""11": .I ‘12" u

   
  

  

 
    
 
      
   
 
    
 
 
 
    

 

1.. 1- 1. W ‘71 1+ 11111 1.1 111; 1'1 11 1 , 1. ‘

""I "‘1‘.“ ‘. III'III II, I III'IIIIIIII IIII‘III I‘ ““““‘I1““““‘1‘1‘“I““II"I““‘1}I“|I‘“-. II III,
1-..-1...11.1-.111 .11 .1 11111.1. 1111
I111 1.111III111 1-. I11111111111" 1
““1 1‘ ”Hi; "1 'I'IIIAI ‘3“ IIIIIIIIIII
I-- I‘III‘III‘III 111 III“ ‘1‘“ I‘I““I““1‘“‘1“"I‘I‘1‘“““““‘““‘

I “‘11 “““r“\“111““ “II "I I““1“1“‘I‘I‘I.‘ 1131::

 
  

“III“ "1.

  
   

    
          
       
 
     
 
  
 

  

1 11 III ‘I‘II‘I‘I‘II‘II“‘1 11 1
1.111111111111111 "1‘1 111‘
‘1‘“ 1‘1“ ‘I‘III‘II

1-11.11 1111 11
‘11‘11‘1111‘.III‘I“

‘1“ 11
111 II .11 I“‘ l
111IIII‘IIIIIIIII1I IIII I‘III‘IIII ““

,III“ ‘IIIII‘I‘ ‘I‘I‘I‘I‘
‘ I“ ‘I ““‘I‘ 11‘ IIII‘I
II‘II ““|I 111‘ “I‘I‘I'1"I "‘“I‘

“‘I‘11“““‘I“.“‘““ ““I

I‘II“‘I I11 I I‘II'I ‘1
1“‘ 1“1' “ ‘-1"““1"‘I“‘II“““‘ 1111

‘-‘-‘“I“I‘“‘ ‘7“1 “1“.1‘3‘3‘9
11‘ - 7‘11va 1111.111, ‘11 1;
‘ S““““II,II;1““III‘§"§II 1:

III,“

I
11111337715711?
”1%? ("Ainl‘IE’I‘EL‘ES‘I

I

. 1I
‘Ih‘fiv 5.

‘I““““ I‘II‘IIII‘I‘I‘I‘ I“ III IIIJ I I “I"“ ‘I‘I‘I‘IIIIII‘II‘III‘IIIIII‘I‘I ‘I‘III I‘III‘I‘I‘I II
“‘“““““““ ‘I““‘I“‘ I“ ‘1“‘I‘I“I““‘ "'I‘I‘“““““‘“‘§“I““ 1“III‘ 3‘62““ ‘I‘I “‘I“~‘“‘ _: 1"
‘1‘ ‘I “I" ‘1‘ I: “ ‘ ‘ ‘ “‘ ‘ “‘“““I ‘I‘ I“‘rv 13187?“ J “
‘I‘I‘II‘I‘II‘““ ‘I‘I‘ II‘IU‘“ ““ I“ II II I‘II‘I1I“““““‘““‘ 141111;

    
  

" —~—1‘
-‘.
__:__--__.__.-_.-.—.—— - _,-
_-___.~
___~ . ‘.’-.—.-——4~:__‘_;"'IT_ —:
_;_T :1»
.m—w—P— __
‘ 'f"==:-fls: PW.
M

W
__z¢——————\_

   

 

   

“'I I I I “ -1“““““‘I‘
‘III 1““ I III‘ II‘} IIIIIIIIII IIII Illl‘IIIII1IIIIII‘II IIIII I‘II‘II‘I1I 1".I 1“.‘
1 I 1-1
.‘1- "1, .‘I‘I ““‘“1“ ‘1‘III‘“‘
I “ - I “‘1‘“ “‘1“ ‘ 1“ II
"I11....~.1:II ‘ .11 ‘1‘1,:1‘=‘: 1111,11 1.1111111 1. -
“‘ I"“II I‘I‘.“"I “I‘ I“‘1“‘ 7‘11, 1 ”.- A' I“ I
I. “‘1!” I‘I‘II“ .I “' I‘I‘I‘I‘ 1I‘II, I‘I‘II II‘III‘I‘“ I!“ .‘ “I” I .A 101 I; ‘IIoI'I-J‘- I' 'ir‘I, AJ III ".. ‘,I.I‘I": II:
111" 1‘1"'.I “1‘“ ‘I‘ I“‘ ‘I‘ 1. I‘Ill ‘71“ ,I‘1'I’III III‘..J‘.‘.L . I ..- 1
I" . .““.““"II,“I‘I “ ". ‘1‘“ I“.‘“ ‘1‘1'I11III ‘ -I-'.I"1., 111111116) ““ ““4 “1‘ ‘3“ I: 1‘33““ :11,‘
I .11I.1’,.-.'1I.I1.I 1 .1 I'1‘1“1."I‘1‘1.‘1‘1I.111'111II1‘.““‘1111‘1 ““ 1111115114. “ 11“,“ ‘III‘I
.“ 1|1‘ , IIIII “‘““1 "1; . 1 ‘ ‘11‘II ‘IIII .I“‘I‘-J‘1“-‘. If???“ ‘II “‘I ““1‘

'1 1‘1‘I1
1 I 1 I‘ .1' 1 I1",
‘ ‘ ‘1..“““““‘ ‘I II 111'

. K" I. fi‘u“ 1'11 r“.I “if' $5?”
I' I “1‘ I , 1 I I" ‘I‘I‘I‘ ""{'.1‘A 9‘$ I ““‘ I"\““ “I“ .11
. . , .. 11‘11‘ .I“I.I“‘.' 1‘ "I““ 1 III “‘ “““‘I“ 1‘; 1‘ "I‘" ‘11111‘m‘ “V“ “‘“ WN‘I‘WI‘
I ‘ 1 ‘I‘I‘. ““I 1 ‘ I I ‘ “I O‘Ik “"‘." "‘.‘ “‘1‘ ' ‘

  

1 1 f I I.
I ,‘III 1‘11. .III .III “II“, I III 'IIIIIIII rI““,A.1"'IIAI ‘E'I‘I: IIIII II I’Pg‘n“. 4““ I LII‘IIIIII I‘L‘£" ""I I‘ It“. "‘3" ...".UI I-
I I1II1. . 1.: .1 11‘, I. .I . .III 1'11'I1IIIIIIIIII .1 IIIII III1I-III'IIIII 7.1“ “1‘1 “1“ ‘I‘I1“““‘“ IIIIII IQ III‘II.‘ ‘-“‘. '. 1
III “I“"I“‘I' IIIIIIII I 1‘ .1 'IIIIn, “1“",‘1 "1111 ‘I'nI‘ I ‘IIIIIIIIII I‘III‘I‘fi‘I 11“, "I11 .,' I” [III_ I 5
.1 ““““‘I"1'II““IIII I‘IIIIIIIII.II1II"II1‘:II‘I‘I1|“IIIIIIIIIIJIIII‘I’IILIIIIIII.‘I‘III‘IJI‘I‘meOWéM§“Ir‘t$‘??I-II‘I“I‘I*RIIIUI

1. I; ‘ l . 1 1 1 . . 1 I 1 I I
a..IIIA..nn.'...1‘AA‘1AIA‘.IA2A1.A1.1..1A.AAAA.IA‘IAAA.'.AAIA‘AA... ‘.;I.I 1111111A.AU‘IAIAIIIIIIAA AAAAA .‘nAA‘AIImAIAA AA ‘K‘IJ‘II‘A‘ ‘

., . I .11 I,
.11.:11 I 1 1‘ .11“| I II“1

 

m llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 10410 585 7

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ELISSA LEEBAW GEORGE

presented by

A SURVEY OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS ATTITUDES AND ACTIVITIES
IN THIRTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
IN MICHIGAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M- A- degree in _Jnnrnalism

Wm” dz.

#/ Majo péfior

 

   

DateMmbfiLlLlB 7 8

0-7639

 

 

 

K

 

   

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

A SURVEY OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS ATTITUDES AND ACTIVITIES
IN THIRTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
IN MICHIGAN

BY

Elissa Leebaw George

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1978

ABSTRACT

A SURVEY OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS ATTITUDES AND ACTIVITIES
IN THIRTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
IN MICHIGAN

BY

Elissa Leebaw George

This study was designed to assess the role of pub-
lic relations in the public school systems in Michigan. A
mail survey, sent to the thirty largest school districts
in Michigan, excluding Detroit, focused on: (1) attitudes
and philosophies toward public relations, (2) qualifications
of those directing public relations and (3) the public rela-
tions activities in which the schools engage.

Analysis of responses indicates that only nine of
the thirty districts employ full-time public relations
directors. Three districts devote no time to public re-
lations.

All but two of the respondents stated that they
engage in public relations to gain public confidence and
appreciation. At least half of the respondents also listed
winning financial support and keeping the public informed.

Examining the schools' routine public relations

Elissa Leebaw George

activities, all but four provide the local media with press
releases. Most of the thirty districts also produce pam-
phlets or brochures and newsletters. Few districts prepare
lengthier in-depth or interpretative stories and only four
regularly hold press conferences.

In terms of qualifications of those directing public
relations, a slight majority of the respondents have experi-
ence strictly within the schools. Those with media experi-
ence or training are employed, for the most part, in the

larger schools (those with more than 25,000 students).

Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism,
College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State
University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Master of Arts degree.

ILL 58 MEL...

Director of The

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation
to several individuals who played important roles in the
completion of this study.

To Dr. Jack L. Hillwig, who guided me through this
project with great patience and understanding.

To Dr. Don J. McIntyre, whose faith in me led to
new career opportunities.

To my Mom and Dad, who have always supported me in
everything I have done.

To Kenneth, my husband, who gave me the much-needed
moral and emotional support.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

I. THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS IN THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . .

II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Methods of Disseminating News . . . . . .
Vehicles for Communications . . . . . . .
Relationship with the Press . . . .

III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY . . . . . . .

Qualifications of Those Directing
Public Relations . . . . . . . . . .

Public Relations Titles . . . . .
Money Budgeted for Public Relations . . .
Organizational Plans for Public Relations
Involvement in Public Relations Activities
Public Relations Priorities . . .
Objectives of Conducting Public Relations
Public Relations Initiatives .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tl

iii

iv

103

Table

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

District size, time and money devoted to
public relations . . . . . . . . . . . .

Time devoted to public relations according
to size of school district . . . .

Qualifications of those directing public
relations in the schools . . . . . . .

Qualifications of those directing public
relations in the schools according to
size of district . . . . . . . .

Qualifications of those directing public
relations in the schools according to
percentage of time devoted to public
relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Qualifications for public relations directors,
ranked by acceptability (Question Thirteen)

Qualifications for public relations directors,
ranked by acceptability, according to back-
ground classification (Question Thirteen) .

Qualifications for public relations directors,
ranked by acceptability, according to size
of district (Question Thirteen) . . .

Qualifications for public relations directors,
ranked by acceptability, according to percent-
age of time devoted to public relations
(Question Thirteen) . . . . . . . . .

Titles of those directing public relations
in the schools . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of budget devoted to public

relations according to size of school
district (Question Eleven) . . .

iv

Page

30

31

33

34

34

35

36

38

39

41

43

Table
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Percentage of budget devoted to public relations

according to percentage of time Spent on
public relations (Question Eleven) . .

Organizational plans for public relations
programs employed in the schools
(Question One) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organizational plans for public relations
programs employed in the schools, accord-
ing to size of district (Question One) .

Organizational plans for public relations
programs employed in the schools, accord-
ing to percent of time devoted to public
relations (Question One) . . . . .

Organizational plans for public relations
programs employed in the schools, accord-
ing to percentage of budget devoted to
public relations (Question One) . . . . .

Public relations activities in which the
schools are involved (Question Two)

Public relations activities in which the

schools are involved, according to size of

district (Question Two) . . . . . . . . .

Public relations activities in which the schools
are involved, according to percentage of time
devoted to public relations (Question Two)

Public relations activities in which the schools

are involved, according to percentage of
budget devoted to public relations
(Question Two) . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according
to the policy set by the boards of
education (Question Three) . . . . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
the policy set by the boards of education,

by size of district (Question Three) . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
the policy set by the boards of education,

by percentage of time devoted to public
relations (Question Three) . . . . .

\T

Page

43

45

46

48

49

51

52

S3

54

56

57

59

Table
24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Public relations functions ranked according to
the policy set by the boards of education, by
percentage of budget devoted to public
relations (Question Three) . . . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
personal preference (Question Twelve) . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
personal preference, by size of district
(Question Twelve) . . . . . . . . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
personal preference, by percentage of time
devoted to public relations (Question
Twelve) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public relations functions ranked according to
personal preference, by percentage of budget
devoted to public relations (Question
Twelve) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Objectives of schools engaging in public
relations deemed most important (Question
Fourteen) O l O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Objectives of schools engaging in public rela-
tions deemed most important, according to size
of district (Question Fourteen) . . . . . . .

Objectives of schools engaging in public rela-
tions deemed most important, according to
percentage of time devoted to public
relations (Question Fourteen) . . . . .

Objectives of schools engaging in public rela-
tions deemed most important, according to
percentage of budget devoted to public
relations (Question Fourteen) . . . . .

The number of press releases and in-depth or
interpretative stories prepared by the
school districts during one month
(Questions Four and Five) . . .

The number of press conferences held by the
districts and articles published about the
schools in the local newspapers during one
month (Questions Seven and Six) . . . . . . .

vi

Page

60

62

63

64

65

68

69

70

71

73

74

Table Page

35. Participation in a local radio or television
program and preparation of pamphlets or
brochures or newsletters by the school
districts (Questions Eight, Nine and Ten) . . . 75

36. The number of press releases prepared by the
school districts during one month, according
to size of district (Question Four) . . . . . . 76

37. The number of press releases prepared by the
school districts during one month, according
to percentage of time devoted to public
relations (Question Four) . . . . . . . . . . . 77

38. The number of press releases prepared by the
school districts during one month, according
to percentage of budget devoted to public
relations (Question Four) . . . . . . . . . . . 78

39. The number of in-depth or interpretative
stories prepared by the school districts
during one month, according to size of
district (Question Five) . . . . . . . . . . . 79

40. The number of in—depth or interpretative stories
prepared by the school districts during one
month, according to percentage of time devoted
to public relations (Question Five) . . . . . . 80

41. The number of in-depth or interpretative stories
prepared by the school districts during one
month, according to percentage of budget
devoted to public relations (Question Five) . . 81

42. The number of articles published about the
schools in the local newSpapers during one
month, according to district size
(Question Six) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

43. The number of articles published about the
schools in the local neWSpapers during one
month, according to percentage of time devoted
to public relations (Question Six) . . . . . . 84

44. The number of in-depth or interpretative stories
prepared and press conferences held by the
school districts and articles published in the
local newspapers about the schools during one
month in relation to the number of press re-
leases the schools prepared (Questions Five,
Seven, Six and Four) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

vii

Table
45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Participation in a local television or
radio program according to district
size (Question Eight)

Participation in a local television or
radio program according to percentage
of budget devoted to public relations
(Question Eight) . . . . . . . . .

Participation in a local television or
radio program according to percentage
of time devoted to public relations
(Question Eight) . . . . . . . . . .

Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters by
the school districts according to district
size (Questions Nine and Ten) . . . . . . .

Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters by the
school districts according to percentage of
time devoted to public relations
(Questions Nine and Ten)

Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters by the
school districts according to percentage of
budget devoted to public relations
(Questions Nine and Ten)

viii

Page

86

86

87

88

88

89

CHAPTER I

THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

These are not easy times for Michigan public school
districts. The educational system is facing criticism from
many directions and finding it more difficult than ever to
gain or to even maintain support.

The primary financers of education, the taxpayers,
are showing their dissatisfaction by repeatedly voting down
pleas for money. Michigan voters, for example, turned down
65 percent of the 248 additional school millage levies in
1977-78.1

And, as schools make cuts in an attempt to stay with-
in their budgets, their programs suffer, resulting in even
more unfavorable publicity.

Taxpayers are becoming disenchanted with their
schools for reasons which all point to money. Parents are
discovering that many young men and women are not as edu-
cated as they should be by graduation from high school and
are pointing the finger at the schools. When they enter

the voting booths, they find it difficult to rationalize

 

1Michigan Department of Education.

approving additional funding for an institution which, in
their Opinion, is not doing its job. They also feel that
teachers are no longer the dedicated people who once entered
education for the rewards of molding young minds but today
care only about paychecks and fringe benefits and are will-
ing to desert their classrooms until they get their way.

For example, in Michigan, the number of teacher
strikes has been increasing every year. During the 1977-78
school year, there were twenty-seven strikes in twenty-six
districts and more than 175,000 students lost from one to
seventeen days of school.2 So much media coverage of
teacher negotiations and particularly teacher strikes tends
to have a negative influence on the district's voters.

Peeple are watching their money more than ever and
are refusing to give additional funding to an educational
system with which they find fault.

When boards of education must curb expenditures,
one of the first areas to be cut back or, in some cases,
eliminated is often the public information program. Boards
frequently perceive community relations as a luxury or
fringe item, something nice, but not necessary. However,
this reasoning needs to be re-examined.

It is now more than ever that school districts need
to communicate with their publics. The public information
officer can reach the citizens of a community and help them

to understand what their schools are doing.

 

2Michigan Education Association.

In a letter sent to chapter officers of the National
School Public Relations Association, Dr. Jerome G. Kovalcik,
assistant superintendent of the New York City Public Schools,
wrote: "In too many cases, teachers and administrators
caught up in exciting plans for improving the educational
program forgot that people approve and support only those
things they understand.“5

One Michigan school district which did employ a full-
time public relations consultant eliminated the position for
financial reasons. However, soon after, the superintendent
wrote: "I‘m convinced that was a mistake, and the position
will be reinstated, at least on a half-time basis. . ."4

Public relations in education, nationally, was first
recorded when the first state board of education was estab-
lished in Massachusetts through the efforts of James G.
Carter and Horace Mann. Mann began molding public opinion
by organizing campaigns to explain the meaning and importance
of education, thus selling the idea of education to other
states.5

However, it wasn't until the beginning of the 19205

that a formal approach to public relations was made under

the title "publicity." School officials soon decided that

 

3Patty Lewis Williamson, "Don't Look Now But Your PR
15 Showing," School and Community 56 (November 1969): 24.

 

4Comment accompanying questionnaire from the super-
intendent from District G.

5James J. Jones, School Public Relations (New York:
Center for Applied Research in Education, 1966), p. S.

 

the term "publicity” carried some negative connotations and
implemented "public relations" for a fuller presentation of
the education story. In the first book on educational pub-
lic relations, Arthur B. Moehlman defined the concept as an
"organized factual informational service for the purpose of
keeping the public informed of its educational program."6

And, during the depression years of the 19305, when
the public was pushing for a reduction in school expenditures
and limited instructional offerings, education officials felt
the need to launch a campaign to gain public support and con-
fidence through communication.

Because the tax burden for public schools has remain-
ed at the local level, school administrators have felt the
need to continue to communicate with their taxpayers.

Today, because the label "public relations" is some-
times associated with slick Madison Avenue persuasion, there
is a movement to replace the term with other terms such as
"school-community relations" which also reflect the trend
toward involvement and participation of citizens in the
educational decision-making process.

Whatever term is employed, a public information pro-
gram seems to be needed by the schools simply because public
schools do belong to the public. And the investors of any
business want, and have the right, to know how their money

is being spent. But, more importantly, the schools must

 

6Arthur B. Moehlman, Public School Relations (Chicago:
Rand McNally 8 Co., 1927), p. 4.

 

communicate with the citizens of their districts if they are
to gain the necessary financial support.

In 1971, 56 percent of the peOple questioned in a
nationwide poll by Gallup International said they would not
support increased taxes for schools. Keith W. Atkinson,
professor of education at the University of Connecticut,
commented that this doesn't mean that peOple have lost re-
Spect for education, but that they are beginning to question
administrators. "They want information before they dig into
their pockets for more money."7

Scott M. Cutlip, professor of journalism at the Uni-
versity of Georgia, wrote in a 1967 National School Public
Relations Association publication, "A school system respon-
sive to, and supported by, an informed public stands like
a rock when the storms of bond issues and bookburners beat
upon it."8

James J. Jones, who has done extensive research on
school public relations, lists eight objectives which can be
achieved through an organized public information program:

--To explain the school system's philosophy, aims
I and means of achieving these aims
—-To interpret the educational program in a way that

will encourage people to take pride in and support their

 

7Keith W. Atkinson, "Communication: Closing the
Widening Gap," Clearing House 46 (September 1971): 27.

 

8Scott M. Cutlip, "Needed: More Interpreters, Fewer
Publicists," Public Relations Gold Mine Vol. 9 (Washington,
D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1967),
p. 24.

 

schools

--To establish confidence in the on-going institution

--To indicate that the public is receiving full value
for moneys expended on education

--To develop an understanding of what is possible in
education when adequate support is provided

--To acquaint the public with the trends in education

--To correct misunderstandings or errors

--To help the public feel some sense of responsibility
for the quality of education the school distributes9

There are basically two levels of educational public
information. The simplest involves publicity and information
which tells the current school news by presenting facts with-
out attempting to foster understanding. This might include
a flow of press releases which merely announce what is going
on in the schools. For example, an item might be sent to
the local media reporting that there will be testing of all
children entering kindergarten in the fall, where and when
it will be held.

A second method focuses on interpretation, 3 combi-
nation of publicity and information-giving with efforts to
explain. Under this system, the school might provide the
local media with a news story on what the testing will in-

volve, how it will be conducted, and what it might accomplish.

While the simple news item in the first example would

 

9Jones, Public Relations, pp. 8-9.

 

be of interest only to those parents with children entering
kindergarten, the second story might attract other residents
in the school's district and would illustrate what the
schools are doing for the students.

Max Rosenberg, Detroit Public Schools assistant
director of school-community relations, wrote in 1974:

The pay-off for a sound, balanced, dynamic PR package
comes with a well-informed and loyally supportive school
community. . . . Only half the story is doing; the
other half is telling.10

Too often school administrators neglect community
relations until they are faced with a crisis and are desper-
ate for support or need to defend themselves. This sporadic
system does little to build confidence and loyal support
among the taxpayers. A public relations program must be
continuous, through both "bad" and "good" times.

"Although continuous, planned contacts will not be
so flashy as the periodic and dynamic campaign, the results
will certainly be more lasting," wrote educational public
relations researcher Doyle M. Bortner.11

During the civil rights demonstrations and school
unrest in 1964, the Cleveland Public Schools delayed com-

municating with the media until their schools experienced

violence. Having eliminated their public relations program,

 

10Max Rosenberg, "Community Relations: Approaches
Educators Use," The Education Digest 39 (January 1974): 43.

 

11Doyle M. Bortner, Public Relations for Public
Schools (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., dis-
tr15uted by General Learning Press, Morristown, N.J., 1972),
p. 32.

 

the Cleveland schools suffered great public relations prob-
lems during the demonstrations. While former Cleveland
Superintendent William Levinson denounced the press for
its "lack of comprehension" and "shallow" stories, Ted

Princiotto, Cleveland Plain Dealer city editor, blamed the

 

administration for not supplying facts until the trouble
erupted. A National Education Association investigation
ruled that the public relations program needed to be re-
stored.12

In addition to working through the media, one other
aspect of school-community relations is community involve-
ment in the education process in which School administrators
meet with various citizen groups (parents, business leaders,
civic organizations) to provide information and generate
feedback.

However, in many school districts, particularly those
which have cut back in personnel, it is impossible for school
officials to meet with even a majority of the district's
taxpayers. At best, schools can directly communicate with
business and civic leaders, parents and school employees.

But this is only a small percentage of the district's voting
population and usually only that portion which has expressed
an interest in education. To reach the total district pop-

ulation, including those who do not have children in school

 

12"The Ghosts Walk," Public Relations Gold Mine
Vol. 7 (Washington, D.C.: National Sohool Public Relations
Association, 1965), p. 17.

 

and have little, if any, involvement with the schools, edu-
cators must rely upon the local media and the distribution
of pamphlets or newsletters to district residents.
Carolyn Mullins, a former newspaper reporter and
editor and a school board member, writes:
One of the most important obligations we assume as
members of boards of education is that of keeping the

community informed on what is going on in its educa-
tional world.

In short, today's school board desperately needs
an effective pipeline to the community. . . . How well
that pipeline functions is, in large part, our respon-
sibility.13
Yet, merely establishing a "pipeline" to the commu-
nity will often not fulfill a district's community relations
obligations. To win the support and confidence of the pub-
lic, material distributed must be a complete and honest
report of what the schools are doing. A newsletter or press
release (if even used by the local media) which only serves
to praise the school officials, without actually explaining
what is being done, will not promote the understanding neces-
sary to gain community support. This is illustrated in a
case cited by two authorities in the field of educational
public relations, James J. Jones and Irving W. Stout.
In "Super County" (as it is referred to in the case
study), the board of education budgeted money for public

relations which the superintendent used to publish a monthly

newsletter distributed to all school employees and parents

 

13Carolyn Mullins, "How to Get Along With Your Local
Newspaper and How to Get Good Press, Too," The American
School Board Journal 160 (October 1973): 32.

 

10

of school children within the district. The superintendent's
name generally appeared several times on each page and lavish
praise was often showered upon him in articles about accom-
plishments of the schools. There was very little information
about instruction, curriculum and achievement by individuals
other than the superintendent.

When a full-time public relations director was hired
by the board of education and began to give credit to the
board, Parent Teachers Association, faculties and community
residents for school improvements, the superintendent asked
that the public relations director have all articles pass
through his office for editing before being released to the
public. The "self-centered and insecure" superintendent be-
came so hostile that the director resigned at the end of the
year, making known his reasons for resignation in a letter
to the board. The board requested that the superintendent
d.14

resign, which he di

Arthur H. Rice, editorial advisor to Nation's Schools

 

and professor emeritus of education at Indiana University at
Bloomington, comments:

If the superintendent and his co-workers think that
the job of the PR man is to get favorable publicity for
them and the way they Operate the schools, they really
don't need a publig relations specialist--they need a
propaganda agent.

 

 

14James J. Jones and Irving W. Stout, School Public
Relations: Issues and Cases (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons,
I960), p. 67.

 

 

15Arthur H. Rice, "Know How to Use Your Public Rela-
tions Specialist Effectively," Nation's Schools 89 (January
1972): 15.

 

11

Effective public relations involves much more than
spewing out facts. If educators truly want their publics to
understand what the schools are doing, they must be willing
to do more than simply tell the school story. They must ex-
plain and interpret before they can expect to gain the confi-
dence and support of the public.

James Caudhill, director of public relations for
Benton Harbor (Michigan) Area Schools, maintains that if
the public doesn't understand the problems confronting its
schools, they cannot be expected to support the resolution
of those problems.16

This study, therefore, will assess the attitudes of
school administrators and public relations personnel as well
as the quality and quantity of existing public relations pro-
grams in Michigan schools.

Specifically, the study proposes: (1) to survey the
public relations programs in school districts in Michigan,
(2) to assess the attitudes and philOSOphies of Michigan
school districts toward public relations in education, (3) to
determine the qualifications of those peOple directing public
relations in the public schools, and (4) to delineate the
public relations activities in which Michigan schools engage

on a monthly basis.

 

16James Caudhill, "Three Simple but Super Truths to
Make Your Public Relations Better-~and Easier," The American
School Board Journal 164 (October 1977): 25-29.

 

 

CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Although there have been few studies done on exist-
ing public relations programs in the schools, many educators
and practitioners have addressed the tOpic of educational
public relations in terms of implementation and administra-
tion. A review of the literature provides models against
which existing programs can be compared.

According to the Standards for Educational Public
Relations Programs adopted 23 March 1968 by the Executive
Committee of the National School Public Relations Associa-
tion (NSPRA):

Recognition of public relations as a management function
of primary importance shall be demonstrated through the
existence of a public relations unit in the organization
staffed by profe551ona1 pub11c relations personnel.
The Standards further recommend that the number of full-time
professional public relations persons employed be determined
by size of student enrollment: one for up to 24,999 pupils;
two for 25,000 to 49,999 pupils; three for 50,000 to 99,999

pupils, and five for 100,000 or more pupils.18

 

17National School Public Relations Association, Stan-
dards for Educational Public Relations Programs (Washington,
D.C.: National School Public Relations Association, 1968),

p. 4.

 

181bid., p. s.

12

13

However, a sampling of 14,000 school administrators

in fifty states by the editorial staff of Nation's Schools in

 

1969 showed that only 3 percent of the reSpondents employed
full-time public relations persons and a majority said they
were not satisfied with the public relations efforts in their
schools. Most said they would like to hire full-time public
relations persons but cited finances as the major reason why
they had not.19

A 1965 survey of sixty-eight superintendents, school
public relations people and media peOple throughout Texas by
Robert P. Knight, a journalism teacher at Texas A 8 M Uni-
versity, concluded that members of the media, as well as
superintendents, favor public information positions. Forty-
nine percent of the superintendents questioned said they felt
they needed help with the task of informing the public.20

Finances was cited by 84 percent of the respondents
as one difficulty encountered in creating a public informa-
tion position. Forty-five percent said finding qualified
persons was a problem and less than one-third cited board
or community resistance.

Knight suggests that if schools view the information
specialist as a teacher with schools as his subject and the

entire community as students, the per-pupil cost alone would

 

19"Schoolmen Aren't Bragging About Their Public Rela-
tions Programs,” Nation's Schools 85 (January 1970): 31.

 

20Robert P. Knight, "Needed: School Information
Specialists," Texas Outlook 49 (July 1965): 16—17.

 

14

justify the salary. "It is up to the school district to
decide the value of such an investment."21
Thomas F. Koerner, public relations director for
Niles Township High Schools in Skokie, Illinois, states:
Boards that pooh-pooh the idea of hiring a public rela-
tions specialist are bad news. Most likely they'll wind
up as bad news in the local press as well as in the
minds of their constituents. 2
Knight recommends that a district assign the public
relations duties to an administrator who has shown skill in
dealing with various publics, a journalism teacher or pub-
lications advisor.23

However, Anne Chambers Lewis, editor of NSPRA's The

Schools and the Press, contends that the superintendent

 

should not be responsible for public relations, except in
very small schools. "Each is a specialty, requiring certain
background and experience, as well as interest, and each is
a full-time job."24

The authors of a 1974 article in The American School

 

Board Journal, C. Douglas Norman, director of the Upper

 

Cumberland Reading Project in Baxter, Tennessee, and C. M.

Achilles, associate professor for educational administration

 

211bid., p. 17.

22Thomas F. Koerner, "Why Your Board Deserves a Full-
Time Public Relations Man," The American School Board Jour-
nal 158 (September 1970): 36.

 

Z3Knight, "Needed," p. 17.

24Anne Chambers Lewis, The Schools and the Press
(Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations Asso-
ciation, 1965), p. 79.

 

15

and supervision at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville,
point out that the public information officer needn't be a
skilled writer or someone who is trained in public informa-
tion, only someone who recognizes what is news.25

Another educator, Cecil B. Spearman, superintendent
in Hinsdale, Illinois, in a 1966 article suggested that
schools rely upon mothers or teachers for public relations.26
Benjamin Fine and Vivienne Anderson, researchers in the field
of school public relations, maintain that the educator is the
best qualified for school public relations: "The essence of
the educational story can be projected best by one who has
personally experienced the problems of the classroom teacher
and the school administrator."27

However, employing someone with no public relations
or media experience does have disadvantages. Only someone
who has worked within the media can fully understand how the
media function and the kinds of news they want.

In a county school district in Ohio which was tempo-

rarily without a public relations director for budgetary

reasons, the high school supervisor was delegated the

 

25Douglas C. Norman and C. M. Achilles, "A Score and
Two Ways to Attain Success with a Modest School Public Rela-
tions Program," The American School Board Journal 161 (June
1974): 39.

 

26Cecil B. Spearman, "Two Ways to Delegate Public
Relations; Cultivating the Community Grapevine," School
Management 10 (June 1966): 85-87.

 

27Benjamin Fine and Vivienne Anderson, The School
Administrator and His Publications (New London,—Conn.:
Appleton-Century Croft Publications, 1957), p. 43.

 

16

responsibility of public relations for the five-district
system. His primary goal was to have teachers regularly
fill out printed news release forms which would be sent to
the local daily newSpaper. However, he neglected to consult
the newspaper on its news policies. Had he done so, he
might have learned that the editors considered most press
releases to be free publicity and routinely discarded them.
They also gave education low priority in terms of news value.
Several months later the stacks of forms were still sitting
in school principals' offices.

The public relations director who was later rehired
had worked for the local newspaper and was familiar with the
editors' attitudes toward education. She concentrated on
other news vehicles, such as newsletters and pamphlets, and
provided the newspaper with c0py—ready news stories which
the editors found acceptable.28

John Marston, author of The Nature of Public Rela-

 

tions, contends that part of the problem in education has
been the disposition to "intentionally disguise" school pub-
lic relations by frequently drawing the practitioners from
teacher or administrator ranks and possibly giving them a
part-time assignment.

"Educational public relations thus tends to suffer
from inbreeding and from talking to itself. . . . It

would benefit more by interchange with the outside

 

28Personal experience of the author.

17

world."29

"Most school administrators and boards need the
assistance of some Specialist who is familiar with commu-
nication principles and has competence to utilize communi-
cation media," Gordon McCloskey, a researcher in educational
public relations wrote in 1976.30

Daniel J. Scherer, a professional publicist in New
York City, citing a 1966 poll of newspaper editors by a
university professor, concluded that the primary reasons
for newspapers not using material submitted from outside
sources was limited local interest, no reader interest, poor
writing, material obviously faked, inaccuracy in stories, or
material stretched too thin.31

Koerner commented:

Journalists usually turn out to be good public relations
peOple. Highly prized is their almost innate ability to
communicate simply and concisely, unencumbered by educa-
tional Jargon.

Charles C. Campbell, dean of administration at North-

east Missouri State University at Kirksville, stated:

A large school that puts an inexperienced person in
the role of telling its story shows ignorance of the

 

29"Spotlight on the School P. R. Man," Public Rela-
tions Gold Mine Vol. 6 (Washington, D.C.: National School
Pfiblic Relations Association, 1964), pp. 36-37.

 

 

30Gordon McCloskey, Education and Public Understanding,
2d ed. (New York: Harper 8 Row, PuEIishers, 1967), p. 295.

31Daniel J. Scherer, "How to Keep Your School Dis-
trict in the Public Eye," School Managgment 10 (September
1966): 122-25.

 

 

32Koerner, "Board Deserves," p. 36.

18

importance, power and meaning Of the job. A small school
district that devotes no resources to public information
has severely misjudged its public's desire to know.33

Methods of Disseminating News

 

In establishing a public relations program, there
are basically three organizational structures. Which one a
district employs will most likely depend upon student enroll-
ment, staff and resources.

(1) The Centralized Plan is when all news goes
through the superintendent or public relations director. By
this method, one person is responsible for collecting news
from throughout the district and for disseminating news
through the most effective vehicle. By having one person as
liaison to the local media, there should be constant communi-
cation between the schools and the media and little chance of
important news not reaching the public. However, the central
office must constantly communicate with the individual school
personnel since many peOple develOp attitudes and Opinions
by contacts and experiences at the local level.34

(2) Under the Decentralized Plan, each school within
the district is reSponsible for its own public relations.
While this system does get the news directly from the indi-
vidual school to the media, it puts the majority of the

responsibility on the school principal who may not have the

 

33Charles C. Campbell, "Public Relations for Public
Schools," School and Community 60 (October 1973): 17.

 

34Bortner, Public Relations, pp. 36-37.

 

19

necessary time or interest to devote to public relations.
In a district with several buildings, it would be difficult
for the media representatives to establish the close rela-
tionship that is possible with one public relations desig-
nee for the entire district. The decentralized plan also
precludes schools working together to convey the school
story to their public.35
(3) Making each person within the district respon-
sible for getting his own news to the local media would be
an Individualized Plan. Under this plan there is no delay
between the happening of news and the reporting. The local
media get news from all sources, not only that which one per-
son determines to be news. However, it can also mean that a
reporter might not get all the news within a school system
since some teachers may be reluctant to call the media. Or,
a reporter can be deluged with trivial news from all levels
to the point that he becomes wary of any call from the
schools. The greatest disadvantage to this system is that
news from the schools is haphazard; there is no uniformity
among schools and no coordination Of communications, and the
local media have no one contact who can keep them informed

on all aspects of the schools.

Vehicles for Communications

 

The most important function Of a public relations

program is to disseminate the news through the most

 

351bid.

20

effective vehicle, whether it be press releases, longer in-
depth or interpretative stories, pamphlets or brochures,
formal press conferences or merely being available for media
representatives to pursue their own story ideas.

The press release is the basic press relations tool
and Often the primary means of communications between the
schools and their local media. In most cases, press releases
merely "announce" what the schools are doing, with little, if
an, analysis or interpretation.

The Nation's Schools poll found that 94 percent of the
respondents said their schools had some kind of public rela-
tions or press release program. Sixty-six percent said they
send out between one and twenty-five press releases in a six-
month period; 21 percent send out between twenty-six and
fifty; 4 percent fifty-one to seventy-five; 4 percent seventy-
six to one hundred, and 5 percent more than one hundred.36

Carolyn Mullins, former newspaper reporter and editor
and a school board member, states:

Prepared releases are fine for publicizing routine school
news and for informing the community about new programs
and policies, and (schools) should be producing a constant
stream of them. Hard news about hot issues, however, is
another matter.37

Since most newspapers and radio and television sta-

tions do not have the staffs to gather all the school stories

editors and educators would like, it is up to the schools to

 

36"Schoolmen Aren't Bragging," p. 31.
37Mullins, "Good Press," p. 33.

21

provide some of the c0py in the form of written articles.

Knight's survey revealed that newsmen want schools to
feel free to provide unsolicited information in the form Of
news tips which the reporters can deveIOp into their own
stories.38

One effective means Of providing this information is
through regularly scheduled news conferences, whether weekly,
bi-weekly or monthly, which would take little time from the
public relations director, or superintendent, but would in-
sure consistent communications with the local media repre-
sentatives. However, too often school administrators call
press conferences only when they feel the need to "push"
something or defend the schools.

Another effective means of communicating with the tax-
payers Of a school district is through brochures or pamphlets
distributed on a district-wide basis. This provides a vehicle
for conveying information which may not be of interest to the
general audience of a newspaper or radio or television sta—
tion but may be beneficial to those who support the schools.

Fine and Anderson say the community school publica-
tion is "a practical instrument through which laymen can get
an authentic picture Of the system's philosophy, activities,

problems, growth and needs.39

 

38Robert P. Knight, "How to Communicate Your School
Story," Texas Outlook 49 (May 1965): 20-21.

 

39Fine and Anderson, Administrator and Publication,
p. 39.

22

But perhaps the most important function Of the public
relations person is to be available to members Of the media,
to be a reliable contact in the schools, always willing to
answer questions, provide information for stories, and help
reporters to understand what education is all about. Nothing
can be more damaging to a school district than to have a
reporter unable to reach his source in the schools when he

needs him.

Relationship with the Press

 

An essential aspect Of educational public relations
is the relationship the schools are able to build with the
local media.

Anne Chambers Lewis writes:

Community awareness of the school system's problems and
achievements depends greatly on (the schools') press re-
lations. If (they) make no effort to establish regular
communications with the press outlets, assuming an atti-
tude of "move the mounfiain to me," then (their) press
relations will suffer. 0

Schools need to utilize the media as a public rela-
tions outlet if they are to reach the majority of their
district's residents. It is the press' responsibility to
report the news, whether good or bad, and if the schools want
to maintain "good" press coverage, they must reach out to the
media to extend every effort to COOperate.

Lewis advises schools to make the full staff and

facilities of the system available to the press with all

 

40Lewis, Schools and Press, p. 14.

 

23

doors Open to members of the media. Staff members should be
given experience in working with the press and encouraged to
help rather than hinder reporters.41
It is the schools' responsibility to work with jour-
nalists to help them understand and interpret educational
programs and policies before they can expect newspeOple to
provide objective reports of school activities for their
audiences.
Hope Justus, of Northwestern University School of
Journalism, wrote:
Those in policy-making positions must be willing to keep
somewhat abreast of research in education and related
fields, to inform and educate the press personnel on a
variety Of subjects, to educate themselves about how the
press Operates and why, to learn what kinds of questions
members of the public want answered, and in whgt form
the answers must be for public understanding.
In Knight's survey, 52 percent Of the newspaper
respondents said they want more public information help
from the schools; the response was somewhat higher for radio
and television newspeople. Fewer than one-half of the radio
and television reSpondents said they get effective assis-
tance from the schools while one-third of the newspaper

respondents said they were dissatisfied.43

School officials should be concerned with more than

 

411bid., p. 13.

42Hope Justus, "Educators Must Lead in Public Infor-
mation," The Journal of Educational Research 66 (April 1973):
inside cover.

 

43Knight, "How to Communicate," pp. 20-21.

24

what news they make available to the media, maintains Charles
H. Harrison, a regular contributor of articles on educational

public relations to Nation's Schools. "They need to be just

 

as concerned about how the news gets to the media and the
rapport between news media representatives and responsible
school Officials."44

Because the media have a significant role in the pub-
lic relations process, schools need to make the effort to
cultivate an effective working relationship with the press.

Del Harding, director of information for Jefferson
County Public Schools in Lakewood, Colorado, maintains: "Any
school administrator who refuses to use the media as a commu-
nications vehicle is asking for trouble. Trouble not only
from the media, but from his community."45

This study will examine exactly how school admin-

istrators utilize the media in their efforts to communicate

and gain the support of their publics.

 

44Charles H. Harrison, "Have Rapport, Not Formality
With Press Representatives," Nation's Schools 85 (May 1970):
38.

 

4SDel Harding, "How to Capitalize on News Media,"
National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin
58 (January 1974): 43.

 

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

A thorough literature search indicates that no compa-
rable studies have been made concerning the public relations
of public school districts. Most researchers have focused
on what the schools can and should be doing in idealistic
terms. However, few have collected data on what actually is
being done. Those authors who prescribe public relations
methods for schools appear to have disregarded the needs of
individual districts in terms Of enrollment size and avail-
able resources.

This study is intended to provide useful information
about the specific attitudes and activities of existing pub-
lic relations programs in Michigan schools and it provides a
substantial basis for further consideration. Initially,
hypotheses were established:

(1) Most schools in Michigan do not employ full-time
public relations personnel.

(2) The backgrounds of those who are employed to
direct public relations generally are limited to experience
within the schools with little, if any, media experience.

(3) The public relations activities in most Michigan

school districts involve the preparation and distribution Of

25

26

routine press releases and making the public relations desig-
nee available to the media, with little time devoted to more
involved activities such as lengthier in-depth or interpreta-
tive stories, press conferences, pamphlets or brochures or
newsletters.

(4) The employment of full-time public relations
personnel is restricted to the larger schools, thus limiting
extensive public relations activities to those schools.

It was decided that a detailed questionnaire would
be prepared and mailed to individual school districts in
order to provide the desired data. The primary advantages
to the mail survey are the time factor on the part of the
interviewer and the convenience to the respondent who does
not have time for personal interviews. It was also decided
that the presence of an interviewer might preclude accurate
reSponses.

In an effort to Obtain accurate data, it was agreed
that the names of the school districts responding to the
questionnaire would not be used in the writing of the study.

Specifically, the survey was designed to answer the
following questions:

(1) What educational and professional qualifications
are held by those directing public relations in the public
schools and how much time do they devote to public relations?

(2) By what methods do schools disseminate news and
which vehicles are most Often employed to communicate with

the public?

27

(3) What are considered by the districts' adminis-
trators and public relations persons to be the primary ob-
jectives Of educational public relations?

(4) On a monthly basis, specifically what do schools
accomplish in the way Of public relations?

(5) What qualifications are considered to be most
desirable for a public relations director?

From a list of all public school districts in Michi-
gan compiled by the Michigan Department Of Education for the
1976-77 school year, districts were ranked according to stu-
dent enrollment. Since school districts with enrollments
less than 10,000 do not usually have formal public relations
programs, it was decided to concentrate on those districts
with student enrollments in excess of 10,000. Also, because
the Detroit Public School System has at least seven times
the student enrollment of the next largest district in the
state, it was deleted from the list.

Questionnaires were mailed in April, 1977, to the
superintendents of the thirty-one school districts in Mich-
igan with enrollments between 10,000 and 41,000. Each
questionnaire was accompanied by a form letter which ex-
plained the purpose of the survey and that the study was
part Of the investigator's work as a student at Michigan
State University (see Appendix). Also as an inducement for
those surveyed to reply, a self-addressed, stamped envelope
was enclosed.

When daily returns dwindled, a second questionnaire

28

was sent to those who had not responded, with a letter ex-
plaining that, with a total pOpulation of thirty-one, a one
hundred percent response was essential.

Since one school district's enrollment had fallen
below 10,000 since the start of the school year, the ques-
tionnaire from that district was discarded, bringing the

final list of schools studied to thirty (see Appendix).

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY

Of the thirty Michigan public school districts
surveyed, nine employ a public relations person on a full-
time basis and two employ persons to do public relations on
a part-time basis (see Table l). Seventeen schools have
someOne who devotes at least 50 percent of his time to
community relations.

Fewer than half Of the twenty-four districts with
student enrollments below 25,000 employ persons who do
public relations at least 50 percent of the time (see
Table 2). 0f the six schools with enrollments over 25,000,
five employ persons whose sole responsibility is public
relations; the sixth district has someone who devotes 75
percent of his time to public relations.

There are six districts in which public relations
is given less than 10 percent of one staff member's time,
including four of the fourteen districts with 10,000 to
14,999 students, one of the seven districts with 15,000
to 19,999 students, and one of the three districts with
20,000 to 24,999 students.

Thus, thirteen of the thirty districts surveyed

employ persons who devote less than half of their time

29

30

Table 1. District size, time and money devoted to
public relations.

 

 

 

% of time % of budget
Enrollment Spent on PR Spent on PR

A 10,200 1003 .100
B 10,350 95 .500
C 10,470 7 .1-1
D 10,500 30 -

E 10,700 50 1.000
F 11,375 - -

G 11,600 5 .002
H 11,600 10 5.000
I 11,841 100 .050
J 12,522 50 .200
K 13,000 40 -

L 13,408 20 .1-1
M 14,500 0 0

N 14,500 50-75 .930
0 15,349 50 .050
P 15,500 1003 -

Q 15,600 0 0

R 17,000 100 2.000
S 17,789 30 .250
T 18,500 100 .1-1
U 18,510 10-15 -

V 21,000 1 .050
W 21,021 100 1.000
X 23,000 10 .200
Y 27,700 100 .002
2 31,500 100 .140
AA 32,000 100 .040
BB 32,000 75 .020
CC 38,000 100 .100
DD 41,000 100 .003

 

 

3 Employed on a part-time basis.

31

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Time devoted to public relations according to size
of school district.

Enrollment Schools 100% 50-99% 30-49% 10-29% 0-9%

10,000 14.999 14 2a 4 2 2 4
(A N)

15,000 19,999 7 3a 1 l l l
(0 U)

20,000 24,999 3 l 0 l 0 l
(V X)

25,000 34,999 4 3 1 0 0 0
(Y BB)

35,000 41,000 2 2 0 0 0 0

(CC DD)
Totals 30 ll 6 4 3 6

 

 

a Includes one person who is employed on a part-time basis.

32

to public relations.

In four districts, all with student enrollments
below 15,000, the superintendents conduct public relations
for the districts, with 10 percent being the greatest amount
of time Spent in that area.

Qualifications of Those Directing
Public Relations

 

 

In the thirty Michigan school districts surveyed,
those with educational backgrounds, that is, experience only
within the school system, outnumber those with journalism
backgrounds by a slight margin. Sixteen have strictly edu-
cational experience or training; thirteen have media or
public relations experience or college degrees in journalism
(see Table 3). The person in charge of public relations for
District J has secretarial training.

All six districts with student enrollments above
25,000 employ persons with media experience while those with
educational backgrounds are employed in the smaller schools
(see Table 4). However, four of the seven districts with
between 15,000 and 20,000 students employ persons with jour-
nalism backgrounds.

Categorized by time devoted to public relations,
eight of the eleven persons whose sole responsibility is
public relations have journalism backgrounds, as do four
of the six who spend between 50 and 99 percent of their
time on public relations (see Table 5).

An analysis Of the reSponses to Question Thirteen

33

 

>H-Ofiwwy .uouooufiw .uououonn .uoufiuz

 

.uSOh >H-Ofiwmm w2 "Ewflawcpoon <m an
.uson ummmmmzoc “cowmfi>oaou ”Owwmm mcflummowmoum moumon oumfluomm< uu
.hDOh m:OfiumHOe Uganda mmcflmfluuo>w< muocw2 Anonymouozm .Emflamnpsow <mm mm
.9506 genome“ mmcowumufianom OMOHHOU :Ofiumuswm and ”poqfi2 Emflfimcunow <m <<
.usow nozumou muouponop hoammmzmz cofipmuswm .zmfiamcm <2 “Emwamzuoom <m N
.HSOh Houuomou hommmmzo: “mGOwumHon Oflfiosm :ofiumupmficfisw< <2 ”Emflamcpsow <m 2
.pm Hmmflocfium ucmpmfimmm muonommb oceanoHo>oa Esaoufiuusu mom x
.vm pogumOH acaumuumficfiev< Hoozum <2 3
.vm mpmuuoamzo: HHmEm mo powwow “genomes Esasofiupou new “cowumuumflcwev< mum >
.usow mcoflpmaou Oflaozm mwcwmflouo>v< cofiumnumficwsu< Hoozum <2 3
.Hsow >H-vamu .uouuouwp seaweed .poufluz Hocfi2 Emflfimzusow “>H-onmm <m H
.wm genomes sewumuumficfisw< Hmcofium63pm mum m
.vm --- xwofioccumy HecofiuuspumcH <2 2
.vm --- --- o
.uoow Houuommu Honmmmzoc moflwmm Emflfimcuoom omhwoa Opmwoomm< m
.usow poufiwo “youpomou emmmmmzoz cofiumhumficfiew< <2 ”Emflamcusow <m o
.HSOh nonumou ”noufipo "pounoaou Hommmmzoz muoHumHom xuficzesou .Esasufiunsu mwm z
.vm Hmmflucfium newcomOH ocoemoHo>oo ansuwhusu Anmpcouom 2
.pm Hmmfiucflum mumsuwoe :Owumuumwcfiev< .cowumosvm mmmcfimsm m2 4
.vm Homcomm xoooemoz .nommmmzo: “Hogumoe pocfl2 Emflamcyoow “oucofium Hmfiuom <2 2
.2uom Aneuopoom o>wuouoxm Hoogum Hmfinmuouuom h
.uoow nepfiwo nymphomop Hommmmzoz Emflaocusow mm H
.wm acopcoucfluomsm ”Hemflucflum mumcumoh :Ofluwuumficwev< Hm:Oflumu:pm cum I
.vm psowcmwcweom3m muonomoe :Ofiumuumwcwew< Hmcoflumuswm and u
.vm acmwcmucwpoasm uponomoy :Owumuumwcfisw< new m
.pm youmhumwcwswm Hoonom ”RenowOH Esazuwuusu mum m
.pm uouuonww Hoozom xuficsesoo ”genomes :oflumuumwcfiev< Hoonom mwm m
.cm ucovcoucfiumasm ”Ho::Omemm “eczemOH acoEOOHo>on aofisufiuusu com o
.hsow youfiwo nymphommh Honmmmzoz :OflumuM::EEOu mmm2 <2 “EmfiamcHDOh <m m
.pm Hmmflucfihm muocummh mvm <
:Ofluwowm vcoonmxumm Hm:0flmmomogm vcsoumxomm Homewumoawm
-flmmmfiu

 

 

 

 

 

.mHOOEOm ecu cw mcofiuwaou Ofiaosm wcfluuopwv omega mo mcoflumuflm«am:o

.m OHan

34

Table 4. Qualifications of those directing public
relations in the schools according to
size of district.

 

 

 

 

Enrollment Jour. Ed. Secy.
10,000 - 14,999 3 10 1
(A-N)
15,000 - 19,999 4 3 0
(O-U)
20,000 - 24,999 0 3 0
(V-X)
25,000 - 34,999 4 0 0
(Y - BB)
35,000 - 41,000 2 0 0
(CC - DD)
Totals 13 16 1

 

 

Table 5. Qualifications of those directing public
relations in the schools according to
percentage of time devoted to public re-

 

 

 

 

lations.

Time Devoted to
Public Relations Jour. Ed. Secy.
100% 8 3 0
50 - 99% 4 1 1
30 - 49% 0 4 0
10 - 29% 1 2 0

0 - 9% 0 6 0
Totals 13 16 l

 

 

35

(see Table 6), which asked respondents to rank five quali-
fications according to acceptability, shows that both
groups, those with educational backgrounds and those with
journalism training, chose experience in public relations

as the most desirable qualification, rating newspaper ex-
perience second (see Table 7). However, educational experi-
ence and a degree in education were ranked second almost

as many times by those with educational backgrounds. A
degree in education was listed most Often as last choice

by both groups.

Table 6. Qualifications for public relations directors,
ranked by acceptability (Question Thirteen).

 

 

 

U) '1)
C1 :3
O O
fl-H {1.1-1
:2 s4 "-14-: c: H -r-H->
O Q) (13 O 0) CU
E 0-H 09. 091-1 E 0-H 09.. OH
CC Cit!) UH U!!! 00 CC. 1:03 UH UN 00)
.H Q or“... c: to c: 9.. an: «40 -H-H t: m L: Di an:

"-4 H 00 mm 0 «H H 00 0!!) Q)
044 a)!!! "-1: "-13 "-10 04-4 mm 0H: "-13 OHU
on: 0G M'U HG) H-u-l on: 0‘: H'U HQ) Hoe-l
RU HR mm 02 OH RU HR mm 02 OH
DDS 00:3 D: 91 p.13 003 DOS Q. Q Duo
0"!) 00 K: 2:: X: 0'0 mo K: K: ><23
cam Q”) [LII—c tun—c mo. DELI Q") Luv-4 LCM-o run.

A 5 4 3 2 l P S 3 4 2 1
B s 3 4 2 1 Q s 4 2 3 1
C 5 3 2 4 1 R 2 S 3 4 1
D 5 3 1 4 2 S S 3 4 2 l
E 2 3 1 4 S T S 3 4 2 1
F 2 4 1 3 5 U 4 5 2 3 1
G 5 4 3 2 l V 1 5 4 3 2
H 5 4 1 2 3 W 3 1 2 S 4
I 4 3 2 5 1 X 3 5 2 4 l
J 4 1 3 5 2 Y S 3 4 1 2
K 3 1 2 4 5 Z S 2 4 1 3
L 2 5 l 4 3 AA 5 4 3 2 l
M 5 3 4 2 1 BB 5 2 4 3 1
N 4 S 1 2 3 CC 4 2 3 1 5
O S 4 3 2 1 DD 2 l 3 4 S

 

 

 

 

 

Qualifications for public relations directors, ranked by acceptability, accord-

ing to background classification (Question Thirteen).

Table 7.

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hd 'dxa N m o m
°dsmeN °dxg H H H W
é ~p3 ~dxg o o o o
‘anf‘ °Beq N v o o
0133 .830 co 00 o i
3d °dxg o H o H
'dsmaN °dxg H '\ O °°
g .pa .dxa ‘10 m o a}
'JnOf '890 ‘8 'n 9 6~
0133 0390 <1- o 1-1 In
ad odxg N N C <-
°dsmeN °dx3 N M o m
“a opa °dxg <1- m H 00
m
amop 'Beq m m o 2
~pg ~330 o m o m
ad 0dxg H N H V
°dsmeN 'dxa 0 L“ O :1
E 'p'_:[ °dxa N m o l\
‘anf' '890 "’3 O O "5
opa -83G v-l <1' O In
8d 'dxa °° °° ‘3 2
°dsneN °dxg '9 O O '9
E 0P3 de3 H Ln 0 \O
’JnOf °Beq H N H 2
'pg '39fl o H o H
H
"U E CB
:1 to c: 0H
:3 «4 o s4
0 H "-1 CO
H a: u 44 m
60 c: :6 CD v-l
.54 H U 1H :6
8 8 3 8 ‘3
a: 'fi m U) E-‘

 

 

37

Five of the six who ranked educational experience
as the most acceptable qualification have strictly education
experience; the sixth respondent has newspaper experience.
The three who listed newspaper experience as most important
all have newspaper experience, and two of the four who
selected a degree in journalism as first do hold journalism
degrees.

Categorized by size Of district, the smaller schools
(with between 10,000 and 15,000 students) were equally
divided between educational and public relations experience
as the most acceptable qualification while the majority of
those from the largest schools (over 25,000 pupils) ranked
newspaper experience first (see Table 8). The mid-sized
schools favored public relations experience. The smaller
schools rated newspaper experience fourth and all groups
ranked a degree in education last.

Grouping the districts by the percentage Of time the
respondents devote to public relations reveals a similar
pattern (see Table 9). Public relations experience was
selected as most desirable, although those who spend between
10 and 50 percent Of their time on public relations also
rated educational experience first. A degree in education
was rated least important but shared last place with a
degree in journalism among those who devote between 10 and

15 percent Of their time to public relations.

Public Relations Titles

 

Fifteen of the seventeen persons who devote at least

38

 

 

 

 

m m o 0 OH H w a H m a m H OH H a HH H m H OH H o a H mHaHoe
Ham-uuv
N o o o o o H o o H o o N o o o o o H H o H o H o coo.HH-ooo.mm
Hmm-»V
o o o o H o o m H o H H H H o H H o N o N N o o o mom.¢m-ooo.m~
Hx->v
o H o N o H H H o o o H o o N H o N o o H o o H H mam.e~-ooo.o~
H=-ov
o o o N m o H m N H o N N m o o a N o H H o o o o mam.oH-ooo.mH
Hz-<v
m H o N e o m N a m m H m p H N o m o m o o p N o mam.HH-ooo.OH
mmnmmmnmwmmmmmmmumwmmmmmm 2.2.225
dddqooodddaooodddaoqodddaoaodddoooo
dNHPHdNHFHdNHFHdNHfHdNHFH
HGPOPHSPOPHGPOPHGPOPUOPOP
Mono Mono Ma“. Ms". M.“-
S 1 S l S 1 S l S l
d 0 tea 0 10a a you 0 you 0
sum nae ppm pew omH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-vuouom .HHHHHomuaooow Ho woxcmu .mHOHOOHHw maoHHmHOH OHHozn How mcoHumunHHmoo

.mnoouHHne :OHumosov HOHHumHv mo ONHm OH mcH

.w oHpmH

Qualifications for public relations directors, ranked by acceptability, accord-
ing to percentage of time devoted to public relations (Question Thirteen).

Table 9.

°dxg

39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3d N H H o H In
‘dSMeN ‘dxg N H o o o V)
.C‘.
:3 'PH °dxg o o o o o o
amop '89q H H H N H 0
“pg '390 so to N H <1- :OL
3d °dxg H o o o o H
'dSMGN 'dxg N H m H H co
.1:
:3 'pg °dxg <- N H o N as
°1nop 'Beq N H o H m xx
'pg ’BGQ N N o H o to
Ed :dxg H H o N o <-
°dSM9N °dxa c: H o H m m
"U
'3; 'pa 'dxg .m N o o H 00
urnop °Beq H N N o N 3
'PH '39Cl H o N o o
Hd 'dxg H H H o H <1-
'dsneN 'dxg H m H H N H
H
'U
(E 'pg 'dxg N o N H N
‘InOf 'Seq N H o o o m
.133 .390 N H o H H In
3d ‘dxg so to N H <- :2
'dSMeN °dxg m o o o o m
4.)
fl ”pa ‘dXE—I o N H N H \o
‘anf‘ 'Beq N H H o o <-
°p3 '39Q o o o o H H
"d
a)
p
O
> o\° as o\°
a) Ch 05 0: do
C: on <1- N m In
94 H
(DD-4 GP I I I I :6
E O 4.:
-H o o o o o o o
[HEH H m m H [H

 

 

40

half Of their time to school public relations carry titles
specifying their responsibilities (see Table 10). The other
two are called Assistant to the Superintendent (District E)
and Assistant in Personnel Services (District 0). Both list
public relations as 50 percent of their job responsibilities.
In only one district (District K) is a person who devotes
less than half his time to public relations (40 percent)
given a job title with a public relations description,
Community Relations Assistant. That person lists journalism
teacher as his other major reSponsibility.

The sixteen titles held range from the simple de-
scriptions, such as Public Relations Consultant, Director
of Public Relations, Information Officer and Communications
Specialist, to long and bureaucratic titles: Administra-
tive Assistant for School-Community Relations, and Director
of Public Information and Communications.

No two are identical, although some are similar:
Coordinator of Public Information and Public Information
Coordinator. There are four directors, three coordinators,
three administrative assistants, two consultants, two Spe-
cialists, one assistant and one officer. Five of the six-
teen titles include school-community relations, three each
public relations, public information and communications, and
one information services. One title includes both public

information and communications (District DD).

Money Budgeted for Public Relations

 

Of the thirty districts surveyed, twenty-one spend

41

 

 

 

Table 10. Titles of those directing public relations in
the schools.
% Time
Spent
Title On PR
A Public Relations Consultant 1003
B Director Of Public Relations 95
C Superintendent 7
D Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 30
E Assistant to the Superintendent 50
F Superintendent -
G Superintendent 5
H Superintendent 10
I Coordinator of Public Information 100
J Communications Specialist 50
K Community Relations Assistant 40
L Director, Personnel and Administrative Services 20
M Director of Personnel 0
N Administrative Assistant, Community Relations 50-75
0 Assistant in Personnel Services 50
P Communications Consultant 100a
Q Assistant Superintendent 0
R Information Officer 100
S Administrative Assistant 30
T Director, School-Community Relations 100
U Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services 10-15
V Assistant Director of Elementary Instruction 1
W Public Information Coordinator 100
X Deputy Superintendent for Instruction 10
Y Administrative Asst., School-Community Relations 100
2 Director, Information Services 100
AA Community Relations Specialist 100
BB Administrative Assistant for Public Relations 75
CC Communications and Publications Coordinator 100
DD Director, Public Information and Communications 100

 

 

 

a Employed on a part-time basis.

42

less than one percent of their total budgets on public re-
lations (see Table 1). One district spends as much as 5
percent of its budget and two designate no funding for public
relations. Five reSpondents left the question blank, which
might indicate that those districts fund public relations
under a more general listing, such as administrative services,
and were unable to determine exactly how much money is spent
on public relations. It is apparent that they did not mean
that their districts spend nothing on public relations since
one district does employ a full-time public relations direc-
tor (District P).

All of the four districts which do budget at least
one percent of their total expenditures for public relations
have student enrollments below 25,000 and two employ full-
time public relations directors (see Tables 11 and 12).
District H, which spends the most, 5 percent Of its total
budget, has fewer than 15,000 pupils and employs someone
who devotes less than 30 percent Of his time to public re-
lations.

The largest district surveyed, which does employ a
full-time public relations director, allocates only .003 per-
cent of its budget for public relations. One other district
with a student enrollment over 25,000 and a full-time public
relations person spends .002 percent of its budget for public
relations, the same amount listed by one district with fewer
than 15,000 students and an employee who devotes less than

10 percent of his time to public relations.

43

Table 11. Percentage of budget devoted to public relations
according to size of school district (Question

 

 

 

 

Eleven).
Enrollment 1% or more .1-.9% .01-.09% 0-.009% 0
10,000-14,999 2 6 1 1 1
(A-N)
15,000—19,999 1 2 l 0 l
(O-U)
20,000-24,999 1 l l 0 0
(V-X)
25,000-34,999 0 1 2 1 0
(Y-BB)
35,000-41,000 0 1 0 1 0
(CC-DD)
Totals 4 11 5 3 2

 

 

Table 12. Percentage of budget devoted to public relations
according to percentage of time Spent on public
relations (Question Eleven).

 

 

 

 

Time Spent
On PR 1% or more .l-.9% .01-.09% 0-.009% 0
100% 2 4 2 2 0
50 - 99% l 3 2 0 0
30 - 49% 0 2 0 0
10 - 29% 1 l 0 0

0 - 9% 0 1 1 1 2
Totals 4 11 5 3 2

 

 

44

The two districts which allocate no money for public
relations both have student enrollments below 20,000 and em-
ploy persons who spend less than 10 percent of their time on

public relations.

Organizational Plans for Public Relations

In Question One of the survey, twelve of the thirty
schools surveyed said their public relations programs follow
the centralized plan in which all school news goes through
one person (see Table 13). There were eleven respondents
using the individualized plan, in which each staff person
is responsible for releasing his own news, and the remaining
seven employ the decentralized plan, in which the principal
of each building handles the news from his school.

Four respondents said their districts actually fol-
low a combination of the three systems. Because no one
person or even one person per building directs public rela-
tions for these schools, they have been interpreted to be
the equivalent of the individualized plan.

The majority of the fourteen schools with enrollments
between 10,000 and 15,000 employ the individualized plan;
five follow the centralized plan and two use the decentral-
ized system (see Table 14). Four of the seven schools with
15,000 to 19,999 pupils list the decentralized plan while
two use the individualized plan. The three districts with
20,000 to 24,999 students each employ a different system.
The only group in which the majority follows the decentral-

ized plan is the districts with enrollments between 25,000

45

n
SSDO
nnii
30 t
lids
Ptee
avid
1100.
381(
DID.
0 ms
.lcel
ti 0
also
zbmh
.luaC
nnPr.S .
a g )
groee
rorhn
OfPtO
3
1
e
1
b
a
T

vouch mo
:OHHmaHHEou

maez czo
mHaspH>HpeH

mzoz :30
Hoonom :omm

:OmHmm mm
OH mzmz HH<

X XXXX X X XX X XX

 

12

 

 

 

 

BCD
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMBCD

Totals

 

46

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Organizational plans for public rela-
tions programs employed in schools,
according to size of district (Ques-
tion One).

O H m
+4 o H
c o a

mo .cm :30)

3th 03 '63

0H (DO) "-402

ZZO z: >:z
o. .c .H

2.. a; "a:

Enrollment < o. m o H 0
10,000 14,999 5 2 7

(A N)
15,000 19,999 4 1 2
(0 U)
20,000 24,999 1 1 l
(V X)
25,000 34,999 0 3 1
(Y BB)
35,000 41,000 2 0 0
(CC DD)

Totals 12 7 ll

 

 

47

and 35,000, with three employing that system and one using
the individualized plan.

Thus, the schools with fewer than 25,000 students
are evenly divided between the centralized and individual-
ized plans while the schools with enrollments over 25,000
favor the decentralized system.

The majority, six, of the eleven districts which
do employ persons whose sole responsibilities are public
relations follows the centralized plan with three districts
using the decentralized system (see Table 15). Two dis-
tricts with full-time public relations directors have Opted
for the individualized plan. Also, half of the six dis-
tricts whose public relations personnel devote between 50
and 99 percent of their time to that job employ the indi-
vidualized plan. Two of the other districts in that cate-
gory use the centralized plan and the last district follows
decentralization.

Four of the districts whose employees spend between
10 and 50 percent of their time with public relations uti-
lize the centralized plan while the majority of those who
spend less than 10 percent of their time with public rela-
tions uses the individualized system.

The individualized plan is employed by the district
which devotes the greatest percentage of its budget to
public relations as well as the two districts which spend
nothing (see Table 16). Two other districts which spend at

least one percent of their budgets on public relations use

Table 15.

48

Organizational plans for public rela-
tions programs employed in schools,
according to percent of time devoted
to public relations (Question One).

 

 

 

 

0 1—1 m

u 0 r4

= o a
mo .cm :30)
3:!) U3 '03
0H C00 «40)
zzo :2 >2:
- ‘3‘ '5: 3.:
Time Devoted :m “3 :3
'NPR <m mo H0
100% 6 3 2
50 - 99% 2 1 3
3O - 49% 2 1 1
10 — 29% 2 0 l
O - 9% 0 2 4
Totals 12 7 11

 

 

Table 16.

49

Organizational plans for public rela-
tions programs employed in schools,

according to percentage of budget de-

voted to public relations (Question
One).

 

 

 

 

O H m

+4 O H

C1 0 Cd
0) o .c‘. m :3 w
3 m L)3 1:3
0) H U) (D "-1 a)
2:o 2: >::
Budget Devoted H 9‘ '5 c: '3 ::
ToPR 2E 85 55
l % or more 2 0 2
.1 - .9% 4 3 4
.01 - .09% 2 2 1
0 - .009% 1 2 0
0 0 0 2
Totals 9 7 9

 

 

50

the centralized plan while the last district in that cate-
gory uses the individualized plan.

None of the three districts with expenditures less
than .01 percent employ the individualized plan and those
eleven schools spending between .1 percent and one percent

are almost evenly divided among the three systems.

Involvement in Public Relations Activities

 

In Question Two, the respondents were asked to
select from a list of five public relations activities the
two in which they were most involved. Of the thirty dis-
tricts surveyed, sixteen listed being available to the media
as one of the two primary activities, followed by press re-
leases, named by thirteen, and pamphlets and brochures,
listed by eleven (see Table 17). No district named press
conferences and two respondents said their schools were not
involved in any of the areas (Districts M and Q).

The smaller schools, with enrollments between 10,000
and 25,000, were evenly divided among press releases, pam-
phlets and brochures, and being available to the media while
availability to the media was the clear choice by respon-
dents from schools with more than 25,000 students (see
Table 18).

Looking at the data according to the percentage of
time the respondents devote to public relations produces
different results. Of those respondents whose sole reSpon-
sibility is public relations, producing in-depth and inter-

pretative stories was listed as often as press releases and

51

which the schools are involved

Public relations activities in
(Question Two).

Table 17.

Rogue

«new: oo oflnwflfim><

mmufimhowfiou mmmhm

mopsnooum\muoanmsmm

mmflnoum mzoz

mommoaom mmoam

XXXX X XX X XX XXX XXX

XX XXXX XX X X X

XXX X XX XXXX X XX

 

16

ll

13

 

 

 

 

B
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWKYZMB

C
C

D
D

Totals

 

52

 

 

 

 

Table 18. Public relations activities in which the
schools are involved, according to size of
district (Question Two).

U)
o m
H (I) "-4
s o '6
A: U (D
m U c: 2
a) O O
m m H H O
(6 0) CG Q) +3
0) 'H \ ‘H
H H W C: a)
O) O 4-J O v—q
m -u o L) .2
U) H N
m .C.‘ m «—c H
U) U) Q. In "-1 Q)
o 3 E o 2 'fi
Enrollment E 2 at: a: <: 0
10,000 14,999 6 3 7 0 6 2
(A N)
15,000 19,999 4 l 2 0 3 2
(0 U)
20,000 24,999 1 0 2 O 2 0
(V X)
25,000 34,999 2 0 O 0 3 1
(Y BB)
35,000 41,000 0 1 0 0 2 0
(CC DD)
Totals 13 S 11 0 l6 5

 

 

53

availability to the media (see Table 19). However, in-depth
stories was not selected once by those who devote between 50
and 100 percent of their time to public relations and only
once by those working between 20 and 50 percent of the time
in public relations. Those respondents who spend less than
10 percent of their time on public relations listed availa-
bility to the media as one of the two activities in which

they are most involved.

Table 19. Public relations activities in which the
schools are involved, according to percentage
of time devoted to public relations (Question

 

 

 

 

Two).
U)
o m
H m -H
s o vc
.c o o
m U r: E
o o m
U) U) H H O
m o m o u
o 'H \. ca
H H m :1 a)
O) O +3 O H
m ¢4 6 L) .o
to F4 m
(I) J: U) H H
- U) (I) Q. U) 0H 2
Time Devoted 3 5 g a g a
To PR 9. :z a. a. '< <3
100% 4 4 3 0 4 2
50 - 99% 3 0 4 0 4 l
30 - 49% 3 l 2 0 2 O
10 - 29% 2 O l 0 3 0
O - 9% l 0 l 0 3 2
Totals 13 S 11 0 l6 5

 

 

S4

The majority, four, of the seven districts spending
at least one percent of their budgets on public relations
said preparing press releases was one of the two activities
in which they were involved (see Table 20). None from that
category listed pamphlets and brochures which was selected
by seven of the eleven districts which spend between .1 and
one percent. Six of those eleven listed being available to

the media.

Table 20. Public relations activities in which the
schools are involved, according to percent-
age of budget devoted to public relations
(Question Two).

 

 

 

 

U)
o m
a m .H
3 o 'o
.c o m
m U E: Z
a) O Q)
U) U) H H 0
CG 0 m a) +2
v -H x. ‘H
.4 H m a o
G.) O H O H
m 44 o L) .n
U) H CU
U) .C U) H H
V) W D. m "-4 a)
Budget Devoted g i 5 a g '5
To PR a. 2: o. a. .< <3
% or more 1 0 0 2 0
.1 - .9% 3 l 7 0 6 1
.01 - .09% 2 l 3 0 3 O
0 - .009% 0 1 0 0 3 1
O O 0 0 0 0 2
Totals 9 4 10 O 14 4

 

 

55

The five schools in the .01 to .09 percent group
marked all activities except the press conference while all
three districts with expenditures below .01 percent listed
being available to the media. The two districts which Spend
nothing on public relations said they were involved in none
of the activities.

The combination of activities most often cited was
press releases and availability to the media, by six respon-

dents. Pive listed pamphlets or brochures and availability.

Public Relations Priorities

 

In Question Three, the respondents were asked to
rank six public relations functions according to the policy
set by their present boards of education. The responses
indicate that boards give the newsletter top priority with
sixteen of the thirty districts ranking it first or second
(see Table 21). Being available to the media was listed by
thirteen districts as first or second, followed by preparing
in-depth news stories and pamphlets or brochures. Holding
press conferences was not chosen once as the top priority
and was ranked last by almost one-half of the respondents.
Only one district rated it as high as third.

Categorizing districts by enrollment size shows
little variation among groups. However, the only districts
which listed issuing press releases as the lowest priority
were those with enrollments below 20,000 (see Table 22).

The three districts which ranked press releases

first all employ persons whose sole responsibility is

56

icy set by the boards of ed-

Public relations functions
ranked according to the pol-
ucation (Question Three).

Table 21.

move: ou manmflfim><

mpouuoflmzoz

mousgooum\mpoH:QEmm

mmUCmHQMSOU mmmhm

moflhoum mzoz

mmmmmHmm mmmhm

311415641352

1252211134211

432352422514

646566566666

253144354145

564633235233

1424146

116612

332423

655364

541255

263531

424212

133126

265353

656645

342461

511534

 

 

 

 

Bnbnu
AanuDrEFLDHrlTuKILM“NOZPnVRoDTLvaWvAY;LMTBPuD

 

Public relations functions ranked according to the policy set by the boards

of education, by size of district (Question Three).

Table 22.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

etpew 01 SIQBIIBAV H o H o o N
smaiietsmaN o N o o H m
I: seianOJQ/siatqdmed O O O H o H
4.)
o saouaiejuog ssaxd oo N H m o :3
59:10:13 Simon 0 o o o H H
58389183 ssald v H o o o m
BIPSN 01 aICIIBII'BAV "’ o o O o N
SiaiiatsmeN H o o o o H
.c. saianOJQ/siatqdmed N O O H H v
p
m seouaiaguog ssexd N m o H H l\
59121013 SMQN N N N o o \0
53599193 ssexd N H o N o m
la'IPGW 01 aICIPII'E‘MI’ O N O N H m
5193131514951 m 0 H o H I\
'0 seanooag/siatqdmed <r H H H o l\
s:
N seouazajuog 55915 O o o o o 0
581.1013 SMSN m o o H o <-
seseetau ssaxd N H o o o m
I3IP9W 01 GIQPIIBAV ‘9 N O O H 0°
SlanetsmeN m H H N o 2
H sazanOJQ/siatqdmed H o o o c
U)
H SQDU813}U03 55315 O o o o o o
serious SMaN N H o o H <r
SQSBQIGH sseld o o H N o m
0') G) O) O
O) O) O) OI O
O) O) O) O) O
p o. a a «A «a
c: em car-x VA em HQ
6 H2 H3 Nx mm vs
E I I I I I I I I l I
H 0< GO 0> O>~ o0 U)
.H ow ow cw ow DU H
O O o o o ow m
H a a 0| 0. a 4.)
I: 0 Ln 0 L!) l!) o
u.) H H N N m {H

 

 

58

public relations, although five of that group selected pre-
paring a newsletter as first (see Table 23). The same group
represented two of the three districts which rated the news-
letter last.

While two of the four districts spending at least
one percent of their budgets on public relations gave being
available to the media t0p priority, all four in that group
rated the newsletter as first or second (see Table 24). The
newsletter was also listed first by four of the five dis-
tricts spending between .01 and .1 percent.

Comparing the public relations activities which the
respondents said their boards of education deem most impor-
tant (Question Three) with the activities in which they are
most involved (Question Two) reveals some inconsistencies.

Of six districts which listed press releases as
one of the two primary activities their public relations
programs involved, two said their board policies place press
releases last, three ranked them fifth and one gave it
fourth priority. Four of the six districts have fewer than
20,000 students and four employ persons who devote less than
50 percent of their time to public relations.

In four districts whose boards place being available
to the media fourth or fifth, that activity was listed as
one of the two primary activities in which they are involved.
One respondent listed availability as his board's t0p prior-
ity item but did not include it as one of the two functions

of his program.

Public relations functions ranked according to the policy set by the boards
of education, by percentage of time devoted to public relations (Question

Three).

Table 23.

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B1p9w 01 QIQBI1BAV H H o o o N
SlalleISMGN N o o H o m
A selnqooxg/siatqdmed H O o o o H
p
o saouelaguog sseld sr m N N m 3
531.1013 SMeN H o o o :2
59583133 SSGld H N H o H In
BIPGW 01 GIQBIIE’AV N "" O O O '4
sxenarsmaN o o o o H H
4: sainqoolg/snetqdmed N o o H H <2-
4.:
m seoueieguog 559.15 M N H o H IN
591.1013 SMaN N N H o H \0
595123193 558.1d H H H N o m
BIPQW 01 9IQPIIBAV N N "‘ ° 0 ‘0
sxeiietsmeN N m O H H N
SGJnQDOlfl/Sletqdmed m o H H N IN
'u
c:
N seouelaguog 55am 0 o o o o o
531.1013 SMGN N o H H o <-
seseatau ssaxd H H o o H m
upon 01 SIQBI1BAV H N o m N co
sasnetsmaN m m m o H 5:
H somnqooag/sietqdmed o H o o o
U)
H saouaxe;uo:) 559.1d :3 o o o o o
$911013 smeN N O O O N <-
saseeteu ssexd m o o o o m
'U
Q)
4..)
o
> o\° o\° o\°
0) 01 01 GI 69
Q as <7 N on In
a: H
(pg. o\° I I I I (U
E o +3
.H o o o o o o o
[_.[_. H m m H [H

 

 

Public relations functions ranked according to the policy set by the boards
of education, by percentage of budget devoted to public relations (Question

Three).

Table 24.

6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

etpaw 01 9IQBI1BAV H H o o N
519119ISM9N o H o H N
A: saanoozg/snetqdmed o H o o H
p
o seouaxeguog ssaxd N N m H :3
591.1013 SMQN o H o 0
59589193 559.1d H m o H In
BIPGW 01 GIQPIIBA‘V' ‘3 N "" 0 W
519119I5M9N o o o o o
'c salnqooxg/snetqdmed H H H o <r
4..)
m saoueieguog $53.15 0 m o N IN
591.1013 5M9N m o N o m
59589193 559.1d o H H H m
BIPGN 01 QIQPIIBAV O N N N m
3191191514951 to m o H l\
seanooxg/suatqdmed c> cc cu HI IO
'U
a
N seoualeguog 559.1d o o o o 0
591.1013 5M9N o H H o N
seseetaa 5591c] H ._. o o m
1‘a’TPQW 01 GIQPIIBA‘V' N N O O ‘0
519119ISM9N H m Hr H on
p selnqooig/sietqdmed o H o o H
In
H seoueieguog 559.1d o o o o 0
591.1013 smaN o H o N
seseeteu ssexd H H H o m
0) 69
H Ch °\°
0 GP o 03
'0 E m . :3
+30 - C> m
q>ucz H . - F4
noocu o . m
'U > H I +4
.‘3 a) 0 as H o 0
cocnei v4 - - C> E4

 

 

61

In Question Twelve, the respondents were given the
same list of priorities and asked to rank them according to
their own personal preferences. The newsletter remained the
first choice and, while being available to the media was the
second most frequent response for first or second, the re-
spondents rated pamphlets or brochures higher when asked for
their preferences (see Table 25). Again, holding press con-
ferences was ranked last by more than half of those surveyed.

Preparing in-depth news stories was the most frequent
response by those employed by districts with fewer than
15,000 students while only two of the nine districts with
enrollments over 20,000 considered them a top priority (see
Table 26). The newsletter was the overwhelming first choice
by those districts with less than 20,000 students but not
rated first by either of the two largest districts. And,
while twelve of the eighteen districts with enrollments below
20,000 placed press conferences last, only two of the six
largest districts did so.

Among the eleven districts which employ full-time
public relations directors, the newsletter was ranked first
by six. However, one respondent in that group ranked the
newsletter last (see Table 27).

Two of the four respondents whose districts spend at
least one percent of their budgets on public relations favored
the newsletter and at least one reSpondent from the schools
which budget between .1 and one percent rated each of the

responses first (see Table 28). Pamphlets were ranked last

62
preference (Question Twelve).

Public relations functions
ranked according to personal

«Hum: 00 oHanHm><

muouumHmzmz

mopscuoum\muoH:QEmm

moocopomcoo mmoum

moHuowm mzoz

mommoHom mmopm

444321414541343 53334461326312

112254242313151121411112134126

221432363432214 15542323262253

5566665705665665 66166656655645

335113121156422 42225535441461

663545656224536 34653244513534

 

 

 

Table 25.

 

BCD
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMBCD

 

functions ranked according to personal preference, by size

of district (Question Twelve).

Public relations

Table 26.

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e1p9w o1 91(18118AV o o H H o N
5.1911915M9N o o o o H H
J: s91nq3013/s191qdmed H o o H o N
4.)
‘0 599u9191u03 559.13 00 sf N N o :3
591.1013 5M9N H o o o H N
59589193 $59.13 H N o o o \o
BIpew 0: queIIBAV H H o o o N
51911915M9N N O O O o N
'2 59.1nq9013/s191qdmed o N o o H m
4.)
In 5901191931103 $59.13 as H H N H o
1-4
591.1013 SM9N N H N o o
59589193 $59.13 H H o N o IN
91mm 01 queIIBAV H o o H H m
5.1911915M9N sf H H o H IN
'0 591nq9013/5191qdmed In H H m o 3
c:
N 593119.19gu03 $39.13 0 o o o o o
591.1013 5M9N N H o o o o
sese9193 $59.15 N o H o o m
e1p9w o1 91q'et1env m o H o H m
5.1911915M9N H In N N o :3
u saanooxg/s191qdmed N H o o c
U)
H s9ou9191u03 $59.13 C H o o o H
591.1013 smaN m o o H H N
59589193 559.13 C o o H o H
cm on on on c
on on as on c:
on on 05 on o
{J A A a Af-x am
I: Hm mm Hm Hm HQ
0.) H2 H3 N>< mm HQ
E I I I I I I I I I I
H O< oo o:> o>-I cu m
H ow ov ov CV :30 H
o o o o o ov Id
34 a a a a a +3
I: c: In C In m o
m H H N N m [H

 

 

Public relations functions ranked according to personal preference, by per-

centage of time devoted to public relations (Question Twelve).

Table 27.

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81p9w 01 91q8118Av N o o o o N
51911915M9N o o o o H
_: saanooxg/siatqdm'ed O O H o N
1.:
0 59131191911103 55913 M <r M H Ln :9.
5911013 SMQN H o o H o N
59589193 55913 N N H o H o
81139“ 01 91q911'eAV o H o o H N
51911915M9N o N o o o N
J: saanooxg/siatqdmed N o H o o In
1.)
In 5931191931103 559.13 0 N o H H 3
5911013 SMGN o o N H N
59589193 559.1d N H H H N !\
8113911 01 etquIeAv N H o o o H
51911915M9N N o N o In [N
'o saanooxg/szandmed H N o N N 3
I:
N 5931191931103 55913 O o o o o
5911013 5M9N N N H H O 0
59589193 55913 c H H o H M
919911 01 aneneAv H O H N H m
51911915M9N \0 M H H N 2
u sexuqooxg/siatqdmed o H o o N m
In
H 5901191911103 559.13 0 O H O O H
5911013 5M9N 1") N H o H 1\
59589193 55913 H o o o o H
"U
a)
+1
0
> on do as
o ox as cm as
D 01 H N 01 In
0: H
09-. do I I I I cu
E O .5.)
H o o o o o o 0
[HE—I H In In H [H

 

 

 

 

Public relations functions ranked according to personal preference, by per-

centage of budget devoted to public relations (Question Twelve).

Table 28.

6S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PIPQW 01 alQPIIEAV "‘ O H O N
5.192121915119111 o o o H H
: 591nq0013/5191qdmed H H o o N
4.1
‘0 593n9195u03 559.1d N m N H :1
591.1013 SMQN o N o :3
59529193 559.1d o m N H (D
PIPSN 01 QIQBITPAV o "' O o N
51911915M9N H H o o N
J: 591nq9013/5191qdmed H N o o m
1.:
m 599n9191u03 559.15 H H m N 3
591.1013 SM9N o N H o
59589193 $59.13 H H H H m
12IPGI‘W 01 GIQPIIBAV "“ "‘ O H '9
5191191511951 :2 m H H o
,2 591nq9013/5191qdmed H m N H 00
N 593u9191u03 559.1d o o o o o
591.1013 SM9N N M H o o
59589193 559.13 C H H o N
e1p9w o1 91q911env H m o o H
51911915M9N N m m H S
4.: 591nq3013/5191qdmed o N o o
In
H 5991191911103 5591a o H o o H
591.1013 5M9N H H N N o
59599193 559.1d o H o o H
G) o\°
S-I on o\°
O o\° O 03
'U E on - o
4" Q) o o m
GHQ: H | o H
GOOD-I O I 1'6
'0 > H I +4
.‘3 (D O 9.6 H o 0
may H o o O [—

 

 

66

only by districts spending less than one percent.

Comparing the ranking of the six priorities as set
by the boards' policies (Question Three) to those listed by
personal preference (Question Twelve) reveals some variation.

Twelve respondents indicated that they would like
to devote more time to preparing in-depth or interpretative
stories since they ranked that item first by personal pref-
erence while their boards' policies rate them as low as
fifth. Six respondents said they would give news stories
lower priority, including one, whose board ranked them
first, who placed them fourth.

Nine respondents said they would spend less time
preparing press releases while five said they would give
them more priority. Eight consider newsletters less impor-
tant than their boards while six see them as more worthy
of their time. The other three activities were equally
listed for increasing and decreasing importance. However,
one respondent (District 8) which has fewer than 20,000
students and devotes less than 50 percent of the time to
public relations would choose to raise press conferences

from fifth place to first.

Objectives of Conducting Public Relations

 

Eight objectives of schools engaging in public rela-
tions were listed in Question Fourteen for respondents to
select the three they found to be most important.

All but two of the respondents marked fostering con-

fidence in and appreciation of the schools as one of their

67

choices (see Table 29). About half of the respondents also
selected winning financial support and discharging the re-
sponsibility of the board of education to keep the people
informed. None felt that fostering a favorable attitude
toward teachers was a primary objective and four districts,
all with fewer than 20,000 students, listed dealing with
rumor and pr0paganda.

There was little difference among districts when
grouped by size except that four of the six districts with
enrollments over 25,000 indicated that to create an atmos-
phere conducive to change and progress was one of their
objectives (see Table 30).

That objective was listed primarily by those respon-
dents whose sole responsibility is public relations (see
Table 31). The only other group which selected that re5ponse
more than once was those who spend less than 10 percent of
their time on public relations. Discharging the responsi-
bility of the board to keep the pe0ple informed was given a
low rating by those who do only public relations, with only
three of the eleven listing it as an objective, and given
more importance as time spent on public relations decreased.

The only respondents who did not list fostering con-
fidence in and appreciation of the schools were one district
which spends at least one percent of its budget on public
relations and one district Spending between .1 and one per-
cent (see Table 32). Winning adequate financial support was

selected by eight of the eleven schools Spending between .1

68

Objectives of schools engaging in pub-
lic relations deemed most important

(Question Fourteen).

Table 29.

HosuowcH onoom
mama “upaom mo zufiHHn
-Hmcommom omumnomHo

mcmez-quHoa :H
mpmmHuHuumm op NHHHHD
-Hmcoamom oumuocoo

ugommsm HmHocqum
mumscmv< :Hz

muonumoe Hhmzoh m0H30
-Huu< 0Hnmno>mm powwow

mucmwmmonm
.uossm squ Hmon

:oHumosvm m0 oucmunoa
-EH mo mmocoum3< aoH0>oa

mHoocom may
Ho :oHumHooth<
.cH mucoHHmcou Houmom

mmoawoum\om:mnu on 0>H0
-swcou muonmmoEu< oumouo

XX XX X XX

XXX X XX XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX X

XXXX

XXXXXX X

XXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX X

X

X

 

15

16

28

 

 

 

 

B
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMBC

C

D
D

Totals 12

 

69

HoEuomcH onoom moox “prom
Ho AHHHHnHmcommom omumgumHm

mcmez-quHom :H QHHQHoHpumm
ou NHHHHnHmcommom mumponoo

unommnm HmHocmch mumsdow< :Hz

muonomoh HumZOH
mousuHuu< oHano>mm Houmom

«HammwQOHA .Hossm :HHz Hmoo

coHuwosum mo oucmuuomEH
mo mmoaoumz< moHo>om

mHoocum mo :oHumHo
-opmm< .cH oocowchou youmom

mmogwoud Ham omawcu op
0>H03H=ou ouozmmoEu< oumohu

 

Objectives of schools engaging in public
relations deemed most important, according
to size of district (Question Fourteen).

 

 

Table 30.

Enrollment

15

16

13
28

4
1
3
2
2

12

 

24,999

(V - X)
34,999

(Y - BB)

(0 - U)

(A - N)
(CC - DD)

 

15,000 - 19,999
35,000 - 41,000

10,000 - 14,999
20,000 -

25,000 -

Totals

 

70
relations deemed most important, accord-

ing to percentage of time devoted to

Objectives of schools engaging in public
public relations (Question Fourteen).

HospomcH onoom mmox “Humom
mo HHHHHnHmcoamom ownwnomHn

mcmez->0HHom :H mummHuHuumm
0H NHHHHnHmcommom oumuocou

whoamsm HmHocmch mamacow< :Hz

muonomoe Humzoe
mowsuHuu< oHnmho>mm Houmom

«Hammmmopm .posam :HHz Hmoo

:oHumosvm mo mocmuuomEH
mo mmocoumz< 00H0>on

mHoonom mo :OHumHo
-ouam< .cH mucoHHmcou umumom

mmouwoum Haw omcmnu ou
0>Husucou ohonamoeu< oumouu

 

 

 

Table 31.

Time
Devoted
To PR

15

16

10
28

12

 

99%
49%
29%

 

 

100%
50

30

10
Totals

71
relations deemed most important, accord-

ing to percentage of budget devoted to

Objectives of schools engaging in public
public relations (Question Fourteen).

 

Table 32.

HoEuowcH onoom moox “Humom
mo NHHHHnHmcoamom owpmnomHa

mamez-quHom :H oquHoHuymm
0H AHHHHnHmcoamom ouwnocoo

whommsm HmHocmch mumscow< :Hz

muonumoe Huwzoe
moHSuHuu< oHnmuo>mm noumom

wucmmmmopm .Hoesm :qu Hmoa

:oHumosvm mo oocmppomEH
Ho mmocmpmz< moHo>0m

mHoozom Ho :oHumHu
Iohmm< .cH oocoHHmcou noumom

mmonmoum Ham owcmcu op
0>Huzwzou opocmmoEu< oumopo

13

15

10
23

2
3

11

 

 

Budget
Devoted
To PR

 

1% or more
.09%
.009%

.01
0

 

 

Totals

72

and one percent and by both schools which spend nothing on

public relations.

Public Relations Initiatives

 

The responses to Questions Four through Ten illus-
trate what the surveyed districts are doing in terms of
media public relations on a monthly basis. The most fre-
quent responses were to sending out one to five press
releases, one to three in-depth or interpretative stories,
no press conferences per month and more than twenty stories
about the schools published in the local newspapers (see
Tables 33 and 34).

Twenty-five of the thirty districts do not partici-
pate in a local television or radio program on a regular
basis; twenty-four do prepare pamphlets or brochures, and
twenty-two prepare newsletters for district residents on a
regular basis (see Table 35).

Four of the six districts which sent out more than
fifteen press releases during March, 1977, have student en-
rollments between 20,000 and 35,000 (see Table 36). But the
smaller districts, those with between 10,000 and 20,000 stu-
dents, sent the next largest amount, eleven to fifteen. The
two largest districts sent out fewer releases. There were
four districts, all with between 10,000 and 15,000 pupils,
which prepared no releases for the local media.

Four of the six schools which prepared more than fif-
teen press releases employ persons whose sole responsibility

is public relations while three of the four districts which

Table 33.

73

The number of press releases and in-depth
or interpretative stories prepared by the
school districts during one month (Ques-
tions Four and Five).

 

 

 

 

 

Press Releases News Stories
L!)
1-1 01
c c
m m
m ,c: .C.‘
O H H H
In H I") \O O)
. 0 m
I I s-I I I I S-I
.H o o
o H o H E o H H t\ E
A x x
B x x
C x x
D x x
E x x
F x x
G x x
H x x
I x x
J x x
K x x
L x x
M x x
N x x
O x x
P x x
Q x x
R x x
S x x
T x x
U x x
V x x
W x x
X x x
Y x x
Z x x
AA x x
BB x x
CC x x
DD x x
Totals 4 9 5 6 6 9 13 7 1 0

 

 

 

74

Table 34. The number of press conferences held by
the districts and articles published about
the schools in the local newspapers during
one month (Questions Seven and Six).

 

 

 

 

 

Press Conferences Articles Published
0
M N
a a
m m
.c: In :3 .r:
H o H N p
Ln H
G) I I a)
H I I H
o H \D O
o H N m E H o H H E
A x x
B x x
C x x
D x x
E x x
F x x
G x x
H x x
I x x
J x x
K x x
L x x
M x x
N x x
O x x
P x x
Q x x
R x x
S x x
T x x
U x x
V x x
W x x
X x x
Y x x
Z x x
AA x x
BB x x
CC x x
DD x x
Totals 19 7 2 1 1 4 2 5 7 12

 

 

 

75

Table 35. Participation in a local radio or
television program and preparation
of pamphlets or brochures or news-
letters by the school districts
(Questions Eight, Nine and Ten).

 

 

 

 

 

Radio-TV Pamphlets/ Newsletter
Program Brochures
m U) m
0) O G) O G) O
> :z >« z >~ 2:
A x x x
B x x x
C x x x
D x x x
E x x x
F x x x
G x x x
H x x x
I x x x
J x x x
K x x x
L x x x
M x x x
N x x x
O x x x
P x x x
Q x x x
R x x x
S x x x
T x x x
U x x x
V x x x
W x x x
X x x x
Y x x x
Z x x x
AA x x x
BB x x x
CC x x x
DD x x x
Totals 5 25 24 6 22 8

 

 

 

 

76

 

 

 

 

Table 36. The number of press releases pre-
pared by the school districts
during one month, according to
size of district (Question Four).

I!)

H

a

m

m .c:

O H H

H

I d)

- H s

Enrollment ~o Ia E

10,000 14,999 2 2 1
(A N)

15,000 19,999 1 2 l
(O-U)

20,000 24,999 1 0 2
(V-X)

25,000 34,999 1 1 2
(Y BB)

35,000 41,000 0 1 0
(CC DD)

Totals 5 6 6

 

 

77

sent out no releases devote less than 10 percent of their
time to public relations (see Table 37). Four of the eleven
schools which have full-time public relations directors sent

out only one to five releases during the month.

Table 37. The number of press releases pre-
pared by the school districts
during one month, according to
percentage of time devoted to pub-
lic relations (Question Four).

 

 

 

 

U)

H

a

m

m .C.‘

O H +4

Ln H | 0)

Time Devoted I . F* 8
To PR c: H \o ‘4 E
100% O 4 3 4
50 - 99% 0 3 3 0
3O - 49% 0 l 0 2
10 - 29% 0 3 O 0 0
0 - 9% 3 2 1 O 0
Totals 4 9 S 6 6

 

 

Two of the four districts which spend at least one
percent of their budgets for public relations sent out more
than fifteen press releases (see Table 38). The responses
among other groups were varied except for the two schools

which Spend nothing on public relations; one sent out one

78

to five press releases and the other sent out none.

Table 38. The number of press releases pre-
pared by the school districts
during one month, according to
percentage of budget devoted to
public relations (Question Four).

 

 

 

 

If)

H

a

w

m .r:

c> Ia p

Budget 'n F‘ . o
Devoted I I ,4 8
TO PR 0 H o H E
1% or more 0 1 1 0 2
1 - 9% l 3 Z 4 1
01 - 09% 0 1 2 l 1
O - .009% 0 l 0 1 1
0 l 1 0 O 0
Totals 2 7 5 6 5

 

 

No in-depth or interpretative stories were sent out
by half of the districts with the lowest enrollments and the
only district to send out more than seven was the sixth larg-
est district (see Table 39). More than half of the districts
with full-time public relations directors prepared at least
four news stories while the six districts which employ per-
sons who devote less than 10 percent of their time to public

relations were divided between no stories and one to three

79

 

 

 

 

Table 39. The number of in-depth or inter-
pretative stories prepared by the
school districts during one month,
according to size of district
(Question Five).

CD

a

m

.c

4.)

N1 \0 O5

0)

I I I S

Enrollment o H <2- I\ E

10,000 14,999 7 5 2 0 0
(A N)

15,000 19,999 1 5 l O 0
(0 U)

20,000 24,999 0 2 1 0 0
(V X)

25,000 34,999 0 1 2 1 0
(Y BB)

35,000 41,000 1 O l 0 0
(CC DD)

Totals 9 13 7 l 0

 

 

80

stories during the month (see Table 40). More than four
stories were produced only by schools which employ persons
who spend at least 30 percent of their time on public

relations.

Table 40. The number of in-depth or inter-
pretative stories prepared by the
school districts during one month,
according to percentage of time
devoted to public relations (Ques-
tion Five).

 

 

 

 

05

a

m

.c

4.)

M \O O)

0)

Time Devoted ‘ ' ' 3
TO PR 0 H v I\ E
100% 2 3 S 1 O
50 - 99% 0 5 1 0 0
30 - 49% 1 2 1 0 0
10 - 29% 3 0 0 O 0
0 - 9% 3 3 O 0 0
Totals 9 13 7 1 0

 

 

One of the four districts which spend at least one
percent of their budgets on public relations sent out no
stories, as did three of the eleven which spend between .1

and one percent. The only district to prepare more than

81

seven stories spends between .01 and .1 percent on public

relations (see Table 41).

Table 41. The number on in-depth or inter-
pretative stories prepared by the
school districts during one month,
according to percentage of budget
devoted to public relations (Ques-
tion Five).

 

 

 

 

O)
c
m
.c
4..)

M \D O)
0)
Budget Devoted ' ' ' 8
To pR o H <r t\ E
% or more 1 2 1 0 0
.1 - .9% 3 6 2 0 0
.01 - .09% 1 2 2 0 0
0 - .009% 0 1 1 l O
O l 1 0 0 0
Totals 6 12 6 l 0

 

 

Nineteen of the districts surveyed do not conduct
press conferences on a regular basis (see Table 34). Only
one district, District T, with an enrollment between 15,000
and 20,000, holds more than three press conferences 3 month
and the only district which holds three per month, District

E, is in the smallest enrollment group. Both districts have

82

employees who devote more than half of their time to public
relations. One district, District V, which does average one
press conference per month Spends less than 10 percent of the
time on public relations.

District E Spends at least one percent of its budget
on public relations, District T between .1 and one percent,
and District V between .01 and .1 percent.

There are four districts, all with enrollments below
15,000, which produce no press releases, no in-depth or in-
terpretative stories and conduct no press conferences (see
Tables 33 and 34). One of these districts, District M,
spends nothing on public relations. Those districts which
prepared more than four news stories during the month also
sent out at least eleven press releases. The second largest
district surveyed sent out less than five press releases and
no in-depth stories while the fourth smallest district pre-
pared more than fifteen press releases and between four and
six news stories during the month.

The greatest amount of press coverage, the largest
number of stories published by the local newspapers during
the month, was given to a majority of those schools with
at least 20,000 students with at least half of each enroll-
ment size group having at least 20 articles published about
the schools (see Table 42). There were at least eleven
stories published about the majority of schools in each
group. The greatest number of stories published was also

about those schools which employ a full-time public relations

83

Table 42. The number of articles published
about the schools in the local news—
papers during one month, according
to district size (Question Six).

 

 

 

 

O

N

a

m

m o .21

C) H N 4.)

Ln H

I Q)

I I {-4

H \D O

Enrollment v-I Io H H E

10,000 - 14,999 3 1 3 3 4
(A - N)

15,000 - 19,999 0 1 0 4 2
(0 - U)

20,000 - 24,999 1 0 O O 2
(V - X)

25,000 - 34,999 0 O 1 0 3
(Y - BB)

35,000 - 41,000 0 O 1 0 1
(CC - DD)

Totals 4 2 S 7 12

 

 

84

director (see Table 43). The only schools about which fewer
than five stories were written devote less than 30 percent

of their time to public relations.

Table 43. The number of articles published
about the schools in the local news-
papers during one month, according
to percentage of time devoted to
public relations (Question Six).

 

 

 

 

O
N
a
m
m o .2:
O H N H

LO I-I
. I I a)
Time Devoted . . H ‘0 8
TO PR H o H H E
100% O l 4 1 S
50 - 99% O 0 0 1 5
30 - 49% 0 0 1 2 1
10 - 29% 1 1 O 1 O
O - 9% 3 0 0 2 1
Totals 4 2 S 7 12

 

 

All schools which prepared between eleven and fifteen
press releases had more than twenty stories published about
them and one district which produced no press releases and
no news stories also had more than twenty articles published

about them (see Table 44).

85

Table 44. The number of in-depth or interpretative
stories prepared and press conferences held
by the school districts and articles published
in the local newspapers about the schools dur-
ing one month in relation to the number of
press releases the schools prepared (Questions
Five, Seven, Six and Four).

 

 

 

 

 

News Press Articles
Stories Conferences Published
O
O) N) N
c a a
m m w
.c: ,1: m o .C:
+4 +3 O H N 44
IO \0 0‘: m H
0 Q) I I o
Press I I I S S I . ‘4 ‘0 S
Releases :3 H <2- I\ E o H N m a H o H H E
.0 4 0 O 0 0 4 0 O O 0 1 0 1 1 1
l - 5 S 3 l O 0 6 3 0 0 2 2 3 2
6 - 10 0 5 0 0 O 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2
11 - 15 0 3 3 O 0 3 2 0 0 l 0 O 0 0 6
More 0 2 3 l 0 4 O 2 0 0 0 0 1 Z 3
than 15
Totals 9 13 7 1 0 19 7 2 1 1 4 2 5 7 12

 

 

 

 

The only school districts which do participate in a
local television or radio program on a regular basis are
those with enrollments below 20,000 (see Table 45). These
schools all Spend between .1 and one percent of their budgets
on public relations (see Table 46). Other than no participa-
tion in a broadcast program by schools which devote less
than 10 percent of their time to public relations, there was

no differentiation by time spend on public relations between

86

Table 45. Participation in a local
television or radio pro-
gram according to district
size (Question Eight).

 

 

 

 

U)

Enrollment 2. 8

10,000 - 14,999 3 11
(A-N)

15,000 - 19,999 2 5
(0-D)

20,000 - 24,999 0 3
(V-X)

25,000 - 34,999 0 4
(Y - BB)

35,000 - 41,000 0 2

Totals 5 25

 

 

 

Table 46. Participation in a local
television or radio program
according to percentage of
budget devoted to public re-
lations (Question Eight).

 

 

 

Budget Devoted 3 0
To PR >. a
1% or more 0 4
1 - 9% 3 8
01 - .O9% 0 S
O - .009% 0 3

O
C)
N

 

Totals 3 22

 

 

 

87

those involved in a local television or radio program (see

Table 47).

Table 47. Participation in a local
television or radio program
according to percentage of
time devoted to public re-
lations (Question Eight).

 

 

 

 

Time Devoted g 0
To PR >. c
100% 1 10
SO - 99% 2 4
30 - 49% 1 3
10 - 29% 1 2
0 - 9% 0 6
Totals 5 25

 

 

 

Pamphlets and newsletters are produced by the major-
ity of districts in each enrollment group size with eleven
of the fourteen smallest districts preparing pamphlets and
ten of the same group sending out newsletters (see Table 48).
The smallest district surveyed prepares both pamphlets and
newsletters while the largest district prepares only pam-
phlets.

And the more time a district devotes to public rela-
tions, the more likely it is that pamphlets and newsletters

are prepared (see Table 49). All but one of those districts

88

Table 48. Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters
by the school districts according to
district size (Questions Nine and Ten).

 

 

 

 

 

Pamphlets Newsletters
U) U)
Enrollment 2‘ g g‘ 2
10,000 - 14,999 11 3 10 4
(A-N)
15,000 - 19,999 5 2 4 3
(O-U)
20,000 - 24,999 3 0 3 0
(V-X)
25,000 - 34,999 3 1 4 0
(Y - BB)
35,000 - 41,000 2 0 l 1
(CC - DD)
Totals 24 6 22 8

 

 

 

Table 49. Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters
by the school districts according to
percentage of time devoted to public
relations (Questions Nine and Ten).

 

 

 

 

 

Pamphlets Newsletters

Time Devoted m m
To PR :1 8 “g 8
100% 10 1 9 2
50 - 99% 5 1 6 0
3O - 49% 4 0 4 0
10 - 29% 2 1 2 1
0 - 9% 3 3 1 5
Totals 24 6 22 8

 

 

 

89

with full-time public relations directors prepare pamphlets
and only two do not send out newsletters. Those who devote
less than 10 percent of their time to public relations are
evenly divided on the question of pamphlets and one only
produces a newsletter.

The majority of the three groups which spend more
than .01 percent of their budgets on public relations pre-
pares both pamphlets and newsletters (see Table 50). All
of those with expenditures below .01 percent produce pam-
phlets while only one of the three sends out newsletters.
The two districts which spend nothing on public relations

prepare neither pamphlets nor newsletters.

Table 50. Preparation of pamphlets or newsletters
by the school districts according to
percentage of budget devoted to public
relations (Questions Nine and Ten).

 

 

 

 

 

Pamphlets Newsletters
Budget Devoted 3 o 3 0
To PR >~ : >. a
1% or more 3 1 4 O
.1 - .9% 11 0 9 2
.01 - .09% 3 2 5 0
0 - .009% 3 0 l 2
0 0 2 0 2
Totals 20 5 19 6

 

 

 

90

Nineteen of the thirty districts prepare both pam—
phlets and newsletters on a regular basis while only three

do neither.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The final phase of this study will be to review the
hypotheses on which the study was founded to determine their
validity in relation to the findings of the questionnaire.

(1) Most schools in Michigan do not employ full-time
public relations personnel.

Only nine of the thirty districts surveyed do employ
full-time public relations directors. Two districts do em-
ploy persons who do public relations on a part-time basis.
However, those who are reSponSible for public relations at
thirteen of the schools devote less than 50 percent of their
time to that function. Three of these districts listed no
time spent on public relations while three other respondents
listed less than 10 percent of their time devoted to public
relations.

Thus, the findings of the study appear to support
this hypothesis.

(2) The backgrounds of those who are employed to
direct public relations generally are limited to experience
within the schools with little, if any, media experience.

A slight majority of those surveyed, sixteen of the

thirty, do have strictly educational experience. However,

91

92

thirteen respondents have had some training in the media,
either educationally or professionally.

Those with only educational experience are, for the
most part, employed in the smaller schools surveyed while
the public relations persons in the largest schools (those
with student enrollments above 25,000) list some media ex-
perience. And, those with no media experience generally
devote less than 50 percent of their time to public rela-
tions while those whose sole responsibilities are public
relations have had journalistic training.

The findings of the survey do not support this
hypothesis. However, this statement is generally valid
among the smaller schools which, when considered on a
statewide basis, do greatly outnumber the larger schools.

(3) The public relations activities in most Michigan
school districts involve the preparation and distribution of
routine press releases and making the public relations desig-
nee available to the media, with little time devoted to more
involved activities such as lengthier in-depth or interpreta-
tive stories, press conferences, pamphlets or brochures or
newsletters.

When asked in which activities they are most involved,
the majority of the thirty respondents listed being available
to the media, with press releases and pamphlets and brochures
named by more than one-third. News stories were listed only
by five respondents and none said they are involved in press

conferences.

93

Examining what the respondents say their schools
prepare during one month, all but four districts provide
the local media with press releases. Almost as many dis-
tricts prepare pamphlets and brochures (twenty-four) and
newsletters (twenty-two). Twenty-one of the districts do
produce at least one in-depth or interpretative news story
a month, although only eight produce more than three per
month. Press conferences are held on a regular basis by
only four districts.

Thus, in-depth or interpretative stories, pamphlets
and newsletters are part of the public relations activities
of most of the schools while the scheduling of press confer-
ences is infrequent.

The hypothesis, then, has not been substantiated.
While press releases and availability to the media do appear
to be the primary activities in which the schools are in-
volved, and more schools utilize press releases than any
other communications vehicle, the majority of the schools
surveyed are also preparing in-depth or interpretative
news stories, pamphlets or brochures and newsletters.

(4) The employment of full-time public relations
personnel is restricted to the larger schools, thus limiting
extensive public relations activities to those schools.

Six of the nine full-time public relations directors
are employed in districts with student enrollments greater
than 20,000. Only one of the schools with an enrollment

below 15,000 employs a full-time public relations person

94

and one other district in this category has someone who does
solely public relations on a part-time basis. The majority
of the fourteen districts in this enrollment group have per-
sonnel who devote less than 50 percent of their time to
public relations.

While the schools which produce the greatest number
of press releases and in-depth or interpretative news stories
do, for the most part, employ full-time public relations
pe0p1e, some of the smaller schools which devote less than
50 percent of one person's time to public relations do pre-
pare press releases, news stories, pamphlets and newsletters.

Thus, the wording of the hypothesis, particularly
limiting, may have been too strong. It is true that the
majority of full-time public relations directors are employed
in the larger schools and they are more productive in their
public relations activities. However, some of the smaller
schools do employ full-time public relations persons and are
quite active in public relations.

One other major concern of this study was the atti-
tudes of those directing public relations in the schools, or
what they feel is the purpose of educational public relations.

Fostering confidence in and appreciation of the
schools was listed by all but two respondents as a primary
objective of public relations by the schools. Also named by
at least half of the respondents were winning adequate finan-
cial support and discharging the responsibility of the board

of education to keep the pe0ple informed.

95

Those surveyed seemed realistic in their responses
rather than idealistic. Traditionally public relations
practitioners are reluctant to admit that winning financial
support is one of the more important functions they serve.
Also shown was a strong feeling of responsibility to their
employers, the boards of education, by the great number
which listed that discharging the responsibility of the
board was important.

Four of the thirty districts even admitted that one
of their primary objectives is dealing with rumor and pr0pa-
ganda, which is certainly part of the public relations func-
tion, but is rarely deemed more important than gaining

public confidence or financial support.

APPENDIX

96

MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS SURVEYED

Ann Arbor Public Schools

Bay City Public Schools

Benton Harbor Area Schools
Birmingham Public Schools
Dearborn Public Schools

East Detroit Schools

Farmington Public Schools

Flint Community Schools

Grand Rapids Public Schools
Grosse Pointe Public Schools
Jackson Public Schools

Kalamazoo Public Schools

Lansing Public Schools

Livonia Public Schools

Midland Public Schools
Plymouth-Canton Community Schools
Pontiac Public Schools

Port Huron Area Schools

Portage Public Schools

Rochester Community Schools
Roseville Community Schools
Royal Oak Public Schools

Saginaw Public Schools
Southfield Public Schools

Taylor Public Schools

Utica Community Schools

Walled Lake Consolidated Schools
Warren Consolidated Schools
Waterford Public Schools
Wayne-Westland Community Schools

97

2756 E. Grand River, D-14

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

April 13, 1977

At the present time I am a graduate student at Mich-
igan State University and am attempting to fulfill my
requirements for a masters degree in journalism with a
minor in educational public relations. I am currently
doing research on a thesis pr0posal which will attempt to
view the existence and importance of the public relations
programs in selected Michigan public school districts
with student enrollments between 10,000 and 45,000.

Having worked as public relations coordinator for
the Erie County Public School System in Sandusky, Ohio,
I am both interested in and curious about public rela-
tions concepts in other school districts.

I would greatly appreciate your forwarding the en-
closed questionnaire to the person responsible for public
relations in your school district. The questionnaire
will hopefully provide the data to determine to what
extent the school districts to be studied utilize the
concept of public relations.

Specifically, I need your help in determining:

--Who is responsible for public relations in the
schools.

--What kinds of systems schools employ to dissemi-
nate information to the public.

--Which priorities are considered most important
by school public relations personnel.

--What qualifications are possessed by present
public relations personnel and which qualifi-
cations are regarded as most important.

The attached questionnaire which should take up only

98

a small amount of time will enable me to adequately gather
all of the information I need. Should your public relations
director desire to comment on any of the questions, he or
she should feel free to do so. Also, if your schools have
prepared any pamphlets, brochures or newsletters during the
past year, I would appreciate very much if copies could be
sent to me .

It is my hope that this study will serve as a source
of information to professional educators who desire to
implement or improve school public relations programs.

It is important that reSponses to this questionnaire
reflect as accurately as possible the public relations
programs currently employed in your schools, whether they
exist on a fully staffed and professional level or a part-
time marginal level. I am asking that the name of your
public relations person be included on the questionnaire
only for the purpose of possible follow-up interviews.

In the thesis, I will not identify personnel or school
districts by name.

I would be grateful if you would have the question-
naire completed and sent, with any additional materials,
to me by May 2. If for any reason you should wish to
contact me, my phone number is (517) 332-0302.

Yours sincerely,

(Mrs.) Elissa L. George

99

QUESTIONNAIRE

Name and title

 

 

School district

 

Total school district student enrollment

 

Are you a full-time (40 hours a week) employee of the school
system?
yes no

 

 

Is school public relations your sole responsibility?

yes no

 

 

If the above answer is no, what percentage of your time is
devoted to school district public relations?

 

Assigned responsibilities other than public relations

 

 

 

Educational background (include majors)

 

 

 

 

Professional background

 

 

 

 

Length of time in present position

 

100

Which of the following most accurately describes the
public relations system employed in your district?

a) All news is channeled to you and is released by you.

b) Each school within the district releases its own news
through the building principal.

c) Individuals are reSponsible for releasing their own
news.

d) Other

 

Which of the following does the majority of your public
relations work involve? (circle no more than two)

a) Press releases.

b) In-depth news and interpretative stories.

c) Pamphlets and brochures.

d) Regularly scheduled press conferences with the media.
e) Being available to media representatives.

f) Other

 

According to policy set by your present board of education,
please rank the following priorities, with 1 being most
important and 6 least important.

Keeping the school district in the spotlight by issuing
as many press releases as possible throughout the year.
Preparing in-depth news and interpretative news stories
to ensure public awareness of educational programs,
policies and methods.

Holding press conferences on a regular basis to enable
media representatives to pursue their own ideas for
stories.

Preparing pamphlets and brochures for district resi-
dents to ensure public awareness of educational pro-
grams, policies and methods.

Publishing a newsletter for district residents on a
regular basis to ensure public awareness of educational
programs, policies and methods.

___ Being available to the media.

During the month of March, how many press releases (one-

to two-page stories) were written and sent to the media

by your-school district?

a) 0
b) 1-5
c) 6-10
) 11-15
e) more than 15

10.

101

During the month of March, how many in-depth news or
interpretative stories were written and sent to the
media by your school district?

a) 0

b) 1-3

c) 4-6

d) 7-9

e) more than 9

During the month of March, approximately how many stories
about your school district were published in local news-

papers (excluding stories run in more than one paper and

sports stories)?

a) 1-5

b) 6-10

c) 11-15

d) 16-20

e) more than 20

On the average, how many press conferences do you (or some
other administrative representative of your schools) hold
with the media each month?

(Ln 0'”
VVUV
“NI-‘0

e) more than 3

(If someone other than you holds press conferences, please
specify title )

 

Do you or some other administrative representative of your
schools participate in a local television or radio program
on a regular basis?

a) yes
b) no

During the past year, has your office prepared pamphlets
or brochures on educational programs in your district for
public distribution?

a) yes
b) no

Does your office prepare a newsletter for district resi-
dents on a regular basis?

a) yes
b) no

11.

12.

l3.

14.

102

What percentage of your school district's total annual
budget is earmarked for public relations?

 

Assuming that you were delegated to establish an effective
public relations program in a school district similar to
yours with no restrictions (i.e., no time, money or policy
constraints), how would you rank the following priorities,
with 1 being most important and 6 least important?

Preparing in-depth news and interpretative stories

to ensure public awareness of educational programs,
policies and methods.

Being available to the media.

Preparing pamphlets and brochures for district resi-
dents to ensure public awareness of educational pro-
grams, policies and methods.

Keeping the school district in the spotlight by issu-
ing as many press releases as possible throughout

the year.

Publishing a newsletter for district residents on a
regular basis to ensure public awareness of educa-
tional programs, policies and methods.

Holding press conferences on a regular basis to enable
media representatives to pursue their own ideas for
stories.

From the following list of qualifications, please rank in
the order in which you find them most acceptable for a
school public relations director, with 1 most acceptable
and 5 least acceptable.

Degree in education.

Degree in journalism.

Experience in education.
Experience in newspaper reporting.
Experience in public relations.

From the following list of public relations objectives,
please check the three (3) which you believe to be most
important.

To create an atmosphere conducive to change and
progress.

To foster confidence in and appreciation of the
schools.

To develOp awareness of the importance of education
in a democracy.

To deal with rumor and propaganda.

To foster favorable attitudes toward teachers.

To win adequate financial support.

To generate a sense of responsibility to participate
in the making of educational policy.

To discharge the responsibility of the board of
education to keep the people informed.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Books

Bortner, Doyle M. Public Relations for Public Schools.
Cambridge, Mass.: SChenkman Publishing Co., Dis-
tributed by General Learning Press, Morristown,
N.J., 1972.

Fine, Benjamin, and Anderson, Vivienne. The School Admin-
istrator and His Publications. New London, Conn.:
Appleton-Century-Croft Publications, 1957.

 

Fine, Benjamin, and Anderson, Vivienne. The School Admin-
istrator and the Press. New London, Conn.: Croft
Educational Services, 1957.

 

Jones, James J. School Public Relations. New York: Cen-
ter for Applied Research in Education, 1966.

 

Jones, James J., and Stout, Irving W. School Public Rela-
tions: Issues and Cases. New York: G.P. Putnam's
Sons, 1960.

 

Kindred, Leslie W.; Bagin, Don; and Gallagher, Donald R.
The School and Community Relations. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

Lewis, Anne Chambers. The Schools and the Press. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National SChool Public Relations
Association, 1965.

 

Marston, John. The Nature of Public Relations. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.

 

McCloskey, Gordon. Education and Public Understanding.
2d ed. New York: Harper 8 Row Publishers, 1967.

 

Moehlman, Arthur B. Public School Relations. Chicago:
Rand McNally 8 Co., 1927.

 

103

104

Periodicals

 

Atkinson, Keith W. "Communication: Closing the Widening
Gap." Clearing House 46 (September 1971): 27-31.

 

Burton, Richard W. "Close the School-to-Public Gap."
Business Education Forum 24 (January 1970): 8-9.

Campbell, Charles C. "Public Relations for Public Schools."
School and Community 60 (October 1973): 17.

Caudhill, James. "Three Simple but Super Truths to Make Your
Public Relations Better-~and Easier." The American
School Board Journal 164 (October 1977): 25-29.

 

 

Filbin, Robert. "Do Superintendents Spend Enough Time on
Public Relations?" Phi Delta Kappan 53 (November
1971): 193.

 

Gambold, Willard J. "DevelOping Good Community Relations."
Education 84 (November 1963): 131—6.

 

Harding, Del. "How to Capitalize on News Media." National
Association of Secondary School Principals BulIetin
58 (January 1974): 43-9.

 

Harrison, Charles H. "Have Rapport, Not Formality with
Press Representatives." Nation's Schools 85 (May
1970): 34-8.

 

. "How to Build and Train a News Gathering Team."
Nation's Schools 85 (June 1970): 62.

 

. "How to Use Newsletters to Build School Support."
Nation's Schools 85 (March 1970): 89-90.

 

. "Who Is the Public Relations Specialist and What
Should He Do?" Nation's Schools 90 (September
1972): 78.

 

Hoover, Herbert W. "This Board Member Casts His Vote for a
District Public Relations Man." The American School
Board Journal 157 (January 1970): 34.

 

 

"Information, Not Persuasion." School Management 6 (March
1962): 110-4.

 

Justus, Hope. "Educators Must Lead in Public Information."
The Journal of Educational Research 66 (April 1973):
ifiSide cover.

 

Knight, Robert P. "How to Communicate Your School Story."
Texas Outlook 49 (May 1965): 20-1.

 

105

"Needed: School Information Specialists." Texas
Outlook 49 (July 1965): 16-7.

Koerner, Thomas F. "Why Your Board Deserves a Full-Time
Public Relations Man." The American School Board
Journal 158 (September 1970): 36-8.

 

Lewis, Anne E. "Better Press Relations for Schools" (conden-
sation of National School Public Relations Association
handbook on school news). Theory Into Practice 3
(October 1964): 149-53.

 

Littleford, John C. "Public Relations and the Press." Inde-
pendent School Bulletin 34 (December 1974): 55-6.

 

McCloskey, Gordon. "Planning the Public Relations Program."

National Education Association Journal 49 (February
1960): 15-30.

Morris, J. Russell. "Administrator and Public Relations."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bulletin 44 (March 1960): 25-7.

Mullins, Carolyn. "How to Get Along With Your Local News-
paper and How to Get Good Press, Too." The Ameri-
can School Board Journal 160 (October 1973): 31-4.

Norman, C. Douglas, and C. M. Achilles. "A Score and Two
Ways to Attain Success with a Modest School Public
Relations Program." The American School Board
Journal 161 (June 1974): 38-9.

 

Norton, M. Scott. "School-Community Relations: New Issues,
New Needs." Clearing House 44 (May 1970): 538-40.

 

Rice, Arthur H. "Know How to Use Your Public Relations
Specialist Effectively." Nation's Schools 89
(January 1972): 15.

 

. "Schools Must Revamp Their Public Relations Pro-
grams." Nation's Schools 83 (April 1969): 14.

 

Rosenberg, Max. "Community Relations: Approaches Educators
Use." Education Digest 39 (January 1974): 42-4.

 

Scherer, Daniel J. "How to Keep Your School District in the
Public Eye." School Management 10 (September 1966):
122-5.

 

"Schoolmen Aren't Bragging About Their Public Relations Pro-
grams." Nation's Schools 85 (January 1970): 31.

 

106

Spearman, Cecil B. "Two Ways to Delegate Public Relations;
Cultivating the Community Grapevine." School Man-
agement 10 (June 1966): 85-7.

 

Stevens, Jody L. "Interpreting the School Program." Texas
Outlook 46 (July 1962): 21-2.

”Telling the Education Story." School Management 15 (August
1971): 28.

Wilder, Ira. "Public Relations for Today's Schools." Clear-
ing House 45 (May 1971): 537.

Williamson, Patty Lewis. "Don't Look Now But Your PR Is

Showing." School and Community 56 (November 1969):
24-5.

Yearbooks

 

"Basic School P. R. Program." Public Relations Gold Mine,
Vol. 4. Washington, D.C.: National School Public
Relations Association, 1962.

Cutlip, Scott M. "Needed: More Interpreters, Fewer Publi-
cists." Public Relations Gold Mine, Vol. 9. Wash-
ington, D.C.: NationalTSchool Public Relations
Association, 1967.

"The Ghosts Walk." Public Relations Gold Mine, Vol. 7.

Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relations
Association, 1965.

"Spotlight on the School P. R. Man." Public Relations Gold
Mine, Vol. 6. Washington, D.C.: National School
PuElic Relations Association, 1964.

 

Published Reports

 

National School Public Relations Association, Standards for
Educational Public Relations Programs. washington,
D.C.: National‘School Public Relations Association,
1968.

 

“Tllljllll'llflifllflflf