REPORT RESUMES ED 011 838 SE 000 691 CATALOG OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGES IN OHIO PUBLICSCHOOLS. By- STUFFLEBEAM, DANIEL L. AND OTHERS THE OHIO STATE UNIV., COLUMBUS, COLL. OF EDUC. PUB DATE 66 EDRS PRICE MF-90.18 HC-$4.72 119p, DESCRIPTORS- *CURRICULUM, *EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH,*EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, *INNOVATION, *INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATION,*SCHOOL PERSONNEL, ADMINISTRATION, INSTRUCTION, COLUMBUS INFORMATION RELATED TO INNOVATIVE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS IN OHIO IS PRESENTED. DATA WERE OBTAINED FROM SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERSTHROUGH THE USE OF QUESTIONNAIRES. ENTRIES INCLUDE--(1) GEOGRAPHIC REGION,(2) COUNTY,(3) CITY OR VILLAGE,(4) LOCAL DISTRICT, AND (5) PROJECT TITLE. DETAILED DESCRIPTIONSOF SELECTED PROGRAMS ARE INCLUDED. A FUTURE REPORT WILL CONTAIN AN ANALYSIS Or THE TYPES, ORIGINS, FUNDING, AND EFFECTIVENESSOF CURRENT INNOVATIONS. THIS PUBLICATION IS ALSO AVAILABLEFROM PUBLICATIONS OFFICE, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 242 W. 18TH AVENUE, COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210, FOR $2.25. (AG) 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. Uhio tducational Innovations Survey The Ohio Educational InnovationsSarvey, the projecton which this publication is based, was sponsored, conducted, and financed by The Ohio Association of SchoolAdministrators The Ohio Education Association The Ohio School Boards Association The Ohio State University The State of Ohio Departmentof Education Project CommitteeMembers Daniel L. Stufflebeam Project Director Robert T. Baker Roy A. Larmee Egon G. Guba John Marrah Richard E. KelleyGerald R. Norman Published by the College of Education The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio MAR 1 5 1967 catalog of EDUCATIONAL CHANGES in obio publicschools U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION& WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECE'VED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATINGIT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIALOFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. PRECEDING PAGEBLANK- NOT FILMED * gir catalog of qp ED U C A T I 0NIA C Ft A NGlIE .., .4 ..: ... , 1,-thoblo44 ppEgic schools . .''::: c. '4.! ) $ ft ii ...... 4.11 1*, tfl.9 41\ V ,l'' 44 $$ P.. 4 - " le , .-, , ...4 ....110. ki II - *. a 4, ; 4 J. 4 3 4 fiki S. 6 , 4 ,, -. .4 -4t ..I.1177: 0 4 A10111,6 I. Copyright, 1966, by College of Education The Ohio State University "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Daniel L. Stufflebeam TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER." Copies of this publication may be obtained from Publications Office The Ohio State University 242 W. 18th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210 $2.25 each. Discounts for quantity orders. NOT FILMED PRECEDINGPAGE BLANK- FOREWORD As this book will attest, educational change is inaccomplish those tasks they are suited and mandated the air.Itisthe unusual school today that is notto do (i.e., to produce new knowledge and to make trying out new ideas: the Initial Teaching Alphabet,practical decisions) while bridging the gap between the PSSC curriculuminphysics,prekindergarten them with new mechanisms and agencies that are "head start" experiences, modular scheduling, pro-charged with intermediate functions such as inven- gramed instruction, ungraded primary units, special tion, design, field-testing, demonstration, dissemina- programs for potential dropouts, large group instruc-tion, and adaptation, none of which are properly at- tional spaces, machine processing of school data, and,tended to now. literally, hundreds of others. School people are acutely Such an undertakingisvastindeed, and one sensitive to public criticism, and they are attemptinghears only the beginning rumblings of such an effort to meet objections, when these are justified, as rapidlynow. The new Federal Elementary and Secondary and effectively aspossible. Further, an awakeningEducation Act of 1965 (Titles[II and 1V in par- professional conscience has aroused these same edu-ticular), the special effort of certain state departments cators to a self-criticismfar more penetrating than (for example, New York and Pennsylvania), and that which the public has been able to stimulate. Thethe development within university settings of special searching questions that educators have posed for agencies to deal with this problem (for example, Ken- themselves demand attention and reply. tucky and Ohio State) are straws in the wind. Edu- What kind of strategy can educators follow in at- cation cannot wait until these new efforts are fully tempting to meet the deficiencies and shortcomingsdeveloped; practical action must begin at once. The that are evident? How can they further improve thereport on the nature and location of educational inno- practices which seem -atleast minimally acceptablevations in Ohio schools in this book is one such be- even to the critics? How can completely new con- ginning step. cepts and techniques be invented and put into prac- The inventory of educational innovations reported tice? Questions such as these appear to be amongin this Catalog was suggested by and somewhat paral- the most important among thosecurrentlybeing lels the work of Henry M. Brickell in New York raised. state. However, while Brickell's inventory was con- The traditional (and notably ineffective) responsefined to instructional innovations, the present inven- to these questions recommends linking practice more tory includes six other areas as well: (1) Administra- intimately with research and theory. It has been main- tion, Organization, Business, and Finance; (2) Pupil tained that all of the problems attendant on the ac-Personnel Services; (3) School Plant; (4) Staff; (5) complishment of change would fade away if adequateSchool-Community Relations; and (6) Research. This channels of communication could be established be-Catalog, then, is probably the most complete compen- tween researchers and practitioners. That this isfal- dium yet to be assembled in respect to an area as lacious reasoning is patent as one notes the fervor large as a state. with which the two groups denounce one another for While Ohio State's Bureau of Educational Re- the evident failure to accomplish this much hoped forsearch and Service took the leadership in initiating rapprochement.Researchersarelabeledasivory- the effort, the Bureau was joined almost at once by tower, egg-head, cloud-nining "mere" theoreticians,four other agencies that collaborated throughout on and practitioners are viewed as rule-of-thumb, short-the effort and contributed funds and/or staff to the sighted,fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pantsmanipulators.In project: the Ohio State Department of Education; the the meantime, it is becoming apparent that no amount Ohio School Boards Association; the Ohio Education of vilification will solve the dilemma because each Association; and the Ohio Association of School Ad- side is both right and wrong. What is needed is a ministrators. The willingness of these groups to par- broad approach that will permit each of the camps to ticipatein and support thiseffortillustratestheir commitment to and belief in the importance of theald Norman all contributed time and energy well Catalog. Halfway through the project, a special grant above the levels we originally asked of them. from the Research Grants and Leaves Committee of Whether or not the Catalog will play a dynamic the College of Education, The Ohio State University, role in facilitating the educational change process in made possible some expansion in the study design thatOhio schools remains to be seen; I believe that it does emerged as useful. represent a useful firststep. In the final analysis, The efforts of Daniel Stufflebeam, chairman, and however, this utility depends upon the degree of inter- the personnel comprising the ad hoc committee foraction which theCatalog has with Ohio school the development of the Catalog deserve special atm-.people, and which it promotes among Ohio school peo- tion. The original estimates of the work and effortple. The best evidence that this potential has been necessary to do the project turned out to be grosslyrealized will be the speed with which the Catalog inadequate, but Dr. Stufflebeam's dedication to the is outdated. It is my fervent hope that a revision will project remained and, in fact, seemed to increase in need to be undertaken almost at once. direct proportion to the apparent impossibility of ever Egon G. Guba getting the task done. Other members of the ad hoc Assistant Director group worked with equal fervorRobert T. Baker, School of Education Richard Kelley, Roy Larmee, John Marrah, and Ger- The Ohio State University ACKNOWLEDGMENT Many people and several organizations contributedfrom the city. Everyone of the men acknowledged to the success of the project that has resulted in theabove cooperated fully -and wholeheartedly andin a production of this report. Hundreds of teachers and fine professional spirit. I wishto express my sincere administrators in Ohio's public schools took the timepersonal appreciation of theirvery generous coopera- to complete and return the detailed questionnairestion on the committee. they received. The Ohio Association of School Ad- My special thanks go to the graduateassistants ministrators,