IN FO RM A TIO N TO USERS This material 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 Page(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 cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When 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 sheet 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 "photographs" 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 HP10 8HR 7619140 LABONTK# ROGER THOMAS j u d g m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g THE m a j o r f u n c t i o n s # a u t h o r i t y , ACCOUNTABILITY# a n d f i n a n c i a l 8UFF0RT OF t h e CAREER EDUCATION FLANNING DISTRICT i n MICHIGAN. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY# ED.D,, 1976 University Microfilms I n t e r n a t io n a l jo o n z t& B r o a o , a n n a h b o r . m i ^8106 JUDGMENTS CONCERNING THE MAJOR FUNCTIONS, AUTHORITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE CAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICT IN MICHIGAN By Roger T. LaBonte A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT JUDGMENTS CONCERNING THE MAJOR FUNCTIONS, AUTHORITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE CAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICT IN MICHIGAN By Roger T. LaBonte In 1971, a call for educational reform, in the name of career education, was made across our nation. A philosophy which emphasized the need for children, youth, and adults to explore and prepare to fulfill their major life roles, this concept suggested a need for schools to re-examine their fundamental purposes and methods for achieving them. Michigan, through its enabling legislation passed in 1974, accepted the challenge of career education. It mandated that local education agencies plan for, develop, and evaluate career education. This law further estab­ lished a regional unit called the Career Education Planning District (CEPD) to assist local education agencies imple­ ment career education. Prior to this legislative action, CEPDs had existed through administrative dictum of the MDE's Division of Vocational-Technical Education to Roger T. LaBonte improve vocational education services across the state. Thus, these units generally had philosophical, administra­ tive, and operational perspectives somewhat more limiting than the comprehensiveness of the career education concept. Given this expanded role by the State legislature, the study undertook to determine: (1) the degree of appropriateness of a selected list of functions for CEPD, (2) the degree of authority CEPD should be given to pe r ­ form the functions, (3) the appropriate resolution of four selected accountability issues for CEPD, and (4) the sources and proportions of financial support for CEPD. Eight specific reference groups including CEPD Coordinators, Intermediate School District Superintendents, selected samples of the MDE, Local School Superintendents, Local School Career Education Coordinators, members of the State Career Education Commission, State Advisory Council for Vocational Education, and the State University Cadre were asked to participate in the study. respondents was identified. A total of 27 0 A survey instrument was developed and administered to the respondents with a return rate of 63.7 percent. The following conclusions were derived from the data reported: {1) Forty-five of forty-nine functions were found appropriate for CEPD to perform; (2) CEPD should be limited to consultive authority to perform its functions; (3) CEPD should be under the political Roger T. LaBonte jurisdiction of an ISD and have boundaries coterminous with it; (4) There is no agreement as to a preferred job title for the principal CEPD administrator; (5) There is no agreement as to the preferred person or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable; and (6) A funding pattern to support CEPD is suggested that includes stronger state support, increased use of General Fund sources, consideration of a special CEPD allocation at the state level, and a relative reduction in vocational education support. The following conclusions were inferred from the study evidence: (1) The groups of respondents appeared to have different philosophical perceptions of career edu­ cation; (2) Current organizational structures and oper­ ational procedures for CEPDs may be inadequate to address the issues of career education; pattern for CEPD is needed; (3) A different funding (4) Public Act 97 is limited and further legislation may be required to continue the career education movement. Several recommendations are made including: (1) development of a public information program to inform educational and noneducational groups about the promise of career education; (2) changes in the organizational structure and operational procedures of CEPD to reflect the encompassing nature of the career education concept; (3) clarifying the amount of authority needed to insure Roger T. LaBonte the implementation of career education and the role of CEPD in administering this authority; (4) the need to address professional development needs of CEPD personnel if they are to perform an expanded list of functions; (5) involve­ ment of higher education institutions in developing leadership programs for career education educators; (6) the need to identify or develop additional implemen­ tation models for career education; and (7) the need for further legislation to continue the career education movement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many persons assisted in the planning, developing, and completing of this study. To all who contributed, the writer extends a full measure of gratitude. Special appreciation must be given to Professor Russell J. Kleis and Dr. Cas Heilman for their perceptive assistance and encouragement throughout all phases of the study. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Clifford 0. Jump, Dr. Sheldon Cherney, and Dr. Ken Harding who, as members of the Guidance Committee, willingly gave of their time, professional advice, and personal encouragement. The writer is also indebted to Dr. Billie Rader for his research knowledge and expertise. Finally, the writer is especially indebted to his mother, mother-in-law, and father-in-law for their con­ tinuous encouragement; to his wife, Kay, for her encour­ agement, understanding, and tolerance; and to his daughters, Kristi and Jennifer, who sacrificed much fatherly companionship in order that the study could be completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES.......................................... xiii Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION ................................ 1 The P r o b l e m ................................ Background of the Problem ................ Purpose of This Study...................... Questions This Study Has Attempted To A n s w e r ................................... 3 5 10 F u n c t i o n s ................................ A u t h o r i t y ................................ Accountability .......................... Financial Support ...................... 11 11 12 12 Populations Included in the Study. . . . Organization and Procedures................ Assumptions of This S t u d y ................ Limitations of the Study................... Definition of T e r m s ...................... Importance of the S t u d y ................... Overview of the Study....................... 13 14 14 15 16 21 22 11 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................... 24 ............................. Introduction The Development of Career Education . . . 24 25 Why Career Education ................... Career Education Defined ................ Making Career Education Operational in Michigan............................. The Status of Career Education in Michigan................................ 25 32 iii 40 47 Chapter Page The Establishment of Career Education Planning Districts in Michigan . . . . 50 The Position Paper on Occupational E d u c a t i o n ....................... 51 The Proposed Career Education Organi­ zational S t r u c t u r e .............. 54 Implementing the CEPD Concept . . . . Formal Recognition of CEPD and an Expanded R o l e .................... 64 Problems That Have Evolved with CEPD . Role T h e o r y ........................... Concepts of Organization.............. 67 69 75 The Concept of O r g a n i z a t i o n ....... 75 Need for Organizational Renewal. . . . Organizational Development ............. III. 60 DESIGN AND M E T H O D O L O G Y ................. 78 82 86 Introduction........................... 86 Questions Addressed ....................... Functions Deemed Appropriate....... 87 Degree of Authority to Perform F u n c t i o n s ....................... 88 Accountability Issues .................... Sources and Proportions of Financial Support for C E P D ................. 89 Description of the Study Population . . . Categorization of the Study Population . . The I n s t r u m e n t ....................... 97 Administration of the Instrument . . . . Methodology for Analyzing Data ......... 101 87 89 91 96 100 Specific Procedures...................103 S u m m a r y ...................... IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . 110 . Ill Introduction............................ Ill Functions Deemed Appropriate ............. Degree of Authority to Perform Functions . 113 130 No A u t h o r i t y ......................... 132 Consultive Authority .................... 136 iv . Chapter Page Directive Authority..................... Agencies To Give CEPD Directive Authority (if Any Is To Be Given). Significant Differences in Judgment between Reference Groups on Degree of Authority for Specific Functions . Accountability .......................... Political Jurisdiction for CEPD . . . Geographical Boundaries for CEPD. . Job Title of the Principal CEPD Administrator ....................... The Professional Administrator or Body to Which the CEPD Administrator Should Be Directly Accountable. . . Sources and Proportions of Financial S u p p o r t ................................. A Variety of Funding Sources . . . . A Variety of State Funding Sources . . A Variety of Intermediate School District Funding Sources............. Proportions of CEPD Support by Fund­ ing Category.......................... V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... Statement of the P r o b l e m ................ Background and Setting of the Study . . Questions This Study Has Attempted to A n s w e r .............................. M e t h o d o l o g y .............................. Summary Findings.......................... 140 144 155 162 163 173 180 191 200 202 208 216 222 230 230 230 233 234 2 35 F u n c t i o n s .............................. A u t h o r i t y .............................. Accountability Issues ................ Financial Support....................... 235 236 236 238 Conclusions of the S t u d y ................. 241 F u n c t i o n s .............................. A u t h o r i t y .............................. Accountability Issues ................ Financial Support of C E P D ............. 241 242 242 245 v Page Understanding the Philosophy of Career E d u c a t i o n .............................. Organizational Structure and Oper­ ational Procedures for CEPD . . . . Financial Support ....................... Limitations of Public Act 97 . . . Implications and Recommendations. . . 246 247 249 251 . I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. I m p l i c a t i o n .............................. 252 252 259 2 60 2 61 2 62 263 263 264 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND LETTERS .............. 265 B. RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF CEPD PER­ FORMING FUNCTIONS........................... 2 83 DATA DISPLAYS FOR SIX ISSUES ON WHICH THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG REFERENCE GROUPS ........................... 288 RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE POLITICAL JURISDICTION FOR C E P D .................... 294 RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF CEPD B O U N D A R I E S ................................. 299 RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE JOB TITLE FOR THE PRINCIPAL CEPD ADMINISTRATOR . 30 3 RATINGS OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE GOVERNING BODY— ADMINISTRATOR TO WHICH THE CEPD ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE................................. 309 C. D. E. F. G. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. 314 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 Distribution of responses to survey . . . . 115 4.2 Ratings by reference groups individually and as a composite of appropriateness for CEPD to perform a selected set of forty-nine functions ..................................... 116 Ratings by reference groups individually in categories and as a composite of appro­ priateness for CEPD to perform four sub­ sets of functions and the total set of forty-nine functions . . . . . . . . 123 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have no authority to perform designated functions of planning, coordination, con­ sultation, and evaluation or all of these functions ..................................... 133 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform designated functions of planning, coordination, con­ sultation, and evaluation or all of these functions ..................................... 137 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have directive authority to perform designated functions of planning, coordination, con­ sultation, and evaluation or all of these functions ..................................... 141 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have authority to implement ISD or CEPD governing board directives when performing designated functions of planning, coordination, con­ sultation, and evaluation or all of these functions ..................................... 145 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 vii Page Table 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have authority to implement State Board of Ed u ­ cation directives when performing designated functions of planning, coordination, consul­ tation, and evaluation or all of these functions ..................................... 146 Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have directive authority to develop and implement its own directxves when performing desig­ nated functions of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation of all these functions ..................................... 147 Ratings of appropriateness of alternative political jurisdictions for CEPD by reference groups individually, by cate­ gories and as a composite.................... 164 Ratings of appropriateness of alternative geographical boundaries for CEPD by reference groups individually, by cate­ gories and as a composite .................... 174 Ratings of appropriateness of alternative titles for CEPD administrator by reference groups individually, by categories and as a composite .................................. 181 Ratings of alternative administrators or boards to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable by reference groups individually, by category and by composite ..................................... 192 Mean percentages of CEPD funding from each of four sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups .................... 203 Mean percentages of CEPD funding from six categories of State sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups. 209 viii Page Table 4.16 4.17 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 B.l B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 Mean percentages of CEPD funding from each of four categories of Intermediate School Dis­ trict sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all g r o u p s ................... 217 Mean percentages of CEPD funding from the proportionate share of CEPD support from State, ISD, and Local Education Agency levels as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the com­ posite of all groups ............. 224 The appropriateness of CEPD to perform plan­ ning functions as judged by the composite of the reference g r o u p s ................... 253 The appropriateness of CEPD to perform co­ ordination functions as judged by the com­ posite of the reference groups............. 255 The appropriateness of CEPD to perform con­ sultation functions as judged by the com­ posite of the reference groups............. 258 The appropriateness of CEPD to perform evalu­ ation functions as judged by the composite of the reference g r o u p s ................... 258 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD performing sixteen planning functions as reported by eight reference groups . . 283 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD performing four consultant functions as reported by eight reference groups . . 284 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD performing twenty-five coordination functions as reported by eight reference ................... groups 285 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD performing four evaluation functions as reported by eight reference groups . . 286 Weighted mean ratings of the appropriateness of CEPD performing forty-nine functions taken as a whole as reported by eight reference groups .......................... 287 ix Table C.l C.2 C .3 C.4 C.5 C.6 D .1 D.2 D.3 Page The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of vocational education programs within the CEPD. (What degree of authority?) ...................... 288 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of adult and continuing education programs within the CEPD. (What degree of authority?) . . . 289 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD career education steering committees. (What degree of a u t h o r i t y ? ) ................ 290 The CEPD should coordinate the implementation of an area-wide occupational information system of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD. (What degree ofauthority?). . . . 291 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program reporting. (What degree of a u t h o r i t y ? ) ................................ 292 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs adminis­ ter evaluation activities related to their career education programs. (What degree of a u t h o r i t y ? ) ................................ 293 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of the Intermediate School District as the political jurisdiction for CEPD as judged ................. by eight reference groups 294 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of the CEPD being a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education as judged by eight reference groups................... 295 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD being a new agency established separate from any existing educational agencies now functioning in the State and responsible to the State Board of Education as judged by eight reference groups....................... 296 x Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of a local education agency within the CEPD as the political jurisdiction for CEPD as judged by eight reference groups . 297 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of a community college located within the CEPD as the political jurisdiction for CEPD as judged by eight reference groups . . . . 298 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD boundaries being coterminous with Intermediate School District Boundaries as judged by eight reference groups . 299 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD boundaries being consistent with existing State-wide CEPD structure as judged by eight reference groups . 300 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD boundaries being coterminous with regional educational media center boun­ daries as judged by eight reference groups. 301 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD boundaries being coterminous with com­ munity college boundaries as judged by ................... eight reference groups 302 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "superintendent" as the title for the principal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups ................ 303 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "assistant superintendent" as the title for the principal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups . 304 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "specialist" as the title for the principal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups .......................... 305 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "consultant" as the title for the principal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups .......................... 306 xi Table F.5 F.6 G.l G.2 G.3 G.4 G.5 Page Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "director" as the title for the principal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups .......................... 307 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of "coordinator" as the title for the princi­ pal administrator of CEPD as judged by eight reference groups .................... 308 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD administrator being directly account­ able to an administrator in a lower organizational position than a central office administrator as judged by eight reference groups .......................... 309 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD administrator being directly account­ able to a central office administrator other than a superintendent as judged by eight reference groups .................... 310 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD administrator being directly account­ able to the CEPD Coordinating Council as judged by eight reference groups . . . 311 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD administrator being directly account­ able to a superintendent as judged by eight reference groups .................... 312 Weighted mean ratings of appropriateness of CEPD administrator being directly account­ able to a CEPD Governing Board as judged by eight reference groups ................. 313 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Page An integrated a p p r o a c h ....................... 42 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Throughout the history of our American school sys­ tem several periodic attempts have been made to revitalize, reform, or otherwise change this social institution so that it might become more responsive to the needs of its con­ sumers, the children, youth, and adults of our nation. Many of these innovations have had lasting impact on the system and have been beneficial to all who have been served by it. The Seven Cardinal Principles of Education enun­ ciated early in this century had a profound influence in the ongoing process of changing our school system from one that served only the elite few to one which opened its doors to the masses. Over the past seventy-five years several major innovations promoted through national legis­ lation have created more responsive schools. The Vocational Education and National Defense Education Acts serve as two major examples. In Michigan, the past twenty-five years have wit­ nessed several innovations which have had a significant 1 2 effect on educational services for children, youth, and adults. These changes have occurred in each of the state's educational institutions including its state department of education, its colleges and universities, the community college system, the intermediate school districts, and the K-12 schools. Among some of these major developments have been the establishment of areawide special education programs, area-wide vocational edu­ cation p r o g r a m s , expanded community school and adult pro­ grams , and expanded guidance and counseling services. In each of these developments, the changes in the educational institutions have involved one or more of the following: 1. Policy decisions by various governing groups changing the direction of established programs 2. State or federal legislative mandates for new programs 3 . Changes in the role and functions of educational agencies and even the development of new agencies 4. Changes in the role and function of personnel and in some instances adding or reducing personnel 5. Changes in fund allocations and other support 6. Continuing education for those involved in the managing and implementing of programs and 3 preservice education for those about to enter the system as managers and instructional or support staff In 1971, U.S. Commissioner of Education Sidney Marland called for nation-wide educational reform. He proposed a focus upon career education and asked for edu­ cational systems throughout the country to review their purposes and methods of delivering educational services and to again become more responsive to the changing needs of those being served by the system. Career education as suggested by Marland and others, if made operational, could have significant impact on our schools and those educators who are responsible for the planning, manage­ ment, implementation, and evaluation of their programs. Further, it could reach parents and other members of the community involving the home, school, and community in more cooperative and productive educational efforts. The Problem In Michigan, attempts are being made to operation­ alize the concept of career education in school programs. State legislation enacted in 1974 has mandated that every local public school shall establish a program of career education. A new regional agency, the Career Education Planning District (CEPD) has been officially established as an integral unit for spearheading the movement. Fifty- three such units have been charged with the responsibilities 4 of promoting/ assisting, and coordinating efforts to insure career education programs in the 58 intermediate and more than 520 K-12 school districts in the state. However, the language of the legislation is am­ biguous relative to the duties and powers of CEPD. Further, little administrative action has been taken to define the major functions, authority, accountability, and financial support for CEPD. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the CEPD unit was originated by another authority at an earlier time for another purpose. The Michigan Department of Education had created the CEPD in 1971 for the purpose of coordinating vocational education programs. As defined by Commissioner Marland and the Michigan State Board of Education, career education is a broad and encompassing concept which includes but is not limited to vocational education. Thus the role of CEPD is to be broader than envisioned when it was established prior to the 1974 legislation which mandated career education. Accordingly, it has become necessary to do two things: (1) to clarify, within this altered context, the major functions, authority, accountability, and finan­ cial support that are deemed to be appropriate for CEPD, and (2) to gain acceptance for these units by the publics who will serve and be served by them. Failure to reach a reasonable level of consensus within and among publics involved in policy formation and administration of our 5 educational enterprise could result in unsuccessful attempts to implement career education. This study has undertaken the first of these cri­ tical tasks. It has sought to clarify and to analyze the judgments of eight officially designated groups concerning the issues of major functions, authority, accountability, and financial support deemed appropriate for the Career Education Planning District and its chief officer, cur­ rently identified as the CEPD coordinator. Background of the Problem Public Act 97 was passed by the Michigan legislature and signed by the Governor in May of 1974, The Act was designed to encourage the development and implementation of comprehensive career education plans by local and regional educational agencies throughout Michigan. It provided for the development of an organizational structure to facili­ tate the planning specified by the Act. It authorized that guidelines and procedures for implementing its intent be developed. 1. Specifically, this Act: Created a State Advisory Career Education Commission empowered to make recommendations to the State Board of Education relative to guidelines and pro­ cedures for implementing the Act 2. Created Career Education Planning District Councils and prescribed their powers and duties 6 3. Stated that each local school district will annually develop a career education plan and establish performance objectives^" This Act poses two major changes for education in Michigan. First, career education is to be considered an "umbrella" educational concept for Michigan intermediate and local school educational efforts. Second, it requires regional planning for the pur­ pose of facilitating and coordinating local district edu­ cational plans and implementation efforts. This is to be done through the Career Education Planning Districts (CEPDs). Through this Act the state legislature established in law organizational units which had formerly been estab­ lished as interim units by action of the Michigan Depart­ ment of Education. Initially, they had been designed pri­ marily as planning and coordinating units to further promote and coordinate sound vocational education oppor­ tunities for all youth and adults in Michigan. The Act thus made permanent what had been established as interim units and expanded their role from one concerned pri­ marily with vocational education matters to one dealing with comprehensive educational efforts. The original action to establish the CEPD was undertaken following careful study by the Division of ■*\Act 97 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1974. 7 Vocational and Technical Education. In 1968, a position paper on occupational education was developed by the Division. It declared a need for occupational education to be an integral part of the total educational process and to be included in the elementary, junior high, high school, post secondary, and adult education efforts.^" In the middle 1960s forty-two area vocational studies had been conducted throughout Michigan. Among the conclusions drawn from those studies, one was that the existing organizational structure at that time was inadequate to assure "a comprehensive, cohesive, relevant 2 program within reach of all people in our State." On the basis of that conclusion, it was proposed that a program should " . . . be designed to acquaint all youth with the world of work, provide youth and adults with opportunities for developing salable skills and abil­ ities to secure jobs, and provide employed persons with opportunities for skill improvement through training and retraining."3 Several items of concern were identified including the need for more occupational education programs, coordi­ nating efforts between and among districts, making better ^~A Vertically Integrated Occupational Curriculum for Schools in Michigan: A Position Paper, Lansing (Michigan Department of Education, 1966). 2I b i d . , p. 1. 3Ibid. 8 use of available facilities and instructional staffs, and providing more leadership for planning, promotion, coordi­ nation, supervision, and evaluation. Coupled with these concerns was the recognition that attempts being made to bring about reorganization of local education agencies, intermediate school districts, and community college districts were progressing too slowly to meet the needs identified. Favorable consider­ ation was given to the establishment of CEPDs as unofficial entities to serve in meeting the needs of vocational edu­ cation until intermediate and community college district reorganization could be effectuated. Forty-nine CEPDs were thus established and most subsequent vocational education planning and programming and all federal and state vocational education dollar allocations for vocational education were done through the organizational and procedural arrangements established in each. A 1972 Michigan Department of Education survey on the success of CEPDs found that they were accepted and understood in some areas of the state but characterized by resistance and confusion in others. Among the concerns identified through the survey were a lack of understanding by many educators as to the mission of a CEPD, lack of understanding of the role of the CEPD Council in relation to other area advisory groups, and an unclear definition 9 of the role of the CEPD coordinator, a position partially reimbursed by funds allocated through the Michigan Depart­ ment of Education's Division of Vocational and Technical Education.1 With the passage of Public Act 97, more confusion has occurred relative to CEPD. role for CEPD. The Act mandates a broad Yet, definitive guidelines relative to its authority and legal base have not been forthcoming. Further, while the newly assigned role of CEPD is to deal comprehensively with all aspects of K-12 and possibly Kadult public school education within a geographical area, it continues to be funded mainly by vocational education dollars and staffed mainly by vocational education per­ sonnel. In a meeting of CEPD coordinators conducted on August 25-26, 1975, these concerns were discussed and the issues more sharply defined. The coordinators acknowledged that the present functions of CEPD were not clearly defined nor were the roles of its coordinator properly delineated. They recommended that the Michigan Department of Education clarify the role and authority base of the CEPD organization and provide needed funding for reimbursement of coordi2 nators. ^Evaluation of the CEPD in Michigan, Problems, Causes, Remedies, Lansing (Michigan Department of Education, I572T 2 . . . William J. Florida, Career Education Planning Dis­ trict Coordinators Conference Proceedings, Mackinac Island, August 1975. 10 Thus, a regional unit which was at one time a temporary and administratively established entity now has gained permanent and legislatively prescribed status. Once an organization to serve only vocational education programs, it is now being expected to accomplish tasks that reach far beyond the narrower boundaries of occu­ pational education. Receiving state funding from only the Division of Vocational and Technical Education, it must now be given additional funding and from other sources. If CEPD is to emerge as a regional planning and coordinating unit to assist in the planning, implemen­ tation, evaluation, and reporting of career education programs as mandated by Public Act 97, it appears essential that several of the concerns now confronting the CEPD be isolated, identified, and clarified. Only then can they be properly addressed in the continuing formulation of legislative and administrative policy which will facilitate the major role CEPD is to have in Michigan Education. Purpose of This Study It has been the purpose of this study to investi­ gate the major functions, authority, accountability, and financial support of the Career Education Planning Dis­ trict (CEPD) as viewed by eight significant reference groups involved in the Michigan career education movement. 11 Questions This Study Has Attempted To Answer This study has sought answers to questions related to four issues, each suggested as critical in the perfor­ mance of CEPD as an agency designed to fulfill the intent of ACT 97 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1974. These issues are functions, authority, accountability, and financial support. The general questions concerning each of these issues addressed by the study were: Functions 1. What should be CEPDs' appropriate major functions for: (1) program planning, nation, (2) program coordi­ (3) program consultation, and (4) program evaluation? Authority 1. To what degree should CEPD have any authority for: (1) program planning, (2) program coordination, (3) program consultation, and (4) program evalu­ ation? 2. To what degree should CEPD have consultive authority for: coordination, (1) program planning, (2) program (3) program consultation, and (4) program evaluation? 12 3. To what degree should CEPD have directive authority for: (1) program planning, nation, (2) program coordi­ (3) program consultation, and (4) program evaluation? 4. What agencies appear most appropriate for giving CEPD directive authority for: (if any should be given) (1) program planning, nation, (2) program coordi­ (3) program consultation, and (4) program evaluation? Accountability 1. To what political jurisdiction should CEPDs be legally attached? 2. What should be the geographical boundaries for CEPD? 3. What should be the job title of the principal professional administrator of CEPD? 4. To whom should the principal CEPD person be directly accountable? Financial Support 1, What are the appropriate sources and proportions of financial support for CEPDs? 13 Populations Included in the Study Eight groups of officials were identified as having either direct or indirect involvement with CEPD in its career education program activities. Accordingly, they were included in the study as follows: 1. Fifty CEPD coordinators 2. Fifty-eight intermediate school district superin­ tendents 3. Nineteen members of the State Advisory Commission for Career Education 4. Twenty-two members of the State Advisory Council for Vocational Education 5. A sample of fifty local education agency superin­ tendents 6. A sample of fifty local education career education coordinators 7. Thirteen selected representatives from the Michigan Department of Education 8. A university cadre including one representative from each of the eight State University Career Education programs A total study sample of 27 0 respondents was thus identi­ fied. 14 Organization and Procedures Procedures for this study included an examination of the writings and opinions of authorities in the field of role theory, concepts of organization, career education, and the CEPD. Data gathering was accomplished through a mailed survey to all 270 persons identified as the sample for the study. The survey was developed using the writings, opinions, and assistance of a variety of sources. Data were evaluated in relation to each of the major questions addressed by the study and were reported in standard scores (percentages) and rating scale scores. Data were reported for each of the eight reference groups as well as for the composite of the reference groups. The data were analyzed to identify similarities and dif­ ferences between State level groups (the MDE Representa­ tives, the Career Education Commission, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education, and the University C a d r e ) , operational level groups (The ISD Superintendents, the Local School Superintendents, and the Local School Career Education Coordinators), and the CEPD Coordinators' group. Assumptions of This Study In conducting this study, the following assump­ tions have been made: 15 1. Career education is an important educational con­ cept and will have a significant impact on the educational programs and practices of educational agencies in Michigan. 2. Public Act 97 will remain the basic legislative mandate for the implementation of career education in Michigan. 3. The Career Education Planning District was ini­ tiated by the Michigan Department of Education and authorized by Public Act 97 to assist in p r o ­ moting, planning, and coordinating career education efforts of local education agencies and inter­ mediate school districts. 4. The Career Education Planning District will con­ tinue to have an important role in annual and long-range educational planning and coordination for local education agencies and intermediate school districts. Limitations of the Study The study and its findings are subject to the following limitations: 1. The results of the study are unique to the state of Michigan and its organizational approach to implement career education. 16 2. The study results apply to the time period of September-December, 1976, at which time the data were collected. 3. Major statistical analyses were done by reference group and composite of reference groups rather than by individual respondents. 4. When making statistical comparisons, each refer­ ence group was given equal value even though the numbers in the groups varied considerably. 5. Data analyses for two major sections, functions deemed appropriate, and degree of authority to be given CEPD to perform functions, are limited to functional subsets and the total set of forty-nine functions taken as a whole. 6. In some instances the results and conclusions are based on incomplete data reporting. The Advisory Council for Vocational Education was somewhat incomplete in its judgments on accountability issues and financial support issues. Reporting of the reference groups was incomplete on financial support issues. Definition of Terms The following terms have been defined as they are used in this study: 17 Career Education.— Refers to an instructional approach which assists students to explore, understand, and perform their major life roles in occupation, citizen­ ship, leisure, and family. Vocational Education.— Refers to formal instruction designed to develop skills, abilities, understandings, attitudes, work habits, and appreciations, which prepares youth and adults for initial entrance into and/or advance­ ment within an occupation or related group of occupations. Vocational education is considered only a part of career education. Career Education Planning District (CEPD) .— A group of educational agencies including K-12 districts, community college, and intermediate school district or districts, located In geographical proximity to one another and organized to increase the opportunities for people to become and remain adequately prepared for life and for work. It is structured to increase communication, coop­ eration, and planning among the member educational agen­ cies and to coordinate and promote career education pro­ grams within them. Local Education Agency (LEA).— A K-12 public school district properly recognized by the State Board of Education, the principal public institution for provid­ ing elementary and secondary education. 18 Intermediate School District (ISP) .— An inter­ mediary educational agency situated between K-12 schools and the Michigan Department of Education and responsible for carrying out both regulatory and service-oriented functions with local education agencies. Under Public Act 97, an intermediate school district may also function as a local education agency. Functional Categories or Subsets.— Represent groupings of selected functions that have been identified for consideration in this study. Four specific categories, planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation, and one general category, all of these, were employed in the investigation. Authority Levels.— Represent degrees of authority to be given CEPD when performing selected functions. The levels were identified: No Authority.— The CEPD should have no authority to perform the function. Authority to Inform.— The CEPD should have the authority to inform LEAs and ISDs of arrange­ ments, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career edu­ cation, and report the status of LEAs and ISDs to the State Board of Education (SBE). 19 Authority to Recommend.— The CEPD should have the authority to recommend to LEAs and ISDs the arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career education. The CEPD should have the authority to recommend to the SBE, the courses of action needed to insure that LEAs or ISDs per­ form career education. Authority to Implement ISP or Other CEPD Governing Board Directives.— In accordance with ISD or other CEPD governing board policies and guidelines, the CEPD should have the authority to require LEAs and ISDs to use CEPD identified and approved arrangements, materials, programs, pro­ cedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career education, and take governing board approved action against LEAs or ISDs who fail to perform the career education function identified by the governing board. Authority to Implement SBE Directives.— The CEPD should have the authority to require LEAs and ISDs to use SBE identified and approved arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of the career education function. The CEPD should have 20 the authority to take SBE action against LEAs or ISOs which fail to perforin the career education function as identified by the SBE. Authority to Develop and Implement Its Own Dir e c t i v e s .— The CEPD, as a separate and autono­ mous legal unit, should have the authority to develop arrangements, materials, programs, p r o ­ cedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career education and require their use by LEAs and ISDs. As an autonomous legal unit, the CEPD should have the authority to take action against LEAs or ISDs which fail to perform career education as identified by the CEPD. Consultive A u t h o r i t y .— The CEPD should have the authority to inform or recommend to LEAs and ISDs the arrangements, materials, programs, pr o ­ cedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career education. The CEPD should have the authority to inform and recommend to a governing body, the courses of action needed to insure that LEAs and ISDs perform the governing body directed career education. Directive A u t h o r i t y .— In accordance with the governing body's policies and guidelines, the CEPD should have authority to require LEAs and 21 ISDs to use the governing body's identified and approved arrangements, materials, programs, pro­ cedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of career education. The CEPD should have the authority to take the governing body's approved action against LEAs and ISDs which fail to per­ form career education as identified by the govern­ ing body. Reference Group Score.— Refers to a standard score established for each of the eight reference groups included in this study. Scores are presented as percentages or as weighted rating scores. Composite of the Reference Groups Scores.— Refers to an average score established by summing the standard scores of each of the eight reference groups taken as equals and then dividing by eight, the number of reference groups involved in the study. Importance of the Study From the data obtained through this study, several recommendations have been developed which, it is believed, may be helpful in the continued development of the CEPD in fulfilling the intent of Public Act 97. dations address the following issues: These recommen­ 22 1. Policy actions which appear to be needed to further clarify the major functions of CEPD, either through formal legislation or by action of educational governing boards 2. Action needed which establishes operational limits of CEPDs' authority and accountability 3. Action needed to provide fiscal support to insure the continuing development of CEPD activities 4. Action needed to increase the professional pro­ ficiency of those involved in the development of CEPD and its activities 5. Identification of other critical questions raised but not addressed by this study and considered essential for further research in the continuing development of CEPD Overview of the Study Chapter I consists of the background of the topic, the study's purpose, identification of population, and procedures for gathering and analyzing pertinent data. Chapter II is devoted to the presentation of information from the literature relating to career edu­ cation, the development of CEPD, role theory, and con­ cepts of organizations. Chapter III includes a description of the eight reference groups which made up the study population, the 23 specific questions to be answered by the study, infor­ mation on the development of the instrument and its administration, and the measures and methodology employed in answering the questions. Chapter IV consists of a compilation and analysis of all data from the completed surveys. Findings are reported by total respondent population, by each specific reference group, and by categories of reference groups. Chapter V presents a summary of the study and its findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, and impli­ cations for future CEPD related research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Four areas of literature seemed most appropriate in preparing to conduct this study. The concept of career education as an instrument for achieving needed reform in education served as the initiating force bringing about the passage of Public Act 97. The literature of career education was, therefore, reviewed to (1) uncover why career education was believed to be needed in our system of education, and all about. (2) define what this concept is really The Michigan CEPD structure was identified in the legislation as the regional planning and coordinating unit to assist local educational agencies in developing and implementing career education. Since CEPD was the principle focus of this study, a review of literature was pursued to identify the reasons for establishing CEPD as well as providing a historical perspective on its operation. Role theory was briefly reviewed because the study sought to clarify the role definition of the CEPD. Finally, concepts of organization were studied because 24 25 it was assumed that educational reform would require impact on the direction and operational patterns of school as organizations. The Development of Career Education The concept of career education was formally adopted in Michigan by passage of Act 97 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1974. This legislation is often referred to as the "Career Education Act." In tracing the development of this legislative enactment, it is appropriate to examine the issues of (1) why career education was needed, cation really is, and (2) what career edu­ (3) making career education oper­ ational . Why Career Education While our educational system in this country has received much criticism, its critics would probably concur that it has served the nation quite well. Our nation experiences a high level of prosperity, has kept its industrial-technical-military-cultural systems function­ ing, and improved its programs for essential human ser­ vices. National social goals have been examined along with accompanying institutional practices and attempts have been made to reduce the gaps existing between the ideal and reality. Our schools are at least to some degree doing the job we wish them to accomplish. As 26 Goldhammer has stated: "Perhaps it could be said that the social traumas of the 1960's and 1970*s resulted in part from the quality, not the indifference or ineffec­ tiveness, of the educational institutions."^ At the same weaknesses. And it t i m e ,its successes have revealed its is in the resolution of them that career education has evolved as a concept for reform. Much of the dissatisfaction in our schooling sys­ tem has its roots in social problems. Dr. Kenneth Hoyt has identified the following major critical social issues as responsible in part for the criticisms being leveled at education: A. Poverty vs. affluence. Some 25 million Americans are daily frustrated by their state and the fact they are unable to achieve a standard of living television says should be theirs. B. Technology. This country finds itself the leader in the world-wide revolution in technology, standards, and values. living While each successive stage is considered a step toward greater wealth, general happiness does not necessarily appear as an offshoot. Education has become more and more a dominant factor in allowing individuals to gain wealth, power, and prestige. 1Keith Goldhammer and Robert Taylor, Career Edu­ cation, Perspective and Promise (Salt Lake City: Merrill Publishing Co. , 1972) , p. UTI 27 C. The shrinkage of the family unit. The extended family structure of the pre-industrial society has been replaced by the nuclear family structure and it is experiencing difficulty in maintaining its unity and stability in an emerging post­ industrial setting. D. Specialization. With increased technology has come more and more specialization of services. Within a sophisticated technology a worker's live­ lihood thus becomes more vulnerable to change. Further, it means that most rather than a few in the society will require some formal training. E. Work ethic. While the work ethic has in part been an important factor in the development of society as it is today, it is the very abundance we share that appears to threaten that same work ethic which was its source. F. Wealth and technological power which have often led our country into over-extended efforts inter­ nationally. G. Pollution and ecological destruction which have been a resultant product of our emerging economic system. H. Seeking full employment without great inflation. 28 I. Boring and mundane work for an ever-increasing number of people.^" Now, it is our educational system which is being asked to address the resolution of these critical issues. And it is in addressing these issues that the need for educational reform within our system of public education becomes apparent. The real question facing our schools is not whether they have done a good job but rather whether they are doing the job they should be in this age of our society. The U.S. Office of Education in its policy paper on career education listed eleven criticisms which it expects career education to challenge and resolve. These include: A. Too many persons leaving our educational system are deficient in basic academic skills required for adaptability in today's rapidly changing society. B. Too many students fail to see meaningful relation­ ships between what they are being asked to learn in school and what they will do when they leave Kenneth B. Hoyt et a l . , Career Education; What It Is and How To Do It (Salt Lake City: Olympus Publish ing Co., 1972), pp. 16-22. 29 the educational system. This is true of both those who remain to graduate and those who drop out of the educational system. C. American education, as currently structured, best meets the educational needs of that minority of persons who will someday become college graduates. It fails to place equal emphasis on meeting the educational needs of that vast majority of stu­ dents who will never be college students. D. American education has not kept pace with the rapidity of change in the post-industrial occu­ pational society. As a result, when worker qual­ ifications are compared with job requirements, we find overeducated and undereducated workers are present in large numbers. Both the boredom of the overeducated worker and the frustration of the undereducated worker have contributed to growing worker alienation in the total occupa­ tional society. E. Too many persons leave both the secondary and our educational system at collegiate levels unequipped with the vocational skills, the self-understanding and career decision-making skills, or the work attitudes that are essential for making a success­ ful transition from school to work. 30 F. The growing need for and presence of women in the work force has not been reflected adequately in either the educational or the career options typi­ cally pictured for girls enrolled in our edu­ cational system. G. The growing needs for continuing and recurrent education of adults are not being met adequately by our current systems of public education. H. Insufficient attention has been given to learning opportunities which exist outside the structure of formal education and are increasingly needed by both youth and adults in our society. I. The general public, including parents and the business-industry-labor community, has not been given an adequate role in formulation of edu­ cational policy. J. American education, as currently structured, does not adequately meet the needs of minority or economically disadvantaged persons in our society. K. Post high school education has given insufficient emphasis to educational programs at the sub­ baccalaureate degree level.^ ^An Introduction to Career Education, A Policy Paper of the U.S. Office of Education, D H E W P u b l i c a t i o n No. (OE) 75-00504 (Washington, D . C . : Government Printing Office, 1975), pp. 1-2. 31 These criticisms make apparent the fact that our educational system is no longer suitable to the demands placed upon it. Goldhammer describes the essential char­ acteristics of our present school system as follows: The primary goal is the transmission of knowledge; the primary measurable output is the acquisition of knowledge; the primary legitimation is scholarship as an end in itself; the primary function is to screen out of the system the academically unfit. The cur­ riculum is organized into separate academic, subjectmatter modules, each module being presumably selfcontained and functionally unrelated to other modules. A prestige hierarchy is established in which the aca­ demic subjects are accorded high prestige and the vocational subjects are accorded low prestige. Appli­ cations to life and life problems are purely coinci­ dental. The major emphasis is placed upon the logical organization of each subject-matter as a separate discipline rather than as a tool which can be used to solve the problems of living. Rigid requirements for graduation (or completion) are established in terms of courses taken and credits earned. Evalu­ ation is a matter of giving eclectically determined grades based upon some arithmetic system to give the appearance that the numerical quantities reduce the amount of subjectivity involved. The reward system of the school is primarily for academic success, grades achieved, and the students' conformance to the requirements of the school. Tragically, the only real exception to the rule is found in the honor, prestige, and the privileges accorded to athletes, which may at times exceed the recognition given to academic accomplishment Given this setting, teachers work independently planning and implementing a pattern of instruction based on some general curriculum plan provided for the entire school system. Supervision from administrative personnel is usually an occasional thing, thus the teacher serves Goldhammer and Taylor, Career Education, p. 20. 32 as the sole determiner of what takes place in the class­ room, unless outside pressures are encountered which could produce some constraints upon these freedoms.^In addition, while many efforts have been made to reform the system of education, one thing has continued to remain constant. The basic model of the school as a place for the dissemination of knowledge has not changed. The pro­ posals for improvement have not removed the symptoms of failure which result from an educational program which does not have viable objectives and is still„ basically irrelevant to the lives of the children. In resolving the problems of our school system, the need to bring vocational education and academic edu­ cation together seems apparent. The separation of these two tracks has not helped but rather hindered education. It has tended to provide an irrelevant education for those who might have the potential to advance to the more pres­ tigious positions in the career ladder and only low-level skills for the others. The results of this kind of edu­ cation are hazardous for our society. It is now considered that the time has come to merge our educational efforts in a unified thrust and the way to do it may be through career education. Career Education Defined The initial roots of the career education movement can be traced as far back in time as the Seven Cardinal 1Ibid., p. 24. 2Ibid,, p. 28. 33 Principles of Education, and the initial funding efforts at the national level for specific vocational training programs. Its most recent thrust and visibility, however, began in January of 1971. Dr. Sidney Marland, Jr., in his first speech after taking the position of U.S. Com­ missioner of Education, announced his intention to give major emphasis to the development of a new approach to career education. The focus of his remarks was upon the need to repair the damage that emerged in education through its voluntary fragmentation into several parts, separate from one another, and its resulting effect of dividing the entire enterprise against itself. This was further ampli­ fied as he noted the dichotomy which had existed between academic and vocational education was really a false one. Marland stated: All of education is career education or should be. And all our efforts as educators must be bent on pre­ paring students either to become properly, usefully employed immediately upon graduation from high school or to go on to further formal education.1 To accomplish this goal he proposed a new edu­ cational unity. It is terribly important to teach a youngster the skills he needs to live, whether we call them academic or vocational, whether he intends to make his living with a wrench or a slide rule or folio editions of Shakespeare. But it is critically important to equip that youngster to live his life as a fulfilled human being.2 ^Ibid., p. 35. 2Ibid., p. 37. 34 Marland asked that career education be defined not by the U.S. Office of Education but rather by the people at the grassroots level. Responding to this call, every state and territory in the country began to give attention to career education. From this attention, several definitions and positions have been emerging. In 1975, the U.S. Office of Education issued its first comprehensive conceptual statement of career edu­ cation. Dr. Kenneth Hoyt, as the Director of the Office of Career Education, was its principal architect. He had access to career education demonstration input of project staff throughout the United States. The policy statement appears similar to that presented in his book published in 1972. In reviewing the eleven criticisms of education, the policy paper stated that one element common in resolv­ ing each of the concerns was the concept of work. paper defined work as: The "Conscious effort, other than that involved in activities whose primary purpose is either coping or relaxation, aimed at producing benefits for oneself and/or others."^ This definition was intended to include both paid and unpaid work. The paper emphasized the survival need of society for productivity. It spoke further to the personal need of all individuals to find meaning in their ^An Introduction to Career Education, p. 3. 35 lives through their work. It emphasized the goal of edu­ cation as preparation for work in ways that neither demean nor detract from other worthy goals of education. Career education was a concept which reached beyond economic man to broader aspects of life style including leisure time. as: The policy paper identified career education "The totality of experiences through which one learns about and prepares to engage in work as part of his or her way of living."^ Career education was intended to be a developmental process beginning in the very early years and continuing well into the retirement years. more than formal schooling. Education was considered Thus the generic definition of career education was purposely intended to be very broad and encompassing in nature. At the same time it was intended to be considerably less than all of life or one's reasons for living. In establishing a philosophical base for this con­ cept, the policy paper lists several assumptions with the acknowledgment they represent beliefs which are debatable and must yet achieve acceptance to be regarded as edu­ cational truths. These assumptions include: ^Ibid., p. 4. 36 A. Since both one's career and one's education extend from the preschool through the retirement years, career education must also span almost the entire life cycle. B. The concept of productivity is central to the definition of work and so to the entire concept of career education. C. Since "work" includes unpaid activities as well as paid employment, career education's concerns, in addition to its prime emphasis on paid employ­ ment, extend to the work of the student as a learner, to the growing numbers of volunteer workers in our society, and to the work of the full-time home-maker. D. The cosmopolitan nature of today's society demands that career education embrace a multiplicity of work values, rather than a single work ethic, as a means of helping each individual answer the question, E. "Why should I work?" Both one's career and one's education are best viewed in a developmental rather than a fragmented sense. F. Career education is for all persons— including the young and the old, the mentally handicapped and the intellectually gifted, the poor and the 37 wealthy, males and females, students in ele­ mentary schools and in graduate colleges. G. Societal objectives of career education are to help all individuals to: (a) want to work, er on Occu­ pational Education In 1966, a position paper entitled "A Vertically Integrated Occupational Curriculum for Schools in Michigan" was published by the Michigan Department of Education. had been developed by the Division of Vocational and It 52 Technical Education. It was a product of three years of study by the Vocational-Technical Education Curriculum Committee looking at the problems of providing occupational preparation programs throughout Michigan. While the paper was published prior to the popu­ larizing of the term "career education," it embodied many of the concepts now included in that term. It asserted the need for occupational education to be an integral part of the total educational process and identified the role occupational education should play at each level of this process. It argued that: A vertically integrated occupational curriculum that extends from elementary through the post-secon­ dary educational levels is needed. This integrated curriculum should develop positive attitudes about work, create an awareness of the vast occupational opportunities and provide knowledge and skill suf­ ficient to meet the demands of a constantly changing society.1 As Robert Pangman, Department representative noted, "even though career education had not yet arrived, we were talking about some of the same things the con2 cept champions." The position paper stated that: The role of the elementary school should be to provide each student with opportunities to acquire positive attitudes about work, to understand the ^A Vertically Integrated Occupational Curriculum for Schools in Michigan (Michigan Department of Education, 1966) , p. 1. Robert Pangman, Interview, Lansing, Michigan, June 1975. 53 merits of continued employment, and to create an awareness of the world of work. Students should learn that all citizens in a democracy are pro­ ducers of services, products, and ideas.1 At the early secondary level, the document advocated: . . . that the role of the junior high and early senior high school should be to stimulate each student to acquire occupational interests and to provide opportunities for each one to begin assess­ ing his own abilities and interests. Grades included in the "early secondary" will vary with the grade plan of the school but would normally span grades 7 through 9 or 10.2 At the secondary level: senior high school "The role of the late (usually grades 11 and 12) is to pro­ vide specific training for a cluster of closely related occupations."3 The position paper also included post-secondary and adult education program considerations. It stated: The role of post-secondary and adult occupational education is to provide a wide variety of programs designed to give depth training for a particular occupation or for several closely related occupations. In addition, opportunities must be provided for per­ sons who have entered the labor force and need job upgrading or retraining. Provision must also be made for training out of school youth needing occu­ pational competencies.^ Provisions were also made for persons with "special needs." ^Occupational Curriculum for Schools, p. 1. 2Ibid., p. 3. 4 Ibid., p. 6. 3Ibid., p. 4. 54 This paper thus presented a conceptual base for occupational education much broader in scope than had been envisioned, accepted, or practiced by most educators in Michigan. The Proposed Career Education Organxzational Structure In 1963, the National Vocational Education Act was passed by Congress. Included in this Act was a pro­ vision for all states to develop area or region-wide vocational education planning and programming. In Michigan, this provision gave validation and support to work already underway. forty-two area vocational studies. between 1966 and 1968. It led to a series of They were conducted Responding to an appeal made by the Michigan Department of Education's Division of Vocational and Technical Division, local and intermediate educational units along with diverse community groups studied the existing and potential arrangements possible for quality vocational education programs offered within the limits of local and area-wide resources and cooper­ ation. In some instances these studies were coordinated with community college feasibility studies that were also being conducted at the time. Through the cooperation of the Department and the participating educational units, these studies 55 explored, in some cases, territorial configurations beyond the existing legal boundaries of participating educational units. As a result of these studies, as well as certain pressures upon the Department, another position paper was prepared by the Division of Vocational and Technical Education on November 15, 1971. Entitled, Proposed Career Education Organization Structure, this document was pub­ lished early in 1972. It suggested an organizational structure to assist local education agencies to achieve the goals established for Michigan Vocational Education. The document pointed to the fact that the existing "career education" organizational structure was inadequate to achieve a program that would assure comprehensive and quality vocational education for all people throughout the state. This structure deprived some youth and adults from opportunities to gain salable skills or to upgrade skills.^ The area studies had identified several items of concern, including: A. A need for more career education programs and increased coordination of efforts among the edu­ cational agencies that provide these programs ^Proiposed Career Education Organizational Structure (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1972) , p. T~. 56 B. An almost complete void of joint planning between local educational agencies that provided career education programs resulting in poor program coordination and articulation C. Many facilities and instructors of occupational education programs that were used only a portion of the time D. Lack of comprehensive programs in most small d i s ­ tricts and lack of realistic occupational objec­ tives by many students E. Little or no leadership available in many areas of the state for career education program p l a n ­ ning, promotion, coordination, supervision, and evaluation^ In addition, the Michigan Department of Education's procedures and reimbursement criteria contributed to p e r ­ petuation of the above concerns rather than assisting the establishment of better means of coordinating and initiat­ ing more comprehensive programs. Thus the paper declared: The long range solution of these problems will require an improved organizational structure. The existing structure, which includes many small, poorly financed K-8 and K-12 districts, small poorly financed intermediate school districts and a community college system which is not presently structured to serve all people in the state, will prevent an adequate state-wide career education program from emerging.2 1Ibid. 2 Ibid., p . 2. 57 It was argued that attempts at bringing about reorganization of local education agencies, intermediate school districts, and community college districts were progressing too slowly to fulfill the needs as identified. The formation of Career Education Planning Districts was proposed, on an interim basis, to fulfill the needs until intermediate and community college reorganization could be effectuated. The advantages cited through the proposed organi­ zational structure included: A. Providing career education leadership for all K-12 districts and community colleges B. Providing an opportunity to use facilities and instructors more effectively C. Providing for coordinated planning on the part of all educational agencies offering career education within a geographical area D. Being able to develop annual local district level plans that would allow for improved planning at the state level E. Providing from the local plans the necessary data to be used to support or promote new legislation affecting career education F. Making more efficient and effective use of advisory committees 58 G. Bringing about increased development of area vocational centers H. Providing more students with an opportunity to receive career education through shared-time plans I. Providing a vehicle to improve relationships with the Michigan Department of Education J. Providing better articulation of the secondary 1 and post-secondary occupational program The document proposed that a coordinating council should be established for each CEPD. Some basic functions were listed for such councils: A. To assure adequate leadership for career education programs at all levels B. To assist in the formulation of objectives for career education for the CEPD C. To assist in determining the need for and methods of gathering data for the CEPD D. To assist in seeking needed local, state, and national action to assure high quality career education in the CEPD E. To assist in interpreting programs for career edu­ cation to the public and enlist their support in seeking improvements 1Ibid. 59 F. To assist in authorizing and directing of special ad hoc committees as needed in the development, implementation, and operation of career education programs in the CEPD G. To assist educational agencies in the development of policy relating to career education at all levels H. To assist in the formulation of recommendations and the implementation of action programs to meet the total career education needs of the CEPD I. To assist in the continuous evaluation of career education programs in the CEPD^ Each council was to be made up of at least one representative from each K-12 district and community college in the CEPD. The council was to be representative of all facets of life within the geographical area of the CEPD. Although not so limited in the paper, the CEPD coordinating council appeared on a chart to be only a council for communication and coordination, and for reporting to the local school districts it served as well as directly to the Michigan Department of Education. It was also evident that while the concept paper had advocated a broad effort in occupational education, 1Ibid. 60 initial efforts were to be geared primarily to the eleventh and twelfth grade vocational preparatory programs. Three principal responsibilities were proposed for the CEPD coordinator in addition to a variety of duties common to other administrative positions supported by Michigan Department of Education reimbursement. These were to: A. Coordinate the development of a CEPD annual plan B. Serve as the liaison person between the Michigan Department of Education and the CEPD C. Assist in establishing and providing leadership 1 for the CEPD coordinating council Implementing the CEPD Concept The concept of CEPD was actually implemented during the 1971-72 fiscal year through administrative action by the Michigan Department of Education. Occu­ pational education programs which had been reimbursed in the past through another formula were now made eligible for reimbursement on the basis of two new concepts: A. Added costs to operate the program (Through a special study commissioned by the Michigan Department of Education, it was determined that certain vocational education classes cost more 1Ibid. 61 to operate than did general education classes. This information was used in establishing a formula of added cost reimbursement for vocational education. The formula took into account such items as class enrollments, equipment, materials, i and facilities.) B. The inclusion of the program as a part of a CEPD annual plan The approval of such reimbursement by the State Board of Education acknowledged and was contingent upon the exis­ tence of CEPD. To further clarify CEPD and its purpose, another 2 document was prepared by the Division of Vocational and Technical Education for distribution in September of 1972. Among the significant notions included in this report was a definition of career education which appeared to be greatly expanded from the initial meaning of the term. The terms "career development" and "career preparation," the two major recognized components of the emerging Michigan Career Education Model, were introduced. The Career Education Planning District was defined as: "A group of educational agencies including K-12 ^Pangman, interview. 2 Paper Career Education Planning Districts, A Position (Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, 1972). 62 districts, community colleges and intermediate school dis­ tricts located in geographical proximity of one another and organized to increase the opportunities for people to become and remain adequately prepared for life and for work."1 CEPD was defined to have the major purpose of pro­ moting a comprehensive, cohesive, and well-coordinated career education program in the state. each CEPD was designed to ". cooperation, More specifically, . . increase communication, and planning among educational agencies pro­ viding career education programs, and to improve career 2 education program coordination and promotion." Forty-nine CEPDs were originally recognized. Each was structured to include four major components: A. The educational agencies (local education agencies, intermediate school districts, and community col­ leges) B. A coordinating council to serve the CEPD C. Occupational committees designed to assist and advise the educational agencies and the Career Education Planning District Council regarding specific occupational programs offered in the CEPD 1Ibid., p. 1. 2Ibid., p. 2. 63 D. A career development planning committee garten-adult) (kinder­ formed to address those activities concerning self-awareness, career awareness, career exploration, decision-making, and job placement1 A coordinating council including from ten to thirty members who represented various community interests was to fulfill the following roles: A. To serve as a forum for the educational agencies located in the CEPD on matters relating to career education B. To serve as a catalyst in bringing about cooper­ ation among all agencies concerned with career education C. To become and remain familiar with the career education needs and programs in the CEPD D. To encourage the implementation of needed career development and occupational-technical programs in the CEPD, including programs to serve di s ­ advantaged and handicapped persons E. To receive, review, and recommend action on career education programs, projects, and activi­ ties being proposed in the CEPD ^'Ibid., p. 3. 64 F. To assist in seeking needed local, state, and national action to assure high quality career education in the CEPD G. To assist educational agencies in public infor­ mation programs relating to career education H. To assist the CEPD by creating special committees as needed for the development of high quality, comprehensive career education^ The paper also acknowledged that CEPD was in a "state of becoming" and that it would continue to change as needed. Career Education Planning Districts were created in 1971 to expedite the improvement and expansion of career education in Michigan. The CEPD concept is here to stay. However, since the career education needs of people change constantly, the role and activities of each CEPD must change to meet these needs.2 Like the CEPD, the concept of career education was in a "state of becoming," but as used in the 1972 Position Paper 3 it referred primarily to occupational education. Formal Recognition of CEPD and an Expanded Role In May 1974, the Governor signed into law Public Act 97. This Act was designed to encourage in local K-12 1Ibid. ^Ibid., p. 5. 2Ibid. 65 and intermediate school districts throughout Michigan the development of a much more comprehensive model of career education; and to implement that more comprehensive model it called for plans by local and regional agencies. It provided in law for the development of an organizational structure, which in practice required only a modified mandate for the CEPD which had already been initiated by administrative action, to facilitate the planning specified by the Act. It mandated the development of guidelines and procedures for implementing the new and more comprehensive intent. Four implications of the passage of this Act were: A. Career education was to be considered an "umbrella" concept for most educational efforts of local and intermediate school districts B. The focus of attention was upon K-12 and Inter­ mediate School Districts and did not include com­ munity colleges or other post secondary schools C. A flexible regional planning unit to facilitate and coordinate local education agency planning was formally authorized by the legislature. These CEPD units were to have their boundaries reviewed annually and to be changed as needed. Such flexibility was designed to encourage multi­ agency cooperation 66 D. Vocational education which had been the prime leader in this movement was designated as one important part of career education, but not the whole, or even necessarily the leading force of it. Accordingly, passage of this Act posed a need for the Department's Division of Vocational and Technical Education to determine what its continuing role should be. Further, it posed for other state education divisions the same require­ ment, that of determining what their roles would be in this expanded effort. The Act provided for a State Advisory Commission for Career Education, empowered to make recommendations to the State Board of Education relative to guidelines and procedures for implementing the Act's intent. Prior to this, only the State Vocational Advisory Council was making such recommendations concerning career education. The Act mandated local districts to annually develop comprehensive K-12 career education plans and establish performance objectives. Previously required local district plans had been only for reimbursed vocational education programs. The Act also stated that in each CEPD a coordinat­ ing council of not more than twenty persons, of which not more than half could be educators, would serve as the 67 decision-making body and make its actions known to the Michigan Department of Education. Problems That Have Evolved with CEPD As with any newly established approach to provid­ ing services, the concept of CEPD has emerged with its share of concerns and problems. Several problems surfaced even before the passage of Public Act 97. In a Michigan Department of Education survey conducted in 1972, the following problem areas related to the purposes of this study were uncovered: A. Lack of understanding by educational agencies within the CEPD as to the role of CEPD B. Misconceptions of role between CEPD councils and other established advisory groups operating within the CEPD C. Unclear role definition for the CEPD coordinator"*" The enactment of career education legislation has not helped to clarify these issues. Because this Act suggests even broader responsibilities for CEPD, more confusion rather than less has resulted. It has accen­ tuated several critical questions which must be answered if the concept of career education is to move forward. ^Evaluation of CEPD in Michigan, 1972. 68 This was evident at a meeting of CEPD coordinators conducted on August 25-26, 1975. meeting declared: A summary report of that "The present structure of organization at the CEPD level is not clearly defined, as Public Act 97 does not identify the role and function of a Career Edu­ cation Planning District coordinator, nor does it direct that each CEPD should have such an administrative position. The group recommended that these steps be taken: A. Define an authority base for the CEPD organization which spells out its authority and decision-making capability B. Create provisions within the school code defining the legality of CEPD functions C. Provide reimbursement for the position of CEPD coordinator as funding for the position provides authority and an aura of accountability necessary 2 to the viability of the CEPD concept Further clarification of the role of CEPD and the CEPD coordinator is essential. W i l l i a m Florida, "Career Education Planning Dis­ trict Coordinators Conference," Proceedings. 2Ibid. 69 Role Theory This study has represented an attempt to clarify the definition of role of the Michigan CEPD in assisting local education agencies develop and implement career education programs. Thus, role theory contributed to the study's theoretical foundation. This theory suggests a framework in which society is viewed as a series of organizations and sub-organizations or systems which are made up of people. These people occupy various hierarchi­ cal positions in relation to each other. Any given position serves as a location of one individual within the system. How individuals behave in these positions is dependent in part on how they think they are expected to behave and how others actually expect them to behave. As Foskett noted in his study: In any particular situation, alternative ways of acting are theoretically feasible. However, over time, a particular way of acting comes to be pr e ­ ferred by a given population; thus it becomes the "best" or "proper" way of acting, i.e., a rule or norm for designated actors in that situation for a given population.1 Other characteristics of the individual such as personality, education, and culture are acknowledged as influences on the person's behavior and have influences on his concept of role. ^John M. Foskett, Role C o n c e n s u s : The Case of the Elementary Teacher (Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1969), p. 2. 70 Many writers in the past seventy years have con­ tributed to role theory and its use in explaining the behavior of individuals in social and occupational situ­ ations. Some of these contributions are briefly reviewed as well as some of the basic concepts suggested by the theory. Neiman and Hughes in their historical review of role theory from 1900 to 1950 uncovered many writers who contributed to the evolving concept.^ In addition, the role theory literature reviews found in the dissertations of Cowan (1960) , Crosby (1965) , and Crossland (1971) provide ample evidence to support the notion of role as a most important theoretical concept for guiding research in the "inexact sciences." 2 An acknowledged pioneer in the development of Role Theory was Professor Ralph Linton. In his works of 1931 and 1936, he established a basic definition of role Lionel J. Neiman and James W. Hughes, "The Problem of the Concept of Role— A Resurvey of the Literature," Social Forces 30 (1951). Alton Walter Cowan, "The Flint Building Director: Role Expectations Held by Relevant Groups" (Ph.D. disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1960); Jerry Crosby, "A Study of the Expectancies which Community School Directors and Related Others Have of the Community School Director Roles" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni­ versity, 1965); Ronald Crossland, "Role Expectations for Chief Administrators of Community Colleges" (Ph.D. disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1971). 71 which still remains today with some modification. Bates supports this by saying: The concepts of social status or social position and social role are among the most widely used in social science. Since the time when they were for­ mally introduced into the lexicon of social science by Professor Ralph Linton, they have been succes­ sively sharpened and clarified by various students of human behavior. For the most part, however, the model set by Linton has not been radically altered.1 In establishing their "Nomothetic-idiographic" theory of role concept, Getzels and Guba noted: Roles are defined in terms of role expectations. A role has certain normative obligations and responsi­ bilities, which may be termed "role expectations," and when the role incumbent puts these obligations and responsibilities into effect, he is said to be performing his role. The expectations define for the actor, whoever he may be, what he should or should not do as long as he is incumbent of a par­ ticular role.2 Gross, Mason, and McEachern have conducted exten­ sive role analyses. In their study of role expectations of school superintendents, they have attempted to show that individuals in social situations behave with reference to expectations. They assumed that people do not behave in a random manner but rather they are influenced in their behavior to some extent by their own expectations and ^Frederick L. Bates, "Position, Role and Status: A Reformulation of Concepts," Social Forces 34 (May 1956): 313. 2 J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role Conflict and Personality," Journal of Personality 24 (1955): 153. 72 those of others. Expectation thus was identified as an important function in determining a person's behavior. They concluded that most formulations of role con ception in the social science literature include the assumption that consensus exists concerning the expecta­ tions applied to the incumbents of a particular social . . 1 position. Accordingly, the concept of role consensus and the effect of the knowledge of consensus upon the behavior of each individual performing his role at a particular social position is considered essential and basic to the study of human conduct in societies. Three major concepts central to role theory are of special significance to this study: Role expectation.— refers to an anticipation of a behavior or set of behaviors of another person in a role— a set of evaluative standards. Or, as defined by Gross, it is a set of expectations or a set of evaluative standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position. 2 Neal Gross, Ward Mason, and Alexander McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, ed. Andrew H. Halpin (Chi­ cago: University of Chicago, 1958) , p. 18. 2 Edward L. Anderson, "The Educational Media Build­ ing Coordinator: His Role as Perceived by School Adminis­ trators" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), p. 29. 73 Role perception.— refers to an estimate of another person's expectations for one's own role— how do others see my role. If the person is seen as having a right to hold this expectation, it is regarded as legitimate; if he is seen as not having a right, then it is illegitimate.^ Role conflict.— occurs when the qualities that make up the self and the role expectations are incongruent. Such conflict may arise out of real differences in expec­ tations. The role incumbent may believe that he and his reference groups have significantly different views when they are actually the same, or conversely, that they are 2 the same when in fact they are different. Failure to secure clarification or clarification that reveals serious lack of consensus, could result in further confusion or conflict of role and its accompanying implications. As noted by Kahn: Contradictory role expectations give rise to opposing role pressures (role conflicts), which generally have the following effects on the emotional experience of the focal person: inten­ sified internal conflict, increased tension associ­ ated with various aspects of the job, reduced satis­ faction with the job and its various components, and decreased confidence in superiors and in the organi­ zation as a whole.-’ ■^Ibid. , p. 30. ^Ibid., p. 33. ■^Robert L. Kahn et al., Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 7CK 74 The presence of conflict in one's role tends to undermine his relations with his (reference groups), to produce weak bonds of trust, respect, and attrac­ tion. It is quite clear that role conflicts are costly to the organization which depends on effec­ tive coordination and collaboration within and among its parts.1 Greater clarification is needed to determine the role of the Michigan CEPD structure in assisting con­ stituent educational agencies to establish and implement career education programs. Consensus is needed so that CEPD staff can better determine and perform acceptable roles in their day-to-day efforts with the variety of publics they meet. Where consensus is lacking the location and nature of the problem area needs clarification. As evidenced through the 1972 Michigan Department of Education survey of CEPD, and expressed again at the August 1975 meeting of CEPD coordinators, this consensus or clarification of roles and functions for CEPD and its staff does not yet exist. evident. Confusion and role conflict are Failure to isolate these critical concerns and to address them in continuing efforts to make CEPD a viable planning and coordination unit as called for by Public Act 97 may cause greater conflict and dissipate the potential this regional organization may have in serving to insure improved comprehensive educational experiences for youth and adults in Michigan. 1Ibid., p. 71. 75 Concepts of Organization Career Education is a case of organizational reform. Its anticipated outcome is a revitalized and redirected educational system. Accordingly, concepts of organization, organizational renewal, and organizational development are fundamental to this study. The implemen­ tation of career education is dependent upon CEPD as an instrument of organizational reform. If successful it will have a profound influence on the goals and operational patterns of Michigan's schools. The Concept of Organization A basic premise of sociology is that organized patterns can be identified in all areas of social life. A certain order is needed in any social relationship so that participants may make sense of each o t h e r ’s actions.1 The impact of organization on our daily lives is summarized by Bell: We live in a highly organized society. We are born in hospitals, educated in elementary, junior high and high schools, colleges and universities. While being educated we join clubs, fraternities and sorority organizations— from boy scouts to athletic teams. When we leave college we then usually devote a few years to the military and about forty years to a firm in order to maintain our livelihood. Throughout the years of our work life we tend to join unions, professional 1David Silverman, The Theory of Organizations (New York: Basic Books, Inc. , 1971) , p. 8"? 76 associations, community clubs, and societies. We spend our final days in hospitals and rest homes and then are buried by well-organized funeral e stablishments.^ Blau and Scott defined social organizations as ". . . the ways in which human conduct becomes socially organized, that is, the observed regularities in the behavior of people that are due to the social conditions in which they find themselves rather than their physiological or psychological characteristics as individuals." 2 Two general types of conditions appear basic in the evolvement of social organizations. They are the structure of social relations in a collectivity of people, and the shared beliefs and orientations that unite the members of the collectivity and guide their conduct. Taken together, they allow for the identification of common values that govern the goals of the collectivity, and the development of social norms or common expectations concerning how people ought to behave. These, in turn, bring about the establishment of sanctions which are used to discourage violations of these norms. Finally, Gerald D. Bell, Organizations and Human Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : Prent i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1967), p. 75. 2 Blau and Scott in Bell, Organizations * 77 differential role expectations emerge that become associ­ ated with various social positions within the collec­ tivity.^ Organizations can develop either informally or formally. In the establishment of formal organizations, there is a conscious effort on the part of those involved to establish specific goals to be achieved and means for coordinating the activities of the persons involved in order to achieve them. Incentives are often furnished for others to join the organization, rules are established to be followed by members, and a status structure that defines the relations between members evolves. A complex formal organization generally has admin­ istrative or bureaucratic machinery to assist in the operation and maintenance of the organization and to coordinate its activities. This machinery usually con­ sists of: A. A well-defined chain of command B. A system of procedures and rules for dealing with all contingencies relating to work activities C. A division of labor based on specialization XIbid., p. 78. 78 D. Promotion and selection based on technical com­ petence E. Impersonality in human relations*- Need for Organizational Renewal Formal organizations are constantly challenged to meet demands from the external environment for rapid change. Few are able to accomplish the required changes without making some alterations in the way they direct and operationalize their enterprises. Flexibility in determining directions and methods of operation is an important issue. There is always stress between the ever-changing tasks of the organization on one hand, and the desire to maintain or keep in place already estab­ lished operational methods on the other. Organizational bureaucracies tend to be inflexible and impersonal. Accordingly, they are more likely to resist rather than accelerate needed organizational change. Silverman noted several reasons for organizations to drift in a bureaucratic or conservative direction: A. Those with management responsibilities develop a stake in the positions they have gained and may consciously or unconsciously discourage variation Warren G. Bennis, Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley Publishing Company, 1969), p. 19. 79 B. People with responsibilities or special knowledge have, by virtue of their experience and knowledge of the system, the power to protect their vested interests and thereby to perpetuate control over their environment C. The distinction between person and role is often so abstract for persons other than the role incumbent that people tend to go to the same superiors about the same things even after formal definitions of duty have changed D. People are usually quite happy to have someone else performing organizational tasks so long as their own special interests are not visibly threatened E. Certain of the rigidities that get built into institutions function for staffs as ways of warding off doubt, uncertainty, and anxiety in tasks that by their very nature arouse those feelings1 Bennis identified four pertinent conditions which constitute threats to stability in bureaucracies: A. Rapid and unexpected change 1Cyril Sofer, Organizations in Theory and Practice (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1972) , p. 296. 80 B. Growth in size where the volume of an organiza­ tion's traditional activities is not enough to sustain growth C. Complexity of modern technology where integration between activities and persons of very diverse, highly specialized competence is required D. A basically psychological threat springing from a change in managerial behavior1 Lippitt has studied the importance of organiza­ tional renewal in combatting many of the above cited problems. He has suggested that to remain healthy, organizations should follow a circular model of organi­ zational functioning which emphasizes the need for the organization to re-examine its goals, evaluate its per­ formance and renew its spirit. He noted that: "Organi­ zational renewal affects the organic functioning of the system, confronts real situations, uses human resources of the organization in problem solving and helps the organization mature while being responsive to the environ­ ment ." ^ 1Bennis, Organization Development, p. 19. 2 Gorden L. Lippitt, Organization Renewal (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Educational Division, Meredith Corp., 1972), p. 6. 81 Some significant outcomes possible through organizational renewal include: A. Continuous examination of the growth of organi­ zation, together with diagnosis of the multiple internal and external influences affecting its state of being B. Improvement in the manner in which problems are solved at all levels of the organization C. Development within the organization of formal and informal groups which are effective and communicative D. Development of leadership which is appropriate to the situation facing the organization at any given time E. A way for people within the organization to learn from their experiences of success or failure F. Maturity of individuals and groups within the organization as well as maturity of the organi­ zation itself G. Development of a climate that encourages and channels creativity by people throughout the organization 82 H. Development of a system to which all employees of the organization feel committed, thereby securing their motivation^ Organizational Development Change through the planned alteration of the status quo which affects the structure, technology, and personnel of a total organization is possible through a process often referred to as organizational development. As defined by Bennis, organizational development is . . a response to c h a n g e , a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structures of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges, and 2 the dizzying rate of change itself." He suggests seven major characteristics to be considered in organizational development: A. It is an education strategy adopted to bring about a planned organizational change. While the strategy may vary, it concentrates on the values, attitudes, relations, and organizational climate as a point of entry. 1Ibid. 2 Bennis, Organization Development, p. 2. 83 B. The changes sought are coupled directly with the exigency or demand the organization is trying to cope with. problems of: development, C. These demands can be grouped as destiny, human satisfaction and and of organizational effectiveness. The concept relies on an educational strategy which emphasizes experienced behavior. D. Change agents are usually external to the client system. E. It implies a collaborative relationship between change agent and constituents of the client system. This involves mutual trust, joint determination of the goals to be achieved and the means to be used, as well as high mutual influence. F. It suggests that change agents share a social philosophy, a set of values about the world in general and human organizations in particular w h ich shape the strategies they use, determine their interventions, and largely govern their responses to the client system. G. It suggests that change agents share a set of normative goals which commonly include: 1. Improvement of interpersonal competence 2. A shift in values so that human factors and feelings can come to be considered legitimate 84 3. Development of increased understanding between and within working groups, reducing tensions 4. Development of better methods of "conflict resolution" rather than the usually bureau­ cratic methods which rely mainly on suppres­ sion, compromise, and unprincipled power 5. Development of organic rather than mechanical systems^- The issue of organizational renewal has been at the heart of this study. Citizens and public officials have raised the fundamental question: Are schools doing the job they should be doing in this age of our society? Schools electing to embrace the concepts of career edu­ cation find that they need to re-examine their goals and insure that there is a strong correlation between what is learned in school and the demands of real life. The quality of educational performance relative to society's goals must be assessed, and alternative patterns of operation considered to meet the desired levels of per­ formance. This involves more than curriculum development. It involves organizational development also. The CEPD unit is an instrument for assisting Michigan schools in this process. ^Ibid., pp. 10-15. As initially 85 constituted, it is intended to be an initiator and facili­ tator of organizational development. It can assist schools to: A. Identify the general organizational climate and related factors B. Establish collaborative relationships between itself as change agent and themselves, an essential step in the change process C. Identify major new societal demands confronting the schools and the relationship of career edu­ cation to these demands D. Develop and put into practice effective experience based strategies which will allow them to ade­ quately address the concepts and purposes of career education, assess its level of performance, and consider realistic alternatives which can lead to redirection of purpose and modification of operational methods and procedures In this context, the CEPD unit can be an essential part of the organizational renewal process for schools. But key to its success is clarification and acceptance of its logical functions, authority, accountability, and financial support. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The object of this research was to clarify the major functions, authority, accountability, and financial support of the Career Education Planning District (CEPD) as judged by eight significant reference groups involved in the Michigan career education movement. The study was aimed at determining what was judged by the reference groups to be: (1) the degree of appro­ priateness of a selected list of functions for CEPD, (2) the degree of authority CEPD should be given in per­ forming the selected functions and the appropriate source for that authority, (3) the appropriate resolution of four selected accountability issues for CEPD, and (4) the sources and proportions of financial support for CEPD. In this chapter, the following topics are dis­ cussed: (1) questions addressed by the study, tion of the study population, (2) descrip­ (3) development and admin­ istration of the instrument used to obtain data for the study, and (4) methodology employed in analyzing and interpreting the data. 86 87 Questions Addressed Four principal issues were addressed in the effort to clarify CEPD roles. With respect to each issue answers were sought for a series of more specific questions. Functions Deemed Appropriate A. How appropriate are ning functions, (1) a subset of sixteen plan­ (2) a subset of twenty-five coordination functions, (3) a subset of four consultation functions, (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) a total set of forty-nine functions, when judged by each of the eight reference groups, three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? B. What major similarities and differences in judg­ ment are observed among the eight reference groups and among three categories of reference groups with respect to the appropriateness of CEPD per­ forming the proposed functions grouped in four subsets of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation, and the total set of forty-nine functions? 88 Degree of Authority to Perform Functions A. To what degree does each reference group, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups judge that CEPD should have: (1) no authority, authority, and (2) consultive (3) directive authority, to per­ form (a) a subset of sixteen planning functions, B. (b) a subset of twenty-five coordination functions, (c) a subset of four consultation functions, and (d) a total set of forty-nine functions? In the judgment of each reference groups and each of three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups, what would be the most appropriate agency to give CEPD directive authority (assuming that it should be given direc­ tive authority) to perform (1) a subset of sixteen planning functions, (2) a subset of twenty-five coordination functions, (3) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (4) a total set of forty-nine functions? C. What major similarities and differences in judg­ ment are observed between the eight reference groups and among three categories of reference groups with respect to degree and source of authority that CEPD should have to perform the 89 selected functions grouped in the four subsets of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation, and a total set of forty-nine functions? Accountability Issues A. What do each of eight reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups judge to be most appropriate in reference to: political jurisdiction for CEPD, graphical boundaries for CEPD, (1) the (2) the geo­ (3) the job title of the principal professional administrator for CEPD, and (4) the professional administrator or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable? B. What major similarities and differences in judg­ ment are observed between the eight reference groups and among three categories of reference groups when judging the appropriateness of CEPD in reference to each of these four major accounta­ bility issues? Sources and Proportions of Financial Support for CEPD A. Given a variety of State, Intermediate School District, and Local Education Agency levels for 90 funding educational programs, which levels and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? B. Given a variety of State funding sources, which sources and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? C. Given a variety of Intermediate School District funding sources, which sources and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? D. Given six general categories of funding for edu­ cational programs in Michigan, which categories and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? 91 Description of the Study Population Eight groups of officials were identified for inclusion in the study because of their direct or indirect involvement with CEPD and thus their significance in defining the roles of CEPD and CEPD Coordinators. They were polled by questionnaire for their judgments on the issues addressed by the study. 1. CEPD Coordinators; The CEPD Coordinators, most of them Vocational-Technical Specialists, are the principal administrators of the CEPDs. Partially subsi­ dized through vocational education funds administered by the Michigan Department of Education, these coordinators were originally responsible for vocational education matters, and now with the passage of the career education legislation, are responsible for coordinating other career education matters within the CEPD. At the time the survey was conducted, fifty CEPDs were in existence and all were included in the study. 2. Intermediate School District Superintendents: At the time of this survey, the vast majority of CEPDs and Intermediate School Districts had coterminous boun­ daries. Further, the Intermediate School District served, in most instances, as the fiscal agent for CEPD affairs. The career education legislation mandated annual planning by both CEPDs and the Intermediate 92 School Districts. Accordingly, the fifty-eight chief school officers of Intermediate School Districts were included in the study. 3. The Michigan Department of Education: This agency has prime responsibility for administration of Public Act 97. From close analysis it was judged that two sub groups in the organization were essential for inclusion in the study. One group made up of administra­ tors held positions that could be key in facilitating, negating, or having a neutral effect on the conceptuali­ zation and implementation of career education, and par­ ticularly, the role of CEPD in this process. Another group of staff at the operations level were observed to have been deeply involved in the development of policy statements, guidelines, and strategies for the consider­ ation of the administrators and policy-making bodies. Thirteen persons were selected from the following areas: (1) State Superintendent, (2) Associate Superintendent for Elementary and Secondary Schools, (3) division heads for (a) Adult and Continuing Education, Education, (d) (b) Special (c) Vocational and Technical Education, and General Education, (4) staff from the Office of Career Education, and (5) staff from the Career Develop­ ment Unit of the Vocational and Technical Division. 4. Local School Superintendents: The career edu­ cation legislation was directed at creating changes and 93 reform within local K-12 schools throughout the state. Through the assistance of CEPD, schools were mandated to complete annual career education plans and establish performance objectives. chief officers priate. Accordingly, inclusion of the (superintendents) was considered appro­ A representative sample of fifty superintendents was randomly selected from those who met the following criteria: (1) represented agencies with varied student populations and (2) were in compliance with Public Act 97, by having filed their 1976-77 career education plans with the Michigan Department of Education. The following procedures were employed in identify­ ing this sample. A list of local schools classified by the Michigan Athletic Association into four major classes, A, B, C, and D, based on the size of school enrollments, was obtained for the 1975-76 school year. The names of districts in each of the four classes were placed on separate pieces of paper and then into four separate boxes. Twenty names were randomly drawn from each box and transferred to lists in the same order as they were drawn. The Michigan Department of Education was then contacted to determine which schools on the four separate lists had submitted career education plans for 1976-77. The first thirteen names on each of the lists for classes A and B, and the first twelve names on each of the lists for classes C and D found to have submitted 94 such plans# were selected for the study. The superinten­ dents of these fifty local education agencies became members of this reference group. 5. Local School Coordinators; Guidelines estab­ lished by the Michigan Department of Education in meeting the intent of the career education legislation, called for local schools to appoint coordinators to oversee the development and implementation of annual career education plans. It is these people who are most directly involved in the daily operation of career education programs, and who are most likely to need, use, or be affected by CEPD. Accordingly, a sample of fifty coordinators were identi­ fied for the study. They were selected from the same fifty districts as the local school superintendents. 6. The State Career Education Commission; This advisory commission was required by Public Act 97. It makes recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding the conceptualization and implementation of career education. In this capacity, the Commission makes recommendations on the role of CEPD in career education. The entire membership of this body was included as a reference group. 7. Education; The State Advisory Council for Vocational Similar to the State Career Education Com­ mission, this advisory body was established by law, and 95 was empowered to make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding the conceptualization and imple­ mentation of vocational education. In this capacity, the advisory body makes recommendations on the role of CEPD in vocational education. Further, because of the way in which the CEPDs had been initiated in Michigan this body had a unique relationship to the evolving CEPD pattern. Because the membership of the Council was in transition at the time of the survey, twenty-two Council members, as agreed to by the Council's executive secretary and the investigator, were included in the study. 8. The University Cadre: In actions following the passage of the career education legislation, attempts were made to enlist the cooperation of the major public universities in assisting CEPDs, intermediate school dis­ tricts and local education agencies to understand the concepts of career education and begin initial implemen­ tation efforts. Consideration was also given to the implications of career education for pre-service programs of teacher training institutions. The eight major state supported teacher training institutions formed a career education consortium and each institution in turn estab­ lished its own cadre of staff willing to be involved in the state career education movement. The chief contact person for each teacher training institution's career education cadre was thus included in the study. 96 Categorization of the Study Population The population included in this study included three different and distinct subsets. groups Four reference (the Michigan Department of Education representa­ tives, the State Career Education Commission, the State Advisory Council for Vocational Education, and the U n i ­ versity Cadre) represented State level groups who were in advisory, administrative, positions. instructional, or other These are referred to as the State level groups. Another subset of three reference groups Superintendents, (the ISD the Local School Superintendents, the Local School Career Education Coordinators) and repre­ sented local level operational groups who were being asked to include the innovation, career education, their educational programs. in These are referred to as the operational level groups. Of major interest in this study were the simi­ larities and differences identified between the state level and operational level groups. The third subset consisted of the fifty CEPD coordinators. Because the s t udy’s thrust was to define the role of CEPD, this group was viewed as an especially interested unit which stood, in a sense, between the state level and operating level groups. Considered important were any major similarities and differences 97 in judgment of this group when compared with both the State level and the operational level groups. The Instrument Given the size of the population to be surveyed and the nature of data required, a mailed questionnaire was chosen as the principal instrument for data collection purposes. This instrument^- was developed following (1) the examination of literature related to career education, the CEPD, role theory, concepts of organization, and general principles of instrument construction, (2) numerous conferences with members of the guidance committee and educators in the field of career and vocational education, and (3) consideration of the investigator's own experience in this field. The instrument was divided into four major parts. Part I addressed the issues of appropriateness of function and degrees of authority for CEPD when performing functions. Forty-nine functions arranged into four different cate­ gories were included for reaction by the respondents. The categories were: (3) (1) planning, (2) coordination, consultation, and (4) evaluation. For judging the appropriateness of function, a five-point rating scale was employed with choices as follows: ■^See copy of instrument in Appendix A. 98 Strongly agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly disagree In judging the degree of authority for CEPD in performing the selected functions, the following options were included: No authority Authority to inform Authority to recommend Authority to implement ISD or CEPD Governing Board directives Authority to implement SBE directives Authority to develop and implement its own directives Directions for using the rating scale and defi­ nitions of the authority options were included in the survey booklet. Part II addressed the issue of accountability. Nineteen items were included for rating by the respondents. These items were grouped to address four specific accounta­ bility issues including: CEPD, (1) the legal jurisdiction for (2) the geographical boundaries for CEPD, (3) the job title of the principal professional administrator for CEPD, and (4) the professional administrator or body to whom the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable. In judging the appropriateness of each item, the same rating scale as used in judging the appropriateness of function was employed. 99 Part III addressed the issue of financial support. Fourteen items were included for rating by respondents. These items reflected various state, intermediate, and local school district sources by level and category, and provided space for other alternatives that could be identified by the respondents. Included was a flexible scale calling for judgments of the percentage of support for each of the sources listed. % of support: 0 5 10 20 The scale was as follows: 25 33 50 100 or ____ . Part IV included fourteen demographic items designed to obtain information about the respondent's background and institutional situation. The development of the instrument began with establishing a pool of items which were reviewed by the writer and members of the guidance committee. This pool was subsequently reduced into a draft instrument. Members of the guidance committee reviewed the draft document and made suggestions for modification. A selected panel of experts in the field of career education in Michigan was then identified and asked to review the revised draft of the instrument. Given the purpose of the study, they were asked to judge the appro­ priateness of the items included as well as the format of the instrument. Included on this panel were: (1) a local school superintendent who had served for four years as a chairperson for a CEPD career education advisory 100 committee; (2) two CEPD level career education consultants who had two years or more experience in career education demonstration programs with local schools; (3) a local school career education coordinator who was curriculum director in his school; (4) a local school coordinator who was a teacher in her school; and (5) a member of the Michigan Department of Education who had been involved in the career education movement since its inception in Michigan. Two additional individuals, one a university pro­ fessor outside the field of Education but a frequent advisor of doctoral dissertations in Education, and a communication arts instructor, were asked to review the document and suggest revisions to improve its clarity. Given the suggestions for modification, it was further refined. It was approved by the doctoral com­ mittee in late August of 1976. It was then printed and distributed in September 1976. The instrument was printed in booklet form and contained a cover letter explaining the study's purpose. The letter contained the signatures of two members of the guidance committee, Professors Kleis and Heilman, and the investigator. Administration of the Instrument Each member of each of the eight groups was sent a copy of the questionnaire between September 19 and 101 October 8, 1976. A total of 270 questionnaires was mailed. All were coded so that each returned instrument could be identified with a study respondent. This was done for response checking and classification only. All responses were kept anonymous in all data treatment. A second letter reminding respondents to complete and return the questionnaire was sent approximately three weeks after the initial mailing (see Appendix A ) . A third mailing including another questionnaire was sent to those who had not responded to the first two mailings. This was done approximately five weeks follow­ ing the original mailing (see Appendix A ) . Personal telephone calls were made to respondents who had not complied with the three mailed requests. telephone calls were followed by a fourth mailing The (see Appendix A ) . December 15, 1976, was established as the cut-off date for receiving completed questionnaires. As of that date a total of 172 completed questionnaires had been received for a 63.7 percent return rate. Methodology for Analyzing Data Responses to the 131 survey items were transferred to key punch cards for tabulation. aggregated by reference group Responses were first (The Michigan Department of Education Representatives, the State Career Education Commission, the State Advisory Council for Vocational 102 Education, the University Cadre, the CEPD Coordinators, the ISD Superintendents, the Local School Superintendents, and the Local School Coordinators). Given the unequal sizes of the reference groups and the fact that the groups were the principal units of interest in the study, scores (percentages) standard were computed for all of the responses of each group, thus providing common measures for compari­ son. Chi square tests were made to identify significant differences in judgment between groups. The .05 level of confidence was used. The data are presented and analyzed in relation to reported judgments concerning the four major issues of the study w hich were: (1) the degree of appropriateness of a selected list of functions for CEPD, (2) the degree of authority CEPD should be given to perform the selected functions, and the appropriate source for that authority, (3) the appropriate resolution of four selected accounta­ bility issues for CEPD, and (4) the sources and proportions of financial support for CEPD. Analysis of the data on the appropriateness for CEPD to perform a set of fortynine functions and the degree of authority CEPD should have to perform those functions was done in terms of four functional subsets (planning, coordination, consul­ tation, and evaluation) and the total set of forty-nine functions. 103 For two of the issues, degree of authority financial support, the data are presented in terms and of the percentages of each group who selected each option. For the other two issues, appropriateness of functions and accountability, weighted scores are used. These weighted scores were derived by converting percentage scores using a standard weighted rating scale as described in the next section. Data are reported for each of the eight reference groups included in the study, as well as for categories and a composite of the reference groups. Specific Procedures In addressing the appropriateness of functions questions, it was necessary to establish rating scores for each of the four subsets of grouped functions and for the total set of forty-nine functions. This was done for the eight reference groups and for the composite of the reference groups by employing the following two-step pro­ cedures. First, the percentage of each group, and of all respondents who had selected each point on a fivepoint rating scale (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree) were calculated for each of the four subsets of functions (planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation) and for the total set of forty-nine functions. This was accomplished by summing the percentages of respondents who selected each point 104 on the five-point rating scale for each of the functions in each subset and the total set and then dividing that sum by the number of functions in each case. This pro­ cedure produced percentage scores for each of the four subsets of functions and for the total set of forty-nine functions. These percentage scores were then multiplied by a weighting factor to reflect the strength of each group's positive or negative responses to the subsets of functions and the total set of forty-nine functions. The weighting factors applied were as follows: strongly agree = +2 agree = +1 uncertain = disagree - -1 0 strongly disagree = -2 This procedure produced weighted rating scores. converted scores had limits of +2 to -2. These These scores were computed for each reference group. In obtaining rating scores for the composite of the reference groups, the rating scores of each reference group for each of the four subsets of functions and for the total set of forty-nine functions were summed and this total divided by eight, the number of reference groups included. These resultant scores were declared the rating scores for the composite of the reference groups. 105 In addressing the accountability questions, it was necessary to establish rating scores for each of the twenty items related to this issue. This was done for each of the eight reference groups and for the composite of the reference groups, using the same procedures fol­ lowed in establishing rating scores for the appropriate­ ness of functions questions. Scores were developed for individual items rather than subsets of items, however. In addressing the degree of authority questions, the following procedures were employed. Percentage scores for each point on the six-point rating scale (no authority, authority to inform, authority to recommend, authority to implement ISD or CEPD governing board directives, authority to implement SBE directives, and authority to develop and implement its own directives) were obtained by reference group for each of the four functional subsets (planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation) and for the total set of forty-nine functions. This was accomplished by summing the percentage of respondents who selected each point on the six-point rating scale for each of the functions in that category, and then dividing that sum by the number of functions. This procedure produced percentage scores for each subset of functions. The same procedure was employed for the total set of fortynine functions. 106 Next, no authority, consultive authority, and directive authority scores for each reference group were computed. From the above procedure no authority scores were directly indicated. Consultive authority scores were obtained by summing the percentage scores for two options to inform and authority to recommend) (authority for each of the four subsets of functions and for the total set of fortynine functions. This was done for each reference group. Directive authority scores were obtained by sum­ ming the percentage scores for three options (authority to implement SBE directives, and authority to develop and implement its own directives) for each of the four subsets of functions and for the total set of forty-nine functions. This was done for each reference group. Authority scores were computed for the composite of the reference groups for each of the three authority levels (1) no authority, (2) consultive authority, and (3) directive authority, by summing the percentage scores of the eight reference groups for each functional subset and the total set of forty-nine functions and in each case dividing the resultant number by eight, the number of groups included in the study. The following procedures were employed in pre­ senting and analyzing the data for the financial support issues. In addressing each financial support question, 107 respondents were presented with three or more choices, each representing a possible source of financial support identified by governmental level and funding category. These options were presented within the following set of limitations. A general student membership allocation was provided for all governmental levels. Vocational Education, Special Education, and other allocations were provided for at the State and Intermediate School District levels. Adult and Continuing Education and Special CEPD allocations were provided for at the State level. A degree of support scale, expressed in percentages, was provided for each choice as follows: % of Support - 0 5 10 20 25 33 50 100 or ____ . Respondents were asked first to circle or write in the percentage judged appropriate for each governmental level: State, intermediate, or local. Respondents were further asked to have the sum of their governmental level choices addressing each question equal 100 percent. In treating the data, frequency distributions of these percentage scores for each item were established for each reference group and for the composite of the reference groups. Mean scores for each item were then obtained by summing the frequency distribution scores and dividing by the total number of respondents address­ ing the item. 108 A mean percentage score for the composite of the reference groups was obtained for each item by summing the mean percentage scores of all groups for an item, then dividing that number by eight, the number of groups included in the study. Percentage scores reflecting the judgments of each reference group and the composite of the reference groups in regard to the proportions of financial support to come from each of six different funding categories {General Education funds, Vocational Education funds, Special Education funds, adult and continuing education funds, a special CEPD allocation, and other funds) were also computed. The following procedures were used. The data were first analyzed to identify for each reference group the percentage of financial support it judged appropriate to be supplied by State, Intermediate School District, and local Education agency sources to support CEPD activities. These scores served as the primary basis for determining the proportions of support to come from each funding category at the State and Inter­ mediate School District level. Next, these data were examined by reference group to identify the percentage of recommended State funding which should come from each of the categories o f : General Education f u n d s , Vocational Education f u n d s , Special E d u ­ cation f u n d s , Adult and Continuing Education f u n d s , a 109 special CEPD allocation and other sources. By multiplying for each reference group, its category percentage score by its recommended state level percentage score, it was possible to derive a relative proportion of support, expressed in percentage, which in the judgment of each group, should come from each of the six funding categories at the State level. A similar procedure was followed to determine the relative proportion of support to come from each of four Intermediate School District categorical sources (General Education funds, Special Education funds, Vocational Edu­ cational funds, and other funding sources). Local Education Agency proportion of support was assumed to come from the General Student membership cate­ gory. The scores by reference group, for the categories identified at each of the three levels (General Education, Vocational Education, Special Education, and Other sources), were then summed. In computing percentage scores for the composite of the reference groups, for each category, the scores of each reference group, by category, were summed and then divided by eight, the number of groups included in the study. The results of these analyses were arranged in tabular form and are reported and interpreted in 110 Chapter IV. Conclusions, implications, and recommendations derived from these analyses are presented in Chapter V. Summary In this chapter the basic questions to be answered by the study have been reviewed and a description of the study population has been presented. The procedures used in developing and administering the instrument used for data collection purposes have been presented. The general and specific methodologies used in treating the data have been discussed. Chapter IV addresses the analysis and interpretation of the data. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction Eight different reference groups contributed data for this study. Each group was considered important in making judgments about Career Education Planning Districts and their roles and relationships in implementing man­ dated career education in Michigan. The study was aimed at determining what was judged by the reference groups to be: (1) the degree of appro­ priateness of a selected list of functions for CEPD; (2) the degree of authority CEPD should be given in per­ forming the selected functions, and the appropriate source for that authority; (3) the appropriate resolution of four selected accountability issues for CEPD; and (4) the sources and proportions of financial support for CEPD. In this chapter, the data are presented and analyzed for each of the eight reference groups and the composite of the reference groups. The scores of the composite of the reference groups represent mean scores 111 112 established by summing the standard scores of each of the eight reference groups taken as equals. Further analyses are made of the reference groups when viewed in three categories: (1) state level groups (the Michigan Depart­ ment of Education, the State Career Education Commission, the State Advisory Council for Vocational Education, and the University Cadre); (2) operational level groups (the ISD Superintendents, the Local School Superintendents, and the Local School Career Education Coordinators; and (3) the CEPD Coordinators to determine similarities and differences in judgment. For two issues, appropriateness of functions and degree of authority to be given CEPD to perform functions, data analyses involved four subsets of functions (planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation), and the total set of forty-nine functions. Data for two major issues, degree of authority to be given CEPD when performing functions and sources and proportions of financial support are expressed as per­ centage scores. Data for appropriateness of functions and accountability issues are expressed as weighted rating scores. These are computed by multiplying percentage scores by weighting factors as described in Chapter III (p. 104). A total of 270 persons representing the eight different reference groups was chosen for the study. 113 A total of 172 respondents completed and returned the study questionnaire for a 63.7 percent return rate. Table 4.1 shows the distribution of responses. Functions Deemed Appropriate The first item of interest was the identification of functions deemed appropriate for CEPD to perform. The research questions were: A. How appropriate are ning functions, (1) a subset of sixteen plan­ (2) a subset of twenty-five coordi­ nation functions, (3) a subset of four consul­ tation functions, (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) the total set of forty-nine proposed functions, as judged by each of the eight reference groups and the composite of the reference groups? B. What major similarities and differences in judgment are observed among the eight reference groups individually and when grouped in three categories with respect to the appropriateness of CEPD per­ forming the functions grouped in four subsets of planning, coordination, consultation, and evalu­ ation and the total set of forty-nine functions? Table 4.2 presents the rating scores computed for each of the eight reference groups as well as the compo­ site of the reference groups on each of the forty-nine 114 functions. Table 4.3 presents the rating scores computed for each of the eight reference groups as well as the composite of the reference groups on four subsets of functions (planning, coordination, evaluation) consultation, and and the total set of forty-nine functions. These scores were obtained using the procedures described in Chapter III. Appendix B presents more detailed tables which produced the scores found in Table 4.3. From these data, the following analyses were made. The composite ratings on all functions (+.915) indicate that the entire proposed set of forty-nine functions was agreed to, by the reference groups taken as a whole, as appropriate for CEPD to perform. All eight reference groups were in agreement that it was appropriate for CEPD to perform forty-five of the fortynine functions presented. Twenty-one were given full to extremely high agreement, and twenty-four were given low to moderately high agreement by all reference groups. One or more reference groups judged that four of the listed functions were not appropriate. Of the four functions failing concensus agreement, two received extremely low positive composite ratings while two were given mildly negative composite ratings. The University Cadre (-.714), a State level group, expressed opposition for the function: CEPD should coordinate the planning, implemen­ tation and evaluation of vocational education programs. 115 TABLE 4.1.— Distribution of responses to survey Respondent Groups Sample Size Surveys Returned Percentage Rate of Return 8 7 87.5 CEPD Coordinators 50 39 78.0 Intermediate School District Superintendents 58 36 62.1 Michigan Department of Education Staff 13 8 61.5 Local Education Agency Career Education Coordinators 50 30 60.0 Local Education Agency Superintendents 50 29 58.0 Career Education Commission 19 11 57.9 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 22 12 54.6 270 172 63.7 University Cadre Totals Local School Superintendents +1.857 +1.636 +1.417 +1.333 +1.500 +1.311 +1.267 +1.477 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for pro­ moting career education programs +1.375 +1.571 +1.535 +1.167 +1.435 +1.138 +1.207 +1.234 +1.333 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education program priorities +1.375 +1.714 +1.364 +1.333 +1.205 +1.305 +1.138 +1.131 +1.321 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for Career Education Steering Committees +1.750 +1.714 +1.363 + .833 +1.079 +1.139 +1.172 +1.034 +1.261 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for Career Education Advisory Committees +1.750 +1.714 +1.454 + .507 +1.126 +1.083 +1.139 +1.100 +1.233 The CEPD should coordinate an area-wide promotional and information system for career education +1.125 +1.571 +1.272 + .667 +1.230 +1.525 +1.345 +1.066 +1.225 The CEPD should coordinate the implemen­ tation of an area-wide occupational infor­ mation system of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD +1.000 +1.285 +1.435 +1.417 +1.127 + ,946 +1.209 +1.300 +1.215 Composite Mean +1.500 Local School Career Education Coordinators Advisory Council for Vocational Education The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education needs CEPD Coordinators Career Education Commission Superintendents 1 University Cadre I MDE Representatives i I 1 1 TABLE 4.2.— Ratings by reference groups individually and as a composite of appropriateness for CEPD to perform a selected set of forty-nine functions TABLE 4.2.— Continued m 4J fJ l + c 9 a od uI a is c c o m U at at >n c« 3 O ■HTJ O fi U 4*9 oi 0) 4 •H 0 0 c U 3 g 9 *d 0 o^ 4 U -*^0 -H 0• » U H iJ •h a 4 o OU3U >303 •b o o u < u > w » M 0 JJ 4 c ■0 au a *o W0 X Jo a 9 c *4 9 c -9V .C 9 O -P *0 C u O -d 0c in c •H M Q Q. 9 9 U Q. w m J (A 9 tn 3 0 3 ■ u 0 o 0 j3 e p u O9 w ■H C U P'H iH 9 4 99 O H O M3 O o KT) 0 j u u u 9 P -H ■ 0 9*5 & a O9 oae +1.750 +1.571 +1.545 + .250 +1.051 +1.082 +1.241 +1.154 +1.206 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program planning +1.500 +1.571 +1.365 + .666 +1.540 + .915 +1.070 +1.068 +1.164 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for administrative staff +1.500 +1.571 +1.345 + .334 +1.052 +1.110 +1.242 +1.067 +1.153 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD career education steeringcommittees +1.125 +1.285 +1.545 + .917 +1.178 + .887 +1.005 +1.167 +1.139 The CEPD should coordinate the develop­ ment and accessibility of a directory of conmunity resources for career education of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD +1.000 +1.123 +1.545 +1.083 + .948 + .946 +1.311 +1.067 +1.128 The CEPD should coordinate and/or con­ duct career education in-service programs for ISD career education advisory committees +1.125 +1.285 +1.545 + .833 +1.051 + .861 + .991 +1.299 +1.124 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify the guidelines and procedures for completing career plans +1.750 +1.714 + .728 + .918 + .437 +1.444 +1.207 + .785 +1.123 117 The CEPD should assist ISOs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for guidance and support staff TABLE 4.2.— Continued » 0 > -H 4-1 0 JJ C 0 0 u e c o 0 -H •H 0 u >i 4J "H tfl U 0 0 > u §£ C 0 D U 0 W 0 U 6 u 3 e 0 o u w u m o bi a, 0 M 0 C >4 CO H rH 0 * O ^ n U -m 0 ■HC4U o o -d < u > w ■ u o 0 c ■o Q U a. o u 0 u u C 0 •d c 0 4J c 'H U 0 a a to 3 m in H O 0 X U w 0 u 0 J 0 -P c 0 *0 c 0 4J c «rl 0 a» 3 (0 O o J= 0 tr> H r4 0 0 O 0 J 0 M 0 U 0 M o c ** 0 0 -H c -H 0 *0 O H 3 a TJ 0 H O 0 4J 0 0 & a U X The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program implementation +1.375 +1.571 +1.272 + .500 +1.050 + .832 +1.242 +1.034 +1.109 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service For career education program evaluation +1.375 +1.571 +1.274 + .583 +1,050 + .749 + .999 + .834 +1.054 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for assessing progress in career education programs +1.100 +1.001 +1.355 +1.083 +1.281 + .749 + .967 + .832 +1.046 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for instructional staff +1,750 +1.571 + .354 + .250 +1.001 +1.082 +1.172 +1.167 +1.041 The CEPD should coordinate the development and implementation of an area-wide instruc­ tional materials center for career edu­ cation materials + .950 +1.143 +1.454 + .751 + .819 + .695 +1.208 +1.166 +1.023 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for boards of education +1.375 +1.571 +1.001 + .249 +1.051 +1.029 + .759 +1.100 +1.017 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for community publics +1.625 + .584 +1.024 __ +1.000 , +1.069 + .800 , +1.011 + .714 +1.271 TABLE 4.2.— Continued 0 4J c 0 •d c n 9 > •H 4J 4 4J c 0 0 0 u ia !S 4J •H «n u 9 9 > u TJ c 4 D U U 9 ® M 4 u C C 0 0*H -H 0) 4J m 4 -H o e 3 E *d o w u u O *-H «M < d >» CO U H 0 H O -+•»-W 4J M U 4J 4 -4 a 4 0 > B V 3 4 0 0 4 < u > w 4 u 0 9 AJ c 4 c 'H *0 u 9 a a Q U Gu 0 W 0 u u 10 3 H (0 to A> c H 0 O 4 0 c 9 U AJ w c *H r4 M 4 0 U fV 0 3 J U) p-H » M O C +J 0 4 C Vi AJ •-I 0 4 *0 4 0 O M u h d O 0 0-00 J U H U 0 O J3 U W 0 AJ •H 0 o g 0 * 0 U £ The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD administrative staff +1.125 +1.285 +1.182 + .417 + .999 + .748 + .931 +1.134 + .978 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training pro­ grams for evaluating career education programs +1.250 +1.428 +1.092 + .749 +1.104 + .472 + .897 + .801 + .974 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for estab­ lishing curricula which include career education content +1.375 +1.571 + .636 + .913 + .556 + .972 + .726 + .899 + .956 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs com­ plete their written careereducation plans +1.375 +1.714 + .545 + .251 + .768 +1.028 + .931 + .900 + .939 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD guidance and consultant staff +1.125 +1.285 +1.183 - .001 +1.103 + .777 + .896 +1,133 + .938 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD instructional staff +1,125 +1.285 +1.001 + .166 +1.103 + .777 + .931 + *967 + .919 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program reporting + -875 +1.571 + .728 + .494 +1.050 + .860 + .862 + .900 + .918 TABLE 4.2.— Continued m xj e > * e> XI C o a 9 U “ IS•• 6| O* >* Xl -H a u 9 9 >U *H U DcV« e e o—o< -m m w e+ e»-m 4 cos m 31 oflT w3oO to u O ■MAC pi GO U r4 0 *rl O 'H t-l JJ to U 9 C A O > 3 o 3 ■0 O O T3 < u > w u o 4J to c -H ■a a n cii o u o u u c 9 •a c ® c u 9 tn a w tn « XJ C H 9 0 n o c JS 9 O 4J W G *H to 9 O Q* o a •J cn « h 0 o u o C XI o O 4 •H C W M XI H 9 4 TJ to © tl M o H 3 0 Q to-dO 3 CJ U CJ A 9 XI to O G E to O 9 u z +1,000 + .572 + .715 + .668 +1.128 + .944 +1.001 +1.300 + .916 CEPD should coordinate the establishment of career education programs directed at students (K-adult) which can be shared by more than one LEA within the CEPD + .625 +1.714 +1.092 + .665 + .820 .723 + .829 + .766 + .904 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD boards of education +1.000 +1.285 +1.092 + .083 +1.154 + .751 + .690 +1.134 + .899 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs determine future career education priori­ ties based on the results of evaluations conducted + .625 +1.142 +1.183 + .834 + .974 + .805 + .931 + .692 + .898 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs develop and/or select career education program evaluation designs + .375 +1.142 +1.092 + 1.000 + .948 + .806 + .965 + .699 + .878 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD community publics + .875 +1.285 +1.183 + .250 +1.231 + .668 + .689 + .832 + .877 The CEPD should coordinate the development and implementation of an area wide career placement service of use to LEA students within the CEPD + .975 + .429 +1.364 + .250 +1.051 + .862 +1.208 + .834 + .872 120 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education coordinators TABLE 4.2.~~Continued 9 W > -H JJ 10 >4 JJ •H (0 U c 0 ■ 0 U u a q « 2 « 9 > *rl c q 0 U TJ m u c c o 0 -H DO UJJ n O O -H t u g U 3 E « lO O U U (J M O ^ w * tJ >9 CO U p4 o *H O 'H ’H 4J 9 O 4J 4 •H C 10 d > 3 O 3 T J O O ’O < u > w 9 u o 4J 9 c • ti -d Q U Ck 0 W 0 u u n +j c V •0 c 0 JJ G ■H u 0 Q Qt CO 3 H (0 CO JJ c ■H 0 o -d o e £ 0 d JJ tn c •w u 9 0 o a Q 3 tn 9 o o jg u tn m b «J 0 O U o « tJ u » ^ o d jj o id -h d -M-H < *d O M 3 O *d o Ed O 40i The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education steering committees +1.000 + .572 +1.545 + .251 + .897 + ,666 + .759 +1.133 + .853 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education advisorycommittees +1.000 + .572 +1.354 + .418 + .796 + .750 + .804 +1.099 + .849 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs complete evaluations of their Career Education programs +1.125 +1.142 +1.001 + .243 + .564 + .526 + .760 + .800 + .770 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA administrative staff +1.000 + .286 +1.182 + .334 + .924 + *501 + .828 +1,066 + .765 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA instructional staff +1.000 + .286 +1.273 + .083 + .743 + ,860 + ,726 +1.066 + .755 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA guidance and consultant staff +1.125 + .286 +1.182 + .000 + .770 + *583 + .759 +1.134 + .729 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA coimnunity publics +1.500 + .286 +1.001 + .251 + .692 + .278 + .480 + .867 + .669 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA boards of education + .875 + .286 +1.001 + .334 + .770 + .472 + .484 + .966 + .659 TABLE 4.2.— Continued 0 0 > •H +> 0 4J C -to » to © 0 > u -h *o 0 * GJ to a a 0 3E CC to c 0 D U C c o (0 u O H •H O C >1 CO to H O -to 0 -to -to 4J O **4 •to 0) to 4J 0) 0 H -to 0 <3 g to 3 E 4*0 0 U US u -to > •0 < tn o v e d 0 u 0 0 o o d 0 -0 > w u o +J 0 c tI •o to Q Pi o u o u u <0 4J c o -a •H 0 O £ U to c o c -H t o 0 IQ 4J c 0 'O C 0 4J c •to to ^ 0 0 U CL Q 3 (0 q a in d H to 0 o 0 to 0 e jj o 0 •to c CO to 4J *to JC o to 0 * O o to 3 O 0 0 *o 0 4 U t 4 U 0 4> •to 0 o a. c 60 0 0 US E The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for operating career education programs + .625 +1.142 + .999 + .417 + .410 + .444 + .509 + .600 + .643 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs admin­ ister evaluation activities related to their career education programs + .500 + .S57 + .728 + .417 + .563 + .446 + .690 + .466 + .583 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of vocational education programs + .500 - .714 + .273 + .251 +1.026 + .467 + .346 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of adult and continuing education programs + .250 - .429 + .272 + .085 + .615 - .056 - .068 + .301 + .121 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of special education programs + .250 - .714 + .091 + .251 + .513 - .222 - .068 + .067 - .020 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation and evaluation of the general education programs + .225 - .429 - .182 - .167 + .307 - .389 - .551 - .234 - .178 +1.100 +1.058 +1.091 + .536 + .952 + .783 + .883 + + .915 Totals— All forty-nine functions Rating Key: + .307 +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly disagree + .655 .928 TABLE 4.3.— Ratings by reference groups individually in categories and as a composite of appropriateness for CEPD to perform four subsets of functions and the total set of fortynine functions Planning 16 Functions Coordination 25 Functions Consultation 4 Functions Evaluation 4 Functions +1.270 + .992 +1.160 + .855 + .946 +1.238 +1.572 +1.079 + .700 +1.161 +1.571 +1.161 +1.069 +1.091 +1.058 +1.438 + .860 +1.282 + .563 +1.100 + .831 + .410 + .626 + .626 + .536 CEPD Coordinators +1.024 + .920 +1.095 + .570 + .952 Operational Level Groups +1.021 + .757 + .950 + .724 + .865 + .992 + .921 + .968 + .692 + .928 +1.043 +1.029 + .755 + .596 +1.042 + .839 + .835 + .645 + .883 + .783 +1.146 + .780 +1.044 + .750 + .915 State Level Groups Career Education Commission University Cadre Michigan Department of Education Representa­ tives Advisory Council for Vocational Education Local School Career Education Coordinators Local School Superin­ tendents ISD Superintendents Composite of the Groups Rating Key: Total 49 Functions +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly disagree 124 One State level group, again the University Cadre (-.429), and two operational level groups, the Local School Super­ intendents (-.068) and the ISD Superintendents (-.056) disagreed with the function: CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementa­ tion and evaluation of adult and continuing education programs. These same three groups, the University Cadre (-.714), the ISD Superintendents Superintendents (-.222) and the Local School (-.068) expressed opposition for the function: CEPD should coordinate the planning, implemen­ tation and evaluation of special education programs. Six of the eight groups, three State level, the University Cadre (-.489), the Career Education Commission (-.182) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.167), and three operational level, the Local School Superinten­ dents (-.551), the ISD Superintendents (-.389), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.234) were opposed to the function: CEPD should coordinate the planning, implemen­ tation and evaluation of the general education programs. Two groups, the MDE Representatives and the CEPD Coordi­ nators, judged all listed functions to be appropriate. There were higher overall agreement ratings for planning (+1.146) and consultation (+1.044) functions than for coordination (+.780) and evaluation (+.750) functions. 125 The planning function was accorded especially high agreement ratings by the University Cadre (+1.572) and the MDE Representatives (+1.438), and reasonably strong agreement ratings by the Career Education Commis­ sion (+1.238). It also received full agreement ratings from Local School Superintendents tendents (+1.043), ISD Superin­ (+1.029) and CEPD Coordinators (+1.024), and Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.992). Slightly less strong agreement was expressed by the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.831). Consultation, too, was given especially high agreement ratings by the University Cadre (+1.571) and reasonably strong agreement by the MDE Representatives (+1.282), the Career Education Commission CEPD Coordinators (+1.043). (+1.161), the (+1.095) and Local School Superintendents Slightly less agreement was accorded by Local School Career Education Coordinators Superintendents (+.839). (+.968) and ISD The Advisory Council for Vocational Education was much less strong in its agree­ ment (+.626) that consultation functions are appropriate for CEPD to perform. In further analysis of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education's judgment on this issue (+.542 strongly agree to -.250 disagree), it was found that this group had a small minority opposed and a significant majority in favor of the function (see Table D.2). 126 The coordination function was given full agreement by the Career Education Commission (+1.079). Slightly less agreement was accorded by the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.921), the CEPD Coordinators (+.920), and MDE Representatives (+.860). Lower agreement judgments were accorded by the Local School Superintendents (+.755), the University Cadre tendents (+.600). Education (+.750), and the ISD Superin­ The Advisory Council for Vocational (-.410) expressed very low agreement for CEPD to perform coordination functions. In further analysis of those reference groups reporting scores of less than +.700, the ISD Superinten­ dents (+.472 strongly agree to -.188 strongly disagree) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.354 strongly agree to -.174 strongly disagree) both had wide internal variance with significant minorities opposed but majorities in agreement with the coordination functions (see Table D.3). The evaluation function was accorded full agree­ ment by the Career Education Commission (+1.161) and the University Cadre (+1.069). Slightly less agreement was given by the Local School Superintendents (+.835). Lower agreement was reported by Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.692), ISD Superintendents (+.645), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.626). 127 The CEPD Coordinators (+.570) and the MDE Representatives (+.563) expressed low agreement that CEPD should perform the evaluation functions. In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores of less than +.700, four groups, the CEPD Coordinators (+.522 strongly agree to -.258 strongly disagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.444 strongly agree to -.112 strongly disagree), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.584 strongly agree to -.271 dis­ agree) , the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.344 strongly agree to -.100 strongly disagree), and the MDE Representatives (+.750 strongly agree to -.312 strongly disagree) had wide internal variances with sig­ nificant minorities opposed but majorities in favor of the evaluation functions. When the reference groups were viewed in three categories, state level, operational level, and CEPD Coordinators, the CEPD Coordinators (+.952) expressed the highest general agreement for all functions. exception With one (Advisory Council for Vocational Education), the State level groups (+.946) were in close agreement and only slightly lower in their judgments followed by the operational level groups (+.865). Three State level groups, the MDE Representatives, the Career Education Commission, and the University Cadre, noted the strongest positive judgments over all functions. They were 128 especially strong in their endorsement of planning and consultation functions. The MDE Representatives' low judgment for evaluation functions was the result of sig­ nificant minorities in both agreement and disagreement. The Advisory Council for Vocational Education was the only State level group less positive in judging the appropriateness of CEPD performing the listed functions. This reference group reported the lowest judgments of all groups for three categories: planning, coordination, and consultation, though the reference group did have significant minorities in favor of each of these functional subsets. The operational level groups (+.865) also indi­ cated agreement as to the appropriateness of the listed functions. Their judgments were significantly lower than those of three of the four State level groups. The Local School Career Education Coordinators reported positive and consistent judgments with the exception of the evalu­ ation category. Their judgments were very similar to those of the CEPD Coordinators. The Local School Superin­ tendents gave full agreement to the planning and consul­ tation categories and slightly less agreement to coordi­ nation and evaluation functions. Finally, the ISD Superintendents accorded full agreement to planning functions, slightly less agreement to consultation functions and lower agreement to coordination and evalu­ ation functions. 129 The CEPD Coordinators (+.952) were close to full agreement on three functional categories: coordination, and consultation. planning, This group, along with five other groups, expressed a relatively low agreement score for the evaluation function. In summary, it was judged appropriate for CEPD to perform (1) a subset of sixteen planning functions, subset of twenty-five coordination functions, set of four consultation functions, (2) a (3) a sub­ (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) the total set of forty-nine functions taken as a whole, and forty-five of forty-nine functions taken individually. Of the four functions failing concensus agreement among the reference groups, each is concerned with the coordination of planning, implementation, and evaluation of vocational education, adult and continuing education, special education, and general educational programs. The State level and oper­ ational level reference groups as well as the CEPD Coordi­ nators along with the composite of the reference groups were in general agreement about these functions. The State Advisory Council for Vocational Education was sig­ nificantly lower on its level of endorsement of most of the functions than were all other groups. Stronger agreement was given for planning and consultation than for coordination and evaluation. 130 Degree of Authority to Perform Functions The second item of interest was the identification of the appropriate level of authority for CEPD to perform the selected functions. A. The research questions were: To what degree does each reference group and the composite of the reference groups judge that CEPD should have no authority to perform (1) a subset of sixteen planning functions, (2) a subset of twenty-five coordination functions, of four consultant functions, (3) a subset (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) the total set of forty-nine proposed functions? B. To what degree does each reference group and the composite of the reference groups judge that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform (1) a subset of sixteen planning functions, of twenty-five coordination functions, set of four consultant functions, (2) a subset (3) a sub­ (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) the total set of forty-nine proposed functions? C. To what degree does each reference group and the composite of the reference groups judge that CEPD should have directive authority to perform (1) a subset of sixteen planning functions, of twenty-five coordination functions, (2) a subset (3) a subset 131 of four consultant functions, (4) a subset of four evaluation functions, and (5) the total set of forty-nine proposed functions? D. In the judgment of each reference group and the composite of the reference groups, what would be the most appropriate agency to give CEPD directive authority authority) (assuming that it should be given such to perform planning functions, (1) a subset of sixteen (2) a subset of twenty-five coordination functions, sultant functions, functions, and (3) a subset of four con­ (4) a subset of four evaluation (5) the total set of forty-nine functions? E. What major similarities and differences in judgment are observed between the eight reference groups concerning the degree of authority that CEPD should have to perform the selected functions grouped in the four subsets of planning, coordi­ nation, and evaluation, and the total set of forty-nine proposed functions? F. What major similarities and differences in judgment are observed between the eight reference groups as to the most appropriate agency to give CEPD directive authority directive authority) (assuming it should be given to perform the selected 132 functions grouped in the four subsets of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation and the total set of forty-nine functions? Tables 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 present mean percentages for each of the eight reference groups and for the com­ posite of the reference groups for three major authority options: no authority, consultive authority, and directive authority. The percentages for each of these options are presented by the four functional categories of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation, and for the total set of forty-nine proposed functions. These per­ centages were obtained using the procedures described in Chapter III. Consultive authority scores represent the combined results of the two o ptions, authority to inform and authority to recommend. Directive authority per­ centages represent the combined results of three options, authority to implement ISD or CEPD governing board direc­ tives, authority to implement SBE directives, and authority to develop and implement its own directives. From these data the following analyses were made. No Authority The no authority option was considered inappro­ priate for CEPD. Overall, only about one in eight (13.1%) of the respondents judged that CEPD should have no authority. The composite of the reference groups rated 133 TABLE 4.4.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have no authority to per­ form designated functions of planning, coordination, consul­ tation, and evaluation or all of these functions Functions Group State Level G r o u p s : Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % Evalu­ ation % All 49 % 10.8 14.7 10.5 15.5 13.2 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 14.8 19.7 20.9 20.8 18.3 University Cadre 14.3 21.7 14.3 14.3 18.2 Career Education Commission 8.5 9.5 6.8 11. 4 9.1 MDE Representatives 5.5 8.0 0.0 15.6 7.2 8.6 16. 7 14.6 17.6 13. 9 10.9 19.9 18. 9 18.9 16.8 ISD Superintendents 6.5 16.6 13.2 22.2 13.5 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 8.5 13.5 11.7 11.7 11.6 CEPD Coordinators 8.7 9.6 10.9 16.0 9.9 Composite Mean 9.7 14.8 12.1 16.4 13.1 Operational Level Groups: Local School Superintendents 134 this authority option extremely unacceptable for all functional categories: (14.8%), consultation evaluation (16.5%), coordination (12.1%), and planning (9.7%). There was a high level of agreement among the eight reference groups in judging the no authority option to be extremely inappropriate. Less than 15 percent of any reference group judged that CEPD should have no authority for planning functions. Among three groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (14.8%), the University Cadre tendents (14.3%), and the Local School Superin­ (10.9%), between 10 and 15 percent would deny CEPD authority for planning. the CEPD Coordinators Education Coordinators mission Among the other five groups, (8.7%), the Local School Career (8.5%), the Career Education Com­ (8.5%), the ISD Superintendents MDE Representatives (6.5%), and the (5.5%), fewer than 10 percent judged that CEPD should have no authority for planning. The no authority option was considered nearly as inappropriate for consultation functions. Among the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (20.9%) and the Local School Superintendents (18.9%) about one-fifth of the respondents would deny CEPD authority for consul­ tation. Fewer of the University Cadre Superintendents Coordinators (14.3%), the ISD (13.2%), the Local School Career Education (11.7%), and the CEPD Coordinators (10.9%) believed that authority to consult should be denied. 135 Even lower in their judgments were the Career Education Commission (6.8%), and the MDE Representatives (0.0%) who rejected this option completely. The no authority option was considered similarly inappropriate for coordination functions. one-fifth of the University Cadre Superintendents Approximately (21.7), the Local School (19.8%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (19.7%) judged that CEPD should have no authority to provide coordination. Still lower in their judgments were the ISD Superintendents (16.6%) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators Less than 10 percent of the CEPD Coordinators Career Education Commission sentatives (13.5%). (9.6%), the (9.5%), and the MDE Repre­ (8.0%) would deny CEPD authority for coordi­ nation functions. The no authority option was considered only very slightly more appropriate for evaluation functions. the ISD Superintendents for Vocational Education (22.2%) and the Advisory Council (20.8%), slightly more than 20 percent advocated this position. Of the remaining groups, the Local School Superintendents CEPD Coordinators (18.8%), the (16.5%), the MDE Representatives the University Cadre cation Coordinators Among (15.6%), (14.3%), and Local School Career Edu­ (11.7%) fewer than one-fifth judged that CEPD should have no authority for performing evalu­ ation functions. 136 Less than one-fifth of any reference group judged the no authority option appropriate when considering the total set of forty-nine proposed functions. Highest in their judgments were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (18.3%), the University Cadre Local School Superintendents the ISD Superintendents (16.8%). (18.2%), and the Even lower were (13.5%), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators Career Education Commission (11.5%). Three groups, the (9.1%), the CEPD Coordinators (9.9%), and the MDE Representatives (7.2%), had fewer than 10 percent who favored this option. Consultive Authority Consultive authority (Table 4.5) was judged to be the most appropriate form of authority to be given CEPD. Over all, about three in five (61.2%) of the respondents judged that CEPD should have consultive authority. The composite of the reference groups rated this authority option acceptable for planning (69.9%) and consultation (60.1%), and slightly less acceptable for evaluation (59.8%) and coordination (56.8%). There was a high level of agreement by the reference groups judging the CEPD should have consultive authority to perform planning functions. Over 75 percent of the respondents in three groups, the ISD Superinten­ dents (79.7%), the Local School Superintendents (78.4%), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (75.6%), 137 TABLE 4.5.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform designated functions of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation or all of these functions Functions Group Operation Level Groups: Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % Evalu­ ation % All 49 % 77.9 64.2 65.3 67.4 69.0 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 75.6 66.4 70.8 76.7 70.6 ISD Superintendents 79.7 65.2 60.4 69.5 69.9 Local School Superintendents 78.4 60.9 64 .6 56.0 66.5 State Level Groups: 61.7 51.4 57.2 53.9 55. 8 Career Education Commission 65.9 63.3 63.7 65.9 64.4 MDE Representatives 69.5 56.5 71.9 59.4 63.7 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 61.4 46.7 39.6 33.3 49.8 University Cadre 50.0 38.9 53.6 57.2 45.2 CEPD Coordinators 65.9 56.8 56.4 60.2 60.0 Composite Mean 69.3 56.8 60.1 59.8 61.2 138 t judged this authority option acceptable. of four groups, the MDE Representatives Over 60 percent (69.5%), the CEPD Coordinators (65.9%), the Career Education Commission (65.9%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (61.4%), judged this authority option acceptable. half of the University Cadre Exactly (50%) judged that CEPD should have consultive authority for performing the planning functions. With one exception, there was a high level of agreement by the reference groups judging that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform consultation functions. Approximately 70 percent of two groups, the MDE Represen­ tatives (71.9%) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators appropriate. (70.8%), considered this authority option Over 60 percent of three groups, the Local School Superintendents (64.6%), the Career Education Com­ mission (63.7%), and the ISD Superintendents endorsed this authority option. groups, the CEPD Coordinators (60.4%), Over 50 percent of two (56.8%) and the MDE Repre­ sentatives (56.5%), considered this authority option acceptable. However, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (39.6%) found this authority option much less acceptable for CEPD to perform consultation functions. Again, with the exception of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (33.3%), the reference groups were in agreement that CEPD should have consultive 139 authority to perform evaluation functions. Over 70 per­ cent of the Local School Career Education Coordinators (76.7%), and over 60 percent of three groups, the ISD Superintendents (69.5%), the Career Education Commission (65.9%), and the CEPD Coordinators option acceptable. sentatives (60.2%), found this Among three groups, the MDE Repre­ (59.4%) , the University Cadre Local School Superintendents (57.2%), and the (56.0%), more than half would agree that CEPD should have consultive authority for evaluation. Again, with the exception of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (46.7%) and the University Cadre (38.9%), the reference groups were in agreement that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform coordination functions. Individual group judgments were slightly lower than for other functional categories. Over 60 percent of four groups, the Local School Coordinators ISD Superintendents mission (66.4%), the (65.2%) , the Career Education Com­ (63.3%), and the Local School Superintendents (60.9%), judged this authority option acceptable, while over 50 percent of two groups, the CEPD Coordinators (56.8%) and the MDE Representatives (56.5%) endorsed this authority option. Six reference groups noted a high level of agree­ ment that CEPD should have consultive authority to perform the total set of forty-nine functions. Over 70 percent 140 of the Local School Coordinators authority option acceptable. Over 60 percent of five groups, the ISD Superintendents Superintendents (69.9%), the Local School (66.5%), the Career Education Commission (64.4%), the MDE Representatives Coordinators (70.6%) found this (63.7%), and the CEPD (60.0%), judged that CEPD should have con­ sultive authority. Neutral in its position was the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (49.8%). Slightly less than half the University Cadre respondents (45.2%) judged the consultive authority option acceptable for CEPD to perform the total set of forty-nine functions. Directive Authority The directive authority (Table 4.6) option was generally judged inappropriate for CEPD. about one in five Over all, only (20.4%) of the respondents judged that CEPD should have directive authority. Only between 15 and 30 percent of the composite of the reference groups rated this authority option acceptable for any of the functions: consultation (29.2%), coordination and planning and evaluation (22.2%), (each 16.6%). There was some disagreement but a mild tendency toward approval among the reference groups when consider­ ing whether CEPD should have directive authority for consultation functions. the University Cadre Over 40 percent of two groups, (46.5%) and the Advisory Council for 141 TABLE 4.6.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have directive authority to perform designated functions of planning, coordination, consultation, and evaluation or all of these functions Functions Group Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % Evalu­ ation % All 49 % State Level Groups: 20.8 26.1 36.4 24.8 25.1 University Cadre 33.1 38.9 46.5 28.6 36.8 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 18.7 19.0 43.8 39.6 22.6 Career Education Commission 16.5 22.9 36.4 18.2 21.5 MDE Representatives 14.9 23.5 18.8 12.5 19.4 CEPD Coordinators 21. 3 28.5 26.9 18.6 25.2 Operational Level Groups: 9.4 14.8 20.3 5.1 12.7 13.6 18.0 25.1 7.7 16.3 Local School Superintendents 7.3 14.4 24.1 5.2 12.1 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 7.3 11.9 11.7 2.5 9.6 16.6 22.1 29.2 16.6 20.4 ISD Superintendents Composite Mean 142 Vocational Education (43.8%) chose this authority option. Over 30 percent of the Career Education Commission and over 20 percent of the CEPD Coordinators ISD Superintendents tendents (24.1%) appropriate. (36.4%) (26.9%), the (25.1%), and the Local School Superin­ judged that directive authority was Fewer than 2 0 percent of two groups, the MDE Representatives (18.8%) Education Coordinators and the Local School Career (11.7%) deemed this authority option appropriate for CEPD to perform consultation functions. There was again some disagreement and less ten­ dency toward approval among the reference groups when considering whether CEPD should have directive authority for coordination functions. University Cadre (38.9%) Almost 4 0 percent of the endorsed this option. Between 20 and 30 percent of three groups, the CEPD Coordinators (28.5%), the MDE Representatives Education Commission (22.9%), authority acceptable. (23.5%), and the Career found this directive Less than 20 percent of four groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education the ISD Superintendents intendents (19.0%), (18.0%), the Local School Super­ (14.4%), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (11.9%), judged that CEPD should have d irec­ tive authority for coordination functions. There was again some disagreement but even less tendency toward approval among the reference groups when 143 considering whether CEPD should have directive authority for evaluation functions. Nearly 40 percent of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (39.6%) , and slightly fewer than 30 percent of the University Cadre (28.6%) endorsed this authority option. Two groups, the Career Education Commission (18.2%) and the MDE Represen­ tatives (12.5%), reported fewer than 20 percent of its respondents in favor of directive authority. Fewer than 10 percent of three groups, the ISD Superintendents the Local School Superintendents (7.7%), (5.2%) , and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (5.2%), judged direc­ tive authority appropriate for CEPD to perform evaluation functions. The reference groups were closer in their judgments that CEPD should have little directive authority for planning functions. One-third of the University Cadre (33.3%) judged that CEPD should have directive authority. Fewer than 20 percent of four groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (18.7%), the Career Education Com­ mission (16.5%), the MDE Representatives ISD Superintendents for CEPD. (14.9%), and the (13.6%), favored directive authority Fewer than 10 percent of two groups, the Local School Superintendents (7.3%) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (7.3%) , favored directive authority for CEPD to perform planning functions. 144 Again, there were some differences in judgment among the reference groups when considering whether CEPD should have directive authority for all forty-nine functions. Almost one-third of the University Cadre (36.8%) endorsed directive authority for all functions. Over 20 percent of three groups, the CEPD Coordinators (25.2%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (22.6%), and the Career Education Commission (21.5%), deemed directive authority appropriate. Fewer than 20 percent of three groups, the MDE Representatives the ISD Superintendents Superintendents (19.4%), (16.3%), and the Local School (12.1%), and fewer than 10 percent of the Local School Career Education Coordinators (9.6%) found directive authority acceptable for CEPD to perform the total set of forty-nine functions. Agencies To Give CEPD Directive Authority (if Any Is To Be Given) Tables 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 present the mean per­ centages for each reference group and the composite of the reference groups who judged that three major agencies should give CEPD directive authority. The percentages were computed using the procedures described in Chapter III. The three options included: board, (1) the ISD or CEPD governing (2) the State Board of Education, and (3) the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit. As previously reported, there were relatively small percentages of the 145 TABLE 4.7.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have authority to imple­ ment ISD or CEPD governing board directives when performing designated functions of planning, coordination, consulta­ tion, and evaluation or all of these functions Functions Group State Level Groups: Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % Evalu­ ation % All 49 % 11.2 16.4 11.7 12.6 14.0 University Cadre 16.9 23.4 14.3 7.2 19.2 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 10.6 14.8 21.2 32.7 15.4 MDE Representatives 10.1 18.5 3.1 0.0 12.9 Career Education Commission 7.3 8.9 8.3 10.4 8.5 CEPD Coordinators 9.3 17.3 10.3 8.3 13.4 Operational Level Groups: 5.1 12.1 7.9 3.1 8.5 ISD Superintendents 9.6 15.9 11.5 3.5 12.5 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 2.1 11.3 3.9 2.4 6.9 Local School Superintendents 3.7 9.1 8.4 3.4 6.1 8.7 14.9 10.1 10.1 11.9 Composite Mean 146 TABLE 4.8.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have authority to imple­ ment State Board of Education directives when performing designated functions of planning, coordination, consulta­ tion, and evaluation or all of these functions Functions Group Evalu­ ation All 49 Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % 7.3 6.1 10.9 8.0 7.0 University Cadre 11.6 10. 3 17.9 21.5 12.3 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 7.7 6.2 13.5 3.9 7.1 Career Education Commission 6.0 3.7 12.5 6.7 5.4 MDE Representatives 3.9 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 CEPD Coordinators 9.8 10.9 14.1 8.4 10.6 Operational Level Gr o u p s : 1.7 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 ISD Superintendents 2.6 3.8 6.0 3.5 3.6 Local School Superintendents 1.5 0.9 1.7 3.3 1.4 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.0 1.0 5.5 5.1 8.3 5.9 5.6 State Level Groups: Composite Mean % % 147 TABLE 4.9.— Mean percentages by reference group and for all groups who judged that CEPD should have directive authority to develop and implement its own directives when performing designated functions of planning, coordination, consulta­ tion, and evaluation of all these functions Functions Group Plan­ ning Coordi­ nation Consul­ tation % % % % 2.5 3.3 3.7 3.1 3.1 University Cadre 4.5 5.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 Career Education Commission 2.6 4.7 2.1 0.0 3.4 MDE Representatives 0.0 1.0 12.5 12.5 2.6 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 2.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 CEPD Coordinators 2.3 4.2 2.6 1.9 3.3 Operational Level Groups: 3.3 3.1 2.9 0.2 2.6 Local School Superintendents 4.9 3.9 4.2 0.0 3.2 Local School Coordinators 3.7 2.8 2.3 0.0 2.8 ISD Superintendents 1.4 2.5 2.1 0.7 1.9 2.8 3.3 3.2 0.3 2.9 State Level Groups: Composite Mean Evalu­ ation All 49 % 148 reference groups and of the composite of the reference groups who judged that the CEPD should be given directive authority to perform the selected functions. Analysis was done, however, to see which agencies were deemed appropriate to delegate the minimal authority proposed. Only about one in eight (11.9%) of the respondents chose the ISD or CEPD governing board. This agency was judged extremely unacceptable by the composite of the reference groups to give CEPD directive authority for: planning (817%), coordination (14.9%), consultation (10.1%), evaluation (8.5%), and the total set of fortynine functions (11.9%). Only three groups, the University Cadre (16.9%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (10.6%), and the MDE Representatives (10.1%), each had more than 10 percent of its respondents favor this agency to give CEPD authority for planning functions. In three groups between 5 and 10 percent of respondents were in favor of this agency: the CEPD Coordinators Superintendents (7.3%). (9.3%), the ISD (9.6%), and the Career Education Commission Two groups, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (2.1%) and the Local School Superintendents (3.7%) , had fewer than 5 percent favor this agency to give CEPD authority. Almost one-fourth of the University Cadre (23.8%) favored the ISD or CEPD governing board to give CEPD 149 authority for coordination functions. Between 15 and 20 percent of three groups also favored this agency: the MDE representatives (18.5%), the CEPD Coordinators (17.3%), and the ISD Superintendents (15.5%), closely followed by the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (14.8%) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (11.3%). Fewer than 10 percent of the Local School Super­ intendents (9.1%) and the Career Education Commission (8.9%) endorsed this agency to give CEPD authority. Slightly over 20 percent of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (21.2%) favored the ISD or CEPD governing board to give CEPD authority for consultation functions. Fewer than 15 percent of the University Cadre (14.3%), the ISD Superintendents Coordinators (11.5%), and the CEPD (10.3%) chose this agency. All remaining groups had fewer than 10 percent of their respondents who advocated this agency for giving CEPD authority: Local School Superintendents Commission (8.5%), the Career Education (8.3%), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (3.9%), and the MDE representatives (3.1%). Almost one-third of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education respondents (32.7%) favored this agency to give CEPD authority for performing evaluation functions. Only one other reference group, the Career Education Commission (10.4%) had in excess of 10 percent of its respondents favor this agency. In all other groups 150 fewer than 10 percent of respondents favored this agency to give CEPD directive authority to perform evaluation functions: CEPD Coordinators (7.2%), ISD Superintendents tendents (8.3%), University Cadre (3.5%), Local School Superin­ (3.4%), Local School Career Education Coordinators (2.4%), and the MDE Representatives (0.0%). When considering the total forty-nine functions, fewer than 20 percent of any reference group favored the ISD or CEPD governing board to give CEPD authority. positive were the University Cadre (19.2%) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (15.4%). the CEPD Coordinators Most Three groups, (13.4%), the MDE Representatives (12.9%), and the ISD Superintendents reported between 10 and 15 percent of their respondents in favor of this agency, while fewer than 10 percent of the remaining groups, the Career Education Commission School Career Education Coordinators Local School Superintendents (8.5%), the Local (6.9%), and the (6.1%), favored this agency to give CEPD authority for performing all forty-nine functions. Only about one in twenty (5.6%) of the respondents recommended that the State Board of Education give CEPD directive authority. This agency was judged even more unacceptable than an ISD or CEPD governing board by the composite of the reference groups for: planning (5.5%), 151 coordination (5.1%), consultation (8.3%), evaluation and the total set of forty-nine functions Only the University Cadre (5.9%), (5.6%). (11,6%) had at least 10 percent of its respondents who favored this agency to give CEPD authority for planning functions. All other reference groups had fewer than 10 percent of their respondents who advocated delegation of authority for planning from this agency: CEPD Coordinators Advisory Council for Vocational Education Career Education Commission (2.6%), the Local School (1.5%), and the Local School Career Edu­ cation Coordinators (0.9%). Two groups, the CEPD Coordinators University Cadre (7.7%), the (6.0%), the MDE Representatives (3.9%), the ISD Superintendents Superintendents (9.8%), the (10.9%) and the (10.3%), reported 10 percent of its respondents in favor of the State Board of Education to give CEPD authority to perform coordination functions. Less than 10 percent of the remaining groups favored this authority from this agency: Education tendents Advisory Council for Vocational (6.2%), MDE Representatives (4.0%), ISD Superin­ (3.8%), Career Education Commission School Career Education Coordinators School Superintendents (3.7%), Local (1.3%), and the Local (0.9%). Slightly over 15 percent (17.9%) of the University Cadre favored the State Board of Education to give CEPD authority to perform consultation functions. Between 152 10 and 15 percent of three groups, the CEPD Coordinators (14.1%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (13.5%), and the Career Education Commission (12.5%) favored delegation of such authority from this agency. Fewer than 10 percent of the remaining groups, the ISD Superintendents (6.0%), the Local School Superintendents (1.7%) , the Local School Career Education Coordinators (0.8%), and the MDE Representatives (0.0%), endorsed the State Board of Education to give CEPD authority to per­ form consultation functions. Slightly over one-fifth (21.5%) of the University Cadre favored the State Board of Education to give CEPD authority to perform evaluation functions. Fewer than 10 percent of all other groups favored such authority from this agency, including five which had fewer than 5 percent of their respondents who selected this option: Coordinators CEPD (8.4%), the Career Education Commission (6.7%) , the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (3.9%), the ISD Superintendents Superintendents Coordinators (3.5%), the Local School (3.3%), the Local School Career Education (0.0%), and the MDE Representatives (0.0%). With respect to all forty-nine functions, only two groups, the University Cadre (12.3%) and the CEPD Coordinators (10.6%), reported more than 10 percent of their respondents in favor of CEPD being given directive authority for performing the functions by the State Board 153 of Education. All other groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (7.1%), the Career Education Com­ mission (5.4%), the ISD Superintendents Representatives (3.6%), the MDE (3.3%), the Local School Superintendents (1.4%), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (1.0%), reported extremely small endorsement of directive authority for CEPD to be delegated by the State Board of Education. An extremely small percentage (2.9%) of the respon­ dents chose the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit to be able to establish its own independent authority to perform its functions. Almost no support was given by the composite of the reference groups to allow CEPD such independent authority for: planning (2.8%), coordination (3.3%), consultation (3.2%), evaluation (0.3%), and the total forty-nine functions (2.9%). Fewer than 5 percent of any reference groups chose the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit with independent authority to perform planning functions: Local School Superintendents (4.9%), University Cadre (4.5%), Local School Career Education Coordinators Advisory Council for Vocational Education Career Education Commission (0.0%). (2.9%), the (2.6%), the CEPD Coordinators (2.3%), the ISD Superintendents Representatives (3.7%), (1.4%), and the MDE 154 With the exception of the University Cadre (5.1%), fewer than 5 percent of the groups advocated the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit with independent authority to perform coordination functions: Education Commission (4.7%), CEPD Coordinators Local School Superintendents Education Coordinators (4.2%), (3.9%), Local School Career (2.8%), ISD Superintendents Advisory Council for Vocational Education MDE Representatives the Career (2.5%), (2.2%), and the (1.0%). With the exception of the MDE Representatives (12.5%), fewer than 5 percent of any reference group chose the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit with independent authority to perform consultation functions: Local School Superintendents (4.2%), CEPD Coordinators (2.6%), Local School Career Education Coordinators ISD Superintendents (2.3%), (2.1%), Career Education Commission (2.1%), University Cadre (0.0%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (0.0%). Again, with the exception of the MDE Represen­ tatives (12.5%), virtually none of the groups favored CEPD as a separate and autonomous unit with independent authority to perform evaluation functions: nators Cadre (1.9%), ISD Superintendents (0.7%), University (0.0%), Career Education Commission Council for Vocational Education Superintendents Coordinators CEPD Coordi­ (0.0%), Advisory (0.0%), Local School (0.0%), and Local School Career Education (0.0%). 155 Fewer than 5 percent of any reference group chose the CEPD as a separate and autonomous legal unit with independent authority to perform the forty-nine functions: University Cadre (4.1%), Career Education Commission CEPD Coordinators (3.3%), Local School Superintendents (3.2%), Local School Career Education Coordinators MDE Representatives Education (3.3%), (2.8%), (2.6%), Advisory Council for Vocational (2.1%), and ISD Superintendents (1.9%). Significant Differences in Judgment between Reference Groups on Degree of Authority for Specific Functions Significant differences in judgment between reference groups at the .05 level of confidence on the extent to which authority should be given CEPD were identified for six functions as follows: Coordination functions: The CEPD should coordinate the planning, imple­ mentation, and evaluation of Vocational Education Programs within the CEPD The CEPD should coordinate the planning, imple­ mentation, and evaluation of Adult and Continuing Education Programs within the CEPD The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD career education steering committees The CEPD should coordinate the development and accessibility of a directory of community resources for career education of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD Consultation function: The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with con­ sultant service for career education program evaluation 156 Evaluation: The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs administer evaluation activities related to their career education programs Appendix C presents tables that show the distri­ bution of percentage scores for each of the reference groups for each of these six functions. The scores are grouped according to the three major authority options. In general the reference groups continued to reflect the same positions on these three major authority options as reported for each of the four functional categories, with these exceptions. The Michigan Department of Education Representatives reported directive authority judgments of 50 percent for the two coordination functions dealing with vocational education and adult and continuing edu­ cation programs. This group was also uncertain of its authority position for the coordination item dealing with a directory of community resources. The CEPD Coordinators reported a high 48 percent directive authority score for the coordination item deal­ ing with vocational education programs. (See Appendix C.) The Advisory Council for Vocational Education appeared uncertain of its position on the coordination item dealing with in-service for ISD career education steering committees. Thus, the operational level reference groups (Local School Superintendents, Local School Career 157 Education Coordinators, and ISD Superintendents) found it appropriate for CEPD to be given consultive authority and extremely inappropriate for CEPD either to be denied any authority or to be given directive authority when performing its functions. The percentages of these groups who approved consultive authority for CEPD were generally higher than those of either the State level reference groups or the CEPD coordinators. Conversely, the percentages of oper­ ational level reference groups approving directive authority were generally lower than those of either the State level groups or the CEPD coordinators. With one very minor exception (Local School Super­ intendents— 56.0% for evaluation), at least three in five of the respondents in each operational level group endorsed consultive authority for CEPD. With one exception (ISD Superintendents— 22.2% for evaluation), fewer than one in five of the respondents in each operational level group endorsed the no authority option for CEPD. With two exceptions (ISD Superintendents— 25.1%, and Local School Superintendents— 24.1%, both for consul­ tation) less than one in five of the respondents in each operational level group endorsed the directive authority option for CEPD. There was a slight tendency for Local School Career Education Coordinators and Local School 158 Superintendents to accord higher judgments for the no authority option than for the directive authority option. Differences were very small. The State level reference groups (MDE Representa­ tives, University Cadre, the Career Education Commission, and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education) judged consultive authority to be most acceptable for CEPD to perform its selected functions. These groups also found it extremely inappropriate that CEPD be denied any authority, and inappropriate for CEPD to be given direc­ tive authority when performing its functions. The con­ sultive authority judgments of these groups were lower than those recorded by the operational level groups. State level groups Two (Advisory Council for Vocational Edu­ cation and the University Cadre) recorded lower scores on consultive authority than the CEPD Coordinators. Their directive authority judgments were higher than those of the operational level groups and higher than those of the CEPD Coordinators. Their no authority judgments were also higher than either the operational level groups or the CEPD Coordinators, while the use of the other two State level groups (MDE Representatives and Career Education Com­ mission) were lower. Approximately three in five of two groups (MDE Representatives and the Career Education Commission) 159 endorsed consultive authority for CEPD while approximately half the respondents in two groups (the Advisory Council for Vocational Education and the University Cadre) did likewise. However, fewer than 4 0 percent of the Vocational Education Advisory Council endorsed consultive authority for consultation and evaluation functions and fewer than 40 percent of the University Cadre endorsed consultive authority for coordination functions. The CEPD Coordinators favored consultive authority for CEPD to perform its functions. This group judged it extremely inappropriate that CEPD be denied any authority, and inappropriate for CEPD to be given directive authority when performing its functions. The CEPD Coordinators consultive authority judgments were slightly lower than those of the operational level reference groups and gen­ erally lower than two (Career Education Commission and the MDE Representatives) of the State level reference groups. Its directive authority judgments were higher than those of the operational level groups, and higher than two (Career Education Commission and the MDE Repre­ sentatives) of the State level groups. Its no authority judgments were slightly lower than the operational level reference groups and approximately the same as two (MDE Representatives and the Career Education Commission) the State level groups. of 160 Approximately three in five of the CEPD Coordi­ nators endorsed consultive authority for CEPD. Fewer than one in six of them endorsed the no authority option. Approximately one in four endorsed the directive authority option. None of the three agencies presented was con­ sidered appropriate to give CEPD directive authority to perform its selected functions. In general, the eight reference groups were similar in their judgments. Scores reported were extremely low, denoting little support for directive authority delegated from any of the agencies. In the majority of instances, fewer than 10 percent of any reference group advocated that any of the agencies give CEPD directive authority. Within these limitations, the reference groups judged the ISD or CEPD governing board the most appro­ priate of the three agencies to give CEPD directive authority. The CEPD coordinators reported their highest judgments on directive authority for three functions (consultation— 14.1%, planning— 9.8%, and evaluation— 8.4%) to be given under the option: Implement State Board of Education directives. The University Cadre reported its highest judg­ ments on directive authority for two functions (evaluation— 21.5%, and consultation— 17.9%) under the option: ment State Board of Education directives. Imple­ 161 The Local School Career Education Coordinators reported their highest though extremely low approval of directive authority for one function under the option: (planning— 3.7%) Implement its own directives. In summary, it was judged that CEPD should be given consultive authority to perform the selected functions of planning, evaluation, coordination, consultation, and the total set of forty-nine functions. It was judged inappropriate for CEPD either to be denied any authority or to be accorded directive authority to perform the selected functions. The State level groups, the operational level groups, and the CEPD Coordinators, along with the composite of the reference groups, were in general agreement on these authority issues. None of the agencies identified in this study was judged appropriate to give CEPD directive authority. All groups had extremely low percentages approving any of the listed options, though there were slight tendencies favor­ ing the choice: ISD or CEPD governing board. For the six functions for which there were found significant differences in judgment between the groups concerning CEPD authority, the positions taken by the reference groups were in general similar to their overall positions. 162 Accountability The major questions addressed in this section of the study w e r e : A. What do each of eight reference groups and the composite of the reference groups judge to be most appropriate in reference to the following accountability issues: (1) the political juris­ diction within which CEPD should be located, (2) the geographical boundaries for CEPD, (3) the job title of the principal professional adminis­ trator for CEPD, and (4) the professional admin­ istrator or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable? B. What major similarities and differences in judg­ ment are observed between the eight reference groups individually and when grouped in three categories, when judging what is appropriate in reference to each of these four major accounta­ bility issues? Summary Tables 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 present rating scores computed for each of the eight reference groups and the composite of the reference groups on each of the four accountability issues: the political juris­ diction for CEPD, the geographical boundaries for CEPD, the job title of the principal professional administrator 163 for CEPD, and the professional administrator or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable. The scores in these tables were obtained using the pro­ cedures described in Chapter III. Appendices D, E, F, and G present more detailed tables which produced the scores found in the summary tables. In interpreting the data, further analysis was made of all reference groups with mean scores of ±.700 or lower to ascertain whether the low mean score represented con­ census on relatively low rating scores or wide variance incorporating high ratings, both positive and negative. Political Jurisdiction for CEPD Of the five choices of political jurisdiction within which CEPD should be lodged (Table 4.10), only one, CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of an ISD located within the CEPD, received overall agreement as being appropriate. groups The composite rating of the reference (+.653) indicated a relatively low degree of over­ all agreement, but this alternative was the only one rated generally as acceptable. The composite of the reference groups expressed opposition to each of the remaining four choices. Strong disagreement was accorded the choice, CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of a community college located within the CEPD (-1.271); moderate disagreement was registered for two choices, CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of an TABLE 4.10.— Ratings of appropriateness of alternative political jurisdictions for CEPD by reference groups individually, by categories and as a composite iSDs Regional Unit of MDE New Autonomous Agency Local Education Agency Community College - .123 - .638 -1.053 -1.212 Michigan Department of Education Representatives + .625 + .125 - .625 -1.000 - .875 Career Education Commission + .354 + .455 - .546 -1.091 -1.365 Advisory Council for Vocational Education + .168 _ .499 - .667 - .833 - .750 University Cadre + .858 - .572 - .715 -1.286 -1.857 CEPD Coordinators + .794 + .206 - .717 -1.564 -1.615 Operational Level Groups + .805 - .539 -1.128 - .441 -1.235 ISD Superintendents +1 .361 1.194 -1.611 -1.056 -1.666 Local School Career Education Coordinators + .400 + .199 - .566 - .267 - .833 Local School Superintendent + .655 - .621 -1.208 - .001 -1.207 + .653 - .237 - .832 - .887 -1.271 Composite of the Groups Rating Key: +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly disagree 164 + .501 State Level Groups 165 LEA located within the CEPD (-.887) and CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of a new agency located within the CEPD (-.832), while slightly negative judgments were expressed for the choice/ CEPD should be a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education (-.237). Differences in judgment between the reference groups, significant at the .05 level, were identified for each of the five choices. Though all of the reference groups opted for the ISD choice, there was considerable variance in their levels of agreement. tendents The ISD Superin­ (+1.361) accorded this choice very high agreement. The University Cadre (+.858) expressed slightly less strong agreement as did the CEPD Coordinators (+.794). Much lower in agreement were the Local School Superintendents (+.665) and the MDE Representatives were the Local School Coordinators Education Commission (+.625). Even lower (+.400) and the Career (+.354). The Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.168) was almost neutral in its position that CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of an ISD located within the CEPD. In further analysis of each reference group report­ ing a judgment of less than +.7 00, on this issue, it was found that the Local School Superintendents (+.482 strongly agree to -.138 strongly agree) had a signifi­ cant minority opposed to this choice though a majority 166 favored it. The Career Education Commission (+.364 strongly agree to -.364 disagree), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.200 strongly agree to -.167 disagree), and the MDE Representatives to -.167 disagree) (±1.000 agree had minorities less strongly opposed but majorities in favor. Lastly, the nearly neutral position of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.334 strongly agree to -.166 strongly disagree) repre­ sented wide internal differences in that group, with nearly one-fourth failing to respond to the survey item (see Table D.l, Appendix D ) . Half of the reference groups expressed agreement and the remaining half disagreement for the choice, CEPD should be a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education. Although it registered its most positive judg­ ment on this issue, the Career Education Commission indi­ cated very low agreement (+.455) with the choice. Three other groups, while positive, noted almost neutral judg­ ments. They were: the CEPD Coordinators Local School Coordinators sentatives (-1.194) (+.125). (+.206), the (+.199), and the MDE Repre­ Conversely, the ISD Superintendents accorded this choice very strong disagreement. The remaining three groups, the Local School Superinten­ dents (-.621), the University Cadre (-.572), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.499), reacted less strongly but definitely disagreed with this option. 167 In further analysis of the reference groups almost all of whom reported scores of less than ±.700, the Career Education Commission (+.364 strongly agree to -.273 disagree) had a significant minority in mild disagreement but a majority in agreement, some strongly so; the MDE Representatives (+.250 strongly agree to -.375 disagree) had equal numbers in agreement and in disagreement though some were more strong in agreement; the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.266 strongly agree to -.2 00 strongly disagree) displayed complete internal discord. The CEPD Coordinators (+.462 strongly agree to -.308 strongly disagree) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.334 strongly agree to -.666 strongly disagree) had significant minorities in all levels of agreement and disagreement, and lastly, the University Cadre (+.286 strongly agree to -.572 strongly disagree) and the Local School Superintendents (+.068 strongly agree to -.482 strongly disagree), though regis­ tering group scores in disagreement, were completely divided among themselves. (See Table E.2, Appendix E.) All reference groups were in clear opposition to the choice, CEPD should be a new agency established separate from any existing educational agencies now functioning in the State and responsible to the State Board of Education. The ISD Superintendents (-.1611) noted especially high disagreement, while the Local 168 School Superintendents (-1.208) were reasonably high in their opposition to this choice. (-.717), the University Cadre (-.715), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education Representatives The CEPD Coordinators (-.667), and the MDE (-.625) accorded this choice lower dis­ agreement ratings. The Local School Coordinators and the Career Education Commission (-.566) (-.546) were slightly less strong in their negative judgments. In further analysis of the reference groups report­ ing judgments of less than -.700, all four groups, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.133 agree to -.266 strongly disagree), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.250 agree to -.834 strongly dis­ agree) , the MDE Representatives (+.250 strongly agree to -.500 strongly disagree), and the Career Education Com­ mission (+.182 strongly agree to -.546 strongly disagree) had wide internal variance with significant minorities in agreement and majorities in disagreement. One-fourth of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this item. (See Table D.3, Appendix D.) There was a wide variance but general disagreement expressed for the choice, CEPD should be under the juris­ diction of an LEA located within the CEPD. Coordinators The CEPD (-1.564) were especially strong in their disagreement for this choice and they were closely followed by the University Cadre (-1.286). Three groups, 169 the Career Education Commission intendents (-1.091), the ISD Super­ (-1.056), and the MDE Representatives (-1.000) were in full disagreement, while the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.833) expressed slightly less strong negative judgments. Coordinators Two groups, the Local School (-.267) and the Local School Superintendents (-.001) registered almost neutral judgments. In further analysis of the two reference groups reporting judgments of less than -.700, the Local School Superintendents disagree) nators (+.344 strongly agree to -.138 strongly and the Local School Career Education Coordi­ (+.200 strongly agree to -.134 strongly disagree) were in great internal disagreement. (See Table D.4, Appendix D . ) All reference groups were strongly opposed to the choice, CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of a com­ munity college located within the CEPD. the University Cadre (-1.875), the ISD Superintendents (-1.666), the CEPD Coordinators Education Commission Four groups, (-1.615), and the Career (-1.365), were especially strong in their disagreement for this choice, closely followed by the Local School Superintendents (-1.207). remaining groups, the MDE Representatives Local School Career Education Coordinators The three (-.875), the (-.833), and 170 the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.750) expressed slightly less strong disagreement with this option. Thus, when considering the issue of political jurisdiction, all eight of the groups were in agreement that the CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of the ISD. ISD Superintendents were especially strong in their agree­ ment with this option. The Career Education Commission appeared to accept this option, though they expressed a slight preference that the CEPD should be made a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education. ational level groups The oper­ (+.805), the Local School Career Education Coordinators, the Local School Superintendents, and the ISD Superintendents, were in stronger agreement than the State Level groups (+.501), the University Cadre, MDE Representatives, Career Education Commission, and Advisory Council for Vocational Education. Two State level groups, the Career Education Commission and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education, indicated extremely low levels of agreement with this option. The CEPD Coordinators and the University Cadre were in close agreement with each other in favoring it. None of the remaining four political jurisdiction choices was considered appropriate. (-1.615), operational level groups State level groups The CEPD Coordinators (-1.235), and the (-1.212) all were strongly opposed 171 to the choice, be under the jurisdiction of a community college located within the CEPD. Further, the operational level groups (-1.128) were again in strong opposition with the choice, be under the jurisdiction of a new agency established separate from any existing educational agencies now functioning in the State and responsible to the State Board of Edu­ cation. The State level groups Coordinators agreement; (-.638) and the CEPD (-.717), though less vigorous, were in dis­ and while significant minorities of three State level groups, the MDE Representatives, the Career Education Commission, and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education, were in agreement, the majority of each group expressed opposition to this choice. Given the choice, be under the jurisdiction of an LEA located within the CEPD, the CEPD Coordinators (-1.564) and the State level groups strong opposition. low overall (-1.05 3) were in Operational level groups, while in disagreement agreement with each other. (-.441), were in strong dis­ ISD Superintendents strongly opposed this option while the Local School Superintendents and the Local School Career Education Coordinators were in complete disharmony in their judgments. Given the choice, be a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education, there was a wide variance among the major groups. While in overall 172 disagreement (-.539), the operational level groups were again in marked disagreement with each other as the ISD Superintendents vigorously opposed this option, the Local School Superintendents were more moderate in disagreement and the Local School Career Education Coordinators were internally divided, with all possible positions repre­ sented. Similarly, though almost neutral in their overall judgment (-.123), the State level groups indicated very wide variance. Two groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education and the University Cadre, though seriously divided among themselves, expressed disagreement as groups and the MDE Representatives and the Career Edu­ cation Commission, less seriously divided, indicated very modest agreement. The CEPD Coordinators, because of great internal variance, registered an almost neutral positive judgment as a group. In summary, when considering the political juris­ diction of CEPD, it was the concensus of all reference groups that the CEPD should be under the jurisdiction of an ISD. It was judged inappropriate for a CEPD to be under the jurisdiction of a community college, an LEA, or a newly established agency responsible to the State Board of Education. Similarly, there was no overall agreement that CEPD should be a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education. State level groups, operational level groups, the CEPD Coordinators, and 173 thus the composite of the reference groups, were in general agreement on these points. Geographical Boundaries for CEPD Of the four choices as to the geographical service area to be served by CEPD (Table 4.11), one, CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with ISD boun­ daries, received overall agreement (+.892) as being appropriate and was the only alternative generally rated as acceptable. Of the remaining three choices, one, CEPD should have geographical boundaries consistent with the existing State-wide CEPD structure neutral judgment. (+.042), received an almost The composite of the reference groups indicated disagreement for the choice, CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with regional edu­ cational media center boundaries (-.738), and even stronger disagreement for the choice, CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with community college districts (-.955). Differences in judgment between the reference groups, significant at the .05 level, were identified for each of the five choices. All eight reference groups expressed agreement for the choice, CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with existing ISD boundaries, although there was wide variance in judgments. The University Cadre TABLE 4.11.— Ratings of appropriateness of alternative geographical boundaries for CEPD by reference groups individually, by categories and as a composite Coterminous with ISD Boundaries Consistent with State-wide CEPD Structure Coterminous With Community College Boundaries Coterminous with Regional Media Center Boundaries + .850 - .136 - .920 - .704 Michigan Department of Education Representatives + .625 - .375 - .875 - .250 Career Education Commission + .637 .000 -1.183 - .636 Advisory Council for Vocational Education + .851 - .025 - .334 - .500 University Cadre +1.286 - .144 -1.287 -1.428 CEPD Coordinators + .923 - .025 -1.076 - .975 Operational Level Groups + .938 + .285 - .960 - .705 ISD Superintendents +1.249 + .221 -1.416 - .971 Local School Superintendents + .999 .000 - .965 -1.133 Local School Career Education Coordinators + .566 + .634 - .500 - .010 + .892 + .042 - .955 - .738 State Level Groups Composite of the Groups Rating Key: +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly disagree 175 (+1.286) and the ISD Superintendents (+1.249) expressed especially high agreement followed by the Local School Superintendents (+.999) both in full agreement. and the CEPD Coordinators (+.923), In slightly less strong agreement were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.851). The three remaining groups, the Career Education Com­ mission (+.637), the MDE Representatives (+.625), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.566), accorded this choice much lower agreement. In further analysis of the judgments made by the reference groups reporting scores below +.700, the MDE Representatives (+.250 strongly agree to -.125 disagree), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.2 66 strongly agree to -.133 disagree), and the Career E d u ­ cation Commission (+.364 strongly agree to -.091 disagree) had minorities in disagreement and majorities in mild agreement. The Advisory Council for Vocational Education had about one-fourth of its respondents fail to respond to this item (see Table E.l, Appendix E ) . The reference groups expressed generally neutral judgments for the choice, CEPD should have geographical boundaries consistent with the existing State-wide CEPD structure. Coordinators Two groups, the Local School Career Education (+.634) and the ISD Superintendents reported very weak positive judgments. Career Education Commission (.000) (+.221) Two groups, the and the Local School 176 Superintendents (.000) expressed complete neutrality. Four groups reported extremely weak negative judgments. The CEPD Coordinators (-.025) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.025) were almost neutral# and the University Cadre tives (-.144) and the MDE Representa­ (-.375) were very mildly negative. Further analysis of the reference groups, all of whom reported scores below +.700, showed that one, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.200 strongly agree to -.033 disagree), had an extremely small minority in disagreement and the majority in mild agreement; one group, the MDE Representatives (+.125 agree to -.500 dis­ agree) , not strongly in agreement or disagreement; two groups, the Career Education Commission (+.182 strongly agree to -.182 strongly disagree) and the Local School Superintendents (+.206 strongly agree to -.206 strongly disagree), reported identical and full ranges of position; three groups, the CEPD Coordinators (+.308 strongly agree to -.410 strongly disagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.388 strongly agree to -.500 strongly disagree), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.334 strongly agree to -.500 strongly disagree), had signifi­ cant minorities in all levels of both agreement and dis­ agreement (see Table E.2, Appendix E ) . Again, one-fourth of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this item. 177 Wide variance and strong disagreement judgments were expressed for the choice, CEPD should have geographi­ cal boundaries coterminous with regional media center boundaries. Expressing especially high disagreement were the University Cadre (-1.428), followed by the Local School Superintendents (-1.133). tendents Two groups, the ISD Superin­ (-.971) and the CEPD Coordinators (-.975), were slightly less strong in their negative judgments. Much less strong were the Career Education Commission (-.636) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.500). Also reporting negative but almost neutral judgments were the MDE Representatives (-.250) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.010). In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores below -.700, the MDE Representatives (+.250 agree to -.500 disagree) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.267 agree to -.134 strongly disagree) were both divided into mildly differ­ ing groups. Two groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.083 agree to -.500 strongly disagree) and the Career Education Commission (+.091 agree to -.182 strongly disagree) had very small minori­ ties in mild agreement and majorities in disagreement. Again, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education had approximately two-fifths of its respondents who failed to respond to this item (see Table E.3, Appendix E ) . 178 The reference groups were in clear disagreement with the choice, CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with community college districts. Superintendents (-1.416) expressed especially high dis­ agreement, followed by the University Cadre Career Education Commission nators (-1.076). The ISD (-1.287), the (-1.183), and the CEPD Coordi­ The Local School Superintendents and the MDE Representatives strong negative ratings. (-.965) (-.875) noted slightly less The two remaining groups, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.500) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.344), expressed very low negative positions on this choice. In further analysis of the two reference groups reporting scores below ±.700, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.166 strongly agree to -.500 strongly disagree) was widely divided internally, and the Local School Career Education Coordinators agree to -.200 strongly disagree) (+.100 had a small minority in agreement but a majority in disagreement. Again, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education had approxi­ mately two-fifths of its respondents who failed to respond to this item (see Table E.4, Appendix E ) . Thus, when considering the issue of geographical boundaries, all eight groups were in agreement that CEPD should have them coterminous with ISD boundaries. ISD Superintendents and the University Cadre were The 179 especially strong in their agreement with this option. The operational level groups (+.938): ISD Superintendents, Local School Superintendents, and Local School Career Edu­ cation Coordinators; the CEPD Coordinators the State level groups (+.850): (+.923); and MDE Representatives, Career Education Commission, Advisory Council for Voca­ tional Education, and the University Cadre were all in close agreement with this choice. None of the remaining three geographical boundary choices was considered appropriate. The option, CEPD should have geographical boundaries consistent with the existing State-wide CEPD structure, generally received an almost neutral positive judgment from the operational level groups (+.285), and almost neutral negative judg­ ments from the State level groups Coordinators (-.136) and the CEPD (-.025). The CEPD Coordinators (-.975) expressed vigorous opposition that CEPD should have geographical boundaries coterminous with regional media center boundaries, and the operational level groups groups (-.705) and the State level (-.704) were slightly less vigorous in their dis­ agreement, partly because of the wide variances within groups in each category. All three categories of groups, the CEPD Coordi­ nators (-1.076), the operational level groups (-.960), 180 and the State level groups (-.920) expressed strong oppo­ sition that CEPD should have boundaries coterminous with community college districts. In summary, when considering the issue of geo­ graphical boundaries for CEPD, it was judged by the eight reference groups that CEPD should have boundaries cotermi­ nous with ISD boundaries. It was judged inappropriate for CEPD to have boundaries coterminous with regional media center boundaries or community college district boundaries. Generally neutral positions were taken on the option that CEPD should retain geographical boundaries consistent with the existing State-wide CEPD structure. In general, State level groups, operational level groups, CEPD Coordi­ nators, and thus the composite of the reference groups, were in agreement on these points. Job Title of the Principal CEPD Administrator Of the six choices presented in reference to the job title of the principal CEPD administrator (Table 4.12), none was judged appropriate by the composite of the reference groups. One choice, Superintendent (-.951), was rated as clearly inappropriate, and three others, Assistant Superintendent and Consultant ments. (-.591), Specialist (-.473), (-.379), received very low negative judg­ Two choices, Coordinator (+.267) and Director (+.169), received positive but very low ratings. TABLE 4.12.— Ratings of appropriateness of alternative titles for CEPD administrator by reference groups individually, by categories and as a composite Coordi­ nator Director Consul­ tant Specialist Assistant Superin­ tendent Superin­ tendent + .099 + .259 - .605 - .822 - .463 - .902 Michigan Department of Education Representatives + .375 _ .250 - .375 - .625 - .125 - .875 Career Education Commission + .402 + .727 - .091 - .363 - .546 - .818 + .333 - .715 + .416 - .667 - .584 - .750 - .916 + .142 -1.287 -1.714 - .429 -1.001 CEPD Coordinators - .024 + .181 - .564 + .410 - .128 - .769 Operational Level Groups + .554 - .046 - .141 - .303 - .915 -1.077 ISD Superintendents + .449 - .167 - .250 - .388 - .943 -1.360 Local School Superin­ tendents + .413 + .104 - .173 - .310 -1.104 -1.206 Local School Career Education Coordinators + .801 + .200 .000 - .210 - .699 - .666 + .267 + .169 - .379 - .473 - .579 - .951 State Level Groups Advisory Council for Vocational Education University Cadre Composite of the Groups Rating Key: +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly disagree 182 With the exception of the choice, Coordinator, differences in judgment, significant at the .05 level, were identified between groups. The reference groups clearly opposed the choice, Superintendent. The ISD Superintendents the Local School Superintendents (-1.360) and (-1.206) expressed strong disagreement followed closely by the University Cadre (-1.001). Only slightly less strong were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education sentatives (-.818). (-.916), the MDE Repre­ (-.875), and the Career Education Commission Two groups, the CEPD Coordinators (-.769) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.666), reported lower negative judgments. In further analysis of the single reference group reporting a score of less than -.700, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.400 disagree to -.266 strongly disagree) had a minority in disagreement with this option and a majority who were uncertain about it. Over one-fourth of this group failed to respond to this item. Similarly, over one-fourth of the Career Education Commission and two-fifths of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this item (see Table F.l, Appendix F ) . The reference groups indicated wide variance and moderately strong disagreement given the choice, Assistant Superintendent. The Local School Superintendents (-1.104) 183 and the ISD Superintendents agreement. Education (-.943) expressed full dis­ Two groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational (-.750) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.699), accorded lower negative judgments while even lower were the Career Education Commission (-.546) and the University Cadre (-.429). Reporting negative but almost neutral judgments were the CEPD Coordinators (-.128) and the MDE Representatives (-.125). In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores of less than -.700, three, the CEPD Coordinators (+.256 strongly agree to -.358 strongly disagree), the MDE Representatives (+.250 strongly agree to -.500 strongly disagree), and the University Cadre (+.286 strongly agree to -.572 strongly disagree), reported wide internal variance and were evenly distributed over the range of positions. The Career Education Commission (+.182 strongly agree to -.364 strongly disagree) was almost as divided internally, and the Local School Career Education Coordinators disagree) (-.433 disagree to -.266 strongly had a majority who were uncertain and a minority in disagreement with the choice. One-fourth of the Career Education Commission, one-fourth of the Local School Coordinators, and two-fifths of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this item (see Table F.2, Appendix F ) . 184 The title, Specialist, was the one mildly preferred by CEPD Coordinators themselves (+.410), though the other seven reference groups disagreed with this choice, and with considerable variance in the levels of their dis­ agreements. The University Cadre especially high disagreement. (-1.714) Six other groups disagreed with the title, but much less strongly. sentatives Education indicated The MDE Repre­ (-.625) and the Advisory Council for Vocational (-.584) were low in their levels of disagreement. Still lower were the ISD Superintendents Career Education Commission Superintendents (-.388), the (-.464), the Local School (-.310), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.210). The CEPD Coordinators indicated the only positive judgment that an appropriate job title for the CEPD administrator would be Specialist. In further analysis of the reference groups report­ ing scores of less than ±.700, one, the Career Education Commission (+.182 agree to -.545 disagree), expressed mild internal variance. Four groups, the CEPD Coordinators (+.666 strongly agree to -.358 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.2 07 agree to -.2 76 strongly d isagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.056 strongly agree to -.388 strongly disagree), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.066 strongly agree to -.200 strongly disagree), reported more extensive internal variance and were distributed over almost the full 185 range of positions. to -.750 disagree) The MDE Representatives had a majority who were uncertain and the others differed internally. Vocational Education agree) (+.125 agree The Advisory Council for (+.166 agree to -.500 strongly dis­ had a small minority in agreement while others agreed with the c h o i c e . Two g r o u p s , the Local School Career Education Coordinators and the Career Education Commission, had at least one-fourth of their respondents who failed to complete this item. Similarly, over two- fifths of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this item (see Table F.3, Appendix F ) . Again, with considerable variance in levels of judgment, seven of eight reference groups disagreed with the choice. Consultant. University Cadre Most opposed again were the (-1.287). Much lower in disagreement were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education and the CEPD Coordinators MDE Representatives (-.250) (-.564). (-.375) (-.173) Even lower were the and the ISD Superintendents followed by two groups, tendents (-.667) the Local School Superin­ and the Career Education Commission (-.091), who were almost neutral. Expressing complete neutrality were the Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators (.000). In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores of less than -.700, the MDE Representa­ tives (+.250 agree to -.625 disagree) displayed mild 186 internal variance. Three groups, the ISD Superintendents (+.112 strongly agree to -.334 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.138 strongly agree to -.276 strongly disagree), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.066 strongly agree to -.066 strongly disagree), reported wide internal variance and were distributed over the full range of positions. The Career Education Commission (+.182 strongly agree to -.455 disagree) was only slightly less divided. groups, the CEPD Coordinators Two (+.256 agree to -.572 strongly disagree) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.083 agree to -.500 strongly disagree), had very small minorities in agreement but were in general disagreement with the choice (see Table F.4, Appendix F ) . The Local School Career Education Coordinators had one-fourth of their respondents who failed to respond to this item, while the Advisory Council for Vocational Education had two-fifths who did likewise. The choice, Director, received positive judgments from six of eight reference groups. With one exception, however, the judgments were extremely low. Strongest in advocating this choice was the Career Education Commission (+.727). Much lower in agreement were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.416), while even lower were the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.200), the CEPD Coordinators (+.181), the University 187 Cadre (+.142), and the Local School Superintendents (+.104). Almost neutral but negative in their judgments were two groups, the ISD Superintendents (-.167) and the MDE Repre­ sentatives (-.250). In further analysis of the reference groups report­ ing scores of ±.700 or less, the University Cadre (+.714 agree to -.572 strongly disagree) had minorities in both agreement and disagreement. Six groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.666 strongly agree to -.166 strongly disagree), the CEPD Coordinators (+.206 strongly agree to -.256 strongly disagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.222 strongly agree to -.556 strongly disagree), the MDE Representatives (+.250 agree to -.250 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.276 strongly agree to -.138 strongly disagree), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.266 strongly agree to -.066 strongly disagree), displayed wide internal variance and their scores were distributed over the entire range of positions. Both the Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education had at least one-fourth of their respondents who failed to respond to this item (see Table F.5, Appendix F ) . The choice, Coordinator, received mildly stronger positive judgments from six of the eight reference groups. The Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.801) 188 indicated very moderate agreement for this choice. Even lower in positive judgment were the ISD Superintendents (+.449), the Local School Superintendents Career Education Commission tives (+.413), the (+.402), the MDE Representa­ (+.375), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.333). Conversely, the University Cadre indicated disagreement for choice. (-.715) The CEPD Coordinators (-.024), while negative, were almost neutral with respect to their current informal title. In further analysis of the six reference groups reporting scores of less than ±.700, the MDE Representatives (+.750 strongly agree to -.375 disagree), the Career Edu­ cation Commission (+.364 strongly agree to -.182 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.334 strongly agree to -.276 strongly disagree), the CEPD Coordinators (+.206 strongly agree to -.358 strongly disagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.666 strongly agree to -.334 strongly disagree), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Edu­ cation (+.500 strongly agree to -.334 strongly disagree) all displayed wide internal variance and had minorities both favor and oppose the choice. Thus, when considering the job title of the principal CEPD administrator, none of the six choices presented was considered appropriate. Two choices, Coordinator and Director, did receive agreement judgments, but the levels of agreement were too low to conclude acceptance by the reference groups. 189 Six of eight reference groups did register posi­ tive judgments for the choice, Coordinator, and strongest among them were the Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators. However, the operational level groups generally gave this option low agreement (+.504) and the State level groups were in extremely low agreement (+.099), partly because of the University Cadre's strong disagreement. The CEPD Coordinators were almost neutral in their oppo­ sition (-.024) . Also failing approval was the choice, Director. Reference group judgments were extremely low with the exception of the Career Education Commission who preferred it to the others. (+.259) Generally, the State level groups and the CEPD Coordinators (+.181) were extremely low in their approval, and the operational level groups were almost neutral in their opposition (-.046). Found unacceptable was the choice, Specialist. This was the only other option to receive a positive judgment from the reference groups and the CEPD Coordi­ nators favored it over the others, but with only low agreement (+.401). low disagreement The operational level groups were in (-.303) and the State level groups in more substantial disagreement (-.822). Of the remaining three job titles, the choice, Consultant, was the least inappropriate. Operational level groups were almost neutral in their opposition 190 (-.141) followed by the CEPD Coordinators State level groups disagreement. (-.564) and the (-.605) who were in more moderate Again, the State level group's score was influenced by the University Cadre's strong disagreement. The job title, Assistant Superintendent, was unacceptable. CEPD Coordinators were almost neutral in their position (-.128). in low disagreement However, State level groups were (-.463) and operational level groups were quite vigorously opposed (-.915). Lastly, the job title. Superintendent, was clearly unacceptable. Coordinators All three categories of groups, the CEPD (-.769), the State Level Groups and the operational level groups (-.902), (-1.077), were in clear opposition to this choice. In summary, none of the choices of job title of the principal CEPD administrator was accepted as appro­ priate by the reference groups. ment that the job titles, All groups were in agree­ Superintendent, Assistant Super­ intendent, and Consultant, were inappropriate. The title, Coordinator, was unenthusiastically agreed to by the operational level groups and three State level groups. The job title, Director, had the favor of two State level groups, but almost neutral judgments from all remaining groups. The CEPD Coordinators gave very low favor to the choice specialist, but all other groups registered d i s ­ agreement with this choice. 191 The Professional Administrator or Body to Which the CEPD Administrator Should Be Directly Accountable Of the five choices presented for the adminis­ trator or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable (Table 4.13), none was agreed upon by all of the reference groups. On the other hand, some choices were rejected by all of them. Clearly rejected were two choices, be directly accountable to an adminis­ trator in a lower organizational position than a central office administrator (-1.083) and be directly accountable to a central office administrator other than the superin­ tendent (-.764), while a third, be directly accountable to the CEPD Coordinating Council (-.130), was mildly rejected in terms of overall ratings. The remaining two choices, be directly accountable to a CEPD Governing Board (+.095) and be directly accountable to a superin­ tendent (+.258), were accorded extremely low agreement by the composite of the reference groups. All reference groups were opposed, and some were strongly opposed to the choice, be directly accountable to an administrator in a lower organizational position than a central office administrator. Cadre The University (-1.714) expressed extremely high disagreement. Five groups, the ISD Superintendents (-1.194), the Career Education Commission (-1.182), the CEPD Coordinators (-1.129), the MDE Representatives (-1.125), and the Local TABLE 4.13.— Ratings of alternative administrators or boards to which the CEPD adminis­ trator should be directly accountable by reference groups individually, by category and by composite Superin­ tendent State Level Groups CEPD Governing Board CEPD Coordinating Council Central Office Adminis­ trator Administrator Lower than a Central Office Administrator + .140 + .137 - .137 - .869 -1.193 .625 + .375 + .100 -1.000 -1.125 Michigan Department of Education Representatives Career Education Commission + .363 — .363 - .363 - .727 -1.182 Advisory Council for Vocational Education + .250 + .251 .000 - .750 - .750 University Cadre + .572 + .286 - .285 -1.000 -1.714 CEPD Coordinators + .742 - .486 - .358 - .922 -1.129 Operational Level Groups + .254 + .233 - .043 - .571 - .920 ISD Superintendents + .805 - .279 - .640 - .584 -1.194 .243 + .345 + .276 - .863 -1.034 + .200 + .633 + .234 - .267 - .533 + .258 + .095 - .130 - .764 -1.083 Local School Superin­ tendents Local School Career Education Coordinators Composite of the Groups Rating Key: — +2 = Strongly agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncertain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly Disagree 193 School Superintendents opposed. (-1.034), were also strongly According this choice lower disagreement were the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.750) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.533). In further analysis of the single reference group reporting scores of less than -.700, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.066 strongly agree to -.200 strongly disagree) had a very small minority in agreement with the choice, a few in disagreement, some uncertain, and over one-fourth who failed to respond to this survey item. Similarly, half of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education respondents failed to respond to this item (see Table G.l, Appendix G ) . All groups disagreed with the choice, be directly accountable to a central office administrator other than the superintendent. However, there was considerable variance in the level of disagreement. MDE Representatives Two groups, the (-1.000) and the University Cadre (-1.000), were in moderately strong disagreement as were the CEPD Coordinators intendents (-.863). (-.922) and the Local School Super­ Lower disagreement was expressed by the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (-.750) and the Career Education Commission (-.727). More nearly neutral positions were taken by the ISD Superintendents (-.584) and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (-.267). 194 In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores of less than -.700, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.134 strongly agree to -.134 strongly disagree) displayed wide variance and were somewhat even in their distribution of scores, while the ISD Superintendents (+.250 agree to -.616) had a small minority in agreement and a majority in disagreement. The Advisory Council for Vocational Education had one-half of its respondents who failed to respond to this survey item (see Table G.2, Appendix G ) . Four groups disagreed, three agreed, and one was neutral when judging the choice, be directly accountable to the CEPD Coordinating Council. Their judgment scores ranged from low to extremely low. The ISD Superintendents (-.640) were strongest in their opposition to this choice. Offering extremely low disagreement judgments were three groups, the Career Education Commission Coordinators (-.363), the CEPD (-.358), and the University Cadre Conversely, the MDE Representatives (-.285). (+.100), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.2 34), and the Local School Superintendents indicated extremely low agreement judgments. Vocational Education (+.276) The Advisory Council for (.000) expressed complete neutrality. In further analysis of the reference groups, all of whom reported scores of less than ±.700, two groups, the University Cadre (+.286 agree to -.571 disagree) and 195 the Career Education Commission (+.182 agree to -.545 disagree), displayed mild internal variance. Five groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.334 strongly agree to -.334 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.206 strongly agree to -.206 strongly disagree), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.200 strongly agree to -.066 strongly disagree), and the MDE Representatives (+.250 strongly agree to -.250 strongly disagree), and the CEPD Coordi­ nators (+.154 strongly agree to -.512 strongly disagree), displayed wide internal variances with scores distributed over the entire range of choices. The ISD Superintendents (+.222 agree to -.612 strongly disagree) had a small minority in agreement and a majority in agreement. One- third of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education respondents failed to respond to this survey item (see Table G.3, Appendix G ) . Six of eight groups reported agreement and two were in disagreement with the choice, be directly accountable to a superintendent. There was little variance in the levels of agreement or disagreement. ISD Superintendents (+.805) and CEPD Coordinators were in mild agreement with this option. (+.742) In even milder agreement were the University Cadre (+.572), the Career Education Commission (+.363), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.250), and the Local School 196 Career Education Coordinators MDE Representatives (+.200). Conversely, the (-.625) were in mild opposition and the Local School Superintendents (-.243) were even more mildly so. In further analysis of the reference groups reporting scores of less than ±.700, two groups, the University Cadre (+.572 strongly agree to -.143 disagree) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.500 strongly agree to -.182 strongly disagree), had small minorities in disagreement and majorities in agreement; three groups, the Career Education Commission (+.182 strongly agree to -.182 strongly disagree), the Local School Superintendents (+.206 strongly agree to -.414 strongly disagree), and the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.334 strongly agree to -.134 strongly dis­ agree) , reported wide internal variance and thus widely distributed scores; and one group, the MDE Representatives (+.250 agree to -.250 strongly disagree), had a signifi­ cant minority in agreement and a majority in disagreement with the choice. Over two-fifths of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to the survey item (see Table G.4, Appendix G ) . For the choice, be directly accountable to a CEPD Governing Board, five groups expressed mild agreement and three mild disagreement. All scores were again low and some were extremely low. The Local School Career Education 197 Coordinators (+.633) accorded this choice a moderate agreement rating. Four groups, the MDE Representatives (+.375), the Local School Superintendents University Cadre (+.345), the (+.286), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.251), noted extremely low agree­ ment. Conversely, the CEPD Coordinators (-.486), the Career Education Commission (-.363), and the ISD Superin­ tendents (-.279) indicated extremely mild disagreement for this choice. In further analysis of the near neutral (±.700) ratings of all eight groups, one group, the Local School Career Education Coordinators (+.466 strongly agree to -.100 disagree), had a very small minority in opposition and a majority in favor of the option. CEPD Coordinators Five groups, the (+.308 strongly agree to -.666 strongly disagree), the MDE Representatives (+.500 strongly agree to -.250 strongly disagree), the ISD Superintendents (+.278 strongly agree to -.612 strongly disagree), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (+.334 strongly agree to -.250 strongly disagree), and the Local School Superintendents (+.344 strongly agree to -.206 strongly disagree), reported very wide variance with responses distributed over the full range of choices. the University Cadre One group, (+.286 strongly agree to -.429 dis­ agree) , was nearly balanced between agreeing and disagree­ ing, with a small minority in strong agreement. The 198 Career Education Commission (+.182 strongly agree to -.636 disagree) had a small minority in strong agreement and a majority in mild disagreement. One-fourth of the Advisory Council for Vocational Education failed to respond to this survey item (see Table G.5, Appendix G ) . Thus, when considering the professional adminis­ trator or body to which the CEPD should be directly accountable, none of the five choices suggested was considered appropriate. Two choices, be directly accountable to a superintendent and be directly account­ able to a CEPD governing board received agreement judg­ ments but levels were too low to conclude acceptance by the reference groups. Six of eight groups expressed positive judgments for the choice, be directly accountable to superintendent, but only the ISD Superintendents and the CEPD Coordinators, themselves, appeared to favor this option with moderately strong agreement. The operational level groups (+.254) expressed extremely low approval, as did the State level groups (+.140), due partly to the MDE Representatives' opposition to this choice. Five of eight groups expressed positive judgments for the choice, be directly accountable to a CEPD Govern­ ing Board, but all scores were extremely low. ational level groups The oper­ (+.2 33) and the State level groups (+.137) were almost neutral in their agreement and the CEPD Coordinators expressed low opposition (-.486). 199 The choice, be directly accountable to the CEPD Coordinating Council, was unacceptable, though it did receive three extremely low positive judgments. operational level groups groups (-.043) The and the State level (-.137) were almost neutral in their disagreement and the CEPD Coordinators were extremely low in theirs (-.358). The choice, be directly accountable to a central office administrator other than the superintendent, was clearly rejected. Operational level groups (-.571) were in low disagreement, while the State level groups and the CEPD Coordinators (-.869) (-.922) were more vigorously opposed. Finally, all three categories of groups were each vigorously opposed to the choice, be directly accountable to an administrator in a lower organization position than a central office administrator. groups The operational level (-.920), the CEPD Coordinators State level groups (-1.193) (-1.129), and the registered strong disagreement for this option. In summary, none of the choices for the profes­ sional administrator or body to which the CEPD adminis­ trator should be directly accountable was accepted as appropriate by the reference groups. All groups were in agreement that the choices, be directly accountable to an administrator in a lower organizational position than 200 a central office administrator, and be directly accountable to a central office administrator other than the superin­ tendent, were inappropriate. Generally neutral positions were taken on the option, be directly accountable to the CEPD coordinating council. Three state level groups and two operational level groups unenthusiastically agreed to the option, be directly accountable to a CEPD governing board, and three state level groups, two operational level groups, and the CEPD Coordinators gave low agreement to the choice, be directly accountable to the superintendent. Sources and Proportions of Financial Support The last item of interest was the identification of the sources and proportions of financial support deemed appropriate for CEPD operations. The research questions were: A. Given a variety of State, Intermediate School District, and Local Education Agency levels for funding educational programs, which levels and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups? 201 B. Given a variety of State funding sources, which sources and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups? C. Given a variety of Intermediate School District funding sources, which sources and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups? D. Given six general categories of funding for edu­ cational programs in Michigan, which categories and proportions are most appropriate to support the activities of CEPD as judged by each of the reference groups, each of three categories of reference groups, and the composite of the reference groups? Tables 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, and 4.17 present per­ centages computed for each of the reference groups and for the composite of the reference groups on each of four financial support questions of: the most appropriate sources and proportions of support for CEPD given a variety of State, Intermediate School District, and 202 Local Education Agency sources, or others identified by respondents; the most appropriate sources and proportions of support for CEPD given a variety of State sources; the most appropriate sources and proportions of support for CEPD given a variety of Intermediate School District sources; and the most appropriate funding categories and proportions to support CEPD given six different categories. The percentages found in these tables were obtained using the procedures described in Chapter III. Because the N for some reference groups addressing this section of issues varied, they are included in the tables presented. A Variety of Funding Sources Given four different levels of State support to fund the activities of CEPD (Table 4.14), it was judged that a majority of needed financial support should come from State sources and progressively lesser amounts should come from Intermediate School District, Local Education Agency, and other sources identified by respondents. Over all, the composite of the reference groups advo­ cated that nearly three-fifths (58.8%) of needed funds should come from State sources, approximately one-fourth (24.4%) from Intermediate School District sources, almost one-sixth (14.8%) from Local Education Agency sources, and a small residual by respondents. (2.3%) from other sources identified TABLE 4.14.— Mean percentages of CEPD funding from each of four sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups Sources N for Each Group State % CEPD Coordinators 39 Operational Level Intermediate School District % Local Education Agency Other Total of Responses % % % 53.9 24.8 17.7 0.0 98.8 68.5 19.1 11.4 0.6 99.5 36 73.0 14.4 10.4 0.9 98.7 Local School Superintendents 29 67.3 19.4 13.1 0.0 99.8 Local School Career Education Coordinators 29 65.1 23.5 10.6 0.9 100.1 52.7 28.2 16.7 3.6 101.2 State Level University Cadre 7 50.4 31.0 12.3 6.9 100.6 Career Education Commission 10 51.8 33.3 17.8 0.7 103.3 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 12 53.1 30.3 16.9 0.0 100.3 8 55.6 18.1 19.9 6.8 100.4 58.8 24.4 14.8 2.3 100.3 MDE Representatives Composite of Reference Groups 203 ISD Superintendents 204 All eight groups judged that over half the needed CEPD funds should come from State sources. This included three groups, the ISD Superintendents (73.0%), the Local School Superintendents (67.3%), and the Local School Coordinators (65.1%), who advocated that at least two- thirds of needed support should come from these sources. The remaining five groups, the MDE Representatives the CEPD Coordinators (55.6%), (53.9%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (53.1%), the Career Education Com­ mission (51.8%), and the University Cadre (50.4%), judged that slightly over half the needed funds should come from State sources. When considering the proportion of Intermediate School District funds that should be used to support CEPD activities, the reference groups reported varied judgments. Three groups, the Career Education Commission (33.3%), the University Cadre (31.0%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (30.0%), advocated that approximately one-third of the needed funds should come from this source. Two groups, the CEPD Coordinators the Local School Coordinators (24.8%) and (23.5%), judged that approximately one-fourth of the needed funds should come from this source, while three groups, the Local School Superintendents (19.4%), the MDE Representatives and the ISD Superintendents one-fifth. (18.1%), (14.1%) , advocated less than 205 All eight reference groups concurred that less than one-fifth of the needed CEPD funds should come from Local Education Agency sources. Representatives Four groups, the MDE (19.9%) , the Career Education Commission (17.8%), the CEPD Coordinators (17.7%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (16.8%), advocated between one-fifth and one-sixth of needed funds should come from this source. The remaining four reference groups, the University Cadre (12.3%), the Local School Superintendents (13.1%), the ISD Superintendents School Coordinators (10.6%), and the Local (10.2%), judged that slightly more than one-tenth of the needed funds should be the responsi­ bility of Local Education Agency sources. Almost no one advocated that funds should come from other sources identified by respondents. Five of eight reference groups advocated less than 1 percent, and only the University Cadre (6.9%), the MDE Represen­ tatives (6.8%), and the CEPD Coordinators (2.1%) recorded higher judgments. Thus, when considering a variety of funding sources which could be used to support the activities of CEPD, the operational level reference groups (the ISD Superintendents, the Local School Superintendents, and the Local School Career Education Coordinators) advocated that at least two-thirds of the needed funds should come from State sources, a proportion considerably larger than 206 that recommended by the State level groups (the University Cadre, the MDE Representatives, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education, and the Career Education Commission) who advocated that slightly over half the needed funds should come from this source. The CEPD Coordinators, in advocating that slightly over half the needed funds should come from State sources, took a position similar to State level groups. The operational level groups, conversely, judged that approximately one-fifth of the needed CEPD funds should come from Intermediate School District sources, a proportion smaller than that recommended by State level groups, who with one exception (MDE Representatives, 18.1%) judged that one-third of needed CEPD support should come from such sources. The CEPD Coordinators took a position between the two major groups, judging that approximately one-fourth of CEPD costs should come from Intermediate School Dis­ trict sources. The operational level groups again selected a lower proportion of Local Education Agency support for CEPD, advocating that approximately one-tenth of needed funds come from this source. one exception State level groups with (University Cadre, 12.3%) advocated that about one-fifth to one-sixth of the needed funds should come from this source. 207 Again, the CEPD Coordinators advocated a similar position as the State level groups. Neither the State level, operational level, or CEPD Coordinator groups recommended significant financial support for CEPD from other sources as identified by the respondents. In summary, when given four different levels of financial support to fund the activities of CEPD, over all, the eight reference groups judged that nearly three-fifths of the needed funds should come from State sources, approx­ imately one-fourth from Intermediate School District sources, almost one-sixth from Local Education agency sources, and less than one-twentieth from other sources identified by respondents. The operational level groups advocated higher levels of State support (two-thirds vs. one-half), and lesser Intermediate School District third) (one-fifth vs. one- and Local Education Agency support one-fifth to one-sixth) The CEPD coordinators' (one-tenth vs. than did the State level groups. recommendations were similar to those of the State level groups when addressing the pro­ portions of CEPD support from State and Local Education Agency sources and between those of the positions of the State and operational level groups when addressing Inter­ mediate School District sources. 208 The three major groups advocated extremely little support from other sources identified by respondents. A Variety of State Funding Sources When presented with six possible State sources from which to support the S t a t e 's share of CEPD costs {Table 4.15)/ over all, the composite of the reference groups judged that half (50.9%) of needed State funds should come from a special CEPD allocation and approxi­ mately one-fourth (24.5%) ship allocation. Respondents advocated only about one- tenth (10.5%) allocation, from the General Student Member­ should come from a Vocational Education less than one-fifteenth (6.8%) from a Special Education allocation, and approximately one-twentieth or less from an Adult and Continuing Education allocation (5.3%), and from other sources identified by respondents (3.1%). Given the State source, a special CEPD allocation, the reference groups reported a wide distribution of judg­ ments. Four reported that approximately half or more of the needed State funds should come from this source. This included two groups, the Career Education Commission (70.0%) and the MDE Representatives (66.9%), who advo­ cated at least two-thirds, and three groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education tendents (55.5%), the ISD Superin­ (51.9%), and the Local School Coordinators (49.1%), TABLE 4.15.— Mean percentages of CEPD funding from six categories of State sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups State Sources N for Each Group CEPD Coordinators 38 Operational Level Special CEPD Allocation General Student Membership Vocational Education Allocation Special Education Allocation Adult Education Allocation Other Total of Responses ft ft ft ft ft ft ft 43.9 29.8 8.6 7.8 4.9 3.2 98.2 46.4 24.6 12.6 7.1 4.9 3.9 99.3 36 51.9 30.9 6.4 3.9 3.6 2.8 99.1 Local School Superintendents 29 38.2 26.5 16.9 10.4 5.6 3.7 101.3 Local School Career Education Coordi­ nators 28 49.1 16.4 14.4 7.1 5.6 5.2 97.5 55.9 23.1 9.5 6.3 5.6 2.5 102.9 State Level University Cadre 7 31.4 35.7 11.4 5.6 7.9 10.0 102.0 Career Education Commission 8 70.0 18.7 6.3 8.8 2.5 0.0 106.3 10 55.5 66.9 21.0 5.0 5.6 7.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 103.0 16.9 14.0 6.3 100.1 50.9 24.5 10.5 6.8 5.3 3.1 101.1 Advisory Council for Vocational Education MDE Representatives Composite of Reference Groups 8 209 ISD Superintendents 210 who advocated approximately one-half of the needed funds should come from such a special allocation. Of the remaining three groups, two, the CEPD Coordinators and the Local School Superintendents (43.1%) (38.2%) , recommended approximately two-fifths, and the University Cadre (31.4%) advocated less than one-third as the share of funds that should come from a special CEPD allocation. Given the State source, General Student Membership allocation, the reference groups again reported varied judgments and lower levels of recommended support. University Cadre The (35.7%) was strongest in advocating approximately one-third of needed State support should come from this source, closely followed by two groups, the ISD Superintendents (29.8%). (30.9%) and the CEPD Coordinators The Local School Superintendents judged approxi­ mately one-fourth (26.5%), while the remaining five groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education the Career Education Commission sentatives (21.0%), (18.7%), the MDE Repre­ (16.9%), and the Local School Coordinators (16.4%), judged that one-fifth or less of needed State support for CEPD should come from the General Student Membership allocation. Given the State source, Vocational Education allocation, the responses of the reference groups were more similar and even lower in recommended support than for previous sources reported. Three groups, the Local 211 School Superintendents nators (16.9%), the Local School Coordi­ (14.4%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (14.0%), judged approximately one-seventh of needed State funds should come from this source. Advo­ cating approximately one-tenth from this source was the University Cadre (8.6%). dents (11.4%) followed by the CEPD Coordinators The remaining three groups, the ISD Superinten­ (6.4%), the MDE Representatives (6.3%), and the Career Education Commission (6.3%), recommended very low proportions of funding from this source. All reference groups, the Local School Superin­ tendents (10.4%), the Career Education Commission the CEPD Coordinators Education Coordinators (7.8%), the Local School Career (7.1%), the MDE Representatives (6.3%), the University Cadre for Vocational Education dents (8.8%), (5.6%), the Advisory Council (5.0%), and the ISD Superinten­ (3.9%), advocated that one-tenth or less of needed State support for CEPD should come from the Special Edu­ cation allocation. All eight reference groups, the University Cadre (7.9%) , the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (7.5%), the Local School Superintendents Local School Coordinators (5.6%), the CEPD Coordinators (4.9%), the MDE Representatives tendents (5.6%), the (4.4%), the ISD Superin­ (3.6%), and the Career Education Commission 212 (2.5%), advocated that less than one-tenth of needed State support for CEPD should come from the Adult and Continuing Education allocation. With one exception (University Cadre 10.0%) the reference groups advocated even less support from other sources identified by respondents. Four groups, the Local School Career Education Coordinators Local School Superintendents (5.2%), the (3.7%), the CEPD Coordinators (3.2%), and the ISD Superintendents (2.8%), advocated very low support while the remaining three gro u p s , the Career Education Commission (0.0%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (0.0%), and the MDE Representatives (0.0%) excluded this source in their judgments. Thus, when given six sources for funding the pro­ posed State share of CEPD activities, distinct differences in judgment between State, operational level, and CEPD Coordinator groups were less clear as reference groups within these major categories reported varied judgments on the issues. Given the State source, a special CEPD allocation, the State level groups, with one exception (University Cadre, 31.4%), judged that between 70 and 75 percent of the needed funds should come from this source (The Career Education Commission and the MDE Representatives advocated at least two-thirds support), a position slightly stronger than that of the operational level 213 groups, who with one exception tendents, 38.2%), (Local School Superin­ judged that half of needed State support for CEPD should come from this source. In favoring slightly over two-fifths of the needed State support to come from a special CEPD allo­ cation, the CEPD Coordinators took a position similar to the operational level groups. Given the State source, General Student Membership allocation, the judgments of the State level and oper­ ational level groups were in the same general range. With exceptions noted, some difference was observable. The operational level groups with one exception School Career Education Coordinators, 16.4%) (Local favored between one-fourth and three-tenths of needed State support come from this source, a stronger that taken by the exception State level groups, who (University Cadre, position than with one 35.7%), advocated between one-fifth and one-sixth of the needed State support should come from the General Student Membership allocation. Advocating almost three-tenths of needed State support to come from the General Student Membership allo­ cation, the CEPD Coordinators took a position similar to that of the State level Given the allocation, State groups. source, Vocational Education the judgments of the State level and oper­ ational level groups were again in the same general 214 range, advocating between one-sixth and one-fifteenth of the needed State support to come from this source. The State level groups were split in their judgments with two groups (the University Cadre and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education) judging approximately one-eighth, and two groups (the Career Education Com­ mission and the MDE Representatives) favoring approxi­ mately one-fifteenth of the needed funds to come from this source. The operational level groups with one exception (ISD Superintendents, 6.4%) advocated approxi­ mately one-sixth of needed State funding to come from the Vocational Education allocation. In judging approximately one-eleventh of needed State funds should come from this source, the CEPD Coordinators took a position similar to both the oper­ ational and State level groups. Given the remaining three State sources, there was little difference in judgment between State, oper­ ational level, and CEPD Coordinator groups. exception of one reference group With the (Local School Superin­ tendents, 10.4%), all judged that less than one-tenth of needed State funds should come from Special Education allocation. All groups made similar judgments that less than one-tenth of needed funds should come from the Adult and Continuing Education allocation, and with one exception (University Cadre, 10.0%), all groups judged 215 that one-twentieth or less of needed funds should come from other sources as identified by respondents. In summary, when given six different sources of financial support to fund the State's share of CEPD, over all, half of the needed funds should come from a special CEPD allocation, approximately one-fourth from a General Student Membership allocation, about one-tenth from a Vocational Education allocation, less than onefifteenth from a Special Education allocation, and even less from an Adult and Continuing Education allocation or from other sources identified by respondents. With exceptions, the State level groups advocated a larger share of support to come from a special CEPD allocation (at least 55% vs. 50%) and a lesser share from the General Student Membership allocation (one-fifth to one-sixth vs. one-fourth to three-tenths) than did the operational level groups. When addressing the remaining four sources, the two major groups generally advocated between one-sixth and one-fifteenth of needed funding should come from Vocational Education funds, and less than one-tenth from Special Education, or Adult and Con­ tinuing Education allocations, or from other funds identified by respondents. The CEPD Coordinators' positions were similar to those of the State and oper­ ational level groups. Specifically, the Coordinators advocated a position similar to the operational level 216 groups on the issue of a special CEPD allocation, and similar to the State level groups on the General Student Membership Issue. Its other positions were similar to the major groups. A Variety of Intermediate School District Funding Sources When presented with four possible Intermediate School District sources to support CEPD activities (Table 4.16), over all, the composite of the reference groups judged over half (53.4%) of any ISD support for CEPD should come from General Education funds, approxi­ mately one-fourth (24.8%) from Vocational Education funds, approximately one-tenth from Special Education funds (10.3%), and about the same (10.6%) from other sources. Given the Intermediate School District source, General Education funds, reference groups demonstrated a wide range of judgments. Five groups recommended that at least one-half of ISD funds for CEPD should come from this source. The largest proportion was recommended by the University Cadre (75.8%) who advocated three-fourths, followed by the MDE Representatives (60.7%) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education cating three-fifths, nators (54.6%) Coordinators (60.0%) advo­ slightly higher than the CEPD Coordi­ and the Local School Career Education (51.3%). ISD Superintendents The remaining three groups, the (42.7%), the Career Education TABLE 4.16.— Mean percentages of CEPD funding from each of four categories of Intermediate School District sources as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups Intermediate School District Sources N for Each Group General Education Funds % CEPD Coordinators 35 Operational Level Vocational Education Funds % Special Education Funds Other Total of Responses % % % 54.6 18.7 15.0 8.6 96.9 44.6 28.0 10.5 16.2 99.3 ISD Superintendents 32 42.7 26.6 8.5 19.7 97.5 Local School Superintendents 21 39.8 33.6 10.0 17.3 100.7 Local School Career Education Coordinators 22 51.3 23.9 12.9 11.5 99.6 59.8 23.9 9.1 6.9 99.6 State Level University Cadre 6 75.8 17.6 3.7 0.8 97.9 Career Education Commission 10 42.5 35.5 9.5 12.5 100.0 Advisory Council for Vocational Education 11 60.0 17.3 12.3 10.5 100.1 7 60.7 25.0 10.7 3.6 100.2 53.4 24.8 10.3 10.6 99.1 MDE Representatives Composite of Reference Groups 218 Commission (42.5%), and the Local School Superintendents (39.8%), judged that at least two-fifths of needed Inter­ mediate School District funds should come from this source. Given the Intermediate School District source, Vocational Education funds, the reference groups again reported varied judgments and recommended lower propor­ tions of support. mission Two groups, the Career Education Com­ (35.5%) and the Local School Superintendents (33.1%), believed that approximately one-third of needed Intermediate School District support should come from * this source. Three groups, the ISD Superintendents the MDE Representatives Education Coordinators one-fourth of the (26.6%), (25.0%), and the Local School Career (23.9%), advocated that approximately needed Intermediate District funds should come from the Vocational Education allocation. The remain­ ing three groups, the CEPD Coordinators (18.7%), the Uni­ versity Cadre (17.6%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (17.3%), favored slightly less than one-fifth of needed CEPD support from Intermediate District funds should come from this source. Given theIntermediate School Special Education District source, the funds, four groups, the CEPD Coordinators (15.0%), the Local School Career Education Coordinators (12.9%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (12.3%), the MDE Representatives (10.7%), and the Local 219 School Career Education Coordinators (10.0%) advocated that one-tenth or slightly more of needed Intermediate District funds for CEPD should come from this source, closely followed by the Career Education Commission (9.5%) and the ISD Superintendents (8.5%). The University Cadre (3.7%) recommended an extremely low proportion of support that should come from the Special Education funds. Given other Intermediate School District sources as identified by respondents, four groups judged that at least one-tenth of needed funds should come from these other sources. The ISD Superintendents recommended the highest level, approximately one-fifth (19.7%), closely followed by Local School Superintendents (17.3%) and two other groups, the Career Education Commission (12.5%) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (10.5%). The remaining four groups, the Local School Career Edu­ cation Coordinators (5.2%), the MDE Representatives the CEPD Coordinators (3.7%), (3.2%), and the University Cadre (0.8%), recommended extremely low levels of support from this source. Thus, when given four sources for funding the proposed Intermediate School District share of CEPD activities, the differences between State level and operational level groups were more clearly observable. With one exception (the Career Education Commission, 42.5%), the State level groups favored at least threefifths of needed funds to support CEPD should come from 220 General Education funds, a much stronger position than that taken by the operational level groups, who, with one exception (Local School Career Education Coordinators, 51.3%), favored only two-fifths of needed support from this Intermediate School District source. In advocating that approximately 55 percent of needed support come from General Education funds, the CEPD Coordinators took a position in between the two major groups, but closer to that of the State level groups. When given the Intermediate School District source, the Vocational Education funds, the State and operational level groups were, in general, quite similar in their range of judgments. Both groups advocated as much as one-third of needed support should come from this source. However, at the low end, the operational level groups advocated as little as one-fourth while the State level favored less than one-fifth of the needed funds should come from Vocational Education funds. In advocating less than one-fifth of needed funds for CEPD should come from this source, the CEPD Coordi­ nators took a position similar to two State level groups (the University Cadre and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education). With the exception of one group Cadre, (the University 3.7%), both the State and operational level groups were very similar in their judgments that from one-eighth 221 to one-eleventh of the needed Intermediate School District funds to support CEPD should come from the Special Edu­ cation funds. The CEPD Coordinators advocated approximately oneseventh of needed Intermediate School District funds to support CEPD should come from the Special Education funds, a position higher than that taken by either the State or operational level groups. Given other Intermediate School District sources as identified by respondents to support CEPD activities, the operational level groups with one exception School Career Education Coordinators, 11.5%) (Local judged almost one-fifth of needed funds should come from this source, a much stronger position than that taken by the State level groups, two of which advocated approximately one-tenth (the Career Education Commission, 12.5%, and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education, 10.5%), and two groups which favored almost nothing sentatives, (the MDE Repre­ 3.6%, and the University Cadre, 0.8%) from this source to support CEPD. The CEPD Coordinators in favoring slightly less than one-tenth of needed Intermediate School District funding from this source took a position somewhat in between the two major groups. In summary, when given four different sources to fund the Intermediate School District's share of CEPD 222 support, over all, the eight reference groups judged that over half the needed funds should come from General Edu­ cation funds, approximately one-fourth from Vocational Education funds, approximately one-tenth from Special Education funds, and about the same from other sources. With e x c e p t i o n s , the State level groups advocated stronger support from General Education funds fifths vs. two-fifths) and lesser support from other sources identified by respondents vs. almost one-fifth) groups. (three- (nothing to one-tenth than did the operational level Both advocated the same general share that should come from Special Education funds one-tenth) (approximately and Vocational Education funds (from one-third to o n e - f i f t h ) , although two State level groups advocated a somewhat lower proportion on the latter financial source. With the exception of advocating one-seventh of the needed CEPD funds to come from Special Education sources, a position higher than either the State or oper­ ational level groups, the CEPD Coordinators* positions on Intermediate School District financial sources were gen­ erally consistent with the two major groups. Proportions of CEPD Support by Funding Category Within the methodology limitations described in Chapter III, p. 108, six major funding categories were identified for further analysis including: a special 223 CEPD allocation, General Education allocation, Vocational Education allocation, Special Education allocation, Adult and Continuing Education allocation, and other sources identified by respondents (Table 4.17). Over all, the composite of the reference groups advocated that over two-fifths (42.5%) of the needed funds to support CEPD activities should come from General Edu­ cation sources, three-tenths (29.9%) from a special CEPD allocation, slightly over one-tenth (11.9%) from Vocational Education sources, and less than one-tenth from other sources (6.5%), Special Education sources (6.4%), and Adult and Continuing Education sources (3.0%). Given the category, General Education allocation, reference groups judged that from one-half to one-third of needed funds should come from this source. versity Cadre The Uni­ (53.7%) advocated over half, closely fol­ lowed by the CEPD Coordinators (47.3%) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (46.3%). Four groups, the Career Education Commission (41.6%), the MDE Repre­ sentatives (40.2%), the ISD Superintendents (39.2%), and the Local School Superintendents (38.6%) advocated twofifths of required support, followed lastly by the Local School Career Education Coordinators (33.4%) who judged that one-third of needed support should come from these sources. TABLE 4.17.— Mean percentages of CEPD funding from the proportionate share of CEPD support from State, ISD, and Local Education Agency levels as recommended by reference groups, by categories of groups and by the composite of all groups Funding Category General Education Allocation « Special CEPD Allocation % Vocational Education Allocation Special Education Allocation Adult Education Allocation Other Total of Responses * % % « « CEPD Coordinators 47.3 23.7 9.2 7.9 2.6 5.9 96.6 Operational Level 37.1 31.8 13.8 6.8 3.4 6.2 99.0 39.2 37.9 8.5 4.0 2.6 5.7 97.9 38.6 25.7 17.8 8.8 3.8 5.9 100.6 Local School Career Education Coordinators 33.4 31.9 15.0 7.6 3.7 7.0 98.6 45.5 29.7 11.1 5.8 2.9 6.9 101.9 53.7 15.8 11.2 4.0 3.9 12.2 100.8 41.6 36.3 15.1 7.8 1.3 4.9 107.0 46.3 40.2 29.5 6.4 3.9 37.2 12.6 5.4 5.0 2.5 3.2 7.5 101.9 97.8 42.5 29.8 11.9 6.4 3.0 6.S 100.2 State Level University Cadre Career Education Commission Advisory Council for Vocational Education MDE Representatives Composite of Reference Groups 224 ISD Superintendents Local School Superintendents 225 Given the category, a special CEPD allocation, the reference groups were similar and lower in their recommended proportions of support. Advocating at least one-third of needed CEPD funds to come from this source were three groups, the ISD Superintendents MDE Representatives Commission {37.9%), the (37.2%), and the Career Education (36.3%), closely followed by the Local School Career Education Coordinators (31.9%) and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (29.5%). Advocating about one-fourth of needed CEPD funds to come from this source were two groups, the Local School Superintendents (25.7%) and the CEPD Coordinators Cadre (15.8%) (23.1%). The University favored the smallest proportion from this source. Given the category, Vocational Education Allo­ cation, all reference groups concurred that less than one-fifth of the needed CEPD funds should come from this source and three groups judged it should be even less than one-tenth. The three groups favoring the highest proportions of support from this source were the Local School Superintendents Commission (15.1%). (17.8%), the Career Education (15.1%), and the Local School Coordinators They were followed by two groups, the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (12.6%) and the Uni­ versity Cadre (11.2%). Three groups judging that less than one-tenth of needed CEPD funds should come from 2 26 this source were the CEPD Coordinators Superintendents (9.2%)/ the ISD (8.5%), and the MDE Representatives (5.4%). All eight reference groups, the Local School Superintendents (8.8%), the CEPD Coordinators Career Education Commission (7.8%), the Local School Career Education Coordinators for Vocational Education (7.9%), the (7.6%), the Advisory Council (6.4%), the MDE Representatives (5.0%), and the University Cadre (4.0%), recommended extremely low proportions of support from Special Edu­ cation funds to cover needed CEPD costs. All eight reference groups, the University Cadre (3.9%), the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (3.9%), the Local School Superintendents School Career Education Coordinators nators (2.6%), ISD Superintendents sentatives (3.8%), Local (3.7%), CEPD Coordi­ (2.6%), the MDE Repre­ (2.5%), and the Career Education Commission (1.3%), judged that less than one-twentieth of needed CEPD funds should come from an Adult and Continuing Education allocation. With the exception of the University Cadre (12.2%), the remaining seven reference groups, the MDE Representa­ tives nators (7.5%), the Local School Career Education Coordi­ (7.0%), the CEPD Coordinators School Superintendents (5.9%), the Local (5.9%), the ISD Superintendents (5.7%), the Career Education Commission (4.9%), and the Advisory Council for Vocational Education (3.2%), 227 recommended that less than one-tenth of CEPD support come from other funding sources than those listed. Thus, when given a combination of six categories of funding to support the activities of CEPD at the S t a t e , Intermediate School District, and Local Education Agency levels, little difference between State, operational level, and CEPD Coordinator groups was observable. Given the General Education allocation, the State level groups favored from one-half to two-fifths of the needed funds to come from this source, a position stronger than that taken by the operational level groups which favored between one-third and two-fifths of the needed support to come from the General Education allocation. The CEPD Coordinators were similar in position to the State level groups favoring almost half the needed funds to come from General Education allocation. The State and operational level groups were gen­ erally similar in their judgments on the remaining cate­ gories, advocating between one-third and one-fourth of needs funds should come from a special CEPD allocation {University Cadre, 15.8%, was an exception), between oneseventh and one-tenth of needed funds should come from a Vocational Education allocation 5.4%, was an exception), (MDE Representatives, less than one-eleventh from a special Education allocation and from other sources 228 (University Cadre, 12.2%, was an exception on the latter), and one-twenty-fifth or less from an Adult and Continuing Education allocation. The CEPD Coordinators took positions similar to the major groups on the remaining five funding categories. In summary, given six different categories of financial sources at the State, Intermediate School Dis­ trict, and Local Education Agency levels to support the activities of CEPD, over all, the eight reference groups judged that over two-fifths of needed funds should come from General Education sources, three-tenths from a special CEPD allocation, slightly over one-tenth from Vocational Education sources, and less than one-tenth from other sources, Special Education sources, or Adult and Continuing Education sources. The State level groups favored stronger support from General Education sources (one-half to two-fifths vs. one-third to two-fifths) than did the operational level groups. Both major groups took similar positions when addressing the remaining financial categories, judging that between one-third and one-fourth of needed funds should come from a special CEPD allocation, between oneseventh and one-tenth from a Vocational Education allo­ cation, less than one-eleventh from a Special Education allocation, and one-twenty-fifth or less from Adult and 229 Continuing Education allocation. The CEPD Coordinators' positions were in general similar to the major groups with the exception of the General Education allocation, where they were closer to the State level groups. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Statement of the Problem It has been the purpose of this study to clarify the major functions, authority, accountability, and financial support of the Career Education Planning Dis­ trict as viewed by eight significant reference groups involved in the Michigan career education movement. The study was designed to determine what was judged by the reference groups to be (1) the degree of appropriateness of a selected list of functions for CEPD, (2) the degree of authority the CEPD should have to per­ form the selected functions and the appropriate source for this authority, (3) the appropriate resolution of four selected accountability issues for CEPD, and (4) the sources and proportions of financial support for CEPD. Background and Setting of the Study In 1971, schools throughout the nation were asked to study, embrace, and implement career education. envisioned by the major writers in the field, career 230 u 11> * A* -.* As 231 education was a reform movement with a comprehensive philosophical foundation different from that typically followed in traditional schools. The concept emphasized the need for children, youth, and adults to explore and prepare to fulfill their major life roles. Its philosoph­ ical scope was to begin with pre-kindergarten experiences and continue on through one's active retirement. Requisite to the successful implementation of this concept was the careful rethinking of the purpose of the schools and the kind of curricular and instructional approaches best suited to achieve these ends. Michigan accepted the challenge of career education and initial attempts were made to insure its incorporation in schools throughout the state. was signed into law. In 1974, Public Act 97 Called the Career Education Act for Michigan, this enabling legislation mandated the planning, development, and evaluation of career education programs in Michigan local school districts. It also formally established a regional unit called the Career Education Planning District (CEPD) as a vehicle to assist local and intermediate school districts develop career education programs. Prior to this legislation, CEPDs had been adminis­ tratively established by the MDE's Division of VocationalTechnical Education in 1971 to improve its system of vocational education programs throughout the state. Some 232 forty-nine regional units (now there are fifty-three) were initially established using primarily a vocational edu­ cation philosophy. They were administered and staffed by people with vocational education backgrounds and almost totally funded from vocational education sources. While formally recognizing the CEPD, Public Act 97 failed to provide many of the essential ingredients needed if this regional unit was to effectively assist local di s ­ tricts implement the intent of the law. legislation was Absent from the (1) clarity on the unit's appropriate philosophical foundation/ specified functions; staffing arrangements, and more (2) authority guidelines for insuring the development of local district career education programs; (3) political jurisdiction guidelines for CEPD; and (4) sufficient funding to allow for its proposed expanded role as well as funding needed for local district program implementation. Accordingly, both anxiety and confusion resulted as the staff of this regional unit (primarily vocational- technical education specialists) were suddenly requested to take on an expanded and nebulous set of functions in assisting local districts with the career education effort. In addition, the Michigan Career education movement was critically challenged by other factors. the study survey was initiated, At the time three particularly n e g a ­ tive to the movement had surfaced. The public in general 233 appeared less confident in the ability of the schools to educate its children as witnessed by the increased resis­ tance to expanded or continuing support for local school programs. Second, there was a resurgent cry that schools should put more emphasis on the learning of basic skills, and third, the fiscal reassession which rocked the nation in the early 1970s was particularly hard felt in Michigan. Given these conditions, school decision makers were hard pressed just to keep school doors open and basic programs operating and appeared hesitant to consider other ideas particularly if their implementation required much change. Thus, at the time of this study, support for career education in Michigan was less than ideal. Questions This Study Has Attempted to Answer This study has attempted to answer the following questions: Functions; 1. What should be CEPDs1 appropriate major functions for (1) planning, (2) coordination, (3) consul­ tation, and (4) evaluation? Authority; 1. To what degree should CEPD have any authority, consultive authority or directive authority, to perform its functions? 234 2. What agencies appear most appropriate to give CEPD directive authority (if any should be given) to perform its functions? Accountability; 1. To what political jurisdiction should CEPDs be legally attached? 2. What should be the geographical boundaries for CEPD? 3. What should be the job title of the principal professional administrator of CEPD? 4. To whom should the principal CEPD person be directly accountable? Financial Support; 1. What are the appropriate sources and proportions of financial support for CEPDs? Methodology Eight specific reference groups were identified for this study. They included: 50 CEPD Coordinators, 58 Intermediate School District Superintendents, a selected group of 13 Michigan Department of Education representatives, a selected sample of 50 Local School Superintendents, a selected sample of 50 Local School Career Education Coordinators, 19 members of the Career Education Commission, 22 members of the Advisory Council 235 for Vocational Education, and 8 members of the State Uni­ versity Cadre. A total of 270 respondents was included for data-gathering purposes. A survey instrument was developed following a review of the literature related to this study. This review included career education as a concept, the evo­ lution of the Career Education Planning District, role theory, and the concepts of organizations. The survey instrument was developed and sent to the 2 70 respondents identified for the study. A total of 172 was completed and returned for a 63.7 percent return rate. All information obtained from the completed surveys was transferred to computer cards. The data were treated to produce standard scores. Comparisons were made between the eight reference groups. A test of significance was made using the chi square technique. All data were reported in percentages or as weighted rating scores. The rating scores were developed by applying a standard weighting to the percentage scores of respondents. Summary Findings Through analyses of the data collected, the following study summary findings were identified. Functions It was judged appropriate for CEPD to perform a list of functions grouped in subsets of (1) planning, 236 (2) coordination, (5) (3) consultation, as a total set of forty-nine. (4) evaluation, and Of the four functions failing concensus agreement from the reference groups, each is concerned with the coordination of planning, implementation, and evaluation of vocational education, adult and continuing education, special education, and general education programs. Stronger agreement was given for planning and consultation than for coordination and evaluation. Authority There was agreement that CEPD should have authority to perform planning coordination, consultation, and evalu­ ation functions; but it should be limited to informing and making recommendations (consultive authority). It was found inappropriate for CEPD to be accorded directive authority to perform its functions. Accountability Issues Political jurisdiction.— All groups agreed that CEPD should be under the political jurisdiction of an ISD. It was judged inappropriate for CEPD to be under the political jurisdiction of a community college, a LEA, or be a newly established agency responsible to the State Board of Education or be a regional unit of the Michigan Department of Education. 237 Geographical boundaries.— There was general agreement by the reference groups that CEPD boundaries should be coterminous with ISD boundaries. It was found inappropriate for CEPD to have boundaries coterminous with the twenty-two regional media center boundaries or twenty-nine community college district boundaries. Ge n ­ erally neutral positions were taken on the option that CEPD should retain geographical boundaries consistent with the existing state-wide CEPD structure. Job title of the principal CEPD administrator.— None of the choices of job title of the principal CEPD administrator was acceptable to all reference groups. All groups were in agreement that the job titles superin­ tendent, assistant superintendent, and consultant were inappropriate. The title, director, had the favor of two state level groups, but almost neutral judgments from all remaining g r o u p s . The CEPD Coordinators gave very low favor to the choice, specialist, but all other groups disagreed with this choice. Administrator or body to which the CEPD adminis­ trator should be directly accountable.— There was no agree­ ment regarding to whom the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable. All groups agreed that it would be inappropriate for the CEPD to be directly accountable to an administrator in a lower organizational position than 238 a central office administrator and be directly accountable to a central office administrator other than the superin­ tendent. Generally neutral positions were taken on the option, be directly accountable to the CEPD coordinating council. Three State level groups and two operational level groups unenthusiastically agreed to the option, be directly accountable to a CEPD governing board, and three State level groups and two operational level groups and the CEPD Coordinators gave low agreement to the choice, be directly accountable to the superintendent. Financial Support 1. Respondents agreed that at least 50 percent (50%) of the funds needed to support CEPD activities should come from state sources, approximately 25 percent (25%) from Intermediate School district sources, about 10 percent (10%) from local education agency sources, and less than 5 percent (5%) from other sources. Oper­ ational level groups advocated more state support, approximately 69 percent (69%) than did State level groups, 53 percent (53%). Operational level groups advocated less intermediate school district support, 19 percent (19%), than did State level groups, 28 percent (28%). The CEPD Coordinators and State level groups were similar in response regarding State and Intermediate School District support. 239 2. When given six different sources of financial support to fund the state's share of CEPD, at least 4 0 per­ cent (40%) of the funds should come from a special CEPD allocation, approximately 17 percent (17%) from a General Student membership allocation, about 7 percent (7%) from a Vocational Education allocation, about 5 percent (5%) from a special education allocation, and even less from an adult and continuing education allocation or from other sources identified by respondents. advocated almost 60 percent CEPD allocation. The State level groups (60%) support from a special Operational level groups preferred approximately 47 percent (47%). When addressing the remaining five sources, the two major categories of groups advocated slightly less than 25 percent (25%) of the funds to come from the General student membership allocation, approximately 10 percent (10%) from a Vocational Education allocation, and even less from an adult and continuing education allocation or from other sources identified by respondents. 3. When given four different sources of financial support to fund the Intermediate School District's share of CEPD, at least 40 percent (40%) of the needed funds should come from general education funds, approximately 20 percent (20%) from vocational education funds, approxi­ mately 10 percent (10%) from special education funds, and from other sources identified by the respondents. 240 State level groups advocated almost 60 percent (60%) of the support to come from general education funds. Operational level groups preferred approximately 4 5 per­ cent (45%) . Both categories of groups advocated the same general amount that should come from special education funds, 10 percent (10%), and from vocational education funds, approximately 25 percent (25%). The CEPD Coordi­ nators advocated more support, 15 percent (15%) , to come from special education funds and less from vocational education funds, approximately 19 percent (19%), than did either the State level or operational level groups. The CEPD Coordinators were generally similar to the other categories of groups on the remaining two sources, General education funds and other funds identified by respondents. 4. Given six different categories from all levels to support the activities of CEPD, in excess of 40 percent (40%) of needed funds should come from General education sources, 25 percent (25%) from a special CEPD allocation, slightly over 10 percent (10%) from vocational education sources and even less from special education sources, adult and continuing education sources, or other sources identified by respondents. approximately 46 percent (46%) support to come from general education sources. preferred 37 percent The State level groups favored (37%). The operational level groups Both major categories of 241 groups were similar when addressing the remaining options, judging that approximately 30 percent (30%) should come from a special CEPD allocation, slightly over 10 percent (10%) from a vocational education allocation, approximately 6 percent (6%) from a special education allocation and from other sources identified by respondents. CEPD Coordi­ nators took similar positions on five funding sources and favored a position similar to State level groups when considering the amount of funding to come from general education allocation. Conclusions of the Study The following is concluded based on direct data analyses of this study. Functions 1. It is appropriate for CEPD to perform forty- five functions grouped in subsets of planning, coordi­ nation, consultation, and evaluation (see Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 at the end of this section). 2. The four coordination functions on which there is a lack of agreement are those concerned with the coordination of planning, implementation, and evaluation of vocational education, adult and continuing education, special education, and general education programs. 242 3. The MDE Representatives, University Cadre, and the Career Education Commission are in stronger agree­ ment on these functions than are the ISD Superintendents, Local School Superintendents, and Local School Career Edu­ cation Coordinators. The Advisory Council for Vocational Education ranked the functions lower than all groups. Only the CEPD Coordinators and the MDE Representatives agreed on the appropriateness of all forty-nine functions. 4. There is higher agreement for CEPD to perform planning and consultation functions than coordination and evaluation functions. Authority 1. CEPD should not be denied authority to perform its functions. However, the authority should be limited to informing and making recommendations (Consultive authority). 2. CEPD should not have directive authority to perform its functions. Accountability Issues Political jurisdiction.— A. CEPD should be within the political jurisdiction of an ISD. ISD Superintendents and CEPD Coordi­ nators are in strongest agreement while the 243 Advisory Council for Vocational Education and the Career Education Commission are in extremely low agreement. B. CEPD should not be under the political jurisdiction of a community college, or a local education agency located within the CEPD, nor should it be a new agency established separate from any existing agencies now functioning in the state and respon­ sible to the State Board of Education. C. There is general opposition to CEPD being a regional unit of the MDE, although division of opinion by groups is evident. The Career Education Commission, the MDE Representatives, the Local School Career Education Coordinators, and the CEPD Coordinators are mildly in favor of this option. Geographical boundaries.— A. CEPD should have boundaries coterminous with ISD boundaries. B. CEPD should not have boundaries which are coter­ minous with community college districts, with regional educational media centers or boundaries that are consistent with the present CEPD boun­ daries (as established in 1976). 244 Job title of the principal CEPD administrator.— A. There is no agreement for a preferred job title for the principal CEPD administrator. The Career Education Commission, Advisory Council for Voca­ tional Education, and the University Cadre prefer the term director. The MDE Representatives, ISD Superintendents, Local School Superintendents, and Local School Career Education Coordinators prefer the term coordinator, and the CEPD Coordi­ nators prefer the term specialist. B. The job titles superintendent, assistant superin­ tendent, and consultant are rejected. Administrator or body to which the CEPD adminis­ trator should be directly accountable.— A. There is no agreement on the preferred adminis­ trator or body to which the CEPD administrator should be directly accountable. include: Options rejected an administrator in a lower organization position other than a central office administrator and a central office administrator other than the superintendent. Almost no opinion is expressed for the option, CEPD Council. B. The option, CEPD Governing Board, received extremely low support. So also did the option, 245 Superintendent, with two groups, the ISD Superin­ tendents and the CEPD Coordinators in fairly vigorous agreement. Financial Support of CEPD 1. 50 percent In funding the activities of CEPD, at least (50%) of the support should come from state sources, approximately 25 percent (25%) School District sources, and 10 percent education agency sources. from Intermediate (10%) from local Operational level groups gen­ erally favor a larger state share of funds and lesser shares of ISD and Local education agency funds to support CEPD than do the State level groups or the CEPD Coordi­ nators. ISD Superintendents advocate almost 75 percent (75%) of the funds should come from state sources and less than 10 percent 2. 40 percent (10%) from ISD sources. In funding the state's share of CEPD at least (40%) of support should come from a special CEPD allocation, at least 17 percent (17%) from a General Student Membership allocation, approximately 7 percent (7%) from a vocational education allocation, and even less from a Special Education allocation or an Adult and Con­ tinuing Education allocation. State level groups generally favor a slightly larger share to come from a special CEPD allocation and a slightly smaller share to come from the General Membership allocation than do operational level groups or the CEPD Coordinators. 246 3. In funding the Intermediate School District's share of CEPD, at least 40 percent General Education funds, 2 0 percent (40%) should come from (20%) from Vocational Education funds, and 10 percent from Special Education funds or from other sources identified by respondents. State level groups and the CEPD Coordinators advocate a larger share of support to come from General Education funds than do the operational level groups. 4. In considering the proportions of support to come from funding categories at the State, Intermediate School District, and Local Education Agency levels, at least 40 percent (40%) of the funds should come from General Education allocations, special CEPD allocation, 25 percent 10 percent (10%) (25%) from a from vocational education funds, and less from Special Education or Adult and Continuing Education funds or from other sources identified by respondents. The following conclusions are based on inferences from the study. Understanding the Philosophy of Career Education' The evidence suggests that the reference groups hold different philosophical perceptions of career ed u ­ cation than do the major writers in the field. supported by This is (1) the low percentage return of study surveys and in some instances the incompleteness of 247 responses to survey questions; (2) the lack of agreement for four CEPD functions which concern the coordination of planning, implementation, and evaluation of vocational education, special education, adult and continuing edu­ cation, and general education programs; and (3) the mini­ mal CEPD financial support advocated to come from voca­ tional education, adult and continuing education, and special education sources. Organizational Structure and Operational Procedures for CEPD 1. While much of the current success in the state-wide career education movement can be traced to the fine leadership exhibited at the CEPD level, the evidence suggests that current philosophical administra­ tive, staffing, and operational procedures practiced by many CEPDs may be inappropriate to effectively assist local and intermediate school districts plan for, develop, and evaluate career education programs. The list of approved CEPD functions appear consistent with many of the findings in the Gibbs study and are expanded in scope from those identified for CEPD by the MDE's Division of Vocational-Technical Education and more specific in nature than the general guidelines presented by the MDE's Office of Career Education. CEPDs originally and cur­ rently have been organized and their affairs administered 248 from primarily a vocational education philosophical foun­ dation, supported primarily by vocational education funds and staffed primarily by people with vocational education backgrounds. Accordingly, it is questioned whether CEPDs organizational structures and operating procedures include philosophical, administrative, staffing, and operational considerations which recognize the total concept of career education of which vocational education is one important part. 2. In suggesting that CEPD be under the political jurisdiction of an ISD and that it have boundaries coter­ minous with ISDs, the evidence corroborates action taken by the State Board of Education in late fall of 1976 (at the time the survey of this study was administered) which gave CEPDs the option to form boundaries coterminous with ISD boundaries (an action that was followed in all but four instances). It also corroborates the practice of having the ISD serve as fiscal agent for CEPD, a procedure followed for almost all CEPDs in the state. 3. The issue of directive authority needed to insure the planning, development, and evaluation of career education programs by local and intermediate school dis­ tricts is yet unresolved. At the heart of this issue is the concept of local control over the destiny of Michigan schools and its impact on educational reform movements such as career education. While the Gibbs study has 249 identified that the next major local district career edu­ cation program steps are implementation and evaluation, the evidence of this study indicates only low agreement for those CEPD functions which would complement such needs. Further, the evidence advocates that CEPD perform the functions without directive authority. Accordingly, if implementation of career education in local districts is truly desired, to what extent is directive authority needed to insure this action? Should the State Board of Education continue to be the primary directive authority source? Should the State Board delegate its directive authority role to the intermediate school district or the CEPD? Since few directive authority guidelines have yet been developed, are more needed, and what should they include? Lastly, what should be CEPDs relationship to these bodies in either situation as it performs its functions? These questions need to be addressed. Financial Support 1. The evidence suggests consideration of a funding pattern for CEPD markedly different from that currently practiced. Highlighted are the following major changes: A. The inclusion of State, Intermediate School Dis­ trict, and Local school districts in sharing the costs of CEPD with the larger proportionate share 250 of CEPD support to come from State sources and progressively lesser support to come from Inter­ mediate School District and Local District sources; B. A dramatic increase, over all, in the relative amount of general education funds to be used in support of CEPD; C. The consideration of a special CEPD allocation at the State appropriations level; D. The minimal use of adult and continuing education and special education funds to support CEPD; and E. A drastic reduction, over all, in the relative amount of vocational education funds to be used in CEPD support. 2. The recommendations relative to the substantial increase in general education funds appear healthy and appropriate given the expanded list of CEPD functions found appropriate. 3. There appears some difference in agreement whether general education funds or a special CEPD allo­ cation at the State level is most appropriate. Each approach would have its advantages and disadvantages. 4. As envisioned by the major writers in the field, both special education and adult and continuing education should be included in a comprehensive career 251 education movement. The pattern of funding advocated for these sources does not necessarily substantiate that idea. 5. It is questioned whether the drastic reduction in vocational education funds to support CEPD is realistic given the already well-established functions in this area of CEPD responsibilities. 6. Finally, the inclusion of State, Intermediate School District, and Local School District funding to support CEPD appears a healthy approach to assist CEPD fulfill its role as prescribed by the legislation. Limitations of Public Act 97 1. Public Act 97 was essential enabling legis­ lation for it recognized the importance of career edu­ cation for Michigan schools. However, from the evidence of the study, the Act appears limited and should be reviewed and modified through further legislation. A. The Act limits the career education movement to K-12 education although, as envisioned by its writers, this concept reaches far beyond K-12 educa t i o n . B. Although formally recognizing CEPD as a unit to assist, coordinate, and otherwise help local education agencies plan, develop, and evaluate 252 career education programs, this Act failed to provide the needed funds to support such activi­ ties, or career education activities in general. C. Finally, the Act failed to specify the extent to which the State Board of Education should exercise its authority in insuring that local education agencies plan, develop, and evaluate their career education programs. Further, the Act failed to specify the extent to which CEPDs should have authority to fulfill their legislated role. Action appears needed to remedy these limitations. Implications and Recommendations This study represented an initial attempt to pro­ vide additional direction for CEPD if it is to meet the intent of Michigan's mandated career education legislation. Involved were groups directly or indirectly confronted with issues that face CEPD. As a baseline study, its major findings and conclusions clarified some issues while identifying others still in need of resolution. Implication If the concept of career education is to be effec­ tively implemented in Michigan schools, it must be clearly understood, accepted, and embraced by those responsible for its incorporation in the school program. 253 TABLE 5.1.— The appropriateness of CEPD to perform planning functions as judged by the composite of the reference groups Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education needs +1.477 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for promoting career education programs +1.333 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education program priorities +1.321 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for career education steering committees +1.261 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for career education advisory committees +1.233 The and and and CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify use materials and processes for planning sponsoring training programs for guidance support staff +1.206 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for adminis­ trative staff +1.153 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify the guidelines and procedures for completing career education plans +1.123 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for assessing progress in career education programs +1.046 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for instructional staff +1.041 254 TABLE 5.1.— Continued Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for boards of education +1.017 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for planning and sponsoring training programs for com­ munity publics +1.011 The and and ing + .974 CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify use materials and processes for planning sponsoring training programs for evaluat­ career education programs The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for establish­ ing curricula which include career education content + .956 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs complete their written career education plans + .939 The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for operating career education programs + .643 Key: +2 = Strongly Agree, +1 - Agree, tain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly Disagree 0 = Uncer- 255 TABLE 5.2.— The appropriateness of CEPD to perform coordi­ nation functions as judge by the composite of the reference groups Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should coordinate an area-wide pro­ motional and information system for career education +1.225 The CEPD should coordinate the implementation of an area-wide occupational information system of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD +1.215 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD career education steering committees +1.139 The CEPD should coordinate the development and accessibility of a directory of com­ munity resources for career education of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD +1.12 8 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD career education advisory committees +1.124 The CEPD should coordinate the development and implementation of an area-wide instruc­ tional materials center for career education materials +1.023 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD administrative staff + .97 8 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD guidance and consultant staff + .938 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD instructional staff + .919 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education coordinators + .916 256 TABLE 5.2.— Continued Functions The CEPD should coordinate the establishment of career education programs directed at students (K-adult) which can be shared by more than one LEA within the CEPD Composite Rating Score + .904 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD boards of education + .89 9 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for ISD community publics + .877 The CEPD should coordinate the development and implementation of an area-wide career place­ ment service of use to LEA students within the CEPD + .872 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education steering committees + .853 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA career education advisory committees + .849 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA administrative staff + .765 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA instructional staff + .755 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA guidance and consultant staff + .729 The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA community publics + .669 257 TABLE 5.2.— Continued Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for LEA boards of education + .659 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation, and evaluation of vocational education programs + .346 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation, and evaluation of adult and continuing education programs + .121 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation, and evaluation of special education programs - .020 The CEPD should coordinate the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the general education programs - .178 Key: +2 = Strongly Agree, +1 = Agree, 0 = Uncer­ tain, -1 = Disagree, -2 = Strongly Disagree 258 TABLE 5.3.— The appropriateness of CEPD to perform consul­ tation functions as judged by the composite of the reference groups Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program planning +1.164 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program implementation +1.109 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program evaluation +1.054 The CEPD should provide LEAs and ISDs with consultant service for career education program reporting + .918 TABLE 5.4.— The appropriateness of CEPD to perform evalureference ation functions as judged by the composite of the : groups Functions Composite Rating Score The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs determine future career education priorities based on the results of evaluations conducted + .898 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs develop and/or select career education program evaluation designs + .878 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs complete evaluations of their career education programs + .770 The CEPD should assist LEAs and ISDs administer evaluation activities related to their career education programs + .583 259 Recommendation.— A public information program is needed to inform educational and noneducational groups throughout Michigan as to what the concept of career edu­ cation is all about. Included must be an understanding of what it is, how it is different from traditional school programming, how it can be implemented, who it will involve, and what the expected results will be. Implication If the concept of career education is to be effec­ tively implemented in Michigan schools, a strong and viable CEPD organization is needed which can be properly structured to address the critical issues of career edu­ cation, the concept of organizational change, and to properly assist local and intermediate school districts plan for, develop, and evaluate career education programs. Recommendation.— The State Career Education Com­ mission should make recommendations to the State Board of Education including where appropriate, recommendations for legislative action, relative to a CEPD organizational and operational structure which includes the following pro v i s i o n s : A. A philosophical foundation which incorporates the total concept of career education; B. Identification of the agency to have political jurisdiction over CEPD; 260 C. A more specific and expanded set of functions for CEPD by using the suggested list derived through this study; D. Staffing arrangements which insure qualified pe r ­ sonnel available to perform both the existing and expanded lists of approved functions; E. Clarification of hierarchial arrangements of staffing which insures an equality of status between nonvocational and vocational education aspects of career education and their administra­ tion through the CEPD organization; F. Identification of the appropriate job titles for CEPD; G. and Inclusion of a funding formula which will ade­ quately support the operation of CEPD and which will consider the conclusions on financial support derived from this study. Implication If the concept of career education is to be effec­ tively implemented in Michigan schools, the issue of directive authority needed to insure its implementation must be resolved. Rec o m m e n d a tion.— The State Career Education C o m ­ mission should make recommendations to the State Board of 261 Education, including where appropriate, recommendations for legislative action, which clarify the issue of direc­ tive authority. Included in these recommendations should be answers to the following questions: A. To what extent is directive authority needed to insure the implementation of career education by local and intermediate school districts? B. What additional directive authority guidelines are needed? C. Should the State Board of Education continue to be the primary directive authority source or should this role be delegated to another agency? D. What will be CEPD's relationship to these clarif­ ications on directive authority? Implication If CEPD personnel are to be effective in assisting local and intermediate school districts implement career education, they must have a vision of what career edu­ cation is and how it can be implemented, the competencies to accomplish this, and the enthusiasm to vigorously promote the concept. Recommendation.— Given the acceptance of an expanded list of CEPD functions, appropriate CEPD per­ sonnel should be assessed to determine leadership 262 training needs to perform these functions. A state-wide coordinated leadership program designed to address the identified needs should be developed and implemented. Implication If career education is to be effectively imple­ mented in Michigan schools, those agencies responsible for undergraduate and graduate educational training must incorporate its concepts in their on-going programs. Recommendations.— A. Universities should review the list of approved functions and include them as a resource when developing graduate programs for educators aspiring to assume CEPD leadership positions. B. Colleges and Universities should review their teacher education undergraduate programs and their educational leadership graduate programs to insure the concepts of career education are reflected in them. Program enrollees should, prior to successful completion of these programs, demonstrate an understanding and acceptance of the concepts of career education, a vision of the mission to be accomplished, and the skills needed to accomplish the mission. 263 Implication If career education is to be effectively imple­ mented in Michigan schools, additional career education models, methods, materials, and resources must be identi­ fied and utilized. Recommendations.— A. Efforts should be made to insure that additional career education models and supporting materials and resources for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of career education are identified and/or developed for use in Michigan schools. B. Pilot demonstration schools which can visually show the implementation of comprehensive career education should be established. C. Pilot demonstration CEPDs which can demonstrate effective approaches to use in working with local and intermediate school districts on career edu­ cation matters should be established. Implication If career education is to be effectively imple­ mented in Michigan schools, further legislative action is essential to continue the efforts begun through the enabling legislation of 1974. 264 Recommendations.— A. Legislation is needed to include post-secondary institutions in the state's career education movement. B. Legislation is needed to adequately fund the operation of CEPD. C. Legislation is needed to clarify the directive authority issue of CEPD. D. Legislation is needed to clarify the role of post­ secondary institutions and CEPD. Implication Given the fluid nature of this reform movement, a continuing analysis should be made to determine whether additional or alternative functions should be performed by CEPD and in what priority order. Recommendation.— This study or parts of it should be replicated in the near future to determine what changes and modifications in the emerging CEPD role are needed to effect career education in Michigan. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND LETTERS APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND LETTERS The Identification Of Major Elements Concerning The Functions, Authority, Accountability And Financial Support Of The Career Education Planning District In Michigan A Study Conducted Under The Sponsorship Of Career And Continuing Education College Of Education Michigan State University / September, 1976 265 266 Dear Respondent: In May ot 1974, following an impressive majority vote of the State Legislature, the Governor signed into law. Act 97 of the Michigan Public Acts of 1974. Commonly referred to as the "Career Education Act” this law formally established a new organizational unit called the Career Education Planning District (CEPD) to: increase communication, cooperation, and planning among its member educational agencies and to coordinate and promote career education programs . . . Since this action was taken, a good deal of concern and confusion has arisen relative to the CEPD and its appropriate functions, authority, accountability and financial support. If the mission of the CEPD as identified in Act 97 is to be fulfilled, greater clarity must be reached relative to these identified issues. Accordingly, we are asking you to complete this survey. The following pages contain several statements which address the functions, authority, accountability and financial support of the CEPD. Please review each item carefully and make a judgment in accordance with the instructions given for each part of the survey. Approximately thirty minutes will be needed to complete this task The results of your completed survey will be kept anonymous and confidential. With your assistance and support, this study can provide a basis for establishing greater clarity for the role of the CEPD in Michigan Education. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Roger T. LaBonte Investigator Russell J. Kleis Continuing Education Michigan State University ■> Cas Heilman Career Education Michigan State University 267 DEFINITIONS The following definitions have been included to aid you in completing this survey. Functions: refers to the major tasks, responsibilities or purposes of the Career Education Planning District (CEPD). CEPD: ISD: LEA: MDE: SBE: Career Education Planning District Intermediate School District Local Educational Agency Michigan Department of Education State Board of Education Part I - Directions 1. T o follow is a list of statements which identify possible major functions of the CEPD. Review each statement carefully and judge whether the CEPD should have a responsibility for performing the function. Record your answer by checking the appropriate box in the column to the right of the statement entitled "How Appropriate". Only one response should be selected for each statement. Five possible choices have been included for your consideration: * * * * * Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree 2. Next, judge the degree of authority the CEPD should have in performing each function. Record your answer by checking the appropriate box in the column to the right of the statement entitled "Degrees of Authority". Only one response should be selected for each statement. Please give a response to each statement regardless of your answer in the “How Appropriate” column. Six possible choices have been included for your consideration: * No Authority: The CEPD should have no legitimate authority to perform the function. * Authority to Inform: The CEPD should have the authority to Inform LEAs and ISDs of arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of the function, and report the status of LEAs and ISDs to the SBE. 268 Authority to Recommend: The CEPD should have the authority to recommend to LEAs and ISDs the arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of the function. The CEPD should have the authority to recommend to the SBE, the courses of action needed to insurethat LEAs or ISDs perform the SBE function. Authority to Implement tSD or other CEPD Governing Board Directives: In accordance with ISD or other CEPD Governing Board policies and guidelines, the CEPD should have the authority to require LEAs and ISDs to use CEPD Identified and approved arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc., related to the performance of the function, and take Governing Board approved action against LEAs or ISDs who fail to performthe function identified by the Governing Board. Authority to Implement SBE Directives: The CEPD should have the authority to require LEAs and ISDs to use SBE Identified and approved arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc.. related to the performance of the function. The CEPD should have the authority to take SBE action against LEAs or ISDs which fail to perform the function as identified by the SBE. Authority to Develop and Implement Its Own Directives: The CEPD, as a separate and autonomous legal unit, should have the authority to develop arrangements, materials, programs, procedures, policies, etc.. related to the performance of the function and require their use by LEAs and ISDs. As an autonomous legal unit, the CEPD should have the authority to take action against LEAs or ISDs which fail to perform the function as identified by the CEPD. 269 FUNCTION HOW DEGREES APPROPRIATE OF AUTHORITY W UJ UJ -J g p a. a uj u m BE a v> a § ill UJ tc s (9 < if) io I us I Z o u O UJ O s! UJ a i£ Z 5« ' UJ gg u jti e uj 2a oo o K °1 Si >-«J> i £ a £g §8 § 8 St = ? IO r u « £ O 3 5£i 3 ® s| z < _J U s U EC UJ < £ a £ Q in 1. The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education needs. □□□□□ □□□ □ o 2. The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify career education program priorities. □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ 3. The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs i dent i f y the guidelines and procedures for completing career education plans. □ □□□□ □ □□ □ □ 4. The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs complete their written career education plans. □ □□□□ □ □□ □ □ 5. The CEPD should assist ISDs and LEAs identify and use materials and processes for: A. Establishing curricula which include career education content □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □ B. Promoting career education programs □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □ C. Operating career education programs □□□□□ □□□ □ □ □ D. Assessing career programs □□□□□ □□□ □ □ □ progress in education 270 FUNCTION HOW DEGREES APPROPRIATE OF AUTHORITY C/3 lil UJ _i °u O UJ (A CE UJ UJ g UJ (9 $ a t v> UJ K BE < 5 £ UJ »o UJ * E £ 5 o z O w uj g o — = c ■ a O ° z « !« 2E (/> < D □ (/) E. F. £< E? U O 3 z < uo 21 Eg go Xo I-& 3 UJ ■« > uu * o5 21 |c2|> c gp O x °UJ £ z _J o I ui ► 4 M 4 Z UJ O UJ E * ss§ 2 H K O zD Q (0 4 B. V o catio n al Programs Education C. Special Programs D. Adult and Continuing Education programs Education S8 2 ^ E £22 2 4 *P ^ UJ UJ O S I UJ 5p uj O s!® 20 * > w 2 E So IS UJ a o5 ° z E E UJ o . > £ ° § * 4 o ° XQ r »s o z K a 3U J 4 U 5£ ft 4 O 4 2 □□□□□ □□□ □ □ □ □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □ □□□□□ □□□ □ □ □ □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □□□□ □ □□□□ □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □□□□□ □ □□□□ □□□□□ □ □□ □ □ □□ □ □ □ □ □ 8 . The CEPD should coordinate and/or conduct career education in-service programs for each of the following ISD publics: A. C a r e e r Education Advisory Committees B. Career Education Steering Committees C. Administrative Staff D. Instructional Staff E. Guidance and Consultant Staff F. Boards of Education G. Community Publics □ □□ □ □ □ 272 FUNCTION HOW DEGREES APPROPRIATE OF AUTHORITY C O UJ °o ui oa 111 O w to io w U J OC a o < z 3 5 K £ Z UJ oc S o w «i B tt O S < CO 9. The CEPD should coordinate an d/ or conduct career education in-service programs for each of the following LEA publics: A. C a r e e r Education Coordinators a < (A o o z o 1? 3 1 £< o § 8 si® z K! SO t o O ^ U oL. I —"z ™OC * g t C es 111 2 * S3 a Z ui & g UJ I a. wS QO O Ur >- V) £ O ► >■ c° tg H £ O 5 go n 5 O Z Q SS i -a 3 uj = s S3 3 < O < a St PS 3z 11. The CEPD should coordinate th e d e v e l o p m e n t and accessibility of a directory of community resources for career education of use to LEAs and ISDs within the CEPD. □ □□ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ 12. The CEPD should coordinate th e d e v e l o p m e n t and implementation of an areawide instructional materials center for career education materials. □ □ □□□ □ □□ □ □ □ 13. The CEPD should coordinate th e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d implementation of an areawide career placement service of use to LEA students within the CEPD. □ □ □□□ □ □□ □ □ □ 14. The CEPD should coordinate an area-wide promotional and information system for career education. □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ 15. The CEPD should provide L E As a n d I S D s wi t h consultant service for career education program planning. □ □ □□□ □ □□ □ □ □ 16. The CEPD should provide LEAs a n d ISDs with consultant service for career education program implementation.____________ □ □ □ □ □ □ □□ □ □ □ 274 FUNCTION HOW DEGREES APPROPRIATE OF AUTHORITY m UJ 8i o UJ UJ ft p « >■ 0 z o s in UJ UI E P < z C H E UJ O z 3 UJ UJ p < in Q UJ UJ E P < m o >■ _> P z o E H m X s £ t 2 fSE o uj UJ v> e s I/) 5 £o £ £ 15 U J uj O s!“ a so X a. X o *8 SS .J m ia Q5 Oz H sc >■ UJ > «) Ml £° £ in £5 §0 S p t fZ X X Q o S S t °- < o Z < 4