Date of Award

1992

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Program/Concentration

Urban Services - Urban Education

Committee Director

Stephen W. Tonelson

Committee Director

Robert A. Lucking

Committee Member

Edward S. Neukrug

Committee Member

Robert MacDonald

Committee Member

Raymond Morgan

Committee Member

Donald A. Myers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the relative importance of the ten most significant components of an elementary guidance program. A second purpose was to identify differences in guidance services provided in selected urban and rural schools and also the perceived effectiveness and adequacy of the services as viewed by counselors and teachers. The study was conducted with elementary guidance counselors and elementary teachers in 48 urban and 48 rural schools in Tidewater, Virginia.

The National Study of School Evaluation instrument for secondary schools was modified for use in this study. A pilot study of the revised instrument was conducted, and no additional modifications were recommended. The descriptive section of the instrument was mailed to forty-eight urban and forty-eight rural counselors. Thirty-four urban and twenty-eight rural elementary counselors returned the instrument, resulting in a sixty-five percent return. Eighty urban and eighty rural classroom teachers were sent the evaluative section of the instrument, and forty urban and forty-eight rural teachers returned the instrument, representing a sixty percent return.

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) techniques were used to examine the responses. Tukey post-hoc tests were employed to make mean comparisons when significant F ratios were achieved. The results indicate a significant difference between the guidance services being provided in urban and rural elementary schools. In all areas that showed differences, the urban responses were more favorable than the rural responses.

The findings suggest that the rural elementary guidance services need to be implemented more fully and used by counselors, teachers and administrators. The role of the administrator, counselor and teacher did not appear to be as supportive as desired. In addition, those areas relating directly to student services were not being utilized fully.

DOI

10.25777/dt60-pt73

Share

COinS