Communication within schools and school systems is becoming increasingly sensitive and complex. Research suggests that there are different purposes for communications, but that there is little agreement on a common definition or best methods to increase effectiveness. The author reports on communication methods currently used by superintendents and the implications for using the chosen methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchillesC., and LintzM. N.“Information and Communication: Tools for Increasing Confidence in the Schools,” paper presented at The Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1984.
2.
CarterR. F.1960. “Voters and Their Schools,”Palo Alto: Stanford University School of Education.
3.
DanceF. E. X.1970. “The Concept of Communications,”Journal of Communications, 20: 201–210.
4.
Education Survey Committee.1948. Public Schools of South Carolina, Nashville: Division of Surveys and Field Services, George Rsabody College.
5.
KindredL. W., BaginD., and GallagherD. R.1984. “The School and Community Relations,”Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
6.
LasswellH. D.1948. “The Structure and Function of Communication in Society,” in The Communication of Ideas, BrysonL., ed. New York: Harper Brothers.
7.
LysaughtJ. P.1983. “Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Communication: A Review of Selected Contributions,”Educational Administration Quarterly, 20: 101–128.
8.
MichelG. J.1972. “School District Decisions about Federal Aid,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
9.
OsgoodC.G., SuciJ., and TannenbaumP. H.1957. The Measurement of Meaning.Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
10.
SaxeR. W.1984. School and Community Relations in Transition.Berkeley: McCutchan.
