigan education Directory. l96#).
(Page numbers are not given for the descriptions of school
districts as anonymity was guaranteed.)

2Stanley 3. Hecker and Thomas J. Northey, Teacher Salary
Study, 1964-65 (mast Lansing. Michigan: Michigan Education
Association. 1964). (Page numbers are not given for the
description of school districts as anonymity was guaranteed.)

 

She state €Cu311271 valuation her membersnio student was
-'ti:atei total expense per membership
gas yfflh. A total tax rate of 27.55 mills was col-
lected for all scuool purposrs.
~ ‘0 J—«' " o I o .. a. a
school alscllCt ”l 13 a City school system located in
... .- -. .,\ . -- -,. t 1- ' 1 r A
a count, in nestern “1c1i an. it 18 the only scnool sgstem

of its Si

N
k U

within this 0 unt". During the 196Q-65 school
near, 1 high school, 1 junior high school, 1 school with a
K—9 population, 1 school with a n-; population and 9 elementary

student enrollment of

f!)
O
x
O
O
H
U)
( §
“5
’ D
O
( I
9-1
(1)
rt
’1
I L
.4
Flo
c.-
1»
cf
0
CT
in
H

7

4" V 2 a o
: teacners. The stvte equalized

a per membership student and the estimated

total expense was ;55? per membership student. The total tax
'3.
rate for all school purposes was 14.73 mills.“

school district 32 is a suburban system located near

to district 31. District £2 was formed from the consolida—
tion of 5 smaller school districts in 1959. This district

is now the second largest in the county. The student pOpula—
tion of 5,523 and the staff of 219 teachers were housed in

l ml:h school, 1 junior hig: scaool, 2 schools with K-S

stud nt pOjulati ns, and 5 elcsentary schools during the

195h-65 school year. The state Lqualized valuation

’U

A
,...
K 1

‘

messership stucent was le,Q29 and the total estimated

 

l
hecger, loo. c

 

 

 

3. 4—
Lu.
? /’
~°~ 1 . '7 . ° . - ‘ 7:. . ' ,_ l
hicnigsn sducrtion Dir CtO”J and -urer's Evide, lQQV—lyéf.
3 ._ .t
ALP..vCJ-ls€r’ O 0 Cl LI O
"' ’- : - ‘ 'flAV % 4 gal/— ‘- 9' A ““~v ‘N ' A. 3 fl — u \ K
nicllgan sensation Dll:ctorw aid _%J r s gal} , 196 -lQC,.

 

School district 73 is located in and ar and a small
tor- wsicn is stout 7 files fro: ‘l.trict .1. District #3

Operatéi a full high school progran this year for the first
1001 year, 1 hirh school, 1
junior nigq school and l elencntary school were operated with

a total stulint enrollment of 2153 and a staff of 59 teachers.

Cf
(U
(U
AJ
5.1
i.)
’4
F”
E J
C b
q
is
(4
L‘s
(n
( f
*4.
O
5
SJ
0)
&
J;
\O
k U
*0
(l)
H
E?
'0
d
0‘
C)
H
U)
D
H.
w

student and the total estimated cost per membersnip student

1r ratfi for all school purposes was 26.53

C
i
k
('9'

m
t)
J
O
O
[.4
(1.
Ho
{1
( r
J
J
F.
O
g f
.r—.
.“
H
U
H
O
O
m
( r
k I
Q;
:3
(0
W
C f
(‘0‘
Q;
H0
C)
Cr
W
H.
O
C?
Q
.

“-1 fiL 1% ‘- "' ' ‘- A 1 . A ,a ‘- ~ ‘I‘ 4“ . - .. “a 3 '
District .v 0pc”), _ a xllh reartwn t rough Slitn gran:

Y‘ ‘ 'f‘z‘ -n (“1" \. ,e". o- ‘,A x A '/ " ,/ (V ,‘N. 1 V. A 4' Y! Pfi" 'v ’3 {\1 “rd (3 +" V
plovi .1-» 4-411 1‘). IJJ': .; ’3 J+- 4,; {4‘4100 u ~11: . -11‘7 L. Q. ‘~-‘ i-.\«r1u9.ruf

‘

fl ' .- , $- A... . .. ”4— » -- .
sonools sad a to-el sniolldent of 559 stil nts and a staff
3'
"N f ‘- A f N r r ~ r . '* ~ (‘ V: 4-. r Va .-\
of a? twaxiiurs. -13 seutc rilllllaéd vwlinition per'fiumu er-

('3
._)
H.
C
Y:

A . ». -,m -61 s m s a " L. '.. s‘ -P . ..
,tudnnt n10 ”Li,al/ ans the total FStlflflth sinense was

‘.J
.

~ . f‘ 0
-er revnarsiio stu est. A tax of 19.3; mi 3 was col-

1
\. 1
\J
L;\
'

(

C
- f. ,-. J
purpOQDQ.

H
C‘)
O
C—r
u'
y);
*fi
0
H
D
}_J
l...)
L‘)
9
O
0
r4

 

 

 

 

 

")
L . a . . a .. r /
\r, 1 .I - .J. J- “fi- A .L. ,- ... _....l. ’V. .3
“loir_an 1‘3 Ion sir 3,0“; and -. —r'" .uise, 1904—1935.
1" 1 4+-
/.:\.C-{Cr’ ’33. CL .10
l.
for. 1 q -‘ o I a a /
fl ‘, -‘ .1‘ J" , ’ w? .‘,’\’3 _‘ ' h . '- n~' \K
“'chigan ice lOH D1??Ct0”¢ sag .zgor's eviue, 1,9L—19o3.

 

 

 

:chool district I“ is located in t1: southern part of
as upper xvii 311?. fie 1 high 301001, 1 Junior high school,
end 9 elementar; schools of the district had a student enroll-

/
“4.

9‘

C '\
kn

rent of thZ and a staff of 152 te‘c‘ier during the l

U)

u)

school year. The state equalized valL Lat ion was jl2,209 pcr

membership stufint and the estimated total exp nse per mwszer-
- / v A
ship pipil :33 ,5”). The total ts. r-t3 for all 001001

'0
.2?
i
.L'
U:
'4
{:-
\)
("J
H
P
H
r4
(,1

school district H3 is located in the northern part of
the upper peninsula. Durin; the 13 4-65 school year, 1 high
school with‘frso‘s 7 through 12 :nd 3 elementary schools
Operated with a total student enrollment of 1906 and a staff
of 91 t achers. The state equalized valuation per member-
ship StUQTHt was ,l3,€32 an? tl? total es ti rated per pupil
cost was ;Q‘l. A total school tar of 15.60 mills was col-

School di trict Lb is located in the western part of

U)

the upper p331 lqsula. Tic 1 hL 1 school with grades 7 through
12 and 2 elementary schools operated with a total student

“roll QBAt of 93 ’O and a staff of 41 teachers during the

L’
r / ‘ x J
l”64-o5 scnool year. The state

9.7

(D

qu liZed valuation was

 

iigan fducation Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1‘<#—1965.

 

. '“ TI' . h V c 4 ‘\ ‘7 'fi . , I -4
“1.2n slucstion Director! and Siycr's guide 19oh-19d5.

 

KiCiigan ioucation Director=r and Buyer's Guide, 1964—1965.

" "f -A- . X, ,‘-' ‘. .- ., 42,- $- ..°,. .-
¢ ‘13 Ms“ Iwfitrrfiglv star Mt and VQE total PStinwt~d erpense
~11 h . -

1001

'(J
( )
'3
I
I)
‘ 1
(7
H
{J
.J
H
’(J
h.
L
TJ.
H
r“
L)
:‘
Q
, .1
\k)
0
- 3
J
"0
('7'
p
,4
*1
“J
Cf
)
H:
0
H
L1)
9.1
5...:
L:
0

tax rates were pas d on state enualizcd valuations. some
of the above statistical data is suuuarised in Table 3.

‘

roa the school cistricts descrioe

1L

:5
C 1'
H.
CO
C’)
O
P.
O
:3
U

i

[J

(L
'.D

the pogulation of this stud" was to inc u. one-third of the

teachers in each system plus enou“h administrators to estab—

Thr superintendsrt of :ach district to be used was con-
tacted and he was 33k d for permission to include his school
district in this study. A c0pj of the letter sent is in
Anpendix E of this r‘,ort. From the original eleven con-
tacts, ten answered and gave their cons nt to be included
it this study. Cu: did not reply but it was later learned
that the district just had than part of a consolidation and
no longer would have oxen able to on used to represent the
1001 district for which it was planned. Another
letter wss sent to a different district and tne superintendent

replied and sranted permission for that district to partici-

ine teachers and administrators to be used in tnis

study were sslecttd bv the use of random numbers. One third

I;

 

 

 

.i“:C.‘« ,l", __2. 22:2.
2
Jilfrid J. Biron and Frank J. Iassey, Jr., Introduction
:2 Statisticsl Arllysis. (3“? York: LcGraW- ill, 1957
pp. :£?;?Q.

“.mm pofippmfiu you mm gsnag
exp HHS L4,3H0LHV, AQMO .goapdfioovma cofipmoznw Cm HSOHA .cq area scam.cq +mmvv
mmmfilnmofi .er4m >scrcm porocce (”hexagon .h waaosa Gav pakomfi .m mmasmpm “Eoghn

A.mu poahpmfiw mo cofiquoxa azu :pHVV, ATJAH .apOpompflm 20ap$05¢3 flGLfldoHd "QCaHSOHa
azfimzagv wwwauéwma .rwfixc m.gcnpn mac Hucpockflm no“ :osr Cc fi.ofi1 “90pm

luvA

 

 

 

 

O

no.mm mr: mu» m a: cam mflum a:
ow.mfi Hug mov.mfi Hr wooe maum mm
HB.:H cum a m.m~ mma mam: mflum m2
mm.mH yum mam.am mm 0mm m .u :3
mm.»w cum mma.n on omfim «Hum m:
uo.dm 30m OmQ.CH OHN mmmm NHIM m3
mm.:fi awn mm9.wfl Mom coma mfi-g Ha
mm.mu 23m efio.:m m: omafi m -m :2
co.cm mum wcm.u an :mcm Nana mu
0:.ufl mmw mwa.\m moa me: mfium ma
.m. m +u: any.“ uflz mmcm many Hm
\ . \ \

 

:L... .Ter a “-7...
D 41H 1% MUHiHDC «I. 'uH {‘Dr: 2. f4...” CM. CM

macaw“; Lefl om:cg :oHurzflc> upcxomcb
Hocrom ur. Hauoh qzrfificzca mo Qmumm

'
4 .‘J J. u. \I. \.u<qlfi\.....d‘ ...\.A,w\,.)) * 1J.<JJ-‘ IJd‘..H 444‘. . .\/.a.y‘.. \‘l )JIJ\I..A
u. r540; r. I, .2... . 4;, L.-. .-.,_-.Jr._ C...» T4Lz. rOrr (f. FLICHK -. ( TPJ.
u 4 Hr

\- 4
-"‘
\

Nflbpm mHHHE 2H 0.74:. MBQHQJmHD dooudm HDOH¢ 20H maxflflornzH

<.. 1|“. I1
m 2.. .rrrdrt

sis nutter vos obtained :3 counting those listed in

the school di.ector". Since individusl names were counted
.d sot yro ratcd for those ;:ploycd less than full time,
1

‘- ’.fi-. - -y- r' —‘-.‘.v ‘- ‘V( w- \ ‘, V' J" 7 1
tiese nu Cars is; not sl.3 s talqnc: sisctly witn tnose

~ - . ‘-\- . «an . % "r‘s (\
used in too district dfifvrlptLOMq. A total of 5c?

‘ e. .. -. F -g 4. 1 "11 .A .2 '\ "

qucs.iouu- rt" as 1L1 o to t donors. -nose in area i
a .- - ”if - ' 0"”) «’3 '\ Y A ”fit.

r~c lea 9;-, in Ar - a, t9 C u in 3r 3 u, ,l. '1

65 to district 4?, 26 to district 2?, 15 to district 33,
:5 to district fl, 7: to district 3?, 27 to district W3,
7 to district £3, 50 to district TE, 27 to cistrict I?
and lu to district Kb.
A total of ’0 questionnaires was sent to school
adninistrstors. In Arcs fl, 2< were sent, in Arca t, 25,
and in Area J, 10. TH“ distribution by school districts

was 13 to district ml, 7 to district 32, 3 to district 33,

N

to district 3h, lb to district Jl, 7 to district K2,

‘4.)

to district 33, l to district 14, 5 to district K2,
3 to district J3, and 2 to district Eh. This made a total
29 qucs tionnsirr.s ser t to tcsciic rs and administrators.

jac‘n of the {PO itsns mailed out contains d a copy

I

of the "Questionnaire on CWArricwlu1 Res po isibilitiss," a
stamped and addressed envelope for its return, and a short

1

rs

2tter to the teachers and adiiristcators extlainin; this

1-

‘

study and asrin: for their help. A copy of the "Question-
naire on Curriculum Rc8ponsibilit ies " and a cepy of the

letter scat to teacher and administrators are in

O“)

,8 - ' m '1 p¢.y- "fl - ,.
unfi‘flfllCés J aid r o; owls stulg. lo assure everyone

that this stud; would be done in a manner in which they

xould redain anonymous, the only identifying information
e name of the school district and whether
Jerson held the position of teecner or adninistrator.

After reclies stepged bein: reczived, a follow—up etter

:1
O
0
Dr)
0
H)
Cu,-
:2)
Ho
['1
H
(U
(f‘
C.-
(
*3
'J
U]
Fl
,5
:r

Tclistilitg oroccdur“s - After the ques tionnco ires

were scored, the coelficient of reliability was computed.

hi the use of Kuder Licnardson formula 20, for each of the
ei;nt parts of the Qiestionnaire.
A:“Tsi“ of t”dc“'r:' s‘d Jdni”istrstors' rcsntions

 

" " ‘- " . o“ L~n A. V . (I w
pertaining to the roles of thCJLrS, ad:in st rators, sta-
J- 'v'- u A ‘ua‘v- . 1 . -- H
l. A ”t" test «43 dSoo to do -rAine if teachers' and

the'actual" roles of the various rouos were the

ssne. (Iypotncsis debTT 1)

Data were examined by arsas and an analysis of

{\3
O

variance was used to determine if the teachers'

pSFCCptiOUS of t‘e ex ent of tie "actual" roles

\J

U\

7&—

(i)

of the various troops v.'ere the .333 for all of

A. 3- .9r. ‘ 4 L. -

the ir-ds inclu :d in tcis stidj.

‘ v\ A‘IF'WA \77 ~ #1 P' ‘ ‘n 7‘!

ss,1 v:re : a incd t. sr~as and an anal sis of

J
ll)
"3

c ptioss of the extent of tee "actual" roles

of tnc various groups we 2 tie same for all of

and adsinistrutors' perc 0C ptions of tne extent

D

of the "ideal" roles of the v: riOJs grou.ps were
the same. (Igpotnesis nunte r 2)

Data :srs etdhiued by are;s and s= analysis of
variance was use} to d=terz no if the teachers'
ocrccptions of the ext “t of tn: "id erl" roles
of the various groaps were the sore for all of

. .- ..,, , . L...,' h..-
tie uiL.N3 111011171 141 ails study.

sata were erasined oy areas and all ana l;~si of

v o '.vr- ar‘ 4- rs 4- - .- -' 2 v, ' ' ('1 ‘- m
rariance 44s us»d t determine if t‘.e administratoro'

perceptions of the ertent of the "ideal" roles
of the various groups were the 8322 for all of
the area included in this studV.

Data were erasinid by schools and an analgsis of

x- ,- . .- _,2 L. ,3..- °n ' 1-,
VCAFlJJiCP ”(‘13 usuai L10 kit'J-J‘QK‘TleQ 1L til“) IJ‘f‘aC'

Organization of This Study

The balance of this study was organized into four
chapters.

Chapter II Review 92 Literature - In this chapter
literature including both research and theory which relate
to the same area as this study is reviewed.

Chapter III Population and Procedure - The deve10p-
ment of the instrument used in this study is discussed in
the third chapter. Methods used for selection of the
population and a brief description of each school district
used in this research is given. The procedures which were
followed are reviewed.

the ter IV

 

Data - Data are reported

 

in chapter IV under the four general areas of

l. The Roles of Teachers.

2. The Roles of Administrators.

3. The Roles of Students.

h. The Roles of the Community.
These areas refer to the various roles in curriculum study.
each of the hypotheses were tested in each of the above areas.

Chapter 3 Summary, Conclusions, hd Implications -

 

Material is summarized, conclusions and implications are

drawn, and recommendations are made in the final chapter.

filffi‘fifl‘h: ITI

V-‘ - 45L
PCPJLATIOL AID PROCSD?23

An important part of any study is the selection of the
instrument by means of which measurements are to be made.
No suitab e instrument existed to measure the teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of the extent of the roles of
teachers, school administrators, students, and the community
in the process of curriculum planning, as these roles exist
and as they should exist. A part of this study was the

development of such an instrument.

DeveIOpment of the Instrument

A series of statements about teachers, administrators,
students, and peOple in the community in various curriculum
roles was written. Hany of these were similar with only the
name of the group to which it applied changed. Seventy of
these statements formed the basis for t.e "Quest'onnaire on
Curriculum Responsibilities (preliminary form)." A copy of
this questionnaire is in Appendix E of this study.

These seventy statements are divided among the follow-
ing groups: Nineteen to the roles of teachers, nineteen to

the roles of school administrators, sixteen to the roles of

25

and sixteen to the roles of the people in the

community. After each of these statements, the person

responding was asked to check one of the following: Never,

seldom, about ~ the time, usually, or always.
Iach of the seventy stateeents appeared in two sets.

ease answer the

(‘7)

In Set I the resoondent was instructed "Pl

tne

W
0
p4
H
Q
P)-
{'5
' i
0’)
Cf
Li)
(1'
(I)
H
,r)
. 5
(1'
L)
20
U]

I apply to your present situation

7
b

l

as an educator." In Sat II the seventy statetents were

changed so as to include the word "should" and the respondent

(I)

was instructed "Pleas answer the following statements as

you feel they should be apolied in your present situation."

e preliminary form of the "Questionnaire on Curriculum

Responsibilities" was adui. to 100 teachers and

"3
H
U)
cf
’1)
"S
‘12
CL

administrators. This group was highly similar to the one
used in the final study. -ne teacher-administrator ratio
and the size of the school districts were controlled.

The questionnaires were checked and scored by allowing
four points for each "always" reSponse, three points for each
"usually" response, two points for each ”about 5 the time"
reaponse, one point for each "seldom" response, and no points
for each "never" response. Separate scores were computed for

the roles of teachers, admidistrators, stud nts, and the peOple

i

in the community for both Sets I and II. This meant a total
of eight scores from each test.
fiach of the 1&0 statements on the questionnaires was

examined by item analysis usinr the method of summated

.‘J

27

ratings. Of the 100 questionnaires, the 25 with the highest
scores made up the high group and the 25 with the lowest
scores made up the low group. The questionnaires were re-
grouped for each of the eight sections and "t" scores were
computed for each item. The general formula for computing

this ratio is

 

 

H
2 a 2
S
2.3
ha nL
where in = the mean score on a given statement for the
high group
'ZL = the mean score on a given statement for the
low group
2

81 = the variance of reSponses of the high group

to the statement

03
t"
II

the variance of the responses of the low group
to the statement

n. = the number in the high group

nL = the number in the low group.l

Since the number in both high and low groups was the same,

the simpler computation formula was used. This formula 132

t= XH- XL

{OCH "' EH)2 + [(XL " 2L)2
n‘In-l)

 

 

 

1Allen L. Edwards. Techniques of Attitude Scale Con-

struction. (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1957).
pp. 152~53.

2Ibid.. p. 153.

"t" values on the 140 items ranged from l.b3 to
Selection of itens for the final questionnaire was

a Latter of picking the hiehest questions, as each

ll sligttld different form appeared in both Set I
I. Stis meant test an; iths selected for one set

n- ' as d m— ”in x , 1&3 A M
uswl in the ct; r. sol: items cal high scores in

I- “.1? ‘ e r -' r 1' . Y m r-u . ‘r. ‘ m '- -w 1
and relatitild low scores in the other. ihe lefl;tfl

‘-_ -. -... : ,n,‘ 0 q .1" ‘( A -o .. VA -
he questIOnhair» also had to be TEdUCud ii t were to

out and ash; returns received by mail. Certain

r h 1 ’ 72‘ ‘ ~a ~ 3w . 0 1 . . A . ~~ ,‘ ‘ v 7‘ I
seen calls. albivuoss and saipped by nan; who had

.-

filled out the questionnaire. us this invalidated some

these items did not seen desirable for the final

~lire. The final selection of items was based on

the following:

A high "t" score on both Set I and Set II. (The
lowest "t" score on an item for the final question-
naire was 4.67. This item had a higher "t" score

on the other set.)

Itehs whicu men" had complained of as being ambiguous
and which many had left unazswered, were not con-
sidered for the final questionnaire.

Since the questionnaire was to be shortened, items
chosen were distinctly different from each other.

as original 140 items, 53 were chosen for the

"Questionnaire on Curriculum Responsibilities (final form)."

Seven of these statements apre33ee in each of the four groups

in each set and the items in Set I were identical with those

in Set II except for the rewordin; to include the word "should"

‘he directions remained the same
as in the :»r?litinarg forn and one item was added to the
test vocabulary. A 00p; of the final forn of the "Question—

naire on Curriculu; .1sponciciliti,s" is in Appendix F of

this sfvmer.
renul‘tion of tie Study
It was d cid?d that this study would draw its popula-
tion fro- t r area: f the stat: of Iichigan. The area
call3d AI a is a Single count" located in the Ketr ropolitan
Detroit area finish is in eastern Hichigan. Area W is a

7

sin; 1e county located in western Hichigan. Area L includes
the entire upper peninsula of nichigan.

School districts within these three areas Were selected

0 l

k.
('1
H.
N
(D
O

The method of troupiig schools by size which is

V

used in this study follows quite clo ely one used by the

[0

A

hational Llucation ATSOCiGtiOfl for salarJ studies and teacher

T1 “sten is based on student enrollment

O
118 su

opinion studi ice.
and is shown in Table l.

1‘

Since many 0; the divisions in the plan used by the
National dducation sociation do not e: :ist in some of the
areas us ed in this study, it was decided to use schools from

the strata V, VI, VII, and VIII. These were renumbered and

(‘1‘

used in this study as school size 1 wi h 6,000 through
]l,999 students, school size 2 with 3,000 through 5,999
students, school size 3 with 1,200 through 2,999 students,

and school size # with 300 through 1,199 students. This

information is shown in Table 2.

‘0

,4

'7‘“? 1
-o’X.-:._‘.J 1

IAIICJAT. uDUSATICJ ATSCCIAIICK
3: ATIFZCATICJ or 33 COL 3T313233

3t ratuu Enrollment
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000 and Over

Ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000 - 9;,999
:_ . . . . . . . . . . o . . 25,000 - #;,999
I? . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 000 - 2h,999

V . . . . . . . . . . . . . c.000 - 11,999

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,OOO — 5,999
VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . l POO - 2,999
VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 - 1,199
IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 — 299

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 50

Letter fron Glen ”to inson, A,sis :2nt Director, Research
Division of the iational ;ducation Association, Hashington,
D. C., Januarv 22, l9$f (A COpy of this lettcr is in
nop<odiv A of thi 13 study.)

{11'1' fivvfiT/w H1 Y rfi QH'YAA n vflvn"r‘v
J.- 41‘*-“\/ L-IC 1 L)” UJ-\J\/L Q-~)-~..Q
YT V 1"? "1""fl f" '1" "7
U'JI 4.-“ - -‘J Jt‘Jfi: i.
\Y I‘ T“
chool Size nut :r xnrollment

1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6.000

11.999

2 O O O C O C I O O O I O 0 3,000

I
U1
\0
\O

O

O O O O O O I C O O O O C 1.200

I
N
\O
\O
\O

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 - 1,199
One school district for each school size classification
was selected from each of the three areas with the exception
that Area H contained no school district as larse as school

U

size number one. Eleven different school districts actually

31

participated in this study and will be identified by the

area letter and school size number. For example, the district
with from 3,000 through 5,999 students located in the county
in western Michigan used in this study was referred to as
school W2.

In selecting the actual districts, state equalized
valuation per membership pupil and the estimated total
eXpense per membership pupil, as well as district size was
considered. School districts were selected so as to produce
variety in the above mentioned items. A brief description
of the school systems used in this study follows.

School district El is located Just outside of the city
limits of Detroit. During the 196h-65 school year. 1 high
school. 2 junior high schools. and 7 elementary schools were
Operated with a total student enrollment of 9855 and a staff

of 417 teachers.1

The state equalized valuation was $7,676

per membership pupil and the estimated total expense was $46k

per membership child. The total tax rate for all school

purposes was 36.30 mills.2
School district 32 is located about ten miles from down-

town Detroit. The district's 1 high school (grades 7-12)

and 6 elementary schools had a student enrollment of #361

and employed a staff of 195 teachers during the 1964-65 school

 

lMichigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1964-65.
(Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Directory. l96#).
(Page numbers are not given for the descriptions of school
districts as anonymity was guaranteed.)

ZStanley E. Hecker and Thomas J. Northey, Teacher Salary
Study, l96#-65 (East Lansing. Michigan: Michigan Education
Association. 1964). (Page numbers are not given for the
description of school districts as anonymity was guaranteed.)

 

263 per memb er-

Jear. .33 state eq‘alized valuation was ,3 , 3
‘ “‘ " r-~ I ‘ V " A Yv ‘/
ship student and the estiiatei total expens: has 3932 per

ship student. A total tax rate of 16.40 mills was
levied for all school purcos¢:. On one of the qu,stion-
naires returned from a teachdr in this district, the teacher
ated "I only7 hoge you realise the economical condition of
this con unity £3 consared to its political and educational

9’4 .L s-

(w
his...) ‘.L1._\IQ.

. R - v 'r-w - u n ff
condition. ”ere industrv pa s aboat phi -

‘1)

ptwopl in rehe al are of the low socio-economic group."
School district :3 is located in a small town about
tzenty-five miles from Detroit. During the 1964-65 school

year the district Operated 1 high school, 1 junior high

school, and 2 elementary schools with a student enrollment

of 2,0y4 and a staff of 7? teachers. The

0’)

tate equalized

valuation 138 35,976 per membership student and the estimated
total cXp: ns e was ;359 pt r “(rbersni student. During this

year the total tax rate for all scnool purposes was 30.90
mills.’3

School district :u is located about 15 miles from
Detroit. A kinder:arten through ninth grade program was
operated in l junior hi h school anl 2 elementary schools

during the 136’.-C5 school year. The total student enroll-

ment was 1,130 and a ta f of #3 teachers was employed.

 

l

r-I

1“.

tJ.

r".
».AL.

I\)

Lichiwan Education Directory and Puyer's Guide, 1964—1965.

 

’5

)Hecker, op. cit.

 

TF‘ A. n. < ‘ o $ : A -- \‘AA .A.\‘VtP\ —
lichigan Jflicstion Director; all sexsr's Guide, 1964—1965.

- ‘- J— a . ~~ ‘- *A fl ‘. '-“' « . —-‘ '
e state eoualiz d valua,io; per ne.ssrsnip student was

xas T‘Mb. A total tax rate of 2 .55 mills was col-

Aflfi
9"”.

H
\D
O
c-r
I?)
D»
H)
O
"3
£0
,_.1
r-4
U)
Q
b
O
H
":3
3::
r)!
l‘j

School district 31 is a city school system located in
a county in western nlCllfflC. It is the only school system
of its size within this county. Durinr the 1969-65 school

U .4

year, 1 high 5 heel, l junior high school, 1 school With a
r" "A

X-9 population, 1 school with a “-2 population and 9 elementary

student enrollment of

‘0
\ n
O
C.)
\e‘
0..
‘W
[’3
k r
p
H)
P”
O
"9
)
|l
H
(T
d
O
:34
(')
*1
C’)
O
{J
(J
'I‘
(.1-
ll
(~1-
(D
"J
FQ
C
Q.)
(.4
H
\l
)
Q.

\._

v 1’ AA/ «\v- «A o _’ ‘ . o
valiation ws ,lu,,,i per TRanTShlp student and the estimated
total expeh'e rss ;55? per membership student. The total tax

‘1
D
rt-
‘3
F.”
O
'1
"J
Q
\]
i—’
12‘
\1
\A)
i
H.
H
._J
D
\

1 l... - ,.
ail SCHOOI purnos s

J

di'

Ct-
(‘0
H.

trio

(’3
OJ
6
O
H

c.

s a suouroan system loca ed near

’1

to district 31. Di-trict :2 was formed from the consolida—

L

tr ct

'40

[’1

tion of 5 smaller school districts in 959. This di
is now the second lar est in the county. The student pOpula-

.1

tion of 5,523 and the staff of 219 teachers were housed in
1 high school, 1 junior high school, 2 schools w th K-S
stud nt pogulations, and 5 elcsgntary schools during the

195u-65 s hool year. The state equalized valuation per

In

429 and thw total :stimated

[.4
C)

e A I‘ - *- CV
Lembcrsnip student has

 

l-
hecger, loo. cit.

 

("J

.v. ‘ " '71“ ‘
mlCfil”?fl aducrtion

.

140
1
k)
«‘1'
L)
‘S

and

Hacker, on. cit.

 

(rm)

. a. u A A..- 9‘. w‘.-‘. . ‘4‘ .h —— J . L. A .as 5 . u ‘.A. s

Flo

O
h S
t r O. S
t . C .1 t _ a
3 S V. .1 .n n f r m... .
J... r. C S a «J va f 3 l
l .l d a T. 10 r3 r a b e O
l t f l .C 8 C u . o .. . 9. t m S C
3 C t t .3 t 6 1 d. t S c n
n. i e .. a L S 2 ..- a n m e S
S r. h 1 r 3/ C r C a p a
t Lt O O A . J .6 D. 3 t o m L r X W
a S O D. .l a C a c .2. n... .6
.1 r .3. O f r H. w. .l .1 1 .fl 0. S
d D O C 0 e S r t C a .0. .m
n f s. L... D. r S t X H e .1
u r f ... e S .l 2 S O t m
0 . T .3 e f 3 .0 S .l S t .l a...
r 1 a .... L w a Q/ n O .0. a n t n L a...
a .... s .l t o . e D. h .1. .._. a .1 OJ
I h l s .. m r o .. s a _ d u t .
n... t O .4 u t u u l G O...
n C S 1 O a .... w I D. O .C 3 P. l
a .l .1 a e L o r . S V
r .i. g C d. S P l .. h r. l f
n L . t r S h 3 O 9 t a... 0 A... 3 O
.l. S a 3 w. t O 2 L... r .L 3.. Lo
.1 w. e 7.. S l n N u r J 2 O I
.1 d 1. .3 r 3 n O C d. p. .l t a
r» r nu.” c J O C n... My LU 1 hf... 1L t
t 2 .. L l t 1 .l L v r O O .1 S .5
a. O O O n 3 t d. 1 a 3. O .1... n A .
C T T O a. .. a a. l C _.. L .l. .J vi .3 3
O L... L s. .1. 1 f u t a... O m. L C n a... a...
.7 L C r. O 1 a... l 3 S 3 a? . S
8 1L 3 l a w. “ T. 1r.. .. r fl .3 O
S e. 0 e L» v .l O S n. r J .1. t a n 0.
.l .L O r) I L J f .l .l r.-. 1 a. r
.1 .fl {J l 3 .3 S 1.... _ 0 L1. n / .... L U.
a. .. I C _ n. ... e .4. :4 h... .7 S l a O.
n . S ....r .0 .1. Z L H . a {J n A.) t
7- x3 .1 l .1 1 r... c. .. n 3 .. S 1 L
.C .3 3/ «A O «I. C .P. .3 AL 1.-_ l. 1L 0
C t .. l T a Lt C 3 1 m . o O. O
.. L U .1 1:. r” ..J. O ”1 .IL L J 3 ...... - - .l . .
r O .n c O ... .1. t 3 r 1 .fl L . i C
.5 13 .n... O 2. Lo Lo v. .,. 0 .Dr S u. a”
C n...” 1:. .L g .. u t e S 3 .L o o 2.. r
.l l C n.“ a h ; .1 .. __ .. c. u. o. .L
3C S u .. L S .. .. LL u ., ._ 7C 0 a... nu. r .U 1
2* f f“ JIL C; fl a gal. Zr, t n»... a
1L .1 n. J. ._ J .6 .1. .ur .1 A- -l. n s.
O .1. a r . L t S fl 0 . . 1. _... C a. mu r
O C a .l 3 . O A. .1. 3 .3. O
.1. .1 a; 3 h e z c .Q t e d r «I
C .1. ... .L . .H t I... 3 C C 1. 3 t t 9
any n.“ L V r a.” m L .1.“ a. J . Cu 1 3. «I. S h: A...
a . o t 7. w s r r o L e
3 T .3 .l O 1. L. 1 L o .H 4. O 2 DL KO t
m. i m m .2 L. v l S 1 L o O .1. .l 7. C
3 D. .l .1 t a .l .1 r C .1 .Q r- a
t O t .3 a S w m.“ D D. S O S . 1

t.)

LL“, , -1.

“

_l---,"\1n' c1

 

 

 

~ 0 _ g 'P‘ : fl. ‘ ‘ _ .. 0 ~ ,‘ i \r‘ ‘ .2 _.
ejoo‘ 'iistixqjt .' Jr. nos i '7 in tl“'.fi3U~;7TVlIlJI§ of‘
‘ \‘ ' I ' " : ‘ r\‘ 1 (A -""~ ’~ ... "‘ ”"0 ‘ “‘ . ‘ 5“ ‘
L: sop r - .L..i_.. _.~ 1 .1y. sc.ool, l jinior ni;n scnool,

and 9 elementsr; schools of the district had a student enroll-

’b

rent of #212 and a stsff of l€2 teachers 'urin the 1954-65

' r-
a ‘ \J

(I
O
D.
O
O
H
{1.
p
’1
C?
H
9—"
O
c—f
\5
p.»
U)
H
O
Q
n)
if
(.
L);
w-
:5
Cf
L.)
(u
D
O
H
(1'
5
(L
’1
L:
*0
‘7
"3‘
c1-
0
P6

of ”1 teachers.“ Tn: state equalized valuation per member-
ship st‘drn was .13,€72 anl the total estimated per pupil

cost We? ;h‘l. A total school tax of 15.60 mills was col-

Jcnool district Lb is located in tne western part of

.JC 1 hi;n school with rsdes 7 through

p s
12 and 2 elementary schools Operated with a total student

enrollment of 930 ani a staff of U1 teachers during the

\n

1954-65 school year. Tne state equalized valuation was

 

\O
0‘.

kn
O

1.x. ~ ‘
sicni;dn :ducstion Di

"3
\J
0
Cr
0
3:
H
LO
:3
IL

2uyer's Guide, 1964-1

:I‘ZC‘IEII‘, OD. Cit.

##—

I...)-
O
J.
} .J
i
.0
.3
O
,3
Cr
} J.
O
:3
t J
.4-
’1
D
0
c1-
0
, 1
F4

17-»!
end _ugwr 3 guide

L4
( D
O
I"
"D
H
O

J
O
} .J.
(‘2'
0

 

C
“Kicni*s. Tducstion Director" and Euger's Guide, 1964-1965.

L
F

' C‘X _. - ,. —. ,.‘. .. “7“- ' 4., ,1 .. J... . .L.‘ I- 0 , ‘ L

”5,5,; per .eacc*igin std. Mu and tnc tot9l eSL1neted expense
'. A . _‘_*“_’\ ‘ _‘v o “ O ,‘_. 5” H A p“ ‘ ‘- ‘

oer Leis rsnip pupil vis m4i,. -1e ta: rice for all scuool

In the fore oin' description of sonool districts, all
tax rates were ens-d on state coiil./rd ve lnations. Some
of the atov; statistical data is su luarized in Table 3.
:ron the school districts described in this section,

one-third of the

c—r
If
(D
*n
O
'1)
$3
;_1
51)
cf
’4
O
.5
O
"5
ch
9
U)
C t
E.

u
s
0)
Cr
0
Po
:3
O

.J
5:
0

teachers in each system plus enou;n Md inis trat ors to estab-

’U
”‘5
O
0
(
(W
VS
’1
D
C
U
LI
(L
H
:3
d
.J
H
O)
(J)
(T
C
(L
<<

The superintendent of cacn district to be used was con-
tacted and he was ask d for permission to include his school
district in this studJ. A cony of the letter sent is in
pendix B of th 3 report. From the ori inal eleven con-
tacts, ten answered and gave flieir consent to be included
in this StJLT. Cue did not r ply but it was later learned
that the district just had bean part of a consolidation and
no lonjrr would have been able to be used to represent the
size of school district for wn'cn it was planned. Another

.3—

ifferent district and the superintendent

>11

letter was sent to a.

replied and granted permission for that district to partici-

O)
\f'
1T)
O

P
.1, teacncrs and administrators to be us d in this

a u w 2 a
stun; were selectid by tne use of random numbers. One third

 

Hecxer, on. cit.

’3
C,
Jilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Kassey, Jr., Introduction
to Statistical Aiilysis. (few York: KcGratI -Zill, l9§7l

”/7 LA‘

 

“h

A.mm noappm at pom mm ohsnam
tsp Haw 4:4;3H02HN‘ Joma .zofipcaoomm: COapmodtu ncmficoaa ”cmnflrofi: so mgoq +c mtjv
mmmalnwxw .Hq;wm mxcwrm Lalo rv‘ : porppot .5 maaosfl com pmxocm .m mmasmpm .sosbp
“.mu pofihpmfio no neapmoowi asp spa M A_1\H .wfiouocpflm scapzos@x Gawadoad “confiscaa
fl

CL
-1 PK ,
acfimzmnv

nomausmmfl .rr

; a A . 1).- \44 «11 .I . \ 0.1 . .\. ).. . 1|! .\ C .
"JPHIK Wv—avh(\r'rh1 Pkcrmk. LVLO+OI1ILrHrH (CHpC(¥H.W\H CCUfi.LPyHH_ “gopm

 

no.mm as: chm.m H: Ono mflum s:
ow.wfl Hum mo\.mH Hp w,me mfluu mm
as.qa dim mom.m~ mmfi mam: «Hum mm
pm.oH cum mam. a mm cum 0 -u :2
s{ mm.cm 9cm ago.q mm .mHm mans m:
a, to.sm sue ac..cH mam mmmm mflum mu
m .:H emu wma.mfi wcm coma mfium :
mm.um ism cho.:m ms omaa m .m :3
ca..« amm wom.c an :mcm mans mu
0:.cfl «to mcc.\m was me2 many ma
“n.cm so: vmv.m NH: mmpo mfluy Ha

 

pflruvzun Incaukf..»cm

cwcrnfia pom omccc Cofluczflcb mpcxocQD
Hocfio1 Is Hmuoh mcmfiauzwa mo cznfi.

. C
_ . _ ‘ 1. \Jd...<..fl\J_ .4. .. .m..)\l‘ -\.4. I1. adjoC I..\J_<4__H.. 4a\.|.4 \lWV ..f\JJ..-NJ )4: J\. 44 I
H r ... J NIKE. V. ”\. l+ . J rU L“ I; Jul?“ "if; (r .r : FL l4 1.: I\ _ Florin. h} kfi.‘./Io\rft ‘a C TPPJ.L.H
J A If

 

 

bflbp : mHfiP 2H Out: MHDHQDMHQ Moownn Bhomd ROM Lnflc mmH

.

‘. -. A - ‘ ,. a ‘ ‘, 1 ‘ ' #- A 7 ~
of tit -;c1~rs in cscq sccooi ClSLriCt wars incluccd.
m‘», 3 ~ an 1' ‘ ',‘. ‘- ‘Ir' ‘ r, n u I <~-—- ‘- 4' ‘n‘. ‘-‘I _\ O +r) . ‘
ihis LLHVZT +33 obtainci s; countin b.CS~ l svcd 1n

the school diractorr. Sincs individual nsnas were countsd

and not pro rath for tics? cuploycd ins: than full time,

C?"
,I
(I
C)
I
:5
C
-3
Q
\l‘
1
C)
_.J
L:
{'3
O
I"
3‘3
1.1
.3
C)
(1‘
U
.4
P
O
D
D
a
1'.)
O
C'-
5.4
R:
E:
H
(1'
E
b.)
O
O)
‘4’)

. . 1.- :— 4 A .14.. ‘- C
uscd in t.c dissrict d r~cr1'__..,1o.1':. A total of 5-?

qusstionnsirrs rss sailfd to t achcrs.
rscsivcd 225, in Ari? H, St? and in Arts I, 91. The

distributiox it school districts was 139 to district El,
65 to district fi?, 26 to district 33, 15 to district Eh,

to district 32, 27 to district 33,

.i3trict JL, :0 to district Y2, 27 to district 33,

total of (O qucstionnsircs was sent to scnool
adrinistrstors. in Area 3, 25 wcre srnt, in Arca U, 25,
and in Area J, 10. Tic distribution by school districts

was 13 to district 31, 7 to district £2, 1 to district £3,

(\J
('1'
O
Q
P
(3
Cf
H
Pl
0
d
4::
‘—-J
p
C1-
0
J;

Mistrict Jl, 7 to district N2,
3 to district 33, l to district 44, 5 to district N2,

°, and 2 to district HM. This made a total

' J

K...)
Cf
0
CL
1 .Jo
['3
(1'
’ '5
P
0
Cf

of 629 qucstionnairss sent to teachers and administrators.
Jach of the 629 itsus mailed out contained a copy

of the "Questionnairs on Curriculum Responsibilities," a

stamped and addressed rnvslops for its return, and a short

letter to the teachers and administrators eXplaininw this

study and asking for the r hel.. A copy of tne ”Question-

naire on Curriculum Rcsponsitilitiss" and a copy of the

lettcr sent to t achers and administrators are in

It)

>
*9

' A ‘ f1 ., "3 1 ' ,. , "-1 ‘ , .
App nciccs 1 sgd : of tsis stuig. -o assure everyone

Cr
.J
513
Cf
W
F“
(I)
CT'
,1;
c.‘
O
)n;
}.J

d be done in a manner in which they
would retain snonynous, the on: y id sn ififi 3; information
rcqucstes was tat mass of the school district and vW1.tncr

the person hcld the position of tescher or administrator.

\

:I’
“1
Cf
(L
H
H
\ J
w
H
p.»
I!)
U)
U)
x T
O
)
1.3
C"

913; Facsivfid. a follow-up lsttsr

(‘t'

was s’nt to the superin :ndint of each school district.

3 O
O
O
3
H:
C.,.
,3
H.
t )
H
( U
c f'
C"
’1
I.)-
m
'_1
1:5
1
g
H
U
0
H)
:1-
’3.
H
:0
(0
cf
:3
All
K"
{,L
,4
H

3‘. -_ 1 1 . 4. .. . 1‘ A L ,- 4.1, 1 ° -
s,;islili,h crocder-s - Aft~r tic questionnaires

 

we 9 scored, th? coefficient of rclisbility was computed,

‘
V

by tnc usc of Kuisr fiicnsrdson formula 20, for each of tqe
Clint L&Tt3 of the qucstionruira.

~ r‘ --~ "V 0 A r- ‘-\ - n W .— ;- ‘u .. pm '
A: 7.1is Oi t :cs:rs' find adiiwistrctnrc' ocrcsotions

inc followic" tests v~rc carried out scasrat sly on data

’0
‘V
*1
Cr
90
P.
f.)
P.

t "1
rt-
0
Cd-
'3
(u
*1
U

.4

L)

J
O
" ‘3
C?

I
1‘)
O
._1
C)
L.‘
C
U
hm
H
‘1
Ho

strators, stu-

dssts, and the co nunity.
1. A "t" test was us:d to dctcrrisc if tsz1chit s' and

administrators' perccptions of tse sxtcnt of

the'nctusl" roles of the various groups were the

2. Data wars cramincd b: arsss and an analysis of
variance was uscd to d? torminc if the teschcrs'

pcrccptions of the extent of the "actual" rolcs

 

 

 

 

“

(l)

L.)

I
”fa” l 3-“ »- A 1“-
4L "- . ‘0" -& b'/'

“if?” .34. 't v -' A.“ "'7 m

variance

rceptio:

arc the s ms for all of

S0

: 1- I.
J. S S v 11%,] o

aas and an analrsis of

D,

’

1s includéd in this study.

(J)
P
0)
O
H)

10013 and an anal;

erminc if the taachsrs'

.-¢.».,¢. pt. I. . 1
(part oi as 'actual' roles

included

0\

fl 9
data hers

.v . L. ’ f 0
any of ts; "ideal" roles

variance

 

chsptions of the

arc the cars for all of

J . A vv- '
gas and an analJSis of

rduinistrators'

c.
3
s
H
,_1
( a
v-
H)
d
D”
(L
m

}—J
C)

3-1.

A‘sl... O -‘ Tad
e eitsnt 0L Lac "insul" roles

”'3
L.
.2
J
O
{l
"5
(‘7’
H.
O
‘,.
{J
O
"J
(‘1'
r)

perceiV#d one extent of the "actual" roles of the
various :roups to be the same as they perceived

tie ette t of the "ideal" role‘ to be for these

U"

'~~ ( I" - u (‘ ‘— '\ fl ‘- '.' 3" ~ ‘5 - ~ . ‘ . J“
,dro13s. -uis cast .ss perforned b; u21nQ cne sum

5 1‘» ' ¥-r. ‘M‘u
gs oi eac1 V.J01Ll'3

O
H)
(‘1'
.)
,1
Ho
”.3
"5
*1
(1
.‘1
C)

-4

Jerccptions.

r

‘. .. .3 t‘ a a. -h 1“,-) .- . 4.1
t"—'-3 ‘* lL fUr'x‘ 110th) u.,t.‘40~3."1 my,
"r‘ ."\A .Q v ‘- ‘\ "L' ‘ ‘ -‘ V ‘ ‘ ‘ “
tiaC.zTn' g ICLJolOHS of tie extent of L10
H 4- n , 4.x , . - fl . . , 4.“. ~
actual rol;s of UJ3 various groups Uni b:@lr

.. , 4. - .._ p ‘ s, r 1. .9. .1 0 A .
93TCcpclOLS oi tie eitgnt of t1¢ "ideal" roles

O ‘ r- r -.-. vv Avv-.-. . ‘~ ~ .‘
0L tsusc ;roups were Visa nsd it a 0&3. An

these difierences were the same for all areas
included in this study.
Data concerning the differences between the

‘ L- ., ' .+.-,-.L. o 1 .
tescners' perceptions of tee ,itent oi tne

L‘ .A \ v/ . a I . ~Ar‘ ‘~ . ‘
"act1sl" roles of tne various QIOJJQ and their

rd
"l

1K1

1
1 of
r
(N.
i

t

{’3
l
-..OllS

i
4."
.L

,r

(3

Lllle<

i

C

1..

L;

C
is

n,
1.11.,

p... .l J .
V. n .l .l . . a . .3 .c t m . a
.l ”3.1 T .1.“ u E .1. t h, H 1
f .l n. S .3 .. .. A. p
n n x F n ._l. t t 10. n X
a... T .n 3 .l f O .l u . e
k“ a O a . h 0 v. v. f t G.
t C t .0 «I .1 no u t

t E t .1 d a
t 1.. WW 1; o oi 31. O 1r. ... m .n O, a 1 “L 5...”
B .1 r a S l u 0 O T h. l. a... t
t 1 n 1 r .i a. .1 m .. t
.1. tr. . .3 C 11. h. u-.. t O
C .2 i .1 _ N 1.. q . .3 F ... t
3 A s Y H .., .l ..! .r.. O ... . 1..
a“ x” .i 1- n a n“ c +c r r
C F... O S u S .-.. a. -V a...
.l .1. H a... ,L n1 C d 1..” .fl .1.
9L S .l .. .. u ..- S T r .. u .C .l
.i x no it 6 o O O 1
fl 3 o. .l .l 3 T... .I. t .. u .1
r . C 4.1 t 1i. .l. .. H .1 L. S
.l mu ,_ f. x «I a . J. 3 3 C
C. 9. Lb . .l O m.“ L J W . n1. 1,.» "J
.l S A . a-.. 1... n... c. n T
u. r in .1 i r . e n“ n l a
C A... n H. .3 .1 2.1 1(1 H“ S m... m. n. . v...
n Y - A 1 _ s .0 .C r O .1
LC 1L ”.4 r. r O r .v u at
«U. D ‘ .uu 0|. .A 1." H n v m. «on. a . .1.
O 1- C L r.“ H; . J a, .T; .- o o
O C l ._ 1” .3 1C. 3 (J 5
t a .... . S O A. w. A... 5 .l T 5 r)
1.. 3..-. . . . . W. C A 1 a... ,1. n AIL - —
u . S w u w. . t .i t r. S h . 2 o ..
\I/ «flu ‘ IL .. n a 1 O U” fl. w u E. J C),
A. , 1 _ W- 0:. _ n 0:. . u n... n... n 0... nm 1A.“ r 1 l
o s .1. n1. 11 T O .l a . .. c A... .1 P. n .
.3. w. m“ .i C 1 r, t , v .. .i t n“ U o .
H. 3. $1.. 1!. .J nD «C 1|. m H H... 1O. r. .1 (L O. D.
an. R... 11 1-. In a. L... a” 1* u . m- D...
.3. 3 F .2 F H S 2 H-” - .r., O t
t - H O .i C n .c, 1 S u d o ..
8 .. u L t . ., A O a 3 .m. +1 O H ., . .
:. ... .4 I z» a. . 1 r- e (n 4 . u.
n C ., u C i Q n. . U 2 C H T e .1 .l
a} ,_ n u, i . i .l . C a r n .1... .1 _.
1’ r. .n.. A. l C 0 .Tu Lu 5 i O T; T;
o .._, .. . w. .. S w. .. C m... T «I S "A 1 O...
F C. a. C. r t A .2 .l as .l
n o -. s i 1C. A f p“ s D

 

4.4--
f
n
procedu

. . .. L .
O .3. ”a. s. t t 0. S C. S 2..

o-Iln- - .1. V,
t v- Vt“-f‘ fs 0-3 ~c-w 1 “la-1".“
4A- -- _- 'J-‘J Kala _..-.— sJk‘-b‘
a t‘ If)“ '(‘F' “"\r‘ ‘44-: “fir-.1 t’f‘1 1’1 VA ""\
C._ .1 v~7 1‘.) IU.Jl l‘LL'; ' lo .; ).Ll()(1 to kg}. L3; D >3.i.a.

n 4.. 4- - 4.: ., . L,,-' 4..,' -1
tn? vxn p0 one TQQLO WAS MOv Lulfl,wlflw3.

-, - ‘— .- - - a. r—n- . .. - - - 1
of 3 von id ;3 «901. -gés- ductioas réferrwd to t.'3 r0130

O
‘5
2‘?‘
'5
J
'3
‘1
H
CC
'-
3
)4
L z
’40
Ho
('3
CT
"5
CT
0
”'5
Q
{I
C
E
J
Li»
k T'
f]
o
'13
5
,JJ
('-
,‘J
\‘J
O
O
I;
*‘N'
P
(1'
9:
o

Lech of thése four r0133 ya“ TQDTPSU ted in both Swt one

D
*4

-1 -L. ,. x, -. ‘_ ‘ , .,.---. A ' .‘
32g 33¢ tao. as was) of tin L .91 ituTS 11 Cd 1 section

was scored from zcro to four points, thz .

gr
H
2
g;
’3
(0
Ct.
“d
O
E)
00
Ho
0‘
}_J

C)
O
O
*1
I
)
Cr
2
J.
”J.
r
$3
.. ,;
L
at.
.D
.J
O
J
1
f
D
3
J
D
3‘

Th? 00°fficiént of réliasility for each of the eight

‘K L- up vv,‘. .. I‘_ I.’ r J.“ z- A -‘fi Yf~ .lfi. ,
SkCulOaS m.3 001putvd thJ Una us- of L»? uddET ulCIQTdSOH

?herfl n = the naubér of items in the tefit
2
Si = ha 311 of the its: varian,os
2
3+ = the test variance.
U

2L1;

105"
.5. L) Q

. q ,r‘

\
.\ r.
\-9

t~

\z

.511";

Y‘. r]

f‘.

(

A

-.L,

fr 1"“
CO...“-.«‘L/I. Ll 3a

\
I
1

. T

. ,s
A rd

-..

"r’4"‘rfi\‘7-|’\
wk

-1. .1
O I". ,

D

-+.-,.»,L.
‘

0
‘

0.1

- -

.fla
a‘----l.} 4-.
-»t./

A

A

q
.‘\(:'V'\qu"

0...»...

«L
V

rs

-'l

-s

{'1 "‘f3
—.‘-

v

H
o O 8
A2); 1 «7+
(a. t e
0.... Av 1n...
. o. (p .5 1-, r. J L. 1,, O; 9., C
C d~ W; 1 (U C/ OH O 7 S A...
3 n” 0/ O ,.. 64 OJ 0; 9/ O4. 1i 3..
r...“ O. o o o o o o o o 3.“ Lb
H- i 1 1. 1L 1* H .1
v a; t u.
S U C
r. m . . D. J
a... , m y a. a .L x.
1. a 4 . . ._ u-..
Tflv T. 3.4 o o o o o o o o n...
a ... .._ d a).
D” 1-.. d J o o o o o o o O A... H.“
t .7 a. . fl“ . I“ O
M . .1. o o o o o o o o :1.
f _ L O L a
O .2. .. o o o o o o o a .v... 1 .
Ax» 3:. t 5
no fin . .r» o o o o o o o o C
a... o LII. Mr.

01
Y
J
C‘
s)
7‘
J
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
x

T. .4 _ C D.
v; O a .4 . g o o a o o o o O
t -L . .. a y f .1
H C T p ‘4“ .1 o o o o o o o o O 3‘”.
1|. 3 a ._ 7.. Lb
r4 91 A n. . H o o o o o o o 0 HQ
J 3 .1 . .4 v . r. a...
t .l .7... . .. o o o o o o o 0 m; m!
C .. J . . J .3 U.
hi. n1. u H _.. . o o o o o o o o 1 fig
n .3 . n J n.
M . u o o o o o o o 0 MA. 1.,
3,. . _ H . . m1.
.1. 1w. . o o o o o o o o V
V J .45 fiJ. - 0
2. v .. J O O O o o O 0 0 Nu Lu
«9 . 1. , a n .« ~
0 21+ 0 o o o o o o o L J 4\
h... .. . J.-. G ...;
Lu x.“ .. q n.» 7 Cu
3. O .. , . 1n .l U
. C 1!. _.., l 2 a. 1 .4 5 / -4 7 t f
L g t Cu 3
3 I P a... 0..
e ..... m L. -_.... .1...
.1 T. a;
t .1
me C

for
1

ion

”’A+'
' V

.on form

C

.1. t

J

V

008.1“?

7‘.
'1
I
‘~_-

r2 f'--.:,n

-- .4 U £\J.
"rfi+‘ - "II “ya, 1 ,a
\JU-‘..'1- LO__- L

$— 1.: .
1.7:“ "t” V.C+.-

M1 .. 4_ ,_ V5 A
J. .. _‘ v . 0
§ ’
"D C f}? 3 t ,1 1,.
A I i -1 ’ u A ., ~

munity to b“
r0108 to be,

tcacfiars.

'71 ’J'fi
L-HJ'
CF
T ‘r
it’ T]
l .
2 .
j .
U .
l:
.2- '
6 .
'7
f o
F'1.\|._‘
Liot o

{11.3

‘-‘-J

C')

(‘1'
r." f

{1’

d

(I

V)

:2}!

than tan

studnnts,

phrCCiVR

110d to th9

value

and

thbsm

‘J \1 H \n

' 0

.p
u)

n Of

of

the com-

"actuaJ"

roles of

i...’
\J

’\)
‘O

/Q
L') J
["7
2f

‘4')
\1

_. 'r" _’.‘.
‘» L

Y.‘ '
0‘

7"
x.)

ption

parse.

.1.

1'
U

1 r“ n
. .1
‘.‘J.

.tL

(s
L

t

“L

8.

C.

r .

y
C...

Q .
n. .v
7 .
8

~
9

C

3
o.
r

C
3

(xx

‘ ‘5 ._ 0-!

‘fi."'

- n T‘.

_ H
AM”
a;
._

u
1

A

r ~

—\ .

“P.
nv

 

 

b
L

ff]

_ .I.

00 )
t S
H t
c. n.
i 11.

Q...
P _..-.
(

3
f.
T
.1
L.
C. .5
.n; .fl
0 3
3|. “(J
.C
3
‘4

4
. a.

 

0.10 0/1/0101. flu (J 0/9... EJ/O rig/N OJ
2 (JG; Q/néld. Oz. fiL/D/h. 7CJ/nx 0/0

. C C . C . O O O 0 . . O O O
.. -h 0- 029. OJAU n/IIUrKC Q/hw 2 r3?)
«illllllllwllllll

7./.. 7 17:14. a. JAUIIW AC 020,.“ 0/1 a. x?)
(ya... Fir/1|. 51.1 0/1.. ()6.
1 1 a...

1... r 7... r 2,3 .41; -73 75% z». a... .1. 3/
fi.,/.. 5.. 1 A. ,nxlfit. ( .9. 1|. 0/“... AMI/w).
HI. 1 Ar. mr. (J

«I. fié «77.4. .1; 0/. 7.11.4. 7;. n. in?
...1_.....01I1.Jvnv.v.l.

J
g . . A

11~1L7.131.11111341unh
OOOOOOOOOOO
0000;00000. 998
up.” .3. -.... MM .1 .Au .1. u . .n; H. u... 3 4... r:
3 COO? C On A 30TT?1
S u

‘JJ
I“

d'u.
n
4‘
”‘

Quay bu n3. nqun.

 

ma "‘f'
~a’1—rfi—

"‘ T‘ A I."
:1.x..:‘.-.)
.0 Afi-

l‘

'I",

H

m4 .

 

 

10

t

q

T).
-L‘-.

A

n can

 

Iv.

’\

0/

(:4

fil-
4

I

1..

’3’“) LI?
Jy/" '/

. #2

“0

<0
6-.
I4.
1.;
14
my

firm.
a...
a...
3
D.
n d
.l O
J F
t .u
.l

7:
AJ./
/. .V
7 -

V,“

0-..4

--‘ — fl ,‘V . . ' f- ‘ .'\ [-3 L— »x. A V‘ ‘ ‘. V ’ .‘ ~’
-.3 ”:" ritio J23 fOinm no cc 5.;Q PfllCfl was greater tnan

._>

. .‘~ - ‘-‘ - ,fi .nA, ‘ ¥ 1.! ‘ ‘53:. v‘ _" . ‘
soie of ca: 5:24 “zinc 9. uOtfl tic fiVP p9r cent and t-e

o ' ..,.. ...,hu '.-. ,.F "L- .t—°,.,
s n; 0; tne iezus awre sac: J4 tug ugfi of ctudsnv 33d

Qfluvss ”hi it ” 3 icini t“tt th; :cens of ;;;a C (14.54
”31 TT'3 3 (15-57) ““i Q? :t‘r thin tn: m3?“ of arcs X
(12.35) it til? on» I; ‘r‘ cult 1:21 of‘ si;;:if‘iC'1-1ce. (3m,
Shafts? 5.) Tbs 7*32 of ar:s 3 qu not si;nificsntly dif-

fflr at fro; the a‘ln of arts J at either the ons per ccnt
or the fivc p“? csnc lfivel. ;dis s*ovcfl that the ttacncrs
used in this stu7x in er”: 3 s11 arts 3 perceived the
aers' "actual" roles in curriculum planning to be
rrcatsr tkan tbs t acn¢*s in arcs H pcrccive~ them to be.
The data we.* exaxiqai c7 arscs aqd an analysis of

r- . -- A v ,-— r‘ -. ,2 r - ‘— ~ 3"- - :1
Varianc; has uqu to dutcriinc

’4.

f the administrators' per-

V‘ . ’\ 1 O ‘ -. -_ V r ._ C 0 ~‘ ' ' '4“ ‘— _ ,-‘ _- ‘ ‘\
Cytions O; tnc citent ; t3; actual" roles of t 3C”LT

(v)

wore the sane for all 3r;as inciuflcd in this study.

. ._ ._ 1.,- - 1.-..1- -,‘ - -, .. ,,,—
AVQlaVCS of aciicis.vs-oss' sccrts tj areas and u‘ sc

{)1
H.
C’)
c—r

"'3'
H.
0
cr'
C)

J

i

f.)

F.1-
<1
H
I.)
i 3
...}
(J
}—J
(U
( 3
.

3
5.4
U.)
95
13’
{.4
' J
’4.
C)
O
H)
. A
.7
LU
,-J

J
F).
9
I.)
O
.1,

ow . "n...~-'1 .~ -' q 11’1" t-' 4" ’39. .r
3-) ..«inwl’l ifl .L'A'-'__‘3 :3. QLDCB tn". 2 T3110 0' ."- 15153

f»

Sflallcr than 3.i4, b1~

J)
r
i U
(1'
(I:
\_
{—J
\ J

V311? of ”F AC," no significant

‘: ,-. ‘ -.-.- .5“: Man—..., . o '. -r- .
miffsrcnc~s Ln stud L.tnw n any oi tic area means WfllCfl

._)

,- .\ p‘ .‘ ~', ‘I- .-~. ‘ _.' 4 W ~s~ . -' ‘— ,- ‘— -»-\ \ ‘x‘ . --" f ‘..~" I
regreswgtrd t1: aciiristritors' chCaptions of L10 citent

r ‘ A A; O —».- ‘ r~
of t1c r0123 0i t acawrs.

:n- - ...», , , ..- z, N; .. , - - f
in; ddba Vcre QARTLJR; 0. 3013013 and hi an47591s o

1 J-

-, 1:“.-. —. H... .. 4- A . ..- '0 «L‘ J. ..F 4.0 .
valiancc fins 43*1 p0 uflcdrfliAP ll tie J>gcists' QUTCchlOHS

 

 

v-1 n41 * - - --v---v-I «A ' fiwa ,‘m 17\ W ‘V'I 1 "T‘ 1“'-1
. -—1 ka-NJ \J _ -L-J’a.‘ ‘ J- ‘L v J JUL 4') L \r L .— -- J L 4 —
AF‘ '1 - q ‘1“1 '1' WA? fl ‘~ fl ”*1 ' "‘ V .‘ "“
kl: ----— 41V- ---__ l V— J L: s-J.A‘J I {J
Y' ' ‘- 5- r 0-: , A ' n 1 :‘Prxr‘
cnic i: colonieircs Participints L‘Jn
"a 1- fin - ,1 .
Srnc (.ws on-cats)

 

.33 vol "j.
School 42
School I?
School Lw
School Tl
School 32
School $3
School uh
School in
School 13
School E4

...)

F—J
O uk,'\\J1’-)\_.)\n HVJV 4: wkdflk.)

H

kn t-l)\_J CFOkOKJJ f—J NKJIKA {‘0 M C‘(7\
H
O\
O
C)

Area J l 12.43
Area 3 2 lo.7O

a $V

nf‘é‘a .4
All

‘\ }-’ .7») F0

1:-

 

 

 

\- ~rv~+fi 3‘? T'. -~'\ w‘ 1‘" “ "" CHI
I x .- , | a. . -'
nus.-. a; J v. ..-x ...1-..,.. . . 3.1.1.14 .3
flfi"~'"Tl‘-Tl‘". ,nynr‘BS TAG" .... :7an v’T‘" fl m.-X"1fi
fill--.~-a.LU- 4.1 .v )Jbii J . \, L --- 4 .....134.
’fi "1 11 r \ H ‘ ,fi-qvva-lv- " r,q~r n A . r71" ' fivv ‘V-"-‘
U: L-L-J Av -qnizd .AVL.’ J U; .L.-4.‘LJ.;.-:-‘.:J
fl ‘ “‘"fi “"2- 5'. \r‘ F“ "'- r", "1?" {‘4 t-
.)Ovl.'.'u'.- 4.1 J?‘ "~) ‘DLIW A. ,_'i. .L -L'l lo

 

— L -, 14 f o': o ’33

L,“ 1~CH21 9- 4.0'..‘.' [0/4 1.).)
Scans

"' " n f '1 _ n

ultilln bf) 7100AJ 1.!)oyl "I. 0:" —3043
Groups °//

F J

O
:1-

>1
H
{:-
4:-
\)
U1
., \

L)
')

 

y'fi - r» -. p H... L‘. . 9") ‘ . 1. “... ‘ , J
'3" ratio of O.h; :93 lung than l..l the teole value of
‘r "‘ ‘.-". ~. ‘ ‘- . 00*- ‘ ‘ -fl " ~ \ -‘ y - v
: . no significant diiiefencus were found between anJ
of the school (istrict means which represented the teachers'

- - A. .- 4.‘ W. a 4--..1 .
percwsciohs of the roles or tuiChers.

 

 

.‘ - ‘ v- |7H~'I‘ {xv-:1 YY‘ 1“, - 'Tfi'Q' Tt'vr ("l/'Q'YA‘AV r1
:1-..'L._...J;_-) K..- v! ......1;.J_. .4; 0‘4 ;K,\/LD
A 01 .1 1- 1‘ f . —" q ~n~-, 0:“ r‘ r» fiv- 1 r." \flrfi
-4 . - -. ; < - —- ‘ !, - ,
b. - -1..v . .;. 'J «J L H) ‘ OJ .... .1 - H)...
C fl Y1 ' ‘ H \ navy: " " 7‘,f\1- ‘\"‘ fl ."1 ‘ A m‘T ‘W'Wt‘l
i 4 1 . . . . ‘ c . .. ‘ .
A - .¢_l (Xv - v11... Lek—'5’ -4...) ‘ .~ -AJ A~J.L
-fi ‘ ’_ “, . ,— d O "A n .1” 3 t
1 A . “"... _.FV ‘ ‘ A ' .
U U.r\l .4 JT-‘JJ. .1...) U\1.4 0L .1 _, iti J: .13: lo
" a
‘-1 r-r' ("Q x ' r" ’3
of Sisal s qhar.

 

73.3. .P» "\ fi" ’1 1 r? 14'
on, n 1U ll;,.4l ll.;» 0. 3
‘.T ‘tfifi
..s-‘A.‘D
-. . r? q “fan '3’: ’3'“ '0’? 1'?“ H -- Q
Altllfl ,ls ,.u., L,.~, : C — l.s3
a A 9
JY‘OML‘Q . J
1! 4- an? Ah/n fir?
I - t.) ‘a , ‘ ‘—
‘OJ“ Jfi'l /0/‘/.l/ 1'

 

A "t" test res Psed to determine if teachers' and
administrators' ccrcnptions of the extent of the "ideal"
roles of ‘eechurs were the same. The mean of the teachers'

scores on the test of the "ifleal" roles of teachers was

H
\1.)
.
\O
‘0
f.)
{1"
$1:
(1"
,3)
\U
f
I}
FJO
.3
H.
L)
C—r
w
p
\
O
*1
D}
’ .2
f
.3
0
iv
'J
('9'
L)
O)
P
U
(.1.
l I)
0
(1'
VJ

l9.76. The "t" ratio Hus 0.42 which was ess than 1.96,
the table value of "t 7 ," so no si;nificaht difference
3 that administrators perceive

the "ideal" roles of teachers, administrators, students,
anfl the community in curriculah

L ‘, ‘ ‘ A - - ‘ . v ‘- ‘ A . o.‘ '0‘ 11%. I s»_
than tSSCflurS cSSCQlVG these "11311" roles to we was not

L

. fl '1— ‘_ ° - .n. N '0 3-». ‘
provan as lb applied to the roles oi ecceners.

. ’ ~° n'rfl wv-~ .( A, ”V .f" . 1 4-3 'v ~ . 1
”a zhalJJi. of --l‘flC; .33 used to cctermine if the
A a 5 c a ‘f H‘ 1 I r A '

h rs' pare ptions of tin C-tent cf the "ideal" roles

,achcrs were the size for all of the areas included

' D. .. - i .3. ‘- ‘ ., ‘ ..
13 -tiiw. n7JI9_“S of .zec.;rs' scores DJ areas and

‘ H —-' qv ‘ ‘ 'T‘ ‘ "TTI . 0
‘04001 listrictc are ;i tn in lhble ll. -he analys1s

l_’ -A A -. ‘ .
'Y‘"" ‘7- 1 1
...-k h A‘

O"\l"':‘ A? m“‘fi"“v-a-q' 3” s, ‘d T” ’) HT-“ m—qufi
a. '5‘..- J \ § a. :‘-J .‘ ---J J‘J ‘-l ) L V 1 .--- .—‘ - J'w) 0.
r‘ "‘ ’fi" “ n 7'“ “ ‘ 1' n “in? ‘vw *1 fl \ ' n",*"*.rw
1 ~ ~ . - 4 -
\v’ '- _- --—l fi—J~_.-.4_ -'.U‘__d~) A * I319 -

 

 

:- <
w
P0
(of
1' 1
3D
"3
(‘1'
H.
0
Po

f‘r D
>0
L)
«“f‘
0]
0-;1

 

o
J
. O O
O O
4 H
g I
zrxo )td

~a..1,

00
CO
FJH
b.5359

b
O
l——‘

3 (:3 Lu 0) ('3 (I; (I b) (J
O 0 O O O 0

i)

r
\.J\"\

.. u.

H \.n \-)
A)
O
0
, Kn ro\.,.)\.,,) k.) to (0‘0

\0 kn \-.) o to “Q 1'? O O 1:\) k.) \O \;)\n

l
)
H»)
O
(‘N

Mk.) f—J'J "Okd (U (T ()‘vJ {:\D\J U\\}
H
\O
O

fJDJHIUBJNk4'

 

 

 

 

O
/ /
0.3
:3 10 0.6
2: 1 0.1+
J“ 5 00L;
so a o
J'L / '2
r-w--1- -\ I)
-~.:i_.i.._' 11C.
~-Y\r‘rw fl fl 1'?! r-~w-n"n .1 fixr q jnn
liau:1.'~ 1‘; I) C: aan £1-.\J —' _:.:- - RAJ—LO
*1 '11, nor? "0 Too .3 xi f‘ , m" ‘ "1 3"":1
O; .L I..XJ--.LL ' UJL 1.“) 11V: .L.‘1_‘J ....1)...
"1 '““ .‘ 9 “g. 1' r3 7'1 .71 m. A": ‘53:"
C: ..-- I ' I-J_-:X..;" -1.CL JJ C'J.‘ LallA’J.--:J1Li)
:- V “ ~ A ‘ I? O
S .Ice Sevr is Sui of ,ndn "F" Ratio
C" A-
Of Squsrg' Square
fl ~ ...
..‘Y‘t‘CdOJ
’3 7'7 . q I)
’1‘: 2 10.;.1( 51.09 9.11
".3

’30") 610/. d"? H'fi ” - LL41

9.7
' ‘5

W
K‘

(:j

H)

r"

. OI! ~ “ 1‘ f) v.~. ‘A N ‘ +‘ ‘ ‘

lO ~‘9 f0. 9 to ,“ 3.;1 ”110. -L HT°?v“r tlafl
/

able '"“H1» of “3‘ "lwrt less ttrv11: ol the

D "'7 H Hf) c-

&

L.Jo
:3
}_Jo
" ‘5
H.
O
m
i f
('1'
1-

FJ'
H)
”‘J
( V)
d
I)
“J
D
O
“'5
D;
H
,1
I

,3
J

W
O
\J
O

r . I"!

. ‘!‘-‘~r s L‘A 'V '\ . ‘- A o . ~4 .
-luc l at v.9 fire per cent l vel o. s1_r1

H

4—“A u;- A r“ hfi|~fuL f-”-1
L! .i‘ 0..” {N . ‘J‘...1|J ].* JPi .

hoivifiusl corperisons

A.U \JLAQ --A\/(

, t“: not of Studentizni fienqcs and the seen of

/ . . - ., - . .. _. - ~~~ .
-C) Yrs r: flfl05£t13 differcht then the ;ash
—-\ Jud , Lg, n.1,,“ .‘ . 4.. ._‘ *. Pf" '_
1;.w,) -t c.> .-.: p.r ceht er;1. ii? WQJHS
Iva /A\ - ,. A .. on hr: . l- ._ 4. . .1 0
so. .1 ch” 7“;Z . ( J.~/ M re hot significantly

I”: “s,“ ‘ - 3M- 1 - ,3. :. ...~ - L ‘.~ .

w, . -.scacrxz.u.:oi::t-.h1 tzis sctmw'1fron

._ . w J..‘ A n 'I -_ . n A. n 4. . . i... t 1: _..s tfl'
317 c the ir ml roles o. tescicrs o ,c lrcs ,r
. u- .. a 'r L‘ - .n A ,.

zen r: o. arch .. C-: r dilfLrUflCQS were not

Peri sthiihcfi t' arses aha an anslySis of vari-
« 1.4. m ° 44‘-.. . -.- . -' V-
; to a ter in: if the administrators' perceptions

. (a 2., :,,‘,.. 4. ‘ . 1
.nt 0L tzu ”id 51" roles of seconcrs were the

\_, 1 y‘. r) "'1‘- ..., ..‘I . p ' .-. I ' . y o .1,
1s4;; 1-- -.e chugi¢siti Oi a--rihrM>3 is :210tn1 in
"v, "‘1'! k: t .. '1‘, L.‘ r3 r3 .

-4. : Tfl'ia of O..? “cs i 3: oil: ,.1;9 tQC

"-_‘ " t‘fl"- vvo-h\ ' i’ofi.f. fifi -.
of r at. so J_c .«.. LO 8 ”ml lC ht nil—
.r—J
.. x . J.-‘ , -, . -1- ° 1. ... .-4. 1
tngTfi :hr 01 the >ch means thicq re»rcschcca
Ir -

1-- J— ,.. J-’ ~ O ‘ -J—.~ J—
Vcscor ' perceptions cu i??? extent of b

~ K a ‘- . O J— .A‘ ’L. '- ‘1 '2 ”c A
p éceptions 0. tie -ltcht of the 'icssl" roles

were the sche for all of the schools included

(’7

 

 

 

 

: ' ‘A . r“ p‘ L- a 1 - . v‘ a -.“ ‘fi \ D 1" .‘ ‘» , .-‘ ' 1 ‘ ”fl-r ‘F‘
.L-.L tfll: {I 014*“ 0 *1“ '7 9'; U; 'J- 31‘: 11:») $00!".S VJ 807-001
‘ ': : L ‘ .‘ . . "I' .‘ q' ‘ 1 \ [fl x ‘ "I I" .- "V . . V! t.‘ ’ {a
LLStrLCuS $3 :1. A 14 ;:;;: 11. -dw aJinglS of VJILJJCV
' —‘ . -, “t u 1 r4 - L1 , It??? . 4— ' . - c”) ‘ .—
lg‘.‘ .L.;O.‘ 1’). .LJ ...z.L.!__ 1’. n.) 4.1- . 7‘9. “LO Of l./J L133 _'_\..So‘
4.1“ 2': -- a.-'.-'1‘ -,\1 o n“! 1 4—513”: ..7 \ ., '~..°
.u¢a 1.-/, .h;+ . -_~ Vd-J? o- : ozv' awhgh: .arh no 813M1-
. . “I
~ _ s. D. : ooh .,. ,, ~ -. :- .. .‘ ,- . ' .. , ' “A, V ,, .,-° : 1
fl C-ljU r—f—‘I L i . : A-J I: [... v g Oil. 1-1 (llfil‘I’f of t.1-‘-4 SOK‘LOOl 3.21' —\.‘_’1!; ‘11"1 C;1
‘ IV ‘ ‘ ‘- .“ - ‘- n r ‘ ‘N ”A I . "‘, '0 - ' n‘ ‘ f' ,"
r u ':;— A, .: 'J~::'~J ' y :‘J ptlcx;3 o; tje "1uvcflf' rol~ws
... ‘n ’1
Of t ‘, '3 . .; 3 .
'71 ’ ‘ 1 ‘1 ’1
As..A—‘J ‘ I-)
. j i“ v-‘ - \ - - V fi fl 1 I! A : 'Q ‘1 q A .‘ . fl fiq -: --! ‘V “ ‘fi ‘ \fi 'fi
J:1 ‘ ..) \u u' Q‘s -‘. - - - ‘ 'J _ . .‘A ‘y ' Ax.) ' ~J 4/ \1' . . ...) J.‘ Kr -‘ L .& ~—4 ‘1. - J ..
p qI "n ' [f ‘ffi '. r n 3' '= ‘1 fi'fi "1 ‘ F1 "r ‘ ' "V
HE L & ‘.-- 43H tVL— 6) U: . —‘-‘¢~J 4.1. ‘A')
Y7. “- . L— ' - J- ‘ r
VJit .rarvic;;xm1vs ..Jan
/
School $1 a 19.50
2* V .' f
#34001 13 4 2..EO
" ‘ 1 - f3
genooL “3 ;- 19.00
.‘ ‘.—- I ’ 0
43.001 L 2 a .00
a g , ~a a {m
V0100] 0-1.. 15 1‘,}.’_"‘/
UCF.OO]_ Inn? 5 L2]- 01.10
" v " d A,
ngOOI :3 -, £0.00
:7 - "Iv r3
40‘001 “w 1- 1;.00
I: 1 ‘vq f‘ .
UCflOP‘Y- Al“.-«' .1“. 9 O OO
'1 __ 1 "r) \
Jp'lOU; '..'j :3 2 ..27
~ - - ’3
.pvm0u1,-l# 9 zl.k&)
' , ,. I
[11" :1 - 1.4 20.2.]-
- ,. ‘. v Am a
tr“ :1 ..‘ ‘1’? .19ng
t-.. . - C) n
d: ' ’1 -3 ' 4 O . 5\
-, P’
All u? 13.76
I I
A. H4. 1 an F .‘ H ‘ _ - _, -. , , ' —\ ‘ A - 'v
n U' t»‘v “A: “g'd U0 L-twrmlnc if tzdcqcrs parcclv.a
~L-‘r -. 4-. - 1- -‘ 1... 4— n ‘ o 4-,» - ~ .. I. hf. ' .
m.,t 1U-np of L1~ gmzwu<1 TOl”b 0L anumlwrs p0 Lw<12m3 same
. - —. u , « ° n. ... a '- n ° ‘3 ~ I ~- .~ ‘
(.m 13.1“, )310 1w 6 the '-‘.t'3.’1t 0; Lu: 1a “31‘ roles of tuccn-
H‘ A r‘" . $- r‘ L. . A... 0 . , ‘ ... .1.‘ \ .-. :0 ‘ 1 °
ur‘. -413 3‘3, 14: g;rior<dl Ly u; n; paw buW o; tne 01f—
1‘: -. . L » ‘. ~ p ',~. 4- A 1 n « - . ' 4—' ° p I
izrcnccs Va ”fivn arcd U-acq.r' pchrflClOfl o vqe "ldfial'
~ 1,. H ‘ ._ 1 r ‘ ,. ' ‘ ,- Ans‘ o _ . .3 _ V “ .. ' ‘_ ‘ ‘h. _
cum} ;ctual' T‘LLS of teacA TB. $;qx‘a as Vone bu SHUtFQCt-
' ..- .. 4.‘ . A ., p 4— . v a ., 4-1, # - ‘ .n - w .- r, 1
14V be: scar: f0“ "‘Cuugl' roles irog pot :co'a LOT "lOuol'

163
gm;-

V

10118
t

y
i

L
l
5‘.

<

0/»,

J
u 1
1’1

09h
L.)

pnr
1n 2
48 hi

l-

!» ..
A 3.

lavel of

P
' -L

‘—
LI

”3 '3
J -J»

A

..y
L.

Ar {:4 9'-

L
. L,

'N :\
Q

‘

O

‘n

g-

a
,' 1
_, 5

'J

:1?
a +'-,

C:

1‘01 '3 o

O

H 1(1031"

L‘
v.13

”J
V

perceiv-

'lf—EI‘S

L “.I~/\‘
'J ._1\J

:L

‘7‘

S

S
«V
«I.

T

s to .

r\

grout

." {L5
‘.

IO

0:.-
la

‘A a
A-
v
1

g

:("V

71131;“;
r01;

§

,7
-1.

Llltrn
[V] J‘ '

C‘JTF‘lC

in

ch?rc.

3
2.

a

‘ .

quurre

‘ A!

a
--.-A.-. J

7.
T

""“ T H
‘- obs;
.JU. L.

H

OLlI'

.1
..J

 

 

 

/C

7,.
O

4

'I

II
\

Ilw

fig

f. L: 1’1

:It'

A k
ad

7*

7‘
2
3
n r

+-
J

18TS'
8 DC:

7
v
§
‘

qe teas
10%

L
..L\t~

V
‘7‘ {"1 I

n t
of
ffe

S

.}
rv

r01

”\{1
19

€ 110 '.

Ti

.4
‘ .—

"iieal"

..

=1
6 iff

a

"’
...,«Iv.
o

the

l'4 (fl
\A‘

‘

J
v

arh

7+
7

.1

%d F

'1

‘

01113.3
6’. KC‘ITE‘. l

1

1A

a
I-

J
L;

1"

m0¥

 

\ . —‘ ‘— - . V ~ .
t3: .-13h1r:' ”sctxfil" an? ”11:11" scores are given in

ThS-j ‘ I I ~ ‘9 0 v Q ‘~. _ V‘.‘ ' Q _ P 0
iu:-: 11. n4 1.31.313 o- Vflrlflmc, ass LSrd to Cttgrginp
‘- Ar‘ . (‘1‘ - a A ‘ ~. CD ~-. L‘s, ,4 L: .

if t4;s~ Wi‘L—r;n' s ”is .- 311+ for 111 of 18 a 01s

. _ , - .g‘ “0 n1--.‘.- ”fli- .. -fi° - ' ' . \
inslgl'l in tng st1aa. -uu unaly_1s of Jariance is given

in Sable 17. As the "F” ratio of 1.1; was less than 3.00,

+.‘ ‘ 4. (‘9‘ |- t A J—‘~ L». ‘ f‘ ‘ f g 1 '!
.J~ iii; r—gt" 1“ t 1 t~101—r1' P~rc'ptious fihfl tso Lctu~1
151 "11:11" reins of tfljchsrs.

 

 

 

A ‘I' rd?) A? TT‘ —,w-A~vr1-fi “if fir‘vp rfj
:IL.I£3~. 1“) ‘U L 3‘- o13l¢_.‘.‘- J .' ..., .. 'JV.-V J
A :1 .1 fi ‘ ' _ -\ ' " '1 '7‘ i . 1 :‘1 ‘A '., fi‘ '1' '_\ "1 ‘1 fi 'fi
\1- ..-¢XJ.-M -J -DJ\.¢.J...~) rt-.. .. ...; .LJJ...
f‘ "'1 r11 v .I ,‘ Tr. I - v- " flv- .r‘ f‘fl 7'1 1 . fl 7 “ 1‘
\r L - >4» H .‘J .J‘H.ah—l .-V .Jqu V: ¢..IAtJ-L.I ;~J
Y,“ ,1. fif- --'r\r- -_ r. H - .~ (5 s.-,-,-_ '1?" ‘7ft'1 0
301‘s, 4"» -J .11.. - -- -- — *
O — h . ‘ ‘
A 3" ,‘ fl " (‘3
J; J 1 l ’. it) ~.J ‘-\ a; s.
r!) r,r1 j r
Y‘ . ’j'
wntrwnq 13 s? :1 ?u 23 1 r1
...J-—t I ‘1 ~4 5 _~ a", ~ . / _‘_ _. .. / . J/

 

... a -7 O»- _ f)
‘lltltlifl 31-: 1;?)EI‘L. OJ 1’).|\' J "F at," — 1-. v3
3ro1 :35; O :4.)
‘71 ’: "WK -‘
-0 tal 222 5171.;7
Data coaczrnix; thy diffcrsnces o W"Cen tam teaclcrs'

p resptions of the Extent of txs'uctaal" roles of tea he‘s

differences t7 schools arc given in “sale 15. An analysis
of varianse was used to dfit’réine if th°s: fiifftrsnces

were the sans for all 3310013 included in this stu1v

56

This analysis of variance is shown in Table 18. Since the
"F" ratio of 1.62 was less than 1.83. the table value of
”P 95." there were no significant differences between any
of the school means which represented the differences in
the teachers' perceptions of the "actual" and "ideal" roles

of teachers.

TABLE 16

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHERS' SCORES
ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL” AND THE TEST
OF THE ”IDEAL" ROLES 0F TEACHERS
("IDEAL' - "ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 57 #.53
School E2 36 8.39
School E 7 5.00
School E 9 7.00
School 31 90 7.09
School H2 53 5.92
School w 10 9.00
School U 0 5.25
School N2 32 5.25
School N 13 5.15
School N 8 6'63
Area E 109 6.0
Ares U 161 6.18
Area N 53 5. 3
All 323 6.31

 

...-__-

-

57

TABLE 1?
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES

IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND ”IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS

W

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 83.84 “1.92 1.23
Means
Within 320 11024.82 3#.h5 "F ” 8 3.00
Groups '95
Total 322 11108.66
TABLE 18

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF THE ”ACTUAL”
AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF TEACHERS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean
of Squares Square "F" Ratio
Freedom

Between 10 588.56 54.86 1.62
Means

within 312 10560.10 33.85 "F 95" - 1.83
Groups '

Total 322 11108.66

 

A "t“ test was used to determine if administrators peru
oeived the extent of the "actual” roles of teachers to be
the sale as they perceived the extent of the ”ideal” roles
of teachers. This test was performed by using the sum of
the differences of each administrators' perceptions.

("ideal' - "actual" - difference) The mean of these dif-

58

ferences for the administrators was 2.33. The “t" ratio
was found to be “.73 which is greater than 2.69. the table
value of "t.995,' so this difference was highly significant
at and above the one per cent level of significance. The
hypothesis that administrators perceive the "ideal” roles

of teachers. administrators. students. and the community in
curriculum planning as being greater than they perceive

the "actual” roles of these groups to be, was accepted as

it applied to the roles of teachers.

Data concerning the differences between the administra-
tors' perceptions of the extent of the "actual” roles of
teachers and their perceptions of the "ideal” roles of
teachers were examined by areas. Averages of the differences
between administrators' "actual" and "ideal" scores are
given in Table 19. An analysis of variance was used to
determine if these differences were the same for all of the
areas included in this study. This analysis of variance
is shown in Table 20. As the "F" ratio of 0.81 was less

than 3.23. the table value of "P ' there were no

-95’
significant differences between any of the area means which
represented differences in the administrators' perceptions

of the "actual" and "ideal" roles of teachers.

59

TABLE 19

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL"

AND THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"

ROLES OF TEACHERS

(”IDEAL" - “ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 6 2.83
School E2 h .75
School E 2 7.00
School E 2 2.50
School 81 15 2.13
School U2 5 3.h0
School H3 2 5.00
8011001 "4 1 -1000
School N2 3 0.00
School N 3 3.33
School N 2 -1.00
uea E In 2079
Area H 23 2.52
Area N 8 1.00
All #5 2.33

TABLE 20
ANALISIS OP VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" AND “IDEAL” ROLES OP TEACHERS
some Degrees Sum Of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 2 17.90 8.95 .81

Means
Within #2 h6h.10 11.05 "F 9 " - 3.23

Groups ’ 5
Total “b h82.00

 

60
The Roles of Administrators

Items eight through fourteen of set one made up the
section of the questionnaire which was used to measure the
perceptions which teachers and administrators had of the
"actual" roles of administrators. Item and test variances

were computed and are shown in Table 21.

TABLE 21

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

Item Variance

8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.414

9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.065
10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .476
ll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.272
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .774
.952
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .620

17-99

13 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0

Test 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

This information was used with the Kuder Richardson formula
20 and the coefficient of reliability for the test of the
"actual" roles of administrators was .805. This was con-
sidered satisfactory.

Items eight through fourteen of set two made up the
section of the questionnaire which was used to measure the
perceptions which teachers and administrators had of the

"ideal” roles of administrators. Item and test variances

61

were computed and are shown in Table 22. This information
was used with the Kuder Richardson formula 20 and the coef-
ficient of reliability for the test of the "ideal” roles of

administrators was .838. This was considered satisfactory.

TABLE 22

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”IDEAL” ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

Item Variance

0.536
gseeeeeaeeeasasaeeee 0998

8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .598
11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.320
12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .870
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .924
14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .992
Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.13

A "t" test was used to determine if teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of the extent of the "actual"
roles of administrators were the same. The teachers' average
score for the test of the "actual" roles of administrators
was 21.37 and the administrators' average score on the same
test was 21.56. The "t" ratio was found to be 0.35. Since

this was less than 1.96. the table value of "t " there

.975’
was no significant difference between the teachers' and

administrators' perceptions of the "actual" roles of admin-
istrators. The hypothesis that administrators perceive the

"actual” roles of teachers. administrators, students. and

62

the community in curriculum planning to be greater than
teachers perceive these "actual" roles to be. was not proven
as it applied to the roles of administrators.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the "actual" roles of administrators were the same for
all of the areas included in this study. Averages of
teachers' scores by areas and by school districts are given
in Table 23. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 24.
The "F" ratio was found to be 2.42 which was less than 3.00.
the table value of "F 95.” so there were no significant dif-
ferences between any of the area means which represented the
teachers' perceptions of the "actual" roles of administrators.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the administrators' per-
oeptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of administra-
tors were the same for all of the areas included in this
study. Averages of administrators' scores are given in
Table 25. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 26.
Since the "P" ratio of 0.33 was less than 3.23. the table
value of "P 95." no significant differences were found be-
tween any of the area means which represented the administra-
tors' perceptions of the “actual” roles of administrators.

Data were examined by schools and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "actual" roles of administrators were
the same for all of the school districts used in this study.

63

TABLE 23

MEANS OF TEACHERS'

SCORES FOR THE TEST

OF THE “ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 19-39
School E2 36 21.00
School E3 7 24.00
School E4 9 21.78
School H1 94 22.35
School H2 53 21.02
School U 10 20.80
School N 4 24.25
School N2 32 20.66
School N 13 21.69
School N 8 23.25
Area E 109 20.68
Area N 161 21.86
Area N 53 21.30
All 323 21-37

TABLE 24
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BI AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS
Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 91.50 45.75 2.42

Means
Uithin 320 6044.92 18.89 "F ' - 3.00

Groups ‘95
Tbtal 322 6136.42

 

Averages of teachers' scores by school districts are listed

in Table 23.

The analysis of variance is shown in Table 27.

Since the "F" ratio of 1.93 is greater than 1.83. the table

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS'

OF THE "ACTUAL"

64

TABLE 25

SCORES FOR THE TEST
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 20.67
School E2 4 21.50
School 33 2 18.50
School 2 24.00
SOhOOl U]. 15 21073
School U2 5 22.00
School H 2 19.50
School w l 22.00
School N2 3 22.33
School N4 2 23.50
Area E 14 21.07
Area H 23 21.61
Area N 8 22.25
All 45 21.56

TABLE 26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”ACTUAL” ROLE OF ADMINISTRATORS
Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 7.20 3.60 0.33

Means
within 42 455.91 10.86 "F 9 " = 3.23

Groups 5
Total 44 463.11
value of ”F 95." but less than 2.32. the table value of
“F " a difference or differences existed between some

.99’

of the school means at the five per cent level of significance

a-

65

TABLE 27

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 358.26 35.83 1.93
Means

Within 312 5778.16 18.52 "F 95" = 1.83
Groups '

Total 322 6136.42 "F 99" I 2.32

 

but not at the one per cent level. Individual comparisons
of the means were made with the use of Studentized Ranges
and it was found that the means of school district W1 (22.35)
and school district E3 (24.00) were greater than the mean of
school district El (19.89). No other differences existed at
the five per cent level of significance. This showed that
the teachers in schools W1 and E3 perceived the administrap
tors' ”actual" roles in curriculum planning to be greater
than the teachers in school El perceived these "actual" roles
to be.

The teachers' average score for the test of the "ideal"
roles of administrators was 20.55 and the administrators'
average score for the same test was 23.29. The difference
between these scores was checked by the use of the ”t" test
and "t" was found to be 4.47. Since this was greater than
2.58, the table value of "t 995.“ the difference between

the teachers' perceptions and the administrators' perceptions

(J.

66

was highly significant at and above the one per cent level
of significance. The hypothesis that administrators perceive
the "ideal" roles of teachers. administrators. students. and
the community in curriculum planning to be greater than
teachers perceive these "ideal” roles to be. was accepted

as it applied to the roles of administrators.

Data were examined by areas and an analysis of variance
was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions of the
"ideal" roles of administrators were the same for all of
the areas included in this study. Averages of teachers'
scores by areas and school districts are given in Table 28.
The analysis of variance is shown in Table 29. Since the
"F" ratio of 3.69 was greater than 3.00. the table value of
"F 95." and less than 4.61. the table value of "F 99." a
difference or differences existed between some of the area
means at the five per cent level of significance but not
at the one per cent level. Individual comparisons of the
means were made by the use of Studentized Ranges and it was
found that the mean of area N (22.00) was greater than the
mean of area E (19.85) at the five per cent level of
significance. No other significant differences existed.
This showed that the teachers used in this study in Area N
perceived the administrators' "ideal" roles as being greater
than the teachers of area E perceived them to be.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the administrators' per-
ceptions of the extent of the "ideal" roles of administra-

tors were the same for all of the areas included in this

67

TABLE 28

MEANS OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”IDEAL” ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 57 19.47
School E2 36 20.06
School E3 7 22.86
School E4 9 19.11
School W1 94 20.96
School W2 53 19.85
School W 10 19.90
School W 4 22.00
School N2 32 21.59
School N3 13 22.85
School N4 8 22.25
Area E 109 19.85
Area W 161 20.55
Area N 53 22.00
All 323 20.55

TABLE 29

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F“ Ratio

 

of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 164.35 82.18 3.69
Means
Within 320 7137.45 22.30 "F 95" - 3.00
Groups ’
Total 322 7301.80 "F 99" I 4.61

 

study. Averages of administrators' scores by areas and
school districts are given in Table 30. The analysis of
variance is shown in Table 31. As the "F" ratio of 1.50
was less than 3.23. the table value of "F 95." there were

68

TABLE 30

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”IDEAL" ROLES OF‘ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 6 22.33
School E2 4 21.75
School E3 2 18.50
School E4 2 27.00
School W1 15 22.73
School W2 5 25.00
School W 2 23.00
School W l 25.00
School N2 3 27.00
School N3 3 23.00
School N4 2 24.50
Area E 14 22.29
Area W 23 2 .35
Area N 8 2 .88
All 45 23.29

 

no significant differences between any of the area means
which represented the administrators' perceptions of the
"ideal" roles of administrators.

Data were examined by schools and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers perceived
the extent of the "ideal” roles of administrators to be the
same for all of the schools included in this study. Averages
of teachers' scores by school districts are given in Table 28.
The analysis of variance is shown in Table 32. Since the "F"
ratio of 1.39 was less than 1.83. the table value of "F 95.”
there were no significant differences in any of the school

means which represented the teachers' perceptions of the

"ideal" roles of administrators.

69

TABLE 31

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”IDEAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sums of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 34.29 17.50 1.50
Means
Within 42 488.95 11.64 "F 95" a 3.23
Groups ’
Total 44 523.24
TABLE 32

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS
OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL” ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 311.52 31.15 1.39
Means

Within 312 6990.28 22.40 "F " a 1.83
Groups '95

Total 322 7301.80

 

A "t" test was used to determine if teachers perceived
the extent of the "actual” roles of administrators to be the
same as they perceived the extent of the "ideal" roles of
administrators to be. The teachers' score for the test of
the "actual" roles of administrators was 21.37 and for the
test of the "ideal“ roles of administrators it was 20.55.

70

This "t" test was performed by using the sum of the dif-
ferences of each teacher's perceptions and the "t” ratio
was found to be 3.11. As this was greater than 2.58. the
table value of ”t 995." a highly significant difference was
found to exist at and above the one per cent level of sig-
nificance. The hypothesis that teachers perceive the
"ideal" roles of teachers. administrators. students. and
the community in curriculum planning as being greater than
they perceive the "actual“ roles to be. was not proven as it
applied to the roles of administrators. Even though a
significant difference existed. this difference was in the
reverse of the way in which it was stated in the hypothesis.
Teachers perceived the "actual" role of administrators as
being greater than the "ideal" role of administrators.

Data concerning the differences between teachers' per-
ceptions of the extent of the ”actual" roles of administra-
tors and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal”
roles of administrators were examined by areas. Averages of
the differences in teachers' scores are given in Table 33.
An analysis of variance was used to determine if these dif-
ferences were the same for all areas included in this study.
This analysis of variances is shown in Table 34. The "F"
ratio of 3.62 was greater than 3.00. the table value of
"F 95.“ and less than 4.61. the table value of "F 99.” so
a difference or differences existed at the five per cent
level of significance but not at the one per cent level.
Individual comparisons of the means were made by the use
of Studentized Ranges and it was found that the mean of

71

TABLE 33

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHERS' SCORES
ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS
("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 -0.42
8611001 E2 36 - a 9“
School 53 7 -l.l4
School 9 -2.67
School W1 94 -1.39
School W2 53 -1.17
School W 10 - .90
School W 4 -2.2
School N2 32 .9
School N 13 1.15
School N 8 -1.00
Area E 109 - .83
Area W 161 -1.31
Area N 53 .70

TABLE 34

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF THE DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL"
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Square Square
Freedom

Between 2 160.89 80.45 3.62
Means

Within 320 7117.33 22.24 "F 5" = 3.00
Groups ‘9

Total 322 7278.22 "F 99" = 4.61

 

area N (0.70) was greater than the mean of area W (-1.31) at

the five per cent level of significance. No other significant

72

differences were found. This showed that the teachers used
in this study from area N perceived the administrators'
"ideal" roles as being greater than the administrators'
"actual" roles and the teachers from area W perceived the
administrators' "actual" roles as being greater than the
administrators' "ideal" roles.

The data concerning the differences between the teachers'
perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of administra-
tors and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal”
roles of administrators were examined by schools. Average
differences in teachers' scores are given by school districts
in Table 33. An analysis of variance was used to determine
if these differences were the same for all of the schools in-
cluded in this study. This analysis of variance is shown in
Table 35. Since the "F" ratio of 1.05 was less than 1.83. the
table value of "F 95." there were no significant differences
between any of the school means which represented the dif-
ferences in teachers' perceptions of the "actual" and "ideal"
roles of administrators.

A "t" test was used to determine if administrators perh
ceived the extent of the "actual" roles of administrators to
be the same as they perceived the extent of the "ideal" roles
of administrators to be. The administrators' average score
for the test of the "actual" roles of administrators was
21.56 and their average score for the test of the "ideal"
roles of administrators was 23.29. This "t" test was per-
formed by using the sum of the differences of each administra-

tor's perceptions. The "t" ratio was found to be 3.84 and

73

TABLE 35

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS
OF THE DIFFERENCES IN TEACHERS' SCORE
FOR THE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL"
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 236.46 23.65 1.05
Means

Within 312 7041.76 22.57 "F " I 1.83
Groups '95

Total 322 7278.22

 

since this was greater than 2.69. the table value of "t 995."
this difference was highly significant at and above the one
per cent level of significance. The hypothesis that administra-
tors perceive the "ideal" roles of teachers. administrators.
students. and the community in curriculum planning as being
greater than they perceive the "actual" roles of these groups
to be. was accepted as it applied to the roles of administra-
tors.

Data concerning the differences between the administra-
tors' perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of
administrators and their perceptions of the extent of the
"ideal” roles of administrators were examined by areas.
Averages of these differences in administrators' scores
are given by areas and school districts in Table 36. An

analysis of variance was used to determine if these dif-

ferences were the same for all of the areas included in this

74

TABLE 36

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES ON THE TEST
OF THE ”ACTUAL" AND THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS
("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

Unit Participants Mean

 

School E1 6 1.67
School E2 4 .25
School E 2 .00
School E 2 3.00
School W1 15 1.00
School W2 5 3.00
School W 2 3.50
School W 1 .00
School N2 3 .67
School N 3 1.67
School N 2 1.00
Area E 14 1.21
Area W 23 1.74
Area N 8 2.63
All 45 1.73

 

study. This analysis of variance is shown in Table 37.

Since the "F" ratio of 0.55 was less than 3.23. the table

TABLE 37

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF THE DIFFERENCES IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTU " AND "IDEAL"
ROLES OF ADMINISTRATORS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 10.14 5.07 0.55
Means
Within 42 390.66 9.30 "F 95" I 3.23
Groups '

Total 44 400.80

 

75

value of "F 95." there were no significant differences
between any of the area means which represented the dif-
ferences in the administrators' perceptions of the "actual"

and "ideal" roles of administrators.
The Roles of Students

Items fifteen through twenty-one of set one made up
the section of the questionnaire which was used to measure
the perceptions which teachers and administrators had of the
"actual" roles of students. Item and test variances were
computed and are shown in Table 38. This information was
used with the Kuder Richardson formula 20 and the coefficient
of reliability for the test of the "actual" roles of students

was .866. This was considered satisfactory.

TABLE 38

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

Item Variance
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .543
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .543
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .616
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .832
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .468
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .992
21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .638

17.93

TeSt O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

76

Items fifteen through twenty-one of set two made up
the section of the questionnaire which was used to measure
the perceptions which teachers and administrators had of
the ”ideal" roles of students. Item and test variances were
computed and are shown in Table 39. This information was
used with the Kuder Richardson formula 20 and the coefficient
of reliability for the test of the "ideal" roles of students

was .870. This was considered satisfactory.

TABLE 39

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE “IDEAL” ROLES OF STUDENTS

Item variance
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.195
16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.026
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.273
18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.268
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .954
20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .895
21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.251

Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.90

The teachers' average score for the test of the "actual"
roles of students was 6.11 and the administrators' average
score for the same test was 8.11. The difference between
these scores was checked by the use of the "t" test and the
"t“ ratio was found to be 3.45. As this was greater than

2.58. the table value of "t " the difference was highly

.995"
significant at and above the one per cent level of significance.

77

The hypothesis that administrators perceive the "actual"
roles of teachers. administrators. students and the com-
munity in curriculum planning to be greater than teachers
perceive these "actual" roles to be. was accepted as it
applied to the roles of students.

Data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "actual" roles of students were the
same for all of the areas used in this study. Averages of
teachers' scores by areas and school districts are given in
Table 40. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 41.
The "F" ratio of 0.68 was less than 3.00. the table value
of "F 95." so there were no significant differences between
any of the area means which represented the teachers' perb

ceptions of the "actual" roles of students.

TABLE 40

MEANS OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 7.14
School E2 36 5.69
School E 7 6.00
School E 9 5.89
School W1 94 5.05
School N2 53 7.58
School W 10 .20
School W 4 .00
School N2 32 6.00
School N3 13 4.69
School N4 8 8.20
Area E 109 6. 9
Area W 161 5.87
Area N 53 6.06
All 323 6.11

 

78

TABLE 41

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 2 24.89 12.45 0.68
Means

Within 320 5842.32 18.26 "F 9 " I 3.00
Groups ° 5

Total 322 5867.21

 

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the administrators' perb
ceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of students
were the same for all of the areas used in this study.
Averages of administrators' scores by areas and by school
districts are given in Table 42. The analysis of variance
is shown in Table 43. Since the ”F" ratio of 0.56 was less
than 3.23. the table value of "F 95." there were no signifi-
cant differences between any of the area means which repre-
sented the administrators' perceptions of the "actual" roles
of students.

The data were examined by schools and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "actual" roles of students were the
same for all of the schools included in this study. Averages
of teachers' scores by school districts are given in Table 40.

The analysis of variance is shown in Table 44. As the "F"

79

ratio of 2.20 was greater than 1.83. the table value of

"F 95." but less than 2.32. the table value of "F 99." a
difference or differences existed between some of the school
means at the five per cent level of significance. but not at
the one per cent level. Individual comparisons of the means
were made with the use of Studentized Ranges and it was
found that the means of school district El (7.14) and school
district W2 (7.58) were greater than the mean of school dis-
trict W1 (5.05) at the five per cent level of significance.
There were no other significant differences. This showed
that the teachers used in this study from school district E1
and school district W2 perceived the "actual" roles of stu-

dents as being greater than the teachers of school district

W1 perceived these "actual" roles to be.

TABLE 42

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE ”ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 7.83
School E2 4 9.50
School ER 2 8.50
School 2 6.00
School W1 15 8.13
School W2 5 9.60
School W3 2 3.00
School W4 1 1.00
School N2 3 7.67
School N3 3 8.67
School N4 2 12.50
Area E 14 8.14
Area w 23 7.70
Area N 8 9.25
All 45 8.11

 

80

TABLE 43

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 14.35 7.18 0.56
Means
Within 42 540.09 12.86 "F " I 3.23
Groups '95
Total 44 554.44
TABLE 44

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS
OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 385.83 38.58 2.20
Means

Within 312 5481.38 17.57 "F " I 1.83
Groups '95

Total 322 5867.21 "F 99" I 2.32

 

A "t" test was used to determine if teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of the extent of the ”ideal"
roles of students were the same. The teachers' average
score for the test of the "ideal" roles of students was

11.97 and the administrators' average score for the same

81

test was 14.24. The "t" ratio was found to be 2.44. Since

this was greater than 1.96. the table value of "t " but

.975'

less than 2.58. the table value of "t " these average

0
scores were significantly different at9iie five per cent
level of significance but not at the one per cent level.

The hypothesis that administrators perceive the "ideal"
roles of teachers. administrators. students. and the com-
munity in curriculum planning to be greater than teachers
perceive these "ideal" roles to be. was accepted as it
applied to the roles of students.

Data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "ideal" roles of students were the
same for all of the areas included in this study. Averages
of teachers' scores by areas and school districts are given
in Table 45. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 46.
Since the "F" ratio of 0.64 was less than 3.00. the table

value of "F ." there were no significant differences be-

tween any ofgihe area means which represented the teachers'
perceptions of the "ideal" roles of students.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the administrators' per-
ceptions of the extent of the "ideal" roles of students
were the same for all of the areas included in this study.
Averages of administrators' scores by areas and school
districts are given in Table 47. The analysis of variance
is shown in Table 48. As the "F" ratio of 0.38 was less

than 3.23. the table value of "F ." there were no signifi-

95

MEANS OF TEACHERS'

82

TABLE 45

SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 57 11.72
School E2 36 12. 61
School E3 7 15.86
School E4 9 11.89
School W1 94 11.37
School W2 53 12.04
School W3 10 12.90
School W4 4 9.00
School N2 32 12.69
School N3 13 11.15
School N4 8 13.00
Area E 109 12.29
Area W 161 11.63
Area N 53 12.36
All 323 11.97

TABLE 46

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES

FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"

ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

Source

 

Degrees Sum of Mean "F" RatI;
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 38.31 19.16 0.64
Means
Within 320 9566.44 29.90 "F " I 3.00
Groups '95
Total 322 9604.75

 

cant differences between any of the area means which repre-

sented the administrators' perceptions of the "ideal" role

of students.

83

TABLE 47

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS'

SCORES FOR THE TEST

OF THE "IDEAL"

ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 11.33
School E2 4 17.75
School E3 2 13.50
School E4 2 9.00
School W1 15 13.67
School W2 5 23.40
School W 2 10.00
School W l 1.00
School N2 3 12.33
School N3 3 14.00
School N4 2 17.50
Area E 14 1 .14
Area W 23 1 .91
Area N 8 14.2
All 45 14.2

TABLE 48
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS
Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 27.27 13.64 0.38

Means
Within 42 1505.04 35.83 "F 95" I 3.23

Groups '

Total 44 1532.31

 

Data were examined by schools and an analysis of vari-
ance was used to determine if the teachers perceived the

extent of the "ideal" roles of students to be the same for

all of the schools included in this study. Averages of
teachers' scores are given in Table 45. The analysis of
variance is shown in Table 49. The "F" ratio of 0.78 was
less than 1.83. the table value of "F.9 ." so there were no
significant differences between any of the school means
which represented the teachers' perceptions of the "ideal"
roles of students.

A "t" test was used to determine if teachers perceived
the extent of the "actual" roles of students to be the same
as they perceived the extent of the "ideal" roles of stu-
dents to be. The teachers' average score for the test of
the "actual" roles of students was 6.11 and for the test
of the "ideal" roles of students, it was 11.97. This "t"
test was performed by using the sum of the differences of
each teachers' perceptions and the "t" ratio was found to
be 20.28. As this was greater than 2.58. the table value of
"t 995," a highly significant difference was found to exist
at and above the one per cent level of significance. The
hypothesis that teachers perceive the "ideal" roles of
teachers. administrators. students, and the community in
curriculum planning as being greater than they perceive
the "actual" roles of these groups to be, was accepted as
it applied to students.

Data concerning the differences between the teachers'
perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of students
and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal" roles
of students were examined by areas. Averages of these

differences in teachers' scores are given in Table 50. An

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS'
FOR THE TEST OF THE ”IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

85

TABLE 49

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 10 235.58 23.56 0.78
Means
Within 312 9369.17 30.03 " I 1.83
Groups
Total 322 9604.75
TABLE 50

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHERS'
ON THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" AND THE
TEST OF THE ”IDEAL"

ROLES OF STUDENTS
("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

m

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 57 4.58
School E2 36 6.92
School E3 7 9.86
School E4 9 6.00
School W1 94 6. 2
School W2 53 4. 5
School W 10 7.70
School W 4 5.00

'School N2 32 6.69
School N3 13 6.46
School N4 8 4.50
Area E 109 5.81
Area W 161 5.76
Area N 53 6.30
All 323 5.86

 

analysis of variance was used to determine if these dif-

ferences were the same for all of the schools used in this

study.

This analysis of variance is shown in Table 52.

86

TABLE 51

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS
OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 12.34 6.17 0.23
Means
Within 320 8677.67 27.12 "F 95" I 3.00
Groups ‘
Total 322 8690.01
TABLE 52

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS
OF THE "ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL” ROLES OF STUDENTS

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 448.75 44.88 1.70
Means

Within 312 8241.26 26.41 "F " = 1.83
Groups ‘95

Total 322 8690.01

 

Since the "F" ratio of 1.70 was less than 1.83. the table

value of "F " there were no significant differences be-

.95'
tween any of the school means which represented the dif-
ferences in teachers' perceptions of the "actual" and

"ideal" roles of students.

87

A "t" test was used to determine if administrators
perceived the extent of the "actual" roles of students to
be the same as they perceived the extent of the "ideal"
roles of students to be. The administrators' average
score for the test of the "actual" roles of students was
8.11 and for the test of the "ideal" roles of students. it
was 14.24. This "t" test was performed by using the sum
of the differences of each administrators perceptions.

The "t" ratio was found to be 8.66 and since this was

greater than 2.69. the table value of "t " this dif-

.
ference was highly significant at and aboZZSthe one per cent
level of significance. The hypothesis that administrators
perceive the "ideal" roles of teachers. administrators.
students. and the community in curriculum planning as being
greater than they perceive the "actual" roles of these groups
to be. was accepted as it applied to the roles of students.
Data concerning the differences between the administra-
tors' perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of
students and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal"
roles of students were examined by areas. Averages of these
differences in administrators' scores are given in Table 53.
An analysis of variance was used to determine if these dif-
ferences were the same for all of the areas included in
this study. This analysis of variance is shown in Table 54.
Since the "F" ratio of 1.24 was less than 3.23. the table
value of "F 95." there were no significant differences be-
tween any of the area means which represented the differences
in the administrators' perceptions of the "actual" and

"ideal" roles of students.

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

SCORES ON THE TEST

AND THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"
ROLES OF STUDENTS

("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" I DIFFERENCE)

ADMINISTRATORS'
OF THE "ACTUAL"

88

TABLE 53

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 3.50
School E2 4 8.25
School E3 2 5.00
School E4 2 3.00
School W1 15 5.53
School W2 5 13.80
School W 2 7.00
School W l 0.00
School N2 3 4.67
School N 3 5.33
School N 2 5.00
Area E 14 5.00
Area W 23 7.21
Area N 8 5.00
All 45 6.13

TABLE 54
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF THE
"ACTUAL" AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF STUDENTS
Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 2 55.29 27.65 1.24

Means
Within 42 937.91 22.33 "F 95" I 3.23

Groups °
Total 44 993.20

 

89
The Roles of the Community

Items twenty-two through twenty-eight of set one made
up the section of the questionnaires which was used to
measure the perceptions which teachers and administrators
had of the "actual" roles of the community. Item and test
variances were computed and are shown in Table 55. This
information was used with the Kuder Richardson formula 20
and the coefficient of reliability for the test of the
"actual" roles of the community was .879. This was con-
sidered satisfactory.

Items twenty-two through twenty-eight of set two made
up the section of the questionnaire which was used to
measure the perceptions which teachers and administrators
had of the "ideal" roles of the community. Item and test
variances were computed and are given in Table 56. This
information was used with the Kuder Richardson formula 20
and the coefficient of reliability for the test of the "ideal"
roles of the community was .883. This was considered
satisfactory.

A "t" Test was used to determine if teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of the extent of the "actual"
roles of the community were the same. The teachers'
average score for the test of the "actual" roles of the
community was 7.70 and the administrators' average score
for the same test was 8.78. The "t" ratio was found to
be 1.80. Since this was less than 1.96. the table value

of "t 975." there was no significant difference between

90

TABLE 55

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

Item Variance
22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .876
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .839
24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.105
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .739
26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .658
27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .510

.997
TeSt coco-0.00000000000023019

28 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

TABLE 56

TEST AND ITEM VARIANCES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

Item variance
22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.354
23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.348
24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.535
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .920
26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.070
27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .738
28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.279

Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.96

the teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the "actual"
roles of the community. The hypothesis that administrators
perceive the "actual" roles of teachers, administrators,

students. and the community in curriculum p1anning to be

91

greater than teachers perceive these "actual" roles to be
was not proven as it applied to the roles of the community.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "actual" roles of the community were
the same for all of the areas included in this study.
Averages of teachers' scores by areas and school distncts
are given in Table 57. The analysis of variance is shown
in Table 58. The "F" ratio was found to be 0.45 which was
less than 3.00, the table value of "F 95." so there were no
significant differences between any of the area means which
represented the teachers' perceptions of the "actual" roles
of the community.

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the administrators' per-
ceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of the com-
munity were the same for all of the areas included in this
study. Averages of administrators' scores are given in
Table 59. The analysis of variance is shown in Table 60.
Since the "F" ratio of 1.41 was less than 3.23. the table

value of "F " no significant differences were found be-

.
tween any of9ihe area means which represented the administra-
tors' perceptions of the "actual" roles of the community.

Data were examined by schools and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions
of the extent of the "actual" roles of the community were

the same for all of the school districts used in this

study. Averages of teachers' scores by school districts

92

TABLE 57

MEANS OF TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL“ ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

j 1
- j:—

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 8.30
School E2 36 6.00
School E3 7 8.14
School E4 9 9.11
School H1 94 6.81
School HZ 53 8.92
School H3 10 8.50
School N4 4 5.25
School N2 32 10.75
School N3 13 3.85
School N4 8 5.63
Area E 109 7.60
Area H 161 7.57
Area N 53 8.28
All 323 7.70

TABLE 58

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Source Degrees of Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
Freedom Squares Square
Between 2 21.85 10.93 0.45
Means
Within 320 7850.42 24.53 "F 95" = 3.00
Groups '
Total 322 7872.27

 

are given in Table 57. The analysis of variance is shown
in Table 61. Since the "F" ratio of 3.79 was greater than
2.32. the table value of "F 99." a difference or differences
existed between some of the school means at both the five

per cent and the one per cent levels of significance.

93

TABLE 59

MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 6.83
School E2 4 9.00
School E3 2 6.50
School E4 2 7.00
School WI 15 9.47
School N2 5 9.80
School N3 2 8.50
School H4 1 7.00
School N2 3 12.00
School N3 3 5.33
School N4 2 12.00
Area E 14 7.43
Area H 23 9.35
Area N 8 9.50
All 45 8.78

TABLE 60

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio

 

of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 37.13 18.57 1.41
Means
Within 42 554.65 13.21 "F " = 3.23
Groups ’95
Total 44 591.78

 

Individual comparisons of the means were made with the use
of Studentized Ranges. It was found that there were twelve
differences which were significant at the five per cent level

of significance and that six of these were also highly

94

TABLE 61

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 853.52 85.35 3.79
Means

Within 312 7018.75 22.50 "F 95" = 1.83
Groups '

Total 322 7872.27 "F 99" I 2.32

 

significant at the one per cent level. These differences
are shown in Table 62. This showed that there were many
differences in the way teachers in the different school
districts used in this study perceived the extent of the
"actual" roles of the community in curriculum planning.

The teachers' average score for the test of the "ideal"
roles of the community was 11.35 and the administrators'
average score on the same test was 13.62. The difference
between these scores was checked by the use of the "t"
test and the "t" ratio was found to be 2.66. Since this

was greater than 2.58. the table value of "t " the dif-

.
ference between the teachers' perceptions and9ZHe administra-
tors' perceptions was highly significant at and above the

one per cent level of significance. The hypothesis that
administrators perceive the "ideal" roles of teachers,
administrators, students. and the community in curriculum
planning to be greater than teachers perceive these "ideal"

roles to be was accepted as it applied to the roles of the

community.

95

TABLE 62

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCHOOL MEANS
OF THE TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY
(SIGNIFICANT AT THE FIVE PER CENT LEVEL)

 

 

 

School-- Is Greater Than --School
N2 (10.75) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . El (8.30)
N1 (6.81)a
E2 (6.00)a
N4 (5-63)a
N3 (3-85)
”2 (8.92) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "1 (6o81)a
E2 (6.00)
N3 (3.85)a
E1 (8030) O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 E2 (6000)
N3 (3.85)3

an (9.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N3 (3.85)
N3 (8.50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N3 (3.85)

 

aAlso highly significant at the one per cent level

Data were examined by areas and an analysis of variance
was used to determine if the teachers' perceptions of the
extent of the "ideal" roles of the community were the same
for all of the areas included in this study. Averages of
teachers' scores are given in Table 63. The analysis of
variance is shown in Table 64. Since the "F" ratio of 1.23

was less than 3.00, the table value of "F " there were no

.95’
significant differences between any of the area means which
represented the teachers' perceptions of the "ideal" roles

of the community.

MEANS OF TEACHERS'

96

TABLE 63

SCORES FOR THE TEST

 

 

 

 

OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 10.89
School E2 36 12.00
School E3 7 15.33
School E4 9 8.
School H1 94 11.89
School H2 53 9.53
School U3 10 10.60
School U4 4 9.75
School N2 32 14.28
School N3 13 8.62
School N4 8 11.25
Area E 109 11.36
Area W 161 10.98
Area N 53 12.43
All 323 11.35

TABLE 64

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF TEACHERS' SCORES

FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"

ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 2 84.15 42.08 1.23
Means

Within 320 10941.01 34.19 "F 95" = 3.00
Groups ‘

Total 322 11025.16

 

The data were examined by areas and an analysis of

variance was used to determine if the administrators' per-

ceptions of the extent of the “ideal" roles of the community

were the same for all of the areas included in this study.

97

Averages of administrators' scores by areas and school
districts are given in Table 65. The analysis of variance
is shown in Table 66. As the "F" ratio of 1.32 was less

than 3.23, the table value of "F ."1here were no

significant differences between a:: of the area means which
represented the administrators' perceptions of the "ideal"
roles of the community.

Data were examined by schools and an analysis of
variance was used to determine if the teachers perceived
the extent of the "ideal" roles of the community to be the
same for all of the schools included in this study. Averages
of teachers' scores by school districts are given in Table 63.
The analysis of variance is shown in Table 67. Since the
"F" ratio of 2.51 was greater than 2.31. the table value of
"F 99," a difference or differences existed between some of
the school means at both the five per cent and the one
per cent levels of significance. Individual comparisons of
the means were made with the use of Studentized Ranges.

It was found that there were seven differences which were
significant at the five per cent level of significance and
that two of these were also highly significant at the one
per cent level. These differences are given in Table 68.
This showed that there were differences in the way teachers
in the different school districts used in this study per-
ceived the extent of the "ideal" roles of the community.

A "t" test was used to determine if teachers per-

ceived the extent of the "actual" roles of the community

to be the same as they perceived the extent of the "ideal"

98

TABLE 6
MEANS OF ADMINISTRATORS'

5

SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 6 12.17
School 32 4 17.75
School E3 2 14.50
School E4 2 7.50
School W1 15 13.47
School U2 5 16.80
School N3 2 18.50
School N4 1 13.00
School N2 3 9.67
School N3 3 8-33
School N4 2 17.50
Area E 14 13-43
Area w 23 14.61
Area N 8 11.13
All 45 13.62

TABLE 66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS
OF ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY
Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 72.80 36.40 1.32

Means
Within 42 1159.78 27.61 "F " = 3.23

Groups '95
Total 44 1232.58

 

roles of the community to be.

The teachers'

average score

for the test of the "actual" roles of the community was

7.70 and for the test of the "ideal" roles of the community.

99

TABLE 67

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF TEACHERS' SCORES
FOR THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 819.51 81.95 2.51
Means

iithin 312 10205.65 32.71 "F " a 1.83
Groups '95

Total 322 11025.16 "F 99" = 2.32

 

it was 11.35. This "t" test was performed by using the sum
of the differences of each teacher's perceptions. The "t”
ratio was found to be 10.80. As this was greater than 2.58.

the table value of "t " a highly significant difference

.99 '
was found to exist at an: above the one per cent level of
significance. The hypothesis that teachers perceive the
"ideal" roles of teachers. administrators, students. and the
community in curriculum planning as being greater than they
perceive the "actual" roles of these groups to be, was ac-
cepted as it applied to the roles of the community.

Data concerning the differences between teachers' perb
ceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of the com-
munity and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal"
roles of the community were examined by areas. Averages
of the differences in teachers' scores are given in Table

69. An analysis of variance was used to determine if these

differences were the same for all of the areas included in

OF THE TEACHERS'

OF THE "IDEAL"

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCHOOL MEANS
SCORES FOR THE TEST
ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

100

TABLE 68

(SIGNIFICANT AT THE FIVE PER CENT LEVEL)

 

 

 

 

 

School-- Is Greater Than --School
N2 (14.28) c o o o o o o o o o o ”2 (9053)a
El (10.89)
E4 (8.44)a
N3 (8.62)
33 (15.57) c o o o o o o o o o 0 Eu (8.“)
W2 (9.53)
“1 (11.89) c o o o o o o o o o 0 W2 (9053)
8Also highly significant at the one per cent level
TABLE 69
MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
TEACHERS' SCORES ON THE TEST
OF THE "ACTUAL" AND THE TEST
OF THE "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY
("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" 8 DIFFERENCE)

Unit Participants Mean
School E1 57 2.60
School E2 36 6.00
School E3 7 7-43
School E4 9 - .67
School N1 94 5-09
School w2 53 .60
School H3 10 2.10
School W4 4 4.50
School N2 32 .53
School N 13 -77
School N 8 5.63
Area E 109 3.76
Area H 161 3.41
Area N 53 ~15
A11 323 3.65

 

this study.

This analysis of variance is shown in Table 70.

The "F" ratio of 0.32 was less than 3.00. the table value of

101

TABLE 70

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

     

“FFmRatio

 

 

Source Degrees "SEH of - 'fi;;£” "_W_‘
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 23.9# 11.97 0.32
Means
Within 320 11871.53 37.10 "F 95" = 3.00
Groups '
Total 322 11895.#7
"F 95." so there were no significant differences between any

of the area means which represented the differences in
teachers' perceptions of the "actual" and “ideal" roles of
the community.

The data concerning the differences between the teachers'
perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of the
community and their perceptions of the extent of the "ideal"
roles of the community were examined by schools. Average
differences in teachers' scores are given in Table 69.

An analysis of variance was used to determine if these
differences were the same for all of the schools included
in this study. This analysis of variance is shown in
Table 71. Since the "F" ratio of “.13 was greater than

2.32. the table value of "F " a difference or differences

.99’
existed between some of the school means at both the five
per cent and the one per cent levels of significance.

Individual comparisons of the means were made with the

102

use of Studentized Ranges. It was found that there were
twelve differences which were significant at the five per
cent level of significance and that five of these were also
highly significant at the one per cent level. These dif-
ferences are given in Table 72. This showed that there
were many differences in the way teachers in the different
school districts used in this study differed in their per-
ceptions of the extent of the "actual" and "ideal" roles of
the community in curriculum planning.

A "t" test was used to determine if administrators
perceived the extent of the "actual" roles of the community
to be the same as they perceived the extent of the "ideal"
roles of the community. The administrators' average score
for the test of the "actual" roles of the community was
8.78 and their average score for the test of the "ideal"
role of the community was 13.62. This "t" test was performed
by using the sum of the differences of each administrator's
perceptions. The "t" ratio was found to be 7.25 and since
this was greater than 2.69. the table value of "t 995."
this difference was highly significant at and above the
one per cent level of significance. The hypothesis that
administrators perceive the "ideal" roles of teachers.
administrators. students. and the community in curriculum
planning as being greater than they perceive the "actual"
roles of these groups to be. was accepted as it applied
to the roles of the community.

Data concerning the differences between the administra-

tors' perceptions of the extent of the "actual" roles of

103

TABLE 71

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY SCHOOLS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE TESTS OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

‘
:—:

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom

Between 10 1289.99 129.00 4.13
Means

within 312 9735.17 31.20 "F " I 1.83
Groups '95

Total 322 11025.16 "F 99" a 2.32

TABLE 72

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCHOOL MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN TEACHERS' SCORES FOR THE ESTS OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND "IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY
(SIGNIFICANT AT THE FIVE PER CENT LEVEL)

 

 

Schoo1-- Is Greater Than --School

 

E3 (7"‘3’ o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0:. o o ”2 (0‘60 a

34 (-0.67
E2 (6.00) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g: £2.2333

E4 (-0.67)a
Nu (5.63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . we (0.60)

30 (-0.67)
NI (5.09) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E1 (2.60)
N2 (0.60)a

Eu {-0.67)a
N3 (4.77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wz (0.60)
N2 (3.53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . we (0.60)

 

aAlso highly significant at the one per cent level

104

the community and their perceptions of the extent of the
"ideal" roles of the community were examined by areas.
Averages of these differences in administrators' scores

are given in Table 73. An analysis of variance was used

to determine if these differences were the same for all

of the areas included in this study. This analysis of
variance is shown in Table 70. Since the "F" ratio of 2.86

was less than 3.23. the table value of "F " there were

.95'
no significant differences between any of the area means

which represented the differences between administrators'
perceptions of the "actual" and "ideal" roles of the com-

munity.

105

TABLE 73

MEANS OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES ON THE TEST
OF TdE "ACTUAL" AND THE TEST OF THE "IDEAL"
ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY
("IDEAL" - "ACTUAL" = DIFFERENCE)

 

 

 

 

Unit Participants Mean
School El 6 5.33
School 32 b 8.75
School E3 2 8.00
School Eh 2 .50
School wl 15 u.00
School H2 5 7.00
School W3 2 10.00
School Wu 1 6.00
School N2 3 - 2.33
School N3 3 3.00
School JA 2 5.50
Area E 1“ 6.00
Area U 23 5.26
Area N 8 1.63
All #5 “.84

‘ TABLE 7h

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY AREAS OF THE DIFFERENCES
IN ADMINISTRATORS' SCORES FOR THE TEST OF THE "ACTUAL"
AND THE “IDEAL" ROLES OF THE COMMUNITY

 

 

 

Source Degrees Sum of Mean "F" Ratio
of Squares Square
Freedom
Between 2 105.61 52.81 2.86
Means
Within #2 776.30 18.48 "F 95" a 3.23
Groups '

Total #4 881.91

 

106

Summary

The four hypotheses were tested with the following

results.

1.

The hypothesis that administrators perceive the
"actual" roles of teachers, administrators, students.
and the community in curriculum planning to be
greater than teachers perceive these "actual"
roles to be, was accepted at the one per cent
level as it applied to the roles of teachers and
students. It was not proven as it applied to the
roles of administrators and the community. as dif-
ferences in these categories were not significant.
The hypothesis that administrators perceive the
"ideal" roles of teachers, administrators. stu-
dents. and the community in curriculum planning

to be greater than teachers perceive these "ideal"
roles to be. was accepted at the one per cent level
as it applied to the roles of administrators and
the community. and at the five per cent level as
it applied to the roles of students. It was not
proven for the roles of teachers as the difference
in this category was not significant.

The hypothesis that teachers perceive the "ideal"
roles of teachers. administrators. students. and
the community in curriculum planning as being
greater than they perceive the "actual" roles of

these groups to be. was accepted at the one per

107

cent level as it applied to the roles of teachers,
students. and the community. It was not proven as
it applied to the roles of administrators. At the
one per cent level of significance, teachers per-
ceived the "actual" roles of administrators as
being greater than they perceived the administrators'
"ideal" roles should be.

The hypothesis that administrators perceive the
"ideal” roles of teachers. administrators. stu-
dents. and the community in curriculum planning

as being greater than they perceive the "actual"
roles of these groups to be. was accepted at the

one per cent level for all of the groups.

Teachers' scores were examined by areas and a difference

or differences between areas were found to exist in the

following:

1.
2.

3.

4.

The "actual" roles of teachers (one per cent level).
The "ideal" roles of teachers (five per cent level).
The "ideal" roles of administrators (five per cent
level).

The differences between the "actual" and "ideal"

roles of administrators (five per cent level).

Administrators' scores were examined by areas and no

significant differences were found. This may have been

partly due to the smaller number of administrators used in

this study.

Teachers' scores were examined by schools and a dif-

ference or differences between schools were found to exist

in the following:

108

The "actual" roles of administrators (five per cent
level).

The "actual" roles of students (five per cent level).
The "actual" roles of the community (one per cent
level).

The "ideal" roles of the community (one per cent
level).

The differences between the "actual" and "ideal"

roles of the community (one per cent level).

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND IMPLICATIONS
Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine if teachers
differed from administrators in their perceptions of the
extent of the "actual" and "ideal" roles of teachers,
administrators, students. and the community in curriculum
planning. and to determine if teachers and administrators
perceived the "actual" roles of these groups as being dif-
ferent from the "ideal" roles.

Most authorities agreed that all who are concerned
with the outcomes of curriculum development should take
part in the process of curriculum planning.‘ Much of the
literature concerned with the theory of curriculum planning
told how to involve teachers. students. and the community
more in the curriculum process. None of the literature
dealt directly with the purpose of this study. The fact
that teachers differed from administrators in their per-
ceptions of their Own and others' roles was shown in
related research studies.

The instrument used in this study was develOped by

using a preliminary questionnaire with a group of 100

109

110

teachers and administrators which was highly similar (in
terms of the ratio of teachers to administrators and the
size of the school districts) to the group used in the
final study. Each of the 100 questions (70 "actual" and
70 "idea1") was examined by item analysis and 56 (28 "actual"
and 28 "ideal") of them chosen to become the final form of
the "Questionnaire on Curriculum Responsibilities."

The pOpulation for this study came from three areas
of hichigan. Area E was a county located in metropolitan
Detroit, area H, a county from western Michigan. and area N
included the entire upper peninsula. Schools within these
areas were selected by size with one school for each group:
(1) enrollment of 6,000-1l.999. (2) enrollment of 3,000-
5.999. (3) enrollment of l.200-2,999, (N) enrollment of
300-l.999. As area N contained no school system of size
number one. a total of eleven districts was used. One-
third of the teachers and enough administrators to establish
a one to ten ratio in each district were mailed question-
naires. A total of 569 were mailed to teachers and 60 to
administrators. or these, 323 were completed and returned
by teachers and #5 by administrators.

The questionnaires were scored as eight separate
tests and the coefficients of reliability computed with
the Kuder Richardson formula 20 ranged from .770 to .883.

Administrators were found to have perceived the
"actual" roles of teachers as being greater than teachers
perceived these "actual" roles to be (significant at the

one per cent level). Teachers from area E and area N

111

perceived these "actual" roles of teachers as being greater
than the teachers from area N perceived them to be (signifi-
cant at the one per cent level). There were no significant
differences in the administrators' perceptions by areas or
the teachers' perceptions by schools of the "actual" roles
of teachers.

Administrators did not perceive the extent of the
"ideal" roles of teachers to be significantly different than
teachers perceived the extent of these "ideal" roles. The
teachers of area E perceived the "ideal" roles of teachers
to be greater than the teachers of area w perceived them to
be (significant at the five per cent level). There were no
significant differences in the administrators' perceptions
by areas or the teachers' perceptions by schools of the
"ideal" roles of teachers.

Teachers perceived and administrators perceived the
"ideal" roles of teachers as being greater than the "actual"
roles of teachers (significant at the one per cent level).
There were no significant differences in the differences of
perceptions between the "actual" and "ideal" roles of
teachers for the teachers of different areas, the teachers
of different schools. or the administrators of different areas.

Administrators did not perceive the extent of the
"actual" roles of administrators significantly different
than teachers perceived the extent of these "actual" roles.
There were no significant differences in the teachers'
perceptions by areas or the administrators' perceptions

by areas. The teachers in schools W1 and E3 perceived the

112

administrators' "actual" roles to be greater than the
teachers of school El perceived these "actual" roles to
be (significant at the five per cent level). _

Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of administra-
tors as being greater than teachers perceived them to be
(significant at the one per cent level). The teachers of
area N perceived the administrators' "ideal" roles as being
greater than the teachers of area E perceived them to be
(significant at the five per cent level). There were no
significant differences in the administrators' perceptions
by areas or the teachers' perceptions by schools of the
"ideal" roles of administrators.

The teachers perceived the administrators' "actual"
roles to be greater than the administrators' "ideal" roles
(significant at the one per cent level). Administrators
perceived the administrators' "ideal" roles to be greater
than they perceived the "actual" roles to be (significant
at the one per cent level). The teachers of area N per-
ceived the difference in "actual" and "ideal" roles of
administrators differently than the teachers of area W.
Teachers of area N perceived the administrators' "ideal"
roles as being greater than the "actual" roles and the
teachers of area N perceived the "actual" roles as being
greater than the "ideal" roles. (The difference between
the teachers' perceptions in area N and area N was signifi-
cant at the five per cent level.) The differences in the
perceptions of the "actual" and "ideal" roles of administra-
tors were not significantly different for the teachers by

schools or for the administrators by areas.

113

Administrators perceived the "actual" roles of students
as being greater than teachers perceived these "actual"
roles to be (significant at the one per cent level). There
were no significant differences in the teachers' or the
administrators' perceptions by areas of the "actual" roles
of students. The teachers in schools El and U2 perceived
the "actual" roles of students to be greater than the
teachers in school N1 perceived these "actual" roles to be
(significant at the five per cent level).

Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of students
to be greater than teachers perceived these "ideal" roles to
be (significant at the five per cent level). There were no
significant differences in the teachers' or administrators'
perceptions by areas or in the teachers' perceptions by
schools of the "ideal" roles of students.

Administrators perceived and teachers perceived the
"ideal" roles of students as being greater than the "actual"
roles of students (significant at the one per cent level).
The differences in the perceptions of the "actual" and
"ideal" roles of students were not significantly different
for the teachers or administrators by areas or for the
teachers by schools.

Administrators did not perceive the extent of the
"actual" roles of the community significantly different
than teachers perceived the extent of these "actual" roles.
There were no significant differences in teachers' or
administrators' perceptions by areas of the "actual" roles

of the community. Twelve significant differences were found

llfi

in the teachers' perceptions by schools (significant at the
five per cent level). Six of these differences were also
significant at the one per cent level. These differences
are shown in Table 62 on page 95.

Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of the
community as being greater than teachers perceived these
"ideal" roles to be (significant at the one per cent level).
There were no significant differences in the teachers‘ or
administrators' perceptions by areas of the "ideal" roles
of the community. Seven significant differences were found
in the teachers' perceptions by schools (significant at the
five per cent level). Two of these differences were also
significant at the one per cent level. These differences
are shown in Table 68 on page 100.

Administrators perceived and teachers perceived the
"ideal" roles of the community as being greater than the
"actual" roles of the community. (significant at the one
per cent level). There were no significant differences in
teachers' or administrators' perceptions by areas of the
differences between the "actual" and "ideal" roles of the
community. Twelve significant differences were found in
the teachers' perceptions by schools (significant at the
five per cent level). Five of these differences were also
significant at the one per cent level. These differences
are shown in Table 72 on page 103.

This study was limited geographically in that the
pOpulation was obtained from eleven schools in three areas

of Michigan. The schools were not selected by random methods

115

Another limitation was the fact that all the various

administrative positions were grouped together under the

title of "administrators." This study was designed to be

limited to the area of curriculum planning in the public

schools.

Conclusions

From the data, the following conclusions about the

population of this study were drawn:

1.

Administrators perceived the "actual" roles of
teachers and students in curriculum planning to
be more extensive than teachers perceived these
"actual" roles to be.

Administrators perceived the extent of the "actual"
roles of administrators and the community in our-
riculum planning to be the same as teachers per-
ceived the extent of these "actual" roles to be.
Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of
administrators. students. and the community in
curriculum planning as being more extensive than
teachers perceived these "ideal" roles to be.
Administrators perceived the extent of the
"ideal" roles of teachers in curriculum planning
to be the same as teachers perceived the extent
of these "ideal" roles to be.

Administrators perceived and teachers perceived
the "ideal" roles of teachers, students. and the
community in curriculum planning as being more

extensive than the "actual“ roles of these groups.

10.

116

Administrators perceived the "ideal" roles of
administrators in curriculum planning as being

more extensive than the "actual" roles but teachers
perceived the "actual" roles of administrators in
curriculum planning as being greater than the
"ideal" roles.

Teachers differed by geographical areas in their
perceptions of the roles of teachers and administra-
tors in curriculum p1anning. Significant differences
were found in the "actual" and "ideal" roles of
teachers. and in the "ideal" and the differences
between "actual" and "ideal" roles of administra-
tors. No geographic pattern was discovered.
Teachers did not differ by geographical areas in
their perceptions of the roles of students and the
community in curriculum planning. This included
"actual." "ideal." and the difference between
"actual" and "ideal" roles.

Administrators did not differ by geographical

areas in their perceptions of the roles of
teachers. administrators. students. and the com-
munity in curriculum planning. This included
"actual." "ideal," and the differences between
"actual" and "ideal" roles.

Teachers differed by schools in their perceptions
of the roles of the community in curriculum plan-
ning. This included "actual." "ideal," and the

differences between "actual" and "ideal" roles.

117

11. School size was not an important factor in the
way in which teachers perceived the extent of
the "actual" and "ideal" roles. or the differences
between the "actual" and "ideal" roles of teachers.
administrators. students, and the community in

curriculum planning.

Implications

While there were many differences in teachers' and
administrators' perceptions of roles in curriculum planning,
there was some agreement. Both groups perceived that
teachers. students. and the community should have greater
roles than they do at present. This bit of common ground
may provide a starting place and Opportunities for greater
participation in curriculum planning should be extended to
these groups.

In this study, the most serious disagreement found
between teachers and administrators has to do with the
administrators' "ideal" roles in curriculum planning.
Teachers and administrators agreed on the "actual" roles
of administrators but teachers perceived that the "ideal"
roles should be less than the "actual" roles, while administra-
tors perceived their "ideal" roles as being greater than
the "actual" roles are. This conflict may be one of the
reasons why cooperative curriculum planning has not fared
better than it has. The administrator, while urging teachers
to become more active in curriculum p1anning. feels that

his part should also be greater. Teachers, who perceive

118

the administrator's present role as being already too great.
lose interest because of this conflict. More studies on
administrators' roles in curriculum planning are needed.
From such studies, a better understanding of the administra-
tors' roles by both teachers and administrators may result.

Since teachers and administrators believe that teachers
should have greater roles in curriculum planning. the pre-
service and in-service education of teachers should include
more preparation in this area. Some work in curriculum
p1anning should be included at the undergraduate level.

This should not only stress the teachers' exPanded roles

but should also show the need for co0perative planning

among teachers, administrators. students. and people from
the community. At the graduate level teachers should be
encouraged to assume leadership in actual curriculum studies.

In the training of administrators. time should be taken
to examine the administrators' roles. Administrators should
be given more training in curriculum planning. By more
clearly understanding the process. they can help to more
clearly define their own roles and to see the roles of
others.

The research started in this study needs to be expanded.
Similar studies should be made with teachers and administra-
tors of other states. Schools of different sizes than the
ones used in this research should be studied. Studies should
be made which include the perceptions of students and
members of the community regarding roles in curriculum

planning.

119

With the agreement between teachers and administrators
that teachers. students. and the community should have
greater roles in curriculum p1anning, research is needed
to find why greater roles have not been extended to these
groups.

This study has provided information in an area where
it is needed and it has also pointed out the need for more
research in order to bring about a better understanding of
the roles of teachers, administrators, students, and the

community in curriculum planning.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Arkin. Herbert and Colton. Raymond B. Statistical Methods.
New York: Barnes and Noble. 1960.

Campbell. William Giles. Form and St le Ag Thesis Nritigg.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 195 .

Dixon. Wilfrid J. and Massey. Frank J. Jr. Introduction
22 Statistical Analysi . New York: McGraw-Hill.
195?.

Doll. Ronald C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision-Makigg
and Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. l9 .

Edwards. Allen L. ‘Techniques g; Attitude Scale Construction.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1957.

Fraser. Dorothy M. Deciding What 59 Teach. Washington.
D. 0.: National Education Association. 1963.

Becker. Stanley 3.. and Northey. Thomas J. Teacher Salagy
Schedule Study. 1964—65. East Lansing. Michigan:
Michigan Education Association. 1964.

Hillway. Tyrus. Introduction.£g Research. Boston:
Houghton—Mifflin. 1956.

Krug. Edward A. Curriculum Plannigg. New York: Harper
and Brothers. 1957.

Michigan Department of Public Instruction: The Joint
Committee on Conference and Curriculum Planning.
Evaluatigg the Inservice Education Program.2f Your
Community School. .A Self-Survey.lnst£3ment. 1957.

Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. 1964-65.
Lansing. Michigan: Michigan Education Directory. 1964.

Mitchum. Paul M. The High School Principal and Staff Plan
for Program Improvement. New York: Bureau of
Publications. Teachers College. Columbia University.
1958.

120

121

Saylor. J. Galen and Alexander. William M. Curriculum
Plannigg. New York: Rinehart. 1954.

Sharp. George. Curriculum Develgpment as Re-education of
the Teacher. New York: Bureau of— Publications.
Teachers College: Columbia University. 1951

Shuster. Albert H. and Ploghoft. Milton E. The Emergigg
glementary Curriculum. Columbus. Ohio: Charles
E. Merrill Books. l9o3.

Smith. B. 0thanel. Stanley. William 0.. and Shores. J.
Harlan. Fundamentalg 2; Curriculum DeveloEment.
Yonkers-on-Hudson. New York: World Book Company. 1957.

Thornton. James W. and wright. John R. Secondary School
Curriculum. Columbus. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Books. 1963.

Trump. J. Lloyd and Baynham. Dorsey. Fbcus on Cha
Guide 23 Better Schools. Chicago: _Rand-McNally.
1961.

 

Turbian. Kate L. (A Manual fog Writers 2; Term.§§pg;§.
Theseg and Dissertations. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press. 1955.

 

Walker. Helen M. and Lev. Joseph. Statistical Inference.
New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1953.

Wiles. Kimball. The Chaggigg Curriculum of the American
Hi h School. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
19%3fi

Articles

Ahrens. Maurice R. "Parents and Staff Cooperate in System
Wide Improvement." Educational Leadership. XI (March.
1954) o 337'“2 0

Allen. James E. Jr. "The Big City School-Problems and
Prospects--School Personnel and Educational Policy."
PTA. LIX (June. 1965). 12-14.

Bidwell. Charles E. "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction
in Teaching." The Journal of Educational Sociology|
XXIX (September. 1955). 51- 7.

Brickell. Henry M. "State Organization for Educational
Change: A Case Study and a PrOposal." Innovation
in Education. ed. Mathew B. Mills. New Ybrk: *Bureau
3? Publications. Teachers College. Columbia University.
1964. pp. 491-531.

O.

122

Getzels. J. W. and Cuba. E. G. "The Structure of Roles and
Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation." The Journal
‘3; Educational Sociology. XXIX (September. 1955). 30-40.

Rass. C. Glen. "Role of the Director of Instruction."
Educational Leadershlp. XVIII (November. 1960).
101-108+.

Kearney. Nolan C. and Cook. Walter L. "Curriculum."
EncyclOpedlg 9; Educational Research. ed. Chester
W. Barris. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1960.
pp- 358-365-

Keller. Robert J. "Secondary Education--Organization and
Administration." Encyclopedia 2; Educational Research.
ed. Chester W. Harris. New York: The Macmillan
Company. 1960. pp. 1241-1259.

Naokenzie. Gordon N. "Curricular Change: Participants.
Power. and Processes." Innovation lg Education.
ed. Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications.
Teachers College. Columbia University. 1964. pp. 399-424.

Niles. Matthew B. "Human Relations in COOperative Research."
Research for Curriculum Improvement. 195? Yearbook of
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOp-
ment. Washington. D. C.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum DevelOpment. 1957. pp. 187-227.

Misner. Paul J. "Citizens and Teachers Plan the Curriculum."
National Parent-Teacher. L (May. 1956). 26-27.

Raths. Louis E. "What is Teaching." Educational Leadersh p.
XIII (October. 1955). 146-149.

Romine. Stephen. "The School Administrator and the Secondary
School Curriculum." The Bulletin.p§ the Natlonal
Association of Secondary-School Principalp. XXXII

(November. 1938). 25-28.

Urick. Ronald and Frymier. Jack R. "Personalities. Teachers
and Curriculum Change." Educational Leadership. XXI
(November. 1963). 107-111.

Van Til. William. "Curriculum Improvement: Who Participates?"
Educational Leadership. XI (March. 1954). 335-37.

Weber. Julia. "Child Development Implications for Curriculum

Bzilfigng." Educational Leadership. XI (March. 1954).
3 3- -

123

Unpublished Material

Carter. Paul D. "Perceptions of Classroom Teachers and
School Administrators Concerning Curriculum Development
in a Suburban School System." unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation. Wayne State University. 1955.

Doyle. Louis Andrew. "A Study of the Expectancies Which
dlementary Teachers. School Administrators. Board
Members and Parents Have of the Elementary Teachers'
Roles." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Michigan
State University. 1956.

Ramm. Russell L. "Core Curriculum as Conceived by Junior
High School Teachers of Core and by Junior High
School Principals of Schools that have Core Programs
in the State of Minnesota." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation. Indiana University; 1960.

Holden. Ruby Mae. "Relationships Between Perceived Leader-
ship. Perceptions of the Ideal. and Group Productivity
in Small Classroom Groups." Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation. University of Illinois. 1954.

Rombouts. Jack Robert. "The Role of the Committee Technique
in School Administration as EIpressed by Teachers in
25 High School Districts of the Upper Peninsula."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Michigan State
University. 1959.

Thorin. Frederick D. "A Study to Determine the Accuracy
with which Selected Secondary School Principals
Perceive the Role Expectations held for Them by
their Staff and Superintendent." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation. Wayne State University. 1961.

APPENDIX A

Letter from Glen Robinson. Assistant Director.
Research Division. N. E. A.

January 22. 1965

Mr. Lynn Oberlin
1096 Hendrick Road
Muskegon. Michigan h99hl

Dear Mr. Oberlin:

Dr. Edelfelt has asked me to reply to your letter re-
garding the stratification and grouping of school systems
used by the NEA Research Division in its studies. As I am
sure you know. there is no single stratification procedure
that is appropriate for all types of educational studies.
so we use different types of school system stratification.
depending upon the nature of the study.

Perhaps the method of stratification to which you re-
fer is that which we use in our salary studies and teachers
Opinion studies. This stratification is based upon the
number of pupils enrolled in the school system. The strata
are as follows:

Stratum Enrollment
I 100.000 and Over
II 50.000 - 99.999
III 25.000 - 9.999
IV 12.000 - 2h.999
V 6.000 - 11.999
VI 3.000 - 5.999
VII 1.200 - 2.999
VIII 300 - 1.199
IX 50 - 299
X l - 50

These strata are modifications of those used by the
Government Division of the U. 8. Bureau of the Census in
their surveys of school systems. The Census stratification
is also based upon the number of pupils enrolled. The
strata are as follows:

120

125

Enrollment size group:

25.000 or more
12.000 - 24.999
6.000 - 11.999
3.000 - 5.999
1.200 - 2.999
600 " 1,199
300 - 599
150 - 299

50 - 149

15 - #9

1 - 14

You will notice that the strata used by the Research
Division are compatible with that used by the Census Bureau.

Cordially yours.

Glen Robinson
Assistant Director
Research Division

APPENDIX B

Letter Asking Superintendent's Permission

March 4. 1965

. .. Supt.
. . Public Schools

. .. Michigan
Dear Sir:

I am a public school teacher and am also working on a dis-
sertation to complete a doctoral degree from Michigan State
University. As a part of my dissertation. I will admin-
ister (by mail) the enclosed questionnaire on curriculum
responsibilities to some teachers and administrators of
certain school districts. With your permission. I would
like to send the enclosed material to some of the staff of
the . . . Public Schools. I would send to about one-

third of the teachers and enough administrators to estab-
lish a one to ten ratio. The group to receive this material
would be chosen by random methods. All individuals
participating will remain anonymous and school districts
will not be identified by name in my dissertation.

If I have your permission to include the staff of the
. . . Public Schools in my study. I will need a list of
the entire faculty including the following information:

1. Name
2. Position (teacher. principal. counselor.
etc.

3. School address (could be listed by build-
ings with building addresses)

I can easily work from a published school or county directory
which contains the above information.

Sincerely.

Lynn Oberlin
1096 Hendrick Road
Nuskegon. Michigan

126

APPENDIX C

Letter to Participants

Dear Fellow Teachers and Administrators:

I am a Junior high school teacher in the Mona Shores School
District of Nuskegon County. Presently I am also working

on a dissertation to complete a doctoral degree from Michigan
State University.

You have been selected as one of the teachers to represent
your school district in a study of the roles which various
groups play. and should play. in develOping the school pro-
gram. Your cooperation is needed in order to make this
project a success. Will you please complete the enclosed
questionnaire and return it in the stamped envelOpe.

This study is being conducted with the consent and cOOperation
of your school superintendent.

Sincerely.

Lynn Oberlin

P. S. If you wish a c0py of the findings of this study.
please enclose. on a separate paper. your name
and school address. If you prefer. this may be
mailed in a separate enve10pe.

127

APPENDIX D

Follow-up Letter
April 15. 1965

. .. Supt.
. . Public Schools

Dear Sir:

I wish to thank the teachers and administrators of the

. . . Public Schools who have returned the "Questionnaire
on Curriculum ReSponsibilities" which I mailed to them on
March 20. Some have not returned the questionnaire yet
and as I wish to include as much information as possible
from the . . . Public Schools. I will continue to accept
and include their questionnaires in my study.

Extra questionnaires are available in case some of the
original ones were lost.

Sincerely.

Lynn Oberlin
1096 Hendrick Road
Muskegon. Michigan

128

APPENDIX E
QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRICULUM RESPONSIBILITIES
(preliminary form)

This test is anonymous but the following information is
needed.

1.

 

(School district in which you are employed)
2. Present position Teacher Administrator
VOCABULARY OF THE TEST

ADMINISTRATORS: Persons such as Superintendents. Principals.
Curriculum Coordinators. Directors of Instruction. and
Supervisors.

TEACHERS: Classroom teachers of subject or grade level and
special teachers such as music. art. etc.

SCHOOL PROGRAM: The curriculum. course of studies. and all
eXperiences controlled by the school.

EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTlVITIES: The part of the school program
commonly non-credit or outside of school hours. (This would
include such school~wide activities as band. chorus. and
safety patrol even if they used regular school time.)

SET l is to be answered according to the conditions which
exist in your present situation.

SET.ll is to be answered according to the way you think things
should be in your present situation.

129

130

(preliminary form)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please answer the following statements (n b >
as they apply to your present situation 53 [9 xx (a h
as an educator. :5 g g E i
m C) vs K
SET I E t‘“ (I:
MP r-<.
r3
m
B]
vs
H
3
1. Teachers have a part in planning the m
content of the school program. p_j
2. Teachers have a part in planning the
methods to be used in the school pro-
gram.
3. Teachers have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the content of
the school program.
#. Teachers have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the methods to be
used in the school program.
5. Teachers have the Opportunity to in-
itiate changes in the school program.
6. Ideas suggested by teachers receive
consideration.
7. Teachers work on committees to improve
the school program.
8. Teachers make the final decision as
to what the content of the school pro-
gram will be.
9. Teachers make the final decision as to
what methods will be used in the school
program.
10. Groups which work on the school pro-
grams are organized by teachers.
11. Teachers discuss the school program
with the community.
12. Teachers discuss the school program
with the students.
13. Teachers discuss the school program
with administrators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

(preliminary form)

 

2 C0 C: E
U.) [I] (I)
< t“ C 2.
ts U > >
:0 O t" K
3 t" m
l K

SNII RBI % IHOHV

14. Teachers are the leaders in working
and planning for the school program.

 

15. Teachers help to plan extra curricu-
lar activities for the school.

 

16. Teachers decide what the extra cur-
ricular program of the school is to
be.

 

17. The school program is evaluated in
terms of what teachers think of it.

 

18. The school program is evaluated by
teachers.

 

19. Teachers select the people who work
on the school program.

 

20. Administrators have a part in plan—
ning the content of the school pro-
gram.

 

21. Administrators have a part in plan-
ning the methods to be used in the
school program.

 

22. Administrators have a part in making
decisions relative to the content of
the school program.

 

23. Administrators have a part in making
decisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

24. Administrators have the Opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

25. Ideas suggested by administrators
receive consideration.

 

26. Administrators work on committees to
improve the school program. 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

(preliminary form)
I

 

E: U) c: P
t2 m U: h
OCIE
[I] CE»
m C) +9 K
3 Hr m
WK
*3
LE
L71
*3
t'

'I.
L.

27. Administrators make the final de-
cision as to what the content of
the school prOgram will be.

 

28. Administrators make the final de-
cision as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

29. Groups which work on the school pro-
gram are organized by administrators.

 

30. Administrators discuss the school
program with the community.

 

31. Administrators discuss the school
program with the students.

 

32. Administrators discuss the school
program with teachers.

 

33. Administrators are the leaders in
working and planning for the school
program.

 

34. Administrators help to plan extra-
curricular activities for the school.

 

35. Administrators decide what the extra
curricular program of the school is
to be.

 

36. The school program is evaluated in
terms of what administrators think
of it.

 

37. The school program is evaluated by
administrators.

 

38. Administrators select the people
who work on the school program.

 

39. Students have a part in planning the _
content Of the school program. i u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’40.

[+10

#2.

#3.

an.

#5.

#6.

#7.

#8.

#9.

50.

510

52.

133

Students have a part in planning the
methods to be used in the school
program.

reliminary form)

 

1

z
2
m
w

WOGTRS

 

%

'5

D

F;

JWII PHI

r1
L}-

XTTVDSR

SXVMTV

 

Students have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the content of
the school program.

 

Students have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

Students have the opportunity to in-
itiate changes in the school program.

Ideas suggested by students receive
consideration.

 

 

Students work on committees to im-
prove the school program.

 

Students make the final decision as
to what the content of the school
program will be.

 

Students make the final decision as
to what methods will be used in the
school program.

 

Groups which work on the school pro-
grams are organized by students.

 

Students are the leaders in working
and planning for the school program.

 

Students help to plan extra curricular
activities for the school.

 

Students decide what the extra cur-
ricular program of the school is to
be.

 

The school program is evaluated in
terms of what students think of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13#

preliminary form)

 

scram
woaqss
XTTVOSO
SIVFTV

MIL EFT ¥

fl
£3

53. The school program is evaluated by
students.

 

5#. Students select the peOple who work
on the school program.

 

55. People in the community have a part
in planning the content of the
school program.

 

56. PeOple in the community have a part
in planning the methods to be used
in the school program.

 

57. People in the community have a part
in making decisions relative to the
content of the school program.

 

58. PeOple in the community have a part
in making decisions relative to the
methods to be used in the school
program.

 

59. People in the community have the op-
portunity to initiate changes in the
school program.

 

60. Ideas suggested by people in the com-
munity receive consideration.

 

61. PeOple in the community work on com-
mittees to improve the school program.

 

62. People in the community make the final
decision as to what the content of the
school program will be.

 

63. People in the community make the final
decision as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

6#. Groups which work on the schoolppro-
gram are organized by people in the
community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135

( reliminary form)

f z I

 

2‘: CD :> (3 ~
(‘4 [1.) U3 03 F,
<1 L" O C: 3-
m c: c; g; >
tn c» *1 K
:3 ti Us
NH H:
*3
in
C1.
D-3
ti
E

65. PeOple in the community are the lead-
ers in working and planning for the
school program.

 

66. PeOple in the community help to plan
extra curricular activities for the
school.

 

67. People in the community decide what
the extra curricular program of the
school is to be.

 

68. The school program is evaluated in
terms of what the peOple in the com-
munity think of it.

 

69. The school program is evaluated by
the people in the community.

 

70. The people in the community select
the people who work on the school
prOgram O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i'I*I'OGG‘I*I'I’GO'I'I'D‘Iifii'I'iI’I’G'Ifi'I'fi'I'I

SET II

Please answer the following statements as
you feel they should be applied in your
present position.

1. Teachers should have a part in plan-
ning the content of the school pro-
gram.

 

2. Teachers should have a part in plan-
ning the methods to be used in the
school program.

 

3. Teachers should have a part in making
decisions relative to the content of
the school program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

l#.

150

16.

136

Teachers should have a part in making
decisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

(preliminary form)

 

I

NOGTSS

awn. spa: % .Lriosv

f

ITTVDSD

1

SZVMTV

 

Teachers should have the opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

Ideas suggested by teachers should
receive consideration.

 

Teachers should work on committees
to improve the school program.

 

Teachers should make the final de-
cision as to what the content of the
school program will be.

 

Teachers should make the final de-
cision as to what methods will be used
in the school program.

 

Groups which work on the school pro-
gram should be organized by teachers.

Teachers should discuss the school
program with the community.

 

 

Teachers should discuss the school
program with the students.

 

Teachers should discuss the school
program with administrators.

 

Teachers should be the leaders in
working and planning for the school
program.

 

Teachers should help to plan extra
curricular activities for the school.

Teachers should decide what the extra
curricular program of the school is
to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

170

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

230

2#.

25.

26.

27.

28.

137

The school program should be evaluated
in terms of what teachers think of it.

The school program should be evalu-
ated by teachers.

preliminary form)

 

Lp-B

WOGTPS

sz1 arm % moosv

XTTVDSD

SIVNTV

 

 

Teachers should select the peOple
who work on the school program.

 

Administrators should have a part in
planning the content of the school
program.

 

Administrators should have a part in
planning the methods to be used in
the school program.

 

Administrators should have a part in
making decisions relative to the con-
tent Of the school program.

 

Administrators should have a part in
making decisions relative to the

methods to be used in the school pro-
gram.

 

Administrators should have the Oppor-
tunity to initiate changes in the
school program.

 

Ideas suggested by administrators
should receive consideration.

 

Administrators should work on com-
mittees to improve the school program.

Administrators should make the final
decision as to what the content of
the school prOgram will be.

 

 

Administrators should make the final
decision as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.

30.

31.

320

33-

3#.

35-

36.

37.

38.

39.

#0.

138

Groups which work on the school pro-
gram should be organized by admin-
istrators.

(preliminary form)

 

HFARN

m. % inosvfi

p-w
8.1

PMIJ.

1

fi'

ATTVGSO

v—r—Vi

SKVMTV

 

Administrators should discuss the
school program with the community.

 

Administrators should discuss the
school program with the students.

 

Administrators should discuss the
school program with teachers.

 

Administrators should be the leaders
in working and planning for the
school program.

 

Administrators should help to plan
extra curricular activities for the
school.

 

Administrators should decide what
the extra curricular program of the
school is to be.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms Of what administrators
think of it.

 

The school prOgram should be evalu-
ated by administrators.

 

Administrators should select the
people who work on the school pro-
gram.

 

Students should have a part in plan-
ning the content of the school pro-
gram.

 

Students should have a part in plan-
ning the methods to be used in the
school prOgram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

(preliminary form)

I

 

f :>

m C2
C1; C11 U} l"
< t‘* c: 1».
m U ['3 It:
:13 O K
3 b O:

+<

#1. Students should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the content
Of the school program.

sulm 3H1 % mnosv

 

#2. Students should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the meth-
ods to be used in the school program.

 

#3. Students should have the Opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

##. Ideas suggested by students should
receive consideration.

 

#5. Students should work on committees
to improve the school program.

 

#6. Students should make the final de-
cision as to what the content of
the school program will be.

 

#7. Students should make the final de-
cisions as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

#8. Groups which work on the school pro-
gram should be organized by students.

 

#9. Students should be the leaders in
working and planning for the school
program.

 

50. Students should help to plan extra
curricular activities for the
school.

 

51. Students should decide what the
extra curricular program of the
school is to be.

 

52. The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms of what students think * ‘
Of it. l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l#O
( reliminary form)

} 1

L1

 

V?-

['13

A
WOGTRS
SXVMTV

XTTVOSH

:wII RBI ¥ mnos

7'
L

53. The school program should be evalu-
ated by the students.

 

5#. Students should select the people
who work on the school program.

 

55. People in the community should have
a part in planning the content of
the school program.

 

56. PeOple in the community should have
a part in planning the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

57. People in the community should have
a part in making decisions relative
to the content Of the school pro-
gram.

 

58. People in the community should have
a part in making decisions relative
to the methods to be used in the
school program.

 

59. People in the community should have
the opportunity to initiate changes
in the school program.

 

60. Ideas suggested by peOple in the
community should receive consider-
ation.

 

61. PeOple in the community should work
on committees to improve the schai
program.

 

62. PeOple in the community should make
the final decision as to what the
content of the school program will
be.

 

63. PeOple in the community should make
the final decision as to what the
content of the school program will
be. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l#l
( reliminary form)

r f
E3

 

fiw

ZUJPCI
[1(1in
<EOC£
LT GEE.»
.LOr-s K
:5: hm

K
a

a;

m

r-Li

H

3

f"
H
H

Groups which work on the school pro-
gram should be organized by people
in the community.

 

People in the community should be
the leaders in working and planning
for the school program.

 

People in the community should help
to plan extra curricular activities
for the school.

 

PeOple in the community should de-
cide what the extra curricular pro-
gram of the school is to be.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms of what the people in
the community think of it.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated by the people in the community.

 

The peOple in the community should
select the people who work on the
school program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

QUSSTIONNAIRE ON CURRICULUM RESPONSIBILITIES
(Final Form)

This test is anonymous but the following information is
needed.

1.

 

(School district in which you are employed)
2. Present position Teacher Administrator
VOCABULARY OFl’l'HEfiTrEFSST

ADMINlSTRATORS: Persons such as Superintendents. Princi-
pals. Curriculum Coordinators. Directors of Instruction
and Supervisors.

TEACHERS: Classroom teachers of subject or grade level
and special teachers such as music. art. etc.

SCHOOL PROGRAM: The curriculum. course Of studies. and
all experiences controlled by the school.

ngRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVlTIES: The part of the school pro-
gram commonly non-credit or outside of school hours. (This
would include such school-wide activities as band. chorus.
and safety patrol even if they used regular school time.)

PEOPLE QE THE COMMUNITY: All those who live within the
boundary of the school district.

SAT l is to be answered according to the conditions which
exist in your present situation.

SET ll is to be answered according to the way you think
things should pg in your present situation.

l#2

l#3

SET I -- WHAT EXISTS

Please answer the following statements
as they apply tO your present situation
as an educator.

10.

11.

Teachers have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the content of
the school program.

 

RRABNT

WOGTHS

NII PHI % IHOHV

rr
8:

XTTVDSD

SIVMTV

 

Teachers have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

Teachers have the Opportunity to in-
itiate changes in the school program.

Teachers make the final decision
as to what the content of the school
program will be.

 

 

Groups which work on the school pro-
grams are organized by teachers.

 

The school program is evaluated in
terms of what teachers think Of it.

Teachers select the peOple who work
on the school program.

 

 

Administrators have a part in making
decisions relative to the content Of
the school prOgram.

 

Administrators have a part in making
decisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

Administrators have the Opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

Administrators make the final de-
cision as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.

13.

l#.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2#.

1m.

WHAT Eggsms

Administrators are the leaders in
working and planning for the school
prOgram.

 

{LEARN

NOCI' 13’ S

aw1m as; % Lnosv

ITTVOSO

SXVMTV

 

Administrators help to plan extra-
curricular activities for the school.

The school program is evaluated by
administrators.

 

 

Students have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the content of
the school program.

 

Students have a part in making de-
cisions relative to the methods to
be used in the school program.

 

Students have the Opportunity to in-
itiate changes in the school program.

Students work on committees to im-
prove the school program.

 

 

Students are the leaders in working
and planning for the school program.

Students help to plan extra curri-
cular activities for the school.

 

 

The school program is evaluated in
terms Of what students think of it.

 

People in the community have a part
in planning the content of the school
program.

 

PeOple in the community have a part
in making decisions relative to the
content of the school program.

 

People in the community have the Op-
portunity to initiate changes in the
school program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l#5

 

WHAT sxgsms

203 CE:
a; m m
[<25 Ci
i c: R H:
3 E a:

Y

_flII RBI 3 IHOGV

r-r
L".

25. Groups which work on the school pro-
gram are organized by people in the
community.

 

26. People in the community are the lead-
ers in working and planning for the
school program.

 

27. PeOple in the community decide what
the extra curricular program of the
school is to be.

 

28. The school program is evaluated in
terms of what the people in the com-
munity think of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{ii************§***************

SET II -- WHAT SHOULD BE

Please answer the following statements as
you feel they should be applied in your
present position.

1. Teachers should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the con-
tent of the school program.

 

2. Teachers should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the meth-
ods to be used in the school program.

 

3. Teachers should have the opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

#. Teachers should make the final de-
cision as to what the content of the
school program will be. » .

 

5. Groups which work on the school pro-
gram should be organized by teachers.

 

6. The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms of what teachers think
of it. ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

l#.

15.

16.

17.

l#6

WHAT SHOULD BE

Teachers should select the people
who work on the school program.

 

DJ
:1;

NOGTES

szm was % mnosv

XTTVDSO

SXVMTV

 

Administrators should have a part
in making decisions relative to the
content Of the school program.

 

Administrators should have a part in
making decisions relative to the

methods to be used in the school pro-
gram.

 

Administrators should have the Op-
portunity to initiate changes in the
school program.

 

Administrators should make the final
decision as to what methods will be
used in the school program.

 

Administrators should be the leaders
in working and planning for the
school program.

 

Administrators should help to plan
extra curricular activities for the
school.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated by administrators.

 

Students should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the con-
tent of the school program.

 

Students should have a part in mak-
ing decisions relative to the meth-
ods to be used in the school pro—

gram.

 

Students should have the Opportunity
to initiate changes in the school
program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18.

190

20.

21.

22.

23.

2#.

25.

26.

27.

28.

l#7

‘HAT SHOULD BE

Students should work on committees
to improve the school program.

 

HBAEN

WOGTES

‘

szm PHI % IROGV

XTTVDSH

SXVMTV

 

Students should be the leaders in
working and planning for the school
prOgram.

 

Students should help to plan extra
curricular activities for the
school.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms Of what students
think of it.

 

People in the community should have
a part in planning the content of
the school program.

 

People in the community should have
a part in making decisions relative
to the content of the school pro-

gram.

 

People in the community should have
the Opportunity to initiate changes
in the school program.

 

Groups which work on the school
programs should be organized by
peOple in the community.

 

PeOple in the community should be
the leaders in working and plan-
ning for the school program.

 

PeOple in the community should
decide what the extra curricular
program of the school is to be.

 

The school program should be evalu-
ated in terms of what the people
in the community think of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

nICHIan STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1|1WIWWIIWWII“)!”HmWIUIWIIHHI
31293103967851