INFORMATION TO USERS

This malarial was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large dieet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photograph/' may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

University Microfilms International
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA
St John's Road, Tyler s Green
High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP 10 8HR

I
I

77-18,497
KIER, Milton Glen, 1930THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A PROFILE
OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS IN
MICHIGAN.
Michigan Staxe U n iversity, Ph.D., 1977
Education, adult

Xerox University Microfilms ,

@

1977

MILTON GLEN KIER

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A PROFILE OF
COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS
IN MICHIGAN
By
M ilton G. Kier

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
1n p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements
fo r the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1977

ABSTRACT

THE DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A PROFILE OF
COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS
IN MICHIGAN
By
M ilton G. Kier

The content of th is d issertation deals with only one
o ffic e 1n the massive, complex, educational bureaucracy.

The

o ffic e is th a t of adm inistrator of community education w ithin those
d is tric ts 1n the State of Michigan which have community education
programs.

The study covers a very lim ited part of the educational

enterprise.
The intention 1n th is research has been to c o lle c t demo­
graphic as well as subjective data from which a description of the
population could be compiled.

These data, tabulated and displayed,

show a p ro file of community education adm inistrators.

The p ro file

is a graphic representation of various characteristics of community
school adm inistrators.
The p ro file reveals some commonalities among administrators
however, the p ro file does not provide evidence that there 1s a base
or pattern of experience or train in g which, I f rep licated , would
make successful function predictable.

Conclusions are based on a

lack of constancy in the characteristics of administrators as well
as the absence of relationships between variables.

H ilto n G. K ier

Why persons with such divergent train in g backgrounds and
values are hired to administer community education Is a question not
considered 1n th is study.

However, i t would be useful to discover

what hirin g c r ite r ia are employed, and i t 1s hoped that this and
other Implications and recommendations w ill be the basis fo r furth er
research.

Dedicated to the furtherance of community education, a scien­
t i f i c application o f learning by, fo r , and because o f people; spe­
c if ic a lly to Donna L. K1er, n\y w ife , who personifies community
education through her own scholarly e ffo r ts , her commitment to
service, and her refusal to endorse mediocrity while contributing
tire le s s ly to community welfare as a nurse, teacher, mother, home­
maker, and counselor.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

How does one acknowledge those countless persons whose asso­
ciations over twenty years have added and subtracted In subtle,
frequently p o sitiv e, sometimes negative ways to a dissertatio n being
completed today and to other research to be completed tomorrow or
next year?

Tutor and tutored come to mind.

I must select some.

I cannot name a l l , yet

I must recognize 1n a f u ll measure the Impact

of much association before the l i s t 1s begun.
Jean Sloan, a colleague and neighbor, assisted much In early
soundings and la te r revisions of the questionnaire and with the c i r ­
culation and co llectio n techniques.

Professors Floyd Parker, Edmund

Alehin, Sheldon Cherney, Stanley Wronski, and Russell Klels con­
tributed repeatedly through discussions, suggestions, and a con­
stant press fo r academic re s p o n s ib ility .

I g ra te fu lly acknowledge

the constant support and challenge from these mentors.
Both Kelley Wlnsett and Keith Lindquist I recognize for
th e ir untiring e ffo rts 1n programming and p rin tin g the volumes of
data.

Donna K1er, Barbara Morency, and Sue Cooley deserve c re d it

for the c le ric a l tasks which have been repetitious and lengthy.
s im ila rly thank Kathryn McCracken for her s ty lis tic and e d ito ria l
c riticism s .

111

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES

. .

v1i

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................v i l i
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

PURPOSE.............................................................................................

1

Origin of This S t u d y ............................................................
Importance of S tu d y ................................................................
The Research Questions ........................................................
Delim itations ............................................................................
D efin itio n of Terms . .
....................................................
Organization of the Remainder of theDissertation . .

1
2
4
6
6
8

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................

10

Community Defined ....................................................................
Community Education Defined ................................................
Continuing/Community Education ........................................
Community-Education Administrator (D irector)
D e fin e d ...................................
Further Background to Questionnaire Items .......................
Related Research ....................................................................
Analysis Precedents ................................................................

10
12
15
17
19
21
22

DESIGN OF THE STUDY.....................................................................

24

Variables Considered and Items Selected ........................
V a r ia b le s ....................
Description of the P o p u la tio n ............................................
Procedure U s e d ........................................................................
Some Sources of Error and L im ita tio n s ............................
Strategies fo r A n a ly s is ........................ ...............................

24
24
25
28
29
30

THE FINDINGS DISPLAYED: AN ITEM-BY-ITEMSUMMARY . . . .
Demographic Description ........................ . . . . . . . .
D is tr ic t Population ............................................................
D is tric t Enrollment and Potential . . . .......................
Enrollment Increases/Decreases ....................................
1v

31
31
31
33
33

Chapter

V.

Page

Time Spent on J o b ................................................................
A g e ............................................................................................
S e x ............................................................................................
Years 1n D i s t r i c t ...............................................................
Years 1n Community-Education Administration . . . .
Teacher C e rtific a tio n ........................................................
Teaching Majors and Minors ...........................................
Semester Hours of Training ...........................................
Policy Statements (Existing/D esired) ............................
D efin itio n o f Community Education ....................................
Sources fo r Planning and Analysis ....................................
Nature of Commun1ty-Educat1on Programs ........................
Professional Publications Read Regularly ................
Membership in Professional Organizations ................
Decision Making ....................................................................
Inter-Agency Cooperation ................................................
Time of Program Offerings ................................................
Scope of Class Offerings (Handicapped and E ld e rly ).
High School Completion ....................................................
In-Service Training ................................................................
Methods of Instruction ........................................................
Use of C o m p uters................................................................
Promotion of Programs ............................................................
Costs of P ro m o tio n ............................................................
Comparison o f Variables ........................................................
Summary of P r o f i l e s ................................................................

35
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
41
43
45
45
45
47
48
50
52
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
58
63

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................

66

Summary of the S t u d y ............................................................
The Problem
................................................................
The Study P o p u la tio n ........................................................
Method of Gathering D a t a ................................................
F in d in g s ....................................................................................
Group A ....................................................................................
Demographic Data Summarized ........................................
Statement of P o lic y ........................................................
D efin itio n o f Community Education ............................
Sources fo r Planning and Analysis ............................
Nature of Community-Education Programs ................
I n - S e r v i c e ........................................................................
Modes of I n s t r u c t i o n ....................................................
Promotion of Programs....................................................
Group B ....................................................................................
Demographic Data Summarized ........................................
Policy Statements .
....................................................
D efin itio n o f Community Education ............................
Sources fo r Planning and Analysis ............................

66
66
68
68
70
70
70
71
71
72
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76

v

Chapter

Page

Nature of Community-Education Programs ................
I n - S e r v i c e ........................................................................
Modes of I n s t r u c t i o n ....................................................
Promotion of Programs ....................................................
S im ila ritie s Between Group A and Group B ....................
Differences Between Group A and Group B ........................
Conclusions/Implications/Recommendations ....................
Conclusions............................................................................
Implications ........................................................................
Recommendations ....................................................................
Need fo r Further S t u d y ........................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY

................................................................................................

vi

77
78
78
78
78
79
80
80
82
82
83
84

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

D is tr ic t Population

....................................................................

32

2.

Time Spent on Job (% R e s p o n s e s )............................................

36

3.

Policy S t a t u s ................................................................................

42

4.

Periodicals Read Regularly

........................................

47

5.

Membership In Organizations

...................................................

48

6.

Promotional Expenses ....................................................................

60

7.

Training/Decision Making ............................................................

61

8.

Tra1n1ng/Class Offerings ............................................................

62

9.

Percentage o f Each Group Responding to Each
Response Choice ........................................................................

64

v11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1.

D is tr ic t Enrollment/Potential

.

34

2.

A g e ....................................................................................................

37

3.

Years in D i s t r i c t ........................................................................

38

4.

Years 1n Corrmunity-Education A d m in is tr a tio n ....................

39

5.

Teaching Majors/Minors ................................................................

40

6.

Semester Hours of Training ........................................................

41

7.

Sources of Planning D a t a ............................................................

46

8.

C itizen Advisory Groups

............................................................

49

9.

Agency C ooperation........................................................................

51

10.

Outlets fo r P ro m o tio n ...............................................................

59

vi 11

............................................

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE

This descriptive, analytical study of community-educatlon
administrators sought:

(1) to discover whether there are common

demographic as well as functional t r a its among community-educatlon
administrators throughout the state of Michigan; (2) to determine
whether the same tr a its are present among community-educatlon
administrators In the F lin t, Michigan, d is tr ic t as a separate
group; (3) to compare and contrast the statewide population with
the F lin t respondents; and (4) to ascertain whether such compari­
sons suggest directions which practitioners might follow In th e ir
own training and in other professional pursuits.
F lin t 1s used as a comparison group because the program 1n
this d is tr ic t has received national acclaim as a model of communityeducatlon programs and because these administrators are supervised
by a superintendent of community education.
has w ritten policy governing the program.

Moreover, the d is tr ic t
Such uniformity Is not

found to the same extent in other d is tr ic ts .
Origin of This Study
This researcher Is a community-educatlon administrator whose
associations with colleagues have revealed a s ta rtlin g variety of
backgrounds, viewpoints, and programs.
1

The variety 1n programs was

2

not surprising because the enterprise, community education, seems
to require such d iv e rs ity .

However, th is w rite r was astonished a t

the considerable d iv e rs ity In viewpoint and background he observed
among Individuals responsible fo r the adm inistration of communityeducatlon programs.

Seemingly, such adm inistrators should have

certain common train in g and experience to administer such programs.
Moreover, such s im ila ritie s might be more pronounced In a c ity lik e
F lin t, Michigan, where a comnon policy and supervision e x is t.

The

researcher sought to te s t these assumptions by searching fo r certain
common demographic and functional t r a its among community-educatlon
administrators throughout Michigan and, s p e c ific a lly , w ithin F lin t .
Importance of Study
Why is i t important to study the community-educatlon adminis­
trator?

Because l i t t l e is known about the position of communlty-

education adm inistrator except th a t programs called community
education are in existence, are expanding, and are administered by
individuals who are given a t i t l e associated with the job.
A review of the lite r a tu r e on community-education adminis­
trato rs showed no research or major publications re la tin g to this
position.

This absence of information regarding convnunity-educatlon

adm inistrators, while community-education programs continue to
expand, seemed to underscore the importance of th is Investigatio n.
National reports show that one in every th irteen persons,
aged seventeen or above, was enrolled In part-tim e formal education
in 1957.

In 1973, th is ra tio was Increased to one in eig ht.

Authorities estimate th a t, counting a c tiv itie s fo r which no

3

enrollment 1s necessary, one In every four Americans undertook some
form of adult education 1n 1973.1
Such p articipation 1n community-educatlon programs has been
preceded and accompanied by federal and state government support.
Since funding under the Purnell Act of 1924 to state colleges of
a gricu ltu re, hundreds of studies have examined the needs of the rural
p
population and other adults.
Numerous federal acts, from the
f i r s t M o rrill Act in 1862 to the Adult Education Act of 1966, have
authorized grants to states fo r the encouragement and expansion of
educational programs fo r adults.

In Michigan, community education

has become a beneficiary of foundations and of individuals such as
Charles C. Mott, a n ationally known philanthropist.

Lives and

fortunes have been devoted to the task.
Michigan statutes pertaining to community education, cover*
ing only the years 1970 through 1972, are evidence of the legal
base for community Involvement.

Section 377 of Act number 72 of

the Public Acts of 1970 pertains to neighborhood f a c ilit ie s pro­
je c ts .
ters.

Section 388 of Act 39, 1970, pertains to neighborhood cen­
Act 258 of 1972, and others antecedent to th is , deal with

state aid fo r elementary and secondary programs that include adults.
In Michigan the need fo r comnunity adult-educatlon program­
ming has been emphasized by Russell Klels of Michigan State Univer­
s ity , who wrote that of approximately fiv e m illio n people In
^U.S. News and World Report 74 (April 2, 1973): 73.
2
Edmund Brunner, The Growth of a Science (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957), preface.

4

Michigan, two out of every fiv e never attended high school and one
3
out of every fiv e attended high school but did not graduate.
Thus the lack o f research dealing with comnunlty-education
administrators 1n the face of growing c itiz e n p articip atio n 1n and
need fo r such programs suggests the significance of th is study.
Federal and state funding, designed to assist citizen s 1n need of
community education, also underscore the Importance of th is Inves­
tig atio n .
The Research Questions
This study sought the answers to the following questions
dealing with community-educatlon administrators and th e ir programs.
1.

What 1s the demographic description of communityeducation administrators in Michigan?

2.

What is the demographic description of communityeducation administrators in F lint?

3. Do the d is tric ts of community-educatlon administrators
in Michigan provide them with policy statements by
which to guide th e ir programing?
4. Do the d is tric ts of community-educatlon administrators
1n F lin t provide them with policy statements by which to
guide th e ir programming?
5.

How do community-educatlon administrators in Michigan
define community education?

^Russell K leis, "The Post-Twelfth Grade Comnunlty Education
Co. and Coordination of E ffo rt Among Community In stitu tio n s 1n
Continuing Education and Some Random Thoughts" (East Lansing: Michi­
gan State University, 1967), p. 1. (Mimeographed.)

5

6.

How do community-educatlon adm inistrators 1n F lin t
define community education?

7.

Do community-educatlon administrators In Michigan draw
from sources other than themselves fo r planning and
analysis?

8.

Do community-educatlon administrators In F lin t draw
from sources other than themselves fo r planning and
analysis?

9.

What 1s the nature of community-educatlon programs 1n
Michigan?

10.

What 1s the nature of community-education programs In
F lin t?

11.

Do community-educatlon administrators 1n Michigan pro­
vide or require special train in g fo r teachers in th e ir
programs?

12.

Do community-education administrators 1n F lin t provide
or require special train in g fo r teachers in th e ir
programs?

13.

What methods of teaching are u tiliz e d by fa c u lty super­
vised by community-educatlon administrators In Michigan?

14.

What methods of teaching are u tiliz e d by fa c u lty super­
vised by community-educatlon administrators 1n F lint?

15.

Do community-educatlon administrators In Michigan pro­
mote th e ir programs?
they use?

I f so, what means of promotion do

6

16.

Do community-educatlon administrators In F lin t promote
th e ir programs?

I f so, what means of promotion do they

use?
17.

What s im ila ritie s are evident between the statewide and
the F lin t responses?

18.

What differences are evident between the statewide and
the F lin t responses?
Delim itations

This research does not attempt to measure the effectiveness
of individual community-educatlon adm inistrators.

The study focuses

p rim arily upon the development of a p ro file of Michigan and F lin t
community-educatlon administrators and a comparison between the two
groups.

Not a ll of the variables which could form part of a des­

crip tion of a community-education adm inistrator are included.
Perhaps the most c r i t i c a l , delim iting fac to r In th is study
is the selection of variables.

Although the process employed in

selecting and rejectin g variables is described In Chapter I I I , the
method of selection ought to be Included here.

Only those v a ri­

ables which were considered relevant to this study by the t r i a l
group which responded to the questionnaire were included.

Thus,

variables such as ethnic background, religious persuasion, and cer­
tain others were omitted from the study.
D e fin itio n of Terms
There are four terms used In this study which need to be
Id e n tifie d and defined.

7

Community:

With some v a ria tio n , due p rim arily to d is t r ic t

overlap or c e n tra liz a tio n , legal K-12 school d is t r ic t boundaries
serve as community e n title s .

There are 602 such d is tric ts 1n Mich­

igan, although fewer than one-half of these have community-educatlon
programs.

There is Indication from the questionnaire returns to be

discussed la te r that a trend toward cooperative e ffo rts crossing
d is t r ic t , county, or even regional boundaries may be emerging.

This

trend has been, in fa c t, reported by several respondents who in d i­
cated that th e ir responses covered the adm inistration of cooperative
e ffo rts previously administered by two or more persons.

I t has also

been Indicated, and Is evidently general practice throughout the
s tate, that enrollments are seldom, 1f ever, lim ited to residents
of a d is t r ic t .

Programs conducted by these community-educatlon

administrators transcend geographic and legal boundaries of community.
Community Education:

This term applies to education programs

which function in addition to the common K-12 and college programs.
Community-education programs may enroll persons who also attend
K-12 or college and may be administered cooperatively with elemen­
tary and secondary schools or colleges, but the program Is p rim arily
designed for out-of-school persons, most commonly adults.

The

planning must be fo r those persons who wish to complete th e ir basic
or high school education, to re tr a in , to acquire leisu re-tim e s k ills ,
to seek social or physical o u tle ts , or to expand cu ltu ral horizons.
Common application of the term Includes continuing education, adult
basic education, high school completion, and Ie1sure-t1me programs.

8

Other designations may be employed 1n some cases.

"Adult education"

is frequently used as an encompassing term.
Community education is highly p lu r a lis tic , Includes every
degree of s k ill development and knowledge acq u is itio n , and uses a ll
sources of assistance toward a ttain in g It s ends, from random experl4
ence to purposeful, systematic learning.
Community-Education Adm inistrator:

This t i t l e s ig n ifie s per­

sons, frequently called d ire c to rs , who supervise community education
on a part-tim e or fu ll-tim e basis, and who are usually located in a
middle-management position in the community hierarchy.

The adminis­

tra tiv e re s p o n s ib ilitie s of th is o ffic e are comparable to those o f
a K-12 school p rin c ip a l.
P r o file :

The "p ro file " is a graphic as well as a verbal

picture o f twenty-four variables as re flec te d in the responses from
the population studied.

I t is a "graphic or numerical representa­

tion of various characteristics o f a person or thing indicated in
or as on a set of p a ra lle l lin e a r scales; a personality p ro file ."®
Organization of the Remainder of
the Dissertation
In Chapter I I , lite r a tu r e pertaining to community, systems,
and research dealing with topics or procedures relevant to th is study
w ill be reviewed.
4

Chapter I I I w ill describe the study design, the

Burton W. Kreitlow , "Research in Adult Education," 1n
Handbook of Adult Education in the United States, ed. M. S. Knowles
TChicago: Adult Education Association of the U .S.A ., I9 6 0 ), p. 5.
5
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary (New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, In c ., 1 9 ^ ) , p. T076.

9

population, the questionnaire, and research procedures.
w ill present the data.

Chapter IV

Chapter V w ill provide a suntnary o f the

study, conclusions, Im plications, and recommendations.

CHAPTER I I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter w ill examine several d efin itio n s of community
from which the d e fin itio n used in th is study is derived.

D e fin i­

tions of conmunlty education, adult education, and continuing
education are also presented.

Reference is made to adult learning,

to treatises on community-education adm inistrators, and to other
works contributing to Items in the questionnaire which was used in
this study.
As is necessary with the use of many sociological terms,
these definitions have been shaped into a working d e fin itio n to f i t
the demands of th is specific study without Intending to v io late the
basic use of the symbols.

I t is recognized that controversy exists

re la tiv e to use of these words in certain , very r e s tric tiv e ,
contexts; therefore, th e ir use here is under stated lim its and no
attempt is made to resolve the controversies.

I t is thought best to

use symbols which do e l i c i t fa m ilia r generalizations and then refine
these generalizations rather than to invent new symbols.
Conwiunity Defined
Minar and Greer present a comprehensive, yet concise,
d e fin itio n of community which is general enough to avoid most of

10

11
the con flicts In the use of the term yet precise enough to serve
the needs of this study.

I t is

. . . a complex abstraction . . . in one sense, ecological,
1t may be only an assemblage of creatures in a given t e r r i ­
to ry. In another way i t may mean a social organ in a con­
centration of Individuals. Community Is em pirically des­
c rip tiv e of a social structure and normative toned. I t refers
to the unit of society as I t 1s and to the aspects of the unit
that are valued I f they e x is t, desires I f they are absent.
Community 1s In d iv is ib le from human actions, purposes and
values. . . .1
. . . A community consists o f a group or company of people
liv in g f a ir ly closely together 1n a more or less contiguous
te r r ito r y , who are coming to act together 1n the chief con­
cerns of l i f e . Sanderson adds, "The community is composed
of the people within a local area; the land they occupy Is
but the physical basis of the community; whether or not the
people liv e closely w ill depend upon the geographical character
of the te rr ito ry In which they l i v e . "2
Others [authors] stressed the psychological aspects of commu­
n ity . Wakely . . . concluded that an area became a community
when because of conmon Interests people had subscribed to com­
mon purposes from which common lo y a ltie s arose.3
Sim ilar Insights by other authors were presented In
Chapter I In conjunction with the d e fin itio n of community used In
this study.

With these statements as background, the legal school

d is tric ts within the state of Michigan do q u a lify as communities,
even though 1n a majority of cases such communities, having common
purposes, requiring common services, and sharing other dimensions
Included In the d efin itio n s above, may In turn have other communi­
ties within th e ir boundaries.
^Edmund Brunner, "Defining the Community," In The Growth of
a Science (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 4-?.
2

Dwight Sanderson, Locating the Rural Community. Cornell
University Extension B u lletin 413 (Ith aca, New York, 1939).
3
Ray E. Wakely, The Communities of Schuyler County, New
York (Ith aca, New York: Cornell University AES, 193*1).

12

Community Education Defined
Is conmunity education d is tin c tiv e as compared w ith , fo r
example, general elementary and secondary education or higher educa­
tion?

The following d e fin itio n s are presented in support of an

a ffirm a tiv e response.
Community education has the potential to Influence coor­
dination of a ll educative forces in the community fo r solving
human problems. I t is multipurpose in nature and capable of
activating dimensions o f learning not previously in general
use th a t w ill strengthen the fa ith of people in th e ir a b ilit y
to f u l f i l l th e ir individual wants and needs.
. . . The community education concept sees the e n tire com­
munity as the school— the learning laboratory. The classroom
and lib ra ry serve as resources to help individuals learn how
to cope with l i f e as i t Is and not with a world that used to
be. The whole Idea of community education 1s that 1t estab­
lishes a situ atio n conducive to freedom to learn— to learn how
to solve human problems, as well as to gain knowledge. I t
recognizes the fa c t th a t real s tu ff In l i f e is 1n the people
in the community.
Community education emphasizes in every dimension that
learning must be useful. I t must be relevant to human need.
I t is grass roots in nature in addition to the knowledgegaining objective. Community education is concerned with help­
ing people learn such basic s k ills as how to e ff ic ie n tly buy,
prepare, and conserve food; how to maintain good health; how
to rear children; how to prepare to obtain and hold a job; how
to re tra in fo r a new job; how to liv e happily with neighbors;
and how to contribute to community improvement.
Since social problems are born of the acts of men they
must be solved by the acts of men. Community education has
power to cause people to ris e to responsible behavior. By
this method, the educational e ffo r t of a conmunity becomes a
concert, a team performance which pulls a ll fragments together.
The educational establishment 1s composed o f the school house,
the museum, the lib r a r y , the th e a te r, the church, the YMCA,
the YUCA, the scout programs, a ll of the communications media,
business and in d u strial enterprise, agencies of government, a ll
volunteer organizations and agencies, and homes. This concept
changes the tra d itio n a l scholastic establishment into an educa­
tional system. *
4
W. Fred Totten, "Community Education— Best Hope fo r Society,"
School and Society 98 (November 1970): 410-11.

13

Adult education is encompassed within the term community
education as employed 1n th is research.

A d e fin itio n presented by

Robert Blakely stresses the adult dimension and strengthens the
description given by Fred Totten.
D efinitions of adult education in the United States are as
multitudinous as the autumn leaves, y et none s a tis fie s many
persons engaged in i t . The d if fic u lt ie s are in both the
phrase and the r e a lity .
Education, by its root, implies a "leading out." The
meaning is clear when the relationships are between mature
persons and immature persons. The meaning is not clear when
the relationships are between mature persons in a world where
the present changes before we can grasp i t and the only safe
prediction 1s that the future w ill be d iffe re n t.
And what is an adult? On the one hand, we d ra ft young
men before we give them the vote. On the other hand, a
genious lik e Einstein expressing unpopular opinions is lia b le
to be called "immature."
Put the two words together, and you have the semantics of
adult education.
Now le t's glance at the r e a lity .
In complexity, adult education traverses every degree from
the most simple to the most advanced. In purpose, adult edu­
cation traverses every degree of education as an end in i t s e lf
to education solely as a means to other ends.
Does this sound invidious? There is a th ird dimension.
One of the persons learning the English alphabet is a d is­
tinguished refugee from tyranny with a passion to liv e fre e ly
in the United States. One of the persons going beyond the
fro n tie rs of knowledge is noted fo r his ignorance in a ll
fie ld s except his specialty. Another going beyond the frontire s in his own f ie ld is simultaneously studying the ru d i­
ments in a second f ie ld .
One person learning fo r the sake of learning is neglect­
ing his fam ily; another is doing so to keep his balance amid
the impact of practical a ffa ir s . One of the persons learning
as a means fo r doing a b etter job is a co u n terfeiter; another
is a member of Congress.
Even th is Is n 't a l l . Some a c tiv itie s are called adult
education which should not be, and some of the best examples
of adult education are not so regarded by those engaged 1n
them.
How can one say “should not be"? Well, surely there are
lim its . I ' l l suggest two. F ir s t, adult education implies
purposeful systematic learning, in contrast to random unex­
amined experience; that is , i t contains elements of science
and a r t. Second, adult education implies a respect fo r the

14
purposes and In te g rity of the learner, In contrast to
attempts to fo o l, cheat, or e x p lo it; that Is , I t has an
e th ic . . . .
The pluralism o f adult education 1n the United States
re fle c ts American l i f e . Let us look at adult education again,
th is time with respect to Its In s titu tio n a l auspices, subject
m atter, methods, "teachers," and c lie n te le .
Adult education is carried on by established educational
In s titu tio n s , from elementary schools through u n iv e rs itie s .
Much 1s formal, but perhaps even more—c e rta in ly an Increasing
percentage--Is inform al.
Adult education Is carried on by Informal educational
In s titu tio n s , such as lib r a r ie s , museums, theaters, orches­
tra s , etc. These are becoming more aggressive and s k i l l f u l .
Adult education 1s carried on by our social organizations
— corporations, unions, government agencies, etc. Some of this
is "within the fam ily," some 1n co-operation with education
In s titu tio n s .
Adult education 1s carried on 1n the vast skein o f volun­
tary organizations 1n the United States: churches; neighbor­
hood groups; community committees, clubs, and councils; s ta te ,
n atio n al, and international associations, s o c ie ties , federa­
tions, leagues; and so on--and so on. Increasingly—as Issues
become more complex, as we become more Interdependent, as the
currents of change quicken—educational a c tiv itie s fo r adults
(called that or not) are multiplying.5
This vast scope of program potential o ffers a degree of
insight Into the problems faced by community-educat1on administra­
tors.

An unlimited market compounds any enterprise; the most

serious demands being decisions to lim it productivity and promotion
to certain market "corners."

Yet, the essence of management Is the

a b ilit y to move an enterprise along planned, controlled avenues and to
grow under the same guides.

Evidence of such managerial t r a its

among community-education administrators Is sought 1n this research.

5
Malcolm S. Knowles, e d .. Handbook of Adult Education 1n
the United States (Chlcaqo: Adult Education Association o f the USA.
i9 6 0 ), pp. 3-4.

15

Continuing/Community Education
Paul Leagans c a lls continuing education, a dimension also
Included In the working d e fin itio n of th is paper, a fourth dimen­
sion which may be described as progressive education.

Leagens

supports his description through lis tin g the t r a it s of adult learn­
ers— t r a its which, i f applied to children, would describe pro­
gressive education.
Adult learners are:

(1) not captive learners, (2) in school

as a secondary In te re s t, (3) enrolled to meet f e l t needs, (4) cer­
tain to bring learning experiences with them to the classroom,
(5) heterogeneous, ( 6 ) 1n need of and usually given amounts of
permissiveness, (7) in search of intensely relevant m aterial.®
Perhaps the most s trik in g insight into adult learning offered
by Leagans is the need fo r permissiveness.

Adults must be per­

mitted absences because of work schedule changes, fam ily emergencies,
and sim ilar circumstances not normally part of educational envi­
ronments.

Such “progressive" t r a it s a re, according to Leagans,

usually part of adult learning.

Questions posed in th is research

about such things as program scope and the times of day during
which programs are offered attempt to ascertain whether communityeducation administrators agree with Leagans.
C yril Houle cites several additional patterns which con­
trib u te to the meaning of community ecucation.

Houle states that

®J. Paul Leagans, A New Look a t Progressive Education
(Washington, D.C.: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1972), p. 256.

16

learning 1s acu ltely affected by the marriage partner.
also affected by attitu d es held by acquaintances.
a desire fo r group discussions.

Learning is

This results In

Houle continues by saying that

most continuing/community education begins with a single desire
which is met by learning something which in turn must be re in ­
forced by fu rth er learning.

Houle used a descriptive le t t e r to

introduce his research, followed by a series of questions dealing
with p a rtic u la r t r a it s of adult learners, the history of each
learner's education, each learn er's self-im age, e tc , 7

These items

were examined closely in preparation of the questionnaire employed
in this research.
Curtis Ulmer asks the question:
teaching adults?

He answers by saying th a t the key is to under­

stand how adults d if f e r from child ren .
vations:

What is d iffe re n t about

He makes a number of obser­

adults prefer counting money to dinosaurs, adults are not

big children, adults have a wealth of experience; they need more
physical comfort in the classroom; th e ir habits and attitu d es are
more fixed ; and th e ir re la tiv e age to th e ir in stru cto r w ill not
always be in the same d ire c tio n .

Ulmer indicates th a t adults ra re ly

want to compete; they have learned s e lf-c o n tro l, endurance, and th e ir
own lim its .

p

Regardless of differences in how the reader views adult
learners, there appears to be l i t t l e room fo r argument about the
7C yril 0. Houle, The Inquiring Mind (Madison:
of Wisconsin Press, 1961).
D

The University

Curtis Ulmer, Teaching the Disadvantaged A dult, ed. Robert A.
Luke (Washington, D.C.: NAPSt:, 1969), pp. 7-10.

17

premise that adult learners do have needs which are d is tin c tiv e
from c h ild ren 's .

This premise gives ris e to several questions 1n

the research Instrument employed in th is study.

Community educa­

tion appears to demand allowances fo r the learning needs o f a ll
ages.

Do community-educatlon administrators recognize this?
Community-Education Administrator
(D irecto r) Defined"
Although no research was found which analyzes or describes

community-education adm inistrators, there are philosophic treatises
in abundance which deal with public adm inistrators.

One reference

is cited as evidence that any communlty-education adm inistrative
position 1s expected to have characteristics as described 1n
Chapter I .
The optional portion of the community school program 1s
coordinated and directed by a person known as the community
services d ire c to r. This individual should have special
preparation and experience In the fie ld of community organiza­
tion and development. His natural a b ilit y and his prepara­
tion should be strong In the areas o f communication s k ills ,
leadership techniques, and human re la tio n s . The d ire c to r
must be provided with a supportive s ta ff s u ffic ie n t to create,
coordinate, and d ire c t programs of learning to meet expressed
or discovered human needs in the community. In carrying out
th is function, the d ire cto r and his s ta ff c a ll fo rth and use
a ll of the availab le educational resources, both human and
m a te ria l, 1n the community. The d irecto r strives to have the
school serve as the natural catalys t fo r bringing about coor­
dination of the learning programs of a ll other agencies,
groups and individuals in the community.
The community education concept challenges school adminis­
trato rs toQbecome educational statesmen rath er than autocratic
d irecto rs.

g
Totten, "Community Education— Best Hope fo r Society."

18

What evidence can be assembled to support one or the other of these
alternatives?

This research attempts to deal with that kind of

question.
A number of studies were examined as guides in preparing
the questionnaire used fo r this study.

Edmund Brunner describes

a long l i s t of refinement procedures in preparing opinion p o lls.
Perhaps the most useful of these was Eugene Wilkening's "Assessing
Farm Family Values," reported in Rural Sociology, March 1952.

This

study deals with behavioral indices and th e ir v a lid ity , although
Brunner concludes by noting the need fo r more research.^®
Matilda Riley includes "Bales Code," among a long l i s t of
research concepts, as a measure descriptive o f the group process
from which inferences can be made as to the nature of the under­
lying factors influencing the process.
sets of figures, not expository form .^

R iley's instrument uses
Christopher Sower stated

in a lecture in the spring of 1971, "A norm exists when there is a
cluster of agreement about a ro le ."

This is in the context of a

guide sheet Sower prepared on "How to Study an Organization."

12

The process suggested by Sower was useful as a guide in preparing
questionnaire items and testing th e ir usefulness.
Thomas McCormick and Roy Francis fu rth er discuss the use
and validation of the questionnaire.
^Brunner, The Growth of a Science, preface.
^ M atild a R iley, Sociological Research. A Case Approach
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and world, In c ., 1963).
12

Christopher Sower, Lecture, Sociology 868 , Michigan State
University, Spring Term, 1971.

19

The v a lid ity of a questionnaire may be tested In several
ways. . . . V a lid ity may also be established by agreement;
that 1 st a ll competent persons are agreed th a t the meaning
of the answers to the questionnaire is c le a r and consistent.
V a lid ity may also be supported, I f not established, by fin d ­
ing s ig n ific a n t correlations between the results of the ques­
tionnaire and certain other variables which would be expected
to be associated with them. For example, the results o f a
questionnaire dealing with q u a lific a tio n s fo r a certain occu­
pation might be correlated with the observed success or fa ilu r e
of persons who had answered the question n aire.'3
Further Background to Questionnaire Items
The inclusion of two items 1n the questionnaire should be
further explained.

Although the p o s s ib ilitie s fo r exploring a t t i ­

tudes about teacher train in g are numerous, certain Items were
selected to probe the subject beyond general terms.

These Items,

computer-assisted instruction and in -s e rv ic e , were judged by the
sample population to be timely and representative.

Computer instruc­

tion was included a fte r reference to several sources, but p rim arily
Daniel G r iffith s ' report in the NEA Journal in 1972.

G riffith s

contends that computer instruction is a most promising current
venture.

14

The relationship between curriculum content and how to
teach or to present that content is presently the subject of
more attention and concern. Rapid advances have been made
in programmed in stru ction . The feedback from any analysis
of student responses to such Instruction has great value In

Thom as C. McCormick and Roy G. Francis, Methods o f
Research in the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Harper and brothers,
w

) ,

P\

i i ? . ----------------------------------------------

^D aniel E. G r iffith s , "The Most S ig n ific a n t Educational
Research," NEA Journal. April 1972, p. 50.

20

e ffo rts to Improve programs and to determine where supple­
mentary modes of presentation may be e ffe c tiv e . 5
Gale Jensen and others give a useful description o f adult
and continuing education, p a rtic u la rly In re la tio n to train in g pro­
grams fo r adult educators.

Jensen's book 1s concerned with the

development of a more complete description of the f ie ld and body o f
knowledge 1n this a re a j®

However, Vincent G allo, Superintendent

of Schools 1n Woodburn, Oregon, describes the need for train in g
teachers o f adults 1n useful dimensions.
Some . . . guidelines are self-ev id en t to the master
teacher who has the Intuitiveness to cope with adult stu­
dents while some of these techniques and expertise are not as
self-evid en t to others. For many reasons the education of
adults 1n our society Is too Important to le t follow a fo r­
tuitous chain of events, hoping fo r the best. Implied 1n the
above 1s that proper train in g of adult school teachers 1s
central to the task of education fo r adults. The task of
procuring properly trained teachers fo r the adult programs 1 s
large and beset with many b a r r i e r s . ”
In-service through various means 1s ro u tinely part of almost
any educational e ff o r t.

Can i t be presumed to be part of community

education?
Gallo discusses such barriers as teacher a ttitu d e and time
shortage, along with other reasons why there 1s a lack of In-service
tra in in g , hut says these have not been a s ig n ific a n t deterrent to
15
A lice H. Hayden and Gerald M. Torkelson, Systematic
Thinking About Education (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational foundation, 1973), p. 18.
^®Gale Jensen e t a l . , eds. Adult Education: Outlines of
Emerging Field of University Study (Washington, b .C .: Adult Edu­
cation Association o f the USA, 1964).
^7V1ncent A. Gallo, "Adult Learning Key to Success," The
Clearing House 46 (December 1971): 242-43.

21
success y e t.

The discussion concludes with recommendations fo r

Improved screening of teacher candidates, adm inistrative e ffo rts
to telescope time spent on re g is tra tio n , e t c ., and in -service
training combined with frequent classroom v is its by the adminis­
tra to r—a practice needed to Insure learner confidence In addition
to providing opportunity fo r In-service through demonstration.
Related Research
Research s im ila r to the present e ffo r t was found 1n a study
of televisio n done by the Metropolitan Educational Television Asso­
ciation of Toronto and reported by Lewis M ille r and others.

A

lengthy reference 1s quoted from th is study of televisio n because
i t not only followed procedures s im ila r to the present e ffo r t but
also d ealt with s im ila r conclusions as well as linked tele v isio n
with adult education.
Some would argue th a t the question "What is educational
television?" was misconceived and the confusion of answers
unavoidable. A ll televisio n programmes. I t Is said, t e l l
people, show people, warn people about facts and Ideas, about
possible choices in l i f e ; a ll tele v isio n educates. There are
philosophers o f education who may be quoted 1n support. Some
distinguished B ritis h U tilita r ia n s , John Stuart M ill, fo r
Instance . . . defined education as "everything which helps
to shape the human being."
This Inclusive Id e n tific a tio n of tele v isio n with adult
education has advocates 1n many countries. I t 1s not a
satisfactory formulation because I t obscures Important d i f ­
ferences between programmes, and consequently 1t Is In e f­
fe c tiv e as a tool fo r analysis, c ritic is m or policy making.
Yet 1t does Imply Important truths about te le v is io n , a ll re le ­
vant to the main theme.
A fter sending a questionnaire to broadcasters a ll over
Canada, the Metropolitan Educational Television Association
of Toronto (META) came to th is Iro n ical conclusion:
Nobody knows what ETV 1s. We d o n 't. And c e rta in ly the
stations responding to the META questionnaire d o n 't. The

22

"Educational" programming reported on ranges from such s tu ff
as university c re d it courses 1n biology to such progressively
less academic m aterials as local history programs, news analy­
sis panels and ta lk s , c e le b rity interview s, and games and
contests fo r teenagers.'®
In a sim ilar vein, do Michigan community-education adminis­
tra to rs , not to mention citizen s a t larg e, know what community
education is?

Is i t a ll those things which are related to learning

to everybody?

Or is i t some learning experiences to only some

people?

Or perhaps community education exists only 1n the mind of

the beholder.
Regardless of how one responds, the answer w ill seemingly
be clearer and objectives more relevant i f the program components
are understood.

This study examines one of the components, the

comnunity-education adm inistrator, toward a more s c ie n tific under­
standing o f community education.
Analysis Precedents
A study of the supply and demand fo r school administrators
in Wisconsin, which p ro files the d is tr ic t adm inistrator 1n a manner
sim ilar to the approach used in this study, was in flu e n tia l on th is
dissertation p a rtic u la rly in the analysis stage and 1n stressing
the need fo r the present e ffo r t.

Data, sim ilar to that which was

gathered in this study, were displayed and analyzed in a manner
sim ilar to data found displayed in Chapter IV.

The Wisconsin study

emphasizes the need for studying administrators and d e ta ils a
18
M ille r , Lewis, Tahy, C tibor, Hatana, K anji, Adult Education and Television (London: National In s titu te of Adult Education
with UNESCO, 1966), pp. 12-13.

23

method fo r doing so.

Hughes and Dahlstrom quote from "A Look at

the Overlooked" 1n establishing th e ir study.
Not u n til the past few years have the states begun sys­
tem atically to c o lle c t data on school administrators and In
many cases th is information is sketchy. C a lifo rn ia , fo r
example, could provide us with no data on the number o f p rin ­
cipals 1n Its school system.T9
As a conclusion to th is b rie f review o f lit e r a t u r e , a gen­
e ra liz a tio n may seemingly be drawn.

I t Is generally true that much

has been w ritten along philosophic lines dealing with community
education and most of what goes Into the e f f o r t .

Also, much has been

w ritten about adm inistration in general contexts.

Conversely, very

l i t t l e has been w ritten which deals with the community-education
adm inistrator in the performance of a special type o f program
adm inistration.

V irtu a lly no practical working knowledge of

community-education adm inistration exists.

This research e ffo r t

w ill contribute toward such knowledge.

19

Bernard Hughes e t a l . , The Supply and Demand fo r School
Administrators In Wisconsin (Superior, Wisconsin: The Department
of Educational Adm inistration, University of Wisconsin, 1974),
pp. 8 -1 0 .

CHAPTER I I I

DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Variables Considered and Items Selected
The development of the questionnaire and its contents are
discussed in th is chapter.

Twenty-four variables were Included in

the design of the questionnaire and are lis te d here fo r convenience.
They are refined from approximately f i f t y variables o rig in a lly con­
sidered.

Variables for which a "desired" dimension was studied are

marked with an asterisk .

These were chosen to gain Input fo r the

eleven questions asked In Chapter I .
Variables
Population
* Time in administration
* Stated policy
* Inter-agency cooperation
* C itizen advisory group
* Decision-making procedure
* Nodes of Instruction
* Program comprehensiveness
* Advertising costs
* Use of computer in instruction
* Teacher training
* Hours when in stru ction is offered
24

25

* Advertising outreach
* D efin itio n of community education
* High school completion a lte rn a tiv e s
Age
Sex
Experience
Longevity
Teaching c e r tific a te —major and minor
Training
Professional association
Professional lite r a tu r e exposure
Sources of planning data
Items in the questionnaire were refined through repeated
exposure to a t r i a l group, and subsequent revisions.

The items

which were subsequently not included were rejected fo r a v a rie ty of
reasons.

Some were omitted because they could not be reduced to

question form or because they produced too much confusion when
exposed to the t r i a l population.

S t i l l others were too frequently

associated with vocational fie ld s or compensatory programs having
p rio ritie s d iffe re n t from community education.
As indicated in Chapter I , the net results are not intended
to be exhaustive of a ll potential data.
Description of the Population
The names of the study population, 230 program administrators, were compiled from information obtained from several sources

26

1n the Michigan Department o f Education and from four centers fo r
cornnunity education which extend over the e n tire s ta te .

The popu­

la tio n Includes what 1s believed to be more than 90 percent of the
d is tric ts having community-education programs In the state of
Michigan as defined for this task.

I t should be noted that the

consolidation of community-education e ffo r ts , and in some cases an
absence of corrmunity-education programs, reduces the number of
separate communities studied from over 600 public school d is tr ic ts
to about one-third th a t number.

The potential population l i s t was

cross-referenced and updated fo r over one year.
Approximately 10 percent o f the population, tw enty-five
community school administrators working in the F lin t Community
Schools, were questioned separately.

The F lin t group cannot be

considered a s ta tis t ic a lly v a lid control group but they do share a
common job description w ithin a single school d is t r ic t .

Community

education, as practiced 1n the F lin t Community Schools, 1s under­
stood r e la tiv e ly widely and with some degree of commonality.

This

group provides a source of comparison.
Ten adm inistrators, selected from the general population
(Group A ), and the F lin t respondents (Group B), were asked to
c ritiq u e the questionnaire.

Their suggestions were made via marginal

notes on the questionnaire or in personal interviews.

A fte r three

such exposures only one of the Group A respondents had continued
objections to parts of the questionnaire.
to its length and concern fo r omitted data.
voiced objections regarding the length.

These objections related
Two from Group B

27

Perhaps the clearest way to show the specific lim its of
this population 1 s to present a continuum which represents community
education very broadly conceived.
one and ends with fourteen.

The continuum begins a t numerical

The population Included 1n th is study

Is prim arily concerned with descrlptlves found between numbers fiv e
and nine, indicated by asterisks.
1.

Community resources lis te d with the public school
(camps, scouts, controlled substance u n its, private
tu to rs, e tc .)

2.

Clubs and others, as lis te d above, scheduled 1n the
school without other assistance.

3.

Compensatory education as an arm of general education,
which may serve younger or older persons than fiv e to
nineteen year olds as well as provide a ltern atives fo r
a ll learners.

4.

Vocational train in g as part of general education.

* 5.

Adult basic education offered to f i t adult schedules
and learner needs.

* 6.

Adult high school completion offerings sim ilar to #5.

* 7.

Planned community education Including special In te re s ts ,
re tra in in g , recreation and special needs on an exten­
sive schedule with added f a c i l i t y and s ta ff considera­
tio n .

* 8.

Apprenticeships arranged by school personnel.

* 9.

Comprehensive, departmentalized, coordinated a c t iv i­
ties fo r any need or want.

10.

Trade schools, public and p riv ate .

11.

University extension, part-tim e class work, confer­
ences, etc.

12.

Technical school, f u ll time.

13.

College--assoc1ate, short term, or degree program.

14.

University

28

The selection of the study population Is 1n no way meant to
suggest that any of the categories preceding number fiv e and follow ­
ing number nine can have no claim to being community education.
Rather, the selection attempts to Id e n tify programs which, from the
author's experience as well as the search o f lite r a tu r e , are more
lik e ly to be administered by persons (a) who have studied d is ­
ciplines beyond, a t least separate from, those normally encompassed
1n general education and (b) who operate under adult or community-

educatlon auspices.
Procedure Used
Each adm inistrator in the population was mailed a question­
naire addressed by name.

The questionnaire was Introduced by a

cover le t t e r describing the study and requesting cooperation.
self-addressed return envelope was enclosed.

A

Follow-up le tte r s ,

telephone c a lls , or v is its were used to s o lic it returns.
Breakdown of returns:
205
25
230
138
25
* 7
**

4

7
60

general mailing
F lin t administrators
questionnaires distribu ted
returned from general mailing (see * ; see also * * )
returned from F lin t , hand carried
reported having no program a t this time but did
complete questionnaire
reported that th e ir questionnaire response rep­
resented combined programs from a to ta l o f th irte e n
former, disparate administrators
returned from postal service unclaimed
questionnaires were not returned

This represents a 71 percent return:

163 out of 230.

29

Some Sources o f Error and Lim itations
There are two apparent sources of e rro r.
is the accuracy of the respondents.

The f i r s t of these

Error is reduced through a

selection procedure designed to elim inate a ll but those who work 1n
programs as defined e a r lie r and who, therefore, possess a t least
relevant experience.

The second source o f error is the uniform ity

of in terp retatio n of items by respondents.

Preliminary exposure of

the questionnaire to the t r i a l group helped reduce the la t t e r source
of e rro r.
This project was designed to build from existing m a te ria l,
not to create.

I t is not highly th e o re tic a l.

Answers to the ques­

tions posed 1n Chapter I w ill enable members of a community to com­
pare the characteristics and operating methods of administrators
throughout the state to th e ir own adm in istrato r's.
to c la r ify and perhaps to d i s t i l l values.
value judgments.

I t w ill help

I t makes only lim ited

I t 1s p a rtic u la rly important to recognize that

any examiner may re je c t the value im p lic it In any Item.

For example,

Indication in the p ro file that most administrators are members of
many professional organizations does not prove that such membership
is good or bad, nor that a relationship exists between such member­
ship and success.
Factors other than the variables considered in this study
do a ffe c t community-education programs.

Adm inistrative departments

such as the o ffic e of the Superintendent of Schools, as well as
internal factors such as economics, ethnic make-up of the commu­
n ity , and population m o b ility , w ill influence the adm inistrator's

30

effectiveness and au th o rity.

External forces such as "parent"

Industries, union a f f i l i a t e s , synods, e t c ., are acknowledged but
are not measured 1n th is study.
Strategies fo r Analysis
Each variable Is numerically tabulated and graphed fo r ease
In In te rp re ta tio n .

The Items dealing with each question are grouped

to provide the answer to th a t question.

The responses to some

variables are displayed In a manner which shows whether, fo r
example, decision-making methods change as tra in in g increases.
From these displays answers are presented fo r the eleven questions
asked 1n Chapter I , followed by conclusions, Im plications, and
recommendations.

CHAPTER IV

THE FINDINGS DISPLAYED: AN ITEM-BY-ITEM SUMMARY

This chapter 1s devoted to displaying the data; f i r s t Item by
Item and then as a composite.

As an aid to the reader, headings are

followed by the question under discussion.

A fte r some tab le s, mean,

range, and standard deviation are given, but such data were not
considered essential fo r a ll Items.
The F lin t group, referred to as Group B, was directed not to
respond to items 1 through 4b because response to those Items would
be repetitio us and subject to overlap due to alte rn a tin g course
offerings from one school to another w ithin the same d is t r ic t .
Demographic Description
D is tric t Population
1.

W hat

am

th e . t o t a Z

p o p u lc u t io n

y o u A c U M t/U .c t?

Seventy-two percent of the 126 responses to Item 1 are from
d is tric ts having less than 25,000 population, as Indicated 1n
Table 1.

The mean d is t r ic t population 1s between 10,000 and 15,000.
At the other end of the scale the graphic Increase In

responses from the highest category, over 95,000, 1s due to grouping
a ll large d is tr ic ts together.
f a l l Into th is category.

Eight d is tr ic t s , or 6 percent o f 126,

The populations in these d is tr ic ts are

31

0-5000

Total
Responses

Population
Groups

Rank
-

no
fNJ
no
C
O

no

5001-10000

c*>

10001-15000

ro

•fk

15001-20000

cn

cn

20001-25000

CD

a\

25001-30000

CTV

-*4

30001-35000

--4

oo

35001-40000

cn

VO

40001-45000

-

o

45001-50000

no

-

50001-55000

o

N

55001-60000

no

co

60001-65000

O

65001-70000

o

cn

70001-75000

-

<y>

75001-80000

no

"-4

80001-85000
-*

OO

85001-90000

VO

90001-95000

no

o
2

20

°

over 95000

oo

No Response

cn

33

100,000 (fo r each of three d is t r ic t s ) , 120 , 000 , 180,000, 200 , 000 ,
1 , 200 , 000 , and 1,600,000.

D is tric t Enrollment and Potential
2.

How many in d iv id u a ls aae enA olted i n youA community
e d u c a tio n pAognam? (IF you OAe pasrf. o \ a laAgeA d is t A ic t
oft r e g io n a l efifioAt l i m i t youA Aesponse to t h a t which you
d iA e c tly s u p e A v is e .)
What, i n youA judgm ent, i s th e p o t e n t ia l enA ollm ent
( in c lu s iv e as d e fin e d above— th o s e who co u ld be m o tiv a te d
to Aecognize needs and have tim e to a t te n d ) .

These two Items are graphed together to make percentage of
enrollment and potential enrollment easier to compare.

Percentage

is derived from actual enrollment divided by d is t r ic t population.
Of the 118 administrators responding to item 2, 51 report that
5 percent of th e ir d is t r ic t population is enrolled 1n community
education.

Also, 21 d is tric ts (not necessarily the same ones)

record a 5 percent p o te n tia l.

(See Figure A.)

The percentage of enrollees nearest the mean 1s 10 percent.
The mean fo r potential enrollment 1s 20 percent.

This would repre­

sent a 100 percent increase over 1974 enrollment.
No other s ta tis tic a l data are computed fo r th is Item.
Enrollment Increases/Decreases
3.

What peAcent in c re a s e o a decAease i n enAotlm ents i n
community e d u c a tio n has theA e been i n youA d is t A ic t
each o& th e two yeaAS?
19 72+______

1971-_______

1973+________

1972-______

Enrollment Increases during 1972 were only s lig h tly over
10 percent 1n a m ajority of cases.

Th1rty-f1ve d is tr ic ts Increased

34

by 20 to 50 percent.
cent, respectively.

Three d is tric ts Increased 60, 70, and 80 per­
In 1973, a ll 115 respondents recorded a 10 per­

cent Increase.

52
Existing

48

Potential
44
40
36
32
28
24
20

16
12

8

4

Percentage Enrollment
Figure 1 .— D is tr ic t en rollm ent/p o ten tial.

I t must be noted, however, th a t decreases 1n enrollments were
nearly the same as Increases fo r both years.
m isinterpretation of the Item.

This suggests possible

A spot check of 10 percent of the

respondents Indicated that the question was generally understood,

35

but that i t did not cover a ll the Information respondents wished
to show.

In the spot check, one-fourth o f the responding adminis­

trators experienced drops In enrollment 1n 1972.

Also, 1n one-

h a lf the cases losses o ffs e t I n i t i a l gains during the same year.
Six of the 13 questioned about this Item said they Intended th e ir
response to show gain and loss, a dimension not b u ilt Into the
instrument.

I t appears that more persons are enrollin g In commu­

n ity education courses, but a corresponding number are not fin is h ­
ing the course.

The questionnaire was not designed to handle such

a complex s itu a tio n , so the data must be interpreted with reserva­
tion.
Time Spent on Job
4.

What percent
your tune, bated on a 40 kouA week do
you tpend admini&tering tuck programt?
Percentage, o^ time you think thoutd be tpent to meet
the p o te n tia l described in number 2 above?

Seventy adm inistrators, 55 percent, spend 100 percent of
th e ir time at th e ir task.

F o rty -fiv e percent of the respondents

work from 10 to 90 percent of th e ir time in community-educat1on
adm inistration.
The percentage of time which administrators think should
be spent a t th e ir task does d if fe r from the actual time spent.
Fifteen of the 70 who already spend 100 percent of th e ir time in
community-education adm inistration indicated they need that much
time.

At least 43 currently employed less than 100 percent time

think that f u ll time should be spent on th e ir adm inistrative
e ffo rts .

(See Table 2 .)

36

Table 2 .—Time spent on job (% responses).
Time In the Job/Needed in the Job

Percentage 1n
the job

10% 20 % 30%

40%

11

4

6

7

11

5

3

5

5

5

7

9

3

1

Percentage needed
1n the job

50% 60%

70% 80%

90%

100%

6

5

70

4

3

72

Age
fiih a t Lb

y o u A age.?

S lig h tly over h a lf of the comnunlty-educatlon administrators
are less than 35 years of age.
one person Is over 65.

Ten are over 50 years old; o f these,

The mean age 1s between 30 and 35.

This 1s the f i r s t Item to which the F lin t administrators
(Group B) responded.

Of the 22 respondents (out of a potential of

25), 19 are under 35 years of age; one 1s over 40.
this group is also between 30 and 35 years.

The mean age in

In graphing the data

(Figure 2 ), percentages are presented separately fo r the two groups.
Sex
Pt&i&e check:

______ Mate

______ Femate

In the state-wide population 120 out o f 130 respondents
are men; 10 are women.

A ll 24 respondents from Group B are men.

These data are not tabulated or graphed; also, no data computation
is made.

37

Group A

Group B

44

M
OO

>«
»«
t«
SO
VO CM

M

00

C
V
I I— O
Or—

40
36
32
v> 28
IS)

Of

o

24

*> 20
o

oc

16
12

8
4
VO

n

i

O
w

O
VO
O in
cn n
i i i
to r — tO
w tn m

o

in

o

in
V
O +
i LD
V
O
V
O

in o to
O
e\j oo O
• t
i
o V
O f—
C
MC
M oo

O
o L
1 t
V
O
oo **-

o in
in in
i
i
V
O
L
O

Age
Figure 2 .--Age.

Years In D is tr ic t
5.

How many y& vu have you been -cn youA. pn&Aent dLLb&UeX,
in aJUL capatUtieA?

The mean number o f years In the d is t r ic t 1n which the respon
dent now works Is between 6 and 10 years fo r Group A as well as fo r
Group B.

F lin t had no one in the d is tr ic t longer than 15 years,

while the state-wide group had 19 beyond that number of years, 7 of
whom had been In the d is tr ic t longer than 25 years.

(See Figure 3 .)

Computing of population mean and other s ta tis tic s 1s not done fo r
this Item.

38

52

Group A

Group B

48
44
40
36
«/i 32
0)
c 28
o
Cl
«/> 24
0>
QC
20
iS>

16
12

8
4 If - p j w ' t w o >—i f t—i oCOi nCO +
I r—I VOl i—I CO
to
VO
f—

i-

i

i

i

N

n

^

i
u> o

CO

in

i «—
i
vo

Years
Figure 3 .--Years in d is tr ic t .

Years in CommunityEducation Administration
How many ym/i& have you worked, fiu&L ok p a n t tim & , a t an
adm^niAtKcutoK o { ccmmunlty educaCion?

I t should be noted that th is question asks fo r to ta l years,
not i f the years in comnunlty-educatlon adm inistration are in the
same d is tr ic t ; consequently, some of these percentages are higher
than fo r the previous question.
Computing to ta l years in the d is t r ic t , the statewide popula­
tion represents 735 years experience in community-education

39

while the F lin t population has 97.

Adjusted fo r group s iz e . Group B

has 80 percent the experience of Group A.

(See Figure 4 .)

The mean years 1n convnun1ty-educat1on adm inistration 1s
about fiv e fo r Group A and four fo r Group B.

Group A

Group B

to

O
J
to

c
o
a.
to

<u
ac

LT> o

r—

LO o cr>
r—

CVJ

CVJ

+
to

CVJ
CVJ

Years
Figure 4 .— Years in community-education adm inistration.

Teacher C e rtific a tio n
A*e you

to teach, in Michigan?

C e rtific a tio n is not charted.

No

Of Group A, 124 out of 130

respondents have teaching c e r tific a tio n .
c e rtific a te s .

Vet,

Of Group B, a ll 25 have

Only six communlty-education administrators do not

have teaching c e rtific a te s .

40

Teaching Majors and Minors
OJk&t ia youA teaching majo>i?________________

Minot.?_________

Of the 123 respondents from Group A, 28 percent have teach­
ing majors In social science, while 20 percent have physical educa­
tion or recreation majors.

In Group B, 45 percent majored 1n physical

education or recreation, while 12 percent majored 1n social science.
When the teaching minor 1s charted, there 1s some leveling
between the top fie ld s .

(See Figure 5 .)

science ranked highest as a minor.

In both groups social

No other response data are com­

puted.

36

Group A

Group B

32
28

Major
Minor

aJ 24
0

01 20
- -

to
®

16

12

8
4

■
i

iLii
•
u
to
.
u
o
to

■
tO
u
1— u
■M to
•
E
o»
■C cl
+J o.
ID
z

• t/>
u -4->
0) ioc <c
C
7
>
•
•
c
UJ ■o
LlI c
»
—
*
•
l/t
•r-

o

*F—

v>

to
L.
</) a>
o
a> O
J
O) c
CL ■r— o
LO
to
3
CO

i
i
i

LL..V
«
o
to
*

o
o
to

•
in
to
u •f*
•p*
U •t—
■
*-> to r—
A
0»
c
•
•
c
UJ
w
CL
LU
•M O.
<o <
a.

Field of Study
Figure 5 .--Teaching majors/minors.

*» -

3

•

T3 T3
C

£

£
o.

U £
tU
irt
*A <Utt>

u
a>
Q£

z

C

a. •*to t/»

3

C
O

41

Semester Hours o f Training
6.

How many semesteA hours otf college tra in in g do you have
to date in th e iie ld o& adm inistration on. community
education?

The mean semester hours of college train in g In conmunltyeducatlon adm inistration 1s between 21 and 30 fo r both Groups A
and B.

The range Is from 1 to over 33 fo r Group A and 1 to 12 fo r

Group B.

36
32
28

£

24

20

I IS
12

8
4
J

L

J_L

u

o o o o o o o o o
■
— csj coKj -Lnvor^coo' i +
^
i i i i i i i i O

o
r-

o
W

I

I

o
M
t

o
^

I

o
U)
I

i— m m

o
ko
I

m

Hours
Figure 6 . --Semester hours o f tra in in g .

Policy Statements (Existing/D esired)
7.

Ptea&e c ir c le the position about a philosophy o\f education
which you th in k most nearly applies to the community
education program (s) in your d is t r i c t .

There were 100 responses from Group A, with some adm inistra­
tors checking more than one category.

Taking the responses as

42
returned, and using 199 rather than 131 (the statewide respondents),
46 percent have Board policy statements; 32 percent operate from
Inherent understanding of the concept, community education; 10 per­
cent have verbal d efin itio n s; and 10 percent have no d e fin itio n o r,
1f they do have one, use I t only for "e ffe c t."

(See Table 3 .)

Table 3 .—Policy status.
Desired

Existing
o*
C U>*

e

C

I—

+-> <
tj o
n.
01 VI

fcfc *

S Z ‘o

c c

«

o

at
e
>»

o

•r-

O

*i-M
IOc
-Q 'l-

-r-

e

-r~

■rTJ

u
a>
cmai^t-

•r-S .

ai ai

C

•» -M

■M <0
O
C - M O .
v </>

*r+J
»— * r -

C
•« h-

0 ) a*

.Q t & -*t0 )0 3
> 0

O

c

i~
<u ■MLU
■*-> ai
JZ

S- O -M
3C4- O

c
O

&. t-

fO

C C
H 3

u
•< -

■
—

-o

L.
IQ

O

>— H D

CO

5»Q

Group A

64

91

21

6

9

8

8

21

Group B

16

13

4

0

0

4

2

0

CO

© •*-

igc

a>

-M
«
C «4am -

u

-*->

o

s -o
3 0 -

5

4

4

0

0

2

2

0

Z

The desire fo r a clearer understanding of the concept,
eith er Inherent or through Board policy, 1s evident 1n 14 percent
of the responses from Group A.
Group B follows much the same pattern; however, since this
group Is from one d is tr ic t and thus might have been expected to
have a more uniform Idea of what the d is tr ic t 's philosophy Is , I t
^ noteworthy that differences do e x is t.

Only two members of

Group B expressed a desire fo r w ritten p o lic ie s.

(.

03

However, In the

"desired" categoryonly 6 out of 25 responded. One respondent entered

•*-»

O

43

"a ll o f the above" under "other."

S ta tis tic a l data are not computed

for this item.
D e fin itio n o f Community Education
No. o f
Responses
Group
A
B
74

16

55

10

21,

Check the choices which axe acceptable to you in
defining community education:
a.

Community education includes evexy degxee otf
s k i l l mastexy, from the simplest to th e most
advanced,

b.

Community education is puxposejut, systematic
leaxning,

c.

Community education is xandom unexamined
expexienee,

16

6

45

3

d.

Community

education is p lu x a lis tic .

5

1

e.

Community

education cannot be defined,

26

rf.

Like democxacy, freedom ox ju s tic e , community
education should not be defined: £ox to do so
would be to confine i t ,

g.

Community education can bedefined only in xelatio n to subject mattex, methods o<j instxuction,
teachexs and in s titu tio n s ,

h,

Amexican community education is chaotic because
Amexican l i f r is chaotic.

i.

Oth ex

7

9

2

0

0

33

6

There were 262 checks from Group A fo r a ll choices In this
item.

Seventy-four were fo r choice a ; 55 were fo r b; 16 were fo r c;

and 45 were fo r d, fo r a to ta l o f 190 fo r the f i r s t four choices.
Five checked Item e; 26 checked item rf; 9 checked g; and no one
checked h.
Group B responded 1n a frequency pattern w ithin 10 percent
of Group A, except that choices c and d were reversed and c was
more frequently checked by Group B than by Group A.

44

The "other" category was checked 33 times.

A 11st of these

responses 1 s given below:
One teaching another.
Giving the community what they want and sneaking In some­
thing they need.
Without community school concepts there would not be a
true community education program.
Community education process, recreation, re tra in in g , Inde­
pendent study, a ll f e l t to be needs.
Needs to be examined closely when applied to d iffe re n t
d is tr ic ts .
Add social contacts to other o fferin g s.
Id e n tify needs and help meet them.
Organized e ffo r t to provide educational and recreational
o u tle t fo r e n tire conmunity.
Helping people to help themselves.
The school is the education center of a ll community liv in g
and learning experience.
Community education is the process of involving the school
community in meeting the needs and desires of the local
c lie n te le . This may involve o fferin g programs, coordinat­
ing existing programs to improve or elim inate duplication.
Using resources availab le to meet community needs.
Community education improves community liv in g , achievement
of students, self-concept, le is u re , etc. Involves a ll in
planning.
Community education is an attempt to use a ll the resources
to provide learning, recreation and enjoyment to a ll who
desire i t .
Meet a ll community needs with a ltern atives with other com­
munities.
Must incorporate the human p o te n tia l, self-w orth and
experience.

45

Community education 1s people In c a ta ly tic change.
Productive c itize n s h ip .
Sources fo r Planning and Analysis
18.

Check th e
c o tte c te d

&ouA.ce&
d a ta

o n t h U L i & t finom w h ic h
p la n n in g puApoA e 6

.

you h a v e

The four most frequently used sources o f planning data are
school drop-out and follow-up data, community resource lis tin g s ,
advisory committees, and learners themselves.

The least f r e ­

quently employed sources are the U.S. O ffice of Education, commer­
c ia l lis tin g s , m in is te ria l associations, and chambers of commerce.
"Other" sources which were rated by respondents Include:

The

Veterans Adm inistration, The State Department of Public In s tru c tio n ,
The County Commission, The North Central Accrediting Association,
and the P.Y.A.
A desire to use a ll additional sources was indicated by
nine respondents in Group A and one in Group B.

(See Figure 7 .)

Nature of Community-Education Programs
Professional Pub!ications
Read Regularly
19.

C in eJL e t h e nu m b en o i c o n r n u r u t y - e d u c a t io n - r e la t e d
p e h io d ic a J L b t o w h ic h y o u p e s u o n a & ty A u b tc A ib e a n d
n e a d fie g u to A J L y .

The m ajority of adm inistrators responding, 126 in Group A
and 23 In Group B, read two community-education-related p e rio d i­
cals re g u larly.

Altogether Group A reads 300 periodicals to

Group B's 236 (Group B adjusted by a fac to r of 5 .2 4 ).

No one 1n

eith er group reads more than six professional periodicals (Table 4 ).

46

Group B

Group A
112

108
104
100

Responses

Existing
Desired

8
4
Vi • V) IQ • • 0»
3 E 0) <PU u u
vi e u •D * O tc o L. -O O tA Ql
01<_} 3
* mE
o +->on ro B
o
• in 3 •
©
• u o» O =3 i—o
IQ
in Ol fc. 1
Q.
•!- 4• in
>> o
i- o
• 4-> L.
0>
u
O
in 0)
o. c
£>
3
c B
£
E
*T“ to
o
z f
o
o

01
N

Vt

tl

in a>
vt a>
O«
Sources

Figure 7 .— Sources of planning data.

a> </i m

47
Table 4 . — P e rio d ic a ls read r e g u la r ly .

___________Number Read___________
1

2

3

Group A

31

43 32

Group B

7

11

4

4 5 6 7 8 9

10

14

5

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0
0

Range

a

1-43

15.44

1-11

3.62

Membership In
Professional Organizations
8.

C ircle the number o& the community-education-oriented
professional organizations in which you maintain active
membership. (Active means attending some meetings and
purchasing lit e r a t u r e d is trib u te d under the organiza­
tio n 's name. )

The m ajority (72 percent) of 127 respondents from Group A
are members of two, three, or four commun1ty-educat 1on-or 1ented
organizations.
tio n .

Thirteen (10 percent) belong to one such organiza­

Seventeen (13 percent) belong to fiv e or more community-

education-oriented organizations.
In Group 8 , 22 responded, 70 percent of whom are members of
two conmun1ty-educat1on-or1ented organizations; 14 percent of the
respondents have joined one, 9 percent have joined three, one admin­
is tra to r has joined fiv e organizations, and one adm inistrator belongs
to eight professional organizations.

(See Table 5 .)

48
Table 5 . —Membership 1n o rg a n iz a tio n s .

Number of Organizations
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Group A

13

29

31

37

7

7

1 1 0

Group B

3

15

2

0

0

1 0

8

9

Mean

Range

1

14.1

1-37

13.12

0

4.5

1-15

5.35

10

1 0

a

Decision Making
C itizen Advisory Groups
10,

Vuifuui

Vo you. have. a c itiz e n advit»o>iy gnoup?__________________
_________ Vz&, i t i& a c tiv z .

_________

_________ Vz&, but i t ib lurU tedty z iie jc tiv z , _________
_________ VeA, but i t iA in name onty.

_________

No.

__________

No, b u t m. (Viz p la n n in g

ok

one.

__________

T h irty -e ig h t percent o f Group A and 96 percent of Group B
have active c itiz e n advisory groups.

Thirty-one percent o f Group A

and 4 percent of Group B respond that advisory groups e x is t in th e ir
d is tric ts with lim ited effectiveness.

Six percent of Group A in d i­

cated that advisory groups e x is t 1n name only.

Twenty-four percent

have no advisory group or are planning fo r one.
The 16 d is tric ts that do not have an advisory group also do
not want such a group.

Since F lin t has an advisory group* no adminis­

tra to r from Group B checked the "desire" category for th is question.
(See Figure 8 .)

49

Group A

52

Group B

48
44
Exlstlng-

40

Desired -

36
S 32
</)
g 28
"O) 24
oc
20
16
12

8
4

a>

>

u

<

-a
a>

■<o
u
c c
•—
<o

a
o<—

za.

ai

Oi

c

>

<c

c c

o

c
<o
o«—

za.

Advisory Groups
Figure 8 . —C itizen advisory groups.

How Decisions Are Made
11.

Chock th e A.eApon6c which mo&t noaAty doAcruboA hou) doct&iont> one made A.eZativc to youJi pJiogsiamA:

The responses to th is Item are Indicated in the following
tabulation.

Choices are rank-ordered fo r Group At with the number

of responses fo r each Item preceding the choice.

The responses from

Group B are shown next to Group A with the number and the rank.
mean or standard deviation 1s computed.

No

50

Group A

Group B

68-1

7-2

Requests made by any persons in the d is tr ic t
are examined and a recommendation formed by
the community education adm inistrator to the
superintendent and Board of Education.

49-2

3-4

Recommendations are prepared by the community
education adm inistrator and made to the super­
intendent and Board of Education.

27-3

6-3

Other ("A separate department decides.")

14-4

14-1

10-5

2-5

Advisory committee activ ely seeks community
input through data collection and channels
this through the adm inistrative formation
or recommendations to the Board of Education.
No structure or stated procedure exists.

Inter-Agency Cooperation
9.

Check the fiottowing with which you. &haste ok coopesiativety
openate any pKogAam*:

The agencies with which community-educatlon programs are
operated are rank-ordered as follows:
Group A

Group B

Colleges

Churches

Other K-12 d is tric ts

Private persons

Community social clubs

Colleges

Churches

Community social clubs

Private persons

Other K-12 d is tric ts

Commercial businesses

Commercial businesses

Industrial enterprises

Industrial enterprises

Unions

Unions

Others--local government

Others

One respondent from Group A Indicated no cooperative e ffo rts .
Graph I .)

(See

Responses
- i- < l\ )N M UU ^ ^ «(flU iO )OiO lM ^ 0 00 90 0 (OIOO

t » O O N f f ' O ^ C O r \ ) O l O * ( J ) N ( 7 l O - f > ( X ) N m O A O O I \ ) a > 0

t—

i— i— i— i— r t— r

Churches

t—

r —I
69%
55%

Unions

25%

Private

65%

K-12 Schools

75%

College

-76%

9 .—Agency

Social

70%

Industrial

38%

cooperation.

^

No One

*8

Other

21%

v> Churches

68%

1%

o
•

Group A

Figure

Commercial

4*

Comnercial

40%

Unions

20%

Private
College
Social
Industrial
No One
Other

m

48%

(A

40%

to
m x
n

r*

IV —
*•

a. a

up

44%
42%
24%
4%
24%

Group B

K-12 Schools

o

52

Time of Program Offerings
14.

Check the timee>

day during which you o^en. cloaaea.

The times o f day during which classes are offered are d is­
played in the same manner in which they appeared on the question­
naire.

Each time block has a potential of 131 responses fo r Group A

and 25 fo r Group B.

Note that there is no time block in which pro­

grams are not offered.
Group A

Group B

2

0

1

0

3 a.m. to 6 a.m.

6

2

6 a.m. to 9 a.m.

63

16

57

18

12 noon to 3 p.m.

65

22

3 p.m. to 6 p.m.

129

24

6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

45

8

32

16

17

1

12 midnight to 3 a.m.

9 a.m. to 12 noon

9 p.m. to 12 midnight
anytime Saturday
anytime Sunday

Scope o f Class Offerings
(Handicapped and E ld e rly )
75.

Vo you o ^en ctaA6e6 to me e t . . . .
0&&ca ....

Would you t ik e to

Display of the responses to the scope of program offerings
follows the format of th is item in the questionnaire.

However, the

programs are rank-ordered according to Group A responses.

Each

response is lis te d with the number, from both groups who checked i t ,

53

Indicated to the l e f t o f the chart.
s im ila rly shown on the rig h t.

The "desired" responses are

The potential responses are again

131 and 25.
Existing

Desired

Group A Group B

Group A Group B

125

23

...L e is u re time in te re s ts ............

5

0

120

9

...H ig h school c o m p le tio n .......

7

7

118

24

...P h y sic a l fitn e s s ........................

9

0

117

18

. . .Learning fo r Its own sake..........

6

1

102

8

. . .R etrain in g .............. .....................

19

11

54

1

. . .Americanization..........................

27

5

50

10

...C lasses designed fo r persons
over 65 years..............................

33

8

39

4

...O th e r (not specified though
category checked)......................

10

0

26

6

...C lasses fo r mentally handi­
capped ............................................

37

7

18

3

...C lasses fo r physically han­
dicapped........................................

37

5

High School Completion
Credit Allowances
22.

Vozm youA high school comptztion pKoczduKz ok
potio.y aULou) &o k ....

An average of 5.6 checks were made by each of the 131
respondents from Group A.

Five "other" procedures or policies

fo r granting credits were given.

Categories and number o f

responses are given on the following page.

The rank order of

54

responses fo r Group A Is noted by the numbers farth es t to the le f t
on the following chart.
Group A

Group B

4

90

13

a.

Credit waivers o f examination?

1

115

11

b.

Credit waivers fo r work experience?

2

114

8

c.

Credits by tran sfer from non­
accredited and accredited schools?

5

90

5

d.

Credits from home study?

7

68

7

e.

Credits fo r work done under tu to ria l
assistance?

8

63

15

f.

A diploma through proficiency
examination? (GED)

3

102

8

9*

C redit fo r m ilita ry service time?

9

26

3

h.

Credit fo r travel?

6

69

5

1.

Credit through independent study?

10

15

1

J.

Other: (specify)
Community service
Child care
No a lte rn a te methods used
A lim it of six credits granted by
waivers
A c e r t if ic a t e , not a diploma, 1s
given

In-Service Training
72.

Vo y o u . p A o v i d e i n - A e A v i c e t A a i n i n g o a i n A o m e w a y
A e q u i A Z A p Z C A O t tQJXQ.in.ZA t A a i n i n g &OA t k o A Z p Z A A O t14
u tk o t e a c h

c o r m u n ity

e d u c a tio n

c A z d i t cZ o a a z a ?

Vo y o u b e t i z v z i n - A e A v i c e t & o\J v a l u e £ o a a l t
u w A k in g i n c a e d i t a n d n o n - c A e d i t c ta A A Z A ?

te a z k z A A

Of 129 Group A respondents fo r the f i r s t part o f Item 12,
86 (67 percent) indicated that th e ir program provides in -service

55

or in some way requires special train in g fo r persons who teach
community-education c re d it classes.

Eleven o f 21 respondents

(52 percent) from Group B also report th a t th e ir program provides or
requires such tra in in g .

In Group A, 115 out o f 130 respondents value

such train in g and 15 do not feel i t 1s valuable.

A ll of Group B

value s ta ff In-service tra in in g .
Methods of Instruction
13.

Check the modea of in&iAuction employed by you*, Ataff:

Ext&ting

Verified

________

/.

Ghoup dc&cu&sion voith Atnall amount
of homeuvAk.

_______

__________

2.

LectuAe.

_________

__________

3.

Independent atu d y --p a r tia lly out&ide
o£ the school.

_________

4.

A vaniety of media, [teaching machinea,
TV, e tc .}

__________

5.

PsiimaAtly reading uiith lim ite d c£aaa
dUcuA6ion&.

__________

6.

Wo id e n tifia b le pattern.________________ _________

__________

7.

Othea U p e c i f y ) .

_________

_________

The choices above have been rank ordered fo r Group A responses.
Group discussion with a small amount o f homework ranks highest with
both groups as a mode of In stru ctio n .

Lecture ranks next with

Group A and Independent study ranks a close th ird .
Independent study ranks second and lecture is th ird .

In Group B,
Both rank

fourth a variety of media such as TV, teaching machines, e tc .
groups rank reading with lim ited class discussion f i f t h .

Both

Six percent

56

of Group A and 12 percent of Group B did not Id e n tify patterns o f
In stru ction .

One "other" response was:

"Lectures, discussion,

app licatio n."
Twenty-three out o f 49 respondents 1n Group A desired a
variety of media.

Nine desired Independent study, eight desired

group discussions, and four wanted le c tu re .

Only one from Group B

desired any change; that person desired a variety of media.
Use of Computers
20.

Vo you u&e a computeft rfc* you/i pxognam in in itA u c tio n a l
capacities? Would you t ik e to?

A ll 156 Individuals from Groups A and B responded to the
question regarding the use of computer In s tru c tio n .
Group A and four from Group B use this method.

F ifteen from

In the combined

populations 12 percent now use computers In in stru ctio n .
From Group A 44 desire to use computers 1n In s tru c tio n ,
69 do not, and 18 made no response to th is Item.

Nine from Group B

desire to use computers, nine do not, and seven did not respond.

57

Promotion of Programs
16.

Chexik the. o u tte tA uAed i n youA prom otion.

ExZ&ting

VeAiAed

_________

NeuiipapeA w ith t o c a t d iit A i b u t i o n __________________

________

NempapeA w ith to cat and btuoad disVU-bution _______

________

Radio

________

TV

_________

H an d b illA _____________________________________ ________

_________

S p e c ia l m a ttin g

________

Planned wond

_________

PoAteAA

_________

PAofieAAionat and buAineAA Ae.&eAAat________ ________

_________

OtheAA {ApecX^y)_________________________

_______
________

mouth

_______
________

________

The outlets used fo r promoting community education, combined
fo r both groups, y ie ld the following to ta ls .

M ultiplying the popu­

la tio n by the number of responses yields 798—out o f a possible 1560
(which fig u re would mean that every adm inistrator used every o u tle t).
A ll administrators used some means of promotion, and together they
used 60 percent of the availab le types of promotional communication.
The four most frequently used outlets are newspapers with local d is­
trib u tio n , special m ailings, radio, and posters.

Newspapers with

both local and broad d is trib u tio n and handbills were next in f r e ­
quency of usage.
The "desire" fo r promotional outlets is not greater than
what is used.

Expressed desire fo r more promotional o utlets is

less than 10 percent for both groups, with a desire fo r TV advertising
ranking highest.

Radio and professional re fe rra ls ranked second and

58

th ird as "desired" by both groups.
are not computed.

Mean and standard deviations

(See Figure 10.)

Costs of Promotion
17.

Check th e amount Apent tn promotion du/Ung th e ta A t
yean.; tfi you one pant o& a langen d iA tn tc t pnognam,
tv r U t youn. neAponAe to th a t a pent £on t i \ pnognam
you AupeAvt&e,

F ifty -th re e percent o f Group A spent less than $1000 for
promotion during the year.

Eighty-four percent of Group B spent

less than $500 fo r promotion during the same year.

I t should be

noted that a ll respondents in Group B serve the same c ity d is t r ic t .
Because of the wording in the question, Group B members were
expected to choose the amount used in the building program under
th e ir d irect supervision.

This would mean that the F lin t d is tr ic t

spent over $10,000 fo r promotion.
The mean d o lla r expenditure for Group A is between $500
and $1500.

Eleven administrators from Group A used more than $4000

for promotion, and fiv e from Group B indicated costs over $4000.
Four from Group A and fiv e from Group B desired an amount
in excess of $4000.

The mean desire for promotional funds is

between $1001 and $1500.

(See Table 6 )

Comparison of Variables
The following data display (Table 7) makes i t possible to
examine some variables comparatively.

I t was expected that as

training increased, variables such as membership in professional
organizations, agency cooperation, use of c itize n advisory groups,
and professional reading would also increase.

Responses
—

i r

jroror\>cJjU).t*.f*-f»cninCTiOiCTi''J'^iCD<»QDvOiOOOO—* —'ro

I* i ~r

r r 'it

i

r i i > i r

r

i— i

» » r r r i

i i * f

Newspaper—local distribution
Newspaper--local & broad dis.
Radio
Group A

Figure

TV
Handbills

10.--Outlets

Special mailing
Planned word of mouth
Posters
Prof./business referrals

for

t+

promotion.

«

Other
,

(ft

Newspaper—local distribution
Newspaper--local & broad dis.
Radio
TV
Special mailing
Planned word of mouth
Posters
Prof. /business referra 1s
Other

Group B

Handbills

o
m
(l> X
t/t
•I*. <Si
-s r+
c* u .
CL 3
tf 1
1

60

$3501-$4000

Over $4000

Desired

$3001-$3500

Spent

CVJ
***

$2501-$3000

Group B

$1501-$2000

Desired

$1011-$1500

Spent

$ 501-$1000

Group A

Under $500

Table 6 . --P ro m o tio n al expenses.

35

34

13

11

8

10

5

4

11

4

8

7

7

6

2

2

0

4

21

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

o
o
in

CVJ
V*
i
o
o

Showing the frequency o f responses for d iffe re n t variables
consistently contradicts any patterns or relationships; consequently
to Incorporate many tables here would be needlessly re p e titio u s .
Comparing item 2, "How Decisions Are Made," to Item 6 ,
"Semester Hours of Training," demonstrates the low correlations
between these variables fo r Group A (see Table 7 ).

Table 8 displays

the data comparing train in g and class offerings of Group A.
Such tables were computed and diagrams plotted fo r any
variable which appeared to o ffe r even a s lig h t co rrelatio n with
another one.

None came closer than those displayed here.

One o f the expectations which led to the tabulation of the
two groups separately was that patterns of behavior would be more
lik e ly 1n Group B because a ll of It s members belonged to the same
school d is t r ic t s ta ff and functioned under one policy and adminis­
tr a tiv e head.

Such an expectation has not been ju s t if ie d .

(See

61
Table 7.--Tra1n1ng/dec1s1on making.

Semester Hours
o f Training

Potential
Respondents

1

1-10

26

12

12

2

3

1

2

11-20

23

10

11

2

4

0

3

21-30

33

12

17

4

11

4

4

31-40

20

4

12

3

4

4

5

41-50

13

7

5

2

1

0

6

51-60

10

2

7

1

2

1

7

61-70

1

0

0

0

1

0

8

71-80

1

0

1

0

0

0

9

81-90

2

1

2

0

0

0

10

over 90

2

1

1

0

1

0

131

49

68

14

27

10

(IV •

Total

Decision Response8
A
B
D
C

E

Possible responses (Note that respondents could make more
than one choice).
^Decision responses A through E are described below 1n
d e t a il:
A.

Recommendations are prepared by community-educatlon
adm inistrator and made to the superintendent and Board
of Education.

B.

Requests made by any person in the d is t r ic t are examined
and a recommendation formed by community-educatlon adminis­
tra to r to the superintendent and Board of Education.

C.

Other: (Describe)

D.

Advisory committee a c tiv e ly seeks community Input through
data co llectio n and channels th is through formation or
recommendations to Board of Education.

E.

No structure or stated procedure exists.

62
Table 8 . --T r a in in g /c la s s o ffe rin g s .

No.

Semester
Hours of
Training

P o ten t, a1

Respondents

_______________Response^
2
4
1
3
5
6

7

8

9

10

1

0 -1 0

26

23

24

23

18

9

22

6

5

6

2

2

11-20

23

22

22

21

19

11

22

7

9

5

3

3

21-30

33

30

33

29

25

15

32

11

15

6

3

4

31-40

20

17

19

19

13

7

17

7

10

2

3

5

41-50

13

12

12

10

12

5

12

5

6

4

3

6

51-60

10

9

9

9

9

4

9

2

3

2

2

7

61-70

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

8

71-80

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

9

81-90

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

-

1

-

2

over 90

2

1

2

2

2

-

2

-

-

-

-

118

125

117

102

39

50

26

18

10

Total

54

120

aPossible responses (Note th a t respondents could make more
than one choice).
^Responses 1 through 10 are described below in d e ta il;
1.

Physical fitness?

2.

Leisure time Interests?

3.

Learning fo r Its own sake?

4.

Retraining?

5.

Americanization?

6.

High school completion?

7.

Other: (Specify)

8.

Do you have classes especially designed fo r persons over
65 years of age?

9.

Do you o ffe r classes that are s p e c ific a lly designed fo r
the mentally handicapped?

10 .

Do you o ffe r classes that are s p e c ific a lly designed fo r
the physically handicapped?

63

Table 9* which shows the percentage o f each group responding to each
response choice.)
Summary of P ro files
A summary fo r each o f the population groups would p ro file the
statewide and F lin t community-educatlon administrators as follows:
Group A

Group B

1.

Work 1n 10-15 thousand people
communities

1.

F lin t population 198,000
(1960 Census)

2.

Believe growth potential to
be 5 percent

2.

Same source indicated large
growth potential

3.

Realize 10 percent growth
annually

3.

According to central o ffic e ,
growth Is 2 percent but
varies greatly

4.

55 percent o f time In job

4.

Most are 50 percent time

5.

31-35 years old

5.

31-35 years old

6.

92 percent male

6.

100 percent male

7.

6-10 years of job tenure

7.

6-10 years of job tenure

8.

96 percent c e rtifie d

8.

100 percent c e rtifie d

9.

Teaching major is most f r e ­
quently social science

9.

Teaching major 1s physical
education/recreation

Teaching minor most f r e ­
quently is social science

Teaching minor most frequently
1s social science

10.

21-30 hours of college
tra in in g 1n the f ie ld

10.

21-30 hours of tra in in g in
the f ie ld

11.

Approximately 50 percent
have w ritten policy
defining programs

11.

Approximately 50 percent have
w ritten policy defining
programs

12.

67 percent provide in -service

12.

52 percent provide In -service

13.

12 percent use computerassisted instruction

13.

16 percent use computerassisted Instruction

Table 9 .—Percentage of each group responding to each response choice.
Question
Item

Percentage of Group A_______
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

4c

4

17

26

15

13

12

2

4

2

1

29

16

32

8

0

0

4

0

0

0

5a

12

4

9

11

6

25

14

4

5

5

20

8

8

8

8

37

13

-

-

-

5b

21

22

10

11

17

24

7

1

2

0

4 25

8

13

20

25

0

0

4

-

5d

23

7 11

4 20

6

3

2

7

9

16

4

16

4 41

0

0

0

0

13

5e

23

5

16

11

7

1

3

3

3

5

41

0

4

16

16

0

0

4

0

8

6

20

17

23

15

10

7

1

1

2

2

13

20

50

8

8

4

4

0

0

0

8

10

22

23

25

5

5

1

1

0

1

13 60

8

0

4

0

0

4

0

0

10a

39

32

5 12

12

95

4

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

12a

65

33

41

40

12b

88

12

100

0

17a

24

23

10

8

6

7

4

4

8

-

83

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

-

19

22

28

23

11

4

1

0

0

0

0

29

46

16

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

Percentage of Group B

65

Group A

Group B

14. Use group discussion most
frequently 1n program delivery

14.

Same

15. Define community education
very diversely

15.

Same

16.

Use lim ite d , larg ely Internal
sources of data fo r planning
purposes

16.

Same

17.

Read one to four periodicals
in the fie ld regularly

17.

Same

18.

Join one to four professional organizations

18.

Same

19.

38 percent have active
c itiz e n advisory groups

19.

96 percent have active
c itiz e n advisory groups

20.

Performs a dominant role In
decision making

20.

Is less dominant 1n decision
making than are citizen s

21 .

Cooperate most frequently
with in-kind organizations

21.

Same

22.

O ffer programs a t various
times of the day

22.

Same

23.

O ffer broad program scope

23.

Same

24.

Allow c re d it from many sources
toward a high school diploma

24.

Same

25.

Use lim ited funds and 1nfor(national outlets fo r
promotion

25.

Same

This concludes the display o f data.

Chapter V w ill present

conclusions, im plications, and recommendations which emerge from an
examination of the data.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was conducted:

(1) to discover whether there

are common demographic as well as functional t r a it s among communltyeducation administrators throughout the state of Michigan; (2) to
determine whether the same t r a its are present among communityeducation administrators in the F lin t , Michigan, d is t r ic t as a
separate group; (3) to compare and contrast the statewide population
with the F lin t respondents; and (4) to ascertain whether such com­
parisons suggest directions that p ractitio n ers might follow in th e ir
own train in g and in other professional pursuits.
Summary of the Study
The Problem
This study sought to develop a personal and program p ro file
of community-education adm inistrators.

The items Included In the

questionnaire were refined to gain answers to questions which would
re fle c t demographic and a ttitu d in a l dimensions.

These questions

follow:
1.

What is the demographic description of communityeducation administrators in Michigan?

66

67

2.

What 1s the demographic description of communityeducation adm inistrators 1n F lin t?

3.

Do the d is tric ts of community-education administrators
1n Michigan provide them with policy statements by
which to guide th e ir programning?

4.

Do the d is tric ts of community-education administrators
in F lin t provide them with policy statements by which
to guide th e ir programming?

5.

How do community-education administrators 1n Michigan
define community education?

6.

How do community-education administrators In F lin t
define community education?

7.

Do community-education administrators In Michigan draw
from sources other than themselves fo r planning and
analysis?

8.

Do community-education administrators In F lin t draw from
sources other than themselves fo r planning and analysis?

9.

What is the nature of convnunlty-education programs In
Michigan?

10.

What 1s the nature o f community-education programs In
Flint?

11.

Do community-education administrators

in Michigan provide

or require special train in g fo r teachers In th e ir programs?
12.

Do community-education administrators

in F lin t provide or

require special train in g fo r teachers

in th e ir programs?

68
13.

What methods of teaching are u tiliz e d by fa c u lty super*
vised by community-education administrators 1n Michigan?

14.

What methods of teaching are u tiliz e d by fa c u lty super­
vised by community-education administrators 1n F lin t?

15.

Do conrnunity-education administrators in Michigan pro­
mote th e ir programs?

I f so, what means of promotion

do they use?
16.

Do community-education administrators in F lin t promote
th e ir programs?

I f so, what means of promotion do

they use?
17.

What s im ila ritie s are evident between the state-wide
and the F lin t respondents?

18.

What differences are evident between the state-wide
and the F lin t respondents?

The Study Population
The population of th is study consisted o f a ll communityeducation administrators in Michigan.

Excluded from the sample

were vocational and compensatory education leaders.
Method of Gathering Data
A preliminary questionnaire was sent to 10 respondents who
reacted to the questions fo r c la r it y , meaning, and usefulness.

This

process was repeated three times.
Data were gathered through a mailing which included an
introductory le t t e r , the questionnaire, and a return envelope
stamped and addressed.

Follow-up was done by phone, postal card,

69

and personal contact.

The questionnaire was hand-carried to the

F lin t population through the assistance o f a central o ffic e adminis­
tra tiv e o ffic e r .
The questionnaire contained 22 Items, some having two or
more parts.

The Items were designed to gather demographic data

as well as data which would give insight into the respondent's
attitudes about community-education programs and how they function.
Analysis o f the data included a numerical count of the responses
fo r each choice included with each item.

In some cases the choices

given were "yes" or "no"; fo r most questions there were several
choices.

The responses were also graphed to demonstrate co rrela­

tions.
Knowing what demographic or operational t r a its e xis t in a
p ro file of Michigan community-education adm inistrators, any person
interested in measuring and comparing lik e variables from any
other program w ill now have a reference point.
The objective was to establish a point of comparison, a
p ro file —not to be concerned about whether a given adm inistrator
of community-education provides in -s e rv ic e , etc.

Data should be

viewed c o lle c tiv e ly i f the p ro file is to be meaningful.

I t has as

its ultim ate purpose the formation o f a p ro file which purposely
avoids making debatable judgments about th e ir a p p lic a b ility to
every program administered.

Exhibiting such data has necessitated

the avoidance of standard terms such as "average"; consequently,
the use of the term p ro file must be adhered to as defined especially
fo r this study.

70

Findings
The questionnaire items were c a re fu lly designed to represent
demographic and a ttitu d in a l t r a it s (Group A is statewide, Group B
is F lin t ) .

The p ro file summary^ as described in the following Inven­

tory w ill provide the reader with a reference point against which to
compare data in a s ta tis t ic a lly meaningful way.
Group A
Demographic Data Summarized
Population.--T h e most common d is t r ic t in which the s ta te ­
wide community-education administrators function has a population of
5 to 15 thousand people.
gory.

Approximately one-third f a ll In th is cate­

From an average population of 20,000 citizen s or less,

d is tric ts enroll an average of 1500 to 2000 pupils and respondents
indicated a potential enrollment of 3000 to 4000 or double present
enrollments.
Time in jo b . — F if ty -f iv e percent of a ll the respondents work
100 percent of th e ir time in community-education adm inistration.

Age. — S lig h tly over h a lf of the 131 conmunity-education
administrators were less than 35 years of age; 10 were over 50 and
1 was 65.

The mean age was between 30 and 35.

Sex.--O f 130 respondents from Group A, 120 were men; 10
were women.
D is tric t tenure. —The mean number of years in the d is tr ic t
in which the respondents were employed was between 6 and 1 0 .
V o r d etail the reader must re fe r to Chapter IV.

71

Adm inistrative tenure .--T h e mean number of years each
respondent had worked in community-education adm inistration was
between 12 and 16.
Teacher c e r tific a tio n .— Out of 130, 124 had teaching cer­
t if ic a t e s .
Teaching majors/minors.— Major fie ld s of train in g o f the
community-education administrators were most frequently social
science (26 percent) and physical education/recreation (22 percent).
Another 40 percent were educated in the areas of applied science,
mathematics, in d u stria l a rts , business, and English backgrounds.
Music and speech were checked by one and two respondents, respec­
tiv e ly .

Twelve percent had a variety of discip lin es as background

tra in in g .
Train in g .— Twenty-one percent of the respondents from
Group A had fewer than 10 c re d it hours of train in g in the fie ld of
community-education adm inistration.
30 hours.

Twenty-six percent had 21 to

The responses then decreased inversely up to 60 hours.

Few respondents had taken more than 60 hours of adm inistrative
tra in in g .
Statement of Policy
Ninety-one statewide respondents indicated they have w ritten
board policy.
D efin itio n of Community Education
Administrators from Group A define community education
variously:

Twenty-five percent of the respondents gave th e ir own

72

d e fin itio n s , which are lis te d in Chapter IV; 16 percent believe
the enterprise should not be defined; 4 percent believe i t can not
be defined.
Sources fo r Planning and Analysis
Community-education adm inistrators in Michigan u t i liz e a
variety of sources fo r planning and analysis.

Among these are 12,

rank-ordered according to frequency of use:
Drop-out data
Learner requests
Community resources
Advisory committees
Professional organizations
U.S. Census data
Employment Security Commission
Chamber of Commerce
M in is te ria l associations
U.S. O ffice of Education
Commercial lis tin g s (yellow pages, e tc .)
Various (lim ite d )
Veterans Administration
State Department
County Commission
North Central Accreditation Association
Parent-Teacher Association
Although a v a rie ty of sources are used fo r planning and
analysis, approximately 30 percent of the respondents depend on
school-related resources.

Also, although the to ta l population used

a wide variety of sources, individual respondents used only about
h alf of the sources.

73

Nature o f CommunityEducation Programs
Periodical reading. — I t is in terestin g to note th a t every
respondent from Group A read a t least one professional p erio d ica l.
About 25 percent read no more than one, while about 70 percent
read two to four.

Only 5 percent read more than four.

Membership in organizations.--Ten percent of Group A
respondents belong to only one professional organization, while
80 percent belong to from two to four such organizations.
Decision making.--The adm inistrator and his/her professional
colleagues consistently played a major part In community-education
decision making throughout the s ta te .

Active c itiz e n input was

indicated by only 14 out of Group A.
Inter-agency cooperation. —Notably re s tric tiv e is in te r ­
agency cooperation.

There were s trik in g omissions such as a lack of

cooperative e ffo r t between unions and community-education adminis­
tra to rs .
Time of program o ffe rin g s . — Programs were offered around
the clock, seven days a week by the statewide group.

However, the

heavy concentration of program offerings indicates that programs
have not f u lly u tiliz e d the night hours.

Week-ends are not heavily

scheduled e ith e r.
Scope of class offerings (handicapped and e ld e r ly ). —The
inclusion of programs fo r the handicapped or the e ld e rly by some
community-education administrators (20 and 40 percent, respectively)
gives evidence of an awareness of this dimension.

74

High school completion.--Avenues through which individuals
may complete high school seem comprehensive.

By one means or

another, administrators have usually embraced every means of grant­
ing c re d it toward th is objective:
Credit waivers of examination
Credit waivers fo r work experience
Credits by tran sfer from non-accredlted and accredited schools
Credits from home study
Credits fo r work done under tu to ria l assistance
A diploma through proficiency examination
Credit fo r m ilita ry service time
Credit fo r travel
Credit through independent study
In-Service
Two-th1rds of the respondents in Group A provided in -service
or in some way required special train in g fo r teachers in th e ir
community-education c re d it classes.
Modes of Instruction
Evidence of tra d itio n a l approaches to Instruction are seen
from the modes of instruction employed.

Instruction rests heavily

upon lecture and discussion, not on the use of a variety o f media
and Independent study as might be expected in programs unhampered
by control and d is c ip lin a ry considerations.

Only 12 percent of

responding administrators indicated th a t the teachers in th e ir
programs use computer-assisted in stru ctio n .

75
Promotion o f Programs

A wide v a rie ty of promotional outlets was employed.

News­

papers were most widely used, with special m ailings, radio, posters,
and handbills following closely in th a t order.

Individual adminis­

trato rs usually employed only two or three o f these channels.

There

was a strong expressed desire fo r more promotion—a desire to use a
larger number of o u tle ts , and a desire fo r funds fo r th is purpose.
Group B
Answers to questionnaire items l-4 b were not required of
the F lin t respondents because the 25 respondents a ll work in the
same d is t r ic t .
Demographic Data Summarized
Population.- - P is t r i c t population and enrollment fo r F lin t
are taken from national Census data.

F lin t's population was 163,000

and community-education enrollments were about 20,000 according to
central administration o ffic e records.
Time in jo b .—The questionnaire did not ask the F lin t group
to respond to th is question.
Age. —The mean age of respondents from Group B was sim ilar
to Group A.

Only one person in Group B was over 40 years o f age.

Sex.- - A ll community-education administrators in Group B
were men.
D is tric t tenure. —The mean number of years in the F lin t
d is tr ic t was between 6 and 10 .

76

Administrative tenure. —The mean number o f years in communityeducation adm inistration was between four and eight.
Teacher c e r tific a tio n . —A ll 25 respondents from Group B had
teaching c e rtific a te s .
Teaching majors/minors.--M ajo r fie ld s of teaching majors and
minors were s im ila r to Group A.

Twelve percent were social science

and 35 percent were physical education/recreation.
Training. —Nearly h a lf o f the Group B respondents had between
21 and 30 hours of train in g in conmunity-education adm inistration,
with approximately one-fourth o f the group having fewer and onefourth having more hours, up to a maximum of 60 hours.
Policy Statements
The F lin t d is t r ic t does, in fa c t, have w ritten policy
covering many aspects of its community-education program.

In spite

of th is , approximately h a lf of the respondents do not acknowledge
or seem aware of the board policy.
D efin itio n of Community Education
Administrators from Group B define th e ir work as follows:
T h irty -fiv e percent define community education as p lu r a lis tic ,
random unexamined experience.

T h irty percent believe community

education should not be defined; one believes i t cannot be defined.
Sources for Planning and Analysis
The F lin t group drew from sources of planning s im ila r to
Group A in most respects but d iffe re n t 1n others, I . e . , advisory
committees were used more; m in is te ria l associations less.

77

Nature o f CowmunityEducatlon Programs
Periodical reading. —Periodical lite r a tu r e was not as widely
read among Group B.

Thirty-tw o percent read only one periodical

and another 48 percent read two.

Only 20 percent read more than two.

Membership in organizations. —Membership in organizations
was more re s tric te d in Group B than in Group A.
Decision making. —Unlike Group A, in more than 50 percent
of the cases reported in Group B, F lin t administrators sought active
c itiz e n input in the decision-form ulation process.

Only three

members of Group B Indicated th a t recommendations were prepared
p rim arily by adm inistrative personnel.
Inter-agency cooperation. --A 1though the ratings fo r agencies
with which the F lin t group cooperated shifted s lig h tly as compared
with Group A, the three agencies least frequently involved in
cooperative e ffo rts —unions, industry, and business—were the same
as Group A.
Time of program o ffe rin g s . —The time of program offerings
in the F lin t program was sim ilar to Group A in a ll respects except
that programs were not offered between midnight and 6 a.m.
Scope of class offerings (handicapped and e ld e r ly ) . - -Programs
fo r the handicapped or e ld erly are offered by 20 percent and 40 per­
cent, respectively, of F lin t community-education adm inistrators,
sim ilar to those from Group A.
High school completion. —Group B respondents allow fo r
credits from as many d iffe re n t sources as do Group A respondents;
however, the frequency of each type of waiver varies somewhat.

For

78

example:

only 20 percent o f Group allow c re d it fo r Independent

study while 71 percent of Group A allow th is waiver.

Also, 32 per­

cent of Group B allow c re d it fo r m ilita ry service time while 74 per­
cent of Group A allow th is waiver.

Conversely, 60 percent of

Group B allow c re d it through proficiency examination while 51 percent
of Group A accept GED.
In-Service
Just over 50 percent of the F lin t administrators provide
in-service s ta ff tra in in g .
Modes of Instruction
F lin t community-education administrators rank group d is ­
cussion, Independent study, le c tu re , various media, and reading,
in that order, as the modes most commonly used In in s tru c tio n .
About 18 percent of F lin t's adm inistrators use computer-assisted
instruction .
Promotion o f Programs
The F lin t program administrators employed tele v isio n more
frequently than other media, with ra d io , r e fe rr a ls , handbills,
word-of-mouth, and special mailing a ll close together in that order.
S im ila ritie s Between Group A and Group B
There are many s im ila ritie s between the statewide and F lin t
administrators of community education.

The s im ila ritie s between

Group A and Group B are evident from h a lf o f the item responses.
These are lis te d as follows:

79

1.

The number of years each adm inistrator has been 1n the
d is tr ic t 1n which he/she now works.

2.

The number of years administrators have worked In
convnunity education.

3.

The teaching majors and minors held.

4.

The manner of defining community education.

5.

The sources from which data fo r planning and program
analysis are obtained.

6.

The amount of professional periodical reading done.

7.

The numerical volume of professional organizational
membership.

8.

The clock hours during which programs are offered.

9.

The altern atives acceptable fo r completing requirements
fo r a high school diploma.

10.

The degree of cooperation and the type of agency with
which community-education administrators work cooper­
a tiv e ly .

11.

The modes of instruction used by instructors of
community-education programs.

12.

The percentage of respondents who use computer-assisted
instruction.
Differences Between Group A and Group B

The differences between the two populations are lis te d as
follows:

80

1.

Modal statewide d is tric ts are smaller than F lin t .

2.

Statewide d is t r ic t community-education programs were,
regardless of s ize , administered by a single o ffic e
while F lin t 's community schools were evidently autonomous
on a building le v e l.

3.

F lin t's administrators were a ll men.

4.

F lin t's administrators had s lig h tly more train in g in
community-education adm inistration.

5.

Statewide administrators more frequently used c itiz e n
advisory groups.

6.

F lin t 's administrators more frequently provided s ta ff
in -service.

7.

There are differences in the use of promotional outlets
and the dollars spent in promotion.

F lin t administra­

tors use T.V. more frequently and statewide adminis­
trato rs use newspapers more often and u t iliz e more
d o llars fo r promotion.
Conclusions/Imp!ications/Recommendations
The conclusions, im plications, and recommendations presented
in th is part of Chapter V are presented here.
Conclusions
1.

Numerically, the s im ila ritie s between the statewide and

the F lin t groups do not support the contention that the F lin t
community-education program is a unique model.

Only three d if f e r ­

ences of consequence appear in this study, i . e . , use o f advisory

81

groups, professional reading, and membership 1n professional
organizations.
2.

Although a p ro file of community-education administrators

with bell-curve frequency was expected to emerge, th is appeared only
lim ite d ly and demographically.

In other respects, community-

education administrators appear to be a diverse and heterogeneous
group.

There was no pattern of re su lts .
3.

Community-education administrators define community

education variously.
4.

Most corrmunlty-education adm inistrators were not

trained to be professional community educators; however, most sub­
sequently sought some such professional tra in in g .
5.

Most community-education administrators do u t i liz e

c itiz e n advisory groups whose input is important in the planning
of community-education programs.
6.

Most community-education administrators do not appear

to cooperate with certain agencies, I . e . , unions, Industry, and
local government.
7.

Community-education programs demonstrate l i t t l e aware­

ness of the unique learning characteristics of adults.
8.

Community-education administrators report that Instruc­

tors depend prim arily on lecture and discussion methods.

Evidently,

other methodologies and pro-active approaches to teaching are not
widely u tiliz e d .

82
Im p lic a tio n s

1.

Hiring of community-education adm inistrators appears

to be based on tenure or sheer a v a ila b ilit y .
2.

Heterogeneity of community-education adm inistrators'

responses may r e fle c t:

(a) heterogeneity of circumstances in

various locales where programs function, (b) heterogeneity of
education and experience.
3.

Community-education programs may r e fle c t the under­

graduate train in g of the adm inistrator.

Example:

an adm inistrator

trained in physical education may emphasize lik e program dimensions.
4.

The scope of community-education programing may be

lim ited by the degree of cooperation between administrators and
certain community agencies, unions, industry, and local government.
5.

Community-education administrators seem to need a

greater awareness of adult development tasks and problems.
6.

Community-education administrators should encourage

instructors to u t i liz e a greater v a rie ty of teaching methods,
especially pro-active approaches adaptive to adults.
Recommendations
1.

Community-education administrators should be hired on the

basis of professional competencies rather than on the basis of
a v a ila b ilit y , tenure, etc.
2.

Hiring agencies (boards of education, personnel d ire cto rs ,

employment agencies) should seek candidates fo r community-education
adm inistrative posts who have been educated as gen eralists.

83

3.

Community-education administrators should a c tiv e ly seek

cooperation with unions, government, and a ll community agencies to
develop greater scope in th e ir programs.
4.

Community-education administrators should heighten th e ir

awareness of various community-education d efin itio n s to ascertain
what Is appropriate and relevant fo r a p a rtic u la r community.
5.

Community-education administrators should seek to

provide in-service training fo r instructors In the use of pro-act 1ve
delivery techniques adapted to adult needs.
Need fo r Further Study
There are inferences beyond the recommendations 1n this
study which support the need fo r furth er research.

The results imply

the need fo r some type of licensure; however, the value of existing
c e rtific a tio n or licensure is not well enough established to support
such a recomnendation without fu rth er Investigation.
standards improve performance?

Would forced

Would the same standards s atis fy

a ll administrators' needs?
Not only is greater insight needed re la tiv e to the adminis­
tra tio n of community education, but more needs to be known about
other partners In community education such as corporations, trade
and labor unions, government, churches, and others.
F in a lly , should the success of a community-education program
be measured in terms of commonalities with other d is tric ts and/or
judged on the basis of each community's local uniqueness and
effectiveness?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

84

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alehin, Edmond. Community Development Reconnalsance Research.
East Lansing: Michigan State U niversity, School of Social
Work, n.d.
Blakely, Robert J. Adult Education in a Free Society. Edited by
J. R. Kidd. "Toronto: Guardian Bird Publications, 1968.
Borg, Walter R. Education Research, An Introduction.
David McKay Co., 1967.
Boyer, Ernest L. "University Without Walls."
Report, October 2, 1972.
Brunner, Edmund. The Growth of a Science.
Brothers, T55T!

New York:

U.S. News and World

New York:

Harper and

Buckley, W. Modern System Research fo r the Behavioral S c ie n tis t.
Chicago* Aldine Publishing Company, l£ 6 d.
Buckmiller, Archie A. "Increased Productivity: A Potential Response
to High Public Service Costs." Wisconsin Journal of Public
In stru ction . Winter 1975.
Cary, Lee J ., ed.
Missouri:

Conmunity Development as a Process.
University o f Missouri Press, lG?0.

C olliers Encyc1opedia.

.

1958

Vol. 17.

Columbia,

P. F. C o llie r and Son Corporation,

Convergence (Toronto) 5,1-3 (1972).
Copeland, Harlan G., and Grabowski, Stanley M.
5,4 (1971).

Convergence (Toronto)

Demerath, N. J ., and Peterson, R. A. Systems. Change and C o n flic t.
New York: The Free Press, 196/!
Dyer, Henry. How to Achieve Accountability in the Public Schools.
B1oomington, Indiana: Phi Delta kappa Educational Poundatlo n , 1973.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary.
Brace and World, In c ., 1957.

New York:

Harcourt,

86
Gallo, Vincent A. "Adult Learning Key to Success."
House 46 (December 1971).

The Clearing

Garvellnk, Roger H. "Why Bother With Citizens Committees?"
Journal. March 1972.

MASB

G r iffith s , Daniel E. "The Most S ign ificant Educational Research."
N.E.A. Journal, April 1972.
Hagen, Everett E.
Illin o is :

On the Theory of Social Change.
The Dorsey Press, In c ., 19627

Homewood,

Hawley, W illis D ., and W irt, F. M. The Search fo r Community Power.
Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey! PrentJce-Hall, In c ., 1968.
Harden, Alice H ., and Torkelson, Gerald M. Systematic Thinking
About Education. Bloomington, Indiana! Phi 6e lta Kappa
Educational Foundation, 1973.
Houle, C yril 0. The Inquiring Mind.
Wiscons1n Press, 19617

Madison:

The University of

Hughes, Bernard, and others. The Supply and Demand fo r School
Administrators in Wisconsin. Superior, Wisconsin: Univers ity of Wisconsin, Department of Educational Administration,
1974.
Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "A P ro file of P ro life ra tin g In s titu te s ."
Phi Delta Kappan, April 1972.
Jensen, Gale and others, eds. Adult Education: Outlines of an
Emerging Field of University S t u d y Washington, D.C.:
Adult Education Association of the U .S.A., 1964.
K leis, Russell. "The Post-Twelfth Grade Community Education Co.
and the Coordination of E ffo rt Among Community In s titu tio n s
in Continuing Education and Some Random Thoughts." East
Lansing: Michigan State U niversity, 1967. (Mimeographed.)
Knowles, Malcolm S. Higher Adult Education in the United States.
Washington, D.CT: The American Council on Education,
1969; re p rin t, 1970.
Kramer, Ralph M., and Specht, Harry. Readings in Community Organi­
zation Practice. Englewood C H ffs , New Jersey: PrenticeH al), In c ., 1969.
Kreitlow, Burton W. "Research in Adult Education." In Handbook
of Adult Education in the United States. Edited by H. S.
Knowles. Chicago: Adult Education Association of the
U.S.A., 1960.

87

Kumar, V. K. "The Structure of Human Memory and Some Educational
Im plications." Review o f Educational Research 41 (December
1971 )

.

Leagans, J. Paul. A New Look at Progressive Education. Washington,
D.C.: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1972.
Levine, Henry M.; Guthrie, James W.; Kleindorfer, George B.; and
Stout, Robert T. "School Achievement and Post-School
Success: A Review." Review o f Educational Research 41
(February 1971).
Liveright, A. A ., and Goldman, Freda H. Significant Developments
in Continuing Higher Education. CSLfcA Occasional Papers.
Boston: Center fo r the Study of Liberal Education for
Adults, 1965.
McCormack, P a tric ia . "College Is Called Time Wasted at 18."
Wisconsin State Journal, February 15, 1975.
McCormick, Thomas C., and Francis, Roy G. Methods o f Research in
the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Harper and Brothers,
T95?T
McGrath, Earl J. "Research on Higher Education fo r Adults."
The Next Twenty-Five Years. Proceedings of the 25th Annual
Meeting of the Association of University Evening Colleges,
1963.
M ille r, Lewis; Tahy, Ctibor; and Hatana, Kanji. Adult Education
and Television. London: National In s titu te of Adult
Education With UNESCO, 1966.
Minar, David W., and Greer, Scott. The Concept of Community.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969.
Morton, Gordon. "Daytime School fo r Adults: A New Program Dimension
a t University of C a lifo rn ia , Berkeley." CSLEA Occasional
Papers. No. 15. Boston: Center fo r the Study o f Liberal
Education fo r Adults, 1967
Newsletter. O ffice of
on Education,
Nisbet,

Educational Credit of
Washington, D.C. No.

Robert. "The University Had Better
Psychology Today, March 1971.

theAmerican Council
42,December1974.
MindIts Own Business."

Pamphlet, Department of Public Instruction. Reproduced by the
Wisconsin School Board Association, November 1, 1974.

88

Parsons, Cynthia. Schools Can Change.
Press, 1969.
Powell, John.
1962.

Learninq Comes of Aoe.

"Pupil: Lifetim e Study Predicted."
February 9, 1975.
Report on School S ta ffin g .

Boston:

Sterling In s titu te

National Research Center.
““

St. Paul Pioneer Press,

Washington, D.C., August 25, 1972.

Riley, M atilda. Sociological Research, A Case Approach.
------Harcourt, Brace, and World7 rnc.'.TW .

New York:

Sanders, Irwin T. The Community: An Introduction to a Social
System. New Vork: Ronald Press, 1966.
_______ . "Theories of Community Development." East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1972. (Mimeographed.)
Sanderson, Dwight. Locating the Rural Community. Cornell Univer­
s ity Extension b u lle tin 4)3. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University, 1939.
School News Reporter B rie fs . Wisconsin Association of School Boards,
In c ., 75-2, February 1975.
Shaw, Jane S. "The New Conservative A ltern ative." Nation's
Schools and Colleges, McGraw-Hill Magazine 2 (February 1975).
Sower, Christopher. Lecture, Sociology 868 , Michigan State Univer­
s ity , Spring Term, 1971.
Totten, W. Fred. "Community Education--Best Hope for Society."
School and Society 98 (November 1970).
Ulmer, C urtis. Teaching the Disadvantaged Adult. Edited by
Robert A. Luke. Washington, b . u : NAPSE, 1969.
U.S. News and World Report 74 (April 2, 1973).
Wakely, Ray E. The Communities of Schuyler County, New York.
Ithaca, New Vork: Cornell University AfcS, 1^31.
Warren, Roland L. Types of Purposive Social Change at the Community
Level. Waltnam, Mass.: Brandels University, 1965.
Webster's Student Dictionary.

T95CT

Chicago:

American Book Company,

89

W11helms, Fred. What Should the Schools Teach? Bloomington,
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa tiducatlonal Foundation, 1972.
Wilson,

Elizabeth C. Needed: A New Kind of Teacher. Bloomington,
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1973.

Reference is made to contracts negotiated over the past 10 years
throughout the state o f Michigan. Copies of these contracts are
f ile d in many places including the Michigan Education Association,
East Lansing, Michigan.