Page 1
ED 061 595
TITLE
INSTITUTION
PUB DATENOTE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
DOCUMENT RESUME
EA 004 179
[Tne Educational 11,esources management S.srem:Application of PPBES Concepts to Education.]Association of School Business Officials, Chicago,Ill7163p.; A report of the ASBO Convention ResearchCommittee (Montreal, Canada, October 23-28, 1971)
MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29Administrative Personnel; Budgeting; EducationalAccountability; *Educational Resources; Evaluation;Management; *Management Development; *ManagementSystems; National Surveys; Planning; Programing;Resource Allocations; Systems Approach; *SystemsConcepts; *Systems Development
ABSTRACTThis document reports the results of a survey of
school business officials to determine the status of EducationalResource Management Systems (ERMS) orPlanning-Programing-Budgeting-Evaluating Systems (PPBES) in schooldistricts and colleges in the United States and Canada. Though theactua1 number of school districts developing management systems hasircreased considerably since 1967, only a small percentage ofdistricts in the two countries is engaged in developing a systemsapproach. Charts showing how participation was initiated, whichgroups have been active, and w!lat stages of development have beenimplemented are also included. (RA)
Page 2
A:;;;Ti. oC etioo1 iWsincss Officials2421i W. L;irence Avenue
Illinois 60625
ghe Educational Resources Management System: Applicationof PPBES Concepts to Education2
Introduction
1971
AR r.NT 'H&
OF IDUT 'IC,TI- AENT HAS LEN liLDUCEL AACTLY AS RECEIVED Fh,.THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY.
The writers of the Educational Resources Management System
hope that the system developed by the ASBO Research Corporation
may serve as a guide to apply the best of the PPBES Concepts to
Education. Administrators should be cautioned that much research
is required before PPBES or ERMS can be fully implemented.
School districts or colleges attempting to design, develop and
implement an educational resources management system, to any
reasonable degree of sophistication, should plan on a minimum
developmental period of three to five years. Some experts advise
that the full implementation of an effective stem for ERMS will
require more than five years.
Many obstacles stand in the way of a fu. implementation of
ERMS. The obstacles represent an adherence to traditions--a
reluctance to change from the familiar. The report of this Con-
vention Committee is charged with the responsibility f bringing
ASBO members an up-to-date report on the status of EMRS as of
Spring 1971.
The survey form, shown on pages 2 EiV wE It o 4,146
members of ASBO early in 1971. The inventory instrument was de-
signed and distributed to help the ASBO Research Committee deter-
mine the status of PPBES within its school district and college
membership.
Page 3
th'your collEagues.Return only one reply for --2ach di tr: t
School District
Address
ERM Research Committee
of the
Association of School Business Officials
Dr. LaMar L. Hill, Chairman
Pupil Membership
Information furnished by
Telephone No.
Position
city, state, province
Please read the enclosed "Summary of System Features" before completing the ques-tionnaire. Answer by checking the appropriate space.
1. Has a system for supporting decision-making, to include thefeatures of the ERMS or PPBES, been authorized by:
a. Your State or Province Educational Agency?
b. Your local governing board?
Has your school district made plans for developing anERM or PPBE?
Is your school district engaged in developing a system forERM or PPBE?
4. Has your school district used the services of a paidconsultant for developing an ERMS or a PRBES?
5. Has your state or Province Educational Agency providedassistance for developing a system?
If you are now operating an ERMS or a PPBES
or
If plans are underway for the development of an ERMS or a PPBES,
Please auwer the ques.tions_o_n the_next page.
2
YES NO
VII
,NOMI
Page 4
FOR SuriOOL DISTRICTS OPERATING OR INITIATINGAN ERMS OR A PPBES
6. Who took the initiative in starting the system? (Mark an "S" in the responsespace.)Who is currelvaly the most active leader? (Mark an "A" in the response space.)
a. Superintendent d. The Board or a board member
b. Business Official e. Other (Name the position)
c. Instructional Staff member
7. Which of the following participated in the development-implementation processof the system?
a. Teachers c. Community leaders
5. Classified Personnel d. Others (Name the group)
8. Mark in number order each of the following items which has been accomplishedor is a part of your system for the ERMS or the PPBES. (Mark the first tobe accomplished as I, etc.)
a. Steering Committee
b. Planning team named
c. Goals and objective team named
d. Programming team named
e. Budgeting team named
f. Evaluating team named
g. Time schedule prepared
h. Cost analysis model in use
i. Program structure accepted
j. Cost/effectiveness model in use
9. Do you have samples of the instructions, forms or other materials developedthus far w'oich you are willing to share?
Send to: .,Research LibraryAssociation of School Business Officials2424 West Lawrence AvenueChicago, Illinois 60625
RETURN BOTH PAGES IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE -- NO POSTAGE IS REQUIRED.
Page 5
The State of the Art
For purposes of giving a means of evaluation of Canada and
the United Sta..es the charts on the following pages were developed.
Many of the items included in the survey can be grouped for
purposes of analysis. The charts will be developed for determining
what the status may be in terms of the size of the schools partic-
ipating in the survey, their status and their outside source of
guidance, the individuals responsible for initiation, groups par-
ticipating in the development of the plans and a final chart that
indicates the status of the various stages of ERMS or PPBES devel-
opment.
The first chart (page 7) deals with the number of schools in
Canada and the United States participating in the inventory and the
size of the districts. It should be rdted thai V- Inver
submitted to 4,146 members representing 2,832 member districts and
colleges. There were 1,327 respondents which represents approx-
imately 32% rspclding, however, members were requested not to
send more t an one reply for each district.
Chart -vo (page 7) indicates the stages of development for
those schools reporting. The relationship of those schoo-s in-
volved and tilose rot imolvec in plans for development varies
greatly be-ty-2 n states--namely 1 to 15 for South Dakota tc 64 to
43 in Califonlia. In development New York showed 6 to 65 ratio
compared to 1L to 7 ratic in Florida. Consultants have not been
44
Page 6
utilized very extensively and the state offices have not offered
much assistance. It should be noted, however, that 318 reported
that the decision has been authorized; 387 have plans for developing
a system; 362 are developing the system; 101 are using consultants
and 169 reported that the state or province is assisting in
providing a system. An example is California whose State Department
of Education and the Advisory Commission on School Budgeting and
Accounting are currently using 14 pilot school districts, and one
county to develop, implement and test a Educational Resources
Management System.
These figures indicate that only a small percentage of the
school districts of Canada and the United States are engaged in
developing a ERMS or PPBE System. Nevertheless; there is a
marked increase in the number of school districts in Canada and the
United States that are either developing or planning and ERMS or
DPfl- System since a survey was made in 1967.
Chart III (page 8) indicates how participation was initiated.
Interestingly enough the school business official seems to be
spearheading most of the situations.
Chart IV (page 8) indicates which groups have been active. It
is good to see that more schools have been inviting teachers,
classified personnel and others to aid in the development of the
system. It may be suprising to note that only 38 schools indicate
the use of ccmmunity leaders in the developmental stages of the
ERM System.
Chart V (page 9) compares the status to which systems have
been developed. If the importance of the item is judged by its
status at th0 timP nf .111P invontnry it would_indicate,that the
Page 7
design of an ERM System is done in the following order:
1. Planning team named 126
2. Steering Committee named 98
3. Budgeting team named 97
4. Goals and objectives team 95
5. Time schedule prepared 92
6. Program structure accepted 68
7. Programing team named 63
8. Cost analysis model in use 49
9. Evaluating team named 41
10. Cost effectiveness model in use 11
Further analysis shows, however, that 69 respondents stated
that (A.) Steering Committee ranked first in their program and 57
reported that (B.) Planning team named ranked second in importance-
indicating that the value of each item is not at all the same in the
362 districts and colleges developing a system.
Page 8
CHART I
SCHOOL MEMBERSHIP
AREAS TYPE OF SCHOOL SCHOOL2Oo1
5000
NEMBERSHIPsoal-10000Unified College
I-
10001001-2000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50001-over
Canada 57 1 4 16 11 14 7
United States 1248 79 59 126 405 319 203 '115 13
TOTAL 1305 79 60 126 409 335 214 129 20
Approx. Percent Dist. 4 6 9.7 31.3 25.7 16 4 9 9 1 5
AREAS
DECISIONMAKINGAUTHORIZED
CHART II
STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FORDEVELOPMENT
IN
DEVELOPMENT
PAIDCONSULTANTUTILIZED
STATEASSISTANCE
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes N Yes No
Canada 12 40 14 42 12 45 3 54 12 45
United States 318 1014 387 875 362 936 101 1120 169 998
TOTAL 330 1054 401 917 374 981 104 1174 181 1043
!
Page 9
CHART III
INITIATIVE IN STARTING THE SYSTEM CAME FROM:
INITIATIVESTARTING
ACTIVELEADER
BOTHROLES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Superintendent2 ICanada
United States 90 I 24 35
Business Official5 4
.
3CanadaUnited States 57 1 63 108
Instructional StaffI
.
CanadaUnited States 3 16
Board/Board Flember3Canada
United States 25
Other1 3Canada
United States 13 36 12
1
CHART IV
GROUPS PARTICIPATING IN DEVELOPMENT
ONLY PERSON WITH ONE OTHER MORE THAN TWO
A. TeachersCanadaUnited States
B. Classified PersonnelCanadaUnited States
C. Community LeadersCanadaUnited States
2
41
24
26
D. OthersCanadaUnited States
2 2
49 35 32
Page 10
The following Steps were
accom lished or are oart
of
or
CHART V
STATUS IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
.
the System for the ERMS
the PPBES:
12
/8
US JJS
9US
10
US
US
US
US
___
US
CUS
CUS
___L
A.
Steering Committee
669
15
1.
B.
Planning Team Named
242
557
12
C.
',..;oals and Objective
Team Named
18
230
25
92
D.
Programming Team Named
915
10
21
18
14
E.
Budgeting Team Named
119
17
1..,,,
111
12
75
1
I;_
214
e_ ,)
1
8
127
447
243.
214
,
1
i
1
F.
Evaluating Team Named
4
137
1
5
122
2
5
218
2G.
Time Schedule Prepared
H.
Cost Analysis Model in
USE
I.
Program Structure
Accepted
6ii
111
11
16
J.
Cost Effectiveness
Model in Use
3
Page 11
Summary
In summary it must be stated that there is much interest
in ERNS or PPBES in education. There has been a marked increase
in development and implementation of systems in the past 4 years.
Superintendents now seem to lead the field in initiating
or starting the system, however, business administrators still
are the most active leaders currently.
It appears that teachers and classified employees are showing
more interest in participating in ERMS development. Not too
suprising is the fact that we are still a little skeptical in
using community leaders in system development.
Again we should be reminded that it is the goal of the creators
of the ASBO conceptual ERN System to provide a vehicle for local
school districts and colleges which, when applied will encourage:
1. Involvement of citizens, staff and students inplanning and decision making.
2. Responsiveness to change and the needs of the learners.
3. Long range planning.
4. Determination of priorities.
5. Thorough analysis of the alternatives.
6. Effective identification and allocation of resources,especially personnel.
7. Adequate display to the public of resource allocationin relation to programs.
8. Accountability to the public in relating resourceutilization to outcomes.
Page 12
()PI:17.-564
/V
(tee)
/41 efae/I-
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MCNTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
;
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-ARKANSAS
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
21
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES
NO.
3
:Jf.,I.
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE.
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
ERNS OR PPBES-
DEVELOPMENT
-.0.. 6- INITIATIVE 4i4LSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARO/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
3
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GUALS AND 08J TEAM NAMED
O. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
-H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
YES
NO
BOTH
ROLES
UTILIZED
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
33.
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME .FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
O. OTHERS
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
3
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
.1.- ),
ehedzi-
L1
(d
6
Page 13
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERILAL INt-ORMA(ION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-ALABAMA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COA.EGE
3.
1-DECISION MAKING
.SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
ND
,
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOMG
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NC
12
6- INITIATIVE 44LSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
iVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM fOR
THE ERNS OR THE PPPES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
.
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G..TIME SCHr.DULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
YES
NO
12
1
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
2
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
3
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
BOTH
.
ROLES
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
3
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-8-
79-
-10-
Page 14
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 2DB50
DATE RUN
6121/71
STATEARI.ZONA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
IDECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZDe
YES
NO
.
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-140000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR
MORE:
2
FOR DL,
f.PING 3 ENGAGED IN
ES
PP1;;
DEvELOPMENT
4.
63
4
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
5STITE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
320
'
10
10
614
1.
19
123
Q!.1
--- 6 INITIATIVE 'Oil-STARTING
7PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FRom
.INITIATIVE
ACTrVP
BOTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
.
STARTING
LEADER
RnLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
11
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
.1
1
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STA,
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
U. 8GARU/BUAVO MEMBER
D. OTHERS
.
'E. OTHER
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
Ok ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FUR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
1 2
34
5.-6
78
910
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
2I
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
11
1-
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
11
.
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
*
2
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
2
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
1
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
I
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
S
I
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
Page 15
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-ALASKA
YPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIEU
COLLEGE
31
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000. 50-01-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE. I
I-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
21
..1
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE VilSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
U. 8OARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
3
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
1I.
1
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE'
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
'
1.
YES
NO
2
BOTH
ROLES
2
-1-
-2-
1
1
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
.PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
22
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
11
13
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
-
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
2.
22
-6-1
-7-
-8-
1
-9-
-10-
Page 16
1
0EPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATECALIFORNIA
1TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
104
10
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000OR .MORE:
3
1DECISION MAKING
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO.
87
67
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
'
64
43
YES
NO
75
36
519
.
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
17
90
18
29
12
7
5STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
6 INITIATIVE 41:42-STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
16
47
A. TEACHERS
98
11
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
10
10
28
B. CLASSIFIED'PERSONNEL
9.
39
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
24
3C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
33
'
aD. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
21
D. OTHERS
5a
E. OTHER
4I.
---
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
12
34
56
78
910
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
20
51
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
213
4
C. GOALS AND LBJ TEAM NAMED
32
33
1
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
1.
26
21
1
E. BuGGETING TEAM NAMED
32
23
22
1
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
23
11
12
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
53
42
11
1
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
11
12
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
12
15
21
J. COSI/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
21
Page 17
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERILAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
;
RucKvT
mApylANn
STATECANADA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
57
A1DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHILD.
YES
NO
.
12
40
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-40000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000OR MORE,
1
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
'
.14
42
6 INITIATIVE 41.51STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
SUPERINTENDENT
b. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL SIAFF
De BOARD/BOARD. MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
12
45
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STAkTING
LEADER
ROLES
254
3
313
4.
16
11
14
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
354
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADER
D. OTHERS
8THE
OR
FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE
ERMS OR THE PPBES
12
34
5STE
'ING COMMITTEE
6
PLAi,,,iNG TEAM NAMED
25
C. GoALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
21
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
31
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
11
1
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
2
1.
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
22
1
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
12
1
5STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
12
45
ONLY
PERSON42
4.J
WITH ONE
OTHER
MORE
---
THAN TWO
32
51
..2
1
7
I;
67
89
10
..
Page 18
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ANO MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-CONNECTICUTTYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
29
3
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-.OR MORE,
1
11-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHI1D.
YES
NO
121
ERMS OR PPBES
YES
.NO
46
16.
6- INITIATIVE 1NLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
wft4
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSIRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
11
.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
12
19
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLiSHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. IOST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-21
YES
NO
428
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
8, CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. UTHERS
810
1
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
427
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE'.
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
-10-
Page 19
f11ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RUCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-COLORADO
TYPE
'11.-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
19
13
4
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
2
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE 'IN).STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E, OTHER
YES
.NO
413
INITIATIVE
STARTING
221
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
O. ARE PART C.3,
THE SYSTEM FUR
THE ERMS OR THE PPRES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
U. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
YES
NO
314
12
.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
116
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
54
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
3.
14
12
ACTIVE
BOTH
LEADER
ROLES
A. TEACHERS
ONLY
WITH ONE
PERSON
.0THER
MORE-
THAN TWO
1B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
1
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
1
D. OTHERS
11
.2
-2 -
211
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-1
-7-1
-8-1
-10-
Page 20
1V
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-DELAWARE
7TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
10
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHI2D.
YES
NO.
19
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPOR',
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-...10000
10001-20000
20001-.
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
yESI
14
.
4-PA1D CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
9
6- INITIATIVE 4i4LSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1.
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOK
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUA1ING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEP1ED
-1-
BOTH
ROLES
910
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
31
1
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
.PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
10
'1
50000-OR .MORE,
,41.;
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
-
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
Page 21
DEPARTMENT OF EUUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROMILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-FLORIDA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
12
5
7
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHILD.
YES
NO.
.
10
7
WJ.
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE ftiLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
Y.ES
NO
10
7
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
41
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
3
C. INSIRUCTIONAL SIAFF
D. BOARU/COARC MEMBER
3.
E. OTHER
1.
4
3.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
YES
NO
14
7
BOTH
ROLES
211
512
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
2
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
10
7
ONLY
PERSON1
'
4.
35
...1....
WITH ONE
MORE
-
OTHER
THAN TWO
21I.
13
8-THE
ORTHE
FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
ARE PAkT OF THE SYSTEM FOR
ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MOUEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
-1-7212211221
-2 -
61
-3-
44
-4-1132
-5-1221
-6-12
-7-
-8-
-9-
a
Page 22
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
a
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 2085C
STATE-GEORGIA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
3.
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5004-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR HORE,
1-DECISION MAKINC
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZO,
YES
NO3
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE 4i4I"STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. bCARD/BOARO MEMBER
E. UTHER
YES
NO
1.3
YES
NO
13
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMEO
C. GOALS ANO UBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGKAWNG TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPAV
H. CCST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
13
7-PARTIC!PATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
13
2
,r
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO.
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
2
10--
Page 23
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COuNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-HAWAII
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1.
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES
NO.
1
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5C0110000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE.
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
'
YES
NO
YES
NO
-
1.1
11
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
6- INITIATIVE 4MLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUuGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MuDEL IN USE
I. PROCRAm STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
BOTH
ROLES
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
1
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
Lao
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-1
1
-8-
-
1
-10-
Page 24
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-IOWA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
CULLEGE
34
7
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
'001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR .MORE,
2
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD,
YES
NO .
.2
39
'
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
-' 6- INITIATIVE itii4STARTING
THE SYSTEM GAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS Of-FICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD. MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
' NO
533
YES
NG
436
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
0LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
'
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
.F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
812
.10
4-PAID CONSULYANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
140
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. CUMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
5
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
139
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-8-
;
-9-
-10-
Page 25
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGER1CAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATEINDIANA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
45
'A1DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZO,
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000OR MORE,
514
.12
93
1
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
NO
YES
NO'
YES
NO
740
45
4PAID CONSULTANT
5STATE OR PROVINCE
YES
NO..
yES
45
--- 6 INITIATIVE biNJ.STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD. MEMBER
542
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
21
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAm NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMEC
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. CoST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROCRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
BOTH
ROLES
11
211
1
211
1I.
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
34
5
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
11
11
1
67
8
1
910
eV
Page 26
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE? MARYLAND 20850
STATE-IDAHO
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SEr:UNDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
a
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5004-40000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR .MORE,
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES
NU..
17
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE gq.11"STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME Fyom
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INS1RUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD, MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
.12
6
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
'STARTING
LEADER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
1. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
YES
NO
17
BOTH
ROLES
1
-1-
-2-
4.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
8
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
21
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO8
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MORE "
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO -
-6-
-9-
-10-
Page 27
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND !IliNACERILAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE...ILL!NOIS
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
132
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
11
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
20015000
5001-10000- 10001-20000
2000150000, 50000OR SORE.
12
48
19
52
27
38.
;
1..4)ECISION MAKING
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
ERMS OR PPBES
YES
NO .
YES
NO
*
26
128
39
111
3"- ENGAGED IN
4...PAID CONSULTANT
CEVELDPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
YES
NO
36
115
7.
137
5STATE OR PROVINCE
-PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
5*
142
4;
tt
;.
6 INITIATIVE II.11START1NG
7...PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE"
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
62
A. TEACHERS
6'
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
49
Bo CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
4.
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
.4
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
De HOARD/BOARD MEMBER
De OTHERS
.1E. OTHER
2
8THE FOLLCWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AkE PART OF ThE SYSTEM fOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
..2
8A. S1EERING COMMITTEE
5
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
38
1
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
36
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
21
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
I.
25
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
12
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1.
32
Page 28
litiARMENT Of IDLIONAL AND MANA(,LRI!
MONTGOMERY LOUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-KANSAS
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECUNUARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
17
4
.11-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
.
1010RWIti;iN AND 1,w1LYSIS
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
RATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR M0RE.1,
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS. OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
yES
NU
14
89
g(J,
I--" 6- INITIATIVE /MI.STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
t-t
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSIROCIIONAL STAFF
D. BGARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
Yrr,
NO
313
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BO1H
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
211
8-THE FOLLuWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. S1EERING COMMITTEE
8. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
.
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIRE SCHEDULE PkEPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAm STRuClUkL ACCEPTED
1
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
115
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
1
1
214
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MORE
'
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
11
-6-1
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
Page 29
DUARTMENT OF EDuCATtorlAI Arm
tI
IICAL INFORMAIINO AHD ANALYSIS
MON I GOJl[R'
LIJItI I
isCHOULS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-KENTUCKY
ERM RESEARCH
COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21171
TYPE
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNiFiE0
LuLLEGE
81
32
2
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AuTLIZD,
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-:10000
10001-20000
20001-50000 -50000-CR .MORE
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR EWES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO.
Y.ES
NO
16
2
'..°- 6- INITIATIVE I.N.LSTARTING
THE SySTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPmENT CAmE
OM
.
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BGTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE' .
.STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO'
A. SUPERINTENDENT
2A. TEACHERS
I'
'
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
5
YES
NO
25
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
7-PARTICIPATION IN
FR
81
7
D. BOARD/BOAtID HEMBLR
E. OTHER
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
I.
D. OTHERS
1
8-THE FOLLOwING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
. -9-
-10-
.
A. SlEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
.
C. GOALS ANO OBJ TEAM NAMED
D, PR0GRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
P. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
.
G. TIME SCHEDULE PRFPARED
H. CILST ANALYSi
MODEL IN IFF
1. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACLLviLu
Page 30
Mt
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-LOUISIANA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
61
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMIiTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUESTA-
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-l00oo
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD,
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
1
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
YES
NO7
6- INITIATIVE IN STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
r,
INSTRUCTION,A
STAFF
D. rArtVO/BOAR6 MIJfikU
kIII[1(
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
77
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
B-IHE FOLLOWING SIEP
1AERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND UBJ TEAM NAMED'
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
PIIDGET(Cf; TFAM HAMEL)
V, Pi/1111/11r,
.H
NANED
G. TIME SCHLDULI PkEPARED
H. GUST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO7
1
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSOW
OTHER
'
THAN TWO
-3-
-4-
-5-
1 -6-
-7-
-9-
3
-10-
Page 31
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MAINE
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
7
*11-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES
NO.
:
14
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
QATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR .MORE.
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE 1041.STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
NO
43
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPLRINTENDENT
2
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
D. BOARD/BOARD.MEMBER
1
E. OTHER
rfllIOWINC sTrve; !!Fpr
!
h. PI,NOINi,
NAmtD
GOALS ANL) OHJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
I.
1
YES
NO
BOTH
ROLES
12
3
3.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
2.
5
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-2-
-3-
-4-
-
21
2
11
2
3
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO6
2
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE'
'
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
2.
121
-7°1
Page 32
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION
AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MARYLAND
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONOARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
12
2
1 DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES7
5
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
OATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1°10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
3
4-PA1D CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
.yES
NO
-""- 6- INITIATIVE ltillSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
86
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
YES
NO
YES
MO
86
510
BOTH
ROLES
7-PARTICIPATION.IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NCI
10
3
ONLY
WITH ONE. MORE:
PERSON
OTHER
.THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENOENT
51
A. TEACHERS
1.
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
2B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
2
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
1
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
D. OTHERS
21
2
E. OTHER
.1
2
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERNS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERINC, COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GUALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PRDURAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2 -
3
3
1
2
-3-
-4-
-5-
12
2
- A -
-7-
-8-
6
Page 33
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND mANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MONTANA
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
TYPE
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE:
32
.1
1-DECIS1ON MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
12
2I.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES.
NO
12
12
3
6- INITIATIVE 'IN STARTING
.7-PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
RCLES
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONALSTAFF.
E. OTHERS
1
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COmmUNITY LEADERS
Do OTHERS
,
ONLY
WITH ONE' MORE
PERSON.
OTHER
THAN Tiff)
/
1
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS wERE ACCOmPLISHED
OR ARE PART oF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-97
-10-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAm NAMED
C. GOALS AND oBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COSI ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGkAm STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
Page 34
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFURmAiluN ANU ANALT1J
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MASSACHUSETTS
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
32
1
4-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUfHIZD.
YES
NO .
523
GINM
a.vrtvistat.t.
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
yES
NO
13
20
YES
NO
13
20
412
.11
3
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
3.
30
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES6 '
NO
27
11
6- INITIATIVE 11STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
STARTING
A. SUPERINTENOENT
3
B. BUSINESS CFFICIAL
1
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD,MEMBER
E. OTHER
.11
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR APE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING A1,Am NAMED
G. 'PmE SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PRuGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
ACTIVE
LEADER
212
-1-132
BOTH
ROLES
231
-2-1221
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
75-
1131.
2
1
ONLY
PERSON14
-6-
!
1
WITH ONE
OTHER
-7-1
4.
..
MORE',
THAN TWO
433
-8-
-
11
-10-
Page 35
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MISSISSIPPITYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
I1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO .
6
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
;
.1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-:10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
5J400-OR MORE,
!
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
7
6- INITIATIVE IMSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTkUCTICNAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD, MEMBER
.
E. OTHER
Y.ES
NO
YES
NO
16
.INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PAkT OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
'
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
7
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
3
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YE
SN
O
1
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE.
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-7--8-
1-10-
Page 36
1
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-MIi
.iSOTA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
36
'A
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YE
SN
O.
1422
;:r1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEABERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE,
18
53
2
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
14
22
/--- 6- ,NITTATIVE *iM4STARTING
TKE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIGNAL SIAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
'
YE
SN
O
828
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
START/NG
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B.' PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGPAmmING TEAM NAmED
E. BUIJCETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
15
-1-
-2-1
2
21
312.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
531
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
I.
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
235
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THA74 TWO
34.
3
-6-
--8-
-9-
-10-
t
Page 37
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ANO MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATEMICHIGAN
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
87
.5
t
ERM RESEARCH CC:-lMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000OR MORE.!
3
1DECISION MAKING
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
10
82
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6 INITIATIVE 41llaSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
yES
NO
22
69
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
41
43
1I.
11
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
4B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
2
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGPAMMING TEAM NAMED
1
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
4
EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COSI ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
YES
NO
23
64
434.
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
25
10
10
3
5STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
686
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
582
BOTH
ROLES
ONLY
PERSON
WITH ONE
OTHER
MORE
THAN TWO
1A. TEACHERS
21
6B. CLASSIFIED
PERSONNEL
61
C. CU:'i.;N1TY
LEADERS
D. OTf::PS
51
1
34
56
78
911
1
6
31
12
I.
11
11
11
101
Page 38
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20850
STATEMISSOURI
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
23
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
11000
10012000 20015000
500110000
100I.20000 2000150000
50000...OR MORE,
1:-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3. ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHILD.
YES
NO
21
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6.- INITIATIVE TSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
NO
317
YES
NO
220
.INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
A, SUPERINTENDENT
11
3. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1
D.
bOARD/LiOAK), MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
'
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
1
27
.
ir.-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
I.
20
.frPARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
3
1
64
4
5..-.STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISANCE
YES
NO
21
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
11
E/'
Page 39
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION .4113 ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NEBRASKA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
14
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
17
.2
12
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
f
210
'. 4
94
92
11
1
W.4.
f
--- 6- INITIATIVE 14.04START.ING
7-PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
2
8. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
11
B. CLASSIFIED PERSO
C. INSTRUCTICNAL STAFF
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
r
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
O. OTHERS
.
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOwING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
II
B. PLANNING TEAm NAMED
11
C. GOALS ANO OBJ TEAM NAMED
11
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
1
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
1
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
1
G. TImE SCHEDULE PREPARED
11
Ji. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
Page 40
1'
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY CUUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLANO 20850
STATE-NEVADA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
5
t
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-1000010001-20000
20001-5000050000-O
R M
OR
E.1i
11
.
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
SYSTEM AUTHILD.
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
.2
2
6- INITIATIVE 4/41STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCIIONAL STAFF
D. 13CARD/BOAkD MEMBER
E. OTHER
32
32
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
A. STEERING CUNMITTLE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. COALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
L. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
2
-2-
13
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
1'
4
ONLY
*WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
:
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
/
3
cr)
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
t
Page 41
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MUNTGOMEk/ COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NEW. JERSEYTYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
79
5
iAI-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
469
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500V-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MOREI
5
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE tf44STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FLOM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARO MEMBER
E. OTHER
,
yES
NO
.17
65
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
22
42
1
B-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
L. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COSI ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
2
YES
NO
1568
BOTH
ROLES
4312
-1-
-2-
221
/4
36
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
380
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
17
7
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
577
ONLY
PERSON13
.
21
.1.
WITH ONE
MORE
'
OTHER
THAN TWO
3
52
-3-
121
-4-111
-5-
-6-
1
-7-1
-a-
Page 42
JEPAR1-
Ji OF EDUCATIONAL ANO MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
ALNTGOMFRY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE/ MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NEW,MEXICOTYPE
ELEMEt'TARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
61
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
100172000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR .MORE
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3* ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO,
16
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
--- 6- INITIATIVE lill'STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
NO
15
.INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINVNDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTPTNAL STAFF
D. BFARD/BLW). MEMBER
E. C7HER
8-THE FOLLOWIKO STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS OR
HE PPBES
A. STEEKING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGPAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. [VAL !ATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROG A STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
YES
NO
15
BOTH
ROLES
1
I.3
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
1.
5
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES1
ONLY
PERF-v!
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
NO5
*WITH ONE
MORE'
'
OTHER
THAN TWO
-7--
-8--
-9-,
-10-
Page 43
DEPAR'!ENT OF EDUCATIONAL ANU MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATENEW YORK
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
71
1DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
10
59
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
11000
10012000
2001-..5000
5001.10000
10001.20000
2000150000
50000.OR MORE'
4
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
10
58
YES
NO
665
.10
33
.17
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
764
8
5STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
19.
61
31
Ql;
--os. 6 INITIATIVE ft44STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
STARTING
ACTIVE
LEADER
BOTH
ROLES
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
ONLY
PERSON
WITH ONE
OTHER
MORE
.
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
31
2A.
TEACHElS
12
'
1.
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
34
6B.
CLASSIFIED
PERSONNEL
3.
21
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
C.
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
11
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
1,
.
D.OTHERS
22
E. OTHER
2
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AkE PART Of THE SYSTEM. FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
23
45
67
89
10
A, STEERING UMMITTEE
41
1
!MC, TLAM NAMED
23
L.
UBJ TEAM NAMED
21
22
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
21
E. 8ULGETING TEAM NAMED
12
11
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
21
1
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
11
1
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
1
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1'
Page 44
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGER/CAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MuNTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
RoCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NORTH DAKOTA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
7
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.110000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
3.
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
ERMS Ok PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO.
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
1.
62
5
-.0-- 6- INITIATIVE fN1-STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
STAR/ING
ACTIVE
LEADER
2
BOTH
ROLES
52
5
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENUENT
A.
TEACHERS
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
1B.CLASSIFIED
PERSONNEL
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1C.
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
D. ECARD/u0ARD MLMBER
U.
OTHERS
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLowiNG STEPS wERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM.FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
1
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
1
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
1
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRuCTURE ACCEPTED
4
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO6
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE'
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
f
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
1
Page 45
i"
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NORTH CAROLINA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
51
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES1
5
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE fNI.STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
8. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARO/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
Y.ES
NO
15
YES
NO
15
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AkE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS 2P THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. COALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. alOCETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAR NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
4-PA1D CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
15
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
21
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
2
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-e--9-
-10-
Page 46
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ANU MANAbLKILAL limrunnAinunf new .4,11^up.,s.a
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-NEW HAMPSHIRE
TYPE
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATUkES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000- 50000-OR MORE,
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHILD.
2
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
y.:S
*
NO
12
2
YES
NO
4-PA10 CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSIFJANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
-."- 6- INITIATIVE /k"STARTING
7-PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
ONLY
*WITH ONE
MORE
.STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
I1
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
1
:C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. BCARD/BOAF.D MEMBER
D. OTHERS
1
.E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
1
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. EULCETING TEAM NAMED
1
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
1
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. cnsT ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
Page 47
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGER/CAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-OREGON
'E
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
20
4
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FUJURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001.-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR °MORE
1
11-DECISIGN MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NU10
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
--- 6- INiTIATIVE T/41-ST4RTING
r
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
.NO
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
2
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BEARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FULLOING STEPS WERE ACC:iMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE'
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
YES
NO
716
BOTH
ROLES
241
-1-
-2=
1
I.
42
4-PAID.CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR-PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
320
7-PARTICIPAT/ON IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
11
1.
1
1
3
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
517
2
;.4..:-
.
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
'
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
2
-6-
-7-
11
1
-8-
2211
-9-
2
-10-
Page 48
.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMAVION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-OHIO
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY OIN-FIED
COLLEGE
45
1
1-DECIIN MAKING
SYS)
AUTHIZD.
YES4
NO
35
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5004-10000
10001-20000
20u01-50000
50000-OR MORE
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
116
.12
10
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
10
6- INITIATIVE IN STARTING
35
YES
NO
10
33
YES
NO
441
7-PARTICIPATION IN
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES3
NO
2
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
STARTING
ACTIVE
LEADER
BOTH
ROLES
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
ONLY
PERSON.
WITH ONE
OTHER
MORE
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1.
A. TEACHERS
11
1
B. BUSINESS EFFICIAL
22
B. CLASSIFIED
PERSONNEL
1
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1C. COMMUNITY
LEADERS
I.
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
1D. OTHERS
21
E. OTHER
21
8-THE FuLEO,AING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOK
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEEPING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
1
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAME0
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
1
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-11
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
1
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9--
5
Page 49
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PU8LIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-OKL.AHOMA
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
TYPE
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
a1
13
.2
21
.11-DECISION MAK!NG
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERRS OR-PPEIES
DEVELOPMENT
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
Y.ES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
17
. 3
63
69
27
TAL
....- 6- INITIATIVE thiLSTARTING
7-PARTICIPATION IN
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
.*.
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
I.
I
B. BUSINESS CFFICIAL
8. CLASSIFIED PERSONt:EL
2.
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1C. COMMUNITY LEADER
I
D. ECARD/BOARD MEMBER
D. OTHERS
I
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AKE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-2-
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PRoGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
1
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-8-
-9-
-10-
Page 50
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATF-PENNSYLVANIA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
89
2
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-L10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
'.0000-OR MORE
3
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO
35
78
:if.J.
4L1.
ERMS QR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
10
65
6- INITIATIVE IN STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
647
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
51
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERNS OP THE PPBES
A. STtERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. COALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TINE SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MoDEL IN uSE
31
311
-1-
-2-
11
2
1
639
.
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
27
18
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
YES
NO
180
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
8. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
1
1
17
67
ONLY
'
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON.
OTHER
THAN TWO
11
21
-6-
-7-
-8-
-g-
-10-
Page 51
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MuNTGOMEkY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-RHODE ISLAND
TYPE
E:LEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
41
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21171
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
I-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO.
32
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
--- 6- INITIATIVE PiLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
NO
32
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARL/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE EOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AkE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERPS Ck THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. l'OGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
2.
11
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
YES
NO
23
BOTH
ROLES
1
-1-
-2-
111
1
23
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
111
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
1
ONLY
VIITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
11
-6-
1
-7-1
-8-
1
-9-
4
-10-
Page 52
ri
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-SOUTH CAROLINA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
9
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
ERMS OR PP8ES
YES
NO
1a
YES
NO
18
-
-Y
6- INITIATIVE fill'STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
1
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BCARDJBOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A.
B.
C.
D.E.
F.G.H.I.
STEERING COMMITTEE
PLANNING TEAM NAMED
GOALS t,ND OBJ TEAM NAMED
PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
BUDGETINC TEAM NAMED
EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
ERM RESEARCH rOMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SY.iTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DAT: RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
100)-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
3-.ENGAGED IN
23
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
18
YES
NO
18
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
BOTH
ROLES
A. TEACHERSB. CLASSIF!ED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNI7Y LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-2-
-3-
-4-
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES1.
NO8
I.
ONLY
WITH ONE
SORE
.
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-5-
-6-
1
-7-
-8-
-9-
2
-10-
Page 53
DEPARTMENT OF EDULATIONAL AND MANAGER:CAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COuNTY PUBLIC SCHuOLS
ROCKVILL:, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-SOUTH DAKOTA
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
16
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE PEFL1RT
SHMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST..
.E RUN
6121/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
10012000 20015000
500110000
10001-20000
2000/-50000
50000..4)R MORE
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
:- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZO.
YES
NO
115
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- /NITIATIVE P41-STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
t)
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINLSS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. FOARD/BOARU MEMBER
E. OTHER
YES
NO
115
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
F-THL FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS Ok THE PPRES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1
YES
NO
/15
BOTH
ROLES
-1-
-2-
1
85
.
ir''PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
16
7..-PARTICIPATION TN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONN4
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-5-
1
5STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVID7D ASSISTANCE
YES
NO15
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE"
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
1
-6-
-8-
Page 54
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-TENNESSEE
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
6
1-DECISION MAKING
SYSTEM AuTHIZD.
YES
NO.
6
1
ERM RESEARCH r,OMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY C.:: SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21i71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
500.1-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE,
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
6- INITIATIVE IN STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
YES
NO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
H. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
34
YES
NO
1.
5
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
I.
1.
1
8-THE FuELOwING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR AkE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS uR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAmmING TEAM NAMEL
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
1
-1-
-2-1
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
I6
7-PARTICIPATION IN
-DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
1
1
4
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
16
ONLY
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSOW
OTHER
'
THAN TWO
I.
11
-6-
-7-
-8-
-9-
-10-
Page 55
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATL '4AL AND MANAGERICAL IN'ORMATION AND ANALYS'
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLEg MARYLAND 20850
STATE-TEXAS
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
44
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
CATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-.40000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
'LES
NO
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
YES
NO
34
10
24
16
15
.13
6
4-PAID CONSULTANT
5-.STATE OR PROVINCE
UTILIZED
YES
NO
YES
NO
19
21
139
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
27
15
3
INITIATIVE IN STARTING
THE SYSTEM GAME FROM
INITIATIVE
STARTING
ACTIVE
LEADER
BOTH
ROLES
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
ONLY
PERSON
WITH ONE
OTHER
MORE
THAN TWO
A. SUPERINIENDENT
3.
11
A.
TEACHERS
33
1
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
75
B.
CLASSIFIED
PERSONNEL
31
C.
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
1C.
COMMUNITY
LEADERS
1
D. BLARD/BOARD MEMBER
D.
OTHERS
43
E.,
OTHER
3
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
INT ERNS CR THE PPBES
-1-
-2 -
-3-
4 -
-5-
-6-
-7---8-
-9-A. STEERING CUMMITTEE
31
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
53
1
C. COALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
3
D. PRUGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
1
tiE. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
24
13
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
1
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
11
13
1
H. CCS1 ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
11
I. PRUGFAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
11
1.
J. CUST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
1
5
-10-
Page 56
DEPARTMENT OE EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGEVE.iL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE UTAh
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
14
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUESTo
DATE RUN
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5004-.-10000
10001-20000
2C001-50000
50000OR MC'E
1
1DECISICN MAKING
2PLANS FOR DEVELOPING 3 ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AOTHI1D,
YES
NO.
611
)
ERNS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
--- 6 INITIATIVE 1NI'STARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
yES
NO
511
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
A. SUPERINTENDENT
2
B. BUSINESS OEFICIAL
O. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. HCAku/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
8THE FOLLOWING STEPS 1JRE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE S\
"iM FOR
THE ERNS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMI
-E
B. PLANNING TEAM
D
C. GOALS AND OBJ TL
A NAMED
O. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
J. COST/EFFECTNESS MODEL IN USE
YES
NO
312
BOTH
ROLES
1
21
1 2
1
1
35
.
4PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
15
7PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
34
51
1
1
32
5ST1TE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES5
NO10
ONLY
'WITH ONE
MOE'
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10--
Page 57
DEPARTMENT OE EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-VERMONT
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
-OLLEGE
2
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6/21/71
r
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
SYSTEM AUTHIZD.
YES1
1
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
-- 6- INITIATIVE PNLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
U. POARD/UOARO. MEMBER
E. OTHER
yES
NU
1
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
STARTING
LEADER
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE LRMS CR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GUALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYAS rinDEL
IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
YES
NO
BOTH
ROLES
-1-
-2-
2
2,
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
YES
NO2
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
,A. TEACHERS
B. CLAsfAFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
-3-
-4-
-5-
.*
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
ONLY
WITH
-
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-7-
-8-
Page 58
1
ULPAK;MtNI ur LUULAIIUNAL ANU 1ANAUCM1UAL 114FUMMAIILM AVIU MIlmi-gos4
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLEv MARYLAND 2r850
STATE-VIPGINIA
TYPE
ELCMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
12
1
1-DECISION MAKING
S'!STEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO.
111
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
DATE RUN
6121/71
PUPIL MEMBSHIP
.
.1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
50000-OR MORE
1
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
3- ENGAGED IN
ERMS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
yES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
--- 6- INITIATIVE IMLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS CEFICIAL
C.,
INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
U. BLARO/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHER
4-PAID CONSULTANT
UTILIZED
310
58
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FOLLOwING STEPS WERE ACCOMPEIS!IED
uR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS AND ni3J TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAmmING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEuULE PREPARED
H. CUST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
1. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
-1-
-2-
112
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
1.
6
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
ONLY
PERSON
-3-
-4-
-5-
-6-
!
I.
NO13
'WITH ONE
MORE
OTHER
THAN TWO
111
-7--
-8-
-9-
3
-10-
Page 59
DEPARTMENT OF LDOCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INfORMATION ANDANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROZKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STATE-WASHINGTON
1
ERM RESEARCH COMM TTEE REP RT
SUMMARY' OF SYSTEM, FEATURES QUEST.
DATE, RUN
6/21/71
TYPE
PUPIL. MEMBERSHIP
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1000
-2000
2001 5000
51
0000
10001-2000
20001-50000
00-0R, 110,,HE
1 OfCISI IN MAKING
313
79
52
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING
ENGAGED' IN'
SYSTEM, AUTHIZD,
ERMS OR PPBES
YES
NO
1015
4-P Al ID, CONSULTANT
5-STATE OR PROVINCE'
DEVELOPMEICT
UTILIZED.
-PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
yES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
13
18
11
20
229
9,
22
4, AM
6INITIATIVE IN STARTI, G
THE SYSTEm CAME FROH,
INITIATIVE
STARTING
A. SUPERINTENDENT
4.
3. EUSINESS CfFICIAL
LL
BOARD/BOARD MEMBER
E. OTHtR
ACTIVE
LEADER
24
BOTH
ROLES
23
7-PARTICIPATION, IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME. FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
D. OTHERS
8-THE 'CILL,
NG STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHE
Ok AkE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-1-
-2-
--5-
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
2B. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
11
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED,
11
2D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
2I.
1E. BUCGETINC TEAM NAMED
31
2.
F. EVALUATING TEAM NAMED
2'
1
G. TIME SCHEDULE PREPARED
11
1
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
11
1I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
21
ONLY'
WITH ONE
MORE
PERSON
OTHER
THAN TWO
1''
- 21
5t
1
-6-1
.
1
Page 60
DEPA TmENT OF EDUCATIONAL ANo MANAGERICAL
INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
mUNTGOMERYCOUNTY PUBLIC. SCHOOLS,
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, 20850
STATE-WISCONSIN
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED,
52
COLLEGE
5
1-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR ,"EVE
PING,
SYSTEM AUTHILDo
YES.
NO -
38
ERMS OR PPBES
INITIATIVE IN STARTING,
THE SYSTEM pall FROM
YES
NO
22
33
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
5004
310
21
ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT'
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO,
18
37
YES
NO
156
1-PARTICIPATION, IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM.
1
ERM RESEARCH, COMMITTEE. REPORT
SUMMARY OF. SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST'.
DATE RUN
6/21171
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP'
10000
10001-20000
20001- 0000
50000-OR MORE
95
3
5-STATE OR. PROVINCE
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
0'
651
A. SuPERINTENDENT
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. BOARD/BOARD MEMBER.
E. OTHER
,NITIATIVE
STARTING
5
ACTIVE'
LEADER
42
BOTH
ROLES
2512
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D. OTHERS
OhtY
'
;JERSON.
141
WITH ONE' MORE
OTHER
'THAN TWO
24
343
12
2
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
DR ARE PART C.F. THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
-2-4-
-7--10-
A. STEERING COMmITTEE
31
B. PLANNiNG TEAm, NAMED
32
1
COALS AND OBJ TEAM NAM1D
3,D. PROGRAmmiNG, TEAM NAmED
2E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
3F. EVALUATING TEAM, NAMED
1.
G. TIME SCHEDUtE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
2I
PROGRAM STRuCTURE ACCEPTED.
Page 61
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INfORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUtiLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE' MARYLAND 20350
S ATE
'EST VIR IN A
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIE,
COLLEGE
I-DECISION MAKING
2-PLANS FOR DEVELOPING.
SYSTEM AUTHIZO4
YES
ND.
ERNS 01i, PPBES
INIT. ATIVE IMLSTARTING
THE SYSTEM CAME FRO
A. SUPERINTENDENT
B. eusINEss OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF
D. IJOARD/60AR3 MENDER
E. CTHER
rES
NO
7
1-1000
100.
2000
21001-5000
ERM RESEARCH COR ITTEE REP RT
SUMMARY Of SYSTEM' FEATURES QUEST.
pATE RUN,
6/21/71
PUPIL MEMBERSHIP.
5001-10000
10001-20000
0001 503noo
50000-OR M Rt,
42,
ENGAGED IN
4-PAID. CONSULTANT
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED.
YES
NO
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING.
LEADEW
ROLES
6-THE FOLLOwING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART. Of THE SYSTEM FOR
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
B. PLANNING TEtM AAMED
C.GUALS ANL) OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PRuCRAmmiNG TEAM NAMED
E. PUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EvALUATING TEAM NAMED
G. TIME SCHEDUtE PRLPARED
H. COSI ANALYSIS MODEL IN USE
t. PROGRAm STRUCTURE ACCEPTED.
YES
NO
7
7-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS,
D. OTHERS
5....STATE OR PROVINCE
PROVIDED' ASSISTANCE
YES
NO.
ONtY
WITH ONE
MORE'
-
PERSON!
OTHER
THAN TWO
-6-
-1-
-9-
-10-
Page 62
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
kOCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
ST),TE- WY U M I NG
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY UNIFIED
COLLEGE
1-DECISION MAKING
2..PtANS FOR DEVELOPING
SI STEM AUTHIZD.
YES
NO.
16
INITIATIVE
THE SYSTEM
ERAS OR PPBES,
NO
2
tiNkSTARVING,
CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENUENI
B. BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUtTIONAL STAFF
O. BOARO/BOAROMBER
E. OIHER
1-1000
1001-2000
3
1
ERM RESEARCH COMMITTEE REPORT
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM FEATURES QUEST.
OATE RUN
6121/71
PUPIL MEMBERS6IP
2001-5000
5001-3000
10001-20000
20001-50000 n000-OR tinRE
2
ENGAGf0 IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
ND
26
...INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROL1S
3-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE ACCOMPLISHED
OR ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR.
THE ERMS OR THE PPBES
A. STEERING COMMITTEE
D. PLANNING TEAM NAMED
C. GOALS ANO OBJ TEAM NAMED
U. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E. BUDGETING TEAM NAMED
F. EVAtUATING TEAM NAMED
O. TIME SCHEOUtE PREPARED
H. COST ANALYSIS MODEL IN. USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCEPTED
YE
SN
O
1-PARTICIPATION IN
DEVELOPMENT' CAME FROM.
.
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL.
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS
D, OTHERS
-3-
5-STATE OR PROVINCE
'
PROVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
NO
2"
6,
ONtY
WITH ONE
MORE'
'
PERSON
OTHER.
THAN TWO
IMP
-10-
11,
Page 63
DE ARTMENI Of EDUCATIONAL AND, MANAGERICAL INfOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC. scHnoLs
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
STA- -.UNKNOWN
TYPE
ELEMENTARY
SEC NPARY UNIFIE2
1-DECISION MAK
SYSTEM AUTHA
YES
NO2
COtLEGE
NG,
2-PLANS FOR. DEVE OPING
ERNS OK PPBES
6-
I1 IIATIVE INLS, ART NG
THE SYSTEM CAME FROM
A. SUPERINTENDENT
L5,,
BUSINESS OFFICIAL
C. INSTRUCTIONAL STAff
U. 8LA1OMARD ME18E1
E. OTHER
yES
NO,
2
ATION AND ANALY
I'
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
2.
ERN RESEARCH COM
SUMMARY OF SYSTE
DATE. RUN
6/21/7
.PUP1L MEMBERSHIP
TTFE REPORT
FEATURES QUEST.
543au-t0000
10001-20000
2000L-50000
500a0- R IILV
RE:
ENGAGED IN
4-PAID CONSULTANT
DEVELOPMENT
UTILIZED
YES
NO
INITIATIVE
ACTIVE
BOTH
STARTING
LEADER
ROLES
8-THE FULUNING STEPS WEE. ACCOMPL SHED
OR. ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR.
THE ERMS ON. THE PPBES
A. STEERING. COMMITTEE
8. PLANNING TEAM. NAMED
C. GOALS AND OBJ TEAM NAMED
D. PROGRAMMING TEAM NAMED
E.
121.0DC.E.TiNG TEAM NAMED
F. EVALUATING fE,A.1, NAMED
G. TIME SCHEOUtE PREPARED.
H. COST ANALYSIS MOUEL IN USE
I. PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACCLPTED
-2-
YES
NO
3
7-PART CIPATT N IN
OEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
A. TEACHERS
B. CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL.
C. COMMUNITY LEADERS,
0. OTHERS
-5-
5-S
ATE. OR PROVINCE
OVIDED ASSISTANCE
YES
ND,3,
ONLY
WITH ONE MORE'
PERS N
OTHER.
THAN TWD
-6-
-8-
0-
Page 64
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL AND MANAGERICAL INfORMATION AND, ANALYSIS,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
S TIA T
F I NAL TO T At
T YPE
ELEMJENTARY
SECJONOARY UN IF IE
COLtEGE
1-1000
1001-2000
2001-5000
ERA RESEARCH COMA. HEE REPORT
SUMMARY Of SYSTEM FEATURES WEST.
DATE RUN
6121/71
PUP IL NEMHERSH1P
5001-10000
10001-20000
20001-50000
.1
R, moRE
1248.
79
59
126
405
.319
1-DECISION MAKING,
2-PLANS FOR OEVELOPING
ENGAGED IN
4- PA 0 CONSULT'
SYSTEM AUTH120.
ERRS OR PPBES
DEVELOPMENT
UTIL I Z ED
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
ND
YES
NO
. 318,
1014
tlt,
387
875
362
936
101
1120
6- INIT ATIVE IN STARTING
7-PARTICIPATION IN
THE
YSTEM CAME FROM
DEVELOPMENT CAME FROM
INITIATIVE
ACT EVE,
S TART ING
LEADER
BOTH
ROtES
203
115
13
5- ST AT f OR. PROM I NC E,
PROV MED A SS IS TA NC E
YES
NO
169
998
ONt
PERSON
14 I TH ON E '" MORE '
OTHER
THAN T.'
4124
26,
,32.
A. SUPER IN1ENDENT
90
.24
35
A .
T EACHE RS
33
3,1
8, BUSINESS Of OCTAL
57
63
108
8 t
C LAS S If! ED.
PERSONNEL.
55
36.
C. flSTRUCF1ONAL ST AF5
316
5C.
COMMUNITY
L EA DfR S
8,
4D. BOARUIBOARD MEMBER
25
26
0.
0 THER S
49
.35
E. OTHER
13
36
12
8-THE FOLLOWING STEPS WER E ACCOMPLISHED
OR AR E PART OF THE SYSTEM FOR.
THE ER. S OR Tt PF8ES
-1-
-2-
- 3 -
-4-
-7 -
A. ST E Ek ING COMM1 TT EE
69
15
13
2
.pLANNtND rEAK NAKED
42
57
12
32
C. GOALS AND U!J TEAM NAMED
18
30
25
96
22
U. PROGRAMMING TEtM NAMED
915
10
21
8
E. RUOCET ING TE AM NAMED
19
17
I I
12
75
F. FVALUAT I N; TEAM, NAMED
45
55
42
G. T IME SCHEUULE PkEPARED
13
12
21
21
12
44
H. COST ANALYSIS YODEL IN USE
72
a4
77
3
IPROGR.;.,M ST RUCTURE ACCEPTED,
611
11
610
3
J COS 1 iCUELCTNAESS MOUEL IN, USE
23
1
21
124
1432
1