INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. 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 material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R O ROW, L O N D O N W C 1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8001578
|PETERS * LINDA SUE
!
A STUDY TD I D E N T I F Y THE VARIABLES WHICH
INFLUENCE THE I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z A T I O N OF
I N C E N T I V E —FUNDEDINN OV A TIV E PROJECTS I N
> VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RELATED AREAS
IN
I MICHIGAN.

|
i
]

f

^

■

MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y ,

I

•

!

1979

i

I
I

II

fWfcrdrams

International

P H .D .,

m o n . ze eb r o a d , a n n a r b o r , mi

Universito

M icitxilm s
International

300 N. ZEEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106

4b i o b

A STUDY TO IDENTIFY THE VARIABLES WHICH INFLUENCE
THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF INCENTIVE-FUNDED INNOVATIVE
PROJECTS IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RELATED AREAS IN MICHIGAN

by
Linda Sue P e t e r s

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e req u ir e m e n ts
f o r t h e degre e of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1979

ABSTRACT
A STUDY TO IDENTIFY THE VARIABLES WHICH INFLUENCE THE
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF INCENTIVE-FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS IN
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION RELATED AREAS IN MICHIGAN
by
Linda Sue P e te r s
Statement of the Problem
The problem in t h i s study was to determine t h e v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u ­
ence the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d in novations in v o c a tio n a l
ed u catio n.
The follo w in g r e s e a r c h q u e stion s were s e t f o r t h :
1.

What f a c t o r s encourage in c e n tiv e - fu n d e d in no v ativ e
p r o j e c t s to become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n to r e g u l a r
school o p e ra t io n s ?

2.

What f a c t o r s disco u rage t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
o f i n n o v a tiv e s so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n does
no t occur?

Purposes o f t h e Study
The f i r s t purpose of t h i s study was t o provide in fo rm ation to i n d i ­
v i d u a l s from local school d i s t r i c t s who a r e c o n s i d e r i n g i n i t i a t i n g
inc e n tiv e - fu n d e d p r o j e c t s .

The s tu d y i d e n t i f i e d major v a r i a b l e s which

i n f lu e n c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Such info rmation can be used by school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p r o j e c t planners as a guide so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l ­
i z a t i o n w i l l most l i k e l y occur, i f t h a t i s the d e s i r e d end.
A second purpose was t o provide s c h o l a r s and s t u d e n t s o f planned
change with useful in fo rm ation on which to base f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

This

r e s e a r c h provided information about i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n in v o c a t io n a l
ed u catio n t h a t was n o t f orm erly a v a i l a b l e .

Linda Sue Peters

The t h i r d purpose o f t h i s study was to d i r e c t i n c e n t i v e g r a n t awarders
to t h e key v a r i a b l e s i n f lu e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Knowledge o f t h e s e

v a r i a b l e s enables p r o j e c t developers to s t r u c t u r e th e g r a n t awarding
process and accompanying g u i d e l i n e s so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , when
d e s i r e d , w ill most l i k e l y occur.
The f o u r t h purpose was to provide t e a c h e r educato rs with information
t h a t w i l l be useful in broadening t h e scope o f programs to prepare school
pers onnel.

By i d e n t i f y i n g v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ,

t e a c h e r educato rs can help school personnel to be knowledgeable about
i n i t i a t i n g and implementing in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d i nn o vativ e p r o j e c t s .
Methods Used
The pop ulation f o r t h i s study was i n d i v i d u a l s a s s o c i a t e d with f i f t e e n
in ce n tiv e -fu n d e d in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s in v o c a tio n a l education r e l a t e d a re a s
in Michigan.

S i t e s were s e l e c t e d from p r o j e c t s recommended by Michigan

Department o f Education s t a f f members and based upon s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .
Six i n d i v i d u a l s from each p r o j e c t were randomly s e l e c t e d to r e c e i v e
the " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e " .

P a r t I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was

concerned with the e x t e n t to which v a r i a b l e s had occurred w i t h in each
p r o j e c t and whether or not i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d o r
hindered by t h e presence o r absence o f each v a r i a b l e .

Part II collected

demographic Information.
Data were analyzed using a combination of p o s s i b l e response s f o r
each v a r i a b l e .

A s i n g l e - v a l u e d measure was developed which showed'both

the e x t e n t and d i r e c t i o n o f any one v a r i a b l e ' s e f f e c t on i n s t i t u t i o n ­
alization.

Data were a l s o p r e s e n t e d in t h e a g g re g a te .

Linda Sue Peters

Summary of Findings
Based on t h e response o f 64 educato rs (71.1 p e rc e n t r e s p o n s e ) , 35
v a r i a b l e s were found to e x e r t major in f lu e n c e in f a c i l i t a t i n g i n s t i t u ­
tionalization.

Examples of such v a r i a b l e s a re :

1.

A v a i l a b i l i t y of a s s i s t a n c e to p r o j e c t p a r t i ­
cipants.

2.

Understanding concerning in d iv id u a l r o l e s
in an i n n o v ativ e p r o j e c t .

3.

P ro v isio n of i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g .

4.

I n t e r a c t i o n among p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s
a t a ll levels.

5.

Adeptness in p rocess s k i l l s on th e p a r t of
a project director.

Conclusions
Each o f t h e major v a r i a b l e s plays an im portant r o l e in t h e f a c i l i t a t i o n
o f change and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t s .
major v a r i a b l e s may be l o o s e ly grouped i n t o t h e s e d i v i s i o n s :

These
staff

development a c t i v i t i e s , a f f e c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s , communications a s p e c t s ,
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s t u d e n t impact, p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d components,
planning and l o g i s t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and scope o f involvement.
I t i s important t o recognize t h a t each v a r i a b l e may a f f e c t and be
a f f e c t e d by every o t h e r v a r i a b l e .

V a r ia t io n in terms o f degree and

q u a l i t y of each v a r i a b l e may, in f a c t c a u s e , v a r i a t i o n 1n terms o f i n s t i ­
tutionalization.

However, t h i s study c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e s f a c t o r s t h a t

have a s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of i n c e n t i v e funded in n ov ativ e p r o j e c t s in v oc atio na l ed u catio n r e l a t e d a r e a s .

This work i s a f f e c t i o n a t e l y d e d i c a t e d t o
Cathryn and T i l l
and to my p a r e n t s
Lois and Jim Burch

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The r e s e a r c h e r extends her s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l i n d i v i d u a l s
who helped make t h i s study p o s s i b l e .
To Dr. Lawrence Borosage, s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed f o r his
help and encouragement as a guidance committee chairman.

Gratitude is

extended f o r h i s continuous support and advice.
To Dr. B i l l Rader, a sp e c i a l thanks i s extended f o r se r v in g as d i s ­
s e r t a t i o n d i r e c t o r and f o r always being a v a i l a b l e when needed.

His

advic e and c o n s t r u c t i v e id eas a r e s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d .
To Dr. Casmer Heilman, Dr. James Engelkes, and Dr. Rader, who
served as members of th e guidance committee, g r a t i t u d e and a p p r e c i a t i o n
i s a l s o expre ss ed.
To t h e many e du ca to rs in Michigan who responded so well t o t h e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed f o r t h e i r s i n c e r e p r o f e s s i o n ­
a lism .

T h eir i n t e r e s t and w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t made t h i s study p o s s i b l e .

To my f a m ily , a p p r e c i a t i o n is expressed f o r t h e i r c o n s t a n t su p p o r t,
encouragement, understan ding and p a t i e n c e .

iii

'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................

vi

Chapter
1

THE PROBLEM......................................................................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n ..............................................................................
Statem ent o f t h e Problem ....................................................
Need f o r th e S t u d y .................................................................
Purpose o f t h e S t u d y ............................................................
Ba sic Assumptions f o r the S t u d y ..............................
D e l im i ta ti o n s o f t h e Problem ...........................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms .................................................................
Su im iary........................................................................

1
1
3
3
4
5
6
6
8

2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................
SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CHANGE ...........................................
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE . . . .
GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATION . . .
Summary..........................................................................................

9
9
16
23
33

3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES .....................................................................
P o p u l a t i o n ..................................................................................
S i t e and Respondent S e l e c t i o n ...........................................
I n s t r u m e n ta tio n .........................................................................
I n t e n t o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ................................................
P a r t I of t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ................................................
P a r t II of th e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...........................................
P i l o t S t u d y ..................................................................................
Survey Procedure .....................................................................
Analysis o f th e D a t a ............................................................
Summary..........................................................................................

35
35
35
37
38
38
39
40
40
40
41

4

FINDINGS........................................................ : ..................................
BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS ....................................................
VARIABLE IDENTIFICATION ........................................................
Response Analysis ............................................................
V a ria b les t h a t F a c i l i t a t e
I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ....................................................

42
42
47
48

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................
SUMMARY..........................................................................................
The P r o b l e m ........................................................................
Research Procedures ........................................................
F i n d i n g s ..................................................................................
CONCLUSIONS..................................
RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................

69
69
69
70
70
73
76

5

iv

61

V

Page
5

CAUTIONS TO THE READER............................................................
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS .................................................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................

78
79
80

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Incentive-Funded P r o j e c t s

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

83

APPENDIX B
Contact Correspondence, Forms.........................................................

86

APPENDIX C
P a r t i c i p a n t Correspondence, Q u e stio n n a ir e
APPENDIX D
Aggregate Information, Tables

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

I - II .........................................

.9 1
97

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1

RESPONDENTS BY CATEGORY .............................................................

43

2

NON-USABLE RESPONSES BY REASON

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

43

3 '

PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONDENTS: AGE, SEX, LEVEL OF EDUCATION . . . .

44

PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONDENTS: EXPERIENCE ....................................................

45

5

RESPONDENTS BY JOB T I T L E .........................................................

46

6

RESPONSE COMBINATIONS 1 THROUGH 91

50

7

APPEARANCE FREQUENCY OF EACH RESPONSE CODE FOR
EACH VARIABLE 1 THROUGH 9 1 ................................................

51

8

RESPONSE COMBINATIONS 92 THROUGH 95

66

9

APPEARANCE FREQUENCIES OF EACH RESPONSE CODE FOR
EACH VARIABLE 92 THROUGH 9 5 ...........................................

68

4

vi

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Federal a i d f o r v o c a t i o n a l e d u ca tio n in p u b l i c e d u ca tio n was i n t r o ­
duced with t h e passage o f t h e Smith-Hughes Vocational Education Act in
1917.

The a c t was a means t o s t i m u l a t e t h e development of v o c a tio n a l

e d u ca tio n programs a s s t a t e s were no t assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r them;
y e t v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n was r ec o g n ize d to be a n e ce ssa r y p a r t of p u b l ic
e d u ca tio n .

This f e d e r a l funding was an i n n o v a tio n in i t s e l f .

The

i n t e n t o f Smith-Hughes was to s t i m u l a t e s t a t e s and l o c a l communities to
s u p p o r t v o c a t io n a l e d u c a ti o n .

The l e g i s l a t i o n r e q u i r e d t h a t f e d e r a l

funds be matched with an equal amount o f s t a t e o r l o c a l moneyJ
Within t h e l a s t two de cades, th e concept o f i n c e n t i v e funding has
been extended to most a r e a s of p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n .

With t h e National

Defense Education Act o f 1958, t h e f e d e r a l government i n c r e a s e d i t s
encouragement o f i n n o v a t i v e e f f o r t s in t h e pu b lic sc h o o l s .

This i n i ­

t i a t i v e c o ntin u ed with t h e Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.

S i m i l a r encouragement o f i n n o v a tio n s in v o c a t io n a l e du ca tio n

r e s u l t e d from t h e Vocational Education Act {VEA) o f 1963 and t h e sub­
sequent implementation o f t h e VEA Amendments o f 1968.

(As used h e r e ,

i nn ovation means "an idea [or] p r a c t i c e . . . p erceiv ed t o be new by
the re le v a n t u n it of adoption.")2

P o r t i o n s o f both t h e VEA o f 1963 and

1 ROBERTS, Roy W. Vocational and P r a c t i c a l Arts Education, Harper and
Row, New York, 1971, pp. 12-20 and 108-111.
2

HELMER, 0. The Use o f t h e Delphi Technique in Problems o f Educational
I n n o v a t i o n s , p. 95. Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA, 1966. No. P-3499.

2

i t s amendments were designed to aid in the development of new programs and
encourage r e s e a r c h and e x perim entatio n.

Again, lo ca l matching funds were

r e q u i r e d f o r most components of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . 3

Such involvement of

th e f e d e r a l government in education has provided money to s t a t e departments
o f e d u c a tio n , and in creased t h e i r involvement in the s t i m u l a t i o n of
innovation a t t h e local l e v e l .
Consequently, s t a t e departments of e d u c a ti o n , r e a c t i n g t o t h e f e d e r a l
impetus, provide temporary funds t o loca l edu ca tion al a g encie s f o r t h e
i n i t i a t i o n and development o f e d u ca tio n al i n n o v a t i o n s .

These funds a re

f o r the development o f new e du ca tio nal s e r v i c e s and programs and a r e not
intended to su pport and m aintain e x i s t i n g programs, p r o j e c t s , o r p r a c t i c e s .
Nor a r e such i n c e n t i v e funds inte nd ed t o su p p o rt and m aintain t h e innova­
t i o n f o r more than a temporary p e r i o d .
in most a re a s of th e educational system.

Such i n c e n t i v e funding has occurred
I t is expected t h a t t h e innova­

t i o n w ill become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d o r co ntinued as p a r t o f t h e ed uca tio nal
ag en c y 's r e g u l a r o p e r a t io n s when the i n c e n t i v e funding c e a s e s .
In r e a l i t y , t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the i n c e n t i v e g r a n t tech n iq ue i s
uncertain.

Gaps may occur between the e x p e c ta ti o n s of t h e funding agent

and t h e r e a l i t y of t h e lo ca l e d uca tio n al ag en c y 's o p e r a t i o n s .

Institu­

t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f in novations may not occur with th e frequency a n t i c i p a t e d
by t h e funding a g e n t . ^

As i t i s used in t h i s stu d y, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n

means t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of an i n c e n ti v e -fu n d e d i n n o v ativ e program i n to
r e g u l a r school o p e r a t i o n s .

While i n c e n t i v e funding s t i m u l a t e s lo ca l

3R0BERTS, op. c i t . , pp. 114-120.
^BERMAN, Paul, and McLAUGHLIN, Aubrey Wallin. Federal Programs, Support­
ing Educational Change, Vol. VIII (May 1978), p. v i .

3

ag encie s t o undertake in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t s , such funding does not in su r e
long term c o n t i n u a t i o n .

P r o j e c t - e n d e v a l u a t i o n may be p o s i t i v e with

r e s p e c t to achievement o f goals and o b j e c t i v e s ; y e t d u r a b i l i t y and i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of th e innovation i s not insured or may no t be considered
or d e s i r e d by th e local e d ucational agency.

The r e t u r n on th e incen­

t i v e funding investment t o s t a t e and f e d e r a l departments of e d ucation has
been " . . . . t h e adoption of many i n n o v a t i o n s , the s u c ce ss f u l implementation
o f few, and t h e long-run c o n t i n u a t i o n o f s t i l l f e w e r . . . . " 5

There i s a

need to e v a l u a t e t h e i n c e n t i v e g r a n t approach and to determine ways and
means to maximize i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s so t h a t i t s i n t e n t might be b e t t e r
realized.
Statement o f t h e Problem
The problem in t h i s study was to determine t h e v a r i a b l e s which
i n f l u e n c e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d in n ovations in
v o c a tio n a l ed ucation .
The fo llo w in g r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s were s e t f o r t h :
1.

What f a c t o r s encourage in ce n tiv e -fu n d e d in n o v a t i v e
p r o j e c t s to become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n t o r e g u l a r
school o p e r a t i o n s ?

2.

What f a c t o r s disc o u rage t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
o f in novations so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n does
not occur?

Need f o r t h e Study
Educational p o l i c i e s and programs, a t a l l l e v e l s , a r e under c l o s e
s c r u t i n y by l e g i s l a t u r e s and t h e general p u b l i c .

5BERMAN, l o c . c i t .

Money a v a i l a b l e f o r

4

e du ca tio n i s l i m i t e d and s t r i n g e n t planning and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y measures
a r e being r e q u i r e d o f loca l ed u ca tio n al a g en c ie s.

The funds which a re

a v a i l a b l e f o r education must, t h e r e f o r e , be used e f f e c t i v e l y and
efficiently.

G e n era lly , p r o j e c t s which a r e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a f t e r

the funding ends r e p r e s e n t an e f f e c t i v e use o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e d o l l a r s .
However, t h i s d e s i r a b l e end does no t o f t e n occur.
Often, b e n e f i t s may accrue from p a r t i c i p a t i n g in an i n c e n t i v e funded p r o j e c t , even though i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n does n o t occur.

Both

i n d i v i d u a l s and e d u c a tio n a l ag en c ie s may p r o f i t from p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
an in n o v a tiv e e f f o r t .

However such b e n e f i t s , while im p o rtan t, a r e not

t h e a r e a o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h i s stud y.
All too o f t e n , when e x te r n a l funding ends, p r o j e c t s a r e e i t h e r
dropped and f o r g o t t e n , o r e l s e they may be i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d in a
haphazard and piecemeal f a s h i o n .

In o r d e r to b rin g o r d e r and reason

to t h i s s i t u a t i o n , and to sug g e st some bases on which to make p r e d i c ­
t i o n s about t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f p r o j e c t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , i t i s
n ecessary to i d e n t i f y t h o s e f a c t o r s ( a l s o c a l l e d v a r i a b l e s ) t h a t
f a c i l i t a t e and th ose t h a t hin der i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

The i d e n t i ­

f i c a t i o n of t h e s e f a c t o r s i s p r e c i s e l y th e o b j e c t o f t h e p r e s e n t
research.
Purpose of t h e Study
The f i r s t purpose o f t h i s study i s t o pr ovide i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n r e l a t e d i nfo rm a tio n to i n d i v i d u a l s from local school d i s t r i c t s who
a re c o n s i d e r i n g i n i t i a t i n g in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d p r o j e c t s .

Such informa­

t i o n can be used by school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p lan n ers as a guide t o

5

a s s i s t them to i n s u r e t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n w ill most l i k e l y occur
w ithin t h e i r d i s t r i c t .
A second purpose o f t h i s study i s t o provide s c h o l a r s and s t u d e n ts
o f planned change with useful info rm a ti o n on which to base f u t u r e
research.
A t h i r d purpose o f t h i s study i s t o provide in fo rm ation to i n c e n t i v e
g r a n t awarders concerning t h e key v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l ­
ization.

Knowledge of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s may enable p r o j e c t de velopers to

s t r u c t u r e t h e g r a n t awarding process and accompanying g u i d e l i n e s so t h a t
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , when d e s i r e d , i s most l i k e l y t o o ccur.
A f o u r t h purpose o f t h i s st udy i s to provide information t o t e a c h e r
e du ca to rs which may a i d them in t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n o f school p e rs o n nel.
Basic Assumptions f o r t h e Study
The fo llo w in g assumptions were made f o r t h i s study:
1.

That a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and implementors o f i n c e n t i v e funded p r o j e c t s r e l a t e d to a r e a s o f vo c a tio n a l
ed u catio n were s u f f i c i e n t l y well-informed con­
c e r n in g p r o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s so as t o enable them
t o r a t e t h e e x t e n t o f v a r i a b l e pr esence or
absence and t h e co rresp onding f a c i l i t a t i o n or
hinderance of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

2.

That, in a d d i t i o n to a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c i l i ­
t a t o r s o f each i n c e n t i v e - f u n d e d , in n o v a tiv e
p r o j e c t , t h e r e a r e a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s , c a l l e d
" s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s , " who, while not involved
o p e r a t i o n a l l y , a r e aware o f , and may i n f l u e n c e
t h e outcome o f , t h e p r o j e c t . I t i s assumed,
a l s o , t h a t such persons po ss es s s u f f i c i e n t
knowledge t o rank the v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of t h e i n c e n ti v e - fu n d e d
project.

3.

That a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a p p r o p r i a t e t o i s o l a t e
t h e key v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f in n o v atio n s in v o catio nal
e d u c a ti o n .

6

D e l im i ta ti o n s o f the Problem
The fo llo w in g were d e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study:
1.

This study involved only public secondary
institutions.

2.

This study was concerned only with innova­
t i o n s r e l a t e d t o a r e a s o f v oc atio n a l educa­
t i o n which were Michigan Department of
Education generated through t h e use o f a
" req u e st f o r pro po sa ls" process.

3.

The study involved only tho se p r o j e c t s which
rec e iv e d f e d e r a l monies channeled through
t h e Michigan Department of Education.

4.

The study was concerned only with t h o s e p ro­
j e c t s f o r which t h e r e had been an e x p e c t a t i o n
t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n would occur a f t e r
funding cea sed.

5.

The study involved only th o se p r o j e c t s f o r
which i n c e n t i v e funding had occu rred no more
than f i v e y e a r s be fo re t h e time t h i s r e s e a r c h
was s t a r t e d (1977); p r o j e c t d u r a t i o n was from
two to t h r e e y e a r s ; funding t e r m i n a t i o n oc­
cu rr e d a t l e a s t one y e a r before t h i s r e s e a r c h
was approved (1978).

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
Adoption - A d e c i s i o n t o co ntin ue f u l l use o f an i n n o v a t i o n . 6
Adoption Process - The mental and physical p ro ce ss es through which
an i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) p asses from f i r s t he arin g about an innovation
to fin al adoption.7
Change - A l t e r a t i o n in t h e g o a l s , s t r u c t u r e o r p ro ce ss o f a
system .8

^ROGERS, E v e r e tt M. D iffusio n o f I n n o v a t i o n s , p. 17.
MacMillan Company, New York, 1962.

The Free P r e s s ,

7Ibid.
Q

MILES, Matthew B. ( e d . ) .
Innovations in E d ucation, p. 13.
College P r e s s , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , New York, 15)64.

Teachers

7

ESEA - Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965.
Implementation - The t r a n s l a t i o n o f p r o j e c t plans i n t o p r a c t i c e . 9
I n c e n t i v e Funding - The p r o v i s i o n of temporary funds to educa­
t i o n a l ag en c ie s f o r t h e i n i t i a t i o n and development of e d u c a ti o n a l
i n n o v a tio n s.
I n t e g r a t i o n - The process which occurs when an in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t
l o s e s i t s s p e c i a l s t a t u s and becomes p a r t o f t h e r o u t i n i z e d
behavior o f t h e d i s t r i c t . 10
I n i t i a t i o n - The c onception and i n t r o d u c t i o n o f new p r a c t i c e s . ^
Innovation - An id ea [o r] p r a c t i c e . . . p e rc eiv e d to be new by t h e
r e l e v a r i t u n i t o f a d o p t i o n . *2
I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n - I n t e g r a t i o n o f an i n c e n t i v e - f u n d e d i n n o v a t i v e
program i n t o r e g u l a r school o p e r a t i o n s .
ISP - I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t .
Local Education Agencies (LEA) - P u b lic e d u ca tio n a g en c ie s such as
secondary s c h o o l s , community c o l l e g e s , i n t e r m e d i a t e school
d istricts.
Local School D i s t r i c t (LSD) - Pub lic school d i s t r i c t s in c l u d i n g
grades K-12.
MDE - Michigan Department of Education.
O r g a n iz a tio n a l Change - Any planned o r unplanned a l t e r a t i o n o f th e
s t a t u s quo which a f f e c t s t h e s t r u c t u r e , t ec hn o lo g y, and human
r e s o u r c e s o f t h e t o t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . 13
RFP - Request f o r p r o p o s a l .

Q

ZALTZMAN, Gerald ( e d . ) . Processes and Phenomena o f Social Change,
p. v i i . John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973.

^HELMER, 0 . , op. c i t . , p. 258.
12I b i d , p. 95.
13LIPPITT, Gordon L. V i s u a l i z i n g Change, p. 37. N.T.L. - Learning
Resources C o r p o r atio n , F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a , 1973.

8

Secondary - (For t h e purpose o f t h i s stu d y) a term r e f e r r i n g to
grades 9-12.
S t r a t e g y - A means ( u s u a l l y in v o lv i n g a sequence o f s p e c i f i e d
a c t i v i t i e s ) f o r c au sin g an advocated in no v atio n t o become
s u c c e s s f u l l y i n s t a l l e d in an on-going e d u c a tio n a l system.
V a r ia b le - F a c t o r ( s ) i n f l u e n c i n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f
innovations.
VEA - Vocational Education Amendments, 1968.
Vocational Education - Organized e d u c a ti o n a l programs which a r e
d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s f o r paid
or unpaid employment, o r f o r a d d i t i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a
c a r e e r r e q u i r i n g o t h e r than a b a c c a l a u r e a t e o r advanced d e g r e e . 15
VTES - V oc a tio n a l- T e c h n ic a l Education S e r v i c e , a u n i t w i t h i n t h e
Michigan Department of Education.
Summary
This c h a p t e r has provided an overview of t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s stu d y ;
t h a t i s , t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n of in n o v a t i o n s in v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a ti o n .

Chapter 2 w i l l

r e p o r t on s e l e c t e d s t u d i e s which have b e a r i n g upon t h i s s t u d y .

Chapter 3

w i l l d e s c r i b e t h e r e s e a r c h design use d, and Chapter 4 w i l l p r e s e n t t h e
findings of t h i s study.

The f i n a l c h a p t e r w ill summarize t h e st u d y ,

draw c o n c lu s io n s and p r e s e n t recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h in
th e area of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of innovations.

14MILES, Matthew B. ( e d . ) , op. c i t . , p. 19.
15

The Annual and Long Range S t a t e Plan f o r Vocational Education, 1977-78.
Michigan Department o f E duca tion, Third Working"Drafts

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
I n t e r e s t in t h e broad a re a of change has been g r e a t in r e c e n t y e a r s .
An e x t e n s i v e l i s t of r e f e r e n c e s can be found which in one way or a n o th e r
r e l a t e t o t h e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f change.

T h e r e f o r e , t h e purpose o f t h i s

c h a p t e r was to s y n t h e s i z e s e l e c t e d a r e a s in the l i t e r a t u r e c o n sid e r e d t o
have t h e most b e a rin g upon t h i s st udy.
fied:

The f o l lo w in g a r e a s were i d e n t i ­

(1) s o c i a l and e d u c a ti o n a l change; (2) i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of

e d u c a ti o n a l change; and (3) governmental a t t e m p t s t o encourage innova­
tion.

Research f i n d i n g s in t h e s e a r e a s provided t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s study.

SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL CHANGE
Social and e d u c a ti o n a l change r e s e a r c h has c o n c e n t r a t e d upon how
t o ach iev e change.

Less emphasis has been placed upon i n s u r i n g con­

t i n u a n c e o f t h e in n o v a tio n o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

The l i t e r a t u r e

abounds w ith s t u d i e s con ce rn in g programs and t e c h n o l o g i e s o f planned
change and conceptual t o o l s f o r t h e change a g e n t ; y e t t h e r e i s l e s s
i n f o r m a tio n con ce rning long range e f f e c t s and c o n t i n u a t i o n .

Concentra­

t i o n i s o f t e n upon an i n d i v i d u a l ' s change p r o c e ss r a t h e r than upon t h e
i n f l u e n c e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g .
L e w i n ^ s t a t e d t h a t t o u nders tand change, t h e r e s e a r c h e r must
ta k e i n t o acc ount both t h e p e r s o n ( s ) involved and t h e environment in

16

LEWIN, Kurt. P r i n c i p l e s o f Topological Psychology, p. 12.
H ill Book Company, New York, 1936.
9

McGraw-

10
which change i s d e s i r e d .

Change occurs as a r e s u l t o f the i n t e r a c t i o n

between th e in divid ua l and h i s environment with the o rg a n i z a t i o n a l s e t ­
t i n g e x e r t i n g c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f lu e n c e upon the i n d i v i d u a l ' s acceptance o r
r e j e c t i o n of change.

An und erstan ding of p e o p l e 's m o tiv a tio n and the

c o m p lex itie s of t h e i r environment i s n ecessary.
The i n t r a p e r s o n a l a s p e c t s o f change must be emphasized, bu t t h e r e
i s a l s o a need t o c o n s i d e r e x te r n a l i n f l u e n c e s .

Because most i n d i v i d u a l s

o p e r a t e w ith in an o rg a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , change in an i n d i v i d u a l ' s
behavior and a t t i t u d e s toward innovation i s in flu e n ce d g r e a t l y by t h a t
setting.

I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o i n f l u e n c e t h e o r g a n i z a 17
t i o n ' s r e a c t i o n to change. According to Mann,
D i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t s , d i f f e r e n t methods, d i f f e r e n t
s e t t i n g s , d i f f e r e n t t r a i n i n g u n i t s and d i f f e r e n t
change agents c o n ta in d i f f e r e n t m o tiv a tio n al
impacts f o r change.
Stages o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change as d e sc r ib e d by Hage and Aiken^S
may be l a b e l e d as e v a l u a t i o n , i n i t i a t i o n , implementation, and r o u t i n i z a tion.

"The f o u r t h s t a g e , r o u t i n i z a t i o n , i s a period in which the

o r g a n i z a t i o n a tte m p ts t o s t a b i l i z e t h e e f f e c t s o f a new

p ro g ra m ." ^

This s t a g e i s the same as i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n as used in t h i s study.

17

18

MANN, Floyd C. "Studying and Creating Change: A Means to Under­
s ta nd in g Social O r g a n i z a t i o n ," pp. 146-147, in: Research in
I n d u s t r i a l Human R e l a t i o n s , I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s Research Associat i o n , P u b l i c a t i o n 17, 1957.
HAGE, J e r a l d , and AIKEN, Michael. Social Change in Complex Organiza­
t i o n s , pp. 93-104. Random House, New York, 1970.

19I b i d , p. 93.

n
According to th e a u t h o r s , t h e r o u t i n i z a t i o n s t a g e i s in p a r t i c u l a r need
of f u r t h e r study and assessment.

U nfo rtu n ate ly t h i s s t a g e has r e c e i v e d

too l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n in vario us s t u d i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 2^

Because

almost no s t u d i e s have emphasized t h i s s t a g e , " i t is d i f f i c u l t t o
sp e c i f y reasons t h a t some (new) programs a r e r e t a i n e d and o t h e r s a re
allowed t o d i e . "2^
Many e x i s t i n g ideas about s o c i a l change may n o t f i t the response
o f t h e e d u ca tion al system to t h e pro cess o f change and in n o v a tio n .
They may be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r b u s i n e s s , a g r i c u l t u r e , and medicine where
r e s e a r c h and development p ro ce ss es deal with product o r i e n t e d a c t i v ­
i t i e s ; whereas in education t h e focus i s upon t h e human element.
According t o Carlson22 most r e s e a r c h on in n ov atio n i s c o n c e n tr a te d
upon i n d i v i d u a l , independent p r a c t i t i o n e r s which is l e s s a p p r o p r i a t e
f o r e du cational i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Because e d u ca tion al in n o v atio n s move

through complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s , many v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t to dete rm ine
their fate.

Carlson notes t h a t t h e r e has been "a la c k of concern with

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l th eo ry even though u s e r s of e d u ca tio n al inn o vatio n s
a r e e i t h e r p a r t of complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s or a r e complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s . " 2^

20I b i d , pp. 93-104.
21 I b i d , p. 104.
22

Research I m p lic a tio n s f o r Education D i f f u s i o n , pp. 1-28. Major Papers
Prese nted a t the National Conference on D iffusio n of Educational Ideas,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1968.

23I b i d , p. 26.

12

C a r ls o n 's p o i n t i s r e i n f o r c e d by Rogers and J a i n ^ who s t a t e t h a t
p a s t r e s e a r c h e r s have focused upon th e in divid ua l as a u n i t of a n a l y s i s .
Emphasis has been upon i n t r a p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s .
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s have been excluded.

Social s t r u c t u r a l and

In edu catio n the in d iv id u a l

works in an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g ; t h e r e f o r e t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s en v iro n ­
mental i n f lu e n c e s upon in novation and the i n d i v i d u a l s involved must be
co n sid ere d .
Lin

25

s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a need t o bring r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n upon

t h e pr ocess surrounding th e implementation o f i n n o v a t i o n s .

Emphasis

must be placed upon the assessment of t h e e f f e c t s o f in novation upon
t h e ed uca tio nal system as well as th e d e te r m i n a ti o n o f t h e de gree of
su ccess o f an in no vation .

An asse ss ment of an e d u ca tio n al sy s te m 's

i n t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s plus an a n a l y s i s o f i n f l u e n c i n g e x te r n a l f a c t o r s
and p r e s s u r e s must occur.
According to Culver and

H o b a n ,^

much of t h e c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e

emphasizes g e n e r a l i z e d concepts about change, i n c l u d i n g d e s c r i p t i o n s
o f s t r a t e g i e s used t o implement change.

Emphasis i s upon what t h e

change process should look l i k e and how change should occur.

D e sc r ip tio n s

24I b i d , pp. 65-101.
25I b i d , pp. 103-109.
26

27

BENTZEN Mary M. ( e d . ) . Changing Schools: The Magic F eath er P r i n c i p l e ,
p. 186. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1974.
CULVER, Carmen J . , and HOBAN, Gary J . ( e d s . ) . The Power to Change:
Iss ues f o r t h e In novative Educator. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, 1973.

13

of change w i t h i n th e edu ca tion al s e t t i n g o f t e n f a i l to c o n s i d e r th e
r e a l i t i e s o f change which i n f lu e n c e t h e outcome of inn ovation.

Gaps

o f t e n occur between what l i t e r a t u r e says about the change pr ocess and
reality its e lf.
In the m i d - s i x t i e s the dominant approach o f change l i t e r a t u r e in
e d u catio n concerned t h e f e a t u r e s and c o n te n t of change pro cesses nec­
e s s a r y f o r t h e management of ed uca tio nal in n o v a tio n .
Miles

28

At t h a t time,

emphasized t h e need to know why in novation spreads a t d i f f e r e n t

r a t e s , what causes r e s i s t a n c e t o change, and why s t r a t e g i e s of change
succeed o r f a i l .
Bushnell and Rappaport^9 concur w ith c i t e d r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t t r a d i ­
t i o n a l change s t r a t e g i e s c o n c e n t r a t e p r i m a r il y upon t h e in d iv i d u a l as
t h e locus o f power and ig nore the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e r e c e i v i n g i n s t i ­
tution.

They p o i n t out t h a t change s t r a t e g i e s must deal with i n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l b a r r i e r s as well as with the defense s and b a r r i e r s s e t f o r t h
by the i n d i v i d u a l .

As o t h e r s have noted, Bushnell and Rappaport s t a t e d

t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s shape and mold t h e behavior o f i n d i v i d u a l s as much
as or more than t h o s e persons in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n shape and mold t h e
organization.

These au th o rs propose t h a t a systems approach to the

study o f change be c o n sid e r e d .

Such an approach would allow f o r t h e

examination of v a r i a b l e s , e . g . , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms, t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e

2®MILES, Matthew B . , op. c i t . , pp. 10-26.
29BUSHNELL, David S . , and RAPPAPORT, Donald ( e d s . ) . Planned Change in
Education: A Systems Approach. H a rco urt, Brace, Jovanovich, I n c . ,
New York, 1971.

14

f u n c t i o n s , i n e r t i a , v e s t e d i n t e r e s t s , e t c . , w i t h in a system which i n f l u ­
ence the expected r e s u l t s of change.
Before t h e l a t e s i x t i e s t h e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s a p au city
o f knowledge concerning the c o n d i t i o n s which in f lu e n c e the implementa­
t i o n o f in novation w it h in an o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Innovations introduced i n to

education o f t e n d id not y i e l d intended e f f e c t s , o f t e n because o f inade­
qu ate implementation s t r a t e g i e s .

Gross and o t h e r s s t a t e t h a t i t i s

impo rtant t o examine and understand t h e c ir cu m sta n ces i n f lu e n c i n g
implementation so t h a t intended e f f e c t s r e s u l t . ^
More r e c e n t l y , r e s e a r c h seems to r e i n f o r c e the idea t h a t the s t a t e
of an o r g a n i z a t i o n in f lu e n c e s t h e probable succe ss of t h e change e f f o r t .
Studies of edu ca tio nal change and in novation have begun

to examine and

i s o l a t e v a r i a b l e s which i n h i b i t o r f a c i l i t a t e t h e implementation of
planned change, th us l e a d in g to o r d e t r a c t i n g from i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
Donald L. Michael,

in t h e a r t i c l e " I n h i b i t o r s and F a c i l i t a t o r s

to t h e Acceptance o f Educational I n n o v a t i o n s ," i d e n t i f i e s f a c t o r s which
may i n h i b i t , t r a n s fo r m , or diminish inte nded e f f e c t s o f educational
i nn o vation .
1.

I n h i b i t i n g f a c t o r s may be c a t e g o r i z e d a s :
i d e o l o g i c a l , i . e . , a l a c k o f commitment to
t h e development and use o f educational
goals and o b j e c t i v e s ;

30GR0SS, Neal; GIACQUINTA, Joseph B .; and BERNSTEIN, Marilyn. Implement­
ing O rga n iz atio n al Innovations: A So c io lo g ic al An alysis o f Planned
Educational Change! Basic Books, I n c . , New York, 1971.
31

HIRSCH, Werner Z . , and Colle ague s. Inventing Education f o r t h e F u t u r e ,
pp. 268-279. Chandler Pub lish in g Company, San F ra n cis co , C a l i f o r n i a ,
1967.

15

2.

i n t e r p e r s o n a l , i . e . , th e a t t i t u d e s p r e v a i l i n g
and degree o f unde rstand ing o f a l l p a r t i e s
involved in th e implementation o f t h e innova­
tion;

3.

i n s t i t u t i o n a l , i . e . , the pro cedu res, r u l e s ,
and r e g u l a t i o n s which d e f i n e a c t i v i t i e s
w i t h in an . i n s t i t u t i o n and between the
i n s t i t u t i o n and i t s c l i e n t e l e ; and

4.

p o l i t i c a l , i . e . , p o l it i c a l vested i n te r e s ts
which determine r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n and
i n f lu e n c e circ um stance s a f f e c t i n g change.

Michael a l s o i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s which may be used d e l i b e r ­
a t e l y to f a c i l i t a t e in n o v a tio n .

Such f a c i l i t a t o r s a r e :

1.

s o c i a l trauma or d i s a s t e r , e . g . , i n t e g r a t i o n ,
women's movement, environmental and energy
issues;

2.

f e d e r a l government i n t e r v e n t i o n , e . g . , l e g i s l a ­
t i o n , p o l i c i e s , funding; and

3.

the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f th e i n t e r f a c e s , i . e . ,
brid ges between t h e i n t e r n a l environment
( t h e s c h o o l , t e a c h e r s , s t u d e n t s , e t c . ) and
the e x te r n a l environment ( P . T . A ., mass
media, school boards).

Gross, G ia cq u in ta , and Bern stein32 p o s t u l a t e d in 1971 t h a t i f th e
i n i t i a t i o n phase of an in n o vatio n i s well handled, or i t s problems a r e
adequate ly d e a l t with by school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , t h a t t h e implementation
of t h e in novation w ill r e a d i l y o ccur.

B a r r i e r s which a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

must c o n f r o n t include:

32

1.

l a c k of c l a r i t y r e g a r d in g t h e n a t u r e of
the inn o v atio n ;

2.

la c k o f s k i l l s and knowledge or c a p a b i l i t y
t o implement t h e in n ov ation ;

GROSS, e t a l , op. c i t .

16

3.

no a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the necessary m a t e r i a l s
and equipment f o r implementation;

4.

b a sic in c o m p a t a b il i ty o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
arrangements or s t r u c t u r e with the innova­
t i o n i t s e l f ; and

5.

lack o f w i l l i n g n e s s to expend the time,
money, and e f f o r t needed f o r implementa­
t i o n (although th e innovation i s i n i t i a l l y
accepted).

D i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s of o b s t a c l e s may s u r f a c e in e f f o r t s to implement
d i f f e r e n t kinds o f i n no v atio n s.

T herefo re, t h e unique q u a l i t i e s o f

each innovation must be considered when implementation and i n s t i t u t i o n ­
a l i z a t i o n a r e attem pted.

The f u n c t i o n o f t h e school a d m i n i s t r a t o r

must be t h e p r o v i s i o n o f support and commitment t o t h e in novation and
to t h o s e attem p tin g implementation.

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE
In s p i t e o f l a r g e o u tla y s o f money, time, and e f f o r t t o promote
innovation in the p u b lic sc h o o l s , r e l a t i v e l y few innovations have
survived and become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d w ith in t h e school s e t t i n g .

Most

innovations a r e implemented poorly and continuance i s o f t e n minimal,
a t b e s t , according t o se v e r a l s t u d i e s (Huse, 1975; Cogan, 1976; and
Rand, 1974-76).
Research emphasizing th e s t r a t e g i e s and p ro cesses surrounding a l l
a s p e c t s o f change in th e ed u ca tio n al s e t t i n g has i n c r e a s e d .

In the

e a r l y and m id - s e v e n ti e s e ducational r e s e a r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y in th e are a
o f in novation i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , has a c c e l e r a t e d .

17

In t h e e a r l y s e v e n t i e s Rogers and Shoemaker33 i d e n t i f i e d a t t r i b u t e s
o f s u c c e s s f u l i n n o v a t i v e programs.

R e l a t i v e advantage, c o m p a t i b i l i t y ,

s i m p l i c i t y o f use , t r i a l a b i l i t y , o b s e r v a b i l i t y , low c o s t s , a c c e p t a b l e
time c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , r e a s o n a b l e space requirem ents and s i z e , and
a c c e p t a b l e s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s a r e a t t r i b u t e s commonly found in s u c c e s s ­
ful innovative p ro je c ts .

Of t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s Dunn and Bowers3^ s t a t e

t h a t th e most c r i t i c a l f a c t o r s in i n n o v a t i v e v o c a t io n a l e d u ca tio n p ro­
grams a r e probably c o s t s , r e a s o n a b l e space and s i z e r e q u i r e m e n ts , and
com patibility.

In t h e i r o p i n i o n , s i m p l i c i t y o f use and t r i a l a b i l i t y

a r e probably t h e l e a s t c r i t i c a l .
Howes33 in r e s e a r c h conducted in 1974 and 1976 i d e n t i f i e d p r e d i c t o r
v a r i a b l e s which a r e c r i t i c a l t o t h e implementation o f in n o v atio n s and
which can lead t o s u c c e s s f u l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Such v a r i a b l e s

in v olv e the change i t s e l f , t h e change p r o c e s s , change r o l e s and t h e
formal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e .

In l a t e r r e s e a r c h , Howes36 a ttem p ted

to develop a model f o r p r e d i c t i n g outcomes o f change e f f o r t s a c r o s s

33R0GERS, E .L ., and SHOEMAKER, Floyd F.
2nd e d . , Free P r e s s , New York, 1971.
on

35

Communication o f I n n o v a t i o n s .

DUNN, James A., and BOWERS, John E. Vocational Education Curriculum
S p e c i a l i s t P r o j e c t , American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, Palo A lto ,
C a l i f o r n i a , 1976. Module I I .
HOWES, Nancy J .
" F a c t o r s Related t o t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f
Changes in Divergent O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e
Annual Meeting o f t h e N o r t h e a s t e r n Research A s s o c i a t i o n , E l l e n v i l l e ,
New York, October, 1976.

3®H0WES, Nancy J .
"A Contingency Model f o r P r e d i c t i n g I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n o f I n n o vatio ns Across D iverg ent O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d
a t AERA Annual Meeting, New York, New York, A p r i l , 1977.

18
d i v e r g e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s , elementary sc h o o l s , i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h igh er
e d u c a tio n , and c o r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , which was based upon t h e
predictor variables.

As a r e s u l t , t h r e e s e t s o f i m p l i c a t i o n s were

de riv e d from t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s .

The f i r s t ,

i m p l i c a ti o n s f o r

i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f change, p e r t a i n s d i r e c t l y t o t h e s u b j e c t o f
th is research.
Howes s t a t e s t h a t to i n s u r e t h e g r e a t e s t degree o f su c ce ss ful
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , managers o f change should o r g a n i z e t h e i r a c t i v ­
i t i e s around (1) t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of th e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o a c c e p t the
proposed change and (2) a s s i s t a n c e to t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h e imple­
m entation of t h e c h a n g e .37

Both types o f a c t i v i t i e s should be well

t h o u g h t - o u t and planned b e fo r e t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e .

Preparation of th e

o r g a n i z a t i o n in clud es i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e change so t h a t i t i s e a s i l y
unde rstood; i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e q u i r e d s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s ;
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the req uire ments of in d iv i d u a l p a r t i c i p a n t s and nec­
e s s a r y r o l e changes; d e s c r i p t i o n s o f r o l e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a l l
involv ed; and development o f t h e acceptance and s u p p o r t o f a p p r o p r i a t e
adm inistrators.

O rg a n iz a tio n a l a s s i s t a n c e du rin g implementation inclu d es

such th in g s as t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f needed s u p p o r t s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s ;
development of communication channels which can be f r e e l y used; p r o ­
v i s i o n of feedback; and r e l a x a t i o n of normal r u l e s and p ro ce du res, i f
appropriate.

Howes a l s o notes t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) in t h e change

agent r o l e should m a in ta in f r e q u e n t and in d iv i d u a l c o n t a c t with th e

37Ib id , p. 8.

19
use rs o f the inn o vatio n.

Individ ual u se r s must f e e l involved in the

in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t t o make a change e f f o r t .
Aspects importan t to the t r a n s f e r a l o f s u c ce ss f u l educational
programs and t h e i r subsequent i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n have been i d e n t i ­
f i e d by t h e National D iffu sio n Network (NDN)^ in a c o l l e c t i o n of case
s t u d i e s d e s c r i b i n g t h e ex perien ces o f NDN f i e l d s i t e s .

The case

s t u d i e s i l l u s t r a t e c l e a r l y t h a t suc ce ss fu l edu ca tion al change depends
upon p e ople ; y e t a l s o n ote t h a t t h e r e a re f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t s
to c o n s i d e r when a tt e m p t in g to t r a n s f e r su c ce ss ful e d u ca tion al pro­
grams.

These a re :
1.

Awareness^9
I t i s important to l e a r n about and understan d
th e in novation be fore a tt e m p t in g to i n i t i a t e
it.

2.

Matchmaking o r e x p lo rin g t h e f i t ^ 0
Successful ad op tio n o f an in n ov atio n depends
upon t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s re c o g n iz in g and
d e f i n i n g a need. When t h e adopting u n i t
i n v e s t s time and e f f o r t a s s e s s i n g th e innova­
t i o n and i t s e l f , su ccess i s more l i k e l y .

3.

J o i n t d e c i s i o n making o r making t h e commitment^
I n d i v i d u a l s involved in managing and imple­
menting an inn ovation must be involved in
d e c i s i o n making concerning th e in n o vation i f
commitment from a l l l e v e l s i s t o occur. In

38

T r a n s f e r r i n g Success. National D iffu sio n Network, Far West Laboratory
f o r Educational Research and Development, San F r a n c i s c o , March, 1976.

39I b i d , p. 3.
4 0 I b i d , p. 27.

20

a d d i t i o n t o th o se immediately involved with
t h e in n o v a tio n , su p po rt and involvement
from the l a r g e r community i s important f o r
commitment t o c o n tin u e and t o m aintain the
in n o v a tiv e e f f o r t .
4.

T rain in g o r p rep a rin g f o r use o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n ^
Organized t r a i n i n g and implementation a s s i s t a n c e
must occur f o r th e in no v atio n to be s u c c e s s f u l .
An u nd e rs tan d in g of th e philosophy and processes
which u n d e r l i e t h e in n ov ation must evolve t o be
a b le t o implement i t s u c c e s s f u l l y . T r a in in g in
p r o j e c t management as well as in p r o j e c t c o n t e n t
in c r e a s e s th e change of su ccessfu l implementa­
tion.

5.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n or s t a b i l i z i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n ^
NDN f i e l d s i t e e x p erien c es showed t h a t adoption and
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n cannot be bought. Money from
o u t s i d e sources can be used t o encourage and stimu­
l a t e in n ov atio n but commitment t o the in novation
i s n e c e s s a r y from t h e o n s e t of t h e e f f o r t so t h a t
th e end o f t h e e x t e r n a l funding does not mean t h e
end o f t h e program or p r o j e c t .

National D iffu sio n Network e x p e r i e n c e s r e i n f o r c e Howe's conclusi on
t h a t adequate planning and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r change, and a s s i s t a n c e during
change a r e extremely im portant f a c t o r s in developing i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d
inn ovations w ith in the p u b l ic sc h o o ls.
As a r e s u l t of a study about elementary school team te a c h i n g ,
Packard and J o v i c k ^ i d e n t i f i e d measures o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y f o r success
up t o t h e co n clu sio n of t h e implementation s t a g e .

P r e d i c t o r s proposed

42I b i d , p. 79.
43I b i d , p. 99.
PACKARD, John S . , and JOVICK, Thomas. " P r e d i c t i n g Success in Innova­
t i o n , " MITT P r o j e c t , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, March,
1978.

21

were t h e degree o f t e a c h e r se nse o f m as tery over t h e i n n o v a t i o n , th e
degree o f t e a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e d e c i s i o n p rocess about i n s t a l ­
l i n g t h e i n n o v a t i o n , t h e l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by t e a c h e r s in t h e
decision-making p r o c e s s , and t h e j u d i c i o u s use o f c o n s u l t a n t s f o r a d v i s e ­
ment r a t h e r than d i r e c t i o n .

I t was found a l s o t h a t t h e f a c u l t i e s of

t h e sc ho o ls having t h e most s u c c e s s f u l i n n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s in team
t e a c h i n g were predisp o sed t o c o l l a b o r a t i v e b e h av ior.

Such t h i n g s as

school s i z e and t h e autonomy o f i n d iv i d u a l sc h oo ls from c e n t r a l o f f i c e
c o n t r o l seemed t o have l i t t l e long term e f f e c t on t h e suc ce ss o f t h e
in n o v atio n .

However, i t was s t r e s s e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t p r e d i c ­

t i o n using t h e s e measures was p o s s i b l e o nly through t h e implementation
stage.
According t o Dunn and

B o w ers,^

t h e r e a r e s i x c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which

help i n s u r e t h a t an i n n o v a t i v e program in v o c a t io n a l e d u c a ti o n w i l l be
m ain tain ed and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d .

These fo llo w .

1.

Continual reward should be g iven t o t h e u se r .

2.

Time should be p rovided so t h a t t h e in novation
can be p r a c t i c e d u n t i l i t becomes a r o u t i n e
procedure.

3.

The i n n o v a tio n should be s t r u c t u r a l l y i n t e g r a t e d
i n t o t h e system.

4.

The i n n o v a tio n should be e v a l u a t e d c o n t i n u a l l y
to assure i t s appropriateness.

5.

The in n o v a t i o n should have a maintenance system
t o ensu re t h a t a l l components a r e in o r d e r .

^DUNN, James A ., and BOWERS, John E ., op. c i t . , p. 73.

22

6.

There should be a c o n ti n u i n g a d a p t a t i o n cap ­
a b i l i t y so t h a t changes in t h e u se r system
a r e r e f l e c t e d in t h e i n n o v a tio n .

C o n s i d e r a t io n s d i s c u s s e d by Dunn and Bowers were d e r i v e d from
Havelock's46 r e s e a r c h conducted t o a s s i s t e x t e r n a l change a g en ts in
achiev ing t h e s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n .

When c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n

i s given t o t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , school d i s t r i c t personnel a r e b e t t e r
a b l e t o i n t e r n a l i z e t h e philo so ph y , p r o c e s s e s and pro d ucts o f t h e
innovation.

Such i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n i s im portant i f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n

i s t o occur.
Gaddis^? r e c e n t l y conducted a stu dy t o dete rm ine t h e o r g a n i z a ­
t i o n a l and personal v a r i a b l e s which p rev en ted s e l e c t e d e le m entary
s c h o o ls from i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g I n d i v i d u a l l y Guided Education (IGE).
Schools under stud y had d i s c o n t i n u e d IGE a f t e r f u n c t i o n i n g as IGE
sch o o ls f o r t h r e e o r more y e a r s .

Teachers surveyed c i t e d la c k of

t e a c h e r commitment as t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t cause o f d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n
of the e f f o r t .

B u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s , on t h e o t h e r hand, s t a t e d t h a t

i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f l i c t among t e a c h e r s was t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r .
D i s t r i c t o f f i c e personnel p e rc eiv e d t h a t t h e absence o f c o n ti n u i n g s t a f f
development was a s i g n i f i c a n t c au se o f d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n .

All groups

surveyed s t a t e d t h a t withdrawal o f lo ca l d i s t r i c t f i n a n c i a l su p p o rt
was a major cause f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f IGE in t h e i r sc h o o l s .

46

47

Other

HAVELOCK, Ronald G. A Guide t o Innovation in E du ca tion , I n s t i t u t e
f o r Social Research, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
1979, pp. 149-153.
GADDIS, Marilyn T y le r .
" O rg a n iz atio n al and Personal C o n s t r a i n t s on
t h e Success ful I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l l y Guided E d u ca tio n ,"
Technical Report No. 447, U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
Ja n u ary, 1978.

23

f a c t o r s which c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e demise o f IGE were t h e lack of t r a i n i n g
f o r new s t a f f members, and changes in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in
b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s , d u r i n g p r o j e c t implementation.
As a r e s u l t o f her r e s e a r c h , Gaddis concluded t h a t weakness in ,
or complete absence o f c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s o f t e n led t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f IGE.
D i s t r i c t s which had d i s c o n t i n u e d IGE a f t e r t h r e e y e a r s were weak
or l a c k in g in one or more o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s :
1.

lo n g -ran g e f i n a n c i a l commitment from t h e board
o f e d u c a ti o n ;

2.

p u b l i c a l l y s t a t e d commitment t o t h e p r o j e c t
by t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n ;

3.

s u p p o r t and commitment f o r t h e p r o j e c t by d i s ­
t r i c t o f f i c e personnel and b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s ;

4.

con tinuity of leadership;

5.

w e l l - p l a n n e d , comprehensive and continuous
s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s ; and

6.

open communication ch an nels among t e a c h e r s and
between t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

Gaddis' r e s e a r c h c o r r o b o r a t e s t h e f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r c i t e d r e s e a r c h t h a t
commitment and s u p p o r t o f a l l types and a t a l l l e v e l s a r e v i t a l t o t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of innovations.

GOVERNMENTAL ATTEMPTS TO
ENCOURAGE INNOVATION
The scope o f f e d e r a l a c t i v i t y in e d u c a tio n has expanded over t h e
p a s t two decades.

Through a v a r i e t y o f l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e f e d e r a l monetary

commitment t o e d u c a tio n has i n c r e a s e d .

Involvement o f s t a t e departments

24

of education in t h e s t i m u l a t i o n of in novation has a l s o grown as f e d e r a l
e f f o r t s have i n c r e a s e d .

Both l e v e l s use t h e i n c e n t i v e g r a n t approach

as a means t o encourage in n ov atio n a t t h e lo ca l school d i s t r i c t l e v e l .
L i t t l e has been done t o de termine t h e a c t u a l e f f e c t s of th e incen­
t i v e g r a n t approach.

Evaluation o b j e c t i v e s a r e u s u a l l y a p a r t o f the

g r a n t ; however, t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s u s u a l l y e v a l u a t e t h e goal a tt a i n m e n t
o f th e p r o j e c t during i t s funding p erio d and do not ad dre ss th e issu e
of "what happens when t h e money e n d s ."

In t h e p a s t , t h e r e have been

few follow-up e v a l u a t i o n s .
According to Kirst^S l i t t l e in fo rm ation e x i s t s on t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n
o f innovation p r o j e c t s or on t h e l a s t i n g impact o f f e d e r a l change-causing
efforts.

Furthermore, when da ta have been c o l l e c t e d , t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

has been so broad t h a t i t has been ren dered n e a r l y m ea ningl ess.

Kirst

s p e c u l a te s t h a t , a t the l o c a l l e v e l , f e d e r a l monies have l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e
on ach ieving l o n g - l a s t i n g change.
t h e i r temporary, u n c e r t a i n n a t u r e .

Inno v ativ e programs a r e hindered by
The " s o f t money" s t a t u s o f i n c e n t i v e -

funded p r o j e c t s may lea d to a " t h i s too s h a l l pass" a t t i t u d e on t h e p a r t
o f l o c a l pers o n nel.

In c e n t iv e - f u n d e d in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s may have l i t t l e

r e s i d u a l impact as t h e money can be withdrawn a t any tim e, and t h e r e f o r e ,
t h e p r o j e c t may be i s o l a t e d from the mainstream of d i s t r i c t a c t i v i t i e s .
I t i s K i r s t ' s premise t h a t f e d e r a l money which f i l t e r s through s t a t e
departments of ed ucation t o l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s i s no t meeting the
e x p e c ta ti o n s with which i t i s g r a n te d .

I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n does not

KIRST, Michael W. "The Growth and Limits o f Federal I n f l u e n c e in
E ducation," Occasional Paper 72-9, September, 1972, School o f
Education, Sta n ford U n i v e r s i t y .

25

occur t o t h e e x t e n t a n t i c i p a t e d in th e funding approach.

He s t a t e s t h a t

t h e impress ive p o t e n t i a l o f t h e i n c e n t i v e g r a n t approach is not achieved
because of:
1.

r a p i d l y s h i f t i n g p r i o r i t i e s o f t h e United S t a t e s
O f f i c e of Education;

2.

f l u c t u a t i n g n a ti o n a l commitment to edu ca tion al
change;

3.

m u l t i p l i c i t y o f o b j e c t i v e s t h a t l e a d s t o a la c k
o f primary g o a ls ;

4.

inadequ ate planning and lea d time f o r the sub­
m is sion o f p r o p o sa ls;

5.

inadequate p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e LEA; and

6.

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r i g i d i t y of t h o s e LEA's t h a t a re
n o t predispose d to change.

Thus, t h e f a i l u r e to achieve l a s t i n g change is a t t r i b u t e d both t o t h e
g r a n t i n g ag en c y's mode o f o p e r a t io n and t o t h e local school d i s t r i c t ' s
r e s p o n s e .*
A s i g n i f i c a n t study o f t h e f e d e r a l i n c e n t i v e g r a n t approach t o the
s t i m u l a t i o n o f e du ca tio nal in novation has been r e c e n t l y conducted by
Rand Corpor ation f o r th e United S t a t e s O f f i c e o f Education.

The two-

phase study address ed " f e d e r a l l y funded programs designed t o i n tr o d u c e
and spread i n n o v a t i v e p r a c t i c e s in p u b l ic

s c h o o l s . "49

Phase I reviewed

change r e s e a r c h a n d " . . . s t u d i e d loca l inn o vation s duri ng t h e i r l a s t o r
ne x t t o l a s t y e a r o f funding by f e d e r a l change a g e n t programs and the
r e s e a r c h focused on the i n i t i a t i o n and implementation o f t h e s e lo c a l

★
F u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f t h e above c o n c lu sio n s occu rred during a
teleph o n e c o n v e r s a t io n with Michael K i r s t on February 6, 1978.
^ 9BERMAN, P a u l, and McLAUGHLIN, Milbrey Wallin. Federal Programs Sup­
p o r t i n g Educational Change, Vol. I: A Model of ~Educational'"change,
p. i i i .
Rand C o rpo ratio n , Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , September, 1974.

26

projects."^®

"Phase II of the study . . . examined what happened t o inno

v a t i v e p r o j e c t s a f t e r the end o f th e f e d e r a l funding p e r i o d . . . . " 5 1
During Phase I o f t h e Rand Study, r e s e a r c h e r s concluded t h a t
. . . im p a c t - o r i e n t e d s t u d i e s of i n n o vativ e p r o j e c t s
have not produced g e n e r a l i z a b l e f i n d in g s because
they f a i l to deal with the i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e pro­
j e c t with i t s i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g ; and . . . imple­
men tation problems dominate t h e outcomes o f change
p rocesses in t h e e du cational system. 52
Much o f th e l i t e r a t u r e reviewed by Berman and McLaughlin c o n c e n tr a te d
upon t h e degree to which p r o j e c t s met t h e i r s t a t e d g o a ls .
s t u d i e s were concerned with th e i n t e r a c t i o n of th e

Very few

p r o j e c t s with t h e i r

respective in s titu tio n s .
Rand found two major a n a l y t i c a l approaches being used in changeoriented research:

F i r s t , an approach emphasizing a d o p ti o n , and second

an approach emphasizing implementation.
Planning, a d op tio n, and d isse m in a tio n comprise t h e former p e r ­
spective.

The i s su e s of implementation, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o r i n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l a d a p t a t i o n a r e n e g l e c t e d , and t h e method of change in an educa
t i o n a l s e t t i n g i s not e x pla in e d .
The more r e c e n t l y s t u d i e d implementation p e r s p e c t i v e , on the o t h e r
hand, d e f i n e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f su c c e ss f u l in no v atio n in terms o f i t s
s t r a t e g i e s and i n h i b i t i n g and f a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s .

Models of

BERMAN, Paul, and McLAUGHLIN, Milbrey W allin. Federal Programs Sup­
p o r t in g Educational Change, Vol. VII: F acto rs A ffe ctin g Implementa­
t i o n and C o n t in u a t io n , p. v. Rand Co rp o ratio n , Santa, Monica,
C a l i f o r n i a , A p r i l , 1977.
51 I b i d , p. v i .
52I b i d , pp. v - v i .

27

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior now become th e b a s i s f o r examining th e r e a l i t y
o f edu cational i n no v atio n .

Reports having an implementation perspec ­

t i v e concluded t h a t
. . . the most d i f f i c u l t and complex p a r t of the
problem of in novation has to do not with prea do p tive behav ior but with p o s t a d o p ti v e be­
h a v i o r , . . . with the process o f im p le m e nta tio n .53
On t h i s b a s i s , the i n i t i a t i o n of innovation i s not the i s s u e ; bu t r a t h e r
th e d i f f i c u l t i e s and o b s t a c l e s encountered d u rin g and fo llo w in g imple­
m entation become s i g n i f i c a n t .
D iffere n ce s between t h e a doption and implementation viewpoints a r e
due l a r g e l y to r e s p e c t i v e r es ea r ch t r a d i t i o n s .

The adoption p e r s p e c t iv e

i s based in medicine, a g r i c u l t u r e , and r u r a l s o c io lo g y .

Its central

concern i s the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r a t e s o f adop tion of in n o v a t i o n s .

The

assumption i s made t h a t in novations a r e r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e and have a
product o r i e n t a t i o n .

With such an o r i e n t a t i o n , goals and procedures

a r e s p e c i f i c ; t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between procedure and outcome i s c l e a r ;
c e r t a i n t y of outcome i s g e n e r a l l y p r e s e n t ; p a ssiv e u s e r involvement i s
most common; and s i n g l e i n d iv id u a l a d o p te r s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .
In c o n t r a s t , t h e implementation p e r s p e c t i v e has a base in educa­
t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and views in novation as an e v o lu t i o n a r y process i n ­
v olvin g the human element.
are p e rtin en t:

In the l a t t e r c a s e , t h e fo llo w in g a t t r i b u t e s

procedures may be incomplete and outcomes may be un­

c e r t a i n ; t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between in n o v a tiv e procedures and i n s t i t u t i o n a l
goals o f t e n i s u n c l e a r ; a c t i v e u se r involvement i s r e q u i r e d ; and i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l a do p te rs a r e invo lved.

53BERMAN and McLAUGHLIN, op. c i t . , p. 8.

28

Because o f the o f t e n v a r i a b l e and u n s t a b l e n a t u r e of e d u c a tio n a l
i n n o v a t i o n s , i t appears t h a t e v a l u a t i o n o f in n o v a t i o n s a p a r t from t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g may not be p o s s i b l e .

Since t h e in n o v a tio n may

a d j u s t to t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g o r th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g may
have to a d a p t to the in n o v a t i o n , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o compare s i m i l a r
in no v atio n s a c r o s s d i s s i m i l a r s e t t i n g s .

Researchers having an a doption

o r i e n t a t i o n may not c o n s i d e r t h i s v a r i a b i l i t y .
Researchers in the f i r s t phase o f t h e Rand Study found t h a t t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n s t a g e r e q u i r e s t h e most s e r i o u s commitment.

The

pro ce ss of i n t e g r a t i n g i n n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s i n t o p r e v a l e n t d i s t r i c t
p o l i c i e s and procedu res i s very complex.
Phase I I o f t h e Rand Study a d d r e s s e s t h e s e c o m p l e x i t i e s .

I t des­

c r i b e s t h e more f a r - r e a c h i n g e f f e c t s of f e d e r a l p o l i c i e s aimed a t
s t i m u l a t i n g l o c a l e d u c a tio n a l reform through t h e p r o v i s i o n o f i n c e n ­
t i v e funds.

The Rand r e s e a r c h e r s s p l i t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i n t o two

components:

(1) i n d iv i d u a l ( t e a c h e r ) i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n c a l l e d

a s s i m i l a t i o n , and (2) system ( d i s t r i c t ) i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n c a l l e d
incorporation.

Each component can occur w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r b u t f o r

complete i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n to tak e p l a c e , both must happen.
Classroom le v e l f i n d i n g s of t h e Rand Study i n d i c a t e t h a t a s s i m i ­
l a t i o n was dependent upon t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p r o j e c t implementation
and t h e degree o f t e a c h e r change a s c r i b a b l e t o t h e p r o j e c t .

I t was

found t h a t change a t t h e classroom le v e l depended l e s s on p r o j e c t con­
t e n t than how t h e p r o j e c t was c a r r i e d o u t .

Also, classroom change

depended more upon what t h e d i s t r i c t did with t h e f e d e r a l d o l l a r s than
upon t h e amount o f t h e g r a n t .

29

P r o j e c t s which r e q u i r e d s i g n i f i c a n t change by te a c h e r s were more
l i k e l y to r e s u l t in actual change, perhaps because t e a c h e r s tended t o
take such p r o j e c t s more s e r i o u s l y .

Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r o j e c t

d e c i s i o n s in creased t h e suc cess of implementation a c t i v i t i e s and
enhanced t h e chances f o r p r o j e c t c o n t i n u a t i o n .

Implementation s t r a t ­

e g i e s , such as t h e p r o v isio n of r e l a t e d s t a f f t r a i n i n g and s t a f f
su p p ort a c t i v i t i e s a f f e c t e d th e a s s i m i l a t i o n of th e p r o j e c t a t the
classroom l e v e l .

Leadership was found to be im p o rtan t f o r c o n t i n u a ­

t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y e a r l y and l a s t i n g su p p o rt by t h e p r i n c i p a l .

I t was

found t h a t a sense o f e f f i c a c y on t h e p a r t of t h e in divid ua l t e a c h e r
l e d t o i n c r e a s e d chances of a s s i m i l a t i o n .

Length o f t e a c h e r e x p e r ie n c e ,

on t h e o t h e r hand, n e g a t iv e l y in flu e n ce d p r o j e c t c o n t i n u a t i o n .

Re­

s e a r c h e r s found t h a t the more experienced t e a c h e r s were l e s s l i k e l y to
change because of t h e p r o j e c t ; t h e r e f o r e , a s s i m i l a t i o n was l e s s l i k e l y
to r e s u l t .
At t h e d i s t r i c t l e v e l , t h e Rand Study found f o u r f a c t o r s which
a f f e c t e d t h e school d i s t r i c t ' s c o n t i n u a t i o n

d e c i s i o n . 55

1.

cost

2.

o rg a n iz a tio n a l-p o litic a l considerations

3.

importance of t h e e d uca tio n al need served

4.

perceived p r o j e c t s u c c e s s .

These were:

Contin uatio n of an i n c e n t i v e - f u n d i n g p r o j e c t depended l e s s upon p e r­
ceived success than upon t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s .

54I b i d , pp. 70-149.
55I b i d , p. 153.

P r o j e c t s which were most

30

l i k e l y t o continue were those in which c o n t i n u a t i o n was intended from
t he o u t s e t .

The d i s t r i c t ' s i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e toward a s p e c i a l l y funded

p r o j e c t s e t s th e s t a g e f o r c o n t i n u a t i o n .

I f c o n t i n u a t i o n is planned

from t h e beginning, the f a c t o r s c i t e d above can be manipulated to
i n s u r e c o n t i n u a t i o n . 56
D i f f i c u l t i e s encountered in s u s t a i n i n g and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g
in novations f a l l i n t o t h r e e major c a t e g o r i e s :

f i n a n c i a l , p e rso n nel,

and p o l i t i c a l . 5?
The most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned d i s t r i c t problem in s u s t a i n i n g sp e c i a l
p r o j e c t s was t h e f i n a n c i a l one.

Often t h e d i s t r i c t has i n s u f f i c i e n t

reso u rce s to c a r r y on a p r o j e c t a t t h e d e s i r e d l e v e l o f o p e r a t i o n .

Unan­

t i c i p a t e d , hidden o p e r a t in g c o s t s a n d /o r f a i l u r e i n i t i a l l y to d e s i g n a t e
money f o r nece ssary su pport s e r v i c e s may be a t t h e r o o t of t h i s problem.
Some d i s t r i c t s had t r o u b l e s u s t a i n i n g s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s because they
continued to be viewed as s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s , even a f t e r the f e d e r a l funds
ended.

This p e r p e t u a t i o n of s p e c i a l s t a t u s made th e p r o j e c t s v u l n e r a b le

t o t e r m i n a t i o n and r e a l l o c a t i o n o f money which might have been a v a i l a b l e
fo r continuation.

I t was found t h a t f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered

by local d i s t r i c t s o f t e n could have been pr ecluded by a p p r o p r i a t e bud­
g e ta ry a l l o c a t i o n s t h a t could have been planned f o r and p r e d i c t e d .
Personnel d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered in s u s t a i n i n g th e i n c e n t i v e
p r o j e c t s v a ri e d c o n s i d e r a b l y , but as with f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , were
"more o r l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e . " 5^

56I b i d , pp. 153-155.
57I b i d , pp. 166-172.
58I b i d , p. 170.

P r o j e c t c o n t i n u a t i o n was a f f e c t e d by

31
s t a f f tu r n o v e r which d i l u t e d p r o j e c t enthusiasm and e x p e r t i s e .

In some

p r o j e c t s , s t a f f r e s i s t a n c e proved to be a problem, p a r t i c u l a r l y when
e f f o r t s were made to in clu d e new t e a c h e r s .

An absence o f l e a d e r s h i p

and sup p o rt from t h e d i s t r i c t ' s c e n t r a l o f f i c e a n d /o r a l a c k of th e
p r i n c i p a l ' s s u p p o r t were c i t e d as personnel d i f f i c u l t i e s making in c o r ­
poration d i f f i c u l t .

Also, c o n t i n u a t i o n was d i f f i c u l t i f a p r o j e c t

d i r e c t o r l e f t a t t h e end of t h e funded p r o j e c t and was not r e p l a c e d ,
s i n c e h i s / h e r d e p a r t u r e c r e a t e d a "vacuum o f t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e ,
b u r e a u c r a t i c know-how and concern f o r the p r o j e c t . "59
With few e x c e p ti o n s , p o l i t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n f l u e n c i n g p r o j e c t
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n had to do with school board o r community accep­
tance o f t h e p r o j e c t .

Lack of acceptance o f t e n r e s u l t e d from lac k o f

knowledge and unders tanding of th e p r o j e c t , a t l e a s t in p a r t caused
by low p r o j e c t v i s i b i l i t y and i n e f f e c t i v e p u b l ic r e l a t i o n s .
The Rand Study found t h a t in many o f t h e p r o j e c t s s t u d i e d t h e r e
was g e n e r a l l y a f a i l u r e to plan adequate ly f o r p r o j e c t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
tion.

Those d i s t r i c t s who saw t h e f e d e r a l funds as "seed money" managed

funds and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s a c c o rd i n g l y .

Usually t h e i r p r o j e c t s became

a p a r t o f t h e d i s t r i c t ' s r e g u l a r o p e ra t io n s a f t e r fun ding ended.

A far

more common o ccu rren ce was an u n w illin g n e ss on t h e p a r t of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e f a t e o f t h e p r o j e c t s they i n i t i a t e d .

A

p r e v a l e n t a t t i t u d e found was th e f e e l i n g t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
f o r t h e in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t does n o t l i e with t h e lo ca l d i s t r i c t .

59I b i d , p. 171.

Rather,

32

i f t h e f e d e r a l government wants in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ,
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o f t e n f e e l t h e government should provide follo w -up fund­
ing f o r p r o j e c t maintenance.®^
S u pe rin te n dents o f school d i s t r i c t s which i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d ince n­
t i v e - f u n d e d p r o j e c t s p r e s e n te d su g g e s t i o n s to i n c r e a s e th e l i k e l i h o o d
o f p r o j e c t c o n t i n u a n c e . T h e y s t a t e d t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s not
an i s s u e to be co n sid ere d when t h e l a s t check a r r i v e s b u t must be planned
and begun a t t h e same time as t h e p r o j e c t proposal is developed. . I t
must be assumed t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of an
i n c e n ti v e - f u n d e d p r o j e c t .

Active measures must be taken from th e o u t s e t

to i n s u r e t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n w ill occur.
I n t e g r a t e d e f f o r t s must be made t o i n c o r p o r a t e th e in n o v a tiv e pro­
j e c t in a l l key school d i s t r i c t o p e r a t i o n s :

t h e e d u ca tion al program,

t he budget p r o c e s s , personnel pro ce du res, and s t a f f s u p p o r t a c t i v i t i e s .
Furthermore, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s m aintain ed t h a t su c ce ss es a chieved during
t h e g r a n t p e rio d must be h ig h ly v i s i b l e so t h a t necessary p r o j e c t sup­
p o r t and commitment can be o b tain ed a f t e r funding ends.
d i s t r i c t personnel a l s o i s an i m p o rtant c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

T rain in g of
All d i s t r i c t

personnel should be t r a i n e d to ha ndle what needs to be done t o continue
the p r o j e c t a f t e r funding ends.
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and f a c u l t y .
o f t h e school system.

60I b i d , pp. 172-178.

T raining should be provided to both

I t should occur in the r e g u l a r work sched ule

33

Throughout t h e Rand Study, r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t f u l l i n s t i t u t i o n ­
a l i z a t i o n occu rred r a r e l y in s p i t e o f t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e f e d e r a l
government.62

Researchers concurred with " . . . the growing b e l i e f t h a t

policymakers have ov e re stim a te d the i n f lu e n c e o f f e d e r a l i n c e n t i v e s on
local p r a c t i c e s .

. . . f e d e r a l e x p e c ta ti o n s need to be a d j u s t e d to t h e

r e a l i t y o f l i m i t e d f e d e r a l i n f l u e n c e . 1,63
Summary
Taken as a whole, t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t f a c i l i t a t i n g change
in an e du cational i n s t i t u t i o n i s a h igh ly complex t a s k .

I t i s an under­

tak i n g which r e q u i r e s c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n no t only o f the i n d i v i d u a l s
Involved in t h e proce ss and t h e innovation in q u e s t i o n , b u t a l s o o f th e
organizational s e ttin g i t s e l f .

Researchers agre e t h a t the s t a t e o f the

o r g a n i z a t i o n g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e s t h e probab le su ccess o f i n no v ativ e
efforts.
I n t e g r a t i n g in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t s i n t o r e g u l a r school o p e r a t i o n s
is d i f f i c u l t .

I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n r e q u i r e s s u b s t a n t i a l in d iv id ual and

i n s t i t u t i o n a l commitment.

Researchers agre e t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n

o f in no v atio n in t h e school s e t t i n g i s in need o f f u r t h e r stu dy .

They

concur t h a t t h e r e i s a need to i d e n t i f y and examine v a r i a b l e s which
f a c i l i t a t e and i n h i b i t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
The use o f i n c e n t i v e g r a n t s to encourage in novation makes an
a l r e a d y complex t a s k even more com plica te d.

R e a l i t i e s o f t h e school

62I b i d , p. 193.
63BERMAN, Paul, and McLAUGHLIN, MiIbrey W allin. Federal Programs Sup­
p o r t i n g Educational Change, Vol. VIII: Implementing and S u s t a i n i n g
I n n o v a t i o n s , p. 35, Rand C o r p o r atio n , S a n ta, Monica, CA, May, 1978.

34

s e t t i n g and e x p e c ta ti o n s of the funding agency must match i f l a s t i n g
change is to occur.

I t i s important t o i d e n t i f y and understand v a r i ­

a ble s which i n f lu e n c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i f t h e i n c e n t i v e g r a n t
approach i s to achieve i t s p o t e n t i a l .

Researchers in t h e a r e a of

educational change have begun to do j u s t t h a t .
The follo w in g conclusions can be drawn from t h e c i t e d r e s e a r c h
f i n d in g s .
I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n must be intended from th e o u t s e t o f an innova­
t i v e p r o j e c t f o r i t most l i k e l y to occur.

Planning f o r a l l a s p e c t s of

change and a p p r o p r i a t e res o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n a r e n ecessary to ach iev e
in stitu tionalization.

J o i n t decision-making in v o lv in g s e v e r a l l e v e l s

o f school personnel should occur with t h e i n i t i a t i o n of an i n c e n t i v e
g r a n t and c o n tinu e beyond i t s t e r m i n a t i o n .

Commitment and s u p p o r t of

school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e b u i ld i n g p r i n c i p a l s , a r e
important v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Implementation

s t r a t e g i e s , e s p e c i a l l y s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s , i n f l u e n c e p r o j e c t
c o n t i n u a t i o n a f t e r t h e funding pe rio d .
T h erefo re, one concludes t h a t the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n ­
a l i z a t i o n and the t o t a l process o f change a r e many and v a r i e d .

For

i n c e n t i v e g r a n t s e f f e c t i v e l y to bring about edu cational change, t h e s e
v a r i a b l e s must be i d e n t i f i e d , r e f i n e d and c o n sid e r e d .

Chapter 3

RESEARCH PROCEDURES
This c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e r e s e a r c h design of t h i s stu d y .
lowing elements a r e d isc u sse d :

The f o l ­

t h e p o p u l a t i o n , the s i t e and responden t

s e l e c t i o n , t h e survey in strum e n t, t h e p i l o t study, t h e survey p rocedure,
and t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e s u l t s .
Popu lation
The po p ulation f o r t h i s study c o n s i s t e d o f i n d i v i d u a l s a s s o c i a t e d
with 21 in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d i n n o vativ e p r o j e c t s r e l a t e d to v o c atio n a l educa­
t i o n in Michigan.

S i t e s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s o f t h e followin g

criteria:
1.

The in n ov atio n was MDE g e n er ate d through a
" r e q u e s t f o r proposa ls" p roce ss .

2.

Only p u b l ic secondary e ducational i n s t i ­
t u t i o n s were chosen.

3.

Federal monies f o r i n c e n t i v e fu nding,
channeled through MDE, were used.

4.

I t was implied t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
would occur a f t e r t h e i n c e n t i v e funding
stopped.

5.

The i n c e n t i v e funding began no more than
f i v e y e a r s b e fo r e t h e time t h i s r e s e a r c h
was s t a r t e d (1977); p r o j e c t d u r a t i o n was
from two t o t h r e e y e a r s ; funding term ina­
t i o n occu rred a t l e a s t one y e a r b e fo re t h i s
r e s e a r c h was approved (1978).

S i t e and Respondent S e l e c t i o n
Suggestions were sought from s e l e c t e d MDE s t a f f members as t o pro­
j e c t s which would meet t h e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a .
35

These s t a f f members

36

were from th e Personnel Development and Career Development u n i t s w ith in
VTES and t h e Research, E valuation and Assessment S e r v ic e .

In d i v id u a ls

from t h e s e u n i t s a d m i n i s t e r , monitor or e v a l u a t e in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d pro­
jects.

A l i s t of p o s s i b l e s i t e s r e s u l t e d .

MDE s t a f f members reviewed

t h e l i s t to determine i f t h e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a had been met.

The l i s t

o f twenty-one e l i g i b l e p r o j e c t s conta in ed in Appendix A r e s u l t e d from
t h i s p ro cess.
VTES s t a f f recommended a c o n t a c t person a t each s i t e to whom the
r e s e a r c h e r s e n t l e t t e r s t h a t b r i e f l y e x p la in ed t h e resea rch p r o j e c t to
s o l i c i t names and a d d re ss es of i n d i v i d u a l s who had been involved in the
i d e n t i f i e d i n c e n ti v e - f u n d e d p r o j e c t ( s e e Appendix B).

I n d i v id u a ls in

t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s were sought:
1.

project adm inistration, e .g . , p ro ject d irec to r
o r c o o r d i n a t o r , vo c a tio n a l d i r e c t o r , member of
an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or c o o r d i n a ti n g committee.

2.

p r o j e c t implementation, e . g . , classroom t e a c h e r s ,
placement p e rs o n n e l , co-op c o o r d i n a t o r s , coun­
selors.

3.

s i g n i f ic a n t o th e rs , e . g . , superintendent, a s s i s ­
t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , d i r e c t o r s of v a ri o us s e r v i c e
a r e a s , b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s . (Persons having a
knowledge o f t h e p r o j e c t but no t having an a c t i v e
involvement w ith p r o j e c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r imple­
mentation. )

Copies of t h e l e t t e r and t h e p a r t i c i p a n t form a r e provided in Appendix B.:
Twenty-one l e t t e r s , accompanied by one form per categ o ry f o r l i s t ­
ing p o s s i b l e survey p a r t i c i p a n t s , were s e n t t o t h e c o n t a c t pers ons.
Nineteen response s (90%) were r e c e i v e d , a f t e r which a thank-you l e t t e r
was s e n t , which i s in clud ed in Appendix B.

However, one response was

r e c e i v e d too l a t e t o be included in t h e survey; th us only e ig h te e n pro­
j e c t s were i n clu ded.

37

Two I n d i v i d u a l s per category p e r p r o j e c t were randomly s e l e c t e d to
r e c e i v e t h e survey in stru m e n t.
I n str u m e n ta tio n
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used to c o l l e c t t h e data f o r t h i s s t u d y .

A

review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e provided t h e b a s i s f o r s e l e c t i n g the v a r i a b l e s
included in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

A f t e r reviewing t h e l i t e r a t u r e , a l i s t

o f p o t e n t i a l v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was compiled.
C on so lid atio n and r e d u c t i o n e li m i n a t e d o v e rla p and d u p l i c a t i o n .

The

reduced i i s t o f v a r i a b l e s was s e n t to a panel o f e x p e r ts who had
ex p erien ce in a d m i n i s t e r i n g a n d / o r implementing in c e n ti v e - f u n d e d inno­
v a t i v e p r o j e c t s to c r i t i q u e and f u r t h e r reduce t h e l i s t o f v a r i a b l e s .
The panel included r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from t h e Michigan Department o f
Education, t h e Michigan Advisory Council f o r Vocational Education, a
u n i v e r s i t y , a community c o l l e g e , an i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t , and
a lo ca l school d i s t r i c t .

In a d d i t i o n t o reducing t h e l i s t of v a r i a b l e s ,

p a n e l i s t s a l s o made s u g g e stio n s which r e s u l t e d in g r e a t e r c l a r i t y o f
items.

V a ria bles were w r i t t e n in q u e s t i o n form.

f o r b i a s by p a n e l i s t s and r e s e a r c h c o n s u l t a n t s .

Questions were reviewed
Questions were r e w r i t t e n

t o minimize t h e de gree o f b i a s i n h e r e n t in each.
The o r d e r of th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e items was randomized using a t a b l e
o f random numbers with t h e e x ce p tio n o f items 92-95.

These items

r e q u i r e d a d i f f e r e n t r es p on se format as they were q u a n t i t a t i v e in
n a t u r e and could not be used with a L i k e r t s c a l e .
t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n Q u e stio n n a ir e " i s in Appendix C.

A copy o f t h e " I n s t i ­

38

I n t e n t of t h e Q ue stionnaire
The i n t e n t was included on each q u e s t i o n n a i r e as fo llo w s:
When a school d i s t r i c t implements an e x t e r n a l l y
funded in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t , t h e d i s t r i c t must
decide what to do when t h e e x t e r n a l funding
c e a se s . The p r o j e c t may be dropped o r i t may
c o n tin u e as p a r t of r e g u l a r d i s t r i c t o p e r a t i o n s .
In t h e l a t t e r c a s e , we say t h a t t h e p r o j e c t has
been " i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . " There may be c e r t a i n
v a r i a b l e s which i n d i c a t e t h a t a p r o j e c t w ill
co n tin u e and become i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d w i t h in
t h e d i s t r i c t . The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of such v a r i ­
a b le s i s the i n t e n t o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
P art I of the Questionnaire
P a r t I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e g ath ered in form a ti on p e r t a i n i n g to t h e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of in n o v a tio n s :

s p e c i f i c a l l y to what e x t e n t i n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n v a r i a b l e s occu rred in t h e in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t and whether
or n o t th e presence or absence of each v a r i a b l e f a c i l i t a t e d o r hindered
the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the p ro je c t.
The d i r e c t i o n s and s c a l e used f o r P a r t I of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
items 1-91, were as f o l lo w s :
P lease rea d t h e q u e s t io n s below, keep in mind t h a t
each q u e s t i o n i s prefaced with "TO WHAT EXTENT."
FIRST: c i r c l e t h e number on th e r a t i n g s c a l e
(1-5) a t t h e immediate r i g h t o f each q u e s t i o n
to i n d i c a t e t o what e x t e n t t h i s occurred in
your p r o j e c t .
SECOND: c i r c l e the number on t h e r a t i n g s c a l e
(1-3) a t t h e f a r r i g h t o f each q u e s t io n t o i n d i ­
c a t e whether i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d
o r hindere d by t h e pres ence o r absence o f each
item.
The s c a l e t o t h e immediate r i g h t o f each q u e s t io n was p refa ce d with "To
What Extent" and in clu d ed :

39

1.

Not a t All

2.

Very L i t t l e

3.

No Opinion

4.

Somewhat

5.

A Great Deal

The s c a l e t o th e f a r r i g h t of each q u e s t io n was in resp o nse to "Did t h i s
f a c i l i t a t e or h in d er i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g your p r o j e c t ? " and includ ed:
1.

F acilitate

2.

Hinder

3.

Not Applicable

The d i r e c t i o n s and s c a l e f o r items 92-95 were as f o llo w s:
P le as e rea d t h e q u e s t io n s below.
FIRST: c i r c l e e i t h e r 1 or 2, a t t h e immediate
r i g h t o f t h e q u e s t io n t o i n d i c a t e a "yes" or
"no" resp on se.
SECOND: c i r c l e t h e number on the s c a l e (1-3)
a t t h e f a r r i g h t of each q u e stio n t o i n d i c a t e
whether i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d
or hindered by t h e s i t u a t i o n r e f l e c t e d in your
response.
The s c a l e t o t h e immediate r i g h t o f each q u e s tio n was:
1.

Yes

2.

No

The s c a l e to t h e f a r r i g h t o f each q u e s t io n was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t used
f o r items 1-91.
P a r t I I of t h e Q u e stio n n a ir e
P a r t II o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed to c o l l e c t da ta p e r t a i n
ing t o t h e respondent h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f .

40

P i l o t Study
A p i l o t study was conducted in o rd e r to determ ine th e s u i t a b i l i t y
o f th e q u e s t io n n a ir e .

I n d iv id u a ls were surveyed in each categ o ry from

t h r e e o f th e p re v io u s ly i d e n t i f i e d in c e n tiv e -fu n d e d p r o j e c t s .
s e l e c te d f o r th e p i l o t study on a random b a s i s .

S i t e s were

Returned q u e s tio n n a ir e s

w ere.co m p letely f i l l e d o u t and respondents did n o t q u e stio n th e wording
o r le n g th .

Q u e stio n n a ire s showed c o n s i s t e n t responses among c a te g o r ie s

o f respondents f o r each o f th e th r e e p r o j e c t s .

Based on a 72 p e rc e n t

resp o n se (13 out o f 1 8 ), th e q u e s tio n n a ir e was consid ered a p p ro p r ia te
f o r t h i s stu d y .

P i l o t study responses were n o t included in th e t a b u l a ­

t io n o f f i n a l survey r e s u l t s .
Survey Procedure
A q u e s t io n n a ir e , a cover l e t t e r , and a r e t u r n envelope were m ailed
to each o f t h e n in e ty p re v io u s ly s e l e c te d respo ndents (two in d iv id u a ls in
each o f th e c a te g o r ie s in each o f f i f t e e n p r o j e c t s ) .

To help ensure

a high resp onse r a t e a rem inder card was s e n t to each in d iv id u a l who
had n o t responded by th r e e days b e fo re t h e d e a d lin e d a te s t a t e d in the
cover l e t t e r .

S i x ty - f o u r u sa b le respo nses were r e tu r n e d (71.1%).

Copies o f th e cover l e t t e r and th e rem inder c a r d , a ls o a r e provided
in Appendix C.

L e t t e r s to each p r o j e c t ' s p a r t i c i p a n t s v a rie d somewhat

according t o th e name o f th e p r o j e c t and th e r o l e played by th e re sp o n d en t.
A nalysis o f Data
The d a ta re c e iv e d from th e resp ondents were t r a n s f e r r e d to d ata
card s produced f o r use a t th e computer f a c i l i t i e s a t Michigan S t a te
U n iv e rs ity .

41
S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e S ocial Sciences (SPSS) was used to
analyze th e d a ta .

The s p e c i f i c subprogram used was FREQUENCIES which

provided d e s c r i p t i v e in fo rm a tio n .
The mode as th e measure o f c e n t r a l tendency, frequency and p e r­
c entag es were used to d e s c r ib e th e d ata re c e iv e d .

The mode was chosen

based upon t h e recommendation o f a u n i v e r s i t y re s e a rc h c o n s u l ta n t, as
an a p p r o p r ia te means to d e s c rib e m a jo r ity response to each v a r i a b l e .
Summary
The p o p u latio n f o r t h i s stu dy c o n s is te d o f in d iv id u a ls a s s o c ia te d
w ith in c e n tiv e -fu n d e d in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t s r e l a t e d to v o c a tio n a l educa­
t i o n in Michigan.

Based upon developed c r i t e r i a , s i t e s e l e c t i o n was

made from p r o j e c ts recommended by MDE s t a f f members.
were s e l e c te d f o r th e stu d y .

Eighteen p r o j e c ts

Two in d iv i d u a ls from each o f th r e e

c a t e g o r i e s were randomly s e l e c t e d to r e c e i v e an " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
Q u e s tio n n a ire ."

This q u e s tio n n a ir e was developed based upon a review

o f r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e and r e a c t i o n s from a panel o f e x p e r t s .
q u e s tio n n a ir e was d iv id e d i n t o two s e c t i o n s :

The

P a r t I d e a l t w ith i n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n v a r i a b le s and P a rt II was designed t o c o l l e c t demographic
inform ation about th e resp o n d en ts.
Before sending out th e q u e s tio n n a ir e to o b ta in d a ta f o r a n a l y s i s ,
a p i l o t study was conducted t o determ ine q u e s tio n n a ir e a p p ro p r ia te n e s s .
A 72 p e rc e n t response r e s u l t e d from t h e p i l o t study .

Q u e stio n n aires

then were s e n t t o randomly s e l e c t e d i n d iv i d u a ls from f i f t e e n p r o j e c t s .
S i x ty - f o u r u sa b le respo nses were re c e iv e d (71.1%).
analyzed using t h e SPSS subprogram FREQUENCIES.

Data re c e iv e d was

Chapter 4

FINDINGS
This c h a p te r p re s e n ts th e a n a l y s i s o f th e respo nses from th e educa­
to r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e stu d y .

The a n a l y s i s i s d ivided in to two

p a rts.
The f i r s t s e c tio n d e s c rib e s th e respo nden ts backgrounds and in clu d es
a su b s e c tio n which d e s c r ib e s th o se respondents' su b m ittin g non-usable
re p lie s.

The second s e c t i o n c o n ta in s d a ta concerning th e v a r ia b le s

which f a c i l i t a t e and h in der th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f in c e n tiv e -fu n d e d
Innovations in v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n .

This s e c t i o n concerns d i r e c t l y

th e re s e a r c h q u e s tio n s posed in Chapter 1.

BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENTS
The d a ta summarized in t h i s stud y were compiled from th e respon ses
o f 64 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , implem entors, and " s i g n i f i c a n t o th e r s " (71.1 p e r­
c e n t response) who re tu rn e d t h e q u e s t io n n a ir e .

The l a r g e s t r a t e o f r e tu r n

was from a d m in is tr a to r s and t h e s m a ll e s t was from th e " s i g n i f i c a n t o th e r"
c ateg o ry .

Table 1 summarizes th e respon se r a t e o f th e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s .

Responses which were not included in th e d a ta a n a l y s i s were re c eiv e d
from eleven in d iv i d u a ls .

Two q u e s tio n n a ir e s were re c e iv e d too l a t e to be

included and nine in d iv id u a ls r e tu r n e d blank q u e s tio n n a ir e s w ith accom­
panying l e t t e r s .

V i r t u a l l y a l l o f th e s e l e t t e r s expressed an i n t e r e s t

in the re s e a rc h p r o j e c t , b u t claimed an i n a b i l i t y to complete th e ques­
tio n n a ire .

There were t h r e e n on-usable resp o n se s each from a d m in is tr a to r s

42
f

and implementors, and f i v e from s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s .

Table 2 summarizes

th e reasons f o r la c k o f q u e s tio n n a ir e com pletion.

Table 1
RESPONDENTS BY CATEGORY

Category

Responses

P e rce n t
Return

No
Responses

Percent

Total
Sample

A d m in istra to r

24

80 .0

6

20.0

30

Imp!ementor

22

73.3

8

26.7

30

S i g n i f i c a n t Other

18

60.0

12

40.0

30

Total
P ercent

64
71.1

26
28.9

90
100.0

Table 2
NON-USABLE RESPONSES BY REASON

Reason

Responses

Category

Late Returns

2

A d m in is tra to r
Imp!ementor

(1 )
(1 )

Lack o f s u f f i c i e n t info rm atio n
reg a rd in g p r o j e c t to be a b le
to respond

6

S i g n i f i c a n t Other
A d m in is tra to r

If!

2

Impl ementor

(2 )

M u l t i- p r o j e c t involvement and
unable to s y n th e s iz e informa­
tio n

44
Table 2 (Continued)

Reason

Category

Responses

Length and number o f choices in
q u e s tio n n a ir e

A d m in is tra to r

1

Total

(1)

11

Table 3 and 4 show t h e frequency and percentage o f resp o n se f o r th e
d a ta c o l l e c t e d in P a rt I I o f th e q u e s t io n n a ir e .

The ty p ic a l resp ond en t

i s m ale, 41 to 49 y e a r s o ld , holds a m a s te r 's deg ree, has over 14 y e a r s '
ex p erien c e in e d u c a tio n , has serv ed h is ed u ca tio n al agency f o r 10 t o 14
y e a r s , and has 4 t o

6

y e a r s in h is p r e s e n t p o s i t io n .
Table 3

PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS:
AGE, SEX, LEVEL OF EDUCATION
(n = 64)

Item

Frequency

P e rc e n t

2

3.1
20.3
25.0
29.7
21.9
100.0

Age (y e a rs)
25 or o ld e r
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-49
50 o r o ld e r
TOTAL

13
16
19
14
w

Sex
Female
Male

10

TOTAL

54
64

15.6
84 .4
100.0

45

Table 3 (Continued)

Item

Frequency

P e rce n t

Level o f Education
No Response
B a c c a la u re a te
Masters
Special i s t
D octorate
TOTAL

1
6

1.6

44

68.8

8

12.5
7 .8

5
64

9 .4

100.0

Table 4
PROFILE OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONDENTS: EXPERIENCE
(n = 64)

Item

Frequency

P e rce n t

Time in P r e s e n t P o s itio n
No Response
1 year or less
1-3 y e a rs
4-6 y e a r s
7-9 y e a r s
10-14 y e a r s
over 14 y e a rs
TOTAL

1

1.6

5
9
17
13
14
5
f>T

7 .8
14.1
26.6
20.3
21.9
7 .8
100.0

Time in P r e s e n t Educational
Agency
No Response
1 y e a r or less
1-3 y e a rs
4-6 y e a rs
7-9 y e a r s
10-14 y e a r s
over 14 y e a rs
TOTAL

1
1

1.6
1.6

5
14
13
16
14
64

7 .8
21.9
20.3
25.0
21.9
100.0

46
Table 4 (Continued)

Item

Frequency

P e rce n t

Total Time in Education
P ro fe ssio n
No Response
1 year or less
1-3 y e a rs
4-6 y e a rs
7-9 y e a rs
10-14 y e a rs
over 14 y e a rs
TOTAL

3.1

2
0
0
1
6

23
32
64

The jo b t i t l e s o f resp o n d en ts a re re p o r te d on Table 5.

0
0
1.6

9 .4
35.9
50.0
100.0

Several

respon dents in d ic a te d t h a t t h e i r p r e s e n t jo b t i t l e i s not th e one they
held w h ile t h e i r p r o j e c t was r e c e iv in g in c e n tiv e funds.

Table 5
RESPONDENTS BY JOB TITLE
(n = 64)

Job T i t l e

Frequency

P e rce n t

Board o f Education Member

1

1.6

S u p e rin te n d e n t

6

9 .4

A s s i s t a n t S u p e rin te n d e n t

5

7 .8

Vocational D ir e c to r

7

10.9

Other S e rv ic e Area D ire c to r

15

23.4

High School P r in c ip a l

13

20.3

47
Table 5 (Continued)

Frequency

P e rce n t

Teacher

7

10.9

Counselor

5

7.8

_5

7.8

64

100.0

Job T i t l e

Other
TOTAL

VARIABLE IDENTIFICATION
P a rt I o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e l i s t e d t h e 95 s e le c te d i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t io n v a r i a b l e s in q u e stio n form.

(For example, "To what extend did th e

v o c a tio n a l d i r e c t o r su p p o rt th e p r o j e c t ? " )
Respondents were asked t o r e p l y in two ways:

f i r s t , to i n d ic a t e to

what e x te n t each v a r i a b l e had occurred ( e x t e n t ) ; and second, to i n d ic a t e
w hether th e presence or absence o f each v a r i a b l e had f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered
p ro je c t in s titu tio n a liz a tio n (in flu e n c e ).

The fo llo w in g r a t i n g s c a le was

provided f o r th e f i r s t p a r t o f th e resp o n se ( e x t e n t ) :
1.

Not a t All

2.

Very L i t t l e

3.

No Opinion

4.

Somewhat

5.

A G reat Deal

This r a t i n g s c a le a p p lie d t o th e second resp onse ( i n f lu e n c e ) :
1.

F a c ilita te

2.

Hinder

3.

Not A p plicable

48

Thus, each v a r i a b le can be analyzed using a combination of th e two
resp o n se s.
Response A nalysis
Q u e stio n n a ire responses were analyzed in two ways.
F i r s t , d ata were analyzed in th e a g g re g a te .

A bsolute frequency and

r e l a t i v e frequency (p e rc e n t) f o r each s c a l e response f o r each v a r i a b l e
were ta b u l a t e d .
tio n .

Table 1 in Appendix D p re s e n ts t h i s ag gregated informa­

Modes a r e in d ic a te d by v a r i a b l e f o r both e x te n t and in f lu e n c e .
Second, d a ta were analyzed using a combination o f p o s s ib le responses

f o r each v a r i a b l e .
tio n s.

Table

6

prov ides an e x p la n a tio n o f response combina­

Since each v a r i a b l e , 1 through 91, demanded two respon ses - e x te n t

and in flu e n c e - th e d ata were examined by p a ir in g th e e x te n t and in flu e n c e
responses f o r each v a r i a b l e .

By c o n sid e rin g th e e x te n t re s p o n se s, "not

a t a l l " ( 1 ) and "very l i t t l e " ( 2 ) a s roughly e q u iv a le n t, and "somewhat"
(4) and "a g r e a t d e a l" (5) as a ls o e q u iv a le n t, th e coding by p a ir s d i s ­
played in Table

6

was c o n s tr u c te d .

E xtent responses were p a ire d w ith

" f a c i l i t a t e " o r "h in d er" o r "not a p p lic a b le " which r e s u l t e d in th e codes
shown in Table

6

.

Thus, th e respo nse code (a+, a - , b+ . . . e t c . ) i s a s in g le - v a lu e d
measure showing both th e e x te n t and d i r e c t i o n o f any one v a r i a b l e 's
e f f e c t on i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
A f te r codes were a ssigned f o r every response f o r each v a r i a b l e ,
th e code appearance frequency was l i s t e d f o r each v a r i a b l e (1 through 9 1 ).
Table 7 r e p o r t s th e appearance fr e q u e n c ie s o f th e resp o n se codes f o r

49

each v a r i a b l e .

(V a ria b les 92 through 95 a r e not included in t h i s t a b l e

s in c e th e response form at d i f f e r e d a s ex plained in Chapter 3 , page 39.)
A t r i p l e a s t e r i s k in Table 7 in d ic a t e s th o s e appearance fre q u e n c ie s
above 50 p e rc e n t ( i . e . , above 32 r e s p o n se s).

The 50 p e rc e n t c u t - o f f

le v e l was chosen based upon th e recommendation o f a u n i v e r s it y re s e a rc h
c o n s u lta n t who deemed i t a p p r o p r ia te f o r e x p lo ra to ry r e s e a rc h o f t h i s
n a tu r e .

V ariables which r e f l e c t th e s e m a jo rity o pin io n s follow Table 7.

Table 6

RESPONSE COMBINATIONS - 1 THROUGH 91

Response
Code

a+

4

and 5 paired with

1
U1

a-

4

b+

1

and

2

paired with

b-

1

and

2

paired with

c+
c-

4
1

and

2

o

and 5 paired with

1

and 5 paired with

3

paired with

3

3 p aired with t o t a l o f
paired with t o t a l o f

0 and 1

and

2

and

3

and

and

2

and

3

0

1

Table 7

APPEARANCE FREQUENCY OF EACH RESPONSE CODE FOR EACH VARIABLE
1 THROUGH 91

Response Code
V ariable
a+

a-

b+

b-

c+

1.

Did p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s , a t a l l l e v e l s , i n t e r a c t w ith one another?

F
P

54***
3______ 3______ 1______ 1
84.3
4.7
4.7
1.6
1.6

2.

Were ta n g ib le in c e n tiv e s ( e . g . , re le a s e d time,
pay) used to m otivate p r o je c t s t a f f ?

F
P

31
48.4

Did th e i n i t i a t o r s o f th e p r o je c t make known the
p o te n tia l long-term e ff e c ts ?

F
P

81.2

1.6

Has th e p r o j e c t been continued as i n i t i a l l y
implemented?

F
P

29
45.3

2

Did people o u ts id e o f th e d i s t r i c t d i r e c t th e
p ro je c t?

F
P

17.2

Did your school d i s t r i c t have a h is to r y o f
adopting vocational education r e l a te d
innovations?

F
P

35***
54.7

Did th e vo cation al d i r e c t o r support the pro­
je c t?

F
P

50***
78.1

1.6

3.
4.
5.

6

.

7.

F = frequency; P = percentage (n = 6 4 ) ;

52***

11

2

10

3.1

15.6

3
4.7

46.3

c-

0

0______ 2
0
3.1
10

15.6

4
6.3

4
6.3

0
0

7
10.9

0
0

0

2

12

6

6

3.1

7
10.9

3.1

18.8

9 .4

9.4

7
10.9

1
1.6

17
26.6

3
4 .7

19
29.7

9.4

0
0

3
4.7

0

5
7.8

11

10

17.2

15.6

1

5
7.8

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

= responses above 50%

0

0

6

8

12.5

Table 7 - (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+

a-

b+

b-

c+
7
10.9

F
P

48***
75.0

1

1

0

1.6

1.6

0

F
P

46***
71.9

4
6.3

5
7.8

0

1

0

1.6

F
P

35***
54.7

0

4
6.3

1

1

1.6

1.6

F
P

17.2

F
P

36***
56.3

Does th e school d i s t r i c t have an open
o rg an iz atio n al clim ate?

F
P

jg***
60.9

Did th e i n s tr u c tio n a l and support s t a f f fe e l
p o s i t iv e l y about t h e i r pro fessio n al competence?

15.
16.

8

.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

Was th e f i n a l p r o j e c t evalu atio n p o sitiv e ?
Were re g u la r p r o j e c t meetings held?
Was th e re a p i l o t t e s t f o r m od ificatio n o f
the p r o j e c t before la r g e s c a le implementa­
tio n ?
Did th e p r o je c t in crease s t a f f workloads?

0

c-

0
0

4
6.3

13
20.3

15.6

2

6

10

6

3.1

9 .4

15.6

9 .4

1
1.6

1
1.6

3.1

4
6.3

7
10.9

1.6

F
P

45***
8
70.3
12.5

3
4 .7

Was th e re increased stu d e n t le a rn in g as a
r e s u l t o f th e p ro je c t?

F
P

53***
82.8

0
0

Did m onitoring o f the p r o je c t by th e Michigan
Department o f Education occur?

F
P

23
35.9

3
4.7

1.6

Did f i n a l e v alu atio n occur?

2

8

12.5

7
10.9

4
6.3

24
37.5

11

0

1
1.6

10

5
7.8
15
23.4

5
7.8

0
0

12.5

1

2

0

1.6

3.1

0

5
7.8

0
0

1
1.6

5
7.8

0
0

5
7.8

1

4
6.3

8

15.6

15
23.4

1

10

12.5

8

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable

17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

22.

23;
24.
25.

a+

a-

3.1

b+

b-

c+

c-

0

3
4.7

7
10.9

3
4.7

11

17.2

19
29.7

4
6.3

13
20.3

3
4.7

17
26.6

16
25.0
9
14.1

Did t h e Michigan Department of Education p a r t i ­
c ip a te a c tiv e ly in th e p ro je c t?

F
P

19
29.7

Was the innovative p r o je c t mandated e x te rn a lly ?

F
P

9
14.1

3.1

F
P

. . ***
34
53.1

2

1

6

2

10

3.1

1.6

9 .4

3.1

15.6

Was th e p r o je c t d i r e c t o r adept in process
sk ills ?

F
P

54***
84.3

1

2

0

1

1

1.6

3.1

0

1.6

1.6

5
7.8

Were in ta n g ib le p ro fession al and psychological
in c e n tiv e s ( e . g . , encouragement, rec o g n itio n )
used to m otivate p ro je c t s t a f f ?

F
P

46***
71.9

2

0
0

0

3.1

5
7.8

0

4
6.3

7
10.9

Did t h e p r o j e c t r e f l e c t th e s u p e r in te n d e n t's
p rio ritie s?

F
P

37***
57.8

3
4.7

7
10.9

0

1

8

0

1.6

Was a s s is ta n c e a v a ila b le to p ro je c t p a r t i c i ­
pants?

F
P

3
56***
87.5
4.7

3
4 .7

0

0

1

1

0

1.6

1.6

Was th e r e two-way oral communication between th e
p r o j e c t d i r e c to r s and p ro je c t implementors?

F
P

53***
82.8

3
4.7

1

0

2

1.6

0

3.1

0
0

5
7.8

Did t h e b uilding p rin c ip a l p a r t i c i p a t e in the
t r a in in g ?

F
P

29
45.3

17
26.6

1

1

8

1.6

1 .6

12.5

7
10.9

Did o u ts id e people t r a i n p ro je c t p a r t i c i p a n ts ?

2

2

1

1 .6

0

12.5

8

12.5

Table 7 , (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

a-

Was th e re space to continue th e p r o je c t a f t e r
the ex tern al funding ended?

F
P

45***
70.3

3.1

Did a d m in istra to rs perceive th e p r o j e c t to be
su c ce ssfu l?

F
P

41***
64.1

Did both a d m in is tra tiv e and i n s tr u c tio n a l le v e ls
sup port th e i n i t i a t i o n of th e p ro je c t?

F
P

46***
71.9

2

3.1

Was the p r o je c t easy to manage?

F
P

41***
64.1

3.1

Were the m erits o f the p r o je c t described before
i t was s ta rte d ?

F
P

4g***
76.6

1.6

Were m a te r ia ls a v a ila b le to implement the
p ro je c t?

F
P

48***
75.0

Were new behaviors req u ired by the p r o je c t
explained to you?

F
P

Were m a te ria ls a v a ila b le to continue the
p r o je c t a f t e r th e e x te rn al funding ended?

b+

b-

c+

c-

0

4
6.3

0
0

5
7.8

1
1.6

7
10.9

1

10

0

15.6

0

5
7.8

0

1.6

0

7
10.9

9
14.1

0
0

1
1.6

1
1.6

5
7.8

0

5
7.8

0

11

0

17.2

4
6.3

0

2

3.1

3
4.7

7
10.9

0

2

3.1

0

3.1

3
4 .7

3.1

6.09

4
6.3

4
6.3

1
1.6

3
4 .7

4
6.3

9
14.1

F
P

41***
64.1

3
4.7

12

0
0

4
6.3

0

18.8

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e in p r o je c t
d e cisio n making?

F
P

4 9 ***

4
6.3

4
6.3

0

1

0

6

76.6

0

1.6

0

9 .4

Did th e vocational d i r e c t o r p a r t i c i p a t e in
p r o je c t tr a in in g ?

F
P

34***
53.1

0
0

4
6.3

0

3
4.7

10

13
20.3

2

2

1

2

0

0

0

5
7.8

0

15.6

5
7.8

2

4
6.3

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
36.

a-

b+

b-

c+

c-

0

Was th e r e equipment to continue th e p r o je c t
a f t e r th e ex tern al funding ceased?

F
P

39***
60.9

1

1

1

3.1

12.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

37.

Did th e i n s tr u c tio n a l and support s t a f f have
a p o s itiv e a t t i t u d e toward change?

F
P

42***
65.6

4
6.3

9
14.1

0
0

4
6.3

0
0

5
7.8

38.

Did th e d i s t r i c t a l l o c a t e money to support
th e p r o je c t before ex te rn al funding ended?

F
P

29
45.3

0

20

0

31.3

0

0
0

1

0

1.6

14
21.9

Were th e demands of th e p r o j e c t described
b efore i t was s ta r te d ?

F
P

42***
65.6

5
7.8

4
6.3

0
0

9.4

0
0

7
10.9

Did th e in s t r u c t i o n a l and support s t a f f per­
c e iv e the p r o je c t to be successful?

F
P

***
3
73.4
4.7

4
6.3

.0

Were people a v a ila b le t o implement the p ro je c t?

F
P

48***
3
75.0
4.7

3
4.7

0

F
P

51***
79.7

4
6.3

0

F
P

52***
81.2

5
7.8

Were p r o je c t p a r t i c i p a n ts ab le to s a t i s f y t h e i r
concerns and goals by t h e i r p a rtic ip a tio n ?

F
P

51***
79.7

Did th e school d i s t r i c t ad ap t to p ro je c t
demands?

F
P

41***
64.1

9 .4

39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.

Were sev eral schools involved in th e p ro je c t?
Were p r o je c t o b je c tiv e s followed as s ta te d ?

2

47

8

0

6

3
4.7

12
1 8 .8

1

6

1.6

9.4

4
6.3

0

6

0

0

9 .4

0

2
3.1

3
4.7

2
3.1

2
3.1

1

1

0

1.6

1.6

3
4.7

2
3.1

3
4 .7

3
4 .7

0

1

0

6

0

1.6

0

9.4

6

3
4.7

2
3.1

46.3

0

8

0

12.5

0

Table 7 - (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

a-

b+

b-

c+

2

0

3.1

0

c-

0

3
3.1

0
0

16

0

1

0

0

1.6

0

5
7.8

7
10.9

0

11

0

17.2

F
P

40***
62.5

3
4 .7

Did th e in s tr u c tio n a l and su pport s t a f f cooper­
a t e with each o th e r in implementing th e p ro je c t?

F
P

53***
82.8

1.6

4
6.3

Is management c e n tr a liz e d w ith in th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

38***
59.4

5
7.8

1

2

T. 6

3.1

F
P

33***
51.6

4
6 .3

4
6.3

2

3.1

-3
4.7

9
14.1

9
14.1

Did th e p ro je c ts re p la c e previous p r a c t ic e s ,
c u r r i c u la or programs?

F
P

11

6

17.2

9 .4

4
6.3

16
25.0

1
1.6

17
26.6

9
14.1

Were involved teach ers f a m i li a r with p r o je c t
m a t e r i a ls , methods and /or techniques?

F
P

42***
65.6

1.6

9
14.1

4
6.3

4
6.3

0
0

4
6.3

Did th e b u ild in g p rin c ip a l support th e p ro je c t?

F
P

• ,***
46
71.9

5
7.8

6

0

1

0

6

9.4

0

1.6

0

9.4

Did th e p r o j e c t supplement e x is tin g p r a c t ic e s ,
c u r r i c u la or programs?

F
P

45***
70.3

2

2

1

3.1

3.1

5
7.8

1.6

4
6.3

5
7.8

Was r e l i a b l e inform ation about the p r o je c t
a v a ila b le to p r o je c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

F
P

54***
84.3

4
6.3

3
4 .7

0

0

0

0

0

0

3
4.7

Did a d m in is tra to rs deal w ith u n a n ticip a te d
p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d events f l e x i b ly ?

F
P

4 7 ***

4
6.3

2

0

0

8

3.1

0

3
4.7

Do paren ts in th e d i s t r i c t support innovation?

Did lo cal people t r a i n p r o j e c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

73.4

1

1

0

12.5

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
56.

a-

b+

b-

c+

c-

18
28.1

1
1.6

4
6.3

7
10.9

0

Did th e p r o j e c t re q u ire complex i n te g r a tio n of
i t s a c t i v i t i e s in to school programs?

F
P

21

11

2

32.8

17.2

3.1

Was i t perceived t h a t th e i n s tr u c tio n a l and
support s t a f f m aintained a sense o f personal
involvement in th e success o f th e p ro je c t?

F
P

42***
65.6

3
4 .7

10

0

2

0

15.6

0

3.1

0

7
10.9

F
P

35***
54.7

4
6.3

11

1

2

8

17.2

1.6

3
4.7

3.1

12.5

Is d e c isio n making c e n tr a liz e d w ith in th e
d istric t?

F
P

36***
8
56.3
12.5

2

1

11

1.6

4
6.3

2

3.1

3.1

17.2

Was th e p r o je c t developed by people o u tsid e
o f th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

16
25.0

4
6.3

11

6

8

8

17.2

9.4

12.5

12.5

Was th e p r o je c t developed by lo ca l d i s t r i c t
people?

F
P

33
51.6

0

12

2

6

0

18.8

3
4.7

3.1

9 .4

Was th e re increased stu d e n t m otivation as a
r e s u l t o f th e p ro je c t?

F
P

54***
84.3

0

4
6.3

0

1

1

0

0

1.6

1.6

63.

Did th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and support s t a f f p a r t i ­
c ip a te in e v a lu a tin g th e p ro je c t

F
P

38***
3 9 .4 ^

3
4.7

7
10.9

0
0

4
6.3

3
9
47r 1 4 . T

64.

Did on-going e v a lu a tio n occur?

F
P

4 4 ***

4
6.3

1

1

1

11

1.6

1.6

1.6

17.2

57.

58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

Was th e p r o je c t easy to implement?

68.8

11

17.2

2

3.1

8

12.5
4
6.3

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
65.
66.

67.
68.

69.
70.
71.
72.
73.

Did t h e p r o j e c t r e f l e c t th e board o f educa­
tio n 's p rio ritie s ?

F
P

30
46.9

Were p r o j e c t o b je c tiv e s s ta te d ?

F
P

54***
84.3

Are you p re s e n tly applying b a sic p r o j e c t ideas
and methods in your classroom o r work s i t u a t i o n ?

F
P

41***
64.1

Was space a v a ila b le to implement th e p ro je c t?

F
P

50***
78.1

Was th e r e c o n tin u ity o f p r o j e c t management?

a-

0
0

b+

b-

c+

7
10.9

0

7
10.9

0

c-

2

3.1

0

1

1

2

0

1.6

1.6

3.1

0
0

2

1

0

3.1

1.6

0

4
6.3

4
6.3

1

5
7.8

0

1.6

51***
F
P '7 9 .7

4
6.3

3
4.7

4 9 ***

4
6 .3

Did p r o j e c t meetings address p r a c tic a l
concerns?

F
P

76.6

Does the general community support innovation
in th e schools?

F
P

48***
75.0

3.1

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e in p r o je c t
design?

F
P

._***
46
71.9

3.1

Did th e d i s t r i c t begin t h e p r o j e c t with th e
i n t e n t t h a t i t would co ntinu e when ex tern al
funding ceased?

F
P

36***
56.3

4
6 .3

2

2

0

18
28.1
6

9.4
12

18.8

3
4.7

0
0

5
7.8

0
0

0

0
0

9.4

0

0

0

0

3
4.7

3
4.7

1

2

1.6

3.1

4
6.3

2

0

1

3.1

0

1.6

8

0

3
4.7

0

12.5

0

0

0

6

1.6

7
10.9

1
1.6

10.0

1

0

7
9
14.1
13
20.3

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.

Did you understand your r o l e in th e p ro je c t?

a-

b+

b-

c+

c-

0

F
P

55***
85.9

2

1

0

1

0

3.1

1.6

0

1.6

0

5
7.8

Did planning occur before th e p r o j e c t was
s t a r te d ?

F
P

54***
84.3

1

2

0

1

0

6

1.6

3.1

0

1.6

0

9 .4

Was in - s e rv ic e t r a i n in g provided to p r o je c t
p a r tic ip a n ts ?

F
P

55***
85.9

0

4
6.3

1

0

0

1.6

0

0

4
6.3

Were p r o je c t m a te ria ls developed by p r o je c t
sta ff?

F
P

4 9 ***

2

1.6

3
4.7

2

76.6

3.1

3.1

4
6.3

3
4.7

Did th e p r o je c t r e q u ir e change in s t a f f
behavior?

F
P

26
40.6

15
23.4

3
4 .7

4
6.3

1

6

1.6

9.4

Was th e p ro je c t compatible w ith e x is tin g
a c t i v i t i e s o f th e system?

F
P

3
4.7

3
4 .7

0
0

4
6.3

0

8

0

12.5

Were sev eral i n s tr u c tio n a l and su pp ort s t a f f
involved in the p ro je c t?

F
P

46***
71.9
__***
50
78.1

0

2

1

1

0

3.1

.6

3
4.7

7
10.9

Was time a v a ila b le f o r implementation?

F
P

49***
76.6

1

7
10.9

0

0

0

1.6

0

0

0

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e in p r o je c t
tr a in in g ?

F
P

52***
81.2

1

2

0

0

0

1.6

3.1

0

0

0

Was th e innovative p r o j e c t mandated i n t e r n a lly ?

F
P

22

6

6

6

1

34.4

9 .4

9.4

9 .4

1 .6

0
1

1.6

9
14.1

9
14.1

7
10.9
9
14.1
14
21.9

Table 7 (Continued)

Response Code
V ariable
a+
84.
85.
86.

87.
88

.

89.
90.
91.

Did th e p r o j e c t adapt to school d i s t r i c t needs?

a-

b+

b-

c+

c-

0

2

0

1

0

0

3.1

0

1.6

0

12.5

2

3
4 .7

0

1

2

0

1.6

3.1

7
10.9

1
1.6

0
0

4
6.3

3
4.7

5
7.8

2

5
7.8

3
4.7

5
7.8

9
14.1

1
1.6

20

31.3

5
7.8

9
14.1

4
6.3

7
10.9

18.8

F
P

53***
82.8

Was equipment a v a ila b le to implement the pro­
je c t?

F
P

4 9 ***

76.6

3.1

Are th e o b je c tiv e s o f th e p r o je c t s t i l l in
e f f e c t w ith in your school d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

50***
78.1

1.6

Was the d i s t r i c t p a r t i c i p a t i n g in o th er
innovative p ro je c ts ?

F
P

33***
7
10.9
51.6

Are th e r e strong c o l l e c t i v e bargaining u n i ts
w ith in th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

17
26.6

Was th e r e perceived r i s k s and u n c e rta in ty
connected with the p ro je c t?

F
P

8

20

2

11

12.5

31.3

3.1

17.2

Has your d i s t r i c t continued local funding of
the p ro je c t?

F
P

34***
53.1

1

0

1.6

13
20.3

Is th e c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e in th e school d i s t r i c t
toward th e p r o j e c t p o s itiv e ?

F
P

43***
67.2

1.6

4
6.3

1

3.1

12

0

18.8

0

1

0

8

12

0

3
4 .7

9.4

7
10.9

0
0

4
6.3

4
6.3

12.5

6

8

61

V ariables t h a t F a c i l i t a t e I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
Of th e 64 re sp o n d e n ts, 32 or more in d ic a te d t h a t t h e follow ing v a r i ­
a b le s f a c i l i t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

This in form atio n was e x tr a c te d

from Table 7 by determ ining tho se v a r i a b le s f o r which th e response code
appearance frequency was g r e a t e r than 50 p e rc e n t in th e column headed a+.
I t i s a ls o noteworthy t h a t no resp o n se code appearance frequency g r e a t e r
th an 50 p e rc e n t appeared in any column o th e r than th e a+ column.

One

should keep in mind t h a t th e a+ code r e p r e s e n ts t h a t combination of
responses comprised o f "somewhat" and "a g r e a t d e a l" w ith " f a c i l i t a t e s . "
V a ria b le s a re arranged with pe rc en ta g es in descending o rd e r.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n is f a c i l i t a t e d by:
A g r e a t amount o f a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e t o pro­
j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s (V a ria b le 23, a+ = 87.5%).
A high lev e l of und erstan din g concerning
in d iv id u a l r o l e s in an in n o v ativ e p r o j e c t
(V a ria b le 74, a+ = 85.9%).
P rov isio n o f a g r e a t deal o f in s e r v ic e t r a i n i n g
(V a ria b le 76, a+ = 85.9%).
A g r e a t amount o f i n t e r a c t i o n among p r o j e c t p a r t i ­
c ip a n ts a t a l l l e v e l s (V a ria b le 1, a+ = 84.3%).
A high degree o f a dep tn ess in p rocess s k i l l s on
th e p a r t o f a p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r (V a ria b le 20,
a+ = 84.3%).
The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f r e l i a b l e in fo rm a tio n about
th e p r o j e c t which i s a c c e s s i b le by p r o j e c t p a r t i ­
c ip a n ts (V a ria b le 54, a+ = 84.3%).
Increased s tu d e n t m o tiv a tio n as a r e s u l t o f th e
p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 62, a+ = 84.3%).
Planning b e fo re p r o j e c t s t a r t - u p (V a ria b le 75,
a+ - 84.3%).

62

S ta tin g p r o j e c t o b je c tiv e s (V a ria b le
84.3%).

66

, a+ =

Two-way o ra l communication between p r o j e c t
d i r e c t o r s and p r o j e c t s t a f f (V a ria b le 24, a+ =
82.8%).
P r o je c t a d a p ta tio n t o school d i s t r i c t needs
(V a ria b le 84, a+ = 82.8%).
S t a f f c o o p e ra tio n during p r o j e c t implementa­
t i o n (V a ria b le 47, a+ = 82.8%).
Increased s tu d e n t le a r n in g as th e r e s u l t o f an
in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 15, a+ = 82.8%).
The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of key personnel in p r o j e c t
t r a i n i n g (V a ria b le 82, a+ = 81.2%).
Following p r o j e c t o b je c tiv e s as s t a te d
(V a ria b le 43, a+ = 81.2%).
The p r o j e c t i n i t i a t o r s making known th e
p o t e n t i a l lo ng-term e f f e c t s of th e p r o j e c t
(V a ria b le 3, a+ = 81.2%).
Involving s e v e ra l sc h o o ls in th e in n o v ativ e
p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 42, a+ = 79.7%).
S a t is f y in g p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' concerns and
g o a ls by p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n (V a ria b le 44,
a+ = 79.7%).
C o n tin u ity o f p r o j e c t management (V a ria b le 69,
a+ = 79.7%).
Strong v o c a tio n a l d i r e c t o r su p p o rt of th e
p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 7, a+ * 78.1%).
Having adequate space a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o j e c t
implem entation (V a ria b le 6 8 , a+ = 78.1%).
Involvement o f s e v e ra l s t a f f members in th e
in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 80, a+ = 78.1%).
Strong c o n tin u a tio n o f p r o j e c t o b je c tiv e s
(V a ria b le 8 6 , a+ = 78.1%).
D escribing p r o j e c t m e r its b e fo re p r o j e c t s t a r t ­
up (V a ria b le 30, a+ = 76.6%).
The p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f key personnel in p r o j e c t
d e c is io n making (V a ria b le 34, a+ = 76.6%).

63

Addressing p r a c t ic a l concerns a t p r o j e c t
m eetings (V a ria b le 70, a+ = 76.655).
The development o f p r o j e c t m a t e r i a ls by p r o j e c t
s t a f f (V a ria b le 77, a+ = 76.6%).
Having ample time f o r p r o j e c t implementation
(V a ria b le 81, a+ = 76.6%).
Having s u f f i c i e n t equipment a v a i la b l e f o r p r o j e c t
implem entation (V a ria b le 85, a+ = 76.6%).
Having p o s i t i v e f i n a l p r o j e c t e v a lu a tio n
(V a ria b le 8 , a+ = 75.0%).
Having m a t e r i a ls a v a i l a b l e to implement the
in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 31, a+ = 75.0%).
A high le v e l o f community su p p o rt o f school
inno vation (V a ria b le 71, a+ *» 75.0%).
Having s u f f i c i e n t people a v a i l a b l e to implement
an in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 41, a+ = 75.0%).
P e rc e p tio n s o f p r o j e c t success on th e p a r t of
i n s t r u c t i o n a l and su p p o rt s t a f f (V a ria b le 40,
a+ = 73.4%).
A d m in is tra tiv e f l e x i b i l i t y in d e a lin g w ith
u n a n tic ip a te d p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d events
(V a ria b le 55, a+ = 73.4%).
Holding r e g u l a r p r o j e c t m eetings (V a ria b le 9,
a+ = 71.9%).
Using t a n g i b l e in c e n tiv e s to m o tiv a te p r o j e c t
s t a f f (V a ria b le 21, a+ = 71.9%).
Support o f p r o j e c t i n i t i a t i o n from both admin­
i s t r a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e v e l s (V a ria b le 28,
a+ = 71.9%).
B uild in g p rin c ip a l su p p o rt o f th e p r o j e c t
(V a ria b le 52, a+ = 71.9%).
P a r t i c i p a t i o n o f key personnel in p r o j e c t design
(V a ria b le 72, a+ = 71.9%).
P r o j e c t c o m p a ti b i li t y w ith e x i s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s
o f th e school d i s t r i c t (V a ria b le 79, a+ a 71.9%).
P ossessio n of p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about t h e i r p ro ­
f e s s i o n a l competence on th e p a r t o f th e i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l and su p p o rt s t a f f (V a ria b le 14, a+ ® 70.3%).

64

Having adequate space to c o n tin u e th e p r o j e c t
a f t e r funding te rm in a tio n (V a ria b le 26, a+ =
70.3%).
Supplementing e x is ti n g p r a c t i c e s , c u r r i c u l a
o r programs w ith th e in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t
(V a ria b le 53, a+ = 70.3%).
The occurrence o f fo rm a tiv e e v a lu a tio n
(V a ria b le 64, a+ = 6 8 . 8 %).
P o s i ti v e c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e s in th e school d i s ­
t r i c t toward th e p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 91, a+ *»
67.2%).
P o s i ti v e a t t i t u d e s toward change on th e p a r t
o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and su ppo rt s t a f f (V a ria b le 37,
a+ = 65.6%).
D escribing p r o j e c t demands b e fo re s t a r t i n g th e
p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 39, a+ = 65.6%).
F a m il i a r i t y on the p a r t of t e a c h e r s , w ith
p r o j e c t m a t e r i a l s , methods an d /o r tec h n iq u e s
(V a ria b le 51, a+ = 65.6%).
S t a f f m aintenance o f a high se n se o f personal
involvement in p r o j e c t success (V a ria b le 57,
a+ = 65.6%).
Having an easy t o manage p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 29,
a+ = 64.1%)
Having a v a i l a b l e s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a ls to con­
t i n u e th e p r o j e c t a f t e r funding te rm in a tio n
(V a ria b le 33, a+ = 64.1%).
A daptation o f th e school d i s t r i c t to p r o j e c t
demands (V a ria b le 45, a+ = 64.1%).
P re s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of b a s ic p r o j e c t concepts
(V a ria b le 67, a+ = 64.1%).
A d m in is tra tiv e p e rc e p tio n o f p r o j e c t su ccess
(V a ria b le 27, a+ = 64.1%).
P a re n t su p p o rt o f in n o v atio n (V a ria b le 46,
a+ = 62.5%).
Having an open o r g a n iz a tio n a l c lim a te
(V a ria b le 13, a+ = 6 0 .9 5 ).
E xplaining new behaviors re q u ir e d by th e
p r o j e c t (V a ria b le 32, a+ = 60.9%).

65

Having equipment a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o j e c t c o n ti n u a ­
t i o n ( V a r ia b le 36, a+ = 60.9%).
Having c e n t r a l i z e d d i s t r i c t management ( V a r ia b l e 48,
a+ = 59.4%).
I n s t r u c t i o n a l and s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r o j e c t
e v a l u a t i o n ( V a r ia b l e 63, a+ = 59.4%).
The p r o j e c t ' s r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s
p r i o r i t i e s ( V a r ia b l e 22, a+ = 57.8%).
The occu rrence of f i n a l p r o j e c t e v a l u a t i o n
( V a r ia b l e 12, a+ = 56.3%).
Having c e n t r a l i z e d d i s t r i c t d e c i s i o n making
( V a r ia b l e 59, a+ = 56.3%).
The i n t e n t i o n , a t p r o j e c t s t a r t - u p , to c o n tin ue
t h e in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t a f t e r t h e i n c e n t i v e funding
ends ( V a r ia b le 73, a+ = 56.3%).
Having a h i s t o r y o f adopting v o c a t io n a l educa­
t i o n r e l a t e d i n n o v a tiv e s ( V a r i a b l e 6 , a+ s 54.7%).
Having a p i l o t t e s t f o r p r o j e c t m o d if i c a t io n
( V a r ia b le 10, a+ = 54.7%).
Having a p r o j e c t which i s easy to implement
( V a r ia b le 58, a+ = 54.7%).
Using o u t s i d e people t o t r a i n p r o j e c t p a r t i ­
c i p a n t s ( V a r ia b l e 19, a+ * 53.1%).
The p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e v o c a t io n a l d i r e c t o r in
p r o j e c t t r a i n i n g ( V a r ia b l e 35, a+ = 53.1%).
Having a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f l o c a l funding f o r th e
i n c e n t i v e p r o j e c t ( V a r ia b l e 70, a+ = 53.1%).
Having p r o j e c t t r a i n i n g conducted by lo ca l
people ( V a r ia b l e 49, a+ « 51.6%).
D i s t r i c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o t h e r in n o v a tiv e
p r o j e c t s ( V a r ia b l e 87, a+ = 51.6%).
Having t h e p r o j e c t developed by l o c a l d i s t r i c t
people ( V a r ia b l e 61, a+ = 51.6%).

66

Seventeen v a r i a b l e s showed no d i s t i n c t t r e n d s in e i t h e r t h e a n a l y s i s
presen te d in Table 7 o r in the ag greg ate info rmation p r e s e n t e d in Table I ,
Appendix D.
ables:
88

No i n f e r e n c e s can be drawn concerning t h e s e se venteen v a r i ­

numbers 2, 4, 5, 11, 16, 17, 18, 25, 38, 50, 56, 60, 65, 78, 83,

, and 89, s i n c e no response code appearance frequency f o r any were

g r e a t e r than 50 p e r c e n t .

A wide v a r i e t y of code resp o nses oc cu rred f o r

each of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s ; t h e r e f o r e , judgment concerning t h e i r i n f l u e n c e
upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s not p o s s i b l e .
None o f t h e v a r i a b l e s in th e study can be c o n sid ere d as h in d ering
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n s i n c e no response code appearance frequency in t h e
a - and b+ columns o f Table 7 was g r e a t e r than 50 p e r c e n t .
V a r ia b le s 92 through 95 were analyzed, Table

8

, using a procedure

s i m i l a r t o t h a t followed f o r v a r i a b l e s 1 through 91.

Table

8

displays

t h e res ponse combinations f o r v a r i a b l e s 92 through 95.

Table

8

3

3

3

~

F acilita te

Hinder

Not
Applicable

o

No Response

S

*
^—
ov>

i

Response
Code

-<

No Response

o’

RESPONSE COMBINATIONS 92 THROUGH 95

1

1

p a ir e d w ith

2

1

p a ir e d with

3

1

p a ir e d w ith

4

2

p a ir e d with

1
2

3
1

67

2

p a ir e d with

6

2

p air ed with

0

p air ed with

0

and

—
^
Not
Applicable

^
Facilitate

5

Hinder

o'

o

No Response

5

—-«
—
■n>
-<
in

Response
Code

No Response

o'

Table 8 (Continued)

2

3
1

and

2

and

3

NR
1

and

2

pairedO
with

The frequency of responses f o r each p o s s i b l e combination was d e t e r ­
mined f o r each v a r i a b l e f o r every res pondent.

Table 9 r e p o r t s th e

r e s u l t s ; again code res po nse appearance f req ue ncie s above 50 p ercen t
a re noted with a t r i p l e a s t e r i s k .
Based upon r e s u l t s display ed in Table 9, one may conclude t h a t only
Va riables 94 and 95 in f lu e n c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

In both case s the

response code of 1 i s above 50 p e rc en t and i n d i c a t e s t h a t p o s i t i v e
response to the v a r i a b l e q u e stion f a c i l i t a t e s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
Thus, t h i s i n f e r e n c e i s a p p r o p r i a t e :

a low tu r n o v e r r a t e among both

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and i n s t r u c t i o n a l and support s t a f f f a c i l i t a t e s i n s t i ­
tutionalization.
In t h e c ase o f Variable 92 and 93 responses a r e widely d i s t r i b u t e d
with no response code appearance frequency above 50 p e rc e n t .
no v a li d judgment can be made concerning t h e s e v a r i a b l e s .

Therefo re,

Table 9

APPEARANCE FREQUENCIES OF EACH RESPONSE CODE FOR
EACH VARIABLE 92 THROUGH 95

Response Code
Variable

92.
93.
94.
95.

1

2

3

4

5

6

9
14.1

16
25.0

5
7.8

16
25.0

4
6.3

10

3
4.7

14
21.9

12.5

Has the sup erinte n dent been in th e school
d i s t r i c t t h r e e y e a r s o r les s?

F*
P

12

2

18.6

3.1

Has t h e su pe rin te n dent been in the school
d i s t r i c t seven y e ars or more?

F
P

23
35.9

3
4.7

15.6

3
4.7

Is t h e r e a low turn over r a t e among
i n s t r u c t i o n a l and support s t a f f ?

F
P

4
6.3

9
14.1

1
1.6

2

2

3.1

3.1

Is t h e r e a low turnover r a t e among
d i s t r i c t a d m in istr a to r s?

F
P

42
65.6
***
42
65.6

8

2

2

2

12.5

3.1

3.1

3.1

*

***

F = frequency; P = perc en t;

- responses above 50 percent

3
4.7

NR

8

4
6.3
5
7.8

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The Problem
The f i r s t purpose of t h i s study was t o provide information t o i n d i ­
v i d u a l s from lo ca l school d i s t r i c t s who a re c o n s i d e r i n g i n i t i a t i n g
in ce n tiv e -fu n d e d p r o j e c t s .

This study i d e n t i f i e d major v a r i a b l e s which

i n f lu e n c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Such inform ation can be used by school

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p r o j e c t p la n n e r s as a guide so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n w i l l most l i k e l y oc c u r , i f t h a t i s t h e d e s i r e d end.
A second purpose o f t h i s study was t o p ro vide s c h o l a r s and s t u d e n t s
o f planned change with use fu l info rmation on which t o base f u t u r e
research.

This r e s e a r c h provided info rmation about i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­

t i o n in v o c a tio n a l education r e l a t e d a r e a s t h a t was n o t form erly
available.
A t h i r d purpose of t h i s study was t o d i r e c t i n c e n t i v e g r a n t awarders
t o t h e key v a r i a b l e s in f lu e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Knowledge of

t h e s e v a r i a b l e s enables p r o j e c t d e v elo p ers to s t r u c t u r e t h e g r a n t awarding
process and accompanying g u i d e l i n e s so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , when
d e s i r e d , w i l l most l i k e l y occur.

P r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r p r o j e c t proposal

submission can be co o rd ina te d with v a r i a b l e s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n ­
alization.
The f o u r t h purpose of t h i s study was t o provide t e a c h e r e d u ca to r s
with Information t h a t w ill be useful in broadening t h e scope o f programs
t o prep are school p e rs o n n el.

By i d e n t i f y i n g v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e
69

70

i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , t e a c h e r e d u c a t o r s ‘ can help school personnel to be
knowledgeable about i n i t i a t i n g and implementing i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d innova­
tiv e projects.
Thus, t h e problem in t h i s study was to determine t h e v a r i a b l e s which
in f lu e n c e th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d i nn o vatio ns in
vo catio nal education r e l a t e d a r e a s .
Research Procedures
The pop ulatio n f o r t h i s study was i n d i v i d u a l s a s s o c i a t e d with f i f t e e n
in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d in novative p r o j e c t s r e l a t e d to v o c a tio n a l education in
Michigan.

S i t e s were s e l e c t e d from p r o j e c t s recommended by MDE s t a f f

members and based upon s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was used to c o l l e c t d a t a .

Six i n d i v i d u a l s from each

p r o j e c t were randomly s e l e c t e d to r e c e i v e an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ques­
tionnaire.

P a r t I o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was concerned with t h e e x t e n t to

which v a r i a b l e s had occu rred w i t h i n each p r o j e c t and whether o r not
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered by t h e presence or
absence of each v a r i a b l e .

P a r t I I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o l l e c t e d demo­

gr aphic info rmation.
Findings
The d a ta presente d in t h i s study were compiled from t h e response s of
t h e 64 i n d i v i d u a l s (71.1 p e r c e n t res ponse ) who r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
I t was found t h a t in 76 o f 95 v a r i a b l e s on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e over
h a l f o f t h e res pondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e pres ence o f each v a r i a b l e
fa c ilita te d in stitutionalization.

71

The remaining 19 v a r i a b l e s showed i n c o n c l u s i v e l y mixed r e s p o n s e s , and
t h u s , no judgment can be made concerning t h e i r i n f lu e n c e upon i n s t i t u t i o n ­
alization.
None o f the v a r i a b l e s emerged from t h e study as c l e a r l y h in d erin g
in stitutionalization.
Findings concerning t h e i n f l u e n c e o f v a r i a b l e s on t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n Q u e stio n n a ir e can be c a t e g o r i z e d as fo llo w s:
1.

F a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s e x e r t i n g major in f lu e n c e
upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n : v a r i a b l e s above t h e
median (73.4%) o f t h e response code (a+) app ear­
ance freq uence.

2.

F a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s e x e r t i n g some in f lu e n c e
upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n : v a r i a b l e s whose
(a+) res ponse code appearance frequency i s
between 73.4 p e r c e n t and 50.0 p e r c e n t .

3.

V aria bles f o r which no judgment can be made:
v a r i a b l e s whose r es p o nse code appearance
frequency in any resp on se code i s below
50.0 p e r c e n t .

Based on t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s above, t h e fo llo w in g r e s u l t i s s t a t e d :
V a r ia b l e s o f major importance (C a te g o ry !, above) which f a c i l i t a t e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n are:
1.

A g r e a t amount o f a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e t o
project participants.

2.

A high le v e l o f unders tanding concerning
i n d iv i d u a l r o l e s in an in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t .

3.

P ro v isio n o f a g r e a t deal o f i n s e r v i c e
training.

4.

A g r e a t amount o f i n t e r a c t i o n among p r o j e c t
p articip an ts a t all levels.

5.

A high degree of adeptness in process s k i l l s
on t h e p a r t o f a p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r .

6

.

The a v a i l a b i l i t y of r e l i a b l e info rm a ti o n about
t h e p r o j e c t which i s a c c e s s i b l e by p r o j e c t
participants.

72

7.
8

.

9.

Increas ed s t u d e n t m otiv a tion as a r e s u l t of
the p r o j e c t .
Planning b e fo r e p r o j e c t s t a r t - u p .
Stating p ro jec t objectives.

10.

Two-way o ral communication between p r o j e c t
d i r e c t o r s and p r o j e c t s t a f f .

11.

P r o j e c t a d a p t a t i o n to school d i s t r i c t needs.

12.

S t a f f c o o p e r a t i o n du rin g p r o j e c t implementa­
tion.

13.

Incre ased s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g as t h e r e s u l t of
an in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t .

14.

The p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f key personnel in pro­
je c t training.

15.

Following p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e s as s t a t e d .

16.

The p r o j e c t i n i t i a t o r s making known t h e
p o t e n t i a l l on g-te rm e f f e c t s of the p r o j e c t .

17.

Involvement o f se veral sc hools in th e
in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t .

18.

S a t i s f a c t i o n o f p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' con­
c e r n s and g o a ls by p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

19.

C o n t in u i t y o f p r o j e c t management.

20.

Strong v o c a tio n a l d i r e c t o r s u p p o r t o f the
project.

21.

Adequate space a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o j e c t
implementation.

22.

Involvement o f se veral s t a f f members in
t h e in n o v a t i v e p r o j e c t .

23.

Strong c o n t i n u a t i o n o f p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e s .

24.

D e s c r ip tio n o f p r o j e c t m e r i t s be fore p r o j e c t
start-up.

25.

The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of key personnel in
p r o j e c t d e c i s i o n making.

26.

Addressing p r a c t i c a l concerns a t p r o j e c t
m eetings.

73

27.

The development o f p r o j e c t m a t e r i a l s by
project s ta f f .

28.

Ample time f o r p r o j e c t implementation.

29.

S u f f i c i e n t equipment a v a i l a b l e f o r p r o j e c t
implementation.

30.

Positive fin al p ro ject evaluation.

31.

M a te r ia ls a v a i l a b l e t o implement th e
in n ov ativ e p r o j e c t .

32.

A high lev e l o f community sup p o rt o f school
inn o vation .

33.

S u f f i c i e n t people a v a i l a b l e t o implement
an in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t .

34.

Pe rce ptio n s o f p r o j e c t su ccess on t h e p a r t
o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l and su p po rt s t a f f .

35.

A d m i n is tr a t iv e f l e x i b i l i t y in d e aling w ith
u n a n t i c i p a t e d p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d e v e n ts.

I t is a l s o o f i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e r e a r e 41 v a r i a b l e s in Category 2
which e x e r t some i n f l u e n c e t o f a c i l i t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and 19
v a r i a b l e s in Category 3 f o r which no judgment can be made concerning
t h e i r i n f l u e n c e upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

CONCLUSIONS
In t h i s study 35 v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d as e x e r t i n g major
i n f lu e n c e upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Each plays an important r o l e in

t h e f a c i l i t a t i o n o f change and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f in novative
projects.

These major v a r i a b l e s may be l o o s e l y grouped i n t o the f o l ­

lowing d i v i s i o n s :

s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s , a f f e c t i v e o r i e n t a t i o n s ,

communications a s p e c t s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s t u d e n t impact,
p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d components, planning and l o g i s t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and
scope o f involvement.

74

S t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s play a major r o l e in t h e su ccessfu l
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d i n n o v ativ e p r o j e c t s .

Sub­

s t a n t i a l , p r a c t i c a l i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g must be provided to p r o j e c t
p a r t i c i p a n t s , followed by whatever a s s i s t a n c e i s n e ce ssa r y t o implement
the p r o j e c t .

I t i s important t h a t key personnel from a l l l e v e l s p a r t i ­

c i p a t e in s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s .
S a t i s f a c t i o n of a f f e c t i v e concerns is an impo rtan t f a c t o r in
a chiev in g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Ind iv id u al goal achievement as a

r e s u l t o f p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s important.

School personnel must

c l e a r l y understand t h e i r r o l e s in t h e p r o j e c t and any r o l e changes
n e c e s s i t a t e d by p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

A p r o j e c t which i s pe rceived

t o be s u c ce ss f u l and which s a t i s f i e s in d iv i d u a l concerns i s more l i k e l y
t o achieve i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n than one which does not.
V a ria b les which have a communications o r i e n t a t i o n a r e extremely
important in f a c i l i t a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

Considerable

p a r t i c i p a n t i n t e r a c t i o n , i n c lu d in g two-way o r a l communication,, is
v ital.

I n t e r a c t i o n should occur between and among a l l l e v e l s o f

school personnel and w ill l i k e l y r e s u l t in i n c r e a s e d s t a f f coopera­
tion.
all.

Information exchanged must be r e l i a b l e and e a s i l y accessed by
P r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s a l s o need to have t h e o p p o r t u n it y t o l e a r n

about and q u e stio n p r o j e c t m e r i t s and p o t e n t i a l l o n g -te rm p r o j e c t
effects.
A d m i n is tr a t iv e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s play an im port ant r o l e in a ch iev in g
an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p r o j e c t .

P r o j e c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who a r e ad ep t in

process s k i l l s and f l e x i b l e in d e a l in g with p r o j e c t c o n tin g e n c ie s i n c r e a s e
t h e chances o f p r o j e c t c o ntin u ance.

C o n tin u ity of t h e s e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

75

i s important to m ain tain p o s i t i v e p r o j e c t momentum.

Support o f , and

commitment to the p r o j e c t by th e v o catio nal d i r e c t o r is c r i t i c a l to
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of v ocatio nal education r e l a t e d p r o j e c t s .
While v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t impact a r e not t h e most
important v a r i a b l e s in f a c i l i t a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , they a r e ,
n o n e th e le s s , important.

Increas ed st u d e n t m o tiv a tio n and l e a r n i n g

a s a r e s u l t o f t h e p r o j e c t a re t h e most important s t u d e n t impact
v a ria b l e s.
Allowing adequate planning time b e fo r e p r o j e c t s t a r t - u p is
an impo rtan t v a r i a b l e which in f lu e n c e s o t h e r v a r i a b l e s having a l o g i s ­
tic a l orientation.

Having enough space, equipment and m a t e r i a l s f o r

p r o j e c t implementation i s important f o r p r o j e c t s u r v i v a l , and t h u s ,
a ffects project in stitu tio n a liz a tio n .

Ample time must be a l l o t t e d

f o r p r o j e c t implementation as implementation g r e a t l y i n f lu e n c e s con­
tinuation.

Involvement o f s u f f i c i e n t personnel to a d equ ate ly implement

a p roject also f a c i l i t a t e s i n s t itu tio n a liz a tio n .
Several v a r i a b l e s sur f a c e d as p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d components i n f l u e n c ­
ing p o t e n t i a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .

When t h e i nn o vativ e p r o j e c t i t s e l f

can be adapted o r modified to meet school d i s t r i c t needs, i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n p o t e n t i a l i s enhanced.

C l e a r l y s t a t i n g and follo w in g

p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e s i s important; but here to o , m o d i f i c a t i o n should
o c c u r , i f n e c e ssa r y .

M a t e r i a l s which a r e r e q u i r e d f o r p r o j e c t imple­

m entation should be developed by p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s .

P r o j e c t s which

t e r m in a t e with a p o s i t i v e f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n a l s o a r e more l i k e l y to
c on tin ue than t h o s e which do not.
P r o j e c t s f o r which i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s d e s i r e d should involved
a wide v a r i e t y o f personnel in a l l a s p e c t s o f p r o j e c t l i f e .

The

76

p a r t i c i p a t i o n of key personnel from both a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l l e v e l s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important in p r o j e c t d e c i s i o n making.
Active community su p po rt o f th e in novation can be included in t h i s
scope o f involvement category.
In c o n c lu s io n , i t is important to recognize t h a t each v a r i a b l e
may a f f e c t and be a f f e c t e d by every o t h e r v a r i a b l e .

Presence of

the major f a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s alone may not be enough to i n s u r e
institu tion alizatio n .

V a r ia t io n in terms o f degree and q u a l i t y o f

each v a r i a b l e may, in f a c t , cause v a r i a t i o n in terms o f t h e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n outcome.

However t h i s study c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e s some

f a c t o r s t h a t have a s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n of in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t s in v oc atio n a l e d ucation
related areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The follo w in g recommendations a r e made which r e l a t e to th e purposes
o f t h e study:
1.

That lo c a l school d i s t r i c t personnel be aware of
and understand t h e major v a r i a b l e s which in f lu e n c e
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n b e fo r e i n i t a t i n g i n c e n t i v e funded p r o j e c t s . C ate g orie s of major v a r i a b l e s
i n c lu d e s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s , a f f e c t i v e
o r i e n t a t i o n , communications a s p e c t , administra-:
t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s t u d e n t impact, p r o j e c t r e l a t e d components, planning and l o g i s t i c a l
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and scope of involvement.

2.

That a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h be conducted concerning
t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f in n ov atio n s in voca­
t i o n a l educated r e l a t e d a r e a s . Research in
t h r e e a r e a s i s recommended:
a.

Case s t u d i e s inv o lv in g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and
n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d i n c e n tiv e - fu n d e d

77

p r o j e c t s should be conducted. Case study method­
ology can provide in-d ep th inform ation c e n t e r i n g
upon th e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d
in t h i s study.
b.

Research should be conducted to f u r t h e r i n v e s t i ­
g a te v a r i a b l e s found in Category 2 (page 71).
While t h e s e v a r i a b l e s e x e r t some f a c i l i t a t i n g
i n f l u e n c e (a+ c o d e ) , t h e r e a r e o t h e r code response s
which appea r with some s t r e n g t h , although not
r eachin g t h e 50.0 p e r c e n t response r a t e .

c.

Study should be made o f t h e Category 3 v a r i a b l e s
(page 71) which d i d not achieve a 50.0 p e rc e n t
response level and f o r which no judgments can be
made. Considerab le v a r i a t i o n o c c u r r e d w i t h in
t h e code res ponses f o r t h e s e v a r i a b l e s ; y e t ,
some v a r i a b l e s appeared with s t r e n g t h but not
to t h e 50.0 p e r c e n t response r a t e .

3.

That i n c e n t i v e g r a n t awarding agencies be aware o f , under­
stand and use information about th e major v a r i a b l e s which
f a c i l i t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . However, b e fo re such
in form atio n is use d, g r a n t awarders must de termine whether
or n o t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s a d e s i r e d end. I f i t i s ,
then t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n must be communicated e x p l i c i t l y t o
p o t e n t i a l g r a n t r e c i p i e n t s . Once t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s determined and communicated, then
knowledge of f a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s should be shared with
lo c a l d i s t r i c t personnel t o help i n s u r e t h e d e s i r e d o u t ­
come. I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n r e q u i s i t e s can be i n co rp o ra te d
i n t o g u i d e l i n e s f o r i n c e n t i v e p r o j e c t proposal submission.
Adequate time f o r proposal development and p r o j e c t imple­
m entation must then be provided so t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
potential is realized .
In c o n ju n c tio n with g u i d e l i n e
e s t a b l i s h m e n t , funding a g en ts should e s t a b l i s h check­
p o i n t s which help d i s t r i c t personnel e v a l u a t e progres s
lea d in g to an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p r o j e c t . To f u r t h e r local
e f f o r t s , funding agents s h o u l d ' c o n s i d e r r e q u i r i n g t h i r d p a r t y e v a l u a t i o n to be an i n t e g r a l component o f an
i n c e n ti v e - fu n d e d in n o v a tiv e p r o j e c t . Third p a rt y evalua ­
t i o n should be both c o n c u r re n t and term in al in n a tu r e .

4.

That v o c a tio n a l t e a c h e r e d u ca to rs i n c l u d e th e stud y of
e d u c a tio n a l change and i t s ' f a c i l i t a t i o n in p r e s e n t
g r a d u a t e program requ ire m e nts . In g r a d u a t e and i n s e r v i c e
programs emphasis should be placed upon i n i t i a t i n g , imple­
menting, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g in c e n ti v e - fu n d e d in n o v a tiv e
p r o j e c t s . G r a n ts m a n sh ip o r ie n te d programs a l s o should be
provided to complement change o r i e n t e d course o f f e r i n g s .

CAUTIONS TO THE READER

L i m i ta t io n s a r e i n h e r e n t in t h i s study which must be taken i n t o con
s i d e r a t i o n by t h e r e a d e r in th e ev en t t h a t h e /s h e de cid es to conduct
f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o t h e f i n d i n g s o f th e stu d y.

Such l i m i t a t i o n s

a re not p r o h i b i t i v e , y e t must be noted as c a u t io n s o f which t h e r e a d er
should be aware.
Due t o t h e highly complex n a t u r e of e du ca tio nal change and i n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n i t s e l f , ambiguity i s p r e s e n t in the n a t u r e o f t h e t o p ic
itself.

While i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y major f a c i l i t a t i n g v a r i a b l e s ,

o t h e r l e s s t a n g i b l e i n f lu e n c e s may s u r f a c e unexpectedly during t h e l i f e
of an i n c e n t i v e p r o j e c t which may g r e a t l y a f f e c t i t s ' i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t i o n p o t e n t i a l and r e a l i t y .
I t may be d i f f i c u l t to r e p l i c a t e t h e stu d y , p a r t i c u l a r l y due to
t h e s p e c i f i c n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y small number o f i n c e n t i v e p r o j e c t s
chosen f o r i n c l u s i o n in t h e stu dy .

In a d d i t i o n t o which, t h e time

f a c t o r used as a c r i t e r i o n f o r p r o j e c t s e l e c t i o n may h in d er l o c a t i o n
and a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f former p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s .

C haracteristics of

the survey in stru m e n t i t s e l f may a f f e c t r e p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e study and
s e rv e as a c a u t io n t o t h e r e a d e r .

For example, i t i s n o t known how th e

q u e s t i o n n a i r e res p on d en ts i n t e r p r e t e d t h e term "not a p p l i c a b l e " on th e
ratin g scale.

One respo n dent may have i n t e r p r e t e d t h e term t o mean not

impo rtan t as f a r as i n f l u e n c i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ; whereas an o th e r
respondent may have used t h e term t o mean t h a t i t was n o t a p p r o p r i a t e ,
from h i s / h e r p e r s p e c t i v e , to respond t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e v a r i a b l e
itself.

Other terms used on t h e r a t i n g s c a l e may have been s u b j e c t to

q u a n t i t a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n v a r i a n c e on t h e p a r t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e
resp o n d en ts.
78

79

The group o f responden ts termed " s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s " was assumed to
have s u f f i c i e n t knowledge and unde rstanding of t h e i n c e n t i v e p r o j e c t s
under study to be a b le to complete th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

In r e a l i t y t h i s

assumption may not have been v a l i d as evidenced by t h e low r e t u r n r a t e
in t h i s c a t e g o r y and t h e number o f non-usable " s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r " resp on ses.
The method o f a n a l y s i s chosen f o r t h i s study i s not a sta n d a r d i z e d
a n a l y t i c a l techniq ue and may i t s e l f s e r v e as a c a u t io n to th e r e a d e r .
For example, the p o s i t i v e and n e g a tiv e s ig n s o f th e response codes were
chosen on a mathematical b a s i s and may need t o be r e v i s e d f o r the sake
o f f a c e value c o n s i s t e n c y .
While t h e s e l i m i t a t i o n s should s e r v e as c a u t io n s t o t h e r e a d e r who
may conduct r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h , they in no way ne g ate t h e v a lu e e i t h e r of
t h i s study or r e l a t e d f u t u r e r e s e a r c h .

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
This work c l e a r l y s u b s t a n t i a t e s th e i n t u i t i v e idea t h a t i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n i s a complex i s s u e which is not to be taken l i g h t l y e i t h e r
by g r a n t awarding agencies o r g r a n t r e c i p i e n t s .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARNETT, H.G. Innovation: The Basis o f C ultu ra l Change.
Book Company, I n c . , New York, 1953.

McGraw-Hill

BELL, Gerald D. ( e d . ) . Organiz atio n s and Human B eh avio r.
I n c . , Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y , 1967.

Prentice-H all,

BENNIS, Warren G.; BENNE, Kenneth D.; and CHIN, Robert ( e d s . ) . The Plan­
ning o f Change. Holt, R in ehart, and.Winston, New York, 1961.
BERMAN, Paul, and McLAUGHLIN, Milbrey Wallin. Federal Programs Supporting
Educational Change, Vol. I: A Model o f Educational Change. Rand
C orporation, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , September, 1974.
__________ ^
Educational Change, Vol. IV: The Findings in Review.
Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , A p r i l , 1975.

.Federal Programs Supporting
Rand C orpo ratio n ,

.
Federal Programs Supporting
Educational Change, Vol. VII: F a c to r s A f f e c t i n g Implementation and
C o n t in u a t io n . Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , A p r i l , 1977.
_
Educational Change, Vol. V I I I .
May, 1978.

.Federal Programs Supporting
Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a ,

BERMAN, Paul, and PAULY, Edward W. Federal Programs Supporting Educational
Change, Volume I I : F a c to r s A f f e c tin g Change Agent P r o j e c t s . Rand
Corporation, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , A p r i l , 1975.
BENTZEN, Mary M. ( e d . ) . Changing Schools: The Magic Fe a th e r P r i n c i p l e .
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1974.
BUSHNELL, David S . , and RAPPAPORT, Donald ( e d s . ) . Planned Change in
Education: A Systems Approach. H arcou rt, Brace, Jovanovich, I n c . ,
New York, 197).
COGAN, Morris L. Educational Inn ovation:
I n t o P r a c t i c e , June, 1976, lj> ( 3 ) .

Educational Wasteland, Theory

CULVER, Carmen J . , and HOBAN Gary J . ( e d s . ) . The Power t o Change: Issues
f o r t h e Inno v ativ e E d ucato r. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1973.
DUNN, James A., and BOWERS, John E. Vocational Education Curriculum
S p e c i a l i s t P r o j e c t , American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, Pa lo, Alto,
C a l i f o r n i a , 1976, Module I I .
GADDIS, Marilyn T y le r. "Organiz ational and Personal C o n s t r a i n t s on t h e
Successful I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f I n d i v i d u a l l y Guided E du catio n ,"
Technical Report No. 447, U n i v e r s i t y o f Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
January, 1978.

80

81
GROSS, Neal; GIACQUINTA, Joseph B.; and BERNSTEIN, Marilyn. Implementing
O rganiz ational Innovations: A S ociolo gical Analysis o f Planned
Educational ChanqeT Basic Books, I n c . , New York, 1971.
HAGE, J e r a l d , and AIKEN, Michael.
Random House, New York, 1970.
HAVELOCK,
Social

Social Change in Complex O r g a n iz a t i o n s .

Ronald G. A Guide to Innovation in E ducation. I n s t i t u t e f o r
Research. U n i v e r s i ty o f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1970.

______________. Planning f o r Innovation Through Dissemination and
U t i l i z a t i o n of Knowledge. I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research. U n i v e r s i ty
o f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971.
HELMER, 0. The Use o f the Delphi Technigue in Problems of Educational
Innovations. Rand C orp o ratio n, Santa Monica, C a l i f o r n i a , 1966.
No. P-3499.
HIRSCH, Werner Z. and C olle agues. In venting Education f o r t h e Future.
Chandler Publish in g Company, San Fran cisco , C a l i f o r n i a , 1967.
HOWES, Nancy J . "Factors Related t o t h e I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f Changes
in Divergent O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Paper presen ted a t t h e Annual Meeting
o f th e Northeastern Research A s s o c ia t io n , E l l e n v i l l e , New York,
October, 1976.
_______________ . "A Contingency Model f o r P r e d i c t i n g I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
o f Innovations Across Divergent O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Paper presen te d a t
AERA Meeting, New York, New York, A p r i l , 1977.
HULL, William L . , and WELLS, Randall L. The C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Evaluation
o f Innovations in Vocational and Technical E ducation. The Ohio S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , Columbus, Ohio, 1972.
HUSE, E.F. Organ iz atio n Development and Change.
New York, 1975.

West Publish ing Company,

KIRST, Michael W. "The Growth and Limits of Federal In flu en c e in Educa­
t i o n , " Occasional Paper 72-9, September, 1972, School o f Education,
Stanford U n i v e r s i ty .
LEVIN, Kurt. P r i n c i p l e s o f Topological Psychology.
Company, New York, 1936.

McGraw-Hill Book

LIPPITT, Gordon L. V i s u a l i z i n g Change. N.T.L. - Learning Resources
C orporation, F a i r f a x , V i r g i n i a , 1973.
MANN, Floyd C., and NEFF, Fran k lin W. Managing Major Change in Organ­
i z a t i o n s . Foundation f o r Research on Human Behavior. Braun and
Brumfield, I n c . , Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1961.

82

MILES, Matthew B. (ed .) * Innovations in Edu cation.
Columbia U n i v e r s i ty , New York, 1964.

Teachers College P re ss ,

New Dimensions f o r Educating Youth. A B ice n te n n ial Conference Report on
America's Secondary Schools, USOE/NASSP, 1976.
PACKARD, John S . , and JOVICK, Thomas. " P r e d i c t i n g Success in I n n o v a tio n ."
MITT P r o j e c t , U n i v e r s i ty of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, March, 1978.
Research I m p lic a tio n s f o r Education D i f f u s i o n . Major Papers Prese nted
a t th e National Conference on D iffu sio n o f Educational I d e a s , East
Lansing, Michigan, 1968.
Research in I n d u s t r i a l Human R e l a t i o n s .
A s s o c ia t io n , P u b l i c a t i o n 17, 1957.

I n d u s t r i a l R e la ti o n s Research

ROBERTS, Roy W. Vocational and P r a c t i c a l Arts E ducation.
Row, New York, 1971.
ROGERS, E v e r e tt M. Diffusi on of I n n o v a t i o n s .
Company, New York, 1962.

Harper and

The Free P r e s s , MacMillan

ROGERS, E .L ., and SHOEMAKER, Floyd F. Communication of I n n o v a t i o n s .
2nd e d . , Free P r e s s , New York, 1971.
The Annual and Long Range S t a t e Plan f o r Vocational Education, 1977-78.
Michigan Department of Education, Third Working D r a f t.
T r a n s f e r r in g Su ccess. National D i f f u sio n Network, Far West Laboratory
f o r Educational Research and Development, San F r a n c i s c o , March, 1976.
VENN, Grant. "Seeking an A d m i n is tr a t iv e Commitment t o I n n o v a tio n ."
Center f o r Vocational Education, The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Columbus,
Ohio, A p r i l , 1976.
VON HADEN, H e rb ert I . , and KING, Jean Marie. Inno v atio ns in E ducation.
Charles A. Jones P ublishing Company, Worthington, Ohio, 1971.
WANGERIN-MEYER, J u d i t h . D iffusio n Of an American Montessori E d u ca tio n .
The U n i v e rs i ty o f Chicago, Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 1975.
ZALTZMAN, Gerald ( e d . ) . Processes arid Phenomena o f Social Change.
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973.

John

APPENDIX A

83

INCENTIVE-FUNDED PROJECTS
Total
Population*

Total
Sample

Total
Respondents

Mobile Career Development Laboratory P r o j e c t
Charlevoix-Emmet ISD
Gogebic-Ontonagon ISD
Eas tern Upper Peninsula ISD

36
15
18

6
6
6

2
3
4

Career Development Support Serv ices Program
Kalamazoo Valley ISD
Charlevoix-Emmet ISD
Kent ISD
Macomb ISD
Genesee ISD
Calhoun ISD
Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque I s l e ISD

10
42
17
15
**
**
**

6
6
6
6

3
1
6
3

-

-

-

-

Area Placement P r o j e c t
G r a t i o t - I s a b e l l a ISD
Genesee ISD
Gogebic-Ontonagon ISD
Muskegon ISD
Lenawee ISD
UP Placement P r o j e c t

23
10
15
16
15
18

6
6
6
6
6
6

6
3
6
6
6
6

Career Explo ration and Related T rain in g
Eastern Upper Peninsula ISD

16

6

5

9

6

4

14

6

6

Curriculum Development P r o j e c t
Capitol Area Career Center

8

6

3

Computer Management System P r o j e c t
Capitol Area Career Center

9

6

4

316

108

64

Vocational Education Reading Power P r o j e c t
Oakland ISD
Career Development P r o j e c t
Coloma School D i s t r i c t

TOTAL

“

Names rec e iv e d from c o n t a c t persons f o r each p r o j e c t . (These numbers
may n o t r e p r e s e n t a c t u a l number o f p r o j e c t p a r t i c i p a n t s ; r a t h e r names
f o r which a d d re ss e s were a v a i l a b l e . )
No response o r r e c e i v e d to o l a t e f o r i n c l u s i o n .

84

GENERIC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
The Mobile Career Development Laboratory P r o j e c t s focused upon th e
p r o v i s i o n of c a r e e r info rmation and awareness to high school s t u d e n t s .
Decision-making f o r v o c a tio n a l s e l e c t i o n was h e a v i ly s t r e s s e d as were
s e l f awareness a c t i v i t i e s .

M a t e r i a l s development and c o l l e c t i o n and

i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g were among th e p r o j e c t components.

P r o j e c t s moved

from o r i g i n a l r e l i a n c e on mobile u n i t s i n t o c a r e e r information c e n t e r s
w i t h i n t h e sc h o o ls.
The Career Development Support S e r v ic e s Program p r o j e c t s provided
i n s e r v i c e and a s s i s t a n c e in t h e development and use o f c a r e e r development
oriented m aterials.

A c a r e e r guidance component was i nclu d ed .

Project

a c t i v i t i e s focused upon t e a c h e r s the f i r s t y e a r and upon s t u d e n t s the
second y e a r .
The Area Placement P r o j e c t s were intended t o develop placement
programs a t t h e secondary l e v e l .

Record keeping p roce d ures, follow -up

a c t i v i t i e s , and t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f community c o n t a c t s were included
in t h e s e p r o j e c t s .

T ra inin g o f placement personnel in m a t e r i a l s use

and placement s t r a t e g i e s were a p a r t o f t h e s e p r o j e c t s .
The Career Exp lo ration and Related T r a i n in g p r o j e c t s developed a
two-phase approach to c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n .

Emphasis was placed upon

c a r e e r awareness a t t h e j u n i o r high school l e v e l and upon c a r e e r e x p lo r a ­
t i o n a t t h e high school l e v e l .

Stu d en t and t e a c h e r o r i e n t e d m a t e r i a l s

were developed co v erin g a l l a r e a s o f l i f e r o l e competencies.

T raining

packages and an implementation process to be used by t e a c h e r s were a l s o
developed.

85

The Vocational Education Reading Power P r o j e c t had as i t s major i n t e n t ,
the c lo s i n g o f t h e gap between reading d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l
m a t e r i a l s and reading problems encountered by secondary s t u d e n ts in voca­
t i o n a l education.

As a r e s u l t o f the p r o j e c t , modified reading m a t e r i a l s

f o r s t u d e n ts and t r a i n i n g packages f o r te a c h e r s were developed.

Reading

s k i l l improvement was i ncorp ora te d i n to vocatio nal i n s t r u c t i o n .
The Career Development P r o j e c t a t t h e secondary level had a t h r e e ­
pronged o r i e n t a t i o n .

Emphasis was upon th e i n c o r p o r a ti o n o f a c a r e e r

planning course i n t o t h e school c u r r i c u l a .
awareness and c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .

This c l a s s included s e l f Emphasis was a ls o upon

i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s with te a c h e r s r e l a t e d t o in fu sin g c a r e e r development
i n to t h e classroom.

And t h i r d , as a guidance component, was the develop­

ment and implementation o f a model t o help s t u d e n ts plan f o r t h e i r c a r e e r
preparation.
The Curriculum Development P r o j e c t (CDP) c e n t e r e d around t h e p lan ­
ning, development, and implementation o f i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , s e l f - p a c e d ,
modularized u n i t s of i n s t r u c t i o n in th e vo c atio n a l classroom.

I t was

e s s e n t i a l l y a c u r r i c u l a r system designed around a c a r e e r lad d e r approach
t o meet the needs of s t u d e n ts a t a l l l e v e l s o f a b i l i t y and a s p i r a t i o n .
The Computer Management System P r o j e c t complemented t h e CDP and had as
i t s purpose the development o f a computerized system to manage the
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d curriculum approach so t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s could r e a d i l y
a c c e s s , modify, and use needed m a t e r i a l s and information.

APPENDIX B

86

||] Agricultural and Natural Resources Education Institute
410 Agriculture Hall
(517)355-6580
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Michigan State University

November 14, 1978

Dear (Name):
You may remember working with (Name) on th e (Name of P r o j e c t ) . He
suggested t h a t I c o n t a c t you f o r a l i s t o f people a s s o c i a t e d with
it.
There has been a c o n s i d e r a b le amount of i n t e r e s t in t h e i n s t i t u t i o n ­
al i 2 a t i o n of e x t e r n a l l y funded p r o j e c t s in v oc atio n a l ed ucation . I
am prepari ng a st udy to determine t h e important v a r i a b l e s t h a t a f f e c t
the success o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . To c o l l e c t t h i s i nfo rm a tio n , I
have t o g e t in touch with t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and o t h e r s
a s s o c i a t e d with t h e p r o j e c t .
Your co o p eration in providing me with t h e i r names and a d d re ss es on
the enclosed forms would be g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d . I f you could
f u r n i s h me with a t l e a s t f i v e names in each c ateg o r y , I could a r r i v e
a t a v a l i d sample. Some o f t h e people you might t h i n k o f may have
moved away. Would you p l e a s e in clu d e t h e i r names and a d d r e s s e s ,
i f you know them, anyway?
(Name), thank you very much f o r you r h e lp .
S i n c e r e ly ,

Linda S. McFaul
A r t i c u l a t i on Con su ltan t
LSM/caf
Enclosures

87

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
In d iv id u a ls in t h i s category should r e p r e s e n t p r o j e c t a d m i n i s t r a t io n ,
i . e . , p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r o r c o o rd in a to r , v o c a tio n a l d i r e c t o r , members
o f an a d m i n i s t r a t iv e o r c o o rd in a tin g comm ittee, e t c . These persons
should have been involved, i f p o s s ib l e , th ro ugh out t h e d u ra tio n of
th e p r o j e c t on a r e g u la r co n tin u in g b a s i s .
NAME

___________________________

ADDRESS

NAME

ADDRESS

___________________________

ADDRESS ________

NAME

_________

___________________________

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

NAME
ADDRESS

NAME
ADDRESS

___________________________

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

88
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
I n d iv id u a ls in t h i s
classroom t e a c h e r s ,
e tc . These persons
th e d u ra tio n o f th e

c ateg o ry should r e p r e s e n t p r o j e c t implementors, i . e . ,
placem ent p e rso n n el, co-op c o o r d in a to r s , c o u n s e lo rs ,
should have been in volved, i f p o s s ib l e , throughout
p r o j e c t on a r e g u la r co n tin u in g b a s i s .

NAME

NAME

ADDRESS_________ ■

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

___________________________

ADDRESS •

NAME
ADDRESS

NAME

____

___________________________
_______

___________________________

ADDRESS

NAME
ADDRESS

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

89

SIGNIFICANT OTHERS
I n d iv id u a ls in t h i s c ateg o ry should be persons having a knowledge o f
th e p r o j e c t , b u t not having an a c t i v e involvement w ith p r o j e c t admin­
i s t r a t i o n or im plem entation. Such persons might in c lu d e : s u p e r­
in te n d e n t, a s s i s t a n t s u p e r in te n d e n t, d i r e c t o r s o f v a rio u s s e r v i c e
a r e a s , b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s , e t c .
NAME

__________________________

ADDRESS

NAME

ADDRESS

___________.___________________

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME
ADDRESS

___________________________

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

NAME
ADDRESS

___________________________

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

NAME

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDRESS

90

111 Agricultural and Natural Resources Education Institute
jj| 410 Agriculture Hall
(517) 355-6580
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Michigan State University

December 14, 1978

Dear (Name):
Thank you f o r pro vid ing me w ith th e names and a d d re sses o f i n d iv id u a ls
a s s o c i a t e d w ith th e (Name o f P r o j e c t ) . Your resp o n se w ill h elp me
c a r r y o u t th e next s te p o f th e study d e a lin g w ith th e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a ­
t io n o f e x t e r n a l l y funded p r o j e c ts in v o c a tio n a l ed u ca tio n .
(Name), thank you very much f o r your h e lp .
S in c e re ly y o u rs,

Linda S. McFaul
A r t i c u l a t i o n C o n su ltan t
LSM/caf

APPENDIX C

91
Agricultural and Natural Resources Education Institute
410 Agriculture Hall
(517)355-6580
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824

January 30, 1979

Dear (Name):
You have been i d e n t i f i e d by your p ro fe s s io n a l c o lle a g u e s as an
in d iv id u a l who played a key r o l e in th e (Name o f P r o j e c t ) .
There has been a c o n s id e ra b le amount o f i n t e r e s t in th e i n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f e x t e r n a l l y funded p r o j e c ts in v o c atio n a l ed u ca tio n .
I am p rep a rin g a study to determ ine th e im portant f a c t o r s t h a t
a f f e c t th e success o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n .
Will you p le a s e help me by responding to th e enclosed q u e s tio n n a ir e
which w ill i d e n t i f y such f a c t o r s ? Because o f your e f f o r t s , you
a re in an e x c e ll e n t p o s i t io n t o f u rn is h i n s i g h t in to in n o v atio n which
can b e n e f i t re s e a r c h d e a lin g with change.
Your responses w ill be held s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n ti a l and t h e r e f o r e ,
your anonymity m a in tain ed . Your r e t u r n i n g t h i s q u e s tio n n a ir e by
February 21, 1979 would be a p p re c ia te d .
Thank you very much f o r your h elp .
S in c e r e ly y o u rs,

Linda S. McFaul
A r t i c u l a t i o n C onsultant
LSM/caf
E nclosure

92
Institutionalization Q uestionnaire
Michigan State University

Jan u ary 1979

East Laming, Michigan 48824
W h en a s c h o o l d istric t Im p le m e n ts a n e x te rn a lly fu n d e d Innovative p ro je c t, th e
d istric t m u st d e c id e w h a t to d o w h e n th e e x te rn a l fu n d in g c e a s e s . T h e p ro je c t
m a y b e d r o p p e d o r It m ay c o n tin u e a s p a r t of re g u la r d istric t o p e ra tio n s .
In th e la tte r c a s e , w e s a y th a t t h e p ro je c t h a s b e e n “in stitu tio n a liz e d .” T h e re
m ay b e c e rta in v a ria b le s w h ic h in d ic a te th a t a p ro je c t will c o n tin u e a n d b e c o m e
iadliU . ,i2jhMAll«Jkji ■,1i&UI M 41km

Y L m £ MM 4.4!

M
B«

Jl. .mU

..A>!a UIa * 1A
* 4U A

P le a s e re a d th e q u e s tio n s b elo w . K eep in m in d th a t e a c h q u e s tio n is p re fa c e d
w ith "T O WHAT EXTENT.”

1

2

?a
a
m
£
(9
<

H inder

Not Applicable

3

Facilitate

2

Som ew hat

1

No Opinion

5

Very Little

4

Not at All

FIRST: c irc le th e n u m b e r o n th e ratin g s c a le (1*5) a t th e im m e d ia te rig h t of
e a c h q u e s tio n to in d ic a te to w h a t e x te n t th is o c c u r e d in y o u r p ro ject.

3

1. Did p ro je c t p a rtic ip a n ts, a t a // levels. In te ra c t w ith o n e a n o th e r ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

2. W ere ta n g ib le in c e n tiv e s (e.g .. re le a s e d tim e, p ay ) u s e d to m o tiv ate
p ro je c t sta ff?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

3. D id th e in itia to rs o f th e p ro je c t m a k e k n o w n th e p o te n tia l lo n g -te rm
e ffe c ts ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4. H a s th e p ro je c t b e e n c o n tin u e d a s initially Im p le m e n te d ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

5. D id p e o p le o u ts id e o f th e d istric t d ire c t th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

6 . D id y o u r s c h o o l d istric t h a v e a h isto ry o f a d o p tin g v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n
re la te d in n o v a tio n s?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

7. D id th e v o c a tio n a l d ire c to r s u p p o r t th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

8. W as th e final p ro je c t e v a lu a tio n p o sitiv e ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

9. W ere r e g u la r p r o je c t m e e tin g s h e ld ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

S E C O N D : c irc le t h e n u m b e r o n th e ratin g s c a le (1-3) a t th e fa r rig h t of e a c h
q u e s tio n to in d ic a te w h e th e r in stitu tio n a liz a tio n w a s facilita ted o r h in d e re d by
th e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e of e a c h item .
T O W HAT EXTENT:

10. W as th e r e a p ilo t te s t f o r m o d ific a tio n o f th e p ro je c t b e fo re la rg e s c a le
im p le m e n ta tio n ?
11. D id th e p ro je c t in c r e a s e sta ff w o rk lo a d s?
12. D id final e v a lu a tio n o c c u r ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

13. D o e s t h e s c h o o l d istric t h a v e a n o p e n o rg a n iz a tio n a l c lim a te ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

14. Did t h e in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff feel po sitiv ely a b o u t th e ir p ro ­
f e s s io n a l c o m p e te n c e ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

15. W as th e r e in c r e a s e d s tu d e n t le a rn in g a s a re s u lt of th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

16. Did m o n ito rin g of th e p ro je c t b y th e M ichigan D e p a rtm e n t of E d u c a tio n
o ccu r?

1

2

3

4

S

1

2

3

17. Did th e M ic h ig a n D e p a rtm e n t o f E d u c a tio n p a rtic ip a te activ ely in th e
p ro je c t?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

18. W as t h e in n o v ativ e p r o je c t m a n d a te d e x te rn a lly ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

19. Did o u ts id e p e o p le tra in p ro je c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

20. W as th e p r o je c t d ir e c to r a d e p t In p r o c e s s sk ills?

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

21. W e re in ta n g ib le p r o f e s s io n a l a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l in c e n tiv e s
e n c o u r a g e m e n t, re c o g n itio n ) u s e d to m o tiv a te p ro je c t sta ff?

(e .g .,

93

TO WHAT EXTENT:

D IR E C T IO N S :
P le a s e re a d th e q u e s tio n s b elo w . K eep in m in d th a t e a c h q u e s tio n is p re fa c e d
w ith "T O W HAT EXTENT."

Did this facilitate
o r hinder in stitu­
tionalizing y o u r
project?

1

FIR ST: c irc le th e n u m b e r o n th e ra tin g s c a le (1-5) a t th e im m e d ia te rig h t of
e a c h q u e s tio n to in d ic a te to w h a t e x te n t th is o c c u r e d in your p ro ject.

2

•

3

e
0
1
a.

4

5

2*
41

O

>

Z

22. D id th e p ro je c t re fle c t th e s u p e r in te n d e n t’s p rio ritie s?

2

3

4

5

23. W as a s s is ta n c e a v a ila b le to p ro je c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

2

3

4

24. W as th e r e tw o -w a y o ra l c o m m u n ic a tio n b e tw e e n th e p r o je c t d ir e c to rs
a n d p ro je c t im p le m e n to rs ?

2

3

25. Did th e b u ild in g p rin c ip a l p a r tic ip a te in th e tra in in g ?

2

26. W as t h e r e s p a c e to c o n tin u e th e p r o je c t a f te r th e e x te rn a l fu n d in g e n d e d ?

5

«
o

2

a

3

«

a
4»

1
| 1
U9

S E C O N D : c irc le th e n u m b e r o n th e ra tin g s c a le (1-3) at th e fa r rig h t of e a c h
q u e s tio n to in d ic a te w h e th e r in s titu tio n a liz a tio n w a s fa c ilita te d o r h in d e r e d b y
th e p r e s e n c e o r a b s e n c e o f e a c h item .

*

1

3

£

£

s

W
«
c

%
a

X

<
3
z

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

3

4

5

1

2

3

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

27. D id a d m in is tr a to rs p e rc e iv e th e p r o je c t to b e s u c c e s s f u l?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

28. D id both a d m in istra tiv e a n d in s tru c tio n a l lev els s u p p o r t th e in itia tio n of
th e p r o je c t?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

29. W a s th e p ro je c t e a s y to m a n a g e ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

30. W ere th e m e rits o f th e p ro je c t d e s c r ib e d b e f o re it w a s s ta r te d ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

3 1 . W ere m a te ria ls a v a ila b le to im p le m e n t th e p r o je c t?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

3 2 . W e re n e w b e h a v io rs r e q u ire d by th e p r o je c t e x p la in e d to y o u ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

33. W e re m a te ria ls a v a ila b le to c o n tin u e th e p r o je c t a fte r th e e x te r n a l fu n d in g
ended?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

2

3

z

o

(9
<

1u.

T O W H AT EXTENT:

34. D id k ey p e r s o n n e l p a r tic ip a te in p r o je c t d e c is io n m a k in g ?

. 2

3

4

5

1

3 5. D id t h e v o c a tio n a l d ir e c to r p a r tic ip a te in p r o je c t tr a in in g ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

36. W a s th e r e e q u ip m e n t t o c o n tin u e t h e p r o je c t a f te r t h e e x te r n a l fu n d in g
ceased?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

37. D id t h e in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff h a v e a p o sitiv e a ttitu d e to w a rd
change?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

38. D id t h e d is tric t a llo c a te m o n e y to s u p p o r t th e p r o je c t b e /o r e e x te r n a l
f u n d in g e n d e d ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

3 9. W e re th e d e m a n d s o f t h e p r o je c t d e s c r ib e d b e fo re it w a s s ta r te d ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

40. D id t h e in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t s ta ff p e rc e iv e th e p r o je c t to b e
s u c c e s s f u l?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

41. W e re p e o p le a v a ila b le to Im p le m e n t th e p r o je c t?

2

3

4

S

1

2

3

42. W e re se v e ra l s c h o o ls in v o lv ed in t h e p r o je c t?

2

3

4

S

1

2

3

4 3 . W e re p ro je c t o b je c tiv e s fo llo w ed a s s ta te d ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

44. W e re p r o je c t p a r tic ip a n ts a b le to s a tis fy th e ir c o n c e r n s a n d g o a ts by th e ir
p a rtic ip a tio n ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4 5. D id th e s c h o o l d is tr ic t a d a p t to p r o je c t d e m a n d s ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

2

3

4 6. D o p a r e n ts In t h e d is tric t s u p p o r t in n o v a tio n ?

2

3

4

5

1

4 7. D id t h e in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff c o o p e r a te w ith e a c h o th e r in
im p le m e n tin g th e p ro je c t?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

48. Is m a n a g e m e n t c e n tr a liz e d w ithin th e d is tr ic t?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

49. D id lo c a l p e o p le tr a in p r o je c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

50. D id t h e p r o je c ts replace p r e v io u s p r a c tic e s , c u r ric u la or p r o g r a m s ?

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

-

r-

•«

94

51. W e re involved te a c h e r s fam iliar w ith p ro je c t m a te ria ls, m e th o d s a n d /o r
te c h n iq u e s '?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

52. D id th e b u ild in g p rin cip al s u p p o r t th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

53. D id th e p ro je c t supplem ent ex istin g p ra c tic e s , c u rric u la o r p ro g ra m s ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

2

3

54. W a s re liab le in fo rm a tio n a b o u t th e p ro je c t av a ila b le to pro ject p articip an ts?

1

2

3

5

1

55. D id a d m in is tra to rs d e a l w ith u n a n tic ip a te d p ro je c t-re la te d e v e n ts flexibly?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

56. D id th e p ro je c t re q u ire c o m p le x in te g ra tio n o f its activ ities in to sc h o o l
p ro g ra m s ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

57. W a s it p e rc e iv e d th a t th e In stru ctio n al a n d s u p p o r t sta ff m a in ta in e d a s e n s e
o f p e rs o n a l Involvem ent in th e s u c c e s s o f th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

5B. W a s th e p ro je c t e a s y to im p le m e n t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

59. Is d e c is io n m ak in g c e n tra liz e d w ithin th e d istric t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

60. W as th e p ro je c t d e v e lo p e d by p e o p le o u ts id e of th e d istric t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

2

3

61. W a s th e p ro je c t d e v e lo p e d by local d istric t p e o p le ?

1

2

3

5

1

62. W as th e re in c r e a s e d s tu d e n t m o tiv atio n a s a re su lt of th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

63. Did t h e in stru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff p a rtic ip a te in e v a lu a tin g th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

64. D id o n -g o in g e v a lu a tio n o c c u r ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

65. D id th e p ro je c t re fle c t th e b o a rd o f e d u c a tio n 's p rio ritie s?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

66. W ere p ro je c t o b je c tiv e s s ta te d ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

67. A re y o u p re s e n tly a p p ly in g b a s ic p r o je c t id e a s a n d m e th o d s in y o u r
c la s s ro o m o r w o rk situ a tio n ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

68. W a s s p a c e a v a ila b le to im p le m e n t th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

69. W a s th e r e c o n tin u ity o f p ro je c t m a n a g e m e n t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

70. D id p ro je c t m e e tin g s a d d r e s s p ra c tic a l c o n c e r n s ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

' 1

2

3

5

1

2

3

72. D id k e y p e r s o n n e l p a rtic ip a te in p ro je c t d e s ig n ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

73. Did t h e d istric t b e g in th e p ro je c t w ith th e in te n t th a t it w o u ld c o n tin u e w h e n
e x te rn a l fu n d in g c e a s e d ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

74. D id y o u u n d e r s ta n d y o u r ro le in th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

75. D id p la n n in g o c c u r b e f o re th e p ro je c t w a s s ta rte d ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

76. W as in -se rv ic e tra in in g p ro v id e d to p ro je c t p a rtic ip a n ts ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

77. W e re p ro je c t m a te ria ls d e v e lo p e d b y p ro je c t sta ff?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

76. Did th e p ro je c t re q u ire c h a n g e in s ta ff b e h a v io r?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

79. W a s th e p ro je c t c o m p a tib le w ith e x is tin g a c tiv itie s o f th e s y s te m ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

80. W ere se v e ra l in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff involved in th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

2

3

71. D o e s th e g e n e ra l c o m m u n ity s u p p o r t in n o v a tio n in th e s c h o o ls ?

81. W as tim e a v a ila b le fo r im p le m e n ta tio n ?

1

2

3

5

1

82. D id k e y p e r s o n n e l p a rtic ip a te in p ro je c t tra in in g ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

83. W a s th e In n o v ativ e p ro je c t m a n d a te d in te rn a lly ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

84. D id th e p ro je c t a d a p t to s c h o o l d istric t n e e d s ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

85. W as e q u ip m e n t a v a ila b le to Im p le m e n t t h e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

86. A re th e o b je c tiv e s of t h e p ro je c t still in e ffe c t w ithin y o u r sc h o o l d istric t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

87. W a s th e d istric t p a rtic ip a tin g in o th e r in n o v a tiv e p ro je c ts ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

88. A re th e r e s tr o n g c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g u n its w ithin th e d istric t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

89. W a s th e r e p e rc e iv e d risk a n d u n c e rta in ty c o n n e c te d w ith th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

90. H a s y o u r d istric t c o n tin u e d lo c a l fu n d in g o f th e p ro je c t?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

91. Is th e c u r re n t a ttitu d e In th e s c h o o l d istric t to w a rd th e p ro je c t p o sitiv e ?

1

2

3

5

1

2

3

95
Old this facilitate
or hinder institu­
tionalizing y o u r
pro ject?

DIRECTIONS:
P le a s e re a d th e q u e s tio n s below .
FIR ST: c irc le e ith e r 1 o r 2, a t th e im m e d ia te rig h t o f th e q u e s tio n to in d ic a te
a " y e s ” o r “n o " re s p o n s e .
S E C O N D : c irc le th e n u m b e r on th e s c a le (1-3) a t th e far rig h t o f e a c h q u e s tio n
to in d ic a te w h e th e r In stitu tio n a liz a tio n w a s fa c ilita te d o r h in d e re d b y th e
s itu a tio n re fle c te d in y o u r r e s p o n s e .

YES

NO

1

I

£

2

1
x

<
o
z

-

£

92. H a s th e s u p e rin te n d e n t b e e n in th e s c h o o l d istric t th re e y e a r s o r le s s ?

1

2

1

2

3

93. H a s t h e s u p e rin te n d e n t b e e n in th e s c h o o l d istric t s e v e n y e a r s o r m o re ?

1

2

1

2

3

94. is th e r e a low tu rn o v e r r a te a m o n g in s tru c tio n a l a n d s u p p o r t sta ff?

1

2

1

2

3

95. Is th e r e a low tu rn o v e r r a te a m o n g d is tric t a d m in is tra to rs ?

1

2

1

2

3

N ow th a t y o u h a v e c o m p le te d th e In stitu tio n a liz a tio n Q u e s tio n n a ire , will y o u p le a s e ta k e a few m o re
m in u te s to c o m p le te th e follow ing d e m o g r a p h ic in fo rm a tio n ? T h a n k y o u v ery m u c h fo r y o u r
c o o p e ra tio n .
1. Title:
2. A ge R a n g e :
. u n d e r 25
.2 6 - 3 0

.3 1 -3 5
. 36-40

. F e m a le

. M ale

.4 1 -4 9
. 5 0 p lu s

3. S ex:

4. H ig h e s t D e g re e E a rn e d :
________ B a c h e lo r
________ M a ste r

. S p e c ia lis t
. D o c to ra te

5. T im e in P r e s e n t P o sitio n :
________ le s s th a n 1 y e a r
________ 1-3 y e a rs

. 4-6 y e a r s
. 7-9 y e a r s

.1 0 -1 4 y e a r s
. 15 p lu s y e a r s

6. T o ta l T im e in E d u c a tio n P ro fe s sio n :
________ le s s th a n 1 y e a r
________ 1-3 y e a r s

. 4-6 y e a r s
. 7-9 y e a r s

.1 0 -1 4 y e a rs
. 15 p lu s y e a r s

7. T im e in P re s e n t E d u c a tio n a l A g en cy :
________ le s s th a n 1 y e a r
________ 1 -3 y e a rs

. 4 -6 y e a r s
. 7-9 y e a r s

. 10-14 y e a r s
. 15 p lu s y e a rs

PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO:
Linda S . McFaul
CBE Articulation Project
100 Wills H ouse
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48624

96

February 17, 1979

Your a s s i s t a n c e is badly needed! About Zh weeks
ago you receiv ed an " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n Question
n a ire " from me. Your response is needed so the
r e s e a rc h can be c o ntinued . Thank you f o r your
help!

Linda S. McFaul
A r t i c u l a t i o n C onsultant

APPENDIX D

Table I

4.
5.

6

.

Were ta n g ib le in c e n tiv e s ( e .g ,
re le a s e d tim e, pay) used to
m otivate p r o j e c t s t a f f ?

F
P

Did th e i n i t i a t o r s o f th e pro­
j e c t make known th e p o te n tia l
long-term e f f e c t s ?

F
P

Has th e p r o j e c t been continued as
i n i t i a l l y implemented?

F
P

4
6 .3

12

1

18.8

1.6

25**
39.1

Did people o u tsid e o f th e d i s t r i c t
d i r e c t th e p ro je c t?

F
P

19**
29.7

19
29.7

5
7 .8

Did your school d i s t r i c t have a
h i s t o r y o f adopting vocational
education r e l a t e d innovations?

F
P

4
6.3

17.2

7
10.9

23**
35.9

*

. .

F = Frequency; P = Percentage; *

= Mode

4
6.3

1
1.6

14
21.9

11

17.2

1

11

26
40.6

3
4.7

28**
43.8

12.5

24
37.5

36**
56.3

_

8

1
1.6

**
55
85.9

9.4

3
4.7

34** 1 2
53.1 18.8

17
26.6

52**
81.3

5
7.8

7
10.9

9
14.1

19
29.7
26
40.6

31
48.4

6

34.4

5
7.8

10

11

2

15.6

17.2

3.1

28**
8
43.8 12.5

18
28.1

4
6.3

35**
54.7

22

Not
A pplicable

_ No
Response

Deal

3.1

**
31
48.4

2

4
6.3

1.6

_ A
Great

— Somewhat

— No Opinion

_ Very
L ittle

at A11

P

fa

— Hinder

3.

Did p r o je c t p a r t i c i p a n t s , a t a ll
l e v e l s , i n t e r a c t with one
another?

- F a c ilita te

2.

- Not

V ariable

1.

TO WHAT EXTENT AND FACILITATE/HINDER

_ No
Response

AGGREGATE:

3
4 .7

22

34.4

Table I , Continued

a>
c
o

V ariable

V)
z az
i
7.

8 .

9.
10.

11

12

.
.

13.
14.

15.

Did th e v ocational d i r e c t o r support
the p r o je c t?

F
P

Was th e f i n a l p r o j e c t e v alu atio n
p o sitiv e ?

F
P

Were r e g u la r p r o je c t meetings held?

F
P

Was th e r e a p i l o t t e s t f o r m odifica­
t io n o f th e p r o j e c t b efore la r g e
F
P
s c a le implementation?

Does th e school d i s t r i c t have an
open org an iz atio n al clim ate?
Does th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and support
s t a f f fe e l p o s i t iv e l y about t h e i r
p ro fessio n al competence?

>0

£
-M
a)

r—

+->

> j *H
S --M

z

> —I
!

1

5
7.8

5
7.8
1
1 .6

8

1

1

1 .6

1.6

12.5

2

13
20.3

5
7.8

3.1

Did th e p r o j e c t in cre ase s t a f f work­ F
loads?
P
Did f i n a l e v a lu a tio n occur?

r<C
+J

4
6.3

■r—
CL

<D
£

a>

z cc

1

1

1

o

<u

E
1

1

3
4.7

9
14.1

42**
65.6

7
10.9

17
26.6

**
39
60.9

24
37.5

28
43.8

2

3.1

**

8

12.5

11

2

17.2

3.1

19
29.7

41**
64.1

17
26.6
6

9.4
★*
33
51.6

2

2

2

3.1

3.1

3.1

F
P

2

2

6

3.1

3.1

9.4

5
7.8

18.8
**
19
30
46.9
29.7

1
1.6

3
4.7

4
6.3

**
33
23
51.6
35.9

5
7.8

**
29
29
45.3
45.3

F
P

Was th e r e in creased stu d e n t le a rn in g
F
as a r e s u l t o f th e p r o je c t?
P

1
1.6

12

(A

2

3.1

**

F
P

13
20.3

JO
a

et C
D

S

00

a>

<0

•r*
r“
a
U-

XI

Z

<L>

2

3.1

sa>

,_**
50
78.1

3.1
3
4.7
2

3.1
4
6.3

1

o_

2:

<
i

6

6

9 .4

9.4

2
47
73.4
3.1
**
46
9
71.9 14.1

15
23.4

**

2

£
□=

36
56.3

16
25.0
**
38
59.4
**
39
60.9

4
6.3

7
10.9
22

34.4

**
18
27
42.2
28.1
3
4.7
12

18.8

21

32.8
9
14.1

**

1
1.6

46
71.9

**
53
82.8

11

6

17.2

9.4

1

10

1.6

15.6

Table I , Continued

C

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.

ai
in

«=c

o

to

O 0)
z ce.

to

+J
0
z

I

1

c

V ariable

o

CL

<D
r“
> ,4 -3
S - 4-3

Id

<0

CL

o

<D ■!—

:<Su:
£
o
C
O

**
24
37.5

Did m onitoring o f the p r o je c t by
th e Michigan Department of Educa­
t io n occur?

P

1.6

9 .4

10.9

14
21.9

Did the Michigan Department o f
Education p a r t i c i p a t e a c tiv e ly in
th e p ro je c t?

F
P

2
~3J

9

12
18.8

16** 15
25.0 23.4

Was th e innovative p r o j e c t man­
dated e x te rn a lly ?

F
P

Did o u ts id e people t r a i n p r o je c t
p a rtic ip a n ts ?

F
P

Was th e p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r adept
in process s k i l l s ?

1

ITT
**
32
"50

o<U
+-»
n)
OJ

+■>

JZ

C

s-

CD

12
18.8

10
15.6

974

12
18.8

11
17.2

9
14.1

4
6.3

30
46.9

F
P

3
4 .7

5
7.8

22
34.4

12.5
**
34
53.1

Were in ta n g ib le p ro fessio n al and
psychological in ce n tiv e s ( e . g . ,
encouragment, rec o g n itio n ) used
to m otivate p r o j e c t s t a f f ?

F
P

6

4.7

9 .4

7
10.9

34**
53.1

14
21.9

Did th e p r o j e c t r e f l e c t th e
s u p e r in te n d e n t's p r i o r i t i e s ?

F
P

4
O

11

12

1079

**
29
4573

Was a s s i s t a n c e a v a ila b le t o pro­
j e c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

F

35**
54.7

1

1.6

176

12
18.8

6

T772
4
6 .3

3
477”
8

ai
Ml
c

o
CL
Ml

o a)
z oc

<u
m
-p

at
jO

4-1

to

o

S-

(U
T3

o

4-3 CL

O <D-

id

z

■Ip-If

3
4.7

27
42.2

4
6.3

30
46.9

7.8

25
3 9 .T 10.9

27
42.2

9.4
4
6.3

21
7
32.8 10.9
**
40
3
62.5
4 .7

**

**
30
46.9
17
26.6

1.6

56
87.5

3
4.7

4
6.3

1
1.6

46**
8
71.9 12.5

14.1

1878"

3.1

37
57.8

25
39.1

1
1..6

57
89.1

1

+ •

1*

11
17.2

14
21.9

7.8

1 .6

**

26.

27.
28.

29.

F
P

Did th e building p rin c ip a l p a r t i ­
c ip a te in th e tr a in in g ?

F
P

Was th e re space to continue th e pro­
F
j e c t a f t e r th e ex ternal funding
P
ended?

1
1.6
12

18.8

30.

Were th e m e rits o f th e p r o je c t des­ F
P
c rib ed before i t was s ta r te d ?

31.

Were m a te ria ls a v a ila b le to imple­
ment th e p ro je c t?

F
P

7
10.9
7
10.9

2

2

3.1

3.1

1
1.6

4
6.3

5
7.8

2 1 **
9
32.8
14.1

30** 19
46.9 29.7

15
23.4

30**
46.9

34.4

45**
70.3

9.4

13
20.3

31**
48.4

3.1

41** 11
64.1 17.2

15.6

6

6

17
26.6

9
14.1

4
6.3

31 ** 19
48.4
29.7

1
1.6

47** 11
73.4 17.2

5
7.8

41**
64.1

9
14.1

3
4.7

41**
7
64.1 10.9

13
20.3

35**
54.7

1
1.6

49**
5
76.6
7.8

9
14.1

1

48** 9
75.0 14.1

9 .4

1

4
6.3

12.5

1
1.6

5
7.8

2

21

3.1

32.8

1

23
35.9

1.6

22

53**
82.8

9 .4

1.6

1.6

3.1

10

1

1

2

15.6

1.6

1

_ Not
Appl ic a b le

15
23.4

— Hinder

34.4

— F a c ilita te

3.1

38**
59.4

_ No
Response

1.6

Deal

22

_ A
Great

2

1

Did both a d m in is tra tiv e and i n s t r u c ­
t io n a l l e v e l s support th e i n i t i a t i o n F
P
o f th e p ro je c t?
F
P

1

1.6

Did a d m in istra to rs perceive th e pro­ F
P
j e c t t o be su c ce ssfu l?

Was th e p r o j e c t easy to manage?

— Somewhat

25.

Was th e re two-way oral communica­
t i o n between t h e p r o je c t d i r e c to r s
and p r o je c t implementors?

— No Opinion

24.

_ Very
L ittle

Variable

— Not at All

_ No
Response

Table I , Continued

9
14.1

8

1.6

2 g **

45.3

2

1.6

10

6

35.
36.

37.

38.

F
P

5
7.8

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e in
p r o je c t d e cisio n making?

F
P

1

1.6

F
P

4
6.3

Did th e in s tr u c tio n a l and support
s t a f f have a p o s itiv e a t t i t u d e
toward change?

F
P

Did th e d i s t r i c t a l l o c a t e money to
sup port th e p r o je c t before e x te r ­ F
P
nal funding ended?

4
6.3

4
6.3

18
28.1

30**
46.9

3
4.7

4
6.3

28
28**
43.8
43.8

3.1

76.6

23**
35.9

14
21.9

5
7.8

34**
53.1

19
29.7

23**
35.9

4
6.3

32**
50.0

18
28.1

12

25**
39.1

4
6.3

10

15.6

9
14.1

6

8

9 .4

12.5

1

T

8

1.6

1.6

12.5

2

13
20.3

8

12.5

18.8

2

_ Not
A pplicable

7
10.9

— Hinder

— F a c ilita te

3
4.7

6

4
6.3

3.1

Deal

— No Opinion

All

1.6

Was th e re equipment to continue
th e p r o je c t a f t e r th e external
funding ceased?

15
23.4

3.1

2

4
6.3

9 .4

33**
51.6

7
10.9

1

Were m a te ria ls a v a ila b le to con­
tin u e the p r o j e c t a f t e r the
e x te rn al funding ended?

Did the vocational d i r e c t o r p a r t i ­ F
P
c ip a te in p r o je c t tr a in in g ?

_ No
Response

34.

_ A
Great

33.

Were new behaviors req u ired by the F
p r o je c t explained to you?
P

— Somewhat

32.

_ Very
L ittle

V ariable

— Not at

_ No
Response

Table I , Continued

** 8
64.1 12.5

18.8

42** 15
65.6 23.4

7
10.9

41

4 9 **

8

12.5

12

5
7.8

5
7.8

31.3

1.6

40** 1 0
62.5 15.6

13
20.3

3
4 .7

42** 13
65.6 20.3

9.4

6

29** 2 0
45.3 31.3

9
14.1

1

9.4

20

6

39.
40.

41.
42.
43.
44.

45.
46.

Were the demands of the p r o je c t
described b e fo re i t was s ta r te d ?

F
P

Did th e i n s tr u c tio n a l and support
s t a f f perceive th e p r o je c t to be
su ccessfu l?

F
P

Were people a v a ila b le to imple­
ment th e p ro je c t?

F
P

Were several schools involved in
th e p ro je c t?

F
P

Were p r o je c t o b je c tiv e s followed
a s s ta te d ?

F
P

Were p r o je c t p a r t i c i p a n ts a b le to
s a t i s f y t h e i r concerns and goals
by t h e i r p a r t i c i p a ti o n ?

F
P

Did th e school d i s t r i c t adapt to
p r o j e c t demands?

F
P

Do paren ts in th e d i s t r i c t support F
P
innovation?

4
6.3

1
1.6

6

9.4

4
6.3

5
7.8

31**
48.4
2 g**

23
35.9

2

3.1

42**
65.6

10

10

15.6

15.6
7
10.9

45.3

25
39.1

3.1

48**
7
75.0 10.9

2

_ Not
A p p lica b le

- Hinder

— F a c ilita te

_ No
Response

Deal
_ A
Great

- Somewhat

— No Opinion

All
Very
Li t t l e

V ariable

— Not at

_ No
Response

Table I , Continued

1

1

2

1.6

1.6

3.1

3
4 .7

28
43.8

29**
45.3

3
4.7

48**
8
75.0 12.5

5
7.8

3
4 .7

1
1.6

1
1.6

17
26.6

42**
65.6

3
4.7

52**
81.3

4
6.3

5
7.8

2

1

1.6

53**
82.8

6

1.6

36**
56.3

1

3.1

25
39.1

9.4

4
6.3

3
4 .7

4
6.3

32
50.0

24
37.5

3.1

53**
82.8

9.4

3
4.7

5
7.8

9.4

33**
51.6

31.3

3
4.7

43**
9
67.2 14.1

9
14.1

30**
46.9

17
26.6

3
4.7

41**
64.1

15
23.4

1
1.6

2

3.1

3
4.7

6

12

18.8

20

2

6

5
7.8

Table I , Continued

<u
c
o
1/i
Z O'
1

V ariable

Did th e in s tr u c tio n a l and support
s t a f f cooperate w ith each o th er
in implementing the p ro je c t?

F
P

Is management c e n t r a l i z e d w ithin
th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

1
1.6

49.

Did local people t r a i n p r o je c t
p a r tic ip a n ts ?

F
P

2
3.1

50.

Did th e p ro je c ts re p la c e previous F
p r a c t i c e s , c u r r i c u la , or programs? P

51.

Were involved tea ch e rs f a m ilia r
w ith p r o j e c t m a t e r i a ls , methods
an d /o r techniques?

52.
53.

47.

•
CO
54.

n5
+j
id
+->
z
1

CD
£-+->
>■ —I
1

c
•r*r—
Q.
1

rCD
c
o

-M

cd

E=
to
1

4->
CD
<CCD
1

Z C£.
1

CD
«o
•f—
o
(O
u.
!

CD
jQ
o
•r*

sCD
c
3C
1

4-> CL
1

4
6 .3

4
6 .3

28**
43.8

28
43.8

1
1.6

53**
82.8

5
7.8

5
7.8

3
4.7

10
15.6

25**
39.1

25
39.1

3
4.7

8
40**
62.5 1275

13
20.3

10
15.6

5
7.8

7
10.9

25**
39.1

15
23.4

3
4 .7

35**
8
54.7 12.5

18
28.1

20**
31.3

20
31.3

6
9.4

16
25.0

2
3.1

3
4.7

28** 10
43.8 15.6

23
35.9

F
P

2
3.1

11
17.2

2
3.1

29**
45.3

20
31.3

3
4 .7

46** 10
71.9 15.6

5
7 .8

Did th e build in g p rin c ip a l sup­
p o r t th e p ro je c t?

F
P

2
3.1

4
6 .3

6
9 .4

26**
40.6

26
40.6

46** 12
71.9 18.8

6
9 .4

Did th e p r o je c t supplement
e x is ti n g p r a c t ic e s , c u r r i c u la ,
o r programs?

F
P

8
12.5

3
4 .7

2
3.1

2g** 21
32.8
45.3

3
4 .7

50**
78.1

4
6.3

7
10.9

Was r e l i a b l e inform ation about
th e p r o je c t a v a ila b le to p r o je c t
p a r t i c i p a n ts ?

F
P

1
V.6

2
3.1

1
1.6

29
45.3

2
3.1

i-.**
7
54
84.4 10.9

1
1.6

1
1.6

31**
48.4

F
P

Did th e p r o j e c t re q u ir e complex
i n te g r a tio n o f i t s a c t i v i t i e s
in to school programs?

F
P

5
7.8

Was i t perceived t h a t th e i n s t r u c ­
tio n a l and supp ort s t a f f main­
ta in e d a sense o f personal involve­
ment in th e success of th e p ro je c t?

F
P

3.1

12.5

58.

Was th e p r o j e c t easy to implement?

F
P

8

7
10.9

59.

Is d e cisio n making c e n tr a liz e d
w ith in th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

Was th e p r o j e c t developed by
people o u tsid e o f th e d i s t r i c t ?

F
P

17
26.6

Was th e p r o je c t developed by
lo cal d i s t r i c t people?

F
P

12

18.8

Was th e r e increased stu d e n t
m otivation as a r e s u l t o f the
p r o je c t?

F
P

1.6

56.

57.

60.
61.
62.

2

3.1

2

12.5

20

31.3

8

21

2

32.8

3.1

32.8

13
20.3

3.1

9.4

29
45.3

19
29.7

3.1

7
10.9

31**
48.4

11

2

17.2
20

6

2

6

8

3.1

9.4

12.5

1

8

6

21

2

2

_ Not
Appl i cable

— Hinder

47**
7
73.4 10.9

12.5

41
64.1

13
20.3

12.5

42
65.6

14
21.9

9.4

8

8

6

3.1

37** 14
57.8 21.9

17.2

38** 1 0
59.4 15.6

13
20.3

11

28**
43.8

31.3

3
4 .7

14
21.9

19**
29.7

4
6.3

27** 15
42.2 23.4

18
28.1

36** 1 2
56.3 18.8

13
20.3

5
7.8

3
4 .7

12.5

9.4

9
14.1

6

12

9 .4

18.8

25**
39.1

3
4.7

4
6.3

3.1

32**
50.0

25
39.1

3.1

2

— F a c ilita te

5
7.8

No
Response

34
53.1

Deal

7
10.9

A
Great

— Somewhat

Did a d m in is tra to rs deal with
u n a n tic ip a te d p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d
events f le x ib ly ?

— No Opinion

55.

_ Very
L ittle

V ariable

- Not at All

_ No
Response

Table I , Continued

2

54**
84.4

3.1

3
4 .7

3
4.7

9
14.1

19
29.7

30**
46.9

7
10.9

15
23.4

18
2 0 **
28.1
31.3

i

_ Not
A pplicable

29
45.3

— Hinder

17
26.6

— F a c ilita te

_ A
Great

7
10.9

10

+>
zo
!

_ No
Response

— Somewhat

3.1

9
14.1

+■»

Deal

- No Opinion

V ariable

_ Very
L ittle

_ No
Response

Table I , Continued

63.

64.
65.
66.

67.

68.

69.
70.

Did th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and support
s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t e in e v alu atin g
th e p ro je c t?
Did on-going evalu atio n occur?

F
P
F
P

Did th e p ro je c t r e f l e c t t h e board
of e d u c a tio n 's p r i o r i t i e s ?

F
P

Were p r o je c t o b je c tiv e s s ta te d ?

F
P

2

2

2

3.1

3.1

2

3.1

Are you p r e s e n tly applying basic
p ro je c t ideas and methods in
your classroom o r work s i t u a t i o n ?

F
P

5
7.8

3
4.7

Was space a v a ila b le to implement
th e p r o je c t?

F
P

1

1

1.6

Was th e r e c o n tin u ity o f p r o je c t
management?

F
P

Did p r o je c t meetings address
p r a c tic a l concerns?

F
P

1
1.6

5
7.8

13
20.3

39** 1 0
60.9 15.6

13
20.3

3.1

45** 7
70.3 10.9

15.6

5
7.8

30** 8
46.9 12.5

32.8"

1.6

7
10.9

3
4.7

17
26.6

2

2

68.8

1.6

55**
85.9

26**
40.6

3
4.7

41
64.1

44**

1

2

6

22

3.1

9 .4

34.4

3
4.7

20

1.6

4
6.3

31.3

35**
54.7

1

2

1.6

3.1

5
7.8

26
40.6

30**
46.9

1.6

31**
48.4

25
39.1

1.6

1

6

1.6

9 .4

2

3.1
1

1

50**
78.1

1

10

21

6

6

9.4

9.4

52**
7
10.9
81.3

4
6.3

49**
76.6

4
6.3

10

15.6

75.
76.
77.
78.

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e in
p r o je c t design?

F
P

2

3.1

3
4.7

4
6.3

5
7 .8

Did th e d i s t r i c t begin the pro­
j e c t with th e i n t e n t t h a t i t
would co ntinu e when external
funding ceased?

F
P

1
1.6

2

6

12

20

3.1

9.4

18.8

Did you understand your r o l e in
th e p ro je c t?

F
P

1
1.6

Did planning occur before th e
p r o j e c t was s ta r te d ?

F
P

Was in - s e r v i c e t r a i n in g provided
to p r o j e c t p a r tic ip a n ts ?

F
P

Were p r o je c t m a te r ia ls developed
by p r o je c t s t a f f ?

F
P

Did th e p r o j e c t re q u ir e change
in s t a f f behavior?

F
P

1
1.6

_ Not '
A pplicable

9 .4

— F a c ilita te

1.6

Deal

1.6

3
4.7

40**
62.5

13
20.3

3
4.7

50**
78.1

5
7.8

28**
43.8

3
4.7

**
76.6

6

6

9.4

9 .4

31.3

23**
35.9

3
4.7

37** 13
57.8 20.3

17.2

3.1

15
23.4

46
71.9

3
4.7

55**
85.9

4
6.3

3.1

19
29.7

38
59.4

2

3.1

r .**
54
84.4

3
4.7

5
7.8

32.8

35**
54.7

1
1.6

56**
87.5

4
6.3

3
4.7

2

3.1

51**
79.7

4
6.3

7
10.9

4
6.3

31** 17
48.4 26.6

18.8

2

22

34.4

1

1

1.6

1.6

5
7.8

5
7.8

3
4 .7

4
6 .3

5
7.8

2

22

3.1

34.4

31**
48.4

5
7.8

9
14.1

32**
50.0

17.2

6

9 .4

21

11

49

- Hinder

Very
L ittle
6

— Not at All
1

_ No
Response

74.

F
P

_ A
Great

73.

Does th e general community sup­
p o r t innovation in th e schools?

— Somewhat

72.

1

_ No
Response

V ariable

71.

— No Opinion

Table I , Continued

6

9 .4

11

2

12

Table I , Continued

r—
p-

c

(/>
O
CL
(/)

V ariable
Z

o

00

•

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86

.

>>+j

4->

CtL

Was th e p r o j e c t compatible with
e x is tin g a c t i v i t i e s of the
system?

F
P

Were several i n s t r u c t i o n a l and
support s t a f f involved in th e
p ro je c t?

F
P

Was time a v a ila b le f o r imple­
m entation?

F
P

Did key personnel p a r t i c i p a t e
in p r o je c t tr a in in g ?

F
P

1.6

Was th e in novative p r o je c t
mandated in te r n a lly ?

F
P

1
1.6

Did th e p r o j e c t adapt to school
d i s t r i c t needs?

F
P

1

1

1.6

i
1.6

1

c

a

CO

+j
ia
<u

oCL

Q.
O

1

1
1.6

Ljl.

m

I

I

i

1

1

21

**
46
7
71.9 10.9

12.5
7
10.9

Z

2: <

5
7.8

3
4 .7

27
42.2

28**
43.8

4
6.3

51**
79.7

7
10.9

5
7.8

23
35.9

2 g**

4 9 **

45.3

3
4.7

76.6

12.5

4
6.3

3
4.7

7
10.9

28**
43.8

25
39.1

3
4.7

52**
81.3

4
6.3

5
7.8

17**
26.6

11

17.2

5
7.8

27** 13
42.2 20.3

19
29.7

28**
43.8

27
42.2

3.1

42.2

27
42.2

3.1

27
42.2

29
45.3

3.1

F
P

OH

<C CD

32.8

2

Are the o b je c tiv e s o f th e pro­
j e c t s t i l l in e f f e c t w ith in
your school d i s t r i c t ?

•a
c

3
4.7

12

2

U

**
34
53.1

18.8

3.1

to

<D
i
i/i

5
7.8

11

1
1.6

ra
u
•f-

ai

3
4.7

17.2

F
P

4-*

1

12

Was equipment a v a ila b le to
implement th e p r o je c t?

a>

I

18.8

1.6

1.6

id

>■ —i
i

1

79.

rd

<u
4->

o

6

9 .4

3
4 .7

4
6.3

4
6.3

2

3.1

i .. i .
2 y An

2

2

2

3.1

C lt * *

i

2

3.1
8

8

54
84.4

2

6

3.1

9.4

49**
76.6

5
7 .8

12.5

50**
78.1

2

10

3.1

15.6

8

Table I , Continued

e
o

r—

0)
C/l

c

V ariable

o
Q.
C/I
O <U

z

ai

r-~

<

+J
<0

+>
o
z

a>

f—

> I+ J
S- + j
<U •!:=» _l

•r—
c

•I—
Q.
o

o
z

■—
<ts

<
u
o

+J
ta

-C

4->
lit
<u

Q
J
£
O
w

u

« £ CD

Q
)
C/l
c
o
Q.
C/l

o <u
z cm

<u
<o
+J

•t-

1—
•r—

U

id
Uu

c.
QJ
•o
c
•rz

CU
r—
XI
id
u
+ i cx
O Q-

I
87.

88

.

89.

90.
91.

**

9 .4

28
43.8

14
21.9

24
37.5

**
27
42.2

6.3

38**
9
59.4 14.1

13
20.3

6.3

18
28.1

18.8

30
46.9

3
4 .7

20
31.3

23**
35.9

18
28.1

P

3.1

6.3

10
15.6

Are th e r e stro n g c o l l e c t i v e
bargaining u n its w ithin th e
d istric t?

F
P

1

2
3.1

5
7 .8

7.8

Was th e r e perceived r i s k and
u n c e rta in ty connected w ith the
p ro je c t?

F

8

13
20.3

10
15.6

27**
42.2

9.4

Has your d i s t r i c t continued lo c a l
funding o f th e p ro je c t?

F_
P

3.1

17
26.6

20
31.3

3.1

34** 14
53.1 21.9

6 .3

24
37.5

**
26
40.6

3.1

68.8

Was th e d i s t r i c t p a r t i c i p a t i n g
in o th e r inno vative p ro je c ts ?

Is th e c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e in the
school d i s t r i c t toward t h e pro­
j e c t p o s itiv e ?

1 .6

12.5

6.3

12
18.8

14.1

2
3.1

2
3.1

6
9.4

6

**

44**

12

7
10.9

**

14
21.9
11

17.2

Table II

93.
94.
95.

Has the su p e rin te n d en t been in the school
d i s t r i c t th r e e years o r le s s ?

F*
P

3.1

Has th e su p e rin te n d en t been in th e school
d i s t r i c t seven y e ars o r more?

F
P

4
6.3

Is th e r e a low turn o v er r a t e among in s tr u c ­
tio n a l s t a f f ?

F
P

1
1.6

Is th e r e a low tu rnov er r a t e among d i s t r i c t
a d m in istra to rs?

F
P

2

ic

F = Frequency; P = Percentage;

-1-

= Mode

2

3.1

24
37.5
**
37
57.8
**
58
90.6
56**
87.5

Not
A p plicable
i

**
38
59.4

3
4.7

23
35.9

7
10.9

28
43.8
„ **
26
40.6

5
7.8

3
4.7

43
67.2

6

4
6.3

9 .4

— Hinder

— F a c ilita te

1

0
z
1

1
1

w
0)

>-

_ No
Response

V ariable

92.

TIME/TURNOVER

_ No
Response

AGGREGATE:

44**
6 8 .8

7
10.9
6

9.4

26
40.6
25
39.1

6

12

9.4

18.8

5
7.8

11

17.2