INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Universe Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8424413 Cross, Robert W. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC AND ENROLLMENT DECLINE ON PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN FOR THE PERIOD 1979-1983, AS PERCEIVED BY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Ph.D. 1984 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check m ark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_____ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_____ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_____ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements_____ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_____ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct p rin t_____ 11. Page(s)___________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages n u mbered____________ . Text fol lows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages_____ 15. Other________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC AND ENROLLMENT DECLINE ON PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN FOR THE PERIOD 1979-1983, AS PERCEIVED BY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS By Robert W. Cross A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State U niversity 1n p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Adm inistration and Curriculum 1984 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC AND ENROLLMENT DECLINE ON PUBLIC MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN FOR THE PERIOD 1979-1983, AS PERCEIVED BY MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS By Robert W. Cross This study sought to determine whether patterns e x is t 1n p rin ­ cipals* perceptions of the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on changes 1n middle school program, s t a f f , and clim a te; whether pat­ terns e x is t regarding the Impact these changes have had on middle school development; and whether perceptions vary as a function o f school size , d is t r ic t sta te funding, d is t r ic t economic change, and school enrollm ent change. The population Included the p rin cipals of a l l 348 public middle schools 1n Michigan Id e n tifie d by the Michigan Department o f Education. P rin cip als were surveyed using an Instrument developed by the w r ite r and va lidated by a panel of national experts. The s t a tis tic a l t r e a t ­ ments employed In examining the s ix research questions were the t - r a t lo , one-way u n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a ria te analyses o f variance, and the Wilks two-way m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance. sig nifican ce was set a t .05. The major findings of the study Included: The level of R obert W. Cross 1. Nearly 70 percent o f the schools were 1n d is tr ic ts th a t receive s ta te per pupil formula fin an cial a id . 2. Over 86 percent of the schools had experienced enrollm ent decreases. 3. Close to 96 percent of the d is tr ic ts had experienced economic decline. 4. P rin cip als Indicated th a t s ig n ific a n t program# staff# and clim ate changes had occurred 1n 65 percent o f the Items measured. 5. S1xty-f1ve percent o f a ll changes th a t occurred had had a s ig n ific a n t Impact on middle school development# and 66 percent of those changes had had a negative e ffe c t. 6. S ig n ific a n t changes (decline) and Impacts (negative) were registered 1n a ll areas of school s ta ff. Impact was noted 1n school clim ate. No s ig n ific a n t change or S ig n ific a n t change and Impact were found 1n some program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials. 7. Perceptions of change varied most as a function o f d i s t r ic t sta te funding and d is t r ic t economic change# whereas perceptions of Impact varied most as a function of d is t r ic t s ta te funding. 8. Perceptions of change and Impact did not vary as a function of selected In teractio n s between variables. 9. A m ajority of p rin cip als reported o v erall program q u a lity staying the same or d e te rio ra tin g over the past fiv e years. This d isse rta tio n 1s dedicated to my w ife , Sue, whose continuing love, support, and encouragement have made th is project possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed to the e f f o r t necessary to complete th is d isse rta tio n . My children* Lindsay and Adam# deserve special recognition fo r to le ra tin g my many physical and mental absences from home. My parents, June and B ill# also deserve special thanks fo r encouraging me to a tta in the highest le v e ls o f education possible. The continuing encouragement and assistance provided by Lou Romano# my major professor and dear friend# w ill always be remembered and appreciated. My other committee members* Ben Bohnhorst* Larry Sarbaugh# and John Suehr# were very helpful 1n the development and completion of th is study. Sincere appreciation 1s f e l t toward Don Freeman and the national panel of experts# who helped 1n the development and v a lid a tio n of the Instrument; Mark P1cc1otto# whose help In analyzing the data was e s sen tia l; Sue Cooley# who so competently typed the work; Lorraine Hull* who helped me w ith many of the loose ends; and Glen Gerard* who has always served as a source of In s p ira tio n . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................... v ii Chapter I. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.............................................................. 1 Introduction . . . ...................................................................... Purpose of the S tu d y .................................................................. Significance of the Study ..................................................... Assumptions of the Study ..................................................... Lim itations o f the S tu d y .......................................................... D e fin itio n of T e r m s ........................ Research Questions ...................................................................... Overview of the S t u d y .............................................................. 1 8 9 14 15 15 17 18 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................................................. 19 Introduction .................................................................................. E ffects of D ecline: N atio n ally ............................................. Organizational Demography ................................................. C o s t s .......................................................................................... Range of P ro g ra m s .................................................................. Program Innovations .............................................................. Program Q u ality ...................................................................... Moral .......................................................................................... Supervisory Practices .......................................................... D is t r ic t Wea1th/Soc1oeconom1c Status ............................. D is t r ic t Location (Urban Versus Rural Versus S u b u r b a n ).............................................................................. D is t r ic t Size (Large Versus Small) ................................. Middle Schools .......................................................................... E ffects of Decline: Michigan ................................................. School Closings .......................................................................... Reductions 1n Force (R IF ): N atio n ally ............................. Reduction 1n Force: Michigan ................................................. Middle School C ha ra cte ris tics ............................................. Eighteen C h a ra cte ris tics o f the Middle School . . . . Sum m ary.......................................................................................... 19 20 20 21 22 22 24 25 25 26 iv 26 27 27 28 30 34 36 38 39 48 Page III. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ....................................................................... Introduction .................................................................................. Population and Sampling Method ............................................. Instrum entation ............................................................................... Data-Gather1ng Procedures ...................................................... S ta tis tic a l T r e a t m e n t .............................................................. Research Questions ...................................................................... Sum m ary............................................. IV . 50 51 51 54 55 59 60 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................................................................... Introduction .................................................................................. Demographic Breakdown . . . ............................................. Research Questions ...................................................................... Question 1 .................................................................................. Question 2 .................................................................................. Question 3 ............................ Question 4 . . . . .............................................................. Question 5 .............................................................................. Question 6 .................................................................................. Other Patterns and F i n d i n g s ................................................. Selected Middle School C h aracteristics ......................... Changes Having P o sitive Impacts ..................................... Overall Q u ality of the School Program ......................... Do You Have a Middle School Now?..................................... N arrative Comments .................................................................. Sum m ary............................................................................................... V. 50 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................... 61 61 62 65 65 73 81 92 103 104 105 105 105 108 110 112 115 123 Sum m ary............................................................................................... L ite ra tu re R e v ie w e d ................................................. Design of the Study Reviewed............................................. F in d in g s ............................................................................................... Discussion of Findings .................................................................. Recommendations ............................................................................... Recommendations fo r Further Research ...................................... 123 123 124 125 128 130 132 APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 134 A. LETTER TO NATIONAL PANEL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERTS B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................................................... 138 C. INITIAL LETTER TO SURVEY CENSUS............................................... 143 v . . . 135 Page D. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OUTSIDE E. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO DETROIT PRINCIPALS.......... ............... 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 149 vi OF DETROIT . . . 145 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by School Size C a t e g o r ie s .............................................................................. 62 Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by D is t r ic t Size C a t e g o r ie s .............................................................................. 62 Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by D is t r ic t Location Categories ...................................................................... 63 Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by D is t r ic t State Funding Categories ............................................................. 63 Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by School Enrollment Change Categories Over the Past Five Years . 64 Frequency D is trib u tio n fo r Total Respondents by D is t r ic t Economic Change Categories Over the Past Five Years . . 65 7. Changes 1n Selected Middle School C haracteristics . . . . 66 8. Changes 1n Other Program C haracteristics and M a terials . 9. Changes 1n "Basic” Classroom S ta ff (English* Math* Science, Soda! Studies) ......................................................... 69 10. Changes 1n Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff .......................................... 69 11. Changes 1n Non-Cert1floated S ta ff .............................................. 70 12. Changes 1n School Climate .............................................................. 71 13. Change—Totals fo r Program* S ta ff* and Climate ...................... 72 14. Impact of Changes 1n Selected Middle School Characteris­ tic s ...................................................................................................... 74 Impact of Changes 1n Other Program C haracteristics and M a t e r i a l s .......................................................................................... 75 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 15. vi i . 68 Impact o f Changes 1n "Basic" Classroom S ta ff (English# Math# Science# Social Studies) ............................................. 76 Impact of Changes 1n Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff ................. 77 ..................... 77 ..................................... 79 Impact— Totals ................................................................................... 80 Changes 1n Selected Middle School C ha ra cte ris tics by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change ................................. 82 Changes 1n Other Program C h a ra cte ris tics and M aterials by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change ................................. 83 Changes 1n Middle School Program Overall by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 84 Changes 1n "Basic" Classroom S ta ff by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 85 Changes 1n Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 86 Changes 1n Non-Cert1floated S ta ff by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 87 Changes 1n Middle School S ta ff Overall by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 88 Changes 1n School Climate by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change ...................................................................... 89 Change: U n ivariate One-Way ANOVA by School Size# D is t r ic t Funding# D is t r ic t Economic Change# and School Enrollment Change .......................................................... 91 Impact of Changes 1n Non-Cert1floated S ta ff Impact of Changes 1n School Climate • • VIII • Page 30. Change: M u ltiv a ria te One-Way ANOVA by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* Economic Change* and Enrollment Change................................................................................................... 92 Impact o f Changes 1n Selected Middle School Character­ is tic s by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ................. 93 Impact of Changes 1n Other Program C h aracteristics and M aterials by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ................. 94 Impact of Changes 1n Middle School Program Overall by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ..................................... 95 Impact of Changes 1n "Basic" Classroom S ta ff by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change .............................................................. 96 Impact of Changes 1n Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ...................................................... 97 Impact o f Changes 1n Non-Cert1f1cated S ta ff by School Size, D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change, and School Enrollment Change ...................................................... 98 Impact of Changes 1n Middle School S ta ff Overall by School Size, D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ...................................... 99 Impact of Changes 1n School Climate by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ............................................................... 100 Impact: U n iv ariate One-Way ANOVA bySchool Size, D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change .......................................................................... 102 Impact: M u ltiv a ria te One-Way ANOVA by School S ize, D is tr ic t Funding, D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change ............................................................... 103 41. Change: M u ltiv a ria te Two-Way ANOVA by In te ra c tio n . . . . 104 42. Impact: M u ltiv a ria te Two-Way ANOVA by In te ra c tio n . . . . 104 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. ix Page 43. 44. 45. Eighteen Middle School C h aracteristics That Never E x i s t e d .................... 106 Summary of Questionnaire Items Showing an Increase That Had a P o sitive I m p a c t .................................................................. 107 Summary of Questionnaire Items Showing a Decrease That Had a P o sitive I m p a c t .................................................................. 108 46. Question 64— Overall Q u ality o f School Program— Totals . 47. Question 64— O verall Program Q u ality by School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change .............................................................. 110 48. Question 65— Do You Have a Middle School Now?— Total . . . 111 49. Question 65— Do You Have a Middle School Now?— By School Size* D is t r ic t Funding* D is t r ic t Economic Change* and School Enrollment Change .............................................................. 112 Numbers and S ignificance o f Changes— Overall Summary T o t a l s ................................................................................................... 115 Numbers and S ignificance o f Impacts— Overall Summary Totals ......................................... 116 50. 51. . 109 52. Change Summary: D irection and S ignificance .......................... 117 53. Impact Summary: D irection and Significance .......................... 118 54. Change: Summary of S ig n ific a n t Variables 1n U nivariate One-Way ANOVAs .................................................................................. 119 Impact: Summary of S ig n ific a n t Variables 1n U nivariate One-Way ANOVAs .................................................................................. 120 56. Change: Summary o f M u ltiv a ria te ANOVAs ................................... 121 57. Impact: Summary of M u ltiv a ria te ANOVAs ................................... 121 55. x CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction A recent f l i e r sent home w ith elementary students a t Edgewood School 1n Okemos pointed out th a t "Americans spend more money on pet food than on education. costs may ris e 300%." School enrollments are declining. Energy Parents were then In vite d to attend a le c tu re e n title d "School fo r the 80*s: Doing More fo r Less." The American Association of School Adm inistrators reported 1n 1981: What shook public education 1n the la te 1970’s and e a rly 1980's was not declining enrollm ent alone . . . but also ris in g energy costs; In fla tio n a ry pressures; erosion of public confidence; tax revo lts; white f U t e ; In te n s ifie d m igration (S, SW & W); mandated programs (fo r the handicapped* the b ilin g u a ls ); loss or d ras tic reductions 1n federal and s ta te aid; court decrees fo r desegre­ gation* red1str1ct1ng* busing; changing* eroding or disappearing neighborhoods; the competition of p riva te schools; aging popula­ tio n ; aging teachers. Although "declining enrollm ents and school mergers have become such fa m ilia r phrases th a t they often produce yawns" (Zerchykov* 1982)* some feel th a t 1t 1s "one of the major Issues of the day— the management of declining enrollm ents and resources" (Wendel* 1979). author wrote* 'The most Important development 1n education 1n the second h a lf o f the 20th century 1s . . . declining enrollm ent. 1 One 2 Declining enrollm ent has touched upon every fa c e t o f education” (Bandlow, 1982). The problems of declining enrollments and declining fin an cial support fo r schools are bad enough 1n and o f themselves* but our mind set 1n America compounds the problem. The American psyche has always been attuned to the concept of unending expansion of more tomorrow than today* o f children overshadowing th e ir parents' success* of unlim ited resources. . . . Given a tr a d itio n of growth th a t almost amounts to an Ideology* 1t 1s d i f f i c u l t to face the new conditions— o f fewer young people* a slowing economy* and lim ite d resources. (Hechlnger* 1981) The B ib lic a l parable o f the seven lean years Is taking on real meaning fo r educators across the country as public schools gear up to face the f a llo u t of the nation's new mood of " fis c a l re s tra in t." (K e lle r , 1981) Declining enrollm ent has been a fa c t of l i f e fo r public schools since the e a rly 1970s. The National School Boards Association reported In 1976 th a t "approximately one-th1rd o f the school d is tr ic ts 1n the country have experienced some drop 1n enrollm ent." The American Association of School Adm inistrators (1981), using fig ures from the U.S. Department of Education, reported th a t the drop 1n enrollm ent began 1n the f a l l of 1972 and th a t between the f a l l of 1971 and the f a l l o f 1979* 12 states had shown a decrease o f 15 percent or more. The National Center fo r Educational S ta tis tic s reported a drop 1n pre­ kindergarten through eighth-grade enrollm ent from 1970 to 1978 o f 12.7 percent (Dearman & PUsko, 1980). Michigan experienced a 21.9 percent decrease. The worst w ill be over fo r K-8 by 1984, but fo r the 10-through13-year-old age group (grades 5 -8 ), the bottom w ill not be reached 3 u n til somewhere between 1986 and 1988 (projections from the Educational Research Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census). Both projections agree th a t there w ill be an upturn u n til about the year 2000. For grades 9 through 12# no upturn 1s 1n sig h t u n til possibly 2000 or beyond. This has Im plicatio ns fo r the middle school# as w ill be seen. What exists then# nationally# 1s a s itu a tio n 1n which elementary enrollm ents w ill be Increasing 1n the la te 1980s w hile secondary enrollments continue to decline. School systems w ill find themselves simultaneously dealing with growth and decline. In Michigan the trends are the same# but the numbers are more sta rk . The Michigan School Board Journal (1983) showed Michigan's public school enrollm ent declining every year since the peak period of 1971-72# an o v erall decline o f more than 21 percent. This compared w ith a national decline during the same period of only 14 percent. From 1976-77 to 1982-83# the decline 1n average number of pupils a t a ll levels 1n Michigan was 14.7 percent (Nelson# 1983). I t was reported th a t "by the e a rly 1990's secondary school enrollm ents w ill have declined by 25%" (Crane# 1983). Hecker and Ignatovich (1983) reported th a t K-5 enrollm ents w ill have bottomed out by 1983-84 or 1984-85# w ith a modest Increase projected through 1987-88. Enrollments 1n grades 9-12 w ill continue a sharp decline u n til 1983-84# level o f f s lig h tly through 1985-86# then decline sharply u n til 1991-92 or 199293. 4 Hecker's and Ignatovich's figures# based on actual b irth data# reveal th a t from a peak 1n 1971-72# there has been a f a i r l y sharp decline In middle school enrollm ent (grades 6-8) from 1977-78 to 197980 (8.2 percent)# a s lig h t le v e lin g o f f from 1979-80 to 1982-83 (3.5 percent)# then a sharp drop w ill s t a r t 1n 1983-84 u n til the decline bottoms out 1n 1988-89 or 1989-90. This trend coincides w ith Michigan Department of Education and House Democratic Education O ffic e projec­ tio ns published by Harvey (1983). So w hile th ere may be growth a t elementary lev els during the la s t p art of the decade# middle schools and high schools w ill experience decline fo r q u ite some tim e. But despite declining enrollments# the costs o f educating students are ris in g . These costs are especially great fo r the Michigan school d is tr ic ts th a t receive per pupil s ta te membership aid ("In-form ula" d is tr ic ts ) (Straus# 1983). Straus noted th a t "fewer students generate fewer s ta te dollars# and a d is t r ic t cannot reduce expenditures 1n d ire c t proportion to the loss." Perhaps "the most Insidious property of declining enrollm ent 1s th a t fewer students mean higher costs#" according to Bandlow (1982). In 1977# expenditures fo r public schools exceeded $66 b illio n — 62 percent more (a fte r In fla tio n ) than was spent fo r public education 10 years e a r lie r (Gonder# 1980). By 1982# th a t expenditure fig u re had risen to $105 b illio n (Mars# 1982). Gonder# who conducted her study fo r the American Association of School A dm inistrators (AASA)# fu rth e r reported th a t out of 1#517 national respondents# f u lly 75 percent said they faced serious budget problems# and more than two-th1rds of the 75 5 percent said th e ir problems were more serious than two years pre­ viously. She noted: "Balancing the school d is t r ic t budget 1n the 1980's 1s going to be one of the toughest jobs confronting school adm inistrators and school boards." Declining enrollments have an Insidious connection w ith economic stress and do not decrease costs u n til and unless they re s u lt 1n cutbacks 1n s t a f f and/or f a c i lit ie s . In fact# d is tr ic ts with declining enrollments spent about $200 more per student than growing d is tric ts # according to Rodekohr (1976). Add to th is the current c itiz e n pressures fo r ta x reform and the fa c t th a t many s ta te funding mechanisms were developed during periods of growth and are related d ire c tly or In d ire c tly to student count (Leppert 4 Routh# 1978)# and the problem becomes even more complicated. A fte r an extensive study of the e ffe c ts of decline# Zerchykov (1982) concluded th a t "despite a wealth o f data on school financing# It 1s d i f f i c u l t to disentangle the fis c a l e ffe c ts o f enrollm ent decline s p e c ific a lly from the e ffe c ts of other c o rre la tiv e fa c to rs ." In Michigan# w ith the current economic depression# the fin a n c ia l s itu a tio n 1s even more stark and more complicated. I t has been found n a tio n a lly th a t as local school d i s t r i c t revenues from property taxes declined# the s ta te share rose commensurately (Pagen# 1982). In Michigan# p a rtly due to It s c y c lic a l economy and the recent s ta te of recession w ith high unemployment# there have been s ta te budget cuts fo r education. In Introducing a reso lution to the S tate Senate 1n November 1981# Senator Kerry Kammer# a member of the Senate 6 Appropriations Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on School Aid, pointed out th a t the percentage o f the s ta te budget th a t goes to education had declined from 29 percent 1n 1970-71 to 15 percent 1n 1980-81. Another way to look a t 1 t 1s th a t 1n 1968-69, s ta te and local revenue each accounted fo r 48 percent of local school d i s t r ic t revenues; by 1982-83 the s ta te share was down to 37.1 percent* w h ile the local share was up to 57.9 percent (Harvey* 1983). In 1973-74, In an e f f o r t to provide wealth n e u tra lity 1n the funding of schools, Michigan’s le g is la tu re developed a new membership aid formula. I t was summarized as follow s: The membership formula Incorporates a STATE GUARANTEE from which the taxing e f fo r t o f a local d is t r ic t 1s subtracted. I f the STATE GUARANTEE 1s greater than the LOCAL EFFORT, the d i s t r ic t w ill receive the d ifferen ce as membership s ta te aid. I f the LOCAL EFFORT, th a t 1s, the d i s t r ic t ’s a b i lit y to ra is e revenue from the property ta x, exceeds the STATE GUARANTEE, the d is t r ic t Is said to be ”o u t-o f-fo rm u la ." (Harvey, 1983) C urrently, 199 of Michigan's 574 d is tr ic ts are out-o f-fo rm ula. But the remaining "In-form ula" d is tr ic ts are In a strange bind. Because of the Headlee Amendment, local d is tr ic ts may a c tu a lly have th e ir s ta te Income reduced 1f th e ir local assessments ris e a t too rapid a rate. The loss of pupils, coupled w ith a loss of s ta te aid, has often resulted 1n the cu ttin g of school programs. But 1 t 1s "Impossible fo r '1n-form ula' d is tr ic ts to cut programs p ro p o rtio n ally to the amount of funds withheld because o f the loss o f each student" (Pagen, 1982). The re s u lt has been an Increase 1n the d is p a rity of per pupil expenditures (Woons, 1983), an extreme "have" versus "have not" s itu a tio n In Michigan (B edell, 1981). In fa c t, Norman Welnhelmer (1982), Executive 7 D irector of the Michigan Association of School Boards* wondered 1f the net re s u lt of the fin a n c ia l c r is is and re s u ltin g cutbacks 1n programs was bankrupting Michigan's public schools. That declining enrollm ents and fin a n c ia l reductions are In tertw in ed and acute problems* esp ecially 1n Michigan* 1s q u ite cle ar. That both have affected schools w ill be s u ffic ie n tly documented 1n the next chapter. There 1s one aspect of the problem th a t has not ye t been mentioned— the paucity o f Inform ation regarding the Impact of decline on the to ta l school program* esp ecially a t the middle school le v e l. Although there has been much w ritte n about decline* there have been r e la tiv e ly few research studies and l i t t l e else about programs. In Zerchykov's (1982) review o f 250 lit e r a t u r e sources* he found only 68 research studies* w h ile only 6 were on the Impact of decline w ith program as a primary focus. Of the to ta l 250 sources* 1n fa ct* only 16 d e alt w ith school program as a primary focus area. sources* as w ill be seen 1n Chapter I I * schools or middle school programs. secondary programs as a group. None of these d e a lt s p e c ific a lly w ith middle A ll looked a t e ith e r elementary or The only study av aila b le dealing 1n any substantial p art w ith middle schools was completed 1n the f a l l o f 1983 by Nelson fo r the Michigan Department of Education. This study had some figures on class size* enrollm ent numbers* and numbers o f s ta ff* but had nothing about such areas as program c h a ra c te ris tic s or school clim ate. 8 Problems, however, have a way of affording opportunities fo r Innovation. As w ill be documented, one o f the areas where opportunities e x is t 1s a t the middle school le v e l. I f these opportunities are to be used fo r the b e n e fit of children , the best possible Inform ation w ill be necessary. However, since l i t t l e Inform ation 1s cu rren tly a v a ila b le about the Impact of decline on middle schools, more research 1n th is area 1s needed. Purpose o f the Study The purpose of th is d issertatio n 1s to study the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on public middle schools 1n Michigan fo r the period of 1979-1983, as perceived by middle school p rin cipals. Changes, as w ell as how the changes have affected the a b ilit y of schools to develop a middle school program, w ill be examined. Change and Impact w ill be viewed as a function o f four variables— size of the school, level of sta te funding, level of economic change, and level of enrollm ent change— as w ell as selected In teractio n s between the v a ri­ ables. Of fu rth e r In te re s t 1s to determine the e ffe c t of economic and enrollm ent decline In middle school programming, middle school s t a f f ­ ing, and school clim ate. C ertain demographic data w ill be co llected , namely school size, s ta te funding to d is t r ic t , economic change In d is t r ic t , and school enrollm ent change, fo r the purpose of determining th e ir e ffe c t on middle school programming. 9 S ignificance o f the Study Besides simply generating knowledge to f i l l a void th a t ex ists 1n the lite r a tu r e * th is study 1s s ig n ific a n t fo r other reasons. has to do w ith the p eculiar properties of decline. Freeman and Hannan (1981) noted th a t ’’decline 1s not simply growth 1n reverse. d is tin c t process with I t s own* d iffe r e n t dynamics.” tio ns fo r adm inistrators. One I t 1s a This has Im plica­ " D is tr ic t o f f ic ia ls and policymakers risk a possible long-term erosion of the q u a lity of educational d elivery by assuming they can simply subtract out th a t which was added on during expansion" (Berman & McLaughlin* 1978). Much has been w ritte n about the demands of decline on adm inistrators. I t was noted by Henry Morgan (1982)* Dean of the School of Management a t Boston U niversity* th a t "decline a ffe c tin g schools c a lls fo r a new s ty le of management." In fa ct* fo r the years ahead* "mere admlnl s t r a t i on Is not enough* not even when 1t 1s competent. 1981). There 1s a need fo r men and women who lead" (Hechlnger* "Decline management demands a keener sense of balance and proportion 1n the a llo c a tio n of scarce resources* a deeper understand­ ing of human behavior* and a greater awareness of the p r io r it ie s of the future" (Keough* 1978). One of the s k ills necessary fo r today's adm inistrators 1s the a b ilit y to engage e ffe c tiv e ly 1n long-range planning. There 1s l i t t l e lik e lih o o d th a t the society w ill ever again commit the same proportion o f It s to ta l resources to education as were committed between 1950 and 1975. . . . But educational agencies must c le a rly respond to changed p r io r it ie s . (K elley* 1978) 10 Because of th is , "success 1n education 1s almost never the re s u lt of sheer luck. I t 1s, Instead, the outcome of careful planning" ( S t e lla r , 1980). When superintendents were asked what one mistake should be avoided by school d is tr ic ts faced with declining enrollm ent, the answer was often " fa ilu r e to plan ahead" (N e ill, 1981). "Planning provides a process fo r determining fu tu re , as well as present needs and the means fo r developing a lte rn a tiv e pol1c1es/programs to meet those needs" (Boardman, 1979). In fa c t, the lit e r a t u r e 1s f i l l e d with caveats about the c rip p lin g e ffe c ts on program and children from 111-advlsed, unplanned cuts which are made 1n response to momentary p o litic a l con** t1ngencles. There are many models offered 1n the lit e r a tu r e fo r planning the changes th a t w ill re s u lt from decline. The Ph1 D elta Kappa Educational Planning Model, the Bonghart-Trull Model of Educational Planning, and Kaufman’s Educational System Planning were described by S te lla r (1980). The thread th a t ran through each of these and other models fo r change or planning Is the need fo r data or Inform ation about the current s itu a tio n or s ta te of a ffa ir s . In fa c t, one model to I n i t i a t e change and solve problems was Id e n tifie d simply as c o lle c tin g data and making them public (Suehr, 1979). More Im portant, however, than the mere existence of data Is the q u a lity of those data. The Importance of accurate data cannot be too g re a tly stressed (Keough, 1978). This, then, brings us f u l l c ir c le . Educational leaders need accurate data about the e ffe c ts o f decline not 11 ju s t because 1t f i l l s a void th a t ex ists 1n the lite r a tu r e * but because 1 t 1s necessary to have 1n order to e ffe c tiv e ly plan fo r fu tu re declines and growth. This study Is also s ig n ific a n t because declining enrollm ents and fin a n c ia l support are major problems th a t w ill remain w ith us through the 1980s. In Gonder's (1980) survey of AASA members* school finance and budget problems consistently rated f i r s t or second among a large number o f possible concerns. S im ila rly * a survey of 878 school board members by the National School Boards Association ranked budgetrelated Items 8 times out of the top 11 concerns. In the 17th Annual Gallup Poll (1983)* "lack o f proper fin a n c ia l support" continued as one of the top four concerns and ranked number three among public school parents. The Educational Research Service noted* Recent national surveys have found th a t nearly a ll groups of school o f f ic ia ls surveyed rank declining enrollm ent as an Issue o f serious concern. Moreover* enrollm ent decline brings with 1t many associated problems such as adequate school financing* cost reduction* s t a f f reductions* f a c i l i t i e s planning* and school closings* which adm in istrators and board members have also ranked among th e ir biggest problems" (Porwoll* 1980) This connection between enrollm ent decline and fin a n c ia l support fo r schools was determined to be tie d w ith taxpayer sentiment. "Taxpayers are Increasingly u n w illin g to support ris in g school budgets fo r a decreasing number of pupils" (Zerchykov# 1982). This study 1s needed fo r a number of other s p e c ific reasons. The 1983 study by Nelson fo r the Michigan Department of Education* which Included some program -effects data* was considered to be Important because 12 As a re s u lt of data collected herein* a considerable dimension may be added as appropriate o f f ic i a ls attem pt to respond accurately to le g is la tiv e and congressional committees regarding proper funding le v e ls fo r "catch up" and an adequate funding fu tu re . Zerchykov (1982) believed th a t lit e r a t u r e on declining enrollm ent and consolidation needs to break away "from e ith e r cookbooks giving recipes to adm inistrators on how to avoid the lash of community anger or research on th e technology o f p ro je c tio n s . . . ." Research 1s needed s p e c ific a lly 1n the area of middle schools fo r several reasons. of middle schools. One 1s because of the amazing growth 1n numbers From the f i r s t middle school 1n the United States 1n Bay City* Michigan* 1n 1950* growth has been su b stan tial. Cuff (1967) found 499 middle schools n a tio n a lly In 1965-66* but by 1977 Brooks (1978) had found 4*060. The development o f middle schools was ca lled "one of the most remarkable phenomena In the histo ry of American education" (Gatewood & D1lg, 1978). Many middle schools were started fo r philosophical or educa­ tio n a l reasons (Valentine* 1981). crowding (Corducd* 1979). Some were started to e lim in a te over­ Others were started fo r a combination of educational and s p a tia l reasons (Alexander* 1968; Onofrls* 1971; Sinks* 1975). In the e a rly years of the middle school* the 1960s and ea rly 1970s* the overcrowding resulted from Increases In enrollm ent. Today the overcrowding ex is ts because buildings have been closed and consoli­ dated. Regardless of the reasons* the growth of the middle school continues. Middle schools are also Im portant to study because of the tremendous Impact th a t s t a f f tran sfe rs have on the middle school and* 13 p o te n tia lly * It s program. Since the middle school most freq uen tly encompasses grades 6-8# teachers 1n Michigan w ith elementary c e r tific a te s (grades K-8) and teachers w ith secondary c e r tific a te s (grades 7-12) may teach any subject a t grades 7 and 8. These tran sfers become more and more H k e ly as enrollments decline and buildings are closed. The middle school# In a sense# gets 1 t from both ends. As Michigan's Superintendent of Public Instruction# Dr. P h ilip Runkel# noted In a recent speech (1983)# "The middle school has had a greater Impact from declining enrollm ent than any other le v e l." There 1s a need fo r program-Impact Information# esp ecially regarding the middle school. I t 1s also Important to fin d out 1f the size of the school and the level of s ta te funding make a d ifferen ce 1n Impact. A ll of the studies reviewed th a t d e a lt with size# d e a lt w ith only d is t r ic t size. Although some studies looked a t d is t r ic t wealth# none s p e c ific a lly looked a t 1n-formula and o u t-o f-fo rm u la d is tr ic ts 1n Michigan. I t 1s Im portant to look a t how changes and Impacts are perceived because a ttitu d e s and feelin g s are so Important. surveying 1*000 people nationwide* A fte r I t was concluded th a t "a d is tr ic t's a ttitu d e and approach to a school closing or a budget cut sometimes can a ffe c t whether the experience 1s good or bad” (Gonder* 1977). Put another way# How you fe el 1s more Important than what you know* because how you feel controls your behavloi— what you know doesn't. . . . When 1t comes to a b a ttle between brains and glands# glands usually win. (K e lley, 1981) 14 I t 1s Important to study the perceptions of middle school p rin cip als because* as the ad m in is tra tiv e head and supervisory o ffic e r of the school* the prin cipal makes c r it ic a l decisions and recommendations regarding s ta ffin g * program* school rules and procedures* and nearly a ll other aspects of the school. I t 1s Im portant to look a t the e ffe c ts over a period o f the la s t fiv e years fo r several reasons. As has been documented* Michigan’s middle schools have been In a period of only s lig h t enrollm ent decline fo r the past two or three years. During th is "calm before the storm*" the cumulative e ffe c ts o f the past f a i r l y sharp decline are now being f e l t . Middle schools are also now being h it hard by the fu rth e r sharp decline th a t 1s beginning a t a ll secondary levels. Five years 1s also a reasonable period fo r prin cip als to remember as they re la te th e ir perceptions of change and Impact. AssumptlQns..of the, Study This d is s e rta tio n 1s based on the follow ing assumptions: 1. School o f f ic ia ls need, and seek* factual Inform ation about the e ffe c ts of decline fo r schools a t a ll lev els 1n the d i s t r ic t . 2. Middle school prin cip als need* and seek* factu al Informa­ tio n about the e ffe c ts of decline on middle schools* on which to base decisions and recommendations fo r educational policy. 3. P rin cip als hold a c r it ic a l position 1n the hierarchy of educational leadership. 15 4. The questions prepared and organized 1n the survey Instrument are appropriate fo r measuring middle school programs* s ta ff* and school clim ate. 5. The survey Instrument was understood* and p rin cip a ls responded as they honestly believed the s itu a tio n to be. Lim itations o f the Study 1. This study was lim ite d to those schools Id e n tifie d as public middle schools by the Michigan Department of Education. 2. The study was lim ite d to the time frame 1979 through 1983. 3. The study was lim ite d to the perceptions of p rin cip a ls about program* s ta ff* and school clim ate* as well as th e ir perceptions of the lev el and In te n s ity of change In school enrollm ent and economic stress. 4. The study was lim ite d by the degree to which the survey Instrument 1s understood by the respondent p rin cip a ls and by the accuracy of th e ir responses. 5. The study was lim ite d by the degree to which the survey Instrument accurately measures middle school programs* s ta ff* school clim ate* enrollm ent change* and economic change. D e fin itio n o f Terms Middle school. An educational u n it w ith a philosophy* structure* and program which w ill r e a lis t ic a lly and appropriately deal with 11 to 14 year olds as they are and behave. It s commitment 1s p rim arily to the youth I t seeks to serve (Georglady & Romano* 1973). 16 P rin c ip a l. The ad m in istrative head and supervisory o ffic e r of a public school (Smith* 1982). Perception. A quick* acute* In tu it iv e cognition; a personal understanding (Webster* 1980). Decline. Organizational contractions* whether due to enrollment drops or fis c a l a u s te rity . Enrollment. The number of fu ll-tim e -e q u iv a le n t students a c tu a lly enrolled and In regular attendance (Michigan School Code* 1976). Economic. The sum to ta l of fis c a l revenues fo r the school* whether from lo cal* state* or federal sources* a fte r costs have been subtracted out* and accompanying m anifestations. State equalized valuation (SEV). The sum to ta l of d is tr ic ts ’ real and personal property tax base subject to ta xatio n as equalized a t 50 percent of f a i r market value (Brigham* 1983). In-form ula d i s t r ic t . A d is t r ic t 1n which the s ta te guarantee 1s greater than the local taxing e f fo r t; a d i s t r ic t th a t receives sta te per pupil membership aid (Michigan Department of Education* 1983). O ut-of-form ula d is t r ic t . A d i s t r ic t 1n which the local taxing e f f o r t exceeds the s ta te guarantee; a d is t r ic t th a t does not receive s ta te per pupil membership aid (Michigan Department o f Education* 1983). Eighteen basic c h a ra c te ris tic s . Those 18 c h a ra c te ris tic s of a middle school th a t were o r ig in a lly Id e n tifie d and valid ated by Rlegle (1971) as being basic to a middle school program. 17 Research Questions 1. Are there any patterns 1n middle school p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions of the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on changes 1n program* s ta ff* and clim ate In middle schools 1n Michigan? 2. Are there any patterns 1n middle school p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions of the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and clim ate have had on the school's development as a middle school? 3. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change 1n program* s ta ff* and c lim a te vary as a function of the fo llo w in g four variables? a. size of the school b. level o f s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d i s t r ic t d. enrollment change 1n the school 4. Do middle school p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions o f the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and c lim a te have had on th e school's devel­ opment as a middle school vary as a function o f the fo llo w in g four variables? a. s ize of the school b. level o f s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d is t r ic t d. enrollment change 1n the school 5. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change 1n program* s ta ff* and c lim a te vary as a function o f In teractio n s among selected variables? a. size of the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t b. enrollm ent change 1n the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. enrollm ent change 1n the school by s ize of the school 6. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and c lim a te have had on the school's devel­ opment as a middle school vary as a function of In te ra c tio n s among selected variables? a. size of the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t b. enrollment change 1n the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d i s t r ic t c. enrollm ent change 1n the school by s ize of the school 18 Overview o f t he Study In the f i r s t chapter* the problem was presented* as well as the need fo r* and purpose of* the study. The assumptions and lim ita tio n s were stated along w ith the d e fin itio n s o f Im portant terms. Research questions were Introduced. In the second chapter* selected lit e r a t u r e and research sources re la te d to the basic elements of the study are reviewed. e ffe c ts of decline are discussed. tions 1n force are reviewed. F irs t* the Second* school closures and reduc­ Third* an explanation of the 18 basic middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s 1s provided. In the th ird chapter* the design o f the study 1s presented. The population and sampling method are presented* followed by a description o f the survey Instrum ent and It s development. Data- gatherlng procedures are described and research questions are presented. The s t a tis tic a l treatm ent employed 1n In te rp re tin g the data 1s Introduced. In the fourth chapter* the research questions are presented along w ith the s t a tis tic a l treatm ents employed to analyze the data. Data resu lts are then examined 1n re la tio n to each of the research questions. A dditional descrip tive data r e la tiv e to s p e c ific Item analyses are also provided. In the f i f t h chapter* the conclusions and Im plicatio ns are drawn. Recommendations fo r fu rth e r study and general recommendations are a l s o provided. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction There seems to be no shortage of lit e r a t u r e on the e ffe c ts and resu lts of decline 1n enrollm ent and finances on school d is tr ic ts a t the elementary and secondary lev els . L i t t l e o f th is lit e r a tu r e s p e c ific a lly addresses the middle school. While th ere 1s no shortage o f "adv1ce/op1n1on/theory"-type lit e r a t u r e , there 1s a shortage of research and a p a rtic u la r shortage of research on program e ffe c ts . V ir tu a lly no research ex ists on program e ffe c ts a t the middle school le v e l. As w ill be seen, th ere are some contradictions between the theory about what ought to happen and the research findings about what a c tu a lly does happen. I t w il l also be seen th a t 1t 1s extremely d i f f i c u l t , 1f not Impossible, to distinguish between e ffe c ts of decline 1n enrollments, finances, or other related areas. Heavy emphasis w ill be placed on the findings of Dembowskl e t a l. (1979), who conducted the most comprehensive national study to date on program e ffe c ts a t the public elementary and secondary levels. His study, completed fo r the Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, involved 320 d is tr ic ts across the nation, of which 94 d is tr ic ts or 31 percent responded. Emphasized a t the Michigan level w ill be the study completed 1n 1983 fo r the Michigan Department of 19 20 Education by Nelson. This study surveyed a s t r a t if ie d sample of Michigan’s school d is tr ic ts , broken down by d is t r ic t size. were surveyed 1n each stratum. Ten schools Responses were good 1n a ll but one stratum , 1n which only three of the ten school d is tr ic ts replied. Caution was requested 1n generalizing from th a t stratum. Nelson's study did have some s p e c ific Inform ation related to middle school s ta ffin g and program demographics. Also frequently c ite d w ill be Zerchykov (1982), whose study consisted of an extensive review of lit e r a tu r e on managing decline 1n school systems. As some studies are Introduced fo r the f i r s t tim e 1n th is chapter, some basic Inform ation of the type supplied above w ill be Introduced. The review of the lit e r a t u r e w ill provide a background of Inform ation related to the purposes o f th is study. The review w ill be presented as follows: — E ffects of decline: n a tio n a lly and 1n Michigan — School closings — Reductions 1n force: n a tio n a lly and 1n Michigan — Middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s The chapter concludes with a general summary. E ffects o f Decline: N a tio n a lly Organizational Demography Organizational demography 1s a term coined by Freeman and Hannan 1n th e ir 1981 study and re fe rs to s t a f f composition c h a ra c te ris tic s such as age, pu pil-teacher ra tio s , and s a laries . Several major studies have been conducted n a tio n a lly regarding these 21 ch a ra c te ris tic s . The studies were In agreement 1n most areas on what the e ffe c ts o f decline were. — The median age of s t a f f Increased (Dembowskl* 1979? Hlckrod, 1976; Rodekohr, 1976). Conclusions may be only associated w ith decline 1n rural areas 1n Rodekohr’ s study. — P upil-teacher ra tio s were lower and lowest 1n d is tr ic ts declining most ra p id ly (Hlckrod* 1976; Rodekohr* 1976; Odden & Vincent* 1978). —Teaching s ta ffs were reduced proportionately more than ad m in istra tive s ta ffs (Freeman & Hannan* 1981; Hlckrod* 1976; Odden & V incent* 1978). — Average teacher s a la rie s were found to be higher 1n declining d is tr ic ts by Hlckrod (1976), but no d ifferen ce from s ta te averages was found by Odden and Vincent 1n 1978. — Fewer teachers capable o f teaching 1n more than one subject area were hired 1n declining d is tr ic ts (Rodekohr* 1976). Costs I t 1s d i f f i c u l t to generalize about costs. Whether a problem ex ists or not depends on many facto rs, such as the level of s ta te contributions to d is t r ic t revenues, d is tric ts * property wealth, and the w illingness o f the community to maintain a constant ra te of ta xation regardless of enrollm ent. Some generalizations are possible, however. On a per pupil basis, costs fo r In stru ctio n al and ad m in istra tive s t a ff ris e , as do costs fo r plan t maintenance and fixed charges. Costs do 22 not decrease unless decline causes cutbacks 1n f a c i l i t i e s and s t a f f (Odden & Vincent* 1978). Range o f Programs Range of programs refe rs to the v a rie ty of program o fferin g s th a t ex ists 1n the curriculum . Several conclusions were found regarding program range. Declining enrollments are associated w ith the reduction of course offerin g s 1n e le c tiv e s but not 1n core curriculum . Only course offering s 1n foreign languages* a g ric u ltu ra l education* and d riv e r education were consistently jeopardized by declining enrollm ents and only then 1n d is tr ic ts which experienced a decline of 20 percent or more. S ta ff and fa c u lty a llo ca tio n s followed these s h ifts 1n the range of course o ffe rin g s . (Zerchykov* 1982) Dembowskl (1979) found th a t w hile special and compensatory education services did not decline* he did report a decline 1n language arts* science* and mathematics. A C r itic a l Issues report fo r the American Association of School Adm inistrators Indicated th a t the e ffe c ts on programs a t the elementary level were "not too serious" but a t the secondary le v e l* e le c tiv e s were elim inated; some classes were offered 1n a lte rn a te years; a c tiv ity programs were c u rta ile d , elim inated* or Impaired; and any other programs not f a llin g In to the "basics" category were lik e ly to be reduced or elim inated (N e ill* 1981). Program Innovations Program Innovations re fe r to newly Introduced In stru ctio n al programs and teaching stra teg ies. This section 1s p a rtic u la rly Important since much o f the middle school philosophy Is considered to 23 be Innovative. The a v a ila b le studies were 1n agreement th a t d is tr ic ts 1n decline were not very Innovative. I t 1s lik e ly newer teachers are able to Implement Innovative practices. Because they cannot h ire new teachers* school d is tr ic ts must e ith e r bear the cost o f re tra in in g old er teachers or opt fo r status quo In stru ctio n al programs Instead o f Innovative ones. (Dembowskl# 1978) Dembowskl (1981) also saw a trend# esp ec ially 1n core areas th a t have exhibited some Innovations# to "homogenize" programs and r e s t r ic t them to the basics which he said would also r e s t r ic t d is t r ic t s 1 a b ilit y "to accommodate In divid ual differen ces and o ffe r h ig h -q u a lity educational o p p o rtu n itie s ." Several related points were made by Keough 1n 1978: The desire or w illingn ess to tr y "something new" Is most frequently expressed by the young. . . . We now fin d ourselves 1n the position where program Improvement 1s» fo r most d is tric ts # not the crucial concern; "m aintaining what we have" 1s the c r it ic a l Issue. . . . It 's usually the very Innovations th a t made the d i s t r i c t a "lighthouse" th a t are the f i r s t to go. In terms of p a rtic u la r Innovative practices# d is tr ic ts 1n decline and growth exhibited no differen ce 1n the use of team teaching; less use o f Individual1zed In s tru c tio n ; a greater lik e lih o o d o f having a lte rn a tiv e education programs; a greater use of computer-assisted In s tru c tio n ; and a considerably lesser In c lin a tio n to shorten th e ir In stru ctio n al m aterials replacement cycle (Dembowskl* 1979). Zerchykov (1982) saw th is In s tru c tio n a l m ate ria ls replacement cycle as a b e tte r measure of fis c a l Impact than gross data about per pupil expenditures. 24 Program Q uality In looking back and summarizing the re s u lts of his 1979 study* Dembowskl (1980) stated th a t declining enrollm ents are beginning to take th e ir t o l l on In s tru c tio n a l programs. He fu rth e r stated: The d is tr ic ts th a t were g re a tly affected by enrollm ent declines reported th a t the q u a lity of th e ir educational program deteriorated the most. Our evidence suggests th a t I f school d is tr ic ts experience s lig h t declines 1n student enrollment* the q u a lity of the educational program may be Increased because I t 1s not necessary to reduce teacher s t a f f or s e ll buildings. . . . However* as the pinch of declining enrollments Is f e l t fin a n c ia lly through reductions 1n s ta te aid* which 1s based on the number of pupils* more s trin g e n t measures become necessary. He also noted th a t drop-out rates Increased 1n declining d is tr ic ts . A New Mexico study found th a t some d is tr ic ts reported educa­ tio n a l d e te rio ra tio n because of declines (Davis* 1982)* whereas an Ontario study spoke o f the negative e ffe c t on classroom In te ra c tio n and curriculum Implementation (Lelghwood & Montgomery* 1978). When school o f f ic i a ls were asked fo r th e ir perceptions* the o v e ra ll sample f e l t t h e ir programs had deteriorated* w hile In the la rg e r school d is tr ic ts the program had not deteriorated (Rodekohr* 1976). A s lig h t m a jo rity (53 percent) 1n Wllken and Callahan’s 1978 sample said there was a minimal Impact on program q u a lity . I t was concluded th a t: Respondents 1n school d is tr ic ts w ith Increasing enrollm ent th ink th a t educational services have been d e te rio ra tin g most rapid ly 1n the same areas c ite d by respondents 1n school d is tr ic ts with declining enrollm ent. Rodekohr's sample focused on rural communities* whereas Wllken and Callahan's sample d is tr ic ts were unusually high 1n property wealth. Despite the differen ces of these samples* program q u a lity was affected . 25 Morale Although nothing was found regarding the morale of students 1n the school* several sources spoke to the morale o f adm inistrators and s t a f f and It s eventual Impact on In s tru c tio n . Today w ith fewer students and fewer schools* the number of openings among a d m in is tra tiv e ranks has also decreased. Because of th is decline* those holding ad m in is tra tiv e positions tend to stay* locking o f f opportunities fo r advancement among teacher aspirants. The oversupply of competent* well tra in e d classroom teachers caught 1n th is "closed opportunity" tra p w i l l dram atically a ffe c t the clim ate o f schools and the morale o f In stru ctio n al s ta ffs . As 1f lack of career advancement opportunities* decreased job s a tis fa c tio n and lowered morale were not enough fo r teachers to bear* as program budget cuts* economies* and reduction 1n force set 1n» they may see a competent colleague w ith less s e n io rity lose a po sition. (Keough* 1978) The events th a t w i ll In e v ita b ly occur when enrollments or resources decline were Id e n tifie d by Sybouts 1n 1979. He Included fe ar and apprehension among teachers* d e te rio ra tin g morale* d if f ic u lt y 1n achieving cooperative e ffo rts * and a propensity toward retrenchment. The p revailin g mood of "pessimism* self-d ou bt and conservatism" was noted by Hechlnger (1981)# w hile N e ill (1981) stated th a t "teacher morale and teaching q u a lity may s u ffe r— th a t 1s the bottom lin e on In s tru c tio n ." Supervisory Practices The Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) surveyed school leaders 1n 16 d is tr ic ts nationwide 1n 1980. They reported no perceived Impact of decline 1n supervisory practices# which Included provisions fo r In-service# teacher evaluation* cu rricu­ lum Improvement* and In s tru c tio n a l supervision. 26 D is t r ic t Wea1th/Soc1oeconom1c Status Very l i t t l e generalIzable Inform ation Is a v a ila b le 1n th is area. In Dembowskl’s (1979) sample* the poorer d is tr ic ts were generally the ones w ith declining enrollm ents. Higher c o n flic t lev els were found to be associated w ith decline* and esp ecially school closing, 1n higher status d is tr ic ts (Boyd* 1979). In Illin o is * w e a lth ie r d is tr ic ts la id o f f fewer s ta ff* given equal rates of decline (Hlckrod* 1976). Declining Iowa d is tr ic ts had lower tax rates and higher school revenues than the s ta te average* but th is was no doubt due to the property wealth of the d is tr ic ts sampled (Wllken & Callahan* 1978). D is t r ic t Location (Urban Versus Rural Versus Suburban) Findings regarding the Importance o f d is t r ic t lo cation were somewhat sketchy. Rural d is tr ic ts were less lik e ly to have Innovative programs and more lik e ly to have d if f ic u lt y m aintaining an Innovative and comprehensive program (Rodekohr* 1976). I t has been noted th a t perhaps d is t r ic t location 1s not of c r i t ic a l Importance: "There are no loyal d1str1ctw1de supporters, only loyal school supporters" (E1senberger, 1974). The symbolic Importance of the urban neighborhood school and the rural town or township high school were spoken o f as being unmatched by anything 1n the suburban context by Zerchykov (1982). In a study of 37 school closings In St. Louis* Missouri* 1t was found th a t the Important featu re of urban school d is tr ic ts was the dysfunctions produced by larg e -sc ale bureaucratic structures and the 27 p a rtic u la r d if f ic u lt y 1n g ettin g accurate Inform ation fo r local dis­ t r i c t planning (Colton & French* 1979). D is t r ic t Size (Large Versus Small) More data were av aila b le 're g a rd in g d is t r ic t size. Small dis­ t r ic t s were less lik e ly to have Innovative programs because they could not r e a liz e minimal economies of scale (Rodekohr* 1976). Smaller d is tr ic ts were less lik e ly to In s titu te e a rly retirem ent* use a lte rn a ­ tiv e education and computer-ass1sted-1nstruct1on programs* and more lik e ly to lengthen m ate ria ls replacement cycles* but these findings held tru e fo r both declining and growing d is tr ic ts (Dembowskl* 1979). The ASCD (1981) found a reduction as high as 60 percent 1n supervisory and curriculum support personnel 1n large and small d is tr ic ts . A survey of school boards and teachers 1n Ontario by Enns concluded th a t sm aller schools have experienced more severe problems as a re s u lt of pupil reduction. The National School Boards Association found 1n 1976 th a t sm aller d is tr ic ts are hardest h it by enrollm ent decline because they are less able to absorb the loss o f per pupil fin a n c ia l support. Middle Schools The only national data a v a ila b le were 1n an a r t ic le by Col11ns and Lucone (1982) on the e ffe c ts of Massachusetts' Proposition 2£» a tax-11m1t1ng proposal* on the ty p ica l middle school from 1980 to 1981. They described a reduction 1n enrollm ent from 774 to 750 w ith a mandate to trim the budget by 15 percent. The reductions or elim in atio n s were 28 carried out 1n an across-the-board fashion th a t l e f t no aspect of the program or personnel untouched. E ffects o f Decline; Michigan As mentioned previously* there does not e x is t a large volume of data about e ffe c ts of decline 1n Michigan. A position paper fo r the Michigan Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development stated: Reductions 1n the In stru ctio n al programs have been necessary 1n most school d is tr ic ts 1n Michigan. Due to the In a b ilit y on the part of the s ta te to provide adequate basic State Aid to 1n-formu1a d is tr ic ts , these d is tr ic ts appear to have reduced programs to a greater exten t. (Woons, 1983) The paper went on to describe some of the reductions and elim in atio n s th a t occurred, because of reduced resources and declining enrollm ents, 1n a sampling of West Michigan d is tr ic ts . The 11st Included reading lab o rato ries; 1nterscholast1c and Intram ural sports a t the Junior high; g ifte d and ta lented programs; d riv e r education; f ie ld tr ip s ; vocal music, a r t, and physical education a t the elementary le v e l; reduction 1n periods a t a ll secondary le v e ls ; environmental education and camping; and budgets fo r audio-visual m a te ria ls , textbooks, teaching supplies, lib r a r y and research m aterials, s t a f f workshops and conferences, In -s e rv ic e , and a th le tic s . Another 1983 study Included a 11st of e ffe c ts : pay freezes or only regular Increment Increases; reduction o f work hours, shortened work years, salary deferments, not f i l l i n g vacancies, and su b stitu ting compensatory tim e fo r overtime pay 1n the case of adm inistrators; reduction or e lim in a tio n of support personnel such as teacher aides, 29 custodial and maintenance workers* and food service personnel; and a a number o f other conservation measures (Strauss* 1983). The 1983 Michigan Department of Education study by Nelson examined how recent economic problems have affected the funding of public school education 1n Michigan. Nelson looked a t a v a rie ty of Items a t the elementary* Junior h1gh/m1ddle school* and secondary le v e ls . He Id e n tifie d the percentage of change th a t had occurred from the 1976-77 school year through the 1982-83 school year. In nearly every category* th ere was a considerable change* frequently much greater a t the ju n io r high/m iddle school lev el than a t e ith e r of the other two le v e ls . In b rie f* he found th a t a t the ju n io r h1gh/m1ddle school level the follow ing changes occurred: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Average number of hours per day— decreased 4.8% Average p u p il/teac h e r ra tio s — Increased 6.6% Average pupil/counselor ra tio s — decreased 1.4% Average p u p il/teac h e r r a tio In the basics (English* math* science* social stu d ie s )— Increased 2.5% Average p u p ll-teach er r a tio 1n a r t* home economics* physical education and music— Increased 3.8% Nearly o n e -h a lf of the 1nterscholast1c and Intramural a th le tic programs decreased (46%) D ally cleaning decreased 1n 29% o f the d is tr ic ts Building repairs decreased 1n 21% o f the d is tr ic ts (and a c tu a lly Increased 1n 36%) A comparison o f the differences between the la rg e s t d is tr ic ts and the sm allest d is tr ic ts showed: 1. 2. 3. The same or clo sely s im ila r percentages of change were evident 1n the average number of hours per day. Smaller d is tr ic ts showed a greater decrease 1n average number of periods per day and 1n pupil/counselor r a tio . [High schools showed an In crease.] In a ll areas but physical education* smaller d is tr ic ts had greater Increases In p u p il/teach er ra tio s . 30 4. 5. 6. 7. Smaller d is tr ic ts showed greater decreases 1n sports, d a lly cleaning and building rep a irs . Smaller d is tr ic ts were funded to a greater degree by local funds and th e ir Increases 1n s ta te and federal funding le v e ls per c h ild were less. Less also were the Increases In funds per c h ild 1n basic In stru ctio n al programs and to ta l programs. Enrollment declined somewhat less ra p id ly 1n sm aller d is tr ic ts (11.8% versus 13.2%), operational expenditures per ch ild Increased less# but State Equalized Valuation (SEV) per c h ild Increased much more (138.3% to 68.8%). The to ta l levied m illage was nearly the same fo r both the large and small d is t r ic t s . School Closings Two areas of e ffe c ts deserve special mention# both because of the abundance o f lit e r a t u r e regarding them and the Impact they have on middle schools. (RIF). They are school closings and reductions 1n force Both often re s u lt In teachers being reassigned, frequently to the middle school. This can have a major Impact on the q u a lity of the program, since some of these reassigned teachers do not want to teach middle school children and others have tro u b le adjusting th e ir teaching s ty le to meet the unique needs and behaviors of th is age group. With th is 1n mind, the lit e r a t u r e follow s. At the s ta r t o f the 1978-79 school year, the Com ptroller General of the United States sent a questionnaire to the 50 states about school closings. 1n 19 states. He found th a t there were 2,943 vacant schools When asked 1n June 1981, he estimated there were prob­ ably 6,000 closed schools 1n a t le a s t 40 states (N e ill, 1981). The number of closings would reach 10,000 by the end of the decade, according to Hechlnger (1981). School closings are only one of the a lte rn a tiv e s fo r dealing w ith fin a n c ia l and enrollm ent declines, 31 but the cost savings make 1t an a ttr a c tiv e option. In fa ct* small d is tr ic ts are looking to reorganization as a possible solution because they are becoming too small to operate e f f ic ie n t ly or to provide an adequate educational program (Wood* 1981). however* Is not the sole consideration. Saving the most money* Keough (1978)* who was Involved 1n one of the f i r s t New York S tate school closures due to declining enrollments* stated: School d is tr ic ts caught In a fin a n c ia l c r is is have only a few possible courses o f action: reduce s t a f f and cut program* consolidate f a c ilit ie s * ra is e local taxes or operate under d e f ic it budgets. . . . Most adm inistrators view f a c i l i t y contraction as the lesser e v i l . School consolidation and/or reorganization freq uen tly resu lts 1n the development of a s1xth-through-e1ghth-grade middle school organization. I t was reported th a t moving the ninth graders to the high schools and six th graders to the ju n io r highs saved money through Increased capacity use and economies o f scale 1n Maryland (Rlew* 1981). I t was noted by another source th a t reorganization 1n 6-8 middle schools and closing a ju n io r high 1s a ttra c tiv e 1n medium- and larg e­ sized d is tr ic ts 1n part because ju n io r high schools have never developed the lo y a lty th a t high schools and neighborhood elementary schools have among parents (Bussard* 1981). by Brodlnsky (1982)* Another reason* mentioned 1s th a t fo r the two-th1rds o f the nation's school d is tr ic ts with only one high school* school closing 1s no so lu tio n . For many others* school closings are not desirable. be due 1n part to the way closure decisions are made. This may In St. Louis the operative c r it e r ia fo r school closure were school location and school 32 size (Colton & F rellch* 1979). A comparative case study of 12 school d is tr ic ts In New Jersey showed th a t the major c r ite rio n used was the neighborhoods with the le a s t p o litic a l clout* as defined by voter turnout (Bornsteln, 1979). Bornsteln also found th a t elected school board members who are Involved 1n contested school-closure decisions tend not to be re -e le c te d . C ertain ly the pressures are great. In re fle c tin g on school closings and the accompanying la y o ffs 1n Michigan* Crane (1982) wrote: We closed th e ir school* la id o f f one of th e ir fa v o rite teachers* cut programs* enlarged classes* and to top everything else* th e ir ta x b i l l 1s higher than ever! The explanation may be plausible* accurate* and t o t a ll y honest* but I t simply doesn't s e ll. Keough (1978) stated: Pressure from parents to keep designated schools open and cut programs 1s p itte d against pressure from parents supportive of q u a lity programs. Both are p itte d against pressure from residents without school-age children to a ffe c t economies through any means. Some adm inistrators* given a choice* choose to cut s t a f f and/or programs. . . . The concentrated costs of school closing upon p a rtic u la r neighborhoods which c le a rly are the losers In the policymaking game* o rd in a rily w ill produce a much more Intense public p a rtic ip a tio n and opposition* a t le a s t 1n those p a rtic u la r neighborhoods* than w ill the d is trib u te d costs of across-the-board cuts 1n teaching personnel throughout the school d is t r ic t . (Boyd* 1979) In making program cuts* the problem becomes which program to cut and how. 1. 2. 3. 4. Four main approaches are often Id e n tifie d : Not a ll D iscip lin es Are Equal: Amputate Selected Programs. A ll of the D iscip lin es Are Equal: Trim Each Program. A ll the D isciplin es Are Equal But Should Not Cost the Same: A llo cate Resources Based on Unique Needs of a Program. The Formal D iscip lin es Are Not Necessarily Separate: Combining Programs. (W alter & Kopp* 1979) 33 Each o f these approaches* of course* has strengths and weaknesses. Regardless of the approach chosen* however* one caution Is mentioned frequently 1n the advice lit e r a tu r e . The Michigan Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development Id e n tifie d 1t as the most basic p rin c ip le to consider 1n It s 1983 position statement: Make reductions which w ill do the le a s t damage to learners. One scenario was described* however* th a t 1s happening a ll too frequently: A decision 1s made to consolidate f a c i l i t i e s . The decision Is met with considerable community opposition* and a protracted b a ttle ensues. stalem ate has been reached. Late 1n the year* both sides r e a liz e th a t a Th eir fin a n c ia l c r is is 1s Imminent* the f a c i l i t y plan 1s dead* and 1t 1s too la te to hold a referendum. only thing l e f t Is to cut program (Keough* 1978). The Keough went on to s ta te : Program cut decisions are made under pressure* quickly and usually without a w ell thought out plan. Decisions to cut are made by the d o lla r signs, or by fig u rin g out the area of le a s t community resistance, or by ta rg e tin g the area th a t 1s the le a s t protected by the teachers* contract. At the secondary le v e l* the e le ctives are usually the f i r s t to go. Although school closure 1s a common response to decline* l i t t l e has been w ritte n on the Impact of retrenchment decisions. Few d is tr ic ts study the Impact of the policy option f in a lly adopted* according to Zerchykov (1982). The only study a v a ila b le on the topic was done 1n Ithaca* New York* w ith 143 second through f i f t h graders by Richards and Cohen (1981). They found th a t the children's reactions to merger and closure were related to Immediacy. I n i t i a l l y there were 34 strong negative reactions* but they found l i t t l e long-term e ffe c t academically or otherwise. They did fin d th a t age made a differen ce. The adjustment was ea sie r fo r the f i f t h graders. In reference to people's a ttitu d e s about school closures* 1t has been said: 'There 1s a sense of accomplishment and enthusiasm about constructing new buildings. There tends to be an opposite fe e lin g experienced w ith the notion of closed buildings" (Hamet* 1981). W illiam Clark (1981)* a Massachusetts adm inistrator* Indicated th a t 1f reorganization Is done properly* negative fe e lin g s need not e x is t. In re fe rrin g to his d is tr ic t's reorganization In to one w ith a middle school* he said: teachers' excitement. 'The thing we're most pleased about 1s the At a tim e when teachers generally are kind of down about la y o ffs , we've managed to rekin dle a tru e school s p i r i t . " Would th a t Clark's comment was the norm. th is out. The lit e r a t u r e did not bear The days of closing a school to Improve the q u a lity of education* according to N e ill (1981)* are few and fa r between. Reductions In Force (R IF ): The to pic of RIF 1s "second only to N atio n ally school closure 1n the amount o f a tte n tio n 1t receives 1n the lite r a tu r e " (Zerchykov, 1982). According to the National Association of Elementary School P rin cip als (1983)* the number of teachers employed 1n elementary and secondary schools grew by 37 percent from 1961 to 1970* but only by 7 percent from 1971 to 1980. Teachers hired fo r new positions decreased 20 percent from 1971 to 1980. They also Indicated th a t the outlook 1s not H k e ly to be b etter u n til the end o f the 1980s. 35 A summary look a t the lit e r a tu r e on RIF yielded the fo llo w in g : RIF 1s usually only one aspect o f a complicated and In te rre la te d attempt to deal w ith decline. Each decision to a ffe c t economies sets In motion a series of other possible consequences. I t was explained as follow s: . . . Considering closing schools led In to planning and In to community Involvement. Closing a school may lead to RIF* and RIF may lead to considering In -s e rv ic e and other m itig a tin g actions which* 1n turn* lead to fu rth e r expenses* which create renewed community pressure to make more cuts* I.e .* cuts 1n program. (Zerchykov* 1982) What were considered to be major factors com plicating the Issue of RIF were ou tlin ed by Keough (1978). He c o lle c tiv e ly ca lled them "educa­ tio n a l drawbacks." 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Increased class s iz e . lim ite d p o s s ib ilitie s to Increase the d iv e rs ity of o fferin g s and to Incorporate 1ong-des1red special c u rric u la r features previously shelved because of space lim ita tio n s . . . . the negative Impact on o verall d is t r ic t clim ate and teacher morale. . . . the p o s s ib ility of having to dismiss the most recently hired : m inority group members* ta len ted beginning teachers and p a rt-tim e aides or paraprofesslonals. . . . RIF may take along those long fought fo r special program areas. . . . the greatest drawback of a l l : Indecision and perennial d r i f t — a condition th a t fo r many seems preferable to d i f f i ­ c u lt personnel and policy decision making. Once a d r if t with n eith er long range plans nor policy* the haphazard lopping o ff of s t a f f and programs presents an even greater th re a t to edu­ cation al q u a lity than does RIF. Another complicating fa c to r 1s what c r it e r ia to use 1n making la y o ff decisions. Despite an overwhelming p re s c rip tiv e consensus th a t RIF decisions take in to account "m erit" and a ffirm a tiv e action as w ell as s e n io rity * the overwhelming r e a lit y 1s th a t s e n io rity alone 1s often the guiding p rin c ip le 1n R IF. (Zerchykov* 1982) 36 Although K e lle r (1981) reported an ASCD study which Indicated th a t supervisors and curriculum developers were among th e most expendable s ta ff* most studies* Including the one by Freeman and Hannan (1981)* concluded th a t the teaching s t a f f was cut proportionately greater than the a d m in is tra tiv e s t a ff. The net re s u lt o f RIF* a t le a s t RIF by s e n io rity alone* seems to be th a t the age and experience of the teaching s t a f f Increase. The Increased s a la rie s and benefits fo r th is aging s t a f f eat up some of the cost reductions made possible by school closure (Odden & Vincent* 1978). Innovation (Dembowskl* 1979). This aging teaching force In h ib its They also become demoralized because a d m in istra tive positions th a t they may have normally sought are elim inated or frozen (Cuban* 1979). From a s t r i c t l y fin a n c ia l standpoint* the d i s t r ic t ends up w ith a higher per pupil cost fo r education. This* of course* does not s i t w ell w ith the taxpayers— and so the cycle continues. One other Impact was mentioned In a 1977 report by the I l l i n o i s State Board o f Education* which Indicated th a t teaching effectiveness decreased w ith length of service. This conclu­ sion has not been substantiated by other studies. Reduction 1n Force: Michigan In Michigan* the e ffe c ts on school s t a f f have been su bstantial. I t was reported th a t more than 8*100 Michigan teachers and 10*344 other school personnel have been la id o f f 1n the past three years (Strauss* 1983). In 1983 the S tate Board o f Education reported th a t both enrollm ent and number of public school employees declined by 11 percent 37 over the past fiv e years. Teacher aides dropped by about 13 percent* but the la rg e s t decline was 17 percent among In s tru c tio n a l support personnel. Food service and operation and maintenance employees declined 8 and 9 percent* resp ectively. C le ric a l dropped 9 percent* central o ffic e adm inistrators 12 percent* and building p rin c ip a ls and assistan t p rin cip a ls declined by 7 percent. The only category th a t showed an Increase was fin a n c ia l and data processing* which was up about 7 percent. For the decade ending 1n 1982-83* the State Board o f Education reported th a t Michigan had the sharpest decline 1n number of classroom teachers (14 percent) of any s ta te 1n the nation. During the same period* Michigan’s public school enrollm ent dropped 19.7 percent* compared to a national drop of 14 percent. level a c tu a lly Increased by 1.4 percent. Teachers a t the national These fig u res alone underscore the severity of Michigan's s itu a tio n . The 1983 study by Nelson* unfortunately* did not break down s ta ffin g data by le v e l. He did fin d th a t from 1976-77 through 1982-83 the percentage changes were as follow s: Adm inistrators (In clu din g p rin c ip a ls ) Classroom teachers Professional s p e c ia lis ts C le r ic a l/s e c r e ta ria l Custodians A ll categories o f aides -11.1% -16.8% -14.8% - 8.2% -12.3% -20.9% Nelson also found th a t la y o ffs had Increased by 500 percent! When small and larg e d i s t r ic t fig u res were compared* small d is tr ic ts experienced a greater percentage decline In a ll categories except 38 adm inistrators and c le ric a l aides. Large d is tr ic ts * however# showed a much greater percentage change In number o f employees la id o f f . The Michigan Education Association (MEA) Employee Personnel Data reports fo r years 1977-78 through 1982-83 did Include data on middle school classroom teachers. Over the period mentioned# the number decreased by 18.1 percent. The reports also showed a drop of 19.1 percent 1n lib ra ria n s and 15.1 percent 1n guidance counselors. Oddly enough# the reports showed the number of assistan t p rin cip a ls decreasing by 3.9 percent w hile the number of prin cip als rose by 5.3 percent. No explanation was given. Regardless of the exact figures# 1t 1s c le a r th a t declining enrollments and finances have had a substantial Impact on the number o f personnel 1n the schools. Middle School C h aracteristics Eventually* many o f the decisions surrounding the Issue of decline have an Impact a t the middle school le v e l. wrote: In 1983* N e ill "The era of declining enrollments has brought new emphasis to the middle school and th e four year high school. The middle school concept 1s rid in g high 1n a ll parts of the n a tio n ." Regardless of the reasons* the middle school 1s gaining added a tte n tio n . But what 1s a middle school? The d e fin itio n used 1n th is study 1s by Georglady and Romano (1983). A middle school 1s: An educational u n it with a philosophy* stru ctu re and program which w ill r e a lis t ic a lly and appropriately deal w ith 11 to 14 year olds as they are and behave. It s commitment 1s p rim a rily to the youth 1t seeks to serve. 39 In 1971, Rlegle searched the professional lit e r a tu r e fo r a l i s t of basic c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t distinguished middle schools from ju n io r high schools. From the lit e r a t u r e he extracted a 11st of 18 basic middle school characteristics# which he then sent to fiv e national middle school a u th o ritie s fo r v a lid a tio n . Rlegle's 11st# sometimes referred to simply as 18 characteristics# has subsequently been used throughout the country by a large number of researchers Including Raymer (1974), Caul (1975), BohUnger (1977), Beckman (1978), Pook (1980), Cooley (1982), and others. In 1973, Georglady and Romano helped Rlegle re fin e the 11st. This refined 11st 1s also frequently used. I t was, 1n fa c t, used as a basis fo r the c h a ra c te ris tic s of an exemplary middle school endorsed by Michigan's State Board o f Education 1n 1980. The refin ed 11st o f 18 basic c h a ra c te ris tic s 1s used 1n th is study as a basis fo r the section on program. The d etailed 11st of these c h a ra c te ris tic s appears on the follow ing pages. Eighteen C h aracteristics of. the M1dd1e_School C h aracteristic 1. Continuous Progress What and Why The middle school program should fe atu re a nongraded organization th a t allows students to progress a t th e ir own Individual rate regardless of chronological age. Individual differences are a t the most pronounced stage during the transescent years o f human development. Chronological groups tend to Ignore the span o f Individual d ifferen ces. 40 Explanation The curriculum b u ilt on continuous progress 1s ty p ic a lly composed of sequenced achieve­ ment le v e ls or units of work. As a student completes a u n it o f work 1n a subject he moves on to the next u n it. This plan u t i­ liz e s programmed and semi-programmed In stru ctio n al m aterials* along w ith teacher-made units. 2. M u lti-m a te ria l approach What and Whv The middle school program should o ffe r to students a wide range o f e a s ily accessible In stru ctio n al m aterials* a number of explanations and a choice of approaches to a topic. Classroom a c tiv itie s should be planned around a m u lti-m a te ria l approach rath er than a basic textbook organization. Explanation M atu rity levels* In te re s t areas* and stu­ dent backgrounds vary g rea tly a t th is age and these variables need to be considered when m aterials are selected. The middle school age youngster has a range b io lo g i­ c a lly and physiolog ically anywhere from seven years old to 19 years old. Their cognitive development* according to Piaget* progresses through d iffe r e n t levels* too. (L im itin g facto rs Include environment* physical development* experiences* and emo­ tio n s .) The middle school youngster Is one o f two stages: preparation fo r and organi­ za tio n o f concrete operations and the period o f formal operations. These stu­ dents have short a tte n tio n spans. V aria­ tio n 1n approach and v a ria b le m ate ria ls should be a v a ila b le 1n the school program to meet the various needs and a b i lit ie s of the youngsters and to help the teachers re ta in the In te re s t of the youngsters. 3 . F le x ib le schedules What and Why The middle school should provide a schedule th a t encourages the Investment of tim e based on educational needs rath er than 41 standardized tim e periods. The schedule should be employed as a teaching aid rath er than a control device. The r ig id block schedule provides l i t t l e opportunity to develop a program to a special s itu a tio n or to a p a rtic u la r student. Explanation Movement should be permissive and fre e rath er than dominated by the teacher. V a ria tio n of classes and the length of class tim e as w ell as v a rie ty of group size w i ll help a student become capable of assuming re s p o n s ib ility fo r his own learning. 4. Social experiences What and Why The program should provide experiences appropriate fo r the transescent youth and should not emulate the social experiences of the senior high school. Social a c t iv i­ tie s th a t emulate high school programs are Inappropriate fo r middle school students. The stages of t h e ir social development are diverse and the question of Im m aturity 1s p e rtin e n t 1n the planning of a c t iv it ie s fo r th is age le v e l. Explanati on The preadolescent and ea rly adolescent undergo changes which a ffe c t the s e lf concept. The youngster Is In an In-between world* separate from the fa m ily and the rest of the ad u lt world. This Is a tim e of s e n s itiv ity and acute perception* a crucial tim e 1n preparation fo r adulthood. This 1s the age of sex-ro le Id e n tific a tio n . The youngsters model themselves a f te r a samesex ad u lt and seek support from the samesex peer group. The youngster needs to be accepted by the peer group. The a ttitu d e s of the group a ffe c t the judgement of the Individual c h ild . There 1s the necessity fo r developing many social s k ills — 42 es p ec ially those regarding the opposite sex. There are dramatic changes In a c tiv ­ it y : dancing* slang* kidding* p ra c tic a l joke give and take* etc. Common areas should be provided 1n the building fo r social In te ra c tio n among small groups. 5 . Physical experiences What and Whv 6 . Intramural a c t iv i­ tie s The middle school c u rric u la r and cocurIc u la r programs should provide physical a c t iv it ie s based so lely on the needs o f the students. Involvement 1n the program as a p a rtic ip a n t rath er than as a spectator 1s c r it ic a l fo r students. A broad range of Intram ural experiences th a t provide physi­ cal a c tiv ity fo r a ll students should be provided to supplement the physical educa­ tio n classes* which should center th e ir a c tiv ity upon helping students understand and use th e ir bodies. The middle school should fe a tu re Intram ural a c t iv it ie s rath er than 1nterscholast1c a c tiv itie s . Explanation A c tiv itie s th a t emulate the high school program are Inappropriate fo r the middle school. The stages of th e ir physical development are diverse and the question of Im m aturity 1s p e rtin en t 1n planning a c t iv it ie s fo r th is age le v e l. The wide range of physical* emotional* social development found 1n youngsters o f middle school age strongly suggests a diverse program. The c h ild 's body 1s ra p id ly developing. The relatio n sh ip of a ttitu d e and physical s k i ll must be considered 1n planning physical a c tiv itie s consistent w ith the concern fo r growth toward Inde­ pendence In learning. The emphasis should be upon the development o f fundamental s k il ls as w ell as using these s k ills 1n a v a rie ty o f a c tiv itie s . Intram ural a c tiv ity Involves maximum p a rtic ip a tio n * whereas In te rs c h o la s tic a c tiv ity provides minimum Involvement. There 1s no sound educational reason fo r 1nterscholast1c a th le tic s . Too 43 often they serve merely as public enter­ tainment and encourage an overemphasis on s p e c ia liz a tio n a t the expense of the major­ it y o f the student body. 7. Team te a ch in g What and-tthy. The middle school program should be organ­ ized 1n part around team teaching patterns th a t allow students to In te ra c t w ith a v a rie ty of teachers 1n a wide range of subject areas. Team teaching 1s Intended to bring to students a v a rie ty o f resource persons. Explanation Team teaching provides an opportunity fo r teacher ta le n ts to reach greater numbers of students and fo r teacher weaknesses to be minimized. This organizational pattern requires teacher planning tim e and an In d i­ vid ualized student program 1f 1t 1s to function most e ffe c tiv e ly . 8 . Planned gradualism What and Whv The middle school should provide experi­ ences th a t a s s is t e a rly adolescents In making th e tra n s itio n from childhood dependence to a d u lt Independence* thereby helping them to bridge the gap between elementary school and high school. Explanation The tra n s itio n period 1s marked by new physical phenomena 1n boys and g ir ls which bring about the need fo r learning to manage th e ir bodies and e ro tic sensations without embarrassment. Awareness of new concepts o f s e lf and new problems of social behavior and the need fo r developing many social s k ills Is relevan t. There 1s a responsi­ b i l i t y to help the rap id ly developing per­ son assert his rig h t to make many more decisions about his own behavior* his social l i f e * management o f money* choice of friends* 1n general* to make adult* Inde­ pendent decisions. The tra n s itio n Involves 44 a movement away from a dependence upon what can be perceived 1n the immediate environ­ ment to a level of hypothesizing and deal­ ing with abstractions. There 1s an estab­ lishment of a lev el of a d u lt-lik e thought and desire to te s t Ideas 1n school as w ell as social situ atio n s. 9. Exploratory and enrichment studies What and Whv The program should be broad enough to meet the Individual In te re s t of the students fo r which 1t was designed. I t should widen the range of educational tra in in g a student experiences rath er than s p e c ia lize his tra in in g . There 1s a need fo r v a rie ty 1n the curriculum. E lec tive courses should be a part of the program of every student during his years 1n the middle school. Explanation Levels of reten tio n are Increased when students learn by "doing" and understanding 1s more complete when viewed from a wide range o f experiences. Time should be spent enriching the student's concept of him self and the world around him, rath er than learning subject m atter 1n the tra d itio n a l form. A student should be allowed to In vestig ate his In te re s ts on school time* and to progress on his own as he 1s ready. 10. Guidance services What and Why The middle school program should Include both group and Individual guidance services fo r a l l students. Highly In d ivid u a lized help th a t 1s o f a personal nature 1s needed. Explanation The middle school c h ild needs and should receive counseling on many matters. Each teacher should "counsel" the c h ild regard­ ing his learning opportunities and progress In respective areas. Each c h ild should perhaps be a member of a home-base group led by a teacher-counselor, someone who 45 watches out fo r his w elfare. Puberty and It s many problems require expert guidance fo r the youngsters* so a professional coun­ selor should be a v a ila b le to the In divid ual youngster. 11. Independent study What and Whv The program should provide an opportunity fo r students to spend tim e studying In d i­ vidual In te re s ts or needs th a t do not appear In the organized c u rric u la r o ffe r ­ ings. Explanation A c h ild ’s own In te lle c tu a l c u rio s ity moti­ vates him to carry on Independently of the group# with the teacher serving as a resource person. Independent study may be used 1n connection w ith organized knowl­ edge# or with some special In te re s t or hobby. The student pursues his work# a fte r 1 t has been defined# and uses his teachers# various m a te ria ls a v a ila b le 1n and out of school# and perhaps even other students# as his sources. He grows 1n s e lf-d 1 re c tio n through various a c t iv it ie s and use o f mate­ r ia ls . 12. Basic s k ill re p a ir and extension What and Whv The middle school program should provide opportunities fo r students to receive c lin ic a l help 1n learning basic s k ills . The basic education program fostered 1n the elementary school should be extended In the middle school. Explanation Because of In divid ual differences some youngsters have not e n tir e ly mastered the basic s k ills . These students should be provided organized opportunities to Improve t h e ir s k ills . Learning must be made a ttr a c tiv e and many opportunities to prac­ tic e reading# listening# asking questions# etc.# must be planned 1n every classroom. 46 Formal specialized In stru ctio n 1n the basic s k ills may be necessary and should be a v a lla b le . 13. C reative expression What and Whv The middle school program should Include opportunities fo r students to express themselves 1n c re a tiv e ways. Student newspapers* dramatic creations* musical programs* and other student-centered* student-d1rected* student-developed a c t iv it ie s should be encouraged. Explanation Students should be fre e to do some diver­ gent th inking and explore various avenues to possible answers. There should be tim e allowed fo r th in kin g without pressure* and a place fo r unusual Ideas and unusual ques­ tio ns to be considered w ith respect. Media fo r expressing the Inner feelin gs should be provided. Art* music and drama provide opportunities fo r expression of personal fe e lin g s . 14. Security fa cto r What and Whv The program should provide every student w ith a se curity group: a teacher who knows him w ell and whom he re la te s to 1n a posi­ tiv e manner; a peer group th a t meets regu­ la r ly and represents more than adm inistra­ tiv e convenience 1n It s use o f tim e. Explanation Teachers need tim e to give the Individual student the a tte n tio n he needs* to help 1n counseling and curriculum situ a tio n s . The student needs someone 1n school th a t he can be comfortable w ith . 15. Evaluation What and Why The middle school program should provide an evaluation o f a student's work th a t 1s 47 personal* p o sitive 1n nature* nonthreaten­ ing* and s t r i c t l y In d ivid u a lized . The student should be allowed to assess his own progress and plan fo r fu tu re progress. Explanation A student needs more Inform ation than a le t t e r grade provides and he needs more security than the tra d itio n a l evaluation system o ffe rs . T rad itio n al systems seem to be pu nitive. The middle school youngster needs a supportive atmosphere th a t helps generate confidence and a w illingn ess to explore new areas of learning. Studentteacher planning helps to encourage the student to seek new areas. Student-teacher evaluation sessions can help to create a mutual understanding of problems and also to provide a more meaningful rep o rt fo r parents. Parent-teacher-student confer­ ences on a scheduled and unscheduled basis should be the basic reporting method. Com­ p e titiv e le t t e r grade evaluation should be replaced w ith open pupH -teacher-parent communications. 16. Community re la tio n s What and Why The middle school should develop and main­ ta in a varied program of community re la ­ tions. Programs to Inform* to en tertain* to educate* and to understand the community* as w ell as other a c tiv itie s * should be a p art o f the basic operation of th e school. Explanation The middle school houses students a t a tim e when they are eager to be Involved 1n a c tiv itie s w ith th e ir parents. The school should encourage th is natural a ttitu d e . The middle school has f a c i l i t i e s th a t can be used to good advantage by community groups. 48 17. Student services What and Why The middle school should provide a broad spectrum of specialized services fo r stu­ dents. Community* county and s ta te agen­ cies should be u tiliz e d to expand the range o f s p e c ia lis ts to I t s broadest possible e x te n t. Explanation Health services* counseling services* te s tin g op portunities fo r In d ivid u al development (c u rric u la r and co-curr1cular) meeting the In te re s ts and needs o f each c h ild should be provided. 18. A u x ilia ry s ta ffin g What and Why The middle school should u t i l i z e highly d iv e rs ifie d personnel such as volunteer parents* teacher aides* c le r ic a l aides* student volunteers* and other s im ila r types of support s ta ffin g th a t help to f a c i l i t a t e the teaching s t a f f . Explanation A u x ilia ry s ta ffin g 1s needed to provide the In d ivid u al help students require. A v a rie ty of teacher aides or paraprofesslonals may be used to extend the ta le n t of the professional s ta ff. Summary Despite the large volume of lit e r a t u r e on the to p ic o f o verall decline, much can be c la s s ifie d as advice* opinion* or theory. L ittle research has been done on the e ffe c ts of decline* and even less on the Impact to the school program. In some cases there are contradictions between what the theory says and what the research a c tu a lly shows to be the case. Much o f the research th a t does e x is t on school program e ffec ts* however* 1s flawed. Some had biased samples w h ile others had 49 poor return or extrem ely low sample sizes. No studies were found of which th is study would be a re p lic a tio n . What does e x is t 1n the lit e r a t u r e tends to show th a t decline has negatively affected the public schools and th a t there Is a p o sitive re latio n sh ip between amount of e ffe c t and amount of decline. In most cases* there has been a greater e ffe c t In Michigan than n a tio n ally . The e ffe c ts documented Include program cuts* school closings* reductions In force* a re s tric te d range of program offerings* less Innovation* an aging and more expensive teaching s ta ff* an Increase 1n per pupil expenditures* a decrease In s t a f f morale* and a t le a s t some d e te rio ra tio n of program q u a lity . As was noted* the r e la tiv e paucity o f studies on program Impact makes much generalizatio n d i f f ic u lt . I t 1s cle ar* however* th a t Just as declining enrollments and declining fin a n c ia l support are Intermeshed* so too are the e ffe c ts of these declines. Many tim es one e ffe c t or one decision leads d is tr ic ts In to a seemingly Inescapable vicious cycle o f consequences. The review 1n th is chapter focused heavily on the lit e r a tu r e re la te d to program e ffe c ts * although other sources were Included. L ite ra tu re was from th e past decade. re la tin g to the middle school. Also reviewed was lit e r a tu r e A l i s t o f 18 basic middle school ch aracteristics* used In th is study* was d etailed a t the end of the chapter. In the next chapter* the design o f the study 1s explained. CHAPTER I I I DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The basic o b jec tive of th is exploratory study 1s to In vestigate the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on public middle schools 1n Michigan fo r the period 1979-1983# as perceived by middle school p rin cip als. Four variables are being examined 1n addition to the o v erall data: 1. s ize of the school# 2. level of s ta te funding 1n the d is tric t# 3. level of economic change 1n the d is tric t# 4. level o f enrollm ent change 1n the school. and Each v a ria b le 1s being examined 1n re la tio n to the perceived program change 1n the school as w ell as the perceived Impact the changes have had on the school’s development as a middle school. The four variables are also being examined 1n selected In te ra c tio n s . Chapter I I I presents a description of the processes used to conduct th is study. First# the population and sample are defined. sampling techniques are also explained. Second# the Instrument used 1s explained along w ith an explanation of how 1 t was developed and validated. Third# the data-gatherlng procedures are described. 50 The 51 Fourth* the s t a t is t ic a l treatm ent employed 1s outlined. Last* the research questions are presented. Population and Sampling Method The population o f th is study consisted o f the p rin cip a ls o f the 348 public middle schools 1n Michigan. A 11st was obtained from the Michigan Department o f Education o f a ll schools o f f i c i a l l y c la s s ifie d as middle schools. The 11st returned consisted of 357 e n trie s . Seven of these e n trie s were excluded because they were nonpublic middle schools. One was found to be a duplication. th is year due to declining enrollm ent. Another had been closed Thus the 11st was pared to 348. A determ ination was made to use the f u l l census as the sample fo r th is study. Questionnaires would be sent to the principal of each of the 348 middle schools. In order to personalize the process of contacting these p rin c ip a ls , 1t was decided to use the 1984 Michigan Education D irectory and Buyers Guide to determine each p rin cip a l's name. P rin cip als were defined as the ad m in istra tive head and c h ie f supervisory o ffic e r of the school. They were chosen to survey because 1t Is th e ir re s p o n s lb llIty to be knowledgeable about the school programs, s ta ff* and clim ate. Assistant principals* or other b u ild in g - lev el adm inistrators* were not Included 1n the sample. Instrumentation Data required fo r th is study consisted o f Inform ation about how middle school p rin cip a ls perceived declining enrollm ent and/or declining finances had affected th e ir program* s t a f f , and school 52 clim a te over the course of the past fiv e years. Since there were no known Instruments a v a ila b le to c o lle c t these required data* a questionnaire was constructed by the researcher. The questionnaire method was chosen fo r th is study because (1) 1t allowed greater coverage 1n a shorter period of tim e than would have been possible using personal Interview s* (2) the expense Involved 1n the use of questionnaires was less than would have been required had 1t been necessary to Interview the f u ll sample* and (3) It s standard­ ized form Insured a t le a s t some uniform ity of measurement. The Instrument used to c o lle c t the data was divided In to fiv e parts. The f i r s t p art asked fo r general background Inform ation. Inform ation regarding the four main variables* school size* d is t r ic t funding* enrollm ent change* and economic change* was requested. Inform ation regarding school location and d i s t r ic t size was also requested and may be used fo r p o st-d issertatio n analysis. A coding number* to insure a high percentage of return through a follow -up le t te r * was Included. There were also some general d irectio ns and d e fin itio n s . The second section of the questionnaire asked fo r Inform ation regarding the school program. The 18 basic middle school ch aracteris­ t ic s were used as a basis fo r th is section. The 18 c h a ra c te ris tic s had been developed and validated by Rlegle (1971) and subsequently used 1n many doctoral studies. Additional questions about program and mate­ r ia ls were also asked 1n a separate subsection. The th ird section asked fo r Inform ation about the c e rtific a te d and n o n certificated s ta ff. 53 The fourth section asked fo r Inform ation about the clim a te 1n the school. Two summary questions and a fin a l question about any other changes th a t had occurred 1n the school made up the f i f t h section* which completed the Instrument. With the exception of the fin a l* open-ended question* and those 1n the general background section* a ll questions asked respondents to In d icate the level and In te n s ity o f change th a t had occurred over the past fiv e years 1n th e ir building and the lev el and In te n s ity o f impact th a t these changes* or lack o f changes* had had on th e ir school's development as a middle school. Change was measured on a fiv e -p o in t scale with the fo llo w in g responses: 1 = Substantial Decrease* 2 = Moderate Decrease* 3 = Unchanged* 4 = Moderate Increase* 5 = Substantial Increase. Impact was measured on a f1ve-po1nt scale w ith the fo llo w in g responses: 1 = S ub stan tially Negative* 2 = Mod­ e ra te ly Negative* 3 = None* 4 = Moderately Positive* 5 = S u b stan tially P ositive. For the program section there was also an opportunity fo r respondents to In d ica te any of the 18 middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s which had never existed 1n th e ir school. I f they marked th is category* they were not required to mark a response 1n the Impact column. In sections two through four* respondents provided the required Informa­ tio n by drawing a c ir c le around the number of the appropriate response. The Instrument was developed 1n the fo llo w in g manner. F irs t* middle school teachers and adm inistrators and u n iversity professors were asked fo r possible e ffe c ts th a t they had observed as a re s u lt of decline 1n Michigan. From th is 11st o f Items an I n i t i a l questionnaire 54 was developed. This I n i t i a l Instrument was revised a f te r reactions were s o lic ite d from a number of middle school p ra c titio n e rs . a f i r s t d r a ft o f the fin a l Instrument was developed. F in a lly * This d ra ft was sent to a panel o f e ig h t national experts 1n the f ie ld of middle school education (Appendix A). The 11st o f experts Included both th e o re ti­ cians and p ra c titio n e rs . A second d r a ft was developed which Incorporated suggestions made by the panel. Several questions were deleted* some were added* and a number of wording changes were made. There was also a m odification 1n the form at fo r asking responses to the change and Impact categories. This d ra ft was then reviewed by personnel from the O ffic e o f Research Consultation a t Michigan State U niversity* as w ell as an a u th o rity 1n designing research Instruments. Based on th e ir Input* the fin a l fo u r-sectio n format was developed. This th ird d r a ft was then p ilo ted w ith several middle school teachers and adm inistrators fo r a determ ination of c la r it y of the questions and to get an Idea of how long 1t would take to supply the required Inform ation. Some minor adjustments d ra ft of the Instrument was printed (Appendix were made* and the fin a l B). Data-Gather1ng Procedures The fin a l questionnaire was mailed to the f u ll census 1n early January 1984. A cover le t te r * explaining the purpose of the study and the Importance of prompt p a rtic ip a tio n * was Included (Appendix C). The le t t e r also refe rred to the endorsement of th is study by the Michigan 55 Association o f Middle School Educators (MAMSE). A self-addressed, stamped envelope was Included with the m ailing. Two weeks a fte r the f i r s t m ailing* fo llow -up le t te r s were sent to those p rin cipals who had not yet responded (Appendix D). Since a small number of responses had been received from the 50 middle school p rin cip als 1n D etroit* a separate m ailing was made to them. The cover le t t e r carried the signature o f the current MAMSE president* who 1s a middle school adm inistrator 1n D e tro it (Appendix E). questionnaire was Included 1n the D e tro it m ailing. An additional As was Indicated on the f i r s t page of the Instrument* the respondents' Id e n tity was known only to the researcher* and th e ir rig h t to anonymity was respected. For a population of 348 1t was necessary to receive 185 responses to Insure a 95 percent accuracy of response w ith only a 5 percent sampling e rro r. returned. Of the 348 questionnaires sent* 215 were Seven were not used because they were returned too la te . Three others were not used because they were Incomplete to the point of being nearly blank. One was from an extremely small (one building) school d is t r ic t 1n which the middle school grades were barely distinguishable from the others. The to ta l sample thus became 204. The sample was broken In to several demographic categories* which were used 1n analyzing the data. S ta tis tic a l Treatment The four main Independent variables studied* school size* level o f sta te funding* level o f enrollm ent change* and lev el of economic change, were a ll determined using Inform ation provided by respondents 56 1n section one. Lim its fo r school size were determined by creating a frequency d is trib u tio n of the number of students enrolled In the 348 Id e n tifie d schools. Enrollment numbers were taken from the 1984 Michigan Education D irectory and Buyer»s Guide. Three categories were developed* each of which Included roughly one-th1rd of the schools. Large schools were determined to be those w ith 700 or more students enrolled* medium from 500 to 699* and small w ith under 500. D is t r ic t size* though not one of the main variables studied* was determined 1n a s im ila r manner. Enrollment change was collapsed from the s ix possible responses In to four main categories fo r purposes of analysis: (1) large decrease* (2) moderate decrease* (3) small decrease* and (4) same or Increase. Economic change was lik e w is e collapsed In to the same four main categories. I f a question 1n section one was l e f t blank and could be o b je c tiv e ly determined by checking the 1984 Michigan Education Direc­ to ry . the proper response was supplied. I f no o b jective determ ination could be made* they were assigned a number 9 to In d ica te no answer was given. I f two or more responses were made to a question and an objec­ tiv e determ ination could be made* the response was c la r ifie d . I f two or more responses were given to a question 1n sections two through four* neith er response was used. A number 9 was assigned. Any question l e f t blank was also assigned a number 9. In some sections* respondents were asked to draw a lin e through the question 1f the c h a ra c te ris tic or program had never existed 1n th e ir school. These 57 responses were assigned a number 8, to distinguish them from unanswered questions. In compiling data fo r computer analysis, the numbers of the responses to questions 28, 29, 40-44, 54-56, and 58 were reversed, due to the wording of the questions. were not Improperly skewed. This assured th a t response to ta ls The n a rrative responses to the f in a l, open-ended question were collapsed in to several main theme categories and reported as such. In analyzing the data, several s t a tis tic a l techniques were employed. Frequencies and corresponding percentages were calculated fo r a ll questions except the fin a l n a rra tiv e one. For research questions 1 and 2, the responses to each question were added to determine subsection and section means In both the change and Impact categories. Mean scores were calculated using a ll v a lid (no number 8 or 9) responses. Number 8's were reported separately 1n the descrip­ tio n of the middle school program section. Mean scores were also calculated fo r each question. Hypothesis-testing procedures, using a t - t e s t w ith the appropriate degrees o f freedom, were employed to determine 1f the mean changes and Impacts were s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t from a mean score of 3.0, which Indicated no change and no Impact. Standard deviations, variances, and confidence In te rv a ls were determined. The .05 lev el was set fo r these and a ll other s t a tis tic a l te sts used 1n th is study. This 1s the ty p ica l level of significance fo r the alpha e rro r used 1n most social science studies (S p rln g th a ll, 1982). 58 I t 1s lik e w is e the level specified 1n the S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the Social Sciences (SPSS) programs th a t were used fo r th is study. A ll work was performed using the Michigan State U niversity computer. Research questions 1 and 2 were fu rth e r analyzed by determining which Individual program, s t a ff, or clim ate c h a ra c te ris tic s showed Increases and p o sitive Impacts, as well as those which showed declines and negative Impacts. Confidence In te rv a ls , and corresponding mean, variance, and standard deviation s ta tis tic s , were calculated fo r each v a ria b le part to determine whether there was any s ig n ific a n t change or Impact. These calcu latio ns also provided Inform ation fo r answering the remaining research questions. Research questions 2 and 3 were analyzed by f i r s t looking a t the data developed fo r questions 1 and 2 to get Inform ation regarding significance. To determine, however, I f the section and subsection mean scores fo r each v a ria b le part varied from each other, a one-way u n iv a ria te analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed fo r each v a ri­ able. The ANOVA te s tin g was also part of the SPSS package of s t a t i s t i ­ cal tests. In a study of th is nature, 1t 1s d i f f i c u l t , I f not Impossible, fo r respondents to answer questions Independently from each other; thus m u ltiv a ria te ANOVAs were calculated 1n addition to the u n iv a ria te te sts . The m u ltiv a ria te tests used were the P 1lla1s, H otelH ngs, W ilks, and Wilks lambda. For a ll ANOVAs, F-stat1 s tie s were determined, as were the le v e ls a t which they were s ig n ific a n t. Since a ll of the m u ltiv a ria te te s ts yielded roughly the same re su lts. 59 s ta tis tic s fo r the W ilks te s t were reported as representative o f those te s ts performed. Research questions 5 and 6 were analyzed 1n a s im ila r manner by performing u n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a ria te two-way ANOVAs. The two-way ANOVA te s ts mean differences fo r the In te ra c tio n between variab les and as such 1s the appropriate technique. Research Questions 1. Are there any patterns 1n middle school prin cipals* perceptions of the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on changes In program# s ta ff# and clim ate 1n middle schools 1n Michigan? 2. Are there any patterns In middle school p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and c lim a te have had on the school's development as a middle school? 3. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change 1n program# s taff# and c lim a te vary as a function of the fo llo w in g four variables? a. size of the school b. level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d i s t r ic t d. enrollment change 1n the school 4. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions o f the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and clim a te have had on the school's devel­ opment as a middle school vary as a function of the fo llo w in g four variables? a. size of th e school b. level of s ta te funding In the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d is t r ic t d. enrollment change 1n the school 5. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change In program# staff# and c lim a te vary as a function of In teractio n s among selected variables? a. s ize of th e school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t b. enrollment change 1n the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d i s t r ic t c. enrollment change In the school by s ize of the school 60 6. Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of the Impact th a t changes In program, s t a f f , and clim a te have had on the school's devel­ opment as a middle school vary as a function o f In teractio n s among selected variables? a. s ize of the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t b. enrollment change 1n the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d i s t r ic t c. enrollm ent change In the school by s ize of the school Summary The sample was drawn from a population of 348 public middle schools supplied by the Michigan Department o f Education. The f u l l census was used fo r the sample. Since no known questionnaires were a v a ila b le to s o lic i t the data necessary fo r th is study, one was developed. The major content of the questionnaire as w ell as the procedure used to develop and v a lid a te 1t were described 1n th is chapter. Data-gather1ng procedures and Inform ation regarding s t a tis tic a l treatm ent of the data were outlined. The major s t a tis tic a l techniques used were the t-ra t1 o and one-way and two-way u n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a ria te analyses o f variance. F in a lly , the research questions were presented 1n verbal form. The next chapter contains a d e tailed s t a tis tic a l analysis of the data. The fin a l chapter contains the conclusions and Im plicatio ns o f th is study as w ell as recommendations fo r fu rth e r study and of a general nature. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction In th is chapter the s t a tis tic a l analyses o f the data are presented. Chapter I I I . S ta tis tic a l treatm ents were performed as outlined 1n F irs t* Inform ation regarding the demographic breakdown of the sample 1s examined. Tables 1 through 6* displaying the frequency d is trib u tio n s of each variable# are Included fo r c la r it y . In the second section of th is chapter* each research question 1s examined In d iv id u a lly . are examined f i r s t . Data fo r each In d ivid u al questionnaire Item Next the Items are combined In to the appropriate questionnaire subsections and sections# and o v e ra ll s ta tis tic s are examined fo r each. The data are also broken down In to the four main variables of school size* d i s t r ic t funding* d is t r ic t economic change# and school enrollment change and examined. The th ird section Includes descrip tive and ta b u lar re s u lts of other patterns and findings. The fin a l section Includes a summary and discussion of the central findings of th is study* as w ell as summary ta b les . 61 62 Demographic Breakdown When the responses from the 204 p rin cip a ls were examined to the questions In Section I o f the questlonnalre* several patterns were noted. P rin cip als from small schools made up 40 percent o f the sample* w hile medium-sized schools were 34 percent and large schools 26 percent. Small and larg e d is tr ic ts * however* both were represented by nearly 35 percent of the respondents* w hile 30 percent were from medium-sized d is tr ic ts . Table 1 .— Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by school size categories. Variable Category School size Smal 1 Medium Large Total Absolute Freq. R elative F re q .( X ) Adj usted Freq. ( X ) 82 69 53 40.2 33.8 26.0 40.2 33.8 26.0 204 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Freq. (X) 40.2 74.0 100.0 Table 2 .— Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by d i s t r ic t size categories. Variable D is t r ic t s ize Total Category Small Medium Large Absolute Freq. Relat1ve F re q .(%) Adj usted F req .(%) 71 62 71 34.8 30.4 34.8 34.8 30.4 34.8 204 100.0 100.0 Cumulative Freq. (35) 34.8 65.2 100.0 63 D is tr ic t location showed the same general trend as school size. F o rty -s ix percent of the schools were 1n ru ra l lo cations, 38 percent 1n suburban locations* and only 16 percent 1n urban locations. The amount of d is t r ic t s ta te funding revealed th a t nearly 70 percent of the d is tr ic ts were "1n-formula" compared to 30 percent th a t were "o u t-o fform ula." One p rin cip al did not respond. Table 3 . — Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by d is t r ic t location categories. Variable D is tr ic t location Category Urban Suburban Rural Total R ela tive F re q .(%) Adj usted F re q .(%) Cumulative F re q .(%) 33 77 94 16.2 37.7 46.1 16.2 37.7 46.1 16.2 53.9 100.0 204 100.0 100.0 Absolute Freq. Table 4 . — Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by d is t r ic t s ta te funding categories. V ariable D is t r ic t funding Total Category In-form ula Out-of-form ula D id n 't answer R ela tive F re q .(%) Adjusted F re q .(%) Cumulative Freq.(%) 142 61 1 69.6 29.9 .5 70.0 30.0 70.0 100.0 204 100.0 100.0 Absolute Freq. • • 64 In the Important area o f school enrollm ent change* the la rg e s t percentage of the d is tr ic ts * nearly 41 percent* had experienced a moderate decrease over the past fiv e years. Tw enty-five percent had experienced a large decrease and 20 percent had decreased only a small amount. In to ta l* nearly 86 percent of the schools had had enrollm ent decreases compared w ith less than 14 percent th a t had stayed the same or had shown Increases. One principal did not respond to th is ques­ tio n . Table 5 . — Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by school enrollment change categories over the past fiv e years. V ariable Category School enrollment change Large decrease Moderate decrease Smal1 decrease Same or Increase D id n 't answer Total Absolute Freq. R elative F re q .(%) Adjusted F re q .(%) 51 83 41 28 1 25.0 40.7 20.1 13.7 .5 25.1 40.9 20.2 13.8 204 100.0 100.0 Cumulative F re q .(%) 25.1 66.0 86.2 100.0 • • Nearly a ll of the school d is tr ic ts over the past fiv e years* close to 96 percent* had experienced economic decreases. Moderate decreases accounted fo r ju s t under 45 percent* 44 percent had a small decrease* and almost 7 percent had a large decrease. Only a l i t t l e over 4 percent of the d is tr ic ts had stayed the same or experienced Increased economic conditions. 65 Table 6 . --Frequency d is trib u tio n fo r to ta l respondents by d i s t r ic t economic change categories over the past fiv e years. Category V ariab le Relat1ve F re q .(%) Adj usted F re q .(35) Cumulative F re q .(35) 14 91 90 9 6 .9 44.6 44.1 4.4 6 .9 44.6 44.1 4.4 6 .9 51.5 95.6 100.0 204 100.0 100.0 Absolute Freq. Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase D is t r ic t economic change Total Research Questions Question 1 Are there any patterns 1n middle school principals* perceptions of the e ffe c ts of economic and enrollm ent decline on changes 1n program, s t a f f , and clim ate In middle schools 1n Michigan? Selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s .— Of the 18 basic middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s examined 1n th is questionnaire subsection, p rin cip als Indicated th a t change was 1n the d ire c tio n of decrease 1n 9 o f the Items. The c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t decreased were; Continuous Progress ♦F le x ib le Schedules Social Experiences ♦Intramural A c tiv itie s Team Teaching Exploratory & Enrichment Studies Guidance Services C reative Experiences Student Services ♦ S ig n ific a n t a t .05 Only two o f the decreases, f le x ib le schedules and Intram ural a c tiv itie s , were s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. Change 1n the d ire c tio n of Increase was evident 1n the other nine Items. The Increases were: 66 M u lti-m a te ria l Approach *Phys. Ed. Experiences "Planned Gradualism Independent Study "Basic S km Repair and Extension Security Factor "Eval. of Student Achievement "Community Relations A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g "S ig n ific a n t a t .05 Five o f these Increases* physical education experiences* planned gradualism* basic s k ill re p a ir and extension* evaluation of student achievement* and community re la tio n s * were s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. Mean scores and standard deviations fo r each Item 1n the selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s subsection are displayed 1n Table 7 below. Table 7 . — Changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s . Question No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 D1rection o f Change3 C h a ra c te ris tic Continuous Progress M u lti-m a te ria l Approach F le x ib le Schedules Social Experiences Phys. Ed. Experiences Intramural A c tiv itie s Team Teaching Planned Gradualism Exploratory & Enrichment Studies Guidance Services Independent Study Basic S k ill Repair & Extension C reative Experiences Security Factor Eval. of Student Ach. Community Relations Student Services A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g Decrease - below 3*0 Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Decrease Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease 2.993 3.022 2.750 2.901 3.141 2.764 2.939 3.210 2.871 .750 .903 .871 1.065 .905 1.246 .893 .837 1.182 no no yes no yes yes no yes no Decrease Increase Increase 2.856 3.092 3.268 1.098 .654 .821 no no yes Decrease Increase Increase Increase Decrease Increase 2.882 3.085 3.182 3.232 2.930 3.111 1.099 .832 .703 .746 .762 1.002 no no yes yes no no Increase = above 3.0 67 Other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m a te ria ls . — Pr1nc1pals responded to eig h t Items 1n th is subsection of the questionnaire. Changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m ate ria ls were 1n the d ire c tio n o f decrease fo r four o f the Items. Level of lib ra ry *Length of school day They were: *Ava11ab111ty of In s t, supplies ^ S u ffic ie n t c a p ita l-o u tla y Items *S1gn1fleant a t .05 A ll of the decreases were s ig n ific a n t except fo r the level o f lib r a r y services. Increases were recorded In the remaining four Items. *Class size (Eng.* Math* Science* Soc. Studies) #Class size (o th er) They were: *Computer-ass1sted In s t. S u ffic ie n t textbooks *S1gn1fleant a t .05 Only one Item* s u ffic ie n t textbooks* did not have a s ig n ific a n t Increase. I t should be noted th a t the scores fo r both class s ize Items were reversed In tab u latio n * as previously explained 1n Chapter I I I . Table 8 summarizes the s t a tis tic s fo r changes In other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m a te ria ls . "Basic" classroom s t a f f (English, math, science* s o d a ! studies.— Nine Items were 1n th is questionnaire subsection. Change 1n "basic" classroom s t a f f 1n the d ire c tio n of decrease was recorded fo r only two of the nine items. These Items were number o f "basic teachers*" where the decrease was s ig n ific a n t* and percentage of teachers w ith a secondary c e r tific a te * which did not decrease s ig n ific a n tly . A ll of the remaining changes Increased s ig n ific a n tly except the percentage of teachers with an elementary c e r tific a te * where 68 Table 8 .— Changes 1n o th e r program c h a r a c te r is tic s and m a te ria ls . Questlon No. 28 C h a ra c te ris tic Class size (Eng., Math, Science, Soc. Studies) Class size (o th er) Computer-assisted 1nst. Level of lib r a r y Length of school day S u ffic ie n t textbooks A v a ila b ility of In s tru c t, supplies S u ffic ie n t c a p lta loutlay Items 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Increase 2.616® .850 yes Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease 2.606® 4.224 2.867 2.802 3.005 2.882 .874 .772 1.129 .654 .745 .742 yes yes no yes no yes Decrease 2.596 1.012 yes aScores reversed 1n ta b u la tio n . the Increase was not s ig n ific a n t. Table 9 summarizes the re s u lts of changes In "basic" classroom s ta ff. Other c e r tific a te d s t a f f .— P rin cip als Indicated th a t a ll of the six Items regarding other c e rtific a te d s t a f f had changed 1n the direc­ tio n of decrease, and a l l six of the decreases were s ig n ific a n t. Table 10 summarizes the data. Non-cert1f1cated s t a f f .— S ig n ific a n t decreases were also recorded 1n a ll three of the changes examined regarding non-cert1f1cated s ta ff. The s t a tis tic s follow 1n Table 11. 69 Table 9 .— Changes 1n "basic” classroom s t a f f (English# math# science# social s tu d ie s ). Question No. 36 37 38 39 C h a ra cte ris tic No. of "basic" teachers % teachers w/elem. c e rt. % teachers w/sec. c e rt. % teachers with both elem. & sec. c e rt. % o f former h .s. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (Eng.»m ath#sc1.#soc.st.) % o f former h .s. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (other classes) % o f former elem. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (Eng.#m ath#sc1.#soc.st.) % o f former elem. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (other classes) % of s t a ff reassigned w ithin bldg. to areas outside th e ir strength 40 41 42 43 44 D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Decrease Increase Decrease Increase 2.522 3.081 2.950 3.107 .753 .994 .855 .497 yes no no yes Increase 2.686a .904 yes Increase 2.790a .807 yes Increase 2.719a .887 yes Increase 2.868a .625 yes Increase 2.528a .854 yes Mean S.D. Slg. a t .05? 2.653 2.538 2.548 2.574 2.751 2.537 .718 .851 .859 .808 .706 .812 yes yes yes yes yes yes aScores reversed 1n ta b u la tio n . Table 10.— Changes 1n other c e rtific a te d s t a f f . Question No. 45 46 47 48 49 50 C h a ra cte ris tic No. No. No. No. No. No. of of of of of of adm inistrators counselors u n ifie d a rts teach. music teachers phys. ed. teachers I1b r./m edia spec. D1rection of Change Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 70 Table 11 . — Changes 1n non-cert1 flo a te d s t a f f . Question No. 51 52 53 C h a ra cte ris tic D irection of Change No. of secretaries No. of In s tru c t, aides No. of nonlnstruct. aides Decrease Decrease Decrease Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? 2.765 2.505 2.742 .637 .915 .791 yes yes yes School c lim a te .— A ll of the Items re la tin g to school clim ate were found 1n one questionnaire section. Of the ten Items examined* p rin cip als reported Increases 1n only two, percentage of parents attending conferences and open houses and morale of the students. of these school clim a te Increases were s ig n ific a n t. Both Of the eig h t remaining Items th a t decreased, four were s ig n ific a n t and four were not, as seen 1n Table 12. Scores fo r each of the Individual questionnaire Items were combined In to program, s t a f f , and c lim a te subsections and sections; then hypothesis-testing procedures were applied once again. Examination of these data revealed th a t only the Items regarding selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s and school c lim a te showed an Increase. Increases was s ig n ific a n t. N either of the A ll of the remaining questionnaire subsec­ tio n s showed a s ig n ific a n t decrease. When the subsection scores were combined In to th e ir appropriate section categories, program, s t a f f , and clim a te , only school clim ate showed an Increase. The Increase was not s ig n ific a n t. Middle school 71 Table 12.— Changes In school c lim a te . Question No. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Mean S.D. Slg. a t .05? Decrease 2.990 .819 no Decrease 3.126® .560 yes Decrease 3.126® .620 yes Increase 3.355 .805 yes Decrease 3.207® .856 yes Decrease 2.904 .890 no Decrease 2.525 1.016 yes Decrease Decrease Increase 2.879 2.935 3.254 1.097 1.030 .849 no no yes D1rection of Change C h a ra c te ris tic % of teachers who seem to have decreasing concern fo r children % of students absent from school each day % of students tardy to to school each day % o f parents attending conferences and open houses % o f students reaching o ffic e fo r misbehavior % of teachers who stay a t school beyond minimum required % o f teachers who sponsor and/or chaperone a fte r ­ school a c t iv it ie s Morale of teachers Morale of adm inistrators Morale of students aScores reversed 1n ta b u la tio n . s t a f f had a s ig n ific a n t decrease. Middle school program showed a decrease, but 1t was not s ig n ific a n t. S ta tis tic s fo r these subsection and section to ta ls are displayed 1n Table 13. By way of summary, of the 54 change c h a ra c te ris tic s on the questionnaire, p rin cip a ls Indicated th a t decreases had occurred 1n 32, or 59.3 percent, compared w ith Increases In 22, or 40.7 percent. Nineteen of the decreases, 35.2 percent o f the to ta l 54, were 72 s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 lev el* w hile 16 o f the Increases* 29.6 percent* were s ig n ific a n t. Table 13 .— Change— to ta ls fo r program* s ta ff* and clim ate. Name D irection of Change Mean S.D. Slg. a t .05? Program Subsections I I . A. B. Selected Middle School C h aracteristics Increase 3.019 .531 no Other Program Charac­ te r is t ic s & M aterials Decrease 2.881 .511 yes "Basic" Classroom S ta ff Decrease 2.803 .330 yes Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff Decrease 2.601 .505 yes Non-Cert1f 1cated S ta ff Decrease 2.673 .608 yes Increase 3.029 .546 no Middle School Program Decrease 2.971 .452 no Middle School S ta ff Decrease 2.715 .322 yes School Climate Increase 3.029 .546 no S ta ff Subsections III.A . B. C. Climate Subsection IV. School Climate £e.c±1 on. Totals II. ill. IV. 73 Question 2 Are there any patterns In middle school p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of the Impact th a t changes 1n program, s t a f f , and clim a te have had on the school's development as a middle school? There were also 54 Impact c h a ra c te ris tic s on the questionnaire. Answers to them present much additional Inform ation. P rin cip als were asked to In d ica te how the changes, or lack of changes, over the past fiv e years had affected th e ir school's development as a middle school. Impact patterns were more d is tin c t than those fo r change. Selected middle school charact e r is t ic s .— P rin cip als Indicated th a t the changes 1n the 18 basic middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s had resulted 1n a negative Impact on the school's development as a middle school fo r 7 of the Items. They were: "F le x ib le Schedules Social Experiences "Intram ural A c tiv itie s Team Teaching Guidance Services C reative Experiences Student Services " S ig n ific a n t a t .05 As was the case w ith change, only changes 1n fle x ib le schedules and Intram ural a c tiv itie s had a negative Impact th a t was s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. A p o sitive Impact of program changes was found 1n the follow ing 11 selected c h a ra c te ris tic s : Continuous Progress "M u lti-m a terial Approach "Phys. Ed. Experiences "Planned Gradualism Exploratory & Enrich­ ment Studies Independent Study "Basic S k ill Repair & Extension Security Factor "Eval. o f Student Achievement "Community Relations "A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g "S ig n ific a n t a t .05 As can be seen, 7 of the 11 were s ig n ific a n t. 74 Impact data fo r each of the Items 1n the subsection on selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s are summarized 1n Table 14. Table 14 .— Impact of changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s . Question No. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 C h a ra cte ris tic Continuous Progress M u lti-m aterial Approach F le x ib le Schedules Social Experiences Phys. Ed. Experiences Intramural A c tiv itie s Team Teaching Planned Gradualism Exploratory & Enrichment Studies Guidance Services Independent Study Basic S k ill Repair & Extension C reative Experiences Security Factor Eval. of Student Ach. Community Relations Student Services A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 a Negative = below 3.0 D1rection of Impact3 Mean S.D. S1g. at .05? P o sitive P o sitive Negative Negatlve P o sitive Negatlve Negative P o sitive P o sitive 3.094 3.141 2.820 2.995 3.215 2.732 2.932 3.180 3.011 .807 .922 .891 1.121 .997 1.209 .948 .946 1.243 no yes yes no yes yes no yes no Negatlve P o sitive P o sitive 2.906 3.050 3.305 1.145 .787 .898 no no yes Negative P o sitive P o sitive P o sitive Negatlve P o sitive 2.964 3.057 3.174 3.220 2.908 3.212 1.165 .852 .801 .792 .847 1.058 no no yes yes no yes PosS tiv e = above 3.0 Other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials.—■Of the eight Items 1n th is subsection* p rin cip a ls Indicated th a t changes 1n only two* computer-assisted In stru ctio n and s u ffic ie n t textbooks# had p o s itiv e ly affected th e ir school's development as a middle school. Only computer- assisted In stru ctio n was s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. P rin cip als Indicated th a t the remaining six changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials had had a negative Impact. Each 75 was s ig n ific a n t except the level o f lib r a r y services. Table 15 summarizes the findings related to other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials. Table 15.— Impact of changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m a te ria ls. Question No. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 C h a ra cte ris tic Class size (Eng.* Math* Class size (o ther) Computer-assisted 1nst. Level of lib r a r y Length of school day S u ffic ie n t textbooks A v a ila b ility of In s tru c t, supplies S u ffic ie n t c a p lta loutlay Items D irection of Impact Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Negative Negative P ositive Negative Negatlve P ositive Negatlve 2.642 2.647 4.097 2.850 2.785 3.010 2.875 .906 .900 .803 1.164 .743 .859 .814 yes yes yes no yes no yes Negatlve 2.706 .927 yes "Basic" classroom s t a ff (E nglish, math, science, s o d a ! studies.— P rin cip als Indicated th a t the only two changes 1n basic classroom s t a f f th a t had had p o sitive Impacts were the percentage of elementary s t a f f transferred/reassigned to the middle school 1n English* math* science* and social studies classes and those elementary s t a ff transferred/reassigned In other areas. Only those assigned to English* math* science* and social studies had had a p o sitive Impact th a t was s ig n ific a n t. A ll of the remaining seven Items had had a negative Impact. A ll negative Impacts were s ig n ific a n t except the percentage of teachers 76 with an elementary c e r t if ic a t e and the percentage of teachers w ith both an elementary and a secondary c e r t ific a te . Summary data can be seen 1n T a b le 16. Table 16.— Impact of changes 1n "basic" classroom s t a f f (E nglish, math, science, social stu d ies). Questlon No. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 D irection of Change C h a ra cte ris tic No. of "basic" teachers % teachers w/elem. c e rt. % teachers w/sec. c e rt. % teachers with both elem. & sec. c e rt. % of former h.s. s t a ff tran sfe rred to m.s. (Eng.,m ath,sc1., s o c .s t.) % of former h.s. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (other classes) % of former elem. s t a ff tran sferred to m.s. (Eng., m ath ,sc1 .»s o c.s t.) % of former elem. s t a f f tran sferred to m.s. (other classes) % of s t a f f reassigned w ithin bldg. to areas outslde th e lr strength Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Negatlve Negative Negative Negative 2.532 2.909 2.770 2.962 .872 .876 .773 .458 yes no yes no Negatlve 2.604 .805 yes Negative 2.714 .714 yes P ositive 3.115 .806 yes Pos1t1ve 3.053 .606 no Negative 2.495 .877 yes Other c e rtific a te d s t a f f .— P rin cip als perceived th a t the Impacts on th e ir school's development as a middle school o f a ll changes 1n other c e rtific a te d s t a f f were negative. s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. A ll six of the negative Impacts were Table 17 summarizes these Impact data. 77 Table 17.- -Im p a ct o f changes In o th e r c e r t if ic a t e d s t a f f . Question No. C h a ra c te ris tic No. No. No. No. No. No. 45 46 47 48 49 50 of of of of of of adm inistrators counselors u n ifie d a rts teach. music teachers phys. ed. teachers H b r./m e d ia spec. D irection of Change Negatlve Negative Negatlve Negative Negatlve Negative Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? 2.721 2.544 2.605 2.611 2.827 2.596 .748 .915 .910 .926 .722 .866 yes yes yes yes yes yes N on-cert1floated s t a f f .— S ig n ific a n t negative Impacts were also recorded 1n a ll three of the Items examined 1n th is non­■certificated s t a ff subsection. The summary s t a tis tic s follow 1n Table 18. Table 18 .— Impact of changes 1n n o n -c e rtlflo a te d s t a f f . Question No. 51 52 53 C h a ra c te ris tic No. of secretaries No. o f In s tru c t, aides No. of nonlnstruct. aides D irection of Change Negative Negative Negative Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? 2.740 2.511 2.749 .764 .881 .827 yes yes yes School c lim a te .— P rin cip als Indicated th a t 5 o f the 10 school clim a te Items had had a negative impact on th e ir's c h o o l's as amiddle school* whereas 5 had had development a p o s itiv e Impact. The fiv e having a negative Impact were: *% o f teachers who seem to have decreasing concern fo r children *% of teachers who sponsor and/or chaperone a fte r ­ school a c t iv it ie s 78 Morale of teachers Morale of adm inistrators 56 of teachers who stay a t school beyond minimum required *S1gn1fleant a t .05 Only two Items were s ig n ific a n t* as seen above. The fiv e Items having a p o s itiv e Impact were: 56 of students absent from school each day % of students tardy to school each day *% o f parents attending con­ ferences & open houses *56 of students reaching o ffic e fo r misbehavior *Morale of students *S1gn1fleant a t .05 As noted* three of these fiv e were s ig n ific a n t. Table 19 summarizes the Impact data fo r school clim ate changes. When the Individual Item scores fo r Impact were combined In to questionnaire subsection and section to ta ls * only the Impacts of changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s and school clim a te were found to be p o sitive. N either of these was s ig n ific a n t. A ll of the remaining subsections showed a s ig n ific a n t negative Impact from the changes of the past fiv e years. When these subsection scores were combined In to section to ta ls * the Impact of changes 1n middle school s t a f f was negative and s ig n ific a n t. Impacts from program and c lim a te changes were both p o s itiv e o v e ra ll* but not s ig n ific a n t. Table 20. Summary to ta ls can be found 1n 79 Table 19.— Impact o f changes In school c lim a te . Question No. 54 C h a ra c te ris tic % of teachers who seem to have decreasing concern fo r children D irection of Impact Mean S.D. S1g. at .05? Negative 2.813 1.057 yes 55 % of students absent from school each day P o sitive 3.077 .667 no 56 % of students tardy to school each day P o sitive 3.046 .646 no 57 % o f parents attending conferences and open houses P o sitive 3.410 .853 yes P o sitive 3.210 .932 yes 58 % o f students reaching o ffic e fo r misbehavior 59 % of teachers who stay a t school beyond minimum required Negative 2.871 1.086 no % of teachers who sponsor and/or chaperone a f te r ­ school a c t iv it ie s Negatlve 2.557 1.147 yes 61 Morale of teachers Negative 2.949 1.209 no 62 Morale o f adm inistrators Negative 2.949 1.085 no 63 Morale o f students P ositive 3.241 .924 60 yes 80 Table 2 0 .— Impact— t o t a ls . D irection o f Change Name Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? Program Subsections Selected Middle School C h aracteristics P ositive 3.052 .577 no Other Program Charac­ t e r is t ic s & M aterials Negative 2.890 .556 yes "Basic" Classroom S ta ff Negatlve 2.796 .450 yes B. Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff Negative 2.645 .567 yes C. Non-Cert1flo ate d S ta ff Negatlve 2.675 .623 yes I I . A. B. S ta ff Subsections III.A . Climate Subsection IV. School Climate P o sitive 3.010 .640 no II. Middle School Program P ositive 3.001 .513 no Middle School S ta ff Negative 2.723 .422 yes Middle School Climate P ositive 3.010 .640 no ill. IV. In summary* p rin cip a ls Indicated th a t 34 o f the changes* 63 percent* had had a negative Impact. Impact th a t was s ig n ific a n t. Of the 34* 23 changes showed an This represents 42.6 percent of the to ta l 81 c h a ra c te ris tic s . On the other hand, 20 of the changes, 37 percent, had had a p o sitive Impact, w hile only 12 o f these, or 22.2 percent o f the to ta l changes, had had a s ig n ific a n tly p o sitive Impact. In other words, nearly tw ice as many changes, regardless of d ire c tio n , had a negative Impact on middle schools as had a p o sitive Impact. Question 3 Do middle school p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change 1n program, s t a ff, and clim ate vary as a function of the fo llo w in g four variables? a. s ize of the school b. level of s ta te funding In the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d i s t r ic t d. enrollment change 1n the school The overall change patterns fo r each questionnaire Item , subsection, and section have been previously Id e n tifie d . The data fo r program, s t a f f , and c lim a te were then broken down by the four main variables of school size , d i s t r ic t funding, d is t r ic t economic change, and school enrollm ent change. These data are reported f i r s t according to questionnaire subsection and then by to ta l program, s t a f f , and clim ate section. Selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s .— P rin cip als o f both small and larg e schools, 1n-formula d is tr ic ts , d is tr ic ts w ith larg e and moderate economic decline, and schools with moderate enrollm ent decline reported decreases 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s . The only decrease th a t was s ig n ific a n t, however, was In d is tr ic ts w ith large economic decline. P rin cip als In o u t-o f-fo rm ula d is tr ic ts and d is tr ic ts with only a small economic decline reported s ig n ific a n t Increases. The 82 remaining Increases were not s ig n ific a n t. A nonsignificant Increase was the o verall subsection pattern of change. Table 21 summarizes these change data. Table 2 1 .— Changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s by school size* d i s t r ic t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Smal 1 Medium Large Decrease Increase Decrease 2.995 3.078 2.977 .567 .535 .464 no no no D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Increase 2.934 3.212 .513 .529 no yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Increase 2.636 2.969 3.125 3.034 .587 .492 .534 .503 yes no yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Increase Decrease Increase Increase 3.002 2.951 3.113 3.121 .490 .585 .493 .476 no no no no Increase 3.019 .531 no OVERALL Other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m a te ria ls.--The only group of p rin cip a ls to report an Increase fo r changes 1n other program character­ is tic s and m ate ria ls were p rin cip a ls 1n o u t-o f-fo rm ula d is tr ic ts . Increase was s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. The Change 1n the other 12 v a ria b le categories was 1n the d irec tio n of decrease. The decrease was 83 s ig n ific a n t fo r large schools* 1n-formula d is tr ic ts * d is tr ic ts with large and moderate economic decline* and schools w ith moderate e n ro ll­ ment decline. The o verall pattern of change fo r other program charac­ t e r is t ic s and m aterials was a s ig n ific a n t decrease. Table 22 summarizes th e data. Table 2 2 .— Changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials by school size* d i s t r i c t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollm ent change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.918 2.950 2.736 .516 .520 .469 no no yes D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Increase 2.761 3.181 .465 .467 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Smal1 decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.482 2.834 2.994 2.846 .447 .498 .491 .621 yes yes no no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.961 2.844 2.891 2.829 .531 .500 .482 .562 no yes no no Decrease 2.881 .511 yes OVERALL Middle school program— o v e ra ll.— When the data from the two program subsections are combined* 5 of the 13 v a ria b le categories show Increases. They are medium schools* o u t-o f-fo rm u la d is tr ic ts * d is tr ic ts with small economic decline* and schools w ith small enrollm ent declines 84 and s ta tic or Increasing enrollm ent. Of these fiv e * only the o u t-o f­ formula d is tr ic ts had a s ig n ific a n t Increase. eig h t categories was a decrease. The change 1n the other Decreases were s ig n ific a n t fo r In ­ formula d is tr ic ts and d is tr ic ts w ith large economic decline. The o verall program section change was a decrease* but not a s ig n ific a n t decrease. Summary data fo r the program section follow 1n Table 23. Table 2 3 .— Changes 1n middle school program o v e ra ll by school size* d is t r ic t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Decrease Increase Decrease 2.969 3.033 2.894 .475 .454 .408 no no no D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula O ut-of-form ula Decrease Increase 2.875 3.199 .425 .432 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease 2.574 2.920 3.084 2.963 .456 .411 .448 .531 yes no no no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Increase 2.988 2.916 3.030 3.026 .434 .495 .417 .407 no no no no Decrease 2.971 .452 no OVERALL "Basic" classroom s t a f f .— P rin cip als ' perceptions of the changes 1n "basic" classroom s t a f f did not vary a t a l l . Findings fo r each of 85 the 13 va ria b le categories showed a s ig n ific a n t change 1n the d irec tio n of decrease. This was also the o verall pattern. Summary s ta tis tic s follow 1n Table 24. Table 2 4 .— Changes 1n "basic" classroom s t a f f by school size* d is t r ic t funding» d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.817 2.823 2.756 .334 .300 .364 yes yes yes D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Decrease 2.819 2.768 .342 .305 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.663 2.746 2.888 2.722 .240 .307 .352 .261 yes yes yes yes School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Smal1 decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.727 2.822 2.823 2.867 .298 .362 .333 .276 yes yes yes yes Decrease 2.803 .330 yes OVERALL Other c e r tific a te d s t a f f .— P rin cip als 1n a ll va ria b le categories reported decreases 1n other c e rtific a te d s ta ff. A ll were s ig n ific a n t except d is tr ic ts w ith s ta tic or Improving economic conditions. o verall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t decrease. (See Table 2 5 .) The 86 Table 2 5 .— Changes 1n o th e r c e r t if ic a t e d s t a f f by school s iz e , d i s t r i c t fun ding * d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. V ariable D irection of Change Category Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Smal 1 Medium Large Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.523 2.720 2.564 .540 .465 .480 yes yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Decrease 2.545 2.735 .509 .477 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.262 2.523 2.740 2.504 .542 .486 .471 .628 yes yes yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.503 2.571 2.653 2.810 .514 .490 .568 .373 yes yes yes yes Decrease 2.601 .505 yes OVERALL Non-cert 1f1cated s t a f f .— Decreases were reported 1n a l l non­ c e rtific a te d s t a ff categories. A ll were s ig n ific a n t except schools w ith s ta tic or Increasing enrollm ents. decrease, as shown In Table 26. The o verall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t 87 Table 2 6 .— Changes In n o n -c e rt1 flo a te d s t a f f by school s iz e , d i s t r i c t fu n d in g , d i s t r i c t economic change, and school e n ro llm e n t change. Category V ariable D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.645 2.768 2.590 .593 .642 .579 yes yes yes D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Decrease 2.622 2.796 .615 .582 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.028 2.729 2.707 2.667 .388 .625 .592 .333 yes yes yes yes School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.609 2.671 2.700 2.759 .585 .608 .574 .715 yes yes yes no Decrease 2.673 .608 yes OVERALL Middle school s t a f f — o v e ra ll.— Data from the three s t a ff subsections, when combined, a ll show s ig n ific a n t decreases 1n s t a f f which are a l l s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. overall pattern . This corresponds w ith the Table 27 summarizes the s t a tis tic s . 88 Table 27 .— Changes 1n m iddle school s t a f f o v e ra ll by school s iz e , d i s t r i c t fun ding * d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. V ariable D irection of Change Category Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.688 2.779 2.671 .332 .317 .306 yes yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Decrease 2.694 2.765 .322 .321 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.435 2.671 2.808 2.643 .235 .305 .317 .352 yes yes yes yes School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease 2.636 2.711 2.747 2.833 .297 .328 .361 .258 yes yes yes yes Decrease 2.715 .322 yes OVERALL School c lim a te .— P rin cip als 1n large schools* 1n-formula d is tr ic ts , d is tr ic ts w ith larg e and moderate economic declines* schools with large enrollm ent decline, and schools w ith s ta tic or Increasing enrollm ent reported a decrease fo r school clim a te changes. decreases was s ig n ific a n t. the other seven categories. Change was 1n the d ire c tio n o f Increase 1n I t was s ig n ific a n t 1n ou t-o f-fo rm u la d is tr ic ts and d is tr ic ts w ith small economic decline. pattern was an Increase th a t was not s ig n ific a n t. are summarized 1n Table 28. None of the The o verall School clim a te data 69 Table 2 8 .— Changes 1n school c lim a te by school s iz e * d i s t r i c t fu n d in g , d i s t r i c t economic change, and school e n ro llm e n t change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Increase Increase Decrease 3.067 3.052 2.937 .536 .587 .503 no no no D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Decrease Increase 2.984 3.133 .564 .497 no yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Increase 2.775 2.949 3.133 3.149 .550 .550 .511 .667 no no yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Smal1 decrease Same or Increase Decrease Increase Increase Decrease 2.976 3.063 3.092 2.951 .527 .539 .544 .605 no no no no Increase 3.029 .546 no OVERALL When a ll of the change data are examined 1n t o t a l, 1 t 1s evident th a t most of the s ig n ific a n t changes are decreases, as are most o f the nonsignificant changes. The greatest change has occurred in the area of middle school s t a f f , w hile middle school c lim a te has had the le a s t. examining the data by v a ria b le , the greatest discrepancies from the o verall patterns were found 1n d is t r ic t funding and d is t r ic t economic change. In order to provide a more rigorous analysis of the data, u n iva ria te and m u ltiv a ria te one-way analyses of variance were performed. The u n iva ria te te s t shows 1f there are any differences In 90 1n mean scores fo r each subsection when examined by each v a ria b le category. I t shows* fo r example* 1f being 1n or out of s ta te funding formula makes a differen ce. In both program subsections* there was s ig n ific a n t variance* as measured by F-values» across d i s t r ic t funding and economic change v a r i­ able categories. D is t r ic t funding and economic change were lik e w is e s ig n ific a n t fo r the section on school clim ate. A ll four variab les showed s ig n ific a n t variance regarding other c e r tific a te d s t a ff. Economic change varied regarding "basic" s t a f f and non-cert1f1cated s t a ff. Table 29 shows the appropriate F-values and le v e ls o f sig n ifican ce fo r each v a ria b le and subsection. F in a lly * m u ltiv a ria te one-way analyses of variance were per­ formed. These tests* because a ll co rrela tio n s are taken In to account* are more rigorous s t m . Although s t a tis tic s fo r the P llla ls * H o te l- Ungs* Wilks* and Wilks lambda te s ts were determined* only the F-values and le v e ls of sig nifican ce fo r the Wilks te s t are reported because the resu lts fo r each te s t were roughly the same. The m u ltiv a ria te te s ts Indicated th a t p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions did not vary s ig n ific a n tly as a function of school size or enrollm ent change* but did vary as a function of d is t r ic t funding and economic change* as seen 1n Table 30. 91 Table 2 9 .— Change: U n iv a ria te one-way ANOVA by school s iz e * d i s t r i c t fun ding * d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. Subsection V ariable F-Value Level of S1g. • Program Subsections School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 1.424 11.406 4.793 .989 .243 .001 * .003* .399 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 2.378 27.733 4.178 .361 .095 <.001* .007* .781 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change .810 1.058 4.257 1.300 .446 .305 .006* .276 B. Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 3.552 4.210 5.545 2.775 .030* .024* .001* .043* C. Non-Cert1f1cated S ta ff School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 1.064 2.952 5.018 .442 .347 .088 .002* .723 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change .930 3.920 3.012 .745 .396 .049* .032* .526 I I . A . Selected Middle School C haracteristics B. Other Program C haracteristics Staff_..Subss£.tiojis I I I . A . "Basic" Classroom S ta ff Climate Subsection IV. School Climate •S ig n ific a n t a t .0 5 . 92 Table 3 0 .— Change: M u ltiv a ria te one-way ANOVA by school size* d i s t r ic t funding* economic change* and enrollment change. Wilks F-Value Level of Significance School Size 1.105 .354 D is t r ic t Funding 6.348 <.001* Economic Change 2.634 < .0 0 1 * Enrollment Change 1.258 .210 V ariable "S ig n ific a n t a t .0 5 . flu sstiailJ Do middle school principals* perceptions o f the Impact th a t changes 1n program* s ta ff* and clim a te have had on the school's development as a middle school vary as a function of the fo llow ing four v a ri­ ables? a. size of the school b. level of s ta te funding In the school d is t r ic t c. economic change 1n the school d i s t r ic t d. enrollment change In the school When the Impact data are broken down and examined* the patterns are s im ila r to those found w ith change. Most of the s ig n ific a n t Impacts on the development of a middle school program are negative* as are most of the Impacts 1n general. Selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s .— P rin cip als of large schools* 1n-formula d is tr ic ts * d is tr ic ts w ith larg e and moderate economic decline* and schools w ith moderate enrollm ent decline a ll reported th a t changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s had had a negative Impact on th e ir school's development as a middle school. 93 The only negative Impact th a t was s ig n ific a n t* however* was 1n d is tr ic ts with large economic decline. P rin cip als 1n out-o f-fo rm ula d is tr ic ts and d is tr ic ts w ith small economic decline reported a s ig n ific a n tly p o sitive Impact of changes 1n selected ch a ra c te ris tic s . A ll other p rin cip als reported p o sitive Impacts th a t were not s ig n ific a n t. Impact. The o verall pattern was also a not-s1gn1fleant p o sitive Table 31 summarizes Impact findings fo r changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s . Table 3 1 .— Impact of changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s by school size* d i s t r ic t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. Variable Category D1rection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Med1urn Large P o sitive P o sitive Negative 3.057 3.085 2.997 .621 .571 .512 no no no D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Negatlve P o sitive 2.960 3.264 .565 .556 no yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative P o sitive P o sitive 2.619 2.992 3.179 3.045 .539 .492 .617 .639 yes no yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase P ositive Negative P ositive P o sitive 3.010 2.987 3.179 3.148 .462 .625 .628 .523 no no no no P ositive 3.052 .577 no OVERALL 94 Other program c h a r a c t e r is t ic s and m a t e r ia ls .— The only group of p rin cip als to report a p o sitive Impact of changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials were p rin cip als In out-o f-fo rm ula d is tr ic ts . The p o sitive Impact was s ig n ific a n t. negative Impacts. A ll the rest reported For prin cip als of large schools* 1n-formula d is tric ts * d is tr ic ts w ith larg e and moderate economic decline* and schools w ith moderate enrollm ent decline* the negative Impact of changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials was s ig n ific a n t. The remaining categories registered negative Impacts th a t were not s ig n ific a n t. The o verall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t negative Impact* as seen 1n Table 32. Table 3 2 .— Impact of changes 1n other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials by school s iz e , d is t r ic t funding, d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection o f Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Negative Negatlve Negative 2.935 2.908 2.796 .542 .588 .532 no no yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula O ut-of-form ula Negatlve P o sitive 2.774 3.184 .538 .464 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negatlve Negative 2.469 2.881 2.968 2.864 .480 .538 .544 .751 yes yes no no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negative Negative 2.994 2.849 2.907 2.789 .522 .557 .534 .642 no yes no no Negative 2.890 .556 yes OVERALL 95 Middle school program— o v e ra ll.— When the data from the two program subsections are analyzed as a to ta l section* an o v erall p o sitive Impact of program changes Is found* but th is p o sitive Impact was not s ig n ific a n t. Negative Impacts were seen 1n large schools* 1n-formula d is tr ic ts * d is tr ic ts w ith large and moderate economic decline* d is tr ic ts th a t remained s ta tic or improved economically* and schools w ith moderate enrollm ent decline. The only s ig n ific a n t negative Impacts of changes 1n program were 1n 1n-formula d is tr ic ts and d is tr ic ts w ith large economic decline. P o sitive Impacts of program change were evidenced 1n a ll remaining categories* but the change was s ig n ific a n t only 1n o u t-o f­ formula d is tr ic ts . Table 33 summarizes Impact findings fo r the e n tire section on middle school program. Table 3 3 .— Impact of changes 1n middle school program overall by school size* d i s t r ic t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection o f Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large P o sitive P o sitive Negative 3.017 3.026 2.942 .536 .523 .464 no no no D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Negative P o sitive 2.903 3.237 .495 .479 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative P o sitive Negative 2.560 2.963 3.111 2.974 .455 .446 .535 .661 yes no no no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase P o sitive Negative P o sitive P o sitive 3.005 2.943 3.081 3.048 .427 .551 .552 .493 no no no no Pos i t i ve 3.001 .513 no OVERALL 96 "Basic" classroom s t a f f .— P rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the Impact th a t changes 1n "basic" classroom s t a f f had had on th e ir school's development as a middle school did not vary In d irec tio n . a negative Impact. A ll reported The negative impact was s ig n ific a n t 1n a ll cases except fo r d is tr ic ts w ith the same or Improving economics and schools w ith small enrollm ent decline. The o verall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t negative Impact of changes 1n "basic" classroom s ta ff. Data are summarized 1n Table 34. Table 3 4 .— Impact of changes In "basic" classroom s t a f f by school size* d is t r ic t funding* d i s t r ic t economic change* and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Negative Negative Negative 2.796 2.846 2.727 .490 .450 .376 yes yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula O ut-of-form ula Negative Negative 2.772 2.848 .457 .436 yes yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negative Negative 2.459 2.772 2.870 2.870 .390 .358 .514 .494 yes yes yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negative Negative 2.726 2.797 2.877 2.803 .397 .496 .476 .364 yes yes no yes Negative 2.796 .450 yes OVERALL Other c e r t if ic a t e d s t a f f .— P rin c ip a ls were 1n agreement about th e Im pact on t h e ir schools o f changes 1n o th e r c e r t if ic a t e d s t a f f . The Im pacts re ported were n e g a tive and s ig n if ic a n t In a l l cases bu t one. The one area 1n which the negative Impact was not s ig n ific a n t was d is tr ic ts w ith the same or Improving economic conditions. The overall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t negative Impact of changes 1n other c e r t l f l cated s ta ff* as seen 1n Table 35. Table 35. — Impact of changes 1n other c e r tific a te d s t a f f by school size* d i s t r ic t funding* d i s t r i c t economic change* and school enrollm ent change. V ariable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Negative Negative Negative 2.562 2.779 2.595 .588 .550 .531 yes yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Negatlve Negatlve 2.567 2.839 .588 .467 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negatlve Negative 2.250 2.614 2.754 2.492 .580 .536 .552 .756 yes yes yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negatlve Negatlve Negatlve Negative 2.577 2.620 2.689 2.809 .581 .563 .640 .407 yes yes yes yes Negative 2.645 .567 yes OVERALL 98 Non-cert1flo ate d s t a f f .— Negative Impacts of changes 1n non­ c e rtific a te d s t a f f were reported 1n a ll v a ria b le categories. A ll negative Impacts were s ig n ific a n t except fo r schools with s ta tic or Increasing enrollm ent. The o v erall pattern was a s ig n ific a n t negative Impact of changes 1n non-cert1f1cated s ta ff# as shown In Table 36. Table 3 6 .— Impact of changes In non-cert1fIcated s t a f f by school size# d is t r ic t funding# d i s t r ic t economic change# and school enrollment change. Variable Category D irection o f Change Mean S.D. Slg. a t .05? School Size Small Med1urn Large Negative Negative Negative 2.721 2.712 2.550 .658 .608 .580 yes yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula O ut-of-form ula Negative Negative 2.622 2.810 .638 .574 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negatlve Negative Negatlve Negative 2.083 2.738 2.718 2.481 .452 .610 .625 .556 yes yes yes yes School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative Negative Negatlve Negatlve 2.670 2.643 2.709 2.744 .624 .603 .588 .760 yes yes yes no Negative 2.675 .623 yes OVERALL Middle school s t a f f — o v e ra ll.— When a ll th ree s t a f f subsections are examined as a to ta l section# the Impact o f s t a ff changes 1s negative 1n each va ria b le category as w ell as 1n the o verall pattern. Further­ more# these negative Impacts are s ig n ific a n t In a ll cases except with 99 d is tr ic ts experiencing the same or Improving economic conditions. Table 37 summarizes the Impact data fo r changes 1n middle school s ta ff. Table 3 7 .— Impact of changes 1n middle school s t a f f overall by school size* d is t r ic t funding* d is t r ic t economic change* and school enrollm ent change. Variable Category D irection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Small Medium Large Negative Negatlve Negative 2.702 2.788 2.665 .463 .403 .372 yes yes yes D is tr ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Negatlve Negative 2.677 2.831 .438 .368 yes yes D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negatlve Negative Negative Negative 2.325 2.719 2.800 2.598 .317 .350 .452 .603 yes yes yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negatlve Negative Negatlve Negatlve 2.680 2.708 2.770 2.776 .426 .437 .474 .292 yes yes yes yes Negatlve 2.723 .422 yes OVERALL School cl 1mate.— P rin cip als 1n large schools* 1n-formula d is tric ts * d is tr ic ts w ith large and moderate economic decline* d is tr ic ts w ith the same or Improving economics* large school-enrollm ent decreases* and s ta tic or Increasing school enrollm ent reported negative Impacts of school c lim a te changes over the past fiv e years. Impacts was s ig n ific a n t. None of the negative P o sitive Impacts of clim ate change were 100 reported in the remaining va ria b le categories* but none was s ig n ific a n t. This coincided with the overall pattern* as seen 1n Table 38. Table 3 8 .— Impact o f changes In school clim ate by school s iz e , d is t r ic t funding* d is t r ic t economic change, and school enrollment change. V ariable Category D1rection of Change Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Smal 1 Medium Large P o sitive P o sitive Negative 3.052 3.064 2.863 .638 .695 .543 no no no D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Negatlve P o sitive 2.965 3.113 .663 .578 no no D is tr ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negatlve Negative P ositive Negatlve 2.642 2.952 3.125 2.974 .623 .619 .619 .879 no no no no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase Negative P o sitive P o sitive Negatlve 2.926 3.036 3.115 2.943 .570 .649 .684 .667 no no no no P o sitive 3.010 .640 no OVERALL As was the case with the change data examined 1n the previous research question* most o f the s ig n ific a n t Impacts of changes 1n program and s t a ff were negative* with s t a ff showing the greatest negative Impact. No s ig n ific a n t Impact was reported 1n middle school clim ate. 101 The two variables showing the greatest discrepancies from the overall patterns were d is t r ic t funding and d is t r ic t economic change. Results of the u n iva ria te one-way analyses of variance provided additional Inform ation. S ig n ific a n t variance 1n Impact 1s evident fo r the va ria b le categories o f economic change fo r a ll of the six question­ naire subsections except other program c h a racteristics. D is t r ic t fund­ ing 1s s ig n ific a n t fo r Impact of changes 1n selected middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s , other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials, and other c e rtific a te d s ta ff. There was s ig n ific a n t school size variance fo r the Impact of changes 1n other c e rtific a te d s t a f f and school clim ate. Table 39 summarizes the u n iv a ria te one-way ANOVA data fo r the Impact of change. The m u ltiv a ria te analyses of variance revealed, however, th a t there 1s a s ig n ific a n t variance only In d is t r ic t funding, although economic change varies a t a level of sig nifican ce close to the required .05. Results are displayed 1n Table 40. 102 Table 3 9 .— Im pact; U n iv a ria te one-way ANOVA by school s iz e * d i s t r i c t fun ding * d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. Subsection V ariable F-Value Level of S1g. Program Subsections School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 2.664 10.216 4.789 1.272 .072 .002* .003* .286 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 2.105 19.297 2.584 1.043 .124 <.001* .055 .375 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 2.499 .348 3.314 .938 .085 .556 .021* .424 B. Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 5.049 5.761 2.924 1.660 .007* .017* .035* .177 C. Non-Cert1flcated S ta ff School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 2.390 3.415 4.340 .275 .094 .066 .006* .844 School Size D is t r ic t Funding Economic Change Enrollment Change 3.989 2.118 2.917 1.307 .020* .147 .036* .274 I I . A . Selected Middle School C h aracteristics B. Other Program C h aracteristics S ta ff Subsections I I I . A . "Basic" Classroom S ta ff Climate Subsection IV. School Climate ♦S ig n ific a n t a t .05 . 103 Table 4 0 .— Impact; M u ltiv a ria te one-way ANOVA by school size# d is t r ic t funding# d is t r ic t economic change# and school enrollm ent change. Wilks F-Value Level o f Significance School Size 1.495 .123 D is t r ic t Funding 4.097 .001* Economic Change 1.561 .066 Enrollment Change 1.362 .145 V ariable ^ S ig n ifican t a t .0 5 . Question 5 Do middle school p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions of change 1n program# staff# and c lim a te vary as a function of In teractio n s among selected varlabl es? a. s ize of the school by level o f s ta te funding In the school d is t r ic t b. enrollm ent change In the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. enrollm ent change 1n the school by s ize of the school When In te ra c tio n s among selected variables are examined regarding change# the Wilks F-values from the m u ltiv a ria te two-way analysis o f variance fo r a ll three In teractio n s show none being s ig n if i­ cant a t a .05 le v e l. Table 41 shows th a t the In teractio n s provide no s ig n ific a n t variance 1n p rin c ip a ls ’ perceptions about change. 104 Table 41 . — Change: M u ltiv a r ia te two-way ANOVA by In te r a c tio n . W11ks F-Value Level of Significance School Size x D is t r ic t Funding .903 .544 Enrollment Change x D is t r ic t Funding .935 .536 1.067 .366 In te ra c tio n Enrollment Change x School Size Qufiai.io.rL-6. Do middle school p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f the Impact th a t changes In program* s ta ff* and c lim a te have had on the school's development as a middle school vary as a function of In teractio n s among selected variables? a. s ize of the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d i s t r ic t b. enrollm ent change 1n the school by level of s ta te funding 1n the school d is t r ic t c. enrollm ent change 1n the school by size of the school When the Impacts of change are examined fo r v a ria b le In te ra c tio n variance, again none of the three In teractio n s 1s s ig n ific a n t. Table 42 supplies the s t a tis tic a l data fo r each In te ra c tio n . Table 4 2 .— Impact; M u ltiv a ria te two-way ANOVA by In te ra c tio n . In te ra c tio n W11ks F-Value Level of Significance School Size x D is t r ic t Funding .312 .987 Enrollment Change x D is t r ic t Funding .960 .505 1.287 .124 Enrollment Change x School Size 105 O ther P a tte rn s and Findings Selected Mid d le School Characteris tic s ( I I . A ) In the questionnaire* p rin cip a ls were Instructed to draw a lin e through any program c h a ra c te ris tic s 1n subsection 11. A. th a t had never existed 1n th e ir school. Table 43 summarizes the resu lts. I t 1s In te re s tin g th a t f iv e c h a ra c te ris tic s — continuous progress* fle x ib le schedules* team teaching* Independent study* and a security fa c to r— had never existed 1n more than 25 percent o f the middle schools 1n the state* with fle x ib le schedules nonexistent 1n over 37 percent of the schools. On the other hand# a ll p rin cip a ls reported th a t th e ir school provided appropriate school-sponsored social experiences. Changes Having P o s itiv e Impacts Tables 44 and 45 present Inform ation about those changes* both Increases and decreases* th a t p rin cip a ls f e l t had had a p o sitive impact on th e ir school's development as a middle school. Whether the change Is s ig n ific a n t 1s Indicated* as w ell as whether the Impact 1s s ig n ific a n t. Of the 15 Increases th a t had a corresponding p o sitive Impact* 11 o f them were s ig n ific a n t. Only one of the fiv e decreases had a s ig n ific a n tly p o sitive Impact* and 1 t referred to a decrease In the percentage of students reaching the o ffic e fo r misbehavior. 106 Table 43.--E ig h teen middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t never existed (N = 204). Question No. C h a ra cte ris tic # In d icatin g C h a ra cte ris tic Had Never Existed % of N 10 Continuous Progress 61 29.9 11 Mult1-mater1al Approach 19 9.3 12 F le x ib le Schedules 76 37.3 13 Social Experiences 0 0 14 Phys. Ed. Experiences 1 0.5 15 Intramural A c tiv itie s 19 9.3 16 Team Teaching 52 25.5 17 Planned Gradualism 18 8 .8 18 Exploratory & Enrichment Studies 8 3 .9 19 Guidance Services 7 3 .4 20 Independent Study 57 27.9 21 Basic S k ill Repair & Extension 7 3 .4 22 C reative Experiences 6 2.9 23 Security Factor 58 28.4 24 Eval. o f Student Ach. 16 7 .8 25 Community Relations 20 9 .8 26 Student Services 11 5 .4 27 A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g 10 4 .9 107 Table 4 4 .— Summary o f questionnaire Items showing an Increase th a t had a p o sitive Impact. Question No. Name of Increase Increase Slg. a t .05? P o sitive Impact S1g. a t .05? 11 M u lti-m a te ria l Approach no yes 14 Phys. Ed. Experiences yes yes 17 Planned Gradualism yes yes 20 Independent Study no no 21 Basic S k ill Repair & Extension yes yes 23 Security Factor no no 24 Eval. o f Student Ach. yes yes 25 Community Relations yes yes 27 A u x ilia ry S ta ffin g no yes 30 Computer-Assisted In s t. yes yes 33 S u ffic ie n t Textbooks no no 42 % of former elem. s t a f f tran sfe rred to m.s. (Eng.* math* sc1.* soc. S t. ) yes yes 43 % o f former elem. s t a f f tran sfe rred to m.s. (other classes) yes no 57 % o f parents attending conferences and open houses yes yes 63 Morale of students yes yes 108 Table 4 5 .— Summary of questionnaire Items showing a decrease th a t had a p o s itiv e Impact. Question No. Name of Decrease Decrease S1g. a t .05? P o sitive Impact S1g. a t .05? 10 Continuous Progress no no 18 Exploratory & Enrichment Studies no no 55 % of students absent from from school each day yes no 56 % of students tardy to school each day yes no 58 % of students reaching o ffic e fo r misbehavior yes yes Overall Q uality o f the School Program Three additional questions were asked on the survey Instrument. Question 64 asked p rin cip a ls how the changes over the past fiv e years had affected the o v erall q u a lity of th e ir school’s program. As seen 1n Table 46, p rin cip als f e l t th a t program q u a lity had Improved s lig h tly , although there were some differences when the va ria b le categories were examined In d iv id u a lly . Of the p rin cip als who responded, 33.8 percent f e l t th e ir program had d e teriorated, compared to 16.7 percent who said 1t had stayed the same and 49.5 percent who Indicated some degree of Improvement had occurred. Table 47 shows th a t most p rin cip a ls Indicated th a t Improvement had occurred, though not s ig n ific a n tly 1n 6 o f the 10 va ria b le 109 categories. P rin cip als o f schools th a t were large 1n size* or who were 1n d is tr ic ts th a t had stayed the same or Increased economically* In d i­ cated th e ir programs had deteriorated* though not s ig n ific a n tly . P rin­ c ip als of schools where large economic decreases had occurred Indicated s ig n ific a n t program d e terio ratio n . Table 46 .— Question 64— Overall q u a lity o f school program— to ta ls . Absolute Freq. R ela tive Freq.(%) Adjusted Freq.(fc) Cumulative Freq.(%) D eteriorated considerably 15 7 .4 7 .6 7 .6 D eteriorated s lig h tly 52 25.5 26.3 33.8 Stayed the same 33 16.2 16.7 50.5 Improved s lig h tly 76 37.3 38.4 88.9 Improved considerably 22 10.8 11.1 11.1 6 2 .9 .. 100.0 204 100.0 100.0 Didn’ t answer Total Mean = 3.192 Standard Deviation = 1.168 95% Confidence In te rv a l = 3.028-3.356 110 Table 4 7 .--Q u e s tio n 64— O ve ra ll program q u a lit y by school s iz e * d i s t r i c t fun ding * d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. Overal1 D irection of Change Mean Small Medium Large Improved Improved Deteriorated 3.218 3.338 2.962 1.136 1.192 1.171 no yes no D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula Out-of-form ula Improved Improved 3.007 3.633 1.173 1.041 no yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Mod. decrease Smal1 decrease Same or 1ncr. D eteriorated Improved Improved D eteriorated 2.250 3.055 3.500 2.889 .866 1.205 1.038 1.453 yes no yes no School Enrollment Change Large decrease Mod. decrease Smal1 decrease Same or 1ncr. Improved Improved Improved Improved 3.128 3.099 3.317 3.464 1.076 1.210 1.171 1.138 no no no yes Improved 3.192 1.168 yes V ariable Category School Size OVERALL S.D. S1g. a t .05? Do You Have a Middle School Now? Question 65 asked fo r principals* perceptions about whether or not th e ir school 1s cu rren tly a middle school. Just over one-half of those responding* or 51.5 percent* Indicated they d e fin ite ly or prob­ ably do have middle schools. A few were not sure* 8.6 percent* w h ile the remaining 39.9 percent said they d e fin ite ly or probably do not have middle schools* as seen 1n Table 48. Ill Table 4 8 .— Question 65— Do you have a m iddle school now?— t o t a l . Absolute Freq. Relat1ve Freq .(%) Adjusted Freq. ( % ) Cumulative F re q .(%) D e fin ite ly yes 31 15.2 15.7 15.7 Probably yes 71 34.8 35.9 51.5 Not sure 17 8.3 8.6 60.1 Probably not 62 30.4 31.3 91.4 D e fin ite ly not 17 8.3 8.6 100.0 D id n 't answer 6 2 .9 • • 204 100.0 Total Mean = 2.813 100.0 Standard Deviation = 1.271 95% Confidence In te rv a l = 2 .6 3 5 -2 . 991 Table 49 displays the responses as broken down by variab le categories. P rin cip als in nine of the va ria b le categories responded 1n the general "yes” d ire c tio n , although fiv e of the nine were not s ta tis ­ t i c a l l y d iffe r e n t from "not sure." P rin cip als 1n d is tr ic ts with large economic decreases were not sure, w hile those In d is tr ic ts w ith the same or Increasing economics, large school enrollm ent decreases, and small schools responded 1n the "no" d ire c tio n , though not s ig n ific a n tly so. 112 Table 4 9 .— Q uestion 65— Do you have a m iddle school now?--by school s iz e * d i s t r i c t funding* d i s t r i c t economic change* and school e n ro llm e n t change. V ariable General D irection Category Mean S.D. S1g. a t .05? School Size Smal 1 Medium Large no yes yes 3.077 2.647 2.635 1.277 1.219 1.284 no yes yes D is t r ic t Funding In-form ula O ut-of-form ula yes yes 2.891 2.644 1.294 1.214 no yes D is t r ic t Economic Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase 3.000 2.835 2.698 3.444 1.348 1.267 1.247 1.424 — School Enrollment Change Large decrease Moderate decrease Small decrease Same or Increase no yes yes yes 3.042 2.802 2.725 2.643 1.220 1.308 1.281 1.224 no no no no yes 2.813 1.271 yes OVERALL not sure yes yes no no yes no N arrative Comments The fin a l Item on the questionnaire asked p rin cip a ls 1 f any other Important changes had occurred th a t had moved th e ir school away from* or toward* a middle school 1n the past fiv e years. responded to the question. Ninety people Responses were varied* as evidenced by the to ta ls and sample comments 1n the follow ing summary categories. Enrollment and economic dec! 1ne.—-Fourteen p rin cip a ls made special mention of the negative e ffe c ts o f declines In student enrollm ent and/or finances. The fo llo w in g comment was ty p ic a l of many 113 others: "The decline 1n finances has had a c h illin g e ffe c t on c u rric u la r growth." Movement toward middle school.— Fourteen p rin cip a ls Indicated th e ir buildings had recently undergone a grade reorganization to enhance development as a middle school. Another seven Indicated a recent push toward the middle school concept although no grade reorga­ nizatio n was Involved. Typical of the kinds of comments was th is one: "The biggest change . . . was the return to 6 -7 -8 schools from single grade ju n io r high." Grade and/or program reorganization.— Eleven p rin cip a ls described other types of program and grade reorganizations and refocusings th a t had been both p o sitive and negative. Loss o f programs and personnel.— Ten mentioned loss of programs, such as exploratory and e le c tiv e classes, team teaching, and In d iv id u a lize d programs, and the problems created by th is . Another seven Id e n tifie d loss of personnel as something th a t has moved them away from a middle school. One prin cipal simply stated, w ith emphasis, "Continuous cutbacks 1n every areal" Reassignments and high school Influence.— Eight noted th a t tran sferred and reassigned secondary s t a f f had been problems. Five mentioned how d estructive the high school Influence was w ith shared s t a f f and schedules dictated by the high school. Parent and board o f education pressures (back to b a sic s). — Seven p rin cip a ls noted various problems experienced from parents and/or board members. Typical of the comments was th is one: "Pressure from 114 school board (apparent pressure) d ire c ts emphasis to more academic (back to basics) and less humanistic dealing w ith middle school and elementary children In th is d i s t r i c t . " New ad m in istratio n .— Seven p rin cip a ls mentioned th a t recent a d m in is tra tiv e changes had had an e ffe c t. Two said the e ffe c t was negative, w h ile the other fiv e noted the p o sitive Influence. o f the la t t e r was th is one: Typical "The decline 1n enrollm ent money has hurt, but the change 1n ad m in istration has helped to create a more p o sitive a ttitu d e fo r coping." Other changes.— Several other changes, such as d if f ic u lt ie s w ith contract language and a recent s trik e , were mentioned on the negative side. Five noted the p o s itiv e e ffe c ts of adding programs such as computer-assisted In s tru c tio n . e ffe c ts of other changes. Three others mentioned p o sitive A ty p ic a l comment was, ''Q uality Improved s lig h tly but not due to the above Id e n tifie d tin the questionnaire] changes." Most of the comments were of a negative nature and reinforced p rin c ip a ls ' responses to the questionnaire. One prin cipal summed up h e r/h is questionnaire responses w ith the fo llo w in g comments: "Sorry to be so negative but la s t year I lo s t my assistant prin cipal position and th is year I was given the job o f K-12 special education coordinator to do along with being the only ad m in istrator 1n the building. Financial cuts 1n program and poor high school s t a f f members being assigned to our building [because o f la y o ffs ] have moved us A&ay from the middle 115 school concept. Lack o f m ill age and declining enrollm ent have badly hurt us I ” Summary Tables 50 through 57 summarize the Important findings o f th is study. Table 50 shows the d ire c tio n of change* decreases or Increases* th a t had occurred 1n the 54 c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t were measured In the three main sections of program* s ta ff* and clim ate. There were more decreases than Increases* both s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t and otherwise. Overall* 64.8 percent o f the changes were s ig n ific a n t a t the .05 le v e l. Table 50.— Numbers and sig n ifican ce of changes— o v e ra ll summary to ta ls . Total No. of c h a ra c te ris tic s : N = 54 % of N No. showing decreases No. showing Increases Totals = 32 = 22 59.3 40.7 54 100.0 % of n-j Total No. showing change s ig n ific a n t a t .0 5 : No. showing s1g. decreases No. showing s1g. Increases Totals n-j = 35 % of N 64.8 = 19 = 16 54.3 45.7 35.2 29.6 35 100.0 64.8 Table 51 shows the Impact of these changes. Close to two-th1rds of the changes* 64.8 percent* had a s ig n ific a n t Impact on the school's development as a m idd le school. N early tw o - th ird s * 65.7 percent* o f these Im pacts were negative. Table 51.— Numbers and sig nifican ce of 1mpacts— overal 1 summary to ta ls . Total No. of c h a ra c te ris tic s N = 54 % of N No. showing negative Impact No. showing p o sitive Impact Totals = 34 = 20 63.0 37.0 54 100.0 % of n-j Total No. showing Impact s ig n ific a n t a t .05 % of N n-| = 35 No. showing s1g. negative Impact No. showing s1g. p o sitive Impact Totals 64.8 = 23 65.7 42.6 = 12 34.3 22.2 35 100.0 64.8 Tables 52 and 53 display the summaries of changes and Impacts* respectively* when each subsection and section of the questionnaire 1s examined by v a ria b le categories. From these tables* I t Is c le a r th a t middle school s t a f f have experienced the greatest amount of s ig n ific a n t change* In a decreasing d irectio n * and these changes have had a s ig n ific a n tly negative Impact. Program has changed and been Impacted second greatest* and there are some differences across the v a ria b le categories. Impact. School c lim a te has had the le a s t amount of change and T able 5 2 .- - Change summary: D ir e c tio n and s ig n ific a n c e . D is t r ic t Funding School S ize 11.A. B. II. III.A . B. C. III. IV . In Out D i s t r i c t Economic Change Lg.F Mod.♦ School E n ro llm e n t Change Sm. + Same or + L g .f Mod.* O v e ra l1 Sm.+ Sm. Med. Lg. S ele cte d M id d le School C h a ra c te r is tic s D 1 D D 1* D* D 1* 1 1 D 1 1 1 O ther C h a ra c te r is tic s and M a te ria ls D D D* 0* 1* D* D* D D D D* D D 0* M iddle School Program— O v e ra l1 D 1 D D* 1* D* D 1 D D D I "B a s ic " Classroom S ta ff D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* 0* O ther C e r tific a te d S ta ff D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D D* D* D* D* D* N on-Cert if ic a t e d S ta ff D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D D* M id d le School S t a f f — O v e ra l1 D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* D* 0* 1 1 D 0 I* D 0 1* 1 0 1 I D M id d le School C lim a te — O v e ra l1 " S ig n if ic a n t a t .0 5 . D = Decrease I = Increase I D 1 T able 5 3 . — Impact summary: D ir e c tio n and s ig n if ic a n c e . Subsec t i o n /S e c t i on 11.A. B. II. 111.A. B. C. III. IV. D is t r ic t Funding School S ize D i s t r i c t Economic Change Sm.4- Same or + N P* P P N* N* N N P* N* N P N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* P P N N Same or t N P P P N N* N N N* N P N P P P N* N N* N* N N* N* N* N* N N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N* N N* N* N* N* N* N N* N* N* N* N* P N N P N N P P N P Med. lg . In Out S ele cte d M id d le School C h a r a c te r is tic s P P N N P* N* O ther C h a ra c te r is tic s and M a te ria ls N N N* N* P* M id d le School Program— O v e ra l1 P P N N* " B a s ic " Classroom S ta f f N* N* N* O ther C e r tific a te d S ta f f N* N* Non-Cert if ic a t e d S ta f f N* M idd le School S t a f f — O v e ra l1 M id d le School C lim a te — O v e ra l1 N * N egative P = P o s itiv e O v e ra l1 Sm. F Sm. ^ S ig n ific a n t a t .0 5 . School E n ro llm e n t Change Lg.+ Mod.4- Lg . F Mod F 119 Results of the u n iva ria te analyses of variance* Tables 54 and 55, show th a t fo r both change and Impact, principals* perceptions vary most g rea tly as a function of d is t r ic t economic change and d is t r ic t funding. School s ize and school enrollm ent change show change s ig n if i­ cance 1n only the area of other c e rtific a te d s t a ff. School size shows Impact sig n ifican ce 1n other c e rtific a te d s t a f f and school clim ate. Table 5 4 .— Change: Summary of s ig n ific a n t variab les 1n u n iva ria te one-way ANOVAs. Subsection School Size D is t r ic t S tate Funding D 1 s trlc t Economic Change School Enrollment Change Program Subsections I I . A. B. Selected Middle School C h aracteristics S1g. S1g. Other Program Charac­ t e r is t ic s & M a terials S1g. S1g. S ta ff Subsections III.A . B. C. "Basic" Classroom S ta ff Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff S1g. Slg. Slg. Non-Cert1f1cated S ta ff Slg. S1g. Climate Subsection IV . School Climate S1g. S1g. S1g. 120 Table 55— Impact: Summary of s ig n ific a n t variab les 1n u n iva ria te one-way ANOVAs. D is t r ic t S tate Funding D is t r ic t Economic Change Selected Middle School C h aracteristics S1g. S1g. Other Program Charac­ t e r is t ic s & M a terials S1g. School Size Subsection School Enrollment Change Program Subsections I I . A. B. S ta ff Subsections III.A . B. C. "Basic” Classroom S ta ff Other C e rtific a te d S ta ff S1g. S1g. S1g. Non-Cert1f1cated S ta ff S1g. S1g. Climate Subsection IV . School Climate S1g. S1g. Results o f the more rigorous m u ltiv a ria te te s ts are summarized 1n Tables 56 and 57. The variables th a t have s ig n ific a n t variance regarding p rin c ip a ls ' perceptions o f change are d is t r ic t s ta te funding and d is t r ic t economic change* but none of the In teractio n s regarding change 1s s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t (Table 56). The only v a ria b le o f sig nifican ce regarding Impact 1s d is t r ic t s ta te funding* and again there are no s ig n ific a n t In teractio n s (Table 5 7 ). 121 Table 5 6 .— Change: Summary o f m u ltiv a r ia te ANOVAs. S1g. a t .05? One-Wav ANOVAs: V ariab le School Size D is t r ic t S tate Funding D is t r ic t Economic Change School Enrollment Change no yes yes no Two-Wav ANOVAs: In te ra c tio n School Size x D is t r ic t Funding Enrollment Change x D is t r ic t Funding Enrollment Change x School Size Table 5 7 .— Impact: no no no Summarv of m u ltiv a ria te ANOVAs. S1g. a t .05? One-Way ANOVAs: V ariab le School Size D is t r ic t S tate Funding D is t r ic t Economic Change School Enrollment Change no yes no no Two-Wav ANOVAs: In te ra c tio n School Size x D is t r ic t Funding Enrollment Change x D is t r ic t Funding Enrollment Change x School Size no no no The remaining data* summarized 1n the preceding section on other patterns and findings* expanded on the questionnaire responses. 122 I t Is In te re s tin g th a t although nearly two-th1rds o f the s ig n ific a n t Impacts were negative* most of the comments made to the fin a l question by 90 respondents underscored problems and negative 1mpacts* and only a l i t t l e over one-half* 51.5 percent* f e l t they have a middle school now. Just under one-half* 49.5 percent* Indicated a t le a s t some Improvement 1n the o verall q u a lity of th e ir school program. The fin a l chapter provides a review of the study* along w ith a discussion of findings and recommendations fo r fu rth e r study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This study sought to examine the e ffe c ts o f economic and enrollm ent decline on public middle schools 1n Michigan fo r the period 1979-1983* as perceived by middle school p rin cip als. This exploratory study attempted to determine whether any patterns e x is t 1n p rin cip a ls' perceptions o f the e ffe c ts o f economic and enrollm ent decline on changes 1n program* staff# and climate# and whether any patterns e x is t regarding the Impact these changes have had. The study fu rth e r examined whether perceptions vary as a function of school size# d is t r ic t s ta te funding# d is t r ic t economic change* and school enrollm ent change* and whether they vary as a function of In teractio n s among selected variab les. L ite ra tu re Reviewed The lit e r a t u r e reviewed addressed the major areas of decline# e ffe c ts o f decline# and middle schools. Studies regarding current enrollm ent figures and projections were cited# along w ith data th a t linked economic and enrollm ent decline. A ll a v a ila b le studies regarding the e ffe c ts of decline n a tio n a lly and 1n Michigan were cited# especially where the e ffe c ts on school programs were Involved. 123 124 Dembowskl (1979) conducted the most frequently c ite d study a t the national le v e l* w hile Nelson’s (1983) study fo r the Michigan Department of Education was the major source fo r Michigan. L ite ra tu re regarding s p e c ific effects# Including school closures and reductions 1n force n a tio n ally and 1n Michigan# was reported. A separate section on middle schools# and an explanation of basic middle school program ch ara c te ris tic s * was also Included. The lit e r a t u r e reviewed made 1t c le a r th a t although much change has already occurred 1n public schools* much more 1s ye t to come* esp ecially a t the middle and high school le v e ls 1n Michigan. The review showed th a t there 1s l i t t l e research data regarding the e ffe c ts of decline on middle school programs. I t was also shown th a t good data are one of the necessary Ingredients fo r successful ad m in istra tive decision making. With accurate data* p rin cip a ls may a c tu a lly be able to make Improvements 1n s p ite o f the environment o f decline. Design o f the Study Reviewed This study attempted to determine any patterns th a t might e x is t 1n p rin cip a ls' perceptions about the changes* and Impact o f those changes* on middle schools. The population Included the p rin cip a ls of a ll 348 public middle schools 1n Michigan on th e Michigan Department of Education's 11st. The f u ll census was surveyed. Responses from 204 prin cip als were used In the analysis. Since no known Instruments existed to measure program* s ta ff* and clim ate c h aracteristics* one was developed and validated . to ta l questionnaire consisted o f four main sections: general The 125 background Information# middle school program# middle school staff# and school clim ate. There was also a fifth # o v e ra ll effects# section th a t consisted of two questions plus a fin a l open-ended question. In a ll# there were 66 questions# but since 54 asked fo r two sets of responses (change and Impact)# there were a c tu a lly 120 questions. The s t a tis tic a l treatm ents used were the t-ra t1 o (Research Questions 1# 2# 3# and 4)# one-way u n iv a ria te and m u ltiv a ria te analyses of variance (Research Questions 3 and 4)# and the Wilks two-way m u ltiv a ria te analysis of variance (Research Questions 5 and 6). In addition# frequency d is trib u tio n s and other summary s t a tis tic a l techniques were employed. The questionnaire responses were entered In to the Michigan State U niversity computer# and the s t a tis tic a l procedures were part o f the S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the S oda! Sciences (SPSS). Findings Results of the s t a tis tic a l te s ts performed to answer the research questions# as well as resu lts of additional data gathered fo r Chapter IV# led to the follow ing fin din gs: 1. While there was an almost equal number of small# medium# and large middle school p rin cip a ls responding to the survey# nearly 70 percent of the schools were 1n d is tr ic ts th a t receive s ta te per pupil formula aid . 126 2. Over 86 percent of th e schools had experienced enrollm ent decreases, w hile close to 96 percent of the d is tr ic ts had experienced decline 1n th e ir economic condition. 3. P rin cip als Indicated th a t w h ile a ll c h a ra c te ris tic s measured showed some change over the past fiv e years, nearly two-th1rds of these changes, 64.8 percent# were s ig n ific a n t. Of the s ig n ific a n t changes, a m ajo rity of them, 54.3 percent, were 1n the d irec tio n of decrease or decline. 4. Nearly tw o-th1rds, 64.8 percent, of the changes th a t had occurred 1n middle schools over the past fiv e years had s ig n ific a n t Impacts on the school's development as a middle school. Of the s ig n ific a n t changes, nearly tw ice as many had a negative Impact, 42.6 percent compared to 22.2 percent. 5. P rin cip als perceived th a t the most s ig n ific a n t changes were in the areas of s t a f f , and these changes were overwhelmingly 1n the d irec tio n of decline. S ig n ific a n t change was evidenced 1n one of the two program subsections, other c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials. School clim a te showed no s ig n ific a n t change. 6. The most s ig n ific a n t Impacts of changes over the past fiv e years were on school s t a f f , and a ll o f the Impacts o verall were nega­ tiv e . Changes 1n school c lim a te had no s ig n ific a n t Impact on the development o f middle schools. Changes 1n other program ch aracteris­ tic s and m aterials had a negative Impact on middle schools. 7. Although p rin cip a ls' perceptions of change varied as a function of school s ize and school enrollm ent change fo r other 127 c e rtific a te d staff# th e greatest variances 1n change patterns were seen 1n d is t r ic t s ta te funding and d is t r ic t economic change. 8. P rin c ip a ls ' perceptions of impact varied as a function of school size 1n other c e rtific a te d s t a f f and school climate# and as a function of d is t r ic t economic change 1n a ll of the subsections except other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials. Perceptions varied as a function of d is t r ic t funding 1n selected middle school characteristics# other program c h a ra c te ris tic s and m aterials# and other c e rtific a te d s ta ff. The g reatest variance 1n Impact patterns was seen 1n d is t r ic t funding. 9. P rin c ip a ls ' perceptions did not vary on e ith e r change or Impact as a function o f In teractio n s between school size and d i s t r ic t funding# enrollm ent change and d is t r ic t funding# and enrollm ent change and school s ize . 10. P rin cip als reported th a t 5 of the 18 basic middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s had never existed 1n over 25 percent of the middle schools 1n Michigan. These c h a ra c te ris tic s are continuous progress# fle x ib le schedules# team teaching# Independent study# and a security fa c to r. 11. Eleven of the 12 changes th a t resulted In a p o sitive Impact on middle schools were Increases th a t had occurred 1n the past fiv e years. 12. A m ajo rity of the p rin cip a ls perceived th a t the overall q u a lity of th e ir school programs had deteriorated# a t le a s t s lig h tly# or had stayed the same as a re s u lt of changes In th e ir school over the 128 past fiv e years. A m ajority* however* maintained th a t th e ir school was probably or d e fin ite ly a middle school now. Discussion o f Findings Middle schools 1n Michigan have Indeed been g re a tly affected by the declining environment th a t has occurred over the past fiv e years. More Important* the changes th a t have occurred have had a decidedly negative Impact on schools’ development as middle schools. This bodes ominously since projections previously cited In d ica te there are s t i l l several years of decline 1n store fo r middle schools and even more fo r high schools* which often a ffe c t middle schools. There have been some p o sitive effec ts* lik e the Incorporation of computer-assisted In s tru c tio n and the In flu x o f former elementary school s t a f f Into the basic classrooms* to name two. By and large* however* decline has had a negative e ffe c t on middle schools. Since the number of middle school buildings continues to clim b, there are some serious Im plicatio ns fo r adm inistrators and the decisions they make. I t 1s not surprising th a t s t a f f , both c e rtific a te d and noncertlfloated* have borne the brunt o f the changes. Most school d is tr ic ts spend as much as 85 percent of th e ir budget on personnel. It 1s somewhat surprising th a t there were not greater changes and Impacts on selected program c h a ra c te ris tic s . The w r ite r suspects th a t had respondents not been given the opportunity to cross out c h a ra c te ris tic s th a t had never existed* there may have been s ig n ific a n t resu lts In th is questionnaire subsection also. 129 Also somewhat surprising was the p rin c ip a ls ’ perception th a t there was no change or Impact In the area of school clim ate. Generally* when a s t a f f faces upheaval* 1t 1s d i f f i c u l t to maintain a positive* productive clim ate. Perhaps 1t Is s t i l l too ea rly to t e l l 1n some schools* or perhaps a more rigorous and sophisticated measure of school clim a te needs to be applied. Perhaps since p rin cipals set the clim ate 1n the building* they are relu c tan t to In d ic t themselves. The preceding point also applies to the responses to o verall program q u a lity . How many principals* who are the In struction al leaders of the school* are w illin g to admit th a t the school program has deteriorated under th e ir leadership? A fte r examining the responses to the rest of the questionnaire* the responses to th is question do not follow * esp ecially 1n lig h t of the generally negative tone of the responses to the fin a l question and the fin din g th a t only a s lig h t m ajority feel they now have a middle school. Perhaps p rin cipals became tire d * more cautious* or less candid as they reached the end of th is l20-1tem questionnaire. Perhaps 1 t 1s too d i f f i c u l t to see c le a rly from Inside a s itu a tio n . The finding th a t d is t r ic t sta te funding and economic change caused the greatest variance 1n p rin cip a ls' perceptions 1s not surprising. I t should be noted, however* th a t both of these variables are tie d to enrollm ent In many ways* es pecially 1n the d is tr ic ts th a t receive sta te per pupil formula aid. The fin din g th a t the level of s ta te funding 1s the most s ig n ific a n t va ria b le should provide 130 ammunition fo r fu rth e r assaults on the "haves" versus "have-nots" debate regarding th e s ta te aid formula. Many schools are s triv in g to do the best they can# given th e ir av a ila b le resources. The fa c t th a t many prin cip als Indicated a strong desire to Incorporate more of the middle school c h a ra c te ris tic s and to a greater degree speaks w ell fo r th e ir Intentions. I t 1s hoped they can fin d the courage and the means to reach these goals 1n the face of continued d e c lin e . Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions of th is study# as w ell as the lit e r a t u r e and research reviewed# the follow ing recommendations are offered to middle school adm inistrators: 1. Be s e n sitive to the needs of s t a f f and Involve them 1n building decisions a t every opportunity. a v a ila b le In a school. S ta ff are the best resources They can d ic ta te climate# make or break programs# and they have tremendous Impacts on students. The fa c t th a t s t a f f are being hard h it by the period of decline means th a t a con­ certed e f f o r t must be made to Id e n tify th e ir needs and provide fo r them as much as possible. Staff-developm ent a c tiv itie s must emphasize pro­ fessional renewal. 2. Be ever a le r t to the Importance of the model being set by a ll school personnel and the e ffe c t th is has on public re la tio n s . Since money has such a s ig n ific a n t Impact on schools# 1t 1s Increasingly Im portant to pass m lllag e and bond-lssue elections. less than one-quarter of the registered voters 1n Michigan have Since 131 children In school (Paslov# 1980)# public re la tio n s becomes th a t much more Important. Show the community what a p o s itiv e Impact a good middle school can have. Help to mold# 1f you w ill# the opinions of the community about th e ir schools. Instead of simply fin din g out what the community wants# fin d out what they th in k so you can attem pt to Increase th e ir horizons and spur them to consider more desirable goals# be they m ill age# personnel# or program. 3. C arefu lly s c ru tin iz e the changes th a t have occurred and the Impact they have had over the past few years. Use the resu lts of th is study as one piece of Information# but also do your own research In your Immediate area and building. The fu tu re 1s lik e ly to require cutbacks# transfers# and changes o f many kinds. Make sure you know which ones w ill do the most good# or a t le a s t the le a s t damage. R eliv­ ing the mistakes of the past could be bad# but enduring a fu tu re th a t could have been changed could be worse. 4. As you decide which changes to recommend or make# gathering as much accurate data as possible 1s Important# but so# too# 1s taking the long-range view and planning c re a tiv e ly . Short-term solutions are frequently not the best as fa r as the school's development and the Impact on children are concerned. Reducing or e lim in a tin g an e le c tiv e class or reassigning a teacher may seem lik e the easiest and most painless path to take today# but consider what the long-range Impact w ill be. The long-range view may not be the most popular decision# but 1f you Involve people 1n the dec1s1on-mak1ng process and are convinced 1t 1s rig h t fo r the school# s tic k to I t . M aintaining a balanced 132 curriculum requires deep* c re a tiv e thought and c le a r communication. 5. are weak. S triv e to fu rth e r develop those aspects of the school th a t The need to make changes can affo rd an opportunity to reexamine school goals and focus on those th a t w i l l do the most good. I t can be an opportunity to strengthen programs* renew s ta ff* and develop a leaner* more e f f ic ie n t organization. opportunity. Adversity can be an I t can provide a clim a te th a t 1s accepting of change. In th is respect* adversity can abet and support leadership (Culbertson* 1977). Id e n tify the strengths o f the school and build on these. Look hard fo r the s ilv e r lin in g . 6. Be proactive rather than reactive. Schools are generally slow to respond to change* so make the most of the current opportuni­ tie s . I t should also be kept c le a rly 1n mind th a t 1t was easy to keep children's needs 1n mind during periods of growth. Make sure children continue as the highest p r io r ity during periods of decline. I f we allow today's events to push us In to a re a c tiv e tomorrow* we w ill also be determining the tomorrows of thousands o f children. I t has been said th a t you "have to take l i f e as 1t happens, but you should tr y to make 1t happen the way you want to take 1t" (Campbell, 1974). Recommendations fo r Further Research The fo llo w in g areas are offered as suggestions fo r fu rth e r research: 1. Although the principal of every public middle school on the Michigan Department of Education's 11st was Included 1n th is study* 133 some middle schools were not on the 11st. Others th a t were on the 11st were not yet middle schools* even 1n grade organization or. name. A study to Id e n tify a ll middle schools 1n Michigan, along w ith th e ir grade organization, student population, programs o ffered , special featu res, and other demographic Inform ation, should be conducted. 2. Since Michigan 1s cu rren tly 1n such a depressed condition, re p lic a tio n of th is study 1n another sta te may provide d iffe re n t re s u lts . 3. A re p lic a tio n o f th is study w ith middle school s t a f f , rath er than p rin c ip a ls , may provide d iffe r e n t re s u lts . 4. D is t r ic t s ta te funding and d i s t r ic t economic change were the variables th a t made the most d ifferen ce 1n principals* perceptions. Since there were only two categories w ith in d i s t r ic t funding, 1t 1s c le a r where the differences are. Further research needs to be done to determine the e ffe c ts of each of the economic change categories. Enrollment change and school size could also be subjected to fu rth e r scru tiny. 5. Analysis o f the data collected using the variables of d is t r ic t size and lo catio n , as w ell as additional In teractio n s among v a ria b le s, may provide valuable additional inform ation. 6. A separate study of school c lim a te, using a more complete or sophisticated Instrument fo r measurement, may conclude th a t s ig n ific a n t changes and Impacts have 1n fa c t occurred a t the middle school 1eve!. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER TO NATIONAL PANEL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPERTS 135 136 MdMSe MICH-IG/lli dSSOCMTIOM O f MIDDL€ SCHOOL CDUG4TORS P rM idw tt Or Paggy GaskiH Taft Middle School 19501 Barg Road Datroit, M l 48219 Region 1 Praaidant'Elaet Jim Hiefija Fremont Middle School 500 Woodrow Fremont, M i 49412 Region 12 Treeeorer Mike Semuleki. Principal Wyandot Middle School 39490 Garfield Road M l Clement. Ml 48044 Region 6 Secretary Lorraine Hull M ichigan State University 302 Erickson Hall East Lansing. M l 48824*1034 Region 8 Peet President Bob Cross 1547 Otsego Okemos. M l 48864 Region 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS O ctober 1984 Richard Bant. Region 5 Or Chuck Jaquith. Region 11 Pal Sheets. Region 4 Jackie Timmer. Region 9 To: 1985 Lois Barnard. Region 11 Ronald Cook. Region 6 Rick Lane. Region 3 Robert Schwenlet. Region 13 Dr Don Steer. Region 2 1986 to n e r Goebel. Region 7 Richard Rendals, Region 10 Dale Rosene. Region 4 Or Anthony Topolaski. Region 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Or Louis Romano Michigan Stste University 418 Erickson Hall East Lansing, M l 48824-1034 (517) 353*5461 D D D D D D D From : re : r. r. r. r. r. r. r. L9, 1983 Tom E r b , U . K a n s a s Tom G a te w o o d , V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c N ic k G e o r g ia d y , M iam i U n iv . G len G e ra rd , F o r e s t H i l l s S ch s. B ill P o w ell, G eorgia S ta te Jo e Raym er, R o c k fo rd S ch s. Jack R ie g le , B all S ta te Bob P h.D . C ross D is s e rta tio n Q u estio n n aire G entlem en, 1 am c u r r e n t l y o n a o n e y e a r u n p a i d e d u c a t i o n a l l e a v e o f a b s e n c e f r o m my j o b o f t h e p a s t s i x y e a r s - m iddle school p r in c ip a l in F o w le rv ille . I ' v e h a d my P h.D . c o u r s e w ork c o m p le te d f o r o v e r a y e a r and I 'm now w o r k in g on t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n , u n d e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f Lou Romano. I 'v e been w o rk in g w ith Lou on a q u e s tio n w i l l g e t me t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d n e c e s s t i o n f o r my s t u d y . I'm r e s e a r c h in g th e t o p i c : The E f f e c t s o f C u tb ack s and D e c li m ent on N on-U rban, 6 th - 8 th G rade M id d le M ich ig an S in ce 1979. I'm lo o k in g f o r : 1. 2. 3. 4. th e a c tu a l e 5 y ears; th e e f fe c ts ceiv e as hav plem en tatio n d iffe re n c e s a d m in istra to w hether scho ffe c ts on the schools n a ire th a t a ry inform a­ fo llo w in g n in g E n ro ll­ S chools in d u rin g the p ast th a t te a c h e rs and a d m in istra to rs p e r­ ing had a n e g a tiv e im pact on th e im ­ o f m iddle sc h o o l program s & p h ilo so p h y ; in p e r c e p tio n s betw een te a c h e r s and rs ; and o l s iz e makes a d if f e r e n c e . GOOD MIDDLE SCHOOLS MAKE COMMUNITIES BETTER 1-517-353-5461 137 MdMSG MICI+IGdM ASSOCMTIOI1 O f MIDDLG SCH-OOL CDUCdTORS P m ld in t Dr Ptggv Gatkill Tall Middla School 19501 Barg Road Detroit. Ml 48219 Region 1 Prooident-Elect Jim Hietije Fremont Middle School 500 Woodrow Fremont. M l 4B412 Region 12 Treasurer Mike Samuleki. Principal Wyandot Middle School 39490 Garfield Road Mt. Clement. M l 48044 Region 8 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS Secretary Lorraine Hull Michigan State University 302 Ertckaon Hall East Lansing. Ml 48824-1034 Region 8 Past President Bob Cross 1647 Otsego Okemos. M l 48884 Region 8 2- 1984 Richard Bart:, Region 5 Dr Chuck Jaquith. Region 11 Par Sheets. Region 4 Jackie Timmer. Region 9 1985 Lois Bernard. Region 11 Ronald Cook. Region 6 Rick Lane. Region 3 Robert Schwenier. Region 13 Dr. Don Steer. Region 2 1986 Nancy Goebel, Region 7 Richard Randels. Region 10 Dale Rosene. Region 4 Dr. Anthony Tofioleski. Region 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dr. Louis Romano Michigan State University 418 Erickson Hell East Lansing. Ml 48624-1034 (517) 363-5461 As you can se e from th e rough d r a f t of th e q u e s­ t i o n n a i r e , t h e r e ’s a ls o a c o n s id e ra b le am ount o f in f o rm a tio n ( to o m uch?) from w hich f u t u r e c o n c lu s io n s can be draw n. I d o n 't , how ever, w ant to chew o f f to o m uch o r make t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to o cum bersom e. I w ould a p p r e c ia te i t i f you w ould ta k e a few m in u te s to re a c t to th e enclo sed . S hould item s be added, d e le te d , w orded d i f f e r e n t l y , e t c .? Once 1 r e c e iv e y o u r r e a c t i o n s , I ' l l w o r k w i t h some o f th e s t a t i s t i c s and com puter p eo p le to g e t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e in a fo rm t h a t w i l l be m ost e f f i c i e n t to an aly ze. I ' l l th e n f i e l d t e s t i t on a s in g le m id d le s c h o o l s t a f f , make an y n e c e s s a r y r e v i s i o n s , t h e n s e n d i t t o my f u l l s a m p l e ( a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r & a t e a c h e r , w ith m ore th a n 5 y e a r s in th e s c h o o l, from 50 random ly s e le c te d n o n -u rb a n , 6 -8 m id d le sc h o o ls in M ich ig an ). S inc the tio n in fo e I'm c u r r e n t l y t r y i n g t o sam e tim e , ( p r o p o s a l , l i t e n a ire , e t c .) , I ' l l g la d ly rm a tio n a n d /o r ad v ic e you do s e v e ra l ta s k s a t r a tu r e review , q u es­ w elcom e an y a d d i t i o n a l may c a r e t o p a s s a lo n g . I 'v e p ro m ise d Lou a se c o n d d r a f t N ovem ber, so p le a s e t r y to s l i p re a d y busy sc h e d u le s as soon as I th in k th is i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be MAMSE, a n d t o t h e m i d d l e s c h o o l a s we m eet t h e c h a l l e n g e o f d o i n k id s d u rin g th e y e a rs of d e c lin e Thanks so much fo r your of th is th is in to you can. very h e l movement g w h a t's . by e you In c p fu l in g b est h elp ! S in c e re ly , Bob C r o s s 1547 O tsego O kem os, M I. D r. 48864 Ph. 517/3 4 9 -2 2 4 4 GOOD MIDDLE SCHOOLS MAKE COMMUNITIES BETTER 1-517-353-5461 a rly r a l ­ id e n ta lly , to en eral, fo r APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT 138 (PHIAL INTOBMATIONAfiJ HCTRUCTICTG c* n 1. Data from th is survey w ill be reported on the ba sis o f averages. No Individual schools o r d is tr ic ts w ill he identified. The mirber in the corner i s only to insure the return of each survey. . All questions re fe r to your perceptions about nuibers, percentages, changes and inpacts for the period 1979 through 1983. . fb r purposes of th is study, ‘middle school" i s defined as "an educational u n it with a philosophy, stru ctu re and p ro gTan which w ill re a lis ­ tic a lly and appropriately deal with 11 to 14 year olds a s they are and behave. I t s oornrftnent i s prim arily to the smith i t seeks to serve." 4. Please answer a ll questions oonpletely and candidly. I . GBdAL BAOOTOUP INHUMATION : Please check the appropriate blank for each question. 1. School Size: ___ 0-499 500-699 700 o r none 4. D istric t S tate Raiding: 2. D istric t S i z e : ____ 0-1,999 ; 2,000-3,999 ' 4,000 o r more Urban ’ Suburban Rural 3. D is tric t Location: "Io-fomulB" (receives s ta te per p ip il aid) 'XXit-of-formiln" (does pot receive s ta te per p tjiil aid) 5. Overall School Rirollment Change over the p ast 5 years: _Decreased more than 15% Decreased between 5% and 15% ' Decreased le ss than 5% Increased more than 15% Increased between 5% and 15% Increased leas than 5% 6 .-9 . D is tric t Economic Changes over the past 5 years: 6 . Per pupil o a s ts : ____Increased s iis ta n tia lly Increased sonevhat L ittle o r no change Decreased somewhat Decreased sifcstantlally 8. Biployee s a la rie s and benefits: Substantial reductions Moderate reductions Stayed about the sanr/lreezes Moderate increases Substantial increases Much le s s frequently than 5 years ago ' Somewhat less frequently ’ With about the sane frequency ’ Somewhat ra re frequently ’ Mich more frequently 7. Replacing te x ts and r a te r ia ls . 9. Percentage o f the 1979 d i s t r ic t s t a f f new la id o f f : to re than 15% ' Between 5% and 15% ' Less than 5% Added ra re than 15% Added between 5% and 15% Added le s s than 5% NOTE: Ib r each question in the following three sectio n s, you w ill be asked fo r t r a (2) responses: Change: your perceptions about the level and in te n sity o f change, i f any. Chat has occurred in your school over the past 5 years as a re su lt o f decline in enrollnent and/or finances; and Inpact: your perceptions about the level and in te n sity o f inpact th is change (or lack o f change) has had on your school' s development as a "middle school." Banewber: You are being asked fo r your perceptions o f shat has happened over the past S years. Ib r each o f the questions the following two (2) scales apply: CHANCI 1 2 3 4 5 • • • • Substantial Decrease (SD) (federate Decrease (M)) (Jhchanged (U) Moderate Increase (MI) S ih stan tlal Increase (SI) ItoACT 1 2 3 4 5 = * « S ubstantially Negative (SN) Moderately Negative (to ) tone (N) toderately to st liv e (to ) Substantially Ib sitiv e (SP) VjJ to CHANGE: 1 2 3 4 5 II. - S ite tan t i l l Decrease (SD) • Nxfcrate Decrease (ID) - Unchanged (U) - Itoderate Increase (HI) « S ite ta n tla l Increase (SI) IH>ACT: 1 - S ite ta n tla lly Negative (SN) 2 * Itoderately Negative (IK) 3 - Kme (N) * “ Ibderately R s l t lv e ( » ) 5 - S ite ta n tla lly R w ltlve (3>) MIECLE 5CHUCL PROGRAM : Please respond In one of the following two (2) ways to each c h a ra c te ristic In Section A: Fbr each c h a ra c te ristic that has nerer existed In your school Airing the past 5 years, draw a lin e through the name o f die c h ara cte ristic and go on to the next question. CHANGE R>r those c h ara c te ristic s th a t have e x iste d .(clrclg) the appropriate response In both the change and lnpact colum s. Ilg>ACT 3 ) m u U SI A. Selected Middle School C haracteristics SN KH N IK* SP 1 2 3 4 5 10. Continuous Progress — students progressing a t th e ir awn ra te regardless o f chronological age 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. H ultl-n aterlal Approach — wide range of Instructional em terials used In classroom v. a single te x t approach 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 <3 4 5 12. Flexible Schedules — based on educational needs o f students, not standardized tin e periods 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. Social Experiences — school sponsored a c tiv itie s appropriate fo r 11-14 year olds 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Riyslcal Education Experiences — phys. ed. c la s s a c tiv itie s based on the needs o f 11-14 year oldB 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Intramural A c tiv itie s — broad range for a l l students 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 16. Item Teaching — and team planning 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. Planned Gradualism — school eiperienoes provided to help students sake the tra n sitio n from childm od dependence to adult Independence 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies — broad enough to meet individual student in te re s ts 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. Guidance Services — groip and individual 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. Independent Study — opportunities fo r a l l students 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. Basic S k ill Nepalr and Extension — to extend basic d r i l l s from the e la e n ta ry school 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 22. Creative Experiences — student-centered, student-directed, student-developed a c tiv itie s such as dramatic creations, student newspapers and aamical piugimm 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23. Security Factor — security grotgt with a teacher who krons students well - often called an advlaor-advlsee program 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 24. Evaluation o f Student Achievement — p ositive In nature and s t r i c t l y Individualized 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 25. Qxmuilty Relations — varied program fo r students to develop awareness A understanding o f the conmmlty A vice-versa 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 26. Student Services — broad spectrun o f local, county and s ta te services 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. Auxiliary S taffing — volunteers (parents A students) and aides to augient the teaching s ta f f I NOTE: Fbr the renainlng sections, tailess otherwise noted. (c lr c lt^ the appropriate response In both the change and lnpact colum s for each Item. 2 3 4 5 Qwm HFACT S ) ID OW ! B. Other Program C haracteristics and Materials SN W N » SP 1 2 3 4 28. Class size In B iglish, nmth, science and social stu d ies classes 1 1 2 3 4 29. Class size in a ll other classes 1 23 4 5 1 2 3 4 30. OOnputer a ssiste d in stru ctio n (Draa a lin e through i f i t nerer e x iste d .) 1 2 3 4 5 23 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31. Level o f lib ra ry / nedia center services 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 32. Length o f the school day 1 23 4 5 1 2 3 4 33. S ufficient quantity o f textbooks for each student 1 23 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 34. A vailability o f instructional sw p lle s ( paper, tape, aotkbooks, e tc .) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 35. S ufficient quantity o f capital outlay ite m (desks, c h airs, ta b le s, e tc .) 1 23 4 5 H I. HIECLE SOOT, STAFF A. •'Basic" Classroom S ta ff (B igllth, Ifcth, Science, Social Studies) 1 2 3 4 5 36. Nuiber o f ‘basic" classroom teachers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 37. Percentage of teachers with an eleeentary c e rtific a te 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S 38. Ifercentage o f teachers with a secondary c e r tific a te 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 39. Percentage o f teachers with both an elementary and secondary c e rtific a te 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 40. fercentage o f foraer high school s ta f f transferred/reassigned to middle school In English,math,science k social studies 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 41. Percentage o f former high school s ta f f transferred/reassigned to middle school in areas o th er than B iglish, math, science and social studies 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 42. Ifercentage o f former elaien tary s ta f f transferred/reassigned to middle school in B iglish.snth.science k social studies 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 43. Percentage o f former elenentary s ta f f transferred/reassigned to middle school in areas other than English, math, science and social studies 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44. Percentage o f the s t a f f reassigned within the building to areas outside th e ir areas o f strength 1 2 3 4 5 B. Other C e rtifica te d S taff 1 2 3 4 5 45. Nuiber of atfalnlstrators (principals and a ssista n t prin cip als) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 46. NUiber o f counselors 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 47. Nuiber o f unified a r ts ( home economics, in d u stria l a r ts , a r t ) teachers 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 48. Nuiber o f auslc teachers ( w eal and ln stru irn ta l ) 1 1 2 3 4 5 49. Number o f physical education teachers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 50. Nuiber o f lib ra ria n s / media sp e c ia lis ts 1 2 3 4 5 CHAHZ: 1 2 3 4 5 * Substantial Decrease (SD) ■ Ibderate Decrease (HD) * Unchanged (U) • Ibderate Increase (HI) « Substantial Increase (SI) IW>ACT' 1 2 3 4 5 * “ Substantially Negative (SN) Moderately Negative (W) None (N) Ibderately Positive (V ) Substantially Ib s itlv e (SP) ro H D U U SI C. Nan-Certificated S ta ff SN W N W ® 1 2 3 4 5 51. Nuiber o f se c re tarie s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 52. Nuiber of instructional aides : classroom, lib ra ry , special etkication 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 53. Nuiber of non-lnstructlonal aides : lunchroom, hallway, o ffic e , c le ric a l 1 2 3 4 5 IV. SOBOL CLIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 54. Percentage o f teachers who seem to have a decreasing concern fo r children 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 55. Ifercentage o f students absent from school each day 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 56. Percentage o f students tardy to school each day 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 57. Percentage o f parents in attenchuice a t conferences and open houses 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 58. Percentage o f students reaching the o ffice fo r misbehavior 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 59. Percentage of teachers aho spend tin e a t school beyond the ndnlnun required 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 60. Percentage o f teachers aho sporsor and/or chaperone a fte r school a c tiv itie s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 61. Ib rele o f the teachers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 62. Morale o f the a d id n lstra to r(s) 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 63. Morale o f the students 1 2 3 4 5 V. O VBU U , B IH L 'lii 64. As a re su lt o f the changes In jour school over the past 5 years, has the overall quality o f your school's program Deteriorated Considerably; Dete rio ra ted S lig h tly ; 65. Do you fe el your school Is a "Middle school" noa ? Stayed the Sane; Inproved S lig itly ; o r D efinitely Tes;Probably Yes; Inproved Considerably ? Ib t Sure; Probably Not; ___ D efinitely Not 66. Have any other lnportant changes occurred th a t have noued your school asay from, o r toaard, a middle school in the past 5 years? Please help me by returning th is questionnaire b£ Jan. 12 in the s e lf addressed envelope provided. Thai* you fo r your cooperation. Results o f th is questionnaire s i l l be piblished in the Michigan Middle School Journal. Name: I f you aould lik e a separate su im ry , please conplete the following address information: Address:_______________________ Bob Cross 1547 O tsego G kenns. M I. P h: 517 / 349-2344 48864 _______________________ -ersj APPENDIX C INITIAL LETTER TO SURVEY CENSUS l*»3 MdMSe Mia+IGdN dSSOCMTION O f MIDDL€ SCHOOL CDUCdTORS P iw id tn i Or Ptggv G»»kill T fft M iddl* School 19601 Borg Rood Ootroit, M l 48219 Rogion 1 RrMldont-Eloot Jim Hiohjo Fremont Middlo School 600 Woodrow Fremont, M l 49412 Rogion 12 TroM uror M ilit S tm u ltk i, Principal Wyandot Middla School 39490 Garfiald Road M t Clamant. M l 46044 Rogion 6 BOARO OF DIRECTORS 1985 Lois Barnard. Ragion 11 Ronald Cook. Ragion 6 Rick Lana. Ragion 3 Robert Schwenter. Ragion 13 Dr Don Staar. Ragion 2 1986 Nancy Goebel. Ragion 7 8/chard Rondels. Region 10 Dale Rosena. Region 4 Dr Anthony Topolaski, Ragion 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dr Lows Romano Michigan Stata Univartity 418 Erickson Hall East Lancing, M l 48824-1034 (5171 353-6461 Paat Praaidtnt Bob Croat 1647 Otaago Ofcamoa. M l 48664 Ragion 8 January 4, 1984 1984 8/chard Barit. Ragion 6 Dr. Chuck Jaouith. Region 11 Par Shaats, Ragion 4 Jack/a Timmer. Ragion 9 l a craiary Lorraina Hull Michigan Stata Univartity 419 Erickson Hall East Lansing. M l 46024-1034 Ragion 8 Dear Middle School Colleague, I need a few minutes of your valuable time to gather some information that could prove helpful to all of us in middle school education. Many of us have had to make decisions, sometimes unpleasant ones, over the past few years that have been necessary because of declines in student enrollment and/or district finances. These decisions have often had considerable impact on our school's development as a middle school. Unfortunately, there has not been any documented research regarding the overall effects of these declines on Michigan's middle school programs. I'm currently on leave from my middle school principalship in Fowlerville to research this topic. I'm surveying principals because our position and perceptions are so crucial to the ultimate success of middle schools. One of my hopes in doing this research is to identify the reductions that have the least negative effect on middle schools. This should prove valuable information, since the years ahead hold a great likelihood of substantial enrollment declines. The Board of Directors of MAMSE has endorsed this project. Results will be published in the Michigan Middle School Journal, which is a free publication to all MAMSE members. Please take some time right now to fill out the enclosed questionnaire. It should take less than 15 minutes. Two types of responses are requested for most questions, so please read all directions through carefully. If you have any questions, give me a call. A prompt response from all principals surveyed is critical to the success of this project. Thanks so much for your help. Bob Cross 1547 Otsego Okemos, MI. Have a good 1984. Ph: 517 / 349-2244 48864 GOOD MIDDLE SCHOOLS MAKE COMMUNITIES BETTER 1-517-363-5461 APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OUTSIDE OF DETROIT 145 146 MrtMSE MICI+IG4N 4SSOCMTION O f MIDDLE SCH-OOL EDUCATORS R rw irttn t Dr P*ggy G atkill Taft Middla School 19501 Borg Rood Dotroit. M l 40219 Bog»on 1 Prooidont-Eloet Jim Hiotlio Fromoni Mtddlo School 600 Woodrow Fromoni, M i 40412 Rogion 12 Trooauror Miko Somuloki. Principal Wyandot Middio School 30460 GarfioW Rood Mt. Clomona. Ml 48044 Rogion 6 Root Rr eeidont Bob Croat 104? Otaego Ofcamoa. M i 48084 Rogion 8 Soerotorv Lorraino Hull Michigan Stato University 410 Enefcaon Holt Eoat Lanaing. M l 40824-1034 Region 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Jan u ary 1084 Richard Bartz, Region 6 Dr. Chuck Jaauith, Region 11 Re/ Shears. Region 4 Jackia Timmar. Region 9 1985 Lots Barnard Region 11 Ronald Cook, Rogion 8 Rick Lana. Region 3 Robart Schwantar. Region 13 Dr Don Staar. Region 2 1966 Nancy Coabaf. Rogion 7 Richard Randa/s. Region 10 Data Rotana, Region 4 Dr Anthony Topolaaki. Region 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dr Louia Romano Michigan State University 418 Enefcaon Hall Eaat Lanaing. M l 48824-1034 (617) 363 5461 18, 1984 T o: M iddle S chool P r in c ip a ls F ro m : Bob C r o s s re : " E ff e c ts of D e c lin e " S tudy R e cen tly you should have re c e iv e d a l e t i o n n a i r e fro m me. Y our h e lp was n eed how d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t a n d d e c l i n i n g a f f e c te d y o u r m iddle sc h o o l d u rin g th e T h e s t u d y w a s e n d o r s e d b y MAMS E b e c a u s v id e in fo rm a tio n th a t should be h e lp f u in m iddle sch o o l a d m in is tr a tio n . I t h a s come was m ailed u n til Jan. re tu rn the n o t h a v e “h a t o my a on Ja n . 10 o r l a q u e stio n d enough tte n tio n th a t alth o u g h th 4 , many o f you d id n o t r e te r . S in ce th e re was a r n a i r e b y J a n . 1 2 , som e o f tim e to re sp o n d . P le a s e ig n o re th e J a n . 12 d e a d lin fro m a s many o f you a s p o s s ib le m eeting a d e a d lin e . In f a c t, a w i l l m inim ize th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f skewed. S ince you w ere p a rt of sam ple, your resp o n se is c r i t i c a If you h a to f i l l o R etu rn i t th a t I o r the q u e s t g i v e me a W ith e v e ry o n e 's h e lp , th e d a ta w i l l of u s. Thanks fo r your a s s is ta n c e . Ph: e m a te ria l ceiv e it e q u e st to you may e! H aving re sp o n s e s is m ore im p o rta n t th a n high ra te o f re tu rn th e d a ta b ein g im properly a c a re fu lly chosen l . v e n 't a lre a d y done so , p lease ut the q u e s tio n n a ire as soon t o me i n t h e s e l f a d d r e s s e d ig in a lly se n t. If you n eed a io n n a ir e , o r i f you have any c a ll. Bob C ro s s 154? O tsego O kem os, M I. t t e r and q u es­ ed to determ ine fin an ces have p ast 5 y e a rs. e i t w ill p ro ­ l to a ll of us be t a k e some t i m e as you can. stam ped en v e lo p e n o th er copy of q u e stio n s, p lease h e lp fu l 517/349-2244 48864 GOOD MIDDLE SCHOOLS MAKE COMMUNITIES BETTER 1-617-363-5461 to a ll APPENDIX E FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO DETROIT PRINCIPALS 1^7 M4MS€ MICHIGAN 4SSOCMTIOI1 O f MIDDLC SCHOOL CDUCdTORS PrMldwtt Prttldunt-EMct Traaaurar Or P«ggy Gatfciff Taft Midtfla School 19601 Bare Road Datroit. M l 48219 Ragion 1 Jim Hiaftja Fromoni MkkUa School 600 Woodrow Fromoni. M l 49412 Rogton 12 Mika Samulaki. Principal Wyandot Middla School 39490 GarliaM Road M l Clamant. M l 49044 Ragion 6 9a oratory Lorraina H ull M ichigan Stata Univartity 419 Erickson Hall Eatt Lanaing. M l 48824-1034 Ragion 8 Pi Bod Croat 1647 Ottago Okamoa. M l 48964 Ragion 8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1984 Richard Bam. Ragion 6 Dr. Chuck Jaquith. Ragion 11 Par Shaata. Ragion 4 Jackia Timmar, Ragion 9 1986 L ott Barnard, Ragion 11 Ronald Cook. Ragion 6 Rtck Lana. Ragion 3 Hobart Schwantar. Ragion 13 Dr Don Staar. Ragion 2 1986 Nancy Goabal, Ragion 7 Richard Randats. Ragion 10 Dala Rosana. Ragion 4 Dr. Anthony Topolatki. Ragion 3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Dr. Louis Romano Michigan Stata Umvaraity 418 Enckton Hall East Laming, M l 48824-1034 (6171 353-6461 January 18, 1984 To: D e tr o it M iddle S chool P r in c ip a ls From : D r. ^ e g g y G a s k i l l , A s s t . P r i n c i p a l R osa P ark s M iddle S chool re : " E ffe c ts o f D e c lin e " S tudy R e c e n tly you sh o u ld have re c e iv e d a l e t t e r and q u e s­ t i o n n a i r e fro m Bob C r o s s , one o f o u r m id d le s c h o o l c o lle a g u e s. The q u e s tio n n a ire ask ed f o r in fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g the e f f e c ts o f d e c lin in g en ro llm e n t and d e c lin in g fin a n c e s on yo ur sch oo l d u rin g th e p a st 5 y e a rs. MA MS E e n d o r s e d t h e s t u d y b e c a u s e i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be p ro v id e d t h a t sh o u ld be h e lp f u l to a l l o f us in m iddle sc h o o ls th ro u g h o u t th e s t a t e . To d a t e , Bob h a s r e c e i v e d l i t t l e re sp o n se from th e urban a re a s , e s p e c ia lly D e tro it. U n fo rtu n ately , w ith ­ ou t a b a la n c e d sam p le, th e r e s u l t s are l i k e l y to r e f l e c t o n ly w hat has happened in r u ra l and suburban d i s t r i c t s , many o f w h ic h have n o t d e a l t w ith th e s e v e re d e c lin e s t h a t we h a v e . D ata from th e l a r g e s t d i s t r i c t in th e s ta te is extrem ely im p ortant; Y our re sp o n se is doubly im portant sin ce you are p a rt of a c a re fu lly chosen sam p le. I f you h a v e n 't a lre a d y done so, I u rge you to tak e a few m in u te s t o f i l l o u t th e q u e s tio n n a ir e . A nother copy is en clo sed . Ig n o re th e J a n .12 p r in te d d e a d lin e , but re tu rn i t as q u ick ly as p o ssib le . Bob e n c l o s e d a s e l f a d d re s s e d stam ped en v elo p e in th e o r ig in a l m a ilin g . I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , g i v e Rob a c a l l . H is phone num ber and a d d ress a re : Bob C r o s s Ph: 517/349-2244 1547 O tsego Okemos, M I. 48864 Thank you fo r h e lp in g out w ith th is p ro je c t, a l l g ain v alu ab le in fo rm a tio n from i t . GOOD MIDDLE SCHOOLS MAKE COMMUNITIES BETTER 1-517-353-8461 We w i l l BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramowltz* Susan. 'The P rin cip al o f the E igh ties: The Manager of D eclin e." NASSP B u lle tin 63 (December 1979): 11-18. Abramowltz, S., and Rosenfeld* S., eds. Declining Enrollments: Challenge s ii the Coming Decade. Washington* D.C.: Department of Health* Education* and Welfare* National In s tit u te of Education* 1978. ED 150 708 Andrews* R. L. e t a l . Illfi Environmental Impact &£ School Closures. 1974. ED 112 521 Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Organizing Schools fo r Supervisio n /In s tru c tio n a l Improvement. Overview S ii the Study. Alexandria* V a.: ASCD* 1980. ED 193 786 B ailey* J. D .* ed. Declining Enrollments and School Closings. Topeka: U n iversity of Kansas* School o f Education* 1977. ED 143 099 Bandlow* Ray J. "Today's and Tomorrow's Challenge— Doing More With Less." Michigan School Board Journal 28 (January 1982): 8-10. Beckmann* Vernal G. "A Study to Determine the Current Level of Implementation o f 18 Basic Middle School P rin cip les 1n the State of M issou ri." Ph.D. d isse rta tio n * St. Louis U niversity* 1978. D issertatio n Abstracts In tern atio n al 39 (1978): 5825A. Bedell* W illiam M. "Educational E quality— A Michigan Myth." Michigan School Board Journal 28 (December 1981): 27-28. Bel Ion* J. J. "Strengthening the Educational Program In a Period of D eclin e." In Declining Enrollments and School Closings* pp. 12-16. Edited by J. D. B ailey. Topeka: U n iv ersity of Kansas* School o f Education* 1977. ED 143 099 150 151 Berman* P.* and McLaughlin* M. W. "The Management of Decline: Problems* Opportunities* Research Questions." In Declining Enrollments: Challenge o f ±hfi CQflliJlfl JecadO* pp. 305-30. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington* D .C .: U.S. Department o f Health* Education* and Welfare* National In s tit u te of Education* 1978. Boardman* Gerald R. "Planning— A Systematic Approach to A lte rn a tiv e S olutions." In Maintaining Q u ality Education 1n the Face of Declining Resources, pp. 15-24. B riefin g s 1n Educational Issues No. 2. Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: Univer­ s ity o f Nebraska, March 1979. BohUnger, Thomas L. "A Study to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of 18 Basic Middle School C h aracteristics 1n Ohio Public Schools Housing Grades 5-8 and 6 -8 ." Ph.D. disser­ ta tio n , Miami U n iversity* 1977. D issertatio n Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l 38 (1977): 6587A. Bonner, James S. "Japanese Management S trategies— Applying Them to Education.” Michigan School Board Journal 28 (December 1981): 21-23. Bornsteln, L. "The P o litic s of Enrollment D eclin e." Paper pre­ sented a t the Annual Meeting of the New Jersey School Boards Association* Hlghstown, N .J ., 1978. ED 165 279 Boyd, W. L. "Education Policymaking 1n D eclining Suburban School D is tr ic ts : Some Prelim inary Findings." Education and Urban Society (May 1979): 333-66. Brandt* Ron. "Overview." 1982): 243. Educational Leadership 39 (January Brodlnsky* Ben. "Education Issues to Be Watched." Michigan School Board Journal 28 (February 1982): 22-24. Brooks* Kenneth. "The Middle Schools: A National Survey. P art I I : S ta ffin g and Curriculum." Middle School Journal 9 ,2 (1978): 6 -7 . Campbell, David P. I f Io n Jon.Lt Know Where You»re Going, You ' l l Probably End Up Somewhere Else. N iles* 111.: Argus Communica­ tio n s , 1974. Caul, Jacqueline L. "A Comparative Study of Student* Teacher, and P rin cip al Perceptions o f Organizational S tructure Between Middle Schools With High Levels and Those With Low Levels of Middle School Concept Implementation." Ph.D. d isse rta tio n * Michigan State U niversity* 1975. 152 "Census Predicts Continued Drop 1n School Enrollments." School Board Journal 29 (February 1983): 7. Michigan C ollins* James J .* and Masley* Barbara A .* eds. "Stress/Burnout Report." Worcester* Mass.: Worcester Public Schools* June 1980. ED 199 187 C ollins* John* and Lucove* J e ffre y S. "Proposition 2 : Lessons From Massachusetts." Educational Leadership 39 (January 1982): 246-49. Colton* D ., and F rellch * A. "Enrollment Decline and School Closings 1n a Large C ity ." Education and Urban Society (May 1979): 396-417. Cooley* Van E. "A Study to Determine the Influence Exerted by the Indiana Comprehensive Assessment and Program Planning System on the 18 Basic P rin c ip le s of the Middle School." Ed.D. dis­ s e rtatio n * Ball S tate U niversity* 1982. D issertation Abstracts In te rn a tio n a l 43 (1982): 0770A. Crane* Robert. "The Pain o f Declining Enrollm ent." Michigan Middle School Journal 8 (F a ll 1982): 19-21, 23. Cuban, L. "Shrinking Enrollment and Consolidation: P o litic a l and Organizational Impacts 1n A rling ton , V irg in ia , 1973-1978." Education and Urban Society (May 1979): 367-95. Cuff* W illiam A. "Middle Schools on the March." (February 1967): 82-86. NASSP B u lle tin 51 Culbertson* J. "Educational Leadership: The Uses of A dversity." In Declining Enrollments .and School Closings* pp. 39-49. Edited by J. D. B ailey. Topeka: U niversity of Kansas* School of Education, 1977. Davis, B eatrice L. "E ffects of Declining Enrollments: A New Mexico Study." Santa Fe: New Mexico S tate Department of Finance and A dm inistration, September 1982. ED 223 375 Davis* Russell 6. "Coping With Declining Enrollm ents." B u lle tin 61 (March 1977): 1 -7 . NASSP Dearman, Nancy B.* and PUsko* Valena White. The Condition of Education, 1980 E d itio n . National Center fo r Educational S ta tis tic s . Washington* D .C .: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1980. "Declining Enrollment: Im plications fo r South Carolina School Dis­ t r i c t s . " October 1977. ED 144 254 153 Dembowskl* Frederick L. "The E ffects of Declining Enrollments on the In stru ctio n al Programs o f Public Elementary and Secondary Schools." Paper presented a t the Annual Meeting o f the American Educational Research Association* Boston* Mass.* A p ril 7-11* 1980. ED 184 208 ________ * and Gay* G. "In stru c tio n al E ffects of Declining E n ro ll­ ments." Educational Leadership (November 1980): 173-75. Dembowskl* F. L .; Gay* G .; and Owlngs* J. The E ffects o f Declining Enrollments on in s tru c tio n a l Programs .and Supervisory Practices 1n Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Alexandria* V a .: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development* October 1979. De Pree* Kenneth R. "Michigan Public School Superintendents and the S tate L eg islatu re: An Analysis of the Superintendent’ s Under­ standing of* and P a rtic ip a tio n 1n» the L e g is la tiv e Policy Making Process." Ph.D. d isse rta tio n * Michigan S tate U niversity* 1971. Doherty* V icto r W.* and Fenwick* James J. "Can Budget Reduction Be Rational?" Educational Leadership 39 (January 1982): 253-57. Educational Research Service. Organization o f ih s Middle Grades: A Summary o f Research. Arlington* V a .: Educational Research Service* 1983. Elsenberger, K. E. "Closing a School: Some Ways to Ease the Trauma." School Management (August-September 1974): 33-36. ________ . "Declining Enrollments: Im plications fo r the School Curriculum." NASSP B u lle tin 61 (March 1977): 47-53. Enns, Robin J .* and others. "The E ffects of Declining Enrolment on School Objectives and Programs." Commission on Declining School Enrolments In Ontario* Toronto. Report No. CODE-WP-31. March 1979. ED 197 461 "Enrollments Continue 11-Year D ecline." Journal 30 (May 1983): 27. Fowler* Delbert H. ED 151 920 Michigan School Board "Declining School Enrollm ents." February 1978. Freeman, J .* and Hannan* M. T. E ffects o f Resources and Enrollments s n -Growth AJld I>ecl.1jis ID -Schop] D is tric ts : Evidence From C a li­ fo rn ia and New York. Palo A lto , C a l.: In s titu te fo r Research on Educational Finance and Governance* Stanford U niversity* 1981. 154 Gallup* George H. "The 15th Annual Gallup Poll of the P u b lic's A ttitud es Toward the Public Schools." Ph1 D elta Kappan 65 ( September 1983): 33-47. Gatewood* Thomas E.* and D1lg* Charles A. "The Middle School We Need: A Report From the ASCD Working Group on the Emergent Adolescent Learner." Washington* D .C .: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development* 1975. Gay* Geneva; Dembowskl* Frederick C .; and McLennan* Robert L. "Preserving Q u ality of Education During Enrollment D eclines." Phi D elta Kappan 62 (May 1981): 655-57. Georglades* W illiam . "Curriculum Change: What Are the Ingredients?" NASSP B u lle tin 64 (March 1980): 70-75. Georglady* N. P .; Rlegle* J. D .; and Romano* L. G. "What Are the C haracteristics of the Middle School?" In The Middle School: Selected Read.LnjS jCm All Emerging School Program* pp. 73-84. Edited by L. G. Romano* N. P. Georglady* and J. E. Heald. Chicago: Nelson-Hall* 1973. Gonder* Peggy. Cuttlng Costs: Successful Ways ± q Reduce School Expenditures. Arlington* V a .: National School Public Rela­ tio ns Association* 1977. ________ . JdOtt Schools £an Save l i i Problems And Solutions. American Association of School Administrators C r itic a l Issues Series #6. Sacramento: Education News Service fo r the AASA* 1980. Garver* George G. "Declining Resources: What Can Be Done?" Triad (Michigan Association of School Adm inistrators) 6 (November 1981): 3 -4 . Grooms* Ann. "The Middle School and Other B u lle tin (May 1967): 158-60 f f . Innovations." NASSP Guertln* Jeanne* and Ward# K eith. "New Ways to Plan fo r L ife A fte r the Budget C ut." Thrust (March-Aprll 1982): 20. Hamet* Robert. "Comstock's Two Approaches to Closing Empty Schools." Michigan School Board Journal 28 (November 1981): 13-15. Harvey# Lynn R. "Financing Michigan K-12 Education." Extension B u lle tin E-1724. East Lansing: Cooperative Extension Service* Michigan State U niversity* May 1983. Hechlnger* Fred M. Educational Agenda fo r the 1980's. Ph1 Delta Kappa Fastback #161. Bloomington# In d .: Phi D elta Kappa Educa­ tio n a l Foundation* 1981. 155 Hecker* Stanley E .* and Ignatovich* Frederick R. "Michigan Total and Public Enrollment Projections Based on 1977-78 Through 1982-83 Membership Data. Final Phase." East Lansing: College of Edu­ cation* Michigan S tate U niversity* October 1983. Hlckrod* G. A. e t a l . Enrollment Change And Educational Personnel Change I n ±hfi K-12 Schools s i I l l i n o i s : A Supplement I s ±hfi Report s i ±hfi I l l i n o i s Task Force en Declining Enrollments In the Public Schools. S p rin g fie ld : I l l i n o i s O ffic e of Educa­ tio n * 1976. ED 128 917 Hicks* Thomas A. "About Building Excellence During D ecline." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (February 1983): 28-29. I l l i n o i s S tate Board o f Education. Early R e tire : A Proposal fo r Adjustment to D eclining Enrollments. S p rin g fie ld : I l l i n o i s State Board of Education* 1977. K e lle r, Ed. "Where Has A ll the Money Gone? The Bleak Outlook 1n Educational Funding." P rin cip al (National Association of Elementary School P rin c ip a ls ) 60 (March 1981): 16-18. K elley, Edgar A. "Perspective: Q u ality 1n the Public Schools." In M aintaining Qu.all.ty Education In th e face s i Declining Resources, pp. 1-8. B riefings 1n Educational Issues No. 2. Edited by F. C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity o f Nebraska* March 1979. Keough* W illiam F .* J r. Declining Enrollments: A New Dilemma fo r Educators. Ph1 D elta Kappa Fastback #116. Bloomington* In d .: Ph1 Delta Kappa Educational Foundation* 1978. ________ . "Enrollment Decline: The Dilemma From the Superintendent's Cha1r." In Declining Enrollment: Challenge s i H ie Coming Decade, pp. 331-70. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington* D .C .: U.S. Department o f Health* Education* and Welfare* National In s tit u te of Education* 1978. ED 150 708 K1ng-Stoops* Joyce* and Slaby* Robert M. "How Many Students Next Year?" Ph1 D elta Kappan 62 (May 1981): 658-59. Lelthwood* K .* and Montgomery* D. "E ffects of Declining Enrolments on the Curriculum: Perceptions of Supervisory O ffic e rs ." Commis­ sion on Declining School Enrolments In Ontario* Toronto. Report No. C0DE-WP-29. May 1978. ED 197 460 156 Leppert, J.» and Routh* D. "An Analysis of State School Finance Systems as Related to Declining Enrollm ents." In Dec!1n1ng Enrollments; Challenge o f the Coming Decade, pp. 187-208. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington* D .C .; U.S. Department o f Health* Education and Welfare* National In s tit u te of Education* 1978. ED 150 708 Lounsbury* John S.* and Vars* Gordon F. "The Middle School: Fresh S ta rt or New Delusion?" Jhe National Elementary P rin cip al 51 (November 1971): 14-19. "Managing D ec lin e ." News!1ne» May 27* 1982. "Managing School D is tr ic ts With Declining Enrollm ent." U n iversity of Minnesota* Bureau of F ield Studies* A pril 1976. ED 128918-4. Marrs* John D. "The Evidence Is S t i l l There; Public Support Follows Public Understanding." Michigan School Board Journal 28 (February 1982): 30. ________ . "Useful Facts and Figures About American Public Education." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (November 1982): 30. Mays* W illiam * J r. "Executive S ecretary's Report." P rincipal (Michigan Elementary and Middle School P rin cip als Association) 58 (W inter 1982): 6. Michigan. 81st L e g is latu re . Enrolled House B ill No. 4138* Act No. 36* Public Acts o f 1981. May 13, 1981. Michigan Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. "Thinking the Unthinkable. Planning and Implementing Cutbacks 1n School Programs and Services." A position statement of the MASCD. Pontiac: MASCD. 1983. Michigan Department of Education. Board of Education* 1983. B u lle tin 1014. Lansing: State ________ . "Michigan Public School Finance: The Last Ten Years." Lansing: Department of Education* May 1983. ________ . "Michigan's School Enrollment Decline: P rojections and Im p lic a tio n s ." Lansing: Department o f Education* 1977. ________ . "Position Paper Concerning the Education of the Early Adolescent and Programmatic Im p lic atio n s ." The S tate Board of Education's Task Force on Middle School Education. Lansing: Department of Education* 1980. 157 ________ . "Teacher Supply and Demand." In terim Report 1980. Teacher Preparation and C e r tific a tio n Services. Lansing: Department of Education* March 1980. Michigan Education Association. "Michigan Teachers Job M arket." Supply-Demand Report# 1981-82. Lansing: MEA# 1982. ________ . "1977-78 Employee Personnel Data 1n Michigan Public Schools* In s tru c tio n a l and N o n -In s tru ctio n al. " MEA Research Report. Lansing: MEA# A p ril 1978. ________ . "1978-79 Employee Personnel Data 1n Michigan Public Schools." MEA Research Report. Lansing: MEA* A p ril 1979. ________ . "1981-82 Employee Personnel Data From Michigan Public Schools." MEA Research Report. Lansing: MEA* February 1982. ________ . "1982-83 Employee Personnel Data From Michigan Public Schools." MEA Research Report. Lansing: MEA* May 1983. Michigan S tate Board o f Education. Michigan General School Laws and A dm inistrative Rules. The School Code o f 1976. Lansing: State Board of Education* 1976. ________ . "1981-82 Michigan K-12 Public School D is tric ts Ranked by Selected Financial D ata." B u lle tin 1014. Lansing: S tate Board of Education* 1982. ________ » and Michigan Department of Education. "Public School Employment and Enrollment Down 11%." Michigan Education Report. February 1982. "Michigan's School Enrollment Decline: P rojections and Im p lic atio n s ." 1977. ED 145 546. Middle School Task Force. "A Final Report: A Survey of Middle School P rincipal Members of MEMSA." Michigan Elementary and Middle School P rin cip als Association* March 1983. M ille r * W illiam C. The Third Wave and Education's Futures. Ph1 D elta Kappa Fastback #155. Bloomington* In d .: Ph1 D elta Kappa Educational Foundation# 1981. National Center fo r Educational S ta tis tic s . The Condition of Education* 1982. Washington* D .C .: Government P rin tin g O ffic e , 1982. 158 National In s titu te of Education. Planning fo r Declining Enrollment 1n Single H igh School D is tr ic ts . Educational F a c ilit ie s Labora­ to rie s . Washington# D .C .: U.S. Department of Education# April 1981. National School Boards Association. "Declining Budget# Enrollments Have S ilv e r Lining 1n This D is t r ic t ." The School A d m in istrato rs Policy P o rtfo lio (NSBA) 12 (September 1981): 3 -4 . ________ . "Declining Enrollm ent." NSBA# 1976. Research Report. Evanston# 111.: N e ill# S hirley Bos# ed. Declining Enrollment— Closing Schools. American Association of School Adm inistrators C r itic a l Issues Series #9. Sacramento: AASA# 1981. Nelson# Alexander M. "People Do Not Resist Change." Schools 34 (January 1982): 1# 3 . L e tte r to Nelson# Earl e t a l. "Program and S ta ffin g Changes 1n Michigan School D is tric ts Coincident With Economic D eclin e." Lansing: Michigan Department of Education# September 1983. Odden# A ., and Vincent# P. B. "The Fiscal Impacts of Declining E nroll­ ments: A Study of Declining Enrollments 1n Four States— Michigan# Missouri# South Dakota# and Washington." In Declining E n ro ll­ ments: Challenge M Ih s Coming Decade# pp. 209-56. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington# D.C.: U.S. Depart­ ment of Health# Education and Welfare# National In s tit u te of Education, 1978. ED 150 708 Overly# Norman V .; Saylor# Galen; Sutherby# Ronald R .; Kahn# Ann; Down# Graham; and Barter# C linton R. "Out on a L1mb? Responses to Regina P aul." Educational Leadership 39 (January 1982): 268-73. Overly# Donald E. and others. The Middle School. Humanizing Education fo r Youth. Washington# Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Co.# 1972. Pagen# John. 'The State's Diminished Role 1n Funding Education." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (June 1982): 8 -9 . Parks# G. A. "School Closings In a Rural U.S. County: P art I I : The Case of Aurora Union M agisterial D is tric t# Population 2#030." Paper presented a t the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association# Boston# Mass.# 1980. Paul# Regina H. "Are You Out on a L1mb?" (January 1982): 260-64. Educational Leadership 39 159 "Percent of Enrollment Changes F a ll 1971 to F a ll 1979# and Per Pupil Expenditures fo r Current Operations# 1979-80# 1n the 50 Largest School Systems." Educational Research Service B u lle tin 7 (A p ril 1980). Podesta# Jane S1ms. "Facing School Budget Cuts: Parents Pay Up." Washington Post# January 3# 1982# pp. 18-19. The Pook# Mary E llen P. "A Study of the Relationship of Teacher Job S atis­ fa c tio n and the Level of Implementation o f Recommended Middle School P ra c tic e s ." Ph.D. dissertation# U niversity of Colorado a t Boulder# 1980. D issertation Abstracts In tern atio n al 41 (1980): 3406A. Porwoll# Paul J. Indicators o f Future School Enrollments: A Reference Manual fo r Planners. Arlington# V a .: Educational Research Service# Inc.# 1980. "Projected School Age Population, 1985-2000." February 9# 1983# p. 6. Education D a lly . Raymer# Joe T. "A Study to Id e n tify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level o f Implementation o f 18 Basic Middle School Char­ a c te ris tic s 1n Selected U.S. and Michigan Schools." Ph.D. dis­ sertation# Michigan S tate University# 1974. Richards# K. N.# and Cohen# J. S. The Closing o f Elementary Schools: Impact £LQ Young Children: f in a l Report. Ithaca# N .Y .: Cornell University# Department of Human Development and Family Studies# 1981. Rlegle# Jack D. "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level o f Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School P rin c ip le s ," Ph.D. dissertation# M1ch1aan S tate University# 1971. Rlew# John. "Enrollment Decline and School Reorganization— A Cost E ffic ien cy A nalysis." fcpflomljcs £ f Education Review 1 (Winter 1981): 53-73. Rodekohr# m. Adjustments a f Colorado .S.ehao.1 D is tric ts ±c Pe.cl1n.lng Enrollments. Lincoln: Nebraska Curriculum Development Center# 1976. ED 125 156 ________ # and Rodekohr# C arol. "A Study of the E ffects of Enrollment D eclin e." Phi D elta Kappan 57 (May 1976): 621-23. Rogers# E verett M., and Shoemaker# F. Floyd. Communication o f Inno­ vations. New York: The Free Press# 1971. 160 Romano* L. G .; Georglady* N. P .; and Heald* J. E. The Middle School; Selected Readings jm An Emerging Sdlfifl.1 Program. Chicago: Nelson-Hal1 * 1973. Rosenberg* B .* and Vincent* P. B. "Retrenchment 1n Education: Outlook fo r Women and M in o r itie s .” In Declining Enrollments: Challenge .Of the JSamlos Decade* pp. 371-404. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington* D .C .: U.S. Department of Health* Education* and W elfare* National In s titu te of Education* 1978. ED 150 708 Runkel* Ph1111p E. "Decisions on Reorganization Depend on Objective Study.” Michigan School Board Journal 29 (November 1982): 8 -9 . ________ . "The Status of Education 1n Michigan." Speech presented to the Oakland County School Board Association* Oxford High School, Oxford, Michigan* November 16, 1983. Sargent* C. G.* and Handy* J. Fewer Pupils/Surplus Space: A Report. New York: Educational F a c ilit ie s Laboratories* 1974. ED 093 046 Savage* David. "The Unanticipated Impact o f Proposition 13." tio n a l Leadership 39 (January 1982): 250-51. Educa­ Schrelber, Ernest. 400+ Ways to Save Money 1n Your Schools. Blackwood* N .J .: Educational Impact* In c .* 1977. Smith, Marie. "Job S a tis fac tio n as Related to Organizational Decision Making of Public School P rin cip als and Middle Managers 1n Business and In d ustry." Ph.D. d issertatio n * Michigan S tate U niversity* 1983. S p rln th a ll* R, C. Basic S ta tis tic a l A nalysis. Addlson-Wesley, 1982. Reading* Mass.: S te lle r , Arthur W. Educational Planning fo r Educational Success. Ph1 Delta Kappa Fastback #152. Bloomington* In d .: Ph1 D elta Kappa Educational Foundation* 1980. Straus* Kathleen. "The State of Education and School Finance." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (February 1983): 24-25. Suehr* John. Lecture presented a t Michigan S tate U niversity* East Lansing* Michigan* October 22* 1979. "Supervisors 'Expendable' When Budgets Are C u t.” 23 (March 1981): 2* 8. ASCD Update 161 Sybouts* Ward. "The Impact o f G etting S m aller." In Maintaining Q uality Education In the Face o f Declining Resources* pp. 9-14. B riefings 1n Educational Issues No. 2 . Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity o f Nebraska* March 1979. ________ . "The Place and Value of School A c tiv itie s ." In Maintaining Q uality Education I d ih fi Face M Declining Resources* pp. 31-36. B riefings 1n Educational Issues No. 2 . Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity o f Nebraska* March 1979. "Teachers Drop 14%." p. A-3. Lansing State Journal. November 18* 1983* "Teachers— Supply* Demand* and S tatus." P rincipal (National Associa­ tio n of Elementary School P rin cip als ) 62 (January 1983): 51-54. "There Are 1*800*000 Good Reasons to Work With Equal Partners fo r Education 1n Michigan." Lansing: Equal Partners fo r Education* 1983. "Trends 1n School Enrollm ent." P rincipal (National Association of Elementary School P rin cip als ) 62 (September 1982): 50-53. U.S. Bureau of the Census. P rojection o f the Population o f the United S tates: 1977 ±fi 2050. Current Population Reports Series P-25* No. 704. Washington* D .C .: Government P rin tin g O ffice* July 1977. Vincent* Denny R .* and Brooks* Kenneth W. "A Delphi P rojection: Im plications of Declining Enrollm ents." Planning and Change (Spring 1982): 24-30. Wahlstrom* Merl and others. "Teacher B e lie fs Make a D iffe re n c e ." School Guidance Worker 33 (March 1978): 4 -8 . Walter* L. James* and Kopp* D. W. "Services and Programs fo r Children— The Dilemma." In M aintaining Q uality Education i n the Face o f Declining Resources* pp. 25-30. B riefings 1n Edu­ cational Issues No. 2. Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity of Nebraska* March 1979. Warren* Roland. Soda! Change and Human Purpose. McNally* 1977. Chicago: Rand "The Way We Were: P rin cip als Face 1933." P rin cip al (National Association of Elementary School P rin cip als ) 62 (May 1983): 30-33. Webster*s New C o lleg ia te D ictio n ary. Merrlam Co.* 1980. S p ring field * Mass.: G. & C. 162 We1nhe1mer# Norman P. Range Planning." 1981): 5 , 27. "C ertainty of Change Requires Continuous LongMichigan School Board Journal 28 (October ________ . "Good Schools V ita l to S ta te 's Recovery." Board Journal 28 (February 1982): 5 . Michigan School ________ . "Management of Decline: A Long-Range Problem." School Board Journal 28 (November 1981): 5# 20. Michigan ________ . "What Have We Been Doing to Public Education?" School Board Journal 28 (December 1981): 5 , 29. Michigan Wendel# Frederick C. "A Long-Range P erspective." In Maintaining Q u a lity Education I n iiif i ,Lac.e O f Declining Resources# pp. 59-64. B riefings 1n Educational Issues No. 2. Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity o f Nebraska# March 1979. ________ . "Reduction 1n Force." In Maintaining Q u ality Education 1n th e Face o f Declining Resources, pp. 47-50. B riefin gs 1n Edu­ cational Issues No. 2 . Edited by Frederick C. Wendel. Lincoln: U niversity o f Nebraska# March 1979. ________ > ed. M aintaining Q u ality Education i n ±he Ease £ f Declining Resources. B riefin g s 1n Educational Issues No. 2. Lincoln: U niversity of Nebraska# March 1979. Wllken# W. J.» and Callahan# J. J. "Declining Enrollments: The Cloud and It s S ilv e r L in in g ." In Declining Enrollments: Challenge £ f the Com1ng Decade# pp. 257-304. Edited by S. Abramowltz and S. Rosenfeld. Washington# D .C .: U.S. Department of Health# Education# and Welfare# National In s tit u te of Education# 1978. ED 150 708 Winter# Floyd’ and others. 1980. ED 198 081 "Declining Enrollments: A ll Is Not Lost." Wood# David. "On School D is t r ic t R eorganization." Board Journal 28 (September 1981): 22-23. Michigan School Woons# George. "Inadequate Funding o f Public Schools: In stru ctio n al Im p lic atio n s ." MASCD Position Paper# D ra ft #5. Lansing: Michigan Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development# October 1983. Worner# Wayne. "Survival K1t fo r Supervisors." ship 39 (January 1982): 258-59. Educational Leader­ 163 Zaltman* Gerald, and Duncan* Robert. S trategies fo r Planned Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons* 1977. Zerchykov, Ross. A Review ±hfi L ite ra tu re And An Annotated filb r. Hography jan Managing Dec! 1ne I n School .Systems* Boston: In s titu te fo r Responsive Education* March 1982.