INFORMATION TO USERS This rep ro d u c tio n was m ade from a copy o f a d o c u m e n t sent to us for microfilming. While the m ost advanced technology has been used to p h o to g ra p h and reproduce this d o c u m e n t, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily d e p e n d en t u p o n the quality o f the material subm itted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or no tatio n s which m ay appear on this rep roduction. 1 .T h e sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the d o c u m e n t photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to o b tain the missing page(s) o r section, th ey are spliced in to the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated c u ttin g through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure com plete c ontinuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black m ark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f m o vem ent during exposure, duplicate copy, o r copyrighted materials th a t s hould n o t have been filmed. F o r blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target no te will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a m ap, drawing or chart, etc., is p a rt o f the material being pho to g ra p h e d , a definite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is custom ary to begin filming at the u p p e r left hand corner o f a large sheet and to c ontinue from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and c ontinuing on until com plete. 4. F or illustrations th a t ca n n o t be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into y o u r xerographic copy. These prints are available u p o n request from the Dissertations C ustom er Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any d o c u m e n t may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micrdtilrris International 3 0 0 N. Z eo b R o ad Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 8303823 M acKcnzie, John Dale A STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BY THREE SELECTED CONSORTIA IN MICHIGAN Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, A nn Arbor, MI 48106 1982 PLEASE NOTE; In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problem s encountered with this do cu m en t have been identified h ere with a check m ark V . 1. G lossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, pap er or p rin t______ 3. Photographs with dark b a c k g ro u n d ______ 4. Illustrations a re poor c o p y ______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original 6. Print show s through a s th ere is text on both s id e s of p ag e______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. Com puter printout p ag es with indistinct print______ 11. P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b e re d _____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. copy___ if' O ther_____________________________________________________________ _________ _ University Microfilms International A STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BY THREE SELECTED CONSORTIA IN MICHIGAN By John D. MacKenzie A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION BY THREE SELECTED CONSORTIA IN MICHIGAN By John D. MacKenzie Purpose The study had three purposes: 1) To identify and describe the background and setting for professional development programs in selected consortia. 2) To identify and describe the processes for planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs. 3) To identify and describe similarities and differences in planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs between consortia. Procedures The population for the study included members of policy boards and administrators in local districts in each consortium. John D. MacKenzie The instruments used to collect data for this study were structured interview forms and a written questionnaire developed specifically for this study. Data were collected through 20 interviews and a questionnaire sent to 146 pro­ fessionals with 125 returned and used in the study. Conclusions The following conclusions were based on an analysis of the data. 1) Common theme in planning professional development programs in each consortia, include assessing and prioritizing needs and identifying resources. 2) The professional development policy board exerted the strongest influence on consortia goals and the selection of personnel to staff programs; little influence was exerted by parents, higher education, and school boards. 3) Conflict between instructional personnel and administrators, on policy boards, limited program planning and implementation during the first year with this phenomenon declining the second year. 4) Peer consultants and practitioners were most frequently used to provide professional develop­ ment programs. These were usually one-day work­ shops that included lecture, demonstrations, and product development. John D. MacKenzie Recommendations 1) Additional research be conducted regarding the affects of county-wide professional development programs on building level practices. 2) Research be conducted to identify the implications of autonomous local and regional professional development programs for the role of higher education. 3) Research be conducted on the effectiveness and utility of existing professional development needs assessments. 4) Policy makers should consider increasing communica­ tion through existing technology i.e. computers and teleconferencing. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to thank the members of his committee Professors Cas Heilman, Joseph Levine, Cas Gentry, and Charles Blackman. A special thanks is due Dr. Heilman for his patience, support, and availability during this study. I would also like to thank the staff at the Michigan Vocational Education Resources Center, especially Dr. Gloria Kielbaso for her continual encouragement. Thanks to Dr. Paula Brictson and Dee Shaw of the Michigan Department of Education, Office of Professional Development for providing continual cooperation in accessing documents for this study. I would like to thank Donna Palmer for her sense of humor and expert typing. Finally, Julie, Michael and Katherine, my wife, and daughter, son for providing continual inspiration and support without which this study would have been impossible. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................... ii LIST OF TABLES........................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.......................................... xxi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM......................................... Introduction....... ,.......................... Statement of the Problem...................... Purpose of the Study.......................... Significance......... Limitations................................. Assumptions.................................... Definition of Terms........................... 1 I 6 7 8 8 8 9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................... Introduction................................... Types of Inservice............................ Definitions of Inservice...................... Search for Effective Inservice......... 11 11 11 14 16 CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES................................ Introduction................................... Population..................................... Selection Methodology......................... Preparation of Instruments........... Data Collection............................... Methods of Analysis........................... 26 26 26 27 32 36 40 Table of Contents (cont.) Page CHAPTER IV FINDINGS........................................... Introduction................................ . Consortium 1 ................................. Planning............... . Implementation ,. Evaluation............................... Summary.................................. Consortium I I ................................ Planning................................. Implementation...................... Evaluation. . ............................ Summary....................... Consortium III................................. Planning................. Implementation........................... Evaluation............................... Summary................................... All Consortia................................ Planning.................................. Implementation........................... Evaluation............................... Summary........ 45 45 50 62 75 88 92 96 103 118 131 135 138 146 158 173 176 180 189 204 222 228 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS........................................ 231 Introduction................................. Summary....................................... Conclusions................................... Recommendations.............................. Reflections................................... 231 231 233 234 237 REFERENCES.............................................. iv 240 Table of Contents (cont.) Page APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Teacher Center Appropriations...... 245 APPENDIX B - Section 9 7 ........................... Senate Bill No. 1109................ Section 26, Public Act 101.......... 247 248 249 APPENDIX C - Report on Professional Staff Development Activities for 1979-80.. 250 - Structured Interview/Consortium Coordinator.......................... Local District Administrator....... 324 331 APPENDIX E - Questionnaire....................... Cover Letter. ...... Follow-up Postcard................ Follow-up Letter.................... 333 337 338 339 APPENDIX F - Summary of Interviews Consortium Coordinators........................ Summary of Interview Local District Administrators..................... APPENDIX D v 340 LIST OF TABLES Page Table Table 1 -- Ranking of Consortia Over 750 Pro­ fessionals for Selection By Dollar Allocated.................................. 2 -- Number of Professionals, Districts and 1979-80 Dollar Allocation for Selected Consortium......... 29 30 Table 3 -- Number of Selected Districts By Consortium 31 Table 4 -- Professionals Interviewed By Consortium and Position............................... 37 5 -- Questionnaire Return Rates By; Instruc­ tional Personnel and Administrators...... 39 6 -- Population, Municipalities and Per Capita Income By Consortia............... 46 Table Table Table 7 -- School Districts, Public School Enrollment and Professionals By Consortia.......... 46 Table 8 -- Return Rate for Questionnaires By Groups in All Consortia........................... 47 9 -- Groups Interviewed By Position In Each Consortia.............................. 48 Table Table 10 -- Total Enrollment for Local Districts in \Hnich Interviews Were Conducted By Consortium................................ 48 Table 11 -- Annual Budgets for Local Districts in Which Interviews Were Conducted By Consortium Table 12 -- Consortium I Response Rates Questionnaires Returned By Groups Surveyed.............. 57 Table 13 -- Ages of Respondents to Questionnaire in Consortium 1 .............................. 58 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 14 -- Level of Education For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium I ...... 58 Table 15 -- Years of Service In Local Districts For Those Responding To The Questionnaires In Consortium 1 ............................. 58 Table 16 -- Years Of Service In Education For Respon­ dents To The Questionnaire In Consortium I. 59 Table 17 -- The Role Of Respondents In Professional Development In Consortium 1 ................ 59 Table 18 -- Frequency Of Attendance At Types Of Pro­ fessional Development Programs By Respon­ dents In Consortium I In The Last Two Years........................................ 60 Table 19 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs For Professional Development Programs..... 63 Table 20 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs Ranked By Level Of Intensity................... 64 Table 21 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determination Of Goals For Professional Development Programs..... 65 Table 22 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determina­ tion Of Goals Ranked By Level Of Intensity. 66 Table 23 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs :. . 67 vii List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 24 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity.... 68 Table 25 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Of Influence Of Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Per­ sonnel For Professional Development 69 Programs................................... Table 26 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Personnel For Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity............ ........ Table 27 71 — Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Types Of Per­ sonnel Are Used In Professional Develop­ ment Programs.......................... 76 Table 28 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity..................... 77 Table 29 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Funding Sources Are Used To Support Professional Development Programs...................... 78 Table 30 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Funding Sources Are Used To Support Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity.................. 79 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 31 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Professional Development Programs 80 Table 32 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity........................ Table 33 81 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Professional Development Programs Attended By Respondents......... 82 Table 34 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Attended By Respondents Ranked By Level Of Intensity. 84 Table 35 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Participants In Professional Development Programs, (Intensity Is Measured As The Combined Percentages Of The Responses To Considerable And A Great Deal................................. 85 Table 36 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Par­ ticipants In Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity..., 86 Table 37 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Pro­ fessional Development Programs........... 89 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 38 -- Consortium I: A Comparison Of Intensity Of Responses By Instructional ersonnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Develop­ ment Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity................................ Table 39 -- Response Rates For Questionnaires In Consortium II By Groups Surveyed....... 91 100 Table 40 -- Ages Of Respondents In Consortium II.... 100 Table 41 -- Level Of Education For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium II... 101 -- Years Of Service In Local Districts For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium I I ............................ 101 Table 42 Table 43 -- Years Of Service In Education For Respon­ dents To The Questionnaire In Consor­ tium I I ................................... 101 Table 44 -- Role Of Respondents In Professional Development For Consortium I I ........... 102 -- Frequency Of Attendance At Types Of Professional Development Programs By Respondents In Consortium II In The Last Two Years................................. 102 Table 45 Table 46 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs For Professional Development Programs... 105 Table 47 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs Ranked By Level Of Intensity................... 107 Table 48 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determination Of Goals For Professional Development Programs... 108 x List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 49 — Consortium IX: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determination Of Goals Ranked By Level Of Intensity.............................. 109 Table 50 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluating Pro­ fessional Development Programs........... 110 Table 51 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity................................ . 111 Table 52 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Of Influence Of Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Per­ sonnel For Professional Development 112 Programs................................... Table 53 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Personnel For Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of 113 Intensity................................. Table 54 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Types Of Per­ sonnel Are Used In Professional Develop­ ment Programs.................. ,......... 114 Table 55 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Development Progarms Ranked 120 By Level Of Intensity...... .......... . xi List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 56 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Funding Sources Are Used To Support Pro­ fessional Development Programs........... 121 Table 57 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Funding Sources Are Used To Support Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity............. 122 Table 58 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel and Administra­ tors On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Professional Development Programs 123 Table 59 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity......................... 124 Table 60 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel and Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Techniques Were Used In Professional Development Programs Attended By Respondents.................. 125 Table 61 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Attended By Respondents Ranked By Level of Intensity. 126 Table 62 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Participants In Professional Development Programs...................... 127 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 63 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Parti­ cipants In Professional Development Pro­ grams Ranked By Level Of Intensity...... 128 Table 64 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Pro­ fessional Development Programs.......... 132 Table 65 -- Consortium II: A Comparison Of Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity..................... 133 Table 66 -- Response Rates For Questionnaires In Consortium III By Groups Surveyed....... 141 Table 67 -- Ages Of Respondents To The Questionnaire In Consortium II I ......................... 142 Table 68 -- Level Of Education For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium III... 142 Table 69 -- Years Of Service In Local Districts For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium III ...................... 142 Table 70 -- Years Of Service In Education For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium III................... 143 Table 71 — Role Of Respondents In Professional Development For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In Consortium III.......... 143 Table 72 -- Types Of Professional Development Programs By Respondents In Consortium III In The Last Two Years............................ 144 xiii List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 73 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs For Professional Development Programs.... 148 Table 74 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs Ranked By Level Of Intensity.................................. 149 Table 75 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determination Of Goals For Professional Development Programs.... 150 Table 76 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determina­ tion Of Goals Ranked By Level Of Intensity.................................. 151 Table 77 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs....... 152 Table 78 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity.... 153 Table 79 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Of Influence Of Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Personnel For Professional Development Programs.... 154 xiv List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 80 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Personnel For Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity.................... 155 Table 81 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Develop­ ment Programs............................. 161 Table 82 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Development Programs Ranked 162 By Level of Intensity..................... Table 83 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Funding Sources Are Used To Support Professional 163 Development Programs...................... Table 84 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Funding Sources Are Used To Support Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity........................ 164 Table 85 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Professional Development Programs 165 Table 86 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity........... xv 166 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 87 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Professional Development Pro­ 167 grams Attended By Respondents............ Table 88 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Professional Development Programs Attended By Respondents Ranked By Level Of Intensity............... 168 Table 89 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Participants In Professional Development Programs. (Intensity Is Measured As The Combined Percentages Of The Responses To Con­ siderable And A Great Deal.).............. 169 Table 90 Table 91 Table 92 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Parti­ cipants In Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level of Intensity,... 170 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Development Programs....... 174 -- Consortium III: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The EXtent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity. .......... 175 Table 93 -- The Return Rate For Those Groups That Were Sent A Questionnaire For All Consortia Studied......................... xv i 183 List Of Tables (cont.) Page Table Table 94 -- A Comparison Of The Ages Of Respondents To The Questionnaire By Consortium...... 184 95 -- A Comparison Of Levels Of Education For All Consortia Studied.................... 184 Table 96 -- A Comparison Of Years Of Service In Local Districts For Respondents In All Consortia 185 Table 97 -- A Comparison Of Years Of Service In Education For Those Responding To The Questionnaire In All Consortia........... 185 98 -- A Comparison OfThe Role Of Respondents In Professional Development Programs In All Consortia Studied.................... 186 99 -- Frequency Of Attendance At Types Of Professional Development Programs By Respondents In All Consortia In The Last Two Y ears............................ 187 Table Table Table 100 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs For Professional Development Programs.... 191 Table 101 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Basis For Prioritizing Needs Ranked By Level Of Intensity........................ 193 Table 102 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determina­ tion Of Goals For Professional Develop­ ment Programs............................. 194 Table 103 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Determination Of Goals Ranked By Level Of Intensity.............................. 196 xvii List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 104 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Professional Development Programs...................... 197 Table 105 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel and Administrators On The Extent Identified Processes Are Used For Planning And Evaluation Of Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity..................... 199 Table 106 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent Of Influence Of Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Per­ sonnel For Professional Development Programs , . . 200 Table 107 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Of Influence By Groups On The Selection Of Instructional Personnel For Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level of Intensity............. 202 Table 108 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administra­ tors On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Develop­ ment Programs............................. 206 Table 109 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By INstructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Types Of Personnel Are Used In Professional Development Pro­ grams Ranked By Level Of Intensity...... 208 Table 110 -- A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Funding Sources Are Used To Support Professional Development Programs. 209 xviii List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 111 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Funding Sources Are Used To Support Professional Development Pro­ grams Ranked By Level Of Intensity...... 211 Table 112 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Professional Development Programs...................... 212 Table 113 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By INstructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Specific Formats Are Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Ranked By Level of Intensity........................ 214 Table 114 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Pro­ fessional Development Programs Attended By Respondents............................ 215 Table 115 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent Identified Techniques Were Used In Professional Development Programs Attended By Respondents Ranked By Level Of Intensity.............................. 217 Table 116 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Development Programs................................. Table 117 — All Consortia: A Comparison OF The Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Par­ ticipants In Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity..,. xix 218 220 List of Tables (cont.) Page Table 118 -- Table 119 -- All Consortia: A Comparison Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Factors Motivated Participants In Professional Development Programs... 224 All Consortia: A Comparison Of Intensity Of Responses By Instructional Personnel And Administrators On The Extent To Which Identified Methods Are Used In Evaluating Professional Development Programs Ranked By Level Of Intensity............................ 226 xx LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 - STAFF DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART............................................ 52 2 - CONSORTIUM I: PROFILE.......................... 95 3 - CONSORTIUM II: PROFILE......................... 137 4 - CONSORTIUM III: PROFILE........................ 178 5 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE BASIS FOR PRIORITIZING NEEDS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 6 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE DETERMINATION OF GOALS FOR PRO­ FESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS................. 7 192 195 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED PRO­ CESSES ARE USED FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.............. 198 8 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF GROUPS IN­ FLUENCE ON THE SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS......................................... 201 9 10 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH TYPES OF PERSONNEL ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP­ MENT PROGRAMS.................................... 207 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED FUND­ ING SOURCES ARE USED TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS............................ 210 xxi List of Figures (cont.) Figure Page 11 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT SPECIFIC FORMATS ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 213 12 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IDENTI­ FIED TECHNIQUES WERE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ATTENDED BY RESPONDENTS..... 216 13 14 15 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH FACTORS MOTIVATED PARTICIPANTS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP­ MENT PROGRAMS....................................... 219 - ALL CONSORTIA: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IDENTI­ FIED METHODS ARE USED IN EVALUATING PRO­ FESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS.................... 225 - ALL CONSORTIA: 230 PROFILE............................ CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Nationally, inservice education programs have become an enormous enterprise. Joyce, Howey, and Yarger^ report that over 50 percent of the teachers in the United States hold Masters' degrees with five percent holding doctorates. There are an estimated 70,000 to 80,000 education pro­ fessors, supervisors, and consultants engaged full or parttime in inservice education. There is one instructor for every 25 teachers holding positions. There are another 100,000 principals and nearly 50,000 non-supervisory in­ structional personnel serve as support personnel for teachers. It has been estimated that a quarter million educators are engaged in some form of inservice. 2 There are three factors contributing to the growth of inservice education: the decline of pre-service enroll­ ments in colleges' of education; lack of yearly influx of new personnel in school districts; a rising concern by teachers for their own professional development, and con3 cern by the public manifested through their representatives. These factors have had an impact on colleges' of education, state departments' of education, districts, school the public, and teacher organizations.^ 1 2 Colleges of education are suffering serious declines in pre-service enrollments. At the same time, teachers in the field are seeking continuing education to meet challenges that weren't addressed in their pre-service education. State departments of education are increasingly inter­ ested in inservice education programs as fewer certificates are awarded due to the ageing of teaching staffs. The demand for accountability has influenced state departments to seek more effective models in inservice education. School districts are faced with older staff with problems for which their formal training has been inadequate. New demands for "multicultural" education and mainstreaming of the handicapped are examples of programs that require the retraining of existing staff. The public continues to ask for increased account­ ability. This demand is expressed through their representa­ tives and translated into legislative mandate. Minimum competency testing and periodic assessment of student per­ formance on a national basis reflect the demand for accountability. Teachers' organizations have demanded a stronger voice in the planning, implementation and evaluation of inservice education. contracts. These demands are now part of many NEA^ lobbied strongly for federal funding of teacher centers which was granted in the National Teachers' Centers' Act. (See Appendix A for copy of Act.) Professional Development: in Michigan The major factors influencing the national interest in professional development are also present in Michigan. Brictson^ cites that 75 percent of the approximate 109,000 professional personnel in Michigan in 1979 have completed all necessary requirements beyond the Bachelor's degree for permanent certification. A high percentage are near the top of district salary schedules, Brictson points out that with continued declining enrollments and layoffs according to seniority, professional staff will have more experience at maximum salary with higher levels 0 of university preparation. The Michigan Department of Education has responded to the demand for accountability with the development of minimum performance objectives in reading, mathematics, social studies, science, art, and physical education. Since 19 73, the department has administered a criterion referenced test assessing the progress of fourth and q seventh graders in reading and mathematics. Teacher organizations in Michigan during the late sixties and early seventies consolidated their power. By the early seventies, the MEA and the AFT had organized the majority of teachers in Michigan, over 80,000. With organization, The MEA's membership is teachers demanded a stronger voice in determining their own professional development. A summary of selected contract provisions by the Michigan Education Association in 1978 identified 384 contracts or 74 percent of the 520 examined made reference to inservice.^ The MEA lobbied long and hard for the National Teachers' Centers' Act and the Michigan Entitlement Program for Professional Development. 11 The Michigan Department of Education adopted a state plan for professional development in 1979 after enabling legislation in 1977 and 1979. Section 97 in Appendix B.) (See Public Acts 101 and 94, The Entitlement Program begun in 1978 included initial grants to set up Professional Development Advisory Councils and included $400,000 in grants distributed for Career Education under Public Act 395, Section 3 0 . ^ During 1979-80,'*'^ 3.2 million dollars were granted to eligible districts under the following formula: Funds were allocated at $18.01 per professional in local districts or consortia of districts with less than 750 professionals. Allocations of $27.07 per professional were given to local districts or consortia of districts with more than 750 professionals. Requirements for districts or consortia receiving pro­ fessional development funds included a plan on how they would:^ 1) Assess local needs for inservice 2) Prioritize those needs 3) Develop objectives 4) Identify agencies to assist and carry out the plan 5) Develop an evaluation plan. Districts or consortia receiving funds were required to submit periodic progress reports. A final report on acti­ vities and disbursement of funds was also required. Local governance of the program was accomplished through a policy board which included a majority of teachers, and with local representation from boards of education, administra­ tors, and instructional support staff. Program coordinators were chosen by the fiscal agent (usually a local inter­ mediate school district for consortiums). A maximum of 15 percent of the allocation could be spent for coordinating 15 activities, The Office of Professional Development in the Michigan Department of Education coordinates the state plan. The office also works with other units within the Department, coordinating Professional Development activities, to avoid duplication and more efficiently use existing resources people, money and materials. (For a Summary of Professional Development Dollars for 1979-1981, see Appendix C.) The Department of Education has developed a model for staff development to guide its own administrative units. The model includes: 16 1) making staff aware of a need; 2) readiness and commitment to acquire new skills; 3) specific techniques and skills for classroom management; 4) gain community support for the change; and 5) delivery of the skills the staff needs to help students. 6 Data On Compliance Professional Development Entitlement Funds went to 52 intermediate school districts and 540 local education agencies during 1979-80. The breakdown is as follows: 17 1) Thirty consortia over 750 professional personnel. 2) Twelve consortia under 750 professional personnel. 3) Thirteen single districts over 750 professional personnel. 4) Seventy-three single districts. 5) Eighty-nine applications from intermediate and local districts in which eligibility for career education funds did not correlate with eligibility for professional development funds. Statement o f the Problem The Michigan Department of Education, Office of Pro­ fessional Development, has in place a suggested model for professional development. Through the model and supporting legislation, Public Act 94, Section 97, over five million dollars will be spent by 1982,^® There was, however, a lack of detailed information on the background, setting, and processes for planning, imple­ mentation, and evaluation of professional development programs. The data available on professional development pro­ grams were based on compliance reports and a needs assessment compiled from policy board members attending state-sponsored workshops. A Summary of Progress Reports 19 submitted by funded districts and consortia indicated 554 policy boards met for 209,000 hours. An additional 44,848 hours were spent on needs assessments, planning programs, identifying resources, developing by-laws, and delivering programs. The data available from needs assessments with 232 members of policy boards revealed members needed more informa­ tion about planning needs assessments and evaluating 20 programs. Despite the previously cited compliance data little in-depth information was available on the background, setting, and processes for planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs. Purpose of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to increase information on how consortia operationalize processes for implementing professional development programs. Specifically, this study had three purposes: 1) To identify and describe the background and setting of professional development programs in selected consortia in Michigan. 2) To identify and describe the processes for planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs. 3) To identify and describe similarities and differences in planning, implementation, and evaluation of programs, between consortia. Significance The Michigan Department of Education, through the Office of Professional Development, will have spent over five million dollars by 1982, supporting professional development programs. Yet, beyond general quantitative informations on dollars spent, people involved, and hours spent, little was known. There is a need by practitioners and policy makers to better understand the background,setting, and process for planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs. Limitations 1) This study does not represent the way all local and intermediate school districts deliver pro­ fessional development programs. 2) The population selected for this study does not represent all constituencies involved in pro­ fessional development programs. Assumptions 1) Local conditions, resources and rewards, and pro­ gram characteristics, are major factors affecting professional development programs. 2) It is assumed that those responding to this study have knowledge of professional development pro­ grams in their districts. Definition of Terms Consortium A group of school districts and/or intermediate school districts that have pooled their allocations under the Professional Development Entitle­ ment Program in Michigan, This group cooperates in planning, implementing and evaluation professional develop­ ment programs. Fiscal Agent An agency (school district or inter­ mediate) designated by the State Department of Education as accountable for the proper disbursement of funds granted by the state. Instructional Personnel Teachers, counselors, librarians, and special education teachers that work directly with students. Intermediate School Districts An educational agency established by the state to assist the state in coordinating educational services to local districts. (58 in Michigan) 10 Local Education Agency (LEA's) Local school districts that are con­ trolled by a local school board. There are 534 LEA's in Michigan. Policy Boards A governing body responsible for coordinating professional development allocations awarded to fiscal agent under the Public Act 94 Section 97, 1979. The Board must have a majority of teachers usually 51 percent. Professional Development Programs Planned and organized effort to pro­ vide teachers and other educational workers with knowledge and skills to facilitate improved student learning and performance commensurate with student incentive and potential; meet additional developmental needs of students and meet the specific needs of staff that may or may not be related to cognitive outcomes. 21 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The literature on inservice is extensive with over 1,000 entries in ERIC and another 600 articles in journals between 1957 and 1977. 22 This review of selected litera­ ture will focus on the literature on inservice since 1957. The literature falls into three categories: Inservice, 2) Definitions of Inservice, 1) Types of 3) Search for Effective Inservice. Types of Inservice 23 Berge, Russell and Walden in 195 7 sent questionnaires to a national sample of 314 school districts asking them to report on their inservice programs. Responses from 145 districts identified three categories: 1) Inservice as initiated and conducted by persons in the central office of a school district; 2) the decentralized approach in which inservice is the responsibility of local school staff; 3) local programs coordinated through central office. Berge et al found that 57 percent or 83 programs in districts were centrally coordinated. Techniques for evaluation varied with 38 percent using oral reactions, 20 11 12 percent using questionnaires and 45 percent using a combina­ tion of techniques. The NEA in 1 9 6 6 ^ identified 19 different types of inservice. The list included: classes and courses, institutes, conferences, workshops, staff meetings, committee work, professional reading, individual travel, camping, work experience, teacher exchanges, research, pro­ fessional writing, professional association work, cultural experiences, and community organization work. This list includes just about everything a teacher does inside school and outside. There isn't any attempt to categorize or define each type. Edelfelt 25 ERIC in 1973-74, in reviewing several hundred sources in lists 20 types of inservice. Edelfelt's list is heavily influenced by the latest technological developments and their application to education: centers, mini-courses, microteaching, simulations, role playing, videotape analysis of teacher behavior, television lessons. Bush 26 teacher and This review remains simply a listing. in 1971 identified four forms that inservice education was taking: 1) expository exhortations, 2) demonstration teaching, 4) analysis of performance. 3) supervised trials, and This scheme provides a con­ ceptual framework for sorting methodologies but is too abstract to offer much information about differences. Nicholson et al 27 in 1977 suggested four contexts for inservice as found in the literature: job-embedded, job- 13 related, credential-oriented, professional organizationrelated, and self-directed. For the first time a useful typology had been constructed for inservice-programs. It is worth taking time to look at these categories. Job-embedded inservice is the learning that takes place as one does the usual activities of teaching: committee work, interaction in team teaching, interaction with consultants provided by the district. 28 Job-related inservice are activities that are not part of a teacher's job. Nicholson cites Richey 29 as indicating that the most popular form of job-related inservice, other than college courses, was the workshop. Additional activities include: teachers exchanges, centers, and computer-assisted instruction. teacher 30 Credential-oriented inservice is the teacher-as graduate-student taking courses to fulfill certification or advance degree requirements. 31 Professional organization-related activities includes conventions and workshops offered to deal with problems as defined by teacher organizations or professional organizations formed around curriculum issues. 32 Self-directed inservice identifies the teacher as a self-motivated craftsman or professional in which the motivation and direction for learning come from within the person. Four types of self-directed inservice identi­ fied included: release time, sabbatical leaves, education courses, and professional reading. 33 14 Summary The literature is full of studies identifying types of inservice. Generally these lists have been too general or so comprehensive that they included everything. The one exception to this were the four contexts identified by Nicholson et al in 1977. Definitions of Inservice The major question over how to define inservice educa­ tion continues to be debated. This section will examine how definitions have evolved in the literature. Nicholson et al, in their review of the definitions of inservice, suggest the following formula for forming a q / suitable synonym for inservice. To form a suitable symonym for inservice education--l) choose one word for Column A and/or one word from Column B; and then 2) choose one word from Column C: A "continuing" "continuous” B C "staff" "professional" "teacher" "personnel" "development" "growth" "education" "preparation" "renewal" "improvement" The evolution of a definition for inservice closely parallels the listing of types of inservice. Hass, in the 1957 National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) Yearbook, defines inservice as: 35 Broadly conceived, inservice education includes all activities engaged in by the professional personnel during their 15 service and designed to contribute to improvement on the job. Eighteen years later in NSSE's 1975 Yearbook, inservice is defined by Morris L. Cogan: 36 Inservice education of teachers is commonly understood to include the collegiate and school-based programs of professional study and work in which the teacher is involved after he has been certified and employed. The definition has narrowed since 1957. There has been a retreat from "all activities" to "collegiate and school-based." "Professional personnel" has been narrowed to "teachers." This may reflect the increased power of teachers' organizations. Nicholson points out inservice can be defined broadly, as in this definition by Harris and Bessent. 37 Broadly defined, inservice education must include all activities aimed at the improvement of professional staff members Since this conception is too broad to be useful for the purposes of this book, how­ ever, we are defining inservice education as planned activities for the instructional improvement of professional staff members. Harris and Bessent limit inservice to planned activities for instructional improvement. This rules out Nicholson's self-directed, and possibly some of the pro­ fessional organization-related activities. What we do see is the influence of research on change, which will be discussed later in this review. The systematic design of inservice education is further illustrated in this definition by Orrange and Van Ryn. 16 Inservice education is that portion of professional development that should be publicly supported and includes a program of systematically designed activities planned to increase the competencies-knowledge, skills, and attitudes--needed by school personnel in the performance of their assigned responsibilities. The prescription for a "systematically designed pro­ gram is clear in Orrange and Van Ryn's definition. Com­ petencies are defined and the purpose for inservice is broadened to include "assigned responsibilities." This brief look at the evolution of definitions reflects the influence of research on change in education and the political struggle over inservice for whom, by whom, and for what. Search for Effective Inservice The late sixties and early seventies found the literature on inservice examining inservice in the context of the school setting. At the same time, significant research was being reported on change and the diffusion of innovations in education. The first significant review of research on change and inservice was done by Westby-Gibson of the Far West Laboratory in 1967. 39 The review covers research in terms of the social setting in which the school is placed and the setting the school produces. school are considered. Interactions between teacher and These are related to the processes for change in the school. Implications for inservice are 17 listed after an examination of each setting: 40 Role of the Teacher, Structure of School, Interaction Between the Teacher and School Leadership, and Interaction and the Community. The review suggests implications from research on diffusion of innovations that would be applicable to education. The review by Westby-Gibson represents a major attempt at linking research on change with practical recommendations for effective inservice programs. A s h e r ^ produced a review in 1967 on the psychological perspectives pertinent to inservice. The review covers: 1) The history of inservice education; 2) Ideal goals for inservice; 3) Analysis of inservice programs; 4) Acceptance of innovations; 5) How inservice programs should beevaluated; 6) Future inservice trends; and 7) Recommendations for improving programs. Asher cites some significant studies in the review and their contributions to the field. A summary of contribu­ tions by each author follows. Rogers 42 in 1962 presented a general model for diffusion of innovation based on the concepts of individual differences in accepting change. Rogers also identifies a cognitive process through which an idea must go before adoption: awareness, evaluation and trial. Rogers had identified a process for planned change, one which could be linked to inservice. 18 .43 Guba in 1965 contrasted change in education with changes in agriculture. the change process. kk follows. Guba was identifying variables in The contrast can be illustrated as The Contrasting of Changes in Education and Agriculture Education Agriculture Change initiated by a bureaucratic organization. 1. Change instituted by an individual entre­ preneur . 2. Sources of change not institutionalized. 2. Sources of change institutionalized. 3. Too many variables in the learning process to determine a direct causal relationship. 3. Innovations are thoroughly researched and field-tested and disseminated through institutionalized change agents. 4. Change is affected by forces not present in other fields. Speci­ fically, local autonomy, teaching viewed as an art guided by intuitive terms. B r i c k e l l ^ reporting in 1961 on the organization of New York State for educational change, points out signifi­ cant factors affecting change. After studying 100 public school systems with 1,500 classrooms at all grade levels, and interviewing administrators in 13 colleges and univer­ sities, Brickell made these observations:^ 1) Fundamental change can only be accomplished with consent of administrators. 19 2) Teachers can only make three types of changes without interaction with administrators. a) Practices in their own classrooms, b) Reorganization of content in cooperation with other teachers. c) 3) Introduction of a single special course. Few instructional programs are invented in school districts, most programs are adaptations. 4) Decisions to try new practices are conditioned by: a) Suspicion of outsiders. b) Written reports are not as important as visitations. c) Visitations are successful in promoting change if the situation visited is similar to the visitor's situation. 5) The three critical events In planned change are design, evaluation and dissemination. The conclusions reported by Brickell further delineated the planned change process as it existed in education. The studies cited in Asher's review continue the trend in identifying the change process and its application to inservice practices. Devore 47 and Sobol 48 In separate reviews of research on inservice, attempt to identify variables important in changing inservice procedures. There are some useful suggestions in these reviews, but little hard research. 20 The fault is not with the reviewers as there was little hard scientific research being done. Probably the best review of research was that of Lawrence and others 49 in 1974. Lawrence established a working definition of inservice programs and reviewed only those programs with some sort of evaluation. The con­ clusions drawn can be summarized as follows: 1) School-based inservice complex behaviors tend in accomplishing their college-based programs behaviors. programs concerned with to have greater success objectives than do dealing with complex 2) Teacher attitudes are more likely to be influenced in school-based than college-based inservice programs.^ 3) School-based programs in which teachers partici­ pate as helpers to each other and planners of inservice tend to have greater ‘success in accomplishing their o b j e c t i v e s . 52 4) School-based inservice programs that emphasize self-instruction b^ teachers have a strong record of effectiveness. 5) Inservice education programs that have differen­ tiated training experiences for different teachers are more likely to accomplish their objectives...61 6) Inservice education programs that place the teacher in an active role are more likely to accomplish their objectives.54 7) Inservice education programs that emphasize demostrations, supervised trials and feedback are more likely to accomplish their g o a l s . 55 8) Inservice education programs in which teachers share and provide mutual assistance to each other are more likely to accomplish their obj ectives. 21 9) Teachers are more likely to benefit from inservice education programs that are linked to a general effort of the school.^7 10) Teachers are more likely to benefit from inservice programs in which they can choose goals and activities for themselves are contrasted with programs in which goals are preplanned.58 11) Self-initiated and self-directed training activities are seldom used in inservice programs but this pattern is associated with successful accomplishment of program goals, Edelfelt^® in his review of 256 entries in ERIC notes the lack of an overall policy for inservice programs. Edelfelt cites problems in Rethinking Inservice Education. ^ Inservice education takes place on the teachers own time... It is seldom based on teacher need and is often conducted in a manner that negates the principles of good teaching and learning. 67 Hite and Howey in 1977 synthesised the key elements of the literature, up to this date, in Planning Inservice Teacher Education: Promising Alternatives. Hite incisively summarizes the historical background for inservice, defini­ tion, determiners of inservice programs, and steps in plann­ ing inservice. Hite develops a framework for studying inservice education drawn from the literature. fi Howey ^ explores the potential for inservice through the examination of constraining factors and enabling factors. Howey goes on to suggest future models for in- service built around collaborative efforts between teachers, school districts, and universities. 22 Finally, McLaughlin, Wallin, and M a r s h , ^ in "Staff Development and School Change" printed in 1979, summarize the findings of the Rand Study and its relation to inservice. The Rand study cites three factors influencing teacher commitment to c h a n g e 1) motivation of district managers; 2) projection of planning strategies; 3) the scope of the proposed change agent project. The five key factors related to staff development are: 1) P i Pi Teachers often represent the best clinical exper­ tise available. 2) There is a need to reinvent the wheel to get owner­ ship and adaptation of an innovation to local conditions. 3) Installment of an innovation is a long term, non­ linear process. 4) Staff development should be seen as developmental process carried out at the building level. 5) It is important to see staff development in the context of the school as an organization. The literature in recent years has devoted consider­ able space to collaborative arrangements. The literature here, as elsewhere, reflects a descriptive mode. Nicholson et al arrangements. 67 provides a review of collaborative The review explores the rationale for colla­ boration, entities involved, roles of entities, role limi­ tations of entities, teacher centers, and consortia. 23 CO Nicholson concludes with the caution that: ...changes in governance structure, need not produce innovation. Yarger 69 presents an exploratory model for program development which analyzes the significant variables of intelligent planning for inservice programs. Using three matrices, Yarger constructs a model for program develop­ ment based on "target populations," "goal types" and 11 * issues. II Yarger, categoriezes and defines, organizational and functional types of collaborative arrangements. The model and typology used by Yarger provide parameters for examin­ ing collaborative arrangements. Collaboration for Inservice Education: Case Studies, edited by Lena Pipes for the ERIC Clearninghouse on Teacher Education, provides an overview of collaborative arrange­ ments around the country. teacher centers, university, The collection features two local district collaboration with a and cooperation by several universities. Clientele included teachers, administrators, university professors, and administrators, paraprofessionals, parents-- even custodians and cafeteria workers, Gwen Yarger sums up the worth of collaboration:^ Collaboration, partnership, and consortium are terms that relate to an organizational structure. The individuals who are brought together by nature of a structural arrange­ ment derive benefits which have not yet been precisely defined. Clearly, we must learn to document our assertions that the Teaching 24 Center is involved in effective i ntegration of pre- and inservice education, in creating a communication system between various consti­ tuencies, in generating a renewal process. Teacher Centers are examined extensively in the literature. Starting in the early seventies and peaking during the years preceding the passage of the National Teachers Centers' Act in 1977, the literature is primarily descriptive, including conceptual development and model programs. Joyce and Weil, in 1973, trace the origins, major themes, and styles of operation of teacher centers in an attempt to build a conceptual framework for teacher centers. Joyce et al identifies three major objectives for teacher centers in the early seventies 1) They serve the felt needs of teh teacher, pro­ viding a place where he can improve himself on his own terms; 2) They serve a school improvement thrust, helping teachers acquire the competency needed to implement new curricula or improve existing ones; and 3) They are designed to increase teacher competency along predetermined lines or in response to diagnosis by his peers or supervisors. The Office of Education in 1977, released a 252 page v __ 72 This document identifies the report on teacher centers. origins of teacher centers in British schools and traces 25 its development in the United States. The report is basically a collection of descriptions of existing teacher centers throughout the country. It does provide an extensive bibliography on teacher centers. Summary The literature has reflected a continual struggle to categorize, define, and search for effective models of inservice. The search, however, has been characterized by little hard scientific research. predominated over process. the systems of governance, modes. The study of content has Little has been done in studying substance, delivery systems, and These components have been studied separately, but not as a whole. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Introduction Chapter III covers the purpose of the study, popula­ tion selection, sampling methodology, preparation of instru­ ments, data collection, and methods of analysis. Purpose The purpose of this descriptive study of selected consortia in Michigan was to: 1) Identify and describe the background and setting for professional development programs in selected consortia. 2) Identify and describe the processes for planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs. 3) Identify and describe similarities and differences in planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs between consortia. Population The population for this study is composed of consortia coordinators, central office administrators, and building 26 27 administrators working in selected school districts within three consortia each with over 750 professionals. Consortia are groups of local school districts that have pooled their allocations under the professional development entitlement program. Consortia are usually composed of local districts within an intermediate school district service area. Policy boards, with teacher and administrator representatives from each district, approve the use of funds for professional development programs. The intermedate district serves as the fiscal agent in the distribution of the funds. The population includes teachers and administrators that are members of policy boards in consortia with over 750 professionals participating in the Professional Development Entitlement Program. Consortia were selected for this study because they represent how 354 or 61 percent of LEA's spent 1.6 million or 61 percent of 2.4 million distributed during 1979-80 under the Pro­ fessional Development Entitlement Program. Selection Methodology The following procedures were implemented in select­ ing consortia. 1) The 30 consortia in Michigan with over 750 pro­ fessionals were ranked from highest to lowest based on their dollar allocation. 28 2) The ranked list of consortia by funding level was divided into thirds and the median of each third was determined. 3) The three consortia that were identified as the median in each third of the list were selected as the study sample. (See Table 1) 29 TABLE L RANKING OF CONSORTIA OVER 750 PROFESSIONALS FOR SELECTION 3V DOLLARS ALLOCATED Rank Consortia ID Number Dollars Spent 1 13 179.217.63 2 L7 152,276.77 3 12 133,431.71 4 16 100,853.99 5 28 31,120.42 6 25* 79,739.53 7 30 73,566.14 8 24 72,862.16 9 10 61,760.90 10 2 54,856.46 11 1 47,356,34 12 22 43,484.44 13 9 41,832.79 14 20 40,181.14 15 14 32,599.79 16 11* 32,166.157 17 7 31,110.60 18 15 30,839.84 19 23 29,269.42 20 a 28.673.74 21 18 28,186.37 22 6 27.861.45 23 27 26,832.55 24 19 25,993.19 25 3 24,964.29 26 4* 24.449,84 27 26 24,368.62 28 5 23,204.34 29 29 22,419.13 30 21 20.442.56 ___ Third Quarter of Each List ' Consortia on the median of each third of the list. 30 Table 2 provides an overview of the three consortia. They include a total of 32 districts; 5,052 professionals and a dollar allocation of $136,789.16. TABLE 2 NUMBER OF PROFESSIONALS, DISTRICTS AND 1979-80 DOLLAR ALLOCATION FOR SELECTED CONSORTIUM Consortium Number of Districts Number of Professionals 1979-80 Allocation Dollars I 13 2,945 $79,739.53 II 12 1,204 32,599.79 III 5 903 24,449.84 32 5,052 $136,789.16 Total Sampling Methodology Local Districts To collect representative data on local district par­ ticipation in each consortium, a random sample of 50 per­ cent of the local school districts in each consortium was drawn. 31 Table 3 illustrates the selected sample of local districts in each consortium. TABLE 3 NUMBER OF SELECTED DISTRICTS BY CONSORTIUM Total Number of Districts Districts Selected Percent of Total I 13 7 53.8 II 12 6 50.0 III 5 4 80.0 32 17 53.1 Consortium Total Seventeen districts were identified through the pre­ ceding procedures. Data were gathered from the following groups, utilizing the identified methods. Selected Consortia Groups Method 1) All consortium coordinators Interview 2) All members of Professional Development Policy Boards Questionnaire Selected Local Districts Groups Method 1) Central Office Administrator Interview/ Questionnaire 2) Policy Board Members (at least one) Interview 3) All Building Administrators Questionnaire 32 Preparation of Instruments Interview Guides There were two interview guides developed for this study, one for consortium coordinators and one for indi­ viduals in local districts. The interview guide for consortium coordinators was patterned after a series of interviews done nationally by Joyce, Howey and Yarger in 1976. Additional questions were drawn from Planning Inservice Teacher Education: Promising Alternatives, by Hite and Howey in 1977 and a needs assessment done by the Office of Professional Develop­ ment in the Michigan Department of Education. Conversa­ tions were also held with Michigan Department of Education consultants and a consortium coordinator not involved in the study to determine major topics and questions for the interview guide. A list of questions was developed and divided into the following topics: 1) Background before entitlement program. 2) Roles of participants in the consortium. 3) Responsibility for organizational structure. 4) Planning for professional development. 5) Human and material resources for professional development programs. 6) Incentives for participants in professional development programs. 33 7) Characteristics of professional development programs. 8) Participation and evaluation of professional development programs. 9) Overview of major issues in the consortium. (See Interview Guide in Appendix D) The consortium coordinator interview guide was piloted in a consortium not involved in the study. The consortium coordinator from the pilot consortium was inter­ viewed. Comments from the interview were used in revision of the interview guide. The interviews with consortium coordinators during the study identified areas that needed to be explored during interviews with individuals in selected local districts. The interview guide was shortened and revised accordingly. The major topics for this interview guide were as follows: 1) Background of local districts in professional development programs. 2) Participation by local districts in the consortium. 3) Incentives for local districts to participate in the consortium. 4) Overview of major problems in the consortium. (See Interview Guide in Appendix D) Preparation of Mail Questionnaire Items on the questionnaire were drawn from national studies on inservice and guided by Hite's major factors affecting inservice education. 73 Questions were also drawn from forms and assessments developed by the Office of Professional Development, Michigan Department of Education to meet compliance standards for the professional develop­ ment entitlement program. The questionnaire was divided into four major sections I. Overview of professional development in local districts. This section highlighted general characteristics of professional development with responses recorded on a five point Likert Scale. II. The extent to which certain characteristics existed in planning, implementation and evalua­ tion of professional development programs. Responses were recorded on a five point Likert Scale. III. Demographics Primary Responsibility Age Education Total Years of Service in Education Years of Service in this District Role in Professional Development Programs IV. Experience in Professional Development Programs Nine types of programs were listed: 1. Graduate courses 2. Visitations to model programs 35 3. One-day workshops 4. Conferences 5. Training for adoption of model programs 6. After school workshops 7. Evening workshops 8. Programs during the workday 9. A series of programs on the same topic during the school year. (See Appendix D) The questionnaire was then sent to a panel of four policy board members in a local district not involved in the study for their critique and comments. This pilot was done in a large district in northern lower Michigan with a history of providing professional development programs for its own staff and staff in small surrounding districts. The members of the policy board, on the panel, had extensive experience in assessing the needs of staff through questionnaires. The panel reported the questionnaire took 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Their comments were used in revising the questionnaire before it went to print. A cover letter was attached and signed by Dr. Heilman, Department of Administration and Curriculum, Michigan State University, encouraging respondents to participate in the study. The letter is included in Appendix E. 36 Data Collection Data collection includes the procedures for admin­ istering interviews, mail questionnaires, and preservation of confidentiality for participants. Interviews were done during a six week period. interviews were with: These Three consortium coordinators, one per consortium; 11 central office administrators, four in Consortium I, six in Consortium II, and one in Consortium III; Six building administrators, three in Consortium I, 0 in Consortium II, where the consortium coordinator insisted interviews be done with superintendents, and three in Consortium III. Interviews were conducted with 20 pro­ fessionals in 17 local districts during this six week period. Interviews with consortium coordinators were arranged through a letter and a phone call. The interviews were held at intermediate school districts' offices in each of the consortia. hours. These interviews lasted an average of 1 3/4 During the interview, documents relating to pro­ fessional development were collected. These documents included by-laws, operating procedures, needs assessments, minutes of policy board meetings, and samples of promotional brochures for professional development programs. Permission to do research was obtained during the interview. Names of contact people in selected local dis­ tricts were identified. Two of the three coordinators 37 requested a short waiting period until they notified the identified contacts about the study. Interviews conducted in selected local districts were arranged through a phone call to the contact people identi­ fied by the consortium coordinator. The local district Interviews averaged 45 minutes and were conducted in the central office, high school and/or elementary buildings. Table 4 indicates that three consortium coordinators, 11 central office administrators, and six building administrators were interviewed. TABLE 4 PROFESSIONALS INTERVIEWED BY CONSORTIUM AND POSITION Consortium Consortium Coordinator Central Office Administrators Building Adminis trators Total Consortium I 1 4 3 8 II 1 6 0 7 III 1 1 3 5 3 11 6 20 Total Data collected from interviews were summarized and put in tables by major area and question. arranged by consortium. Results of the interviews are reported in Chapter IV of this, study. views in Appendix F) These tables were (Summary of Inter­ 38 Questionnaires Questionnaires and a cover letter were mailed to 146 participants during the last two weeks in May of 1981. Recipients of the questionnaire included: 38 instructional personnel on professional development policy boards; 45 administrators on policy boards; 70 administrators not on policy boards. Questionnaires were coded with a three digit number to facilitate the sending of follow-up notices. letter requested a return date of one week. The cover Questionnaires were pre-stamped and contained the researcher's return address to assure prompt return. A follow-up postcard was mailed to nonrespondents after a week indicating the importance of their response due to the small sample size. (See Appendix E) The initial mailing produced a return rate of 55 per­ cent. Subsequent follow-up attempts brought the response rate to 85.6 percent. Questionnaires were returned during a four week period by 36 instructional personnel on policy boards or 95 per­ cent of those instructional personnel contacted. Administrators on policy boards returned 34 question­ naires for a 71 percent group return rate. Questionnaires returned by administrators not on policy boards included 55 for a 79 percent group return rate. A total of 125 questionnaires were returned for a 85.6 percent rate of return. See Table 5 for return rates. 39 Upon receipt of the questionnaires, a code book was prepared and data were formated and key punched. TABLE 5 QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RATES BY; INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON POLICY BOARDS AND ADMINISTRATORS NOT ON POLICY BOARDS (N=146) Number Contacted Group Number Responding Group Percent Total Percent Instructional Personnel On Policy Boards 38 36 95 28.8 Adminis trators On Policy Boards 48 34 71 27.2 Adminis trators Not On Policy Board 70 55 79 44.0 Total 146 125 85.6 Procedures to Preserve Confidentiality All participants and responses were kept anonymous and confidential through the following process: 1) Upon selection of the sample from each district participants were given a three digit ID number to preserve confidentiality and insure accurate coding of returns. 2) During data collection, the researcher was the only one with access to the master list of names and ID numbers. 40 3) When the data had been collected, the master list of names and ID numbers were destroyed. 4) When reporting results of the study, subjects will be referred to by their title, i.e. Consortium Coordinator, Central Office Administrator, Build­ ing Principal, Teachers. 5) Consortium and school districts were referred to by numbers and letters; Consortium I, School District A, etc. 6) The location of the consortium and school dis­ tricts will be vague enough so as not to pinpoint its location in the state. Methods of Analysis The analysis of data from interviews and questionnaires was accomplished in the following manner. Interviews Data collected from interviews were organized manually. All interviews were summarized and put in two tables; one for consortium coordinators, and another for personnel interviewed in local districts. (See Appendix F) These tables were used to identify similarities and differences within and across consortia. Ques tionnaires Data from questionnaires were coded and keypunched for analysis through the Statistical Package for the Social 41 Sciences (SPSS). Data were analyzed utilizing SPSS and the CYBER 750 Computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Analysis of data from the questionnaire was processed as follows: Frequencies were run for each question in the question­ naire. The questions were then grouped in the following categories: 1) Demographic information 2) Process for planning professional development programs. 3) Implementation of professional development programs. 4) Evaluation of professional development programs. Crosstabs were then run for each question by primary responsibility. Primary responsibilities were divided into instructional personnel and administrators. Tables were constructed to show the responses for each group. Graphs were then created using the top two responses on the Likert Scale for each question to show intensity of response for the two groups. The presentation of findings in each consortium and across all consortia were presented as follows: Background: A description of the history, funding, and operation of policy board for each consortium. Characteristics of Respondents: A series of tables on the 42 age, years of service, experience in types of programs, and the role of respondents in professional development programs. Characteristics of Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation: A description of the findings from respondents to the questionnaire related to planning, and evaluation. implementation, These findings were presented in tables and figures comparing the responses and intensity of responses for instructional personnel and administrators. Findings from interviews and questionnaires are summarized at the end of each section. A summary of the findings for each consortium was included in a consortium profile at the end of the findings for each consortium. Summary The purpose of this study was to identify and describe local conditions affecting professional development; resources and rewards; and characteristics of professional development programs in selected consortia. The population for the study included consortium coordinators, central office administrators, building admin­ istrators and teachers involved on policy boards. The instruments used to collect data for this study included two structured interview formats, and a written questionnaire developed specifically for this study. Data were collected in a series of 20 interviews with consortium 43 coordinators and local district administrators over six weeks. Questionnaires and a cover letter were sent to 146 professionals in May of 1981. naire included: Recipients of the question­ 38 instructional personnel on policy boards; 48 administrators on policy boards; policy boards. 70 administrators not on The return rate for questionnaire was 125 or 85.6 percent. Analysis of data from interviews with consortium coordinators and professionals in local districts was organized manually. Results from the interviews were summarized in the findings for each consortium. Data from questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS on the CYBER 750 Computer at Michigan State University. quencies and crosstabs were run on data. Fre­ The results were put in tables by instructional personnel and administrators in the following categories: 1) Demographic Information 2) Process for Planning Professional Development Programs. 3) Implementation of Professional Development Programs. 4) Evaluation of Professional Development Programs. Graphs and tables were developed to display intensity of responses to the questions on the questionnaire. 44 The presentation of findings in each consortium and across all consortia were presented in these categories: background, characteristics of respondents, implementation and evaluation. and planning, CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction Chapter IV presents findings with an overview of the setting and characteristics of participants in the study. The findings from the questionnaires and interviews for each consortium and for all consortia includes: 1) Background 2) Characteristics of Respondents 3) Processes for Planning 4) Processes for Implementation 5) Methods for Evaluation of Professional Development Programs. A summary of findings for each consortium and all consortia are included in each of the five sections. Consortium I is located in Eastern Lower Michigan. Consortium II is located in Southeastern Lower Michigan. Consortium III is located in South Central Lower Michigan. Tables 6 and 7 summarize the population, municipali­ ties, per capita income, and the number of local districts, public school enrollment, and a number of professionals in the consortia participating in this study. 45 46 TABLE 6 POPULATION, MUNICIPALITIES AND PER CAPITA INCOME BY CONSORTIA County Population Municipalities Per Capita Income I 228,659 37 8,407 II 89,948 36 7,667 III 88,337 27 7,776 Sources: Bureau of Census Advance Reports, May 1, 198 Michigan Statistical Abstract 1979 TABLE 7 SCHOOL DISTRICTS, PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND PROFESSIONALS BY CONSORTIA School Districts School Enrollment Number of Professionals I 13 51,610 2,945 II 12 20,945 1,204 III 5 18,772 903 Sources: Michigan Statistical Abstract 1979 Michigan Department of Education: Report on Professional Development 1979-80 47 Characteristics of Respondents____ This section will present general demographics for respondents to the questionnaire and interviews. More detailed demographics on individual consortium are presented with the findings in each consortium. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the return rate for questionnaires by group and the groups interviewed by posi­ tion in local districts in each consortium. TABLE 8 RETURN RATE FOR QUESTIONNAIRES BY GROUP IN ALL CONSORTIA Number Contacted Groups Number Returned Group Percent Total Percent Ins truct ional Personnel on Policy Boards 38 36 94.7 28.8 Administrators on Policy Boards 38 34 89.5 27.2 Administrators Not on Policy Boards 70 55 78.6 44.0 Total 146 125 85.6 48 TABLE 9 GROUPS' INTERVIEWED BY POSITION IN EACH CONSORTIA Consor­ tium Districts Consortium Visited Coordinator Groups Interviewed Cent,Office Bldg. Interv Total Adminis trator Adm. I 7 1 4 3 8 II 6 1 6 0 7 III 4 1 1 3 5 17 3 11 6 20 Total Tables 10 and 11 summarize enrollment, and annual budgets for the 17 local districts in which interviews were conducted. TABLE 10 TOTAL ENROLLMENT FOR LOCAL DISTRICTS IN WHICH INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED BY CONSORTIUM Consor­ tium Less than 900 I 1,000 to 2,000 2,100 to 3,000 3,100 to 4,000 4,100 to 5,000 Total 3 2 1 1 7 1 6 II 2 2 1 III 1 1 2 4 49 TABLE XI ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR LOCAL DISTRICTS IN WHICH INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED BY CONSORTIUM Consor­ tium 2 or Less 2.1 to 4 I 1 2 II 3 1 III 1 1 Millions 4.1 6.1 to to 6 8 3 10.1 to 12 1 1 1 8.1 to 10 1 1 50 CONSORTIUM I Background Consortium I, the largest of the three studied, was comprised of 13 local districts and 2,945 professionals. The intermediate school district was the fiscal agent for Professional Development Entitlement Funds totalling $79,739.53 in 1979-80, $49,020.15 in 1980-81 for a total of $128,759.68 for 1979-81. The intermediate school district had a long history of providing professional development programs to con­ stituent districts. Funded as one of the original Professional Development Advisory Council sites in 1977-78, the intermediate provided professional development programs to local districts on a voluntary basis. The intermediate school district absorbed the operating costs of these programs. Participation by local districts was incidental. The Professional Development Entitlement funding in 1979-80 brought about the formation of the consortium with the 13 local districts pooling their resources. The Professional Development Policy Board was organized in 1979 to coordinate professional development programs in the consortium. The Policy Board has a membership of 15 teachers and 14 administrators representing local districts and the intermediate school district. Two intermediate 51 school district staff were representatives on the Policy Board. The consortium coordinator, part of intermediate school district staff, served as an exofficio member. The organizational chart demonstrates the relationship of the intermediate school district to the consortium. (See Figure 1) The Policy Board then distinguished between programs sponsored and administered directly by the Policy Board as center-based programs with these parameters.^ 1) At least 85 percent of the money invested by centerbased professional development services and pro­ grams, involving Section 97 funds, must reflect needs and program priorities determined by the Policy Board. 2) The Staff Development Center Coordinator with the Executive Council of the Policy Board may approve center-based programs involving Section 97 funds that don't exceed $1,200 or 12 hours of program contact time. Programs in excess of this limit must be approved by the Policy Board as a whole. 3) Staff Development center-based programs involving Section 97 monies must be applied for in writing and include all components of the Staff Develop­ ment Center Program Application. 4) Any local district may use its Section 97 "local allocation funds" category for supporting its FIGURE 1 STAFF DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART A. Board o f Education I n te rm ed ia t e School D i s t r i c t Superin ten de nt In te rm ed ia te School D i s t r i c t E x e c u t i v e Council Chair Vice- Ch air Finan. Sec. Record. Sec. Consortium P o l i c y Board 15 Teachers 14 A dm in ist rat ors A s s i s t a n t S u pe rin ten d en t Instructional Services 4 Standing Committees C ons ult an t S t a f f Coordinator Secretaries Secretary F i n a n c e , P r o 9 r a m i P 1 a n n i n 9 : R e s o u r c e I d e n t. 1 1 Constituent D is t r ic t s A. E s t a b l i s h e s F i s c a l and Personnel P o l i c y - Center B. Formulates Program P o l i c y - P o l i c y Board A d m i n is t ra ti o n & Bargaining Units 0 P e r a t i n g P r 0 c e d u r e s 53 personnel to participate in Staff Development center-based programs. 5) The fiscal agent will forward approved Section 97 funds for center operations at a rate equal to the payment schedule of Section 97 funds from the State to the fiscal agent. Programs Initiated Locally Included These Parameters. 1) 75 Local District Initiated Programs must be reported in writing and include all components of the Local District Initiated Program Application. 2) The fiscal agent will forward approved Section 97 funds for local district operations at a rate equal to the payment schedule of Section 97 funds from the State to the fiscal agent. The Policy Board indicated that the purpose of professional development was to: 76 ...make available a range of options from which educators can choose so that (a) self­ directed professional growth is enhanced and (b) the delivery of educational service to students is improved. Assumptions Listed by the Policy Board Included 1) Individual educators have diverse values, and learning styles. interests, Effective inservice includes a variety of topics, approaches and delivery methods to reflect this diversity. 54 2) Learning is a developmental, lifelong process. Effective inservice provides for the different needs of educators at various points in their careers. 3) Educators make wise choices regarding inservice programs that relate to their professional needs and interests. 4) The success of an inservice effort depends on the degree of participant commitment. Commitment is fostered by providing individuals with the oppor­ tunity to (a) choose to participate and/or (b) become actively involved in the planning. 5) An effective process of discerning the professional development interests and needs of educators is ongoing rather than a single, periodic event. 6) Inservice activities that are most worthwhile usually possess the following characteristics: (a) are ongoing programs, participation, (b) provide for active (c) deal with the practical day-to- day problems and interests of educators, (d) provide for interaction and mutual support among participants (e) promote individual self- improvement in the context of one's responsibilities as an educator, and (f) reflect delivery techniques consistent with the basic principles of teaching and learning. 55 7) Program cost-effectiveness, diversity, and topic specificity are enhanced as the number of potential participants increases. Interviews with the consortium coordinator and policy board members indicated that the policy board met monthly the first year. All those interviewed expressed frustra­ tion about the first year. Positioning by administrators and teachers slowed the process for setting policies and delivering programs. During the second year of operation, created four subcommittees; the policy board finance, program planning, resource identification, and operating procedures. The chairpersons of each subcommittee formed an executive council. The policy board met twice a year, fall and spring, to approve reports to the state. The subcommittees meet three to four times a year and the executive council meets as needed to handle policy procedural questions. The first year the intermediate school district, as fiscal agent, held the allocation for professional develop­ ment and reimbursed local districts for expenses incurred in local professional development programs. Due to delays in arrival of state allocations and processing of reimburse­ ment requests the local districts were unhappy with this process. During the second year, districts received 75 percent of their allocation from the state with 25 percent retained 56 by the intermediate school district for administration and county-wide inservice sessions. Representatives from local districts expressed a desire to continue this practice in the future. Interviews conducted in seven local districts indicated that professional development programs before the consor­ tium were the result of contractual language with a frequency of one to four days annually. usually one-day workshops. These programs were Many were at the beginning of the school year and teacher involvement was limited. Since the formation of the consortium, those inter­ viewed in local district indicated greater teacher involve­ ment and a wider range of programs available. The programs remain predominantly "one day." Characteristics of Respondents to the Questionnaire Tables 12 to 18 cover the questionnaire return rate, ages of respondents, level of education, years of service in local districts, and years of service in education, and the role of respondents in professional development experience in attending programs. The highlights for each table are included in a summary at the end of this section. 57 TABLE 12 CONSORTIUM I RESPONSE RATES QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED BY GROUPS SURVEYED Number Contacted Number Returned Group Total Percent Percent Instructional Personnel on Policy Boards 15 15 100 30 Administrators on Policy Boards 14 12 85.7 24 Administrators not on Policy Boards 29 23 79.3 46 Total 58 50 86 58 TABLE 13 AGES OF RESPONDENTS TO QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM I (N=50) 25 & Under Ages 36-45 26-35 46-55 55 & Over F 10 22 14 4 % 20 44 28 8 TABLE 14 LEVEL OF EDUCATION FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM I (N=49) Degrees M.A. B .A. F 3 36 7 6.1 73.5 ft} Ph.D. . Ed.S. 7 3 6.1 14.3 TABLE 15 YEARS OF SERVICE IN LOCAL DISTRICTS FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES IN CONSORTIUM I (N=48) 5 or Less 6-10 Years of Service 11-17 18-24 25 & Over F 4 13 14 13 4 % 8.3 27.1 29.2 27.1 8 .3 59 TABLE 16 YEARS OF SERVICE IN EDUCATION FOR RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM I (N=50) 5 or Less Years of Service in Education 18-24 11-17 6-10 F 7fo 25 6e Over 7 12 22 9 14 24 44 18 TABLE 17 THE ROLE OF RESPONDENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN CONSORTIUM I (N=43) Policy Board Role Local District Committee Building Interested Committee_____ Party F 27 13 1 % 62 30.2 2.3 2 4.7 60 TABLE 18 FREQUENCY OF ATTENDANCE AT TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BY RESPONDENTS IN CONSORTIUM I IN THE LAST TWO YEARS Types of Programs Number of Programs Attended N 0 1-4 5-8 9-10 1 2 Graduate Courses 50 F % 34 68 13 26 2 4 Visitations to Model Programs 50 F % 20 40 26 52 4 8 One-Day Workshops 47 F % 5 10.6 24 51 12 25 Conferences 50 F % 12 24 33 66 3 6 Training for Adoption of Model Programs 50 F % 31 62 15 30 4 8 After School Workshops 49 F % 20 40 19 38 10 20 Evening Workshops 50 F % 25 50 18 36 4 8 Programs During the Workday 49 F % 11 22.4 18 36. 7 A Series of Programs on the Same Topic During the School Year 50 F % 20 40 29 58 15 31 1 2 6 12.8 2 4 3 6 5 10.2 61 Summary A total of 58 questionnaires was sent with 50 usable questionnaires returned for a return rate of 86 percent. Instructional personnel on the policy board had a return rate of 100 percent. Respondents were 36 and older. The education of respondents was characterized by 93.9 percent holding a Masters and beyond. Years of service in local districts was characterized by 91.7 percent with six or more years of service in local districts. Years of service in educa­ tion included 86 percent of respondents with 11 or more years in education. The largest group of respondents, 62 percent, were members of the policy board with 30.2 percent on local district committees. Respondents' experience in attending programs over the last two years was characterized by frequent attendance at programs during the workday, one-day workshops, after school workshops, and conferences. In summary, respondents were in their mid 30's , hold­ ing at least a Masters degree, with more than five years experience. The predominant type of professional development pro­ grams attended were programs during the workday usually one-day workshops. planning, Respondents were involved in the implementation, and evaluation of professional 62 development programs as members of the policy board or local district committees. Planning Introduction Tables 19, 21, 23, 25 in this section are a comparison of responses to the questionnaire by instructional per­ sonnel and administrators in Consortium I. Their responses were to the following planning issues. Table 19 indicates the extent to which the basis for prioritizing needs was teacher opinion, administrator's opinion, community opinion or test data. Table 21 indicates the extent to which a small group of teachers, teachers in general, instructional personnel, administrators, principals, superintendents, central office administrators, local school boards, teacher associations, parents, the professional development policy board, and institutions of higher education influence the determination of goals for professional development programs. Table 23 indicates the extent to which assessment of teacher needs, process for prioritizing needs, development of goals to meet needs, development of objectives for each goal, identification of resources human and material, evaluation of professional development programs, and the evaluation of the performance of participants were used as processes for planning, implementation, and evaluating professional development programs. 63 Table 25 indicates the extent of influence by teachers, administrators, local school boards, professional develop­ ment policy board, universities, intermediate school district personnel, and state department personnel on the selection of instructional personnel for professional development programs. Tables 20, 22, 24, 26 indicates how the categories in each preceding table was ranked from highest to lowest based on the intensity of responses by instructional per­ sonnel and administrators. The intensity was figured by adding the percentages of responses for considerable and a great deal for each category. The findings from the interviews and questionnaire are included in a summary at the end of this section. TABLE 19 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON Of RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE BASIS FOR PRIORITIZING NEEDS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. {IP=INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATORS) -1 -------------------------- - N VARIABLES NONE IP AD 13 36 IP AD A LITTLE IP AD SOME IP AD CONSIDERABLE IP AD 5 33.5 A GREAT DEAL IP AD To what extant was the prioritization of needs based on: Teacher Opinion F ■ar Administrator Opinion F 13 37 13 35 Or Community Opinion F V * Test Data F id 12 36 6 46.1 2 15.4 7 19.4 2 2 15.4 5.5 3 23 3 8.3 1 7.6 5 13.5 10 76.9 5 3S.5 13 37.1 I 8.3 9 25 ia 50 3 23 18 48.6 12 32.4 2 15 15 13 37.1 8 22.8 3 25 13 36 2 5 41.5 7 19.4 13 36.1 2 5 1 3.3 1 8.3 1 3 TABLE CONSORTIUM I 20 A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE BASIS FOR PRIORITIZING NEEDS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Rank instructional Personnel Percent Administrators Percent Rank 1 Teacher Opinion 61.5 1 Teacher Opinion 86.1 2 Test Data 49.9 2 Administrator Opinion 37.4 15 3 Community Opinion 31.1 Test Data 22.4 Administrator Opinion Community Opinion 0 TABLE 21 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE DETERMINATION OF GOALS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATQRS) NONE U VARIABLES IP AD 13 35 13 36 13 36 13 37 13 37 13 36 13 IP AO A LITTLE IP AO SOME IP AD CONSIDERABLE IP AD A GREAT DEAL IP AD To what extent do the following groups influence the determina­ tion of goals for professional development programs: A Small Group of Teachers F 3 23.1 6 17.1 4 30.8 9 25.7 4 30.8 12 34.3 2 15.4 8 22.9 3 23.1 3 83 7 53.8 19 52.8 3 23.1 8 22.2 0 0 5 13.9 0 0 4 11.1 3 23.1 12 33.3 1 7.7 14 38.9 6 46.2 6 16.7 2 15.4 5 13.5 10 76.9 15 40.5 1 7 14 37.8 0 0 3 8.1 0 0 7 53.8 4 10.8 1 8 18 48.6 3 23.1 13 35.1 1 3 2 5.4 3 23.1 5 13.9 6 46.2 4 11.1 2 15.4 17 47.2 1 3 9 25 1 3 1 13 36 8 61.5 4 4.1 5 38.5 20 55.5 0 0 10 27.7 0 0 I 3 0 0 1 3 13 36 1 8 4 U .l 4 30.3 14 38.9 5 38.5 9 25 2 15.4 6 16.7 1 8 3 8.3 13 36 10 76.9 15 41.6 3 23.1 15 41.6 0 0 6 16.7 13 36 1 8 4 11.1 1 B 2 5.6 3 23.1 7 19.4 5 38.5 12 33.3 3 23.1 11 30.6 V Teachers in General F V You F Of 9 Principals F 0 0 1 3 3 23.1 % Superintendents F * 0 Central Office Adminis­ trators Local School Board F a> F V Teacher Association F 4 Parents F Ct o Professional Development Policy Board- F 9 1 3 TABLE 22 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL . AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE DETERMINATION OF GOALS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Administrators instructional Personnel Rank Percent Rank Percent 1 Professional Development Policy Board 61.6 1 Professional Development Policy Board 63.9 2 You 53.9 2 A SMall Group of Teachers 57.2 3 A Small Group of Teachers 46.2 3 You 55.6 4 Superintendents 31.1 4 Principals 45.9 5 Teacher Association 23.4 5 Superintendents 40.5 6 Teachers in General 23.1 6 Teachers in General 36.1 7 Central Office Adminis­ trators 16 7 Central Office Adminis­ trators 28 8 Principals 7.7 8 Teacher Associations 25 9 Local School Boards 0 9 Local School Boards 6 10 Parents 0 10 Institutions of Higher Educ 3 11 Institutions of Higher Educi 0 11 Parents 0 TABLE 23 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS OH THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED PROCESSES ARE USED FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS (IP-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND AD=ADMINISTRATORS) N VARIABLES NONE A LITTLE IP AO IP AO 13 36 13 36 1 7.7 1 2.S 4 30.8 13 36 1 7.7 0 0 IP AD SOME CONSIDERABLE IP AD A GREAT DEAL IP AD IP AD 3 23.1 7 19.4 6 46.2 17 47.2 2 5.6 3 23.1 5 13.9 4 30.8 20 55.6 3 23.1 8 22.2 6 46.2 14 38.9 3 23.1 12 33.3 0 0 2 5.6 To v/hat extent are the following proceases used in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of professional development programs Assessment of Teachers' Needs. F Process for Prioritizing Needs. ft Development of Goals to Meet Needs. V Development of Objectives for Each Goal. ft 13 36 3 23.1 0 0 5 38.5 3 22.2 4 30.8 18 50 1 7.1 9 25 0 0 1 2.8 Identification of Resources Human and Material f t -9 F 13 36 2 15. A 0 0 2 15.4 3 8.3 5 38.5 11 30.6 4 30.8 21 58.3 0 0 1 2.8 Evaluation of Professional Development Programs ft F 13 36 I 7.7 0 0 4 3C.8 8 22.2 4 30.8 12 33.3 4 30.8 12 33.3 0 0 4 11.1 Evaluation of the Perfor­ mance of Participants ft 13 36 2 15.4 1 2.3 4 30.8 8 22.2 4 30.8 14 38.9 3 23.1 12 33.3 0 0 1 2.8 2 15.4 c F * F ■a F a <4 F .4 2 15,4 12 33.3 1 8 7.7 22.2 TABLE 24 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED PROCESSES ARE USED FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Instructional Personnel Rank Adminis trators Percent Percent Rank 1 Assessment of Teacher's Needs 61.6 1 Assessment of Teacher’s Needs 80.5 2 Process for Prioritizing Needs 38.5 2 Process for Prioritizing Needs 77.8 3 Identification of Resources 30.8 Human and Material 3 Identification of Resources Human and Material 61.1 3 Evaluation of Professional Development Program 30.8 4 Evaluation of Professional Development Programs 44.4 4 Development of Goals to Meet Needs 23.1 5 Development of Goals to Meet Needs 38.9 4 Evaluation of the Perfor­ mance of Participants 23.1 6 Evaluation of the Perfor­ mance of Participants 36.1 5 Obj ectives for Each Goal 7.7 7 Objectives for Each Goal 27.8 TABLE 25 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF GROUPS ON THE SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATORS) N VARIABLES IP AD IP NONE AD A LITTLE IP AD 12 36 2 16.7 3 8.3 1 8.3 13 36 1 7.7 3 8.3 12 36 11 91.7 12 35 11 36 SOME CONSIDERABLE AD IP A GREAT DEAL IP AD IP AO 3 8.3 4 33.3 10 27.3 4 33.3 17 47.2 1 8.3 3 8.3 I 7.7 2 5.5 6 46.2 10 27.8 2 15.4 18 50 3 23 3 8.3 17 47.2 1 3.3 11 30.6 0 0 6 16.7 0 0 2 5.5 3 25 2 57.1 1 3.3 4 11.4 0 0 6 17.1 6 50 16 45.7 2 16.7 7 20 5 45.5 12 33.3 4 36.4 11 30.6 1 9.1 10 27.8 1 9.1 2 5.6 0 0 How much influence do these groups have on the selection of instruc­ tional personnel for professional development programs? Teachers F JO Administrators F C' 9 Local School Boards Professional Development Policy Board Universities F if 0 F y .'9 F * t 1 2 . 8 .. Intermediate School District Personnel State Department of Education Personnel F 13 3> F A 12 36 36 4 30.8 5 13.9 1 8.3 6 16.7 5 38.5 14 33.9 2 15.4 7 19.4 7 58.6 14 38.9 4 33.3 13 36.1 1 3.3 8 22.2 0 0 1 2.8 1 7.7 - -| 4 11.1 ! TABLE CONSORTIUM I 26 A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Instructional Personnel Rank Adminis trators Percent Rank Percent 1 Professional Development Policy Boards 66.7 1 Professional Development Policy Boards 65.7 2 Teachers 41,6 2 Administrators 58.3 3 Administrators 38.4 3 Teachers 55.5 4 Intermediate School District Personnel 23.1 4 Intermediate School District Personnel 30.5 5 Universities 5 Universities 8.4 6 Local School Boards 9.1 6 Local School Boards 5.5 0 7 State Department of Education 2.8 7 State Departments of Education 72 Summary - Planning The process for planning professional development included the assessment of teacher needs. A needs assess­ ment conducted in 1979-80 had a 100 percent return rate from buildings in the consortium. An interview with the consortium coordinator indicated that it is used as a guide in planning. Respondents indicated the basis for prioritiz­ ing needs was based on teacher and administrator opinion. There was disagreement on how extensive the use of test data was as a basis for prioritizing. Instructional per­ sonnel saw it used more extensively than administrator opinion, while administrators indicated it was used little as a b a s i s . Interviews conducted with the consortium coordinator and members of the policy board indicated that planning was impeded by a split between teachers and administrators. The result of years of collective bargaining, power struggles, strikes and it caused a polarization of the parties. Administrators saw the 51 percent majority of teachers as trying to control fiscal policy for professional develop­ ment. Teachers viewed any cooperation with administrators with suspicion. Those interviewed agreed that the first year was spent in posturing with the level of trust very low. As the groups met with each other, the level of trust increased, until in the spring of 1981 when this study was done, a group identity had developed with votes on various 73 issues no longer polarized. Although participants in the interviews indicated a sense of frustration at the amount of time spent the first year in planning, that time, it was admitted, was important in developing a level of trust among policy board members. Teacher involvement was identified in the interviews to be considerable and posi­ tive. Several teachers assumed leadership roles on sub­ committees of the policy board. The groups identified by respondents to the question­ naire as having extensive influence on the determination of goals for professional development were the policy board, instructional personnel, a small group of teachers, princi­ pals and superintendents. The least influential were central office administrators, teacher associations, local school boards, parents and institutions of higher education. The results of interviews with the consortium coordina­ tor and local district administrators revealed a general planning process. Members of the policy board :'.n local districts meet with representatives from buildings to discuss needs for the year. Interviews in the seven local districts showed a range of planning processes. One district brings in a third party from the iv.termed?.ate school district to assist in processing and priori­ tizing needs. Teachers first meet without administrator input and determine needs for the year. A second meeting is held in which needs are presented and discussed with 74 administrators. The result of the second meeting usually produces the professional development plan for the district. All the districts visited had a structure set up to provide input to the policy board on an annual basis. This input was usually obtained through meetings at the building level with teachers and administrators. A committee in the local district checks on consortiumsponsored programs for duplication with local needs. Pro­ posals are then forwarded to the policy board for approval. The planning processes identified by respondents to the questionnaire as being used extensively were assess­ ment of teachers needs, process for prioritizing needs, identification of resources human and material, and the development of goals to meet needs. The least used processes were evaluation of the performance of participants and development of objectives for each goal. The influence on the selection of personnel to staff professional development programs rests with the sponsor­ ing agency of the program. Professional development pro­ grams sponsored in local districts choose their presenters. Consortium I has sponsored a large county-wide inservice day annually since 1979. It also has established a for­ malized system for identifying presenters for professional development. In addition, it has a history of providing programs for administrators, Consequently it is looked to as a resource in planning professional development programs. 75 The groups identified by respondents to the question­ naire as having extensive influence on the selection of personnel to staff professional development programs included; the policy board, teachers, administrators and intermediate school district personnel. The least influen­ tial groups were universities, local school boards, and state department personnel. Implemen ta t ion Introduction Tables 27, 29, 31, 33, 35 in this section are a com­ parison of responses to the questionnaire by instructional personnel and administrators in Consortium I. Their responses were to the following implementation issues. Table 27 indicates the extent to which teachers, administrators, university personnel, consultants from the state department, consultants from private corporations, and consultants from intermediate school districts are used to staff professional development programs. Table 29 indicates the extent to which funds from special education, gifted and talented, career education, vocational education, Title One, local district money, and state professional development funds were used to support professional development programs. Table 31 indicates the extent to which professional development programs were delivered in the following formats; visitations to model programs, training for 76 adoption of model programs, conferences, one-day workshops, evening workshops, after school workshops, programs during the work day, and a series of programs on the same topic during the school year. Table 33 indicates the extent to which presentation of theory, information presented by lecture, techniques were demonstrated, supervised trials were conducted, par­ ticipants developed a product they could use, participants received feedback on their performance, and follow-up support for implementation, were experienced during pro­ fessional development programs attended during the last two years. Table 35 indicates the extent to which salary incre­ ments and solving instructional problems were factors motivating participants in attending professional develop­ ment programs. Tables 28, 30, 32, 34 indicates how the categories in each preceding table was ranked highest to lowest based on the intensity of responses by instructional personnel and administrators. The intensity was figured by adding the percentages of responses for considerable and a great deal for each category. The highlights of the findings from the interviews and questionnaire are included in a summary at the end of this section. TABLE 27 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH TYPES OF PERSONNEL ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCTIOKAL PERSONNEL AD=ADMIN1STRATORS) N VARIABLES NONE IP AD 13 36 12 35 13 A LITTLE SOME CONSIDERABLE IP AD AD IP AO IP AD 2 5.6 1 7.7 1 2.3 7 53.8 16 44.4 4 30.8 1 8.3 1 2.9 2 16.7 a 22.9 7 58 15 42.9 35 4 30.8 2 5.7 4 30.8 6 17.1 3 23.1 13 34 6 46.2 2 5.9 2 15.4 13 33.2 13 36 6 46.2 5 14.7 1 7.7 13 36 1 7.7 0 0 0 0 IP A GREAT DEAL IP AD 15 41.7 1 7.7 2 5.6 1 8.3 10 28.6 1 8.3 1 2.9 12 34.3 2 15.4 13 37.1 0 0 2 5.7 3 23.1 14 41.2 2 15.4 5 14.7 8 22.5 7 53.8 12 35.3 1 7.7 19 26.5 3 8.3 6 46.2 3 22.2 2 15.4 20 55.6 4 30.8 5 13.9 To what extent are the following types of personnel used to staff professional development programs? Teachers F 0 Administrators F Of to University Personnel F of £ Consultants from the State Department % F Consultants from the Private Corporations % Consultants from Intermediate School Districts F 3 F TABLE 28 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH TYPES OF PERSONNEL ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY ________________________ Instructional Personnel Rank Percent Groups_______________________________________ Administrators Rank Percent 1 Consultants from Inter­ mediate School Districts 46.2 1 Consultants from Inter­ mediate School Districts 69.5 2 Teachers 38.5 2 Teachers 47.3 3 Adminis trators 16.6 3 University Personnel 42.8 4 University Personnel 15.4 4 Adminis trators 31.5 4 Consultants from the State Department 15.4 5 Consultants from Private Corporations 26.5 5 Consultants from Private Corporations 7.7 6 Consultants from the State Department 14.7 TABLE 29 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES ARE USED TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCT IOHAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATORS) N A LITTLE IP AD IP AD IP AD 12 32 4 33.3 12 36.4 2 16.7 11 34 3 27.2 12 35.3 12 34 3 25 10 33 11 SOME CONSIDERABLE IP AD A GREAT DEAL AD IP IP AD 5 15.2 4 33.3 13 39.4 2 16.7 2 6.1 5 45.5 6 17.6 2 18.2 13 38.2 0 0 3 8.8 1 9.1 0 0 5 14.7 2 16.7 10 29.4 6 50 15 44.1 1 8.4 3 8.8 0 0 1 29.4 5 30 9 27.3 2 20 10 30.3 3 30 13 39.4 0 0 1 30.3 31 4 36.4 9 29 3 27.3 9 29 2 18.2 10 32.3 1 9.1 3 9.7 0 0 1 9.1 11 36 2 IE.2 1 2.8 1 9.1 7 19.4 5 45.5 10 27.8 3 27.3 9 25 0 0 9 25 12 35 0 0 5 14.3 0 0 1 2.9 1 8.3 8 22.9 3 25 9 25.7 8 66.7 12 34.3 1 VARIABLES NONE To what extent have these funding sources bean used to support professional development programs Special Education Gifted and Talented F Zt Career Education Funds F % Vocational Education Funds F u e Title One Funds F 3f Local District Money F * .1 State Professional Development Funds F *3 1 TABLE 30 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT FUNDING SOURCES ARE USED TO SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Instructional Personnel Rank Adminis trators Percent Rank Percent State Professional Development Funds 60.0 2 Local District Money 50.0 18.2 3 Career Education Funds 38.2 16.7 4 Vocational Education Funds 30.3 Gifted and Talented 9.1 5 Gifted and Talented Funds 8.8 6 Career Education Funds 8.4 6 Title One Funds 9.7 7 Vocational Education Funds 0 7 Special Education Funds 6.1 State Professional Development Funds 91.7 2 Local District Money 27.3 3 Title One Funds 4 Special Education Funds 5 TABLE 31 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT SPECIFIC FORMATS ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, {^INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, AD*ADMINISTRATORS) NONE A LITTLE SOME A GREAT DEAL VARIABLES To what extent are professional development programs delivered in the following formats? Visitations to Model Programs 16.7 Training for Adoption of Model Programs 30.8 17.6 33.3 35.3 46.2 17.6 44.1 14.7 20.6 Conferences 13.9 61.5 41.7 15.4 33.3 15. 4 16.2 23.1 16.2 53.8 45.9 16.7 22.2 58.3 36.1 19.4 19.5 69.2 36.1 27.7 23.1 13. 5 38.5 32.4 33.5 28.6 38.5 37.1 One-Day Workshops 2 1 .6 Evening Workshops 22.2 After School Workshops 13.9 Programs During the Work Day A Series of Progarms on the Same Topic During the School Year 15.4 17.1 30.8 37.8 17.1 13.5 TABLE 32 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT SPECIFIC FORMATS ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Administrators Instructional Personnel Percent Rank Rank Percent I One-Day Workshops 53.8 1 One-Day Workshops 61.5 2 Programs During the Work Day 38.5 2 Programs During the Work Day 51.3 3 Conferences 15.4 3 Conferences 41,6 4 After School Workshops 7.7 4 After School Workshops 30.5 4 A Series of Programs on the Same Topic During the School Year 7.7 5 Training for Adoption of Model Programs 20.6 5 Evening Workshop Visita­ tions to Model Programs 6 Evening Workshops 19.4 5 Training for Adoption of Model Programs 7 A Series of Programs on the Same Topic During the School Year 17.1 8 Visitations to Model Programs 2.9 TABLE 33 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS OH THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED TECHNIQUES MERE USED IK PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ATTENDED BY RESPONDENTS. ( ^ I N S T R U C ­ TIONAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRAT0R5) N NONE IP AD A LITTLE AD IP 35 1 8.3 1 2.9 6 50 11 35 0 0 1 2.9 12 35 0 0 12 35 12 Participants Received Feed­ F back On Their Performance trJ. Follow-up Support For Implementation VARIABLES IP AD 12 SOME CONSIDERABLE IP AD IP AD 8 22.9 4 33.3 16 35 1 8.3 10 28.6 1 9.1 3 8.6 3 27.3 12 34.3 7 63,6 17 48.6 2 5.7 2 16.7 5 14.3 7 58.3 14 40 3 25 14 40 9 75 11 31.4 3 25 11 31.4 0 0 8 22.9 0 0 35 3 25 8 22.9 5 41.7 7 20 2 16.7 11 31.4 12 35 6 17.1 9 25.7 5 14.3 6 17.1 1 2.9 12 35 6 50 6 17.1 4 33.3 10 23.6 2 16.7 A GREAT DEAL IP AD To what extent have the following activities occurred during pro­ fessional development programs tnat you have attended during the last two years? Presentation of Theory F -J Information Presented by Lecture F Jt Techniques Mere Demon­ strated F Supervised Trials Mere Conducted F Participants Developed A Product They Could Use i» o F ft* •ft F ■V 0 0 2 5.7 4 11.4 0 0 1 28.6 2 16.7 7 20 0 0 2 5.7 6 17.1 0 0 12 34.3 0 0 2 5.7 10 28.6 0 0 9 25.7 TABLE 34 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED TECHNIOUES WERE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ATTENDED BY RESPONDENTS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Instructional Personnel Rank Administrators Percent Rank Percent 63.6 1 Information Presented by Lecture 54.3 25 2 Supervised Trials Were Conducted 40 16.7 2 Techniques Were Demonstrated 40 Participants Received Feedback on Their Performance 40 1 Information Presented by Lecture 2 Techniques Were Demonstrated 3 Participants Developed A Product They Could Use 4 Presentation of Theory 8.3 5 Supervised Trials Were Conducted 0 Presentation of Theory 28.6 5 Feedback Was Received by Participants by Their Performance 0 Follow-up Support for Implementation 25.7 5 Follow-up Support for Implementation 0 Participants Developed A Product They Could Use 25.7 TABLE 35 CONSORTIUM !: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH FACTORS MOTIVATED PARTICIPANTS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (INTENSITY IS MEASURED AS THE COMBINED PERCENTAGES OF THE RESPONSES TO CONSIDERABLE AND A GREAT DEAL.) N VARIABLES NONE IP AD IP AO F e 13 34 10 76.9 26 76.5 F 13 37 A LITTLE IP AD SOME lONSIDERASLE IP AD A GREAT DEAL IP AD IP AD 2 5.9 1 7.7 3 8.8 2 15.4 1 2.9 2 5.9 3 8.1 3 61.5 14 37.8 2 15.4 14 37.8 5 13.5 To what extend do the following factors describe the motivation of participants in attending professional development programs? Salary Increments Salving Instructional Problems % 1 2.7 1 7.7 TABLE 36 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH FACTORS MOTIVATED PARTICIPANTS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Groups Instructional Personnel Rank Adminis trators Percent Rank Percent 1 Solving Instructional Problems 76.9 Solving Instructional Problems 2 Salary Increments 15.4 Salary Increments 51.3 8.8 87 Summary - Implementation Respondents to the questionnaire indicated the groups used most extensively to staff professional development programs a s ; consultants from intermediate school districts, teachers, administrators and university personnel. The least used were consultants from the state department and private corporations. The most extensively used funding sources indicated by respondents to the questionnaire were state professional development funds and local district money. Instructional personnel disagreed on the extensive use of Title One funds, career education funds, vocational education funds, gifted and talented funds and special education funds. The interview with the consortium coordinator indicated little cooperation between other grants in working with the consortium. In the opinion of the coordinator, there was a sense that credit for the program would not accrue to those managing the grant if it became part of the consortiumsponsored program. At the local district level, four of the seven districts interviewed indicated some support from local funds, although they indicated this was decreasing. Complete reliance on funds from the consortium for pro­ fessional development programs was indicated in three of the seven districts visited. The interview with the consortium coordinator indicated that the frequency of professional development programs 88 was primarily one time prepackaged programs with topics on the latest fad in education. Interviews in local districts confirmed that programs sponsored there were primarily one time. There were no long term development efforts resulting from consortiumsponsored programs identified in the seven districts visited. The most extensively used formats as indicated by respondents were one-day workshops, programs during the work day, and conferences. school workshops, The least used were after training for adoption of model programs, visitations to model programs, evening workshops and a series of programs on the same topic during the school year. Respondents indicated the most extensively used as; information presented by lecture, systems' techniques, demonstration of delivery the development of a product. The least used were supervised trials, presentation of theory, feedback on performance and follow-up support for implementation. Respondents to the questionnaire indicated the most extensive motivating factor for attending professional development programs as solving instructional problems. Evaluation Introduction Table 37 is a comparison of responses by instructional personnel and administrators. They were responding on the 39 extent to which the following methods were used to evaluate professional development programs; academic grades, written comments, self assessment by participants, and reaction to the program recorded on a rating scale. Table 38 indicates how the categories in the preceding table was ranked highest to lowest based on the intensity of responses by instructional personnel and administrators. The intensity was figured by adding the percentages of responses for considerable and a great deal in each category. The highlights of the findings from the interviews and questionnaire are included in a summary at the end of this section. TABLE 37 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IDENTIFIED METHODS ARE USED IN EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATORS) N VARIABLES NONE IP AD 12 35 A LITTLE SOME {IP=INSTRUCTIONAL CONSIDERABLE A GREAT DEAL IP AD IP AD IP AD IP AO IP AD n 22 77.1 1 8.3 5 14.3 0 0 2 5.7 0 0 1 2.9 0 0 9.2 0 0 1 8.3 2 5.6 0 0 0 0 5 41.7 15 41.7 5 41.7 14 38.9 1 3.3 5 13.9 4 33.3 10 29.4 4 33.3 8 23.5 2 16.7 9 26.5 2 16.7 6 17.6 0 0 1 2.9 5 13.9 1 8.3 1 2.8 4 41.7 6 16.7 4 41.7 17 47.2 3 25 7 19.4 To what extent were the following methods used In evaluating pro­ fessional development programs? Academic Grades Were Given F iT •a Written Comments F 12 36 Oi A Self Assessment By Participants Based On Specific Performance Objectives F Reaction to the Program Recorded On A Rating Scale f 12 34 12 36 ’ TABLE 38 CONSORTIUM I: A COMPARISON OF INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IDENTIFIED METHODS ARE USED IN EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY ________________ Instructional Personnel Rank Reaction to the Program Recorded on a Rating Scale Group______________ ____________________________ Administrators Percent Rank Percent Reaction to the Program Recorded on a Rating Scale 66.6 2 Written Comments 50.8 66.7 2 Written Comments 3 Self-Assessment by Parti16.7 cipants Based on Specific Performance Objectives 3 Self-Assessment by Parti­ cipants Based on Specific Performance Objectives Academic Grades Were Given 4 Academic Grades Were Given 50 0 2.9 92 Summary - Evaluation The evaluation methods identified by the consortium coordinator were reactions recorded on a rating scale. Any other evaluation method is the option of the sponsor­ ing agency. Methods of evaluation to date have been the reaction of participants to the program. The use of the evaluation information was primarily a compliance matter. The evaluation was required by the State Department of Education. (See Appendix H for instrument) Summary Interviews with the consortium coordinator and seven policy board members contained sections that required respondents to characterize professional development pro­ grams in the consortium and identify problems and issues. The summary that follows provides an overview of the con­ sortium from the perspective of the consortium coordinator and seven local district representatives on the policy board. Characteristics of Professional Development Programs The consortium coordinator indicated that programs were one-day, prepackaged presentations. The coordinator's suggestions for improvement included; programs located at the building and district level, pro­ grams that deal with specific needs over a year. 93 The major benefit to local districts has been the exposure to a wider array resources. They have n o t , how­ ever, demonstrated a sophisticated use of these resources. Overview of Issues The most important issue for the coordinator was the political struggle between the intermediate school district and the largest local district. The struggle involved the continued progress by the local district toward taking over services formerly provided by the intermediate. the take over included professional development, If other districts would leave the consortium, in the opinion of the consortium coordinator. The major positive characteristic was the equal voice in professional development programming regardless of the size of the district. The major negative characteristic was the continued take over attempt by the large local district. The major problem with the State Model was that too much money was spent on planning. The coordinator felt that too much time and money was spent on policy and pro­ cedures instead of implementing professional development programs. Overview - Representatives From Local Districts Personnel interviewed in local districts saw the pooling of resources, collaboration with other districts, 94 and access to a wider array of resources, as positive characteristics of participation in the consortium. Negative characteristics identified by local district personnel interviewed included; uncoordinated inservice calendar for the county, inadequate communication between the policy board and local districts, polarization of teachers and administrators on the policy board, and dis­ tribution of money the first year. Problems with the State Model included poor timing in distributing funds, lack of common guidelines, 51 per­ cent teachers on the policy board, and inconsistent deadlines. Consortium Profile A profile for Consortium I provides a summary of the major characteristics of the consortium. FIGURE 2 CONSORTIUM I Profile Tocal Allocation 1979-1981 512 8, 7 5 9 . 6 8 Number of Professionals 2.945 Experience Before Consortium Funded as Professional Development Advisory Council Demonstration Site. Policy 3oard (meets bi-annually) Purpose................................... Membership................................ Funding Policy........................... Role of Consortium Coordinator.......... Standing Committees...................... Tc coordinate consortium and locally sponsored professional development programs funded through Section 97 funds. Total 29, 15 teachers, 14 administrators First year mini grant - reimbursement Second year 75 percent locals, 25 percent inter­ mediate school district Serves as assistant to policy board. Finance, program planning, resource identifica­ tion, operating procedures. Planning Heeds Assessment......................... Basis for Prioritization................. Groups Influencing Determination of Goals Processes Identified..................... Groups Influencing Selection of Personnel............................... Written 1979-80. Needs listed asked for prioritization Teacher opinion, test data, administrator opinion. Policy board, instructional personnel, a small group of teachers. Assessment of teacher needs, process for priori­ tizing needs, identification of resources, human and material. Policy board, administrators, teachers Implementation Types of Staff Used in Programs......... Consultants from intermediate school districts, teachers, university personnel. Funding Sources.......................... State professional development funds, local district money, career education funds. One-day workshops, programs during the workday, Program Formats.......................... conferences. Techniques in Programs................... Lecture, supervised trials, demonstration of techniques, solving instructional problems. Incentive for Attendance................. , Solving instructional problems. Evaluation Methods of Evaluation.................... Reaction to program recorded on a rating scale, written comments, self-assessment by partici­ pants based on specific performance objectives. vo Ln 96 CONSORTIUM II Background Consortium II, the second largest of the three studied, included 12 districts with 1,204 professionals in 1979 and 1980, The intermediate school district was the fiscal agent for Professional Development Entitlement funds of $24,449.84 in 1979-80 and $20,600.44 in 1980-81 for a total of $45,050.28 for 1979-81. Professional development programs before formation of the consortium were usually one-shot and tied to contractual inservice days. Professional development programs were con­ ducted during two to two and one-half days annually as indicated by local district superintendents that were inter­ viewed. Professional Development Entitlement funding in 1979 initiated the formation, with 12 local districts, of the consortium with the Intermediate as fiscal agent. The policy board was formed in October of 1979 to coordinate professional development programs in the con­ sortium. The board has a membership of 27, 14 teachers, 11 administrators, one local school board member, and one parent. person, The consortium coordinator, an intermediate staff is an exofficio member. The policy board operates within a set of by-laws. Its major responsibility is for: 78 97 ...Che planning, implementation, and evalua­ tion o f .... professional development programs funded through Section 97, monies and other resources under its jurisdiction. The specific functions of the policy board can be summarized as follows: 1) 79 Identify and analyze professional development needs. 2) Identify and utilize appropriate agencies and organizations. 3) To develop programs throughout local districts. 4) To formulate and adopt a budget. 5) To promote local district involvement. 6) To formulate procedures for approval of funding. 7) To formulate procedures for effective communica­ tion with local districts, 8) to promote videotaping of quality inservice programs. 9) To report to intermediate board on professional development. 10) To cooperate with and make recommendations to the State Department of Education regarding pro­ fessional development. The committee structure of the policy board includes an executive committee, review committee, and planning committee. These committees, working with the consortium coordinator, advise the full board on overall policy, 98 approval of applications for funding, and the county-wide inservice days. (For further details See Appendix G,) The process for planning professional development as formulated by the board supervised by the consortium 80 coordinator is summarized as follows: 1) Complete needs assessment or validate a perceived need by a planning committee at grade, department, building, district or through the policy board. 2) Translate validated need into an objective. 3) Plan program based on objectives. 4) Make application to policy board. 5) Receive approval. 6) Report to policy board on progress and outcomes. Interviews with the consortium coordinator and local district administrators indicated that the first year was characterized by a polarization of teachers and administra­ tors on the policy board. Suspicion by administrators over a 51 percent teacher majority and the background of regional collective bargaining left administrators cautious about cooperating. Teachers operating from similar experiences did not trust administrators. The consortium coordinator indicated that his role in this setting was one of "take charge” to get the policy board operational and deliver a county-wide inservice program. The second year of its existence, the board has begun to work together and the 99 level of trust has increased. The second year of consortium- sponsored programs has been well received. Superintendents interviewed in the local districts indicated increased teacher involvement and satisfaction in professional development programs. Programs in local districts that were spinoffs of con­ sortium-sponsored programs were identified in four of the six districts visited. These programs included the develop­ ment of a testing program, theories of learning seminar, course on mastery learning, kindergarten screening, and a continuous progress learning system. Summary Professional development programs before the formation of Consortium II were usually one-shot and tied to con­ tractual agreements averaging two to two and one-half days in the six local districts visited. Section 97 funds brought the formation of a policy board to coordinate professional development programs in the 12 district consortium. and planning procedures. The board established by-laws The consortium sponsored two county-wide inservice days over the last two years. Against a background of regional collective bargaining, teachers and administrators were highly suspicious of each other. This suspicion slowed the progress of the policy board during the first year. The second year, the level of trust has increased along with cooperation. 100 Characteristics of Respondents Tables ,19 to 45 cover the questionnaire return rate in Consortium II, ages of respondents, level of education, years of service in local districts and in education, and respondents role in professional development experience in types of programs. A summary at the end of this section will contain the highlights of the tables. TABLE 39 RESPONSE RATES FOR QUESTIONNAIRES IN CONSORTIUM II BY GROUPS SURVEYED Number Contacted Number Returned Instructional Personnel on Policy Boards 14 13 92.8 29.5 Administrators on Policy Boards 12 11 91.6 25 Administrators not on Policy Boards 25 20 80 45.5 51 44 Groups Total TABLE Group Percent Total Percent 8 6 .3 40 AGES OF RESPONDENTS IN CONSORTIUM II (N= 43) 23 and under F % 26-35 7 16.3 Ages 36-45 46- 55 55 and over 19 14 3 44.2 32. 6 7 101 TABLE 41 LEVEL OF EDUCATION FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM II (N=41) Degrees B .A. M.A. Ed.S. Ph.D. F 2 25 8 6 % 4.9 61 14.6 19.5 TABLE 42 YEARS OF SERVICE IN LOCAL DISTRICTS FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM II (N=42) 5 or less F 11 % 26. 2 Years of Service 6-10 11-17 18-24 6 14.3 TABLE 17 40.5 25 and over 5 11.9 3 7.1 43 YEARS OF SERVICE IN EDUCATION FOR RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN CONSORTIUM II (N=43) 5 or less Years of Service 6-10 11-17 18-24 F I 4 14 17 7c 2.3 9.3 32.6 39.5 25 and over 7 16.3 102 TABLE 44 ROLE OF RESPONDENTS IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR CONSORTIUM II (N=37) Number Policy Board F 24 % 64.9 Role Local District Committees Building Committee 9 24.3 Interested Parties 1 3 2.7 8.1 TABLE 45 FREQUENCY OF ATTENDANCE AT TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BY RESPONDENTS IN CONSORTIUM II IN THE LAST TWO YEARS Types of Programs Number of Programs Attended N 0 1-4 5-8 9-10 Graduate Courses 44 F 32 % 72. 7 Visitations to Model Programs 44 F % 22 22 22 50 One-Day Workshops 44 F % 2 4.5 31 70.5 11 25 Conferences 44 F 6 % 13.6 32 72. 7 6 13.6 Training for Adoption of Model Programs 44 F 7fo 10 22.7 1 22.7 After School Workshops 44 30 68.2 9 20.5 Evening Workshops 43 31 72.1 2 4.7 Programs During the Work Day 42 26 61.9 5 11.9 A Series of Programs on the Same Topic During the School Year 44 F 3 7o 6.8 F 10 % 23. 3 F 11 % 26.2 F 22 % 50 19 43.2 3 6.8 33 75 10 22.7 2 4.5 2 4.5 103 Summary A total of 51 questionnaires was sent with 44 usable questionnaires returned for a rate of 86.3 percent. Members of the policy board had the highest return rate with 24 or 54.5 percent responding. Respondents ranged in age from 26 to 55 and over. The largest group of respondents ranged in age from 36-55 and over, some 36 or 83.8 percent of those responding. The level of education for respondents in Consortium II included; 25 or 61 percent with Masters degrees. Respondents with Masters degrees and beyond represented 39 or 95.1 percent of thoseof those responding. Respondents had six or more years of service in education. The predominate role for respondents, was 24 or 64.9 percent members of the policy board. The experience of respondents during the last two years was predominately in conferences, evening workshops, one-day workshops, and after school workshops. The least attended types of programs were graduate courses, a series of programs on the same topic during the school year, and visitations to model programs. Planning Introduction Tables 46, 48, 50, 52 in this section show a comparison of responses to the questionnaire by instructional personnel 104 and administrators in Consortium IX. Their responses were to the following planning issues. Table 46 is a comparison of responses by instruc­ tional personnel and administrators on the extent to which the basis for prioritizing needs was teacher opinion, administrator's opinion, community opinion or test data. Table 48 is a comparison of responses by instruc­ tional personnel and administrators on the extent to which a small group of teachers, teachers in a general, instruc­ tional personnel, administrators, principals, superin­ tendents, central office administrators, local school boards, teacher associations, parents, the professional development policy board, and institutions of higher educa­ tion influence the determination of goals for professional development programs. Table 50 is a comparison of responses by instruc­ tional personnel and administrators on the extent to which assessment of teacher needs, process for prioritizing needs, development of goals to meet needs, development of objec­ tives for each goal, identification of resources human and material, evaluation of professional development programs, and the evaluation of the performance of participants were used as processes for planning, implementation, and evaluating professional development programs. Table 52 indicates the extent of influence by teachers, administrators, local school boards, professional TABLE 46 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS OH THE BASIS FOR PRIORITIZING NEEDS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMIN1STRAT0RS) VARTAB1.ES IP N AD NONE IP AD A LITTLE IP AD SOME IP AD CONSIDERABLE AD IP A GREAT DEAL IP AD To wh.it extent was the p H orient inn of needs based on: Teacher Opinion F 7„ 12 32 1 3.3 Administrator Opinion F 12 32 1 8.3 12 31 6 50 12 32 5 41.7 tf Community Opinion F % Test Data F 7. 6 18.8 7 58.3 15 46. B 3 25 4 12.5 3 25 14 43.8 5 41.7 11 34.4 13 40.6 2 16.7 11 34.4 3 25 6 18.8 1 8.3 1 3.1 8 25 3 25 10 31.3 2 16.7 10 31.3 1 8.3 2 6.3 4 33.3 11 34.4 3 9.4 1 8.3 1 3.1 106 development policy board, universities, intermediate school district personnel, and state department personnel on the selection of instructional personnel for professional development programs. Tables 47, 49, 51, 53 indicates how the categories in each preceding table was ranked from highest to lowest based on the intensity of responses by instructional per­ sonnel and administrators. The intensity was figured by adding the percentages of responses for considerable and a great deal in each category. The findings from the interviews and questionnaire are included in a summary at the end of this section. TABLE 47 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE BASIS FOR PRIORITIZING NEEDS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Instructional Personnel Rank Administrator Percent Rank Percent 1 Teacher Opinion 91,6 1 Teacher Opinion 81.2 2 Administrator Opinion 66.7 2 Administrator Opinion 43.8 3 Test Data 16.6 3 Test Data 9.4 4 Community Opinion 8.3 4 Community Opinion 3.1 TABLE 68 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY CROUPS ON THE DETERMINATION OF COALS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL. AD-ADMINISTRATORS) 4 VARIABLES NONE IP AD IP 12 32 1 8.3 12 32 12 30 2 16.7 12 32 3 25 12 31 11 32 12 A LITTLE AD SOME CONSIDE RABLE A GREAT DEAL IP AD IP AD IP AD IP AD 3 25 5 15.6 5 61.7 17 53.1 1 8.3 6 18.8 2 16.7 6 12.5 1 3.1 1 8.3 5 15.6 6 50 8 25 3 25 15 66.9 2 16.7 3 9.6 1 3.3 7 58.3 5 16.7 13 63.3 3 25 10 33.3 I 3.3 2 16.7 6 18.8 6 50 15 66.9 I 8.3 10 33.3 1 3.3 1 3.2 5 61.7 13 61.9 3 25 9 29 3 25 6 19.6 2 18.2 3 9.6 3 27.3 9 28.1 6 36.6 13 60.6 2 18.2 7 21.9 31 5 61.7 11 35.5 6 33.3 10 32.3 3 25 6 19.6 12 32 1 8.3 6 12.5 7 58.3 8 25 2 16.7 11 36.6 12 32 6 50 12 37.5 6 50 13 60.6 7 21.9 2 6.3 To what extent do the follow­ ing groups influence the determination of goalB for professional development programs 7 A Small Croup of Teachers Teachers In General F X F X You F X Principals F X Superintendents F X Central Office Administrators Local School Board F X F X Teacher Association F X Parents F X Professional Development Policy Board F 7 12 32 Institutions of Higher Education F 12 32 X 1 3.1 2 16.7 5 15.6 3 25 13 60.6 5 61.7 1 8.3 2 6.5 2 6.5 2 16.7 9 28.1 3 9.6 3 25 16 50 11 36.6 2 16.7 2 6.3 2 6.5 9 75 10 31.3 1 3.1 TABLE 49 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE DETERMINATION OF GOALS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Instructional Personnel Rank Administrators Percent Rank Percent 1 Professional Development Policy Board 100 1 Professional Development Policy Board 100 2 Principals 58.3 2 Teachers in General 56.3 3 Central Office Admin­ istrator 54.6 3 You 36.6 4 Teachers in General 41.7 4 Principals 34.4 5 Superintendents 33.3 5 Small Groups of Teachers 31.3 6 You 25 6 Teacher Associations 28.1 6 Small Groups of Teachers 25 7 Superintendents 25.9 7 Teacher Associations 16.7 8 Central Office Admin­ istrators 21.5 7 Institution of Higher Education 16.7 9 Local School Boards 13 8 Local School Boards 0 10 Institutions of Higher Education 9.4 8 Parents 0 11 Parents 0 TABLE 50 CUHSORTItlH II: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AN D ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED PKUCESSES ARE USED FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. U P = I N S T R U C T I O N A L PERSONNEL, AND AD=ADMINISTRATORS) N VAR1ABI.ES HONE IP AD 12 32 IP AD A LITTLE IP AD SOME IP AD CONSIDERABLE IP AD A GREAT DEAL AD IP n what exlenL are the follow­ ing processes used in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of pro­ fessional development pro­ grams? Assessment of Teachers' needs ‘L F Process for Prioritl^ing Needs F 7. 12 32 Development of Goals to Meet Needs F I? % Pcve1opment of Ohjecgives For Each Goal F 7,. Identification of Resources Human and Material 2 16.7 6 18.8 1 8.3 7 21.9 5 A1.7 14 A3.8 A 33.3 1 8.3 1 8.3 6 18.8 4 33.3 11 3A.A 3 25 12 37.5 3 25 32 1 8.1 1 8.3 8 25 A 33.3 12 37.5 5 A1.7 8 25 1 8.3 12 32 2 16.7 2 16.7 8 25 A 33.3 10 31.3 A 33.3 8 25 F 7. 12 32 1 8.3 7 21.9 1 8.3 9 28.1 8 66.7 13 AO. 6 2 16.7 Evaluation of Professional Development Programs F 7, 12 32 1 8. 3 8 25 1 8.3 12 37.5 A 33.3 8 25 6 50 A 12.5 Evaluation of the Performance of Parti cipants F 7» 12 32 2 16.7 5 15.6 5 AI. 7 13 AO. 6 3 25 8 25 1 8.3 5 15.6 2 6.3 1 3.1 1 8.3 6 18.8 3 9. A A 12.5 A 12.5 3 9. A TABLE 51 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT IDENTIFIED PROCESSES ARE USED FOR PTANNING AND EVALUATION OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Instructional Personnel Administrators Percent Rank Percent Rank 1 Identification of Resources Human and Material 83.4 1 Assessment of Teacher Needs 62.6 2 Evaluation of Pro­ fessional Development Programs 83.3 2 Identification of Resources Human and Material 50 3 Process for Prioritizing Needs 50 3 Process for Prioritizing Needs 46.9 3 Developing Goals to Meet Needs 50 4 Evaluation of Performance of Participant 40.6 4 Assessment of Teacher Needs 45 5 Evaluation of Pro­ fessional Development Programs 37.5 5 Development of Objec­ tives for Each Goal 33.3 6 Developing Goals to Meet Needs 37.5 5 Evaluation of the Per­ formance of Participants 33.3 6 Development of Objectives for Each Goal 37.5 TABLE 52 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON T HE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF GROUPS ON THE SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. (IP=INSTRUCT10NAL PERSONNEL, AD=ADMINISTRATORS) VARIABLES IP AD IP AD CONSIDERABLE SOME A LITTLE NONE N IP AD IP AD IP AD A GREAT DEAL IP AD How much influence do these groups have on the selec­ tion of instructional per­ sonnel for professional development programs. Teachers F 7. 12 32 1 8.3 4 12.5 7 58.3 11 34.5 4 33.3 15 46.9 2 6.3 Administrators F 7. 12 32 1 8.3 4 15.6 7 58.3 11 62.5 4 33.3 15 18.8 2 3.1 Local School Boards F 7. 12 32 4 33.3 9 28.1 1 8.3 6 18.8 F 12 32 1 3.1 I 3.1 2 16.7 4 12.5 3 25 13 40.6 7 58.3 13 40.6 5 15.6 6 50 12 37.5 3 25 6 18.8 2 16.7 3 9.8 7 58.3 15 46.9 2 6.3 Professional Developmcnt Policy Board °L Intermediate School District Personnel F 7„ 12 32 1 8.3 6 18.8 Universities F 7. 12 32 2 16.7 5 15.6 3 25 4 43.8 4 33.3 12 37.5 3 25 F 12 31 5 41.7 15 48.3 4 33.3 10 32.3 2 16.7 5 16.1 1 8.3 State Department of Education Personnel % 1 3.1 1 3.2 TABLE 53 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF THE INTENSITY OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT OF INFLUENCE BY GROUPS ON THE SELECTION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS RANKED BY LEVEL OF INTENSITY Instructional Personnel Rank Administrators Percent Rank Percent Professional Development Policy Board 83.3 1 Professional Development Policy Board 81.2 2 Intermediate School District Personnel 41.7 2 Teachers 53.2 3 Teachers 33.3 3 Intermediate School District Personnel 28.6 3 Administrators 33.3 4 Adminis trators 21. 9 4 State Department of Education Personnel 8.3 5 State Department of Education Personnel 19.3 5 Local School Boards 0 6 Local School Boards 6.3 113 1 TABLE 54 CONSORTIUM II: A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES BY INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATORS ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH TYPES OF PERSONNEL ARE USED IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. 10.00 p e r professional st=>/f m e m b e r upon com pletion of an application as a p p ro v e d b y die d e p a rtm e n t to b e subm itted b y D e c e m b e r 15, 1975. (2) Applications su b m itte d for re c e ip t of funds u n d e r this section shall include: (a) Identification of the district, in te rm e d ia te district, or consortium needs assessment for staff d e v e lo p m en t by the local policy b o a rd . ( b ) Id e n tific a tio n o f the goals a n d o b je c tiv e s o f a s ta ff d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m b y The local p o licy b o a r d , (c) Identification of the process for p ro g ra m d e v e lo p m en t and identification o f ’potentud resources such as colleges, universities, com m unity colleges, a n d interm ediate districts. (d) Identification o f the process for p ro g ra m evaluation. (e) Designation o f a p ro g ra m coordinator. (f) Designation of a policy b o a rd with a m inim um of 11 m em b e rs. T h e teacher representatives shall b e a p p o in te d by die teachers* collective bargaining agent or elected by all teachers in an area w hore there is not a collective bargaining agent. T h e policy b o a rd shall consist of a m ajority of teachers with the balance o f Oic bcaTd c o m p o s e d of representatives of district or interm ediate district b o a rd s o f education, adm inistrators, a n d o th er s u p p o rt personnel. (g) D e s ig n a tio n o f a legal fiscal a g e n t. (h) P ro v isio n fo r th e in-service o f t e a c h e rs a n d co u n s e lo rs on c a r e e r e d u c a t i o n . .(3) Participation b y professional staff m ay b e voluntary. (•1) A 3-year plan shall b e su b m itte d which prioritizes utilization o f staff d e v e lo p m e n t funds. T his plan m ay include locally identified needs in th e following areas: (a) Equal educational o pportunity, including title IX o f the education a m e n d m en ts o f 1972, Public Law 82-315, 6o btal. 235; title NT of the civil rights act o f 1G&J, Public L aw 83-352, 78 Stat. 241; a n d section 591 o f the rehabilitation act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794. (b) M a n ag e m en t training for adm inistrators. * (c) Utilization o f assessment results fo r district and building level im p ro v e m e n t in the basic skills. bale Area 1 OsecJa Area 'Taw,is Area Ubittemori! Prescott Calhoun 1ST* Albion Adieus battle Creek Bellevue (baton) Harper Creek lliim'T U.Liview TIji l.ee ■ti.iri.hali Olivet (Erton) itPennfield (i.Sprinpf leltl ■*Token nlta ,’hV.luu City ■2 177 MO IK> 1V I 111 15 50 212 06 70 1,750 85 170 5V 602 n ’ 182 72 213 J7 165 60 107 78 16 70 2,026 II Professionals Career FJuratIon Professional Development 83 11 12 177 610 116 M2 Hi N/E 40 M/E 06 N/E 1,452 5 47,356.34 !!5 17n 54 602 72 182 72 218 17 165 69 107 78 .16 79 2,026 54,356.4b AU.UCAT10M Carter education S Total 3,4 54. ill S 55,811.15 11,254.57 66,111.03 Tart I - Consortia Applicatfcns Over 75(1 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent il Professionals Staff Dcvcjopncnt Participating Districts • ■' Felon ISD Flushing Community 1 Eaton ISD 1Ciiar tutte % Eaton Rapids ■ Brand Ledge . Maple Valley Oneida SI - Strange . Pottervllle Koxand f12 - Loucka ! Fenton J'Flushing i5 Undun PMi. Morris I'TUCifJoO'l Heights ALI.0CA lit1:; Career Education Total___ 58 40 3(1 230 110 78 35 42 17 21 1 36 50 fib 922 58 40 3(1 230 119 78 35 42 17 21 136 50 66 922 24,964.29 5,121.77 3r J,086.06 46 201 179 31/ 101 46 201 179 317 101 N/R 57 N/R 9U1 24,449.84 5,005.12 29.454.96 23,204.34 1,510.98 24,715.32 57 1 903 ‘ Profess Lanai Dovel op-rent 180 272 132 173 JOQ 837 S/I) ■272 (Conesee ISD) S/D (Genesee ISD) 272 254 Uelta-ScliDolcraft ISI) ’ Hark Rlver-llarrls ' Hip Bay Ifc Nuc 1 Lscanaba Area "• Gladstone Area fLin 1st ii|nc Area ’ Hit! Peninsula Rapid River Heiiom luce County ISD FCirtiey-RnJe.iu * Menominee Area ClJmcIi Cenlrul !' Stephenson Area T) Ik.‘lLa-Sclinolcraft isn !) Professionals Career FdueatIon Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent C. Genesee ISD Participating Districts Genesee ISD l Atherton J Beecher A Bentley if Clio ■ X Genesee C Montrose / Bundle >• Goodrich 1 Lake Fenton (Grand Blanc) I T Lake view fi Linden (Flushing) ftWestwood Heights (Flushing) S 1 S Professionals 0 Professionals Staff Career Development ' Education 110 ' Grand Blanc 1 Grand Blanc Carraan-Alnsuorth ■J.l.aU 24 4 239 129 1,188 s/u S/I) (Spring T-ake) 244 S/I) S/t) 244 Otsego Public Schools (Allegan) Plalnwcll Comm. Schla (Allegan) 121 139 (Allegan) S/D Barry ISD Dolton Kellogg Schools Hastings Area Schools Branch ISD lironsou Comm. Schools . Cut dueter Comm. Sctiools Quincy Cumm. Schools Kalamazoo Valley ISO Cl tma.i-Scotts Schools Comstock Public Calesburg-Augusta Schools Cull I„ike Comm. Schools Kalamazoo Public Schools Parchment School District Portage Public Schools Schoolcraft Cotisi. Schools •Vicksburg Comm. Sctiools St. Joseph ISI) |bBurr Oak Comm. Schools <■ CenLreville Schools Colon Community Sctiools Constantino Schools • Mcminn Community Schools * HotLaw.i Cimmmnity Scltool . Sturgis Public School•{ Hirer Divers Srhnnls 7 12B 200 131 80 219 69 92 52 172 92 166 996 123 575 52 151 53 26 59 64 94 60 9 162 184 7 123 200 131 80 219 69 92 52 172 92 166 996 123 575 52 151 (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) N/K (St. Joseph) (St. Joseph) 1 1 Professional Development 32,166.57 ALLOCATION Career Education 1,355.44 Total 33,522.01 , Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent Kalamar.oo Valley (continued) White Pigeon Schools Bangor Tuhllc Sell (Van Buren) • r Dloomingdale Sch (Van Buren) ,‘5 Collies Public Sch (Van Buren) ;/ Hartford Sell (Van Buren) ;? Laurence Sch (Van Buren) '(Littnunn Cons (Van buren) /p Paw Pau Sch (Van buren) V i Kent ISD 1 Byron Center j Caledonia *) Cedar Springs '/ Comstock. Park •f East Grand Rapids a Forest Hills ! Grand Rapids '• Crandvllle • Codfrey Lee ‘ Godwin Heights I I Ki.l loggvll le (LKenowa Hills u Kent City ;d Kentwood i1.’Lowell : i Karlhvlew Rockford f*Sparta ! } Tlurnapple Kellogg (Barry) ."f Wyoming Ionia ISD I Holding Ionia I lonla Berlin Twp. 03 J Inula Berlin Twp. 05 ■> Ionia Luston Tup. #6 1 leu la Orleans Tup. 09 j.?Ionia Orleans Twp. 010 ; 69 96 76 59 03 66 no 115 6.928 110 95 115 132 85 166 283 2,660 218 101 169 126 181 79 361 161 186 205 166 108 6S0 25 127 386 2 I I 1 I (St. Joseph) s/n S/D S/D s/n S/I) s/n s/n 3,305 110 95 115 132 85 164 283 2.640 218 101 169 S/D 181 79 361 S/D 186 205 144 S/D 490 s/n 127 134 H/R N/Il N/R H/R N/K Professional Development ALLOCATION' Career Education Total 133,431.71 18,359.50 151,791.21 258 Kent ISD ff Professionals 0 Professionals Staff Career Development 1 Educat ion Participating Districts • Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent 9 Ionia Tup. ffZ ■fIonia Tup. J3 tnl.ake Odessa fl Palo Portland 3iSaranac Kent ISD (cone Limed) - Lenawee ISD # Professionals t t Professionals Staff Career Development 1 Education Participating Districts £ Livingston ISD '' Lenawee ISD ; Addison Community Schools - Adrian Public Schools . DlissfLeld Comm. Schools Brltlon-Kncon Area Schools ..Clinton (’ immunity Schools Deerfield Public Schools 1 Hudson Area Schools d Madison School District tMorenci Area Schools insisted Community S-dioola NSand Creek Community Schools ilTccumseh Public Schools Livingston ISD I llrlgbtun J.Fowlervl lie J , Hart land / / Howell i Pinckney ! Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total 2 1 153 10 117 __61 6,619 N/R n /r N/R N/H N/E S/I) 5,669 179,217.b3 32,691.59 211,709.22 112 83 286 93 36 66 26 79 50 5u 87 5J 177 1,206 112 83 286 93 36 66 28 79 50 58 87 53 177 1,206 32,599.79 6,688.30 39,288.09 83 2116 120 176 313 163 1,139 ■ 83 2B6 120 176 313 S/ll 976 30,839.86 5,621.75 36,261.59 Tl Part I - Consortia Applications Ov't 750 Professional Personnel tl Fiscal Agent l.tvonla f/S Participating Districts * Cherry Hill •2- Carden City* tj Hvonia It Northville 5 Flymouth-Canton > Bedford Union 7Sotitli Kcdford (Wayne) (Uayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) Professionals Staff Development tf Professionals Career education Professional Development ALLOCATION’ Career F.r-icatlon Total 169 All 1.435 352 B25 301 251 M/E 411 1,435 352 825 301 11/E 3,725 3,324 100,858.99 18,465.05 119,324.04 225 82 247 250 307 250 470 228 373 346 293 472 298 66 1(19 283 481 179 283 377 5,624 225 82 247 250 307 250 470 228 373 346 293 472 298 65 109 203 4H1 179 N/F. 377 5,336 352,276.77 29,641.84 181,918.61 *mtnus 19 EMU participants ‘ Micomb ISD Kacoiuh ISO 1 Armada 2 Anchor Bay Center! ine i f Chippewa Volley ./clintondnle t , Last Detroit /Fitzgerald Fraser q I.okeshorc it’Lakevicw tl I ,1Anse Creusc |2Mount Clemens New Haven If R1 clinjnnd jCKnineo £,Rnsev! lie |7Snutiilake /^Van I'ylte ,1Warren Woods j Tart I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel It Fiscal Agent 'i I 'f Participating Districts Marquctte-Alger ISt> Marquette-Alger ISO 1 Au Traln-Onota s ?■ Burt ** Gwtnn ') Islipemlng Marquette City . Marquette Twp. 1 Mathias M Muniding ‘1 Negauniee ( f MICE j( Powc11 i’Rcpubl Ic-Hlclilgomme i.;Hnck Rivcr-Llmestone ,|Wei Is Hid land ISO Honroe ISO Midland ISO f Bui luck Creek Schools 2 Coleman Community Schools />Meridian Public Schools ‘ i Midland Public Schools Honroe TSD 1 Airport 2 Bedford ? Dundee '/Ida ^Jefferson ,, Mason Cons. *Munroe* jtimmerf leld , Ulilteford Agr. School Professionals tf Professionals Staff Career Development ' Education 58 3 11 187 82 298 17 U 75 112 111 7 37 26 6 1,041 , 58 H/R U 187 82 298 Il/R 11 75 112 lit N/K N/E 26 N/lt 971 Ifi 129 74 116 623 960 18 129 74 116 623 y60 58 163 310 97 115 142 96 410 60 53 58 S/D s/n S/D N/E S/D S/D S/D S/It S/I) 17484' 58 Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Ei'-icat ion Total * 28,186.37 5,393.97 33,580.34 . 25,993.19 5,332.87 31,326.06 40.181.14 322.iy 40.503.33 "inliiud 20 EMU participants Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel 3 Fiscal Agent Mnntcjila ISD Participating Districts Montcalm IS!) 1 Carson City r-Ccntral Montcalm ^ Crecnv1lie Lukov icu ' MoutabclLa •.'Tri-County Vcstaburg Professionals Staff Development 41 ‘JO 122 1114 inj 76 88 51 l i b Muskegon Area ISd 5 ' Niles Community £ Klvcrvlew Muskegon Area ISD 1 Duck Creek 2 Holton .*■Mona Shores ttoutjgkie ■ Muskegon ■" Muskegon Heights ;North Muskegon f Oakridge f Orchard View jC Kutfenna 1Niles Community (Berrien) •Benton Harbor (Berrien) ^St, Joseph (Berrien) t Allen Park* iFcurse ■ ’.Flat Kock Ci krai tar ■Crosse H e Huron Lincoln Park ■Me j liul.ile Allen 1Kiver Bunge Miivervievr (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (Wayne) (W.iyivs) Park (Wayne) (Uu^-iie) (h. >:iej ’s.ilnus 20 Hill participants 59 8 50 275 98 528 181 64 106 169 70 1,606 1 1 ; j j 1 327 559 195 l.CSl 153 154 98 211 136 135 359 201 202 173 If Professionals Career Dincat ion 41 90 122 184 103 76 88 51 755 59 8 (Orchard H/E S/D S/D 181 H/li (Orchard (Orchard (Orchard 248 ALLOCATION Career Fd'ieaL inn Total 20,442.56 4,194.08 24,636.64 43,484.44 1.377.66 44,862.10 29,269.42 1,816.51 31,085.93 Vleu) View) View) View) 327 S/D (Berrien) 327 BNA 154 98 211 135 135 359 201 202 173 Professional Development Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel V fiscal Agent Kivervlew (cont inued) '■ Saginaw ISD f Shiawassee ISD 1*Southgate ilUuodhavcn J^Wvandottc (Uaync) (Wayne) (Wayne) Saginaw ISD j Birch Hun ' Bridgeport 5 llitcna VI at a '1 Carrollton /•"d us an log % Frunkenmuth i Freeland J Hemlock 1 l1orrlll / Saginaw City d Saginaw Township l*-St. Cliarlc9 <1Swan Valley St. Clair ISD 1 Algonac Community 2 Capac Ccin'irsunity ^ East China Township H Marysville Public ^Memphis Community ^•Yale Public Shiawassee ISD liyron Area J. Cuntnna Public 2 . Durand Area / Lalngsburg Community •/Horricu Area \ f New l.oUirop Aren ■J Ouosso Public £ Perry Public | ■ j Professionals Staff Development 0 Professionals Career Education Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total 331 240 313 2,631 331 240 313 2 ,55 a 72,862,16 14,209.86 87,072.02 26 131 272 146 127 1H8 SO 94 121 89 1,077 355 103 136 2,945 26 N/E 272 146 127 183 80 M/E H/E 39 1,077 355 103 136 2,599 79,739-53 14,437.62 94,177.15- 82 158 90 263 136 59 112 900 82 15B 90 263 136 59 112 9U0 24,368.62 4,999.56 29,368.18 64 68 146 161 60 46 70 2bK ins Vii 64 68 146 161 60 46 70 263 103 99f 26,832.55 5,505.07 32,337.62 263 St. Clair ISD i Participating Districts Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent ■ Traverse Bay Area in n Participating Districts .. Oiarlevoix-Fjnraet ISD * Beaver Island ’ Boyne City '!Boyne Falls Charlevoix ■Cross Village I Mast Jordon Itarhor Springs " I Littlefield ■r Pel 1ston jDPetoi-koy Lake ISI> 11Baldwin Mason ISD Freesni1 ,- [aldington ,JHason County Central ■■ ’ Mason County Eastern Manistee ISD li Hear Lake 11 Kaleva-Koraan-DIckson Ouukuma Consolidated ! 'Manistee -JHtarion (Osceola) JI Pine Klvor (Osceola) Traverse Bay ISD JT-BuUalro Bens le Buckley ■-Central Luke ■Elk Kan Ids Ellsvortli F.xcols lor Jl , iForest Area V Frankfort «,■ Clen I.-ike V A U liasi.n tf Professionals Staff Development 0 Professionals Career Education 37 (Chari cvo ix-Fjnmet 6 SI) 2D 92 i 70 43 26 41 156 4 66 21 10 1H6 60 35 11 29 42 41 124 48 72 109 34 89 19 35 66 17 2 36 46 47 107 Professional Dcvrlopment ALLOCATION Career Education Total *1 11 It It II M It tl (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Mason) (Masun) (Mason) S/n S/I) w /i: N/E N/E S/D [Charlevnlx-Einiaet) N/F. [Charleva lx-F-T.nct] tl/K S/D N/E N/E (I/E IN) CTl -t=> Part I - Consortia Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent Traverse Bay ISD (continued) Tttscula ISD Wayne-Westland 0 Professionals Staff Development Participating Districts ■Jt Lei and y i Mancu 1ona j ^'.tiortliport j ylButtons Bay 1 f";Traverse Bay tJcxford-Missauk.ee ISD J/fadlllac •')Faliiniiitli ijrLaki’ City {/• Mantou Consolidated (j£McHaIn Uural Ayr. ijjfteslck Consolidated Tuscola ISD 1 Akron Fairgrovc ■L Caro 1 Cass City tj Kingston f , ftayvl lie 4-Millington ■ Unionville-Sebewing •) Vassar ^Buose fCres tuooJ ^Dearborn Heights 1 7 JlnkHLer* 'jNurtli Dearborn Heights v'h'nm lus*'A Van Buren /Wayne-West land*** '•Westwood '< [ : | <1 Professionals Career Education Professional Development AT,LOCATION Career Education Total 25 58 24 41 474 5*. 101 5 58 46 37 3B 2,976 N/E N/E N/E N/E S/D S/l) s/n M/ll s/n s/n S/D __ s/n -b- 81,120.42 92 51 141 103 42 85 133 77 104 828 92 51 141 103' 42 85 133 77 104 65 893 22,419.13 4.960.6B 27,379.81 180 188 278 86 348 371 1,204 188 N/E 183 N/E 86 348 371 1,204 188 27717 2,385 73,566.14 13,248.84 66,814.98 - 0 - 81,120.42 ‘minus 16 EMU participants •*,:nlniis Kill) participants *AArainu:: AO EHO participants i'i i. r.7 m -a V. VI ,495.92/.72 524 3,9 14. 14 •! ,3 TJ,IP,1-8? rami Part II - Single District Applications 750 Professional Personnel 6 Over Fiscal Agent Participating Districts Ann ArKir Ann Arbor* •lejrliorn Dearborn* Detroit Detroit - Farmington fl Professionals Staff Development 1,17b Farailnp.ton II Professionals Career Education Prefers Lcnnl Development (Washtvnau) 5 ALLOCATION 31,300.13 Career Education 5 - 0 ~ Tefal $ 31,300.13 997 997 26,453.49 5,538.40 31,991.89 11,525 11,525 312,063.20 64,022.14 376,085.34 733 783 21,200.70 4,349.62 25,550.32 FI lot Flint 2.1C5 2,105 56,995.49 11, t'J 1.42 68,688.91 Lansing Lansing 1,696 1,696 45,921.JO 9,421.40 55,342,70 Pont iac Pontine* 1,201 1,201 31,977.04 6,6/1.64 38,648.68 Port Huron Port Huron 656 856 23,177.26 4,755.14 27,932.40 SjnlDF tulii Snntbf icld 7/6 776 21,Oil.lb 4,310.73 23,321.89 Taylor Taylor** 975 975 25,018.45 5,416.19 30,434.64. Ittlca Utica 1,410 1,410 38,177.50 7,832.65 46,010.15 1,481 1.481 40,099.91 8,227.06 48,326.97 882 882 23,881.24 4,899.56 28.780.80 25,752 24,687 S 697,276.87 5 137,137.95 $ 834,4 14.82 Warren Consolidate ! Uarron Consolidated Waterford Waterford 13 LEA's *siinus 20 EMU participants **niinus 51 Eli’ d participants SHHTD'AL 35 ISIl's, 370 LEA's 52,293,204.59 $ 381,072.10 n , 674.276.69 Part III - Consortia Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel 11 Fiscal Agent A1 |n'iia-M,intmorencyAlcona ISI) ■/ Lewls-Cass ISD / f Cl Inton ISD DH)[< ISD 23 73 34 3b 1Gb Alponn-Montmorcncy-Alcona ISD Alcona Atlauta 1!111nun l.culs-L’ass ISD Cassopolis Pounginc Cduardsburg Mnrcellus COOK ISD Crnwfovd AuSnhlc Fairvlcw Orriah-IIIgglns liongi.Lon Dio AuSnblu Nest Urnii.’h-Ruse City i ; Professionals Career Education 23 73 34 36 166 Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education S 5 2,991.17 922.14 Total 5 3,913.31 - 0 - 2,910.86 2,910.86 253 59 44 41 18 26 65 22 111 406 4,558.84 2,255.36 6,814.20 40 73 102 43 126 31 206 641 40 A .73 102 43 126 N/E 206 59U 11,550.26 3,277.49 14,827.75 42 UJ 31 78 ‘ J2 42 113 N/l: 78 m /e 43 14 1 423 7,297. 74 2, 149.7‘ J 9,647.53 ■ 59 44 41 18 26 65 • B 26 108 212 116 62 524 Did not apply II II 11 •1 11 II tf <• 11 I* 11 11 Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque Isle Inland Lakes Johannesburg-Lewiston Mackinaw City Po.sen Consolidated Rogers City Wolverine Cheboygan Clinton ISD Hath Conjimnity PoULtt Public KouLer Public Ovld-Elule Area Pfujino-iJcstphalla Community St. Johns Public Professionals Staff Development 465 267 Cheboygan-OtsegoPresque Isle ISD Participating Districts IlM U W « ' ( Part III - Consortia Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel I Fiscal /.gent Participating Districts .. rcjtpcr Country ISD Dickinson-Iron ISD Eastern Upper Peninsula ISD . . Copper Country ISD ' Adams Township Arvon Township Buraga Township Calumet Public ChnssL-11 Township ■Covington Township ■E1:n R !ve r Town ship Cruet Township -Hancock Public Lake Llndan-Ilubbell I.'Aiisu Township Osceola I’ortjp.e Township -Stanton Township DJcklnson-Tron ISD Breitling Forest Park Iron Maintain ■ Notth Dickinson Norway West Iron Eastern Upper Peninsula ISD ' lloIs Blanc Pines , Crlmley ■ DeTour Kn;;adlnc l.es Cheneatix 1 Kurkiunc Island llor.m Township Pickford ‘l.'udyarJ 'St. IgunC'.' Arco I Si. Iu.uace Township * Saul t Si e. n.irie Professionals Staff Development if Professionals Career Education 2G 39 2 44 1U6 1B 5 2 1 65 40 61 26 ‘ 64 6 51)5 3 k 113 49 86 36 51 ID] 470 36 1 31 28 30 27 11 8 24 51 53 7 253 . Professional Development Ahl.OCAT ION Career Education Total 26 39 H/R 44 106 18 N/R N/K N/R 65 40 61 26 64 6 495 9,099.66 2,749.76 11,849.42 34 113 49 N/E S/U S/D S/I) 196 8,468.99 1,088.79 9,557.78 36 N/R 31 28 30 27 H/E N/R 24 H/l53 h /:» n /i; Port III - Consortia Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel if Professionals Staff Development I Fiscal Ap.cnt Castern Upper Peninsula ISD (continued) *1 (kigchic-Ontonugnn ISD Huron ISD Participating Districts (3 Talujuamenon 1(Wliltef ish Gogeblc-Ontonagon ISD 1berg]and Community ,2Bessemer City ^Bessemer Township i:Ewen-Trout Creek Cons. ■lronwood Area t'H.irenlseo .’Oiitoii.ignn Area U'iibefIt-Id Township ''U.ilcrsmeel Townsiiip White Tine Huron ISD ’ Had Axe . Bloomfield Twp. 16 .’Bloomfield Tup. i 7 Caseville Ctlurch '.-Colfax (1 .Elkton-Plgeon-Bay Port 'rilarber Beach ■•tlortli Huron 'Ouumlulc ''Port Hope i’Hed (.Sheridan i5 P.'Slpe! Twp. S I Sip.el Twp, S 4 SI gel Tup. i b , Cl.ly •‘Verona fll > | 7 Professionals Career Education 80 HI 650 80 10 319 27 18 35 J6 42 102 13 66 62 18 30 609 27 IB 35 16 62 102 13 66 62 IB 30 609 25 83 1 1 22 2 1 81 63 56 30 16 I I L I 2 62 I 660 25 83 H/R N/K 22 H/R . \ H/R ■' • ft! 63 56 30 16 N/K N/R N/K H/R N/R 62 H/H 636 Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total 1,772.07 13,484.50 7,369.82 2,272.02 9,b41.84 8,072.57 2.622.01 10,494.58 11,712.43 - Part III - Consortia Applications Under 750 Profosslon.il Personnel 3 Fiscal Agent Newaygo ISD Newaygo ISD 1 M y Jackson Cra nt " llesphcrla ‘tNewaygo ■■Pinovicw ■White Cloud Oceana ISD ‘/Ferry Community v.ll.jrt '*PeiiLvutor Shulhy >•Uulkorvi lie Wolverine Community Scliools Vanderbilt Area Scliools 12 ISD*s, 98 LEA’s ! Professionals Staff Development 58 3 88 60 59 A 66 12 9 96 21 77 27 580 22 25 47 il Professionals Career Education N/E N/H N/E N/E N/E N/R H/E S/D N/E N/E (Pentuater) (Pentuater) N/E -()22 N/E 22 Professional Dcveloiirent ALLOCATION Career Education 10.A5l.09 - 0 - Total 10,A51.09 . 270 ^ Wolverine Community Schools 1 Participating Districts 8A6.90 122.21 969.11 S 82 ,A 19 .A 7 $22,1A2.50 ?10A,561.97 Part XV - Single District Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel it Fiscal Agent Participating Districts . A Ali.suiiC Community Sell 65 Almont Community Schools Alpena <5- Alpena Professionals Staff Development $ Professionals Career Education (Lapeer ISD) Professional Covelopnent 5 1,171.24 ALLOCATION Career Education > - o - 358 358 6,450.85 1,988.71 3,369.58 1,038.80 Total S 1,171.24 8,439.56 3 Avondale Avondale 187 187 y Bundle Ccndlc 107 (Ccnesee ISD) 1,928.05 ^■"Berkley City Berkley City* 330 330 5,585.93 Big Rapids Public 111 N/E 2,000.12 Birmingham City 711 711 12,811.60 3,949.65 16,7bl.25 Rlnoiuf leld Mills 513 513 9,241.81 2,MAO.75 12,093.36 Brandon Brandon DMA 157 - 0 - 872. 15 872.15 Brandywine Public Brandywine Public 131 131 2,360.50 727.71 3,088.21 y Rig Rapids Public 7 RirmIngham City £ tO Rluomf leld U 11 Is / 3 64 64 1,153.22 355.52 1,508.74 Cnrsonvllle-Part Sanilac 45 810.86 249.98 1,060.84 Chohuygan Cheboygan 131 (C.O.P. ISC) 2,360.50 - 0 - 2,360.50 - 0 - 2,865.04 - 0 - 2,378.52 ' d i ' Chelsea 1|i[ii‘wa Mills Cliippewii Hills Clarerceville /y Clurkston Clarkston Cll y of Clawson Community Covert J^Crosu.-l 1-Loxlngton i 159 (Washtenaw) 2,865.04 | 132 N/E 2,378.52 Clare-Cladwln ISD /7 Claronceville 3 - { 7,419.10 2,000.L2 45 Clure-Claduln ISD P * f - 0 - Carsunvllle-Port Sanilac ^ Ch e l s e a f S 1,833.1 7 4,408.38 1,928.05 Broun City // liruwn City / 3 - 11 - ; Cliy of Clawson Colom.1 Community Covert Crusuoll-Lex illgton j 35 35 630.67 194.43 825.10 154 154 2,774.94 855.48 3,630.42 357 357 6,4 32 .83 1,983.1b 6,415.99 166 163 3,027.21 933.25 3,960.46 1E0 150 3,243.44 999.91 4,243.35 55 (Van Burcn) 132 132 2,378.52 73J.27 3,111.79 5,081.39 1,566.53 6,64 7.92 *L3Cuvlsuii Cciimmnl ty Ilav !son Cummin 1ty 262 282 A y c . m i i i K i i t fty llryden rommunil y DMA CLap-er JSC) 991.05 - (1 - - 0 - - 0 - 991.05 - 0 - PO Part IV - Single District Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel Fiscal Agent j ff Professionals Staff Devolupncnt Participating Districts Professional Development ALLOCATIOH Career Education S 5 Total Cast Lansing City 292 292 City of Furiutalc City of Ferndale 350 350 6,306.69 1,944.27 8,250.96 Fremont Fremont 139 N/K 2,504.66 - 0 - 2,504.66 Fruitport Community Frultport Conmunity 183 183 3,297.50 Gaylord Gaylord 126 M/E 2,270.41 - 0 - Cuodrlch Goodrich 86 1,549.64 - 0 - Hamilton Community Hamilton Community 94 94 1,693.80 Harrison Harrison 105 H/E 1,892.01 llul land ilol Iand 308 308 5,549.89 1,710.96 7,260.85 Molly Holly 206 M/E 3,711.94 - 0 - 3.711.94 llu|i!;Ins Hopkins 1,117.19 - 0 - 1,117.19 East 1.arising City Huron Valley Sell 'Koarsley Conenunlty Kingsley Area 62 522.18 - 0 - 4,314.08 2,270.41 1,549.64 2,215.98 1,892.01 539 9,712.31 2.994.18 12,706.49 231 231 4,162.42 1,283.22 5,445.64 41 H/E 738.78 333 333 6,000.37 Kingsley Area 'Lnkcvl ] lc Lakeville j Lapeer Community Lapeer Community laiwton Community Lawton Community 159 417 2,792.96 78 ],405.49 106 106 1,910.03 K/F. 1,081.15 - 0 - 1,081,15 (Washtenaw) 2,648.81 - 0 - 2,648.81 M/E 1.26L.34 - 0 - 1,261.34 60 147 Milan Horleu-Stanuooii \ ■ 9,830.43 202 202 Herosta-Oscoola ISO 2,d45.0i (Washtenaw) Lincoln Consolidated* llurlettc Community - 0 2,316.46 2,486.64 Madison Tublic**** Marietta Community 2,865.04 7,513.97 55 Lincoln Cons. llanclicster . 417 738.78 7,850.21 (Washtenaw) Hull son Public Manchester (Genesee ISD) - f) 1,849.84 55 158 iloi ley-Stjuvnod 1,016.58 5 6,883.66 539 ' ■ Mllau (Allegan) 1,622.(18 Huron Valley Schools 1-aku Orton Community tJecustn-Oscenla tSD (Genesee ISD) 5.261.58 Kearsley Community ■l.ake (Irion Community ' Professionals Career Education 70 991.05 305.53 - 0 1,122.12 - 0 568.84 1,29b.58 2,486.64 3,915.08 1,405.49 2,498.87 Part IV - Single District Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel Q Fiscal Agent Participating Districts Professionals Staff Development It Professionals Career Education Ktivl Communlry Novi Community 173 173 5"! Oak Park Scliool Oak Park Sclionl** 1(13 303 $ 2 ^ li.il-1.uni ISD Oakland ISD US 95 Oxford DMA 175 -0- Peek DIJA 37 _£3 Oxfnrd g l f V c u k 65 Reese J&Kceths-Puf fer S 7 Koclivster tiocliester (Tuscola) 3 3,117.31 Total 961.03 S 4,078.34 5,0(19.32 1,683.19 6,692.51 1,711.82 527.73 2,239.55 972.14 972. J4 205.54 205.54 - 0 S - 1,171.24 - U - 1,171.24 227 4,090.34 1,261,00 5,351.34 509 5«9 9,171.73 2,827.53 11,999.26 .196 (Uaslitcnau) 3,135.33 - 0 - 3,135.33 227 R«etlts-Puffer ALLOCATION Career Education Professional Development 5$ Sal inc Saline* ^^Saniiusky Community Sandusky Community 79 79 1,423.51 ^ 0 Sanilac ISD Sanilac TSD 49 49 882.94 ^ | o .IM g .ltlL C k Sangatuck 43 £,lSjiit1i Haven RuuLli Haven 163 163 2,937.12 905.43 3,842.60 (•SSuutli l.yon Sour li l.yon 225 225 4,054.30 1,249.89 5,304,19 Spring Lake Allendale !Iud::oil’.'ilie Suugatuck 115 115 51 120 43 329 2,072.20 1,827.62 3,899.82 ^Spring Like t^Troy United Lake i7Wnslit.en.iw ISD j (Spring Lake) 774.82 438.B5 1,862.36 272.20 1,155.14 - 0 - 774.82 Troy 635 635 11,442.14 3,527.47 14,969.61 Walled Lake 615 615 11,081.76 3,416.37 14,498.13 61 61 1,176 159 114 15rt 78 147 Waslitennu ISD Ann Arbor Cbetsea Dexter I.tneoln Consolidated Mam lieuter Hi tan i ro Co Parc IV - Single District Applications Under 750 Professional Personnel fiscal Agent Participating Districts ... 11 Professionals Staff Development Washtenaw Saline Uhltnore Lake llllluw Kim Yps1lantI Washtenaw ISD (continued) Way land ff Professionals Career Education 194 64 227 435 2,813 (Allegan) Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total > 5 1,099.17 2,360.50 $ 15,626.41 i 16,725.58 - 0 - 2.360.50 - 0 - 2,540.70 Way land 131 •West Branch-Rose CItv West Brunch-Rose City 141 J Whitehall Whitehall 116 116 64 (Washtenaw) 702.75 - 0 - 702.75 227 (Washtenaw) 3,729.96 - O - 3.729.90 435 (Washtenaw) 7,117.55 - 0 - 7,117.55 ’ Uhltnorc Lake Willow Hun ’ lYpsllautL Whitmore Lake** Willow Run* , Ypsl land*** 5 isd's, e a lea's SUBTOTAL 17 ISD's, 166 LEA's *m1nus 20 EMU participants **nilnus 25 EMU participants : ***mlnus AO EMU participants ****mlnus 47 EMU participants ; 13,402 .{C.O.O.R. ISD) 13,457 2,540.70 2,090.22 . 644.39 2,734,bl S 73,842.43 $242,404.41 $316,246.84 $156,261.90 $264,546.91 342(1,006.81 Part V - Districts Fur Wlion Career Education Eligibility Did Not Correlate With Professional Development Eligibility Suction A - Consortia ' fiscal Agent Allegan ISD Berrien ISD Cliarlevolx-Eraoet Hillsdale ISD Lapeer ISD " T ~ ' Participating Districts Allegan ISD Fennvillc Hopklr.s Otsego Way lar.d Martin Berrien ISD Lake SI.ore St. Joseph Charlevolx-Eramet ISD Beaver Island Boyne City Boyne Palls Charlevoix Cross Village East Jordan Harbor Springs Littlefield Pollston Petoskey \ Central Lake (Traverse Bay ISD) Ellsworth (Traverse Bay ISD)' Hillsdale ISD Camden Frontier Litchfield Connunlty Lapeer ISD Almotit Community Dryden Community 9 Professionals Staff Development DNA DNA DNA (Ntlcs) (Traverse Bay) M i 11 11 t« It tt • It It II It It (Jackson ISD) (Jackson ISD) (Jackson ISD) DNA SlD DNA 3 Professionals Career Education 37 104 62 121 131 52 512 Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Totnl 11 5 - 0 - S 2,844.19 ? 2,844.19 100 210 195 505 - 0 - 2,805.31 2,805.31 37 6 BO 20 92 1 70 AS 26 41 156 35 17 629 - 0 - 3,494.14 3.494.14 44 43 43 130 - 0 - 722.16 722.16 103 65 30 198 - 0 - 1,099.90 1,099.90 Part V - Dialrlets For Whom Career Education Eligibility Did Hot Correlate With Professional Development Eligibility Section A - Consortia Fiscal Agent Mason ISP Orchard View Peutwnter St. Joseph ISI) Participating Districts l.ake ISD Baldwin Mason ISD Freesoil laid Ington Mason County Central Mason County Eastern Manistee ISD Bear Take Kileva-Hurman-Dlckson Onckainn Consolidated Manistee Mol ton flaltrldge Orchard View Lavcnna Pcntwuter Shelby St. Joseph ISD Curr Oak Community Schools Centrcvllle Colon Community Schools Constantine Scliools Hendon Community Schools Nottawu Community School Sturgis Public Schnuls Three Elvers Schools White Pigeon Schrnls 0 Professionals Staff Development if Professionals Career Education (Traverse Bay) II (Traverse Dny) 1* 11 II 1* (Traverse Bay) 1* 1* ■1 >1 (Muskegon Area ip «■ (Newaygo ISD) (Newaygo ISD) DNA D) Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total 4 66 21 10 186 60 31 11 29 42 41 124 G29 - 0 - 3,494.14 3,494.14 50 106 169 70 395 - 0 - 2,194.25 2,194.25 21 77 98 - 0 - 544.40 544.40 53 26 59 64 64 50 N/R 162 1H4 69 771 - o - 4,262.96 4,262.96 i i • ■ Part V - Districts For iniOTi Career Education Eligibility Did Not Correlate With Professional Development Eligibility Section A - Consortia If Fiscal Agent /(i Van Duron ISD Participating Districts Van Bnrcn ISD Covert Professionals Staff Development DMA 9 Professionals Career Educatien Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total 104 55 15‘) -,Q $ - o yin.26 Ub3.26 S 22,364.71 S 22,364.71 277 Part V - Districts For Ifl'om Career EJuc.itinn Eligibility Did Not Correlnte HIth Professional Development Eligibility Section U - Single Districts Fiscal Agent t Airport Airport fl Professionals Staff Development C Professionals Career Education (Monroe ISD) 163 Professional Development s - 0 - ALLOCATION Career Education S 905.48 Total > 905.48 ‘ Alma Public Scliools Alma Public Schools (Gratiot—Isabel la 17B - 0 - ■ As[iley Coimntmlty Ashley Community Schools (Crotint-T sabel la 35 - ft - 194.43 194.43 96 - 0 - 533.29 533.29 36 - 0 - {Kalamazoo) 938.80 988.80 Bangor Public Schools Heal City Public Deal City Public Srbools 199.93 199.98 Bedford Bedford (Monroe ISD) 310 - 0 - 1,722.07 1,722,07 Beecher Beecher (Ccnesce ISD) 268 - 0 - 1,599.86 1,599.86 Benton Harbor Benton Harbor (Niles Comm.) 559 - 0 - 3,105.28 3,105.28 Berrien Springs Berrien Springs DNA 138 - 0 - 766.60 766,60 Bloumlngdale Sell Ulonrclngdalc Schools (Kalamazoo) 76 - 0 - 422.19 422.19 lirectenridgc Comm Urcckcnrldge Comm. Schools 78 - 0 - 433.30 4 33.30 122 - 0 - 6?7.72 677.72 (Cratlot-Isabel la (Crat iot-isabella 1 J Ihiehannn Buchanan DNA 'llitekley Buckley (Traverse Bay ISI ) 19 - 0 - 105.55 105.55 Cadillac (Traverse Bay IS! ) 133 - 0 - 1,01b.58 1,016.58 390 - 0 - 2,166.43 2,166.48 94 1,693.30 522.18 2,215.98 Carman-Ainsworth Ca rman-AInoworth Clare Clare Cl io Clio (Genesee ISD) Canjiersvillc Coupcrsville (Jenison) beckcrvllle Deckervllle Dexter Dexter Dundee Dundee Cau Claire Ewart (Grand Blanc) 94 DNA 1 114 ;■ . 260 - 0 - 1,444.32 1,444.32 135 - 0 - 749.93 749.93 58 (Uashtenaw) - 0 2,054.13 322.19 - 0 - 322.19 2,054.18 97 - 0 - 538.84 538.84 Euu Claire DNA 52 - 0 - 288.86 289.86 Ewart DNA 63 - 0 - 349.97 349.97 82 - 0 - 455.52 455.52 (Monroe ISO) Parwel1 Parwel1 DNA FeiinvIUe Feiuivil Je 109 (Allegan) 1,964.03 - 0 - 1,964.08 278 Bangor Public Sell Cadillac ' Participating Districts Port V - Districts Tor Whom Career Education Eligibility Did Not Correlate With Professional Development Eligibility Section B - Single Districts Fiscal Agent H Professionals Staff Development Participating Districts Fenton ?. Fenton i (Flushing) Professionals Career Education ICO Professional Development 5 - 0 - ALLOCATION Career Education S 9'J4.ui Total 5 99y.9t Forest Area Forest Area (Traverse Bay ISP 36 Fulton Scbuols Fultun Schools (Grot lot-Isabel la 63 - 0 a - 0 - 349. y7 349.97 Gal ten Galleu DNA 49 - 0 - 272.20 272.20 Gobles (Kalamnzuo) jjr Cobles J.1 Grand Haven Grand Haven - 1Crosse Pointe Crosse Pointe 59 - 0 - 327.75 327.75 321 - 0 - 1,783.Id 1,783.18 DNA 583 - 0 - 3,266.18 3,266. 18 (Kalamazoo) 83 - 0 - 461.07 461.07 398 N/E 7,171.61 Hartford Schools Highland Park Highland Park Hillsdale Community Hillsdale Community Inlay City Imlay City DNA Ionia ISD Ionia ISD (Kent ISD) Ithaca Public Sch Ithaca Public Schools Jefferson Jefferson Janesville Comm Junesville Conxnunlty Kolloggsvilie Kelloggsville Lake City (Jackson ISD) LampUere Laurence Schools Laurence Schools ,i, Lowe 11 Mai ton Consolidated Morion Morion Hasin] Cons. Mason Consolidated M il 1au.in Cons Mo Itovon Consolidated 1 i 1 7,171.61 - 0 - 727.71 727.71 102 - 0 - 566.62 566.62 25 - 0 - 138.88 138.88 104 - 0 - 577.73 577.73 142 - 0 - 788.82 788.82 (Jacksau ISD) 70 - 0 - 388.85 388.85 (Kent ISD) 124 - 0 - 688.83 688.83 ■: • 58 - 0 - 322.19 322.19 (Kent ISD) 153 - 0 - 849.93 849.93 DNA 220 - 0 - 1,222.11 1,222.11 (Kalamazoo) 44 - 0 - 244.42 244.4 2 (Kent ISD) 161 - 0 - 894.37 894.37 (Traverse Bay ISl ) 46 - 0 - 255.53 255.53 (Gratiot-Isabella 1 (Honrae ISD) i (Traverse Bay ISti) Lovell ll.mtun Consolidated - 0 - 131 Lakewood (Lake Odes'. a) Lakewood (Lake Odessa) l.,in|>liere 199.98 (Jeni son) Hartford Scliools ,I.afe** City 199.98 48 - 0 - 266.64 266.64 (Monroe ISH) 96 - 0 - 533.29 333.29 (Kal.in.i'Oo) 110 - 0 - f-J 1.0b 6!1.06 (Traverse Bay ISl ) 1 Part V - Districts For Uliom Career Education Eligibility Did Hot Correlate Uith Professional Development Eligibility Section U - Single Districts S Professionals Career Education ALLOCATION Career Education Frofcsslonal Development Total He tinin Kurul Agr. McHaln Rural Agr. Traverse Bay ISD 37 IL-s lek Cons. Mcslck Consolidated Traverse Hay ISl) 38 - o - 211.09 211.09 4)0 - 6 - 2,277.50 2,277.58 - Mnuroc Monroe ’ Montague Montague Mr. Morris .j (It. Pleasant " Professionals Staff Development 1 0 1 Participating Districts S Fiscal Agent Muskegon 1 Nor tli AJams Comm Mt, PlL’iisant Public Schools Muskegon Mow Buffalo North Adams Community (Muskegon Area I? 0) (Flushing) !Cratiot-Isabella (Muskegon Area I' »} DMA (Jackson ISO) DNA 205.54 S 205.54 98 - o - 544.40 544.40 173 - 0 - 96L.03 961.0) 284 - 0 - •1,577.64 1,577.b4 526 - 0 - 2,921.97 2,921.97 73 - 0 - 4U5.52 405.52 44 - 0 - 244.42 244.42 110 Forth Branch North Branch - 0 - 611.06 611.0i> North Dickinson North Dickinson (Dickinson-Iron 1 U) 36 - 0 - iy9.98 199.98 Norway (Ulckinson-Iron I D) 51 - 0 - 283.31 203.31 12 - 0 - 66.66 66.66 DNA 97 - 0 - 53B.84 538.84 (Kalamazoo) 115 - 0 - 638.K3 638.83 1 (Livingston ISD 163 - 0 - 905.48 905.48 (Traverse Day ISD ;• . 72 - 0 - 399.96 399.96 44 - 0 - 244.42 244.42 139 - 0 - 772.15 772. 15 60 - 0 - 333.30 323.30 •.'^Norway Oceana ISD .'[Ottawa Oceana ISD Ottawa Pau l’aw Scliools Few Paw Schools Pinckney Pinckney * Pine River Pine River (Newaygo ISD) Pittsford Area (Jackson ISD) ' Pl.iinvcil Comm Plalnwell Community Schools (Kalamazoo) I Beading Comm Reading Community (Jackson ISD) ‘ liiver Valley lUver Valley DNA 116 - 0 - 644.39 644.39 Royal Oak DNA 715 - 0 - 3,971.87 3,971.87 ■(Gratiot-Isabella 101 - 0 - 561.06 561.06 (Kent ISD) 63 - 0 - 349.9 7 349.97 108 - 0 - 599.95 199.95 Pittsford Area Royal Oak 'St. Louis Public •-Bar.mac Shepherd Public St. Lnula Public Schools Saranac Shepherd Public Schools (GrotIot-Isabella 280 / New Buffalo Mt. Morris (Monroe ISO) S Part V - Districts For Whom Career Education Eligibility Did Not Correlate With Professional Development Eligibility Section II - Single Districts Fiscal Agent • '* Participating Districts T Professionals start Development II Professionals Career Education 60 Professional Development ALLOCATION Career Education Total Siiimriorfleld Sntnnierllcld (Honroe ISD) Swartz Creek Swartz Creek (Crand Blanc) 262 - 0 - 1,455.43 1.455.43 (Kent ISD) 108 - 0 - 599.95 599.95 474 - 0 - 2,633.10 2,633.10 34 - 0 - 388.37 188.87 ■T:,Thnrnnpple Kellogg Thomapple Kellogg ^ ’Traverse Bay Traverse Day [Traverse Bay ISD 'Waldron Area Waldron Area (Jackson ISD) 5 - 0 - $ 333.3l) ? 333.30 Watcrvllet DNA 87 - 0 - 483.29 483.29 ■Wayne ISl) Wayne ISD DNA 321 - 0 - 1,783.18 1,783.13 'West Bloomfield West Bloomfield DNA 305 - 0 - 1.694.30 1,894.30 ' West Iron West Iron 101 - 0 - 561.UH jhl.06 239 - 0 - 1,32 7.66 1,327.66 54 - 0 - 299.97 299.97 Natcrvllet West Ottawa fDIcklnson-lron I It) fJenison) West Ottawa Wer.forU-IHssaukee 11 i) Uexfurd-MIssaukce ISD (Traverse Bay ISD Whlteford Agr. Sell Uliltcford Agr. School (Monroe ISD) 53 - 0 - 294.42 294.42 W1111 mnston Willlumston (Ingham ISD) 104 - 0 - 577.73 577.73 Zeeland Zeeland (Jen Ison) 129 - 0 - 716.00 716.60 S 12,881.67 $ 69,0,0.12 $ 02,549 .79 S 12,883.67 $ 92.030 .83 3104,914.50 , 4 additional LEA's under 750 ' SUBTOTAL CKAND TOTAL 52 ISD’a, 540 LE<\ s 715 12,541 S2.462.350.16 $737.649.84 53,200,000.00 282 S T A T E O F M ICH IG A N DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lan-.ir-Q, M ichigan 48003 £ — ai'i1 -w 9AKJJ*•i\A . NORMAN n | * l ^ | - T ‘, V i li jerl/i(cti!ent February 5, 1381 ir< BARSSSA w L b ; ii'.'J l'lli'i o f Public ! JOHN AAi?;f: . N. ; s v S I L V £ R l ; N ] \ g . 5-.A A N N rrrA D R . E D M U N D l; . v a T. l Govc-no*' o . m i l l o ;:-; w il l ia m E x -0 ;j\c io TO: S t a t e Board o f E d uc ati on FRO": P h i l l i p E. Runkel SUBJECT Raocrc on P r o f e s s i o n a l f o r 1930-31 S t a f f Development A c t i v i t i e s S t a f f has prep are d a r e p o r t (Attac hme nt A) r e l a t i v e t o t h e Profess"‘cn? 1 S t a f f Development and Career E d uc at ion I n s e r v i c e Funds a p p r o p r i a t e d in S e c t i o n 97 o f t h e S t a t e Aid Ac t, Th is r e p o r t d e s c r i b e s a c t i v i t i e s from A pr il 1 , 1930 , through t h o s e planned f o r March, 1931. ATTACHMENT A 283 PROFESSIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1. 193.0-81 Program Based on t h e November 1 a p p l i c a t i o n s , ( E x h i b i t A) 120 a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f Development were re vi ew ed and approved. PARTICIPANTS: Consortia 1930-81 Single D is tr ic ts No. o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Over 750 Professional p er s o n n el 33 12 87,507 Under 750 P r o f e s s ional personnel 10 65 16,R57 Total 43 77 10 4 , 3 6 4 The t o t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d e ve lo pm en t programs ( e x c l u d i n g Career Ed ucation o n l y ) t o r 1930-31 funded under S e c t i o n 97 i n c l u d e s 1 0 4 . 3 * 4 o f the 1 0 9 . * 4 3 p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , 53b o f t h e 876 l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , and 54 o f t h e 53 i n t e r m e d i a t e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . Of t h e d i s t r i c t s which d i d n o t ap p ly f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d e ve lo pm en t f u n d s , 4 a r e i n t e r m e d i a t e s ch oo l d i s t r i c t s and 40 a r e l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . Career Edu cat ion i n s e r v i c e funds w i l l be s p e n t on a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d in p la n s s u b m i tt e d :r,d approved by the O f f i c e o f Career Ed ucation in -June o f 1980. A l i s t o f ap p ro v es P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f Development and Career Education programs and t h e i r e l l o c a t e d amount i s a t t a c h e d ( E x h i b i t C). The d o l l a r amount f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l Devel cement does not r e f l e c t th e amount t o be d e d u c t e d f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h E as ter n Michigan U n i v e r s i t y which w i l l be c a l c u l a t e d by A p r il 1 , 1 S S I . A p p l i c a n t s were r e q u i r e d t o submit a Three Year Plan d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o c e s s e s t o be used in th e a r e a s o f : 1. 2. 3. 4. Needs A ss es s m en t Proo^am P l a n n i n g Resource I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Evaluation S t a f f p ro v id ed g u i d e l i n e s and s u g g e s t i o n s in a document e n t i t l e d "Helpful Hints" ( E x h i b i t C). 284 A summary o f t h e t h r e e - y e a r p r o f e s s i o n a l d evelopmen t pla ne s u b m i t t e d in tna f a l l o f 1580 i n d i c a t e t h e f o l l o w i n g : (D;;hib~t D) 1. A ll d i s t r i c t s have co m p le te d need s a s s e s s m e n t s . They range from paper and p e n c i l s u r v e y s t o i n t e r a c t i v e , i n t e r v i e w types. In a d d i t i o n , a number o f d i s t r i c t s ar e l o o k i n g a t other* measures such as s t u d e n t t e s t s c o r e s , s t u d e n t d a t a , community s u r v e y s , and c u r r i c u lu m n e e d s . 2. Program p l a n n i n g i n c l u d e s a v a r i e t y o f p e r s o n n e l a t t h e b u i l d i n g l e v e l , de partment l e v e l , d i s t r i c t l e v e l , and consortium l e v e l . In some c a s e s s t u d e n t s a r e i n v o l v e d i n program p l a n n i n g . P o l i c y boards a r e d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d in p l a n n i n g , dep ending on th e individual d i s t r i c t procedures. 3. R es o ur ce i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a n o t h e r major item in the three-year plans. D i s t r i c t s e i t h e r have r e s o u r c e banks o r a r e d e v e l o p i n g them. These banks i n c l u d e u s i n g s e r v i c e s o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t ' s s t a t e l i b r a r y , i n t e r m e d i a t e s ch oo l d i s t r i c t s , r e g i o n a l s u pp le m en ta l c e n t e r s , REMCs, i n s t i t u t i o n s o f hi g o e r e d u c a t i o n , and o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l dev el opm en t programs. 4. E v a l u a t i o n p ro ce d u re s a r e b e i n g d e v e l o p e d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h department g u i d e l i n e s . In a d d i t i o n , some programs a r e l o o k i n g a t o t h e r m e a s u r e s , such a s : student r e a c tio n s, t e a c n e r p e r c e p t t o n s , o r e and o o s t d a t a , and o b s e r v a t i o n s o f cha nges in c l a s s r o o m s . D i s t r i c t s i.ere r e q u i r e d t o submit a l i s t o f t h e 10 to p needs t h a t had been i d e n t i f i e d in t h e i r needs a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e s s e s d uri ng 1 5 7 9 - 8 0 . Of th e 120 programs, 10rj p r o v i d e d t h i s dat a in a way t h a t c o u ld be t a b u l a t e d ( E x h i b i t E). These r e s u l t s , t h e n , r e p r e s e n t about 9 0 :; o f the s ta t e s ' educators. The te n top p r o f e s s i o n a l d eve lo pm en t ne eds o f Michigan e d u c a t o r s ar e : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. D isci p iin e Stress Student Motivation G i f t e d and T a l e n t e d Individualizing In stru ction Teacher Exchange O p p o r t u n i t i e s Law/Teacher L i a b i l i t y S t u d e n t S e l f Concept Mainstreaming S p e c i a l Ed ucation S t u d e n t s Emergency F i r s t Aid 285 A1 i l l 120 pt o'; a re cfevsl c o i n i e v a l u a t i o n sche.vr:: to ma-e d e c i s i '■■'S i t v ’J t s p e r i r r h j i f n v p r a ' i nrnnrem, th e Of f l o p o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Development i-; r e q u e s t - a g d a t a ( E x h i b i t F) from a l l programs v n i c h v/ i l l answer th e f o l l o s i n g q u e s t i o n s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. S. 10. What v a r i e t y o f ne eds a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e s s e s were used? Who v;as i n v o l v e d in i d e n t i f y i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l dev el op m en t needs? Whc was in v o l v e d in p l a n n i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev el opm ent programs? Who p a r t i c i p a t e d in p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t programs? (an u n d u p l i cated co u n t) What a c t i v i t i e s were p r o v id e d by t h e program and which a s s e s s e d needs were a d d r e s s e d ? How many a t t e n d e d t h e s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s ? How l o n g were the a c t i v i t i e s ? Did p a r t i c i p a n t s report, t h e y l e a r n e d so m et h in g from t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev el opm ent a c t i v i t y ? Did the p a r t f c i p a n t s r e p o r t th ey l e a r n e d som eth ing from the p r o f e s s i o n a l d e ve lo pm en t a c t i v i t y which w i l l e f f e c t t h e i r work l i f e ? Did t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s r e t o r t t h e y l e a r n e d som eth ing from t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev el opm en t a c t i v i t y which i s l i k e l y t o impact on student learning? Th is i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l !. be c o l l e c t e d Calen da r o f A c t i v i t i e s , in A u g u s t , 1981. 19SO-51 may , 19,10. m e ' 24 Hour C o n i e r e n c e 1 was h e l d iri Midland, M i c h ig a n , on May 8 "and "9, ’i 5S0. Over 220 p a ; p i e a t t e n d e d t h i s s t a t e w i d e c o n f e r e n c e s p o n s o r e d by t h e Michigan Department o f E d u c a ti o n . Both t h e number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ( q u a n t i t y ) ant: t h e p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k p r o v id e d v i a the e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e ( q u a l i t y ) i n d i c a t e t h e c o n f e r e n c e was a s u c c e s s and r e l e v a n t t o t h e need-: o f l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t p e r s o n n e l . A commit t e e o f e l e v e n in a d d i t i o n t o MDE O f f i c e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l D i v e l e r ment s t a Tf a s s i s t e d in the c o n f e r e n c e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . These e l e v e n i n d i v i d u a l s arc - a t C l a r a : . , C r a i g Dean, P a t r i c k De-Marts. For f’r e e n h , Ron E a r ! / , F e l l y F r i e n d , Barbara J a c o b y , D o l o r e s P a s k a l , Dennis S p a rk s, ana Mjrga* a t Touvi11a. The "24 Hour C onference" began a t noon on May 8t h and c o n cl ud ed a t noon on May ‘?r,h. A lth ou gh t h e c o n f e r e n c e d i d no t l i t e r a l l y o p e r a t e around t h e c l o c k , s e s s i o n s were h e l d w e l l i n t o t h e e v e n i n g and began e a r l y t h e n e x t day. The format f o r t h e "24 Hour Conference" i n c l u d e d c l i n i c s and concurren*sessions. There were f o u r c l i n i c s , each a p p r o x i m a t e l y two and o n e - h a i hours in l e n g t h . The c l i n i c s were d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e i n - d e p t h s k i l l development. The c o n c u r r e n t s e s s i o n s ( s e v e r a l o f f e r e d s ’ pvj! t a r ie o u s l y ; wore s h o r t e r in l e n g t h {abo ut one hour) and were d e s i e n e d to be i n f o r ­ m a ti o n al or t o s h a r e a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s . A t h i r d t yp e o f c o n c u r r e n t •tocr-n.-i .•-i- rja^i.ir.ed t o a 1 1 ow nar tic i" 0 2 n t s t o sh are w i t h one a n o t h e r ciic i (■ i.um^vi ..a/ p *o j i c;ts or s u c c e s s e s / j « i ut *oils re -ja rv* ’• ng c •: u».p : ^ i d e n t i f i e d for the s e s s i o n . P e o p l e l e a r n from p e o p l e and th e c o n f e r e n c e e v a l u a t i o n s i n d i c a t e tii e s h a r i n a s e s s i o n s were w e l l r e c e i v e d by the conference p a r t ic ip a n t s . 286 Many p a r t i c i p a n t s Drought m a t e r i a l s t o he d i s p l a y e d . TV/e d i s p l a y arc-* which was s e t op in t h e c o n f e r e n c e neadqiiurcvrs was l e a d e d v;ith m a t e r i a ‘ „ and i d e a s , most o f which o f f e r e d f r e e s a m p l e s . The "24 Hour Conference" was c o o r d i n a t e d by STEP UP ( S t a f f T r a i n i n g and Enrichment Programs/Upgrading P r o f e s s i o r . c i s ) . A ug u st , 1980. Two "Workfests" were h e l d , o r e in the Western Upper P e n i n s u l a , the e t h e r a t H i g g in s Lake, t o a d d r e s s the c o n c e r n s o f p e r s o n n e l i n v o l v e d in c o n s o r t i a programs. These s e s s i o n s are two day m i n i - c o n f e r e n c e s w i t h no more than 35 in a t t e n d a n c e . The purpose i s t o a l l o w f o r problem c l a r i f i c a t i o n and s o l u t i o n through e x t e n s i v e i n t e r a c t ' o n w i t h o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l d evelopmen t program people. E v a l u a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h i s mode o f i n t e r a c t i o n has b e n e f i t e d a t t e n d e e s th rou gh e x t e n d i n g knowledge o f p r o f e s s i o n a l dev el op m en t prog ram s. November, 1980. H i g g in s Lake. W orkfest f o r s i n g l e d i s t r i c t program p c ' s o n n e l a t Fe bru ary , 1931. Meeting in Lan sing f o r ne-v p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f dev el o pm en t c o o r d i n a t o r s and i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s from i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education. February , 1981. W orkfest on i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Research on E f f e c t i v e S c h o o l s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t , H i g g i n s Lake. March 5 A 6. 19 P 1 . iJ L L i i ^ C % td | r "Twenty-Foiir JJou r Conference" on P r o f e s s i o n a l o J “ a p v i i u v> w. ^ u j t s>< >\. mu ^ -* > «• * ;. » , on I n s e r v i c e E d uc at ion t o be h el d in L a n s in g , Mich igan . In a d d i t i o n s t a f f has o n g o in g a c t i v i t i e s which i n c l u d e : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h i n d i v i d u a l p o l i c y bea rds ; C onsultation with i n s t i t u t i o n s o f higher education; P r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r MA5CD, MLM/PA, MiA: T r a i n i r o f o r n o l i c y boards and s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l to i n c l u d e needs a s s e s s m e n t , e v a l u a t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n a l supervision; Review o f and c o n t a c t w i t h Fed er al Teacher Ce nt er and Te ac h er Corps programs. ■J t - O The a t t a c h e d c h a r t s r e v e a l th e d o l l a r amount o e r program dep ending on the number o f p r o f e s s i o n - ! I p ers on nel s e r v e d . In c o n s o r t i a ar.d s i r o l e d i s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n s w i t h o v e r 750 p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l t h e d o l l a r amount i s 517.11 per p r o f e s s i o n a l p er s on n el f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d ev el o pm en t. In c o n s o r t i a and s i n g l e d i s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n s w i t h under 750 p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l t h e d o l l a r amount i s 5 1 0 . 2 4 per p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d ev el o pm en t. The d o l l a r a l l o c a t i o n f o r Career Ed ucation i n s e r v i c e i s $ 5 . 5 2 o f th e number o f p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l . Linder t h e column regardless P r o f e s s i o n a l s S t a f f Development": DiiA = Old .Not Apply S/D = S i n g l e d i s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n The name o f t h e d i s t r i c t a p p ea ri n g in p a r e n t h e s e s i n d i c a t e s t h e d i s t r i c t which i s the f i s c a l ag en t f o r t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f d evelopmen t program. Under t h e column P r o f e s s i o n a l s Career Edu cat ion ": N/E = Not E l i g i b l e N/R = Net on th e Career Ed ucation Records S/D - The d i s t r i c t r e c e i v e s Car eer Ed ucation funds as a s i n g l e . > “ ■ » I ». * » L U t 4) L I j L L * CNA = Did Not Apply The name o f a d i s t r i c t a p p ea ri n g in p a r e n t h e s e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i s t r i c t i s the f i s c a l a g e n t . It/Pi' .— - 7 S 1! I'r'M, CW-i’ -.i) tBay-,Arenac ISO t i - H i‘i »■j j on «|' (-1 !'!■»■ I’rnfes: iuna 1 i dlH -i I l Oil Development t! Prof Ii'-ca) Anrnt j'ni Pai l iriji.il in=j B ir.l riclv. tlny-Arennc ISB Arenac- Ear. lorn AuGros-5 itir. Bangor levmsliip Hay City Public Esservi Jlo-llairnton Piiinain irifj Area • Standish-Slerling Iosco ISl) Halo Oscoda Area Tauns Area Whitlemon; P r e sc o t t ini.a Is Si a i f Dev*’ I'U'.i'i’iil no 32 3.1 17H PIS 111 l.lfl III 12 vt UU % 66 1,/pf Al 1 in a( Ii:;i I.a r r.i-r I.dilca linn Intal 9'J 32 33 nn 615 1 14 n/R 111 fj/l. 44 N/E % 66 r,3?’M $ 29, 446.31 7, 6 6 1 .7 6 !■ 3 7 ,1 0 0. 07 $ m»o. Oil t 27.376.0U fl/1. - Not E l i g i b l e ■ Il/I? " Nut nn the Cm oor Mural inn Records S/I) Receives Carer r Education rimds as a S in g le )i s t r i c t tli.A - Biii Hoi 27 ( IJi i ■; L) = ileerivt s Career { ducat.inn f iinds in a )i rfereni. Consort uni, D i s t r i c t Ind rated is Fiscn 1 AfjeiiJ. 2 0 , 226 .00 Berrien County ISB Berrien County ISD Dorr ion Springs Brandywine Br idumnn raiclianan fan C laire Ga 1 i on l.akusboi c* How Buf fal o River Valley tSikorvl ie I Hager Iwp. 06 Sodus I up. U S Icwis-Cass ISB Ca ssopolis [hang i nr. Fdwardsburg I on S/B s/n h/ i: S/B S/B 46 S/I) s/n S/B s/n H/p H/R (Lewis Cass (l.ewir.-Cass (Lewis-Cass (Lewis-Cass iS'l 106 130 IV 6f» ‘ 122 !>2 AG 2fi? 7Z in 9i 4 ■I 26 10G . 211 113 I\'(Vuo I $ ISO) I Si1) ISB) ISB) IV.j' i: ! - Ljir.u;' ■ ! a /t,■j 11 i* ! i .r. Over /SO h o l e s Vit-uni IVrsi-nne 1 ! iM.sl AlJCIlt .Caliiuun )SD I h i r l i c ip.il iiiy_ D i s t r i c t s Calhoun 15!) All: ion A1.1"'I! i Hall. In Crock I’.o! levne (Talon) liar per Crook Humor Lakeview rinr ! co Marshal 1 01 i v e t (Talon) Penn Tie Id Spiin^ f i oT d Tekonsha Union City Fredonia Tv/p- H Z Delt.a-Sr.hoolcraft ISIJ nGH.a-5chnnlr.raft ISD Hark Rivor-liarris I!i 59 o Uo D S/I) S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D 19 S/D S/I) s/n S/D "70 $ 16, 511 .15 $ 430.56 t 16,941.71 Part I ■ r<‘-iir.orU-i 'ppi irations liver ?50 Professional Personnel i! Proii’ss ioiia Is I ir.cn 1 Agent___ Detroi t f i i Eaton ISD Flushing Genesee 150 Pari . ic i p a li n g D i s t r i c t s D e tr o it Wayne ISD. Eaton ISD 'CharloLLe ^Eaton Hapids > Grand Ledge ■v Maple Valley :'Pottcrvi l i e .-Oneida O - S t r a n g e VRoxand tfl?-Loucks Flushing Fenton Linden Mt. Morris Westwood Heights Genesee ISD Atherton 1’eecher Rentioy Clio Genesee Montrose Doodle Flushing Fenton Linden Westwood MeinliIs Stof f ___DeyplppineuL ii Pi nli>ss iMtta 1s ■“ " * ' ■ Al 1 IK.A11011 Career Education •.a. t’er Fdin al.inn i’rnl e s s innaT Development 12,0.10 I'M 12,230 12,036 5/D 127036 $209, 255 .30 $ 6 6 , 4 3 8 .7 ? $775 ,69 4.02 47 203 181 318 99 55 1 1 905 47 5 /0 181 318 S/D 55 li/R ll/ll $ 1 5, 4 8 4 .5 5 $ $ 18,002.07 GQI 265 179 134 172 97 847 (Genesee ISD) (Genesee ISD) (Genesee ISD) -0- $ 14, 49 2.17 137 97 208 95 206 47 108 137 97 768 95 S/D 47 108 106 265 1/9 134 97 1,533 $ 17, 41 7.98 1Vfiifi 3 , 3 1 7 .5 2 Int. nl r>o s/n O (Genesee ISD) $ 0.00 $ 14,092.17 8 , 4 6 2 .1 6 % 25*880.14 t’.ii'i: I - foij'-.oi f -»■! Ajijil ir.a t i iir. Over /50 Profess iwial fersn ::io1 $ Prof res im.a j s l i' i ;ti Acjrnl _ St ai r Dove 1upturn I P a r t i c i p a t i n g DisJ .ri els Grand Blanc .Grand Blanc Carman-Ainsworth * Crmmusiir.y Schools i Lake Fenton Swartz Crock G ratiot-Isabella ISO G r a t i o t - K a b e l l a ISD Alma Public Ashley Community Beal City Public lit ecknnri thin Connnuni ty Fu 1 for. Sc lino Is Ithaca Public Mt. Pl eas ant Public S t. Louis Public Shepherd Public $ 19,710.72 $ 2 , 1 0 5. 92 $ 21, 09 6.64 66 1/0 35 36 66 S/D S/D S/D S/D S/0 S/l) S/D 5/D S/D 66 $ 17, 65 7.52 $ 364.32 $ 10,021.04 n iut no 136 60 126 242 90 194 204 110 251 50 104 1,575 « Total 396 S/D S/D S/D 396 62 99 274 Ingham ISO H a n s v il le Hnslntt Molt L eslie Mason Okemns Stockbridge Waverly Webbervilie Williamston A! f (if Ai Hill farcer Lfluf.atinn 396 301 10/ 260 T7152 4, 03 2 Ingham ISO i’tdf jirna 1s C aifit Pi’ii 1es*. i"nal Lducatiun Development ro 136 60 126 242 90 194 204 110 251 50 104 1,575 $ 2 6, 9 4 8 .2 5 $ 8,694.00 t 35,642.25 Part I ,(>j I i.1 Applications Over 750 Professional Personnel i! Prof es s i i!na ! 'real Agent .lockson £SD J Jackson ISO Columbia Concord Community Fast Jackson Brass Lake Coinnunity Hanover-Horton Jackson Michigan Center Napoleon Community Hurt hwesl 5pringpnrt Public Vandercook Lake Wes kern H i l l s d a l e ISO Camden F ro n ti er H i l l s d a l e Community J o n e s v i l l c Community Li t c h f i e 1d Communi ty North Adams Community P i t t s ford Area Reading Community Waldron Area 17.1 117 61 91 61 67 563 97 B7 209 60 68 127 46 42 130 67 43 44 43 60 35 2,2/■ * i v o i . v.hur.ii Career Fdiic-i l i o n 173 117 61 N/E 51 G7 553 97 ll/C 209 N/E 68 127 (H illsdale S/0 (Hillsdale S/0 (Hillsdale (H illsdale (H illsdale (H illsdale (H illsdale 1,523 ISO) ISO) ISD) ISO) ISD) (A1logan) Barry ISO Helton Kellogg Schools Hastings Area Schools Branch ISfl Bronson Community Schools Coldwnter Community Schools Quincy Community Schools 10 126 193 10 126 193 132 76 214 76 214 * 71 71 loLal ISO) 134 151 132 Aii fii.Aiinri Career F_dor.nl ion 15D) Otsego Public Schools (Alloga i) P l a i n w e l ’ Community Schools (A1legnn) s/b lYol e s s in u a i Development 292 Kalamazoo V a lle y ISD P u l ie i |M I uiij Hi %ir i c I.-, SI.W 1 Development $ 38,856.81 $ 8 , 4 0 6 .9 6 $ 47 , 26 3.7 7 (•'art 1 - Censm'Lia App! icai-ifiir; Over 750 Professional Personnel ti T'ro ft-'.s ion.i I I'iM.il Agent i Kent ISD , ’ (continued) Cart ic ip a ! ing D i s t r i c t s 2,275 222 70 151 116 mo 70 350 169 102 203 141 110 445 26 127 102 2 1 1 1 » 2 ii 152 10 121 60 5,36/ l! iYnlfV. inna 1 L.irecr Ldwc.it inn 2,275 222 70 151 116 1110 70 350 169 102 203 Mi 110 445 26 127 1112 ft/ft ri/u ff/R fl/ll II/R 11/R N/R 152 fl/R fi/r S/D 6,16/ Professiona1 Development Ai 1 (if.AI idil (.a riM*r Ulucat. inn Tnl.ii! 293 Grand Rapids Grandvi11c GodTroy Lee Godwin Heights K olloggville Kcnowa H i l l s Kent L it y KenLwond Lowe11 Nor Hi view Hork ford Sparta Thornnpple Kellogg (Barry) Wyoming Ionia ISD Bel ding 1or. i a Ionia B e r l in Twp. £3 Ionia Perl in Twp. #5 Ionia Easton Twp. #6 Ionia Orleans Tv;p. H 9 Ionia Orleans Twp. #10 I on i a Two. 1!2 Ionia Tv.ji. #3 lake Odessa (Lakewood) Palo Cortland Saranac 5 l ai r Uf.'Vr lnpmrn L $1 00,939.37 $ 34, 041 .04 $142,931.21 Part I - f e n s m ' i i Applicnl inns Over 750 Prefe .si ;nal Porsunnei risen I Agent Kn 1 aiiiii 7. 00 V a l l e y i (continued) Kent I Sli Part i<: ij iiuj 1)i s 1r i i ts n iYnle-.sioi a Is St a ri Dcveb'i'iirnl * i'rnf« iun.i 1 L.i! 11r■I t.dur.n 1 joii gg S3 17'l 52 99 53 179 92 156 902 119 5G3 53 151 Joseph Joseph Joseph Joseph Joseph Joseph fl/ll Joseph Joseph Joseph S/D S/0 S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D 3.2/9 Ka lama 7.00 V al le y ISO Cl imax-Scol.ts Schools Cour.loci: Public Schools Galesburg-Angusto Schooir. On! 1 Lake Common i tv Schuols Kalamazoo Public Schools Parchment School D i s t r i c t Portage Public Schools School e r a f L Common i ty Vicksburg Communi l.y St . Joseph ISD Burr Dak Community Schools Ce nLroville Schools Colon Community Schools Constantino Schools Hendon Comitmnily Schools Nottawa Community School S t u r g is Public Schools Three Rivers Schools White Pigeon Schools Bangor Public (Van Huron) Bloom inf] Talc (Van fliiren) Gobles Public (Van Duron) Hartford Schools (Van Burei ) Lawrence Schools (Van Burei ) Matlawnn Consolidated (Van Rureu) Paw Paw Schools (Van Buren’ Kent ISD Byron Center Caledonia Cedar Springs Comstock Park Last Grand. Rapids Forest H ills m S82 119 553 53 151 55 ?r» CO fv'l 09 5? 9 152 i a; 75 90 75 50 79 -15 119 119 4, 93 8 1211 90 110 127 04 152 297 (St. (St. (St. (St. (St. (St. (St. (St. (St. 128 90 110 127 84 152 297 Pi of r s s i oii.i 1 Development. AlLuf.r.i ir.il Ca i f>* i Ldur at ion ISD) ISD) ISD) ISD) ISD) ISD) ioUl ro to ISO) ISO) ISD) $ 8 4 , 4 0 9 .1 8 $ 1 8, 10 0. 0 8 1 i 0 2 t 5fi9.2G Purl i - i i i Ap;il ii.nl im r. O v e r 7 5 0 Pro! err. i turn I P e r s o n n e l :! I istnl Agent 1 Lenawee ISO L iving s Lon ISD I'm 1 i r i j M t i ug Dist rict.s_ L e n n w e e ISO Addison Community Adrinn Public Bliss field Community D r it Lon M a c o n A r e a Clinton Community Deerfield Public Hudson Madison Morenci Aren O n s t e d Connnuni ty Sand Creek Community Tecumseh Public L i v i n g s t o n ISD Brighton Aren Fowlervilie Community llnrtlnnd C o n s o l i d a t e d Howell Public Pinckney Community Li von iti (Northwest S t a f f Development CenLer) C h e r r y Hil l Garden City Livonia Horthville Plymnuth-Canton HedTord Union South Radford -* P r r > f r ,. r, i n u a i s Mnf f Dovelnjwnl .116 03 207 95 33 67 20 71 50 50 07 54 175 T, 204 04293 121 173 313 164 1,140 156 419 1,330 315 053 317 225 3,625 • * i ’r n f . . . Al imia i s C.l 1I'!!)' F .d nc at in n Profess inna1 Development 116 03 207 95 33 67 20 71 50 50 07 54 175 1 ,'204 $ 20, 600 .44 1 f t A! Hi;I t.iri’o r _ L di u- il io n _ $ 6,646.00 Tol.nl $ 27,246*52 04 293 121 173 313 S/D 904 $ 1 9, 64 2. 28 $ 5,431.60 $ 2 5 ,0 7 3. 96 156 S/0 1,330 S/D S/D S/D N/L 1,406 $ 6 2 , 0 2 3 .7 5 $ 8,202.72 t 70,226.47 PO CJ1 !7.i i: i t iu /\|ipI it ,it jinr. Ovr-r 750 Prute.sional Personnel ......................................... i $ f'r-if <■,s ion-i)l. ‘. ( a f t t i st .11 Aijf'iif. ( Macomb ISD r I’.it l ic i pitting liir. 1r i r Lr. Macomb ISD Anchor liny Ann. itlf! Con t.c! i ino Ch i pisc-.-m Valley Cl intondnle r.-isl DiM.roi t rU z t io r a ld Fraser Lakesbore Lakeview l.'Anse Crouse ML. Clom-ris How Haven Richmond Rotnoo Roscvi11c South take Van Dyko Warren Woods Rs v>’ :; w 225 2*19 R*1 256 941 241 Ha rq> lot to -A lg er ISD Autrain-Onota Public Burt Invjnship Rwinn Area IshjHvning School D i s t r i c t Marque 1 l.o Marquette Township MaLhias Township Him i s i n g slcqnunoe Nice Cntwiiiinity Powell Township Rcpubl ic-Michigarnmo Rock Rivor-Liinostone Weils Tnv/nship s/o s/n S/D s/n 3 12 179 01 311 17 11 76 116 M9 n 36 21 6 KnsS InUl S/0 213 361 332 281 *169 294 63 109 267 •1lJ5 169 275 353 57 Ai i ri a I lori Cm (.or I.tlui .tt i 'in S/D S/D S/0 465 5TW Mcrquetlc-AIger ISD 11. . . . . . . 1 i mi.i 1r, Cm r er I’l-Of OS'. i M1MI Ltli:- .i 1 ion ilOVt*l(lj}lllf!i)! >■ P m S/D s/n S/D S/D S/D S/D S/0 S/D ro K D cn s/n S/D S/D S/D -0- $ 9 4 , 8 2 3 .6 2 0.00 $ 9 4 ,8 23 .6 2 57 N/P. 12 M/l 01 311 17 11 n /t 116 M/E N/il 36 21 N/R 662 $ 10,016.03 $ 3,654.24 % 21,671.0/ Part I i a Ap p! i f t : I n n s Over 750 Profess Iona I Personnel f i -,c-il Agent Purl i< iji.il imj M i 1rtcj^s Midland ISD (Jullock Creek Public Coleman Community Meridian Public Midland Public ' Midland ISD i ■ Montcalm ISD Carson C ity -C rys ta l CcnLrnl Mnntcalm G r e e n v il l e Lakeview Community Monlabel 1a Commoni ty Tri County Area Vestaburg Community Montcalm ISD i r Vrnl i>;%i dim i *■. C.lll-IT 15 dfe'jS inna 1 _ Ldtn.at inn I'eve 1opnient A11!» A1j11! 1 ‘ Career Cduca Linn in Lai 21 133 76 115 627 972 21 133 76 115 627 972 $ 16 , 630 .92 $ 5 , 3 65 .4 4 $ 21 ,996.36 65 152 304 95 113 145 99 417 53 56 1,614" 65 S/l) S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D S/D '65 $ 2 5, 90 4.5 4 $ 350.00 1 26,263.34 34 09 127 104 107 79 08 47 755 34 89 127 104 107 79 no 47 755 $ 1 2, 91 8.0 5 $ 4,167.60 S 17,006.65 297 Monrnc 1SU Airport lied Tord Dundee Ida Jefferson Mason Consolidated Monroe Public Summerfield Uliiteford Ag. Monroe ISD f I'tul e v . innal *. Si a r t Development I Over 1i .’.1 Ayr id , Muskegon Aren ISD t t t Part if i pa t i n g D i s t r i c t s Muskegon Area ISD Dtick Creek Hoi Ion Mona Shores Montague Muskegon Muskegon Heights North Muskegon Oak ridge Orchard View Ravenna Oceana ISD - C n i r . o r i . i a Ar-jM ii .-i l M»r: 7 ‘j O f » o r e s v e u n l # I ' m ! es*. imia 1s Matf Development 50 9 52 25G 100 5-17 181 G4 103 160 73 T.GO.T N i l e s Community Schools Ottawa Aren ISD Benton Harbor Area N i l e s Community S t . Joseph Public Ottawa Area ISO A1lendale C n e pe rs vi ll o Ora mi Haven lluilsnnvi l i e Jcnison Saugatuck Spring Lake West Ottawa Zeeland 556 332 196 1,054 101 57 132 327 . 125 243 41 112 243 132 1,516 Pcrsr.unei I; i'rni iuiiaIs Cat i'i.t i'roi'rss i ona 1 l.dui at inn I'evel opuient 50 n/r. (Orchard View) N/L 100 S/D S/D n/ i: {Orchard View) (Orchard Viev:) (Orchard View) 14 172 $ 2 7, 4 2 7 .3 3 Ai t !it / i urn Cart er l.iiui ntinn $ y49.44 I d La i ___ $ 2 0, 37 6.7 7 ro to 00 S/1) 332 S/I) 332 $ 10, 54 7.24 $ 1 ,032.G1 i 20, 379 .08 101 (Spring Lake) S/D S/D (Spring Lake) (Spring la k e) (Spring Lake) (Spring la k e) s/n (Spring Lake) 104 $ 2 5, 9 30 .7 6 $ 574.00 26,512.04 Pr-ioiia i I.dik a 1. i on Devflopmen 1. 174 156 101 208 1 SC122 364 103 203 165 334 247 313 2,716 S/D 156 1111 2(58 i 36 122 S/D S/i) 203 165 334 247 S/D 1,6/2 361 535 856 S/l) 535 '535 25 132 252 161 129 186 78 26 S/D S/D S/D S/D 1P6 77 122 S/D 5/D 77 s/n 1,050 S/D 339 102 134 2 ,'865 $ 4 6 , 4 7 0 .7 6 Al ! in -M ldi! t.ar f i-r Ldtji.nl ion $ 9 ,2 2 9 .4 4 Inin 1 $ 5 5 , 7 0 0 .2 0 ro to $ 1 5, 33 0.5 6 4 2,953.20 t 1 8, 283 .76 4 4 9 , 0 2 0 .1 5 4 3 , 0 4 1 .5 2 $ 52,QG1.67 s/n 339 S/l! S/D 551 Purl, i - Censor' i-i A;ipl i < i s t r i c k s Deyr? l n p m r n L I i t ■: I mi ■ Fersssuir I Pi u i <>sr. i en d j ■ Co? e rr Ed tic a I. i on IB I 19 S/D S/D Mason f . o u n t y Central 70 S/l) Mason C o u n t y Eastern 30 S/L) 17 Mason 19 I SD 11 Freesoi i I.llii Oil M a n i s t e e I SD B e a r Lake Ka l e v a - No r ma n - D i c I: s o n On e k n i w) C o n s o l i d a t e d Manistee 17 29 43 42 122 119 35 1 19 N/E Benzie 91 Buckley Central 20 M/ E S/D 35 ISD Bellaire Elk Lake (lapids El 1 s w o r t h E xcelsior Forest 01 Area Frank Tort G le n Lake Kalkaska Lei and Mancelnna Northport Suttons I'.ay T r a v e r S'1 C i t y P u b l i c W e x r o r d - M i s s a u k e e I SD Cadi 1 l a c Falmouth Hanlon McBain lies ic k Lake Consolidated floral Ay. City 35 66 17 2 36 o M/ft N/ ! t M/ E 104 M/ E 22 n/E M/ E 42 473 CO M/ E 17 47 45 61 24 1o t a 1 S/D 45 71 Pine (liver T rn vn rs e Bay L Apii III.'.; I Over 75li i’i ['{i;'r.-i inti.! 1 rr^i'^ninif’ j a t’t n t c s s ifii-a is I i m .i i AyruL I’.itl ir i]-,i I i nij Oi r. I. riel*; Tuscola ISD I s i - 1r Iti=vr_*lig'iii'Til Tuscola ISO Akron F-iiryrovp Caro Cass City Kingston Mayv i ! 1q Mi 1 l i n g I U nio nv i1le-Sebewainy Vnssar I* o n Cres tv/nod Dearborn Heights H 7 Inks ter North Dearborn Heights Iloimilus Van Duren Wayne-Westland Westwood Wayne-Wcstlanil f i - I'rof > \ s ic ii a !•. 1 .ii i‘i;r I’rnf r*r.'. i*ni.i 1 Ldm .. 14,389.51 At ! HI a! iltli i,rt rr*-r l.diK .1l.ict; $ 4,211.76 In l.lI $ 18,601.27 U> o r o 46,368.10 $ 1 2, 0 5 0 .1 6 $ _ 5 M 18^26 *1 , 2 5 7 ,8 7 5 . 8 7 $25 6, 1 83 .2 0 $ 1 , 5 1 4 ,0 5 9 . 0 7 $ EXHIDIT B 303 DEPARTMENT CT EDUCATION M E M O R A N D U M December 2 1 , 1979 TO: S t a t e A d v i s o r y C oun ci l on S t a f f Development FROM: O ffice o f Professional SUBJECT: Development January P o l i c y Board Member Workshops In o r d e r t o g a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t P r o f e s s i o n a l S t a f f Development P o l i c y Board members1 c o n c e r n s , t h e Mic higa n Department o f E d uca tio n w i l l s p o n s o r 12 R eg io n a l Workshops from Jan ua ry 1 5 - 2 8 , 19 80 . P o l i c y Boards a r e urged t o s en d a team o f t h r e e : Program C o o r d i n a t o r . T e a c h e r , A d m i n i s t r a t o r and The v.'orkshops w i l l be h e l d from 9 : am. t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 : pm. on t h e d a t e s and l o c a t i o n s l i s t e d b e lo w . January 15, 1380 - W ilson Kent January January 16, 17, 1980 1980 - - Kalamazoo 18, 1380 - 21, 1980 - V alley 28, 1380 - ISD, 18 1 9 E. R d., Macomb Interm ediate ISD, 2413 44001 Bay Arenac Oakland Skill Schools, M i l ham W ashington, School 2100 W exford-M issaukee January 1, r a n d Interm ediate ISD, Livonia Bel t l in c . W. Schools, C hicago, East Ingham C .O.P. 412 V/. at Inn, Genesee January 28400 Center ftamada Oakland January School, S k ills School W. M aple, Lake Mt. E. 2100 Bay Howell 6065 Learning Clemens 13th St., Cadillac City Pontiac Lake Rd., Rd,, Mason Pontiac Flint ISD, Center, 2 & 3 0 W. R d., D istr ic t, G arfield, 9950 Kalamazoo M arquette D istr ic t, Pontiac Rapids Pontiac Lane, Indian Ri 304 After presenting information regarding the Concerns Based Adoption Model, policy board members will respond to questions regarding the critical components of the staff development programs: operation of policy boards, needs assessment, program planning, identification of resources, and evalua­ tion. Analyzing the results cf these responses will provide information for the State Board of Education and Legislature. In addition, policy board members will have an opportunity to identify particular concerns and talk to others about possible solutions. Information about the February 15, 1980, Progress Report will be provided by the Department of Education. tf.HibJ I l. SoCC 54 OCR Check one: 305 teacher CONCERNS QUESTIONNAIRE admin i str.--.hiqiier educate intermedia staff other ’ n order to i d e n t i f y t h e s e d a t a , p l e a s e g i v e us the l a s t f o u r d i g i t s o f your S o c ia l S e c u r i t y number: The purpose o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s t o d ete rm ine what p eop le who ar e p la nn ing p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f development programs ar e concerned about a t v a r i o u s times during th e imple men tation p r o c e s s . The items were de ve lo pe d from t y p i c a l re s p on se s o f s c h o o l and c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s who ranged f r c r no knowledge a t a l l about v a r i o u s programs t o many y e a r s e x p e r i e n c e in u s i n o them. T h e r e f o r e , good part o f t h e ite m s on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e may appear to be o f l i t t l e r e l e v a n c e or i r r e l e vant t o .you a t t h i s time . For t h e c o m p l e t e l y i r r e l e v a n t i t e m s , p l e a s e c i r c l e “O" on the s c a l e . Other items w i l l r e p r e s e n t t h o s e concerns you do hav e, in var yi ng d e g r e e s o f i n t e n s i t y , and should be marked h ig h e r on t h e s c a l e . For example: This s t a te m e n t i s ver y t r u e o f me a t t h i s time 0 1 2 3 4 6 6 ( 7) '1 This s t a te m e n t i s somewhat t r u e o f me now. This s t a t e m e n t i s n o t a t a l l t r u e o f me a t t h i s t i m e . o Q This st at em en t seems i r r e l e v a n t t o me. 0 1 2 2 3 ^4 ) 5 6 7 3 6 1 i 5 ( ^ ) l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pl eas e respond t o t h e items in terms o f your p r e s e n t c o n c e r n s , or how you f e e l about your inv ol v e m en t or p o t e n t i a l in v o lv e m en t w i t h ________________________________ T p l e a s e s p e c i f y the component.) We do n ot hold t o any one d e f i n i t i o n o f t h i s com­ po n en t, so p l e a s e t h i n k o f i t in terms o f you r ov/n p e r c e p t i o n s o f what i t involves. Remember t o reSDond t o each item in terms o f your p r e s e n t concerns about your involv em en t or p o t e n t i a l in v o lv e m e n t w it h th e above named component. Thank you f o r t a k i n g t h e tim e t o co m ple te t h i s t a s k . ** Choose one and w r i t e i t on t h e l i n e : Operation o f p o l i c y board Assessment o f needs Id e n tific a tio n of resources Planning o f programs E va lu a t io n (adaptation o f) Procedures f o r Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM P r o j e c t R&0 Center f o r Teacher Edu catio n, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t Austin , Irrelevant t. Not tru e o f me now O *T J U Somewhat t r u e o f me now / Very t r u e o f me now 306 i 1. 1 am concerned about p r o f e s s i o n a l - s t a f f ' s a t t i t u d e s toward t h i s component. 0 1 2 2- I now know o f some ot h e r approaches t h a t might work b e t t e r . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I d o n ' t even know what t h i s component i s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I am concerned about not having enough time t o or ga n iz e m y s e lf each day. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to help o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f in t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have a very l i m i t e d knowledge about t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to know what the e f f e c t o f c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h i s component would have on my p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about c o n f l i c t between my i n t e r e s t s and my r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' 9. I am concerned about r e v i s i n g my use o f t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I would l i k e t o dev el op working r e l a t i o n s h i p s wit h both our f a c u l t y and o u t s i d e f a c u l t y us in g t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about how t h i s component a f f e c t s professional s t a f f . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am not concerned about t h i s component. * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e t o know who w i l l make th e d e c i s i o n s in t h i s new system. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to d i s c u s s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n c e n t r a t i n g on t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e t o know what re s o u r c e s are a v a i l a b l e i f we d ec i d e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about my i n a b i l i t y t o manage a l l the component r e q u i r e s . ’ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e t o know how my t e a c h i n g or a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s supposed t o change. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 would l i k e to f a m i l i a r i z e o t h e r departments or persons with the prog res s o f t h i s new component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 3 4 5 6 7 i: 6. 7. 3. ■11. r ^13. 11. 15. 1C. 1/. Procedures fo r Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM P r o j e c t RAD Center for Teacher Education, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas a t Austin (Adaptation o f ) i u Irrelevant 19. 1 Not true o f me now Z 2 4 Somewhat true o f me now 307 I am concerned about ev a l u a t i n g my impact on p ro f es s io n a l s t a f f . • 5 6 7 Very true o f me now 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I would l i k e t o r e v i s e the component's approach. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. I am co m p le te ly occupied with ot h er t h in a s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Although 1 d on 't know about t h i s component, I am concerned about t h in g s r e l a t e d t o i t . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to e x c i t e our p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f about t h e i r part in t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am concerned about time sp ent working with othe r problems r e l a t e d to t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to know what co n ce n t ra t in g on t h i s component w i l l requ ir e in t h e immediate f u t u r e . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to c oo rd in a t e my e f f o r t with o th er s to maximize the component's e f f e c t s . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e t o have more information on time and energy commitments required by t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to know what othe r p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f are doing in t h i s area. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 At t h i s tim e, I am not i n t e r e s t e d in le ar n in g about t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to determine how t o supplement, enhance, or r ep la ce t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would l i k e to use feedback from p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f to change the program. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. w I would l i k e to know how my r o l e w i l l change when I am co n ce n t ra ti n g on t h i s component. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. -' Coordination o f t a s k s and people i s tak ing too much o f my time. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. I would l i k e t o know how t h i s component i s b e t t e r than - ' what va have now. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 y 2 2 ? I would l i k e t o modify our use o f the component based on the ex p e r i e n c e s o f our p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . 23. 24. 25. ?G. 1,27. 28. 19. 30. 31. 22. Procedures fo r Adopting Educational Innovations/CBAM P ro je ct R&D Center fo r Teacher Education, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas at Austin (Adaptation o f ) EXHIBIT D 308 A Report of The Common Concerns Expressed by Representatives of Policy Boards in the State of Michigan Meetings were held in twelve locations throughout the state to elicit concerns from members of policy boards for professional development. A nominal group process procedure was used to generate, and put into priority, the concerns policy board members had with regard to the following: Operation of the Policy Board, Conducting Needs Assessment, Identification of Resources, Program Planning, and Evaluation. Results of these meetings were summarized by Department of Education staff. What follows is a listing of major concern categories believed to encompass the priority of concerns expressed across the state. OPERATION OF THE POLICY BOARD Concerns: I. II. III. IV. How do policy boards establish criteria for program selection? What are the functions (and purposes) of the policy board? How should budgets be established by policy boards? How can policy board members receive training for their new roles? NEEDS ASSESSMENT Concerns I. How can we establish valid procedures for assessing teacher This concern involves the following issues: a) b) needs? What is the relationship between individual needs and school district needs? What is the relationship between teacher-perceived needs and the true needs of the teacher? XI. III. What can be done to get staff involved in the needs assessment process? What are the various means for conducting needs assessment? PROGRAM PLANNING Concerns I. How can we plan programs to meet the needs of diverse groups? II. What criteria will be used In deciding what programs to fund? III. IV. V. What incentives can be provided to gain staff participation in programs How can we make program planning meaningful and practical? What models exist for moving from program planning to program delivery? RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION Concerns I. II. III. IV. How can we organize a state/country-wide human resource network? Can we obtain an updated, excessable file of available and reliable sources? How can we know what programs are effective? How do \;e establish a local (in-district) resource network? EVALUATION Concerns; I. II. What are valid methods of long and short term evaluation? What should be evaluated and who should be the target of the evaluation (program consultant, teachers, students?) 2/15/80 310 Sy.f.:i’u.it ic. Assessment of Concerns Ar. instrument, the Stages of Concern About the Innovation, developed by Gen-': Mall and his associates at Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas, Austin Texas was used in a modified form to determine the relative levels of concerns of policy board members with regard to five components (Operation of the Policy Board, Conducting Needs Assessment, Identification of Resources, Program Planning and and Evaluation). The following is a brief overview of the Concems-based Adoption Model identified I 1 and described by Hall et. al., followed by a description of procedures and results of the findings when the Stages of Concern about the Innovation questionnaire i was distributed to participants in the statewide meetings. The Concerns-Based Adoption Model The Concerns-Based Adoption (CBAM) model of change in school settings was developed by Gene Hall at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, Austin Texas. The CBAM model is based on the work of Frances Fuller who identified developmental stages of concern about teaching In pre and in-service teachers. Fuller's model identifies three levels of concerns about teaching: concerns about self, concerns about the tasks of teaching, and concerns about the impact of (my) teaching. Similarly, the CBAM model Identifies seven levels of concern persons have about making an innovation. These concern levels are described in Figure 1, The CBAM model is based on seven assumptions stated In detail in the publication "Concerns Based In-service Teacher Training: Concepts, Research and Practice" (Hall, 1978). An Overview of the The assumption central to this report is that there are identifiable stages and levels of the change process experienced by Individuals. The Stages of Concern About the Innovation questionnaire was developed and validated by Hall and his associates to measure the?:-levels of concern. The /■iplication of CBAM to Study the Concern Levels of Policy Board Members A modified version of the Stages of Concern About the Innovation was dis­ tributed to persons attending the regional meetings held in twelve different locations throughout the state, to this report. A copy of the modified questionnaire is appended Respondents filled out the questionnaire according to the component about which they were most concerned. The components are as follows: Observation of the Policy Board, Conducting Needs Assessments, Identification of Resources, Program Planning, and Evaluation. Two hundred thirty two persons responded to the questionnaire, A breakdown I of the population by role (teacher, administrator, etc.) and component (Operation of the Policy Board, Needs Assessment, etc.) is presented in the table which follows. TABLE I - Number of Respondents by Role and Component Teachers Administrators Higher Education Intermediate School Staff Other Row Total, % Operation of the Policy Board 16 8 1 2 5 Needs Assessment 22 15 4 7 6 Identification of Resources 19 10' 0 5 2 Planning Programs 41 31 1 11 9 93 40% 5 7 0 3 2 ]7 7% 71 31% 6 28 12% 24 10% Evaluation Column Total Ptvcont 103 44% 32 14% 54 23% 36 15.5% 232 j 312 Figure 1 Stages of Concern About the Innovation 0 AWARENESSt dicated. Little concern about or involvement with the innovation is in­ 1 INFORMA T I O N A L ; A general awareness of the innovation and interest in learning more detail about it is indicated. The person seems to be un­ worried about himself/herself in relation to the innovation. She/he is interested in substantive aspects of the innovation in a selfless manner such as general characteristics, effects, and requirements for use. 2 P E R S O N A L : Individual is uncertain about the demands of the innovation, his/her inadequacy to meet those demands, and his/her role with the innova ^ ^ u ">> :'v> 2 i° ° Y V ° ri -n 7) o * <>r I* o - s *• x* 7 r: nI s ■» * ■ ©; £ * ’ AWARENESS INFORMATIONAL ** v Cl fti ro PERSONAL CO ft ■! -e* MANAGEMENT CONSEQUENCE + - s •' COLLABORATION O REFOCUSING Figure 2 vt ILL TABLE II - Percentile of Respondents By Concern Level and Component Aware­ ness Operation of Policy Board Infor­ mational 59 Personal 77 Manage­ ment ConseQucnce Collab­ oration Refocus­ ing 69.3 55.3 57.6 75.2 44.9 t Needs Assessments 68 78.2 62.1 44.9 62.9 76.5 52.1 Identification of Resources 67 80.3 64.6 52 54.1 t 74.9 49.5 Planning of Programs 67 80.6 69.1 54.4 59.8 76.6 45.4 Evaluation 74.5 85.4 63 49.4 61.3 68.7 59.9 The pattern of responses is remarkably similar in Figure 2. If using this modified instrument is valid, and there is a distinct possibility that it may not be, it would seem that members of policy boards responding to this question­ naire are in the first stages of development and are mostly concerned about gaining more information with regard to these components. Further, their con­ cerns about working together are substantial and should be addressed along with the need for information. Taken together the pattern of responses in Table 1 and Figure 2, indicate the members of policy boards in this sample need information about planning pro­ grams and conducting needs assessments. In addition, methods and procedures for helping these diverse groups work together are clearly indicated. j \ 316 EXHIBIT E S T A T E O F M IC H IG A N D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T IO N L an sin g , M ich ig an 40903 EU G EN E T. PASLOV S T A T E B O A R D O F E D U C A T iC M BARBARA K ri ll li K T £ i M A S O N V rru Jenf N O R M A N O T T O N T O C K M I . V I lK. SK V'irr I ' r m J r n i D R . G U M E C I N D O S A t.A S Srirrlary Interim S uperintendent o f I’u h li c I n i l i u c i i o n B A R B A R A D UM O U C H U LLI- Irnniirrr J O H N W A TA N F.N . JR. KAXM-. I h l r t;,!r y. k a n o v io n A N N IV IT A M I I . U - . l t D R . E D M U N D I'. V A N D E V I r sil v u k f n ia MEMORANDUM G ovcnicr W IL L IA M G. M IL L IK E N TO: FROM: Professional Staff Development Program Coordinators & Police Board Chairpersons Paula Brictson, Director Office of Professional Development SUB3EC".: March Regional Meetings U-Officio The Office of Professional Development, Michigan Department of Education will concucr. 11 Regional Meetings throughout Michigan between March ID & 20, 1980. These meetings will be a follow-up and update of the series of workshops held in 0-jn'ar.y, 1980, where participants .generated concerns, priorities, and recommendations regarding professional staff development. Summaries of the January workshops will be sent to all of the participants in February, and copies will be available at the March meetings. Each Policy Board is encouraged to send its coordinator and chairperson (if they are one and tne same, choose a second person). These meetings will cover the following topics: 1. State Department information: Pertinent information regarding the conclusions from the January Workshops and February 15th Progress Report as well as information about the July 15, 1980, report will be given. II. So You've Done A Professional Development Needs Assessment, Now What? Each Policy Beard is asked to bring along the Professional Staff Development Heeds lisved in the February 1.5th report from which programs are being planned (or have been or will be planned}. Practice and suggestions will be given on how to plan programs from these. III. Success Stories and Overcoming Obstacles Each Policy Pear 1 is also ashed to bring along any descriptive material they have -imploped: flyers., brochures, newsletters, forms, assessments, TH t C HEAT »> lAki *T*" A .* .., ; Sever?.! Policy Boards will report briefly on successes they have had with identifying resources and p l a n n i n g programs. S e l e c t whichever l o c a t i o n and d a t e i s most co n v e n ie n t f o r you: PROFESSIONAL STAFF DEVELOPMENT MARCH REGIONAL MEETINGS LOCATIONS AMD DATES DATE Monday, March 10 Tuesday, March 11 i LOCATION TIME Kent In term ediate School D i s t r i c t 2650 E. B e l t l i n e , S.E. Grand Rapids, Mi 49506 12:30 - 4:pm. Washtenaw Intermediate School D i s t . 1819 S. Wagner Road Ann Arbor, Mi 48106 12:30 - 4:pm. Kalamazoo V a l l e y Inte rme dia te School D i s t r i c t 1819 E. Mil ham Road Kalamazoo, Mich. 49002 12: 30 - 4 : pm. Macomb Inte rme dia te School D i s t r i c t 44001 G a r fi e ld Mt. Clemens, Mich. 48044 12:30 - 4:pm. Bay DeNoc Community C o l l e g e Escanaba, Mich. 1 0: 00 - 3 : pm. Wednesday, March 12 Bay-Arenac I n ter m edi at e School D i s t . 12 :3 0 - 4:pm. 4228 Two Mile Road Bay C i t y , Mich. 48706 Monday, March 17 Wayne County In te rm ed ia te School D istrict 33500 Van Born Road Wayne, Mich 48184 12:30 - 4 : pm. Genesee Inte rm ed ia te School D i s t . 2413 W. Maple F l i n t , Mich. 48407 12:30 - 4:pm. Wednesday, March 19 Oakland S chools 2100 Po n tia c Lake Road P o n t i a c , Mich. 48054 12:30 - 4:pm. Thursday, March 20 Ingham Inte rme dia te School D i s t r i c t Developmental Center 2630 W. Howell Road Mason, Mich. 48854 12:30 - 4 : pm. Cheboynan-Otsego-Prcsque I s l e Inte rmediate School D i s t r i c t 6065 Learning Lane Indian R iv er , Mich. 49749 12:30 - 4:pm. 318 PltASf-; RETURN THIS RESPONSE TO: O f f i c e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Michigan Department o f Education Box 30008 L a n s i n g , Michigan 48909 RESPONSE FORM FOR MARCH REGIONAL MEETINGS / / YES. We w i l l be a t t e n d i n g t h e Reg ion al Meeting on March , 19 80 , a t ____________________________________ . P o l i c y Board Name ( o r f i s c a l a g e n t ) _____________________ Attending w ill I / MO. We w i l l be ___________________________________________ be u n a b l e t o a t t e n d b e c a u s e Tf ]jon need a map for that location, please check here Any q u e s t i o n s ? ? ? CALL 517 3 7 3 - 3 6 0 8 EXHIBIT F 319 SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 15, 1980 PROGRESS REPORT T h is r e p o r t r e p r e s e n t s 90% o f t h e funded programs. The remaining 10% r e q u e s t e d and were g r a n t e d e x t e n s i o n s t o f i l e t h e r e p o r t . P o l i c y Board Mee tin gs A t o t a l o f 544 p o l i c y board m e e t i n g s were h e l d t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e between Octo ber 1979 and February 1 5 , 1980. The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e m e e t i n g s were h eld d u ri n g th e s c h o o l day (55% d uri ng t h e s c h o o l day and 45% a f t e r s c h o o l ) . The a v e r a g e m ee ti n g l a s t e d about t h r e e and o n e - h a l f hours r e s u l t i n g i n some 2009 hours o f p o l i c y board m e e t i n g s . Program Op er at io n ( A c t i v i t i e s in a d d i t i o n t o P o l i c y Board M e e t i n g s ) F o r t y - f o u r t h o u s a n d , e i g h t hundred, f o r t y e i g h t ( 4 4 , 8 4 8 ) hours were s p e n t in t h e f o l l o w i n g kinds o f a c t i v i t i e s : c o n d u c t i n g needs a s s e s s m e n t s , p l a n n in g programs, i d e n t i f y i n g r e s o u r c e s , d e v e l o p i n g b y - l a w s , and d e l i v e r i n g programs! In a d d i t i o n t o p o l i c y board m e e t i n g s an av e r a g e o f fo u r- h u n d re d f o r t y hours p e r program were s p e n t in t h e above l i s t e d kin ds o f a c t i v i t i e s . S t a f f Development A c t i v i t i e s Data r e p o r t e d h e r e r e f e r t o t h e number o f hours and number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s who t o o k p a r t in e v e n t s p r o v i d e d t o c l i e n t groups as a r e s u l t o f program p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f p o l i c y b o ar d s . The d i s t i n c t i o n l o n g - t e r m and s h o r t - t e r m e v e n t s i s used t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a c t i v i t i e s which would e f f e c t i n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l i z e d t h i n g s l i k e c u r r i c u l u m d ev el opm ent and o t h e r b u i l d i n g or d i s t r i c t wi de programs and a c t i v i t i e s which might e f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s . At l e a s t n i n e thousan d p e r s o n s s p e n t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y s e v e n thousan d hours i n l o n g ­ term a c t i v i t i e s . Each p o l i c y board i n v o l v e d an a v e r a g e o f about two hundred n i n e t y p e r s o n s in e l e v e n hundred hours o f l o n g - t e r m a c t i v i t i e s . A break down o f t h e p e r s o n s and hours by O f f i c e o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Development g o a l s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l dev el o pm en t i s i n c l u d e d in t h e t a b l e below . TABLE I - - Long-term Program Ac: t i v i t i c s Long-term Program A c t i v i t i e s ( i . e . , b u i l d i n g l e v e l programs curriculum development) No. o f Participants Hours To p r o v i d e t e a c h e r s and o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l workers w i t h knowledge and s k i l l s t o f a c i l ­ i t a t e improved s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g performance commensurate w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t i n c e n ­ t i v e and p o t e n t i a l 3,777 17,044 To p r o v i d e t e a c h e r s and o t h e r e d u c a t i o n a l workers w i t h knowledge and s k i l l s t o meet a d d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n ta l needs o f s t u d e n t s 3,349 11,313 To meet t h e s p e c i f i c n ee d s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f t h a t may or may n o t be r e l a t e d t o c o g n i t i v e outcomes in s t u d e n t s . 2,346 9,069 TOTAL 9,472 AVERAGE 287 37,426 1,134 320 T ab le II i s a s i m i l a r breakdown f o r s h o r t - t e r m Program A c t i v i t y . TABLE II - - S h o r t - t e r m Progr am A c t i v i t i e s No. o f P articipants Hours To p r o v i d e t e a c h e r s and o t h e r e d u c a t i o n ­ al workers w i t h knowledge and s k i l l s t o f a c i l i t a t e improved s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g performance commensurate w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t i n c e n t i v e and p o t e n t i a l . 5,890 8,997 To p r o v i d e t e a c h e r s and o t h e r e d u c a t i o n ­ al workers w i t h knowledge and s k i l l s t o meet a d d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t a l n eed s o f students 4,628 13,337 To meet t h e s p e c i f i c ne ed s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f t h a t may o r may n o t be r e l a t e d t o c o g n i t i v e outcomes in students 3,613 13,312 TOTAL 14,131 35,646 AVERAGE 345 869 S h o r t - t e r m Program A c t i v i t i e s Examination o f t h e s e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t more p e r s o n s were i n v o l v e d in s h o r t - t e r m a c t i v i t i e s than l o n g - t e r m . Further, over se v e n ty -th r e e thousa nd hours o f program a c t i v i t i e s f o r 2 3 , 6 0 3 p r o f e s s i o n a l s were g e n e r a t e d by p o l i c y board a c t i o n . When t h e hours s p e n t f o r p o l i c y board m e e t i n g s , program o p e r a t i o n and s t a f f d eve lo pm en t a c t i v i t i e s a r e t o t a l e d , between October 1979 , arid February 1 9 8 0 , t h e e n t i t l e m e n t program has g e n e r a t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 hours o f p a r t ic i p a n t involvement. T h i s i s a p e r i o d o f o n l y f i v e months. ( r e f e r to Form PD4662, Page 5, Part A) TTnN7ffiTRE OF POLICY I. boahd chairperson DOCUMENTATION OF THE POLICY BOARD OPERATION A. Changes in p o l i c y board membership and why. i n d i c a t e "no change". Otherwise SIGNATURE PROGRAM COORDINATOR B. Policy Board Meetings (including planning meetings to submit application). 1. Howmanymeetingshave been held? 2. Howlongwere themeetings in total ( hours during school day____ hours after school day)? 3. Howmanyattendedeach meeting? teachers, administrators, HigherEd., fiscal agent staff, (Meeting #1 _________ time of day No. No. No. No. ~ (Meeting § 2 _______________ teachers, administrators, HigherEd., fiscal aaent staff, time of day No. No. No. No. (Meeting # 3 _________ teachers, administrators, HioherEd., fiscal agent staff, time of day No. No. No. No. (Meeting #4_________ teachers, administrators, HigherEd., fiscal agent staff, time of day No. No. No. ~ No. 4. How many hours, in total, of the policy board meetings were devoted to: Needs Assessment Program Planning Resource Identification_____________ Development o f By-Laws _______ IT. III. PRIORI!I ZED NEEDS Other Other No. Other No. Other No. No. CO ro Other ( P l e a s e d e f i n e ) ___________________________________________________________________ Attach a l i s t o f p r i o r i t i z e d needs i f i t was not submitted with, the December 15, 1979 a p p l i c a t i o n . DESCRIPTION OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES This f i r s t progress report should i n d i c a t e t h e number o f i n d i v i d u a l s inv olved in a l l phases o f s t a f f development a c t i v i t i e s and the amount o f time. Therefore, two components are required and can be completed on the attached pages. A. D e s c r ip t io n o f Program Operation The f o l l o w i n g format should be used t o describe. Program Operation, th ose a c t i v i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s , in addition to P o l i c y Board m eet ing s, n ece ss a ry f o r needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , reso urc e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , program planning. By-laws, program d e l i v e r y . B. D es cri p tio n o f S t a f f Development A c t i v i t i e s (Page 7 o f PDfl662) Page 7 o f PD4562 s h a l l be r e s t r i c t e d to th ose events orovided to c l i e n t nroups as a r e s u l t o f a prcoram planninn process and s h a l l he c a t e g o r iz e d according to the three neneral noals in the s t a t e d e f i n i t i o n of S t a f f Development. ( r e f e r to Form PD4662, Paqe 5, Part A) 322 DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM OPERATION ( A c t i v i t i e s in a d d iti on to P o l ic y Board M e e t i n o s . ) I How Many NEEDS ASSESSMENT (Planning, d e l i v e r y and evaluation of) teachers ad m in ist ra to rs hiQher education personnel f i s c a l agent s t a f f o th e r ( s p e c i f y ) PROGRAM PLANNING t eac h er s admin ist rat ors higher education personnel f i s c a l agent s t a f f ot h er ( s p e c i f y ) RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION teachers admin ist rat ors hioher education personnel f i s c a l agent s t a f f other ( s p e c i f y ) BY-LAWS (Development o f ) teache rs ad m in ist ra to rs high er education Dersonnel f i s c a l agent s t a f f other ( s p e c i f y ) DELIVERY (who provided programs, led s e s s i o n s , or i n s t r u c t e d ) teache rs ad m in ist ra to rs higher education personnel f i s c a l agent s t a f f o tter (specify) ii How Many Hours Total Hours ( r e f e r to Form PC46S2, Page 7 , Sectio n C) SECTION v.: DESCRIPTION OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES (To be submitted February 15, 1980.) L is t by Three General Goals Contained in the S t a t e D e f i n i t i o n 1. No. o f P a r t i c ip a n t s No . o f Hours p e r t Total P art ic ipa nt Part rtic ip a n t ; _____ Long-term Program A c t i v i t i e s ( i . e . , b u il d in g l e v e l programs, curriculum development) a. To provide t eac her s and ot h er edu cational workers with knowledge and s k i l l s to f a c i l i t a t e improved stud ent l e a r n in g performance commensurate with individual st udent i n c e n t i v e and p o t e n t i a l . (here l i s t e v e n t s ) b. To provide t ea ch er s and other ed ucational workers with knowledge and s k i l l s to meet a d d iti on a l developmental needs o f s t u d e n t s . (here l i s t ev e n t s ) c. To meet the s p e c i f i c needs o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f th a t may or may r o t be r e l a t e d to c o g n i t i v e outcomes in s t u d e n t s . 2. Short-term Program A c t i v i t i e s : a. To provide t eac h er s and ot her ed ucation al workers with knowledge and s k i l l s to f a c i l i t a t e improved st ud en t le ar n in g performance commensurate with in d iv id u al st udent i n c e n t i v e and p o t e n t i a l . (here l i s t ev e n t s ) b. To provide t eac her s and other educational workers w i t 1’ knowledge and s k i l l s to meet ad d it io n al developmental needs o f s t u d e n t s . (here l i s t e v en ts ) c. To meet the s p e c i f i c needs o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f th a t may or may not be r e l a t e d to c o g n i t i v e outcomes in s t u d e n t s . (here l i s t e v en t s ) 323 (here l i s t e v e n t s ) APPENDIX D Structured Interview With Consortium Coordinator 324 Topic 1. Background Before Entitlement Program 1. How were professional development programs delivered before the Entitlement Program? 2. Who was involved in planning, evaluating programs? 3. How did agencies cooperate before the Entitlement Program? Topic 2. 1. Roles of Participants in the Consortium How did you become involved in the role of con­ sortium coordinator? a. b. c. d. 2. Coordination Identification of resources Mediator Clerk Other What role does the Policy Board play in planning, implementing, and evaluating professional develop­ ment programs? a. b. c. d. 4. Involuntary assignment State mandate Service area need Other How would you describe your role as consortium coordinator? a. b. c. d. e. 3. implementing, and Coordination Monitor policy Provides legitimation for programs Other How does the Policy Board function? a. b. c. Formerly Informally Other 325 5. What has your role been in consortium-sponsored programs? a. b. c. d. e. 6. What motivated you to become involved in these programs? a. b. c. d. e. 7. 1. for self-growth and experience help professionals attend by the consortium Organizers Traineer Instructor Other Responsibility for Organizational Structure What agencies and groups are initiating and organiz­ ing professional development programs in this consortium? a. b. c. d. e. f. 2. Primarily To better Forced to Requested Other What is the role of teachers in the consortiumsponsored program? a. b. c. d. Topic 3. Organizer Traineer Instructor Project monitor Other Teachers Administrators Cooperative effort between the teachers and local administrators Administration/local district Local school districts and institutions of higher education Other Who determines the content and process of pro­ fessional development programs? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Teachers and administration School district and universities Cooperative efforts between LEAs Cooperative efforts between ISDs and LEAs Teachers Community Other 326 3. Who evaluates professional development programs? a. b. c. d. 4. Teachers Teachers and administrators External evaluators Other What are the relative roles of the following groups in initiating and organizing professional develop­ ment programs? (List in rank order from most significant role to least significant role.) State Education Department School Districts _____ Teacher Organizations Community Groups Universities Intermediate School District Other 5. How have teacher associations been involved? 6. What is the process for communicating to members of the consortium? a. b. c. d. Topic 4, 1, Consortium coordinator to Policy Board to Local District Administrators to Other Planning for Professional Development What is the process for establishing goals for professional development programs? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 327 2. How are local districts involved in the planning process? a. b. c. d. 3 Through local district representatives Meetings in local districts Policy board meetings Other What is the process for approving annual plans for professional development in this consortium? a. b. c. d. 4. How are needs assessments done? 5. What are needs based on? a. b. c. d. e. Topic 5. 1. Teacher responses Administration responses Testing data Community input Other Resources: Human and Material How are resources human and material identified? a. Formal search for resources b. Informal search for resources c . Other 2. How is the appropriateness of resources determined? a. b. c. 3. Formal procedure Informal evaluation Other What have been the best sources of instructional personnel for professional development programs? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Experienced teachers University personnel Consultants within the consortium Consultants from the State Department of Education Consultants from the ISD Administrators Consultants from private corporations Consultants from other ISDs Other 328 4. Who selects the instructors for consortiumsponsored programs? a. b. c. d. e. 5. What type of programs are usually presented? a. b. c. d. 6. 1. Professional Development Entitlement funds Special Education funds Gifted and Talented Vocational Education funds Career Education funds Other Incentives for Participating in Professional Development Programs, What are the incentives for professionals attend­ ing professional development programs in this consortium? a. b. c. d. e. 2. Packaged programs Packaged programs modified to meet partici­ pant's needs Programs developed by district personnel Other What are the funding sources for professional development programs in this consortium? a. b. c. d. e. f. Topic 6 . Teachers Administrators Policy board University Other Salary increments Problem solving Personal satisfaction Release time Other What are the incentives for local districts to participate in professional development programs in this consortium? 329 Topic 7. 1. Characteristics of Professional Development Programs in the Consortium. How would you characterize professional development programs in this consortium? a. b. c. d. e. 2. What improvements should be made in consortiumsponsored programs? a. b. c. d. e. 3. Topic 8 . 1. Lacking organization Providing programs based on the real needs of clients. Adequate in meeting the needs of teachers. Cooperatively managed and directed Other Streamline planning process Increase participation by local districts Increase involvement of teachers Increase involvement of administrators Other What benefits have local districts acquired through the entitlement programs? Participation and Evaluation Who decides how often a teacher participates in professional development programs sponsored by the consortium? a. b. c. d. e. f. Teachers Principals District administrators Contractual stipulations Policy Board Other Who evaluates participants of professional development programs? a. b. c. d. e. Teachers Joint evaluation: teachers/administrators External evaluators Administrators Other 330 3. How are the results from evaluation used by the consortium? a. b. c. d. Topic 9. Identify future programs Improve present delivery system Help teachers/administrators in future planning Other Overview of Major Issues in the Consortium 1. What is the most important issue in the consortium? 2. What are the positive characteristics of professional development in the consortium? 3. What are the negative characteristics of professional development in the consortium? 4. What are the three major problems with the State Model for Professional Development? 331 LOCAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR Enrollment_____ Number of Buildings____ Annual Budget $____________ I. Background 1. How was professional development programming delivered before involvement in the consortium? 2. How has the delivery of professional development programming changed since joining the consortium? II. Participation 1. What has your role been in professional development programs in the district? 2. What has the role of teachers been in professional development programs? 3. What are the funding sources for professional development programs in this district? 4. What is the planning process for developing professional develop­ ment programs in this district? 332 III. Incentives 1. What are the incentives for professionals from this district to attend professional development programs? 2. What are the incentives for this district to participate in the consortium? IV. Overview 1. What have been the positive characteristics of your district's participation in the consortium? 2. What are the negative characteristics? 3. What are two major problems with the State Model for Pro­ fessional Development? APPENDIX E 333 Professional Development Program Survey T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e is p a r t o f a s t u d y t o i d e n t i f y t h e lo c a l c o n d i t i o n s , re so u rc e s, re w a rd s, a n d c h a ra c te ristic s of p ro fessio n al d e v e lo p m e n t UJ p r o g r a m s in c o n s o r tia o v e r 7 5 0 . DC T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e is d e s i g n e d t o c o l l e c t i n f o r m a t i o n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l < w d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s in y o u r d i s t r i c t . Y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n in c o m p l e t ­ q (D in g t h i s i n s t r u m e n t is s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d . CD z o INSTRUCTIONS: cc s t a t u s of H 0) CD < s cc UJ UJ UJ K < to CJ z 3 CD G e n e r a l l y , t e a c h e r s a r e i n v o l v e d in d e v e l o p i n g p u r p o s e s , m e t h o d s , a n d e v a lu a tio n for p ro fe s s io n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p ro g ra m s . 2 3 4 2. P ro fe ssio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p ro g ra m s provide a n o p p o rtu n ity to b e c o m e a c q u a in te d w ith n e w p ra ctic e s or p ro g ram s. 2 3 4 3. G e n e r a lly , t e a c h e r s a r e in v o lv e d in p l a n n i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t program s. 2 3 4 4. P ro fe ss io n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p r o g r a m s a re o rg a n iz e d a n d d ire c te d by b u ild in g p rin c ip a ls a n d staff. 2 3 4 5. P ro fe s s io n a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s s a tis fy d istric t n e e d s a s w e ll a s individual t e a c h e r n e e d s . 2 3 4 6. P ro fe ssio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p ro g ra m s a re teach ers. 2 3 4 7. M o st p ro fe s sio n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p r o g r a m s a r e w ell p la n n e d . 2 3 4 8. T h e r e is a d e q u a t e f o l l o w - u p t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev elo p m en t program s. 2 3 4 9. M ost professional d e v e lo p m en t p ro g ram s a re sh o rt-term w o rk sh o p s. 2 3 4 B u ild in g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s p a r ti c i p a te in p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t program s. 2 3 4 i c i a a i n e e d s of w o* 10. c i o i re le v a n t to t h e o i e i 1. m j P l e s e c ircle t h e n u m b e r t h a t m o s t a c c u r a te ly d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s in y o u r d i s t r i c t . UJ UJ cc STRONGLY AGREE UJ -i m ^ O o h n Mackenzie Research A s s i s t a n t CFHidp Enclosure 338 June 4 , 1981 L a s t week a q u e s t i o n n a i r e on p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t programs was s e n t t o y o u . This q u e s t io n n a ir e i s part o f a study o f pro­ f e s s i o n a l developm ent consortium in Michigan, I f yo u ha ve a l r e a d y c o m p l e t e d and r e t u r n e d i t t o u s p l e a s e a c c e p t our s i n c e r e thanks. I f n o t , p l e a s e do s o t o d a y . B e c a u s e i t ha s been s e n t t o a small sa m p le, i t i s im p o r ta n t t h a t y o u r r e s p o n s e be i n c l u d e d . I f by so me c h a n c e y o u d i d n o t r e c e i v e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , o r i t g o t m i s p l a c e d , p l e a s e c a l l me r i g h t now a t 1 - 8 0 0 - 2 9 2 - 1 6 0 6 a n d I w i l l sen d you a n o t h e r im m e d ia t e ly . Sincerely, ^ M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y COLL LG I- O F ED U C A T IO N LA ST LA N SIN G • M IC H IG A N • 18821 D E P A R T M E N T OF A D M IN IS T R A T IO N A N D H IG N LK E D U C A T IO N ER ICK SO N H ALL June 12, 1981 About two weeks ago you should have r e c e iv e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e on P r o f e s s io n a l Development Programs. As o f today we have not y e t r e c e iv e d your completed questionnaire. The study i s being done t o i d e n t i f y l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s , r e s o u r c e s , rewards, and program c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs in s e l e c t e d con­ s o r t i a and l o c a l d i s t r i c t s . I am w ri tin g to you again because o f the s i g n i f i c a n c e each q u e s t i o n n a i r e has to the u s e f u l n e s s o f t h i s stud y. The study i s being done with a small sample making the return o f each q u e s t i o n n a i r e very important. In the event t h a t your q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been m is p la ce d, a replacement i s enclosed. Your c o op er a t io n i s g r e a t l y a p p re ci at e d. I f you have any q u e s ti o n s p l e a s e c a l l me a t 1- 8 00 -29 2- 16 06. Sincerely John MacKenzie JMKrdp APPENDIX F Summary of Interviews O F IN T E R V IE W S W IT H C O H S flR T ttT H C O O R D IN A T O R S I TOPIC I ** Background Before C i i cUlMeul Program 1. lluv wcrt professional dcvelopaenl p r o g r w i JrlivLted before the entitlement Programs? 2. Who ties involved in planning. Implementing, and evaluating programs7 3. How did agencies cooperate before the Entitlement Program? TOPIC 2 -- Roles of Participants In the Consortlia tlov did you become involved In the role of consortium coordinator? 2, How would you describe your role as consortfum coordinator? ]. What role doe# the Policy Board play In planning. Implementing, and evaluating professional development programs? 4. Haw dues the Policy Board function? i. W m has your role been in consortium Sponsored programs? 6. Vttai motivated you to become involved In these programs? 7, What la the role of teachers In the cunaurtiufS' sponsored program? Ill --One shot, locally sponsored and Inter­ mediate sponsored program on request from Intermediate school district, --Mostly planned by administrators for teachers, varied according to local district. --Some on Career Education Steering Consittee. Only history of coopera­ tion. Strong superintendent group. Each district provided their own pru* grama. Incidental cooperation h r i v w n Intermediate school district and l£A‘a Worked with original Professional development Advisory Council became coordinator. --Hired to provide programs for general education. --The leader and coordinator, someone had to take charge, pollch and deter resource identification. -•Meets monthly, overall direction. — Formerly Policy Board, rules etc., Roberts rules, minutes, etc. --Comty-vlde instruction, logistics cossion calendar-lacked follow-up. Public relations logistics problems, --Assigned wanted to ace developed approach -•Hoc a lot of support. --Assignment by the aupcrlntcudent an) and an expressed interest. — Coordinator and facilitator for Policy Board and LEAs. --Distribution of Information on State Guideline*. --Provide final screening and appruvd of mlnigrants granted by local districts. --Formal rules and By*Lava -•Here flexible as trust level rises. --Assists in logistics, --Teacher representatives art active (District at first) and fiwl part of decision. Moved to Policy Board. Fiscal agent representative nonvoting member. Coordinate activities of Policy Board. Fiscal Role/Keeper of Bdoks and link to state. Follow rules and regula­ tions. Two meetings a year. Developed By-Laws and formal guidelines. Actual opera­ tion informal. Due to impasse and problems the first year, 2nd year. The full Policy Board was divided into subcooBlttee'kthac meet. Executive Council of sis meet four times a yeaT. Full Policy Board meets twice a year, once In the Fall ones In the Spring. Subconittee^Progras planning. Human Resources, Finance, (Operating Pro­ cedures) not functioning. Program Planning recosmend consortium programs for center. Human Resources model, responses to requests. Finance, monitors dollars spent, etc. Hakes recomcndatlons to Policy Board on procedures and operations, if necessary. Provides assistance to local districts in their programing, coordinate paper work and sponsor county-wide lnservice day. Haney flows directly to district 7SX/2SX/lncstmediate school district. Teachers active, supportive. Intensity varied in each local dl8ir*il district. 340 1. II The intermediate school district was an original site for Professional Development Advisory Council grant. Lctcal districts were autonomous could part If they wished. Imerdlstrlct programs. Intermediate school district absorbed operating cost. There was some cooperation but not consistently. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH CONSORTIUM COORDINATORS II TOPIC 1 -- Responsibility for Organliatloral Structure What a m e n d e * Andd group* group! Are «re Initiating InLt and organizing professional development this consortium? rlopnent programs in 2. Who determines the content and process of professional development programs? 1. W1m > evaluate* professional tlfvdopwnt programs? 4. Whit are the relative rnles of the following group* In Initiating end organizing professional development program*? 5. Ilow have teacher associations been involved? 6, What Is the procra* for comaunlcating to omwbers of the consortium? Did not know specifically but recommenda­ tion* made to local eoassitteet which then decide what they will do atone. If the local district use their money they determine reeoenendatloni for a county-wide p r o g r a m i n g then they pro-' vide Input. Mixed bag. Usually local district represen­ tatives recosTnend programing. Cooperative activity within the coniorttui Locally sponsored decided with occasional assistance from intermediate school district or Sponaor* of Program use a standard sheet. All are involved (see question.) Policy Board develops questions per State Guidelines. Review, s u m u r l z e and dlacuss. Active but distrust of administration ■nd visa versa caused mistrust which took a long tlsv to dispell two years. Good relationship, but has been neutral a* far as involvement. School district Intermediate school district Coordinator send# to chairperson then to representative*. First years newsletters, none the second year. ttl V*ry from district to district teachers. Strong In one administra­ tion (n another --Content and process determined Jointly between teachers and administrators. --Incidental, someone hears a speaker or takes a course. --Evsluaelon done by those attending basically a reactlonnalre. --Have been cooperative. --Minutes and other information nent to local coMsltteea through their local representatives. Through normal channels. Representative in each district or principal. LO 4> TiM11C A ■* Planning for Professional Development 1. What ia the process for establishing goal* for professional development programs? 2. How are local districts Involved In the planning process? 1. What is the process for approving annual plans for professional development In this consortium? li. tlnv nre need* assessments done? *>. What arc needs bated on? There are recommendations by various subcommittee* then to Executive Council. Local district input through represen­ tatives on council. Local district recoDsend* snd Inclement* local program. Recosssenikprograms for county-wide Insrtvlce day. Fecosnendstlons from subcommittee and then approve in Spring. Cotmty-vlde $4,800 statistically done. One hundred per* cent return of bulldlng*?teaeher opinion In local districts. Followed as a guide. Policy Board representatives gather recomM n d a t l o n s from their districts. These are brought to Policy Board meeting. Input from Intermediate school district and consortium coordinator 1* aleo obtained. Gather Input and reeoamend. Policy Board discusses Issues and direc­ tion and approves. 197B/lnformat!y local level. Teacher opinion/selected special area concerns. Local cocrslttees determine topic# and type* of program* they want. Hlnlgrsnt to consortium coordinator. Consortium coordinator checks for eoi^llance forward* to Policy Board for approval. Proposals sent to intermediate school district- Super­ intendent and Incorporated Into an annual plan for professional development. Done April 1980. Fnur part questionnaire. Teacher and Administrators opinion. Weed* influence* by latest fall. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH CONSORTIUM COORDINATORS It TOPtC 5 Reiourcei Hunan and Material I. How are resources human and material Identified* 2. Now !■ the appropriateness of reaoureci determined? 3, The Policy Hoard la using the Haconb Model a highly structured format. The require* documentation. Usually bypassed using an Informal approach. Whatever La nearest and dearest. f What have been the beat sources of Instructional' personnel for professional development programs? Who selects the Instructors for consortiut*sponsored programs? 5. What type of programs are usually presented! 6, What are the funding sources for profeaatonal development p r o g r a m In thla c o n s ortia? The latest fad or concern. developmental. Should he Usually whoever Is sponsoring local or Intermediate school district. Prepackaged programs. Shot some lead to continuation in the districts. Each grant remains separate even problems with coordinator. Section 97. Ill C o n s o r t i a coordinator keeps a file. Word o f mouth. Worked with Michigan State Unlverslti l.R.T. Reading, etc. Informal decision of consortium coordinator and those involved in sponsoring programs. Hone stands out sa beat depends on per­ sonality. Including intermediate school district, local professional, state depart­ ment. Other Intermediate school districts and consortium coordinators, Coisity-vlde seas ton to share avail­ able resources. Word of mouth in­ formal system. General consensu* of those planning session. SO/SO Internal/external. councils. K5U/IRT Intermedia* Selections rest with those Initiat­ ing the program. Hoitly not p.ckigtd nodi fled through negotla tion. Programs modified to meet partici­ pants needs, ClFted/talented, special education all shared costa. Special education/substance abuse District! went their own way with career education, U> -Pto TO P IC TnriC 6 Intent Ives for participating In profeaatonal development p r o g r a m 1. What are the incentive* for profeaalonala attending professional d e v elopmnt programs In this consortium? 2. What are the Incentives for local districts to participate In professional development pro­ grams In this consortia? 7 1. 2. 3. ~ Characteristics of prof-tslonal d e v elopwnt pr o g r a m in the consort.un ttow would you character lz- profeaatonal develop­ ment p r o g r a m In this con-ortlua? What Improvements should be made In consortiumsponsored p r o g r a m * What benefits have local districts acquired through the entitlemenr p r o g r a m ! Release time problem solving personal satisfaction. Teachers believe they can Improve Intrinsic to teachers. Problem solving/personal satisfac­ tion. More money/takeover by large district. Hare money/coordlnatlon of program and paperwork. More money less paperwork. Haphazard/little thought. It is well received. C o n s o r t i a sponsored Inspirational speakers IRT Impressive. One shot onedav little follow up. non developmental based loosely on needs assessment and more fad or cause of the movement. More long range development activities Teachers training teachers problems solving for district. Wider array of resources (Now will they use It?) One shot, still Building level/development cosssunlcatIon. Lei a paperwork/some have developed developmental programs Should move to site specific and developmental. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WtTH COHSORTlUM COORDINATORS 1 topic 8 ■* Participation and Evaluation 1. topic Uhn decide* how often a teacher participate! In professional development programs sponsored by the consortium? 2. Who evaluate* participants of professional develoment programs? 3. How are the results from evaluation used by the consortium? What la the most important issue in the consortlua? Ulut «r* the positive c h i n ^terlttlcs of professional development It- the c< isortltss? More money wider array of resources. Local dimcrtct/lncenaedtara school district Consortium and local district Local district option. Sent to state. Discussed and Policy Board meetings Reactionnalre by participants. Reactive/affective s ■ Survive 1/intermediate school district ■wallowed by larger district. Site specific/better coavsunleatton, building level The movement to the developmental approach away from one shot speakers. Everyone la equal in representation. Willingness to plan cooperatively City trying to take over. Greater coenltment by the whole of the profession. Level of crust between teachers and administrators. 501 spent on planning* ate. 501 on needs not related to needs assessment. State «t.:uld have provided more In establishing structure. More help for those managing the process 3. What are the negative characteristics of pro­ fessional development in the consortium? 4. Vhat are three major problems with the State Itndel for professional development? Establish of new ecmjnlcatlon net* works to local districts. It took too long. negative. Impact on students Inconsistency in guidelines/funding allocation constantly changing. 343 2* III Optional with district Satisfy state requirements clarifies heeds assessments. 9 -- Overview of Major Issues in the Consortium I, II Local district decides CONSORTIUM * -- SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS 1-A - Alt!ground I. tow m i p ro ln tfo fu ) denlofnent p t ^ r u * ^ d tU « m d before Inaervlc* teacher program on ly Ifivotvtavnt In ths coniartlimT ?♦ How has the delivery of profeularul d e w opmrnt p r a g m l h g changed ilnce Joining the consortia! P a rtic ip a tio n I. Whit Imi your rplt been In p r o f e u W I d e v d o w n t pragmas In the district! y r Honey avail­ able for ocher areas. Reeding stress, aith, evaluation (t shot) Administrator on district Policy Board Cooeslttee *t l-B 1-C One shot run by administration Thla la what they used. One ah&t Hany options Speakers films Inaervice Cooslttce Opening day Actlvltlex/l/2 day Beginning to get teacher Involve­ ment* Developed programs locally County-wide inservice in­ crease options/ small groups attend* Workshops 1-D Hare resources rely mostly on comortltm 1-E 1 -F 1-C Two contractual days a year release time conferences Preschool conference Inspiration speaker Strongly committed 4 days Coioity-ulde prorams regular ram Intermediate school district. Still some local programs Hore resources involved tea­ chers freed up local money 2 days greater variety prioritised lnservlce committee Organising local comaitcea. First meeting. Policy,Board member 6 coordina­ tor needs assessment Policy Board member first year active Policy Board members currlculim person Local coanlttee Policy Board member. Encour­ aged outside exposure Chief organl' wr. Policy Board member Aealetcd In determining needs. Formal and Informal Teachers involved central vocal spokesmen Difficult in the past. 1001 involved. Heeds assessment Very active Taken leader­ ship in planning Positve involve­ ment < Positive Involve­ ment program development bated on staff input. Teachers planned and ran session* A-F-T Strong None some current Some local money development money | Local/consortium Hone N one Some funding Local c w s l t t e e will set up priorities In the pest have elected to part in countywide day In con­ tract. (not well organized) Local conslttet rotate chairperson teacher adminis­ trator one for each ten teachers Plan locally sub­ mit to consortium for funds. Iac>\ committee Proposal to Study j administration 6 i cosnlttee. Do teachers survey P assessment forma} buildings took 1 and informal. ! county-wide sche­ Analyze results. dule days. Send Schedule program to consortium for baaed on priority money. Consortia Level 2. 3. 4. What hit the role of itithert been In professional development programs! Whet ere the funding sources for professions! derelopnent progress In this district! Whst Is the planning process for developing profeittansl developsent progress In this dUtrtctf Uiitig i third party from In­ termediate school district Teachers meet to determine need* and prioritize thole that can be afforded are then eub* mltted Local cosalttee meets with local education associa­ tion representa­ tive. Screen application look­ ing St district needs. Send to consortium for approval and funding. local com­ mittee assea» ex needs and plans pcogrmi Coopetat ea with unions. CONSORTIUM I -- S U W A R Y OF INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL DISTRICT ADHTHISTRATORS A-l 111, Incentives 1, Uhst ir e the tittfa ttv e i tar p r o f r t t i m l ) from th is d i s t r i c t to attend p r o f m to n s l develpparnt p n tg r m l ?. Whet ere the Incentives far th is d i s t r i c t to p a r tic ip a te In the coflfortlw rf R-3 B-I Meet & Belaxatlon Solve district pr o b l e m Older staff only way to keep updated. Very little because we have ■Iviye had access to out­ side resources Under access to resources. Sharing within districts. Better understand­ ing of Buena Vista. Pro g r a m i n g coordi­ nator throughout the coieity 1-S Instructional gain I Personal drive for Improvement legal U a b l U t y , teacher career alternatives Greater access to .resources in deal­ ing with problems Heeds association less smallest organization B-6 5-7 Want to do a better job. Transfer to itlnor area Personal need Problem Solving Contractual Obligation Punished by docking Wider array of resources. Shar­ ing with other districts. Use of other than local funds Concentration of Fm d a . Greater nimfcer of program More resource financial hep help. Shar­ ing with other dis­ tricts Working together Sharing with other districts commteatlon No advantage Greater awareness of programs Greater recognition assistance In program with out­ side monies Needs assessment value based on Its coat IV. Overview I. 2„ 1. * Greater visibili­ ty Pooling of resources Whet here been th e p o s itiv e c h a ra e te rlf tlc i of your d i s t r i c t 's p a rtic ip a tio n In the co nsortium Solidified staff. Sharing with other districts wider array of resources Whet ere the negative c h a ra c te r is tic ! ) Uhet ere two major problem with the S tate Model lo r Fro- fusions!D(ve1opnntl Scheduling for county-wide ■eatings and Inservice days confleccs. Not enough public relations on how s o n U s are used. Hard time getting teachers and administrators cooperate. Lack of regular Feeling loss coeevunicstlon. of control Hlsus* of program, polarisation. Hot a total identifica­ tion with program. better use of coordinator for the consortium Better opera­ tion at the con sortlia level. i. Not familiar with L£A fm e tlon 2. Inconsistent guidelines Uncertainty over when money will c oae, Lack of continuity Lack of struggle for cosesunlcatlng and crest- Ing a consort lias Identity, Slow flow af money timing. Get more of year programs at ffrat. N e g a tiv e a b o u t P o lic y h o a rd o p e ra tio n d u r­ in g f i r s t y e a r . F e l t some Im provem ent s e c o n d .' A leader ac the consortium level local district Just setting organized. A leader at local and consort! us levels. Know­ ledge able. A long history of involvement In professional development to SIX teachers power plays con­ flict of county wide day with local calendar Coordination and mechanics* Admin* latrators vs. teachers Better comoisilcatlon Slow start Distribute of money first year. Inviting poverplay by putting 511 teachers on the Board. More diecrerlouary dollars!. Model promotes 51X roadblock. Still only one shot act! vlrles. Lack of continuity Inconsistent Superintendent that had problems with too many teachers on board Positive about model frustrated by blocks to the progress of process. d e a d lin e s (at least there la a comsltment) Teacher/ administrator1 union presi­ dent, all at the same tire (MW!) CO Ln CONSORTIUM II — S 1 M W R Y OF INTERVIEWS U1T1I LOCAL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR 2-A I, S ic k g ro u n d I. Hm n i l professional development program ing delivered before Involvement In the co n ip rtlm ? 2. Ho* h ii th e deliv ery of pro fesslo iu l d f ^ t t p m t program ing changed since joining the c o n s o r l W 1-B 2-C 2-0 2- E 2b day* uiiiallji | 2 contract lnserrelated to eurxlJ vice days,, beglnn culum development! ing oF school and. ' during semester Hew superintendent: 1 day not contract 1/2 work on curri­ culum. 1/2 day for visitation, a waste I Full out Little or nothing resource not available. 2 con­ tract daya drug education/reading 2 release C l M 1/2 day allot* nenta building level a»re direct Involvevent. Hore relevant but no local program* Hade available resources to aasltt In develop­ ment testing progran county-wide: theories of Learning. 1st year disaster 2nd year wide resource* good teacher response County-wide first year disaster * Second year better facilitated ; ataended calendar insure r 2-F 2 contractual daya 1/2 day* revolving Math, atcltudeinal sobic curriculum development 2 day* more resources, some •carry over; Fat DeHart Rsstery Learning I Responsible for kindergarten screening more building interest. I I. r ir t lc l p tll o tt I. What till your ro le been In professional development program* In the d is tr i c t? Z. M i l his the roTe Of teachers been In professional iJ iw lo fw n l prunes? 3. 4. What are the funding sources fo r professional develops**! program In tM t d i s t r i c t ! W ilt ts the planning process fo r developing professional develop­ ment program In th is d is tr i c t? U3 CTi Coordinator coraslcteea handle n i t nf the work Overview HEA Very Active pushing alterna­ tive eareeca not appropriate Little by local district unlaerv involved to aoiae extent Title IV C aonlea used before 3 to SA.000 now we rely on uro- ' resalonal developawnt monies (superintendent) Limited ' (nlllage) Overview (superintendent) On first plann­ ing group pushed for It. Overvlew/raake sure staff ha* owner­ ship i More positve felt Involved tto local funds iaae Tor curdevclcp( aent « t rlculunk Day off didn't want their own Fairly neutral , locally away to ' lsiprove skills and l u g e Receptive locally Involved Frlor to few now none CONSORTIUM II -- S U W A R T O f INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL DISTRICT AWIHtSTRATOR 2-A III. Incentlvel t. Wilt art the Incfntlwi for prufesilftruli from this district to attend professional developacnl programs! 2-C I-B 2-D Local dLstrlct c o n l t t e e receive proposals and review for sub­ mission to eonsort 1in for lett* buriement Local coBBlttees submita pro­ posals to repre­ sentative for­ warded to con­ sortium coor­ dinator Local needs Input to local repre­ sentatives Informal Instructional Planning Com­ mittee cornea through them. Then to consortliB coordinator througT representatives It la school tine they are required to be there Instructional problems solving per­ sonal needs Ho Idea R.R. Battery recharge awareness 1, Money relieve budget) 2, Provide new perspective on Policy Board 3, County-wide Resources A, Well managed Wider resources satisfaction of staff sharing has gone o n . 2. What are the Incentives for this district to participate In the consortlunI IV, Overt In# 1. What have tee" the positive characteristic* of your district's participation In the consortium? Whit are the negative chancterlstlci? 2-F 2-E Survey teachers ILocal cosnlttee and report results ]superintendent through represents-1 agree on priority elves to consortiuslteachers Teel they are Involved. I Tsacher committee has Improved more research Participation and exposure to resources that would otherwise be available i Improve Their Skills Wider choice of resources/sharing with other schools and sharing puts things In perspec­ tive Required Renewal of older •tsTf. Wider resources available local planning curtailed. Local spinoffs. ■p - initiated klnder- Wider resources artin screening less complaints ullding level by staff work aore directly Involved e lOQt participa­ tion in countywlde Honey not spent vi sely. System dtdn't i m * It ell. Scheduling and poor facilities Very negative ■ore general fund noney (vondoggie) Generally posi­ tive (Thera are other priorities) Itore local funding eo^ieclcive grant mote coenltment Began very negatively but could sight posi­ tive gains. Wider Generally posi­ tive would budget for If money disappeared More worried about mllleage Wider artsy of resources Wider resources Chance to tnprove changes Hone Ho hassles for us Over Funded J. What are two mijor problems with the State Model for Pro­ fessional Development? e xposure new perapect ive I Honey should ' go elsewhere j More for general • education SIX • teachers should , be up to the lndl{ vldual consortium Torn between more money and some benefits Pulla money away from other general fund needs. Hay not be In top priority position. Strong superin­ tendents group stressed small district 1. Overfunded 5 IX teachers some Some food draggfng L Regional Bargaining Hurt 2, Youna ex coach superintendent CONSORTIUM III — S W « A R Y OF WITH ADMINISTRATORS IN LOCAL DISTRICTS J*A J. Background t. How m s professional d t m l o p m t progrinlitg delivered htforr Involvrsent la the consortia? 2 contractual Daya Budget In the building, building edalnls C r e t a n worked with teacher* 3*1 J-C 3-D District-wide teachers 51,000 conference fund/ amall croup or large Individual proposal. Countywide days 2b daya muat train others If etnt outaIda Coordinate curri­ Local 1st day culum director same of school time each year Very limited contractual teatbook 1 shot Submit mlnlgrents must train others usually awareness release time, eurrlculim, work site specific None/changes are beglnntgn large groups recountabla 6 Z. How ti ll th e deliv ery o f professional development p n g rw eln Q changed since Joining the cansorllM ? II. Participation I. uhjf hii j r o u r role bee* In professions! development program* In the district? 2. t*ut hes the rale of teechen been In professions! development progrmt J. Whet ere the finding sources for profession*! development program* In this district? 4. teiit Is the p U n s t M process for developing profession*! develop­ ment p r a g m a in this district? no change 348 lac year no money to local building. Adminls treeIon budget Pro­ fessional Develop nent council held the money (no mln grants) 2nd year divide per profeaatonal In building Found tuned a speaker no programs Hesber of Policy !Chair local and Beard icooslttea Policy Board represen­ tatives Instructor and coordinator Teacher assoclacion Involved some distrust Supportive Consultant role/rrpreaentatlvea Hone None Hone 'Incidental low motivation [ Pooling grant funded with other districts Local committee Tcachata submit working : , — o with — jUtvpDij jproposal accord* bu Udln**, lubBitllnj to guij,iiBt« •intscinc* to |thfn apply ai ‘ for ‘ local districts mlnlgranta to Bulldlng-conatl* consortium coor­ ttec comes to dinator superintendent of Instruction fnt approval then submits to con* ■ nrrfm frv irrfln « r j I Plana come to consortium repre­ sentative than put In mlnlgrant format Two repreien* tatlvea Little Participation In this district. Second grade conference coneorttum sponsored j j ; i ' j CONSORTIUM III -- SIMtARV OF INTERVIEWS WITH ADMINISTRATORS tN LOCAL DISTRICTS 3-A III. 1ne*rtt1»ti 1. Uhit »r* th* Incentive! for professionals from tkli district to ittMd profession*) development programs] 2, H u t in* the f o c r n U m for Ihti district to (irtlelpiti In the coir srtluof 3-B 3-C 3-D Keep up adopt; • nd iBpI n u n c propofili by external prraturtf Release Tine Weak help Instructional Problem Solving Tim* off Can’t find substitutes Vet realized cocoon calen­ dar oppor­ tunity to ahare Combining with other districts access to under array of resources Wider uaa of resources more money. More variety Wider array of resources I IV. Overvlrv 1. Uhat hart been the positive characteristics of jour district's participation In the cansortlual Z. kt>»t ire the negative characteristics? J. Uhat art too major problems tilth the State Model for Pro­ fessional OatrelopimntT U t i competition more sharing between : diatrlcta Fartlclpanta willing to try supporting the concept Long process : Not aure there . Lack eosnltment 1 la a clear direction j Hoc enough training on managing the node! Whymore selling Sell concept of people training others Collaboration sharing with others exposure to resource* Wider array of resources available county-wide Lack of e o s d t ' ment bjr acme partlet* struggle admlnlscrator/teachera Can’t have release time 1) Cryater univer­ sity Involve­ ment. This was thslr big chance. Encouraging release time, What la it for more 2) They have tine cont imiltv resources and Real problems expertise to analyxe data 1) Lack of plann ing time first year Logistics estimate of coats. Late in payments 3) Negative days? 2) LO VO