THE UTILIZATION OF SCHOOL ADVISORYCOUNCILS AT RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF

By

KENNETH D. RANDALL

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

Copyright 1985

by

Kenneth D. Randall

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I offer my sincerest appreciation to chief executive officers,

chairs of advisory councils, and lay members of the residential

schools for the deaf who participated in this study. Their interest

in the subject of this study and desire for additional information

provided constant encouragement.

I wish to thank Dr. Phillip A. Clark, chairman of my committee,

for his interest, direction, and support. I wish also to thank Dr.

Stuart Schwartz and Dr. James Wattenbarger for their encouragement.

I extend special appreciation to Dr. George W. Corrick and Dr. Carol

M. McGregor for their professional guidance and support.

I want to thank Carla Elliott of the Florida School for the

Deaf for her assistance with the typing and redrafting of the

manuscript. I am particularly grateful to Leila Cantara for her

expert preparation of the final copy.

Special appreciation is due to my parents for the manner in

which they accepted a son who is deaf. They created the environment

which led my oldest brother and me into the field of special

education. Their ability to accept and respect individual differences

among people made a positive impact on my life. I am particularly

grateful to them for the development of my tenacity to achieve a

goal.

iii

This study is dedicated to my wife, Diane, and our sons,

Ryan and David. They have all made individual sacrifices so that

this study would be completed.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

ABSTRACT viii

CHAPTERS

I BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE 1

Systems 4

System Linkage 4

Change 5

Change in Residential Schools 6

Citizen Participation in ChangeSchool Advisory Councils 8

The Problem 9

Delimitations 10

Limitations 11

Significance of the Study 11

Assumptions 13

Definition of Terms 13

Overview of Procedures 15

Participant Selection 15

Instrumentation 15

Data Collection 16

Data Analysis 16

Organization of the Research Report 17

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 18

Organization of Schools for the Deaf 18

Governance of Residential Schools for the Deaf .... 20

Accountability in Education 21

Relevance of General Systems Theory and Provision ofServices ..... 29

Utilization of Linkage Theory 31

School Advisory Councils as Linkages to CitizenParticipation 35

Chapter Summary 43

v

Ill PROCEDURES 46

Participant Selection 46

Instrumentation 46

Data Collection 48

Overview of Data Analysis 48

Determination of Current Use of School AdvisoryCouncils 49

Determination of Differences in the PerceptionsIn the Use of School Advisory Councils 51

Determination of Guidelines 53

Data Analysis 53

Determination of the Current Use of School AdvisoryCouncils 54

Determination of Differences in the PerceptionIn the Use of School Advisory Councils 55

Determination of Suggested Written Guidelines ... 56

Chapter Summary 56

IV RESULTS 58

Introduction 58

Findings 60

Component One 60

Component Two 63

Component Three 73

Summary of Results 75

V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FORFUTURE RESEARCH 77

Introduction 77

Conclusions and Implications 81

Component One 81

Component Two 83

Component Three 85

Recommendations for Future Research 85

Chapter Summary 87

REFERENCES 88

APPENDICES

A SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL UTILIZATION INSTRUMENT 95

B MODIFIED FEDLER INSTRUMENT 96

C SAMPLE LETTER SENT TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS .... 101

D SUGGESTED GUIDELINES 102

E SUGGESTED BYLAWS FOR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAFADVISORY COUNCIL 104

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 108

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Structure and Legal Authority 65

2 Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Roles and Functions 66

3 Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Group Processes 67

4 Comparison of Total Scores of Participant Responsesto the Modified Fedler Instrument 70

5 Chi-square of Participant Responses to Each Item ofthe Modified Fedler Instrument 71

6 Chi-square of Items on the Modified Fedler InstrumentWhich Display a Significant Difference 72

vii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Schoolof the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

THE UTILIZATION OF SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILSAT RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF

By

Kenneth D. Randall

August, 1985

Chairman: Phillip A. ClarkMajor Department: Educational Leadership

School advisory councils have been used as linkages for citizen

participation within a variety of educational programs. However,

data regarding the utilization of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf have not been available.

A study was undertaken to determine the present use of school

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf and to

formulate suggested written guidelines for school advisory councils.

The study consisted of three components which addressed (a) the

current utilization, operation, policies, and procedures of school

advisory councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf;

(b) differences which may exist regarding the perception of operation

of school advisory councils among chief executive officers of

residential schools for the deaf, chairs of school advisory councils,

viii

and lay members of such councils as measured by the Modified Fedler

Instrument; and (c) suggested written guidelines for school

advisory councils.

The results indicated that only 40% of public K-12 residential

schools for the deaf utilized school advisory councils. Significant

differences in perception did not exist at the .05 level among

chief executive officers of residential schools for the deaf,

chairs, and lay members of such councils within the categories of

(a) structure and legal authority, (b) roles and function, and (c)

group processes as measured by the Modified Fedler Instrument.

Significant differences in perception at the .05 level did exist

among the participants on the total score of the Modified Fedler

Instrument. The five items of the Modified Fedler Instrument which

contained significant differences at the . 05 level were in the areas

of (a) delegation of authority, (b) existence of written guidelines,

(c) responsibility for decision making, (d) availability of resource

personnel, and (e) use of small groups.

It was concluded that school advisory councils are not used by

the majority of residential schools for the deaf. This finding

implies that the majority of such schools utilize a traditional

approach to educational administration. It was further concluded

that significant differences did not exist at the .05 level in 25 of

the 30 items of the Modified Fedler Instrument. Finally, it was

concluded that written guidelines for a school advisory council

could be presented.

ix

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

The importance of public involvement in the educational process

has been a primary tenet of general elementary and secondary

education in this country. The degree of involvement in the

education of exceptional students was minimal prior to the passage

of Public Law 94-142 in 1975.

Griffing (1977) reported that residential schools for the deaf

have operated within a traditional style of management with a high

degree of paternalism, isolation from other organizations, and a

primary concern for internal self-maintenance in a manner

characterized as not being responsive to outside interests. The

utilization of parent and citizen participation in the form of

involvement in a school advisory council would constitute a change

in the management of residential schools. This change would initiate

a more comprehensive commitment to the implementation of the systems

approach in educational administration. The utilization of parent

and citizen participation through involvement in school advisory

councils may assist in creating more effective residential school

programs for children who are deaf.

A frame of reference for an investigation of the utilization of

school advisory councils should be based on relevant concepts and

1

2

theories. The concepts of systems, systematic linkage, change, and

citizen participation in change through the use of school advisory

councils are presented as the basis for this study. This study

responded to the needs of professionals by investigating the

utilization of school advisory councils at residential schools for

the deaf. Written guidelines for a school advisory council based

upon findings derived from the study could be used by practitioners

in the development of advisory councils which may enhance the

effectiveness of residential schools for the deaf.

The effectiveness of schools in general has been a matter of

controversy, both in the technical literature and in the popular

media. Controversy about schools and school practices is probably

as old as formal education. However, in the past 10 years it has

reached a level of intensity and seriousness which at times has

seemed to undermine the very existence of schools. Educational

programs designed to serve deaf children in a residential environment

are particularly sensitive to such concerns because large amounts of

public funds are channeled toward a relatively small but highly

demanding group within the general population.

During the past two decades several important pieces of

legislation (e.g.. Public Law 94-142) have been enacted which

resulted in expanded public funding of deaf education programs.

Increased availability of funding brought about the stimulation of

expenditures, the development of innovative projects, and the

implementation of highly specialized programs. The expansion of

deaf education programs had led to a process of change in the

3

organizational atmosphere of such programs from the traditional

concept of operation to more modern systems of management.

One characteristic of the traditional deaf education program

becomes clearly visible from examining qualifications of faculty

and staff. Connor (1978) noted that the number of faculty and staff

who are deaf or hard of hearing, have formal training in special

education, and hold advanced academic credentials is significantly

higher than that of their counterparts in school systems serving

hearing children. Faculty and staff typically exhibit strong devotion

and professional commitment to deaf education. Chief executive

officers of residential schools usually maintain their residence on

campus, thus making themselves available for student contact 24 hours

per day, 12 months per year. Hearing faculty, staff, and

administrators generally keep close contact with the deaf community.

It has been suggested that those unique elements in the education

of the deaf, especially where faculty and staff members themselves

are hearing-impaired, are not sufficiently taken into consideration

when matters of organizational effectiveness and accountability are

considered.

Such assertions, coupled with the substantial public interest

for community and parental involvement in the activities of the

public schools in the United States since the 1960s, have led to the

suggestion that the traditional paternalism in the administration of

programs for deaf students needs to be replaced by more modern

systems of management. The utilization of school advisory councils

within a systems theory of management may aid in creating more

effective residential schools.

4

Systems

Boulding (1968) indicated that the goal of general systems

theory is to understand and integrate knowledge from diverse,

specialized fields that will enable development of theoretical

models. The utilization of such models may perform the function of

a gestalt in theoretical construction. General systems theory is

premised upon the thought that there are commonalities throughout

the various fields of study. Miles (1964) defined an open system

as a

bounded collection of interdependent parts, devoted to

the accomplishment of some goal or goals, with partsmaintained in a steady state in relation to each otherand the environment by means of (1) standard modes of

operation and (2) feedback from the environment about

the consequences of system actions. (p. 13)

Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) stated that

consideration must be given to the means for inter-relatingand coordinating . . . various systems. These parts are

integrated through various processes, such as the

information and communication network, the decisionsystem, and the built-in equilibrium mechanisms whichexist in every organization. (p. 451)

System Linkage

A residential school for the deaf is a social system in which

the components of the system exist in an orderly arrangement and

according to some overall plan of operation. The chief executive

officer of a residential school for the deaf is responsible for linking

components of the system together to attain some goal. Although a

system may be viewed as a self-contained unit, systems also interrelate

as components of larger systems. Cole and Cole (1983) noted that an

5

understanding of linkage systems, both within and between

organizations, is necessary to gain an understanding of the system

itself. Loomis observed that

to understand a social system, it is always necessaryto know how it is linked to other systems and to thelarger system of which it is a part. To understandsocial change it is necessary to understand how agentsof change link themselves to the target systems whichthey have changed. (1960, p. 34)

Social systems overlap and interlock with many other systems in

their environment. Using organizations as an example, Hicks advised

that

an organization does not exist in a vacuum. It existsin a world of concrete places and things, naturalresources, importance abstractions, and living persons(some within . . . its members . . . and some without).The environmental factors affect an organization. Theyhelp it to attain its goals or get in the way. Theyset limits and opportunities. (1972, p. 81)

Change

The concept of change has become increasingly important for

organizations during the second half of the 20th century. The

effectiveness of the individual, organization, and society is

predicated upon their ability to respond to environmental forces

which necessitate change. The inability or unwillingness to change

results in stagnation, atrophy, and death. Schools have been viewed

as organizations which can assist in achieving planned change within

society.

The thrusting of all schools, regardless of the type of service

performed, into the public arena in the 1960s as important agents

of social change has probably contributed to the questioning of their

6

effectiveness. This activity may, in a general way, be attributed

to what Boulding (1966) has called "the movement of the social

system into self-consciousness" (p. 4) during the mid-20th century.

He described the movement as "one of the most significant phenomena

of our time because it represents a very fundamental break with the

past, as did the development of personal self-consciousness many

millenia earlier" (p. 4). Mostellar and Moynihan (1972) declared,

"the effect of the movement of the social system into self-consciousness

has been to increase dramatically empirical efforts to examine,

reform and restructure the society in which we live" (p. 27).

Change in Residential Schools

In the past, residential schools for the deaf were operated in

a traditional style with a high degree of paternalism and isolation.

Griffing (1977) reported that states organized and funded residential

schools for the deaf to serve a special and particular societal need,

the education of deaf children. Griffing also noted that residential

schools traditionally existed as closed social systems, primarily

concerned with internal self-maintenance and not responsive to outside

interests.

Reintegration of the education of the deaf with general

education may be dependent upon the degree of acceptance of the

systems approach to educational management and the application of

practices which are consistent with that style of management. The

passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 created the legal impetus for

this reintegration of education of the deaf. As a result, residential

schools for the deaf, which were established as separate

organizational entities to provide a specialized, singular

function, were brought into the mainstream of public education.

' Presently, some residential schools for the deaf have departed

from the traditional style of management. Those schools have

implemented the utilization of school advisory councils consistent

with a systems approach to educational administration. Citizen and

parent participation in the operation of a residential school for

the deaf was a dramatic change from the previous traditional style

of management.

Citizen Participation in Change

Zerchykov (1984) reported that citizens and parents interact

with schools as either advocates, decision-making partners, or

co-production partners. Advocacy seeks to influence or change and/or

support decisions about how a school system's emphasis and resources

are allocated. Decision making attempts to influence the implementation

of those resource re-allocation decisions. Co-production adds

resources to the school system's capacity to improve achievement

for all students.

Citizen and parent involvement may assist in creating more

effective schools. Wagenaar (1977), investigating the impact on

achievement of various kinds of citizen and parent involvement, found

that schools with higher achievement were more open to parent and

community involvement but found closed schools to have lower

achievement and less community support.

A school advisory council serves as an information and

communication network which can assist in increasing citizen and

parent involvement. From this a school administrator can obtain

advice which may assist in the development of more effective

schools.

School Advisory Councils

According to Monchek (1982), the use of a school advisory

council creates a communication mechanism which (a) serves as a

control valve filtering the impact that the subsystem will have on

the system and (b) functions as a system for information dissemination

and retrieval. Thompson (1967) noted that school advisory councils

provide a buffer between the suprasystem and the internal functioning

of the organization.

Until recently, there has not been a systematic attempt to

identify the operational components of an effective school advisory

council. Fedler (1980) reviewed the literature and identified 16

characteristics and 65 indicators which described the ideal elementary

school advisory council. These characteristics and indicators were

identified through the use of the Local Elementary School Advisory

Committee Questionnaire (LESACQ) which Fedler developed. The

characteristics and indicators are contained within the three

categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Functions, and (c) Group Processes. M. S. Harris (personal communication,

October 15, 1984) reported that the characteristics and indicators

identified by Fedler can be generalized to include a school advisory

council serving an elementary and secondary school population

which is the age bracket of students in residential schools for

the deaf in this country.

School advisory councils have been utilized by some chief

executive officers of public K-12 residential schools for the deaf

as a means of improving operational effectiveness of the educational

program. R. I. Harris (1981) suggested the establishment of parent

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf. Harris

(1978) also recommended that more deaf persons should be hired in

instructional programs and for positions that involve policy-making

decisions which affect deaf children.

The Problem

The problem for the present study was to determine the

utilization of school advisory councils at public K-12 residential

schools for the deaf. The study comprised three interrelated

components

.

Component One identified current utilization, organization and

operation, policies, and procedures for school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf. Under this, information regarding

the current characteristics of school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf was obtained to determine their use, operation,

policies, and procedures in the categories of (a) Structure and

Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

Component Two determined differences in the perceptions of

residential school advisory councils by chief executive officers of

10

residential schools for the deaf, the chairs of school advisory

councils, and lay members. Findings were presented regarding the

perceptions of three members of each school advisory council

according to the position they held on the council. Significance

of such differences was determined by the use of a testing

instrument.

Component Three developed written operational guidelines to

be used by school advisory councils at residential schools for the

deaf. The suggested written guidelines for the derived model were

based on the current characteristics of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf and on knowledge regarding how

existing school advisory councils meet the expectations as defined

by authorities.

Delimitations

The study was affected by the following constraints.

1. It was confined to the school advisory councils in operation

at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf in the United States.

2. The review of the literature for advisory councils was

confined to that body of literature presented during or after 1970.

3. The characteristics of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf were limited to a description of

the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

4. The field study was limited to the 25 school advisory

councils in operation at public K-12 residential schools for the

deaf.

11

5. Data regarding the perceptions of operation of school

advisory councils were confined to the responses of three members

of each school advisory council as obtained through the use of an

instrument modified by the researcher.

Limitations

The following limitations in the study could have existed.

1. The instrument that was utilized was dependent upon the

degree of accuracy with which respondents perceived their situations

and reported their perceptions through the use of the instrument.

2. The development of suggested written guidelines for school

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf was based

upon a composite of components derived from the existing guidelines

of operation of each school. The results may not be directly

applicable to every residential school for the deaf in the United

States.

Significance of the Study

The study was conducted to advance knowledge regarding the use

of school advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf

and to provide a solution to a practical problem concerning the

operation of school advisory councils at such schools. The study

was comprised of three interrelated components. Each component

resulted in the presentation of knowledge regarding the utilization

of school advisory councils within public K-12 residential schools

for the deaf in the United States.

12

The researcher contemplated that the viability of residential

schools for the deaf might come under closer scrutiny because of

the large amounts of public funds which are channeled toward a

relatively small but highly demanding group. The development of

school advisory councils might result in expanding the role of

citizen participation in educational decision making regarding the

role and function of residential schools for the deaf.

The researcher concluded that a study of school advisory

councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf was needed.

The need existed because there was not a body of literature which

described the current use, organization, operation, policies, and

procedures for the utilization of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf. Information was not available as

to the reasons why some chief executive officers of residential

schools for the deaf have decided not to implement school advisory

councils or information they needed to implement such councils.

There was an absence of knowledge regarding the characteristics of

school advisory councils and a measure to determine the extent to

which existing councils functioned in a manner as prescribed by

authorities. Finally, there was a need to develop suggested written

guidelines for school advisory councils based upon the research

literature in the area.

In summary, this study met an identified need by providing

significant information about the use and operation of school

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf, examined the

13

perceptions of various members of existing school advisory councils,

and presented written guidelines for use by school advisory councils

at residential schools for the deaf.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made regarding the study.

1. The Modified Fedler Instrument was an appropriate tool for

use with school advisory councils at public K-12 residential schools

for the deaf.

2. The participants involved in the study would cooperate by

completing the Modified Fedler Instrument to the best of their

abilities.

3. The research literature concerning the utilization of school

advisory councils and effective schools was directly applicable

to residential schools for the deaf.

4. The utilization of school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf would assist in creating more effective schools.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms were

defined.

Characteristic . "A general statement about a particular aspect

of the phenomena under consideration, i.e., a characteristic of an

advisory council, is that it represents citizen and community groups

residing within the school attendance zone" (Fedler, 1980, p. 12).

14

Chair. A member of a school advisory council who is not an

employee of the residential school and has been selected to provide

leadership functions for the council.

Chief Executive Officer . The person designated by the

policy-making body of a residential school for the deaf to carry

out the overall management function of the school.

Effective School . A school where conditions are such that

student achievement data indicate that all students evidence an

acceptable minimum mastery of those essential basic skills that are

prerequisite to success at the next level of schooling.

Indicator. "A practice which is an observable manifestation of

a characteristic" (Fedler, 1980, p. 12).

Lay Member . A member of a school advisory council who is not

an employee of the residential school and does not hold a position

of leadership within the council.

Residential School.

An organizational pattern whereby a boarding facilityis provided for some or all of the deaf children whoeither may attend a segregated school on campus or mayreceive some of their educational services through acooperative arrangement with the public or privateschools of the community in which the residential schoolis located. Usually, most of the students live at theschool at least five days a week and attend classes oncampus. Some pupils may live in the community and may beenrolled as day students at the residential school.(Taylor, 1973, p. 38)

School Advisory Council . An organization consisting of parents

and interested citizens that meets to advise chief executive officers

in matters pertaining to the school program. The functions may

15

include assessing educational needs, establishing priorities,

defining goals, and assisting in the planning of the total

educational program and budget allocation.

Overview of Procedures

The purpose of the study was to develop suggested written

guidelines for the utilization of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf. The procedures employed in this

study were divided into four subsections:

(a) Participant

Selection, (b) Instrumentation, (c) Data Collection, and (d) Data

Analysis. A detailed description of the procedures is included in

the chapter entitled "Procedures."

The study had the three components previously identified. The

following sections describe the procedures utilized in carrying out

the three components of the study.

Participant Selection

The participants in the study consisted of chief executive

officers, chairs of school advisory councils, and lay members of

school advisory councils at the public K-12 residential schools for

the deaf in the United States. The participants are defined in the

section entitled "Definition of Terms." Chief executive officers of

public residential schools for the deaf who did not utilize school

advisory councils at the time of the study comprised the second group

of participants.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were developed for this study. One instrument

(Appendix A) was designed to (a) identify public K-12 residential

16

schools which utilized school advisory councils, (b) identify reasons

why some schools had not implemented the use of school advisory

councils, and (c) identify information chief executive officers

indicated they would need to implement school advisory councils.

The second instrument, the Modified Fedler (Appendix B),was

used primarily to collect data regarding the perceptions of

participants towards the utilization of school advisory councils.

The modified instrument was reviewed by a panel of experts who

determined that it maintained content validity with the original

instrument

.

Data Collection

Data collection involved a two-step process. One step required

the researcher to make verbal contact with the chief executive

officer of 62 public K-12 residential schools for the deaf in the

United States to collect data for Components One and Three of the

study. Step Two required the researcher to send and receive the

Modified Fedler Instrument via the U.S. mail. Participants who did

not complete and return the instrument within two weeks of mailing

were telephoned by the researcher to verify that the instrument had

been received and were encouraged to return the completed instrument.

This step provided the data to complete Component Two of the study.

Data Analysis

Component One required the researcher to contact chief executive

officers of public K-12 residential schools for the deaf, review

written guidelines, classify the guidelines into categories as

17

utilized by Fedler, and provide a narrative description of the

current use of advisory councils at residential schools for the

deaf. In Component Two, a chi-square statistical procedure was

used to determine if significant differences existed among

participants on the total Modified Fedler Instrument within each of

three categories. The same procedure was used to determine if

significant differences existed for the total response of participants

within each of the three categories. An item analysis was completed

to identify the location of significant differences. Component

Three required the researcher to review data obtained in Component

Two, determine operational procedures that appeared to be viable,

formulate a set of suggested written guidelines consistent with the

authoritative literature, and have the panel of experts review the

guidelines to substantiate reliability.

Organization of the Research Report

The remainder of the study was organized into four chapters.

The second chapter is a review of related literature and research.

The third chapter contains a description of the procedures used in

the study including participant selection, instrumentation, data

collection, and data analysis. The fourth chapter presents a report

of the results based on analysis of the data. The fifth chapter

consists of conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future

research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The literature reviewed in this section represents a broad

range of topics related to the utilization of school advisory

councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf. The

review is organized into the following six sections: (a)

Organization of Schools for the Deaf, (b) Governance of Residential

Schools for the Deaf, (c) Accountability and Effective Schools in

Education, (d) Relevance of the General Systems Approach and the

Provision of Services, (e) Utilization of Linkage Theory, and (f)

School Advisory Councils as Linkages to Citizen Participation. A

summary of the review of the literature concludes the chapter.

Organization of Schools for the Deaf

Brill (1971) noted that deaf education was the first form of

special education in the United States. The first school for the

deaf, opened by Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet on April 15, 1817, provided

educational services to seven children. Tne enrollment at the school

increased to 33 within one year. The school was originally named

the Connecticut Asylum for the Education and Instruction of the Deaf

and the Dumb. The name was later changed to the American School for

the Deaf.

18

19

Hewett and Fomess (1974) reported that special schools for

other exceptional children began to appear in 1818 and that state

responsibility for the care of mentally retarded children was

accepted by 1890. Tinsley (1982) observed that the first

residential school for the blind was opened in 1837. Hewett and

Forness (1974) noted that Edouard Sequin assisted in establishing

the first state residential facility for the mentally retarded

in the United States in 1854. According to Brill (1971), the five

schools for the deaf which were in existence prior to the opening

of the first school for the blind in this country included the

American School for the Deaf (opened in 1817), the New York

Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and the Dumb (opened in

1818), the Pennsylvania Institution for the Deaf and the Dumb (opened

in 1820), the Kentucky Institution for Education of Deaf Mutes

(opened in 1823), and the Ohio Institution for the Deaf and the

Dumb (opened in 1829).

The provision of education for the deaf in the United States

in the early 1800s was experimental in nature. Cordasco (1965)

observed that many of the experimental programs in education in this

country from 1787 to 1900 were first conducted in private schools

and agencies. Programs serving deaf children followed that pattern.

Brill (1971) noted that, by 1900, 57 public residential schools

for the deaf were established in this country with most of the

schools serving an enrollment of less than 100 students. According

to Craig and Craig (1984), by that year 62 public K-12 residential

20

schools for the deaf in the United States served an enrollment

ranging from 49 students at the Alaska State Program for the Deaf

to 621 students at the Florida School for the Deaf. Craig and

Craig (1984) reported that the average enrollment at the 62 public

K-12 residential schools for the deaf in the 1983-84 school year

was 247 students.

Governance of Residential Schools for the Deaf

As was mentioned above, many state's residential schools for

the deaf were initially established as private schools or institutions.

Williams (1982) noted that the majority of those early schools were

autonomous and divorced from the organizational structures governing

public elementary and secondary education in each state.

However, as pointed out by Brill (1971), although many

residential schools for the deaf were established as private schools,

their major financial support came through the legislative bodies of

their respective states. Griffing (1977) noted that states organized

and funded residential schools for the deaf to serve a special and

particular societal need, the education of deaf children.

Residential schools for the deaf have traditionally operated

under a wide variety of governing structures and authorities.

Williams (1982) reported that the major classifications of governance

for residential schools were (a) State Boards of Education and (b)

Boards of Trustees.

It has been only within the past 10 years that residential

schools for the deaf have felt the impact of the state and national

21

policy issues affecting education in general. Griffing (1977)

commented that residential schools for the deaf have traditionally

existed as closed social systems primarily concerned with internal

self-maintenance and not accountable to outside interests.

Accountability in Education

Part of the reason for the recent concern about schooling was

that by the mid-1960s the United States Congress had made a substantial

commitment to education as a policy area in which significant efforts

were to be made to rectify perceived inequalities in American

society. The commitment was both financial and moral; financial in

terms of the vast sums of money allocated to interventions such as

Head Start and Title I, and moral in the sense that the aim of

legislation was to eliminate educational imbalances due to race,

color, handicapping condition, and national origin.

The results of large-scale studies of the effectiveness of

schooling and of compensatory education programs was reported by

Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland, Mood, Weinfield, and York

(1966). Instead of documenting gross inequalities in educational

opportunities available in black schools and white schools, relatively

small differences in school resources and facilities were found.

Rather than demonstrating the efficacy of compensatory education

programs in narrowing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and

advantaged pupils, few lasting effects on achievement were reported.

The long-nurtured and much-cherished belief in the power of schooling

appeared to be under siege just at a time when schooling was being

22

relied upon to shoulder the major burden in attaining equality of

opportunity for all students.

Several researchers who used test scores to identify academically

effective schools found those schools to share some characteristics.

In a landmark study of English secondary schools, Rutter (1979) and

his colleagues identified several factors that appeared to be

related to student success. They concluded that the overall school

environment made a difference in student behavior and achievement.

Those researchers found that academically effective schools utilized

a clearly stated philosophy which was understood and accepted by

students and staff. The philosophy, which included values and

expectations, was consistently applied to the whole school. While

the philosophy might vary from school to school and cannot be

prescribed, Rutter (1979) and others have identified some of its

essential components.

Rutter (1979), along with Weber (1971) and Edmonds and

Frederickson (1979), were among the first researchers who attempted

to identify characteristics of academically effective schools. The

following are salient points in their findings.

1. Rutter (1979) and Weber (1971) reported that effective

schools had positive expectations of all children. The school staff

believed that all children had the ability to learn.

2. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) noted that effective schools emphasized academics and carried

out that emphasis in the classrooms.

23

3. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979) and Weber (1971) indicated

that effective elementary schools stressed reading and mathematics

skills

.

4. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) found that high value was placed on individual student

progress in effective schools. A carefully constructed testing

program monitored student progress. The test results were used to

design educational activities that helped individual students

demonstrate progress in weak areas.

5. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) reported that the administrative leader, usually the

principal, had a vision of what the school could and should be,

articulated that vision, and generally set the tone for the school

environment. The leader clearly articulated expectations for staff

and students.

6. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) indicated that the principal made major decisions through the

use of a management style that enabled staff and students both to

feel represented and actually to be represented.

7. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) found that the principal was the instructional leader of an

effective school, not only by establishing standards for instruction,

but also by acting as a resource to the teaching staff on instructional

matters.

24

8. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979) and Rutter (1979) noted

that students behaved better and achieved more when teachers praised

their work and showed appreciation for their accomplishments rather

than the teachers limiting their focus to the failures of students.

9. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) reported that academic achievement and attendance were higher

in schools where students perceived the environment to be comfortable

and pleasant.

10. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) found that achievement, attendance, and behavior were better

in schools where there were many opportunities for large numbers of

students to assume responsibility and participate in the operation of

the school.

11. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) stated that effective schools provided an orderly but not

rigid environment where expectations were clearly stated.

12. Edmonds and Frederickson (1979), Rutter (1979), and Weber

(1971) reported that the philosophy, expectations, and rules were

generally accepted by both students and staff in effective schools.

Timpane (1980) enunciated another characteristic of effective

schools that was suggested by many authors. Effective schools were

open systems; that is, the school organization and the staff were

open to change. Openness and support for self-evaluation and change

were crucial in all levels of the school organization and included

students, teachers, support staff, principals, parents, school boards.

25

and administrators. School advisory councils were considered to

be particularly helpful in achieving effective schools because of

their structure and purpose.

The interest in accountability in general education in the

early 1970s may be viewed as a causal agent in the alteration of

services to all exceptional children in this country. Clasby,

Webster, and White (1973) noted that numerous state laws were passed

which were aimed at "statewide assessment of the inadequacy,

efficiency, and effectiveness of the public schools in order to make

them more accountable to the public" (p. 6).

The literature revealed that the expectations of teachers,

administrators, and members of the lay public could permeate a school

and thereby create a school climate. The works of Rutter (1979), as

well as of Brookover and Lezotte (1977), Edmonds and Frederickson

(1979), and Vanezky and Winfield (1979), illustrated this point.

Rutter (1979) found marked differences in the outcomes of

secondary schools attributable to school level variables such as

expectations. Their data revealed that "children had better academic

success in schools where teachers expressed expectations that a high

proportion of the children would do well in national examinations"

(p. 188). Furthermore, the beneficial effects of high expectations

were felt in areas other than academic achievement. Again, from

Rutter:

The findings showed that schools which expected childrento care for their own resources had better behavior,better attendance, and less delinquency. Giving the

26

children posts or tasks of responsibility was associated

with better pupil behavior. The message of confidence

that the pupils can be trusted to act with maturity and

responsibility is likely to encourage pupils to fulfill

those expectations. (1979, p. 188)

Berliner (1983) reported that the evidence on effective

classrooms and effective schools was very congruent. According to

his findings, there was always evidence of high achievement in

classes or schools where there was present an orderly, safe

environment, a business-like manner among the teachers, and a

school-wide system that reflected thoughtfulness in promulgating

academic programs, focused on achievement, held students accountable

for achievement, and rewarded achievement.

Purkey and Smith reviewed the effective schools' literature and

commented

The seriousness and purpose with which the school approaches

its task is communicated by the order and discipline it

maintains in the buildings . . . evidence existsindicating that clear, reasonable rules, fairly and

consistently enforced, not only can reduce behaviorproblems that interfere with learning but also canpromote a feeling of pride and responsibility in theschool community. (1983, p. 445)

In summary, Edmonds and Frederickson (1979) identified five

factors which were characteristic of effective schools.

1. Building Leadership: The principal displayed strong

professional behavior, understood the contribution of teachers to the

school's goals, regularly visited or observed classrooms, and made

useful suggestions to improve instruction.

2. Instructional Leadership: The adults in the building (e.g.

,

parents, teachers, administrators, and support staff) were consistent

27

in statements about the school's instructional goals. They not

only understood but abided by these aims. Consistency among

statements was more important than the particular goals named.

3. School Climate: Effective schools were attractive, clean,

organized, and physically secured with adequate instructional space.

The age and furnishings of buildings were not determining factors.

4. Implied Teacher Expectations: Observers looked only at

what teachers did and not at what they thought or felt. Students

were asked if they thought their teacher expected anyone in the class

to fall below an acceptable level of achievement. In effective

schools, the students answered "no." Teachers who expected

achievement got it.

5. Monitoring System: Effective schools had a system for

monitoring and assessing pupil performance related to specific

instructional objectives. The faculty did not continue practices

that had not worked. If achievement data or other feedback indicated

a need for change, they were willing to make the change.

Accountability and effectiveness were also issues for exceptional

students. Monchek (1982) reported three specific ramifications from

the accountability movement for the education of exceptional

students: (a) litigation about the appropriateness of placement

procedures for the special education program as exemplified by the

case of Larry P. vs. Riles, (b) litigation about the exclusion of

handicapped children from educational services as demonstrated by

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs. Commonwealth of

28

Pennsylvania, and (c) legislation mandating appropriate education

for all school-aged children as evidenced by the passage of the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, frequently

referred to as Public Law 94-142.

Stevens (1972) observed that changes in the field of exceptional

education due to litigation and legislation extending civil rights

to the handicapped have been significant since the 1960s. Moores

(1979) noted that the passage of P.L. 94-142 with its legal mandate

to educate handicapped children in the least restrictive

environment renewed discussions which originated in Europe in

1815 regarding the merits of including children with a hearing

loss in regular classes.

The specific impact of P.L. 94-142 upon the traditional role

and function of residential schools for the deaf has been documented.

Hicks (1982) stated (a) the percentage of all students in attendance

at residential schools for the deaf has declined in recent years

from approximately 80% to less than 50% of all deaf students, and

(b) a discernible shift has occurred within the population of

students attending residential schools for the deaf in the increased

numbers of severely and profoundly hearing-impaired students, a

greater number of middle and upper school students, and a corresponding

decrease in the number of younger students.

Griffing (1977) reported that since the passage of P.L. 94-142

the role of the state residential school for the deaf has been in a

period of evaluation. Acceptance of the realities of educational

29

program change, the economic limitations for education forced by

other people's demands, and changing social values of individuals

and family units led states to examine important policy issues.

One of these issues dealt with the role of a state residential

school for the deaf.

Relevance of General Systems Theory and Provision of Services

Public Law 94-142 provided the legal mandate to organize the

delivery of educational services to handicapped children through the

system of public education in this country. As a result, residential

schools for the deaf, which were established as separate organizational

entities to provide a specialized, singular function, were brought

into the mainstream of public education.

Since the full implementation of Public Law 94-142, there has

been a concerted effort in many states to coordinate the service

delivery systems for handicapped children. The establishment of a

relationship between the resources and agencies in a given state

has been evidenced through cooperative agreements between state and

local agencies and, in some states, the reorganization of existing

services. This action was an example of the utilization of administrative

practice based on general systems theory.

Boulding (1968) postulated that the goal of general systems

theory was to understand and integrate knowledge from diverse,

specialized fields which would enable development of theoretical models

that may perform the function of a gestalt in theoretical construction.

General systems theory was premised upon the thought that there were

30

commonalities throughout the various fields of study. Kimbrough

and Nunnery (1976) noted that Ludwig von Bertalanffy was generally

adknowledged as being the first advocate of a notion of parallelism

and often acclaimed as the originator of general systems theory.

The system is the basic unit of study in general systems theory.

Miles defined an open system as a

bounded collection of interdependent parts, devoted tothe accomplishment of some goal or goals, with partsmaintained in a steady state in relation to each otherand the environment by means of (1) standard modes ofoperation and (2) feedback from the environment aboutthe consequences of system actions. (1964, p. 13)

With this definition in mind, an organization can be treated as a

special kind of open system. Barnard noted that

If organizations are systems, it follows that thegeneral characteristics of systems are also those oforganizations. A system is something that must betreated as a whole (gestalt) because each part is

related to every other part included in a significantway. (1938, p. 52)

Concerning organizations or social institutions, Lewin (1951)

observed that

If we view organizations as adaptive, problem-solving,organic structures, then inferences about effectivenesshave to be made, not from static measures of output,though these may be helpful, but on the basis of theprocess through which the organization approachesproblems. (p. 48)

Lippitt, Watson, and Westley rephrased that concept and stressed the

idea that an organization must be considered within the context of

some social purpose by noting

In the nineteen-seventies there will be an increasingstress placed on organizations to be both viable and

31

relevant to the society of which they are a part.This will demand that more and more organizationsconfront their present state of existence and developfurther toward the maturity that will permit them tocontribute more effectively to the larger society.(p. 65)

The passage of Public Law 94-142 and the prevalence of a

general systems theory of administration in educational environments

during the 1970s impacted the traditional operation of residential

schools for the deaf. Those factors and the widespread attention

given to the Cascade System of Special Education (Deno, 1970)

provided many parents and educators with the perception that

residential schools for the deaf were characterized as less than

desirable educational placement options for deaf children.

Some residential schools for the deaf initiated steps to

abandon their previous role described by Griffing (1977) as closed

social systems and initiated steps to improve their ability to

communicate with the general public and be a part of the system of

public education. The utilization of school advisory councils

served as a vehicle to assist in that linkage endeavor.

Utilization of Linkage Theory

Lipham (1977) defined educational linkage as a mutual process

which made available the conceptual, technical, human, and material

resources required for improving individual and institutional

performance. A functional definition of educational linkage was

any formal or informal relationship between an educational institution

and members of the community which enhanced communication and resulted

32

in cooperative efforts designed to meet related goals. Linkages

were the mechanism that held the elements of coordination together.

Linkage activities were rarely undertaken for program

maintenance. The primary focus was on the improvement of

educational management. The linkage role was one which provided

support to growth and change by helping those engaged in improvement

activities acquire and use relevant ideas, products, and related

resources. Sometimes, as Culbertson and Nash (1977) suggested

Educational leaders have difficulty capturing theopportunities which are known because they arepressed continuously to maintain organizationalstructure and processes rather than try to improvethem, even though there is evidence to suggest thatthe organizational capacity to change is positivelyrelated to both openness and new ideas and to exchangeopportunities with those beyond the boundaries of theorganization. (p. 1)

Effective linkages could vary widely, not only in types and

numbers of organizations involved, but also in the extent of

involvement the linkage entails and the degree of formalization of

the linkage. Gans and Horton (1975) noted that linkages varied in

their impacts and effectiveness. Interagency linkages between schools

and community agencies could best be described in terms of the

following levels: referral arrangements, advisory relationships,

provision of specific services, cooperative programming, and long-term

cooperative agreements which may be termed collaboration.

Linkage theory was related to or has as its source other

management science fields. The use of linkage theory was grounded

in conflict management, decision making, communication theory,

organizational development, planned change, change agentry, futures

techniques, and systems analysis.

33

Administrators of educational programs could utilize elements

of linkage theory in an attempt to improve educational management

through the use of change techniques. Various frameworks have

been suggested for analyzing the change process. Lewin (1951)

suggested three components of planned change: "unfreezing (if

necessary) the present level, moving to the new level, and freezing

group life on the new level" (p. 129). Lippitt, Watson, and Westley

(1959) expanded Lewin' s three phases and suggested five general

phases of the change process: "(a) development of a need for

change, (b) establishment of a change relationship, (c) working

toward change, (d) generalization and stablization of change, and

(e) achieving a terminal relationship" (p. 130).

Administrators functioning as change agents may utilize many

techniques while working with citizens in a community setting. The

Functionalist- Integrationist approach and Conflict approach were

styles which represented opposite ends of a continuum.

The Functionalist-Integrationist approach incorporated processes

displayed when advisory councils were involved in programming

efforts. Cole and Cole (1983) reported the following implications

of the Functionalist-Integrationist approach: "(a) change is slower

to evolve, (b) change requires the consensus of more actors, (c)

socialization occurs simultaneously with change, (d) everyone has the

same information at the same time, (e) leadership is developed, and

(f) change is holistic" (p. 16).

According to the above authors, the conflict theory maintained

that authority was a result of stratification and was the basis for

34

conflict. Confrontation with authority through the existing

power structure was viewed as a means for bringing about social

change. Alinsky championed the use of the Conflict approach.

Consequences of the conflict approach included

1. Rapid social change,2. Often alienation of subsystems3. Change that is not holistic,4. Often untrained leadership remaining when the

professional leader leaves, and5. Frequently a disregard for the consequences

of actions because the results are moreimportant than the means. (1971, p. 16)

While most of the research on change processes fell outside the

field of education and was contained in the areas of rural sociology,

business, and health, recent reviews of the literature have included

educational change and improvement. Among these reviews were those

of Gaynor (1975), Hall and Alford (1976), Maguire (1970), Roseman

and Hood (1975), and Short (1973). Paul (1977) reviewed that body

of literature and identified three dimensions of change which

assisted in classifying findings regarding change. They were

composed of (a) process (which includes activity, mode, and

frequency), (b) influences (which comprise internal organizational

factors, external organizational factors, and innovation

characteristics), and (c) effects (which refer to the outcomes of

change processes)

.

Meetings were the vehicle through which linkages were

developed. The improvement of educational management could be

accomplished through the utilization of people serving in linkage

functions within a meeting environment which focused on the tasks

35

of sharing information, solving problems, making decisions,

planning, and evaluating. School advisory councils were designed

to provide that role and function.

School Advisory Councils as Linkages to Citizen Participation

There has been a substantial increase of public interest in the

activities of the public schools in the United States. Kimbrough and

Nunnery (1976) pointed out that "the public school enterprise of our

nation has its origin in grassroots lay control" (p. 303). Gordon

and Breivogel (1976) noted that historically the citizens of a new

community decided that a school was needed, hired the teacher, and

determined what was to be taught.

Perry and Ridgley (1979) reported that the responsibility for

operating the schools was given to elected boards of education as

communities and schools grew in size. Ziegler, Tucker, and Wilson

(1976) observed that elected boards became a target for reformers

who attempted to correct problems of bribery, patronage, and

corruption characteristic of the urban political machines in the

early 20th century. Reformers removed education from the political

arena and placed professional educators and experts in positions

of responsibility and management. The process of centralization

and consolidation served to move the centers of power further away

from the average citizen. Mudrunka (1978) stated that, as power

passed into the hands of the professional policy makers and

administrators, the schools "became bureaucratic, much like their

corporate counterparts, and insulated from the desires and needs of

the clientele they were designed to serve" (p. 10).

36

Fedler (1980) reported that the decade of the 1960s was

characterized by an expectation of innovation and change and by

a belief, on the part of the public, in the ability of professional

educators to accomplish desired results. Davies (1976) claimed

that by 1970 the citizens of the United States were disillusioned

with the results of innovation and resented being required to pay

the bill. It became apparent to citizens' groups that they were

unable to influence the distant centers of school power because

they were not able to participate in matters of school control.

The demands of citizens that public institutions become more

responsive to the needs of the real world prompted widespread

interest in the utilization of school advisory councils. These

councils were viewed as a vehicle to combat apathy, alienation,

and mistrust.

According to Cochran, Phelps, and Cochran (1980), the movement

of citizens into the mainstream of the educational process took

many forms. Educators placed renewed emphasis on various

community-oriented dimensions of the programs and attempted to

extend the school/community concept. Legislative responses were

made as a result of citizen groups which executed more pressure and

influence on the formal educational structure. As an example,

legislation in California in 1972 linked school advisory councils to

the early childhood education program. The Florida legislature

mandated school advisory councils either at the district or building

level in 1973. South Carolina passed similar legislation in 1977.

37

State and federal legislation was evidenced in the areas of

career education and vocational education. Career education

established the need for an advisory council that focused on all

segments of education rather than just occupational education.

The Education Amendments of 1974 created the National Advisory

Council on Career Education and the passage of the Career Education

Incentive Act in 1977 reaffirmed the federal commitment to career

education. The passage of the Education Amendments in 1976 mandated

the use of advisory councils in vocational education as a condition

for receiving monetary assistance. Furthermore, state councils

were required to provide technical assistance upon request to

establish and operate advisory councils.

Archer (1973) pointed to concerned citizens turning their

attention to developing new patterns of participation, such as

advisory councils which "complement or supplement but do not replace

the school board" (p. 23). Fedler (1980) observed that legislators

and educators have looked at advisory councils as a countervailing

force against a tide of hostility and alienation on the part of the

public toward educational institutions. Gordon and Breivogel (1976)

noted that patterns for the functioning of many parent participation

groups established in the later 1960s and the early 1970s were

developed from the guidelines for various federally-funded programs

such as Title I, Head Start, and Follow Through. In terms of

services to exceptional children. Safer, Burnette, and Hobbs (1979),

noting (a) a feeling of connectedness of all persons could affect

38

attitudes concerning the separateness and isolation of the

handicapped, and (b) greater consumer questioning of the experts

and lay involvement in decisions previously made by experts,

suggest that the current trend of increasing involvement of

handicapped persons and their families in planning, implementing,

and monitoring the appropriateness of programs could be

strengthened in the future.

Community Education has utilized citizen participation as an

integral part of the development of educational services. Clark

and Shoop asserted that

Community Advisory Councils should be a functionalpart of each and every school facility and they shouldaddress themselves to the total learning desires andneeds of the communities they serve. The use of suchcouncils is not seen simply as a means to an end oras something that must be endured. Community advisorycouncils are the very heart of the educational process.They are an integral part of Community Education.It is essential for community members to besystematically involved in identifying their needs,establishing resultant educational goals andassisting professional educators in the achievementof these goals. (1974, p. 43)

Advisory councils have emerged as a mechanism to facilitate the

educational, occupational, and community partnership essential to

program development. The initiation of advisory councils has

resulted in programs obtaining broader support and effectiveness in

operation

.

Fedler (1980) reviewed the literature and identified 16

characteristics and 65 indicators which described the ideal

elementary school advisory committee. The characteristics and

39

indicators were contained within the three categories of (a)

Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c)

Group Processes. M. S. Harris (personal communication, October 15,

1984) reported that the characteristics and indicators could be

generalized to include a school advisory council serving a secondary

population.

Fedler (1980) noted that the structure of the school advisory

committee and the legal authority granted to it had a relationship

to the committee's purpose. Weinstein and Mitchell (1975) reported

that a school advisory committee must have a purpose which was

on-going and a formal structure if it was to be more than a public

relations or crisis-oriented group.

The purposes and structures of school advisory committees were

influenced by two factors: (a) acceptance of the rights of parents to

participate in decisions affecting the education of their children and

(b) the nature and extent of that participation. Fantini (1975)

noted that parents had the right to participate in decisions

affecting the education of their children because of the existence

of the teachers' rights of "in loco parentis." According to

Dobson and Dobson (1975) the underlying assumption of parent

involvement at the advisory level was that all persons affected

by a school decision had a right and responsibility to participate

in the making of that decision.

Fedler (1980) reported that the functions of school advisory

committees were limited by the definition of authority for

committees. The specific function of committees was limited by

40

the degree of formal power granted to them by school board policy

(Davies, Stanton, Clasby, Zerchykov, § Powers, 1977). Davies

(1976), Price (1977), and Nyquist (1977) identified three functions

commonly assigned to school committees which act in an advisory

nature rather than a policy making capacity. These functions were

(a) evaluating the effectiveness of the educational program by

conducting inquiries and making needs assessments, (b) contributing

to decision making by offering recommendations, and (c) communicating

information to the school community. Clasby, Webster, and White

(1973) noted that each of these functions could be directed toward

a wide range of issues. Issues frequently mentioned were curriculum,

budget, personnel, student welfare, and public support (Davies, 1976;

Gittell, 1977; Nyquist, 1977; Simmons, 1977; Stanwick, 1975).

Group processes in the utilization of advisory councils included

both the manner in which group members related to each other and the

way in which members related to the tasks they had set (Fedler, 1980)

.

Effectiveness of operation would be dependent upon internal and

external factors. External factors which could influence goal

achievement for a school advisory council included access to

necessary human and material resources, recognition and support

by local and state school officials, and open lines of communication

with educational agencies, groups, and persons concerned with the

school. Internal factors comprised the degree of relationships the

group members had with each other, the manner in which the members

worked together to set and achieve goals, and the degree to which a

council evaluated its progress toward goals.

41

The extent to which a school advisory council could act in an

effective manner assisted in determining the degree to which it

could increase the effectiveness of school operation. Various

internal and external reasons have been given to explain why some

advisory committees are not effective in their operation. Kork

(1972) identified the lack of budgetary appropriations as a major

factor in a study concerning trade and industrial education programs.

Douglas (1973) and Sorensen (1974) noted the following five factors

in a study of vocational, technical, and adult education programs:

(a) the lack of expertise in how to establish, maintain, and generate

a committee; (b) the lack of available materials and guides regarding

the use of committees; (c) the lack of preparation in using advisory

committees; (d) the lack of time devoted to an activity that is

considered as an extra assignment, and (e) the lack of knowledge

concerning advisory committees.

In terms of public elementary schools, Fedler (1980) noted

that characteristics in the area of structure and legal authority

existed in practice as they were defined by the literature. However,

in the areas of roles and functions, advisory committees were

characterized by (a) some involvement in evaluating the effectiveness

of a school; (b) minimal participation in decisions regarding

programs and objectives, student achievement, budget, and personnel;

and (c) little responsibility for maintaining a two-way flow of

communication between the school and the community. In the area of

group processes, advisory committees were characterized by (a) limited

42

access to resources at the district and state level in the areas

of training and coordination; (b) cooperation with local educational

agencies, but lesser amount of involvement with district and state

agencies; (c) partial recognition and support from the district

school board and superintendent; (d) cooperation and assistance

from the principal except in the area of training; (e) demonstration

of knowledge regarding the use of group processes; and (f) minimal

use of evaluation procedures. Cochran, Phelps, and Cochran (1980)

noted that

Experience reveals that advisory committees are oftendysfunctional and do not accomplish the purposes forwhich they were established due to the followingreasons: (1) many administrators do not recognizethe value of an active functioning advisory committee,

(2) most educators do not have the time nor theexpertise to communicate with advisory committees,(3) a large number of educators do not possess theability adequately to fulfill leadership rolesregarding the development and utilization ofadvisory committees, (4) members of advisorycommittees do not understand their function in thedevelopment of educational programs, and (5) bothteachers and administrators are unfamiliar with theirrole and responsibility on an advisory committee.(p. xiv)

There was a lack of literature which specifically addressed the

organization and utilization of school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf. Vernon and Estes (1975) and

Vernon and Makowsky (1969) reported that children of minorities

perform well academically and socially when their parents are

involved in making decisions on guidelines for developing and

implementing educational and social programs for their own children.

Harris (1978) recommended that more deaf persons should be hired

43

in instructional programs and for positions that involved policy-

making decisions that affect deaf children. Harris (1981) further

suggested the establishment of parent advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf.

A review by the present researcher concerning the operation

of residential schools for the deaf disclosed that 25 schools had

operational school advisory councils. The organizational language

used to implement these school advisory councils revealed categories,

characteristics, and indicators similar to those reported by Fedler

(1980).

Chapter Summary

The literature demonstrated that the education of deaf children

was the first form of special education to be implemented in the

United States. Programs designed to serve deaf children were

experimental in nature and, following the pattern of other

experimental programs, were conducted in private schools and

agencies

.

Residential schools for the deaf were autonomous and not a

part of the organizational structures governing the provision of

public elementary and secondary education in each state. As a

result, many residential schools for the deaf have existed as closed

social systems primarily concerned with internal self-maintenance

and not accountable to outside interests.

The movement for accountability in education had a direct impact

for exceptional students in the form of litigation regarding the

44

appropriateness of educational placement procedures, litigation

concerning the exclusion of handicapped students from public

educational services, and legislation mandating appropriate

educational services for all school-aged children. As a result

of the interest in accountability, numerous laws were passed

aimed at improving the effectiveness of school programs.

Many studies were conducted to identify the characteristics

of academically effective schools. Rutter (1979) found that (a)

building leadership, (b) instructional leadership, (c) school climate,

(d) implied teacher expectations, and (e) monitoring systems were

indicators of effective schools. Research regarding citizen

participation revealed a higher level of parental involvement in

effective schools.

The passage of Public Law 94-142 was determined to be the

causal agent which created the legal impetus to reintegrate the

education of the deaf with the system of public education in this

country. The traditional style of operation of a residential school

for the deaf was dramatically impacted as a result of the passage

of the law. The previous posture described as being a closed social

system, primarily concerned with internal self-maintenance and not

accountable to outside interests, was altered. The self-imposed

boundaries of organization and operation were penetrated as

residential schools for the deaf altered their processes in order

to be in compliance with the requirements of the federal law.

Regarding linkage theory, the literature showed several

distinct and recurring themes. Linkage activities were utilized

45

to enhance program effectiveness. The use of linkage techniques

was involved in the process of planned change. Although planned

change took different forms, the use of school advisory councils

consistent with the Functionalist-Integrationist approach was

predicted to result in positive outcomes.

A number of studies chronicled the evolution of school

advisory councils as linkages for citizen participation. The

use of school advisory councils in career education, vocational

education, elementary education, and community education was

described. The pattern of utilization indicated that the use of

school advisory councils resulted in broader citizen support for

programs and enhanced effectiveness of operation. However, there

was not substantial literature describing the utilization of school

advisory councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf.

This study was intended to fill this gap.

Chapter III describes the procedures used to conduct the study

designed to determine the utilization of school advisory councils

at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf and the development

°f suggested written guidelines.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

There were four phases to the procedures, i.e., participant

selection, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.

Participant Selection

A list of the 62 public K-12 residential schools was obtained

from the Directory of Services for the Deaf published by the

Conference of Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf. The

schools listed included those in operation in 48 states. Although

Nevada and New Hampshire did not have such schools, they did have

agreements with neighboring states to provide educational placement

for deaf students who needed residential programs.

All 62 public K-12 residential schools in the United States

were included in the study. The student population of individual

schools ranged from approximately 49 in Alaska to 565 in California.

Data were collected from chief executive officers, chairs of school

advisory councils, and lay members of school advisory councils.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were developed which were utilized by the

researcher. The first (Appendix A) contained eight items and

46

47

was designed to identify (a) residential schools which utilized

school advisory councils, (b) reasons why some schools had not

implemented such councils, and (c) information which chief executive

officers indicated they would need to establish school advisory

councils.

The second instrument (Appendix B) was modified from that of

Fedler (1980) and was used primarily to disclose participants'

perceptions of the utilization of school advisory councils. This

Modified Fedler, the major instrument of this study, contained 10

items in each of three categories which consisted of (a) Structure

and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

The total of 30 items represented the areas of interest in the

utilization of school advisory councils as defined by authorities.A

The process of acquiring content validity by having qualified

persons judge whether the author has selected a set of questions

representative of the area of concern was suggested by Thorndike

(1971). Cronbach (1970) suggested that content validity was a matter

of judging each question, the distribution of the questions, and

then determining whether the questions and their distribution are

representative of what the author intended to measure.

The instrument for the present study was submitted to a panel

of three experts who also received a copy of the original eight-page

instrument designed by Fedler (1980). They were asked to determine

if the Modified Fedler Instrument maintained content validity with

the original instrument. The panel consisted of three research

48

research scientists, one each from the National Technical Institute

for the Deaf, Gallaudet College, and Florida State University.

Their comments and suggestions for revision assisted in the

refinement of the Modified Fedler Instrument. The panel, in a

sense, served as a sample for a pilot study of the instrument.

Data Collection

Data collection was a two-step process. One step sought the

responses of the chief executive officers in order to identify the

reasons why school advisory councils have not been implemented at

the school which they administered and information that would be

necessary to initiate such councils. The second step solicited the

responses of the chief executive officers, chairs of school advisory

councils, and lay members to reflect their perceptions of the

existing school advisory council in operation at their school.

Verbal contact with each chief executive officer of public residential

schools for the deaf was made by the researcher. Responses of the

chief executive officers to items on an instrument (Appendix A) were

utilized to determine if the school had an advisory council as

defined in this study. The researcher solicited the participation

of the chief executive officer if the school did utilize a school

advisory council. If the school did not have a school advisory

council, the researcher utilized the instrument to obtain from the

chief executive officer the reasons why a school advisory council

had not been implemented, or reasons given why a previously

existing school advisory council was not currently operational.

49

The same instrument was used to record information the chief

executive officers indicated they needed to implement a school

advisory council.

The Modified Fedler Instrument (Appendix B),the major

instrument used in this study, was mailed to identified chief

executive school officers, chairs of existing school advisory

councils, and lay members. A letter (Appendix C) which summarized

the intent of the research effort and provided instructions for

the completion of the instrument was enclosed in the mailings.

Participants who did not complete and return instruments within

two weeks received follow-up calls to stimulate the return of the

instruments. Identical copies of the instruments were mailed to

participants who indicated during a follow-up call that they had

misplaced the original. Telephone calls were made to obtain responses

if a participant did not return the instrument.

Overview of Data Analysis

The study had three interrelated components. The following

sections describe the specific procedures utilized in carrying out

the components of the study.

Component One required the researcher to contact chief executive

officers of each of the residential schools for the deaf, review

written guidelines, classify the guidelines into categories as

utilized by Fedler, and provide a narrative description of the

current use of advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf.

In Component Two, a chi-square statistical procedure was used to

50

determine if significant differences existed among participants

on the total Modified Fedler Instrument within the categories of

(a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and

(c) Group Processes. The same procedure was used to determine

significant differences for the total response of participants

within each of the same three categories. An item analysis was

completed to identify the location of significant differences.

Component Three required the researcher to review data obtained

in Component Two, determine operational procedures that appeared

to be viable, formulate suggested written guidelines consistent

with the authoritative literature, and have the reliability of the

guidelines evaluated by a panel of experts.

Determination of Current Use of School Advisory Councils

A set of characteristics and indicators which described the

expected roles and functions of local elementary school advisory

councils was developed by Fedler (1980) through the use of the Local

Elementary School Advisory Committee Questionnaire. The ideal local

elementary school advisory council was described by 16 characteristics

and 65 related indicators. The indicators were observable practices

which helped determine the presence or absence of a characteristic.

The characteristics were grouped into three categories: (a) Structure

and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group

Processes. Although the focus of the Fedler Instrument was on the

characteristics of local elementary school advisory councils, some

of the characteristics were also common to councils serving high

51

schools, community, schools, federal title programs, or school

districts.

The following steps were utilized to collect data for this

component of the study.

Step 1. The researcher contacted chief executive officers of

residential schools for the deaf by telephone to identify those

schools which utilized school advisory councils in a manner consistent

with the term as defined in the study. Chief executive officers were

asked to participate in the study and to send the researcher copies

of the written guidelines which described their school advisory

councils.

Step 2. The researcher utilized the same procedure to identify

those schools which did not have school advisory councils. Chief

executive officers of those schools were asked to respond to the

instrument in Appendix A.

Determination of Differences in the PerceptionsIn the Use of School Advisory Councils

The set of characteristics identified on the Fedler Instrument

were derived from Florida Statutes, Florida legislative committee

reports, Florida State Board of Education policies, guidelines

developed by Florida school districts, relevant research projects

or studies conducted by local, state, and national groups concerned

with school advisory councils, and publications related to citizen

and parent involvement groups. The characteristics and a set of

indicators for each characteristic were derived from the literature.

52

The researcher adapted the Fedler Instrument for use with

residential schools for the deaf to create the Modified Fedler

Instrument. The following steps were utilized to complete this

component of the study.

Step 1. The researcher sent the original Fedler Instrument

and the instrument as modified by the researcher to a panel of

experts. The panel members were asked to determine content validity

of the modified instrument for use with school advisory councils at

residential schools for the deaf.

Step 2. Alterations in the Modified Fedler Instrument were

made in accordance with the review of the instrument by the panel

of experts.

Step 3. The researcher coded the instrument with two letters

to designate it as belonging in the following categories: EO (Chief

Executive Officer), CC (Chair of a School Advisory Council), and

LM (Lay Member of a School Advisory Council).

Step 4. The chief executive school officer and the chair of

a school advisory council jointly selected the lay member to be

included in the study. Criteria for selection included attendance

and level of participation in school advisory council meetings.

Step 5. The researcher sent the Modified Fedler Instrument to

each participant with a cover letter which explained the purpose of

the study and ensured anonymity.

Step 6. The researcher compared responses of members according

to the positions they held on the school advisory council through

53

the use of a chi-square statistical procedure and a 3 x 5 table.

This was done in order to account for the possibility that access

to information and amount of involvement might vary depending on a

member's position on the council.

Determination of Guidelines

The school advisory councils currently used by residential

schools for the deaf were developed and implemented independently at

each residential school. The councils were developed without a

theoretical model or a review of the literature in the area.

Suggested written guidelines were created in the areas of (a)

Overall Mission, (b) Specific Functions, (c) Organizational

Structure, (d) Selection Process, (e) Frequency of Meetings, and

(f) Resources Provided. The following steps were utilized to complete

this component of the study.

Step 1. The researcher reviewed existing written guidelines of

school advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf.

Step 2. The researcher classified the written guidelines into

categories used in the Modified Fedler Instrument.

Data Analysis. —— .... .... | -

The data were subjected to the standard methods of descriptive

statistics and reported in anecdotal and tabular format. Where

applicable, the data were also summarized and reported with frequencies

and percent.

The results of the instruments were presented in a narrative

style which indicated current utilization, operation, policies, and

54

procedures in the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority,

(b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes. A narrative

style was also utilized to report differences in the perceptions

in the use of school advisory councils in the categories of (a)

Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c)

Group Processes among chief executive officers of residential schools

for the deaf, chairs of school advisory councils, and lay members of

school advisory councils. A narrative style was used to describe the

suggested written guidelines for the use, organization and operation,

policies, and procedures within the areas of (a) Overall Mission,

(b) Specific Functions, (c) Organizational Structure, (d) Selection

Process, (e) Frequency of Meetings, and (f) Resources Provided.

The following steps were utilized in the data analysis for each

component.

Determination of the Current Use of School Advisory Councils

Step 1. The researcher reviewed the written guidelines and

categorized the guidelines into the three categories of (a) Structure

and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes

as utilized by Fedler.

Step 2. The researcher provided a narrative description of the

current use, organization and operation, policies, and procedures

for the utilization of residential school advisory councils in the

categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

Step 3. The researcher provided a narrative description

regarding the reasons given by chief executive officers of

55

residential schools for the deaf for not implementing the use of

school advisory councils. Information which chief executive

officers indicated they thought would be needed to implement a

school advisory council was presented.

Determination of Differences in the Perception

In the Use of School Advisory Councils

Step 1. The researcher conducted a statistical analysis of

the responses on the total Modified Fedler Instrument. This was done

to determine if significant differences existed among the responses

of chief executive school officers, chairs of school advisory councils,

and lay members within the categories of (a) Structure and Legal

Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes. A

statistical significance level was set at £=.05. The researcher

believed that for this type of study the greater danger would be in

committing a Type II error, that is, accepting the false null

hypothesis.

Step 2. The researcher completed a statistical analysis for

the total responses within each of the three categories of (a)

Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c)

Group Processes. This was done to determine if significant

differences existed among the responses of chief executive school

officers, chairs of school advisory councils, and lay members. The

statistical significance level was again set at £=.05 for the same

reason as given in Step 1.

Step 3. The researcher subjected the data to the standard

modes of descriptive statistics and reported results in anecdotal

and tabular form.

56

Step 4. The researcher summarized and reported results in

regard to the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b)

Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

Determination of Suggested Written Guidelines

Step 1. The researcher categorized existing written guidelines

into the five identified areas of (a) Overall Mission, (b) Specific

Functions, (c) Organizational Structure, (d) Selection Process, and

(e) Frequency of Meetings.

Step 2. The researcher reviewed the data obtained from the

perceptions of the Chief Executive Officers, Chairs of the School

Advisory Council, and Lay Members. The review compared the perceptions

obtained with operational procedures outlined in written guidelines to

determine which stated operational procedures appeared to be viable.

Step 3. The researcher formulated suggested written guidelines

for each of the five areas presented in Step 1 which was consistent

with the authoritative literature and perceptions of participants.

Step 4. The panel of experts reviewed the completed written

guidelines to substantiate their reliability with the data previously

obtained.

Chapter Summary

Participants of Component One of the study consisted of chief

executive officers of 62 public K-12 residential schools for the

deaf in the United States. Component Two utilized participants in

each of three positions at 25 public K-12 residential schools for the

deaf. Participants in Component Three represented the 25 public K-12

57

residential schools for the deaf in the United States which

utilized school advisory councils at the time of the study. Two

instruments were used to collect data. One instrument was used to

identify residential schools which utilized school advisory councils,

identify reasons why 37 chief executive officers had not implemented

the use of school advisory councils, and identify information chief

executive officers indicated they would need to implement school

advisory councils. The Modified Fedler Instrument was the instrument

utilized to obtain perceptions of 25 chief executive officers, chairs

of school advisory councils, and lay members.

Descriptive data were collected for Components One and Three

of the study. Component Two utilized the nonparametric procedure of

a chi-square which analyzed the data based on the design of the study.

Those procedures were chosen because of the nominal scale of the

data. The results of these analyses are reported in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

As noted, there has been a paucity of research regarding the

utilization of school advisory councils at public K-12 residential

schools for the deaf. The present study was undertaken to develop

suggested written guidelines for the utilization of such councils

at residential schools for the deaf. Specifically, the focus of

the study was to

1. determine the current utilization, organization and

operation, policies, and procedures for school advisory councils

at residential schools for the deaf;

2. determine the differences in the perceptions of advisory

councils at residential schools for the deaf by chief executive

officers of residential schools for the deaf, the chairs of school

advisory councils, and lay members; and

3. determine information to be included in suggested written

guidelines to be used by school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf.

Each of the three interrelated components required the use

of a specific procedure in order to obtain the data needed to

complete the study. Component One required the researcher to

58

59

develop an instrument (Appendix A) which could be used to obtain

information from the chief executive officers of residential schools

for the deaf. The instrument was designed to provide data regarding

the existence of school advisory councils at residential schools for

the deaf.

For Component Two, the researcher modified an instrument

(Appendix B) and obtained responses from selected members of school

advisory councils in existence at residential schools for the deaf.

A panel of experts reviewed the modifications made to the instrument

and validated it for this study. A chi-square statistical procedure

and a 3 x 5 table were used to determine if there were significant

differences in the total score of chief executive officers, chairs

of school advisory councils, and lay members of such councils

within the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b)

Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes. The procedure was also

used to determine if significant differences existed among the total

responses of the members of each group within the three categories.

The same procedure was used to identify the items on the instrument

where significant differences were found.

In Component Three, the researcher formulated written guidelines

(Appendix D) and suggested bylaws (Appendix E) for the five identified

areas of (a) Overall Mission, (b) Specific Functions, (c) Organizational

Structure, (d) Selection Process, and (e) Frequency of Meetings.

The guidelines and bylaws were developed to be consistent with the

authoritative literature. The panel of experts reviewed the data

obtained in Components One and Two as well as the written guidelines

to substantiate reliability.

60

Findings

Component One

Component One was to determine the current use, operation,

policies, and procedures of school advisory councils at residential

schools in the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b)

Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

Contact was made with the chief executive officer of each of the

62 public K- 12 residential schools for the deaf in the United States.

Responses to the instrument were obtained from all 62 chief executive

officers (100%).

The primary purpose of the initial instrument was to identify

schools which utilized school advisory councils. Of the 62 schools,

25 (50%) reported the current use of a school advisory council.

Thirty-seven schools (60%) indicated that school advisory councils

were not used at the present time. Twenty-one schools (56%) did

not provide additional information regarding their reasons for not

implementing a school advisory council. Sixteen schools (43%)

provided background information. A school advisory council had

previously existed at 5 (31%) of the 16 schools. School advisory

councils were established at 3 of 5 schools in 1978. School advisory

councils were utilized at 3 of 5 schools for an average of four

years before they were terminated. The reasons given for the

termination of councils included (a) lack of interest by parents,

(b) little support from the administration, (c) administrators felt

that they were too busy with other issues, and (d) the advisory

61

council was changed to a governing body responsible for the

operation of the school. All five of the chief executive officers

of those schools which had discontinued the use of school advisory

councils indicated that they would consider reimplementing their

use.

Sixteen chief executive officers indicated that the use of a

school advisory council would provide the following benefits:

(a) opportunities for improved input, (b) avenues to obtain unbiased

insight into the operation of the school, (c) increased ability to

utilize resource personnel, (d) possibilities of obtaining assistance

in the procurement of funding, and (e) enhancement of positive

relationships with the deaf community.

Information desired by the 16 chief executive officers included

(a) development of written guidelines which addressed organization

and function, (b) data regarding the size of existing councils, (c)

information concerning the frequency of meeting of existing councils,

and (d) development of written guidelines to address the mission

and role of school advisory councils.

Three of the chief executive officers of 16 of the schools

reported that they would not be interested in implementing a school

advisory council. Two indicated that they would not be interested

because (a) short term, ad hoc committees were preferred, or (b)

the administrator was too busy with other issues and did not support

the use of another organization which would require his physical

presence.

62

Data were obtained from the 25 residential schools which are

presently utilizing school advisory councils. Components addressed

included (a) Overall Mission, (b) Specific Functions, (c)

Organizational Structure, (d) Selection Process, (e) Frequency of

Meetings, and (f) Resources Provided.

A variety of written guidelines was used to describe the

Overall Mission. Twelve schools specifically used the term advise

to describe the mission of the council. Five schools used the term

recommend as a part of the language in the guidelines.

A great diversity existed in the written description of Specific

Functions addressed in the guidelines of the 25 councils. Items

frequently mentioned included (a) obtaining input regarding goals

and objectives; (b) establishing or maintaining liaison functions;

(c) assessing sources of assistance; (d) encouraging public

involvement; (e) providing support to parents, teachers, students,

and the school community; and (f) providing technical assistance to

the chief executive officer.

The Organizational Structure identified the composition of the

school advisory council. The number of members on councils ranged

from 5 to 24. Written guidelines indicated that a chairman, vice-

chairman, and secretary would be officers of the council.

The Selection Process identified members through a variety of

means. The two dominant forms of selection were (a) appointment

by the chief executive officer based on recommendations from the

school community and (b) election based upon the recommendation of

a nominating committee. Appointments were used to select new

members in 17 schools and 8 schools elected members.

63

The Frequency of Meetings ranged from monthly to twice a

year. School advisory councils met every two months in 13 schools,

twice a year in 7, and 5 schools met on a monthly basis.

Resources were provided to the school advisory council by all

of the residential schools. Resources included (a) reimbursement

for travel and meals, (b) provision of meeting space, (c) utilization

of school personnel, and (d) clerical support.

Component Two

Component Two was to determine differences in the perceptions

of school advisory council members at 25 public K-12 residential

schools for the deaf by means of the Modified Fedler Instrument.

Responses were obtained from 68 (91%) of 75 possible respondents

(comprised of chief executive officers, chairs of school advisory

councils, and lay members of such councils). Responses were obtained

from 100% of the chief executive officers, 92% of the chairs, and 80%

of the lay members.

Responses were tabulated according to respondents' positions on

the councils. A chi-square statistical procedure and a 3 x 5 table

were utilized to determine if a significant difference existed among

the perceptions of the chief executive officers, chairs of advisory

councils, and lay members of such councils. Data were collected

to determine if the Modified Fedler Instrument as a whole disclosed

significant differences, among the members and whether the three

sections of the instrument identified differences under the categories

of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Function, and

64

(c) Group Processes. An item analysis was completed to determine

the location of items on the instrument which contained significant

differences.

There were no significant differences found (x^ (8, N = 670) =

12.01, 13.36, and 13.58, respectively, £ < .05) in the score among

chief executive officers, chairs of advisory councils, and lay

members of such councils within each of three sections of the

Modified Fedler Instrument. Significant differences were found

(X2

(8, N = 2,012) = 28.6, £ < .05) in the total score of the

Modified Fedler Instrument among chief executive officers, chairs

of advisory councils, and lay members of each council. Significant

differences were “identified (x2

(8, N = 670) = 15.94, 16.44, 42.20,

17.75, and 21.19, £ < .05) in 5 of the 30 items of the instrument.

Following is a discussion of the relation of these results to the

items listed in the statement of the problem.

Perceptions of chief executive officers, chairs ofadvisory councils, and lay members of such councils

The first question addressed was the following: Are there

differences among the perceptions of chief executive officers,

chairs of advisory councils, and lay members of such councils

within the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b)

Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes?

The responses of chief executive officers, chairs of advisory

councils, and lay members of such councils within the category of

Structure and Legal Authority are displayed in Table 1. The responses

of the participants within the category of Roles and Functions are

reported in Table 2. The responses in the area of Group Processes

are noted in Table 3.

65

Table 1

Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Structure and Legal Authority

Participant TruePartlyTrue Uncertain Untrue

PartlyUntrue Total

Chief n 91 70 11 31 47 250

ExecutiveOfficer % 36.4 28.0 4.4 12.4 18.8

n 85 63 12 18 52 230

Chair% 36.9 27.3 5.2 7.8 22.6

n 55 56 19 19 41 190

Lay

Member % 28.9 29.4 10.0 10.0 21.5

n 231 189 42 68 140 670

TotalResponses % 34.4 28.2 6.2 10.1 20.8

X2 = 12.01 (8, N = 670) = p < . 05

66

Table 2

Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Roles and Functions

Participant TruePartlyTrue Uncertain

PartlyUntrue Untrue Total

Chief n 78 61 11 35 65 250

ExecutiveOfficer % 31.2 24. 4 4.4 14.0 26.0

n 59 78 14 20 60 231

Chair% 25.5 33. 7 6.0 8.6 25.9

n 51 66 14 19 39 189

Lay

Member % 26.9 34.9 7.4 10.0 20.6

n 188 205 39 74 164 670

TotalResponses % 28.0 30.5 5. 8 11.0 24.4

X2 = 13.36 (8, N = 670) = 2.

< .05

67

Table 3

Comparison of Scores of Participant Responses to

Category of Group Processes

Participant TruePartlyTrue Uncertain

PartlyUntrue Untrue Total

Chief n 98 66 9 21 56 250

ExecutiveOfficer % 39.2 26.4 3.6 8.4 22.4

n 95 56 17 11 51 230

Chair% 41. 3 24.3 7.3 4.7 22. 1

n 71 46 22 9 42 190

LayMember % 37.5 24.4 11.4 4.6 21.8

n 264 168 48 41 149 670

TotalResponses % 39.4 25.

1

7. 1 6.

1

22.1

X2 = 13.58 (8 ,

N = 670) = £ < .05

Significance Level = 15. 507 at .05

68

Structure and Legal Authority . The scores were not significantly

different at the .05 level among chief executive officers, chairs,

and lay members of school advisory councils at residential schools

for the deaf within the category of Structure and Legal Authority.

As indicated in Table 1, the majority of responses from each

position represented was reported in the categories of True and

Partly True. The data indicated that lay members were more uncertain

in their responses than either chief executive officers or chairs.

In terms of Total Response, the majority of responses was reported

in the categories of True and Partly True.

Roles and Functions. The scores among chief executive officers,

chairs, and lay members of school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf were not significantly different at the .05

level within the category of Roles and Function. Table 2 indicated

that the majority of responses were reported in the areas of True

and Partly True. The data of lay members indicated that they were

more uncertain in their responses than chief executive officers

or chairs of school advisory councils. Less difference was noted

from all participants in the responses to Roles and Functions than

in the categories of Structure and Legal Authority or Group

Processes.

Group Processes . The scores within the category of Group

Processes were not significantly different at the .05 level among

chief executive officers, chairs, and lay members of school advisory

councils at residential schools for the deaf. As indicated in

69

Table 3, the majority of responses from each position represented

was reported in categories of True and Partly True. Chairs

indicated greater uncertainty in their response to this category

than did chief executive officers and lay members in the categories

of Structure and Legal Authority and Roles and Functions.

Discussion of participant responses on the total

Modified Fedler Instrument

The second question addressed was the following: Are there

differences among the perceptions of chief executive officers, chairs

of advisory councils, and lay members of such councils on the total

Modified Fedler Instrument?

The total scores among respondents are shown in Table 4. As

noted, significant differences at the .05 level were found

(X^ (8, N = 2,012) = 28.6, £ < .05) among chief executive officers,

chairs of advisory councils, and lay members.

As noted in Table 4, the majority of responses from chief

executive officers, chairs, and lay members were reported in the

areas of True and Partly True. The least difference in total

scores was noted among chief executive officers followed by lay

members and then chairs.

An analysis was conducted on each of the 30 items in the Modified

Fedler Instrument, utilizing a chi-square statistical procedure and

a 3 x 5 table. The results are shown in Table 5. As noted, 5 of the

30 items in the Modified Fedler Instrument displayed a significant

difference. Of these 5, 3 were in the category of Structure and

Legal Authority and 2 were in the category of Group Processes.

Significant differences were not reported in the category of Roles

and Functions.

70

Table 4

Comparison of Total Scores of Participant Responses

To the Modified Fedler Instrument

Partly Partly

Participant True True Uncertain Untrue Untrue Total

Chief n 267 197 31 87 168 750

ExecutiveOfficer % 35.6 26.3 4.1 11.6 22.4

n 239 197 43 49 163 691

Chair% 34.5 28.5 6.2 7.0 23.5

n 178 169 55 47 122 571

Lay

Member % 31.1 29.5 9.6 8.2 21.3

n 684 563 129 183 453 2,012TotalResponses % 33.9 27.9 6.4 9.0 22.5

X2

= 28.6

Significance Level = 15.507 at .05

71

Table 5

Chi-square of Participant Responses to Each Item of

the Modified Fedler Instrument

Item Number Chi-square Item Number Chi-square

* 1 15.94 16 5. 38

* 2 16.44 17 4.61

3 3. 15 18 2.39

4 9.09 19 11.44

5 5.12 20 4.21

6 6.95 21 4.97

7 5.65 22 7.17

* 8 42.20 * 23 17.75

9 5.93 24 10.49

10 10.61 25 7.06

11 13.26 26 4.57

12 11.97 27 6.98

13 6.06 28 13.06

14 8.48 * 29 21. 19

15 9.69 30 6. 18

*Items above significance level of 15.507 at .05

72

Table 6 shows that chief executive officers and chairs of

advisory councils shared similar perceptions on items 1, 2, 8, and

23, while lay members did not share similar perceptions. Chief

executive officers and lay members reported similar perceptions on

item 29, while chairs of advisory councils did not share those

perceptions.

Table 6

Chi-square of items on the Modified Fedler Instrument

Which Display a Significant Difference

Item Number Chi-square

1 Authority delegated to the School Advisory

Council is defined by the governing body.

15.94

2 A set of written guidelines for committee

bylaws and roles has been establishedfor the School Advisory Council.

16.44

8 While retaining ultimate responsibilityfor final decisions, the chief executiveofficer seeks recommendations from the

advisory council.

42.20

23 Residential school personnel are availableto help the advisory council carry out

its activities.

17.75

29 For greater efficiency, small groups are

named to perform specific assignmentsand to report on the assignments at

meetings of the full council.

21,19

Significance Level = 15.507 at .05

73

Component Three

Component Three was determination of suggested written guidelines

to be utilized by school advisory councils at residential schools

for the deaf. Information for the development of the suggested

guidelines was derived from a review of the research, examination

of written guidelines in use at residential schools for the deaf,

and data from the Modified Fedler Instrument.

The researcher reviewed the construct of a school advisory

council as described in the literature. The review represented a

broad range of topics related to the utilization of school advisory

councils. The researcher also reviewed the written guidelines

currently in use at residential schools for the deaf. The written

guidelines received from each school were organized into the three

categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Functions, and (c) Group Processes as utilized by Fedler (1980).

Similarities and differences among written guidelines were noted

to determine patterns of operation. Data obtained from the

utilization of the Modified Fedler Instrument were also examined.

The review of those data identified the extent to which school

advisory councils function in practice as measured by perceptions

of the participants.

Three key issues were identified. First, Fedler (1980) noted

that the purpose of the council should be advisory in nature.

Second, Cochran, Phelps, and Cochran (1980) reported that the

specific functions of the council should be delineated. Finally,

Davis (1973) and Sorenson (1974) indicated that the council bylaws

74

should stipulate number, representation, and terms of membership,

selection, terms and duties of officers, and provision for the

schedule, organization, and conduct of meetings.

Results were obtained from a review of the literature,

examination of written guidelines to determine patterns of operation,

and data derived from the Modified Fedler Instrument. General

findings were noted in three areas. One finding was in the nature

of school advisory councils. The second finding related to the

purpose and specific function of such councils. The third finding

concerned the purpose statement of school advisory councils and a

description of their organizational structure.

A review of the literature and written guidelines in use at

residential schools indicated that the written guidelines should

clearly identify the purpose of the council to be advisory in nature.

Data from the Modified Fedler Instrument revealed significant

differences, at the .05 level, in the area of Structure and Legal

Authority which indicated that councils may not exist in the manner

as described in the literature.

The literature in the area and a review of written guidelines

revealed that the purpose and specific functions of school advisory

councils were not delineated. Data obtained from the Modified Fedler

Instrument did not provide significant differences, at the .05 level,

in the category of Roles and Functions.

A description of the components of the organizational structure

for school advisory councils was based upon a review of the

75

literature and existing written guidelines. The results indicated

that clear and concise statements should include, but not be

limited to, the following:

1. number of members to serve on the council,

2. representation of members,

3. term of membership,

4. officers and their duties,

5. terms of office,

6. selection process for new members to fill vacancies,

7. number of members needed to constitute a quorum,

8. provision for the notice of all regular and special

meetings,

9. provision for the establishment of standing or general

committees, and

10.

relationship of the advisory council to the governing

body of the school.

Based on the literature and the data obtained in Component

Three, 10 suggested guidelines were developed (Appendix D) . The

guidelines delineate the procedure that should be followed to

organize and effectively utilize a school advisory council in a

residential school for the deaf. In addition, suggested bylaws

(Appendix E) were developed to delineate specific information a

school advisory council would follow pertaining to the function

of the council. The bylaws address (a) the purpose of the council,

(b) the responsibilities and duties of the council, and (c) the

organizational structure of the council.

76

Summary of Results

Data obtained revealed that 60% of residential schools for the

deaf did not utilize school advisory councils. Information was

presented concerning the reasons given by chief executive officers

for not utilizing school advisory councils. Additional data were

obtained to identify possible benefits of implementing school

advisory councils and to identify specific information desired by

chief executive school officers to implement such councils.

Responses to the Modified Fedler Instrument revealed there

was not a significant difference at the .05 level within the

categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Function, and (c) Group Processes. Significant differences at the

.05 level were found on the total score of the Modified Fedler

Instrument. Significant differences existed at the .05 level in

5 of the 30 items.

A review of the literature and data obtained from the two

instruments utilized in this study identified key issues that should

be addressed in the use of school advisory councils. Issues

identified for inclusion in the suggested written guidelines were

in the areas of purpose of the council, specific function, and

organization and structure.

The conclusions and implications of the results of the data

analysis are discussed in Chapter V. Recommendations for future

research are also presented.

CHAPTER VCONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Introduction

This study sought to determine the utilization of school

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf. There were

three interrelated components. Component One identified current

utilization, organization, operation, policies, and procedures for

school advisory councils. Component Two determined differences in

the perceptions of residential school advisory councils among chief

executive officers of such schools, chairs of school advisory

councils, and lay members. Component Three displayed written

guidelines to be used by school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf. The study was confined by the degree of

accuracy with which participants in 25 schools perceived their

situations and reported their perceptions through the use of an

instrument. The participants consisted of three members of each

school advisory council in 25 existing school advisory councils at

public K-12 residential schools for the deaf. The participants

included the chief executive officer, chair of the advisory council,

and lay member at each of the schools included in the study. The

study was also confined by a composite of components derived from

77

78

the guidelines of operation at each school, therefore, the results

may not be directly applicable to every public K-12 residential

school for the deaf in the United States.

The following steps were taken to determine the current use

of operation, policies, and procedures of school advisory councils

at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf.

1. Residential schools for the deaf which utilized a school

advisory council as defined in the study were identified. A

description of the written guidelines used for the operation of the

councils was obtained from the chief executive officer of each school.

2. Schools which did not have school advisory councils were

identified and data were obtained from the chief executive officer

of each school.

Data obtained from this component of the study revealed the

following:

1. Thirty-seven schools (60%) did not presently utilize school

advisory councils while 25 (40%) reported the current use of such

councils

.

2. Data obtained provided information regarding the benefits

to be derived from the use of school advisory councils as reported

by chief executive officers. Chief executive officers also indicated

the information they would desire to implement school advisory

councils within their schools.

3. Data were reported regarding the current use of school

advisory councils in the following areas: (a) Overall Mission,

79

(b) Specific Functions, (c) Organizational Structure, (d) Selection

Process, (e) Frequency of Meetings, and (f) Resources Provided.

The following steps were taken to determine differences in the

perceptions of advisory council members regarding school advisory

councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf.

Step 1. The researcher sent the original Fedler Instrument

and the instrument as modified by the researcher to a panel of

experts. The panel members were asked to determine content validity

of the modified instrument for use with school advisory councils

at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf.

Step 2. Alterations in the Modified Fedler Instrument were

made in accordance with the review of the instrument by the panel

of experts.

Step 3. The researcher coded the instrument with two letters

to designate it as belonging in the following categories: EO (Chief

Executive Officer), CC (Chair of a School Advisory Council), and LM

(Lay Member of a School Advisory Council).

Step 4. The chief executive school officer and the chair of

a school advisory council jointly selected the lay member to be

included in the study. Criteria for selection included attendance

and level of participation in school advisory council meetings.

Step 5. The researcher sent the Modified Fedler Instrument

to each participant with a cover letter which explained the purpose

of the study and ensured anonymity.

Step 6. The researcher compared responses of members according

to the positions they held on the school advisory council. This was

80

done in order to account for the possibility that access to

information and amount of involvement might vary depending on a

member's position on the council.

Step 7. Results were compared through the use of a 3 x 5

table.

Analysis of the data obtained for this component of the study

revealed the following:

1. When the scores of chief executive officers, chairs of

advisory councils, and lay members were compared through the use

of a chi-square statistical procedure and a 3 x 5 table within the

three categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles

and Functions, and (c) Group Processes, no significant differences

at the .05 level emerged.

2. When the total scores of the chief executive officers,

chairs of advisory councils, and lay member's were compared through

the use of a chi-square statistical procedure and a 3 x 5 table

on the total instrument, significant differences were reported at

the .05 level.

3. An item analysis of the significant differences reported

on the total instrument, completed through the use of a chi-square

statistical procedure and a 3 x 5 table, revealed significant

differences in 5 of the 30 items which comprised the instrument.

The following steps were taken to determine components of

suggested written guidelines for implementation of school advisory

councils at public residential schools for the deaf.

81

Step 1. The researcher categorized written guidelines into

the five identified areas of (a) Overall Mission, (b) Specific

Functions, (c) Organizational Structure, (d) Selection Process,

and (e) Frequency of Meetings.

Step 2. The researcher reviewed the data obtained from the

perceptions of the chief executive officers, chairs of the school

advisory councils, and lay members. The review compared the

perceptions obtained with operational procedures outlined in written

guidelines to determine which stated guidelines appeared to be viable.

Step 3. The researcher suggested guidelines for each of the

five areas presented in Step 1 consistent with the authoritative

literature.

Step 4. The panel of experts reviewed the completed guidelines

to substantiate their reliability with the data previously obtained.

Data obtained from this component of the study enabled the

researcher to develop suggested written bylaws in the areas of

(a) Overall Mission, (b) Specific Functions, (c) Organizational

Structure, (d) Selection Process, and (e) Frequency of Meetings.

Conclusions and Implications

The following conclusions and implications were drawn from

the data obtained from the three components of the study.

Component One

1. School advisory councils are utilized in less than 50% of

the public K-12 residential schools for the deaf in the United

States. This finding implies that the majority of residential

82

schools for the deaf utilize a traditional style of management.

Therefore, these public residential schools for the deaf do not

seek citizen participation in the form of school advisory councils.

It would seem difficult for residential schools to become open to

change without some form of citizen participation and efforts

should be implemented to enhance citizen involvement in the operation

of residential schools for the deaf.

2. Chief executive officers of 41 residential schools for the

deaf either utilized school advisory councils or indicated an

interest in their implementation. Chief executive officers of

three residential schools reported that they were not interested

in utilizing school advisory councils for various reasons. As

indicated in the conclusions, the majority of chief executive

officers are interested in the use of a school advisory council.

Therefore, chief executive officers should be provided with an

orientation/training program regarding the use of a council. The

program would be designed to clarify the operation of the council

in the areas of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and

Functions, and (c) Group Processes.

3. Consistent written guidelines for the use of a school

advisory council did not exist among residential schools for the

deaf which had such councils. This finding implies that written

guidelines for the operation of school advisory councils were

developed on an independent basis. Therefore, authoritative

literature in the area was not utilized. The written guidelines

83

for each school advisory council should be changed to become

consistent with the research literature. Written guidelines also

need to be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the

conceptual framework utilized for a school advisory council.

4. Advise and recommend were the words most frequently utilized

in describing the mission of school advisory councils. The review

of literature and findings from this study implies that a school

advisory council should not function as a governing body. If council

members are expected to act in an advisory fashion, then chief

executive school officers should ensure that council members

thoroughly understand their roles.

Component Two

1. The majority of participants in each of the three groups

responded to the Modified Fedler Instrument. This finding implies

that there was a great deal of interest among participants regarding

the operation of a school advisory council. Therefore, the chief

executive school officers should provide all members of the council

with information to channel their interests and positions on the

council into positive contributions for the school program.

2. Significant differences did not exist among chief executive

officers, chairs of advisory councils, or lay members of such councils

within each of three categories of the Modified Fedler Instrument.

This finding implies that participants had similar perceptions

regarding the operation of school advisory councils at public

residential schools for the deaf within the categories of (a)

Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and (c)

84

Group Processes. Therefore, school advisory councils at residential

schools for the deaf functioned within each category in a manner

consistent with the general research literature.

3. Lay members were the most uncertain of the three groups of

participants in their responses to each of the three categories

within the instrument. This finding implies that lay members may

not have information regarding the utilization of the school

advisory council comparable to that available to chief executive

school officers or chairs of a council. If council members are

expected to make recommendations based on relevant information, then

all members of the council should have an equal and adequate base

of information.

4. Significant differences did exist at the .05 level among

chief executive school officers, chairs, and lay members in the

total score of all participants on the Modified Fedler Instrument.

This finding implies that participants did not share similar

perceptions regarding the operation of school advisory councils

among the categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b)

Roles and Functions, and (c) Group Processes. Therefore, steps

should be initiated to resolve differences which exist.

5. Significant differences at the .05 level existed in 5 of

the 30 items of the Modified Fedler Instrument. This finding implies

that differences in perceptions among participants were in the

categories of (a) Structure and Legal Authority and (b) Group

Processes. As indicated in the conclusions, 25 of the 30 items of

85

the Modified Fedler Instrument existed in practice in a manner

consistent with the general research literature. Therefore, an

orientation/training program for all members of the school advisory

council should focus on the issues contained within the categories

of (a) Structure and Legal Authority and (b) Group Processes.

Component Three

1. Written guidelines utilized in the overall mission should

clearly identify the purpose of the council as being advisory in

nature. This finding implies that it is important to identify the

overall mission of the school advisory council in clear terms. A

review of the data obtained regarding the perceptions in this area

indicated that it may be beneficial for all council members to

review their written guidelines. All members should also receive

training to assist them in understanding the role of the school

advisory council.

2. The purpose statement of school advisory councils and the

organizational language of such councils were identified. It was

noted that there was a need to reduce ambiguity to allow the council

to function in a manner consistent with the research findings. The

data again suggest that training for all council members is needed.

Recommendations for Future Research

The following recommendations result from this study.

1. Data obtained in Component One indicate that the utilization

of school advisory councils is a recent development among residential

schools for the deaf. It is recommended that this study be replicated

86

to determine if additional schools implement the utilization of

such councils.

2. The design for this study utilized participants from each

of three distinct positions at each residential school for the deaf.

Different responses might be obtained if the total responses of all

lay members of each council were obtained. Replication of this study

using the total participants in each school advisory council should

be considered.

3. This study confirmed earlier reports in the literature that

the dominant classifications of governance for residential schools

were state boards of education and boards of trustees. A study

should be conducted to compare the effectiveness of operation of

school advisory councils within each of the two major classifications

of governance.

4. The literature revealed that the degree of citizen

participation in the form of school advisory councils may assist

in creating more effective schools. It was beyond the scope of this

study to investigate the degree of effectiveness of residential

schools which possessed school advisory councils with those which

did not utilize school advisory councils. The undertaking of such

a study is strongly recommended.

5. This study was limited to written responses regarding the

use of school advisory councils. In further research written

responses should be compared with on-site observations.

6. Studies should be directed toward developing techniques for

training members of advisory councils in the area of group processes

87

to enhance their contributions and leadership skills. This will

assist advisory councils in evaluating their progress.

Chapter Summary

In summary, three major points may be emphasized. First, it

is apparent that many chief executive officers of residential

schools for the deaf have just recently implemented the use of school

advisory councils consistent with the systems approach to educational

administration. There is a need to develop enhanced understanding

of the possible benefit of school advisory councils towards the

achievement of effective residential schools for the deaf.

Second, research regarding the utilization of school advisory

councils at public K-12 residential schools for the deaf may reflect

the leadership style of the chief executive officer. The provision

of inservice training to chief executive officers regarding the

utilization of school advisory councils may assist them in their

use of a council to provide positive contributions to residential

schools

.

Third, the development of suggested written guidelines for

school advisory councils may increase the use of such councils at

residential schools for the deaf. This refinement may enhance the

performance of school advisory councils and increase the amount of

citizen participation in the operation of residential schools for

the deaf.

REFERENCES

Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals . New York: VintageBooks.

Archer, V. R. (1973). The management of school -community advisorycouncils by elementary principals (Doctoral dissertation.

University of Southern California, 1973). DissertationAbstracts International , 34 ,

3725.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive . Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Berliner, D. C. (1983). Effective classroom teaching: Thenecessary but not sufficient condition for developing exemplaryschools . Unpublished manuscript.

Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences . NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Boulding, K. E. (1968). General systems theory--The skeleton ofscience. In W. Buckley (Ed.), Modern systems research for thebehavioral scientist: A source book (pp. 78-94). Chicago:Aldine.

Brill, R. G. (1971). Administrative and professional developments in

the education of the deaf . Washington, DC: Gallaudet CollegePress.

Brookover, W. B. , 8 Lezotte, L. (1977). Changes in school

characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement .

East Lansing, MI: College of Urgan Development, Michigan StateUniversity.

Clark, D. L.,

Lotto, L. S. , 8 Astuto, T. A. (1984). Effectiveschools and school improvement: A comparative analysis of two

lines of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20,41-68.

Clark, P. A., 8 Shoop, R. J. (1974). Community advisory councils:Composition and selection procedure. Community EducationalJournal

,

4(3), 43-45.

88

89

Clasby, M. ,Webster, M. , § White, N. (1973). Laws, tests, and

schooling: Changing contexts for educational decision-making.Syracuse, NY: Educational Policy Research Center.

Cochran, L. H. , Phelps, L. A., § Cochran, L. L. (1980). Advisorycommittees in action: An educational /occupational/communitypartnership . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cole, J. M. , § Cole, M. F. (1983). Advisory councils . EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Coleman, J. S. , Campbell, E. Q. ,Hobson, C. J.

,McPartland, J.

,

Mood, A. M. , Weinfeld, F. D. , § York, R. L. (1966). Equalityof educational opportunity . Washington, DC: Office ofEducation, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Connor, L. E. (1978, March). Collective bargaining . Paper presentedat the fifth meeting of the Conference of Executives of AmericanSchools for the Deaf, Bangor, ME.

Cordasco, F. (1965). A brief history of education . Totowa, NJ

:

Littlefield, Adams.

Craig, W. N. , § Craig, H. B. (1984). American annals of the deaf .

Silver Springs, MD: Conference of Educational AdministratorsServing the Deaf.

Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rded.). New York: Harper § Row.

Culbertson, J. , 5 Nash, N. (1977). Linking processes in educationalimprovement: Concepts and applications . Columbus, OH: OhioState University.

Davies, D. (1976). Making citizen participation work. NationalElementary School Principal

, _5£(4) ,20-29.

Davies, D., Stanton, J. , Clasby, M.

,Zerchykov, R.

, § Powers, B.

(1977). Sharing the power? A report on the status of schoolcouncils in the 1970s . Boston: Institute for ResponsiveEducation.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital.Exceptional Children

, 37 ,229-237.

Dobson, R., § Dobson, J. S. (1975). Parental and community involvement

in educational and teacher education . Washington, DC: NationalInstitute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 100 833)

Douglas, C. L. (1973). A study to determine the perceived effectivenessof technical and vocational program advisory committees in Texascommunity colleges (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A 5 M University,1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 7649.

90

Edmonds, R. , § Frederickson, J. (1979). Search for effective

schools: The identification and analysis of city schools

that are instructional ly effective for poor children .

Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 396)

Fantini, M. D. (1975). The people and their schools (Fastback 62).

Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Fedler, M. C. (1980). Local elementary school advisory committees:

Theory and practice in selected elementary schools in Florida(Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1980).

Dissertation Abstracts International ,42

, 474.

Gans, S. P. , § Horton, G. T. (1975). Integration of human services .

New York: Prager.

Gaynor, A. K. (1975). The study of change in educational organizationsA review of the literature . Paper presented at the UCLA-Ohio

State University Career Development Seminar, Columbus, OH.

Gittell, M. (1977). Critique of citizen participation in education.

Journal of Education, 159 (1) ,7-22.

Gordon, I. J., § Breivogel, W. F. (1976). Building effective home-

school relationships . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Griffing, B. (1977). Reshaping the role of the state school for the

deaf. Audiology and Hearing Education, _3(2) ,

20-25.

Hall, D. C. , § Alford, S. E. (1976). Evaluation of the nationaldiffusion network: Evaluation of the network and overview ofthe research literature on diffusion of educational innovations .

Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.

Harris, R. I. (1978). The relation of impulse control to parenthearing status, manual communication, and academic achievementin deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 123, 52-67.

Harris, R. I. (1981). Mental health needs and priorities in deafchildren and adults: A deaf professional's perspective for the

1980s. Deafness and mental health (pp. 219-250). New York:Grune § Stratton.

Hewett, F. M., § Forness, S. R. (1974). Education of exceptional

learners . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hicks, D. (1982, March). Current trends and issues in the educationof the deaf . Paper presented at a meeting of the Conferenceof Educational Administrators Serving the Deaf, Omaha, NE.

91

Hicks, H. G. (1972). The management of organizations: A systemsand human approach . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kast, F. E. , § Rosenzweig, J. E. (1979). Organization and management :

A systems and contingency approach (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Kimbrough, R. B. , § Nunnery, M. Y. (1976). Educational administrationAn introduction . New York: Macmillan.

Korb, A. W. (1972). A study of selected practices in the use ofadvisory committees, community surveys, and placement servicesin trade and industrial education programs in Ohio (Doctoral

dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972). DissertationAbstracts International , 33 ,

1605.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science . New York:

Harper § Row.

Lipham, J. (1977). The administrator's role in educational linkage.

In N. Nash § J. Culbertson (Eds.), Linking processes in

educational improvement: Concepts and applications (pp. 42-58).

Columbus, OH: University Council for Educational Administration,Ohio State University.

Lippitt, G. L. (1969). Organizational renewal . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts

.

Lippitt, R. ,Watson, J. , § Westley, B. (1959). The dynamics of

planned change . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Loomis, C. P. (1960). Social systems . New York: VanNostrand-Reinhold.

Lord, F. E. (1970). An unrealized goal of the past century- -Completeindividualization of instruction. In Exceptional children in

regular classrooms (pp. 1058-1074). Washington, DC: Special

Education Training, Branch of Educational Personnel Development,U.S. Office of Education.

Mackenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisalof some recent trends. Educational Researcher

, 1^(4), 5-17.

Maguire, L. M. (1970). Observations and analysis of the literatureof change . Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Miles, M. B. (1964). Innovation in education . New York: Bureauof Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Monchek, L. T. (1982). A model for linking general and specialeducation within an urban school district (Doctoral dissertation.University of Florida, 1982). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 43, 1777.

92

Moores, D. F. (1979). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles,and practices. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Mostellar. F., § Moynihan, D. P. (1972). A pathbreaking report.

In F. Mostellar § D. P. Moynihan (Eds.), On equality of

educational opportunity (pp. 160-184). New York: VintageBooks.

Mudrunka, J. A. (1978). A rationalized model for parent/citizenroles in American public schools (Doctoral dissertation,University of Pittsburgh, 1978). Dissertation AbstractsInternational , 39

,1299.

Nyquist, E. B. (1977). Public involvement. An educationalpartnership among parents, students, professionals, andcitizens of New York State school districts . Albany: NewYork State Education Department. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 145 305)

Paul, D. A. (1977) Change processes at the elementary, secondary,and post-secondary levels of education. In N. Nash § J.

Culbertson (Eds.), Linking processes in educational improvement

(pp. 94-118). Columbus, OH: University Council for

Educational Administration.

Perry, K. E., § Ridgely, J. E. (1979). Citizens are restless: Has

school control been wrestled from the people? ContemporaryEducation

, 5j)(2) ,110-113.

Price, N. C. (1977). School community councils and advisory boards :

A notebook for administrators. Why? Who? What? When? How?Burlingame, CA: Association of California Administrators.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 583)

Purkey, S. C. , § Smith, M. C. (1983). Effective schools: A review.The Elementary School Journal , 93 ,

428-452.

Roseman, F. S. , § Hood, P. (1975). A literature review for diffusionof educational research and development products/processes .

San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Researchand Development.

Rutter, M. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools andtheir effect on children . Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Safer, N. , Burnette, J. , § Hobbs, B. (1979). Exploration 1993: Theeffects of future trends on services to the handicapped. Focuson Exceptional Children

,11

,1052-1083.

93

Short, E. D. (1973). Knowledge production and utilization in thecurriculum: A special case for the general phenomenon.Review of Educational Research

, 43 ,237-302.

Simmons, L. (1977). School-community council goernnance: LeonCounty. In L. Winecoff (Ed.), School-community councilgovernance. The experiences of nine teacher corps projects(pp. 145-164). Atlanta: Southeastern Teacher Corps Network.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 152 711)

Sorensen, R. P. (1974). Perceived priorities and achievements ofoccupational advisory committees functions in the Wisconsinvocational, technical and adult education system (Doctoraldissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1974). DissertationAbstracts International

, 35 , 1407.

Stanwick, M. E. (1975). Patterns of participation: A report ofa national survey of citizen participation in educationaldecision making . Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 108 350)

Stevens, G. (1972). Taxonomy in special education for children withbody disorders, the problem and a proposal (Doctoral dissertation.University of Pittsburgh, 1972). Dissertation AbstractsInternational

, 23, 4250.

Taylor, J. (1973). Educational programs. In B. Lowenfeld (Ed.),The visually handicapped child in school (pp. 35-54).New York: John Day.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Educational measurement (2nd ed.). Washington,DC: American Council on Education.

Timpane, M. (1980). View from America: Current research on effectiveschools. Harvard Graduate School of Education AssociationBulletin , 25(1), 14-15.

Tinsley, T. (1982). The multi-handicapped blind in the residentialschools for the blind in the United States (Doctoral dissertation.University of Florida, 1982). Dissertation AbstractsInternational

, 44 , 464.

Vanezky, R. L., § Winfield, L. F. (1979). Schools that succeed beyond

expectations in teaching reading . Final Report, NationalInstitute of Education, Grant No. NIE-6-78-0027. Newark, DE

:

College of Education, University of Delaware.

Vernon, M., § Estes, C. C. (1975). Deaf leadership and political

activism. The Deaf American, 28, 3-6.

94

Vernon, M. , § Makowsky, B. (1969). Deafness and minority groupdynamics. The Deaf American, 21

,3-6.

Wagenaar, T. C. (1977). School achievement level vis-a-viscommunity involvement and rapport . Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Sociological Association.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED 146 111)

Weber, G. (1971). Inner city children can be taught to read :

Four successful schools . CBE Occasional Papers, No. 18.

Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Services No. ED 057 124)

Williams, P. (1982). Admission policies and practices of state-operated residential schools for the deaf in the United States(Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1982).Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 623.

Weinstein, S. , § Mitchell, D. E. (1975). Public testimony on publicschools . Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.

Zeigler, L. H. , Tucker, H. J., § Wilson, L. A., II. (1976). School

boards and community power: The irony of professionalism.Intellect, 105, 90-92.

Zerchykov, R. (1984). A citizen's notebook for effective schools .

Boston: Institute for Responsive Education.

APPENDIX ASCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCIL UTILIZATION INSTRUMENT

1. To your knowledge did the school you administer ever

utilize a school advisory council?

2. In what year was the school advisory council implemented?

3. How long was the school advisory council implemented?

4. If it was previously, but does not currently, please

state the reasons you believe resulted in the council no longer

existing.

5. Would you consider utilizing a school advisory council?

6. If yes, what benefit would the school advisory council

present to your school?

7. What information would you want to have if you were to

initiate the utilization of a school advisory council at your

school?

8. If no, please state some reasons why you prefer not to

use a school advisory council.

95

APPENDIX B

MODIFIED FEDLER INSTRUMENT

Directions: Although your answers will remain anonymous, some generalinformation about you is needed for the study. Please check (x) thoseitems which apply to you.

A. Position

1 . Chair of School Advisory Council

2. Chief Executive Officer

3. Lay Member

B. Sex

1 . Male

2. Female

For each of the statements which follow, circle "1" if the statementis true as it applies to you advisory council, "2" if it is partlytrue, "3" if you are uncertain about whether the statement is true,"4" if the statement is partly untrue, and "5" if the statement isuntrue. It is imperative that a response is given for each and everyitem on the instrument.

1. True "T"

2. Partly Untrue "PT"

3. Uncertain "UC"

4. Partly Untrue "PU"

5. Untrue "U"

96

97

STRUCTURE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

T PT UC PU U

1. Authority delegated to the schooladvisory council is defined by thegoverning body. 12345

2. A set of written guidelines forcommittee bylaws and roles has beenestablished for the school advisorycouncil. 12345

3. Specific functions of the advisorycouncil are set cooperatively by thecouncil and chief executive officerin accordance with school needs andgoals. 1

4. Meetings are held regularly (at

least every two months). 1

5. The designated advisory councilleader's roles and responsibilitiesare clearly defined. 1

6. The council members include the chiefexecutive officer, middle levelschool administrators, andrepresentatives from a group ofparents, teachers, citizens, andstudents (where appropriate)associated with the school or livingin the area served by the school. 1

7. The council represents all interestgroups in the school community,including minorities and low incomefamilies. 1

8. While retaining ultimateresponsibility for final decisions,the chief executive officer seeksrecommendations from the advisorycouncil. 1

9. The chief executive officer submitsdecisions related to the schoolcurriculum, personnel, budget,discipline, and building maintenanceto the advisory council for itsreview. 1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 5

98

T PT UC PU U

10. The council receives training toconsider all the facts (includingpolicy and laws) which affect itsrecommendations. 12345

ROLES AND FUNCTIONS

11. The advisory council is givensignificant responsibility andfreedom by the chief executiveofficer to help evaluate schoolobjectives and programs.

12. The advisory council makesrecommendations and helps planeducational programs designed tomeet school objectives.

13. The advisory council helps thechief executive officer prepare theschool budget.

14. The advisory council makesrecommendations to the chiefexecutive officer about buildingmaintenance and purchase ofsupplies and equipment.

15. The advisory council makesrecommendations about a studentcode of conduct and disciplinepolicies.

16. The advisory council helps developprograms for school improvementthrough the use of local, state,or federal grants when the approvalof grants requires written advisorycounci 1 endorsement

.

17. The advisory council helps seekresources inside and outside theschool community that can benefitthe educational program.

18. The advisory council maintainsminutes of its meeting.

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

99

T

19. A formal process is established soparents can submit questions andconcerns to the advisory council. 1

20. The advisory council helps conductsurveys to collect information aboutteacher, student, parent, andcommunity attitudes toward theschool. 1

GROUP PROCESSES

21. Advisory council members receivetraining to develop leadership skillsand effective group processes. 1

22. Resources are provided at the schoolso that the council can do its work(e.g., typing, interpretingservices, supplies, and meetingspace) . 1

23. Residential school personnel areavailable to help the advisorycouncil carry out its activities. 1

24. The advisory council has a procedurefor communicating with the governingbody of the school. 1

25. The state provides money for thesupport of advisory councils. 1

26. The council is able to setreasonable goals for its activities. 1

27. The council is able to decide onthe best alternative for action. 1

28. The council is able to initiateaction to accomplish its objectives. 1

29. For greater efficiency, small groupsare named to perform specificassignments and to report on theassignments at meetings of the fullcouncil. 1

PT UC PU

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 3 4

U

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

100

30. The council has a procedure forevaluating its progress.

T PT UC

1 2 3

PU U

4 5

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE LETTER SENT TO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Dear School Advisory Council Member:

I am conducting a study regarding the utilization of school

advisory councils at residential schools for the deaf. The resultof the study will be reported in a dissertation at the Universityof Florida.

Please find enclosed a 30-item instrument which will serve as

the major instrument of the study. Your individual responses to

the instrument will remain confidential. The responses of all

participants in the study will be reported but individual responseswill not be identified by the name of the respondent. The study willdetermine if significant differences exist among the perceptions ofchief executives, chairs of school advisory councils, and lay membersof such councils. The results of the study will lead to the

development of written guidelines for school advisory councils to

be used at other residential schools for the deaf.

Your completion of the enclosed instrument and return of it to

me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope will be a valuablecontribution. Please complete and return the instrument within twoweeks of today's date.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kenneth D. Randall

101

APPENDIX D

SUGGESTED GUIDELINES

The following guidelines are suggested and are based upon a

review of the literature and findings from the study.

1. The appropriate administrator (s) should be informed that

the organization of the advisory council is being considered.

2. A written statement should be prepared describing the

rationale for the advisory council. The statement should describe

how the council might assist in improving the school and the

relationship between the school and constituents it serves.

3. A brief, written statement describing the proposed council

should be prepared that addresses (a) the purpose of the council,

(b) the responsibilities and duties of the council, and (c) the

organizational structure of the council which includes the methods

of selection and length of terms of members.

4. An outline of the procedures to be followed in organizing

the council should be developed. A written set of procedures in the

form of bylaws are located in Appendix E.

5. Council members should know how and why they were selected,

choose a chairman with careful consideration, and ensure that there

are procedures for effective periodical evaluation of council

activities.

102

103

6. The council members should receive training in the areas

of (a) Structure and Legal Authority, (b) Roles and Functions, and

(c) Group Processes.

7. The council members should develop procedures for

governance of the council which are consistent with written

statements utilized for the establishment of the organization.

8. The council should develop a strong committee structure

rather than operating as a committee as a whole.

9. The council should maintain an informal or discussion

approach in the conduct of meetings. A formalized procedure should

be followed when the council takes action regarding items on the

agenda.

10.

The council should keep minutes of all council actions and

send copies of all minutes to those individuals and groups interested

in the deliberation of the council.

APPENDIX E

SUGGESTED BYLAWS FORRESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF ADVISORY COUNCIL

Article I

Council Name

The name of the Council shall be the School for

the Deaf Advisory Council.

Article II

Purpose and Functions of the Advisory Council

The purpose of the Advisory Council shall be to advise the

chief executive officer in matters pertaining to the operation of

the school and its program.

The functions shall include, but not be limited to:

1. Advise the administration of the school regarding the

development of their statement of assurance for Public Law 94-142;

2. Make recommendations on annual priorities to be addressed

regarding the use of federal funds;

3. Assist in parent education and in recruiting parents and

other volunteers who may contribute to the school;

4. Encourage public involvement in the school;

5. Act in support of individuals with a hearing impairment;

104

105

6. Facilitate communication among students, parents, and

members of the school community;

7. Inform and advise the School for the Deaf

staff regarding community conditions, aspirations, and goals for

hearing-impaired individuals;

8. Provide support to parents, teachers, students, and the

school community for any program that affects hearing-impaired

individuals.

The council will serve as a review panel to study and make

recommendations on various aspects of the school. The areas to be

reviewed will be mutually determined by the council and the school

administration based upon the results of a needs assessment completed

by students, parents, and members of the school on an annual basis.

Article III

Membership

Section 1, Composition

1. The Advisory Council shall be composed of parents of students

enrolled in the School for the Deaf, members of the adult deaf

community who are not employees of the school, a student, an employee

of the school, a representative from a teacher training program, and

a representative from Vocational Rehabilitation.

2. The Council shall be composed of no more than 20 voting

members

.

Section II. Nomination and Selection

1. The Parent Association shall submit names of nominees to

the Advisory Council. The Council shall subsequently elect the

parent (s) from the list of nominees to serve as members.

106

2. Other members of the Council shall be selected by their

respective organizations.

3. Outgoing Council members can be renominated and reelected.

Section III. Terms of Service

1. Parent members will be elected for a term of two years.

2. The student representative will be elected on an annual

basis by the student body.

3. A rotation system of service will be established to ensure

maintenance of 50% of the Council each year.

Section IV. Responsibilities of the Chair

The Chair must be a parent of a child enrolled in the School for

the Deaf. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory

Council and shall sign all letters, reports, and other communications.

The Chair shall develop and publish the schedule of meetings, the

agenda for the meetings, and monitor the functioning of all

committees. The Chair shall be an ex-officio member of all

committees, standing and special.

Section V. Responsibilities of the Vice-Chairman

The Vice-Chair must meet the same election requirements as those

of the Chair and shall preside in the absence of the Chair. The

Vice-Chair shall assist in the operation of all committees. In the

event the office of the Chair becomes vacant, the Vice-Chair shall

succeed as Chair.

Section VI. Responsibilities of the Secretary

The Secretary shall be responsible for the minutes of all

meetings and shall arrange prompt transmittal of a copy of the minutes

107

to all members of the Council. The Secretary shall be responsible

for handling all correspondence as directed by the Council.

Section VII. Responsibilities of the Past Chair

The Past Chair will continue to serve on the Council for a

period of one year after a term of office. Primary duties of the

Past Chair are to serve as a consultant to the Council and take

special assignments as directed by the Chair.

Section VIII. Voting Rights

All Council members shall have voting privileges. Members must

be present to vote.

Section IX. Termination

1. Membership shall terminate for any member who has two

consecutive unexcused absences.

2. Any member may be terminated for cause by a two- thirds

affirmative vote of the voting membership of the Advisory Council.

Section X. Resignation

Any member may resign by filing a written resignation with the

Chair of the Advisory Council.

Section XI. Conduct of Council Meetings

Robert's Rules of Order shall be used as the basis for the

conduct of Advisory Council meetings.

Section XII. Frequency of Meetings

Scheduled meetings shall be held bimonthly.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kenneth D. Randall was born May 11, 1947, in Wichita, Kansas,

the son of Mr. and Mrs. Cleo Randall. He graduated from Douglass

High School in Douglass, Kansas in 1965 and recieved a Bachelor

of Arts degree in elementary education in 1969 from Ottawa

University. In 1970 he received a Master of Science in Education

degree in special education from the University of Kansas and in

1974 a Master of Arts degree in educational administration from

California State University, Northridge.

Mr. Randall taught deaf students at the Florida School for the

Deaf from 1970 to 1973. He later served as the Director of

Instructional Technology at the School and as the Director of

Staff and Curriculum Development. In 1978, he was appointed

Principal of the Department for the Deaf.

Kenneth is married to Diane M. Randall. She is a teacher of

children who are deaf and blind. They are the parents of two sons,

Ryan and David.

108

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion

it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and

is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the

degree of Doctor of Education.

Phillip A./Clark, ChairmanProfessor of Educational Leadership

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinionit conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and

is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the

degree of Doctor of Education.

/"A

nes L. WattenbargerProfessor of Educational eadership

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion

it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation andis fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the

degree of Doctor of Education.

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Collegeof Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education.

August, 1985

nj. 0-

“i)ean. College of Educat

Dean, Graduate School