DOCUMENT RESUME

ill) 090 648 BA 006 093

AUTHOR Horner, Wayne M.TITLE Feasibility Study -- Educational. Baseline. A Simulation

Notebook.PUB DATE May 74NOTE 24p.; Paper presented at National Seminar on

Year-Round Education (6th, Chicago, Illinois, April30-May 3, 1974)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Administrator Guides; Educational Assessment;

Educational Change; Educational Needs; *EducationalPlanning; *Extended School Year; *FeasibilityStudies; *Instructional Systems; Models; ProgramPlanning; Seminars; *Year Round Schools

ABSTRACTA review of assessment and planning aids is presented

to provide the local school district with a practical and atheoretical framework on which to base its planning for a feasibilitystudy of a year-round school program. The first and most crucialdecision that must be made is the determination that educationalprograming is the basis on which any school program will operate.Unfortunately too many school districts have attempted to determinewhat calendar design would be most appropriate for their community asa first priority. No such plan can be undertaken adequately withoutfirst determining the impact of the plan on the educational programof the district and the extent to which such a plan facilitates orinhibits the achievement of the community educational goals. It isimportant to incorporate educational baseline data-- includinginformation about the curriculum as a part of the feasibility study.Related academic information including student tost scores, dropoutrates, percentage of students in various programs, and otherpertinent data should also be a part of the study. (Author/DN)

F

x'

T ,

'"

leASAI_AID 110tICATIO.11AiLustutit

A:simuLAirloN tiovz

7%.

DEPARTMENT*, HEALTH,EDUCATION WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OP

EDUCATION'Nis DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRObuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PROM1HE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINAt 1No IT POINTS Or VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OF FICIAL NATIONAL, INSIITutt ccEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

rtrVr- "'X 1/4

'); 'arr. .k4'

'k _

4 'S

.,'` -'1,'"-- '`:' ''''''''''' - ',' 1,-'-''

: :-' ". t>I , ,' ,T,

''' - ,-- . 'it

1

i,:-` :

'-'':

:-1.!-.0,'i; '-., . ", riESEEu

7,

s

. ''..,,', ',4--;_--,,,,.'-,[. ... . . ...

6TH NATIONAL _SEMINAR ON. YRO-R.00*-E1)1,$040tON-,'.;-',' `, ' -' --.-...-,--.;..:-..I '

.,CHICAGO, /LLINOTS , . ; -,,,_:',----;

4 '...,..!.-..:-..

-,, ,!,..)

-44-9.-<<,,r;.t: r''',. I '',,'f'4AAPRI1, 30 MAY 3, 1974

," _-

4. ,_4" 4 f "by

WAYNE 14 l'1017011t HEAP.

:AA DIVISION OP cirpovidittt 'AND-41ISTRVq11014

COLLEGE 'OP MVOVIRGINIA POLYTHCHN..tO4...._:-0011

;4''

', '' 2- '--

'

, 7,' ., ',1'

-

.

,

. .

,

,

r

,- -

-'

.

T

4

r

!

,

7

' s

'

-

1

, 4 4 - ' ,

4 9-

"

.

4,

;TT ..-

'. :.

T/'

-,.

-4

, ,. - 4

`

.

_.4

1

.'-

". '

T

7

"

.

4

`

;'

7

T

1'

:,:7,

,7, ,

.1:

,.,

,

, '

7,,:1.,.,,',tt

4

..4.

4 . 4

'r,

t

T

'

.4 .

:'

',, r1":7

4 1'

''

e

'

'4

7

,

?

,

-r

,

. TT

-4

9 44 ..4

'.;4-;;''k

4,544. 4-

4 . T 4-1;

FEASIBILITY STUDY-EDUCATIONAL BASELINE

Dr. Wayne H. Worner, HeadDivision of Curriculum andInstructionCollege of EducationVirginia PolytechnicalInstitute arid State University

INTRODUCTION

The development of educational baseline data as an integral part of

a feasibility study for whatever purpose is obviously a most important

task. Three assumptions are presented here for the sake of clairifi-

cation.

Assumption 1

In orde. to deal with the concept of "educational baseline", it is

necessary first to define the componentn which will be addressed

in this portion of the simulation notebook. Since the term is general

rather than specific, the presentation will exclude or de-emphasize

certain components which might ordinarilly be incorporated in the

development of a total and comprehensive developmental model.

Exclusions are based upon the assumption that certain major:

components will be addressed in other presentations included as a

part of this notebook.

Assumption 2

It is assumed that the primary utility of the instrumeits developed

for the simulation notebook will be the assessment of current

programs in the light of predetermined goals for a school unit.

YRE 2

Needless to say, investigation of alternative forms of calendar

design, instructional reform, staffing patterns or facility

utilization are inappropriate if indeed, those charged with planning

the operation of schools have not der' mined, in advance, the

outcomas they wish to achieve in a school system.

Assumption 3

No one set of guidelines or instruments can be uniformly helpful.

Schools and their communities differ subsLantially in terms of

their wealth, constituency, size, economic and demographic char-

acteristics as well as a host of ether variables. Ideal models

for planning often presume certain pre-existing conditions which

make them unusable to many segments of a total population.

An awareness of this condition is present and certain adjustments

have been made in the materials presented to reflect that aware-

ness and in Ms attempt to provide tools which might be helpful.

FEASIBILITY STUDIES

The design and utilization of feasibility studies is not new to

education. It should be noted, however, that the majority of

these studies were not prompted by a desire to test a new or

modified structure against pre-established educational goals.

More often, extenuating circumstances in the community literally

forced examination of the concept of year-round education as a

possible solution to various problems.

YRE 3

Dr. Linda Leffel (1973), in a comprehensive research study

conducted in 1973, surveyed all currently operating programs and

found that over 1/3 of the operational programs identified

1

....to increase space or use school facilities twelve months",

as the major impetus behind the development of operating programs.

Conversely, Monroe and Farmer (1973), in their research for the

Virginia State Department of Education found "experts" throughout

the nation predicting:

....increased student achievement"

....improved student aLcitude"....curriculum revision/improvement"....individualization of curriculum"

as the four highest ranking predicted long range benefits of yeat

ro'rnd education.

The point of this discussion is that the design of a feasibility

study might well differ based upon whether or not the excercise

is undertaken as a theoretical/hypothetical investigation or as

an action-oriented response to a set of extant problems.

Edvlational theorists have,for no leng,ignored the difference

between the "theoretical/ideal" and the "pragmatic/ieal".

The design and instrumentation provided herein,hoPefully merges

the two extremes into a foremat which can be utilized or simpli-

fied relatively easily depending upon local school situations.

Planning for Change

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 1, Program Assessment Guide

yRE 4

Fag

5

6

Figure 2, A Planning Process 7

Figure 3, Planning Instructional Systems (System I, Phase 1) 11

Figure 4, Planning Instructional Systems (System I, Phase 2) 12

Figure 5, Planning Instructional Systems (System I, Phase 3) 13

Figure 6, Planning Instructional Systems (System II, Phase 2)14

Figure 7, District Planning Model (part 1) 15

Figure 8, District Planning Model (part 2) 16

Figure 9, Feasibility Study (A Planning Model) 17

Figure 10, Program Planning and Assessment 19

Feasibility Study-Educational Baseline 20

Summary 23

YRE 5

PLANNING FOR CHANCE

The following review of .assessment and planning is presented

to provide the local school district with both a practical and

theoretical framework upon which to base its planning (feasibility

study).

The first instrument is taken from the Association of School

Business Officials (ASBO) Task Force Report and Recommendations(1969),

for development of an Educational Resource Management System

(ERNS). The instrument can be modified by adding descriptive

information to each force field continuum by placing numbers

along the continuum and by adding or discarding variables. In

this 'day the instrument can be used both as an assessment tool

and a goal setting device. Additionally, groups of parents,

teachers, administrators or other populations can compare status

evaluations and goal perceptions. Varying modifications such

as Q-sort can be used to place priorities on the various goal

statements. (See Figure 1)

Systematic planning includes not only goal setting and assessment

but a variety of other tasks leading to a decision to modify the

syStem or retain it as is. Dr. Leffel (1973 in her study which

compared characteristics of school districts operating year-round

programs with the planning styles they employed, described a

planning model and its components as follows:

The basic components of the model are depicted inFigure 2 (Brieve et.al., 1973). A description of each ofthe components is provided. These descriptions were usedto develop the planning procedures for year-round edu-cation in each component. In addition, procedural state-ments were drawn from a further delineation of specificaspects of the general planning model, year-round education

STATEMENT

MARKING SYSTEM OF

A-B-C-D-F

GRADED CLASSROOMS

K THRU 12

PRESCRIBED

CURRICULUM

ROTE LEARNING

FACTS AND SKILLS

EGG CRATE CLASSROOMS

AND TEXTBOOK LEARNING

STANDARD CLASS SIZE

AND PERIODS

ONE TEACHER FOR EACH

CLASS

CERTIFICATED TEACHERS

ONLY

180-SIMOOL DAYS

UNIFORM HOURS

FIGURE 1

WHERE IS YOUR SCHOOL?

WHICH WAY ARE YOU GOING?

CONTINUUM

STATEMENT

EVALUATION OF GROWTH

FOR EACH STUDENT,

NON-GRADED CMT1NUOUS

PROGRESS

---- LEARNERS ACTIVELY

PARTICIPATING

PROBLEM SOLVING

CONCEPT CURRICULUM

FLEXIBLE SPACE AND

MATERIALS

FLEXIBLE LEARNING

CONDITIONS

TEAMS OF TEACHERS

FOR LEARNING

DIFFERENTIATED HUMAN AND

TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES

YEAR ROUND, OPEN TO

COMMUNITY

ESTABLISHGOALS

a MODIFYSYSTEM

EVALUATEPROCESS

ANDPERFORMANCE

DEVELOP ANDI MK EMENT

PROCESS00JECTIVES

SELCCTALTERNATIVES

ASSESS'NEEDS

IDENTIFYRESOURCES

ANDRESTRAINTS

INFORMATIOt,

SYSTEM FORMULATEPERFORMANCE

OBJECT IVCSAND

PRIORITIES

ANALYZEALTERNATIVES

'GENERATEALTERNATIVES

Figure 2

A Planning Process

V

YltE 7

Yid 8

feasibility and evaluation studies, and educational plan-ning literature.

Planning Arena. Planning occurs within a frameworkwhich acknowledges that the goals and cultural values ofsociety will and should influence the educational goals andaccomplishments of the system. All school systems operatewithin an external environment which brings pressure tobear (3tufflebeam et.al., 1972). The planning processshould produce creative ideas, but it must also functionwithin established boundaries (Savard, 1967).

Information System. Central to the model is an inform-ation system which continlally feeds information into anddraws data from each of the components in the planningprocess. This system for storage and retrieval of infor-mation is designed by determining (1) what kind of infor-mation is needed for planning decisions, (2) what type ofdecision will be made with the information, and (3) whowill use the information to make a decision.

Establish Goals. This component of the planningprocess provides for the determination of educationalgoals. Educational goals are general statements of purposewhich give direction to all programs and processes of thesystem. A goal is defined as an explicit statement of whatis desired, and it must be capable of being measured andattained. Goals are classified as student performance goalsor process goals. Those which relate to what students willaccomplish by participation in the program of the systemare termed student performance goals. Process goals indi-cate what teachers, principals, and others will do tofacilitate the accomplishment of student performance goals.The goals determined within this component are priorityranked. It is important that the goals be established withinput from both within and without the school system sothat they may serve as a focal point for the system andcommunity. Major adjustments that involve or relate to thetotal school system and community must involve all who areinteracting to produce the change (Kreitlow and MacNeil,1970).

Assess Needs. This component of the planning processdetermines what, if any, discrepancy exists between thestate of the system as it is and as it is desired interms of the goals of the system. A need is defined asthe discrepancy which exists between where a system is andwhere it desires to go. This need is based on severalcategories of information gathered from a variety ofsources both internal and external to the system.

Identify Resources and Restraints. This componentof the planning process provides for the identification of

YRE 9

positive factors which will support (resources) and thosenegative factors which will hinder (restraints) a systemin achieving its stated goals. Positive and negativefactors internal and external to the system must be identi-fied. In addition, the potency of the factors and thepossible resolution of restraints should be considered.

Formulate Performance Objectives and Priorities.This component of the planning process requires the trans-lation of the general educational goals into manageableand specific statements of desired student outcomes. Theseobjectives must relate to the goal, be measurable or obser-valbe, and specify the conditions and criteria for the desiredachievement. All objectives are not equally important inachieving system goals and Oust be priority ranked(Tempkin, 1970).

Generate Alternatives. The planning process re-quires the creative identification of as many ways aspossible for achieving each of the objectives. An impor-tant characteristic of a systematic planning process islooking at several alternative ways to achieve objectives.

Analyze Alternatives. In this component of theplanning process, each alternative is analyzed in terms ofits ability to achieve the objective within the frameworkof the resources and restraints internal and external tothe system. Two basic types of criteria are establishedfor the evaluation process. The first type includes allcriteria which deal with the alternative's ability to con-tribute to improved student performance and maximum objec-tive achievement. The second type criteria evaluates thealternative in terms of cost; time to plan, develop, andimplement; and the socio-psychological factors of interest,acceptance, risk, and political feasibility.

Select Alternative. This component of the planningprocess requires a decision on one alternative within theframework of the criteria established in the preceding com-ponent. Human judgment plays a key role in this component.

Developand Implement Process Objectives. Thiscomponent of the planning process provides for identifi-cation of the process objectives necessary for the alterna-tive selected to become operational. Each process objec-tive serves to break down the total job to he done intomanageable parts (Knezevich, 1969). Specifically, eachprocess objective identifies (1) the major activity in-volved, (2) an outcome which should result from theprocess, (3) who is to assume responsibility for implemen-tation, and (4) when the outcome can be observed. Theprocess objectives serve to establish guidelines alongwhich implementation should proceed. Process objectivesprovide the necessary control for goal attainmenC(Cook,1967).

YRE 10

Evaluate Process and Pccformance. This componentof the planning process provides an evaluation design toenable decision makers to have accurate information regard-ing the extent to which the alternative is in realitymaximizing goal attainment. The evaluation design shouldinclude an analysis of the student performance objectives,process objectives, and planning process.

Modify System. This component of the planningprocess provides for changes in the system based on infor-mation provided by the evaluation component and the modi-fication of planning procedures as needed. The entireFrocass is an interacting one, and modification should ta'Ae?lace at any time when information becomes available thata change in the system or planning process should occur(Neal, 1971).

The components in the model are to be followed inthe order presented for the most logical and systematicplanning to occur. However, planners may begin the planningprocess in any component.

While the theoretical model is helpful in that it provides a basic

and sound conceptual design for planning, the operationalizing of

the model is infinitely more difficult and important. The way in

which any school district transfers from theoretical model to a

functional study capability culminating in the decision to operate

a year-round program is, of course, a critical task.

One such model is provided for review. The model is generalized

and could be used as a feasibility study mechanism in most school

districts with minor modification.(Figures 3,4,5,6)

Three additional simplified models are presented. The first,

(figures 7, 8) deals with an actual planning mechanism leading to

a decision on year round programming with a simultaneous optional

plan to accommodate student populations using alternate plans.

The second, which is actually a subsystem of the firsts illustrates

the Activities underway which resulted in the proddction_of a

'feasibility study under pressure of time (lesi than three months);(n8. 9)

SYST

EM

I

PLA

NN

ING

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

SYST

EM

S

PaN

SE I

'TH

E, `

Tit

r A

LB

AT

IooN

:X.E

D T

OD

EV

EL

OP t*.

A C

T 0

',N;

AD

M. S

TN

.r1:

PRE

P.7

.-R

E P

oS

PAPE

R.

- D

EC

ISIO

N.'

c01:

"Pla

tE

DIS

TR

I r

rr

,-L

OX

PA

PER

OR

RE

AC

TIO

N

PRI

Nttr

Ats

AD

MST

AFF

LE

VE

L

BO

AR

DC

M.D

1IT

TE

E

TE

e..-

-"T

CH

ER

LE

AD

ER

SHIP

QL

Z _

_FO

RM

AL

.,

SYSTEM IPHASE 2

PECtstoNTO

coNTINUF

FIGURE 4

PLANNING STAGE

DETERMTNATIoN ()I: KEY ISSUES TO En .

S V IED AND RESoLVED

B --"=muniNTHE

roNiFtcANce (--4""npospin

CHANGE

Cmu) slimy) BE INVOLVED TN DECISION,

--rpalialsrjraaamiln.em.~110'WHAT INFORMATIoN IS NEEDED TOMAKE DECISToN?

El-

, empapewrommoorms

WHAT INFORMATION (DATA) IS AVAILABLEUPON WHICH TO BASE DECISInii?

.111.1.0110,

HOW WILL ADDITIONAL-NECESSARiINFoRM-ATION/DATA BE GATHERED/DISTRIBUTED?

INIMIN1111071011.M.O111..."

?RR 12

A ESTABLisH TIME FRAME FoR STUDY DATESF(1i 1U AND RECOMNDATIONS

8,

-C_

is.

P,STABLIsHMENT OP coortmITY Anvzscrtyco!tmlirnEs

'ESTABLISH ADMINISTRATIVE-TAsk PGRCEs _

To DEAL WITH MAJOR VABIABLES

);;TAEonli.THActi,gE STUDY GROUP'S TO-BRALwITH WoR vARTA1LES

CoNsciLl wait-

MI

nt$,TniliuTK APPB0PBTATED'ATA '(SEE EVE- SYSTEM .MIS)

MigntIOATt!,4-1)14TAIOGIVAA110.'PBIATP;EXTEBNAL"l'OEARCII E. ETAL.-'DATA

RSTSWOHIRECaN,RF.PotitS ttnt M S coatitr,

co .Try .PRASE

3 -

SYSTEM IPHASE. 3

elersminow

D

FIORE 5 YRE 13

REVIEW a RECOMMENDATION PHASE

oRLEm VERIPICATIoN

PEvilW A) ALTERNATIVE$

AINONNIMMONINIM111M11114.-

REvfn) WPERTINENTMEARCII

REVIEW OF MIS (UTPUT .64\

INTERVIEW'

- ATTITUDE STUDIES-.....

INDEPENDENT REVtEW OP AVAILABLEDATA BY ADMINISTRATIVE STAPP

BACK Tn PHASE I

NO

Mom,BOARD

DEGISI0N

,10111MONIMIONOPMWINNISONIOWNWIIMMINP

DEVELOPMENTOF )

RECOMMENDATInNS

jL

RECAMNENDATIONS. smormn Jr(ADMINISTRATION

-ADM. STAPPDEVELOPREMOSENDATIONFOR BOARD

PRMED WITh

PLANNING FORACTION

GO TnPRASE 4

OPERATE PROGRAM

MA; AWENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

CoMMUNITYADVISoRYCONITTEE

ADMINISTRATIONADVISORY

COMMITTEE

..1/rnEasim

MAKING PROCESS

ADM. STAFF

1E14-

PLAN

R:1)11111PD

'MB 14

7

TEACHERAnvisnRycoreittrEg}

v_

RECOMMENDATIONDEVELOPED

ADM. STAFF

* 0000000 ****. ,f-

NOTE AOTIOWHALVOk-

LOW Ddiqr

APPROVE MTHmoDIftCATNA

DJamb 0-0IWOsitrIY

sithOg -61.1 THE-' fl( 141

1969

JA

NU

AR

YFE

BR

UA

RY

MA

RC

H

SCH

OO

LB

OA

RD

AC

TIO

N

QO

,44:

011

BO

ND

ISS

UE

FO

RN

EE

DE

D F

AC

ILIT

IES

AR

CE

CC

EC

TU

RA

LPL

AN

NIN

G

FISC

AL

PL

AN

NIN

G F

OR

SCH

OO

L Y

EA

R

CO

NT

AC

T W

ITH

PO

SSIB

LE

FON

DM

G A

GE

NC

IES

VIS

MT

ION

S

SPL

IT m

in (

OR

)R

EN

TA

L O

F FA

CIL

ITIE

S

PASS

(BID

DIN

G A

ND

PLA

NS

FOR

OD

NST

RU

CT

ION

BO

ND

ISSU

E

PRO

VIS

ION

STA

FFIN

G

-- F

OR

TE

MPO

RA

RY

impi

rgin

geom

o _

=3

CL

ASS

RO

OM

S

corr

.= W

ITH

USO

E, N

OR

TH

CE

NT

RA

LA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N A

ND

DE

PT. O

F PU

B.

.1N

ST

./B

UIL

DIN

G M

OD

IFIC

AT

ION

SN

ur c

oNsr

pmcr

ION

AR

CH

ITE

CT

UR

AL

CO

NSU

LT

AT

ION

ED

UC

AT

ION

AL

SPE

CIF

ICA

TIO

NS

STA

FF D

EV

ET

AM

EN

TIN

'SE

RV

ICE

CO

MU

CU

LU

M D

ESI

GN

-AN

DD

EV

EL

OP/

EN

T)

r,pr

vi'r:

1.T

hrig

oRN

AT

-10'

'141

rit,

At.:

46"7

1,V

,

CO

LIM

UN

TT

Y S

TU

DY

AN

D P

AR

TIC

IPA

TIO

N

11

=G

US/

'SE

PTE

MB

ER

OC

TO

BE

RN

OV

EIB

ER

3 D

EC

EM

BE

RJA

NU

AR

Y F

EB

RU

AR

Y M

AR

CH

APR

IL

,CO

NT

INU

E,N

OD

IFIE

D P

RO

GR

AM

ING

(SP

LIT

SIF

E,

RE

TC

..)

OR

NE

W B

ON

D E

LE

CT

ION

S

:CO

NST

RU

CT

ION

IN

PR

OC

ESS

FO

R N

EW

FA

CIL

ITIE

S (N

EW

PR

OG

RA

M P

LA

NIM

IC)

CO

NV

EN

TIO

NA

L P

RO

GR

AM

AD

MIM

ISq-

`RA

T/O

N

BU

ILD

ING

OF

MA

STE

R S

CH

ED

UL

E

CO

MP

'II:A

MO

NO

F PA

TR

ON

AN

D

%.,S

TU

DE

NT

"DA

TA

BA

SE

'C

OIO

UT

ER

', D

ESI

GN

ED

F:/:.

; 197

1B

UD

GE

T

PLA

NN

ING

UT

ILIZ

AT

ION

MA

INZ

EN

AN

CE

AN

D

OPE

RA

TIO

NS

PRO

JEC

TIO

N

SAL

AR

Y A

ND

BE

NE

FIT

'SN

EG

OT

IAT

ION

ION

OF

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

MA

TE

RIA

LS

CO

SAB

MA

TIC

AL

LE

AV

E, V

AC

AT

ION

AN

D P

RO

FESS

IO,L

EA

VE

PL

AN

NIN

PRO

JEC

TE

DPE

RSO

NN

EL

CO

STK

BE

NE

FIT

S ST

UD

FAC

UL

TY

AN

DST

AFF

ASS

IGN

-M

OT

S. A

DM

.ST

AFF

.4!

SSN

MA

Y

1,

YJU

NE

JUL

(B

UIL

DIN

GM

OD

IFIC

AT

ION

AN

D /

OR

CO

NST

RU

CT

ION

IN

PR

OG

RE

SS

':sor

teit,

,axe

mic

urm

DE

VE

LO

PME

NT

/RE

VIS

ION

TIN

IiM

MA

Y

1

TR

AN

SPO

PZA

TIO

,PL

AN

NIN

G A

ND

SCH

ED

UL

ING

7-C

UL

TY

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NA

ND

"PR

ESC

HO

OL

" W

ICSP

.

FAC

UL

TY

AN

D S

TA

FF /N

SER

VIC

E P

RO

GR

AM

CO

NT

INU

ES

N ,O

F C

ON

TIN

UO

US

PRO

GR

ESS

PR

OG

RA

MT

RIA

LN

,R

EFI

NE

ME

NT

., E

VA

LU

AT

ION

AN

D D

EV

EL

OPM

EN

TO

F IN

STR

UC

TIO

NA

L M

AT

ER

IAL

S

CO

NT

INU

ED

PU

BL

IC iN

FOR

MA

T16

1bu

iliza

rcoN

i

SCH

OO

LO

PEN

SJU

LY

1,

/970

CO

srA

vrnr

cto

:BA

RD

AC

TT

O(i

al1E

R 8

1969

NO

VE

IBE

R

......

.....%

4

INFO

RM

AT

ION

IN IN-S

ER

VIC

ET

O: A

DM

INIS

TR

AT

OD

ISC

USS

ION

CE

RT

IFIE

D-

STA

FFPR

OB

LE

M

NO

N-C

ER

TI

AN

AL

YSI

S

STA

FF...

..00°

*4'4

......

.....0

00

C01

.01

INV

OI.

"I

100"

--17

.qr

rEcr

iort

OF

SIT

AT

ION

S

CO

MM

UN

ITY

Slu

DY

DIS

CU

SSIO

NS

GR

OU

P'IN

TE

RA

CT

ION

INFO

RM

AT

ION

&W

ITS

OR

IEN

TA

TIO

NC

OM

MU

NIT

Y

DE

VE

LO

PIN

G T

HE

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

MO

DE

L

Otil

laID

AT

ION

S0

CE

NIR

AL

CO

NSO

LID

AT

ION

OF

BU

ILD

ING

DE

VE

LO

PME

NT

OF

CO

MPR

EH

EN

SIV

E-P

LA

N RT

TO

CO

MA

OF

arr

S

CO

NSI

DE

RA

TI

OF

PRO

POSE

DIN

STR

UC

TIO

NA

LM

OD

EL

S)&

SCH

=L

ING

.0,..

.....

alR

EPO

RT

AN

!)R

EC

OM

EN

DA

TI

TO

SCH

OO

L B

OA

RD

'AE18

The third system presents a display of the instructional and

program activities outlihing various program dimensions which

require assessment and evaluation resulting in curricular

decision for the coming year.

The entire sequance of activities occurred in a midwestorn

community during the 18 month period between January, 1969 and

August, 1970. The final outcome of the planning resulted id a

decision not to implement year-round scheduling. The process

did, however; result in a decision to completely revise the

school district's curriculum. Subsequent reorganization of staff-

ing patterns and space utilization combined with a $200,000

curriculum development project culminated in the design of a

sophisticated K-12 continous progress program which merged

differentiated staffing, flexible scheduling, open space and

technology in a totally new "learning systems" concept.

It is difficult, if not foolhardy, to propose a set of guidelines

for establishing an educational baseline for any community.

Recognizing the obvious difficulties in such a task and keeping

in'mind the assumptions and constraints outlined earlier, the

following suggestions are provided without further apOlogy.

UeN

JAN

UA

RY

FE

BR

UA

RY

PR

OG

RA

M-m

azaz

zo,..

10,9

69-7

0

MA

RC

HA

PR

ILM

AY

JID

IE-T

ax

FLA

W=

FO

R S

PLI

TS

CH

ED

ULE

OR

OM

ER

CO

NV

EC

TIC

VA

LIN

Ir

ST

AF

FIN

G A

ND

NE

GO

TIA

TIO

NS

+cc

'

1970

-7S

txV

ICE

S P

LAID

IING

PR

OG

RA

MD

ET

ER

KIN

AT

IO

/1`

mou

rnE

urS

PA

CE

PR

OS

EM

ON

SST

ZT

BY

rx.s

cAt.

PT

AN

NIN

G A

ND

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

41,1

isso

mM

!.%,

ik4f

tom

mlo

o.'

com

mus

th'F

AC

ULT

Y

)A

TT

ITU

DE

SS

TU

DY

AT

TU

UD

ES

FA

CIIZ

TIF

S D

EC

ISIO

NS

EQ

UIP

MJE

TT

AN

D M

AT

ER

IALS

RE

QU

ISIT

ION

S

rmi

FIN

AN

CIA

L P

LAN

PLA

N

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N P

LAN

ING

1-4

INF

OR

MA

TIO

ND

ISS

EK

DIA

TIM

C,

70-7

1

YRE 20

FEASIBILITY STUDY EDUCATIONAL BASELINE

I. Assessment of Goals and Performance

1, Goal Statements and Expectations

If not available use Figure 1 or comparable device.

School board policy and educational philosophy of the

district should provide the basis for proposed programming

current and projected. If goal statements do not accurately

reflect community expectations they should be changed.

If community expectations are not congruent with professional

educator's goals the community must be educated and expect-

ations changed. If administrators position is substaw.

tiaily different than community and accommodations are

not possible* the administrator should seek other employ-

ment.

2. Assessment of Current Educational Practice

(A) How well are current educational practices meeting

goals?

(B) What goals are not being met?

(1) achievement of students

(2) utilization of facilities

(3) utilization of personnel

II. Decision Making Based on Asking the Right Questions.

1. Generally what factors inhibit --the district from reaching

its goals?

(A) spade-(availAliiiity. tigl.ditY)

WIlliiabilOy-bf'it4ff

YRE 21

(C) parental attitudes

(D) fiscal problems

(E) administrative personnel attitudes and capabilities

(P) school board attitudes

(G) personnel training, eXperience and attitudes

(H) student and parent attitudes

. Specifically what faCtors are important in a decision

relating to year round schools?

(A) Why shoUld such a change be considered?

(B) Are these factors-recognized by the varioul populations

of the district? e.g. staff, parents, taxpayers,

school board, administrators?

(C) What are the financial implications of such a change?

-What are the staffing costs?

-Does the curriculum need to be modified?

-What are the transportation costs?

-What are materials and equipment costs?

-What modifications must take place in buildings?4- (air conditioning)

(D) What impact will such a change have upon, the community?

-Use of churches

-Use of recreational facilities

-Use of school facilities

-Economic impact upon local industry

-Neighborhood groupings

(F)-What impact will such a change have upon ongoing:

-Educational-programs

-Summer school program

YRE 22

-Red Cross swimming program

-Boy Scout and other seasonal camps

-Vocational work experience programs

(F) What impact will such a change have upon staffing?

-How many teachers want full employment?

-How many principals want students in the building

all year?

-How many secretary, food service' custodial and

transportation workers will be effected and in*what ways?

(G) What are the local, state, regional implications of

the change?

-Athletic conferences and regulations

-State department forms

-State aid formula

-Statutes governing compulsory attendance

(H) What will the impact be upon students?

-Summer employment

-Club and other group participation

-Attitudes about school

(I) What impact will such a change have upon-the family?

-Vacation habits

-Working parents

-Students in different schools

(J) What about the energy crisis?

YRE 23

SUMWY

The first and most crucial decision which must be made is the

determination that educational programming is the basis upon

which any school program will operate. Unfortunately too many

school districts have attempted to determine what calendar de-

sign would be most appropriate for their community as a first

priority,

Granted there are many legitimate reasons for considering a

year-round school program. It is possible and reasonable to

move toward A year-round program without requiring or even

considering the curriculum or changes in curriculum as a major

dependent variable.

It should be abundantly clear however, that no such plan can be

undertaken without first determining the impact of tho plan on

the educational program of the district-and OA extent to which

such a plan facilitates or inhibits the achievement of the

educational goals in any community.

As such, it is important to incorporate educational baseline

data including information about the curriculum (present and

hoptd-for) as a part of the feasibility study. Related academic

information including student test scores, drop-out rates, per-

centage of students in various programs and other pertinent data

should be a part-of the study. It is hoped the planning aides

presented'in this paptt will assist the district which wishes to

undertake serious study of-yearround education. There is no guts ion

that the'deWiCesi-CCUEilizedc will prodUce a-Substah4al and re-

levant- "edUcational-basitine'tor-your study; planhini (aid tfon.