Degree Name

EdD (Doctor of Education)

Program

Educational Leadership

Date of Award

May 1980

Abstract

The problem of this study was to determine the prioritization and assessment of educational goals in a selected school system. The purpose of this study was to engage citizens, administrators, teachers, and students in the prioritization and assessment of unified educational goals for public schools. The sample size for the study consisted of 117 participants in the following groups: (1) representative community group; (2) administrator group; (3) teacher group; and (4) student group. Separate meetings for each group were conducted, and each participant was asked to complete Phi Delta Kappa's Individual Goal Rating Sheet and the Individual Rating of the Level of Performance of Current School Programs. Five research questions were tested to ascertain if a significant difference existed in the perceptions of community members, administrators, teachers, and students in the priority ranking and assessment ranking of 18 educational goals; to ascertain if a significant difference existed between the total mean priority ranking and the total mean assessment ranking of the educational goals; and to ascertain if a significant difference existed within the four participant groups in the priority ranking and assessment ranking of the educational goals. The Kruskal Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test hypotheses 1 and 2. The t test for independent samples was used in testing hypothesis 3, and the Friedman Two-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test hypotheses 4 and 5. The most significant findings of this study were: A significant difference was found in the priority ranking of 11 of the 18 educational goals. The student group differed the most in assigning priorities to the goals. Community members, administrators, and teachers ranked Goal 4, "Develop skills in reading, writing, speaking, and listening," as the top priority goal. Students ranked Goal 9, "Develop skills to enter a specific field of work," as the top priority. A significant difference was found in the assessment ranking of 3 of the 18 goals. Again, the students differed the most from the other three groups. A significant positive t value was found in four goals, which meant that the assessment mean was lower than the priority mean. A significant difference was found within each of the participant groups regarding the priorities given to the goals. A significant difference was found within the representative community group, the administrator group, and the teacher group--but not within the student group--regarding the assessment rankings given to the 18 educational goals.

Document Type

Dissertation - Open Access

Share

COinS