DC. PUB DATE - ERIC · 2013-08-02 · ED 266 908. AUTHOR. TITLE. INSTITUTION. SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE CONTRACT NOTE AVAILABLE FROM. PUB TYPE. DOCUMENT RESUME. RC 015 632. Phillips,

ED 266 908

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

RC 015 632

Phillips, Richard; And OthersThe Mid-Missouri Small School Computer Consortium:Training Teachers on Their Own Turf.ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and SmallSchools, Las Cruces, N. lex.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.86

NIE-400-83-002398p.

ERIC/CRESS, Department 12, Box 3AP, New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces, NM 88003 ($6.50).Guides - Non-Classroom Use (055) -- InformationAnalyses - ERIC Information Analysis Products (071)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Community Characteristics; *Computer Literacy;

*Consortia; Educational Technology; ElementarySecondary Education; Financial Support; *InserviceTeacher Education; *Itinerant Teachers;Microcomputers; Organizational Theories; ProgramDevelopment; Program Effectiveness; *Rural Education;Rural Schools; School Demography; Shared Services;*Small Schools

IDENTIFIERS *Mid Missouri Small School Computer Consortium MO;Missouri

ABSTRACTDirected primarily toward small school administrators

and school boards, this publication describes a consortium of fiverural school districts in central Missouri and how they used atraveling teacher to facilitate-incorporation of microcomputercapabilities into the school systems' operation and curriculum. Thepaper describes the use of the consortium to provide teacherinservice training in each district and discusses curriculumapplications of microcomputers. Topics include development of thetraining program, delivery system, methods of instruction, evaluationof the inservice program, and explanation of the post inservice useof computers in the consortium schools. A discussion of the suggestedprinciples of consortium operation covers the need for a clearadvantage to cooperation, optimal number of members, geographicproximity and size of member schools, leadership, organization,finances, nd the use of outside resources. Background materialincludes a description of the roles to be played by small schoolconsortia, a review of literature concerning the use of computertechnology in rural schools, and a history of the Mid-Missouri SmallSchool consortium (MMSSC) with attention to features that made forsuccessful sharing of services. Appendices contain tables showingparticipant ratings of inservice training topics, characteristics ofschools and communities forming the MMSSC and a short list ofreferences. (JHZ)

7-277 ,

The Mid-Missouri

mall School

omputer

Consortium

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)b/Thrs document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this dorm. -

ment do not necessanly represent official NIEposition or policy.

Traininga4111.4"9114 Teachers On

Their OwnTurf

- A t- "

THE MID-MISSOURI SMALL SCHOOL COMPUTER

CONSORTIUM:

TRAINING TEACHERS ON THEIR OWN TURF

By

Richard PhillipsDirector of Curriculum Supervision

Missouri Department ofElementary and Secondary Education

Paul Nachtigal

Rural Education Project DirectorMid-Continent RegionalEducational Laboratory

Daryl HobbsProfessor of Rural Sociology

University of Missouri

1986

Published by

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)Clearinghouse on Rural Education

and Small Schools (CRESS)New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-0042

OERI0115. seat Educaticnal

1%searr_17 and linprovernentUS Department of Education

This publication was prepared with fundingfrom the Office of Educational Research andImprovement, U.S. Department of Education,under contract no. NIE-400-83-0023. Theopinions expressed iv this report do notnecessarily reflect the positions orpolicies of OERI or the Depavtment ofEducation.

Cover design by Debbie Guerrero.

4

;

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

vii

ix

1

Roles A Consortium Can Play 3 ;.';

What is a Consortium 3

An Alternative to Consolidation:Transporting Education Instead ofStudents 4

Microcomputers in Rural Schools- -Problems or Solutions 8

The Computer and the Rural School 10

Learning From the Literature 11

Initiating and Managing the Mid-MissouriSmall School Consortium 19

Preliminaries 19

The Beginning 21

Consortium Funding 27

Reflections on the Beginning 28

Managing the Consortium, Spring 1983 31

Managing the Consortium, 1983-84 33

Developing the Computer In-ServiceTraining Program 38

The First Semester, Spring 1983 38

In-Service Training, 1983-84 50

Evaluating the In-Service TrainingProgram 53

Participant Characteristics 53

Participant Rating of In-ServiceSections 56

Effect of Number of In-Service HoursSpent by Teachers on Level ofSatisfaction

Effect of Years' Teaching Experienceon Satisfaction with In-ServiceTraining

Impact of the MMSSC

Computer Use in the Classroom 60

Extent of Post In-Service ComputerUse Among Participating Districts 62

Effect of In-Service Training onHardware and Software Acquisition 65

Diffusion of the Consortium Concept 65

Sunnary 68

iv

Appendix A Characteristics of Schoolsand Communities Forming theMid-Missouri Small SchoolConsortium 73

Appendix B Participant Ratings ofIn-Service Training TopicsBy Other Variables 78

References 83

About the Authors 86

7

Table 1

Table 2

LIST OF TABLES

Outside Agency Roles in theDevelopment of the Mid-Missouri Small SchoolConsortium

Number of FacultyParticipating in In-ServiceTraining Evaluation

32

54

Table 3 Faculty Status of

Respondents 54

Table 4 Years of TeachingExperience 55

Table 5 Sex of Respondents 55

Table 6 Participant Rating of In-

Service Topics 57

Table 7 Teacher Use of theMicrocomputer in the

Classroom 61

Table 8

vi

Post Inservice Use ofComputers -- Mid - Missouri

Small Schools Computer

Consortium 63

America has a long history of sharing,particularly in times of economic hardship.Small rural schools face a long, up-hillbattle in their efforts to offer theirstudents comprehensive educationalexperiences in a time of dwindling fiscalresources. Sharing available resources andforming consortia are ways such schools cancombine to accomplish what they cannot doalone.

The history of the Mid-Missouri Small

School Consortium is an excellent example ofhow public schools, universities, statedepartments of education, and regionaleducational laboratories can collaborate toidentify and solve problems. In the finalanalysis, however, it was the small schoolsthat made the consortium work. The resultwas that several small rural schools hadteachers and administrators more skilled intechnology, computer equipment was morefully utilized, and students had treateropportunities to move into--and becomeparticipants in--the computer age.

This publication is offered in thebelief that other small schools can learnfrom Missouri's example and use the same orsimilar strategies to accomplish theirgoals. Situations and needs may differ, butthe concept of banding together to do what

vii

one school cannot do alone is a viableconcept and merits further explorationwherever needs cannot be met by moretraditional solutions.

Betty Rose D. Rios

Associate DirectorERIC Clearinghouse onRural Education andSmall Schools

New Mexico State University

viii

10

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Although there are only three authorslisted for this publication, there are manywhose combined efforts have contributed tothe case study that is the focus of thispublication. Of particular importance arethe six school superintendents whose ideasand initiatives were responsible for theconsortium described here. Their originalideas plus their continuing commitment havebeen fundamental to the successes theconsortium has achieved.

In addition, three other persons havecontributed very directly to producing thispublication. These include Dr. Tom Weible,formerly of the College of Education facultyat the University of Missouri-Columbia, who

assisted in evaluation of the Consortium'sin-service training program; Tony Sander,the computer consultant whose work islargely the focus of this study; and VickiHobbs, who contributed significantly toanalysis of the data and review of theliterature.

INTRODUCTION

This publication describes the effortsof five rural school districts in centralMissouri to incorporate microcomputercapabilities into their school systems'operation and curriculum. Like most smallrural school districts, they warted toenhance their instructional capabilities butwere operating on a budgetary shoe string.The method they employed--a consortium toshare services--is not new, but their useof the consortium concept to provide teacherin-service training and curriculum applica-tions of microcomputers was innovative. TheMid-Missouri Small School Consortium (MMSSC)is also distinctive because of the coopera-tive support relationships established withthe Missouri Department of Elementary andSecondary Education (DESE), the Universityof Missouri (U MC), and the Mid-Continent

Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL).

Some of the technological approachesimplemented among these small mral schoolswill be reviewed in an effort to learn fromtheir experiences and draw relevant supportfor the methods of the Mid- Missouri SmallSchool Consortium. Initiation and historyof the MMSSC will be described in order tolay a foundation for its later collaborativeefforts. From the MMSSC experience severalconclusions will be drawn about necessaryfeatures of small school consortia that

12

contribute to the successful sharing ofservices. The computer in-service trainingprogram of the MMSSC will be outlinedincluding its development, delivery system,and methods of instruction. The programdescription concludes with-an evaluation ofthe in-service program, an explanation ofthe post in-service use of computers in theconsortium schools, and an enumeration ofthe suggested principles of consortiumoperation.

This publication is directed largelytoward small school administrators andschool boards--those seeking to improvetheir curricula in cost-effective ways. Itshould also be of interest and relevance tothose charged with assisting rural schoolsin meeting this objective-- intermediateagencies, state departments of education,and the colleges and universities that

provide professional education research andconsulting.

2

ROLES A CONSORTIUM CAN PLAY

The experience of the Mid-Missouri SmallSchool Consortium suggests that a consortiumis an effective way of expanding the capa-bilities of small rural schools and that theconsortium is strengthened with the activeinvolvement of other resource agencies.

What is a Consortium?

As applied to education, the formationof a consortium involves the banding to-gether of a small number of usually, but notnecessarily, adjacent school districts for

the purpose of pooling resources--financial,conceptual, instructional, or personnel- -in an effort to address a common problem orinitiative. The organization of such aconsortium can range from a formalized legalentity with a hired staff to a totally in-formal agreement among superintendents (orothers) to work together to a common end.Purposes for formation may range from asingle problem that any one district byitself cannot adequately handle, usuallybecause of financial constraints, to ageneralized goal such as improving theinstructional capabilities of the schools.Joint involvement may span any length oftime--the lifespan of a consortium may beonly long enough to realize an immediatecommon goal or a consortium may addressmultiple problems or initiatives simulta-

neously or consecutively over an extendedperiod. Consort:Wm members may enter orleave the informal arrangement at any timeor member districts may band together indifferent combinations depending upon theproblems currently identified.

A consortium usually operates under thejoint direction of the superintendents ofmember districts. The agenda may call forthe joint hiring of staff to carry out theintentions of the consortium or it mayentail the joint allocation of specificduties to each member district. Consortiummeetings are usually dictated by the peri-odic need to "work things out" or decide onthe next steps.

In the Missouri experience, the roleof intermediary that has been assumed mostoften by area college or state universitypersonnel and/or state department of educa-tion and regional education laboratory staffusually involves initiation of the con-sortium concept and the offer of resourcestaff from which consortium members maydraw. Because it is not yet a commonoccurrence for districts still gun-shy fromconsolidation battles (or the threat ofthem) to collaborate in a way that may againstir up old wounds, an intermediary has beennecessary in the birth of many consortia.As more consortia emerge and rural dis-tricts--as well as rural communities--seethe benefits of educational collaborationfor the small school, an intermediary may nolonger be needed to initiate the consortium

concept.

4

15

4R1 is

An Alternative to Consolidation:Transporting Education Instead of Students

There are some educational problems andapproaches that are unique to small ruralschools. Small schools have followed thelead of the nation's urban schools foryears. Conventional wisdom among earliereducational leaders and planners leanedstrongly in the direction of consolidatingrural schools to make them large enough toeconomically justify a comprehensive schoolprogram. Consolidation was viewed as a wayof eliminating one feature--small size--thatmade rural schools unique.

However, there are practical limitsto consolidation and in many parts ofrural America--especially the Midwest,West, and Southwest--these limits havelargely been met. The costs of furtherconsolidation generally outweigh anypotential benefits from larger studentnumbers. Even in places where further Ralariallim.4-

consolidation might be feasible thereis little public support; few communitieshaving a school are enthused at the prospectof losing it. Previous consolidationsdemonstrated to many rural Americans thatlosing a school was a blow from which manycommunities didn't recover. Whether foreconomic or social reasons, then, schoolconsolidation seems to be an idea whose timehas passed. Thus many small rural schoolswill continue to exist, either because theyare "necessarily existent," or because ofpublic preference.

5

A major impediment to further con-solidation is what some have termed "thefriction of space." Whatever rationale mayhave justified earlier waves of consolida-tion, that rationale ceasesto make eithereducational or economic sense when childrenspend 3 or more hours per day on a busgoing to and from school. New technology,however, provides possibilities for over-coming some of the friction of space. Newtelecommunication and computer technologiesmake it possible and feasible to gain accessto some of the benefits of educationalspecialization without the need for furtherstudent travel.

Some educationally relevant technology,such as television, has been around foryears, and has done little to alter tradi-tional methods and concepts of education.The chalkboard still commands a moreprominent role in most classrooms thantelevision--even among those rural schoolswhere television could supplement otherwisesparse curriculum offerings. So it is notthe educational potential of technologyalone that seems responsible for the currentwave of innovation among smaller ruralschools. For whatever reasons, there nowseems tn h^ a greater willingness amongsmall .al schools to experiment with neweduca _Lona]. methods and media. Perhaps thepotential of video, telecommunications, and/or computer technology has excited creativ-ity, or perhaps innovation in small ruralschools is attributable to increased publicattention to education in recent years.Perhaps it is a continuation of growingpublic expectations of schools coupled with

6

zr

budgets that have generally stabilized oreven declined in constant dollars. Perhapsit is attributable to more scholarly andpolicy attention to rural schools in recentyears, or perhaps, when speaking of creativeuses of computers, it is just a response tothe question, "What do we do with them afterwe have 'em?"

MICROCOMPUTERS IN RURAL SCHOOLS--PROBLEMS OR SOLUTIONS

The problem is not one of coaxing ruralschools into the computer age; it's how tomake use of the computers they've alreadybought. Whether donated by the bank, boughtfrom PTA fund drive earnings, or purchasedwith "special ed" monies, most ruralschools have one or more TRS-80, Commodore,TI, IBM, or Apple computers. Havingcomputers, however, doesn't necessarilybring a school into the computer age. Evenin those districts blessed with aninnovative administrator, incorporatingcomputers into the curriculum often fallsshort of potential.

Because of a steady decline in price,the easiest step toward entering thecomputer age is purchasing a computer. Tosome extent computers have become an educa-tional fad--parents have got the message andare anxious to have their children "learncomputers." To some extent computers havebecome a status symbol. While computers inschools are here to stay, we are generallystill at the stage where the quantity ofhardware, rather than the utility of it,

conveys "progress."

As schools progress beyond the"acquisition of hardware" stage, ruralschools may find more applications forcomputing capabilities than their larger

8

1.9,00.k.aimiaarrillM1

city counterparts. Computers have thecapability of "extending" the instructionalcapacities of overloaded teachers and/or"extending" the curriculum offerings ofschools whose size and budget do not allowfor much instructional specialization.

The National Commission on Excellence inEducation in its report entitled "A NationAt Risk" (1983) calls for us to equipgraduates "to understand the world ofcomputers, electronics, and relatedtechnologies." How can rural schoolssuccessfully implement the technology ofthe "computer era" as they pursue this goal?

Computers are products of a uniquetechnology--they are not quite like any-thing experienced before. Other electronictechnologies like television, radio, etc. ,

typically have only one application. Incontrast, computers are being used forhundreds of very different applications,and the number of applications can only in-crease. Computers can serve administrativeor instructional purposes; teachers canteach about computers or teach with them;computers are applicable to first gradewriting or to calculus; students can "teach"(program) computers or be taught by them.The many ways in which computers will beused in education are still evolvingalthough there are litenally thousandsof "educational" software packages nowavailable. But how "educational" some ofthis software is and how the software, theclassroom, and the teacher will interact isstill very much in the experimental stage.

The Computer and the Rural School

We have implied that smaller, ruralschools may be in a better position totake the lead in educational uses of micro-computer technology than their large schoolcounterparts. Because the small schooloften does not have the economic means toprovide as many and as varied curriculumopportunities for its LAudents as the largerschool, the small school must either becontent to offer its students a narrowselection of courses or seek altto the traditional teacher/classroom coursein order to expand the curriculum. Micro-computer technology offers one viablecurriculum alternative. A microcomputerand a telephone can combine to bring to thesmallest community the information, refer-

ences, and educational resources of a well-stocked library. Microcomputer technologyoffers the promise and potential that accessto pertinent educational materials need nolonger be denied because of remote location.Computer technology is a bridge to re-sources. It won't guarantee learning but itcan contribute to an economical solution toone of the traditional problems of smallschools--insufficient numbers of teachersand inadequate educational resources.

Computer applications for mall schoolsare still evolving. Although there are manypertinent software applications, smallschool administrators and teachers generallyhave their hands full with existing workloads and don't have the time to acquire thetechnical competence necessary to pick outthe "best" systems and apply them to the

10

21

educational needs of the school. Further,small schools may have need for applicationsof computer technology efferent than thoseof large schools (large schools with 500employees may find a payroll program avaluable addition, btzt a district with 20employees may find it more trouble than itis worth). There is nothing inherentlybeneficial in performing a task bycomputer--it depends on the size of the taskand the alternatives for performing it.

Learning frqm the Literature

The application of microcomputers ineducation has become widespread and varied,extending beyond the bailiwick of urbanschools. Indeed, Fletcher (1980) argues thatthe smallness of rural schools makes them auniquely promising setting for developingelectronic technologies, and further statesthat specialized programs offered throughelectronic technology could be ultimatelymore cost-effective than either consolida-tion or specialist staffing.

Through microcomputer use in theEduceional Telecommunications forAlaska ?roject (1981), remote studentsuse individual programming to learnnative languages, legends, andtraditions, as well as conventionalitjects. Electronic mail service.Available through the Administrative 11041.6911"hd"Communication Network (ACN) helps tobridge the gaps between many remote andisolated districts. The Alaska KnowledgeBase System (AKBS) provides teachers andadministrators with rapid access to

information banks on a variety ofinstructional materials, researchdocuments, and curricular development

resources.

Both Pennsylvania and Arkansas haveestablished electronic information networkswhich provide public schools with valuableand timely information on meetings, events,and pending education legislation. An

electronic mail service has been set up inKansas so that school districts across thestate can deliver messages, discuss issues,and share ideas. National informationservices such as Newsline and ED-NET nowserve many districts. The AlabamaAssociation of School Boards uses anelectronic mail service to send dailylegislative information to members (Lloyd,1983).

Hofteister (1984) notes that many ruraleducation problems are related to communica-tion and may be overcome by electronic com-munication technologies. Electronic mail

systems, electronic bulletin boards,computer conferencing, wire services, anddatabase searches are several videotexapplications which schools can use to their

advantage. Hofteister believes, however,that the notion of achieving universalexcellence in instructional delivery throughcomputer-assisted instruction has faded

somewhat.

Educational Operations Concepts, Inc.,

in its Guide on Successful Uses ofTechnol oEy in Rural Schools (McCormick andMcCormick, 1982), concludes that the use of

various electronic technologies can overcomesome of the financial, personnel, and curricularlimitations of the rural school district.Among the kinds of electronic technology

being effectively and efficiently used inrural school systems are computers, instruc-

tional television, videodisks, audio tapes,radio, telecommunications systems, pro-grammed instruction, video tapes, and inter-active video. The guide further states thatorganized and interested teachers anti staffwho are provided with specific technological

pre-service and in-service training areessential to the effective utilization oftechnology in the classroom.

Conboy (1983), in reporting on theCharlton Country Education Pilot Project inAustralia, describes the two-way audio con-tact initiated among seven rural secondaryschools and other outside resource agencies.Achieved by way of an experimental terminaland teleconferencing system, the goals ofthe project were to increase the level ofinteraction among small rural school teach-ers, administrators, and outside informationsources and to use communications technologyin an educational setting. Difficultiesencountered in this audio system, as Conboyreports, were the design of the remoteterminals, the variable quality of thetransmission reception, the inappropriate-ness of the instructional medium for somesubjects, such as art, and the lack Ofopportunity for student participation indiscussions. Teleconferenced lectures werefound to be more effective.

The Educational Resources InformationCenter (ERIC) database contains approxi-mately 130 items on rural technology thatcover a variety of subjects related to ruraleducation including new technologies, newuses of technology, and case studies.Technology applications described in ERICmaterials include in-service training,international rural development, employmenttraining, health education, career educa-tion, special education, gifted education,and adult education. Technical reports inERIC cover communication satellites, massmedia, educational television and radio,mobile classrooms, computer-assistedinstruction, and computer-assisted testing.

Using computers for drill and instruc-tion in the classroom has become relativelycommon. However, the instructional use ofcomputers in rural or isolated schoolssometimes lags behind that of their urbanand suburban counterparts. Zakariya (1984)

further points out that affluent schools getmore computers than schools located in lowsocioeconomic areas and the ratio ofstudents to computers is lower in moreaffluent districts. Poorer schools are morelikely to use their computers for remedialinstruction and for drill and practice inbasic skills; little time may be allowed forenrichment activities via computer.

The development and/or implementationof technology specific to the needs of ruralschools and the concomitant costs tz, thoseschools is an issue of vital concern. Threepapers were commissioned for the NationalInstitute of Education's 1980 "Workshop on

14

f-25

Telecommunications in the Service of RuralEducation" (1980). Fletcher (1980)suggested using rural and small schoolsas developmental sites for rural educationtechnology to ensure that this technologydoes meet the needs of rural school systems.Bransford (1980) noted that while ruraleducation is often a focal point for govern-ment aid, projects seldom survive beyondtheir initial development funding largelybecause (1) money is usually provided forcapital (hardware) expenditures and seldomfor the software that makes the technologyuseful; (2) institutional and personalproblems arise; (3) the need for individualprogramming develops in the face of econo-mies of scale; and (4) institutional fearsof telecommunications technology surface.Filep (1980) reviewed newer communicationsdevelopments in his paper and described somerural education applications of technology.Workshop participants were offered severalsuggestions and outlined a practical strat-egy for implementing technology in ruraleducation systems. Participants at theworkshop defined the most immediate needas getting available information into thefield as soon as possible, especiallyinformation on applications and potentialfunding resources.

With respect to the funding of techno-logical innovations in the rural or smallschool setting, Monk (1982) feels thatexisting cost indices are flawed in a waythat discriminates unfairly against rural/small school districts. He proposes thatstates use a service-specific cost indexwhich takes into account the service cost

26

differentials as well as input cost differ-entials, thus providing a more equitablemeans of compensating for differences inthe costs of providing educational services.

Filep (1980) notes that a variety ofcommunications technology is both affordableand essential to the rural school district,especially if a sharing of technologicalcosts and benefits between different groupsin the rural community can be achieved.Filep provides a number of recommendationson planning, needs assessment, organiza-tional aid, and potential funding sources.

The two case studies cited next haveparticular relevance to the project under-taken by the Mid-Missouri Small SchoolConsortium.

In a rural school case study in Kansas(McDonald and Gibson, 1982), three micro-computers were initially purchased withno comprehensive plan for acquisition,training, or maintenance. Major problemsencountered were the misuse of equipmentby uninformed users and the hoarding ofequipment by informed users. The schoollater provided in-service training toreduce the seriousness of the problems.

Kelly and Vanvactor's (1983) analysisof data from Project SPECTRE (SpecialEducation Curriculum and Training forRegular Educators), a federal in-servicetraining program for teachers in ruralNevada, cites several methods for train-ing remotely located teachers includinginstruction by independent study, by

school district "master teachers," andby university instructors on campus or onsite. On-site instruction by universitypersonnel or by master teachers appearedto be both academically and fiscally moreeffective than instruction on.the univer-sity campus or through independent study.

Several other sources cast the effortsof the MMSSC in an interesting and innova-tive light: Rottier, et al., (1983) foundin a survey of 348 teachers in several smallMinnesota school districts that significantnumbers of teachers appeared to be person-ally dissatisfied with teaching. Whilecertainly not an isolated finding, theimpact of widespread dissatisfaction --especially among male and experiencedteachers--may lead small school adminis-trators to embrace technological advancesin education as a way of reinvigoratingfrustrated teachers.

Brown and Jackson (1983) offer theU.S. Cooperative Extension Service as amodel for cooperative activity betweenstate universities and surrounding localeducation institutions, thereby linkingthe rural or small community to the largerresources of the university

Sher (1983) states matter-of-factlythat small schools face higher per pupilcosts unless resources are shared withother schools.

As these experiences show, the use ofcomputer technology in the educational arenais not new, nor is the concept of in-service

-12

training. Both, however, when applied toa consortium of rural school districts- -such as the Mid-Ilissouri Small School

Consortium--and with university and statedepartment of education assistance, offera new horizon to districts with limitedresources and plagued by problems ofrestricted curricular range, financialcontraints, and inadequate specialiststaffing.

18

29

INITIATING AND MANAGING THE MID-MISSOURISMALL SCHOOL CONSORTIUM

The important thing about forminga small school consortium is that it getstarted with a clearly defined purpose andsufficient support to enable it to achieveits purpose. The Mid-Missouri Small School,Consortium is an example of Show one suchgroup identified a purpose and establisheda support system to achieve that purpose.This section includes elements of the MMSSCexperience that may be useful to other smallschools considering a consortium approach.

An important feature of the MMSSCexperience was the role played by supportorganizations--notably the Mid-ContinentRegional Educational Laboratory (McREL),the Missouri Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education (DESE), and theUniversity of Missouri (UMC). The roleof each organization will be included inthe account of the MMSSC experience.

Preliminaries

McREL has been ir rolved in varioussmall school projects in the Plains Statesfor several years. Although Missouri is inthe region served by McREL, there had notyet been a McREL- involved small schoolproject in the state. In 1981 and 1982 aMcREL representative discussed possibilitiesfor a rural/small schools project initiative

19

(.30

with various DESE and UMC personnel. The

participants in these discussions agreed tohold an exploratory meeting with a repre-sentative group of small Missouri schools tohear their problems and to determine if aproject could be organized. During thesummer of 1982, DESE and UMC personnel co-operated in selecting seven central Missourismall school administrators to attend such a

meeting.

The initial meeting was held at theDESE offices in mid-August, 1982. During

the first part of the day, the McRELrepresentative met with officials of DESEand the seven administrators to explainMcREL's purpose and how McREL had workedwith other groups of small schools in the

region. For the remainder of the day,discussion was devoted to problems unique to

the seven small schools. Those participat-ing in the discussions included the seveninvited administrators, the McREL represen-tative (Paul Nachtigal), the Director ofCurriculum Supervision of DESE (RichardPhillips), and a rural sociologist (DarylHobbs) from UMC. Most of thosesuperintendents and the resource agencyrepresentatives have continued to functionas the core of MMSSC and its support group.

Although the MOREL representativehighlighted some of the problems of smallschools in the region and some of theapproaches being taken to address thoseproblems, subsequent discussions failed toproduce any interesting ideas. For the most

part, discussion centered on regulations ofthe DESE irritating to small schools and

20

1

budgetary and teacher hiring problems. Nearthe en.. of the day the MaREL representativeasked if the group would be interested in,another meeting to discuss further thepossibilities of a project. Since the-meeting up to that time had producedfew fresh ideas, there wasn't muchenthusiasm for another meeting.However, one of the superintendentsvolunteered that he might be inter-ested in meeting to discuss small

x.1W1-14M.4

computers and their potential for theinstructional programs of small schools.He stated that his school, like many others,had some,small computers but was not makingmuch use of them because few of the teachersor administrators knew much about them.That statement ,/as the key! Since severalother superintendents indicated that theyhad the same problem and interest, it wasagreed to hold another meeting in October.During the discussion, the Director ofCurriculum Supervision (Phillips) statedthat the DESE also lacked computer experi-ence and expertise. The UMC representative(Hobbs) volunteered to organize a programon small computers at the UMC campus if thegroup would be interested in meeting there.

The Beginning

All those in attendance at the Augustmeeting met at UPC on October 20, 1982 tohear presentations by various UMC computerspecialists on the state of the art andapplications of small computers. As eachpresentation was made, it became clear thatthere was a great deal of interest amongthe superintendents. The presentations were

often interrupted with questions and inquir-ies about applications. These interruptionsoften served as an occasion for furtherdiscussion among the superintendent aboutproblems unique to their small school's. As

the combination of discussion and presenta-tion continued, one problem kept surfacing- -providing computer in-service training forteachers and administrators. As superin-tendents, they were keenly aware of theirfaculties' time limitations and theirprobable lack of enthusiasm for acquiringcomputer literacy on their own time. Theyknew also that they had few incentives tooffer their faculty, but one superintendentasked, "Would it make sense for the schoolsto go together and generate a sufficientamount of money to hire a computer special-ist on a full-time basis to provide the in-service training on location at eachschool?" That idea and lunchtime coincided,but when the afternoon session began, it wasclear that the idea had grown rapidly.During lunch, the superintendents as a grouphad agreed to form a consortium to implementin-service training if a qualified special-ist could be found and conditions of employ-ment worked out. The afternoon presentationon classroom computer simulation exercisesproceeded, but it was clear that most of thesuperintendents were preoccupied with think-ing about the details of their soon-to-beconsortium.

As soon as the presentation was com-pleted, the new "consortium" got down todetails. One of the details was finding aperson who had the skills and might be will-ing to go to work for an as yet non-existent

22

33_

organization. One school's former mathteacher was working in a computer store andemerged as a possibility; one of the super-intendents agreed to determine if he mightbe available.

The superintendents found little valuein delaying the start of their "organiza-tion"; agreement was reached that they wouldbegin operation as soon as a qualified andmutually suitable person could be found andemployed. They informally agreed to anoperational date of December 1, 1982. Theyroughed out what it might cost to hire acomputer specialist and how much each schoolmight need to contribute. They agreed thatone school should serve as fiscal agent.They agreed that in-service training shouldbe provided on location at each school.They agreed that their "employee" shoulddivide his/her time equally among theschools, a full day at a time. They wereuncertain about what kind of contract wouldbe needed, what kind of insurance coveragewould be required, how the in-servicetraining program should be designed, how thetraining would occur, how much their"specialist" would be paid, etc. They didagree that each school would work out itsuse of the specialist on its own terms--thespecialist would have to be an adaptableperson. They also recognized that theywould need to discuss the idea with theirschool boards, and that they n:eded anothermeeting to work out the details--providing

approval had been obta:,ned from each schoolboard.

3

During the discussion, the McRELrepresentative agreed to determine whetherMcREL could contribute to such things astravel expenses for the consortium employee.The Director of Curriculum Supervisionencouraged the group to proceed and offeredadministrative support from his office.The UMC representative offered to providemeeting space at the University becauseof its centra3 location in relation to thenew consortium schools. Because of thepotential need for technical support, healso offered to continue to work with theconsortium in a support role. Feeling thatthey had accomplished a great deal for oneday, the superintendents adjourned toaccomplish their agreed-upon tasks.

After the superintendents left, therepresentatives from McREL, DESE, and UMCremained to discuss the accomplishments ofthe day. While there was considerableenthusiasm at the prospect of the newconsortium, the Director of CurriculumSupervision expressed concern about the lackof expertise and emphasis on computertechnology in the state department. Hesuggested that many of the schools werealready well ahead of the state departmentin entering the computer age. The ideasurfaced that perhaps the state departmentcould become a "member" of the new consor-tium; if a specialist were employed, thestate department could share in the timeof the specialist to provide opportunitiesfor the staff to acquire computer literacy.The idea seemed potentially workable, andthe McREL representative agreed to look intothe possibility that McREL could pick up

24

that share of the cost for the statedepartment's participation; the statedepartment lacked flexible funds at thattime for such experimental activity.

The reaction of other consortiummembers to the possibility of having thestate department participate as a member wasobtained by telephone. There being nodissent, plans were made for a meeting onNovember 19 at UMC to work out proceduresfor the full consortium. The computerspecialist (and former math teacher) who wasdiscussed at the October 20 meeting wasindeed interested in being employed by theconsortium, assuming that satisfactoryconditions of employment could be reached.He agreed to attend the November consortiummeeting to "interview" for the position.

The consortium met November 19 atUMC along with the McREL, DESE, and UMCrepresentatives and the applicant computerspecialist. At that meeting the followingevents occurred:

(1) all districts reported that they hadobtained consent from their boards toproceed;

(2) the participants agreed to jointlyhire the computer specialist;

(3) although the district farthest awayfrom the others reported that it haddecided not to participate, theattendees agreed that DESE wouldbecome a member, bringing the

25

consortium back up to sevenfinancially participating entities;

(4) participants agreed that one of theschools would serve as the fiscalagent for the consortium and wouldcarry the contract of the specialist;

(5) the McREL representative reportedthat McREL would contribute to theconsortium an amount sufficient tocover travel expenses for thespecialist and to cover the DESEportion of participation;

(6) participants agreed that thesuperintendents would serve as aboard and meet at regular intervalsto review work of the consortium andplan future activities;

(7) participants agreed that each schoolwould be individually responsible forhow it made use of the specialist;

(8) they agreed that the consortium wouldbe named the Mid-Missouri SmallSchools Computer Consortium (the namewould later be changed--leaving outthe word "computer"--to allow forideas of the consortium that went

beyond computer applications); and

(9) they agreed that the consortium wouldbecome fully operational with thebeginning employment of the computerspecialist on December 1, 1982.

2637

Consortium Funding

While brought together initially atthe request of McREL, the superintendentsinvolved were made well aware thatfinancial support from McREL would bemodest, covering only extraneous costs suchas travel, meetings, etc. ,Any Initiativestaken by the schools would require eithertheir own financing.or acquisition of Otheroutside grant dollars. The participatingschool administrators decided that jointhiring of a computer specialist would besufficiently cost-effective that eachdistrict could absorb its portion Ofthesalary and expenses. Therefore, the schoolssought no outside dollar6 to fund the in-service training program for their facul-ties. During the first semester each-con-sortium member absorbed an equal portion ofthe consultant's salary and travel expenses.While one school served as the tiscal agent,each consortium member agreed to pay $1,000at the beginning of the semester and another$1,000 on March 15th. A total of $14,000was therefore budgeted for the first semes-ter of operation, December 1, 1982 throughMay 31, 1983. Because the State Departmentof Education had no flexibility in allocat-ing money for such purposes,'McREL fundedits portion of the cost. During the secondyear of operation, the consortium dividedthe cost six ways with McREI, again fundingthe state department. Each consortiumparticipant agreed to allocate 0,500 forconsIltant salary, benefits, and travel.The $4,500 was payable in four equalinstallments to the school serving as fiscalagent, thus totaling $27,000 for the

27

11-month contract from July 1, 1983 through

May 31, 1984. Insurance costs as well as

teacher retirement were covered isy thecontract with the fiscal agent. Travelexpenses paid to the consultant for use ofhis personal car were limited to commutingbetween districts and the State Department

of Education. Expenses associated withoutside conference travel were notreimbursed.

Reflections on the Beginning

In the space of 1 month the MMSSChad progressed from an idea to a fullyoperational consortium. Little of whattranspired had been planned. The reason for

the initial meeting in August was to explorein general terms the possibility of somekind of "project" involving small schools

in Missouri. No thought had been given toa computer project; there was no "up front"

offer of money; there was no overt recommen-dation of a consortium approach. Everythingthat happened resulted from ideas coming out

of that initial discussion. Since nothing

that occurred was specifically planned, itseems pertinent to reflect on some of thefactors that contributed to the.fruition of

the consortium idea. We suggest thefollowing as some of the factors con-tributing to MMSSC's start:

(1) Official recognition that smallrural schools may have uniqueeducational problems AND potential- -

In retrospect it seems pertinentthat the initial meeting was-held atthe DESE and at the call of the DESE.

28

39

Regardless of what followed, thisfact alone has important symbolicvalue--it suggests that it islegitimate and reasonable that smallrural schools should have problemsand interests different from schoolsin general.

(2) An outside organization (a neutral

party) served as a catalystfor the exploratory meeting- -

This freed either the districtsor the state department from havingto establish an "agenda" for ameeting. It would seem that sucha setting is more conducive to theemergence of fresh ideas. It

establishes the frame of referencefor the meeting.

(3) Superintendents were present asthe representatives of the schoolsdistricts- -

Perhaps no single factorcontributed more to the fast actionof this group of schools in responseto an important idea than the factthat the superintendents wereinvolved from the very beginning andthat the ideas around which theconsortium was built came largelyfrom them. Superintendents are theauthority figures in schools--especially smaller schools--and theyhave the power to make decisions(with board consent). They can movevery quickly from interest in an ideato active consideration and toadoption. The initial meeting could

not have accomplished what it did hadthe superintendents not been involved.

(4) Inside source of ideas-.!.

The participants in the meetingcame up with the idea around'whichMMSSC formed. Their personal contri-butions to the idea- had a role intheir rapid adoption of it. Peopletend to be more committed to pro-jects, programs, and ideas that theyhave developed.

(5) The quality and pertinence of theidea, i.e., the purpose- -

The idea of small computers,their educational potential, theproblems of teacher in-servicetraining, the incorporation ofmicrocomputers into the curriculum,and the excitement of new technologycontributed to the eventual outcome.The meetings among superintendentsresulted in the definition of aproblem--microcomputers and what todo with them--and a solution--jointlyhiring a specialist to solve theproblem. The problem was important(and somewhat exciting) and thesolution--the consortium--waspertinent. The solution made sense,it was practical, it met localconditions, its cost was affordable,and it wasn't the product of someorganization or agency that evokedsuspicion or distrust.

(6) The active collaboration of outsideresource organizations that had

30

41

something to contribute- -The active participation of

McREL, DESE,and'UNC added to theproject but each organization alsohad something specific 'to contribute.McREL offered the cata1Y,tic seed

money, DESE provided legitimacy forthe project, and UMC acted as aresource base to which technical andother questions could be addressed(see Table 1).

Managing the Consortium, Spring 1983

After initial organization of theconsortium, the superintendents agreed thatmeetings should continue to be held atfrequent intervals--at least once every 6weeks--to monitor the project, to attendprograms on computer applications, and todevelop further plans for the consortium.These meetings were most often held atthe University of Missouri because ofits access to resources and its centrallocation. All meetings were attended bythe DESE Director of Curriculum Supervision,the UMC representative, and the jointlyhired computer consultant. Several of themeetings were attended by the McREL RuralEducation Project Director as well. Whilethe primary purpose of the meetings was tomonitor progress of the in-service trainingprogram, discussion often led to considera-tion of other issues pertinent to theschools. Ideas being tried in one schoolwere shared with the others. Informationwas shared concerning the acquisition ofhardware and experience wf.th software.Issues often surfaced which had a bearing

31

42

Table 1

Outside Agency Roles in the Development of theMid-Missouri Small School Consortium

Educational Laboratoryemen ary

and Secondary Education Columbiasour

Initiated contact with represen-tatives of DESE and INC regardingthe establishment of a ruralschools project in Missouri.

Financially contributed toconsultant travel and DESE'sshare of consultant salary.

Met regularly with theconsortium board.

Selected districts andinvited them to attendthe initial exploratorymeeting with McREL.

Provided the organiza-tional legitimacy forthe consortium.

Met regularly withother members of theconsortium.

Office of Social and.EoonomicData Analysis provided dataused in,selecting districtsWilted to initial' meetingwith McREL:

Organized and staffed workshopon UMC campus foi school person-nel on the state of the art andapplication of computers.

Provided meeting space at,theUniversity.

Acted as a resource base intowhich the consortium could tap.

Met regularly with theconsortium board.

on DESE policies and the presence of theDirector of Curriculum Supervision allowedfor contructive discussion and-sometimesresolution of these issues. 'Of specialinterest was the operation of InstructionalManagement Systems '(I MS) since these tadbeen promoted by the DESE; consortiumparticipants saw small computers as atechnology pertinent to IMS.

On several occasions during the springof 1983 resource persons from the Universitywere asked to make'presentations or providedemonstrations to the consortium superinten-dents at their meetings, These presenta-tions served to sustain the superintendents'interest in the technology and to keep theminformed on the rapidity of new develop-ments.

The last meeting of the consortium inthe spring addressed specific plans for the1983-84 school year. At this meeting,participants agreed to continue theconsortium, to rehire the consultant, tocontinue meeting on a regular basis, and tobegin discussions of other activii.ies theconsortium might pursue.

Managing the Consortium, 1983-84

The consortium began regular meetingsshortly after school started in the fall of1983. Having successfully brought computerliteracy to a large proportion of their

respective faculties, consortium membersbegan discussions toward more effectiveimplementation of computer technology inthe instructional program. The consultant

4433

reported that the demands on his time ineach school were beginning to increase asindividual teachers encountered technicalproblems or sought assistance in incorporat-ing computers into their classrooms.

At the October meeting of the con-sortium, the McREL representative arrangedfor a visit from Stan Pogrow, a facultymember at the University of Arizona and anationally known authority on instructionaluse of microcomputers in the classroom. Theemphasis of this presentation/demonstration

was on teaching writing/language skills withmicrocomputers. This presentation inspireda major supplemental activity of the consor-tium during 1983-84.

In late October, the MOREL representa-tive brought to the consortium's attention aRequest for Proposal (RFP) from the AppleFoundation for projects that would emphasizecreative use of computers in instructionalprograms in schools. Those submittingsuccessful proposals would be awardedcomputer hardware and software necessaryto implement the proposed idea. MORELsuggested that the consortium might wish tosubmit a concept paper for the initial roundof evaluation. Concept papers were to beevaluated and from these some were to bechosen to submit full proposals. Theconsortium agreed to devote effort toproducing such a paper.

With the assistance of the repre-sentatives from McREL, DESE, UMC, and thecomputer consultant, the consortium produceda concept paper that was oriented toward

34

"writing across the curriculum" with anemphasis on word processing technologyand accessing external databases for,use in the classroom. The frame ofreference for the writing portion-of the concept paper was the BayArea Writing Project which hadbeen successfully implementedat the University of Missouri byDr. Ben Nelms. Dr. Nelms met with.letent=4"-the consortium to further develop ml,mmilmommil,-their idea. The added wrinkle to this: '1

program was that teacher instruction andsubsequent student instruction would beby microcomputers and word processingprograms. An additional innovative featureof the paper was the implementation of theproject by way of the consortium, anapproach oriented toward enchancing theinstructional capabilities of smaller ruralschools.

The concept paper was submitted asrequired by the RFP to the Apple Foundationthrough the UMC College of Education inNovember 1983. Of the 1,400 concept paperssubmitted, the MMSSC was notified that itspaper was one of 90 selected to prepare afull proposal. Work therefore began inearnest in early January 1984 to preparethe proposal. As a part of the proposalpreparation, negotiations were undertakenwith Dr. Nelms and the UMC College ofEducation to sponsor a writing project forthe consortium in the summer of 1984. Sincethe grant would not provide for any expenses,it was necessary to obtain funding for thewriting project from other sources. Dr.

Nelms was sufficiently enthusiastic about

35

fi

the potential of the project that he sought,and obtained, supplementary funding fromother sources.

The consortium superintendentsdemonstrated their continuing commitment tothe overall concept by agreeing to providestipends to the participating teachers andto pay the tuition to the University fortheir participation in the course. Theproposal (and the writing project)'specifiedthat six teachers from each of fiveconsortium schools would be trained. Inaddition, each school would provide themicrocomputers for the training and thewriting project would involve preparationmeetings with the teachers and follow-upmeetings with them during the followingschool year. Prior to submission of theproposal in late January, all of the abovecommitments were obtained and the teachersto be trained were identified in each of thefive districts.

If the proposal had been successful,the Apple Foundation would have addedsignificantly to the hardware and softwareinventories of the consortium schools;however, the consortium was informed inMarch that its proposal had not been chosenfor funding. A consortium meeting wascalled following receipt of this informationand after some discussion the attendeesagreed to proceed as planned. Arrangementshad been made and both Dr. Nelms and theschools had made commitments to the project.

The summer writing project, carried outduring the summer of 1984, proved to be

36

J1214eara.

highly successful. One of the consortiumschools was asked to present the writingproject experience to the AmericanAssociation of Schools AdministratorsConference in July 1985. In addition, twoother writing project courses were offeredon the same basis and with the same conceptsto other small rural schools during thesummer of 1985.

From this overview, we turn now to adescription of how the computer consultantworked with the Mid-Missouri Consortium andhow methods of operation for the in-servicetraining program emerged.

37

DEVELOPING THE COMPUTER IN-SERVICETRAINING PROGRAM

Common interests and geographicproximity, more than homogeneity ofdistricts, were the cohesive bonds bringingsix districts of the Mid-Missouri SmallSchool Consortium into a working partner-ship. Linked by a perceived neea to educatetheir faculties in computer use, thedistricts decided that the highest - priorityuse of their jointly employed computerspecialist would be to provide teacherin-service computer training. Decisionsregarding method, scheduling, and contentwere left to the administration of eachindividual district end the computerconsultant, Tony Sander.

The First Semester, Spring 1983

As a first step in his new job, thecomputer consultant contacted each schooland set up a meeting with the superintendentand principals to work out an agenda for thesemester. At the initial meeting with eachschool, the consultant asked the question:"What is it that you would like to accomplishwith computers within the next few months?"Responses from five of the six initialschools were identical: to have as manycomputer literate teachers as possible, tomake teachers familiar enough with computersto be able to use them in the classroom, tobe able to use the computer for grading, and

38

49

to use computers in the Instructional

Management System promoted by the Departmentof Education. The administration of thesixth school indicated interest only inprogramming. While the administrators'perceptions of specific needs in their ownschools varied, the goals listed abovebecame the basis for setting up trainingsessions with faculty in the member schools.

In dealing with the individual needs ofparticipating teachers and districts, theconsultant divided his time among technicalassistance to teachers and districtadministrators, individual and group teacherinstruction, computer introduction toelementary student classes, and regionalconferences, workshops, etc. (as sources ofcomputer hardware and software information).

For the spring semester of 1983, thefive schools interested in the wider rangeof topics followed the following format:

(1) Computer literacy

Participants spent roughly1 hour learning the tezinologyassociated with computer usage:CPU, diskettes, disk drives, etc.Within 1 hour, participants weregiven hands-on experience in turningon the machine, inserting andremoving diskettes, becomingacquainted with the keyboard, etc.The MECC (Minnesota EducationComputer Consortium) demonstrationdisk was then used by participants.With its menu of introductory

programs, participants learned to

39

40

respond to computer instructions,use the return or enter key, andmove the cursor. Participants usedthe utilities disk to initialize/format disks, copy diskettes, etc.Handouts were provided toparticipants to aid in theirrecollection of these processes.

(2) Software Use.

The consultant discussedsupport materials provided withMECC, which included teacher utilityprograms, etc. He guidedparticipants through the softwareand encouraged them to use the arrayof MECC programs in theirclassrooms.

(3) Software EvaluationThe consultant introduced

software evaluation as a proceduresimilar to textbook selection. Theconsultant introduced five softwareevaluation instruments using variousmethods and degrees of evaluation.The first instrument he introducedwas a forced-cho!ce instrument; theother instruments allowed thefaculty increasing options with thefifth instrument being completelyopen-ended. The consultant advisedthe faculty in defining its softwareneeds and rating software availableto meet those needs.

(4) Word ProcessingFaculty participants had the

opportunity to learn one of the

51

several word processing softwarepackages available. The consultantassisted the faculty membersindividually or in small groups.

(5) Programming

Those faculty membersinterested in learning the rudimentsof programming received. introductoryprogramming instruction. Thoseinterested in further programminginstruction were encouraged, toenroll in a 5-day summer workshopprovided by the computer consultant.

The rotating schedule set up with the sixparticipating schools allowed the consultantapproximately 13 days in each school duringth,.: spring 1983 semester and was handledon a rotating basis, with schedules beingrearranged to accommodate varying days permonth of consultant time. Time spentby,theconsultant attending conferences, workshops,etc., decreased by a small amount the totalnumber of days of direct contact with, thedistricts, but these activities were essentialfor accumulating information on hardware andsoftware on the consortium's behalf.

The consultant held two 2-day workshopson the IMS Mastery Management Program and a5-day workshop on programming at one of theschools. Faculty members in all consortiumdistricts were invited to participate. Atotal of 45 faculty members/administratorswere enrolled in the 2 IMS workshops; 27were enrolled in the programming workshop.

In-service training with the faculty inthe sixth district, whose administration hadindicated an interest only in programminginstruction, consisted of a necessaryintroductory session on computers, followedby small group sessions (of two to fiveteachers) on introductory programming.

Activities in which the consultantassisted the State Department of Educationduring the initial semester (spring 1983)included the following:

(1) Conducted six 1-day introductoryclasses for staff members in theState Department of Elementary andSecondary Education; these were heldin microcomputer labs at theUniversity of Missouri and in apublic high school in Columbia.A total of 125 DESE staff membersparticipated in these literacy-oriented introductory courses;

(2) Presented informational sessions onthe computer consortium at threemicrocomputer conferences across thestate; and

(3) Provided technical assistance toDESE staff already usingmicrocomputers.

Delivery System

While the role of the computer con-sultant varied somewhat with the individualneeds of each consortium district, therewas greater variation in the in-service

42

_ .

training delivery system. While ohedistrict administrator had significantexpertise in educational computer use, theothers' knowledge was limited; commitment tothe use of computers in schools ranged froma wary reluctance to genuine enthusiasm.The admini-trators' degree of willingness tofree teach.-s for in-service time varied aswell. Variations in the availability ofhardware and software among the consortiumschools dictated not only the deliverysystem used in reaching teachers but theextent to which teachers could continue thelearning process on their own.

As the computer consultantbegan his scheduled visits witheach district, it became obviousthat a great degree of flexibilitywould be necessary in order for himto serve as many teachers as wishedto participate. With the constraint illomplygpmmitof district budgets affecting the IMINIMMAIMability to hire substitute teachersto cover classes or to buy additionalcomputer hardware and/or software, flexiblescheduling was essential to the success ofthe training program. While some adminis-trators were comfortable with providingsubstitute teachers for those facultymembers interested in participating in thein-serivce training, this a..rangement

limited to some extent both the number ofteachers involved and the amount of timedevoted to in-service training. Otherschools' faculties were asked to useconference hours for in-service training;some faculties were asked to attend in-service sessions before or after school

43

hours. Because participation of facultymembers was voluntary--the districts feltthey could not pay extra compensation toparticipating teachers if attendance wererequired--all faculty were not involved inthe training program. Participation offaculty ranged from a low of approximately60-65% in two districts to a high of 100%(plus a janitor) in another district. Whilethe faculties' entusiasm (or lack ofenthusiasm) for participation did not alwaysmirror their administrators', administrativesupport seemed the critical issue in thesuccess of the in-service program. Inthose cases where administrators gavevocal support for use of the computerfor instructional purposes or for seriousimplementation of the InstructionalManagement System, faculty members activelysought assistance in computer use.

Method of Instruction

The method of instruction also varied byindividual district need. Classes of 15teachers, small groups of 2 to 5, individualassistance, and combinations of all 3 wereused in providing faculty members withcomputer instruction. In all cases, however,the aim was for teachers to have hands-onexperience with computers during each phase ofinstruction. Instructional methods emphasizedputting the teacher in a position of operatingthe computer as soon as possible. While theconsultant used handouts in some cases,instruction covering the five in-servicetopics was mostly verbal, accompanied byimmediate application on the computer. Theconsultant geared individual instruction to

44

meet the specific needs of each teacher-participant within the parameters set by theadministrators for the .in-service topics.

The consultant adapted the level ofsophistication of the in-service program tothe individual teacher's experience withcomputers. r.s determined in a follow-upsurvey of in-service participants, 40% ofparticipating teachers reported having noprior knowledge of computers, 10% reportedhaving good or very good prior computerknowledge, and the remaining half reportedeither fair or poor prior knowledge ofcomputers.

Again, because of he voluntary natureof the in-service program and because ofclass conflicts and time contraints, thenumber of actual hours' of in-servicetraining varied by teacher. Of the 235participants across the 6 districts duringthe spring semester of 1983, 66 (28%) wereinvolved in only 1 to 5 holrs of computerin-service training; 101 (43%) in 6 to 10hours; 33 (14%) in 11 to 15 hours; and 8(3%) in 16 to 20 hours. (Twenty-sevenparticipants (12%) did not report theirattendance on the follow -up evaluationform.)

Perhaps as important as the amount oftime the teachers spent in in-servicesessions was the time they spent outside thetraining sessions practicing and perfectingtheir computer skills. More than two-thirdsof the teachers reported spending additionaltime outside in-service hours. While 36%spent from 1 to 5 additional hours; 18%

45

):

spent from 6 to 10 extra hours.Approximately 15% (34 participants) spentmore than 16 hours on the computer outsidein-service training time.

Individual Instruction. Beginning withcomputer literacy and proceeding throughsoftware use and evaluation, word process-ing, and programming, the consultant metwith each teacher who was interested in anyor all phases of the in-service program. Ifany interested teacher could not participatein a particular group session or requiredadditional individual assistance, the con-sultant arranged to meet with that teacherat any mutually convenient time, usuallyduring scheduled conference hours of theschool day. In one school this meant theinformal replication of each workshop topicsix to seven times during each of theconsultant's scheduled weekly visits.

Group Instruction. Because of greaterefficiency in the use of the consultant'stime, group instruction was arrangedwherever class scheduling, teacher substitu-tion, mutual conference hours, or block timeallowed. Further restrictions on groupinstruction included the number of computerseach district had available and therestricted use of "special-purpose"computers, which eliminated theirmultipurpose use as training machines.

Technical Assistance

The computer hardware and softwarevaried greatly in type and quantity bydistrict. The consultant first inventoried

46

57

what computers, peripherals, and softwareeach district had accumulated, where theywere physically located, and how they werebeing used. Some districts had takenadvantage of vocational agriculture and/orspecial education monies to purchaseequipment. Others, seeing the coming of (orbeing caught in the middle of) the computerage, had purchased equipment for variousother or multipurpose uses. Afterdetermining each district's availability ofhardware and assessing both faculty andadministrative hardware needs given theimmediate goals of the district, theconsultant recommended additional purchasesto the superintendent. The computerconsultant's knowledge of various systemsand recommendations as to exactly whichbrand and model of hardware best fit theindividual district's needs greatly,simplified the selection process. Thebreadth of the computer consultant'sknowledge and his ability to quickly acquireinformation also greatly aided participatingdistricts in choosing software to meet theirspecific needs.

The consultant also offered technicalassistance to those few teachers who hadsome programming capabilities but neededhelp in overcoming programming barriers,debugging programs, perfecting programs,etc. He served as a ready resource personto anyone using computers in theparticipating districts.

The consultant offered advice insetting up computer labs for both teacherand student use. He stressed the mobility

58

of machines as a prerequisite for classroomuse and recommended that machines be set onmobile carts. He suggested check-outprocedures be established for equipmentstored or located in libraries or othercentralized locations.

He provided technical assistance toteachers on special-purpose computerprograms--such as vocational agriculture'sspreadsheet and accounting programs--and tosecretarial and administrative staff oncomputerized class scheduling, studentattendance, library circulation, achievementtest analysis, student databanks, sportsdata, student records, fiscal accounting,payroll, budget planning, bus scheduling,and special-purpose word processing.

Introducing Computers to ElementaryClassrooms

In one school, because of limitedteacher interest in using computers inclassroom instruction, the consultantscheduled time to bring one or morecomputers into each regular elementaryclassroom. Along with an introduction tothe computer and a discussion of therudiments of how computers worked, eachclass participated in a software programwhich allowed each student hands-on timewith the computer. The consultant usedprograms such as "Lemonade" in which eachstudent had a chance to input informationinto the computer and to see the results ofhis/her input.

48

59

By introducing elementary studentsto the computer, the consultant hoped tocreate teacher interest in using thecomputer for instructional purposes. Theexercise served to challenge some of thepreconceived notions the teachers had aboutdifficulty of use, inappropriateness ofcomputers to subject matter, durability ofthe machines, and quantities of hardwareneeded to allow all students access to themachines. Because the consultant carefullystructured his demonstration to include theentire class in some portions of theexercise and set up "stations" that involvedindividual use during other parts of theexercise, many teachers quickly gained anappreciation for the "station" learningconcept, which frees the teacher to devotetime to specific individuals or small groupswhile others "se lf- direct" their computer

work. The consultant used the classes topreview various MECC (Minnesota EducationComputer Consortium) software programs forthe appropriateness of subject matter andclass level; again, tnese exercisescontributed not only'to students skillacquisition-- but perhaps more importantly- -also contributed to teacher awareness andacceptance. The consultant and elementaryprincipal saw an attitude change among theelementary faculty with respect to computeruse in the classroom; the number of teacherrequests for computers in the classroom soongreatly outnumbered the computers availablefor use in the school.

49

60

'71

Accumulating Hardware and SoftwareInformation

Being most familiar with Apple computerhardware, the consultant made an effort togain specific information on other majorbrands of computer hardware. Some schoolshad previously made a commitment to aparticular brand while others had severaldifferent brands and models on hand. Theconsultant found it necessary to becomefamiliar with the different machines inorder to serve the needs of all districts.While utilizing the considerable literature,manuals, journals, and trade magazine3available, the consultant also foundregional conferences, workshops, etc., to bea major source of information on computeruse in the school and related topics.Taking advantage of proximity, theconsultant also sought advice and assistancefrom various faculty specialists at UMC.While the small amount of time he spentattending conferences and following up oninformation leads outside the districts didnot directly lead to improved districtcomputer use, it was nonetheless consideredan essential part of his role as consultant.Conferences attended by the consultantincluded the MECC Conference in Minnesotaand the Rural Education. Conference inKansas, as well as other in-state workshopsand meetings.

In-Service Training, 1983-84

Following the first semester'sin-service training program and summerworkshops conducted by the consultant,

50

the six consortium superintendents met todiscuss their plans for the coming 1983-84school year. Five of the six districtsAgreed to retain the consultant for anadditional year to provide continuedtechnical computer assistance and assistin implementation of a computerizedinstructional management system in theschools. The sixth district, which hadearlier indicated interest in programminginstruction only, felt that its needs hadlargely been served andciting the distancebetween itself and the other consortiummembers--decided not to participate in thejoint hiring of the computer consultantduring the coming school year. The StateDepartment of Education expressed interestin continuing as the sixth member of theconsortium.

Goals for the 1983-84 school year forthe remaining five consortium districtsincluded:

(1) emphasis on use of the computer forinstructional management purposes,

(2) word processing for teachers andoffice staff, and

(3) classroom computer use with anemphasis on MECC software programs.

The agenda with the Department ofElementary and Secondary Education (DESE)included:

(1) consultant presentations atmicrocomputer conferences,

(2) technical assistance to DESE staffusing microcomputers,

(3) assistance in procurement of additionalhardware, and

(4) computer training for secretarial staffin one DESE section.

The consultant's schedule during the1983-84 school year was as follows:

Monday --Ashland (switched with Glasgowmid-year)

Tuesday --HallsvilleWednesday--Glasgow (switched with Ashland

mid-year,Thursday --Fayette and Centralia (spent

two consecutive days inalternating weeks)

Friday --Fayette and Centralia (spenttwo consecutive days inalternating weeks)

DESE --as needed basis

Time spent per day by the consultant ineach district averaged from 7 1/2 to 8hours.

52

63

EVALUATING THE IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM

As part of the evaluation of theconsortium, a survey was conducted at theend of the spring 1983 in-service computertraining program with those faculty membersand administrators who had participated.Various faculty members from UMC providedassistance in design of the survey andanalysis of the data. Two hundred forty-six teachers and administrative staff in thesix schools of the MMSSC (more than 80%)responded to the self-administeredquestionnaire. Eleven of the 246respondents were administrators whodid not attend the in-service sessions.

Participant Characteristics

Of those responding to the in-servicequestionnaire, 26% were from Hallsville; 21%from Fayette; 21% from Centralia; 13% fromGlasgow; 11% from Ashland; and 8% from St.Elizabeth, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Faculty Participation in

In-Service Training Evaluation

District

Ashland 23 11.4

Hallsville 63 25.6

Glasgow 32 13.0

Centralia 52 21.1

Fayette 51 20.8

St. Elizabeth 20 8.1

Iota 1 246 100.0

Of the respondents, 44% were elementaryteachers, 30% taught in high school, 20%were middle school teachers, and 5% wereadministrators or other staff, as shown inTable 3.

Table 3

Faculty Status of Respondents

Status

Elementary Teachers 104 43.5

High School Teachers 74 30.1

anior High School Teachers 50 20.3

Administrative & Other Staff 11 4.5

(Missing Data) (4) (1.6)

Total 246 100.0

54

65

As shown in Table 4, 68% of therespondents reported having 10 years or lessteaching experience.

Table 4

Years of Teaching Experience

Years

0-5 years 76 32.3

6-10 years 85 36.2

11-15 years 44 18.7

16-20 years 15 6.4

Over 20 years 15 5.4

Total 255* 100.0

*Non-teaching administrators were elimihated

fran this table.

'female respondents comprised 80% of therespondents as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Category

Male 48

Female 193

(Missing data) (5)

Total 246

19.5

78.5

(2.0)

100.0

Obviously, participant characteristicsvaried somwhat by district. The variationin the number of participants reportingprior knowledge of computers by district wasparticularly important. Participants whoreported having some knowledge of computersranged from 10% in one district to 43% inanother. Participants spending additionalcomputer time outside in-service hoursranged from a low of 49% in one district toa high of 100% in another.

Participant Rating of In-Service Sections

The five major areas covered in the in-service sessions were evaluated separately,as shown in Table 6. The "Introduction toComputers" section was popular. Of the in-service participants responding, 85% ratedthe "Introduction" section as "good," "verygood," or "excellent"; only 53% similarlyrated the "Programming" section. Verylittle difference existed among theparticipants' evaluations of the "SoftwareEvaluation," "Examination of Software," and"Wordprocessing" sections. They eachreceived positive responses from roughlytwo-thirds of the participants.

Effect of Number of In-Service Hours Spentby Teachers on Level of Satisfaction

The positive rating of all in-servicetopics generally increased as the number ofin-service hours spent by participantsincreased. The most marked increase wasseen on Topic 5, "Programming"; only 40% ofthose spending 1-5 hours in training rated

Table 6

Participant Rating of In-Service Topics

Topic Excellent Very Good Good Fair

Topic 1:Introduction to Computers 16.0% 32.9% 35.6% 13.7% 1.8%

Topic 2:Software Evaluation 4.4% 18.6% 42.2% 28.9% 5.9%

Topic 3:Examination of Software 8.2% 24.1% 31.3% 29.7% 6.7%

Topic 4:Word Processing 12.7% 24.9% 29.5% 23.7% 9.2%

Topic 5:Programming 5.8% 16.0% 31.4% 32.7% 14.1%

68

the topic positively, while 88% of thoseinvolved in 16-20 hours training so ratedit.

Spending additional computer timeoutside in-service training hourscontributed to a greater satisfaction withall segments of the in-service trainingprogram with the exception of'programming,in which there was a slight decrease insatisfaction among those spending a smallamount (1-5 hours) outside training timeover those who spent no outside time withcomputers. This may logically relate to agreater frustration level with initial useof the computer.

The peak satisfaction level for thetopics of software and word processing cameamong those spending between 11-15 hoursoutside in-service time, perhaps indicatinga lesser need for additional practice timein these areas.

For those who spent the time necessaryto develop their programming skills, theevaluation shows that in-service training inthis area met with a high level ofsatisfaction.

Effect of Years' Teaching Experience onSatisfaction with In-Service Training

Satisfaction with the "Introduction"and "Programming" topics increased withnumber of years' teaching experience. A

positive evaluation of the "Introduction"topic was given by 80% of those with 5 orfewer years' teaching exrerience, while 93%

58

R

of those with over 20 years experience sorated it. While the satisfaction level withthe programming topic was generally lessacross all categories of participants,

nearly two-thirds of those with more than 15years' experience rated it positively--"excellent," "very good," or "good."

It is of interest that those with 5 orfewer years' teaching experience weregenerally less likely to rate any topicpositively than those with greaterexperience. An exception to this was therating of the "Word Processing" topic in whichapproximately 70% of those with 15 or feweryears' experience rated it positively, whileonly slightly over half of those with morethan 15 years' experience so rated it.

The participant evaluation of each in-service training topic broken down by numberof hours spent in in-service training,number of hours spent outside training time,and number of years' teaching experience canbe seen in tables B-1 through B-5 inAppendix B.

70

IMPACT OF THE 144SSC

The ultimate goal of the in-servicetraining program, of course, was to have thedistricts utilize the computers and softwarethat they already had, as well as the itemsthat were purchased during the trainingphase.

Computer Use in the Classroom

One measure of success of the in-service training program is the extent towhich those involved subsequently used thecomputer in the classroom. Table 7 showsthat of the survey respondents, 179 (73%)

reported that they had already used or hadplans to use the computer in the classroom.

Table 7

Teacher Use

Microcomputers in the Classroom

Have already used Plan to use

computers in the computers in

classroom the classroom

Responses #

Yes

No

5

176

24.1

75.9

123

46

72.8

27.2

60

After elimination of the 15 administratorsand nonteaching staff from the 246respondents, the rate of past or plannedusage rises to 78%.

The likelihood of use of the computerin the classroom increased with the numberof hours spent outside training time. Only5% of those having.spent no computer time inaddition to in-service training reportedhaving used a computer in the classroom,while 65% of those spending more than 15hours outside training time reported havingalready used the computer in the classroom.Similarly, the percent of teacher-participants planning future use of thecomputer in the classroom ranged from 67%among those spending no time outside in-service training to 81% of those spendingmore than 10 hours additional computer time.It can be inferred that virtually all ofthose involved in more than 10 hourscomputer time outside in-service traininghad used or planned to use computers as ateaching tool. Cause and effect cannot beclearly weighed here--thdse teachers havinga prior commitment to computerized instruc-tion would be more likely to spend addition-al time in polishing their computer skillsfor use in the classroom; conversely, thoseteachers spending additional time wouldlikely be more comfortable with the computerand therefore more likely to use it in theclassroom.

61

Extent of Post In-Service Computer Use AmongParticipating Districts

While all participating districts had asmall amount of hardware at the beginning ofthe in-service training--indeed use of thatequipment was their reason for hiring acollective consultant--use of that hardwarewas very limited in all but one school.Table 8 shows, by district, that computerusage at the end of the 1983-84 school yearranged from instructional use in the class-room to widespread administrative use; fromout-of-class teacher use to computerizinglibrary holdings; and from formatting schoolnewspapers to recording sports statistics.

Instructional Uses

Instructional use of the computer inthe classroom varied from district todistrict but a significant increase in thenumber of teachers using a computer in theclassroom across all districts wasattributed to the teacher in-servicetraining. Courses in BASIC programminglanguage or introductory computer literacyclasses were offered in all five highschools; PASCAL or FORTRAN programmingclasses were also offered in two schools.

Teacher Uses Out of Class

Teachers made ample use of the computerin other areas as well. Teacher use ofcomputers for word processing and for graderecord keeping was extensive across alldistricts. Vocational agriculture teachersin each district used the computer for

62

73

Table 8

Post Inservice Use of Computers- -mid- Missouri Small Schools Co:cuter Consortium

CCHPUIERS USED FOR Ashland gsllsville Glasgow Centralia FayetteClassroom instruction X x X x X

BASIC/ccmputer literacy X X X X Xclass in hid, school

PASCAL/FORTRAV x Xprograming class

Teacher Word Processing X x X x X(tests, etc.)

Teacher grade books X x x x X

Teacher programing X x

Ag. dept. spreadsheet/ X X X X Xdata base management

Library-- circulation X

overdue notices x

Administrative office use--word prccessing x x X X

mail merge X

--accotnting X X x

--payroll x

--budget plaming x

activity accounts X

Class scheduling X X X

Class attendance 1984-85 X 1984-85

Student dat :Iles X 1984 -85

Student permanent records x

Computer-printed xgrade cards

Instructional Management X X X X

Bus scheduling x

Inventory control Ag. Sloponly

IEP records x x

Achievement test analysis X X

School newspaper x X

School sport statistics X x X

63

74

1

spreadsheet or database management applica-tions, or both. Teachers in two schools usedthe computer for programming. Teachers infour of the schools began to use MasteryManagement Software in conjunction with theInstructional Mangagement Program promotedby the State Department of Education.

Library Uses

One school computerized its libraryholdings and circulation activities; anotherused the computer to keep track of and printoverdue notices.

Administrative Uses

Administrative use of the computer forword processing was widespread in fourdistricts; three districts computerizedtheir accounting procedures. One distrintmade use of the computer for mail merge,payroll, and budget planning; a seconddistrict handled activity accounts andprinted grade cards via computer. Threedistricts implemented computerized classscheduling and recorded class attendance viacomputer; one district used the computer toassist in bus routing and scheduling.Student data files were handled by computerin two of the schools; one school maintainedstudent permanent records on the computer.

Other Computer Uses

One or more of the schools also put thecomputer to work tracking the vocationalagricultural inventory, maintainingInvididualized Educational Program (IEP)

64

75

records, analyzing achievement tests,formatting and printing the schoolnewspaper, and recording school athleticstatistics.

Effect of In-Service Training on Hardwareand Software Acquisition

Computer hardware has increased greatlysince the beginning of the program both intype and quantity, showing a substantial:zommitment to educational computerization.Starting with a combined inventory of 28central processing units (CPUs) in Decemberof 1982, the seven schools had 97 CPUs bythe end of summer 1984, a period of only1 1/2 years. This 350% increase in hardwarewas accompanied by increased acquisition ofsoftware and peripherals as well.

Diffusion of the Consortium Concept

Based on the success and enthusiasm forthe MMSSC consortium concept and program,the DESE Director of Curriculum Supervisionarranged for a discussion of the concept ata state meeting of school administrators inAugust 1983. Interested schools wereinvited to attend an informal discussion ofthe concept. Approximately 50 small schooladministrators attended the meeting whichincluded presentations by the Director ofCurriculum Supervision, the Director of theUMC Office of Social and Economic DataAnalysis (the consortium's UMC representa-tive), and the consortium's computerconsultant. Those in attendance wereencouraged to consider the idea furtherand to let DESE know if they would like

xr

additional information. The Director ofCurriculum Supervision intended to use apart of the computer consultant's timecommitment to DESE to follow up with anynascent consortia.

By late fall 1983.two other clustersof rural schools in central Missouri hadcommunicated an interest in organizing acomputer consortium. Subsequent meetingswere scheduled among those districts inJanuary 1984 to begin the process ofconsortium formation. The focus in bothgroups was on instructional applications ofcomputer technology. Both clustersorganized themselves into consortia,employed computer specialists, and becameoperational during the spring of 1984. Thetwo new consortia were composed of four andsix member schools respectively and includedschools with similar enrollments andcommunity sizes to those involved in theMMSSC. As in the case of the MMSSC, someassistance in consortium formation,operation, and funding was provided byMcREL, UMC, and the DESE.

One of these newly formed consortiaindicated an additional interest in abroader range of adaptive technologies forsmaller rural schools. These schools wereessentially concentrated in one highlyagricultural county. All schools were smalland had severe curriculum constraints as aresult of their small number of students andteaching faculty. Following up on thisinterest, representatives from McREL and UMCspent 2 days in February 1985 visiting theseschools and holding subsequent meetings with

66

77

ba,

administrators. Several innovations, mostlyinvolving shared services, were discussedand some--including a videotaped/independentstudy Spanish course--were implementedduring the 1984-85 school year.

SMEARY

We have drawn certain conclusions aboutfactors pertinent to the operation of aconsortium of small schools from theexperience of the Mid-Missouri Small SchoolConsortium. We offer these in a generalform although there are specific experiencesfrom the MMSSC that reinforce each of them.

Principles of Operation Suggested FromExperience With School Consortia

1. PURPOSE--A consortium may be orgnizedfor any purpose where there is a clearadvantage to cooperation and/or poolingfunds. Consortia are also an effectivemeans of attracting supplementaryfunding. Some kinds of consortiumarrangements such as athleticconferences have been a standard methodof operation for many years.

2. NUMBER OF MEMBERS--Consortia seem towork best with at least three, but nomore than seven or eight memberdistricts.

3. MEMBER LOCATION--The geographicproximity of cooperating districtsfacilitates more frequent meetings andmakes it easier to share a service orprogram.

68

4. MEMBER SIZE--Consortia seem to work bestif the member schools are of similarsize. Schools of approximately the samesize in the same region tend to havesimilar problems that might beeffectively addressed by cooperation.Even if large schools have similarproblems, they tend to have differentmethods and resources than smallschools.

5. ORGANIZATION--A consortium does notrequire any formal organization; infact, it seems to work best when itremains informal.

6. LEADERSHIP--A consortium does notrequire a formal leader, but it seems towork best when the superintendentrepresents each member school in theconsortium. One superintendent might be"elected" to serve as chair or convener.

Even if other school personnel areinvolved in the consortium, the successof consortium activities seems to beenhanced when the superintendent takesan active role and represents the schoolat consortium meetings.

7. FINANCES--If the consortium pools fundsfrom each school to hire a specialist,purchase equipment, etc., it seems towork best if one school agrees to serveas fiscal agent, employing district,etc. Under that agreement each districtcontributes an agreed amount to thefiscal agent school, which then takes

69

.77777:77777777

responsibility for paying consortiumbills, accounting for funds, etc.

If the consortium hires personnel,it seems to work best if one districtofficially employs the person with anagreement about how the person's timewill be allocated among districts.

8. FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS--Consortia seemto work best if there are frequentmeetings (especially in the formativestage) of the superintendents of theconsortium schools. Frequent meetings- -

providing there is an agenda to dealwith--tend to reinforce support for theconsortium activity and maintain thecooperative working relationshipessential to consortium effectiveness.

Meetings not only tend to keep theconsortium idea on track but also leadto new ideas and areas of collaboration.

9. OUTSIDE RESOURCES--While not essential,experience with several consortiasuggests that the consortium tends to bemore effective if it takes advantage ofoutside resource persons from colleges,the state department of education,public agencies, etc., who can workwith the consortium toward accomplish-ing its objectives. Experience hasalso shown that such resource personsare often willing to work with aconsortium whereas they might be lesswilling to work with an individualschool.

70

81

rat

Developing an ongoing relationshipwith resource persons or organizationsseems to also contribute to consortiumlongevity and better access to pertinentinformation, programs, materials,services, etc.

Other Observations

A consensus in the literature and thefavorable experiences of the MMSSC tend tosupport some of the following basic tenets ofthe Mid-Missouri model: (1) the size of thedistricts involved--their relative smallness- -may have contributed to their success inimplementing electronic technology; (2) thebanding together of individual districts in amutually beneficial, collaborative effort madethe undertaking more financially andprogrammatically feasible; (3) teacher in-service training, as a first step in makingteachers comfortable and knowledgeable aboutcomputers in an educational setting, seemsto be a prerequisite to the successful useof technology in schools; (4) the jointhiring of a staff person to conduct the in-service training onsite further contributedto the extended use of computers in theclassroom; (5) while a small amount ofoutside monies was used by the consortium,it was the consortium districts whichundertook the financial obligations andtechnological commitments, thereforeincreasing their commitment to the project's"success"; and (6) the availability and useof university and other outside agencypersonnel allowed the consortium widespreadaccess to valuable information and otherresources.

z8271

Costs in Relation to Benefits

In the end, determ!ning educational costsin relation to benefits most often must bereduced to a subjective analysis of the degreeof satisfaction among the recipients. Was itworth what it cost? While we did notundertake a formal analysis of this question,one can point to the continued satisfaction ofthe districts with the concept and methodsemployed, and the continued existence of theconsortium. As can be seen from theevaluation and post in-service use of thecomputer, a demonstrable change certainlyoccurred both in the capabilities of thefaculties and in the acquisition and useof computer hardware and software. While wecan't say that no one district could or wouldhave undertaken the financial obligation ofhiring a full-time computer specialist, thecollaboration of multiple districts made theendeavor much more affordable to districts oflimited means and allowed a much more timelyentry into the world of educational computertechnology.

72

83

APPENDIX A

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIESFORMING THE

MID-MISSOURI SMALL SCHOOLS CONSORTIUM

The seven schools represented at theoriginal meeting which formed the consortiumare located in the central Missouri area.The two most prominent towns in centralMissouri are Columbia--home of theUniversity of Missouri (62,000 population)- -and 30 miles to the south, Jefferson City(34,000 population), the state capital. TheMissouri DESE is located in Jefferson City.Jefferson City and Columbia are the twomajor centers of employment in the region aswell. Interstate 70 crosses the state fromSt. Louis to Kansas City and runs throughColumbia. Columbia is 125 miles from bothKansas City and St. Louis. Agriculture isprominent throughout the region although theregional economy is fairly mixed.

The region is not sparsely populated,

although with the exception of Columbia andJefferson City, it is predominantly rural.Small towns that once primarily served theneeds of farmers are located about 8 to 10miles apart throughout the region. Therewere once many more small tonns but a largenumber of these have diminished into smallvillages with hardly any local services.School consolidation 20 years ago was one of

73

w. 84

the factors that led to the decline of thesesmall communities.

Detailed information on characteristicsof the six schools that combined to form theconsortium appears in Tables A-1 and A-2.The towns in which the schools are locatedrange in population from 302 to 3,537.Among the communities, only Centralia and

'rette have populations in excess of 1,500.1 schools are all a result of past consol-iodtions and range from 326 to 1057 inK-12 enrollment. The number of teachingfaculty range from a low of 23'in St.Elizabeth to a high of 70 in Centralia.Students per teacher range from 10 inGlaognw to 16 in HallsvillR and Centralia.

Among the communities, Glasgow andSt. Elizabeth are best described as farmingcommunities. Centralia is a mixed farmingand manufacturing community. Hallsville andAshland are surrounded by farms but dependheavily on commuting to employment inColumbia and Jefferson City. Fayette isalso a farming community, but is the countyseat and has a small liberal arts college.According to 1980 census data reported byschool districts, per capita income in eachof the communities is slightly below thestate average.

It has been emphasized elsewhere thatproximity can be a factor in the successfuloperation of a consortium. That has provento be the case for MMSSC. Of the sevenoriginal schools, the one which did notbecome a consortium member--Macks Creek--waslocated 60 miles to the south and west of

85

Jefferson City and was at least that farfrom St. Elizabeth, the next closestconsortium member. Aside from St.Elizabeth, which is 20 miles south of thestate capital, the only other school southof Columbia is Ashland, which is halfwaybetween Columbia and Jefferson City--15miles from each. The remaining four schoolsare much more concentrated north ofColumbia. It is understandable for distancereasons that Macks Creek chose not toparticipate in the consortium and that St.Elizabeth did not continue beyond the firstyear. The five schools that continued intothe second year were in much closerproximity, their athletic teams oftencompeted although they were not all of thesame size, and they had often coordinatldactivities in the past.

86

Table A-1

Populations and School Enrollments of Consortium Communities

Community Population* Elem.

School E;Irollment

Jr. High Sr. High Total

Centralia 3,537 443 332 382 1157

Hallsville 453 405 260 257 922

Fayette 2,966 249 217 243 709

Ashland 1,028 361 324 685

Glasgow 1,337 220 138 358

St. Elizabeth 302 164 162 326

*Based on 1980 Figures

87

-"`` 47'

Table A-2

Number of Teachers and Student-Teacher Ratio in Consortium Communities

CommunityTeachers

Grades K-12Ratio of Students

Per Teacher

Centralia 70 16

Hallsville 58 16

Fayette 59 12

Ashland 45 15

Glasgow 35 10

St. Elizabeth 23 14

88

APPENDIX B

PARTICIPANT RATINGS OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING TOPICS

BY OTHER VARIABLES

Table B-1

Participant Rating of

"Introduction to Computers" (Topic 1)

by Other Variables

- -- -Participant Rating

"Excellent,"

"Very Good,"

or "Good" "Fair" Poor"

Hrs. spent in in-

service training % % %

1 - 5 81.5 13.0 5-6

6 - 10 84.8 14.1 1.0

11 - 15 84.4 15.6 0.0

16 - 20 100.0 0.0 0.0

Hrs. spent outside

training time

69.5 25.4 5.10

1 - 5 84.8 13.9 1.3

6 - 10 100.0 0.0 0.0

11 - 15 83.3 16.7 6.0

Over 15 55.2 3.8 0.0

Kb. years teaching

experience

79.7 17.4 2.90 - 5

6 -10 86.5 12.2 1.4

11 - 15 81.6 15.8 2.6

16 - 20 92.9 7.1 0.0

Over 20 92.9 7.1 0.0

78

89

Table B-2

Participant Rating of

"Software Evaluation" (Topic 2)

by Other Variables

-Participant Rating

"Excellent,"

"Very Good,"

or "Good" "Fair" 'Poor"

Hrs. spent in in-

service training % % %

1 - 5 61.4 25.0 13.6

6 - 10 69.1 28.7 2.1

11 - 15 66.7 27.3 6.1

16 - 20 75.0 25.0 0.0

Hrs. spent outside

training time

54.0 32.0 14.00

1 - 5 70.1 27.3 2.6

6 - 10 67.5 30.0 2.5

11 - 15 100.0 0.0 0.0

15 - 20 66.7 16.7 16."

Over 20 65.0 35.0 0.J

No. years teaching

experience

57.8 34.4 7.30 - 5

6 - 10 68.1 24.6 7.2

11 - 15 68.6 28.6 2.8

16 - 20 61.5 38.5 0.0

Over 20 71.4 28.6 0.0

79

90

Table B-3

Participant Rating of

"Examination of Software" (Topic 3)

by Other Variables

-Participant Rating

"Excellent,"

"Very Good,"

or "Good" "Fair" 'Poor"

Hrs. spent in in-

service training % % %1 - 5 58.5 26.8 14.6

6 - 10 64.8 30.8 4.411 - 15 62.5 31.3 6.3

16 - 20 85.7 14.2 0.0

Hrs. spent outside

training time

50.0 32.6 17.40

1 - 5 68.4 30.3 1.3

6 - 10 75.7 18.9 5.4

it - 15 93.3 16.7 0.016 - 20 60,0 40.0 0.0

Over 20 55.0 35.0 10.0

No. years teaching

experience

51.7 36.2 12.10 - 5

6 - 10 73.9 23.2 2.911 - 15 64.7 26.5 8.816 - 20 58.3 41.7 0.0Over 20 58.3 41.7 0.0

80

91

t+

Table 8-4

Participant Rating of

"Word Processing" (Topic 4)

by Other Variables

-Participant Rating

"Excellent,"

"Very Good,"

or "Good" "Fair" "Poor"

Hrs. spent in in

service training % % %

1 - 5 66.7 19.4 13.9

6 - 10 63.6 27.3 9.1

11 - 15 72.4 17.2 10.3

16 - 20 71.4 28.6 0.0

Hrs. spent outside

training time

57.1 31.4 11.40

1 - 5 64.7 23.5 11.8

6 - 10 73.0 1R.9 8.1

11 - 15 83.3 16.7 0.0

16 - 20 75.0 25.0 0,0

Over 20 77.8 16.7 5.6

No. years teaching

experience

68.6 21.6 9.80 - 5

6 - 10 69.4 21.0 9.6

11 - 15 70.4 18.5 11.1

16 - 20 54.5 45.5 0.0

Over 20 56.3 33.3 8.3

92

81

Table B-5

Participant Rating of

"Programming" (Topic 5)

by Other Variables

- - ---- Participant Rating

"Excellent,"

"Very Good,"

or "Good" "Fair" Poor"Hrs. spent in in-

service training % % %1 - 5 40.0 36.0 20.06 - 10 44.9 36.2 18.8

11 - 15 61.3 29.0 9.716 - 20 87.5 12.5 0.0

Hrs. spent outside

training time

46.9 34.4 18.80

1 - 5 42.1 43.9 14.06 - 10 59.5 27.0 13.511 - 15 60.0 40.0 0.016 - 20 50.0 0.0 50.0Over 20 88.2 5.9 5.9

No. years teaching

experience

50.0 39.1 1C.90 - 5

6 - 10 47.1 37.3 15.711 - 15 57.1 21.4 21.416 - 20 63.6 18.2 18.2Over 20 63.6 36.4 0.0

82

93

Alaska Department of Education. (1981).

Educational telecommunications for Alaska:Executive Summary, Vol. 1. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 217 890)

Bransford, L.A. (1983). Telecommunicationsin rural America: Special populations,special problems. Paper developed as partof the Workshop on Telecommunications inthe Service of Rural Education,Washington, DC. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 229 204)

Brown, S. & Jackson, W.K. (1983). TtsCooperative Extension Service as a modelfor university-school collaboration.Education 104(1), 3-6.

Conboy, I. (1983). Teleconferencing ineducation: A report of the Charlton pilotproject (or how the teachers blew up theCharlton Bridge). Victoria, Australia:Audio-visual Resources Branch, EducationDept. of Victoria (Report prepared for theVictoria Country Education Project).(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED230 333)

Filep, R.T. (1980). Telecommunicationsand the rural American, today andtomorrow. Washington, DC. Paper

developed for the Workshop on

83

Telecommunications in the Service of RuralEducation. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 229 203)

Fletcher, J. L. (1980). Apnlications ofelectronic technologies to ruraleducation. Developed as part of theWorkshop on Telecommunications in theService of Rural Education, Washington,DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 229 295)

Hoflneister, A. (1984, January).

Technological tools for rural specialeducation. Exceptional Children, 50 (4)344-349.

Kelly, E.J. & Vanvactor, J.C.October). The relative costof in-service approaches insparsely populated schools.Children 50 (2), 140-147.

(1983,

effectivenessremote,

Exceptional

Lloyd, L. (1983, Spring). Electronicinformation services: Approaches toinformation networking. EducationalTechnology Update, 1 (2).

McCormick, F.C. & McCormick, E.R. (1982).A guide on succeasful uses. of technology inrural schools. Prepared for the NationalInstitute of Education. St. Paul, MN:Educational Operations Concepts, Inc.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 262 923)

McCormick, F. & McCormick, E.R. (1982,November). Effective utilization of

84

95

microcomputers and other technology inrural and small schools. Paper ,resentedat the Joint Meeting of the Fo: AnnualRural and Small Schools Confere.:ce and

Kansas Community Education AssociationConference. Manhattan, KS. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 231581)

McDonald, D. & Gibson, K. (1982, September).A case study: The rural school districtand the microcomputer. NASSP Bulletin, 66

(455), 75-77.

Monk, D. (1982). Educational costdifferentials and rural schools: Abroadened view. Administrator's Notebook,30 (4), 1-4.

National Commission on Excellence inEducation. (1983). A nation at risk:The imperative for education reform.Washington, DC: United States GovernmentPrinting Office. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 226 0J6)

Rottier, J., Kelly, W. & Tomhave, W.K.(1983, Fall). Teacher burnout--small andrural school style. Education, 104 (1),72-79.

Sher, J. (1983, December). Education's uglyduckling: Rural schools in urban nations.Phi Delta Kappan, 65 (4), 257-262.

Zakariya, S.B. (1984, March). In school(as elsewhere), the rich get computers;the poor get poorer. The American SchoolBoard Journal, 171 (3), 29-32; 54.

96t,

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

RICHARD PHILLIPS received his educationfrom Central Missouri State University,earning a BS and MS in education and anEducation Specialist degree in Public SchoolAdministration. His professional backgroundincludes 6 years of classroom teaching and 7years as superintendent in the Hale andBrunswick (Missouri) school districts. Hejoined the Missouri Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education in 1979 as AssistantDirector of Supervision of Instruction andin 1982 assumed his current position asCoordinator for the Supervision ofInstruction section.

As a Senior Associate of the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory,PAUL NACHTIGAL is involved with innovativerural school projects in each of sevenPlains states. This activity continues acommitment to improving rural educationevidenced throughout a professional careerwhich has included lengthly service as arural school superintendent, a staff memberof the Colorado State Department ofEducation, and a project leader with theFord Foundation. He is a native of Kansasand received his education at Bethel Collegeand the University of Colorado.

DARYL HOBBS is Professor of RuralSociology and Director of the Office of

Social and Economic Data Analysis at theUniversity of Missouri. He has beeninvolved in numerous experimental projectsand has written extensively about ruraldevelopment and rural education. He is anative of Iowa and holds a Ph.D. in RuralSociology from Iowa State University. He isa past president of the Rural SociologicalSociety.

98