I I 71-31,186 DEAN, David H., 1934A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GRADUATES OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION MOTT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT LEVEL IV PROGRAM AND THE REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, teacher training University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GRADUATES OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION MOTT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT LEVEL IV PROGRAM AND THE REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM By David H . Dean A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1971 PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have i n d i s t i n c t p rin t. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GRADUATES OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION MOTT INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT LEVEL IV PROGRAM AND THE REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM By David H . Dean Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between graduates of the Mott Institute's Level IV program and the regular Michigan State University College of Education teacher preparation program. Specifically, the study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Did the six months' studying and student teaching in the inner city prepare the Level IV graduates to more adequately meet the cultural shock often encountered upon entering teaching in an urban school? 2. Did the Level IV participants perceive that they were better prepared to meet cultural shock than were their campus-trained counterparts? David H . Dean 3. Did Level IV graduates tend to seek and to remain in inner city teaching assignments longer than did the regular program graduates? 4. Did the Level IV graduates rate themselves significantly higher on a teacher evaluation checklist? 5. Did principals tend to rate the Level IV graduates higher on a teacher evaluation checklist? 6. Did Level IV graduates perceive that their offcampus program had more effectively prepared them to go into teaching? Procedure The entire population of Level IV graduates and a randomly-drawn sample of regular program graduates were administered questionnaires relating to the abovementioned questions. Principals of the respondents were asked to fill out questionnaires relating their percep­ tions of the teachers' performances in the various areas under consideration. Eighteen null hypotheses and seven alternate hypotheses were developed and were tested by treating the data using a one-way analysis of variance between means of ratings given by the control and experimental groups in the different areas of concern. David H . Dean Major Findings With the level of probability of significance of difference set at .05, the following findings were revealed by the study: 1. Level IV graduates perceived that they encountered significantly less cultural shock upon entrance into inner city teaching. 2. Level IV graduates perceived that they were significantly better prepared to meet cultural shock should they be placed in an inner city teaching assignment. 3. Level IV graduates sought inner city teaching assignments to a significantly greater degree than did regular program graduates. 4. Level IV graduates remained in inner city teaching assignments significantly longer than did regular program graduates. 5. Level IV graduates perceived that they were significantly more effective with the dis­ advantaged and understood community needs to a greater degree than did the regular program graduates. On all other items of the teacher evaluation checklist there were no significant differences between mean ratings of the groups. David H . Dean Principals did not perceive significant differ­ ences between the performances of Level IV graduates and regular program graduates. Level IV graduates felt strongly that their program had more effectively prepared them for teaching than would have the regular campus-based program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For assistance given on the doctoral program and the dissertation, 1 wish to thank my committee members: Dr. Perry Lanier, Chairman; Dr. James McKee, Dr. Calhoun Collier, Dr. Dale Alam, and Dr. Clyde Campbell. For furnishing financial assistance and employment during the years of my study, I express appreciation to the Mott Foundation and to the Mott Institute for Commu­ nity Improvement. For their immeasurable help in the secretarial aspects of the study, and for providing an office climate that made tolerable an almost intolerable task, I wish to thank Frances Britt, Lu Elmguest, Pat Rehkopf, Charlene Aubin, Deanne White, and Marilyn Goodman. For their willingness to dig deep enough to find potential in me; and for providing opportunities to work with them in the Institute specifically and the crazy world of education in general, I am indebted to Howard Hickey and Dr. Clyde Campbell. For the efforts they expended toward making my entrance into teaching a pleasant and satisfying ii I experience, I want to thank Mr. Joe Karr and Mrs. Frankie Tanzy. For the faith they had in me, and for the manifestation of that faith through their contributions to my many needs, I owe a debt of gratitude to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Noble Dean, and to my wife's mother, Mrs. Ruth Narmour. For the patience my sons have exhibited in waiting for me to grow up and get out of school, I want to thank Brett Dean and Blair Dean. And finally, for the love she has given through the years; for the sacrifices she has made to facilitate the accomplishment of this and other more worthwhile tasks; and for providing my reason for being, I say "thank you” to my wife Peg. It is to her that I dedicate this thesis and the rest of my life. iii PSILY TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ...................................... vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ 1 Statement of the Problem ................. 3 Need for the S t u d y .................... 5 Definition of Terms ..................... 8 Statement of the H y p o t h e s e s .......... 10 Limitations of the S t u d y .............. 12 Organization of the Report of the Study . 13 II. REVIEW OF RELATED L I T E R A T U R E ............ 15 Need for Different PreparationPrograms . 17 Factors Which Affect the Performance of Teachers in the Inner C i t y .......... 20 Programs for Preparation of Inner City T e a c h e r s ............................ 31 Mott Institute for Community Improvement . 54 S u m m a r y ............................... 57 III. DESIGN AND P R O C E D U R E S .................. 59 Introduction ............................. 59 Selection of the S a m p l e .............. 60 Instrumentation ......................... 63 Hypotheses and Related Questions . . . . . 68 75 Treatment of D a t a .................... S u m m a r y ............................... 76 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .................... 77 H y p o t h e s e s ............................ 77 Related Questions ....................... 109 S u m m a r y ................................ 118 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS iv . 122 CHAPTER Page S u m m a r y ................................... Conclusions............................... Recommendations ........................... 123 124 132 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... 141 APPENDIX A. TEACHERS' QUESTIONNAIRE ..................... 146 B. PRINCIPALS' QUESTIONNAIRE ................... 152 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE 4*1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. Page Summary of the Results of the Teachers' Questionnaires .......................... 78 Summary of the Results of the Principals1 Questionnaires .......................... 80 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Cultural Shock Endured" ........ 83 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Cultural Shock Endured" . 85 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Preparation for Cultural Shock" . 87 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Efforts to Find Urban Teaching Assignments" ............................ 89 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Tendency to Remain in Inner City A s s i g n m e n t " ............................ 91 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Personal Characteristics" .............. 92 vi Page TABLE 4.9 . 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4.16. Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Instructional Skills" .................. 93 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Staff Relations” ............................... 94 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Profes­ sional A t t i t u d e s " ....................... 95 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Commu­ nity Involvement" ....................... 97 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Under­ standing of Community Needs" ............ 97 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Ability to Work With P a r e n t s " .................. 98 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Rapport With D i s a d v a n t a g e d " ..................... 98 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Overall A s s e s s m e n t " ........................ 99 vii TABLE 4.17. 4.18. 4.19. 4.20. 4.21. 4.22. 4.23. 4.24. 4.25. Page Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Personal Characteristics" . . . . 100 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Instructional Skills" .......... 101 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Staff Relations” .............. 102 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Professional Attitudes" ........ 103 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Community I n v o l v e m e n t " ....... 105 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Understanding of Community N e e d s " .................................. 105 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Ability to Work With Parents" . . 106 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Rapport With Disadvantaged" . . . 106 Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Overall Assessment” ............ viii 107 TABLE 4.26. 4.27. Page Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Adequacy of Preparation P r o g r a m " .................................... 109 Results of Teachers' Rank-Ordering of Preparation Program Phases or Learning Sources in Regards to Contribution to ........................ Teaching Competency Ill ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There is general agreement among researchers that the typical public school teacher is white, from a middleclass background, and practically devoid of meaningful, extended experiences with persons from different cultural, economic or ethnic backgrounds. Studies conducted in the 1940's cited that approximately 95 per cent of the nation's teachers came from middle-class origins.^" A study published in 1966 by Havighurst reported that increasingly more teachers are coming from the lowermiddle and upper-working classes, but that the middle class still supplies the bulk of American teachers. It is not uncommon, however, for this typically middle-class teacher to receive his first teaching assignment in an inner city school. Furthermore, it appears that regard­ less of whether the fledgling teacher begins his career in ^W. Lloyd Warner, Robert J. Havighurst, and Martin B. Loeb, Who Shall Be Educated? (New York: Harper Brothers, 1944) , pp. 102-163. 2 Robert J. Havighurst, Education in Metropolitan Areas (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966), pp. 198-199. 1 2 an inner city school, he is overwhelmingly likely to encounter the "disadvantaged" learner. The number of disadvantaged persons in America is gradually approaching one-third of the country's overall population. Thus, teachers in public schools will be faced more and more with learning problems of disadvantaged children and youth. In some schools in large cities, a teacher may find an entire classroom populated with 'disadvantaged' youngsters; in other schools, perhaps in smaller communities, a teacher may find a third or more of his class in this category.! Until recently little concern has been shown toward the apparent incongruity of assigning a naive, middle-class teacher into a position in an economically, culturally and ethnically different teaching situation. This placement of first year teachers into difficult assignments has traditionally been the only practical thing to do, for: (1) increasing enrollment in urban schools necessitated more teachers; (2) there were generally plenty of openings in the inner city teaching positions because the rate of experienced teacher transfer out of the inner city was much greater than the normal transfer rate; and (3) there were not enough available teachers who had the experience necessary to deal with the disadvantaged. At the same time that demands for qualified teachers were increasing, it appears that James C. Stone and Frederick W. Schneider, Teaching in the Inner City (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, Inc., 1970) , p. 187. r 3 teacher -training institutions were simply not providing the graduates the necessary pre-service experiences to prepare enough of them to function satisfactorily in an inner city setting. Kanton and Murphy stated that, The critical agent for breaking the vicious cycle of poverty that children are victims of is the teacher. But teachers are not trained to meet the needs of large-city school children. Basically, teacher training institutions are oriented toward an academic, traditional school setting. Teacher training patterns do not emphasize the needs of urban youth and new strategies for their teachers.1 A study conducted by Boca found that, There is an identifiable group of teacher educa­ tion majors who are willing to teach in the inner city. They are being educated in the same manner as all other education students. It seems probable that something more needs to be done to prepare more teachers for inner city schools and to improve the survival rate of teachers employed in the inner city.2 Statement of the Problem It was toward doing this "something more" that in 1965, through a cooperative effort of the Michigan State University College of Education and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Mott Institute for Community Improve­ ment (MICI) was organized to study alternatives for ^Peter G. Kanton and James J. Murphy, Teaching Urban Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), prr:--------2 Thelma Boca, "Characteristics of Prospective Teachers Related to Inner-City Teaching Preferences" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 4 training teachers for the inner city. The problem under consideration is an evaluation of the fourth phase of the five-level teacher training program instituted by MICI. Funds amounting to $3,000,000 were to be furnished over a 10-year period by the Mott Foundation and were to be administered by MICI through the College of Education. Monies have been expended to examine the problem of preparing teachers to work, and work well, in the large urban areas of the country where a substantial majority of the disadvantaged learners live and attend school. To those involved in setting up the Mott Institute for Community Improvement Teacher Preparation Program, one of the most apparently obvious and practical ways of elimi­ nating the nalevetd of the prospective teacher was to immerse that teacher, during the period of his preparation, in the milieu of the disadvantaged inner city learner. Thus was born the Level IV or "Detroit” Program, the oldest of the five programs which was to become the College of Education's MICI five-part teacher preparation program. Prior to this study Level IV has been in operation for four years, and it appears that sufficient time has elapsed and enough data have been generated to provide an extensive evaluation of the program. The major purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of teachers who have participated in the 5 Level IV program based In Detroit with those who were prepared in the regular campus-based program at MSU. Results of the comparison were used in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the Level IV program. Need for the Study The Level IV program differs from the regular campus-based program more in locale and philosophy than it does in structure. The Level IV student and the campus- based student both take the 10-week methods bloc; the difference being that the Level IV student takes his bloc in the classrooms and the communities of Detroit's inner city, while the campus-based student takes his courses in the classrooms of the Michigan State University campus. Though integration of methods theory and practice through classroom participation was once unique to Level IV and other off-campus programs, the campus methods bloc now requires the campus-based student to spend one day a week in observing the on-going educational process in a class­ room in the Greater Lansing area. Although a number of the observation sites are inner city classrooms, the preponderance of elementary bloc students do their observing in a non-inner city school. Every Level IV student spends a portion of each day of the week in an inner city classroom, either working and/or observing or receiving instruction during the methods term. 6 The Level IV student and the campus-based student both participate in 10 weeks of student teaching; the difference is that the Level IV student does his student teaching in an inner city school (often the same school that has served as a classroom for some of his methods courses), and the campus-based student does his student teaching in one of 17 student teaching centers operated by MSU in the state of Michigan. While it is necessary to point out that there are a number of campus-based students who do their student teaching in an inner city school, the Level IV program assures that every one of its participants is placed in an inner city classroom for student teaching. The Level IV student and the campus-based student both are taught their methods courses by certificated and/or qualified instructors; the difference is that the Level IV student often is instructed by both college professors and by personnel who are currently employed in the urban educational milieu of the Detroit Public Schools, and the campus-based student is likely to receive instruc­ tions from only college professors who may or may not have had recent public school experience. If one subscribes at all to the "learning-bydoing" theory, it appears that if a person is going to learn to teach in the inner city, he should learn by 7 studying and teaching in the inner city. It is also apparent that in order to provide these opportunities to study and student-teach in Detroit, monies and energies must be diverted from other projects. The Level IV program is structured to handle approximately 60 students per term— 30 in the methods bloc and 30 in student teach­ ing. When there are nearly 300 students per term enrolled in the campus methods bloc, one can readily see that 30 more students can be absorbed on campus without prohibi­ tively increasing the instructor's work load, and without adding significant budgetary expenditures. On the other hand, to operate a similar class for 30 students in Detroit costs a considerable amount per student; because the services of a coordinator are needed, additional instructors must be hired, and travel expenses are involved for East Lansing-based professors who instruct in Detroit. With these added demands on finances and personnel, it seemed only reasonable to examine the results of the Level IV program in an attempt to determine whether the results warranted the additional expenditures of finances, personnel and other resources. Furthermore, since the charge by the Mott Foundation to the College of Education called for MICI to "find better ways to train inner city teachers," it appeared to be an appropriate time to 8 examine the Institute's efforts as objectively as possible, to determine whether the proposed "better way" is indeed a better way. Definition of Terms Level IV Program; That portion of the Mott Institute for Community Improvement's teacher preparation program in which a prospective teacher takes the elemen­ tary methods bloc and does his student teaching in an inner city elementary school in Detroit. Level IV is also at times called the "Detroit Program," and "six-months’ program." Campus-based Program: That portion of the regular teacher preparation program in which a prospective teacher takes the elementary methods bloc on campus and does student teaching in an assigned elementary school, which may or may not be an inner city school. as "regular program." Also referred to Elementary Intern Program graduates were considered as "regular program" graduates for purposes of the study. Inner City Elementary School; Elementary schools of Michigan which qualify by local, state, or national criteria for compensatory education programs such as ESEA, 1965, Title I; Middle Cities; Head Start; Follow Through; Better Tomorrow for Urban Youth; and so designated by the administration. 9 Other Elementary School: All public elementary schools of Michigan not designated an inner city school. Building Principal: The principal is the unit administrator with responsibility for the instructional program in the above described schools, and is the official responsible for rating teachers for purposes of retention, tenure, promotion or release. Teacher: Teachers include those persons employed to instruct children in kindergarten through grade six in the regular school program. All teachers used in the study are graduates of one of the two described Michigan State University College of Education teacher preparation programs. Elementary Methods Bloc: That portion of the teacher's preparation program which instructs the prospec­ tive teacher in methods applicable to elementary school teaching. In both the Level IV program and the campus- based program the student studies mathematics methods, social studies methods, language arts methods, science methods, reading methods and common elements. Instructors: The personnel responsible for teach­ ing the classes comprising the elementary methods bloc. On campus the courses are generally taught by instructors whose primary affiliation is with MSU's College of Educa­ tion. In the Level IV program. College of Education 10 professors are joined by Detroit Public Schools personnel in the instructional process. The instructors from the public schools have included principals, supervisors, curriculum directors, and other instructional and adminis­ trative personnel. Cultural Shock; Any and all of the adverse effects of a person's entering an environment which is markedly different from that to which he is accustomed. Statement of the Hypotheses The research hypotheses tested in this study dealt with the teachers' and their principals1 perceptions of the amount of cultural shock the teachers encountered upon entering a teaching assignment in an inner city school; with the teachers' tendencies to seek and to remain in inner city assignments; and with the teachers' performance in these assignments. There was also an attempt to determine the graduates' opinions concerning the effective­ ness of the preparation programs they followed. Since the Level IV program was designed to help alleviate the problems encountered by first year teachers in inner city assignments, the following hypotheses were investigated:1 ^(Note: The hypotheses are restated in testable form in Chapter III.) 11 1. Level IV program graduates perceived that they encountered less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than did students who gradu­ ated from the campus-based program. 2. Principals perceived that Level IV program gradu­ ates encountered less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than did the regular program graduates. 3. Level IV program graduates tended to seek inner city assignments more often than did regular program graduates. 4. Level IV program graduates tended to remain longer in inner city assignments than did campus-based program graduates. 5. Principals tended to rate Level IV graduates as having performed more satisfactorily in the areas of personal characteristics, instructional skills, teacher-staff relationships, professional atti­ tudes, community relationships, and overall effectiveness than did campus-based program graduates. 6. Level IV program graduates perceived that they performed more satisfactorily in the areas of personal characteristics, instructional skills, teacher-staff relationships, professional 12 attitudes, community relationships, and overall effectiveness than did campus-based program graduates. 7. Level IV program graduates rated the effectiveness of their preparation program higher than did the campus-based program graduates. Limitations of the Study Of the various limitations imposed upon a research project of this nature, the lack of a standardized, objec­ tive evaluation instrument appears to furnish the greatest liability. Although every care was taken in the selection, modification and refinement of the questionnaires, there were still those problems of ambiguity, misinterpretation, respondents' disposition and other uncontrollable vari­ ables which affect the validity of the instruments. Although the implications of the study may be generalized to some degree, the results of the investiga­ tion are limited to comparison between those Michigan State University students who elected to enter the Level IV program, and a sample of regular program gradu­ ates. The very nature of the program's self-selection process imposes some variables which prohibit the generalization of this study beyond that population which was under examination. 13 The lack of current addresses and job placement Information concerning graduates of both programs, and the graduates' and principals' options exercised in the matter of responding to the questionnaires must also be considered to be limiting factors. Organization of the Report of the Study Chapter I included a brief introduction to the study, discussed the problem under consideration, and set forth the need for the study. The first chapter also defined special terms used in the paper, presented the spirit of the hypotheses to be investigated, and detailed the limitations of the study. Chapter II presents a review of related literature, and discusses the apparent need for different kinds of preparation for teachers who will teach in the inner city schools. The factors which affect the performance of first year inner city teachers are explored, and projects which universities have implemented to attempt to compen­ sate for these factors are discussed, along with the results which have been reported. The Mott Institute for Community Improvement's Level IV program is discussed in detail. Chapter III details the research design. Included is a discussion of population and sample selection. 14 data-gathering techniques, and instrumentation. The hypotheses are presented in broad research form, related questions are posed, and the plan for data analysis is described. Chapter IV presents an analysis of the data, discusses each hypothesis, and attempts to answer the related questions. Chapter V provides a summary of the findings, draws conclusions from the data analysis, and discusses the study's implications for teacher education at Michigan State University. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Training the prospective inner city teacher has claimed the interested— if not undivided— attention of educators from coast-to-coast during the past few years. Although the evidence had abounded for too long that neophyte teachers were not being adequately prepared to deal with disadvantaged students, little was done to remedy the situation prior to 1965— the Watts-DetroitNewark riots era. Since that year, a number of univer­ sities have initiated programs designed especially to equip the new teacher to work better in the inner city. The programs have ranged in length from New York's Intensive Teacher Preparation Program's six weeks summer workshop efforts to the project sponsored by the Mott Institute for Community Improvement in the Michigan State University College of Education, which provides for seven quarters of involvement distributed over three years' time. The entire spectrum of possibilities regarding inter-agency cooperation seems to have been explored; for at one extreme New York City operated alone its own 15 16 Summer Teaching Training Program while at the other extreme the cities of Baltimore, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Washington joined with Towson State College, Boston University, State University of New York at Buffalo, Northwestern University, Wayne State University, University of Southern California, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, City University of New York, Temple University, University of Pittsburgh, Duguesne University, and District of Columbia Teachers College in the SchoolUniversity Teacher Education Project. Funds for the programs have come from state and federal agencies, from participating school districts and universities, from special legislative appropriations and from private foundations. Programs' sizes have varied from less than three dozen in New York City’s Summer Teacher Training Program in 1968 to almost two thousand in each of MICI's three years of full time operation. Measurements of the programs1 success have ranged from such basic criteria as determining what percentage of participants merely survived their first year of ghetto teaching to the more sophisticated assessment of changes in teachers' attitudes, proficiencies and performances. Despite wide differences in program size, duration, location, evaluation procedures, funding sources, type of 17 participants, and other variables, the programs shared one unifying perception: there finally was long-overdue recognition that teachers going into the nation's inner city schools desperately needed different kinds of prepa­ ration than they were currently receiving. Perhaps the most poignant plea for a different and better kind of training was made by a first-year teacher writing to her college dean: "Please to God if you are going to send new teachers into urban schools, prepare them a bit more than I was prepared."^ Need for Different Preparation Programs It was not extremely difficult to find writers admitting that there are indeed many very good teachers who spend the majority of their excellent careers in inner city schools. The assurance that such teachers do exist is small comfort in light of evidence that suggests that these teachers are too few and far apart. No less an authority than the President's Panel on Educational Research and Development leveled the charge in 1964 that "by all known criteria, the majority of urban and rural ^Grant Clothier and James H. Lawson, Innovation in the Inner City (Kansas City, Mo.: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, 1969), p. 2. 18 slum schools are failures."* The Panel's judgment grew out of five indictments of existing practices employed by schools: The severe scholastic retardation which pro­ gressively increases as children grow older, a dropout rate which exceeds 50 per cent, fewer than five per cent of this group enrolling for some form of higher education, deteriorating IQ scores, and a distressing picture of adolescents leaving schools ill-prepared to lead a satisfying, useful life or to participate successfully in the community.2 Upon consideration of the many variables that con­ tribute to this alleged failure, one would be remiss to attribute to teachers all, or even a lion's share, of the schools' failure. Home conditions, family economics, motivation, peer group pressure, family expectations, academic press, community environment, student aspiration and other factors must be considered as contributors to any failures which occur. Of all these elements, however, none is as apparently important as is the teacher. Niemeyer emphasizes the teacher's crucial role, then proceeds to outline reasons why it takes teachers with Panel on Educational Research and Development of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Innovation and Experimentation in Education (Washington, D.C.: U.^. Government Printing bffice, 1964), p. 30. 2 A. Harry Passow, "Diminishing Teacher Prejudice," in The Inner-City Classroom; Teacher Behaviors, ed. by Robert D. Strom (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966), p. 93. 19 remarkable attitudes to overcome the ill effects of those other detrimental factors: To say that the teacher in the classroom is important— whether the classroom is located in a depressed inner city area or not— would seem to be a statement of the obvious . . . the critical point in the enactment of the educational program is the point of direct contact with the pupil, namely, the classroom teacher. . . . But there is no question that a great many of these teachers have serious doubts as to just how important the classroom teacher is . . . tKe”belief is that, while the teacher ought to be of great importance, his effec­ tiveness is largely if not wholly neutralized by the influence of the home. . . . But if the school cannot change the home . . . and if it is believed that the home background precludes the possibility of the school's educating the children effectively, then the conclusion is inescapable that these children, as far as the work of a classroom teacher is concerned, are uneducable.l Without going into the ramifications of the effects of teacher expectations upon student achievement, it seems apparent that if inner city schools are to shed their failure label, they must be staffed by teachers who have been trained in such a way as to expect and to elicit success from inner city children. This training must inculcate attitudes which would not have educational success limited only to the middle class and must include experiences which prove the validity of these attitudes. The prescribed attitudes should not be foreign to any John H. Niemeyer, "Importance of the Inner-City Teacher," in The Inner-City Classroom; Teacher Behaviors, ed . by Robert D. Strom (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966), pp. 1-3. 20 program of teacher preparation, but the overwhelming evidence points toward a conclusion that relevant, practical experiences have been largely lacking in most traditional programs. Factors Which Affect the Performance of Teachers in the Inner City The Prospective Teacher Assuming that there is a great need for better teachers for inner city schools, it seems appropriate to consider the reasons for the traditional programs' seeming failure to produce these better teachers. The most obvious place to begin an investigation is with the raw material— the teacher candidate. One very common characteristic of the typical teacher candidate is that he has not come from origins which lend readily to his understanding of the dis­ advantaged child's environment. Havighurst's^ descrip­ tion of the typical teacher's middle-classness is, at once, taken to task and then supported by Wisniewski, who writes: An overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that teachers in the 1960's are being drawn more and more from heterogeneous sources. That is, the image of the teacher as someone coming from the middle class is no longer viable; nor was the matter ever that simple. In many major cities, a ■^Havighurst, op. cit., p. 198. 21 growing number of teachers are coming from working class homes, and many of these teachers are entering the middle class via the teaching profession. What­ ever their origins, however, the majority of teachers reflect the values and behavior representative of the middle class.1 Wisniewski's insistence that there is a decreasing percentage of teachers with middle class origins does little to allay the fears of that inexperienced teacher who finds himself assigned to an inner city school. Nor does it alleviate the problems confronting an administrator whose job it is to induct a fledgling teacher into such surroundings. Fuchs, 2 in a report concerning Hunter College's Project TRUE, relates a case study which is still repeated too often and is still too typical to be dismissed as a passing stereotype. She records the perceptions that a principal with 14 years experience has concerning the typical new teacher who becomes a part of his staff. The principal can expect that, with rare exception, the new teacher will be a young white woman who has had negligible firsthand acquaintance with condi­ tions in a ghetto. Her student teaching experience has probably not included working in this type of ■^Richard Wisniewski, New Teachers in Urban Schools: An Inside View (New York: Random House, 1968), p. 55 .----------------------2 Estelle S. Fuchs, Pickets at the Gates (New York: Project TRUE, Hunter College, 19(>5), p. 308. 22 neighborhood, and even if it has it has been a highly sheltered and artificial one. Because of the principal's past experiences, he is almost sure that his new teacher has grown up in a middle-class community and has had little contact with people outside family and college friends. He feels safe in assuming that the teacher has never been realistically exposed to the poverty or family situations which exist in the community to which he has been assigned. Freedman looks beyond middle-classness and rela­ tive inexperience as causes of failure of a new inner city teacher. He appears willing to list differences in race as the major difficulty facing a white teacher. Freedman uses empirical observation, anecdotal data and common sense to reach the following conclusions about educators: The Caucasian population of the United States harbors a substantial amount of racial prejudice directed against Negroes. . . . The teaching staffs of our urban areas, drawn chiefly from the Cauca­ sian, middle class reservoir, share, in some measure, the negative racial attitudes of the communities from which they spring. . . . These negative attitudes impede the participation of the middle class Caucasian teachers in programs for the deprived child, who is usually either Negro or Puerto Rican.1 Phillip 1. Freedman, "Racial Attitudes as a Factor in Teacher Education" (unpublished paper. Hunter College of the City University of New York, 1967) . 23 Freedman maintains that these unhealthy racial attitudes act as a barrier to both the recruitment of teachers for inner city schools and the effectiveness of teachers assigned to classes consisting of minority group children. Whether one chooses to select middle-classness, inexperience or racial differences (or a combination of these and other factors) as the cause for a teacher's difficulties in adjusting to an inner city situation, one thing seems readily apparent— a large number of teaching positions in the inner city will necessarily be filled by white, inexperienced, middle-class teachers. Since race and prior economic status seem to be inalterable, colleges of education are mandated to alter the student's prepara­ tion program in order to eliminate to as great a degree as possible the inexperience factor. The Preparation Program The literature may show researchers' opinions fairly evenly divided regarding reasons for middle-class teachers having difficulty adjusting to inner city schools, but the researchers present a unified front in assessing the colleges' role in preparing the teachers. Almost without exception, the writers view the colleges' efforts toward preparing inner city teachers to be virtually non-existent before 1965, and laudable but sadly r 24 lacking and still lamentable after that date. In an address to the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education in 1968, Donald Smith expresses an oftenrepeated opinion of the preparation he received: My own experience as a new teacher was common to many teachers. The educational training I received as an undergraduate, and even later as a graduate student, was in no way related to the problems I encountered in the schools and to the needs of my pupils. For the most part— and surely there are a few notable exceptions— teacher training for urban schools has been, and is, irrelevant. Except for rare instances, it has not begun to address itself to the kinds of information and experiences young people need to develop appropriate attitudes to teach successfully in the ghetto.1 Smith notes that engineers are not sent out to ply their trades without a thorough knowledge of bridge types and structures; and that doctors are not permitted to practice until they have become thoroughly acquainted with the anatomy of the whole body and the differing functions of various organs. He expresses amazement that: . . . Schools of education send their products into Spanish Harlem or Lawndale or Watts with no knowledge of the nature of children, no knowledge of the neighborhood and the community residence, and no appreciation for the culture of these commu­ nities. It is amazing that any worthwhile teaching occurs. . . . Schools of education must cease attempting to prepare teachers for a monolithic white school which does not exist in the heart of the inner city, if it exists anywhere. The proper study for inner city teachers is the inner city.2 Donald H. Smith, "Preparation of Teachers for the Central City," American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education Yearbook, Cl.968) , p. 53. 2Ibid. 25 Surveys have revealed that one o£ the major reasons for the colleges' apparent weakness in urban teacher preparation programs is their (the colleges') lack of intent and desire to remedy these weaknesses. A 1967 survey of seventeen Southern and border states and the District of Columbia revealed that only one institu­ tion in six had made any substantial changes in the past five years to improve the preparation of inner city teachers, and "only two in every five reported any inten­ tion or desire to do so."^ Colleges north of the Mason- Dixon Line need to take a look at another survey before finding comfort in the aforementioned study. Bowman Klopf and reported that after polling 1050 institutions (and receiving only 193 responses), they found just 65 colleges reporting specific programs for the purpose of preparing teachers for inner city schools. The remaining institutions who responded stated that content to prepare teachers for work with disadvantaged pupils was "incorporated throughout the curriculum," indicating a textbook approach to the problem and minimum involvement with inner city life. ^James Egerton, SURVEY: A Lack of Preparation in the Colleges, Southern Education Report (1^67) , p. 5"! 2 G, J. Klopf and G. W. Bowman, Teacher Education in a Social Context (New York: Mental Health Materials, Inc., 1966). 26 Kenneth Clark was an early critic of the United States' teacher education, and its failure to deal with the problem of producing good teachers for the inner city. As early as 1963 he recommended the following: The curricula of our teacher training institu­ tions must be re-examined to determine whether they make adequate and systematic use of that fund of modern psychological knowledge which deals with such problems a s : the meaning of IQ and its interpretation . . . and the contemporary interpre­ tation of racial and nationality differences in intelligence and academic achievement.! Strom indicates that a large majority of the 150,000 teachers who graduate from college each year have not even had access to a curriculum of specialized train­ ing for urban positions. He notes that although there are a significant number of prospective teachers who need and desire training for the inner city, the college counseling, curriculum and scheduling they encounter rarely encourage the candidate to pursue such training. If the student is dedicated enough to overcome the numerous obstacles and to seek out the desired course of study, he often still fails to find what he needs to equip him to meet the realities of teaching disadvantaged children. As an Kenneth Clark, "Educational Stimulation of Racially Disadvantaged Children," in Education in Depressed Areas, ed. by Harry A. Passow (New York: Columbia Teachers College Press, 1963), p. 16. 2 Robert D, Strom, Teaching in the Slum School (Columbusr Ohio: Charles E. Merrill books, Inc., 1965), 116 pp. 27 example, Strom places his finger directly upon a sensitive nerve when he points out that professors in education often refuse to deal with the issue of discipline. "Many of us in higher education" he writes, "have been remiss in our obligation to adequately prepare teacher candidates to meet behavioral problems that might confront them upon assignment to an inner city school." Me allows the argument that discipline is more a matter of opinion than a science, but insists that some opinions and techniques are better than others, and that a full-blown discussion of discipline deserves a place in every prospective teacher's curriculum. By evading the disruption [of classroom procedures] issue and maintaining silence regarding disciplinary problems, professors inadvertently contribute to the feelings of guilt and failure of those prospec­ tive teachers who later accept all acts of student misbehavior as a personal affront.1 Haubrich o reported his apprehensions that not only do some teacher preparation programs fail to have a posi­ tive effect on the prospective inner city teacher, they may indeed tend to have a negative effect. He expressed fear that colleges, using an educational psychology applicable only to the middle-class child in a "good" 1Ibid., p. 101. 2 Vernon Haubrich, "The Culturally Disadvantaged in Teacher Education," in The Disadvantaged Child: Issues and Innovations, e d . by J. L. Brost and <3. R. Hawkes (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1966). 28 school setting, tend to confirm the vague and general rejection of the disadvantaged— an attitude which the middle-class student often brings with him to the educa­ tion classroom. The Teaching Site In considering the variables which contribute to the failure of inner city school teachers to adjust satisfactorily, the factors of the typical teacher candi­ date and his typical preparation program have been dis­ cussed. The research indicates that there is yet another highly relevant factor to be considered: the inner city school itself— the site upon which too many new teachers are forced to begin their instructional careers. Writings are plentiful which indicate that the ghetto teaching situation contributes significantly to the failure rate of inner city teachers. Depending upon the source being reviewed at any particular moment, the inner city school is depicted as being very little different from suburban schools at the one extreme and as being completely uninhabitable at the other. Wisniewski1 insists that schools, regardless of their location, share more similarities than they have differences. He sees problems in teacher morale, discipline, student motivation, ^Wisniewski, op. cit. 29 staff turnover, parent apathy, material shortages and plant deficiencies existing in all schools, and feels that the neophyte teacher's major difficulty is in con­ forming to ("not capitulating to") the system. Attitudes are more important than physical facilities in Wisniewski's view, and he feels that if preparation programs could instill the belief that disadvantaged children can learn, the suburban and urban schools' climates would be barely distinguishable. Kohl, 1 Kozol 2 and others do not share Wisniewski's opinion that suburban and inner city schools are so similar in physical characteristics. Their descriptions of urban schools are liberally sprinkled with such terms as "decaying, dark, authoritarian, chaotic, deadly, gray, oppressive, racist, squalid, filthy. . . . " Friedenberg distills the essence of Kohl's and Kozol's writings into three succinct implications, which, if true, paint a very grim picture of urban schools. Friedenberg says: (1) that the dreadful conditions do exist and are quite general, (2) that urban slum schools are run by awful ■'‘Herbert Kohl, 36 Children (New York: American Library, 1968). 2 Jonathan Houghton-Mifflin, 3 Edgar L. School," Saturday The New Kozol, Death at an Early Age (Boston: 1967), Friedenberg, "Requiem for the Urban Review, L (1967), p. 93. 30 people, and (3) that politics are at the root of all the problems. In the introduction to their volume, Morine and Morine^" catalogue the reasons that are offered by educa­ tors and the public alike to explain the inadequacies of the slum schools. Many reasons are offered for their failure. Among these are the following: the teachers are prejudiced, the children are stupid, the teachers are middle class, the children are lower class, the teachers are underpaid, the children are emotionally disturbed, the 'good* teachers go elsewhere, the children suffer from anomie, there aren't enough teachers, the classes are over­ crowded, the parents don't care, the children lack respect for learning, the teachers are inadequately trained, there aren't enough teaching materials, the buildings are antiquated, the curriculum is middle class, there is not enough money, the schools are segregated, there is too much politics in school administration, there is not enough local control of schools, a combination of the above, all of the above. Most observers of the inner city school use a selection of the Morine and Morine descriptors and place themselves somewhere between the "wrong-attitudes-only" view of Wiesniewski and the "everything-is-gone-to-hell" view of Kohl, Kozol et al. Whether one chooses to view the inner city school situation with admiration, with apathy or with alarm, several things are abundantly clear: the literature indicates that not all is well with the ■'"Harold Morine and Greta Morine, A Primer for the Inner-City School (New York: McGraw Hill" 1970), pp. 1-2. 31 inner city school; there are variables present in such situations which do not exist to the same degree in sub­ urban schools; and these variables have sufficient impact to contribute to the failure of a significant number of teachers. Bearing in mind that a great percentage of middleclass prospective teachers were apparently undergoing inadequate training and then were being placed into failure-assuring inner city teaching positions, a number of educational institutions began to explore the possi­ bility of initiating programs specifically for the wouldbe inner city teacher. Programs for Preparation of Inner City Teachers' The literature provides no evidence that programs designed specifically for training inner city teachers were in existence prior to 1964. Following that date however a number of educational institutions have initiated such programs, and many have been in operation long enough to have published the results of their efforts. School-University Teacher Education Project T As was indicated earlier in the review of the literature, the programs varied in size, location, sources 32 of funding and in other ways; but they seemed to share at least one unifying viewpoint: that the proper setting to train inner city teachers is the inner city. No attempt has been made in this review to locate the fountainhead of this philosophy, nor to establish an order of program initiation. It seems however that if a prototype were to be identified it would be the School University Teacher Education Project (SUTEP) sponsored jointly by the Research Council of the Great Cities Program for School Improvement and a number of cooperating universities. Describing SUTEP as a prototype is not intended to intimate that other inner city teacher preparation programs consciously modeled their efforts after SUTEP, but to give credit to SUTEP1s early concern for the problem and its pioneering embodiment of principles which now appear to be standard for such programs. In June of 1963 the Great Cities Research Council conducted a U.S. Office of Education funded research seminar to investigate teacher education as it pertains to urban schools. As an outgrowth of the discussion, 11 of the nation's larger cities envisioned the establish­ ment in disadvantaged areas of cooperatively maintained school-university centers which would serve as a focal point for practical field experiences for prospective teachers. A Health, Education and Welfare Department 33 grant supplied the monies for three task forces which proposed the following program guidelines:^* 1. The center should be housed in a school located in a disadvantaged neighborhood of the city, and should be staffed jointly by the school system and the college. 2. The curriculum of the center should provide the future teachers with continued and extended con­ tact with a school in a disadvantaged neighbor­ hood. 3. Student teaching in the center and in other city schools should be a culminating experience of the undergraduate work and should lead into an "advanced practicum," a fifth year which should be an integrated part of the preparation of teachers for the disadvantaged. 4. Aspects of foundation courses in professional education should be integrated with practical experiences in the center classrooms. 5. An inquiry center should be frained through the appointment of an anthropologist, a sociologist, and a psychologist to the center to direct the ^Michael D. Usdan and Frederick Bertolaet, eds.. Teachers for the Disadvantaged (Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 1966), pp. VII-XIII. 34 interdisciplinary study of pupils, teachers and community characteristics, 6. Continued and extended contact with the center should allow the student a prolonged period in which to study the problems of the teacher as a teacher of the disadvantaged. 7. During the practicum period, the intern would be considered a beginning teacher in the school system, would be placed in a slum area school, would be paid a beginning teacher's salary, and would continue to be under the joint supervision of the school and university personnel. The School-University Teacher Education Project was proposed as a theoretical model only, and the cities and universities participating in the research seminar were encouraged to modify the design as local situations dictated. New York's Intensive Teacher Training Program The New York City Board of Education was one of the first organizations to actually implement an inner city teacher preparation program. During the spring of 1966, New York's 868 schools faced the prospect of opening the year with a 3500 teacher shortage, and initiated their Intensive Teacher Training Program (ITTP). Sharp reported 35 that "In the search for alternatives to the spectre of uncovered classes . . . officials hastily drafted a plan for the creation of 'instant teachers.1 Cynics accused ITTP proponents of holding the viewpoint that any body in the classroom was better than no body at all, but there were optimists who argued that laymen with fresh ideas might, in six weeks of intensive on-site preparation, become the equals of four-year, traditionally trained college graduates. Though born of expediency and initiated in h a ste, statistics offered by ITTP program coordinators give support to the more optimistic point of view concerning the project's worth. Over 20,000 persons made inquiry about the program, and some 4500 actually filed applica­ tion with the City College of New York, which was furnishing staff for the professional courses. Of the 4500 applicants, 1500 were accepted into the program and admitted into CCNY's teacher education department. A statement by the project director that "not all of the successful applicants would have been accepted into our regular program” is regarded a mark of the project's success by proponents, for it provided entrance into the ^Alexander Sharp, "Intensive Teacher Training Program," The Urban Review, III (December, 1967), p. 2. 2Ibid. 36 profession to a number of persons who would otherwise have been denied such access. When ITTP's first year statis­ tics were released, 85 per cent of the program graduates were still teaching in the New York City system. (One of the conditions of acceptance into the program was the participant's agreement to "accept the assigned position" in the city's public schools.) Project directors asked the principals to evaluate the teachers prepared by ITTP. Approximately 90 per cent of the new teachers were rated as performing above a "minimal" level of competence in both elementary and secondary schools, and a significant portion of the 90 per cent was considered "above average" or "excellent" in comparison with normal first-year teachers. ITTP graduates were also surveyed as a part of the evaluation process. were: Among the more significant findings (1) the graduates' expressions of confidence in their ability to perform adequately in the classroom; (2) reduction of discipline problems to "manageable proportions"; and (3) feelings that their students had progressed "satisfactorily" during the year. When asked to identify the more meaningful portions of the prepara­ tion program, the prevalent feeling among those still teaching was that first-hand experience with children, not the summer's professional education courses, had given them the ability to teach. 37 National Teacher Corps Another early response to the problem of training teachers for disadvantaged areas was that made by the National Teacher Corps (NTC). Begun in 1966, NTC was "a nationwide effort to improve the educational opportunities for poverty-area children by helping universities improve the ways in which teachers are trained and helping school districts improve the way in which teachers are used.11^ Not unlike most of the other programs, NTC employed service in the field as its main vehicle for training candidates. Teams of interns were led by experienced teachers in the acquisition and testing of new skills. Service in the Teacher Corps was characterized by exten­ sive work in disadvantaged schools and educational activities in the school communities, and was supplemented by university training. The bulk of National Teaching Corps statistics which have been released are the result of data gathered from the interns who completed two-year programs in 1969. Seventy-six per cent of the 674 interns completing the program that year returned their questionnaires with the following results: (1) 80 per cent plan to remain in education and 75 per cent will continue teaching in ^"Teacher Corps: Most Interns to Remain in Education,'1 School and Society, XCVIII (Summer, 1970), p. 270. 38 poverty-area schools; (2) nearly 20 per cent were from minority groups (records indicate that 1969*s beginning interns include 43 per cent minority group persons); (3) 58 per cent of the graduating class were male, 54 per cent were under 25 years of age, and 53 per cent were married; and (4) the graduates had received training in 33 colleges and universities while serving in 21 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A major diffi­ culty that many preparation programs have faced— namely that of the candidates' flight to advantaged areas after receiving their training in disadvantaged areas— was experienced by NTC; for some 55 per cent of the teachers did not remain in the school district where they interned. Cooperative Urban Teacher Education A collection of 13 Missouri and Kansas colleges, the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory and the Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas school systems joined efforts in 1966 to initiate a program of inner city teacher preparation. The Cooperative Urban Teacher Education (CUTE) program evolved from the various institutions' representatives 1 views that: Because the existing teacher preparation structure does not provide experiences which will enable a teacher to survive in an inner city school, and because the structure does not appear to encourage the development of teaching skills 39 appropriate to the needs of the inner city pupils, many graduates of teacher education institutions seem incapable of dealing effectively with the unique conditions found in culturally disadvantaged areas. With these considerations in mind it was assumed that a prospective teacher would be better prepared if he (a) understood both his own and his pupils' attitudes, anxieties, insecurities and prejudices; (b) understood both his own and his pupils' environ­ ment and culture, and (c) was knowledgeable of and competent in reflective teaching methods for inner city learners.1 During the summer of 1967, directors of the CUTE project assembled a staff which drew up a list of objec­ tives relating to teacher understandings, attitudes and skills which presumably would enable a prospective teacher to work effectively in any inner city classroom. Some of the more pertinent objectives selected would have the student teacher utilize his full range of spontaneous emotions in a manner conducive to an effective teaching situation; admit his own knowledge limitations; be capable of perceiving psycho-social courses of behavior through an understanding of the social-cultural environ­ ment of children; grasp differences between feelings and actions in pupils; demonstrate ability to perceive emotional courses of behavior; give supportive response to pupil participation; motivate pupils effectively; provide a variety of learning experiences; and ^Clothier and Lawson, op. cit., p. 12. 40 demonstrate ability to summarize and interpret information effectively. i In the fall of 1967 a total of 22 students entered the CUTE program and proceeded toward the objectives laid out during the summer. A number of activities were sug­ gested and many of them employed in the training of the CUTE teachers. In addition to a considerable amount of "normal" classroom procedure the students made field trips to inner city schools, boards of education, and social agencies; visited inner city homes with home-school coordi­ nators; presented and analyzed case studies; observed teacher-pupil interaction in assigned schools; viewed films and video tapes of inner city teaching situations; developed lesson plans for and presented micro-teaching situations; performed class analysis of filmed teaching demonstrations; conducted census tract studies and observa­ tional visits to student-teaching sites; heard speakers from inner city schools; analyzed the social organization of schools; interacted with youth in community centers; analyzed ethnic differences as portrayed by music, culture and art; heard speakers from the ghetto and the black middle class; and observed activities at police stations 2 and probation, parole and detention facilities. ^Ibid., pp. 12—16. 2Ibid., pp. 21-32. 41 A battery of eight data-collecting devices were employed by CUTE in attempting to assess student progress toward the project's stated objectives. Scores attained on "Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale" indicated that there were no significant differences between CUTE students and the control group in the variables measured by that test. The conclusion reached was that the CUTE students1 beliefdisbelief system was stable and was not different from regular students. The "Teaching Situation Reaction Test" revealed that CUTE students had shown significant gains in the areas of being more indirect, more pupil-oriented, more objective and more experimental than the control group. The "Cultural Attitude Inventory" indicated CUTE students were more compatible with teaching in culturally deprived schools, and the "Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory" reflected a favorable change in the experimental group during the course of study. CUTE students were shown by the "McRel Interaction Analysis" test to be less direct in classroom control than the comparison group, and the amount of pupil talk was greater in CUTE students' classrooms. Though CUTE used a sophisticated battery of exams to measure participants' attitude and behavior changes, project evaluators placed much emphasis upon basic demo­ graphic data. They wrote: 42 Probably the most convincing evidence as to the success of the CUTE program was the choices of teach­ ing locations by CUTE graduates. As of November, 1968, 35 of 40 CUTE graduates had teaching contracts for the 1968-69 school year. Thirty-one of them are teaching in urban settings. . . . It has been stated that, nationally, approximately one-third of all trained teachers go on to teach. Compared to that figure the CUTE program did very well indeed. Couple this with the fact that 31 are in inner city schools, and the record is even more remarkable.1 Operation Fair Chance Not all inner city teacher preparation projects were designed to work with undergraduates. Authorized in February, 1966 by the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Operation Fair Chance (OFC) is described as "a bold, three-year, experimental project designed for college graduates who plan to become elementary or secondary teachers under the one-year graduate study provision of the Fisher Act." 2 The program was located on the campuses of the California State College at Hayward and Fresno and was to be evaluated by the University of California at Berkeley. The beginning year of the project saw the enrollment of 30 persons, each of whom had already been admitted to a regular fifth-year teacher program. 1Ibid., p. 45. 2 Edward G. Olsen, "Operation Fair Chance": An Exciting Experiment in Teacher Preparation, Journal of Teacher Education, XIX (Spring, 1968), p. 79. 43 Operation Fair Chance, although involving gradu­ ates instead of undergraduates, was nevertheless based upon the premise that the best training for teachers of the disadvantaged occurred when the prospective teacher actually worked with the disadvantaged child. The OFC program was accordingly conducted in three phases. After an eight-day orientation period, the participants became involved in three areas: teaching. communicating, observing, and The communication phase saw the OFC students working for six weeks in the Job Corps, so that they could "communicate with the deprived people in their environment.11^ During the observation portion of their program the OFC students spent two weeks observing the operation of public schools in low income areas. The OFC participants culminated their training period by teaching disadvantaged children for 18 weeks in the same schools in which they had observed. Though program evaluation data have not been released, persons connected with OFC have called it "the most comprehensive project in the United States," and pointed to such variables as age range (21-54 years); racial composition (10 per cent Negro, 3 per cent Nisei, 87 per cent Anglo and Mexican-American) 1Ibid. 2Ibid., p. 81. 44 and teaching level distribution (18 elementary, 12 secondary) as indicators of the program's success. Elementary Education Program, Pennsylvania State University, Capitol Campus" In September, 1967, Pennsylvania State University, through its Capitol Campus located at Middletown, initi­ ated a program designed specifically to prepare teachers for urban schools. After a year of planning, university and public school officials came to recognize that: . . . most students enrolled in any elementary education curriculum come from middle class homes and have had little or no exposure to children of the inner city . . . [therefore] it was deemed essential to devise learning experiences which not only would prepare the prospective teachers academically, but also would provide them with the insights and understanding necessary to cope successfully with children from the lower socio­ economic stratum of society.1 The Elementary Education Program (EEP) was initi­ ated following a decision to focus the Capitol Campus1 efforts on preparing teachers for urban centers. A major ingredient of the program was an attempt by the faculty to make the "professional education courses more realistic . . . by incorporating laboratory experiences in the public schools with each professional course on campus." 2 ^Ward Sinclair, "Teacher Preparation for Urban Schools," School and Society, XCVI (Summer, 1968), p. 339. 2Ibid. 45 Accordingly, laboratory experience ranging from one-half day per week to full-time student teaching were provided for the students in every term of the program. A feature of the EEP not found in all of the other inner city teacher preparation programs was the requirement that every instructor be responsible for "following his students into the schools to observe their activities, to confer with teachers and principals, and to aid the students in their self-evaluation and development."1 Evaluation of the EEP was conducted by the project coordinator and by the cooperating school district's elementary education director. Designed to "measure students' interests and competencies" and to "review attitudes and abilities" of the teachers and faculty involved, the evaluation study reported the following results: (1) college faculty and public school teachers are eager to have the program continue; (2) the school district board of education praised the program and "expressed a desire to see more cooperative arrangements" between schools and the colLege; (3) college instructors "appreciate the opportunity and time" to visit schools; (4) students have a basis for determining whether to con­ tinue in elementary education; (5) students begin to see needs for "a host of techniques and skills necessary to ^Ibid. 46 become a successful teacher"; and (6) students are better able to relate lectures, readings and discussions on campus to the actual children and events encountered in the public schools. i New Careers— Ohio State University Inner city school dropouts were the targets for a program initiated in the fall of 1968 by Ohio State University's College of Education and the Columbus Metropolitan Area Community Action Organization. Based upon the assumption that an interpreter is needed to facilitate communication between the inner city child and his middle-class teacher, New Careers— Ohio State Univer­ sity (NC-OSU) was designed to train dropouts to perform this intermediary function. NC-OSU program developers predicted that not only would the inner city child be benefitted, but that also " . . . if the dropout could be convinced that he was the inner city child's best hope he will work hard at learning the skills he needs to re-enter the classroom— as a teacher." 2 Recruitment for NC-OSU was aimed at dropouts between the ages of 22 and 30 who would be given intensive 1Ibid. 2 "Inner City Teacher Recruitment," School and Society, XCVII (March, 1969), p. 132. 47 training for two years at OSU's College of Education. Completion of the program would qualify the participants for certification as "instructional specialists." Under the supervision of the college and a cooperating school district, the program graduates would be placed in inner city schools, either as teachers or as teacher aides. NC-OSU students would then be encouraged to complete the regular sequence of courses leading to a bachelor's degree in education and subsequently to full teacher certification. The NC-OSU program has not been in operation long enough to publish accounts of graduates' in-service accomplishments, but a spokesman for the project held forth high hopes for success. John Corbally, the Ohio State University vice president for academic affairs, writes: We think that in many ways our NC-OSU graduates will be better qualified to teach in an inner city school than students who go through a conventional teacher-training program. Because of their similar backgrounds, the inner city students and their teachers will be able to develop a respect and rapport we have all too rarely seen in inner city schools. Our NC-OSU graduates know how rough life in the ghetto can be, can understand the reasons for dropping out of school and also the tremendous importance of staying in.i Persons connected with the program predicted that a modified version of NC-OSU could be used to produce 1Ibid. 48 special!sts -bo deal with problems found in suburban schools as well as those in the inner city. Minnesota Department of Education Program Another agency responding to the call for more and better qualified inner city teachers was the Minnesota Department of Education. Using funding made available through the U.S. Office of Education by the Education Professions Development Act, the Minnesota Department of Education proposed in 1968 a statewide plan "to attract and qualify teachers to meet this [more inner city teachers] critical need.” The major thrust of the Minnesota program was in the direction of clinical experiences for the prospective teacher. Persons who were not in education were recruited and given intensive, short-term training in a disadvantaged school. Some academic courses were included, but the entire program was projected as requiring a maximum of three months' time. Though the initial phase of the project was designed to deal only with "non-teachers" and teacher aides, administrators planned to broaden the program as more funds became available. Mo program evaluation results have been released. ^James Lee, "Program Prepares Teachers for the Disadvantaged," Minnesota Journal of Education, XLIX (November, 1968), p. 28. 49 Summer Graduate Training Program During the spring and summer of 1968, Western Michigan University implemented a program designed to further motivate and to better prepare recent WMU educa­ tion graduates for classrooms accommodating either inner city or migrant children. The 15 week training program was divided into two distinct seven and one-half week spring and summer sessions. The spring portion of the project saw "didactic and process experiences . . . com­ bined in a deliberate effort to shape attitudes as well as to facilitate formal learning." Required readings and university staff members' and consultants' comprised the didactic experiences. lectures Process activities included experiences in a guidance clinic and detention home; field trips to poverty centers and to social agencies; voluntary participation in weekly group therapy sessions; and small group meetings where participants reacted to lectures. During the summer session, program participants were employed in paid internships in South­ west Michigan elementary schools or worked as counselors in a summer camp for disadvantaged children. ^Gilbert E. Mazer, "Attitude and Personality Change in Student Teachers of Disadvantaged Youth," The Journal of Educational Research, LXIII (November, 1969), p. 117. 50 Though no evaluation of the teaching performance of Summer Graduate Training Program's alumni have been reported, Mazer did conduct a study "to investigate the effects of a specialized . . . program on the attitudes, and personal values and constructs of novice teachers of disadvantaged youth."”*' He found that: . . . attitudes and personal values and con­ structs of student teachers can be significantly modified through training programs. Especially devised teacher training programs can elicit attitude and personality changes in students appropriate to their work with disadvantaged youth. Implicit in this statement is a recommendation for revision of traditional programs so as to provide unique experiences for teachers preparing to work with the disadvantaged.2 Mazer concluded from his studies that "institute" type programs providing for group identification, daily feed-back sessions, field experiences and T-group meetings are likely to be effective producers of personality change. He recognizes, however, that favorable teacher attitudes, while essential, are not sufficient; and that methodology of teaching the deprived child should receive particular emphasis in the preparation of teachers. Columbia1s Urban Teacher Corps In the summer of 1969 Teachers College, Columbia University, initiated a project which was designed to XIbid., p. 116. 2Ibid., pp. 119-120. 51 recruit and train urban school teachers, and to develop a model training program. Labeled the Urban Teacher Corps (UTC), the program was a cooperative endeavor by Teachers College and the New York City Board of Education, and was initiated to train teachers to fit the teaching-learning process to the child rather than vice-versa. Encompassing a period of 15 months, the program led to a master's degree and to New York State teacher certification. During the first summer the UTC partici­ pants served as assistant teachers in urban schools while they took eight credits at Teachers College. In the fall semester students took nine hours of academic credit and spent 20 hours per week as apprentice teachers. During the spring the students were full-time paid intern teachers while taking nine credits. The students' final summer saw them working half-time in a community agency while finishing their academic work with another nine hours at Teachers College. Urban Teacher Corps has not been in operation long enough to report results, but the program is geared toward reaching the goal of providing its participants with field experiences to supplement the on-campus academic work. spokesman reports that the program . . . is attempting to provide the student with opportunity every day he is in the program to put what he has learned at Teachers College into A 52 practice in a local school. Urban children are considered by so many to be difficult learners and less productive in their achievement. It is our belief that children of depressed areas . . . can learn as effectively as other children if the teaching-learning process and the techniques and attitudes are appropriate to their learning styles.* Other Programs The literature revealed other urban education projects which are often referred to when inner city teacher preparation programs are under discussion. They have not been reviewed in detail in this section because they do not precisely fit the definition of programs under study. One such project was that sponsored by Queens College of the City University of New York. BRIDGE (Building Resources of Instruction for Disadvantaged Groups in Education) had as an objective the "finding of ways to more effectively prepare teachers to work in culturally deprived neighborhoods," 2 but a large part of the effort dealt with teachers already in service and with the reorganization of the public school. Evaluation of the program centered upon results of tests given junior "New Teacher Education Program for Inner-City Schools," School and Society, XCVIII (Summer, 1970), p. 268. 2 Gertrude Downing, et al., The Preparation of Teachers for Schools in Culturally Deprived Neighborhoods (Flushing, N.Y.: The BRIDGE Project, Cooperative Research Project No. 935, Queens College of the City of New York, 1965), p. 13. 53 high students involved in the restructured school-withina-school organization. Major recommendations of evaluators were to immerse college students and their instructors more thoroughly into the milieu of the disadvantaged. Hunter College's Project TRUE (Teacher Resources for Urban Education) is another program which has appar­ ently had a beneficial impact upon urban teacher education; but the main thrust of TRUE has been in the area of compiling pertinent resource materials and in describing the inner city educational scene. Lehigh University dealt with the problem of urban teacher preparation by providing public school experiences for its education majors prior to the student teaching phase; and both elementary and secondary candidates identified these early, practical experiences as "the most effective phase of their prepara1 tion program." In 1966, Northeastern Illinois State College began operation of its Chicago Center for Inner City Studies. Though not designated a teacher preparation program, project leaders claimed a peripheral effect on teacher education, reporting that " . . . its major ^Alice D. Rinehart, "Critical Experiences of Initiation into Teaching Through a Graduate Teacher Intern Program for Elementary and Secondary Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1969). 54 attractions are an innovative curriculum and a liberated faculty.h1 Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University's initial response to the demand for more and better-prepared inner city teachers was the establishment of the Mott Institute for Community Improvement (MICI). With funds furnished by the Mott Foundation, MICI began operations in August, 1965 as an institute in the College of Education. The five different programs which have evolved under the auspicies of MICI are: (1) an elementary education project, (2) a differentiated staffing study, (3) a career guidance program, (4) a community service program and (5) a five- level teacher education project. An evaluation of the fourth level of the teacher education project provided the thesis topic under consideration. MICI's Teacher Education Program An essential background for consideration and evaluation of the Level IV program is to be gained by placing Level IV into the context of the entire five-level MICI Teacher Education Program. Level I is an inner city 1 Sonja H. Stone, "Chicago's Center for Inner City Studies: An Experiment in Relevancy," Social Education, XXXIII (May, 1969), p. 532. 55 school visitation and observation experience available to all HSU education majors, approximately 1200 per quarter. Level II is an urban tutorial program which places 100 prospective teachers per quarter in an urban elemen­ tary school where they tutor an under-achieving child and perform teacher-aide tasks. Level III is a pre-student teaching experience for a varying number of secondary students in a problem-centered, action-oriented, groupdirected educational experience. Level IV will be discussed in detail as a part of the program evaluation. Level V is an elementary intern program in which the student spends approximately one and two-thirds years working in an inner city school before completing his degree and certification requirements.^ It is possible for a teacher candidate to partici­ pate in just one of the various programs; or he may take part in as many as four of the levels. All students may elect Levels I, II, III and either IV or V. Taking one of the latter two programs precludes participation in the other; indeed the aspects of Level IV are incorporated into the more comprehensive Level V. An outstanding and rather unique feature of the MICI Teacher Education Program is that it offers every Michigan State University ^Programs for Change in Education (Mott Institute for Community Improvement, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969). 56 education student "an experience in the inner city . . . at the maximum amount of time and effort he is willing to give." Level IV Following M I C I 1s initiation as an arm of M S U 1s College of Education in the fall of 1965, Level IV was the first part of the Teacher Education Program to be imple­ mented. Program coordinators spent the fall and winter quarters of 1965-66 establishing working agreements with the cooperating Flint and Detroit school districts and recruiting college students for the program. The spring of 1966 saw the first participants begin their specialized preparation program. After operating in both the Flint and Detroit school districts for four quarters, the Flint center became the operational base for the Level V program, and Level IV was concentrated in Detroit. A brochure released by the Mott Institute for Community Improvement describes the Level IV program: The MICI teacher training program in Detroit is a two-term experience in the inner city. During the first term the students take their methods bloc courses which are taught by Detroit Board personnel (master teachers) and Michigan State University staff. The courses offered are common elements, language arts, reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. Each student tutors two children for two and one-half hours a week. In addition, one day a week is spent in a participation experi­ ence assisting a teacher in a classroom. 1Ibid 57 The second term consists of student teaching in a unique framework. Two half-days a week are devoted to providing relevant experiences and greater oppor­ tunity to seek help and suggestions concerning their teaching. Usually one day a week is spent in a seminar on problem solving. The second weekly session seeks expertise in areas of community agents, special education, pupil services, federally funded programs, teacher aides {new staffing practices) and teaching innovations. This in-depth program in methods and student teaching has as its goal successful performance in the most challenging teaching-learning experience.! Through the fall quarter of 1970, a total of 267 students have participated in the Level IV program. They have been directed in their efforts by two full-time staff members who hold joint temporary appointments with the College of Education student teaching department and the Mott Institute for Community Improvement. Office and classroom facilities, secretarial services, and material requirements are supplied by the Detroit student teaching center. The Detroit Board of Education provides designated schools to serve as laboratories for student teaching, and for the clinical experiences incorporated in the methods bloc phase. Summary Efforts have been made, through a review of the literature, to assemble conclusive evidence that a need existed for specific programs to prepare teachers for the 1Ibid. 58 inner city. Factors which affect this preparation were discussed, and it was concluded that the background of the prospective teacher, the preparation he typically receives, and the site on which he is likely to begin his career all contribute heavily to the possibility of his failure. Programs which have been initiated by educa­ tional institutions in an attempt to mitigate these deleterious factors have been examined. The Mott Institute for Community Improvement1s Teacher Education Program was among these projects described, and it was the evaluation of the Level IV portion of MICI's program which con­ stituted the problem under consideration. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design and to delineate the pro­ cedures used in collecting, compiling and analyzing the data. Included in the chapter is a description of the population studied, a definition of the sample selected, a discussion of the instruments used, and a statement of the specific hypotheses which were developed. The problem under consideration was a comparison of the graduates of the Mott Institute for Community Improvement Level IV program based in Detroit with the graduates of the regular, or campus-based, teacher prepa­ ration program. The comparisons were effected by using data gathered by questionnaires submitted to graduates of the two programs and to the principals responsible for monitoring the teachers' instructional performance. In addition to obtaining teachers' and principals' percep­ tions of the amount of cultural shock the graduates encountered in their initial teaching assignment, the 59 60 principals and teachers were asked to rate the teachers' effectiveness in several areas of instruction and commu­ nity involvement. Graduates of the programs were also asked to rate the effectiveness of the preparation program in which they participated while a student in the College of Education at Michigan State University. Selection of the Sample Experimental Group The entire population of Level IV graduates who had completed both the methods sequence and student teaching by September, 1970 were chosen for inclusion in the study. From the time of the program1s inception in the spring of 1966, an average of slightly over 22 students per quarter had successfully completed the Level IV phase of their inner city preparation program. Through the spring quarter of 1970, a total of 267 MSU elementary education majors had spent a significant portion of their teacher training period in the classrooms and communities of an inner city school district as a part of the MICI program. The entire population of Level IV students was sufficiently small to be of manageable size, and it was decided to include each Level IV graduate in the study. Names of the Level IV participants were taken from class lists made available by coordinators of the project. 61 Addresses of the graduates were obtained from the MSU Alumni Office and the MSU Placement Bureau. Question­ naires were mailed, along with a cover letter to elicit cooperation, to each of the 267 subjects comprising the experimental group. Stamped self-addressed envelopes were included with the questionnaires in an attempt to encourage a high rate of response. Of the 267 questionnaires mailed, 18 were returned because of insufficient or incorrect address, 8 were received in incomplete or otherwise unusable condition, and 98 were received in usable form for an effective return rate of 37 per cent. Comprising the experimental group of Level IV graduates were 31 men and 236 women— the 12 per cent male population representing a somewhat higher proportion of males than were included in the control group. No attempt was made to procure detailed information as to the state from which the students originated, but the information furnished by the alumni and placement offices showed that the large majority of Level IV graduates had sought their first employment in Michigan. Two hundred and forty-nine had Michigan addresses, 17 had located in 13 other states, and 1 had a Canadian address. Control Group A control sample was selected at random from the list of all elementary education majors who had received 62 a bachelor of arts degree from MSU during the period spring 1966 through summer 1970. A total of 267 question­ naires were mailed to persons whose names and addresses were obtained from a list supplied by the alumni office. Stamped self-addressed envelopes were mailed with the questionnaires and cover letters. Of the 267 instruments mailed, 12 were returned with insufficient or incomplete addresses, 11 were received in incomplete or otherwise unusable condition, and 102 were returned in usable form for an effective return rate of 38 per cent. Twenty-one males and 246 females comprised the control group, making the males an 8 per cent minority. As was the case with the Level IV graduates, the preponderance of campus-based program graduates had selected Michigan as the state in which to begin their teaching careers. A study of the address list supplied by the alumni office showed 214 members of the control group with Michigan addresses, 52 living in 29 other states, and 1 living in Canada. While the fact itself may not be significant, it is interesting to note that over three times as many graduates of the regular program chose to live outside the state of Michigan as did Level IV graduates. 63 Principal Evaluators Each re-turned teacher's questionnaire was used to obtain names and addresses of principals who would form the experimental and control groups of principal evalu­ ators . Ninety-eight questionnaires were mailed to principals of experimental subjects, 2 were returned in unusable condition, and 55 were received in usable condi­ tion for an effective return rate of 57 per cent. One hundred and two questionnaires were mailed to the control subjects' principals, with 4 being returned in unusable condition and 73 usable instruments being received, representing an effective return rate of 70 per cent. Instrumentation It was determined that any attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the MICI Level IV project would neces­ sitate comparing the finished product of that program to the finished product of the regular, campus-based program. It was then decided that the most practical way to accomplish this comparison between groups would be to interrogate the persons who were most involved in the graduates' performances as teachers— that is, the principals for whom they worked, and the teachers them­ selves. The argument for assessing the teachers in light 64 of their pupils' performance was not overlooked; but the wide dispersion of school districts in which the teachers worked, and the unavailability of reliable, consistent standardized test scores ruled out the using of student test results as a major measurement criteria. Principals' Questionnaire An evaluation by the teacher and another by his principal were seen as the most effective and practical means of assessing teacher performance. Though several readily apparent weaknesses can be pointed out in assess­ ing teacher performance through principal opinion, the fact is that most school systems do indeed use some sort of principal evaluation in determining whether a teacher shall be retained, promoted or dismissed. There were no instruments perfectly suited to the purposes of this thesis, so a questionnaire was constructed for the unique function of gathering data for the study (Appendix b ) . Modeled closely after existing teacher rating forms, the questionnaire was constructed with a Likkert-type scale which gave the principals an opportunity to rate their teachers in the areas of personal characteristics, instruc­ tional skills, teacher-staff relationships, professional attitudes, community relationships, and overall assess­ ment. In addition, the principals' questionnaires sought information concerning grade level of the teacher's 65 assignment; years taught in that school; reasons for departure if not now assigned to that school; socio­ economic and racial composition of the school; and the type of district being served by the school. The question­ naire also asked for an estimation of the amount of cultural shock the teacher endured as perceived by the principal, and whether there were significant differences between the subject's initial teaching performance and that of any other new teacher. If there were perceived differences, the principal was asked on the questionnaire to indicate whether the subject's performance was more desirable or less desirable than that of other new teachers in his building. Several presently practicing and former school administrators were consulted in an attempt to assure that the principals' questionnaire was valid and free from ambiguities. Several changes in wording were made at their suggestion, and one item regarding the teachers' socio-economic background was eliminated entirely. Since the instrument under discussion has not been normed on any population, reliability estimates are non-existent. Every attempt was made to assure that the instrument was clear, concise and easy to answer. 66 Teachers ' Questionnaires One of the major emphases of the MICI Level IV project was to give the program participants sufficient practical experiences so that they would feel confident of performing satisfactorily in their initial teaching assign­ ments . It was determined then that an appropriate measure of the program's success would be to ask the teachers to rate their own performance. Accordingly, a teacher's self-rating questionnaire was constructed, and though no attempt was made beyond field-testing to establish the validity or reliability of such an instrument, it can be argued that of all people involved in rating a teacher's performance, the teacher himself has the most first-hand, if somewhat subjective, data. The lack of objectivity is a problem with any self-rating scale, and attempts were made in this study to ameliorate its out-size proportions by assuring the subject complete anonymity. Though it was necessary to use the teachers' names for addressing and mailing purposes, a coding system was devised so that no identifying criteria were present on the questionnaire form. In-service and former teachers were consulted as to clarity, completeness and comprehensiveness of test items, and a number of their suggestions were incorporated into the final design. 67 A five-point scale was utilized to allow the teachers to rate themselves from "excellent" to "poor" in the areas of personal characteristics, instructional skills, teacher-staff relationships, professional atti­ tudes, community relationships, and overall assessment. An item was included to determine the teachers' tenure in each of four types of school— rural, suburban, urban, and inner city. Other questions asked for information con­ cerning placement for student teaching; present employment if not currently teaching; type of home background; and nature of present school assignment. The teachers were asked to estimate the amount of cultural shock they encountered upon their initial teaching assignment, and to indicate whether they felt their program had adequately prepared them to meet such shock. They were also asked to indicate the amount of effort they expended toward receiving an inner city assignment, and to relate their plans for seeking assignment changes in the near future. As another aspect of program evaluation, teachers of both the experimental and control groups were asked to rank-order the major elements of their teacher prepara­ tion program. Subjects were asked to rank according to the amount of contribution made to teaching competency the following sources: professional education courses, methods bloc, courses in areas other than education, student 68 teaching supervising teacher, student teaching college coordinator, teaching associates, and building principal. Each subject was asked whether he felt his train­ ing had adequately prepared him for a career in teaching. The Level IV graduates were additionally questioned con­ cerning their perceptions of the potential advantages to be gained by participating in a program based in a large metropolitan area. Hypotheses and Related Questions A number of null hypotheses and alternate hypothe­ ses were developed in the study. While the acquisition of instructional skills, the aspiring toward high professional ethics, the development of suitable personality charac­ teristics, and the recognition of the need for good teacher-staff relationships were objectives incorporated into the Level IV course of study, the Mott Institute for Community Improvement initiated its Level IV program with the major objective being to alleviate the amount of cultural shock endured by many first-year inner city teachers. Keeping in mind the stated objectives of the Level IV project, in the following statements of null and alternate hypotheses only those questions dealing with cultural shock, tendency to seek and to remain in inner city assignments, and relationships with the community's 69 disadvantaged will be accompanied by directional hypotheses. In each statement of hypothesis, the term ’’experimental subjects" refers to Level IV graduates, while "control subjects" refers to campus-based program graduates. Hypotheses IA. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' perceptions of the amount of cultural shock they encountered upon entering inner city teaching. IB. Alternate hypothesis: The experimental subjects will perceive that they encountered less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than the control subjects perceived they encountered upon entering inner city teaching. 2A. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the con­ trol subjects' principals' perceptions of the amount of cultural shock encountered by the teachers upon entering their initial inner city teaching assignment. 70 2B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects' principals will perceive that the experimental subjects encountered less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than that encountered by the control subjects, as perceived by the control subjects' principals. 3A. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' perceptions of their preparation to meet cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching. 3B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects will perceive that they are better prepared to en­ counter cultural shock than the control subjects perceive that they are prepared to encounter cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching. 4A. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the con­ trol subjects' tendencies to seek inner city teaching assignments. 4B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects will tend to seek inner city teaching assignments to a greater degree than do the control subjects. 5A. Null hypothesis: No differences will be found between the experimental subjects' and the 71 control s u b j e c t s ' tendencies to remain longer in inner city te a c h i n g assignments. 5B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects will tend to rem a i n longer in inner city teaching assignments than do the control subjects. 6 . Null hypothesis: N o difference will be found betwee n the experi m e n t a l subjects' and the control s u b j e c t s 1 ratings given by principals in the area of "personal characteristics." 7. Null hypothesis: N o difference w ill be found betwee n the e x p e r i m e n t a l subjects' subjects* and the control ratings given b y principals in the area of "instructional skills." 8 . Null hypothesis: No difference w ill be found b e t w e e n the experi m e n t a l subjects' subjects' and the control ratings given by principals in the area of "teacher-staff relationships." 9. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found betwee n the experi m e n t a l s u b j e c t s 1 and the control subjects* ratings given by principals in the area of "professional a t t i t u d e s . ” 10A. Null hypothesis: No difference w ill be found betwee n the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s ' and the control subjects' of (1) ratings given by principals in the areas "involvement w i t h community activities," 72 (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." 10B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects will receive higher principal ratings in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents,” and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." 11. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the con­ trol subjects' ratings given by principals in the area of "overall assessment." 12. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects1 ratings of themselves in the area of "personal characteristics." 13. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects1 and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "instructional skills." 14. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "teacher-staff relationships." 73 15. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "professional attitudes." 16A. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families.” 16B. Alternate hypothesis: Experimental subjects will rate themselves higher than do control subjects rate themselves in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding community needs," of (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." 17. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in "overall effectiveness." 18. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' perceptions of the adequacy of their preparation programs to equip them to teach. 74 Related Questions The attempt to evaluate the Level IV program and the subsequent administration of teacher and principal questionnaires raised several timely questions which were not developed into hypotheses. 1. These are as follows: Of all the phases of the preparation program, what do the Level IV graduates perceive as being the most significant in terms of contribution to their competency in teaching? 2. What areas of preparation do the regular program graduates perceive as contributing most to their teaching competency? 3. What areas of preparation do the Level IV gradu­ ates see as contributing least to their teaching competency? 4. What areas of preparation do the regular program graduates see as contributing least to their teaching competency? 5. Do the principals perceive that Level IV graduates perform differently in their initial assignments than did other first-year teachers? If so, was the performance more desirable or less desirable? What characterized those initial performances which the principals considered as being different? 75 6. Do the Level IV graduates perceive that their program gave them experiences they could not have obtained in the regular program? If so, what are these experiences? Treatment of Data The completed teachers1 questionnaires were placed in one of four categories: (1) Level IV graduates who had their initial teaching experiences in an inner city or urban school; (2) Level IV graduates who had an initial assignment in a suburban or rural school; (3) regular program graduates who had their first assignment in an inner city or urban school; and (4) regular program gradu­ ates whose first assignment had been in a suburban or rural school. Completed principals' questionnaires were placed in the same category as that of the teacher they had evaluated. For the investigation of most hypotheses, the entire group of Level IV graduates were compared with the entire group of regular graduates; but for the purpose of comparing cultural shock encountered in an inner city assignment, it was necessary to eliminate the question­ naires of all teachers whose first assignment had not been in an urban or inner city school. A raw score of from 1 to 5 was entered on a hand tabulation form for each item on each questionnaire. The 76 data were then punched onto IBM data processing cards, which were in turn processed by the MSU CDC 3600 Computer, using the UNEQ1 program, a one-way analysis of variance technique for establishing significance of difference between means. The level of significance of difference was set at .05. Summary All 267 Level IV graduates were surveyed, with the 98 respondents forming the experimental sample. Two hundred and sixty-seven regular program graduates were also mailed questionnaires, with the 102 respondents forming the control sample. Principals of the responding teachers comprised the experimental and control evaluator groups. The instruments used for collection of data were modified forms of a typical teacher evaluation form, with several additional entries to gain personal, socio­ economic and scholastic information. Eighteen hypotheses were formed, with seven of them being accompanied by alternate hypotheses. The hypotheses were tested by using the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory's UNEQ1 routine, a one­ way analysis of variance technique. set at .05. Alpha level was CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Hypotheses Eighteen hypotheses, seven of them accompanied by alternate or directional hypotheses, were prepared in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of graduates of the Mott Institute for Community Improvement's Level IV pro­ gram in comparison to the graduates of MSU's regular teacher education program. Sixteen of the hypotheses were tested using data furnished by the entire number of respondents to the teachers' and principals' question­ naires (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Two hypotheses, those pertaining to the amount of cultural shock endured by teachers upon entry into an inner city teaching assignment, were necessarily limited to those teachers who had actually taught in an inner city or urban school. With the exception of the seven directional hypotheses, each hypothesis was stated in null or test form for the purpose of statistical evaluation. A one-way analysis of variance, with the level of significance of 77 TABLE 4.1.— Summary of the Results of the Teachers' Questionnaires Level IV Graduates Variable N Mean Regular Graduates S.D. N 0.045 3.078 1.256 1/198 35.276 <0.0005 102 3.303 0.853 1/198 45.363 <0.0005 1.348 1.322 102 0.955 1.367 1/198 4.264 0.040 98 1.712 0.499 102 1.754 0.414 1/198 0.432 0.511 Instructional Skills 98 2.051 0.612 102 2.098 0.466 1/198 0.374 0.541 Staff Rela­ tions 98 1.866 0.703 102 1.677 0.658 1/198 3.846 0.051 Professional Attitudes 98 1.938 0.627 102 2.104 0.624 1/198 3.520 0.062 2. Preparation for Shock 98 2.051 1.187 102 Efforts to Find Urban Assignment 98 2.316 1.197 Years Spent in Inner City Teaching 98 Personal' Character­ istics 6. 7. 8. "F" Significance Statistic Probability 4.100 69* 2.275 1.123 5. DF 1/106 Shock Endured 4. S.D. 39* 2.743 1.207 1. 3. Mean Analysis of Variance Table TABLE 4.1.— Continued. Level IV Graduates Variable 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. N Mean Regular Graduates S.D. N Mean Analysis of Variance Table S.D. DF "F" Significance Statistic Probability Community Involvement 98 2.785 1.037 102 3.009 0.999 1/198 2.418 0.122 Understanding of Community Needs 98 2.275 0.822 102 2.588 0.915 1/198 6.440 0.012 Ability to Work With Parents 98 1.898 0.768 102 1.843 0.754 1/198 0.050 0.822 Rapport With Disadvantaged 98 1.869 0.758 102 2.264 0.843 1/198 11.018 0.001 Overall Assessment 98 1.985 0.634 102 2.009 0.477 1/198 0.063 0.801 Adequacy of Preparation 98 3.217 1.418 102 3.641 1.191 1/198 2.379 0.125 ♦Contains data only from graduates whose first assignment was in an urban or inner city school. TABLE 4.2.— Summary of the Results of the Principals' Questionnaires Principals of Level IV Graduates Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. N Mean S.D. Perceptions of Shock Endured by Teachers 37* Personal Character­ istics 55 1.856 0.710 Instructional Skills 55 Staff Rela­ tions Principals of Regular Graduates N 2.2430.925 28* Mean S.D, Analysis of Variance Table DF "F" Significance Statistic Probability 2.321 1.156 1/64 0.091 0.763 73 1.641 0.544 1/126 3.766 0.055 2.060 0.747 73 1.838 0.653 1/126 3.186 0.077 55 1.872 0.927 73 1.600 0.777 1/126 3.270 0.070 Professional Attitudes 55 2.123 0.791 73 1.891 0.828 1/126 2.554 0.112 Community Involvement 55 2.763 0.980 73 2.630 0.905 1/126 0.634 0.427 TABLE 4.2.— Continued Principals of Level IV Graduates Variable 7. 8. 9. 10. N Mean Principals of Regular Graduates S.D. N Mean S.D. Analysis of Variance Table DF "F" Significance Statistic Probability Understanding of Community Needs 55 2.563 0.938 73 2.397 0.908 1/126 1.022 0.314 Ability to Work With Parents 55 2.000 0.942 73 1.917 0.924 1/126 0.243 0.622 Rapport With Disadvantaged 55 2.127 0.883 73 2.191 0.892 1/126 0.165 0.685 Overall Assessment 55 1.963 0.815 73 1.767 0.841 1/126 1.754 0.188 *Contains data only from principals of urban or inner city schools, 82 difference set at .05, was the statistical technique used to test the hypotheses. Hypotheses 1A and IB In hypotheses 1A and IB, the means of ratings of Level IV graduates (experimental subjects) who had had inner city teaching experience were compared with the rating means of campus-based graduates (control subjects) who had also had an inner city teaching assignment. The null hypothesis was: H 1A: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' perceptions of the amount of cultural shock they encountered upon entering inner city teaching. Analysis of the data suggested that statistically significant differences existed in the teachers' percep­ tions of the amount of shock they encountered (Table 4.3). An "F" statistic of 4.100 yielded a probability of significance level of 0.045, and the null hypothesis was rejected. For the purpose of evaluating the teachers' perceived amount of shock encountered in an initial urban teaching assignment, the data for those who had taught first in a rural or suburban setting were deleted. Since one of the stated objectives of the MICI Level IV program was to reduce the effect of cultural 83 shock upon teachers entering inner city teaching, an alternate hypothesis was formed which read: H1B: The experimental subjects will perceive that they encountered statistically significantly less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than the control subjects perceived they encoun­ tered upon entering inner city teaching. Analysis of the data suggested that there were statistically significant differences in the perceived amount of shock the teachers encountered; and the Level IV graduates, or experimental group, encountered less cultural shock upon being placed initially in an inner city teaching assignment (Table 4.3). With an "F" statistic of 4.100, and an alpha level of 0.045, the alternate hypothesis was accepted. TABLE 4.3.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Cultural Shock Endured" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 69 2.275 1.123 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/106 Regular 39 2.743 1.207 up n Statistic 4.100 Significance Probability 0.045 84 Hypotheses 2A and 2B In hypotheses 2A and 2B, the means of ratings given by principals of the experimental group were con­ trasted with the means of scores of principals in the control group. Again, only those persons who had received an initial assignment in an inner city or urban school were considered in the testing of hypotheses 2A and 2B. The null hypothesis was: HQ2A: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' principals' perceptions of the amount of cultural shock encountered by the teachers upon entering their initial inner city teaching assignment. Analysis of the data suggested that there were no statistically significant differences in the principals' perceptions (Table 4.4). Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The Level IV program's objective of preparing its graduates to withstand inner city cultural shock assumed that the principals they worked with would detect and appreciate this increased immunity to such shock. Accordingly, an alternate hypothesis was formed: H2B: Experimental subjects' principals will perceive that the experimental subjects encountered less cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching than that encountered by the control subjects, as perceived by the control subjects' principals. 85 Data analysis indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in the principals' perceptions (Table 4.4). The alternate hypothesis was accordingly rejected. TABLE 4.4.--Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Cultural Shock Endured" Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table Itp H Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 37 2.243 0.925 DF 1/64 Regular 28 2.321 Statistic Significance Probability 0.091 0.763 1.156 Hypotheses 3A and 3B In hypotheses 3A and 3B, the experimental group mean scores were contrasted with the control group mean scores on a question relating to preparation for cultural shock. For these hypotheses, and all subsequent ones, the data collected from all Level IV graduates who responded to the questionnaire were compared to the data submitted by all regular program graduates in the control group. The null hypothesis was: H 3A: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control 86 subjects' perceptions of their preparation to meet cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching. Analysis of the data suggested that there were statistically significant differences in the perceptions of the teachers regarding their preparation to encounter cultural shock (Table 4.5). The analysis of variance produced an "F" statistic of 35.276, which yielded an alpha level of <0.0005. The null hypothesis, therefore, was rejected. Though not all of the Level IV program graduates entered inner city teaching, an aim of the program was to prepare the students to withstand the cultural shock of such an assignment should it occur. It was argued that having the Level IV students undergo a significant part of their training in an urban setting should contribute more to their preparation to meet cultural shock than would the campus-based training. With this in mind, an alternate hypothesis was formed: H3B: Experimental subjects will perceive that they are better prepared to encounter cultural shock than the control subjects perceive they are prepared to encounter cultural shock upon entering inner city teaching. The data analysis indicated that statistically significant differences did exist, and that these differ­ ences favored the experimental group alternate hypothesis was accepted. (Table 4.5). The 87 TABLE 4.5— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Preparation for Cultural Shock” Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table npn Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 2.051 1.187 102 3.078 1.256 DF 1/198 Regular Statistic 35.276 Significance Probability <0.0005 Hypotheses 4A and 4B For the examination of hypotheses 4A and 4B, the experimental group rating means were compared to the con­ trol group rating means on a question dealing with the teachers’ efforts to acquire teaching assignments in the inner city. H0 4A: The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' tendencies to seek inner city teaching assignments. An analysis of the data indicated that there were statistically significant differences between the groups reported efforts to seek inner city teaching positions (Table 4.6). On a scale ranging from 1 to 5, with the lower figure representing the higher effort to acquire placement in the inner city, the Level IV graduates’ responses produced a 2.316 mean as compared to the regular 88 graduates' 3.303. The resultant "F" statistic of 45.363, largest in the study, yielded an alpha of <0.0005. Accordingly, the null hypothesis was rejected. An alternate hypothesis concerning efforts to obtain inner city employment was posed; for another of the MICI Level IV program objectives was to attempt to assure that a higher percentage of its graduates would actively seek assignment to urban schools. The alternate hypothesis was: H4B: Experimental subjects will tend to seek inner city teaching assignments to a statistically significantly greater degree than do the control subjects. Analysis of the data indicated that there were differences, that they were statistically significant, and that the differences favored the experimental group (Table 4.6). The alternate hypothesis therefore was accepted. Hypotheses 5A and 5B In hypotheses 5A and 5B, the experimental group means of scores were contrasted with the control group means on a question relating to the teachers' tendencies to remain in inner city teaching. H 5A: The null hypothesis was There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' tendencies to remain longer in inner city teaching assignments. 89 TABLE 4.6.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates In the Area of "Efforts to Find Urban Teaching Assignments" Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table ••pH Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 2.316 1.197 DF 1/198 Regular 102 3.303 Statistic 45.363 Significance Probability <0.0005 0.853 Data analysis Indicated that statistically significant differences existed between the groups' tendencies to remain In Inner city teaching (Table 4.7). The means displayed in the accompanying table reflect the average number of years each group member had taught in inner city schools. The 4.264 "F" statistic generated an alpha of 0.040, lower than the criterion .05 set for the study. The null hypothesis was accordingly rejected. An objective of the Level IV project was to help its participants acquire those skills and attitudes which would enable them to persist in the face of the difficult circumstances presented by the inner city school. To evaluate the extent to which this objective had been reached, an alternate hypothesis was posed: 90 H5B: Experimental subjects will tend to remain statistically significantly longer in inner city teaching assignments than do the control subjects. As indicated by data analysis# differences which are statistically significant existed, and they favored the experimental group. As a result, the alternate hypothesis was accepted. Though not tested for significance, an interesting accumulation of data presents itself in relation to the guestion of time spent in teaching in the inner city. Of the regular graduates, only 39 of the 102 had accepted an inner city or urban position as their first assignment. These 39 had accounted for 87 per cent of the total years spent by the regular program graduates in an inner city school. Of the 98 Level IV graduates, 69 had accepted an initial assignment in the inner city, and had accounted for 100 per cent of the years accumulated by that group. Every one of the 29 Level IV graduates who had chosen not to accept an initial assignment in the inner city had also not accepted a subsequent assignment there. Proponents of the Level IV project viewed this as a positive factor. They felt that training in the inner city could lead some participants to decide that they were not compatible to conditions there, and therefore would avoid being placed into a failure-producing situation. On the other hand, a survey of the questionnaires revealed that six regular 91 program graduates who had accepted an Inner city assign­ ment had been transferred— four of them at their own request— to a suburban school. TABLE 4.7.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Tendency to Remain in Inner City Assignment" Category Statistics Group Level IV Regular N Mean S.D. 98 1.348 1.322 102 0.955 1.367 Analysis of Variance Table DF upn Statistic Significance Probability 1/198 4.264 0.040 Hypothesis 6 In hypothesis 6, the means of experimental group principals' ratings were contrasted with control group means of principal ratings given on a question relating to "personal characteristics." H 6: The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings given by principals in the area of "personal characteristics.” Data analysis indicated no statistically signifi­ cant differences in ratings given by the principals regarding the teachers' personal characteristics (Table 4.6). The relatively large ”F" statistic of 3.766 92 yielded an alpha of 0.055, which is the nearest to a significantly different rating that the principals gave to the teachers in all of the evaluation areas. It should also be noted here that with the exception of "cultural shock endured" (in which the experimental group rated significantly better), and "rapport with the dis­ advantaged, " the slight differences which did exist favored the control group. For hypothesis 6, the obtained alpha did not exceed the criterion level set for the study; therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.8.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Personal Characteristics" Category Statistics Group N Mean Analysis of Variance Table S.D. Level IV 55 1.856 0.710 Regular 73 1.641 0.544 DF "F" Statistic Significance Probability 1/126 3.766 0.055 Hypothesis 7 The means of scores given by experimental group principals were compared with the means of scores given 93 by control group principals in the area of "instructional skills" in order to test hypothesis H 7: 7, which was: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects’ ratings given by principals in the area of "instructional skills." An analysis of the data revealed that the princi­ pals of one group did not give significantly better instructional skills ratings to those teachers than did the principals of the other group (Table 4.9). The null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.9.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Instruc­ tional Skills" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 55 2.060 0.747 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/126 Regular 73 1.836 iipn Statistic Significance Probability 3.186 0.077 0.653 Hypothesis 8 In hypothesis 8, the means of scores given the experimental subjects by their principals in the area of "teacher-staff relationships" were contrasted with the 94 means of scores given by the control subjects' principals in the same area. H 8: The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings given by principals in the area of "teacher-staff relationships." Analysis of the data indicated that statistically significant differences did not exist, although the alpha of 0.070 yielded by the 3.270 "F" statistic was the second lowest level of significance probability produced by analysis of the principals' responses (Table 4.10). The null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.10.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Staff Relations" Category Statistics Group N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 1.872 0.427 Regular 73 1.600 0.777 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/126 up •• Statistic Significance Probability 3.270 0.070 Hypothesis 9 Means of the ratings given by the experimental group principals were compared with the rating means given 95 by the control group principals in the area of "profes­ sional attitudes" for the testing of null hypothesis 9: H 9: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings given by principals in the area of "professional attitudes." Principals of the two groups gave ratings whose means were not significantly different (Table 4.11). Accordingly, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.11.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Profes­ sional Attitudes” Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table Statistic Significance Probability 2.554 0.112 1|pM N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 2.123 0.791 Regular 73 1.891 0.828 Group DP 1/126 ■** Hypotheses 10A and 10B The means of ratings given by the experimental group principals were compared to the control group principals' mean ratings to test null hypothesis 10A, which was: H 10A; There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental ratings given by the 96 principals in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities/" (2) "understanding of community needs/" (3) "ability to work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." Analysis of the data revealed that in none of the four rating categories did statistically significant differences occur (Tables 4.12 through 4.15). The null hypothesis was therefore not rejected. In the teacher evaluation section of the princi­ pals 1 questionnaire (Appendix B ) , only the category dealing with community relationships was broken into its component parts for item analysis. An objective of the Level IV project was to train its participants to become involved with members of the school community, particu­ larly the disadvantaged families of the community. To evaluate the degree to which this objective was attained, a directional hypothesis was formed: H10B: Experimental subjects will receive higher princi­ pal ratings in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." Data analysis indicated that statistically significant differences did not exist for any of the four categories (Tables 4.12 through 4.15). Alpha levels ranged from 0.314 to 0.685, with only the category "rapport with disadvantaged families" slightly favoring 97 the Level IV graduates. The alternate hypothesis was rejected. TABLE 4.12.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of ''Commu­ nity Involvement" Category Statistics N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 2.763 0.980 Regular 73 2.630 0.905 Group Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/126 "F" Statistic Significance Probability 0.634 0.427 TABLE 4.13 .— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Under­ standing of Community Needs" Category Statistics Group N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 2.563 0.938 Regular 73 2.347 0.908 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/126 "F" Statistic Significance Probability 1.022 0.314 98 TABLE 4.14.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Ability to Work With Parents” Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 55 2.000 0.942 1.917 73 Regular TABLE 4.15i . ~ DF "F" Statistic Significance Probability 1/126 0.243 0.622 0.924 -Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Rapport With Disadvantaged” Category Statistics Group Analysis of Variance Table N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 2.127 0.883 Regular 73 2.191 0.890 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/126 ”F ” Statistic Significance Probability 0.165 0.685 Hypothesis 11 For the examination of hypothesis 11 , the means of the ratings given in "overall assessment" by the experimental group principals were compared with the 99 rating means given by principals of the control group. The null hypothesis w a s : H 11: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings given by principals in the area of "overall assessment.” Analysis of the data indicated that the principals perceived no significant differences between the overall effectiveness of the two groups (Table 4.16); the null hypothesis was therefore not rejected. TABLE 4.16.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Principals of Level IV Graduates and the Principals of Regular Graduates in the Area of "Overall Assessment" Category Statistics Group N Mean S.D. Level IV 55 1.963 0.815 Regular 73 1.767 0.841 Analysis of Variance Table DF "F" Statistic Significance Probability 1/126 1.754 0.188 Hypothesis 12 In hypothesis 12, the rating means of the experi­ mental group in the area of "personal characteristics" were compared to the control group rating means. null hypothesis w a s : The H 12: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "personal characteristics.11 Analysis of the data indicated that the graduates of the two programs did not perceive that significant differences in personal characteristics existed between the groups (Table 4.17). The null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.17.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Personal Characteristics" Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table np n Group Level IV Regular N Mean S.D. 98 1.712 0.499 102 1.754 0.414 DF Statistic 1/198 0.432 Significance Probability 0.511 Hypothesis 13 For the testing of hypothesis 13, the means of ratings given by the Level IV teachers forming the experimental group were compared to the control group's rating means in the area of "instructional skills." null hypothesis was: The 101 H 13: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects1 and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "instructional skills." Data analysis indicated no statistically signifi­ cant differences between the ratings of the two groups (Table 4.18). The null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.18.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Ins truetional Skills" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 2.051 0.612 Analysis of Variance Table DP 1/198 Regular 102 2.098 up it Statistic Significance Probability 0.374 0.541 0.466 Hypothesis 14 The means of ratings given by teachers in the experimental and control groups concerning their percep­ tions of their "staff relationships" were compared for the testing of hypothesis 14, which was: Hq 14: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects’ ratings of themselves in the area of "teacher-staff relationships." Analysis of the data revealed a relatively high "F" statistic of 3.846 which yielded a probability of 102 significance level of 0.051, a thousandth of a point higher than the pre-determined acceptance/rejection level of 0.050 (Table 4.19). It should be noted that the difference favored the control group, one of only two teacher questionnaire variables which did so. Since the alpha level exceeded .05, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 4.19.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Staff Relations" Category Statistics Analysis of Variance Table Itpfl Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 1.866 0.703 DF 1/198 Regular 102 1.677 Statistic Significance Probability 3.846 0.051 0.658 Hypothesis 15 The means of ratings given by the experimental and control groups concerning their "professional atti­ tudes" were compared for the examination of hypothesis 15. H 15: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the area of "professional attitudes." 103 Data analysis revealed no significant differences, and the null hypothesis was not rejected (Table 4.20). TABLE 4.20.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Professional Attitudes" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 1.938 0.627 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/198 Regular 102 2.104 •ipn Statistic 3.520 Significance Probability 0.062 0.624 Hypotheses 16A and 16B The means of ratings given by the experimental group were compared to the control group's mean ratings to test null hypothesis 16A, which was: H 16A: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families." Data analysis indicated that significant differ­ ences which favored the experimental group occurred in two of the categories (Tables 4.21 through 4.24). The differ­ ences in responses to the item concerning understanding of X04 community needs generated an "F" statistic of 6.440 and an alpha of 0.012. On the variable concerning rapport with the disadvantaged, the responses differed at the 0.001 level of probability of significance. Differences in ratings given in "community involvement" also favored the Level IV teachers, but not at a significant level. Reported differences in "ability to meet and work with parents" favored the control group, but again not at a significant level. Though significant differences existed in two of the four categories comprising hypothesis 16A, the presence of differences which were not significant dictates that the null hypothesis not be rejected. For the reasons discussed in hypothesis 10B, an alternate hypothesis was formed, which was: H16B: Experimental subjects will rate themselves higher than do control subjects rate themselves in the areas of (1) "involvement with community activities," (2) "understanding of community needs," (3) "ability to meet and work with parents," and (4) "rapport with disadvantaged families.” Though statistically significant differences favoring the experimental group were found in the areas of "understanding of community needs" and "rapport with disadvantaged families," the alternate hypothesis was rejected for the reasons given above. 105 TABLE 4.21.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level ZV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Community Involvement" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 2.785 1.037 102 3.007 0.999 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/198 Regular "F" Statistic Significance Probability 2.418 0.122 TABLE 4.;22.— ■Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Understanding of Community Needs" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 2.275 0.822 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/198 Regular 102 2.588 0.915 "F" Statistic Significance Probability 6.440 0.012 106 TABLE 4.23.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Ability to Work With Parents" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 96 1.898 0.768 102 1.843 0.754 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/198 Regular "F" Statistic Significance Probability 0.050 0.822 TABLE 4.24.— -Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Rapport With Disadvantaged" Category Statistics Group Level IV N Mean S.D. 98 1.869 0.758 102 2.264 0.843 Analysis of Variance Table DF 1/198 Regular "F" Statistic Significance Probability 11.018 0.001 Hypothesis 17 The means of ratings given by the experimental and control groups concerning their "overall effectiveness" were compared for the testing of hypothesis 17, which was: 107 H 17: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' ratings of themselves in "overall effectiveness." Analysis of the data revealed no statistically significant differences. An "F" statistic of 0.063 produced an alpha of 0.801r and the null hypothesis was not rejected (Table 4.25). TABLE 4.25.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates in the Area of "Overall Assessment” Category Statistics Group Level IV Regular N Mean S.D. 98 1.985 0.634 102 2.009 0.477 Analysis of Variance Table DF Statistic Significance Probability 1/198 0.063 0.801 Hypothesis 18 For the testing of the final hypothesis, compari­ sons were made of the rating means of the experimental and control groups' responses to a question regarding their estimation of the adequacy of their preparation to teach. H 18: The null hypothesis was: There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental subjects' and the control subjects' perceptions of the adequacy of their preparation programs to equip them to teach. 108 Data analysis produced an "F" statistic of 2.379, with a resultant alpha of 0.125, and the null hypothesis was not rejected (Table 4.26). It should perhaps be pointed out that of all items on the questionnaire, the portion attempting to test hypothesis 18 was least free from ambiguities. On page four of the teacher1s question­ naire, item number eight asked: "Do you feel that the training you received in all phases of your preparation program adequately prepared you for your career in teaching?" A subjective evaluation of the comments elicited by the item seemed to reveal a great amount of honesty and insight on the part of both groups of teachers, who apparently were saying that they were somewhat less than adequately prepared. Many qualified their relatively poor ratings on the item (the Level IV group mean was 3.217 and the control group mean was 3.641— the highest and thereby least complimentary means achieved on any of the variables) by commenting that no preparation program could adequately prepare one to teach. A large percentage of the Level IV group went on to say that they felt that they had received better preparation in the MICI project than they would have had they remained on campus for all their training. 109 TABLE 4.26.— Results of a One-Way Analysis of Variance Between the Responses of Level IV Graduates and Regular Graduates In the Area of "Adequacy of Preparation Program" Category Statistics N Mean S.D. 98 3.217 1.418 102 3.641 1.191 Group Level IV Regular Analysis of Variance Table DP npii Statistic Significance Probability 1/198 2.379 0.125 Related Questions Several areas of the Level IV teacher preparation program did not lend themselves readily to comparison by means of analysis of variance. As a result several timely questions were raised which were not developed into hypotheses. Discussion of Questions It seemed appropriate to examine whether the teachers felt that one major phase of their program contributed significantly more to their teaching competency than did other phases. The teacher's questionnaire asked them to rank-order the major phases of learning sources of their undergraduate teacher training programs. of the first four questions were treated from data Each 110 tabulated from the teachers1 rank-ordering of those phases (Table 4.27). Question 1 . What areas of preparation do the Level IV program graduates perceive as being the most significant in terms of contribution to their competency in teaching? Approximately 36 per cent of the Level IV gradu­ ates ranked the methods sequence as having been the most significant phase of their preparation program. The student-teaching supervising teacher was a learning source ranked a close second at 32 per cent, with teaching associates listed a distant third at 17 per cent. Question 2 . What areas of preparation do the regular program graduates perceive as contributing most to their teaching competency? Forty-one per cent of the regular program gradu­ ates felt that the student-teaching supervising teacher had represented the most significant variable in their preparation to teach. An additional 30 per cent had listed teaching associates, while 15 per cent had ranked the category "other" as having contributed most to their teaching competency. The respondents had been asked to specify the nature of "other" contributing factors, and most had pointed to a family teaching tradition or some sort of belief system. If one categorized the program TABLE 4.27.— Results of Teachers' Rank-Ordering of Preparation Program Phases or Learning Sources in Regards to Contribution to Teaching Competency Level IV Teachers Program Phase or Source Professional Education Courses N Times Ranked First Regular Teachers N Times Ranked Last N Times Ranked First N Times Ranked Last 22 4 13 36 4 5 17 4 17 4 17 32 9 41 2 3 25 2 40 17 1 30 2 Principal 1 20 1 11 Other 3 0 15 0 98 98 102 102 Methods Bloc Courses in Areas Other Than Education Supervising Teacher College Student-Teaching Coordinator Teaching Associates Totals 111 2 112 phases Into: (1) services supplied by the university (education courses, methods bloc, other courses, college coordinator), or (2) services supplied by the public schools (supervising teacher, teaching associates, principal), it is interesting to note that the regular program graduates accorded public school-supplied services the top two rating positions, while ranking universityfurnished services at the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh levels. Question 3 . What areas or sources of preparation do the Level IV graduates see as contributing least to their teaching competency? Almost one-half of the Level IV graduates ranked university-supplied services as contributing least to their competency as teachers. Twenty-five per cent ranked the student-teaching college coordinator last, while 22 per cent relegated professional education courses to that position. Question 4 . What areas or sources of preparation do the regular program graduates see as con­ tributing least to their teaching competencies? Just under 40 per cent of the regular graduates rated the college coordinator of student teaching as being least contributory to their teaching competencies; methods and courses in areas other than education tied for second 113 and third least significant while professional education courses received the fourth greatest number of last place rankings. It must be pointed out here that university- supplied services made a clean sweep of the rather dubious distinction of being ranked last. Question 5 . Do the principals perceive that Level IV graduates perform differently in their initial assignments than did other first-year teachers? If so, was the performance more desirable or less desirable? What characterized those initial performances which the principals considered as being different? To examine question five, the principals of both groups were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to the inquiry: "Did you perceive significant differences between the performance of this teacher in his initial teaching year and the performance of other beginning teachers?" If they answered "yes," they were asked to indicate whether the performance was more desirable or less desirable. Of the 73 regular group principals responding to the question­ naire, 34 (or 47 per cent) felt that there were first-year performance differences. Of those 34 who perceived differences, 24 (or 71 per cent) rated the control group as having performed more desirably than other first-year teachers. Fifty-five of the Level IV group principals 114 returned their completed questionnaires, with 23 (or 42 per cent) reporting that they perceived differences in the experimental group's first-year performances. Of those 23 who perceived differences, 19 (or 81 percent) rated the experimental group as having performed more desirably than other first-year teachers. Question 6 . Do the Level IV graduates perceive that their program gave them experiences they could not have obtained in the regular program? If so, what were those experiences? For the purpose of answering question six, the Level IV graduates were asked to respond to items which asked the question: "Do you feel that your methods bloc or student teaching situation provided experiences that were more meaningful than could have been obtained in the campus methods bloc or other student teaching centers?" On a scale from 1 to 5, the graduates responded positively with a mean rating of 1.21 concerning the methods bloc and 1.64 in regards to the student teaching situation. On the question pertaining to whether the participants felt there were positive differences in the Level IV methods bloc, 79 of the graduates marked the response "definitely," 17 said "I think so," 9 replied "I don't know," 3 marked the blank representing "I don't think so," and none answered "definitely not." In regards 115 to whether significantly more meaningful differences in the student teaching situation were perceived, the follow­ ing data were reported: "Definitely"— 65; "I think so"-- 17; "I don’t know"— 9; "I don't think so"— 3; "Definitely not"— 4. If they responded that they felt the Level IV program had provided more meaningful experiences, the participants were asked to indicate what some of those experiences were. No effort was made to categorize and enumerate the responses, but the following list was extracted from the comments section and each item may have been listed by from one to several dozens of the respondents. 1. Higher quality of instructors. 2. Greater understanding of minority problems gained. 3. All areas immediately applicable to the teaching experience. 4. Close rapport and fellowship with other MSU students and coordinators. 5. Better familiarity with school system's resources prior to being placed in that system. 6. Extensive pre-student teaching contact with inner city school children. 7. Program coordinators extremely empathetic. 8. Methods bloc taught in "real-life" urban situation. 116 9. Important and meaningful resource people from the public schools and the community. 10. Reality-based methods instruction. 11. Sharing of problems and successes with other MICI students and coordinators. 12. Smaller classes gave more participation opportu­ nities . 13. Instructors' and coordinators' admitting that discipline problems do exist, regardless of one's teaching competency. 14. Opportunity toview a variety of school 15. More practical situations. (as opposed to theoretical) training. 16. Emphasis on involvement with community, kids, school. 17. Individualized instruction which was not available in campus methods bloc. 18. A chance to escape from the isolation ward (Erickson Kiva)1 19. Opportunities to learn to make home contacts with the school social worker. 20. Actually living in the inner city. 21. Chances to try out teaching skills in a tutoring situation. 22. The best supervising teachers in the state. 117 23. Exposure to minority groups. 24. Involvement in the community school programs. 25. Designing lesson plans and projects with real children in mind. 26. Becoming acquainted with the various community agencies which can help alleviate many of the problems. 27. Enthusiasm of MICI personnel. 28. The time and the opportunity to experiment. 29. Exposure to hard-core realities. 30. Stress on crucial importance of teacher attitudes. 31. Going to camp with a class of school children. 32. Chance to get right into student-teaching because of prior observation and tutoring in that particular classroom during methods bloc. 33. Getting to really know the profs during the bloc. 34. Fear of student-teaching eliminated by work and observation during methods. 35. Meetings with Detroit school officials gave us a "feel" for the administrators' problems. 36. Getting down to the "nitty-gritty" of teaching. 37. Chance to see, feel, taste, hear, smell new environment. 38. An opportunity for me to see that I was not meant to teach in the inner city. 118 39. The open-forum atmosphere— the profs would listen to me I 40. Seeing some of the best— along with some of the worst— teachers in action. 41. MICI classes gave us a feeling of solidarity in a place of alienation. The above listing contains some overlapping i t ems. It also specifies some experiences which the Level IV graduates perceived as being unique to the MICI program which are indeed components of the regular campus-based program. The list does, however, furnish the researcher enough data to subjectively conclude that the MICI Level IV program can and does furnish experiences to its participants which are not made universally available to students on campus. Summary Eighteen null and seven directional hypotheses were tested by a one-way analysis of variance technique. All seven of the null hypotheses tested by data collected from the principals' questionnaires were not rejected; the one directional hypothesis was rejected. Though statistically significant differences were reported in none of the variables considered, the means of the ratings given by the principals favored the control group in all 119 areas with the exception of "perceptions of shock endured" and "rapport with the disadvantaged." The differential between means in those variables favoring the regular program teachers ranged from a low of .083 in "ability to work with parents" to a high of .272 in "teacher-staff relations." In those two areas in which principals gave more favorable ratings to the Level IV graduates, the differences between means were .078 in "perceptions of shock endured" and .064 in "rapport with the disadvan­ taged .” Of the 11 null hypotheses tested by teacher questionnaires' data, four were rejected while four of the five alternate hypotheses were accepted. In the areas "perceptions of shock endured," "preparation for shock,” "effort to seek inner city assignment," and "tendency to remain in inner city assignment" the null hypotheses were rejected and the directional hypotheses were accepted. Half the elements of a fifth hypothesis dealing with community involvement revealed statistically significant differences between the groups, but the null hypothesis was not rejected because of the presence of variables which obtained rating means which were not significantly different. With the exception of those areas dealing with "teacher-staff relationships" and "ability to work with parents," all variables measured by 120 the teacher questionnaire displayed differences favoring the Level IV graduates. The differentials between means ranged from .024 in the area of "overall assessment" to 1.027 in "preparation for shock." Regarding the two variables in which teacher ratings favored the regular program graduates, the "ability to work with parents" variable produced a differential between means of only .055. The means between the groups in the area of "teacher-staff relations" had a difference of .189, and analysis of that variance produced an alpha of 0.051, barely above the 0.050 acceptance/rejection level set for the study. Six related questions which were not developed into hypotheses were examined in light of the data gathered by both questionnaires. Level IV graduates rated the inner city-based methods sequence as having contributed most to their competency as teachers. They rated the college coordinator of student teaching and professional education courses last and next to last, respectively. Regular program graduates ranked the student teaching supervising teacher as having been the most significant element of their preparation program. They also rated the college coordinator last, with the campus methods bloc sharing next-to-last with non-education courses. Princi­ pals rated Level IV graduates less favorably in all the separate variables with the exception of "rapport with the disadvantaged" and "perceptions of cultural shock endured." Eighty-one per cent of the Level IV graduates responded "definitely" to the question regarding their perceptions of the superiority of the Level IV methods bloc; and 66 per cent felt that the student teaching situation offered by MICI "definitely" could not be equalled in other centers. They furnished documentation for their opinions by listing dozens of experiences that they perceived as not being replicatable in the regular program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Universities across the nation responded— somewhat belatedly— >to the metropolitan unrest in the late 1960's by attempting to improve the educational situation of those ghetto-dwellers involved in the disturbances. This study has discussed those efforts which centered around the universities1 attempts at improving the product they were dispensing into the inner city to educate the poten­ tial peacemakers— or anarchists— of tomorrow. Following a general look at other inner city teacher preparation programs across the nation, this study has concentrated on the evaluation of the Michigan State University College of Education's Level IV program, sponsored by the Mott Institute for Community Improvement with a grant from the Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan. No attempt was made to compare the Level IV project to the inner city teacher preparation programs of other universities. The thrust of the evaluation was rather in the direction of determining whether the Level IV program 122 made contributions to the participants' preparation which were not available in the regular, campus-based program. Summary A review of the literature left little room for doubt that in inner city teaching situations unique problems exist which cause a disproportionate amount of teacher failure. Though writers and researchers differ to a large extent as to the major cause of this failure, they are practically unanimous in pointing to inexperience with the culture— cultural shock— as an ever-present factor in the new teacher's lack of success in the inner city school. Almost every project examined had as a major component of its curriculum the extended, meaningful exposure of the prospective teacher to the culture permeating the urban educational milieu. The length of this exposure varied drastically— from as little as six-weeks in one program to almost two years in the MICI Five-Level Preparation Program. The Level IV project accounts for a significant portion— six months— of that time, and the major question approached by this study was "did Level IV make any difference in the preparation of its participants?" Conclusions Based upon the results o£ this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. The alleviation of the cultural shock factor permitted a potentially easier entrance for the Level IV graduates into their first inner city teaching assignment. The teachers reported statistically significant differences between their perceptions of the amount of shock they endured in their first inner city teaching assignment, with the Level IV graduates reporting con­ siderably less shock encountered. Many teachers of both the experimental and control groups chose not to teach in the inner city. They reported suffering little, if any, shock in beginning to teach in their rural and suburban assignments; but Level IV graduates reported significantly better preparation to meet cultural shock should they eventually be placed in an urban or inner city assignment. 2. The Level IV graduates expended more effort to find an inner city teaching assignment than did their campus-trained counterparts. At a statistically significant level of differ­ ence, the experimental group capitalized upon their exposure to inner city teaching, and actively sought jobs in the inner city. Researchers have pointed out that a major factor in a poor teaching performance was the teacher's unwillingness to accept his present assignment. While many regular teachers tended to view their assign­ ment to a ghetto school as a probationary period or as an apprenticeship, Level IV graduates apparently saw the disadvantaged area schools as an opportunity to make a contribution to society. It appears that a major objec­ tive of the Level IV program was met— that of not only training teachers to function in an inner city school, but to give them incentive and the confidence to actively seek employment there. 3. The training they received during their prepara­ tion program seemed to give the Level IV graduates more ability to function and to persist in the difficult situation that is present in most inner city schools. An examination of the data revealed that the Level IV graduates had contributed a significantly longer amount of service to urban and inner city schools than had their campus-trained counterparts. What may be just as important as length of service is their apparently greater stability in regards to tenure in the type of school in which they elected to serve. Of the 98 Level IV teachers who responded to the questionnaire, only five (5.2 per cent) had changed from one type of school to 126 another (i.e. from an inner city school to a rural school, or vice versa)• It is interesting to note that all five of those who changed types of teaching assignments were teachers who had begun in the inner city and had switched to the suburbs. (Four of the five almost apologetically indicated that changes in marital status and subsequent relocation were responsible for the reassignments.) All 29 of the Level IV graduates who had begun their teaching careers in a rural or suburban assignment had remained there; and many of those commented that the MICI project had opened their eyes to the realization that they did not belong in an inner city assignment. Contrasted to the Level IV graduates' relative stability in job assignment is the regular graduates' record. Twelve of the 102 respondents had been involved in changes between types of schools; four of that 12 had changed school types more than once. The total of 16 transfers represents a 15.8 per cent instability rate, as compared to the experimental group's 5.2 per cent. (Three of the 12 involved in the changes indicated that their new assignments had also been due to a changed family situation.) An almost universal appeal by urban schoolmen concerned their wanting to employ teachers who were assured of functioning well in the inner city school over 127 long periods of time. Concurrently, they asked that the sure-fire failure be identified as such (either by him­ self or by his mentors), and be kept out of the inner city schools. The Level IV program seems to have enjoyed a measure of success in training both the teachers who knew they could function well in an inner city school and the teachers who recognized that they couldn't. 4. The training that the Level IV graduates received made them more perceptive of community needs and gave them better rapport with the disadvantaged. Though both groups of teachers reported fairly limited involvement with the community, the data analysis revealed that the Level IV graduates enjoyed significantly better rapport with the community's disadvantaged and understood the community's needs significantly better than did the regular graduates. The perceptions of better rapport are borne out by the principals' ratings. In only three rating areas did the teachers and principals agree as to which group should be ranked first; and both groups agreed that the Level IV students had better rapport with the disadvantaged. 5. The Level IV participants did not enjoy as good teacher-staff relationships as did the regular program graduates. 128 The question of the graduates' relationship with other staff members furnished the area of greatest agree­ ment between responses on the teachers1 and principals1 questionnaires. Both rating groups indicated that the control group enjoyed better relations with other staff members. Data from the teachers1 questionnaires showed that this difference in rating means failed by oneone thousandth of a percentage point of being statistically significant, with the differential favoring the control group. A closer examination of the questionnaire section dealing with staff relationships showed that the source of the control group's rating advantage was the item which asked the subjects to indicate the evaluation of their "relationship with administrators." On the remain­ ing two items comprising the staff relation section— "rapport with co-workers" and "willingness to seek and accept advice"— the average ratings on the teacher's questionnaire favored the Level IV graduates. On the aforementioned section dealing with administrators, how­ ever, the rating means favored the regular program graduates 2.05 to 1.64— means which would have generated a statistically significant alpha level had the items been treated separately. 129 It would not be proper to speculate as to what effect the control group's almost statistically signifi­ cant rating differential in administrator relationships had upon the ratings the principals gave to the teachers. It should be pointed out, however, that both rating groups strongly agreed that the difference favoring the control group did exist. 6. While having time to become significantly better prepared to meet cultural shock; while gaining more understanding of the community and its needs; while becoming more motivated to seek and to remain in inner city jobs; and while growing in rapport with the disadvantaged, the Level IV graduate suffered no losses in the other affec­ tive, cognitive, or skills areas of his training. There was no indication in an analysis of the data that the Level IV students' removal from the campus classrooms had in any way affected their ability to acquire and to use knowledge. Analysis of the items calling for the teachers and principals to rate the sub­ jects in the areas of "knowledge of subject matter," "provisions for individual differences," "evidence of pupil achievement" and so forth revealed no significant differences between the groups. 130 7. Both groups felt that they had been Inadequately prepared to enter the teaching profession. The apparent ambiguity of the question relating to conclusion number seven has been previously discussed. It seems that the majority of subjects from both groups were being extremely candid in responding to the question­ naire items dealing with adequacy of preparation. Means of the ratings given by both teacher groups to the "adequacy of preparation" item were the highest— and therefore the least complimentary— of any of the ratings given on either of the questionnaires. The mean obtained by the Level IV group was 3.217, while the regular group mean was 3.641. Though the more desirable ranking belongs to the experimental group, the 0.125 alpha level does not permit establishment of significance of difference. What appears to be a more representative picture of the graduates' estimation of their preparation program emerges from an item-by-item look at the questionnaire section which asked the subjects to evaluate their adequacy to teach. A substantial majority of those who responded "I don't think so" or "Definitely not" to the preparation adequacy question wrote comments which indicate that they felt that one can never be fully prepared, regardless of the program. To arrive at some estimate of the value the participants placed upon the two programs, 131 the comments were listed in three categories--those comments praising the program, those of a neutral nature, and those condemning the program. Questionnaires of the regular program graduates revealed that 14 per cent wrote positive comments about the regular program, 23 per cent either had no comments or were neutral, and 63 per cent wrote negative comments. On the other hand, the Level IV graduates praised their program at a 54 per cent rate, were neutral in 21 per cent of the instances, and had negative comments 26 per cent of the time. 8. The Level IV graduates were benefitted more by university-supplied training than were the regular program graduates. Since the Level IV participants received approxi­ mately four times as much public schools classroom exposure as did the typical campus-based program graduates, the statement above is seemingly paradoxical. The apparently illogical conclusion emerges from a look at the rank-ordering of program phases by the participants. Level IV graduates rated methods— a university-supplied service— as the area contributing most to their competency as a teacher. Regular program graduates rated student- teaching— a public schools-supplied service— as having been the most significant phase of their preparation. Level IV students pointed to the thorough integration of 132 theory and practice In their methods sequence as having been most helpful. Regular program graduates indicated that, at long last, student teaching gave them the oppor­ tunity to make application of their hoard of theory gained in three and two-thirds years study on campus. 9. Level IV graduates received experiences in their program that they would not have obtained in the regular program. Over 96 per cent of the Level IV project partici­ pants responded "Definitely" or "I think so" when asked if their methods bloc had been different from the regular methods courses. They went on to enumerate dozens of experiences that they felt could not have been replicated on campus. Another substantial majority (82 per cent) said they felt that their student-teaching experience contained elements not available in other centers. Recommendations Virtually every difference which favored one group over another (and all the significant differences favored the Level IV graduates) appeared to be a function of time and/or location. Stated another way, the results indicated that the Level IV graduates were better prepared to go into the inner city because they had spent more relevant time in a more realistic training location. Those 133 variables in which the Level IV graduates accrued significantly better ratings were "shock encountered," "preparation for shock," "tendency to seek inner city assignments," "tendency to remain in the inner city," "understanding of community needs," and "rapport with the disadvantaged.” All the advantages can perhaps logically be assumed to have come from working and learning in the inner city over an extended period of time. Based upon the results of the study and the conclusions drawn there­ from, the following recommendations are made: 1. The College of Education should provide extended and meaningful experiences in the inner city for all of its prospective teachers who desire the experiences. At this writing there admittedly are already provisions for every MSU education major to have at least one involvement in an inner city public school1s on-going operation. That provision, however, is a one day visita­ tion during Education 200. Another program guaranteeing contact with the inner city milieu is the urban tutorial program sponsored by MICI; but that project is at present accommodating only 100 students per quarter and is allow­ ing contact only one-half day per week. Twenty-five students per quarter are inducted into the Level IV program; and another 25 annually enter the Flint Elementary 134 Intern Program, which is designed to place all its participants in the inner city. All elementary methods students observe a classroom one day per week for a quarter, and a varying percentage of those students are placed in inner city schools. A number of both elementary and secondary majors are placed in urban schools for the student-teaching phase of their preparation. Taking into consideration the aforementioned variety of experiences available to the prospective teacher at MSU, it would be incorrect to say that inner city experiences are non-existent. It would be correct, however, to state that aside from the Level IV program and the Flint EIP (and other EIP centers which stress inner city experiences for some students), all the other programs and projects listed above do not meet the "extended and meaningful" criteria. If a substantial proportion of the College of Education graduates are going to find themselves teaching in an urban school they should be apprised of that possi­ bility, and then be given the opportunity to become thoroughly acquainted with the situation prior to accept­ ing a first assignment there. 2. This study should be replicated with the data pertaining to Elementary Intern Program graduates systematically excluded from consideration with control group data. 135 The random selection process for obtaining the control sample inadvertently included Elementary Intern Program graduates as a part of the control group. Since that possibility had not been anticipated in the study design nor detected in the questionnaire field test, there was no provision to separate the EIP graduates from other non-Level IV elementary education certificate holders. It appears that in some areas the inclusion of EIP data weighted some of the results abnormally in favor of the control group. For example, three women teachers who voluntarily identified themselves as Grand Rapids EIP graduates each reported 4.7 years experience in inner city teaching. Further analysis of these data indicates that these three teachers (less than 3 per cent of the regular group) had accounted for 14.1 years (or 15 per cent) of the 97.5 total years of inner city teaching reported by the regular teachers. One can only surmise that there were other respondents to the questionnaire who were EIP graduates but who did not identify themselves as such. The Elementary Intern Program is in no sense a "regular" campus-based program and it can be assumed that the EIP graduates enjoyed most of the same benefits of being "where the action is" while preparing to teach as did the Level IV graduates. Any future study, therefore, which purports to compare the Level IV program to the 136 campus-based program must assure that the data from EIP graduates are at least accounted for, if not excluded. 3. The College of Education should radically alter its degree program in order to permit, if not to force, teacher candidates to spend more time in the public schools. The comment which recurred with most regularity in the questionnaires dealt with the teachers' feelings that most of their meaningful preparation had taken place in the public schools— during student teaching, during methods observation, during September experience, while working as a tutor-teacher aide, while doing an independent study, or while working as a volunteer. In those instances where the questionnaire respondents had taken the liberty to recommend changes in the College, they had been almost unanimous in recommending more practice and less theory; more opportunity to sharpen their natural teaching skills and less talk about the necessity for acquiring those skills; more contact with real children and less anxietyproducing oratory about the initial encounter with these children; in a word: more action and less talk. One would be foolish to assume that his disserta­ tion is the first to conclude that his data justified making the above-mentioned recommendation. One must indeed applaud the efforts already initiated by the 137 College to get its students off the campus and into the schools. One would be remiss, however, in not suggesting that these efforts represent merely a beginning and that those who know— the teachers themselves— are saying give us more, many more, practical experiences. 4. Teacher training institutions should carefully examine their preparation programs to determine whether the various phases are of appropriate duration and in proper sequence. Preparation programs have traditionally called for three and one-half years' study on campus with a culminating 10 to 16 weeks' student-teaching experience. Assuming that the data gathered from the regular program graduates in this study are representative, the partici­ pants in this type of program place greatest value on the student-teaching experience (Table 4.27). This is under­ standable because it represents, in many cases, the first "hands-on" experience for the prospective teachers. Conversely, an examination of the Level IV graduates' data reveals that clinically-prepared teachers tend to view the student-teaching experience as somewhat less important (Table 4.27). These findings are also not surprising, for prior to practice-teaching the Level IV student has already experienced many situations in which he has dealt with youngsters in real life tutoring and 138 small-group Instructional settings. The student-teaching phase therefore apparently assumes its proper role in the preparation of the teacher. That is, it becomes just another properly sequenced laboratory experience for integrating theory with practice— and not the sink-orswim situation facing the campus-trained student who suddenly finds himself "on the firing line." Too many examples exist of the education major who discovers in student-teaching during the last half of his last year that he should not be in education. If colleges would provide a variety of practical experiences (tutoring, teacher aide activities, visitations, observation, etc.) for its students, beginning with the freshman year, pro­ spective teachers would have a firm basis upon which to make decisions concerning entry into the teaching pro­ fession. Student-teaching would then not necessarily be the "trial-by-fire" experience that it represents to the typical teacher candidate. 5. Curriculum for all teachers (especially for the innovative and/or creative and/or idealistic) should include methods of working within the system to change the system. Data from both the teachers' questionnaires and the principals' questionnaires indicated that the Level IV graduates had less rapport with administrators and staff 139 than did the regular program graduates (Tables 4.10 and 4.19). One can only speculate, but it seems that a part of this administrative disfavor may have resulted from the Level IV graduates1 reluctance to accept the status quo; and from their apparently increased willingness to say so. If change is desirable, the teachers must be able to remain in the employ of the school district long enough to effect that change; and must have sufficient rapport with fellow staff members to exert the necessary influence. A course in basic diplomacy, and the knowledge of how to conform to minimal decorum rules, might be useful tools to the teacher who would work for desired change. 6. The Level IV program should be expanded and continued. There appears to be no valid reason to have a limit of 25 persons per quarter entering the Level IV project. If small class size is a prerequisite to success, then the recommendation would be to have as many small classes as would accommodate the needs of the students. Personnel should be added to the Level IV staff as are needed to care for the expansion. College of Education personnel should be released from committee assignments and "research and service" projects in sufficient numbers to staff Level IV (as well as other successful field 140 Instructional units). Detroit Public Schools personnel should be utilized in greater numbers; for their services decrease the college professors1 loads and apparently increase the students1 appreciation for the program. The results of the study indicate that the pro­ gram should be continued. Even if outside resources were to cease to be available, a program which can offer as much as the Level IV project warrants any necessary re­ shuffling of organizational priorities to assure its continuance. College students learn in the real-world and can become better teachers because of it; professors instruct in a "put-up-or-shut-up" situation and can become better educators because of it; and children are favored with potentially better teachers and can become better citizens because of it. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Arends, Robert L. "A Comparative Study of the Graduates of the Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program and the Regular Teacher Education Program." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Boca, Thelma R. "Characteristics of Teachers Related to Inner-City Teaching Preferences." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Boleratz, Julia, and East, Marjorie. "A Cross-Class Experience for Pre-Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, XX {Winter, 1969), i>7 43d. Borton, Terry. Reach, Touch, and Teach. McGraw-Hill, 1970. New Yorki Burton, Warren. "Teacher Education in the Inner-City— Suppositions and Reservations." Urban Education, IV (October, 1969), pp. 195-200, Chuang, Ying C. "CUTE: Cooperative Urban Teacher Educa­ tion Program." School and Community, LV (November, 1968)7 25f f . Clark, Kenneth. "Educational Stimulation of Racially Disadvantaged Children.” Education in Depressed Areas. Edited by A. Harry Passow. New York: Columbia Teachers College Press, 1963. Clothier, Grant, and Lawson, James H. Innovation in the Inner City. Kansas City, Mo.: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory, 1969. Corbally, John E. "Inner-City Teacher Recruitment." School and Society, LCVII (March, 1969), p. 132. Deutsch, Martin, et a l . The Disadvantaged Child. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967. 141 142 Downing, Gertrude, e t a l . The Preparation of Teachers for Schools"in Culturally Deprived Neighborhoods. Flushing, N.Y.: The BRIDGE Project, Queens College of the City University of New York, 1965. Egerton, James. SURVEY; A Lack of Preparation in the Colleges. Southern Education Report, 19^7. Fantini, Mario, et al. Community Control and the Urban School. New YorJc! Praeger Publishers, 1970. Franklin, John Hope. Press, 1968. Color and Race. Boston: Beacon Freedman, Phillip I. "Racial Attitudes as a Factor in Teacher Education." Unpublished paper, Hunter College of the City University of New York, 1967. Friedenberg, Edgar L. "Requiem for the Urban School." Saturday Review, L (1967), p. 93. Fuchs, Estelle S. Pickets at the Gates. New York: Project TRUE, Hunter College, 1965. Haubrich, Vernon. "The Culturally Disadvantaged in Teacher Education." The Disadvantaged Child: Issues and Innovations! Edited by J. L. Brost and G. R. Hawkes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1966. Hawk, Travis L. "Neglected Aspect of Teacher Education for the Disadvantaged." Journal of Teacher Education, XIX (Winter, 1968), pp. 442-446. Holt, John. How Children Fail. Company, 1964. New York: Pitman "Inner-City Teacher Recruitment." School and Society, XCVII (March, 1969), p. 132. Klopf, G . J ., and Bowman, G . W . Teacher Education in a Social Context. New York! Mental Health Materials, Inc., 1966. Kohl, Herbert. 36 Children. Library, 196$. New York: Kozol, Jonathan. Death at an Early Age. Hough ton-Mi'fFlin, 1967 .--- — The New American Boston: 143 Lee, James. "Program Prepares Teachers for the Dis­ advantaged ." Minnesota Journal of Education, XLIX (November, 1968), p. 28. Mazer, Gilbert E. "Attitude and Personality Change in Student Teachers of Disadvantaged Youth." Journal of Educational Research, LXIII (November, 1969) , pp. 116-120. Mengert, Ronald P. "Cleveland-Ohio State Inner-City Project.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1970. Metzner, Seymour. "The Urban Teacher: Saint, Sinner, or Sucker?" Phi Delta Kappan, LI (May, 1970), pp. 489-492. Miller, Harry, and Woock, Roger, eds. Social Foundations of Urban Education. Hinsdale, 111.: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1970. Morine, Harold, and Morine, Greta. A Primer for the Inner-City School. New York! McGraw HiXl, 1970. Morris, John L. "Myths of Ghetto Teaching." School and Community, LVI (October, 1969), pp. 22-24. "Most Interns to Remain in Education." XCVIII (Summer, 1970), p. 270. School and Society, "New Teacher Education Program for Inner-City Schools." School and Society, XCVIII (Summer, 1970), p. 268. Niemeyer, John H. "Importance of the Inner-City Teacher." The Inner-City Classroom: Teacher Behavior. Edited by Robert D. Strom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, Inc., 1966. Passow, A. Harry. "Diminishing Teacher Prejudice." Inner-City Classroom: Teacher Behaviors. Edited by Robert D. Strom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, Inc., 1966. The Perel, William, and Vairo, Philip. Urban Education: Problems and Prospects. New York: David McKay Company, inc., 1^69. "Programs for Change in Education." Mott Institute for Community Improvement, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969. 144 Radomski, J. A. "Student Teaching in Inner-City Schools." Pennsylvania School Journal, CXVIII (February, 19 70 ) , p p . 1 6 5 - 1 6 6 .---------------- Rinehart, Alice D. "Critical Experiences of Initiation Into Teaching Through a Graduate School Teacher Intern Program for Elementary and Secondary Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1969. Rivlin, Harry N. "New Ways of Preparing Teachers for Urban Schools." Teachers for the Disadvantaged. Edited by Michael Usdan and Frederick Bertolaet. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 1966. Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, T O ----- Schrag, Peter. Village School Downtown. Press, 1968. Boston: Beacon Sharp, Alexander. "Intensive Teacher Training Program." The Urban Review, III (December, 1967), pp. 2-3. Sinclair, Ward. "Teacher Preparation for Urban Schools.” School and Society, XCVI (October, 1968), p p . 339'-3'4'0'.---------- Smiley, Marjorie, and Miller, Harry, eds. Policy Issues in Urban Education. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Stone, James, and Schneider, Frederick, eds. Teaching in the Inner City. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, Inc., 1970. Stone, Sonja H. "Chicago's Center for Inner City Studies." Social Education, XXXIII (May, 1969), pp. 528-532. Strom, Robert D. The Inner City Classroom: Teacher Behaviors. Columbus, Onio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966. , and Larimore D. "Predicting Teacher Success: The Inner City.” Journal of Experimental Educa­ tion, XXXVIII (Summer, 1970), pp. 69-77. "Teacher Corps: Most Interns to Remain in Education." School and Society, XCVIII (Summer, 1970) , p. 270. 145 Teacher Education: Issues and Innovation. Washington: The American Association of dolleges for Teacher Education, 1968. "Teachers for the Inner City: Objective of Michigan State University Program." Michigan Education Journal, XLVI (October, 1968), p. £4. Usdan, Michael D., and Bertolaet, Frederick, eds. Teachers for the Disadvantaged. Chicago: Publishing Company, 1966. Follett Walberg, Herbert J . , e t a l . "Effects of Tutoring and Practice Teaching on Self-Concept and Attitudes in Education Students." Journal of Teacher Educa­ tion, XIX (Fall, 1968), pp. 283-291. Warner, W. Lloyd; Havighurst, Robert J . ; and Loeb, Martin B. Who Shall Be Educated? New York: Harper Brothers, 1944. Wisniewski, Richard. Inside View. New Teachers in Urban Schools: New York: Random House, 1968. An ________ . "Urban Teacher Preparation Programs." Social Education, XXXIII (January, 1969), pp. 77-82. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TEACHERS' QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY bast lan sino • M ichigan <8825 COLLHGB O f E D U C A T I O N • ERICKSON HALL January 28, 1971 Dear Michigan State University Graduate: We are in the process of evaluating certain teacher education programs at the College of Education, and would like to enlist your aid in this evaluation. Your name was randomly selected for inclusion in the study, and the information which you submit will be kept in strictest confidence. No individual will be identified by name, school system, or any other identifying criteria. Would you please fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed, stamped envelope as soon as possible? Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to aid in this evaluation. David H . Dean Instructor DD/fb 146 TEACHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE I. Personal Information School Grade School System Principal1s Name zip School Address How long have you taught in: Rural Schools months Suburban Schools^ months Urban Schools months Inner City Schools months In what type of school did you do your student teaching? Rural Suburban Urban Inner City If not now teaching, in what kind of work are you presently engaged? Did you participate in the MIC1 methods and student teaching program? Yes_____ No_____ From what kind of background did you come? Upper Class Upper-middle Class Middle Class 147 Lower-middle Class Lower Class 148 II. Self Evaluation Form Please rate yourself as honestly as possible on the following check list. Key to ratings: (l) Excellent (2 ) Good (T) Average (T) Fair (T) Poor (Please circle the appropriate response) Personal Characteristics Health and V i t a l i t y ................ 1 2 3 4 5 Personal A p p e a r a n c e 1 2 3 4 5 F l e x i b i l i t y ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sincerity 1 2 3 4 5 E n t h u s i a s m ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Instructional Skills Constructive Control of Pupils . . 1 2 3 4 5 Provisions for Individual D i f f e r e n c e s ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Evidence of Pupil Achievement . . . 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Willingness to Seek and Accept A d v i c e ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Knowledge of Subject Matter . . . . 1 Teacher-Staff Relationships Rapport with C o - w o r k e r s Relationship with Administrators . 1 2 3 4 5 Professional Attitude Ethical A t t i t u d e s ...................1 2 3 4 5 Evidence of L e a d e r s h i p ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Evidence of Professional Growth . . 1 2 3 4 5 149 Community Relationships Involvement with Community Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 Understanding of Community Needs . . 1 2 3 4 5 Ability to Meet and Work with Parents 1 2 3 4 5 Rapport with Disadvantaged Families in your S c h o o l .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall Assessment of Teaching E f f e c t i v e n e s s ......................1 2 3 4 5 Summary For this study, "cultural shock" is defined as any and all of the adverse effects of a person's entering an environ­ ment which is markedly different from that to which he is accustomed. 1. How much cultural shock did you encounter upon beginning your first teaching assignment? None Less Than Average Average More Than Average A Great Amount__ 2. Whether or not you encountered cultural shock upon your entrance into your first teaching assignment, do you think your college preparation (including student teaching) equipped you to meet such shock? Definitely 3. I Don't Know I Don't Think So Definitely Not__ In what type of school are you now teaching? Rural 4. I Think So Suburban Urban Inner City____ when you sought your first teaching job, how much effort did you expend toward being placed in an inner city teaching assignment? I indicated that I wanted only an inner city assignment I indicated that I would prefer an inner city assign­ ment 150 I indicated that my assignment didn't matter__________ I indicated that I would prefer a non-inner city assignment________ I indicated that I would accept only a non-inner city assignment________ 5. If you now teach in an urban or inner city school, do you plan in the near future to seek an assignment in a rural or suburban school? Definitely 6. I Don't Think So Definitely Not If you now teach in a rural or suburban school, do you plan in the near future to seek as assignment in an urban or inner city school? Definitely 7. I Think I Don't So _____ Know_ I Think So I Don't Know I Don't Think So Definitely Not Listed on the following page are sources which perhaps have contributed to your competency as a teacher. Please rank them in order of the amount of contribu­ tion to your preparation. (NOTE: "I" indicates most contribution, "8" indicates least contribution.) A. Professional Education Courses (other than methods bloc) B. Methods Bloc C. Courses in Areas other than Education D. Supervising Teacher (in student teaching) E. College Coordinator (in student teaching) F. Teaching Associates G. Principal or Building Supervisor H. Other (please specify)___________________ 151 8. Do you feel that the training which you received in all phases of your preparation program adequately prepared you for your career in teaching? Definitely I Think So I Don't Know I Don't Think So Definitely Not__ (Please Comment if you care to)______________________ (NOTE: The questions below apply only if you were a MICI Project participant.) 9. Do you feel that your methods bloc provided experi­ ences that were more meaningful than could have been obtained in the campus method bloc? Definitely 10. I Don't Think So Definitely Not__ Do you feel that your student teaching situation provided experiences that were more meaningful than could have been obtained in other student teaching centers? Definitely 11. I Think I Don't So Know I Think I Don't So Know I Don't Think So Definitely Not__ If you answered "Definitely" or "I Think So" to either question 9 or 10 please briefly list those experiences which you felt to be more meaningful. APPENDIX B PRINCIPALS' QUESTIONNAIRE M IC H I G A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y ba st l a n s in g • Mi c h i g a n 48S23 COIXBOB O P E D U C A T I O N • B U C K S O N H A LL January 28, 1971 Dear Principal: We are in the process of evaluating certain teacher education programs at Michigan State University, and would like to enlist your aid in evaluating the performance of our graduates. According to our records, the teacher whose name appears on the enclosed form is a member of your staff. The teacher was randomly selected for inclusion in the study, and the information which you submit will be kept in strictest confidence. No individual in the study will be mentioned by name, school system, or by any other identifying criteria. The enclosed evaluation form is a modified version of a typical teacher evaluation report. Will you please fill out the form based upon your observation of the selected teacher's performance? Please return the form in the enclosed stamped, selfaddressed envelope as soon as possible. Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to aid in this evaluation. David H . Dean Instructor DD/fb 152 PRINCIPAL'S QUESTIONNAIRE I . Personal Information Teacher's Name______________________ Grade__________ School System School______________ Years taught in your school: appropriate) 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 (Please circle all 1968-69 1969-70 Is this teacher still in your building? 1970-71 Yes No__ If No, why?________________________________________ II. School Information Socio-economic classification (please give percentage for each) Upper-class________________________ Upper middle-class Middle-class Lower middle-class Lower-class Racial mixture (please give percentage for each) White______________________________ Non-White 153 154 Is your school considered a: Rural school? Suburban school? Urban school? Inner city school?____________________ III. Teacher Evaluation Key to ratings: (T) Excellent (T) Good (T) Average (T) Fair (IT) Poor (Please circle the appropriate response) Personal Characteristics Health and V i t a l i t y ............... 1 2 3 4 5 Personal A p p e a r a n c e ............... 1 2 3 4 5 Flexibility....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sincerity 1 2 3 4 5 E n t h u s i a s m ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Instructional Skills Constructive Control of Pupils Provisions for Individual Differences ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Evidence of Pupil Achievement 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of Subject Matter . 1 2 3 4 5 Rapport with Co-workers . . . 1 2 3 4 Willingness to Seek and Accept Advice ..................... . 1 2 3 4 Relationship with ............ Administrators 1 2 3 4 Teacher-Staff Relationships . 155 Professional Attitude Ethical A t t i t u d e s ................. 1 2 3 4 5 Evidence of L e a d e r s h i p .......... 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 Evidence of Professional Growth . . 1 2 Community Relationships Involvement with Community A c t i v i t i e s ....................... Understanding of Community Needs 1 2 . 1 2 Ability to Meet and Work with P a r e n t s ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 Rapport with Disadvantaged Families in Your S c h o o l .......... 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Summation Overall Assessment of Teacher's E f f e c t i v e n e s s..................... For this study, "cultural shock" is defined as any and all of the adverse effects of a person's entering an environ­ ment which is markedly different from that to which he is accustomed. 1. In comparison to all teachers who began teaching in your building, how much cultural shock did the teacher encounter upon beginning teaching in your school? (Please check appropriate response.) None 2. Less Than Average Average More Than Average A Great Amount Did you perceive significant differences between the performance of this teacher in his initial teaching year and the performance of other beginning teachers? Yes_____ No_____ (If you indicated "Yes," please state briefly whether the performance was more desirable or less desirable, and in what areas this performance varied.)