INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should n o t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite m ethod o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University MfcnSilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8308971 Mabery, LeRoy Archie THE OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS ABOUT SELECTED COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 1982 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1982 by Mabery, LeRoy Archie All R ights R eserved THE OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS ABOUT SELECTED COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION By LeRoy A. Mabery A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of th e requirements f o r th e degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of A dm inistration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT THE OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS ABOUT SELECTED COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION By LeRoy A. Mabery The purpose o f th e study was to measure the opinions o f Michigan community education d i r e c t o r s concerning th e e x te n t to which s e le c te d components o f community education e x is te d in Michigan com­ munity school d i s t r i c t s according to f i v e community ty p e s. i t y types s e le c te d were: The commun­ Type I (Urban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l). The s e le c te d components o f the study were: (1) Educational programs f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12); (2) Use o f community f a c i l i ­ t i e s ; (3) A dditional programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth; (4) Programs f o r a d u l t s ; (5) D elivery o f community s e r v ic e s ; and (6) Community involvement. The pop ulation stu d ie d c o n sis te d o f a u n iverse o f 221 community school d i r e c t o r s in Michigan. A r e tu r n r a t e of 94.1 p e rc en t was achieved o r 208 community education d i r e c t o r s . A One-way A nalysis of Variance w ith unequal populations (ANOVA) was used to analyze th e r e s u l t s . The chi square t e s t of s ig n ific a n c e LeRoy A. Mabery was used to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e components and to d e t e c t any item d if f e r e n c e s between community ty p e s . A sig n i­ f i c a n t le v el o f a = .05 was used. The f in d in g s o f th e study tended t o in d ic a te community educa­ t i o n d i r e c t o r s in Michigan had s im i l a r opinions about th e s e le c te d components and ranked "program f o r a d u lts " as th e most im portant component. The community types appearing to have comparable opinions were: c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e d i r e c t o r s , towns and urban d i r e c t o r s , w ith urban d i r e c t o r s being somewhat d i f f e r e n t from th e o th e r community ty p e s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................ v ii LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................... v iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ ix Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION TO THE STU DY .......................................................... 1 Background o f th e S t u d y ................................................................ Need f o r th e S t u d y ...................................................................... Purpose o f the Study ...................................................................... ...................................................................... Research Questions L im ita tio n s .......................................................................................... Assumptions ......................................................................................... E xplanation o f th e Terms .......................................................... S t r u c t u r e ......................................................................................... 1 5 6 6 7 8 8 10 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................ 12 In tro d u c tio n ................................................................................... The Community School Movement .................................................... The Community Education Concept .............................................. The Development o f Components ................................................... M inzey's Community Education Components .......................... S u m m a r y ................................................................................................ 12 12 17 23 28 34 DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................................................................. 36 I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................. Development o f Instrum ent .......................................................... Review o f Instrum ent ...................................................................... P i l o t T e stin g ................................................................................... D e sc rip tio n o f Population .......................................................... Data C o lle c tio n Procedures ......................................................... V a r i a b l e s ......................................................................................... A nalysis o f Data ............................................................................. Research Questions ...................................................................... S u m m a r y ................................................................................................ ii 36 36 39 39 39 40 41 41 42 42 Chapter IV. V. Page FIN D IN G S............................................................................................... 44 In tro d u c tio n ......................................................................................... P re s e n ta tio n ......................................................................................... Research Question Number 1 Research Question Number2 ....................................... . . . Research Question Number3 .......................................................... Research Question Number 4 Research Question Number5 .......................................................... Research Question Number6 .......................................................... Research Question Number7 .......................................................... Rank Ordering o f S e le cted Components as to How Im portant They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t . . . Rank Ordering o f S e le cted Components as to What They Ought to be in th e School D i s t r i c t . . . Comparison o f Rank Order o f Six S elected C om ponents......................................................................................... General Questions of Importance ............................................. S u m m a r y ................................................................................................ 44 44 46 48 52 54 60 62 65 83 84 84 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 ............................................. 74 78 ....................................... 87 Summary and Explanation o f R esults Research Question Number1 ................................................... 90 Research Question Number2 .................................................. 90 Research Question Number3 .................................................. 91 Research Question Number4 .................................................. 92 94 Research Question Number5 .................................................. Research Question Number6 .................................................. 94 Research Question Number7 .................................................. 95 Rank Ordering of Components ......................................................... 101 Rank Order Comparison ...................................................................... 103 C o n c l u s i o n s .................................................................................................106 Im p lic a tio n s and Recommendations ............................................. 107 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................109 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................113 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Page Summary o f Community School D ir e c to r s ' Reimbursement Under S e c tio n 96 o f The S ta te School Aid Act - Michigan Department o f Education - 1981-82 ...................................................................... 22 4.1 Response R a t e ..................................................................................................45 4 .2 Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 1 - An Education Program f o r School Age C hildren (K-12) ............................................................................. 47 X2 o f Respondents' Opinion o f Educational Programs f o r School Age C hildren (K-12) 49 4 .3 4 .4 Group Means, Standard D eviation and Responses f o r Question 2 - Concerning Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s . . 50 4 .5 X2 o f Respondents' Opinion of Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s .......................................................................................................51 4 .6 School D i s t r i c t F a c i l i t i e s Used by Community C itiz e n s and G r o u p s .................................................................................... 52 4 .7 Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 3 - A d ditio n al Programs f o r School Age C hildren and Youth . 53 X2 o f Respondents' Opinion o f A dditional Programs f o r School Age C hildren and Youth ............................................. 54 4 .8 4 .9 Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 4 - Programs f o r Adults ....................................... 55 2 4.10 X o f Respondents' Opinion o f Programs f o r A d u l t s .......................................................................................................56 4.11 4.12 School D i s t r i c t Provides A dult Basic Education S e rv ic e s f o r A dults ............................................................................. 57 School D i s t r i c t Provides R ec re a tio n al Services f o r Adults .................................................................................................59 iv Table 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 Page Group Means, Standard D eviations and Respondents f o r Question 5 - D elivery of Community Serv ices . . . . 60 p X o f Respondents' Opinion of D elivery o f ............................................................................ Community Serv ices 61 Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 6 - CommunityInvolvement ......................................... 63 2 X o f Respondents' Opinion on Community I n v o lv e m e n t.................................................................................................... 64 p 4.17 X o f th e D e m o g r a p h ic s ..........................................................................66 4.1 8 Population of th e Area Served by th e School D i s t r i c t .......................................................................................................... 67 4.19 Years of Experience in School A d m inistration ......................... 69 4.20 Years o f Experience Working f o r Public Schools 70 4.21 Years School D i s t r i c t has had a Community Education Program .................................................................................. 72 4.22 Age Range o f D ire c to rs of Community Education 73 4.23 Mean and Standard D eviation o f Respondents' Opinion on th e Rank Ordering of Selected Components as to How Important They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t ...................................................................... . . . . . . . . 75 4 .24 X2 o f Rank Ordering o f Selected Components as to How Important They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t .......................................................................................................... 77 4.25 Rank Ordering of Component, An Educational Program f o r School Age C hildren (K-12) as to How Important They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t .......................................................................................................... 78 4.26 Mean and Standard D eviation o f Respondents' Opinion on th e Rank Ordering o f Selected Components as to What They Ought to be in T h eir School D i s t r i c t ...................................................................... 4.27 80 X2 o f Rank Ordering o f Selected Components as to What They Ought to be in th e School D i s t r i c t .......................................................................................................... 81 v Table 4.28 4.29 Page Order Ranking o f Selected Components of Community Education as to What They Ought to be in th e School D i s t r i c t on Community In v o lv e m e n t......................................................................................... 82 X2 of Respondents' Opinion of General Questions on Community Education ................................................................. 85 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Community Education Building Blocks .............................................. 25 2. The Community Education Concept .................................................... 27 3. The In g re d ie n ts o f Community Education ....................................... 29 4. Blockage o f Community Education Development ........................... 30 5. Program and Process ............................................................................. 31 6. Development o f Community Education Components in a Typical Community ...................................................................... 32 P lateauing o f a Typical Community Education Program 33 7. . . LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. S ta te School Aid Act - Section 96 ............................................. 114 B. P o s itio n Paper on th e Community School Within th e P h ilosophical Concept of Community Education . . . 116 C. Community School Programs According to Community Type - S ta te o f Michigan Grant Programs ................................ 124 D. Q uestionnaire Instrum ent ................................................................ 131 E. Cover L e tte r f o r Q uestion naire Instrument 140 ........................... F. Follow-up L e tte r f o r Q uestionnaire Instrument . . . . 142 G. N o n -s ig n ific a n t A nalysis of Variance Tables . . . . 144 .......................... 147 H. Mean and Standard Deviation o f Each Item O I. X Scores o f N o n -s ig n ific a n t Demographic V ariables vi ii . . 150 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A work such as a d i s s e r t a t i o n i s th e r e s u l t o f a d v ic e , s u p p o rt and un derstanding o f many people. I wish to ex press my g r e a t e s t g r a t i t u d e to : My committee members, Dr. Howard Hickey, C hairp erson , Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, Dr. C harles McKee and Dr. Gordon Thomas f o r t h e i r in v a lu a ­ b le sugg etio ns and a d v ic e , My w if e , H azel, whose lo v e , encouragement and s p i r i t give my l i f e meaning, My c h i l d r e n , Jon, Cory and Chad f o r t h e i r u n d e rsta n d in g , p rid e and s a c r i f i c e , My m other, Ruth Mabery and f a t h e r , Archie Mabery (deceased) f o r t h e i r b e l i e f s and encouragement, Lynne F e l t z , Lori Drozdowski and Vickie Spencer f o r sm iling throughout th e many typed d r a f t s , Howard Hickey f o r being a f r ie n d as well as an a d v is o r . ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Background o f th e Study The community e du catio n concept c o n tin u e s t o grow and evo lv e. Since 1969 th e number o f school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan having community e d u catio n programs have in creased from an e stim ate d 141 school d i s ­ t r i c t s to 332 in 1981 (Michigan Department o f Education, 1981). The Michigan L e g is la tu r e , w ith the ex ce p tio n o f 1971 when Governor William G. M iHi ken l i n e item vetoed "Grants f o r Community School Programs," has a p p ro p ria te d monies under Section 96 o f th e S ta te School Aid Act to su p p o rt Community Education (Appendix A). In 1975 th e Michigan S ta te Board o f Education adopted th e P o s itio n Paper on Community Schools Within th e P h ilo so p h ic a l Concept o f Community E ducation. The S ta te o f Michigan, f o r th e f i r s t tim e, had a statem en t on th e d e f i n i t i o n o f Community Education. The S ta te Board o f E d u c a tio n 's d e f i n i t i o n i s as fo llo w s: The S ta te Board o f Education reco gn izes th e community school as a c a t a l y t i c a g en t f o r implementing w ith in a community th e p h ilo s o p h ic a l concept c a ll e d Community Education. The S ta te Board su pp orts th e community school in I t s e f f o r t to improve o p p o r tu n itie s f o r i t s community r e s i d e n t s and reco gn izes i t s c a t a l y t i c r o le in working w ith c i t i z e n s and agencies f o r th e purpose o f r e l a t i n g community c o n d itio n s t o human and m a te ria l resources. The S ta te Board of Education su p p o rts th e f o u r - f o ld r o l e o f a community school which i s t o : (1) make i t s f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r c i t i z e n u se; (2) org an ize lo c al r e s id e n ts 1 2 to a ss e ss lo cal c o n d itio n s , s e t p r i o r i t i e s , and id e n t i f y program planning; (3) i d e n t i f y and u t i l i z e re s o u rc e s , f a c i ­ l i t i e s through jo in g planning by lo c a l a g e n c ie s; and (4) a s s i s t in th e i n i t i a t i n g of new and /o r improved programs . . . in an e f f o r t to improve o p p o rtu n itie s f o r a l l com­ munity r e s i d e n t s . Community Education has grown in Michigan because o f the f in a n c ia l and te c h n ic a l a s s is ta n c e provided by i n s t i t u t i o n s of h igher e d u c a tio n , th e Michigan Department o f Education, th e Mott Foundation and o th e r su p p o rtiv e ag encies. Community Education has g e n erate d , however, disagreem ent among opponents and proponents concerning th e d i r e c t i o n Community Education should ta k e . Minzey and LeTarte (1979) d e sc rib e th e arguments as emphasizing th e f a c t t h a t th e r e i s a v a s t d if f e r e n c e between th e ph ilo so p h ic al claims of community education and the a c tu a l programs t h a t a re in o p e ra tio n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t much.of what i s c a lle d community education i s , in r e a l i t y , programs in a d u lt education or r e c r e a t i o n , and as such a re n e i t h e r unique nor capable o f accomplishing a l l t h a t community ed ucators claim can be accomplished by means o f th e community edu catio n concept, (p. 38) A major element c o n trib u tin g to the misunderstanding i s the h i s t o r i c a l development o f community ed ucatio n. has been an evolving concept f o r many y e a r s . Community education The h i s t o r i c a l and developmental a sp e c ts o f community education have been changing i t s s t a t u s as an add-on program to th e K-12 school program to a program o rie n te d toward a d u lt e d u c a tio n , r e c r e a t i o n , and e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s f o r youth. The c u rre n t developmental s t a t u s of community education has evolved i n t o a philosophy about th e r o le of p ub lic sch oo ls. Public sc h o o ls , in th e p a s t , were p rim a rily concerned w ith th e schooling of 3 youth from age s ix to seventeen y e a rs o f age. The p ublic sc h o o ls, as c u r r e n t l y perceived by many edu catio nal le a d e r s , have become involved w ith th e educatio nal development o f a l l community members. The in c re ase d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of p u blic s c h o o ls , Minzey and LeTarte (1979) w r ite : does not mean t h a t schools a re t o be a l l th in g s t o a l l people. However, i t does imply t h a t community schools should provide a c a t a l y t i c and c o o rd in a tin g r o l e f o r th e community, acknowledging a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to see t h a t community needs a re i d e n t i f i e d and d e a l t w ith more e f f e c t i v e l y . In add ressing th e need to be community o rie n te d th e schools have become involved with th e problems o f community s e r v ic e and community involvement. (p . 39) The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p u b lic schools being o rie n te d toward community needs and problems appear d i f f i c u l t f o r school o f f i c i a l s to a c c e p t. To b e t t e r understand th e r o l e o f th e community school one must examine the s ix components o f community education i d e n t i f i e d by Minzey. The components may vary by community type and may be a t d i f f e r e n t le v e ls o f development but they a re n e c e s sa ry , Minzey p e rc e iv e s , f o r a l l programs. The s ix components a re : I. An Educational Program f o r School Age Children This i s th e t r a d i t i o n a l K-12 program. The sch o o l, being a product to th e surrounding conmunity, i s g r e a t l y in flu en ced by th e p a r e n ts , n o n -p a re n ts, and c h ild re n of th e community. The school must have community in v o lve­ ment in the classroom and in th e decision-m aking p ro c e sses. II. Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s The school f a c i l i t i e s a re b u i l t and supported by community r e s i d e n t s . The sc h o o ls , w ith community f a c i l i t i e s , a re a n a tu ra l community focus p o in t f o r neighborhood a c t i v i t i e s . The unused space in schools i s a p p ro p ria te f o r community o rg a n iz a tio n s and groups to use. The unused space o f schools should be used f o r r e c r e a tio n a l s i t e s , community c e n te rs and o th e r community a c t i v i t i e s r a t h e r than remain i d l e . 4 III. A dditional Programs f o r School Age Children and Youth The red u ctio n in p u b lic school fin a n c es and th e need to have s tu d e n ts exposed to as much knowledge and tr a i n i n g as p o s s ib le c re a te s a need f o r supplemental le a rn in g by youth and c h ild r e n . I t i s im portant t h a t schools use com­ munity educational re so u rce s t o supplement th e r e c r e a t i o n a l , c u l t u r a l and enrichment growth o f stu d en ts through th e community education concept. IV. Programs f o r Adults Programs f o r a d u lts a re recognized as p a r t o f th e t o t a l educational community. These programs inclu de high school com pletion, a d u lt b a sic e d u c a tio n , v o cation al e d u ca tio n , enrichment, c u l t u r a l , r e c r e a tio n and job t r a in in g program. The development o f a d u lt programs adds a dimension t o community education t h a t extends le arn in g in to a lif e lo n g p u r s u i t . V. D elivery and Coordination o f Community Services The d e liv e ry and c o o rd in a tio n o f community s e rv ic e s i s v a lu able toward helping community r e s id e n ts solve t h e i r problems and meet needs. There a r e , in most communities, many community o rie n te d a g en c ie s. The sch o o l, by using area human and physical re s o u rc e s , can help c o o rd in a te and d e l i v e r th e s e r v ic e s provided by o th e r s . VI. Community Involvement Community education su pp orts and encourages community r e s id e n ts to become involved in id e n tif y in g t h e i r prob­ lems and seeking s o lu tio n s . The c r e a tio n o f neighbor­ hood advisory co u n cils i s a ty p ic a l process used to develop two-way communication t o help community r e s id e n ts solve problems. The s ix components developed by Minzey (1978) p o rtra y two a sp e c ts o f community education - program and p ro c e ss. The components I-IV tend to develop f i r s t and be o rie n te d toward a s e r i e s o f programs f o r c h ild r e n , y o u th , and a d u l t s . The components V-VI a r e more process o r ie n te d , concerning community involvement and change, and tend to be more d i f f i c u l t to develop. 5 Need f o r th e Study The need f o r the study i s i l l u s t r a t e d by th e confusion in the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i v e to th e lack o f common agreement o f th e major components o f community ed u ca tio n . Minzey (1978) w rite s t h a t the components o f community education are important f o r understanding th e concept. The study i s f u r t h e r needed because th e Michigan S ta te L e g is la tu re elim in a te d th e p o s itio n o f community school e v a lu a to r in 1977 and th e Michigan Department o f Education has not f i l l e d the Community Education S p e c i a l i s t p o s itio n s due to f in a n c ia l c o n s t r a i n t s . Thus, th e S ta te o f Michigan does not have an in d iv id u a l to c o l l e c t d a ta , a n aly z e , and e v a lu a te inform ation about community education in Michigan. At th e school d i s t r i c t le v el t h i s study should be recognized by lo cal school d i s t r i c t a d m in is tra to rs who wish to improve t h e i r e x is t in g community education program o r e s t a b l i s h a new program. The lo c a l board o f education should ta k e note t o examine t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s toward the goal t h a t th e components o f community education a r e being implemented in t h e i r school d i s t r i c t . This study w ill a ttem p t to o b ta in inform ation t h a t w ill help determine whether a lo c al community education program i s imple­ menting th e major components o f community education. I t i s f u r t h e r believed t h a t community education d i r e c t o r s w ill respond d i f f e r e n t l y according to th e community type he o r she r e p r e s e n ts . The community types used in t h i s study were developed and c l a s s i f i e d by th e Michigan Department o f Education (1971) 6 according to th e fo llow ing ty p e s: Type I - Urban (M etro po litan Core C i t i e s ) , Type I I - C i t i e s , Type I I I - Towns, Type IV - Urban F rin g e, and Type V - R ural. Purpose o f th e Study The purpose o f th e study i s to determ ine i f d i s p a r i t i e s e x i s t between two or more v a r i a b l e s . The independent v a r ia b le i s th e community type or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d by th e Michigan Department o f E ducation, 1971. The f i v e community types s e le c te d a re Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban F rin ge) and Type V (R u ra l). The dependent v a r i a b l e , th e o b je c t o f th e study i s th e o pinions o f Michigan community education d i r e c ­ t o r s r e l a t i v e to th e major components o f community education i d e n t i f i e d by Minzey. By analyzing th e opinions o f community educa­ t i o n d i r e c t o r s i t is b e lie v ed t h a t d if f e r e n c e s could be d e te c te d in th e f i v e community ty p e s . In o rd e r t o meet th e o b je c tiv e s o f th e study i t was n ecessary to ask im p ortan t re s e a rc h q u e stio n s concerning th e opinions o f com­ munity edu cation d i r e c t o r s in Michigan r e l a t i v e t o : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Educational programs f o r school age c h ild r e n Use o f community f a c i l i t i e s A dditional programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth Programs f o r a d u lts D elivery o f community s e r v ic e s Community involvement Demographics Research Questions The re s e a rc h q u e stio n s o f th e study a re : 7 1. Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f an ed u catio n al program f o r school age c h ild r e n K-12? 2. Are t h e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s in Michigan in terms o f use o f community f a c i l i t i e s ? 3. Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community ty pes in Michigan in terms o f a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth? 4. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s in Michigan in terms o f programs f o r a d u lts ? 5. Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s in Michigan in terms o f d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s ? 6. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s in Michigan in terms o f community involvement? 7. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community tu pes in Michigan in terms o f demographics? L im ita tio n s There a re two p o s s ib le l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t could b ia s th e stu dy . They a r e : p o pu lation and development of in s tru m e n t. The p o p u latio n being s tu d ie d does not in c lu d e a l l d i s t r i c t wide community education programs in Michigan. The p o pu latio n s tu d ie d a re r e c i p i e n t s o f community school g r a n t monies, o f Sectio n 9 and 96 o f Act Number 90 o f th e P ublic Acts o f 1977. The g ra n t r e c i p i e n t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d in th e 1981-82 Michigan C ontact D ire c to ry pub lished by th e Michigan Department o f Education. The s t a t e funded community e d u catio n g ra n t r e c i p i e n t s a r e , however, considered r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f th e f i v e community types re c e iv in g s t a t e g r a n ts . The second l i m i t a t i o n involved in s tru m e n ta tio n . instru m e n t developed f o r th e study was new. The A review o f th e 8 l i t e r a t u r e i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t no re sea rc h had been conducted to measure th e r o l e of components in community ed u ca tio n . The instrum ent to a ssu re face v a l i d i t y , was c r i t i q u e d and modified by f iv e community education s p e c i a l i s t s from fo ur u n i v e r s i t i e s and f i e l d te s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y in each o f th e f i v e community ty p e s. Assumptions The study was based upon two assumptions. These assumptions a re : 1. The community education d i r e c t o r s would be knowledgeable about community education and have opinions concerning th e re s e a rc h q u e s tio n s . ?.. The community education d i r e c t o r s would be open to addressing th e q u estio ns and not fe e l th re a te n e d . Explanation o f th e Terms Various terms a re used throughout t h i s stud y. The follow ing terms need an e x p lan a tio n in t h i s study: COMMUNITY: A grouping o f r e s id e n ts by v i l l a g e , s u b d iv is io n , neighborhood, school attendance a r e a , e t c . o f a s iz e which allows f o r i n t e r a c t i o n , involvement and two-way communication. (Michigan S ta te Board o f Education P o s itio n Paper on Community Schools, 1975) COMMUNITY EDUCATION: A p h ilo so p h ic al concept t h a t recognizes l i f e experiences as being p a r t o f o n e 's edu cation and i s no t lim ite d to formal i n s t r u c t i o n , c e r t a i n age c l a s s i f i c a ­ tio n or a tta in m en t o f diplomas. Community education f u r t h e r recognizes t h a t a process of involving c i t i z e n s in id e n tif y in g th e community needs i s th e c e n tr a l means of improving o n e 's o p p o rtu n ity in l i f e . This process focuses upon every i n s t i t u t i o n , agency, and o rg a n iz a tio n o f the community to d e l i v e r i d e n t i f i e d and p r i o r i t i z e d s e r v ic e s . (Michigan S ta te Board of Education P o s itio n Paper on Community Schools, 1975) 9 COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTOR: The person in th e school s p e c i f i ­ c a l l y assigned th e ta s k o f givin g d i r e c t i o n to a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a re community c e n te re d . The Community Education D ire c to r works w ith th e p r i n c i p a l , f a c u l t y , c u sto d ia l s t a f f , and la y members o f th e community. The ta sk s a re as v a r ie d as th e needs o f th e community. The d i r e c t o r remains a t th e school a f t e r th e academic day, and su p erv ise s th e many a c t i v i t i e s o f a community sch o o l. The d i r e c t o r i s a ls o re s p o n sib le f o r a c t i v a t i n g community p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e planning o f th e t o t a l program. The d i r e c t o r must be s k i l l e d in human r e l a t i o n s t o promote c i v i c ed u ca tio n . The Community Education D ir e c to r , C o o rd inator, and Community School D ire c to r a re th e same. ("Community Education Dissemination Program Manager," C. S. Mott Foundation) (Update p u b lic a tio n , p. 5) COMMUNITY SCHOOL: A school servin g a group o f r e s id e n ts in a community t h a t makes i t s f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n u s e , o rgan izes th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in a ss e ss in g lo c a l c o n d itio n s , s e t t i n g p r i o r i t i e s and program plan nin g , i d e n t i f i e s and u t i l i z e s re s o u rc e s , f a c i l i t a t e s j o i n t planning by lo c a l a g e n c ie s , and i n i t i a t e s new a n d /o r improved programs . . . in an e f f o r t to improve th e o p p o rtu n itie s f o r a l l r e s i d e n t s . (Michigan S ta te Board of Education Paper on Community Schools, 1975) OPINIONS: Verbal ex p ressio n s o f an a t t i t u d e o r , in o th e r words, opinions which symbolize a t t i t u d e s . (T hurstone, 1928) URBAN METROPOLITAN CORE CITY (TYPE I ) : These a re communities w ith school d i s t r i c t s t h a t a re c l a s s i f i e d by a t l e a s t one o f th e follow ing c r i t e r i a : 1. The community was th e c e n tr a l c i t y o f a Michigan Standard M etropolitan S t a t i s t i c a l Area. 2. The community was an enclave w ith in th e c e n tr a l c i t y o f a Michigan Standard M etropolitan S t a t i s t i c a l Area. 3. The community was p re v io u sly c l a s s i f i e d as a Metro­ p o l i t a n Core C ity . (Michigan Department o f Education, 1971) CITY (TYPE I I ) : These a r e communities having school d i s t r i c t s w ith in i t and having a pop ulatio n o f 10,000 o r more. They have not been c l a s s i f i e d as Urban M etropolitan Core C ity o r Urban F rin g e. (Michigan Department o f Education, 1971) TOWNS (TYPE I I I ) : These a re communities having school d i s ­ t r i c t s w ith in i t and w ith a popu latio n o f 2,500 to 9,999. (Michigan Department o f Education, 1971) 10 URBAN FRINGE (TYPE IV): These a re communities, re g a rd le s s o f t h e i r s i z e , having school d i s t r i c t s meeting one o f th e below c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 1. The community i s w ith in 10 m iles o f th e c e n te r o f an urban s e t t i n g . 2. The m ailing address i s Urban M etropolitan Core C ity or a C ity u n le ss i t had a RFD r o u te . (Michigan Depart­ ment o f Education, 1971) RURAL (TYPE V): These a re communities having school d i s t r i c t s w ith a population o f le s s than 2,500 o r i f t h e i r address i s an RFD ro u te o f a Town, C ity , Urban F rin g e, o r Urban M etropolitan Core C ity . (Michigan Department o f Education, 1971) COMMUNITY TYPE CLASSIFICATION: The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f p ub lic school d i s t r i c t s by community. Communities a re grouped by Type I (Urban o r M etropolitan Core C i t y ) , Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban F r in g e ) , o r Type V (R u ra l). (Michigan Department o f Education, 1971) S tr u c tu re In Chapter I th e background o f th e stu d y , need f o r th e s tu d y , purpose o f th e s tu d y , re s e a rc h q u e s tio n s , l i m i t a t i o n s , assump­ t i o n s , exp lan a tio n of th e terms and s t r u c t u r e o f th e study a re examined. In Chapter II a review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e in c lu d in g i n t r o ­ d u c tio n , th e community school movement, the community educatio n c on cep t, th e development o f components, Minzey's community education components, and summary a re p re s e n te d . In Chapter I I I th e design o f th e study in c lu d e s: in tr o d u c tio n , development of in stru m e n t, p i l o t t e s t i n g , f i n a l development of in stru m e n t, d e s c r ip tio n of p o p u la tio n , data c o l l e c t i o n procedures, v a r i a b l e s , a n a ly s is o f da ta and re sea rc h q u e stio n s a re provided. 11 The fin d in g s a r e p resen ted in Chapter IV. The fin d in g s in clu de th e p r e s e n ta tio n , re s e a rc h q u e stion number 1, research q u e stion number 2, re sea rc h q u e stion number 3 , re sea rc h question number 4 , re s e a rc h q u e stion number 5, re sea rc h q u e stio n number 6 , re sea rc h qu estio n number 7, rank o rd erin g o f s e le c te d components, as to how im portant they were in th e school d i s t r i c t , rank ord erin g o f s e le c te d components as to what they ought to be in th e school d i s t r i c t , comparison o f rank ordering o f s ix s e le c te d components, general q u estio ns o f school d i s t r i c t s u p p o rt, and summary. In Chapter V th e conclusions cussed. and recommendations a re d i s ­ Included in Chapter V a r e : summary, r e s u l t s from re sea rc h q uestion s 1 - 7 , school d i s t r i c t support f o r community e d u c a tio n , rank o rd erin g of components, rank ord er comparisons, c o n c lu sio n s, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In tro d u c tio n Community educatio n has had an e v o lu tio n a ry development. The e a r ly l i t e r a t u r e o f th e 1930s to th e 1960s r e f e r s to community school movement. The l a t e 1960s and 1970s in d ic a te d a change to th e broader community edu cation concept. The in te r c h a n g e a b ility o f terms in th e l i t e r a t u r e has le d to some con fu sion . In t h i s l i t e r a t u r e review th e term "community school" w ill r e f e r to th e d e liv e r y system by which th e i n s t i t u t i o n implements th e philosophy o f community ed u ca tio n . The Community School Movement The term "community school" f i r s t appears in th e l i t e r a t u r e in 1938 w ith Samuel E v e r e tt. He e d ite d a book which r e f e r r e d to th e tech niqu es used by th e community-school to so lv e problems o f th e community. These r e p o r ts were a ttem pts to in flu e n c e educators concerned w ith th e s o c ia l and economic problems o f th e 1930s. E v e re tt b e lie v ed th e school w ith i t s educated te a c h e rs and adm inis­ t r a t o r s , was a n a tu ra l i n s t i t u t i o n to provide le a d e rs h ip and improve th e community. The school was c e n t r a l l y lo c a te d and had f a c i l i t i e s and equipment a v a i l a b l e . The te a c h e rs and a d m in is tra to rs 12 13 were some o f th e b e t t e r educated c i t i z e n s and were in le a d e rs h ip ro le s. E l s ie R. Clapp in 1939 wrote o f her e x periences as a p r in ­ c ip a l o f B a lla rd School near L o u i s v i l l e , Kentucky. I t was here t h a t Clapp came to understand th e fu n c tio n s o f a community school. Clapp made th e curriculum th e li v i n g ex p erien c e s o f h e r s tu d e n ts . Minardo (1972, p. 13) r e l a t e s t h a t in 1936 Frank J . Manley, a physical education te a c h e r , had observed th e c lo se d school doors o f th e F l i n t , Michigan p u b lic sc h o o ls . Manley, w ith th e f in a n c ia l a s s i s t a n c e o f C harles S. M ott, opened th e school doors f o r a f t e r ­ school r e c r e a t i o n and enrichment a c t i v i t i e s f o r youth and a d u l t s . This e v e n tu a lly le d , w ith Mott Foundation su p p o rt, to F l i n t ' s becoming a s t a t e and n a tio n a l model f o r community school e d u c a tio n . The advent o f World War II caused th e "community school movement" to lo se momentum w hile a t t e n t i o n was focused on th e war e ffo rt. In 1945 th e r e was a renewed e f f o r t by ed u cato rs to plan ahead and a ttem p t to p rev en t p a s t e r r o r s . The National S o ciety f o r th e Study o f Education devoted i t s p u b lic a tio n to American Education in th e Postwar P e rio d . Edited by Maurice Seay, th e stu d y emphasized school and community c o o p erativ e planning to improve th e community environment. Conmunity schools had a r o l e in community-school problem s o lv in g . Olsen (1945) w rote t h a t "from many sources one le a r n s t h a t a l l l i f e i s e d u ca tiv e " concerning th e school and community. This 14 added th e dimension o f e d u c a tio n 's being a li f e l o n g process t o th e community school movement. The 1950s w itn essed s ev e ra l im portant developments in clu d in g a dem onstration p r o j e c t sponsored by th e W. K. Kellogg Foundation. I t was known as th e "Michigan Community School S ervice Program1' and involved sup po rt to e ig h t lo c a l communities from 1945-53. The goal being to dem onstrate t h a t schools can play an im portant r o l e in th e development o f communities. Seay and Crawford (1954, pp. 186-190), re p o rte d t h a t th e demonstrated p r o j e c t i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t "th e people o f th e se communi­ t i e s showed d e f i n i t e growth during th e p erio d o f th e program in t h e i r a b i l i t y to work to g e th e r and t o use th e e d u c a tiv e process in r e l a t i n g community problem s." The r e s u l t s g en erated g r e a t p u b l i c i t y and showed communities were i n t e r e s t e d in working with th e scho ols to meet community needs. The 1950s brought th e appointment o f th e f i r s t Community School S ervice D ire c to r in F l i n t , Michigan. assig n ed to t h i s p o s itio n in 1951. William Minardo was Young and Quinn mention h is job d e s c r ip ti o n as fo llo w s: 1. Know and work w ith th e s t a f f o f Freeman Community School. 2. Know and work w ith School. th e t o t a l community o f Freeman Community 3. Teach o n e -h a lf time a t Freeman Community School. 4. Be re s p o n s ib le f o r th e promotion, c o o rd in a tio n and adm inis­ t r a t i o n o f a l l a c t i v i t i e s , programs, e t c . , r e l a t e d to Freeman Community School but no t p a r t o f th e K-6 curriculum program. 5. E nroll in one g ra d u a te course r e l a t e d to Community School Education each sem ester. 15 This was th e f i r s t time an in d iv id u a l did not have community school a c t i v i t i e s as an e x tr a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . R elated to t h i s e f f o r t was a d d itio n a l C. S. Mott Foundation f in a n c ia l resou rces t o sup po rt th e community school movement in th e F l i n t Public Schools. By 1959 most schools in F l i n t had a h a lf-tim e community school d i r e c t o r . The le a d e rs h ip o f Frank Manley lead him to seek le a d e rs h ip development programs through Eastern Michigan U n iv e rsity and Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity and l a t e r a l l Michigan p u b lic u n i v e r s i t i e s . This le a d e rs h ip a ls o lead to g r e a t e r C. S. Mott Foundation g ra n ts to support community schools in F l i n t . The combination o f Mott f in a n c ia l re s o u rc e s , u n iv e r s ity c o o p e ra tio n , and Frank Manley's le a d e rs h ip lead to th e F l i n t Public Schools' gaining n a tio n a l prominence. As a r e s u l t many in d iv id u a ls came to v i s i t and study th e F l i n t model of community sc h o o ls. The idea o f th e community s c h o o l's being a p o s s ib le s o lu tio n o t solvin g our s o c ia l and educational problems was an e x c itin g and inn o v ativ e concept. It a t t r a c t e d in d iv id u a ls from a l l walks o f l i f e and helped move th e community school movement forward. The 1950s produced th r e e im portant p u b lic a tio n s on com­ munity sch o o ls. These provided g r e a t e r c r e d i b i l i t y and p u b lic ity f o r th e movement. Maurice F. Seay and a committee (1953) wrote "The Community School" which was published as a yearbook o f The National Society f o r th e Study of Education. They d efin ed th e community school "as one which o f f e r s s u i t a b l e ed u catio nal o p p o r tu n itie s to a l l age 16 groups and which fa sh io n s le a rn in g experiences f o r both a d u lts and young people o u t o f th e unsolved problems o f community l i f e . " Edward G. Olsen in The Modern Community School (1953) d escrib ed th e community school a s: a p a r t o f th e l a r g e r p a t t e r n o f community educatio n in which i t i s th e fu n c tio n o f th e school to help th e whole community i n t e n s i f y i t s need s, s e t p r i o r i t i e s , and o rganize a p p ro p ria te ed u catio nal measures to achieve th e goals sought. A f u r t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t m ile sto n e was th e f i r s t book on community education a d m in is tr a tio n . E rnest 0. Mel by produced A dm inistering Community Education (1955). Melby was concerned with th e e f f e c t th e liv in g environment has on th e growth and development o f th e c h i l d . He urged ed ucators to develop communities in which they c o n sid e r th e c h i l d ' s environment and community. The environment and community a re in v a lu a b le f o r th e c h i l d ' s le a rn in g and growth. These p u b lic a tio n s were im portant to th e community school movement. They were pion eering e f f o r t s to d e fin e th e community s c h o o l, to r e l a t e th e community school to th e broader community ed u catio n co n ce p t, and to r e l a t e th e e n t i r e environment/community to th e growth and development o f the in d iv id u a l. The 1960s were tu r b u l e n t y e a r s . The s o c ia l d is r u p tio n s of war, r a c i a l c o n f l i c t , and o th e r s o c ia l i l l s caused ed ucators and community le a d e rs to view education as a p o s s ib le s o lu tio n to our s o c ia l i l l s . The r e s u l t was a dram atic in c re a s e in s o c i a l , community, and edu cation al agencies seeking s o lu tio n s to problems. The u rb a n iz a tio n of th e country c re a te d a d d itio n a l s o c ia l d i s r u p tio n s . Seay and A sso ciates (1974, pp. 28-29) wrote t h a t : 17 The community school concept always recognized th e programs o f o th e r educational agencies in th e community, but in th e s i x t i e s educators began t o see th e school as one among many educational a g en cies. Obviously, they s a i d , education i s a comprehensive th in g , a s o c ia l i n s t i t u t i o n . Community le a d e rs began to th in k in terms o f community-wide, i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d fo rc e s which were performing - and could be expected to perform b e t t e r - th e fu n c tio n s s o c ie ty e n tr u s te d to edu ca tio n . They saw t h a t the time had come f o r th e sch o o l-ce n te re d concept to grow in to a community education concept. The community school had developed to help people and communities solve problems. The 1930s to 1960s were decades of growth and development f o r th e conmunity school movement. The major focus o f t h i s development occurred in Michigan. The f in a n c ia l c o n trib u tio n o f th e C. S. Mott and W. K. Kellogg foundations provided in v a lu a b le su pp o rt and p u b l i c i t y . Although th e major focus o f community schools was in Michigan, th e re were n a tio n a l le a d e r s . E v e r e tt, Clapp, Olsen, and Mel by were studying and w ritin g about th e community school movement in o th e r s e c tio n s of th e co un try . The movement continued to gain support and broaden i t s philosophy and scope as a means to achieve s o l u t i o n s , through education to many s o c ia l and educa­ tio n a l problems. The r e s u l t was a broader and more comprehensive community education concept re p la c in g th e community school movement by the l a t e 1960s and e a r ly 1970s. The Community Education Concept The l i t e r a t u r e o f th e 1970s in d ic a te d th e t r a n s i t i o n from community school to community e d u catio n. Seay (1972, pp. 16-19) wrote about the "th re ad s" t h a t r e l a t e d th e community school movement and th e community education concept. 18 1. The community school recognized in a c tu a l programming th e b a sic f a c t t h a t educatio n i s a continuous p ro c e ss . 2. Educational o b je c tiv e s were s t a t e d in terms of d e s ir e d changes in behavior. 3. Educational a c t i v i t i e s , supported by a p p ro p ria te i n s t r u c ­ tio n a l m a t e r i a l s , were based upon th e problems, needs and i n t e r e s t s o f th ose f o r whom they were planned. 4. The school served th e community and th e community served th e scho ol. 5. A lo c a l community provided a focus p o in t f o r understanding o t h e r , l a r g e r communities o f people. 6. The community school challenged school and community le a d e r s . Van Voorhees (1972, p. 18) f u r t h e r ex plain ed th e d if f e r e n c e s between community school and community e d u c a tio n . Van Voorhees e x p la in s : 'Community schools a re program supp orting o rg a n iz a ­ tio n a l s t r u c t u r e s , have a curriculum and ta k e p la ce in th e sc h o o ls ; Community Education i s a p ro c e ss , cannot be reduced to a curriculum and i t s base i s much broader than th e scho o l. Community Education i s th e community involving process through which in d i v i d u a l s ' needs a re i d e n t i f i e d and met re g a rd le s s o f th e are a o f concern o r th e o rg a n iz a tio n providing th e program .' The community school in i t s t r a n s i t i o n to community edu catio n recognized t h a t o th e r a g e n c ie s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , and o rg a n iz a tio n s were an in te g r a te d p a r t of th e community and were e q u a lly concerned with so lv in g people and community problems. This was a r e c o g n itio n t h a t th e school i s only one i n s t i t u t i o n involved w ith in th e development o f th e community. I t was becoming obvious t h a t th e broader concept o f community e d ucatio n involved in te ra g en c y c o o p e ra tio n , p la n n in g , and opening up th e s c h o o l's f a c i l i t i e s t o a l l cotraminity re s id e n c e s . Jack Minzey (1974, p. 49) f u r t h e r expands t h i s concept by w r iti n g : 19 Community Education i s a p h ilo so p h ic a l concept which serv es th e e n t i r e community by p roviding f o r a l l th e ed u catio n al needs o f a l l o f i t s community members. I t uses th e lo c a l school to serv e as th e c a t a l y s t in b rin g in g community re so u rce s to bear on community problems in an e f f o r t to develop a p o s i t i v e sense o f community, improve community l i v i n g , and develop a community process toward th e end of self-a ctu a liz a tio n . Seay (1974, p. 11) viewed th e new community e d u catio n concept as a concept in a c t i o n . He w rote: Community educatio n i s th e process t h a t achieves a balance and a use f o r a l l I n s t i t u t i o n a l fo rc e s in th e ed u ca tio n o f th e people - a l l o f th e people - o f th e community. Kaplan (1974, p. 4) r e l a t e s community e d u catio n t o e f f e c t i v e community involvement and c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . He w r i t e s : The community e d ucation concept i s made o p e ra tio n a l through th e community school which a c t s as a c a t a l y s t in i d e n tif y in g community re so u rce s t h a t can be drawn to g e th e r and work c o o p e r a tiv e ly f o r th e s o lu tio n o f problems. Community edu catio n encourages an e f f o r t to make maximum use of lo c a l school f a c i l i t i e s and community re s o u rc e s . Community educatio n provides an o p p o rtu n ity f o r e f f e c t i v e community involvement and c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , programs and a c t i v i t i e s a re expanded to se rv e to needs o f a l l age groups in th e community, from p re -s c h o o le rs t o s e n io r c itiz en s. Decker (1976, p. 5) su p p o rts t h i s view. He w rote: Community e d ucation i s a concept t h a t s t r e s s e s an expanded r o le f o r p u b lic ed u ca tio n and provides a dynamic approach to in d iv id u a l and community improvement. Community e d u catio n encourages th e development o f a comprehensive and co o rd in ated d e liv e r y system f o r providing e d u c a tio n a l, r e c r e a t i o n a l , and c u l t u r a l s e r v ic e s f o r a l l people in a community. The t r a n s i t i o n t o th e community e du cation concept involved r e s e a r c h e r s ' examining th e g o a ls o f community e d u c a tio n . DeLargy (1974) in a n a tio n a l stud y developed th e fo llow in g g o a ls : 1. Make maximum use o f community re so u rce s to provide a comprehensive e d u ca tio n a l program f o r th e e n t i r e community. 20 2. E s ta b lis h c o o rd in a tio n and coo p eratio n among in d i v i d u a l s , groups and o rg a n iz a tio n s t o avoid unnecessary d u p lic a tio n . 3. Develop a program o r p rocess f o r i d e n tif y in g e x i s t i n g and f u t u r e in d iv id u a l and community needs and w ants; and m arshall community re so u rce s capable o f e f f e c t i n g a p p r o p r ia te change. 4. Encourage c i t i z e n involvement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in p u b lic schools and community a f f a i r s . 5. Provide and develop in c re ase d o p p o r tu n itie s f o r la y and p ro fe s s io n a l people to assume le a d e rs h ip r o l e s . 6. Provide and promote a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s which could combat vandalism , j u v e n ile d elin q u en cy , crime and o th e r school-community problems. 7. Promote s p e c ia l i n t e r a c t i o n and improved human r e l a t i o n s h i p s among people w ith d i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l backgrounds. 8. O ffer supplementary and a l t e r n a t i v e e d u ca tio n a l o p p o r tu n itie s f o r a d u lts and c h ild re n t o extend t h e i r s k i l l s and i n t e r e s t . 9. Provide h e a lth programs t o improve th e e x te n t and a v a i l a b i ­ l i t y o f community h e a lth s e r v ic e s . 10. Provide or develop employment and v o catio n al o p p o r tu n itie s f o r meeting th e i n d i v i d u a l 's and th e community's employment n eeds. 11. Provide or a s s i s t r e s i d e n t s in sec u rin g needed s o c ia l s e r ­ v ic e s from an a p p ro p ria te agency. 12. O ffer programs designed to in c re a s e understanding o f p o l i t i c a l p ro ced u res, p ro c e ss e s , and i s s u e s . 13. P ro vide, develop o r use a v a i l a b l e community re s o u rc e s to meet th e p e o p le 's r e c r e a tio n a l and l e i s u r e time i n t e r e s t s . 14. Encourage pro cesses and programs f o r community development and environmental improvement. 15. Provide a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to c u l t u r a l enrichm ent and domestic a r t s and s c ie n c e . 16. Develop means o f a s s e s s in g and e v a lu a tin g th e e x te n t to which th e g oals o f community edu catio n a r e being met by th e program and p ro c e ss e s . Perusal o f the l i t e r a t u r e dem onstrates th e comprehensiveness o f th e community educatio n concept. I t inv olves a l l people of a 21 community. I t uses th e school as a d e liv e ry system f o r developing processes t h a t f a c i l i t a t e th e so lv ing o f s o c ia l problems. I t does not attem pt to d u p lic a te community and human reso u rces but uses e x is t in g reso u rces in a coo p erativ e fashio n to bu ild community. Community education does not n e c e s s a r ily have programs but they a re c re a te d when th e re i s a vacuum in e x is t in g community/human s e r v ic e s . U ltim a te ly , community education a c ts as a c a t a l y s t to b u ild a process t h a t f a c i l i t a t e s b u ild in g a sense o f community f o r a l l people. The 70s were times o f in creased s t a t e and fe d e ra l support f o r community e d ucation . The S ta te of Michigan provided, in 1969, $1,000,000 in c a te g o ric a l funding to support th e community school concept. Future funding served to sup po rt th e expanding r o l e o f community education w ith th e exception o f 1971 when funding was vetoed. (Table 2.1) At the fe d e ra l le v e l a major breakthrough occurred in 1974. The f i r s t fe d e ra l l e g i s l a t i o n to support community education passed. Funds were ap p ro p riated and a n a tio n a l Community Education Advisory Council e s ta b lis h e d . The Community Schools Act o f 1974 s ta t e d in p a r t , "The s c h o o l, as the primary educational i n s t i t u t i o n o f th e community, i s most e f f e c t i v e when th e school involves th e people o f t h a t community in a program designed to f u l f i l l t h e i r education needs." The passing o f fe d e ra l l e g i s l a t i o n brought n ation al n itio n . recog­ From th e e a r ly w ritin g s o f E v e re tt and Clapp in th e l a t e 1930s to th e re c e n t 1970s th e community education concept had evolved. 22 TABLE 2.1 . —Summary of Community School D ir e c to r s ' Reimbursement Under Section 96 o f th e S ta te School Aid A ct, Michigan Department of Education, 1981-82. A ppropriation Fiscal Year Total Number o f School D i s t r i c t s Total Number of Funding Units Total Number of Di r e c to r s Reimbursed $1,000,000 1969-70 141^ 108 204 $1,000,000 1970-71 162^ 124 206 -0 - 1971-72 $1,000,000 1972-73 233 163 261 $1,000,000 1973-74 220 180 292 $1,400,000 1974-75 248 195 327 $1,300,000 1975-76 263 197 342 $1,300,000 1976-77 282 198 349 $1,400,000 1977-78 324 219 364 ♦♦$1,600,000 1978-79 330 234 384 $3,260,000 1979-80 344 242 403 $2,282,000 1980-81 359 242 400 $2,282,000 1981-82 332^ ZZ7* 385^ (Vetoed) ♦Estimate ♦♦Formula Change The e a r ly l i t e r a t u r e mentions a community school movement concerned w ith solv ing community problems between th e school and the community. I t was p rim a rily concerned w ith bringing people to the school o r providing a f t e r school educatio n al and r e c r e a tio n a l a ctiv itie s. Community s c h o o ls , although in n ov ativ e f o r th e 23 tim e s, were lim ite d in scope, comprehensiveness, and p u b lic acceptance. Community education o f th e 1970s had become a comprehen­ s iv e concept expected to serv e a l l people o f th e community. The comprehensiveness had caused community education le a d e rs t o examine th e components of th e concept. The Development o f Components The l i t e r a t u r e concerning th e components of community educa­ tio n i s r e c e n t. Kaplan and Warden (1978, p. 4) wrote: A major tren d in the e v o lu tio n o f community education has been toward th e development of s p e c i f i c components o r t h r u s t s to provide a conceptual handle o r tool o f common re f e r e n c e . A components approach to community education helps (1) to i d e n t i f y and e s t a b l i s h some working t e r r i t o r y ; (2) to e s t a b l i s h a developmental approach; (3) to exemplify an ex p lanation o f what c o n s t i t u t e s community edu ca tio n . Kaplan and Warden (1978, p. 4) warned, however, t h a t such an approach may f a i l to ta k e in to c o n s id e ra tio n a more h o l i s t i c c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of community education which simply s t a t e s t h a t : 't h e whole o f community education cannot be determined by simply looking a t th e v ariou s component p a r t s . ' Community education from t h i s p e rs p e c tiv e i s more than a s e r i e s o f components. This dilemma which community educators fa c e i s complicated by s t r i v i n g f o r a balance between a l i s t i n g o f s e p a ra te components t h a t may be e a s i l y understood bu t lack o v e ra ll in t e g r a t i o n . These concerns i l l u s t r a t e th e need to examine in g r e a te r depth th e l i t e r a t u r e concerning th e components o f community e d u catio n. Melby and Kerensky (1971, pp. 167-178) mention components can be " m is in te rp re te d as p r e s c r i p tio n s f o r i n s t a n t s u c c e ss , leaving the tr u e a f f e c t i v e meaning w aiting in the wings. e q u a lly dangerous to remain too vague." However, i t i s 24 The twelve components advocated by Melby and Kerensky as c r u c i a l to community edu ca tio n a r e : 1. Maximized use o f e x i s t i n g human and phy sical re s o u rc e s . 2. E stablishm ent o f c o o p e ra tiv e procedures w ith governmental s e r v ic e o r g a n iz a tio n s . 3. E stablishm ent o f c o o p e ra tiv e procedures with v o lu n te e rs and c i v i c s e r v ic e o r g a n iz a tio n s . 4. The development o f c o o p e ra tiv e procedures w ith b u siness and in d u s tr y . 5. The e s ta b lis h m e n t o f c o o p e ra tiv e procedures w ith o th e r e d u c a tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . 6. The e sta b lis h m e n t o f procedures f o r s e l f - g e n e r a t i n g ac tiv itie s. 7. The i n i t i a t i o n and c o o rd in a tio n o f s p e c ia l community e v e n ts . 8. The e sta b lis h m e n t o f problem solvin g procedures through the c r e a t i o n o f a c i t i z e n ad visory c o u n c il. 9. The employment o f a community school d i r e c t o r o r c o o rd in a to r who s erv es to t i e a l l o f th e above to g e th e r and a ls o serves in th e c a p a c ity o f an ombudsman f o r h is e n t i r e community. 10. The e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a c lim a te f o r inn ov atio n and change. 11. P ro v isio n s f o r h e u r i s t i c s . 12. P ro v isio n s f o r s e r e n d i p i t y . The o r ig i n a l a tte m p t to i d e n t i f y th e major components o f com­ munity e d u ca tio n was based on th e 1960s. L a te r l i t e r a t u r e i l l u s ­ t r a t e s atte m p ts to c o n s o lid a te Melby and Kerenshy's components in to more p r e c is e terms and t o adapt them t o th e emerging community e d u ca tio n concept o f th e m id -se v e n tie s . In Michigan th e S ta te Board o f Education recognized fo u r b a sic r o l e e x p e c ta tio n s o r components o f community e d u c a tio n . These 25 components, adopted August 13, 1975 as p a r t o f a P o s itio n Paper on th e Community School Within th e P h ilo sop hical Concept o f Community Education a re : 1. Making school f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n use f o r academic, c u l t u r a l , r e c r e a t i o n , s o c i a l , and enrichment end eav ors. 2. Organizing th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in th e community in a s s e s s in g lo c a l c o n d itio n s , s e t t i n g o f p r i o r i t i e s , and program p lann in g. 3. Id e n tify in g and u t i l i z i n g re so u rce s and f a c i l i t a t i n g j o i n t planning by lo c a l a g e n c ie s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , and o r g a n iz a tio n s . 4. I n i t i a t i n g new a n d /o r improved e d u ca tio n a l programming f o r a l l age le v e l s to bring about accomplishment o f p r i o r i t i z e d needs as determined by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e group o f community c itiz en s. These components were an a ttem p t to r e l a t e th e community s c h o o l, th e community re s o u rc e s , and community c o n d itio n s t o improve th e e d ucation al o p p o rtu n ity f o r a l l r e s id e n ts through th e community educa­ tio n concept. Decker (1972, p. 9) r e f e r s to th e components o f Community Education as " b u ild in g blocks" t h a t evolve in a s e q u e n tia l o rd e r. They a r e : Community O rganizatio n and Development U t i l i z i n g Community in K-12 Programs C itiz e n Involvement and P a r t i c i p a t i o n Interag en cy C oo rd inatio n, C ooperation, C o lla b o ra tio n L ifelong Learning and Enrichment Programs Expanded Use o f School F a c i l i t i e s Community Schools-Community C enters 26 This study was a f i r s t a tte m p t to show th e community edu cation concepts as developing in a s e q u e n tia l and e v o lu tio n a ry manner. The components o f expanded use o f school f a c i l i t i e s and l i f e l o n g le a rn in g and enrichm ent programs a re program components. The components of in te ra g e n c y c o o r d in a tio n , c o o p e ra tio n , c o l l a b o r a t i o n , c i t i z e n in v o lv e ­ ment and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , u t i l i z i n g community in K-12 programs, and community o r g a n iz a tio n and development a re process components. This was a f i r s t a tte m p t to recog nize th e components based on program o r process o r i e n t a t i o n . McNeil (1976, pp. 1-2) surveyed 90 p e rc e n t o f th e Community School Programs in Michigan f o r 1975-76 and i d e n t i f i e d t h i r t e e n com­ ponents necessary f o r s u c c e ssfu l programs. McNeil i d e n t i f i e d the necessary components to be: 1. The Board su pp orts community education by opening th e school b u ild in g . 2. The program a t t r a c t s most segments o f th e community. 3. Program a c t i v i t i e s a r e s t a r t e d as soon as p o s s ib le a f t e r needs have been i d e n t i f i e d . 4. An ad v iso ry committee i s formed which h elp s to determ ine needs, 5) e s t a b l i s h g o a l s , and 6) i d e n t i f y community reso urces 7. D ire c to r r e g u l a r l y a tte n d s i n s e r v i c e . 8. Program e s t a b l i s h e s c o o p e ra tiv e e f f o r t s with governmental a g e n c ie s , 9) v o lu n te e r and c i v i c s e r v ic e o r g a n iz a tio n s , and 10) o th e r e d u ca tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s 11. Program has a c t i v i t i e s in th e summer. 27 12. Evaluation of th e program i s based to some e x te n t on th e d a ta c o lle c te d on p a r t i c i p a n t s . 13. The Board passes a r e s o lu tio n supporting community edu ca tio n . McNeil's survey was unique in t h a t i t was based on th e p ra c - t i o n e r ' s view point. "component." There i s doubt concerning h is use o f the term I t appears to be an a l l encompassing term. Kaplan (1977, pp. 41-44) p re s e n ts a g r e a t e r understanding o f th e components o f community edu ca tio n . Kaplan i d e n t i f i e d s ix major components. Increased Use of F a c ilitie s Programs and Services f o r a l l Age Groups Increased School-Community R elatio ns Community Education Components Coordinated Planning With Other Agencies I n te g ra tin g Community Education With K-12 Community Involvement Figure 2 . —The Community Education Concept. Kaplan's s ix components a re th e major a re a s he f e e l s a re necessary to develop an understanding o f th e community education concept. Kaplan s t r e s s e s t h a t th e development process i s th e h e a r t of s u c c e s s fu lly developing components in community edu ca tio n . Clark (1977) has developed f iv e major components o f community ed ucation . These components have been i d e n t i f i e d by Clark as being 28 e s s e n t i a l to develop a s o lid foundation and to make th e comprehensive community education philosophy o p e r a tio n a l. They a re : 1. Lifelong Learning Experiences 2. Community Resource U t i l i z a t i o n A. B. C. Human Physical Financial 3. Interagency Cooperation 4. Involving Community Members 5. Core C u rric u la (L ife Centered) Minzey's Community Education Components Minzey (1978) has w r itt e n and demonstrated the im portant r o le components play in helping in d iv id u a ls to understand th e concept and philosophy o f community e du catio n. Minzey mentions th e re i s not u n iv e rs a l agreement among educa­ t o r s concerning th e necessary components o f community e d u ca tio n . The s ix components developed by Minzey, and th e focus o f the re s e a r c h , a re widely recognized by most community ed ucators as being necessary f o r a l l community education programs. Minzey has developed f i v e diagrams to i l l u s t r a t e th e ty p ic a l d i r e c t i o n of development encountered by school based models having community education programs. In th e diagram i l l u s t r a t e d through Figure 3 the components o f community education tend to develop t y p i c a l l y from a top to bottom I-VI continuum. 29 COMPONENT I K - 12 COMPONENT II Use of F a c i l i t i e s COMPONENT I I I A c t i v i t i e s f o r School Age Children and Youth COMPONENT IV A c t i v i t i e s f o r Adults COMPONENT V D elivery and Coordination of Community Services COMPONENT VI Community Involvement Figure 3 . —The In g re d ie n ts o f Community Education. Minzey w rite s t h a t h i s t o r i c a l l y school d i s t r i c t s appear to develop community education by t h i s top to bottom p a t t e r n . two reasons Minzey gives a re : The (1) New programs a re modeled a f t e r models a lre a d y in e x is te n c e ; and (2) The components I-IV a re more t r a d i t i o n a l and school boards fe e l more com fortable w ith them. Components V and VI a re le s s f a m i l i a r and do not r e l a t e e a s i l y to school boards used to th ink in g of education being f o r c h ild re n ages f i v e to seventeen. The fo u rth diagram dem onstrates blockages t y p i c a l l y encoun­ te re d in th e development o f community education (Figure 4 ) . Minzey (1978) w r ite s t h a t Community Education t y p i c a l l y develops components I-IV but has d i f f i c u l t y moving in to components V and VI. The growth o f community education slows d ra m a tic a lly a t t h i s p o in t o r ceases to con tinu e. The reasons f o r the blockage i s because school d i s t r i c t s perceiv e community education as being components I-IV o r th e school 30 d i s t r i c t i s u n w illin g to commit th e funds necessary to implement components V and VI. The r e s u l t , Minzey (1978) s t a t e s , i s "most community education programs s to p somewhere s h o rt o f th e goals involved in tr u e community e d u ca tio n ." TYPICAL DIRECTION OF DEVELOP­ MENT COMPONENT I K-12 COMPONENT II Use o f F a c i l i t i e s COMPONENT I I I A c t i v i t i e s f o r School Age Children and Youth COMPONENT IV A c t i v i t i e s f o r Adults BLOCK COMPONENT V Delivery and Coordination o f Community Services COMPONENT VI Community Involvement Figure 4 . —Blockage o f Community Education Development The components model o f community education involves a t h i r d dimension. The d iv is io n o f components between I-IV and V-VI a re sometimes i d e n t i f i e d re s p e c tiv e ly as program o r process components. (Figure 5) I t i s commonly perceived by many educators t h a t i f you have program components you do not have process o r i f you have process you do not have program components. In most school board community education programs th e r e a re program and process com­ ponents to some degree. 31 PROGRAMS COMPONENT I K-12 COMPONENT II Use o f F a c i l i t i e s COMPONENT I I I A c t i v i t i e s f o r School Age C hildren and Youth COMPONENT IV A c t i v i t i e s f o r A dults COMPONENT V D elivery and Coordina­ t i o n of Community Services COMPONENT VI Community Involvement PROGRAMS TYPICAL DIRECTION OF DEVELOP­ MENT Figure 5 . —Program and Pro cess. The ty p ic a l d i r e c t i o n o f development i s from program com­ ponents to process components but th e r e v e rs e development does occur. The d i r e c t i o n o f development i s not as im po rtant as th e f a c t t h a t th e school d i s t r i c t recog nizes i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and provides le a d e r ­ sh ip to develop a t o t a l community educatio n program. Most school d i s t r i c t s have some le v e l o f development w ith th e components o f community edu cation re g a r d le s s o f whether they are a recognized community e d u ca tio n school d i s t r i c t . In th e diagram (F igu re 6) "Development o f Community Educa­ t io n Components in a Typical Community," Minzey i l l u s t r a t e s what a ty p ic a l school d i s t r i c t might look l i k e re g ard in g th e developmental l e v e l s o f components. The components I and I I a re t y p i c a l l y 65 to 90 p e rc e n t developed. The components I I I and IV a r e normally 50 to 60 p e rc e n t developed in a school d i s t r i c t . The more d i f f i c u l t p rocess components, V and VI, a r e u s u a lly only 10 t o 20 p e rc e n t developed. 32 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% K-12 Use o f F a c i l i t i e s A c ti v itie s f o r School Age C hildren and Youth A c ti v itie s f o r A dults COMPONENT IV ~~1 D elivery and C oordination o f Community S e rv ic e s COMPONENT V Conmunlty Involvem ent ] COMPONENT VI Figure 6 . --Development o f Community Education Components in a Typical Community. The ty p ic a l development o f community educatio n components may vary by community. The developmental s ta g e o f the components i s no t as im po rtant as th e school d i s t r i c t ' s re c o g n itio n t h a t i t has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to provide le a d e rs h ip and work toward achieving maximum p ro gress w ith th e s ix components. The re c o g n itio n o f t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s th e d if f e r e n c e between a school d i s t r i c t having Community Education or not having i t . Each school d i s t r i c t may be a t a d i f f e r e n t s ta g e o f develop­ ment. One d i s t r i c t may be f a i r l y well developed concerning a c t i v i t i e s f o r a d u lts w hile a n o th e r d i s t r i c t may be more developed in use of fa c ilitie s. Minzey (1978) s t a t e s th e r e a r e two c a u tio n s t h a t school d i s t r i c t s must c o n s id e r. In th e diagram, "P lateau in g o f a Typical 33 Community Education Program" (Figure 7 ) , school d i s t r i c t s tend to have p la te a u in g o r blockage in the development o f t h e i r community educa­ tio n programs. K - 12 COMPONENT I Use of F a c i l i t i e s COMPONENT II A c t i v i t i e s f o r School Age Children and Youth COMPONENT I I I A c t i v i t i e s f o r Adults COMPONENT IV B L 0 C K D elivery and Coordina­ tio n of Community S ervices COMPONENT V Community Involvement COMPONENT VI Figure 7 . —Plateauin g o f a Typical Community Education Program. Minzey b e lie v e s school d i s t r i c t s allow th e se blockages to occur. The blockages a re th e r e s u l t s o f school d i s t r i c t s not having a well defined p r o f i l e o f the development o f community educa­ tio n in t h e i r community. The school d i s t r i c t s have not decided what th e p r i o r i t i e s a r e and consequently have no means to e v a lu a te th e program adeq uately . The second c au tio n t h a t school d i s t r i c t s must be aware of involves a time schedule f o r development and th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e development. School d i s t r i c t s must recognize t h a t a school d i s t r i c t with a lon g-standing community education program i s not a t th e same 34 stag e as a new program. I t may be a p p ro p ria te f o r a new program to place development upon a d u lt education a c t i v i t i e s t h a t g e n erate a f in a n c ia l base w hile a long standing program should be emphasizing development in d e liv e r y and c o o rd in a tio n o f community s e r v ic e s . Thus what i s s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r one school d i s t r i c t may not be a p p ro p ria te f o r another d i s t r i c t . The components Minzey has i d e n t i f i e d a re th e r e s u l t o f the continuing evolvement of th e community education concept. Previous w r i t e r s have made variou s a ttem pts to address th e a re a o f community education components. Minzey has emerged as perhaps th e f i r s t w r i t e r to i d e n t i f y th e importance o f components and to attem p t to i l l u s t r a t e th e im portant r o le components play in th e development o f the community education concept a t th e lo c al school d i s t r i c t l e v e l . Summary A review of the l i t e r a t u r e re v e a ls th e emergence o f th e community school in to th e concept o f community e du catio n. The development of community schools in th e 1930s evolved in to th e com­ munity education concept of the 1970s. The emergence o f th e components of community education in the l a t e 1970s has been a p a r t o f helping d e fin e community e du catio n . Minzey has i d e n t i f i e d s ix components of community education t h a t a re necessary i f a school d i s t r i c t i s to have community educa­ tio n . The components a re a t d i f f e r e n t le v e l s o f development in each community. The d i f f e r e n t s ta g e s of development are n a tu ra l depending upon whether a school d i s t r i c t i s j u s t s t a r t i n g or has a long standing community education program. 35 The im portant element i s whether th e school d i s t r i c t recognizes i t s development and a ccep ts r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r implement­ ing a l l components o f community ed u ca tio n . CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In tro d u c tio n The purpose of t h i s study was to measure th e opinions o f Michigan community education d i r e c t o r s concerning th e e x te n t to which s e le c te d components o f community education e x is te d in Michigan community school d i s t r i c t s according to f i v e community ty p e s . community types s e le c te d being: The Type I (Urban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l). The study was im portant f o r lo c a l school d i s t r i c t adminis­ t r a t o r s and school boards d e s ir in g to improve t h e i r lo c al community education programs and to examine t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s toward implementing th e components o f community education w ith in t h e i r re s p e c tiv e school d i s t r i c t . Development o f Instrum ent The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed in d ic a te d previous re sea rc h had not been conducted to measure th e r o l e o f components in community education programs. The q u e s tio n n a ire in strum en t was c o n stru cte d by th e re s e a rc h e r with a s s is ta n c e from th e committee c h a irp e rs o n , th e d o c to ra l advisory committee, and a re sea rc h measurement and e v a lu a tio n s p e c i a l i s t from the Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity O ffice o f Graduate Research. 36 37 The q u e s tio n n a ir e was organized in to nine dimensions. nine dimensions were: The (1) Educational Program f o r School Age C hildren (K-12); (2) Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s ; (3) A dditional Programs f o r School Age C hildren and Youth; (4) Programs f o r A d ults; (5) D elivery o f Community S e rv ic e s ; (6) Community Involvement; (7) Ranking o f S e le cted Components o f Community Education; (8) General Q uestion^; and (9) Demographic Inform ation. The instrum en t was s t r u c tu r e d to measure each o f th e dimen­ s io n s . The in stru m e n t c o n s is te d o f se v e n ty -fo u r q u e stio n s and were subdivided in t o nine p a r t s as fo llo w s: 1. P a rt I - "Educational Programs f o r School Age C hildren (K -12)." This dimension p resented th e d i r e c t o r s with eleven statem e n ts concerning th e community edu cation program and th e K-12 e d u ca tio n a l program. The statem en ts r e l a t e d to a re a s o f involvem ent, p la n n in g , meeting j o i n t l y to so lve e d u ca tio n a l co n ce rn s, working j o i n t l y to so lve community problems, using th e community as an ex ten sio n o f th e classroom , involvement of th e community in th e classroom , f i n a n c i a l su p p o rt and p h ilo so p h ic a l su p p o rt by K-12 a d m in is tr a to r s and teach in g s t a f f . 2. P a r t I I - "Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s . " This dimension provided fo u r s ta te m e n ts concerning th e promotion and use of community f a c i l i t i e s , use o f school f a c i l i t i e s , and charging o f a fe e f o r week day and weekend use o f f a c i l i t i e s . 3. P a r t I I I - "A dditional Programs f o r School Age C hildren and Youth." Seven s tatem e n ts were about a f te r - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s , weekend a c t i v i t i e s , summer a c t i v i t i e s , remedial a c t i v i t i e s , enrichm ent a c t i v i t i e s and r e c r e a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s . 4. P a r t IV - "Programs f o r A d u lts ." This area presen ted th e d i r e c t o r s w ith s ix statem e n ts about a d u lt b a sic e d u c a tio n , a d u l t high school com pletion, r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v i c e s , e n r ic h ­ m e n t/le is u r e time s e r v i c e s , c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s and v o catio n al s k i l l s t r a i n i n g s e r v ic e s . 5. P a r t V - "D elivery o f Community S e rv ic e s ." This dimension had eleven s tatem e n ts concerning d e liv e r y o f human s e r v i c e s , new programs, j o i n t planning with a g e n c ie s, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p h y s ic a l, te c h n ic a l and human r e s o u rc e s , promotion, 38 e v a lu a tio n , uses o f human r e s o u r c e s , use of community r e s o u r c e s , promotion o f community s e r v ic e s on a d i s t r i c t wide and neighborhood b a s i s , and d u p lic a tio n o f community serv ice s. 6. P a r t VI - "Community Involvement." There were seven s t a t e ­ ments about a d v iso ry c o u n c il s , c i t i z e n involvement in problem s o lv in g , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f community problems, development o f a problem so lv in g p ro c e s s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f re so u rce s and school d i s t r i c t coo p eratio n toward solving coiranunity problems. The f i r s t s ix p a r ts o f th e instru m ent re q u e ste d th e d i r e c t o r s to r e a c t to a L ik e r t- ty p e fo u r p o in t s c a le w ith responses ranging from alw ays, o f t e n , o c c a s io n a lly , to r a r e l y . I t was decided to omit "undivided" to fo r c e th e d i r e c t o r s to r e a c t to an opinion t h a t most c lo s e ly r e f l e c t e d t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . 1 2 3 4 = » = = The r a t i n g s c a le was: Rarely O ccasio n ally Often Always 7. P a r t VII - "S e le cte d Components o f Community." This area p re sen te d th r e e s ta te m e n ts . The f i r s t statem e n t asked th e d i r e c t o r s to rank s ix s e le c te d components o f com­ munity edu ca tio n as to how im p ortan t they were in th e school d i s t r i c t . The second sta te m e n t had th e d i r e c t o r s ranking th e components as to how th e components ought to be ranked in th e school d i s t r i c t . The d i r e c t o r s used a s c a le o f 1 - 6 w ith one being th e h ig h e s t rank ing . The t h i r d sta te m e n t had th e d i r e c t o r s l i s t i n g any components not mentioned in th e survey and which ought to be a p a r t o f community e d u catio n programs. 8. P a r t VIII - "General Q u e stio n s." There were fo u r yes o r no q u e s tio n s concerning school b o a rd /s u p e rin te n d e n t su pp ort o f th e concept and philosophy o f community edu cation and whether th e school d i s t r i c t had p o lic y statem e n ts about th e philosophy o f community ed ucation and use o f f a c i l i t i e s . 9. P a r t IX - "Demographic In fo rm a tio n ." This dimension p re ­ sen ted twelve items about th e d i r e c t o r , program and community. The q u e stio n s had th e d i r e c t o r s check o f f th e blank r e l a t i n g to t h e i r demographic s i t u a t i o n . The demographic q u e stio n s included pop ulatio n served by th e d i s t r i c t , y e a r s o f experien ce in community e d u c a tio n , 39 a d m in is tra tiv e ex p erien c e , degree c o n c e n tra tio n , experience in p u blic sc h o o ls , len gth o f community education program in th e d i s t r i c t , h ig h e st degree o b ta in e d , formal community education t r a i n i n g , age range and sex. Review o f Instrument The instrum ent was reviewed by th e D ire c to rs o f the Community Education Centers a t E astern Michigan U n iv e rs ity , Central Michigan U n iv e rs ity , and Western Michigan U n iv e rs ity . Each d i r e c t o r was charged to a s s e s s th e instrum ent and to make notes of problems of o r g a n iz a tio n , ambiguous term s, comprehensiveness and any o th e r area t h a t would add to the v a l i d i t y of the instru m e n t. Most o f the suggestions to improve th e instrum ent were in co rp orated in to th e q u e stio n n a ire a f t e r c o n s u lta tio n w ith th e r e s e a r c h e r 's a d v iso r. P i l o t T esting The instrum ent was p i l o t te s t e d to provide f u r t h e r face v alid ity . Five community education d i r e c t o r s , one from each com­ munity ty p e , were randomly s e le c te d to p i l o t t e s t th e in strum en t and th e r e s u l t was sev eral changes were made. The in strum ent was revamped fo u r times in c o n s u lta tio n with u n iv e r s ity community education s p e c i a l i s t s , d i r e c t o r s in th e f i e l d , th e re sea rc h a d v is o r , and a measurement and e v a lu a tio n s p e c i a l i s t in o rder to improve the v a lid ity . D e scrip tion of Population The population stu d ie d comprised a u n iv erse o f th e community education d i r e c t o r s o f p u b lic school d i s t r i c t s in Michigan. The population was composed o f those p u b lic schools re c e iv in g "community 40 school" g ra n t funding from th e Michigan S ta te School Act - Section 96 on g ra n ts f o r community school programs. Each d i r e c t o r co n tacted was i d e n t i f i e d by th e Michigan Contact D ire c to ry f o r A d u lt, Community and Continuing Education Programs (1981-82). Each d i r e c t o r was considered th e d i s t r i c t - w i d e a d m in is tra to r f o r th e lo cal community school program. These d i r e c t o r s were tho se t h a t submitted a p p lic a tio n s to re c e iv e community school g ra n t monies and t o t a l 228 school d i s t r i c t s f o r 1981-82. A t o t a l o f 221 school d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r s were considered a p p ro p ria te to survey. The f i v e school d i s t r i c t d i r e c t o r s involved with p i l o t t e s t i n g were o m itte d , th e school d i s t r i c t o f th e w r i t e r , and th e school d i s t r i c t o f D e tr o it. The D e tro it School D i s t r i c t was considered in a p p ro p ria te because o f th e enormous s i z e compared to o th e r d i s t r i c t s and th e i s o l a t i o n o f th e community school g ra n t monies from th e K-12 program. The remaining 221 school d i s t r i c t s were divided in to f iv e community types using th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system developed by the Michigan Department o f Education (1971). The f iv e le v e l s o f com­ munity type with corresponding school d i s t r i c t s were th e fo llo w in g: Type I - Urban (8 d i s t r i c t s ) , Type II - C i t i e s (19 d i s t r i c t s ) , Type I I I - Towns (62 d i s t r i c t s ) , Type IV - Urban Fringe (71 d i s t r i c t s ) and Type V - Rural (61 d i s t r i c t s ) . (See Appendix C) Data C o lle c tio n Procedures A mail q u e s tio n n a ire (Appendix D) was used to c o l l e c t the d a ta . Time and expense were th e primary reasons f o r s e le c tin g the 41 mail procedure. An accompanying l e t t e r (Appendix E) e x p lain in g the purpose, scope, and time sequence o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire was included. A s e lf -a d d re s s e d and stamped envelope was included to f a c i l i t a t e th e r e tu r n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . The q u e stio n n a ir e was number coded to i d e n t i f y non-respondents and prepared on goldenrod paper. The colored paper was s e le c te d to draw a t t e n t i o n to th e survey and not have th e survey l o s t among desk top p ap ers. The q u e s tio n n a ir e was mailed March 11, 1982 to th e 221 school d i s t r i c t s . To ensure c o n f i­ d e n t i a l i t y the code numbers were destroyed as soon as th e instrum ent was re tu rn e d . Thus no d i r e c t o r or school d i s t r i c t could be i d e n t i f i e d . Three weeks l a t e r a second l e t t e r was mailed to th e non­ respondents to ensure maximum response to th e survey. (Appendix F) V ariables The dependent v a ria b le s were the s e le c te d components of community education as i d e n t i f i e d by Minzey. were th e f i v e community ty p e s. The independent v a ria b le s The demographic v a r ia b le s were used to provide p o s s ib le ex p lan atio n s to the r e s u l t s obtained from the study. A nalysis o f Data The One-way A nalysis o f Variance (ANOVA) w ith unequal popu­ l a t i o n s was used to d e te c t d if f e r e n c e s between th e s ix s e le c te d components and community ty p e s . The chi square t e s t o f s ig n ific a n c e measured r e l a tio n s h ip s o f items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e components and to d e t e c t any item d iff e r e n c e s among community ty p e s. le v e l o f a - .05 was used. A s ig n if ic a n c e Frequencies and percentages were used f o r meaning f o r th e items in d ic a tin g s i g n if ic a n c e . Group mean and stan dard d e v ia tio n s o f community types supplemented th e a n a ly s is to provide g r e a t e r meaning f o r th e f in d in g s . Research Questions In o rd e r to compare th e opinions o f community education d i r e c t o r s concerning s e le c te d components o f community education according to community types th e follow ing re se a rc h q u e stio n s were developed. 1. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms of an educatio nal program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)? 2. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms of use o f community f a c i l i t i e s ? 3. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth? 4. Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f programs f o r a d u lts ? 5. Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f d e liv e ry o f community s e rv ic e s ? 6. Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms of community involvement? 7. Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f demographics? Summary The purpose o f th e study was to measure th e opinions of Michigan community edu cation d i r e c t o r s about s e le c te d components of community edu catio n according to f i v e community ty p e s. The 43 community types a r e : Type I (U rban), Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l). The po pu la tio n s tu d ie d c o n s is te d o f 221 school d i s t r i c t d ire c to rs. A r e tu r n r a t e o f 94.1 p e rc e n t was achieved. I t was n ecessary to develop th e in s tru m e n ta tio n f o r th e s tu d y . The in stru m en t was p i l o t t e s t e d and reviewed by u n i v e r s i t y community e d ucation s p e c i a l i s t s , re s e a rc h a d v is o r , and a measurement and e v a lu a tio n s p e c i a l i s t . The in strum en t c o n s is te d o f s e v e n ty -fo u r q u e s tio n s . The f in d in g s were analyzed w ith a One-way A nalysis o f Variance w ith unequal p o p u la tio n s (ANOVA). A (X ) chi sq uare a n a ly s is was performed to d e t e c t any r e l a t i o n s h i p s on items in d ic a tin g s i g n i ­ f ic a n c e . A le v e l o f a = .05 was used to determ ine s i g n i f i c a n c e . Frequencies and percen tag es were p re sen te d to d e t e c t d if f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s . Group means and s tan d a rd d e v ia tio n s o f community ty pes supplemented th e a n a ly s is to provide g r e a t e r meaning f o r th e f in d i n g s . The r e s u l t s o f th e study a re p resented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS In tro d u c tio n The purpose o f t h i s study was to determ ine i f d i s p a r i t i e s e x is te d in opinions o f Michigan community ed u catio n d i r e c t o r s con­ cerning s e le c te d components o f community edu catio n and th e r e l a t i o n ­ sh ip between the follo w in g community ty p e s : Type I (U rban), Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l). P r e s e n ta tio n The p o p u latio n surveyed was composed o f community education d i r e c t o r s from 221 p u b lic s ch o o ls. The d i r e c t o r s were from school d i s t r i c t s re c e iv in g "community school" g r a n t funding from th e 1981-82 Michigan S ta te School Act - Sectio n 96. The response r a t e s a re shown in Table 4 .1 . The i n i t i a l response r a t e o f th e f i r s t m ailin g produced 182 r e tu r n s o r 82.3 p e rc e n t. The second m ailin g had 26 a d d itio n a l r e t u r n s . The sum of th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s re tu rn e d was 208 o r 94.1 p e rc e n t. The d a ta c o lle c te d i s p resen ted in r e l a t i o n s h i p to th e seven re s e a rc h q u e s tio n s . Items r e l a t i n g t o th e major re s e a rc h q u e stio n s followed in o rd e r to help a s s e s s th e opinions o f community e du catio n d i r e c t o r s . A One-way A nalysis o f Variance w ith unequal p o p u latio n s (ANOVA) was used to analyze th e r e s u l t s . 44 The chi square 45 t e s t o f s ig n if ic a n c e was used to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e components and to d e t e c t any item d if f e r e n c e s between community ty p e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t le v e l o f a = .05 was used. Frequencies and percentag es were p resen ted to d e t e c t d if f e r e n c e s among community ty p e s . Group means and stan d a rd d e v ia tio n s provided a d d itio n a l meaning f o r th e f in d i n g s . TABLE 4 . 1 . -RESPONSE RATE (N = 221). Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V Total Percent Surveys mailed by community types 8 19 62 71 61 221 100.0 Response 8 19 58 65 58 208 94.1 Mailing The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e Social Science u t i l i z i n g th e Mighigan U n iv e rs ity Cyber 750 computer was used f o r t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e stu d y. In o rd e r to provide re s e a rc h answers th e follow ing q u e stio n s were developed f o r a n a l y s i s : 1. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community ty pes in Michigan in terms o f an ed u catio n al program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)? 2. Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f use o f community f a c i l i t i e s ? 3. Are th e re any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth? 4. Are th e re any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f programs f o r a d u lts ? 5. Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f d e liv e ry o f community s e r v ic e s ? 46 6. Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms of community involvement? 7. Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f demographics? Two dimensions of th e q u e stio n n a ire were used to e n ric h the study. The community education d i r e c t o r s were asked to rank order the s e le c te d components o f community education as t o : (1) how im portant th e components were in th e school d i s t r i c t and (2) what rank o rd e r the components ought to have in th e school d i s t r i c t . The f i n a l dimension o f th e q u e stio n n a ire had fo u r general q u e stio n s to help measure th e support and w r itte n statem en ts th e school d i s t r i c t has f o r community e d u cation . They were: (1) school board support f o r th e concept and philosophy of community e d u ca tio n ; (2) s u p e rin te n d e n t su pp ort f o r th e concept and philosophy o f community e d u catio n ; (3) w r itt e n school d i s t r i c t s ta te m e n t/p o lic y supporting the philosophy of community e d u catio n ; and (4) school board o f education statem en t on th e use o f school f a c i l i t i e s . Research Question Number 1 Are th e re any d iff e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f an educatio nal program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)? The f i r s t major re sea rc h qu estio n had eleven (11) items t h a t asked d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e a p p ro p ria te n ess of th e community edu catio n al program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12). in d ic a te d f o r purposes o f t h i s study: 1 2 3 4 = = = = Rarely O ccasionally Often Always Respondents 47 The r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is o f v arian ce did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t (see Appendix G f o r summary t a b l e ) . ences among community types were minimal. Thus, any d i f f e r ­ With th e component, "an education program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" th e d i r e c t o r s , as a group, tended to agree and no c o n tr a s ts among community types w ill be d is c u s s e d . Before analyzing th e chi square r e s u l t s , th e group mean and stand ard d e v ia tio n o f each community type w ill be reviewed in Table 4 .2 (see Appendix H f o r item means and standard d e v iatio n s). TABLE 4 . 2 . —Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 1 - An Education Program f o r School Age Children (K-12). Respondents Mean Standard D eviation I Urban 8 2.52 .79 II C itie s 19 2.33 .67 I I I Towns 58 2.46 .56 IV Urban Fringe 64 2.42 .68 V Rural 54 2.42 .57 TOTAL 203 2.43 The fin d in g s of Table 4.1 in d ic a te d f a i r l y c lo se homogenity among the f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s with th e component, "an educa tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)." The mean sco res ranged from 2.52 f o r Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s to a 2.33 mean f o r Type I I ( C itie s ) d i r e c t o r s . There does, however, appear to be some 48 d if f e r e n c e s o f opinion among each o f th e community type d i r e c t o r s s in c e th e stan dard d e v ia tio n ranged from .79 f o r Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s to .57 f o r Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s . The mean sco res f o r each community type group appeared to in d ic a te t h a t a l l f i v e community type groups a re f a i r l y homogeneous and ra te d themselves between "o cc a sio n a lly " and "often" providing a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth (K-12). The r e s u l t s o f th e chi square item a n a ly s is in Table 4.2 did not demonstrate s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e . Since th e chi square obtained was beyond the .05 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e f o r each item, any d if f e r e n c e among th e community types was minimal. The community e d u c a to rs , as a group, tended to agree w ith th e items which c h arac­ t e r i z e d th e component "an ed ucation al program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)." Research Question Number 2 Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f use of community f a c i l i t i e s ? The second major re sea rc h q u e stion had fo u r (4) items t h a t asked d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f th e community education component, "use o f community f a c i l i t i e s . " The r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is o f v arian ce did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t concerning the component, "use o f community f a c i l i t i e s . " Thus, any d if f e r e n c e s among d i r e c t o r s , as a group, a re moderate and no c o n t r a s t s between community types w ill be d iscu ssed . 49 TABLE 4 . 3 . —Table o f X^s o f R espondents' Opinion o f E ducational Programs f o r School Age C h ild ren (K -12). Number o f Respondents Item s Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 203 Our community ed u c atio n program 1s Involved w ith K-12 ed u c atio n al program . 14.32026 12 .2807 203 The K-12 e d u c a tio n a l program 1s Involved w ith our comnunlty e d u c atio n program. 13.21220 12 .3536 202 Our community ed u c atio n program and th e K-12 a d m in is tra tio n plan our g o a ls j o i n t l y . 5.87893 12 .9221 200 The K-12 a d m in is tra tio n and our community ed u c atio n program meet j o i n t l y to d isc u ss ed u c atio n al co n c ern s. 17.26203 12 .1400 197 The K-12 a d m in is tra tio n and our community ed u catio n program meet j o i n t l y to so lv e community co n cern s. 11.58657 12 .4794 207 The K-12 a d m in is tra tio n and our conmunlty ed u c atio n program work j o i n t l y to help s o lv e community problem s. 11.74669 12 .4662 203 The K-12 ed u c atio n al program uses th e community as an e x te n sio n In th e classroom . 7.33676 12 .8346 203 The K-12 ed u c atio n al program encourages th e Involvem ent of community 1n th e classroom . 10.88248 12 .5390 203 The K-12 ed u c atio n al program f in a n c ia l ly su p p o rts our community e d u c atio n program. 11.04939 12 .5247 200 The K-12 school a d m in is tra tio n su p p o rts th e philosophy o f conm unlty ed u c a tio n . 14.22813 12 .2864 202 The K-12 te ach in g s t a f f su p p o rts th e philosophy o f community e d u c a tio n . 8.09129 12 .7780 50 Before analyzing th e r e s u l t s o f th e chi s q u a re , th e group mean and stand ard d e v ia tio n f o r each community type have been p re sen te d in Table 4 .4 . TABLE 4 . 4 . —Group Means, Standard D eviation and Responses f o r Question 2 Concerning Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s . Community Type Respondents Mean Standard D eviation I Urban 8 2.97 .41 II C ities 19 2.93 .45 III Towns 58 2.96 .47 IV Urban Fringe 64 2.97 .40 V Rural 54 2.85 .44 TOTAL 203 2.93 The r e s u l t s o f Table 4 .4 in d ic a te d th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s a re very s i m i l a r and homogeneous in t h e i r p e rc ep tio n s o f the component, "use o f community f a c i l i t i e s . " The mean s c a le ranged from 2.97 f o r Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s to a mean o f 2.85 f o r Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . The stan d ard d e v ia ­ t io n between .40 and .47 were a ls o very s i m i l a r and homogeneous. The mean score s c a le showed a l l d i r e c t o r s perceived themselves as o fte n providing the component, "use o f community f a c i l i l i t i e s " to community groups and a g e n c ie s. The r e s u l t s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is in Table 4 .5 in d ic a te d th re e items had a le v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e beyond th e .05 l e v e l . The 51 item , "our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s a re used by community c i t i z e n s and groups" had a s i g n i f i c a n t le v el o f .0060 in d ic a tin g d iff e r e n c e s between community ty p e s. O TABLE 4 . 5 . —Table o f X s o f R espondents' Opinion o f Use o f Conmunlty F a c i l i t i e s . Number of Respondents Items Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 203 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e use o f community f a c i l i t i e s by th e community. 16.12349 12 .1856 202* Our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s a re used by community c itiz e n s and groups. 33.65488 16 .0060 203 Our school d i s t r i c t charges a fe e f o r week/day use o f th e school f a c i l i t i e s to community groups. 9.83169 12 .6307 203 Our school d i s t r i c t charges a fe e f o r weekend use o f th e school f a c i l i t i e s to community groups. 17.40999 12 .1348 In o rder to determine which group or groups of community types were d i f f e r e n t , Table 4.6 shows the frequency and percentages of the f iv e community types r e l a t i v e to f a c i l i t y use by community c i t i z e n s and groups. The a n a ly s is in d ic a te d Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s always (62.5%) or o fte n (37.5%) had t h e i r school f a c i l i t i e s used by community c i t i ­ zens and groups. Type I I I (Towns) were very s im i l a r . The II ( C itie s ) with 47.4 p e rc en t f o r always and 42.1 p e rc en t f o r o fte n were d i f f e r e n t from Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Town) community ty p e s. The Type II ( C i t i e s ) were s im ila r to Type IV (Urban Fringe) with 52.4 percent 52 TABLE 4 . 6 . —School D i s t r i c t F a c i l i t i e s Used by Community C itiz e n s and Groups. Community Type I Urban II C itie s III Towns IV Urban Fringe V Rural Rarely f Often Always Respondents 0 0 0 0 3 37.5 5 62.5 8 % f % 2 10.5 0 0 8 42.1 9 47.4 19 f 0 0 3 5.2 20 34.5 35 60.3 58 % f % 0 0 2 3.2 28 44.4 33 52.4 63 f 0 0 2 3.7 27 50.0 25 46.3 54 2 1.0 7 3.5 87 42.6 107 53.0 202 % TOTALS O ccasionally f % always and 44.4 p ercen t o fte n having t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s used by community groups and c i t i z e n s . The Type V (Rural) w ith 46.3 p e rc e n t f o r always and 50.0 p e rc e n t f o r o fte n were c lo s e ly a s s o c ia te d w ith th e c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e community ty p e s. In b r i e f , th e Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Towns) d if f e r e d from Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type IV (Urban F rin g e ), and Type V (R ural) community types in th e use o f school f a c i l i t i e s by community groups and c i t i z e n s . Research Question Number 3 Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth? The t h i r d major re sea rc h q u e stio n provided seven (7) items f o r d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e ap p ro p ria te n ess o f th e community 53 education component, " a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and y o u th ." The fin d in g s o f th e a n a ly s is of v arian ce did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t regarding th e component. T h e re fo re , any d if f e r e n c e s among d i r e c t o r s , a s a group, a r e moderate and c o n t r a s t s w ill not be made between community ty p e s. Before in v e s tig a tin g th e fin d in g s o f the chi square t e s t , the group mean and stand ard d e v ia tio n f o r each community type has been presented in Table 4 .7 . TABLE 4 . 7 . —Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses fo r Question 3 on A dditional Programs f o r School Age Children and Youth. Community Type Respondents Mean Standard Deviation I Urban 8 2.79 .84 II C itie s 19 2.49 .71 III Towns 58 2.72 .58 IV Urban Fringe 64 2.70 .71 V Rural 54 2.65 .64 TOTAL 203 2.68 The means appeared to in d ic a te t h a t a l l f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s were f a i r l y homogeneous in t h e i r p ercep tio n s o f providing a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth. The d i r e c t o r s , as a group, tend to lean toward "often" providing a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth. The fin d in g s o f the chi square a n a ly s is in Table 4 .8 i l l u s ­ t r a t e d none of th e seven (7) items in d ic a te d s i g n i f i c a n c e . The item , 54 "our school d i s t r i c t provides re c r e a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n ," had a s ig n if ic a n c e le v el o f .0577 in d ic a tin g i t was n e a rly s i g n i f i c a n t and th e r e f o r e th e re was th e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t d iff e r e n c e s may have e x is te d between community ty p e s. 9 TABLE 4 . 8 . —Table o f X s o f R espondents' Opinion o f A d d itio n al Programs f o r School Age C hildren and Youth. Number o f Respondents Item s ' Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 203 Our school d i s t r i c t provides a f t e r school a c t i v i t i e s and ex p erien ces f o r c h ild re n . 6.50231 12 .8887 203 Our school d i s t r i c t provides week­ end a c t i v i t i e s and ex periences f o r c h ild re n . 7.48720 12 .8238 201 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es sunnier a c t i v i t i e s and experien ces f o r c h ild re n . 7.74264 12 .8049 203 Our school d i s t r i c t provides a f t e r school rem edial educatio n a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild re n . 15.83850 12 .1987 203 Our school d i s t r i c t provides e n ric h ­ ment a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild re n . 10.76191 12 .5494 202 Our school d i s t r i c t provides re c re a ­ tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild re n . 20.52964 12 .0577 203 Our school d i s t r i c t provides c u l­ tu r a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild re n . 18.19246 12 .1100 Research Question Number 4 Are th e r e any d iff e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f programs f o r a d u lts ? The fo u rth major re sea rc h qu estio n presented s ix (6) items f o r d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e ap p ro p ria te n ess o f the community education component, "programs f o r a d u l t s . " The r e s u l t s o f the a n a ly s is of v arian ce did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, any d if f e r e n c e among groups on programs f o r a d u lts can be considered to be minimal. As a group, d i r e c t o r s tended to agree on th e component, programs f o r a d u lts." 55 The group mean and stan d ard d e v ia tio n f o r each community type i s p resen ted in Table 4 .9 . TABLE 4 . 9 . —Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 4 on Programs f o r A d u lts. Community Type Respondents Mean Standard D eviation I Urban 8 3.52 .38 II C itie s 19 3.22 .56 III Towns 58 3.30 .54 IV Urban Fringe 64 3.21 .51 V Rural 54 3.19 .54 TOTAL 203 3.24 The fin d in g s in Table 4 .9 in d ic a te d th e d i r e c t o r s in Type I (Urban) perceiv ed them selves to be more a c t i v e l y involved with programs f o r a d u lts than th e d i r e c t o r s in Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) programs. The Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s w ith a mean o f 3.52 and a stan d ard d e v ia tio n o f only .38 were most homogeneous in t h e i r o p in io n s . Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s ra te d them selves between "o fte n " and "always" on th e survey items and tended to lean toward "always" providing th e se s e r v ic e s . The remaining fo u r community type d i r e c t o r s , although r a t i n g between " o fte n " and "alw ays," were c l o s e r to th e " o fte n " r a t i n g with a mean of 3.30 f o r Type I I I (Towns), a mean o f 3.22 f o r Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , a mean o f 3.21 f o r Type IV (Urban F r in g e ) , and a mean o f 3.19 f o r Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . 56 The d if f e r e n c e may no t be o f any e d u ca tio n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , but th e means did i n d ic a te th e d i r e c t o r s in th e community type groups vary between th re e and fo u r which re p r e s e n ts th e h ig h e s t p o in t o f the sca le . In e ss e n c e , although th e d i r e c t o r s by groups v a ry , a l l d i r e c t o r s perceiv ed themselves as being a c t i v e l y involved in providing programs f o r a d u l t s . The fin d in g s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is in Table 4.10 in d ic a te d two (2) items had a le v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e a t th e .05 l e v e l . The ite m s, "our school d i s t r i c t p rovides a d u l t b a s ic educatio n s e r v ­ ic e s f o r a d u lts " a t th e .0224 le v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e and "our school d i s t r i c t provides r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts " a t th e .0172 level o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , were s i g n i f i c a n t and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s between com­ munity types e x i s t e d . 2 TABLE 4 .1 0 .—T able o f X s o f R espondents' O pinion o f Programs f o r A d u lts. Number o f Respondents Items 202* Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es a d u lt b a s ic ed u c atio n s e rv ic e s f o r a d u l ts . 203 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es a d u lt high school com pletion s e rv ic e s to a d u lts . 202* Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 29.24000 16 .0224 9.38630 12 .6696 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es re c re a ­ tio n a l s e rv ic e s f o r a d u lts . 24.53838 12 .0172 201 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es e n r ic h ­ m e n t/le is u re tim e s e rv ic e s f o r a d u l ts . 10.34887 12 .5854 202 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es c u l­ tu r a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r a d u lts . 9.24305 12 .6820 199 Our school d i s t r i c t p ro v id es voca­ tio n a l s k i l l s tr a in in g a c t i v i t i e s f o r a d u lts . 16.04668 12 .1891 57 In o rd e r to in v e s t i g a t e which group or groups o f community types were d i f f e r e n t th e frequency and p ercentages o f th e f i v e com­ munity types r e l a t i v e to th e item , "our school d i s t r i c t provides a d u lt b a sic e du cation s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts " and " r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s , " were performed. Table 4.11 i n d i c a t e s th e frequency and p ercentages f o r "our school d i s t r i c t provides b a sic e d ucation s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " TABLE 4 . 1 1 . —School D i s t r i c t Provides Adult Basic Education Serv ices f o r A d u lts. Communi ty Type I Urban Rarely f % II C ities f % III Towns f % IV V Urban Fringe Rural f % f % TOTAL f % O ccasion ally Often Always Respondents 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 100.0 8 2 10.5 3 15.8 0 0 14 73.7 19 12 21.1 3 5.3 13 22.8 29 50.9 57 19 29.7 7 10.9 4 6 .3 34 53.1 64 20 37.1 3 5.6 6 11.1 25 46.3 54 53 26.2 16 7.9 23 11.4 110 54.5 202 The fin d in g s in d ic a te d Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s and Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . One hundred (100) p e rc e n t of th e urban d i r e c t o r s and s e v e n ty -th r e e (73) p e rc e n t o f th e c i t i e s d i r e c t o r s "always" have a d u l t b a s ic edu cation s e r v ic e s . The Type I I I 58 (Towns) a t 50.9 p e r c e n t, Type IV (Urban Fringe) a t 53.1 p e r c e n t, and Type V (R ural) a t 46.3 p e rc e n t "always" had a d u lt b a s ic edu cation s e r v ic e s . The c o n t r a s t f u r t h e r d i f f e r s as Type I I I (Towns) a t 21.1 p e r c e n t, Type IV a t 29.7 p e rc e n t and Type V (R ural) a t 37.1 p e rc e n t in d ic a te d d i r e c t o r s " r a r e ly " provided a d u l t b a s ic e d u catio n s e r v i c e s . The Type I (Urban) a t zero (0) p e rc e n t and Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s a t 10.5 p e rc e n t in d ic a te d t h a t " ra r e ly " i s t h i s component not p ro ­ vided. The second item o f th e component "program f o r a d u lts " r e q u i r ­ ing a d d itio n a l a n a ly s is was "our school d i s t r i c t provides r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " The f in d in g s o f th e chi square a t th e .0172 le v e l in d ic a te d s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s among community types ex isted . To i n v e s t i g a t e which group o r groups o f community ty pes were d i f f e r e n t , Table 4.12 in d ic a te s th e frequency and p ercentages o f th e f i v e community types r e l a t i v e to th e item "our school d i s t r i c t provides r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " The f in d in g s o f Table 4.12 in d ic a te d Type I (Urban) and Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns), Type V (R ural) and m oderately from Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s . The Type I (Urban) a t 50 p e rc e n t and th e Type II ( C i t i e s ) a t 42.1 p e rc e n t "always" provided r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . The Type I I I (Towns), Type V (R ural) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s , a t a 55.6 p e rc e n t, i n d i ­ c a te d th e s e r v ic e i s "always" provided. 59 TABLE 4 . 1 2 .—School D i s t r i c t Provides R ecreation al S ervices f o r A d ults. Community Type I Urban Rarely f C itie s Often Always Respondents 2 25.0 1 12.5 1 12.5 4 50.0 8 3 15.8 4 21.1 4 21.1 8 42.1 19 % % II O ccasionally f III Towns f % 2 3.4 4 6 .9 16 27.6 36 62.1 58 IV Urban Fringe f % 1 1.6 9 14.3 18 28.6 35 55.6 63 V Rural f 1 1.9 2 3.7 19 35.2 32 59.3 54 9 4 .5 20 9.9 58 28.7 115 56.9 202 % TOTAL f % The d if f e r e n c e i s g r e a t e r upon combining th e "ofte n " and "always" c a te g o r ie s . The Type I I I (Towns) a t 89.7 p e rc e n t, Type IV (Urban Fringe) a t 84.2 p e rc e n t, and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s a t 94.5 p e rc en t "o ften " o r "always" provided r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . The Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s a t 62.5 p e rc en t and Type I I ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s a t 63.2 p e rc en t were d i f f e r e n t . The importance in d if f e r e n c e was f u r t h e r emphasized by r e a l i z i n g t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s a t 25 p e rc e n t and Type I I ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s a t 15.8 p e rc e n t " ra re ly " provided th e s e r v ic e . The Type I I I (Town) d i r e c t o r s a t 3 .4 p e rc e n t, Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s a t 1.6 p e rc e n t, and Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s a t 1.9 p e rc en t in d ic a te d " ra re ly " was th e s e r v ic e n o t provided. 60 Research Question Number 5 Are th e r e any d iff e r e n c e s among comnunity types in Michigan in terms o f d e liv e ry o f community s e rv ic e s ? The f i f t h major search q u e stio n had eleven (11) items t h a t asked d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e a p p ro p ria te n e s s of th e community educa­ t io n component, " d e liv e ry o f community s e rv ic e s " The a n a ly s is of v arian ce did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the component, " d e liv e ry o f community s e r v i c e s ." D ir e c to r s , as a group, tended to agree on " d e liv e ry o f community s e r v ic e s ." Before examining th e fin d in g s o f th e chi sq u are, th e group mean and stand ard d e v ia tio n f o r each community type i s p resen ted in Table 4 .1 3 . TABLE 4 . 1 3 . —Group Means, Standard D e v iatio n s, and Respondents fo r Question 5 on D elivery o f Community S e rv ic e s. Community Type Respondents Mean Standard Deviation I Urban 8 2.80 .54 II C itie s 19 2.86 .65 III Towns 58 2.74 .58 IV Urban Fringe 64 2.62 .66 V Rural 54 2.60 .55 TOTAL 203 2.68 The d a ta in Table 4.13 in d ic a te d t h a t th e d i r e c t o r s in Type II ( C i t i e s ) perceived themselves to be more involved (2.86) in th e com­ ponent, " d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s , " than o th e r community type d i r e c t o r s although th e d if f e r e n c e s were minor. The mean ra tin g o f groups 61 2 TABLE 4 .1 4 .—T able o f X s o f R espondents' Opinion o f D eliv ery o f Community S e rv ic e s. Number o f Respondents Items Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 10.99587 12 .5293 Raw Score 202 Our school d i s t r i c t h elp s c o o rd i­ n a te th e d e liv e r y o f human s e rv ic e s to th e community. 203 Our school d i s t r i c t I n i t i a t e s new programs when s e rv ic e s a r e n ot provided 1n th e community. 7.54501 12 .8196 203 Our school d i s t r i c t p la n s j o i n t l y w ith o th e r agencies to d e liv e r human s e rv ic e s to th e community. 13.60158 12 .3269 203 Our school d i s t r i c t I d e n ti f ie s p h y s ic a l, te c h n ic a l, and human re so u rc e s in th e community. 15.50931 12 .2148 202 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e use o f human s e rv ic e s 1n th e com nunlty. 7.43404 12 .8276 202 Our school d i s t r i c t e v a lu a te s th e d e liv e r y o f human s e rv ic e s to th e community. 12.95698 12 .3722 202 Our school d i s t r i c t uses th e human s e rv ic e s o f o th e r ag en cies and groups. 13.70316 12 .3201 200 Our school d i s t r i c t encourages th e use o f community re s o u rc e s . 11.30578 12 .5029 202 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e d e liv e r y o f community s e rv ic e s on a d i s t r i c t wide b a s is . 12.27029 16 .7252 203 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e d e liv e r y o f community s e rv ic e s on a neighborhood b a s is . 16.95578 16 .3885 203 Our school d i s t r i c t does n o t In te n ­ t i o n a l l y d u p lic a te th e d e liv e r y of community s e rv ic e s provided by o th e r ag e n c ie s/g ro u p s. 17.38615 12 .1356 62 were between 2.60 and 2.86 in d ic a tin g s i m i l a r i t y in views. In e ss e n c e , a l l d i r e c t o r s perceived themselves to "o fte n " o r "o c c a sio n a lly " be d e l i v e r e r s o f community s e r v i c e s . The r e s u l t s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is in Table 4.12 did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t . Since th e chi square ob tain ed f o r each item was beyond th e .05 le v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e f o r each item any d i f f e r ­ ence between th e community types i s considered to be minimal. The community e d ucation d i r e c t o r s , as a group, tended to agree w ith th e items which c h a r a c te r iz e d th e component, " d e liv e r y o f community serv ic e s." Research Question Number 6 Are th e r e any d i f f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f community involvement? The s ix th major re s e a rc h q u e stio n had seven (7) items which asked d i r e c t o r s to in d ic a te th e a p p ro p ria te n e s s o f th e community edu cation component, "community involvem ent." The fin d in g s o f th e a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t reg ard in g th e component, "community involvem ent." Thus, any d if f e r e n c e s among community ty pes i s co nsidered to be minimal and c o n t r a s t s w ill no t be made. D ir e c to r s , as a group, tended to be in agreement. The group mean and stan d a rd d e v ia tio n s f o r each community type has been p re sen te d in Table 4 .1 5 . The f in d in g s in Table 4.15 in d ic a te d th e d i r e c t o r s in Type I (Urban) perceived themselves to be more absorbed in "community involvement" than o th e r community type d i r e c t o r s . The Type I (Urban) 63 TABLE 4 . 1 5 . —Group Means, Standard D eviations and Responses f o r Question 6 on Community Involvement. Community Type Respondents Mean Standard D eviations I Urban 8 2.88 .74 II C ities 19 2.65 .70 III Towns 58 2.60 .62 IV Urban Fringe 64 2.60 .69 V Rural 54 2.39 .56 TOTAL 203 2.56 d i r e c t o r s w ith a mean r a t i n g o f 2.88 were c l o s e s t to th e " o fte n " sca le . The stan d a rd d e v ia tio n a t .74 however in d ic a te d th e Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s had th e g r e a t e s t d if f e r e n c e in t h e i r group with t h i s component. Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s w ith a mean o f 2 .6 5 , Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s w ith a 2.60 mean, and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c ­ t o r s w ith a group mean o f 2.60 were more f a m i l i a r in t h e i r p erceived view s. The Type V (R u ral) d i r e c t o r s , although being most homogeneous w ith a sta n d a rd d e v ia tio n o f .5 6 , had th e low est mean o f 2.39 and tended to lean toward th e response o f " o c c a sio n a lly " being involved w ith th e component o f community involvement. The mean r a t i n g o f a l l d i r e c t o r s was between 2.39 and 2.88 i n d ic a tin g b a s ic s i m i l a r i t y in views. In e sse n c e , a l l d i r e c t o r s viewed themselves as m oderately involved w ith th e component on community involvement. 64 The fin d in g s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is have been p resen ted in Table 4 .1 6 . TABLE 4 . 1 6 . --T a b le o f X^s o f Respondents' Opinion on Community Involve­ ment. Number o f Respondents Item s Raw S core ^eedom ** S19n1f1cance 203 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e development o f r e p r e s e n ta tiv e community ad v iso ry g ro u p s/c o u n c ils . 10.22253 12 .5964 202 Our school d i s t r i c t promotes ad v ls o ry c o u n c ils a t th e n eighbor­ hood le v e l. 17.83806 12 .1207 203 Our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t a t e s th e Involvem ent o f the c i tiz e n s In so lv in g community problem s. 10.50490 12 .5718 203 Our school d i s t r i c t h elp s I d e n tify community problem s. 9.47643 12 .6618 203 Our school d i s t r i c t h elp s develop a p rocess f o r so lv in g community problem s. 13.74777 12 .3171 203 Our school d i s t r i c t I d e n ti f ie s re so u rc e s f o r so lv in g problem s. 15.01776 12 .2405 203 Our school d i s t r i c t co o p e rate s w ith th e community toward so lv in g community problems n o t d i r e c t l y r e la te d to school o p e ra tio n s . 15.68750 12 .2060 The chi square a n a ly s is did no t prove s i g n i f i c a n t . Since the chi square obtained f o r each o f th e seven items was beyond th e .05 le v el o f s ig n ific a n c e * any d if f e r e n c e among th e community types was minimal. The community edu cation d i r e c t o r s , a s a group, tended to agree w ith the items which c h a r a c te riz e d th e component, "com­ munity involvem ent." 65 Research Question Number 7 Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f demographics? The seventh major re s e a rc h q u e stio n l i s t e d twelve (12) items f o r d i r e c t o r s to provide a p p ro p ria te demographic info rm atio n. The r e s u l t s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is in Table 4.17 i n d i ­ c ated f i v e items had a le v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e a t th e .05 l e v e l . The demographic item , "po p ulation o f th e area" a t .0000 le v e l of s i g n i f i ­ cance i s to be expected s in c e p o p u latio n d if f e r e n c e s a re th e essence o f community ty p e s . The y e a rs of experience working in p u blic schools a t th e .0313 le v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , y e a rs o f experience in school a d m in is tra tio n a t .0129, y e a rs school d i s t r i c t has had a community education program a t th e .0262 le v el o f s ig n if ic a n c e and age range a t the .0042 le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 le v e l and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s between community types e x is t e d . (See Appendix I f o r n o n - s ig n if i c a n t demographic v a r i a b l e s . ) In o rd e r to in v e stig a g e which group o r groups o f community types were d i f f e r e n t , th e fre q u e n c ie s and percentages o f the f iv e community types a re p re s e n te d . Table 4.18 in d ic a te s th e freq u e n cies and percentages of the f i v e community types r e l a t i v e t o th e item , "pop ulatio n o f th e are a served by the school d i s t r i c t . " The fin d in g s in d ic a te d t h a t Type I (Urban) community type d i r e c t o r s (75%) served p o pu lation s iz e s between 50,001 to above 200,000. Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s (94.5%) s erv ice d population s iz e s between 14,001 to 100,000. Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (82.7%) 66 TABLE 4 .1 7 .—T able o f X*s o f th e Demographics. Number o f Respondents 202 Items ♦ Population o f th e area Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 140.35514 28 .0000 203 Years o f ex p erien ce as Community Education D ire c to r 20.25529 20 .4421 203 Years o f ex p erien ce as Community Education D ire c to r 1n d i s t r i c t 20.18898 16 .2118 203 Years o f ex p erien ce working 1n community education 14.48637 16 .5618 31.14049 16 .0129 18.29168 12 .1071 203 203 ♦Years o f ex p erien ce 1n school a d m in istra tio n Major are a s o f co n c e n tra tio n 1n degree tr a in in g 202 ♦Years o f ex p erien ce 1n p u b lic schools 28.03449 16 .0313 203 ♦Years school d i s t r i c t has had a Comnunity Education Program 28.67384 16 .0262 203 H ighest degree held 11.48104 12 .4882 203 Formal tr a in in g In community education 14.33230 12 .2800 34.85880 16 .0042 8.56171 8 .3806 202 202 ♦Age range Sex tended to s e r v ic e population s iz e s ranging from 5,001 to 25,000. The Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s (92.2%) tended to s e r v ic e a population s i z e from 5,001 to 100,000 and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s (86.8) tended to s e r v ic e popu lation s iz e s o f 15,000 or le s s although 9 .4 p ercen t have a population s e r v ic e area o f the 15,001 to 25,000 range. TABLE 4.18.— Population of the Area Served by the School District. Under 5,000 Community Type I Urban II C itie s Towns IV Urban Fringe V Rural TOTAL 10,001 to 15,000 15,001 to 25,000 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 Above 200,001 Respondents f % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.5 1 12.5 2 25.0 3 37.5 1 12.5 f 0 0 0 0 1 5.3 6 31.6 6 31.6 5 26.3 1 5.3 0 0 19 3 5.2 21 36.2 14 24.1 13 22.4 9 12.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 % f % 2 3.1 8 12.5 7 10.9 11 17.2 22 34.4 11 17.2 2 3.1 1 1.6 64 f 13 34.5 23 4 3 .4 10 18.9 5 9 .4 1 1.9 1 1.9 0 0 0 0 53 % f % 18 8 .9 52 25.7 32 15.8 36 17.8 37 18.3 19 9 .4 6 3 .0 2 1 .0 % III 5,001 to 10,000 f 8 202 68 The chi square item a n a ly s is in d ic a te d th e f i v e community types d e f i n i t e l y se rv ic e d d i f f e r e n t p o pu la tio n bases although th e r e was some o verlapping in community ty p e s. Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s tended to have p o p u la tio n s iz e s most s i m i l a r to Type I I ( C i t i e s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) a re a s w hile Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s had g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t y in p op u la tio n s i z e s . In e ss e n c e , Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i f f e r e d in p o p u la tio n s iz e s from Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) community ty p e s . The second item o f demographics t h a t in d ic a te d a le v e l of s ig n if ic a n c e was "years o f exp erien c e in school a d m in is tr a tio n ." The fin d in g s of th e chi square a n a ly s is was a t th e .0129 le v e l o f s ig n ific a n ce . The .0129 le v e l in d ic a te d s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s among types e x i s t e d . Table 4.19 i l l u s t r a t e s th e fre q u e n c ie s and percentag es of the f i v e community types r e l a t i v e to th e item , "years o f experience in school a d m in is tr a tio n ." The fin d in g s o f Table 4.19 in d ic a te d t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s (87.5%) had 11 y e a rs o r lo n g e r experience in school a d m in is tr a tio n . The Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r d i f f e r e d from th e o th e r fo u r community type d i r e c t o r s whom ranged from 22.4 p e rc en t t o 47.4 p e rc e n t by having d i r e c t o r s w ith 11 y e a rs o r more of ex p erien c e in school a d m in is tr a tio n . The Type I I ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r (47.4%) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s (51.6%) d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (29.3%) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s (22.2%) w ith 11 y e a r s o r more ex perience in p u b lic school ex p erien c e . 69 TABLE 4 . 1 9 . —Years o f Experience in School A d m in istra tio n . Community Type 11 Years o r Longer 8-10 Years 5-7 Years 3-4 Years 0-2 Years Respondents 8 f % 7 87.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.5 f % 9 47.4 4 21.1 5 26.3 0 0 1 5.3 19 I I I Towns f % 17 29.3 13 22.4 11 19.0 12 20.7 5 8.6 58 IV Urban Fringe f % 33 51.6 13 20.3 12 18.8 5 7.8 1 1.6 64 V Rural f % 12 22.2 12 22.2 14 25.9 10 18.5 6 11.1 54 TOTAL f % 78 38.4 42 20.7 42 20.7 27 13.3 14 6 .9 I Urban . II C ities 203 The Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s (55.5%) and Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (48.3%) w ith 7 y e a rs o r l e s s experience in p u b lic school a d m in is tr a tio n tended to d i f f e r from th e th re e o th e r community types o f Urban (12.5%), C i t i e s (31.6%) and Urban Fringe (28.2%). In e ss e n c e , th e Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) and Type IV (Urban F ring e) community type d i r e c t o r s tended to have lon ger y e a r s o f exp erien ce in p u b lic school a d m in is tra tio n th an Type I I I (Town) and Type V (R ural) community type d i r e c t o r s . The t h i r d item o f demographics t h a t showed a le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was y e a r s o f exp erience working f o r p u b lic sc h o o ls. The fin d in g s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is was a t th e .0313 le v e l o f sig n ific a n ce . The .0313 le v e l in d ic a te d s ig n if ic a n c e a t th e .05 le v e l and t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between community types e x i s t e d . 70 The fre q u e n c ie s and percentages o f th e f i v e community types r e l a t i v e to the ite m , "y ears o f experience working f o r p u b lic schools" a r e p re sen te d in Table 4 .2 0 . TABLE 4 . 2 0 . —Years o f Experience Working f o r P ub lic Schools. Communi ty Type 11 Years o r Longer 8-10 Years 5-7 Years 3-4 Years 0-2 Years Respondents I Urban f % 6 75.0 1 12.5 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 8 II C ities f % 14 73.7 2 10.5 3 15.8 0 0 0 0 19 I I I Towns f % 35 60.3 12 20.7 5 8 .6 6 10.3 0 0 58 IV Urban Fringe f % 50 79.4 7 11.1 5 7.9 1 1.6 0 0 63 V Rural f % 22 40.7 14 25.9 13 24.1 4 7.4 1 1.9 54 TOTAL f % 127 62.9 36 17.8 27 13.4 11 5.4 1 .5 202 The fin d in g s o f Table 4.2 0 in d ic a te d Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s (79.4%), Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s (75.0%) and Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s (73.7%) d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (60.3%) and Type V (R u ral) d i r e c t o r s (40.7%). The urban f r i n g e , urban, and c i t i e s d i r e c t o r s tended to have 11 y e a rs o r more of e x perien ce working in p u b lic schools w hile Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c ­ t o r s and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s had l e s s e x perien ce working in p u b lic s ch o o ls. 71 Type I I I (Town) d i r e c t o r s , however, had g r e a t e r experience when th e 8-10 y e ars o f exp erien ce in p u b lic schools was included with 11 y e a rs or more o f experience (81%). Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s (50%) tended to have 5-7 and 8-10 y e a rs o f working experience in p u b lic sc h o o ls. In e sse n ce , Type I (Urban), Type I I ( C itie s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s had th e g r e a t e s t experience c lo s e ly followed by the Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s w ith th e Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s having th e l e a s t ex perience. The fo u rth item o f demographics t h a t in d ic a te d a le v el o f s ig n if ic a n c e was "years school d i s t r i c t has had a community education program." The r e s u l t s o f th e chi square a n a ly s is was a t th e .0262 le v el of s ig n if ic a n c e . The .0262 le v e l showed s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s among community types e x i s t e d . Examining which group o r groups o f community type school d i s t r i c t s were d i f f e r e n t , Table 4.21 in d ic a te s th e fre q u e n c ie s and percentages o f th e f i v e community types r e l a t i v e to th e item , "years school d i s t r i c t has had a community educatio n program." The r e s u l t s o f Table 4.21 i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t Type I (Urban) community type d i f f e r e d from Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) community ty p e s. Type I (Urban) community type school d i s t r i c t s had had a community education program f o r 11 o r more y e a r s . Type I I ( C i t i e s school d i s t r i c t s (63.2%), although d i f f e r e n t from Type I (Urban) school d i s t r i c t s , a ls o d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns) school d i s t r i c t s (55.2%) and Type IV school d i s t r i c t s a t 53.1 p e rc e n t. The Type V (Rural) 72 TABLE 4 . 2 1 . --Y ears School D i s t r i c t has had a Community Education Program. Communi ty Type 11 Years o r Longer 5-7 Years 3-4 Years 0-2 Years Respondents f % 8 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 f 12 63.2 2 10.5 5 26.3 0 0 0 0 19 32 55.2 8 13.8 11 19.0 4 6 .9 3 5.2 58 34 53.1 20 31.3 4 6.3 1 1.6 5 7.8 64 % Rural f % 22 40.7 12 22.2 9 16.7 5 9.3 6 11.1 54 TOTAL f % 108 53.2 42 20.7 29 14.3 10 4.9 14 6.9 I Urban II C ities % I I I Towns f % IV Urban Fringe V 8-10 Years f 203 school d i s t r i c t s had th e few est programs (40.7%) t h a t had e x is te d f o r 11 y e a rs or lo n g e r. I f 8-10 y e ars o r more a re in clu d ed , th e Type IV (Urban Fringe) school d i s t r i c t s (84.4%) s t a r t e d to d i f f e r from th e o th e r community type school d i s t r i c t s of Type I I ( C itie s ) a t 73.7 p e rc e n t, Type I I I (Towns) school d i s t r i c t s 69 p e rc e n t, and Type V (R ural) a t 62.9 p e rc e n t. The school d i s t r i c t s w ith community education programs th e l e a s t amount of y e a rs (0-4 y e a rs ) were Type V (R ural) a t 20.4 p e r­ c e n t , Type I I I (Towns) a t 12.1 p e rc e n t, and Type IV (Urban Fringe) a t 9.4 p e rc e n t. These th r e e community type school d i s t r i c t s d i f f e r e d from Type I (Urban) school d i s t r i c t s and Type I I ( C i t i e s ) which have not had new community education programs in th e l a s t 0-4 y e a r s . 73 The f i f t h item o f demographics t h a t showed a le v el o f s i g n i ­ fic a n c e was age range o f th e d i r e c t o r s o f community ed u ca tio n . The fin d in g s o f the chi square a n a ly s is was a t th e .0042 le v e l o f s i g n i ­ f ic a n c e . The .0042 le v e l in d ic a te d s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s among community type d i r e c t o r s e x is t e d . Table 4.22 in d ic a te s th e freq u e n cies and percentages o f th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s r e l a t i v e to th e item , "age range" o f d i r e c t o r s o f community e d u ca tio n . TABLE 2 . 2 2 .—Age Range o f D ire c to rs o f Community Education. Age Range Community Type I Urban II C itie s III Towns 51 Years and Older f V Urban Fringe Rural TOTAL 31-40 Years 26-30 Years 21-25 Years Respondents 4 50.0 2 25.0 1 12.5 1 12.5 0 0 8 % f % 3 15.8 8 42.1 6 31.6 2 10.5 0 0 19 f 6 10.3 16 27.6 27 46.6 9 15.5 0 0 58 11 17.5 22 34.9 30 47.6 0 0 0 0 63 6 11.1 10 18.5 23 42.6 13 24.1 2 3.7 54 % f % 30 14.9 58 28.7 87 43.1 25 12.4 2 1.0 202 % IV 41-50 Years f % f The da ta o f Table 4.22 in d ic a te d t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s d if f e r e d from th e community type d i r e c t o r s o f Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban F r in g e ) , and Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s . The Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s had 50 p e rc en t o f th e d i r e c t o r s being 74 51 y e a rs of age o r o ld e r . The o th e r fo u r community types w ith d i r e c ­ to r s being 51 y e a rs o f age o r o ld e r were s i m i l a r with percentages ranging from 10.3 p e rc en t f o r Type I I I (Towns) to 17.5 p e rc en t f o r Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s . The Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r (42. U ) f o r age range o f 41-50 y e a rs tended to d i f f e r from Type IV (Urban F rin g e ), Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . The Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s a t 47.6 p e rc e n t, Type I I I (Towns) a t 46.6 p e rc e n t and Type V (R ural) a t 42.6 p e rc en t tended to be in th e 31-40 y e a r range. The Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s a t 24.1 p ercen t f o r th e 26-30 age range and 3.7 p ercen t f o r th e 21-25 age range d i f f e r e d from the o th e r fo u r community type by having the youngest age range f o r community education d i r e c t o r s . Rank Ordering o f Selected Components as to How Important THey Were in th e School D i s t r i c t An added dimension to e n ric h th e survey and to i n v e s t i g a t e th e importance of the s ix s e le c te d components o f community education was included in the stu dy . The community education d i r e c t o r s were asked to rank order the importance o f th e s ix s e le c te d components o f community education in th e school d i s t r i c t . The s e le c te d components were grouped by means to determine th e rank o rd er and a chi square a n a ly s is was used to in d ic a te i f any d if f e r e n c e s e x is t e d among th e community typ es. Table 4.23 in d ic a te d the rank o rd e r o f the s ix s e le c te d components as to how im portant they were in th e school d i s t r i c t . 75 D ire c to rs rank ordered th e s ix components using a one t o s ix s c a le w ith one being th e h ig h e s t r a t i n g and s ix being th e lo w est. TABLE 4 . 2 3 . —Mean and Standard D eviation o f Respondents' Opinion on th e Rank Ordering o f S e le cted Components as to How Im portant They Were in T h eir School D i s t r i c t . Mean Standard D eviation Program f o r a d u lts 2.48 1.22 2 An e du catio n program f o r school age c h i l ­ dren (K-12) 2.63 2.04 47 3 A dditional programs f o r 3.59 school age c h ild r e n and youth 1.48 206 49 4 Community involvement 3.66 1.45 206 51 5 Use o f community fa c ilitie s 3.87 1.41 206 52 6 D elivery o f community s e r v ic e s 4.77 1.44 Number o f Respondents Item Number O veral1 Rank 208 48 1 207 50 208 Component The rank o rd e rin g o f th e s e le c te d components in d ic a te d t h a t "programs f o r a d u lts " w ith a mean o f 2.48 was th e most im p o rtan t. An ed u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12) w ith a mean o f 2.63 had second ran k in g . The two components were ranked f a i r l y c lo se w ith "an e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12)11 having th e g r e a t e s t v a r i a t i o n w ith a s tan d a rd d e v ia tio n o f 2 .0 4 . The component ranking t h i r d was " a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth" w ith a mean o f 3.59 and "community involvement" w ith a mean o f 3.66 was th e fo u r th ranked component. 76 The use o f community f a c i l i t i e s was ranked f i f t h in importance w ith a mean of 3 .8 7 . The s ix th ranked component was th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s w ith a mean o f 4.7 7 . In o rd e r to i n v e s t i g a t e which group o r groups were d i f f e r e n t , a chi square a n a ly s is was performed. Table 4.24 in d ic a te d th e raw s c o r e , degrees o f freedom, and th e s ig n if ic a n c e each component had r e l a t i v e to th e rank o rd e rin g o f th e s ix components on how im p ortan t they were in th e school d i s ­ t r i c t as perceived by community edu catio n d i r e c t o r s . The d a ta o f Table 4.24 in d ic a te d "an e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" a t .0336 had a chi square le v e l o f s i g ­ n if i c a n c e . The .0336 le v e l in d ic a te d s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d i f f e r ­ ences among community type d i r e c t o r s e x i s t e d . The fre q u e n c ie s and p e rcen tag es o f th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s , r e l a t i v e to th e component "an e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K -12)," i s in d ic a te d in Table 4.2 5 . The d a ta f o r Table 4.25 showed t h a t Type I (Urban) a t 87.5 p e r c e n t, Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s a t 73.7 p e r c e n t, and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s a t 66.7 p e rc e n t d i f f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (53.4%) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s a t 37.0 p e rc e n t in th e rank o rd e rin g o f an e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12). Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s tended t o rank th e component much h ig her than Type I I I (Towns) and Type IV (R ural) d i r e c t o r s as to t h e i r importance to th e school d i s t r i c t . 2 TABLE 4 . 2 4 . —Table o f X s o f Rank Ordering o f S e le c te d Components as to How Im portant They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t . Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e A d ditio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n 18.82120 20 .5335 48 Programs f o r a d u lts 22.29503 20 .3247 201 49 Community involvement 22.70267 20 .3036 202* 50 An e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12) 33.01192 20 .0336 201 51 Use o f community f a c i l i t i e s 20.28156 20 .4404 201 52 D elivery o f community s e r v ic e s 26.58096 20 .1475 Respondents Number Component 203 47 203 78 TABLE 4 . 2 5 . —Rank Ordering o f Component, "An Educational Program f o r School Age Children (K-12)"as to How Important They Were in th e School D i s t r i c t . Rank Ordering Community Type I Urban 1 f C ities Towns V Urban Fringe Rural TOTAL 6 5 Number of Respondents 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 73.7 0 0 0 0 1 5.3 3 15.8 1 5.3 19 31 53.4 3 5.2 2 3 .4 6 10.3 6 10.3 10 17.2 58 42 66.7 2 3.2 2 3 .2 8 12.7 4 6.3 5 7.9 63 20 37.0 4 7.4 1 1.9 8 14.8 3 5.6 18 33.3 54 % f % 114 56.4 9 4.5 6 3.0 23 11.4 16 7.9 34 16.8 202 f f % IV 4 0 0 % III 3 7 87.5 % II 2 f % f 8 Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s a t 33.3 p e rc en t d i f f e r e d c o n sid erab ly from th e o th e r fo u r community type d i r e c t o r s by ranking "an educa­ tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" as th e low est importance in th e school d i s t r i c t . Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (17.2%) were th e only o th e r community type to rank th e components a t a f a i r l y low importance. Rank Ordering o f S elected Components as to What They Ought to be in th e School D i s t r i c t A second rank ord ering o f th e s ix s e le c te d components was p e r­ formed in th e study to determine what th e component ought t o be in the school d i s t r i c t . The s ix components were grouped by means to determine 79 th e rank o rd e r and a chi square a n a ly s is was used to i n d ic a te i f any d if f e r e n c e s e x is te d among th e community ty p e s. Table 4.26 in d ic a te d th e rank o rd e r o f th e components concerning what they ought to be in th e school d i s t r i c t as perceived by th e com­ munity education d i r e c t o r s . D ire c to rs rank ordered th e s ix components using a one to six s c a le w ith one being th e h ig h e st r a t i n g and s ix th e low est. The rank o rderin g o f the six components in d ic a te d "an educa­ tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" with a mean o f 2.73 was th e most im portant component. The c lo se ranked second component was "programs f o r a d u lts " with an o v e ra ll mean o f 2.78. The t h i r d ranked component was "community involvement" w ith a mean of 2.95. The fo u rth ranked component was " a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth" with a mean o f 4 .02 . The f i f t h ranked component was " d e liv e ry o f community s e rv ic e s " w ith a 4.12 mean and th e s ix th ranked component with a mean o f 4.36 was "use o f community fa c ilitie s ." To i n v e s t ig a te which group o r groups were d i f f e r e n t , a chi square a n a ly s is was performed. Table 4.27 in d ic a te s th e raw s c o r e , degrees o f freedom and th e s ig n if ic a n c e each component had r e l a t i v e to th e rank ordering o f th e components concerning what th e component ought to be in the school d i s t r i c t . The r e s u l t s of Table 4.27 in d ic a te d t h a t "community in v o lv e­ ment" a t .0453 had a chi square le v el o f s ig n if ic a n c e and t h a t d i f f e r ­ ences among community type d i r e c t o r s e x is te d . 80 TABLE 4 .2 6 . —Mean and Standard Deviation o f Respondents' Opinion on th e Rank Ordering o f Selected Components as to What They Ought to be in T heir School D i s t r i c t . Number of O veral1 Item Respondents Rank Number Mean Standard D eviation 207 1 57 An education program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) 2.73 2.00 208 2 56 Programs f o r a d u lts 2.78 1.34 208 3 53 Community involvement 2.95 1.54 208 4 55 A dditional programs fo r school age c h ild re n and youth 4.02 1.44 208 5 54 D elivery o f community s e r v ic e s 4.12 1.50 208 6 58 Use o f community f a c i l i t i e s 4.36 1.40 The freq u en cies and percentages of the f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s r e l a t i v e to the component, "community involvement" a re p re ­ sented in Table 4.28. The d a ta f o r Table 4.28 In d ic a te d t h a t Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c ­ t o r s and Type V ( r u r a l ) d i r e c t o r s d if f e r e d from Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s , Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s , and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s . The Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s with a 39.7 p e rc en t and Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s w ith 27.8 p e rc en t placed g r e a t e r importance to th e ranking o f "community Involvement" than did Type I I ( C i t i e s ) a t 15.8 p e rc e n t, Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s a t 14.1 p e rc en t and Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s a t zero p e rc e n t. Community involvement f o r Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s received a second or fo u rth p lace ranking (37.5%) each in importance. Type II 2 TABLE 4 . 2 7 . —Table o f X s o f Rank Ordering o f S e le c te d Components as t o What They Ought t o be in th e School D i s t r i c t . Number o f Respondents Item Number Component Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n if ic a n c e 203* 53 Community involvement 31.82023 20 .0453 203 54 D eliv ery o f comnunity s e r v ic e s 22.67147 20 .3052 203 55 A d dition al programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth 22.58002 20 .3099 203 56 Programs f o r a d u lts 19.74461 20 .4740 202 57 An e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12) 26.84463 20 .1397 203 58 Use o f community f a c i l i t i e s 15.13816 20 .7684 82 TABLE 4 .2 8 . —Order Ranking of Selected Components o f Community Education as to What They Ought to be in th e School D i s t r i c t Regard­ ing Community Involvement. Rank Ordering Community Type I Urban 1 f C itie s 3 4 5 6 Number o f Respondents 0 37.5 3 0 0 37.5 3 25.0 2 0 0 3 15.8 4 21.1 5 26.3 3 15.8 2 10.5 2 10.5 19 % % II 2 f 8 III Towns f % 23 39.7 6 10.3 10 17.2 7 12.1 12 20.7 0 0 58 IV Urban Fri nge f % 9 14.1 13 20.3 12 18.8 14 21.9 11 17.2 5 7.8 64 V Rural f 15 27.8 10 18.5 8 14.8 14 25.9 6 11.1 1 1.9 54 50 24.6 36 17.7 35 17.2 41 20.2 33 16.3 8 3.9 203 % TOTAL f % ( C itie s ) d i r e c t o r s a t 26.3 p e rc en t tended to rank "community involvement" as a component t h i r d in importance. Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s a t 21.9 p ercen t tended to rank "community involvement" as a component fo u r th in importance. However, a t 20.3 p e rc e n t a number o f Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s gave i t a second ranking in importance. The d i r e c t o r s , in a l l community ty p e s , appeared to be u n c e rta in as to the importance o f community involvement. The wide-range o f ranking in d ic a te d t h a t community involvement v a rie d co nsid e ra b ly among a l l d i r e c t o r s in rank importance. O v e ra ll, 59.5 percen t ranked com­ munity involvement as a top th re e component and 79.7 p e rc e n t ranked i t as one o f the fo u r most im portant components. 83 Comparison o f Rank Order o f Six S elected Components The rank o rd erin g of th e s ix s e le c te d components o f community education produced d if f e r e n c e s between how im portant th e components were in th e school d i s t r i c t and what th e components ought to be. The d i r e c t o r s perceived programs f o r a d u lts as being th e most im portant component in the school d i s t r i c t w ith "an educational program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" being th e second most im portant com­ ponent. The d i r e c t o r s , however, upon ranking what ought to be the most im portant component l i s t e d an educational program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) as th e f i r s t component and programs f o r a d u lts as the second component of importance. The d i r e c t o r s perceived a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth as being th e t h i r d im portant component in th e school d i s t r i c t w ith community involvement being the fo u r th ranked component. The d i r e c t o r s , however, upon ranking components as to what ought to be, ranked community involvement as t h i r d and a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth as f o u r th . The f i f t h and s i x t h ranked components, th e d i r e c t o r s perceived as being im portant in th e school d i s t r i c t were use of community f a c i l i ­ t i e s and d e liv e ry o f community s e r v i c e s . The d i r e c t o r s , however, upon ranking th e components as to what ought to be, placed d e liv e ry of community s e r v ic e s as f i f t h and use o f community f a c i l i t i e s as the s ix th ranked component. 84 General Questions of Importance In an e f f o r t to determ ine th e su pp ort community education has in th e school d i s t r i c t , d i r e c t o r s were asked to respond with a yes or no to the follow ing fo ur q u e s tio n s : (1) Does your school board support th e concept and philosophy o f community? (2) Does your su p erin ten d e n t su pp ort th e concept and philosophy o f community education? (3) Does your d i s t r i c t have a w r itt e n philosophy o r p o lic y statem en t supporting th e philosophy o f community education? and (4) Does your d i s t r i c t have a board o f education p o lic y o r statem e n t regarding th e use o f school fa c ilitie s? The chi square a n a ly s is was performed to in d ic a te any d if f e r e n c e s between community ty p e s. Table 4.29 in d ic a te d none o f th e fo u r ques­ tio n s or items were s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l . The q u e stio n on "does your d i s t r i c t have a board o f education p o lic y or statem ent regarding th e use o f school f a c i l i t i e s ? " in d ic a te d a trend toward s i g n i ­ fic a n c e a t .0520 and t h a t d if f e r e n c e s may e x i s t between community ty p e s. Summary The fin d in g s o f t h i s c h a p te r were addressed through a p re s e n ta ­ tio n o f th e seven major re sea rc h q u e s tio n s , th e rank o rd e rin g o f th e components, and general q u e s tio n s . A One-way A nalysis o f Variance with unequal populations (ANOVA) was used to analyze th e r e s u l t s . The chi square t e s t o f s ig n if ic a n c e was performed to measure r e l a t i o n s h i p s of items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e components and to d e t e c t any item d if f e r e n c e s between community ty p e s. A s ig n if ic a n c e le v e l o f a = .05 was s e le c te d . Frequencies and percentages were p resen ted to d e te c t d if f e r e n c e s among 85 o TABLE 4 .2 8 . —Table o f X s o f Respondents' Opinion o f General Questions on Community Education. Respondents Raw Score Degrees o f Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 203 School Board support f o r concept and philosophy o f community ed u ca tio n . 3.91508 8 .8647 203 S uperintendent support f o r concept and p h ilo ­ sophy o f community e d ucation . 1.00211 4 .9095 203 D i s t r i c t w r itt e n p h ilo ­ sophy or p o lic y s t a t e ­ ment supporting conmunity edu ca tio n . 4.09244 4 .3936 203 D i s t r i c t Board of Education p o lic y or statem en t on use of school f a c i l i t i e s . 15.38921 8 .0520 community ty p e s. Group means and stand ard d e v ia tio n s provided a d d itio n a l meaning to the f in d in g s . Ten items in d ic a te d s i g n if ic a n c e . The f i r s t component, "an educational program f o r school age c h ild re n (K -12)," did not in d ic a te any d if f e r e n c e s among community type d i r e c t o r s . With th e second component, "use o f f a c i l i t i e s , " the item , " f a c i l i t i e s a re used by community c i t i z e n s and g ro up s," y ie ld e d s i g n if ic a n c e . The t h i r d component, " a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n ," was not s i g n i f i c a n t . In the fo u r th component, "programs f o r a d u l t s , " two items y ie ld e d s ig n if ic a n c e concerning " a d u lt basic education" and " r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " The f i f t h component " d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s , " did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t . The fin d in g s f o r th e s ix th component did not y ie ld any s i g n i f i c a n c e . 86 The demographics o f th e stud y produced s i g n if ic a n c e s f o r p o p u la tio n of th e a r e a , y e a rs o f e x p erien c e in school a d m i n is tr a tio n , y e a rs o f ex p erien c e in p u b lic s c h o o ls , y e a rs school d i s t r i c t has had a com­ munity education program and age range o f community e d ucation d ire c to rs. The rank o rd e rin g o f components as t o how im portant th ey were in the school d i s t r i c t y ie ld e d s ig n if ic a n c e f o r th e component, "an ed u catio n al program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K -1 2)." The rank o rd e rin g o f components as to what they ought to be in th e school d i s t r i c t produced s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r "community involvem ent." F i n a l l y , th e fo u r g e n eral q u e stio n s on su pp ort f o r community e d ucation in t h e school d i s t r i c t did no t i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n c e . CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This c h a p te r w ill c o n s i s t o f a summary and e x p la n a tio n o f th e r e s u l t s , c o nclu sio ns from th e fin d in g s and recommendations f o r f u tu r e re s e a rc h in community edu cation based on th e r e s u l t s o f th e s tu d y . Summary and Explanation o f R esu lts The study was conducted to measure th e opinions o f Michigan community edu cation d i r e c t o r s concerning th e e x te n t to which s e le c te d components o f community edu ca tio n e x is te d in Michigan community school d i s t r i c t s according to f i v e community ty p e s. s e le c te d were: The f i v e community types Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l), as d efin ed by th e Michigan Department o f Education (1971). The f i r s t b a s is f o r th e stud y emanated from th e confusion in th e l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i v e t o th e lack of common agreement on th e major components o f community e d u c a tio n . The second b a s is evolved from th e s c a r c i t y o f re s e a rc h a v a il a b le to lo c a l school boards and a d m in is tr a to r s toward helping them improve t h e i r lo c a l community ed u ca tio n programs. I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t th e fin d in g s o f t h i s study w ill be h e lp fu l to th e lo c al community e d ucation d i r e c t o r . The p o p ulatio n s tu d ie d c o n s is te d o f a u n iv e rs e o f th e community ed ucation d i r e c t o r s in Michigan. A t o t a l o f 221 school d i s t r i c t 87 88 d i r e c t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d in th e Michigan Department o f Education d i r e c t o r y c a l l e d Michigan Resource D ire c to ry f o r A d u lt, Community and Continuing Education Programs (1981-82). c e n t was achieved from 208 d i r e c t o r s . A r e tu r n r a t e o f 94.1 p e r­ (A l i s t i n g o f th e community school d i s t r i c t s by community types appear in Appendix C.) I t was n ecessary to develop the in s tru m e n ta tio n f o r th e s tu d y . The instru m en t was designed to measure opinions o f community educa­ t i o n d i r e c t o r s in Michigan toward s e le c te d components o f community e d u c a tio n . The in stru m en t had s e v e n ty -fo u r q u e s tio n s . There were f o r t y - s i x L i k e r t - ty p e s c a le ite m s, twelve ranking ite m s , twelve demo­ graph ic q u e s tio n s , and fo u r general q u e stio n s seeking yes or no re sp o n se s. The instrum en t desig n evolved around nine dim ensions. There were eleven q u e stio n s d i r e c t e d a t an ed u catio n al program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12), fo u r q u e stio n s aimed a t use of community f a c i l i t i e s ; seven q u e stio n s p e rta in e d to a d d itio n a l pro­ grams f o r school age c h ild r e n and y o u th , s ix q u e stio n s were r e l a t e d to programs f o r a d u l t s ; eleven q u e stio n s focused on d e liv e r y of community s e r v i c e s ; seven q u e stio n s toward community involvement, two rank o rd e rin g s o f th e s ix components; twelve demographic statem e n ts and fo u r general q u e s tio n s . To analyze whether any d i f f e r e n c e s e x is te d between community types concerning th e o pinions o f d i r e c t o r s on s e le c te d components, a One-way A nalysis o f Variance w ith unequal p op u latio n s was used . o The chi square (X ) a n a ly s is was performed to d e t e c t any r e l a t i o n s h i p s on th e items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e components and community ty p e s . 89 Group means and stand ard d e v ia tio n s o f community types supplemented the r e s u l t s to provide g r e a t e r meaning t o th e f i n d i n g s . A le v e l o f a = .05 was used to determ ine s ig n i f i c a n c e . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s found among community types when th e major re s e a rc h q u e stio n s were t e s t e d . However, items c h arac ­ t e r i z i n g and r e l a t i n g to th e major q u e stio n s d id produce s i g n i f i c a n c e when t e s t e d . fic a n t. Ten o f th e 74 items were found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i ­ With th e component, "use o f community f a c i l i t i e s , " the item on "use o f school f a c i l i t i e s by community c i t i z e n s and groups" proved sig n ific a n t. In terms o f "programs f o r a d u l t s , " th e follow ing items in d ic a te d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s : "Adult b a sic e d ucation s e r v ic e s " and " r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " With r e s p e c t to demographics th e ite m s , "p op u latio n o f th e a r e a , " "years o f experien ce in school a d m in is tr a tio n ," "years o f exp erien ce in p u b lic s c h o o ls ," "years school d i s t r i c t has had a community educatio n program" and "age range" proved s t a t is tic a lly sig n ific a n t. In th e rank o rd erin g o f how im portant s e le c te d components were in th e school d i s t r i c t th e component, "an ed u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" had s i g n i f i c a n t f in d i n g s . The rank o rd e rin g o f s e le c te d components by what they ought to be in th e school d i s t r i c t found "community involvement" t o be sig n ific a n t. With th e general q u e stio n s none o f th e items in d ic a te d s ig n ific a n t d ifferen c es. The remainder o f th e d is c u s s io n on th e fin d in g s w ill be p re se n te d by th e seven re s e a rc h q u e stio n a r e a s , and th e r e s u l t s o f the rank o rd e rin g o f th e components. The d is c u s s io n w ill focus on the 90 o v e ra ll le v e l because no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between community types were found w ith r e l a t i o n to th e s e le c te d components. The d is c u s ­ sio n w ill in c lu d e , however, those items r e l a t i n g to th e o v e ra ll re sea rc h q u e stio n s which proved s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when d iff e r e n c e s between community types were found. Research Question Number 1: Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f an educa­ tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)? The fin d in g s in d ic a te d c lo s e homogenity among th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s w ith regard to the component, "an educational program fo r school age c h ild re n (K-12)." No s ig n if ic a n c e was found. The d i r e c t o r s in d ic a te d t h a t from "o cc a sio n a lly " to "ofte n " t h i s component was pro­ vided as a p a r t o f th e community educatio n program, A p a r t i a l reason f o r t h i s may be a t t r i b u t e d to the b e l i e f t h a t K-12 programs a re se p a ra te from community education and t h a t each has a s e p a ra te r o le to play in ed u ca tio n . I t can be assumed t h a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , in p a r t , might e x p la in th e lower group r a t i n g . Research Question Number 2: Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f use o f community fa c ilitie s? The fin d in g s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between th e community type d i r e c t o r s with th e component, "use o f community f a c i l i ­ tie s ." The group mean sco re o f 2.93 in d ic a te d , however, t h a t d i r e c t o r s "o ften " provide t h i s component as a p a r t o f th e community education program and a re very homogeneous in t h i s view point. The item a n a ly s is o f "our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s a re used by community c i t i z e n s and groups" did i n d ic a te s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s . 91 The chi square a n a ly s is rev ealed d if f e r e n c e among th e community type d ire c to rs. Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Towns) tended to in d ic a te "always" providing t h i s component s e r v i c e . Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Towns) d if f e r e d from Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type V (R ural) and somewhat Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s . Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Towns) in d ic a te d they "always" provide t h i s component s e r v ic e . Type II ( C i t i e s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) "always" provided t h i s component s e r v i c e , but l e s s o f te n . Type V (R ural) was s i m i l a r , bu t somewhat d i f f e r e n t in "often" providing th e use of community f a c i l i t i e s . In b r i e f , i t can be suggested t h a t urban and town d i r e c t o r s were more l i a b l e to "always" have t h e i r school f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r community use than c i t i e s , ru ra l or urban f r in g e d i r e c t o r s . Research Question Number 3: Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth? The fin d in g s of t h i s re s e a rc h q u e stio n in d ic a te d no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between community type d i r e c t o r s regarding th e component, "a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and y o u th ." D ir e c to r s , "o cc a sio n a lly " to " o f te n ," provided t h i s component s e r v ic e with leaning toward " o f te n ." Community education d i r e c t o r s were homogeneous in t h e i r viewpoints although Type II ( C i t i e s ) tended to be l e s s d i r e c te d toward "o fte n " providing a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and youth than th e o th e r fo u r community ty p e s . This s l i g h t d e v ia tio n may be somewhat a t t r i b u t a b l e to many c i t i z e n s having a YMCA, o th e r youth programs and community agency programs in c i t i e s and a re l e s s l i a b l e to d u p lic a te t h i s s e r v ic e . 92 Research Question Number 4: Are th e re any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f programs f o r a d u lts ? The fin d in g s did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t f o r th e component, "pro­ grams f o r a d u l t s . " There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between community type d i r e c t o r s . D ire c to rs in d ic a te d "o ften" to "always" providing t h i s component as a p a r t o f th e lo c a l community education program. I t would appear t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s a re very stro ng in providing programs f o r a d u l t s . The o th e r fo u r community ty p e s , although a c ti v e in t h e i r programs f o r a d u l t s , would appear to not always emphasize a d u lt programs but may be more community and c h ild re n /y o u th based in t h e i r program and component p r i o r i t i e s . The a n a ly s is o f items c h a r a c te r iz in g th e component, "program f o r a d u lts " had two a re a s of s ig n if ic a n c e . These were " a d u lt b a sic education s e rv ic e s " and " r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " The item , " a d u lt b a sic education" in d ic a te d t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from Type I I ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . the o th e r fo u r community ty p e s. Type II ( C i t i e s ) a ls o d if f e r e d from One hundred p e rc en t of th e urban d i r e c t o r s and 73.7 p e rc en t o f th e c i t i e s ' d i r e c t o r s "always" provided a d u lt b a sic education s e r v ic e s . In c o n t r a s t , th e urban f r in g e d i r e c ­ t o r s a t 53.1 p e rc e n t, towns d i r e c t o r s a t 50.9 p e rc en t and th e ru ra l d i r e c t o r s with 46.3 p e rc e n t "always" provided a d u lt b a sic education s e r v ic e s . The town (21.1%), urban f r in g e (29.7%) and ru ra l (37.1%) d i r e c t o r s in d ic a te d t h a t " ra re ly " i s t h i s type o f s e r v ic e provided. The Type I (Urban) and somewhat the Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s tend to have a l a r g e r pop ulation b a se , la r g e r o rg a n iz a tio n a l base, 93 more y e a rs of experience* and more y e a rs o f having a community edu catio n program. These demographics may help to e x p la in some o f th e reasons urban and c i t i e s d i f f e r e d from towns, urban f r i n g e and r u r a l community type programs. Furtherm ore, th e s m a lle r o n e - d ir e c to r type programs tend t o emphasize a d u l t high school completion programs in c o n t r a s t to a d u lt b a s ic edu catio n programs. I t may be t h a t th e a d u l t b a s ic educa­ tio n programs a r e involved w ith re c e iv in g fe d e ra l funds and th e pap er­ work and re p o r ts a re time consuming. Most o n e - d ir e c to r type programs a r e not w illin g to deal w ith th e fe d e ra l r u l e s and r e g u la tio n s f o r th e small f in a n c ia l gain involved w ith f e d e ra l fun ds. The second item in d ic a tin g s i g n if ic a n c e concerned " r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . " When the "always" and " o fte n " c a te g o r ie s were combined, Type I I I (Tov/ns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) community type d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from Type I (Urban) and Type II (C itie s) d ire c to rs . The Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s " o fte n " o r "always" provided r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . In c o n t r a s t , th e Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s and Type I I ( C i t i e s ) in d ic a te d they provided r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s l e s s o ften . In e ss e n c e , th e urban and c i t i e s d i r e c t o r s tend to no t provide r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts a t th e same le v e l as town, urban f r i n g e , and r u r a l d i r e c t o r s . Many urban and c i t i e s have parks and r e c r e a tio n programs t h a t provide r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts and urban and c i t i e s programs would be d u p lic a tin g s e r v ic e s i f they provided a d u l t r e c r e a t i o n . In c o n t r a s t , th e town, urban f r i n g e , 94 and ru r a l programs tend to not have parks and r e c r e a tio n programs. In a d d itio n , th e school gyms and b a ll f i e l d s a re th e primary re c r e a tio n a l f a c i l i t i e s o f th e community. Consequently, i t would appear t h a t a d u lt r e c r e a tio n plays a g r e a te r r o l e in town, urban f r i n g e , and ru ra l community education programs than in urban and c i t i e s programs. Research Question Number 5: Are th e re any d iff e r e n c e s among conminity types in Michigan in terms o f d e liv e ry o f community s e rv ic e s ? The r e s u l t s rev ealed f a i r l y c lo se homogeneity among th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s concerning th e component, " d e liv e ry of community s e r v i c e s ." The fin d in g did not prove s i g n i f i c a n t . The d i r e c t o r s in d ic a te d a leaning toward "often" providing d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s . The Type I I ( C i t i e s ) and Type I (Urban) d i r e c ­ t o r s were more fav o rab le toward d e liv e ry of community s e rv ic e s than th e o th e r th re e community type d i r e c t o r s . The d e liv e ry o f th e community s e r v ic e s component tends to be more process than program o r ie n te d . Urban and c i t i e s d i r e c t o r s with l a r g e r programs and g r e a t e r s t a f f tend to have more time f o r process development. In c o n t r a s t , th e o n e - d ir e c to r type program found in sm aller and more re c e n t programs tend to devote more time to program development and s u p e rv is io n . The r u r a l , town and urban f r in g e d i r e c ­ to r s a re more l i k e l y t o be found in th e se community type c a te g o r ie s . Research Question Number 6: Are th e r e any d iff e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms of community involvement? The fin d in g s o f the s ix th re sea rc h q u e stion did not in d ic a te s ig n if ic a n c e . The "community involvement" component did not fin d any 95 d i f f e r e n c e between th e f i v e community ty p e s . The community types tended to be n e a rly half-w ay between " o c c a sio n a lly " and " o fte n " pro­ v iding th e community involvement component. A c l o s e r review o f the community ty p e s , however, reveal t h a t Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s were more fa v o ra b le toward community involvement than th e remaining com­ munity ty p e s . Urban d i r e c t o r s , however, tended to have g r e a t e r d i f f e r ­ ences w ith t h i s component than th e o th e r community type d i r e c t o r s . In c o n t r a s t , th e Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s tended to be more homogeneous in t h e i r views bu t to le an more toward "o c c a sio n a lly " being involved w ith community involvement. The component, "community involvem ent," a s i s " d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s ," i s more process than program o r ie n te d . Urban d i r e c t o r s w ith t h e i r la r g e r programs and s t a f f s tend to have more time to be process o rie n te d w hile r u r a l d i r e c t o r s a re program d ir e c te d because th e one-person d i r e c t o r plays a g r e a t e r r o l e in program development and s u p e r v is io n . development. The usual r e s u l t i s l e s s tim e f o r process In g e n e r a l, th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s appear to be m oderately involved w ith th e component, "community involvem ent," and to have homogeneous views between th e community ty p e s . Research Question Number 7: Are th e r e any d if f e r e n c e s among community types in Michigan in terms o f demographics? The seventh re s e a rc h q u e stio n on demographics had twelve (12) items to be analyzed. c a n t. The fin d in g s in d ic a te d f i v e items were s i g n i f i ­ The f i v e items were p o pu la tio n o f th e a r e a , y e a r s o f experience in school a d m i n is tr a tio n , y e a rs o f experien ce working in p u b lic 96 sc h o o ls, y e a rs school d i s t r i c t has had a community edu catio n program and age range. The fin d in g s on pop u lation of th e area showed th e f i v e com­ munity types d e f i n i t e l y s e r v ic e d i f f e r e n t population s iz e s although th e re was some overlapping between community ty p e s. Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s (75%) tended to s e r v ic e population s iz e s between 50,001 and 200,000. Type I I ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s (94.5%) tended to s e r v ic e popula­ tio n s iz e s between 15,001 to 100,000. Type I I I (Towns) d i r e c t o r s (82.7%) tended to have population s iz e s ranging from 5,001 to 25,000. Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s (92.2%) tended to s e r v ic e pop ulation s iz e s from 5,001 to 100,000. F in a lly , Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s (86.8%) tended to have population s iz e s o f 15,000 or l e s s . Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s tended to have popu latio n s iz e s some­ what s im ila r to Type II ( C itie s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) a re a s . Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (Rural) d i r e c t o r s had g r e a t e r s i m i l a r i t i e s in population s i z e s . The s iz e s of population can play a r o le in th e e x p e c ta tio n s o f program development. The l a r g e r and o ld e r programs tend to be found in a re a s o f g r e a te r pop ulation s i z e s . The l a r g e r th e population s i z e o f the community th e g r e a t e r p o te n tia l th e community education program to reach th e vario us community groups and audiences. This p o te n tia l to reach more people g e n e r a lly leads to more enrollm ents and programs and consequently more s t a f f to s e r v ic e th ese programs. The r e s u l t i s a tendency f o r d i r e c t o r s in la r g e r programs with g r e a t e r population s iz e s to become f u r t h e r removed from the 97 programs and t h e i r jobs tend to become su p erv iso ry in n a tu re . In c o n t r a s t , community education d i r e c t o r s lo c ated in sm aller population s iz e s do not have a tendency to develop la r g e r programs needing more sta ff. The usual tendency i s f o r sm aller community type d i r e c t o r s to have l e s s time f o r process development than d i r e c t o r s in la r g e r pro­ grams because th e sm a lle r type d i r e c t o r i s a one-person program develo per. The second demographic item o f s ig n if ic a n c e was y e a rs of experience in school a d m in is tr a tio n . The fin d in g s showed Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s , most o f t e n , had 11 y e a rs o r longer experience as a school a d m in is tr a tio n . Urban d i r e c t o r s d if f e r e d from th e o th e r four community type d i r e c t o r s . The Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s and Type II ( C i t i e s ) d i r e c t o r s were th e next experienced community ty p e s. The Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s were th e l e a s t experienced d i r e c t o r s in school a d m in is tra tio n . In a d d itio n , th e Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (Rural) had more d i r e c t o r s with fo u r y e a rs o r le s s o f e x perien ce. The school a d m in is tr a tiv e experience o f urban d i r e c t o r s and somewhat th e c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e most l i k e l y impacts th e persuasion and in flu e n c e th e se d i r e c t o r s have upon o th e r school a d m in is tra to rs and board o f edu ca tio n . D ire c to rs from th e se school d i s t r i c t s a re more l i a b l e to be e f f e c t i v e in the implementation and development of community edu catio n components and programs in th e school system. These d i r e c t o r s in e sse n c e , have a g r e a te r op p o rtu n ity to cause change and in flu e n c e o th e r a d m in is tra to rs toward th e development o f compre­ hensive community education programs and p ro c e sses. 98 The t h i r d demographic item proving s i g n i f i c a n t was "years of experience working f o r p u b lic s c h o o ls ." Type IV (Urban F rin g e ), Type I (Urban) and Type I I ( C i t i e s ) community type d i r e c t o r s d if f e r e d from Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . The Urban Fringe d i r e c ­ t o r s (79.4%), Urban (75.0%) and C i t i e s (73.7%) d i r e c t o r s had 11 y e ars o r longer o f experience working in p ub lic sch o o ls. In c o n t r a s t , Towns (60.3%) and Rural (46.7%) d i r e c t o r s had l e s s experienced d i r e c ­ t o r s a t 11 y e a rs o r lo n g e r. Town d i r e c t o r s , however, i f 8 y e ars o r longer o f experience were in clu d ed , would have 81 p e rc e n t w ith work experience in public sch o o ls. The demographic area o f "years school d i s t r i c t has had a community education program" was a fo u rth item o f s ig n if ic a n c e . Type I (Urban) d if f e r e d from Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (Rural) programs. One hundred p e rc e n t of th e urban programs had a community education program 11 y e a rs or lo n ger. The C i t i e s (63.2%), Towns (55.2%), Urban Fringe (53.1%) and Rural (40.7%) programs had 11 y e a rs o r more in community ed u ca tio n . The ru r a l a re a s had th e newest programs as 20.4 p e rc en t o f th e school d i s t r i c t s have had programs fo u r y e a rs o r l e s s . The town school d i s t r i c t s a ls o had 15.1 p e rc en t o f t h e i r programs in e x is te n c e f o r 4 y e a rs o r l e s s . I t i s apparent t h a t urban programs a re th e o ld e s t w ith c i t i e s , towns and urban f r in g e having s l i g h t l y more than h a l f o f t h e i r pro­ grams 11 y e a rs o r more. Rural programs have had community education th e l e a s t amount of y e a rs and have the l a r g e s t percentage o f new programs. 99 I t i s most l i k e l y t h a t tho se school d i s t r i c t s having community e d u catio n th e most y e a rs have developed some i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n and c o n s is te n c y in t h e i r community edu ca tio n planning and development. This i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , although c r e a tin g o b s ta c le s a t tim e s , does tend t o allow f o r c o n sis te n c y in lo n g er term planning and program growth and development. The r e s u l t should be f o r g r e a t e r o p p o r tu n i tie s to develop components and to be more e f f e c t i v e in th e program and process a re a s o f community e d u ca tio n . The f i n a l demographic item o f s ig n if ic a n c e was "age ra n g e ." The Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s w ith 50 p e rc e n t o f th e d i r e c t o r s being 51 y e a r s o f age o r o ld e r were d i f f e r e n t from th e o th e r fo u r community type d i r e c t o r s . groups. The o th e r fo u r community type d i r e c t o r s were younger In c o n t r a s t , Type IV (Urban Fringe) a t 17.5 p e r c e n t, Type II ( C i t i e s ) w ith 15.8 p e rc n e t, Type V (R ural) a t 11.1 p e rc e n t and Type I I I (Towns) w ith 10.3 p e rc e n t were th e number o f d i r e c t o r s w ith 51 y e a rs o f age o r o l d e r . The r u r a l and towns' d i r e c t o r s were th e y o un g est, with 27.8 and 15.5 p e rc e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y having d i r e c t o r s 30 y e a rs o f age and under. The age o f d i r e c t o r s by community type most l i k e l y im p lies th e s e a r e in d iv id u a ls w ith experience in p u b lic schools and a d m in is tr a tio n . This e x perience u s u a lly leads to g r e a t e r c o n sis te n c y and lo n ger term planning f o r program and process development. There ten ds to be s e c u r i t y and a f e e l i n g o f competence and d i r e c t i o n in in d iv id u a ls w ith g r e a t e r age. This would appear to allow g r e a t e r o p p o rtu n ity f o r continued growth and development o f components in community e d u ca tio n . 100 In summary, th e demographic items in d ic a te d Type I (Urban) and programs were a re a s w ith th e g r e a t e s t p o p u la tio n b a se , lo n g e s t y e a rs o f experien ce in school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , programs in e x is te n c e th e lo n g e s t and were o l d e r . In y e a r s o f e x p erience working in p u b lic schools urban d i r e c t o r s ranked second in e x p erien c e . These s i g n i ­ f i c a n t demographic items tend to s i g n i f y why urban community type d i r e c t o r s may p e rc e iv e components d i f f e r e n t l y from o th e r community ty p e s. C i t i e s and urban f r i n g e d ire c to rs /p ro g ra m s a t tim es appear to be more c l o s e l y a s s o c ia te d w ith urban d i r e c t o r s and programs. This appears to be th e case w ith p o p u la tio n s i z e o f th e community, y e a r s o f e x perience in school a d m i n is tr a tio n , y e a rs o f exp erien ce working f o r p u b lic schools and y e a rs school d i s t r i c t has had a community educatio n program. At o th e r tim es in th e cases o f o ld e r d i r e c t o r s th e r e was a c l o s e r a l l i a n c e w ith towns and ru r a l community ty p e s . The towns and r u r a l community type d ire c to rs /p ro g ra m s d i f f e r e d from urban d i r e c t o r s and g e n e r a lly from c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e d i r e c ­ to rs. The d if f e r e n c e s between c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e community types tended to be b lu rre d a t tim es in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o tov/ns. The item o f y e a rs school d i s t r i c t has had a community educatio n program i l l u s t r a t e s th e p o in t. The towns in t h i s c a s e , were very s i m i l a r to c i t i e s and urban f r in g e community type programs. In g e n e r a l, w ith regard t o s i g n i f i c a n t ite m s, th e study showed Type I (Urban) community type d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from th e 101 o th e r fo u r community ty p e s . The c i t i e s and urban f r in g e community types tended to d i f f e r from Type I (Urban) and Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R u ral) community type d i r e c t o r s . With Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) community type d i r e c t o r s being d i f f e r e n t from Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) community ty p e s . The exce p tio n was Type I I I (Towns) being c l o s e r in s i m i l a r i t y to c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e community types reg ard in g y e a rs school d i s ­ t r i c t has had a community e d ucatio n program. Rank Ordering o f Components The rank o rd e rin g o f s e le c te d components allowed community e d u ca tio n d i r e c t o r s to i n d i c a t e th e importance o f th e components to school d i s t r i c t s . The f i r s t rank o rd e rin g was to show how im portant th e components were in th e school d i s t r i c t . The community edu catio n d i r e c t o r s ranked programs f o r a d u lts as th e most im portant component. An e d u ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h ild r e n (K-12) was second. The t h i r d ranked component was a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and y o u th . This was followed by community involvem ent, use o f community f a c i l i t i e s and d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s . The component, "an edu ca tio n a l program f o r school age c h i l ­ dren (K-12)" showed d if f e r e n c e s between th e community ty p e s . Type I (U rban), Type I I ( C i t i e s ) and Type IV (Urban Fringe) d i r e c t o r s d i f f e r e d from Type V (R ural) d i r e c t o r s . The Type I I I (Towns) were a ls o d i f f e r e n t in th e importance given to th e component. r u r a l d i r e c t o r s tended to rank th e component th e low est. Towns and 102 I t would appear "an e du catio nal program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" i s more dominant in the l i v e s o f urban, urban f r i n g e , and c i t i e s ' community ty p e s. This may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to th e b e l i e f t h a t many o f M ichigan's b e s t K-12 programs a r e lo c ated in urban c i t i e s and urban f r in g e a r e a s . This f e e l i n g may be a c o n s ta n t reminder to d i r e c t o r s in th e se community types t h a t community ed ucation e x i s t s to serv e th e K-12 program i n t e r e s t s and i s not viewed as an e d u catio nal e n t e r p r i s e o f equal importance. The o th e r view could be t h a t community education i s much more in te g r a te d in to th e t o t a l edu catio n al s e r v ic e s o f th e school d i s t r i c t and th e age and experience o f th e d i r e c t o r s has helped them r e a l i z e th e r e r e a l l y i s no d if f e r e n c e between a K-12 and community education program. The two a re serving th e same community go als and purposes. In towns and ru r a l are as th e d i s t i n c t i o n between K-12 and community education appears to be more pronounced. The community education program i s l i a b l e to be considered an add-on program o r has by t r a d i t i o n grown and developed as a s e p a ra te e n t i t y in th e school d istric t. The newness of programs and d i r e c t o r s in r u r a l and towns has probably not allowed f o r K-12 and community education to be an in te g r a te d concept. The second rank o rd erin g of components was performed to determine what th e components ought to be in th e school d i s t r i c t . The d i r e c t o r s in d ic a te d "an educational program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12)" ought to be th e most im portant component in the school d i s t r i c t . The second ranked component was a "program f o r 103 a d u lts." Community involvement, a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and y o u th , d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s , and use o f community f a c i l i t i e s follow ed. The component, "community involvem ent," in d ic a te d d if f e r e n c e s between community ty p e s . Type I I I (Towns) and Type V (R ural) placed g r e a t e r importance on community involvement. Type IV (Urban Fringe) follow ed. lowest in comparison. Type I I ( C itie s ) and Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s ra te d i t Type II ( C i t i e s ) ranked community involvement t h i r d as a p r i o r i t y component, Type IV (Urban Fringe) had th e h ig h e st ranking as a second component, and Type I (Urban) d i r e c t o r s were divided by e q u ally placin g th e component in a second o r fo u r th place ranking. The ranking o f community involvement was spread across the ranking s c a le . I t would appear th e r e i s no c o n siste n cy acro ss com­ munity types as to th e importance o f community involvement in t h e i r programs. This may be an in d ic a tio n o f th e lower importance com­ munity involvement i s g e n e r a lly given as a component o r t h a t th e re i s confusion about what community involvement r e a l l y means. f a c t t h a t community involvement The i s g e n e r a lly considered a process component and not a program may lower i t s importance. In a d d itio n , th e fin a n c ia l reward i s low and o th e r components a re morev i s i b l e and u s u a lly involve t u i t i o n and s t a t e a id funded programs. Rank Order Comparison The d i r e c t o r s ranked programs f o r a d u lts f i r s t and an education program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) second as th e most 104 im portant components in th e school d i s t r i c t . In c o n t r a s t , when ranking th e components as to what ought to be in the d i s t r i c t , an educational program f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) was ranked f i r s t and programs f o r a d u lts was ranked second. I t would appear th e f i v e community type d i r e c t o r s a re s im ila r in t h e i r viewpoints about th e two top ranked components. The d if f e r e n c e may be r e l a t e d to perceived p h ilo so p h ic al and f in a n c ia l b e l i e f s . The school d i s t r i c t , because o f th e f in a n c ia l gain involved with a d u lt education programs, may be s t r e s s i n g th e importance o f bringing a d u lts in to th e lo c al education system and t h i s i s viewed as being very im portant to th e d i s t r i c t . An a d d itio n a l dimension may be th e p h ilo ­ sophical b e l i e f of d i r e c t o r s t h a t a d u lt education programs a re more im po rtant than o th e r programs or components. In c o n t r a s t , many community educatio n d i r e c t o r s may p h ilo s o p h ic a lly b e lie v e th e t o t a l e d u catio nal program o f which an educational programs f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) i s a t th e h e a r t o f th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t program i s the most im p ortan t component and a d u lt education i s o f secondary importance. Aside from th e p h ilo so p h ic a l view point, many d i r e c t o r s r e a l i z e t h e i r e x is te n c e i s based upon e d ucation al programs f o r school age c h ild re n (K-12) and w ith o u t t h i s component, th e o th e r components would probably not e x i s t a t th e lo c a l school d i s t r i c t l e v e l . The d i r e c t o r s , although d is a g re e in g somewhat on what i s , and what ought to b e, a re in a g re e ­ ment about which two components a r e th e most im portant. In terms o f how im portant th e components were to th e d i s t r i c t , th e d i r e c t o r s ranked a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild re n and 105 youth t h i r d and community involvement f o u r t h . In c o n t r a s t , when ranking th e component as to what th ey ought to b e , th e o rd e r was re v e rs e d . In both c a s e s , th e d i r e c t o r s agreed th e s e two components were t h i r d and f o u r th in importance but d i f f e r e d between how they p e r­ ceiv ed th e d i s t r i c t f e l t about th e components and what importance th e components ought to have in th e d i s t r i c t . In e ss e n c e , d i r e c t o r s b e lie v e d a d d itio n a l programs f o r school age c h ild r e n and youth a re more im portant t o th e d i s t r i c t than community involvement. This p erceived view i s probably due to being surrounded by youth o rie n te d s t a f f and having th e knowledge t h a t most is s u e s and problems o f th e d i s t r i c t a re c h ild r e n and youth o r ie n te d . Community involvement i s u s u a lly not as im po rtan t to K-12 s t a f f as programs f o r youth and t h i s b e l i e f i s c o n s ta n tly re in fo r c e d by th e K-12 s t a f f around th e community e du catio n d i r e c t o r . The f i f t h and s i x t h ranked components were "use o f community f a c i l i t i e s " and " d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s . " In terms o f how th e d i s t r i c t p e rc e iv e s th e importance o f th e components, th e d i r e c t o r s ranked "use o f community s e r v ic e s " as f i f t h and " d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s " a s s i x t h . The o rd e r was re v e rse d concerning how d i r e c t o r s b e lie v e d th e components ought t o be ranked. This d i f f e r e n c e may be r e l a t e d to th e concept t h a t th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s i s f a i r l y new to K-12 a d m in is tr a to r s and i s many times a low p r i o r i t y in d i s t r i c t s . In c o n t r a s t , use o f community f a c i l i t i e s i s f a i r l y common in Michigan school d i s t r i c t s and i s b a s i c a l l y accepted as a p a r t o f th e lo c a l e d u ca tio n a l scene. 106 Community e d u c a to rs , however, a re probably more o r ie n te d and tr a i n e d toward th e c o o rd in a tio n and d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s on a d i s t r i c t wide b a s is than K-12 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Community e d u ca to rs tend t o be involved w ith s e n io r c i t i z e n s , a d u lt s k i l l s t r a i n i n g programs, s o c ia l s e r v ic e c l i e n t s and o th e r r e l a t e d commurity ag encies t h a t involve th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v i c e s . Thus, i t can be assumed t h a t d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s would tend to be o f h ig h er value than use o f community f a c i l i t i e s f o r d i r e c t o r s . In g e n e r a l, th e d i r e c t o r s were in b a sic agreement about th e ranking o f th e components. There was some d if f e r e n c e about th e p re ­ c i s e rank o r d e r , b u t th e d i f f e r e n c e s were b a s i c a l l y s i m i l a r and any d i f f e r e n c e s a re minimal. Conclusions The d a ta c o lle c te d f o r t h i s study provided th e b a s is f o r a comparison of Michigan community edu catio n d i r e c t o r s ' opinions r e l a ­ t i v e to s e le c te d components. The opinions were viewed and compared according to the follow ing community ty p e s: Type I (Urban), Type II ( C i t i e s ) , Type I I I (Towns), Type IV (Urban Fringe) and Type V (R u ra l). I t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s in opinions in terms o f community type could be d e te c te d . The study led to th e follow ing c o n clu sio n s: 1. There a re only minor d i f f e r e n c e s among community types about th e s e le c te d components o f community education and d i r e c t o r s tend t o have s i m i l a r o pin ion s about components. 107 2. Community edu cation d i r e c t o r s in Michigan appear to have s im i l a r o p inio ns about th e ra n k -o rd e rin g o f s e le c te d com­ ponents in school d i s t r i c t s . 3. The component, "program f o r a d u l t s , " was c o n s i s t e n t l y ranked the most im p ortant in th e school d i s t r i c t s . 4. The demographics o f p o p u la tio n o f th e school d i s t r i c t , y e a rs o f d i r e c t o r ' s experience in school a d m i n is tr a tio n , y e a r s of e x perien ce th e d i r e c t o r has in p u b lic s c h o o ls , y e a rs th e school d i s t r i c t has had a community e d u catio n program, and age o f the d i r e c t o r appear to be items o f in flu e n c e a f f e c t i n g the opinions o f th e d i r e c t o r about community educatio n com­ ponents . 5. The follo w ing community ty p e s , appear to have comparable opinions about community edu cation components: c i t i e s and urban f r i n g e d i r e c t o r s , towns and r u r a l d i r e c t o r s , w ith urban d i r e c t o r s being somewhat d i f f e r e n t from th e o th e r community ty p es. Im p lic a tio n s and Recommendations Based on th e fin d in g s and th e co n clu sio n s o f t h i s s tu d y , th e follow ing im p lic a tio n s and recommendations a r e made: 1. Since community ed u ca tio n programs a r e supposed to be based upon th e needs o f th e community then perhaps a d i f f e r e n t formula f o r s ta te -w id e funding i s needed which c o n sid e rs more 108 than high school completion s tu d e n ts . I t i s recommended t h a t the c u r r e n t s t a t e funding formula be re v is e d to more appro­ p r i a t e l y address s p e c i f i c community needs. 2. The ranking of "programs f o r a d u lts " as th e component of g r e a t e s t importance to th e school d i s t r i c t may in d ic a te the community based philosophy of community education in Michigan i s becoming more a d u lt education o rie n te d and dominated. I t is recommended t h a t f u tu r e community education re s e a rc h e r s study the impact o f th e Michigan a d u lt edu cation philosophy and funding p a tte r n upon community edu ca tio n . 3. Since the demographic items o f th e study appear to have g r e a t e r in flu en c e on th e opinions of th e d i r e c t o r s than community ty p e s , i t i s recommended t h a t f u tu r e re s e a rc h s tu d ie s address t h i s is s u e . 4. Because minor d if f e r e n c e s in community types were found on s p e c i f i c items i t i s recommended t h a t f u t u r e s tu d ie s examine the im p lic a tio n s o f community types as a l i k e l y means f o r d e te c tin g community d if f e r e n c e s . 5. Since t h i s study was an i n i t i a l a ttem p t to measure th e impor­ tance o f the s ix s e le c te d community educatio n components, as perceived by d i r e c t o r s o f community e d u c a tio n , i t i s recommended t h a t f u tu r e s tu d ie s examine the opinions o f s u p e rin te n d e n ts , boards o f education members, and school p r in c ip a ls about the importance o f components in community e d u ca tio n . REFERENCES 109 REFERENCES Borg, W. R. & G a ll, M. D. New York, 1979. Educational Research, Longman I n c . , ~ Columbus, F. The H istory and Development of Public School Adult and Community Education in Michigan 1862-1977! Lansing, Michigan, Department o f Education, Adult Extended Learning S e rv ic e s, 1978. Decker, Larry E. Foundations o f Community Education. Pendell Publishing Company, 1972. Midland, Michigan. Decker, F. E. & Decker, V. A. "Community Education: The Basic T e n e ts," A d m in is tra to rs ' and Policy Makers' Views o f Community Education ( C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , V irg in ia : U n iv e rsity o f V irg in ia P r in tin g O f f i c e ) , 1977. DeLargy, P. F. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f Community Education Goals by Use of th e Delphi Technique." Unpublished d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rsity o f G eorgia, 1973. Elzey, Freeman F. S t a t i s t i c s (Belmont, C a l if o r n ia : Publishing Company, I n c . ) , 1973. Brooks/Cole G lass, G. V. & S ta n le y , J . C. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods in Education and Psychology (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company), Hickey, Howard W. & Voorhees, C u rtis V. and A ss o c ia te s . The Role of th e School in Community Education (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing C o .), 1969. Hiem stra, Roger. The Educative Community (L inco ln , Nebraska: sio n a l Educators P u b lic a tio n s , 1972. P ro fe s­ Kaplan, H. "A Comparative A nalysis of th e Ratings o f Community Education Goals Assigned by Four Groups: Regional and Cooperating Center D ir e c to r s ; and P r i n c i p a l s , Superintendents and Community Educa­ tio n D ire c to rs in Minnesota Community School D i s t r i c t s . " Unpublished d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1974. 110 Ill Kaplan, M. H. "A nine phase approach to community education development," Planning and Assessment (Burback & Decker) (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing C o .), 1977. Kaplan, M. H. & Warden, J . W. "Conceptual and H is to r ic a l P e rs p e c tiv e s ." Community Education P e rsp e c tiv e s (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing C o .), 1978. Kerensky, V. M. & Melby, E. 0. Education II - The Social Imperative (Midland, Michigan: Pendell P u b lis h in g ) , 1971. L i k e r t , R. "A technique f o r th e measurement f o r a t t i t u d e s , " Archives o f Psychology, 1982, 140 (Monograph). Reprinted in p a r t in G. F. Sunmers (E d.) A ttitu d e Measurement (Chicago: Rand McNally), 1970. McNeil, K eith. "Components of exemplary community education programs in Michigan," Study o f Community Education in Region V - Report I . Wisconsin Department o f P ublic I n s t r u c t i o n , Madison, Wisconsin, 1976. Melby, E rn est 0. A dm inistering Community Education (New York: H a l l ) , 1955. P re n tic e Michigan Department o f Education, S ta te Board o f Education. D e fin itio n s o f Michigan School D i s t r i c t s by Major Community Type. Lansing, Michigan, 1971. Michigan Department o f Education, S ta te Board o f Education. Grants f o r Community School Program. Lansing, Michigan: Author, 1981. Michigan Department o f Education, S ta te Board o f Education. Michigan C ontact D irecto ry f o r A d u lt, Community and Continuing~Education Programs, Lansing, Michigan, 1981-82. Michigan Department o f Education, S ta te Board o f Education. P o s itio n Paper on th e Community School Within th e P hilosophical Concept o f Community E ducation, Lansing, Michigan, 1975. Minzey, Jack D. "Community education - an o th er p e rc e p tio n ," Community Education J o u r n a l, May-June, 1974, Vol. IV, No. 3 , pp. 7 and 58-61. Minzey, J . D. and LeTarte, C. Community Education: From Program to Process to P r a c tic e (Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing C o .), 1979. Olson, Edward G. The Modern Community School (New York: C entury, C ro fts I n c . ) , 1953. Appleton, 112 O lsen, Edward 6. & C la rk , P h i l l i p A. L ife - C entering Education (Midland, Michigan: Pendell P ub lish in g C o .), 1979. Schmith, Donna M. & Weaver, Donald C. Leadership f o r Community Impowerment: a source book (Midland, Michiqan: Pendell P ub lish in g C o .), T979! Seay, M. F. "The community school emphases in postwar e d u c a tio n ." In N ational S o c ie ty f o r th e Study o f Education, American Education in th e Postwar P e rio d , F o r ty -fo u r th yearbook, P a r t I . (Chicago: NSSE - U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago P r e s s ) , 1945. Seay, M. F. "The community s ch o o l; New meaning f o r an old term" in N ational S o c ie ty f o r th e Study o f Education, The Community School, F ifty -s e c o n d yearbook, P a r t I I . (Chicago: U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago P r e s s ) , 1953. Seay, M. F. "Threads running through th e community school movement," Community Education J o u r n a l, February, 1972, Vol. I I , No. 1, pp. 16-19. ' ------------------Seay, M. F. and A s s o c ia te s . (Midland, Michigan: Community Education; A Developing Concept Pendell Publishing C o .), 1975. Seay, M. F. & Crawford, F. M. The Community School and Community S e l f Improvement, Lansing, M'ic'fTigan,' S ta te Department o f P u blic I n s t r u c t i o n , 1954. S e rg io v a n n i, Thomas J . & C arver, Fred D. (New York: Harper & Row), 1973. The New School Executive APPENDICES 113 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A STATE SCHOOL AID ACT - SECTION 96 ACT NO. 36 PUBLIC ACTS OF 1981 An a c t to make a p p ro p ria tio n s to a id in th e support o f th e p u b lic schools and th e in te rm e d ia te school d i s t r i c t s o f th e s t a t e ; to provide f o r th e disbursem ent of th e a p p ro p ria tio n s ; to supplement th e school a id fund by th e levy and c o l l e c t i o n o f c e r t a i n t a x e s , to p re s c rib e p e n a lt ie s ; and to repeal c e r t a i n a c ts and p a r ts o f a c t s . Sec. 96. From th e amount a p p ro p ria te d in s e c tio n 11 th e r e i s a llo c a te d an amount not to exceed $2,282,000 f o r 1981-82 to be used by d i s t r i c t s conducting community school programs approved by th e d e p a r t­ ment. 115 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B POSITION PAPER ON THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL WITHIN THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION Adopted by Michigan S ta te Board o f Education August 13, 1975 117 118 FOREWORD Over th e y e a rs a t t e n t i o n has focused upon th e community school c o ncept. This a t t e n t i o n has come ab o u t, f i r s t , because o f th e e f f o r t s o f th e s t a t e to reim burse community school d i r e c t o r s ; second, because th e con g re ssio n a l edu cation amendments o f 1974 recog nize community school e d u c a tio n ; and f i n a l l y , because th e governor and some l e g i s ­ l a t i v e and ed u catio n al le a d e rs have r a is e d q u e stio n s about th e e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f community school e d u ca tio n . In response t o th e foreg oin g con cerns, t h i s p o s itio n paper has been p repared. There a re th r e e b a s i c a l l y new prem ises con tain ed in t h i s document: F i r s t , th e document su gg ests community edu ca tio n as being a p h ilo s o p h ic a l concept t h a t rec o g n ize s l i f e ex p erien c e s as being an in t e g r a l p a r t o f o n e 's e d u c a tio n . In t h i s s e n s e , Community Education r e a l i z e s t h a t formal sch oo ling and o n e 's educatio n a r e not synonymous. Second, th e paper recog nizes t h a t th e concept o f th e community school i s no t a concept which i s lim ite d to e d ucation al oppor­ t u n i t y , bu t one which a ttem pts to have an impact upon th e " b e t t e r l i f e o p p o r tu n itie s " o f r e s i d e n t s o f a community in r e l a t i o n to t h e i r c u l t u r a l , r e c r e a t i o n a l , s o c i a l , and enrichment as well as t h e i r academic o p p o r t u n i t i e s . In t h i s s e n s e , th e community school serv es as a c a t a l y t i c ag en t r a t h e r than as a d e liv e r y system a g en t. F i n a l l y , th e community school concept i s c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from o th e r school concepts in t h a t i t p la c e s th e community school as a fo c a l p o in t f o r th e d e liv e r y o f " b e t t e r l i f e o p p o r tu n itie s " to r e s i d e n t s o f a community through a program t h a t o p e ra te s day and n i g h t , seven days a week, and y e a r-ro u n d . Thus, w ith in any i d e n t i f i a b l e community i t i s p o s s i b l e , by s o l i c i t i n g th e o pin ion s o f th e c i t i z e n s in t h a t community, to determ ine whether o r no t th e community school personnel have indeed been e f f e c t i v e , i f one a c c e p ts th e above prem ises. John W. P o r te r 119 HISTORY OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT IN MICHIGAN THROUGH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS The community was an e s s e n t i a l p a r t o f th e e a r ly schools in Michigan. The s c h o o l, as a p u b lic ly owned f a c i l i t y , o fte n re p re se n te d th e c e n te r o f th e community, being used as th e meeting p la ce f o r c i v i c p r o j e c t s , work b e e s , and o th e r community a c t i v i t i e s . The school was a ls o a g a th e rin g p la ce o f c i t i z e n s where many o f th e d e c is io n s a f f e c t ­ ing th e community were developed and d ecid ed . The school was a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n use re g a r d le s s of age. Michigan, through th e y e a r s , developed in t o an i n d u s t r i a l and urbanized s o c i e t y . Accompanying t h i s change, schools became la rg e i n s t i t u t i o n s o perated p rim a rily f o r yo u th . The cormiunity's in v o lv e ­ ment w ith th e school was g ra d u a lly minimized. During th e 1940s two s te p s were taken to re k in d le th e concept o f "community" in Michigan e d u catio n : The f i r s t was dem onstration programs in e i g h t small communities sponsored by th e W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The second was th e beginning o f a community a c t i v i t i e s program in F l i n t sponsored by th e F l i n t Public Schools and th e C. S. Mott Foundation. The i n i t i a l i n t e n t o f u t i l i z i n g e x is t in g p u b lic school f a c i l i t i e s was f o r r e c r e a tio n a l purposes. Out o f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n came expressed concerns re g a rd in g o th e r school and community-related problems which encouraged c i t i ­ zens to j o i n fo r c e s to d is c u s s and plan a c t i v i t i e s and events which would f o s t e r ed u catio n al improvement. In 1960 th e D e tr o it P u blic Schools i n i t i a t e d community in v o lv e ­ ment through th e G reat C i t i e s Improvement P r o je c t. In 1969, as more communities e s ta b lis h e d community school programs, th e l e g i s l a t u r e provided s t a t e monies which allowed lo c a l d i s t r i c t s p a r t i a l reimbursement f o r community school d i r e c t o r s ' s a l a r i e s . This p a r t i a l reimbursement has v a rie d between $1,000,000 and $1,400,000, w ith th e exce p tio n of 1971-72 when th e item was v e to e d . With th e passage o f fe d e ra l l e g i s l a t i o n fo cu sin g upon th e community school concept and w ith th e c a l l f o r a c l e a r e r d e f i n i t i o n o f Community Education f o r e v a lu a tio n p urpo ses, t h i s paper has been prep ared. 120 Definition of Terms COMMUNITY A grouping o f r e s id e n ts by v i l l a g e , s u b d iv is io n , neighbor­ hood, school a ttend ance a r e a , e t c . , o f a s i z e which allows f o r i n t e r a c t i o n , involvement and two-way communication. COMMUNITY EDUCATION A ph ilo so p h ic al concept t h a t recognizes th e l i f e e x p e r i­ ences as being p a r t o f o n e 's education and i s not lim ite d to formal i n s t r u c t i o n , c e r t a i n age c l a s s i f i c a ­ tio n s or a tta in m e n t o f diplomas. Community Education f u r t h e r reco gn izes t h a t a process o f involving c i t i z e n s in id e n tif y in g th e c o n d itio n s , re s o u rc e s , and p r i o r i t i e s o f th e community i s th e c e n tr a l means o f improving o n e 's o p p o rtu n ity in l i f e . This process focuses upon every i n s t i t u t i o n , agency, and o rg a n iz a tio n of th e community to d e l i v e r i d e n t i f i e d and p r i o r i t i z e d s e r v ic e s . COMMUNITY SCHOOL A school serv ing a grouping of r e s id e n ts in a com­ munity t h a t makes i t s f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n u se; o rg an izes th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in a sse ssin g lo c al c o n d itio n s , s e t t i n g o f p r i o r i t i e s and program plan­ ning; i d e n t i f i e s and u t i l i z e s re s o u rc e s ; f a c i l i t a t e s j o i n t planning by lo c al a g e n c ie s; and i n i t i a t i n g new a n d/o r improved programs . . . in an e f f o r t to improve the o p p o rtu n ity f o r a l l r e s i d e n t s . RESOURCES Those i n d i v i d u a l s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , a g e n c ie s, o rg a n iz a tio n s , e t c . , which can be r e s o rte d to f o r a i d , s e r v ic e , and s u p p o rt. OPPORTUNITY The f o s t e r i n g , i n i t i a t i n g , and f a c i l i t a t i n g o f s e r v ic e s to a l l r e s id e n ts to see t h a t adequate food, c lo th in g , s h e l t e r , medical c a r e , employment, r e c r e a t i o n , s ch o o lin g , s p i r i t u a l w ell-b e in g and p e rs o n a l- s o c ia l enrichment a re being provided community r e s i d e n t s . The Community School Within the Philosop hical Concept o f Community Education In tro d u c tio n Community Education i s a p h ilo so p h ic al concept t h a t recognizes a l l l i f e experiences as being p a r t o f o n e 's education toward a b e t t e r l i f e . Education by t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s not lim ite d to formal i n s t r u c ­ t i o n , c e r t a i n age c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r a tta in m e n t o f c e r t i f i c a t e s and diplomas. 121 The policeman, p a r e n t, s o c ia l w orker, p a s t o r , d r u g g is t, ta x i d r i v e r , d o c to r, as well a s agencies and i n s t i t u t i o n s account f o r a s i z a b l e amount o f an i n d i v i d u a l 's education along w ith sc h o o ls, community c o l l e g e s , and u n i v e r s i t i e s supplying a d d itio n a l o p p o rtu n ity towards o n e 's e d u ca tio n . Coranunity Education f u r t h e r recognizes t h a t a process o f in volving c i t i z e n s in id e n tif y in g c o n d itio n s and re so u rce s of th e community i s th e c e n tr a l means o f improving th e w e ll-b e in g of those persons w ith in th e community. This process focuses upon every i n s t i t u t i o n , agency, and o rg a n iz a tio n o f th e community t o d e l i v e r i d e n t i f i e d and p r i o r i t i z e d s e r v ic e s . No s in g le i n s t i t u t i o n has th e c a p a b i l i t y o f d e liv e r in g "Community Education;" however, th e concept assumes th e community school as being a c a t a l y t i c agent to bring about Community Education. The Role of th e Community School The community school plays a c r u c ia l r o le in implementing Community Education. The r o le i s lim ite d because schools a re only one of many s u b s ta n tia l "educative" in flu e n c e s o f th e community, and th e schools do not (and cannot) c o n tro l th e se o th e r e du cative i n f l u ­ ences. However, th e community school can seek arrangements t h a t maximize th e b e t t e r l i f e p o te n tia l f o r in d iv id u a ls in th e community. The community school can play a c a t a l y t i c r o le in working w ith c i t i z e n s and community agencies to improve o p p o r tu n itie s f o r a l l age l e v e l s . The c a t a l y t i c r o le i s not reserv ed e x c lu s iv e ly f o r schools to use. Other community i n s t i t u t i o n s could a ls o be th e c a t a l y t i c a g en t. But f o r many communities th e schools have th e advantages o f (1) having the p u b lic mandate and some ta x re so u rce s to "ed u cate;" (2) a physical presence in each neighborhood; (3) d i r e c t c o n ta c t w ith 25 to 30 p e rc e n t o f th e pop ulatio n on a d a i l y b a s i s ; and (4) b u ild in g s , m a t e r i a l s , and equipment t h a t a r e only p a r t i a l l y u t i l i z e d . How a community school provides th e c a t a l y t i c r o le can vary from p la ce to p lace but th e r e s u l t must be human re so u rce s in each school a tte n d an c e area re s p o n sib le f o r working in th e community. These p e rso n s, and to a l e s s e r e x te n t o th e r members o f th e school s t a f f , a re re s p o n s ib le f o r bring in g human and m a te ria l reso u rces to bear on community c o n d itio n s in an e f f o r t to improve o p p o rtu n itie s for a ll c itiz e n s. The community school co n ce p t, as d is tin g u is h e d from o th e r school co n ce p ts, p la ce s th e community school as th e focal p o in t f o r the d e liv e r y o f Community Education to Michigan c i t i z e n s of a l l ag es. This can be accomplished by: 1. Making school f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n use f o r a ca ­ demic, c u l t u r a l , r e c r e a t i o n , s o c i a l , and enrichment endeavors. 122 2. Organizing th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f c i t i z e n s in th e community in a ss e ss in g lo c a l c o n d itio n s , s e t t i n g o f p r i o r i t i e s , and pro­ gram planning. 3. Id e n tify in g and u t i l i z i n g re so u rce s and f a c i l i t a t i n g j o i n t planning by lo c al a g e n c ie s, i n s t i t u t i o n s , and o r g a n iz a tio n s . 4. I n i t i a t i n g new a n d /o r improved edu cation al programming f o r a l l age le v e l s to bring about accomplishment o f p r i o r i t i z e d needs as determined by a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e group o f community citiz en s. The fu n c tio n o f personnel assigned to c a r r y f o r t h a community school i s simply one o f r e l a t i n g a v a il a b le human and m a te ria l reso u rces to community c o n d itio n s in an e f f o r t to improve th e oppor­ t u n i t y f o r a l l c i t i z e n s in th e community to b e n e f i t from a b e t t e r l i f e . Community school personnel should not be bogged down in pro­ gramming which i s a lre a d y more e f f e c t i v e l y done by o th e r s . The r o le o f th e community school i s b e s t c a r r i e d out i f th e community being worked with has a p o p u lation base and geographic s iz e which allows f o r community i n t e r a c t i o n , involvement, and two-way communications. Thus, in some communities i t may be a v i l l a g e , in o th e rs a neighborhood, w hile in o th e rs a school atte n d an c e a r e a . A community school becomes th e brokerage o p e ra tio n f o r r e lo c a ti n g resources to respond to o r modify c o n d itio n s . When a problem or c o n d itio n i s i d e n t i f i e d , i t i s to be r e f e r r e d to th e a p p ro p ria te re so u rce f o r s o lu tio n . T h e re fo re , a need in a d u lt educa­ t i o n may be r e f e r r e d to th e YMCA, th e community c o lle g e , th e a d u lt education d iv is io n o f th e p u b lic s c h o o l, o r to any o th e r agency c re a te d f o r t h a t purpose. I t becomes th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f th e se agencies to s e r v ic e th e need with e x i s t i n g programs o r c r e a t e new programs when none a re p re s e n t. This a sp e c t o f community school o p e ra tio n places th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a d dressin g community condi­ tio n s where i t belongs. I t a ls o encourages community re so u rce s in to a c o o p erativ e s ta n c e , w hile a t th e same time d e lin e a te s a c c o u n ta b ility f o r s e r v ic e . In summary, community schools a re a p a r t i a l exp re ssio n of the o v e ra ll p hilo so p h ical concept c a ll e d Community Education. Community schools a c t in a c a t a l y t i c , f a c i l i t a t i v e , and sometimes in a co o rd in a tin g manner w ith c i t i z e n s , a g e n c ie s, e t c . , to r e l a t e com­ munity re so u rce s to community c o n d itio n s , avoiding d u p lic a tio n of e f f o r t , improving e x is t in g s e r v ic e , and a s s i s t i n g in c r e a tin g new programs when needed. The purpose o f a community school i s simply one of r e l a t i n g community reso u rces to community c o n d itio n s in an e f f o r t to improve ed ucation al o p p o rtu n ity f o r a l l c i t i z e n s . 123 Conclusions The S ta te Board o f Education recognizes th e community school as a c a t a l y t i c agent f o r implementing w ith in a community th e p h ilo so p h ic al concept c a ll e d Community Education. The S ta te Board supports th e community school in i t s e f f o r t to improve o p p o rtu n itie s f o r i t s community r e s i d e n t s and recognizes i t s c a t a l y t i c r o le in working with c i t i z e n s and agencies f o r th e purpose of r e l a t i n g community c o n d itio n s to human and m a te ria l re s o u rc e s . The S ta te Board o f Education supports th e f o u r - f o ld r o le o f a community school which i s to : (1) make i t s f a c i l i t i e s a v a il a b le f o r c i t i z e n u se; (2) org an ize lo c al r e s id e n ts to a ss e ss lo c al c o n d itio n s , s e t p r i o r i t i e s , and id e n t i f y program planning; (3) i d e n t i f y and u t i l i z e re s o u rc e s , f a c i l i t a t e s through j o i n t planning by lo c a l a g en c ie s; and (4) a s s i s t in th e i n i t i a t i n g o f new and/or improved programs . . . in an e f f o r t to improve o p p o rtu n itie s f o r a l l community r e s i d e n t s . APPENDIX C APPENDIX C 1981-82 COMMUNITY SCHOOL PROGRAMS ACCORDING TO COMMUNITY TYPE STATE OF MICHIGAN STATE GRANT PROGRAMS Community Type I - M etro p olitan Core Ann Arbor Public Schools ♦ D e tro it Public Schools F l i n t C ity School D i s t r i c t Grand Rapids School D i s t r i c t Hamtramck Public Schools Highland Park C ity School D i s t r i c t Jackson Public Schools Lansing School D i s t r i c t ♦P ontiac C ity School D i s t r i c t Saginaw C ity School D i s t r i c t Community Type I I - C ity Adrian C ity School D i s t r i c t Albion P u b lic Schools Alpena P ublic Schools Bay C ity Public Schools Big Rapids Public Schools Birmingham C ity School D i s t r i c t Escanaba Area P ublic Schools Garden C ity P ublic Schools Grand Haven P ub lic Schools I n k s te r Public Schools Livonia Public Schools ♦Marquette P ublic Schools Menominee Area Public Schools Midland Public Schools Mt. Clemens Community Schools N iles Community School D i s t r i c t Plymouth-Canton Community Schools P o rt Huron Area Schools Romulus Community Schools S a u lt Area P u b lic Schools 125 126 Community Type I I I - Town Algonac Community Schools Allegan Public Schools Alma Public Schools Anchor Bay School D i s t r i c t Bel ding Area School D i s t r i c t Breitung Township Schools Buchanan Community Schools C a d illa c Area Public Schools Caro Community Schools C h a rlo tte Public Schools Chelsea School D i s t r i c t Chesaning Union Schools C lare Public Schools Coldwater Community Schools Dowagiac Public Schools Eaton Rapids Public Schools Fenton Area Public Schools F la t Rock Community Schools Frankenmuth School D i s t r i c t Fremont Public Schools G ib r a lta r School D i s t r i c t Gladstone Area Schools G re e n v ille Public Schools Gwinn Area Community Schools H artford Public Schools Hastings Area Schools H ills d a le Community Schools Holly Area Schools Howell Public Schools Hudsonville Public Schools Huron School D i s t r i c t Huron Valley Schools Ion ia Public Schools Ironwood Area Schools Ishpeming School D i s t r i c t * Ith a c a Public Schools *Lake Orion Community Schools Lapeer Community Schools Ludington Area School D i s t r i c t Manistique Area Schools Marshall Public Schools Milan Area Schools Negaunee Public School D i s t r i c t Oscoda Area Schools Otsego Public Schools Oxford Area Community Schools Paw Paw Public Schools Petoskey Public Schools 127 Portage Township Schools Richmond Community Schools Rochester Community Schools Romeo Community Schools South Haven Public Schools South Lyon Community Schools S p a rta Area Schools S t . Ignace Public Schools S t . Johns Public Schools S tu r g is Public Schools Three Rivers Community Schools Vassar Public Schools Walled Lake C onsolidated Schools W hitehall D i s t r i c t Schools W illiamston Community Schools Community Type IV - Urban Fringe *Avondale School D i s t r i c t Bedford Public Schools Bendle P ublic Schools Berkley C ity School D i s t r i c t Bloomfield H ills Public Schools Brandywine Public Schools B ridgeport-Spaulding Community Schools Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools Chippewa Valley Schools C lin to n d a le Community Schools Comstock Public Schools Corunna P ublic Schools Davison Community Schools E ast D e tr o it Public Schools E ast Lansing C ity School D i s t r i c t Essexvi11e-Hampton P u blic Schools Farmington Public Schools Ferndale C ity School D i s t r i c t F e n n v ille Public Schools Flushing Community Schools F o re s t H ills Public Schools F r u i t p o r t Community Schools Galesburg-Augusta Community Schools Grand Blanc Community Schools Grand Ledge P ublic Schools G ra n d v ille Public Schools Grosse P o in t Public School System Harper Creek Community Schools H a s le tt Public Schools Hazel Park School D i s t r i c t Holt P ublic Schools Jen ison Public Schools 128 Kenowa H ills Public Schools Kentwood Public Schools Lakeview-Lakeshore P u blic Schools Lakeview School D i s t r i c t ( B a t t l e Creek) L'Anse Creuse P ub lic Schools Lincoln Park School D i s t r i c t Madison D i s t r i c t P u blic Schools Mona Shores Schools Mt. Morris C onsolidated Schools Napoleon Community Schools Northview Public Schools Northwest Public Schools-Jackson Okemos Public Schools Orchard View Schools Portage Public Schools Redford Union School D i s t r i c t R eeth s-P u ffer Schools R o se v ille Community Schools Royal Oak C ity School D i s t r i c t Saginaw Township Community Schools S a lin e Area School D i s t r i c t S o u th fie ld Public Schools Southgate Community Schools South Lake Schools Spring Lake P ublic Schools Swartz Creek Community Schools Taylor School D i s t r i c t Troy School D i s t r i c t Utica Community Schools Van Dyke Public Schools Warren C onsolidated Schools Waterford School D i s t i r c t Waverly Schools Wayne-Westland Community Schools West Bloomfield School D i s t r i c t West Ottawa Public Schools Willow Run Community Schools Woodhaven School D i s t r i c t Y p sila n ti School D i s t r i c t Community Type V - Rural A llen d ale Public Schools Armada Area Schools Baldwin Community Schools Baraga Township Schools Bark R iv e r-H a rris Schools Beaverton Rural Schools Bellevue Community Schools B errien Springs Public Schools 129 Brandon School D i s t r i c t Breckenridge Community Schools Brighton Area Schools Camden-Frontier Schools Cass C ity Public Schools C assopolis School D i s t r i c t *Cedar Springs Public Schools C entral Montcalm Public Schools C lio Area Schools Coleman Community Schools Croswel1-Lexington School s Delton-Kellogg Schools Dexter Community Schools Evart Public Schools Ewen-Trout Creek Consolidated Schools F o rre s t Area Public Schools Freeland Community Schools Gladwin Community Schools Harbor Springs School D i s t r i c t H arrison Community Schools H artland C onsolidated Schools Hemlock Public Schools Johannesburg-Lewiston Schools Kent C ity Community Schools Lakeview Community Schools L a k e v ille Community Schools Lakewood Public Schools L e s lie Public Schools M a rle tte Community Schools Mason County C entral Schools Montabella Community Schools Newaygo Public Schools Nice Community Schools North Dickinson County Schools Northwest Schools-Bear Lake Public Schools O liv e t Community Schools O vid-E lsie Area Schools Pickford Public Schools Pinckney Community Schools Pinconning Area Schools P o t t e r v i l l e Public Schools Reed C ity Public Schools River Valley School D i s t r i c t Rockford Public Schools Sandusky Community Schools Saranac Community Schools Shelby Public Schools S p rin g p o rt Public Schools S ta n d is h -S te r lin g Community Schools 130 Tawas Area Schools Union C ity Community Schools Wayland Union Schools West Iron County Public Schools W h ittem ore-P resco tt Area Schools *These school d i s t r i c t s were not a p a r t o f th e s tu d y . Lake Orion was th e a u t h o r 's school d i s t r i c t . D e tr o it was too la r g e f o r a c c u ra te comparison and o p e ra te s i t s program d i f f e r e n t l y than o th e r school d i s t r i c t s . The remaining f i v e excluded d i s t r i c t s were p a r t o f th e f i e l d t e s t i n g in s tru m e n ta tio n . APPENDIX D 131 APPENDIX D THE OPINIONS OF MICHIGAN COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTORS ABOUT SELECTED COMPONENTS OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION This survey has two p a r t s . The f i r s t p a r t re q u e s ts inform ation concerning Community Education in your school d i s t r i c t . The second p a r t re q u e s ts demographic in fo rm a tio n . P le a se answer each sta te m e n t w ith only one check ( / ) in th e a p p r o p r ia te space provided. Community Education I. Educational Program f o r School Age C hildren (K-12) 1. Our community e d ucation program i s involved w ith th e K-12 educa­ t i o n program. Always 2. O ccasio n ally Rarely Often O ccasio n ally Rarely Often O ccasio n ally Rarely The K-12 a d m in is tra tio n and our community education program meet j o i n t l y to s o lv e e d u ca tio n a l concerns. Always 6. Often The K-12 a d m in is tra tio n and our community educatio n program meet j o i n t l y to d is c u s s e d u ca tio n a l co ncerns. Always 5. Rarely Our community e d u cation program and th e K-12 a d m in is tra tio n plan our go als j o i n t l y . Always 4. O ccasion ally The K-12 ed u catio n al program i s involved w ith our community edu catio n program. Always 3. Often Often O ccasio n ally Rarely The K-12 a d m in is tr a tio n and our community e d ucation program work j o i n t l y to help so lv e community problems. Always Often O ccasio n ally 132 Rarely 133 7. The K-12 Educational program uses th e community as an extension in th e classroom. Always 8. O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely The K-12 teachin g s t a f f su pp o rts th e philosophy o f community ed u ca tio n . Always II. Often The K-12 school a d m in is tra to rs support the philosophy o f com­ munity edu ca tio n . Always 11. Rarely The K-12 e du catio nal program f i n a n c i a l l y supports our community ed ucation program. Always 10, O ccasionally The K-12 ed u catio nal program encourages th e involvement o f com­ munity in th e classroom. Always 9. Often Often O ccasionally Rarely Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s 1. Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e use of community f a c i l i t i e s by th e community. Always 2. Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t charges a fe e f o r week/day use o f th e school f a c i l i t i e s to community groups. Always 4. O ccasionally Our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t i e s a re used by community c i t i z e n s and groups. Always 3. Often Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t charges a fe e f o r weekend use o f th e school f a c i l i t i e s to community groups. Always Often O ccasionally Rarely 134 III. A dditional Programs f o r School Age Children and Youth 1. Our school d i s t r i c t provides a f te r - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s and e x p e r i­ ences f o r c h ild r e n . Always 2. Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n . Always IV. Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides r e c r e a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n . Always 7. O ccasio nally Our school d i s t r i c t provides enrichment a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n . Always 6. Often Our school d i s t r i c t provides a f te r - s c h o o l remedial education a c t i v i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n . Always 5. Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides summer a c t i v i t i e s and experien ces f o r c h ild r e n . Always 4. O ccasionally Our school d i s t r i c t provides weekend a c t i v i t i e s and experiences f o r c h ild r e n . Always 3. Often Often O ccasionally Rarely Programs f o r Adults 1. Our school d i s t r i c t provides a d u l t b a sic education s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts. Always 2. O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides a d u l t high school completion s e r v ic e s to a d u l t s . Always 3. Often Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides r e c r e a tio n a l s e r v ic e s f o r a d u l t s . Always Often O ccasionally Rarely 135 4. Our school d i s t r i c t provides e n ric h m e n t/le is u re time s e r v ic e s f o r a d u lts. Always 5. Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t provides v o catio n al s k i l l s tr a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s fo r ad u lts. Always V. O ccasionally Our school d i s t r i c t provides c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r a d u l t s . Always 6. Often Often O ccasion ally Rarely D elivery o f Community Services 1. Our school d i s t r i c t helps c o o rd in a te th e d e liv e r y o f human s e rv ic e s to th e community. Always 2. Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t e v a lu a te s th e d e liv e r y o f human s e rv ic e s to th e community. Always 7. O ccasionally Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e use of human s e r v ic e s in th e community. Always 6. Often Our school d i s t r i c t i d e n t i f i e s p h y s ic a l, te c h n i c a l , and human re so u rce s in th e community. Always 5. Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t plans j o i n t l y w ith o th e r agencies to d e l i v e r human s e rv ic e s to th e community. Always 4. O ccasionally Our school d i s t r i c t i n i t i a t e s new programs when s e rv ic e s a re not provided in th e community. Always 3. Often Often O ccasionally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t uses th e human s e r v ic e s o f o th e r agencies and groups. Always Often O ccasion ally Rarely 136 8. Our school d i s t r i c t encourages th e use o f community re s o u rc e s . Always 9. Often O c ca sio n ally Rarely Often O ccasio n ally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t does n o t i n t e n t i o n a l l y d u p lic a te th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s provided by o th e r a g e n c ie s/g ro u p s. Always VI. Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s on a neighborhood b a s i s . Always 11. O ccasio n ally Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e d e liv e r y o f community s e r v ic e s on a d i s t r i c t - w i d e b a s i s . Always 10. Often Often O c ca sio n ally Rarely Community Involvement 1. Our school d i s t r i c t promotes th e development o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e community adv isory g ro u p s /c o u n c ils . Always 2. O ccasio n ally Rarely Often O ccasio nally Rarely Often O ccasio n ally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t helps develop a process f o r so lv in g community problems. Always 6. Often Our school d i s t r i c t helps i d e n t i f y community problems. Always 5. Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t a t e s th e involvement o f th e c i t i z e n s in so lv in g community problems. Always 4. O ccasio n ally Our school d i s t r i c t promotes adv isory c o u n c ils a t th e neighborhood le v e l. Always 3. Often Often O ccasio n ally Rarely Our school d i s t r i c t i d e n t i f i e s re so u rce s f o r s o lv in g commuunity problems. Always Often O ccasio nally Rarely 137 7. Our school d i s t r i c t cooperates w ith th e community toward solving community problems not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to school o p e ra tio n s . Always V II. Often O ccasionally Rarely Selected Components o f Community Education Here a re some Community Education components recognized by some w r i t e r s . 1. Rank order th e components as to how im portant they a re in your school d i s t r i c t using th e s c a le of 1-6 w ith one being th e h ig h e st ranki ng. A dditional Programs f o r School Age Children and Youth Programs f o r Adults Community Involvement An Educational Program f o r School Age Children (K-12) Use of Community F a c i l i t i e s D elivery o f Community S ervices 2. In your judgment rank o rd e r th e components as to what they ought to be in your school d i s t r i c t using th e s c a le o f 1-6 w ith one being th e h ig h e st ranking. Community Involvement Delivery of Community S ervices A dditional Programs f o r School Age Children and Youth Programs f o r Adults An Educational Program f o r School Age Children (K-12) Use of Community F a c i l i t i e s 3. Are th e re components not mentioned in t h i s survey t h a t ought to be a p a r t of community education? P lease l i s t . V III. General Questions Please in d ic a te by checking ( / ) only one space your response to th e se q u e stio n s. 1. Does your school board sup po rt th e concept and philosophy of community education? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. Does your su p erin ten d e n t support th e concept and philosophy o f community education? ( ) Yes ( ) No 138 3. Does your d i s t r i c t have a w r i t t e n philosophy o r p o lic y s t a t e ­ ment sup po rtin g th e philosophy o f community education? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. Does your d i s t r i c t have a board o f e d u catio n p o lic y o r s tatem e n t reg ard in g th e use o f school f a c i l i t i e s ? ( ) Yes ( ) No IX. Demographic Inform ation I t i s im po rtan t to have info rm atio n about you, th e program you admin­ i s t e r , and your community. P lease p la ce a checkmark (?) in th e a p p ro p ria te space provided. Only one ( / ) f o r each q u e s tio n . 1. What i s th e t o t a l p o p u la tio n o f th e a re a served by your school d istric t? ( ( ( ( 2. ) ) ) ) Under 5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-15,000 15,001-25,000 ) 8-10 y e a rs ) 11 y e a r s o r longer How many y e a rs o f e x p erien c e do you have as a community e d ucation d i r e c t o r in your c u r r e n t d i s t r i c t ? ( ) 0-2 y e ars 3-4 y e a rs 5-7 y e ars II 4. 25,001-50,000 50,001-100,000 100,001- 200,000 Above 200,001 How many y e a rs o f e x p erien ce do you have as a community educati o n d i r e c t o r ? ( ) 0-2 y e a rs ( ) 3-4 y e ars ( ) 5-7 y e a rs 3. ) ) ) ) ) 8-10 y e a rs ) 11 y e a rs o r longer How many y e a rs o f e xp erience do you have working in th e community educatio n f i e l d ? ( ) 0-2 y e ars ( ) 3-4 y e ars { ) 5-7 y e ars ) 8-10 y e a rs ) 11 y e a rs o r lon ger 139 5. How many y e a rs of experience do you have in school a d m in is tra tio n ? ( ) 0-2 y e ars ( ) 3-4 y e a rs ( ) 5-7 y e ars 6. What were your major a re a s of c o n c e n tra tio n in your degree t r a i n ­ ing programs? ( ( ( ( 7. ) ) ) ) Community Education A dult-Continuing Education General School A dm inistration Other How many y e ars of experience do you have working f o r p ub lic schools? ( ) 0-2 y e a rs ( ) 3-4 y e ars ( ) 5-7 y e ars 8. ( ( ) 8-10 y e ars ) 11 y e a rs or longer The h ig h e st degree I hold i s th e : ( ) Bachelor ( ) Masters 10. { ) 8-10 y e ars ( ) 11 y e a rs or longer How long has th e school d i s t r i c t in which you a re now employed had a community education program? ( ) 0-2 years ( ) 3-4 years ( ) 5-7 y e ars 9. 8-10 y e ars 11 y e ars or longer ( ) S p ecialists ( ) Doctorate My formal tr a i n i n g in community education i s : ( ) academic degree r e l a t e d ( e . g . , B.A., M.A., Ph.D.) ( ) through i n - s e r v ic e work ( ) s h o r t term workshops 11. What i s your age range? ( ( ( 12. ) 21-25 y e a rs ) 26-30 y e ars ) 31-40 y e ars ( ( ) 41-50 y e ars ) 51 y e a rs and o ld e r What i s your sex? ( ) Male ( ) Female Thank you f o r taking th e time to answer th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . Thank you! I f you would l i k e to re c e iv e a summary o f th e r e s u l t s , please check ( / ) th e space provided. ( ) APPENDIX E APPENDIX E LeRoy Mabery, D ire c to r Lake Orion Community Education 315 North Lapeer S t r e e t Lake Orion, MI 48035 February 10, 1982 Dear Fellow Community Educator: Please c o n sid e r giv ing me a few moments o f your v a lu ab le time w ith a m a tte r which concerns a l l community ed ucators in a d m in is tra tiv e p o s itio n s . As p a r t o f a s ta te -w id e study o f community education programs I would a p p re c ia te your coo peratio n in completing and re tu rn in g th e enclosed q u e s tio n n a ir e . The q u e s tio n n a ire i s designed to take no more than 20 mi n u te s . In o rd er to a ssu re th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e s tu d y 's f in d i n g s , i t is im portant t h a t completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s be received from a l l schools in Michigan. Your cooperation in completing the q u e stio n n a ire and re tu rn in g i t in th e stamped, s e lf - a d d r e s s e d , enclosed envelope w ithin th e next week w ill be g r e a t l y a p p re c ia te d . Your responses a re com­ p l e t e l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . N either your name nor t h a t of your school w ill be i d e n t i f i e d in the s tu d y . A summary of th e fin d in g s w ill be shared w ith th o se respondents wishing to know th e r e s u l t s . The completed study w ill provide v a lu ab le understanding about the p re s e n t s t a t u s o f community education in Michigan. For th o se o f us involved in th e p ro fessio n o f community education th e study w ill be very u s e f u l. Thank you again f o r your coo p eratio n . S in c e re ly , LeRoy Mabery, D ire c to r Lake Orion Community Education 141 APPENDIX F 142 APPENDIX F A pril 1, 1982 Dear Fellow Community Educator: Several weeks ago I mailed you a q u e s tio n n a ir e concerning community e d u catio n in Michigan. The study i s a s ta te -w id e study and i s p a r t o f my d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n . I have re c eiv e d r e tu r n s from 80 p e rc e n t o f th e community edu cation a d m in is tr a to r s in Michigan. The s tu d y , to be as a c c u ra te and r e l i a b l e as p o s s ib le , needs your o p in io n s . Your opinions w ill remain c o n f i d e n t i a l . I have enclosed a second copy o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e and need your s u p p o rt in f i l l i n g i t o u t. The q u e s tio n n a ir e should not ta k e more than 15-20 minutes o f your v a lu a b le time and i t would be g r e a t l y a p p re c ia te d i f you would complete i t and r e tu r n i t to me w ith in a week. I know your time i s v a lu a b le because being a fe llo w community ed u ca to r I know i t i s easy to la y a q u e s tio n n a ir e a s id e f o r your many jo b r e s p o n s i­ b i l i t i e s . However, i t would be g r e a t l y a p p re c ia te d i f you would ta k e some time to f i l l i t o u t and r e tu r n i t immediately. In case you did f i l l one o u t and a lre a d y re tu rn e d i t , p le a s e d is r e g a r d th is le tte r . S in c e re ly , LeRoy Mabery, D ire c to r Lake Orion Community Education 143 APPENDIX G APPENDIX 6 NON-SIGNIFICANT ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES TABLE 1 . —Research Q uestion: C hildren (K-12). An Educational Program f o r School Age Source D.F. SS MS F P Between Within Total 4 198 202 .3396 74.8820 75.2217 .0849 .3782 .225 .9245 TABLE 2. —Research Question: Use o f Community F a c i l i t i e s . Source D.F. SS MS Between Wi t h i n Total 4 198 202 .4995 38.1317 38.6312 .1249 .4248 .1926 TABLE 3. —Research Q uestion: dren and Youth. F .648 P .6286 A dditional Programs f o r School Age C h il­ Source D.F. SS MS F P Between Within Total 4 198 202 .9801 86.2872 87.2673 .2450 .4358 .562 .6903 F P .938 .4428 TABLE 4. —Research Q uestion: Programs f o r A dults. Source D.F. SS Between Within Total 4 198 202 1.0419 54.9666 56.0085 MS .2605 .2776 145 146 TABLE 5 . —Research Question: D elivery o f Community S e rv ic e s. Source D.F. SS MS Between Within Total 4 198 202 1.4964 72.0360 73.5224 .3741 .3638 TABLE 6 . - -Research Question: F 1.028 P .3937 Community Involvement. Source D.F. SS MS Between Within Total 4 198 202 2.7927 81.1815 83.9743 .6982 .4100 F 1.703 P .1508 APPENDIX H 147 APPENDIX H MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH ITEM I EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (K-12) COMPONENT II USE OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES COMPONENT I I I ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMPONENTS IV PROGRAM FOR ADULTS COMPONENTS V DELIVERY OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMPONENT 148 Item Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 2.716 2.481 2.251 2.585 2.569 2.320 2.346 2.418 1.649 2.980 2.531 3.510 3.483 2.024 2.740 2.904 2.404 2.937 1.817 2.837 3.010 2.875 2.961 3.832 3.391 3.660 2.860 2.966 2.754 2.788 2.707 2.635 2.860 2.159 2.768 3.088 2.855 2.178 2.913 .799 .834 1.012 .990 .956 .929 .771 .794 .967 .804 .762 .667 .622 .930 .932 .828 .938 .988 .854 .858 .892 .859 1.299 .602 .834 .618 .895 1.033 .826 .770 .826 .787 .779 .853 .779 .847 .847 .897 1.122 149 VI COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT COMPONENT SIX RANKINGS OF COMPONENTS SUPPORT QUESTIONS DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Item Mean S.D. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 3.005 2.082 2.779 2.639 2.481 2.591 2.438 3.587 2.476 3.655 2.626 3.869 4.767 2.947 4.120 4.019 2.779 2.725 4.356 1.962 1.933 1.846 1.971 5.469 2.625 2.822 2.322 2.298 2.707 1.638 1.918 2.904 2.438 2.560 1.824 .876 1.092 .828 .810 .862 .749 .796 1.482 1.208 1.446 2.039 1.406 1.440 1.539 1.500 1.441 1.337 2.004 1.490 .366 .251 .362 .239 1.666 1.405 1.435 1.215 1.281 1.230 .939 1.215 .556 .765 .922 .394 APPENDIX I 150 APPENDIX I X2 SCORES OF NON-SIGNIFICANT DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Respondents Raw Score Degrees of Freedom S ig n ific a n c e 203 Years of experience as Community Educa­ tio n D ire c to r 20.25529 20 .4421 203 Years o f experience as Community EducaD ire c to r in c u r r e n t d is tric t 20.18898 16 .2118 203 Years of experience 14.49637 working in community edu cation f i e l d 16 .5618 203 Major are as o f con­ 18.29168 c e n tr a ti o n in degree tr a i n i n g programs 12 .1071 203 Formal t r a in in g in community education 14.33230 12 .2800 203 Sex o f Community Education D ire c to r 8.56171 8 .3806 151