DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 028 962 88 SP 002 202

A Study of Inservice Programs in Chester and Delaware County Schools.Service Project and Area Research Center, West Chester, Pa.Spons Agency-Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Report No-DPSC-67-3673Pub Date 68Note- 25p.EDRS Price MF -S025 HC-S1.35Descriptors-*Inservice ProgramsIdentifiers- Pennsylvania

Educators from a sample (11 percent) of joublic, diocesan, and independentschools in Chester and Delaware counties. Pennsylvania, were surveyed forinformation on the content and quality of their inservice programs for schoolpersonnel. Their responses to 16 questions (such as type of inservice activities andinfluence of the program on change) are categorized and interpreted.Recommendations for the counties' inservice programs, made on the basis of theseresponses, primarily pivot around realizing an interacting educational community(inservice workshops for K-12 professional staff, and interschool andschool-community cooperation in inservice education) and continuity between dailyresponsibilities or needs and the inservice program (the entire staffteachers.administrators, and supervisorsshould help plan inservice programs. attendworkshops--not lectures--that are designed around individual needs, receiveevaluative feedback from the program, and participate in subsequent retrainingbased on the curriculum revisions produced at inservice meetings). (LP)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

A STUDY OF

71e-e7-36-

2 :8U7

IN CHESTER AND DELAWAPE COUNTY SCHOOLS

cie (1.4fq [9a\ Wei)ctz-) LI-LI LM .k))111 V. HIGH STREET, WEST CHESTER, PENNA.

CONTENTS

I. GtNERAL INFORMATION . . . . . . . 1

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE1 ' '

2

III. TABULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA ; i 4

IV. UTILIZATION OF THE INSERVICE SURVEY 16

V. RECOMMENDATIONS . . ********** . 19

Iftei

A STUDY OF INSERVICE PROGRAMS IN CHESTER AND DELAWARE COUNTY SCHOOLS

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

In the Spring of 1968 SPARC conducted asurvey among a representative sample of thefaculties of public, diocesan, and independentschools in Chester and Delaware Counties, Penna.

The purpose of this endeavor was to iden- PURPOSEtify areas of need in inservice programs in OF THEgeneral throughout the target area. With this SURVEYdata it is hoped that SPARC will be able toplan for and assist in the improvement of in-service education for teachers and adminis-trators.

The survey instrument was designed by SPARC CONSTRUCTIONstaff with much help from Dr. Anthony Pinnie of OF THE SURVEYCheyney State College and Dr. Martin Higgins of INSTRUMENTWest Chester State College. The instrument wasrevised after discussions with school personnel.Final revision was made after field testing in aschool not included in the survey.

Permission was secured prior to giving the ADMINISTRATIONsurvey from both the superintendent of schools OFand the building principal. A SPARC staff THE SURVEYmember personally administered the survey at afaculty meeting. In an attempt to encouragehonest responses participants were assured thatno response would be identified as to individual,school, system, county or segments - public,diocesan, or independent. Completed surveyforms were placed, unread, in a single pile.

. No one has made any attempt to identify arespondent or his school,nor is such identi-fication possible.

The resources of the Data Center at West TABULATIONChester State College were used to tabulate OFthe responses. The computer program was RESPONSESwritten by Wes Fosnacht of that institution.Interpretations of the results were made by theSPARC staff.

Because of the wide variety in the DEFINITIONcharacteristics of inservice programs, SPARC OF THEdefined such programs to include "all planned INSERVICEon-the-job experiences which relate directly PROGRAMtoward improving the effectiveness of theprofessional staff." Participants were urgedto include department-oriented, building-centered, districtwide, or multidistrictprograms. Responses were limited to the1967-1968 school year.

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE

SPARC serves the faculties of 252 public SAMPLEschools, 70 diocesan schools, and 14 independent SIZEschools. Although an attempt was made tosurvey 10% of those schools in each segment,administrative problems and scheduling con-flicts reduced the sampling to 21 publicschools, 7 diocesan schools, and 1 indepen-dent school. A total of 598 educators completedthe survey. Because of unanswered items, only577 cards were processed through the computer.

The public school systems of the two SELECTIONcounties were classified by size and organi- OFzational pattern. The smaller systems with SAMPLEjunior-senior high schools were placed in onecategory; the larger systems with separatesecondary schools in another. A few systemsthat did not fit this scheme were grouped bysize alone in the appropriate category.Other classifying criteria were consideredbut rejected. Tuition and current expenditureswere not used because of the effect of the sizeof a district on these statistics. The typeof community served by a system was rejectedbecause several public school systems servea variety of populations and because of thedisparate populations between Chester Countyand Delaware County.

Within each category, individual schoolswere listed, numbered, then selected at ran-dom by using the last two digits of successivephone numbers from a page out of the directory.A representative number of elementary, juniorhigh, senior high, and junior-senior highschools were chosen. No middle schools wereincluded.

The diocesan sample was selected with theaid of the Reverand Paul Curran, AssistantSuperintendent, Archdiocese of PhiladelphiaSchools. One high school and six elementaryschools were selected by the criteria oflocation, size, and type of community served.

One independent school was arbitrarilyselected.

The sample included 544 teachers, 6curriculum committee chairmen, 38 departmentheads, 4 curriculum coordinators, and 36principals or other administrators. Theseclassifications were not mutually exclusive;teaching principals checked two categories,for example.

There was a balance of grade levelresponsibilities among the sampled educators.51% had major responsibilities at theelementary level, 49% at the secondary level.

There wae, an equal distribution ofvarious subject matter responsibilitiesamong the respondents.

The graph below indicates the distri-bution of participants in three length-of-service categories.

IN EDUCATION

.. .46%

...5%

1-5 YEARS 6-25 YEARS

IN PRESENT SCHOOL SYSTEM

25+ YEARS

37% 6%

1-5 YEARS 6-25 YEARS

-3-

25+ YEARS

ITEM ONE:POSITION

ITEM TWO:GRADE LEVELRESPONSI-BILITY

ITEM THREE:MAJOR SUB-JECT RESPON-SIBILITY

ITEM FOUR:LENGTH OFSERVICE

Card sorting techniques permitted sepa-rate tabulations of respondents according toelementary or secondary responsibilities andaccording to length of service in education.

III. TABULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA

NOTE: Unless specifically stated, all tabu-lations in this report represent the totalsample. Subsamples are used only wherethese separate tabulations differ enoughfrom the tabulation of the total sample toalter the interpretations.

SUBSAMPLES

Respondents were asked to select one or ITEM FIVE:two patterns which would characterize the INSERVICEgeneral organizational scheme of their in- ORGANIZA-service programs. TIONAL

PATTERNS

COMBINED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYSEPARATE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLDEPARTMENTS

GRADE LEVELSOTHER PATTERNS

1 26%

J 27

1 45%

157

1 42%

29%

The elementary tabluation differed widelyfrom the secondary in the two patterns shownbelow.

KEY: ELEMENTARY 71 SECONDARY Mt

DEPARTMENTS

GRADE LEVELS

71%

INTERPRETATION: Relatively few (26%) elementaryand secondary staffs meet together for inservicework. Comments by a number of respondents in-dicate that these meetings are usually generalin nature and rarely devoted to in-depth, K-l2,

subject-matter considerations. Most secondaryschools (71%) carry on a major portion Of in-service work by departments; elementary schoolsare more grade-level oriented (40%) thansubject-matter oriented (16%).

Participants were allowed to check as ITEM SIX:many categories as they needed to indicate ASPECTS OFthe types of inservice activities in which INSERVICEthey were involved. PROGRAMS

37% - Evaluating guides, manuals, courses of study.36% - Developing guides, manuals, courses of study.35% - Improving teaching techniques.27% - Evaluating present curriculum programs, policy425% - Evaluating present practices, instructional techniques.25% - Developing educational objectives.23% - Evaluating educational objectives.22% - Learning about new programs or projects.21% - Learning about newer teaching techniques.21% - Improving the subject-matter competence of staff.20% - Improving classroom testing and evaluation.5% - Other.

A tabulation was made of the number ofdifferent categories that each respondentselected from the above list.

ONE CATEGORYTWO CATEGORIES 297

THREE 26%FOUR 14%FIVE 8%SIX 5%

SEVEN 2%EIGHT T 17NINE 1 1%

INTERPRETATION: There is great variety inthe types of activities included in inserviceprograms. Some districts concentrate on asmall number of activities; others "touchon" many aspects of curriculum and staffdevelopment.

This item attempts to determine theeffectiveness of inservice training inimplementing changes within schools. Fourcategories of instructional changes werespecified. Participants first identifiedwhether or not each change had taken placeduring the year. If it had, respondentsrated the inservice program's effect towardimplementing the change.

TEXTBOOK ADOPTIONUSE OF MEDIA/EQUIPMENT

TEACHING TECHNIQUESORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN

OTHER

ADEQUATEINSERVICE

INADEQUATEINSERVICE

ITEM SEVEN:RELATIONOF INSERVICETO INSTRUC-TIONALCHANGES

MISSINGINSERVICE

39% :1/nF'27AT 39% ACM44% ra!WN r ZISMIAgred

ikinardWARMATTOMINCOMEN a i TrArA OM. X TYPr A

16% ''',1-7 377 ..771TADWAZWAr 41

The combining of all changes yieldsthe following picture:

ALL INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGES

INSERVICE PRESENT

537

INSERVICEMISSING

ADEQUATE INADEQUATE

INTERPRETATION: These data may be interpretedin a number of ways. It can be noted thatinstructional changes were supplemented byadequAte inservice training in only 37% of thecases. Discouragingly, one can notice that inalmost half (47%) of the situations inservicetraining was completely missing! When therewas inservice training (53%), however, it wasmore often adequate than not. It should alsobe pointed out that inservice training wasless prevalent in those categories wherecommercial consultants are less available.

First, respondents were asked to indicate"yes" or "no", from a list of positions,those that were filled in their districts andwere applicable to them. For example, anelementary teacher would not list a depart-ment head from the high school unless suchperson had an elementary school respon-sibility. Then, each participant indicatedthe position of the person who exerted thegreatest leadership in the respondent'spricular situation. Percentages below areo the totar-3?-771gi" responses in eachcategory. For example, 14% of those whoresponded "yes" to curriculum director in-dicated that that person exerted greatestleadership, not 14% ot the total sample.

POSITION

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLSCURRICULUM DIRECTOR

PRINCIPAL/ASSISTANT PRINCIPALCURRICULUM COORDINATOR

SUBJECT MATTER SPECIALISTCURRICULUM COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

DEPARTMENT HEAD

s 16%...... 10%

.......... 39%

INTERPRETATION: Building administrators playan important leadership role at both elemen-tary and secondary levels (58%). At thesecondary level, the department head alsoassumes a leadership role (39%). The super-intendent of schools and curriculum directorwere expected to be rated low because theyrarely work directly with classroom teachers.What is surprising is the low rating ofcurriculum coordinators, subject-matterspecialists, and curriculum committee chair-man. One possible explanation is that,since these positions are relatively new inthe classic educational hierarchy, peoplein such positions might have difficultyexerting leadership within the administrativeframework of their districts or schools.

TTEM EIGHT:LEADERSHIPROLE OFSCHOOL ORDISTRICTPERSONNEL

-158%

Respondents were asked to list the typesof resource people that had been used in theinservice program of 1967/1968.

COMMERCIAL CONSULTANTCURRICULUM CONSULTANT

"BIG NAME" SPEAKERCOUNTY OFFICE PERSONNEL

COMMUNITY RESOURCE PERSOND.P.I. PERSONNEL

NONEOTHERS

INTERPRETATION: Salesmen are kept pretty busy.

Participants were asked to characterizethe most prevalent types of inservice meetingsthey attended by checking not more than twoof the following categories: Committee orstaff meetings with effective staff partici-pation, Committee or staff meetings withlittle or no staff participation, Audience-lecture meetings, Demonstration-lectures,Demonstration-workshops with active staffinvolvement, and other types.

STAFF MEETINGS-EFFECTIVE INVOLVEMENTSTAFF MEETINGS-LITTLE INVOLVEMENT

AUDIENCE-LECTURESDEMONSTRATION-LECTURESLABORATORY-WORKSHOPS

OTHER

ITEM NINE:USE OF OUT-OF-DISTRICTPERSONNEL ININSERVICEPROGRAMS

ITEM TEN:TYPES OFINSERVICEMEETINGS

INTERPRETATION: The results above indicate thedual nature of many inservice programs, whereinthe large group meetings of a general nature arecharacterized by audience=lectures and the buildinginservice programs are characterized by staff in-volvement in small groups. This interpretationis fortified by the resultz of Item 16.

Alb

^

Respondents checked the types of committeesof which they were members. Three classes ofcommittees were tabulated. Curriculum committeesincluded both general or subject area orien-tations; inservice planning committees includedpolicy-making or steering functions, and othercommittees.

TYPES OF COMMITTEES

GENERAL OR SPECIFIC CURRICULUMSTEERING, POLICY, OR INSERVICE PLANNING

OTHERNONE

ITEM ELEVEN:COMMITTEEMEMBERSHIP

(34%18%

9%

155%

Separate tabulations were made for thisitem to determine whether years of serviceplayed a role in committee membership.There was no significant difference foreither years of service or between elemen-tary and secondary personnel on this item.

INTERPRETATION: Over half (55%) of thosepolled were not members of a committee.Staff representation on steering, planning,or policy-making committees is low (8%).The most popular type of committee in whichstaff are involved is curriculum oriented (34%).This item correlates very strongly with theresults of Item 16.

In a prior study*, 77% of all educatorsreplying to a questionnaire indicated thatthe opportunities afforded them to studyand visit schools using newer techniquesand organizational patterns were inadequate.Inclusion of Item 12 of this SPARC InserviceSurvey was made to determine if any signifi-cant improvement had occurred in this area.Participants were asked if they had made orexpected to make a professional visitationor observation-of another classroom or schoolwithin the year.

*Prom "A Study to Determine the Need for an Area Research andService Center to Serve Delaware and Chester County Schools,"E.S.E.A. Title III Planning Grant Number 1-6-000580-0283,sponsored jointly by the School Boards of Chester County andDelaware County, Pennsylvania. 1965.

.9.

ITEM TWELVE:VISITATIONS

ANDOBSERVATIONS

NOI657

M31 17% 18% 357Within Out ofDistrict Xstrict

INTERPRETATION: Little opportunity was affordedstaff members to visit or observe other schoolsor classrooms. This was true in all categoriesof length-of-service.

Are staff members afforded the opportunityto attend professional meetings beyond thosewithin their districts? Those participantswho had such opportunities within the yearidentified the geographic scope of the meetings.

NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL 6%

REGIONAL/MULTI-STATESTATE

AREA/MULTI-COUNTYCOUNTY

MULTI-DISTRICTOTHERNONE

Separate tabulations by years of serviceshowed-only slight differences except forthe final category of ndn-attendance.

NON-ATTENDANCE

6-25 YEARS1-5 YEARS

25+ YEARS128%

[19%

38%

INTERPRETATION: There is little opportunityfor staff members to attend national, regional,or state meetings. The high percentage ofattendance at the multicounty level was due-in part to the diocesan teachers whose five-county district holds districtwide meetingsyearly. The inclusion of,this event in themulticounty category was a mistake on thepart of the administrator of the survey. Itshould have been counted as a district meeting.

-10-

ITEM THIRTEEN:ATTENDANCE ATPROFESSIONALMEETINGS

The high percentage of attendance at meetingsat the county level was due in part to thecountywide inservice day held last year by theChester County Public Schools. The separatelength-of-service tabulation indicates thatveteran staff members have a greater opportunityto attend professional meetings than do thosewith little service.

Respyndents were asked to rate the effec-tiveness of staff involvement in planning theinservice programs.

EXCELLENTGOODFAIRPOOR

MISSING

33%

INTERPRETATION: The high rating in themissing category (20%) skewsthe graphtoward the low side. These data indi-cate that at least 25% of those educatorspolled felt that staff involvement inplanning was either good or excellent.The results of Item 16, however, are some-what in conflict with the results of thisitem.

Separate tabulations were made accordingto years of service:

1-5 YEARS

EXCELLENT:GOOD 117%FAIR rp%-

MISSING001

, 1 29%

j2

6-25 YEARS

40%

INTERPRETATION: More than half (51%) of staffmembers with few years (1-5) of service ineducation rate staff involvement as being pooror missing. Only 29% of staff members withmore than 25 years of service rate the staffinvolvement in these two categories. These datamight indicate that veteran staff members viewstaff involvement in planning as less impor-tant than "newer" members or this group may be,

in fact, more involved.

ITEM FOURTEEN:EFFECTIVENESSOF STAFF IN-VOLVEMENT INPLANNING IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS

OVER 25 YEARS

75%rgii 38%

1_12%

I 17%

Respondents were asked to rate the overalleffectiveness of the inservice program on afive point scale.

EXCELLENTGOODFAIRPOOR

MISSING

U_72Li41%

1 21%

Separate tabulations were made accordingto years of service:

1-5 YEARS

EXCELLENT'j 4TGOODFAIRPOOR

MISSING

1 22%43%

1 24%

1 7%

6-25 YEARS

1 571 27%

417 122%

4%

INTERPRETATION: The responses for the totalsampling approximate a balanced distributioncurve. The separate tabulations indicatethat veteran teachers with more than 25 yearsof service rate the inservice program slightlyhigher than those with fewer years of service.These data offer no cause for alarm in thequality of inservice programs if you considera "Fair" rating as desirable. However, con-sidering the fact that only one-third (32%)of the respondents polled rated the inserviceprogram as good or better, raises seriousquestions as to how these programs could beimproved. Item 16 attempts to uncover areasfor improvement.

Participants were asked to write downsuggested changes that they felt would bringabout the greatest improvement in theeffectiveness of the teaching staff. Eachresponse was read and placed in one or morecategories according to the content of thesuggestions. For example, the comment,"We need more demonstrations by outside ex-perts to show us newer teaching techniques."would be placed in these categories: work-shop-demonstration, outside resource people,and newer techniques. Numerals refer to thenumber of respondents whose comments wereplaced in that category.

-12-

ITEM FIFTEEN:OVERALL EFFEC-TIVENESS OFTHE INSERVICEPROGRAM

OVER 25 YEARS

11%

1 8%

32

1 32%

ITEM SIXTEEN:SUGGESTIONS

FORIMPROVEMENT

Negative Categories

92 made either no comment or mentioned thatthey had no suggestions to offer.

47 made simple gripes or negative commentswithout accompanying constructivesuggestions.

21 added some suggestions to predominantlynegative descriptions.

9 added complaints about the administration.

Constructive Suggestions

126 suggested greater staff involvement. Somespecified that this involvement was neededin the planning process; others, moreactive participation in the actual programs;still others made no differentiation as toarea of needed involvement. No respondentsuggested that the teaching staff plan ordirect the program alone. More adminis-trators' responses fell in this overallcategory than in any other. :

89 placed emphasis on the need for specificprograms. Phrases such as "more practical,less general, more direct application" wereused. In some cases, organizationalsuggestions were made such as "meet indepartments" or "break into smaller groups."

84 suggested the inclusion of more workshopsand/or demonstrations. Many made referenceto the present program as "dull and boring"or "just sit and listen."

49 wanted to learn about newer or bettertechniques and methods.

45 suggested the use of outside resource peoplewith reference often made to "experts" or"master teachers."

45 desired opportunities to visit other schoolsand classrooms.

-13--

36 suggested that teachers from severalschools meet to share ideas, problems,and solutions by subjects, by gradelevel, or by other common interest.

34 indicated the need for better overall planningand organizing of programs.

31 stressed the need for better communicationand coordination among the teaching staffand between teachers and administrators.

26 asked for more inservice time.

21 appealed for programs to be more interesting,more diverse, or more worthwhiles

16 wanted to learn more about new instructionalaids, material, or equipment.

15 desired release time for inservice insteadof after school hours.

14 suggested meetings with other districts.

14 appealed for better evaluation, follow-up,and/or follow-through.

12 wanted to learn about new programs andorganizational patterns.

10 asked for more staff members, particularlysupervisory personnel to aid in inservice.

10 indicated a strong need to hold inservicemeetings with staff members from all levelsof instruction, K-12.

9 pointed out the need for reeducation and"updating" of teachers and urged the inclusionof actual inservice courses as part of theinservice programs.

6 preferred that meetings be restricted toindividual faculties.

5 asked for more "working" days in their roomsinstead of having to attend inservice meetings.

5 wished the inservice program would concentrateon new teachers.

5 suggested better correlation with new programsbeing used in the school.

5 suggested that the scheduling of inservicedays should be improved. Concentration aswell as spacing was mentioned.

3 wished to return to the practice of splittingthe inservice program into elementary andsecondary levels.

3 wanted field trips.

3 suggested cultural and community programs.

2 wanted programs restricted to the district.

2 desired the opportunity to attend professionalseminars, conferences, and conventions.

2 wanted time set aside for professionalreading.

2 wanted time for evaluating new textbooks.

2 suggested that inservice programs concentrateon the low-ability and/or "inner city" child.

I suggested that school directors participatein the inservice program of the district.

I wanted the programs held at West ChesterState College.

Positive Categories

14 made positive statements about the existingsituation without reference to any need forimprovement. One respondent printed incapital letters, "PRESERVE THE STATUS gRomu

IV. UTILIZATION OF THE INSERVICE SURVEY

SPARC will use the data provided by thissurvey in a number of ways:

1. This report, including the data,interpretations, and the generalrecommendations which follow, is beingmade available to superintendents,curriculum directors, other adminis-trators, and teachers in the Chester-Delaware Counties area. Hopefully,this report will be used by indi-vidual districts and schools insparking efforts to improve existinginservice programs. To this end, theSPARC staff will be available to aidgroups of teachers and administratorsevaluate, organize, and plan in-service programs.

2. This report will be used as a basisfor discussion with SPARC's AdvisoryCommittee and with groups of educa-tors responsible for planning multi-district inservice programs in thetwo-county area. Such discussionsand the decisions made as a resultof them will guide SPARC in itsinservice activities over the nexttwo years. It is expected thatmultidistrict programs in this areawill be improved as a result.

3. This report and the data it provideswill be absorbed into the construc-tion of SPARC's long-range plan forregional curriculum services. Inthis regard, the differentiated-levels-of-support concept will beused in an attempt to determinewhich specific inservice problemscan best be met at regional levels,at multidistrict levels, at districtlevels, and at building or depart-mental levels.

V. RECOMMENDATitINS

In addition to considering the generalrecommendations listed below, educatorsshould examine the data, the interpretations,and the suggestions offered by the respondentsin item sixteen to identify specific areas ofneed applicable to their own situations.

STUDY AND ANALYZE THE PURPOSES OF THE INSERVICE PROGRAM

"Inservice" has become one of the catchallsof pedagogical jargon that we use to encompassmany types of activities having different purposes.One of its most consistent uses is merely to labela day in the school calendar when the professionalstaff is in attendance but the students are not.It is useful, therefore, to examine a few of thedominant purposes of inservice education.

One prime goal of inservice education, likeall other forms of education, is to change be-

. havior. In this case, it is the instructionalbehavior of staff members. And, of course, thesechanges are important only to the end that theeducation of pupils is improved. Perhaps thesestatements seem trite, yet many inserviceactivities are but distantly related to thesepurposes.

14

One major function of inservice educationis often referred to as staff development andrelates to increasing the effectiveness of theteachers. Identification of the critical needsof individual staff members as well as functionalgroups of staff members should determine, to alarge degree, the direction for programs designedto serve this end. Current curriculum changesmay or may not dictate the types of staff develop-ment activities planned. Specific attention todiverse needs is one keynote to successful pro-grams in this area.

An offshoot of staff development which shouldbe complementary to increasing instructional com-petence but often is not ffi the need of many staffmembers to continue their formal education by

-17-

THE PRIME GOALOF

INSERVICEEDUCATION

STAFFDEVELOPMENT

taking college courses in order to completecertification requirements. Usually the schoolsystem has no control and little influence overthe type of training its staff members experi-ence at local colleges and universities.

A second function of inservice activities INSTRUCTIONALis to provide the training of staff members to CHANGEimplement change. All significant changes in IMPLEMENTATIONinstruction, whether they be due to the adoptionof new curricula, materials, media, philosophy,techniques, or organizational patterns, must beaccompanied by adequate retraining.

In some schools, much of the inservice CURRICULUMprogram is devoted to the work of curriculum REVISIONcommittees who evaluate and develop programsof instruction. Although many people stronglybelieve that staff involvement in curriculumrevision improves the instructional performanceof teachers, we believe that this rationalizationhas been exaggerated. It would be wise toremember that the main purpose of curriculumrevision is product, with inservice days pro-viding time and with the instructional staffproviding the professional service for theproduction of that revision. This is not tosay that staff involvement is not necessary indeveloping curriculum, but that developingcurriculum is not the sole answer to improvinginstructional competence.

Inservice days are often used to provideorientation for both new and returning teachers.Activities often include administrative andclerical details, introductions to new staff,new policies, new facilities, and new curricula.An outside speaker is used occasionally tostimulate the staff to better efforts.

One first step toward improving the inserviceprogram is, therefore, to identify staff needsin relation to the program of instruction and toanalyze these needs to determine how inserviceeducation can best serve them.

ORIENTATION

[PLAN, IMPLEMENT, AND EVALUATE FOR BOTH SHORT AND LONG-RANGE GOALS

The total inservice program must be conceived of THREE MAJORas a long-range, comprehensive plan having at PROCESSESleast three major facets. These three importantprocesses which permeate the total program areplanning, implementation, and evaluation. Toooften, the staff activities that occur during aninservice day tend to require a disproportionateamount of effort with too little attentiongiven to planning and evaluation. The inserviceprogram must be more comprehensive than the"filling" of an inservice day.

Inservice programs must be carefully planned PLANNINGto meet both short-range and long-range goals.The planning must be thorough and systematic yetflexible so that evaluations, personnel changes,and curriculum revisions can easily alter theplans.

a.

Plans must then be implemented by activities IMPLEMENTATIONsuch as staff meetings, workshops, visitations,and seminars designed to meet the needs ofindividuals and specific groups of staff members.A single type of activity cannot satisfy allpurposes.

Evaluation is often the most ignored process. EVALUATIONIt, too, must be short and long range in order toprovide the feedback for improvement and follow-up activities. Evaluation must not be limitedto implementation activitiez alone, but must beapplied to planning activities and to evaluationitself.

INVOLVE STAFF MEMBERS IN ALL PHASES OF THE INSERVICE PROGRAM

Staff members must be actively involved inplanning, implementation and evaluation. Tl'a

results of the survey strongly point out a lackof involvement; one hundred twenty-six respondentsindicated this as being an important area forimprovement.

-19-

STAFFINVOLVEMENT

R9111 .14777.7711...F,

The responsibility for the inservice programmust be broad-based. It is imperative, therefore,that staff members be involved in planning andevaluating as well as participating in the actualinservice day activities. The purposes of theprograms must be understood not only by the admin-istrators and supervisors but by teachers as well.

In larger districts it is probably necessaryto create an inservice advisory or steeringcommittee whose members will be representativeof the different levels of the instructional andadministrative staff. If this is done, it isthen an equally important task to establish aneffective system of communication between thiscommittee and all staff members.

The nature of all inservice activities mustbe such that staff involvement is encouraged orrequired. Workshops, demonstrations, and dis-cussions are usually much more productive thanlectures. Workshops must involve active partici-pation of those in attendance and not be merelymislabeled lectures.

CONSIDER CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROBLEMS ON A UNIFIED, K-12 BASIS

Because of the organizational structure of our K-12schools, cloistered teachers and administrators CONSIDERATIONtend to view instructional problems only as theyaffect their particular domains. Elementaryschool teachers consider teaching and learning ingrade-level segments; secondary staff concernsare often confined to a single discipline. Thearticulation gap between elementary and secondarylevels looms before us as wide as ever.

It is, therefore, imperative that certainactivities of the inservice program be plannedso as to encompass unified, K-12 considerations ofinstructional problems. These activities, in-volving administrators, supervisors, and teachersfrom different levels must be functional andproblem-oriented. Normally, a general sessionwhere all teachers merely sit and listen to a"big name" speaker is inadequate to break downdepartmental, individual school, and elementary/secondary barriers.

-20-

PLAN SPECIFIC PROGRAMS TO MEET SPECIFIC NEEDS

Inservice programs bring about changes in SPECIFICthe instructional behavior of teachers most NEEDSeffectively when such programs deal with specificsolutions to specific problems. Therefore, itis necessary on occasion that the staff begrouped into grade-level, departmental, orspecially restricted categories to consider suchproblems. This study indicated that many staffmembers desired programs which would help themsolve specific instructional problems relatedto their own restricted situations.

[ PLAN PROGRAMS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE

Until adequate inservice training becomesrecognized as a planned, integral part of allinstructional changes, curriculum revisions willbe confined to the unopened teacher's guide.Available equipment will gather dust, media willw

be misused, and newer techniques will be ignored.Inservice training is a critical factor in theimplementation of curriculum revision. Suchendeavors often fail because plans were not madeto provide the necessary instructional mediaand the retraining of teachers.

IPLAN PROGRAMS WITH OTHER SCHOOLS

a

Multidistrict cooperation in inserviceplanning provides new possibilities for theincreased sharing of ideas, concerns, problems,and solutions. Such cooperation permits amore efficient use of resource people, notonly regional, county, state, and nationaleducators, but also outstanding districtpersonnel as well.

IMPLEMENTINGINSTRUCTIONALCHANGES

MULTIDISTRICTCOOPERATION

Multidistrict programs must be planned aspart of each cooperating district's overallprogram and not merely as "one-shot" outingswithout follow-up, follow-through, andevaluation activities.

Some programs could also provide interactionamong public, diocesan, and independent schoolstaffs. These programs must not be contrivedbut must focus on genuine instructional concerns.

IPROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES POR VISITATIONS

Many educators feel cloistered and confinedto their own schools and classrooms. Opportunitiesshould be provided for staff members to visit andobserve in other schools both within the localdistrict and outside of it. The critical factorhere is to match the needs of the visitor withthe offerings of the 7isited. This processinvolves the cooperation and communication of thestaffs of the different schools.

INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY

The programs and problems of the school needto be understood by the community as never before.Conversely, community problems need the completeunderstanding of all school personnel. Thismutual understanding is essential not only for thesolution of school/community problems, but alsofor the development of community support for the

4 high costs of quality education.

It seems desirable, therefore, to includethe consideration of community problems as wellas community resources in the total inserviceprogram.

VISITATION

COMMUNITYINVOLVEMENT

PROVIDE ADEQUATE TIME, RESOURCES AND MONEY FOR THE INSERVICE PROGRAM

This final general consideration is, in a TIME

very real sense, basic to all the others. RESOURCES

Time, resources, and money are needed to ex- MONEY

pand the scope of present inservice education.

1. Study and analyze the purposes of the inservice program.

2. Plan, implement, and evaluate for both short and long-range goals.

3. Involve staff members in all phases of the inservice program.

4. Consider curriculum and instructional problems on a unified,

K-12 basis.

5. Plan specific programs to meet specific needs.

6. Plan programs as an integral part of instructional change.

7. Plan programs with other schools.

8. Provide opportunities for visitations.

9. Involve the community.

10. Provide adequate time, resources and money for the inservice

program.

4

23