manavment systems - eric - department of education

ED 065 921 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION PUB DATE NOTE AVAILABLE FROM EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS DOCUMENT RESUME EA 004 488 Bergen, J. J., Ed. School Program Accountability. The 1971 Leadership Course for School Principals Lecture Series.. Alberta Univ., Edmonton. Dept. of Educational Administration. 71 71p. Department of Educational Administration, University of Alberta, Edmonton 7, Alberta (Canada) ($3.00) MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 *Administrative Change; *Adminiotrator Role; Budgeting; Community Schools; Differentiated Staffs; Educational Accountability; Evaluation; Learning Experience; *Manavment Systems; Planning; *Principals; Program Evaluation; Programing; Systems Approach; Systems Concepts; *Teacher Evaluation ABSTRACT This collection of papers by various authors offers varied comments on (1) a systems approach to accountability, (2) accountability and PPBES, (3) program evaluation, (4) the principal's role in clinical supervision, (5) some practical approaches to the evaluation of teaching, (6) teamwork within the school, (7) differentiated instruction, (8) the community school, and (9i a ulearning- system of education. A related document, EA 004 487, provides a history and an evaluation of the leadership course. (JF)

Upload: khangminh22

Post on 07-May-2023




0 download


ED 065 921






EA 004 488

Bergen, J. J., Ed.School Program Accountability. The 1971 LeadershipCourse for School Principals Lecture Series..Alberta Univ., Edmonton. Dept. of EducationalAdministration.7171p.Department of Educational Administration, Universityof Alberta, Edmonton 7, Alberta (Canada) ($3.00)

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Administrative Change; *Adminiotrator Role;Budgeting; Community Schools; Differentiated Staffs;Educational Accountability; Evaluation; LearningExperience; *Manavment Systems; Planning;*Principals; Program Evaluation; Programing; SystemsApproach; Systems Concepts; *Teacher Evaluation

ABSTRACTThis collection of papers by various authors offers

varied comments on (1) a systems approach to accountability, (2)

accountability and PPBES, (3) program evaluation, (4) the principal'srole in clinical supervision, (5) some practical approaches to theevaluation of teaching, (6) teamwork within the school, (7)differentiated instruction, (8) the community school, and (9i aulearning- system of education. A related document, EA 004 487,provides a history and an evaluation of the leadership course.(JF)








Edited by





Edmonton, Alberta




1111k6 AIL


The Role of the Principal, 1959*

Professionalism in the Principalship, 1960*

Skills of an Effective Principal,1 961*

Organization: A Means to Improved Instruction, 1962

The Tasks of the Principal, 1963*

The Principal and Program Development, 1 964

Program and Personnel, 1965*

The Principal and Educational Change, 1966*

Developing a Concept of the Principalship, 1 967

The Principal as Administrator, 1 968*

Administration for Student Development, 1969*

The Principal's Role in the 70's, 1970School Program and Accountability, 1971



(Note: Titles marked with an asterisk are now out of stock.)















I I/





The Principal and The School Walter H. Johns 1

A Systems Approach to Accountability H. I. Hastings 7

The School Principal,Accountability and PPBES W. R. Duke 15

Program Evaluation D. Friesen 21

Clinical Supervision: The Principal's Role D. A. MacKay

Evaluation of Teaching:Some Practical Approaches B. K. Johnson 33

Team-Work Within the School C. Safran 39

Differentiated Instruction"Theory" and Practices John 0. Fritz 43

The Community School: Hope or Heresy? Gordon McIntosh 51

A "Learning" System of Education Lowell Williams 59


When resources are plentiful, there may be a tendency not to count the cost, but tospend whatever is necessary in order to achieve certain objectives. When resources becomescarce, two questions are asked with increasing frequency: How can the same ends beachieved by using the availablg resources more efficiently? If all ends:cannot be achievedwith the available resources, what are the priorities that is, which objectives must becurtailed or even dropped?

Consequently, a more careful auditing takes place, and those who are charged with theexpenditure of resources are asked: Have 'you done the best you can with the resourceswhich have been placed at your disposal?

There is a danger of grasping at simple solutions for very complex problems. Underpressure one may be tempted to restrict one's efforts to those ends for which results canbe demonstrated most easily in relation to the resources expended. One may concentrateon the measurable, and neglect those aspects of education which are more difficult toassess. The value of judgement cannot be discounted judgement, subjective though itmay be, but based on much training and experience and verified by that of many otherswho are knowledgeable.

An end cannot be dropped simply because we are not able, at this time, to define itprecisely in measurable terms, and because we cannot measure accurately what progresshas been made toward the attainment of that end. After all, much of human progress inthe arts and in philosophy has been of this nature. And where measurement is more easilyaccomplished, as in the sciences, it has later been found to be much less accurate thanan ticipa

The teader will find that some papers in this volume present a more cOnvincing pointof view than others that accountability processes can be applied effectively in the schoolprogram. Some will argue that the onus of proof may rest upon those who insist that thenrinciples of accountability applied in industry and business can be applied in schoolsalso. Certainly, whole school systems ought not to be moved in this direction before somepilot projects appeared at least convincing. .

The production of a moon-rocket may be much more costly than the education of achild, and it may require the contribution of many specialists. Computer technology andeducational specialists may be engaged, but the fact remains that the child is infinitelymore complex than the moon-rocket. Also, ids social milieu is much more complex thanthe physical environment in which the mojn-rocket travels. "Stimulus-response" theoriesmay be completely adequate for controlling the rocket, but they explain only a fractionof a child's leacning behavior.

The principal and his staff, under the pressure of reduced resources, must assess thepriorities for the school, and must work creatively in the effective use of resources. This,too, is accountability professional accountability. However, the latter may be difficultto demonstrate in ledger columns.

William G. Walker, Dean of the Faculty of Education ai the University of NewEngland, Armidale, Australia, expressed his concern as follows:

Teaching is both an art and a science. The interaction between teacher and child isalmost mystical, and mysticism is difficult to measure in terms of productivity.Perhaps teachers tend to over-emphasize the art, but administrators and researcherstend to over-emphasize the science by stressing productivity and accountability.(R & D Perspectives, University of Oregon, Fall 1971)

J.J. Bergen, Course Director



The success of the Leadership Course for School Principals depends upon the interests

and efforts of all who are involved: sponsors, leadership personnel, and of course the

participants. Special mention must be made of the members of the Policy Committee and

the organizations which they represent.

The Department of Educational Administration, from the very beginning of the

Course, in 1956, has contrilvqed substantially in personnel and material resources. An

insignificant portion of these costs have been charged to the budget of the Course itself.

For the three years during which this director has been responsible for the Course, he has

received the unreserved support of Dr. G. L. Mowat, Chairman of the Department of

Educational Administration.

An interesting and thought-provoking selies of lectures was presented by the


Dr. W. R. Duke, Associate Director of Field Services, Department of EducationDr. D. Friesen, Associate Professor of Educatfonal Administration, The University ofAlberta

Dr. J. Fritz, Professor of Education, The University of Calgary

Dr. H. I. Hastings, Consultant on hinovative Projects, Department of Education

Dr. W. H. Johns, President Emeritus and Professor of Classics, The University of Alberta

Dr. B. K. Johnson, Coordinator of Curriculum Development, Calgary Public Schools

Dr. D. A. MacKay, Professor of Educationd Administration, The University of Alberta

D. R. G. McIntosh, Associate Profe:sor of Educational Administration, The University of


Dr. C. Safran, Superintendent-Elect, Calgary Public School Board

Mr. Lowell Williams, Executive Director, The Alberta School Trustees' Association

Group discussions on the lecture series and other group activities were under t h e

direction of the following consultants:

Mr. L. E. Harding, Superintendent of Schools, Drumheller Valley School Division

Dr. B. K. Johnson, Coordinator of ClIrriculum Development, algary Public Schools

Mr. John J. Nearing, Coordinator of Secondary Education, Calgary Separate Schools

Mr. ILA. Pike, Consultant in School Administration, Edmonton Regional Office,

Department of Education

Dr. M T Sillito, Coordinator of Professional Development, The Alberta School Teachers'


Mr. Lowell Williams, Executive Director, The Alberta School Trustees' Association

The services of the Edmonton public and separate school systems is also

acknowledged. The principals of the following schools, along with members of their

faculties, provided illustrations of what was being attempted particularly with respect to


individualized instruction and differentiated staffing:

Mr. R.P. Baker, M.E. Lazerte Composite High

Mr. EX. Bischoff Louis St. Laurent High

Mr. CA. Clement, Forest Heights Elementary

Mr. A.B. Wocowich, Sir John Thompson Junior High

Some sessions were conducted jointly with the Counsellor Leadership Seminar which

was held at the same time. The contribution made to the Principals' Cou'rse through these

joint sessions, as well as that which occurred through the informal interaction of

principals and counsellors is acknowledged to Dr. D. Sawatzkv, Director of the

Counsellors' Seminar. Also, Dr. Paul Koziey added variety to the activities of the

Principals' Course through his presentations on "experience-based learning" and his informal

seminars on communication. Dr. Sawatzky and Dr. Koziey are members of tin..

Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta.

Special thanks are due to Mr. Dan J. Cornish, graduate student in the Department of

Educational Administration, for his capable assistance as Assistbnt Director of the

Course. Mr. Cornish also contributed considerably in the preparation of this publication.

Miss Joan Zowtuk assisted as Course secretary and provided efficient and invaluable

service throughout the year. Assistance was provided also by the other members of the

clerical staff of the Department of Educational Administration, and particularly by Miss

Hazel Dobyanski.

The Leadership Course was accommodated in the Alberta School for the Deaf. The

services of the School, and particularly the arrangements made by Mr. F. G. C'artwright,

Superintendent, were much appreciated. Mr. Cartwright also conducted an evening tour

of the School, and gave Course members illustrations about the nature of educating

hearing-handicapped children.

The sixteenth consecutive Leadership Course was attended by sixty-one principals and

vice-principals. All but three of these came from the breadth and length of the province.

One came from the Yukon Territory and two from the North West Territories. Course

members wcre nominated and sponsored by their respective school boards. Over the years

about 970 individuals have been Course members. It appears that school boards have

continued to conclude that the cost of sending principals to the Leadership Course is an

investment bearing dividends in terms of more enlightehed leadership within the schools.

The contribution made by school boards in making this singular opportunity available to

their administrators is most significant.

J. J. Bergen





My credentials for addressing such a group asthis may be open to question, but I can includeamong them a life-long interest in education at alllevels, and some experience in a situation notunl ike that in which school principals findthemselves. A great deal has been written aboutthe role of the principal, and the authors of themany books and articles on the subject have beenmen who have devoted their lives to teaching andresearch in the field of educational administration.I shall not attempi to speak from the same pointof view as these writers. Instead I shall try to setout some ideas of my own. You may, of course,disagree with me.

The theme of this year's course is "SchoolProgram and Accountability." I had not run intothis word, accountability, until recently, but I

tinnk it contains a most important concept. I havealways believed that a person should fulfil his roleto the utmost of his powers and that if he fails tolive up to his responsibilities through any defect ofcompetence or will, he shoffid give up hisprofession or his position in it and turn his talentsto "fresh woods and pastures new." I believe inthe individual's right to happiness, and if hecannot do his job well he cannot be happy in itand should get out not marshall all the forces ofhis colleagues to keep him in his misery.

My first point has to do with the importance ofthe school in the community. I am not speakinghere of the importance of education generally, butof the significance of the particular school. To thestudent and to his parents, the school system andthe school board tend to be looked upon as vagueabstractions, but the school which the student isattending, whether elementary, junior high or highschool, is the heart and core of the whole system.Here he will probably spend six years of hiselementary school life and here his parents willcome for Home and School meetings. In latery ea rs the fact that he went to school inEdmonton, for instance, will be less significantthan that he went to Queen AlexandraElementary, McKernan Junior High, or BonnieDoon High School. I fear that those engaged inresearch in p rofessional education tend tooverlook this fact, nr tend not to give it sufficientweigh t.

The school, then, his school, is not just a

building or group of buildings to the student; it isthe place where he spends almost half his wakinghours. It is here he receives the formal part of hiseducation for twelve years, and the teachingprocess that goes on within that school is a vitalpart of his mental and physical development. Theresponsibility for guiding and fostering thisdevelopment lies with the teachers, and everyteacher is important to the students and to theschool. But far more important stiH is theprincipal. I realize that this statemen is open tochallenge, but I firmly believe, it to be true if notactually, then at least potentially.

I make this statement because I have seen soma ny examples of schools which were thereflection of the principal to an astonishing degree

both for good and for ill. You will be able torecall schools with a reputation for lack ofdiscipline, lack of academic excellence, and lack ofmorale among the staff, which changed in a matterof two or three years to become models ofexcellence in every way because of the leadershipand high standards of a new principal. On theother hand, there have been first class schoolswhich have lapsed into mediocrity after a goodprincipal was succeeded by one who was mediocre.


In my tenth and final report on the state of theUniversity to the Faculty Association of TheUniversity of Alberta two years ago I cited"complexity of organization" as perhaps the mostserious problem the university has faced as aninstitution.. I said in part that:

Many of this faculty have toiled hard and longto design a system of checks and balances,largely through committees of all kinds, thatshould permit their colleagues to have a

responsible voice in decision-making at all levelsand on every conceivable subject. They haveforged terms of reference, procedures,regulations, statutes, and by-laws until nothingcan be done by way of decision or actionwithout referring to a manual on how to doit ... The result has been what someone hascalled "the constipation of action and thediarrhea of debate



By way of solution I suggested that we shouldtrust administrators. If you can't trust them theyshould not be appointed to administrative posts. Ifthey demonstrate in ,)ffice that they cannot betrusted, they should be fired or put in lessresponsible positions, but at least they should bechosen with care on the basis of provencompetence and then given a chance to show whatthey can do, without having to spend endlesshours at the frustrating task of consultations andleafing through manuals of procedures. Theyshould be expected to have some powers ofdiscretion and judgment, and should be permittedto exercise these powers within reasonable limits.This is surely at the heart of accountability.

ORDER AND DISCIPLINEI shall instantly reveal how old-fashioned I am

by saying that the first thing for which a principalshould be accountable is discipline. I realize thatthose responsible for the administration of schoolsin the great cities of the United States where thepupils have often grown up in festering slums withno family life or parental guidance may have ahopeless task, but principals in Canadian schoolsdo have a chance to develop good behaviour andgood morale in their schools. For the vast majorityof students, discipline cannot be achieved by forceor threa t of force. It must come from within as aresult of pride of one's school, pride in one's c lass,and pride in one's self. That is the kind of spirit apricipal can inculcate in his teachers and hisstudents, but he must first feel that pride himselfand demonstrate it at every opportunity. Therewill be a few who will not follow such a lead andthere may be a very few for whom there is noanswer but swift punishment or expulsion. Here, Ithink, the ultimate authority should be that or theprincipal, and he should be able to act withoutfear or favour.

I hasten to say that he should not act entirelyalone in these extreme cases, but should have theadvice of two or three teachers and the samenumber of students. If they endorse his proposedaction, that should be the end of it; it should notgo beyond the school. One of tne worst features ofso-called justice in these days is the endlessavenues of appeals, the thousand tricks of legalquibbles and of rhetoric which deface the courtsin so many countries. Another defect is theimbalance between the rights of society and theso-called rights of the individual. Our ideas ofpunishment have softened considerably overrecent years and no one is more aware of this thanrebellious students. If they are aware that theyneed have no fear of punishment, they will laughat authority, infect other students with their

attitudes, and weaken a principal's best efforts torun a good school.

With such authority in his hands, the principalhas a great burden of responsibility, andappointments to these posts must be madewith the utmost care. Once appointed, theprincipal must be made accountable for hisdecisions and actions and subject to demotion ordismissal if he cannot successfully defend them.Here we look to the good of the school, not thewelfare of the individual, and I believe that this isthe right approach.

Sometimes, of course, the principal may makea mistake; he would hardly be human otherwise.In such cases I hope he would have the grace tocorrect it, apologize if appropriate, and learn fromhis experience. If there is one trait of character heshould not have, it is rigidity. A completely rigidstructure is not as strong or as reliable as onewhich combines great strength with someflexibility. A strong principal must be accountableto society and he will not lose in dignity, butrather gain, if he makes an admission of his errorand tries to correct it. Perhaps you will say that Iam describing ideal situations and that in someschools the principal is, or can be, in hot water allthe time, whether on matters of sturlent dress,student behaviour in the school, student behaviourout of school, the problems of th.zft front lockers,smoking, or scores of other such things. Of coursethere are such schools, though they are notcommon in Canada at least not yet. In suchcases it is of special importance that the principaltake the lead in setting and enforcing a highstandard of behaviour for everyone in the school.

Standards of behaviour in schools vary widelyas do the societies in which they are located. Someof you may recall the article by Anthony Lewis ofthe New York Times Service published in 'thel'..dmonton Journal of May 10th, 1971 entitled"Martin's Dream World Outraged the Teacher."lie:e was a case of what we would considerextreme punishrtient, a caning inflicted on a groupof eight boys and girls about thirteen years of agein a secondary modern school in Croydon,Engl and. One student rebelled. The chargeconcerned an essay assignment in which the essayshanded in by these eight students wore judged tobe "obscene, flippant, and derisory." MartinWoodhams refused to accept his caning inhis mind there wa.; nothing in his essay at all whichcould be criticized as obscene or flippant orderisory. The case came to the school's board ofgove r no rs and the headmaster's action wassupported by a vote of five to three. But somehowthe siory reached the press and Martin's essay waspublished. Thc general public came to the



student's defense and one newspaper described thepunishment as "ludicrous." The headmaster tookthe position that he regarded Martin's essay asflippant rather than obscene, but that there wasother misbehaviour involved as well.

The, main poilt of this case is that theheadmaster was probably put in a position fromwhich he could not gracefully with hisdignity and authority unimpaired. The other sevenstudents involved, including the girls, had takentheir canings and their cases were closed. LettingMartin off would haw: been impossible under thecircumstances, but perhaps earlier in the affair thet eack^-3, the headmaster, and perhaps somestudents, might have arrived at a decision in whichall the factors were fully considered. Perhaps theboy had been "cheeky" and this may have beenthe major basis his punishment. In any case thes tory made the front page of nearly everynewspaper in Britain. I am sure none of those inthe Croydon School had any idea of the extent towhich this case might become a cause cbre, norcan we say what effect this may have for good orill on iegulations for student discipline ;n BritishSchools. It does remind one, however, of the linesof Kipling on Norman and Saxon:

The Saxon is not like us Normans.His manners are not so polite.

But he never means anything serioustill he talks about justice and right;

When he stands like an ox on the furrowwith his sullen set eyes on your own,

And grumbles, "This isn't fair dealing,"my son, leave the Saxon alone.

CURRICULUMAn area in which there is a growing tendency

for greater local authority in the school districtand even in the individual school is that of thecurriculum of studies. The position paper on thenature of the teaching profession presented at theAnnual Representative Assembly of the AlbertaTeachers Association this year noted "thatteachers, like other professionals, are increasinglypracticing within bureaucratic frameworks of rulesand regulations, a setting not conducive to highquality teaching in Allvrta 3chools " (77te ATANews, May 10, 1971). There is no question butthat greater freedom is being accorded to theteacher for preparing and carrying out Ns owncurriculum of study and this trend will almostcertainly be extended. It will demand muchgreater responsibility on the part of the teacherand make it more important that schools appointand retain those teachers who can demonstratehigh competence in their professional duties.


Perhaps the trend to a greater local and regionalautonomy can be seen also in the appointment ofmore consultants in subject areas such as socialstudies and mathematics, and in counselling andguidance. With services of this kind available, andwith a general guide from the Department ofEducation and the universities about goals to heachieved in subject areas, the teacher should havegreater.scope for initiative and greater challenge.The rolc of the principal in setting general standardsof acatlemic matters in his school will be greatlyenhanced also.

STAFFINGI think it important to the success of such an

academic system that the principal have the powerto select his own staff, though I am fully aware ofthe difficulties this would entail especially in suchlarge scheol systems as those in our major cities. Ifirmly believe that the best school is one that hasthe feeling of a kind of family structure in the bestsense, one in which the principal and the teacherswork together in a spirit of harmony which isreflected in good morale and effective teaching. Inpursuing this idea I consulted a man who has hadwide and successful experience in teaching andadministration and has carefully studied practiceselsewhere. He was convinced of the value of theprincipal being able to select his new staff andagr eed that the principal should do so inconsultation with the head of the departmentconcerned. If he were looking for someone toteach English, he should consult with his seniorEnglish teacher. In this way the decision would betheir own and each of them would have a feelingof commitment to the new teacher and adetermination to make sure that the choiceworked out well. lf, on the other hand, the choiceis made by a central office, this feeling ofcommitment cannot be present to an equal degree.

The question naturally arises whether such apolicy is feasible; my informant believed it waspossible for high schools, and with modification,for junior high and elementary schools as well. Itworks in Toronto school districts where principalsand their associates interview teachers who arecandidates for certain positions as advertised.Principals and department heads have a chance tomeet candidates for positions in their schoolsand vice versa. Perhaps a final decision cannot bemade then and there but negotiations can at leastbe started, and a principal will have some ideawhether the candidate will be appropriate for hisschool. Surely this is better for everyone involvedthan the alternative of the more or less arbitraryassignment of a new staff member by a centraloffice.

NEW APPROACHES TO LEARNINGThere are many new approaches to learning in

the schools, nearly all of them designed to permitgreater freedom on the part of the student topursue his education in his own way. These

recognize that children .have a natural desire tolearn, an in-born curiosity that makes them eagerto find out about everything in their world. Theserecognize also that the old didactic approach toinstruction according to a strict regimen tation ofstudents in forms or grades within a detailedcurriculum leaves much to be desired, for it tendsto produce a rebellious attitude on the part ofmany students and a hearty dislike for the processof learning. The professional education of teachershas been extended over several years in an attemptto provide them with greater understanding of thelearning process and of the psychology of the childand the adolescen t.

Some provincial jurisdictions in Canada areconservative in their approach to change, whileothers are more liberal. The same differences occurin school districts and even in individual schools.Because this is the case, it shou:d be the principal'sresponsibility to achieve an approach to classroomteaching which all the teachers in his school cansupport willingly and enthusiastically. This must,of course, he worked out in consultation with histeaLhing colleagues. If a particular approach hasbeen agreed upon, all the teachers shouldco-operate iu adhering to it. If they cannot do so,they should seek transfer to another school wherethe pedagogical climate is More suitable to theirtastes.

I have suggested that the school, in these

ma t ters, should be more or less an independentunit, but that it should also be consistent withinitself. I think this is of the utmost importance, andthe development of this pattern devolves on theprincipal. It is for this reason that his role and thatof his senior colleagues is so important in dealingwith staff changes.

These new approaches to education are notreally new theories, but old theories in new

situations. Anyone who has read, even casually,the comments of Plato and Aristotle, Quintilianand St. Augustine, Rousseau and Montessori, willunderstand what I mean. Furthermore, I shouldlike to state my faith in the role of the teacher aseducator. I have recently read "Nobody Can TeachAnybody Anything" by Dr. Wilfred Wees, and Istrongly disagree with his basic premise and withmost or the arguments he uses to support it.Children should be encouraged to use theircuriosity and their initiative in pursuing theanswers to their questions and they should beencouraged to do this in the classroom, but along


with tltis free-ranging approach there naust be avery importan t element of teaching and learningthe fundamen tals of reading, writing, arithmetic,and the general areas of the social studies, science,and literature. The exceptionally bright youngster,who is a natural stadent in the best sense of theterm, might quickly master these fundamentalswith little in the way of teaching in an organizedcurriculum, but the vast majority must haveguid9nce, encouragement, and teaching from theteacher. To confine the teacher to the role of"resource person" is a reductio ad absurdum ofthe worst kind.

NEW I NSTITUTIONAL MODE LSAbout twen ty or more years ago I had the

pr ivilege of taking part in a series of evening classesfor adults arranged by the late Leonard Bercuson.His main aim in life was to support the concept ofwhat he called "The Lighted Schoolhouse." Forseveral weeks one winter I spoke on current eventsto classes of adults in Eastglen on Mondayevenings, Westglen on Tuesdays, and Garneau ouWednesdays, followed by about an hour ofdiscussion with each class. From the comments Ireceived I believe the "students" derived pleasureand profit from these evenings. The same is true ofsimilar programs arranged by the UniversityDepartment of Extension, but my point is that ina city as large as Edmonton, we might have adulteducation centres in far more communities thanwe do at present. This city has ten public highschools and about 160 schools at the elementaryand junior high school level. Programs for adultsare being carried on in six high schools, but if theneed aad the demand exist, if the instructors canbe found, and if the costs can be met, there isscope for tremendous expansion. The Division ofEx tension Services of the Edmonton Public SchoolBoard is doing excellent work in providing forcontinuing educa tion, but it can only go as far andas fast as the public demands and supports.However, as people have more leisure time on theirhands due to a shorter work week and more laborand time-saving devices in the home, there is agrowing desire for more information availablet h r ough c o mmunity groups, for morecommunication among neighbors, and for activeparticipation rather than passive receptivity insuch widely differing fields as sports and, theknowledge of human affairs political, economic,and sociaL Community leagues have contributedmuch in these areas, but the local school isbecoming a valuable complement as well. Theseaspirations tend to become centred in the localschool, rather than in the system as a whole, and itis on the school principal that leadership devolves,

The role of the community school is alsochanging in the whole pattern of education ofchildren and adolescen ts. This change is extremelycomplex and grows out of a dissatisfaction withthe existing pattern of standardized class-roominstruction. In a recent article entitled "TheAlternative to Schooling" (Saturday Review, June16, 1971) Ivan 11 lich, Director of ,he Centre forIntercul t ural Documentation in Cuernavaca.Mexico, lists three proposals for new educationalpatterns:

the reformation of the classroom within theschool system; the dispersal of free schoolsthroughout society; and the transformation ofall society into one huge classroom. But thesethree approaches the reformed classroom,the free school, and the worldwide classroomrepresent three stages in a proposed escalationof educa lion in which each step threatens mo resubtle and pervasive social control than the oneit replaces.

Whether or not we can agree with hisjudgmen t s, we must, I believe, accept hisassessment of the trends he recognizes. Theconcept of a worldwide classroom is not likely tobe realized in our time, if ever, though therealready exist instances of students receiving theireducation at the secondary level by activelystudying community problems at first hand ratherMan by reading about them in books or bystudying them in the classroom. Such experimentsas those being conduc ted in Philadelphia will be ofinterest to everyone concerned with education inlarge urban centres. The problems of logistics andcontrol in such methods must be very large indeed,but experience may go a long way t o solving them.

Free schools already exist in Canada, and theirsuccess or failure should be eviden t in a few yearstime. They are in most cases, but not all, a featu reof the trend to communal living that is a productof our contemporary society. We shouldremember, however, that these are far from newbut have occurred for hundreds of years in Europeand America as well as in other par ts of parents usually carry on the instructionthemselves, and the emphasis lies chiefly inavoiding anything that resembles the structuredapproach to education in the existing schoolsystem.

Another type of change of immediate concernto Canadians, is taking place at the present time ina number of cities in Alberta in both elementaryand secondary schools. One example, that ofBelgravia Elementary School, was described in TheEdmon ton Journal of June 22, 1971. Theinitiative came last summer from the parents of

children attending the school who approached thepublic school board for permission to donate someof their talents to the school program. Approvalwas given under the board's "continual instructionimprovement program'' and about 75 parents withvarying professional backgrounds spoke to thestudents on Friday afternoons. Others providedtranspor tation on field trips. All becamepersonally involved in contributing their serviceson a volunteer basis to the education of theirchildren in such varied fields as pottery, music,pets, and folk dancing. This was a year ofexperimentationand the group hopes to make theprogram much more effective next year on thebasis of the experience gained so far.

This is by no means an isolated case. Themovemen t in this city has grown to such an extentthat the Edmonton Public School Board appointeda co-ordinator of the parent involvement programwhich involves a total of 89 schools, almost 1000parents, and some university students. There areplans to call on service organizations tosupplement the supply of volunteer parents. Suchdevelopments make the local school and theeducation of children a genuine communityenterprise, and lay a heavy burden on theprincipal. In an address entitled "The LightedSchoOlhouse is Not Enough" f The CommunitySchool and its Administration, March, 1971) Dr.Ernest O. Melby says:

I would make the principal the primaryeduc a t ional administrator. He would beresponsible directly to the Superintendent.. Iwould give him wide decision-making power,but I would select him because he is the kind ofperson who gives decision-making power toteachers and because of his capacity to workwith people in and out of the school.

An interesting development at the M. E.Lazerte High School in north-east Edmonton wasinitiate d by the M. E. Lazerte Day CareAssociation and M. E. Ladies. They prepared abrief for the School Board recommending that M.E. Lazer te be developed as a Community School inwhich parents, principally mothers, could pursuetheir own education while having their pre-schoolchildren looked after in a nursery. Girl studentstaking a course in child care would help a

designated teacher to look after the children andprovide instruction at the kindergarten level. Theirbrief st a tes in part:

Since the community (the "students" inparticular) is to reap the benefits of communityschools, it stands to reason that the chiefresponsibilities should lie within the localcommunity. This has two important

implications: first, the community needs morethan an advisory capacity. It must have thepower of decision-making. Secondly, thereshould be no additional financial burden onanyone outside the community. In fact, if theschool is serving the community, there has gotto be a large saving of money somewhere sincelearning is taking place outside the schoolfacility more often than within, and schoolfacilities presently available would be used tocapacity. Members of thc community would, infact, function to a limited extent as teachersare now, which would enable our teachers toserve in a far more effective capacity asresources and advisors.

The recommendations growing out of this briefare of interest and demonstrate not only genuineconcern on the part of the parents in the arca, buta high degree of competence in arriving at soundproposals for the use of the facilities in M.E.Lazerte High School and other schools in the arca.

The Ex tension Services Division of theEdmonton Public School Board prepared a reportentitled The Community School: A Focus onLiving (May, 1971). The report contains a total of37 recommendations on the total concept of thecomnmrity school and on all aspects of planning,organizaton, and administration of schools sodesignated. It recommends the involvement ofother civic, provincial, and private agencies such aspublic libraries, social services, public health, andchurches to make the school a genuine communitycentre for all aspects of education in the modernworld. 1 t also recommends decentralizingadministration, including finance, so that theprincipal and his staff can plan to meet localinterests and needs in collaboration withneighborhood advisory councils and with otherprofessional workers in the community. Twospecific recommendations are of special interest inthe context of this paper:


13.That a factor in the selection of principals bethe applicant's knowledge, understanding of,enthusiasm for and capability to accept theapproach to education suggested by thecommunity school concept.

14.That through hi-service training programs,incumbent principals be made more aware ofthe community school concept and itspotential.

CONCLUSIONThese are exciting days in the field or

education and changes of far-reaching effect arecertain to take place. There will be resistance tothese changes on the part of parents, teachers,administrators, school boards, and provincialDepartments of Education. Such resistance may bedue to apathy in certain cases, but it also may bedue to a genuMe belief that the present approachto education is more viable than the communityschool concept. It is important to retain a highdegree of flexibility so that parents in any specificcommunity may have the kind of program thatthey prefer, subject, of course, to the agreement ofthe teachers, the board, and the Department ofEducation. In any event the responsibilities laidon principals, superintendents and counsellors is aheavy one and they will have to be experts inpublic relathms as well as in teaching andadministration if they are to meet theseresponsibilities effectively. An exciting prospectlies ahead of us and I have every confidence thatthose responsible for the education of our childrenwill meet the challenge well. Perhaps a quotation .

from James Russell Lowell will be appropriate inconclusion:

New occasions teach new duties:Time makes ancient good uncouth;They must upward still, and onward,Who would keep abreast of Truth.




INTRODUCTIONIn the recent rather tranquil past, educators

indulged in rather leisurely speculations aboutchange in education. Almost without challenge bytaxpayers, large quantities of resources have beenchannelled int o education. However, thereappeared to be little evidence of increasedproductivity. This period of somnolence hasabruptly ended. The sheer pressure of growingexpectations for education, the increasing taxloads, the public impatience with and rejection ofexpertise, and finally, perhaps most important, atougher attitude and a closer scrutiny by thevarious publics that demand performance, areforcing educators to come to grips with theneglected concept of accountability in education.

The importance of improving the ability of theschools to deliver quality education at a reasonablecost has become a central concern. Lessinger(1970) builds a case for accountability around"three basic rights": (1) that of a child to learnregardless of his initial interests, culturalbackground, homelife, or his mental ability; (2)that of the taxpayer to see tangible, objectiveresults of his expenditures; and (3) that of theschool to draw on a wide range of talents from allsectors of society to resolve social-educationalproblems.

ACCOUNTABI LITYThree concepts, accountability, and two means

of achieving accountability, educationalengineering, and performance contracting, suggestconstructive approaches to helping systems achievetheir educational promises. Accountability revivesthe commitment that every child shall learn, thatevery child has a right to learn, and that everychild has a right to be taught what. he needs toknow in order to take a productive and rewardingpart in our society (Lessinger, 1970).

Garve (1971:4) states that:

The concept of educational accountability isconcerned basically with techniques toguarantee a certain level of pupil performancerelative to specifically stated performanceobjectives with an accompanying efficient useof resources.


The concept of accountability means more thanmeasuring and evaluating the outcomes ofteaching. It includes a consideration of socialpro bl ems, political processes, and educatorcom p en tency. The relationship betweene du c a tional administration, instruction andlearning is many-faceted; inextricably intertwinedare social, political and economic forces whichaffect the technical means of doing theeducational job. Accountability is a matter ofknowing, inventorying, and using 'cooperativelypublic, governmental, and professional resources.The responsibility for policy, organization, andmanagement does not reside alone with the publicat large, with any government agency, nor with theeducator. The responsibility is a joint one.Educational accountability must providedecision-making opportunities for the public andthe educator. Effective and relevant change in theethicational enterprise can take place only througha broad base of involvement and participation.Operationally, this means greater localization ofeduc a tional administration, differentiation ofvarious- functions, and the integration of newresources from the larger community to the taskof improving learning. It also means makingsyst ematically recorded information abouteducational success, failure, and limits of expertiseavailable for all to see.

Administrators, in particular, must beaccountable for stating and explaining directly totheir immediate publics the discharge of theirresponsibilities.

"Accountability as only a professional exerciseis unworkable. Accountability as a combinedcommunity, educator, political exercise isworkable" (Briner, 1969:5). The educationalmanagement process might well include theparticipation of various publics in determiningpriorities of educational needs, allocatingresources, and in evaluation. The engineeringaspect of accountability is the organizing ofmaterial and human resources to accomplish statedper formance objectives. The accountabilitymovement seems to center around the need to findways to relate dollars to output (i.e., the cost of aunit of learning of defined quality and quantity interms of dollars spent).

In applying the engineering process to

education, it is not proposed that schools treatstudents as unfinished products in a factory, butrather that we devote to the fashioning ofeducational programs at least as much imagination,skill, and discipline as we routinely apply tobuilding a color TV set. Educational engineering isnot an inhumane process. On the contrary, byguaranteeing performance its approach is positive.To label thousands of kids as failures, as wefrequently do is to place them on the educationalscrap heap. The concept of accountability means:(I) deciding what is going to be done; (2) doing it;and, (3) proving that you have done it.

In summary, accountability may be viewed as apublic policy statement which may be expressed asa ratio of "actual performance" to "intendedperformance."

Accountability = Actual Performance = I (or more)

Intended Performance

ACCOUNTABILITY IN EDUCATIONPressures on the public educational system are

intense and increasing at an exponential rate. Theever increasing numbers of pupils and theincreasing expectations for education demand neworganizational arrangements, new decision-makingprocesses, changes in the behavior of both internaland external participants, and the improvement ofservices, programs, and products. The question ofeffectiveness and efficiency is paramount.

Traditions rather than current needs havedetermined the curriculum. Inflexible instructionalpacing, often dictated by administrativeconvenience rather than by the actualities ofstudent performance, must be strenuouslyquest i one d and challenged. Obsolete andinadequate approaches to learning must beeliminated. Limited resources must be used toproduce viable and productive programs.

The fragmentation of resources and programs isa great deficiency in the present system. Mostavailable programs arc discrete entities, and notreally the consequence of well-planned educationaland manpower management systems.Accountability means more than the provision ofsuch simple indices as numbers of dropouts andthe results of reading tests. Evidence must beprovided to indicate what specific educationalresults can be achieved with different groups ofstudents with the expenditure of varying amountsof money. Educational accountability relatesprocess, level of student performance, stated goalsand objectives, and the use of resources.


Implementation of the concept ofaccountability may help to change the presentmode of instruction which is concerned withcovering courses of subject matter in fixed periodsof time. By specifying our objectives, studentunrest and boredom could be reduced. Also, moreefficient use of time in developing skills could wellmean more time for the arts and the humanities.

If a rational approach to accountability is to berealized, the criteria by which the schools will beassessed should be based on a systems approach.School systems must develop operations whichrelate outputs to clearly defined objectives, andwhich assess output in order to adjust the system.This approach produces a dynamic institution, andmakes possible more relevant programs and moreefficient use of resources. Initially, techniques ofsystems analysis and accountability developmentmay need to concentrate primarily on smallmanageable units within the social-educationalsystem. Inputs to large elements of the system aredifficult to measure and to relate to performanceobjectives.

The electorate is entitled to complain aboutschool deficiencies. It can help make a diagnosisby specifying the symptoms, nr.1 it can alsosuggest possible cures. liovie-,4r, it is the

ofessional educator's task to assess demands foreducational improvement and to produce effectiveprograms. Unfortunately, educators have notplaced sufficient emphasis upon proof of results.

Teaching is not yet a well-defined science.Educators must carefully systernatize, define, andassess their needs, goals, performance objectives,programs, activities and outcomes withconsiderably more precision. Systems approaches,first applied to industry, require that standards ofgood practice arc spelled out clearly. It may bepossible that in the future educators will be able toapply standards of measure or moral principles sothat an aggrieved student may well have legalrecourse for not having been taught properly.

Th e present commitment to bring bettereducational opportuniAvas to all young Canadiansis having an unprecedented impact on theeducational establishment. Already, the proposalsare beginning to mount: more remediation, moretutorials, more inservice training programs, moreadvanced technology, more demonstrationprojects - - in short, more money for many of thesame things we have been doing for the past tenyears. Adding more resources alone will not solveour problems and will not provide an appropriateapproach to accountability.

The conceptual model represents an attempt bythe writer to view accountability in terms of asystems approach that includes the learning


management tools of: multi-level needsassessment, goals, performance objectives,programming, and evaluation (see Figure 1). 41 isnecessary to establish the tools by whichaccountability can be determined: (I) the goals tobe accomplished (perfomiance objectives); (2) themethods for achieving predictable results(programs); (3) the methods for deciding amongalternatives; (4) the methods for the managementand control of educational operations; and (5) themethods (indicators) for ascei.iiiining the degreeand extent to which needs and associatedobjectives have been met.

The primary function of education is to bringabout relevant learning, and the primary task ofeducators is learning management. The learningmanagement job can be conceived as being theplanning, organizing, designing, implementing andevaluating of learning situations and outcomes,and the making of necessary continuing revisions.

It is not uncommon for educators, erroneously,to determine HOW something should beaccomplished before WHAT iE to be accomplishedhas been adequately identified and defined. Thismay be due to the lack of a comprehensive modelfor program development in relation to changingcondi tions.


n plan n I og for change and consequentmanagement of learning, the following six-stepsystem problem-solving model has been suggested:(1) identification of the problem arising fromnee ds ;(2) determination of alternative sohitions;(3) selection of a solution and related strategiesand tools;(4) implementation of a solution;(5) determination of performance effectiveness;(6) revision of previous inter-related steps asrequired.

Acsountability becomes another bit ofeducational jargon unless it is translated into awell-developed plan for action. Well-plannedchanges are essential if a school system is toprovide the best educational opportunities for itsstudents.

A relatively simple and straightforward strategicplan for action, involving a multi-level systemsapproach, is shown in Figure 1.

The model provides an approach to identifyingneeds at all levels of the system (A-B-C-D) and notjust primarily at "A-level" (the provision ofprograms and support services). The vertical

dimension, an important aspect of the grid,consists of a multi-level (A-B-C-D) classificationframework believed to represent an improvedapproach to planning and accountability. Needsassessment, the first critical step in the planningprocess, must be made more relevant and precisein order to ensure that the resources expended willbe more responsive to underlying and emergingeducational problems and not be mere aimlesseducational bandwagon trips. The modelemphasizes the need for well-planned educationalmanagement and organization renewal. Withoutchange at levels "D" and "C", attempts at bringingabout behavioral change in the classroom arefrequently frustrated. Needs assessment at all levelsis a basic step toward achieving accountability.

The alignment of educational goaLs,performance objectives, and programs to the needsof the major educational sub-systems (indicated inthe four levels) provides a new perspective to thedecision-maker who must determine prior, ties anddevelop effective and efficient educatioml plans.

The horizontal dimension of the modelindica tes five accounting processes. Each is

described below.

Needs. The first step is to define the problemsbased upon identified needs. A NEED may bedefined as the difference between "what is" and"what should be." A problem is defined when aparticuhir difference or a set of differences hasbeen selected for solution.

Goals. Tho second step is to formulate generalsta tements regarding the nature of requiredprograms and the allocation of resources.

Performance objectives. The next step is todefine the required outcome or behavioralobjectives. This step identifies precisely that forwhich the system can be held accountable. Theparticular outcomes are stated in measurableperformance terms. It is necessary to state (a)what is to be done, (b) by whom it is to be done,(c) under what condition it is to be done, and (d)what criteria will be used to determine what isaccomplished. While rnost discussions ofbehavioral objectives have dealt with pupillearning, performance criteria must be applied .`.oother levels of activities as well. The process ofaccountability assumes the need to providebehavioral descriptions for the role of the teacher,the custodian. the principal, and thesuperintendent.

Program are indentifiedrequirements. These


4 "")

Possible strategies andfor accomplishing theinclude criteria for




















I F !C













































































e S




nal O






l Fed













n W

ith &












er S


l Jur













s, U




































ent o






































, Fam

ily, C










ty o


rs, e








n &










al P













n of


c. M



t at

all l


s: S


l Boa











t, T


er, P










B Sup


& S




















ent &



t of e



l pla









r. S


rt &





am fo

r V


us G



ls &


get G












determining advantages and disadvantages of eachstrategy in relation to the required outcomes.These criteria may include cost-benefit or othereffectiveness-efficiency indicators.

Perlinmance indkators. The outcomes areevaluated to determine the extent to whichperformance objectives liave been achieved. Datafor terminal achievement (summative evaluation)and process utility (formative evaluation) arcanalyzed and used to determine required revisionsin the program.

Performance objectives may be of two types:(1) criterion-referenced measuiements, and (2)norm-referenced tests. The IndependentEducational Audit Accomplishments (IEAA) is a.managerial tool to assist quality control inproviding an external evaluation of educationalachievemmt. The position of the edvcationalauditor is somewhat analogous to the fiscal

auditor. Like the fiscal auditor, the educationalauditor publicly reports educational results in

factual, objective, and meaningful terms.For example, at level"B", Individual Behavior

Developnwnt (Figure 1), everything necessary mustbe done to provide relevant and effective in-serviceprograms to change the performance of individualsor groups who are judged important to the successof the over-all program. Within the constraints ofCie system, the administrator must know inspecific and measurable terms what the precisejob-performance requirements are for each staffmember. He must also have effective methods fordetermining when performance has not beensatisfactory. The administrator has to be as

empirical as possible in his approach in order toidentity problems and deficiencies. He must haveeffective diagnostic and remedial methodsavailable for trainees who are in difficulty. Hemust collect relevant data in order to revise,improve and maintain the learning process. Anon-accountable approach can afford to ignore thejob and make intuitive rather thanempirically-based judgments about the design andperformance of the system. The accountableapproach can not. The first directive, for example,might ;;:ite: "No person shall proceed fromtraining to the job until there is complete ando bjective evidence that he can do the jobaccording to established criteria." The supervisionby objectives approach has been well explicated byLucio and McNeil (1969). In order to assessaccountability, the function of each component,in each of the four levels of the model must bespecified.

Specification of standards and correctivefeedbacks must take place at all four levels if

accountability is to be achieved as an operationalconcept. "Seeing to it that specifications andquality control work at all levels is accountability"(Deterline, 1970:15).

IMPLEM ENTING ACCOUNTABI L ITYEducational accountability is a management

concept. It is useful in persuading policy-makers atall !owls to "hold the line" on spending untilinstitutions can guarantee that additional fundsresult in improved performance. Schools anCteachers are judged not by what they promise buth ow they perform. However, it is doubtfulwhether teachers can be held accountable whenthey have virtually no control over the kind andextent of resources made available to them.Accountability can be achieved only if outputs, onthe bak!s of internal and external evaluation, areclearly in accord with intended accomplishment asagreed upon by the contractor ( teaching staff orprivate firm ) and the school board whichrepresents the parents and school Community. Thecontract must indicate who is responsible to whomand for what. The contract should also indicatethe program components and resources by whichthe performance demands can be met.

Implementing accountability means that a

pu blic or private agency, entering into a

contractual agreement to perform a service, will beh eld answerable for performing according tostipulated terms, within an established timeperiod, with a stipulated use of resources, andaccording to defined performance standards. Thecontractee is required to keep accurate and preciserecords which become available for review.Penalties as well as rewards may be implied.

So that the accountability concept can operateat the level of the classroom, the school, or thesch ool district, public consensus is neededregarding needs, goals, objectives, and resources. Insummary, it is necessary that the school:

(1) adopts an accountability policy and makes itpublic;(2) develops performance objectives for eachprogram;(3) develops feed-back systems (quality-controlto provide some assurance that the process isgoal-directed);(4) has an independent educational audit ;(5) sets aside at least one per cent of its budget forreview and public reporting of its program.

Barro (1970) sees decentralizing ofadministrative decision-making from central officeto the local school principal as an approachcontributing to accountability. The shift of














(A S









- P



& P






















































































ti -







A. I






d P



B. I



l Beh






C. D





D. o








h in


s of



















2. T



e C



3. In




















s, v













1. S




er C



2. C



e B



g C



3. In


al In









l Gro
















nal -



t Effe




























k on









in te


of p



ce o







l and







































. Byr


.I. H



authority should enhance greater professionalresponsiveness to local conditions and needs, andfacilitate greater local initiative. It allowsresponsibility for results to be decentralized, and,in so doing, it provides the framework withinwhich various performance incentives can beintroduced. Accountability can includeresponsibility for both selecting and achievingrelevant goals.

The paradigm (Figure 2) outlines a totalsystems-action-model of accountability. It extendsthe model in figure I in that it indicates in stagesII and III the implementation of selected strategiesand the provision of feedback on output.

Educational accountability can be promoted byeducational engineering processes such as: limitedsub-con tracting-REP; total prime contracting;voucher plans; student-teacher contracts; collectivebargaining contracts; merit pay; and by becomingknowledgeable in educational planning, prograining,budgeting, and evaluation.


applying concepts of accountability. Some ofthese may be listed as follows:

I. More effective objective approaches toperformance evaluation at all levels (Figure 1)must be developed and adopted if the educationalprocess is to be improved. The quantitative,measurable side of performance could beeinpliasized to the exclusion or diminution of thepersonal, qualitative and humane side, as outcomesfor the latter do not appear to be readilyquantifiable. Priority might be placed on thecognitive skill areas which can be more easilymeasure d. However, better measures of theaffective domain may be developed.

2. Construction of performance objectivescould be so time consuming that insufficient timeis left for actual program planning and teaching.

3. There could be an attempt to holdprofessionals accountable for specifiedperformance, when, in fact, various inputs arebeyond their control. Learning is affected by amultitude of factors other than teachercompetency.

4. Teachers could teach for tests which measureonly a band of the objectives to which the schoolcommuni ty subscribes. Some performancecontracts with public schools have indicated a biast oward p r ogress re fl ected on standardizedachievement tests. Safeguards must be planned to

preclude the contractor from teaching for suchtests.

S. There is a danger of accepting the myth thatall parties in the private sector are heldaccountable. This is not so and, the expense inattempting to become totally accountable ineducation could be more than we can afford.

6. There is a concern that the movement toaccountability may not be professionally based.Legislators are not justified in cutting grants justbecause the educational system cannot provebeyond a question of a doubt that every dollar hasbeen used to its best advantage. The idea thateducate:on can solve all ills is a myth. Manyproblems are social problems which the schools arenot equipped to deal with.

7. The accountability concept is good foreducation, but we should be aware of the pitfall ofbecoming the only public institution to which it isdirected. All public institutions must be included.

8. Decision makers have a strong reluctance todelegate decision-making to those who probablywill be held accountable. Without such delegation,responsibility cannot be demanded.


Teachers, administrators, and school boards areunder pressure to show results. The accountabilityconcept has potential fov educators in thinkingmore pr ecisely about educational outcomes.However, accountability in education cannot bemeasured as precisely as in business systems.Through cautious and careful plannMg, theimplementation of the accountability concept Mayassist in the provision of solutions to some of theproblems which face those involved in education.



Barro, Stephen M. "An Approach to DevelopingAccountability Measures for the Public Schools." PhiDelta Kappan. December, 1970, 52:4.

Briner, Conrad. "Administrators and Accountability."Theory into Practice. October, 1969, 8:5.

Deterline, William A. "Applied Accountability."Educational Technology_ January,1970.

Garve, Ro bert J. "Accountability: Comments andQuestions." Educational Technology. January, 1971.

Lcssinger, Leon M. Every Kid A Winner: Accountabilityin Education. Toronto: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Luis, W. and 1. McNciL Supervision: A Synthesis ofThought and Action. New York: McGraw-Dill BookCompany, 1969,



INTRODUCTIONIt is somewhat trite to say that we are in the

midst of an institutional crisis. All institutions, inthe private and public sectors from GeneralMotors to federal penitentiaries are experiencingeither recurring manifestations of dissent oroutright confrontations. Public schools have notbeen spared in this regard; in fact, internal andexternal pressures continue to grow. Thesepressures are often the result of social problemswhich society has dumped on the school'sdoorstep, too often warmly welcomed by zealouseducators seeking to gain greater publicendorsement and recognition. The educationalsystem has been relatively successful but itsfailures are more evident to an increasingly criticalpublic in search of a scapegoat. The "everythingfor everybody" concept of a school, oftenpromulgated by well-meaning educators, sets thecontext for disillusionment. Parents, business ingeneral, community influentials, and students arepointing accusing fingers at the schools for theirfailure to deliver the expected outcomes.

It is becoming increasingly clear that whereverthe fault lies, educators must take a stand onethat will enable them to be answerable with thekind of credibility that will reaffirm the public'scommitment to education. It is not so much thevalue of education that is being questioned by thenot-so-silent majority, but instead, the capabilityof schools, as we know them, to deliver theexpected results. Hence, there exists a pervasivedisenchantment which has distilled itself under therubric of "accountability,"

WHAT IS ACCOUNTABILITY?Webster's New World Dictionary, defines

accountability as "the condition of beingaccountable, liable or responsible." It is the nowword and clearly the byword of all constituentswi thin society.

The former associate commissioner of the U.S.Office of Education, Grant Venn, says thatwhereas schools were once accountable forselecting out students for the unskilled labourforce, there is now little need for unskilled labour."Suddenly," he says, "the .situation is such thatschools are expected to educate everyone to thepoint that he can be successful in a new kind of


technological society" (Stocker, 1971).Anna flyer, director of NEA's technolog

division, defines accountability as a concept thatinvolves "agreeing upon objectives, deciding uponthe input to 'achieve the objectives, and measuringthe output to see the degree to which theobjectives have been met" (Stocker, 1971).Governor Russell Peterson of Delaware, chairmanof the Education Commission of the States, saysaccountability involves making what the studentlearns rather than what the teacher teaches, theeducational objective and thus the basis formeasurement. Leon M. Lessinger, former associatecommissioner for clemently and secondaryeducation of the U.S. Office of Education, cites asan example of accountability the writing of aprogram objective in terms as specific as this:"Given three days and the resources of the

library, the student completing this program willbe able to write a 300 to 500 word set ofspecifications for constructing a model airplanethat a workshop student could follow and build tospecifications" (Stocker, 197 1).

Accountability is a consumer-basect notionwhich pervades North American society. Fiscalaccountability is only part of educationalaccountability (Dyer, 1970). The broader conceptis somewhat romanticized, as may be illustrated bythe awe in which Ralph Nader, the consumer'swatchdog, is held. Nader has become thechampion of the little guy by his successful Davidand Goliath confrontations with big business,government , and other organizationscharacterizing modern-age bureaucracy. His

effectiveness in making monolithic technocraciesresponsive and accountable has made him one ofthe most admired individuals in North America.

SOME APPROACHES TO ACCOUNTABILITYCoping with accountability in organizational

life has manifested itself in several ways. Basically,there are two categories: (1) those outside of theorganization or institution, and, (2) those withinthe organization.

Approaches Outside the InstitutionSome approaches are advanced as alternatives

to the traditional educational institution. The

most common of these are performancecontracting and the voucher system.

Performance contracting. A performancecontract is one in which the achievement of a taskis specified in accordance with established criteria.Performance contractors are typically privateorga nizations such as Behavioral ResearchLaboratories of Palo Alto, California (A.A.S.A.,1970). This private company is to take over theentire operation of an elementary school in Gary,Indiana, for feur years.

The Gary school system is to pay BehavioralResearch Laboratories $800 per student thecurrent cost of operating the school toreorganize the all-black 13anneker ElementarySchool, where student achievement has been twomonths to two years below grade level in severalsubjec ts.

The school is to be run by a manager, to whoma learning director is to report. B.R.L. is to hire astaff of thirty instructors and thirtyparap rofessionals. Five instructors are to bedesignated as curriculum managers and specialistsin the areas of reading and language arts,mathematics, social studies and foreign languages,science, and enrichment arts (arts, music, drama,and physical education). Individual instruction isto be stressed in all subject areas.

According to the agreement, B.R.L. guaranteesthat unless a student's achievement scores will beat or above the national grade-level norms in allbasic curriculum areas, the fees paid for the childwill be refunded. An independent agency is toevaluate the results after three years.

Typically, however, a performance contractdoes not assume full responsibility for the entireeducation of a child, but is limited to one or twosubject areas, usually reading or mathematics. Forinstance, Project Read, perhaps the most commonof performance contracts, states that the averagerate of reading progress will be doubled fot thestude n ts enrolled. Behavioral ResearchLaboratories, developers of Project Read, havesubmitted a proposal to the Edmonton Public andSeparate School Boards.

This type of project is generally an adjunct tothe existing reading program in that the fee levied(about $20.00 per student) covers pre-service andin-service training of teachers, B.R.L. materials,consulting services, community information, andevaluation (usually a nationally standardized testgiven by an independent agency). Contracts are ofone-year duration but can be renewed as agreedupon by both parties.

Although performance contracting in educationis still in the early stages, the demand for suchservic es is considerable. Unresponsive

bureaucracies and volatile ghetto schools are twocontributing factors in this movement.Furthermore, the success enjoyed by performancecontractors is related in no small way to thesingleness of purpose limited to highly visible areassuch as reading and mathematics. To take thewhole child over the entire elementary andsecondary span of years would likely lower thesuccess ratio.

The voucher system. This system is basedentirely on the market mechanism of free choiceby the individual consumer. In simple terms, everychild gets a voucher which is worth a year'sschooling. He (or his parent) redeems it at aninstitution of his choice. In theory, this includesnot only a choice of the institution but also choiceof the teacher. Consequently, schools and teachersmay compete for students in the same way thatSafeway of Canada competes for customers.Carrying the analogy further, only good schoolswould survive and poor schools would gobankrupt.

In the United States a number of federallyfinanced experiments regarding the feasibility ofvoucher plans are in progress. These include grantsto school districts such as: Gary, Indiana; Seattle,Washington; and Alum Rock, California (Alkin,1967). Economist Henry Levin was awarded a$40,700 Ford Foundation grant to examine the"possible economic and fiscal effects of a vouchersystem and the educational benefits that may bederived by students of various classes and races"(A.A.S.A., 1971). The .Office of EconomicOpportunity has approved a $100,000 studydirected to the application of the voucher systemto child day care centres.

Approaches Within the InstitutionSeveral approaches within the educational

organization are related to the accountabilityphenomenon. These approaches may be identifiedas humanistic, economic, managerial, and systemsoriented.

The humanistic approach is based on thepremise that humanizing the learning process willin effect remove the inequities in learningoutcomes which underlie the cries foraccountability.

The 'economic or cost-benefit approach focuseson the input-output equation and attempts one oftwo things:


(1) to obtain maximum benefit at anacceptable level of cost (cost is fixed); or,

(2) to obtain a set level of benefit at aminimum level of cost (performance isfixed).

The concept of cost-benefit analysis evolved fromwelfare economics. Its application to education ina purely quantitative sense (that is, dollars of inputequals dollars of educational benefit) is virtuallyimpossible to demonstrate.

The managerial approach is best typified by themanagemen t by objectives movement. Thisapproach has been particularly effective in theindustrial wi rld where the product can bestandardized. However, this approach is

demonstrable in education only to the degree thatspecific objectives can be defined.

The systems approach in making anorguization more effective is an attempt toencompass the humanistic, economic andmanagement approaches by integrating in onesystem such interacting variables as context (thesituation), input (what goes in), process (whatgoes on), and output (what is achieved) (Atkin,1967),

One such system is known as PPBES (Planning,Programming, Budgeting, Evaluation System). Anumber of these systems are in circulation anda I.though the emphasis differs, the essentialcomponents are the same (see references to Blaug,Fisher, Haggart Hartley, and pthers).

A PPBE System involves:Planning assessing, identifying of educationalgoals, and specifying performance-basedobjectives;Progrannning designing eorrespomling activitiesor programs and alternative methods for achievingobjectives;Budgeting allocating funds on the basis ofprograms, and cost determination and analysis;and,Evaluation determining the effectiveness ofprograms in achieving specified objectives.

Inherent to an operating PPBE System are:

a standardized accounting system;a program budget format;an effective reporting system, locally andprovincially;increased analytic capability, locally andprovincially; andan improved data base 'facilitating bettershort and long-range planning.

These elements comprise the immediateobjectives of the Provincial Program Accountingand Budjeting in Projects supervised by the PPBESProject staff of the Alberta Department ofEducation. The long-range objective of this projectis the development of a base-line for theimplementation of a full PPBE System by localboards namely, assessment of needs,


identification and specification of objecitves, andso on. The ten pilot school systems engaged in theprogram accounting and budgeting project aretesting the fenibility of the objectives specifiedabove.

An essential aspect of the pilot project is thein-service training of all the publics involved;namely, teachers, building uiministrators, schoolsystem administrators and supervisors, school'Iusiness officials, school board members, andvarious r eferent groups. Unless there is areasonable level of understanding and consequentbehavioral change, the system will not make anysignificant difference to the way in which schoolsoperate. Furthermore, a PPBE System has directimplications for reform in educationaldecision-making. The system recognizes variouslevels of decision-making, each requiring its ownset of decision-ntakers.

THE PRINCIPAL, ACCOUNTABILITY & PPBESAny educator who has enjoyed several years of

tenure as a school principal has experienced thephenomenon of accountability. The schoolprincipal is the bumping post position in educationparalleling the line position of foreman in Etzioni'siodustrial organization model (Etzioni, 1962). Onone side of the bumping post are vice-principals,department heads, teachers, students, parents, andreferent gjoups while on the other there arecentral office supervisors, the superintendent, theschool board, department of education officials,and the public at large.

"As the most visible manifestation of theschool au th orities," says Wildavsky (1970),"principals are easy to blame and to pillory inpublic." Since principals already are being heldresponsible according to vague standards and rulesthat tend to guarantee dissatisfaction, more clearlydefined objectives shaped by principals wouldestablish a more realistic basis for accountability.The school board's role should be one ofmonitoring the system of accountability andsuggesting revisions to the parties concerned. Onthe other hand, the school board has areas ofresponsibility in which it is primarily accountableto its publics, such as the qualifications of itsteaching staff and its transportation policies. APPBE System facilitates the implementation of theaccountability concept at all levels ofdecision-making.

The components of PPBE System in relation tothe principal's role may be reviewed as follows:

PlanningDoes the principal play a significant rolehi the determination of the needs of the students

and the community and in specifying educationalgoals (explicitly or implicitly) over a period oftime?

Programming Does the principal design andimplement activities or programs which havestated or implied objectives?

BudgetingDoes the principal allocate resources(financial and non-financial) at the school level?Does he have any impact on the school or systembudget?

Evaluation Does the principal evaluateinstructional and non-instructional programs in hisschool?

The answer to all of these questions is "yes," so,

what is new about PPBES? Nothing, except therefinement and integration of these componentsand extended participation in decision-makingrelating to these.

It becomes obvious that these functions cannotstop at the principal's office. The same cycle ofdecision-making must take place at other levels inthe school, such as that of the department head,the department (heads and teachers), and theclassroom (teacher and students). On the onehand, the central office personnel, and on theother, the community, impinge upon thedecision-making process of the principal (Simon,1960).

The typical organizational pyramid should notbe viewed as symbolic of decision-making at theapex, but rather as a configuration representingthe greater number of decisions to be made as oneapproaches the base of the pyramid. Anorganization requires fewer policy decisions than itdoes operational decisions most of the latter aremade in the schools.

DECENTRALIZATION AND PPBESA fully operating PPBE System in education

requires decentralization of decision-making inthat the instructional process (how one teaches) isthe prerogative of the teacher, that is, thepedagogical license of the professional. Whereas inthe past factors outside the school buildingcontrolled the allocation of resources by

curriculum or service area, or by subject, thepresent trend is to place fewer controls onexpenditure items so long as the total is within therequisition control limit set by the board. Thisprocedure must still meet fiduciary requirements(au dit) and satisfy a reporting system thatidentifies actual expenditures and expenditureareas for planning, analysis and evaluationpurposes.


The school board could choose to delegate tothe principal the responsibility and authority ofallocating the entire operational budget (includingsalaries) of his school. This would mean a shiftfrom virtually complete centralization of powerand accountability to that of a participatorydecision model with commensurate accountabilitywithin defined limits. This modified collegialapproach replaces the paternal hierarchical systemwhich existed when teachers possessed neither thequalifications nor the desire to participate indecisions that affected them directly. This is nolonger so. In fact, teacher militancy and studentactivism, on occasion strangely allied, pose newdemands on principals.

I f the principal opts for a participativeapproach to resource allocation decisions withbuilt-in accountability, how would he proceed toprepare the school staff? What are the prerequisitesfor such a system? Can the compcments of PPBESbe applied to the school level; that is, would needsassessment, goal specification, programming andgeneration of alternatives, cost effectivenessanalysis, and evaluation better rationalizeeducational decisions? Upon examining a new orexisting program the following questions mayapply: Is there a need for the program or service?Can this need be demonstrated? What are theobiectives of the program? Can these be stated inperformance terms? Can the program's relativeimportance be demonstrated? What are thedifferent approaches to this program that can beused, and what resources do these alternativesrequire? Flow effective is the existing program?What are the standards or criteria of effectivenessin performance terms? What evidence is there tosupport the stated value of a program?

The potential for rationalizing the merits ofinstructional programs is greater than generallyheld to be so. If teachers examine their workmore analytically and critically, the process ofdoing so is likely to improve the quality of servicerendered. Hence, the better the quality of servicerendered, the easier it is to rationalize its worth.Ultimately, however, the goal is not merely tosubstantiate the importance of an educationalservice, but rather to make a larger contribution tothe intellectual and personal-social development of

How can teachers and principals betterrationalize their work? The ultimate criteria forassessing the effectiveness of any decision-makingsystem in education is the degree of improvementin learning in relation to the resources allocated.Although certain economies and efficiencies canbe effected outside of the classroom, instructionaleffectiveness is primarily classroom oriented; that


is, student learning is the "proof of the pudding."Specifically, the primary emphasis must dwell onthe identification and specification of instructionalobjectives and the design and evaluation ofinstructional programs.

Objectives are in the broad sense statements ofvalue; in the narrow sense - benchmarks forperformance or learning behavior (Kapfer, 1968).The process of setting instructional objectivesfollows the assessment of needs. The schoolprincipal and his staff are most closely attuned tostudent .needs. With the assistance of professionalconsultation, they are best able to reflect on thetotal learning environment of the student. Theprincipal and his staff are best able tooperationalize programs derived from theexamination of the needs assessment of pupils, theschool, and the community.

Furthermore, the instructional staff must takethe prime responsibility for the evaluation ofinstructional program objectives in the cognitive,affective and psychomotor domains (Kapfer,1968; Dyer, 1970). The perspective for evaluationincludes the consideration of both theinstructional and non-instructional factors thataffect learning behavior. To what extent can andsh ould the school assume responsibility forpersonal and social problems? What is the role ofother agencies in the community? These arequestions to which the principal and his staff mustaddress themselves also.

In summary, the role of the principal in a PPBESystem in the instructional context is that of afacilitator in:

(1) the specification of educational objectivespertaining to the intellectual and personal- socialdevelopment of pupils, and assisting in theidentification and specification of conditions andservices that facilitate or impede pupildevelopment; and,(2) the identification of indicators useful forthe evaluation of existing programs and thedevelopment of evaluative criteria for newspecified objectives.

A principal's training and experience shouldenable him to Drovide perspective and assistance inde fining objectives and evaluating programs.Accountability, in its starkest form, merely asksthe question, "How well are we doing?" Insimple terms,"What are our goals?" and "How wellare we achieving them?"

A word of caution is in order. The needs, eithercovert or manifest, may determine the point ofentry and the scope of the thrust. Since a fullyoperative PPBE System will require at least fiveyears to implement, initial returns must be viewed

realistically with an emphasis on long-rangeoutcomes. To demonstrate the worth ofe ducational programs empirically is not animpossible task. The place to start, then, is theexamination of what is being done in relation toobjectives held for existing programs.

SUMMARYI have attempted to look at the role of the

principal regarding accountability. The concept ofaccountability was examincd and generalapproaches regarding its application have beenoutlined. Performance contracting and thevoucher system were viewed as alternatives to thepresent educational system, and PPBES wasviewed as an adaptation within the present system.

The role of the principal within PPBES and theimplication of decentralization of decision-makingwere examined, The components of PPBES wererelated to the school level with the primaryemphasis placed on objective setting andevaluation of educational programs.

I realize that I have by implication underscoredthe need for accountability in our schools. Mypurpose for doing so, however, differs from mostof the critics who envision a hopeless situation.Although pessimism may be the order of the day, Ifeel that the great need is for realistic optimism.This is no time for imprecise-thinking "dogooders"to mouth slogans which comfort the uncommittedand pedagogically insecure within the educationalforce. Rather the time has come for hard-headedcapable e duca tors tti take positive action.Rationality works in a number of directions: itexposes both strengths and weaknesses; it raiseshavoc with mythology and time-worn truisms; itcan also upset the status quo and lower the level of"dognatic" conviction.

I am confident that the school principal willhelp the school account effectively to all itspublics, but most effectively to its most importantclient the student.


"Accountability to the Public." The SchoolAdministrator. Wash ing t o n, American Associationof School Administrators, December, 1970.

"Administration." Education Summary. New London,Conn : Croft Educational Services, Inc., August21, 1970.

Alkin, M.C. Towards an Evahwtion Model: A SystemsApproach (Working Paper No. 4). Los Angeles: Centerfor the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs(CSEIP). University of California, August, 1967.

Blaug, Mark. "Approaches to Educational Planning."Economic Journal. June, 1967, 77:262.

Dyer, Henry S. "Toward Objective Criteria of ProfessionalAccountability in the Schools of New York City."PhiDelta Kappan. December 1970, 52:206.

Etzioni, Amitai Complex Organizations: .4 SociologicalReader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,1962.

Fisher, G.H. The World of Program Budgeting. RandCorporation (P.336I). May, 1966.

"Ford Backs Voucher Study." Hot Line. Washington,A mer ic an Association of School Administrators.February, 1971.

Government of Canada. Planning, Programming,Budgeting Guide. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, September,1969.

Haggart, Sue A. and others. Program Budgeting for SchoolDistrict Planning: Concepts and Application RandCorporation (RM-6 I 16-RC). November, 1969.

Hartley, Harry J. Educational Planning - Programming -Budgeting: A .Vystems Approach. Englewood Cliffs,NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Kapfer, Philip G. "Behavioral Objectives in the Cognitiveand Affective Domains." Educational Thchnology.June, 1968.

Simon, H.A. Administrative Behavior. New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 1960.

Smithies, Arthur. A Conceptual Framework for theProgram Budget. Rand Corportion (RM-42 71-RC).September, 1964.

Stocker, Joseph and Donald F. 1Vilson. "Accountabilityand the Classroom Teacher." Today's Education.March, 1971, 60:41.


Stufflebeam, Daniel L. "Toward a Science of EducationalEvaluation." Educational Technology. 1968, 8.

1Vildavsky, Aaron. "A Program of Accountability forElementary Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. December,1970, 52:212.



INTRODUCTIONMaking judgments about the quality of a school

program is a very common activity, an activityengaged in by many members and groups ofsociety. If you ask any student, parent, teacher,administrator or anyone remotely associated witheducation what the program of a particular schoolis like, he will have a ready answer for you. Hemay describe the school program as beingprogressive, exciting, stimulating or innovative; hemay describe it as one in which successfulattempts are being made to help all the learnerswho are involved; or, he may point out seriousproblems of the school program. In recent yearsquestions of quality and efficiency of schoolacitvities have been raised in increasing number byparents, ratepayers, professionals and students.

Clearly such evaluation is informal in nature;there is no careful collection of data, and there isno careful analysis of data to arrive at theconclusions which are offered so readily. Theconclusions just emerge from a few dominantfeelings about the school programs. The feelings,in turn, usually result from a few experiencesdirectly encountered, or accepted through hearsay.Probably this type of evaluation has had moreimpact on schools and school programs than mostformal evaluations that have been carried out.

There is no denying, though, that informal andglobal evaluations have not been limited tostudents and parents. The foremost critics ofeducational prograrns of the past two decades havebased their condemnations of school programs onvery meagre and fragmentary evidence. It is safe tosay that their evaluations have usually beeninformal and supported by a selective screeningand handling of the little data that has been madeavailable to them. Frequently these self-namedcritics have missed their own philosophies with theevaluation, and as a result their evaluations areeven more subjective than those of students andparents.

During the last few years a new attempt hasbeen made to develop a more formal approach tothe evaluation of school programs. Thcre isgrowing support for the notion that educatorsmust move toward a reduction of judgmental errorand bias by developing a more scientific approachto the evaluation of what happens in schools.



Each era in education has its dominantmOtivating factors for education in general, andfor evaluation of educational activities, inparticular. The Eight Year Study, carried on atthe height of the progressive movement, illustratesthis point well. The evaluation during thisexperiment was designed to assess the results ofimplementing a program for the development ofthe whole child. Some of the salient features ofthe program were the experience curriculum, theabsence of prescribed textbooks, individualizedinstruction, variable groupings of students, thereduction of lecturing time, and the elimination ofexternal examinations. It is interesting to note thatthe rather favoUrable evaluation of this programdid not lead to its full scale adoption; in fact, itwas discarded in favor of a more subject-centeredprogram. There is every indication that evencareful formal evaluaticr may not overcomeinformal judgments.

It appears that evaluation of school prograrrismust be linked closely to goals or aims as theyexist in society. As these goals, aims or emphases insociety shift, schools may need to adapt in orderto remain relevant and useful, and in order toobtain the needed support from society. The onefacet, the evaluation of the effectiveness of theprogram, is not sufficient. It is also necessary toestablish whether the program is relevant tosociety's goals.

Today's problems in education are enormous.In order that schools will be viewed favorably andreceive the support they need, they will have toexamine themselves carefully to see if they aremoving toward goals that are socially acceptableand desirable. To this end there are at least threereasons why program evaluation has suddenlybecome important enough to merit muchattention. This need has also raised the issue ofdeveloping formal evaluation procedures anddesigns.

I. Formal evaluation is essential for decision-making in the planning of school programs.Information beyond the informal feelings andbiases must be collected, classified and readilyavailable to those who decide. Thesedecision-makers may be students, teachers, or

administrators. Stufflebeam (1969:52) explainsthis clearly when he says:

A RationaleIf decision makers are to make maximum,

legitimate use of their opportunities, theymust make sound decisions regarding thealternatives available to them. To do this,they must know what alternatives areavailable and be capable of making soundjudgments about the relative merits of thealternatives. This requires access to relevantinformation. Decision makers should,therefore, maintain access to effective meansfor providing this evaluative information.Otherwise, their decisions are likely to befunctions of many undersirable elements.Under the best of circumstances, judgmentalprocesses are subject to human bias,prejudice, and vested interests. Also, there isfrequently a tendency to over-depend uponpersonal experiences, hearsay evidence, andauthoritative opinion; and, surely, all toomany decisions are due to ignorance thatviable alternatives exist.

Clearly, the quality of programs dependsupon the quality of decisions in and aboutthe programs; the quality of decisionsdepends upon decision makers' abilities toidentify the alternatives which comprisedecision situations and to make soundjudgments of them; making sound judgmentsrequires timely access to valid and reliableinformation pertaining to the alternatives;and the availability of such informtaionrequires systematic means to provide it. Theprocesses necessary for providing thisinformation for decision making collectivelycomprise the concept of evaluation.

2. Formal evaluation is also receiving increasedsupport because of the expanding number ofalternatives to traditional school practices. Most ofthese practices are still implemented or rejected onthe basis of veiy informal judgments. It is essentialth a t they be accompanied by a constantmonitoring which will provide data for changing,for refining, for accepting or rejecting the change.Unfortunately the meair to carry out thismonitoring are not clearly developed, but thebeginnings a r e present. The object of the

evaluation is to help teachers find out whichinnovations are paying off and which are not. Oneof the more difficult problems in this monitoringprocess is to establish criteria for measuringpayoff. Regardless of the difficulties presented,

the numerous changes in education provide animpetus for more formal approaches to evaluationof school programs.

3. The third motive for greater attention forformal evaluation of school progams originates toa much greater extent than the first two, fromoutside the school system. Recently this motivehas been loosely subsumed under the title ofaccountability. This concept is rapidly replacingother motives for changing school programs. Forthis presentation it may suffice to say that, at thisjuncture in time, people are very much concernedwith payoff. They want to see that the output insystems warrants the inputs. This feeling hasspread rapidly through society, and has now madesignificant inroads into education.

It is not surprising therefore togovernments, school boards, parents, and eVenstudents are beginning to raise questions onaccountability. To whom are you accountable foryour schOol program? Do parents and students have

a right to receive answers to questions on therelationship of input to output in your schools andschool systems? Do professionals have this right?Do taxpayers? Do governments? There is a growingbelief that they have the right, and this belief isdemonstrated in the increase in alternatives to thecompulsory public schools as we know them. Illich(1970) refers to no schools as a viable alternativeto schools. Others talk about the voucher systemas an alternative where parents and students maychoose the school that best meets their needs. Stillothers consider performance contracting as analternative. It is interesting to note that eachperson who holds educators accountable willdevelop hi.; own criteria and will develop these inhis own informal way. Does this in itself poseproblems? Will it affect what people are willing toaccept as evidence of accountability?

The important consideration for this paper isthat formal program evaluation is receiving muchmore attention because of the increasing need forinformation for planning programs, the need formonitoring innovations that are being tried, andthe drive for accountability in education,

find that



The Meaning and Purpose of EvaluationThe term evaluation can be defined without

regard to the object under consideration.Stu fflebeam (1969:53). describes evaluation as the"provision of information through formal meanssuch as criteria, measurement, and statistics, toprovide rational bases for making judgments whichare inherent in decision situations." He defines

evaluation as "the science of providinginformation for decision making." This definitionis accepted for the model of evaluation to bepresen ted later.

The definition touches on both the purpose andthe processes of evaluation. The purpose ofprogram evaluation is expository in nature byproviding information. Stake (1967:5) claims thatfor complete evaluation of educational programstwo main kinds of data are collected:

(1) the objective desaiptions of goals,environments, personnel, methods and content,and outcomes; and,(2) personal judgments as to the quality of theappropriateness of those goals, environments,etc.

Both kinds of data should assist those concernedabout the program to make better judgments ordecisions.

Formal evaluation should not be confused withmaking judgments on the basis of the datacollected. This judgment means the placing ofvalue on parts or on all of the data. In the modehof evaluation that are currently proposed, theconcern is precisely at gathering the data that isneeded for decision-makers.

Concepts in Program EvaluationIn order to develop a professional approach to

evaluaticn, it is essential to examine some of thecurrent concepts that are emerging in the field.Several of these are reviewed briefly below.

(1) Intrinsic vs. Payoff Evaluation. Scriven(1967:55) points out that the evaluation of theteaching instrument itself, by examining suchfeatures as content, goals, attitudes, and the like,represents intrinsic evaluation. This approach islikely to be somewhat subjective in nature, but itstill aims at obtaining data.

In contrast, payoff evaluation is the assessmentor the study of the educational program on thestudent. Historically, payoff evaluation has beenlimited to the differences between pre- andpost-tests. The concept of payoff evaluation mayhave to be extended to include the effects of theprogram not only for the student, but for societyas well, and riot only in the short term perspective.'

(2) The Roles and Goal of Evaluation. ConsiderScriven's (1967:40-43) differentiation between thegoal of evaluation and the roles of evaluation. Thegoal of evaluation is to obtain answers to thequestions on educational programs. Whichprogram is better with regard to desired output?The goal of evaluation is to determine the worthof some thing.

The evaluation roles refer to what you wish todo with the answers you obtain your purpose ingathering data. Such roles might be to obtain

information to assist in the improvement ofprograms, of teachers or of administrators.'Another role could be simply the classification ofa number of programs on over-all quality.

Clearly it is inappropriate in the light of thesedistinctions to focus on student performance alonewhen evaluating a program. Stake (1969:17)suggests that three questions should be askedbefore developing an evaluation plan:a) What is the entity to be evaluated?b) Whose standards will be used as referencemarks?c) What subsequent decisions can be anticipated?

(3) Formative and Summative Evaluation. Thepurpose or role of evaluation has been furtherclarified by two concepts developed by Scriven(1967:42). Formative evaluation occurs auring thedevelopment and improvement of programs. It isevaluation that occurs between the initial andadoption stages of program development.

Summative evaluation is a sort of finalevaluation of an educational program. It representsa gathering of information for continuance ordiscontinuance of a program, a textbook, a cou:seof study, or a form of school organization forlearning.

The lines of demarcation between the twoforms are less clear than they seem, but thedistinction can be helpful in organizing anevaluation program.

(4) Objectives and Outcomes. Presumably in anideal model of evaluation the degree of congruenceof outcomes to objectives would provide a fairlyaccurate assessmentof the quality of an educationalprogram. This conviction has led to numerousstatements on the necessity for developing specificbehavioral objectives for all planned educationalactivities in schools. Bloom's (1956) Taxonomy ofEducational Objectives is a good example. It is

further argued that the measurement of success ofa program is almost impossible if the objectives forit are not clearly spelled out. In a simpleorganizational model the rationale for explicitbehavioral objectives may be perfectly justifiableand easily implemented. The school, however, is acomplex organization with numerous ill-definedand constantly changing objectives. Too muchconcern with objectives may delay or preventevaluation. For these reasons several concerns havebeen raised that need to be considered whendrawing up a list of objectives for a unit, a course,or a program in education. Goodlad admits that"... a reaction has begun against specification ofprecise, behavior objectives ..."



(a) Individual or societal goals. Goodlad'sstatement (1969:371) that "Behaviorism and


rediscovered and reinterpreted humanism arerubbing against each other abrasively," indicates thefirst dilemma.

On the one hand you have society's goals ofefficiency and accountability, and on the otheryou have the individual's goals of freedom,creativity, and humanism.

The contradiction becomes even clearer as weexamine values in society. We prize diversity inalmost all areas, yet tend to develop common setsof objectives for all students in public schools.

(b) The purpose of objectives. The intendedpurpose of objectives is to define the learning taskfor the teacher and student. This definition willguide the decisions on content, experiences, andevaluation, and as such the objectives are essential.

There are unintended consequences of statedpurposes of educational programs. Do clear-cutobjectives reduce creativity in learning? Do theyact as self-fulfilling prophecies which restrict thereach of the students in these programs? Shouldthey be attainable or should they always be some -what beyond the achievement level of the learners?Do objectives embody the aspirations, needs anddiscontents of the society, of the individual or ofall those involved? Taylor and Maguire (1966) haveargued that objectives should originate from thevalues of the people involved, not just from theaims of the professional educators.

Stake (1970:182) maintains that objectives arehigh-value targets, targets that have high priorityamong many goals. There are many people whofeel that values are difficult to put into words , andthat attempts to do so are more hurtful thanhelpful. "If you are not part of the solution youare part of the problem" reflects this sentiment.

Evaluators need to be specific in what they aredoing but they also need to be sensitive to theslowly emerging values. This is essential in order toremain relevant in education.

(c) The effect of clearly developing objectiveshas not been demonstrated. So far no evidence ispresent that teachers teach better when they statetheir objectives behaviorally,

(d) A great number of educational objectivesare pursued simultaneously. Time and resources

restrict educators to assign priorities and fromspelling out all objectives behaviorally.

(e) Frequently, good teaching occurs whenteachers depart from clearly specified objectives.Stake (1969:33) claims that "a skilled teacher willseize the opportunity to reconsider objectives"while teaching.

Recognition of these problems in drawing upeducational objectives helps educators to realizethe importance of developing a more completemodel for evaluating the school program.

PROGRAM EVALUATION MODELHaving examined briefly some of the major

concepts in evaluation, we now turn to a modelfor program evaluation. This model relies heavilyon that developed by Stake (1969:1417) as wellas on the rationale of Stufflebeam (1969:56-68).

Evaluation is seen primarily as the process ofobtaining and using information for decision-making relating to school program. Foursomewhat discrete stages of evaluation can beidentified. They are context, input, transactionand product.

The context evaluation attempts to assess thepreconditions and the needs existing in thesituation. It raises issues, reveals problems, and setslimitations for the progamming.

The input evaluation measures the system'scapabilities and the available input in terms ofstrategies and resources. The evaluation will in thissection assess the goals, the school organization,the physical plant, the instructional materials,curricular content, teacher characteristics, andstudent characteristics.

In th e transaction or process phases ofevaluation, the evaluator will examine suchprocesses as communication, time utilization,sequencing of experiences, school climate, andleadership.

In the product evaluation phase the evaluatorwill look at stu dent achievement, studentattitudes, effects of the program on teachers, andthe effects on the organization and beyond.

The model may be presented in simple form inthe following table.





objectivesschool organizationphysical plantinstructional materialscurriculum contentteacher characteristics


communicationtime organizationsequencingclimateleadershipmorale


student achievementstudent attitudeseffect on teacherseffect on organization


Most of the evaluation attempts in the pasthave focused primarily on student achievementoutcomes. The proposed model suggests that theevaluation of educational programs must includeother areas as well. Information must be obtainedabout the context, the inputs, and the transactionsas well as the output. How else can the congruencybe examined? Note also that each factor to the leftconstrains everything to its right.

At this stage two specific questions aresuggested as central to the evaluation process. Towhat degree have the objectives been achieved asobserved in the output?To what degree are theinputs and transactions appropriate to the aimsand needs existing in the context?

Gmgruemy Evaluation. First, the evaluator willexamine the data to see if the observed data arecongruent with the intended results, or to whatdegree they are congruent, or in which sectionthey are least congruent. This will provide thatnee de d i n formation for decision- making ineducational programs.

Contingency Evaluation. Second, the evaluatorwill examine the relationships between theoutcomes and objectives in order to see if theintended inputs and transactions actually achievedthe aims or met the needs of the situation. Thiscalls for the reexamination of all the inputs andtransactions mentioned in the model. Theevaluator will examine such things as the adequacyof the objectives, curriculum, content, climate ,leadership, attitudes of students, and attitudes ofteachers.

Measurement. One of the more perplexingproblems in the whole design is that ofmeasurement. If evaluation is the science ofproviding information, it must provide data foreach of the four sections in the model. Thisdepends upon valid and reliable measurement.

The final section of this paper illustrates a fewtechniques, strategies, and methods that begin toshape what may be called the technology ofevalua tion.

PLAN FOR PROGRAM EVALUATIONThe plan for program evaluation assumes a

major role for the principal himself. Certaindecisions may have to be made by him especiallyin the initial stages. In this paper, however, thelocus of the decisions will not be specified toclearly. The focus will be more on the practicalapplication of the concepts presented to the

school situation. The plan calls for a series ofdecisions as follows:

I. Decide what part of the program is to beevaluated. If you decide to evaluate the product,

you need to decide whether student performance,student attitudes or teacher attitudes is yourevaluation target. If you wish to focus on thetransactions, you may wish to examine climate orleadership or communication. If you wish toexamine the input you could use the objectives, ora textbook as target. Should you wish to examinesome or the pre-conditions you might want to

i'f.-mtrate on dominant values or aims ofOn the other hand you might want to

e....;Thie the total program, and as a result look atall four areas.

2. Decide on the roles and goal of theevaluation. Whether the type of evaluation is goingto be summative or formative, intrinsic or payoffis important. Whether you intend to examinecongruency of the intended and actual outcomes,or whether you wish to examine the efficacy ofinputs and transactions to the needs and aimsneeds to be specified.

3. Decide who is going to be involved with theevaluation, and to what extent the participantswill be involved. Clearly this decision requirescareful study on the part of the evaluator oradministrator. if outputs are chosen as the area ofinvestigation, then students and teachers must beinvolved. Again if objectives are going to beexamined more groups may need to be drawn in.However, if a textbook is to be evaluated thenumber of participants may be fewer.

Involvement of various groups and individualsrequires careful preparation by the principal. Howdo you get the full support of parents, students,and teachers in an evaluation project?

4. How do you measure the important variablesfor the evaluation? How do you gather theinformation that is required? The task of measuringvalues, attitudes, objectives, and standards is

difficult, yet not insurmountable. Measurement iscrucial to evaluation. The principal who wants todesign a plan for program evaluation must be ableto suggest, have someone on staff to suggest, orhave access to someone who can suggest, ways andmeans of measuring priorities, values, attitudes,judgmcn ts, and s tandards.

Four means of collecting information forprogram evaluation are gaining support in theliterature. They are:

I. Professional judgment2. Surveys using specially developed instruments:

a. checklistsb. rating scalesc. semantic differentiald. observation and interview


3. Professionally designed scales:

a. Organization Climate DescriptionQuestionnaire

b. Leader Behavior Description Questionnairec. Pupil Control Ideologyd. Tasks of Public Education

4. Examination results and standardized tests.

Once the information is analyzed and available,decisions can be made about the adequacy ofprograms and about changes to bring programsmore in line with the aims and needs existing inthe situation.

After all this has been done it is possible thatthe evaluation of the school program may still beprimarily informal in nature but it will be basedon somewhat more reliable and valid information.What is required to go beyond this stage is still 4moot question.

There are educatois and others who for variousreasons point to a much greater need forevaluation of school programs in their entirety.The theory and methodology is beginning to befelt at the level of iiractice. It may be that thetime is not too distant when each school systemwill appoint an evaluator to coordinate programevaluation. Program evaluation may be coming ofage.



Good lad, John I. "Curriculum: State of the Field."Review of Educational Research. June, 1969, 39:371.

Illich, Ivan, as quoted in Richard L. Goldfarb, "TheToronto Festival of Alternatives in Education."Curriculum Theory Network. Winter, 1970-71, 6:3-12.

Scriven, Michael. "The Methodology of Evaluation."Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Washington,

AERA, 1967.

Stake, Robert E. "Toward a Teclinology for theEvaluation of Educational Programs," in Perspectivesof Curriculum Evaluation, Washington, D.C.: AERA,1967.

Stake, Robert E. "Language, Rationality, andAssessment," in W. H. Beatty, (Ed.) Improving,Educational Assessment. Washington, D. C.: AERA,1969.

Stake, Robert. "Objectives, Priorities, and otherJudgment Data." Review of Educational Research.April, 1970, 40:181-212.

Stufflebeam, D. L. "Evaluation as Enlightenment forDecision Making," in W. FL Beatty (ed.) ImprovingEducational Assessment. Washington, D. C.: ASCD,NEA, 1969.

Taylor, Peter A. and Thomas 0. Maguire, as quoted inRobert E. Stake, "Objectives, Priorities, and OtherJudgment Data." Review of Educational ResearchApril, 1970, 40:196.



D. A. MacKAY

INTRODUCTIONThis paper consists of three main elements: (a)

a brief analysis of the possible roles of the schoolprincipal in evaluating teaching performance, (b) apresentation of the essential features of theprocess of clinical supervision, and, (c) a discussionof some of the issues and problems associated withthe principal's involvement in various aspects ofsupervision. In no way does this purport to be anextensive analysis of evaluation of teaching as anadministrative function. Instead, a fairly limitedset of assumptions about the nature of theprincipal's role is presented; then one approach tothe problem is discussed in some detail. Such basicquestions as: Who should evaluate? What are thebest techniques for evaluation? and, so on, are dealtwith in an indirect way only, or, are included inone of the assumptions underlying the approach tosupervision which is emphasized in this paper. Indealing with a complex problem in a very limitedway, many important factors will be neglected;but the approach discussed here would seem tomerit serious G,Asideration as a valid and usefulone for practitioners.


Basic to the approach taken here is theassumption that some person or persons in a

school must become involved in evaluation ofclassroom teaching. Evaluation in this contextrefers to both formative (for improvement) andsummative (for final decisions) purposes ofevaluation. The point is that some one should beinvolVed; that is, the classroom walls do notconstitute an impregnable barrier against"interference" or involvement by people otherthan the teacher and pupils inside the walk. Thereare, of course, serious questions stemming fromthis assumption. Some of these are as foHows:

(1) Should evaluation be carried out by some oneresident fun-time in the school, or should it be acentral office function?(2) To what extent should coneague evaluation bebuilt into the organization of the school?(3) What techniques for evaluation should be used?(4) Who should establish the criteria to be used forevaluating ins true tion?


(5) Should pupils be involved in evaluatingteachers?(6) What does one expect to achieve by engagingin evaluative activities in the first place?

As mentioned above, these questions win notbe dealt with in any detail here. But what followsdoes, to some extent, indicate the direction ofsome recent thinking on this topic..To take thequestions one at a time, the following points maybe made:

(1) Evaluation is probably best Nen as a jointfunction for resident and central office supervisorypersonnel. A dear cut formal organizationaldistinction which prevents principals from beinginvolved no ?natter what the situation is not reallyuseful.(2) Evaluation by one's colleagues has long servedimportant purposes in the traditional professionssuch as medicine. Introducing it to theorganizational context where large numbers ofprofessionals work as salaried members of ahierarchical organization presents problems. Yetthere are indications from some research andde velopment activities currently underway orc ompleted that would support an increasedcommitment to colleague or self-evaluation ofteaching.(3) While school systems unfortunately continueto rely heavily on such techniques as rating scales,there are appearing some promising newtechniques which can assist an observer inobtaining an accurate and useful picture of whathappens in a classroom. These techniques can belearned by teachers and supervisors and thetraditional argument that there is no systematicway of observing classroom teaching is no longervalid.(4) The criteria for evaluating the results ofinstruction should be established jointly byteachers and supervisors. Moreover, provision canbe made for the involvement of students andothers.

(5) Pupils, at appropriate 'stages of the supervisoryprocess, may become involved in such activities asestablishing the goals of instruction, and providingfeedback data to teachers and, possibly,supervisors. A simplistic approach which turnsover to pupils a tradition-bound approach to

evaluation does nothing more than change the whowithout affecting the techniques, the purposes, orthe outcomes of the evaluation. As in otheraspects of the debate as to who should evaluate,the emphasis is too often on the politics ofevalu ati on ra ther than upon rationality oreffectiveness of treatment.(6) The big question had to do with what wouldbe achieved by engaging in evaluation of teaching.There are several answers to this question. For onething, evaluation may be seen as a way ofdetecting the failures in our teaching body andgetting rid of them before they affect too manypupils for too long. Or, it may be used as a way ofidentifying superior teachers who will, as thesaying goes, be promoted to administrative andsupervisory positions. Or, evaluation may beviewed as part of a clinical process whichemphasizes improvement of teaching So that amediocre or adequate performance becomes asuperior, or at least an improved performance.While none of these three purposes apparentlycontradict the others, how one orders them inpriority will indicate one's philosophy ofsupervision, and will also affect how one behavesin organizing and carrying out the evaluativefunction. The assumption underlying the approachpresented here is that the purpose of evaluation isto improve competence and that the other purpose.of protecting education from incompetence oridentifying suitable candidates for positions otherthan classroom teaching can and have interferedtoo often with achievement of this primarypurpose. This is not to suggest that these otherpurposes are not legitimate. The point is that thepurposes and results are different and that oneshould not try to achieve too many differentthings with any one supervisory activity.

Aspects of the RoleBefore moving to the discussion of clinical

supervision as such, it is possible to identify atleast four ways in which a principal may beinvolved in the process of supervision:(1) As an active clinician; i.e. he or ihe visits

classrooms, confers with and counsels teachers,and, in general, works as an evaluator.

(2) As an organizer of a system of procedureswhich uses resources from within the school;e.g. collegial evaluation.

(3) As a facilitator of the use of evaluators fromou tside the school; i.e. he arranges forconsultative and other types of assistance fromcentral office, other schools, the university, theteachers' association, etc.

(4) As a "trainer" or organizer of training inevaluative skills so that teachers themselves, as

well as such persons as assistant principals anddepartment heads can carry ouf the evaluativefunction in a reasonable and useful way.It would not appear that these "roles" are an

"all or nothing" matter. Rather, in a givensituation a principal will emphasize one or anotherof these elements in his general role asadministrator of the school. In the final part ofthis paper, some attention is given to what asuitable strategy would be in terms of emphasizingone or another of these roles.


The approach to clinical supervision which isdescribed here Certainly does not originate withthis paper. Nor, one suspects, is it the product ofany one educational developer at any one point intime. In fact, it sums up or reconstructs much ofwhat good practitioners of the art of supervisionhave been doing for some time. What a systematicanalysis of the process enables one to do, however,is to communicate the nature of a generalapproach or set of procedures and it does providethe framework for developing and implementingprocedures in a typical school situation. The bestavailable single reference to clinical supervision isthe book by that name written by RobertGoldhammer (1969). His involvement with a

program at Harvard University enabled him todefine and modify his thinking in the light ofpractical experience with the techniques describedin this paper. Interestingly enough, his approach tosupervision is a blend of traditional administrativeskills in htiman relations, organization, andinterpersonal communication, and the skills of thepsychological counsellor who works in the clinicalsetting in a counsellor- client relationship.

The cycle or process of clinical supervisioncomprises five stages:

I. The preobservation conference;2. Observation of classroom teaching;3. Analysis of the observed data anddevelopment of a strategy for the Conference;4. The conference between supervisor andteacher;5. The post-conference at which supervisorsanalyze their own performance as supervisors.

In the discussion which follows the generalterms "supervisor" and "teacher" will be usedwithout coming to grips with questions about theprincipal's involvement in the process.


The Preobservation Conference

A preobservation conference with the teacher is

required in order to achieve several goals:(1) To establish rapport between teacher andsupervisor. This is needed even if the two haveworked together before. The simple human needto be relaxed before engaging in a demandingactivity more than justifies this stage of theprocess.

(2) To clarify the objectives which the teacher hasand the methods he will use to attain them. Thereis, of course, a good deal of research supportingthe idea that when one has explicit goals,performance does usually improve. Moreover, awhole host of studies on role expectations suggeststhat, when supervisors and teachers are inagreement about goals and performances, variousdesirable outcomes are likely to result.

In simple terms, if teacher and supervisor donot arrive at a clear mutual understanding as towhat the teacher win do and to what purpose, itwin be patently unfair to permit th? copervisor tofind fault with the ends or means which heeventually observes unfolding in the classroomi tsel f.(3) To check through and, in a sem, rehearse, thelesson beforehand. This purpose may or may notbe important in a given situation. If teacher andsupervisor would like to check through proceduresto any extent, the preobservation conferenceprovides them with an opportunity to do so. Forbeginning teachers this may well be a veryimportant purpose of the conference.

Observation of Classroom TeachingThe second stage in the cycle is actual

observation of what happens in the classroom. Ifthe supervisor does not obtain accurate data byvisiting the classroom, he is in no position to helpthe teacher with classroom problems. In spite ofthe recent tradition in Canada of downplaying theutility of classroom visitation as part of therepertoire of supervisors, it still remains as one ofthe single most important elements of supervision.It has many drawbacks because of the rather highdegree of reactivity it possesses as a measuringdevice. By reactive is meant the fact that thesupervisory visit interferes to some extent withongoing activities in the classroom; the supervisoris visible; he sits at the back of the room; he maybe a stranger to the pupils, who probably havesome generalized impression of what a supervisoris and does, and so on. Moreover, if the visits areof the "one-shot" variety, the reliability of thevisit as a measuring stick is suspect. Finally, ateacher who would do so, can produce his or herone "good" lesson of the year and, thus, decreasethe utility of a particular observation.

In spite of all these measurement problems, ourpresent technology leaves us with the personal visit'as the most easily available method for procuringnatural data on teacher performance. Indirectmeasures do exist and should be used toadvantage; but like many indirect or unobtrusivemeasures they have a fatal flaw from anadministrator's point of view. That is, it is verydifficult, and probably unethical, to make anyserious decisions about personnel on the basis ofinformation gained in indirect ways. For example,a casual walk down the corridor may give asupervisor an interesting sample of teacherperformances in the school. If these observationsp rove reliable upon repetition of the casualwalk-observation, the evidence is probably good.But, the point which one should make is that usingthis kind of information is, at best, very tricky. To .shorten the argument and make the point, onemay suggest that suspected criminals are protectedfrom methods of collecting evidence which borderon the techniques of espionage agents. Surely,one's professional colleagues in an educationale nterprise should not be exposed to spyinghowever meritorious and clean-handed thepurposes of such scrutiny might be. No, if onewants to know what is happening in a classroom,one should, in the opinion of this writer, make avisit or a series of visits to the classroom with nodisguises, no cover stories and no dissimulation.This is the only ethical way to gather data and it isthe only way of providing a sound foundation forattempts to improve performance.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, one purposeof supervision iny be to obtain evidence forgetting rid of incompetent teachers. Again, theevidence should be gathered in an open, legitimatemanner. But, since this paper is not intended toemphasize that particular and rather negativepurpose of supervision, no more shall be saidabout it at this point in the discussion.

Analyzing data and preparing a strategyThe third stage is quite crucial to the success of

the whole supervisory cycle. Assuming that fairlyaccurate observations were made during the visit,it still remains to select what aspects of the lessonought to be discussed with the teacher and whatsorts of suggestions for improvement should bemade. There are, of course, many techniques forclassroom observation (e.g. Flanders; Gallagher;etc.) which combine the observation and analysisparts of the supervisory cycle. If one uses such atechnique, much of the analysis is predeterminedby the selection of a particular system forobserving behavior. Although such systems forobservation are very helpful, one should be wary


of having them become too restrictive upon thesupervisor. Nevertheless; any system ofobservation implies restrictions in the scope ofobservation, and the number of variables to beobserved. One would prefer a restrictive systemeven with i ts inherent dangers to a

"scat-of-the-pants" approach wherein the.supervisor relies on his faith in his own sensitivity.Such faith has contaminated supervision too oftenin the past; one would want to temper it withsome structure and some common basi:, forcommunication with the person being supervised.

Several points can be made regarding thecriteria which should be met when engaging inanalysis and strategy development. The supervisoris, at this point, sifting through a lot of data inorder to select the most important material andwill thpn plan what his approach ought to beduring the subsequent conference between himselfand the teacher. What he might keep in mind as hemakes his selection of observed items or patternsof behavior are the following criteria:

(1) Importance. That is, those patterns ofbehavior which stand out as being crucial to thesuccess or failure of the lesson should be selectedfor discussion.

(2) number. That is, if the criticaland important factors have been identified, only asmall number should be selected for discussion.Because of time limitations during the conferenceand because teacher and supervisor can cope onlywith a limited number of things, a careful selectionof a limited number of important topics must bemade.

(3) Treatability. That is, the things to bediscussed should be those which are more likely tobe susceptible to attempts to obtain imprcvement.On the basis of his knowledge of the particularteacher or of teaching in general, the supervisormay acquire skills in identifying those behaviorswhich can be improved. There may well bepatterns of behavior which are important; butwhich, because there is no way of changing them,the supervisor win not include in his strategy forthe conference. This may seem to exemplify adefeatist attitude; but a more accurate descriptionwould be to call it a realistic attitude. Thesupervisor cannot 'play God and, in manyinstances, would do well to remain quiet aboutelements in the teacher's behavior which althoughnot satisfactory, are unlikely to be improved,

The Conferenm

The whole process of clinical supervisionreaches its climax during the conference. Here iswhere all of the efforts during the preobservation


conference, the observation itself, and the analysisand strategy phase are put together in an attemptto give the teacher a sound basis for.decision-making. If the conference enables theteacher to cross-validate and check out hisperceptions of what went on in the classroom, itserves part of its purpose. In addition, it ought tosuggest what elements of the situation and ofteacher and pupil performance contributed tosuccesses and failures.

Out of the interchange between teacher andsupervisor might come a plan of attack onproblems that lend themselves to some kind ofsolution. Agreement should be reached on whatchanges are to be made during the next lessons andthese planned changes should become animportant part of the preobservation conferencewhich marks the beginning of the next round ofthe supervisory process.

The skills required by the superyisor during theconference are those of the personnel counsellor.Not only must he be a good listece:; but he musthave skin in communicating the results of hisobservation to the teacher. While one hopes thatthis feedback session will usually benon-threatening, it would be unrealistic to suggestthat the feedback win always be of a positive,non-threatening nature. One of the greatest skillsthat a supervisor can rely upon during this phase ishis ability to predict how a particular teacher islikely to respond to a particular kind of feedback.For an over-anxious teacher, almost any kind offeedback may be threatening; the fundamentalquestion will be: How will the teacher react tofeedback which he perceives as negative? Ifreactions in the past have been good, chances aregood that negative feedback can be tolerated tosome degree, lf, however, there is a history ofover-reaction to criticism, a supervisor may have todecide to remain silent about some aspects ofobserved teacher behavior.

Only extensive clinical practise in theconference situation can provide supervisors withthe experience and skills needed. The educationalsupervisor who would plunge in unaided to hisfirst supervisory conference is like a psychiatristwhose first clinical experience is acquired at theexpense of his first paying patient. Humanreactions are not easily predicted; the possibleeffects upon in dividual personality andperformance of an untrained practitioner mustnever be under-rated by supervisors. To repeatsomething that the present writer has said onnumerous other occasions: Just because thehierarchical organization requires administrators to"do" something is noguarantee that it can be donesuccessfully.

The Post-ConferenceIn a situation where more than one supervisor is

work ing, it is possible to so organize the

supervisory cycle that supervisors are able toobserve at lea st parts of their colleagues'performance as supervisors. When this is so, apost-conference provides opportunities forsupervisors to evaluate critically one another'sper formances a nd to offer suggestions forimprovement. If there is only one shpervisoroperating in a given situation, the post-conferencemay take the form of an introspective review ofone's own performance. One possibility is that thesupervisor could ask the teacher to make someevaluative statements about his (the supervisor's)performance; -,at it is probably better to carry outthis review in other manner. In any case, thequestion which the supervisor should have beforehim at this point in the clinical process is: How didmy behavior as a supervisor contribute to theprofessional growth of the teacher with whom Iworked? If the answer is favorable, all is well. If theanswer is unfavourable, there is always room forimprovement and professional growth on the partof the supervisor himself.


In the first part ol this paper reference wasmade to a fundamental assumption about the needto have some interaction between classroomteachers and some other professional observer ofevents in the classroom. Everything that followedthat basic statement was designed to suggest aprocess which would guide this necessaryinteraction. A number of problems and questionswere suggested at the ontset and the briefdescription of the process itself implied thatsuccess in implementing clinical supervision is notgoing to be easy. To provide a single, summativestate ment which would capture all of thecomplexities associated with this matter 16 notreally possible. What win be provided will faH farshort of any ideal strategy. However, if one canfall back on the three criteria referred to earlier inthe paper, perhaps a limited number of importantissues which are susceptible to treatment by aschool principal can be discussed.

To this end, a review of the possible roles of theprincipal may help. It was suggested earlier in thispaper that he could play one of, or somecombination, of the roles of: active clinician,organizer, facilitator, or trainer. It would seemthat no principal should overlook the possibility ofengaging in all of these activities. However, havingsaid that, a note of caution should be sounded.Not all school administrators possess the skills or

attributes which make good clinicians. Some ofthem are unlikely to be sensitive enough toindividual, as opposed to organizational, needs tobe successful counsellors. Moreover, their skills inobserving classroom teaching may be severelylimited especially if one introduces the factor ofprobable differences in subject area or grade levelbackground within a school. Principals who lackskills should attempt to acquire them; but havingfailed to acquire them would be well advised tostay away from clinical supervision except insofaras they can play the other roles of organizer andfaciritator.

One hopes that there are a good many schoolprincipals and, especially, candidates for suchpositions who could develop, to a reasonable level,the skills required to be clinical supervisors. Suchprincipals should be identified or identifythemselves immediately and begin the difficulttask of changing the attitude of several generationsof educators towards supervision. As clinicians,trainers, organ izers, and facilitators, schoolprincipals are in a key position. They can helpdetermine the success or failure of anyone'sattempts to introduce devdopmental or formativeevaluation to the area of supervisor-teacherin teraction.

So far in this concluding argument, theapparent assumption has been that the principalhas to rely on his own skills or the skills .of thosefrom outside the school in meeting the need forclinical supervision. That such is not really the caseis indicated by the several references to his role astrainer and organizer. The point is that teachersthemselves can acquire skills as clinicians whichwill enable them to interact, in the supervisoryProcess, with their own colleagues. Opening upclinical supervision so that supervisor can mean acolleague teacher, increases the pool of talenten or mously. It helps solve the problem ofproviding enough time so that every teacher canhave enough supervision, and also gets atdifficulties associated with differences betweensubject areas and across grade levels.

I n many ways, this version of colleaguesupervision, which does not. necessarily excludehierarchical supervision by a principal or otherformal position holders:is a closer approximationto professionalism than some of the more usualinterpretations of that over-worked term. Unlikesome of the popular versions of "self-evaluation,"clinical supervision gets at the heart of the matter,that is, performance in the classroom. It providesfor participation among colleagues with respect tothe fundamen t I activities of the teachingprofession. Participation in the direction andimprovement of these fundamental activities is



surely more important than participation indecision-making about numerous environmentaland organizational factors which, althoughimportant, are only peripheral to theteaching-learning process.

One hesitates to toss out chaHenges in themanner of a guest speaker at a high schoolgraduation; but if chaHenge-tossing is acceptable,one can suggest to school principals and to senior

administrators in school systems that theimplementation of clinical supervision could marka major shift in our thinking about theprofessional practice of supervision and ofteaching.


Goldamrner, Robert. Clinical Supervision. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1969.




Perhaps the point at which principals feel mostkeenly the responsibility of evaluation is at theclassroom level. As soon as one mentions theword "accountability" the principal wondersabout his accountability for what goes on in theclassrooms with the question how to go about thebusiness of placing a value upon the instructionalefforts of his colleagues. He finds himself on thehorns of that hoary dilemma that no "expert" hasbeen able to resolve and that time and thechanging structures of schools and school systemshave not assuaged: the dilemma of acting in thedual capacity of instructional leader and evaluator.Some take the view that it is impossible to operatein both of these ways, promptly dropping one roleor the other, and since the evaluative role tends tobe the more threatening and stressful of the two, itis the one that is usually sacrificed.

But the question whether the principal shouldbe involved in evaluating the performance ofteachers in his school is debatable only on thebasis of a clear understanding of what is meant by"evaluating". If an evaluation model such as thatsuggested by Friesen (1971) is adopted, it seemsinescapable that the transactional or process stagemust be dealt with; and, if the principal is to beinvolved in program evaluation then he is

automatically involved in evaluation of process aswell as the other stages of the model. Secondly, ifthe distinction between formative and summativeevaluation (Scriven, 1967) is valid the former mustbe an integral part of any program for theimprovement of instruction, an area which fallssquarely within generally accepted notions of theprincipal's function in the school.


The approaches to evaluation of classroomteaching discussed in the following pages arepresented on the basis of three premises: (1) thatthe principal must be involved in evaluatingteaching because it is central to any overallprogram evaluation; (2) that the problem of



duality in the principal's role can be solved by hisengaging in formative rather than summativee valuation; and (3) that an "informational"definition of evaluation is accepted.

If there is misunderstanding about the secondof these premises there will be difficulty with theevaluative task. When teachers perceive evaluationas a passing of judgment upon their merit asteachers, or worse still their worth as individuals,they will resent it and when principals feel thattheir task is to pass such judgment they will bethreatened by the prospect and avoid the task. It isonly when all participants in the evaluativefunction perceive it as a part of the continuousevolution and improvement of instruction that itcan be effectively accomplished.

The third premise complements the second andfocuses the attention of the evaluator on, thecollection of information upon which decisionscan be based rather than on the assignMent ofvalue or merit.


Assuming, then, that evaluatiog in theclassroom is based on the time premise:. suggestedthe following major questions arise:

1. What kinds of information are relevant?

There are at least three types of informationthat can be gathered in the classroom: each ofthem comprises a number of variables that mightbe observed, measured and compiled as data fromwhich to draw conclusions and upon which to basedecisions: (a) Teacher Information, (b) StudentInformation, (c) Interaction Information.

An examination of one model, devised byBiddle and Ellena (1964), shows the kinds ofrelationships that have been postulated betweenthese variables. As shown in Figure 1, this modelincludes a number of contextual variables ina d di tion to the three groups of variablesmentioned above, and is typical of attempts thathave been made to represent the areas in whichinformation relevant to the effectiveness ofinstruction might be gathered.

The emphasis in the model seems to be onteacher information three of the seven :lasses of

School and Community Contexts

a. Physical Equipmentb. Cast of Charactersc. Laws and Customsd. Needs and Ideas of Community


ill IVFormative TeacherExperiences PaoprItigs

Classroom Situations

a. Physical Equipmentb. Social Incidents



a. Training a. Skills a. Traitsb. Socialization b. Motives b. Responses toc. Ascribed Positions c. Flabits Environment

d. Knowledge


- -) Immediate -4Effects

a. Overt PupilResponses

b. Covert PupilResponses


a. Achievementsor Adjustmentof Pupils

b. New Ideasin Education

c. Aggrandizementof theProfession

Figure 1. A seven-variable.class model for teacher effectiveness.(Note: Variables listed in each class are examples.)

variables (Ill, IV and V) are concerned withteachers and several of the variables within theseclasses might be observed directly in classroomsituations. The model is presented here as afr amework within which to consider some

approaches to information gathering; but beforeproceeding to outline these approaches a secondmajor question requires some comment:

2. What are the problems involved in collectionand use of information?

If it were a simple matter to take a model suchas the one shown in Figure 1, apply it to a givensituation, process the gathered information andproduce an evaluative decision, there would be nofur ther comment required on "pr acticalapproaches to evaluation." However, the

application of the model is made difficult andcomplex, if not downright confusing, by severalproblems.

Problem One. First there is the fact that researchhas failed to discover reliable correlations betweenteacher and interaction variables on the one handand student variables on the other. That is to saythat if we regard the student variables as outputs.(and after all what we are seeking to do in theclassroom is to change student behaviors) much ofthe research of the last fifty or sixty years hasfailed to give us reliable ways of predicting theou tpUts.

Writers who review the extensive literature inthis field usually begin their reviews withstatements like the following:


After 40 years of research on teachereffectiveness, one can point to few outcomesthat a superintendent of schools can safelyemploy in hiring a teacher or granting himtenure (Gage, 1963).

Various writers have drawn the followingconclusions:

Teaching methods do not seem to makemuch difference . . . there is hardly anyevidence to favor one method over another.

Very little is known for certain . . aboutthe reaction between teacher personality andteacher effec tiveness,

Until very recently, the approach to theanalysis of teacher-pupil and pupil-pupilinteraction . . . was, that of examining andquantifying certain 'monadic' variables . . . theexamination of such variables has tended to beunrewarding and' sterile (Gage, 1963).Byrne (1962) summarized the results of

research on teacher attributes as follows:(1) There is no such thing as a universally

effective teacher;(2) There is wide diversi ty in the concep ts of

what constitu tes a good teacher;(3) The subjective judgments of the observer

are involved in every evaluation;(4) There is no single trait that can be said to

be essential to good teaching;(5) There has been increasing attention to

the classroom as a social system.According to Gage (1963) the prevalence of

negative findings has caused some writers to

conclude that "practically nothing seems to make.

any difference in the effectiveness of instruction."Some have gone so far as to propound theories of"spontaneous schooling" which emphasizeco n t extual or background variables as beingdominant in accounting for any learning that takesplace.

Problem Two. A second problem is posed by thedifficulty in finding reliable measures of the threetypes of variables. We are all aware, for example,of the imperfection of student achievement tests.There is ample documentation of the fact thatachievement tests are of low reliability (they areinconsistent in their indication of what gains thepupil has made) and low validity (they don't givean accurate picture of what they purport tomeasure). So imperfect are these tests that there isa general disenchantment with them. We have gonefrom a position in which the results of an externalexam were considered the criterion of teachingeffectiveness, through a period of increasing doubtto a point where we have almost totally rejectedpupil achievement tests as criteria of teachereffe c tiveness.

The problems of measuring teacher variablesand interaction variables have perhaps been evengreater teacher attitude inventories have beendeveloped but widely criticized and until fairlyrecently interaction measurement was entirely asubje ctive matter.

Problem Three. The two problems so far discussedhave led to a third problem namely the adoptionof an intuitive approach to teacher evaluation. Thenecessity of making promotion decisions,severance and transfer decisions means that theproblems of measurement cannot be used as anexcuse to do no evaluation but they have beenused as an excus..t for us to fall back on a"seat-of-the-pants" kind of evaluation which takesth e evalutor into the classroom at irregularintervals for indeterminate 'periods of time toobserve unspecified phenomena.

Even when rating instruments are used theytend to concentrate on teacher variables only andthe evaluator justifies his decisions on the basis ofhis experience rather than on the basis of thedata he has gathered.

This third problem is perhaps the most difficultof the three for some administrators to overcome.Not only have they adopted habits of evaluationthat are inadequate but they are thoroughlyconvinced that there is no other way to go aboutthe task. There is no way to overcome this"mindset" unless it can be shown that there areevaluative procedures that can be learned, and that

do yield information about teachers, students andtheir interaction: information that is useful inreaching rational decisions about the quality Ofinstruction.


The need for such demonstration gives rise toanother major question: In view of the kinds ofinformation that are required and the problemsinvolved in their collection, what approaches toinstructional evaluation seem to be promising?

Expectations ApproachThe first approach to be discussed is one which

attempts to bring some order t o the observation ofsome teacher properties, and teacher behaviors(Sorensen and Gross, 1968). An essential featureof this approach is its recognition of the subjectiveelement in teacher evaluation and its attempt tomake allowance for it in the evaluative process. Onthe check-lists that are often used to aidadministrators in their evaluation one finds itemssuch as the following which have been adaptedfrom a self-evaluation guide of the AlbertaTeachers' Association (1965):

Teacher maintains a dignified manner withoutbeing too formal.Teacher displays good taste in dress andgrooming.Teacher uses mimeographed material in lieu ofdictated notes or extensive material to becopied from the board.Teacher promptly corrects all assignments.Teacher is enthusiastic.Teacher uses audio-visual aids and illustrativematerial.T eacher arrives promptly and commencesclasses on time.

The list could be vastly extended by samplingitems from the multitude of check lists andevaluation guides that have been devised.Everything from the teacher's dress andappearance to his punctuality, class discipline andlesson presentations, has been mentioned as havingbearing upon his effectiveness as a teacher. Itwould be easy to challenge any of the items, but itis just as difficult to prove that they have norelevance to instructional effectiveness as it is todemonstrate that they do.

The basis of the approach suggested bySorensen and Gross is that such items representthe various expectations of evaluators rather thana set of traits or attributes which are exhibited bygood teachers:

If we cannot assume that the "good teacher"


is something "real" out there, but rather isrela t iv e to the values, expectations, andperceptions of the person evaluating him, thenwhat needs to be predicted .. . is not the wayan individual will behave as a teacher but theway his behavior will be seen by the particularpersons evaluating him. It would seem,therefore, that the first step in predictingteacher effectiveness is to spell out the nature ofthe role expectations which determine theresponses of teacher evaluators (Sorensen andGross, 1968:2).Accordingly these writers have tried to isolate

and categorize the various expectations that areheld by evaluators. They suggest that there are twomajor groups of expectations: "Non-Instructional"and "Instructional," each of which can be furthersubdivided into categories.

Non-instructional Expectations. Thenon-instructional categories of expectations are:(1) Relations with Super-ordin ates; (2)Appearance and Manner and; (3) Order andRoutine. An evalua t or who has strongexpectations in any of these categories willdown-grade a tracher who does not meet thoseexpectations no matter how trivial they mayappear. To one evaluator sloppy dress and shaggyhair will be sufficient reason to rate a teacher as"poor" while by another evaluator these attributeswill scarcely be noticed.

Instructional Expectations. The three majorcategories of instructional expectations delineatedby Sorenson and Gross are: (1) Beliefs about Endsor Objectives; (2) Beliefs about Teaching Means orMethods; and (3) Beliefs about the Effects ofTeacher Personality on Pupils. These categories inturn are divided into subcategories: beliefs about"ends" may be subject oriented, student oriented,or oriented towards the socialization of students;beliefs abou t "means" may favour either" didactic" or "discovery" approaches; while

beliefs about personal influence of teachers maylean to war ds friendliness and "warmth" ortowards aloof ness and "coldness." Thus anevaluator wh o believes that transmittal ofknowledge (subject matter) is the main end ofeducation, and thinks that the best means oftransmitting such knowledge is hy "telling" thestudents, in an atmosphere that is formal andbusiness-like and in which the teacher maintains acertain psychological distance between himself andhis pupils, will rate a teacher quite differentlyfrom one who places student development,discovery learning approaches and friendlinesshigher on his scale of expectations.


Having isolated the various types of expectationheld, the authors of this approach suggest that aprimary task of evaluation should be to matchteachers with judges "who are likely to value theircharacteristics" (Sorenson and Gross, 1968:15).

Although the approach has apparently beendesigned with the primary goal of improving ratingtechniques in teacher training institutions it hasimportant implications for "field" evaluators. Firstthere is the need for be aware of theexpectations with which they enter upon theevaluative task. The Sorenson and Gross approachoffers a framework which could be most helpful inorganizing and developing awareness of evaluativeexpectations. Second, because in the schoolsituation it may be impossible to match teacherswith evalua tors, the model suggests thatexpectations of evaluators should be madeexplicit, developed and modified in consultationwith teachers before evaluation begins. Itemphasizes the point that the goals of evaluatorand teacher may not be congruent and that anattempt should be made to find common groundbefore even formative decisions are made.

Student Variables ApproachThe second approach to be discussed concerns

the measurement of student variables. In theBiddle and Ellena model these variables are mainlyin Class VI1 (Long Term Consequences), and theobvious way to measure them is by testing pupilachievement.

Some of the recommendations arising out ofrecent research and thinking about this area seemto be so obvious that it is incredible that they havebeen ignored for so long, and that they continueto be ignored in school testing programs.

Glaser (1968), for example points out the needfor:

(1) The setting of behavioral objectives (theforeseeable outcomes of instruction must bedescribed if they are to be measured);(2) Diagnosis of the initial or (entry) state ofthe learner; and,(3) Continuous assessment to develop whathe calls "short-term histories" that are

developed into long term histories andassociated with this the use of measures devisedby psychometricians.

Gagne (1968) has tackled the problem ofmeasurement of learning outcomes from the pointof view of a learning theorist and has providedsome insights into the kinds of tests that areuseful.

He suggests that the two problems in testing arethose of:

Distinctiveness: What is being measured?


Distortion: How much of what is beingmeasured is there?

For example, if we ask a class ten questions aboutthe geography of Western Canada are wemeasuring re tention, learning or transfer? If thequestions are structured in a certain way it may beacy of the three. There are promisingdevelopments in psychometrics that might enableus to know what we have and how much there isof it.

In terms of practical approaches to evaluationthese developments need to be built into studentachievement testing. The evaluator who wishes touse information about change in students Ps one ofthe bases of his decisions must be sure that changehas in fact been measured. There is need for muchmore detailed record keeping and for thedevelopment of criterion referenced testing (thatis: testing which measures the student'sperformance against a pre-determined standardrather than against other students) if usefulinformation about student variables is to beavailable for evaluative decision making.

Interaction ApproachA third approach which is yielding profitable

insights into the collection of information aboutteacher/student interaction (Biddie and Ellena'sClass 11 and Class VI variables) is the practice ofvarious models of "interaction analysis."

These models are simply systematic ways ofobserving and recording group behaviour, but theamount of training and practice required to mastertheir intricacies has perhaps inhibited their generalusage in the classroom. Some people, too, are waryof the claims made for interaction analysis and ofthe degree of precision to which some modelspretend:

In recent years, the sophistication withwhich observers have attacked classroomproblems is almost frightening: observationschemes and explanatory constructs havebecome so multi -dimensional that theclassroom observer may soon be forced tochoose a mong several hundred descriptivedimensions every few multi-seconds (Popham,1968).The danger of amateurism is real and there is

need for caution in the application of this form ofanalysis. However, it his some insights to offer theevaluator, particularly in sensitizing him to theneed for periodic observation and to the variousty pes of classroom behaviour which mightotherwise be overlooked. The ten categories ofanalysis propounded by Flanders (1961), forexample, indicate things which an evaluator mightbe alert to and seek to observe systematically in


his classroom visits.

Teacher TalkResponses1. Accepts feeling tone of students2. Praises or encourages3. Accepts or uses ideas of students4. Asks questions

Ini tiation5. Lecturing6. Giving directions7. Criticizing a justifying authority

Student TalkResponse8. Student talk-response

Initia tion.9. Student-talk-initiation10. Silence or confusion

In the preceding discussion approaches to thecollection of useful information about teachers,students and the interaction between them in theclassroom, have been briefly outlined and theirp ossible applications in evaluative situationssuggested. The problem of relating the variables,however still looms large.

It is obviously pointless to developsophisticated and highly accurate measures of thethree sets of variables if we can find no significantrelationships among them_ Gage (1963) for onerejects the view that is held by some that if there isa relationship it is inscrutable. He suggests threebroad relationships that are well documented byresearch evidence.

(1) There is a positive relationaship between adimension of teacher behaviors and attitudes thatwe might call "warmth" and pupil achievementand positive regard for the teacher.

(2) There is a positive relationship between"the guided discovery method" or indirectness inteaching and pupil achievement.

(3) There is a positive relationship between thet eacher's "learning structure" or "cognitiveorganization" and pupil achievement andunderstanding.


The following six points are offered by way ofc onclusion. They are consistent with theconclusions drawn by theorists and researchers inthe field of evaluation and provide a sound basisupon which a practitioner might begin to build hisown approach.

(1) There is work being done which holdspromise of eventually solving some of the major

problems of assisting teaching performance. Thefindings, though by no means complete, canalready be applied to some extent.

(2) By and large we are still at the "intuitivestage." In a recent National Education Association(1969) survey of 213 school districts, in theUnited States, enrolling 16,000 or more pupils,only eight reported any setting of performancegoals by both evaluator and teacher in conferencebefore the evaluation.

Over 50 per cent of the 213 districts gave theprincipal the sole responsibility of evaluation; inthe others he was assisted by other buildingadministrators.

(3) Teacher evaluation cannot safely ignore anyof the three sets of variables that have beendescribed. "Product" or "outcome" measurementin the form of student growth or change must bemeasured and related to the other variables.

(4) Classroom observations need to bestructured in some way so the data not justimpressions are collected.

(5) Teacher evaluation should be "forma tive"(designed to improve and develop the teacher'sskills and effectiveness) rather than "summative"(designed to pass final judgir -,.. on his capacity asa teacher).

(Q The first step in any evaluative procedureshould be the establishment of objectives and thisis particularly so in teacher evaluation; because ofthe wide variety of expectations that exist forteacher behavior this step is vital and shouldinvolve the teacher as well as the evaluator.


Alberta Teachers' Association. Self-Evaluation Guide forHigh Schools, Part IV, Teacher's Self Evaluation.Edmonton: A.T.A., September, 1965.

Biddle, Bruce J. and William Ellena. ContemporaryResearch on Teacher Effectiveness. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Byrne, T. C. "Good Teaching and Good Teachers." TheCanadian Administrator. February, 1962, 1(5):19-25.

Flanders, Ned A. "Analyzing Teacher Behavior."Educational Leadership. 1961, pp. 173-190.

Friesen, D. "Program Evaluation.° The Alberta SchoolPrincipal. 1971, pp. 21-26.

Gage, N. L. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching.American Educational Research Association. Chicago:Rand McNally, 1963,

Gagne, R. Instructional Variables and LearningOutcomes. Center for the Study of Evaluation,U.C.L.A. Occasional Report, No. 16, September,1968.

Glaser, R. Evaluation of Instruction and ChangingEducational Models. Center for the Study ofEvaluation , U.C.L.A. Occasional Report, No. 13,September, 1968.

National Education Association. "Evaluation of TeachingCompetence." NEA Research Bulleti, . October, 1969.

Scriven, M. "The Methodology of Evaluation."Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. AERAMonograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1.Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967, pp.39-83.

Sorenson, Garth and Cecily Gross. Teacher Appraisal: AMatching Process. Center for the Study of Evaluation,U.C.L.A. Occasional Report, Number 4, February,1968.

Popham, W. James. "The Performance Test: A NewApproach to the Assessment of Teacher Proficiency."Journal of Teacher Education. September, 1968,19(2).




INTRODUCTIONTo follow the direction that this paper presents,

one must understand the changing role of societyand its anticipations or lack thereof. Much of thebackground material with respect to pressures ofsociety are gleaned from an earlier article.*

So many statements have been subscribed to byleading educators, that we are faced with aplethora of statements "full of sound and fury"and signifying either a complete revolution in

Education or inevitable decay. It has becomepopular to postulate educational change based onincreased technological advancements, communitypressures, and the different value orientations ofour youth. Accountability and the pressures ofsociety accelerate our desires to "get on thebandwagon" and trumpet inevitable doom for ourschools, unless drastic surgery is performed on allour educational schemes.

At titudes towards authority are changingrapidly under the guise of participatory democracy

there is a current belief that no one should havethe right to control, or to command or todetermine the life styles of individuals. Therefore,there is the belief that authority must rest with thegroup and that by means of discussion andconsultative techniques the group aids thedetermination of policy and direction. Because ofthis change we now see a growing challenge to theteacher in the classroom and the policeman on thestreet and the cleric in his pulpit, and eventually toall aspects of "big business" and free enterprise.

Dissent has a tremendous value. Dissent can stirthe "dying embers" of a supposedly traditionaleducational system. Yet dissent must have somedirection and with dissent must come the impliedinference that responsibility has a "hand to play"in the game.

Obviously the role of counselling, guidance,administration and teamwork in the schools inthis "super-heated" atmosphere must change to bein consonance with the times.

In this rapidly changing world an individualmust learn to cope with stressful situations ifmental health is to be maintained. One of theserapid changes lies in the fact that the educationalsystem is being revised. No one can conceivably

* C. Safran; "The Changing Role of the Counsellor in the70's," The Western Psychologist, Aini1,1971, 2(2).

object to the principles of "continuous progress"or individualized instruction in education. Thedanger may be that one may overemphasize acontinuity of success without interjecting somefailure. Ho% 'does one learn without failure? Is thisnot "part, and parcel" of the implication offeed-back'? If one has constant success, how doesone really know whether one can cope with anytype of failure? This rapidly changing world asenunciated earlier is replete wii.h failure as well assuccess. However, let one hasten to add beforeaccusations are levelled, that the author does notagree with a repetitive. failure or constantfrustration which may be more debilitating andstulitifying than any other action in the learningprocess.


Accountability. In the changing educationalface of the 70's one detects greater and greaterpressures on the schools, these pressures oneducation are becoming so traumatic that theremust be a breakdown somewhere, unless we areprepared to face them with a planned attack. Whatare some of these pressures? Firstly, the term"Accountability" has rapidly come to the fore.The business man is really not interested in thecounsellor's statement: "I am helping this child togrow so that he will reach his maximum potentialsocially, emotionally and educationally." Hewould like to know exactly what you mean bygrowth. He wants this "growth business" spelledout in units. Did he grow two inches in height?has he now 78% more emotional stability? has henow developed 3714% more social maturity? Theseare the answers he is searching for. You, as ateacher or counsellor, will then hasten to reassurehim that you cannot "spell out" these growthmatters in increments, but really growth is takingplace. This is not enough accountability and willmean that we had better learn to "spell out" ourdefinitions rather clearly. The new term PPBES(planning, programing, budgeting, evaluatingsystems) will be forcing educators to think interms of objectives (clearly defined), alternativesto reach these objectives, and the cost factorsinvolved.


Community Influences, A second pressurewhich is extremely powerful is the new"community influence." In many respects theslogan of "participatory democracy" is closelyinvolved with this area. All who are affected by acertain decision should have the opportunity ofparticipating in this decision. Obviously thecommunity is greatly affected by educationaldecisions and should therefore have its say. Theremay be some danger in defining the "real"community, since a few people act as thespokesmen and when the total community ispolled on a decision, they are not even aware of allthe implications. The trend today is towards"community centred" schools and no one candeny that the "community" has the right toparticipate in the 'decision-making" iirocess,provided also it is prepared to accept a measure ofresponsibility for the decision.

Student Protest. A third force is the growingstrength of "student protest" movements. Termssuch a s "alienation," "generation gap" and"participatory democracy" are bandied aboutindiscriminately. Students are demanding a say incurriculum and other faculty and administrativedecisions. "What is taught," and "how it istaught," have become vital issues to students inthe university and in the secondary school. Thisinfluence is now filtering into the junior highschool or middle school levels. Efforts are beingmade to democratize the fairly rigid authoritarianstructures that the school systems have been.Students with changing value systems have everyright to participate in the decision-making process,provided they are rea dy to accept a measure ofresponsibility for the community. It is stilldifficult, however, for students to maintain a clearparity in "decision-making" on curricular andfunctional matters which affect the schoolsbecause their experience must be weighted againstthe expertise of scholars in the field.

Urbanization. A fourth force is the terrifyinggrowth of urbanization. No longer do we speak ofthe metropolis, now we even postulate themegal opolis, a gigantic, heartless, impersonalenvironment, removing the very freedoms ofprivacy and isolation that have dominated ourvistas for centuries. Increased urbanization willhave a tremendous impact on education. The veryrules and boundaries of educational thought mustbe expanded to cope with the pressures of thechange from the pastoral past to the shatteringpace of the future.

Technological Changes. A fifth influence,obviously, , will be improved and increasedtechnical and scientific advances, which, in manyways, can be of great benefit to the educator and


yet in oth(,r ways may constitute threat. Themovement from "automation to cybernetics""soft-ware to hardware" "T.V. to themulti-media" approach will improve the means ofstoring and disseminating educational information.Yet the interaction between teacher and pupil andthe accompanying feedback will still remain anintegral part of our educational system.

We have postulated five forces that are affectingthe schools and educational change in the 70's.There are many more which could be mentionedand some others obviously will gain greatersignificance in the next decade. These particularcontributing factors have been mentioned becauseevery educator is bombarded by these facts.

TEAM-WORK WITHIN THE SCHOOLThe counsellor, teacher and princ ipal must have

a plan or rationale to cope with the changingforces and the changing face of education in the70's. The one clear factor which emerges at thepresent is the aspect of "confrontation." We live ina volatile, turbulent time. Society has abrogated tothe schools certain responsibilities, but it does notstop the re. It now wishes to foist moreresponsibility on the educator and the school. Ifthe school has not responded as rapidly or as wellas society has demanded, then "Education" is saidto be at fault. Confrontation is all around us. Notecarefully now "Education" is always one of thepartners in the confrontation. We haveconfrontation between the "Community andEducation," we have confrontation between"Students and Education," we have confrontationbetween "Business and Education," we haveconfrontation between "Urbanization andEducation." Education is always involved. Perhapswith "tongue in cheek" one might postulate thatthe educator suffers from a "masochistic" or"self-flagellating" syndrome, but always he is theone involved in the struggle or confrontation andwith "bowed" and "bloody" head is prepared toface his accusers.

Obviously many educators in the past havepostulated plans for "team-work" to cope withexisting personnel and educational needs.Administrators have coined the terms "leadershipand climate." Counsellors speak of "warmth andempathy."

So what else is new?Team-work in the schools now must

countenance the changing climate within whichwe, as educators, perform. Being aware of externaland internal pressures is insufficient unless wedevelop a rationale to cope with these changes.

In general if one accepts my premise and


rationale one detects a further dimension in the"team-work" aspect. One now sees that thecommunity or members thereof, becomeimportant elements in the school sphere. Thecommunity, the counsellor, the teacher and theprincipal are the key components to the mix allworking for the benefit of the child.

Let us then look at the expectations we holdfor each of these three bodies working within andfor the school.

The Counsellor

The counsellor must contribute directly to thepurposes of the school in helping tludentsmaximize educational benefits. He does thisessentially by helping students:(a) achieve smooth transition from a fairly

immature infantile stage to "a reaching towardsadulth oo d;"

(b) achieve techniques of "decision-making" foreducational and life-long planning based on atheory of cutting down "risks of error;"

(c) achieve control of emotional upheavals withinoneself so the benefits of an education becometruly apparent; and,

(d) achieve the ability to adjust to a changingworld so that one can become a contributingmember to society.

To do this the counsellor must work directlywith teachers, principals and members of thecommunity so that transition and change are notdebilitating experiences. More and more he mustdevelop a knowledge of social psychology, thebroad spectrum of needs within his owneducational community and the needs of hisfellow workers. Perception becomes a key word inhis case.

The PrincipalThe Principal is the recognized educational

leader in his school. He must see his school notonly as a microcosm of life but rather as life itself.He must feel that the school and the communitymust "mesh gears" in order to maximize the

educational benefits for young people in hischarge. The principal can accomplish these ends byhelping:(a) teachers feel that there is a great deal of trust

between colleagues in the school;(b) counsellors and teachers feel that they will

have consistent and constant support whenmerited;

(c) community members feel that they are part ofthe team and yet be prepared to "speak up" forthe benefits of the child and his school staff ifplagued with undue censure; and,

(d) senior administrators feel that the "ship is ingood hands" and that if necessary the school'sbudget and staffing can be decentralizedwithout undue hardship.

The CommunityThe c ommunity pressures in the western

educational world will become much stronger inthe 70's. The community wishes to be involvedand wishes to participate in the education of itschildren. The community too can assist studentsto grow to their full potential by:(a) participating in a whole-hearted fashion with

educational personnel in innovative projects,curriculum planning, lending resource peopleand "swinging open" the doors of outsideresources to the schools;

(b) accepting a shared responsibility with schoolpersonnel for those educational aspects whichare good as well as for those that are bad;

(c) being accountable as are the schools for "crisissituations" which must of necessity's sakeoccur in the educational system; and,

(d) tre a ting educational personnel as truly"professional" and recognizing the expertisethat the principal, counsellor and teacher bringto bear on the educational process.

Teamwork in the 70's will only truly beaccomplished if the above mentioned personnelare prepared to trust each other, to act responsiblyfor each other, and to attain empathy one with theother.


4. 9



In the spring of 1969 the Alberta HumanResources Research Council initiated a baselinestudy of individualization practices in an attemptt o document recent efforts of schools toaccommodate the learner more effectively. Earlyexplorations revealed that these efforts to establishmore appropriate learning conditions for eachyoungster were represented by a wide and diversearray of teacher practices, differentiated programsand school approaches. Yet it was undeniable thatthe struggle to "individualize instruction" was nomere foray into yet another school innovation butr epresented a determined commitment ofpractitioners to close the pedagogical gap betweenindividual learner needs and the group-basedi nstructional practices still prevalent in mostschools today. And this determined effort has ailthe earmarks of a significant "movement" inschooling that is likely to dominate thee ducational scene throughout the seventies.


Any movement, however, gains impetus andi nducement from powerful sources. We canidentify at least four such significant origins whichhave inspired and are sustaining present schoolefforts to individualize instruction:

(1) Significant differences in individualcharacteristics of learners are empirically wellestablished and the existence of which has longbeen ackn o wledged by practicing educators(Anastasi, 1965). This fact of learner differenceshas been solidly documented for decades now. Yetthe circumstances in most schools continue to lockteachers and learners into often ineffectual group -or class-based instructional procedures.

(2) A second development is found in theevolution of instructional technology and newermedia. Th e se communications devices havebecome increasingly individual learner oriented.This development, involving the self-directed usageof cassette tape recordings, filmstrips, and relatedpr ogram me d devices has offered schools aconsiderably enlarged capability for individualizinglearning,

(3) The third factor is a composite array oforganizational changes that provide an important

facilitative function, in operationalizing morevaried instructional and more flexible institutionalprocedures. Such innovations as team teaching,co ntinuous progress, teacher aides, learningresources centres and the like have already beenincorporated into some of the more sophisticatedindividualization systems as critical components.

Recognition, finally, must be made of the useof the "systems approach" to the handling ofpractical problems in education. This strategy isessentially a self-conscious attempt to bringreflective intelligence to bear upon the solution ofpractical. problems. The detailing and sequencingof identifiable tasks to eventuate in theattainment of specific objectives is particularlyevident in the development of more elaborateinstructional systems such as IPI and ProjectPLAN.

All four of these factors or developmentsprovide a matrix of impelling and facilitatingforces that have given the individualizationmovement its necessary impetus.


The overriding need at this point in time is toachieve a working description of individualizationthat would be of practical assistance to teachersand administrators. Three attempts of majorproportions have been made in an effort to clarifyand describe individualization of instruction.Edling was commissioned in 1960 to do a two-yearsurvey study of individualization practices inAmerican schools, a study which was to be ofparticular usefulness to administrators seriouslycommitted to the idea (Edling and Buck, 1969;Edling, 1970). The Alberta Human ResourcesResearch Council initiated its examination ofindividualization in the spring of 1969. Finally,Gibbons (1970) produced an early report in 1970in an attempt to answer the question, "what isindividualized instruction?" All three effortsstruggled with the first and the necessary task ofdefensible articulation. Until some working map ofidentifiable components and their possibleinterconnections could be devised, description,analysis and appraisal of individualization wouldprove futile.


5041g _

The Ed ling Study

Jack Ed ling of Teaching Research in Oregonembarked on a study of individualization practicesin American schools. His approach was empiricalin that he attempted to determine what schoolrwere doing to individualize instruction. Afterlocating 600 schools in the United States whichrep or te dly were engaged in individualizedinstruction, he focused upon 46 exemplar schoolsituations throughout his country and madeintensive examinations of their activities throughdirect visitation on sites. To give some useful orderto the enormous quantity of "data" he selectedeight parameters or factors around which todescribe each school's activities. His matrix fordata analysis is presented in Figure 1.

Edling's findings an d recommendationsencompassed the wide variety of concerm ofadministrators and teachers regardingindividualized instruction. But the central findingavealed a great diversity of programs, emphases,procedures and tactics that reflected the schools'efforts to accommodate individual learner needs.In this respect, he, indirectly at least, supportedJackson's position that there is no "one best way"to teach "Harold Bateman" (Jackson, 1969). Inany case, American schools had clearly not yetfound the one way.

For our purposes, however, Edling's typologyof individualization activities was a distinctadvance in the articulation struggle. He was able toidentify two dimensions along which schoolprac tices differed:

(1) how the schools handled learning objectivesand instructional media; and,

(2) whether these were "school determined" or"learner selected."He obtained, as a result, four combinations oftypes of individualized instruction, A, B, C, D(Figure 2). We may question the use of somephrases such as self-directed and independentstudy, but if we keep in mind the bases of thesetypes in the locus of decision-making in the twodomains (objectives and media), then the phrases,in themselves, become unimportant. Edling,incidentally, resisted the temptation to judge any41ne type as int insically or strategically "superior"to ano ther. He merely suggested a usefulcategorization or classification scheme of thediverse procedures which schools had devised toindividualize instruction. Also, any one school,class or teacher may well discover that theinstructional activities, particularly over time, mayreflect or involve more than one "type" ofindividualized instruction. This would beespecially true in different subject areas or with






Evidenceon Effects



Figure E Matrix used to Analyze Data







;9 Learner



(School Determined) (Learner Selected)

Type A

"Individually Diagnosedand Prescribed"

Type C


Type B


Type D-

"Independent Study"

Figure 2. Types of Individualized Instruction

different youngsters in different classes andperiods of the year. Implicit, however, is therecognition of the importance of involvement indecisions selecting the objectives and/orprocedures, especially for the learner.

The Gibbons Study

Gibbons (1970:28-52 ) also attempted toachieve a meaningful ordering of theindividualization development. But he approachedit analytically, using a set of 1 5 elements(primarily instruclional or programmatic) and asimilar focus upon the decisioning-choice-selectiondimension. As is noted in Figure 3, a particularprofile emerges when Gibbons applies thedecisioning locus (generally, individual choice atone end and class-group prescribed at the other) toeach of the elements. In this figure one notes thatthe IPI profile suggests wide latitude in pacing (aslearner determined) while on most other elementsmanipulations are accomplished through school orteacher authority.

As in the case of the Edling study, Gibbonsdoes not suggest that the "better" program will berevealed by that profile which locates farthest tothe left on this decisioning continuum.Nevertheless, he is driven to surmise that, with theenlargement of varied and hopefully morelearner-focused instructional arrangements:

The opportunity arises to develop a coherentinstruc tional program that tolerates andnurtures widely divergent goals and


accomplishment, a program designed to preparestudents for complete control of their owneducation so that schooling, ultimately, isinseparable from living (Gibbons, 1 970).

HRRC BaselineStudy of I ndividualization

The basic purpose of the baseline study onindividualization was to ascertain the nature ofschool developments in the direction ofindividualization their ingredients and theirprospects for emancipating learners from existinglimits in conventional school environments. Earlyin the first year, a number of realizations becamequickly apparent:

(1) That individualization of instruction was ncmere and specific innovation such as teamteaching, non-graded programs, independent studyand the like, but a "movement" that would gainincreasing thrust power through the 1970's inCanadian schools.

(2) Secondly, that the wide array ofpossibilities, approaches and procedures thatschools have begun to envision and implement willeventuate in a rich variety of "solutions" that willdefy simple description and classification.

(3) Thirdly, the term individualization ofinstruction tends to arouse the impression that theschool's effort should be continually in thedirection of making the learner an autonomoussocial isolate engaged in the separate andindividual pursuit of specific learning tasks. This is





-1- ..;



3. ATTENDANCE Optional School Not Cie-5s 'Cla's7Wot ilToroUr '"" "Ittanciatoiir'"i'l





Sub-Group Prescribed

Or Discussed

C la ss/Grade 1 I4Prescribed .





IndividualPre scrib ed

Sib-Group Prescribed

0 !..Olar,uSasd.. ....

, 1ClasS/'-'r: k,eili iII

6. rAcg OF STUDYIndividualChoice



-Sub-Group Prescribed

Or Discussed

Class/Grade 1


7. ACTIVITYIncfivickialChoice

IndividualPrescribed Or Discussed


'1.1;i-c:gingiibedstraliv-e a

AuthorityS. DECISION-


Student and Teacher(Responsive)

Teacher ,,.,..m""".(Active) "r'-'' ,.

I. TEACHING FOCUS Values Processes Skill Concepts ontentI






TeacherDirects I



Unspecified Discovery(Permissive

Guided Discovery(Problem Solving)

Explanation and


Drill Exercisrt 1


12. ENVIRONMENT munityCom SchoolClassrocrn or

Resource AreaDesk

1 I

TIME STRUCTURE Non-Structured Fluid StructuredNon-Sourtured

I13. Structured)---_,-

14. EVALUATIONStudentS lf-Evaluatione

Broad AssessmentOuaity . .----'-'-'m x='''' Exam-Class 1



Continuous DevelopmentTo Miturity



UnderstandingEffluent i.....,...,,Mastery r

Figure 3. Profile of Individual:), Prescribed Instruction: The Oakleaf Project

an erroneous interpretation of presentindividualization activities. Indeed, groupengagements continue to pu ytuate teacher-learneractivities, however, more dinctionally geared tothe needs and conditions of the learnerparticipants. Furthermore, schools have for somedecades attempted to adapt the teaching-learningprocess to the varied characteristics of learnersthrough differentiated class-grade formations(albeit, largely ineffectual), enlarged programofferings (particularly at the high school level) andthrough increased recognition of the allowance forlearner interest in laying daily instructional plans(most prominent in elementary grade classrooms).Hence, the term differentiated instruction isproposed as a more useful label since it providesfor the more inclusive coverage of currentpractices and possibilities as a gen n-al designation.

(4) The fourth realization was substantively themost challenging in that it gave rise to theidentification of three major component areas asparts of the differentiation movement:

1. the now typical set of instructional elements


Not Clarified

(12 instructional elements are listed incomponent area I in Figure 4);2. a collection of innovations, largelyorganizational, that are labeled tactical devices(12 tactical devices comprise component area IIin Figure 4); ; nd,3. the comprehensive instructional designs thatare called approach systems (3 approach systemsincluded in component area III, Figure 4).

Any working description that furthers adequatearticulation, analysis and practical applicationmust make reasonable allowance for these threecomponent areas. The conceptual schemes ofEdling and Gibbons do not provide for the tacticaldevices , typically organizational changes that havebeen explored with considerable interest in thepast decade by school practitioners. Secondly,some way needs to be devised wherebyinterlinkages can be posited in order that the"map" of component areas for differentiation ofinstruction serves the purpose of guiding moreeffective planning and managing of the schools'instructional program.

Approach SystemsII

Tactical Devices Instructional Elements

Open Area DesignFlexible Scheduling

Project PLANfi/ Continuous Prc.gressini

Independent Study0#

Multi-Unit Team Teaching

Organizationr---- **Peer Tutoring/HiMedia - Basic

**Media - SelfhilLearning Resources Center/fillLearning SpacesLearning Resources Specialist

**Teacher Aides/it/

(Opt.f.-ize responsiveness of learning environment

ta.ough decisioning)



**Interaction##LocationBeginning timeEnding time


**Diagnosis of learnerneedllil

**Evaluation of learnerperformance/0

**Adjustment of instruc-tional systemilli

Figure 4. Map of Differentiated Instruction

Note: Two asterisks suggest a dependency linkage between IPI and particular tactical devices and the more responsiveinstructional elements. For Project PLAN the number symbol is employed to suggest its appropriate linkage andimpact upon instructional elements. For the multi-unit organization approach systent underlining has been done topoint out marked interdependencies and impacts.

The columns of instructional elements andtactical devices will appear familiar. However, theapproach systems may require some description.Unfortunately, brevity is indicated in the light ofthe time and space available for handling this task.1IPI and Project PLAN are fairly sophisticated anddetailed arrangements of teaching-learningoperations which are designed to maximizemastery of these skills and the achievement of thedesignated objectives. As a result, they do possesssimilar characteristics. IPI is comprised of sixmajor components:

(1) sequentially established currcular objectivesin behavioral terms;

(2) a procedure for diagnosing studentachievement and ascertaining the proficiency leveldesired;

(3) materials for individualizing learning for theattainment of mastery;

(4) a system for prescribing learning tasks;(5) organization arid management practices to

facilitate individualization; and,(6) strategies for continuous evaluation and

feedback.Project PLAN is described as containing five majorcomponents:

1 The reader is encouraged to consult the appropriatereferences listed at the end of the paper for furtherinformation about these approach systems.


(I) a comprehensive set of educationalobjectives grouped into modules with fiveobjectives in each module;

(2) teaching-learning units, with six to eightunits in each module to facilitate differentiation ofinstruction;

(3) a set of tests which provide several items foreach objective in the module;

(4) procedures for guidance and individualplanning; and,

(5) a monitoring and evaluation procedure toassess the efficacy of the total system.

In contrast to IPI and Project PLAN, theMulti-Unit Organization approach that is beingdeveloped in Wisconsin by Klausmeier (1969)focuses primarily upon the professional teachers'capability to plan and manage appropriateinstructional procedures. The principle underlyingthis plan is the belief in the enhancement of theteachers professional capabilities for exercisingthe necessary discretion in creating the mostappropriate learning conditions for the learner(Figure 5). The plan is primarily an organizationalrestructuring of a school, particularly the groupingof teachers into teaching units and the addition ofaides, clerk or secretary, and an intern. At thebuilding level there exists an instructionalimprovemen t committee which attempts tomobilize the professional resources to plan,manage and evaluate the instructional activities inthe building. Teachers, in other words, are placed


RepresentativeUnit Leaders




Central OiiiceAdriniscrater


Principals ofOther Schcols

Central OfficeConsultants




Unit Leider A Unit LeaJer 8 Unit Leader C Unit Leader D

5 TeachersTeacher AideInstructionalSecretaryIntern

150 studentsAges 4 - 6

5 TeacheraTeacher AideInstructionalSecretary


150 studentsAges 6 - 9

Unit A Unit 8

Building Instsuctional Improvement Conmittee

SysternMde Policy Connate.

Figure 5

5 TeachersTeacher Aide.Instructional. Secretary


150 studentsAges 8 - 11

5 TeachersTeacher'AideInstructionalSecretaryIntern

150 studentsAges 10 - 12

Unit C Unit D

Orpnizational Chart of a Multi unit School of 600 Students

in a particular kind of relationship which enlargestheir capability for facilitating more appropriateinstructional experiences. Hence, it will benoticed, that the Multi-Unit Organization does notattempt to exercise direct manipulations over theinstructional elements as does IPI and ProjectPLAN but focuses upon the intermediary of theteacher in the local situation to effect theappropriate manipulations.

We need to recognize that the actual conditionsof learning will be determined by theappropriateness of the manipulations that areeffected among the instruuctional elements.However,, the degrees of freedom, the range ofalternative possibilities and the efficacy ofstrategic interventions by teachers, administrators,and learners will be enhanced or diminished by thepresence and functioning of these operations listedas tactical devices. It is clearly apparent that thelatitude enjoyed by teachers and learners, forinstance, in effecting appropriate changes amongsome of the instructional elements will bemarkedly affected by a continuation of aclass-grading structure or by the presence of acontinuous progress plan. And so on with otherinterdependencies among instructional elementsand tactical devices. Similarly with the approach


systems. There are key intevdependencies betweenthe IPI system, some tactical devices and particularinstructional elements. IPI would be particularlyinoperable without the employment of teacheraides, as a set of enabling operations, to overseethe detailed tasks of artanging of instructionalprograms, testing learners and recording studentperformance results and prescriptions and the like.Independent usage of media and peer tutoringhave also developed as especially useful tactics inmaintaining the steady advance of the learnerthrough the sequenced learning tasks.

Furthermore, IPI as a system is so designed as tofocus primarily and in a pre-determined definitiveway upon the play of these instructional elements:

(1) carefully specified and sequenced behavioralobjectives;

(2) a definite pattern of teacher-learnerinteraction involving largely consultation,diagnosis, prescription and remedial or advancedinstruction;

(3) flexible pacing as determined by eachlearner; and,

(4) the prominent and specific provisions forlearner diagnosis, evaluation of performance andadjustments in the task prescriptions. In the main,I PI is a highly specified set of operations,


allocating to learner, teacher and teacher aidesdifferent task assignments in which a wide range ofinstructional elements and tactical devices arecovered by a predetermined set of decisions builtinto the total system.

Project PLAN is essentially similar to IPI in thatit relies heavily on the use of teacher aides, peertutoring and independent learner use of media.The developers, however, insist that continuousprogress is a requisite for the effective use of theProject PLAN system. In addition, independentstudy, learning resources centers and resourcesspecialists are necessary adjuncts to provide thosefacilitating operations in the school that wouldaugment the practical implementation of the plan.Project PLAN's potential impact on selectedinstructional elements is also similar to that of IPI,with the addition of subject matter content.

The Multi-Unit Organization, in contrast to IPIand Project PLAN, is focused upon the teacherand his enlarged professional involvement in theinstructional program. Hence, it requires, as arequisite, team teaching as a predominant tacticaldevice. As with Project PLAN, the Multi-UnitOrganization also prescribes continuous progressand relies heavily upon the facilitating operationso f autonomous usage of media, independentstudy, learning resources centers and resourcesspecialists. As with IPI, the Multi-UnitOrganization is heavily dependent uponteacher aides. As a system that is designed toincrease the teacher's professional capability toplan, implement and evaluate the instructionalprogram, it does not stipulate or suggest anysignificant linkage with specific instructionalelements, as is the case with IPI and Project PLAN.Given this focus, the instructional elements aretheoretically all amenable to manipulation in

keeping with teachers' judgments of priorities,purposes, needs and local resource possibilities.

Given then the task of the school that ofcreating the optimum environment for learning forlearner X by enhancing the adaptive power ofteachers and learners to institute the mostappropriate set of learning conditions we canfirst identify three categories or component areasof instructional elements, tactical devices andapproach systems; then the apparentinterdependencies among them; and finally, theimplications for the administrator and teacher. Ifwe can assume that decisions regarding themanipulation of instructmnal elements are mostappropriately made closest to the point of learnerencounter with learning colditions, then tacticaldevices and the approach system must be selectedand introduced so as to (a) achievecomplementarity among the various tactical


devices (particularly as these give teachers andlearners a wider latitude of control over a greaterrange of instructional elements), and (b) as tacticaldevices are combined simultaneously inimplementation in order to exploit theirsynergisticic power in the newly constituted"systern" of instructional operations.2

FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONSA numbe r of findings and suggestions are

worthy of mention as these flow from theavailable studies of individualization:1. Of all of the instructional elements, pacing is

more likely to show heightened variability as aconsequence of individualizatiOn efforts byschools.

2. The costs of individualizing instruction arelikely to represent obstacles to most schools,though survey findings show that reallocation offunds (the purchase of a number of differentworkbooks rather than a textbook for allstudents), and reconstitution (replacing onecertified teacher by a clerk plus a teacher aideas in Multi-Unit Organization) are promisingpossibilities.

3. Edli ng fou nd that a significant number ofprincipals emphasize the importance ofvisibility to help solve the communicationproblem in the school and in the community.Unless some way is found to give easyrepresentation to an innovation or experimentand to permit observation, activity is likely toflounder.

4. In spite of the dangers of distortion orneutralization by the established practices in aschool, it is still necessary to embark uponindividualization efforts through the strategy of"minimum disturbance." In the interests offeasibility of managing a set of new operationsand assuring the community of acceptablelearning achievement in general, the scope ofinnovation will of necessity have to bepractically circumscribed.

5. On the other hand, the play of interdependentcomponents suggests that the new system ofoperations must enjoy a minimum presence (inthe number of components introduced orahered and the complementarity among them)in order to generate sufficient power by which

2 The second phase of HRRC's baseline study isaddressing itself to both of these implications.

document and establish the viability of theeffort.

6. The evaluation of the effectiveness ofindividualization practices continues to poseserious problems for the administrator. Ed lingreports, for instance, that individualizedinstruction is not likely to produce dramaticimprovements in cognitive achievementmeasures. Standardized achievement tests areinappropriate when administered inindividualization programs. Furthermore, othereducational purposes and learning objectives,involving growth in learner self-direction, weregenerally cited as important as subject mattermastery.


The difficulty of producing demonstrableevidence of improvement in learning through anyinstructional, contrivance is further complicatedby the "n.s.d." phenomenon in educationalresearch. That is, "no significant differences" areencountered with such frequency in evaluationefforts that any innovation, particularly of thepedagogical or organizational variety, is likely toobtain a similar inconclusive result (Fritz,1960; Stephens, 1967). Unless the practitionermonitors the activity carefully, it is likely toproduce indiscriminate outcomes that typicallylead to the unjustified rejection of the innovation.The n.s.d. enigma is less likely to show ifdifferentiation results in wider variations in theplay of more instructional elements than merelypacing, especially those of objectives and content.As Jackson warned us, there i yet no one bestway to teach any learner.

Perhaps this is unfortunate. While most of uswould agree that the highest levels of intellectualcompetence and commitment to learning shouldbe encouraged and facilitated, we would alsoacknowledge the value of cultivating the uniqueattfibutes of talent and interest within and amonglearners, those human qualities that reflectrichness in variety of accomplishments andintensity of application of energies in personallymeaningful pursuits. We must take care thatindividualization assures not only improvedmastery of content and superior intellectual skillsbut preserves opportunities for enhancingindividuality. Who knows? You may be out of stepbecause you hear "another drummer."

REFERENCESIndividualization - GeneralAnastasi, Anne. Differential Psychology. New York: The

Macmillan Company, 1965.

Fritz, John 0. "Educational Technology Boon orBane?" The School Review. Autumn, 1960,68:294-307.

Glaser, Robert. "Individual Differences in Learning."Individualized Curriculum and Instruction. Edmonton,Alberta: The University of Alberta, Department ofElementary Education, 1969.

Gleason, Gerald T. The Theory and Nature ofIndependent Learning. Scranton, Pennsylvania:International Textbook Company, 1967.

Henry, Nelson B. (ed.). Individualizing Instruction. TheSixty-first Yearbook of the National Society for theStudy of Education, Part I. Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Jackson, Philip W. "Is There a Best Way of TeachingHarold Bateman?" Individualized Curriculum andInstruction. Edmonton, Alberta: The University ofAlberta, Department of Elementary Education, 1969.

Reimer, Everett: "An Essay on Alternatives inEducation." Interchange. 1971, 2(1):1-35.

Stephens, J. M. The Process of Schooling. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967.

Thomas, R. Murray, and Shirley M. Thomas. IndividualDifferences in a. Classroom. New York: DavidMcKay Company, Inc., 1965.

Describing "Individualization"

Ed ling, J. V. and J. E. Buck. An Interpretative Study ofIndividualized Instructional Programs. Phase IAnalysis and Interpretation. Monmouth, Oregon:Teaching Research Division, Oregon State System ofHigher Education, 1969.

Ed ling, Jack V. Individualized Instruction: A Manual forAdministrators. M o nm o u th, Oregon: TeachingResearch Division, Oregon State System of HigherEducation, 1970.

Gibbons, Maurice. "What is Individualized Instruction?"Interchange. 1970, 1(2):28-52.

Approach SystemsBolvin, J. 0. "Individually Prescribed Instruction

Curricular Organization and Research Findings."Individualized Curriculum and Instruction. Edmonton,Alberta: The University of Alberta, Department ofElementary Education, 1969.

Flanagan, John C. "Program for Learning in AccordanceWith Needs." Psychology in the Schools. April, 1969,6(2):133-136.

Klausmeier, Herbert W. "An Instructional Organization toFacilitate Individually Guided Education."Individualized Curriculum and Instruction. Edmonton,Alberta: The University of Alberta, Department ofElementary Education, 1969.

Esbensen, Thorwald. Working with IndividualizedInstruction. The Duluth Experience. Palo Alto,California: Fearon Publishers, 1968.

Heathers, Glen. Organizing Schools 7hrough The DualProgress Plan. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers& Publishers, Inc., 1967.






The community school idea, the origin ofwhich on this continent dates back several decadesor more, has received increasing attention in recentyears. It may be instructive to speculate aboutsome of the reasons for this.

The Layman and the Community School

On the part of laymen the reasons forincreasing attention seem to be two-fold.

First, a concern for rising costs in thedevelopment of community facilities, such aschurches and community centres, has led many laypersons to look to the school as a home for manyactivities which in the not-too-distant past wereusually housed elsewhere. We can refer to this asthe community use aspect of the communityschool idea, and note in passing that sharingfacilities in the manner implied by the termcommunity-use has only a minimal and indirecteffect on the day program of the school.

A second reason for increased interest on thepart of laymen in the community school idea, onthe other hand, may be very significant in shapingthe program of the school. Layman andprofessional alike, not only in education but inother professional fields as well, seem to bedeveloping a sharpened definition of thelimitations of professional knowledge in shapingdecisions regarding school and other socialprograms.

Laymen are less likely now than in the past toaccept the expert's judgement simply on the basisof the credentials he has earned and the publicoffice he may hold. Associated with this, thereseems to be a rising level of impatience, irritation,and hostility directed against "establishments" andthe organizations which sustain them.

To be a member of an "establishment" at thepresent time (and, of course, school principals arethe very model of an establishment figure, nomatter how ludicrous this may seem to many) is tobe exposed to critical attention in a way quiteunlike the experience of even the recent past. Thegrowing impatience of laymen at having decisionsmade for them by the experts, the professionals, isoften expressed in negative ways by carping


criticism of what schools are doing, at therelatively benign end of the spectrum, to taxpayerrevolts of inrying degrees of malignancy in theireffects on scnool programs, at the other.

There are positive outcomes emerging fromthese anti-establishment sentiments and activities,however. Many school principals share some of thecone erns of the anti-establishment layman; inparticular, the concern that professionalknowledge must be supplemented by judgementand wisdom in educational decision-making. Suchprincipals realize that the educator, no matter howwell trained he is, has no monopoly on wisdom.

Consider an example. Suppose that the parentsof a fifteen-year-old boy in his first year of seniorhigh school came to see you, the principal of theschool. They said to you: "We're concerned aboutour son. He lacks self-confidence. He's apatheticand seems to have no interest in doing anything.He just doesn't seem to have any sense ofdirection, and we think it's because hes lostconfidence in his ability to do what he sets out todo."

What would you try to do in such a situation?You would know, of course, that the problem

described by the worried parents was not uniqueto their son, that it's a problem faced by manyyoung people approaching adulthood, and that it'saccentuated by urban living where there's just notmuch adventurous experience open to youthwherein abilities can be tested . You would knowalso that the passage of time will likely solve theproblem described by the parents.

There's something else you would know,although you likely would not so admit to theparents in front of you; namely, that there maynot be much you could do within the four walls ofthe school to help the young person develop theconfidence in himself which he seems to belacking. You may even deny that this is a

responsibility of the school. I don't think infairness, however, that in an age whencircumstances make young people the captives ofthe schools, you and the school can .evade thisresponsibility.

To follow through on the example, there areways in which the problem outlined above can beaddressed. You would likely be well aware of themeans I am suggesting, but you might not consider

them to be possible solutions because they're . . .

.well, they're not school! Besides that, communitymembers wouldn't accept them. Or would they?

What are these possibilities? Work-study,community service internships, "underground"newspapers, film-making, radio/TV productionsor "Outward Bound" experiences where youthtest themselves against the simple and elementaldemands of the wilds.

The use of such educational possibilitiesrequires judgement and experience which laymencan provide. Perhaps this is one reason why manyprincipals are encouraging the development ofcommunity advisory councils made up of teachers,students, and parents. Such principals realize thatmany educational decisions require not onlyprofessional expertise but also experience andwisdom, and that laymen (including students)should have access to the educational decision-making process simply because they have thisexperience and wisdom.

In summary, the community school idea seemsto be attracting attention from laymen for reasonsboth of economy and of growing insight into thelimitations associated with turning over tospecialists total responsibility for any communityservice, education included. An examination ofthese reasons has revealed two importnat aspectsof the community school idea: (a) community useof school facilities; and (b) community advisorycouncils which participate in educationaldecision-making at the school level.

The Professional and the Community School

It should not be assumed from the above thatonly laymen are concerned with stimulating thedevelopment of community schools. Manyp rofessionals who recognize the fundamentalsocial changes which are impinging on our schoolsare also providing leadership in the development ofcommunity schools.

What are these social changes? How are someprpfessionak recommending that we respond tothem? I am considering two aspectsof social changewhich seem most closely related to the communityschool concept.

1. The Community School and the Welfare State.

The past twenty-five years and more have seena vast proliferation of publicly administered socialservice agencies. Although social justice asenvisaged by the Fabian socialists is far from anaccomplished fact, Canada seems to have launcheditself on an irreversible course towards the welfare


state as a means of achieving social democracy.And so it is that our governments have spawned

a multiplicity of agencies and programs to ease thelot of the many persons young and old whoare cast aside, at least temporarily, from thebenefits of our relatively advanced teclmologicalsociety. So it is also that even our middle classesare dependent on many of the same programs,especially in the areas of medical care,hospitalization, and education.

For present purposes, however, I have in mindprimarily those aspects of our welfare "deliverysYstems" which serve those of us who for onereason or another find ourselves outside the mainstream. This may be the result of disruptions suchas loss of job, marriage dissolution, handicapsarising from disease or accident, mental illness, orsimply wanting to do better for oneself; or it mayresult from membership in cultural minoritygroups which have not yet achieved a suitableaccommodation with the dominant culture.

Consider, for example, the young marriedwoman with two small children whose husbandleaves her. She had left high school in order to bemarried, and has no skills which would enable herto find a job with any kind of career or future toit. She is depressed and confused; anxiety isaffecting her ability to make good judgments.There's the rent to be paid at the end of themonth and groceries tomorrow.

Try to look at the world through this woman'seyes for a moment. There is help available to you,and you are aware of that. But look at theconfusing array of contacts you must establish:with the city Social Service Departement (or is itthe provincial Department of SocialDevelopment?); with the Family ServiceAssociation; with Canada Manpower to inquireabout re-training opportunities; with a day-carecentre (where would I find one of those?); and onit goes.

When one tries to view the social servicesnetwork from the perspective of the recipient, onesenses something of the nightmarish complexitypresented by the overlapping jurisdictions andimprecisely defined functions of the variouscommunity service agencies as they are presentlyorganized.

Social service professionals, including manyeducators, are keenly aware of the limitationsimplicit in the present organizational basis for thedelivery of community services to the people whoneed them. Thus, Red River Community Collegein Winnipeg is planning to provide office space fora wide range of community service professionals --who would continue to be employed by theirrespective agencies in the college. The intention


of this plan is to ease the path for the recipient ofservices, and to imOrove coordination among thevarious service agencies in the delivery of services.

To summarize: the proliferation of socialservices in the modern welfare state demands thatwe find methods of organizing these services on amore personal, humane, and coordinated basisthan is now typically the case. Many.people arelooking to the schools as centers for thecoordinated delivery of community social services.Such people do not advocate placing such servicesunder school administration; rather, they see theschool acting as the host for service agenciesserving the people in the most effective and humanway we can.

2. The Community School and CommunityResour:es.

It s very easy for us, caught up as we are in thehectic round of activities associated with theoperations of our public schools, to forget that theconcept of universal schooling is a relatively recentone.

Particularly at the secondary level the idea thatall our young people should be educated in aformal way in schools has taken hold as recently asthe post-World War II era. Even more recently, theuniversal schooling doctrine seems to be well on itsway to application at the post-secondary levelthrou gh the development across Canada ofcommunity college systems.

The trend over the last century has been in thedirection of assigning the educational function (forwhich every human society, no matter howprimitive, must provide) to formal institutions ofschooling. Said another way, we have seen over thepast one hundred years a draining of educationalopportunity from the community as a whole withthe effect that "incidental learning," as PaulGoodman (1970) refers to it, plays an ever lesssignificant role in the development of our youngpeople. Our communities are less educative nowthan they were a century ago, in the sense thatnow we have less opportunity for direct, personalexperience with the fundamental human activitieswhich make up our community life.

This has come about for two principal reasons.

First of all, school pre-empts so much of ayoungster's time, both directly and indirectly, thathe has less time to have personal experience of thediversity of community activity. This problem isby far the lesser one, however, and could be takenaccount of by educators rather easily were it theonly factor.

A second factor poses a much more difficultproblem for the educator. Just as education hasbeconi c.. specialized and assigned to a specific ::et of


institutions, so have many other social functions.Whereas community life of the not-so-distant-pastwas sufficiently simple that a walk from his homedown main street could bring the youngster intodirect, personal contact with most of the peopledoing the work necessary to maintain the life ofthe community, a comparable walk today wouldnot take most youngsters beyond his immediateresidential community in which a very narrowrange of community activity is engaged.

Let's be specific. What are some of theseessential activities .to which I have referred? Birth,death, manufacturing, law enforcement, child care

these are some which immediately come tomind. How many of these activities do our youngpeople do we ourselves, for that matter comeinto contact with in any significant way, i.e. in afashion which enables us in a fully rounded way tounderstand from direct experience the variousactivities and events which are basic to ourcommunity life?

The answer, in my judgement, is: very few. Wehave so specialized the various essential functionsof our society, and withdrawn them socompletely to the deep recesses of institutionswhich are spatially and psychologically remotefrom our daily lives that few of us, let alone ourstudents, are really aware of the community inwhich we live.

Some educators are now drawing attention tothe way in which opportunities for incidentallearning i.e. for learning through directexperience with one's environment have beendenied our young people. In this sense, we areculturally deprived in a way that a child growingup amidst the most primitive of cultures is not.Paul Goodman and Ivan Illich (1971), to nametwo writers most eloquent in drawing thisobservation to our attention, are calling on us torebuild "educative communities" and to"de-school society" in order tj reverse this trendtoward educational poverty in the most rich ofcontemporary civilizations.

The point is this: I think that if we asprofessional educators subscribe to the communityschool concept then we must, see our work in theschool in ti radically different way. We must seeour work in significant part as that of prying openthe community to our students so that thecommunity itself becomes a significant learningresource. This goes far beyond the occasional fieldtrip and visiting speaker to include work-studyprograms, community service internships, andsupervised "leaves-of-absences" in which studentscould "drop-out" to travel or work or create withthe best wishes and assistance of the school.

Williamson (1971:213) puts it this way:The school must become less of a closedinstitution and more of a facilitator and catalystfor marshalling the community's resources, aswell as a monitor for the gowth anddevelopment of human learning in thecommunity, with particular but not exclusiveattention to its youth.

In this section, I have examined two concernsof the professional which add to the case for thecommunity school. Since these concerns arerooted in fundamental social changes, there is littlepossibility that support for the community school,as it has been implicitly defined up to this point,will abate. The need to relate more effectivelysocial servce delivery systems to the needs ofpeople calls for expefments in grass-rootshorizontal organization cutting across the variousagencies, a form of organization which isresponsive and accountable to the people whomake use of the services. Furthermore, the presentapparent barrenness of the community as a localefor incidental learning can be reversed if schoolscan see their role as one of "prying open" andstimulating the educational potentialities in othercommunity institutions.


To this point I have considered the communityschool as a certain kind of organization withidentifiable structures and functions. In summary,these are as follows:(1) provision for community use of school

facilities;(2) provision for means to bring the knowledge

and experience of the layman both parentand student to bear on schooldecision-making;

(3) provision for means to cooperate with othersocial agencies in the horizontal coordination ofcommunity services; and,

(4) provision for "opening up" the whole range ofcommunity resources so that incidental learningonce again can be a vital part of communitylife.

To stop at this point would be quiteunsatisfactory, however; 1 find a definition of acommunity school which depends on anenumeration of structures and functions to bewith ou t vitality and dynamism. It fails toemphasize sufficiently the very essence of ourwork as educators namely, the development ofpeople.

For this reason, the community school may beviewed from a very different perspective, which Irefer to as the community school as a spirit or astate of mind.

The Community School as a CommunityTrying to catch the spirit of the community

school is elusive but surely it has something to dowith the key word community. This must be oneof the most commonplace words in our myexpressive language, but also one of the mostcomplex.

What is a community?Newmann and Oliver (1967:63) in their classic

paper, "Education and Community," identify "asense of common bond" as the essential criterionof a community. Some of the characteristics of acommunity which they identify are as follows. Acommunity is a group:*in which membership is valued as an end inMelt not merely as a means to other ends;*whose members share responsibility for theactions of a group;*whose members share commitment tocommon purpose and to procedures forhandling conflict within the group;*whose members have enduring and extensivepersonal contact with each other. (Newmannand Oliver, 1967:64).These characteristics seem to point toward thevery essence of what a community school is allabout It can be said very simply. A communityschool is itself a community; a community schoolworks in its environment to develop a spirit ofcommunity.

Let me elaborate briefly on what is implied bythe assertion that a community school is itself acommunity. A student did this very well and verysimply. After a rather unhappy school experience,and a change to a new and different school, heexplained the reason for his new-found happinessthis way, "They make me feel that they're gladI'm here." "If I'm not here, the community isincomplete," he might have added, if he wereusing our language.

I am not continuing at length in developing themeaning of the school as a community, or indealing with the ways in which such a communityis built. One observation only: in a community allmembers, regardless of their formal status, havecommon rights and responsibilities. They shareresponsibility for the actions of the group. Theycare about each other as persons. How many ofour schools make it possible fcr all school


members administrators, teachers, and studentsto work together as a community in this way?

Many schools have perhaps had fleeting momentswhen they could glimpse a "common bond." Butit remains an ideal far from being achieved bymost schools.

The Community School And Vocations

A very traditional way of linking school andcommunity has been through a conception whichsees schooling as preparation for life and work inthe community. I use this conception but give it avery different slant, and in so doing evoke thespirit of the community school in a secondmanifestation.

We begin this quest for the spirit of thecommunity school with what may seem to be awholly irrelevant question: why do our young menand women stay in school? Four reasons come tomind: (1) inertia; (2) companionship; (3) intrinsicsatisfaction; and (4) credentials. Perhaps the mostimportant and stable of these reasons is thelast-named the earning of credentials.

The credentialing function of the school hasbeen written about with great insight by EdgarFriedenberg (1970). The term credentialing refersto the mans by which society puts its stamp ofacceptance on a student before he 'moves intoemployment or the next higher stage of education(which, in turn, "credentials" the student foremployment, presumably at a higher level ofincome and status than would have been earnedhad the credentials not been acquired).

If the credentialing function of the secondaryschool is the prinApal basis for support of theschool by students, parents, and thecommunity-at-large, then fundamental structuralchanges in the economies of the western world.areslowly attacking the basis of the secondaryschool's stability as an institution (See Rosow,1971).

Our credentialing system is pred!cated onsociety's demand for manpower with highlydeveloped, specific skills. What happens to thecredentialing system and hence the institutionbased on the system when the need for sociallydefined skills seems to decline, as present trendswould indicate?

As the essential work in the agricultural,mining, and manufacturing sectors of the economyshrinks with productivity increasing,nonetheless, what kinds of trends might weexpect to set relative in particular to youth andemployment? Charles Reich (1970:368) gives us


one answer when he writes that "what is beginningto evolve is the concept of a 'noncareer' or`vocdtion.' " He writes about "vocations" this way(1970:368):

The old way of choosing a career was to findwhat one was 'best fitted for.' . . . Finding anoncareer requires a better knowledge of self tostart off with; a decision, necessarily tentative,about what one would find most satisfying andfulfilling

So the individual must define his own careerand his own terms. He must continually remakehis definition as he learns more about himselfand about his world.Many of you will dismiss Reich's views as

impractical romanticism. For my part, I subscribeto Reich's views both as a philosophical statementof what wbuld contribute to making this a betterand more human world, and also as a shrewdinterpretation of some modern realities. The mostimportant of these realities is that a modern,industrial society finds it very difficult to employits young people.'

But what does all this have to do with thecommunity school? My contention would be thatthe elusive spirit of the community school residesin efforts by schools to help students define theirvocations. This means, in specific terms, that thecommunity school:(1) encourages and facilitates a wide range ofcommunity experience for students: in places ofwork, social and community service activities, withartists and artisans, with political parties, and soon;(2) helps students to learn more about themselves;and,(3) is willing to let students make mistakes and tohelp them back on course without recrirhination.

A program which leads inevitably to disaster?Hopelessly idealistic? Yes, I suppose it is idealisticBut it is also a program of survival for thesecondary school as an institution. Barringeconomic reversals which no economist nowanticipates, the rough outline of the future is clear.As students increasingly strive to developvocations, the usefulness of credentials will declineuntil they are recognized by all as the useless

1 The rust major ruidicator of this fact hi Canada is thecontroversial "Opportunities for Youth" program which Iconsider to be a commendable effort at providing youngpeople with opportunities to create their own vocations.

appendages they are. Where then will thesecondary school be unless it begins now torespond to the spirit of the community school?

The Community School and Administrative Style

My final comments relate the spirit of thecommunity school, as discussed in the precedingtwo sections, to administrative style. The analysisdeals with only one aspect of administration, butit is the one I consider most important to thesuccessful operation of community schoolsnamely, communication.

I assume that public schools and public schoolsystems are organized essentially according tobureaucratic principles. (The term "bureaucratic"is used here not in the sense which implies redtape, buck-passing, and inefficiency, but rather inthe technical sense division of labour based onfunctional specialization, hierarchy of authority,impersoimlity of interpersonal relations, and soon).

One of the most interesting and disturbingfeatures of bureaucratic organizations has to dowith what happens to information, particularly theinformation held by organizational members at thelower levels of the hierarchy. We know that "lowerlevel" organizational members students andteachers, say are very selective about theinformation they send up through the formalchannels of communication. They tend to suppressunpleasant information, for example, and toemphasize the positive aspects of organizationaloperations. (The unpleasant informationeventually finds its way to the top, of course, butoften through informal channels and undercircumstances such that the issue may have grownto near-crisis proportions.)

Nothing could be more inimical toimplementing the spirit of the community school

through building a sense of community andhelping young people create vocations thanthese distortions to information flow in anorganiza tion.

Similarly, nothing is more essential to thesuccess of a community school than for theadministrator to be able to talk to students,parents, and teachers and hear what they reallyhave on their minds, rather than what they thinkyou want to hear.

How is this to be achieved, you ask?We have to concede, first of all, that in part the

ability to communicate is a personal gift. We haveall met people who have this ability to infuse arelationship with warmth and to inspire trust and


confidence. In some measure, however, it's likelythat all of us can develop trusting relationshipsif we are committed to the importance of opencommtutication.

Partly, it's a matter of creating the times,places, and means by which the administrator candivest himself of his administrator's role and listenas another person to the concerns of teachers,parents, and students. The community educationcouncil discussed earlier would be an example ofthis kind of communication forum. (Note that I

have referred to the council as a communication,rather than a decision-making, forum. A councilmay well evolve into a decision-making body but,in my view, this is well down the path. I wouldcounsel that one well-placed step be taken at atime.)

Finally, the matter of open communication isdependent, in part, on how administrators andothers see the role of an administrator in theschool organization. At this point, I am afraid that

am rather harsh on the profession of educationala dm inistra tion.

It is my contention that one of the principalimpedances to communication in schools is theelitist concept of the School administrator towhich, I venture to say, most school peoplesubscribe. By elitist I mean the concept of theadministrator as a person whose status is greaterthan that of the teacher.

A closely related aspect of the elitist concepthas to do with the view that the administratorbears alone the responsibility for the school, acrushing burden which no man can bear and whichoften drives those who attempt to do so intoremoteness and withdrawal. Combs (1970:205)rekites this to communication as follows:

This is where mqny an administrator makes avery serious mistake. Instead of making himselfvisible, he often makes people guess who he is,what he is, where he is, what he thinks, andwhat he wants. You cannot carry on a humaninteraction on that basis.

In thinking about the administration of thecommunity school, I find it absolutely necessaryto separate the role of administrator (whichconnotes hierarchy, social distance, anddifferential status) from the concept ofadministration (which denotes an essential rangeof organizational functions which facilitate themain work of an organization).

My point is a simple one. For a communityschool, or any other organization, to functionsuccessfully, a range of administrative functionsmust be performed and for some of these, task


specialists may be necessary. Unlike many otherorganizations, however, a community schooldefined as we have defined it demands a kind ofopen communication which hierarchy and statustends to impede.

The basic question, then, is: Can we haveadministration without hierarchy? And, if so, how?These are questions which the next decade will seeus asking with increasing frequency. And, if webelieve in community schools new practices inschool administration will be introduced andtested: the idea of the principal teacher, collegialadministration, faculty councils (with studentmembership), and others.

This will be a difficult decade for botheducation and administration. We're moving into anew age. For those convinced that this may be anAge of Aquarius, the community school may takeus part of the way to a time and place whereharmony and understanding, sympathy and lovereally do abound.


Combs, Arthur NV. "The Human Aspect ofAdministration." Educational Leadership. November,1970.

Friedenberg, Edgar Z. "Status and Role Identity inEducation." In C. A. Bowers et al. (eds). Educationand Social Policy. New York: Random House, 1970,pp. 150-168.

Goodman, Paul. "The Present Moment in Education."The New York Review of Books, April 10, 1970.

Mich, Ivan. "The Alternative to Schooling." SaturdayReview. June 19, 1971.

Newmann, Fred M. and Donald W. Oliver. "Educationand Community." Harvard Educational Review.Winter 1967, 37(1).

Reich, Charles A. The Greening of America. New York:Random House, 1970.

Rosow, Jerome M. "Human Resources: Retooling OurManpower." Saturday Review. January 23, 1971.

Williamson, John N. "The Inquiring School: A Study ofEducatio nal Self-Renewal." Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Harvard University, 1971.





Our present system has developed in thecontext of past constraints and needs. It is

basically a teaching system. Students are directedand controlled by the teacher not as individuals,but as "groups." It is difficult for the teacher toadjust the process to the needs of the individualexcept at the expense of the group. The group(class) is handled as an individual. The "ideal"group would be made up of individuals who wereduplicates of each other. The recognition of thisproblem gave rise to "homogenous grouping"practices.

Every macro-system (school, college, technicalschool, university) IS a multiple of the sameteacher controlled micro-system (the "class" orthe "group" or the "level"). The teacher is thecontrolling factor in the educational process thekey to success or failure. Our educational systemsare teaching oriented and "the system" is

committed to maintaining the teacher's positionon his micro-system. The teacher controls hismicro-system by establishing the daily pace, thedaily goals, the daily workload and the standards.The macro-systems (school-based administration,central office administration, school boards, anddepartments of education) control theirmicro-systems by establishing for the teacher (andthus for the students) the yearly pace, workload,and standards.

The system is about as Procrustean for thestudents as it is for the teachers and as it is foritself.

These statements are not an indictment of ourpresent educational system. No other system, letalone a more effective one, could have developedunder the circumstances provided by history. Ithas served well and still does an effective job. Itsviability, however, is fading. A new system is nowpossible and a new "system" is needed in order topromote the development of a new type ofindividual.

SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMSSociety wants the products of its educational

system to be responsible, mature, self-reliant,adaptable and creative (Williams, 1970). The

educational system must provide an environmentin which optimum learning can take place but thesystem must place on the student a large measureof the responsibility for learning. By shoulderingthat responsibility he will mature, becomeself-reliant and confident of his abilities. To shiftlearning responsibility from the teacher, where itnow rests (with serious consequences. for thestudent), to the student is impossible until"groups" (led by teachers), and time intervaladvances are abolished in favor of individualizedinstruction by means of self-instructional materialsand through continuous progress in ungradedschools. The positions of students and teachers inthe educational process need to be reversed, moreor less, so that the student will do the "driving"(and thus make the decisions) whilJ the teachercounsels and helps in improving the learningenvironment and the "learning materials." ln sodoing, both parties would be benefited. Teachers'desires to have more part in the "professional"aspects of education could be satisfied if they werefreed from making the week by week, day by day,minute by minute classroom decisions whichstudents more and more are claiming they want tomake.


The assumption has been made that if teachingwas ' going on" then learning was also "going on."

Further, it has been iissumed that if the teacherwere "improved," if there were improved supportfor the teacher, if the teaching environment weremade more pleasant and the non-teaching tasks ofteachers were reduced that is, if teaching wereimproved learning would automatically beincreased.

This has proven to be only partly true.A teaching system works best in an

"authoritarian" environment. In this atmospheregood teaching includes "pressuring" the learner tolearn. It is not unlike leading a horse to water andthen making him drink difficult, but possiblewith a large percentage of horses and of people.

However, there is a growing repugnance for



using any kind of force on individuals and there isan increasing awareness that some students cannotlearn as fast as others. Our society is oftencharacterized as being permissive, and in thisclimate authoritarian practices become lessdesirable. A recent catchword which has gainedsome popularity is "humanizing" education.

Also, teachers got sidetracked into believingthat they had the best of educational systemsbecause they were doing an excellent job of"teaching." It was thus easy to lack awareness ofrequired results learning on the part of thestudent.


The basic change needed is to make the systema arni ng facilitator" system, focused onincreasing the knowledge and skills (and changingthe attitudes* ) of students.

Much work is already underway on theindividualization instruction and some schoolshave implemented many aspects of a "learning"system and thus have moved far toward the goalsuggested here.


The basic characteristics of a self-instructionalsystem are: (1) specific learning objectives; (2) theuse of all human and media resources to supportdeveloped "programs" (or several varieties ofprograms to be made available to each student). A.program would probably be equivalent to what isnow called a course or a unit of study. These"programs" provide for interaction between pupiland "educa tor," or between a pupil, an"educator" and media (print and non-print), orbetween the pupil, other pupils and an educator ina seminar situation, or between the pupil andother pupils. Which is used will depend on thestudent's preferences and his perception of hisneeds. He may consult with an "educator" and/orh is peers to determine which is the mostappropriate learning material, what to do, and howto do it. Student induction personnel would be ofassistance to him.


The "programs" will include:(a) an outline of the goals of the "program" (what

* It is not yet clear that society really wants the school todo this.

the stlident should learn; the concepts to bedeveloped);(b) suggestions as to where to find and how to getat additional resource material;(c) review questions on the content with completeanswers (or possible answers, or total answers, oranswers which have been postulated in the past byvarious "authorities," or answers which would beconsidered by the 'evaluators as being"satisfactory," "above average," and "excellent" );(d) sample "tests" ("Test" is becoming such aderogatory word that a new one may have to becoined. However, it is patently impossible to getaway from or avoid assessing students so that isnot an avenue of escape. Perhaps "marks" couldbe called "progress awards."); and,(e) suggestions which would make it easier (moreefficient, more rewarding and, within bounds.more "fun") to reach the goal.

These "programs" will NOT usually take theform which is usually associated with programmedinstract19n. Programmed instruction is only oneform of self-instructional materials. Tightlyprogrammed material is useful to, appropriate for,and successful with some students. It is not,however, impossible that many courses will beprogrammed tightly in this way and thus form imeroute from point A to point B on the learningcontinuum. I t should not be the only form ofself-instructional materials to which a student canturn for guidance and learning support in gettingfrom point A to point B. Other, much less highlystructured and much less supportive (and thusprescriptive) programs should be available. At theopposite extreme, programs would probably giveonly the objectives, a list of resource materials(print, non-print and human), where and how toobtain the resource materials, and a few sampletests. It would leave how to get from point A(what the student knows already) to point B (whathe is to learn) almost entirely to the student andhis own initiative. Other "programs," leading alsofrom A to B, could be developed which wouldhave less structure than "programmed" material,but more than "independent study" for thosestudents who prefer some measure of learningsupport (structure) but do not Ea.. the minutesteps of the programmed learning materials.

The "discovery" method could be used in one"program," the "lecture" method in another and acombination in another. Some people like to learnby advancing in small steps with confirmation atsch step. Others like to be given a principle and

then have questions and problems posed to see ifthey can apply the principle. Still others like to begiven a series of eties and happenings and then beasked to deduce the principle or the concept or to


draw the logical conclusion.As the "programs" contain thc basic procedural

suggestions (!nstnictions), each program wouldhave to be validated to make sure it does what it issupposed to do. Obviously, the "programs" mustchange along with changing conditions, as newknowledge is developed and as media sources andcapabilities develop. Curriculum specialists wouldbe responsil_Ae for this continual updating andupgrading.

DescriptionA learning system would also have most of the

following characteristics.I. A "re-placed" teacher. Given the present

state of technology, a human is no longer the"best" source of information and certainly he isnot the most indefatigable, infallible, patient, oreven logical. Media should do what it does best:store and present basic information, repeatedly ifnecessary. Humans should do what they do best:present over-views. '6,1ve individual guidance, leaddiscussion groups, wake policy decisions, establish

oals, prepare tit: "programs" for media topresent, assess stuLent progress, and do researchfor more information and understandings.

2. The "re-placed" teacher (no longer the majordisseminator of information), would have time toreact more personally with students on a

one-to-one basis.3. The following educator roles would develop

as specializations.

(a) A significant proportion of "re-placed"teachers, would be actively involved in"program" upgrading. This woul d be theirmajor responsibility. They would prepare the"programs" complete with resource materials.Audio-visual media specialists would assist them(See Figure l).(b) An o ther group of educators wouldspecialize in assessment of student progress(testing specialists). it would be their job toadminister tests to students who felt they hadmastered a portion (or all) of a "program,"mark the tests, insure the reliability and validityof the test instruments, insure the relevancy ofthe tests, insure that the ability of students toanalyze and synthesize information in realworld situations was being monitored and,insure that the tests reflected the programobjectives. These specialists would also beengaged in research.(c) Some educat ors would specialize as"learning centre" managers. They would beresponsible for the control of students engagedin learning activities in the "learning centre"


and the staff of specialists attached to the"learning centre." This staff %ould includepersons whose responsibility would be tomaintain a quiet but pleasant learningenvironment, technicians to service equipmentand to explain to learners how to obtain anduse equipment, and others involved in extracurricular programs.(d) Some educators would serve as groupinteraction and discusssion leader specialists.These would give learners the opportunity toverbalize in a social milieu the concepts theyhad gained. Also, this would serve to tic theconcepts of various "programs" together.(e) Another role specialization would be that ofthe individual counsellor specialist or studentprogress comptroller. He would be available tothe learners using the learning centre. He wouldmonitor the progress of those students assignedto him and watch for "problems," whetherthese be personal or learning related. Thephysical 1 oca tion of his "offices" would have tobe close to, and preferably iii, the learningcentre.(f) Guidance counsellors, specializing in thepersonal and motivational fields, would handlethe more deep-rooted problems.

4. What are usually called "substitute teachers"(so vital to perform "baby sitting" duties inpresent educational systems and which c ost a 4000teacher system about $450,000 per year) would berequired much less than at present, or not at all. Ateacher away ill for a day or two, or at a

conference, would not require a substitute asstudents would be able to continue on their ownor consult other members of the educational"team."

5. Staff take holidays at any time of theyear. Students would also be able to take holidays(and breaks) at their discretion subject only tobeing ahead of minimum progress requirements.Their "programs" would not go on without themwhile they were away.

6. Educators (or teams of educators) couldpresent lectures, lead seminars or workshops, andannounce to students "when", "where" and"what" they were going to present. Those studentswho needed the information, were interested andhad the time would (could) attend. Thus "team"presentations would develop when educators hadsomething to say. They would have an audience ofpeople who were interested in what the educatorshad to say and who could participate in thediscussions.

7. Educators would not be required to correctthousands of exercises as the students would do

(11-al11.) it


Subject Matterand



LI:fazing Materiaisl




Student Inductionst a ff

Student Disciplinestaff

Student Extra Curricularstaff


etc .





Group Interactionand Discussiot.

Leader Specialists


(School Bldg.)

Figure 1. A "Learning" Educational System

this themselves as they worked through theprograms. Educators, as evaluation specialists,would have to correct only achievement examsand essays, evaluate oral language proficiency, andcould be expected to reflect on how to do thismore appropriately.

8. Educators and students would be on thesame side and the caricature of the authoritarianleacher would fall away; the helpful, professionalimage of a resource adult would grow.

9. Students could take time out for "work"experience. This could even be required andorganized for certain courses. Again, their"programs" would not go on without them.


individual Counsellor Spec. andStudent Progress Comptroller

Motivational Spec.


...._GuidanceCounsellor s

10. Student "attendance" would be requiredonly in the case of special or "problem" students:those students whose progress was far below theirpotential or who needed special h.elp or who werebelow minimum progress requirements forbelow-school-leaving-age studonts. However,slow-learning students would not be frustrated bybeing forced into a learning pace too fast for themto be able to grasp the skills, understandings, andconcepts. It is probable that many 'discipline"problems, created by current "grouping" practices,would thus be avoided.

11. Students could moVe through the system attheir own pace, Individual "streaming" would


become a fact and "grouping" would no longer benecessary although students could and would workin groups which would form and reform to meetthe students' own perceived needs.

1 2. Students cc,uld specialize (horizontally orvertically) at Mil subject only to the "core"requirement, and a prepared program.

13. Small group discussions could (and should)be orsanized for students who had just finished aselec ti on of progranis.

14. Individual study carrells should be availablefor individuals to use as they needed them. All liefacilities and equipment should be available as

required by the students. Thus, well-equippedlibraries, and later, information retrieval systemsfor s tu dent use would be vital as wouldinstructional aith, of all kinds (television programs,organized tours, language labs, etc.). The"programs" shouid suggest when each "aid" wouldbe most useful to the student in the process oflearning. These aids, the learning materials and thebuildings in which they are housed could be madeavailable twelve months a year and twentyfourhours a day. Learners could take much of thelearning material away .vjth them and study athome . Educator s aides, p araprofessionals,technicians, and supervisors, working in "shifts oftheir choice, could be on hand to "assume thesmooth operation of the system."

1 5. Assessment of learning would be "builtinto" the "programs." "Tests" would be located at"levels" in tly.: learning progression. They wouf.dbe pr epared, administered, and marked byeducators whose specialty was in the area oftesting. However, the exparience would nci be asstressful for learners as it is in the present systemdue to the fact that students would sit for thesewhen they were ready and they would alreadyhave seen, worked through anti corrected at leastone curriculum embedded test similar to theedac a t or administered one. The curricuhliaspecialists would start revising programs, learningma terials and motivational techniques if anysignificant number of students continued scoringless th an 90lier cent on tests. The tests would bediagnostic.

16. Certificates and diplomas, such as juniorand senior matriculation could still be used. Eachwould probably still have its own requirement of"core" knowledge and skiils rind some optionalareas of knowledge. As the "ou tput" of pu bliceducational institutions is "input" to some o thersystem (particularly in the occupational sense)there must be some sort of "standardization " sothat the accepting system can have some idea as towhat knowledge and skills it is "buying".

17. The whole learning system would be task


oriented rather than time oriented (as the teachingsystem is at the present time).

18. "Programs" for adults could be available aspart of the offering of the regular "learning"system. The same physical plant couldoffer, in the"open area" environment or in tlie "egg crate"environment, "programs" suitable to studentsfrom a pre-kindergarten cl a ssification to, a"gola....ii-age" classification, and from a vocationalto a n academic type. 1. could thus be a

"community centered" set 1, open to all whowanted to follow a "program" and who wanted touse the facilities. This orientation would helpalleviate the problem of adolescent peer groupswhich are so ,rffectively cut off from adult contactby our presmt "teaching" system, and which thusbrings to bear on the school-attending adolescentsuch powerful peergroup pressures.

19. Motivational management practices on aplanned and validated basis could be developed.The guidance or pupil personnel departmentswould then assume the importance and scopewhich they merit.

20. Entry into "learning" system could be a',any age and at any time of the year. A counsellinpand diagnostic service would be of paramountimportance. Its purpose would be +3 ht.!? theindividual decide what he had in the way of skills,knowledge, abilities, attitudes and values, and%mime he could most profitably "plug into.' thelearning materials. The service would alsol-,lp theclient determine which "programs" my. id bestlead him to his goal but also it would provide himwith a knowledge of alternatives.

21. The "teaching" system of education hasfailed most noticeably with the student from thelow socio-economic backgr ound or, morespecifically, with the student who comes from ahome environment which does not actively andcontinuously support the process of education.The "teaching" system requires support from thehome in the form of parental commitment toeducation.

A "learning" system, with teachers re-placedinto pupil personnel roles, would be able toprovide individual help to students whose homesupport was weak.

22. A "teaching" system of education is highly"labour intensive." A "learning" system, thoughstill requiring considerable labour input, could, bythe use of "programs" (and thus media andtechnology), significantly reduce the ratio andthus the unit cost while at the same timeimproving the quality of instruction.

23. Stimulation, as Ardrey (1966) has socopiously documented, is a "must" in the lives ofanimals and humans. Competition, in one of its


several forms, is man's answer to boredom. Peopleneed its stimulus through direct or vicariousparticipation. However, a competition in whichthe participant has no hope of sucuciding isobviously destructive.

Humans vary widely in the competition theydesire. (need) for stimulation the duration of thecompetition, the loenness of the competition, thesize of the "stakes'. involved, the kind and also thefrequency of competition to stir the blood and firethe imagination. However, competition in curren t"teach i ng" systems prevents learners from"reaching their maximum poten tial " (Henry,1963).

A "learning" system responds to the needs ofthe learner_ lie will be engaged in competition atintervals which could be of his own choosing (aswell as that of his along with that of educators andothers in the "system"), at intensity levels of hisown choosing, with his own past performance (aswell as with others), in places and in anenvironment of his own choosing, and in "areas"(content) more responsive to his perceived needs,interests, and abilities.*

24. In a "teaching" system in which humansfilter significant portions of total informationinput through their own value systems in anunmonito red situation, there is considerableresistance by parents to allowing human teachersto move in to the area of "values." About as far asthe public has allowed teachers to go in thisrespect is to teach about values. Teachus, ofcourse, can and do reinforce the very generalvalues of a society in which they function,

A "learning" syt.tern would have advantagesover the "teaching" system. "Programs" areconcrete things which could be inspected by thepublic prior to "consumption" by their child. Avariety of "programs" could be prepared. Each(Amid stress or openly espouse a particular systemof values and behaviors. Parents (and/or theirchild) cc'qd decide which "programs" the childshould follow.


A number of problems must be faced in orderto make possible the introduction of a "learning"system as an alternative.

I. Convincing people that "self-instructionalprograms" imply putting on tape, in writing, or inany other form possible, everything which the"best" teacher in the world does when he isteach in g to the best of his ability.Self-inst ructional programs can provide thestudent with the same approaches (inductivedeductive, discovery, problem solving, cognifive,

etc,) as do the "best" of modern teachers."Programs" could suggest to the student that heuse all the communications media forms available."Programs" could require students t o fill in blanksor complete sehtences (as teachers do), writeparagraphs, solve probl ems, study charts, go to thelibrary to look for information, visit The Journalto see how it worlei, sit in on a "group discusjon,"make a field trip, or 4,:en. fly to Fran ,:;.:. al work ina bookstore for a week_

2. Getting the time, skill, and personnel toprepare the "programs." Transitions "programs"to bridge the gap, could be adaptations of existingtexts, films, filmstrips, and tapes.

3. Developing an accepable set of goals for each"course" as well as for "education" which arestated i n measurable terms, and developingevaluation instruments which test "learning" orthe change in "behavior" To say that we cannot

illuate and measure concepts, opinions,understanaings, feelings, etc., is to say that weneed to do some work in this area. The task is farfrom impossible. In fact, recent political pressuressuggest tha t there maybe no alternative.

4. Changing attitudes regarding a task orientedself-instructional learning system.

5. Getting teacher organizations to accept thatre-i lac i n g the "teacher" by "educators" ineduc,..tor roles is a step toward an improvedprofessional position.

6. Allaying the usual fears roused in peoplefaced with significant change.


Summary of "Learning" System Concepts

A self-i nstructional learning system would makei t poss ible for each student to follow the"programs" he needs and at his own speed. Thosein education (and in the community at large)would be there to help him learn.

The amount of "structure" is made responsiveto the student's perceptions of his needs. Thosewho are timid, slow at learning, in need offrequent reinforcement or upset by large tasks, canopt for programmed learning materials; those whoare "bright," self-confident and eager, can opt forindependent study. Students would be able tobuild, from available components, an environmentwith enough structure to supPort their learningbut not so much tluit it hamperf.,d their owngrowth toward a "realization of their fullpotential."

* If he is a 'luck," he won't be compelled to competewith the "rabbit" in a foot race. If he is a "rabbit," hewill not ae compelled to vie with the '`duck" in a contestof swimming ability,

Significant decisions would be made by thestudent day after day. He would not be a merepassenger in the "educational bus."

In distinct contrast to the pmsent "teaching"system, no student would be afflicted with a"poor" teacher, an absent teartier, an unpreparedteacher or an overworked teacher. On the otherhand, the re-placed teacher would no longer be anover-and-over disseminator of information, amarker of papers, a disciplinarian, a checker ofhomework. Individual contact between studentsand educators would be meaningful and the"good" educator will be freed to do a more"human" job.

"Programs" could be "improved" any day ofthe year. That is dubious with regards to humanteachers.

Finally, a "learning" system which providesmore freedom to the individual and moreopportunities for decision making, would tend todevelop more creative and self-reliant individuals.A "le arning" system would provide healthystimulation through competition (mostly thelearner with himself). Thus there would be muchless repression and frustration during the yearswhen, as in the present teaching system, the

student has been treated almost literally as a"nigger."

The Hall-Dennis report recognized theindividual's need for self-realization. This paperhas outlined how this could be done withoutsacrificing the ability of society to fulfill the needsof all men: those needs which are called "publicneeds" (an educated population) but which are inreality, , the long-range needs vital to everyindividual's self-realization (an "educated" man).

The key is in self-instructional learningmaterials which make self-instructional learningsystems possible.


Ardrey, Robert. The Territorial Imperative. New York:Atheneum, 1966.

Henry, Jules. "Attitude Organizationt in ElementarySchool Classrooms," and "Spontaneity, Initiative andCreativity in Suburban Classrooms," In G. D. Spindler(ed.), Education and C'ulture. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Williams, Lowell L. "The Need:" Mimeographed paper.Edmonton: The Alberta School Trustees' Association,1970.