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 die 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.

Universfr/

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 D ROW, L O N D O N W C1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8106452

T o p o l e s k i, A n t h o n y J o h n

INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
BY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS IN JACKSON COUNTY,
MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48X06

1980

INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
BY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS IN JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
By
Anthony John Topoleski

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements
f o r t h e degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM
1980

ABSTRACT

INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
BY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS IN JACKSON COUNTY, MICHIGAN
By
Anthony John Topoleski

Although t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n has a major r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m , i t
i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e ss i t uses i s not
c l e a r l y u n d e rs to o d by i t s members.

As p a r t o f t h a t p r o c e s s , t h e use o f

i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t o s e c u r e d a ta f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g seems t o be one
o f t h e key ele m ents l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l board members.
A number o f f a c t o r s seem t o have p l a c e d school board members in a p o s i ­
t i o n o f making c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f p e r t i n e n t
and br o a d - b a se d i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s .
The primary purpose o f t h i s s t u d y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e knowledge
and use o f so u rc es o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n by board o f e d u c a t i o n mem­
b ers In Jackson County, Michigan.

The major emphasis was t o i d e n t i f y

t h e a c t u a l use and t h e fr e q u e n c y o f use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s by board
members t o make c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s .
Using t h e p ro po se o f t h i s s t u d y as a g u i d e , s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s o f
t h i s s t u d y were d e te r m i n e d .
1.

Assessed were:

The i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s p r e s e n t l y b ein g used by board
members In c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ;

2.

The f r e q u e n c y o f use o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s
by board members;

Anthony John Topoleski

3.

The ranked value o f the information sources a t t r i b u t e d
to "tec h n ic al q u a l i t y , " "ease o f u se ," and " r e l a t i v e
value" as perceived by board members; and

4.

The need f o r a d d i t i o n a l and more a c c e s s i b l e sources o f
curriculum info rmation.

In o r d e r to answer t h e s e q u e s t io n s , an exte n sive review o f t h e l i t ­
e r a t u r e took p l a c e , coupled with in te rv ie ws with various Information
specialists.

From the l i t e r a t u r e review and in te rvie w s with Information

s p e c i a l i s t s , s i x res ea rch quest io ns were developed.

Next, a survey In­

strument ( q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) was designed, p i l o t e d , and adm inistered to the
e i g h t y - f o u r board o f education members in t h e twelve p u b lic school d i s ­
t r i c t s in Jackson County* Michigan.
The data t h a t were c o l l e c t e d using t h i s instrument were analyzed
by using frequency, rank, and composite scores p r o f i l e s .

Whenever pos­

s i b l e , t h e s e p r o f i l e s were r epre se n te d g r a p h i c a l l y by a p p r o p r i a te t a b l e s
and f i g u r e s .

Open-ended responses were c a te g o r iz e d and presented in a

fashion t h a t r ep re se n te d s p e c i f i c and g e n er alize d responses in a con­
c i s e , but r e p r e s e n t a t i v e manner.
Based on t h e a n a l y s i s o f th e d a t a , f i v e major conclusions o f the
study were derived.
1.

They were:

Board members use a v a r i e t y o f sources to make c u r r i c u ­
l a r decisions.

Of t h e information sources board members

use , th e t h r e e h ig h e s t ranked sources were "Your Own Ex­
p e r i e n c e , " " Sup e rin te n d en t," and " P r i n c i p a l s . "

Anthony John Topoleski

2.

Board members were a b le to I d e n t i f y th o se sources which
were p erceiv ed to have more t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y than o t h e r
in form atio n so u r c e s .

They I d e n t i f i e d t h e t h r e e h i g h e s t

ranked sources 1n t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y as " S u p e r in te n d e n t."
"Your Own Experiences," and " P r i n c i p a l s . "
3.

Board members in t h i s study have determined t h a t "Ease
o f Use" o f a curriculum information source i s a v i a b l e
f a c t o r as to whether a source w i l l be used in c u r r i c u l a r
decision-making.

The study was a b le t o s p e c i f y t h a t

"Your Own Experience," " S u p e r i n te n d e n t , " and " P r i n c i p a l s "
were more h ig h ly ranked as much e a s i e r to use than o t h e r
sources.
4.

Value plays an important r o l e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f
whether a board member chooses t o use a s p e c i f i c c u r r i c ­
ulum inform ation so u rc e.

Sources i d e n t i f i e d in t h e

study t h a t had more high rankings in perceived value
than o t h e r sources were " S u p e r i n te n d e n t ," "Your Own
Exp erience," and " P r i n c i p a l s . "
5.

Board members did no t feel a need f o r many new i n f o r ­
mation sources t h a t they would l i k e to have a v a i l a b l e
and a c c e s s i b l e to them.

Opinions on t h e s e needed

sources were d i v e r s e .
The d a ta from t h i s study seem to c l e a r l y p o i n t out t h e need

f o r the

I n i t i a t i o n o r expansion o f I n s e r v i c e programs on curriculum Information
sources f o r board members.

This study a l s o support s t h e idea t h a t

Anthony John Topoleski

I n f o r m a t io n s o u r c e d i s s e m i n a t i o n s e r v i c e s need t o be g r e a t l y expanded
and u p d a te d , I n c l u d i n g c l e a r e r d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s
p r o v i d i n g c u r r i c u l u m I n f o r m a t io n t o board members.

DEDICATION

To my p a r e n t s , John and Catherine Topoleski
Their strong b e l i e f s about the values o f
education and hard work helped i n s t i l l in
me the d e s i r e to accomplish educational
goals they never had th e op p o r tu n ity to
consider or a t t a i n .

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any d i s s e r t a t i o n i s t h e product o f encouragement, s u p p o r t , and under­
sta n d in g o f many persons. I would be remiss i f I f a i l e d t o thank th o se
persons who helped me t o achieve t h i s goal o f p r o f e s sio n a l growth and
sel f - f u l f l l l m e n t :
Erna, Marc, and Lisa T o p ole sk i, f o r being t o l e r a n t and n eg le cted
while I was interweaving my l i f e among being a husband, f a t h e r , r e ­
search e r , and p u blic school e d u c a to r . Knowing you were t h e r e when I
needed you helped make t h i s a l l p o s s i b l e . May our f u t u r e be more f u l l
and rewarding now t h a t t h e focus o f my e n e r g i e s can be narrowed.
her
for
and
ful

Dr. Peggy R i e t h m i l l e r , chairp erson o f my do ctoral committee, f o r
s i n c e r e understan ding o f my time commitments a t home and school and
her guidance and t r u s t . Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, Dr. Norman Weinhelmer,
Dr. Carl Brautigam, o t h e r members o f t h e committee, f o r t h e i r help ­
advice and guidance.

Dr. Joseph N i c i t a , Su pe rin te nd en t o f Northwest Schools, f o r his
co nti n u al encouragement and su pport both on t h e job and in t h e p u r s u i t
o f t h i s r e s e a r c h stu d y . His p a st and p r e s e n t achievements a r e the
models f o r my p r o f e s s i o n a l growth and c a r e e r .
Dr. Larry Donahue, a c r e a t i v e i n d i v i d u a l , fellow p r o f e s s i o n a l , and
f r i e n d , f o r h i s e a r , s h o u l d e r , and e x p e r t i s e during t h o s e times when
th i n g s looked t h e d a r k e s t .
Ms. Betty F o s t e r , Michigan's 1980 Counselor o f t h e Year, a work­
mate, and a f r i e n d , f o r her w i l l i n g n e s s to b e l i e v e in me and my g o a ls .
Her a b i l i t y t o encourage p o s i t i v i t y c o ntinu es to be an i n s p i r a t i o n to
me.
Dale L i e tz k e , Margie Pelkey, and Betty Frank, f o r being t h e r e when
I needed them and f o r understanding the demands o f the j o b , my fa m ily ,
and my degree program. They g r e a t l y helped to ease my h e c t i c pace o f
life.
The s t a f f o f Northwest Middle School, f o r being c a r i n g , i n n o v a t i v e ,
and c h i l d - c e n t e r e d I n d i v i d u a l s who helped make our b u i ld i n g a model
middle sc h oo l. Their personal su pport o f me as an a d m i n i s t r a t o r and as
a person were important f a c t o r s in help ing me complete t h i s d i s s e r t a ­
tion.

1i 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L i s t o f T a b l e s .........................................................................................................

v1

L i s t o f F i g u r e s .....................................................................................................

v1i

Chapter
I . BACKGROUND................................................................................................

1

Problem Statem ent ...............................................................................
Purposes and O b j e c t iv e s o f t h e Study ....................................
Research Questions ...........................................................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y ..............................................................
Assumptions o f t h e Study ..............................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study ..............................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Important Terms .....................................................
Overview o f Other Chapters in t h e Study ...............................

5
5
6
7
8
9
9
10

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE AND INTERVIEWS
WITH EDUCATION INFORMATION SPECIALISTS ...................................

11

II.

What Is t h e Board o f E d u c a t i o n 's Role i n
C u r r i c u l a r Decision-Making? ................................................
Why Are In fo rm a tio n Sources Im portant t o t h e
Decision-Making Process? .....................................................
What Are t h e Sources o f Curriculum Info rm atio n
A v a i l a b l e to Michigan P u b lic School Board
o f Education Members? ..............................................................
What Are t h e General A t t r i b u t e s and Use C h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s o f t h e Info rm a tio n Sources I d e n t i f i e d
in t h e Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e and I n te r v ie w s
o f Education Inform atio n S p e c i a l i s t s ? ...........................
P a r e n t s ...............................................................................
S t u d e n t s ...............................................................................
T e a c h e r s ...............................................................................
S u p e r i n te n d e n t ..................................................................
Other School Board Members ........................................
Board Member's Own E x p e r i e n c e s ...............................
C o n s u l t a n t s / E x p e r t s .....................................................
......................................................................
Principals
Central O f f i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t a f f ..................
S p e c i a l i z e d P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f ...............................
Family Members ..................................................................
U n i v e r s i t y S t a f f .............................................................
Community Members .........................................................
Education L i t e r a t u r e .....................................................
iv

12
22
27

35
35
35
36
36
37
38
38
39
39
40
40
40
41
42

L i t e r a t u r e - Professio nal Orga nizations . . .
General L i t e r a t u r e .......................................................
U n i v e rs i ty L i b r a r i e s ...................................................
Michigan A sso c ia tio n o f School Boards . . . .
Michigan Education Associatio n ............................
Michigan Department o f Education ..........................
M e d i a .................................................................................
I m plicatio ns f o r This S t u d y .......................................................

42
43
43
44
44
45
45
46

METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................

48

Population o f t h e Study ................................................................
Background o f t h e S t u d y ...........................................
Design Components ............................................................................
I n s t r u m e n t ........................................................................
P i l o t S t u d y ....................................................................
A dm in is tra tiv e D e ta ils ...............................................
Analysis o f the D a t a ....................................................................

48
48
51
51
54
54
55

f ....................................................................

57

P r e s e n t a t io n and Data Analysis on the Six Research
Q u e s t i o n s .....................................................................................
Data on t h e Categories o f Information Sources .................
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e Data Analysis ......................................
Source C a te g o r iz a tio n ....................................................................
Summary......................................................................................... .... .

57
81
83
86
86

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

88

Summary..................................................................................................
C o n c l u s i o n s .........................................................................................
I m plicatio ns .....................................................................................
Recommendations .................................................................................
R e f l e c t i o n s .........................................................................................

88
89
91
93
95

Appendix A ..............................................................................................................

96

III.

IV.

V.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Appendix B ...................................................................................................................

102

Bibliography ...............................................................................................................

109

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

Jackson County In te r m e d ia te School

D i s t r i c t ......................

52

Table 2.

Reverse Weighting System

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

58

Table 3.

Information Source I n d i c a t i o n s and Frequency
o f Use R e s p o n s e s .........................................................................

59

Table 4.

Technical Q u a lity Responses .........................................................

64

Table 5.

Ease o f Use R e s p o n s e s ......................................................................

69

Table 6.

Value R e s p o n s e s ...................................................................................

74

Table 7.

Rarely Used Information S o u r c e s ................................................

75

Table 8.

Composite Scores - Information Source C a te go rie s

82

vi

. . .

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig u re

1. A Common Decision-Making P a t t e r n ................................................

23

Fig u re

2. A Data-Based Decision-Making P a t t e r n .......................................

25

Fig u re 3.
Figure 4.
Fig u re 5.
F ig u re 6.

Frequency o f Use:
tion S o u r c e s

Ten H ig h e st Ranked Informa­

Frequency o f Use:
tion S o u r c e s

Five Lowest Ranked Informa­

62
63

Technical Q u a l i t y :
tion S o u r c e s

Ten Highest Ranked Informa­

Technical Q u a l i t y :
tion S o u r c e s

Five Lowest Ranked Informa­

66
67

F i g u r e 7.

Ease o f Use:

Ten H i g h e st Ranked I n f o r m a t io n Sources .

71

F i g u r e 8.

Ease o f Use:

Five Lowest Ranked I n f o r m a t io n Sources .

72

F ig u re 9.

Value:

F igu re 10. Value:

Ten H i g h e st Ranked I n f o r m a t io n Sources . . . .

77

Five

78

lo w e st Ranked I n f o r m a t io n Sources . . . .

vi 1

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND
During the e a r l y ev o lu tio n of American edu catio n , school boards re­
garded curriculum as the crux o f t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as e l e c t e d r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i v e s o f th e people.

As time pr ogresse d, most boards have found

t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s have focused on f inanc e and bu ild ings due to trends
in i n c r e a s i n g , r a t h e r than d e crea sin g , enrollment. The Texas Associa­
t io n o f School Boards (1974) r epo rte d :
Recently, however, boards are coming to r e a l i z e t h a t ,
while they will probably not spend a l a r g e amount o f time
in curriculum m a t t e r s , curriculum policymaking i s probab­
ly t h e i r most important fu n ctio n . This i s because o th e r
a re a s of school board f u n ctio n in g only e x i s t to support
the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. All p o l i c i e s , t h e n , l o g i c a l l y
depend on curriculum p o l i c i e s and the n a tu re of the school
program. I t i s easy to see t h a t what s u b j e c t s a re taught
and how they a r e tau gh t in flu e n ce the kinds o f buildings
t h a t are c o n str u cted ( p l a n t ) , what tea ch e rs a re hired ( p e r ­
s o n n e l ) , and how much money i s spent (fin an c e) (p. 19).
In Michigan, as in most s t a t e s , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e is charged with
c e r t a i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r education.

The Michigan

Associa tio n o f School Boards (1975) r e p o r t s t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s to
see t h a t " . . . s c h o o l s and t h e means o f education s h a ll f o rev e r be en­
couraged" (p. 5).

By law, t h e s e educational r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e d e l e ­

gated t o educational teams o p e ra t in g a t the s t a t e , inte rm ediate d i s ­
t r i c t , and local l e v e l s .

All t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in educa­

t i o n a re important and each has a d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n to make.
The Michigan A sso c ia tio n o f School Boards (1975) a ls o s t a t e s
that:
1

2

The primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , however, f o r a s s u r i n g t h e
p r o v i s i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o a l l c h i l d r e n and
y outh i s plac ed upon t h e s h o u l d e r s o f school board members
in l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s (p. 5).
More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e Michigan School Code o f 1976, as r e p o r t e d i n t h e
S t a t e o f Michigan General School Laws (1976) , l i s t s in S e c tio n 340.583
that:
. . . e v e r y board s h a l l de te r m in e t h e c o u rs e s o f stu d y t o
be pursued and cause t h e p u p i l s a t t e n d i n g school in such
d i s t r i c t t o be t a u g h t in such sc h oo ls and departm ents as
i t may deem e x p e d ie n t (p. 214).
These laws and s t a t u t e s o f t h e S t a t e o f Michigan c l e a r l y p o i n t out t h a t
l o c a l boards o f e d u c a ti o n have a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e cur
riculum a nd, as p a r t o f t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , an im p ortan t r o l e in c u r ­
r i c u l a r d ecisio n -m a k in g .
Most board o f e d u c a ti o n members seem to view c u r r i c u lu m as ambigu­
ous and complex.

Curriculum decision-m aking by lo c a l board o f educa­

t i o n members i s e s p e c i a l l y f o rm id a b le because most board members come
t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n s with l i t t l e o r no knowledge about c u rr ic u lu m in
ge neral a nd, s p e c i f i c a l l y , abo ut t h e c u r r i c u l a r program in t h e school
d istrict.

In a d d i t i o n , t h e c u rr i c u lu m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f most school

board members a r e c l o s e l y t i e d w ith v a lu e - la d e n i n t e r e s t s o f many p r e s ­
s u r e groups.

T h e r e f o r e , board o f members must respond t o t h e i r own

lac k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g abo ut c u rr i c u lu m and t o t h e lobbying p r e s s u r e o f
both formal and informal groups w h ile a t t e m p t i n g t o make c u r r i c u l a r de­
c i s i o n s t h a t a r e b e s t f o r s t u d e n t s and local communities.
Perhaps t h i s s i t u a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e s i x p e r c e n t o f time
s p e n t by boards o f e d u c a tio n on c u r r i c u l a r m a t t e r s as r e p o r t e d in Blan­
c h a r d ' s (1977) a n a l y s i s .
(1974) who s t a t e d t h a t :

This concern was a l s o echoed by Cawelti

3

. . . a t r a g e d y o f our time i s t h a t school l e a d e r s , l a y and
p r o f e s s i o n a l a l i k e , o f t e n spend more tim e and gi ve more h e a r t
t o e v e r y t h i n g but what makes t h e school t i c k —c u r r i c u l u m
(p . 40 ).
On what grouunds a r e c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s made? L i t e r a t u r e on d e ­
c i s i o n making c onfirm s t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t d e c i s i o n s a r e p o s s i b l y based
upon a t t i t u d e s i n c l u d i n g p r e j u d i c e s , v a l u e s , and f e e l i n g s a s well as
upon f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n .

Rudman (1977) s t a t e s t h a t :

. . . a l l t o o o f t e n d e c i s i o n s a r e made on t h e b a s i s o f how
we f e e l a bo ut an i s s u e , o r on how we met a n o t h e r s i t u a t i o n
in t h e p a s t (p. 12).
Rudman s u g g e s t s t h a t a more a p p r o p r i a t e p a t t e r n f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
needs a d d i t i o n a l components.

Seeking o u t i n f o r m a t i o n which can be l o ­

c a t e d through a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be one o f t h e e s s e n ­
t i a l components o f a d a t a - b a s e d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p a t t e r n .
The NAESP R e p o r te r (1978) s u p p o r t s t h i s id e a in i t s s t a t e m e n t :
De cisio ns sho u ld be made on t h e b a s i s o f c a r e f u l l y c o l ­
l e c t e d i n f o r m a ti o n and well o r g a n i z e d d a t a . T h i s , t o o , i s
an uncommon p r a c t i c e . D e c i s i o n s have t o be made on t h e ba­
s i s o f in c o m p l e t e —even u n r e l i a b l e — i n f o r m a t i o n . Heavy
r e l i a n c e r e s t s upon v e rb a l media— i n f o r m a t i o n c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,
phone c a l l s , and m i s c e l l a n e o u s m ee tin g s ( p . 3 ) ,
In f o r m a tio n s o u r c e s a r e t h e v e h i c l e s by which t h i s d a ta can be
gathered.

These s o u r c e s have many o r i g i n s and a l s o have a wide number

o f a t t r i b u t e s as p e r c e i v e d by t h e u s e r .

Gatza (1 9 7 3 ), in h i s s t u d y o f

"The S t r u c t u r e s , P r o c e s s e s , and C r i t e r i a f o r C u r r i c u l a r D e cisio n Making
in S e l e c t e d Michigan Community C o l l e g e s , " found t h a t some c u r r i c u l a r
d e c i s i o n s were made th ro u g h an i n t e l l e c t u a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i ­
c i p a n t s who drew upon i n f o r m a t i o n r e s o u r c e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r p e r c e p ­
t io n of value.

He found t h a t :

De cisio ns in c u r r i c u l a r m a t t e r s a r e made t h r o u g h a com­
b i n a t i o n o f i n t u i t i o n , common s e n s e , e x t e r n a l a u t h o r i t y ,
and q u a l i f i e d o p i n i o n , a l l pu t t o g e t h e r t o form a

4
p e r c e p t i o n which becomes t h e b a s i s f o r f i n a l approval o r
r e j e c t i o n o f a c u r r i c u l a r proposal (p. 275).
Often c urriculu m d e c i s i o n s seem t o be based on to o l i t t l e informa­
t i o n due to t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o r use o f too few info rm a ti o n so u rc es .

As

minimal as t h i s in form a ti on may be, board members appear t o r e l y upon
t h e i r own judgment in c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n making.

This was supported

by Blanchard (1977) in h i s review o f t h e d a ta o f a study conducted by
t h e Michigan A s s o c ia t io n o f School Boards.

In t h e co n clusio n o f th e

r e p o r t , Blanchard r e p o r t e d :
. . . t h a t even though board members were w i l l i n g to make
the d e c i s i o n s n e c e s s a r y , they were concerned about t h e i r
la c k o f knowledge o f t h e de cision-making pro ce ss (p. 11).
In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , t h e school board must l e g a l l y adopt p o l i ­
c i e s with r e s p e c t t o t h e c u rr ic u lu m .

This adoption process n e c e s s i ­

t a t e s decision-making as each in d iv i d u a l board member g e t s ready to
p u b l i c a l l y s t a t e a p o s i t i o n on p ro p o sa ls being c o n s i d e r e d .

In d i s ­

charging i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r curriculu m p o lic y-m aking, i t seems as
i f th e school board and i t s i n d i v i d u a l members should l o g i c a l l y seek
out a p p r o p r i a t e inform ation on t h e v a r i o u s c u r r i c u l a r i s s u e s brought to
t he board f o r a d e c i s i o n .
An adequate d a ta base o f c urric u lu m in form a ti on i s e s s e n t i a l i f
r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s a r e t o be reached.

Board members need a c l e a r un­

d e rs t a n d i n g o f v a rio u s info rm a tio n so u r c e s .

This i s a d i f f i c u l t under­

t a k i n g due t o t h e d i v e r s e range o f a v a i l a b l e info rmation sources from
which board members may choose to use t o help them.

But the choice

o f the sources used in t h i s process seems t o be based on a number of
o t h e r v a r i a b l e s as w e l l .

The board member's p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s e

5

v a r i a b l e s as a p p l i e d to use o f c u r r i c u lu m in f o r m a tio n s o u r c e s , t h e r e ­
f o r e , h i g h l i g h t e d t h e focus o f t h i s stu d y .
Problem Statem en t
Although t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n has a major r o l e in c u r r i c u l u m , i t
i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e c u r r i c u l a r de c isio n -m a k in g p ro ce ss i t uses i s n o t
c l e a r l y understood by i t s members.

As p a r t o f t h a t p r o c e s s , t h e use o f

in fo rm a tio n so u rc es t o s e c u r e d a t a f o r de cisio n-m a kin g seems t o be one
o f t h e key elements l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l board members.
A number o f f a c t o r s seem t o have placed school board members in a p o s i ­
t i o n o f making c u rr i c u lu m d e c i s i o n s w i th o u t t h e b e n e f i t o f p e r t i n e n t
and broad-based i n f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e s .

Thus, i t appeared t h a t inform a­

t i o n sources used in c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n-m a kin g by board o f e d u ca tio n
members was an a r e a d e s e r v i n g o f r e s e a r c h .
Purposes and O b j e c t i v e s o f t h e Study
In t h e p ro ce ss o f c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , i n d i v i d u a l board o f
e d u c a tio n members r e c e i v e in f o r m a ti o n from v ary ing so u r c e s .

The i n f o r ­

mation so u rc es may be sought o u t by t h e board member, c a l l e d t o h i s
a t t e n t i o n by t h e e f f o r t s o f lobbying p r e s s u r e gr o u p s, o r i d e n t i f i e d in
some o t h e r manner.
The purpose o f t h i s s t u d y was tw o fo ld .

The f i r s t purpose was to

i n v e s t i g a t e knowledge and use o f c u r r i c u l u m in f o r m a tio n so u rc es by
school board members in Jackson County, Michigan.

Secondly, t h e purpose

o f t h i s stud y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f c u rr ic u lu m informa­
t i o n so u rc es as p e rc e iv e d by Jackson County school board members.
Using t h e purposes o f t h i s s tu d y as a g u i d e , s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s
o f t h i s stud y were determined.

They a s s e s s e d :

6

1.

The i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s p r e s e n t l y b e in g used by board
members in c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

2.

The f r e q u e n c y o f u se o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s
by board members.

3.

The ranked v a l u e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s ' a t t r i b u t e s
o f " t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y , " " e a s e o f u s e , " and " r e l a t i v e
v a l u e " a s p e r c e i v e d by board members.

4.

The need f o r a d d i t i o n a l and more a c c e s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f
curriculum inform ation.

To sum marize, t h e main o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o e x p l o r e a
number o f a s p e c t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s c u r r e n t l y use d by board members
in Ja c k s o n County, M ic higa n , i n making c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n s .

During

t h e p r o c e s s o f s t u d y i n g f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s used in c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n ­
making, e f f o r t s were made t o i d e n t i f y t h e t y p e s , t h e f r e q u e n c y o f u s e ,
and o t h e r p e r c e i v e d a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e s o u r c e s .
R e se arch Q u e s t i o n s
From t h e p u r p o s e and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e f o l l o w i n g r e ­
s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were f o r m u l a t e d :
1.

What a r e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s used by board members
in c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ?

2.

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e , how do
board members ran k t h e i r f r e q u e n c y o f use ?

3.

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e , how do
board members ran k t h e i r t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y ?

4.

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e , how do
board members rank e a s e o f use?

5.

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e , how do
board members r a n k t h e i r r e l a t i v e v a l u e ?

6.

What i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s would board members l i k e t o
have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e t h a t a r e n o t a t t h i s time?

Using t h e d a t a g e n e r a t e d from t h i s s t u d y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r n o t only
answered t h e s e s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , b u t showed how p r a c t i c a l

7
use o f info rmation source knowledge can be a p p lie d t o (1) I n s e r v i c e pro­
grams f o r board members and (2) expanding general
r e l a t i v e importance o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , s t a f f ,

knowledge about t h e

and community in p u t i n t o

t h e proce ss o f c u r r i c u l a r decision-making by t h e l o c a l board o f educa­
tion.
S i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e Study
This study v/as important f o r a number o f r e a so n s .

F i r s t , t h e r e ap ­

pears t o be a d e a r t h o f l i t e r a t u r e on t h e knowledge and use o f c u r r i c u ­
l a r inf or mation r e s o u r c e s by board o f education members.

The r e s e a r c h ­

e r ' s p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n rev e ale d t h a t l i t t l e , i f any, r e s e a r c h
has been attempted o r c a r r i e d out to determine from where school board
members gain info rmation as they a re involved in the p ro ce ss o f c u r r i c ­
u l a r de cision-making.

This stud y attempted to provide new d a ta on t h i s

t o p i c so t h a t i t may be used by o t h e r s .
A second s i g n i f i c a n t value o f t h i s study

can be t h e use o f t h e data

by school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and new board members to e x h i b i t the need f o r
the c r e a t i o n o r m o d if i c a t io n o f i n s e r v i c e programs f o r members o f the
board o f e d u c a tio n .
A t h i r d a s p e c t o f importance o f t h i s study was t h a t i t pro vide e s ­
s e n t i a l info rmation t o o t h e r persons in both formal and informal o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n s so t h a t they can be aware o f more e f f e c t i v e da ta in p u t channels
t o th e board members during th e decision-making p ro cess.

Additionally,

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , s t a f f , and community awareness o f t h e in fo rm atio n
sou rc es used by a board in i t s decision-making process may make t h e
b o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n s more c r e d i b l e .

8

F o u r t h , t h e methodology c r e a t e d by t h i s stud y could be r e p l i c a t e d .
The new d a t a g e n e r a t e d could then be c r i t i c a l l y I n t e r p r e t e d and g e n e r ­
a liz e d to another population.
F i f t h , t h i s study brought f o r t h new i n f o r m a tio n as t o t h e board
member's knowledge o f t h e d e cisio n -m a k in g p r o c e s s , i n c l u d i n g h i s / h e r
r o l e and t h e r o l e o f o t h e r s in a f f e c t i n g c u r r i c u lu m .

In an a r t i c l e

e n t i t l e d "What Makes Boardmen Run?" Zazzaro (1971) b e l i e v e s t h a t :
. . . b o a r d members p l a c e t h e i r rea so n s f o r having run o r
a c c e p t i n g appointments t o t h e i r l o c a l school board some­
where between s e l f i s h n e s s and n a i v e t y (p. 17).
Since board members d e cid e t o run and a r e e l e c t e d f o r a v a r i e t y o f r e a ­
s o n s , they w i l l b rin g many d i f f e r e n t i d ea s and p h i l o s o p h i e s to t h e i r
positions.

The c u r r i c u l a r program o f a school d i s t r i c t can be main­

t a i n e d o r changed t o a ch iev e d e s i r e d outcomes f o r s t u d e n t s .

Success o f

t h i s t a s k depends t o a l a r g e degree on t h e board member's knowledge o f
t h e c u rr i c u lu m

d ecision-m aking p r o c e s s .

The more t h a t i s known

about

the c u rric u la r

d ecision-m aking p r o c e s s , t h e more e f f e c t i v e l y i t

can be

a p p l i e d t o t h e d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s o f a p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t .
Assumptions o f t h e Study
1.

P a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e stu d y responded s e r i o u s l y and
honestly.

2.

All s t a te m e n t s in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were acc ep ted as
being o f equal importance o r as having equal p r i o r i t y
and we ight.

3.

The v a l i d i t y and t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e q u e s t i o n s in
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were w i t h i n a c c e p t a b l e l i m i t s .

4.

The use o f in f o r m a tio n so u rc es i s p a r t o f t h e d e c i s i o n ­
making p r o c e s s .

5.

Members o f t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n have a r o l e in c u r ­
riculum d ecisio n -m a k in g .

9

Lim ita tio ns o f t h e Study
1.

The responses o f t h e in d iv id u a l p a r t i c i p a n t may have been
a f f e c t e d by many f o r c e s a t work within th e school d i s ­
t r i c t . A d d i t io n a l ly , many unrecognized f o r c e s a t work
a t n a tio n al a nd /o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l s may have impact­
ed upon the study. Personal l i f e a c t i v i t i e s including
so c ia l p r e s su r e s of t h e respondents may a l s o have a f ­
f e c t e d the r e s u l t s of t h i s study.

2.

Because of th e involvement o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r as an ad­
m i n i s t r a t o r in Jackson County, th e r e s u l t s of t h i s study
may have been a f f e c t e d .
D e f in i t io n o f Important Terms

The l i s t i n g o f key terms and t h e i r meanings i s provided to communi
c a te to t h e rea der t h e use o f th es e terms in th e r e s t r i c t e d co n te x t of
t h i s study.
Board o f Education
The board i s a group of seven i n d i v i d u a l s e l e c t e d by the c o n s t i ­
tuency of a school d i s t r i c t to be t h e policy-making and governing body
o f a local school d i s t r i c t .
Board Member
A s i n g u l a r member of t h e Board o f Education o f a local school d i s ­
t r i c t i s e l e c t e d or appointed t o a term o f o f f i c e not exceeding four
years.

Sex i s not an e l i g i b i l i t y f a c t o r f o r t h i s o f f i c e ; however,

masculine gender will be used throughout t h i s study only because female
board members remain a d i s t i n c t , a l b e i t growing, m in o rity .
Curriculum
The d e f i n i t i o n s f o r the term curriculum a r e many and v a rie d .

For

the purpose o f t h i s stud y , Wiles' (1963) broad d e f i n i t i o n w ill be used.
He d e fi n e s curriculum f o r the c h i l d as c o n s i s t i n g of:

10
. . . a l l o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t a r e p ro vided f o r him by
t h e s c h o o l —a l l o f t h e f a c t o r s in h i s environment which
a r e p a r t o f t h e school day.
The r e s e a r c h e r i n t e r p r e t s t h e p r o v i s i o n o f e x p e r i e n c e s t o mean t h o s e
e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t a r e programmed and planned by t h e s t a f f and board o f
education.
C u r r i c u l a r Decision-Making
This term in v olv e d t h e p r o c e s s by which c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n s
made.

are

I t i n c l u d e s a number o f s t e p s in which a d e c i s i o n - m a k e r follo w s

as he moves

from problem i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t o f o r m u l a t i o n o f a d e c i s i o n .

In u sing t h e s t e p s in t h e d e cisio n-m a kin g p r o c e s s as d e s c r i b e d by G r i f ­
f i t h s (1 9 5 7 ) , t h e r e s e a r c h e r was most i n t e r e s t e d in t h e s t e p concerned
with c o l l e c t i n g d a t a .
Overview o f Other Chapters
in t h e Study
Subsequent c h a p t e r s in t h i s s tu d y a r e o r g a n i z e d in t h e follo w in g
manner.
Chapter I I rev iews t h e l i t e r a t u r e and r e p o r t s i n t e r v i e w s with edu­
c a t i o n in f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s as r e l a t e d t o t h e problem t o p i c o f t h i s
study.
C hapte r I I I d e s c r i b e s t h e s p e c i f i c s o f t h e methodology pr ocedur es
used in t h i s stud y .
C hapte r IV a n a l y z e s t h e d a ta g a t h e r e d from t h e sample p o p u l a t i o n .
Chapter V d e f i n e s c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e s t u d y and l i s t s recommenda­
t i o n s f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
AND INTERVIEWS WITH EDUCATION
INFORMATION SPECIALISTS
This s t u d y examined board o f e d u c a t i o n members' knowledge a b o ut
c u r r i c u l a r i n f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e s and t h e i r use o f them in c a r r y i n g o u t
t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

Two t e c h n i q u e s were

used t o g a t h e r d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h e purpose o f t h i s s t u d y :
1.

A n a ly sis o f a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d i n g r e s e a r c h
s t u d i e s and o t h e r s c h o l a r l y works.

2.

Interview s with education information s p e c i a l i s t s .

The review o f t h e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r v i e w s with e d u c a t i o n
i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s in t h i s c h a p t e r was s t r u c t u r e d by f o u r q u e s t i o n s .
The q u e s t i o n s were:
1.

What i s t h e l o c a l board o f e d u c a t i o n ' s r o l e in c u r ­
r i c u l a r decision-making?

2.

Why a r e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s i m p o r t a n t t o t h e c u r r i c ­
u l a r decision-making process?

3.

What a r e t h e s o u r c e s o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l ­
a b l e t o Michigan p u b l i c school board o f e d u c a t i o n
members?

4.

What a r e t h e g e n e r a l a t t r i b u t e s and use c h a r a c t e r i s ­
t i c s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s i d e n t i f i e d in t h e
re v ie w o f r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r v i e w s w ith
education inform ation s p e c i a l i s t s ?

The f i r s t q u e s t i o n d e a l t w i t h t h e t o p i c o f school d i s t r i c t gov ern­
ance and t h e d e l i n e a t i o n o f t h e b o a r d ' s r o l e 1n t h e a r e a o f c u r r i c u l a r
decision-making.

The t h r e e o t h e r q u e s t i o n s drew upon s t u d i e s from

e d u c a t i o n - r e l a t e d f i e l d s , t h e f i e l d o f i n f o r m a t i o n s c i e n c e s , and
11

12

o r g a n i z a t i o n and decision-making t h e o r i e s .

This review was or ganized

t o p r e s e n t each o f t h e f o u r q u e s t io n s and t h e response s t o th ose ques­
t i o n s t h a t were deriv ed from t h e l i t e r a t u r e and Interview s with I n f o r ­
mation s p e c i a l i s t s .
What Is t h e Board of E d u c a ti o n 's Role
In C u r r i c u l a r Decision-Making?
The process o f d e f i n i n g t h e r o l e o f t h e board in c u r r i c u l a r d e c i ­
sion-making o c curred a t f o u r l e v e l s .

The f i r s t d e a l t with t h e r o l e of

t h e board as s p e c i f i e d by law through l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n and by general
governance r e g u l a t i o n s s t i p u l a t e d by s t a t e and f e d e r a l governmental
a g e n c ie s .

A review o f t h e curriculu m development proce ss with s p e c i f i c

a t t e n t i o n t o b o a r d ' s decision-making r o l e h i g h l i g h t e d l e v e l two.

The

t h i r d and f o u r t h l e v e l s have some ov e rl a p but were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y .
In lev e l t h r e e , t h e involvement o f vario us " p u b l ic s " i n t e r e s t e d in p a r ­
t i c i p a t i n g in decision-making r eg a rd in g p u b l ic school c urriculu m was de­
lineated.

Defining needs f o r improved decision-making s k i l l s f o r board

members was t h e a re a o f focus in level f o u r .
In America, e d uca tion i s p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
of t h e s t a t e s .

The c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f Michigan mandates the

s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e t o " . . . m a i n t a i n and su pport a system o f f r e e p u b l ic
elementary and secondary sc hools as d e fin e d by law { A r t i c l e 8, Se ction
2)" (1964).

The s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e has followed t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l man­

d a te by w r i t i n g in t h e Michigan School Code o f 1976 r e g u l a t i o n s givin g
members o f th e local boards o f education r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s u r i n g
t h a t e d u ca tion al o p p o r t u n i t i e s a re a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l c h i l d r e n in local
school d i s t r i c t s .

13
The l o c a l school board i s t h e agency d e s i g n a t e d by t h e s t a t e t o
r e p r e s e n t t h e peop le o f t h e l o c a l d i s t r i c t and t h e s t a t e .

The board i s

charged with t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o i n t e r p r e t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l needs and
d e s i r e s o f t h e people and t o t r a n s l a t e them i n t o p o l i c i e s and programs.
In an e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between law and e d u c a t i o n , as
e x p re ss ed in t h e d e v elo p in g body o f " e d u c a ti o n law ," Sorgen (1973) r e ­
p o r t e d on the importance o f t h e school board in t h e governance o f edu­
cation.

He was e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in r o l e s o f t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n

in t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e e d u c t i o n a l system as d e f i n e d by law and what
took p l a c e in a c t u a l p r a c t i c e .
Support to t h e Importance o f school boards in t h e a r e a o f govern ­
ance was given by Brodinsky (1977) who co ncluded :
School boards a r e p o t e n t i a l l y t h e
group in t h e community. The board o f
A m erican.. .weak in many r e s p e c t s , y e t
to l e g i s l a t e , to adm inister i t s a c t s ,
s e m i - j u d i c i a l agency (p. 3 ).

most im p o r ta n t p u b l i c
e d u c a ti o n i s u n iqu ely
endowed w ith t h e power
and t o f u n c t i o n as a

This th ought was echoed by Page (1967) who saw t h e school b o a r d ' s r o l e
as dynamic and e s s e n t i a l .
I t can be g e n e r a l l y concluded t h a t boards o f e d u c a t i o n a r e l e g a l l y
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e s c h o o ls under t h e i r d i r e c t i o n .

Formed o f laymen,

th ey prov ide r e s p o n s i b l e l a y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in l e g i s l a t i n g f o r and g u i d ­
ing t h e sc h o o l.
Marrs (1977) asked a key q u e s t i o n , "What i s t h e board o f educa­
t i o n ? " (p. 29).

He went on t o answer t h e q u e s t i o n with t h e fo llo w in g

description:
Boards o f Education a r e :
- - c i t i z e n s e l e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e p u b l i c as school
d i s t r i c t po lic y-m a ke rs
- - t h e f o l k s p e o p le look t o f o r d e c i s i o n s t h a t keep
t h e i r s c h o o l s running e f f e c t i v e l y , e f f i c i e n t l y ,
and e con o m ic ally.

14
—th e p e ople -Unk between th e c i t i z e n s and t h e i r sc hools,
—e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s who f u l f i l l th e p e o p l e 's r i g h t
t o know.
—local government o f f i c i a l s whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and
a u t h o r i t y a re e s t a b l i s h e d —and f r e q u e n t l y a l t e r e d —by
the l e g i s l a t u r e .
—a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s with d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r want­
ing t o serve as Board members and with d i f f e r e n t edu­
c a t io n a l goals t h a t they wish t o achieve.
—Board members a re a l l o f t h e s e . In a d d i t i o n , they are
expected t o be c r e d i b l e , a cc o u n ta b le , r e s p o n s i b l e ,
e t h i c a l , f l e x i b l e , approachable—and v i s i o n a r y (p. 29).
The basi c r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , r o l e s , or f u n c t i o n s o f school boards
can be s t a t e d in several ways.

These have been d e scrib e d by the Michi­

gan Association o f School Boards (1975) as having s i m i l a r i t i e s to the
fun ction s of t h e boards

o f d i r e c t o r s o f p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n s . Those

fun ction s a re g e n e r a l l y

s t a t e d as e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e general o b j e c t i v e s ,

determining the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and s e l e c t i n g t h e major o b je c ­
t i v e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and a p p ra is in g t h e performance of those to
whom r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t io n has been d e le g a t e d .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l format o f a local school d i s ­
t r i c t , T u t t l e (1963) concludes t h a t the board has t h e following respon­
sib ilities:
1.

Compliance with laws and r e g u l a t i o n s

2.

Determination o f edu cational o b j e c t i v e s

3.

Determination of curriculum and c u r r i c u l a r p r i o r i t i e s

4.

S e lec tio n o f a head a d m i n i s t r a t o r ( s u p e r in t e n d e n t )

5.

A t t r a c t i o n and maintenance o f a competent s t a f f

6.

Provision of adequate f a c i l i t i e s

7.

Securement and management o f f i n a n c i a l re sources

8.

Evaluation of the school program and personnel

9.

Communication with s t a f f , s t u d e n t s , and c i t i z e n s
(pp. 37-49).

15
The members o f t h e board o f education a r e g e n e r a l l y co nsid ered t o
have a r o l e In cu rricu lu m and, c o n se q u e n tly , w i l l be involved in d e c i ­
sion-making in t h a t are a o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The i n d i v i d u a l s who make

up a board o f education r e p r e s e n t t h e p eo p le ; and when t h e board a c t s
in i t s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y , i t s d e c i s i o n s with regard to curriculu m a re
final.

Such d e c i s i o n s , o f c o u r s e , must conform t o s t a t e and f e d e r a l

laws, when such laws a r e in vo lv ed , and, in most s t a t e s , t o th e c u r r i c u ­
lum p o l i c y o f t h e s t a t e ' s department o f e d u c a tio n .

To a l a r g e e x t e n t ,

however, t h e f i n a l approval o f t h e local s c h o o l ' s cu rriculu m i s in t h e
hands o f th e local board o f e d u c a ti o n .

This obviously p lac es an impor­

t a n t and heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y upon t h e board.
In h is st u d y , Gatza (1973) provided evidence showing t h a t " . . . c u r ­
r i c u l a were seen as t h e essence o f t h e school board, th e very purpose
o f i t s be in g ."

He continued:

What i s ta u g h t and le a r n e d and how i t i s ta u g h t and
le a r n e d a r e the r e s u l t s o f t h e d e c i s i o n s by th o se empow­
ere d t o make them (p. 267).
Many e d uca tio n al w r i t e r s have touched upon t h e b o a r d ' s r o l e in
c u rr i c u lu m , but they can be b e s t sunned up by Doll (1964) when he wrote:
With r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c u rr i c u lu m , th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f board members a r e twofold: (1) t o inform themselves
about t h e c urriculu m so t h a t they can i n t e l l i g e n t ! d e t e r ­
mine o b j e c t i v e s f o r t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g , and (2) t o
make p o l i c i e s and t o vo te funds which w ill ensu re progres s
toward t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s (p. 219).
At t h e leve l two a s p e c t o f t h i s q u e s t i o n , decision-making in t h e
c urric ulu m development process was reviewed to help c l a r i f y the r o l e of
th e board.
ino (1977).

The need t o c l a r i f y t h e b o a r d ' s r o l e was expressed by Mar­
He f e l t

that:

16
. . . t h e r o l e and f u n c t i o n o f t h e board o f e d u c a t i o n was
n o t u n i v e r s a l l y known and a c c e p t e d .
T h is i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e
in t h e c u r r i c u l a r a r e a o f t h e b o a r d ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
Curriculum development i s a complex u n d e r t a k in g w i t h a number o f
s t e p s and d e c i s i o n s t h a t must be made.

I t i s a l s o an on -g oing p r o c e s s

t h a t sh o uld n o t have a s p e c i f i c t e r m i n a t i o n p o i n t .

Because i t i s d i f ­

f i c u l t t o r e a c h a c onsensus o f e d u c a t i o n a l c u r r i c u l u m w r i t e r s on hard
and f a s t r u l e s f o r t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,
S a y l o r and Ale xander (1974) s u g g e s t t h e r e a r e f i v e major t y p e s o f d e f i ­
nitions.

They d e f i n e d t h e s e d e c i s i o n s a s :

1.

P o licy-m aking

2.

Curriculum d e s i g n i n g

3.

T ec h nic al development

4.

Curriculum im plem enta tio n

5.

Evaluation

Taba (1962) a l s o e l a b o r a t e d on d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g in c u r r i c u l u m d e ­
velopment.

She b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e p r o c e s s i n v olv e d many kinds o f d e c i ­

s i o n s and d e c i s i o n s a t many d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s .

I t was h e r op in io n t h a t ,

even though some d e c i s i o n s a r e made a t s t a t e and f e d e r a l l e v e l s , many
d e c i s i o n s which shape t h e f u n c t i o n i n g c u r r i c u l u m were made by t h e l o c a l
school board s and by t e a c h e r s , e i t h e r in groups o r i n d i v i d u a l l y .
There has been much c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r t h e b o a r d ' s r o l e in c u r r i c u ­
lum de velopment, e s p e c i a l l y a t which l e v e l ( s ) i t should i n t e r j e c t i t s
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g powers.
/ I / D / E / A / Monograph.

Myers (1970) a d d re s s e d t h i s concern in an

In t h i s work he a n a ly z e d t h e c o n f u s i o n r e g a r d i n g

who makes c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n d e c i s i o n s .

He made a s t r o n g case

f o r a t h e o r e t i c a l model t o a s s u r e g r e a t e r r a t i o n a l i t y in t h e d e c i s i o n ­
making p r o c e s s .

17

A predominance of t h e l i t e r a t u r e supported t h e idea t h a t the board
should only be involved in d e c i s i o n s a t the level o f policy-making and
evaluation.

As suggested by Secondary Education Today (1977) in the

p u b l ic a t i o n o f the Code o f Ethical R ela tio n s h ip s f o r Board o f Education
Members and Educational A d m in is tr a tio n s , the board makes purposes and
goals f o r the educational mission and should deal with s e t t i n g p o l ic y ,
f i s c a l l y supporting programs and a c t i v i t i e s t h a t were e s t a b l i s h e d be­
cause of t h a t p o l i c y , and seeing t h a t educational goals and purposes
a re met.

The s e t t l i n g o f annual i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals through management

by o b j e c t i v e s o r o t h e r methods was advocated by Cawelti (1965) to be
t h e major way boards should be involved in curriculum development.
I t must be noted t h a t t h e r e a r e those educa tors and school board
members who fe e l t h a t t h e r e should be more involvement by board members
a t various l e v e l s o f curriculum development.

As s t a t e d by Peters 0976):

Whether t h e d e c isio n s be small or l a r g e , school boards
do run America's schools and g r e a t l y determine the con tent
and s t r u c t u r e of curriculum (p. 10).
Another su p p o rte r o f t h i s viewpoint is English (1976).

He a tt a c k e d the

t r a d i t i o n a l view t h a t the school board should only decided on po licy
m atters while t h e s u p e rin te n d en t should a d m in iste r t h a t p o lic y .

Also,

he argued t h a t i t i s the b o a rd 's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y
and v a l i d i t y o f t h e curriculum.

This r e q u i r e s a c t i v e board involvement

in s o - c a l l e d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r s ; o th erw ise, t h e board i s lim ite d to
simply r a t i f y i n g d e c i s i o n s of th e d i s t r i c t ' s a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Whether th e b o a rd 's decision-making r o l e in curriculum development
i s determined t o be expansive o r is lim ite d t o policy-making and evalua­
t i o n , t h e l i t e r a t u r e did p o in t out t h a t local boards o f education have
important d e c i s i o n s t o be made in t h i s area o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

18

Curriculum in i t s t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s i s supposed t o be r e s p o n s i v e
t o t h e needs o f s o c i e t y .

Because o f t h i s p r e m i s e , members o f s o c i e t y

have a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t in t h e p u b l i c school c u rr i c u lu m .

In o r d e r t o be

r e s p o n s i v e , school o f f i c i a l s must be a b l e t o c r e a t i v e l y s o l v e t h e pro b­
lems and concerns t h a t seem t o always be t h e r e .

Drucker (1969) in t h e

"Age o f D i s c o n t i n u i t y " s t a t e d :
The problems of i n c r e a s i n g c o s t s , numbers o f s t u d e n t s ,
and demands upon t h e e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u t i o n t o meet t h e
needs o f s o c i e t y in a d e v elop in g "age o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y " were
a l r e a d y , a t t h e end o f WW I I , p r e s s i n g t h e im a g inatio n o f
se rio us-m in d e d e d u c a t o r s f o r s o l u t i o n s (p. 37).
With t h i s p o i n t in mind, l e v e l t h r e e o f t h e f i r s t l i t e r a t u r e review
q u e s t i o n was a d d re ss e d .
The l i t e r a t u r e seemed t o s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was a s t r o n g
i n t e r e s t among many segments o f t h e school o r g a n i z a t i o n and o f t h e com­
munity in having some impact o f c u r r i c u l a r d e c isio n - m a k in g .

From o u t ­

s i d e o f t h e school o r g a n i z a t i o n , such groups o f s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s , and
b u s i n e s s shave shown i n t e r e s t in c u rr i c u lu m d e c i s i o n s .
As a youth a d v o c a te , House (1970) p r e s e n t e d a st r o n g c ase f o r youth
involvement in c u rr ic u lu m change.

He s t a t e d t h a t :

. . . t h e problems in t h e c u rr i c u lu m a re an a r e very d i f f i ­
c u l t t o r e s o l v e . One very sim p le , b u t f r u i t f u l , way o f r e ­
so l v i n g some o f t h e c u r r i c u lu m problems i s merely t o seek
answers from o u r c l i e n t s - - t h e s t u d e n t s (p . 15).
P a r e n t s , through lo ca l PTA groups o r through ad hoc s p e c i a l i n t e r ­
e s t g r o u p s , a r e i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r d e s i r e s t o have Impact on c u r r i c u l a r
d e cisio n-m a kin g.

Our s o c i e t y i s p l u r a l i s t i c , and i t s s c h o o l s ' c u r r i c u ­

lum should r e f l e c t t h i s a t t r i b u t e , c o ncludes B a rre ra (1977).

In a com­

p r e h e n s i v e school su r v e y , t h e Lowell P u b l i c Schools (1978) r e p o r t e d

19
t h a t c u r r i c u l u m was t h e second ranked ite m f o r i n f o r m a t i o n d e s i r e d by
the public.
The b u s i n e s s community i s having e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g e f f e c t s on c u r r i c ­
ulum i s s u e s .

Not on ly i s t h e i n t e r e s t and a c t i v i t y coming from educa­

t i o n - o r i e n t e d b u s i n e s s e s , but by b u s i n e s s e s who wish t o use t h e s c h o o ls
as a v e h i c l e f o r promoting t h e i r p r o d u c t s and s e r v i c e s .

Mayer (1977)

did an e x c e l l e n t j o b o f d e s c r i b i n g some o f t h e o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e s on
l o c a l c u r r i c u l u m in h i s a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d " C urriculum Development in
C risis."
I n s i d e t h e school o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n t e r e s t in c u r r i c u l u m i s i n c r e a s ­
ing on t h e p a r t o f t h e b o a r d , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and t e a c h e r s .

The b o a r d ' s

i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t in c u r r i c u l u m was e v id e n c e d by t h e s p e c t a c u l a r f o r t y one p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e in r e g i s t r a n t s in t h e 1980 Mid-Winter Conference of
t h e Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f School Boards.

Also o f i n t e r e s t was t h e

f i g u r e t h a t t h e number o f boards r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e c o n f e r e n c e i n c r e a s e d
by t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t .

Weinheimer (1980) s t a t e d t h a t " . . . t h i s i n c r e a s e

in p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e t o p i c o f t h e c o n f e r e n c e —
curriculum ."
Curriculum d e c i s i o n im pactin g i s a major c on ce rn o f both a d m i n i s ­
t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s .

The a d v e n t o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g has brought

t h i s i s s u e c l e a r l y i n t o t h e a re n a o f conte m porary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and
power m a n i p u l a t i o n .
and Ziemer (1975).

Evidence o f t h i s problem i s r e p o r t e d by Thompson
T h e i r s t u d y showed t h a t :

Although most o f t h e c o n t r a c t s s t u d i e d i n c l u d e p r o v i s i o n s
r e l a t e d t o c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n , many board members i n ­
s i s t t h a t t h e y do n o t n e g o t i a t e such m a t t e r s . Board members
a l s o a p p ea r u n c l e a r as t o w h e th e r c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n
m a t t e r s a r e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e board o r t h e a d m i n i s ­
t r a t i o n . T ea ch e r l e a d e r s , however, unanimously f e e l t h a t

20

curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n m atters a r e important t o p i c s f o r
c o n t r a c t s (p. 18).
As t e a c h e r s become more powerful, they put d i r e c t p r e s s u r e on the
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o f i g h t t o c o n tr o l t h e i r inp u ts and decision-making.
Curriculum decision-making i s an area where everyone seems to want
to get involved.

Since t h e board has th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by law t o deal

with t h i s v i t a l area o f school o p e r a t i o n s , perhaps ways can be found to
involve a l l segments o f t h e school and community in r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a s ­
pects o f t h e decision-making p ro ce ss .
Addressing t h e f i n a l lev e l o f r e s e a r c h on th e qu estio n of the
bo ard 's r o l e in c u r r i c u l a r decision-making, i t became apparent t h a t the
t h r e e preceding l e v e l s o f r e s e a r c h had a d i r e c t bearing on the d e t e r ­
mination of d e fin in g needs f o r improved decision-making s k i l l s f o r
board members.
In a l l are as of the l i t e r a t u r e , th e need f o r increas ed d e c i s i o n ­
making s k i l l s f o r board members was c i t e d .

A l i s t i n g o f some o f the

r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s s k i l l improvement i s :
1.

The make-up o f school board members i s changing. Ash­
more (1980) r e p o r t s t h a t more board members are female.
More a re from m in o r i t y groups. More a re young. These
changes mean t h a t some problems a r e being viewed through
d i f f e r e n t eyes and th o se p e rc ep tio n s w i l l s u r e ly a f f e c t
educational p o l ic y in Michigan during the coming y e a r s .

2.

Marino (1977) s t a t e d t h a t " . . . t h e average board member
spends 100-250 hours per y e ar on board business. This
i s i n c re a s in g each y e a r . " This concern f o r expended
time a ls o concerned llnruh (1976). She believed t h e r e
was a r e l u c ta n c e f o r people t o put in the time needed
in the process es of formal decision-making.

3.

Unruh (1976) a ls o be liev e d t h a t people have had very
l i t t l e or no experience in d i r e c t involvement in co­
o p e r a t iv e decisi on-m aking, p a r t i c u l a r l y in r e l a t i o n
t o curriculum development.

21

4.

" I f c u r r i c u l a r development i s t o be a d e q u a te , a l l t h e s e
d e c i s i o n s need t o be made co m p e te n tly , on a recognized
and v a l i d b a s i s , and with some degree o f c o n s i s t e n c y "
(Taba, 1962, p. 7 ) . Taba a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t because o f
t h e complexity and m u l t i t u d e o f d e c i s i o n s t o be made,
t h e r e i s c o n fu s io n in c u rr i c u lu m decisio n -m a k in g .

5.

The d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e a r e a o f p r e s s u r e group i n f l u e n c e
on board d e cisio n-m a k in g abounds in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
K i r s t and Walker (1972) gave major emphasis t o t h i s t o p ­
i c in t h e i r a r t i c l e on "An A na ly sis o f Curriculum
Policy-Making." Support t o t h e need f o r more s k i l l s
in d e c isio n - m a k in g because o f t h e s e i n f l u e n c e s was a l s o
given by Curry (1980). He f e l t t h a t " . . . h a s t i l y organ­
ized ad hoc groups can have major c l o u t on a b o a r d ' s
s i n g u l a r d e c i s i o n . The b o a rd ’ s r e a c t i o n o f h u r r i e d
su p p o rt t o t h e i r views can le a d t o i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s as
compared t o l o n g -te rm a c t i o n p l a n s . " A t h r e e y e a r stu dy
by G i t t e l (1967) and a s t r o n g l y worded a r t i c l e by
Wadsworth (1970) gave c r e d i b i l i t y t o e f f e c t o f i n f l u ­
ences o f p r e s s u r e groups on board d e cisio n -m a k in g .

6.

Many school d i s t r i c t s do not have adequate s t a f f p e r ­
sonnel in c u rr i c u lu m . The Education USA Report (1979)
s t a t e d t h a t " . . . m o r e than h a l f t h e school d i s t r i c t s
in a major National Foundation st udy (1955-1975) had
no one r e s p o n s i b l e f o r su p e rv iso n and c o o r d i n a t i o n o f
cu rriculu m " (p. 228). This p u t s added r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
on th e board. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t hampered t h e d e c i s i o n ­
making p r o c e s s .

7.

A c c o u n t a b i l i t y and c r e d i b i l i t y o f board d e c i s i o n s have
given impetus t o i n c r e a s e d needs f o r d ecision-m aking
s k i l l s f o r board members. As t h e p u b l i c looks ever more
c r i t i c a l l y a t the social i n s t i t u t i o n s , the c u r r i c u la r
d e c i s i o n s o f school boards a r e open t o s c r u t i n y . Wisel o g l e (1978) p u r p o r te d t h a t , " C r e d i b i l i t y r e q u i r e s a
c o n ti n u i n g d e m o n s tr a ti o n o f good judgment, a c c o u n t a b i l ­
i t y , and e q u i t a b l e d e cisio n-m a king in m a t t e r s l a r g e and
small over a
p e ri o d o f y e a r s " (p. 15).

To summarize t h e

review o f l i t e r a t u r e on t h i s f i r s t q u e s t i o n ,

it

appeared t h a t t h e r e a r e many documented governmental and l e g i s l a t i v e
a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e lo c a l board o f e d u c a ti o n has t h e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t and maintenance o f t h e e d u c a tio n a l
program in i t s school

d i s t r i c t . This c o n t r o l was s l i g h t l y tempered by

f e d e r a l and s t a t e manda tes, but

lo ca l c o n t r o l and governance o f t h e

22

c u r r i c u l u m was c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d as one o f t h e major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
o f t h e l o c a l board o f e d u c a t i o n .
Even though t h e l e g a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c u r r i c u l u m was e s t a b ­
l i s h e d , t h e l i t e r a t u r e d id n o t g iv e c l e a r s u p p o r t d e f i n i n g t h e a c t u a l
r o l e o f t h e board in t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s .

The major o p i n i o n s ,

however, s u p p o r t e d t h e theorem t h a t t h e board should l i m i t i t s r o l e t o
p o l ic y - m a k i n g , p r o v i d i n g f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t t o e s t a b l i s h e d program s, and
o n-going e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m .
I n t e r e s t in c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g by school and community
groups has i n c r e a s e d a c c o r d i n g t o l i t e r a t u r e s o u r c e s .

This s t r u g g l e

f o r impact on c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n s w i l l c o n t i n u e , and i t s r a m i f i c a t i o n s
on bo ard s o f e d u c a t i o n c an n o t be f u l l y concluded a t t h i s t im e .

The only

f a c t t h a t was a g re e d upon was t h a t t h e b o a r d ’ s c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n ­
making would be i n f l u e n c e d by t h e involvement o f t h e s e p r e s s u r e g r o u p s.
Pe rhaps Lincoln (1964) was t h i n k i n g o f board members when he s a i d :
P u b l i c s e n t i m e n t i s e v e r y t h i n g . With p u b l i c se n t im e n t
n o t h i n g can f a i l ; w i t h o u t i t n o t h in g can succe ed . Conse­
q u e n t l y , he who molds p u b l i c s e n t im e n t goes d e e p e r than
he who e n a c t s s t a t u t e s o r pronounces d e c i s i o n s (p. 4 7 ) .
The need f o r improving t h e d e ci s i o n - m a k i n g s k i l l s o f board members
was c l e a r l y and p red o m in an tly e v id enced in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

No s u p p o r t

was found t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t t o d a y ' s board members were a d e q u a t e l y p r e ­
pare d t o u n d e r t a k e t h e i r r o l e s in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
Why Are I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Im po rta nt
t o t h e Decision-Making P r o c e s s?
An e f f o r t was made t o examine t h e importance o f i n f o r m a ti o n so u r c e s
in t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s .

The purp ose was t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i ­

c a l p e r s p e c t i v e f o r t h e r e a d e r as s / h e appro aches t h i s s t u d y .

23

In o r d e r to adequately address t h t s q u e s t io n , two a r e a s were r e ­
searched as to p e rtin en c e to t h i s study.

These a re a s were (1) d e c i s i o n ­

making t h e o r i e s and (2) information t h e o r i e s .
Fulcher (1965) defined decision-making as " . . . a d i f f i c u l t , complex,
and applied a r t . "

The complexity o f decision-making was a ls o concluded

by Churchman (1968).

He sa id :

There i s a g r e a t mystery in the n a tu r a l w o r l d . . . t h e who,
when, how, and what of man's d e c i s i o n s . So many f a c t o r s
come i n to play in decision-making t h a t th e s e q uestio ns are
o b s c u r e d .. .And y e t de cisio n s a re made! They must be made
some time, by someone with d e f i n i t e reasons; even i f they
a r e made a t th e wrong times, by the wrong person who i s
guided by f a u l t y c r i t e r i a (p. 20).
Rudman (1977), in a diagram r e p r e s e n ti n g a common decision-making
p a t t e r n (Figure 1 ), rep o rted t h a t :
All too o f te n d e c i s i o n s a r e made on t h e b a s i s o f how
we fe e l about an i s s u e , or on how we met anoth er s i t u a t i o n
in the p a st (p. 12).
Figure 1:

A Common Decision-Making P a t te r n
DEPEND

DECISIONS

9 EXPERIENCE
UPON

On a more expansive note, G r i f f i t h s (1957) rep re se n te d t h e basic
views o f many decision-making t h e o r i s t s in d e f i n i n g a number o f s p e c i f i c
ste p s t h a t precede a d e c isio n .

His process f o r decision-making used the

following s t e p s :
1.

Recognize, d e f i n e , and l i m i t the problem.

2.

Analyze and e v alu ate the problem.

3.

E s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a o r standards by which s o l u t i o n s will
be e v aluated or judged as acceptab le and adequate to
the need.

24

4.

Collect data.

5.

Formulate and s e l e c t t h e p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n or s o l u t i o n s .
T e s t them 1n advance.

6.

Put In e f f e c t t h e p r e f e r r e d s o l u t i o n .
a.

Program t h e s o l u t i o n .

b.

Control t h e a c t i v i t i e s in t h e program.

c.

E v aluate t h e r e s u l t s and p ro ce ss (p. 94).

In a p e r t i n e n t stud y e n t i t l e d "A Framework f o r School Board Deci­
sion-Making:

an A n a l y s i s o f t h e P r o c e s s , " Howerton (1952) e s t a b l i s h e d

and proved e f f e c t i v e

a conce ptual framework c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e c a t e g o r ­

i e s l i s t e d below:
1.

Recognize and d e f i n e t h e problem.

2.

Analyze and e v a l u a t e t h e problem.

3.

Establish c r i t e r i a for evaluating so lu tio n s.

4.

C o l l e c t d a t a r e l e v a n t to t h e problem.

5.

S e l e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s and weigh consequences (p. 135).

As shown by sampling o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e on t h e major t h r u s t s o f d e ­
c is io n -m ak in g t h e o r i e s , t h e component o f d a t a / i n f o r m a t i o n was e v e r p r e ­
s e n t in t h e de cisio n -m a kin g p r o c e s s .

Edwards and Tversky (1967) p r o ­

vided evid ence t h a t t h e r e a r e two c l a s s e s o f v a r i a b l e s in d e c i s i o n making:

(1) u t i l i t y , and (2) p r o b a b i l i t y .

d e c i s i o n th e o r y i s , "How a r e p r o b a b i l i t i e s
info rm ation ?" (p. 7 ) .

They f e l t a key q u e s t i o n
changed by t h e a r r i v a l

in
o f new

Fulcher (1956) followed t h i s l i n e o f t h o u g h t by

w riting th at:
An im p o r tan t f a c t o r o f a sound d e c i s i o n i s t h a t p e r t i ­
nent f a c t s and c asu al f a c t o r s o f t h e problem s i t u a t i o n a r e
s u f f i c i e n t l y well known (p. 12).

25

Davis (1973) s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g /
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g s t e p s be expanded t o i n c l u d e (1) t h i n k i n g up what might
h e l p , and (2) s e l e c t i n g t h e most l i k e l y s o u r c e s o f d a t a (p. 17 ).

T his

e x pansion o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n s t e p in t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s was
s u p p o r t e d by S a y l o r and A le x an d e r (1974) a s t h e y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e work o f
t h e 1971 Phi D e l t a Kappa Study Committee on E v a l u a t i o n .

They n o t only

saw t h e kinds o f d a t a needed a s i m p o r t a n t , b u t f e l t t h a t c r i t e r i a must
be d e f i n e d f o r d e te r m i n i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e m a t t e r being e v a l u a t e d .
A n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a must t h e n be made in term s o f t h e s e c r i t e r i a .
In viewing d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g based on d a t a components, Rudman (1977)
p ro v id ed a t h e o r e t i c a l model t o r e p r e s e n t t h i s t h e o r y .

He f e l t :

A more a p p r o p r i a t e p a t t e r n o f d e s i g n making m ig h t be one
which b e g in s w i t h an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n s t o be
made, a s e e k i n g o u t o f i n f o r m a t i o n which can be found th rough
d a t a a v a i l a b l e t o school board members and t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i v e s t a f f s , which i s t h e n f i l t e r e d t h r o u g h t h e c o l l e c t i v e
e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e two gr o u p s. T h is e x p e r i e n c e , in t u r n , can
h e lp i d e n t i f y t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s one can choose among and a
d e c i s i o n would t h e n be made ( s e e F ig u re 2) (pp. 1 2 -1 3 ).

F ig u re 2:

A Data-Based Decision-Making P a t t e r n
DEPEND

DEPEND
DECISIONS

INFORMATION

DATA
UPON

CHOOSES
ALTERNATIVES

FILTERED
EXPERIENCE

AMONG

THROUGH

26

Some i n t e r e s t i n g da ta r e g a r d i n g info rm a ti o n t h e o r i e s were r e p o r t e d
by Easterday (1969).

In an Iowa s t u d y , he found t h a t t h e amount o f d a ta

p ro vided, t h e i r s t r u c t u r a l f o r m a t ,

and t h e s p e c i f i c p o s i t i o n o f t h e de­

c i s i o n maker in t h e school do make d i f f e r e n c e s in h i s a p p r a i s a l o f c e r ­
t a i n f e a t u r e s o f h i s in fo rm atio n and o f t h e decision-making s i t u a t i o n .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , th ose d e c i s i o n makers with "too much" d a t a a r e more a b le
t o t ran sform t h e i r d a ta i n t o i n f o r m a ti o n , and they see l e s s need f o r ad­
d i t i o n a l da ta than t h o s e d e c i s i o n makers with "too l i t t l e " d a t a .

De­

c i s i o n makers with d a ta in rank o r d e r format r a t e d s t r o n g e r agreement
between t h e teammates on t h e i r j o i n t d e c i s i o n s , and they expressed more
d e s i r a b i l i t y o f in c l u d i n g c o u n s e l o r s in j o i n t decision-making than did
t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s with d a ta in random o r d e r format.

F i n a l l y , he de­

termined t h a t even th o se with too l i t t l e d a ta t o be a b l e t o optimize a
d e c isio n d i d , n e v e r t h e l e s s , make d e c i s i o n s .
Another study t h a t brought f o r t h p e r t i n e n t d a ta on inform ation in
t h e decision-making proce ss was Greenbaum (1971) who found major conclu­
sions t h a t :
1.

S ta tis tic a lly significant
info rmation d i s s e m in a t io n
t h e board would a r r i v e a t

d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among the
methods in t h e l i k e l i h o o d
that
a decision.

2.

The type o f in fo rm a tio n disse m in a ted was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
r e l a t e d to whether o r n o t a d e c i s i o n was reached.

3.

The l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e board would reach a d e c i s i o n
was t h e g r e a t e s t when t h e in fo rm a tio n disse m in a ted
was a recommendation a lo ne (pp. 191-196).

Cooper's (1970) study provided evidence t h a t t h e behavior of groups
in decision-making s i t u a t i o n s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y according t o t h e
amount o f info rmation provided t o them.

Groups t h a t had more

27

Info rm atio n t o j u s t i f y t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , r e c a l l more r e l e v a n t c u e s , and
accept re s p o n s ib ility f o r t h e i r decisions.
Decision-making and in f o r m a ti o n t h e o r i s t s c l e a r l y s u p p o r t t h e im­
p o r t a n c e o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n o r In f o r m a tio n g a t h e r i n g s t e p in the
decision-m aking p r o c e s s .

Even though in f o r m a ti o n e x p e r t s f e l t t h a t th e

In fo rm a tio n s t e p in t h e p r o c e s s should be expanded, t h e r e were no major
p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s w ith d e c isio n - m a k in g t h e o r i s t s when i t came
t o t h e need t o have p e r t i n e n t in f o r m a ti o n a v a i l a b l e t o d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s .
There were a number o f f i n d i n g s on in f o r m a ti o n usage t h a t were o f i n ­
t e r e s t and impacted on t h e school b o a r d ' s c u r r i c u l a r decisio n -m a k in g .
What Are t h e Sources o f Curriculum
In f o rm a tio n A v a i l a b l e t o Michigan '
P u b l i c School Board o f Education Members?
As documented e a r l i e r in t h e r e s e a r c h o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r ­
views w ith i n f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s , i t was concluded t h a t in c u r r i c u l a r
decision-m aking t h e need f o r in f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e s was c l e a r l y j u s t i f i e d .
Although t h e r e i s l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t does n o t in some way r e ­
l a t e t o c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , t h i s a r e a o f review focused on t h e
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c so u rc es o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a ti o n t h a t could
be a v a i l a b l e t o board members.

The r e s e a r c h used in a d d r e s s i n g t h i s

q u e s t i o n was s t r u c t u r e d by viewing in f o r m a ti o n sources from two p e r ­
spectives.

F i r s t , i n f o r m a ti o n so u rc es i d e n t i f i e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e were

discussed.

The second p e r s p e c t i v e d e a l t w ith t h o s e in f o r m a tio n sources

i d e n t i f i e d by i n f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l i s t s .
The da ta g a th e r e d from t h e s e so u rc es was th en compiled i n t o a l i s t ­
ing o f so u rc es i d e n t i f i e d as being c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e and o f p o t e n t i a l
use t o board members.

23

At t h e b e g in n in g o f t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y ,
The p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e was t h a t e d u c a t i o n problems could
be so lv e d t h r o u g h a p p e a l s t o f i v e s o u r c e s : common s e n s e ,
a u t h o r i t i e s , I n t u i t i o n , r e l e v a t l o n , o r " r e a s o n " (S ax, 1968,
p. 2 ).
Sax a m p l i f i e d h i s r a t i o n a l e 1n r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t d e pendable knowledge
a bo u t e d u c a t i o n has come from v a r i e d c o m b in a tio n s o f t h e s e s o u r c e s .

He

d i d n o t wish n e c e s s a r i l y t o e x c l u d e a p p e a l s t o them in c u r r i c u l a r d e ­
cision-m aking.
The development o f an a d e q u a te " p o l i c y base" i s e s s e n t i a l t o edu­
c a t i o n a l p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

Brower (1977) expanded t h i s t h e ­

o ry by i n d i c a t i n g t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a "knowledge base" ( e d u c a t o r ' s
prim a ry r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) and an " o p i n io n base" ( t h e prim ary c o n t r i b u t i o n
o f t h e community).
S a y l o r and Alexander (1974) concluded t h a t primary s o u r c e s o f i n ­
f o r m a t io n e s s e n t i a l f o r v a l i d c u r r i c u l u m p la n n in g can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n ­
t o f o u r major s o u r c e s :
1.

The s t u d e n t s t o be e d u ca te d

2.

The s o c i e t y which p r o v i d e s and o p e r a t e s t h e s c h o o ls

3.

The n a t u r e and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s

4.

The accumulated knowledge a v a i l a b l e and f e a s i b l e
e d u c a t i n g s t u d e n t s (pp. 101-103)

for

They a l s o saw a s s u b s i d i z i n g t h e s e pri mary s o u r c e s l e g a l s t r u c t u r e s , r e ­
s e a r c h r e p o r t s , and p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v i c e .
F u l c h e r (1965) s t a t e s t h a t p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s p l a y an im p ortan t
r o l e in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

He f e l t t h a t when e x p e r i e n c e s , supplemented by

knowledge o f t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f o t h e r s i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s f o r sound
p r e d i c t i o n s , o t h e r s o u r c e s sh o u ld be used:

29

The prudent decision-m aker w i l l supplement h i s knowl­
edge e i t h e r by (1) t a l k i n g with f r i e n d s , (2) r e f e r r i n g t o
books and a r t i c l e s , (3) c o n s u l t i n g e x p e r t s , o r using a
combination o f t h e s e sources (p. 20).
In a paper p resente d a t t h e Annual Meeting of t h e American Research
A s s o c i a t i o n , C istone (1976) p res en te d a study in which experienced board
members were i d e n t i f i e d as a major in fo rm atio n source f o r many a r e a s o f
d ecisio n-m ak ing , i n c lu d in g curriculu m .
Teachers, s p e c i a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , s t u d e n ts ,
and p a r e n t s were suggested as good sources o f c urriculu m info rmation by
Shader (1973).

He saw t h a t th e board meeting could play an important

r o l e as the v e h i c l e by which t h e s e persons could provide info rmation to
t h e board.

Attendance a t PTA m ee tin g s, v a rio u s school f u n c t i o n s , and

e ducation c o n f e r e n c e s , c l i n i c s , and workshops were noted as o t h e r ways
f o r board members t o s e cu re c urriculu m in fo rm a tio n .
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r o l e in providin g in fo rm atio n t o th e board i s
most p r e l a v e n t in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

Gatza (1973) found in hi s study t h a t

t h e board depended upon th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r adequate info rm ation to
make curriculu m d e c i s i o n s .

Mercer (1971) determined t h e same r e s u l t s

in a st udy o f n i n e t y Michigan e d u c a to r s .

His major f i n d i n g s concluded

t h a t school d e c i s i o n s were made by inf or mation w ithin th e system, p r i ­
m arily from a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

In Greenbaum's (1971) work, he pointed out

the premise t h a t t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t was the most important a d m i n i s t r a ­
t o r in supplying d i r e c t decision-making in fo rm ation on curriculum.
A f t e r an e x t e n s i v e review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e on human sources o f
i n f o r m a ti o n , Nelson (1976) e s t a b l i s h e d a c r e d i b l e base f o r choosing th e
human (people) r e s o u r c e as t h e most important source o f info rmation in
c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.

This res o u r c e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n encompassed a

30

wide range o f p e o p le from both w i t h i n t h e school d i s t r i c t and from w i t h ­
out.

Key r e f e r e n c e s in h e r revie w were t h e s t u d i e s o f Rogers and Shoe­

maker (1971) and V i n s o n h a l e r and Moon (1973) who completed p r e s t i g e o u s
s t u d i e s s u p p o r t i n g t h e importance o f pe op le a s i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s in
th e decision-making process.
Nelson (1976) a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d two o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s in which t o
c l a s s i f y information sources.
and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o u r c e s .

The c a t e g o r i e s a r e l i t e r a t u r e so u r c e s
The l i t e r a t u r e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e such s p e c i f ­

i c s o u r c e s as l i b r a r i e s , g e n e r a l l i t e r a t u r e , and e d u c a t i o n - r e l a t e d l i t ­
erature.

In a s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e manner, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o u r c e s were d e ­

f i n e d as t h o s e a s s o c i a t i o n s and p r o f e s s i o n a l groups t h a t were founded
t o p r o v i d e an i d e n t i t y and s e r v i c e s t o a s e l e c t group o f i n d i v i d u a l s .
In o r d e r t o g e t a p r a c t i o n e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s o f
c u r r i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r i n t e r v i e w e d a number o f p e rs o n s
who were c l a s s i f i e d by p o s i t i o n o r t i t l e as e d u c a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n sp e ­
cialists.
Warren Lawrence, I n f o r m a t io n S p e c i a l i s t and D i r e c t o r o f REMC-12
(1 9 8 0 ) , f e l t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o g e n e r a l i z e a b o u t s o u r c e s because i t
depends on t h e i n d i v i d u a l board member.

“They come t o t h e i r r o l e from

many d i f f e r e n t backgrounds and e x p e r i e n c e b a s e s . "

He a l s o s t a t e d t h a t

“ . . . b o a r d members a r e snowed w i t h t h e w e a lth o f i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e
t o them."

Lawrence v/ent on t o say t h a t board members a r e l i m i t e d by

t h e i r p a rt-tim e avocation.
munity a s key s o u r c e s .

He viewed t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and t h e com­

The media was a l s o viewed by Lawrence as a

powerful i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e .

On a d i f f e r e n t l e v e l , he f e l t p e rs on al

e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e board member and t h e o p i n i o n s o f f a m i l y members
played i m p o r t a n t r o l e s as s o u r c e s o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n .

31
The Managing E d ito r of t h e Michigan A sso c ia tio n o f School Boards'
J o u r n a l , May Kay Ashmore (1980) provided a number o f i n s i g h t s on sources
both from th e p e rs p e c t iv e o f her e d i t o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and her
other adm inistrative s t a f f d u ties.

The MASB J o u r n a l , t h e house organ,

and th e American School Board Journal a re d efin ed as l i t e r a t u r e sour ces
r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o board members.

As sources t h a t have more Impact,

she viewed the conferences and workshops sponsored by th e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
She a ls o f e l t t h a t t h e r e was use of o t h e r board members as sources o f
information.

Ashmore did concede th e Michigan Education Asso cia tio n

has an impact as an information sou rc e, but di d not see competitiv e
efforts.

In r e f e r e n c e t o u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f , she f e l t they were a v a i l ­

a b le and a c t i v e l y s o l i c i t i n g c o n s u l t i n g p o s i t i o n s .
In anoth er in te r v ie w , James L. Page, s t a f f member o f th e Michigan
S t a t e U n iv e rs ity I n s t r u c t i o n a l Development and Technology area (1980),
viewed board member information g a th e r in g as a complex pro cess.

Ac­

cording to Page, an important f a c t o r t o be considered was the bais es
t h a t come i n to play with a l l sources o f in form atio n.

"Board members

must be capable o f s e p a r a t in g chafe from g r ain while viewing sources of
curriculum inform ation."

I t was h i s f e e l i n g t h a t t h e r e were a m u l t i ­

tude o f information sources t h a t could p o t e n t i a l l y be important in the
c o l l e c t i o n of d a ta f o r c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.

He considered both

general l i t e r a t u r e and education l i t e r a t u r e as extremely meaningful
sources.

The two most important so u r c e s , according t o Page, were th e

su perin te n d en t and th e community.

Other meaningful sources mentioned

by Page were Michigan Department of Educaton, community members, p e r ­
sonal e x p er ien c es , and o t h e r board members.

32

Mary Jane Boughner (1980), Education Reference L i b r a r i a n a t t h e
S t a t e o f Michigan L ib r a r y , expanded t h e number o f in form atio n sou rc es .
During t h e i n t e r v i e w , Boughner s t a t e d t h e opinion t h a t t h e most r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e sources t o board members were p a r e n t s and t h e i r own e x p e r i ­
e nce s, but f e l t t h a t l i b r a r i e s a t t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s and a t t h e s t a t e and
lo c a l l e v e l s were a c c e s s i b l e so urc es o f c u r r i c u l a r i n f o r m a tio n .

She

a l s o f e l t t h a t t h e Michigan Department o f Education and o t h e r p r o f e s ­
si on a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as MASB, MASA, and MEA would be a v a i l a b l e
so urces.

Boughner r e l a t e d t h a t ERIC and NIE s e r v i c e s a r e a c c e s s i b l e

so u r c e s , but a r e not g e n e r a l l y known to board members.
The National I n s t i t u t e o f Education (NIE) has funded an ed ucation
res o u rce s information c e n t e r l o c a t e d in t h e s t a t e l i b r a r y .

Its infor­

mation s p e c i a l i s t , Edith Jamsen (1980), f u r n i s h e d i n s i g h t f u l commentary
on t h i s t o p i c .

She had st ro n g f e e l i n g s t h a t t h e r e a re a m u l t i t u d e of

information sources a v a i l a b l e t o board members.

Her opinio n was t h a t ,

"The reason many sources were not used was a lac k of knowledge o f t h e
a v a i l a b l e sources and not t h e so u rc es th e m se lv e s."

ERIC and Michigan

Education Resources Center ( m a t e r i a l s , p r o j e c t s , and c o n s u l t a n t s ) were
co nsid ered t o be high q u a l i t y s o u r c e s , but she was no t s u r e o f t h e f i ­
nal r e c i p i e n t s o f t h i s i n f o r m a tio n .

Commenting on th e 1 n - d i s t r i c t

s o u r c e s , she f e l t t h a t th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and media s p e c i a l i s t s were
key so u r c e s .

Community feedback and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e were

considered by Jamsen as a v a i l a b l e s o u r c e s .

Other sources brought f o r t h

by Jamsen were t h e Michigan Department o f E ducation, t h e media (e s p e ­
c i a l l y newspapers), and u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f s and l i b r a r i e s .
Cas Gentry, a s t a f f member o f t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y In­
s t r u c t i o n a l Development and Technology a r e a (1980), commented t h a t th e

33

number o f I n f o r m a t io n s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o board members, were q u i t e
numerous.

He f e l t t h a t t h e use o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s was v a r i e d , d e ­

pending on t h e background o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l board member and upon t h e
a c t u a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e d u r e s used by t h e board o f e d u c a ti o n a s a
t o t a l group.

The r o l e o f t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t and c e n t r a l o f f i c e admin­

i s t r a t o r s a l s o played an i m p o r t a n t p a r t in what i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s
were u s e d .
source.

Gentry d id se e t e a c h e r s a s a h e a v i l y used i n f o r m a t i o n

He d id co n ced e, however, t h a t b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p a r ­

e n t s had s t r o n g r o l e s in p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n ­
making.

A lso , he did se e t h e v a r i o u s s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t o r g a n i z a t i o n s a s

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

The Michigan

Department o f Edu cation and t h e media (m agazines, new sp a p ers , and t e l e ­
v i s i o n ) were a l s o r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e s o u r c e s a c c o r d i n g t o Gentry.

Uni­

v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s and u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f were mentioned as s o u r c e s by
Gentry, b u t w ith many v a r i a b l e s in use and a v a i l a b i l i t y .
To summarize t h e f i n d i n g s on t h e r e v i e w q u e s t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r
found a d e q u a te e v id e n c e i n both t h e l i t e r a t u r e and t h e i n t e r v i e w s w ith
i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s t h a t t h e r e were a l a r g e number o f i d e n t i f i a b l e
i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o board members f o r use in c u r r i c u l a r
decision-making.

A c o m p i l a t i o n o f t h e m ajo r s o u r c e s i s l i s t e d and c a t ­

e g o r i z e d below:
P eople Sources
Parents
Students
Teachers
Superintendents
Other school board members

34

Board members' own experiences
Consultants/experts
Principals
Central o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f
S p e c ia li z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f
U n i v e rs i ty s t a f f
Family members
L itera tu re/M e d ia Sources
Education l i t e r a t u r e
L i t e r a t u r e from p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g an iz atio n s
General l i t e r a t u r e
U n i v e rs i ty l i b r a r i e s
Media
O rganiz ational Sources
Michigan Asso cia tio n of School Boards
Michigan Education Asso cia tio n
Michigan Department o f Education
The review q u e stio n s thus f a r have provided information of the
a u t h o r i t y and the r o l e o f the board of education in c u r r i c u l a r decision*
making.

A d d i t i o n a l l y , a number o f c u r r i c u l a r information sources have

been i d e n t i f i e d .

The f i n a l review question d e a l t with an attempt to

f i n d the general a t t r i b u t e s and use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i d e n t i f i e d major
sources o f curriculum information.

35

What Are t h e General A t t r i b u t e s and Use
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e Information'
Sources I d e n t i f i e d in t h e
Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e and
I n t e r v i e w s o f Education
In fo rm a tio n S p e c i a l i s t s ?
The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was s t r u c t u r e d by d e a l ­
ing w ith each s o u rc e on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , w ith th e i n t e n t o f i d e n ­
t i f y i n g s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o be used in develop­
ing a survey i n s t r u m e n t .
Parents
P a r e n t s were c o n s i d e r e d t o be an i m po rtan t sour ce o f c urric u lu m
in f o r m a tio n by a v a s t m a j o r i t y o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e reviewed and informa­
t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s i n te r v ie w e d .

Boughner (1980) s t a t e d t h a t t h i s was e s ­

p e c i a l l y t r u e because o f t h e i r a c c e s s i b i l i t y and involvement in t h e out­
come o f t h e e d u c a ti o n a l p r o c e s s .

She q u e s t io n e d t h e p o t e n t i a l narrow,

in c o m p le te , and b i a s e d view poin t o f t h i s so u r c e .
Curry (1980) supported t h i s vi ewpoint by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t p a r e n t s
can have a powerful impact on t h e c u r r i c u l a r d ecision-m aking p r o c e s s .
Shader (1974) i s a l s o a s t r o n g adv o ca te o f p a r e n t involvement.

He saw

t h e i r i n p u t as having much value to c u r r i c u l a r decisio n-m ak ing .
S tud e nts
Most w r i t e r s and in f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s saw s t u d e n t s as v i a b l e
so u rc es o f c u r r i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n , but t h e q u e s t io n e d t h e methods used
t o g a in t h e i r i n p u t and t h e q u a l i t y o f i n f o r m a tio n t h i s source a c t u a l l y
provides.

House (1970) b e l i e v e d s t u d e n t s were r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e and

c ou ld be v a l u a b l e so u r c e s because th e y a r e t h e " c l i e n t s ' o f our schools?
services.

Concurrent was s t a t e d by Fulcher (1965) when he s a i d ,

“ In

36

f a c t , t h e people who w i l l be a f f e c t e d by a d e c i s i o n a r e u s u a l l y good
s o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t io n e s s e n t i a l t o making a sound d e c i s i o n " (p. 34 ).
Boughner (1980) and Jamsen (1980) d id n o t se e s t u d e n t s a s a good i n f o r ­
mation s o u rc e because o f narrow and b i a s e d v i e w p o i n t s .

C r e d i b i l i t y and

p o p u l a r i t y o f use were mentioned by Lawrence (1980) as r e a s o n s why t h i s
s o u r c e i s no t used f r e q u e n t l y .
T each ers
Because o f t h e i r r o l e s as implementors o f c u r r i c u l u m p o l i c y ,
t e a c h e r s were t o u t e d t o be t h e “r e a l " e x p e r t s on c u r r i c u l u m .
(1980) s u p p o r t e d t h i s v i e w p o in t .

King

He f e l t t h a t t e a c h e r s ' o p i n i o n s on

c u r r i c u l a r m a t t e r s must be p a r t o f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s .

Addi­

t i o n a l s u p p o r t was given by Shader (1973) who saw much v a l u e in t e a c h e r
p r e p a r a t i o n in t h e c u r r i c u l a r i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e netw ork.

Some a u t h o r ­

i t i e s f e l t t h a t t e a c h e r s have na rro w ly fo c u s e d views on some c u r r i c u l a r
i s s u e s depending on t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s .
one who had s t r o n g b e l i e f s in t h i s a r e a .
lems w i t h a " t r u s t f a c t o r " with t e a c h e r s .

Boughner (1980) i s

Curry (1980) saw some p ro b ­
"T his growing m i s t r u s t i s

due t o i n c r e a s e d t e a c h e r power in t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s p r o c e s s . "

He a l s o

saw p o s s i b l e impact on t h e fre q u e n c y o f use o f t e a c h e r s and v a l u e as an
inform ation source.
Superintendent
The r e s e a r c h abounds w ith s t u d i e s d e l i n e a t i n g t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s
r o l e and power i n d e a l i n g w ith c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .

LaVerne

(1976) and Howerton's (1952) s t u d i e s e x e m p l i f i e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e su p ­
e r i n t e n d e n t ' s i n f o r m a t i o n a s a so u r c e f o r c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
Most i n f o r m a t i o n s p e c i a l i s t s c o n c u r r e d w i t h t h e g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s o f

37

t h es e s t u d i e s .

They a l l f e l t the su p e r i n te n d e n t possessed high a t t r i ­

butes and use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

The only m o d if ie r t o t h i s opinion came

from Sproule (1966) who concluded as p a r t of h i s st u d y , "The p a t t e r n o f
decision-making and th e type o f board l i m i t s the amount o f d i s c r e t i o n
a v a i l a b l e t o the c h i e f school o f f i c e r " (p. 144).
Other School Board Members
Decision-making t h e o r i s t s , such as Fulcher (1965), purported t h a t
an obvious place to seek Information was from persons who shared common
p o s i t i o n s and e xperiences.
correct.

Ashmore (1980) f e l t t h a t t h i s a p p r a i s a l was

She f u r t h e r modified t h i s opinion by commenting on t h e f a c t

t h a t the use o f o t h e r board members as an information source depends on
geographic l o c a le and c o n t i g u i t y to major c i t i e s .

She s t a t e d ,

Board members in m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s looked to th e exper­
t i s e of anoth er board member, while in the sm a lle r d i s t r i c t s
t h e p o s i t i o n in the community was t h e f a c t o r d i c t a t i n g t h i s
usage.
Curry (1980), Boughner (1980), and Jamsen (1980) saw the o t h e r
board members as a biased source o f curriculum information.

They f e l t

t h a t t h e indiv idual board member's opinions were u s u a l l y based on p a st
d e c i s i o n s , t h e i r own e x p e r i e n c e s , and school t r a d i t i o n s .
Weinheimer (1980) saw a n o th e r dilemma.

I t was th e lack o f c l a r i f i ­

c a t io n o f th e c u r r i c u l a r r o l e o f t h e board.

He believed t h a t shared i n ­

formation based upon u n cle ar r o l e d e f i n i t i o n could a f f e c t the va lue of
the information receive d.

Access was a use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t was

given high c r e d i b i l i t y by most information s p e c i a l i s t s .

38

Board Members1 Own Experiences
Most a u t h o r i t i e s on d e cisio n-m a king and in f o r m a ti o n t h e o r i e s and
p r a c t i c e s a g re e t h a t t h i s source was d e f i n i t e l y a f a c t o r in d e c i s i o n ­
making.

L eggett (1972) was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s when he

wrote:
Indeed, boardmen and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s have an a lm o st
t e r r i f y i n g penchant f o r r e l y i n g upon t h e i r pe rs o nal
mem­
o r i e s o f what p u b l i c school was l i k e when t h e y were
young­
s t e r s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e contemporary e d u c a ti o n scene (p. 4 1).
Fulcher (1965) gave much space t o t h i s t o p i c in h i s book.
that

" . . . t h e temperamental b i a s o f e i t h e r an o p t i m i s t o r

may l e a d t o h i s g iv in g t o o much weight t o

He f e e l s

a pessim ist

h i s hopes o r f e a r s " (p. 14).

The e x p e c t a t i o n o f happin ess and s a t i s f a c t i o n , based on p a s t e x p e r i ­
e n c e , was a l s o a v a l u e judgment t h a t Fu lc her f e l t was a p a r t o f t h e use
o f personal e x p e r ie n c e s in de cisio n-m a kin g.

Jamsen (1980) i n f e r r e d

t h a t frequency and e a s e o f use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would r e c e i v e a high
r anking because o f t h e personal n a t u r e of t h i s so u rc e.
Consultants/Experts
Jamsen (1980) gave high c r e d i b i l i t y t o t h i s s o u r c e a r e a as d i d
Ashmore (1980) and Weinheimer (1980).

These c o n s u l t a n t s / e x p e r t s could

come from many so u rc es o u t s i d e o f t h e school d i s t r i c t .

Jamsen f e l t t h a t

t h e r e were a number a good c o n s u l t a n t s o u t s i d e t h e f i e l d o f e d u c a ti o n
t h a t could be used as in f o r m a tio n s o u r c e s .

Boughner (1980) commented

t h a t in f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l i s t s and p r i v a t e r e s e a r c h e r s should be con­
s i d e r e d as p a r t o f t h i s source a r e a .
Finances and lack o f knowledge o f s p e c i f i c c o n s u l t a t i o n s e r v i c e s
a v a i l a b l e were Ashmore's (1980) r a t i o n a l e why she f e l t t h i s so urce o f
in f o r m a tio n was n o t being used as f r e q u e n t l y as she t h o u g h t i t should

39
be.

She a l s o q u e s t i o n e d t h e v a l u e o f c o n s u l t a n t s when t h e y were h e a v i l y

theory-o r i e n te d .
Principals
As l i n e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h o s e p e rs o n s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e edu­
c a t i o n a l programs in t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d i n g s , i t would seem t h a t
p r i n c i p a l s c o uld be c o n s i d e r e d a major s o u r c e o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o a
Ashmore (1980) not o nly saw p r i n c i p a l s as a s o u r c e o f c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r ­
m a t i o n , bu t as p e rs o n s h e a v i l y i n v o lv e d in t h e reconronendation a s p e c t s
o f decision-making.
Boughner (1980) and Jamsen (1980) both saw t h e p r i n c i p a l as t h e
p ers on who was r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e board members and had a "good
handle" on the c u r r i c u l a r i s s u e s .

The d a t a d e r i v e d from N e l s o n ' s

(1976) s t u d y showed t h a t p r i n c i p a l s were r a t e d v e ry high in f r e q u e n c y
o f use and t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y c a t e g o r i e s .
C e n tr a l O f f i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t a f f
T h is s o u rc e was deemed v i a b l e by a m a j o r i t y o f t h e w r i t e r s and i n ­
f o r m a t io n s p e c i a l i s t s .

As mentioned e a r l i e r in t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e Edu­

c a t i o n USA Report (1979) s t a t e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f school d i s t r i c t s
p r o b a b ly do n o t have c e n t r a l o f f i c e p e rs o n s w ith s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u lu m
resp o n sib ilities.

Pe rhaps t h i s was t h e rea so n why a number

of in fo r­

mation s p e c i a l i s t s f e l t t h a t t h i s s o u r c e might no t be o f t h e p o t e n t i a l
v a lu e as i t appeared on t h e s u r f a c e .
Jamsen (1980) f e l t t h a t t h e p o t e n t i a l v a lu e was in t h e f a c t t h a t
t h e s e pe rs o n s a r e in p o s i t i o n s t o s p e c i f i c a l l y de al w i t h a l l t h e c u r ­
r i c u l a r i s s u e s in t h e school d i s t r i c t :

40

Central o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f persons a r e a l s o
very a c c e s s i b l e t o board members by t h e n a tu r e o f t h e i r
h ie r a r c h y in t h e school o r g a n i z a t i o n .
S p e c ia liz e d Pro fe ss io n a l S t a f f
This source l i s t i n g covers such persons as reading s p e c i a l i s t ,
mathematics department c h a i r p e r s o n , c a r e e r education c o o r d i n a t o r , and
others.

Shader (1973) a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t the t e a c h e r s p e c i a l i s t could be

an important a s s e t t o the board as a curriculum information source be­
cause o f o n - l i n e , p r a c t i c a l experiences in a s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l a r a re a.
Jamsen (1930), King (1980), and Boughner (1980) concurred with t h i s
appraisal.

A c c e s s i b i l i t y and value determ inants o f t h i s information

source were questioned by Curry (1980) and Leggett (1972).

They both

f e l t t h a t t h e r e were problems in t h e s e two a r e a s .
Family Members
An an info rmation so u rc e, family members o f f e r a number of i n t e r ­
e stin g perspectives.

Jamsen (1980) and Lawrence (1980) saw them as one

o f t h e most impactful information sources a v a i l a b l e .

This was due, in

p a r t , t o th e c l o s e , emotional t i e s and t o high a v a i l a b l i t y .

Fulcher

(1965) and Boughner (1980) concurred with t h i s basic premise, but
Boughner went on to conclude t h a t t h i s source was extremely biased and
approached information d isse m in a tio n with a narrow focus based on p a st
experiences and hearsay.
U niv e rs ity S t a f f
Both Ashmore (1980) and Jamsen (1980) had s i m i l a r opinions about
th e use o f u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f as curriculum information sources.
both r e l a t e d t h a t they f e l t t h i s source was not used e x t e n s i v e l y

They

41
because o f t h e v a lu e a s p e c t .

The va lu e depended on t h e i n d i v i d u a l

s t a f f person involved and h i s / h e r approach t o p r o v i d in g t h e s p e c i f i c
In fo rm a tio n t o board members.
o f f " board members.

A h i g h ly t h e o r e t i c a l approach "turn ed

Ashmore a l s o commented t h a t , "The a c t u a l use o f

u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f was dependent on t h e school d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s
r e l a t i o n s h i p s with t h e u n i v e r s i t y . "

Financial im plications f o r frequen­

cy and ease o f use were mentioned by s e v e r a l in f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l i s t s .
Community Members
In an i n t e r e s t i n g study by White (1974) , he r e s e a r c h e d t h e f a c t o r
o f community i n f l u e n c e on l o c a l school board d e c i s i o n s .

As p a r t o f h i s

f i n d i n g s , he concluded t h a t i n f l u e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s and groups a c te d
very o f t e n on t h e i s s u e o f c u rr ic u lu m .

He a l s o found t h a t t h e make-up

o f the group o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l played an important r o l e as t o whether
t h e community was an a c t i v e and acc ep ted r e s o u r c e .
Curry (1980) d id n o t g iv e wholehearted s u p p o r t t o community mem­
b e rs as an in f o r m a tio n s o u r c e .

He f e l t t h a t :

. . . t h e y , as i n d i v i d u a l s o r an ad hoc group, wielded too
much c l o u t . T h i s , many t i m e s , f o r c e s boards i n t o d e c i s i o n s
t h a t a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t with l on g -te rm g o a ls and p r i o r i t i e s .
On t h e o t h e r hand, Weinheimer (1980) s t a t e d h is p o s i t i o n q u i t e c l e a r l y
when he s a i d , "The guy who buys th e s e r v i c e s says what i t s h a l l be. The
guy who p r o v i d e s t h e s e r v i c e s says how i t s h a l l be."
The e a s e o f use o f community members i s a problem evidenced by t h e
d i f f i c u l t y o f school d i s t r i c t s t o s e c u r e i n f o r m a ti o n v i a s u r v e y s , t e l e ­
phone campaigns, e t c .

Both Boughner (1980) and Jamsen (1930) h ig h ly

q u e s t i o n e d t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a ti o n r e c e i v e d from t h i s source.

42

E ducation L i t e r a t u r e
The f i e l d o f e d u c a t i o n abounds w i t h l i t e r a t u r e t h a t could be a v a i l ­
a b l e as a c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e .

Ashmore (1980) f e l t t h e main

problem w i t h t h i s s o u r c e was t h a t " . . . i t i s g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o edu ­
c a t o r s , bu t n o t t o board members."

Nelson (1976) found in h e r s t u d y

that:
No s t u d i e s were found in t h e f i e l d o f e d u c a t i o n t h a t
argue d f o r l i t e r a t u r e as a main so u rc e f o r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
In s p i t e o f t h i s minor r o l e t h a t l i t e r a t u r e seems t o p lay
in t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s , t h e r e a l world d e m o n s tr a te s
t h e voluminous e f f o r t t o p u t f o r t h and t o p u b l i s h more and
more p r i n t e d m a t e r i a l s (p. 4 1 ).
A problem seen by Boughner (1980) was t h a t w i t h t h e amount o f h i g h l y
t e c h n i c a l m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e , t h e r e i s l i t t l e used by board members.
Ashmore (1980) saw t h e problem as f a m i l i a r i t y .
the source,

"Once someone has used

t h e y w i l l use i t time and tim e a g a i n . "

L i t e r a t u r e —P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s
For many p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e t h e
main s o u r c e o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i r members.

Ashmore (1 9 8 0 ), as managing

e d i t o r o f t h e Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f School Board J o u r n a l , saw t h e l i t ­
e r a t u r e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o l lo w in g an e d i t o r i a l fo rm at de­
pendent on t h e g o a l s o f t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n .

She saw, f o r i n s t a n c e , " . . .

t h e MASB J o u r n a l n o t g i v i n g s o l u t i o n s t o c u r r i c u l a r i s s u e s , but i d e n t i ­
f y i n g them a n d / o r t r i g g e r i n g i n t e r e s t in them."
Weinheimer (1980) saw p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e as d e a l i n g w i t h ite m s
o f contempor ary i n t e r e s t .

He a l s o commented t h a t l i t e r a t u r e d i s t r i b u t e d

by n a t i o n a l , p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s no t s p e c i f i c as an in fo rma­
tio n source.

They have a r o l e as c a t a l y s t s .

Even though school board

members r e c e i v e l i t e r a t u r e from t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e r e

43

i s no real way t o a s se ss what i s read.

Curry (1980) believed t h a t t h e

problem lay in t h e f a c t t h a t indexing o f a r t i c l e s and p u b l i c a t i o n s was
lack in g.

"The board member may read an a r t i c l e one month and then throw

t h e ,.p u b lic a tio n on a p i l e of o t h e r s o r d i s c a r d i t . "
General L i t e r a t u r e
General l i t e r a t u r e i s an information source t h a t includes such publ i c a t i o n s as magazines, books, and pamphlets.

These p u b l i c a t i o n s , a t

tim es, do cover t o p i c s r e l a t i n g t o c u r r i c u l a r i s s u e s .

Boughner (1980)

saw general l i t e r a t u r e as an a v a i l a b l e source o f curriculum information,
but a source t h a t i s not widely used due t o information r e t r i e v a l prob­
lems.

Jamsen (1980) concurred and added t h a t the a v a i l a b i l i t y was based

on indiv idual s u b s c r i p t i o n p refe ren c es and buying h a b i t s .

There was

a ls o consensus by t h e m a j o r it y o f information s p e c i a l i s t s t h a t the
tec h n ic al q u a l i t y of data was s u s p e c t , due t o t h e wide va ria n ce s in
authors and e d i t o r i a l c o n t r o l .
U nivers ity L ib r a r ie s
Both Jamsen (1980) and Boughner (1980) had s i m i l a r comments r e ­
garding u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s as sources o f curriculum information.
Their pro fes sio n al judgment was t h a t u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s held in t h e i r
i n v e n t o r i e s , huge amounts o f l i t e r a t u r e t h a t would have relevance to
board members in c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.

Curry (1980) and Ashmore

(1980) concurred with Jamsen and Boughner in t h a t a v a i l a b i l i t y , but
believed geographic l o c a t i o n of board members could be an important
f a c t o r in t h e i r p r o je c te d lack o f use.

As found in o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e

s o u r c e s , r e t r i e v a l and personal p refe ren c e d e c i s i o n s played a r o l e in
the use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h i s information source.

44

Michigan A s s o c ia t io n o f School Boards (MASB)
All in f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l i s t s mentioned t h e i n c l u s i o n o f MASB in any
l i s t i n g o f c u rric ulum i n f o r m a tio n so u rc es f o r board members.

Beside

the main j o u r n a l p u b l i c a t i o n , Weinheimer (1980) r e p o r t e d t h a t h i s o r ­
g a n i z a t i o n a l s o p ub lis h ed o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e so u rc es which were inte nded
t o gi ve weekly and bi-monthly r e p o r t s on c u r r e n t happenings.

These

p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e prepa red in a s h o r t and easy rea d in g fo rm at.
Both Ashmore (1980) and Weinheimer commented on MASB's a v a i l a b i l ­
i t y t o i t s membership by u sin g o t h e r methods.

These methods i n c l u d e

annual c o n f e r e n c e , workshops and s e m in a r s , MASB l i b r a r y , and c o n s u l t a ­
tion serv ices.

They both agreed t h a t s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l board members

sought in fo rm a tio n in v a r i e d ways, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n would have t o con­
t i n u e i t s e f f o r t s t o meet th e needs o f i t s membership by c r e a t i n g new
s e r v i c e s and r e s o u r c e s .
Michigan Education A s s o c ia t io n (MEA)
This e d u c a ti o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s n t s t e a c h e r s and o t h e r educa­
t i o n a l employees in Michigan.

Even though a n o t h e r such o r g a n i z a t i o n

e x i s t s —t h e American Fe de ra tio n o f Teachers--MEA i s now t h e l a r g e s t
o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g school employees.

As an in f o r m a ti o n source

on c u r r i c u lu m , most w r i t e r s and i n f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l s t s saw t h i s o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n as having p o t e n t i a l and a c t u a l impact on t h e b o a r d ' s c u r r i c u l a r
decision -m ak in g.
King (1980) f e l t t h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n was a c r e d i b l e c u r r i c u lu m i n ­
form atio n s o u r c e , but was aware t h a t board members might be s u s p i c i o u s
o f t h i s so u rc e.

D i s t r u s t ta k e s p l a c e due t o the management/labor po­

l a r i z a t i o n t h a t i s d e r i v e d from t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s .

45

Curry (1980) and Page (1980) c o n c u r r e d w ith t h e p o t e n t i a l d i s t r u s t o f
t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e by board members.
In a v a ry in g o p i n i o n , Ashmore (1980) d id n o t r e a l l y s e e c o m p e t i t i v e
e f f o r t s on t h e l o c a l l e v e l .
level.

She f e l t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s came a t t h e s t a t e

Boughner (1980) saw t h e MEA a s p o t e n t i a l l y having much c u r r i c u ­

lum i n f o r m a ti o n t h a t i t c ould s h a r e w ith board members, bu t was u n su r e
o f t h e freq u e n cy o f use and v a l u e as p e r c e i v e d by members o f boards o f
education.
Michigan Department o f E ducation (MDE)
As t h e major im ple m e nta tion agency c r e a t e d by s t a t e law , t h e MDE
holds a prom inent r o l e i n Michigan e d u c a t i o n .

By o r g a n i z a t i o n a l make­

up, i t has s p e c i f i c d e p a r t m e n t s and h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d p e rso nn el in a l l
major c u r r i c u l a r a r e a s .

T h e r e f o r e , i t should be one o f t h e key i n f o r ­

mation s o u r c e s f o r t h e board member.

But i s i t ?

S u r p r i s i n g l y , even though t h e review o f l i t e r a t u r e r e a d i l y i d e n ­
t i f i e d t h e MDE as an a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e , t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e
i n f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s f e l t t h a t t h i s s o u rc e was n o t used very f r e ­
q u e n t l y by board members.

Ja m s e n 's (1980) o p i n io n was t h a t t h i s l a c k o f

use was due t o d i s t r u s t because o f t h e mandates and r e g u l a t i o n s f o r im­
p l e m e n t a t i o n and governance o f programs.

Board members p e r c e i v e d t h e s e

r u l e s t o be h i g h l y t h e o r e t i c a l and a n o t h e r method o f d e c r e a s i n g l o c a l
control.

She a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e b u r e a u c r a c y a l s o i n h i b i t e d t h e

a c c e s s i b i l i t y to t h i s source.
Media
T his b r o a d l y d e f i n e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l group i n c l u d e s t h e s o u r c e s o f
t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o , and newspaper.

Even though two o f t h e s e s o u r c e s o f

46

in form atio n a r e hig hly r e g u l a t e d by t h e government, th e e d i t o r i a l p o l i ­
c i e s o f a l l t h r e e a r e defended by t h e f i r s t amendment.

Page (1980) be­

l i e v e d t h a t the media was an im port ant source o f curriculu m i n fo rm a tio n,
but i t o p erated in a s u b t l e , alm ost subliminal way.

As Jamsen (1980)

stated,
We a r e a l l a t t h e mercy o f t h i s source. We can choose
what t o watch o r r e a d , but we cannot c o n t r o l what i s a v a i l ­
a b le to watch o r read.
This premise c r e a t e s many q u e s t i o n s about t h e va lu e and q u a l i t y o f t h i s
source.

The p o t e n t i a l i t y o f t h i s source i s s t a g g e r i n g , but i s d i f f i c u l t

t o a s s e s s in a c t u a l usage because o f p r e f e r e n c e and time v a r i a b l e s .
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r This Study
The review o f l i t e r a t u r e and in te r v ie w s with inform ation s p e c i a l ­
i s t s was or ganized t o a d d re ss f o u r q u e s t i o n s .

The response s to t h e s e

q u e s t io n s in flu e n ce d t h i s study from th e i n i t i a l sta te m e n t o f t h e prob­
lem and th e d e te r m i n a ti o n o f r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s to th e methodology used
to g a t h e r d a t a .
L is te d below a r e f o u r i m p ortan t i m p l i c a t i o n s provided by t h e l i t e r ­
a t u r e review and t h e i n t e r v i e w s with in fo rm atio n s p e c i a l i s t s :
1.

There i s a d e fin e d l e g a l framework f o r t h e board o f edu­
c a t i o n ' s r o l e in c u r r i c u l a r decisio n-m ak ing , but boards
o f e d u ca tion do not g e n e r a l l y gi ve due weight t o t h i s
a r e a in a c t u a l f u n c t i o n .

2.

There i s t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l sup p o rt i n d i c a t i n g
t h a t t h e decisi on-m aking process should involve a s t e p
f o r c o l l e c t i n g d a ta and info rm ation in o r d e r t o be e f ­
f e c t i v e . C u r r i c u l a r de cision-making i s no e x c e p tio n ;
in f a c t , th e in fo rm a tio n g a th e r in g s t e p i s considere d
e s s e n t i a l t o th e p r o c e ss .

3.

Curriculum in form a ti on so urc es a v a i l a b l e t o board mem­
b e rs can be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d and c l a s s i f i e d i n t o
c a t e g o r i e s . The amount o f usage o f i n d iv id u a l sources
i s u n c l e a r a t t h i s time.

47

4.

I n f o r m a t io n s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to board members have a
number o f a t t r i b u t e s and u se c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These
a t t r i b u t e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e f e l t t o have d i r e c t
e f f e c t on how o f t e n and why board members use c e r t a i n
c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s and r a r e l y use o t h e r s .
I n t e g r a t i n g t h e r e s e a r c h by Nelson (1976) w ith t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d in t h i s c h a p t e r , f o u r major a t t r i
b u t e s and use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were d e te r m i n e d . They
are:
a.

Frequency o f use

b.

T ec h n ic al q u a l i t y

c.

Ease o f use

d.

Value

CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY
This c h a p t e r has t h r e e major s e c t i o n s .

The f i r s t i s background i n ­

formation on t h e population o f t h e study and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the sam­
ple.

Section two focuses on t h e design components o f the study.

The

f i n a l s e c t i o n , "Analysis Techniques," p res en ts a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n o f
the methods by which t h e da ta w ill be analyzed.
Population o f t h e Study
The s p e c i f i c focus o f t h i s study was t h e the e i g h t y - f o u r board o f
education members in t h e twelve public school d i s t r i c t s in Jackson
County, Michigan.
In o r d e r to determine v a l i d i t y o f t h i s stu d y , a r e t u r n f i g u r e o f
eig h ty p e rc e n t was used.

This f i g u r e was derived from c o n s u l ta ti o n

with s t a f f personnel in t h e Office o f Research Consultation a t Michigan
S t a t e U n iv e rs ity.
Background Information
Jackson County i s l o c a t e d in t h e so u t h - c e n t r a l portio n o f th e s t a t e
with major n o rth-so uth and e a s t - w e s t I n t e r s t a t e s running through the
northern p o r t i o n .

These major highways give Jackson County r e s i d e n t s

easy access to the s t a t e c a p i t a l in Lansing ( t h i r t y - f i v e miles) and to
major midwestern c i t i e s ( D e t r o i t , nin ety m il e s ; Toledo, n in e t y m il e s ;
and Chicago, two-hundred m i l e s ) .

I n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education a re
48

49

also e a sily a ccessib le.

Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing ( t h i r ­

t y - f i v e m i l e s ) ; U n i v e r s i ty o f Michigan, Ann Arbor ( f o r t y m i l e s ) ; Western
Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , Kalamazoo ( s i x t y m i l e s ) ; Spring Arbor College ( f i v e
m i l e s ) ; and Albion College ( t w e n t y - f i v e m il e s ) a r e a l l w i t h i n l ow -tomoderate commuting ranges.
There i s a community c o l l e g e l o c a t e d 1n Jackson County.

Its enroll­

ment, programs, and f a c i l i t i e s have been involved 1 n a r a p i d growth
s p u r t , thus p o i n t i n g out t h e community's I n t e r e s t 1 n h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n .
A g r i c u l t u r e i s s t i l l deeply ro o ted and t h r i v i n g in Jackson County.
Even though the number o f f u l l - t i m e farmers has d e c r e a s e d , a l a r g e por­
t i o n o f t i l l a b l e land Is being used f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes.

The

a v a i l a b i l i t y o f land has made i t p o s s i b l e f o r homeowners t o a c q u i r e
b u i l d i n g s i t e s with e x t r a acreage a t moderate p r i c e s .

This f a c t has

helped to d i s t r i b u t e t h e p op u latio n throughout t h e Country.
Jackson County i s s i m i l a r t o many Michigan c o u n ties 1n t h a t i t has
one c e n t r a l pop ulation c e n t e r ( th e c i t y o f Ja ck so n, po p u latio n 48,000)
and a number o f s m a l l e r communities s e r v i n g mainly a g r i c u l t u r a l c e n t e r
points.
sizes.

I t i s a ls o s i m i l a r because o f i t s d i v e r s i t y 1n school d i s t r i c t
The s i z e s range from c l a s s A through c l a s s D d i s t r i c t s , with

the m a j o r it y f a l l i n g i n t o t h e c l a s s 3 and c l a s s C ra n g e s .

The many na­

t u r a l lakes 1n Jackson County a f f e c t t h e demographic s t a t i s t i c s and, in
t h i s f a s h i o n , Jackson County i s unique among Michigan c o u n t i e s .
The general n a tu re o f Jackson County school d i s t r i c t s seems to
have been prominently i n f lu e n c e d by i t s a g r i c u l t u r a l and Republican
heritage.

Even though t h e r e has been a minor p op ulatio n s h i f t 1n the

county, urban t o u r b a n - f r i n g e and r u r a l , t h e general n a t u r e o f th e
school d i s t r i c t s has remained f a i r l y c o n s t a n t over the p a s t t e n y e a r s .

50

In an I n t e r v i e w , Smith (1979) confirmed t h i s I n f l u e n c e In h i s s t a t e m e n t
that:
Jackson County p u b l i c s c h o o l s have been run I n a c o n s e r ­
v a t i v e manner as long a s I can r e c a l l . The p e o ple o f Ja ck ­
son County, by t h e i r very n a t u r e , demand t h i s ty p e o f school
d i s t r i c t . The changes t a k i n g p l a c e In Jackson County s c h o o ls
seem t o be b rought a b ou t by t h e I n c r e a s e I n w h i t e c o l l a r
w o r k e r s , t e a c h e r un ion ism , and t h e I n f l a t i o n a r y t r e n d s o f
our tim es.
The g en eral n a t u r e o f Jackson County 1s a l s o r e f l e c t e d In t h e make­
up and genera l p h i l o s o p h i c a l v ie w p o in t o f Ja ck son County school board
members.

Data r e g a r d i n g r e s p o n d e n t s were s o l i c i t e d i n t h e p r e f a c e o f

th e survey in stru m e n t, but s u r p r i s i n g l y only f i f t y - t h r e e percent e le c te d
t o su p p ly t h e s e d a t a .

For t h i s r e a s o n , i t was deemed n o t u se f u l t o I n ­

c lu d e In t h e body o f t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n .

From what d a t a t h e r e a r e , 1 t

would a p p ea r t h a t , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e two l a r g e s t school d i s ­
t r i c t s , school board members i n Jackson County seem t o be f a i r l y r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i v e o f t h e communities b e in g s e r v e d .

As i n most a r e a s in t h e

s t a t e o f Michigan, t h e l a r g e school d i s t r i c t s ' boards o f e d u c a t i o n a r e
comprised o f a m a j o r i t y o f b u s i n e s s and p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n s .

Age and

sex c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s o f Jackson County school bo ard members seem t o be
c o n s i s t e n t w ith boards o f e d u c a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t Michigan as a r e t h e s t a ­
t i s t i c s d e n o ti n g fam ily s i z e and t h e number o f c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y In
l*
p u b l i c K- 1 2 s c h o o l s .
This s tu d y d e a l t with t h e K-12 d i s t r i c t s unde r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
um brella o f t h e Jackson County I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t .
t r i c t s are:
Columbia C e n tr a l School D i s t r i c t
Concord Community Schools
E a s t Jackson P u b l i c Schools

The d i s ­

51
Grass Lake Community Schools
Hanover-Horton School D i s t r i c t
Jackson Public Schools
Michigan Center School D i s t r i c t
Napoleon School D i s t r i c t
Northwest School D i s t r i c t
Sp rlngport Public Schools
Vandercook Lake Public Schools
Western School D i s t r i c t
Using t h e Information and Comparative Data Report (1979), s p e c i f i c
background information on the twelve school d i s t r i c t s in t h e study pop­
u l a t i o n was rep o rted in Table 1.
Design Components
Instrument
A q u e s t io n n a ir e technique was s e l e c t e d as the c o l l e c t i o n sour ce.
This s e l e c t i o n was based upon t h e ease o f use and th e p o t e n t i a l o f ga­
t h e r i n g data from the l a r g e s t number o f respondents w ith in the defined
population.
The a c tu a l design o f the q u e s t io n n a ir e was c lo s e l y a lig n e d with
the s i x research q u e stio n s .
1.

These questio n s a r e :

What a re t h e information sources used by board members
in curriculum decision-making?

2.

In comparing the information sources they u se , how do
board members rank t h e i r frequency o f use?

3.

In comparing the information sources they u se , how do
board members rank t h e i r te c h n ic a l q u a l i t y ?

52

Table 1. Jackson County
I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t
S.E.V.
Child

Total
Mi 11 age
Levied

School
D istrict

1978-79
Membership

State
Equalized
V a luatio n

Columbia Central

2,271

82,050,472

36,130

29.10

Concord

1,135

26,914,607

23,713

35.35

E a s t Jackson

1 ,769

40,024,638

22,626

35.23

946

30,809,095

32,568

29.15

Hanover-Horton

1,327

42,225,107

31,820

26.15

Jackson Pu blic

10,701

342,560,033

32,946

35.63

Michigan Cente r

1,715

49,710,063

28,985

31.26

Napoleon

1,867

47,858,923

25,634

30.29

Northwest

3,911

114,619,944

29,307

31.05

Springport

1,155

32,326,212

27,988

30.10

Vandercook Lake

1 ,317

19,583,809

14,870

28.00

Western

2,312

63,171 ,152

27,323

31.70

Grass Lake

4.

In comparing t h e I n f o r m a t io n so u rc es they u s e , how do

-

board members rank e a s e o f use?
5.

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a ti o n so u rc es they u s e , how do
board members rank t h e i r r e l a t i v e value?

6.

What i n f o r m a t i o n so u rc es would board members l i k e to
have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e t h a t a r e not a t t h i s time?

The f i r s t concern was t o develop an In s t r u m e n t t h a t could be pro­
duced so t h a t 1 t was c o n c i s e bu t c l e a r in t h e language and d i r e c t i o n s
u s e d , p r e s e n t e d 1 n a format t h a t was n o t f o r b o d l n g , and was a b le t o
c o n t a i n th e n e c e s s a r y d a ta - p r o d u c i n g i t e m s .

53

The q u e stio n n a ir e was developed with two major p a r t s (Appendix A}.
The f i r s t was designed t o a s s e s s the Information sources board members
a re a c t u a l l y using now 1n making c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n s .

In ord er t o ac­

complish t h i s t a s k , respondents in th e study were asked to rank (#1 —
h l g h e s t to # 10— lowest) the ten information sources they used most f r e ­
qu ently 1 n helping with t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.
Information sources were l i s t e d on an information source assessment
c h a r t on a random b a s i s .
categories.

There was no grouping, as to information source

On t h i s same c h a r t , respondents were asked to then rank

only t h e ten sources marked In t h e "Frequency o f Use" column.
weighting was again # 1—h ig h e s t to #10— lowest.

The rank

The f i n a l task on the

assessment c h a r t was to make any general comments on the ten Information
sources they had ranked.
The second major p a r t o f th e q u e s t io n n a ire had t h r e e s e c t i o n s .
Section A was designed to gain data on those sources r a r e l y used by
board members in t h e i r c u r r i c u l a r decision-making a c t i v i t i e s .

Partici­

pants in t h e study were asked to use th e unused sources on the informa­
t i o n source assessment c h a r t in l i s t i n g t h e i r responses on the modified
c h a r t provided.

Rationale for non-use o f these sources was in d ic a te d

by checking s p e c i f i c columns on t h e c h a r t or giving o t h e r reasons in
t he space provided.
Section B was designed to be open-ended quest io n presented 1n a
general comment format t o determine what sources o f curriculum informa­
t i o n board members would l i k e t o have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e , but are
not a t t h i s time.
The design o f Section C was c r e a t e d t o glean any o t h e r comments
t h a t board members had reg ard ing t h e i r use o r non-use o f curriculum

54

In f o r m a t io n so u rc es 1n t h e de cision -m a k ing p r o c e s s .

This q u e s t i o n was

a l s o p r e s e n t e d In an open-ended, general comment fo rm at.
P i l o t Study
Using a school d i s t r i c t o u t s i d e o f Jackson County ( L e s l i e Pu b lic
S c h o o l s ) , a p i l o t s t u d y was completed.

This p i l o t s t u d y was done 1n an

a t t e m p t t o I n c r e a s e t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f th e q u e s t i o n s used 1 n the survey
i n s t r u m e n t p r i o r t o use with t h e s t u d y p o p u l a t i o n .
The p i l o t s tu d y c o n s i s t e d o f a l e t t e r o f I n t r o d u c t i o n and a modi­
f i e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix B).

M o d i f i c a ti o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

was in t h e form o f a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s a t t h e end o f t h e p i l o t study
q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o gain r e a c t i o n s on t h e i n s t r u m e n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s and
form at.
Comments r e c e i v e d from t h e p i l o t s tu d y were h e l p f u l , i n t h a t they
r e p o r t e d no major problems with th e survey i n s t r u m e n t in i t s o r i g i n a l
form.

Because o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was then ready to

be a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e study p o p u l a t i o n .
Adm inistrative D etails
The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s i n each o f t h e twelve school d i s t r i c t s were
informed o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s i n t e n t t o use board members in t h e i r
school d i s t r i c t s f o r t h i s s t u d y .

This took p l a c e by the r e s e a r c h e r ' s

making a formal p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a l l s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s a t a monthly meet­
ing o f t h e Jackson County S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s A s s o c i a t i o n .
Anonymity o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r e p l i e s was emphasized.

No i n d i v i ­

dual r e p l i e s were given t o t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s o r t o o t h e r board o f ed­
u c a t i o n members.

The sur ve y i n s t r u m e n t s were coded so t h a t

55

n o n - r e s p o n d e n ts c o u ld be c o n t a c t e d i n o r d e r t h a t t h e r e t u r n f i g u r e o f
e i g h t y p e r c e n t c ould be a c h i e v e d .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d th ro u g h t h e r e g u l a r m a l l .

En­

c l o s e d w i t h each q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a stam ped, r e t u r n a d d r e s s e n v elo p e
t o mail back t h e completed s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t .
Return r a t e f o r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was e i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t (se v e n ­
ty-one).

Of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d , two were completed i m p ro p e rly

and one o t h e r d i d n o t c o n t a i n enough I n f o r m a t i o n t o make i t u s a b l e in
the study.

The c o r r e c t e d f i g u r e o f s 1 x ty - n 1 n e r e s p o n s e s was used as

the basis f o r data I n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
A n a l y s i s o f t h e Data
The d a ta were a n a l y z e d by s e v e r a l methods.

These methods v a r i e d

as t h e r e s e a r c h e r a t t e m p t e d t o deal w i t h t h e s i x r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s .
An a d d i t i o n a l need f o r v a r i a n c e i n t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s was t h e d i f f e r e n c e
in format and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n s in t h e su r v e y i n ­
strument.
Whenever p o s s i b l e , d a ta were a n a l y z e d u s i n g r a n k , f r e q u e n c y , and
composite s c o r e p r o f i l e s r e p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y .

This was c ouple d

w i t h w r i t t e n e x p l a n a t i o n s t o p r e v e n t t a b l e d i s t o r t i o n on t h e p a r t o f
the rea d er.
In t h o s e s e c t i o n s where t h e r e s p o n s e s were o p e n -e n d e d , t h e d a t a
were c a t e g o r i z e d and p r e s e n t e d i n a f a s h i o n t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d s p e c i f i c
and g e n e r a l i z e d r e s p o n s e s in a c o n c i s e , but r e p r e s e n t a t i v e manner.
I n f o r m a t io n s o u r c e s were c a t e g o r i z e d by d e t e r m i n i n g t h e s o u r c e
o rig in (people, l i t e r a t u r e , or o rg a n iz a tio n ).

A sim p le nu merical com­

p a r a t i v e a n a l y s i s was done t o e n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s t o be drawn.

The

56

r e s e a r c h e r c r i t i c a l l y e v a lu a te d and I n t e r p r e t e d t h e responses as they
p e r t a in e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s o f t h i s st u d y .

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose o f t h i s c h a p t e r was to p r e s e n t an a n a l y s i s o f t h e da ta
c o l l e c t e d in t h i s s t u d y .
tigated.

A t o t a l o f s i x r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n s were i n v e s ­

The r e l e v a n t d a ta g a th e r e d t o answer each o f t h e s e r e s e a r c h

q u e s t i o n s i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e o r d e r o f appe ara nce i n Chapter I I I .
This c h a p t e r i s d i v id e d i n t o t h r e e s e c t i o n s .

The f i r s t i n c l u d e s

t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f d a ta on t h e s i x r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s .
S e c t i o n two d e als with d a ta p r e s e n t a t i o n and a n a l y s i s on th e c a t e g o r i e s
o f i n f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e s .

The t h i r d s e c t i o n I s an I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the

chapter.
P r e s e n t a t i o n and Data A n a ly sis
on t h e Six Research Questions
The ranking o f r e sp o nse s given in t h e i n f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e a s s e s s ­
ment c h a r t was r e i n t e r p r e t e d by a s s i g n i n g a new r e v e r s e - w e i g h t e d value
t o each ranked r e s p o n s e .

The r e v e r s e - w e i g h t i n g system gave t h e qu es­

t i o n n a i r e rank o f one t h e weighted va lu e o f t e n ; c o n v e r s e l y , t h e ques­
t i o n n a i r e rank o f t e n was given a weighted v a lu e o f one (se e Table 2 ) .
This r e v e r s e - w e i g h t i n g system was used so t h a t t h e d a ta from t h i s stu d y
could be p r e s e n t e d in a g rap h ic form e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e r e a d e r .
As t h e r e a d e r views t h e t a b l e s c o n ta in e d i n t h i s s t u d y , t h e g r e a t e r
valu e w i l l be r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e h i g h e s t numerical f i g u r e .
RQl:

What a r e t h e in f o r m a ti o n s o u r c e s used by board
members i n c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n - m a k in g ?
57

58
Table 2.

R everse-W eighting System

Q u estionn aire Rank

R everse-W eighting Value

1 .0

1 0 .0

1.5

9 .5

2 .0

9 .0

2.5

8 .5

3 .0

8 .0

3 .5

7.5

4.0

7.0

4.5

6.5

5.0

6 .0

5 .5

5 .5

6 .0

5.0

6 .5

4.5

7.0

4.0

7.5

3 .5

8 .0

3.0

8 .5

2 .5

9 .0

2 .0

9.5

1 .5

1 0 .0

1 .0

The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o t h e f i r s t r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n (RQ^) i s con­
t a i n e d 1 n Table 3.

Of s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e r e a d e r i s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

c o n t a i n e d 1n t h e columns e n t i t l e d "Number o f Responses" and " P e r c e n t
o f Tota l R e sp o n se s."

Two s o u r c e s , "Your Own E x p erien c es" and

Table 3.

Information Source In d icatio n s and Frequency o f Use Responses
Number o f
Responses♦

Percent o f
Total Responses

Average
Rank

Composite
S c o re ^

Your Own Experiences

69

100%

10.0

690

SupeH ntendent

69

100

9.0

621

P rln clp als

62

90

7.5

465

Teachers

59

86

6.3

372

Other School Board Members

58

84

5.9

342

Parents

63

77

4.3

228

Community Members

50

72

6.1

305

Students

40

58

3.6

144

Specialized Professional S ta f f

37

54

4.7

174

M.A.S.B.

32

46

5.0

160

Outside E xperts/C onsultants

29

42

4.2

122

Family Members

23

33

3.2

74

C entral O ffice S ta f f

23

33

4.6

92

L Ite ra tu re —P rofessional O rganlzatlons

19

28

3.4

65

M.D.E.

18

26

2.5

45

M.E.A.

12

17

2.0

24

Media

11

16

2.3

25

Educational L ite ra tu re

10

14

1.5

15

U niversity L ib raries

6

9

1.0

6

U niversity S ta f f

5

7

1.4

7

General L ite ra tu re

5

7

1.0

5

Information Source

♦Respondents were lim ited to ten responses.
♦♦Composite score calcu la ted by m ultiplying the average rank times th e number o f responses.

60

" S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , " r e c e i v e d s1xty-n1ne re spo n ses f o r a one hundred p e r­
c e n t r a t i n g ; w h ile two r e s p o n s e s , " U n i v e r s i t y S t a f f " and "General L i t ­
e r a t u r e , " r e c e i v e d o n ly f i v e responses each f o r a seven p e r c e n t t o t a l
res ponse r a t i n g .

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a ta c o n ta in e d In t h i s t a b l e

shows t h a t a l l l i s t e d so u rc es o f c u rr ic u lu m I n f o r m a t io n were used by
some o f t h e resp o nd en t board members.

Any f u r t h e r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

the d a ta in t h i s t a b l e 1 s r e l e v a n t t o RQ2 and w i l l be a d dre ss ed n e x t .
RQ2 :

In comparing In f o r m a tio n
board members rank t h e i r

so u rc es th ey u s e , how do
frequency o f use?

Table 3 a l s o c o n t a i n s d a ta r e l e v a n t t o th e answer o f t h i s r e s e a r c h
question.

These d a ta were compiled from a t a b u l a t i o n o f the ranki ngs

given 1n t h e "Frequency o f Use" column in t h e i n f o r m a ti o n so urc e a s ­
sessment c h a r t .

In o r d e r t o a s s e s s

a ddre ss h i m / h e r s e l f t o t h e "Average

t h e raw d a t a , the r e a d e r should
Rank" and "Composite Score" c o l ­

umns.
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t only two c a t e g o r i e s r e c e i v e d a r e ­
sponse from a l l board members who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the s t u d y .
two so u rc es were "Your Own E xperiences " and " S u p e r i n t e n d e n t . "

These
Even

though " T e a c h e r s , " " P r i n c i p a l s , " and "Other School Board Members" r e ­
ceived e i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o r b e t t e r o f t h e r e s p o n s e s , t h e i r average
ranks were s i g n i f i c a n t l y below "Your Own Experiences" and " S u p e r i n te n ­
dent."

This i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d in a comparison o f the composite s c o res

o f t h e f i r s t f i v e in f o r m a ti o n so u rc es l i s t e d in Table 3.
Other fin d in g s o f in te r e s t were the r e la t i v e ly high response f i g ­
ures o f "Students" and "Parents" as compared w ith t h e ir average rank
and composite scores th a t were n o tic e a b ly lo w er.

Also o f note were

61
t h e s u p r i s l n g l y low a v e r a g e rank I n d i c a t i o n s and composite s c o r e s f o r
"Family Members" and "M.D.E." s o u r c e s .
In summarizing t h e d a t a on RQ2 , t h e t e n h i g h e s t ranke d c u r r i c u l u m
I n f o r m a t io n s c o r e s by board members have been I d e n t i f i e d .

Figure 4 In­

d i c a t e s t h e t e n h i g h e s t ranked s o u r c e s 1n t h e a r e a o f "Frequency o f
Use."
The f i v e l o w e s t ranked c u r r i c u l u m I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s were a l s o
identified.

Fig ure 5 r e f l e c t s a t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e composite s c o r e s o f

these sources.
In a n a l y z i n g t h e l o w e s t ranked s o u r c e s , i t became a p p a r e n t t h a t
t h e r e was g e n e r a l l y a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e number o f tim es
a s o u r c e was s e l e c t e d and t h e a v e r a g e r a n k .

As Fig ure 5 I n d i c a t e s ,

two s o u r c e s ("General L i t e r a t u r e " and " U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s " ) r e c e i v e d
t h e lo w e st av erag e rank o f 1 . 0 .
A review o f t h e d a t a showed t h a t t h e r e were no p e r t i n e n t "General
Comments" w r i t t e n r e l e v a n t t o t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n .
RQ3 :

In comparing t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e , how
do board members rank t h e i r t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y ?

R e le v a n t d a t a needed t o answer RQ3 a r e l o c a t e d in Table 4 .

Data

f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n were compiled from a t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e rank­
ings given i n t h e "T echnic al Q u a l i t y " columns 1n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u rc e
assessment c h a r t .
As t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were f o r c e d t o c r i t i c a l l y a n a l y z e t h e c u r r i c u ­
lum I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h e y u s e d , t h e rank o f t h e I n d i v i d u a l so u r c e
now moves away from a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s
received.

As one views t h e "Average Rank" column In T able 4 , 1 t be­

comes a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e t o p f i v e s o u r c e s i n t o t a l r e s p o n se s had

62
Figure 3 . Frequency o f Use
Ten Highest Ranked Inform ation Sources

69

TUTG

7 00

69

650

-

600

-

WJ5

550 500

-

450

-

62
7 .5
59
6 .3

4 00 350 3 00

58
5.9

50
6.1

-

53
4.3

2 50 -

37
4.7

2 00 1 50

-

100

-

50

-

0

_

B

NOTE:

5.0

40
3.6

H

A - Your Own Experiences

F - Community Members

B - Superintendent

G - Parents

C - Principals

H - S p e c ia li z e d Profe ssio nal S t a f f

D - Teachers

I - M.A.S.B.

E - Other School Board
Members

J - Students

With reference to the numbers on the top o f each b ar, the top
number In dicates to ta l responses received. The bottom number
1s the average rank score o f the source.

63
Figure 4 . Frequency o f Use:
Five Lowest Ranked Information~Sburces

50 n
45
40
35
30
25
15

20
15 -

1 .4

A

B

C

D

E

A - General L i t e r a t u r e
B - U n i v e rs i ty L i b r a r i e s
C - U n i v e rs i ty S t a f f
D - Education L i b r a r i e s
E - M.E.A.

NOTE:

With r e f e r e n c e to t h e numbers on t h e top o f each b a r , the top
number i n d i c a t e s t o t a l responses r e c e i v e d . The bottom number
i s the average rank sc o r e o f t h e so u r c e .

Table 4.
Information Source

Technical Q uality Responses
Number o f
Responses*

Average
Rank

Composite
Score**

Your Own Experiences

69

7.7

531

Superintendent

69

9.5

656

P rin cip als

62

7.3

453

Teachers

59

6.3

372

Other School Board Members

58

6.1

354

Parents

53

2.7

143

Community Members

50

3.1

155

Students

40

3.4

136

S pecialized Professional S ta ff

37

6.4

237

il.A.S.B.

32

5.1

163

Outside E xperts/C onsultants

29

5.3

154

Family Members

23

1.6

37

Central O ffice S ta ff

23

7.1

163

L ite ra tu re —P rofessional O rganizations

19

5.2

99

M.D.E.

18

5.8

104

M.E.A.

12

4.2

50

Media

11

1.4

15

Educational L ite ra tu re

10

4.5

45

U niversity L ib raries

6

7.3

44

U niversity S ta f f

5

7.0

35

General L ite ra tu re

5

■1.2

6

* Respondents were lim ited to ten responses.
** Composite scores calcu la ted by m ultiplying th e average rank times th e number o f responses.

65

moderate t o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s 1n average ran k in g s .

Looking a t

th e lower f i v e s o u r c e s , based on t o t a l response f i g u r e s , t h e s l g n i f i cance o f t h e average rank s c o r e becomes a p p a r e n t .
Based on t h e f i n d in g s In Chapter 2, " P a r e n t s , " " S t u d e n ts , " and
"Community Members" did not f a r e well 1n t h i s in fo rm a ti o n source a t t r i ­
bute.

One o f t h e s u r p r i s i n g f i g u r e s was t h e extremely low average rank

given t o "Family Members.”

As shown by Table 4 , t h i s g r e a t l y a f f e c t e d

the composite sc o re f o r t h i s in form atio n s o u r c e .

Another Item o f note

was t h e r e l a t i v e l y high average rank given t o "Your Own E x p erien ces."
The c a l c u l a t i o n o f composite sc o res f o r each curriculu m Informa­
t i o n so u rc e in t h e "Technical Quality" area a l s o changed t h e r e l a t i v e
o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n o f a number o f t h e so u r c e s .

Again using the composite

sc o res as t h e f i n a l ranking f a c t o r , Figure 6 r e p o r t s the t e n h i g h e s t
regarded sources in t h e area o f "Technical Q u a l i t y . "
The da ta 1n Figure 6 shows t h a t some sources were ab le to move
I n t o t h e ten h i g h e s t ranked in fo rm a ti o n sour ces ("Technical Q u a lity " )
by a ch iev in g a moderately l a r g e average ran k , th us o f f s e t t i n g a lower
number o f t o t a l r e s p o n s e s .

" S p e c i a l i z e d P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f , " "Central

O f f i c e S t a f f , " "M.A.S.B.," and "Outside E x p ert s / C o n s u l t a n t s " were the
sources a c h ie v in g t h i s s t a t u s .
Another method by which "Community Members" moved i n t o t h i s s e l e c t
group o f t e n was by g e t t i n g a l a r g e number o f responses t h a t o f f s e t the
r e l a t i v e l y low average rank.
The data c o n ta in e d In Figure 7 p r e s e n t s noteworthy comparisons o f
average rank and t o t a l number o f responses o f t h e lower ranked Informa­
tion sources.

" U n i v e r s it y S t a f f , " "Family Members," and " U n iv e r s ity

66
F ig u r e s . Technical Q u a lity : Ten Highest
Ranked Inform ation Sources
69
9 .5

700
650
600

69
7 .7

550

62
7 .3

500
450

59
6 .3

400

58

6.1
350
300
37

67?

250

200

23
7 .1

32
571

_10

29
5 .3

G

H

I

J

150

100
50

0

A

B

C

D

E

P

A

Superintendent

F - Specialized Professional S t a f f

B

Your Own Experiences

6 - Central O f f i c e S t a f f

C

Principals

H - M.A.S.B.

D

Teachers

I - Community Members

E

Other School Board Members

J - Outside E x p e r t s / C o n s u l t a n t s

NOTE:

With referen ce to th e numbers on the top o f each b a r, the top
number in d ic a te s to ta l responses received . The bottom number
is th e average rank score o f the source.

67

Fig u re 6 . Technical Q u a l i t y : Five Lowest
Ranked In f o rm a tio n Sources

50
23

40
35
30
25

20

11

15

10

A - General L i t e r a t u r e
B - Media
C - U niversity S t a f f
D - Family Members
E - U niversity L ib ra rie s
NOTE:

W ith re fe re n ce to the numbers on th e top o f each b a r, th e top
number in d ic a te s t o t a l responses re c e iv e d . The bottom number
is the average rank score o f th e source.

68

L i b r a r i e s " a r e sources which exemplify t h i s method o f achieving h igh er
composite s c o r e s .
General comments made by respondents r e l a t i n g to t h e a re a o f
"Technical Quality" a re g e n e r a l i z e d below:
1.

"Inform atio n from s t u d e n t s was h e l p f u l , but preju d ice d
accord ing to t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s . "

2.

"Teachers s p e c i a l i z e in t h e cu rr ic u lu m ."

3.

"I have high dependence on t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s t e c h n i ­
cal knowledge. This i s one reason we h i r e d him."

4.

"This c atego ry ( 'T e c h n ic a l Q u a l i t y ' ) i s not as impor­
t a n t as t h e value c a t e g o r y . "

5.

(NOTE: Comments r e g a r d i n g M.D.E. were both fav orable
and unfav o ra b le as su ggested by t h e s e q u o t e s . )
"M.D.E. has t h e people to provide h ig h ly t e c h n ic a l
and a c c u r a t e in fo rm ation to school board s."
"Some information rec e iv e d from the M.D.E. was not
accurate."

6.

"Before I r e a l l y t r u s t a p r i n c i p a l , I must get to know
him and have some idea o f h i s s k i l l s . "

RQ4 :

In comparing t h e info rm a ti o n sour ces they u s e , how
do board members rank ease o f use?

Relevant data needed to answer RQ4 are l o c a te d in Table 5.

Data

f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e stio n were compiled from a t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e rank­
ings given in th e "Ease o f Use" column in t h e information source a s ­
sessment c h a r t .
The information sources which rec eiv e d t h e top f i v e t o t a l r e ­
sponses a l s o r e c e i v e d most o f t h e high average ranks in th e "Ease o f
Use" a r e a .

Notable d e p a r t u r e s from t h i s t r e n d were (1) "Media" which

received an 8.1 average rank d e s p i t e r e c e i v i n g only eleven res p o n se s,
and (2) "Family Members" which rec e iv e d an extremely high average o f
9.1

while g a rne rin g a moderate t w e n ty - t h r e e response s.

Table 5.

Ease o f Use Responses

Number o f
Responses*

Average
Rank

Composite
Score**

Your Own Experiences
Superintendent

69

10.0

690

69

9.5

656

Principals
Teachers

62
59

8.6
7.1

533
419

Other School Board Members
Parents

58
53

7.6
5.5

440
292

Community Members
Students

5.1
4.6

255
184

Specialized Professional S ta f f
M.A.S.B.
Outside Experts/Consultants

50
40
37
32
29

6.7
4.7
3.4

248
150
99

Family Members

23

9.1

209

Central Office S ta f f

23

7.0

161

L ite ra tu re —Professional Organizations

19

5.1

97

M.D.E.

18

M.E.A.
Media
Education L ite ra tu re
University Libraries
University S ta f f

12
11
10
6
5

2.3
2.0
8.1
2.3
1.2
2.4

41
24
89
23
7
12

5

4.5

23

Information Source

General L ite ra tu re

•Respondents were lim ited to ten responses.
••Composite score calculated by multiplying the average rank times the number o f responses.

70

Those sources r e c i e v l n g r e l a t i v e l y low average r an k in g s, but mo­
d e ra te responses were "Outside E xp erts/C on su ltants" and " S tu d e n ts ."
Figure 8 denotes th e ten h i g h e s t ranked information sources 1n the
a rea o f "Ease o f Use."

The data showed t h a t , with the exception o f

"Sp e cia liz ed Education S t a f f " and "Family Members," t h e response f i g u r e s
played a major r o le 1n d e fin in g t h e i r p o s i t i o n s 1n t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
o f t h e d a ta .
In the "Ease o f Use" a r e a , the fiv e lowest ranked information
sources are rep orted in Figure 9.

Of i n t e r e s t in th ese data a re the

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e average rank o f "General L i t e r a t u r e " and the higher
response fig u res o f "Education L i t e r a t u r e " and "M.E.A."
The following a re summarized general comments made by respondents
p e r t a in i n g to the area o f "Ease o f Use."
1. "Teachers a r e very easy to use. I can always go see
them a t school o r req uest t h e i r presence a t a board
meeting or board study s e s s i o n . "
2.

"The media i s easy to use , but I have to be c areful as
to what I watch o r read i f i t i s going to be o f any use ."

3.

"With the c u r r e n t gas s i t u a t i o n , I am not going to t r a v e l
f a r to get to an information source. I will get by
with local sources o r use the telep h on e ."

4. "Outside c o n s u l ta n ts a re not easy to use. They c ost
money. Today's schools do not have any to s p a r e . "
5. "I do not have time to t r y to read a l l the l i t e r a t u r e
t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e . This job (board member) takes more
o f my time each y e a r . "
6 . "How do you use th e M.D.E.
I do not know!"

RQ5 :

as an information source?

In comparing information sources they u se , how do
board members rank t h e i r r e l a t i v e value?

71
Figure 7 . Ease o f Use: Ten Highest
Ranketf Inform ation Sources

69

I07TT

700

69
575

650
600
62
550
500
58
59
7 .1

450
400
350

53
5 .5

300

50

250

37
6 .7
9 .1

40

2 00
150

100
50

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

A - Your Own Experiences

F - Parents

B - S u pe rin te n dent

G - Community Members

C - Principals

H - S p e c i a l i z e d P r o f e ss io n a l S t a f f

D - Other School BoardMembers

I - Family Members

E - Teachers

J - Students

NOTE:

With reference to the numbers on the top o f each bar, the top
number in d ica tes to ta l responses received. The bottom number
is the average rank score o f the source.

72
Figure 8 . Ease o f Use: Five Lowest
Ranked In fo rm a tio n Sources

50
45
40
35
30

10
2 .3

25

20
15

10

2 .4

1.2

5

0

A

B

C

D

E

A - U niversity L ibraries
B - U niversity S ta f f
C - Education L i t e r a t u r e
D - General L i t e r a t u r e
E - M.E.A.
NOTE:

W ith re fe re n c e to th e numbers on
th e top o f eachb a r, th e
top
number in d ic a te s t o t a l responses re c e iv e d .
Thebottom number
is th e average rank score o f th e source.

73

There were two sources o f data re l e v a n t t o RQ5 .

They a re lo c a te d

in (1) Table 6 , a t a b u l a t i o n o f rankings given 1n th e "Value" column 1n
the Information assessment c h a r t ; and (2) Table 7, a compilation o f data
from P a r t I I I - - S e c t i o n A.
High and low average ranks and cumulative composite scores were
I n t e r s p e r s e d throughout t h e t a b l e .

Again, the four sources t h a t had

t he most responses were a ble to a ls o get high average ranks.

"Central

Office S t a f f " and " S p e cia liz ed Profe ssio n a l S t a f f " were sta n do u ts as
they rec eived f a i r l y high average ranks in comparison t o t h e i r response
figures.

The high average rank o f " U n iv ersity S t a f f " was a ls o very no­

ticeable.
The M.E.A. received a d i s p o r p o r t i o n a t e l y low average rank o f 1 .3 .
Al so , "Students" and "Family Members" received moderately low average
rankings in t h i s a r e a .

This caused t h e i r composite scor es to decrease

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y to t h e i r ersponse f i g u r e s .
The rankings and composite scores o f the ten h i g h e s t information
sources in th e "Value" area are contained in Figure 10.

Data from

t h i s graphic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n d i c a t e a f a i r l y s t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f
composite scor es and average rankings.

The exception to t h i s d i s t r i b u ­

t i o n o f composite scores and average rankings.

The exception to t h i s

d i s t r i b u t i o n should be noted by comparing the high average rank o f
" S p e cia liz ed Professio nal S t a f f " and "Central Office S t a f f " to t h e i r
number o f responses.
The f i v e lowest ranked information sources In t h i s area are r e ­
ported in Figure 11.

Two sources provided variances to t h e normal

d is trib u tio n of the data.

The M.E.A. received the second lowest a v er­

age rank, while s t i l l r e c e i v i n g t h e h ig h e s t number o f responses o f the

Table 6.

Value Responses

Number o f
Responses^

Average
Rank

Composite
Score^

Your Own Experiences

69

8.8

607

Superintendent
Princip als

69
62

9.1
8.5

628
527

Teachers

59

8.2

527

Other School Board Members

58

7.4

429

Parents
Community Members

53
50

5.1
4.6

270
230

Students
Specializ ed Professional S t a f f

40
37

3.8
7.0

152
259

M.A.S.B.

32

5.0

160

Outside Experts/Consultants

29

4.3

125

Family Members
Central Office S t a f f
Li t e r a t u r e —Professional Organi zations
M.D.E.

23
23
19
13

3.7
7.0
4.6
5.2

85
161
87
94

M.E.A.

12

1.3

16

Media

11

2.1

23

Education L i t e r a t u r e
University L ib ra rie s

10
6

2.5
2.5

25
15

5
5

4.1
1.2

21

Information Source

University S t a f f
General L i t e r a t u r e

♦Respondents were lim ite d to ten responses.
♦♦Composite score calcu late d by multiplying the average rank times the number o f responses.

6

Rarely Used Information Sources

Table 7,
Information Source

A*

B**

University L ib ra rie s

37

53

0

"Distance from school d i s t r i c t , "
"I have never used a unversity l i b r a r y . "
"Where do I s t a r t ? Too large a place."

Education L i t e r a t u r e

29

48

0

"No time to read a l l the things a v a i l a b l e . "

0

27

49

"I c a n ' t choose what's in the newspaper."
"TV shows and the news show only a p a r t o f
the s t o r y , "

Outside Experts/Consultants

18

41

1

M.E.A.

39

13

28

M.D.E.

27

36

3

"How do you get to them?"
"I d o n 't know whether to believe them."

University S t a f f

41

46

8

"Too much theory—I need things t h a t will
work in my school d i s t r i c t . "
"Too expensive and hard to know which uni­
v e r s i t y to use."

Media

£***

"Too expensive!!"
"I d o n 't know who i s a v a i l a b l e . "
"Biased."
"How do you get to them?"

"I wish we had more o f these t e a c h e r s , but
our school budget cannot affo rd them."

Specializ ed Professional S t a f f
General L i t e r a t u r e

Other Reasons

57

52

"General L i t e r a t u r e covers too many t o p i c s . "
"Which ones should I use?"

Table 7, continued

A*

B**

C***

Other Reasons

Community Members

0

42

26

"They seem to be complacent."
"I d o n 't know how to get t h e i r repre se n ta ­
t i v e opinions."

Central Office S t a f f

0

0

0

Students

0

32

15

"Their information and opinions are not
dependable."

M.A.S.B.

0

1

0

"Not enough o f the kind o f information I
can use in the Journal."

I.S.D.

4

4

0

"What do they do in curriculum?"

Business/Industry

2

3

0

Information Source

* Unfamiliar with source
** D i f f i c u l t to use
*** Low in technical q u a li t y

"lie d o n 't have any in our d i s t r i c t . "

77

Figure 9 . Value: Ten Highest
Ranked Inform ation Sources

700

-

650

-

600

-

550

-

500

-

450

-

400

-

350

-

300

-

250

-

200

-

150

-

100

-

50

-

69
9 .1

62
8 .5

59

8.2
58
7 .4

53
5 .1

37
7 .0

23

32

7*0

5.0

0 -

B

H

A - S u p e r i n te n d e n t

F - P aren ts

B - Your Own Experiences

G - Specialized Professional S t a f f

C - Principals

H - Community Members

D - Teachers

I - Central O f f i c e S t a f f

E - Other School Board Members

J - M.A.S.B.

NOTE:

With r e f e r e n c e to t h e numbers on t h e t o p o f each b a r , t h e t o p
number I n d i c a t e s t o t a l r es p o n se s r e c e i v e d . The bottom number
i s t h e av erag e rank s c o r e o f t h e s o u r c e .

78
Figure 10. V alue:
Five Lowest
Ranked In fo rm a tio n Sources

50
45
40
35
30

11

25

12

20

1 .3

15

10
5

0
A

B

C

D

E

A - General L i t e r a t u r e
B - U niversity L ib ra rie s
C - M.E.A.
D - U niversity S t a f f
E - Media
NOTE:

With references to th e numbers on th e top o f each b a r, the top
number In d ic a te s to ta l responses re c e iv e d . The bottom number
is the average rank score o f th e source.

79

f i v e sources re p o r te d on t h i s graph.

Even though t h e " U niversity S t a f f "

was t i e d f o r the lowest number o f r e s p o n se s, 1t s t i l l received the
h i g h e s t average rank.
Another method o f g a th e r in g data on t h i s res ea rch quest io n was to
have board members I d e n t i f y t h e curriculum information sources they
r a r e l y used.

This non-use i s a value judgment and i s usua lly based on

a number o f f a c t o r s .

Table 7 r e p o r t s t h e r a r e l y used sources and the

reasons why board members did not use them.
Not a l l respondents l i s t e d f iv e r a r e l y used information so urces.
Most respondents did check a t l e a s t two reasons why they did not use
t h e source on a r e g u l a r b a s i s .
Respondents were asked t o w r i t e general comments they had r e l a t i n g
to an information so urc e.

The q u otation s below r e p r e s e n t general c a t e ­

gories o f comments received on the "Value" a rea:
1.

"The M.E.A. i s very b i a s e d , and I do not use i t very
often."

2.

"Other board members r e l y on th ose members o f the board
who do t h e i r 'homework.' This does not make for good
d e c i s i o n s ."

3.

"The M.A.S.B. needs more board members t o become involved.
I f they d i d , they would see the real value o f the o rg an i­
zation."

4.

"I depend on his ( s u p e r in t e n d e n t ) information and knowl­
edge."

5.

"Community Members #1 in value. A s c h o o l 's curriculum
should meet the community's needs."

6.

"The M.D.E. i s a v a lu a b le so u r c e, but I do not often
use i t . "

7.

"We must have i n p u t from the t e a ch e rs on curriculum i f
we a r e going to do a good jo b o f providing for the edu­
catio n o f our s t u d e n t s . "

80

8.

RQg:

"The r i g h t o u t s i d e c o n s u l t a n t s and e x p e r t s can be o f
re a l va lu e to t h e school board."
What Info rm atio n sourc es would board members l i k e to
have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e t h a t a r e not a t t h i s time?

Data f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t io n was taken from t h e responses t o
t h e open-ended q u e s t io n on P a r t I I I —Se ction B and P a r t I I I —Section C
o f the questionnaire.
There was a low number o f responses ( f i f t e e n ) to t h i s q u e s t io n .
The remarks a re g e n e r a l i z e d below by using r e p r e s e n t a t i v e comments:
1.

" S p e c i a li z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . We do no t have enough
o f t h e s e persons in our d i s t r i c t . I t would be nice to
have s p e c i a l i s t s in a l l o f the major curriculu m a r e a s . "

2.

" I n d u s t r y could provide he lp to us on c a r e e r plan nin g.
As we look t o t h e f u t u r e , we need t o know t h e kind o f
t r a i n i n g and s k i l l s i n d u s t r y d e s i r e s . "

3.

"None--your l i s t was comprehensive enough. I do not
use a g r e a t deal o f t h o s e sources anyway. I only use
the ones I know can b rin g me quick re s p o n se s."

4.

"I t h in k t h e ISD could provide more s e r v i c e s in the
area o f curriculum i n f o r m a ti o n . To my knowledge, Jack­
son County's ISD does not provide any c urriculu m s e r vi c e s ."

5.

"Because we a r e a small d i s t r i c t , we do not have a cen­
t r a l o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o t h e r than t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t .
I t would be worthwhile to have such a person and assign
him s p e c i f i c c urriculu m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . "

P a r t I I I - - S e c t i o n C o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a n o th e r open-ended
q u e stio n givin g t h e respondents an o p p o r t u n i t y to provide any a d d i t i o n a l
comments on t h e i r use and non-use o f curriculu m in fo rm ation so u rc es .
Only seven respondents used t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y to comment.
ments were in two general a r e a s .

Their com­

L i s t e d below a r e f i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

quotes r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e two general a r e a s .
1.

"I have r e a l l y ne ver thought about t h i s are a o f my r e ­
s p o n s i b i l i t y u n t i l t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e brought i t t o my

81

a t t e n t i o n . As a new board member, I am going t o have
to g e t a b e t t e r f i x on t h i s a s p e c t o f my j o b . "
2.

"The major r e a s o n I do n o t use a number o f t h e s e so u r c e s
1 s t i m e . Our r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as school board members
keep us going In t o o many d i r e c t i o n s . We need t o spend
more time on c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n s . "

3.

"Good lu ck on y o u r s t u d y .
b e t t e r board members."

4.

"As I t h i n k a b o u t i t , we l e a v e t o o many o f o u r c u r r i c u ­
lum d e c i s i o n s t o o u r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . We need t o use
more o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s . "

5.

"North C e n tr a l needs t o review more o f t e n th a n s i x y e a r s
t o g i v e board members more f r e q u e n t u p d a te s on recom­
mendations f o r improvement i n t h e b a s i c s and s p e c i f i c
d e p a r t m e n t s ."

I hope i t w i l l h e l p

t o make

Data on t h e C a t e g o r i z a t i o n
o f I n f o r m a t i o n Sources
In a s t u d y by Nelson ( 1 9 7 5 ) , she p r e s e n t e d e v id e n c e t o develop
t h e c a t e g o r i e s i n which i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s c o u ld be c l a s s i f i e d .
three categories are:

Those

( 1 ) p e o p le s o u r c e s , ( 2 ) l i t e r a t u r e s o u r c e s , and

(3) o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u r c e s .
Table 8 groups t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s i n t o t h e s e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s .
Using t h e d a ta in Tab les 3, 4 , 5, 6 , t h e composite s c o r e s f o r a l l

fo ur

columns on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e a sse ss m e n t c h a r t a r e a l s o rec o rd ed
in Table 8 .

These t o t a l s a r e th en a v eraged so t h a t t h e t h r e e c a t e g o r ­

i e s can be compared.
The d a ta a r e f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t in a l l

f o u r a r e a s i n each c a t e g o r y .

The o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e ( f i f t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t ) i s between t h e
"Frequency o f Use" and " T ec h n ic al Q u a l it y " a r e a s i n t h e " L i t e r a t u r e /
Media" c a t e g o r y .

V ariances i n t h e o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s a r e o n l y e i g h t e e n

p e r c e n t (p eo ple s o u r c e s ) and 23.4% ( o r g a n i z a t i o n s o u r c e s ) .

82
Table 8.

Composite Scores:

People Sources
Parents
Students
Teachers
Superintendent
Our Own Experiences
Outside E xperts/Consultants
Principals
Central Office S t a f f
Sp e c ia liz ed P ro fe ssio na l S t a f f
U niv e rsity S t a f f
Family Members
Community Members
L iterature/M edia Sources
Education L i t e r a t u r e
L iterature-Professional
Organizations
General L i t e r a t u r e
U nivers ity L i b r a r i e s
Media

Information Source Categories

at
i/ i
ZD

5*
c
Ot
a*

i~

U <0

at 3

Total
Composite
Scores

3705

V- O'
3426

Mean
Composite
Scores

285.0

263.5

c
at
3
cr
at
Li-i-

■—10
o >1
•r+J
c ■<.E
U <0
at 3
l— c r

91

194

22.8

48.5

Total
Composite
Scores
Mean
Composite
Scores

at

at

3
(0

ta
(0
Ui
4198

3978

322.9

306.0

at
w
=3
MO
at
«/»
<a

LU

(0

150

133

37.5

at

3

33.3

at

</i

Organization Sources
M.A.S.B.
M.E.A.
M.D.E.

&
c
at
3
cr
at
s.

10
O >>

U (0

at 3
I— o

at

V)

<o

at

3
r—

(0

Total
Composite
Scores

254

332

304

293

Mean
Composite
Scores

63.5

83.0

76.0

73.3

83
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Data Ana lysis
An I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a ta a n a l y s i s w i l l ta k e p l a c e by lookin g
a t each o f t h e s i x r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and a t t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f I n ­
form atio n s o u r c e s .
RQl:

What In form a tion s o u r c e s a r e used by board members
1 n c u rr ic u lu m decisio n-m ak in g ?

The d a ta showed t h a t a l l c u r r i c u l a r i n f o rm a tio n sources used in t h e
s t u d y In s t r u m e n t were used to some e x t e n t by board members.

The s i g n i f ­

ic a n c e o f th e frequency o f use i s d e t a i l e d In RQ2 .
RQ2 :

In comparing the i n f o r m a t i o n sources they u s e , how do
board members rank t h e i r frequency o f use?

Data from t h i s stu dy c l e a r l y showed a wide d i s p a r i t y between
so u rc es based on the "Frequency o f Use" average rank and t h e composite
scores.

Using t h e composite s c o r e s as a more v a l i d i n d i c a t o r o f t o t a l

u s e , t h e s c o r e s ranged from 690 ("Your Own Experiences" and "Sup erin­
t e n d e n t " ) t o f i v e ("General L i t e r a t u r e " ) .
Members" r e c e i v e d t h e h i g h e s t s c o r e s .

" A d m i n is tr a t o r s " and "Board

Of no te was t h e h i g h e r rank

given t o "Community Members" o ver " P a r e n t s . "

I t was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t

t o se e t h a t " S tu d e n ts " and "Family Members" did n o t f a r e as well as
th o u g h t by e d u c a t i o n a l w r i t e r s and in f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s .
With t h e e x c e p ti o n o f "Community Members" and " S t u d e n t s , " th e
av erage rank was somewhat p r o p o r t i o n a t e

t o the t o t a l responses r e ­

ceived.

r a t i o n a l e to t h e lack o f skew­

This seems t o be an a c c e p t a b l e

ness i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c o r e s .
I t c a n , t h e r e f o r e , be g e n e r a l i z e d t h a t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n c u r r i c u ­
lum i n f o r m a t i o n so u rc es t h a t a r e used more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n o t h e r s .
RQ3 :

In comparing th e i n f o r m a ti o n sources they u s e , how
do board members rank t h e i r t e c h n i c a l q u a l i t y ?

84
Because o f the forced chotce a sp ec t o f t h i s res ea rch q u e s t io n , the
da ta showed wide variances In the average rank scores received by t h e In ­
divid ual Information so urc es .

This a ls o changed the composite sc ore

p a t t e r n s o f th e s o u r c e s , but the change was n o t d r a s t i c enough to
change t h e s t a t u s o f t h e top sc oring information so u rc es .
The " Su pe rin te nd en t," "Your Own Experiences," " P r i n c i p a l s , " "Uni­
v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , " "Central Office S t a f f , " and " U n iv ersity S t a f f " a l l
r eceiv ed average ranks o f 7.0 o r above in "Technical Q u a l it y ."
Based on the responses and rankings, coupled with general comments
on t h i s a r e a , i t can be assumed t h a t t h e r e a re s p e c i f i c information
sources which a re o f h ig her tec h nic al q u a l i t y to board members.
RQ4 :

In comparing t h e information sources they u s e , how do
board members rank t h e i r ease o f use?

The data on t h i s res earch question pointed out s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
ferences as to the average ranking o f information sources in the "Ease
o f Use" a r e a .

Again, "Your Own Experiences" and "Superintendent" r e ­

ceived t h e h ig h e s t average ra nks, but "Family Members" and the "Media"
made Impressive average rank sc o r e s .

" U nivers ity L ib r a r ie s " received

t h e lowest ranking by a f a i r l y wide variance to t h e next lowest source.
I t can be g e n e r a l i z e d t h a t board members se e ease o f use as a fac­
t o r in t h e i r use o f curriculum information so u r c e s .

The ease o f use o f

a source can depend on many v a r i a b l e s , but i t i s a d e f i n i t e co nsidera­
t i o n on the p a r t o f board members as they contemplate t h e use o f v a r i ­
ous so u rces.
RQ5 :

In comparing t h e Information sources they u s e , how do
board members rank t h e i r r e l a t i v e value?

R e la ti v e value i s based on a number o f f a c t o r s i n d i v i d u a l l y de­
cided upon by each board member.

The data r e l a t i n g to t h i s research

85

q u e stio n c l e a r l y

show board members had d e f i n i t e opinions aboiit th e

value o f t h e in fo rm ation sources used 1n t h i s stu d y .

" A d m i n is tr a t o r s ,"

"Teachers," and "Own Experiences" were t h e c a t e g o r i e s t h a t r eceiv ed
t h e h i g h e s t average rankings i n t h i s a r e a .

The "M.E.A." and "General

L i t e r a t u r e " were given s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower average rankings compared
to a l l o f t h e o t h e r so u r c e s .
In r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n , i t can be g e n e r a l i z e d t h a t
board members do se e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f value in c o n sid e r in g c u r r i c u ­
lum inform ation s o u r c e s .

They have c l e a r l y I d e n t i f i e d those sources

which can be o f t h e g r e a t e s t value to them and the sources they r a r e l y
use because o f a number o f d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered with t h e s e s p e c i f i c
sources in c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.
RQg:

What inform ation sources would board members l i k e to
have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e t h a t a re not a t t h i s
time?

The data f o r t h i s res e a r c h q u e s tio n were taken from th e responses
to t h e open-ended q u e s t i o n s .

A summary o f th e s e w r i t t e n comments r e ­

vealed t h a t some board members would l i k e th e number o f s p e c i a l i z e d
p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f members i n c r e a s e d and a c e n t r a l o f f i c e person added
with s p e c i f i c curriculu m r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

These comments were coming

p r i m a r i l y from board members in s m a l l e r d i s t r i c t s .
Another are a mentioned se v era l times in t h e comments was the i n ­
volvement o f b u s i n e s s / i n d u s t r y as an in form atio n sou rc e.

The I n t e r ­

mediate school d i s t r i c t and the North Central A c c r e d i t a t i o n Agency were
a ls o sugge st ed as info rm ation sour ces they would l i k e to see expand
t h e i r curriculu m Information r o l e s .
The use o f "Outside E x p e r t s / C o n s u l t a n t s " was addressed by se veral
respondents.

I t was suggested t h a t a c l e a r i n g house o r a l i s t i n g o f

86
t h e s e persons be made a v a i l a b l e t o board members.

S p l i t ti n g consultant

c o s t s among a number o f d i s t r i c t s was a l s o mentioned.
In g e n e r a l i z i n g t h e response s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , i t appears t h a t
n o t many new so u rc es o f c u r r i c u l a r In form a tio n can be r e a d i l y I d e n t i ­
f i e d by board members.

The few new response s mentioned were o f m e r i t ,

but t h e main concern seemed t o be over t h e lack o r amount o f p r e s e n t
in f o r m a tio n so u rc es in c e r t a i n school d i s t r i c t s .
Source C a t e g o r i z a t i o n
As a supplement t o the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , t h e in f o r m a tio n sourc es
were c a t e g o r i z e d a cc o rd in g to o r i g i n ( " P e o p l e ," " L i t e r a t u r e / M e d i a , " and
"Organization").

Using mean composite s c o r e s from a l l a r e a s ("Frequen­

cy o f Use," "Technical Q u a l i t y , " "Ease o f Use," and " V a lu e " ) , the t h r e e
o r i g i n c a t e g o r i e s were compared.
The da ta showed t h a t t h e "People Source" c atego ry had the h i g h e s t
mean s c o r e s in a l l a r e a s .
e s t s c o r e s in a l l a r e a s .
" L ite ra tu re Sources."

" O rganiz ation Sources" had the second high­
The lowest s c o r i n g o r i g i n o f sources was

I t had t h e lowest s c o r e s in a l l c a t e g o r i e s .

In comparing t h e s e f i n d in g s t o th e f i n d in g s in RQ-j.g’ ^

can be

concluded t h a t so urc e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a ccord ing t o o r i g i n can be an im­
p o r t a n t f a c t o r in c o n s i d e r a t i o n s on curriculu m in f o r m a tio n s o u r c e s .
Summary
This c h a p t e r c o n ta in e d an a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a .

Six r e s e a r c h

q u e s t io n s and a subseq uent c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f t h e sources were p r e s e n t e d
Data f o r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s and t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n were p r e s e n t e d i n f i g ­
u re and t a b l e form, accompanied by an a n a l y s i s o f t h o s e d a t a .
followed by an I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e da ta a n a l y s i s .

This was

87

The s i x r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s were a b le t o be answered by t h e a n a l y ­
s i s o f t h e d a ta t h a t was ta k e n from t h e su rve y I n s t r u m e n t so t h a t con­
c l u s i o n s c o u ld be s t a t e d .
Chapte r V w i l l c o n t a i n a summary, c o n c l u s i o n s , i m p l i c a t i o n s , and
recommendations o f t h i s s t u d y .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This f i n a l c h a p te r contains four s e c t i o n s .

The f i r s t reviews the

purpose o f the study and procedures used to r e a l i z e t h e purpose.
t i o n two includes th e major conclusions o f the study.

Sec­

The t h i r d se c tio n

suggests some i m p lic a tio n s r e s u l t i n g from th e study f o r board members,
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and those groups o r i n d i v i d u a l s who wish t o have in ­
creased impact on school board c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.

A statement

o f recommendations f o r f u r t h e r research i s pres ented in t h e f in a l s e c ­
tion.
Summary
The primary purpose o f t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e the knowledge
and use o f sources o f curriculum information by board o f education mem­
bers in Jackson County, Michigan.

The major emphasis was to I d e n t i f y

th e actual use and the frequency o f use o f information sources by board
members to make curriculum d e c i s i o n s .
Secondary purposes o f the study were to determine (1) the prominent
use c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and general a t t r i b u t e s o f both the curriculum i n f o r ­
mation sources used and those t h a t were r a r e l y used, and ( 2 ) whether
t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f sources was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the a t t r i b u t e s and
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s defined In t h i s study.

88

This determination took place

89
by usin g t h e p e r c e p t i o n s and o p i n io n s o f t h e board members 1 n t h e popu­
lation.
The e i g h t y - f o u r board o f e d u c a tio n members o f t h e twelve p u b l i c
school d i s t r i c t s in Jackson County, Michigan, were t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f
t h i s study.

No sampling t e c h n iq u e s were used because t h e t o t a l popula­

t i o n was Included in t h e st u d y .

A survey i n s t r u m e n t was c r e a t e d , p i ­

l o t e d , and a d m i n i s t e r e d to a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s .
The data t h a t were c o l l e c t e d u s i n g t h i s i n s t r u m e n t were analyzed
by u sin g fre q u e n c y , r a n k , and composite s c o r e s p r o f i l e s .

Whenever pos­

s i b l e , t h e s e p r o f i l e s were r e p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y by a p p r o p r i a t e
t a b l e s and f i g u r e s .

Open-ended r e spo n se s were c a t e g o r i z e d and p r e s e n t e d

in a f as h ion t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d s p e c i f i c and g e n e r a l i z e d responses in a
c o n c i s e , b u t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e manner.
Conclusions
Based on t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a ta c o l l e c t e d , f i v e major c o n c l u s i o n s o f
th e stud y a r e l i s t e d below.
Conclusion One
Board members use a v a r i e t y o f i n f o r m a ti o n so u rc es to make c u r r i c u ­
l a r decisions.

The sour ces they do use a r e ones t h a t have been r e a d i l y

i d e n t i f i e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e and by in f o r m a ti o n s p e c i a l i s t s .

Of the

Info rm atio n so u rc es board members u s e , t h e r e a r e so u r c e s which a r e used
more f r e q u e n t l y than o t h e r s .

The t h r e e h i g h e s t ranked so urc es were

"Your Own E x p e r i e n c e s , " " S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , " and " P r i n c i p a l s . "

The t h r e e

lowest ranked so u rc es were "General L i t e r a t u r e , " " U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i e s , "
and " U n i v e r s i t y S t a f f . "
t o answer RQ-J and RQ2 .

This c o n c l u s i o n 1s based on t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d

90

Conclusion Two
In t h e use o f information sources In c u r r i c u l a r decision-making,
board members were able to I d e n t i f y those sources which were perceived
to have more tec h n ic al q u a l i t y than o t h e r information so urces.

They

I d e n t i f i e d the t h r e e h ig h e s t ranked sources in te c h n ic a l q u a l i t y as
"S uperinte ndent," "Your Own E xperiences," and " P r i n c i p a l s . "

The t h r e e

lowest ranked sources were "General L i t e r a t u r e , " "Media," and "Univer­
sity Staff."

This conclusion 1s based on th e data c o l l e c t e d to answer

RQ3*
Conclusion Three
Board members in t h i s study have determined t h a t "Ease o f Use" o f
a curriculum information source i s a v ia b le f a c t o r as to whether t h a t
source will be used in c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.

The study was able

to s p e c i f y c e r t a i n information sources t h a t were much e a s i e r t o use
by board members than o t h e r so u r c e s .

The t h r e e h i g h e s t ranked sources

were "Your Own Experiences," " Su pe rin te nd en t," and " P r i n c i p a l s . "

The

t h r e e lowest ranked sources were "U niv ers ity L i b r a r i e s , " " U niv ersity
S t a f f , " and "Education L i t e r a t u r e . "

This conclusion is based on the

data c o l l e c t e d t o answer RQ4 .
Conclusion Four
Value plays an important r o l e in the de te rm ination o f whether a
board member chooses to use a s p e c i f i c curriculum information source.
This a t t r i b u t e t h e o r e t i c a l l y combines a l l th e o t h e r a t t r i b u t e s l i s t e d
1n t h i s study plus o t h e r a t t r i b u t e s t h a t a re unknown and undefined.

The study was able t o conclude t h a t value was an a s c e r t a i n a b l e compo­
nent in the determ ination by a board member as to whether he would use

91
a s p e c i f i c Informatio n s o u r c e .

Sources were I d e n t i f i e d 1n t h e study

t h a t had more perc eived v a lu e than o t h e r s o u r c e s .
ranked sources were " S u p e r i n te n d e n t ,"
"P rincipals."

The t h r e e h i g h e s t

"Your Own E x perienc es," and

The t h r e e lowest ranked sources were "General L i t e r a ­

t u r e , " " U n i v e r s it y L i b r a r i e s , " and "M.E.A."

This conclusion i s based

on the da ta c o l l e c t e d to answer RQg.
Conclusion Five
The answer to RQg provided a da ta base t h a t concluded t h a t board
members did feel t h a t t h e r e were a small number o f in fo rm a ti o n sources
t h a t they would l i k e to have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e .

Opinions on

th es e needed sour ces were d i v e r s e , but were g e n e r a l i z e d to include
t h o s e sources t h a t were n o t a v a i l a b l e versus t h o s e sour ces t h a t were
not accessible.

The n o n - a v a l l a b l e sources were concluded t o be Indus­

t r y / b u s i n e s s , s p e c i a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , and c e n t r a l o f f i c e s t a f f .
N o n - a v a l l a b i l i t y o f s p e c i a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f and c e n t r a l o f f i c e
s t a f f was based p u r ely on budget c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

Sources t h a t were

determined to be n on -ac ce ss 1 b l e were t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t
and t h e North Central A c c r e d i t a t i o n Agency.
I m p li c a t io n s
Acceptance o f new da ta from a s i n g l e study t a k e s a long period o f
time and needs t h e involvement o f numerous r e s e a r c h e r s in r e p l i c a t i o n
studies.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t e n t a t i v e su g g e stio n s can be made based on a

s i n g l e stud y .

The purpose o f t h i s s e c t i o n i s to p r e s e n t four such

t e n t a t i v e s u g g e stio n s r e s u l t i n g from t h e st u d y .

This I s done 1n hope

t h a t p o t e n t i a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s a n d /o r r e s e a r c h e r s might c o n s i d e r t h e s e
im plications.

92

1.

The d a ta c o l l e c t e d 1n t h i s s tu d y seem t o c l e a r l y p o i n t o u t th e

need f o r t h e I n i t i a t i o n o r expansion o f i n s e r v i c e programs on c u r r i c u ­
lum in f o r m a ti o n so u rc es f o r board members.

The board 1s not only f r e ­

q u e n tl y changing members, but I s having to deal with new and d i f f e r e n t
d e c i s i o n s on a more f r e q u e n t b a s i s .

P rov idin g board members with up­

d a te d and ongoing i n f o r m a t i o n on a v a i l a b l e in f o r m a tio n sources can po­
t e n t i a l l y improve t h e frequency and t h e expansion o f use o f t h e s e
sources.

Lack o f knowledge o f t h e

a v a i l a b l e so u rc es

and p e rc e iv e d d i f ­

f i c u l t y o f use appeared t o play an

im p o r tan t r o l e 1n

use p a t t e r n s .

2.

This s t u d y tends t o s u p p o r t th e id ea t h a t in f o r m a tio n source

d i s s e m i n a t i o n s e r v i c e s need to be g r e a t l y expanded and updated.

Cer­

t a i n expected so u rc es o f i n f o r m a ti o n were used w i d e ly , th us l e a v i n g o u t
many o t h e r v a lu a b le so u rc es o f c u rr i c u lu m i n f o r m a t i o n .

L iterature

so u rc es and some o r g a n i z a t i o n so urc es were r e c e i v i n g l i t t l e use because
o f l a c k o f knowledge o f t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y and access procedures needed
to use t h i s s o u r c e .

Perhaps a c e n t r a l d i s s e m i n a t i o n c e n t e r on c u r r i c u ­

lum in f o r m a ti o n sou rc es could be e s t a b l i s h e d
v ice s and so u rc es t o board members

t h a t would pro vide s e r ­

and o t h e r persons

i n t e r e s t e d in

c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n -m a k in g .
3.

Another i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s s tu d y i s th e p o t e n t i a l importance

t h a t t h e d a ta c o l l e c t i o n / i n f o r m a t i o n se ek in g s t e p plays in th e c u r r i c u ­
l a r dec1si on-making p r o c e s s .

Both new board members and t h o s e with a

number o f y e a r s o f t e n u r e in t h i s p o s i t i o n need t o be a b l e to more
c l e a r l y u n d e rstan d t h e c u r r i c u l a r decision-m aking p r o c e s s .

With the

t r e n d o f s h r i n k i n g school d o l l a r s , t h e board member i s p o t e n t i a l l y
going t o have l e s s and l e s s c u rric u lu m i n f o r m a ti o n help a v a i l a b l e to
him through t h e normal people/human o r i g i n s .

F u r t h e r curriculu m

93

d e c i s i o n s w i l l f a l l even more f i r m l y on t h e ove rb u rd e ned s h o u l d e r s o f
board members.

This s tu d y and o t h e r l i k e I t can perhaps e n l i g h t e n

bo ard members and o t h e r p a r t i e s In v o lv ed w i t h them 1n c u r r i c u l u m de­
cisions.

This t o p i c o f c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g 1s a l s o an I m p o rta nt

Item f o r board o f e d u c a t i o n i n s e r v i c e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
4.

A f i n a l I m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s may f i n d 1 t d e s i r ­

a b l e t o d e f i n e t h e i r r o l e s i n p r o v i d i n g c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n t o board
members.

A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s must c l e a r l y d e f i n e and con­

s t a n t l y remind board members o f t h e a c c e s s r o u t e s and t h e pro ced u res
o f s e c u r i n g I n f o r m a t i o n from t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
Recommendations
P r u s u a n t t o t h e review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r v i e w s with i n ­
f o r m a tio n s p e c i a l i s t s and t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a f o r t h e s t u d y , a num­
b e r o f q u e s t i o n s can be r a i s e d .

These q u e s t i o n s s u g g e s t f u r t h e r d i r e c ­

t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h s o u r c e s used by board members i n c u r r i c u l a r d e c i ­
s io n - m a k in g .
Recommendation One
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should be done on t h e s y n t h e s i z i n g o f t h e c u r r i c ­
ulum I n f o r m a t i o n once i t has been c o l l e c t e d by t h e board member.

Even

though t h i s s t u d y g iv es some i n s i g h t s on t h e c u r r i c u l u m i n f o r m a t i o n
s o u r c e s a board member u s e s , i t does n o t d e lv e i n t o what t h e board mem­
b e r does w ith t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o r e s o l v e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n f l i c t s and
help s e t p r i o r i t i e s before reaching a d e c is io n .

O ther f a c t o r s t h a t

c ou ld be c o n s i d e r e d a r e t h e amount o f a c t u a l I n f o r m a t io n a v a i l a b l e ,
I n f l u e n c e o f p e e r p r e s s u r e , and t h e in volv em ent o f new I n f o r m a t io n
when a p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n has a l r e a d y been re a c h e d .

94
Recommendation Two
This study supported o t h e r s t u d i e s in demonstrating t h a t people
sources had a much g r e a t e r impact on decision-making than l i t e r a t u r e o r
organization sources.

Fu rth er res e a r c h should look more deeply a t the

r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e s e t h r e e info rm ation source c a t e g o r i e s .

This

r e s e a r c h should i n v e s t i g a t e what f a c t o r s could i n f l u e n c e changes in the
frequency o f use p a t t e r n s o f board members and o t h e r persons i n t e r e s t e d
in c u r r i c u l a r decision-making.
Recommendation Three
F u r t h e r res e a r c h should be done to determine the e f f e c t o f common
curriculum info rm a ti o n t h a t i s made a v a i l a b l e t o a l l board members in
a lo c a l school d i s t r i c t .

This could p r e s e n t i n t e r e s t i n g data on how

in d iv i d u a l board decision-making on c u r r i c u l a r i s s u e s c o n f l i c t s with
group decision-making o f the t o t a l board o f e du ca tio n.
Recommendation Four
Since board members come to t h e i r p o s i t i o n s with v a ri e d e x p e r i ­
ences in both oc cupational and personal dimensions, t h e r e should be
a way t o e f f e c t i v e l y i n s e r v i c e board members on cu rriculu m and c u r r i c ­
u l a r decision-making.

Fu rther r es ea r ch should a ttem pt to develop a

p r a c t i c a l model f o r e f f e c t i v e l y implementing and s u s t a i n i n g board o f
ed u catio n I n s e r v i c e in t h i s a r e a .

As p a r t o f t h i s model, r e s p o n s i ­

b i l i t i e s f o r board I n s e r v i c e should be determined.

Such a model would

be an Important tool for de alin g w ith the dilemma o f e f f e c t i v e c u r r i c ­
u l a r decision-making.

95
Reflections
In conclud ing t h i s s t u d y , t h e a u t h o r has s t r o n g f e e l i n g s t h a t a
number o f r e f l e c t i v e comments need t o be made.

F i r s t , t h e s tu d y shows

t h e r e l u c t a n c e o f e d u c a to r s t o respond to and use new r e s e a r c h d a ta and
t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances in c o n t r a s t t o o t h e r e n t e r p r i s e s i n s o c i e t y ;
I . e . , medicine and i n d u s t r y .

This i s evidenced by t h e s t r o n g r e l i a n c e

o f e d u c a ti o n a l decisio n -m akers on t h e i r own e x p e r i e n c e s and school
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f o r in f o r m a ti o n about c u rr i c u lu m .

The dependence o f

school board members upon t h e s e i n f o r m a tio n sources has major and un­
s e t t l i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e n a t u r e o f e d u ca tio n i n t h e t w e n t y - f i r s t
century.
Another a re a o f concern i s how t o e f f e c t i v e l y promote i n f o r m a ti o n
sources no t being used by school board members.

Worthwhile so u rc es

such as u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f and l i b r a r i e s deserve u t i l i z a t i o n .

Greater

u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e s e r e l a t i v e l y unused sourc es cannot be achieve d by
t r a d i t i o n a l u n i v e r s i t y s e r v i c e p a t t e r n s , but by new o r g a n i z a t i o n s and
procedu res through which th es e so u rc es o f c u rr ic u lu m i n f o r m a tio n a re
made r e a d i l y a t t r a c t i v e and a c c e s s i b l e .
The area o f c u r r i c u l a r decision-making i s too im p o r t a n t to be l e f t
to chance.

H o p e fu lly , a l l p a r t i e s w ith p o t e n t i a l involvement in c u rr i o -

u l a r decisi on-making w i l l take a new and expanded look a t t h e i r r o l e .
From t h i s vantage p o i n t a c t i o n s can be taken to b r in g about p o s i t i v e
changes in t h i s a re a o f the e d u ca tio n p r o c e s s .

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Dear School Board Member:
One of the most Important tasks the Board of Education Is Involved
In Is making curricular decisions. A research project Is undetway
that has as its main emphasis information sources used by board of
education members in the curricular decision—making process. The
final results of this study will be reported in a dissertation being
completed at Michigan State University.
All school board members in Jackson County will be asked to complete
the enclosed questionnaire. Your assistance is being solicited in
researching this important aspect of your role as a school board
member.
Anonymity of the respondents will be closely guarded. There is no
intent to use any comparative data between school districts in the
county. The major intent of the study is to view the school board
members in the Jackson County as a total group. Because of this
fact, you are urged to answer candidly.
In order that completion deadlines are met, it is essential that
you return the questionnaire by the end of this week. A stamped
envelope has been provided.
Please let me convey, in advance, my appreciation for your time
and effort in helping with this study. The data chat comes from
the study will enable board members to make the educational process
in local school districts even more responsive and effective.
C4

1u

Anthony J/Tfi
Enclosures

96

97
QUESTIONNAIRE
INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
This q u e s t i o n n a i r e has t h r e e p a r t s . The f i r s t p a r t i s b a s i c background
In f o r m a t io n on t h e s t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s . The second p a r t d e a l s w i t h t h e
need f o r your s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s on q u e s t i o n s d e a l i n g w ith I n f o r m a t io n
s o u r c e s you use now. P a r t t h r e e se eks t o f i n d o u t about s o u r c e s you do
n o t use and p r o v i d e s a s e c t i o n f o r ge neral comments.
Part I .

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.

Age ________ 18-25

________26-35

________ 36-45____________ ________ 46-55
________ 5 5 - o l d e r
B.

Sex ________ Male

C.

Occupation ____________________________________________________

D.

Number o f c h i l d r e n ___________________________________________

E.

Number o f c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y i n p u b l i c K-12 s c h o o l s :

F.

H ig h e st l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n completed

Female

98
Part I I .

INFORMATION SOURCE ASSESSMENT CHART

In t h i s p a r t o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , you a re asked t o a s se ss a group o f
Information sources as they r e l a t e to the various c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d .
To help you understand th e l i s t e d c a t e g o r i e s , please be aware o f the
following d e f i n i t i o n s :
Frequency o f Use: Rank t h i s category to the information sources you
use most fr e q u e n t ly 1n c u r r i c u l a r decision-making. Remember to com­
p l e t e t h i s category f i r s t .
Technical Q u a l i t y : Rank t h i s s e c t i o n according t o how th e information
sources you i n d i c a t e d under Frequency o f Use were meaningful to you as
f a r as the information they co n ta in e d , a d a p t a b i l i t y , r e a d a b i l i t y , logic ,
length, e tc .
Ease o f Use: Rank t h i s s e c t i o n next to those information sources you
I n d ic a te d under Frequency o f Use as to the e x t e n t they were a c c e s s i b l e ,
manageable, and g e n e r a l l y easy f o r you t o use.
Value: This s e c t i o n should be ranked next to those Information sources
I n d i c a te d under Frequency o f Use according t o the value you place 1n
the information source d e s p i t e problems you may have had in using the
sou rc e.
General Comments: In t h i s s e c t i o n , p lease w r i t e any p e r t i n e n t comments
on those information sources you i n d i c a t e d in t h e Frequency o f Use c o l ­
umn.
These comments may be pro or con.
To complete t h i s p a r t o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , follow the procedural
s te p s l i s t e d below:
1.

In th e Frequency o f Use column, rank the ten information
sources you use most f r e q u e n t ly as you are involved in
c u r r i c u l a r decision-making. Use #1 to i n d i c a t e the high­
e s t rank and #10 to i n d i c a t e the lowest rank.

2.

Using only th e information sources you ranked in the Fre­
quency o f Use column, continue to rank th ese sources in
the Technical Q u a l it y , Ease o f Use, and Value columns.
Use #1 to i n d i c a t e h ig h e s t rank and #10 to i n d i c a t e the
lowest rank.

3.

Using the General Comments column, plea se feel fr e e to
w r i t e any p e r t i n e n t comments (pro o r con) about the ten
information sources you have been ranking.

99

INFORMATION SOURCF ASSESSMENT CHART

Inform ation Source
Community Members
Mich. Oeot. o f Educ.
Education L i t e r a t u r e
Parents
Your Own Experiences
General L i t e r a t u r e
Teachers
MASB
Media
L i t e r a t u r e - P ro fe s ­
s io n a l O rg an iza tio n s
S tudents
M1ch. Educ. Assoc.
U n iv e rs ity L ib r a r ie s
O ther School Board
Members
"Outside" E x p e rts/
C o n su lta n ts
P r in c i p a ls
Family Members
C entral O ffic e
A d m in istra tiv e S t a f f
S p e c ia liz e d Pro­
f e s s io n a l S t a f f
U n iv e rs ity S t a f f
S u p erin ten d en t

Frequency
o f Use

Technical
Q uality

F.ase o f
Use

Value

General Comments

100

Part I I I .

SECTION A

There a r e some I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s t h a t you r a r e l y use 1n c u r r i c u l a r
d e c l s l o n - m a k i n g . From t h e rem ain ing t e n s o u r c e s 1n P a r t I I , pick
t h e f i v e s o u r c e s you would be l e a s t l i k e l y t o use in t h e d e c i s i o n ­
making p r o c e s s . W rite t h e s e s o u r c e s on t h e c h a r t below and check t h e
r e a s o n ( s ) why you do n o t use t h e s e s o u r c e s . P l e a s e l i s t any o t h e r
r e a s o n s f o r no n -u se n o t l i s t e d on t h e c h a r t .
Low 1n
D i f f i c u l t Technical
O ther
I n f o r m a t io n
U n f a m i l ia r
Reasons
w i t h Source
Quality
t o Use
Source

NOTE:

You may use s o u r c e s from l i s t in P a r t I I (SECTION A) o r i n c l u d e
any o t h e r s .

Part I I I .

SECTION B

What i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s would you l i k e t o have a v a i l a b l e and a c c e s s i b l e
t o you t h a t a r e n o t a t t h i s tim e? P l e a s e l i s t below.

101

Part I I I .

SECTION C

Ple as e 11st any a d d i t i o n a l comments you may have r eg a rd in g your use o r
n o n - u s e o f Information sources In c u r r i c u l a r decisi on-making.

Thank you f o r tak i n g t h e time to a s s i s t me In t h i s study.

APPENDIX B

Dear School Board Member:
One of the most important tasks the Board of Education is involved in
is making curricular decisions. A research project is underway that
has as its main emphasis information sources used by board of education
members in the curricular decision-making process. The final results
of this study will be reported in a dissertation being completed at
Michigan State University.
In order to assess whether the actual questionnaire accurately
covers the major issues of the research project, a pilot study is
needed. Mr. Guizzetti has volunteered the members of the Leslie
Public Schools Board of Education as participants in the pilot study
group. I urge you to answer honestly and candidly. Any suggestions
for the improvement of the questionnaire would be appreciated.
In order that completion deadlines are met, it is essential that you
return the questionnaire to Mr. Guizzetti as soon as possible.
Please let me convey, in advance, my appreciation for your time and
effort in helping with this study. The data that comes from the study
will enable board members, administrators, teachers, and members of
our various communities to make the education process in local school
districts even more responsive and effective.

Anthony J
Attachment

102

103
QUESTIONNAIRE
INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
This q u e s t i o n n a i r e has t h r e e p a r t s . The f i r s t p a r t i s b a s i c background
Information on t h e study p a r t i c i p a n t s . The second p a r t d e als with t h e
need f o r your s p e c i f i c response s on qu e stio n s d e a l in g with Information
sources you use now. P a r t t h r e e seeks to f i n d o u t about sources you do
not use and provides a s e c t i o n f o r general comments. P a r t i c i p a n t s in
t h e p i l o t study a r e asked t o complete P a r t IV - a s e c t i o n ask ing f o r
comments on th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n t o t a l .
Part I.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.

Age ________ 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

_______ 5 5-o ld er
R.

Sex _______ Male

Female

C.

Occupation ___________________________________________

D.

Number o f c h i l d r e n ___________________________________

E.

Number o f c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t l y in p u b l ic K-12 schools:

F.

Highest lev e l o f education completed

104
Part I I .

INFORMATION SOURCE ASSESSMENT CHART

In t h i s p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , you a r e asked t o a s s e s s a group o f
In f o r m a tio n so u r c e s as t h e y r e l a t e t o t h e v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d .
To help you u n d e rs tan d t h e l i s t e d c a t e g o r i e s , p l e a s e be aware o f t h e
f o l lo w in g d e f i n i t i o n s .
Frequency o f Use: Rank t h i s c a t e g o r y t o t h e i n f o r m a ti o n so u rc es you
use most f r e q u e n t l y 1n c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n - m a k in g . Remember t o complete
t h i s category f i r s t .
Technical Q u a l i t y : Rank t h i s s e c t i o n a cc o rd in g t o how t h e In fo rm a tion
s o u r c e s you I n d i c a t e d under Frequency o f Use were meaningful t o you as
f a r as t h e I n f o r m a t io n th ey c o n t a i n e d , a d a p t a b i l i t y , r e a d a b i l i t y , l o g i c ,
length, etc.
Ease o f Use: Rank t h i s s e c t i o n ne xt t o t h o s e i n f o r m a ti o n so u rc es you
I n d i c a t e d under Frequency o f Use as t o t h e e x t e n t they were a c c e s s i b l e ,
manageable, and g e n e r a l l y easy f o r you t o use.
Value: This s e c t i o n should be ranked next t o th o se In fo rm a tion so urc es
I n d i c a t e d under Frequency o f Use a cc o rd in g t o t h e va lu e you p l a c e In
t h e In f o r m a t io n so urce d e s p i t e problems you may have had 1n using t h e
source.
General Comments: In t h i s s e c t i o n , p l e a s e w r i t e any p e r t i n e n t comments
on t h o s e In f o r m a tio n sourc es you i n d i c a t e d in t h e Frequency o f Use
column. These comments may be pro o r con.
To complete t h i s p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , follo w t h e procedu ral
s t e p s l i s t e d below:
1.

In t h e Frequency o f Use column, rank t h e t e n i n f o r m a tio n
so u r c e s you use most frequency as you a r e Involved in
c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n -m a k in g . Use #1 t o i n d i c a t e th e
h i g h e s t rank and #10 t o i n d i c a t e t h e low est rank.

2

Using o nly t h e In f o ra m tio n so u rc es you ranked in t h e
Frequency o f Use column, c o n ti n u e t o rank t h e s e sources
1n t h e Technical Q u a l i t y , Ease o f Use, and Value columns.
Use #1 t o i n d i c a t e h i g h e s t rank and #10 t o i n d i c a t e t h e
lowest rank.

.

3.

Using t h e General Comments column, p l e a s e f e e l f r e e to
w r i t e any p e r t i n e n t comments (pro o r con) about t h e t e n
I n f o r m a t io n so u rc es you have been r a n k i n g .

105

INFORMATION SOURCE ASSESSMENT CHART

Inform atio n Source
Community Members
Mich. Dept, o f Educ.
Education L i t e r a t u r e
P aren ts
Your Own Experiences
General L i t e r a t u r e
Teachers
MASB
Media
L i t e r a t u r e - Pro­
f e s s io n a l O rq a n lz a tlo n s
S tudents
M1ch. Educ. Assoc.
U n iv e r s ity L i b r a r i e s
O ther School Board
Members
"O utside" E x p e r ts /
C o n s u lta n ts
P rin cip als
Family Members
C entral O ffic e
A d m in is tr a tiv e S t a f f
S p e c i a liz e d P r o f e s ­
s io n a l S t a f f
U n iv e r s it y S t a f f
S u p e rin te n d e n t

Frequency
o f Use

Technical
Q ualIty

Ease o f
Use

Value

General Comments

106
Part I I I .

SECTION A

There a r e some Info rmatio n sources t h a t you r a r e l y use In c u r r i c u l a r
decision -making. From t h e remaining t e n sources 1n P a r t I I , pick th e
f i v e sourc es you would be l e a s t l i k e l y t o use 1n t h e decision-making,
p r o c e s s . Write t h e s e sources on th e c h a r t below and check th e r e a so n (s ) why you do not use t h e s e so u r c e s . Please l i s t any o t h e r r e a ­
sons f o r non-use not l i s t e d on t h e c h a r t .
Information
Unfamiliar
_______ Source__________ with Source

NOTE:

D ifficult
t o Use

tow In
Technical
Q u ality

Other
Reasons

you may use sources from l i s t in P a r t II (SECTION A) o r in c lu d e
any o t h e r s .

Part I I I .

SECTION B

What Inf or mation sour ces would you l i k e to have a v a i l a b l e and a cc es­
s i b l e t o you t h a t a r e not a t t h i s time? Please l i s t below.

107
Part I I I .

SECTION C

P l e a s e l i s t any a d d i t i o n a l comments you may have r e g a r d i n g you r use o r
non-use o f Informatio n sources in c u r r i c u l a r d e cisio n - m a k in g .

P a r t IV.

PILOT STUDY FEEDBACK

A.

Pleas e comment as t o t h e c l a r i t y o f t h e b a s i c i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r
the qu estio n n aire.

B.

Did you see any problems with t h e items c o n ta in e d in P a r t I ,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION? I f s o , p l e a s e comment in t h e space
pro vided .

C.

P a r t I I , INFORMATION SOURCE ASSESSMENT CHART, i s t h e major e l e ­
ment o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Please comment on t h e f o llo w in g :
1.

C l a r i t y o f d e f i n i t i o n s . _____________________________________

2.

C l a r i t y and u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e procedureal s t e p s .

108
3.

Completeness and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e I n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s
l i s t e d on t h e a s s e s s m e n t c h a r t . ___

4.

Layout and e a s e o f c o m p l e t i n g t h e a s s e s s m e n t c h a r t .

D.

P l e a s e comment as t o w h e t h e r P a r t I I I , SECTION A, was c l e a r l y
u n d e r s t o o d and w h e t h e r t h e r e were any problems i n c o m p l e t i n g
the c h a rt.
_____________ _______________

E.

Were t h e I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r P a r t I I I , SECTION B, c l e a r l y d e f i n e d
so t h a t t h e y d i d n ' t pose any d i f f i c u l t y in y o u r c o m p l e t i n g t h i s
s e c t i o n ? P l e a s e comment. _____________
____
________

F.

P l e a s e comment on any problems w ith t h e c o m p letio n o f P a r t I I I ,
SECTION C.

G.

General comments on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Thank you f o r t a k i n g t h e t im e t o a s s i s t me i n t h i s s t u d y .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A code o f e t h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r board o f e d u c a tio n members and edu­
c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Secondary Education Today, 1977, 1 8 ,
53-60.
Ashemore, M. K. T h e r e ' s no such t h i n g as an averag e school board member.
Michigan School Board J o u r n a l , 1977, 24, 21.
Ashemore, M. K.

Personal I n t e r v i e w ,

1980.

B a r r e a , B. Pu blic school c u r r i c u lu m must r e f l e c t a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y .
Michigan School Board J o u r n a l , 1977, 24, 22-23.
Blan c h ard , P. D. School board d e c i s i o n s : How a r e t h e y made in Michi­
gan? Michigan School Board J o u r n a l , 1977, 21^ 10.
Boughner, M. L.

Personal i n t e r v i e w , 1980.

Brodinsky, N. How a school board o p e r a t e s .
1977, 88, 3.

Phi Delta Kappa - F a s t b a c k ,

Brower, G. P r o f e s s i o n a l and l a y p a r t i c i p a t i o n in e d u c a ti o n a l p lann ing
and p olic y-m aking. Secondary Education Today. 1977, 1_8, 22.
C a w e l t l , G. How t o g e t you r hands on you r d i s t r i c t ' s c u r r i c u l u m .
ica n School Board J o u r n a l , 1974, 30, 40.
C a w e l t l , G. The b o a r d ' s concern f o r c u r r i c u lu m .
105645.

Amer­

ERIC A b s t r a c t , 1975,

Compass. National A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s R e p o r t e r ,
1978, 30, 3.
Churchman, C. W.

Cha llenge t o r e a s o n .

New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1968.

C i s t o n e , P. J . S o c i a l i z a t i o n o f board members. A p a per p r e s e n t e d a t
t h e Annual Meeting o f t h e American Research A s s o c i a t i o n , 1976,
18-27.
Cooper, J . M. Info rm a tio n usage and resp on ses to f a i l u r e In a d e c i s i o n
t a s k . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a ,
1970.
Curr y, D.

Personal i n t e r v i e w , 1980.

109

110

Davis* G. A. Psychology o f p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g :
New York: Basi c Books, I n c . , 1973.
D o l l , R. C.

Curriculum Improvement:

Drucker, P. F.

Decision- m aking and p r o c e s s .

Age o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y .

Edwards, W., & Tversk y , A. ( e d s . ) .
l a n d : Penguin Books, 1967.

Theory and p r a c t i c e .

New York:

Harper & Row, 1969.

Decision-making.

Middlesex, Eng­

E n g l i s h , F. W. Your b o a r d ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c u r r i c u l u m . Paper p r e ­
s e n t e d a t t h e annual mee ting o f t h e Natio nal School B o a r d 's Asso­
c i a t i o n , 1967.
E s t e r d a y , G. A. I n f o r m a t i o n , d e c1 si on-making, and r o l e b e h a v i o r i n a
s i m u l a t e d e d u c a t i o n a l e n vir o n m en t. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1969.
F i s h e r , W.
47.

The a r t o f p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s .

School and S o c i e t y , 1964, 41,

F u l c h e r , G. S. Common s e n s e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g .
Northw estern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965.

Evansto n , I l l i n o i s :

Gatzka, R. E. A s t u d y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e s , p r o c e s s e s , and c r i t e r i a f o r
c u r r i c u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i n s e l e c t e d Michigan Community C o l l e g e s .
Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973.
Gentry, C.

Persona l I n t e r v i e w , 1980.

G l t t e l l , M. P a r t i c i p a n t s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , a s t u d y o f school p o l i c y in
New York C i t y . New York: C e n te r f o r Urban E d u c a ti o n , 1967.
Greenbaum, M. S u p e r i n t e n d e n t d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f formal i n f o r m a t i o n and
school board d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
New York U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
G r i f f i t h s , D. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e t h e o r y .
C r o f t s , I n c . , 1957.

New York:

A p p le to n -C e n tu ry -

House, J . E. Youth Involvement - a key t o c u r r i c u l u m change.
School Board J o u r n a l , 1970, 1_7, 15.

Michigan

Howerton, E. B. A framework f o r school board d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g : An a n a l ­
y s i s o f t h e p r o c e s s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y
o f V i r g i n i a , 1952.
Jamsen , E.

Persona l I n t e r v i e w , 1980.

Jackson County I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t .
In f o r m a t io n and compara­
t i v e d a ta r e p o r t , 1978-79. J a c k s o n , Michigan: 1979, 1 -2 .
King, C.

Persona l I n t e r v i e w , 1980.

Ill

K1rst, M., & Walker, D. F. An a n a l y s i s o f c urriculu m policy-making.
Education D i g e s t , 1972, 37, 482.
LaVerne, R. Decision-making and Inform atio nal pr ocesses o f Indiana c u r­
riculum l e a d e r s . Unpublished do c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Purdue Univer­
s i t y , 1976,
Lawrence, W.

Personal I n t e r v i e w , 1980.

Legal S e rv ice Bureau, t h e S t a t e o f Michigan.
school l a w s . Lansing, Michigan: 1976.

S t a t e o f Michigan general

L e g g e tt, S. For boardmen and s u p e r i n te n d e n t s only: How to keep tab s
on your d i s t r i c t ' s curriculu m . The American School Board J o u r n a l ,
1977, 24, 29.
Marrs, J . D. School boards and p u b lic r e l a t i o n s .
Board J o u r n a l , 1977, 24, 29.
Mayer, W. V. Curriculum development in c r i s i s .
68 , 2-4.

Michigan School
BSCS M ew sle tte r, 1977,

Mercer, T. W. An Information system and I t s u s e r s : A d e s c r i p t i v e study.
Unpublished docto ral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f School Boards. Boardsmenship in b r i e f - a hand­
book f o r Michigan school board members. Lansing, Michigan: 1975.
Ityer, D. A. Decision-making 1n curriculu m and i n s t r u c t i o n - an /I/D/E/A
Monograph. Dayton, Ohio: I n s t i t u t e f o r Development o f Educational
A c t i v i t i e s , 1970, 51-54.
Nelson, C. H. A study o f Information sources used f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l
decision-making by Michigan p u b l ic school d i s t r i c t personnel. Un­
published d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1976.
Page, E. B. ( e d . ) . American Educational Research A s so c ia tion paper ab­
s t r a c t s , 1967 annual m eetin g. Washington, D. C.: American Educa­
t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967, x i .
Page, J . L.

Personal i n t e r v i e w , 1980.

P e t e r s , R. 0 . Who runs o ur schools? Social f o rce s and p h ilo so p hie s
with e f f e c t on curriculum development i n America's s c h o o l s . Wash­
i n g to n , D. C.: Department o f H e alth , Education, and Welfare, 1976.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F.
York: The Free P r e s s , 1971.

Communications o f i n n o v a t i o n s .

Rudman, H. C. The use o f data f o r decision-making.
Board J o u r n a l , 1977, 24, 12-13.

New

Michigan School

T12

S a y l o r , J . G. & A le x an de r, W. M. Plannin g c u r r i c u lu m f o r s c h o o l s .
York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , & Winston, I n c . , 1974.
Sax, G. Empirical f o u n d a t i o n s o f e d u c a ti o n a l r e s e a r c h .
C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t l c e - H a l 1 , I n c . , 1968.
Searching f o r c u rr i c u lu m reform .

New

Englewood

Education USA R e p o r t . 1979, 13, 228.

Shader, D. R. Curriculum a c c o u n t a b i l i t y : A re a l plus a t board meetings.
Michigan School Board J o u r n a l , 1973, 20, 8-9.
Smith, G.

Personal i n t e r v i e w , 1979.

Sorgen, M. S t a t e , s c h o o l , and fam ily . Cases and
m a t e r i a l s on lawand
e d u c a t i o n . New York: Mathew Bender & Company, 1973.
S p r o u l e , J . R. Decision-making p r o c e ss e s o f boards o f e d u c a t i o n .
l i s h e d d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , 1966.
Taba, H. Curriculum development c o u r t - B r a c e and World, 1962.

th e o r y and p r a c t i c e .

Texas A s s o c i a t i o n o f School Boards. Handbook
members. Houston, Texas: 1974, 19.

for

Unpub­

NewYork:

Har-

Texas school board

Thompson, G. A., & Ziemer, R. H. Impact o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n in g on
c u r r i c u l u m - i n s t r u c t i o n . Evanston, I l l i n o i s : National School Board
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1975.
T u t t l e , E. M.
1963.

School board l e a d e r s h i p in America.

Chicago:

Unruh, G. G. New e s s e n t i a l s f o r c u rr ic u lu m l e a d e r s h i p .
L e a d e r s h i p , 1976, 33* 583.

Burgess,

Educational

V i n s o n h a l e r , J . F . . & Moon, R. D. In form a tio n system a p p l i c a t i o n s in
e d u c a t i o n . Annual Review o f In form a tio n Science and Technology,
1973, 8 , 307.
Voter survey r e s u l t s announced.
1-3.

Lowell Area Schools N e w s l e t t e r , 1978,

Wadsworth, H. Relevancy and school board members.
Educational R e s e a r c h , 1970, 9_, 20-24.
Welnhelmer, N. F.

Colorado Journal o f

Personal i n t e r v i e w , 1980.

White, V. V. F a c to r s o f community i n f l u e n c e on l o c a l school board de­
c i s i o n s . Unpublished d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f South­
e rn C a l i f o r n i a , 1974.
W iles, K. The changing c u rric u lu m o f t h e American high s c h o o l .
wood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1963.

Engle­

113
W l s e l o g l e , F. Y. Board c r e d i b i l i t y .
1978, 2 4, 15.
Z a z z a r o , J . What makes boardmen r un ?
1971 , 27 , 17.

Michigan School Board J o u r n a l ,
American School Board J o u r n a l ,