INFORMATION TO USERS
The m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and
reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any
type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U niversity M icrofilms International
A Bell & Howell Information C o m p a n y
3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad , Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA
3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0

8 0 0 /5 2 1 -0 6 0 0

Order N um ber 0111599

A descriptive study of interm ediate school district services
provided to fourth-class school districts in M ichigan
Hartman, Carl C., Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1990

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

NOTE TO USERS

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED BY U.M.I. CONTAINED PAGES
WITH POOR PRINT. PAGES WERE FILMED AS RECEIVED.
THIS REPRODUCTION IS THE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
SERVICES PROVIDED TO FOURTH-CLASS SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN
By
Carl C. Hartman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a te University
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of th e requirements
fo r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Teacher Education
1990

ABSTRACT
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT
SERVICES PROVIDED TO FOURTH-CLASS SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN
By
Carl C. Hartman

The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose in t h i s

study was t o d e s cri be the

e x i s t i n g se rv ic e s t h a t ar e c u r r e n t l y being provided by intermediate
school d i s t r i c t s to t h e i r local c o n s ti t u e n t d i s t r i c t s with stude nt
populations between 500 and 3,000.

Additional

purposes were to

determine (a) whether t h e r e was a perceived d i f f e r e n c e between what
th e local school s uperintend en ts expected of the in term ed iate school
d i s t r i c t and what was a c t u a l l y provided and (b) whether these local
super inte nd en ts thought t h e r e should be a basic core of e s s e n t i a l
s erv ices t h a t a l l

interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s provide f o r t h e i r

constituent d i s t r i c t s .
A survey instrument developed by th e r e s e a r c h e r was used to
g a t h e r d a ta focusing on th e use o f s e r v ic e s and perceived program
o f f e r i n g s in seven program ar eas.

The respondents were a ls o asked

t o answer f our open-ended questions regarding th ese s e r v i c e s .
nonreplacement,

A

random sampling technique was used to s e l e c t the

d i s t r i c t s to be surveyed within th e population group s e le c te d f o r
study.

Carl C. Hartman
The

study

is

important

develop men t o f a b a s i c
Intermediate

school

Is th e r e

core

districts

d i s t r i c t in Michigan.
1.

because

it

may c o n t r i b u t e

of essential
wi ll

offer

services

to

each

to

the

that

all

local

school

The two bas ic resear ch questions were:

a perceived d i f f e r e n c e between what th e

local

s uper inten de nt s expect o f th e Intermediate school d i s t r i c t and what
i s a c t u a l l y provided?
2.

Is

interm ediate

t h er e

a bas ic

school

core of

d istricts

essential

should

s erv ic es

provide

for

that
all

all
local

d i s t r i c t s , re g a rd l e s s of the economic base of e i t h e r un it ?
Major conclusions o f the study are:
1.

The

superintendents who responded to th e survey in dicated

the areas o f

Curriculum Research, Curriculum Development, and School

Improvement as a bas is

f o r the development of

a bas ic

core

of

e s s e n t i a l se rv ic e s t h a t a l l intermediate school d i s t r i c t s provide to
th e i r constituent d i s t r i c t s .
2.

The

superintendents who responded t o th e survey saw the

need to work toward providing ^ e q u a l ity o f funding and Increased
funding as key Issues r e l a t e d to the provision of these s e r v i c e s .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special

g ratitude

1s e x p r e s s e d t o

Dr.

Charles

Blackman,

doctor al committee ch ai rper son, f o r th e guidance and c o n s u lt a t i o n
t h a t he provided throughout t h i s study.

Further acknowledgment 1s

made f o r th e c o n t r ib u ti o n s of the other members o f th e committee:
Drs. George Ferns, Robert H a tf ie ld , and Samuel Moore I I .
A special thank-you 1s owed to a l l of th e local s upe ri nt en den ts
who p a r t ic i p a e d in the study and to the Board o f D irectors of the
Michigan

Association

endorsed th e study.

of

Intermediate

School

Adm inist rat ors ,

who

The study could not have been conducted without

a l l o f t h e i r cooperation and support.
S u f f i c i e n t words are not a v a ila b l e
wife, Donna, and sons, Andrew and Joshua,

t o express thanks

f o r t h e i r understanding

and s a c r i f i c e s made throughout th e phases o f th e study.

iv

to my

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES

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

vii

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

INTRODUCTION

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

1

The Purposes ...........................................................................
S ig nif ic an ce of the Study ..................................................
Questions Examined in the Study ......................................
Delimitations and Limitations of th e Study . . . .
Delimitations .......................................................................
Limitations ...........................................................................
Overview ....................................................................................

6
6
7
8
8
9
9

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................

10

Introduction ...........................................................................
Variants on the T i t l e Intermediate School
D i s t r i c t ................................................................................
H is to r ic a l Background ...........................................................
The Intermediate Unit in a National Perspective .
The ISD in M i c h i g a n ...........................................................
Summary........................................................................................

10
10
12
12
17
41

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

44

In troduction ...........................................................................
Review of Purpose ...................................................................
Instrumentation .......................................................................
Population and Sample ...........................................................
Data C ollection .......................................................................
Report o f the Sample ...........................................................
Data Analysis ...........................................................................
Summary........................................................................................

44
44
44
47
48
49
49
51

ANALYSIS OF D A T A .......................................................................

52

Introduction ...........................................................................
Description o f Response .......................................................
Description o f Tables ...........................................................

52
53
53

v

Page
Special Education ...............................................................
Remedial and Compensatory I n s t r u c t io n .....................
Career and Vocational Education ..................................
I n s tr u c tio n a l Services ..................................................
Administrative Services ..................................................
Subjective Responses ...........................................................
Summary........................................................................................

53
56
58
60
63
64
68

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

69

Introduction ...........................................................................
Summary........................................................................................
F i n d i n g s ....................................................................................
Recommendations .......................................................................
Conclusions and Implications ..........................................
Suggestions f o r Further Study ..........................................

69
69
72
76
79
81

A. PILOT STUDY LETTER AND SURVEY ................................................

83

B. COVER LETTER.................................................................................

87

C. FOLLOW-UP LETTER

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

88

D. SURVEY RESULTS............................................................................

89

E. MAP OF INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

98

APPENDICES

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

99

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

100

F. MAP OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY

. . .

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Page
Percentage L is ting of Direct and E ssen tial Services
in th e Area o f Special Education, by Enrollment
C a t e g o r y ........................................................................................

54

Percentage L isting of Direct and Essential Services
in the Area of Remedial and Compensatory I n s t r u c ­
t i o n , by Enrollment Category ...............................................

57

Percentage L is ting of Direct and Essential Services
in the Area o f Career and Vocational Education, by
Enrollment C a t e g o r y .............................

59

Percentage L isting of Direct and Essential Services
in the Area o f I n s tr u c t io n a l Ser vices , by
Enrollment Category ...................................................................

61

Percentage L isting of Direct and Es se ntial Services
in the Area o f Administrative Ser vices , by
Enrollment Category ...................................................................

63

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

During the p a s t
demand f o r
schools.

25 y e a r s ,

societal

fo rces

expanded and improved educational

have led t o the
s e r v ic e s

from our

This demand has r e s u l t e d in improved s e rv ic e s to stu den ts

on a local and statew ide b a s is .

Economic and socia l developments in

our s o c ie ty , coupled with changing concepts of the r o l e and function
of education,

have

demands f o r change

combined
(Stephens,

to

become

1973).

key f a c t o r s
Four basic

in

c r e a t in g

approaches

to

improvement of th es e s erv ices are:
1.

Consolidation o f small local systems in to l a r g e r systems.

2.

Provision of special serv ices from s t a t e agencies.

3.

Formation of cooperatives among local systems f o r special

programs.
4.

Development o f r e g i o n a l

educational

s e rv ic e agencies

(Stephens, 1977).
All fou r approaches are used t o some e x te n t in Michigan, with
th e regional educational approach being th e most predominant.

These

regional u n i t s in Michigan are c a l l e d interm ediate school d i s t r i c t s
(ISDs).

The ISD i s a midlevel u n i t o f government, defined by the

National Education Association in 1963 as "an agency t h a t oper ates
a t a regional l e v e l , giving coordination and supplementary s erv ic es

1

2
t o a local school d i s t r i c t and serving as a l i n k between th ese basic
a d m in is t r a ti v e

units,

school

districts,

and th e

state

education

a u th o r ity " (Rhodes, 1963).
The t a s k o f e s t a b l i s h i n g good working r e l a t i o n s h i p s
u n i t s o f educational government i s very complex.

between

This complexity is

compounded because c e r t a i n functions overlap o r p a r a l l e l
agencies.

"The

organization.
designed t o

in termediate
It is

facilitate

still
th e

school

district

an e v o l v i n g ,
new r o le

of

is

not

existing
a

static

d e v e l o p i n g mechanism

serving

local

education

agencies and ac ti ng as an extension o f th e s t a t e education agency"
(Lewis, 1979).
The ISD in Michigan came in to ex ist en ce in 1963, although the
s t r u c t u r e f o r regional se rv ic e s has e x ist e d since t e r r i t o r i a l times.
In the 1800s and e a r l y 1900s,

county governments were given the

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r enforcing local

and s t a t e law,

and r e g u l a tio n s

governing th e operation of local

public schools,

because o f the

thousands of primary school d i s t r i c t s within the s t a t e .
this

power was vested e i t h e r

in the township or

Until 1930,

in th e

county

(K lost er, 1978).
In 1931, th e s t a t e law was amended t o provide f o r an ele c te d
county commissioner of schools.
again

amended,

abolishing

the

In l a t e 1947, th e s t a t e law was
title

of

county

commissioner

of

schools and providing f o r a county superintendent (Kloster , 1978).
This went

unchanged u n t i l

th e e a r l y

1960s,

cr ea ted by s t a t u t e (Public Act 190, 1962).

when the

ISDs were

Until t h a t time, county

boundaries determined th e area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for

the

county

3

board and county s uper inten de nt .

By s t a t u t e ,

1n 1962,

the

encompassed areas not n e c e s s a r i l y along county boundaries.

ISD

I t was

a t t h a t time t h a t the concept o f regional s e rv ic e began t o emerge
(K loster, 1978).
Before 1963, the d u tie s o f th e county sup erintendent p rim aril y
included enforcing s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t io n s , determining the length
o f th e

school

school.

day,

With the

and examining p e o p le 's

credentials

growth o f th e K-12 d i s t r i c t s ,

to

county

o f f i c i a l s ’ a u t h o r it y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y began t o d e c l in e .

teach
school

The K-12

d i s t r i c t boards of education began to h i r e supe rin tenden ts and other
ad m in is tr a tiv e o f f i c i a l s who performed supervisory fu nctio ns t h a t ,
before t h a t tim e,

had been t h e

responsibility

of the

c ounty

sup erin tenden t.
Right in t h a t time period (1958 to 1965), te a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n
standards were a l s o r a i s e d , which a ll but eliminated county normal
schools.

As the t r a d i t i o n a l

began

d e c l in e ,

to

r o le s

of the county superintendent

a movement developed

nation al le v e ls to e s t a b l i s h ISDs.

at

both

the

state

and

K loster (1963) s t a t e d i t t h i s

way:
I t i s impossible t o determine
out of the survival i n s t i n c t s
and o b jectiv e b e l i e f t h a t the
and should be, a permanent and
and management s t r u c t u r e .

whether t h i s movement developed
or whether t h e r e was a r a t io n a l
intermediate school d i s t r i c t i s ,
i n t e g r a l p a r t o f th e educational

Perhaps the answer to t h i s question i s "yes," as both t h e o r ie s were
involved in th e conceptual development o f the ISD.

4
Lewis l i s t e d ten advantages pe r ta i n in g to educational service
agencies (ESAs), with th e following being of p a r t i c u l a r importance
to t h i s study:
1.

Personnel can be provided who will a c t co operatively with
o th e r p r o f e s s io n a ls to bring about appropri ate educational
change. This corps o f p r o fe s sio n a ls can work e f f e c t i v e l y
with both l o cal c o n s ti t u e n t s and s t a t e c o n s u lt a n ts to
a s s e s s , modify and Implement mandated and a l t e r n a t i v e
programs.

2.

Local education agencies can re ce ive comprehensive, r e a d i l y
a v a i l a b l e , h ig h - q u a lit y supplemental s e r v i c e s which have
been mutually defined and agreed upon. These may include
computer s erv ices f o r budget, f in a n c i a l r e p o r t s , p a y r o ll,
membership r e p o r t s , student programming and assignments,
cooperative purchasing programs, and even psychological,
s ocia l work and speech cor re c t io n s e r v ic e s .

3.

Planning can be done t o develop i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs to
implement mandated educational l e g i s l a t i o n , such as special
education, c a r e e r and vocational education, a d u lt educa­
t i o n , and professional development.

The remaining advantages d e a l t with the issue s of f l e x i b i l i t y ,
cooper ative ventures,

and educational

planning and management as

they p e r t a i n t o ESAs.
Lewis a ls o l i s t e d f i v e c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t deal with s t a t e
f e d e r a l m andate s , power s h a r i n g , p o l i t i c a l
economics.

relationships,

The one c o n s t r a i n t l i s t e d by Lewis t h a t ,

and
and

in p a r t , was

used as a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s study i s as follows:
The ISD c o n cep t i s bas ed on a b e l i e f in i n s t i t u t i o n a l
cooperation and shared decision-making among groups committed
t o good, ever-improving educational change. This c a l l s f o r a
c l e a r understanding on the p a r t of a l l play er s o f where the
power r e s t s on any given issue and what the b e n e f i t s of
cooperation are f o r each p a r t i c i p a t i n g group. I f th e r e ar e no
immediate and v i s i b l e gains or, a t l e a s t , no imbalance between
lo s s and gain for e x i s t i n g groups, then cooperative ventures,
such as ISD’ s, will be seen as an unnecessary addi tion t o the
system.

5
A number of s tu d i e s have been conducted on ISDs in Michigan,
y e t few o f them have addressed th e problem o f actual and recommended
r o l e s f o r th e ISDs in th e s t a t e .
Role o f t h e

Interm ediate

The s tu d ie s have included "The

Superintendent"

(Boss,

196 3),

"The

Reduction o f the Number of Intermediate and Local School D i s t r i c t s "
( B r it t o n , 1969), "The Expectations That Local Superintendents Have
o f t h e I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t s "

( B lo m q u is t ,

19 75),

"The

D e f i n i ti o n o f Role Perception by the Intermediate School D i s t r i c t "
(Davis, 1976), and "The Study o f Reorganization o f the Intermediate
School D i s t r i c t " (Phelps, 1980).

The exceptions have been Dorsey

and Ameen (1980), who d e a l t with the function and s t r u c t u r e of the
ISD, and Egloff (1982), who also supported research e f f o r t s in the
area of ISD fun ctio n s .
kind of re org anization

Since 1968, each study has recommended some
o f the

system.

Almost every e f f o r t

to

strengthen th e ISDs has d e a l t with the number and s iz e of thes e
d i s t r i c t s , r a t h e r than with t h e i r function.
The Michigan Department o f Education issued a p o s it io n paper in
1971 e n t i t l e d "Reorganization of Intermediate School D i s t r i c t s
M ic h i g a n , "

which s t a t e d ,

in

part,

that

"interm ediate

in

school

d i s t r i c t s must be reorganized before th e Department of Education
can, or should, r e g i o n a l i z e i t s s e r v i c e s . "

There was no d e s c r i p t i o n

of how local d i s t r i c t s and ISDs should r e l a t e t o each o th e r ,

and

advice on th e d i s t r i b u t i o n

a u t h o r it y

was

functions

are

functions

are

completely la ck in g .

of

responsibility

Mandatory

and

and p e r m i s s i v e

c u r r e n t l y assigned t o Michigan ISDs.

(Permissive

6
those ac t io n s t h a t the ISD may engage 1n with the local d i s t r i c t s ’
s a n c t io n . )
Davis (1976) surveyed a l l 50 s t a t e s t o determine the s t a t u s of
e x i s t i n g ISDs In each s t a t e .

Concerning Michigan, he wrote,

"In

Michigan, although th e mandate o f the l e g i s l a t u r e 1s c l e a r , how each
interm ediate

school

d istrict

perceives

its

role

may

vary

s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m - d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t . "
The Purposes
The r e s e a r c h e r ’s purposes f o r t h i s study were (a) t o de scri b e
the e x i s t i n g se rv ic e s t h a t are c u r r e n t l y being provided by ISDs to
t h e i r local c o n s ti t u e n t d i s t r i c t s , (b) t o determine whether t h e r e is
a d i f f e r e n c e in th e perceptions t h a t local supe rin tend en ts have of
the s erv ic es t h a t are provided to t h e i r d i s t r i c t by the ISDs and
those s e rv ic e s

that

are a c tu a lly

being

provided,

and

(c )

to

determine whether th es e local superintendents think th e r e should be
a minimum core of e s s e n t i a l serv ices t h a t a l l ISDs provide f o r t h e i r
constituent d i s t r i c t s .
Sig nific an ce of the Study
By focusing on the perceived and actual
will

services,

t h i s study

provide dec is ion makers at the ISD with d ata on how t h e i r

e x i s t i n g serv ic es are being viewed by loca l sup erin tenden ts and will
provide a b as is f o r discu ssion between ISDs and local
regarding needed s e r v i c e s .

districts

This could be e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r the

smaller d i s t r i c t s as they express t h e i r need f o r s e rv i c e s from the
ISD.

7

The study was developed from the assumption t h a t t h e r e i s not
an agreed-on o r defined common core of e s s e n t i a l s e rv i c e s t h a t every
ISD provides f o r every student in Michigan.

This wi ll give the ISD

boards o f education and superintendents a da ta base t o stren gthen
t h e i r decis io ns on what se rv ic e s the local
e s s e n t i a l t o meet

districts

bel ieve are

th e needs o f a changing and div er se studen t body.

The fin dings o f t h i s study

could also provide de cisio n makers

a t the s t a t e level with information with which t o make f in a n c i a l and
policy d ec is io n s .

Changes may be needed

educational funds

based onwhat th e local

in th e d i s t r i b u t i o n

of

superintendents view as

e s s e n t i a l s erv ices f o r students provided by ISDs.
Questions Examined in th e Study
What was attempted in t h i s study was to determine the basic
s e rv i c e s c u r r e n t l y offer ed t o the local school d i s t r i c t by th e ISD
in the broad c ategories o f special education, c ar eer and vocational
education,

instructional

services,

rem ed ia l

and co m pen sat ory

i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e r v ic e s , and ad m i n ist r a t iv e s e r v i c e s .

Within th ese

se r v ic e a r e a s , the following questions were generated:
1.

Is th er e a perceived d i f f e r e n c e between what th e
superintendents expect o f the

ISD and what

is

local

actually

provided?
a.

What c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would account f o r t h i s perceived
d i f f e r e n c e i f , in f a c t , th e r e is one?

8
2.

Is t h e r e a bas ic core of e s s e n t i a l se rv ic e s t h a t a l l ISDs
should provide f o r a l l local d i s t r i c t s ,

re g a rd le s s of the

economic base o f e i t h e r unit?
a.

What problems a r i s e from providing a common core of
s erv ices t o a l l d i s t r i c t s ?

b.

Is i t r e a l i s t i c t o expect a common core o f s e r v i c e s to
be provided f o r a l l d i s t r i c t s , and, i f so, how can t h i s
become a r e a l i t y ?

c.

What a ddit io nal serv ic es do

the sup erintende nts th ink

t h a t they need a s s i s ta n c e in

providing f o r students?

Delimitations and Limitations o f the Study
Delim itatio ns
D i s t r i c t s having a student population between 500 and 3,000
were the focus of the study.
to those d i s t r i c t s

and t h e i r

This l i m i t s th e fin dings of th e study
ISD s erv ice area s.

Therefore,

the

r e l i a b i l i t y of the fin dings i s lim ited t o d i s t r i c t s of t h i s s iz e .
D i s t r i c t s with enrollments o f fewer than 500 stu d en ts do not have
the economic base or s t a f f necessary to o f f e r many o f the programs
re q u isite for th is investigation.

Conversely, those d i s t r i c t s with

morethan 3,000 stu den ts usually have

the necessary enrollment and/

or the economic base t o o f f e r many of the surveyed programs without
the a s s i s ta n c e of the ISD.
In ad d iti o n , only local d i s t r i c t superintendents were surveyed.
Therefore,
considered.

the

perceptions

of

ISD s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

were

not

9

Limitations
The degree of involvement in and knowledge of ISD s e rv ic e s by
each

local

perceptions

superintendent
of the

lim ited

local

the

investigation.

superintendents

regarding

The

services

c u r r e n t l y of fe red and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e term " e s s e n t i a l
serv ic e" may have produced v a r i a t i o n in th e d a ta .
Changes 1n the p o l i t i c a l

l e a d e r s h ip , th e economic p i c t u r e of

the s t a t e , and the l e g i s l a t i v e process could also a f f e c t th e study
findings over time.

Thus,

the data may not be useful

over an

extended period of time.
Overview
The i n t r o d u c t i o n

p r o v id e d background

r a t i o n a l e f o r the study.

inform ation

on t h e

The purpose was t o determine,

in the

judgment of t h e respondents, what serv ices are provided to local
districts

by th e

ISD and,

within

these

s e r v ic e s ,

whether t h e r e

should be a common core of e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e s offe red t o a l l local
schools re g a rd le s s c f th e s iz e and economic base of each.
Chapter I I contains a review of th e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e , while
the re se ar ch design i s d e t a i l e d in Chapter I I I .
research

results

is

p r o v id e d in C h a p t e r IV.

c o n c l u s i o n s based on t h e a n a l y s i s
Chapter V.

An a n a ly s is of the

of the

A summary w i t h

results

appears

in

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
"The value o f h i s t o r y

is

th e

impact t h a t

past events

and

co nd itio ns can and should have on our pre se nt view of things " (Muth,
1977).

This thought

is

ap plica ble t o the co ns ideration

r e l a t i o n s h i p between ISDs and local d i s t r i c t s .

o f the

I t i s through the

examination o f the h i s t o r i c a l development not only in Michigan, but
throughout the United S t a te s as well, t h a t one can gain per sp ec tive
about is s u e s r e l a t e d t o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p .

Related l i t e r a t u r e is

reviewed in t h i s cha pter on the following to p i c s :
o r ig in s o f the ISD,

(a)

historic

(b) r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t are mandated to the

ISDs, (c) common terms t h a t are used throughout the United S t a t e s ,
and (d) r eo rg an izatio n o f regional educational agencies.
Variants on th e T i t l e Intermediate School D i s t r i c t
While conducting a review of l i t e r a t u r e on intermediate s erv ice
agencies,

the w r i t e r found t h a t many terms are used in d i f f e r e n t

s t a t e s and regions to r e f e r to the same concept.

Some o f those

terms are as follows:
1.

S ta t e Education Agency (SEA):

The s t a t e agency t h a t has

t h e prime r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by law f o r e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a ry
education.

10

11
2.

local

Education Agency (LEA):

The school

a d m in is tr a tiv e

u n i t a t th e local level t h a t i s supported and maintained by public
funds

and local

l e a d e r sh ip .

This

d i s t r i c t comprised o f kindergarten,

agency

is

u s u all y

elementary school,

a

school

middle or

j u n i o r high school, and high school.
3.

Education Service Agency (ESA):

organized and designed t o

serve

A public agency t h a t i s

several

LEAs within

a specific

region, as well as t o serve the s t a t e education agency.
4.

Regional Education Service Center IRESC1:

The t i t l e of the

education s erv ice agency in some s t a t e s .
5.

Regional Educational Service Agency (RESA):

The t i t l e

of

the education s erv ice agency in some s t a t e s .
6.

Intermediate Unit fIII);

The t i t l e o f the education s e rv ic e

agency in some s t a t e s .
7.

Bureau of Cooperative Educational Services

(BOCES):

The

t i t l e of the education s er vice agency in New York.
8.

Intermediate School

D istrict

(ISD):

The t i t l e

of

the

education s erv ice agency i n Michigan,
Rhodes (1963) also in dicated t h r e e functions of intermediate
u n i t s t h a t ar e ap pr op riate for t h i s study:
1.

A r t i c u l a t i v e f u n c t i o n s - - a s s i s t a n c e in meeting the r e g u l a ­

t o r y needs of local d i s t r i c t s while i d e n t ify in g local needs a t the
sta te level.

Examples are compilation o f attendance dat a, communi­

c atio n o f s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i v e s

from the

SEA to

local

f a c i l i t a t i o n o f local d i s t r i c t compliance, and so on.

districts,

12
2.

Coordinative

f u n c tio n s - -c o o r d in a tio n

a s s i s t i n g d i s t r i c t s in solving problems.
services,

leadersh ip

in

and

lead er sh ip

in

Examples are consultan t

curriculum development,

coor dination

of

cooperative rese arch, and so on.
3.
s e rv i c e s

Su pp lemen tary s e r v i c e
to

efficiently.

districts

that

functions--provision

cannot

provide

of shared

them e f f e c t i v e l y

or

Some examples are supervision of i n s t r u c t i o n , media

c e n t e r s , special education, and so on.
H i s to r i c a l Background
The Intermediate Unit in
a National Perspective
One o f th e e a r l i e s t statements a s s e r t i n g the importance of the
interm ediate movement i s Rhodes’ s (1963) sh ort monograph published
by the National Education Association, which def ines an intermediate
u n it (IU) as an agency " th a t operates a t a regional l e v e l , giving
coordination and supplementary serv ices to local

school

districts

and serving as a l i n k between thes e bas ic a d m in istr a ti v e u n i t s and
IK a

WI I W

f + a + A

J

b U

A A

V V W V U V t V M

kA»«»<f

U W V IIV I

W

I S tJ •

Rhodes suggested t h a t IUs are be n e f ic i a l in several ways.
example,

IUs can f a c i l i t a t e good school

For

d i s t r i c t organization

because of t h e i r unique p o l i t i c a l p o s iti o n as a regional e n t i t y .

He

recognized t h a t local d i s t r i c t s can be too small, but he suggested
t h a t they also can be too la r g e .

While a l ar g e school d i s t r i c t may

be capable o f providing comprehensive s e r v i c e s ,
would prevent

its

being a good d i s t r i c t "

a "lack of unity

(Rhodes,

1963,

p.

7).

Excessive s iz e of loc al d i s t r i c t s can be avoided by shared se rv ic e s

13

t h a t are coordinated by the

IU.

A second advantage of

IUs is

p r o te c tio n o f local c o n t r o l .
Although an IU r e p r e s e n ts an SEA in c e r t a i n f u nctions , i t can
l o c a l i z e these to conform to local d i s t r i c t needs and s i t u a t i o n s .
Supplementary s erv ices also provide an avenue f o r local

control.

Rhodes also pointed out t h a t IUs can f a c i l i t a t e equal educational
oppor tun ity.

This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e in th e IU r o l e of providing

s p e c ia liz e d s e r v i c e s .

Rhodes also suggested t h a t IUs enhance the

economy and q u a l i t y o f s e r v ic e s :

"Employment of s p e c i a l iz e d workers

by one IU and sharing t h e i r s erv ices . . . might y i e l d a much higher
degree of economy" (p. 8 ) .

F i n a ll y , Rhodes regarded co ordination of

functions as a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r in achieving q u a l i t y programming.
Rhodes c i t e d several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a "good" intermediate
unit.

These include (a) an adequate s e rv ic e ar ea, (b) a respon sible

governing body, (c) a q u a l i f i e d c h i e f executive and s t a f f d i r e c t l y
responsible

to

the

board,

Rhodes contended t h a t

and

(d)

adequate

f in a n c ia l

th e determination o f boundaries

support.
should

be

u n it

and

should coincide with a natural grouping of school d i s t r i c t s .

He

based p rim aril y on th e s erv ice r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

of th e

l i s t e d th r e e c r i t e r i a t o be used in making t h i s determination:
1.

The area should encompass a s u f f i c i e n t population to permit

the e f f i c i e n t employment of s p e c ia liz e d personnel.
2.

The a r e a

s h o u ld be

su fficien tly

lim ited

in

size

to

f a c i l i t a t e t ra v e l and communication between local d i s t r i c t s and the
interm ediate o f f i c e s .

14
3.

The local d i s t r i c t s comprising th e s e r v ic e area should have

s u f f i c i e n t common i n t e r e s t to become a co operative working fo rce.
One

of

inter m ed iat e

the

most

units

or,

p ro lific
as

he

w riters

c a ll e d

agencies i s E. Robert Stephens (1975).

and

them,

researchers

educational

on

s er vice

Stephens d i r e c t e d a major

res earch e f f o r t on th e ESAs, which r e s u l t e d in th e p u b lic a tio n of
f our major documents.

These s tu d i e s Included a study of s t a t u s and

tr e n d s in th e t h re e types o f ESAs (Stephens, 1980a), i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
of

the

m ajor

policy

issues

surrounding

the

movement

toward

educational s er vice agencies (Stephens, 1980d), a case study o f the
establishment

and abolishment of an ESA’ s s t r u c t u r e

in

Kentucky

(Stephens, 1980b), and a study of local percep tion s about th e equity
o f T e x a s ’ s system o f 20 r e g i o n a l
(Stephens, 1980c).

educational

service

centers

While the an aly s is o f types of ESA networks and

th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of major policy issues r ep res en t a considerable
c o n t r ib u tio n to the re se a rc h l i t e r a t u r e ,

e x a m i n a tio n o f t h e s e

documents reveals how l i t t l e i s known about th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of ESA
networks or th e reasons f o r the e f f e c tiv e n e s s of such networks.
Stephens (1979) contended t h a t ESAs appeared t o be developing
in t h r e e ba sic p a t t e r n s :
1.

The special d i s t r i c t p a t te r n 1s through des ig na ti on o f a
l e g a l l y c o n s t i t u t e d u n i t o f scho ol government s i t t i n g
between th e s t a t e education agency and a c o l l e c t i o n of
local education agencies. This form o f ESA appears to be
supported by the view t h a t ESA’ s should be e s ta b li s h e d by
the s t a t e , or the s t a t e and LEA’s a ctin g in co nce rt to
provide s e rv i c e s to both the SEA and c o n s t i t u e n t local
districts.

15
2.

The r e gionaliz ed SEA p a t t e r n , through establis hmen t of
regional branches of the s t a t e agency.
This p a t t e r n
appears t o be supported by th e view t h a t ESA’ s should be
e s ta b li s h e d as arms of th e s t a t e t o LEA's.

3.

The cooperative p a t t e r n , through sponsorship by two or more
local education agencies, of s in g l e or multi-purpose shared
s e r v i c e s . This p a t te r n appears t o be supported by th e view
t h a t ESA’ s should be e s ta b li s h e d by c o n s o r t i a o f LEA’ s to
provide s e rv i c e s ex clusively t o members of th e c o n s o r t i a .

In the study, Stephens (1979) found t h a t seven programs were
offered

by a l l

adm inistration,
services,

ESAs.
(b)

These

special

programs

were

education,

(d) s t a f f d ev elo p m en t,

(a)

general

ESA

(c ) media and l i b r a r y

(e ) c u r r i c u l u m s e r v i c e s ,

information s e r v i c e s , and (g) planning s e r v i c e s .

In a d d iti o n ,

(f)
he

found special d i s t r i c t networks of ESA t h a t were l i k e l y to o f f e r
both vocational education and data processing as s e r v i c e s .
Stephens (1980a) co nten ded t h a t t h e s p e c i a l

d istrict

ESA

networks had many s tr e n g t h s and a li m ite d number of weaknesses in
program o f fe r i n g s and serv ices provided.

The major s tr e n g t h s of

sp ecial d i s t r i c t ESA networks are the s t r u c t u r e d mode of op er ati o n ,
base of f i s c a l support, and th e comprehensiveness of t h e i r programs,
s e r v i c e s , and s t a f f .
th e

special

The p rin c ip a l s tr e n g t h s t h a t Stephens found in

district

governing boards

networks

and the

he

s e le c t io n

studied
and

were

th e

evalua tion

election
of

of

executive

officers.
Until

recently,

ISOs in the 26 s t a t e s

c r e a t u r e s of another e r a .

that

have them were

ISDs or t h e i r pred ec esso rs, the county

superintendent or commission, came in to existenc e t o a s s i s t s t a t e
school

officials

in o p e r a t i n g

a system o f s c h o o l s

dedicated

16
prim ar il y t o the o f f e r i n g of elementary i n s t r u c t i o n .
period

1830 to

1920,

a

state

superintendent

did

During the
not

have

the

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or communication f a c i l i t i e s t o assure t h a t the number
o f elementary school d i s t r i c t s were even in operation a t any one
time, not t o mention t h a t a l l o f th e r e g u l a tio n s o f th e day were
being observed.

This i s one o f the reasons f o r th e growth of the

e x i s t i n g system o f intermediate or regional u n i t s (Isenberg, 1971).
Michigan is considered a s t a t e t o have special d i s t r i c t ESAs,
as do Texas and Iowa, t o name a few.

Within the s t a t e s t h a t are

considered as special d i s t r i c t ESAs, Iowa i s considered as having a
strong

network

wit h

excellent

state

support.

The

central

programming areas of Iowa’ s system of 15 area education agencies
(AEAs), which serve 447 school d i s t r i c t s , are special education and
media s e r v i c e s .

These functions

include

i n s e r v ic e

training

for

local d i s t r i c t employees and AEA s t a f f , educational da ta processing,
and research and educational

planning (Iowa Department of Public

I n s t r u c t i o n , 1979).
Arkansas
Education

to

received
study

(Giuiden, 1980).
could

be

a

th e

gra nt
pos sible

from th e

National

c r e a ti o n

of

ESAs

Institute
in

of

Arkansas

The study i d e n t i f i e d unmet needs in Arkansas t h a t

addressed

by

an

ESA network

and

identified

existing

serv ic es t h a t could be provided more e f f e c t i v e l y and e f f i c i e n t l y
through

an

ESA network.

Other

t o p ic s

addressed

included

the

question of how the s t a t e should be divided into workable re gions,
and such f a c t o r s as LEA enrollment,

number of LEA p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

17
number o f LEAs, common c u l t u r e ,

I n t e r e s t s , market a r eas,

accessi­

b i l i t y , and f in a n c i a l resources of an area being considered.
The ISP in Michigan
As an o r ig i n a l p a r t of th e Northwest T e r r i t o r y , Michigan was
su b je c t t o the ordinances o f 1785 and 1787 and the r e s e r v a ti o n of
c e r t a i n pub lic lands f o r school purposes.
reservations,

Because o f these land

th e township was made th e natur al

school governance in th e t e r r i t o r i a l law of 1827.
for

township

officials

to

maintain

schools

unit

for

ea rly

This law provided

and

to

divide

the

township in to school d i s t r i c t s i f the voters o f th e township decided
t o do so.

In 1829, the t e r r i t o r i a l

mandatory f o r

the

township o f f i c e r s

law was amended to make i t
to

create

school

districts

(Pine, 1971).
The Michigan C o ns titutio n of 1835 provided t h a t local
district

officials

th eir d istric ts

give

immediate

and t h a t

supervis ion to a l l
county su pe rvis ion ,

a state

schools.
but

supervision

in

superintendent

examine candidates

o f public
for

schools

within

su p e rin te n d e n t give general

No mention was made of township or
1837

a legislative

school insp ec to rs f o r each township.
the

to

school

"in

provided

Under c r i t e r i a developed by

instruction,

teaching

statute

regard

their
to

duties
moral

were

to

character,

lea rning and a b i l i t y to teach" and "to inspect schools."
These in sp ec to rs were provided,

but t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s was

questioned, as seen by the statement of the s t a t e superintendent:
"As a general thing , in sp ec to rs do not v i s i t schools; or i f they do,

18
only once or twice a y e a r , and then they seldom examine the sc holars
or make suggestions to th e te a c h e r s .

In some d i s t r i c t s , they have

not been near the school during the past year" (Beem, 1955).
Due to th es e weaknesses, S t a te Superintendent Gregory, in 1860,
presented t o the l e g i s l a t u r e a d e t a i l e d plan s e t t i n g up an o f f i c e of
county superintendent

of

schools.

The r e p o r t

of

the

Michigan

Committee f o r the Study o f School Administration described th e event
as follows:

Superintendent Gregory proposed t h a t th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

requirement o f a school in sp ec to r for each township could be met by
the e l e c t i o n o f a s in g le insp ec tor in each township, and t h a t these
township insp ec tors could form a board f o r the e l e c t i o n of a county
s uperintend en t.
The c h i e f d u t i e s o f the county superintendent would be to
examine and l ic e n s e tea ch er s and t o v i s i t and examine schools,
and he should have th e so le power to grant and revoke l i c e n s e s .
He should r e c e i v e and t r a n s m i t t h e tow ns hip i n s p e c t o r ’ s
r e p o r t s , and sh o u ld a l s o h i m s e l f r e p o r t a n n u a l l y t o t h e
superintendent of public i n s t r u c t i o n . (Beem, 1955)
Although the l e g i s l a t u r e did not act on thes e suggestions,

i t did

enact a law providing f o r an e l e c t i v e superintendent in 1867.
A v i r t u a l tug-of-war took place immediately with the passage of
t h i s act and continued u n til about 1900 between the proponents of
th e township system and th e county system o f intermediate school
s uper vision.

In 1875, the l e g i s l a t u r e repealed th e act concerning

county superintendents and provided t h a t t h e i r as cribed d u t i e s be
given t o township school in spec to rs .
the

urging of county sup erv is o rs ,

provide f o r a

In 1887, th e l e g i s l a t u r e , a t
again amended the

three-member county board o f examiners,

statutes

to

two t o

be

19
e l e c te d by the people and the t h i r d member t o be the judge of
probate.

The board was t o s e l e c t one of th e two members, o th e r than

the judge o f probate, as the s e c r e t a r y o f the board and as general
over seer o f the township school in sp e c to r s .
In 1891 the name of the sa id s e c r e t a r y was changed t o county
school commissioner, and provision was made f o r h is or her popular
e l e c t i o n every two y e a r s .

In 1903 the l e g i s l a t u r e changed th e term

of o f f i c e to four years with the e l e c t i o n t o take p lace,

on a

p a r t is a n b as is i f d e s ir e d , in the biennial spring e l e c t i o n .
In 1909 the l e g i s l a t u r e

authorized th e county commission to

hold schools o f i n s t r u c t i o n f o r local school o f f i c e r s ,

and i t was

made the duty of the s t a t e superintendent of public i n s t r u c t i o n to
assist

in

such meetings

either

in

person or

through h is

staff

members.
During the period from 1910 t o 1935, (a) the p o s itio n o f c i t y
superintendent grew more p r evalent, and (b) the S t a t e Department of
Public I n s t r u c t io n became s tronger.
importance
important.

of

the

p o s itio n

of

Because of t h e se f a c t o r s , th e

county

commissioner

became

less

In many in s ta n c e s , t h i s became a p a r t - t i m e p o s i t i o n .

Although county normals f o r t r a i n i n g tea ch er s f o r one-room r ura l
schools remained one o f the commissioner's important a d m in is t r a ti v e
t a s k s , the commissioner was s t i l l re sp on sib le f o r the supervision of
r u ra l schools, and the c l e r i c a l task s assigned by the superintendent
o f public

instruction

increased.

However,

the

salaries

commissioners remained low compared to those of th e local

of

the

school

20
s uperi ntendents ;

consequently,

th e p r e s t i g e o f th e o f f i c e

became

p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y lower.
In 1935, the p o s it i o n of county commissioner o f schools was
renamed by l e g i s l a t i v e s t a t u t e t o t h a t o f county sup erintendent of
schools.

In the l a t e 1940s, the s t a t u t e s were expanded t o include

the e le c tio n

o f c o u n ty bo ar d s o f e d u c a t i o n by t h e b o a r d s

education within th e county.
number o f votes
district.
education

of

Each school board was given the same

in th e e l e c t i o n

r e g a rd le s s

of th e

size

of

the

This r e s u l t e d in th e membership of the county board of
being o r ie n te d

toward ru ral

viewpoints

viewpoints held by those in metropolitan

areas

as

opposed

to

("Where Are They

Going?" 1967).
The s t a t u t e s
operation

of the

appropriation.

als o provided f o r some sharing of th e cost of
c o u n ty

school

d istrict

through

legislative

In a d d i t i o n , t h e s t a t u t e s a s s i g n e d a d d i t i o n a l

mandatory and permissive ad m in istr a tiv e ta s k s f o r performance by the
c o u n ty s ch ool

d istricts.

One o f

the

tasks

that

to o k

up a

con sidera ble amount o f time f o r the boards was t h a t of s e t t l i n g
boundary d isp u te s
sponsoring

between

and conducting

school
area

districts.

s tu d i e s

Another

designed

to

task

bring

was
about

r e o rg a n iz a tio n of school d i s t r i c t s ("Where Are They Going?" 1967).
In 1962, the s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e through Act 190, which would
take e f f e c t March 18, 1963, provided f o r th e renaming of the county
schools t o ISDs and to include the following r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s :
. . . c o n tr a c tin g by means o f d i s t r i c t - w i d e tax es f o r special
e d u c a t i o n and v o c a t i o n a l - t e c h n i c a l e d u c a t i o n by l o c a l
d i s t r i c t s , and [performing] d u t i e s req uired by law and by the

21
s t a t e board, but s hall not supersede nor re pla ce th e board of a
constituent d i s t r i c t .
Also, th e act provided t h a t under c e r t a i n circumstances when local
school d i s t r i c t s refused to operate c e r t a i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs,
th e ISO could do so.
The Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e and Michigan Department of Education
have, in re cent y e a r s , i n i t i a t e d a number of s t u d i e s and planning
efforts

regarding the ISD.

In 1967, under a u t h o r iz a t io n o f the

l e g i s l a t u r e , Thomas undertook a study e n t i t l e d "School Finance and
Educational Opportunity in Michigan."

This study suggested f i s c a l

reform and the

increased use o f the computer in a s s i s t i n g

adm inistration

and

instruction

through

the

both

establishm ent

s t r a t e g i c a l l y located computer f a c i l i t i e s throughout the s t a t e .
r e p o r t also proposed to have special
through

the

ISDs,

and

of
The

education programs organized

consideration

of

programs

of

p u p il

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n operated or coordinated by ISDs.
Additional

steps

were taken

by the

E d u c a tio n in March 1972 when th e y

the

committee of

su perintende nts) was formed.

identify

of
and

In the process of t h i s

26 (a group of

26 local

school

Consultation with th e committee o f 26

r e s u l t e d in the c r e a t i o n o f 22 regional
which now p r o v i d e b a s i c

Department

attempted to

e s t a b l i s h educational planning d i s t r i c t s .
deliberation,

Michigan

educational

education media c e n t e r s ,
services

in

educational

programs, technological equipment, i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r i n t and nonprint
m a t e r i a ls , and t r a i n i n g and promotion 1n t h e i r use, to local school
d i s t r i c t s on a regional b a s is .

22
The Michigan Department of Education also i n i t i a t e d a c t i v i t y in
th e area of c ar eer education.

In f a l l

1971, th e S ta t e Board of

Education created 49 Career Education Planning D i s t r i c t s (CEPDs).

A

CEPD 1s made up o f a group o f educational agencies, including K-12
d istricts,

community c o l le g e s ,

and ISDs loca ted

in

geographical

proximity and organized t o increase o p p o r tu n it ie s f o r in d iv id u als to
become, and remain, prepared f o r e f f e c t i v e l i v i n g and working.
The major r e s u l t of Public Act 190, and planning and study
e f f o r t s j u s t described, was to stim ulate establishment of a wider
v a r i e t y o f serv ic es offe re d by intermediate u n i t s .

Provision f o r

c o n s u lt iv e serv ic es a t various grade l e v e l s and s p e c i f i c
areas was encouraged by the a c t .

s ubjec t

In addition t o providing more

special education and v o c ati o n al- te ch n ic al education s e r v i c e s ,

th e

areas of e l e c t r o n i c data processing, curriculum improvement, t e s t i n g
s e r v i c e s , diag nost ic c e n t e r s , i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te r ia ls s e r v i c e s , and
in se r v ic e education f o r a d m inistrators and o th e r c e r t i f i c a t e d

and

n o n c e r t i f i c a t e d personnel were g r e a t l y expanded.
ISD functions and serv ices in Michigan.

The General

School

Laws of Michigan enumerate the functions and se rv ic e s t h a t ISDs can
p e r fo r m .

The i n t e r m e d i a t e

unit

can

"furnish

services

on

a

c o n s u lt an t or supervisory bas is t o any c o n s ti t u e n t school d i s t r i c t
upon t h e r e q u e s t o f t h a t

district"

(M ichigan ,

1966,

p.

92).

Additional provisions are made f o r cooperative educational programs
by s t a t e law.

Intermediate u n it s can d i r e c t , s upe rv is e, and conduct

cooperative educational programs on beh alf of c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s
t h a t request such s e r v i c e s .

The d i s t r i c t does not have the power t o

23

fo rc e a local d i s t r i c t t o p a r t i c i p a t e ; th u s, the concept of local
control of schools i s followed.

Funds t o run cooperative programs

can come from the ISD, local d i s t r i c t s , o r both, i f such funds are
not committed to another function by law.

The board i s given the

l a t i t u d e to employ te ac her s or t o take whatever ac ti on i s necessary
t o conduct a cooperative educational program within the membership
of th e u n i t (Michigan, 1966, p. 92).
Cooperative

educational

permitted by s t a t e law.

programs

between

ISDs

are

also

Each board of th e r e s p e c t iv e intermediate

u n i t i s required to give approval of the j o i n t program (Michigan,
1966, p. 92).
Area study committees can be formed t o examine problems of an
area comprised of a portion or a ll of an ISD.

Area s tu d ies can also

include up to th r e e ISDs or f r a c t i o n s of contiguous intermediate
units.

All area s tu d ie s have to be authorized by the superintendent

of public i n s t r u c t i o n , contingent on the r e c e i p t o f a p e t i t i o n and a
plan f o r the proposed study.

The p e t i t i o n

is

to be signed by

q u a l i f i e d e l e c t o r s o f a t l e a s t "5% of the t o t a l vote c a s t within the
c i t i e s , townships and counties lying within the area f o r the o f f i c e
of Secr etary of S ta te

in the l a s t preceding general

election at

which the Secr etary of S ta t e was el ec te d" (Michigan, 1966, p. 86).
The s t a t e

law charges

the

area

study committee

to make a

comprehensive study of th e educational conditions and needs o f the
area .

At th e end o f th e study, the committee i s resp ons ible f o r

making any recommendations f o r changes in the confi gura tion o f the

24
existing

d istricts

"which

w ill

afford

b etter

educational

o p p o r t u n i t i e s , more e f f i c i e n t and economical ad m in is tration o f the
public schools,
(Michigan,

and a more e q u i ta b l e sharing o f public support"

1966,

p.

96).

The law also r e q u i r e s

committee t o confer with r e s i d e n t s and school
hear ings,

and make a v a i l a b l e t o school

th e area study

authorities,

officials

hold

and the public

Information concerning the educational co nditions and needs o f the
school d i s t r i c t s in the area s tudied .
sup erintendent

of

public

instruction

"A culminating r e p o r t t o the
is

also

mandated

by

law"

(Michigan, 1966, p. 96).
"Interm ediate d i s t r i c t s

in Michigan a r e

eligible

to

run

programs f o r the handicapped, area v o c atio n al- te ch n ical education,
or both i f th e e l e c t o r s of the un it passed by a majority vote a
r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g f o r th e development of such programs" (Michigan,
1966, pp. 96-98).

"Financing f o r each program i s t o be approved by

th e e l e c t o r a t e with th e maximum tax levy being passed by a majority
of th e v o t e r s . "

Budgets f o r the programs ar e t o be approved by the

intermediate d i s t r i c t s .

"Commingling of funds i s not permitted by

law" (Michigan, 1966, p. 89).
Intermediate u n i t s are obligated to operate special education
programs

in instances

where

s er vices

have

been approved

and

a

special education c en ter is not a v a ila b le (Michigan, 1966, p. 95).
A special

education c e n t e r is "a c o n s t i t u e n t

by action o f
district

school d i s t r i c t which,

i t s board, c o n t r a c t s with th e board o f the intermed iate

t o provide

special

(Michigan, 1966, p. 95).

education

to nonresident

s tuden ts "

The intermediate board wi ll be allowed to

25

employ teachers and o t h e r personnel, and provide f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
and m a te r ia ls necessary t o c a r ry through on the program.

"D istricts

ar e not mandated by law t o run v o c atio n al- te ch n ical programs."
Intermediate funds cannot be used to maintain or
b u i l d i n g s t o house s p e c i a l
programs

unless

th e

education

bu ildings

ar e

c o n s tr u c t

or v o c a tio n al-te ch n ical

owned

by c o n s t i t u e n t

school

d i s t r i c t s and are under th e adm inist rat io n o f a special education or
an area vocati o n a l - te c h n ic a l c e n te r board.

"Programs which met the

c r i t e r i a were e l i g i b l e t o r eceiv e intermediate funds,

but not in

excess o f the per-pupil cos ts" (Michigan, 1966, p. 100).
ISDs t h a t have s p e c i a l

education or v o c a tio n a l-te c h n ic a l

c e n te r s , or both, are e l i g i b l e f o r s t a t e funds.

S t a t e funds f o r the

intermediate u n i t s are a l l o t t e d on a per-pupil b a s is in the same
manner as allotments f o r r e g u l a r school d i s t r i c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
Intermediate

units

provide

vo catio n al- te ch n ical programs.

more

than

sp ecial

education

or

The u n i ts play an important r o l e in

th e development and implementation of r e org aniz ati on plans o f local
school d i s t r i c t s .

"The main idea of school re or ganization was to

place every c h il d

in a school

district

lar ge enough and strong

enough to run a comprehensive K-12 program" (Emerson, 1967).
The technological age holds the promise of g r e a t b e n e f i t s in
the areas o f school operation and i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs.

A problem

arose from th e i n a b i l i t y of most school d i s t r i c t s t o provide the
c a p i t a l necessary t o I n i t i a t e and c arry through on programs t h a t
took advantage of technological

advancements.

"Cooperatively,

an

26
intermed iate d i s t r i c t could provide programs f o r local u n i t s which
might be out o f the realm o f p r a c t i c a b i l i t y f o r an individual school
d i s t r i c t " (Emerson, 1967).
Emerson p redic ted th e development o f a dynamic interm ediate
u n it t h a t would "spin off" th e serv ic es t o c o n s t i t u e n t members when
th e membership of the c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t was s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant
the d i s t r i c t ’ s performing th e s erv ice f o r i t s e l f .

"Higher level or

more s o p h i s t i c a t e d programs would take th e place o f the program
’ spin o f f ’ t o allow th e development and e r a d ic a t io n of interm ediate
programs in such a manner required a u n i t which could change and
a djust" (Emerson, 1967, p. 12).
To maintain

a high p r o f i l e

f o r providing

services,

program

development should occur as a r e s u l t of c o n s ti t u e n t d i s t r i c t demand.
When local school d i s t r i c t s develop the c a p a b i l i t y o f handling the
s e rv i c e s offe red by the intermediate u n i t , the s e rv ic e should have
been

transferred

to

the

local

district.

The

transference

of

s erv ices allows the intermediate d i s t r i c t to develop new programs.
The types o f serv ices have to be of a s o p h is t i c a t e d n ature, which
would otherwise be una vailable , f o r the intermediate u n i t to be most
e f f e c t i v e (Emerson, 1967).
The financing o f th e ISD.

The f i s c a l backing f o r programs of

the ISDs in Michigan comes p rim arily from the c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s
of th e interm ediate u n i t .

The fin a n c i a l support takes the form of a

pr operty

Michigan

tax,

which the

C o ns titutio n

mandates

must

be

u n i f o r m l y a p p l i e d on p r o p e r t i e s w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e
intermediate u n it (Michigan, 1966, p. 1).

27

One o f th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the sup erintendent and board of
th e ISD Is t o prepare a general budget t o be submitted f o r approval
to

a committee composed o f

constituent d i s t r i c t .

one

school

board member from each

The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

body 1s t o

approve a

maximum monetary f i g u r e within which th e Intermediate u n i t Is to
work, but 1s pr o h ib ited by s t a t e law from s pe cifying an exact amount
t o be spent f o r any " l i n e Item."
c ounty c l e r k
processing.

for

s u b m is s io n

The approved budget 1s sent to the
to

the

tax-allocatlon

boa rd f o r

The ad m in istr atio n o f th e r e s u l t i n g ta x follows the

same sequence as a r e g u la r school budget (Michigan, 1966, pp. 9091).
According to Rhodes (1963), adequate f in a n c ia l

support Is one

of th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a good intermediate u n i t .
The intermediate u n i t has a d i s t i n c t job to do, as d i f f e r e n t
and e s s e n t i a l to good education as the s p e c i f i c r o l e s of local
school d i s t r i c t s and the s t a t e education agency.
I t is
imperative, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i t s sources of f i n a n c i a l support
should be as d e f i n i t e and as r e l i a b l e as are the resources of
thes e ad m i n ist r a t iv e u n i t s . The inter m ed iate u n i t should have
s im i l a r f i s c a l Independence, including a u t h o r it y to adopt i t s
own budget and expend funds accordingly.
A body composed o f one member from each c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t
f o r the purpose o f budget review i s
arrangement.

an important organ izatio na l

The power of budget review, mandated by law, i s the

b e s t means o f guaranteeing th e responsiveness of th e ISD to local
needs.
Interm ediate

d istricts

vocational-technical
proportionate

that

pr og rams,

share of the

or

state

have
both,

special
are

education

eligible

subsidy a llo c a te d

for

or

for

a

such

28

programs.

"The prop ortion o f the subsidy was determined by the

number of c hildre n

1n membership

In Intermediate

programs

on a

count day determined by s t a t e law" (Michigan, 1966, p. 19).
The

Interm ediate

sop h isticated ,

d istrict

expensive

In

programs t o

Michigan
members

d i s t r i c t s on a cooperative b as is (Pine, 1971).
be developed t o meet c e r t a i n educational

can
of

provide

constituent

Regional e f f o r t s can

needs t h a t local

school

d i s t r i c t s alone cannot s a t i s f a c t o r i l y meet (Pine, 1971).
Saving money i s not usually th e main reason f o r cooperation on
a regional

b a s is .

Additional

serv ices fre q u e n t ly c o s t th e local

d i s t r i c t s money, but the local d i s t r i c t i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , b e t t e r o f f
financially.
higher.

"The cost of th e ser vice acquired i n d i v i d u a l ly was

Furthermore,

the

quality

of the

s e rv i c e s

received was

f re q u e n t ly b e t t e r when local d i s t r i c t s obtained serv ices j o i n t l y "
(Pine, 1971, p. 2).
Additional funds are a v a i l a b l e to ISDs through g rants from the
federal

government.

The o r ig i n a l

source

of

fed er al

funds

for

cooperative p r o je c t s was made a v a ila b le through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, passed in 1965.

Pine des cribed the e f f e c t

t h a t act has had on m u l t i - d i s t r i c t p r o je c t s :
Another g r eat boost to cooperation has come from T i t l e I I I of
t h e Ele men tary and Secondary Educ atio n Act (ESEA), which
encourages shared se rv ic e s by providing g r a n ts to combinations
of d i s t r i c t s , as well as to s in gle systems. Of the f i r s t 217
proposals approved under T i t l e I I I , over h a l f concern m u l t i d i s t r i c t p r o j e c t s , (p. 2)
Cooperatively purchasing I n s tr u c tio n a l material and j o i n t research
programs have been encouraged by othe r fede ral programs.

29

Intermediate boards could e l e c t t o in vest th e u n i t ’ s funds in
the same s e c u r i t i e s as were authorized f o r investment f o r local
school d i s t r i c t s . Separate f in a n c ia l records were required by
law f o r th e u n i t in the fin a n c ia l areas o f general funds,
cooperative education and special education.
The f in a n c ia l
records had t o show the Investment o f any monies.
The same
s ectio n o f th e law proh ib it ed the commingling o f such s p e c i a l l y
a ll o c a t e d funds. (Michigan, 1966, p. 89)
Accor ding t o Emerson ( 1 9 6 7 ) , many ISDs in Michigan took
advantage o f T i t l e II o f th e Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Monies from T i t l e II were to be spent f o r books and o th e r teaching
aids and m a t e r i a ls .
The ISDs of Michigan are p a r t i a l l y subsidized by the s t a t e .

In

1966, th e s t a t e provided S2.5 m illion f o r intermediate d i s t r i c t s ,
and Emerson pr ed icted add itio nal monies would have t o be provided
for

interm ediate u n its

p r e d i c tio n

to progress a p p r o p ria te ly .

has come t r u e :

In the

Emerson’ s

1990 school-aid-fund

budget,

$21,714,200 i s a llo c a te d under Section 81 in the basic formula to
fund ISD operations (Michigan, 1990).
The numbers of stu de nts and geographical s iz e o f ISDs in Michi­
gan.

In 1963, county school d i s t r i c t s were converted to the t i t l e

o f ISDs.

The same s t a t e law mandated new interm ediate u n it s with a

student membership of fewer than 5,000 t o combine with one or two
adjoining intermediate d i s t r i c t s , r e s u l t i n g in a reorganized school
district.

The new Intermediate u n it was to equal or surpass the

minimum 5 , 0 0 0 - s t u d e n t s t a n d a r d .

Three i n t e r m e d i a t e d i s t r i c t s

forming a reorganized d i s t r i c t , but with a t o t a l membership o f fewer
than 5,000 stu d en ts , were considered to have met the requirements of
th e law.

"Intermediate school d i s t r i c t s f a i l i n g t o comply with the

30

law f o r f e i t e d a ll f in a n c i a l b e n e f i ts from l e g i s l a t i v e appropriatio ns
f o r school aid purposes.

Intermediate d i s t r i c t s had to comply with

th e law before J u ly 1, 1965, or be penalized" (Michigan, 1966, p.

101).
Some types or s e rv ic e s were more p r a c t i c a l and e f f e c t i v e with
larger

populations.

Isenberg

(1971)

p r o v id e d

five

general

ca t e g o r ie s in which l a r g e r student populations made programs more
appropri ate:
1.

Programs t h a t r e q u i r e

a

la r g e pupil population base for

e f f e c t i v e and economical operation because the incidence o f need i s
smal1.
2.

Programs t h a t r e q u ire

a

lar g e

pupil population base for

e f f e c t i v e and economical operation because the kinds of equipment
and/or personnel they r e q u ire are highly s p e c i a l i z e d , expensive, in
s h o rt supply, or in fr e q u e n tl y used.
3.

Programs t h a t r e q u i r e

a larger

area in order t o ge t an

ap propri at e and d e s ir a b l e soc ial and economic mix.
4.

Programs t h a t , by n a tu r e , must be regional or which r e l a t e

t o nonschool o rie nte d regional agencies.
5.

Programs o f resear ch and those

t h a t might be considered

experimental, p i l o t , or o f a demonstration type.

I n d iv i d u a l ly , they

seldom have e i t h e r the e x p e r t i s e or the r i s k c a p i t a l

to c a r ry on

experimentation.
In 1964, the act was amended to permit more than t h r e e counties
t o co ns oli date t o form an intermediate u n i t

(Michigan,

1966,

p.

31
101).

By 1973,

three

districts

comprised o f

more

than

th re e

counties had taken advantage o f th e amendment.
Emerson (1967) was i n t e r v i e w e d by t h e Michigan E d u c atio n
Journal s t a f f concerning th e Michigan in termediate system and was
quoted as saying:
One o f the problems o f the intermediate u n i t was th e l ar g e
number of d i s t r i c t s which e x is te d .
The problem . . . i s to
find some means t o reduce th e number of in term ed iate school
d i s t r i c t s from 60 t o 40 or fewer. I would p r e f e r t o see 20 to
25. We have done a good job in northern Michigan. D i s t r i c t s
containing g r e a t land ar ea, but few people, have been combined
to form intermediate d i s t r i c t s t h a t ar e now as big geographi­
c a l l y as they can be. In southern Michigan, combinations have
not taken place among counties with more than 10,000, but fewer
than 50,000 or 60,000 s tu d e n ts .
They should take place with
some kind of mandate or s t a t u t o r y action brought t o bear.
Pine (1971) s ta t e d t h a t th e ideal number of studen ts should be
more than 60,000 but fewer than 100,000.

The number of stu den ts

must be l a r g e enough to provide an adequate base f o r the development
of s o p h i s t i c a t e d programs.
The boundary of the intermediate u n it can be changed t o r e f l e c t
th e increase in s e rv ic e
d istricts
d istricts.

responsibilities

and t o c o i n c i d e with

required

a natural

by c o n s ti t u e n t

g r o u p in g

of

school

County boundaries do not n e c e s s a r i l y have to correspond

to th e boundaries o f th e intermediate u n it (Rhodes, 1963).
Another determining f a c t o r in the s iz e of the in ter m ed iat e u n i t
i s geographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

A g enerally accepted standard guide

o f one-hour driv in g time from th e intermediate o f f i c e s has been used
to

help determine th e p r a c t i c a l

geographical

boundaries

for

th e

interm ediate u n i t .

In some areas where a longer period of driv in g

tim e i s r e q u i r e d ,

satellite

centers

have been e s t a b l i s h e d

to

32

maintain a c c e s s i b i l i t y t o Intermediate resources and maximize the
e f f e c t i v e use o f the s t a f f

(Stephens, 1971).

The number o f Intermediate d i s t r i c t s in Michigan has decreased
s in ce th e inception o f th e ISD u n i t .

A reduction in the number of

inter med iate d i s t r i c t s r e s u l t e d when such d i s t r i c t s reorganized to
meet th e 5,000-student minimum required by law (Michigan, 1966, p.
101).

Pine, 1n 1971, rep orted t h a t 59 intermediate u n i t s e x i s t e d in

Michigan, and th e 1988-89 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer’ s
Guide (Michigan Department of Education, 1989) l i s t e d 57 ISDs.
F ift een of the 58 ISDs in 1973 were composed o f two or more of
th e

previously

existing

county

districts.

Seven

of

th e

e ig h t

intermediate u n i ts in the upper peninsula of Michigan were more than
4.

one-county d i s t r i c t s .

Of t h e n in e m u l t i - c o u n t y

interm ediate

d i s t r i c t s in the lower peninsula, a l l were loca ted in th e top oneh a l f of the s t a t e .

In 1989, 17 of the 57 interm ed iates were in

multi-county d i s t r i c t s .

The number of multi-county d i s t r i c t s in the

upper peninsula has been reduced from 7 to 6, whereas the number of
multi-county d i s t r i c t s in th e upper lower peninsula has increased
from 9 t o 11.
In 1967, the Michigan Education Journal s t a f f wrote about the
e x is te n c e

of

60

interm ediate

units

1n Michigan.

The

article

included a f o r e c a s t t h a t "some fo resee th e s t a t e u l t i m a t e l y being
divided i n to no more than 35 intermediate d i s t r i c t s "
They Going?" 1967).

("Where Are

33
In an address given during the F i r s t General Session of the
Fourth Annual Educational Commission o f th e S t a t e s in 1970, Governor
Milliken

told

of the

proposals

that

had been submitted

Michigan l e g i s l a t u r e th e previous f a l l .

to

the

The main focus o f the

address was th e need f o r educational reform 1n th e areas o f finance
and ad minist ration

in Michigan.

In t a l k i n g

about

the

proposed

changes, the governor s t a t e d :
The major elements o f the plan have not become law, but I will
continue f ig h t i n g f o r t h i s plan as long as I am governor. For
I bel ieve t h a t without bold and sweeping reform in finance and
a dm i n ist r a t io n , th e r e can be no s i g n i f i c a n t incr ea se in the
q u a l i t y of American education. (Milliken, 1970, p. 70)
M il li k en ’ s program of a d m in istr a ti v e
r e p l a c e m e n t o f ISDs w i t h l a r g e r r e g i o n a l

reform c a l l e d
educational

for

the

centers.

Increasing the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the d e l i v e r y system f o r s e rv ic e s
such as special education, vocational education, and a v a r i e t y of
ad m in is t r a t iv e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s was the b as is f o r the recommendation
t h a t regional educational centers be developed.
John W. P o r t e r ,

Superintendent

of

Public

Instruction

in

Michigan from October 1969 u n t i l June 30, 1979, sent a l e t t e r to the
S t a t e Board o f E d u c atio n on J a n u a r y 28,

1971,

calling

for

a

realignment of the s t a t e educational a d m in i str a tiv e s t r u c t u r e , which
involved a r e g i o n a l i z a t io n plan.

The plan would have divided the

s t a t e int o 12 regions, each of which would have been resp o n s ib le f o r
the

se rv ic e s

and functions

o f th e

intermediate

districts.

The

proposed u n i t would encompass a l l e x i s t i n g s e rv ic e s c u r r e n t l y being
offer ed

by th e

intermediate

unit.

Each region

a s s i s t a n t superintendent of public i n s t r u c t i o n .

would

have

an

The l e t t e r f u r t h e r

34

requested t h a t th e S t a t e

Board o f Education

seek a l e g i s l a t i v e

ap p ropri ation to finance these new p o s i t i o n s .

The reason f o r the

recommendation was th e i n a b i l i t y o f the th e n - c u rr e n t a d m in istr a ti v e
arrangement t o meet the following c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates:
The S t a t e Board o f E d u c atio n has t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r superintending th e s erv ices and programs
provided to those e n r o lle d in the elementary and secondary
schools, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r planning and coord inating and
advising on th e f in a n c i a l requirements of th e i n s t i t u t i o n s of
higher le a r n in g , and f o r providing general le a d e r sh ip and
supervision over a d u lt education and i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs in
s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s . (Michigan, 1966, p. 1)
P o r te r (1967) sa id the s erv ices and programs offer ed by the
S t a t e Board o f Education through the Department o f Education should
be as "close to the people t o be served as p o s s i b l e . "

Another

problem t h a t could be eliminated by the r e org anization of the S tat e
Department was the d i f f i c u l t y

presented by having

s ix

different

r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n plan s, a l l of which were co ncurrently in operation
a t the time in the Department of Education.
The a d o p t i o n o f t h e r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n p l a n ,
asserted,

would

in

no

way c r e a t e

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f e x i s t i n g ISDs.

conflict

P orter fu rth e r
or

violate

th e

However,

I f and when th e r e 1s r eorg an izatio n of Intermediate d i s t r i c t s
in t o regional o f f i c e s or c e n t e r s , th e S tate Board of Education
l e a d e r s h ip , in moving forward a t t h i s time, could be helpful in
merging the department’ s regional o f f i c e s with intermediate
o f f i c e s or whatever i s cr e a te d .
The number o f recommended regions to be e s t a b l i s h e d ,
not an a r b i t r a r y one.

12, was

The S t a te Department of Education made an

attempt to determine t h e minimum-size school-age population t h a t
would provide an adequate number of a f f e c te d c h ild re n t o j u s t i f y

35

oper ating c l a s s e s f o r handicapped c h il d r e n .

The r e s u l t i n g

came up with a minimum f ig u r e o f 40,000 s tu d e n t s .

study

Other c r i t e r i a

t h a t were examined to help determine region s i z e and boundaries
were (Michigan S tate Board of Education, 1976):

1.

Population d i s t r i b u t i o n and concentration

2.

School population

3.

Major t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a r t e r i e s

4.

Transportation

5.

Financial resources potentia l

6.

Leadership p o te n tial

7.

A v a i l a b i l i t y of f a c i l i t i e s

8.

Number of school d i s t r i c t s

9.

Regional boundaries of noneducational serv ices

10.

Socioeconomic cohesiveness

11.

Commercial centers

12.

Boundaries of th e governor’s planning regions

13.

Boundaries of pr esent local school d i s t r i c t s

14.

Boundaries of pr es en t ISDs

15.

Boundaries o f pr es en t community co lleg e d i s t r i c t s

16.

Boundaries o f pr ese nt area vocational c en te rs

17.

Boundaries o f sp ecial education d i s t r i c t s

18.

Boundaries o f pr es en t l i b r a r y systems

19.

Boundaries o f present vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n d i v i s io n

The r e q u e s t e d r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Department o f
Education was an attempt to make a comprehensive education program

36
a v a i l a b l e t o every stu dent.

Every impaired studen t would have the

opportunity t o enroll in special c l a s s e s and have the same special
s erv ices a v a il a b l e re g a rd le s s o f geographical l o c a ti o n in th e s t a t e
where the family r esid ed .

Incoming revenues would be more e q u ita b le

by incr ea si ng the s i z e o f the tax base, thus tending t o equa lize the
amount o f money spent f o r each studen t over a l a r g e r ar ea.
The d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of the S t a te Department o f Education would
not a f f e c t fo ur major s e r v ic e s .
management,

student f in a n c ia l

remain c e n t r a l i z e d .

Assessment and e v a lu a tio n , school
a id ,

and department s e rv ic e s would

Dec en tral iza ti on in to a network o f regional

c e n t e r s would b r i n g t o g e t h e r v o c a t i o n a l

education,

vocational

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , general education s e r v ic e s , special education,
compensatory s e rv ic e s .

The re org anization of the

Department

and
of

Education was also aimed a t bringing about a realignment of l i b r a r y
s e r v i c e s , ISD s e rv ic e s , higher education planning and coordination
s e r v i c e s , teac he r education s e rv i c e s , and a d u lt continuing education
services.

In instances where th e population of th e region mandated

a large number of local serv ices, S a t e l l i t e centers were suggested.

sent

In response to the l e t t e r and accompanying m a t e r ia ls

Porte r

to

(1971)

the

Michigan

S tate

Board o f

r e p l ie d by sending a l e t t e r t o P o rte r.
and incomplete reaction "
according to Emerson.

to the s t a t e

Education,

Emerson

The re ply was "a preliminary
s u p erin ten d en t’ s proposal,

The bas ic problem with th e proposal o f the

superintendent was the encompassing nature o f the regional u n i t s .
I t ’ s my experience t h a t in matters l i k e t h i s one’ s most
important dec is ion s Involve what not t o do, r a t h e r than what t o
do.
In environments where lar ge amounts o f a u t h o r i t y are

37
present the p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c e x ercise
productive o f more bad than good.

of

1t

tends

to

be

Emerson believed th e Idea o f considering l a r g e r regional areas
was a good one.
has thought

Almost everyone who has considered r e g i o n a l iz a t io n

1n u n i t s

t h a t were too small

as

to

geography

and

population and has tended t o underestimate the number of regional
oper at io ns a l a r g e r u n i t could perform.
In w r i tin g about th e emerging r o l e o f s t a t e departments of
education, Beach (1950) c i t e d as th e key t o the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of
educational r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f s t a t e s "the proper d i s t r i b u t i o n of
the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between the s t a t e and local agen cies ."
There ar e opposing views t o th e concept of r e o r g a n iz a tio n .

In

1967, the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators
cautioned

that

districts,

and t h a t the c r i t e r i o n of s i z e may have already been

overemphasized.

the

te n d e n c y

shou ld

not

be t o

create

larger

Shea and Tompkins (1976) were even more emphatic on

c o ns olidation when they s t a t e d :
Given the enthusiasm with which cons oli da tion was advocated,
one would expert the empirical evidence supporting t h i s policy
t o be overwhelming. I t i s not. The evidence on co nsoli dation
i s incomplete. Most of th e research not only f a i l s to document
the allege d b e n e f i t s o f c o n s o li d a tio n , but also f a i l s to
acknowledge p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t i e s or problems. The conclusions
a r e , a t b e s t , inco nclus ive, and, a t worst, simply i n c o r r e c t ,
(p. 3)
While conducting a study o f the function and s t r u c t u r e o f the
ISD in Michigan, Dorsey and Ameen (1980) noted t h a t "ther e are no
data t o

support th e notion t h a t

a minimum enrollment of 25,000

stu den ts in an intermed iate school d i s t r i c t wi ll r e s u l t in e f f e c t i v e
programming" (p. 19).

38

Egloff (1982) supported research e f f o r t s f o r Michigan ISDs t h a t
would deal with t h e i r function s and dwell l e s s on the numbers and
sizes of d i s t r i c t s .

Aycock (1981) noted t h a t "changes in behavior

are not caused simply by reo rg an iz at ion" (p. 42).
Services common t o Michigan ISDs.

In

studying the r e l a t i o n ­

ships between expec ta tio ns and perceptions o f performance in s e rv ic e
areas o f Michigan ISDs, i t 1s th e thinking of some local

s u p e ri n ­

tendents and r esearchers t h a t a common s e t o f s erv ices to be offe red
by the ISD should be developed.

There i s a conceptual r o l e o f the

ISD to be considered, as well as the more defined s e rv ic e s to be
provided.
Although the mandate of the l e g i s l a t i o n f o r c r e a t in g th e ISD in
Michigan i s c l e a r ,
vary.

how each interm ediate

perceives i t s

r o l e may

Davis (1976) used th e Kent Intermediate School D i s t r i c t in

Michigan

as

an

illustration

of

role

definition.

I n t e r m e d i a t e proposed t h r e e r o l e a r e a s : ( a )

to

The

provide

c o n s t i t u e n t d i s t r i c t s with th e s erv ices they requ ested,

Kent
the

(b) t o be

i n i t i a t o r s of r.ew programs, and (c) t o comply with l e g i s l a t i o n and
to make changes as th e changes in
report,

th e t a s k

l e g i s l a t i o n occur.

In a sp ecial

fo rc e appointed by the S t a t e Board of Education

(1977) supported the broad r o le s o utlined by the Kent Intermediate
School

D istrict.

Two ad d itio n s to

those

Inte rmediate wereoffe re d by the ta s k f orc e:

proposed

by the

Kent

(a) the idea o f an ISD

being la r g e enough t o support a broad range of s e rv ic e s f i n a n c i a l l y
and (b) th e concept o f governance of local

schools remaining with

39
local

schools without

in t e r f e r e n c e

from

intermed iate

boards

of

education.
Moving from th e broad r o l e s of th e ISDs t o t h e more s p e c i f i c
s e rv ic e s provided, t h e r e 1s support f o r a common s e t of s e r v i c e s .
Rhodes (1963) recognized many supplemental s e rv i c e s o f Intermediates
t h a t ar e regarded as e s s e n t i a l
provide s e r v i c e s ,

s e r v ic e s .

He suggested t h a t ISDs

such as supervision o f i n s t r u c t i o n ,

co n s u lta n t

help f o r t e a c h e r s , operation o f l i b r a r y and i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r ia ls
centers,
services,
(1972),

provision of psychological and guidance s e r v i c e s ,
and special

classes

f o r handicapped p u p i l s .

hea lth
Stephens

in a study of ESAs, examined f e a t u r e s t h a t c h a r a c te r iz e d

which s erv ices and programs would be provided.

He noted t h a t "most

t y p i c a l l y , major emphasis involves program areas in which t h e r e i s a
high degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f s t a f f or f a c i l i t y

requirements,

technology is a r e q u i s i t e and t h er e i s a high c o s t f a c t o r or low
pupil incidence asso ciated with th e program" (p. 37).

The range of

programs he found t o e x i s t in exemplary u n i t s matched many o f those
offered

by Rhodes

(1963)

w ith

the

addition

of

research

and

development s e r v ic e s .
Stephens

(1979a),

while

studying

status

and tre n d s

of

ESA

networks across the n a tio n , asked each ESA t o rank th e program areas
offe re d from a prepared l i s t o f 26.
programs were l i s t e d :

In ranked o rd er the following

(a) special education, (b) media, (c) l i b r a r y

s e r v i c e s , (d) general ESA a dm inistration, (e) s t a f f development, (f)
curriculum s e r v i c e s , and (g) a t i e between data- pro ce ssi ng s e rv ic e s
and vocational education.

There i s a resemblance to th e s e r v i c e and

40

program areas o utl in ed above and those suggested

in research

by

K loste r (1978) and Dorsey and Ameen (1980).
The s i m i l a r i t y o f th inking between what s e rv i c e s and programs
were believed to be important f o r ESAs 1n moving from 1963 t o 1980
continued

1n Michigan as

recently

as

1985.

In

a report

that

h i g h l i g h t e d exemplary programs o f f e r e d t h r o u g h o u t many o f t h e
Michigan

ISDs,

the

Michigan

Association

of

Intermediate

School

Administrators (MAISA, 1985) o utlined s ix areas o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
for

inter med iates:

(a)

a d m in istr a ti v e

services,

which

include

processing and monitoring some o f the r e p o rts and programs t h a t are
re quire d by s t a t e and federal

law;

(b)

sp ecial

education,

which

provides local d i s t r i c t s with s p e c ia l iz e d personnel and classrooms
to f u l f i l l

s t a t e and federal

c e n t e r t h a t will

requirements;

have th e fin a n c ia l

(c)

a regional

media

and human resource base to

provide extensive media equipment, m a t e r ia ls , and s e r v ic e s ; (d) data
processing, which can a s s i s t in handling p a y r o l l,

bus scheduling,

and student serv ices programs; (e) professional development, which
o f f e r s workshops, seminars, guest speakers, and content s p e c i a l i s t s
t h a t may not otherwise be af fo rdab le a t the local
c a r e e r and vocational

education,

level;

and (f)

which provides experiences

that

help students prepare f o r the world of work.
In a d d i t i o n ,

t h e MAISA I n s t r u c t i o n a l

completed a p o s itio n paper on ISD s e r v i c e s .

Committee r e c e n t l y
The paper, e n t i t l e d

"ISD Services to Implement th e Quality Package,

1989," l i s t s

th e

41
following se rv ic e s th e MAISA believ es should be provided by ISOs to
th e local d i s t r i c t s :
1.

School improvement:

A s s is t local d i s t r i c t s in meeting the

requirements of th e t h r e e - t o f iv e - y e a r school-Improvement plan.
2.

A c c reditati on :

A s s is t local

districts

in meeting S t ate

Board o f Education a c c r e d i t a t i o n requirements.
3.

Core curriculum:

A s s i s t local d i s t r i c t s

in designing a

program t o meet cor e-curriculum outcomes t h a t will meet loc al

and

s t a t e requirements.
4.

S t a f f development:

A s sis t local d i s t r i c t s c o n t in u a lly to

develop the human resources

needed t o

bring

about

positive

and

appropri at e change.
Summary
The ad m in i str a tiv e org anization f o r education in Michigan has
undergone many changes

in

structure

corresponded with nation al tre n d s .

and

function

that

have

Increased studen t enrollments

auu the need for the development of a more comprehensive educational
program r e s u l t e d in local d i s t r i c t r e o rg aniz ati on.

The one-teacher

school was on the verge o f disappearing from both the national and
Michigan educational scenes.
Local school d i s t r i c t reo rgan izatio n brought about changes in
th e middle-echelon level in the educational a d m in i str a tiv e s t r u c t u r e
o f Michigan.

The county u n i t , which had served as an ad m i n ist r a t iv e

agency f o r the small r ura l school d i s t r i c t s , became ob sole te as the
l a r g e r reorganized d i s t r i c t s developed the ca pac ity t o handle the

42
ad m in istr ati o n o f the d i s t r i c t .
passed

a law changing the

concept.

In 1962,

th e s t a t e

supervisory county u n i t

legislature
I nto

an

ISD

Service became the primary o b je c tiv e o f th e new u n i t .

The ISD, 1t was found, should complement th e whole educational
a d m in is tr a t iv e s t r u c t u r e of th e s t a t e .

The function of th e u n i t was

t o provide serv ices t h a t could not be performed by th e individual
member d i s t r i c t s
Education.

or

were

provided

by th e

Department

of

The Intermediate d i s t r i c t had the legal r i g h t t o develop

area study committees, v o c a tional-te chnical
education

State

programs with

the

consent

of

programs,

th e

and special

electorate.

Other

s e r v i c e s , fu nctio ns, and cooperative programs could be developed to
f a c i l i t a t e the needs o f c o n s ti t u e n t d i s t r i c t s .

The s e r v i c e s of fe red

could r e f l e c t the needs o f the local d i s t r i c t s .
be

incorporated

district

in to

th e

s e rv i c e

as l o c a l d i s t r i c t

framework o f

needs d i c t a t e d .

New s e rv ic e s could
th e

intermediate

The i n t e r m e d i a t e

d i s t r i c t could be f l e x i b l e enough to "spin off" s e rv ic e s t h a t were
within the c a p a b i l i t i e s o f individual member d i s t r i c t s .
De centralization of the S ta t e Department was being reviewed as
a means o f making s erv ices and programs more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to
local

school d i s t r i c t s and the people.

D ecen t r a l iz a tio n o f the

S t a t e Department would also form a s t r u c t u r e f o r c o n s o li d atin g the
e x i s t i n g l i b r a r y , vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , community c o ll e g e , and
vocational cen te r systems into one regional ad m in is tr a tiv e u n i t .
Using the information gathered from th e review of the r e l a t e d
literature

in Chapter II and building on the resear ch questions

posed in Chapter I , the following research questions were developed:

43

Research Question 1 :
what

the

local

Is th e r e a perceived d i f f e r e n c e between

superintendents

expect

of

the

ISD and what

is

a c t u a l l y provided?
Research Question

2:

Is

th er e

a basic

core o f e s s e n t i a l

s e rv ic e s t h a t a l l ISDs should provide f o r a l l local d i s t r i c t s ?
Research Question 3 :

What basic s e rv i c e s ar e c u r r e n t l y offe re d

t o th e lo ca l d i s t r i c t by th e ISD?
Chapter I I I includes the research design and methodology used
in the actual research of the preceding que stions .

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In troduction
The methodology used in conducting the survey i s described in
t h i s ch ap te r.

The population and sample are i d e n t i f i e d , and sample-

s e l e c t i o n techniques ar e explained.
are

outlined,

and t h e

research

The d a ta - g a th e rin g procedures
instrum ents

employed

in

the

i n v e s t i g a t i o n are described.
Review of Purpose
The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose in t h i s study was t o determine, in the
judgment of respondents, the basic s erv ices offe red to the local
d i s t r i c t s by the ISD and whether t h er e was a perceived d i f f e r e n c e
between what local superintendents expected o f th e ISD and what was
actually

provided.

In au d iti o n ,

the

respondents

were asked

to

i d e n t i f y , in t h e i r judgment, what serv ic es they viewed as e s s e n t i a l
services.
Instrumentation
The i n s t r u m e n t
researcher.
whether

used

in t h i s

s tu d y was d e v e lo p e d by t h e

The primary purpose of th e survey was to determine

there

was

a core

of

essential

services

that

local

sup erin tenden ts believed should be offe re d by a l l ISD s e rv ic e u n i t s .

44

45
A secondary purpose was t o examine what s e rv i c e s were c u r r e n t l y
being o f fe r e d to the local d i s t r i c t by th e ISDs.
Another purpose o f th e survey was t o fin d whether t h e r e was a
varian ce

between

local

superintendents*

ex pe ctations

or

d e s ir e d

¥

s e r v ic e s and the actual d e l iv e r y o f s e r v i c e s by th e ISD.
th e r e s e a r c h e r was developing

a client

number and kinds o f s e r v ic e s o f fe r e d .

In e f f e c t ,

system t o determine
Consequently,

th e

the

survey

instrument f o r the study had t o be developed in such a way t h a t
th e s e o b je c ti v e s could be met.
In reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e on th e ISD on a s t a t e and national
level,

t h e r e se a r c h e r was lim ited

available

t o measure

services.

by th e

number o f

instruments

What was d i s c o v e r e d

was

instrument s im i l a r to what the r esear ch er was looking f o r .
instrum ent

required

at

least

two answers

for

an
The

each q u e s t i o n .

Stephens (1980c) designed a survey instrument with which t o question
local superintendents in Texas on t h e i r actual and des ir ed use of
s e rv i c e s provided by t h e i r regional educational s e r v i c e u n i t s .

The

respondents were asked t o in d ic a te on a s ca le from 1 to 6 t h e i r
actual and des ir ed use o f s e r v i c e s .

The respondents were asked when

th e " ac tu al" use was l e s s than "desired" use to i n d i c a t e , in t h e i r
opinion, why t h i s variance occurred.

An open-ended

op por tun ity was

provided to allow f o r s u b je c ti v e responses.
The design o f t h e

instrument

developed

by t h i s

researcher

focused on th e use of s e rv ic e s and perceived program o f f e r i n g s .

The

respondents were asked to in d ic a t e what programs were offe red in the
areas o f special education, remedial and compensatory i n s t r u c t i o n ,

46

c a r e e r and v o c a t i o n a l

education,

Instructional

services,

and

a d m in is tr a t iv e s e r v i c e s .
Responses from local superintendents were requested t o in d i c a te
what s e r v i c e s were c u r r e n t l y

bein g p r o v i d e d

to t h e i r

school

d i s t r i c t , whether th e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e in the perceived need for
s e r v i c e s and the actual s e rv i c e s being provided, and what s e r v i c e s ,
in t h e i r o pinion,

were r e g a r d e d as e s s e n t i a l

services.

The

respondents were also asked t o respond t o fou r open-ended questions
regarding these s e r v i c e s .

These questions were developed by the

r e s e a r c h e r with the a s s i s t a n c e of the MAISA board o f d i r e c t o r s .

The

questions were as follows:
1.

What s erv ices t h a t you are p r e s e n tly operating do you feel

should be operated by the ISD?
2.

What additional

serv ices should th e ISD provide to your

local d i s t r i c t s ?
3.

Do you re ce ive any f e d e r a l , s t a t e , or local gr ants?

I f so,

from what source?
4.

Do you feel your expectation s f o r se rv ic e s from your ISD

are higher than the s e rv ic e s a c t u a l l y received?

I f so, what do you

consider t o be the primary reason f o r t h i s d iff e r e n c e ?
Once the

instrument had been developed and endorsed by the

MAISA board o f d i r e c t o r s , a p i l o t study was conducted.
study included 18 local

The p i l o t

superintendents in d i s t r i c t s with student

populations of 500 to 1,500 and 2,000 t o 3,000 r e pre s enting several
ISD

regions.

A fter

receiving

responses

from

the

local

47
sup erintendents on the p i l o t study, modifications t o the instrument
were made.

The changes 1n th e Instrument were not s i g n i f i c a n t , but

they did r e f l e c t a need f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n in th e format.

Once the

r e v i s i o n s were made and approved by th e MAISA board of d i r e c t o r s ,
t h e r e se a r c h e r determined th e instrument was ready f o r use in the
resear ch p r o j e c t (Appendix A).
Population and Sample
The population

in v e s t ig a te d

in

this

study

comprised

local

school d i s t r i c t superintendents of K-T2 public schools in Michigan
with student enrollment populations

between 500 and 3,000.

members of the population were i d e n t i f i e d

The

by using The Michigan

E d u c atio n D i r e c t o r y and Buyer ’ s Guide (Michigan Department o f
Education, 1989).
The

in v e s t i g a t i o n

following reasons.

was

lim it ed

to

t h i s population

for

the

School d i s t r i c t s with enrollments of fewer than

500 students usually do not have the s t a f f or resources t o o f f e r
many of the programs indica ted in the instrument.

School d i s t r i c t s

with more than 3,000 students have e i t h e r the necessary s t a f f and
economic

base

to

offer

their

own

programs or

ar e in

a

la r g e

intermediate s e rv ic e area with g r e a t e r program o p p o r tu n i t i e s .
A nonreplacement random sampling technique was used to s e l e c t
which d i s t r i c t s were surveyed.
member d i s t r i c t
opportunity t o

within

the

be s e le c t e d .

This technique assures t h a t each
defined
Borg

population

and Gall

has

(1973) and

an

equal
Hinkle,

Wiersma, and Jurs (1979) supported random sampling as a method of

48
co ncurrently reducing t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s time and expense while being
able t o reach v a l i d conclusions.

Each d i s t r i c t ' s superintendent was

given an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number f o r the purpose of random s e l e c t i o n .
With the use o f a t a b l e o f random numbers, th e s upe ri nt en den ts were
s e le c te d t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e study.
The number o f superintendents t o be surveyed was derived from a
t a b l e o f sample s i z e developed by Keejcle and Morgan (1970).

Using

a confidence level o f 95%, th e sample s i z e o f 260 out of 345 local
d i s t r i c t superintendents was used.
Borg and Gall
results

(1983) addressed the concept of analyzing the

when not a l l

of th e qu es ti onnair es ar e r etu rn ed .

They

pointed out t h a t when more than 20% of the s u b je c ts f a i l to respond,
s eri ous questions a r i s e as to whether the r e s u l t s would have changed
had a l l

th e s u b je c ts responded.

Because th e r e t u r n r a t e in t h i s

study was 89.2%, the r e s u l t s were presumed t o r e p r e s e n t the e n t i r e
population a c cu r ate ly .
Data Co llectio n
The da ta c o l l e c t i o n was conducted by mailing th e q u es tio n n air e
t o the s e le c te d s uper intend en ts .

M aterials were sent with a cover

l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g t h e pu r p o se and s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e s u r v e y
(Appendix B).

Each survey instrument was numbered to allow f o r

lo c a t io n of respondent and s i z e of the d i s t r i c t , and f o r follow-up
purposes.

As explained

In the

cover l e t t e r ,

In

an e f f o r t

to

maintain c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , only th e researcher recorded th e number of

49
th e returned q u e s ti o n n a ir e s .

Once th e numbers had been recorded,

they were separated from th e qu es ti onnair es and destroyed.
Report of th e Sample
On May 15, 1989, qu es ti onnai res were sent by f i r s t - c l a s s mail
t o 260 randomly sampled public school

sup erintendents of t h e 345

K-12 superintendents of d i s t r i c t s with enrollments between 500 and
3,000 s tu d e n ts .

The superintendents were s e le c t e d from those l i s t e d

1n th e 1989 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer’ s Guide (Michigan
Department of

Education,

1989).

q u e s ti o n n a ir e s were r etu rn ed .

After

th e

first

mailing,

190

A follow-up l e t t e r was sent t o 70

supe rin tend en ts on June 20, 1989, urging them t o complete and mail
the ques ti onnaires i f they had not al ready done so (Appendix C).
The

second

m ailing

q u e s tio n n a i r e s .

resulted

in

the

return

of

another

35

A t h i r d mailing of the same l e t t e r r e s u l t e d in the

r e t u r n of seven add itional qu e s tio n n a i r e s .
process r e s u l t e d in 232 questionna ir es

This t h r e e - s t e p mailing

being r e tu rn e d .

The 232

q u e s ti o n n a ir e s t h a t were returned represented 89.2% of the 260 K-12
su perintende nts contacted f o r t h i s rese ar ch .
Data Analysis
Data received from th e respondents were t a l l i e d according to
responses t o

sp e c ifie d

areas

in the

instrument.

The data were

separated Into ca te g o r ie s by school enrollment.
The data were placed on a spread sheet and t o t a l e d by school
enrollm ent,
classified

as well

as by t o t a l

and presented

using

respondents.

percentages of

The d a t a were
those

responding.

50

Open-ended responses and comments were c l a s s i f i e d and consolidated
by th e r e s e a r c h e r f o r rep o rtin g purposes.
The key f a c t o r s th e r e s e a r c h e r was looking f o r were those items
t h a t the respondents perceived as e s s e n t i a l

services,

as well

as

those t h a t were provided as d i r e c t serv ices by the ISD.
Through th e random sampling technique t h a t was used t o s e l e c t
the respondents, th e re se a r c h e r recorded th e q u e s ti o n n a ir e s as they
were returned to
d i s t r i c t s surveyed.

look f o r

the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n

of

those

I t was found t h a t a l l geographic areas as well

as a l l sing le-c oun ty and multi-county ISDs were rep re sen ted f o r the
purpose o f t h i s study.
In a d dit ion t o the geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n , th e r e s e a r c h e r was
concerned t h a t d i s t r i c t s within each enrollment group be equally
r ep re sen te d f o r th e purpose of the study.

I t was found through the

recording process t h a t th e following number of d i s t r i c t s return ed
the

q u es ti o n n air e.

In th e

enrollment group with

stu d e n ts , 105 (89%) ques ti onnaires were re turn ed .
2,000 enrollment group,

500 t o

1,500

In the 1,500 to

62 (93.9%) qu es ti onnair es were r etu rn ed .

And from d i s t r i c t s with student populations of 2,000 to 3,000, 65
(85.5%) o f the ques tion naires were returned .
Each category and th e percentages o f responses are l i s t e d
th e t a b l e s found in Chapter IV.

in

Included ar e explanations o f the

nature o f the data ta b u la te d and a discu ssion of the data contained
in the t a b l e .

51
Summary
In t h i s

ch ap ter,

t h e d e s ig n o f t h e

s tu d y was

Instru m en tatio n , population and sample, d ata c o ll e c t i o n ,
a n a ly s is were d escrib ed .

exam ined.
and d ata

The find in gs a re analyzed in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introd uctio n
The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose in t h i s study was to determ ine, in the
judgment o f th e respondents, th e b asic s e rv ic e s o ffered to th e local
d i s t r i c t s by the ISO se rv ic e area in th e broad areas o f special
ed ucation, c a re e r and vocational education, i n s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s ,
remedial and compensatory in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s , and a d m in istra tiv e
s e r v ic e s .

In a d d itio n , the respondents were asked to i d e n ti f y , in

t h e i r judgment, what s e rv ic e s they viewed as e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s t h a t
a ll

ISDs sh o u ld o f f e r to

th e ir

c o n s titu e n t

d istric ts

and to

determine whether th e r e was a perceived d iff e r e n c e between what the
lo cal

school

sup erin ten dents

expected

of

the

ISD and what was

a c t u a l l y provided.
The a n a ly s is o f th e data p e rta in in g to the research questions
is

presented in t h i s ch a p te r.

su p erin tend en ts

are a lso

S ubjective responses made by the

addressed.

determine whether th e r e

was

su p erin ten den ts

should

believed

a core

The d ata were examined to
of

e s s e n tia l

be offered

se rv ic e area.

52

by each

s e rv ic e s

th a t

in term ediate

53
D escription o f Response
The

researcher

c reated

fiv e

c a te g o rie s

and

asked

th e

respondents to id e n tif y what se rv ic e s they received and how they
perceived those s e rv ic e s were being adm inistered.

The r e s u l t s are

l i s t e d in th e following ta b le s by school enrollm ent along with the
percentages o f those responding to th e s e rv ic e s l i s t e d .

The items

t h a t are l i s t e d are those s e rv ic e s considered d i r e c t s e rv ic e s and
th ose perceived as e s s e n ti a l
complete

d ata

an aly sis

of

se rv ic e s by th e su p e rin te n d e n ts.
th e

to tal

responses

is

A

provided

in

Appendix D.
D escription of Tables
The respondents were asked to id e n tif y those s e rv ic e s t h a t they
c o n s id e r e d t o be d i r e c t

serv ic e s th e ir

c u r r e n tly receiv ing from th e ISD.

school

d istric ts

were

The d i r e c t s e rv ic e i s a se rv ic e

t h a t the interm ediate provides to the local d i s t r i c t in the areas of
a d m in istra tiv e le a d e rsh ip ,

personnel,

or f in a n c ia l

support,

which

enables th e program o r se rv ic e to be offered to th e stu dents o f th a t
lo cal d i s t r i c t .
The respondents were also asked whether, w ithin th e id e n t i t y
are a ,

they

perceived

th is

o peration o f t h e i r d i s t r i c t ,

to

be an e s s e n tia l
and whether t h i s

s e rv ic e
s e rv ic e

for

the

should be

o ffered as a core o f s e rv ic e s to a l l local d i s t r i c t s .
Special Education
Table 1 contains th e percentage o f responses concerning the
s e rv ic e s in th e area o f sp ecial education t h a t were provided as a

54

d i r e c t s e rv ic e a v a ila b le to th e local

d istric t,

and whether the

lo cal sup erin ten d en ts thought th e se rv ic e was e s s e n t i a l .
Table 1 .--P ercen tag e l i s t i n g o f d i r e c t and e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s in the
area o f special education, by enrollm ent category.
School Enrollment
Service

5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Preschool Development
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

38.10
25.71

35.48
12.90

33.85
24.62

Severely Mentally Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

90.48
49.52

64.52
30.65

84.62
47.69

T rainable Mentally Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

87.62
50.48

64.52
29.03

81.54
46.15

Educable Mentally Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

58.10
41.80

43.55
24.19

27.69
33.85

Emotionally Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssential s erv ice

43.81
39.05

41.94
29.03

35.38
36.92

Hearing Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssential s erv ice

62.86
43.81

62.90
30.65

40.00
40.00

V isually Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

62.86
43.81

62.90
33.87

40.00
38.46

P h y sically Impaired
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

59.05
43.81

51.61
30.65

49.23
38.46

Home Bound/Hospitalized
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

27.62
20.95

27.42
24.19

24.62
29.23

55

Table 1 .--Continued.
School Enrollment
Service

5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Learning Disabled
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

25.71
28.57

14.52
9.68

12.31
40.00

Speech & Language Impaired
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

50.48
30.48

40.32
17.74

35.38
30.77

Head S t a r t
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

7.62
10.48

14.52
3.23

6.15
9.23

Curriculum Guides
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssential serv ice

6.67
8.57

11.29
14.52

13.85
10.77

Curriculum Resource Consultant
D irect se rv ic e
E ssential serv ice

10.48
12.38

14.52
17.74

18.46
20.00

School Psychologists
D irect serv ice
E ssen tial serv ice

68.57
32.38

48.39
19.35

50.77
33.85

School Social Worker
D irect serv ice
E ssential serv ice

68.57
32.30

51.61
20.97

40.00
30.77

Occupational Therapy
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

47.62
28.57

54.84
24.19

49.23
29.23

Physical Therapy
D irect se rv ic e
E ssential serv ice

50.48
28.57

62.90
30.65

45.15
30.77

T ran sp o rtatio n
D irect se rv ic e
E ssential serv ice

41.90
28.57

45.16
17.74

41.54
29.23
•*<

56

The d ata shown in Table 1 in d ic a te t h a t

respondents viewed

th re e areas as e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s by a g r e a t e r percentage than those
se rv ic e s

th ey

in d ic a te d

as

b ein g

a d ire c t

se rv ic e .

Those

c a te g o r ie s , percentage d i f f e r e n c e s , and t o t a l number o f respondents
f o r each category are as follow s:
Learning

d isa b ilitie s:

E ssential

s e rv ic e ,

26.72% with

62

10.78% w ith

25

responses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 18.97% with 44 responses.
C u rric u lu m

g u id e s:

E s s e n tia l

se rv ic e ,

responses; d i r e c t s e rv ic e , 9.91% with 23 responses.
Curriculum resource c o n s u lta n t:

E ssen tial s e rv ic e , 15.95% with

37 responses; d i r e c t s e rv ic e , 13.79% with 32 responses.
Remedial and Compensatory I n s tr u c tio n

*

Table 2 co n tain s th e percentage o f responses concerning the
s e rv ic e s in th e area o f remedial and compensatory i n s tr u c t io n t h a t
were provided as a d i r e c t s e rv ic e a v a ila b le to th e lo cal d i s t r i c t ,
and whether

th e

lo cal

sup erin ten dents

thought

th e

s e rv ic e

was

e sse n tia l.
The data shown in Table 2 in d ic a te th a t

respondents

viewed

s ix areas as e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s by a g r e a te r percentage than those
s e rv ic e s

they

in d ic a te d

as

bein g

a d ire c t

se rv ic e .

Those

c a te g o r ie s , percentage d if f e r e n c e s , and t o t a l number o f respondents
f o r each category are as follow s:
Reading;

E ssen tial

s e rv ic e ,

s e rv ic e , 3.88% with 9 responses.

5.60% with 13 responses;

d ire ct

57
Table 2 . --P ercentage l i s t i n g o f d i r e c t and e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s in the
area o f remedial and compensatory I n s tr u c tio n , by e n r o l l ­
ment category.
School Enrollment
5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

4.76
5.71

3.23
6.45

3.08
4.62

Preschool
D irect s erv ice
E ssential s e rv ic e

11.43
2.86

14.52
9.68

7.69
1.54

A lte r n a tiv e Education
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial s e rv ic e

12.38
27.62

4.84
11.29

9.23
13.85

Ju v en ile Home Programs
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial s erv ice

7.62
18.10

12.90
6.45

15.38
6.15

Dropout Prevention
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial s e rv ic e

4.76
19.05

3.23
8.06

4.62
6.15

B ilingual
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

8.57
11.43

4.84
4.84

4.62
4.62

Pregnant Pupils
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial s erv ice

14.29
17.14

17.74
8.06

13.85
15.38

Substance Abuse
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial s erv ice

6.67
12.38

6.45
8.06

9.23
10.77

T i t l e I Programs
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial se rv ic e

6.67
6.67

6.45
3.23

7.69
7.69

Service

Reading (not T i t l e I)
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial s e rv ic e

58

A lte rn a tiv e

e d u c a tio n :

E ssential

s e rv ic e ,

19.40% with

45

11.64% with

27

12.50% w ith

29

7.76% w ith

18

responses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 9.48% with 22 responses.
J u v e n ile home programs:

E ssential

s e rv ic e ,

respo nses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 11.21% with 26 responses.
D rop -ou t p r e v e n t i o n :

E s s e n tia l

s e rv ic e ,

responses; d i r e c t s e rv ic e , 4.31% with 10 responses.
B il i n g u a l

e d u c a tio n :

E s s e n tia l

se rv ic e ,

responses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 6.47% with 15 responses.
Substance abuse programs:

E ssen tial

s e rv ic e ,

10.75% with 25

responses; d i r e c t s e rv ic e , 7.33% with 17 responses.
Career and Vocational Education
Table 3 co ntain s th e percentage o f responses concerning the
s e rv ic e s in the area o f c a re e r and vocational education t h a t were
provided as a d i r e c t s e rv ic e a v a ila b le to th e local d i s t r i c t ,

and

whether th e lo cal su perin ten den ts thought the se rv ic e was e s s e n t i a l .
The d a ta shown in Table 3 in d ic a te t h a t no s ig n i f i c a n t area had
a g r e a t e r number o f respondents who thought t h a t a s e rv ic e was more
e s s e n t i a l than the s e rv ic e they were receiv in g as a d i r e c t s e rv ic e .
The area o f t r a n s p o r ta tio n did receiv e an equal number o f responses
and was considered an e s s e n t i a l se rv ic e in t h i s study.

59
Table 3 . --P ercentage l i s t i n g o f d i r e c t and e s s e n tia l se rv ic e s in the
area o f c a re e r and vocational education, by enrollment
category.
School Enrollment
S ervice

5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Area Vocational Center
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

62.56
33.33

50.00
30.65

56.92
36.92

Vocational Education D irecto r
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

67.62
28.57

59.68
20.979

49.23
18.46

T ran sp o rtatio n
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

10.48
13.33

11.29
6.45

9.23
9.23

Shared-Time Programs
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

29.52
16.19

59.68
29.03

23.08
12.31

Student O rien tatio n
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

42.86
14.29

46.77
14.52

30.77
13.85

Vocational Career Planning
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

43.81
20.95

35.48
16.13

32.31
18.46

Vocational Counseling
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

42.86
20.95

35.48
16.13

30.77
18.46

Job Placement
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

46.67
18.10

45.16
17.74

43.08
16.92

JTPA Youth Employment
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

54.29
18.10

46.77
16.13

40.00
13.85

60
Table 3.--Continued.
School Enrollment
5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Follow-Up Studies
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial s e rv ic e

48.57
18.10

43.55
12.90

38.46
16.92

High Technology Programs
D irect s e rv ic e
E sse n tia l se rv ic e

38.10
19.05

35.48
30.65

38.46
26.15

Work Experience Co-op
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

43.81
14.29

41.94
19.35

30.77
13.85

Service

I n s tr u c tio n a l Services
Table 4 contains th e percentage

of responses concerning

the

se rv ic e s in th e area o f in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s t h a t were provided as
a d i r e c t s e rv ic e a v a ila b le to th e lo cal d i s t r i c t , and whether the
lo cal su perintend ents thought th e serv ice was e s s e n t i a l .
The d a ta shown in Table 4 in d ic a te t h a t respondents viewed
f iv e areas as e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s by a g r e a t e r percentage than th ose
se rv ic e s

th e y

in d ic a te d

as

b ein g

a d ire c t

se rv ic e .

Those

c a te g o r ie s , percentage d i f f e r e n c e s , and t o t a l number o f respondents
f o r each category are as follow s:
Curriculum development:
responses; d i r e c t

E ssen tial

18.53% with

43

15.95% with

37

s e rv ic e , 12.07% with 28 responses.

Research and development:E ssen tial
responses; d i r e c t

s e rv ic e ,

s e rv ic e ,

s e rv ic e , 12.07% with 28 responses.

61

School

im provem ent;

E s s e n tia l

se rv ic e ,

21.12% w ith

49

responses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 18.10% with 42 responses.
Cable and i n t e r a c t i v e TV:

E ssen tial s e rv ic e ,

15.52% with 36

responses; d i r e c t s e rv ic e , 14.66% with 34 responses.
R ecreatio n

p ro g ra m s :

E s s e n tia l

se rv ic e ,

3.88% w ith

9

responses; d i r e c t s e r v ic e , 2.16% with 5 responses.

Table 4 . --P ercentage l i s t i n g o f d i r e c t and e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s in the
area o f in s tr u c tio n a l s e rv ic e s , by enrollm ent category.
School Enrollment
Service

5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

G ifted and Talented
D irect se rv ic e
E sse n tia l serv ice

29.52
26.67

50.00
11.29

24.62
21.54

Adult Education
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial serv ice

9.52
5.71

8.06
3.23

4.62
4.62

S t a f f Development
Pi-?
v»or+
w t I WWW

'M.L'l

tU .J C

HI. OH

E ssen tial serv ice

23.81

17.74

26.15

County-wide Inservice
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

41.90
20.95

45.16
14.52

49.23
20.00

Curriculum Development
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

10.48
20.00

19.35
16.13

7.69
18.46

2.86
6.67

14.52
4.84

4.62
4.62

w w *

* « w

Preschool
D irect s erv ice
E ssen tial serv ice

62
Table 4.--Continued.
School Enrollment
5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Shared-Time Academic Program
D irect s e rv ic e
E sse n tia l s e rv ic e

19.05
16.19

11.29
8.06

7.69
12.31

I n s tr u c tio n a l Media Service
D irect se rv ic e
E sse n tia l se rv ic e

49.52
20.95

40.32
11.29

56.92
23.08

Research and Development
D irect s e rv ic e
E sse n tia l s e rv ic e

9.52
18.10

16.13
8.06

12.31
20.00

School Improvement
D irect s e rv ic e
E sse n tia l s e rv ic e

19.05
19.05

19.35
16.13

15.38
29.23

Cable T V /In teractiv e
D irect s e rv ic e
E sse n tia l se rv ic e

17.41
15.24

12.90
9.68

12.31
21.54

Outdoor Education
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

4.76
9.52

11.29
3.23

9.23
6.15

D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

13.33
12.38

17.74
4.84

12.31
13.85

Sex Education
D irect s e rv ic e
E s s e n tia l s e rv ic e

8.57
12.38

17.74
4.84

7.69
10.77

1.90
2.86

3.23
6.45

1.54
3.08

Service

m ___h l

r-_».. —

jl

• —

n c d i t n c u u c d t iuii

Recreational Programs
D irect se rv ic e
E sse n tia l s e rv ic e

63
A dm inistrative Services
Table 5 co ntains th e percentage o f responses concerning the
s e rv ic e s in th e area o f a d m in istra tiv e s e rv ic e s t h a t were provided
as a d i r e c t s e rv ic e a v a ila b le to th e lo cal d i s t r i c t , and whether the
lo cal sup erinten dents thought th e s e rv ic e was e s s e n t i a l .
The t a b le shows no s i g n i f i c a n t area to be o f g r e a t e r importance
as an e s s e n t ia l s e rv ic e than t h a t o f a d i r e c t s e rv ic e , as perceived
by th e lo cal su p erin ten d en ts.

Table 5 . --P ercentage l i s t i n g o f d i r e c t and e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e s in the
area of a d m in istra tiv e s e rv ic e s , by enrollm ent category.
School Enrollment
Service

5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Data Processing
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

54.29
21.90

41.94
17.74

49.23
20.00

Purchasing Service
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial s erv ice

28.57
14.23

30.65
16.13

30.77
10.77

Food Service
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

6.67
6.67

8.06
6.45

4.62
3.08

Audit Functions
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

39.05
10.48

45.16
25.81

35.38
16.92

Teacher C e r t i f i c a ti o n
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

45.71
17.14

41.94
20.97

36.92
18.46

L e g is la tiv e Services
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

27.62
11.43

35.48
14.52

23.08
15.38

64
Table 5.--Continued.
School Enrollment
5001,500

1,5002,000

2,0003,000

Information Services
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

46.67
12.38

56.45
16.13

29.23
12.31

S u b s titu te Teacher Permits
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

70.48
18.10

40.32
22.58

46.15
20.00

School Census
D irect se rv ic e
E ssen tial se rv ic e

36.19
12.38

25.81
14.52

20.00
10.77

T ran sp o rtatio n
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

10.48
9.52

22.58
8.06

10.77
6.15

Process S ta te & Federal Reports
D irect s e rv ic e
E ssen tial serv ice

44.76
14.29

56.45
19.35

38.46
20.00

Service

Subjective Responses
Each respondent was asked to provide a s u b je c tiv e response to
th e following q u estio n s:
1. What s e rv ic e s t h a t you are p re se n tly o peratin g do you feel
should be operated by th e ISD?
2.

What ad d itio n a l serv ices should th e ISD provide to your
lo cal d i s t r i c t s ?

3.

Do you receiv e any f e d e r a l, s t a t e , or local g ra n ts?
from what source?

I f so,

4. Do you feel your exp ectations f o r s e rv ic e s from your ISD
are higher than the se rv ic e s a c tu a lly received?
I f so,
what do you consider to be th e primary reason f o r t h i s
d iffe re n c e ?

65

The responses to th r e e o f th ese q uestion s are addressed in t h i s
s e c tio n .

They are:

1.

What s e rv ic e s t h a t you are p re se n tly op erating do you feel
should be operated by the ISD?

2.

What ad d itio n al se rv ic e s should th e ISD provide to your
lo cal d i s t r i c t s ?

3.

Do you fe e l your ex pectatio ns f o r se rv ic e s from your ISD
are higher than the se rv ic e s a c tu a lly received?
I f so,
what do you co nsider to be th e primary reason f o r t h i s
d iffe re n c e ?

The question regarding

f e d e r a l,

s ta te ,

or

addressed 1n t h i s study because the local

local

g ran ts

was not

sup erintend ents did not

provide s u f f i c i e n t d a ta .
The responses were not

te s te d

for

s ta tis tic a l

because th e questions were not designed as such.

s ig n ific a n c e

The purpose was to

give an in d ic a tio n o f how the superintendents perceived se rv ic e s
from t h e i r ISDs.

The responses were grouped according t o school

d i s t r i c t enrollment f o r th e purpose of d ata a n a ly s is .
Question 1.
im i i

JIWM

• VW I

What s e rv ic e s t h a t you a re p re s e n tly o perating do
1*1 d

K a

**lIVM I W VW

School enrollm ent:

UW6W

Km

VJf

500-1.500.

4 K a

WHS

I COO
A

i

Although su perintendents id en ­

t i f i e d many areas they thought should be operated by th e ISDs, th e
following
concern:
sp ecial

became c le a r

to

th e

re se a rc h e r

as

areas

of

g reatest

a l l areas o f sp ecial education s e rv ic e s ; general classroom
education i n s tr u c t io n ;

and sp e c ia liz e d

s o c i a l w o r k e rs , speech and la n g u a g e ,
s e rv ic e s .
resp o n d en ts

In conjunction with
th o u g h t

th e

special

ISD should

s e rv ic e s ,

such as

and school p s y c h o lo g i c a l
education
be

s e rv ic e s ,

re sp o n sib le

for

th e
th e

66

t r a n s p o r ta tio n of th e se s tu d e n ts .

In ad d itio n to sp ecial education

t r a n s p o r t a t io n , many o f the respondents viewed th e t r a n s p o r ta tio n of
a l l stu d en ts as a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f th e ISD.

Only two o th e r areas

appeared t o be o f s i g n i f i c a n t importance to th e respondents:

c u r­

riculum development and school-improvement e f f o r t s .
School

en ro llm e n t:

1 .5 0 0 -2 .0 0 0 .

The

su p e rin te n d e n ts’

responses in t h i s category were s im ila r to those o f sup erin ten d en ts
from sm aller d i s t r i c t s :
including

special

tr a n s p o r t a t io n ;

education and r e l a te d s e rv ic e s ,

general

education

t r a n s p o r ta t io n ;

curriculum development and school-improvement a s s is ta n c e .
d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t t h i s

and

The major

group o f s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s viewed t h e

importance o f p ro fessio n al development more highly than those in the
previous category.
School enrollm ent:

2.000-3.000.

This group o f sup erin ten dents

a lso viewed special education se rv ic e s and tr a n s p o r ta tio n as areas
t h a t should be o ffered by th e ISD, but not as s i g n i f i c a n t l y as the
o t h e r two g r o u p s .

The r e s p o n d e n ts viewed t h e a r e a

of

s ta ff

development as of equal importance.
Question 2. What ad d itio n a l s e rv ic e s should th e ISD provide to
your lo cal d i s t r i c t s ?
School enrollm ent:
th e
s ta ff

su perin ten dents
development,

500-1.500.

viewed th e
and

school

In response t o t h i s q u estio n ,

areas

o f curriculum

improvement

as

by

development,
far

th e

important s e rv ic e s th e ISD should provide t o lo cal d i s t r i c t s .

most

67
School

enrollm ent:

1.500-2.000.

Superintendents

in

category had th e same concerns f o r curriculum development,
development, and school
cate g o ry .

th is
s ta ff

improvement as did those in th e previous

In a d d i t i o n t o

th ese a re a s,

th e

r e s p o n d e n ts

a lso

expressed th e need to expand o p p o rtu n itie s f o r technology education.
School enrollm ent:

2.000-3.000,

The responses o f s u p erin ten d ­

e n ts in t h i s enrollm ent group did not reveal a d e f i n i t i v e need fo r
ad d itio n a l s e rv ic e s .

I f anything, the responses r e f l e c te d s a t i s f a c ­

t io n with th e " e x is tin g
c u r re n t se rv ic e s"

serv ices" and a d e s ir e to "maintain the

now being o ffe re d .

There were many d i f f e r e n t

responses to th e q u estio n , compared to the answers provided by t h e i r
colleagu es in the o th e r two groups.
insurance e f f o r t s , "
ance,"

"general

Some examples are:

" l e g i s l a t i v e s e r v ic e s ,"

education

advanced

"pooled

" g ra n t-w ritin g a s s i s t ­

placement,"

and

" a l t e r n a ti v e

ed u catio n ."
Question 3. Do you feel your ex p ectatio n s fo r s e rv ic e s from
your ISD are higher than th e s e rv ic e s a c t u a l l y received?
If
so, what do you con sid er to be th e primary reason f o r t h i s
#14
U I M S I

« I I W « t

School enrollm ent:

500-1.500.

The ex p ectatio n s o f th e vast

m ajo rity o f respondents in t h i s group were g r e a te r than the s e rv ic e s
they a c tu a lly received.

They c ite d th e lack o f funds and inade­

q u ately funded programs as th e prime reasons f o r t h i s d iff e r e n c e .
The o th e r predominant reason given fo r t h i s perceived d iff e r e n c e was
in th e area o f le a d e rsh ip by th e ISD personnel.

The "lack of

le a d e rsh ip and fo re s ig h t" was a common statem ent when respondents
c i t e d le a d e rsh ip as a concern.

68

School enrollm ent:

1.500-2.000.

The su p erinten dents in t h i s

group did not view th e ex pectatio n d iff e r e n c e as did th e respondents
1n th e sm aller group.
concern:

Those who d id , viewed th e same two araas of

"le a d e rsh ip , o r th e lack of" and not having th e funds to

provide adequately f o r e x is tin g o r new programs.
was a simple

statem ent

t h a t was o fte n

c i te d

"Lack o f funding"
when r e f e r r i n g

to

e x p e c ta tio n s .
School enrollm ent:

2.000-3.000.

The su p erin ten d en ts in t h i s

category appeared to r a t e t h e i r ex p ectatio n s and actual
e q u a lly .

s e rv ic e s

Those who did not do so again c i te d fin a n c ia l concerns and

le a d e rs h ip as reasons f o r those d iff e r e n c e s .

The su perintend ents

appeared to have accepted th e way th in g s were, as evidenced by the
follow ing statem ents:
re a lity "

and "level

"1 have lowered by ex p ectatio n s because of
o f se rv ic e s

and ex p ectatio n s

are

acceptable

given those f in a n c ia l l i m i t a t i o n s ."
In a l l th re e enrollm ent c a te g o rie s , many of th e su p erin ten d en ts
j u s t answered "yes" to th e question regarding ex p ectatio n s and did
not give a reason f o r t h e i r response.
Summary
This chapter d e a l t with th e r e s u l t s
d a ta .

o f th e a n a ly s is o f the

A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is of the data was p resen ted , followed by

a b r i e f d iscu ssio n o f th e s u b je c tiv e responses.
A summary of th e study, as well as conclusions drawn from the
d a ta , are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The r e s e a r c h e r 's purpose 1n t h i s study was to determ ine, in the
judgment o f th e respondents, what cu rre n t se rv ic e s are being offered
to t h e i r d i s t r i c t s by ISDs, and whether th e r e i s a common core of
essen tial

s e rv ic e s

d istric ts.

th at

ISDs should provide f o r

In a d d itio n ,

th e

all

c o n s titu e n t

su perin tend en ts were asked whether

th e r e i s a perceived d iff e r e n c e between what they expect o f th e ISD
in th ose i d e n t i f i e d s e rv ic e areas and what i s a c tu a lly provided.
Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, and recommendations
and im p licatio n s drawn from th e study.
Summary
In Chapter I, a foundation was given f o r the education s e rv ic e
agencies (ESAs) in th e United S ta te s .
concept

and

s tra te g y

for

This foundation provided a

p r o v id in g

educational s e rv ic e s f o r s tu d e n ts .

in c re a se d

and

improved

Michigan adopted a form o f t h i s

s tr a te g y in 1962 and used th e term "interm ed iate school d i s t r i c t " to
d e sc rib e

its

re g io n a liz e d

approach

fo r a d e liv e ry

system o f

educational s e rv ic e s .
Previous
s tr u c t u r e

s tu d ie s

o f th e

ISD have been d ire c te d

and fu n ctio n s o f t h i s

s e rv ic e

69

agency,

toward

and not

th e

toward

70
determ ining

th e

perceived

need

of

those

programs

and

s e rv ic e s

o ffe re d .
While d i r e c t i n g

th is

s tu d y tow ard t h e need f o r

se rv ic e s

o ffe re d , th e following g o als were sought:
1.

To p r o v id e

i n f o r m a t io n

on t h e

p e r c e p t i o n c o n c e r n in g

s e rv ic e s o ffe re d t o th e lo c a l d i s t r i c t by th e interm ediate u n i t .
was hoped t h a t t h i s

Information would be useful

It

to the d ecisio n

makers a t th e Interm ediate lev el as they make d e c isio n s concerning
th e d e liv e r y o f s e rv ic e s to lo cal d i s t r i c t s .
2.

To p r o v id e

interm ed iate school

I n f o r m a tio n
lev el

for

d e c isio n

makers

at

th e

regarding a "common core" o f e s s e n tia l

s e rv ic e s t h a t a ll ISDs o f f e r to t h e i r lo cal d i s t r i c t s , re g a rd le s s of
th e economic base o f e i t h e r u n it .
3.
lev el

To provide inform ation f o r the d ecisio n makers a t th e s t a t e

t h a t would a s s i s t

in

th e d ecisio n s

regarding

funding

and

p o licy development a f f e c tin g ISDs.
4.

To p r o v id e

a

c o n c e p tu a l

d isc re p a n c ie s t h a t e x i s t

framework

th a t

in th e p erceptions t h a t

co u ld

show

sup erintendents

have about what s e rv ic e s are offered to t h e i r s tu d e n ts , th e degree
t o which they are o ffe re d , by what o rg an izatio n they are o f fe r e d ,
and who i s f i n a n c i a l l y re sp o n sib le f o r such s e rv ic e s .
With th e se
qu estio ns

goals

o f variance

1n mind,

th e

re se a rc h e r

between exp ectatio ns

focused

on

and performance

the
th a t

lo cal sup erin ten den ts have o f interm ed iate s e rv ic e s and th e need of
a common core o f e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e s .

71
The review o f

lite ra tu re

1n Chapter

II

revealed

a

strong

background o f th e ESA concept both n a tio n a lly and 1n Michigan.
th e review, I t was learned t h a t th e f i r s t regional
u n it was e s ta b lis h e d 1n Delaware 1n 1829.

From

a d m in istra tiv e

Michigan was committed to

th e county school system 1n th e s t a t e ’ s e a r ly y ears and strengthened
th e commitment by l e g i s l a t i v e a c tio n 1n 1962.
The s e rv ic e areas t h a t ISDs provide have a long h is to r y .

There

1s c o n s i d e r a b l e s i m i l a r i t y between t h e a r e a s o f program s and
se rv ic e s they provided in the e a r ly tw en tieth century and those t h a t
were supported by th e Michigan A ssociation o f Interm ediate School
A dm inistrators in 1985.
education,
development,

Special education, c a re e r and vocational

d ata processing,

regional

media c e n te r s ,

p ro fessio n al

and a d m in istra tiv e s e rv ic e s are the areas t h a t t h i s

group addresses.
The design and methodology s e le c te d fo r the study was survey
re se a rc h .

A randomly

s e le c te d

group

of

local

sup erin ten den ts

serving d i s t r i c t s with stu d en t populations between 500 and 3,000
were asked to complete a q u estio n n aire t h a t d e a lt with the research
q u estio n s.
liste d

An 89% re tu rn r a t e was achieved.

as percentages of th o se sup erin ten d en ts responding to th e

q u e stio n n a ire in th e fiv e se rv ic e a re a s.
posed to g a th e r ad d itio n a l d a ta .
1.

The responses were

Follow-up questions were

The q uestio n s were:

What s e r v i c e s t h a t l o c a l d i s t r i c t s

o p e r a t e sh o u ld be

operated by the ISD?
2.

What ad d itio n al s e rv ic e s should be o ffered by th e ISD?

72
3.

Is th e re a perceived d iffe re n c e in expected s e rv ic e s and

th ose s e rv ic e s a c tu a lly received by th e lo cal d i s t r i c t s ?
Although
re p o rte d .

not

sta tistic a lly

sig n ific a n t,

th e

responses

were

A summary o f th e se d ata was rep o rted in Chapter IV and 1s

addressed in subsequent s e c tio n s o f Chapter V.
Findings
Respondents were asked to l i s t what s e rv ic e s they c u r re n tly
receiv ed

in

com p ensatory
i n s tr u c tio n a l

th e

areas

of

in stru c tio n ,
s e rv ic e s ,

sp ecial
career

e d u c a tio n ,
and

re m e d ia l

v o catio n al

and

e d u c a tio n ,

and a d m in istra tiv e s e rv ic e s .

Under each

broad category were l i s t e d various program a c t i v i t i e s w ithin t h a t
area o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

The responses were t a l l i e d

as enrollm ent

groups and to ta l e d fo r a l l respondents.
I t was found th a t a l l c a te g o rie s o f s erv ice were o ffe re d to the
respondents in some form; t h i s could be as a d i r e c t s e rv ic e ,
in d irec t

s e rv ic e ,

or

a

co n su ltan t

s e rv ic e .

an

The range o f the

a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s erv ice was from a high o f 81.90% o f d i r e c t s e rv ic e
f o r severely mentally impaired programs, to a low o f 2.16% o f d i r e c t
se rv ic e

fo r

re c re a tio n

program s.

These

to ta ls

re fle c t

th e

percentages f o r a ll respondents to the q u e s tio n n a ire .
The n e x t a r e a examined i n c lu d e d t h e c a t e g o r i e s
sup erin ten d en ts l i s t e d

as e s s e n t i a l

than the d i r e c t se rv ic e s they were

s e rv ic e s

th a t

th e

to a g r e a t e r degree

receivin g

a t th e time o f th e

study.

I t i s th e opinion o f the re se a rc h e r, fo r th e purpose o f t h i s

s tu d y ,

t h a t when t h e r e s p o n d e n ts

id e n tifie d

a s e r v i c e as

an

73
e sse n tia l

s e r v i c e w ith a h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e r a n k in g th a n t h a t

repo rted f o r an e x is tin g d i r e c t s e rv ic e , th e s e rv ic e so I d e n tif ie d
was considered to have g r e a te r p r i o r i t y and Importance by th e local
su p erin ten d en ts and was viewed as e s s e n t i a l

to th e

th e ir d is tric ts .

under th e follow ing

c a te g o rie s

These se rv ic e s

with

percentages

of

are l i s t e d
all

respondents

op eration of

from th e

to ta l

enrollm ent groups.
E ssen tial s e r v i c e :

A fun ctio n t h a t th e su perin tend en ts thought

should be provided by a l l ISDs to t h e i r d i s t r i c t s .
D irect s e r v i c e :

A se rv ic e provided d i r e c t l y by th e ISD, s t a f f ,

or f a c i l i t i e s .
E ssen tial

D irect

Special Education:
Learning Disabled
Curriculum Guides
Curriculum Resource Consultant

26.72%
10.78%
15.95%

18.97%
9.91%
13.97%

Remedial and Compensatory I n s tr u c tio n :
Reading (Not T i t l e I)
A lte rn a tiv e Education

5.60%
19.40%

3.88%
9.48%

.liiw n n
W M

* WII

1
•

1 o

I W

Unmn
IIWIIIV

•

I V ^ l

Vlltt^

Dropout Prevention
B ilingual
Substance Abuse

1 *1

s- «

I I . OH/o

*

n

I I

.Cl7t

12.50%
7.76%
10.78%

4.31%
6.47%
7.33%

Career and Vocational Education:
T ran sp o rtatio n

10.34%

10.34%

I n s tr u c tio n a l S ervices:
Curriculum Development
Research and Development
School Improvement
Cable and I n te r a c tiv e T.V.
Recreation Programs

18.53%
15.95%
21.12%
15.52%
3.88%

12.07%
12.07%
18.10%
14.66%
2.16%

A dm inistrative Services:
No s e rv ic e s were l i s t e d in t h i s category

74

The areas I d e n t if ie d by th e respondents as an e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e
by a g r e a t e r percentage number than t h a t assigned a d i r e c t s e rv ic e
were considered as a s e rv ic e they viewed as being e s s e n t i a l t o th e
o p e ra tio n o f th e lo cal school d i s t r i c t .

The exception to t h i s , f o r

th e purpose o f t h i s stud y, was th e Learning Disabled Program, which
1s mandated by law (P u blic Act 258, 1972} and must be provided by
each d i s t r i c t In Michigan.
To provide a complete a n a ly s is o f th e d ata produced,

1t 1s

im portant to co n sid er th e open-ended s u b je c tiv e responses from th e
su p e rin te n d e n ts .

Using th e th re e c e n tra l research q u estio n s as a

framework, what follow s i s a d isc u ssio n o f th e responses from th e
q u e s tio n n a ire concerning th e s u b je c tiv e responses.

Each respondent

was asked t o

th e

p r o v id e a s u b j e c t i v e

response to

f o llo w in g

q u e stio n s:
What s e rv ic e s t h a t you a re p r e s e n tly o p e ra tin g do you feel
should be operated by th e ISD?
The s u b je c tiv e responses o f a l l th re e groups o f su p erin ten d en ts
in d ic a te d t h a t they would l i k e to see sp ecial education programs,
which would include sp ecial education t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , as a s e rv ic e
provided by th e ISD.

This was not ev id en t from th e response to th e

q u e s tio n n a ire regarding t h i s area as an e s s e n t i a l

s e r v ic e ,

but 1t

became c l e a r from th e s u b je c tiv e response t h a t 1t may be considered
as such.
The o th e r c a te g o rie s t h a t did correspond with th e views of
e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e s were those o f Curriculum Research and Development
and a s s is ta n c e with th e School Improvement p ro cess.

75

Hhat a d d itio n a l s e rv ic e s should th e ISD provide t o your lo cal
d istric t?
This question confirmed th e c a te g o rie s o f Curriculum Research
and Development and School Improvement f o r th e su p erin ten d en ts of
school

d istric ts

with stu d en t enrollm ents o f 500 to

2,000.

An

a d d itio n a l element o f expanded se rv ic e s f o r Technology Education was
expressed f o r th ose d i s t r i c t s in the 1,500 t o 2,000 group.
ag ain ,

was

in d icated

as

b e in g

an

esse n tia l

serv ic e

This,
by t h e

q u e stio n n a ire .
The major d iff e r e n c e in th e responses to t h i s q uestion came
from th e su perintend en ts in th e enrollm ent group 2,000 to 3,000.
The responses r e f l e c te d s a t i s f a c t i o n with th e e x is tin g s e rv ic e s and
did not provide a c l e a r in d ic a tio n of need.
G enerally,
w ith in

an

th ese d i s t r i c t s

interm ediate

s e rv ic e

were e i t h e r
area

the l a r g e s t d i s t r i c t

or were in

a more h eavily

populated interm ed iate a re a , where finances do not seem to be as
much o f a problem as in sm aller d i s t r i c t s .
Do you fa e l your ex p ectatio n s fo r s e rv ic e s from your ISD are
higher th an th e s e rv ic e s a c tu a l ly re c e iv e d , and 1f so, what do
you consider t o be th e primary reason fo r t h i s d iffe re n c e ?
Leadership and funding were rep orted as two major reasons f o r a
v arian ce between ex p ectatio n s and perceptions o f performance in a l l
enrollm ent groups.
t h a t o f q u a l it y .
lin k ed to

The c e n tr a l concern ra is e d

in le a d e rsh ip was

Many respondents in d ic a te d t h a t e f f e c tiv e n e s s i s

Interm ediate le a d e rs and s t a f f

being p ro a c tiv e

in th e

s e rv ic e a re a s , and th e re i s a need to place those s e rv ic e areas as
h ig h - p r i o r it y items fo r f u tu r e planning and funding.

76

An ad d itio n al area o f concern by th e m ajo rity o f respondents
was funding.

The funding, o r lack t h e r e o f , was a primary reason

given f o r th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

o f those Items viewed

s e rv ic e s .

adequate funds

They did not have

th e re fo re ,

t h e r e s p o n d e n ts

viewed t h e

In term ediate d ecisio n makers

as e s s e n t i a l

to o f f e r th e program;

program as

can a lso use t h i s

e sse n tia l.

Inform ation when

working with Interm ediate boards in planning f o r th e f u tu r e .
Recommendations
A fte r

re v ie w in g

s u b je c tiv e responses,

th e

re su lts

of

th e

q u e s tio n n a ire ,

and th e MAISA’ s p o s itio n paper,

th e

some broad

recommendations can be made.
1.

Encourage lo cal sup erintendents to provide inform ation
regarding t h e i r need f o r serv ices to th e Michigan A ssocia­
t io n o f Interm ediate A d m in istrato rs.

This inform ation w ill provide input to the a s s o c ia tio n as they
develop t h e i r mission statem ents and e s s e n tia l
o rg a n iz a tio n .
th e

s e rv ic e s f o r t h e i r

This study may be o f a s s is ta n c e as they proceed in

development

of

such

a

statem ent

and

s e rv ic e s .

r e c e n tly completed a p o s itio n paper on "ISD Services
th e

Q uality

Package"

(MAISA,

1989).

This

document

They

have

to Implement
liste d

the

follow ing s e rv ic e s to be provided by ISDs f o r local d i s t r i c t s :
School

improvement:

A s s is t

local

d istric ts

in meeting the

requirem ents o f the th re e - to fiv e -y e a r school-improvement p lan .
A c c re d ita tio n :

A s sis t local d i s t r i c t s in meeting s t a t e board

o f education a c c r e d ita tio n requirem ents.

77
Core curriculum ;

A s s is t lo cal d i s t r i c t s 1n designing a program

to meet core curriculum outcomes t h a t w ill meet lo cal as well as
s t a t e requirem ents.
S taff

development.

A s s is t

develop th e human resources

lo cal

needed to

d istric ts
bring

to

c o n tin u a lly

about p o s it iv e

and

a p p ro p ria te change.
These fo u r p o s itio n

statem ents,

as

repo rted

1n a previous

s e c tio n , do r e f l e c t th e areas t h a t t h i s study showed as e s s e n tia l
s e rv ic e s by those who responded to th e survey.
2.

Develop a "core o f e s s e n tia l s e rv ices" f o r a l l lo cal school
d istric ts.

I t would appear from t h i s
In stru c tio n a l

study and th e work o f th e MAISA

Committee t h a t

C u rric u lu m R e s e a rc h ,

C u rricu lu m

Development, and School Improvement are a b asis f o r th e development
o f a "core o f e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s ."

I t i s also important to note

th a t

received

ad d itio n a l

program areas

response as an e s s e n tia l

th a t

a higher degree

of

se rv ic e warrant review and c o n sid e ratio n

frufii both th e local and ISD Superintendents.
The area o f technology was o f p a r t i c u l a r

In te re s t

to

those

su p erin ten d en ts in th e student population range o f 1,500 to 2,000,
as In d ic ated in t h e i r s u b je c tiv e responses.

All o f th e se programs

o r s e rv ic e s l i s t e d as e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s In d ic a te enough o f a need
by

th e

lo cal

c o n s id e ra tio n .

su p e rin te n d e n ts
However,

for

su rv ey ed

th e

purpose

and
of

w arrant
th is

recommended t h a t t h e a r e a s o f C u rric u lu m R e s e a rc h ,

study

fu rth e r
it

1s

C u rric u lu m

78
Development, and School

Improvement programs be developed a t the

lo cal lev el with th e a s s is ta n c e o f the ISD.
3.

Continue to work fo r equal 1tv o f funding.

The lo cal sup erintend ents need to continue t o work with the
ISDs and th e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e 1n th e area o f e q u a lity and Increased
funding f o r a l l d i s t r i c t s .

The lo cal su p e rin te n d e n ts ’ concern about

th e lack o f funding a t th e lo cal

as well

as th e

ISD le v e l

1s

apparent from t h i s study.
4.

Develop c o r r e la t e s o f e f fe c tiv e .IS D s .

By developing c o r r e la t e s o f an e f f e c t i v e ISD, i t would not only
provide a standard t h a t a l l ISDs could attem pt to emulate, but would
a ls o s e t th e tone fo r a minimum standard f o r le a d e rsh ip and a core
o f e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s o ffered to a l l local d i s t r i c t s .
5.

Develop a s e rv ic e -p ro v id e r evalu atio n p ro c e s s .

The development o f a standard needs-assessment and ev alu atio n
instrum ent t o be used f o r local d i s t r i c t s to provide input t o ISD
le a d e rs would also be a worthy p u r s u it f o r th e lo cal and s t a t e ISD
a s s o c ia tio n s .

This couid assure some c o n tin u ity

in working with

lo cal su p erin ten d en ts, as well as promoting th e concept o f using the
lo cal sup erin ten den ts as c l i e n t s in assessin g needs and ev alu atin g
ISD s e rv ic e s .
6.

Examine the ro le o f lead ersh ip and s t a f f i n g o f the ISDs.

In th e area o f lead ersh ip and s t a f f i n g ,

th e c e n tra l

concern

ra is e d by th e superintendents was th a t o f q u a l i ty o f th e le a d e rsh ip
provided.

This was l i s t e d as a major reason f o r a variance between

e x p e c ta tio n s

and

p e rcep tio n s

of

ISD s e r v i c e s

by

th e

lo cal

79
su p erin ten d en t.

I t i s suggested t h a t th e in term ed iates reexamine

th e ro le s o f s t a f f personnel and take a c tio n t o assu re t h a t those
r o le s are being f i l l e d .
The n e c e s s ity o f c o lla b o ra tio n by both groups has never been
more p rev alen t than i t i s today.

N either th e lo cal d i s t r i c t nor the

ISD can stand alone in providing s e rv ic e s f o r th e c h ild re n they
serv e.
Conclusions and Im plications
The purpose o f t h i s study was to determine whether th e r e i s a
need f o r a common core o f e s s e n tia l s e rv ic e s t h a t a l l
provide f o r a l l local d i s t r i c t s in Michigan.
based

in

Michigan,

n atio n al

lev el,

th e

fin d in g s

as w ell.

ap p ro p riate f o r a l l
se rv ic e agencies.

ISDs should

Although the study was

can be o f s ig n if ic a n c e

The conclusions

at

the

and im p licatio n s

are

s t a t e s t h a t use s im ila r forms o f educational
The major conclusions and im p licatio n s o f the

study are:
1.

There appears to be evidence to support th e concent o f a
"core of e s s e n t ia l s e rv ic e s ."

Im p lic a tio n s:

The r e s u l t s

o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire ,

which was

retu rn ed by 89% of th e sup erin ten dents surveyed, and th e work o f th e
MAISA I n s tr u c tio n a l Committee confirm t h a t th e a reas o f Curriculum
Research, Curriculum Development, and School Improvement should be
o ffered to a l l

local

school d i s t r i c t s .

How th e se s e rv ic e s w ill

become a p a r t o f th e ISDs’ d e liv e ry system was not addressed in t h i s
study

but

d istric ts.

does

provide

for

a

statem ent

o f need

by

th e

lo cal

80

2.

The need to work toward providing eo u aH tv and increased
funding i s a key Issue f o r th e d i s t r i c t s surveyed in t h i s
s tu d y .

Im p lic a tio n s .

Superintendents who responded t o th e q u e s tio n ­

n a ir e expressed th e area o f funding as both a concern and a need
from th e in term ed iate and s t a t e le v e ls as a determ ining f a c t o r in
lo c a l d i s t r i c t s ’ a b i l i t y t o o f f e r programs.
e q u a lity

was

also

apparent

as

The need f o r funding

su p erinten dents

id e n tifie d

programs th ey thought should be offered as " e s s e n tia l

those

s e r v i c e s ."

The areas o f Curriculum Research, Curriculum Development, and School
Improvement were addressed by th e m ajority o f d i s t r i c t s surveyed but
appeared t o

be o f

g reater

concern

to

th e

sm aller,

low-millage

d istric ts.
With th e high a v a i l a b i l i t y
various

s e rv ic e

a re a s ,

and usage r a te s

along with

tho se

rep orted

s e rv ic e s

in th e

I d e n t if ie d

as

" e s s e n t i a l " by th e lo cal su p erin ten d en ts, t h i s re se a rc h e r concluded
t h a t to p -le v e l d ecision makers should take in to co n s id e ra tio n th e
lo cal s u p e rin te n d e n ts’ concern about th e la c k o f funding a t th e ISD
and s t a t e le v e ls and work toward providing some s o lu tio n s to funding
problems.

ISD d ecision makers can also use t h i s inform ation when

working with ISD boards o f education 1n planning f o r th e f u tu r e .
3.

I t i s very important f o r th e lo cal d i s t r i c t su p erin ten d en ts
to continue to cooperate with the ISD sup erin ten d en ts and
t h e i r s t a t e o rg an izatio n in th e area o f program develop­
ment.

Im p lic a tio n s :

For th e f i r s t time in Michigan, th e Michigan

A ssociation o f Interm ediate A dm in istrators, through i t s I n s tr u c tio n
Committee, i s attem pting to develop a l i s t o f s e rv ic e s t h a t they

81

have

Identified

I n s t r u c t io n a l
goals

and

"Essential

S er v ic es."

services

communications
districts.

as

Interm ediate

School

The development o f t h i s

c o u ld

provide

and understanding

a

foundation

between

D istrict

common s e t of
for

interm ed iate

further

and

local

I t 1s Imperative t h a t the local s up erintend en ts provide

Input in th e development o f thes e s e r v i c e s .

This movement could

as su re some c o n ti n u it y In working with local d i s t r i c t s , as well as
promoting th e concept o f a meaningful, wel l-def ined core o f common
" e s s e n t i a l serv ic es" t h a t a l l ISDs provide f o r every local d i s t r i c t
in Michigan.
Suggestions f o r Further Study
The review o f l i t e r a t u r e

and the

results

of this

research

provide th e bas is f o r suggestions f o r f u tu r e re se arch concerning
ISDs.

They ar e:
1.

Will d i s t r i c t s with student populations l a r g e r than 3,000

and those with fewer than 500 students view the development o f a
core of e s s e n t i a l program o f fe r in g s d i f f e r e n t l y from those d i s t r i c t s
under i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s study?
2.

Would f u r t h e r explorat io n regarding a dditional

s u b je c ti v e

responses generate new variances between the expec tat ions t h a t the
local sup erintend en ts have f o r ser vice s offe red by th e ISD in e i t h e r
the population group o f t h i s
groups?

study or

the

remaining

population

82
3.

Is th e core o f e s s e n t i a l se rv ic e s I d e n t i f i e d dependent on

th e needs and economic base o f th e ISDs and th e loc al d i s t r i c t s they
serve?
4.

I s 1 t p o s s i b l e t o de v e lo p an a s s e s s m e n t - o u t c o m e s

and

r ender ing-of -ser v1c es Instrument t o measure th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the
ISD?

i

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PILOT STUDY LETTER AND SURVEY

83

January 11, 1989

Dear

:

Would you pleas e take a few minutes to f i l l out the enclosed
survey and r e tu rn i t in the enclosed envelope?
The r e s u l t s you provide will be used f o r my d i s s e r t a t i o n
to p ic . This d r a f t i s p a r t of a p i l o t study in cooperation
with the Board of Direc tors of the Michigan Association of
In term tdiate School Administrators. The M.A.I.S.A. is
i n t e r e s t e d in developing a "Common Core" of s e r v i c e s t o a l l
local d i s t r i c t s and t h i s information will a s s i s t in t h i s
effort.
If you have suggestions about additional se rv ic e s or othe r
items t h a t you fee l should be p a r t of t h i s survey, please
feel f r e e to comment on the instrument.
Thank you for your cooperation and pleas e re turn the survey
by January 27. 1989.
Thanks again.
Sin ce re ly,

Carl C. Hartman

84

SURVEY
TO DETERMINE THE COOPERATIVE SERVICE AREAS
BETWEEN MICHIGAN LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
AND THEIR
INTERMEDIATE SERVICE AGENT.
P le a s e c o m p le te t h e b r i e f s u r v e y . I t s h o u ld ta k e no more th a n 10 m in u te s .
T hen, i f you w ould p l e a s e m a ll i t to d a y in t h e p o s t a g e - p a id , s e l f - a d d r e s s e d
e n v e lo p e p r o v id e d . A l l a n sw ers a r e c o n f i d e n t i a l .
Your name 1 b n o t
r e q u ir e d .
INSTRUCTION
You a r e b e in g a sk e d t o r e sp o n d t o th e s e r v i c e s p r o v id e d t o y o u r lo c a l
d i s t r i c t in f i v e b road program a r e a s . P le a s e r e sp o n d a s how you p e r c e iv e
th e s e r v i c e s b e in g d e l i v e r e d .
D ir e c t S e r v ic e

- p r o v id e d d i r e c t l y by t h e I . S . D . S t a f f
or f a c i l i t i e s
In D i r e c t S e r v i c e - C on sortium o r s u b - c o n t r a c t e d s e r v i c e s
C o n s u lta n t S e r v i c e s - P r o v id e d by th e I . S . D . o r in d e p e n d e n t a g e n c ie s
No S e r v i c e P r o v id e d E s s e n t i a l S e r v i c e s - f u n c t io n s t h a t you f e e l s h o u ld be p r o v id e d
by a l l I . S . D . ' s t o y o u r d i s t r i c t s .
QUESTIONNAIRE
P l e a s e ch eck t h e a p p r o p r ia t e column o r colu m n s:
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Is this
______ PRESENT SERVICE____________ regarded
as an
D irect In D irect Otnsultmt to Service Essential
Service
Service
Service Provided Services
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.
7.
B.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
16.
19 .
20.

P r e - s c h o o l d ev e lo p m e n t
S e v e r e ly m e n t a lly im p a ir e d
T r a in a b le m e n t a lly im p a ir e d
E d u ca b le m e n t a lly im p a ir e d
E m o tio n a lly im p a ir e d
V i s u a l l y im p a ired
P h y s i c a l l y im p a ir e d
Homebound * h o s p i t a l i z e d
L e a r n in g d is a b l e d
S p eech and L anguage Im p aired
Head s t a r t
C u rricu lu m G u id es
C u rricu lu m R e so u r c e C o n s u lta n t
School p s y c h o lo g is ts
S c h o o l s o c i a l w ork er
O c c u p a tio n a l th e r a p y
P h y s ic a l th e r a p y
T r a n s p o r ta tio n
O ther

85

REMEDIAL AND COMPENSATORY INSTRUCTION
Direct
Sendee
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

In D irect Qzeultsnt lb Sendee Essential
Sendee
Sendee Prodded Sendees

R ead in g (n o t T i t l e Z)
P r e -sc h o o l
A l t e r n a t i v e E d u c a tio n
J u v e n ile Home Program s
Drop o u t p r e v e n t io n
B i'lln g u a l
P reg n a n t p u p i l s
A d u lt b a s i c e d u c a t io n
S u b sta n c e a b u se
T i t l e I Program s
O th er
CAREER AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Direct
Sendee

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

In Direct
Sendee

Ctrsultant tb Sendee Ehsartial
Sendee Provided Sendees

A rea v o c a t i o n a l c e n t e r
V o c a t io n a l e d u c a t io n d i r e c t o r
T r a n s p o r ta tio n
S hared tim e program s
S tu d e n t o r i e n t a t i o n
V o c a t io n a l c a r e e r p la n n in g
V o c a t io n a l c o u n s e lin g
J ob p la c e m e n t
JTPA Youth Employment
F o llo w up s t u d i e s
H igh te c h n o lo g y program s
Work e x p e r i e n c e / c o - o p
O ther
INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Direct
Sendee
G if t e d and T a le n te d
A d u lt E d u ca tio n
S t a f f d ev elo p m en t
C o u n ty -w id e i n s e r v i c e
C urricu lum d ev e lo p m e n t
P r e -sc h o o l
S h a r e d -tim e a ca d em ic proqram s
I n s t r u c t i o n a l m edia s e r v i c e s
R e se a r c h and d ev e lo p m e n t
S c h o o l im provem ent
C a b le T . V . / I n t e r a c t i v e T. V.
O utdoor e d u c a t io n
H e a lth e d u c a tio n
S ex e d u c a t io n
R e c r e a t io n a l oroaram s
O ther

In Direct
Sendee

Qnsulta* lb Sendee Bsenti
Sendee
ftnddri Sendee:

,

,

86

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

1.

2.
3.

*.
3.

6.
7.
S.

9.
JO.
11.
12.

Direct In Direct
Service Service

Qmsultant N> Service Essential
Services
Service
Provided

Dat a p r o r e s t i n g s e r v i c e s
Purchasing s e r v i c e s
Food s e r v i c e
A u d i t and s u p e r v i s o r y J u n c t i o n s
( f i n a n c i a l , m e m be r sh i p , f o o d
serv ice, transportation)
T e ac h er c e r t i f i c a t i o n
L e g isla tiv e services
Information s e r v i c e s
S u b s titu te teacher permits
School census
Trans por t a t ion
P r o c e s s and m o n i t o r s t a t e &
F e d e r a l Program r e p o r t s
Ot her

What s e r v i c e s t h a t you a r e p r e s e n t l y o p e r a t i n g do you f e e l
o p e r a t e d by t h e I . S . D . ?

s h o u l d be

What a d d i t i o n a l

local d i s t r i c t s ?

s e r v i c e s s h o u l d t h e I . S . D . p r o v i d e t o you r

Do you r e c e i v e any f e d e r a l ,

s t a t e or

local grants?

If s o ,

f rom what s o u r c e ?

Do you i c e i your e x p e c t a t i o n s t o r s e r v i c e s from your I . S . D . a r e h i g h e r t han
the services a c tu a lly received?
I f s o , what do you c o n s i d e r t o be t h e
p r i m a ry r e a s o n f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e ?

Thank you f or your t i m e and c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
I f you w o ul d l i k e a summary o f
t h e r e s u l t s , p l e a s e p r i n t your name and a d d r e s s on t h e b a c k o f t h e r e t u r n
envelope.

APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER

87

May 15, 1989

Dear Superintendent:
Enclosed pleas e fin d a q u es tionnaire t h a t I am sending to a l l
sup erin tenden ts in Michigan with enrollments between 500 and
3,000 s tu d e n ts . The purpose of t h i s q u es ti onnaire i s to examine
the s e rv ic e s c u r r e n t l y being offe re d to your d i s t r i c t by your
1.5.D. s e r v i c e agency; to examine what s e rv ic e s you f eel could be
offe re d t h a t are not; and what e s s e n t i a l s e rv ic e s you fee l should
be offered as a core of s e rv i c e s to a l l local d i s t r i c t s by the
1.5.D .'s.
I am very i n t e r e s t e d in your perceptions of what s e rv ic e s should
be provided and what, in r e a l i t y , i s being provided.
The instrument and concept has been endorsed by the Michigan
Association of Intermediate School Administrators (M.A.I.S.A.)
Board of D ir e c to rs . This a s s o c ia ti o n i s very i n t e r e s t e d in the
key concept of e s s e n t i a l serv ices and, through your a s s i s t a n c e ,
we can provide them with valuable information.
I r e a l i z e we, as su peri ntendents , receive a number of
ques ti onnaires and they are time consuming; however, I would hope
you would see the value in providing the requested information.
You may
and the
results
and a l l

be assured of complete c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y in your responses,
information will be used only for my rese ar ch . The
of t h i s research will be made a v a ila b le to the M.A.I.S.A.
i n t e r e s t e d s uper intende nts.

You may receive a summary of the r e s u l t s by w r itin g your name and
address on the r e turn envelope.
I would ap preciate you return ing the survey by-May 30, 1989.
Thank you in advance f o r your a s s i s ta n c e .
Sincer ely,

Carl C. Hartman

APPENDIX C
FOLLOW-UP LETTER

88

June 20, 1989

Dear
I need your help! About a month ago, I wrote to you seeking your
feedback regarding your opinions on cooperative e f f o r t s between
your local and the interm ediate school d i s t r i c t . As of today, I
have e i t h e r misplaced or not received your survey. I f I have
misplace i t , I apologize. I f you have gotten busy and f o r g o t te n ,
I su re ly understand. I would ap prec ia te i t i f you would take a
few minutes and complete th e survey and r e tu r n i t t o me.
I am w r iti n g to you again because your response is s i g n i f i c a n t in
my assessment of the e x i s t i n g d elivery system to d i s t r i c t s of our
s i z e . In the event t h a t your questi onnair e has been misplaced, a
replacement i s enclosed. Your cooperation i s g r e a t ly
ap prec iat ed .
S in ce rely,

Carl C. Hartman

APPENDIX D
SURVEY RESULTS

INTERMEDIATE SERVICE AGENT SURVEY SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT
500-1500
TOTAL SCHOOLS IN EACH GROUP
105

SCHOOL
SCHOOL
ENROLLMENT ENROLLMENT
1500-2000 2000-3000
62
65

ALL SCHOOL'SNUMSEPS
GROUPED
FOR
TOGETHER
500-1500
232

•■SPECIAL EDUCATION ••»•*••••»•••••»•••••••••»•••••*•»*•••«•»*»###*■■*
PRE-SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
Diract Strvict
38.10%
35.48%
33.e5%
In Diract Sarvica
14.29%
12.90%
7.69%
Consultant Sarvica
9.52%
14.52%
10.77%
No Sarvica Providad
30.48%
29.03%
41.54%
Essantial Sarvlcas
25.71%
12.90%
24.62%
SEVERELY MENTALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
90.48%
64.52%
84.62%
In Diract Sarvica
4.76%
9.68%
13.85%
Consultant Sarvica
0.00%
6.45%
6.15%
No Sarvica Providad
0.00%
1.61%
1.54%
Esaantlal Sarvicas
49.52%
30.65%
47.69%
TRAINABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
87.62%
64.52%
81.54%
In Diract Sarvica
7.62%
13.85%
9.66%
Consultant Sarvica
1.90%
6.45%
9.23%
No Sarvica Providad
0.00%
1.61%
0.00%
Essantial Sarvicas
50.48%
29.03%
46.15%
EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
56.10%
43.55%
27.69%
In Diract Sarvica
14.29%
25.61%
21.54%
Consultant Sarvica
13.33%
19.35%
26.15%
No Sarvica Providad
6.57%
12.90%
24.62%
Essantial Sarvicas
41.90%
24.19%
33.85%
EMOTIONALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
43.81%
41.94%
35.36%
In Direct Sarvica
26.67%
29.03%
30.77%
Consultant Sarvica
17.14%
19.35%
29.23%
No Sarvica Providad
8.57%
12.90%
15.36%
Essantial Sarvicas
39.05%
29.03%
36.92%
HEARING IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
62.86%
62.90%
40.00%
In Diract Sarvica
20.95%
24.19%
33.85%
Consultant Sarvica
10.46%
12.90%
23.08%
No Sarvica Providad
5.71%
3.23%
6.15%
Essantial Sarvicas
43.81%
30.65%
40.00%
VISUALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
62.86%
62.90%
40.00%
In Diract Sarvica
22.86%
20.97%
33.85%
Consultant Sarvica
U
10.46%
21.54%
17.74%
No Sarvica Providad
4.76%
3.23%
4.62%
Essantial Sarvicas
43.81%
33.87%
38.46%
PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
59.05%
51.61%
49.23%
In Diract Sarvica
16.19%
30.77%
16.13%
Consultant Sarvica
11.43%
20.00%
24.19%
No Sarvica Providad
10.77%
3.81%
11.29%

NUMBERS
FOR
1500-2000

NUMBERS
FOR
2000-3000

36.21%
12.07%
11.21%
33.19%
21.98%

40
15
10
32
27

22
6
9
IB
a

22
5
7
27
16

81.90%
8.62%
3.45%
0.86%
43.97%

95
5
0
0
52

40
6
4
1
19

55
9
4
1
31

79.74%
9.91%
5.17%
0.43%
43.53%

92
8
2
0
53

40
6
4
1
18

53
9
6
0
30

45.69%
19.40%
18.53%
14.22%
34.91%

61
15
14
9
44

27
18
12
8
15

18
14
17
16
22

40.95%
28.45%
21.12%
11.64%
35.78%

46
26
18
9
41

26
18
12
8
18

23
20
19
10
24

56.47%
25.43%
14.66%
5.17%
39.22%

66
22
11
6
46

39
15
8
2
19

26
22
15
4
26

56.47%
25.43%
15.S2%
4.31%
39.66%

66
24
11
5
46

39
13
11
2
21

26
22
14
3
25

54.31%
20.26%
17.24%
7.76%

62
17
12
4

32
10
IS
7

32
20
13
7

Essantial Sarviciis
H0ME30UND S HOSPITALIZED
Diract Sarvica
in Diract Sarvicii
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarviciis
LEARNING DISABLED
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Services
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE' IMPAIRED
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicus
HEAD START
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicus
CURRICULUM GUIDES
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicus
CURRICULUM RESOURCE CONSULTANT
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Esaantial Sarvicus
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvicu
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Provided
Essantial Sarvicus
SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER
Diract Sarvica
In Direct Sarvict
Consultant Sarvica
No Service Provided
Essantial Sarvicis
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Direct Sarvica
In Direct Sarvict
Consultant Service
No Service Providad

43.81*

30.65*

38.46*

38.79*

46

19

25

27.62*
16.19*
14.29*
39.05*
20.95*

27.42*
3.23*
11.29*
32.26*
24.19*

24.62*
16.92*
8.15*
47.69*
29.23*

26.72*
12.93*
11.21*
39.66*
24.14*

29
17
IS
41
22

17
2
7
20
15

16
11
4
31
19

25.71*
17.14*
28.57*
18.10*
28.57*

14.52*
17.74*
30.65*
30.65*
9.68*

12.31*
15.38*
29.23*
40.00*
40.00*

18.97*
16.81*
29.31*
27.59*
26.72*

27
IB
30
19
30

9
11
19
19
6

6
10
19
26
26

50.48*
12.38*
17.14*
17.14*
30.48*

40.32*
14.52*
22.58*
25.81*
17.74*

35.36*
15.38*
21.54*
33.85*
30.77*

43.53*
13.79*
19.83*
24.14*
27.16*

53
13
18
18
32

25
9
14
16
11

23
10
14
22
20

7.62*
8.67*
6.67*
70.48*
10.48*

14.52*
9.68*
4.84*
40.32*
3.23*

6.15*
7.69*
9.23*
63.08*
9.23*

9.05*
7.76*
S. SOX
60.34*
8.19*

8
7
7
74
11

9
6
3
25
2

4
5
6
41
6

8.67*
6.67*
20.95*
55.24*
8.S7X

11.29*
3. 23*
16.13*
40.32*
14.52*

13.85*
6.15*
33.85*
47.69*
10.77*

9.91*
5.60*
23.28*
49.14*
10.78*

7
7
22
58
9

7
2
10
2S
9

9
Ji
22
31
7

10.48*
6.67*
29.52*
40.00*
12.38*

14.52*
3.23X
27.42*
40.32*
17.74*

18.46*
4.62*
40.00*
30.77*
20.00*

13.79*
5.17*
31.90*
37.50*
15.95*

11
7
31
42
13

9
2
17
25
11

12
3
26
20
13

68.57*
13.33*
4.76*
8.S7X
32.38*

48.39*
4.84*
30.65*
14.52*
19.35*

50.77*
6.15*
6.1SX
32.31*
33.65*

58.19*
9.05*
12.07*
16.81*
29.31*

72
14
5
9
34

30
3
19
9
12

33
4
4
21
22

68.57*
16.19*
S.71*
10.48*
32.38*

51.61*
8.06*
16.13*
16.13*
20.97*

40.00*
6.15*
7.69*
44.62*
30.77*

56.03*
11.21*
9.05*
21.55*
28.88*

72
17
6
11
34

32
5
10
10
13

26
4
5
29
20

47.62*
19.05*
12.38*
17.14*

54.84*
4.84*
14.52*
17.74*

49.23*
13.85*
10.77*
21.54*

50.00*
13.79*
12.50*
18.53*

50
20
13
18

34
3
9
11

32
9
7
14

Essantial Sarvica*
PHYSICAL THERAPY
□tract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
TRANSPORTATION
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
OTHER
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas

26.S7X

24.19%

29.23%

27.59%

30

IS

19

50.48%
20.00%
10.48%
16.19%
26.57%

62.90%
6.45%
15. 35%
17.74%
30.65%

46.15%
16.92%
12.31%
21.54%
30.77%

52.59%
15.52%
13.36%
16.10%
29.74%

S3
21
11
17
30

39
4
12
11
19

30
11
6
14
90

41.90%
12.38%
1 .90%
36.19%
26.57%

45.16%
9.66%
6.45%
29.03%
17.74%

41.54%
10.77%
9.23%
35.38%
29.23%

42.67%
11.21%
5.17%
34.05%
25.86%

44
13
2
36
30

26
6
4
16
11

27
7
6
23
19

1.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.90%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.23%

4.62%
0.00%
0.00%
1.54%
4.62%

2.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
3.02%

2
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
2

3
0
0
1
3

3.66%
3.66%
15.95%
63.79%
5.60%

5
5
11
62
6

2
2
11
2S

2
2
15
41
■a

11.21%
6.62%
9.48%
66.38%
4.31%

12
11
6
71
3

9
6
9
34
B

5
3
5
49
1

9.46%
10.76%
8.62%
56.47%
19.40%

13
14
6
67
29

3
7
5
25
7

6
4
9
39
9

11.21%
9.05%
7.76%
55.60%
11.64%

8
12
7
66
19

6
4
6
25
4

10
5
S
36
4

4.31%
5.60%
15.09%
63.36%
12.50%

5
7
14
75
20

2
3
9
30
5

3
3
12
42

6.47%
3.88%

9
5

3

3
4

REMEDIAL AMD COMPENSATORY INSTRUCTIONa*as*aa*Bas»a**«s*B»*a*a*sasa
READING (NOT TITLE I)
Diract Sarvica
4.76%
3.23%
3.06%
In Diract Sarvica
4.76%
3. 23%
3.06%
Consultant Sarvica
10.48%
17.74%
23.06%
No Sarvica Providad
76.10%
40.32%
63.08%
Essantial Sarvicas
5.71%
6.45%
4.62%
PRE-SCHOOL
Diract Sarvica
11.43%
14.52%
7.69%
In Diract Sarvica
10.48%
9.68%
4.62%
Consultant Sarvica
7.62%
14.52%
7.69%
No Sarvica Providad
67.62%
54.84%
75.38%
Essantial Sarvicas
2.66%
9.68%
1.54%
ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
Diract Sarvica
12.36%
4.84%
9.23%
In Diract Sarvica
13.33%
11.29%
6.15%
Consultant Sarvica
5.71%
6.06%
13.85%
No Sarvica Providad
63.61%
40.32%
60.00%
Essantial Sarvicas
27.62%
11.29%
13.6S%
JUVENILE HOME PROGRAMS
Diract Sarvica
7.62%
12.90%
15.36%
In Diract Sarvica
11.43%
6.45%
7.69%
Consultant Sarvica
6.67%
9.68%
7.69%
No Sarvica Providad
62.66%
40.32%
56.46%
Essantial Sarvicas
18.10%
6.45%
6.15%
DROP OUT PREVENTION
Diract Sarvica
4.76%
3.23%
4.62%
In Diract Sarvica
6.67%
4.84%
4.62%
Consultant Sarvica
13.33%
14.52%
16.46%
No Sarvica Providad
71.43%
48.39%
64.62%
Essantial Sarvicas
19.05%
8.06%
6.15%
BILINGUAL
Diract Sarvica
8.57%
4.84%
4.62%
In Diract Sarvica
4.76%
0.00%
6.15%

1

4

4

Consult»nt Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
PREGNANT PUPILS
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
ADULT BASIC EDUCATION
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
TITLE I PROGRAMS
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
OTHER
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
CAREER AND VOCATIONAL
AREA VOCATIONAL CENILK
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION DIR.
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
TRANSPORTATION
Direct Service
In Direct Service
Consultant Sarvica
No Service Providad
Essantial Services
SHARED TIME PROGRAMS

S.71X
76.19X
11.435

6.45X
40.32X
4 .845

12.31X
67.69X
4.62X

7.76X
64.22X
7.76X

8
80
12

4
25
3

8
44
3

14.295
16.19X
6.67X
55.24X
17.14X

17.7 4X
14.52X
9.68X
40.32X
8.06X

13.855
6.1SX
13.85X
60.OOX
1S.38X

15.095
12.93X
9.48X
52.595
14.225

15
17
7
58
18

11
9
6
25
5

9
4
9
39
10

4.76X
13.33X
S.71X
72.385
7.62X

4.64X
9.6SX
4.94X
40.32X
3.23X

4.62X
3.08X
12.3IX
72.31X
4.62X

4.74X
9.48X
7.33X
63.795
5.60X

5
14
6
78
8

3
6
3
25
2

3
2
8
47
3

6.67X
1S.24X
16.19X
S5.24X
12.38X

6.45X
6.45X
17.74X
40.32X
S.06X

9.23X
3.08X
26.15X
56.92X
10.77X

7.33X
9.48X
19.40X
S1.72X
10.78X

7
16
17
58
13

4
4
11
25
5

6
2
17
37
7

6.67X
6.67X
7.62X
7I.43X
6.67X

6.4SX
6.45X
4.84X
40.32X
3.23X

7.69X
4.62X
1S.38X
66.15X
7.69X

6.90X
6.03X
9.05X
61.645
6.03X

7
7
8
75
7

4
4
3
25
2

5
3
10
43
5

O.OOX
O.OOX
0. OOX
O.OOX
0.95X

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
3.23X
O.OOX

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
1.54X
O.OOX

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
1.29X
0.435

0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
2
0

0
0
0
1
0

62.86X
10.485
1.90X
17.14X
33.335

SO.OOX
19.355
3.23X
20.97X
30.655

56.92X
16.92X
3. OOX
23.085
36.92X

S7.76X
14.66X
2.S9X
19.83X
33.625

66
11
2
18
35

31
12
2
13
19

37
11
2
15
24

67.62X
10.485
6.67X
«1.43X
20.575

59.685
14.S2X
6.45X
12.90X
20.97X

49.235
23.08X
6.15X
20.OOX
18.465

60.345
15.095
6.47X
14.225
23.71X

71
11
7
12
30

37
9
4
8
13

32
15
4
13
12

10.48X
4.76X
3.81X
73.33X
13.33X

11.295
9.685
O.OOX
40.32X
6.45X

9.23X
7.69X
7.69X
72.31X
9.23X

10.34X
6.90X
3.88X
64.22X
10.34X

11
5
4
77
14

7
6
0
25
4

6
5
S
47
6

Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
STUDENT ORIENTATION
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
VOCATIONAL CAREER PLANNING
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
VOCATIONAL COUNSELING
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
JOB PLACEMENT
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
JTPA TOOTH EMPLOYMENT
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
FOLLOW UP STUDIES
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
HIGH TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
WORK EXPERIENCE/CO-OP
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
OTHER

29.S2X
18.1GX
7.62%
39.05%
16.19%

59.66%
29.03%
3.23%
9.6e%
29.03%

23.06%
12.31%
7.69%
49.23%
12.31%

35.78%
19.40%
6.47%
34.05%
16.53%

31
19
6
41
17

37
16
2
6
16

15
6
5
32
6

42.66%
14.29%
2.66%
24.76%
14.29%

46.77%
12.90%
8.06%
33.67%
14.52%

30.77%
7.69%
9.23%
47.69%
13.65%

40.52%
12.07%
6.03%
33.62%
14.22%

45
15
3
26
15

29
6
5
21
9

20
5
6
31
9

43.61%
19.05%
14.29%
14.29%
20.95%

35.46%
17.74%
17.74%
14.52%
16.13%

32.31%
20.00%
16.46%
27.69%
16.46%

36.36%
18.97%
16.38%
18.10%
18.97%

46
20
15
15
22

22
11
11
9
10

21
13
12
16
12

42.66%
19.0SX
14.29%
17.14%
20.95%

35.46%
17.74%
14.52%
25.61%
16.13%

30.77%
15.36%
18.46%
33.65%
16.46%

37.50%
17.67%
15.52%
24.14%
16.97%

45
20
15
16
22

22
11
9
16
10

20
10
12
22
12

46.67%
23.61%
7.62%
16.19%
16.10%

45.16%
17.74%
8.06%
24.19%
17.74%

43.06%
16.92%
12.31%
23.06%
16.92%

45.26%
20.26%
9.05%
20.26%
17.67%

49
25
8
17
19

26
11
5
IS
11

28
11
6
15
11

54.29%
12.36%
6.67%
20.95%
16.10%

46.77%
9.66%
12.90%
19.35%
16.13%

40.00%
13.65%
12.31%
29.23%
13.85%

46.26%
12.07%
9.91%
22.64%
16.36%

57
13
7
22
19

29
6
8
12
10

26
9
6
19
9

46.57%
14.29%
8.57%
19.05%
16.10%

43.55%
12.90%
16.13%
20.97%
12.90%

36.46%
10.77%
15.36%
27.69%
16.92%

44.40%
12.93%
12.50%
21.98%
16.36%

51
15
9
20
19

27
6
10
13
6

25
7
10
16
11

36.10%
11.43%
9.S2X
34.29%
19.05%

35.48%
8.06%
14.52%
35.46%
30.65%

36.46%
20.00%
IS.36%
16.46%
26.15%

37.50%
12.93%
12.50%
30.17%
24.14%

40
12
10
36
20

22
5
9
22
19

25
13
10
12
17

43.81%
13.33%
9.52%
17.14%
14.29%

41.94%
9.66%
4.84%
25.61%
19.35%

30.77%
21.54%
9.23%
38.46%
13.65%

39.66%
14.66%
6.19%
25.43%
15.52%

46
14
10
18
15

26
6
3
16
12

20
14
6
25
9

Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
4.76X

INSTRUCTIONAL SEKVICESaaaaaaBaaaaaaBBBBaaaaaaaa
GIFTED AND TALENTED
Diract Sarvica
29.5 2X
In Diract Sarvica
24.76X
Consultant Sarvica
43.SIX
No Sarvica Providad
2.86X
Essantial Sarvicas
26.67X
ADULT EDUCATION
Diract Sarvica
9.S2X
In Diract Sarvica
9.52X
Consultant Sarvica
9.S2X
No Sarvica Providad
65.71X
Essantial Sarvicas
S.71X
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
Diract Sarvica
3S.24X
In Diract Sarvica
31.43X
Consultant Sarvica
30.46X
No Sarvica Providad
2.S6X
Essantial Sarvicas
23.SIX
COUNTY-WIDE INSERVICE
Diract Sarvica
41.90X
In Diract Sarvica
26.67X
Consultant Sarvica
10.48X
No Sarvica Providad
20.OOX
Essantial Sarvicas
20.95X
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Diract Sarvica
10.48X
In Diract Sarvica
19.05X
Consultant Sarvica
19.05X
No Sarvica Providad
4S.71X
Essantial Sarvicas
20.OOX
PRE-SCHOOL
Diract Sarvica
2.86X
In Diract Sarvict'
11.43X
Consultant Sarvica
10.48X
No Sarvica Providad
62.86X
Essantial Sarvicas
6.67X
SHARED-TIME ACADEMIC PROG.
Diract Sarvica
19.05X
In Diract Sarvict'
15.24X
Consultant Sarvica
12.38X
No Sarvica Providad
4S.71X
Essantial Sarvicas
16.19X
INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA SERV.
Diract Sarvica
49.52X
In Diract Sarvicu
13.33X
Consultant Sarvica
8.57X
No Sarvica Providad
24.76X

1.61X
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX

3.08X
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
1.S4X

1.29X
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
2.S9X

0
0
0
0
5

1
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
1

SO.OOX
14.S2X
40.32X
8.06X
11.29X

24.62X
1S.38X
50.77X
7.69X
21.S4X

33.62X
19.40X
44.S3X
S.60X
21.12X

31
26
46
3
28

31
9
25
5
7

16
10
33
5
14

8.06X
3.23X
9.68X
40.32X
3.23X

4.62X .
3.08X
12.SIX
69.23X
4.62X

7.76X
6.03X
10.34X
59.91X
4.74X

10
10
10
69
6

5
2
6
25
2

3
2
8
45
3

40.32X
12.90X
37.10X
8.06X
17.74X

41.S4X
20.OOX
29.23X
13.8SX
26.1SX

38.36X
23.20X
31.OOX
7.33X
22.84X

37
33
32
3
25

25
8
23
5
11

27
13
19
9
17

45.16X
16.13X
17.74X
17.74X
14.52X

49.23X
1S.3SX
12.SIX
16.46X
20.OOX

44.83X
20.69X
12.93X
18.97X
18.97X

44
28
11
21
22

28
10
11
11
9

32
10
6
12
13

19.3SX
8.06X
29.03X
3S.4SX
16.13X

7.69X
9.23X
35.38X
35. SOX
18.46X

12.07X
13.36X
26.29X
40.09X
18.53X

11
20
20
48
21

12
5
18
22
10

5
6
23
23
12

14.52X
4.84X
16.13X
48.39X
4.S4X

4.62X
4.62X
13.85X
66.1SX
4.62X

6.47X
7.76X
12.93X
59.91X
5.60X

3
12
11
66
7

9
3
10
30
3

3
3
9
43
3

11.29X
8.06X
17.74X
40.32X
6.06X

7.69X
6.15X
10.46X
61.54X
12.SIX

13.79X
10.78X
15.S2X
48.71X
12.93X

20
16
13
48
17

7
5
11
25
5

5
4
12
40
8

40.32X
9.6SX
9.6BX
20.97X

56.92X
10.77X
1S.30X
13.8SX

49.14X
11.64X
10.78X
20.69X

52
14
9
26

25
6
6
13

37
7
10
9

Essantial Ssrvicss
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPKENT
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Diract Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Esssntial Ssrvicss
CABLE T.V. /THERACTIVE
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Esssntial Ssrvicss
OUTDOOR EDUCATION
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Essantial Ssrvicss
HEALTH EDOCATION
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Diract Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Essantial Ssrvicss
SEX EDUCATION
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Sarvica Providad
Esssntial Ssrvicss
RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providad
Esssntial Ssrvicss
OTHER
Diract Ssrvics
In Dirsct Sarvica
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Ssrvicss

20.95%

11.29X

23.08%

18.97%

22

7

IS

9.S2X
8.S7X
22.86%
51.43%

12.SIX
6.15%
13.85%
44.62X
20.OOX

12.07%
8.62%
17.24%
46.55%
15.95%

10
9
24
54
19

10
7
7
25
5

a

la .io x

16.13%
11.29%
11.29X
40.32X
8.06X

4
9
29
13

19.D5X
14.29X
27.62X
3S.24X
19.05X

19.35X
8.06X
27.42X
35.43%
16.13%

15. 36%
10.77%
21.54%
41.54X
29.23X

18.10%
11.64%
25.86%
37.07%
21.12%

20
15
29
37
20

12
S
17
22
10

10
7
14
27
19

17.tax
9.S2X
12.38X
52.38X
15.24%

12.90%
3.23X
14.52%
40.32X
9.68X

12.31%
13.65%
15.38X
46.15%
21.54%

14.66%
9.05%
13.79%
47.41%
15.52%

18
10
13
55

8
2

8

25

6

10
30
14

4.78X
S.71X
8.67X
72.38X
9.S2X

11.29%
6.4SX
6.45X
40.32%
3. 23%

9.23%
3.08%
7.69%
70.77%
6.15%

7.76%
5.17%
6.90%
63.36%
6.90%

5

7
4
4
25
2

2
S
46
4

13.33X
13.33X
1B.19X
48.S7X
12.38X

17.74X
9.68X
24.19X
40.32%
4.84X

12.31%
16.92%
24.62%
40.00%
13.65%

14.22%
13.36%
20.69%
43.97%
10.78%

14
14
17
51
13

15
25
3

8.S7X
13.33X
17.14X
54.29X
12.38X

17.74X
6.45X
16.13%
40.32%
4.S4X

7.69%
12.31%
29.23%
41.54%
10.77%

10.78%
11.21%
20.26%
46.98%
9.91%

9
14
16
57
13

11
4
10
25
3

19
27
7

1.90X
7.62X
6.67X
73.33X
2.86X

3.23X
3.23X
6.4SX
40.32X
6. 45%

1.54%
4.62%
6.15%
75.36%
3.08%

2.16%
5.60%
6.47%
65.09%
3.68%

2
7
77
3

2
2
4
25
4

1
3
4
49
2

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
1.61X
O.OOX

0.00%
0.00%
1.54%
4.62%
1.54%

0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
1.72%
0.43%

0
0
0
0
0

3
0
0
1
0

0
0
1
3
1

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES***»*s»aitasa»ass»»»*»a»»as»sasa*a»»**aaaaa»*
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES
Dirsct Ssrvics
54.29X
41.94%
49.23%
In Dirsct Ssrvics
15.24X
11.29%
4.62%

49.57%
11.21%

57
16

26
7

32
3

16
6
7

76
10

a

9

11

6

9

6

a
n
16
26

9

5

6

Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial' Ssrvicss
PURCHASING SERVICES
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Ssrvicss
FOOD SERVICE
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Ssrvicss
AUDIT AND SUPERVISORY FUNCT'S
(FINANCIAL. MEMBERSHIP. POOD
SERVICE TRANSPORTATION
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Essantial Ssrvicss
TEACHER CERTIFICATION
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Essantial Ssrvicss
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
Diract Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Essantial Ssrvicss
INFORMATION SERVICES
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Sarvica
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Ssrvicss
SUBSTITUTE TEACHER PERMITS
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Ssrvicss
SCHOOL CENSUS
Dirsct Ssrvics
In Dirsct Ssrvics
Consultant Ssrvics
No Ssrvics Providsd
Esssntial Sarvicas
TRANSPORTATION

6. 67X
20. 57X
21. 9CX

3.23X
40.32X
17.74X

7.69X
41.54X
20.OOX

6.03X
35.34X
20.26X

7
30
23

2
25
U

5
27
13

20. 57X
29. 52X
4. 76X
33. 33X
14. 29X

30.65X
24.19X
9.60X
45.16X
16.13X

30.77X
10.46X
10.77X
44.62X
10.77X

29.74X
25.OOX
7.76X
39.66X
13.79X

30
31

19
IS
6
20
10

20
12
7
29
7

0. 67X
0, S7X
10, 4OX
69. S2X
6. 67X

0.06X
6.45X
14.52X
40.32X
6.4SX

4.62X
10.77X
1.54X
70.77X
3.OOX

6.47X
0.62X
9.05X
62.07X
S.60X

7
9

39, 05X
15, 24X
20 .9SX
40 .57X
10. 40X

45.16X
14.S2X
20.97X
40.32X
25.SIX

35.30X
13.0SX
27.69X
49.23X
16.92X

39.66X
14.66X
22.04X
46.5SX
16.30X

41

45 .7IX
13, 33X
13. 33X
20, OOX
17. 14X

41.94X
9.60X
17.74X
30.65X
20.97X

36.92X
10.46X
10.46X
27.69X
18.46X

27. 62X
16. 19X
15, 24X
24, 76X
11, 43X

35.40X
16.13X
20.97X
30.OSX
14.52X

46, 67X
14. 29X
14. 29X
14. 29X
12, 3OX

5

35
15

5

3

4
9
25
4

7
1
46
2

51

20
9
13
25

23
9
10
32

11

10

11

42.24X
13.79X
1S.95X
25.OOX
10.53X

40
14
14
21
10

20

24

23.OOX
26.15X
1S.30X
35.30X
1S.30X

20.45X
10.97X
16.01X
29.31X
13.36X

29
17

56.45X
9.60X
17.74X
17.74X
16.13X

29.23X
I6.92X
24.62X
30.77X
12.31X

44.40X
13.79X
10.10X
19.03X
13.36X

IS
15
13

11

16

11
10

20
0

70, 4 OX
5. 71X
S, 7 IX
10 .46X
10 .10X

40.32X
6.45X
11.29X
9.60X
22.50X

46.15X
7.69X
10.77X
20.OOX
20.OOX

55.60X
6.47X
0.62X
12.93X
19.83X

74

25
4
7
0
14

30
5
7
13
13

36. 19X
7 .62X
6 .67X
41 .90X
12, 36X

25.SIX
6.45X
9.60X
40.39X
14.52X

20.OOX
7.69X
10.77X
50.46X
10.77X

20.BOX
7.33X
0.62X
40.20X
12.SOX

30

16
4
6
30
9

13
5
7
30
7

11

73
7

10

22

0

12

11
19
13

12
10
12

12

22
10
13
19
9

15
17
10
23
10

49

35

19

6

11

10

26

15

6

6
11

19

0

7
44
13

tO
CTi

Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essential Sarvicas
PROCESS AND MONITOR STATE S
FEDERAL PROGRAM REPORTS
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas
OTHER
Diract Sarvica
In Diract Sarvica
Consultant Sarvica
No Sarvica Providad
Essantial Sarvicas

10.46X
12.36X
16.19X
49.S2X
9.S2X

22.SBX
11.29X
16.13X
46.77X
6.06X

10.77X
3.0SX
20.OOX
56.SOX
6.15X

13.79X
9.48X
17.24X
S0.B6X
B.19X

44.76X
10.4BX
15.24X
1S.10X
14.29X

S6.45X
B.06X
B.06X
I4.S2X
19.35X

3B.46X
IS.SBX
12.31X
30.77X
20.OCX

46.12X
11.21X
12.50X
20.69X
17.24X

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
4.S2X
1.S4X

O.OOX
O.OOX
O.OOX
1.29X
0.43X

11

13
17
52

14
7
10
29

10

5

7
2
13
37
4

47

35
5
5
S
12

25
10
8
20
13

11

16
19

15
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
3
1

<0
"J

APPENDIX E
MAP OF INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

98

, INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN

kwATOO

APPENDIX F
MAP OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

99

MICHIGAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aycock, K. H.
Education
A bstrac ts
films No.

"The Degree o f D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Certain Components o f
Service Agencies f o r M is s i s s i p p i . " D i s s e r t a t io n
In te rn a tio n a l 42 (1981): 2944A. U nive rsity Micro­
81-28, 187.

Beach, Fred, and Gibbs, Andrew. The Functions o f S t a t e Departments
of Education. Misc. No. 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart­
ment o f Health, Education and Welfare, 1950.
Beem, Harlow D., and James, H. Thomas. Report of th e Michioan
Committee f o r the Study o f the Intermediate Unit o f School
A dministr ation. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago, 1955.
Blomquist, D. M. "A Description of the Role, T e r r i t o r i a l i t y and
Defense of Intermediate School Superintendents in Michigan."
D is s e r t a tio n Abs tracts Inte rn a tio n a l 36 (1975): 1190A.
University Microfilms No. 75-20, 813.
Borg, W. R., and Gall, M. D. Educational Research:
t i o n . 4th ed. New York: Longman, 1983.

An I ntr odu c­

Boss, L. H. "Role Expectations Held f o r the Intermediate School
Superintendents in Michigan." D is s e r ta tio n Abs tra cts I n t e r ­
national 25 (1963): 215. University Microfilms No. 64-07, 486.
B r i t t o n , E. R. "Recommendations on School Finance and Educational
Opportunity." unpublished manuscript, Univer sity of Michigan,
Bureau o f School Services, 1969.
Davis, H. S. Educational Service Centers in the U.S.A.
Conn.: S tate Department o f Education, 1976.

Providence,

Dorsey, P ., and Ameen, C. "Intermediate School D i s t r i c t Organiza­
t i o n in Michigan: An Examination o f Functions and S t r u c t u r e . ”
Unpublished manuscript, 1980.
Egloff, J . F. "Suggested Personnel Functions and Services o f an
Intermediate School D i s t r i c t as Perceived by C on stituen t K-12
D i s t r i c t Adm inistra tors." D is s e r t a tio n Abstracts I n te r n a ti o n a l
43 (1982): 317A. Univer sity Microfilms No. 82-16, 538.

100

101
Emerson, William J . L e tt e r sent t o John W. P o r te r , Superintendent,
S t a t e Department o f Education, February 4, 1971, In response to
Dr. P o r t e r ’s l e t t e r o f January 28, 1971.
. "William J . Emerson on Intermediate D i s t r i c t s . "
Education Journal 44 (May 1967): 10, 10.
Glulden, Noble. "Overview o f Education Service Agencies."
l i s h e d paper, 1980.

Michigan
Unpub­

Hinkle, D. E.; Wlersma, W.; and J u r s , S. G. Add! led S t a t i s t i c s f o r
the Behavioral Scienc es . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979.
Isenberg, Robert M. " S tate Organization f o r Service and Leadership
t o Local Schools." Education In th e S t a t e s : Nationwide
Development Since 1900. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1969.
. " S tate s Continue t o Reorganize Their Intermediate Units. "
Planning and Changing (July 1971): 60-69.
Kl oster, A. J . "A Study o f Intermediate School D i s t r i c t Functions
and Organizational S t r u c t u r e . " Unpublished manuscript, 1978.
K rejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. "Determining Sample Size f o r
Research A c t i v i t i e s . " Educational and Psychological Measure­
ment 30 (1970): 601-10.
Michigan. General School Laws.
Education, 1966.
________ .

Public Act 190.

1962.

________ .

Public Act 258.

1972.

Prepared f o r the S t a t e Board of

Michigan Association o f Intermediate School Administrators.
"Interim Position Paper on ISD Services t o Implement th e Qual­
i t y Package." Roger T. LaBonte, Chair, MAISA I n s t r u c t io n a l
Committee. 22 November 1989.
. "In termediate School D i s t r i c t Cooperation 1n Action."
Onpublished manuscript, 1985.
Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Education Dir ectory and
Buyer’ s Guide. 1989. Lansing: Michigan Department of Educa­
t i o n , 1989.

102
Michigan S t a t e Board o f Education. "Proposed Regionalization o f the
Department o f Education." Lansing: Michigan S t a t e Board of
Education, January 1976.
"Michigan: 1990 School Aid Fund and General Fund Summary."
F o r t n i a h t e r . February 9, 1990.

MASA

Mill 1ken, William G. "Making th e School System Accountable."
Compact (October 1970): 70.
Muth, Robert C., and Stuhmer, Paul R. Financing Education in
Michigan. East Lansing: Ford Foundation Study, 1977.
Pine, P a t r i c i a . Shared Services and Cooperatives: Schools Combine
Resources to Improve Education. Washington, D.C.: National
School Public Relations Association, 1971.
P o r te r , John W. "Regionalization o f Department o f Education
A c t i v i t i e s . " L e tt e r to S t a te Board of Education, Lansing,
Mich., 28 January 1971.
Rhodes, Alvin E., ed. B e t te r Education Through E f f e c tiv e I n t e r ­
mediate U n i t s . Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa­
t i o n , 1963.
Shea, J . P., and Thompkins, R. B. Economy. Efficiency and Eoualitv:
The Mvths of Rural School and D i s t r i c t Consolidatio n. Washing­
ton, D.C.: National I n s t i t u t e of Education, 1976.
Stephens, E. R. Education Service Agencies: Status and Trends.
B u r to n s v ll le , Md. : Stephens Associates, 1979.
♦ Education Service Agencies: Sta tu s and Trends. Center
For Educational Services and Research, Board o f Cooperative
Educational S ervices. Yorktown Heights. N .J.: Stephens Asso­
c i a t e s , 1980. (a)
• The Establishment and Abolishment o f a State-Wide System
of Education Service Agencies. Center f o r Educational Services
and Research, Board o f Cooperative Educational Ser vices .
Yorktown Heights, N . J . : Stephens Asso ciates , 1980. (b)
________ . "Factors Influencing Local Education Agency P a r t i c i p a t i o n
1n th e Program and Services o f Education Service Agencies in
the S t a t e of Texas." Center f o r Educational Services and
Research, Board of Cooperative Educational Ser vices . Yorktown
Heights, N . J . : Stephens Associates , 1980. (c)
. "Functional Allocation 1n S t a t e Departments."
and Changing (Fall 1972): 33-41.

Planning

103
________ . "Major Policy Issues Surrounding th e Education Service
Agency Movement and a Proposed Research and Development
Agenda." Center f o r Educational Services and Research, Board
o f Cooperative Educational Ser vices . Yorktown Heights, N . J . :
Stephens Asso ciates , 1980. (d)
________ . Regionalism: P as t. Present and Future . Ar lin gton, Va.:
American Association of School Ad min istrators, 1973.
• The Role o f Education Ser v ic e Agencies 1n Metropolitan
Areas. Ar lington, Va.: American Association o f School Admin­
i s t r a t o r s , 1980. (e)
Task Force appointed by th e S t a t e Board o f Education August 11,
1976. Report o f Blue Ribbon Task Force on Intermediate School
D i s t r i c t s . Lansing: Michigan Department o f Education, 1977.
"Where Are They Going?"
12-14.

Michigan Education Journal 44 (May 1967):