Stunted Desegregation in Los Angeles

This report is an independent evaluative study of administrative decentralization in the Cleveland Public Schools carried out under contract with the Cleveland Board of Education. The study reviewed the history of decentralization, synthesized the literature on its contemporary development since 1970, summarized its emergence in Cleveland since 1980, and then focused intensively on events during 1984‐1985, Year 3 in that system's scheduled reorganization.

Relevant documents were reviewed from February through May of 1985. Then, 18 administrators, 6 from each of 3 levels, were interviewed in depth in March. In June, 18 other administrators and 14 teachers at 7 schools were interviewed as well. A questionnaire was sent to 335 administrators and 433 teachers, and 444 were returned, for a response rate of 58 percent. The project did not include Board members or parents and community leaders from School‐Community Councils.

Respondents gave fairly high ratings to the value of decentralization for Cleveland and were especially favorable toward the value of increased autonomy for school principals, school control over teacher selection, and school‐community councils. They rated the success of decentralization as of 1985 as no more than average, however, and they gave average ratings to the effort's overall impact thus far on school improvement. Most of those surveyed estimated the system was at the half‐way mark on the road to 100 percent implementation.

Teachers and field administrators generally regard the Board and the central administration as sources of obstacles to the evolution of decentralization. Most teachers have yet to become involved in the effort and this disinvolvement, combined with a more negative attitude by about half of the central staff, depressed the ratings of success and progress overall. In addition, there is a racial effect. White educators in Cleveland are less positive than Black educators toward decentralization.

The study found that the technical aspects of administrative decentralization are in excellent working order; that cluster directors, principals, and key subgroups of senior administrators at headquarters are very enthusiastic about the reorganization and its aims; and that school‐based teacher selection has been working quite well. However, some organizational obstacles remain to be surmounted: central staff lack incentives to let go of old bureaucratic procedures; too few pathways exist for widescale teacher participation; and cluster offices have too many paperwork duties and too few resources to allow them to carry out all of their work effectively. Many assistant principals, moreover, have not been delegated parts to play in decentralization. The implication of this study is that much has been accomplished on decentralization during Year 3, but the notion that the change can be fully installed in three years is in itself unrealistic.

The study concluded by recommending a reform in Cleveland's current practices of selecting principals so that the very best leadership can be secured in future years. It further recommended that organizational rather than technical planning be undertaken in order to integrate the four great changes now in progress in the system: desegregation, decentralization, educational improvement, and fiscal retrenchment. Some final suggestions were also discussed for improving the more affective aspects of decentralization, such as teacher morale and central staff participation in the field.     

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS TWO-YEAR COLLEGES

To discover the organizational components that nurture good teaching in Texas two-year colleges, I undertook the task of replicating a study of Ohio two-year colleges. A review of the literature uncovered several variables for assessing faculty development. The most important of these appears to be an institutional climate that encourages faculty development. To assess faculty development, a 65-item survey was sent to all Texas two-year colleges. Although the results of the Texas study are more encouraging than those of the Ohio study, Texas community colleges could be doing more to support faculty development.     

Effects of Individualized Instruction on Control Expectancy: A Field Test

Abstract

This study was conducted in order to determine whether or not one semester of individualized instruction is enough time to create in students an increased sense of being able to control payoffs in life and to lead students to develop a more realistic appraisal of their ability to control payoffs in an academic environment. Paradoxically, the converse may occur. When first confronted with a success-oriented instructional process and opportunities for self-pacing, students with failure histories may become more external, anxious, or uncertain. In order to examine these notions, a sample of 126 educationally deficient students who were beginning their first semester of study in a community college were selected from 18 different sections of math, English, and history and tested twice—once at the beginning of the term and again late in the term just prior to finals.     

The Influence Theory: Factors That Influence the Transfer Advising Process

The transfer rate from community college to four-year institutions has been dropping for the past 70 years. In the most recent statistics, the national rate of transfer is 23% (Cohen & Brawer, 2008). In the state of Alabama the transfer rate is approximately 4%, and in the rural counties of Alabama the transfer rate hovers around 1%. Many studies have been conducted on the transfer process, but none have focused on the transfer process from a theoretical perspective. Most studies focus attention on disparate pieces of the transfer puzzle. To date, there is no overarching theory of the transfer process that will bring coherence to this field of study. This study views the transfer process through the experience of nine transfer advisors who serve students in 11 community colleges located in rural counties in the state of Alabama. The findings establish a substantive theory that will provide a contextual framework for researchers who wish to study specific features of the transfer process. The Influence Theory establishes five factors that play a prominent role in the transfer advising process: institutional, cultural, contextual, advisor, and student. This article concludes with implications for practice and future research.     

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLICLY SUPPORTED 2-YEAR COLLEGES

A comprehensive study of faculty development in community colleges was undertaken to identify the organizational components that nurture good teaching. A review of the literature revealed several variables for assessing the state of faculty development. The most important of these appears to be an institutional climate that encourages faculty development. This article reports the results of a survey of 130 community colleges regarding faculty development efforts. It also profiles those accountable for faculty development and summarizes the extent to which each development activity is available to faculty members. One significant finding is that faculty development in American community colleges lacks leadership and is not well connected to the colleges missions.     

A Profile of Giving Patterns and Donor Behavior at a Suburban Community College

Community colleges have become increasingly reliant on diversifying their revenue sources, and turning to private fund raising has become a common strategy for many of them. Although fund raising has been a common practice in higher education since its inception, it has only emerged in the two-year college sector in the past several decades. The current study sought to identify donors at a case study, suburban community college, specifically exploring giving patterns over time and testing the conceptual framework of a pyramid of giving that overlays institutional involvement and commitment with giving levels. Major infrastructure inconsistencies prevented much of the framework testing, but data were capable of creating an initial donor and giving profile for a typical community college. This profile demonstrated that board members and employees were the most loyal and consistent in making contributions, but that these gifts often were stable over time and did not increase to become major gifts. Also, private business and industry gifts were often given at the same level as individual gifts, perhaps illustrating the responsiveness and cooperation between community colleges and the local workforce.