i DOCUMENT RESUME ,

.2201-770 EA 014 240

. iti61 Lane, Carolyn A4: Kelly, James G. . .

TITLE-,. CoMmunity Influence on Schools and. Studenttearning.

STITOTION Oregon:Univ., Eugene. Center for Educational Policy_and Management. . .

.000 .AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, D.C.PUB' raTt -81

"NOTE 30p. ,

"AVAILABLE FROM Center for Educational Policy and Management, Collegeof Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403(ELM)._

0

'EDRS PRICE MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage.JUESCR/PTORS *Academic Achievement; * Community Influence;

Elementary_Secondairlducation; Family ZnvirOnment;*ftwily Influence; Family Role; Parent Influence;School Administration: "social Environment; *Socialinfideides

Presented in this paper is a framework to examineenvironmental influencei_on learning. The framework identifiesfactors, =from seVeralenvironmentsT-the hole, the community, and the4044; sociocultural contektkand links them with school pOlicy andAieritionelethodOlogicel considerations impOrtant to further100S4getion of these.enviroiteatel links are also dietiised. ThisltrkiduCtori inquiry intojthe topic of community infleences is

4nteidiVto set forth a paradigm guiding research at the University;Of,Oregiinjt Center for EduCational4Olicy'and Management. To do so,research linking, environmental in_ fluences to schooling and student

W eaini*O-TS reviewed; The manner in irlacil influences affectt ChM., gOiettance, student learning, and management of human

/ Oparceg at the school and classroom levels is explored and severalettiti6al.approachet to studying these links. are discussed. Finally

questions flOWing from this inquiry, are proposed in.. the form of a.;_t.e:00(#1-agenda.f (Author/JM)

_***.********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the Original document.****************************************************************** *1 ***

,I el II " . a Ns. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER I ERitt

This document has beeritpproduced asmewed from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minot changes have been made to Improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in that.imerit do not necessarily represent official NIE

- p0 ion or policy.

cz

4

A

\

Community Influence on-Schools

and Student Learning

Carolyn A. Lane and James G. Kelly

4

1981

C

The preparation of this report was made possible through an InstitutionalGrant awarded by the National Institute of Education to the Center forEducational Policy and Management. The opinions expressed in this reportdo not necessarily reflect ,the positions or policies of NIE or the Depart-

mentlof Education.

-.COMMUNITY INfLUENCES ON SCHOOLS AND STUDENT LEARNING

by -

Carolyn A. Lane and James G. Kelly/

I. INTRODUCTION

Even a casual observer today notes.that.schooling, like other public

undertakings, is-affected by a variety of influences not stemming directly

frokeducators or schools. This paper presents kframework to examine en-

Vfronmental influences on sChOoling, thosepurposeful.actiV4Oes that take

place in schools to guide and support learning. The framework will identify

factors from the various environments that impinge on schools--the home,

the community,Wand the larger socioculturarcontext--and link them with

school policy and operations. Methodological considerations important to-

further investigation of these environmental links will also be discussed.

Along with similar investigations of legal-administrative processes

(Kehoe et al. 1981)- and the education profeSsions (Hersh et al. 1981), this

introductory inquiry into the topic of community influences is intended

to elaborate the paradigm now guiding NU-funded research at the University

of Oregon's Center for Educational Policy and Management (Duckworth 1980).

to do so, research linking environmental influences to schooling and stu-

dent learning will be reviewed. The manner in which school governance,

the management of human resources at the..school and the classroom levels,

and stude'it learning are affected by these influence processes will be il-

lustrated and several theoretiCal approaches to studying these links discussed.

4

,

O.

2"

**

Finally, questions'flowing from-this inquiry will be proposed to stimulate

further research..

In conceiving environments outside the immediate school, we distin- .

guish between influences emanating from formal sisteMS, whether legal or

organizational, in nature, and those from. informal systems. This paper_

focuses on nonformal influences of_the family and home, of the local school

diitrict milieu, and of the larger sociocultural context. Environmental

factors that are directly, educational are included, along with those a fec-

ting the school's educational. program or work agenda, allocation of resources,

and work incentives. Excluded from consideration are thOse influences de-

,.

rived fromthe school environment itself (for example, discipline policy)

as well as variables that are not mediated by schooling; such as student

birth order in family.

One particularly powerful construct for investigating anCunderstand-

"int-the-constellation of educational environment's as the learner interacts

with them and they with each other'is Bronfenbrenner's research. paradigm,

the. experimental ecology of education (Bronfenbrenner 1976). He proposes

that whether and how people learn depends on two sets of relations: those

between the characteristics of learners and the characteristics of their

surroundings, aucrthose among the various environments of the learner, for

example, home, school, and cbmmunity., He further Posits that fruitful re.,-

search must be carried out in real educational settings, not laboratories,

and be based on systematic contrast between two or more environmental

systems, or. their structural components (Bronfrenbrenner 1976, p. 5). The

ecology.oi education comprises both sets of relations.

O

3

In this stuOy,,tile school'will be conceived as an open system, nested

within the context of the local.community and the macro-environment and

oVerlakping with the home environment (see Figure,a... The reletimship

of learner to each environment, and the relationships among the various

environments will be the focus of inquiry. By clarifying the specific in-'

fluences from each of these environments, examining their interrelationships

:ahliOMPacts on. schools and ,student learning, .and exploring the interactive

nature of educational processes and outcomes, we aim to expand our know-

,ledge,Ofeducat4hal ecology -and-our ability to orgaOlmand educate con-

structively.

110 .- -

Figure 1

6

, II. :ENVIRONMENTS THAT AFFECT SCHOOLS AND STUDENT LEARNING

Three environments that influence student development and achieve-

ment will be discussed in thii section: the student's family and home en-

vironment, the local school_ district environment; and the'macro-environ-.

ment: Although the home environment has been-studied most closely of the.

three, only more recent investigations have begun to uncover the specific

environmental factors that are both-highly predictive, of student achieve--

Tient-end amenable to iiprivenintthrough training and partnership with

schooli,

The dynamits of local school district settings; including community

beliefs, patter4 of involvement with the'school,-social climate, and eco-

nomic resoUrces,'bear directly on the Availability of school resources and

externai_support_for_the_school_program,..but_usually_only indirectly-on

studen0earning, At the_ macro.tenvironmentallevel, researchcn_nonformal

influences includes studies of technological, economic. and cultural factors,

but has been sketchy and°pemarily conceptual or inferential rather than

empirical. Recent empirical studies tend to examine cultural value con-

frontations in the\local school district arena.\

familund Home Environment

The environment with the greatest influence on children's cognitive

and affective development, as well as on student achievement, is their home

(Ktfer 1976; Mayeske,1973). Although educators have long recognized its

importance, the nature and extent of family influence has been unclear.

Studies conducted during the 1960s by Coleman,-Jencks, and others did call

-4

5

-

attention to the importance of the home environment, but largely with re-.

specttO its relative socioeconomic status and structure. Many studies

replicated -Coleman's findings with regard to family backgrOund variables

such-as income, parental occupation and education, race, structure (one or

two Parents, other adults), and mobility,--=Most demonstrated moderate-to-

high-correlations with student achievement, but were insufficient to ex-

:plain.w:;y-and how the relationships were Important.

Other researchers-began instead-tolook at family and :home process

variables,-ra ther than status variables, in order to findmhat.parents do,

to'encourigeor support the edUcational achievement and related-attitudes

Of their children. Kifer's analysis of home environment studies showed

three 'major dimensions of the home to affect student achievement; verbal

characteristics, activities.,cmigruent:witkexpectations-and-demands7of

sdhool'ond_general cultural leyel_IKtfer 1976). _Another set .of studies

by'Matcoby and others looked' A family socialization processes to try and--

understand the basis for gender and ethnic-differentiated achievement in

school.

At about the same time, the theoretical work of Murray and Bloom on

personality development through the environmental press, such as the press .

for language that is evidenced by parental encooragement and other factors,

stimulated research on press variables related to both cognitive and affec-

tive growth. Investigators including Dave, Wolf, Marjoribanks, and others

have now gathered evidence that it is the dynamics of the family learning

environment--the active demonstration and utilization of resources, the

engagement of parent and child in learning activities and in the subsequent

8e.

6

interpretation-of what hasbeen experienced, and the active reinforcement _

of expectations7-that appear to-make adifferente in dOldren's learning.

These-results are' similar, perhaps not unreMarkably, to what is known

about-effective:teaching practicesjntlassrooms. In fact, between-school

regression.inalypes of data collected for the International Association

for the Evaluation of...86catiOnal Achievement by Wolf (1979) concludes

;.thatthe amount. stUdents learkin.school-diOends on the extentto which

the subject taught is largelyschool4ased-toir,not .(for example; science is

ftamghtprliarily in-school while reading is learned its School and many

other-,environments) :

- A-quantitative analysis, of 18 comprehensive studies over a 19-year

.'period in eight countries was conducted by Iverson and-Walberg (1979).

--Their-fin4ings-shortharttrrelatiens__OffatilTigence, motivation,, and

achievement7are considerably_hi-gher with indexes_01 rent stimulation of

the.student iii,the'heffethan with indexes of socioeco omic status.

Based-On these lindingt, Marjoribanks.arguesthat...parent involvement

and intervention programs have often had minimal succes$ in bdosting stu-

dentperfOrmante because they attempt to changeonly-the affective quali-

ties of the family environment. Ina Chitago prograito help parents

create conditions in their homei for fadilititing-their children's academLc

achievement, Waiberg, Bolt,- and Waxman-(1977),shOwed that intensi -ve pargrit

inveiVement led to more than_a_oner.rade equivalent-An-student reading

achievement over the course of one year, whereas less involvement led to

only a half - grade. ain. these findings are confirmed by research showing

that-the most effective kindi of parent participation]are regular home

9

O

7

instruction (Barth 1979) or.tutoring (Henderson and Swanson 1974) and work--

100 as-aides.with teachers and 'children in the classroom setting. (Bronfen,

, .... .

brenher-1974). Concomitantly, one of the most significant school variables-

in /tisi4studentachievemerii is the total amount and hours'Oer-week, .

of-homeWork,assigned,to students (Garner 1980).H

.AhOther major influence on children's learning found in 'the. home en- _ ,

-i

, vironment iS, of courte,:televiSibn. Children nOwspend'more time watchingi.,

-"-

televiSiott than ,going' to,school ; -in. '1975: a 'typical 16-year-old was estimated

to:have-Spent 15,000AOUri-Viewing telaVisiOn,(Siegal 1975). The attitudes

indbehavior of children are affected by regular,prdgramming and-advertising

alike (Liebert 1975), bUt,effects, both:positive and negative, are coMplex

and.vary With age (Mukerji 1977). itirdon-(l979)-suggestt that-tele4i-sion's.

Popularity can be attributed to several characteristics, two important to

this discussion: television does not.critictze the viewer, an children

see it legitimized by and-with adults.

Research has tended to concentrate on television's impact on children's

prosocial behavior and attitudes, for example, helping others, or feeling

positively towards people of different races; on antisocial behavior and

attitudes, particularly as related to aggression and violence; on direct

learning, as in reading and enumeration skills; on incidental learning,

such as consumer preferences; and on viewing habits (Searcy and Chapman

1972; Comstock 197B; Clark 1978). Although television has been shown to

be an effeCtive medium for stimulating learning in and of itself (Clark

1978),, investigators have also found that parental interaction and support

significantly enhance children's ability to learn from television (Flood

1974; Walling 1976).

2%;

48

For, example, Salomon (1973) examined-the cognitive and affective

development of 93 five-year-old kindergarten children,' drawn about equally

*tat iower- and middle -class families. This group was divided according

to.the-amount-of encouragement offered by mothers as they viewed Sesame

Street with their Children.- He found that the greatest gains wiremadety'

children- from- families- of lacier sodoeconomic status This finding,sup-O

pertt the,preposition-Ithat-it ismediating faCtors in the home environment

-iftthis case, active-parental encouragement of viewing- -that is related

toltddentiains and'thit these feetors may be more commonly present in

Upperind.Middlei!clasv!home environments.

Local District Environment

The local community environment of school districts is a second -realm:

of the educational ecology that influences humitesource management and

governance in schools. -Work resources, work incentives, and work agenda in °

schools are all affected by comienity demography and.support for the educe-, -,

. ,

tional program. In addition, community resources dedicatedto educational

purposes and patterns' of citizen invoiveMent with -schools are important.

Local demographic trends differ for each-community; of-course, but

school work resources and agenda depend directly on student population

characteristics. If numbers are declining, the school district must decide .

whether to close facilities and curtail or consolidate curriculum offerings,

to'seek new clientele from the adult popMlation, or-to _xpand services to

its current clientele, for example, by entering the field of early child-

hooeeducatlicn. If a district-is expanding, how can it obta n new facilities,

11

9

revise, the curriculum to -match expectations Of thenew population, and

identifi,n0W,prograMt net may, be-neededfor children who do not speak

iingliSh:or-for;Ore7school children'whOse parents -are,both:employed?,

The roll of community.- based interest groups (nooprofesilonals)°in .

determining the schoel's.work4agenda has grown since the 1960s, as national

social .movements SuchisasthOseforscivil rights, ethnic seWdeterminati4;

antstudentrightS were translated: locally intaadVocacylor curriculumr

Offerentiation,:bilingual education, anCrevised siudent'OspensiOnpolicieS. .

(Kirst_and Garm0040. Aorerecently,i0ponentS of particular texthooks;

or -curricula, itich-as:$anv kCoUrse of StUdy-(M405)', or courses teaching

Dartiiin'ss -theory of evolution as the only :explanation for"-the dev'elopMent of

ltie'have initiated local campaigns to change, school polities and procedures.

KirSt aridGarmstl980Lpfedict-that thesieluenceof community-baed

% groups attempting to.affectfschbol policies. and pitCedUres will grow ill

the 1980s, even as Dye:and Zeigler (1970) demonstrate that fewer and fewer

citizens arerparticipAtin4 in the traditional. democraticprocess to

enceSChools, that of voting. When they do vote, more people are-voting

"no."-

from 1962 to 1972, voter-approVed school bond issues nationwideti

dropped from nearly 70 percent to-less than 45 percent, a decline of 25

percent. In part because of their dwindling enrollments, local schools

face more competition for public fiscal support? In addition, the voting

sector of the population with school-age children is declining, and the.pro-

portion of older,citizens+is ballooning. Older populations are more likely

to be property owners and to feel the bite of increased taxes for schools,

12

-o

10

*as well .is to have a different set of priorities for community services.

Piele and Hall (1973) summarize this trend: ". . .dn the early 1960s

voter approval was frequently, viewed as a formality. Today, however, voter

.approvel is often the most significant hurdle facing school officials at-

teMpting to)lieet specific educational demands and needs" (p.. 2).

,Ad hod advocacy: groups organized' around. succession of schobl Oro-

grOrisues,appear to be growing. However, their Chgracteristict and dy-

\AtintWare,not-Yet Well understood. A study Of 16'CoMMUnity organizations

lriAilanta,Iposton, and Los Angeles, Gittell (1980) COMIUded that such

,grOupt lose their effectiveness as. they move. from advocacy to service and

become part of the educational establishment. Moore (1980) is tracing the

strategies of citizen groups that have been successful in sttmulating50-

proVements in local eduCational programs and services and translating find-

'trigs into lcong'"WO*aining and.assistanceWparent and citizen groups

in:other dittridti.,-!Kelly 11980) is investigating. the effectiveness of

.citizen-group leaders in relation to. di verse community climates. These

studies -are all aimed towards improving school-community interaction 'ale .

. means to improving education.

The4lacro-Environinent

Almost all,COnditione in iii-e7largee society influence in varying

degrees what takes plebe in classrooms,_asserts Duke (1979), who then demon-

strates how environmental, factors affect classroom.discipline, resource,

.allocation,: division. of labor, and decision making. Likewise, schools, are

organizations influenced by a range of technological, economic, demographic,

13

4.

11

cultural, and historical forces, linked-together'as the largest context in

which schools operate.

'Technology. The wave of advanced technology that hit the educational

Syste0 in the 1960a firtt.44. ifforced the i-Oroduction model of Schooling

adopted Ouring the heyday of industrial,expansion (Callahan) and summarized

more recently by Dreeben. Secondly, concepts borrowed from ,ystems thecry

and operations research have led in the direction of expanded programs and

prOects-tp_meet specific:educational purposes, along with a concomitant

di-VOsffication and-specialization insschool-staff roles. Planning, Public

---informationp-grants-and,contracts,_research_and elialuation, testing,- and

staff training specialists are now foUnd as district employees or consul-

0

teachers and principals. :n some cases, this trena

has-been accelerated by state mandates, for example, those requiring eval-

uatiovof specific programs funded from external sources or those estab-

lishing competency-based-high school graduation or teacher certification

requirements.

Clea ly, the implications for school organization and administra-

tion are manifold. Wolcott's study, Teachers versus Technocrats (1977)

amply documents one districts struggles following its decision to switch

to a program planning and budgeting system. Such diitrict policies seek

to improve school effectiveness by augmenting the resources-teacher have

available, either as supporting systems-or instructional syttems (i.e.,

computer-assisted instruction):. As Duke (1979)14ints out, however, they

often exert additional demands on teachers without conferring corresponding

authority (p. 360)_.

14

12

Economics. Other environmental pressures have followed a similar

pattern. Economic influences iii the larger society have resulted in the

press for school accountability in both its production functions and its

production functions and its products (educated students). Cost-effective-

ness:fs a primary criterion for assessing school operations. Proposed

voucher systems that would allow for family selection of the schools their

children attend apply free market economics to a previously "domesticated"

sector of society (Carlson):

Demography. 7 Four major demographic trends with implications for

schools have been documented by the Congressional Office of Technology

Assessment (1977):

1. Declining birth and fertility rates, discussed earlier, and

the increasing rates of-faMily formation and dissolution

2. Changing family patterns, particularly the growth of single-

parent families and large-scale entry of women-into the

work forcei4

3. Increased immigration, concentrated in metropolitan areas,

accounting for roughly one-quarter of the nation's popula-

.

tiorg growth

4. Migration from the northeast and midwest to the coastal

regions, particularly the south and west; migration from

cities to previously rural locales and, in some areas,

to suburbs

Expectations are for elementary school_ enrollment to continue to decline

thrtitOrtiltrfflid=1980s; and-for-high-schoo'kenrollments-to-decrease-by-25

15

13

percent, even up to 1990. Urban school systems have been hardest hit by

these trends since it is in cities that the needs for diversified services

are accelerating while tax bases are eroding. The 187 largest school dis-

tricts-enroll more than one-quarter of-411:Sttdents; the 10 largest urban

areas house more than one-third of all legal immigrants; most single-parent

families live in cities, and such families comprise roughly 40 percent of

all poverty =leyei families.

Associated with these factors is a surge of private school enrollment,

lip 40 percent in-10 years fOP nonCatholic schools to a totet of 4.5 million

students in 1977,(morethan 10 percent of total School enrollment, One

-explanation for -this-shift -is-Anglo-avOidance-of minority-children (Wilson-

1977), but minority families with money are also moving their children to

Private:schools.

The- implications of these demographic trends foi schools are not yet

well understood in terms, that would lead to amelioration of the conditions

A4

affecting schools. The state of the 'art remains at the level of gross

variable-studies, such -as showing significant correlattons -between

single-parent familiesand low student achievement. Believing that single-

parent homes are not poor learning environments, in and -of themselves, re-

iearchers like Levine, fikuk, and Meyer (1979) still do not understand the

operational features that may distinguish them from intact families as they

affect student achievement.

One interesting prOposition, derived from Giles' (1978) analysis of

Outmtgration of whites from urban areas, is that normative thresholds

existthat_govervbehavim _Before-thi-threshold-is-reached,. people-will

adapt to adverse conditions; beyond the threshold, their behavior will show

16_

"",

O

14

a greater change. Giles-showed the threshold of 'population stability in

school districts, for example, tibe ibughly 30 percent black enrollment,

bryond which whites move to a different district. Other environmental

thresholds may exist, such as-amount and kind of parent -child interaction,

to which= learning is directly related.

.A final note concerning demographic trends is that ". ..the removal

of a substantial portion of the prosperous middle.-class from the school

system=coulthave a; direct effect of subverting the democratic objectives

of school systems throUghegalitarian participation" (11. S.- Office of Tech-

nologynology Assessment,.1977, p..291).

Culture- and Society: .Cultural influerices-ori school-Systems- today,

hoWever, stress the utilitarian value of education for individuals(Gowin

and Gree 1980) rather than its democratic objectives for the community.

Within this general framework, ". . . one of the greatest causes of con -

cerj for educators is-the absence of clear-cut cultural directives" (Duke

1970,.56). Movements range from Back -to- the - Basics, aimed at finding

of*-

a usefliT common dencminator for schOoliAg; to Career Education or Competency-,

based Education, aimed at specifying the set of adult roles-students are

expected to assume after graduating from high school and the level of skills

and knoWledge they will need to function effectively in each role.

Nowhere is the heterogeneity of cultural influences demonstrated more

clearly than in,textbook publishing and adoption. -Pressures from ethnii-

and women's groups toportray their roles in American history and society

more completely began in earnest in the 1960s, also a time when large-scale

curriculum-development in science, mathematics, and social studies was

_and 'rating of textbooks, began to lobby effectively with local school boardt

i

:...

. .

as they selected teXtbooks. A fewmost notably a group Texas, now re-

view_and_suggest_revisions_tomanuscripts_prior to their publication, since

undertaken by university scholars (Schaffarzick 1979). Almost immediately

following theidoption of these new textbooks and curricula, individuals

and groups-began to object to their use on grounds of irrelevance, bias

against traditional values and histe\ricligures, and covert support for

selected-OolitiCalsbeliefs and programs.

- Controversy- erupted at the local school district level, for example,

over-textbooks'in%West'Virginia-in 1974' and over the MACOS curriculum

-(Parker- 1976).. Various.groUpSi. organized for nationwide, information - sharing

'publishing firms cannot econoically.produce multiple variations on a single

textbook _td-please a: variety of audiences.

Historic Events. A final set Of -influences on schooli folft the macro-

environment are those formed from momentous events or eras that we come to

call historic. In recent times, the launching of the Sputnik satellite,

man's firit journey to the moon, the Watergate burglary and ensuing presi-

dental resignation, and theVietnam War all qualify as having affected the

schools' governance, production capacttiei,or productivity.

The first event stimulated an_ emphasis on science and mathematics'

curricula as described earlier, and therefore affected the priority placed

On science and mathematics subjects. within the school program, as well'as

on the allocatiot) of.resources to facilities, materials, equipment, and

even to teacher training._ The second event reinforced the emphasit,lon

/`

science and math also offered advanced planning tools like PERT_ and CPM

ti

18

16

to School administrators. No less important, the moon landing captured

the imagination of children who found new incentives for studying geometry,

_geology and lunar geography,_

'Watergate and the Vietnam'. War have been no less powerful but have had

different effects: -A- concern for ethict among school officials emerged,

backed to. by the possibility of legal-acti On. -Student. rights issues._clustered around- the freedom to express - political ,Oerfs,,On the war and

dUal- -Moral- 'responsibility' for -one's actions-, affetting- adniWstratiVe

prOCeduivs as- ,student readiness -and incentives to- learn.

Sore difficult to assess and extrapolate, the, public ,mund ,appeared

ti'dt4i#t Wards, apaihyoricynitism, part ofWhith-Wes,,directed towards

,Publitinstitutiont., inclUdingrsthoois. 'Other future events may miti-

gate these .conseqUenCeS, and lead to different public attitudes, 'valuek,

-and` sitbseqUent. beheiViOr. What is, important to 'remember is- that values

and attitudes also follow behavior 'Vestinger EdUcational. programs

110:-Moore's Designs for' Change --or parent involveMent in- H041' Start _(Brown

-108) can themselves affect student learning, assist parents in .enhencing:_

their home learning environment, mobilize the local community,,as an educe-

tional resource for schooling, and to some degree influence our intentions

and pursuit ofAiducational excellence.

19

. .

III AESEARCA.AGENDA

4'0X-topics -are ,presented in this_ section as _priorities for empirical

research. The general focus of these topics' is how schools perceive,

antlYie- 'and ,adilrest, enVirininental fOrceS and events for educational advan-

ttge, They first topic, aiMed'at _conceptual models, lays: the groundWork..

for investigating .person - subject- setting interactions in all school environ-

tients: The second topic" designed to, investigate -how .sChools develop and

Maintti the:btiance- betile00,:Opennesi to enVironmeOtal, .forces and-IProtec-

ti OW:of thei ti-edUdati onal mission,. and the! chartCteriStics of such schools

.and, their adMinistrtiOri!., 'the third' topic Considers, the qualities and ac-

that'il;he, -indiiititi,cotaiunitY leaders- -resources for -schOois.

e. ifOUrthtopiC, television as a- learning, reiource, -provides a specific

focus: for :assessing- the ways inrwhich school react, te-alhajOr environmental

'force: The ,fifth .104-$ixth- topics are- timed ,it iMproVing administrative

decisions Made in,sChoOlS-,by- taking into important features. of

,h0Me t*FoOpituntty environments:.

The- ifithOti believe, that these topics, derived from the analysis and

commentary in, the teit,, also .affirm- the agenda for CEPM.

merit- Conce tual MOdels to-Stud the EffeCts of External

:Events -.Upon :Schooling.=

The l iterature-,available on the influence of external factors affec-.

tingi;schools is suggestive, but only of indirect effects. :Much of this -.

literature implicitly defines! the schools as a_ closed system, e.g., when.

external: event.S.occift outside the. -school and-affect the school, the events

are perceived as intrusive, unjust surprises. There are fey elimples- of

-Systematic:-efforts- to developt analytical -models that focus _upon

-hail external events directly;and. indirectly -alter .schooling- and upon how

1*09iteS'Aitl:011904`4_ for schooling. What is 'recoOterlOd' is the support

of :systematic '.teSearcfr_and docUtentatiOti on the school as an 'open!' system,

with -di reCted e0piri Oi .effort to specify" how'Cmunicommunity events ( such as-k

04MOMiC,'sucCesses-and, downturns, disasters, natiOnal..polity.eVents, com-

munity political dehates)-iffett 'botb--10reCtlY -and indireCily, the ciiMate

ni On sCh0Oli, ancf the -401i Ci es and behavior of Choolt,

-The%Ptesent authors: believe, that.pUblic. sChrols,,. as one social system-,

-connect.40-,with;Other- social" systems-within the community, are not-only vul-

jierabie!to-eicternitleifentS and..cficunitances,,bUt that such events create

"new- "opportunities for :PrOgram- develOpient.. .44 the,:PrOtent ;the there is

:no langiAe available to educators to-clarify the,impaCt-of external events, -

;exCept for the language of Colman. senierlii; ,ekpressiOnS -Of .confuti on, and

exasperation. What is needed:ire points of view, and frameWorks that reduce

the=-" perception- that -eVent,Ssre- beyond ones .control.

2. Conduct E Studies;on the ualitietof Schools that

FacIlitate_COMmunication and Use--of EZternattesotirces.

As a corollary _of ifie first-research.agenda item, it is recommended

that -empirical research be conducted to elaborate the characteristics of,

those school, systems that define as resources citizens with talent, other

organizations with similar objectives, and national informational resources,

an illustrate :how thete resources can affett

19

It is the authors' opinion- that there'are multiple factors at

different. levels of the' school organization that contri bute resilient

and yespontive- use of resources,. including a history-of sustained-support

fo .innovation,- social norms, for OpennesS, .amactive.social network-with-,

citiiens,_ and _an- organizational- structure that enhances' an outreach Orien-

tetiOninto the community:. is. our belief that there- is an Interaction

of personal;, organizational: and' sittrat4dnal- factors that -'Contributes to the

-:"open"`: behaviOr of the Sotiat;organization.

school Officials, and influentiala .give testimony and"present

anecd031 TOPQrts that-such respOnsiVe-and_ open organitationt do- exist,

there is .110 .published,;report-cksyste.matie ernpirical invettigatiOnt of

this type ,of' organilation%,knoini to the authors..

. 4nderstanding' the correlates.,anddetertninants of responsive school

organizations can be of _direct -and tangible help for the-administration of

School .systems and for enlightenment of-school- officials. This recommen-

'dation' supports the analysis, end-understanding of proactive school organi-

zat or.ni=riidi of the citizens and school personnel who are members of such

organizations. This particular recommendation, which advocatet comparative

research of school organizations, is complementary to the first recornmenda---

tiOn and-focuses upon the school as key:and critical unit....

3. -Research on the 'Personal Qualities and Social Networks of Citizens

who are or At ire to be Resources and Advocates for School.

00Plement4TY to the above two recOMendatiOnS, this recommendation

focuses upon the qualities and circumstances of citizens. It is recommen-

,ded that empirical inquiry focus upon the variety of roles that citizens

can perform--advocates for improved education, tutors, or teacher aides.

ft

20

1It is essential to know more about the variety of contexts that a-

1,-

hatite- citizens- 4erVing as resources for schools. Of particular interest is

the c1ar1ficat1n of how citizen3 initially .become- connected to the schoolOrgani=,-\- SS

ZatienAnd:how they are -3bie to maintain theft, proactive activity Over time.

This -topic is suigested as a .study of-the -relatiOnShiP, between individual

citizens and: thei social structure along with ;a -study of the -personal

qualities-plcitizens,.. The authors ire tectikeiending that Wiefity sbe giVen

to-the::social° :network of the indivi-41citizen,:and the structure and fun6-

tient of/such social -ne*Orks. It is assumed that the expression of the

proactive fele is 'relev.ted to ,participation-in-a -social- network-where re-

sotireet, such .as social-emOtional;_support, 'ideas', fundS Lind access to

iefluence,, are made available _to the citizen. Of -particular

importance is the-examination;:of intrerpertonel.-Skills -and' personal quell-

_ -tie:sTof- indiVidualS=thet:enhance the creation anti-Maintenence of social

networks; for the maintenanceand delielopment. of social networks can be

ASSitted by the perional.--quali ties -,Of ibelitentierOWbelong to them. Ur--

i.entt.ottologicat research on social netwOrkt_dOeS :not foctis either;upon-,

the44uaIitieS of persons 'in the networks or upon the interaction between

the,'menters- of the network structure.

OondUctingtesearth-on this' topic: tan-enhance the creation and

maintenance. of social networks that include 'persons who are investing in

. school

..

St

0 /7

4. Empirical Inouiry_on the Role of Adults as- Resources for Child-

-reestearnie .durin leleVision Viewing.

The suggested link-between-school learning and parental participa-

tion televisiew=watching,cited In the textofferSa potential

antidote to the negative effects of children's solitary television viewing.

,With the likelyaddition-rof new cable-channels :and-the.growth in the- uses

of-television-as-an-educational: resource, it will become = an increasingly

*iniegriaTart,of.thehdaily activities of.- children. The°roleof adults, r-

'v

ticularlY;o1 parents as television viewers #00selves,:offers the-OppOr*unity. -

to understand how to-reduce passiVe elements of viewing and*to increase the

opportunities to use television viewing as an active educational process.

this recommendation also providet an opportunity to investigate specific

qualities of the home environment that contribute to predicting children's

learning abilities. It is important-to consider television watching as a'

critical social setting--a 'specific placeiand time event tequencewhich

illustrates the interaction between adults and children within the household.

Tileviston watching then becomes a catalytic event to clarify and elaborate

the Child7parent relationship. OarentTchild teleyision-viewing'cal-be

,7 assessed as a potentially positive lorce in the educational development

of the child and as a positive resource for the socialization of parent,

chlitrelationshipv..

It is hoped that such research can indicate how technological inno-

vationscakbecome educational resources when the context for parent-child

learning interactions is understood.

22

5, InVesti ate the Similarities Differences :in Effective Teachin

.Processes that =Occur in the -Home 'and the Classroom.

'There 1s'-in the literature some evidence that specific teaching

practices art of priitiary importance to Children' learning, whether these

practicei the- .classroom 'between teacher and -child or whether

they *Or in the -hOme between- parent and child. There is. also some evi-

-dente' that these- processes- can- be mutually' reinfOrcing if found. in both

----..-settingt..and -ca.* bring about greater\ learning', than if :theY occur -oniy- in. .. ____________

-.One. setting, or the other. Few 640 tiverttUdies .have':examined -these

questions; e.and: of those, .fewer Still ave incorporated-a, broad enough

range ,_of variables to- be--Useful ..

It is recciernended that research to delineate these' processes and

their relatiokships to the home.and school environments be undertaken.

,01,-,partfeular Importance to thit research is the need'-to illustrate hoW

parents and. teachers earn. collaborate in stimulating: and itinforcing-child-

. ren!t. learning. School, ,pelicies, and strategies to.Support this collabor-

as,passibte consequences of such research.

Study the -Vat...lout ithreshold'-'_-Effects_ that 'haveiVlications for

.Schools- are Organized anon Aciininistered:

-The- literattire kanyfticamplet-of differential gains among

Children in Similar "learning _Situattont, apparently. based on readiness

-.differences :among subgroups aCcording, to theirelatiVe proportions of various

Sutigrotips'iii:t.tie total group: Children 'from. families with lower socio-

eCOnOmic Status, for example, might make greater-gal-is than children from

j

25

23

familes of higher 'socioeconomic status, bu^t only if their,proper

tioil in the learning setting dOes not exceed cr drop below a certain level.

Children in recently desegregated settings show the sane phenomenon.

Children in Clisitooms4hat are neithir- too small (with,.perhaps, too few re-,-

sources). -,nor- ton large (where:the tocizit tittem-may,sbe,-everwhelming for

the individual) appear to= gain more than children- in other situatiens:.,4 L

Demographic -studies 'have- shOWn that relatir, threshold levets- can be.

. deterilined _flat ...offer Implications. 'for 'hOW:and when School. attendance-

policies can. affect:, neighberhood -stabi 1 i t), -and, -thus-, the !petit,

school life, and the learning-attainmentOf students. Studying other-

-school thresheldievels -would -hem clear implications, for student,assign-

rent. to-classes, grouping in classrooms, And attendance policies, to name

g

SUmmitryk\'\These six research avenues are topies, to ex-.

plore how community events and community variables affect schooling. The\

,;:six,thpici; be interdependent with one another, with the pre -

}limanary findibgs\lresented earlier in this paper, and,with the working

,research agenda ei\fEPM..

.g6

4 4

,2114=01011.1

`RE:PERENCES.

__..,.Barth,,s:-R-.-_-:NoMe4BaS-et-ReinferC:ement,.Of""SChoO1;:BehaVIOr: -A- Review and

4104 Review EduCatibnat,fieteardh,;:49'119.79):. '436488., ,

Stabilit and',Chan

. _

.Human Characteristics. New

Bronfenbrenner, Urte. :EcOloo.of 'Education.. EducationalResearches 5 9^(Octoberi97,6): "544.

Bracrn, erne.of 'Eurrent`Afintion,,e

8:

Long4TerM 004 Early CI 40eittoil Overview.'Research:: .:11Oh-4Tertir flow Earlk

rn4r,CB.

Educaition 46° of eimy. Chicago:

MilgatxTrels'

1"----"itnyirOnmeital__*nstraintsgiornaial-ittences PubtieSthOini,'andl tr;cliints4 4'

and:f:Edutatithill;OnaT,;Secie

'ter.

4W0tud4off;Educatiptini 1964.

Clark;: Richard tiChlldren'sd-Televi'sfoni_ .The Best of ERIC:. :SyriCute,_

'SyriCuse:':Uni;Veri.styr, C'-tCleaisinghouse,""vn: Information,:Re-

lourcisi

01.040

cinnetecki GeOrge. Trends in,the;'4itfon°41eWinti, racYW

earinghoust.on7

Washin ton,1066.

IncAdentaftearnin- fro* Tele-

ty C

di ti ion: Earn ci atiOn.,1wEduCiitioniesponsiVe,

e.Area of NooduCtivity. WOrk-

Katicn Flhance%and Productivity

Edatati -Ona 1 ',,Po fic ai:denta= Ao hjeVeine wpmer Mimeogra,,fof iEducationt e4000.efit-,.':unlIte

erne' ntwithiStw!,ent,_'Ore-.; Centerregont 1980..

4,

COO

25

DAC Daniel L. "Environmental Influences on Classroom Management." In

Cl ass r oom 'ManideMint;idi ted -bV Dahill L. Dike , pp. 333-62. Chicago:

'OationalSociety for the_Study: of EdUCiti on .1979. .

Dye, Thomas.,R: Harmon: The Iro of . An Un-

Coiarion... IntrOdUCti on- 16 American. Pol t csThBjelfChont lift :

ipprtkPuOishinvDompanv; 19704

PO' ti Ogee, Leon^. A Theory 2Cognitive Dissonance . Stanford, Calif. :

iStanforciUniVersity-.ress'i. 1957. -

010414-jaMes:EdWard-.`" "Predictors, pt-,Reading-Achievement;- An-Investiga-

. :tiOn,.ef',,Selicted,AilteCedents to Re#dint.P" diSSertation,

.100000,11.1,Y.elift41975.,.,.'

8arper-,2Wil 11!LlhkingtChoOT rOesPOrOs-tO':EducitiehilOutcomes :Theible Homework. "- -HMLLRetearthrulletin, 19:1:1NOVember 1978) .

Michael Mhite;,,,Olight and: Black in American

Sc, ilathingtOO;- .400P41-401 tute Of ,Pooati 1978 .

,

apitOler s. "Citizens- Organizations: Citizen Partici-

----OatiOnn .J-:Educiti .bed si oniikin4" ve Summary. Boston

;Otote,foi1340941*OuCitiON:i?ow .

Gordon, , Neat' J. "Television-:and;-Learning." In Educational Environments

-intrEffeCtt,..edited- by-Herbert J. ,Walberg, p7717:767Wkillir:mccutc6an 1979..

4

Henderson,,,R. W., and Swanson, R. Parent training-and Utilization'of Know-1 edge,.froiliAesei rch :Orr Cogni ti ve Socialization:, Tucson: Ceiffir Nr7.7

Educational-Research Auld: Development , -14ni versi ty of Arizona, 1974.

Herth'; R. H. and- oth*rs. "The -EducatiOnlrofessions and the Enhancement of

C1issrOolin-ProdUctivity." -MigeOgraphed. Eugene, Ore.: Center for

EduaatiOnal- Policy and Management, .University of ,Oregon, 1981.

Iverson; Barbara K.; and Walberg, Herbert J. "Home Environment and Learn-

ing:, A 'Quantitative' Synthesit." Paper presented -at the annual meeting

of the. AmeriCan,EducatiOnal Research Association, 8-12April 1979, atSan Francisco,. Calffornia.

Jencks, Christopher.- :Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family

and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 19/2.

Kehoe,. Ellen, and others. , "The Impact of Legal-Administrative Processes .

on LoCa1 Schools." Mimeographed. Eugene, Ore.; Center for Educa-

tional Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1981.

28

I

26

Kelly, .James G. "Ecologital-Theoremt.-and-titizen-12articipation:---Methods-.and-.Process." Paper:presented at the annual 'Meeting of the American

'Psychological -Association, . 3,September -19809 at Montreal, Canada.

KitervEdVtardi r"TheitelitionshiP Between :the Home and School in Influencingthe'Learning-ef ChlldrenN Paper presented at the Pre-Convention Con--ferehae-Ori Research of the National : Council of Teachers of English,-

:November 1976, at 'Chicago,'4!

"iiithael,14.9,--111COOnti bi...8.1.teri. 1. The'Deirographic, Fisaal andPolitica1 EnvireinienterPublic- Scheof:nnance in. the 1980's.Sta nfor dr ".S tanforeUniversily9; I nst itt u t. :le- r' Resear: ab o' ni:Educ ati ona1

t

'Levine, Daniel LAukuk9 -Cris;,and;-Meyer, ,jeanie'Keeney:- "Poverty in Big'Ifl:EdUcä'tionalEflvironmeflts. aneEffects 9, edited by H'rbert

33:152.": IterkeTer McCutchan,',1979.

Liebert, RObert N. IMOdeling and the Media" ''Salioalstchology -Digest,--4:1 (1975)': .22-29. .

Marjeribankt, Kevin.. "Faint ly- Environments." In Educational 1 EnvironmentsEffecti,_edited.tiy :Herhert:J. Walberg, pp:.15,37.-2 Berkeley:

lictutchani 1879,

Mayeske, -GeOrge- W:9 and others. 7A Stud4.-of, the Achievement Of:our-Nation'sStirdents: Report No. 0E-72-131.' Washington, D.C.: Office of

iWIa on, 1973:- -,t1 .

Moore; Donald; ,and Weitzman, Sharon. Child Advocacy and .the Schools: StudyStirintry. Chicago: Designs for Change, 980.

Mukerji-, Rose:. "What Effect is ly 'Haying oh the Young Learner?" Paper.presented at.theenritial, cOnference..Of the.AssociaVOrifOr Supervisionand curriculum :Development, , 19-23:March, 1977, at Houston, Texas. -

Hurrays, Henry,A. Lpc lorations in PersonalLyt Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1938. .

Parker, Franklin. "National Policy and Curriculum Controversy." Educational.Leadership 34:2. (1976): 112.;17*,-.- a,

Pièlé, Philip k, and Hall, John Stuart.- Budgets, 'Bonds- and Ballott:Ycititfq Behavior in School 'Financial Elections-. Lexington, Mass.:6. 'C.:Heath, 1973.

.

a

27

'Salomon, Gabriel. Effects.of Encouraging Israeli'Mothers to Co-observe.Sesame-Street WTrigTetiar=Olds-.-Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew

University,_

Schaffarzick, Jon, and Sykes, Gary, eds. Value Conflicts and Curriculum

Issues: Lessons from Research and Experience. Berkeley: McCutchan,

Searcy, Ellen, and Chapman, Judith E. The Status of Research in Children's

Television. Washington, D.C.: Interagency Panel on Early Childhood

Research Development, 1972.. %

.

,Siegal-,!,Alherta-S. 40MMunicating_with the Next Generation." Journal of

-{.Comainiidatign.2t 11975): 1444.,., ,

\.

.

,,

,,-U.S.OfficaatTechnolOgy Assessment A,Preliminery,Analysis_oUDemo-

rithid-TrendiAnfluenCing the Elementary and-Secondary School-System. ,

as ngton',% ::- -1977.- '. . ..

.

. .

,

'Weilher,0,- Herbert4.;1k0e,,RObert E.; and Waxman, Herschel. "School-based

Family Socialization:" Unpublished manuscript, 1977.

\

.

Willing,-Jamis 1. 4Communitation-Education in the Home, in the Schools,-...-- AvidAti-Higher-Education:- 1n-the Home:- The-Effect-of Parental

Interaction ,On Learning from Television." Communication Education

1 251 (1976): 16;.25:.

Wilson, Franklin D, and Taeuber,:Karl E. Residential and School'Segreqa-tighllome Tests of Their Association. Discussion Papers No. 47g=79.

Madison,.Wisconsin: Wisconsin University, Institute for-Research onPOverty. 1977.

\.

Wolcott., Harry F. Teachers-versus Technocrats.- Eugene, Ore.: Centerfor Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1977.

Wolf, Richard M. Achievement in America. New York: Teachers_College

Press,. 1977. .

1

.

Wolf, Richard M. "Achievement in the United States." In EducationalEnvironments and Effects, edited by Herbert J. Walberg, pp. 313-30.

Berkeley: McCutchan, 1979.1

30