ED 058 538

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONs AGENCYPUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

AC 012 251

Report: Third Regional Seminar, Southeastern RegionAdult Basic Education Staff Development Project (NewOrleans, May 5-10, 1970).Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Ga.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.May 7084p.

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Adult Basic Education; Adult Education; EducationalChange; Educational Planning; Educational Programs;Expectation; Feedback; Geographic Regions; GroupDiscussion; Professional Personnel; ProgramEvaluation; Projects; *Regional Cooperation;*Seminars; *Southern States; *Staff Orientation;State Departments of Education; Teacher Education;Universities

ABSTRACTThe regional seminars of the Southern Regional

Education Board (SREB) are designed to provide inservice training andplanning experiences to foster the professional growth of statedepartment of education, university, and local AE/ABE staff members.The third regional seminar was aimed at developing ongoing,self-supporting training programs within each state and concentratedon assisting key persons in state education departments anduniversities to develop college and university capabilities forpreservice and inservice training of staff in Adult and Adult BasicEducation. The seminar was opened with a general session, in whichintroductory remarks were presented. Following these remarks, thefirst assignment was presented to the participants, who separatedinto professional groups. After the group discussion sessions,feedback sessions were held to examine some of the commonexpectations of all participants. Inputs from the group discussionsserved as springboards for the state planning meetings. The statesconducted their planning exercise, keeping in mind the followingquestion: Taking the current state of staff development in your

state, what specific next step shall be formulated or enacted forprofessional staff development in the coming year? At the closingsession, changes that would be effected in adult education werediscussed and evaluatory remarks made. (Author/CK)

s

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

t. ,

- ?"="kft-4

REPORT:

THIRD REGIONAL SEMINARSOUTHEASTERN REGION

ADULT BASIC EDUCATIONSTAFF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

The Royal Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LouisianaMay 5-10, 1970

The work presented or reported herein was performedpursuant to a grant from the U. S. Office of Educa-tion, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.However, the opinions expressed herein do not nec-essarily reflect the position or policy of the U. S.Office of Education, and no official endorsement bythe U. S. Office of Education should be inferred.

Southern Regional Education Board130 Sixth Street, N. W.Atlanta, Georgia 30313

2

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION vii

SUMMARY ix

PRE-SEMINAR ACTIVITIES 3

Background Informaticn 3

Initial Concerns 3

Design Procedures 4

Staff Concerns 5

Planning Group Orientation 6

Staff and Consultant Meetings 6

Full Planning Group Meetings 6

SEMINAR PROGRAM 10

First General Session 10

Professional Group Discussions 12

First Feed-Back Session 16

Second Feed-Back Session 18

Training Design - Socio-Technical System 21

State Meetings 22

First PlAnning Group Meeting 22

Presentation of University Papers 24

Overview 24

Panel One 25

Panel Two 28

Panel Three 32

Summary 39

iii

3

CONTENTS (Con't)

Second Planning Group Meeting 40

Final Seminar Activities 42

Presentation by William Phillips 42

State Reports 43

Staff Reactions 53

Comments by James Dorland 55

Final Planning Group Meeting 56

APPENDIXES

SREB Professional Development Model 61

Training Design - Socio-Technical System 63

State ABE Directors 73

Regional Project Staff . 74

Regional Seminar Consultants 74

Office of Education Program Offices 74

Staff Associates 75

Regional Seminar Participants 75

iv

4

PREFACE

This publication reports the third in a series of regionalseminars sponsored by the Southeastern Region Adult Basic Edu-cation Staff Development Project of the Southern Regional Edu-cation Board (SREB) . Through this series of seminars, theinvolvement of state groups in cooperative regional activitieshas been increased greatly during this, the first year of theProject. Planning for the first seminar in Atlanta was thesole responsibility of the consultants and staff. For thesecond meeting in Daytona, planning expanded to include theviews of state directors and representatives from theuniversities, state departments of education, and local ABEprograms.

The most important innovation of this third seminar wasthe addition of the staff associates to the planning group.These individuals, regular members of state department staffs,indicate the degree of growth and relevance which this programhas achieved. Seminar design reflects the joint thinking ofregional staff, consultants, and these associates, who werenominated by each state director.

Within the region, there is now an ongoing group whichactively participates in planning these meetings, insuringtheir direct focus on professional development concerns ofthe various states, and helping to determine means of seekingrelevant solutions.

We appreciate the cooperation of the state directors inassigning these individuals to work with us and are especiallyindebted to the six staff associates:

Robert WaldenCharles LambTommie FullerBonnie HensleyWilliam SmithCharles Bates

AlabamaFloridaGeorgiaMississippiSouth CarolinaTennessee

They will continue to be regional resources and will also,hopefully, enhance professional staff development in their ownstates through this experience.

Edward T. BrownProject DirectorJune 1970

INTRODUCTION

The regional seminars of the Southeastern Region AdultBasic Education Staff Development Project of the SouthernRegional Education Board (SREB) are designed to providein-service training and planning experiences to foster theprofessional growth of state department of education,university, and local AE/ABE staff members. These seminarsprovide the opportunity for states, working cooperatively, toidentify and address those problems and needs which are commonthroughout the region. In addition to opening lines of commu-nication between the several states, the regional meetingsprovide a forum for the various professional groups associatedwith the ABE Staff Development Project to exchange ideas, airgrievances, and define their roles in and identify potentialresource contributions to the Project.

Through heterogeneous and homogeneous interaction in aworking-group environment, concerns and ideas materializewhich enable state groups to formulate plans for staff develop-ment programs and which lay the foundation for cooperativeregional efforts in research, development of material, andtraining development guidelines.

As a follow-up to the New Orleans seminar, this reportattempts to do more than just give an historical account ofthe proceedings at that meeting. It is hoped that the reportwill indicate progress the region has made in confronting andsolving its common problems to date and will serve as a catalystto the individual states in gauging the logical future stepsto follow in furthering their ABE programs. Additionally, byfocusing in detail on the efforts made to insure maximumregional involvement and input in designing this meeting, thisseminar account tries to provide a model for planning futurestate and cooperative regional activities. For, it is believed,the process involved is almost as important to the Project andProject participants as the seminar itself.

vii

SUMMARY

The Third Regional Seminar for the Southeastern RegionAdult Basic Education Staff Development Project of theSouthern Regional Education Board (SREB) was held at theRoyal Orleans Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana, from May 5-10,1970. Like the Atlanta meeting in November and the Daytonaconference in February, this seminar was aimed at developingongoing, self-supporting training programs within each stateand concentrated on assisting key persons in state educationdepartments and universities to develop college and universitycapabilities for pre-service and in-service training of staffin Adult and Adult Basic Education.

In planning for the seminar, the Project staff andconsultants saw the necessity of incorporating into the seminarideas and needs of the various resource groups at all levelsfrom throughout the region. To do this, the associate projectdirectors were in contact with university, state department,and local program personnel, gleaning from them concerns theywished addressed at the meeting. In April at the statedirectors' meeting in Tallahassee, suggestions for the contentof the May seminar were solicited from the six state directors.Then, based on the combined, expressed needs of all groups, atentative design was drafted by the regional staff consultantsand modified by the state directors.

To insure maximum regional involvement and, thus, acompletely relevant regional effort, the state directors werethen asked to appoint one member from their staff to becomepart of the overall planning committee. These six "staffassociates" met with the SREB staff and consultants one dayprior to the seminar to help revise and sharpen the designand assisted in the ongoing operations of the seminar.

The seminar was opened with a general session at whichProject staff members, Dr. Preston Torrence, Dr. Edward Brown,and Dr. Charles Kozoll, and the senior seminar consultant,Dr. Paul Sheats, outlined for the participants the opportu-nities presented by such a regional activity, the programsinvolved in the Staff Development Project, the ways in whichthe seminar had been planned, and the importance of the designprocess. Following these introductory remarks, the firstassignment was presented to the participants.

For this task, participants separated into professionalgroups, each group under the leadership of a staff associate,and were asked to determine singularly and then discuss col-lectively their expectations for the seminar and the

ix

contributions their particular group could make to the

furtherance of the Project goals. After the group discussionsessions, the various group responses were recorded on charts

to be shown to all participants at the first feed-back session.

At that feed-back session, the moderator, Dr. Paul Sheats,questioned a reporter from each discussion group to underlineand examine some of the common expectations of all participantsand to determine the particular resources each group felt itcould contribute to the staff development process.

Following this session, a second feed-back was held, thisone in the form of a panel discussion conducted by the staffassociates and moderated by Ed Easley. The purpose of thissession was to gain the staff associates' perceptions of whatoccurred at the group djscussions and to discover if, duringthe first feed-back session, anything presented in the dis-cussions had been embellished, omitted, or misconstrued. Thestaff associates' discussion at this time served also to pointout the dichotomy between group expectations and availableresources.

Inputs from the group discussions, as determined throughthese feed-back sessions, served as springboards for the stateplanning meetings, along with two additional sources of infor-mation. As a fulfillment of the expressed need for more sub-stantial input after the Daytona meeting, Ed Easley presenteda comprehensive training design (socio-technical system) tobe used as a model by state directors for effective staffdevelopment. In addition, a professor from each state in the

region presented a short paper on an area of activity thatwas unique to his state. The six papers were presented inthree panels, each composed of two presenting professors andan SREB staff member and a staff associate who questioned thepresentations.

Following the training design input, the first statemeetings were held. The states began or continued theirplanning exercise, keeping in mind the following question:Taking the current state of staff development in your state,what specific next step shall be formulated or enacted forprofessional staff development in the coming year? Thesecond meeting of state groups took place after the profes-sors presented their papers. The states were asked to addressthe following question: To what extent can what you learnedthis morning (from the papers presented) be used in improvingyour state planning process and strategy?

8

At the closing session on Saturday morning, WilliamPhillips, regional program officer for Adult Education,discussed the changes that would be effected by the recentlypassed legislation which carries Adult Education through thetwelfth grade and commented on the seminar activities.

After his talk, reports from the states on their plansfor staff development were heard and were questioned bymembers of the regional staff. All states showed progressin developing training methods for adult educators and ininvolving resource persons from all levels in their localprograms.

Evaluatory remarks and closing requests for continuedregional efforts were made by members of the Project staffand by James Dorland, executive secretary of the NationalAssociation for Public and Continuing Adult Education (NAPCAE).Following these comments the general session of the seminarcame to a close.

xi

9

NEW ORLEANS SEMINAR

10

PRE-SEMINAR ACTIVITIES

Background Information

Initial Concerns

The staff's and consultants' discussions of activitiesat the Daytona conference took place immediately followingthat meeting in March and were directed toward concernsrelating to planning for the next regional seminar. Therewere four concerns raised by all persons at that meeting:

1. State directors should be intimately connected withthe planning for the next seminar, and any designshould be checked with them at one of their periodicProject committee meetings.

2. Each state should appoint a principal liaison personto work with the SREB staff. Ideally, this liaisonperson would be the individual designated as theprincipal staff development officer in each state.

3. The state liaison person plus representatives fromthe consultant team and the SREB staff should meetas early as the end of March to develop an outlinefor the tentative design of the May seminar. Thistentative design should be presented to the statedirectors and their opinions and suggestions formodification requested prior to any commitment to afirm seminar agenda.

4. Adequate time for staff discussion and training shouldbe allowed prior to the seminar. Opportunities shouldbe provided for the consultants to be briefed onplanning arrangements, progress in staff developmentbetween seminars, and the concerns of the variousparticipating groups.

The persons in attendance at the post-Daytona seminarmeeting emphasized that the two Project Associate Directorsshould gear their activities to collecting assessments of theprogress and planning concerns of all participating groups inthe Staff Development Project, state education departmentstaffs, university persons, and local program personnel.

3

11

The design for the first meeting in Atlanta had beencooperatively decided on by the Project Director and theProject Consultants with little regional input. Regionalinvolvement in the Daytona seminar had been somewhat expanded,as the Associate Directors sought the views of state directorsin modifying the seminar plan to meet their state needs. It

was hoped that by including the opinions and needs of allparticipating resource groups in this seminar design, theNew Orleans seminar would be a completely relevant regional

activity. Consequently, Dr. Charles Kozoll was assignedresponsibility for working with the universities in particular,and Dr. Preston Torrence, for working with the state educationdepartments and local programs. They were to provide somebasic information to the consultants prior to the New Orleans

seminar.

Design Procedures

Initial plans for a March meeting of state liaison persons

were changed, because only one of the participating states had

appointed personnel to that position. Although state directorshad been asked to designate that person by the March Projectplanning group meeting, most were unable to do so by that time.

Between the March and April meetings, the regional staffand consultants decided that it would be best to approach thestate directors with their concerns for activities at NewOrleans and use the planning committee meeting in Tallahassee,Florida as an opportunity to assemble regional inputs whichcould become part of the May seminar design. At that meeting

on April 12, the activities of the two previous seminars in

Atlanta and Daytona were reviewed, and the state directorswere solicited for suggestions for the content of the May

meeting. The directors and the staff in attendance examinedwhat should be included in the New Orleans seminar and indi-cated what they thought would be realistic results of this

third regional seminar. Based on the needs expressed at that

meeting, the regional staff consultants drew up a tentativedesign for responding to those needs and circulated that design

among the state directors following that meeting. The designwas reviewed by the state directors, certain modifications

were made, and the outline activities were fitted into the time

schedule and used as the flexible base for beginning the semi-

nar. At the Tallahassee state directors' meeting, it was alsoagreed that each state would send a staff member one day early

to work with the regional consultants and SREB personnel aspart of the overall planning group. These six persons wereentitled "staff associates." One of their functions would be

to help revise and sharpen the final design and assist in the

ongoing operations of the seminar.

Prior to the seminar, each participant received a copyof the tentative program, along with background informationthat discussed how the design for the seminar was developed,and reviewed the activities and accomplishments of the previ-ous meetings in Atlanta and Daytona Beach.

Staff Concerns

Observation of all groups participating in the StaffDevelopment Project and in local programs led to the develop-ment of background information on concerns held by members ofthe Project staff. These concerns included:

1. The degree of institutional commitment to AdultEducation demonstrated by the colleges and univer-sities participating in the program.

2. The extent to which each participating group sees alegitimate role for all other professional groupsparticipating in the Adult and Adult Basic EducationStaff Development Project.

3. The degree to which groups have cooperatively beenable to identify specific areas where training isneeded and, in cases where areas of need have beenidentified, the degree to which priorities have beenestablished.

4. The degree to which professionals in this field havebeen able to identify and reach sources of greatersupport for their program, including leaders in theeducational and political establishment.

5. The degree to which full-time and part-time ABEteachers have been apprised of the level of profes-sionalism existing in Adult Education, includingknowledge of available in-service training, graduatecourses, relevant publications, and organizations.

6. The degree to which part-time staff recognize thatthe client being taught is significantly differentfrom younger students and requires a differentorientation and approach.

7. The degree to which minority groups have been excludedfrom supervisors' and directors' positions in ABEthroughout the Southeast.

5

Planning Group Orientation

This initial working session in New Orleans prior to theseminar was divided into two phases: first, meetings of theregional staff and seminar consultants to review the seminardesign, discuss background information, and outline the agendafor subsequent meetings, and second, meetings of the full plan-ning group, which included one staff associate from each of thesix participating states, to make final decisions about theseminar activities. The first phase took place on Tuesday,May 5, and the second on Wednesday, May 6.

Staff and Consultant Meetings

During the pre-seminar planning process, the consultantsdecided with the regional staff that it would be profitablefor the staff to arrive early to review and refine the designfor the meeting. Along with reviewing background informationassembled by the SREB staff, the consultant and staff groupspent a great deal of time discussing the best method forbeginning the seminar, including techniques for facilitatingthe interchange of ideas and perceptions among all partici-pants. A tentative procedure was developed, including an out-line of activities for the first day, but a final decisionwa3 left until the entire planning group assembled that even-ing.

The rationale for involving staff associates and theirpotential responsibilities, in addition to recording andobserving the seminar, were discussed.

Full Planning Group Meetings

The first full planning session was held on Tuesdayevening, May 5. At this meeting, Dr. Edward T. Brown, ProjectDirector, reviewed the process by which it became important toinvolve staff associates in the design and operation of theregional seminars. As the seminar was conceived, he pointedout, there was a constantly expanding staff involved in itsoperation to insure maximum relevance of the ultimate design.The first meeting in Atlanta was developed by the ProjectDirector and the Senior Consultant, Paul Sheats, with assist-ance from his associate, Ed Easley. At the Daytona meeting,Robert Luke was added to the consultant staff, along with thetwo Project Associate Directors whose responsibilities are

6

divided among the universities and the local programs. Forthe New Orleans seminar, the state directors were asked todelegate one member of their staff to serve as an associateto the consultants and regional staff.

The staff associates indicated that their role had notbeen clearly defined prior to their coming to New Orleans.While their duties were never fully delineated, the associ-ates' responsibilities and involvement increased as the seminardeveloped.

The second series of meetings were held on Wednesday,May 6. The full planning group initially reviewed a videotape on the potential relationship between individualized,programmed instruction and group process in Adult Education.This tape was prepared by the Los Angeles City School Districtand UCLA. The group decided that this tape should be madeavailable for viewing on Thursday, May 7.

Secondly, the staff reviewed the rationale behind thedevelopment and presentation of papers by representatives ofthe Project's university staff. Dr. Charles Kozoll, AssociateProject Director, indicated that following the Daytona meetinga need was expressed for some substantive input on regionalactivities and that staff agreed this type of input could bestbe made by a selection of university professors from through-out the region. One professor in each state was asked to pre-pare a short paper on an area of activity that was unique tohis state. The professors were aware that they would be askedto present their material in a panel discussion but that nodecision had been made about the nature of the presentationsessions. The planning group agreed that each professorshould be allotted five to 10 minutes to present his material,and that the staff and/or the participants should be giventime to question each presentor. It was decided that the paperpresentation on Friday morning, May 8, would be divided intofour sections. Papers would be presented in groups of two,with each group moderated by a member of the consultant staff;there would be two reactors to the papers, one member of theregional staff and one of the staff associates. After thethree panel discussions, time would be allocated for individualseminar participants to meet with the presenting professors anddiscuss their papers in greater detail.

During the morning session, the planning group alsoreviewed and decided upon the format for the first groupactivity on Thursday morning, May 7. This decision was madeafter the planning group went through a role play of the pro-posed exercise under the direction of Bob Luke. It was decided

that participants would be divided into groups according totheir professional function; i.e., state education departmentstaffs, university staffs, graduate students, locr,1 partici-

pants urban, and local participants rural. Ea:h groupwould be given the same two assignment questions by a staffassociate and asked to respond to those questions in a short

group discussion. It was agreed that the staff associates'responsibility would be to see that that information wasobtained from each group and written up and that a spokesmanwas selected from each group to present that information in afeed-back session. Paul Sheats was selected to chair thisfeed-back session and to select from the reports some of thecommonalities discussed by each professional group.

It was further decided that the staff associates wouldhave an opportunity to react to that feed-back session in apanel discussion following lunch on the first day. This wasto be the second feed-back session. The associates' functionduring the first discussion session was to facilitate; theirrole during the first feed-back was to observe and note theviews presented. In the afternoon feed-back session, theywould be called upon to react to the morning discussionsthrough their responses to the following three questions:

1. What did you hear reported during the morning session?

2. What was the main thrust of what was reported?

3. What did you hear reported that was different fromwhat you perceived in the group sessions; anyinconsistencies, omissions, or additiohs?

During the afternoon meeting, Ed Easley reviewed thematerial he would present on a model for staff development.The group agreed that this model should contain inputs fromthe morning discussion and both group feed-back opportunities.They felt that the model should help each state group to focuson its activities and responsibilities to develop a state planduring the working sessions to follow.

There was considerable discussion following this on theprocedure for the state meetings. Staff initially suggestedan outline for state activities during their workthg sessions.This idea was abandoned when the states indicated that theywere at different stages of development and felt that theyshould be given an opportunity to work at their own pace andon their own priority items. It was further agreed that oneguide question would be given to all participants to indicatewhat the planning group felt should be the focus of theiractivities. This question was developed by the planning group,

duplicated, and given to each participant. The planning groupalso agreed that the three regional consultants; the SREB staff;and special consultant, James Dorland, Executive Secretary ofthe National Association of Public and Continuing Education(NAPCAE), would be available to each state group but would onlyparticipate in the state discussions upon the invitation of thestate director or the person chairing the state meeting.

The planning group agreed that they would meet followingthe Thursday state meetings to review the steps taken in thestate meetings and the direction that should be taken duringthe subsequent state meetings on Friday afternoon, May 8.

9

SEMINAR PROGRAM

First General Session

The first general session was chaired by Dr. Preston E.Torrence, Associate Project Director. In his introductoryremarks, Dr. Torrence pointed-out the great opportunitypresented for regional progress and urged participants tomake best use of this cooperative work time together.

The participants were welcomed to New Orleans andLouisiana by Claude C. Couvillion, Associate Director of AdultEducation for the State of Louisiana. Mr. Couvillion indi-cated that this group brought prestige and intellect to NewOrleans and Louisiana. He offered the assistance of the statedepartment staff to make the participants' stay at the seminarmore enjoyable. Mr. Couvillion also indicated his confidencein the abilities of the participants to meet their objectivesand to enhance the learning of the underprivileged populationthey serve.

Dr. Torrence introduced the SREB staff; the projectconsultants; William Phillips, Regional Program Officer forAdult Education from the Office of Education in Atlanta; andthe staff associates representing each state. Dr. Brownintroduced the attending state directors, indicating that theyare the key persons operating programs in each state.

Dr. Brown also reviewed the functions of the four state-operated Project programs:

1. Higher Education Capabilities - encourages staffdevelopment capability in colleges of each state.

2. Continuing Consultant Program helps college profes-sors and graduate students work with the problems ofthe local ABE teachers and supervisors, causing theirtraining and/or teaching to become more relevant.

3. Local In-Service Capability - develops the capabilityof area staff in each state to do or to plan for thein-service training they need in their area.

4. Enhancement of State Department of Education In-Service Leadership Roles - coordinates the resourcesof university staff, graduate students, and localtrainers of planners, along with state staff capabil-ities, into a single effort.

He then went on to explain the purpose of the RegionalSeminar Program. This program has the job of helping each ofthe resource groups define its own roles, recognize and acceptthe roles of the other resource groups, and facilitate cooper-ation in the best possible way as part of the state and regionalteam. Toward this end, Dr. Brown pointed out, two seminars havebeen held and a third was about to begin in New Orleans. InAtlanta the Project was described, and the participants at thatmeeting found out that many of the major ABE training problemswere regional in scope, common to each training resource, andcommon throughout each state. At the Daytona meeting the prob-lem approach was changed to the "need" approach, and a morepositive way of looking at reLional responsibilities wasdeveloped. In doing that, each resource group further identi-fied the capabilities it can contribute to the staff develop-ment process and began to recognize the resource contributionsto be made by other professional groups. It was expected thatthe New Orleans meeting would draw together resources intoviable, dynamic plans of operation.

Dr. Kozoll then discussed the means by which a design forthe New Orleans meeting was devised. (See pages 4 and 5 fordetails.) He stressed the extent to which opinions had beensought from the sundry resource groups and to which state andregional needs had been ascertained before planning for thisseminar. In contrast to the previous seminars in Daytona andAtlanta, regional involvement in the New Orleans seminar designhad been greatly expanded. It was hoped, Dr. Kozoll indicated',that this involvement would provide a conference which was acompletely relevant and meaningful cooperative effort. Hestated that one of the anticipated by-products of this meetingwas a model for gaining maximum inputs from participantsprior to and during the development of any design for othersimilar regional activities.

Dr. Paul Sheats, Senior Seminar Consultant, then under-scored what he considered to be some of the significantelements in the design process for these regional seminars.

There had been a conscious effort made to expand the number ofindividuals included in the planning process. Because, hestressed, unless the participants are involved, there is littlelikelihood that back-home actions so essential to the Project'ssuccess will result. The planning process itself has movedfrom tight control in the hands of a few people to the NewOrleans meeting where the cooperative process involved represent-atives from each participating state. This process would nothave evolved if the state directors, along with the ProjectDirector and staff, had not provide4 their full cooperation toit.

11

19

Dr. Sheats also emphasized that this process was at thevery heart of all action-rlated programs in Adult Education.It is the key to an effective teaching-learning transaction,in which the teacher and leader must also be the learner andfollower. He further emphasized that this type of cooperativeproblem solving appears to be at the heart of the democraticprocess in this country, which may be suffering from erosionsat both extremes of the political spectrum.

Following the introductory remarks, initial activities forthe participants were outlined. They were asked to make aneffort during the brea'c to meet a stranger and discuss withthat stranger some of his responsibilities and expectations forthis third regional seminar.

Professional Group Discussions

Following the break, the participants were divided intoprofessional groups and given two discussion topics by Bob Luke.These topics were in the form of questions that each person wasto answer for himself and then collectively discuss under theleadership of one of the staff associates. Each question wasdiscussed separately, and individual answers were collected oncharts which were shown before the entire group during thefirst feed-back session. The responses of each group are out-lined following:

I. Responses to question 1: If you could be granted thefulfillment of one personal expectation at thisconference the realization of one outcome that youcould take back home it would be?A. Graduate Students

1. The abil.j.ty to pass comprehensive examinations.2. Knowledge of what SREB and professional adult

educators expect of graduate students.3. The ability to convey to local teachers the

importance of additional training in AdultEducation.

4. Techniques for the promotion of ABE programs.5. An indication of total commitment to a cooper-

ative effort by all parties involved in staffdevelopment.

6. The desire to gain knowledge of ABE needs in

the different states.7. The desire to know more about the role of the

paraprofessional in Adult Basic Education.8. An indication of opportunities for service

after graduation, and job descriptions ofpositions in Adult Education.

B. Local Participants Rural1. A staff development design at the county level.2. A staff development design at the county level

built from the local system up, rather thanfrom the top down.

3. Improved teacher effectiveness to reduce thenumber of dropouts.

4. Guidelines for coordination from the statelevel.

5. An indication of a staff development programthat will have strong in-service capabilitiesand be integrated into the total school systemso that professional study days will beestablished.

6. A down-to-earth program for design of theuniversity involvement in staff development.

C. Local Participants Urban1. A more detailed explanation of local needs.2. A mechanism to furnish the teachers to be

trained.3. A mechanism to expand in-service training

programs to include people other than educa-tors, and a mechanism to use outstandingpractitioners as faculty or leaders of in-service teacher training programs.

4. A mechanism to provide on-the-job training withmaster teachers and to provide local consultantsfrom agencies in the community.

D. State Department Personnel Group One1. A list of regional consultants, within the

region and in the local areas, and theirspecializations.

2. An in-service program for training local people.3. A set of common regional objectives for

developing in-service capability within settime limits.

4. Methods for involving local superintendents inAdult Basic Education.

5. Definition of the role of SREB and how itshould relate to the state ABE offices.

6. The development of a delivery system with built-in incentives to encourage teachers to takeadvantage of training.

7. Better understanding of the goals by all levelsrepresented at the seminar.

8. Plans positively geared to meet the needs ofundereducated adults.

E. State Department Personnel Group Two1. The ability to train staff to cope with the

problems of recruiting and retaining "hardcore" unemployed.

2. The ability to train supervisors to work moreeffectively with local supervisors and teacherstoward staff development (i.e., in-service,pre-service, and post-service).

3. The development of a philosophy of ABE to betransferred to day teachers working at nightin ABE programs.

F. Professors1. The relation of competency requirements to

university programs.2. Indication of financial assistance available;

how, how much, and when. And strategies forsecuring support from other sources.

3. A definition of the role of universities andother groups in ABE.

4. State plans for total Adult Education programs.

II. Responses to question 2: When thinking of professionaldevelopment as a collaborative effort of universities,consultants, state departments, and local program staffteams, what is the UNIQUE role, resourte, power, orability you think your group can contribute to the pro-fessional staff development process?A. Graduate Students

1. Contributing in a back stage setting.2. Contributing to workshops in a helping-learning

capacity and as assistants in recruiting.3. Contributing as staff aids in research.4. Pioneering in uncharted areas in participating

universities.5. Expanding individual backgrounds and experiences

as an aid to resourceful growth.

B. Local Participants - Rural1. Outlining and cataloging local problems.2. Working directly with universities and state

departments to make the programs relevant tothe needs of the teachers.

C. Local Participants Urban1. Supplying wide inputs to the universities on

the types of training needed by participatingteachers and supervisors at the local level.

2. Providing outstanding adjunct faculty which theuniversities could use to supplement coursework and in-service training.

D. State Department Personnel Group One1. Providing leadership and coordination.2. Developing clear and concise communication

channels.3. Locating resource persons and defining state

department responsibilities and obligationsin ABE.

4. Providing inputs in planning and schedulingstaff development sessions which would involveacross-the-board participation.

5. Providing proper budget assistance relativeto needs.

6. Supplying expertise in promotion and infornationactivities related to ABE programs.

7. Developing methods for making best use of theexperiences which individuals have in planningtraining programs. (This includes both univer-sities and local pre-and in-service trainingprograms.)

E. State Department Personnel - Group Two1. Involving non-professional educators (teachers

other than ones that are certified, i.e., anattorney teaching in an ABE program) and para-professionals (i.e., students that have com-pleted course work and are coming back to workin ABE programs).

2. Improving communications lines from state anduniversity level personnel to local programsupervisors and superintendents and, finally,to local teachers.

3. Providing consultative services to collegesand universities seeking to select AdultEducation staff.

4. Providing commentary on the traditionalentrance and course requirements for peopledesirous of entering college programs in AME.

F. Professors1. Bringing Adult Basic Education into Adult

Education.2. Locating and utilizing on university campuses

other competencies which can be related tothe Adult Education program.

3. Developing professionalism through formalcourses and programs.

4. Providing the key to legitimacy throughcredit and college programs.

5. Supplying professional expertise to facilitatestate plans for staff development.

6. Providing research and evaluative competencies.7. Supplying facilities for learning climates.

First Feed-Back Session

The first feed-back session tied together the informationcollected during the first group discussions. This feed-backsession was conducted by Paul Sheats, who questioned reportersfram each of the participating groups rather than asking forindividual reports. His purpose was to underline and examinesome of'the common expectations indicated by all participantsand to gain some indication of what particular resources eachgroup thought that it could contribute to the staff developmentprocess.

The seven common results expected from this particularseminar, as discovered in the group discussions, follow:

1. A clearer definition of the role SREB plays in theStaff Development Project.a. How should SREB relate to stateABE offices?b. What does SREB expect of graduate students?c. Can it provide cooperatively effected designs

indicating how to implement staff developmentplans at the local level?

d. Can it facilitate a better understanding of goalson all levels?

2. A better definition of roles for all groups in AdultEducation and Adult Basic Education.

3. The development of a list of realistic problems whichcan be studied and solved.

4. A clearer indication of how programs are financed.

16

24

5. The development of an Adult Education philosophywhich will enable staff to work with the local leveland to identify needs and characteristics of the tar-get population better, as well as to increase liaisontraining with other groups participating in AdultEducation.

6. The identification of competency levels required ofvarious groups in Adult Education and a resultingadjustment of course requirements at the universitylevel.

7. A better relationship of staff development to grass-roots levels and grass-roots problems.

The following were contributions that each participatinggroup felt were unique to its professional staff:

1. Contributing back-stage assistance to ABE work,assistance in planning, and assistance in promotingAdult Education programs at the university.(graduate students)

2. Keeping lines of communication from local ABE teachersto universities open to insure the correct interpreta-tion of student needs, and making better use of localconsultants in training programs. (local partici-pants rural)

3. Supplying inputs to universities on the types oftraining needed and on the availability of outstand-ing local persons to serve as adjunct faculty touniversity courses and in-service training. (localparticipants urban)

4. Providing leadership and coordination, developingclear and concise communication channels, andproviding proper budgeting related to program needs.(state department personnel - group one)

5. Providing formal training for local staff andclarifying state staff roles. (state departmentpersonnel - group two)

6. Bringing Adult Basic Education into Adult Education,locating and utilizing other related university com-petencies in ABE programs, developing professionalismto form a program, and contributing legitimacy,special research, and evaluation capabilities.(professors)

17

Second Feed-Back Session

The staff associates met with Ed Easley and Charles Kozollduring lunch following the first report of the various profes-sional groups and the feed-back session. The purpose of thismeeting was to discuss their reactions to the presentation ofexpectations and resource contributions. The associates dis-cussed and coordinated their remarks prior to the panel discus-sion which took place the first thing that afternoon.

The panel, composed of the staff associates and moderatedby Ed Easley, presented their perceptions of the group discus-sions and the first feed-back session at a plenary session.The observations offered related in some instances to a specificdiscussion group and in others to the groups in general.

The following points were raised by staff associates inthe panel discussion:

1. If the list of needs as indicated in the response toquestion 1 and the list of resources available includedin the response to question 2 were matched, therewouldnot be congruence. Many needs expressed to notmatch indicated resources and some of the resaurcesavailable do not match needs. This raises the questionof whether financial support might be better allocatedto new resources that could possibly meet more of thearticulated needs.

2. All the groups indicated a desire to establish somecommon goals and common tasks on which they couldembark, but each separately expressed a feeling thatit had been somehow left out of the planning process.This feeling of being left out extended further thanallocation of monies and indicated decision-makingabout how the funds were spent and whether the tyniqueresources that each group had to contribute were fullyrecognized by the others.

3. The question was raised in one particular group as towho should have the responsibility of selecting staffat the university level when financing for this staffcomes out of the Staff Development Project funds;another was raised as to whether requirements would beflexible enough to deal with people who are caning intotrniversity level Adult Education programs. Proceduresshould be initiated to cope with these problems andengineer changes when required.

4. The local groups were concerned with mechanisms forgetting expertise down to the classroom teacher sothat that teacher can do his or her job effectively,leading to greater recruitment, retention, and develop-ment of the ABE student.

5. There was a concern expressed in the state groups thatwas not clearly presented and that dealt with a precisedefinition of the roles to be played by each partici-pating group, along with some indication of what sortsof consultant expertise would be needed, what rolethis consultant help would play, and where it can befound within each state and within the region.

6. The local groups also indicated a need for universityinvolvement in staff development. In-service activityshould be extended to include individuals outside theeducation profession, such as local industrial andcivic leaders. There should also be clearer guide-lines developed from the state department level forlocal coordinators. There should be a greater numberof local workshops, because these workshops enablemore teachers to come at less expense. Many of theseworkshops could be conducted by working with localcoordinators and using master teachers as trainers inthem.

7. The graduate students may represent the group with theleast vested interest and may have some of the moreclear perceptions of the problem. Coming throughloud and clear in their discussion was the feelingthat participating groups have not cooperated to thefullest extent in the staff development program. Mostof the graduate students appear to be groping for adefinition of Adult Education and, following that,some indication of the techniques needed to becomepractitioners in this field. Because most of thegraduate students represented were involved in newinstitutional programs, they felt that as they succeedso will the graduate programs at their institutions.

8. The definitions of needs, particularly by the localprograms, were phrased in such a way as to make itdifficult for both the university and state depart-ments to respond. This raised the question ofwhether it was necessary for some translationmechanism to be established, so that both the state

and the university groups can more precisely respondto local needs. As it appeared in the discussion,local needs were articulated in a random fashion,making it difficult for state and university groupsto respond precisely.a. One result of this could be the design of

university courses without any clear specifi-cation of the ways in which these coursesrespond to local problems and how they willhelp to improve the quality of teaching.

b. Local personnel may feel that they are theexperts most capable of defining these needsand dealing with the problems of their teachers.

c. On the other hand, university staff may feelthat they have not, in enough situations, beenrequested to assist local groups in making plans,in solving local problems, and in definingresponses to program needs.

d. It may be that local complaints about the failureof universities to respond to their needs is anexcuse for not precisely defining these needs.It may have been true in the past that the univer-sities were unwilling, but this Project has sup-posedly created the environment for that cooper-ative effort. This new relationship requires cleardefinition of these problems so that best use canbe made of the available resources.

Following the panel discussion, comments from theparticipants were entertained. Below are a selection ofrelevant ideas presented:

1. (Eloise Trent and Bobbie Griffin) There has beengreat participation by the University of South Floridaand Auburn University in helping to develop courseswhich meet local needs and in servicing teachers inboth Florida and Alabama.

2. (Anthony Adolino) The need here appears to be forsome sort of model learning system for Adult BasicEducation which could be developed using the coop-erative resources of all participants involved inthe Regional Seminar Program. There is availabledata on how this could be accomplished and whatshould be done to develop such a learning system.

3. (Robert Snyder) In discussing the problem of needs,we often run into the problem of the cause versus thesymptom. Universities sometimes see the underlyingcause and attempt to deal with that, but the demandof the local program is that the symptom be dealt withimmediately. The responsibility is to meet the imme-diate need which could be stopping the dropout rateor expanding recruitment, but this does not alwaysdeal with the cause, the real cause of the problem.

4. (Robert Luke) One of the problems is translatingneeds expressed by local directors into universitycourses that are not overly rhetorical. One solutionto this might be the use of Adult Education methodsin the courses which are experientially based. Itshould also be noted that adult educators on the uni-versity staff must deal with institutional constraintsthat often prevent them from dealing precisely withlocal needs; this includes requirements for coursecredit and for student attendance.

Training Design - Socio-Technical System

This presentation was made by Ed Easley, based on datagathered from similar training efforts around the country andmodified by the particular needs of the ABE Project. Eachparticipant received an SREB professional development modelwhich described the interrelationship of the Project partici-pants and the Project activities.*

This model points out that there are three factors in staffdevelopment: one, an occupational ladder; two, human resourceinputs; and three, training inputs (degree programs, institutes,or workshops) . These three factors can be seen in light of onedefinition of staff development: The improvement of the voca-tional competence of professionals using training resourceswith a definite and prescribed methodology.

The planning process should be viewed as an activity whichenhances the total system. In this model planning process,there are three variable groups:

1. Personnel

2. Facilities (buildings or programs)

3. The interaction (which can be called the productcapability)

*See Appendix I

21

29

1

The interaction between personnel and facilities may bein the form of communications networks or staff developmentplans. The communications network is influenced, of course,by who the personnel are and what the facilities contain. And,likewise, the personnel and facilities are influenced by theinteraction once that process begins. Once the interactionbegins perceptions are changed, new programs will have to belaunched, and resources reallocated or new funds obtained.These activities can be accomplished through the interactionnetwork and through the planning process. There is constantinteraction between personnel and facilities on the one handand the resulting interaction network on the other; thisoperating arrangement is called a "socio-technical system."This arrangement can best be seen by working through a hypo-thetical model, demonstrating its parts and the interactionbetween the various groups.*

State Meetings

Following the training design input, each state group metseparately to continue or begin work on its planning program.The planning group provided all participants with a basequestion around which they could gear their activities: Takingthe current state of staff development in your state, whatspecific next first step shall be formulated or enacted forprofessional staff development in the coming year?

Consultant and regional staff, serving as both observersand resource support, attended various of these state meetings.The state meetings were followed by an evaluation planninggroup meeting.

First Planning Group Meeting

The planning group meeting was divided into two phases:first, a review for the university professors of the procedurefor paper presentations the following morning; and, second, anextended discussion of the first day's events and suggestionsfor program revision for Friday, May 8. Since the orientationfor the professors was a procedural matter, most of the staffmeeting time was devoted to the discussion of what should bedone in subsequent state meetings and in the general sessions.

*See Appendix II for full Training Design - Socio-TechnicalSystem.

The following concerns were raised:

1. That interstate communication be maintained, especiallyamong individuals with different roles and role percep-tions.

2. That state reports be given on the second afternoon,allowing states to hear the progress of other partici-pants and make revisions in their plans accordingly.

3. That it be recognized that states are at differentlevels in their articulation of a plan and that thestates require further time to advance at the.,r ownpace on the items that they consider important totheir plans' development.

4. That states be stimulated but not forced to make hardand fast predictions about their activities for thecoming year.

5. That states be stimulated to use this time, if they sodesire, to set the stage for their planning activitiesor, in other words, to plan for planning.

6. That the value of state meetings as a vehicle forpromoting unity and opening up channels of communi-cation within state groups to an extent that may nothave existed before be recognized by the regionalstaff and consultants.

7. That there be differentiation between parts of theprogram and the total program itself and an attemptto deal with the goals of a staff development effortprior to discussing individual activities. Thatsome time be devoted to rearranging training prior-ities within a state plan to maximize impact incertain key areas.

8. That activities and programs undertaken in each statebe related to the various programs of the total StaffDevelopment Project, so that the Project itself hasan assessment of where states are and where they aregoing.

That staff resources be made available to state groupsas they are needed.

10. That some mechanism be provided to help state groupsrelate their afternoon work to the substantive inputthat would be provided by the presentation of profes-sorial papers.

11. That the reports not signify closure in the planningprocess but, rather, indicate that each state hadbegun the process of defining goals, roles, andresponsibilities.

12. That some assessment be made after the second statemeeting on Friday of the types of progress made andsome determination made then as to what sorts of re-ports should be given by the states at the Saturdaymorning session.

13. That efforts be made to maintain the type of regionalcommunication network which the ABE Project hasdeveloped by stimulating professorial movement acrossstate lines.

Based on those concerns, it was the group decision that nospecific assignment would be made to the state groups for theirafternoon activities but that they would be urged to continuetheir work during the afternoon session. Plans were made tomeet again Friday afternoon to assess state progress and deter-mine the methods of reporting that progress to the entire group.No decision was made at that point about any further type ofsharing session involving either professional groups meetingagain or heterogeneous groups meeting to discuss commonquestions.

Presentation of University Papers

Overview

University papers relating to staff development planningresponsibilities were prepared prior to the seminar. All pro-fessors agreed to present a synopsis of their papers at a gen-eral session. The format established for presenting the papers,a panel discussion with reactors from the SREB staff and thestaff associates, was designed to facilitate the process of

establishing relevancy. All professors agreed to revise theirpapers based upon the reactions to them and the inputs receivedfrom the conference. The collection of six papers will bepublished through SREB and distributed to all persons attendingthe seminar and to other interested individuals.

In the introduction to the presentations, Paul Sheatsindicated that both Ed Easley's presentation and the professorialpapers were a response to a criticism of the Daytona meeting.At that seminar, participants had regretted the lack of sub-stantive input to the sessions but had not indicated what the

%

nature of that input should be. Both types of presentationswere designed to aid the planning tasks which the state groupshad set for themselves.

Panel One

Presentors:

Reactors:

Chairman:

Topic One:

Dr. Marshall Morrison, Alabama State UniversityDr. Arthur Madry, Florida A & M University

Dr. Preston Torrence, Southern Regional EducationBoard

William Smith, South Carolina State Departmentof Education

Dr. Paul Sheats

Identifying and Developing Institutional Supportto Supplement Staff Development Activities -Marshall L. Morrison

Wide institutional support is necessary to supplement theactivities of faculty directly involved in Adult Basic Educationwork. When the ABE program began at Alabama State University,it was necessary to confront five major questions in order tobuild the institutional support for the programs:

1. What support was available?

2. If there was an absence of support, was it due to alack of concern or a lack of communication betweenthe ABE faculty and the rest of the staff?

3. What capability potential was evident?

4. If capability potential was there, how could thispotential be coordinated to assure improved instruction?

5. What possibilities existed to improve teacher training?

As a means of answering these questions, the Alabama StateUniversity staff was involved in a process of locating, orient-ing, and involving supplementary institutional staff during thefirst Project year. These activities included:

1. A series of informal orientation meetings conducted bythe Adult Education faculty with staff in relatedfields of teacher preparation.

2. Formal meetings to ascertain the availability ofresource people in other disciplinary areas, especiallyreading, teaching methods, sociology, and psychology.

3. The development of a nucleus staff group at theinstitution, capable of working together on broadprogram presentations for ABE teachers; this staffobtained the services of out-of-state consultantsto work with students and to discuss techniques andmethods with the faculty participating in the AdultEducation program at the institution.

4. Discussing with and utilizing the reactions ofstudents to the cross-disciplinary approach toteacher preparation in ABE.

These four steps were not followed in sequential orderbut were undertaken simultaneously. One major result of aninvestigation of faculty potential was a discovery that few,

if any, faculty members were capable of recognizing the dis-tinction between teaching deprived adults and teaching childrenof average grade level.

Question:

(Preston Torrence) Where did you start in terms ofdeveloping your institutional support? Do you think thatyou have built the necessary flexibility into your programfor training adult educators?

Response:

We may have been lucky to some extent, but a lot of ourwork was devoted to making informal contacts with peopleand discussing our program with all staff at the insti-tution. In terms of our program development, we areahead of our schedule in setting up and running courses.

Question:

(William Smith) Do I understand that you are usingprofessors of reading, sociology, and psychology fromother parts of the university to teach adult educators?

Response:

We are not using any professor from the institution; ourfirst criteria is to determine whether these facultymembers know people and understand the concepts of whatwe are trying to do in Adult Basic Education. It is mysincere opinion that the same sort of processes andphilosophy that we have in Adult Basic Education are thekinds needed on the college campus.

Question:

(William Smith) Do you think it is desirable to attemptto extend the basic ABE philosophy through the twelfthgrade?

Response:

Some 95 percent of the teachers trained at Alabama StateUniversity will go into deprived areas where they willencounter the same problems that we have met in AdultBasic Education, and there is a need for the extentionof the ABE philosophy through teacher training activitiesat our institution.

Topic Two: The Role of the Administrator in Adult BasicEducation Staff Development - Arthur C. Madry

After the competencies requisite to teaching andadministrative leadership in Adult Education have been iden-tified, the major responsibility of university leadership isto discover the curriculum of learnings and other experiencesthrough which they may be economically acquired. In thisprocess, the academic deans and department chairmen are crit-ical to a program's growth. The major role of the adminis-trator in Adult Education at the college and university levelwould be to determine ways and means by which the competenciesdeveloped by university staff could be translated into learn-ings and programs to further student abilities. The adminis-trators' responsibilities here are to assemble staffs, plancaurses, and administer programs. These major activitiesinvolve two basic programs: one, a pre-service program; andtwo, a continuous improvement program which goes even beyondthe doctoral level. Included in the pre-service activitiesshould be programs based upon some basic core of understandingwhich would reduce duplication of content and effort andeliminate gaTs in training. Programs should also have a broadscope and not only concern themselves with operational proce-dures, but also with values, goals, and processes. Fieldproblems should be integrated into course work to as great anextent as possible. It is also important to consider thatgeneral education might well be extended to the graduate level,rather than having it concentrated exclusively at the under-graduate level.

In an effort to provide diversified, rich experiences,internships are highly recommended for the inexperiencedstudents. These have not worked too well in Adult Education,but efforts should be made to attempt implementation of sound

27

programs, along with the types of field experiences whichpotential administrators undertake while involved in coursework. Programs should be individually designed to take intoaccount the differences in experience and development of eachprospective student. Staff for these programs should be wellbalanced in terms of age, experience, training, interests, andcompetencies.

The continuous improvement program should not be solelydesigned by the professors but should reflect the needs ofindividuals in the field, including those who would embarkupon it and those who would be benefited through it. This typeof program could as easily be mounted off the university campusas on and, in some cases, might be more effective off campus.This program should be continuously evaluated, flexible, andchanging, involving as many non-college groups as can contributeto the continuous improvement of the adult educator.

Question:

(Preston Torrence) What do you think an ideal internshipprogram for an Adalt Education administratorship consistsof?

Response:

Since Adult Education has not used the internship extensively,there have not been too many studies on it. It has notbeen too well defined in this area but has been in others,and my paper contains some specific steps for implementingan internship program. There should be latitude built intothese programs.

Panel Two

Presentors: Dr. Hilton T. Bonniwell, Georgia Southern CollegeMrs. Katherine J. Mosley, Jackson State College

Reactors: Dr. Charles Kozoll, Southern Regional EducationBoardCharles Lamb, Staff Associate, Florida StateDepartment of Education

Chairman: Ed Easley

28.

3'6

Topic One: Certification Standards and Staff Developmentof Adult Educators - Hilton T. Bonniwell

There are certification requirements in all states of HEWRegion IV. These certification requirements, however, do notspecifically relate to those teaching adults. The Adult Edu-cation community tends to exist outside the umbrella whichcertification provides; in the main, because it has had torespond to great immediate needs and has received in recentyears a heavy influx of federal funding.

Most state certification offices contacted had littlerealization of the expanding need and emphasis on Adult Basicand Continuing Education. In all states there is an advisoryboard which evaluates and, in some cases, revises certificationstandards. Certification has been an evolving process, begin-ning with some general statements and becoming more precise asa field evolves.

It is important that Adult Education be included withinthe certification process in order to insure that degrees inthe field are recognized within the system. As it presentlystands, Adult Education degrees are not recognized and mustreceive recognition from without the system.

One element in the process of moving towards certificationwould be the establishment on each campus of liaison with theindividual who relates to the certification offices in thestate department of education. It is important to know theprocess involved in establishing certification requirements ineach of the participating states and to plan far in advance,for many of the certification committees meet only once ortwice a year. As plans for certification are made, it is impor-tant to consider the various groups that should be involved inaddition to teachers, coordinators, administrators, guidancepersonnel, and paraprofessionals. It is also important toconsider the level of precision that would be included in thesecertification standards and the degree of flexibility thatwould be usefully included.

Because public school adult educators will not be the onlygroup concerned, it is necessary to work with other groups thatwill be involved in Adult Education teaching and create astronger and more effective lobby.

Because certification standards are based on teaching youngpeople, one major contribution that Adult Education could makewould be a philosophy for certification that deals with Contin-uing Education. Finally, it is important to determine a start-ing point for the development of certification standards that

29

37

are realistically related to the activities of individualstaking courses in Adult Education.

Topic Two: Graduate Student Preparation and FieldExperiences - Katherine J. Mosley

This is the first year of a graduate program in AdultBasic Education at Jackson State College. The program at thisinstitution called for the establishment of courses approvedby the graduate council, expertise in specific teaching areas,and two graduate assistants. The program at Jackson State isset up to provide graduate students with the essential require-ments to do further study in the field, hoping they will be the"core" around which a more in-depth college capability in AdultEducation can be established. One of the fundamental criteriain selecting this first group of graduate students was to securepersons who were capable of "daring to try the unknown."

A significant part of the students' graduate training wasthe effort to relate their in-class theory work to practicalfield experiences in Adult Education. The graduate studentswere called upon to observe but, more importantly, to partici-pate in programs in the field, working with the state depart-ment, with local coordinators, and with professionals andstudents from other institutions in Mississippi.

A significant part of the graduate students' fieldexperience has been their continuous attendance at local work-shops, classes, and planning meetings. They have also had theopportunity of working cooperatively with graduate students atinstitutions in Mississippi and throughout the region. Oneimportant aspect of this has been their continuous attendanceat the regional seminars.

It is anticipated in the second year of the program thatan adult teacher trainer lab at Jackson State College will beopened. Graduate assistants will be given the opportunity topractice what they learn as they learn. The knowledge gainedfrom this type of field experience will be incorporated into amaterials and curriculum laboratory.

One of the most significant experiences for the graduateassistants was their role in a three-day workshop for teachertrainers held in Mississippi in April. At that workshop, thegraduate assistants were in leadership roles from the openingto the closing sessions. Selected teacher trainers and super-visors worked with problems which they encountered daily andwith the methods and materials used and how they are used.Consultants provided the expertise, and the graduate assistantschaired discussion groups and summary sessions and are nowreporting the findings.

30

.38

Question:

(Charles Kozoll) What additional field experiences mightyou add to the graduate students' preparation?

Response:

One experience which is anticipated is taking graduatestudents into a local program and enabling them to workwith a local supervisor to develop a plan for planning,implementing, and evaluating a local program. They canlearn more from this sort of experience, with properguidance from a university person, than they could infive or six weeks of classroom instruction. The studentsare not only learning, but they are assisting in develop-ing the kind of dialogue that is necessary for the properfunctioning of programs.

Question:

(Charles Lamb) One of the concerns voiced by the graduatestudents was a feeling that their role was vaguely definedand that expectations of their performance were not madeclear. What does SREB expect of them, and what does theirinstitution expect of them? Just who is a graduate stu-dent, and what is expected of him?

Response:

I think the graduate students in Mississippi know what isexpected of them. I expect my students to be the bestinformed in what they have been taught and through thefield experiences they have had throughout the state. I

expect my students to be people who can relate to indi-viduals at all levels. And for this first group of stu-dents, my expectation is that they set a standard whichfuture graduate assistants must live up to.

Response:

(Dr. Don Seaman, Mississippi State University) My twograduate students are quite knowledgeable, as they areformer ABE teachers. I expect them, on that basis, toidentify problems they have encountered and seek solutionsto them. And when they have developed these solutions itis my expectation that they will relate them to otherindividuals in the field with whom they work.

Panel Three

Presentors:

Reactors:

Chairman:

Topic One:

Dr. Robert E. Snyder, University of South CarolinaDr. John M. Peters, University of Tennessee

Dr. Edward T. Brown, Southern Regional EducationBoardTommie C. Fuller, Staff Associate, Georgia StateDepartment of Education

Robert A. Luke

The Development of Teacher Training Teams as aTechnique in the Staff Development Process -Robert E. Snyder

Teaching teams are seen as one method of utilizing personnelwith different types of expertise in the stlff development proc-ess. Individuals who become part of the team are selected eitherfor that expertise or for their potential for acquiring it andpassing on their insights in the training of teachers.

One of the problems of the initial institutes held in1966-67-68 was that while they trained individuals in specificskills, these individuals were not willing to go out as resourcepeople to be used by local areas on a continuing basis. Theteam approach collects individuals under the guidance of theuniversity and the state department and develops the individualswho are to become the resource personnel. These resource peopleperform three functions:

1. They actually teach as part of the university course.

2. They help to refine the lesson guides for in-servicetraining.

3. They develop a scheme for presenting material which isavailable on an on-call basis to local areas.

These individuals also help the university professor tostructure his course better and make it more relevant to localneeds.

The teams further assist the university professor indefining the competencies that teachers should have in order toteach adults in specific subject areas. The team approachprovides for systematic planning on all levels and ensures thatinformation is received fram the greatest number of potentialparticipants, making any course or program more relevant totheir needs.

32

40

These teams provide a group of resource people who arespread throughout the state and are available on call to thelocal coordinators for short in-service teacher training work-shops. A request normally comes into the university and thestate department collectively, and then a determination is madeof the best individual with those skills to go out to that par-ticular workshop.

The teaching teams appear to be valuable for the followingreasons:

1. They require that you plan together.

2. They include all levels in the planning process,insuring that the university and the state departmentin particular get information from the local areasthat might not normally be available. (This includesevaluation feed-back on how a particular course isgoing from local teachers who may or may not be membersof the training team.)

3. The local coordinator is given a greater range ofindividuals he can call upon as resources in planninghis local training workshops.

4. They force the state staff to become more familiarwith what is being offered in courses in the localareas. Decisions made about programs can then befounded on more up-to-date information.

5. They provide the university with more up-to-dateinformation on how the team is operating and how theuniversity course is assisting teachers in their workwith adults.

Question:

(Tommie Fuller) Taking into consideration the compositionof the seminar participants, what role did they play inthe selection of members for the teacher trainer teams?

Response:

There are, of course, all levels represented at theseminar. This is one of the problem areas. I personallydo not know who are the people most qualified at the locallevel to be members of the teams. I therefore have torely on several things: other teachers who can identifymaster teachers from among their group and state staff and

33

41

coordinators who can supply information on candidatesfor the teams. As I become more familiar with individualsthrough visits to classes, I can help in identifying fur-

ther personnel.

Question:

(Edward Brown) How many members are there on a team, andwhat are their specific areas of responsibility?

Response:

At least one in computational skills, two in communicationsskills to include one reading specialist, and one andpossibly two in the general knowledge or the social living

skills.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) Is there any possibility that the team shouldbe increased to include a specialist in administration orthe keeping of administrative records?

Response:

These teams are primarily concerned with teachers, and wedeal with administrators and local coordinators throughother training mechanisms.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) It appears that the team members are used bothcollectively and as individual resources. What proportionof time do they spend in each of these categories?

Response:

Up to now they have been used most often in the formalcourse offerings. When the coordinators make theirdetermination next month of the types of in-service train-ing activities they will have, the types of resourcesneeded will be indicated; then I see an increase in thesecond type of activity for the team members. They still,however, will be working with the extension course program.

Question:

(Dr. Brawn) How do these teaching team members gainacceptance as academic leaders, coming as they do fromlocal programs?

Response:

First, they have all taken the university course and,second, they will have received additional specializedtraining through the summer workshop. They are not exten-sion teachers but are recognized by the university asresource people who can come in at specific points in anextension course. They are not experts but are a littlebit more knowledgeable than the average ABE teacher andgain from the professorial endorsement of their addedskill.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) What is their financial reward, and does ithave any bearing on the quality or level of the peoplethat you get to participate on these teams?

Response:

These people are paid 10 dollars an hour when they serveas resource persons, which is above the pay for regularclassroom teaching. I don't know whether course instruc-tion was improved by the fee provided to the resourcepeople, but I do know that we would have gotten SO percentof the team members with or without a fee.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) I noted that members of this teaching teamparticipated in the development of a 45-hour course fortraining teachers. Was that a meaningful learning experi-ence for them?

Response:

Yes, I would say it was for most of them.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) How many teams are needed; in other words,what can one team serve, either geographically or thenumber of programs in various areas?

Response:

In terms of courses, one team can probably handle thecontent for one course. In terms of geographical areas,it is our anticipation that one team will be able to handleone-fifth of the state. This is approximately a 10- or a

35

43

+,

12-county area. This does not preclude the idea that askilled individual can work all over the state. Thiswould be particularly important in the use made ofreading specialists.

Topic Two: Implications of Individualizing Instruction forABE Teacher Training - John M. Peters

While there is almost universal aLceptance of the idea ofindividualized instruction, implementation of the idea has beenextremely limited. The nature of the adult learner is such thatthe instruction must be tailored to his unique experiences andhis need to be a self-directing individual.

Training the teacher to become the facilitator of learningrather than the source of information requires a new concept ofthe teacher's role. This does not mean that the teacher wouldbe replaced in the classroom. There are certain skill areaswhich must be acquired, and these include counseling and place-ment of students, selecting materials, validating programs,providing on-step instruction, developing self-instructionalmaterials, and evaluating.

In this situation the university staff has some uniqueresponsibilities. Universities have been very slow and reluc-tant to change, and one of their responsibilities is to makethe climate for new forms of education available, includingsuch things as the learning lab and on-step instruction. Thesecond function is to go beyond merely underlining the need foracceptance of new techniques and to see that these techniquesare in fact accepted. Research and evaluation on these pro-grams remain key functions which the university can uniquelyperform.

My emphasis is on programmed instruction which includesa program for individualized instruction, but also for grouplearning experiences. This means relating individual instruc-tion to group instruction in much the same way as Paul Sheatsand Jim Farmer are doing at UCLA. The teacher's responsibilityhere is to help move the student from the point where he needsindividualized instruction to where group work may providereinforcement for that learning. It is also important to beable to relate the software used in the individualized instruc-tion situation to hardware which may also be available.

This process of acquainting the teachers has alreadybegun through a series of one-day workshops mounted coopera-tively by the University of Tennessee apd the Tennessee State

36

4 4

Department of Education. The emphasis at these workshops wason individualized instruction and the learning laboratories.These orientation workshops are to be followed up by specializedefforts to help the teachers diagnose the problems of studentsand select relevant materials, for example.

Question:

(Tommie Fuller) What is being done in your state to keepsome level of uniformity in the definition of the conceptof individualized/instruction?

Response:

I think most teachers have some general idea of whatindividualized instruction means. To me, that is simplygearing instruction to the needs expressed throughinventories and interests and keeping the individualoccupied with material which causes him to succeed butis not at such a low level to make him bored. To someteachers, individualized instruction means working ona one-to-one basis with the student, but it is much morethan this and can include group work when necessary.

Question:

(Edward Brown) Have you changed your teaching practicesany or are you teaching individualized instruction in theclassroom situation?

Response:

I have made an initial attempt and have been about halfwaysuccessful.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) In doing the individualized instructionactivities, are there specific facilities that you need,where ought these facilities to be located, and what kindof flexibility should these facilities have?

Response:

What Ed is trying to ask is do you need a learninglaboratory. If you are going to work within a learninglaboratory structure, you do need certain facilities. Thefacilities are not elaborate: tables, carrels, shelvingfor materials, a desk and chair for the coordinator, and

37

4 ri

materials and hardware to carry on the instructionalprocess. It is important to note that a lot of individ-ualized instruction takes place in the regular classroom,and there you do not need any special facilities.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) Can or should the individualized instructionwork be concerned with instruction in a specific, structuredfield, or should this be directed basically toward creating

the social individual?

Response:

I think that there is a limited amount that ABE studentscan learn from one another, especially in the subjectmatter areas. This does not mean that the teacher is thesole source of information, for some students progressfaster than others and can be used in that type of groupsituation. It is my belief that individuals can onlywork alone for a certain period of time, and then theyneed others to react to. That is one of the strongestpoints for the idea of grouping individuals.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) Is there a difference in the kind of personthat you need to work in the learning lab situation anda person who teaches in the regular classroom situation?Can persons from the classroom make this transitioneasily? How do they go about learning their materials?And how do they learn the skills of matching the differentmaterials to the students?

Response:

There is no basic difference in the type of person neededin the classroom and in the lab. The coordinator in thelab, however, must be willing to adjust to a differenttype of instructional situation, and, ir that adjustmentcannot be made, he is better utilized in the traditionalclassroom situation. The greatest teacher need nowappears to be in the area of selecting the proper materialsfor the student, and that is where additional training is

needed.

Question:

(Dr. Brown) Does the center provide opportunities forfull-time employment of staff, and are there figuresto show the relative costs of classes versus the oper-ation of a center?

Response:

The center does provide opportunities for full-timeemployment. The learning lab is there on a regularoperating basis for the comings and goings of the stu-dent as he sees fit. But there must be a coordinatorthere at all times to work with the student who comesin for either an hour or stays for six hours. You doget more for your money out of the lab situation. Thelab can accommodate more students on a regular basis forless money in coordinator salary than can an individualABE teacher meeting a class once or twice a week. Thelab can usually accommodate 75 to 150 people in a periodof a week, and an ABE class usually contains only about15 people.

Summary

The planning group expressed their thanks to the universityprofessors who took the time from busy schedules to preparethose excellent papers which added a great deal to the sub-stantive input for the seminar. States requested and weregiven the full time to work on their plans during the afternoonsession. Based on the material presented on Friday morning,the staff developed one question that the groups could considerin their planning: To what extent can what you have learnedthis morning be used in improving your state planning processand strategy? It was emphasized to the groups that the consult-ants and regional staff were available to any group as needed.

Participants were also advised to use the memory sheetswhich were provided in each information packet. The purposeof the memory sheet was to assist them in recording the worksessions. One sheet was to be completed at the end of eachstate meeting, and the information put down used to helpindividuals define their role in professional staff develop-ment, the roles performed by other groups, and program resourceneeds under the Staff Development Project which would best helpthem fulfill their collective responsibilities. It was empha-sized that information put on the memory sheets would be theproperty of the individual, but that information would be askedfor as part of the evaluation of this particular regionalseminar.

39

4 7

Second Planning Group Meeting

The planning group met at the end of the state meetings

on Friday afternoon, May 8. The purpose of Oat meeting wasto review the progress made at each state planning sessionand, also, to determine cooperatively the procedure for thefinal session on Saturday morning. Expectation was thatstates would be able to report, using the framework of the sixProject programs. This did not appear possible, however, assome states were not ready to finalize their plans. As inthe other planning group meetings, a number of concerns wereraised by members of the group:

1. That progress at the second state meetings wasuneven in part because there did not seem to be aclear sense of purpose for the second work session.Staff associates indicated that there was somelimited reference by the groups to the substantivepresentations made by the professors at the morningsession. (Some states had moved further in clari-fication of role responsibilities and definition ofassignments which should be undertaken by specificindividuals.)

2. That certification and the development of teachertraining teams were areas of interest to a numberof state groups and should be given further study.

3. That state groups at the seminar without their directorswere feeling a sense of closure, because they had pro-gressed as far as they could without the leadingofficial's presence and involvement in the discussions.

4. That some tentative statement should be made aboutprogram directions being taken by each state, but thatthese statements should be treated as tentative andnot final indications of a commitment to a specificstate plan.

S. That some value might be derived from the sharing ofperceptions through heterogeneous grouping early inthe morning, prior to the state reports. This typeof grouping might function to enrich the level ofinputs that the participants had already receivedthrough the training design excerises and the present-ation of university papers.

6. That in some of the state groups there was a tendencyfor a professional group to dominate the discussion.

40

48

7. That participants might want to carry away with themfour types of information: the basic description oftheir state plans, some indication of what otherstates are doing, a clear idea of the role SREBplays, and what the individual himself or herselfshould do next.

8. That state groups might want to meet briefly early inthe morning.

9. That the participants might gain value fram someappraisal of progress from the SREB staff itself.

10. That the region should see the SREB staff as programadministrators and facilitators and not as distinctresources which are constantly available to individualstate programs. But, that the project staff could de-fine what services would be available through theProject to help each state facilitate the Project pro-grams which are operated under the leadership of thestate director.

11. That roles should be clearly defined, and that thereshould be some mechanism of doing this, as well asdrawing together the various types ofinformation thathad been exposed during the seminar sessions. Thiscould be phrased in terms of expectations for both thestate progress and the individuals participating instate ABE activities. While these roles and expect-ations may be known within the individual state, itwould be important to share that information among allparticipating states in the Regional Project, inorder to facilitate the regional concept.

Because of the different progress levels of the states,a compromise was effected. The planning group decided thatit would be desirable to allow each state team some time in themorning to summarize its work and prepare answers to threequestions that would present information on its progress tothe entire participant group:

a. Where do you think you are?

b. Where do you think you are going?

c. What is keeping you fram getting there?

Each state would be allocated 15 minutes for that report,allowing time for Ed Brown and the Project staff to questioneach state representative and obtain from him information which

41

49

would be helpful to overall Project operations. It was alsoagreed that Bill Phillips should be given time to make someremarks to the entire group, and that Jim Dorland would presentsome of his summary evaluations prior to the closing of thesession.

Final Seminar Activities

Presentation by William Phillips

William Phillips, Regional Program Officer for AdultEducation, discussed the changes that would be effected by therecently passed legislation which carries Adult Educationthrough the twelfth grade. He indicated that each state wouldbe required to develop plans for five years, including a detail-ed plan of action for one year. These plans cover the ways inwhich federal monies will be spent for ABE and for the highschool program.

Commenting on the seminar activities, Mr. Phillipsmentioned that each individual appears to perceive the ABEprogram in light of his own experiences. Local directorsappear to be most interested in obtaining good teachers, main-taining and expanding the number of classes offered, and beingsure that the proper supplies and facilities are available forthese classes. Ihniversities, on the other hand, are involvedin decisions about the number and kind of courses, theirlocations, and the roles to be assumed by graduate students.State department officials appear to talk in a much broaderrange, but not in as detailed a fashion. Their concern waswith federal monies and the amount and division of the SREBmonies for the second year.

Mr. Phillips emphasized that it is the state director thatassumes key responsibility for the ABE programs in each state.He makes the state decisions on the scope and content of theprogram, as does the local coordinator for his particular area.Mr. Phillips emphasized the necessity for balancing trainingwith equipment and program directions so that the most balancedeffort is achieved.

The success of the planning efforts undertaken at theseminar will be determined by the extent to which the statedirector accepts those plans and feels that they should becomepart of his state program. The director can receive guidanceand counsel from his staff, but he is responsible for thedecisions and for the program's success or failure.

The state director is also responsible for the fundsallocated to each state under the Project. This was donepurposely to insure coordination of efforts within each state.

One hope for change is the possibility of acquiring morefull-time teachers in ABE and AE. The new federal legislationprovides for day centers which can be open from seven in themorning until 10 at night, and possibly there can be full-time personnel staffing these facilities.

In that regard, it is important to be specific about whatteacher training needs exist for personnel in different situa-tions. The rural teacher must be all things to all people,while the urban personnel can be specialized more easily.

State Reports

Each state reported at this final session, either throughthe state director, the individual sitting in for him, or apanel. The reporters responded to the three questions posedby the planning group and were then questioned by the regionalstaff.

ALABAMA

Alabama has attempted to develop a state plan which willwork with all levels, beginning with the volunteer teachers.The program looks at both the needs of the student and theneeds of the teacher who would serve that student. The basicgoal is to develop a staff which can promote ABE to becomepart of the overall educational program.

Snecific goals include the promotion of ABE classesthrough public relations. Higher levels of professionalismis another goal, and this will be partially implemented throughsome incentive grants which will be given to teachers duringthe coming summer. A third goal is the development of guidanceprograms for adults, working with various supplementary agenciessuch as Vocational Rehabilitation. Alabama will also seek toimplement an upper-level coordination group.

Efforts will be made to determine ways of recruiting andretaining ABE teachers as well as to determine criteria foraction research. Continuous evaluation of the adult programsand development of sequential in-service training programs willbe part of the Alabama efforts. Two two-week workshops forlocal ABE teachers are planned this summer at Alabama StateUniversity and Alabama A & M.

The biggest obstacle to the achievement of Alabama's goalsis a lack of professionalism brought about by institutional andpersonal commitment levels. There is presently no commitmentwhich provides a sound basis for planning. There should alsobe better coordination of resources among the various groupsinvolved in reaching the target audience and improved lines ofcommunication.

Question:

What training will be available to local teachers andother staff, particularly new ones, during the comingschool year?

Response:

On- and off-campus courses are planned by both AuburnUniversity and Alabama State University for the comingacademic year.

Question:

This is the first year of an expanded state staff whichis able to reach all sections of the state. What addi-tional responsibilities have these staff members pickedup in rcgard to staff development?

Response:

We are working closely with the college professors topromote the courses being offered. The staff has alsoenrolled in the courses, which has been a benefit, enablingthem to relate to the teachers who are in those courses.We have also conducted a number of short teacher train-ing workshops throughout the state.

Question:

What additional workshops are planned for the coming yearto supplement these?

Response:

There will be at least 13 of these workshops during thecoming year as well as some local ones planned and imple-mented by personnel in those areas. A two-day workshopis planned for local superintendents to inform them ofABE's goals, objectives, and philosophy.

Question:

You mentioned an upper-level coordinating group for whichthe participants in the New Orleans seminar will be heldtogether to form the nucleus. What functions and respon-sibilities do you envision that coordinating group takingon?

Response:

There will be local teachers added to this coordinatinggroup, and it might be useful to think about bringingthem to future seminars. This group can help to imple-ment the goals set out in our basic plan and to expandthe plan to include more activities as they return totheir local areas.

FLORIDA

The Florida plan has three components: the state department,the universities, and the local personnel. The plan is to in-crease the capability at each of these three levels, so thatthe pre-service and in-service teacher training effectivenessof the state of Florida will be enhanced.

A person has been added at the state department level tocoordinate the activities of this plan. Money has been put in-to three new universities: Florida A M, the University ofSouth Florida, and Florida Atlantic University. Two countieshave added a full-time staff develGpment person to their rosterfrom Project funds. These individuals formed a team that hasbeen working to implement this plan. This group decided tohave a statewide work conference of local directors, includingABE coordinators from these areas if such persons existed. Thepurpose of this work conference was to obtain information fromthe local coordinators on what they saw the university doingfor them.

The professors have also been visiting the counties, gettingthe same sort of input and setting up a variety of in-servicework activities based upon the determined needs of the localcounties. The initial push was to get to as many teachers aspossible with an initial orientation. The universities are alsogetting approval for credit courses on campus and, shortly, willbe offering masters degrees in Adult Education.

45

Question:

You are the only person in the region so far who has beenassigned specific staff development responsibilities.What have been your roles, responsibilities, and activi-ties, and what plans do you have for activities in thefuture? In addition, one of the unique arrangements isthe team including the universities and the local people,what are your responsibilities and relationship to thisteam?

Response:

I'm glad you asked that question. Some furtherfication of that responsibility is needed. Thedevelopment person, however, is responsible fornating aspects of the plan and facilitating theative planning of all participants in the state,duplication of effort is minimized.

Question:

clari-staffcoordi-cooper-so that

What appears to be keeping Florida from reaching itsobjectives, the response to the third question?

Response:

We are headed there, but it will take time for programsto evolve. Certification is one of the big problems thatwe are now coming to grips with. And we are grapplingwith broad definitions in the field of Adult Education.This includes the limits of Florida's responsibility inAdult Education and just what the field of Adult Educationis and what it includes.

GEORGIA

The state is divided into quadrants, with a professionalstaff person from the state department assigned to each. Thereare four professionals on that staff, with one supported out ofSREB funds. The University of Georgia already has a master'sand doctoral program in Adult Education.

West Georgia College at Carrollton is working on a graduateprogram, and Albany State, a four-year institution in the east-ern part of Georgia, will offer undergraduate courses in AdultEducation, Georgia Southern College added a director of Adultand Continuing Education to serve the southeastern part of thestate.

We began our work on the in-service training of teacherslast year before grant monies were received. We have made useof the films for teacher training made by the University of

Georgia.

Our plans in the future include additioas of staff personsat West Georgia College and at Georgia Southern and increasednumbers of local training activities. Two two-week workshopsare planned; one two-fold activity at the University of Georgia

for local coordinators and for ABE teachers with some credithours in Adult Education, and one at Albany State for ABEteachers with no credit hours. We also anticipate putting inat least 17 learning centers throughout the state. Thesecenters will not always be in schools, but in other facilitieswhere they will be more available to adults. We also plan totrain teachers and administrators in the use of individualizedmaterials.

One of our concerns is that we in the state departmentfeel a need for m:)re training. We also need more state staffin order to cover our responsibilities mure adequately. Thereis also a need for our staff to move into specializations ofeffort as time goes on.

Question:

One of the unique things in Georgia is the relationshipthat exists between the university and other participatingcolleges. Would you comment about that relationship?

Response:

For example, teachers taking courses at Albany State aregiven credit at the university. The university grantscredit for activities at these institutions. The waythis is done is that faculty at these colleges becomeadjunct professors of the university.

Question:

Another unique arrangement in Georgia is the relationshipbetween the state department staff member in each quadrant,the college staff, and the local coordinators. Would youcomment about that relationship and the number of timesthat these individuals meet to carry on their activities?

47

Response:

The state department staff member and the universitypersonnel meet with an advisory committee, composed of

the local coordinators, in each quadrant. They meetmonthly, and one result is the setting up of the seminarsand conferences for the local teachers in each quadrant.

Question:

You mentioned a desire for greater specialization; wouldyou comment about the areas of specialization that mightbe desirable given the direction of your plan?

Response:

I think the two individuals needed are a materialsspecialist and an expert in guidance for the adult learner.These are the two that we need at present.

Question:

Would you comment on the outcomes of the numerouscoordinators' conferences which have been characteristicof the Georgia program during the past year?

Response:

I think we have developed a common philosophy anddedication to helping people. We tend to talk aboutimprovement of programs and obtaining additional resources,but necessarily or initially about funds.

MISSISSIPPI

There are extensively operating programs in the local areasof Mississippi. We have also had the state department and theuniversity cooperatively functioning to enhance these programs.However, the greatest thrust of our combined efforts in the nextyear will be to increase the capability of the local programefforts. This will involve us in the same type of in-serviceworkshops and seminars that have been cooperatively operatedduring the past year.

We plan to work on this development of local capabilitythrough training teams, somewhat similar to the type that havebeen developed in South Carolina. Capabilities for members ofthese teams will be developed at different institutions through-out the state: the University of South Mississippi, for

example, will work on the development of reading resourcepersonnel at their summer workshop. There will also be work-shops during the summer at Mississippi State University and

48

Jackson State College. The workshop at Jackson State will bedirected to new ABE teachers, and the workshop at MississippiState will be on teaching team training.

There will be continued assistance provided to the localareas from the state department and the university level afterthese summer workshops. The local areas will work on their ownindividual plans, identifying their training needs and thetypes of resources that should be made available to them.State department staff will coordinate the implementation ofthese plans and will also work out the evaluation procedures incooperation with all of the groups that participate in ABE workthroughout the state.

We have also been concerned about certification standards,and the group here has made a recommendation that the statedepartment staff develop guidelines for the certification ofABE teachers. Mississippi also feels that it should conductsome study to determine the cost effectiveness relationshipbetween individualized instruction and traditional classroomwork.

There is a problem that we currently face; that is ourinability to obtain the type of teacher desired at the in-service training workshops, because many of these teachershave other commitments which prohibit their attendance atABE workshops.

Question:

You mentioned that the three institutions participatingin the program are having summer institutes: JacksonState will be working with new ABE teachers, MississippiSouthern on reading, and Mississippi State on teachingteam training. To what extent will they become spe-cialized in these areas, and what other responsibilitieswill they have?

Response:

They will probably continue to maintain these areaspecializations but will cooperate when called upon toperform general responsibilities within the state.

49

57

Question:

You have secured a relationship where the universitystaff has been the active training arm of the departmentin these numerous seminars. How has this enhanced yourprogram, what in particular did the university contributeand what did the state staff contribute?

Response:

It definitely has enhanced the program, with theuniversity contributing resource expertise and the statestaff implementing and coordinating the program.

SOUTH CAROLINA

We have begun work on a state plan, refining the definitionsof the needs and resources which can be applied. There isa state team, composed of the university representatives andthe state department staff, working on this. In our immediateplans there is a workshop on administration in Columbia, SouthCarolina for coordinators and superintendents. There are alsoplans to improve level one teachers through a three-day read-ing workshop at Columbia College and plans for a three-dayseminar to develop a cadre of resource people. One of theefforts of the team approach in South Carolina is to developgroups of resource people to be available throughout the state.

A preliminary meeting has also been planned to look atwhat is needed for certification of AE teachers in SouthCarolina. We also plan to expand the number of universityteam locations from four to eight with training teams at boththe University of South Carolina and South Carolina State.The guide for teacher trainers is being refined and should be

available at some not-too-distant period.

We are required in South Carolina to work on a five-yearplan for activities, and this five-year plan will move ustowards some type of evaluation process of the program in ourstate.

Question:

What is the relationship between the state departmentand the university staff, between the state departmentof education and teaching teams, and between the univer-sity staff and the teams?

SO

58

Respo%se:

The state department and the university staff act as thecoordinators of the teams. The state department helps inthe movement of these teams to meet specific responsi-bilities in local areas and to be on call to local coor-dinators, and th. university provides the resource andtraining support for the individuals who are part of theseteams.

Question:

What has been the success of these teams so far?

Response:

They have begun an extension of our in-service teachertraining capability to reach a variety of local areas andlocal programs and to provide the sort of resource whichlocal coordinators have been asking for in their programsfor some time.

Question:

(by Dean Paul Mohr, Florida A & M University) It is myunderstanding that South Carolina State College, as wellas the University of South Carolina, participates in theprogram. You have not spelled out clearly what SouthCarolina State's role is, and I wonder if you could com-ment on that?

Response:

One of the problems at South Carolina State is that thisis a period of transition between the initial staff mem-ber and the second one to come on. Allen Code came fromthe state department to South Carolina State and is nowdeveloping programs and will become a member of the SouthCarolina planning team and operate courses similar tothose offered by the university.

51

59

TENNESSEE

The Tennessee group has used the seminar to beginexploring the resources available within the state and definingrole responsibilities and the types of activities that will becarried out at each level. In the search for role definitions,the various groups involved in AE/ABE formulated plans directedat increasing staff development capabilities. The local programsupervisors plan to involve teachers actively in local programplanning. In addition, they plan to acquaint all new teacherswith material, record-keeping procedures, and characteristicsof the adult learner. (These actions will be taken when morethorough pre-service training time is limited.) The univer-sity members have made tentative commitments to provideresidence training for adult educators and to assist teachersin diagnosing needs. The determined teacher needs will beused in planning course content. There are plans for thestate department staff to appoint a representative planningand evaluating committee which will meet periodically todetermine progress made in the professional growth of the state'sadult educators and to develop strategies to continue theenhancement of the Adult Education programs.

Plans have been made to continue workshop operations atthe University of Tennessee and Memphis State University aswell as to expand the involvement of the Tennessee StateUniversity.

Question:

There are three universities in the Tennessee project, butTennessee is such a large state that eight or 10 univer-sities would be required to service all of the geographicalareas. What activities are planned at other state insti-tutions, and how does the relationship with these insti-tutions differ from the relationship to the three insti-tutions directly involved in the Project?

Response:

The Tennessee State Department is not only involveddirectly with the three institutions that are part of theProject, but maintains a continuing relationship witheight or 10 other institutions throughout the state thatprovide supplementary resources and assistance to in-service teacher training activities that are part of theTennessee program.

Question:

One of the unique resources which Tennessee contributedto the Project was the Institute for the Blind which washeld in April in Nashville. Would you comment aboutthis unique institute?

Response:

The lady concerned is part of the Senior Citizens Councilin Nashville and has developed a unique workshop fortraining individuals to work in ABE with the blind. Thisworkshop has been so effective that participants fromthroughout the region have attended two such meetings andworked on very specific techniques which can be used inteaching the blind.

Staff Reactions

DR. PRESTON TORRENCE

All of the reports indicate that the region and theindividual states are making honorable strides. However, wediscourage complacency and, therefore, I would like tc throwout a few ideas that I feel apply across the region. First,there should be greater teacher involvement in planning insti-tutes and workshops; they usually have a great deal to say andcan possibly provide a valuable resource. We could learn agreat deal fram local teachers if we were capable of listening.Through them we could begin to mount programs which would takecalculated steps to solve some of the continual problems facedin recruitment and retention.

Thought should be given to the selectivity of individualsfor ABE teaching assignments, and some relevant criteria forselection established. These criteria should include theindividual's potential, sensitivity, sincerity, flexibility,and commitment, as well as the level of competence which mightbe demonstrated. There should be some relation of these attrib-utes to the type of atmosphere which is created for the ABElearner. Some thought should also be given to the types offacilities that affect the climate, atmosphere, and environmentfor learning.

Realistic consideration should be given to the potentialABE client. We should face up to: who the people involved inthe program are, where they are located, and what the bestpossible approaches or methods are for getting the target pop-ulation to participate in programs and for keeping them involvedonce they begin participation.

53

61'

In the design of a program realistically geared to meetthe needs, consideration must be given to the selection ofstaff, the coordinatfion of the efforts of a variety of agenciesinvolved at the locdl level, and the need to provide greaterawareness of the program among the total population connectedwith Adult Basic Education. Only in this way can the resourcesthat SREB makes available be most usefully applied to assistin the local areas.

DR. CHARLES KOZOLL

There are two concerns that I would like to raise with youat this point. First, it appears that one of the things talkedabout in all of the state reports that dealt with what is keep-ing them from meeting their objectives is the issue of profes-sionalism. One of the questions raised at previous seminars hasbeen: What are the marks of a professional? Consequently, itseems to me that one of the most useful activities that thegroups can collectively perform is defining the marks of aprofessional in this field and deciding how some standards forprofessionalism can be set.

The other point to note is the role that consultants haveplayed in this regional seminar. There was some comment afterthe Atlanta seminar that the consultants did not do what wasexpected of them; i.e., prepare a speech and talk to the partic-ipants about some aspect of ABE. This is not how we conceivedof their function and not how they have operated at all threeof these seminars. We see our consultants (and we are verylucky to have such skilled ones) as facilitators and questionersof the process. Their objective is not to leave us satisfiedwith our accomplishments but to continually force introspectionabout the answers provided and raise the group from a minimumto a maximum level of performance. Consultants are notsupposed to make their clients comfortable, if they are doingtheir job properly. Our consultants perform that function ofraising our expectations and productivity levels and constantlyserve as productive irritants to our collective deliberations.

54

62

Comments by James Dorland

I was invited to attend this seminar as a representative

of NAPCAE. As part of my responsibilities, I was asked to pre-

pare some evaluatory remarks. And as part of that activity,I should like to indicate that we feel that NAPCAE has a poten-tial relationship to the activities of this Project, since ithas both regional and national significance. NAPCAE should belooked upon as the voice of Adult and Continuing Education inWashington and as a resource which can be employed by all of

you to further your program activities and advance them. We

look forward to continuing involvement in the Project.

In my opinion, one of the significant aspects of the StaffDevelopment Project is that it is the only one of its kind in

the United States. I had the opportunity to work with the statedirectors from Region IV for several years prior to the actualfunding of this project, and I am aware of many of theiraspirations and of some of the roadblocks which had to be over-

come before this Project became a reality. Furthermore, there

were several other regions in the United States which had similar

ideas about a regional consortium approach to Adult Basic Educa-tion and these regions were never funded. They, of course, are

looking at this Project with interest and anticipation to seewhat the ultimate payoff might be. What has heartened meperhaps more than any other single feature has been that I have

seen a regional cohesiveness develop and am actually thrilled

about the number of new young people who are becoming involved

in Adult Basic Education in this part of the country.

My involvement as a consultant is on behalf of the NationalAssociation for Public Continuing and Adult Education. As a

national voice for our field, our Association has a vital con-

cern and interest in this Project. We hope that you will view

us as a resource for publications, services, and for any other

appropriate activities which might develop from the Project.

We will be pleased to relate to the rest of the country someof the things which are happening through SREB. You are nowapproaching the end of the first year of the three-year Projectand although we are all pleased over some of the things thathave already occurred, we are aware of the magnitude of the

task yet undone. I am glad that you consider NAPCAE as your

partner in this Staff Development Project.

55

Final Planning Group Meeting

Following the closing seminar session, the planning groupmet briefly to discuss some concerns which were raised throughthe seminar and the next steps for that group. The followingmatters were discussed:

1. That some thought be given to the types of futureseminars to be held. There is some debate as towhether there should be total group meetings, orwhether specialized professional groups should meetregionally for a period of time to discuss some commonconcerns.

2. That there was disagreement among the staff associates,'iased on their own state needs and experiences, con-cerning the way in which regional activities should beapproached. Some felt that they were at the stagewhere highly specific meetings would be useful, whileothers felt that the structured approach had beenextremely useful at the New Orleans seminar and mightfurther state goals by affording this same sort ofopportunity at future regional gatherings.

3. That some mechanism be established so that theinformational inputs of the staff associates couldbe continued and used to supplement the total regionalperspective that the SREB staff obtains by workingwith the state directors and by traveling throughoutthe region.

4. That, with a consent of the state directors, staffassociates be asked to assist in the preparation ofthe seminar report, reviewing the initial draft thatwill be prepared by SREB staff, and to assist in thedevelopment of an instrument for evaluating seminaroutcomes, based largely upon the activities which takeplace post-seminar in their individual states.

5. That the seminar report have the effect of indicatingwhat next steps might be profitable, rather thanindicating that goals had already been achieved. Andthat the staff associates be used to help validate thefinal report in terms of the differentiated outcomeswhich may 'pave resulted from the seminar activities.

.56

64

It was agreed that the state directors would be requestedto allow the staff associates to meet late in May or early inJune to review the seminar report, make suggestions for revision,and help to design an evaluation instrument to review theaccomplishment in each state at the seminar.

Finally, interest was shown toward interstate visitationby the staff associates, state department staff, universitypersons, and local program personnel, so that each could profitfrom the activities taking place in other states. Ed Brownpointed out that the Regional Project staff encourages thisand will act to facilitate the type of regional exchange thatcan be accomplished by these visitations. The purpose of thevisitations should be both to enhance the state programs andto enhance the individual who in turn would enhance the stateprograms.

APPENDIXES

66

SREB PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 40DEL

New Orleans Regional Seminar

Cn rt.(T) taa4 rt<(t)- .

(1) (1)

"0re rtet)

taa

Ca tI=i

cm o11) 0

PO 1:13

113 1--'

g--6 =)- 1

rt cA-4 (t)

4<1-am

0(1)

cn o0 == rtto) 1-

1-1 Crt. 1-co == cmrt.tn

cn H'A) OQ

ici ="113 (1)

-.oI rri1- ca.rt C*.< 0

taa

rt.H.0=

State Directors

State Staff and Consultants

University Professors

Local Directors--Urban

Local Directors--Rural

Graduate Students

61

67 E. M. Easley, 4-70

TRAINING DESIGN SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM

Introduction

This presentation was made by Ed Easley, based on -.1.atagathered from similar training efforts around the country andmodified by the particular needs of the Staff DevelopmentProject. Each participant received an SREB professionaldevelopment model which described the interrelationship ofthe Project participants and the Project activities.

This model points out that there are three factors instaff development: one, an occupational ladder; two, humanresource inputs; and three, training inputs (degree programs,institutes, or workshops) . These three factors can be seenin the light of one definition of staff development: Theimprovement of the vocational competence of professionalsusing training resources with a definite and prescribedmethodology.

The planning process should be viewed as an activitywhich enhances the total system. In this model planningprocess, there are three variable groups:

1. Personnel

2. Facilities (buildings or programs)

3. The interaction (which can be called the productcapability)

The interaction between personnel and facilities may bein the form of communications networks or staff developmentplans. The communications network is influenced, of course,by who the personnel are and what the facilities contain.And, likewise, the personnel and facilities are influenced bythe interaction once that process begins. When the inter-action begins perceptions are changed, new programs will haveto be launched, and resources reallocated or new funds obtained.These activities can be accomplished through the interactionnetwork and through the planning process. There is constantinteraction between personnel and facilities on the one handand the resulting interaction network on the other; thisoperating arrangement is called a "socio-technical system."This arrangement can best be seen by working through ahypothetical model, demonstrating its parts and the inter-action between the various groups.

6 3

68

Identification of Resources

I. Human Resources Under the leadership of the statedirector there are:A. One consultantB. Two professors of Adult Education at the local

universitiesC. 10 graduate students at various stages of their

development at the local universitiesD. 42 local directorsE. 715 Adult Basic Education full- and part-time

teachersF. One half-time budget assistant from the state

department of education

II. Technical InputsA. State officesB. Department of Adult Education at the local

universityC. Four full-time centersD. 34 part-time centers

III. An Interaction Network Already Operating

IV. Factors Applied to the SystemA. $750,000 (the ABE budget)B. Local effort ratio of 32 cents contributed by

the local area for every dollar of federalfunds allocated

C. A state effort of five cents per federal dollarallocated (approximately 10 percent of the totalamount)

D. A university contribution of five cents on eachdollar of funds allocated to them

E. Teacher pool of six to one, six available teachersfor every one employed

F. An administrator pool of minus three to one(meaning that for every three positions onlyone person is employed or a deficit of twoindividuals)

The Planning Process

Establishing Goals

The state director in this situation has set himself twogoals:

1. A three-year plan with a projected increase of fivepercent each year.

64

69i%

2. The addition of the following elements to his system:a. Vocational education liaisonb. Community college involvementc. A volunteer program in urban centersd. Teacher-training institute

The state director has also realized the following:

1. The state department officials are aware of how toperform the function of vocational education liaison;they know the persons involved and the processimplementing liaison (and no other parts of thesystem have that capability).

2. The state department officials know how to get alongwith community colleges.

3. Only the local directors in the urban areas know howto mount the volunteer program.

4. The state department officials, universities, andthe local directors are acquainted with the processrelated to the teacher-training institute.

As a result of this evaluation, the state director is awarethat item four, the teacher-training institute, is part ofthe communications network. (It is important to make thisidentification of elements already a part of the communicationsnetwork; the other additions to the system will requireexpansions of the communication network), The volunteer pro-gram might be implemented easily in cooperation with the localdirectors, but the others may require additional effort. Thisis a value judgment that the state director must make.

Communications Network

The state director has three communications networks:

1. Bulletins which go out to the local directors.

2. One annual meeting with the local directors, who inturn issue their own bulletins and have meetings withtheir teachers.

3. The state director talks with his consultant, who inturn communicates with the university professors, whocommunicate with the graduate students.

65

70

The total communications network indicates that theuniversity is the best place to begin the program, as it hasthe most effective means of communication. The one meetingwith local coordinators would not be enough of an opportunityto implement the vocational and community college program.

Planning Rationale

Three steps were taken before this point was reached:one, available resources were defined; two, the interactionnetwork was explained; and three, the goals were indicated.Based on the activity, the decision of the state director isto embark upon two activities:

1. Increasing the communications network, in effectlaying the bases for the activities which cannotbe accomplished now but are planned for laterimplementation.

2. Increasing the efficiency of the teacher-traininginstitutes.

The highest priority might be to increase the communicationsnetwork.

The planning process itself contains the following steps,using this model plan of action.

1. The assessment of needs, including both the human andtechnical goals. (What kinds of personnel and facil-ities will be needed to implement these goals?)

2. A training and development stage, designed to effectpersonnel utilization. (For making best use ofpersonnel currently available, this includes theconsultant, the university staff, graduate students,and local directors?)

3. Resource allocation, including strengthening currentlyavailable resources through personal development andtraining and beginning to obtain the resources whichwill be needed to implement further sections of theproposed plan.

66

71,

4. Network implementation, which necessitates feedingthe inputs from each of the available resources intothe current system; this activity can be seen ascommunications support. (This activity expands uponthe development of currently available resourcepersons by keeping them in touch with individualsthroughout the system who can facilitate theirimprovement.)

5. Capability maintenance, which includes the ability tosustain the new action or program implemented; thisincludes strengthening interaction.

At this point in the process, the activities of a monitormust be established. There is no point in strengthening theactivities of the network if the wrong things are beingstrengthened. The functions of the monitor are to assess theimpact of these decisions and to determine alternate strategies,if these become necessary, based on the interaction which hasbeen established.

Alternate strategies should be developed, even though itappears that the system is going well. Elements of disfunctionwill appear, as a matter of course, through the process ofgrowth in any one resource of the total system. For example,as the university program grows, elements within it will emergethat may prove disfunctional to the total Adult Basic Educationsystem within a state. Alternate strategies must be ready,enabling the plan to move forward toward its goal of a fivepercent increase each year.

6. Enhancement of services, accomplished throughincreasing or shifting personnel, or shiftingresources (this can be accomplished with or withouta five percent yearly increase).

Implementing Goals

The state director's choice in this case is to work onlythrough the state department and the university. The follow-ing steps could be taken:

1. Identifying personal goals in terms of the majorgoals. This would include include increasing teacher-trainer confidence by working with the existing poolof teachers (which is already sufficient), and byincreasing the pool of available administrators.

6 7

72.

2. Identifying technical needs, such as increasing thenumber of technical centers by one and increasingteacher training potential through in-service pro-grams and not pre-service programs. Also involvedwould be increasing the level of administratorcompetence by upgrading the teachers currentlywithin the system.

3. Utilizing the present system to generate increasedactivity, including the assignment of the consultantto develop the teacher trainer project, as he isalready within the communications network. Theuniversity professor could be used to assist in thedevelopment of administrator training because he toois in the communications network.

4. Personnel employment, which involves asking theuniversity professor and the graduate student toprovide field work for the director of the new center.Someone must be assigned the task of defining thereal teacher iraining needs which could become partof the in-service training program. The consultantcould then work with the university professor andthe graduate students to translate these needs intomeaningful cognitive terms. The results would beresearch which could be abstracted to underline theoperational program training needs.

5. Making professors of Adult Education part of the stateinformational network by asking them to providedescriptive utilizations of research and personnel.

6. Allocating resource development funds to assign thegraduate students to work with the new center director(one half-time teaching assistantship for a graduatestudent to work on research related to this teachertraining project).

7. Strengthening the network through regular meetingsbetween the state consultant, the university profes-sor, and the graduate student. These meetings wouldalso importantly involve the local coordinators.This would strengthen the communications network byputting the local directors in regular contact withthe consultant university network. The networkwould also be strengthened by placing the professoron call to the 10 administrative interns who wouldbecome directors or coordinators of local programs.Money would also be spePt through the teachingassistant to define research priorities in terms ofprogram needs.

68

73

The monitoring process at this point enables the statedirector to employ an alternate strategy. The state director'sassessment prior to this concerned the value of the researchwhich was being paid for out of ABE funds, in light of thatresearch relationship to program needs. If the research wasnot meeting those needs, his decision would be to shift thosemonies to specifically targeted fellowships. Those indivdualsgiven fellowships would be under the direct supervision of tbestate director, If the workshops operated under the univer-sity aegis do not prove effective when evaluated, the alternatestrategy would be to move them to local in-service trainingworkshops. The university assessment should be in light ofthe extent to which the on-call system creates a heavy loadfor staff; the alternate strategy in this case would be to workwith the local directors through a regularized course program,rather than being on call to them.

(Time-Resource Allocation Chart follows on next page.)

Purpose of the Exercise

This planning process is only a framework onto which canbe built the flesh and blood of an operating system. Goalsmust be articulated and defined; following that, the stepsnecessary to achieve those goals must be plotted. Those stepsleading up to the goal should be systematized. The systemitself should constantly be revised and changed.

69

7 4

TIME-RESOURCE ALLOCATION CHART

Peronnell First Year Second Year Third Year

State Staff One Consultant

University andInstituteAdministrators

Technical Support2

Training3

(Six RegionalWorkshops)

State Institute Increased Re-Administrators gional Programs

40 New TeachersIn-Service

10 Adminis-trators

70

(Three Admin-istrativeFellows)

(Four Man-power Centers)

40 New Teachers 40 New Teach-ers at In-Service Work-shops

250 Partici-pants at Re-gional Workshops 250 Partici-

pants at Re-gional Work-shops

10 Adminis-tratorsContinued (Four Fellow-

ships)(Four Jobs)(Two Dropped)

1This chart outlines the method of the annual five percentincrease. A consultant would be added the second year. Thebase load would be maintained at the university level for allthree years with the same number of professors and graduatestudents. The special institute program could be continuedthe second year, but the third year as an alternate strategythree administrative fellows could be added. The six regionalworkshops are alternate strategies to the one large university-run workshop.

2 State support for regional activities would be increasedduring the second year. Funds for regional workshops wouldbe increased as well. The institute administrators would becontinued for the second year but dropped during the thirdbecause of the alternate strategy. Funds for the four man-power centers as an alternate strategy would be deferred untilthe third year.

3The change in strategy would result in removing the 10administrators from the design and allocating four fellow-ships and four jobs in manpower centers. Two posit:i.ons wouldbe dropped.

71

76

Alabama

STATE ABE DIRECTORS

Mr. Norman 0. ParkerCooTdinatorAdult Basic EducationState Department of Education

FloTida

Mr. James H. Fling, DirectorAdult and Veteran EducationStal:a Department of Education

Georgia

Mrs. Catherine KirklandCoordinator of Adult EducationState Department of Education

Kentucky

Mr. Ted Cook, DirectorDivision of Adult EducationDepartment of Education

Mississippi

Mr. J. C. BaddleySupervisor of Adult EducationState Department of Education

North Carolina

Mr. Charles Barrett, DirectorAdult Education DivisionDepartment of Community Colleges

South Carolina

Mr. J. K. East, DirectorOffice of Adult EducationState Department of Education

Tennessee

Mr. Charle3 F. KerrCoordinator of Adult EducationState Department of Education

REGIONAL PROJECT STAFF

Dr. Edward T. BrownProject DirectorAdult Basic Education

Dr. Charles E. KozollAssociate DirectorAdult Basic Education

Dr. Preston E. TorrenceAssociate DirectorAdult Basic Education

REGIONAL SEMINAR CONSULTANTS

Dr. Paul H. SheatsProfessor of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles, California

Mr. Robert A. Luke, DirectorDivision of Adult EducationServicesNational Education Association

Mr. Edgar M. EasleyDirector of ABE InstituteUniversity Extension, LAUniversity of California

SPECIAL CONSULTANTS

Mr. James R. DorlandExecutive SecretaryNAPCAEWashington, D. C.

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONPROGRAM OFFICERS

Mr. Gene SullivanProgram SpecialistAdult Education BranchOffice of EducationWashington, D. C.

Mr. William PhillipsProgram Officer, Region IVAdult EducationOffice of EducationAtlanta, Georgia

STAFF ASSOCIATES

Mr. Robert Walden AlabamaMr. Charles Lamb FloridaMr. Tommie Fuller - GeorgiaMiss Bonnie Hensley MississippiMr. William Smith South CarolinaMr. Charles Bates - Tennessee

74

SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

Alabama

State Department of Education:

Mr. Leon HornsbyMr. Sam Hughston

Alabama State University:

Dr. Marshall Morrison (Faculty)

Auburn University:

Dr. Harry Frank (Faculty)

Local Program Representatives:

Mrs. Bobbie L. GriffinCoordinator of Adult EducationHuntsville City Board ofEducation

Mrs. Voncile LackeyABE Local Helping TeacherMobile Public Schools

Florida

State Department of Education:

Mr. James H. FlingMrs. Jeanne BrockMr. Charles Lamb

Florida A & M University:

Dr. Paul Mohr, Dean(College of Education)

Mr. Edgar Fenn (Faculty)Miss Lossie Daniels(Graduate Student)

University of South Florida:

Dr. Robert Palmer (Faculty)

75

79

Mr. Ross McQueenMr. Bob Walden

Mrs. Doris Sanders (Faculty)

Mr. William C. Clayton(Faculty)

Mr. E. C. WilsonSupervisor Etowah CountyABEBoard of EducationGadsden, Alabama

Mr. D. C. LawMr. William W. Roberts

Dr. Arthur Madry (Faculty)Mr. Ozell Green (GraduateStudent)

Florida

Florida Atlantic University:

Dr. Robert Weigman, Dean(School of Education)

Staff Development Personnel:

Mr. Anthony L. Adolino(Broward County)

Local Program Representatives:

Mr. D. C. Blue, Jr.Area SupervisorClearwater

Mr. Gerald GaucherDepartment Head, ABEPensacola Junior CollegeHallandale Pensacola

Mr. Don GrangerArea SupervisorFort Pierce

Dr. Louis H. Meeth, Jr.Director of Adult EducationClearwater

Mr. Jack ReddingSupervisor of Adult EducationOrange CountyOrlando

Georgia

State Department of Education:

Mrs. Catherine KirklandMr. Frary Elrod

Albany State Colle e:

Mr. Robert L. Marshall (Faculty)

76

Dr. Harvey Myers, Chairman(Department of Education)

Mr. Thomas Scaglione(Hillsborough County)

Mx. Sandy SandersonArea SupervisorKey Biscayne

Mrs. Eloise TrentCoordinator of ABEHillsborough CountyBoard of Instruction

Tampa

Mr. Don E. WilliamsCoordinator of AEDade County

Mr. Harvey WilsonCoordinator ABE/AlLeon County School BoardTallahassee

Mr. Tommie C. FullerMX. Harry King

Georgia

Georgia Southern College:

Dr. Hilton T. Bonniwell (Faculty) Mr. Brent Halverson

University of Georgia:

Dr. Curtis Ulmer (Faculty)Mr. Frank Commander (Faculty)

Local Program Representatives:

Mr. Bobby R. AndressABE CoordinatorGlynn County Board of EducationBrunswick

Mrs. Edith W. DayCoordinator, Clarke County ABEAthens

Mr. J. E. FullerCoordinator, ABEAtlanta Fulton County SchoolsAtlanta

Mr. John C. GilsonSupervisor, ABEColumbus

Kentucky

State Department of Education:

Mr. Ted Cook

Kentucky State College:

Dr. Frank Bean (Faculty)

77

8111

Miss Jacquelyn Brown(Graduate Student)Mr. Donald J. Kaple(Graduate Student)

Mr. Charles W. HudsonCoordinator, AEMitchell CountyCamilla

Mrs. Anne M. KingCoordinator, AEBaldwin CountyMilledgeville

Mr. William PayneCoordinator, ABECrisp CountyCordele

Miss Maude WhiteCoordinator, ABEBullock County Departmentof Education

Statesboro

Kentucky

Morehead State University:

Dr. Harold Rose (Faculty)

Western Kentucky University:

Dr. Wallace Nave (Faculty)

Mississippi

State Department of Education:

Miss Bonnie Hensley

Jackson State College:

Dr. Cleopatra Thompson, Dean(School of Education)Mrs. Katherine J. Mosley (Faculty)Mrs. Rosa King (Graduate Student)

Mississippi State University:

Dr. Don F. Seaman (Faculty)Mr. James R. Phillips(Graduate Student)

Local Program Representath

Mr. Raymond CarterCounselor, ABEBiloxi Public SchoolsBiloxi

Mr. L. David EverettCounselor, ABEMeridian Junior CollegeMeridian

Mr. Jack ShankDean, Continuing EducationMeridian Junior CollegeMeridian

78

82

Mr. C. L. Hill

Mr. Nathaniel Owens(Graduate Student)Mr. Solomon Johnson (Staff)

Mr. Edgar Martin(Graduate Student)

Mrs. Nancy WhiteABE TeacherItawamba Vocational andTechnical Center

Tupelo

Mr. Wylie WoodSupervisor of AdultEducationItawamba Junior CollegeTupelo

South Carolina

State Department of Education:

Mr. Ted Freeman Mr. Donald JonesMr. Frank Hardin Mr. William Smith

South Carolina State College:

Mr. Allen Code (Faculty) Mrs. Dorothy Jarvis(Graduate Student)

University of South Carolina:

Dr. Robert Snyder (Faculty) Miss Judy Smith(Graduate Student)

Local Program Representatives:

Mrs. Hazel P. HallDean of Adult EducationGreenville TechnicalGreenville

Mr. Carl H. Medlin, Jr.Director of Adult EducationFlorence School District OneFlorence

Mr. Harold 0. MimsCoordinator Adult EducationGreenville

Tennessee

State Department of Education:

Mr. Charles F. KerrMr. Charles L. BatesMr. Luke Easter

Memphis State University:

Dr. Donnie Dutton (Faculty)

Tennessee State Universit :

Dr. James E. Farrell (Faculty)

79

83

Mr. Charles I. ThompsonCoordinator Adult EducationSumter School District #i7Sumter

Mrs. Emma B. WilliamsCoordinator Adult EducationBerkeley County Departmentof Education

Monchs Corner

Mr. Billie Joe GloverMr. Charles W. Holt

Dr. Mildred Hurley (Faculty)

Tennessee

University of Tennessee at Knoxville:

Dr. John M. Peters (Faculty)

Local Program Representatives:

Mr. Archer P. BardesSupervisor Adult EducationKnox County SchoolsKnoxville

Mr. Morris L. BusbyArea Specialist Guidance ABEBoard of EducationMemphis

Mr. Frank R. GallimoreDirector of Federal ProgramsHenry CountyParis

Mr. Walter R. HarbisonAssistant Supervisor ofAdult EdlcationKnox County SchoolsKnoxville

s 480

Mrs. Perle C. McNabbSupervisor ABECooke CountyNewport

Mrs. Margaret C. SmileySupervisor ABEPolk County SchoolsBenton

Mr. C. Blake WelchDirector ABE .

City SchoolsMemphis

ERIC Clearinghouse

FEB 1 5 1970

on Adult Education