DOCUMENT RESUME EA 003 696 Forsythe, Ralph A ...Painting, Boiler Replacements, Flooring, etc. Indicator 2.1.2.3.1 to be completed two months prior to the initial presentation of the

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 054 539 24 EA 003 696AUTHOR Forsythe, Ralph A.; Crawford, Thomas S.TITLE The Development of a Model Exemplifying Business

Services Objectives and Their Performance Indicatorsin Educational Program Budgeting. Final Report.

INSTITUTION Denver Univ., Colo.SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Research and

Development (DHEW/CE) , Washington, D.C.BUREAU NO BR-O-H-026PUB DATE Jui 71GRANT OEG-8-70-0008(509)NOTE 100p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Behavioral Objectives; Budgeting; Business;Educational Objectives; Educational Planning;Financial Services. Food Service; Maintenance;Models; *Performance Criteria; PerformanceSpecifications; *Program Budueting; ResourceAllocations; *School Accounting; School Districts;,*Systems Approach; Systems Concepts;Transportation

ABSTRACTThis study developed ( ) exemplary behavioral

objectives and performance indicators for the business component of aschool district and (2) a model to aid practitioners in stating thebehavioral objectives and performance indicators of a schooldistrict's business function. A jury, whose members had a workingknowledge of PPBS, school business services, and behavioralobjectives, validated a total of 42 objectives states in behavioralterms, together with appz.opriate performance indicators. Divided into(1) business services, (2) buildings and grounds, (3) financialservices, (4) transportation, and (5) food services, these objectivesrepresent the desired conditions of the business services function ofa school district. (RA)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION /41 WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGA NIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OE VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFIcE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY

FINAL REPORTProject No. O-H-026

Crb Grant No. OEG-8-70-0008 (509)

11.1

The Development of A Model Exemplifying Busiansssirs Services Objectives and Their Performance

Indicators in Educational Program BudgetingC:3uJ

Ralph A. Forsythe

and

Thomas S. Crawford

University of DenverDenver, Colorado 80210

July 1971

en c)140-H oc

E A

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant with the

Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are

encouraged to express freely their professior.al judgment in the conduct

of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore,necessarily represent official Office of Education position or policy.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHEDUCATION AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

TABLE OF CONTLNTS

Section Page

SUMMARY 1

Purpose of the Study 1

Research Methods

Results .... . .. . .. . 2

Conclusions 2

Recommendations 2

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Study 6

Review of Related 'Literature 6

Planning-programming-budgeting sy stems 6

Behavioral objectives 9

Business services 15

Methodology

Categories in the rating instrument 16

Objective and performance indicator form 18

Format of the rating instrument ........ . . 18

Distribution of the rating instrument 19

Method of tabulation of the juror responsea * * * 20

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORSTATEMENTS FOR THE BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION 23

16

Objective 2.0.1.1 The Business Services Division WillProvide Effective Monitoring of all SW:ordinateDepartment's Prcgram Efforts 23

Indicator 2.0.1.1.1 as measured by the achievement of notless than 75 percent of each department's totalobjectives

Section Page

Objective 2.0.1.2 The Business Services Division WillEmploy Modern Management Techniques Trhough theGeneration and Maintenance of Five-Year Long-RangeProgram and Cost Plans 26

Indicator 2.0.1.2.1 for all subordinate departments 26

Indicator 2.0.1.2.2 so that the proposed cost of aprogram will not increase more than 10 percent fromthe projected cost in a given year and the actualbudget request for that program for inclusion intothe annual budget for that year . . 26

Objective 2.0.1.3 The Busimess Services Division WillEmploy Mbdern Management Techniques Through the Useof Exception Reporting 26

Indicator 2.0.1.3.1 by all subordinate departments 26

Indicator 2.0.1. _2 for any report having anydeviation from the expected norms 27

Objective 2.0.1.4 The Business Services DivisionWill Employ Modern Management Techniques ThroughThe Use of Management by Objectives Techniques . . 27

Indicator 2.0.1.4.1 in all subordinate departments . 27

Indicator 2.0.1.4.2 as measured by the agreementbetween division and respective department directorsupon 90 percent of that department's objectives .

Objective 2.0.1.5 By March of Each Year, TheBusiness Services Department Will Publish theDistrict's Five-Year Long-Range Plan

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCEINDICATOR STATEMENTS FOR THE BUILDINGS AND GROUNDSDEPARTMENT .

Objec":ive 2.1.1.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Perform Activities Concerned With Keeping theDistrict's Facilities Open . .... .

Indicator 2.1.1.1.1 with no building being closed downby any legal agency due to the lack of maintenanceof proper legal standards

Objective 2.1.1.2 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Perform the District Designatedj)aily, Weekly,Monthly, .etc., Housekeeping Activities

27

28

28

28

9 8

Section Page

Indicator 2.1.1.2.1 as determined by obtaining a 98percent accomplishment rating en the pre-establisheddistrict inspection checklist when applied by thefacility's chief administrator or the buildingsand grounds supervisor 28

Indicator 2.1.1.2.2 as measured by less than 1 percentvalid employee complaints per building regardingdepartment service

Objective 2.1.1.3 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Remove Snow Accumulating from Entrances, Exits,and Walkways of District Facilities Prior to allPeriods of Building Use 32

Indicator 2.1.1.3.1 as measured by less than 10 percentof occurred accidents attributable to improper snowremoval in the opinion of the buildings and groundssupervisor 32

Indicator 2.1.1.3.2 as measured by complaints from nomore than 5 percent of the total amount of schooldistrict administrators per month . OO . MM . 32

Objective 2.1.2.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Respond Promptly to Authorized Requests forEither Regular Maintenance or Repair of DistrictGrounds, Buildings, and Equipment, or For EmergencyRepair of Same * ^

Indicator 2.1.2.1.1 as measuredmore than 10 days between theemergency repair need and theon that repair

Indicator .1.2.1.2 as measuredmore than 4 hours between theemergency repair need and theon that repair

by a time leg of nonotification of aninitiation of work

by a time lag of nonotification of aninitiation of work

Objective 2.1.2.2 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Record Promptly and Accurately All RepairWork on School District Property and Equipment

Objective 2.1.2.3 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Develop a Five-Year Program Outlining Year-By-YearMajor Maintenance Proiects Such as Roof Repair,Painting, Boiler Replacements, Flooring, etc.

Indicator 2.1.2.3.1 to be completed two months priorto the initial presentation of the proposeddistrict budget to the board of education

32

33

33

33

Section Page

Objective 2.1.2.4 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Produce and Yearly Update a Plan for theOrderly Replacement of Major Equipm..Int

Indicator 2.1.2.4.1 to be completed two months priorto the initial presentation of the district financialbudget to the board of education

Indicator 2.1.2.4.2 which will display at least 95 percentof the costs needed for new equipment in futureyears

Objective 2.1.3.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Yearly Project the October 1 District StudentPopulation ................ . ...O.

33

34

34

34

Objective 2.1.4.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Develop a Cost Schedule for Renting DistrictFacilities for Community Use 34

Indicator 2.1.4.1.1 so that the entire costs relatedto the use of a facility are born by the user 34

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORSTATEMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT 34

Objective 2.2.1.1 Each Department Head Shall Submit InCorrect Form, Requests for Expenditures for InclusionInto the Annual Budget After Receipt of ComprehensiveFinancial Affairs Department Instructions

Indicator 2.2.1.1.1 as measured by 95 percent of alloperating and capital outlay requests turned in,in correct format

Indicator 2.2.1.1.2 as measured by requests for explena-tion of budget preparation procedures equalling no morethan 10 percent of the total amount of districtpersonnel responsible for operating and capitaloutlay requests

Objective 2.2.1.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Prepare the Annual School District Budget inCompliance With All State Regulations andDirectives So That . . . . . .

35

35

35

35

Indicator 2.2.1.2.1 no exceptions are detected by thestate agency to the completed budget 35

Objective 2.2.1.3 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Publish the Integrated Long-Range Plans ofThe Business Services Division 41

Section Page

Indicator 2.2.1.3.1 ope month prior to the initialpresentation of the yearly budget to the boardof education 41

Indicator 2.2.1.3.2 in a quantity of no less thanfifty copies 41

Indicator 2.2.1.3.3 which will represent the plansof at least 90 percent of the divisions'departments 41

Objective 2.2.2.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Accurately Project School District Incomeand Expenditures 41

Indicator 2.2,2.1.1 for at least five years in advance . 42

Indicator 2.2.2.1.2 with less. than 2 percent discrepancybetween the most recent current year projectedexpenditures and income, and the actual expendituresand income 42

Objective 2.2.2.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Accurately Account for all the FinancialTransactions Entered Into by the School DistrictMonthly 42

Indicator 2.2.2.2.1 as measured by a fiscal reportsubmitted to the board of education for inclusion intothe board minutes representing at least 95 percent of allthe transactions that occurred 42

Indicator 2.2.2.2.2 as measured by the receipt ofyearly positive external audit report 42

Objective 2.2.3.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Produce and Distribute Accurate W-2 IncomeTax Forms on or Before January 15 43

Indicat r 2.2.3.1.1 with no late deliveries 43

Indicator 2.2.3.1.2 with less tnan 1 percent employeedissatisfaction as measured by valid employeecomplaints 43

Objective 2.2.3.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Record Promptly and Accurately all SalariesPaid to District Employees 43

Indicator 2.2.3.2.1 within one week after productionof a given payroll 43

Section

Indicator 2.2.3.2.2. with no errors

Page

44

Objective 2.2.3.3 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Promptly Record and File all OfficialDistrict-Wide Financial Documents 44

Indicator 2.2.3.3.1 within two days after rece.pt ofa given document 44

Objective 2.2.4.1 The Financial Affairs Department WillProduce and Distribute Accurate Paychecks to AllEMployees According to the Pre-determined Published TimeSchedule 44

Indicator 2.2.4.1.1 with no late deliveries 44

Indicator 2.2.4.1.2 with less than 1 percent employeedissatisfaction as measured by valid employeecomplaints 45

Objective 2.2.5.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Promptly and Accurately Prepare and Distributeall District Approved Purchase Orders 45

Indicator 2.2.5.1.1 with a time lag of no more than threedays from the time of receipt of final approval to writethe purchase order and transmission of said order fromthe district to the intended recipient . ... 45

Indicator 2.2.5.1.2 with no more than 1 percent error inthe purchase order preparation process 45

Objective 2.2.5.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Prepare and Issue Bid Calls Which Encourage Wide andAccurate Bidder Responses by Clearly Identifying the Items,Their Specifications, and the Desired Bidding Procedure. . 45

Indicator 2.2.5.2.1 as measured by 90 percent of the bidereceived conforming to the bid call specifications . . 46

Indicator 2.2.5.2.2 as measured by receipt of bids from80 percent of the parties deemed eligible by the directorof business affai

Objective 2.2.5.3 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Present Invoices to the Board of Education ForApproval of Payment Within 30 Days After Receiptof Merchandie.

46

46

Indicator 2.2.5.3.1 equalling no less than 90 percentof the value of the total amount of goods received duringthat period 46

Section Page

Objective 2.2.5.4 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Pay Bills Indicating Cost Reductions forPrompt Payment . . ..... . ....

Indicator 2.2.5.4.1 through payment within the specifiedtime of all bills indicating cost reduction forprompt payment . . . .... .

46

47

Indicator 2.2.5.4.2 when such payment results in a costsavings at least equal to the cost of processingthe payment 47

Objective 2.2.6.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Accurately Inventory All Goods on Hand inthe District Warehouse

Indicator 2.2.6.1.1 as measured by no inabilitiesto deliver goods recorded as "in stock" on currentinventory list because of inventory inaccuracies .

47

47

Indicator 2.2.6.1.2 as measured by a discrepancy ofno more than 2 percent between the reported volumeof a stock item and the actual volume ofthat item 47

Objective 2.2.6.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Maintain Accurate Inventory Records of AllDistrict Equipment Holdings . . . .. ... .. 48

Indicator 2.2.6.2.1 as measured by comparing the"record" against a 10 percent sample of equipmentholdings within a given district facility andallowing no more than 1 percent discrepancy 48

Objective 2.2.6.3 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Maintain an Accurate Inventory Record of AllDistrict-owned Sites and Facidities Annually . 48

Indicator 2.2.6.3.1 with no errors 48

Objective 2.2.7.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Identify and List for the Purpose of Bonding,All School Personnel Who Handle District Monies . 48

48Indicator 2.2.7.1.1 with no mistakes

Objective 2.2.8.1 The Financial Affairs Department49Will Select Depositories so That

Indicator 2.2.8.1.1 the depositorie's fixed assetsdo not exceed 50 percent of capital funds . . 49

Section Page

Indicator 2.2.8.1.2 each has at least $100,000 indeposits 49

Objective 2.2.9.1 The Financial Affairs D4lartmentWill Maintain an Extra Classroom Fund . . .. 49

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND ELRFORMANCE INDICATORSTATEMENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT . . . 49

Objective 2.3.1.1 The Transportation Department W111Develop a Home-sehool, School-home, Student Trans-portation System Which Requires the Shortest Numberof Total Mlles Travelled as Compared withAlternative Systems 49

Iladicator 2.3.1.1.1 as measured by a minimum numberof bus miles expended in all routes as opposed toany other organization of routes 53

Indicator 2.3.1.1.2 as measured by a minimum numberof student bus miles expended in all routes asopposed to any other organization of routes 53

Objective 2.3.1.2 The Transpo7:tation Department WillDeliver Daily All Eligible Secondary Bus Studentstc Their Designated School _ 53

Indicator 2.3.1.2.1 no earlier than 30 minutes beforestarting time and pick up students no later than 30minutes after dismissal with 90 percent effectiveness. . 53

Objective 2.3.1.3 The Transportation Department WillDeliver Daily All Eligible Elementary Bus Studentsto Their Designated School 53

Indicator 2.3.1.3.1 no earlier than 15 minutes beforestarting time and pick up students no later than 5minutes after dismissal with 90 percenteffectiveness 54

Objective 2.3.2.1 The Transportation Department WillConduct an Effective and Accurate Monthly MechanicInspection of all District Transportation Vehicles . 54

Indicator 2.3.2.1.1 as evidenced by the maintenanceof an average of no less than 45,000 miles pervehicle fleet breakdown due to failure of inspectedcomponents ......

Objective 2.3.2.2 The Transportation Department WillEmploy Personnel For Vehicle Inspections and Main-tenance.Which are Adequate Both in Number and Skill .

54

54

Section Page

Indicator 2.3.2.2.1 asevidenced by the completionof all monthly scheduled bus inspections 54

Indicator 2.3.2.2.2 as evidenced by the certificationfor operation of no less than 90 percent of thetotal transportation fleet 55

Objective 2.3.3.1 The Transportation Department WillPublish Clear, Understandable, and UncomplicatedBus Route Information at Least One Week Prior tothe Start of the School Year . . . .. = 55

Indicator 2.3.3.1.1 so that requests for such routeinformation equals less than 5 percent of thestudent population following the publication ofsaid document . . .. . ... . .. 55

Objective 2.3.3.2 The Transportation Department WillConstruct, Update, and Forward to the FinancialAfffairs Department Five-year Long-range Plans . . . 55

Indicator 2.3.3.2.1 two months prior to the initialpresentation of the yearly budget to the boardof education . ....... . . .. 55

Objective 2.3.3.3 The Transportation Department WillConstruct Bus Routes for the Transportation of all

Eligible Bus Students to and from School 56

Indicator 2.3.3.3.1 with no exceptions . .. . 56

Indicator 2.3.3.3.2 which will allow no student toride on a bus one way for more than 35 minutes 56

Objective 2.3.4.1 The Transportation Department WillConduct an Inservice Training Program for Bus Drivers

Designed to (1) Achieve Drr Compliance with Districtand State Vehicle Operator Policies; (2) Decrease BusAccidents Due to Driver Error; and (3) Reduce Patron

Complaints Regarding Driver Policies and Practices 56

Indicator 2.3.4.1.1 as evidenced by 90 percent of the

total number of drivers in the district complyingwith the vehicle operator policies as enumerated by

the district and state agencies . . 57

Indicator 2.3.4.1.2 as evidenced by the maintenance of

no less than 45,000 miles per chargeable bus

accident due to driver error 57

Indicator 2.3.4.1.3 as evidenced by valid complathtsequalling no more than 1 percent of eligiblestudent bus population . . . 57

Section Page

Objective 2.3.5.1 The Transportation Department WillTransport Student and Faculty Members Safely,Economically and Timely on Trips Scheduled toSelected Destinations 57

Indicator 2.3.5.1.1 maintaining an average of no lessthan 45,000 miles per chargeable accident 57

Indicator 2.3.5.1.2 keeping expenditures within thebudgetary limits 57

Indicator 2.3.5.1.3 maintaining a 95 percent accuracyresponse to requested pick-up and delivery times . 58

JUROR RESPONFES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORSTATEMENTS FOR THE FOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT 58

Objective 2.4.1.1 The Food Services Department WillContinuously Operate All Cafeterias in ComplianceWith All District, State, and Federal HealthRegulations 58

Indicator 2.4.1.1.1 as measured by no more than oneirregularity cited in the mpnthly health inspectionsconducted by the state or local agency . 58

Objective 2.4.1.2 The Food Services Department WillServe Palatable Type "A" Lunches Taking IntoConsideration Student Taste Preference 61

Indicator 2.4.1.2.1 with no more than 10 percent ofthe eatable weight of the lunch returned uneaten . 61

Objective 2.4.1.3 The Food Services Department WillOperate the Cafeterias so that the Number ofParticipants in the Lunch Program Will IncreaseYearly 61

Objective 2.4.1.4 The Food Services Department WillConstruct, Update, and Forward to the FinancialAffairs Department a Five-Year Plan of IdentifyingMajor Equipment Needs on a Year-By-Year Schedule . 61

Indicator 2.4.1.4.1 two months prior to the initialpresentation of the yearly budget to the board of

education 61

Objective 2.4.2.1 The Food Services Department WillPurchase Food Supplies in Advance . . . 62

Indicator 2.4.2.1.1 so that no scheduled menu will be62unable to be prepared

Section Page

Objective 2.4.3.1 The Food Services Department WillServe Low Cost Type "A" Lunches . . . . . 62

Indicator 2.4.3.1.1 with a food cost per lunch ofat least 55 percent of the sale price 62

Objective 2.4.4.1 The Food Services Department WillPlan Menus That Meet the Legal Nutritional Requirementsand Take Into Account Student Preference of Taste . . 62

Indicator 2.4.4.1.1 as measured by no discrepanciesfrom the established nutritional requirements asidentified by the federal agency 62

Indicator 2.4.4.1.2 as measured by no more than 10percent of the eatable weight returned uneaten 6

CONCLUSIONS 63

Business services division 63

Buildings and grounds department 64

Financial affairs department 64

Transportation department . . . 67

Food services department 68

DISCUSSION 69

REFERENCES .. 72

BIBLIOGRAPHY 76

APPENDIX A 32

APPENDIX B 84

APPENDIX C 88

APPENDIX D . .. . .. . . , . .. . 93

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Percent and Response Level Necessary for Objectiveand Indicator Validation at the .05 Level

Page

22

2. Juror Responses to Objective and PerformanceIndicator Statements for the BusinessServices Division . . .... .. .... 24

3. Juror Responses to the Objective and PerformanceIndicator Statements for the Buildings andGrounds Department .

4. Juror Responses to the Objective and PerformanceIndicator Statements for the Financial AffairsDepartment . . .

29

36

5. Juror Responses to the Objective and PerformanceIndicator Statements for the TransportationDeparment 50

Juror Responses for the Objective and PerformanceIndicator Statements for the Food ServicesDepartment ........ . . = 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. A Systems Model for Decision-Making

2. School Business Services Organization

Page

5

17

SUNIALRY

kgrws&LsdLiJmLJLLEAolz

The primary purpose of this study was to develop exemplaryobjectives and performance indicators for the business component of aschool district for use in educational program budgeting. The secondarypurpose of the study was to develop a model to aid practitioners in stat-ing the objectives and performance indicators for the business componentof a school district.

Research Methods

The study utilized a jury of experts to validate objective andperformance indicator statements indicative of the desired conditions ofthe business services of a school district. The study drew upon thesystems model developed by Brissey related to the decision-making process.This model, combined with the extensive PPBS work of Eiden and Nagel ofthe Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, servedas the background for the study.

The study utilized a jury comprised of individuals suggested byfour recognized PIT experts: Dr. Frank Banghart of Florida StateUniversity, Dr. Harry Hai-tley of New York University, Dr. William Curtisof the Association of School Business Officials, and Dr. David Novick ofthe RAND Corporation. A list of twenty-two potential jurors was developedfrom the suggestions of the above experts. The jurors were suggestedbased upon the following criteria:

1. Each nominee was to have a working knowledge of PPBS or somcsimilar approach to the rational alloCation of scarce resources.

2. Each nominee was to have prior knowledge of the workings ofthe business services within a school district.

3. Each nominee was to be familiar with objectives stated inbehavioral terms and techniques employed in measuring the accomplishmentof behavioral objectives.

The tentative objective and performance indicator statementswere generated from a review of the literature dealing with (1) planning-programming-budgeting systems, (2) behavioral objectives, and (3) thebusiness component of a school district. The objectives and performanceindicators developed were grouped under five organizational headings:(1) the business services division, (2) the buildings and groundsdepartment, (3) the financial affairs department, (4) the transportationdepartment, and (5) the food services department. Initial objectiveswere developed and revised based upon suggestions from persons assignedto the Bureau of Educational Research, University of Denver, and a pilotjury of practitioners. Fifty objectives and eighty-one associatedperformance indicators were presented to the jury for validation.

1

Jurors were encouraged to make comments concerning the objectives

and performance indicators. They were also provided the opportunity to

suggest a more appropriate level of performance than the level stated in

the indicator. Modifications to the objective and performance indicator

statements were made based upon the juror suggestions and comments.

Results

Fifty tentative objective statements were developed and presented

to the jury. Of those fifty objectives, forty-five were validated.

A total of eighty-one indicators were developed in association

with the fifty objectives. Eight indicators were related to the non-

validated objectives. Of the remaining seventy-three indicators, eixty-

two were validated.

Conclusions

The objectives that were validated along with their validated

performance indicators were concluded to be exemplary of the tasks

normally associated with the business division of pthlic schools. The

validated objective and performance ind3eator statements were also con-

cluded to be representative ef a model designed to allow the business

component to initiate the collectinn of data descriptive of the actual

state of the system. Comparison of the data on the actual state of the

system with the desired state will set the stage for the detection of

discrepancies and resultant long-range plans.

Recommendations

Recommendations generated as a result of the study were as

follows:

1. School districts should enter into some form of a PPE system.

In so doing, districts are encouraged to view the business services

component as a separate programmatical effort.

2. School districts should use the exemplary objectives and

indicators herein presented fully intending to modify the levels of

performance in accordance with district policies and historical data.

3. School districts should utilize the exemplary objectives and

indicators as a basis far establishing an open dialogue for the promotion

of congruent opinion regarding objectives and respective responsibilities

of individuals.

4. School districts who are contemplating writing behavioral

objectives for the business area utilize the general fOrmat developed in

this study.

5. A similar study should be undertaken to identify the composi-

tion, for the administrative component of a school district.

6. An additional study should be made in which the validatedobjectives and performance indicators from this study would b- placed insome sort of a priority list for the analysis of alternativeL stage.

INTRODUCTION

During the 1960's public education has been hampered by insuffi-cient funds to meet those objectives demanded of it by the society itserves Actions of the public in response to school requests for morerevenue have been unfavorable. In order to turn the tide of publicopinion to a more favorable position, school administrators have soughtnew approaches to the entire decision-making process. In 1969 theAmerican Association of School Administrators' Commission on Administra-tive Technology submitted a report that was the product of four years ofstudy. The purpose of that report was "to identify recent developmentsin administrative technology in other fields, determine the feasibilityof adapting what has been successful elsewhere to school administration,and facilitate dissemination of concepts of the new administrative tech-nology that are pertinent to the profession."1 The conclusions drawn

by the commission included the following:

Whatever the type of technology and whatever the area to whichit is applied, certain demands are placed upon the would-be-user.Where it is to be used to enhance organizational decision-making,the technology may require the administrator to produce a moreprecise defin'tion or clarification of objectives in operationalterms . . .

PPBS, one of the most significant new approaches to planning, hasrequired the decision-maker to (1) define goals and objectives and setpriorities in view of available data or information . , and (2) grouporganizational processes into sets of activities or programs which canbe defined kn terms of the goals and objectives stated and the prioritiesset . In this framework PPBS was thought of as a rational,systematic, out-put oriented, and data-based tool for educational planning.Eidell indicated that the planning process was a product of the detpctionof discrepancies between the actual and desired states of a system.

1Stephen 3. Knezevich (ed.), Administrative Technology and the

School_Executive, a report submitted by the AASA Commission on Adminis-trative Technology (Washingtoll The Association, 1969), p. 7.

2Knezevich Administrative TerhnoloRV p. 22.

3Terry L. Eidell and John M. Nagle, PPBS and Data-Based Educe-tional_ Planning (Eugene, University of Oregon: Center for the AdvancedStudy of Educational Administration, 1970), p. 3.

4Eidell, p. 24.

Eidell used the heuristic systems-model developed by Brissey and others5

as the framework for gatherincs data for the planning process. The model,depicted in Figure 1, indicated the need for the collection of data ofboth the actual and desired states of a system. The process of determin-ing the desired state of a system was described as follows:

District personnel identify and refine the complete set ofeducational philosophies, goals, and objectives which either do nowor should in the future guide all activities and/or programs in thedistrict Moreoever, this set is expected to be disaggregatedto the level of objectives which are capable of measurement_ dnd statedbehaviorally and which, therefore, indicate explicitly the desiredout-puts cf the school district.6

It was indicated by Alkin and Bruno that the chief impediment to theapplication of PPBS to education was the lack of progress toward preciselystated objectives of the educational system.7

It therefore seemed appropriate that a study should be conductedin which precisely stated objectives would be developed. It also seemedappropriate that the objectives developed should be compatible with thePPBS format and philosophy.

Through a preliminary search the literature and discussionswith educators, it was ascertained thz,- extensive work had been accom-plished in the area of instructional 06_ ctives. These objectives werecompatible with the PPBS philosophy. Fu lermore, it was determinedthrough the discussions that no objectiv, had been developed for thebusiness component of a school district tf_t were usable in the PPBSformat. This seemed illogical in that me times the business divisionwas given the responsibility of implementi-s and supervising the PPBsystems. Further discussions with local scuonl district personnelinvolved in the business area indicated a need for the development ofsuch objectives. At a presentation related to PPBS, a representative ofthe accounting firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell ad Company stated thatthe development of precise objectives for th._ ousiness area would be

5F. L. Brissey, F. R. Fosmire, and R. J. Hill, Technology Report:Priblems Problem-Solvin and Human Communication, A Laboratory Approach(Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1969),pp. 10-18.

6Eidell, p. 37.

7Mhrvin C. Alkin and James E. Bruno, "Systems Approaches toEducational Planning," Social and Technolo ical_Chan e- 1m licationsfor Education (Eugene: University of Oregon Press, 1970), .p. 213.

4

Figure 1

A Systems Model for Decision-Making*

rDesignative:

Data providing

information on .

the actual state

or condition.

Appraisive:

Data providing

information on

the desired state

or condition.

Detection:

What discrepancy

exists between what

is and what is de-

sired?

Prescription:

Order for action

to reduce the

detected dis-

crepancy.

*Brissey, p. 11

much more difficult than the instructional area. The rationale for this

was that no business objectives appropriate for modification were avail-

able.

For :hese reasons it was decided that the study would focus uponthe development of objectives for the business component of a schooldistrict for use in a PPB system. Moreover, Lt was ,cided that theobjectives developed would indicate generally accept ole techniques of

criterion measurement and, where possible, appropriate expected levels of

system attainment.

Purpose Of the_Study

The primary purpose of this study was to develop exemplary objec-tives and performance indicators for the business component of a schooldistrict for use in educational program budgeting. The secondary purposeof the study was to develop a model to aid practitioners in stating the

objectives and performance indicators for the business component of a

school district.

Re' ew of Related Literature

The review of literature served three major purposes: (1) to

identify the relative position and importance of objectives and performanceindicators within the PPBS concept, (2) to establish a framework for stat-ing the objecti,-es and performance indicators, and (3) to establish abackground within the business component from which the objective andperformance indicator statements would be generated. In keeping with theabove stated purposes, the literature was gathered into three topic areas:(1) planning-programming-budgeting systems, (2) behavioral objectives, and(3) the business component of a school district.

Planning.-programming-budgetinR systems. The development of PPBsystems over the last fifty years can be traced to three separate sources:(1) business, (2) the federal government, and (3) the evolution of budgetreform.8 Although the source of the present conceptualization of PPBSwas rooted in separate sectors of the economy, the impetus for develop-ment was consistent. The drive for an adequate system to relate thebudget to program accomplishments in output terms lurked behind eachsequential advance in budget structure. Schick explained this movement bystating that "budgeting has always been cL'ceived as a process forsystematically relating the expenditures of funds to the accomplishmentof planned objectives."9 Schick explained that every budgetary system

8George A. Chambers, "PPBS-New Challenges and Opportunities forthe Principal in Management," North Central Association Quarterly, Spring,1968, p. 302.

9Allen Schick, "The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform,"Planing_gz_z_,y&pPromminBudetin-ASstemsroachtoManacrement, Pl.Fremont J. Lyden and Earnest G. Miller (Chicago: Markham Publishing Cc-1967), p. 26-52.

comprises the processes of strategic planning, management control, andoperational control. The characterization of a budgetary system can bedescribed as the emphasis or orientation toward one process at the expenseof the others. Chambers echoed Schick's explanation observing that thefirst stage of budget development emphasized central control over spend-ing and objects of expenditure. A second state emphasized efficienty inperformance of work and prescribed activities. PPBS, as the third stage,emphasized long-range planning through systems analys s seeking tomeasure future costs.

Schick expanded this observation and described the three distinctstages of budget reform.1° The first stage had an emphasis on developingan adequate system of expenditure control. In this stage expenditureclassifications were based on objects of expenditures. It was known ineducation as the line item budget.

The second stage in budget reform was the movement toward per-formance budgeting. This form of budgeting featured a move to managementorientation and an attendant concern for work-efficiency. Schick statedthat performance budgeting derived its ethos and much of its techniquefrom cost accounting and scientific management.

The third state of budget reform with its emphasis on strategicplanning was operationally stated by Arthur Smithies: "expenditureproposals should be considered in the light of the objectives they areintended to further and, in general, final expenditure decisions shouldnot he made until all claims on the budget can be considered."11 Schickstated that PPBS was the application of Smithies' suggestion.

Research relevant to educational PPBS is scarce and inconclusive.Kiser pointed out that "accurate knowledge about the actual benefitsthat will accrue to school districts which ado . PPBS can only, at thepresent, be surmised. u12 Kiser indicated that it may take as long asthree to five years for projects such as the one he is associated with tocomplete the development and testing of PPBS models and to analyze theresults. Research projects such as (1) Project MID, the ResearchCorporation of the Association of School Business Officials, (2) Project5001, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration,

10Schick, pp. 26-

11Arthur Smithies, The_BudRetary Process_in the United States(NOW York: McGraw-Hill Publishers, 1955), p. 16.

12Chester Kiser and others (ed.), An Operational Model for theAoplieation -f Planning7Programming-Budget_ing Svstems_in Local SchoolDistricts (Williamsville, New York: The Western Hew York SchoolDevelopment Council, 1970), p. 5.

7

(3) the State of California project, (4) the Governmental Studies Center,

Fels Institute of Local and State Government, and (5) the Western New YorkSchool Development Council Project have been developed to determine the

feasability and actual benefits of a PPB system.

The projects were found to be pointed toward four general purposeswith regard to PPBS: (1) to conceptualize, (2) to test, (3) to dissemi-nate and develop awareness, and (4) to disseminate and develop competence.Concentration of project endeavors were found to be spread among the

following content areas: (1) a model or design for PPBS, (2) the opera-tional elements of PPBS, and (3) the strategies for implementing PPBS.

It was found that all of the projects placed heavy dependence upon

the construction of objectives in the development of their individual

systems approaches. This orientation was found to be logical in that,according to Alkin and Bruno, the basic elements of any systems approach

in general and PPBS in particular were: (1) the okiectives, (2) thealternatives, (3) the costs, (4) the model (or models), and (5) the

decision rule.13 This conceptualization of the elements of a PPB system

was in keeping with the definition of a PPB system offered by Mushkin ho

stated that a PPB system was "an integrated system to provide executives(and decision-makers) with better and more information for planning pro-grams and for making choi.ces among the optional ways funds can be devoted

to achieve obje;tives."14 Alkin and Bruno pointed out that the first

step in PPBS is the selection of objectives. They further stated that"since these objectives must be couched in terms of output, and since

they must be capable of evaluation, we are forced to state them in measure-

able and quantifiable terms. "15 Eidell indicated the needed specificityof objectives when he stated that "this set (of desired goals and objec-

tives) is expected to be disaggregated to the level of objectives which

are capable of measurement and stated behaviorally and which, therefore,indicate explicitly the desired outputs of the school distriot.u16

13Marvin C. Alkin and James E. Bruno, "Systems Approaches toEducational Planning," Social and Technolo ica Chan e Ilications forEducation (Eugene: University of Oregon Pr ss, 1970), p. 193.

14Selma J. Mushkin and James R. Cleaveland, "Planning for Educa-tional Development in a Planning, Programming, Budgeting System,"

Proceedin s of the Eleventh National Conference on School Finance (Dallas,

1968), p. 60-61.

15Alkin and Bruno, p 213.

16Eidell and Nagel, PPBS apd . . , p. 37.

8

Behavioral objectives. Behavioral objectives have been advocatedfor half a century. Tyler's writings during the 1920's and 1930'sexhibited continuous concern toward the preparing of precise educationalobjectives. Writing in 1934 he stated:

The problems are usually involved in formulating the objectivesof a particular course. One is to get a list of objectives whichis reasonably complete; that is, which includes all of the importantobjectives to be reached. The other is to state the objectives insuch clear and definite terms that they can serve as guides in themaking of the examination questions. Many statements of objectivesare so vague and nebulous that, although they may sound well, theyprove to be glittering generalities which are of little value asguides in teaching and useless in making examinations.17

According to Lindvall, the many textbooks on testing and evalua-tion that have been written during the past three decades have quiteuniformly placed a major emphasis upon the importance of specifyingobjectives and have offered rather detailed suggestions for writing suchstatements.18 Lindvall summarized these suggestions or crit(ria in thefollowing two points:

1. Statements of specified objectives should be worded in termsof the pupil. When plans are being made for evaluation, the concerncannot be for what the teacher has done in the way of lecturing,demonstrating, or other means of providing instruction. The evalua-tion of achievement is carried out by determining what the pupilsdo. As a result, objectives must be pupil-centered.

2. Statements of s ecific ob ectives must include the exactbehavior that the PuPil is expected to exhibit. Since evaluationmust be based on pupil performance, it can be planned and carriedout with any degree of validity only if one knows exactly what thepupil should be able to do. This behavior that he will be able toexhibit may be a display of verbal knowledge and abilities such aslisting certain facts, reciting given principles, or writing anexplanation of some phenomenon . .

Research concerning the effectiveness of behavioral objectivesas enhancers of individual accomplishment is conflicting. Odiornesummarized the results of studies conducted in the business arena.

17Ralph W. Tyler, Constructing Achievement Tests (Columbus, Ohio:Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1934), p. 16.

1 8C. M. Lindvall (ed.), Definin Educational Ob'ectives(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964), p. 3.

9

He stated that the findings of Metzger (1956), Gerard (1958), and Pelz(1957) showed that scientists who set their own goals are higher producersthan those who don't. Insurance agents, according to a study by Likertand Willets (1940), were less productive when operating independently.Gurin, Veroff, and Feld concluded that participation was really a middle-class value, and grew out of the prior expectations of those being Super-vised. Odiorne reacted to the findings of the research as follows:

The conclusion to be reached is that . . participation ofitself haL no claim to being the core of a new pattern of managingthat will guarantee high productivity if universally adopted bymanagers. There is some evidence, however, that a strong orientationtoward goals, coupled with leader enthusiasm, ample rewards forachieving them, and the uniting of people in moving toward them,does have a beneficial effect.19

Two studies were located which related pupil achievement tobehavioral objectives. The results of the studies were not compatible.The Neal dissertation, "The Value of Including Detailed and ClearlyDefined Specific Objectives in the Instructor Guides Used in the UnitedStates Air Force Reserve Training Program,"2° indicated that the inclus-ion of detailed and clearly defined specific objectives in the La tructor'sguide resulted in significantly greater learning in students as measuredby achievement test results. The Baker dissertation, "The DifferentialEffect of Behavioral and Nonbehavioral Objectives Given to Teachers onthe Achievement of Their Students ,"21 indicated no significant effectupon pupil learning.

Mager has been a champion of behavioral objectives since thepublication of his book Preparing Instructional Objectives in early1960's. In that book Mager indicated three basic steps to the construc-tion of behavioral objectives. They were as follows: "first, identifythe terminal behaviors by name; second, try to define the desiredbehavior further by describing the important conditions under which thebehavior will be expected to occur; third, specify the criteria of

1122acceptable performance. .

19George S. Odiorne, Management by Objectives New York: PitmanPublishing Corporation, 1965), p. 145.

20Philip A. Neal, "The Value of Including Detailed

Defined Specific Objectives in the Instructor Guides Used iStates Air Force Reserve Training Program" (unpublished Doctation, University of Pittsburgh, 1959).

21Eva Lee Baker, "The Differential Effect of Bchavibehavioral Objectives Given to Teachers on the AchievementStudents" (unpublished Doctor's dissert tion, University ofLos Angeles, 1967), p. 65.

22Robert F. Mager, Preparing Instructional Ob ectives (Palo Alto:Fearon Publishers, 1962), p. 12.

and Carefullyn the Unitedtor's disser-

oral and Non-of theirCalifornia,

10

Other authors have indicated similar lists. According toArmstrong the elements necessary to make objectives more precise were:(1) instructional wriable (student, teacher, etc.), (2) instructionalvariable (content, etc.), (3) behavioral variable (cognitive, affective,

or psychomotor), (4) measurement (test or method), (5) time need0 (oneyear, etc.), and (6) proficiency level (grade equivalent, etc.

Grondlund published a pamphlet entitled Stating Behavioral Objec-tives for Classroom Instruction in 1970. The pamphlet emphasized statingobjectives as learning outcomes and defining objectives in terms ofstudent behavior.24 Grondlund also used the Bloom and KrathwohlTaxonomies in his discussion c) the cognitive and affective domains.Although Grondlund called his objectives "instructional," he indicatedthat they (instructional objectives) directed attention to the studentand to the types of behavior he is expected to exhibit. Grondlundbelieved that this type of objective shifted the emphasis from teacher tostudent and from learning process to learning outcomes.

Although Grondlund emphasized the different roles of "general"and "specific" instructional objectives, his guidelines for the construc-tion of the objectives were quite similar. In summarizing, Grondlundsuggested the following procedure for defining instructional objectivesin behavioral terms:

1. State the general instructional objectives as expectedlearning outcomes.

2. Place under each general instructional objective a list ofspecific learning outcomes that describes the terminal behaviorstudents are to demonstrate when they have achieved the objective.

a. Begin each specific learning outcome with a verb thatspecifies definite, observable behavior.

b. List a sufficient number of specific learning outcomesunder each objective to describe adequately the behaviorof students who have achieved the objective.

c. Be certain that the behavior in each specific learningoutcome is relevant to the objective it describes.

3. When defining the general instructional objectives in termsof specific learning outcomes, revise and refine the original listof objectives as needed.

4. Be careful not to omit complex objectives (e.g., criticalthinking, appreciation) simply because they are difficult to definein specific behavioral terms.

5. Consult reference materials for help in identifying thespecific types of behavior that are most appropriate for definingthe complex objectives.25

23Robert J. Armstrong, and others editors) Developing and Writing

Behavioral Ob'ectives (Tuscon: Educational Innovators Press, 1970), p. 52.

24Norman E. Grondiund, Statin Behav'oral Ob ectives for Classroomnstruction (London: The Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 1.

25-Grondlund, p. 17.

11

Miller, in his pamphlet entitled A Manager's Guide to Ob'ectives,

referred to behavioral objectives as verifiable performance objectives. 6

They were defined as a target action for change that has been specified

using terms which enable change effcrts and achievement to be demonstrated

observed, and/or measured. Verifiable performance objectives were defined

as having four componer"-s. The components were: (1) outcome, (2) ration-

ale, (3) requirements, and (4) criterion. A fifth component, that of

narrative, was also suggested but viewed as not necessary in all cases.

The outcome component was defined as a statement defining the

expected or desired outcome, end and state, result, product, and/or

benefit to be achieved.

The rationale component was defined as a statement that justifies

and/or validates the expected or desired outcome, communicates the intent

of organized effort, provides nn incentive for involvement, and/or

motivates people to participate in the achievement of an objective.

The requirements component was defined as a statement detailing

the requisite conditions predicated by the nature of things, circumstances

or defined purposes.

The criterion component was defined as a statement defining the

standards to be used in measurirg achievement, degree of change, rate of

change, type of change, direction oT Alange, commitment to change, and

other factors in performance.

Kibler, Barker, and Miles, in their book, Behavioral Objectives

and Instruction, drew upon the work of Tyler, Mager, Bloom, Krathwohl,

and others. Kibler made a distinction between the two types of objec-

tives he talked about. One type, the informational objective, only

specified the learner, the observable behavior, and the product. The

planning objective was defined as a more complex objective and, according

to Kibler, should have the following five elements:

1. Who is to perform the desired behavior ( g., "the student"

or the learner").2. The actual behavior to be employed in demonstrating mastery

of the objective (e.g., "to write" or "to speak").

3. The result (i.e., the product or performance) of the behavior,

which will be evaluated to determine whether the objective is

mastered (e.g., "an essay" or "the speech).

4. The relevant conditions under which the behavior is to be

performed (e.g., "in a one-hour quiz) or "in front of the class"

26Donald R. M ller and others, A Manager's Guide to Objectivea

(San Mateo: Operation PEP, A state-wide project to prepare educational

planners for California, October, 1969), p. 13.

12

5. The standard which 141_11 be used to evaluate the success of

the product or performance (e.g., ")0 percent correct" or "four

out of five correct").27

Most authors describe the development of objectives within the PPB

framework as the product of communication. Knezevich pointed out in a

paper pi-epared for an AASA clinic on PPBS that the planning phase of PPB

draws attention to the goals of the organization. Furthermore, Knezevich

stated that PPBS is designed to attain a hierarchy of objectives within

certain time constraints.28 The California plan emphasized the develop-

ment of goals and objectives through the involvement of the public at

large as well as the professional staff.29 The California plan defined

the professional staff as teachers, department heads, principals, and

central office personnel. Lopez, in an article entitled "Accountabilityin Education," commented that what is known as PPBS in government is

known as "Management by Objectives" in private industry.30 This state-

ment was made with reference to the process of goal and objective setting

within an organization. Lopez described the goal and objective setting

process within an organi-ation as follows:

In its most commonly accepted form, "Manage-lent by Objectives"constitutes an orderly way of goal setting at the top, communication

of these goals to lower-unit managers, the development of lower-unit

goals that are phased into those set by the higher levels, and

comparison of results in terms of goals. The program operates within

a network of consultative interviews between supervisor and sub-

ordinate in which the subordinate receives ample opportunity to

participate in the establishment of his own performance objectives.

Thus, the whole concept is oriented to a value system based upon the

results achieved; and the results must be concrete and measureable.31

27Robert J. Kibler, Larry L. Barker, and David T. Miles, Behavioral

Objectives and Instruction (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970), p.

28Steven J. Knezevich, "ProbingDimensions of PPBS" (paper presented atBudgeting (PPBS), a Resource Allocationat Miami, Florida, December 1-5, 1969),

29Conceptual Design for a Planning. lmaEffrin_irlg_i_k.IIIKEugSystem for California School Districts (Sacramento: California State

Department of Education, 1969), p. 5.

30Felix W. Lopez, "Accountability in Education," Phi Delta Kaopan,

December, 1970, p. 232.

the Planning and Programmingthe AASA clinic on ProgramDecision System for Education,p 3.

31Lopez, p 232.

13

George S. Odiorne, in his book Management by Objectives, defined

his system as a process whereby superior and subordinates of an organiza-

tion jointly identify common goals, define each individual's major areas of

responsibility in terms of results expected, guide the work toward the

accomplishment of the expected results, and assess the contribution of each

member.32

The word performance indicator came to the attention of this author

as he read Hartley's book on PPB systems. In that book, Hartley indicated

that performance indicators are standards of measurement that indicate

system (or program) performance.33 Dyer explained that the idea behind

the development of educational performance indicators was:

. to achieve a method of measuring the performance of

educational systems in a way that is easily interpretable by educators

and educational policy makers and at the same time avoids, as far as

possible, assumptions that cannot be empirically supported . .

To depict how a system is performing, we require a matrix of perfor-

mance indices (time dimensions, changes in cognitive development,attitudinal development, interpersonal behavior, etc.) .34

Mushkin, while directing the State-Local Finances Project at the

George Washington University, wrote a paper concerning output measures

for a multi-year program. In that paper, Mushkin indicated that there

were three principal types of indicators: (1) volume, (2) quality, and

(3) comparative. They were defined as follows:

(1) Volume Indicators: These indicators display the quantity of

services in terms of number of public consumers or beneficiaries such

as number of persons assisted, or in terms of the volume of public

goods provided such as gallons water, ship berth facilities. In

some instances the indicator takes account of the span of time during

a yearly period, in others it does not.

(2) Quality Indicators: Quality of a public service may bemeasured in terms of its characteristics, its duration, its content,

or the extent or degree to which it serves its purposes.

(3) Comparative Indicators: Indicators of quantity of publicservices may be designed to show the volumc of services in relation

32 Odiorne, pp. 55-56.

33Harry J. Hartley, Educational Planning-Programming-Budgeting: A

Systems Aparoach (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 167.

34Henry S. Dyer, "The Concept of Utility of Educational PerformanceIndicators" (paper presented at the Systems Science and Cybernetics

Conference, October, 1967, Boston, Massachusetts), pp. 6 and 9.

(Mimeographed).

14

to population, area, or some more specific measure of potentialscope or of program need.35

Mushkin also emphasized the desire for simple indicators so asto avoid ovcrburdening and confusing the user.36

Business services. Although the history of the business servicescomponent of a school district was somewhat clouded, its existence as aprofession was traced back to 1841. Hill and Colmey offered a descriptionof the business administrator. They indicated that the role of thebusiness administrator was one of being a member of the top team in schoolmanagement whose workers understood the prime goals of education, andwhose efforts were directed toward maintaining and improving educationalopportunity, providing the necessary funds, facilities and servicesrequired to make such educational opportunities available, and obtainingand developing the necessary non-instructional staff and community inter-relationships as were required to make such educational opportunitiespossible.37

A status study was conducted by the Association of SchoolBusiness Officials' Committee on Professionalization during 1968. Threethousand six hundred nineteen questionnaires were mailed out to ASBOmembers and 1,568 useable questionnaires were returned. Of those question-naires, 1,478 were from merabers employed in public school districts. Thestudy revealed that the most commonly held responsibility of schoolbusiness administrators was financial planning; the least common responsi-bility was data processing.38 Acrording to the survey, the membersresponding had responsibility for the following tasks in rank order: (1)

financial planning, (2) reporting, (3) accounting, (4) auditing, (5)supply management, (6) office management, (7) relationship to instruc-tional staff, (8) plant and equipment manager, (9) insurance, (10) costanalysis, (11) supeevision of non-instructional employees, (12) personnelmanagement records, (13) transportation, (14) school lunch, and (15) debtservize. All of the above tasks mentioned were done by at least 7 out ofevery 10 of the 1,478 public school business administrators that responded.

In the School Business_Administrator, Bulletin No. 21 (Revised),Hill diagrammed a typical organization illustrating the school

35Selma J. Mushkiu, "PPB Note 7:Program and Financial Plan" (Washington:1967), pp. 9 and 14.

36Mushkin, p. 14.

Output Measures for a Multi-YearThe George Washington University,

37Frederick W. Hill and James W. Colmey, School BusinessAdministration in the Smaller Communit (Minneapolis: T. S. Denison & Co.,Inc. 1964), p. 17.

3 8Richard E. Shands, "Position and Status of School BusinessAdministrator," School Business Affairs, November, 1970, p. 275.

15

business chain of command.39 As can be observed from Figure 2 Hilldivided the business component into five separate areas: _(1) buildings

and grounds, (2) financial affairs, (3) transportation, (4) school lunch,

and (5) non-certified personnel.

Other organizational schematics were researched by Stemnoek. The

study, entitled Structuring theAdministrative 2EgaRization of Local School

Systems, was developed from material drawn from widely used texts in busi-

ness and industrial management as well as examples of actual organizationalcharts representing central office structures in effect during 1969.41

The fifteen organizational charts displayed represented districts having

a K-12 enrollment of from'2,364 students to 583,000 students. An observa-

tion of those organizations revealed that only three of the fifteenorganizational charts placed responsibility for personnel administration

under the business services division. The other areas listed by Hill were

observed in the organizational charts as follows: (1) the buildings andgrounds area--12 out of the 15, (2) the fiscal affairs area--15 out of the

15, (3) the transportation area--9 out of the 15, and (4) the food services

area--12 out of the 15.

LihnDltaiggY

From the review of literature, insight developed by the researcher,

and the researcher's past experience a series of objectives and performance

indicators were generated. The initial objective statements which weregenerated were submitted to the project director, persons assigned to the

Bureau of Educational Research at the University of Denver, and to a pilot

jury of local practitioners (see Appendix A). These people offered sugges-

tions regarding the appropriateness of the objective statements as well as

suggestions regarding the refinement of the statements. This step helped

provide proper form, clarity, content, and semantic meaning to the state-

ments in the rating instrument. Of the eighty-five initial objectivesdeveloped, fifty were placed into the rating instrument.

Categories in the rating instrument. The tentative objectivestatements placed into the rating instrument were grouped according to the

findings of the review of literature concerning typical business-services

organizations. Confusion as to the placement of personnel services within

a school district organization resulted in that category being eliminatedfrom the final hypothetical district organization utilized in the study.

39Frederick W. Hill, "The Relationship of the School BusinessOperation to Other Areas of the Educational Organization," The SchoolBusiness AdminIptrator, Bulletin, No. 12, 1970, p. 35.

41Suzanne K. Stemnock, Structuri ie administrative Orranizationof Local Schooj. S stems, Circulars of the Educational Research Service,

No. 2 (Washington D.C.: American Association of School Administrators and

National Education Association Research Division, 1970), pp. 14-43.

16

Figure 2,

School. Business Services, Organization9

1 Business Services Division Administratc717:1

Supervisor or

Supervisor or

Director of

Director of

Buildings and

Financial

Grounds

Affairs

Operation of

audgeting

Plant.

Department

Maintenance of

Accounting

Plant

Department

Plant Planning

Reporting

& Construction

Community Usage

of Schools

Architectural

Service

Payrolls

Purchasing

Inventory &

Stores

Insurance.

Investment &

Capital Fund

Management

Extra Classroot

Funds

Supervisor or

Director of

Transportation

Operation

Maintenance of

Vehicles

Scheduling &

Policies

Driver

Training

Extra Curricular

& Field Trip

Usage

Supervisor or

Supervisor or

Director of

Director of

School Lunch

Non-Certified

Service.

Personnel

Operation of

Clerical

Cafeterias

Job Training

Food Purchasing

Menu Planning

Related Nutri-

tion Educa-

tion

Teen Age

Canteens

Extra Curricula

Food Services

at Games, etc.

40Hill, p. 39

Personncl

Policies

Objectives and performance indicators were developed for the division of

business services and the following departments: (1) buildings and

grounds, (2) financial affairs, (3) transportation, and (4) food services.

Objective and kuformance indicator form. The objectives and

performanee indicators were constructed according to the general model

developed from the findings of the review of literature concerning

behavioral objectives. That form, fully developed, indicated six compon-

ents:1. Rationale (why)2. Performer (who)

3. Conditions (time, place, etc.

4. Performance (what)

5. Criteriaa. quantity (extent)

b. quality (how well)

6. Method of Measurement

In applying the general model to the business area, the terminology

was modified from an individual student to an organizational identification

orientation. As a result, the performer was identified as the business

services division or a department within that division and appeared as

the subject of the objective statement.

In order to insure that no objective or performance indicator

was eliminated from consideration because of peripheral details unique to

individual districts, the rationale and conditions components were elimi-

nated. Therefore, the objectives placed into the rating instrument

contained only four components. They were: (1) the performer, (2) the

performance, (3) the method of measurement, and (4) the criteria.

Format of the rating instrument. The rating instrument was

developed from the information gained in part through the review of

literature. The instrument was divided into two sections: (1) an intro-

ductory section, and (2) the tentative objective and performance indicator

statements.

The introductory section laid the foundation for the objective and

performance indicator statements that had been developed. A brief

rationale for the study was presented. In that rationale it was explained

that the efforts of the business services component of a school district

were assumed to be a separate programmatical effort within a PPB system.

This being the case, the next topic discussed in the introductory

section related to the establishment of an organizational framework for

the business services division. The organizational structure utilized

in the study was displayed, and it was pointed out that the structure was

representative of the many duties commonly carried out by school business

divisions. They were (1) buildings and grounds, (2) financial affairs,

(3) transportation, and (4) food services.

A brief discussion on the constructional aspects of behavioral

objectives was included in the introductory section. The objective

statements developed contained four components for juror consideration:

18

(1) the performer, (2) the performance, the method of measurement,and (4) the criteria.

The introductory section was concluded with a brief discussionabout the desired outcome of the study. The jurors were informed thatthe purposes of the study were to (1) develop exemplary objectives andperformance indicators for the business component of a school district,and (2) to establiLh a model for stating the objectives and performanceindicators in the business area.

The objective statements were developed based upon the dutiesascribed to the business services division. Each objective statement wasseparated into two parts: (1) the objective, and (2) the performanceindicator. Jurors were also provided space to comment on each objectiveor performance indicator.

1. Objectives were developed for che following organizationalentities: (1) the business services division, (2) the buildings andgrounds department, (3) the financial affairs department, (4) the trans-portation department, and (5) the food services department. Tasksperformed by the organizational units were also identified. The objec-tives constructed were designed to relate the unit to the specified task.Therefore, in terms of the general objectives model, the performer andperformance was identified in the objective.

2. A minimum of one performance indicator was developed for eachstated objective. In some cases as many as three performance indicatorswere developed for an individual objective. In all, eighty-one indicatorswere developed for the fifty objectives. The performance indicatorswere designed to state an acceptable level of organizational performanceas well as the method to be used in measuring the performance. In termsof the general model for the constructioe of behavioral objectives, theperformance indicators represented the comeenonts of the method ofmeasurement and the criterion level for accomplishment.

3. Jurors were encouraged to state their reactions to theobjective and performance indicator statements. To this end a commentsbox was placed on each page that contained objective and performanceindicator statements.

Distribution of the rating instrument. The use of a jury ofexperts to validate the objective and performance indicator statementswas determined at the beginning of the project. To that end earlyprocedures provided for the selection of jury members. After the selec-tion of jurors was accomplished, procedures promoting the speedy trans-portation of the document to and from the jurors were developed. Thissection described the activities that brought about (1) the identificationof the jury members, and (2) the return of the completed instrument tothe researcher.

Through a preliminary review of the literature and discussionswith the project director of this study, four experts in the field ofPPB systems were identified. They were (1) Dr. Prank Banghart, Director

19

of the Educational Systems and Planning Center at Florida State University;(2) Dr. William Curtis, Research Project Director, Research Corporationof the Association of School Business Officials (RCASB0); (3) Dr. HarryHarticy, Associate Dean of the School of Education at New York University:and (A) Dr. David Novick, Director of the Cost Analysis Department atRAND Corporation. These four experts were asked to suggest six to eightindividuals who might serve as jurors.

The result of the letter to the above four experts was a potentialjury of twenty-two individuals. A letter was sent to each of the jurorsrequesting their participation in the study. As a result of that letter,twenty-one jurors indicated a desire to be involved in the study (seeAppendix B).

On March 1, 1971,the rating instrumant was mailed to each of thetwenty-one jurors. Enclosed in the envelope with the instrument was aletter summarizing the project, a description of the contents of theinstrument, and the directions for rating the objective and performanceindicator statements. The letter stated that the juror was to return therating instrument in the stamped envelope which was enclosed. Jurorswere also informed that they would receive the results of the study onceall the returns had been analyzed.

On March 23, 1971, a follow-up letter was mailed to the elevenjurors who had not responded. The letter was identical to the initialletter except that the first paragraph indicated that the rating instru-ment had not been received from the individual. A list of the individualswho had agreed to serve as jurors was included in this letter along witha secor. i copy of the instrument.

On April 12, 1971, a second follow-up letter was mailed. Thisletter requested the eight jurors who had not responded to indicatewhether or not they were interested in continuing their responsibilityto the study. On April 19, 1971, phone cells were made to the fivejurors who had not yet responded. Two indicated that they had alreadymailed the instrument, and the other three indicated they would do so inthe near future. All but one juror returned the instrument. Of thetwenty instruments returned, nineteen were useable.

Method of tabulation of the iuror responses. As was pointed outin the directions enclosed in the rating instrument, there were poten-tially three separate areas of juror response: (1) objective ratings,(2) performance indicator ratings, and (3) comments. Accordingly, thepurpose of this section of the chapter was to describe the methodsutilized to tabulate the j.iror responses to the instrument.

Except for Objective 2.0.1.2 of the instrument, the jurorwas offered the opportunity to react to the objective by indicatingappropriate or not appropriate. (On Objective 2.0.1.2 the juror wasoffered the choice of indicating agreement with the objective, butdisagreement with a specified time allotment). Interpretation of thedegree to which a juror response-was an indication of agreement, i.e.,validation of an objective, was determined utilizing the followingformula

*A full expianation of the objective and performance indicator numberingsystem may be found in Appendix C.

ge33

Lappropriate -esponses,.., -ID + 1.64-

where p and q were equal to .5. Therefore, validation of a givenobjective was dependent upon the number of appropriate responses in

relation to the number of total responses.

follows:A sample computation using nineteen total responses was as

appropriate responses>

--I

.5 + 1.64 --\ .5(.51 (19)19

.5 + 1.64 0131-1 (19)

E 1.64 (.1147T1 (19)

.5 + .1877 I (19)

> .6877

13.06

(19)

Therefore, an objective or performance indicator which was rated by allnineteen jurors would have had to have at least fourteen appropriateresponses. Table I denoted the needed level of appropriate responses inrelation to the various total responses.

Jurors were offered the opportunity to react to the performanceindicator statements by indicating appropriate, moderately appropriate,or not appropriate. AB indicated in the directions, a juror who agreedwith the method of measurement, but disagreed with the level of perfor-

mance was instructed to rate the performance indicator moderatelyappropriate. The juror was then instructed to indicate the level ofperformance that would make the performance indicator appropriate.Interpretation of the degree to which the juror responses were anindication of agreement, i.e., validation of a performance indicator,was determined utilizing the same formula that was used for validationof the objectives. Performance indicators that were marked moderately

*See Appendix D for a discussion of the standard error of proportionmethod.

21

Table 1

Percent and Response Level Necessary for

Objective and Indicator Validationat the .05 Level

TotalResponses

Percent of Total ResponsesNeeded for Validation

Number of ResponsesNeeded for Validation

78.97% 7

9 77.30 7

10 75.93 8

11 74.71 8

12 73.65 9

13 72.72 10

14 71.88 10

15 71.13 11

16 70.87 12

17 69.88 12

18 69.34 13

19 68.77 14

appropriate were placed in the appropriate category for the purpose ofthis test. Performance indicators relating to objectives not validatedwere not analyzed.

Jurors werr asked to comment upon objectives and performanceindicators that were marked not appropriate. In practice the jurorscommented on not only the not appropriate responses, but also theappropriate and moderately appropriate responses. Comments were recordedaccording to their reference to a specific objective or performanceindicator. The comments were summarized in the narrative when useful forobjective or performance indicator clarification.

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE DIDICATORSTATEMENTS FOR THE BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION

Five objectives relating to the task of support normally associ,'tedwith the business services division were submitted to the jury forevaluation and comment. Four of the five objectives each had two perform-ance indicators. The other objective had only one performance indicator.Juror responses to the objectives and performance indicators for thebusiness division were displayed in Table 2. The determination of thecritical value necessary for validation was made from Table I found onpage 22.

Objective 2_,0_.1,1 The Business ServicasDivision Will_Provide Effective Monitoringof all-_SubordinateDepartment's Program Efforts

This objective was rated appropriate by fifteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Four jurors questioned the word "monitoring." Most indicated thatmonitoring was too vague, but no suggestion was given for improvement.One juror indicated that he would change the words "provide effective" to"be responsible for."

Indicator 2.0.1.1.1 as measured la the achievement of not less.than 75 percent of each department's total obJectives. Twelve of thefifteen jurors who responded to this indicator rated it appropriate ormoderately appropriate. The computed critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses necessary was ele,,en. The indicatorwas validated.

Of the twelve affirmative responses, six indicated agreement withthe stated level of performance. Four jurors suggested a 90 percent levelof performance, one juror suggested an 80 percent level of performance,and one juror suggested a 100 percent level of performance.

The comments concerning this indicator revealed opposition to theassignment of a percent of achievement for the business services area.An opposing point of view was taken by one juror who advised that thepercentage of accomplishment should be set higher.

23

st-EP

Table 2

Juror Responses to Objective and Performance

indicator Statements

for the Business Services Division

Obiectives

Response

Performance Indicators

Response.

2.0.1.1.

The Business Services

Division will provide effective

monitoring of all subordinate.

department's prosram efforts

2.0.1.2


Division will employ modern

management techniques through

the generation and maintenance:

of five-Tear long-range program

and cost plans

IA

NA

!15* 4

A.

NA

18*

1

2.0.1.3 The Business Services

ANAi

Division will employ. modern

18-

1.

management techniques through the

use of ey7e0tion reporting.

2.0.1.1.1

as measured by the achieve-

ment of not less than 75 percent of

each department's total objectives.

2.0.1.2.1

for all subordinate

departments.

A or MA

NA

12*

A or MA

NA

17*

0

2.0.1.2.2

so that the proposed. cost

A or MA NA

of a. program will not increase more

than 10. percent from the projected

cost in a given year and the actual

budget reJquest for that program fox

inclusion into the annual budget for

that year.

2.0.1.3.1

by all subordinate

departments.

2.0.1.3.2

for any report having any

deviatim from the expected. norms.

11

'1 A or MA'

17*

A or 15*

Table 2 (continued)

Objectives

Res_ponse


Respcnse

2,,0.1.4


Division will employ modern .

management techniques through

the, use of management by

objectives, techniques,

2.0.1.5

By March of each year,

the Business.Services Department

will publish the district's five-

year long-range plan

2.0.1.4,1

in all subordinate

departments.

2.0.1.4,2

as measured by the, agree-

ment between division and respective,

department directors upon 90 percent

of that department's, objectives.

2,0.5.1

which will be cosprised

of at least 90 percent of the lona-.

range plans, developed by each

department.

2.0.1.5.2

in such a quantity that

there will be at least one copy for

every 10 district employees.

A or MA NA

*Validated

Objective 2_.0-1.2 _The Business Services Division

Through the Generation and Maintenance ofFive-Year Long-Range Program and Cost Plans

This objective was rated appropriate by eighteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated. (This objective presented the juror with the choice ofsuggesting the appropriate time span for long-range plans. Thirteenof those eighteen jurors who responded affirmatively indicated agree-ment with the stated five-year time frame. Of the remaining five jurors,two indicated a 3 year time frame, one indicated a 3-5 year time frame,one indicated a 10 year time frame, and one indicated a multi-year timeframe).

The comments concerning this objective were generally concernedwith the time frame. One individual stated that some business adminis-trators had attempted to develop 10-15-20 year capital improvement plans.Two irldividuals stated that the term "modern" was not a strong one andthat examples such as PERT, PPBS, etc. , would help clarify the intent ofthe objective.

Indicator 2.0.1.2.1 for all subordinate departments. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of theseventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Only one response indicated disagreement with the stated level ofperformance. That juror suggested 80 percent as an appropriate level.

Indicator 2.0_1.2.2 so that the proposed cost of a procram willnot increase more than 10 percent from the projected cost in a givenyear and the actual budget request for that program for inclusion intothe annual budget for that /ear. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by six of the seventeen responding jurors. Thecritical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This per-formance indicator was not validated. Since the indicator was notvalidated, no analyses was made of the suggested levels of performance.

Objective 2.0.1.3 The Business Services DivisionWill Employ Modern Management TechniquesThrough the Use of Exception Reporting

This objective was rated appropriate by eighteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2,0._1.3.1 ka. all subordinate departments. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by seventeen ofthe eighteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or

26

moderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon eighteen totalresponses was thirteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Of the seventeen affirmative responses, one response wasmoderately appropriate. Ne suggestion was made for an appropriate levelof performance by that juror.

Indicator 2.0.1.3.2 for any report having any deviation from theexpected norms. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderatelyappropriate by fifteen of the eighteen responding jurors. The criticalnumber of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary,based upon eighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performanceindicator was validated.

Out of the fifteen affirmative responses, ten jurors disagreedwith the stated level of performance indicating that they would ratherestablish the level of performance through an agreement between thebusiness division and the respective department program directors.

Objective 2.0.1.4 The Business Services_ DivisionWill E lo Modern Mana_ement TechniThe_Use of Management by Obiqctives Techni ues

This objective was rated appropriate by eighteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This ohjective

was validated.

Indicator 2.0.1.4.1 in all subordinate departments. This indicatorwas rated appropriate by all of the eighteen responding jurors. The

critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon eighteen total responses, was thirteen. This

performance indicator was validated. None of the jurors suggested a levelof performance other than the level stated in the indicator.

Indicator 2.0_.l.4.2 as measured the agreement between divisionand respective department directors upon 90 percent of that department's

ob'ectives. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby eleven of the eighteen responding jurors. The critical number efappropriate or moderately approp-ziate responses necessary, based uponeighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performance indicator wasnot validated. Since the indicator was not validated, no analysis wasmade of the suggested levels of performance.

Objective 2.0.1.5 By March_of Each Year, The BusinessServices Department Will Publish the District'srive-Year Long7Range_Plan

This objective was rated appropriate by twelve of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas not validated. Since the objective was not validated, no analysiswas made of the performance indicators.

27

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORSTATENENTS FOR THE BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS DEPARTMENT

Nine objectives relating to the tasks normally associated withthe buildings and grounds department were submitted to the jury. Six of

those objectives had two indicators each. The other three objectives had

only one indicator each. Juror responses to the objectives and indicatorsfor the buildings and grounds department were displayed in Table 3. The

determination of the critical value necessary for validation was made

from Table 1 on page 22.

gljective 2.1 1 The Bui din s and Grounds -artment

Will Perform Activi ies Concerned With Kee t e

District Pacliti es Open

This objective was rated appropriate by fourteen of the nineteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,

based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objective

was validated.

ndicator 2,1_a_i1,1 with no building being closed down 12,i anvlegal agency due to the lack of maintenance of prope-r legal standards.

This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of

the fourteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon fourteen total

responses, was ten. This performance indicator was validated.

Only one of the fourteen jurors did not agree with the stated

level of performance. That juror offered no suggestion for an appropriatelevel of performance.

Ob'ective 2 1 1 2 The Buildin a and GroundS_Peoartment WillPerfaEnDistri,etc Houseke -*n Activitie

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the nineteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objective

was validated.

Indicator 2.1.1.2.1 as determined hi obtaining a 98 percentaccomplishment rating psi the pre-established district inspection check-

list when anpjied hi the facility's chief administrator or the buildings

and grounds supervlsor. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by all of the seventeen responding jurors. The

critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon seventeen tutal responses, was twelve. This

performance indicator was validated.

Of those four jurors who disagreed with the stated level of

performance, only two had suggestioyls for different levels. They were

75 percent and 100 percent.

28

Table 3

juror Responses to, the Objective and Performance indicator Statements,

for the Buildings. and Grounds Department

Obiective

Responses

Performance. Indicator

Responses.

2.1.1.1

The Buildings and Grounds

Department will perform activities

concerned with keeping the

district's facilities open

2.1.1.2

The Buildings and.

Grounds. Departmc t will perform

the district designated daily,

weekly, monthly, etc., house-

keeping activities

2.1.1.3


Department will remove snow accumu

lations from entrances, exits, and

walkways of district facilities

prior to all periods of building

use

ANA

17*

2

2.1.1.1.1

with no building being

closed down by any legal agency due

to the, lack of maintenance of proper

legal standards.

2.1.1.2.1

as determined by obtaining,

a .98 percent accomplishment rating on

the pre-established district inspection

check-list when applied by the

facility's chief administrator or the

Buildings and Grounds supervisor.

2.1.1.2_2

as measured by less than 1

percent valid employee complaints per

building regarding department

services.

2.1.1.3.1

as measured by less then:10.

percent ol occurred accidents attribu-

table to improper snow removal in the

opinion of the, Building and. Grounds

supervisor.

2.1.1.3.2

as measured by complaints

from no more than 5 percent of the total

amount of school district administrators

per month,

A or MA.

NA

14*

A or MA

NA

'

11

6.i

A OT MA NA

98

A or MA NA

89

Table 3 (4:ontinued)

Objectives

Responses

Performance indicators

Responses

2.1.2.1


Department will respond promptly

to authorized requests for either

regular maintenance or repair of

district grounds, buildings, and

equipment, or for emergency

repair of same

2.1.2.2

The Buildings, and Grounds

Department will record promptly

and accurately all repair work

done on school district property

and equipment

2.1.2.3


ANA

Department

,i1.11 develop a five-yea

program outlining year-by-year

major maintenance projects such as

roof repair, painting, boiler re-

placement, flooring, etc.

18*

1

2.1.2.1.1

as measured by a time lag of

no more than 10 days, between the receipt

of an approved request for regular main-

tenance or repair and the initiation of

work on that. repair.

2.1.2.1.2

as measured by a time lag of

no more than. 4 hours between the

notification of an emergency repair

need and the initiation of work on that

repair.

2.1.2.2.1

within one week after the

completion of the work.

2.1.2.2.2

with no more than 5', pertent

error between the record and the actual .

work performed.

2.1.2.3.1

to be completed two months

prior to the initial presentation of

the proposed district budget to the

Board oi Education.

A or MA NA

16*

A or MA

NA

i'

13*

A or MA NA

A or MA

i NA

A Or MA

NA1

17*

1

Table 3 (continued)

Obiectives

Responses

2_1.2.4.


Department will produce, and yearly

update a plan for the orderly

replacement of major equipment

2.1.3.1

The Buildings, and Grounds

Department will yearly project the

October 1 district student

population.

2.1.4.1


Department will develop a cost

schedule, for renting district

facilities for community use


2.1.2.4.1

to be completed two months

prior to the initial presentation of

the district financial budget to the

Board of Education.

2.1.2.4.2

which will display at. least

A or MA NA

95 percent of the, costs needed for new

equipment in future years.

2.1.3.1,1

with less, than. 3. percent

error in the total population pro-

jection. when compared with the actual

enrollment.

16*

3

A or MA.

NA -

2.1.3.1.2

for a. period of not less

than

A or MA

NA I

five years: into the future.

-

2.1..1.1.1

so that the, entire co: ts

A or MA

NA1

related to the use of a facility are

born by the user.

11

*Validated

Indicator 2.1.1.2.2 as measured lay_ less than 1 percent validemployee complaints per building regarding department service. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by eleven ofthe seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormJderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was not validated. Noanalysis was made of the juror suggestions for a level of performance.

Objective 2.1.1.3 The Buildings and Grounds De artmentWill Remove Snow Accumulations from Entrances Exits,and Walkways_of District Facilities Prior to allPeriods of Building Use

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.1.1-3.1 as measured by less than 10 percent ofoccurred accidents attributable to improper snow removal in the opinionof the buildings and grounds supervisor. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by nine of the seventeen respondingjurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses necessary, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve.This performance indicator was not validated. No analysis was made ofthe juror suggestions for a level of performance.

Indicator 2.1,13,1 as measured ja_ complaints from no more thanpercent of the total amount of school district administrators per

month. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate byeight of the seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appro-priate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeentotal responses, was twelve. This performance indicator was not validated.No analysis was made of the juror suggestions for a level of performance.

Objective 2.1.2.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Res ond Promptly to Authorized Requests forEither Regular Maintenance or Repair of DistrictGrounds. Buildings, and Equipment, or For

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas valithlted.

Indicator 2.12.1.1 as measured hi a time lag of no more than 10days between the notification of an emergency re air need and theinitiation of work on that repair. This indicator was rated appropriateor moderately appropriate by sixteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. Thisperformance indicator was validated.

32

Of the sixteen jurors who responded affirmatively four suggesteda level of performance other than the 10 days stated. Two suggested 5days, one suggested 3 days, and the other suggested 7 days.

Indicator 2.1,2.1.2 as measured by A time lag of no more than 4hours hetween the notification of an energency repair need and theinitiation of work on that repair. This indicator was rated appropriateor moderately appropriate by thirteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately approprite responsesneeded, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This perform-ance indicator was validated.

One juror suggested that no time lag should be allowed inemergency cases. The other two jurors suggested 2 and 8 hours time lag.

Ob ective 2.1 2 2 d-n and Grounds DepartmentWill_ Record Promptly and Accnrately All RepairWork on School _District_Property_and Equipment

This objective was rated appropriate by thirteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas not validated. Since the objective was not validated, no analysiswas made of the indicators.

Ob'ective 2.1 2 3 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Develop a Five-Year Program Outlining Year-By-YearMAior Maintenance Projects Such as Roof Repair,Painting, Beiler_Replacements, Flooring, etc.

This objective was rated appropriate by eighteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.1.2,3,1 to be completed two months prior to theinitial presentation of the proposed district budget to the board ofeducation. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby seventeen of the eighteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, based uponeighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performance indicator wasvalidated.

One of the seventeen jurors suggested a level of performanceother than the one stated. That level was three months.

Objective 2.1.2.4 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Produce and Yearl Update a Plan for theOrderl Re-lacement of MA"or E uipment

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical nuMber of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. Thisobjective was validated.

33

Indicator 2.1.2.4.1 to be completed two months RriLr to theinitial presentation of the district financial budget to the board of

education. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby all of the nineteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, based upon nineteentotal responses, was fourteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Four of the nineteen jurors suggested a performance level otherthan the stated two months time span. Their suggestions were one month,three months (2 jurors), and six months.

Indicator 2.1.2.4.2 which will display at least 95 percent of 'hecosts needed for new equipment in future years. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by sixteen of the nineteen responding

jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses needed, based upon nineteen total responses, was fourteen. This

performance indicator was validated.

Three of the five who rated the tadicator moderately appropriategave a suggestion for a more appropriate level of performance. Twosuggested 100 percent and one suggested 70 percent.

Qhjective 2.1.3.1 The Buildings and Grounds DepartmentWill Yearly Project the_October 1 District StudentPopulation

This objective was rated appropriate by six of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses neededbased upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objective

was not validated. Since the objective was not validated, no analysiswas made of the indicators.

Objective 2.1.4.1 _The Buildings_and Grounds DepartmentWill Develon a Cost Schedule .for Renting_DistrictFacilities_for Community Use

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objecivewas validated.

Indicator 2.1.4.1 1 so that the entire costs related to the useof a facility are born ky. the user. This indicator was rated appropriateor moderately appropriate by eleven of the sixteen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve. This perform-ance indicator was not validated. Since the indicator was not validatedno analysis was made of the suggested levels of performance.

JULJR RESPONSES TO TUE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATOR:STATEMENTS FOR TliF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

Nineteen objectives relating to the financial affairs departmentwere submitted to the jury for evaluation and comment. Seven of those

34

objectives had only one performance indicator, eleven had two performanceindicators, and the remaining objective had three indicators.. Jurorresponses to the objectives 4nd performance indicators were displayed inTable 4. The determination of the critical value necessary for validationwas made from Table I found on page 22,

Ob'ective 2.2 1 I Each De artment Head Shall Submit InCorrect For: Re uests for Ex enditures for InclusionInto the_Annual_ 4udget After Recei-t of ComFinancial_Affairs Denartment Instructions

rehensive

This objective was rated appropriate by sixteen ef the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate cesponses needed,based upon a total o. eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.1.1.1 as measured by 95 percent of all operatingand Ran1Lai outlay requests turned in, in correct format. This indicatorwas rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the sixteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses necessary, based upon sixteen total responses, wastwelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Five of the sixteen jurors indicated a performance level otherthan the one stated. All five jurors suggested a 100 percent level ofperformance.

Indicator 2.2.1-1.2 as measured by. requests for explanation ofbudget nrgparation nrocedurea el:WallLa& no more than 10 percent of thetotal amount of district ptrsonnel responsible for onerating and capitaloutlay .ramests. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderatelyappropriate by thirteen of the sixteen responding jurors. The criticalnumber of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary,based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve. This performanceindicator was validated.

Only one of the two jurors who indicated modera ely appropriategave a suggestion for a level of performance other than the level stated.That juror indicated that an appropriate 1eel would be no requests forexplanation.

Obiective_2.2.1_.2 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Prepare the Annual School District_ Budget inCompliance With All State Re ulations andDirectives_So_That

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of thenineteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responsesneeded, based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This

objective was validated.

Indicator 2.2 1.2.1 no exceptions are detected by the stateagency to the com leted bud,get. This indicator was rated appropriate

35

Table 4

Juror Responses to. the Objective and Performance Indicator

Statements

for the Financial Affairs Department

Objectives

Responses

A.

16*

2.2.1.1

Each department head shal

submit in correct form, requests

for eKpenditures fox inclusion int

the annual budget after reccipt of

comprehensive Financial Affairs

Department instructions


Responses

2.2.1.1.1

as measured by 95 percent

of all operating and capital outlay

NA

A or MA.

NA

0requests turned in,

in correct format.

16*

0

2.2.1.1.2

as measured by requests,

A or MA

NA

2.2.1.2.

The Financial Affairs

Department will prepare the annual

school district budget in

compliance with all state regula-

tions and directives so that.

2.2.1.3


Department will publish the

integrated long-range plans of

the Business Se,dices" Division

AINA I

17*

J,

ANA

16*

3

for explanation of budget preparation

procedures equalling no more than 10

percent of the total amount of

district personnel responsible for

operating and capital outlay requests.

2.2.1.2.1

no exceptions are, detected

by the state agency to the completed

budget.

2.2.1.3.1

one, month prior to the

initial presentation of the yearly

budget to the Board of. Education.

2.2.1.3.2

in a quantity of no less

than fifty conies.

2,2.1.3.3

which will represent the

plans of at least 90 percent of the

divisions" departments.

13*

31

A or MAI NA I

16*

0

A or MA NA

610

A or MA NA

14*

I

2

Table 4 (continued)

Ob'ectives

Res onses


Res oases

2.2.2.1


Department will accurately

project school district income

and expenditures

2,2.2.2


1 A

NA

Department will accurately accounL

18*

I0

for all the financial transactions 1

;

entered into by tbe school

district monthly

2.2.3,1

The Financial. Affairs

Department will produce and dis-

tribute accurate W-2 income tax

forms on or before January 15

2.2.2.1.1

Dr at least five years

in. advance,

2.2.2.1.2

with less, than 2 percent

discrepancy between the most recent

current year projected expenditures,

and income, and the actual

expenditures and income.

2.2.2.2.1

as measured by a fiscal

report submitted to the Board of

Education for inclusion into the:

board minutes, representing at least

95 percent of all the transactions

that occurred.

A or MA

NA

17*

A. or MA.

NA.

14*

2.2.2.2.2.

as measured by the. receipt

A or MA NA

of yearly

report.

positive external audit

1 A

'NA

2.2.3.1.1

with no, late deliveries.

114*

2.2.3.1.2

with less than 1 percent

mployee dissatisfaction as measured

by valid employee complai ts.

16*

2

A or IA

NA

14*

0

A.

r MA

NA

12*

Table 4 (continued)

Ob led t ivc

Responses

Performance indicators

Responses

2.2.3.2

The. Finant-ial Affairs,

ANA

Department will record promptly

and accurately all salaries paid

to district employees

18*

2.2.3..1


ANi.0

DepartmeTt will promptly record

and file all official district-

wide financial dacumen3

2.2.4.1


Department will produce and

distribute accurate paychecks

to all employees according to

the pre-determined published

time schedule

ANA

:

2.2.5.1

The Financial AffaiTs

ANA

Department will promptly and

accurately prepare and dis-

tribute all district, approved'

purchase. orders

17*

1;

2.2.3.2.1

within one week after

production of a given payroll.

2.2.3.2.9.

with no errors.

2.2.3.3.1

within two days after

receipt of a given document.

2.2.4.1.1

with no late deliveries.

2.2.4.1.2

with Less than 1 percent

employee dissatisfaction as measured

1)7- valid employee complaints.

2.2.3.1.1

with a time lag of no more

than three days from the time, of re-

ceipt of final approval to write tho

purchase order and transmission of

said order from the district to the

intended recipient.

A OT MA

NA 1

17*

1

A or MA

NA

17*

1j

NA

1

19*

0

A or MA11 NA

1 5*

;2

A or MA NA

15*

,2

9.2.5.7.2

with no more than 1 percent

A or MA

NA

error in the purchase 'order preparation

prot.

17*

Obiectives

Table 4 (continued)

Responses


Responses

2.2.5_2


Department will prepare and. issue

17*

bid calls which encodrage wide and

accurate hi.d.er response by clearly .

identifying, the items, their

specifications, and the desired

bidding procedure.

ANA

2.2.5.3.

The Financial Affairs.

Department will present invoices

to the. Board. of Education for

approval of payment within 30

days, after receipt of merchandise

2.2.5.4


Department will pay bills indica-

ting cost reductions for prompt

payment

2.2.6.1

The Financial Affairs,

Department will accurately inven-

tory all goods, on hand in the

district, warehouse

0

, A

NA '1

14* '1

4

NA1

19* !

01

!A

NA '

1

19*

!0

2.2.5.2.1

as measured by 90 percent

of the bids received conforming to the

bid call specifications.

2.2.5,2.2

as measured by receipt of bid.

from 80. percent of the parties deemed

eligible by the Director of Business

Affairs.

2.2.5 3.1

equaling no less than 90

percent of the value at the total

amount of goods received during that

period.

2.2.5.4,1

through payment within the,

specified time of all bills indicating

cost reduction for prompt payment.

2.2.5.4.2

when such payment results in,

a cost savings at least equal to the,

cost of processing the payment.

2.2.6.1.1

as measured by no inabilities

to deliver goods recorded as "in

stork" on current inventory list because

of inventory inaccuracies.

A or MA

NA

15*

A or MA

NA

11

6

,A or MA NA

13*

1

A or MA

NA

18*

1

2.2.6.1.2'

as, measured by a discrepancy

A or MA

NA

of no more than. 3 percont between the

reported volume of a stock item andthe

actual volume of that item.

17*

1

Table, 4 (continued)

Objectives

Responses

Performance indieators

Respo

,es

2.2.6.2


1 A

NA

Department will maintain an

accurate inventory records of all

distritt equipment holdings

1 19*

0

2.2_6.3

Tbe Financial Affairs

A.

NA


accurate inventory record of all

district-owned sites and

facilities annually.

2.2.7.1

Tte Financial Affairs

Department will identify and list

ofor the purpose, of bonOing, all

school personnel who handle,

distritt monies

16*1

2

IA

NA

17*D

1

2_2.8.1

Tte Financial Affairs

A.

NA1

Department will select deposi-

taxies so that

13*

2.

2.2.9.1

The Finantial Affairs

1A


extra classroom fund.

!8

NA 9

!

2,2.6.2.1

as measured by comparing the

recol:d" against a 10 percent sample

of equipment holdings within a given

district facility and allowing no, more

than a. 1 percent discrepancy.

2.2.6.3.1

with no errors.

2.2.7.1.1

with no mistakes.

2.2.8.1.1

the, depositorie's fixed

assets do not exceed 50 percent of

capital funds.

2.2.8.1.2

each has at least

lia1122 in deposits.

2.2.9.1.1

equal to the cost of

adding 5. percent of existing

classrooms.

A or AA NA

15*

1

A. or MA

NA

17*

0

IA. or MA.

NA

74

1

1A or MA NA

*Validated

or moderatelyappropriate by all of the sixteen responding jurors. The

critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses

necessary, based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve. This

performance indicator was validated. No juror made a suggestion regarding

an alternative level of performance.

Obi ective 2.2.1. The Financial Affairs De. artment

Will Publish the Tate rated Lon an e Plans of

The Business Services Division

This objective was rated appropriate by sixteen of the nineteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed


was validated.

ladigator 1.2.2,1_, one month prir to the initial krtlentation

UL the Yearlybu____aget_ to the board_ of eclucation. This indicator was rated

appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the sixteen responding

jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate

responses necessary, based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve.

This performance indicator was validated.

Two of the four jurors who rejected the suggested level of

performance indicated they would rathe: see a performance level of two

months. The other two jurors indicated performance levels of three and

six months.

ahdicator 2.2.1.3.2 in a quantity of no less than Lifta copies_.

This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by six

of the sixteen responding jurors. The critical umber of appropriate or

mederately appropriate responses needed, based upon sixteen total

responses, was twelve. This performance indicator was not validated.

Since the indicator was not validated, no analysis was made of the

suggested levels of performance.

Indicator 2.2.1,3.3 which will I:tufa= the jans of at least

90 RtLamt of the divisionL' departments. This indicator was rated

appropriate or moderately appropriate by fourteen of the sixteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately

appropriate responses was twelve. This performance indicator was

validaed.

Of those fourteen affirmative responses nine indicated disagree-

ment with the stated 90 percent level of performance. Seven of those

nine jurors suggested 100 percent as the appropriate level of performance.

One juror suggested 95 percent as the appropriate level of performance.

Ob'eet ve 2.2 2 1 T e F'n- cial Affairs De.arttnent

will Accurateland Expenditur

Pro ect Schoo District Income

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the eighteen


based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objective

was validated.41

Indicator 2.2.2.1.1 for at least five years in advance. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of theseventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormo _erately appropriate responses needed, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Three jurors indicated a disagreement with the stated 5 year levelof performance. Two suggested a 3 year level of performance and the otherjuror suggested a 1-2 year level of performance.

Indicator with less than 2 percent discrepanci betweenthe most recent current year projected glipenditures and income, and theactual eLvenditures and income. This indicator was rated applopriate ormoderately appropriate by fourteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based_ upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. Thisperformance indicator was validated.

Four jurors indicated a level of performance other than thestated 2 percent level. Two of those indicated 5 percent, one jurorindicated 2-3 percent, and the fourth juror indicated a 5-10 percentlevel euring the first year and a 10-15 level each projection yearthereafter.

Ob'ectiv_ 2.2,2.2 The Financial Affairs De.artrnentWi/1 Accurately_Account_for all the FinancialTransactions Entered Into by the School DistrictMonthly

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses aeeded,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.2.2.1 as measured hy a fiscal report submitted tothe board of education for inclusion into the board minutes representingat least 95 Percent of all the transactions that occurred. This indicatorwas rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon eighteen total responses, wasthirteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Four jurs indicated a level of performance other than the 95percent level stated in the indicator. All of those jurors suggested a100 percent level as an appropriate level of performance.

Indicator 2,2,2,1=1 as measured 12y the c0it of yearly positiveexternal audit report. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderatelyappropriate by sixteen of the eighteen responding jurors. The criticalnumber of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary,based upon eighteen total responses was thirteen. This pe-zformanceindicator was validated.

42

Only one juror indicated a level of performance other than the

one stated in the indicator. That juror suggested tha: no more than one

exception in the annual audit report would be an appropriate level of

performance.

Obiective 2.2,3.1 The Financial_Affairs ..3partment

W111 Produce and Distribute Accurate W-.2 Income

Tax Forms on or Before Januar- 5

This objective was rated appropriate by fourteen of the nineteen


based upon a total of nineteen responses was fourteen. This objective

was validated.

The juror comments concerning this objective suggested that a

date of Janaury 30 or February 1 would be a much more realistic date than

the stated January 15. One juror indicated that this item touched on

employee morale and was therefore a good item.

Indicator 2..1,2,11 with no late deliveries This indicator was

rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by -IA of the fourteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately

appropriate responses necessary, based upon fourteen total responses, was

ten. This performance indicator was validated.

Three of the jurors indicated a level of performance other than

that level stated in the indicator. Two of those jurors indicated thatlate deliveries equal to no more than 1 percent of the total W-2 forms

produced would be an appropriate lcvel of performance. The other juror

indicated that a 5 percent late delivery level would be appropriate.

Indicator 2.2.3.1.2 with less than 1 percent employee dissatis-

faction as measured hy. valid eahmat complaints. This indicator was

rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by twelve of the fourteen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappronriate responses necessary, based upon fourteen totel responses,

was ten. This performance indicator was validated.

Only one juror suggested a level of performance other than the

level stated in the indicator. That juror suggested that no employeedissatisfaction would be an appropriate level of performance.

b'ecti e 2 2 3.2 The Financial Aff irs Da_artmentWill_Record Promptly and Accurately all SalariesPa'd to 7)istrict Employees

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteen


based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectrve

was validated.

Indicator 2,2,3.2.1 within ona week after production of a given

payrolt. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate

43

'01 6

by seventeen pf the eighteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon

eighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performance indicator was

validated.

Two jurors indicated a level of performance other than the one

week level stated. Both of those jurors suggested a twenty-four hour

level of performance.

Indicator 2.2.3.2.2 with no errors. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by sixteen of the seventeen

responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen total responses,

was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Two jurors suggested a level of performance other than the level

stated. Both of those jurors indicated that 1 percent error would be

appropriate.

Qhjective_2,2,3.3 The Financial_Affairs DepartmentWill Prom_tl- Record and File all Official_District-Wide Financial Documents

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses was thirteen. This objective

was validated.

Indicator 2.2.3.3.1 within two days after receipt of a given

document. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby seventeen of the eighteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based uponeighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performance indicator was

validated. No juror comments were made suggesting a level of performanceother than the level stated in the indicator.

Objective 2.2.4.1 The:Financial Affairs DepartmentW1_11 Produce and Distr-bute Accurate Paychecks_toAll Bmplovees According to the Pre-determinedPublished Time Schedule

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.4.1.1 with no late deliveries This indicator wasrated appropriate by all of the nineteen responding jurors. The criticalnumber of appropriate responses needed, based upon a total of nineteenresponses, was fourteen. This indicator was validated.

Two jurors indicated a level of performance other than the levelstated in the indicator. One juror indicated that one quarter percent

44

would be an appropriate performnnce level; the other juror indicated a1 percent level of performance.

Indicator 2.2.4,1.2 with less than 1 percent employee dissatis-faction as measured bm valid employee complaints. This indicator wasrated appropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteen of the sevent eenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen total responses,was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Two jurors suggested a level of performance other than the levelstated in the indicator. Both of those jurors suggested that no employeedissatisfaction would be an appropriate level of performance.

Clicj=ialL-1ALJ he Financial Affairs De artmentWill Promptly and Accurately Prepare and Distributeall Distr'et Ai.roved Purchase Orders

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses neeff,ed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2 5.1 1 with a time lag of no more than three daysfrom the time of xszej_a_.t of final approval to write Lha purchase order andtransmission of said order from the district to the intended recipient.This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteenof the seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

Only one juror indicated a level of performance other than thethree day time lag suggested in the indicator. That juror suggested afive day time lag.

Indicator 2.2.5.1.2 with no more than 1 percent error in the2aL0.1111 order preparation process. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed, basedupon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This indicator wasvalidated.

Three of the jurors denoted a level of performance other thanthe level stated in the indicator. All three of them suggested that noerrOr should be allowed.

Objective 2.2.5,2_ Tha Financial Affairs DeaartmentWIll Prepare and Issue Bid_Calls Which EncourageWide and_Accurate Bidder ReSponSes by Clearly

Specifications ar0

the Desired Biddin Procedure

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the seventeenresponding jurors. TL critical number of appropriate responses needed,

45

tty8

based upon a total of seventeen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.5.2.1 as measured by 90 percent of .ths_ bids receivedconforming to the bid call specifications. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteen of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responsc needed,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This indicatorwas validated.

Two of the fifteen jurors indicated a level of performance otherthan the 90 percent level stated in the indicator. Both of those jurorsindicated a 95 percent level of performance

Indicator 2.2.5.2.2 as measured by receipt of bids from 80 percentof the parties deemed eligible la the director of business affairs. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by eleven ofthe seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses needed, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was not validateo.Since the indicator was not validated, no analysis was made of tl,esuggested levels of performance.

Obtective 2.2.5.3 _The Financial Affairs_DepartmentWill Present Invoices to the Board of EducationFor A royal of Pa ment Within 30 Da s AfterReceipt of_Merehandise

This objective was rated appropriate by fourteen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.5.3.1 equalling no less than 90 percent of the valueof the total amount of goods received during_ that period. This indicatorwas rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by thirteen of the four-teen responding jurors. The critical number of .appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon fourteen total responses, wasten. This performance indicator was validated.

Two of the thirteen jurors indicated a level of performanceother than the stated 90 percent level. Both of those jurors indicateda 100 percent level of performance.

Objective 22.5,4 The_Financial Affairs DepartmentFill Pav Bills Indicating_Cost_Reductions_forPrompt Payment

This objective w.s rated appropriate by all of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

46

Indicator 2.2,5.4.1 through payment_ within the specified timeof all bills indicAtkag cost reduction for prompt Eayment. This indicatorwas rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by eighteen of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon nineteen total responses, wasfourteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Three jurors out of the eighteen suggested a level of performanceother than the level stated in the objective. Two of those jurorsindicated an 80 percent level of performance. The other juror indicateda 95 percent level of performance.

Indicator 2.2,5.4.2 when such payment results in a cost savingsat least equal to the cost of processing the payment. This indicator wasrated appropriate or moderately appropriate by eleven of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon nineteen total responses, wasfourteen. This performance indicator was not validated. Since theindicator was not validated, no analysis was made of the juror suggestionsfor levels of performance.

Objective 2.2.6.1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Accurate! Inventory All Goods_on_Hand inthe_Diatrict Warehouse

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2.6.1.1 as measured hy no inabilities to deliver goodsrecorded as "in stock" on current inventor/ list because of inventoryinaccuracies. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately approp-riate by seventeen of the nineteen responding jurors. The critical numberof appropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, based uponnineteen total responses, was fourteen. This performance Indicator wasvalidated.

Four jurors indicated a level of performance other than the levelstated in the indicator. Two jurors indicated a 1 percent level ofperformance. One juror indicated a 2 percent level of performance. Theremaining juror indicated a 5 percent level of performance.

Indicator 2.2.6.1,2 as measured _b_y a discrepancy of no more than2 percenP between the reported volume of a stock item and the actualvolume of that item. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderatelyappropriate by seventeen of the eighteen responding jurors. The criticalnumber of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, basedupon eighteen total responses, was thirteen. This performance indicatorwas validated.

Two jurors indicated a-level of performance other than the 3 per-cent level. One juror suggested a 2 percent level of performance and theother juror indicated that no discrepancy ought to exist.

47

Ob c ive 2 2 6 2 The Financ'al Affairs De artmentill intain Accurate Inventor R ord of All

District EquiPment Holdings

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteen res-ponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of nineteen responses, was fourteen. This objective

was validated.

Indicator 2.2.6.2.1 as measured ley comparing the "record" againsta 10 perg2nt sample of equipment holdings within a giman district facilityand allowing no more than 1 percent discrepancy. This indicator wasrated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the nineteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon nineteen total responses, wasfourteen. This performance indicator was validated. None of the jurorssuggested a level of performance other than the level stated in theindicator.

Ob'ective 2.2.6.3 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Maintain an Accurate Inventory Record of All_District-awned Sites and Facilities_Annually

This objective was rated appropriate by sixteen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.2_6,3,1 with no errors. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteen of the sixteen respondingjurors. The critica3 number of appropriate or medera_ely appropriateresponses needed, based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve. Thisperformance indicator was validated. None of the jurors suggested a levelof performance other than the level stated in the indicator.

Obiective 2.2,7.1_ The Financial Affairs_DepartmentWill identify and List for theeFurpose ofeBonding,All School Personnel Whe Handle District Monies

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator a,a,z,L,L with no mistakes. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the seventeen respondingjurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses needed, Lased upon seventeen total iesponses, was twelve. Thisperformaace indicat)r was validated. None of the jurors suggested a levelof performance othe- than the level stated in the indicator,

48

Objective 2.2 8 1 The Financial Affairs DepartmentWill Select Depositories so That

This objective was rated appropriate by thirteen of the fifteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a tot& of fitteen responses, was eleven. This objectivewas validated.

IncillL2r 2.2.8.1-1 the depositorie's fixed assets de not exceed50 percent of capital funds. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by eight of the twelve responding jurors. Thecritical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed,based upon twelve total responses, was nine. This performance indicatorwas not validated. Since this indicator was not validated, no analysiswas made of the juror suggestions for levels of performance.

Indicator 2.2-8.1.2 each has at le 1OO,000 in de osits. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by seven of theeleven responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses necessary, based upon eleven total responses, waseight. This performance indicator was not validated. Since this indicatorwas not validated, no analysis was made of the juror suggestions forlevels of performance.

Objective 2,2.9,1_ The_Finamoial A4_fairsDepartmentWill Maintain an Extra Classroom Fund

This objective was rated appropriate by eight of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objectivewas not validated. Since the objective was not validated, no analysiswas made of the indicator.

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORSTATENENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT

Ten objectives relating to the transportation department weresubmitted to the jury for evaluation and comment. Five of thoseobjectives were accompanied by only one performance indicator, threeobjectives had two performance indicators, and the remaining two objectiveshad three performance indicators. Juror responses to the objectives andperformance indicators were displayed in Table 5. The detei-mination ofthe critical value necessary for validation was made from Tablc I foundon page 22.

Obiective_2_.3_.1,1 The Transportation Department WillDevelop a Home-school. School-home Student Trans-ortation S-stem Which Re uires the Shortest Numberof Total Miles Travelled as Compared with AlternativeSystems

This objective was rated,appropriat'e by fourteen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,

49

Table 5

juror Responses to the

Objective, and Performance

Indicator Statements

for. the TransportationDepartment

Obiectives

Responses


Responses

2.3.1.1

The Transportation

Department will develop a

home-

school, school-home student

transportation. system which .

requires the shortest number

of

total miles travelled as .com-

pared with alternative systems

2.3.1.2

The Transportation.

Department will deliver daily

all

eligible secondary bus students

to their designated

school

2.3.1.3

The Transportation

Department will deliver daily

all

eligible elementary bus students

to their designated

school

2.3.2.1

The Transportation.

Depa7tment will conduct an

effective and accurate monthly.

mechanic inspection of all .

district transportation.

vehicles

ANA

14*

4.

A 17*

NA 2

2.3.1.1.1

as measured by aminimum

number of bus miles

expended in all

routes as opposed to anyother

organization of routes.

2,3.1.1.2

as measured by a.

number of student bus miles

in all routes as

opposed to

organization ol routas.

minimum

expandad

any other

2.3,1.2.1

no earlier than

30 minutes,

before starting time

and pick up

studants no later than. 30minutes after

dismissal with 90 percent

effectiveness.

2.3.1.3.1

no earlier than

15 minutes

before starting time and,

pick up

students, no later than. 5

minutes after

dismissal with 90 parcent

effectiveness.

2.3.2.1.1

as evidenced by

the main-

tanance of an average

of no less than

45 000 miles par vehicle

fleet break-

down due to failure of

inspected

comoonents.

A or MA

NA

12*

2,

A,

cl,- MA

NA

12*

2,

A or MA

NA

15*

2

1A or MA NA

115*

1

Ob ectives

Responses


Responses

2.3.2.2

The Transportation

Department will employ personnel

for vehicle inspections and main.-

tenance which are adequate both

in number and. skill.

2.3.3.1.

The Transportation.

Department will publish clear,

understandable, and uncomplicated.

bus route information at least one

week prior to the, start oi the

school year

2.3.3.2

The Transportation

Department will construct, update,

and forward to the Financial

Affairs Department five-year long-

range plans

2.3.3.3

The Transportation

Department will construct bus

routes for the transportation of

all eligible bus students to and

from school.

ANA

18*

1

ANA

17*

1

2.3,2.2.1

as evidenced by the com-

pletion of all monthly scheduled bus

inspections.

2.3,2.2.2

as evidenced by the

certification for operation of no less

than 90 percent pi the toal trans-

portation fleet.

2.3.3.1.1

so that requests for such

route information equals less, than 5

percent of the student population

following the, pAalcption of said

document.

2.3.3.2.1

two months prior to the


budget to. the Board of Education.

A 19*

Table

5 (continued)

NA ol

ewith no exceptions.

2.3,3.3.2

which will allow no student

to ride on a bus one way for more

than

35 ,minutes.

A. or MA

NA

lc)*

A or MA, NA

17*

1

AorMA

NA I

14*

Table 5 (continued)

Ob ectives

Responses


Res! onses

2.3.4.1

The Transportation

Department will conduct an in-

service training program for bus

drivers designed to (1) achive

driver compliance with district

and state vehicle operator

policies; (2) decrease bus

accidents due to driver error;

and (3) reduce patron complaints

regarding driver policies and

practices

2.3.5,1

The Transportation

Department will transport

students and faculty members

safely, economically and timely

on trips scheduled to selected

destinations,

ANA

18*

0

2.3.4.1.1

as evidenced by 90 percent

of the total number of drivers in the

district complying with the vehicle

operator policies as enumerated by the

district and state agencies.

A or MA

2.3.4.1.2

as evidenced by the main-

A or M1ONA

tenance of no less than 45 000 miles, per

chargeable bus accident due to driver.

error.

2.3.4.1-3

as evidenced by valid com-

plaints equaling no more than 1. percent

of eligibla student bus, population.

2.3.5.1.1

maintaining an average of no,

less than 45,000! miles per chargeable!

accident.

16*

!,

2

A or MA NA

13*

5

A or 14A1 NA"

14*

3

2.3.5.1.2

keeping expenditures within

J A o

the budgetary limits.

2.3.5.1.3

maintaining a 95, percent

accuracy response to requested pick-up

and delivery. times.

16*

A or Ittk

NA

13*

*Validated.

based upon awas validated.

otal eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objective

Indicator 2.3.1.1..1 as measured Ly a minimum number of bus milesexpended in all routes as opposed to any other 2Iggpi_gEtion of routes.This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by twelveof the fourteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriateor moderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon fourteen totalresponses, was ten. This performance indicator was validated. None ofthe jurors suggested a level of performance other than the level statedin the indicator.

Indicator 2.3.1.1,2 as measured by a minimum number of studentbus miles expended in all routes as opposed to any other c2.1.7,2111?RLi_on ofroutes. This irdicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby twelve of the fourteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based uponfourteen total responses, was ten. This performance indicator wasvalidated. No suggestions were made by the jurors regarding a level ofpe-formance other than the level stated in the indicator.

Ob'e tive 2.3.1 2 The Trans tion De artment WillDeliver Daily All Ellgjble Secondary Xus_Studentsto Their Designated School


Indicator 2.3_.1.2,1 no earlier than 30 minutes before alarsia&time and '3ick Ea students no later than 30 minutes after dismissa- with90 percent effectiveness. This indicator was rated appropriate or moder-ately appropriate by fifteen of the seventeen responding jurors. Thecritical number of appropl'iate or moderately appropriate responses needed,based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This performanceindicator was validated.

Four jurors suggested levels of performance other than the levelsof performance stated in the indicator. Two jurors indicated 30 minutesbefore starting time and 30 minutes after dismissal time with 95 percenteffectiveness as the appropriate level of performance. One jurorindicated 15 minutes before starting time and 10 minutes after dismissaltime with 90 percent effectiveness as the appropriate level of perform-ance. The remaining juror suggested 15 minutes before starting tine and15 minutes after dismissal time with 90 percent effectiveness as theappropriate level of performance.

Ob'ective 2.3.1.3 The Trans ortation De artment Will

_122.1iverDail-AllEileEleTnenY---------tarBusStudentsto Their Designated School

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,

based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objective was

validated.

Indicator 2.3.1.3.1 no earlier than 15 minutes before starting

time and pick EE students no later than 5 minutes after dismissal with 90

percent effectiveness. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately

appropriate by fifteen of the seventeen responding jurors. The critical

number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based

upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This performance indicator

was validated.

Six jurors suggested levels of performa ce other than the levels

stated in the indicator. The juror suggestions were as follows: (1) 30

minutes before and 10 minutes after with 90 percent effectiveness; (2) 30

minutes before and 20 minutes after with 90 percent effectiveness; (3) 15

minutes before and 15 minutes after with 95 percent effectiveness; and

(4) 15 minutes before and 5 minutes after with 95 percent effectiveness.

The remaining two jurors indicated a change in only one of the performance

levels. One juror suggested 100 percent effectiveness and the other juror

suggested a pick-up time 15 minutes after dismissal.

Ob'ective 2.3.2.1 The Tranaportation De artment WillConduct an Effective and Accurate Monthly MechanicInspection of all District Trans ortation Vehicles

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the nineteen



was validated.

Indicator 23.2.1.1 as evidenced laz the maintenance of an 2malaa

of no less than 45,000 miles per vehicle fleet brer.kdown due to failure_

_of in1u5ted components. This indicator was rated appropriate or moder-

ately appropriate by fifteen of the sixteen responding jurors. The

critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses

necessary, based upon sixteen total responses, was twelve. This perform-

ance indicator was validated.

Two jurors suggested a level of performance other than the 45,000

mile level stated in the indicator. One juror suggested 30,000 miles, and

the other juror suggested 5,000 miles.

2hjective 2.3.2.2 The Transeartation_Department Will

Employ Personnel For Vehicle Ins ections and Main-

tenance Which are Ade uate Both in Number and Skill

This objective was rated appropriate by eighteen of the nineteen

respor.ding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,


was validated.

Indicator 2.3.2.2.1 as evidenced 12i the completion of all monthly

scheduled bus inspections. This indicator was rated appropriate or

moderately appropriate by sixteen of the eighteen responding jurors. The

1(.154

critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon eighteen total responses, was thirteen. Thisperformance indica:_or was validated. No juror made a suggestion for alevel of performance other than the level stated in the indicator.

Indicator 2.3..L.2,2 as evidenced the certification foroperation of no less than 90 rerEpnt of the total transportation fleet.This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by seven-teen of the eighteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses necessary, based uponeighteen tot.J.1 responses, was thirteen. This performance indicatorwas validated.

Five jurors indicated a level of performance other than the 90percent level stated. One juror indicated a range of from 80-95 percent,two jurors indicated 95 percent, one juror indicated 98 percent, and onejuror indicated 100 percent.

Objective 2.3.3.1 The Trans ortation De artment WillPublish Clear Understandable, and UncomplicatedBus Route Information at Least One Week Prior tothe Start of the School Year

This objective was rated appropriate by seventeen of the eighteenresponding jurors. T%ea critical number of appropriate resPonses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.3. 1.1 so that requests for such route informationequals less than 5 E9rcent of the student popa3t1371following thepublication of said document. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by sixteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropri,lte or moderately appropriate r-Isponsesnecessary, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. Thisperfornance indicator was validated.

One juror suggested a level of performance other than thatstated in the indicator. A 10 percent level of performance was suggestedby that juror.

pljective 2 2 The Trans.ortation De artment WillConstruct, Update, and Forward to the FinancialAffairs De artment_Five-year Long-range Plans


Indicator 2.3.3.2.1 two months prior to the initial presentationof the yearly hplz_e_l to the board of education. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the seventeen respondingjurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate

55

responses necessary, based upon seventeen total resp,,nses, was twelve.


Three jurors suggested a level of performance other than the

months level suggested tn the indicator. Two of those jurors suggested

a 3 months level and one juror suggested a 1 month level.

Ob ective 2.3.3.3 The Trans ortation Department WillConstruct Bus Routes for the Transportation of all

B_Ligible Bus Students t_and from School

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteen



was validated.

Indicator 2.3.3.3.1 with no .EIEEELLarla. This indicator was rated

appropriate or moderately appropriate by seventeen of eighteen respond-

ing jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate

responses needed, based upon eighteen total responses, was thirteen.


Four jurors indicated a level of performance other than that

stated in the indicator. TWo jurors suggested a 5 percent level of

performance and the other two jurors suggested a 1 percent level of

performance.

Indicator 2.3.3.3.2 which will allow no student to ride on a bus

one Haz for more than 35 minutes. This indicator wns rated appropriate-or moderately appropriate by fourteen of the nineteen responding jurors.

Ehe critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responses

needed, based upon nineteen total responses, was fourteen. This perform-


Four jurors suggested a level of performance other than the 35

minute level stated in the indicator. Two of the jurors suggested a 60

minute level of performance, one juror suggested a 30 minute level of

performance, and one juror suggested a range of 35-45 minutes as an

appropriate level of performance.

Ob'ective 2.3.4.1 The Transportation De artment Will

Conduct an Inservice Trainin Pro ram for Bus Drivers

Desi ned to 1 Achieve D_iver C m liance with District

and State Vehicle 0 erator Policies 2 Declaase Bus

Accidents Due to Drialruce Patron

Eopplaints Regar4trkg_Driver Policies and Practices

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the nineteen



was validated.

56

Indicator 2.3.4.1.1 as evidenced la 90 percent of the totalnumber of drivers in the district complying with the vehicle operatorp_olies as enumerated 12/ the district and state agencies. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by all of theeighteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon eighteen totalresponses, was thirteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Ten of the eighteen jurors 3uggested a level of performanceother than the 90 percent level stated in the indicator. Three jurorssuggested a 95 percent level of performance, and the remaining sevenjurors suggested a 100 percent level of performance.

Indicator 2.3.4.1.2 as evidenced -/ the maintenance of no lessthan 45,000 miles per charseable bus accident due to driver error. Thisindicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by sixteen ofthe eighteen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriate ormoderately appropriate responses needed, based upon eighteen total rea-ponses, was thirteen. This performance indicator was validated.

Three jurors suggested a level of performance other than thestated 45,000 miles. Two jurors suggested 60,000 miles, and the thirdjuror suggested 90,000 miles.

Indicator 2.3.4.1.3 as evidenced 12/ valid complaints equalling_no more than 1 percent of elisible student bus population. This indicatorwas rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by thirteen of the eighteenresponding iurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderatelyappropriate responses needed, based upon eighteen total responses, wasthirteen. This performance indicator was validated. No jurors suggesteda level of performance other than that stated in the indicator.

Ob'ective 2.3.5 1 The Transnortation De lrtment WillTransport Student and Facults_aa121x,Economically and Timely on Trips Scheduled toSelected Destinations

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.3.5.1.1 maAgLii2LIF an average of no less than 45,000miles per 5hargeable accident. This indicator was rated appropriateor moderately appropriate by fourteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesneeded, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This performanceindicator was validated.

One juror indicated a level of performance other than that levelstated in the indicator. That juror suggested 90,000 miles as anappropriate level of performance.

Indicator 2.3.5.1.2 keeping expenditures within the budaetarylimits. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate

by sixteen of the seventeen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, based uponseventeen total responses, was twelve. This performance indicator wasvalidated.

One juror suggested a level of performance other than that statedin the indicator. That juror suggested a 3 percent level of variationabove budgetary limits as an appropriate level of performance.

Indicator 2.3.5.1.3 mainttaining a 95 percent accuracy responseto ret_q.L.c_l pick-uR and deliver): times. This indicaZ:or was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the seventeen respondingjurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses needed, based upon seventeea total responses, was twelve. Thisperformance indicator was validated.

Two jurors suggested a level of performance other than the levelstated in the indicator. One juror -uggested 98 percent, and one jurorsuggested 99 percent as the appropriate level of performance.

JUROR RESPONSES TO THE OBJECTIVE AND PERFORNANCE INDICATORSTATENENTS FOR THE FOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Seven objectives relating to the food services department weresubmitted to the jury for evaluation and comment. Six of those objectiveshad one performance indicator, and one objective had two performanceindicators. Juror responses to the objectives and performance indicatorswere displayed in Table 6. The determination of tha critical valuenecessary for validation was made from Table 1 on page 22.

gpaective 2.4.1.1 The Food Services Department WillContintslOasEFte All Cafeterias in Com lisnceWith All District State and Federal HealthRegulations

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.4.1.1.1 as measured no more than one irregularity-cited in the monthly health ia.tas_ conducted 12x the state or local- -agency. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate byfifteen of the seventeen responding jurors. The cLitical number ofappropriate or moderately appropriate responses needed, based upon seven-teen total responses, was twelve. This performance indicator wasvalidated. No juror suggested a level of performance other than the Levelstated in the indicator.

58

Table: '6

Juror Responses for the Objective and Performance

Indicator Stattments

for the: Food Services Department

Obiective

Responses


2,4.1.1

The Food Services

Department will continuously

operate all cafeterias in com-

pliance with all district, state,

and federal health regulations

2,4.1.2

Tne Food Services

Department will serve palatable

type "A" lunches taking into

consideration student taste

preference

2.4.1.3

The Food Services

Department will operate the

cafeterias; so that the number of

participants in the lunch program

will increase yearly

2.4.1.4

The School Lunch

Department will construct, update,

and forward to the Financial

Affairs' Department a five-year

plan of identifying major equip-

ment needs on a year-by-year

schedule

ANA

17*

0

Resoonses

2.4.1.1.1

as measured by no more than

one irregularity cited in the

monthly

health inspctions conducted by the

state or local agency.

2.4,1,2_1

witb no more than 10 pertant

of the eatable weight of the lunch

returned uneaten.

2.4.1,3,1

by at least 5 percent.

2.4.1,4,1

two months prior to the


budget to the Board of Education,

A or MA

NA

15*

A Or PIALLiiA

1

15*

I3:

A or MA NA

Table 6 (continued)

gidective

2.4.2.1

The Food Service

Department will purchase food

supplies in advance

2.4.3.1

The Food Services

Department will serve low cost

type "A" lunches

2.4.4.1

The Food Services

Department will plan menus that

meet the legal nutritional

requirements and take into

account student preference of

taste

Responses


ANA

14*

ANA

17

0

Res onses

2.4.2.1.1

so that no scheduled

menu will be unable: to be,

prepared.

2.4.3.1.1

with a food cost per lunch

of at least 55 percent of the sale price

2,4.4.1.1

as L

sured by no dis-

crepancies from the established

nutritional requirements as

identified by the federal agency.

2.4.4.1.2

as measured by no more than

10 percent of the eatable weight

returned uneaten.

A or MARI

12*

A or MA NA1

16*

Id

A or MA MI

13*

*Validated.

Ob'Serve Palatable Tective 2.4.1.2 Tbe Food Services Department Will

e Thi" Luncnes Takil IntoConsidera ion Stude t Tas e Prefe e ce

The objective was rated appropriate by all of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.4.1.2.1 with no more than 10 percent of the eatableweight of the lunch returned uneaten. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by fifteen of the eighteen respond-ing jurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses needed, based upon eighteen total responses, was thirteen.This performance indicator was validated.

One juror suggested a level of performance other than the 10percent level stated in the indicator. That juror suggested a 2 percentlevel.

Ob'ective 2.4.1 The Food Services De artment WillOperate the Cafeterias so that the Number ofParticipants in the Lunch Program Will IncreaseYearly

This objective was rated appropriate by ten of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objectivewas not validated. Since the objective was not validated, no analysis wasmade of the performance indicator.

Ob ective 2.4.1.4 The Food Services De artment WillConstruct, Update, and Forward to the FinancialAffairs Dspartment_a Five-YearrPlan of identifyingMajor Equipment Needs on a Year-By=Year Schedule

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.4.1.4.1 two months prior to the initial presentationof the marli budget zo the board of education. This indicator was ratedappropriate or moderately appropriate by all of the seventeen respondingjurors. The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriateresponses needed, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. Thisperformance indicator was validated.

Two jurors suggested a level of performance other than the levelstated ift the Indicator. They suggected three months aud one month asappropriate levels of performance.

61

objective 2.4.2.1 The Food Services DepartmentWill Purchase Food Supplies in Advance

This objectiwa was rated appropriate by fourteen of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses nerded,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2.4.2.1.1 so that no scheduled menu will be unable tobe prepared. This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriateby twelve of the fourteen responding jurors. The critical number ofappropriate or mode7ately appropriate responses needed, based upon four-teen total responses, was ten. This performance indicator was validated.

Two jurors indicated a level of performance other than thatstated in the indicator. One juror suggested that 5 percent would be anappTopriate level of performance. The other juror indicated that fivemenus per school year would be an appropriate level of performance.

Objective, 2.4.3.1 The Food Services DepartmentWill Serve Low Cost Type Lunches

This objective was rated appropriate by sixteen of the eighteenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of eighteen responses, was thirteen. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 2 4 .1.1 with a food cost per lunch of at least 55cprcent of the sale price. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by thirteen of the fifteen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesnecessary, based upon fifteen total responses, was eleven. This perform-ance indicator was validated.

One juror indicated a level of performance other than that statedin the indicator. That juror suggested a 60 percent level of performance.

21214ctive 2.4.4.1 The Food Services De artment WillPlan Menus That Meet the Legal Nutritional Require-ments and Take into Account Student Preference ofTaste

This objective was rated appropriate by all of the seventeenresponding jurors. The critical number of appropriate responses needed,based upon a total of seventeen responses, was twelve. This objectivewas validated.

Indicator 204.4.1.1 as measured 12/ no discrepancies from theestablished nutritional reiuirements as identified by the federal 2,gamy.,This indicator was rated appropriate or moderately appropriate by sixteenof the seventeen responding jurors. The critical number of appropriateor moderately appropriate responses necessary, based upon seventeen totalresponses, was twelve. This performance indicator was validated.

62

One juror suggested a level of performance other than that

stated in the indicator. The juror suggested a discrepancy of no morethan 2 percent would be an appropriate level of performance.

Indicator 2.4.4.1.2 as measured by no more than 10 percent of thewl e . .eatable mielt returned uneaten. This indicator was rated appropriate ormoderately appropriate by thirteen of the seventeen responding jurors.The critical number of appropriate or moderately appropriate responsesneeded, based upon seventeen total responses, was twelve. This perform-


One juror suggested a level of performance other than that stated

in the indicator. That juror suggested 2 percent as an appropriate levelof performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions regard4.ng the development of exemplary objectives andperformance indicators were dram from the ratings, suggestions, and

comments made by the jurors on the cating instrument. Validated objectiveswere concluded to be exemplary as stated unless modified In light ofjuror comments. In similar fashion, validated performance indicatorswere concluded to be exemplary as stated unless modified in light of jurorsuggestions and comments.

The conclusions drawn were presented in the form of objectivesand accompanying performance indicators. The objectives and performanceindicators were presented according to the five established organizational

units: (1) the business services division, (2) the buildings and grounds

department, (3) the financial affairs department, (4) the transportationdepartment, and (5) the food services department.

Business services division. The following validated objectivesand performance indicators were concluded to be exemplary for the business

services division:

1. The business services division will provide effective monitor-ing of all subordinate department's program efforts as measured by theachievement of not less than 80 percent of each department's totalobjectives.

2. The business services division will employ modern managementtechniques through the generation and maintenance of multi-year long-

range program and cost plans for all subordinate,departments.

3. The business services division will employ management tech-niques through the use of exception reporting

by all subordinate departments.

b. for any reports having a division greater than the establishedvariance agreed upon by the division and respective department

program directors.

63

4. The business services division will employ modern managementtechniques through the use of management by objectives techniques withall subordinate departments.

Buildings and grounds de artment. The following validatedobjectives and performance indicators were concluded to be exemplary forthe buildings and grounds department.

1. The buildings and grounds department will perform activitiesconcerned with keeping the district's facilities open as measured by nobuilding being closed down by any legal agency due to the lack ofmaintenance of proper standards.

2. The buildings and grounds department will perform the districtdesignated daily, weekly, monthly, etc., housekeeping activities as deter-mined by obtaining a 98 percent accomplishment rating on the pre-establisheddistrict inspection eheck-list when applied by the facilities chiefadministrator or the buildings and grounds supervisor.

3. The buildings and grounds department will respond promptly toauthorized requests for either regular maintenance or repair of districtgrounds, buildings, and equipment, or for emergency repair of same

a. as measured by a time lag of no more than ten days betweenthe receipt of an approved request for regular maintenanceor repair and the initiation of work on that repair.

as measured by a time lag of no more than four hours betweenthe notification of an emergency repair need and the initiationof work on that repair.

4. The buildings and grounds department will develop a five yearprogram outlining year-by-year major maf,ntenance projects such as roofrepair, painting, boiler replacement, flooring, etc. to be completed twomonths prior to the initial presentation of the proposed district budgetto the board of education.

5. The buildings and grounds department will produce and yearlyupdate a plan for the orderly replacement of major equipment

a, to be completed two months prior to the initial presentation ofthe district financial budget to the board of education,

b. which will display at least 95 percent of the estimated costsneeded for new equipment in future years.

Financial affairs department. The following objectives with theirattendant performance indicators were concluden to be exemplary for thefinancial affairs department.

1. Each department head shall submit in correct form requestsfor expenditures for inclusion into the annual budget after receipt ofcomprehensive instructions from the financial affairs department

64

Mr 7

a. as measured by 95-100 percent of all operating and capitaloutlay request turned in correct form.

b. as measured by requests for explanation of budget preparationprocedures equaling no more than 10 percent of the totalamount of district personnel responsible for operating andcapital outlay requests.

2. The financial affairs department will prepare the annualschool district budget in compliance with all state regulations anddirectives so that no exceptions are made by state agencies to thecompleted budget.

3. The financial affairs department will publish the integratedlong-range plans of the business services division

a. one month prior to the initial presentation of the yearlybudget to the board of education.

which will represent the plans of at least 95 percent of thedivisions departments.

4. The financial affairs department will accurately projectschool district income and expenditures

a. for at least five years in advance.

with less than 2 percent discrepancy between the most recentcurrent year projected expenditures and income, and the actualexpenditures and income.

5. The financial affairs department will accurately account forall the financial transactions entered into by the school district monthly

a. as measured by a fiscal report submitted to the board ofeducation for inclusion into the board minutes representingat least 95 percent of all the transactions that occurred.

b. as measured by the receipt of yearly positive external auditreport.

.6. The financial affairs department will produce and distributeaccurate W-2 income tax forms on or before January 31

a. with no late deliveries.

b. wlth less than 1 percent employee dissatisfaction as measuredby valid employee complaints.

7. The financial affairs department will record promptly andaccurately all salaries paid to district employees

within one week after production of a given payroll.

65

b. with no errors.

8. The financial affairs department will promptly record and fileall official district-wide financial documents within two days afterreceipt of a given document.

9. The financial affairs department will produce and distributeaccurate paychecks to all employees according to the pre-determinedpublished time schedule

a. with no late deliveries.

b. with less than 1 percent employee dissatisfaction as measuredby valid employee complaints.

10. The financial affairs department will promptly and accuratelyprepare and distribuI:e all district approved purchase orders

a. with a time lag of no more than three days from the time ofreceipt of final approval to write the purchase order andtransmission of said order from the district to the intendedrecipient.

b. with no more than 1 percent error in the purchase orderpreparation process.

11. The financial affairs department will prepare acid issue bidcalls which encourace wide and accurate bidder response by clearlyidentifying the items, their specifications, and the desired biddingprocedure as measured by 90 percent of the bids received conforming to thebid call specifications.

12. The financial affairs department will present invoices to theboard of education for approval of payment within 30 days after receiptof merchandise equaling no less than 90 percent of the value at thetotal amount of goods received during that period.

13. The financial affairs department will pay bills indicatingcost reductions for prompt payment through payment within the specifiedtime of all bills indicating cost reduction for prompt payment.

14. The financial affairs department will accurately inventory allgoods on hand in the district warehouse

a. as measured by no inabilities to deliver goods recorded as"in stock" on current inventory list because of inventoryinaccuracies.

b. as measured by a discrepancy of no more than 3 percent betweenthe reported volume of a stock item and the actual volume ofthat item.

15. The financial affairs department will maintain accurateinventory records of all district equipment holdings as measured by

66

comparing the "record" against a 10 percent sample of equipment holdings

within a given district facility and allowing no more than a 1 percent

discrepancy.

16. The financial affairs departmet-it will maintain an accurate

inventory record of all district-owned sites and facilities annually

with no errors.

17. The financial affairs department will identify and 1 st for

the purpose of bonding, all school personnel who handle district monies

with no mistakes.

Transportation department. The following objectives with their

attendant performance indicators were concluded to be exemplary for the

transportation department.

1. The transportation department will develop a home-school,

school-home student transportation system which requires the shortest

number of total miles travelled as compared vith alternative systems

a, as measured by a minimum number of bus miles expended in allroutes as opposed to any other organization of routes.

b, as measured by a minimum number of student bus milesexpended in all routes as opposed to any other organization

of routes.

2. The transportation department will deliver daily all eligible

secondary bus students to their designated school no earlier than 30

minutes before starting rime and pick up students no later than 30 minutes

after dismissal with 90 percent effectiveness.

3. The transportation department will deliver daily all eligible

elementary bus students to their designated school no earlier than 15

minutes before starting time and pick up students no later than 5 minutes

after dismissal with 90 percent effectiveness.

4. The transportation department will conduct an effective and

accurate monthly mechanic inspection of all district transportation

vehicles as evidenced by the maintenance of an average of no less than

45,000 miles per vehicle fleet breakdown due to failure of inspected

components.

5. The transportation department will employ personnel for

vehicle inspections and maintenance which are adequate both in number and

skill

a. as evidenced by the completion of all monthly scheduled bus

inspections.

b. as evidenced by the certification for operation of no less

than 90 percent of the total transportation fleet.

67

ItFt,

6. The transportation department will publish clear, understandable,and uncomplicated bus route information at least one week prior to thestart of the school year so that requests for such route informationequals less than 5 percent of the student population following the publica-tion of soAd document.

7. The transportation department will construct, update, andforward to the financial affairs departrent five-year long-range planstwo months prior to the initial presentation of the yearly budget to the

board of education.

8. The transportation department will construct bus routes forthe transportation of all eligible bue students to and from school

a. with no exceptions.

b. which will allow no student to ride on a bus one way formore than thirty-five minutes in absence of a stated boardpolicy.

9. The transportati.In department will conduct an inservicetraining program for bus drivers designed to (1) achieve driver compliancewith district and state vehicle operator policies; (2) decrease busaccidents due to driver error; and (3) reduce patron complaints regardingdriver policies and practices

a. as evidenced by 90 percent of the total number of drivers inthe district complying with the vehicle operator policies asenumerated by the district and state agencies.

b. as evidenced by the maintenance of no less than 45,000 milesper chargeable bus accident due to driver error.

c. as evidenced by valid complaints equaling no more than 1 per-

cent of eligible student bus population.

10. The transportation department will transport students andfaculty members safely, economically and timely on trips scheduled toselected destinations

a, maintaining an average of no less than 45,000 miles perchargeable accident.

13. keeping expenditures within the budgetary limits,

c. maintaining a 95 percent accuracy response to requestedpickup and delivery times.

Food services department. The following objectives with their,

attendant performance indicators were concluded to be exemplary for thefood services department.

1. The food services department will continuously operate allcafeterias in compliance with all district, state, and federal health

68

t-

regulations as measured by no more than one irregularity cited in themonthly health inspections conducted by the state or local agency.

2. The food services department will serve palatable type 7A"lunches taking into consideration student taste preference with no morethan 10 percent of the eatable weight of the lunch returned uneaten.

3. The food services department will construct, update, andforward to the financial affairs department a five-year plan of identify-ing major equipment needs on a year-by-year schedule two months prior tothe initial presentation of the yearly budget to the board of education.

4. The food services department will purchase food supplies inadvance so that no scheduled menu will be unable to be prepared.

5. The food services department will serve low cost type 7A"lunches with a food cost per lunch of at least 55 percent of the saleprice.

6. The food services department will plan menus that meet thelegal nutritional requirements and take into account student preferenceof taste

a. as measured by no discrepancies from the establishednutritional requirements as identified by the federalagency.

as measured by no more than 10 percent of the eatable weightreturned uneaten.

DISCUSSION

The development of the model indicating the writing style forobjectives for the business area plus numerous objectives validated bythe jury can serve as the necessary example for school districtsentering into PPBS. In implementing a PPB system many districts encountera dilemma determining the proper sequencing of activities.

One school of thought advocates the generation of objectives fromschool district goals which have been discerned from previously identifiedsocietal goals. The tedious slowness of this technique is its maindisadvantage. Its main advantage is the rational and logical mahod ofobjective development assuring the compatability of objectives to goals.

Another school of thought favors the grassroot approach to theproblem. The pyramiding of objectives related to the ascending levels ofthe organization eventually develops the organization's goals. Theimmediacy of results at low orgaaizational levels is this approach's mainasset. The approach suffers from the same slowness that characterized thefirst approach.

69

This researcher is of the opinion that the approaches are notmutually exclusive. The systems approach with its recycling aspect inferscontinual updating and modification. This concept in association withnegotiation techniques presently being expanded into education hold thepromise for early entrances into the PPB system cycle at multiple entrancelevels within the organizational hierarchy. Negotiation to establishgoal and objective congruency and compatability then becomes the normalmode of operation.

The objectives developed in this study were aimed at the upperlevels of the hierarchy. Individual districts need to develop lower levelobjectives, merge the varing unit objectives, and establish an organiza-tional objective hierarchy prior to the implementation of an operationalPPB system.

REFERENCES

BOOKS

Alkin, Marvin C. and James E. Bruno, "Systems Approaches to EducationalPlanning," Social and Technologhanglications forEducation. Eugene: University of Oregon Press, 1970.

Armstrong, Robert J. and others (eds.). Developing_and Wri:ting BehavioralObjectives. Tuscan: Educational Innovators Press, 1970.

Crondlund, Norman E. ,S_LLigg Behavioral Objectives for ClassroomInstruction. London: The Macmillan Company, 1970.

Hartley, Harry J. Educational PlanninaaPrsiallImblAiLui-EsApproach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.

Hill, Frederick W. and James W. Colmey. School Business Administration inthe Smaller Community. Minneapolis: T.S. Denison & Company, Inc., 1964.

Kibler, Robert J., Larry L. Barker, and David T. Miles. BehavioralOb'ectives and Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970.

Lindvall, C. M. (ed.). Defining Educational Objectives. Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964.

Mager, Robert F. Preparing Instructional Oblet_tivea. Palo Alto: FearonPublishers, 1962.

Odiorne, George S. Managemtnt_by_Oblectives. New York: Pitman PublishingCorporation, 1965.

Schick, Allen. "The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform." g_14aglaaProgramming Budgeting: A Systems Approach to Management, Lyden, FremontJ. and Earnest G. Miller (eds. ). Chicago: Markham PublishingCompany, 1967.

Smithies, Arthur. Illcess in the United States. New York:McGraw-Hill Publishers, 1955.

Tyler, Ralph W. Constructing Achievement Tests. Columbus, Ohio: Bureauof Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1934.

72

B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT,LEARNED SOCIETIES, ANDOTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Brissey, F. L., F. R. Fosmire, and R. J. Rill. Technology Report:Problems, Problem-Solving and Human Communication. A LaboratoryApproach to Training in Interpersonal Communication. Eugene,University of Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of EducationalAdministration, 1969.

Eidell, Terry L. and John M. Nagle. PPBS and Data-Based EducationalPlanning. Eugene, University of Oregon: Center for the AdvancedStudy of Educational Administration, 1970.

Hill, Frederick W. "The Relationship of the School Business Operation toOther Areas of the Educational Organisation." Ihe School BusinessAdministrator, Blletin No. 21, 1970.

Kiser, Chester and others (ed.). An Operational Model for the Applicationof Planning-Programming-Budgetinglystems in Local School Districts.WilliAmsville, New York: The Western New York School DevelopmentConncil, 1970.

Miller, Donald R. and others. A Manager's_Gnide to Obiec ives. San Mateo:Operation PEP, A state-wide project to prepare educational plannersfor California, October, 1969.

Mushkin, Selma J. "PPB Note 7: Output Measures for a Multi-Year Programand Financial Plan." Washington: The George WashinL,ton University,1967.

Mushkin, Selma and James R. Cleaveland. "Planning for EducationalDevelopment in a Planning, Programming, Budgeting Sysvem," ProceedingAof the Eleventh National Conference on School Finance. Dallas, 1968.

Stem-lock, Suzanne K. Structuring_ the Administrs11172_2EgaalELation of LocalSchool_!.vtems. Circulars of the Educational Research Service, No. 2.Washington D.C.: American Association of School Administrators andNational Education Association Research Division, 1970.

C. PERIODICALS

Chambers, George A. "PPBS-New Challenges and Opportunities for thePrincipal in Management." North Central Association Quarterly,Spring, 1968.

Shands, Richard E. "Position and Status of School Business Administrator."School Buainess Affairs. November, 1970.

73

D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Baker, Eva Lee. "The Differential Effect of Behavioral anti Non-behavioralObjectives Given to Teachers on the Achievement of their Students."Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California, LosAageles, 1967.

Dyer, Henry S. "The Concept and Utility of Educational Performanceindicators." Paper presented at the Systems Science and CyberneticsConference. Boston: Massachusetts, October, l67. (Mimeographed)

Neal, Philip A. "The Value of Including Detailed and Care2ully DefinedSpecific Objectives in the Instructor Guides Used in the UnitedStates Air Force Reserve Training Program." Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1959.

74/ 2 5-

88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Ayres, Leonard P. School Or anization and Admi stration. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation, 1916.

Burkhead, Jesse. Government Budgeting. New York: John Wiley and Sons,

Inc., 1956.

Corbally, John E. Jr. School Finance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962.

Hill, Frederick W. The School Business Administrator. Chicago: Research

Corporation of the Association of School Business Officials, 1970.

Jarvis, Oscar T., Harold W. Gentry, and Lester D. Stephens. Public School

Business Administration and_Finance. West lyack, New York: Parker

Publishing Company, Inc., 1967.

Johns, Roe L. and Edgar L. Morphet. The Economic and Financing of

Education: A Systems Approach. Englewood Cli Prentice-Hall,

Inc., 1969.

Knezevich, Steven J. Administration_ _Public Educacion. 2d ed. New York:

Harper and Row, 1962.

Linn, Harry H. (ed.). School Business Administration. New York: The

Ronald Press Company, 1956.

Profiles of the Administrative_Team. Washington D.C.: American Association

of School Administrators, 1971.

Smith, Harry P. Business_Administration of Public_Schools. New Yc'71c:

World Book Company, 1929.

B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GWERNMENT,LEARNED SOCIETIES, ANDOTHER ORGANIZATIONS

Dade County Public Schools and the Research Corporation of the Association

of School Business Officials. "Proposal for Developing Program-Planning-Budgeting-Evaluation System Design." A Proposal for research

and related activities submitted to the Office of Education.

76

81:

Dave, Dr. R. H. National institute of Education, NIE Building NehrauliRoad, New Delhi, India, cited by Armstrong, Robert J. and others edDeveloping_and Writing Behavioral_Objectives.

Education-planning-Programming-BIllmlinz_System: Procedures Manual fo-School District Version 1 Model 2. Philadelphia: GovernmentStudies Center of Fels Institute of Local and State Government,University of Pennsylvania, 1969.

Eidell, Terry L. and John M. Nagle. Program Planning Document for Data-Based Educational ?lanning Systems. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the'Advanced Study of Educational AdmInistration, 1970.

Engelhardt, N. L. and Fred Engelhardt. Survey Manual for_the BusinessAdministration in Public School Systems. New York: ColumbiaUniversity, 1936.

Executive Office of the President. Programming-Budgeting, Bulletin 66-3.Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Budget, October 12, 1965.

Finigen, Thomas E. and others. Report of the Surve of the Public Schoolsof Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Public Education and Child LaborAssociation, 1922.

Foster, Charles W. (ed.). Report of the First National Conference_onPPBES in Education. Chicago: Research Corporation of the Associationof School Business Officials, 1969.

General Des4n _for an_Education Planning-Programming-Eudgeting System.Philadelphia: Government Studies Center, Fels Institute of Localand State Government, University of Pennsylvania, 1968.

Greer, E. A. Plannin-Programming-Budgeting System for the Business andFinance Division. Las Vegas: Clark County School District, 1970.

A Guide to School Business SerVices. San Diego: Office of the Superintendent,San Diego County Public Schools, 1956.

Hoffonberg, Marvin. "Program Budgeting in Education: Some OrganizationImplication." Proceeding.§_of the Annual Conference on the Economicsof Education. Florida State University, 1969.

Novick, David. Origin and History-Of Program Budgettag. Santa Monica:The RAND Corporation, 1966.

Ponti, Irene Y. A Guide for Financing School Food and Nutrition Services.Denver: American School Food Seryice Association, 1970.

Procedures of the National_Education Asseeiation, 1883. Washington:National Education Association.

77

Reason, Paul L. and Alpheus L. White (ed.). Financial Accounting_EILLocal and State School Systems: Standard Recei t and E enditure

Accounts. State Educational Records and Reports Series: Handbook II,Bulletin 1957, No. 4. Washington: United States Government PrintingOffice, 1957.

U. S. Congress. House. Document Number 8543 62d Congres,, 2d session.

U. S. Congress. House. Document Number 4583 62d Congress, 2d session.

Doherty, Victor.of The Great

Dorsey, John W.Bulletin, 47

Gorham, Winiam.1967.

C. PERIODICALS

"Goals and Objectives in PPBS " Portland: CouncilCity Schools, 1960.

"Planning-Programming-Budgeting (PPB) ," NEA Research:95, October, 1969.

"Notes of a Practitioner." The Public Interest.

Lope, Felix W. "Accountability in Education.' Phi_Delta Kappan.December, 1970.

D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS

Adelegbe, Aleniji. "An Economic Model for the Planning and Analysisof Public School Expenditures in Western Nigeria: The Program BudgetProcess." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, New York University, 1968.

Bethke, Paul G. "Equitable Distribution of State Funds for PupilTransportation in Colorado." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,University of Denver, 1965.

Boulden, Alfred W. "The Development of Desirable School Lunch AccountingProcedures." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The University ofConnecticut, 1964.

Brainard, David. "A Critical Analysis of Public School Building Standards."Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Denver, 1954.

Campn, Anthony. "The Development of Objectives and Criteria for theEvaluation of Classification and Coding Systems of FinancialAccounts Designed for Use in Public Schools." Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, Stab_ University of New York at Albany, 1964.

Coleman, Ralph E. "A Proposed Performance Formula for the Reimbursementof the School Districts of PennsYlvania for Public School Trans-portation." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1961.

oe78

89

Crum, Lewis R. "The Development of a Method of Interrelating SelectedA-;tivities of a Uniform School Accounting System Utilizing PunchCard Accounting Procedures and a Demonstration of the Method in theArea of Child Accounting." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,University of Denver, 1957.

Cunningham, Roger J. '1A Computer Program for Use in Scheduling SchoolBus Routes." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Colorado StateCollege, 1966.

EstEs, Everett E. "High School Lunch Programs--A Model for DecisionAnalysis." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Colorado StateCollege, 1968.

Farney, Thomas N. "An Inquiry Into the Responsibilities Which Affectthe Educational Opportunities of the School Lunch Program."Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Denver, 1957.

Fritz, John A. "An Analysis of Process for Planning Elementary SchoolBuildings." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University ofDenver, 1955.

Gott, John. Chapter 3 of a soon to be published article by the ResourceCorporation of the Association of School Business Officials manualon PPBES.

Hardin, Claude E. "Guidelines for Cooperative Purchasing Procedures forPublic School Districts in the United States." Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, University of Denver, 1969.

Kaiezevich, Steven J. "Administrative Technology and the School Executive."A report submitted by the AASA Commission on Administrative Technology,Washington, 1969.

Knezevich, Steven J. "Probing the planning and Programming Dimensionsof PPBS." Paper presented at the AASA clinic on Program Budgeting(PPBS), a Resource Allocation Decision System for Education, atMiami, Florida, December 1-5, 1969.

Lamb, Heber B. "A Study of Certain Aspects of the Proposed Nevada Planfor Distribution of State Aid to School Districts." UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1966.

Loa s, Norman R. "A Critical Analysis of Management Practices in theOperation and Maintenance of the Public School Plant." UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, University of Denver, 1953.

Mueller, Edgar H. "The Practicality of Stated Philosophies and EducationalObjectives Held by Selected School Districts in Missouri." Un-published Doctor's dissertation, University of Missouri, 1963.

79

90

Paynter, David H. "An Analysis of Selected Business and FinancialProblems in Unified School Districts Following Unification."Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California,1961.

Peat, Marwich, Mitchell and Company. "PPBS Overview." A presentationmade by the accountant firm. Denver, Colorado, 1970.

Radloff, John P. "Public School Pupil Transportation: The Legal Implica-tions of Two ISSUes." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Universityof Denver, 1969.

Ryan, Bernard D. "Theory and Practice in Planning Colorado Public SchoolBuildings." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University ofDenver, 1965.

Sheathelm, Herbert H. "A Study of the School--Plant Planning Process inSelected Michigan Public School Districts." Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, Michigan State University of Agriculture and AppliedScience, 1966.

Tanner, Charles K. "An 'iltomated Simulation Vehicle for School BusinessAdministration Accentuating Computerized Selective School LunchMenu Planning." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The FloridaState University, 1968.

Taylor, Burtis E. "A Proposed Pupil Transportation Program for theState of Colorado." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University ofDenver, 1951.

Terjeson, Thomas. "An Analysis of School Plant Planning in SelectedDistricts in Washington and Certain Other States." UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1963.

Thompson, Leland A. "Criteria for Centralized Warehousing Procedures inPublic School Districts." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,University of Denver, 1969.

Thompson, William A. Jr. "The Use of Boyer's 'Sequential Steps' forRouting School Busses." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,University of Mississippi, 1963.

Trazy, George S. "A Quantative Approach to the Design of School BusRoutes." Paper presented at the 1970 Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Wenbourne, Earle E. "Pupil Control Factors to be Considered in PlanningSchool Plants for the Grossmont (California) Union High SchoolDistrict." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Nebraska,1962.

80

APPENDIX A

PILOT JURY

Dr. William AltimariAssistant'Superintendent for Administrative

ServicesArapahoe County School District No. 6

Dr. Richard BeckConsultantOffice of Planning and EvaluationColorado Department of Education

Dr. Paul BethkeSenior ConsultantOffice of Planning and EvaluationColorado Department of Education

Mk. Donald DuellDirector, Finance and PurchasingArapahoe County School District No. 1

Mr. Kenneth SchoonoverSuperintendentArapahoe County School District No.

82

APPENDIX B

JUROR LIST

* + + + Dr. Frank W. BanghartProfessor and DirectorEducational Systems & Planning CenterCollege of EducationFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida 32306

Mr. Richard D. BergManagerPeat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company629 South Spring StreetLos Angeles, California

Dr. Sam W. BlissAssociate'ProfessorCollege of EducationNorthern Arizona UniversityBox 5774Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

* + + + Dr. William BrennanDirector of PFBMontgomery County Public Schools850 North Washington StreetRockville, Maryland 20850

Mrs. M. B. CarpenterThe RAND Corporation1700 Main StreetSanta Monica, California 90406

Dr. James W. ColmeyDeputy DirectorCEMREL, Inc.10646 St. Charles Rock RoadSt. Ann, Missouri 63074

Dr. William H. CurtisResearch Project DirectorResearch Corporation of ASBO2424 W. Lawrence AvenueChicago, Illinois 60625

Mr. J. Troy EarhartPPBE ManagerDade County Public Schools1410 N.B. Second AvenueMiami, Florida

84

* + + + Dr. John W. GottAssistant Superintendent, Financial ServicesJefferson County Schools809 Quail StreetLakewood, Colorado 80215

* + + + Dr. John Greenhalgh.Assistant Superintendent, BusinessFairfield Public S-Alools100 Reef RoadFairfield, Connecticut 06430

Mx. Edward GreerAssociate SuperintendentClark County School District2832 East Flamingo RoadLas Vegas, Nevada 89109

* + + + Dr. Harry J. HartleyAssociate DeanSchool of EducationPress Building, Room #42New York UniversityNew York, New York 10003

* + + + Miss S. A. HaggartThe RAND Corporation1700 Main StreetSanta Monica, California 90406

* + + + Dr. Frederick W. HillAssistant SuperintendentHicksville Public SchoolsDivision AvenueHicksville, New York 11801

Mr. Ray holtCoordinator, Dept. of Business AffairsMemphis City Schools2597 Avery AvenueMemphis, Tennessee 38112

* + + + Dr. Chester KiserSUNY at Buffalo120 - A Foster HallBuffalo, New York 14214

Dr. Raymond LattaAssistant ProfessorWestern Washington State CollegeDepartment of EducationBellingham, Washington 98225

85

* +

*

Dr. Don LevineOntario Institute for Studies in Education

102 Bloor Street WestToronto, OntarioCanada

Dr. Erick L. LindmanProfessor of EducationSchool of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaLos Angeles, California 90024

* + + + Dr. James F. McNamaraResearch AssociateCenter for the Advanced Study ofEducational Administration

Eugene, Oregon 97403

* + + + Dr. Susan PadroAssistant ProfessorOntario Institute for Studies in Educationc/o Educational Planning Department252 Bloor Street WestToronto 5, OntarioCanada

Dr. Creta D. SabineDirector of Federal ProgramsParadise Valley School District3002 East Greenway DrivePhoenix, Arizona

Suggested by four expertsAccepted jury membership

4+ Completed questionnaire

APPENDIX C

OBJECTIVE AND PERFORMANCE INDICATOR NUMBERING SYSTEM

The ordering of the objectives and performance indicators wasaccomplished through the numbering of the organizational entities of ahypothetical school district. Figures 3, 4, and 5 detail the hypotheticalorganization. Figure 5 details the many duties commonly carried out byschool officials. As can be observed on Figure 5, an objective relatedto the business service division, buildings and grounds department,operation of plants would be numbered 2,1,1. To delineate the objectiveswithin this specific area, each objective is assigned an additionalnumber. Therefore, the first objective in this area would be numbered2.1.1.1; the seond, 2.1.1.2; etc. Indicators were numbered in a like

manner.

The numbering system allows costs to be categorized againstthe specified objectives. The cost of accomplishment of the specifiedobjectives can therefore be determined.

This numbering system can be expanded ad infinitum. It is alsocompatible to data processing or computer application.

e 98

Figure 3

Organizational Chart for Hypothetical School DistrictOutlining Levels One and Two

Level One Level Two

. Instructional Services

u erintend nt 2, Business Services

3. Administrative Services

89

7

Figure 4

Organizational Chart for Hypothetical School DistrictOutlining Levels Two and Three

Level Two

Business Services

Level Three

1 Buildings and_Grounds

2 Financial Affairs

Trans ortation

4. Food Services

. Other

90

se 9g

Figure 5

Organizational Chart Detailing Level Four Activities

2. BUSINESSSERVICES

1. OPERATION OF PLANTS

2. MAINTENANCE OF PLANTS

BUILDINGS AND JtOUNDS 3. PLANT PLANNING AND_CONSTRUCTION

4. COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

FINANCIAL AFFAIRS

TRANSPORTATION

BUDGETING

ACCOUNTING

. REPORTING

. PAYROLLS

PURCHASING

INVENTORY AND STr'rtES

INSURANCE

FOOD SERVICES

INVESTMENT AND CAPITAL FUND MANAGEMENT

EXTRA CLASSROOM FUNDS

OPERATION

2. MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES

3. SCHEDULING AND POLICIES

4. DRIVER TRAINING

. EXTRA-CURRICULAR AND FIELD TRIP.USAGE

1, OPERATION OF CAFETERIAS

_2. FOOD PURCHASING

3. MENU PLANNING

NUTRITION EDUCATION

91

APPENDIX D

STANDARD ERROR OF PROPORTION

The validati-,a method utilized in this study is the standarderror or proportion of a dichotomy expanded to the .03 confidence level.The formula for determining the standard error of a proportion is asfollows:

q

Since thE option offered to thejurors was essentially a dichotomy, the

hypothetiQ,a1 distribution was 50-50. Therefore, p and q were assigned thevalue of .5.

The researcher desired to subject the juror ratings to the .05confidence level; and since the researcher was only interested indetermining the positive validation area of the curve, the 1.64coefficient was used. Therefore the full formula was as follows:

p + 1.64

93

where p and q =

;MO