INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of 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 of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of 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 of the material being photographed, a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For 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 Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8415271 W e lls , L en n ie Lea BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN Ph.D. M ichigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1984 by Wells, Lennie Lea All Rights Reserved 1984 BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Lennie L. Wells A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1984 (&> Copyright by LENNIE L. WELLS 1984 ABSTRACT BUILDING LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS IN K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Lennie L. Wells In this study the researcher proposed to determine the type and degree of administrative computer applications by building administrators in the K-12 public schools of Oakland County, Michigan. Specifically, two questions were addressed by the researcher: Question 1 : What is the status of building-level administrative computer applications with respect to equip­ ment and functions in Oakland County's K-12 public schools? Question 2: What tasks do building administrators perform with respect to these computer applications? Descriptive methodology was used in the development of this research design. A survey instrument was used to collect information from school building administrators regarding they are computerized involved. administrative services with Frequency distributions were presentation of collected data. Additionally, which used for crosstabula­ tion was employed to discern response differences among the elementary, middle and high school administrative groups. The major findings were: The mainframe was the primary administrative com­ puting tool for Oakland County school principals. M a i n f r a m e s were used by 68.5% of the survey respondents. Statistical analysis indicated that specific com­ puter supported administrative services were directly related to the level of the building. Overall, no pupil personnel computer supported service was as frequently used as the most common clerical/utility function (mailing labels— 62.4%) or administrative reporting function (state report­ ing— 47.9%). The most frequent computing activity for Oakland County administrators was data collection (45.8%) while eighty-six respondents (40.4%) reported no involvement with administrative computing. Degree of participation in the computing process was found to be related to the administrator's building level. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................... v Chapter I II III IV INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y ..................... 1 Background ................................... Statement o£ the Problem ..................... Delimitations ............................... Design of the S t u d y ......................... Definitions of Terms ......................... Organization of the Study ................... 1 5 6 7 8 9 THE REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.......... 10 Historical Perspectives ..................... Current State ............................... F u t u r e ....................................... S u m m a r y ..................................... 10 17 23 26 DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ........................... 27 Source of Data and S a m p l e ................... Instrumentation ............................. Data C o l l e c t i o n ............................. Data A n a l y s i s ............................... Survey Instrument ........................... Summary ................................... 28 29 31 32 33 36 ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ........................... 37 Research Question 1 Research Question 2 S u m m a r y ..................................... 39 57 64 iii Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 65 S u m m a r y ..................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ................................. Recommendations ............................. 65 68 70 Appendix A ............................................ 72 Sample Letter to Data Processing Authority . . 73 Appendix B ............................................ 75 Letter of Transmittal ....................... Survey Instrument ........................... Follow-Up Postcard ........................... 76 77 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 80 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Frequency Distribution of Computing Function/ Computing Equipment Combinations (N=213) . . . 40 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Attendance Services (N=213) .( .............. 42 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Scheduling (N=213) ........................... 42 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle High Schools by Computer Supported Testing (N=213) 43 and Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Health Information (N=213) ................... 43 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle High Schools by Computer Supported Grade Reporting (N=213) 44 and Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Progress Reporting (N=213) ................... 44 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Transcript Maintenance (N=213) .............. 45 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Graduation Requirement Monitoring (N=213) 45 . . Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Class Rank Development (N= 2 1 3 ) .............. v 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported State Mandated Reporting (N=213) ............ 46 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Special Education Reporting (N=213).. ........ 47 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Vocational Education Reporting (N=213) . . . . 47 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Transportation Plan (N=213) ................. 48 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Lunch Program Reporting (N=213) ............ 48 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Student/ Staff Demographic Reporting (N=213) ........ 49 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Accounting Procedures (N=213) .............. 49 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Word Processing (N=213) ..................... 50 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Graphics Use (N=213) ......................... 50 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Mailing Label Preparation (N=213) .......... 51 Frequency Distribution for Categories of Administrative Computing Functions (N=213) . . 52 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Pupil Personnel Services (N=213) ............ 53 vi Table 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Additional Administrative Reporting (N=213) . 53 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Computer Supported Clerical/Utility (N=213) ..................... 54 Frequency Distribution for Types of Computing Equipment in Use (N=213) .......... 54 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Microcomputer Use (N=213) 55 . . Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Mainframe Use (N=213) . . . . 56 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by CRT Use (N=213)............... 56 Administrative Computing Tasks; Frequency Distribution— Survey Section I.E (N=212) . . . 58 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle High Schools by Administrative Data Collection (N=212) and 59 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle High Schools by Administrative Data Entry (N=212) and Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle High Schools by Administrative Data Retrieval (N=212) and 59 60 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Administrative Programming (N=212) 60 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Administrative Determination of Content and Format of Output (N=212) ... 61 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Administrative Data Transportation (N=212) ....................... 62 Administrative Level of Participation; Response Distribution (N=212) 62 vii Table 37 Crosstabulation of Elementary, Middle and High Schools by Level of Administrative Participation (N-212) ................. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Background Public school administrators face a daily challenge of data management. Indications are quite strong that extensive record keeping will continue and expand while administrators are expected to maintain and use information efficiently as well as effectively. Meanwhile, the growth of computer use in information processing is phenomenal. Today the suburbs of many large cities have among their common characteristics advanced technology. the seeming omnipresence of Operations of retail outlets, medical facilities, office buildings and classrooms are supported by increasing numbers of computers. Consequently, many employee groups have added some electronic data processing ability to their repertoire of skills. This expansion of computer applications includes tested programs specifically geared for school situations. Although educational institutions do not compare with busi­ ness and industry in their use of computer facilities, many 1 2 school administrators are actively involved with this tech­ nology. For those who are, computer literacy becomes crucial to job success. Some of the educational administrators currently using computers as a management tool have computing experi­ ences dating back to the 1960's. Originally supported by physically large, quite costly equipment, these applications now function with scaled down but similar equipment and/or much smaller, cheaper microcomputer systems. services which are being student attendance, Administrative facilitated by computers include grade reporting and scheduling in addi­ tion to preparation of numerous other school reports and correspondence. In this study the researcher attempted to determine the role computers currently play in assisting Oakland County public school administrators to meet their data man­ agement objectives. Oakland Schools school district for Oakland County) (the intermediate has had a long and stable computing history in the area of administrative sup­ port services. Since the early 1960's this regional center has offered computer facilitated services to Oakland County schools at both the district and building level. Originally joined in their software development efforts by Detroit Public Schools as well as Macomb and Wayne Intermediate School Districts, Oakland now supports its own system. educational management software known as R.A.M.S The (Remotely Accessible Management System) now services all 28 school 3 districts (191,274 students) in Oakland County. Thus, this county can function as an example of comparable sophistica­ tion to the nation's leaders in educational administrative data processing. Although studies exist of early efforts in educa­ tional administrative computing, level and type of use by school managers since 1976 is not well documented. Through previous studies in southeastern Michigan the status of specific administrative computing functions and the back­ ground of their administrative coordinator were determined. The Cayen study^ is of limited use now since it was con­ ducted in 1975. "microcomputer Administrators were surveyed prior explosion" tions for school computing. author refers that has had definite to the implica­ One educational administrator- to this phenomenon invasion" into the school system. as the "micro-technology He further states that microcomputer use has had, and will continue to have, implications for the practice of educational administration. Given current enrollment figures and financial conditions, the decision-making process in school districts is under constant scrutiny from many vantages. With smaller, more affordable and quite powerful computing equipment available ^-William F. Cayen, "Data Processing of Student Services and the Administrative Coordination in Selected High Schools of Michigan" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976) . D. G. Marshall, "The School Administrator and the Microcomputer," Education Canada, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Summer 1982, p. 4. 4 to school managers, their utilization of this resource is a topic worthy of study. Another suburban Detroit study3 addressed the educa­ tional puting. computing Not universe only was emphasizing the instructional computer use, study instructional targeted it also was nature of microcomputer use only. com­ primarily limited at to the Since eighty-one percent of the study participants acknowledged use of main frame computers as well, a description of educational administra­ tive computing was not addressed in the report. Given the studies cited above, characteristics of the two Michigan it is apparent that documentation con­ cerning the type and degree of building-level administrative computer functions would provide significant data which are currently unavailable for Oakland County. It is anticipated that this study could serve as a resource to the following groups in the manner noted: Prospective school administrators: This research can help these individuals better understand one administra­ tive function and their need to prepare for computer-related responsibilities. Central office administrators/Boards of education: Knowledge of this research can cause these individuals to recognize the importance of data processing experience/ 3"0akland Schools Instructional Computing Long Range Planning Opinion Survey," September 1981. 5 knowledge as a criterion £or building administrative candi­ dates. Survey results concerning current building adminis­ trative practices could also facilitate many comparative studies in which these groups frequently must engage prior to decision-making. Current building administrators; research, Through this current building administrators can become aware of data processing operations in other area schools. This awareness could lead to additional communication as well as consideration of other computer options to improve admini­ strative services. General public: Citizens can be updated on attempts by educational leaders to use technology for improved infor­ mation processing. Statement of the Problem In this study the researcher proposed to determine the type and degree of administrative computer applications by building administrators in the K-12 public schools of Oakland County, Michigan. Specifically, two questions were addressed by the researcher: Question 1: What is the status of building-level administrative computer applications with respect to equip­ ment and functions in Oakland County's K-12 public, schools? Question 2: What tasks do building administrators perform with respect to these computer applications? 6 In order to address these questions several assump­ tions were made by the researcher. It was first assumed that building administrative computer applications are a very active component of daily public school practice in Oakland County. This assumption was based on a review of related literature as well as contacts with public educators in different areas of the county. was used to gather data, Since a survey instrument another assumption was made. Responses to the survey used in this study were assumed to accurately reflect the state of administrative computer applications in the public schools surveyed. Delimitations It was the purpose of the researcher to determine educational administrative computing activity for only Oak­ land County. schools Therefore the study was limited to public in that geographical region. Likewise, the researcher intended to establish the types of functions that were computer supported as well as the degree to which administrators were receiving specific computer facilitated services. However, in this study the researcher any evaluation of the services performed. excluded Neither did the researcher compare various hardware and/or software in use by the building administrators surveyed. Finally, the researcher did not determine the status of computer-assisted or computer-related instruction in the schools surveyed. 7 Design of the Study Descriptive methodology was used in the development of this research design. According to Sowell and Casey descriptive methodology involves research methods that seek explanation and prediction as their goals, may use existing situations for data collection and do not involve manipula­ tion of variables. These authors add that careful measure­ ment of variables and appropriate interpretation of results are essential elements of descriptive methodology.^ A survey instrument was used to collect information from school building administrators regarding computerized administrative services with which they are involved. researcher used survey responses for The documentation of current educational administrative computing conditions. Additionally, survey results were used to draw conclusions and make recommendations regarding future computer applica­ tions by school managers. The survey instrument was mailed February 1, with a requested follow-up return date of February 15. correspondence terminate until May 17. and telephone Thus, interviews 1983, However, did not data for this study were collected during the period from February 1 through May 17, 1983. ^Evelyn J. Sowell and Rita J. Casey, Research M ethods in Education (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1982), p. 37. Definitions of Terms Building-level administrative computer application. For the purposes of this study any current, job-related use (excluding instruction/instructional management) of computer equipment by managers of individual schools. Cathode ray tube (CRT). An input/output device used to display information at many computer terminals. Central processing unit (CPU). The part of the com­ puter comprising primary storage, the arithmetic logic unit and control circuits. Data base management system (DBM). A software sys­ tem that stores information and manages its organization and access for all who use that set of related records. Main frame. Physically large computer with powerful computing capabilities that can control other computing sys­ tems. Main frame computers are associated with communica­ tion networks. Management information system agement system). A computer (or information man­ system designed to assist the management of a large enterprise. in Such a system allows for storing, retrieving and updating information as well as searching files and cross-referencing information on a given subject from different files. Microcomputer. The smallest computer system with a CPU which is designed for single users. 9 Network. A system in which several stand-alone computer systems are linked together through high speed com­ munication facilities. On-line. In direct communication with the processor (CPU). Off-line. A part of a computer system that is not under control of the central processor. An example would be punched cards which are transcribed to paper tape by means of an off-line "card-to-tape" machine. Organization of the Study In Chapter I the researcher has presented the intro­ duction to the study including a statement of the problem, delimitations, a brief overview of research design and defi­ nitions of terms. Chapter II contains a review of litera­ ture organized by the past, present and future as they relate to educational administrative computing. Chapter III outlines the methodology of the researcher including design of the study, instrumentation and analytic techniques. Chapter IV presents the findings with data analysis. Chap­ ter V contains the researcher's summary statement with con­ clusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II THE REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE In order to better understand and use the informa­ tion gathered in this dissertation, studied. These included books, many related works were periodicals, conference reports, other dissertations, and unpublished documents. Useful material described the history, current state or future of computer applications by and related training for educational administrators in the United States. A summary of literature reviewed is presented in this chapter with the intent of facilitating interpretation and application of data derived from the survey process. Historical Perspective Early efforts in educational administrative computer applications occurred in the 1960's when computer training related to education was limited and equipment was quite costly. The authors of Computers and Information Systems in Education noted, "As of the winter of 1964 no institution of higher learning offered a complete course of study for 10 11 professional specialization in educational data processing. Only a few colleges offer a single course or a summer work­ shop."^ required, As a result of the most projects were personnel and investment sponsored by state boards of education, intermediate school districts or universities rather than local school boards. many of Financial assistance for these data processing plans federal grants under was received from the National Defense Education Act (1958-1963) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). efforts Detailed below are some of the documented pioneer (1963-1967) in computer applications by and for educational administrators: State Cali­ fornia Iowa Project Title (C.E.I.S.) California Educational Information System Administrative _______ Services_____ California State Board of Education Student-At, G, S, Te (U.P.D.A.T.E.)State UniverUnlimited sity of Iowa Personnel & six school Data Through districts Automation Technology in Education (CARDPAC) Card Packet System KEY: Sponsor ing Group_____ Ac - Accounting At - Attendance Iowa University, Iowa City G - Grading S - Scheduling Student-Ac and research support Student-At, G, S Te - Testing Tr - Transportation Ijohn I. Goodlad, F. John O'Toole, and L. Louise Tyler, Computers and Information Systems in Education (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966), p. 30. 12 State Project Title Sponsoring Group Administrative _______ Services_____ Maryland Pupil Master Record System Massa­ chusetts (N.E.E.D.S.) Harvard New University England Education Data Systems Student-At, G, S, Te; some training of school personnel to apply the data pro­ cessing technology Michigan (I.E.I.S.) Integrated Education Information System Macomb, Oak­ land & Wayne Counties with Detroit Public Schools Student-At, G, S Minne­ sota (T.I.E.S.) Total Information Educational System MinneapolisSt. Paul Board of Education with a consor­ tium of subur­ ban districts Ac and Personnel Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (B.O.C.E.S.) Student-Ac, At, G, S, Te, Tr Lane Educational Service District Student-At, G, S, Te New York Oregon City Chicago, Illinois KEY: Ac At (O.T.I.S.) Oregon Total Information System Project Title (T.I.S.) Total Information System Accounting Attendance Montgomery County Schools Sponsoring Group____ Chicago Board of Education G - Grading S - Scheduling Student-Ac, G, S, Te Administrative _______ Services Student-Ac, S; research Te - Testing Tr - Transportation 13 Project Title City Sponsoring Group Administrative Services Lincoln, (A.D.M.I.R.E.)Lincoln Board Nebraska Assistance of Education for Decision Making Through Information Retrieval in Education Student-S Phila­ delphia, Pennsyl­ vania Philadelphia Board of Education Pupil data base Tacoma, Washington Tacoma Board of Education Student-S KEY: Ac At - Accounting Attendance G - Grading S - Scheduling Te - Testing Tr - Transportation These and other initial administrative computing efforts were so limited in number that Goodlad, O'Toole, and Tyler referred elaborated to them as "experimental." They further that by 1966 only about 300of the 30,000 public school districts in the U.S. used electronic accounting machines or computers. Those who used computer equipment did so primarily for business services such as payroll and budget preparation. Of twenty-seven sample data processing programs described in this book only eight attempted to integrate a variety of business and student services. Other examples demonstrated the strongest applications in business services (21/27) followed by and attendance respectively.2 2Ibid., pp. 28; 115-37. student scheduling, grading, 14 During these developmental stages of computer use by educational administrators, school managers were strongly encouraged to expand their knowledge and use of this rela­ tively new technology. In a lecture delivered at the Fall Joint Computer Conference, December 1965, Ralph Gerard chal­ lenged his audience of educators with the statement, We are rapidly raising a sea of information in which we must either swim or drown, and the way we must swim is by enhancing our problem solving resources through the new computer technology. Speaking at the same conference, James F. Blakesly concluded that: All phases of educational administration pertaining to the three most significant management functions, namely to plan, to execute, and to review, will be linked with the present and future use of c o m ­ puters. 3 As Executive Secretary of the American Association of School Administrators in 1967, Forrest Connor reflected, The uses of the computer and EDP (Educational Data Processing) in administration of public education are limited only by the imagination of professional educators. The time has come to stretch this cre­ ative potential.4 Attitudes reflected by this type of statement as well as verified successes in educational administrative computing and federal financial support resulted during the early to mid-seventies. Charted in growth below are O Yorks JComputers and Education, ed. Ralph W. Gerard McGraw Hill, 1967), pp. xx, 185. (New "EDP and the School Administrator" American Association of School Administrators (Washington, D.C., 1967), p. viii. 15 results of administrative user surveys which demonstrate the nature of this growth pattern. Year ________ Population Surveyed________ 1970 Secondary schools nationwide5 1975 1976 25-30% Nationwide study by American Institute for Research (A.I.R.) 30.5% Follow-up nationwide study by A.I.R.5 53.3% Random sample throughout U.S.7 58.2% All New Jersey public schools® 46.0% Massachusetts schools® 57.9% Secondary Illinois schools-*-® 49.0% The also was early to mid-seventies growth period marked by an increased rather Percentage Administrative Users than single interest purpose or in information systems report-by-report data 5Charles A. Darby et. al., The Computer in Secondary Schools (New Yorks Praeger Publishers, 1972), p. 22. 5J. Richard Dennis et. al., "Computer Activities in Secondary Illinois Schools," The Illinois Series on Educa­ tional Application of Computers, June, 1977, pp. 5-7. 7William J. Bukosi and Arthur L. Karotkin, "Comput­ ing Activities in Secondary Education," Educational Tech­ nology, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January, 1976, p. 18. ®Irwin A. Gaydos, Survey of New Jersey Public School Districts Using Computers and Data Entry Equipment, New Jersey State Department of Education, January, 1976, p. 5. Q Peter Oliver!, "Computer Usage Trends," S.I.G.C.U.E. Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 2, April, 1976, p. 16. 10Dennis et. al., op. cit., p. 11. 16 processing plans. modify the New York City bought and attempted to California system (C.E.I.S.) while Oakland Schools continued to upgrade the I.E.I.S. system originally shared with Macomb and Wayne counties. Oakland County's improved system was named R.A.M.S. Management System). (Remotely Accessible These efforts were indicative of the growing interest in data based management of public educa­ tion. Administrative training to use these data processing systems was primarily operated by individual project super­ visors. Documents describing the information systems stressed the importance of staff involvement and training.^ Details of the training, however were not specified. Results of Cayen's 1975 survey indicate that 39% of the responding Michigan school administrators ("data processing leaders") had received some computer-related pre-service training shops). (29.7% through universities; 9.3% through work­ After their data processing related job assignment this figure increased to 61% (through university training or in-service projects). training in the Following his study, Cayen emphasized first recommendation he offered: The establishment of programs of support and involvement of university personnel with public school personnel in the development of programs of instruction of both a technical and non-technical •^Raucher, S.M. and Masemore, G. L., "Educational Information Systems," Papers presented at the Association for Educational Data Systems Annual Convention, Phoenix, Arizona, May 1976. 17 orientation must be made to deal with the emerging technology and its relationship to education. This could be accomplished at the university level by requiring prospective school administrators to enroll in a data processing experience. 2 Both use of and training for computers in education expanded significantly during the period represented by the literature reviewed in this section. Prom the early sixties to mid-seventies computer-facilitated school management grew from a subject for limited experimental studies to a widely accepted and utilized educational practice. Current State Currently, educational administrative computer applications are centered in two spheres of activity. Con­ tinuing from growth and successes in the seventies, main frame information management systems provide crucial support for administrative practice in many school districts. wise, Like­ single purpose and report-by-report computer users still exist in the educational administrative community. Some of these administrators, however, are using microcom­ puter technology to enchance or substitute for mainframe capabilities. Specific examples of mainframe-based information management Oregon, systems Minnesota, 12Cayen, presently operational and Oakland County, op. cit., pp. 96, are Michigan. 98, 160. those in O.T.I.S. 18 (Oregon), Management Information Services Division (Minne­ sota), and R.A.M.S. II (Michigan) all provide administrative support services to a variety of users throughout their respective employed geographical in these r e p o rting finances, strong systems information and support systems. regions. facilities. to these are The powerful storing, concerning Current exemplary mainframes comparing, pupils, personnel, literature offers information and some management Writing concerning "Education in a Postindustrial Society," Orrin Hatch makes the comment, A postindustrial society is one that is organized around information and the codification of informa­ tion in very complex systems and the use of that information in guiding government, employers, and the public-at-large. Likewise, notes another U.S. Department of Education document that. Today we find ourselves with the biggest problems and the best solutions. The U.S. has suddenly become an information society in which on-line computers are becoming the predominant mode of information delivery. Sharing computerized data banks allows managers to have immediate access to large stores of information which cut across a wide system of organizations. 4 l^Orrin g . Hatch, "Education in a Postindustrial Society," American Education, U.S. Office of Education, Vol. xvill. No. 5, June, 1982, p. 4. •^Mary E. Moran, "Improving Schools Through Private Sector Partnerships," American Education, U.S. Department of Education, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January/February 1983, pp. 7-8. 19 Very recently microcomputer-based However, to-date, software has information been developed management for systems.^ such systems for educational administra­ tion have gone largely unexplored. Currently, educational administrative microcomputer programs are designed primarily to perform one function such as scheduling, grade reporting.1® attendance, or Even without the benefits of a manage­ ment system approach, these and other needs of school admin­ istrators can be serviced through microcomputer technology. With literally hundreds of microcomputer programs available that promise to ease the task of student management,17 educators may soon echo the enthusiasm of microcomputer users in business and industry. One office executive claims that the new microcom­ puters will "reshape the office of the 1980's becoming essential tools for the professional."1® An indicator of this range of usefulness is the worldwide microcomputer sales record of 6.1 billion dollars in 1982. This impres­ sive figure is expected to climb to an even more impressive 1®Edgar Coudal, "Managers Computerize to Organize with DBM," Personal Computing, Vol. VI, No. 8, August, 1982, p. 112. 1®Kenneth Jones and Thomas Dukes, "Microcomputers in School Administrative Management," Education Technology, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, March 1983, pp. 38-9. 17Stanley Pogrow, "Microcomputerizing Your Paper­ work," Electronic Learning, Vol. II, No. 2, October 1982, p. 20 . 1®Cary Lu, "Microcomputers: The Second Wave," High Technology, Vol. II, No. 5, September/October 1982, p. 36. 20 21 billion dollars by 1986.^ response of business The overwhelmingly positive managers attributed to its power, to the portability, microcomputer and price. is These three factors allow microcomputers to operate with respect to the needs, Through interests, and abilities of individual users. this process some authors think the microcomputer has effectively shifted computing power from the priesthood (data processing managers) to the people ("non-technical" managers) and is "catalyzing an overhaul in this country's work habits."20 To what extent school administrators are employing microcomputer technology is not well documented. Seventy- seven percent of the respondents to Antoinette Burke's dis­ sertation survey reported use of microcomputers in their southeastern Michigan K-12 schools. Only one to ten percent (varying by application and building level) of the respond­ ents reported administrative microcomputer use, however.2^ In spite of a business environment which claims that "the most effective mid- and top-level managers are those who are ^ C a r y Lu, "The Coming Shakeout in Personal C o m ­ puters," Business Week, November 22, 1982, No. 2766, p. 72. 20Jeffrey Rothfeder, "Get Ready For Prime-Time Play­ ing," Personal Computing, April 1982, Vol. VI, No. 4, p. 267. ^ A n t o i n e t t e Burke, "Microcomputer Technology in Public Schools in Southeastern Michigan" (Ph.D. disserta­ tion, Wayne State University, 1983) pp. 50 and 56. 21 not intimidated by the new technology,"22 many school admin­ istrators are, i£ not intimidated, at least uninformed and untrained where microcomputer applications are concerned.23 The current literature strongly indicates that a match does not exist between present computer technology and computer utilization by school administrators. Several methods are suggested for achieving this match. As pre­ viously mentioned, Jones and Dukes think one answer lies in the improvement of school-oriented systems for microcomputers.24 information management Others insist that both main­ frame and microcomputer technology must be utilized in a complementary fashion to provide optimum services for educa­ tional administrators.23 An example of this type of use is the Management Information Services Division of M.E.C.C. (Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium) which provides both microcomputer and mainframe supported administrative 26 services.1 50 Regardless of equipment utilization, that educators are being challenged to it is obvious appropriately 22Jane Carroll, "Computing Literacy: Springboard to Success," Personal Computing, September 1982, Vol. VI, No. 9, p. 45. 23Jones and Dukes, op. cit., p. 39. 24Ibid., p. 38. O C ^Interview with Dr. Rex Wood, ent— Oakland Schools, April 13, 1983. Deputy Superintend­ 23Kenneth E. Brumbaugh, "MECC: A Statewide Model for Educational Computing," Computers in Curriculum and Instruction, ASCD, 1983, pp. 64-73. 22 computerize their administrative work. Toward an end of producing the best quality service at the least possible cost they are compelled to apply computer technology to educational problem solving. Authors of one article even offer Ten Commandments for Successful Information Management to increase administrative effectiveness via the computer The Ten Commandments for Successful Information Management 1. Use timely, accurate data: Don't let today's reports use yesterday's data. 2. Employ adequate center. 3. Learn about computing yourself: Good decisions are made by informed administrators. 4. Inform the community and board of any new informational processes that are being planned. 5. Promote staff development in computer literacy. 6. Use 7. Forge a direct linkage between generated information and administrative planning. 8. Choose reliable hardware and software with good maintenance agreements. 9. Be flexible in both outlook and thinking. 10. staffing serious statistics for of your serious computer decisions. Have a vision: A computer is no panacea, but it can help in ways you haven't even dreamed about yet. ^ D r . George A. Libonate, Jr. and Dr. Jonathan T. Hughes, "The Administratively Effective School District: The Role of the Computer," Educational Computer Magazine, Vol. II, No. 4, July/August 1982, pp. 90-2. 23 D. G. Marshall describes the educational adminis­ trator's present situation with several "Points." Point Is The increased volume of information available to educational decision-makers will result in the need for new skills in information retrieval and demands for rationality in decision-making. Point 2: The advent of the micro age will lead to decentralization in school decisionmaking. Point 3: School administrators have a responsi­ bility to develop the computer literacy skills required to make purchasing and application decisions. Point 4: An increase in public awareness of com­ puter capabilities will lead to public expectations that school administrators will be freed from the drudgery of school management and will Jxave more time to be educational leaders. B Thought provoking statements such as these add impetus to the study of educational administrative computing. Are predictions accurate that there will be more and better utilization of this tors? technology by educational administra­ Indeed, will computing activity be a means toward the end of increased administrative involvement in educational leadership? Only time ("the future") will tell. Future Few authors offer a view into the crystal ball for educational administrative computer use. When the subject ^®D. G. Marshall, "The School Administrator and the Microcomputer," Education Canada, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Summer 1982, pp. 4-11. 24 of future administrative applications is discussed, it is primarily treated as a function of public attitudes and/or technological advancement. Expectations are that the pub­ lic's demand for more information and a better decision­ making process will lead to increased reliance on computers. This situation and the anticipated advancements in micro­ computer technology (continually decreasing price/increasing productivity) result in positive reports regarding growth of computer applications by educational administrators.^ Lending credence to the projections for increased use of this technology are recent predictions by Ben Rosen. In an interview hypothesizes as with Personal Computing magazine he f o llo w s :^ - By the 1990's microcomputers will be the largest part of the computing industry and will "eclipse" mainframes. - Less skilled people will be increasingly more capable of using microcomputers due to their extra processing power. - More networking of computers will occur in large corporations allowing users to communicate with each other as well as share data bases and expensive peripherals. - Integrated software will be developed and improved for microcomputers. Specific implications of these predictions are unclear where educational administrators are concerned. Does networking 29 See Marshall, op. cit., pp. 7-8; Jones and Dukes, op. cit., p. 39; Libonate and Hughes, op. cit., pp. 10, 12. Personal Computing Interview with Ben Rosen," Personal Computing, Vol. VI, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 28, 29, 98, 101. 25 large corporate settings imply networking within or even among school districts? Can integrated microcomputer soft­ ware packages replace mainframe systems? information management What training will be required for systems which are predicted to require less and less "skill?" these questions are an integral part of Answers to the future of computer applications by educational administrators. In addition to the aforementioned incentives, some authors note encumbrances to growth of administrative com­ puter applications. traditional The two emphasized stumbling blocks are inertia in any change process trained personnel to facilitate the change. employees are expected to be major and of Mainframe-loyal contributors inertia factor in instances where microcomputer is attempting lack to the technology to replace its more costly predecessor.^1 Likewise, employees must be trained to a level of awareness and skill necessary to insure appropriate implementation of advanced technology. Whether this set of workers exist, especially in the educational community, cern. As one group of writers summarized, problem we face is educating ourselves. fer the vision of will is a con­ "The major Educators who pre­ the computer literate school must start educating themselves. ^Christopher Evans, The Micro Millenium Washington Square Press, 1979), pp. 65, 111. (New York: 32peter cobwin et. al.. Practical Guide to Computers in Education (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 183. 26 Summary In Chapter II the researcher presented a review of literature concerning the history, current state or future of computer applications by and related training for educa­ tional administrators. Pioneer administrative computing efforts were noted in addition to documentation of growth during the 1970's. Current mainframe as well as microcom­ puter use by school managers are described and contrasted. The chapter concludes by targeting factors which will affect future administrative computing needs and equipment utiliza­ tion. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study is an example of descriptive research. It can be classified as a population (census) survey using descriptive techniques to report primary data gathered by a questionnaire. According to definition, descriptive research deals with the real world setting without manipula­ tion by the researcher. tions based This type of study involves ques­ in the present status of affairs which have implications beyond the limits of the elements studied. Use of descriptive methodology allows the researcher not only to provide information but also to interpret present condi­ tions. This interpretation takes the form of conclusions drawn through identification or comparison of relationships within the collected data.^ The author of this study chose descriptive method­ ology as the appropriate vehicle to explain current adminis­ trative computing practice in public schools of Oakland ■^Charles D. Hopkins, E d u c a t i o n al Research? A Structure for Inquiry (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1976), pp. 135-171. 27 28 County Michigan. This study of existing conditions gener­ ates knowledge and establishes a climate for predictions regarding school administrative computing practices. Raw dataf generated knowledge and predictions are offered with the intent of contributing to improvement of these computer applications by school administrators. Source of Data and Sample Three hundred three building principals were asked to respond to the survey questionnaire. were principals County, Michigan. of all K-12 public Those contacted schools in Oakland This county was selected for study due to the type and level of educational administrative computing activity occurring in the area. Oakland School's data processing department has a stable history dating to the R.A.M.S. administrative software early 1960's. Oakland's is currently used to some degree by all twenty-eight school districts in the county. These districts serve almost two hundred thousand students (159,030 of whom are on-line with the county Additionally, facility). three school districts within the county sup­ port their own mainframe based computer systems while sev­ eral districts operate with very few computer services (testing and/or facilitated special education only). Oakland County school administrators have employed or coexisted with computer facilitated management as long as administrators in 29 any geographical researcher region of elected the nation. to study Consequently, the this area as an example of active educational administrative data processing. Instrumentation The survey instrument used in this study was prepared by the researcher with assistance and review by the following individuals: Richard H. Bergman — Director of Data Processing, Milwaukee Public Schools B e n j a m i n L. J o n e s -- M a n a g e r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Services, Oregon Total Information System Gary Kueber — Director Computer Orleans Public Schools Services, New Alan T. Olkes — Executive Director Management Information Services, Dade County (Florida) Public Schools Stephen M. Raucher — Director Department of Man­ agement Information and Computer Services, Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools Jim Sweet — Director Data Processing, XX, San Antonio, Texas Dr. ESC-Region George Grisdale, Assistant Director, ments and Guidance, Oakland Schools Measure­ Dr. William Veitch — Assistant Director, Research and Evaluation, Oakland Schools Selected members, Student Information Management S y s t e m (S.I.M.S.) C o m m i t t e e , Troy School District Selected members, Chapter Phi Delta Kappa, Oakland County 30 The six men whose names begin the list are authori­ ties in the field of educational administrative computing. They were named by at least three resource people and/or documents as recognized respected in this leaders field. whose opinions were well Each authority was contacted by telephone to request input regarding the computer checklist portion of the survey instrument. services A follow-up letter and draft of the checklist were then mailed to each of these individuals (see Appendix A). Written comments were received from all six and the checklist was modified to reflect this input. Dr. Grisdale and Dr. Veitch repeatedly reviewed the total survey content and format for clarity of questions and precision of information to be collected. Their experience with the survey process proved extremely valuable in final­ izing the document used for data collection in this study. Members of the Troy School District S.I.M.S. Commit­ tee and Oakland County Phi Delta Kappa Chapter examined the questionnaire for appropriateness of terminology and reason­ ableness of response time. Their comments were helpful in abbreviating and streamlining the tool eventually used for data collection. Preparation of late September 1982. the survey instrument was begun in The review processs described in the preceding paragraphs was completed in mid-January 1983. 31 Data Collection Data for this study were collected through use of a survey instrument mailed to 303 public school principals in Oakland County, Michigan. Surveys were mailed February 1, 1983 with a requested return date of no later than February 15, 1983. Follow-up post cards were mailed to all survey participants February 8. the principals returned Since only fifty-five percent of the survey by the requested date, telephone calls were made to ninety-one administrators in an attempt to improve the response rate. between March 1 and March 15. These calls were made An additional survey instru­ ment and cover letter were sent to each principal who needed them. This third set of correspondence included a personal note referring to the telephone contact. By March 31, two hundred thirteen completed surveys had been returned to the researcher. Charted below is the survey distribution and rate of return. Building Level Number Mailed Number Returned Percentage Returned 64 % 200 128 Middle 62 48 77.4% High 41 37 90.2% 303 213 Elementary TOTAL 70 % In order to have computer facilitated data analysis, answers to survey items were coded for entry into a data file. The coding system enployed was verified by the 32 Supervisor of Data Processing for Troy School District as well for as the Assistant Director of Research and Evaluation Oakland researcher survey answers Schools. engaged this coding process, the in telephone interviews with forty-four respondents given by During to these assure proper individuals. interpretation Telephone of interviews were completed May 17. Data Analysis Two research questions were identified in Chapter I of this study. The research questions and their related survey items are as follows. Research Question 1 What is the status of building-level administrative computer applications with respect to equipment and functions in Oakland County's K-12 public schools? Related survey items — The Administrative Services Checklist (see next page) was used to collect data regarding administrative computing equipment and functions. The purpose of this section was to dis­ criminate between microcomputer and mainframe users as well as to designate the specific administrative services which were computer supported for each respondent. Treatment of data — The six columns of the check­ list w e r e c o l l a p s e d into three through the researcher's coding system. Columns 1 and 2 were fused to reflect microcomputer use (whether inhouse or out). Responses to columns 3 and 6 were combined to designate any type of mainframe support (whether in-district or through the intermediate school district). Cathode ray tube use of any type was documented through columns 4 and 5. Thus the n i n e t e e n p o s s i b l e c o m p u t i n g a c t i v i t i e s each received three codes (yes/no) as to microcomputer, mainframe and CRT support. Frequency distributions were then compiled for each computing activity/ equipment combination (57 in total). 33 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CHECKLIST Below Is a 11st of administrative services/activities which may occur 1n schools with or w i th out c o m p u t e r assistance. Please respond 1n terms of your building and the services/activities with which you are Involved. PUPIL PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS Attendance Schedule Creation/Maintenance Testing Health/Emergency Information Grade Reporting M1d-mark1ng Period Progress Reporting Transcripts Graduation Requirements Creating Class Rank, Low Grade, Failure and/or Honor Roll Lists 1. InHouse Micro­ computer Assisted? YES NO [] [] [] [] [] [] [] □ [] [] [] □ [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] □ [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING State Mandated Membership Reports Special Education Vocational Education Transportation School Lunch Program Student/Staff Demographic Reports Accounting, Billing, Purchasing [] [] [] [] [] [] C3 □ □ [] [] [] □ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] CLERICAL/UTILITY FUNCTIONS Word Processing Graphics (charts, drawings, etc.) Mailing Labels □ [] [] [] □ [] [] [] [] [] [] □ □ [] [] [] C3 [] [3 [] [] [] □ [] 4. Cathode Ray Tubes (Display Screens) 1n House? YES NO 6. In District Computer System? YES NO YES NO [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 □ □ [3 □ [3 [3 [3 □ [] [] [] [] [] [] 5. Cathode Ray Tubes 1n Another Facility? □ [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [] [] [3 C3 [3 [3 □ [] [] [] [] [3 [3 □ [] [] [] [] [] [] □ [] [] [] [] 1— 1 L— 1 □ [] [] □ [] [] [] [] 2. Assisted 3. On Line by Micro­ with computer 1n Another I.S.D.? Facility? YES NO YES NO □ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] □ □ [] [] [] [] [] □ [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] [] □ [] □ [] □ [3 C3 [] [3 □ PLEASE LIST ANY OTHER COMPUTER ASSISTED ACTIVITY IN WHICH YOU ENGAGE AND RESPOND TO THE SIX QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT FUNCTION: □ [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 34 Two other frequency distributions were tabulated using responses to the Administrative Services Checklist. These included a breakdown of responses according to the three categories of computing f unc t i o n (Pupil Personnel, Administrative Reporting, Clerical/Utility). A respondent was counted as active in a category if there was a yes answer to any function in that category (e.g.. Scheduling within Pupil Personnel). These caluclations were done to determine whether computing a c t i v i t y was p r e d o m i n a n t in any p a r t i c u l a r category. The third frequency distribution was for the three types of e q u i p m e n t in use by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e respondents (microcomputer, mainframe, CRT). Any use of a p i e c e of e q u i p m e n t c a t e g o r i z e d the respondent as a user for purposes of this distribu­ tion (e.g., word processing with a microcomputer = microcomputer user). This frequency distribution was prepared to determine the number of users for each type of computing equipment regardless of the degree of use. Additionally, data were analyzed by crosstabulation to determine if responses differed among the ele­ mentary, middle school and high school administra­ tive groups. Tables prepared and reported included crosstabulation of - each computing function by elementary, and high school levels middle - three categories of computing functions elementary, middle and high school levels - type of computing equipment middle and high school levels. by by elementary, Research Question 2 What tasks do building administrators perform with respect to these computer applications? Related survey items — Survey Section I.E was used to collect information regarding type of adminis­ trative participation in computing activities. 35 As the administrator responsible for building data processing services, in which of the following activities do you engage? (Check as many as apply) ( ) Data Collection ( ( ) Data Entry ( ( ) Data Retrieval ( ) Programming ( ( Determination of content and format for computer output Transportation of Raw Data Other___________________ None Treatment of data — Each administrative activity was coded separately for a yes/no response. Fre­ quency distributions were then compiled for each type of administrative participation in the comput­ ing function. Categories of administrative parti­ cipation were then defined and frequency distribu­ tions were compiled for each category. The four categories of administrative participation were defined as follows: non-participant — administrative respondent who indicated no participation in any computing activity in survey section I.E. transmitter — administrative respondent who indicated participation in data collection or transportation only technician — administrative respondent who indicated p a r t i c i p a t i o n in data entry or retrieval (without programming or determination of output content/format) decision-maker — administrative respondent who indicated participation in programming or determination of content and format of output Data were then analyzed by crosstabulation to determine if responses differed among the elemen­ tary, middle school and high school administrative groups. Tables prepared and reported included crosstabulation of - each administrative task by elementary, middle and high school levels - administrative participation category elementary, middle and high school levels by 36 Summary This regarding study was building-level designed to provide administrative information computer applica­ tions in the K-12 public schools of Oakland County, gan. Data regarding computing equipment, Michi­ functions and administrative participation were collected through the use of a survey mailed February 1, 1983 to 303 principals of Oakland County public schools. Frequency distributions were used for presentation of collected data. Additionally, crosstabulation was employed to discern response differences among the elementary, middle and high school administrative groups. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Data obtained from responses to the administrative computing survey were analyzed by the researcher. The pur­ pose of the analysis was to answer two research questions identified in Chapter I of this dissertation. - What is the status of building-level admin­ istrative computer applications with respect to e q u i p m e n t and functions in Oak l a n d County's K-12 public schools? - What tasks do building administrators per­ form with respect to these computer applica­ tions? Analysis of data was organized according to the research question to which the data pertain. relating to computing equipment and function Thus, data (Question 1) are presented first and are followed by data concerning administrative computing tasks (Question 2). Supportive tables included are as follows: Research Question 1 Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Com­ puting Function/Equipment Com­ binations 37 38 Tables 2-20 Crosstabulation Summary Tables for Each Computing Function by Elementary, Middle and High School Levels* Table 21 F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n for Categories of Administrative Computing Functions Tables 22-24 Crosstabulation Summary Tables for Three Categories of Comput­ ing Functions by Elementary, Middle and High School Levels* Table 25 F r e q u e n c y D i s t r i b u t i o n for Types of Computing Equipment Tables 26-28 Crosstabulation Summary Tables for C o m p u t i n g E q u i p m e n t by Elementary, Middle and High School Levels* Research Question 2 Table 29 Frequency Distribution of Responses to Administrative Computing Tasks Tables 30-35 Crosstabulation Summary Tables for Each Administrative Comput­ ing Task by Elementary, Middle and High School Levels* Table 36 Frequency Distribution of Administrative Computing Parti­ cipation Categories Table 37 Crosstabulation Summary Table for Four Categories of Adminis­ trative Participation by Elementary, Middle and High School Levels* * Chi square was employed to examine relationships between variables reported in the crosstabulation summary tables 39 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 The Administrative Services Checklist (see page 33) was used to collect data regarding administrative computing equipment and functions. The researcher used these data to discriminate between microcomputer well as to designate which were computer and mainframe users as the specific administrative services supported for each survey respondent. Table 1 displays the frequency distribution of checklist responses according to each computing function and the type of equipment used to support the function. With respect to computing equipment, clearly indicate the dominance of the figures mainframes over computers for educational administrative services. computer users varied by application from one micro­ Micro­ (0.5%) to twenty-five (11.7%) while mainframe users ranged from thir­ teen (6.1%) to one-hundred twenty-one (56.8%). CRT's facil­ itated mainframe users for each function named. of CRT users varied, however, The level from two (0.9%) to forty-nine (23%) of the respondents. Review of Table 1 figures also revealed the nature of the computing activity supported Microcomputer use was heaviest graphics (7.5%), mailing labels by this equipment. in word processing (7.0%), (6.1%), and financial accounting (5.6%). student (11.7%), attendance Mainframe users employed their equipment most frequently for mailing labels (56.8%), state reports (45.1%), financial accounting (38%), FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF COMPUTING FUNCTION/COMPUTING EQUIPMENT COMBINATIONS (N=213) Microcomputc:r Supported Yes Pupil/Personnel Attendance Scheduling Testing Health Grading Progress Reporting Transcripts Graduation Requirements Class Rank/Low Grade Additional Administrative Reporting State Reports Special Education Vocational Education Transportation Lunch Program Student/Staff Demographics Accounting Clerical/Utility Word Processing Graphics Mailing Labels Mainframe Supported CRT Suf(ported No Yes No 200 (93.9X) 203 (95.3*) 73 (34.3X) 77 (36.2*) 140 (65.7X) 136 (63.8X) 32 (15.OX) 181 (85.OX) 49 (23.OX) 164 (77.OX) 11 ( 5.2X) 202 (94.8X) 78 (36.6X) 135 (63.4X) 14 ( 6.6X) 199 (93.4*) 9 ( 4.2X) 204 (95.8X) 26 (12.2*) 187 (87.8X) 19 ( 8.9X) 194 (91.7X) 8 ( 3.8X) 205 (96.2*) 69 (32.4X) 144 (67.6X) 45 (21.IX) 168 (78.9X) 6 ( 2.8X) 207 (97.2*) 172 (80.8X) 173 (81.2*) 25 (11.7X) 188 (88.3X) 13 ( 6.IX) 10 ( 4.7X) Yes No 4 ( 1.9*) 209 (98.IX) 41 (19.2X) 40 (18.8X) 25 (11.7X) 188 (88.3X) 3 { 1.4X) 210 (98.6X) 17 ( 8.OX) 196 (92.OX) 11 ( 5.2X) 202 (94.8X) 3 ( 1.4X) 210 (98.6X) 56 (26.3X) 157 (73.7X) 30 (14.1*) 183 (85.9X) 7 { 3.3X) 9 ( 4.2X) 206 (96.7X) 96 (45.IX) 117 (54.9X) 33 (15.5X) 180 (84.5X) 204 (95.8X) 67 (31.5X) 146 (68.5X) 20 ( 9.4X) 193 (90.6X) 211 (99.IX) 208 (97.7X) 30 (14.IX) 50 (23.5X) 183 (85.9X) 12 ( 5.6X) 163 (76.5X) 9 ( 4.2X) 201 (94.4X) 204 (95.8X) 212 (99.5X) 200 (93.9X) 2 ( 0.9X) 211 (99.IX) 2 ( 0.9X) 5 ( 2.3X) 1 ( 0.5X) 3 ( 1.4X) 210 (98.6X) 13 ( 6.IX) 59 (27.7X) 154 (72.3X) 21 ( 9.9X) 192 (90.IX) 12 ( 5.6X) 201 (94.4X) 81 (38.OX) 132 (62.OX) 18 ( 8.5X) 195 (91.5*) 25 (11.7X) 16 ( 7.5X) 188 (88.3X) 31 (14.6*) 182 (85.4X) 16 ( 7.5X) 197 (92.5*) 197 (92.5X) 13 ( 6.IX) 200 (93.9X) 2 ( 0.9X) 211 (99.IX) 15 ( 7.0%) 198 (93.OX) 121 (56.8X) 92 (43.2X) 31 (20.3X) 182 (79.7X) TABLE 1 41 student testing levels of CRT (21.1%), state (36.6%), and scheduling (36.2%). use were reports for scheduling (15.5%), The higher (23.0%), attendance grading (15.0%), and mailing labels (20.3%). Of additional interest to the researcher was the difference in answers administrators from to a given checklist category the same district and building level. Within many districts both interviews by survey responses and telephone indicated widely varying levels of computer awareness and/or use among members of the same administra­ tive group. pals and This was especially true of elementary princi­ contradicted the researcher's expectation for similarity at given building levels within a district. Responses to the Administrative Services Checklist were also used to determine whether a relationship existed between the building level an administrator represented and the computer supported services the administrator received. Tables 2-20 show crosstabulation summaries for each comput­ ing function by the administrator’s building level. The chi square test of independence was employed at the .05 signifi­ cance level for all crosstabulations. Fifteen of the nineteen tables indicate a relation­ ship between whether an administrator's building is an ele­ mentary, middle or high school and the computer services which the administrator's building receives. In these tables the level of participation increases significantly as the building level changes from elementary to middle to high 42 school. Data analyses for participation in testing, trans­ portation, lunch program and graphics do not reflect such a relationship. CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED ATTENDANCE SERVICES (N=213) Yes No Row Total Elementary 30 (23.4%) 98 (76.6%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 29 (60.4%) 19 (39.6%) 48 (22.5%) High School 24 (64.9%) 13 (35.1%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 83 (39.0%) 130 (61.0%) D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 32.69984 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000* TABLE 2 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED SCHEDULING ________________________ (N=213)_____________________ ___ Row Total Yes No Elementary 16 (12.5%) 112 (87.5%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 38 (79.2%) 10 (20.8%) 48 (22.5%) High School 35 (94.6%) 2 (5.4%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 89 (41.8%) 124 (58.2%) Chi-Square = 115.12290 D.F. = 2 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000* TABLE 3 * Levels of significance fourth decimal place were calculated only to the 43 CROSSTABULATION OP ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED TESTING (N=213) No Yes Row Total Elementary 49 (38.3%) 79 (61.7%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 23 (47.9%) 25 (52.1%) 48 (22.5%) High School 13 (35.1%) 24 (64.9%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 85 (39.9%) 128 (60.1%) Significance = 0.4114 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 1. 77650 213 (100.0%) TABLE 4 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED HEALTH INFORMATION (N=213) Yes No ROW Total Elementary 13 (10.2%) 115 (89.8%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 11 (22.9%) 37 (77.1%) 48 (22.5%) High School 14 (37.8%) 23 (62.2%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 38 (17.8%) 175 (82.2%) Chi-Square = 16.09473 D.F. = 2 TABLE 5 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0003 44 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY , MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED GRADE REPORTING (N=213) Yes No Row Total Elementary 10 (7.8%) 118 (92.2%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 34 (70.8%) 14 (29.2%) 48 (22.5%) High School 33 (89.2%) 4 (10.8%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 77 (36.2%) 136 (63.8%) Chi-Square = 114.64128 D.F. = 2 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000 TABLE 6 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPORTED PROGRESS REPORTING (N=213) Yes No Row Total 7 (5.5%) 121 (94.5%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 21 (43.8%) 27 (56.3%) 48 (22.5%) High School 22 (59.5%) 15 (40.5%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 50 (23.5%) 163 (76.5%) Elementary Chi-Square = 60.75714 D.F. = 2 TABLE 7 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000 45 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED TRANSCRIPT MAINTENANCE (N=213) Yes Row Total No 4 (3.1%) 124 (96.9%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 17 (35.4%) 31 (64.6%) 48 (22.5%) High School 23 (62.2%) 14 (37.8%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 44 (20.7%) 169 (79.3%) Elementary Significance = 0.0000 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 69.27327 213 (100.0%) TABLE 8 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPORTED GRADUATION REQUIREMENT MONITORING (N=213) Yes Row Total No Elementary 4 (3.1%) 124 (96.9%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 6 (12.5%) 42 (87.5%) 48 (22.5%) High School 12 (32.4%) 25 (67.6%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 22 (10.3%) 191 (89.7%) Chi-Square = 26.93409 D.F. = 2 TABLE 9 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000 46 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED CLASS RANK DEVELOPMENT (N=213) Yes No Row Total 8 (6.3%) 120 (93.8%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 25 (52.1%) 23 (47.9%) 48 (22.5%) High School 28 (75.7%) 9 (24.3%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 61 (28.6%) 152 (71.4%) Elementary Significance = 0.0000 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 84.35995 213 (100.0%) TABLE 10 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED STATE MANDATED REPORTING (N=213) Yes No ROW Total Elementary 41 (32.0%) 87 (68.0%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 31 (64.6%) 17 (35.4%) 48 (22.5%) High School 30 (81.1%) 7 (18.9%) 37 (17.4%) 102 (47.9%) 111 (52.1%) Column Total Chi-Square = 34.59335 D.F. = 2 TABLE 11 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000 47 CROSSTABULATION OP ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED SPECIAL EDUCATION REPORTING (N=213) Yes Row Total No Elementary 34 (26.6%) 94 (73.4%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 22 (45.8%) 26 (54.2%) 48 (22.5%) High School 17 (45.9%) 20 (54.1%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 73 (34.3%) 140 (65.7%) D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 8..46390 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0145 TABLE 12 CROSSTABULATION OP ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED VOCATIONAL EDUCATION REPORTING (N=213) Yes Row Total NO Elementary 7 (5.5%) 121 (94.5%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 9 (18.8%) 39 (81.3%) 48 (22.5%) High School 15 (40.5%) 22 (59.5%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 31 (14.6%) 182 (85.4%) Chi-Square = 29.26755 D.F. = 2 TABLE 13 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0000 48 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED TRANSPORTATION PLAN (N=213) Row Total No Yes Elementary 29 (22.7%) 99 (77.3%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 13 (27.1%) 35 (72.9%) 48 (22.5%) High School 13 (35.1%) 24 (64.9%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 55 (25.8%) 158 (74.2%) Significance = 0.3035 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 2..38506 213 (100.0%) TABLE 14 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED LUNCH PROGRAM REPORTING (N=213) No Yes ROW Total Elementary 6 (4.7%) 122 (95.3%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 3 (6.3%) 45 (93.8%) 48 (22.5%) High School 5 (13.5%) 32 (86.5%) 37 (17.4%) 14 (6.6%) 199 (93.4%) Column Total Chi-Square = 3.65163 D.F. = 2 TABLE 15 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.1611 49 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED STUDENT/STAFF DEMOGRAPHIC REPORTING (N=213) No Yes Row Total Elementary 28 (21.9%) 100 (78.1%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 15 (31.3%) 33 (68.8%) 48 (22.5%) High School 18 (48.6%) 19 (51.4%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 61 (28.6%) 152 (71.4%) Significance = 0.0059 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 10.27443 213 (100.0%) TABLE 16 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES (N=213) No Yes Row Total Elementary 44 (34.4%) 84 (65.6%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 24 (50.0%) 24 (50.0%) 48 (22.5%) High School 20 (54.1%) 17 (45.9%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 88 (41.3%) 125 (58.7%) Chi-Square = 6.51252 D.F. = 2 TABLE 17 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.0385 50 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED WORD PROCESSING (N=213) No Yes Row Total 18 (14.1%) 110 (85.9%) 128 (60.1%) 8 (16.7%) 40 (83.3%) 48 (22.5%) High School 24 (64.9%) 13 (35.1%) 37 (17.4%) Column Total 50 (23.5%) 163 (76.5%) Elementary Middle School Significance = 0.0000 D.F. = 2 Chi-Square = 42.83645 213 (100.0%) TABLE 18 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED GRAPHICS USE (N=213) No Yes Row Total 14 (10.9%) 114 (89.1%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 5 (10.4%) 43 (89.6%) 48 (22.5%) High School 7 (18.9%) 30 (81.1%) 37 (17.4%) 26 (12.2%) 187 (87.8%) Elementary Column Total Chi-Square = 1.89145 D.F. = 2 TABLE 19 213 (100.0%) Significance = 0.3884 51 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED MAILING LABEL PREPARATION (N-213) Yes No Row Total Elementary 64 (50.0%) 64 (50.0%) 128 (60.1%) Middle School 34 (70.8%) 14 (29.2%) 48 (22.5%) High School 35 (94.6%) 2 (5.4%) 37 (17.4%) 133 (62.4%) 80 (37.6%) Column Total Chi-Square = 26.20017 D.F. = 2 213 (100.0%) Significance - 0.0000 TABLE 20 Using responses to the Administrative Service Check­ list a frequency distribution was also prepared for the three categories of administrative computing functions. Pupil Personnel, Additional Administrative Reporting and Clerical/Utility services were tabulated as three groups and Table 21 shows this frequency distribution. With survey responses grouped in this manner the activity level in each computing category is similar and ranks as follows: Personnel (66.2%), Reporting (62.0%). Clerical/Utility (65.3%), Pupil Administrative 52 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR CATEGORIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTING FUNCTIONS (N=213) Yes No Pupil Personnel 141 (66.2%) 72 (33.8%) Administrative Reporting 132 (62.0%) 81 (38.0%) Clerical/Utility 139 (65.3%) 74 (34.7%) TABLE 21 In order to determine if the similarity of computing activity by category was consistent for different building levels, crosstabulation summaries were prepared for each category by building level (elementary, middle, high). Tables 22-24 show results of each crosstabulation. Rather than remaining constant across building levels, the level of participation in each category of com­ puting activity varies significantly. In pupil personnel, administrative reporting and clerical/utility functions, participation increases as the building level increases. 53 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES (N=213) No Yes Elementary 63 (49.2%) 65 (50.8%) Middle School 41 (85.4%) 7 (14.6%) High School 37 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) D.F . - 2 Chi-Square=43.30710 Significance^.0000 TABLE 22 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING (N=213) No Yes Elementary 64 (50.0%) 64 (50.0%) Middle School 36 (75.0%) 12 (25.0%) High School 32 (86.5%) 5 (13.5%) Chi-Square=20.67683 D.F.=2 TABLE 23 Significance5^ .0000 54 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY , MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY COMPUTER SUPPORTED CLERICAL/UTILITY (N=213) No Yes Elementary 69 (53.9%) 59 (46.1%) Middle School 34 (70.8%) 14 (29.2%) High School 36 (97.3%) 1 (2.7%) Chi-Square=24.68589 D.F.=2 Significance=0.0000 TABLE 24 The third frequency distribution related to Research Question 1 is for types of computing equipment in use by survey respondents. Table 25 shows the number of microcom­ puter, mainframe and CRT users. only 15.0% of the Microcomputers are used by administrators services supported by mainframes. while 68.5% receive Fifty-two of the one hundred forty six mainframe users receive additional support through CRT's. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR TYPES OF COMPUTING EQUIPMENT IN USE (N=213) No Yes Microcomputer Mainframe CRT 32 (15.0%) 181 (85.0%) 146 (68.5%) 67 (31.5%) 52 (24.4%) 161 (75.6%) TABLE 25 55 Types of computing equipment were also considered according to whether the administrator's building was an elementary, middle or high school. To determine whether there was a relationship between the type of equipment use and the building level, for these two variables. in crosstabulation was performed Tables 26-28 present these cross­ tabulation summaries. Although microcomputer use was not related whether the administrator managed an elementary, high school, a statistically significant to middle or relationship was indicated between mainframe use and building level as well as CRT use and building level. In both cases the number of equipment users increased as the building level increased. CROSSTABULATION OP ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY MICROCOMPUTER USE (N=213) No Yes 16 (12.5%) 112 (87.5%) Middle School 8 (16.7%) 40 (83.3%) High School 8 (21.6%) 29 (78.4%) Chi-Square=2.00174 D.F.=2 Elementary TABLE 26 Significance=0.3676 56 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY MAINFRAME USE (N=213) No Yes Elementary 71 (55.5%) 57 (44.5%) Middle School 39 (81.3%) 9 (18.8%) High School 36 (97.3%) 1 (2.7%) Chi-Square=27.93112 D.F.=2 Significance=0.0000 TABLE 27 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY CRT USE (N=213) No Yes 2 (1.6%) 126 (98.4%) Middle School 17 (35.4%) 31 (64.6%) High School 33 (89.2%) 4 (10.8%) Elementary Chi-Square=123.50030 D.F . - 2 TABLE 28 Significance=0.0000 57 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 The researcher used section I.E. of the survey to collect information regarding type of administrative parti­ cipation in computing activities. Table 29 presents the frequency distribution of responses to each of the six spe­ cific administrative activities as well as those responded to "other" or indicated no participation. who Ninety seven (45.8%) of the two hundred twelve respondents to this section indicated data collection as one of their computing tasks. Additionally, administrators indicated less fre­ quently their participation (33.0%), determination of content and format (26.9%), data retrieval gramming in transportation of (9.0%). (21.7%), data entry raw data for output (21.2%) and pro­ The five administrators answering "other" specified activity in the areas of staff assistance and/or in-service. 58 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTING TASKS Frequency Distribution— Survey Section I.E (N=212) Yes No Data Collection 97 (45.8%) 115 (54.2%) Data Entry 45 (21.2%) 167 (78.8%) Data Retrieval 46 (21.7%) 166 (78.3%) Programming 19 (9.0%) 193 (91.0%) Determining Content/Format 46 (26.9%) 155 (73.1%) Data Transportation 70 (33.0%) 142 (67.0%) 5 (2.4%) 207 (97.6%) 85 (40.1%) 127 (52.9%) Other None TABLE 29 Tables 30-35 show crosstabulation summaries for each of the six computing tasks by elementary, school administrative categories. researcher used the chi-square determine whether a In test of relationship middle and high all cases independence existed between the to the computing activity in which an administrator engaged and that administrator being elementary, middle or high school level. For each of the six tasks a statistically signifi­ cant relationship existed between whether the administrator participated in the task and the administrator's building 59 level. In each case the number of task participants increased as the building level increased. CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE DATA COLLECTION (N=212) Yes No Elementary 39 (30.7%) 88 (69.3%) Middle School 26 (54.2%) 22 (45.8%) High School 32 (86.5%) 5 (13.5%) D.F . - 2 Chi-Square=37.68491 Significance=0.0000 TABLE 30 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE DATA ENTRY (N=212) Yes No 9 (7.1%) 118 (92.9%) Middle School 13 (27.1%) 35 (72.9%) High School 23 (62.2%) 14 (37.8%) Elementary Chi-Square=53.25123 D.F.=2 TABLE 31 Significance=0.0000 60 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE DATA RETRIEVAL (N=212) No Yes Elementary 9 (7.1%) 118 (92.9%) Middle School 13 (27.1%) 35 (72.9%) High School 24 (64.9%) 13 (35.1%) Chi-Square=57.35752 D.F.=2 Significance=0.0000 TABLE 32 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMMING (N=212) No Yes Elementary Middle School High School Chi-Square=17.45722 3 (2.4%) 124 (97.6%) 10 (20.8%) 38 (79.2%) 6 (16.2%) 31 (83.8%) D.F.=2 TABLE 33 Significance=0.0002 61 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF CONTENT AND FORMAT OF OUTPUT (N=212) Yes No Elementary 14 (11.0%) 113 (89.0%) Middle School 24 (50.0%) 24 (50.0%) High School 19 (51.4%) 18 (48.6%) Chi-Square=40.56707 D.F.=2 Significance=0.0000 TABLE 34 CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY ADMINISTRATIVE DATA TRANSPORTATION (N=212) NO Yes Elementary 28 (22.0%) 99 (78.0%) Middle School 19 (39.6%) 29 (60.4%) High School 23 (62.2%) 14 (37.8%) Chi-Square=22.05669 D.F.=2 Significance-0.0000 TABLE 35 To further analyze the type of administrative com­ puting activity indicated by survey responses the researcher defined four categories of administrative participation. 62 The researcher also ordered the categories increasingly more sophisticated participation puting The categories process. to reflect in the com­ were as follows: participant (inactive in computing), transmitter non­ (active only in collecting and/or transporting raw data), technician (active in data entry and/or retrieval), decision-maker (active in programming and/or determining format/content of computer output). respondents Table 36 shows in each category. the number of survey One hundred twenty seven (59.9%) of the respondents were computing-active to some degree. Eighty five (40.1%) of the administrators perceived themselves as inactive in the computing process while sixty three (29.7%) were operating at the decision-maker level. ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION Category Number Non-participant 85 40.1% Transmitter 40 18.9% Technician 24 11.3% Decision-Maker 63 29.7% Percentage TABLE 36 Crosstabulation was done to determine if there was a relationship between an administrator's level of participa­ tion and whether the administrator was managing an 63 elementary, middle or high school. Table 37 shows the summary of this process. For each level of participation the number of parti­ cipants varied significantly from elementary to middle high school. the number to At the non-participant and transmitter levels of participants decreased increased. For as building level the more computing-active categories of technician and decision-maker the number of participants increased as building level increased. CROSSTABULATION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOLS BY LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATIVE PARTICIPATION (N=212) NonPartici­ pant Trans­ mitter Elemen­ tary 72 (56.3%) 34 (26.6%) Middle School 13 (27.7%) High School 0 (0.0%) Chi-Square = 87.81650 Tech­ nician 8 DecisionMaker (6.3%) 14 (10.9%) 3 (6.4%) 5 (10.6%) 26 (55.3%) 3 (8.1%) 11 (29.7%) 23 (62.2%) D.F. = 6 TABLE 37 Significance = 0.0000 64 It is important to note that money was mentioned by thirty-three of the survey respondents as a factor in begin­ ning or improving computer supported services. These admin­ istrators (representing at least eleven different school districts) stated that services were being initiated, revised or terminated due to financial factors. Summary Chapter IV presented the data responses to the researcher's survey. by accumulated from Data were organized the research question to whichthey related. Frequency distributions and crosstabulation summaries were presented to provide Chapter V. support for conclusions which are presented in CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary In this dissertation the researcher has explored administrative applications of computer technology school building level in Oakland County, Michigan. at the Specif­ ically, two research questions were addressed in the study: Question 1 : What is the status of buildinglevel administrative computer applications with respect to equipment and functions in Oakland County's K-12 public schools? Question 2: What tasks do building administra­ tors perform with respect to these computer appli­ cations? To assist with consideration of these questions relevant literature was reviewed. This review included the history, current state and future of school administrative computer applications. Facts gathered and ideas obtained from the literature assisted the researcher in interpreting research findings, drawing conclusions and making recom­ mendations. Descriptive study. methodology was used to complete this Two hundred thirteen of three hundred three Oakland 65 66 County principals responded to a survey regarding adminis­ trative computing activity for their buildings and their participation in the computing process. Frequency distribu­ tions were prepared to present collected data regarding administrative ties. computing equipment, functions and activi­ Additionally, crosstabulation summaries were prepared to discern response differences among the elementary, middle and high school administrative groups. Abbreviated major findings from the survey process were as follows: Computing Equipment 1. The mainframe was the primary administrative com­ puting tool for Oakland County school principals. M a i n f r a m e s w e r e used by 68.5% of the survey respondents with heaviest reported use in the areas of mailing labels, state reports, accounting, test­ ing and pupil attendance. 2. Oakland County's fifteen percent participation rate in educational administrative microcomputer appli­ cations is consistent with the underutilization documented as present practice in other areas. Numerous comments were made by respondents indicat­ ing current instructional use of microcomputers and a desire to pursue administrative applications in the near future. 3. Of particular interest to the researcher were sur­ vey results regarding the building level at which different types of computing equipment were used for administrative purposes. Although the figures varied from 55.5% (elementary) to 81.3% (middle) and 97.3% (high school) for mainframe users, the figures varied less for microcomputer administra­ tive use. The user counts (12.5%— elementary, 16.7%— middle, 21.6%— high school) indicate that the microcomputer's price, portability and produc­ tivity have made it almost as interesting and use­ ful to other building levels as it is to high school administrators. Money was mentioned by thirty-three of the survey respondents as a factor in beginning or improving computer supported services. Computing Function/Services Statistical analysis indicated that specific com­ puter supported administrative services were directly related to the level of the building. Fifteen of nineteen computing functions increased significantly in number of users as the adminis­ trative group changed from elementary to middle to high school. Overall, no pupil personnel computer supported service was as frequently used as the most common clerical/ utility function (mailing labels— 62.4%) or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e reporting funct i o n (state reporting— 47.9%). By building level the three most frequently used services were as follows: elementary— mailing labels (50%), testing (38.3%), accounting (34.4%); m iddle school — scheduling (79.2%), mailing labels and grade reporting (70.8% each); high school— mailing labels and scheduling (94.6% each), grading (89.2%). Elementary administrators receive fewer computer supported services than their middle or high school colleagues. This was particularly evident as the number of administrators reporting no computer services was examined. Of fifty-three who reported no computer assisted administrative services, forty-six were elementary level administrators. Within many districts both survey responses and telephone interviews indicated widely varying levels of computer awareness and/or use among mem­ bers of the same administrative group. Computing Activity Administrative involvement with the computing pro­ cess varied from no participation to a high level of participation. The most frequent computing activity for Oakland County administrators was data collection (45.8%) while eighty-five respondents (40.1%) reported no involvement with administrative computing. Degree of participation in the computing process was found to be related to the administrator's 68 building level. As the level of the respondent group changed from elementary to middle to high school, the level of participation increased sig­ nificantly. 3. The building level breakdown for those who per­ ceived themselves as non-participants in the admin­ istrative computing process is also noteworthy. Of eighty-five respondents (40.1%) who indicated no computing involvement, seventy-two were elementary, thirteen middle and none were high school adminis­ trators. 4. Several factors indicate a desire by Oakland County administrators to use computer support appropri­ ately for building management. These indicators include the current level of computer use by these administrators as well as the number of survey responses describing specific interests and/or plans to form computer study groups. 5. Of those administrators who perceived themselves as active in the computing process, almost half (63/127) were categorized as high level ("decision maker") participants. It was noteworthy that mid­ dle school administrators indicated this activity level at a rate closely approaching their high school colleagues. Conclusions In addition to the major findings listed on pages 66-68, conclusions can be drawn from the survey process and the data presented in Chapter IV. They are noted below with the research question and finding(s) to which they relate: Question 1: What is the status of building-level administrative computer applications with respect to equipment and functions in Oakland County's K-12 public schools? 1. Given the underutilization of microcomputer equipment as well as the limited computing services many administrators are receiving, it is appropriate to conclude that many administrative training programs are not 69 adequately preparing school managers to effectively use the wide range of hardware/ software available (see findings #1 and #2— Computing Equipment; findings #2 and #3— Computing Functions/Services). 2. As i n s t r u c t i o n a l uses cause students, parents, teachers and administrators to become knowledgeable of and comfortable with microcomputers, it is reasonable to assume that administrative microcomputer software may receive greater attention and use (see finding #2— Computing Equipment). 3. Given the variety of survey responses from administrators within almost every school district, it is reasonable to conclude that computer-related communication among build­ ing a d m i n i s t r a t o r s is l i m i t e d or n o n ­ existent within many Oakland County school districts. Question 2: What tasks do building administrators perform with respect to these computer applica­ tions? 1. Given the number of elementary administra­ tors w h o p e r c e i v e d t h e m s e l v e s as n o n ­ participants in the computing process as well as those who did not receive any com­ puter services, it is reasonable to conclude that computer services are perceived by many administrators as appropriate for secondary schools only (see findings #3— Computing Functions/Services and #3--Computing Activity). 2. Although computing equipment is available to them, some administrators are either unable or unwilling to assume roles as data pro­ cessing leaders in their buildings (see findings #1— Computing Equipment and #1— Computing Activity). 70 Rec ommendations With the previously stated conclusions in mind the following recommendations are made by the researcher. Recommendations for School Administrators and Universities 1. More school administrators should use instructional computing equipment for administrative purposes during non-instructional hours. 2. More school administrators should consider using administrative computing applications for student learning situations. Examples of activities for consideration include word processing, graphics and preparation of demographic reports in businessoriented computer classes. This could offer students "real life" applications of skills asuming teachers and administrators would guard against possible abuse of instructional time. 3. Central office administrators should provide for information exchange between building administra­ tors and the data processing staff. This could be accomplished through an administrative computing leadership committee. Included in the duties of such a committee would be encouraging use of com­ puting equipment and keeping abreast of hardware/ software developments. 4. Central office and building administrators should plan regular, effective in-service programs regard­ ing administrative computing. Appropriate topics for these sessions would include updates on cur­ rently used applications, microcomputer software evaluations, visits to successful administrative computing programs and "What can computers do for us?" brainstorming sessions. 5. Central office and building administrators should review and modify equipment replacement plans with a goal of acquiring "computerized" replacements where appropriate and possible. An example of this process would be the replacement of typewriters with word processors. 6. Central office and building administrators should fully utilize computer equipment and personnel resources at area universities and intermediate school districts. This can provide ideas, 71 in-service assistance and emergency people/hardware support. 7. Universities providing educational administrative training programs should include in their curricu­ lum the opportunity for experience with computer applications for school management. Recommendations for Further Study 1. Efficiency standards for manual versus computer assisted educational administrative services should be developed. Cost-effectiveness needs to be determined as it relates to size of student popula­ tion and per pupil expenditures. 2. There is a need to determine the type of computing equipment necessary to provide a particular level of administrative service (i.e., micro, mini, main­ frame or combination necessary for given number of students at specific level of operation). 3. Successful computing public relations programs need to be developed and documented. Plans should include school staff, boards of educations and com­ munity members. 4. This dissertation should be replicated in other geographical areas to determine whether Oakland County's educational administrative computing has characteristics in common with other ateas, repre­ sents a trend or is unique. 5. Administrative computing activity at the middle school level should be further examined to deter­ mine if the Oakland County situation is unique, represents a secondary trend or a general trend which will eventually include elementary schools. 6. This dissertation should be replicated in a geo­ graphical area which does and one which does not have as lengthy a computing history as does Oakland County. A major objective of such a study would be to determine whether mainframe use dominates the educational computing activity in either or both areas as it does in Oakland County. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Sample Letter to Data Processing Authority 72 73 October 5, 1982 Richard H. Bergman Director Data Processing Milwaukee Public Schools P. 0. Drawer 10K Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Dear Mr. Bergman: As we discussed in our telephone conversation today, I am sending you a list of computer assisted administrative functions with which school princi­ pals and/or assistant principals might be involved. It is my intention to use this list in a survey that is part of my doctoral dissertation. Hope­ fully, I will be able to determine from survey results the computer assisted job activities in which Oakland County building administrators engage as well as any related training they received. Thank you for agreeing to review the building level administrative computer applications and for v e r i f y i n g their accuracy/completeness. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Lennie L. Wells llwiar 74 Please check (✓) each computer application that should be included in a survey of principals and assistant principals (K-12) to determine their involvement with administrative computer applications. BUILDING-LEVEL ADMINISTRATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS Pupil Personnel Functions attendance schedule creation maintenance testing health/emergency information grade reporting Other: mid-marking period progress reporting transcripts monitoring of graduation requirements class rank, low grade/ failure list, honor roll Please use this space to comment on the thoroughness and clarity of this section: Additional Administrative Reporting state mandated membership reports (e.g. avg. daily attendance) special education vocational education transportation Other: school lunch program student/staff demographic reports accounting, billing, purchasing Please use this space to comment on the thoroughness and clarity of this section: Clerical Functions word processing graphics mailing labels Other: Please use this space to comment on the thoroughness and clarity of this section: APPENDIX B Letter of Transmittal Survey Instrument Follow-Up Postcard 75 76 January 31, 1983 Dear Principal: As assistant principal at Athens High School in Troy, one of ray primary responsibilities involves adminis­ trative data p r o c e s s i n g functions for our building. Additionally, I am a doctoral student in Michigan State University's educational administration program. Because of my interest and computer related work experience, my doctoral dissertation will focus on adminis­ trative computer applications at the building level. Of particular concern to me is the type of administrative com­ puting activity occurring in K-12 public schools of Oakland County. I am writing to request your assistance in the col­ lection of this information. Would you (or the building administrator most directly involved with administrative computing) please complete the attached survey and return it to me at your earliest convenience. The survey was designed with your busy schedule in mind. Hopefully, it can be com­ pleted very quickly. Thank you for your help in this project. If you are interested in receiving a report of my research findings, please let me know. I will enjoy sharing the results. Sincerely, Lennie L. Wells P.S. I would greatly appreciate receipt of your response no later than February 15. Enclosure 77 SURVEY Job Title Name (optional) I. SCHOOL BUILDING/ADMINISTRATOR INFORMATION A. Grade levels 1n your building: [] K-5 [] 6-8 [] 9-12 [] Other B. Size of student population (fourth Friday 1982) _ C. Administrative structure: [] Principal only [] Principal and one Assistant [] Other D. Is a specific administrative services computer program package used by your building? [] Yes. Name (e.g., R.A.M.S.II) or description of software 1n use:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [] No. As the administrator responsible for building data processing services, In which of the following activities do you engage? (Check as many as apply) [] Data Collection [] Determination of Content and Format for Computer Output □ Data Entry [] Transportation of Raw Data to "Computer Center" [] Data Retrieval [] Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [] Programing [] None II. COMPUTER ASSISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Are any NON-INSTRUCTIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES performed 1n your building with the assistance of a computer? □ YES PLEASE COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CHECKLIST ON NEXT PAGE. [] NO Do you plan to Implement such services In the near future? □ YES When? CONTINUE WITH SECTION III BELOW [] NO Why not? III. COMPUTER RELATED TRAINING (Check as many as apply for each question in part A and B) A Pre-Service (university training 1n preparation for administrative assignment) 1. I had PRE-SERVICE training 1n: 2. PRE-SERVICE training 1s desirable 1n: [] Pupil Personnel Functions [] Pupil Personnel Functions [] Administrative Reporting [] Administrative Reporting [] Clerical/Utility Functions [] Clerical/Utility Functions [] Other [] Other [] None of the above [] None of the above B. In-Service (workshop, seminar, coursework, etc., following assignment of adm1n11strat1ve duties) 1. I have had IN-SERVICE training 1n: 2. IN-SERVICE training 1s desirable 1n: [] Pupil Personnel Functions [] Pupil Personnel Functions [] Administrative Reporting [] Administrative Reporting [] Clerical/Utility Functions [] Cler1cal/Ut1l1ty Functions [] Other [] Other [] None of the above [] None of the above 78 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CHECKLIST Below 1s a 11st of administrative services/activities which may occur 1n schools with or w i t ho ut c o m p u t e r assistance. Please respond In t e r m s of your building and the services/activities with which you are Involved. PUPIL PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS Attendance Schedule Creation/Maintenance Testing Health/Emergency Information Grade Reporting M1d-mark1ng Period Progress Reporting Transcripts Graduation Requirements Creating Class Rank, Low Grade, Failure and/or Honor Roll Lists 1. InHouse Micro­ computer Assisted? YES NO [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 2. Assisted 3. On by Micro­ Line with computer 1n Another I.S.D.? Facility? YES NO YES NO [] [] [] [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [] [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 4. Cathode Ray Tubes (Display Screens) In House? YES NO [3 C3 [3 C3 [3 [3 □ □ [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 C3 5. Cathode Ray Tubes 1n Another Facility? 6. In District Computer System? YES NO YES NO [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 □ □ [3 C3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 C3 C3 [3 [3 [3 C3 C3 C3 [] C3 [3 [3 [3 □ □ [3 [3 C3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 C3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING State Mandated Membership Reports Special Education Vocational Education Transportation School Lunch Program Student/Staff Demographic Reports Accounting, Billing, Purchasing [] □ [] [] [] [] [] CLERICAL/UTILITY FUNCTIONS Word Processing Graphics (charts, drawings, etc.) Mailing Labels [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [] [] [3 [3 □ [] □ [3 [3 [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 C3 □ [] [3 [3 □ [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 [] [] [3 [3 [3 C3 □ [] [3 [3 [3 [3 [] [] [3 [3 [] [] [3 C3 [3 C3 [3 [3 [3 PLEASE LIST ANY OTHER COMPUTER ASSISTED ACTIVITY IN WHICH YOU ENGAGE AND RESPOND TO THE SIX QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT FUNCTION: [3 □ □ FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD Dear Principal: A few days ago you received a letter and survey concerning my dissertation topic "Building-level Administrative Computer Applications." If you have already returned the survey, thanks so much for your prompt response. If you have been delayed in com­ pleting the survey or forwarding it to the appropriate administrator, please respond at your earliest convenience. I do APPRECIATE your timely assistance. Sincerely, 79 BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Cobwin, Peter et al. Practical Guide to Computers in Education. Readinq, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1982. The Computer and Education. Series. New Jersey: cations/ 1974. Educational Technology Review Educational Technology Publi­ Computers and Education. Edited by Ralph W. York: McGraw Hill, 1967. Gerard. New Computers in Curriculum and Instruction. Edited by M. Tim Grady and Jane D. Gawronski. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop­ ment, 1983. Darby, Charles A. Jr., Korotkin, Arthur L. and Romashko, Tania. The Computer in Secondary Schools. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Evans, Christopher. The Micro Millenium. ington Square Press, 1979. New York: Wash­ Goodlad, John I., O'Toole, John F. Jr. and Tyler, Louise L. Computers and Information Systems in Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966. Hopkins, Charles D. Educational Research: A Structure for Inquiry. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1976. Microcomputers in the Schools. Edited by James L. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Pres, 1981. Sowell, Thomas. Evelyn J. and Casey, Rita J. Research Methods in Education. Belmont, California! Wadsworth Pub­ lishing Co., 1982. 80 81 Articles Bukosi, William J. and Karotkin, Arthur L. "Computing Activities in Secondary Education.” Educational Technology, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January 1976, pp. 9-23. Carroll, Jane. "Computing Literacy: Springboard Success." Personal Computing, Vol. VI, No. September, 1982, pp. 45-48. to 9, "The Coming Shakeout in Personal Computers." Business Week, No. 2766, November 22, 1982, pp. 72-79. Coudal, Edgar. "Managers Computerize to Organize with DBM." Personal Compu t i n g , Vol. VI, No. 8, August, 1982, pp. 112-119; 137-138. Dennis, J. Richard et al. "Computer Activities in Secondary Illinois Schools." The Illinois Series on Educa­ tional Applications of Computers, June, 1977. Hatch, Orrin G. "Education in a Postindustrial Society." American Education, Vol. XVIII, No. 5, June, 1982, pp. 4-7. Jones, Kenneth and Dukes, Thomas. "Microcomputers in School Administrative Management." Educational Technology, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, March, 1983, pp. 38-39. Libonate, George A. Jr. and Hughes, Jonathan T. "The Admin­ istratively Effective School District: The Role of the Computer." Educational Computer Magazine, Vol. II, No. 4, July/August, 1982, pp. 10-12. Lu, Cary. "Microcomputers: The Second Wave." High Technology. Vol. II, No. 5, September/October, 1982, pp. 36-52. Marshall, D. G. "The School Administrator and the Micro­ computer." Education Canada, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Summer 1982, pp. 4-11. Moran, Mary E. "Improving Schools Through Private Sector Partnerships." American Education, Vol. XIX, No. 1, January/February, 1983, pp. 5-8. Oliveri, Peter. "Computer Usage Trends." SIGCUE Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 2, April, 1976, pp. 14-17. "Personal Computing Interview with Ben Rosen." Personal Computing, Vol. VI, No. 6, June, 1982, pp. 28-30; 98-101. 82 Pogrow, Stanley. "Microcomputerizing Your Paperwork." Electronic Learning, Vol. II, No. 2, October, 1982, pp. 20-27. Rothfeder, Jeffrey. "Get Ready for Prime-Time Playing." Personal Computing, Vol. VI, No. 4, April, 1982, pp. 26-27. Reports American Association of School Administrators. EDP and the School Administrator. A report prepared by the AASA Committee on Electronic Data Processing. Washing­ ton, D.C., 1967. Foley, Walter J. Educational Inform ation Project— Final Report. Iowa University, Iowa City, March, 1968. Gaydos, Irvin A. Survey of New Jersey Public School Dis­ tricts Using Computers and Data Entry Equipment. A report to the New Jersey State Board of Education, January, 1976. System Description and Status Report: California Educa­ t i o n al I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m. C a l i f o r n i a State Department of Education, Sacramento, November, 1971. Other Sources "Integrated Education Information Systems." Pamphlet describing interview between Dr. Rex Wood and poten­ tial IEIS users, Spring, 1967. Keill, James. "Project ADMIRE (Assistance for Decision Making through Information Retrieval in Education), Principal's M a n u a l for Pupil S c h e d u l i n g by Computer." Lincoln Public Schools, Nebraska, 1967. Unpublished Material Burke, Antoinette M. "Microcomputer Technology in Public Schools in Southeastern Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1983. 83 Cayen, William Frederick. "Data Processing of Student Services and the Administrative Coordination in Selected High Schools of Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976. Loveless, John E. "Supplementing the Programs and Services of Rural School Systems by New Type Regional Service Agencies." Speech presented at National Outlook Conference on Rural Youth, October, 1967. Masemore, G. L. and Seebold, J. E. "A Data Base Approach to Pupil Information Systems." Paper presented at the Association for Educational Data Systems Annual Con­ vention, Phoenix, Arizona, May, 1976. Miller, J. J. and Skees, W. D. "Pupil Master Record System: History and Outlook." Paper presented at the Association for Educational Data Systems Annual Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana, April, 1973. "Oakland Schools Instructional Computing Long Range Planning Opinion Survey." September, 1981. Otterson, Carol. "Student Administration K-12: Need v. Ability." Paper presented at the American Associ­ ation for Educational Data Systems Annual Conven­ tion, April, 1973. Penny, Edward B. "An Indispensable Tool for Research and Evaluation: A Functional Pupil Data System." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, 1975. Raucher, S. M. "Information— The Synthesis of Data." Paper presented at the Association for Educational Data Systems Annual Convention, Phoenix, Arizona, May, 1976. Wood, Rex. "Remotely Accessible Management System (RAMS)." Paper presented at the Association for Educational Data S y s t e m s A n n u a l Convention, N e w Orleans, Louisiana, April, 1973.