II II IIIII III IIII III IIIII III III III IIII III IIII II II

W5
LIBRARY ’

I Michigan State
“V University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
The Perceptions of Three Groups -- Pastors, Principais, and
Teachers-- Regarding the Authority/Responsibility of Pastors
and Principais in Lutheran Elementary Schoois

presented by

Arthur Frederick Neil

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH.D. Education

degree in

 

 

SW

Major professor

Date FEbruary 8, 1979

0-7639

 

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY _
PER um

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

APR 0 l 2305 II

 

 

© Copyright by
ARTHUR FREDERICK NELL
1978

THE PERCEPTIONS OF THREE GROUPS--
PASTORS, PRINCIPALS, AND TEACHERS--
REGARDING THE AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
OF PASTORS AND PRINCIPALS IN
LUTHERAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

by

Arthur Frederick Nell

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education

1978

ABSTRACT
THE PERCEPTIONS OF THREE GROUPS--
PASTORS, PRINCIPALS, AND TEACHERS--
REGARDING THE AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

OF PASTORS AND PRINCIPALS IN
LUTHERAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

BY

Arthur Frederick Nell

Problem

The problem addressed by the researcher was the
determination of the perceptions of three groups--pastors,
principals, and teachers--regarding the authority/
responsibility of pastors and principals in elementary
schools of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It
was perceived by the researcher that commonly held per-
ceptions relative to the relationship of these two posi-

tions did not exist.

Procedure

Utilizing a survey instrument, the perceptions of
33 pastors, 33 principals, and 81 teachers--all working in
churches of the Michigan District of the Wisconsin Synod

which operate Lutheran elementary schools--were gathered

Arthur Frederick Nell

in an attempt to assess these individuals' perceptions of

the authority/responsibility of pastors and principals in
Wisconsin Synod Lutheran elementary schools. The specific
categories and hypotheses tested related to both the pastor's
and the principal's authority/responsibility in the follow-
ing seven areas: curriculum. supervision of teachers,
supervision of students, dealing with student offenses.
supervision of the non-teaching staff, fiscal affairs, and
scheduling.

The instrument, which employed a Likert-type scale,
was developed and field tested by the researcher. Data
from returned opinionnaires were tested utilizing ANOVA
statistical procedures with a .05 level of significance
established. The Scheffe technique was used as a post hoc
test. Information was also gathered relative to the
respondents' perceptions of the real and ideal hierarchy
of authority, in or for his school. Categorical responses
of each referent group were compared to categorical

responses of all other referent groups on each category.

Findings

 

In only one instance was a significantldifference
obtained, and this occurred between the pastoral group and
the teacher group in their perceptions of the principal's
authority/responsibility in curriculum. In all other
instances, no significant differences were found. Although

significant differences did not occur often, analysis of

Arthur Frederick Nell

the data on an item by item basis revealed trends. The
trend demonstrated that pastors tended to assign themselves
more authority/responsibility than did either of the other
two groups. The principals tended to assign a lesser amount
of authority/responsibility to the pastor's position.
Regarding the principal's position, the principals did not
always assign themselves more authority/responsibility

than did the other two groups assign the principal. It
might be expected that the principal would rate himself
higher, but this did not occur. Trends were readily ap-
parent when the pastor's authority/responsibility was
discussed, but trends were not as readily apparent in the
discussion of the principal's authority/responsibility.
Little agreement also existed as to the real or ideal hier-
archy of authority when the board of education, church

council, congregation, pastor, and principal were considered.

Conclusions

 

Based on these findings, a major conclusion drawn
was that although significant differences did not generally
occur, trends did demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding
the relationship of the pastor's and the principal's
authority/responsibility in the operation of a Lutheran
elementary school. Additional conclusions drawn from the
investigation were the following: .1) A variety of respon-
sibilities and duties were identified as being inherent to
the position of principal. 2) Time needs to be provided

the principal so that he can become more active in the

Arthur Frederick Nell

administration of the school. 3) The pastors feel the
principal should perform a more active role in the admini-
stration of the school. 4) Conflict is likely to increase
if the pastor and the principal cannot concur on the rules
of the organization. 5) Confusion relative to the prin-
cipal's role in the school damages his credibility as the
congregation's educational leader. 6) The three groups
demonstrated very little agreement as to the hierarchy of
authority in the school when the relationships of the

board of education, church council, congregation, pastor,

and principal were considered.

DEDICATION

Although the completion of such a task as this dis-
sertation gives one a feeling of inestimable joy, yet
there is a dark cloud on the sunset of this effort. That
dark cloud is the passing of Dr. Archibald B. Shaw.

Dr. Shaw was appointed as my academic advisor when
I entered the doctoral program at Michigan State University
in 1975. Graciously, he agreed to remain my advisor and
chair my doctoral committee. He led me from the beginning,
but was unable to view completion of the project.

When, in Dr. Shaw's mind, the end of his life was
inevitable, Dr. Shaw still worked faithfully with me. When
the end approached, Dr. Shaw revealed to me one of his
goals--to see my graduation. Although he did not achieve
this goal, he, in large measure, helped me to reach my own
goal. To this end, then, this document is dedicated to
Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, professor, counselor, consoler--

friend.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many tasks are begun independently, but no task of
this magnitude could be completed independently. To list
all those who assisted this writer would be a major under-
taking. But, in a small way I would like to acknowledge
some of the people who gave me so much assistance.

Much appreciation is extended to Dr. Sam Moore for
his patience and understanding as he, after the death of
Dr. Archibald B. Shaw, the original chairman of my doctoral
committee, became the chairman of my committee.

I would also thank my other advisers, Dr. Carl Gross,
Dr. Hal Hepler, and Dr. Lou Romano. Dr. Gross and Dr. Hepler
provided advice and encouragement at key moments, and Dr.
Romano was kind enough to join the committee one month prior
to the completion of this disseration.

The efforts of Mary Peterson, the typist, are also
appreciated. Consistently she came through when family
commitments and deadlines should have prevented it.

' Although the work in such an undertaking must be
done independently, a key ingredient for success is the
support one receives from those around him. Such support
was provided by my in-laws, Norma and Lawrence Bennett, as
they did various things for me so that I might have the time

iv

to devote to this project. Also, the efforts of my
brother-in-law, Larry Bennett, are much appreciated as he
assisted greatly during the proofreading phase of this
project.

To my parents, Marion and Arthur Nell, a special
tribute is in order, for it was they who provided me with
the education necessary to form the foundation for this
degree. Although many miles separate me from my parents,
their support and encouragement have been ever-present.
Thank you, Mother and Father.

No statement of thanks would be complete without
a word of thanks for my wife, Janice. Her support,
encouragement, and, at appropriate times, the necessary
prod, were never-ending. During the final stages of this
work, she has tolerated much, from having pages of this
dissertation spread over the dining room table, on the
living room floor, and through the upstairs bedrooms,
all the way to a tense and irascible husband. She has

willingly endured it all, and for this I thank her.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . .

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION . . . . .

The Problem

Operational Definitions
Population to be Studied
Limitations of the Study
Study Significance
Summary

BACKGROUND . . . . . . . .

Roles of Pastors and Teachers in
Early Lutheran Churches

The Concept of the Ministry

The Concept of Ordination

The "Call"

The Uncertainty of the Pastor-
Principal Relationship

Summary

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Organization Theory
Authority

Power

Rules

Leadership

Role Theory
Conflict

The Work of Louis R. Pondy
Role Conflict

The Lutheran School
Lassanske Study
Summary

vi

the

Page

ix

xvii

17

47

Page
IV. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . lOl

Method of Data Collection
Population

Data Analysis

Summary

V. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 108

Introduction
Demographic Information
Perceptions of the Pastor's and the Principal's
Authority/Responsibility in the School
Comparison of Categorical Mean Scores
Perceptions of the Hierarchies of Authority
in a Lutheran School
Summary

VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 221

Summary
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Letter to District Presidents Requesting Names
of Veteran Pastors and Principals

APPENDIX B I O I O O I O O O O O O 244
Letter to Individuals Requesting Their
Critique of the Opinionnaire

APPENDIX C O O O O O O O I O I O O 245
Cover Letter to Principals of Schools
Participating in Field Test

APPENDIX D . . .. . . . . . . . . . 246
List of Schools Participating in Field Test
APPENDIX E . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Opinionnaire
APPENDIX F . . 253

List of Schools Participating in Study

vii

Page
APPENDICES

APPENDIX G . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Respondent Structured Hierarchies of Authority
Representing Their Perception of the Ideal
Hierarchy of Authority for Lutheran
Elementary Schools

APPENDIX H . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Respondent Structured Hierarchies of Authority
Representing Their Perception of the Real
Hierarchy of Authority Operating in Their
School

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page
TABLE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Report of the Group N's, Number of Respondents,
and Percentage of Response
TABLE 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 0 ll 1
Years of Service as Pastor
TABLE 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Years of Service as Principal
TABLE 4 O O O 0 0 O O I O O O O O O O 1 1]-
Years of Service as Teacher
TABLE 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Years of Service as Pastor, Principal, or Teacher

TABLE 6 O I O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll 3
The Number of Respondents in the Categories

Concerning School Size

TABLE 7 O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O 113
Number and Percentage of Pastors Who Have Served
One or More Congregations Maintaining Schools

TABLE 8 O O O O O O I O O O O O I I O 114
Number and Percentage of Principals with Graduate
Work or Graduate Degree in School Administration

TABLE 9 O 0 O O O O O C I O O - O I
Number and Percentage of Principals Who Have
Teaching Experience Without Being Principal

. . 114

TABLE 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Statement 1 (Pastor)

TABLE 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Statement 2 (Pastor)

TABLE 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Statement 3 (Pastor)

ix

Page

TABLE 13 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O 119
Statement 4 (Pastor)

TABLE 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Statement 5 (Pastor)
TABLE 15 O O O O O O 122

ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding

Curriculum
TABLE 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Statement 6 (Pastor)
TABLE 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Statement 7 (Pastor)
TABLE 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Statement 8 (Pastor)

TABLE 19 . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Statement 9 (Pastor)

TABLE 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Statement 10 (Pastor)
TABLE 21 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 127
Statement 11 (Pastor)

TABLE 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding the
Supervision of Teachers

TABLE 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Statement 12 (Pastor)

TABLE 24 0 O O O I O I I I O O O O O O 130
Statement 13 (Pastor)

TABLE 25 O O O I O O O O O O O 0 O O O 131
Statement 14 (Pastor)

TABLE 26 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 131
Statement 15 (Pastor)

TABLE 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Statement 16 (Pastor)

TABLE 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Statement 1? (Pastor)

TABLE 29 . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Authority/Responsibility Regarding
Supervision of Students

TABLE 3 0 O O O O O O O O I O 0
Statement 18 (Pastor)

TABLE 3 l O O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 19 (Pastor)

TABLE 32 . . . . . . . .
Statement 20 (Pastor)

TABLE 3 3 O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 21 (Pastor)

TABLE 3 4 O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 22 (Pastor)

TABLE 35 . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 23 (Pastor)

TABLE 36 . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Authority/Responsibility Regarding
with Student Offenses

TABLE 37 O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 24 (Pastor)

TABLE 38 . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 25 (Pastor)

TABLE 39 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0
Statement 26 (Pastor)

TABLE 40 . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 27 (Pastor)

TABLE 41 . . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions .of the
Authority/Responsibility Regarding

Pastor's
the

Pastor's
Dealing

Pastor's
the

Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

TABLE 42 . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 28 (Pastor)

TABLE 43 . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 29 (Pastor)

xi

Page

135

137

137

138

138

140

140

142

144

144

146

146

148

149

149

TABLE 44 . .
Statement 30

TABLE 45 . .
Statement 31

TABLE 46 . .
Statement 32

TABLE 47 . .
Statement 33

TABLE 48 .
Statement 34

TABLE 49 . .

ANOVA Table for t

Affairs

TABLE 50 . .
Statement 35

TABLE 51 . .
Statement 36

TABLE 52 . .
Statement 37

TABLE 53 . .
Statement 38

TABLE 54 .
Statement 39

TABLE 55 . .

ANOVA Table fo

(Pastor)
(Pastor)

(Pastor)

(Pastor)

(Pastor)

(Pastor)

(Pastor)

(Pastor)
(Pastor)
(Pastor)

Scheduling

TABLE 56 . .
Statement 1

TABLE 57 . .
Statement 2

TABLE 58 . .
Statement 3

TABLE 59 .
Statement

.33.

(Principal)

(Principal)

(Principal)

(Principal)

xii

he Perceptions of the
Authority/Responsibility Regarding

r the Perceptions of the
Authority/Responsibility Regarding

Pastor's
Fiscal

Page
151

151

153

153

154

156

157

157

159

159

161

162

164

164

166

166

Page
TABLE 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Statement 5 (Principal)
TABLE 61 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 169
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Curriculum

TABLE 62 . . . . . . . . . . 171
Statement 6 (Principal)

TABLE 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Statement 7 (Principal)

TABLE 64 . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Statement 8 (Principal)

TABLE 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Statement 9 (Principal)

TABLE 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Statement 10 (Principal)

TABLE 67 . . . . . . . . . . 174
Statement 11 (Principal)

TABLE 6 8 O O O O O O O O O O I O l 7 6
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the

Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding the Supervision of Teachers

TABLE 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Statement 12 (Principal)

TABLE 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Statement 13 (Principal)

TABLE 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Statement 14 (Principal)

TABLE 7 2 ' O O O O O O O O 0 O O O l 7 9
Statement 15 (Principal)

TABLE 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Statement 16 (Principal)

TABLE 7 4 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 1 8 0
Statement 17 (Principal)

TABLE 75 . . . . 182

ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the

Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding the Supervision of Students

xiii

TABLE 76 . . . . . . .
Statement 18 (Principal)

TABLE 77 . . . . . . .
Statement 19 (Principal)

TABLE 78 O O O O O O O I O O O O 0
Statement 20 (Principal)

TABLE 79 . . . . . . .
Statement 21 (Principal)

TABLE 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 22 (Principal)

TABLE 81 . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 23 (Principal)

TABLE 82 . . . . . . . . . . .

ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Dealing with Student Offenses

TABLE 8 3 O O O I O O O O O O O 0
Statement 24 (Principal)

TABLE 84 . . . . . . .
Statement 25 (Principal)

TABLE 85 . . . . . . .
Statement 26 (Principal)

TABLE 86 . . . . . . .
Statement 2 (Principal)

TABLE 87 . . . . . . . . . . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding the Supervision of the Non-
Teaching Staff

TABLE88
Statement 28 (Principal)

TABLE 8 9 C O I O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 29 (Principal)

TABLE 90 . . . . . .
Statement 30 (Principal)

TABLE 91 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Statement 31 (Principal)

xiv

Page

184

184

185

185

187

187

189

190

190

192

192

193

195

195

197

197

TABLE 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 32 (Principal)

TABLE 93 . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 33 (Principal)

TABLE 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 34 (Principal)

TABLE 95 . . . . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Fiscal Affairs

TABLE 96 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 35 (Principal)

TABLE 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 36 (Principal)

TABLE 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 37 (Principal)

TABLE 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 38 (Principal)

TABLE 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement 39 (Principal)

TABLE 101 . . . . . .
ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Scheduling

TABLE 102 . . . . .
Compilation of the Differences Between the
Categorical Mean Scores for the Pastors'
Perceptions of Pastors and Principals

TABLE 103 . . . . . .
Compilation of the Differences Between the
Categorical Mean Scores for the Principals'
Perceptions of Pastors and Principals

TABLE 104 . . . .
Compilation of the Differences Between the
Categorical Mean Scores for the Teachers'
Perceptions of Pastors and Principals

TABLE 105 . . .
Compilation of the Differences as Found in
Table 102, Table 103 and Table 104

XV

Page

198

198

200

202

203

203

205

205

207

208

211

211

213

213

TABLE 106 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of the Pastors’ and Principals'
Perceptions of the Pastor's Authority/
Responsibility

TABLE 107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of the Pastors' and Principals'
Perceptions of the Principal's Authority/
Responsibility

TABLE 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentages of the Three Groups Who Selected
the Various Hierarchies as Exemplifying
the "Ideal" Hierarchy of Authority/
Responsibility

TABLE 109 . .' . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentages of the Three Groups Who Selected
the Various Hierarchies as Exemplifying
the "Real" Hierarchy of Authority/
Responsibility

xvi

Page

214

214

217

217

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 . . . . . . . . . .
The Public Ministry

FIGURE 2 . . .
Simplified Version of Gouldner' s Mode1 for
Results of the Use of General and
Impersonal Rules

FIGURE 3 . . .
Pondy' 5 Five Stages of. a Conflict Episode

FIGURE 4 . . . . . . . . .

An organizationa1 chart dealing with a loca1
congregation in the Lutheran Church--
Missouri Synod. Diagram prepared by
Arthur L. Miller.

FIGURE 5 C O O O O O O O O O O
Lutheran Elementary School Organization

FIGURE 6 . . . .
A Section of the Organizational Model for the
Seventh- -day Adventist School

FIGURE 7 . . . . .
Five Suggested Hierarchies as Found on
Opinionnaire

xvii

Page
36

57

79

90

91

95

216

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Good administration, as defined by various writers
(Leavitt, 1951; Getzels and Guba, 1954; Simon, 1957; Etzioni,
1964; Knezevich, 1969; Sergiovanni and Carver, 1973)1,
includes the requirement that there should be clear and com-
monly shared understandings of the roles and relationships of
those employed in the institution's work. In the congrega-
tional schools of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod,
hereafter the Wisconsin Synod, it has become increasingly
apparent that the understandings are often not clear and com—
mon within the institution. In part this seems to be related
to the increased and specialized training of many of the newer

teachers and principals.

 

1H. J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communication
Patterns on Group Performance," in Organization Theory, ed.
D. S. Pugh, (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin
Education, 1971), p. 92; J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role,
Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study,"

MW 19 (April 1954): 165: Herbert
A. Simon, ggmgnistratixe_aehaxior.(New York: The Free Press,

1957), pp. 103-108; Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964),
p. 44; Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Educa-
tion (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969), p. 106;
Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Fred D. Carver, The New School
Executive: A Theory of Administration (New York: Harper and
Row, PubliShers, 1973), pp. 180-182.

“'er

2
The problem addressed by this researcher was to dis-
cover the extent of agreement among three groups--pastors,
principals, and teachers--as to the nature and degree of au-
thority and responsibility the pastor and principal each has
in the operation of a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran elementary
school, and how these three groups feel the authority and re-

sponsibility should be allocated.

The Problem

 

The problem addressed by this researcher was to dis-
cover the extent of agreement among three groups--pastors,
principals, and teachers--as to the nature and degree of au-
thority and responsibility the pastor and prinCipal each has
in the operation of a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran elementary
school, and how these three groups feel the authority and
responsibility should be allocated.

After numerous discussions with individuals know-
ledgeable about education in Wisconsin Synod elementary
schools, the researcher was led to suspect that the following
hypotheses might be true:

I. The pastors will not agree with the principals re-
garding the degree of authority/responsibility the pastor
has in each of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing with Student Offences

3

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

9) Scheduling
II. The pastors will not agree with the teachers regar-
ding the degree of authority/responsibility the pastor
has in each of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing with Student Offences

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

9) Scheduling
III. The principals will agree with the teachers regar-
ding the degree of authority/responsibility the pastor
has in each of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing with Student Offences

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

9) Scheduling
IV. The pastors will not agree with the principals re-
garding the degree of authority/responsibility the prin-

cipal has in each of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b)
C)
d)
e)
f)

9)

4
Supervision of Teachers
Supervision of Students
Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

V. The pastors will not agree with the teachers regar-

ding the degree of authority/responsibility the prin-

cipal has in each of the following areas:

a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
f)

9)

Curriculum

Supervision of Teachers

Supervision of Students

Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

VI. The principals will agree with the teachers regar-

ding the degree of authority/responsibility the principal

has in each of the following areas:

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

f)

9)

Curriculum

Supervision of Teachers

Supervision of Students

Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

5

VII. All groups--pastors, principals, and teachers--
will not agree on a hierarchy model for identifying the
igg§1_structure of authority/responsibility in a Lutheran
elementary school; and they will not agree on a hierarchy
model for identifying what each perceives as the £331
structure of authority/responsibility functioning in their
respective schools.

For the statistical aspect of this research, the above

listed hypotheses were restated in the null form as follows:

I. There will be no significant difference between the
pastors' perceptions and the principals' perceptions of
the degree of authority/responsibility the pastor has in
each of the following areas:

a). Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing with Student Offences

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

9) Scheduling
II. There will be no significant difference between the
pastors' perceptions and the teachers' perceptions of the
degree of authority/responsibility the pastor has in each
of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d)
e)
f)

9)
III.

6
Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

There will be no significant difference between the

principals' perceptions and the teachers' perceptions of

the degree of authority/responsibility the pastor has in

each of the following areas:

a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
f)

9)

Curriculum

Supervision of Teachers

Supervision of Students

Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

IV. There will be no significant difference between the

pastors' perceptions and the principals' perceptions of

the degree of authority/responsibility the principal has

in each of the following areas:

a)
b)
C)
d)
e)
f)

9)

Curriculum

Supervision of Teachers

Supervision of Students

Dealing with Student Offences
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff
Fiscal Affairs

Scheduling

7
V. There will be no significant difference between the
pastors' perceptions and the teachers' perceptions of the
degree of authority/responsibility the principal has in
each of the following areas:

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing with Student Offences

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

9) Scheduling
VI. There will be no significant difference between the
principals' perceptions and the teachers' perceptions of
the degree of authority/responsibility the principal has
in each of the following areas: 1

a) Curriculum

b) Supervision of Teachers

c) Supervision of Students

d) Dealing withStudent Offences

e) Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

f) Fiscal Affairs

g) Scheduling
VII. There will be no significant difference among the
three groups--pastors, principals, and teachers--as to
how they perceive the hierarchy model for identifying the
ideal structure of authority/responsibility in a Lutheran

elementary school; and there will be no significant

8'
difference in how these three groups perceive the hierar-
chy model for identifying the real structure of authority/

responsibility functioning in their respective schools.

Operational Definitions

 

1. Wisconsin Synod - The Wisconsin Synod, officially

 

the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, is an association

of Christian-congregations united by the bonds of a common
creed for the purposes of helping one another and of achieving
certain purposes which the congregations could not achieve

individually.

2. Missouri Synod - The Missouri Synod, officially

 

the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, is similar to the Wis-
consin Synod in purpose, but yet is an entity. The Missouri
Synod is older than the Wisconsin Synod and at one time was
joined with the Wisconsin Synod. However, since 1961 the two

have been split over doctrinal matters.

3. Pastor - The pastor is the spiritual shepherd of
the congregation and is highly theologically trained to serve

the spiritual needs of the congregation.

4. Principal - The principal is generally a teacher

 

charged by the congregation with the responsibility for the
daily Operation of the school. Much of the literature for

this study used teacher and principal interchangeably.

 

5. Public Ministry - Jesus Christ has commissioned

 

His church to proclaim the Law and Gospel, and administer the

9
sacraments. He has given this command to all members of the
church. But, that all things may be done decently and in
order, certain trained individuals, such as pastors and
teachers, are charged by individual congregations to exercise
publicly in their behalf the functions belonging to the indi-
vidual members, functions which the members originally have

authority to do themselves.

6. The Call - The Call is the Godly act of supplying

 

men to perform the public ministry. These men are trained for
their calling and are led to various positions by the prayer-
ful inviting of the congregation, which is acting through the
belief that God is directing their judgements regarding which
individuals they are to invite to their congregation. The
Call states the obligations of the individual and the obliga-
tions of the congregation regarding that individual. The
notion of a contract for pastors and teachers is foreign to

the churches of the Wisconsin Synod.

7. Conflict - Conflict is the strong differences be-

 

tween individuals or groups which can lead to restrictions of
communication, disruption of work flow, hard feelings, etc.
It is generally, but not always, negatively valued by the or-

ganization.

8. Role Conflict - Role conflict is experienced by
an individual when he receives mutually contradictory expec-

tations for what he is to do while in the role.

10

9. Role Ambiguity - Role ambiguity is not so much a

 

conflict situation, but rather is more of a confused situa-
tion. The individual in the role either does not know what to
do while in the role, or does not know what others think of

him while in the role.

Population to be Studied

 

The population of this study was all teachers, prin-
cipals, and pastors of the congregations in the Michigan
District of the Wisconsin Synod which operate their own elemen-
tary school, and in which a teacher functions as the principal.
Not included are those few congregations in which the pastor
functions also as principal. Part-time teachers are also
included in this study if they teach in kindergarten or the
grades, and spend at least half of each day in the classroom.
Congregations meeting these criteria, and included in the
Michigan District, are found in the states of Connecticut,
Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. All eligible congregations are
included in the test population. The totals for the various

test groups are as follows:

Pastors - N = 41
Principals - N = 38
Teachers - N = 103

Limitations of the Study

 

Results of this study will have direct application

only to those congregations which are members of the Michigan

11

District of the Wisconsin Synod, and which operate elementary
schools. Eliminated are congregations without an elementary

school of their own, even though they may be assisting in the
support of a sister congregation's school. The Lutheran high
schools of the Michigan District are also excluded. Finally,
schools of the District in which the pastor is also function-
ing as the principal are excluded.

The results of this study will pertain to the three
groups tested-~pastors, principals, and teachers--and will
not be categorized by individual congregations. The many un-
controllable variables on the individual congregation level
preclude the eliciting of significant results. The emphasis
is on group perceptions, not the perceptions of individuals.
The desired perceptions are centered about the involvement of
the pastor and the principal in school administration, specif-
ically concerning the following seven areas: curriculum,
supervision of teachers, supervision of students, dealing with
student offences, supervision of the non-teaching staff, fiscal
affairs, and scheduling. The researcher was not concerned
with any other area of congregational involvement where
pastor and principal coexist. Additional relationships not
covered by this study are those of pastor-teacher relationships
and pastor-principal-school board relationships.

No effort was made to investigate or propose any
methods of conflict resolution. In this study the author was
attempting to identify areas where significant differences in
group perceptions exist. The findings may, however, be useful

in pointing out situations of potential conflict.

12

Study Significance

 

As one peruses the literature in education and educa-
tional administration, it becomes quite apparent that the
private school sector has been relatively neglected. Bidwell
makes a similar, but more general, observation:

The author has deliberately chosen ... to consider
only public and elementary school systems. In part,
this choice was forced by the almost complete absence
of empiiical research dealing with any other kind of
school.

In focusing attention more directly on the Wisconsin
and Missouri Synods, the observation still holds true. But,
although little has~been written, one topic which has been
considered in some depth is that of the Lutheran teacher and
why he is leaving the teaching ministry (Mueller, 1964;
Schmidt, 1972; Kirchhoff, 1976).3

Stephen Schmidt, in reference to Walter S. Merz, con-
cluded that

Some leavers [people who left the teaching ranks of
the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod] reacted to the

relationship with their pastor with apparent bitter-
ness and resentment. Comments such as 'pastoral

 

2Charles E. Bidwell, "The School as a Formal Organi-
zation," in Handbook of Organizations, ed. James G. March
(Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1965),
p. 972.

 

3Arnold C. Mueller, The Ministry of the Lutheran
Teacher: A Study to Determine the Position of the Lutheran
Parish School Teacher Within the Public Ministry of the Church
(St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1964);
Stephen A. Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues (River Forest,
Illinoisz. Lutheran Education Association, 1972); W. James
Kirchhoff, "A Comparison of Teacher Perceptions of the
Leader Behavior of Principals in Operating Lutheran Elemen-
tary Schools with Principals in Recently Closed Lutheran
Elementary Schools," (Ed. D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois
University, 1976).

 

 

13

hypocrisy,’ 'driven from the system by a pastor,‘
pastor 'set out to close' the school, pastor consider-
ed schools a 'necessary evil,‘ 'lack of support from
pastor,‘ and the pastor was a 'complete ass,‘ appeared
frequently enough to be considered more than just a
reaction of a few soreheads.

Examples could also be cited where the pastor left a
particular congregation because of the lack of a harmonious
relationship with the principal or the other teachers.

In personal correspondence with Dr. Bernard Lall, pro-
fessor of educational administration at Andrews University,
Berrien Springs, Michigan, he indicated the following:

I served as a consultant to five [Seventh-day Adventist]
church school districts for a period of five years. One
of the major problems these schools faced was the con-
flict between the church pastor and the church school
principal.5

In considering the situation in the Wisconsin Synod, Krueger
writes:

The relationship between pastors and teachers is a sensi-
tive and provocative subject. There is no Solomon in our
midst who can with a few words and a sharp command split
the problem child asunder to expose the fraud and give
each his due. That does not give us leave, however, to
avoid the issue or skirt the field where the arrows fly.
Neither can the settlement of the problem be left to the
law of the jungle. The issue must be attacked directly,
and the firing line must be faced out in the open. Noth-
ing will be accomplished by hiding behind the bush of
platitudes or ducking around the corner of generalities.
A frontal attack with bared emotions and exposed egos is

 

4Walter S. Merz, "A Study of Dogmatism, Values, and
Demographic Variables as They Affect Attrition of Male
Teachers in Lutheran Elementary and Secondary Schools," (Ed.
D. Dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1969),
pp. 80-81, cited by Stephen A. Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues
(River Forest, Illinois: Lutheran Education Association,
1972), p. 123.

 

5Letter from Dr. Bernard Lall, Andrews University,
IBerrien Springs, Michigan, 15 February 1977.

14
the only kind of approach that can bring positive, con-
structive, wholesome results.... Such a spirit can help
to cure professional myopia so that all concerned can see
'more clearly that in their calling there is no difference
between pastors and teachers.

For all too long in the Wisconsin Synod, the issue of
this relationship has been avoided, hidden behind the "bush of
platitudes,” and placed "around the corner of generalities."
The bulk of the literature in this area comes in the form of
conference papers, papers generally written by pastors. There
are two sides to the issue, but seemingly, one side has rarely
been heard. Concerning the present study, reactions from
teachers in the Wisconsin Synod have been similar to the fol-
lowing: "You have taken up a good topic," or "I think you are
making an interesting study which should be of benefit to our

”7 Reactions from pastors have been only

Synod's schools.
spoken, and have been mixed to negative.

In a 1960 conference paper, William A. Kramer trum-
peted the need for a clarification of the relationship between
pastor and teacher when he wrote: "Since the pastor occupies
a central position of leadership, and the teacher likewise a

position of leadership, the relationship between the pastor

and the teacher must be defined."8 Lassanske echoed the

 

6William Krueger, "The Basis for a Properly Balanced
Relationship Between Pastors and Teachers," Unpublished Paper,
p. 1.

7Letters from Henry Krenz, St. Paul's Lutheran School,
New Ulm, Minnesota, 13 June 1977, and from Arthur J. Meier,
em., Phoenix, Arizona, 19 July 1977.

8William A. Kramer, "The Lutheran Teacher as an Educa-
tional Leader," paper presented at Southern Nebraska District
Teachers' Conference, 14 September 1960, William A. Kramer

15
notion by indicating that a "clarification of the role and

function of the Lutheran elementary school principal is
9

necessary....
Broadening the scope to any parochial school system,
Lall has indicated that "[he does] not know of any study done
in this specific area [role of pastors and principals in the
church school]. In fact, you [the researcher] might provide
valuable service to church school systems throughout North
America."10 He concludes his letter by saying, "I am person-
ally going to look forward to see the results of your study,
for your study should provide significant help to churches
operating schools throughout North America."ll
There is no doubt of the significance a study of this
nature holds for the congregations of the Wisconsin Synod.
On a broader scale it could provide insight for all parochial
schools. The tOpic is of necessity rather broad. This is
the initial step. It is the researcher's expectation that

the insights gained herein will provide a point of departure

for future research.

 

Papers, Box 1, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis,
Missouri. (Typewritten)

9Roland R. Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the
Ideal Role and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary
Principal in Southern California," (Ph. D. dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1970): pp. 15-16.

10Lall, Personal letter.

llIbid.

16

Summary

The chapter began with an introduction stating the
problem. Seven hypotheses were stated, followed by the seven
research hypotheses in the null form. Following this was a
list of nine pertinent definitions. The population of the
study was considered, and it was indicated that the N'of the
three groups will be as follows: Pastors, N = 41; Principals,
N_= 38; Teachers, N = 103.

Limitations of the study were indicated, followed by
the study significance. The study was indicated to be quite
significant for the Wisconsin Synod, as this concerns a situa-
tion which is rarely considered. As regards the Synod, the
situation is also being approached in a novel manner. Dr.
Bernard Lall has given his Opinion that this topic is capable

of providing useful information to all parochial schools, not

merely Lutheran schools.

CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND

Roles of Pastors and Teachers
in EHe Early Lutheran Churches

 

 

There have been Lutheran churches in the United States
since the mid-seventeenth century. Many of these churches
also had schools. Historically, when the churches were begun,
the pastor was expected to do everything. As congregations
grew, the pastors needed help. Sometimes this assistance came
in the form of individuals who taught in the church schools,
thus relieving the pastor of also being a teacher. By the
nineteenth century, more and more non-pastors were filling the

classrooms of the Lutheran schools.l

During these earlier
days, the pastor was considered the authority in all spiritual
matters; laymen made all material decisions. By contrast, the
role of the teacher was not clearly defined.

Schools of the Missouri Synod, and thus indirectly
schools of the Wisconsin Synod, trace their origins to the
middle 1800's. In these churches, as in the Lutheran churches

of an earlier era, the teaching and direct supervision of all

educational agencies of the congregation was delegated to the

 

lEarhardt Schultz, "The Teacher's Divine Call--Its
Limitations and/or Scope," paper presented at Michigan Dis-
trict Teachers' Conference, St. Joseph, Michigan, 11 October
1973, p. 8. (Typewritten)

17

l8
pastor. This supervisory role was assumed on behalf of the
congregation, authority by transfer. As more and more teach-
ers entered the congregation's schools, this situation tended
to place the pastor in a position of dominance over the
teacher, especially in matters regarding the school. Stephen
Schmidt comments that this ”... was the seedbed for discontent
and teacher-pastor strife."2
Not all pastors of the Missouri Synod were relieved of

their responsibilities, for as late as 1897 there were still
894 pastors included in the total teaching force of 1,675.
The pattern still held that the pastor was responsible for the
supervision of the school and thus the supervision of the
teacher. This was even true though trained teachers were
being employed in the school. The first volume of the pro-
fessional journal of the schools of the Missouri Synod clari-
fied this position as early as 1864, when the editor, Dr. J.
P. C. Lindemann stated:

Dem.Pastor gebuhrt eine Oberaufsicht fiber die ganze Schule,

uber Alles was in der Schule gelehrt und getrieben wird,

nicht bloss uber einzelne Theile des Unterrichts.3

(The pastor is responsible for the supervision of the

entire school, of everything that is taught and done

in the school, not just isolated parts of the program of
instruction.)

 

2Stephen A. Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues (River
Forest, Illinois: Lutheran Education Association, 1973),
pp. 50-51.

 

3Roland R.Lassanske, ”A Comparative Study of the
Ideal Role and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary
Principal in Southern California," (Ph. D. dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1970), pp. 15-16.

19
This position was reaffirmed in a paper presented to a
teachers' conference of the Missouri Synod. This conference
was held on August 5 and 6, 1868, at Addison, Illinois. The
essayist stated his position in ten statements. One statement
of significance is statement III, which reads:
Weil dem Prediger das offenliche Predigtamt an allen
Seelen seinen Gemeinde, also auch an denen der Kinder,
von Gott anvertraut ist, so liegt zuvorderst ihm auch
die Sorge fur christliche Schulen.
(Because the preacher has been ordained by God to dis-
charge the public ministry for all of his congregation,
including the children, he also has responsibility for
Christian schools.)

To this, Lassanske comments:
While the position stated here was generally the accepted
position of the Missouri Synod regarding the role of the
pastor in a school, there were many individuals who did
not agree with this position. This resulted in consider-
able conflict and has remained so through the years.

In the early decades of the church, there was no ques-
tion about the teaching role of the pastor. Most calls insis-
ted that the pastor teach as well as preach until a qualified
schoolteacher could come to the parish. When teachers were
appointed, the pastor then became the superintendent of the
school. This role was adopted from the German fathers. The
pastor was responsible for supervision of doctrine in the
church and in the school. The teachers were examined by the

pastor and employed only with the approval of the pastor.6

In these early years, as well as in the present time,

 

4Ibid.. pp. 16-17.
51bid.

6Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues, p. 32.

20
there was a lack of theological clarity concerning the status
of teachers. Seemingly, teachers were "almost clergy, yet al-
most laymen." Schmidt speaks strongly that "... this lack of
clarity ... was intentional for it tended to keep teachers in
their places, auxiliary to the ordained clergy."7

C. F. W. Walther, an early president Of the Missouri
Synod, tried to introduce some clarity when he indicated that
he saw no difference between the teaching of secular and reli-
gious subjects. Walther did not elevate the parish pastorate
above the role of the parish teacher, nor did he View the
teachers of secular subjects as subordinate to the teachers of
theology. However, this view was not held by all members of
the Missouri Synod clergy. Evidence seems to indicate that
teaching became subordinate to preaching.

In an article by J. C. W. Lindemann, it is indicated“
that some pastors were threatened when they thought of ale
lowing teachers to become members of the congregational min-
istry. In other words, teachers must remain beneath the
pastor. Rev. Lindemann further implied that a movement was
started to separate the parish schools from the congregations
so as to allow the schools more independence. Lindemann's
response to the members of this movement is that

All this cry for emancipation of the school from church,
this public or private protesting against the inspection
of the school by the pastor is nothing else than a varia-

tion of the theme: WE DON'T DESIRE TO HAVE CHRIST RULE
OVER us.3 (Emphasis in text)

 

7Ibid., p. 5.

81bidol p- 51

21

Regarding the above comment, Schmidt would have his readers
note the powerful use of theology to assert the position of
the pastor in the parish. To resist the supervision of the
pastor or parish was equated with resisting Christ--no doubt
a great burden for the conscience of any parish teacher.

Concerning the position of teachers, the polity of
the Synod produced an interesting compromise between "lay
power" and ”clergy power." C. F. W. Walther developed the
following balance compromise: Only the clergy and laymen
could vote, each group having the same number of votes. The
teachers became advisory personnel, being neither lay nor
clergy. The teachers remained silent, their silence symbol-
ized by a lack of voting privilege.9 A. C. Mueller indicates
the existence of documentary evidence indicating that teach-
ers in Germany were classified as members of the clergy. In
the writings of Luther and others, pastors and teachers are
often placed side by side as "spiritual fathers."lo

The German Lutherans who emigrated to the United
States brought with them their system of schooling. This
system was develOped in Germany, over a span of many years.
The schools were supervised by the local pastor who assumed
authority as the representative of the state. The pastor was

responsible for examining the teachers and inspecting the

 

91bid., p. 5.

10Arnold C. Mueller, The Ministry of the Lutheran
Teacher (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House,

I§€ZT75p. 122.

 

22

heavily religious curriculum. Reflecting on the nineteenth
century schools in Germany, Martin Schmidt indicates that

Had the church made its supervision of the schools a

brotherly council; had the pastors restricted themselves

to the supervision of the Christian doctrine, and allowed

the teachers their independence in professional matters

and methods; had the pastor met the teacher as a brother,

and not as his foreman,--many a teacher would have been

preserved for the Church.ll

A goodly amount of literature is preserved which
documents some of the experiences of German Lutherans and
other religious groups during their early years in Pennsyl-
vania. These early German Lutherans developed an extensive
system of parish schools. Often there were more schools than
churches. The teachers of these schools were, following the
European tradition, licensed to teach. The licensing was
done by the pastor. The early teachers were considered min-
isters, or servants of the entire congregation. The teacher
performed more duties than mere teaching, however, but what-
ever he did was under the direct supervision of the pastor.
The schools of these churches were handicapped by the

lack of control by a central organization. Initially the
administration of the schools was controlled by the congrega-
tion, with the pastor usually functioning as a supervisor.
Generally, the pastor had complete charge of the teachers.

In the event a teacher was unsatisfactory, the pastor advised

the church council to remove him. Because the pastor was

 

llMartin Schmidt, "Kirche und Schule, Pfarrer und
Lehrer" (Church and School, Pastor and Teacher), Translator
Unknown, Berlin, 21 May 1949, Stellhorn Papers, Box 46, Folder
4, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis, Missouri.

23

responsible for the education of the children, he frequently
gave examinations to monitor the progress of the students. In
school matters as well as church matters, the pastor was the
director.12

The administration of the sChools in Pennsylvania was
comparatively simple since most congregations had one school
and one teacher. The pastors, based on their academic train-
ing, were delegated the supervision of the school, as they
were deemed better fitted for the work. At one time the
training teachers received was the same that the pastors re-
ceived. However, eventually the curriculum for teachers was
curtailed, and Stephen Schmidt would indicate that this was
intentionally done to elevate the pastor and thus "demOte"

the teacher.13

As early as 1760, the school regulations of
the Reformed Church in Philadelphia indicated that the ”...
schoolmaster should regard the pastor as the principal super-
intendent of the school."14 The rules of this same school
provided that the pastor and two members of the vestry should
visit the school "on the first Monday of each month for the
purpose of supervision."15
Regarding the role of the pastor as supervisor Of the

school, Martin Schmidt comments on the German experience.

 

12Charles L. Maurer, Early Lutheran Education in Penn-
sylvania (Philadelphia: Dorrance and Company, Inc., 1932),
p. 256.

13Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues, p. 5.

14Maurer, Early Lutheran Education in Pennsylvania,
p. 257.

15Ibid., pp. 257-258.

24
It is a fact that the relationship between pastors and
Christian teachers has become better, healthier, and
more brotherly since the abolition, in 1919, of pastoral
supervision of the schools.16
The objection to pastoral supervision arises because of the
seeming emphasis this places upon rank. It is interesting
that among the evils which Martin Luther attacked concerning
the Catholic Church was the church polity of the pope. As
early as 1520, Martin Luther wrote:
It is an invention that pope, bishOps, priests, monastery
folks are called the spiritual order, princes, lords,
artisans, and peasants the worldly station, which is in-
deed a fine comment and show. And yet no one should on
that account be intimidated, and for this reason: all
Christians are truly of the spiritual order, and there is
no difference among them but on account of the office
alone, as St. Paul says I Cor. 12:12 ff, that we are al-
together one body, and yet every member has its own func-
tion, wherewith it serves the other.

An underlying principle of the churches in the Mis-
souri and Wisconsin Synods is that of congregational autonomy.
This autonomy is carefully guarded and is at the same time
both advantageous and detrimental. It is advantageous in that
each congregation is free to conduct its affairs as it sees
fit, without concerning itself with the affairs of other con-
gregations. But, from the church worker's perspective it can
be viewed as detrimental in that situations change as church

workers move from one congregation to another. It also be-

comes most difficult to draw any generalizations on

 

16Schmidt, "Kirche und Schule, Pfarrer und Lehrer."

17Paul E. Kretzmann, Church_§overnment and Church
Offices in a Lutheran CongregatiOn, Translation ofIdOOtrinal
essay read before the meeting of the South Dakota District,
1928, St. Louis, Missouri, p. 7.

 

25
congregational practices as each congregation probably dif-
fers slightly.

In the early 1900's, most Lutheran school were one-
teacher schools. These schools had no need for an individual
to occupy the position of "principal" as we know the term to-
day. As some of these schools grew to multiple-teacher in-
stitutions, the congregation often appointed the uppergrade
teacher as "head teacher." There was early resistance to the
idea of a strong "principalship." It was commonly held that
among Christians no staff member should be above any other in
authority.18 Yet, this seems to conflict with the notion of
pastoral supervision which had been, and at this time still
was, in vogue.

For the schools of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods,
it was not until after World War I that the idea of establish-
ing the office of principal gained any impetus. But, with the
institution of the principalship, conCern was expressed
that this individual really be a leader, a guiding influence,
as well as being the official representative of the school.

At no time was the principal intended to be a dictator who
gloried in giving orders and then insisted that others carry
them out.

Again the notion of rank comes to the fore. Dr.
Sihler, an individual not otherwise identified, is referred

to by A. C. Stllhorn as saying that he (Sihler) denounced

 

18Edward'J. Keuer, "The Lutheran Elementary School
Principal," Board for Parish Education Bulletin #303 (Rev.),
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965), p. 4.

26
the idea of ranking and expressed his gratitude over the fact
that in our Synod we did not practice ranking.19 A. C.

Mueller in The Ministry of the Lutheran Teacher stated that

 

"Our church repudiates all domination in a hierarchial

”20 But, the paradox should be obvious. The Synod

sense.
wishes to give no hint of ranking or hierarchial ordering, but
yet to accomplish anything where individuals must work to-
gether as a group, someone must be responsible and at the
lead.

This condition was apparently recognized as early as
1840, when in an unidentified church in St. Louis, ”... it
was resolved to make the pastor the supervisor of the

"21 It was then quickly added that in a congregation

school.
served by a pastor and one or more teachers, the pastor is
primus inter pares (first among equals). This was true for
two reasons: the scope of the pastor's call was deemed
broader than that of the teacher's call, and in the early

years of the Synod, the pastor was better trained academically

than the teacher. A difficulty in this area today is that

 

19August C. Stellhorn, "The Lutheran Teacher's Posi-
tion in the Ministry of the Congregation," Paper delivered to
Educational Conference, Seward, Nebraska, 7-8 July 1949,
Stellhorn Papers, Box 46, Folder 4, Concordia Historical In-
stitute, St. Louis, p. 4.

20
148-149.
21August C. Stellhorn, Schools of the Lutheran

Church-~Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
House, 1963), p. 85.

Mueller, The Ministry of the Lutheran Teacher, pp.

 

 

27
many principals hold graduate degrees, or at least possess
some graduate training. Seemingly, then, the pastor is no
longer better trained to administer the school. Often the
principal's training is in the area of school administration.
Compared to the Synod as a whole, this is even more true of
the schools in the state of Michigan because requirements for
certification demand a certain amount of graduate training for
all teachers in the Wisconsin Synod.

Further complicating the area of supervision in a
Lutheran elementary school is the fact that each congregation
elects a board of education for the purpose of school super-
vision. Such a board is elected because it is impossible for
the entire congregation to function directly in supervision.
In his personal correspondence, Stellhorn indicates that
schools are supervised by a board Of education and the pas-
tor.22 An anonymous monograph from the Missouri Synod indi-
cates that regarding the board of education, the pastor is
always a member and is generally the chairman of the group.23

William Kramer would indicate that both the pastor and
the principal are advisory members of the board of education.
More specifically, the principal funOtions as the school's
executive officer and the educational leader of the school and

the congregation. He is the official representative of the

 

22August C. Stellhorn, letter to Victor Cronk, La-
Grange, Illinois, 17 June 1930, Stellhorn Papers, Box 2, File
24, #1064, Concordia Historical Institute, St. Louis.

23"The Christian Day-School of the Lutheran Church."
(No publisher, author, or date), pamphlet, Concordia Histor-
ical Institute, St. Louis, p. 4.

28
school and staff to the board, congregation, parents, public
schools, and the general public. By contrast, the pastor is
the overall spiritual leader of the congregation and
school.24 Seemingly, Kramer is advocating a split in school
Operation between spiritual matters and matters of a secular
nature. The major complication with the board of education
arises from the fact that there is rarely any clear-cut agree-
ment as to how the lines of authority and cooperation should
be drawn. It must be remembered that since each congregation
is autonomous, the Synod cannot enter into the situation in
any more than an advisory capacity.

Much confusion exists: A number of writers stress
that the principal is directly responsible to the board of
education and ultimately to the voters of the congregation
(an example of such a writer is Martin Luebke, 1953). A
chart of lines of authority and information which was devel-
oped by Krause (1963), places the pastor in a line of infor-
mation and advisory contact with the principal, rather than
in a line of authority over the principal. In contrast, Dr.
A. L. Miller (1951) places the principal in a line of author-

ity under the pastor.25

In a conference paper delivered by
Pastor Gerald Free, he implied that a hierarchial setting

exists whereby the teacher falls under the direct supervision

 

24William A. Kramer, "Lutheran Schools," Board for
Parish Education Bulletin #301 (St. Louis: Concordia Publish-
ing House, 1969), p. 6.

25Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the Ideal Role
and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary Principal in
Southern California," p. 19.

29

26 In Free's conception, a principal is not

of the pastor.
even specifically mentioned.

When considering the lines of authority in a school,
it must be remembered that the ultimate authority for the
church school resides in the congregation's voting assembly.
When calling pastors, principals, or teachers to serve the
congregation, the congregation does not relinquish its
priestly rights as given the congregation in the Ministry of
the Keys. Pastors, principals, and teachers remain servants
whom the congregation has called to exercise publicly on be-
half of the congregation, the functions which belong to the
congregation, the members of the body of Jesus Christ.

Since the ministry belongs to the members of the con-
gregation, the congregation defines the functions of the
pastor's position, the principal's position, and the teacher's
position, respectively, when they call these persons. Thus,
regarding the relationship between pastors and principals,
specifically, the question is get where the responsibility of
one ends and the other begins. Rather, it must be recognized
that the congregation details the responsibilities each is to
carry out in the congregation's work, and that many times the
responsibilities of each may overlap. It must also be remem-
bered that the talents of the individuals will vary.27

In many ways the pastor and principal are

 

26Gerald Free, ”The Pastor's Role in Regard to the
Christian Day School," (Typewritten)

27William A. Kramer, ”The Ethics of the Lutheran
Teacher," Board for Parish Education Bulletin #109, (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), p. 5.

30
co-responsible, and must therefore complement each other in
their work. Generally the pastor will have a more thorough
theological background and the principal a more thorough ed-
ucational background. Each has different training because

each has different tasks to perform.
The Concept of the Ministry

Each called worker--pastor, principal, or teacher--
is working for the Church. Christ has given the Church but
one work to do, and that is to preach the gospel. This is
recorded in Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV), "Go ye therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to ob-
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you:". This
work of preaching the gospel is referred to by the Church as

an office or ministry. This particular office has been given

 

to the Church, therefore to all Christians. Yet, from the
beginning, God has appointed certain men to discharge publicly
the duties of the ministry. These men are the pastors and
male teachers.

Early in the history of the Missouri Synod, President
C. F. W. Walther, when speaking of the concept of "the minis-
try," indicated that "The ministry is the highest Office in
the Church, from which as its stem, all other offices of the

Churchissue."28 Much confusion has resulted from this

28William Krueger, "The Basis for a Properly Balanced
Relationship Between Pastors and Teachers," Part II, p. l.
(Typewritten)

31
statement. Krueger summarizes the confusion with the fol—
lowing:

If Walther meant that the ministry ... embraces the entire
rministry as long as there is only a pastor serving a con-
gregation and that all other offices as they are added

are a part of this same ministry which the pastor once
fulfilled alone, there can be no argument with him. If

he spoke of the ministry ... as the public ministry in
general according to the great commission given to the
Holy Christian Church, his statement is sound. However,
if he meant, as his statement is frequently interpreted,
to equate ministry and astorate, as seems to be indicated
by his reference to 'other offices' and the impression
given in other theses ('The holy ministry, or the pas-
toral Office is ...') of the same treatise, he would make
the teacher's office a subsidiary or subordinate ...
dependent upon the pastorate. This interpretation is
misleading. The truth of the matter is that both the
pastorate and thsgteacher's office stem from the general
public ministry.

 

 

 

Mueller indicates that the confusion concerning the
ministry was the result of holding two views of the ministry
which are mutually exclusive.

According to one View, the pastorate is the one divinely
instituted office; all other positions in the ministry
are auxiliary offices to the pastorate. According to the
other view, which I believe is the Biblical one, God has
instituted the office of the all-embracing public minis-
try, that is, He has commissioned His church to proclaim
the Law and the Gospel and administer the sacraments, but
He has not prescribed the forms in which the church is to
carry out the commission. All forms of the ministry, in-
cluding the pastorate, stem from the one divinel insti-
tuted and all-embracing office of the ministry.3

Following is a statement by Dr. Wolbrecht, then a
professor at a Missouri Synod teachers' college. This state-

ment was recorded in One Hundred Years of Christian Education.

 

There were some who said that the school was the teacher's
lbusiness, and the teacher's business only. But the church

 

291bid.

3oArnold C. Mueller, "For or Against Ordination: A
Reaction," Lutheran Education 104 (September 1968): 17-18.

32

... never agreed to that, but always said that the con-
gregation, particularly through the pastor, had a vital
interest in what was going on in the schoolroom.... The
principle was frequently enunciated ... that the school-
teacher in a congregation really cannot take any other
position than helper to the pastor.31

Merkens reports that "The male Christian day-school teacher

in the Missouri Synod is regarded as a minister of religion,

"32

assistant to the pastor. In a particularly bitter expose

of this topic, Stephen Schmidt indicates:

Consistently teachers have been reminded that they were
'auxiliary' members of the ministry. Their ministry was
an extension of the pastor's office--always optional.

The clerics repeated that rhetoric over and over, some-
times adding comfort for the lowly teacher: 'May God
give and maintain for His Church teachers who are content
with their Office.

The incessant reminders from the clergy that their office
was '1ower', 'less than', 'under', 'auxiliary to' the
pastor's 'more holy office', 'highest office', could only
undermine the professional dignity of the teacher. As a
group within the church, teachers did, in fact, develop
the professional inferiority complex so often mentioned
in the literature.
As late as 1945, a president of a Missouri Synod teacher
training college "issued a statement clearly defining the
Office of the teaeher as 'auxiliary' to the pastorate. The
teacher was not a clergyman, but rather a 'minister of

religion'."34

 

31Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the Ideal Role
and the Actual Role Of the Lutheran Elementary Principal in
Southern California," p. 17.

32Albert G. Merkens, "The Policies of the Evangelical
Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States with Re-
gard to Elementary Education by Means of Christian Day-
Schools,“ (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1935), p. 40.

33Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues, p. 61.

 

34Ibid.

33

A. C. Stellhorn indicates that the Missouri Synod
classifies teachers in Washington as "Ministers of Religion,"
but yet the Synod Objects to the use of the term in such
documents as the Diploma of Vocation, that document which in-
cludes the teacher's call. Nonetheless, the Missouri Synod
indicates that it has called its male teachers "Ministers of
Religion" not only in times of war, but even as far back as

1897.35 In 1897, Speckhard quotes the Synodalhandbuck Seite

 

as saying, "In our Synod we certainly do not want secular

school-teachers, but our teachers shall be ministers of the
"36

 

church who devote all their efforts solely to the church.
(Emphasis in text)

During times of compulsory military training, the
United States government officially recognized two colleges
of the Missouri Synod as theological institutions because
these schools prepared teachers, and the male teacher was
preparing to assume a part of the ministry of the church.
The Missouri Synod concurs with the United States government
in granting that distinction to its male teachers. Likewise
the Wisconsin Synod indicates that it, too, recognizes its
male teachers as "regular ministers of religion."

Of this issue Elmer Foelber concludes,

To speak of one kind of ministry within the all-embracing
office of the public ministry as the theologically

 

35Stellhorn, "The Lutheran Teacher's Position in the
Ministry of the Congregation," p. 3.

36W. E. Homann, et. a1., "Preliminary Report of Com-
mittee on Status of Parochial School Teacher," Stellhorn
Papers, Box 34, Folder 14, Concordia Historical Institute,
St. Louis, p. 2.

34

highest forces one to think of the other kinds as lower,

still lower, lowest, and creates a caste situation for

which there is no Scriptural warrant. Perhaps the term

highest may be necessary from the administrative point of

view, but even here the Biblical stress on humility and

equality would suggest nonuse of it.3

In essence, there is only one public ministry which

God has instituted. It must be recognized, however, that this
ministry may assume various forms as the circumstance de-
mands. The statement was made that "The 'office of the min-
istry', the incumbent of which is known as 'pastor,' is die
vinely instituted."38 To this Stellhorn indicated that the

"office of the ministry" was given to the Church. The

Church calls the pastor to publicly proclaim the Office in

 

the Church's stead. The pastorate "is not divinely insti-
tuted."39 In another publication, Stellhorn says, "It is
clear from the Holy Scriptures that the Lord had established
the public ministry, but it is also clear that this ministry
embraces more than the pastorate."4O
If one were attempting in any way to define the pas-

torate, Stellhorn would indicate that the following should
be avoided:

l) [The error] that all other church positions or of-

fices stem from the pastorate, and are 'auxiliary offices'
of the pastorate. The fact is that all church offices

 

37Mueller, "For or Against Ordination: A Reaction,"
p. 19.

38Homann, et. a1., "Preliminary Report of Committee
on Status of Parochial School Teacher," p. 1.

39Ibid.

40Stellhorn, Schools Of the Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod, p. 461.

 

35

stem from, and flow out of, the commission of Christ to
teach and preach the Word.

2) That the pastor's supervision of the teacher is pre-

scribed in Scripture, and is more than a natural of the

pastorate or a provision of his and the teacher's call.

3) That the pastor holds the whole office of the con-

gregation's public ministry, and that all other offices

created by the congregation are 'only auxiliary offices

of the pastorate.

The teacher's Office, and therefore the principal's
Office also, is a branch of the public ministry, but is not
another pastorate. Neither is it a part of the pastorate.
It, just like the pastorate, is a part of the ministry. It
is a separate part which like the pastorate is responsible
to the congregation. Since the pastor and the teacher do not
serve the same functions in the congregation, their Offices
are not interchangeable. Historically both functions were
performed by one person, and even today there is certain
overlapping of functions. But, they are separate nonetheless,
with each still serving as a minister of the gospel.
To visualize the foregoing, the picture of a tree may

be used.42 At the base of the tree is the public ministry
as given to the congregation through the Ministry of the Keys.
Various branches represent various parts or divisions in the
public ministry. One branch might be labeled "pastorate,"

a second branch labeled ”teachers," a third "Synod," etc.

(See Figure 1)

 

41Stellhorn, "The Lutheran Teacher's Position in the
Ministry of the Congregation," pp. 11-12.

42Mueller, The Ministry of the Lutheran'Teacher, PP-

 

9-100

36

\ \ smog

 

PASTORATE TEACHERS
PUBLIC
MINISTRY
FIGURE 1. The Public Ministry

The manner in which the public ministry is carried
out and the Offices which are instituted to implement the
Great Commission are arbitrary. The church may discontinue
the position of professor, or teacher, or Sunday school
superintendent, etc. But, it may also discontinue the posi-
tion of the pastor. The only thing which cannot be discon-
tinued is the preaching and teaching of the Word. The exter-
nal forms the church wishes to use have been left to the dis-
cretion of the congregations.

In writing the book, The Ministry of the Lutheran

 

Teacher, the ministry of the Lutheran teacher is addressed by

one who in his career has been both a teacher and a pastor.

37

Due to holding both positions during his active church—
working career, A. C. Mueller provides an account colored by
some of the biases innate to both groups. In speaking of his
book, Mueller indicates:

The burden of my book is that the pastorate is not the

highest office in the church. The highest office is

the preaching and teaching of the Word; all who receive

a call frzm the church participate in this highest

function. 3
David Toven, in referring to Mueller's book, indicates that
the book

... clearly placed the ministry of the teacher in its

proper perspective as one facet of the total public

ministry. It Offered Scriptural and historical support

for the concept that the Office of the teacher is sup-

plemental and not subordinate to the office of pastor.

Above all, it underscored the fact that both pastors and

teachers are servants called by congregations to exercise

publicly in their behalf the functions belonging to the

members, functions which they originally have authority

to do themselves.44

In regard to the status Of the called male teacher,

Richard Osing is of the opinion that "the status of the
called male teacher in many congregations is dependent on the
pastor's attitude toward him as reflected in the opportunities
for ministry that the pastor opens up to him."45 Many
teachers give a great deal of time to such church activities

as Sunday school, representative boards, and the like; but

 

43Mueller, "For or Against Ordination: A Reaction,"
p. 20.

44Richard P. Sauer, et. al., "The Changing Status of
the Lutheran Teacher,"'Lutheran Education 103 (January 1968):
232.

 

45Richard A. Osing, "The Case for Ordination,"
Lutheran Education 103 (March 1968): 350.

 

38

yet Osing contends that "when the teacher functions in these
other areas he is frequently considered to be and is treated
as a layman."46

Thus, it should be Obvious that a complete and up-
to-date statement on the status of the teacher is in order.
In addition to the above, it is also the case that old docu-
ments which did treat the subject are not easily accessible,

and that the thinking of some regarding this topic has become

confused.

The Concept of Ordination

 

When considering the relations between pastors and
teachers, the question of ordination Often arises. It is
often asserted that the ordination of a pastor is an adia-
phoron, something which is customary in the church, however
not commanded by Scripture. Therefore, ordination in the
Lutheran church can only be considered as a solemn confirma-
tion of the call. Yet, many laymen seem to have the impres-
sion that ordination is somehow special and more meaningful
than the call. Ordination is not commanded, nor is any par-
ticular form of induction into this Office prescribed by
Scriptures.

Historically it seems that the notion of ordination
originated in the United States with the German Lutherans.
It is understandable that when the German Lutherans came to

the United States, they brought with them their German

 

46Ibid., p. 348.

39
experiences, one of which involved ordination. In EurOpe
only the bishop could ordain. Since the time Of the Refor-
mation, "schoolmasters" were considered members of the clergy,
but were not ordained. This distinction was carried into the
pattern of the Missouri Synod, where the pastor was thought
of as having the one highest office of the public ministry.
It thus followed that the office of the teacher, or any other
office other than pastor, was only an auxiliary or branch of
the one highest office--the pastorate. With this View, it
was understandable that only the pastor was ordained.

Osing indicates that the official position of the
Missouri Synod does not claim divine institution for ordi-
nation.47 The Wisconsin Synod is in agreement with the Mis-
souri Synod regarding ordination. Ordination is not a di-
vine institution or ordinance, but a church rite. It is re-
ferred to in the Bible, but is not commanded by Scripture.
Ordination, therefore, is classed among adiaphora. It is the
call, not ordination, which makes a person a minister
(Laetsch, 1947; Mueller, 1955; Schuetze and Habeck, 1974).48

A. C. Mueller touches on the subject of ordination in
his book and indicates his belief that ordination is an
adiaphoron. He also indicates that since ordination is an

adiaphoron, then male teachers as well as pastors could be

 

47Ibid., p. 346.

48Theodore Laetsch, ed., The Abiding Word, Vol.2.,
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), pp. 489-492;
John T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1955), PP. 574-576; Armin Schuetze and
Irwin Habeck, The Shepherd Under Christ, (Milwaukee: North-
western Publishing House, 1974), pp. 49-50.

 

 

 

40

ordained. Before the final revision of his book, Mueller
Amade available a basic outline of his-book. This outline was
in the form of an essay. Each recipient of a copy of the
essay was requested to "'criticize and, if possible, refute
[Mueller's] thesis by citing Scripture to the contrary.”49
Of this Mueller indicates the following: "In compliance with
my request, a number of pastors and teachers submitted crit-
icisms [of Mueller's stance on ordination], but no one was
able to furnish Scriptural evidence 'to the contrary'."50

Mentioned above was the fact that the United States
government views teachers as ministers of the gospel. An
Obvious paradox exists in that the government views a min-
ister of the gospel as an ordained person. But teachers,
ministers of the gospel, are not ordained. If the Lutheran
church did not recognize the truth that a teacher's first
installation is tantamount to ordination, the church would
simply have been deceiving the government.

The ordination of male teachers is not commanded in

Scriptures--but neither is the ordination of pastors. How-

ever, neither ordination is anti-Scriptural. The Convention

 

Yearbook of the 1973 Convention Of the Lutheran Church-

 

Missouri Synod, held in New Orleans, contains the following
relative to the ordination of male teachers:

Since called-male teachers in the Lutheran Church!-
Missouri Synod are called to perform certain functions

 

49Mueller, "For or Against Ordination: A Reaction,"
p. 17.

5°1bid.

41

of the Ministry, and are considered clergy, and since,
moreover, ordination is an adiaphoron, that is, a custom
of the church not divinely cOmmanded, there are no
Biblical or theological reasons why teachers could not be
ordained to perform that function of the Ministry to
which they are called.51

The "Call"

 

To this point the teachers have been referred to as
being ”called." This is a reference to the method by which
male teachers, as well as pastors, are employed by the vari-
ous congregations. Male teachers of the Lutheran church are
not simply employed by a congregation, they are extended a
"call.“ A call is extended by a congregation of Christians
in the firm belief that they are doing the Lord's will by
trying to place church workers into the location in which God
wants them to work. It is firmly believed in the Lutheran
church that the concept of the "call" is entirely in harmony
with Scripture. The first recorded instance of a teacher re-
ceiVing a call was in 1840. The teacher's call is not nearly
as broad as that of the pastor, yet the teacher, too, is a
public "pastor” or shepherd of God's congregation in the true
sense of the word.

As indicated above, the congregation is the possessor
of the Ministry of the Keys, and it is left to the discretion

of the congregation how it wishes to execute the

 

51Al H. Senske, "Ordination of Teachers: Anti—
Scriptural?” Board for Parish Education Bulletins 331—332,
St. Louis, 1975, p. 31, citing "The Ministry in Its Relation
to the Christian Church," Convention Yearbook, 1973 Conven-
tion of the Lutheran Church--Missouri'Synod, New Orleans,
Louisiana.

 

42
responsibilities and privileges of the Ministry of the Keys.
It then follows that when a congregation calls a teacher, it
determines the responsibilities of the new teacher and also
commits a part of the parish ministry to the teacher.

The pastor, meanwhile, continues to serve as pastor,
performing what we commonly understand to be pastoral func-
tions. But the male teacher also classifies as a servant of
the Word. If he is a servant of the Word, he, too, bears a
responsibility toward the entire congregation, not solely
toward the children under his spiritual care or the children
and their parents. This does not mean that the teacher per-
forms functions belonging to the pastor's ministry, or vice
versa.

The Uncertainty of the
Pastor-PrincipaiRelationship52

 

The uncertainty of the relationship between the posi-
tions of pastor and principal has caused many people to do
some serious thinking. Some have even indicated that this
lack of clarity has led to numerous instances of open con-
flict between the pastor and the principal. Others indicate
that this lack Of clarity has led the laity to look toward

principals as being less than the pastor in the work of the

 

521t should be remembered that much Of the literature
uses Teacher and Principal interchangeably. Hereafter in
this chapter, attention will focus upon the principal as op-
posed to the teacher, and whenever the term teacher is used,
the notion of the principal should be carried with it.

43
church.

Early in the history of the Wisconsin Synod, there
were significant differences in the academic preparation of
pastors and teachers. At one time teachers were permitted
to teach after completing only two years of training. With
this being the case, one could hardly expect the teacher to
have equal status with the clergy in the eyes of the laity or
the clergy. Today, however, there no longer exists a poorly
trained teaching force. The teachers, and thus the princi-
pals, of today have a bachelor's degree, and, with the strin-
gent certification requirements imposed upon teachers in the
state of Michigan, many teachers in the State of Michigan
either have or are in the process of acquiring a graduate
degree.

Speaking directly of the relationship between pastors
and principals, the question needs to be raised as to whether
the uncertainty of situations involving the status of prin-
cipals and the elements of authority/responsibility in a
Lutheran school may be causing the principals to question
their profession. Dr. Martin Schmidt, a professor of Church
History at the Kirchliche Hochschule, Berlin-Zehlendorf,
gives it as his considered opinion that during the nineteenth
century, ill treatment of teachers by the church in Germany
first alienated the teachers, then deprived youth Of Chris-

tian instruction in the schools.53

 

53Stellhorn, "The Lutheran Teacher's Position in the
Ministry of the Congregation," p. 2.

44
Research into the attrition of male teachers in the
Missouri Synod was conducted by Walter Merz. Of this re-
search, Merz indicates the following:

Some leavers [people who left the teaching ranks of the
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod] reacted to the relation-
ship with their pastor with apparent bitterness and're-
sentment. Comments such as 'pastoral hypocrisy,‘ 'driven
from the system by a pastor,‘ pastor 'set out to close'
the school, pastor considered schools a 'necessary evil,‘
'lack of support from pastor,‘ and the pastor was a 'com-
plete ass,‘ appeared frequently enough to be ggnsidered
more than just a reaction of a few soreheads.

In a paper of unknown date delivered by William
Krueger, he indicates his perception that a problem does in-
deed exist between pastors and teachers (principals). Of the
relationship between pastors and teachers, Krueger says the

following:

The relationship between pastors and teachers is a sensi-
tive and provocative subject. There is no Solomon in our
midst who can with a few words and a sharp command split
the problem child asunder to expose the fraud and give
each his due. That does not give us leave, however, to
avoid the issue or skirt the field where the arrows fly.
Neither can the settlement of the problem be left to the
law of the jungle. The issue must be attacked directly,
and the firing line must be faced out in the open.
Nothing will be accomplished by hiding behind the bush

of platitudes or ducking around the corner of generali—
ties. A frontal attack with bared emotions and exposed
egos is the only kind of approach that can bring pos-
itive, constructive, wholesome results.

Such a spirit can help to cure professional myopia so
that all concerned can see more clearly that in their

 

54Walter S. Merz, ”A Study of Dogmatism, Values, and
Demographic Variables as They Affect Attrition of Male
Teachers in Lutheran Elementary and Secondary Schools,” (Ed.
D. Dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1969),
pp. 80-81, cited by Stephen A. Schmidt, Powerless Pedagogues
(River Forest, Illinois: Lutheran Education Association,
1972), P. 123.

 

45

calling there is no difference between pastors and
teachers.

Regarding the relationship between pastors and prin-
cipals, the stance must be taken that since both Lutheran
principals and Lutheran pastors are "called servants of the
Word,” there is a shared responsibility wherever pastors and
principals are brought together in the work of a given con-
gregation. It is necessary for the congregations to define
the several tasks of responsibilities of the pastor and
principal, allow these individuals to perform their respon-
sibilities, and support them in their performance of these
assigned functions.

Defining the roles of pastors and principals seems
to be a situation which causes grief in more situations than
just the Lutheran church. Dr. Bernard Lall of Andrews
University indicated that the problem existed in his church,
the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when he said:

I served as a consultant to five church school districts
for a period of five years. One of the major problems

these schools faced was the conflict between the church
pastor and the church school principal.

Summary

The intent of this chapter was to provide sufficient
.background to the situation under discussion. The early
history of the Missouri Synod was considered first. The

ihistory of the Missouri Synod is significant because of the

 

55Krueger,_"The Basis for a Properly Balanced Re-
.lationship Between Pastors and Teachers," Part I, p. 1.

56Bernard Lall, personal letter, 15 February 1977.

46
close association of the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods Prior
to 1961, and the realization that the Missouri Synod pro-
vided leadership to the Wisconsin Synod until that time. The
problems and conCerns of the Missouri Synod are very similar
to those of the Wisconsin Synod. Certain aspects of congre-
gational structure were discussed with emphasis being placed
on the concept of the office of the ministry and auxiliary
Offices. The ordination of male teachers was considered, as
was the doctrine Of the "call.” In the final portion of the
chapter, the author spoke of the relationship between pastors
and principals. It was pointed out that the situation ex-
isting in the Wisconsin Synod is similar to that in the
Missouri Synod as well as to denominations other than

Lutheran.

CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Organization Theory

Whenever it is necessary to coordinate the efforts
of a group of people so as to effect certain predetermined
goals, some form of organization is required. Of necessity,
then, organizations have a structure whereby one member's
tasks and/or responsibilities are related to another's.
Coordination is to be provided by management, which, too, is
a necessary activity within any organization. With human
beings being what they are, it would be hard for one to
conceive of any organization being totally free of conflict.

The literature in which is discussed the field of
management contains much concerning hierarchial role con-'
flicts, but, unfortunately, very little involving conflicts
between two or more organization members equal in authority.
.Also, there is little information discussing the conflicts
which can result when one worker is responsible to two or
:more superiors. One possible explanation for this lack of
information might lie in the emphasis which has traditionally
Ibeen placed upon the bureaucratic structure as an organiza-
‘tional structure. Cartwright offers a summary of the bureau-

<zratic system as put forth by Weber, Fayol, and others, when

47

48

he writes:

Theorists writing in this tradition assume that an or-
ganization has a primary objective.... To reach this
objective, subgoals must be established and specific
means chosen for their attainment. This, in turn, re-
quires a differentiation into specialized tasks which
must be carried out dependably in a coordinated manner.
Tasks are combined into positions ... and individuals are
assigned to these. Each position has a formal or infor-
mal job description which specifies what the occupant of
the position is supposed to do and how he is supposed to
do it. To give further assurance that the system will
work properly, rules, regulations, and policies are pro-
mulgated as guides to the behavior of the participants.
Finally, a control mechanism is established whereby the
various positions are linked together by a chain of com-
mand so that the authority and responsibility of each
position is unambiguous.1

Massie introduces the possibility of conflict within
the bureaucratic structure when he indicates that "unless
clear limits to jobs are defined and enforced, members will
tend to be confused and to trespass on the domains of oth-
ers."2

Knezevich contends that virtually no organization can

3 The heart of

function without some hierarchy of authority.
the classical theory contains the idea of hierarchy. In the
theory, this is often referred to as the scalar principle

(Knezevich, 1969; Massie, 1958). This concept gives a ver-

tical dimension to an organization in that it suggests that

every organization consists of gradations Of authority.

 

lDorwin Cartwright, "Influencs, Leadership, Control,"
in Handbook of Organizations, ed. James G. March (Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1965), pp. l-2.

2Joseph L. Massie, "Management Theory," in Handbook
of Organizations, ed. James G. March (Chicago: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company, 1965), p. 405.

 

3Stephen J. Knezevich, Administration of Public Ed—
ucation, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969), p.

49

Massie states this same principle in a slightly different
manner when he indicates that "Authority and responsibility
should flow in a clear unbroken line from the highest exec-
utive to the lowest Operative."4

It is well known that Max Weber did extensive work
in the area of bureaucracies, or what is otherwise known as
the classical theory of organizing. In addition to Weber,
the work of Henri Fayol ought not to be overlooked. Fayol
believed there were administrative functions common to all
types of organizations. He classified the five elements as
planning, organization, command, coordination, and control.

In addition to these five elements of administration,
Fayol identified fourteen (14) principles of management.
Knezevich summarized these fourteen principles, and some of
the germane principles are summarized as follows:

1) Authority

2) Unity of Command - An employee should receive orders
from one superior only.

3) Unity of Direction - One leader and one plan for a
given group of objectives.

4) Scalar Chain - A line of command or flow of
authority.5

Regarding this study, Fayol's Unity of Command prin-
ciple deserves special consideration. Massie indicates that
the original version of this principle was stated simply and

without qualification: "No member of an organization should

 

Va—

4Massie, "Management Theory," p. 396.

5Knezevich, Administration of Public Education, p.

50

"6 In small, un-

receive orders from more than one superior.
complicated organizations this idea appeals to common sense.
Obviously, it would tend to prevent confusion in the minds

of subordinates. However, regardless of organizational size,
it is quite apparent that influences are going to be exerted
from many quarters. Scientific managers, those who stress
specialization, lend assistance over this hump when they add
the notion that no member of an organization should report

to more than one superior on any single function.

This restatement provides for specialization, but
does not provide an answer when confusion results from two
functional superiors giving a worker conflicting instructiOns.
A further qualification would add that there should always be
a designated single position, the orders from which the sub-
ordinate is expected to obey under all circumstances. It
can readily be seen that an elaborate organizational struc-
ture is being designed if the above is to be implemented.

Quite possibly one of the reasons Fayol stressed the
unity of command was in direct response to Frederick W.
Taylor's idea of functional foremanship. Taylor would have
each employee be supervised by as many as eight different
foremen, each foreman holding specific, distinct reSponsi—
bilities. As a critic of Taylor, Fayol believed the func-
tional foremanship concept flagrantly violated the idea that
a worker should receive orders from one superior. However,

referring to the hybrid theory which combined elements from

 

6Massie, "Management Theory." p. 397.

51
the scientific managers with those from the classicists, if
the command is topic specific, or relevant to only one fun—
tion, then Taylor and Fayol really did not disagree.

In the present age of specialization, joint command
or dual supervision need not pose insurmountable problems.
In education it can readily be seen, in that often a teacher
will look to a department head for technical assistance in
the specific field, but look to the principal for all other
general administrative direction.

Another frequently discussed concept in classical
literature is the idea of the span of control for any man-
ager. Several sources (Knezevich, 1969; Massie, 1958) in-
dicate that the number of subordinates reporting to a supe-
ior should be limited. The rule could be stated that the
more workers reporting to a superior, the less likely is the
superior going to be able to supervise them effectively.
Knezevich reports six factors influencing the optimum num-
ber of subordinates reporting to a superior while still a1-
1owing the manager to maintain proper supervision. Two of
these factors are germane here:

1) Time available by the executive for supervision.
2) Other duties of the executive.7
\ A summary of the classical theory should not con-
clude without considering some of the advantages of the
theory. Bell writes:

The advantages of bureaucracies far outweigh their dis—
advantages. Moreover, no other presently known form Of

 

7Knezevich, Administration of Public Education, p. 46.

 

52

social organization is capable of coordinating and in-
tegrating the high degree of specialization required to
support our way Of life.

Also, Owens indicates four advantages:

When functioning properly, a bureaucracy gives us four
advantages:

1) Bureaucracy is efficient. Service is systematic and
uniform.

 

2) Bureaucracy is predictable. Rules are written and
explicit. The hierarchical status of roles, and their
authority, is clear.

 

3) Bureaucracy is impersonal. Rules and procedures are
applied in an unbiased and fair way.

4) Bureaucracy is fast. Uniform rules are impartially
applied to process thousands of cases quickly.

One further consideration important to this research
would be March and Simon's Observation that "communication
is easy along the lines of the formal hierarchy."10

‘There also exist major weaknesses of the bureau-
cratic system. Massie indicates that these major weaknesses
involve the scalar principle. The criticisms engendered by
this concentrate on the problems which develop when hierar-
chical relationships are emphasized to the possible exclusion

of the many types of relationships which are ignored by this

 

8E. H. Bell, Social Foundations of Human Behavior,
(New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 317, cited by Harold W.
Boles and James A. Davenport, Introduction to Educational
Leadership, (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), p. 69.

 

 

9Robert G. Owens, Orgrnizational Behavior in Schools,
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970),
p. 60.

 

10James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations,
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 28.

 

53
"simple line and box organization chart."ll

More recent administrative theories or models can be
collectively referred to as the social-systems models. These
models have been developed to meet the stated weakness of the
classical theory. These newer models take the emphasis away
from the organization and lay it upon the individual.
Social-systems models are strongly humanistic and View the
organization as a collection of human efforts and behaviors
organized to promote the attainment of specific goals.

Models constructed by Getzels and Guba, Parsons, and Argyris
are of this type. Of note concerning the Getzels and Guba-
model is that their model suggests the possibility of role
conflicts.

Regardless of which one of the three general theories--
classical, scientific, or social-systems--that might be in-
vestigated, there are general concepts which are innate to
each. Among these are the following: Authority, Power,

Rules, and Leadership. These four concepts will be considered

briefly, in so far as they are germane to this study.

Authority

 

When one considers authority, the name of Max Weber
comes quickly to mind. In his consideration of authority,
Weber distinguished three types: Traditional, Charismatic,
and Legal. Hall Offers a good summary of these types of

authority when he writes the following:

 

llMassie, "Management Theory," 0. 396.

L

54

1) Traditional Authoriry is based on the belief in the
established traditional order and is best exemplified by
Operating monarchies. Vestiges of this form can be found
in organizations in which the founder or a dominant
figure is still present. ‘

 

2) Charismatic'Authoriry_stems from devotion to a par-
ticular power holder and is based on his personal char-
acteristics.

 

3) Legal Authority is the type of most power relation-
ships in modern organizations; it is based on a belief
in the right of thise in higher offices to have power
over subordinates. 2 -

 

When considering a school building as the specific
organization in question, a typical school is essentially
bureaucratic. A chief characteristic of a school is that it
is a hierarchy of authority, with the authority flowing from
the top to the bottom. The top of the school hierarchy
would generally be the principal, the one held accountable
for the Operation of the school. It follows quite logically
then, that the authority granted should be equal to the re-
sponsibility. It is unreasonable to hold a person account-
able for results of actions he is not permitted to guide ac-

cording tO his own'best judgements.
Power

Closely akin to authority is the concept of power.

Power should be considered as the quality of real control that

is possessed by some individual or individuals. The person

 

12Richard H. Hall, Organizations: ‘Structure and
Process, (Englewood Cliffs,’New Jersey:7 Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

1972), pp. 207-208.

 

55
in authority may not necessarily hold the power; the one with
the power may hold no key position of authority.

Power concerns the relationship between two or more
actors in which the behavior of one is controlled or at least
affected by the other. Common sense would indicate that the
power concept is important to the operation of any organiza-
tion. The distribution of power has significant consequences
for the performance of an organization and the behavior of
its members.

Etzioni Speaks of power as it is used as a means of
control. He would contend that the means of control which
can be applied by an organization can be classified into three
analytical categories: physical, material, or symbolic. Con-
trol based on the application of physical means is ascribed

as coercive power. Material rewards consist of goods and

 

services. The use of goods and services-~material rewards—-
constitutes utilitarian power. Symbols--love, esteem,
prestige, etc.--when used for control purposes are referred
to as normative power, normative-social power, or social
2232;. Normative power is used by higher ranking workers to
control the lower ranks directly. Normative-social power is
used indirectly when the higher ranking worker appeals to the
peer group of a subordinate to control the subordinate.
Social power is the power peers exercise over one another.
Most organizations will generally employ more than one kind

of power.13

 

. 13Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), pp. 59-60.

 

 

56

Ideally a bureaucracy is designed to eliminate all
uncertainty as to who is in control and who reports to whom.
To gain and maintain bureaucratic control, Various rules are
required. In an ideal situation with a well-trained staff,
the need for extensive rules and policies in order to main-
tain control is greatly reduced. It is quite apparent that
rules cannot be so devised as to unequivocally specify and
regulate all behavior as well as eliminate all arbitrariness.
Areas of uncertainty will still emerge which will constitute
the focal points about which conflicts may gather.

In considering the effects of rules on an organiza-
tion, Gouldner has developed the model given in Figure 2.
Among other things, the Gouldner model would suggest that an
intentional result of the use of rules is to reduce the visi-
bility of any power relationship. Decreasing the "man in
charge" situation results from the condition that using gen-
eral and impersonal rules eliminates the leader's having to
constantly respond to questions relative to organizational
functioning.

If it is possible to diminish or even do away with
the continual need to make decisions or rulings, it could be
expected that consistency would be more evident and inter-
personal tensions should decrease. No longer would the worker
continually need to face or be reminded of the man in charge.
Of additional significance in the Gouldner model is the pres—

ence of unintended or unanticipated results. Although

57

 

.mv .Q .mCOMHMNacmmHO .COEMm can counsea

vammasm accomummEH osm Hmuwcmu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to am: may «0 muasmmm now Hope: m.umaoasoo no cenmnm> omnwnndsflm .N mmaon
IIIIIIIIIIIIII m
omeeaHoHezaz: m
mo omozmeszo m azmzm>mHmoa oza
mmommmmmmmmw Awnaumuuu' mqaoo AaonaaaHzmomo
m zmmzemm mozmmmmmHo
omaamHoHeza 41 m
mo omozmazH " o A,
mammmmqu z mmmammozH
_ _
.0 . H _

2 ,< h
onmzme gazommmm mnuuH uuuuuuu monsaqmm mmBOm moH><=mm
ImmazH mo om>ma A .o no squHmHmH> mqm<emmooa sostHz

_ m ssomm moomqsozx
.
. a 41
" mmmmmmomo A,
. _
. _ .
. _
u w . u
_ mmomosszm mmqom q<zommmmzH uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
_ uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu v oza qammzmo mo mm: mmmmmmozH
mmmmmmozH

AI

am Dmfiummmm

AOMBZOO mom QZ<ZmQ

 

 

 

 

 

58
Gouldner only deals with one such unintended or unanticipated
result, it should be assumed that more may occur. It is of
interest to note that Gouldner's anticipated or unanticipated
results are opposite when considering the implementation of
rules to decrease the level of interpersonal tension.

To amplify the final comment above, the anticipated
result of the use of general and impersonal rules will be to
decrease the visibility of the power relationship, which in
turn will decrease the level of interpersonal tension, the
desired result. But, the unanticipated result of the use of
general and impersonal rules, after working through the
model, will be to cause an increase in the closeness of super-
vision. The closer the supervision, the more visible will
be the power relationship. As this visibility increases
so also will the level of interpersonal tension increase.
This unanticipated result of increased interpersonal tension

is the opposite of the anticipated result.
Leadership

A final overriding concern is leadership. It has not
always been widely accepted that administrative or managerial
leadership is important to organizations. Peter Drucker
called administration an essential service that once begun
proves indispensable.15 Some, however, would maintain that

the mere presence of sufficient funds, quality personnel, and

 

15Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, (New
York: Harper & Row, 1954), PP. 3-4.

59
adequate equipment would yield organizational excellence.
Yet, another force necessary to translate potential into
reality is administrative leadership.16
An NASSP publication demonstrates this point relative
to schools by indicating that
... every institution, every organization ... has to have
managerial expertise if it is to operate effectively. No
institution can realize its purposes if somebody does not
establish priorities, coordinate and develop strategies,
and assess progress. Those are the managerial jobs of
the principal. Of course, to do this he must have au-
thority.17
Knezevich stated this more simply by indicating that "An ad-
ministrator is necessary in all complex educational institu-
tions intent on the achievement of excellence."18

The title principal should thus be equated with edu-

 

cational leadership as this is the principal's first and
foremost responsibility. And, as any other leadership posi-
tion, it evolved because it was needed. There is nothing

magical about the term principal, as schools can run without

 

principals. The point is, schools cannot run very well with-
out the leadership which should be given by the individual

carrying the title principal. The principal occupies a very

 

key position and can either make or break a school. Schools
have been observed to take a completely new course with the

advent of a new principal. To illustrate a principal's key

 

l6Knezevich, Administration of Public Education, p. 9.
17Nolan Estes, "The Concept of Shared Power," National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 55
(May 1971T: 72. .

18Knezevich, Administration of Public Education, p. 9.

 

Rrkd

:I

‘II

‘4‘

m5

60
position, Pharis states the following:
Given the time, resources, and necessity, I believe we
could fill a pretty good sized barn with studies showing
that the principal is one of the most influential vari-
ables in determining the quality of the educat$onal ex-
periences boys and girls Wlll have at school.

It is all well and good to heap the plaudits of the
educational leader on the principal, but it must be remembered
that many responsibilities are given to the principal. Top-
ping the list would be the curriculum of the school. It is
the duty of the principal to head the development of a cur-
riculwm which provides necessary educational opportunities
and experiences for all students. The principal ought to pro-
vide a staff with the spark that is necessary to transform a
fine paper model curriculum into an educational reality.

If a principal is to function with any degree of suc-
cess regarding the aforementioned, it is quite obvious that,
among other things, he must be financially responsible for
the school. With financial responsibility is the related
area of being responsible for plant supervision. After all,
who is in a better position than the principal to observe
the physical plant, grounds, equipment, and supplies to as-
sure maximum.efficiency and safety? Who better can advise
the board of education of the necessary repairs or equipment

replacement, necessary custodial services, generally all items

necessary to meet and maintain accepted school standards?

A

19William L. Pharis, "Evolution of the Elementary
School Principal," The National Elementary Principal, 52
GJanuary 1973): 73.

 

61

Considering the foregoing, it is easily seen that the
principalship evolved because it was needed. This position
provides the catalyst to bring varied staff, curricular needs
and demands, as well as plant limitations into a coordinated,
'progressive organization. Pharis maintains that without the
principalship, "education would revert to the one-room school,
no matter how many one-room schools were collected on one
site."20 It seems inconceivable, then, to be able to have a

good school without a good principal.

Role Theory

 

Addressing the general topic of role theory, Getzels
and Guba maintain that even though the concepts of role and
role conflict have received increasing attention through the
work of Parsons, Shils, and others, these terms have still
remained theoretical, untried by realistic experimental ap-
plication.21 One possible explanation for this may be found
in a condition reported by Sarbin. He states:

In a review of over 80 sources in which the concept of
role was used, Neiman and Hughes (1951) concluded that:
'The concept role is at present still rather vague, neb-
ulous, and nondefinitive.’

A personal review supports the above observation.

The fault is not due to a lack of definitions, as a plethora

 

zoIbid.

21J. W. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict,
and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American Sociological
Review (April 1954): 164.

 

22Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," in Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey, Vol. 1, (Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1959), p. 224.

 

 

 

 

62
of possible definitions exists in the literature. Rather,
because there are many definitions expressing slight defini-
tional variations, it behooves the reader to formulate his
own definition. Some of these many definitions are the fol-
lowing:
23

Role: A set of complementary expectations.

Role: Behavior sagginces of an individual's interaction
with others.

Role: A patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds

pigfiogged by a person in an interaction situa-

As an attempt to summarize the early thinking about roles,
Sarbin states the following: "Whatever agreement has been
attained in the use of the term gale centers around the or-
ganized actions of a person coordinate with a given status
or position."26
But, because there may or may not be consensus sur-
rounding the term Eglg, regarding the general theory of role
there still exists, in the words of Owens, "A vocabulary of

generally understood terms."27 To illustrate this, Owens

lists, among others, the following:

 

23Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effec-
tiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 165.

24Henry L. Tosi and Stephen J. Carroll, Management:
Contingencies, Structure, and Process, (Chicago: St. Clair
Press, 1976), p. 106.

 

2SSarbin, "Role Theory," p. 225.
zsIbid.

27Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools, p. 71.

63

Role Expectation — This refers to the expectation that
one person has of the role behavior of another.

Role Perception - This is used to describe the perception
that one has the role expectation that another person
holds for him.

Role Prescription - This is the relatively abstract idea
of whgg the general norm in the culture is for the
role.

There are many roles in any given organization. Many
times an executive is in a situation where he must "wear many
hats," or assume many roles. All of an individual's group
roles, when taken as a cluster, define what Tosi and Carrol
label as that individual's position.29 Earlier, Sarbin had
defined position in a similar fashion by calling it a "system
of role expectations."30

According to role theory, organizations are social
systems composed of people who occupy various "positions."
These positions are arranged in vertical (hierarchical) and
horizontal relationships with one another. Any given posi-
tion is the location of one individual or class of individ-
uals within the social system. An individual's behavior when
in the position is partially dependent upon his perception of
how others expect him to behave (role perceptions), as well as

how others actually expect him to behave (role expectations).31

 

28Ibid., p. 72.

29Tosi and Carroll, Management: Contingencies, Struc-
Epre, and Process, p. 106.

30Sarbin, "Role Theory," p. 223.

31Roland R. Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the
Ideal Role and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary
Principal in Southern California," (Ph. D. dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1970), P. 2.

64
The expectations, when taken independently, bring one back to
the beginning, as these are the roles.

A distinct problem with role expectations and role
perceptions is that both of these processes are covert in
nature and must always be inferred. It has been documented
(Lieberman, 1956) that an individual's attitudes are shaped
by his role.32

As an organization becomes more and more complex,
many individuals--especially executives-~are called upon to
play many roles. In such a situation of multiple roles, the
term manifest role is used to refer to the obvious role that
an actor is performing. The other roles, which are tempo-
rarily set aside, are referred to as latent roles.33

Getzels and Guba report on a very similar idea, but

employ different terminology. They refer to the preceding

concepts as major role and alternative role. They consider

 

 

this situation with the addition of the distinct possibility
that a conflict situation will occur. The situation as con-
sidered by Getzels and Guba pictures a condition where two
possible roles could be called into play. Of this situation
these men ask, "What are the criteria for the choice of the
approPriate major role for the individual?" The concept of
major role will now achieve significance when taken in con-
junction with two additional concepts, legitimacy of expecta-

tions and congruence of needs and expectations..

 

32Cartwright, "Influence, Leadership, Control," p. 20.

33Owens, Organizational Behavior in Schools, p. 72.

 

65

Getzels and Guba's answer to the question posed above
is that the individual is most likely to handle best from
among several roles the one whose expectations are most nearly
congruent with his needs. An individual placed in a situa-
tion of role conflict will probably choose as his major role
the one that is most compatible with personal needs. Regard-
ing competing roles, these will be assimilated to the selected
major role.34

As indicated, a major determinant of role is the ex-
pectations of other people. Thelen (1960) indicates this by
saying that each person or group in an organization holds ex-
pectations for the behavior of other persons and groups in
the organization.35 The impetus is here aimed at gng,organ-
ization as opposed to considering society as a whole. Boles
and Davenport extend this idea and relate it to role theory
when they suggest that an individual, through trying to meet
the expectations held for him, is indeed playing a role.36

An individual cannot shrug off the concept of legiti-
macy of expectations, as no matter what role an individual

may select, he must eventually face the realities of the sit-

uation. He cannot long ignore the legitimate expectations

 

34Getzels and Guba, ”Role, Role Conflict, and Ef-
fectiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 174.

35H. A. Thelen, Education and the Human Quest, (New
York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 7I- 72, citedby Harold W.
Boles and James A. Davenport, Introduction to Educational
Leadership, (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), p. 25.

 

 

 

36Boles and Davenport, Introduction to Educational
Leadership, p. 22.

 

66

others hold for him without receiving retaliation from them.37

Lassanske indicates the need for specific job descrip-
tions to eliminate such situations. He indicates that in the
area of interpersonal relations, it is widely held that peo-
ple predominantly try to do what others expect them to do. If
an individual incorrectly perceives what is expected of him,
his actions, no matter how well performed, will not be the
correct actions as perceived by those holding alternate ex-
pectations. If the individual is unable to determine cor-
rectly how others see the situation, confusion may arise.
The only courses of action left for the individual are to fall
back upon his previous experiences for clues to appropriate
behavior, or to follow a trial-and-error procedure until he
feels he knows what the other is thinking. But, meanwhile,
both will feel uncomfortable and uncertain of their respective
roles in the relationship. A clearly defined and mutually
understood design of role expectations could probably do much
to encourage effective communications.38

In any organization, roles tend to be highly elabo-
rated, relatively stable, and defined to a considerable extent
in explicit and even written terms. In addition to the role
being defined for the incumbent, it is also detailed for

other members of the organization who will have occasion to

 

37Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effec-
tiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 174.

38Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the Ideal Role
and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary Principal in
Southern California," pp. 8-9.

67

interact with the role incumbent.39 But, no matter how de-
tailed a description there may be of the role, it still must
be realized that role behavior is dependent upon the incum-
bent's own personal characteristics (personality) and his per-
ceptions of what others expect of an individual in his posi-
tion, as well as the demands of others.40

Beck indicates that a review of recent literature
would indicate that workers are satisfied when they have
autonomy in the performance of their work roles.41 Tosi and
Carroll echo this sentiment by writing that professionals
are likely to be particularly disturbed when they believe
they are in a situation where they are unable to effectively
utilize all of their skills. The professional, in such a
situation, feels underutilized. Of more importance to the
worker is the apparent threat this situation imposes upon him
because he does not have the opportunity to do the things
which he has been trained to do best.42

The foregoing is highly significant to this study.
If principals, who are highly trained professionals, are--in

their opinion-~not allowed to do the job they are trained to

do best, frustration will likely obtain. Discussions with

 

39March and Simon, Organizations, p. 4.

 

4oTosi and Carroll, Management: Contingencies,
Structure, and Process, p. 106.

 

 

41E. M. Beck and Michael Betz, "A Comparative Analy-
sis of Organizational Conflict in Schools," SOciology of
Education, 48 (Winter 1975): 62.

 

 

42Tosi and Carroll, Management: Contingencies,
Structure, and Process, p. 90.

 

 

68
several Lutheran elementary school principals echoed this sen-
timent and indicated how significant this is to the princi-

pal's perception of his job.
Conflict

As with the term £913, so also with the term conflict
there exists a lack of a commonly accepted definition. Ac-
cording to Pondy, at various times the term Eglg_has been
used to describe:

1) Antecedent Conditions (for example, scarcity of re-
sources, policy differences) of conflictual behavior,

 

2) Affective States (e.g. stress, tension, hostility,
anxiety, etc.) of the individuals involved,

 

3) Cognitive States of individuals, (i.e. their percep-
tion or awareness of conflictual situations) and

 

4) Conflictual Behavior, ranging from passive resistance
to overt aggression.45

Beck attributes differences in the use of the term
conflict to a "confusion of conflict with those conditions
producing conflictual situations."44 Credence is given to
Beck's statement when considered in the light of Pondy's ob-
servations. For the purposes of this research, the term

conflict will mean the strong differences between individuals

 

or groups which can lead to restriction of communication,
disruption of work flow, hard feelings, etc. It is generally,

but not always, negatively valued by an organization.

 

43Louis Pondy, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts
and Models," Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (September
1967): 298.

44Beck and Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organi-
zational Conflict in Schools," p. 60.

69

It is seemingly fairly well established in the lit-
erature that conflict of some sort is not only characteristic
of most organizations, but is also basically beneficial to an
organization.45 Conflict and differences of opinion will
give vitality and strength to organizations, as from these
differences will emerge new ideas, many of which will also
prove to be better ideas. As differences can spur an organi-
zation forward, strong differences can also retard progress
as these can tend to immobilize an organization. With this
thought in mind, conflict for the sake of conflict may make
negative contributions if it remains unresolved.

Because conflict is going to be present wherever hu-
man beings must coordinate their efforts, and because a cer-
tain level of conflict is beneficial to an organization, it
thus follows that the central problem is not how to reduce or
eliminate conflict, but rather how to deal constructively
with it. The contemporary view of conflict seems to maintain
that conflict is neither inherently good nor inherently bad
for the participants or the organization. Pondy maintains
that conflict is not necessarily a cost for the individual,
as some participants enjoy the "heat of battle."46

In this same article, Pondy states the following:

...conflict is frequently, but not always, negatively
valued by organization members. To the extent that

 

45Hall, Organizations: ‘Structure and Process; Estes,
"The Concept of Shared Power;“ Pondy, "Organizational Con-
flict: Concepts and_Models;" Rensis Likert, New Patterns of
Management, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).

 

 

46Pondy, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models," p. 310.

 

 

70

conflict is valued negatively, minor conflicts generate

pressures towards resolution without altering the re—

lationship; and major conflicts generate pressures to

alter the form of the relationship or to dissolve it

altogether. If inducements for participation are suf-

ficiently high, there is the possibility of chronic con-

flict in the context of a stable relationship.47

Regarding productivity, Likert maintains that con-
flict between supervisors and employees is associated with
low productivity.48 Getzels and Guba echo this thought with
the statement that "individuals experiencing conflict are
also relatively ineffective ones.“49
It is held that the bureaucratic structure, because

of its clear delineation of responsibility and span of con-
trol, can be expected to be the best structure to minimize
conflict. This may or may not be true, but the fact is that
conflicts do indeed occur even in bureaucracies. Beck and
Betz would maintain that one strong influence of conflict is
the centralization of authority found in bureaucracies. Such
centralization represents both the creation of different po-
sitions where interests can develop and the establishment of
differential control over decisions, thus cultivating the

. . . 50
cond1t1ons for conf11ct.

Pondy voices a similar notion when positing that ver-

tical conflicts generally arise because superiors attempt to

 

47Ibid., p. 312.

48Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management, (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 9.

 

49Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Ef-
fectiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 172.

50Beck and Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organi-
zational Conflict in Schools," p. 62.

71
control subordinate's behavior, and the subordinates in turn
resist such control. The authority relation which exists is
defined by the group of subordinate activities over which the
subordinate has given to a superior the legitimacy to exercise
discretion. It should be recalled that initially Barnard
(1938), and now others, called this group of activities the
"zone of indifference" or "zone of acceptance." The poten-
tial for conflict is thus present when the superior and sub-
ordinate each hold different expectations for the zone of in-
difference.5l
Kenneth Boulding provides a framework for a composite

view of a conflict situation. He suggests four components in
the process:

1) Parties Involved - Must be at least two involved.

2) Field of Conflict - This represents the alternative
conditions toward which a conflict could move.

3) Dynamics of the Conflict Situation - This represents
the fact that each party in the conflict will adjust its
own position to one that it feels is congruent with that
of its opponent. [Hostility in one breeds hostility in
the other.]

4) Management, Control, or Resolution of Conflict -
These are terms used to suggest that conflict situations
are generally not discrete situations with a clear be-
ginning and end. They emerge out of pre-existing situa-
tions and do not end forever with a strike settlement or
lowering of the intensity of the conflict.5

 

51Pondy, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models,” p. 314.

52Kenneth E. Boulding, ”A Pure Theory of Conflict
Applied to Organizations," in Robert L. Kahn and Elise
Boulding, eds., Power and Conflict in Organizations, (New
York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1964), pp. 136-145

SggeSBgy Hall, Organizations: 'Structure and Process, pp.

72

One method of viewing an organization is to think of
each participant as making contributions in return for cer-
tain inducements. One such contribution would be work for
which the worker will be given an inducement--salary. The
organization is considered to be in "equilibrium" if the in—
ducements exceed contributions when subjectively valued by
each participant: and in "disequilibrium" if contributions
exceed inducements for some or all of the participants. Par-
ticipants may be motivated to restore equilibrium by leaving
the organization when the disequilibrium is said to be "un-
stable." Also, a participant may attempt to achieve a favor-
able balance between inducements and contributions when the
organization is considered "stable." This suggests that if
the organization is given no chance by the participant, he
will bail out. If it does have a chance, he may strive to
save the relationship, or at the least increase the induce-
ments to make it palatable.

If conflict is assumed to be a cost of participation,
the inducements-contributions balance theory may assist in
understanding how an organization reacts to conflict.53 If
conflicts are relatively small, and the inducements and con—
tributions remain in equilibrium, then participants are likely
to try to maintain the relationship and also solve the con-
flict. But, if contributions exceed inducements, or if con-
flict is severe enough to destroy the inducements-contributions

balance, and there is no prospect for resolution, the conflict

 

S3Pondy, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models," pp. 308-309. ‘

73
is likely to be reduced by the destruction of the relation-
ship. Believing that a participant will endure chronic con-
flict is not to deny that he will strive to reduce it.
Merely what this is saying is that if one is unable to reduce
or resolve the conflict entirely, he may yet remain if the
inducements for him exceed his contributions.

Pondy, after a search of the literature, indicated
the existence of a long list of underlying sources of organi-
zational conflict. Condensed, these fall into three types of
what he defines as latent conflict:

1) Competition for scarce resources

2) Drives for autonomy
3) Divergence of subunit goals54
Hall maintains that man's quest for power is a strong producer
of conflict situations.55 He further contends that these
processes--power and conflict--are major shapers of an organi-
zation. The state of an organization sets the stage for con-
tinuing power and conflict processes. The interaction of
these processes produces a continual reshaping of the organi-
zation.56

Educational institutions, especially secondary level

and above, possess a special situation ripe for conflict.

This condition is produced because of the growth of

 

54Ibid., p. 300.

55Hall, Organizations: Structure and Process, p. 203.

55Ibid., p. 240.

74
bureaucratization and specialization. In an ideal bureauc-
racy, any superordinate-subordinate relationship would contain
a superordinate who possessed competencies surpassing those
of the subordinate. In schools, however, principals with
specialized training in administration are hierarchically su-
perior to personnel with specialized training in the academic
fields.57
Beck and Betz seem to echo a similar idea when they

indicate:

... schools with centralized authority structures tend

to experience more conflict between teachers and admini—

strators (inEEr-stratum conflict) than schools less

centralized.

As indicated, Beck and Betz labeled this type of conflict as

inter-stratum conflict, or "conflict among organizational units

 

of dissimilar authority over the allocation of control within
the organization." They also define intra-stratum conflict,
or conflict which occurs "among organizational units of

equal, or nearly equal, authority within the organizational
structure."59 This differentiation of two types of conflict
is similar to Pondy's tripartition--bureaucratic conflict,
bargaining conflict, and systems conflict. Pondy will be con-
sidered in more detail later.

If the inducements are high enough, conflict

 

57Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Fred D. Carver, The New
School Executiyei_ A Theory of Administration, (New York:
Harper & Row, 1973), PP. 159-160.

58Beck and Betz, "A Comparative Analysis of Organi-
zational Conflict in Schools," p. 63.

59Ibid., p. 61.

75
resolutions will be attempted so as to enable participants to
remain in the relationship. One very common form of conflict
resolution occurs if one participant in the conflict sub-
mits totally to the will of the other. This has been refer-
red to by some as "peaceableness." To rely upon peaceableness
may be dangerous because not all parties may exhibit this
type of behavior on a consistent basis.

Regarding conflict resolution, Boles and Davenport
expand upon the concept of "peaceableness" by indicating the
following:

Conflicts can be resolved only by:

l) Domination of one party over the other,

2) Compromise, or

3) Integration, as was stated by Follett (1926)

It should be noted that strategies (1) and (2) are com-
petitive, while (3) is cooperative. Obviously, in the
domination strategy, the dominator 'wins' and his op-
ponent 'loses.' While in the compromise strategy both
parties to the conflict 'win'--but both also 'lose.'60

Chris Argyris concurs with some of the above ideas,

and adds some of his own when he writes the following:

Individuals will adapt to frustration and conflict by
creating any one of the following informal activities:

1) Leave the situation
2) Climb the organizational ladder
3) Become defensive

4) Become apathetic, disinterested, and non-ego in-
volved in the organization

 

60Boles and Davenport, Introduction to Educational
Leadership, p. 167.

 

76

5) Create informal groups to sanction the defense re-
actions in (3) and (4).6

As stated earlier, the key idea is that conflict is
present and probably necessary for any organization. The
main thrust should not be an attempt to eradicate its exis-
tence in the organization, but rather to manage it so that
the impetus for movement which it can provide may be used to

the benefit of the organization.

The Work of Louis R. Pondy

 

Pondy notes that three conceptual models of organi-
zational conflict have been explored in the literature: the

bargaining model, the bureaucratic model, and the systems

 

 

model. Briefly, each model attempts to deal with the fol-
lowing:

Bargaining Model - This model concerns the conflict

 

which arises over competition for organizationally scarce

resources. This has potentially disruptive consequences as
a decision making process, as this almost necessarily places
strain on the status and power systems in the organization.62

Bureaucratic Model - This considers conflict between

 

parties to a superior-subordinate relationship, or those ex-
isting along the vertical dimension of a hierarchy. Basi-

cally, this model deals with problems of organizational

 

61Chris Argyris, "The Individual and Organization:
An Empirical Test," Administrative Sciencefiggarterly, 4
(September 2, 1959): 145-167 cited by Knezevich,-Adminis-
tration of Public Education, p. 519.

 

 

62March and Simon, Organizations, p. 131.

 

77
control and how participants react to such control. Of the
three models here listed, Pondy maintains that this model has
received the most attention from researchers representing

various disciplines.

Systems Model - This model concerns conflict among

 

parties to a lateral or working relationship, or among per-
sons at the same hierarchical level. Primarily this model
concerns the problems of coordination. The basic building
block of the systems model is the dyad. Pondy indicates

that if ‘two subunits having differentiated goals are
functionally interdependent, then conditions exist for
conflict. Important types of interdependence matter
are: (1) common usage of some service or facility,

(2) sequences of work or information flow prescribed
by task or hierarchy, and (3) rules of unanimity or
consensus about joint activity.’ 3

A result of this literature search by Pondy is his
identification of three types of latent conflict-producing
situations which provide the necessary environment for the

development of conflict in the organization. These are the

following:
1) Scarce goods and materials within the organization.

2) Moves by some participants toward autonomy within the
organization's structure.

Autonomy needs form the basis of conflict when one party
either seeks control over some province claimed by
another, or attempts to insulate himself from invasion,
thus protecting what is his.

3) Inconsistent goals within the structure of the organi-
zation.

Such goal divergence is a source of conflict when two
parties must cooperate on a joint activity but yet are
unable to reach consensus on appropriate action.

 

els " SgigndY: "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Mod—
! p0 0

54Ibid., p. 300.

78
Pondy maintains that any conflict situation should be
considered a dynamic process, consisting of a sequence of
inter-locking conflict episodes. Each episode exhibits a
sequence or pattern of development. In Pondy‘s words:
Each conflict episode begins with conditions character-
ized by certain conflict potentials. The parties to the
relationship may not become aware of any basis of con-
flict, and they may not develop hostile affections for
one another.... Each episode or encounter leaves an
aftermathsghat affects the course of succeeding
episodes.
A further breakdown of the conflict episode shows it
to possess five stages: (1) latent conflict (conditions),
(2) perceived conflict (cognition), (3) felt conflict (af-
fect), (4) manifest conflict (behavior), and (5) conflict
aftermath (conditions). Pondy would diagram the dynamics of
a conflict episode in the manner given in Figure 3.
An important form of latent conflict is role conflict.
The role conflict model considers the organization as being a
collection of role sets, with each set being composed of the
focal person and his role senders. Conflict is said to
occur when the focal person receives incompatible role de-
mands and expectations from the role senders of the role set.
Conflict is occasionally perceived even when no
latent conflict conditions exist. By contrast, latent con-
flict may indeed exist without being perceived by the par-
ticipants. A situation where conflict is perceived without

the existence of latent conflict can be handled by the so-

called "semantic model" of conflict. According to this,

 

55Ibid., p. 306.

79

 

 

 

 

 

o o s .
mom a penepo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmopOmHem uoflamcou o mo mommum ®>Hm m.>ocom .m mmeHm
madzmmfihd
BUquzou
mZmHzmmomz A,
oneonommm w . «a
BUHAmZOU m0 BUHAmZOU mZOHE¢meHmZOU
wBHAHm<AH¢>¢ EmmmHzmz UHOma<mem
mZmHzmmomz v monmzme
maoom _ w BUHAmZOU _ BUHAmZOU m . A¢20H8<NHZ<UmO
IZOHBzmeed Qz¢ Qm>HmUmmm A. 94mm Idmfixm 02¢
ZOHmmmmmmDm AdZOHBfiNHzmme
mr/
AV
meummmm \ BoHAmzoo
AfiezmzzomH>zm ezmesq

 

 

 

 

 

MQOmHmm BUHAmZOU

UZHDMUmmm m0 deEMWBhé

 

 

80
conflict occurs as a result of misunderstanding each other's
true position. Seemingly, such conflict can be resolved by
improving communications between the parties to the con-
flict. If it is revealed that the participants true positions
are in opposition, then more communication may only exacer—
bate conflict.

Pondy feels an important distinction exists between
the perception of conflict and the feeling of conflict. He
cites the following example:

There is an important distinction between perceiving con-
flict and feeling conflict. A_may be aware that §_and A
are in serious disagreement over some policy, but it may
not make A_tense or anxious, and it ma have no effect
whatsoever on A's affection towards B.

Each conflict episode is only one in a sequence of
such episodes constituting the relationships between and
among organization members. If the conflict can be resolved
to the satisfaction of all participants, the basis for a more
harmonious relationship may have been laid; or the partici-
pants, in their quest for a better relationship, may focus
on latent conflicts not previously perceived.

However, if the conflict is merely suppressed and not
resolved, the latent conditions of conflict may be aggravated
and may even explode in a more serious form requiring either
resolution or the dissolving of the relationship. Once con—
flict is allowed to break out on a specific issue, then the

conflict widens and precipitates more general and more per—

sonal conflicts which, previously, had been suppressed so as

 

57Ibid., p. 302.

81

to temporarily preserve organizational harmony.

Role COnflict

 

It was said above, in reference to the unity of com-
mand principle, that an employee should be responsible to
only one superior. If the condition does exist that an in-
dividual is responsible to more than one superior, that in-
dividual would probably have a difficult time choosing whose
directions to follow at any given time, unless the directions
were consonant. The unity of command principle is based on
the experiences of administrative theorists. The social
scientist would give this a different conceptual framework
and refer to it as avoiding role conflict.

There are numerous definitions for role conflict,
many of which contain subtle differences. In general, how-
ever, the definition which tends to rise to the surface con-
tains the following two elements:

1) An individual receives inconsistent demands from two
or more people, and

2) Compliance with one6§et of demands precludes compli-
ance with a second set.

"The severity of the conflict is a function situationally of

 

the relative incompatibility and rigor of definition or the
expectations, and pprsonalistically of certain adjustive
mechanisms of the individual filling the roles."69 (Emphasis

in text)

 

68Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effec-
tiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 165.

69Ibid., p. 166.

82

Sergiovanni and Carver refer to a second type of role

conflict which they call "inter-role conflict." This would
exist when mutually contradictory expectations are held for
two roles, both of which are occupied by the same individu-
al.70 This same idea is expressed by Getzels and Guba.71

Many writers speak of the dysfunctional aspects of
role conflict. Owens indicates that conflict will produce
tensions and uncertainties which are commonly connected to
inconsistent organization behavior. The situation becomes
cyclical and deadly as inconsistent behavior, being unpre-
dictable and unanticipated, produces additional tensions and
conflict between holders of complementary roles, which, in
turn, produce more inconsistent behavior. Such a situation
is a source of individual frustration and a threat to the
organization's integrity.

Tosi and Carroll list four items which they maintain
are among the dysfunctional consequences of role conflict.
These are

l) Intensified internal conflicts for the individual
2) Increased job tensions
3) Reduced job satisfaction, and

4) Lessened trust in superiors and the organization72

 

70Sergiovanni and Carver, The New School Executive:
Theory of Administration, p. 180.

 

71Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effec-
tiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 165.

72Tosi and Carroll, Management: Contingencies,
Structure, and Process, p. 371.

I?

83
Archie B. Carroll identifies six items as consequences and
effects of role conflict:
1) Individuals in professional organizations who are
"caught in the middle" between conflicting expectations
have been shown to frequently experience stress.
2) Persons reporting role conflict, have stated that
their trust in the persons who imposed the pressure was
reduced; they liked them less personally; they held them
in lower esteem; they communicated with them less; and
that their own effectiveness was decreased.

3) Potential sources of role conflict have resulted in
significant decision-making difficulty.

4) Role conflict is associated with decreased satis-

faction, coping behavior that would be dysfunctional for

the organization, and experiences of stress and anxiety.

5) The emotional costs of role conflict include low job

satisfaction, low confidence in the organization, and a

high degree of job-related tension.

6) A very frequent behavioral response to role conflict

is withdrawal from or avoidance of those who are seen as

creating the conflict.73

One important element in the analysis of role con-

flict which should never be lost is that of an individual's
personality. No role can be completely defined by an indi-
vidual. It is possible to fill the same role with many dif-
ferent people, provided they have the same technical skills.

The behavioral differences while in the role will be due to

interaction of role expectancies and individual personalities.
The extent of felt conflict is also dependent upon person-

ality.74

 

73Archie B. Carroll, "Role Conflict in Academic Or-
ganizations: An Exploratory Examination of the Department
Chairman's Experience," Educational Administration Quarterly,
10 (Spring 1974): 54.

 

74Getzels and Guba, ”Role, Role Conflict, and Ef-
fectiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 165.

84
Somewhat similar to role conflict, but yet signif-

icantly different is role ambiguity. This is a situation

 

more of confusion than conflict as the role prescription is
contradictory or vague.75 Role ambiguity has two dimensions:

task ambiguity, or uncertainty about what a person should do,

 

is the first; social-emotional ambiguity, or uncertainty

 

about how one is evaluated by others, is the second. Two
general conditions which generate role ambiguity are charac-
teristic of dynamic organizations:
1) Organization Complexity - As the organization a-
chieves moderate size, it may be increasingly difficult
for an individual to see how his work is related to that
of others.
2) Rate of Organizational Change - When the environment
changes? the internal relationships among jobs will
change.

Role ambiguity, like role conflict, is related to (1)
increased tension, (2) worker dissatisfaction, (3) reduced
self-confidence, and (4) poorer relations with others.77
Singly or combined, role conflict and role ambiguity can
cause severe problems for individuals. One advantage of the
bureaucratic organization is that with its reliance upon
rules and a hierarchical order, task ambiguity is less likely
to occur.

Just as basic conflict occurs in all organizations,

role conflict also exists in all organizations. If the role

 

750wens, Organizational Behavior in Schools, p. 73.

76Tosi and Carroll, Management: ‘Contingencies,
Structure, and Process, p. 421.

77Ibid., p. 372.

85
conflict remains at a moderate level, most people will learn
to adapt to its existence. Potentially there exists a wide
range of techniques for the resolution of role conflict.
Magid lists eleven such techniques:

1) Psychological adjustment in the form of aggression,
withdrawal (symbolic or physical), or regression

2) Rationalization

3) Role compartmentalization
4) Role reversal

5) Ritualistic response

6) Compromise

7) Procrastination

8) Role redefinition

9) Feigned illness

10) Appeal for support from occupants of similar and/or
dissimilar positions, and

11) Evaluation of a major role (In a conflict situation
involving two or more expectations, the evaluated major
role is that expectation which the actor chooses to
fulfill.)78

If an individual perceives the existence of a role
conflict situation, he will more than likely fulfill the role
he perceives as more legitimate and/or more obligatory.

Getzels and Guba would maintain that there exist two
basic conflict resolution alternatives, provided the indi-

vidual does not change the system or withdraw from it en-

tirely. These are compromise and exclusion. One may attempt

 

78Alvin Magid, "Dimensions of Administrative Role and
Conflict Resolution among Local Officials in Northern
Nigeria," Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (September
1967): 325.

86
to stand midway between two roles, giving equal due to both,
shifting between them as he believes the occasion demands.
Or, he may select one role as his major role and modify all
other roles to agree with it. Observation would indicate
that the latter is more widely accepted. Seemingly there
must be such a major role to which one must commit himself
to determine his actions at critical points. This is done
in spite of contrary expectations attached to other roles
simultaneously occupied.79
To reduce role conflict, conflicting demands must

somehow be reconciled or eliminated. Tosi and Carroll list
three possible methods to accomplish this:

1) Eliminate Authority Overlaps - An authority overlap

occurs when two superiors have the formally designated

right to dictate subordinate actions in the same area.

2) Clarify Authority Relationships - Often a person ex-

periences role conflict because he is not sure who has

authority, and he responds to another who is in a higher

position but outside his chain of command simply because

of the other's status. By increasing the person's aware-

ness of those to whom he should, or must, respond, some

conflict may be reduced.

3) Insure that Superiors Maintain the Integrity of the

Hierarchy -\This solution of course is related to clar-

ifying authority relationships. The "territorial" im-

perative here for a manager should not be to allow intru-

sion by other managers outside the chain of command, un-

less appropriate.8

When Getzels and Guba studied role conflict, one of

their hypotheses predicted a relationship between role

 

79Getzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Effec-
tiveness: An Empirical Study," pp. 173-174.

80Tosi and Carroll, Management: ‘Contingencies,
Structure, and Process, pp. 371-372.

87
conflict and ineffectiveness. But, they later express the
caution that it should not be assumed that lack of role con-

flict is related to effectiveness.81

The Lutheran School

 

Writing in 1965, Edward Keuer identifies one situa-
tion which initially prompted the topic of this research. He
writes:

Because the position and responsibilities of the Lutheran

elementary school principal are unique, his problems are

somewhat different from those of the public school admin-
istrator. The board of education should know what the
principal's chief problems are and help him find ways to
solve them. Problems vary ... yet mogg Lutheran princi-
pals have certain problems in common.
Of particular interest to this study is the following problem
identified by Keuer:

Problem: No Definition of Assignment
The principal's responsibility and authority are
poorly defined.... relationship between the principal
and the pastor, teachers, and other staff members is
unclear.

Solution: The congregation and board of education need to
adopt a policy statement which clearly deggnes the
principal's responsibility and authority.

However, this solution is rarely implemented to any signifi-
cant degree. Why don't the congregations and/or school boards
look to the public sector to ascertain how assignments are

defined for public school administrators? The answer lies in

 

8lcetzels and Guba, "Role, Role Conflict, and Ef-
fectiveness: An Empirical Study," p. 172.

82Edward J. Keuer, "The Lutheran Elementary School
Principal," Board for Parish Education Bulletin, (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1965), P. 16.

83Ibid., p. 16.

88
that the position and responsibilities of the Lutheran prin-
cipal are unique, and his "problems" are somewhat different
from those encountered by his public school counterpart.
There seemingly exists no consensus as to who is re-
sponsible for the administration of a Lutheran elementary
school. Attempts have been made to ascertain who is respon-
sible in what situations. Most of these attempts have begun
with the assertion that the local congregation is responsible.
Few would dispute the congregation's claim to supreme author-
ity in the school. But, when a rung or two of the organiza-
tional ladder is descended, bringing one to the level of the
daily administration of the school, then who is in charge,
the pastor or the principal? Opinions vary.
Writing in 1919, W. C. Kohn summarizes the opinion

then in vogue:

The congregation is the owner of the schools, and has

full control over them. This is a very important point.

It asserts for the congregation the right of supervision.

The pastor is the supervisor of the school, of both

teacher and pupils. His supervision extends over re-

ligious instruction and over secular branches in so far

as they are means of training. As branches of learning

and knowledge, secular supervision is generally exercised

by a school board.
Pastoral supervision is reasonable during this time in history
for two reasons. First, the principal as we know the term
today was not actually a part of Lutheran schools until the

\

1920's, so therefore the pastor had to assume control. But,

 

84W. C. Kohn, "Christian Day Schools of the Lutheran
Church," found in "Educational Work of the Churches in 1916-
1918," Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Bul-

letin, 1919, No. 10. (Washington D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1919), p. 11.

89

it may be asked why one of the male teachers could not have
assumed the leadership? Today teachers are highly trained
professionals. At that time, Lutheran teachers had but two
years of college; whereas ministers had four years of college
training and four years of seminary training. For the min-
isters this totals eight years of post-secondary training as
opposed to two years of post—secondary training for teachers.

In an undated article by A. C. Stellhorn, he plots
the organizational chart of the Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod. It can be assumed that this work was done in or around
the 1930's. Stellhorn charts the structure of the local con-
gregation in the manner shown in Figure 4. A probable later
but again undated, anonymously penned handbook gives Figure 5
as its organizational structure for the school. From these
two exhibits, it is easily seen that many View the pastorate
as holding a key position in school administration.

A contact was made with the Roman Catholic Church in
the form of a letter addressed to Msgr. Francis Xavier Barrett.
In the letter addressed to him, a statement was made regarding
the Lutheran Church's stand that the pastor and principal are
equal in status regarding the work of the church. Part of
his reply follows:

... Church doctrine does not indicate that the pastor and
the principal are of equal status in the work of the par-
ish. The pastor is clearly charged with administering
the parish. Where the parish maintains a school, the

principal administers it with the pastor having the final
voice. 5

 

85Letter from Msgr. Francis Xavier Barrett, Executive
Director, Department of Chief Administrators, National Catholic
Educational Association, Washington D.C., 25 February 1977.

90

 

LOCAL CONGREGATION

 

 

 

 

 

BOARD OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PASTOR
SUNDAY SCHOOL
PRINCIPAL
SUPERINTENDENT
TEACHERS TEACHERS
FIGURE 4. An organizational chart dealing with

a local congregation in the Lutheran Church--
Missouri Synod. Diagram grepared by
Arthur L. Miller. 6 ‘

 

86August C. Stellhorn, Lutheran Schools, (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, n.d.), p. 13.

 

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONGREGATION

4‘

I

I

I

I

I
V/ :

l

PASTOR : COUNCIL
r I
I I
l | A
l l I
l I I
I l I
I I I
I I I
I V! I I
I I I
I 1 I
I < I
I ------------- > scaooL BoARD .................... J
I
1 fi\
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I J
I
E ............. § PRINCIPAL
: I
I F‘
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
------------- 9 TEACHERS
Line of Direct Authority
---------- Line of Informational and Advisory Contact
FIGURE 5. Lutheran Elementary School
Organization
87

Handbook for-Local Boards of Christian Education,
(St. Louis: Board for Parish Education, n.d.), p. 22.

92
There are also some who would ride the fence regarding

who is in control in the school. With such "fence riding"
clarity and direction are not provided. If anything, such
writing further complicates the situation. The following is
an example:

While a congregation's board of education is concerned

chiefly with policy and the pastor with the general

spiritual oversight of the congregation including the

school, the principal is the school's spiritual and edu-

cational leader and the key figure in school improvement.88
In this situation, the principal is the "key figure" but the
pastor maintains "general spiritual oversight." Since Luther-
an schools maintain that spiritual concerns permeate every
class, as all things are taught in the light of God's word,
does not this give the pastor general supervision of the
school? Where is the line of demarcation between the pastor's

role and the principal's role? There are a number of arti-

cles and conference papers dealing with topics such as

"Pastor-Teacher Harmony," "The Principal's Role," etc. How-
ever, only one such paper has been found which was not written
by a pastor. In many papers pastors are telling teachers and
principals how to do their jobs. This certainly indicates
strong pastoral supervision.

In a returning reference to Keuer, he seems to view
control of the school as being the principal's responsibility.

He writes:

 

88William A. Kramer, "Increasing the Lutheran Elemen-
tary Principal's Effectiveness," used for discussion at Re-
gional Education Conferences of the Missouri Synod, 1964,
William A. Kramer Papers, Box #1, Concordia Historical
Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, p. l.

93

The voters' assembly of the local congregation, repre-
senting the entire membership, has the charge to Operate
the school successfully. This body assumes final respon-
sibility for the school and legislates in its behalf
whenever necessary. For greater efficiency the voters'
assembly usually delegates immediate control of the
school to an elected board of Christian (or parish) ed-
ucation. This board is charged with directing the

entire school Operation in behalf of the congregation.

Because most board members are laymen and not trained
educators, and since efficient school operation demands
trained leadership to actually conduct the school, the
board in turn delegates certain responsibilities to the
professional staff, especially the principal. By
authority of the congregation and the board of education,
but subject to both, the principal is recognized as the
executive officer of the school.

William Kramer90 supports Keuer, as does the writer of an
anonymous article entitled, "General Statement: Duties of the
Principal."91 Keuer unequivocally sums his position concern-
ing the principal as being the school's Chief executive when
he writes: "The board of education delegates executive powers
to the principal directly, not through the pastor."92
Schools of the Seventh-day Adventist Church take a

similar stand when they charge the school board to administer
the school; The principal is required to be a member of the

school board, but the pastor is not a member of the board.93

 

89Keuer, "The Lutheran Elementary School Principal,"
p. 3.

90Kramer, "Increasing the Lutheran Elementary Prin-
cipal's Effectiveness."

91"General Statement: Duties of the Principal," A.
C. Stellhorn Papers, Box 47, Folder 1, Concordia Historical
Institute, St. Louis, n.d.

92Keuer, "The Lutheran Elementary School Principal,"

p. 7.

93"An Organizational Model for the Seventh-day Adven—
tist Education System K-12," General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists, Washington D. C., 1975, p. 25.

94
The bottom Of the organizational chart for Seventh-day
Adventist schools documents this point by not listing any
pastoral involvement in the school. Figure 6 is a segment of
the organizational chart for the congregations of the
Seventh-day Adventist church.

In his book Designing Complex Organizations,

 

Galbraith speaks of creating self—contained tasks. He would
view a self-contained task as a specialized unit of the total

94 This idea could be applied to the Lutheran

Operation.
school situation with a school being a unit and the Church
being a unit. A similar notion would come from Frederick
Taylor's conception of "functional foremanship" where spec-
ialization for management was employed. Under this notion,
the pastor could supervise religious education and the prin-
cipal could supervise the general education.

One of the thoroughly discussed concepts in the clas-
sical literature involves the idea of span of control. Most
concur in that the number of subordinates reporting to a
superior should be limited. No discussion of the Lutheran
system would be complete without considering this concept
relative to a pastor's role in the congregation. Pastors are
generally extremely busy individuals. Their time is divided
among many activities. Any means by which a pastor could be

relieved of some of his responsibilities should not be over-

looked. Allowing the principal to administer the school is

 

94John Galbraith, Designing Complex Organizations,
(Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973).

 

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHOOL SCHOOL COMMITTEE
CONSTITUENCY OR BOARD

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I \L

I

:

| SCHOOL

L _______________________ >

ADMINISTRATION

 

 

 

 

Line of Direct Authority
Line of Advisory Contact ----------

FIGURE 6. A Section of the Organizatioggl Model
for the Seventh-day Adventist School

 

95"An Organizational Model for the Seventh-day Adven-
tist Education System K-12," p. 4.

96
one such means to balance a pastor's load.

A situation where a worker is taxed heavily with re-
sponsibility is one which produces stress. It is acknowledged
that stress is always present in a work situation and that
it probably has some positive value in that it provides stim-
ulation and incentive. But excessive stress obviously can
have dysfunctional and disruptive consequences.

Shull identifies four kinds of stress:

1) Constraint - Lack of freedom, strong supervisor
emphasis

2) Ambiguity - Increasing structure will increase pre-
dictability of organization and social interaction. For
specialized tasks to be coordinated, some imposed struc-
ture seems necessary. Formal structure seems to be as-
sociated with both organizational efficiency and member-
ship satisfaction.... Filley and House found that a major
source of conflict resulted from unnecessary violation

of the chain of command, originating at the divided
echelons of the administrative system.

3) Overload - Of this there is a two-dimensional defi-
nition: personal capacity and organizational resources,
including time, that are made available to the worker.

4) Conflict - Conflict can arise in a structure from6
personal capacity fighting formal role requirements.

Shull also indicates that he found morale of faculty to be
positively related to the amount of administrative structure
and involvement.

Of these four types of stress identified by Shull,
the one germane here is overload. There is little doubt that
a pastor's load would place him into a category of an over-

load situation. However, care must be taken when considering

 

96Fremont A. Shull, Jr., "Professional Stress as a
Variable in Structuring Faculty Roles," Educational Adminis~
tration Quarterly, 8 (Autumn 1972), 56-62.

 

 

97
overload as its definition is two-dimensional. Overload is
related not only to personal capacity of the incumbent, but
also to the organizational resources--including time-~made

available to the incumbent.
Lassanske Study

Lassanske's study concerned the comparison of the
ideal role and the actual role of the Lutheran principals.
His sample consisted of principals of Missouri Synod schools
located in Southern California. An assumption he made was
the following:

There is an opportunity for considerable conflict to
develop in the Lutheran elementary school principalship
because the ideal function and actual performance of the
principal as viewed by [pastors, principals] .97 could
change conSiderably from p031tion to position.

To Lassanske it was obvious that the pastor had a
perception of the principal's role, and most accurately the
principal had a perception of his own role. Quite probably
this could be extended to indicate that the same things are
true of the pastor's role. Lassanske found general agreement
among pastors, principals, teachers, and board of education
members regarding their perception of a principal's ideal role.
However, there was low agreement regarding the actual role as

expected by the principal. Since there exists very high

agreement to the ideal role and low agreement to actual role,

 

97Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the Ideal Role
and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary Principal in
Southern California," p. 3.

98
Lassanske interpreted this as a comprehensive role conflict.98
Some specific results of his study are pertinent here.

Consider the responses to the following questions:

1) Does congregation give principal sufficient authority
to handle school?

Pastors — 60.47% said always99
Principals - 31.82% said always
There definitely exists a wide difference of opinion regarding

the above question.

2) Is principal reSponsible for building and equipment

maintenance?
Pastors - 23.26% no; 74.42% yesi 8.3% undecided
Principals - 93.18% yes 0

Again there exists a wide difference of Opinion between pas-
tors and principals. Also there is evidence of a significant
percentage of pastors who question the principal's responsi-
bility for building and equipment maintenance.

3) Does congregation have job description for principals?

Principals reported never 43.18% of the timi01 I
Pastors reported always 20.93% of the time.

An additional significant bit of information was that 23.26%
of the pastors reported that ideally there should be no job
description for a principal.
4) Regarding whether the pastor actually recognizes the
principal as the educational leader of the school, the

pastors said they always did 67.44% of the time. But the
principals indicated that they felt the pastors recognized

 

93Ibid., pp. 114-115.
991bid., p. 51.
'looIbid., p. 79.
1011bid., p. 49.

99
them as the educational leader only 43.18% of the time.102
Lassanske also studied the constitutions of 33 of the
60 congregations in the sample. The significant results of
this study follow:
One of the 33 constitutions studied said, '... that the
Board of Education shall maintain a code of regulations
stipulating the policy of the Day School.... It included
a section titled The Principal. In this section the
position of the principal was described, and his admin-
istrative and supervisory duties were outlined.... This
... comes closest to printing a specific job description
for the principal.‘10
From this study Lassanske concluded that the results seemed
to indicate the following: "... role conflict ... is probably
not due to any considerable degree to'a significantdifference
in the view by pastors, principals, teachers and board
members ..."104 However, he does not haZard a statement con-

cerning where the existing role conflict does come from.

Summary

The chapter began with a brief overview of organiza-
tion theory. One of the key ideas repeatedly expressed was
that of unity of command. The discussion of theory continued
with a reference to some advantages of a bureaucratic organi-
zational structure, as well as a few disadvantages. Under
the heading of organization theory, such specifics as author-
ity, power, and the effects of rules on an organization were

discussed. -Role theory was next considered with the initial

 

lOZIbid., p. 47.
103Ibid., pp. 109-111.

1041bid., p. 117.

100
step of deciding upon a legitimate definition of the term for
use in this study.

Conflict was considered in the same manner with the
same problem being noted in that one had many possible defi-
nitions from which to choose. Under the conflict section,
the work of Louis R. Pondy was discussed and viewed signifi-
cant to the study. The preceding was then melded in the form
of a discussion of role conflict. Various types and condi-.
tions of role conflict were considered including that of
role ambiguity.

Specific attention was then drawn to some germane
situations specific to the Lutheran school and the Lutheran
principal. A consideration of the concept of overload was
next considered with observations and inferences drawn to the
role of the pastor. Finally, a study by Roland Lassanske
was briefly discussed as it deals with the subject under
study. Certain specific questions with their corresponding
answers were then reviewed. Finally the chapter concluded

with a brief summary of the chapter.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH DESIGN

Method of Data Collection

 

The data were gathered on a forty-one item opinion-
naire (see Appendix E). The Opinionnaire also sought the
following pertinent demographic information: years of ser-
vice as pastor, principal, or teacher; respondent's pre-
sent position and number of years in that position; school
enrollment at the time of the test; whether or not the
pastors have served one or more congregations with schools
before coming to their present position; and the extent of
a principal's academic education with emphasis on deter-
mining his graduate school preparation in educational
administration. Thirty-nine items of the opinionnaire re-
quested that the respondent express his perception of the
amount of authority/responsibility the pastor and the prin-
cipal each has in the operation of a Lutheran elementary
school. With statements designed to elicit the desired in-
formation, the following areas were considered: Curriculum,
Supervision Of Teachers, Supervision of Students, Dealing
with Student Offenses, Supervision of the Non-Teaching
Staff, Fiscal Affairs and Scheduling. To indicate their
perceptions, respondents were asked to check one of five

101

102
categories: Exclusive authority/responsibility, Major
authority/responsibility, Shared authority/responsibility,
Minor authority/responsibility, or No authority/
responsibility.

The final two items on the Opinionnaire dealt with
the respondent's perception of the hierarchy of authority
which is ideal for the Operation of a Lutheran elementary
school, and the hierarchy which the respondent felt was the
real hierarchy in operation in his school. Five possible
hierarchies were identified, with a sixth Option available
allowing the respondent to structure his own hierarchy to
demonstrate the real and/or the ideal hierarchy.

Initially, discussions with teachers and pastors of
the Wisconsin Synod indicated some areas in the operation
of a school wherein the potential for a difference of
opinion might lie. A lengthy discussion with a former prin—
cipal of a Lutheran elementary school led to the identi-
fication of seven areas of Concern, and statements in each
area designed to assess the differences in respondents'
perceptions.

The proposed areas and statements were then com-
pared to sources in education and educational administra-
tion textbooks for any additions. The instrument was then
submitted to the researcher's doctoral committee chairman,
a respected practitioner and professor, for refinement.

In addition to the Michigan District, the Wisconsin

Synod has nine other districts. From the presidents of

103
these nine additional districts, lists of the names of five
pastors and five principals were Sought. The one qualifi-
cation on this list was that the named individual was to
have been a pastor or principal for at least twenty-five
years. It was hoped that from these individuals the wis-
dom and experience of age could be tapped to assist in
instrument refinement.

Not all of the districts had individuals meeting
the experience requirement. Randomly selected from these
lists were four pastors and four principals. The process
involved taking the third listed name on each list, and
alternately choosing pastor - principal - pastor - etc. A
copy of the Opinionnaire was sent to each of these individ-
uals seeking their criticism. Three pastors and three prin-
cipals responded with a critique.

Opinionnaires were also sent to two individuals who
had recently conducted research studies in related areas
and were currently Lutheran school principals. A copy was
sent to the professor of educational administration at the
Wisconsin Synod's teacher-training college, as well as
copies to the presidents of the teacher-training and pastor-
training institutions of the Wisconsin Synod. One final
copy was sent to the Executive Secretary of the Board for
Parish Education of the Wisconsin Synod. Of these six,
four returned a critique.

Based on the returned critiques, modifications were
made in the instrument. The instrument was then field

tested in six Lutheran elementary schools. The schools

104
participating in the field test represented the same sizes
as the schools in the test pOpulation. None of the schools
in the field study were in the Michigan District. A list

of the field test schools can be found in Appendix D.

Population

 

The population for this study was all teachers,
principals and pastors of the congregations in the Michigan
District of the Wisconsin Synod which operate their own
elementary schools, and in which a teacher functions as the
principal. Eliminated were those congregations in which
the pastor functions also as principal. All congregations
meeting the above requirements were invited to participate
in the study. Congregations in the test are found in the
states of Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. The

totals for the various test groups are as follows:

Pastors - N = 40
Principals - N = 37
Teachers - N = 110

Data Analysis

Hypotheses I through VI were tested using the one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffe technique
as a post hoc test. Originally the Student 2 distribution
was to be used to ascertain significant differences among
the means. However, with repeated treatments of the t-test,
the alpha level becomes cumulative thus making the results

increasingly less significant.

105

The ANOVA is a method of splitting the total vari-
ance into more meaningful components that measure different
sources of variation.1 The one-way classification was used
in this instance because the observations are classified on
the basis of a single criterion--perceptions of one group
toward the pastor or principal. The test is based on com-
parisons of components using the F distribution. Care was
taken to eliminate large sources of variation so as to de-
crease the probability of committing a type II error, or
retaining the null hypothesis when in reality the alterna-
tive hypothesis is true.

An assumption is made in using this test that the
populations are independent, normally distributed, and

2 Selecting an alpha level of

possess a common variance.
.05 may not indicate a very powerful test, but it was felt
that this was not a significant criticism as the researcher
was dealing with perceptions which are amorphous in them-
selves.

A disadvantage in using the F—test in ANOVA when
more than two groups are being compared is that only general
conClusions can be drawn from the non—retention of the null
hypothesis. It can be concluded that all group means are

not identical, but neither the location nor the magnitude of

the differences can be determined on the basis of the F-test

 

1Ronald E. Walpole, Introduction to Statistics,
2d ed., (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1974),
p. 267.

 

21bid., p. 268.

106
alone.

The Scheffe technique, which is an interval estimate
technique, allows the determination of the magnitude of
group differences. This test determines the interval by
constructing contrasts between population means. To deter-
mine statistical significance, confidence intervals are con-
structed. If the confidence interval includes zero (0),
then the contrast is REE statistically significant. If the
interval does not include zero (0), the contrast is deemed
statistically significant.3

A second post hoc technique which could be employed
is the Tukey technique. However, since the Nfs of the three
groups involved were not equal, the Scheffe/was selected
as this technique is preferred in a situation of unequal

EIS.4

Summary

The chapter began with a brief overview of the method
of data collection. The areas of concern and the types of
responses were indicated as was the use of hierarchies to
establish the groups' perceptions of the "Ideal" and "Real"
hierarchies operating in a Lutheran school.

The method of Opinionnaire development was outlined,

as was the field test procedure. The study population was

 

3Gene V. Glass and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical
Methods in Education and Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 394.

 

 

4Ibid., p. 395.

107
identified as being dependent upon certain criteria. The
statistical test employed was the one-way ANOVA with the
Scheffe’post hoc technique. A brief explanation of the
ANOVA was given, with an identification of certain assump-
tions. The selected alpha level was .05, a sufficiently
powerful test to deal with amorphic perceptions.

A disadvantage of the ANOVA was indicated and re-
vealed to be a strong reason for employing the Scheffe post
hoc technique. The Scheffe was briefly explained, as was
the reason for selecting the Scheffe as opposed to the
Tukey post hoc technique. The method of analyzing the
statements concerning the hierarchies was then revealed,

followed by a summary of the chapter.

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction

The following analysis of data will be comprised of
three general areas: demographic information, perceptions
of the pastor's and the principal's authority/responsibility
in the school, and the groups' perceptions of the hierar-
chies of authority in a Lutheran school. The authority/
responsibility of both the pastor and the principal will be
considered separately in the discussion, as will a compari-
son of the two. The areas dealing with perceptions of the
pastor's and the principal's authority/responsibility will be
further broken down into the following seven subsections:
curriculum, supervision of teachers, supervision of students,
dealing with student offenses, supervision of the non-teaching
staff, fiscal affairs, and scheduling. Each of the above
subsections will be considered on the basis of the individual
statements contained in the subsection as well as an analysis
of variance for the subsection taken as a unit. Apparent
instances of opinion divergence will be recognized and com-
ments relative to these instances will be made. Significant

differences will be noted where they existed.

108

109

The section concerning the hierarchies will be
analyzed by reporting and commenting on the percentages of
respondents selecting each of the given categories. Agree-
ment will be defined in the following manner: 0% to 49%
signifies low agreement, 50% to 74% signifies substantial
agreement, and 75% to 100% signifies high agreement.1 It is
acknowledged that the above breakdown is arbitrary at best,

but for analysis the above was used.

Demographic Information

 

The population for the study consisted of all pas-
tors, principals and teachers of the Michigan District of
the Wisconsin Synod who are associated with elementary
schools which have a teacher as principal. A listing of
participating schools may be found in Appendix F. Excluded
from this list are those schools of the Michigan District
where the pastor also functions as principal. Part-time
teachers were included in the population if they taught kin-
dergarten or in the grades, and spent at least half of each
day in the building.

Table 1 lists the Nfs of the three groups and the
number and percentage of respondents. Also included are the
totals for the study. The N_of 41 for pastors includes one

congregation which was without a pastor due to a vacancy.

 

lRoland R. Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the
Ideal Role and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary
Principal in Southern California," (Ph. D. dissertation,
Claremont Graduate School, 1970), pp. 39-40.

110

TABLE 1. Report of the Group N's, Number of
Respondents, and Percentage of Response

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL NUMBER NUMBER OF PERCENT OF
GROUP SOLICITED RESPONDENTS RESPONSE
PASTORS 41 34 82.9
PRINCIPALS 38 33 86.8
TEACHERS 103 81 78.6
TOTALS 182 148 81.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also included in the respondents' category is one pastor who
responded with a blank Opinionnaire requesting to be excused
from the test due to serious illness.

Tables 2, 3 and 42 list for the respondents their
years of service as pastor, principal, or teacher. It was
impossible to obtain categories applicable for Classifying
across the three groups. Pastors generally had more years of
service than did teachers or principals. This can be shown
by comparing the three groups in the single category or com-
bined categories representing 0-15 years Of service. 42.4%
of responding pastors served 15 years or less, but for prin-
cipals the figure is 87.9%, and for teachers the figure is
83.9%. This situation is logical as most frequently seminary
graduates entering the pastoral ministry have smaller con—
gregations as their first position, and generally schools are
not as frequently found in smaller congregations. Important

exceptions are those large congregations which may have a

 

2The percentages in these and some of the following
tables do not total to 100%. This is due to rounding.

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 2.* Years of Service as Pastor
NUMBER OF PERCENT OF
?EARS RESPONDENTS GROUP
0-15 14 42.4
16-25 11 33.3
26+ 8 24.2
TABLE 3.* Years of Service as Principal
NUMBER OF PERCENT OF
YEARS RESPONDENTS GROUP
0-5 16 48.5
6-15 13 39.4
16+ 4 12.1
TABLE 4.* Years of Service as Teacher
NUMBER OF PERCENT OF
YEARS RESPONDENTS GROUP
0-4 33 40.7
5-15 35 43.2
16+ 13 16.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

young pastor as an assistant to a more experienced pastor,
or those congregations which may be small, but because they
are separated from a larger congregation which does support
a school, the smaller congregation must maintain its own
school.

Of more concern to the researcher in this study was

the matter of how long had the various members of the groups

 

*The above tables possess different categories because

it was impossible to develop categories for classifying across
the three groups.

112

been in their present positions. As in the above tables, the
pastors generally had served longer in their present positions

than had principals or teachers. This is illustrated in

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 .
TABLE 5. Years of Service as Pastor, Principal,
or Teacher

PASTORS PRINCIPALS TEACHERS
YEARS No. % No. % No. %
0-5 13 39.4 22 66.7 57 70.4
6-15 15 45.5 11 33.3 20 24.7
16-25 5 15.5 ' 0 0.0 4 4.9
TOTAL 33 100.4' 33 100.0 81 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It might be assumed quite logically that since the
pastors are generally more experienced and therefore gener-
ally older than the principals or teachers, and since pastors
more frequently have served more years at their present
position, the pastor comes to assume a position in his par-
ishioners' eyes as being "second to none." This could be
positive in that parishioners could identify with their pas-
tor, but could also cause quite natural problems if the pas-
tor and the principal or teachers should ever disagree on an
educational matter. Whose advice or opinion would be taken,
the pastor's, the principal's, or the teacher's?

Considering school size as compiled in Table 6, it is
easily seen that a majority of the schools in the study had
student populations of one hundred or less. This figure is

consistent with that for the entire Wisconsin Synod, as the

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6. The Number of Respondents in the
Categories Concerning School Size
‘ENROLLMENT PASTORS , PRINCIPALS ' TEACHERS
0-50 11 13 16
51-100 9 7 23
101-150 8 10 26
151-200 4 2 - 12
200+ l 1 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

majority of Synod schools are small schools.

Table 7 indicates that many of the pastors in the
Michigan District (42.4%) have served one or more congrega-
tions which maintained its own school. When the information
in this table is combined with Table 2, it is an important
indication of the edge in experience held by pastors. With—
out a doubt, the pastors generally are older and more exper-

ienced.

TABLE 7. Number and Percentage of Pastors Who Have Served
One or More Congregations Maintaining Schools

 

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE

 

YES ' 14 42.4

 

NO - 19 57.6

 

 

 

 

 

The attempt by the Michigan Department of Education
to guarantee certified teachers in all schools has had its ef-
fect on the majority of schools in this study. Of primary
concern is the graduate study of the principals. Table 8 in-
dicates that 51.5% of the responding principals either have a

master's degree in school administration, or have attended

114

TABLE 8. Number and Percentage of Principals with Graduate

 

 

 

 

Work or Graduate Degree in School Administration
RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE
YES 17 51.5
NO 15 45.5
NO
RESPONSE 1 3.0

 

 

 

 

 

some graduate classes in that area. In large part this is due
to the aforementioned effort by the Michigan Department of
Education to ensure certified teachers. Certification re-
quirements for the teachers in the Wisconsin Synod are strin-
gent. All incoming teachers and principals who possess
little or no graduate training are required to attend grad-
uate school. Whether the individual is experienced or not
makes little difference to the Michigan Department of
Education.

When the data in Table 8 are compared with that found
in Table 9, which indicates whether the principal has any

TABLE 9. Number and Percentage of Principals Who Have
Teaching Experience Without Being Principal

 

RESPONSE NUMBER PERCENTAGE

 

YES 22 66.7

 

NO 11 33.3

 

 

 

 

 

teaching experience without also being principal, it can be
seen that many of the responding principals are especially
trained for administration, as well as being experienced as

teachers. It is also important to realize that a vast

115

majority of Wisconsin Synod principals are full—time teachers

as well.

Perceptions of
the Pastor's and the Principal's
AutHOrity/Responsibility_in the School

 

The data generated surround the perceived authority/
responsibility of the pastor and the principal in Wisconsin
Synod churches Operating a school with a teacher as principal.
Hypotheses one, two and three address the pastor's authority/
responsibility; hypotheses four, five and six address the
principal's authority/responsibility. The data for these two
areas will be presented in the following manner: Initially
the number and the type of responses given by the three
groups--pastors, principals, and teachers--wi11 be given for
each statement. The statements will then be grouped by the
seven categories of interest: Curriculum, Supervision-
Teachers, Supervision-Students, Dealing with Student Offenses,
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff, Fiscal Affairs, and
Scheduling. The response choices for each statement are the
following: Exclusive Authority/Responsibility, Major
Authority/Responsibility, Shared Authority/Responsibility,
Minor Authority/Responsibility, and No Authority/Responsibility.
For analysis, Exclusive Authority/Responsibility was arbi-
trarily designated as 1, Major Authority/Responsibility as 2,
Shared Authority/Responsibility as 3, Minor Authority/
Responsibility as 4, and No Authority/Responsibility as 5.

The Charts reflect this assignment.

To attempt to graphically portray the existence of

116

trends, continua are used. The three groups were each placed
on the continua and ordered according to the group mean score
for the given statement. The distances involved are in no
manner indicative of anything other than a representation of
order and a mere separation of the entries. No comparisons
between continua ought to be made other than to locate simi-
larities in the ordering of the entries. This approach is
being taken so as to emphasize the existence of trends.

Only one incidence was discovered where the null hypothesis
could not be retained. Although most of the differences were
far below the alpha level selected for statistical signifi-
cance, it is felt that trends worthy of note do exist.

As mentioned above, the first six hypotheses deal with
the authority/responsibility of the pastor or the principal
relative to the seven categories previously identified. The
hypotheses were restated in the null form and tested with a
one-way analysis of variance, followed by the Scheffe post
hoc technique. Results will be displayed in an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) table. Following this, the categorical mean
scores for each of the three groups will be listed. The re-
tention or non-retention of the null hypotheses will then be
indicated.

Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding:

Curriculum

 

Table 10 indicates that the majority of responding

pastors view this as an area requiring shared authority/

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH.m m.H ~.o n.v~ om m.om Ho o.oH mH ~.H H momma
mm.m o.m IIII v.mv vH m.mo wH H.@ N IIII o szm
vm.~ IIII IIII H.NH e h.mo mm N.mH m IIII o Bm<e
mmoom w w w v w m w N w H moomo
zmmz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommdmm mood: m>HmDHUxm
oz .
squHmHmzommmm\seHmomeo<
.umuums boonQSm mDOHUHHmm mo :OHuOsnumCH
HON mHoHnoumE ecu SSHCHEHOuOQ I m ucmEmumum .HH mqmme
mm.m N.H H.HH h.vm om h.mv hm o.mH MH ~.H H modme
>v.m o.m H.o «.mm mH m.mo mH H.@ m IIII o sze
mH.m IIII IIII ~.Hm s h.~> em H.@ N IIII o Bm<m
mmoom w m w e w m w N m H moomw
zemz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommemm mood: m>HmDHOxm
oz
VBHHHmHmZOmmmm\wBHmO:BD¢
.umuuoa DomflQSm mDOHuHHmm Mom coHuosuumcH
mo mocosvmm was mcHsHEHmumo I H ucmswumum .oH mqmda

 

 

118
responsibility. Although this is dealing with religious mat-
ter, more than 20% of the pastors feel they have a minor
authority/responsibility. Of interest, too, is that 45% of
the principals and 35% of the teachers also feel the pastor's
authority/responsibility is minor. The pastors and principals
agree that at best, the pastor's authority/responsibility is
shared, whereas the teachers give the pastor a greater amount
of authority/responsibility. The mean scores of all three
groups indicate their consensus that the authority/
responsibility is shared.

In Table 11 the pastors again predominantly view their
authority/responsibility as Shared. Principals are divided
between a shared and a minor authority/responsibility.

Teacher responses are spread over all five alternatives, with
50.6% falling in the shared column.

Of interest from Table 12 is that only 6.2% of the
teachers gave the pastor at least a shared amount of authority/
responsibility regarding secular subject matter. Considering
only the pastors' and principals' responses, it can be seen
that again the principals assign less authority/responsibility
to the pastor than does the pastor assign himself. For each
responding group, the majority give the pastor no authority/
responsibility in this area. It is unknown what significance
a ”No Response" might be, but 9.1% of the principals did not
respond to this statement.

In Table 13 it is revealed that the pastor is again
assigned a minor authority/responsibility. In terms of the

Inean scores, the principals and teachers are almost identical,

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.o m.H H m.om mo o.om mm m.o o IIII o IIII o moose
mm.e H.o N m.em oH m.mm HH o.m H IIII o IIII o szo
mm.o H.o m o.om mH m.Hm 5H o.m H IIII o IIII o em<o
smoom w w m w o w m w m a H msomo
zemz mmzoommm oz mosz ommazm «one: m>HmoHoxm
oz
seHHHmHmzoommm\meHmoze:<
.Hmpume pummbsm mmqoumm mo coHuosuumcH
poo mHoHpouos one moHoHSHOHOQ I e homemboom .mH memes
om.o N.H H o.mm me o.em om ~.o m IIII o IIII o roams
so.e H.m m o.oo om m.om oH IIII o III- o IIII o szo
mm.o H.o m n.Hm RH «.mq «H IIII o IIII o IIII .o emao
smoom w w m w o m m m m w H ooomo
zoos mszEmmm oz mosz ommezm some: m>HmzHoxm
oz
useHHHmHmzommmm\seHmozeoe
.Hmuums powwosm mdqaomm “Om
:oHposunmsH mo mosmsqwm any mcHsHEHOHOQ I m usmEmuoum .NH mamme

 

 

120
midway between "Minor" and "NO" authority/responsibility.
The pastors tend to grant themselves more authority/
responsibility than do either of the other groups.

In Table 14 the pastors overwhelmingly perceive them-
selves as having no authority/responsibility. By contrast,
27.2% of the principals give the pastor a minor or shared
authority/responsibility. The mean scores also indicate that
the principals and teachers give the pastor more involvement
than the pastors give themselves. Again, as in statements
three and four, no group gives the pastor more than a shared
involvement, and those who did grant a shared authority/
responsibility represented only 3.4% of the respondents.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding curriculum.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

ITEM More Less
1. ./ Pastors Teachers Principals 4Q
'\ (3.15) (3.29) (3.47) ‘7

 

2 . Hater“ TeacheLi—Rrinem
(2.94) (3.19) (3.38)

 

 

 

3. 4, Teachers Pastors Principals ,_
‘\ (4.50) (4.55) (4.67) 1’
4. ,/ Pastors Teachers Principals \\
'\ (4.39) (4.55) (4.58) ./
5. , Teachers Principals Pastors \,
\ (4.63) (4.68) (4.81) 77

From the above, it can be seen that the pastors often

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.v m.m m «.mo mm m.mN HN m.v o IIII o IIII o momma
mm.v H.o N h.@@ NN N.¢N m o.m H IIII o IIII o sze
Hm.v H.o N m.mh mN N.mH m IIII o IIII o IIII c Ewen
mmoum w w m m o w m N N a H maomu.
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz namemm mood: m>HmDHUxm
Oz
MBHHHmHmZOmmmm\MBHmomBD¢
.uomflnsm HmHsomm m
CH mpsum EsHSOHHHso m msHommH I m usmeumum .vH mamde

 

122
assign themselves more authority/responsibility than do either
of the other groups. Also, the principals give the pastors
the least authority/responsibility in all but one instance.
Table 15 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of

the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding curriculum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 15. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding Curriculum
Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 14.64 7.32 .555 .575
WITHIN 144 1899.49 13.19
F2’144 (.95) = 3.00

 

 

 

TOTAL 146 1914.13

 

The categorical means are the following:

Pastors 19.58
Principals 19.00
Teachers 19.79

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of pastors and
principals regarding a pastor's authority/responsibility in
curriculum must be retained. The second null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between pas-
tors and teachers regarding a pastor's authority/responsibility
in curriculum must be retained. The third null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between
principals and teachers regarding a pastor's authority/

responsibility in curriculum must be retained.

123

Supervision - Teachers

Table 16 illustrates all groups viewing the pastor's
authority/responsibility as being shared in this area. All
of the pastor and principal respondents felt that the pastor
ought to have at least some authority/responsibility. Inter-
estingly, the mean scores indicate that the principals gave
slightly more authority/responsibility to the pastor than the
pastors gave themselves.

The mean scores as reported for pastors and principals
in Table 17 are almost identical. In each of these two
groups, a large percentage of the responses fell into the
shared category. Of interest is that the teachers gave the
pastor the most authority/responsibility, a third of a point
more than either the pastors or principals.

Stated in Chapter II was the fact that in the past
much emphasis was placed on the pastor as the supervisor of
the teacher. Table 18 would seem to indicate that these three
groups no longer hold this to be true. The mean score for
the teachers indicates that they place the pastor almost mid-
way between "Minor" and "No" authority/responsibility. The
pastors assign themselves the most involvement with a mean
score of 4.00, resting squarely in the "Minor" authority/
responsibility category.

Table 19 indicates the principals and teachers perz_
ceive the pastor as having very little authority/responsibility
regarding inservice training. The mean scores for these two
groups support this. Across all three groups it would be the

consensus that at best, the pastor's authority/responsibility

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.~ o.h o o.m m.NH oH m.mm mm m.mm oH o.s o zo<me
mm.m H.o m H.m ~.mH o o.oo om o.m H o.m H szo
om.m o.m H ~.mH «.mH m m.mo mH ~.mH o IIII o amen
mmoom a _ m m e m. m m m .o H osomo
zmms mmzoomzm oz mosz .ommezm moses m>Hmzooxm
oz
seHHHmHmzoommz\seHmozeae
.H.Oum .mOHumHHmuomumno .anuHHHoo .mmEmc anemone
.m.mv ompcmuxm mH HHOU men 5033 on umeooou msu mCchmocoo
coHammonmsoo ecu Op coHuoosmEEooom I h Demaoumum .NH mHmfia
mo.m ~.H H e.m m.mH oH m.om ov m.eH NH o.m m momma
oo.m o.m H IIII H.m m m.Hm em o.m H o,m H szo
mH.m. IIII o IIII ~.mH o m.me om o.m H IIII o amen
mmoom w m w o w m w m w H moose
zen: emzoomsm oz mosz omm<zm moors m>Hmoeoxm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

waHHHmHmZOmeM\>BHmOSBD¢

.umzommu 3w: 0:» MOM huHHHmecommmu mo mmmnm onu
SCHCHMUO .HHCU o mCHcsmuxm Chewmm I

o someouobm

.mH mand?

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mv.¢ N.H H o.mm he m.cm mN ¢.> m.N N IIII o momma
No.¢ H.@ N m.mv mH v.0m NH H.m IIII o IIII o szm
mH.v H.@ N m.om oH m.Hm NH H.m o.m H IIII o Emmi
mmoum m w m N v w m N m H moomu
zemz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommmmm moomz m>HmDHoxm
oz
HeHHHmHmzoommm\weHmoze:<
.NDHHHQC Moscow» HO OCOEO>OHQEH Hem
mconH>OHm I mchHmuu OOH>HmmcH I m ucmEmumum .mH mHmfie
ov.o IIII o o.om Ho o.Nv em m.v IIII o m.N N mo<me
oN.¢ H.@ N «.mm NH m.mv mH H.o IIII o o.m H szm
oo.v H.@ N N.HN N m.vm mH N.mH o.m H IIII o Bmdm
mmoom w w m w v w N N w H moomw
zmmz mmzommmm 02 mosz omm<mm mood: m>HmDHoxm
oz
MBHHHmHmzommmm\wBHmomaom
.mocmnmmsoo HMHsmOH poo COHDO>Homoo EooummMHo
conchsu coHumsHm>O Hmsomms I m usmfimumum .mH mHmmB

126

is minor.

It is quite evident from Table 20 that all three
groups feel the pastor plays a relatively major role in main-
taining and enforcing congregational standards of conduct.

Of interest also is the similarity between pastors' and the
principals' responses across the five alternatives.

In Table 21 slightly less than one half point sepa-
rates the mean scores of the pastors and the principals, with
the principals indicating the lesser amount of authority/
responsibility. This would logically seem to be true as this
is a professional matter, and the principal, as a profession-
al, would most likely perceive this as his domain.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of teachers.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
6. ,1 Principals Teacher§__ Pastgr§_____€>
‘ (3.00) (3.05) (3.15)
7. ‘4 Teachers Principals Pastors \_
\ (2.93) (3.29) (3.34) 7
8. 2’ Pastors Principals Teachers \
\ (4.00) (4.26) (4.40) 7
9. ./ Pastors Principals Teachers __.>
‘\ (4.16) (4.42) (4.46)
10. < Teachers PaSthi Principal; \

(2.49) (2.56) (2.65)

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.m m.N m.m N.HN oN e.ee om o.mH HH m.o e zoeme
Ne.m H.o H.o o.No «H «.mm NH o.m H o.m H zHeo
oo.m H.o IIII m.om oH «.mm NH N.HN m IIII o emeo
mmoom N N N o N m N N N H isomo
zem: mmzommmm oz mozH: ommezm zone: m>HmDHoxm

oz

NeHHHmHmzommmm\seHmomeoe
.HOSpcoo mo mpumocmum Hmconmwmonm
mo useEmOHOmco poo mocmsousHmz I HH unmemumum .HN mamme

me.N m.N o.o H.HH o m.mN mH N.mo um m.NH oH :oeee
mo.N H.o IIII H.o m m.mo oH m.om oH H.o N szo
om.N o.m IIII H.m m m.me mH N.HN HH H.o m emeo
mmoom N N N o N m N N N H moomo
zem: mmzoemmm oz mozH: ommeem some: m>Hm=Hoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo ucmeUHomcw pom mocmsmusHmz I OH usmEmamum

wquHmHmZOmmmm\MBHmomBD¢

.uososoo mo moumpsoum HocOHummmHmsoo
.ON HHQ¢B

 

 

128

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

ITEM More Less
11. , Pastors Teachergp Principals 5
\ (3.06) (3.22) (3.48)

There seems to exist no evident trend concerning this
category, as no one group continually gives more or less
authority/responsibility to the pastor. Of interest, though,
is that in only one instance do the principals give the most
authority/responsibility to the pastor.

Table 22 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of teachers.

TABLE 22. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding the Supervision
of Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 10.29 5.14 .287 .751
WITHIN 144 2577.18 17.90
TOTAL 146 (2587.47 F2'144 ('95) = 3°00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 19.91
Principals 19.42
Teachers 20.09

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of teachers must be retain-

ed. The second null hypothesis stating there would be no

129

significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the teachers regarding a pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of teachers must be re-
tained. The third null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of the
principals and the teachers regarding a pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of teachers must be re-
tained.
Supervision - Students

In Table 23 it is demonstrated that all three groups
tend to view the pastor as having a shared authority/
responsibility in this area. One might infer there was no
difficulty in responding to this item as there was only one
individual who did not respond.

Table 24 indicates that all groups view the pastor
as having no authority/responsibility in this area.‘ Logically
this is purely an educational matter, seemingly one for the
principal and/or staff to handle. Nonetheless, there were a
few individuals among the three groups who felt the pastor
should have at least a Shared authority/responsibility in this
area.

Table 25 indicates that all groups tend to feel the
pastor warrants a lesser amount of authority/responsibility
in this area. More than half of the responding teachers and
principals felt the pastor should assume no part in this area.
Although many would look upon this as primarily a board, admin-

istration, and/or staff responsibility, significant numbers in

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.v IIII o c.mw Hm m.mm NN N.m m IIII o IIII o momma
Nh.e o.m H m.m> mN N.mH m IIII o o.m H IIII o szm
mm.o o.m H b.0w NN N.eN m o.m H o.m H III) 0 Bmdm
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H macaw
zemz mmzommmm oz mosz ommemm moo<z m>HmDHUxm
Oz
NeHHHmHmzoommm\>eHmozeoe
.mHm>mH mpoum Ou
mucoosum mcHHmucm mchmHmme I mH ucmEmumum .eN MHmee
mo.m A IIII o N.o m m.mH mH m.vm we m.mH NH N.H H :Oeme
NH.m o.m H IIII o m.eN m m.om NH H.NH e IIII o szm
I. In
oo.m IIII o IIII o N.NH w o.mo HN N.mH w IIII o amen
meoom N N N N e N m N N N H moomo-
zam: mmzommmm OZ mCzHZ Dmmfimm mood: m>HmDHuxm
oz

 

NBHHHmHm20immm\NeHmoeeoe

HON mmHoHHOQ mcHanHnmumm I

. H.HOHmmflEmvm
NH ucmsmomum

.MN mHm48

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no.m m.N N H.NH NH N.mm mN m.mm Nm m.e o IIII o zoeme
mo.m H.o N H.NH o e.om NH m.me NH IIII o IIII o szo
NH.m o.m H IIII o N.NH o N.NN oN IIII o IIII o ewes
mmoom N N m N e N N N N N H ezomo
zem: mmzommmm oz mozH: ommemm mooe: m>Hmoqoxm
oz
:eHHHmHmzoommm\NeHmozeoe
.mmme poo posocoo
bomoobm Ho moooo ooHsmHHoobmm I NH homewuobm .oN memes
me.e N.H H o.om He m.om Nm N.N N IIII o IIII o eoeme
om.e o.m H N.HN NH e.Ne NH o.m H IIII o IIII o szm
em.e o.m H H.Nv NH m.me NH H.m m IIII o IIII o ewes
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H moomo
zem: mmzoamme oz mozH: ommeem mooe: m>HmoH0xm
oz
NeHHHmHmzoommm\»eHmo=eze
.mmmumoum ucmcsum mcHuHomOH one mchon
HON mOHOHHOQ mchHEHmumo I NH ucmEououm .mN mqmfie

 

 

132

all three groups did maintain that the pastor has a minor
amount of authority/responsibility in this area.

Table 26 shows a significant portion of all three
groups--especially the pastors--perceiving this as an area of
shared authority/responsibility for the pastor. Pastoral
involvement here would seem advisable as this is an area deal-
ing with values. Of interest also is the fact that 12.1% of
principals and 17.3% of the teachers felt the pastor ought to
have no authority/responsibility in this area. Only a rela—
tively insignificant number of teachers (4; 4.9%) felt the
pastor should have more than a shared authority/responsibility.

Establishing graduation requirements would be another
area in which it could be logically assumed that the pastor
would have little authority/responsibility. Yet, Table 27
demonstrates that a significant portion of all three groups
felt the pastor should have a shared authority/responsibility.
Of particular interest is the high number of teachers who felt
this way. By contrast, though, a large portion of each group
also felt the pastor ought to have no authority/responsibility
in this area. Consensus of the three groups would be that
the pastor's authority/responsibility is minor.

Table 28 concerns an area seemingly in the domain of
the principal and/or staff. Although these data do not reveal
who would be perceived as having the authority/responsibility
in this area, it is quite apparent that each of the three
groups felt the pastor would not, as at least 70% of the re-

spondents in each group indicated the pastor as having no

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o>.e m.N N v.o> hm N.vN oN m.N N IIII o IIII o rodme
Hm.e o.m H N.HN NN H.NH v o.m H IIII o IIII o sze
mo.o o.m H h.Nh «N N.NH o o.m H III) C o.m H amen
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H macaw
zemz mmzommmm oz mozH: Dmmemm mood: m>HmDHOxm
oz
NeHHHmHmzoommm\»eHmozeoe
.H.Oum NmCHpHOOOH
mo mpocume Annex on oHsocm mphoomu Hoes .m.mv
mCHOOOH ucmpsum mchHmucHoz I NH useEmumum .mN flames
hw.m >.m m N.hN NN H.Nm mN o.em mN m.N N IIII o modms
MH.v H.o N e.om NH m.mm HH N.vN m (III C IIII o szm
vm.m o.m H N.HN b m.mo NH m.>N m III) 0 IIII o Bmdm
mmOUm N N m N v N m N N N H mbomw
zemz mmzommmm 02 mosz omm<mm mood: m>HwDHOxm
oz
NBHHHmHmzommmm\>BHmomeoe
.musmEmHqumH
:oHumsoouo moHsmHHnoumm I oH nomsmuoum .NN momee

 

 

134

authority/responsibility. It is interesting, although not
statistically significant, that one pastor did feel this area
was under the exclusive authority/responsibility of the pas-
tor. It is also interesting to note the small percentage who
indicated the pastor has a shared authority/responsibility in
this area.
The following continua are intended to illustrate

trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of students.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
12. , Pastors Teachers Principals 9
‘ (3.00) (3.09) (3.16)
Pastors
l3. , Teachers Principals' \
\ (4.59) (4.72) /
14. I Pastors Teachers Principals \
\ (4.34) (4.43) (4.50) ’
15. I Pastors Principals Teachers \
\ (3.19) (3.65) (3.67) 7
16. I Teachers Pastors Principals \
V (3.87) (3.94) (4.13) /
l7. 1 Pastors Teachers Principals \
S (4.63) (4.70) (4.81) /

It should be apparent that the trend illustrated above
indicates the pastors perceiving themselves as having more

authority/responsibility in this area than do the other two

135

groups, primarily the principals. Considering the nature of
the area, it would seem logical that the pastor's authority/
responsibility would be minor.

Table 29 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of students.

TABLE 29. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding the Supervision
of Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 20.15 10.07 .569 .567
WITHIN 144 ‘2547.54 17.69
TOTAL 146 2557.59 F24144 ('95) = 3'00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 23.97
Principals 23.06
Teachers 23.94

The first null hypothesis, stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of students must be re-
tained. The second null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of the pas-
tors and the teachers regarding a pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of students must be re-

tained. The third null hypothesis stating there would be no

136

significant difference between the perceptions of the prin-
cipals and the teachers regarding a pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of students must be retained.

Dealing with Student Offenses

 

From Table 30 it can be seen that all groups agree the
pastor's authority/responsibility in this area is somewhat
less than a shared amount. A meaningful number of principals
and teachers would even indicate that the pastor has no in-
volvement in this area, and a far smaller percentage of pas-
tors would agree with this perception.

Table 31 shows almost half of the respondents in all
three groups feeling the pastor's authority/responsibility is
shared. It is clear from this table that only a small num-
ber of principals and teachers would View the pastor as the
"next level of authority" for repeat offenders. In contrast,
however, 27.3% of pastors tended to view their authority/
responsibility in this matter as major.

From Table 32 it is evident that in all three groups
the largest percentage of respondents viewed the pastor as
having minor authority/responsibility. The principals again
viewed the pastor as having shared authority/responsibility at
best. A meaningful number of principals and teachers also
viewed the pastor as having no authority/responsibility.

According to Table 33, a meaningful number of pastors
and teachers View the pastor as having a large amount of
authority/responsibility in this area, as 24.2% of the pastors

indicated a major pastoral involvement, and 23.5% of the

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.m m.N N m.¢ m v.mN MN m.me mm H.HH N.H H modme
hm.m H.@ N H.o N v.mm NH m.mv mH o.m IIII o szm
oo.m IIII o o.m H N.HN b m.me NH m.>N IIII o Emmi
mmoom N N m N e N m N N H moomo
zemz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommemm moo<z m>HmoHoxm
oz
NeHHHmHmzommmm\seHmozeoe
.H.oue .mcHuanm oeueemeu .emesmceH
pee oeueeeeu .mcHHeeum oeueemen .m.ev huHHocuse mo He>eH
exec esp Ou EeHoOHe ecu exeu o» eeHHe wes pee: en» euens
nuanceeeo boooen moHcHHdHonHo I NH steambobm .HN memes
mn.m N.H H m.NH eH N.mv mm m.mm 5N N.m N.H H roeme
em.m H.@ N N.mH m m.me mH m.om OH IIII IIII o szm
Ho.m IIII o H.m N m.em NH m.mm HH H.o IIII o Bede
mmOUm N N m N v N m N N H moomo
zemz mmzommmm 02 mosz omm<rm mooez m>HmDHOxm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NeHeHmHmzonmmm\HeHmoeeoe

.Hemsne HeOHm>zm Ho Heoue> e>Hmmeoxe .mcHHeeum .m.ev
ucecsum @cH>e:ebmHE e mchHHQHeeHo I NH

uceEeueum

.om flHm<B

 

 

fie

138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.m m.N m.¢ w N.hN NN o.N¢ em m.hH vH N.@ m mUNNB
MN.m H.w o.m H N.HN h m.mo HN H.@ N IIII o szm
hm.N IIII o.m H N.mH m m.hm mH N.vN m IIII o Bm<m
mmOUm N N m N v N m N N N H anomo
Z<HS mmZOmmmm OZ mOZHZ Qmm<mm mOh<Z m>HmDHUNm
OZ
NBHHHmHmZOmmmm\MBHMOmBD¢
.MWeHHsUeH
mH ecHHeHOch mo He>eH uxec ecu one uceHOHHHSmcH mH ON .0: EH
Oexo>CH ecHHeHome .m.ev e>one mm .0: cH OeHMHucepH coHuesuHm
one :H mneoneeeo unooen mcHeHHoHONHo I HN bomseboum .mm memes
oo.m N.H H o.HN NH N.mm mN o.mN eN H.NH oH IIII o :oeme
om.m H.@ N N.vN m v.wm NH m.mm HH III) C (III 0 szm
mm.m (III o H.@ m m.mv NH m.mm HH Hem m III! C Bmdm
mmOUm N N m N e N m N N N H mDQmU
Z<MZ mmZOmmmm OZ mOZHZ Qmmdmm MOHNZ M>HmDHUXH
OZ
MBHHHmHmZOmmmM\>BHmOmBD¢
.wuuee Henuoce HO uceEe>Ho>cH ecu meHHsveH oce Heeoeeu
soonmmeHo ecu mo Honucoo ecu pcomeo meom eHosona ecu cess
mEeHoOHe sooummeHO HespH>HocH mcHHpce: .I oN uceEeDepm .Nm mHm<e

 

 

139

teachers indicated a pastoral involvement of a major or ex-
clusive nature. By contrast, only 6.1% of the principals
felt the pastor had a major involvement. Of interest also
is that all three groups had meaningful numbers who viewed
the pastor as having minor, or even no authority/
responsibility in this area.

Of interest in Table 34 is that all three groups pre-
dominantly felt the pastor's authority/responsibility in the
area of suspension was shared. A limited number of pastors
and teachers viewed the pastor as having major or exclusive
authority/responsibility. None of the principals felt the
pastor had more than a shared authority/responsibility. An
interesting difference can be found when considering the per-
centages in the three groups who gave the pastor less than a
shared authority/responsibility. 9.1% of the pastors viewed
the pastoral involvement as being less than shared, but
27.3% of the principals and 38.3% of the teachers felt the
pastor's involvement was less than shared. Considering the
mean responses of principals and teachers, it should be noted
how close they are to one another. But considering how the
responses are spread over the five possible alternatives, it
can be seen that looking only at the mean scores may be de-
ceiving.

It is readily apparent in Table 35 that the overwhelm-
ing majority of all groups views the pastor's involvement as
being shared. Again, none of the principals gave the pastor

more than a shared authority/responsibility. Considering the

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON.m III: o m.¢ v m.wH mH H.Nm mm N.c m N.H H modma
mH.m H.w N IIII o N.mH m m.mh 0N III: Q Int: o szm
mo.m III: o H.o N H.m m m.m> mN H.@ N o.m H Bmdm
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H macaw
24m: mmzommmm 02 mosz ommdmm mOHNE m>HmDHUxm
oz
squHmHmzommmm\meHmo=s:<
.ucmosum m Hmmxm ob mcHUHomo I MN usefimumum .mm mqmde
hm.m III: C v.n m m.om mN m.¢m v¢ N.@ m N.H H zo<ma
mm.m H.@ N H.@ N N.HN n >.mo NN III: e null o szm
oo.m III: C uni: o H.m m N.HN 5N H.m m III: o emém
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H macmw
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommmmm monéz m>HmDHUxm
oz
weHHHmHmzommmm\wBHmo=ED<
.ucmpsum m ocmmmsm o» mchHomc I NN ucmfimumum .qm mamNB

 

 

141

pastors and teachers, less than 10% of each groups viewed the
pastor's involvement as more than shared. More than 15% of
each group felt that the pastor had minor or even no
authority/responsibility in the area of expulsion. A further
look shows that 6.1% of the pastors and 4.9% of the teachers
felt the pastor had no authority/responsibility in this area,
whereas all responding principals gave the pastor at least a
minor involvement.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding dealing with

student offenses.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
18. Q Pastors Teachegs Principals 3
(3.61) (3.73) (3.84)
19. , Pastors Teachers Principals \_
‘ (3.00) (3.35) (3.57) 7
20. é Pastors Teacher§_ Principals 9
(3.58) (3.66) (3.90)
21. ,, Pg§tor§ Teachers Principals \
‘ (2.97) ‘ (3.08) (3.23) ’
22. / Pastors P_incipals Teachers \.
‘ (3.00) (3.35) (3.37) 7
23. ,. Pastors Principals Teachers \
“ (3.09) (3.16) (3.20) 7

The trend illustrated above quite clearly indicates

that pastors perceive themselves as possessing more

142

authority/responsibility in this area than do either of the
other two groups. Excluding statement 22 and 23, the prin—
cipals consistently view the pastor as having less authority/
responsibility than do the teachers view the pastor's involve-
ment. In item 22, the spread between the mean scores of
principals and teachers was only .02: principals registering
3.35, teachers 3.37. On this item the pastors were more than
one third of a unit away, as they registered 3.00. The
spread between the principals and teachers in item 23 was
again small, registering .04 (3.16 and 3.20), but the pas-
tors were also very close as they registered 3.09.

Table 36 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding dealing with
student offenses.

TABLE 36. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's

Authority/Responsibility Regarding Dealing With
Student Offenses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 19.29 9.64 .505 .605
WITHIN 144 2750.11 19.10
TOTAL 146 2769.40 F2'144 ('95) = 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 19.73
Principals 19.24
Teachers 20.14

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no

Significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors

143
and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in dealing with student offenses must be re-
tained. The second null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of the
pastors and the teachers regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in dealing with student offenses must be re-
tained. The third null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of the
principals and the teachers regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in dealing with student offenses must be re-
tained.

Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

 

In Table 37, only one pastor (3.0%) felt the pastor
ought to have no authority/responsibility in the area of de-
termining the non-teaching staff. By contrast, ten teachers
(12.3%) and six principals (18.2%) perceived the pastor as
having no authority/responsibility in this area. ‘The group
mean scores for this statement show the pastors and teachers
to be very close, with the principals giving considerably less
authority/responsibility to the pastor than did either the
pastors or teachers. Although not a large percentage, four
teachers still felt the pastor ought to have exclusive
authority/responsibility in this area.

Table 38 shows a striking similarity in the responses
of the pastors and teachers. Only .01 separates the mean
scores of these two groups. Perusing the responses of these

groups reveals them to be quite similar in three of the five

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.m N.H H m.NH NH N.NN NH >.oq mm N.¢H NH v.m m zo¢me
NN.m H.w N N.HN N N.Nv NH m.NN a c.m H (I): o szm
mm.m (I): o H.NH e m.om oH e.Nv NH H.NH v o.m H em<m
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H mzomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommNmm momma m>Hmzqoxm

oz

NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmome:<
.mwmum mcHnommuacoc mzu How
mCOHn—QHHOmQU DOfl m0 uCGEQOH0>OQ I mN UCGEQ#MHm . mm H.Hmdmh.

NH.m N.H H m.NH oH m.NH mH m.oq mm o.NH mH m.v N mo<ms
Hm.m H.m N N.NH m m.hN m N.N¢ NH H.o N (an: o szm
NH.m (:7) o o.m H m.om oH N.Hm NH N.mH m 1):: o swam
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H mzomo
2mm: mmzommmm oz mosz ommemm mon<z m>Hm=Hoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmc20mnmm mnu mo coHumcHEHmuma I

NquHmHmzommmm\>eHmo=ea¢

.A.oum .mCMHpoumzo
.mmHHmumHomm .m.mv Hoonom may mumnomo mHm>Huomwmm ou cmwmmc

«N us050umum

.hm mqm<fi

 

 

145
categories. Of interest is the fact that two thirds of the
responding principals (67.7%) perceived the pastor as having
less than a shared authority/responsibility in this area.

Of immediate notice in Table 39 is the high percen-
tage of individuals who did not respond. And this is true
of all three groups. Not since statement 17 had anyone in
the pastoral group failed to respond. Before that, the
highest percentage of no responses in the pastoral group was
6.1%. For the statement under consideration here, statement
26, 12.1% failed to respond.

Also of significance is the high percentage of re-
spondents in each group who felt the pastor ought to have no
authority/responsibility in supervising the secretary. This
is especially true of the principals, where 39.4% indicated
this. Considering only those principals who responded, 43.3%
of them felt this to be true. It is also interesting to note
the high percentage in all three groups who felt the pastor
should have less than a shared authority/responsibility in
this area (42.5% of the pastors, 57.6% of the principals,
and 37.0% of the teachers).

Table 40 indicates the responses for the pastors tend
to cluster in the two responses "Shared" and "Minor." In the
principal and teacher groups this is not true, as the re-
sponses are more diverse and spread among more of the alter-
natives. For all three groups, more than 50% of the respon-
dents are in the responses "Minor" or "No" authority/

responsibility (54.5% of the pastors, 60.6% of the principals,

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N N.NN NN N.NN HN N.NN oN N.NH NH N.N N momma
HN.N H.N N N.NN N N.NN HH N.NH N H.N N H.N N szN
NN.N (III N H.NH N N.NN NH N.NN NH H.N N III: N em<m
mmoom N N N N N N. N N N N H msomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommmzm NONNz m>Hmoqoxm

oz

NquHmHmzommmm\NsHmomeaN .
.mucmficmHmmm HMHome wsm mcHusou :H cchoumso
Gnu mo conH>Hmmsm pomHHn I NN ucwEmumum .oN mamNB

NN.N N.N N N.NN NN N.NH NH N.NN NN N.NH NH N.N N mo<me
NN.N H.N N N.NN NH N.NH N N.NN N H.N N III. N szm
NN.N H.NH N N.NN N N.NH N N.HN N N.HN N o.N H Emma
mmoom N N N N N N N N N N H moomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz ammmmm Nona: m>Hmzqoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NeHHHmHmzommmmxweHNONNDN

.mucmecmNmmm HmNowmm 6cm chusoH sN humumuomm
ozu mo conH>Homsm womHNa I NN ucmEmumum

.mm mqmde

 

 

147

and 55.5% of the teachers). It is interesting to note how
similar the mean scores are in all three groups.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of the non-teaching staff.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less

24. ./ Pastors Teachers Principals >.
‘ (3.12) (3.18) (3.62)

25. _, Teachers Pastors Principal§_ N.
‘ (3.35) (3.36) (3.87) ’

26. ,, Teachers Pastors Principalsr ‘\
V (3.40) (3.48) (3.97) ’

27. ‘4 Pastors Teachers Principals :1
'\ (3.58) (3.67) (3.71) ’7

It is evident from the above that principals feel the
pastor should have somewhat less authority/responsibility in
this area. The spread between the mean scores was at times
very small; in statement 25 the spread between the mean scores
for pastors and teachers demonstrates this.

Table 41 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding the super-
vision of the non-teaching staff.

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 14.12

Principals 13.21

Teachers 13.17

148

TABLE 41. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding the Supervision
of the Non-Teaching Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 22.51 11.25 .721 .488
WITHIN 144 2246.61 15.60 .
TOTAL 146 2269.12 F2'144 ('95) = 3.00

 

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of the non-teaching staff
must be retained. The second null hypothesis stating there
would be no significant difference between the perceptions of
the pastors and the teachers regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of the non-teaching staff
must be retained. The third null hypothesis stating there
would be no significant difference between the perceptions of
the principals and the teachers regarding the pastor's
authority/responsibility in the supervision of the non-
teaching staff must be retained.

Fiscal Affairs

The bulk of responses in Table 42 fall in the two
categories "Shared" and ”Minor" authority/responsibility. It
is interesting to note the high number of individuals in the
teacher and principal groups who indicated the pastor has no

authority/responsibility in this area.

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.N m.N N 0.5m om N.Nm mN m.MN NH N.H H N.H H modma
NN.N H.N N N.mm NH N.NN NH H.¢ m o.m H IIII o szm
NN.m o.m H H.N N m.vm mH m.mm HH o.m H IIII o Bmfim
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H abomw
zmm: mmzommmm oz mosz ommmmm mend: m>HmDHUxm
oz .
wquHmHmZOmmmm\>aHmomB:<
.=>st:H= pmummecoo ma uanE
£0N53 mamuN ou somHummEoo :N Hoonom may no mumm: hHmmsm cam
acmEQqum Hmsuom mo :oHuchEHmumo I mN usmfimumum .mv mqmde
Nm.m m.N N N.NN ON m.mm NH m.mm Hm. m.m m N.H H moame
NN.m H.N N N.mH N N.mm mH m.om 0H H.N N IIII o szm
Nm.m o.m H H.N N N.Nm NH v.¢m NH N.mH m IIII o Emma
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H mDOmo
z¢mz mmzommmm 02 mosz amm<mm monmz m>HmDHOxm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mnu mcHUHmmmu mcoNumocmEEoomm I

NeHnHmHmzommmm\NsHmome=<

.Hoonom any «o 600: HMNocmch Hmsscm Hmuou

NN ucmsmumum

.Nw mgmdfi

 

 

150

It is apparent from Table 43 that all groups tend to
assign the pastor a shared or lesser amount of authority/
responsibility in this area. Of additional interest is the
difference found in the percentages responding in the "No"
authority/responsibility column. Only 6.1% of the pastors
indicated the pastors had no authority/responsibility, but
37.0% of the teachers and 39.4% of the principals indicated
this. Combining the last two categories demonstrates that
60.6% of the pastors, 81.8% of the principals, and 71.6% of
the teachers assigned either "Minor" or "No" authority/
responsibility for the pastor. The mean scores also indicate
strong feelings toward limited pastoral authority/
responsibility in this area.

As in statement 29, Table 44 indicates all groups feel
the pastor's authority/responsibility in this area is limited.'
The percentages of responses in the last two columns point to
this fact, as 69.7% of the pastors, 78.8% of the principals,
and 72.8% of the teachers felt the pastor has either "Minor"
or "No" authority/responsibility regarding this facet of the
school budget. The mean scores also indicate a limited pas-
toral authority/responsibility in this area.

Although the percentages reported in Table 45 are not
large, it is still of interest to note that two principals
(6.1%) and three teachers (3.7%) felt the pastor should have
exclusive authority/responsibility in the area of teacher
salary determination. But, there is also a significant per-

centage in all three groups who felt the pastor should have

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.m m.N N m.NH NH m.mN HN m.mm Nm N.mH HH N.m m momma
mN.m H.N N H.m m N.NN m m.mN mH H.m m H.N N szm
Nm.m o.m H N.mH m N.NN m N.Nm NH N.HN N IIII o swam
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H moomw
z<mz mmzommmm 02 mosz ammfimm mend: m>Hmaquxm
oz
NeHHHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeam
.mmmum mcHnommu How
mHscm£ON NumHmm mo :oNumpcmEEoowm I Hm NamEmumum .mN mqmée
ao.N N.m m m.mm mN o.Nm om o.HN NH N.H H N.H H mo<me
mH.N H.m m m.om QH m.mN I NH H.N N H.N N IIII o szm
Nm.m o.m H m.NN m N.NN NH N.HN N H.N N IIII o emfim
mmoum N N m N N N m N N N H macaw
zamz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommamm mommz m>Hmnquxm
oz
NBHAHmHmzommmm\weHmomeD¢
.ummcsn Hoonom Hmuou mcu cHnuH3
mEmuH mGOEm mchoe mo :oHumooHH¢ I on unmamumum .NN mqm<a

 

 

152

no authority/responsibility in this area. The mean scores
are also extremely close, with only .01 separating pastors
and teachers.

Of immediate notice in Table 46 is the large per-
centage of respondents who viewed the pastor as having no
authority/responsibility in this area. It is also interesting
that 12.1% of the principals failed to respond to this state-
ment. The mean scores are again very similar, as only .13
separates the two furthest apart.

It is immediately apparent in Table 47 that all
groups feel the pastor has little involvement in this area,
as only two of all the respondents gave the pastors more
than a shared authority/responsibility. Considering only'
the last two responses, "Minor" and "No" authority/
responsibility, 81.8% of the pastors, 84.6% of the prin-
cipals, and 82.7% of the teachers felt these classifications
revealed the pastor's authority/responsibility in this area.

The mean scores in Table 48 are again very similar,
as only .13 separates the two means furthest apart. Combining
responses four and five accounts for more than 70% of all
responses (78.8% pastors, 78.8% principals, and 71.6%
teachers).

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a pastor's authority/responsibility regarding fiscal

affairs.

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH.N m.N N m.mm NN N.mN ON N.mH HH N.H H IIII O mONme
aN.N H.N N N.Nm NH m.mN NH H.N m IIII O IIII O szm
Nm.m IIII O N.mH N N.mN HN N.mH m O.m H IIII O Emma
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H mzomo
ZNHE mmzommmm OZ mOZHZ ammdmm mOhdz m>HmDAUxm
oz
rIIIII IL! I. III IIDL I .III III (III'IILN
NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeON
.A.oum .mHmsmH>IoH©sm
.wuouomfloum .m.mv usmEQstm 6cm mHMHHmumE HmcoHuosuumsH
mumucmEonmsm mo coNuomHmm I mm usmEmumum .NN mands
om.m N.m m — N.NN ON m.mH mH m.mm mN N.NH NH m.N N mo<me
NN.N H.NH N N.NH N N.NN N N.NN NH H.N N o.N W H szm
NN.w - IIII o N.NH N N.NN NH N.oN oH N.NH N N.N H NNNN
IImmoom N N N N N N N N N N H macaw
dez mmzommmm OZ mOZHE Qmm<mm mon<2 m>Hm540xm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mstmnom humHmm

NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeO<

mo :oHumccmEEoomm I

.mumum chnommuIcoc may MOM
.ov mqmée

NN Newswumum

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH.¢ h.m m N.vm mN O.wm Om >.¢N ON IIII IIII O mu<me
mH.¢ H.N N m.Om OH m.mv NH H.NH w O.m IIII O szm
OO.¢ O.m H N.HN n m.>m mH N.mH m O.m IIII O Bmdm
mmoom N N m N v N m N N H maomw
zmmz mmzommmm 02 mosz ammmmm mondz m>Hmaquxm
oz
I NBHHHmHmzommmm\»aHmomeO¢ -
o Acogm
.Hmeoumno .ccsoumhmHm .mxmmo .m.mv mmHHmmsm can ucmfimHsvm
HmcoHuosuumcflIco: mo :oHuomHmm I wm ucmsmumum .Nv mamda

 

155

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
28. 4/ Pastors Teachers Principals ~\
‘ (3.34) (3.62) (3.74) /
29. E Pastors Teachers Principals ~N
(3.67) (4.08) (4.26) /
30. tors Teachers Principals ?
(3.94) (4.09) (4.13)
31. 1’ Principals Pastors Teachers .\
“ (3.23) (3.34) (3.35) ”
32. 1’ Pastors Teachers Principals .\
(P (3.42) (3.30) (3.55) ’r
33. 1’ Pastors Teachers Principals .\
“ (3.97) (4.18) (4.29) x’
34. ,' Pastors Teachers Principals \
“ (4.00) (4.10) (4513)' ’7

With the exclusion of statement 31, the trend is
obvious, as the pastors always give themselves more
authority/responsibility, but the principals always give
them less. But, it must be remembered that in consideration
of statement 31, only .12 separates the principals' mean
score from the pastors' mean score.

Table 49 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding fiscal

affairs.

156

TABLE 49. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Pastor's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Fiscal Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value ‘
BETWEEN 2 29.15 14.58 .352 .704
WITHIN 144 5962.85 48.41
TOTAL 146 4 5992.00 F2'144 ('95) = 3°00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 25.33
Principals 25.12
Teachers 26.11

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pas-
tors and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in fiscal affairs must be retained. The
second null hypothesis stating there would be no signifi-
cant difference between the perceptions of the pastors and
the teachers regarding the pastor's authority/responsibility
in fiscal affairs must be retained. The third null hy-
pothesis stating there would be no significant difference
between the perceptions of the principals and the teachers
regarding the pastor's authority/responsibility in fiscal
affairs must be retained.

Scheduling

 

It is apparent from the responses of the principals in
Table 50, that this group feels the pastor should have little
involvement with determining the school calendar. One need

only consider that no principal gave a pastor more than a

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.N N IIII N.H H :ocme
NN.N H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH IIII o IIII IIII o szN
NN.N o.N H N.NN NH N.NN NH H.N N o.N IIII o em<m
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H macaw
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommsz moNNZ m>Hmaqoxm
oz
NeHHHmHmzommmm\NeHmomaON
.mHsomzom NHHNN may mcHaHsumumo I NN usmEmumum .HN mHmme
NH.N N.N N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NH NH IIII N.H H mo¢me
NN.N H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH N.NH N IIII IIII o szm
oo.N o.N H N.NN N N.NN NH N.HN N o.N IIII O em<m
mmoom N N .N. N N N N N N H Naomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz ammNmm mon<z m>HmOHoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeO<
.umm> Hoozom
may Hem MupcmHmo may mchHEHmumo I mm usmEmpmum .Om mqmdfi

 

158

shared authority/responsibility, 42.4% of the principals felt
the pastor ought to have no authority/responsibility, and
36.4% felt the pastor ought to have only minor authority/
responsibility. Combining these last two categories reveals
that 78.8% of the principals felt the pastor's involvement

to be minor or less. This opinion held by the principals is
also held by the pastors and the teachers. The mean scores
of all indicate minor authority/responsibility for the
pastor.

In Table 51 all groups overwhelmingly perceive the
pastor as having very little authority/responsibility in this
area. The mean scores are relatively close and strongly sup-
port this. The point is best illustrated with the principals'
responses. No principal gave the pastor more than minor
authority/responsibility, and 54.5% indicated the pastor had
no authority/responsibility.

As in statement 36, Table 52 reveals all groups over-
whelmingly felt the pastor has little involvement in this
area. The teachers best illustrate this as 77.8% assign the
pastor no authority/responsibility in this area. The mean
scores also point to this fact as they are all 4.5 or higher,
indicative of very little pastoral authority/responsibility.
Also, only one respondent, a pastor, gave the pastor more than
a shared authority/responsibility.

A substantial percentage of the principals in Table 53
(27.3%) perceived the pastor as having shared authority/

responsibility. But, no responding principal felt the pastor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mN.v h.m m m.mm me m.mH mH m.hH VH h.m m N.H H moflma
ON.v H.N m m.mv mH N.NH m m.hN m IIII O IIII O szm
vm.m O.m H m.hN m m.mm HH m.Om OH H.N N IIII O . Bmdm
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H mDOMWI
dez mmzwmmmm OZ MOZHS Qmm<mm achflz m>Hm3H0xm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeO<

.mmcHummE wuHsomw mo mmump

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ppm hocosvmum Gnu OCHCNEHmuQQ I am HCGEmumum .mm mqm¢9
mh.v N.m m m.>> mm 0.0H MH m.N N IIII O IIII O , mU<mB
mm.v H.N N o.mo HN m.>N m O.m H IIII O IIII O szm
Om.¢ O.m H m.vm NH N.mm MH IIII O O.m H IIII O Bmfim
mmoum N N m N N N m N N N H macaw.
dez mmzommmm OZ mOZHZ ommdmm mOhdz m>HmDHUxm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>BHHHmHmZOmmmm\>BHmOEBD¢

.H.oum .mummucoo oHuszum .mmHHu UHmHm
.m.mO mucm>m HmHommm mafiHspmnom I hm unmamumum .Nm mqm<a

 

 

160

had more authority/responsibility than the shared amount. Of
interest is the high percentage of both teachers and princi-
pals who felt the pastor ought to have no authority/
responsibility. The mean scores of the principals and the
teachers are quite close, the difference being .08, but the
pastors' mean score is .36 or more away from the other mean
scores. In general, all groups perceived the pastor as
having little authority/responsibility in this area.

Of immediate notice in Table 54 is the strong simi-
larity between the responses of the pastors and the princi-
pals. The mean scores are also identical. Excluding the
no response category, only in category four (Minor authority/
responsibility) is there any deviation. The teacher group
is also very similar in categories one through three, but
deviates markedly in four and five. It is obvious that the
teachers feel the pastor ought to have no authority/
responsibility regarding meeting agenda and the leading of
the faculty meeting. Of the three groups, the teachers give
pastors the least authority/responsibility, but the mean
scores are only separated by .14.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

to a pastor's authority/responsibility in scheduling.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM More Less

35. _, Pastors Teachers Principals \\
‘\ (4.00) (4.14) (4.29) ’7

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5N.v m.N N m.mm mu O.wH NH ®.MH HH N.O m m.N N mudme

mH.v H.m m «.mm MH m.mm HH H.NH N O.m H O.m H szm

mH.¢ O.m H v.mm MH «.mm MH H.NH v O.m H O.m H Bm¢m

mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H mDOMO
z¢m2 mmzwmmmm Oz mOZHZ Dmmmmm mondz m>HMDHUNm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NBHHHmHmZOmmmm\NBHmOmBD¢

mchmmH pom mpcmmm map mcHuumm

.mmcHummE wuHsomm mnu

NN ucmsmumum

.vm mqmflfi

 

ITEM

36.

37.

38.

39.

162

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

More Less
,. Pastors Teachers Principals 3_
‘ (4.38) (4.46) (4.58) ’
/' Pastors Principals Teachers \.
‘\ (4.50) (4.65) (4.78) ’
,p Pastors Principals Teachers \.
‘5 (3.84) (4.20) (4.28) "

Pastors
A, Principals Teachers \
‘* (4.13)- (4.27) "

The trend is again obvious that the pastors assign

themselves more authority/responsibility than do either of

the other two groups.

It is of interest to note that the

teachers have given the least authority/responsibility to

the pastors in three of the five statements.

Table 55 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of

the pastor's authority/responsibility regarding scheduling.

TABLE 55.

ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding Scheduling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors
Principals

Teachers

20.27
20.21

21.27

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 38.58 19.29 .803 .450
WITHIN 144 3458.09 24.01
TOTAL 146 3496.67 F2’144 ('95) =

3.00

163

The mean scores of pastors and principals are ex-
tremely close, a difference of only .06. The mean score of
the teachers is 1.0 away from the closer mean score, that of
the pastors. However, when summing over five statements, a
difference of one point is slight.

The first null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding the pastor's authority/
responsibility in scheduling must be retained. The second
null hypothesis stating there would be no significant dif-
ference between the perceptions of the pastors and the
teachers regarding a pastor's authority/responsibility in
scheduling must be retained. The third null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between the
perceptions of the principals and the teachers regarding the
pastor's authority/responsibility in scheduling must be re-
tained.

Perceptions of the Principal's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding:

Curriculum

 

It is apparent in Table 56 that all groups feel the
principal has a shared authority/responsibility in this area.
The pastors overwhelmingly felt this way as their responses
all fall in one of these two categories. The mean scores
are relatively close, with the pastors and the principals

being only .07 units apart.

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.H H N.N N.N N N.NN NN N.NH NH N.N N moame
NN.N IIII N IIII H.N N N.NN HN N.NN NH IIII N zHNN
NN.N N.N H IIII H.N. N N.NN NN N.NH N IIII N Nm<m
mmoom N N N N N N N N N A H macaw
zmmz mmzommma oz mosz nmmNNN momma m>HNOqoxm
oz
NquHmHmzonmm\NaHmomes<
.umuume pomnnsm mDOHUHHmm mo :oHuoanumCH
New mHmHumums may chcflsumumO I N ucmsmumum .NN mamNe
NN.N N.H H N.N N.NH NH N.NN NN N.NN NH N.N N mone
NN.N IIII N N.N H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH N.N H szN
NN.N N.N H IIII IIII N N.NN NN N.NN NH IIII N NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N I. N N H Nzomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommamm moNNz m>HmOHoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\N9Hmomazm
.Hmuumfi powflnsm mDoHUHHmm How :oNuosHumcH
mo mocmsvmm map mchwfinwumo I H usmEmumum .Om mqmde

 

 

165

Table 57 also illustrates that all groups assign the
principal a shared or major authority/responsibility in this
area. Only 3.7% of the teachers felt the principal should
have exclusive authority/responsibility in this area, but
9.1% of the pastors, 6.1% of the principals, and 12.3% of
the teachers felt the principal's authority/responsibility
ought to be less than shared. The mean scores are again very
similar, with the mean scores for pastors and teachers being
identical.

Table 58 reveals that a substantial percentage of the
pastoral and principal groups (33.3% in each) view the prin-
cipal as having exclusive authority/responsibility in this
area. Of these two groups, only two respondents, both of
which were principals, felt the principal ought to have less
than a shared authority/responsibility in this area. In-
terestingly enough, two teachers (2.5%) perceived the prin-
cipal as having no authority/responsibility in this area.

As indicated in Table 59, all three groups perceived
the principal as having no less than a shared authority/
responsibility in this area. The mean scores reveal that the
pastors again assign more authority/responsibility to the
principals than do either of the other two groups.

It is immediately apparent in Table 60 that a high
percentage of pastors and principals felt the principal should
have exclusive authority/responsibility in this area. It is
also of interest that one principal and five teachers felt

the principal ought to have no authority/responsibility in

166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.H H N.H N.N N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NH NH moNNN
NN.N IIII N IIII N.N H N.NN N N.NN NH N.NN NH zHNN
NN.H IIII N IIII IIII N H.NH N N.NN HN N.NN N NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
24m: mmzommmm oz mosz ommamm moNNz N>Hmoqoxm

oz

NngHmHmzommmm\NsHmomeN<
.umuume uomflQSm méqoomm mo coHuoDHuch
NON mHmNumums may NchNsumumo I N newsmumum .NN mummy

NN.N N.H H N.N N.N N H.NN NN N.NN NN N.NH NH None
NN.N IIII N IIII H.N N N.HN N N.NN NH N.NN HH zHNN
NN.H IIII N IIII IIII N H.NH N N.NN NH N.NN HH NNNN
mNooN N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
24m: mmzommmm oz mosz (omNNNN NoNNz m>HNoqoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NquHmHmzommmm\>eHmo=NON

.kuumE Hommnsm mdqoumm How coHu05HumcH
mo mocwswmm mnu OGNGHEHmqu I

N ucmsoumum

.mm mqmde

 

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH.N N.H H N.N h.m m m.NH OH H.Nv mm N.NN mN mUNMB

Ob.H IIII O O.m IIII O H.m N m.mv mH m.mv mH ZHmm

mm.H IIII O (III (III O H.N N N.Nv NH m.Hm OH Bmdm

mmoom N N N O N m N N N H maomw
z¢m2 mmZWMmmm OZ mOZHZ Ommfimm MOO42 m>HmDAUxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNHquHmzommmm\NeHmomNON

:H Npsum EDHDUNHHDO m mcmemH I

.uoanSm HmHsomm

usmfimumum

.Om mqmdfi

 

168

leading a curriculum study. The mean scores again reflect
that pastors assigned more authority/responsibility to the
principal than did either of the other two groups.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

to a principal's authority/responsibility in curriculum.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
1. [v Pastors Principals Teachers \_
\ (2.69) (2.76) (2.95) /
Pastors
2. ,r Principals Teachers \_
‘ (2.76) (2.94) ,
3. /’ Pastors Principals Teachers.\
7 (1.79) (2.00) (2.36) /
4. 1' Pastors Principals Teachers \_
‘ (1.88) (2.00) (2.36) I
5. {I Pastors Principals Teachers \_

 

(1.55) (1.70) (2.10) "

It ought to be evident from the above that a trend
does exist in which the pastor--in four of five instances--
gave the principal more authority/responsibility than did
the principal assign himself. Also evident is that the
teachers generally assigned considerably less authority/
responsibility to the principal than did any other group.

Table 61 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of

the principal's authority/responsibility regarding curriculum.

169

TABLE 61. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Principal's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding Curriculum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 99.90 49.95 5.94 .003
WITHIN 144 1210.85 8.41
TOTAL 146 1310.75 F2'144 ('95) = 3°00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 11.21
Principals 10.67
Teachers 12.56

In this situation there exists a statistically sig-
nificant difference between the categorical mean score for
the principals and the categorical mean score for the

teachers. With a computed p value of .003, there is little

likelihood that a type I error was committed, or that the
null hypothesis was not retained when it should have been
retained. Therefore, the sixth null hypothesis stating there
would be no significant difference between the perceptions
of the principals and the teachers regarding a principal's
authority/responsibility in curriculum should not be retained.
The fourth null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and principals regarding a principal's authority/responsibility
in curriculum must be retained. The fifth null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between the
perceptions of the pastors and teachers regarding the prin-

cipal's authority/responsibility in curriculum must be

170

retained.

Supervision - Teachers

 

From Table 62 it can be seen that the pastoral group
and the principal group are like-minded in this area. Not
only are their mean scores identical, but the various per-
centages for the several possible responses are identical
excepting the "Shared" response.

The pastors' responses in Table 63 seem to indicate
that as a group pastors do not perceive the principal as
having a great deal of authority/responsibility in this area,
as no one assigned more than a shared authority/responsibility
to the principal. A substantial percentage of teachers
(16.0%), however, perceived the principal as having more than
a shared authority/responsibility. Three (9.1%) of the
principals also gave the principal more than a shared
authority/responsibility in this area.

Table 64 indicates that pastors and principals tend
to agree on this issue, and assign considerable authority/
responsibility to the principal. The teachers, however, have
a substantial percentage of responses in all categories. It
is interesting to note that 11.1% of the teachers felt the
principal ought to have no authority/responsibility in this
area.

Although a column by column analysis of Table 65
would not demonstrate that the pastors and principals agree
in this area, the mean scores for the two groups are identi-

cal. By contrast, almost half of a point (.46) separates

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N N.NH HH N.NN NH N.NN NN N.NH NH N.N N mofima
NN.N O.m H N.NH m N.NH m N.NN NH H.N m IIII O szm
NN.N O.m H N.HN N N.NN N N.NN NH IIII O IIII O amfim
mmoom N N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
zmmz mmzommmm oz mosz omm¢mm moNNz m>Hmoqoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmo=No<
.H.oum .mONumNHmuomnmso .mmNuNHflnm .mmEm: ummmmsm
.m.mv Umocmuxm mH HHmu mnu 80:3 0» Hmsommu Gnu chcnwosoo
coNummmumcoo may 0a soNumocmEEoomm I N ucmsmumum .mm mqmde
NN.N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.NN HN N.NN NN N.N N NNNNN.N
NN.N N.N H N.N H H.N N N.HN NN H.N N IIII N szm
NN.N IIII N N.N H H.N N N.NN NN H.N N IIII N ammm
mmoom N N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz ommNmm moONZ m>HNOHoxm
oz .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeO<

.Hmsommu 3m: mnu HON huNHHnHmcommmH mo mmmum may
mchNwop .HHmo m OCHOswuxm mnemmm I

N uamsmumum

.Nm mflmdfi

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.H H N.N N.NH NH N.NH NH N.NN NN N.NN NH mo<ma
NN.N N.N H N.N H.N N H.NH N N.NN NH N.NN NH szN
NN.N IIII N IIII H.N N H.N N N.NN NH N.NN N NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
zamz mmzommmm oz mosz ommcmm Nona: m>HNOHoxm

oz

NquHmHmzommmmxweHmomeom
.wuNHHnm Hmsommu mo pcmEm>oumEH How
mconH>onm I mewcflmuu 00H>HmmsH I m ucmfimumum .mo mamas

NN.N (III N H.HH N.NH NH N.NH NH N.NN NN N.HN .NH mo<me
NN.N N.N H N.N H.NH N H.N N N.HN NH N.HN N szN
NN.N IIII N N.N H.N N N.NH N N.NN NH N.NH N -NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H Noomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommNmm NoNNz m>HNOHoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEHquHmZOmmWM\%BHmOZBD<

smoounu :oNumsHm>m Hmcomma I

.mocmuwmcoo HNHsmmu new coNum>Hmmno EooummmHo
N newsmumum

.vm mqm<e

 

 

173

the mean of the teachers' score from the mean scores of the
pastors and principals.

The majority of pastor and principal responses in
Table 66 (54.5%) are grouped in the "Shared" column. A sub-
stantially lesser percentage of teachers (35.8%) felt the
principal's authority/responsibility was to be shared. The
mean scores reveal the pastors as assigning the principals
more authority/responsibility in this area than do either of
the other two groups. The mean scores of the teachers and
principals are very close (.07 units apart). Column by col-
umn the principals and teachers are similar in their per-
ceptions, with the greatest difference in percentage being
found in the "Major" authority/responsibility column.

Although only a limited number of each group in Table
67 felt the principal ought to have exclusive authority/
responsibility in this area, a very high percentage of each
group felt the principal should have a shared or major
authority/responsibility. Very few principals or pastors
felt the principal should have less than a shared authority/
responsibility, but 14.8% of the teachers indicated the prin-
cipal's authority/responsibility as being something less than
shared.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a principal's authority/responsibility in the supervision

of teachers.

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N N.N N N.N N O.Nm . ON O.Nm om N.N N =U<ma
NN.N IIII O O.N H IIII O N.NN NH N.NN NH H.N N szm
Om.N O.m H IIII O O.m H N.NN NH N.NN NH O.m H Emdm
mmOUm N N m N v N m N N N H mDomU
24m: mmzommmm OZ mOZHZ Dmmdmm mowflz m>HmDHUXH

OZ

MBHAHmHmZOmme\MBHMOEED¢ I
.uospcoo wo mpumccmum Hmconmmmon
mo usmEmoHONQm mam wocmsmchmz I HH ucmsmumum .NN mqmde

NN.N N.N N N.NH NH N.NN 1 ON N.NN mN N.NH NH N.N m mudma
NN.N IIII O H.NH v N.HN N N.NN NH H.N m O.m H szm
HN.N O.m H IIII O N.NH m m.¢m I NH N.HN h O.m H Bmfim
mmoum N N m N e N m N N N H mDOMO
dez mmzommmm Oz mOZHZ QMMflmm mOO<2 m>HmDAOxm

OZ

 

mo HCTETOH0msm

NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomao¢

.uospcoo mo mcumccmum Hmsoflummmumcoo

cam mocmcmuchz I OH usmfimumum

.mo mnm<9

 

 

175

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
Pastors
6. 1' Teachers Principals \‘
\ (2.85) (3.06) 7
7. 1’ Teachers Principals Pastors ~\
\ (3.33) (3.38) (3.72) /
8. ,' Principals Pastors Teachers \_
‘ (2.22) (2.30) (2.65) 7
Pastors
9. 4g Principals Teachers \\
\ (2.03) (2.49) ’
lO. ,2 Pastors Teachers Principals \_
‘ (2.91) (3.29) (3.36) ’
ll. / Principals Pastors Teachers >
‘* (2.39) (2.50) (2.57)

The above continua demonstrate no evident trend.
Seemingly the perceptions are very much dependent upon the
individual statements.

Table 68 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the principal's authority/responsibility regarding the sup-
ervision of teachers.

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 16.06
Principals 16.24

Teachers 16.79

176

TABLE 68. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility Regarding
the Supervision of Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 15.38 7.69 .469 .627
WITHIN 144 2361.37 16.40
F2'144 (.95) = 3.00
TOTAL 146 2376.75

 

 

 

 

 

The fourth null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and principals regarding a principal's authority/responsibility
in the supervision of teachers must be retained. The fifth
null hypothesis stating there would be no significant dif-
ference between the perceptions of the pastors and teachers
regarding a principal's authority/responsibility in the
supervision of teachers must be retained. The sixth null
hypothesis stating there would be no significant difference
between the perceptions of principals and teachers regarding
a principal's authority/responsibility must be retained.

Supervision - Students

 

A large majority of each group in Table 69 perceived
the principal as having a shared authority/responsibility in
this area. An additional portion of the teachers and the
principals viewed the principal as having major authority/
re3ponsibility. Very few of all respondents (three teachers)
felt the principal ought to have exclusive authority/
responsibility in this area. In addition, considering all

three groups, only one teacher felt the principal ought

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.H N.H H N.N N N.H H N.NH HH N.NN mv N.NN HN moame
Nh.H IIII O IIII O H.N N O.m H m.vm NH N.NN NH szm
NN.H IIII O IIII O O.m H H.N m N.NN mH e.Nv vH BNNN
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H msomw
z¢mz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommdmm MOON: m>Hmaquxm

oz

NBHHHmHmzommmm\wBHmomBO<
.mHm>mH momum ou
mucocsum msHumucm NCHcmHmmd I NH unmEmumum .Oh mqmde

N>.N IIII O N.H H N.NH OH N.Nm Nv N.NN NH N.N m :UNNB
NN.N IIII O IIII O H.NH v N.NN HN N.vN N IIII O szm
NH.m IIII O IIII O N.HN h N.NN mN O.m H IIII O amdm
mmoum N N m N N N m N N N H macaw
z¢mz mmzommmm 02 mosz ammfimm NOON: m>Hmoquxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

How

mquHmHmzommmm\weHmomaa¢

mmfloHHom mcnzmflHnmumm I

 

 

 

 

.conmHEOm

NH unwamumum

.mm mamdfi

 

 

178

to have no authority/responsibility. This is also the first
statement in which 100% of the respondents checked an item.

A substantial percentage Cat least 25%) of each group
in Table 70 perceived this as an area of exclusive authority/
responsibility for the principal. Of the remaining responses,
45.5% of the pastors and more than 50% of both teachers and
principals felt this to be an area of major authority/
responsibility for the principal. Overwhelmingly the three
groups felt this was an area of extensive principal authority/
responsibility. The mean scores also reflect this opinion.

The mean scores recorded in Table 71 indicate that
all groups perceive this to be an area of considerable prin-
cipal authority/responsibility. 24.2% of the pastors and
principals, and 25.9% of the teachers felt this to be in the
exclusive domain of the principal. Of the remaining re-
sponses, more than 50% of both pastors and principals felt
this to be a major authority/responsibility of the principal.

Table 72 indicates the majority of all groups per-
ceive this to be an area of shared authority/responsibility
for the principal. Yet, a fairly large portion (33.3%) of
both principals and teachers viewed this as a major authority/
responsibility for the principal. None of the pastors and
very few of the principals (6.1%) or teachers (6.1%) viewed
this as an area of less than a shared authority/responsibility
for the principal.

It is evident that a majority of each group in Table
73 felt the principal should play a major role in this area.

Only two teachers felt the principal should have no

179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«N.N N.H H N.H H N.N v N.NN «N N.NN hm N.N q moama
mm.m IIII o IIII o H.N m N.Hm NH N.NN HH H.N m szm
NN.N IIII o IIII o IIII o N.NN mm H.NH v IIII o em<m
mmoom N N m N v N m N N N H mzomo
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mosz omm¢mm mon¢z m>Hmoqoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\waHmomezm
.mmmup can poacsoo
ucmosum mo mmmoo mcHanHnmumm I mH Namamumum .mn mamas
NH.~ N.H H N.N N N.H H N.Nm mm N.NN mm N.NN Hm mo<me
f I .
NN.H IIII o IIII o o.m H N.NH m N.NN NH N.NN m szm
oo.~ IIII o o.m H IIII o N.HN N N.HN NH N.NN N swam
mmoom N N m N N N m N m N H moomo
24m: mmzommmm oz mosz omm¢zm mon¢z m>Hmzqoxm
oz

 

HON

MBHHHmHmZOmmmm\NBHmOmBD€

 

.mmmnmoum ucmpsum maHuuomon paw OQHOMHO
mmHoHHom mcHoHEHmumo I

«H

ucmfimumum

.Hb mHm¢E

 

 

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.H N.H H IIII N.N m N.N N N.NN om N.NN NN =o¢me
NN.H IIII o IIII IIII o H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH szm
NN.H IIII o N.N N.N H N.N H N.NN NH N.NN NH em<m
.mmoom N N N N N m N N N H Naomo
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mozH: ommNmm mon¢z m>Hm=qoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeON
.A.uom umchuoomH
mo moonumfi Nummx ma OHDosm mwuoomu ums3 .m.mv
mpHoomH ucmpsum mchHmuusz NH usmfimumum .vn mqmaa
NN.N N.N N N.N N.N N N.NN NN H.NN mm N.N N momma
HN.N N.N H IIII H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH N.NH N szm
NN.N IIII o IIII H.N N N.NN NH N.NN NH N.NH N amNm
mmoom N N N N N m N N N H mzomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz omm¢mm Noam: N>Hmzqoxm
oz

 

NquHmHmzommmm\NaHmoNez<

:oHumspmnm mcHanHnmumm

.mucmfimhwsvmu
NH unoEmumum

.mn mqmfifi

 

 

181

authority/responsibility in the establishment of graduation
requirements.

The mean scores are very similar in Table 74, but
the greatest similarity seems to be found in the various
columns as the responses across the groups are very similar.
It is also obvious from the mean scores and from the heavy
percentage of responses found in the exclusive and major
columns, that in this area all groups perceive a considerable
amount of authority/responsibility for the principal.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative
to a principal's authority/responsibility in the supervision

of students.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
12. 1' Teachers Principals Pastors .\
\ (2.78) (2.88) (3.18) 7
13. 6 Pastors Principals Teachers .\
(1.73) (1.79) (1.98) "
14. 4. Principals Pastors Teachers ~\
‘~ (1.97) (2.06) (2.19) .7
15. A; Princi als Teachers Pastors \
\ (2. 5) (2.621) (2.88) /
16. A, Pastors Principals Teachers .\
‘~ (2)27) (2.31) (2.37) 17

17. _z Principals Pastors Teachers

 

\ (1:55) (1.64) (1.74r >

182

The above continua demonstrate no evident trend.
Seemingly the responses-are dependent upon the statement.

Table 75 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the principal's authority/responsibility regarding the

supervision of students.

TABLE 75. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the Principal's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding the Supervision
of Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 12.18 6.09 .588 .557
WITHIN 144 1492.48 10.36
F (.95) = 3.00
TOTAL 146 1504.66 2'144

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

'Pastors 12.97
Principals 13.79
Teachers 13.56

The fourth null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of pastors
and principals regarding a principal's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of students must be re-
tained. The fifth null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of pastors
and teachers regarding a principal's authority/responsibility
in the supervision of students must be retained. The dif—
ference between the perceptions of principals and teachers
regarding a principal's authority/responsibility in the super-

vision of students must be retained.

183

Dealing with Student Offenses

It is evident in Table 76 that all three groups per-
ceive the principal as having at least a shared authority/
responsibility in this area. Almost ten percent of both the
principal and teacher groups viewed the principal as having
exclusive authority/responsibility, but only one pastor con-
curred with this. The mean scores of all three groups are
very close, with the pastor and principal groups having the
identical score. However, although the mean scores are
identical, the responses for each group are spread differ-
ently over the five alternatives. It is important to note
that no respondent felt the principal ought to have no
authority/responsibility in this area.

Apparent from Table 77 is that all groups perceive
the principal as being active in this area. Less than ten
percent of both pastors and teachers, and only three percent
of the principals, felt the principal ought to have a minor
authority/responsibility or less. But, very few respondents
in any group felt the principal should have exclusive
authority/responsibility. The bulk of the responses were
relatively evenly spread between the "Major" and "Shared"
columns.

According to Table 78, very few of the respondents
in the pastor or teacher groups perceived the principal as
having less than a shared authority/responsibility. Although
not significant, it is interesting that two teachers felt the

principal should have no authority/responsibility in this

area.

184

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N IIII N.N m N.Nv mm N.Ov mm v.5 O :Ufime
NN.N IIII o IIII N.N H N.NN NH N.NN NH H.N N szm
NN.N O.m H IIII H.N m N.Nv mH N.NN NH O.N H swam
mmoom N N N v N m N N N H macaw
24m: mmzommmm 02 mosz OMMNNN MOON: m>HmDHOxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\NaHmoNa=< I
.H.oum .NCHuanm @mummmmh .mmcnmcmH
can Owumwmmu .NCHHmmum pmummmmu .m.mv NuHHonusm mo Hm>mH
uxmc may 0» EQHQOHQ mnu wxmu on mmHHm awe pmmc wan mums:
mumpcmmmo ummmmu mchHHQHomHQ I NH ucmEmumum .hh mqmda
Hm.N N.H H IIII v.h O N.NN hm N.NN NN N.N N NUNMB
NN.N IIII O IIII O.m H N.NN mH N.Nv «H H.N m szm
Nv.N IIII O IIII H.N N N.NN HH N.NN NH O.m H emfim
mmoum N N N v N m N N N H mDomo
z<mz mmzommmm 02 mosz nmmfimm Nehmz m>HmDHUxm
oz

 

“cmpsum NcH>mnmbmHE m OCHcHHQHomHQ I

NquHmHmzommmm\NaHmo=eaN

.Hmmcbm Hmonazm Ho Habum> m>Hmmmoxm .NcHHmmum .N.ov

NH unmEmumum

.wh mHmde

 

 

185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm.N N.N N N.N N N.N N N.NN Nm N.NN NN N.N N mocme
NN.N IIII N IIII N H.N N N.NN HN N.NN N N.N H szN
NN.N N.N H IIII N H.N m N.NN NH N.NN N N.N H swam
mmoom N N m N N N N N N N H Naomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommmmm NONNz m>HNNHoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmmxweHmozaam
.HpmuHsvmu
mH mcHHmHome mo Hm>mH uxm: mnulmcm ucmHonmomcH mH mm .0: :H
pmxo>cH mcHHmHome .m.mv m>onm ON .02 :H pmeHucmpH :oHumsuHm
may :H mumccommo pmmmwn NchHHmHomHo I HN unmamumum .NN quNe
1
NN.N N.H H N.N N N.N N N.NN NN N.HN NN N.NH HH NONNN
NH.N IIII N IIII N IIII N N.NN NH N.NN NH N.NH N szN
HN.N IIII N IIII N N.N H N.NN N N.NN HN H.N N NNNN
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H Naomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz omm<mm moNNz m>HNNqoxm
oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NquHmHmzommmm\NaHmomaa«

.Nuumm stuocc mo ucmEm>Ho>cH man mmHHsva cam umnocmu

EooummmHo 0:» mo Houucoo ms» pcoamn mmom mHnsouv msu owns

wEmHnoum EooummmHo HMDOH>HOCH mcHHpcmm I

ON Ncmeumum

.Nh mqmde

 

186

Less than ten percent of each group in Table 79 felt
the principal should have less than a shared authority/
responsibility, with 2.5% of the teachers indicating the
principal should have no authority/responsibility. As one
peruses the responses of the pastors and principals, it is
interesting to note how similar the responses are in a col-
umn by column analysis. The mean scores for each of these
two groups would lend support to the notion of similarity.
Although all groups felt the principal should have consid-
erable authority/responsibility, very few respondents felt
the principal should have exclusive authority/responsibility.

Table 80 seems to reveal relative consensus among the
pastors concerning this issue, as all of the pastoral re-
sponses fell in one of two categories, with 84.8% of these
falling in the shared category. It is evident that all groups
feel the principal should have considerable authority/
responsibility in this area, but yet very few respondents
feel the principal should have exclusive authority/
responsibility.

Table 81 would indicate that all three groups tend to
view this as an area of shared authority/responsibility for
the principal. Only one pastor felt the principal ought to
have major authority/responsibility, whereas substantial per-
centages of principals and teachers felt the principal ought
to have major authority/responsibility.

The following continua are intended to illustrate

trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N IIII O N.N N.N N N.NN Hm N.NN HN N.N m NONNB
NN.N IIII O IIII H.N m N.NN MN N.HN N IIII O szm
NH.m IIII N H.N H.N N N.NN NN N.N H IIII N NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H Naomo
24m: mmzommmm oz mosz ommmmm mon<z m>HmOHoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeO<
.ucmpsum m Hmaxm Cu NQHUHUQD I mN ucmfimumum .HN mqmfia
NN.N IIII N N.N N.N m N.NN mN N.NN NN N.N N moans
NN.N IIII N IIII H.N m N.NN NN N.NN N N.N H szN
NN.N IIII N IIII IIII N N.NN NN N.NH m IIII N emmm
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H msomo
z¢mz mmzommmm oz Nosz ommmmm moNNz m>HNOHoxm
oz .1;
NquHmHmzommmm\NaHmoNaaN
.ucmpsum m pcmmmsn on OCHpHoma I NN ucmEmumum .ON mqmde

 

 

188

to a principal's authority/responsibility regarding dealing

with student offenses.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
Pastors
18. ,/ Principals Teachers .\
V‘ (2.42) (2.51) /
l9. 1’ Principals Teachers Pastors .\
“ (2.45) (2.49) (2.63) 7'
20, ,. Principals Pastors Teachers ‘_
“ (2.15) (2.21) (2.29) ‘/
21. 1, Teachers Principals Pastors .q
“ (2.51) (2.73) (2.75) /'
22. 4: Teachers Principals Pastors .\
‘ (2.65) (2.76) (2.85) ’
23. 1. Teachers Principals Pastors \_
\ (2.77) (2.88) (3.15) ’

It is evident from the above that in many instances
the teachers assign more authority/responsibility to the prin-
cipal than do the principals assign themselves. Only in one
instance above is it not true that the pastors assign less
authority/responsibility to the principals than do the prin-
cipals assign themselves.

Table 82 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of

the principal's authority/responsibility regarding dealing

with student offenses.

189

TABLE 82. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Dealing with Student Offenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 15.82 7.91 .941 .393
WITHIN 144 1211.01 8.41 _
TOTAL 146 1226.83 F2'144 ('95) = 3°00

 

 

 

 

 

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 15.39
Principals 15.85
Teachers 15.04

The fourth null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding a principal's authority/
responsibility in dealing with student offenses must be re-
tained. The fifth null hypothesis stating there would be
no significant difference between the perceptions of pastors
and teachers regarding a principal‘s authority/responsibility
in dealing with student offenses must be retained. The sixth
null hypothesis stating there would be no significant dif-
ference between the perceptions of the principals and the
teachers regarding a principal's authority/responsibility in
dealing with student offenses must be retained.

Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

 

The mean scores in Table 83 are all similar and in-
dicate that each group perceives the principal as having a

shared authority/responsibility in this area. This is

190

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.H H N.N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NH NH N.N N scams
NN.N IIII N H.N N.NH N N.NN NH N.NN N N.NH N szN
NH.N N.N H H.N N.HN N N.NN NH N.NH N H.N N NNNN
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H Naomo_
szz mmzommmm oz mosz NNNNNN moNNS m>HNNHoxm

oz

NEHHHmHmzoNNmm\NNHmomeoN
.mmmum NcHnommuIco: wan Hem
maoHuNHuommN NON No Namamon>mo I NN NNNENNNNN .NN NHNNN

NN.N N.H H N.N N.NN NH N.NN NN N.NH NH N.N N momma
NN.N IIII N H.N N.NH N N.NN NH N.NN N H.N N szm
NN.N N.N H IIII N.NN N N.NN NH N.NH N IIII N NNNN
mmooN N N N N N N N N N H Naomu
szz mmzommmm oz mosz NNNNNN moNNz m>HNNHoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNHHHmHmzommmm\NaHmo=eom

.H.oum .wcmHOoumno
.mmHHmumHomm .m.mv Hoonom 0:» mumuomo NH0>Huoowwm on Ompmm:
HmGGOmHmm may no coHpmcHEumuma I

NN NNNEmNmuN

.mm WHm<B

 

191

supported by the fact that 54.5% of the pastors, 45.5% of
the principals, and 49.4% of the teachers perceived the
principal as having shared authority/responsibility. Al-
though substantial percentages of respondents perceived
the principal as having a major authority/responsibility,
relatively large percentages also perceived the principal
as having minor authority/responsibility.

Comparing the percentages for pastoral responses and
teacher responses in Table 84 reveals them to be very sim-
ilar in each statement. The mean scores of these two groups
are also very similar. Although in all groups the most often
selected column was the shared column, many respondents from
each group selected the major column as well as many who
selected the minor column. More than five percent in each
group felt this area required no authority/responsibility for
the principal. It is also interesting that 15.2% of the
principals felt this area was under the exclusive authority/
responsibility of the principal.

Of immediate notice in Table 85 is the relatively
high number of non-respondents, especially among pastors where
15.2% did not respond. Among those who did respond, however,
the responses are so spread that there is a relatively large
number of responses in each column.

It is apparent from Table 86 that none of the groups
has a consensus relative to this area as the responses are
generally spread over the middle three columns.

The following continua are intended to illustrate

trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OO.N N.N N N.NH OH N.NH NH N.NN NN N.NN NN N.N O NUNNB
HN.N O.N H H.N N N.ON OH N.HN N N.NN N H.NH N szm
NN.N O.N H IIII O N.HN N N.NN NH N.ON OH H.N N BNNN
mmoum N N m N N N N N N H macaw
z<mz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommdmm NOO<2 m>HNDHUxm

oz

NBHHHmHmzommmm\»BHmomEDm
.mucmficmHmmm HNHommm cam mcHusou CH :mHOOumDo
man No conH>ummsm uomuHa I NN HNNENNNNN .NN mHmNN

ON.N N.N N N.N N N.NH HH H.NN NN N.NN ON N.NH OH mo<me
NN.N H.N N H.NH N H.NH N N.HN N N.NN N N.HN N szm
NN.N N.NH m H.N N N.NH m N.NN N N.NH O N.NH N emmm
mmOUm N N m N v N N N N H mDomw
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mosz Ommdmm NOON: m>HmDHoxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wfiHHHmHmZOmmflm\wBHmOEBD¢

.mucmficmHmmm HMHommm 6cm mcHusom CH Numumuomm
mnu mo conH>Hmmsm ucmuHo I

NN Namsmhmum

.mN mHm<B

 

 

193

to a principal's authority/responsibility regarding the

supervision of the non-teaching staff.

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

 

 

 

 

ITEM More Less
Pastors

24. é Principals Teachers \_
(2.94) (3.06) 77
25. ,' Principals, Teachers Pastors \_
‘\ (2.76) (3.09) (3.13) —7"
26. A; Principals Pastors Teachers \_
‘7 (2.66) (2.75) (2.80) :’
27. (I Pastor§_ Principals Teachers \_
“ (2.78) (2.91) (3.00) 7'

The only trends evident from the above involve the
principals tending to give themselves more authority/
responsibility in this area. However, the teachers tend to
assign less authority/responsibility to the principals.

Table 87 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the principal's authority/responsibility regarding the super-

vision of the non-teaching staff.

TABLE 87. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding the Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean P P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 9.69 4.84 .380 .684
WITHIN 144 1833.14 12.73
TOTAL 146 1842.83 F2r144 ('95) = 3'00

 

 

 

 

 

194

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 11.00
Principals 11.03
Teachers 11.53

The fourth null hypothesis stating there would be no
significant difference between the perceptions of the pastors
and the principals regarding a principal's authority/
responsibility in the supervision of the non-teaching staff
must be retained. The fifth null hypothesis stating there
would be no significant difference between the perceptions
of the pastors and the teachers regarding a principal's
authority/responsibility in the supervision of the non-
teaching staff must be retained. The sixth null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between the
perceptions of the principals and the teachers regarding the
principal‘s authority/responsibility in the supervision of
the non-teaching staff must be retained.

Fiscal Affairs

 

In Table 88, the mean scores of the teacher and prin-
cipal groups are equal. Both of these groups also have very
similar percentages in each of the five columns. Comparing
the responses of these two groups to the responses of the
pastors' group indicates that the pastors tend to give less
authority/responsibility to the principals than do either of
the two groups. It is also noteworthy that relatively
large percentages of pastors and principals felt the prin-
cipal should have only minor authority/responsibility in

this area.

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH.N N.N N IIII O N.N N N.NN ON N.NN NN 0.0H NH NO<NB
NN.H IIII O IIII O O.N H N.NH N N.NN NH N.ON NH szm
NN.N IIII O IIII O H.N N N.NN NH N.NN OH H.N N BNNN
mmoom N N m N N N N N N N H macaw
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mosz ommamm NOON: m>HmDHOxm
oz
NeHHHmHmzommmm\HaHmomeo<
.=mu5st= pmnmpHmcoo 0n uanE
:Ong mEOuH o» COmHHNQEoo :H Hoonom may no momma NHmmsm can
ucmfimHavm Hmsuom mo :oHumcHEHmumO I NN ucafimumum .NN mqmfie
NN.N N.N N N.H H N.N N N.NN NN N.NN NN N.NH NH NONNN
NN.N IIII O IIII O H.NH N N.ON OH N.NN NH N.NH m szm
NN.N IIII O IIII O N.NH N N.ON NH N.NN NH H.N N Emma
mmoom N N m N N N N N N N H NOONO
24m: mmzommmm oz MOZHZ ammdmm NOON: m>HmDHOxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VBHHHmHmZOmmmm\NBHMOmBD¢

.Hoonom may no 00m: HNHocmcHw Hmsccm Hmuou
mnu mcHOHmmmH m:0HumOcmEEoomm I NN unmEmumum .NN HANNB

 

 

196

Table 89 indicates a large percentage of principals
feel this area to be in the exclusive domain of the principal,
whereas neither of the other groups would support this. But,
slightly more than 20% of the principals also felt the prin-
cipal's authority/responsibility ought to be something less
than major. More than half of the teachers (54.3%) felt the
principal ought to have major authority/responsibility in
this area.

If each of the five columns in Table 90 are considered
independently, it can be seen that a considerable gap seems
to exist between the pastors and principals. Comparatively
speaking, the principals always give themselves more
authority/responsibility than do the pastors give the prin-
cipals. The teachers generally tend to stand midway between
the other two groups. The mean scores support this obser-
vation.

Across the three groups in Table 91, it is quite
evident that very few respondents feel the principal should
have more than a shared authority/responsibility in this area.
’Ihere are also substantial percentages in all three groups
inhich feel the principal has no authority/responsibility in
'this matter. The mean scores are all relatively close and
lean toward a minor authority/responsibility for the principal.

Three percent or less of each group in Table 92 felt
tile principal should have more than a shared authority/
rasponsibility in this matter. t is easily seen that all

groups perceive the principal's authority/responsibility as

197

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N.NN NN N.ON NN N.NN ON N.N N N.H H mofime
NN.N III: N.NN N N.ON OH N.NN NH IIII o O.m H szm
NN.N N.N N.ON OH N.NN HH N.ON OH N.N H IIII O am<m
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H mOomo
szz mmzommmm oz mosz ONNNmm Nona: m>Hquoxm
oz
NaHHHmHmzoNNMM\weHmomeO<
.wmmum msfinommu Hem
mHSOmnom mumHmm mo coflumcamEEoomm I HN ucmfimumum .HO mqm¢a
HINNN m.N N IIII o N.N N o.HN NH N.NN ON m.NH mH mo¢me
oo.N IIII o IIII O H.N N H.NH N N.Nm NH N.NN N szm
NN.N IIII o o.m H H.NH N N.NN m m.mN mH H.NH N emNm
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H mzomo
z<mz mmzommmm oz mosz ammNmm moeNz m>Hquoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\weHmomeOm
.uompsn Hoonom Hmuou on» swnuw3
mfimuw macaw mmflcos mo sofiumooHHm I ON ucoamumum .Om mqmda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N m.N N N.H H O.N N m.om mm m.Hm NN m.m m mU¢mB
hm.H IIII o IIII Io IIII o N.NH w b.0w ON N.HN h ZHmm
NN.N IIII o IIIII o H.m NEI N.NH c h.mc mm H.w N Bm¢m.l
mmoom N N m N N N m N N N H moomw
z¢m2 mmzwmmmm Oz mOZHZ I Qmm¢=m mowdz W>HmDAUxu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

198

wquHmHmzommmm\NeHmomeON

.A.oum .mHmsmH>Ioapzm
.muouommoum .m.mv ucmfimfiovm paw mHmauwumE Hmcowuosuumcfl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

humucmEQHQmsm mo :oHuomem I NN usmfimumum .NO mqm¢e
NO.N N.N N N.NN ON N.NH NH N.ON mN N.H H N.H H moame
NO.N H.O N N.NN NH N.NN m N.NN m O.N H IIII O szm
OH.N H.N N N.ON NH N.NN O N.NN O O.N H IIII O Bmdm
mmoom N N m N N N N N N N H mDomo
Zflmz mm2Wmmmm OZ mOZHS ommdmm mOhdz m>HmDHUxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NBHHHmHmZOmmmm\NBHmOmBD¢

.mumum mcflsommuIco: on» new
mHspmsom NHMHmm mo coflumpsoeeoomm I NN usmfiwumum .NO mHmNB

 

 

199

more minor. This is nowhere better indicated than in the "No"
authority/responsibility column. For each of the three groups
this column received the highest percentage of respondents.
The mean scores for each group are very close and indicate
minor authority/responsibility for the principal.

It is quickly apparent from Table 93 that the prin-
cipals feel they should have considerable authority/
responsibility in this matter. Not one principal gave the
principal less than a shared authority/responsibility. The
other two groups would basically agree with the principals
except in the exclusive column. The mean scores support the
major authority/responsibility given the principal by all
groups.

In Table 94, all groups tend to assign a more major
authority/responsibility to the principal. Very few of the
respondents in any group gave the principal less than a
shared authority/responsibility.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

to a principal's authority/responsibility regarding fiscal

 

affairs.
AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM More Less
Teachers
28. A, Principals Pastors 5
‘\ (2.39) (2.67)
29. Principals Teachers Pastcrg -\

 

‘1’ (1.88) (2.14) (2.45) ’

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON.N N.N N N.N N.N m N.NN 5N h.mN 5N N.N h =U¢me
NN.N IIII O IIII H.N N N.NN O N.NN OH H.NH N szm
NN.N IIII O O.N O.N H N.ON OH o.ow ON O.N H Bmdm
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H anomw
z<mz mmzommmm 02 mosz ommfimm monéz m>HmDHuxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\meHmomeON
. AoUHQ
.Hmflpoumao .pcsoumamHm .mxmmp .m.mv mmflHmmzm cam ucmEQHawm
HmcoHuosuumcflIco: mo cofiuomHmm I NN usmemumum .Nm mamme

 

201

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM More Less

 

30. 1’ Principals Teachers“ Pas;grs___€>
‘ (2.00) (2.20) (2.48)

31. ,r Principals Teachers Pastors____e>
‘\

 

 

 

 

(3.73) (3.82) (3.94)
32. 1’ Principals Teachers Pastors \_
\ (4.03) (4.08) (4.10) ’
33. ‘/ Principals Pastors Teachers 9
“ (1.97) (2.24) (2.33)
34. 1/ Principals Pastors Teachers 5‘
\ (2.27) (2.42) (2.49) /

The preceding is evidence of a trend indicating the
PrinCipals give themselves more authority/responsibility,
whereas the pastors tend to give the principal less authority/
responsibility. It is also evident that teachers tend to
stand between principals and pastors in this area. It must
also be realized that in many cases the spread between the
mean scores which are being considered is small and relatively
inconsequential. But, nonetheless, a trend does exist.

Table 95 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of
the principal's authority/responsibility regarding fiscal
affairs.

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 18.03
Principals 19.94

Teachers 18.88

202

TABLE 95. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Fiscal Affairs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 60.56 30.28 1.78 .172
WITHIN 144 2447.61 ' 16.99
TOTAL 146 2508.17 F2'144 ('95) = 3.00

 

 

 

 

 

Although the mean scores are not as close as they
have been in other sections, they are still too close to have
a significant difference. The fourth null hypothesis stating
there would be no significant difference between the percep-
tions of pastors and principals regarding a principal's
authority/responsibility in fiscal affairs must be retained.
The fifth null hypothesis stating there would be no signifi-
cant difference between the perceptions of pastors and
teachers regarding a principal's authority/responsibility in
fiscal affairs must be retained. The sixth null hypothesis
stating there would be no significant difference between the
perceptions of principals and teachers regarding a principal's

authority/responsibility in fiscal affairs must be retained.

Scheduling

 

In Table 96, all groups tend to perceive the principal
as having a considerable amount of authority/responsibility
in this area. More than 30% of both the pastors and the prin-
cipals even felt the principal should have exclusive
authority/responsibility. The low mean scores also reflect

the extensive authority/responsibility each group assigned

203

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN.N N.N N N.N N.N m N.ON mN N.ON mN N.NN NH mo<ma
Oh.H IIII O IIII IIII O H.NH N N.NN NH N.NN NH szm
NN.H IIII O O.N O.N H H.NH N N.NN NH N.NN HH Bmdm
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H maomw
z¢mz mmzommmm oz mOzHS omm<mm mOO<z m>HmDAUxm
oz
wquHmHmZOmmmm\>BHmomBD<
.mHzflmnom >mep mnu OCHCHEHmuon I oN unmEmumum .hm mAmNB
HH.N N.N N N.H N.N N N.NH NH O.Nm NN N.NH NH momma
NN.H IIII O IIII IIII O H.NH N N.Hm NH N.NN NH szm
Hm.H IIII O IIII O.N H N.NH m N.HN NH N.ON OH Bmflm
mmoom N N N N N N N N N H. gnome
ZNmz mmzommmm oz mosz amm<=m MOON: m>HmDHUxm
oz
NeHaHmHmzommmm\NeHmozeO<
.Hmmw Hoonom
map How unpcmHmo mnu mcHGHEHmqu I mN umemumum .om mqmde

 

 

204

the principal.

From Table 97 it is quickly realized that many prin-
cipals feel they should have extensive authority/
responsibility in this area, as 87.9% of the principals as-
signed either major or exclusive authority/responsibility to
their position. The pastors tended to view the area in a
similar manner, except they did not indicate as strong a
feeling in the exclusive authority/responsibility column.
Across all columns the teachers are more reluctant to give
the principal more authority/responsibility. It is noteworthy
that even 9.9% of the teachers felt the principal should have
minor authority/responsibility in this matter. The mean
scores demonstrate this difference, as the teachers had the
highest mean score which is indicative of the least authority/
responsibility assigned.

According to Table 98, all three groups tended to feel
the principal should have at least a shared authority/
responsibility in this area. However, a substantial percent-
age of teachers (14.8%) felt the principal should have no more
than a minor authority/responsibility. The mean score for
the teachers' group reflects this as it is considerably higher
than either of the other two groups, thus indicating a lesser
amount of authority/responsibility for the principal.

In Table 99, all three groups tended to view the prin-
cipal as having considerable authority/responsibility in this
area. A large percentage of each group (27.3% of the pastors,

42.4% of the principals, and 33.3% of the teachers) felt the

205

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH.N N.N N.N N N.N N 0.0N mN N.NN NN N.NN 5N :UNmB
Oh.H O.N IIII O IIII O N.NN O N.NN O N.NN NH szO
NN.N IIII O.N H O.N H N.ON V NH N.ON OH N.NN O 9m<m
mmoom N N m N N N N N N N H maomw
z<mz mmzommmm 02 mosz omm<mm mon<z m>HmDHuxm

oz

wquHmHmZOmmmm\mBHmomBD¢
.mmsHquE huHsomm mo
mmump can mosmzvmum map Ochflaumqu I ON ucmEmumum .OO mqm<a

ON.N N.N N.N N H.HH O N.NN hN N.NN NN N.NN OH- zu<me
hO.H IIII O.N H H.O N N.NH m N.ON NH N.ON NH szO
NH.N IIII H.O N IIII O N.NH O N.HN NH N.NN O swam
mmoum N N m N N N N N N N H maomo
zamz mmzommmm oz mozH: Qmm<mm mOO<2 m>HmDHUxm

oz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.O.mv mucm>m

NquHmHmzommmm\>eHmomeO<

.A.oum .mummucoo owumeum .mmfluu chHm
HmHommm mcHanmnom I

Nm ucmsmumum

.mm mflmdfi

 

 

206

principal should have exclusive authority/responsibility.
None of the responding principals and only a few of the pas-
tors or teachers felt the principal should have less than a
shared authority/responsibility. The mean scores indicate
that the principal feels he should have considerably more
authority/responsibility than do either of the other groups.
This is also apparent from the high percentage of principal
responses in the "Exclusive" column, as well as the fact that
no principal gave less than a shared authority/responsibility
to his position.

It is apparent from Table 100 that a strong majority
of each group felt the principal should have at least a major
authority/responsibility in this area. Very few respondents
in any of the three groups felt the principal should have
minor or less authority/responsibility.

The following continua are intended to illustrate
trends in the statement mean scores for each group relative

to a principal's authority/responsibility regarding sched-

 

 

uling.
AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM More Less
35. A! Principals Pastors Teachers ~r
9; (1.76) (1.91) (2.11) ”
36. A, Principals Pastors Teachers 2‘
‘K (1.70) (1.94) (2.37) "
37. ./ Principals Pastors Teachers Np

 

9:7 (1.97) (2.12) (2.46 ’7

207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO.H N.N N.N O.N N O.NH NH N.ON NN N.NN NN mofima
HO.H O.N O.N O.N H H.NH N N.NN HH N.NN NH szm
NO.H IIII O.N O.N H H.NH N N.ON NH N.NN HH BNNO
mmoom N N N N N m N N N H. mOomo
szz mmzommmm oz mozH: Omxamm mowmz m>HmOnoxm
oz
NquHmHmzommmm\>eHmomeO¢
.mmcflummfi wasomm may
mcHommH can mccmmm mnu mcHuuom I Om unmamumum .OOH mque

 

208

AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
ITEM More Less

38. A! Principals- Teachers Pastors \_
‘\ (IT79) (2.1077 (2.24) "

39. j, Principals Teacher§_ Pastora_____€>
<

(1.81) (1.87) (1.94)

 

This category involved two different areas of sched-
uling: scheduling of school-related activities and scheduling
of faculty meetings. In the first category, items 35-37, the
trend is evident that teachers assign the least authority/
responsibility to the principal. For the final two items,
the trend is different, as in this latter situation the pas-
tors assign the least authority/responsibility to the prin-
cipal. For all items in this section, the principal assigns
the most authority/responsibility to his position.

Table 101 is the ANOVA Table for the perceptions of

the principal's authority/responsibility regarding scheduling.

TABLE 101. ANOVA Table for the Perceptions of the
Principal's Authority/Responsibility
Regarding Scheduling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean F P
SOURCE df Squares Squares Ratio Value
BETWEEN 2 62.71 31.35 2.69 .072
WITHIN 144 1680.57 9 11.67
TOTAL 146 1743.28 F2'144 ('95) = 3'00

 

 

 

 

 

209

The categorical mean scores are the following:

Pastors 8.97
Principals 10.15
Teachers 10.60

Although the mean scores are relatively spread out,
still there exists no significant difference between any of
the means. The fourth null hypothesis stating there would
be no significant difference between the perceptions of pas-
tors and principals regarding a principal's authority/
responsibility in scheduling must be retained. The fifth
null hypothesis stating there would be no significant dif-
ference between the perceptions of pastors and teachers re-
garding a principal's authority/responsibility in scheduling
must be retained. The sixth null hypothesis stating there
would be no significant difference between the perceptions of
principals and teachers regarding a principal's authority/
responsibility in scheduling must be retained.

Comparison of Categorical
Mean Scores

 

The following tables contain the categorical mean
scores and will provide a basis for comparison of these
scores. The comparison will be done by noting the difference
between the mean scores of the pastor's authority/
responsibility and the mean scores of the principal's
authority/responsibility. The perceptions of each of the
three groups--pastors, principals, and teachers--will be con-

sidered independently. The listed mean scores will be the

210
scores from the seven categories of interest, and will be
identified in the following fashion: I - Curriculum,
II - Supervision of Teachers, III - Supervision of Students,
IV - Dealing with Student Offenses, V - Supervision of the
Non-Teaching Staff, VI - Fiscal Affairs, and VII - Scheduling.
Pastors' Perceptions of
Pastor and Principal

Table 102 indicates the pastors' perceptions of a
pastor's authority/responsibility and of a principal's
authority/responsibility. The scores are reported as cate-
gorical mean scores. If the number appearing on the "Dif-
ference" line is positive, this indicates more authority/
responsibility for the principal. If the number is negative,
more authority/responsibility for the pastor is indicated.

It can be seen from Table 102 that in every category
the pastors assign more authority/responsibility to the prin-
cipal's position than do they assign to the position of the
pastor.

Table 103 indicates the principal's perceptions of
pastor's authority/responsibility and of a principal's
authority/responsibility. Comparing the categorical means in
the table illustrates that the principals feel the principal
should have more authority/responsibility than the pastor in

the areas under consideration.

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

wo.oa mH.m ma.m mm.m hm.m mH.m mm.m mozmmmhhHo
mH.OH vm.ma mo.HH mm.ma ah.ma ¢N.oa. hm.oa wa¢mHqumm
HN.ON NH.mN HN.MH vm.mH mo.mm mv.ma oo.ma mmOBm<m
.HH> H> > >H HHH HH H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mbomw

 

.mammflocflum pom muoummm mo mcoflummoumm .mammwocaum mcu How mmuoom some

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmowuommumo on“ cmmBuon mmocmummmfip osu mo :ofiomHfimEoo .moa Manse
om.HH om.n NH.m vm.v oo.HH mm.m >m.m muzmmmmmHo
hm.m mo.ma oo.ad mm.ma hm.ma mo.wa HN.HH qumHUszm
h~.om mm.m~ NH.¢H m>.ma hm.m~ Hm.ma mm.ma mmoemfim

HH> H> > >H HHH HH H mDOMU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mammflocfium pom muoummm mo mCOwummonm .muoummm mzu MOM mmuoom cmmE

Hmoauommumo mna :mmzpmn mwocmHmHMflp wzu mo coflumaflmEOU

.NOH mqmda

 

 

212
Teachers' Perceptions of
Pastor and Principal

Table 104 indicates the teachers' perceptions of a
pastor's authority/responsibility and of a principal's
authority/responsibility. Comparing the categorical mean
scores in the table illustrates that the teachers feel the
principal should have more authority/responsibility than the

pastor in the areas under consideration.

Table 105, which lists the differences found in
Tables 102, 103 and 104, also shows the similarities in per-
ceptions among the three groups. All the numbers in the
table are positive, indicative of more authority/responsibility
for the principal. Secondly, the numbers in each column are
similar indicating each group perceived similar differences
in the authority/responsibility of the pastor and the prin-
cipal.

The differences reported in Table 106 are very simi-
lar. This would demonstrate similarity in the perceptions
of pastors and principals relative to a pastor's authority/
responsibility. Also, since the differences are all positive,
this indicates the principal is assigning more authority/
responsibility to the pastor than is the pastor assigning
himself.

The differences in the first five colums of Table
107 are quite small, indicating similar perceptions by the
two groups. Columns six and seven are not as close, indi-

cating the perceptions are not as similar. Six of the seven

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no.0a mm.» wo.a oH.m mm.oa om.m m~.h mammoame
ma.oa ma.m ma.m mm.m h~.m mH.m mm.m mammHoszm
cm.HH om.e. ma.m sm.q oo.HH mm.m hm.m mmoamam

HH> H> > >H HHH HH H msomu

.eoa wanna can MOH manna .NOH magma
an 6:20m mm mmocmummmwc may no nodumaflmsoo .moH mamas

so.oa m~.h qo.a oa.m mm.oH om.m m~.e mozmmmmmHa
oo.oa mm.ma mm.HH vo.ma cm.ma me.os em.ma mqamHoszm
s~.a~ Ha.m~ RH.MH «H.o~ qa.m~ mo.o~ me.ma amoemam

HH> H> > >H HHH HH H .nHDomU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mHmmHocflum cam muoummm mo mcoHummoumm .mnwnommu mnu How mmuoom some

Havauommumo 0:9 :mmBumn mmocmummmwp on» mo COHHMHHQEOU

.VOH mqmdfi

 

 

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH.H Hm.H I no. I mq. I mm. I mH. I vm. muzmmmmmHD
mH.OH «m.¢H mo.HH mm.mH mh.MH vN.mH hw.OH mndeUszm
hm.m mo.wH oo.HH am.mH hm.mH mo.mH HN.HH mmoem<m
HH> H> > >H HHH HH H .msomw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.muHHHnHmGOQmmH\HUHH02usm m.HmmHo:Hum mcu Ho

 

 

 

 

 

 

mcoflummoumm .mHmmHocwum ppm .muoummm may we :omHHMQEOU .NOH mqmfie

mo. NH. Hm. qv. Hm. me. mm. muzmmmmmHa

Hm.om Hm.mm Hm.mH sm.mH co.m~ Nv.mH oo.mH mammHUZHmm

>~.om mm.mm NH.¢H mu.mH ha.m~ Hm.mH mm.mH mm09m¢m
HH> H> > >H HHH HH H moomu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.HuHHHnHmcommmH\>uHHonusm m.uoumma mnu mo

mcoflummouom .mHmmHUCHHQ can .muoumwm map mo conflummeoo

.mOH mqmde

 

 

215
differences in the Table are negative numbers. Negative num-
bers would indicate the pastors have.given more authority/
responsibility to the principals than have the principals
given themselves.
Perceptions of the Hierarchies

of Authority
in a Lutheran School

 

 

 

The final two items on the opininionnaire asked the
respondent to select the "Ideal“ hierarchy of authority/
responsibility in a Lutheran school, as well as selecting
the "Real" hierarchy, the one they perceive operating in
their school. The five prepared hierarchies are given in
Figure 7.

The choice labeled "Other" was given so as to allow
the respondent to structure his own hierarchy if it was other
than one of those listed. Table 108 indicates the percent-
ages of each group who selected various hierarchies identify-
ing the "Ideal" hierarchy.

For all groups, the most frequently selected hierar-
chy was letter E. However, individuals from all groups also
selected other hierarchies. Considering the categories

0% - 49% - Low Agreement
50% - 74% - Substantial Agreement
75% - 100% 7 High Agreement3

no choice was selected often enough to place it in the category

 

3Lassanske, "A Comparative Study of the Ideal Role
and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary Principal in
Southern California," pp. 39-40.

216

A. Congregation B. Congreiation C. Congreiation
Council Council Pastor
I
Pastor School Board Council
I
School Board Pastor School Board
I
Principal Principal Principal
D. Pastor E. Congregation F. OTHER
Congregation Council
I
Council School Board
(Pastor advisory
member)
School Board ‘L
Principal Principal
FIGURE 7. Five Suggested Hierarchies as Found

on Opinionnaire

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>.m m.vH NH m.om mm m.vH NH H.m N.NN mH >.m m mmmmodme
H.m H.m m m.Hm pH o.m H o.m ~.¢m m o.m H mqamHUszm
IIII H.@ N m.vm mH IIII o H.m m.vm m H.m m mmoem<m
w w m m m m G H w m w < macaw
mmzommmm
oz
.HuHHHQHmcommmu
\HuHuosusm Ho accumumHn =Hmom= on» msHHHHHmmem mm mmHnonmumHs
mooHHm> may pmuomHmm 0:3 mmsoum mmuzu may no mommucwoumm .mOH mqmde
h.m H.a m m.mm mm m.m N m.m h.v~ om H.HH m mmmmu¢ma
H.m H.NH v m.Hm pH IIII o o.m N.mH m H.@ N mammHoszm
IIII H.@ N m.mv mH IIII o H.m ~.vm m N.mH m mmoemdm
m w m w m m o w w m, m a msomo
mmzommmm
oz
.HuHHHQHmcommmH

\HuHuosusm Ho HnoumumH: =HompH=.mnu mcHHHHHmmem mm mmHzoumumHn
msoHHm> may pmuomHmm 0:3 mmooum wounu man Ho mommucmoumm

.mOH mqm48

 

 

218

of high agreement. One group, the principals, had 51.5%
select choice E, and this is the only choice and group to
demonstrate substantial agreement. Save only the selecting
of choice §_by the principals, all other choices were in the
low agreement category. A number of respondents from all
groups selected F, and structured their own hierarchy. A
complete listing of all respondent-structured hierarchies
may be found in Appendix G.

Table 109 recorded the percentages of each group who
selected various hierarchies identifying the "Real" hierarchy.
The most frequently chosen hierarchy was again letter E.
Varying numbers of respondents also selected other hierar-
chies. All selections save only two were in the low agree-
ment category. Only the pastors and principals in selecting
category §_had more than 50% in any one category. The agree-
ment even in those two cases is not high, as the percentages
are barely over 50%.

Of interest is the percentage of teachers who selec-
ted letter Q as exemplifying the "Real," when only one prin-
cipal and no pastor selected this hierarchy. A number of
respondents from all groups selected letter F, and struc-
tured their own hierarchy. A complete listing of the hier-
archies structured by the respondents can be found in

Appendix H.

Originally a follow-up was to be used to provide

further insights into the differences in perceptions of the

219

three groups. The follow-up was to interview individuals
whose mean scores varied greatly from the mean score of his
group. However, since no such individuals could be identi-
fied after analyzing the data, the attempt at a follow-up

interview was deleted from the study.

summary

The chapter began with an identification of some of
the specific information used in the data analysis. Ap-
propriate demographic information was then presented and
discussed. Data analysis then followed, with the emphasis
being placed on finding trends.

The pastor's authority/responsibility was first con-
sidered. Each item on the opinionnaire, through item 39,
was then considered, with attention only being given to the
pastor's authority/responsibility. After each of the seven
sections, continua were used to illustrate the ranking of
the group mean scores, so that trends might be more evident.
Each set of continua was then followed by an ANOVA Table
giving the results for the category. Categorical mean scores
were also listed, followed by the retention or non-retention
of the various null hypotheses. The same procedure was then
repeated for the principal.

The categorical mean scores were then considered in-
dependently, in various ways. Initially, each of the three
groups gave its perceptions of the pastor's and the princi-

pal's authority/responsibility by using categorical mean

220

scores. Numerical differences between the mean scores were
then noted and commented on.

A table was then used to group all of the differences
3:) as to indicate how similarily each group may have per-
ceived the situation. Two tables were then used to compare
how the principals and pastors viewed the pastor's authority/
responsibility, and then how they viewed the principal's
authority/responsibility.

The final item on the opinionnaire--the identification
of the real and the ideal hierarchies--was then considered
by indicating the percentage of time each possible hierarchy
was selected, based on the six alternatives given. General
comments were made on the hierarchies. The reason for the
deletion of the follow-up interview was then noted, followed

bY a. chapter summary.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, FINDINGS,

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The researcher's major purpose in this research was to
determine the perceptions of three groups--pastors, principals
and teachers--re1ative to the authority/responsibility the
pastor and the principal each has in the operation of a
Lutheran elementary school. It was hoped that the expressed
perceptions would identify areas of congruence and divergence
among the three groups. Isolation of such instances of con-
gruence and divergence would hopefully lead to a better
understanding of how the persons holding these two positions
interact in the operation of a Lutheran elementary school.

Pertinent background information was given to allow
the reader to View the present position of pastors and prin-
cipals from a historical perspective. The concepts of the
call, the ministry, and ordination of teachers were consid-
ered as these are important matters for an overall under-
standing of the positions and the interrelations of pastors
and principals.

In the review of the literature there was presented
a general overview of organization theory with attention

being given to the specific concepts of authority, power,

221

222
rules and leadership, and how these several elements impinge
upon organizations. Role theory and conflict theory, with
special attention being given to the work of Louis R. Pondy
in conflict theory, were also considered. Role conflict was
discussed with comments relative to the literature discus-
sing the Lutheran school following.

The instrument used to collect the data was a forty-
one item opinionnaire developed by the researcher. The
method of opinionnaire development as well as the field test
procedure were presented in Chapter IV. The first thirty-
nine items on the Opinionnaire requested the respondent to
express his perception of the amount of authority/
responsibility the pastor and the principal each has in the
operation of a Lutheran elementary school. The following
seven areas were considered: curriculum, supervision of
teachers, supervision of students, dealing with student of-
fenses, supervision of the non-teaching staff, fiscal af-
fairs and scheduling. The final two items considered the re-
spondent's perception of the real hierarchy of authority he
perceived operating in his school, as well as the hierarchy
he considered to be the ideal.

The population of the study was all teachers, prin-
cipals and pastors of the congregations in the Michigan Dis-
trict of the Wisconsin Synod which operate their own ele-
mentary schools, and in which a teacher functions as the prin-
cipal. Eliminated were those congregations in which the pas-

tor functions also as principal. All congregations meeting

223
the above requirements were invited to participate in the
study. Respondents were from congregations in the states of
Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia.
The data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of
variance and the Scheffe post hoc technique. Findings were

then stated and interpreted.

Findings

 

Perceptions of the Pastor's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding:
Following are the findings regarding the perceptions
of the three groups relative to a pastor's authority/

responsibility in each of the seven areas of concern.

Curriculum

 

In this section the researcher was concerned with
the two general areas of instruction which are found in the
Lutheran elementary school-~religious subject matter and sec-
ular subject matter. Items 1 and 2 concern the religious
subject matter, and items 3, 4 and 5 concern the secular
subject matter. Across the continua on page 120 it is evi-
dent that the pastors and teachers give more authority/
responsibility to the pastor than do the principals assign
the pastor. To draw a conclusion based purely on this fact
might be misleading. It is true that the pastors assign the
most authority/responsibility to themselves in items 1 and 2,
but they are assigning themselves a shared amount of

authority/responsibility. In the final three items of this

224

category, the teachers tend to assign the most authority/
responsibility to the pastor, but the mean scores are midway
between a minor and no authority/responsibility. It is the
perceptions of the three groups that the pastor does not
have a great deal of authority/responsibility in this area.
Differences do exist in the mean scores of the perceptions
of the groups, but the differences were not large enough to
be considered statistically significant.
Supervision - Teachers

No evident trend seems to be indicated by the continua
on pages 126 and 128. It was stated in Chapter II that in
the past the pastor was considered the supervisor of the
teacher, and was to implement this supervision through regu-
lar classroom observation. There would appear to be very
little agreement among these three groups that this notion
remains appropriate today. Item 8 concerned teacher evalu-
ation through classroom observation. Although of the three
groups the pastors gave themselves the most authority/
responsibility, they assigned themselves a minor authority/
responsibility. This would strongly support the above obser-
vation that the pastor has little to do with the formal ob-
servation of the teacher in the performance of his classroom
obligations. Differences exist in the mean scores of the
perceptions of the three groups, but the differences are not
large enough to be deemed statistically significant.

Supervision - Students

The continua on page 134 again seem to signify the

225
trend that the pastors assign themselves the most authority/
responsibility of the three groups. However, upon closer
observation of the value of the mean scores, it may be seen
that the values of the mean scores fall between minor and no
authority/responsibility. Considering the nature of this
area as being very much within the realm of everyday school
activities, it should not be surprising that all groups, in-
cluding the pastors, view the pastor's authority/
responsibility as being minor or less.

Dealing with Student Offenses

In all items in this category, the pastors assign
themselves the most authority/responsibility. In four of the
six items, the principals assign the least amount of
authority/responsibility to the pastor. In continua 22 and
23 on page 141, the only two continua in this category that
the principals did not assign the least authority/
responsibility to the pastor, it should be noted that the
principals mean scores are only .02 and .04 units apart from
the teachers' mean scores. Again, differences do exist a-
mong the perceptions of the three groups, but the differences
were not large enough to be deemed statistically significant.
Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

In three of the four continua on page 147, it is
evident that the principals perceive the pastor as having less
authority/responsibility in this area than do either of the
other two groups. In items 24, 25 and 26, the mean scores for

the principals are approximately .5 units higher than either

226
of the other two groups. Item 27 also indicates the prin-
cipals' mean score as higher than the other two groups, but
it is only .04 higher than the teachers. The trend is ev-
ident, though, that the principals perceive the pastor as
having less authority/responsibility in this area than do
either of the other two groups. Differences do exist in the
perceptions of the three groups, but the differences are not

large enough to be deemed statistically significant.

Fiscal Affairs

 

In only one of the seven continua on page 155 do the
principals not assign the least authority/responsibility to
the pastor. But in this one exception, item 31, the princi-
pals assign the most authority/responsibility to the pastor.
Considering item 31, it would seem very understandable if
the principal wanted someone else to be involved, as this
concerns salary determination for the faculty, of which the
principal is a part. The principal may be uneasy about being
involved with the setting of his own salary, and thus welcome
the opportunity to give more of the responsibility to some-
one else. Also, item 31 is the only item in which the pas-
tor did not assign himself the most authority/responsibility.
Differences do exist in the perceptions of the three groups,
but the differences are not large enough to be deemed sta-
tistically significant.

Scheduling

 

It could be inferred from the continua on pages 160 and

162, that since the pastors in all cases assign themselves the

227

most authority/responsibi1ity--sharing that distinction with
the principals in item 39—-they are trying to grant them-
selves more involvement in this matter. Upon closer inspec-
tion of the values of the mean scores, it may be quickly seen
that this would be a faulty conclusion as all but one--item
38 - Determining the frequency and dates of faculty meetings--
mean score are in the minor authority/responsibility range
with a trend toward no authority/responsibility. Differences
do exist in the perceptions of the three groups, but none of
the differences was deemed large enough to be statistically
significant.

In general, the pastor tend to assign themselves
more authority/responsibility than do either of the other
two groups. However, it must be remembered that in most cases
the most authority/responsibility still had a mean score
placing it in the minor authority/responsibility range. By
contrast, the principals generally tended to assign a lesser
amount of authority/responsibility to the pastor's position.
Even considering that for any individual item the differences
in the mean scores of pastors and principals were not great,
differences still did exist and trends became evident.

Perceptions of the Principal's
Authority/Responsibility Regarding:

Following are the findings regarding the perceptions

of the three groups relative to a principal's authority/

responsibility in each of the seven areas of concern.

228

Curriculum

 

Apparent from the continua on page 168 is the point
of interest that in four of the five items, the pastors as-
signed more authority/responsibility to the principal than
did the principal assign himself. Without fail the teachers
assigned the least authority/responsibility to the princi-
pals. This is the only instance among the several null hy-
potheses tested where a statistically significant difference
did exist. The difference of interest was that between the
pastors and the teachers. The pastors tended to feel the
principal should have a more active role in curriculum de-
velopment, whereas the teachers felt the principal's in-
volvement should be somewhat less. It is often said that
teachers desire more input into the development of the school's
curriculum. One method for teachers to gain more input for
themselves is to decrease the principal's involvement. Dif-
ferences involving the principal's perceptions were not deemed
statistically significant.

Supervision - Teachers

 

As in the perceptions of a pastor's authority/
responsibility in this area, the continua on page 175 indicate
that no trend seems to exist here either. This conclusion is
based on the fact that no two of the continua demonstrate the
same pattern of ranking. The responses in this section are
seemingly dependent upon the nature of the statement. Dif-
ferences did exist among the perceptions of the three groups,

but the differences were not large enough to be deemed

229

statistically significant.

SUpervision — Students

 

As in the preceding section, no trend seems to exist
as the ordering of the groups varies from one continuum to
another. The responses are apparently dependent upon the
statements. The mean scores also demonstrate a considerable
spread as can be seen when considering the pastors' mean
scores on items 12 and 17, page 181. On item 12 the pastors'
mean score is 3.18, whereas item 17 has a mean score for
pastors of 1.64. Differences among the perceptions do again
exist, but the differences are not large enough to be deemed
statistically significant.

Dealing with Student Offenses

 

Items 19, 21, 22 and 23, page 188, concern matters of
the more drastic disciplinary actions of exclusion or the
invoking of a second level of authority for discipline. With
the exception of item 19, the teachers assign more authority/
responsibility to the principal concerning these items than
do the principals assign themselves. In item 19, the prin-
cipals assign themselves more authority/responsibility than
do the teachers, but the difference between the two mean
scores is only .04. It is evident the teachers view the
principal as a disciplinary figure. Considering these same
items--19, 21, 22 and 23--the pastors always assigned the
principals a lesser amount of authority/responsibility. Even
though one of the differences between the mean scores is

sma11--.02 in item 21--, it is still apparent that pastors do

230
not see the principal's role as being as much of a discipli-
narian as do the teachers view the principal's role. Dif-
ferences do exist among the perceptions of the three groups,
but the differences are not large enough to be deemed sta-
tistically significant.

Supervision of the Non-Teaching Staff

 

It is apparent from the continua on page 193, that
the principals perceive themselves as having considerable
authority/responsibility in this matter. The pastors and
teachers are not as definite in their perceptions as no trend
seems to exist other than that they assign a lesser amount
of authority/responsibility to the principal. Differences
do exist among the perceptions of the three groups, but the
differences are not large enough to be deemed statistically
significant.

Fiscal Affairs

 

From the continua on pages 199 and 201, the trend is
quite evident that principals assign themselves more
authority/responsibility, but the pastors assign a lesser
amount of authority/responsibility to the principal. It is
also evident that all groups feel the principal's role re-
quires very little input into salary determination. Items 31
and 32 concern this matter and the mean scores are consider-
ably higher than are they on other items in the category. The
difference is well illustrated by comparing the pastors' mean

scores. In items other than 31 and 32, the pastors' scores
tend to fall in the vicinity of 2.50. For items 31 and 32,

the mean scores are in the vicinity of 4.00. The more the

231
mean score approaches 5.00, the less authority/responsibility
is being assigned the position. Differences do exist among
the perceptions of the three groups, but none of the differ-
ences is large enough to be deemed statistically significant.

Scheduling

 

This category involves two areas of scheduling:
scheduling school-related activities and scheduling faculty
meetings. The trend is apparent that principals perceive
themselves as having more authority/responsibility in both
of these areas of scheduling. Items 35, 36 and 37, page 206,
concern the scheduling of school-related activities. For
these three items the teachers assigned less authority/
responsibility to the principal than did either of the other
two groups. This area is often a concern of teachers as they
would feel they should have more voice in the area. There-
fore, it could be expected that the teachers would assign
less authority/responsibility to the principal. The test
would not allow the identification of who would have more
authority/responsibility, but it is evident the teachers feel
the principal should not have the sole voice in this matter.

Items 38 and 39, page 208, concern faculty meetings.
It is the practice in many congregations for the pastor to not
only be present at faculty meetings, but also to schedule the
meetings, establish the agenda and function as the meeting
chairman. In both item 38 and item 39, the pastors assign a
lesser amount of authority/responsibility to the principal,

but that is only relative to the other two groups. The mean

scores for the pastors in items 38 and 39 still indicate they

232
perceive the principal as having a major authority/
responsibility in this area. Differences do exist in the per-
ceptions of the three groups, but the differences are not

large enough to be deemed statistically significant.

In general, it is important to recognize that the
principals do not always assign themselves more authority/
responsibility than do the other two groups assign the prin-
cipal. It would probably be expected that the principal
would rate himself high in authority/responsibility, but this
is not the case. Regarding the groups' perceptions of the
principal, trends are not as apparent as they were regarding
the pastor's authority/responsibility. This would indicate
that confusion exists relative to the position of the prin-

cipal.

The analysis continued by reorganizing the data and
viewing them in a different manner. The data were now ar-
rayed so as to observe the numerical differences in the mean

scores. Following are the findings relative to this.
Pastors' Perceptions of Pastor and Principal.

When considering how the pastors view their own po-
sition as well as the position of principal, Table 102, page
211, indicates pastors consistently assign more authority/
responsibility to the position of principal than do the pas-
tors assign their own position. The pastors perceive the

principal as having more authority/responsibility in all

233

identified facets of the school operation.
Principals' Perceptions of Pastor and Principal

Table 103, page 211, contains the mean scores repre-
senting the principals' perceptions of the position of pastor
and of the position of principal. It is evident that the
principals feel their position requires more authority/
responsibility than does the position of pastor. There is no
instance of the principal assigning more authority/
responsibility to the pastor than does he assign to his own

position.
Teachers' Perceptions of Pastor and Principal

Table 104, page 213, reveals the mean scores for the
teachers' perceptions of the pastor and the principal. As in
the pastors' and the principals"perceptions, the teachers
agree that the principal should have more authority/
responsibility in any area of the school operation being con-

sidered.
Comparing Differences

Table 105, page 213, lists the differences found in
Tables 102, 103 and 104. The similarities in group percep-
tions become immediately apparent. An example can be found
in category II, Supervision - Teachers. In the earlier dis-
cussions, it was indicated that in this particular category

no trend seemed to exist among the three groups. However, in

this category the differences in the perceptions of each of

234
the three groups are extremely similar, with the principal
being 3.18, teachers being 3.30 and the pastors being 3.85.
Not all of the differences are that similar, but none of the
differences is extreme.

Table 106, page 214, demonstrates the differences in
perceptions between the pastors' view of the pastor and the
principals' view of the pastor. The differences are all rel-
atively small, as no difference exceeds .91. However, in the
table it is also illustrated that principals tend to assign
more authority/responsibility to the pastor than do the pas-
tors assign themselves. This was an unanticipated finding
and defies explanation when it is realized how often princi-
pals have expressed the opinion that the pastor usurps too
much authority/responsibility in school operation.

Table 107, page 214, compares the pastors' and the
principals' perceptions of a principal's authority/
responsibility. This table illustrates the same unanticipa-
ted finding considered above. In six of the seven instances,
the pastors assigned more authority/responsibility to the
principal than did the principals assign themselves. This
seems to indicate that pastors wish that principals would
'assume more authority/responsibility in the school, but the
principals do not perceive that they have more authority/

responsibility, or that they are even entitled to more.
Hierarchies of Authority

In consideration of the hierarchies, it is seen from

Tables 108 and 109, page 217, that little agreement exists

235

regarding the ideal hierarchy of authority, or the perceived
real hierarchy of authority Operating in the schools of the
Michigan District. Concerning the hierarchy most often se-
lected, all groups tend to agree that the principal is not
directly responsible to the pastor nor is he underneath the
pastor in the hierarchy. The pastor's position is seen more
as an advisory position than as a supervisory position.

However, it must also be recognized that relatively
sizeable percentages in all groups also felt the pastor has
a higher position in the hierarchy.

It could easily be understood that little agreement
would exist relative to the perceived real hierarchy oper-
ating in the schools of the Michigan District. However, the
realization that little agreement also exists on the per-
ceived ideal hierarchy of authority indicates a high level of
confusion about what the hierarchy of authority ought to be.
The root of the disagreement between pastors'and principals

would seemingly lie here.

Conclusions

 

This investigation was designed to permit conclu-
sions to be drawn as to the authority/responsibility the pas-
tor and the principal each has in the operation of a Lutheran
elementary school as perceived by pastors, principals and
teachers. The study was also designed to permit conclusions
to be drawn regarding the perceived real and ideal hierar-

chies of authority for a Lutheran elementary school. The

236
following conclusions can be posited based on the researcher's
findings from this study.

1. A variety of responsibilities and duties have
been identified as being inherent to the position of prin-
cipal. Concerning the principal's role relative to the
supervision of teachers and the supervision of students, the
findings of this study would suggest that clarity needs to be
brought to this area. The findings for these two sections
demonstrate a lack of consensus. It is acknowledged that
statistically significant differences do not exist, yet there
is no evident trend supporting consensus, either. The re-
sponses of all three groups in these two areas seem to be
dependent upon the nature of the statement.

2. Time needs to be provided the principal so that
he can become more active in the administration of the school.
If the principal must teach a full class load as well as
administer the school, he is not free to perform his super-
visory tasks. If he does not assume the role designed for
him, it is evident that few people would ascribe the role to
him. Observers and participants in the school must see the
principal in the execution of his administrative duties be-
fore they will really understand what a principal does in a
school as well as ascribe the principal his proper role.

3. Statistically, congruence seems to exist in the
perceptions of the pastor's authority/responsibility and the
principal's authority/responsibility in school operation.
This can be concluded from the fact that of all the null

hypotheses which were tested, only one instance was found of

237
a significant difference. This would tend to refute the
sweeping statements many have made relative to their per-
ceptions of a lack of congruence regarding the role of pas-
tor and principal in school operation. The researcher
acknowledges that this also is a sweeping statement, but this
is borne out in the findings of this study.

4. The pastors feel the principal ought to have an
active role in the administration of the school. In every
identified facet of the school operation, the pastors as-
signed more authority/responsibility to the principal than
did the pastors assign to the pastor.

The principals indicated the pastor ought to have an
active role in the administration of the school. In general,
the principal accorded more pastoral involvement than did
the pastors accord their own position.

The foregoing two findings would illustrate that both
groups--pastors and principals--want the other to be more
active. If each is going to be more active, the level of
coordination between the two must improve. The data through-
out this research--but especially in the category of the
supervision of teachers-~tend to illustrate a trend toward a
lack of consensus relative to the role of the other position.

Where such misperceptions occur, people will tend to
lay back and not assume responsibility. They will be uncer-
tain of themselves and will feel the other should assume more
of the control. If no one assumes control, problems and con-

flict will increase. As conflict and problems increase due

to this misperception, communication is likely to decrease

238
which will only exacerbate the misperceptions.

5. Relative to the foregoing, the converse may also
be true. If the pastor and the principal cannot concur on
the rules of the organization, the likelihood of conflict
may also be increased because each individual will perceive
he has more freedom to operate as he sees fit. If each per-
son is operating on his own initiative within an organization
which requires a considerable amount of coordinated activity,
the organization must suffer as will the workers of the
organization.

6. The confusion concerning the principal's role in
the school damages his credibility as the congregation's
educational leader. A number of the principals in this pop-
ulation did have graduate training in school administration.
Knowledge of this fact would boost the credibility of the
principal in the eyes of the congregation members. However,
many of the principals did not have any formalized training
in school administration. The experience factor is impor-
tant in school administration, but so also is formalized in-
struction and preparation.

7. Any congregation which supports a school will
have two highly trained individuals-~the pastor and the
principal--in its midst to function as its leaders. The pas-
tors have extensive theological training; the principals have
training as a teacher. The congregation also has groups of
lay voters holding various responsibilities within the au-
thority hierarchy of the congregation. The three groups--

pastors, principals and teachers--demonstrated very little

239
agreement as to the hierarchy of authority involving the
pastors, principals and laygroups. Such misperception can
increase tension within the levels of the hierarchy as in—
dividuals will be uncertain as to which party to approach
initially, relative to school matters. The individuals with-
in the hierarchy may perceive people approaching the "wrong"
members of the hierarchy, thus violating the individual's

perception of the hierarchy.

Recommendations

 

The following recommendations can be posited based
on the researcher's findings and conclusions from this study.

1. The results of this study should be made avail-
able to all pastors, principals and teachers of the Wisconsin
Synod, as well as to the lay members of the Synod. The
findings can be used to indicate areas where the possibility
of conflict exists. With the identification of such areas,
efforts can be made to alleviate the differences, thus cre-
ating a more harmonious working environment within a school.
This study should not be put out of sight on a shelf, but
rather be readily available to provide direction for future
research.

2. Attempts should be made to upgrade the principals'
credibility as their congregation's educational leader. Upon
graduation from the Synodical teacher-training institution,
an individual has very little formalized training in educa—
tional administration. Yet, many graduates assume principal-

ships immediately. It is acknowledged that the experience

240
factor is important in administration, but so also is for“
malized instruction and preparation. Inservice training for
current principals could also be more actively supported by
the Wisconsin Synod so as to keep principals apprised of some
of the myriad of areas concerned with educational adminis-
tration.

3. Congregations should be encouraged to provide re-
lease time for teaching principals so as to allow them to
carry on their various administrative tasks. Currently it is
difficult for principals to complete necessary paperwork,
supervise the instruction of other teachers, and perform the
numerous tasks which accrue to the office of principal.

Such support would demonstrate the importance of the princi-
palship in the operation of a school.

4. The Wisconsin Synod should take an active lead in
defining the positions of pastor and principal. Tables 108
and 109 clearly demonstrate a lack of consensus as to the
positions of pastor and principal. It is acknowledged that
any given situation has its own idiosyncracies, but this has
been used for all too long as a seeming excuse preventing
more active attempts at role definition.

5. The context of pastoral and principal involvement
in school operation should now'be examined in the light of
the revealed trends. Only one statistically significant dif-
ference occurred, but many trends were realized and these
should be considered. Some of the following recommendations

are in support of this.

241

6. The Wisconsin Synod, its officials and its
workers should be committed to more thorough research, think-
ing and open discussion of this area. It has been indicated
that very little has been written on this general topic.

Much of what has been written has been based on thoughtful,
but yet unsubstantiated, opinion. Although well-intentioned,
work of such a nature to the exclusion of factually supported
writing merits little for the improvement of knowledge in the
area.

7. Further study should be done in the area of
authority/responsibility for curriculum. The only statis-
tically significant difference found in examining the null
hypotheses occurred in the curriculum facet of this study.
Mere research Should also stress the teachers' involvement
in curriculum development, as they and the pastors were in-
volved in the statistically significant difference found in
this area.

8. Further study should be done in the area of
authority/responsibility of pastors and principals for the
supervision of teachers. In neither instance where this re-
search addressed this topic did any trends or significant
differences emerge. The responses were seemingly dependent
upon the content of the specific statement. More research
might bring more definition to the area.

9. A study of the attitudes of principals and
teachers toward scheduling might alleviate an area of poten-
tial conflict as the attitudes expressed by these two groups,

although not statistically significant, did reveal differences.

242

10. Through the findings of this study the need is
articulated for further study in the organizational structure
for Synod elementary schools. Little agreement seems to
exist concerning the organizational structure. More consen-
sus in this matter might alleviate a definite source of
future conflict. 1

11. The researcher did not consider the perceptions
of the parish school boards, church councils or the lay
membership. A study should be done to gain information on
the perceptions of these three groups relative to the
authority/responsibility of pastors and principals in an
elementary school.

12. The same topic which was approached by this re-
searcher could be considered by way of a field study or case
study. On-site observations and general discussions may be
able to cut more directly to the perceptions of all con-

cerned in this area.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO DISTRICT PRESIDENTS
REQUESTING NAMES OF VETERAN
PASTORS AND PRINCIPALS

243

February 12, 1977
2530 Second Street
Westland, MI 48185

Dear :

I am a graduate of Dr. Martin Luther College, and
currently a teacher at Huron Valley Lutheran High School,
Wayne, Michigan. I am also a doctoral candidate in educa-
tional administration at Michigan State University. It is
in connection with my doctoral studies that I am contacting
you for assistance.

In accordance with the requirements for my degree, I
am conducting an original research project. My project
concerns the general area of pastor-principal relations
in the administration of a Lutheran elementary school. To
assist me in gaining insight and ideas from the experiences
of veteran church workers, I would ask your help in pro-
viding me with the names and addresses of at least five
(5) veteran pastors serving a congregation with a school,
and at least five (5) veteran principals who may be
presently working in or retired from your district. I
am seeking to correspond with individuals who have been
in one particular district or area of the country for many
years, because they may be able to recall conference papers
dealing with my area. For my purposes, I would define
veteran as twenty-five (25) years or more of service.

I would also request the names and addresses of the
following:

1) The current president of any teachers' conferences
to which teachers of your district may belong:

2) The current secretary of the above.

Please use the enclosed envelope for your reply which
I am anxiously awaiting. Your assistance is highly bene-
ficial to my study and greatly appreciated. Thank you for
your time and consideration.

In His service,

A. Frederick Nell

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO INDIVIDUALS
REQUESTING THEIR CRITIQUE
OF THE OPINIONNAIRE

244

June 8, 1977
2530 Second Street
Westland, MI 48185

Dear

 

I am a teacher at Huron Valley Lutheran High School,
Wayne, Michigan, and also a doctoral candidate at Michigan
State University. It is in connection with my doctoral
studies that I am contacting you. I am in the midst of
preparing my thesis on the topic of pastor-principal
relationships in the operation of a Lutheran elementary
school. To generate data by which to statistically
analyze the situation, I have developed the enclosed
opinionnaire.

From your district president I requested a list of
"veteran" pastors and principals serving congregations with
schools. My definition of "veteran" was twenty-five years
or more of experience in the respective capacity. I am
seeking the wisdom of experience to help me refine my
opinionnaire. Your name was randomly chosen from that list.

My request of you is to take some time from your busy
schedule to critique the enclosed opinionnaire. I would
like information concerning the following types of questions:

1) Are the directions and statements well-stated;
or are they unclear?

2) Have I omitted important areas of concern in the
operation of a Lutheran elementary school?

3) Are there questions being asked which should not
be asked?

4) Etc.

Please use the enclosed envelope to return your
criticism of the opinionnaire. Feel free to make your
comments on the instrument itself as well as adding any
general impressions or comments you may have. I am not
seeking responses to the opinionnaire, only your criticism
of it. Please, feel free to "tear it apart" if you think
necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

A. Frederick Nell

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER TO PRINCIPALS OF
SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN FIELD TEST

245

August 22, 1977
2530 Second Street
Westland, MI 48185

Dear :

Thanks to you, your pastor, and board of education
for allowing me to administer my Opinionnaire. Enclosed
please find an opinionnaire and return envelope for your-
self, the pastor, and each staff member. When passing
out the instrument, please stress the following:

1) This is to be anonymous; no names, please.
2) Since there are no "right" answers, respondents
should feel free to respond in accordance
with the way they actually perceive the situation.
3) It is important that ALL respond, and as soon
as they are able.

In our phone coversation I had indicated the possi-
bility of a dual administration, with one month between
each testing. This will NOT be done as my advisor feels
one administration will be sufficient. If you are inter-
ested in a summary of the results of this field-test,
please indicate this either on your opinionnaire or in
a separate mailing. If you desire a summary I cannot
guarantee when I will be able to get it to you, but you
will receive it. Also, due to the small sample size,
the validity of the results is suspect.

I cannot overstate the importance of this field-test.
Complete participation is virtually a necessity. Your
c00peration and that of your staff and pastor is much
appreciated.

I trust this finds all well with you. The Lord's
blessings on your endeavors this year.

Sincerely,

A. Frederick Nell

APPENDIX D

LIST OF SCHOOLS
PARTICIPATING IN FIELD TEST

246

The following schools participated in the field test
conducted August-September, 1977.

Bethany Lutheran School
Manitowoc, Wisconsin

Immanuel Lutheran School
Kewaunee, Wisconsin

Mt. Calvary Lutheran School
LaCrosse, Wisconsin

Our Savior Lutheran School
Jacksonville, Florida

St. John's Lutheran School
Lannon, Wisconsin

Trinity Lutheran School
Crete, Illinois

APPENDIX E

OPINIONNAIRE

@ withigan State liniurrsitg

Gnflrgruffinnutnn

Ikpenmunuot A.FhuhnfidfiNen
Adnuakunuaa-nd zquSggl“|Su‘ml

‘FemhmIRIHI-HHBS

October 1977

Dear member of the Michigan District:

A study is presently being conducted in our District concerning the authority and
responsibility the pastor and principal each hes in the operation of a Lutheran
elementary school. The enclosed opinionnaire is intended to generate data rela-
tive to this topic. I am requesting each of you to participate in this study

by completing the instrument and returning it as soon as possible. The purpose
of this study is two-fold: One. to address an area or concern to our Synod: and
tub. to complete the requirements for a Ph.D. from Michigan State University.

This study is being conducted with the knowledge. approval. and consent of
Pastor Valdemar J. Zarling, President or the Michigan District: Mr. Donald
Zimmerman. Executive Secretary-Doard for Parish Education. Milwaukee: and
Pastor Floyd Hattek. Chairman of the District Board for Parish Education.
Pastor Mattek endorses the study with the following:

As Chairmen of the District board for Parish Education, I acknowledge
our couplets endorsement of the study being proposed by Mr. A. Frederick
Well. In order to accomplish his task, he will need the cooperation of
all in completing the attached questionnaire. I would encourege your

participation in this study.
(6614 C'X. 77/2/42

For the study to be successful and the results to have validity, I need fig;
to respond. The contents of each opinionnaire will be held in strictest
confidence and your anonymity preserved. I am interested only in GROUP
perceptions. Therefore. the data will be collapsed and grouped without any
individual perceptions being revealed. Schools in Florida, Illinois, and
Wisconsin participated in a field test of the instrument and they indicated
an average completion time of fifteen (15) minutes. Please set aside fifteen
minutes to help make this study a success.

A. Frederick Nell

PLEASE CHECK (v’) THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN T0 INDICATE THE DEGREE 0F AUTHORITY/
RESPONSIFIUTY THE PASTOR AND THE PRINCIPAL EACH HAS IN THE Fouowme SITUATIONS
IN YOUR SCHOOL. There is no need to attempt to account fully for authority/
responsibility, or to make your responses balance. For example, if the principal
is checked as having minor authority/responsibility in a given situation. it is
not automatic that the pastor has major authority/responsibility. Whatever the
unaccounted degree of authority/responsibility. it will be assumed this missing
amount rests with some party not named (e.g. school board. teachers, etc.). It
may also be your perception that neither pastor nor principal has any authority/
responsibility in a given situation. It will then be assumed that the complete
authority/responsibility rests with some other party.

Following are the abbreviations used in the columns.

EX . EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
MA - MAJOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
SH - SHARED AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
NI - MINOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
NO - NO AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

FOR EACH ITEM. BE SURE TO CHECK A RESPONSE FOR BOTH THE PASTOR ANQ_THE PRINCIPAL.

PASTOR SITUATIONS PRINCIPAL
EX MA SH NI NO CURRICULUM EX NA SH NI NO

1. Determining the sequence of instruction for
RELIGIOUS subject matter.
2. Determining the materials for instruction
of RELIGIOUS subject matter.
3. Determining the sequence of instruction for
SECULAR subject matter.
_____ 4. Determining the materials for instruction __ __ _ _ _

of §§§E§§§.subject matter.
5. Leading a curriculum study in a secular subject. _____

SUPERVISION - TEACHERS

6. Before extending a Cell. defining the areas of
responsibility for the new teacher.

7. Recommendation to the congregation concerning
the teacher to whom.the Call is extended (e.g.
suggest names, abilities. characteristics. etc.) .

a. Teacher evaluation through classrooIIohserva-
tion and regular conference.

9. Inservice training - provisions for improve-
ment of teacher ability.

10. Maintenance and enforcement of congregational
standards of conduct.

11. Maintenance and enforcement of professional
standards of conduct.

EX - EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
HA - MAJOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

SH - SHARED AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

NI - MINOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

NO - N0 AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

FOR EACH ITEM. BE SURE TO CHECK A RESPONSE FOR BOTH THE PASTOR ANQ_THE PRINCIPAL.

EX HA SH NI NO

SUPERVISION - STUDENTS EX MA SH NI NO
12. Establishing policies for admission.

13. Assigning entering students to grade levels. ‘

l4. Detenining policies for grading and reporting
student progress.

15. Establishing codes or student conduct and
dress.

16. Establishing graduation requirements.

l7. Maintaining student records (e.g. what records
should be kept: methods of recording. etc.).

DEALING HITH STUDENT OFFENSES

ls. Disciplining a misbehaving student (e.g.
stealing. excessive verbal or physical abuse).

19. Disciplining repeat ottenders where the need mey‘__
arise to take the problen to the next level or
authority (e.g. repeated stealing. repeated bad
language. repeated fighting. etc.) .

20. Handling individual classroom.problems when the
trouble goes beyond the control or the classroos
teacher and requires the involvement of another
party.

21. Disciplining repeat offenders in the situation _____
identitied in no. gg.above (e.g. discipline invoked
in no. gg.is insutticient and the next level of
discipline is required).

22. Deciding to suspend a student.

23. Deciding to expel a student.

SUPERVISION OF THE NON-TEACHING STAFF
(in the school)

24. Determination of the personnel needed to
etfectively operate the school (e.g. secretaries.
custodians. etc.).

25. Development or job descriptions for the non-
teaching start.

26. Direct supervision or the secretary in routine
and special assignments.

27. Direct supervision of the custodian in routine
and special assignments.

EX - EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY
MA - MAJOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

SH - SHARED AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

HI - MINOR AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

NO - NO AUTHORITY/RESPONSIBILITY

FOR EACH ITEM. BE SURE TO CHECK A RESPONSE FOR BOTH THE PASTOR ANQ.THE PRINCIPAL.
EX MA SH NI NO FISCAL AFFAIRS EX HA SH MI NO

28. Recommendations regarding the total annual
financial need of the school.

29. Determination of actual quipent and supply
needs of the school in comparison to items which
might be considered "luxury“.

30. Allocation of monies among items within the
total school budget.

31. Reconnendation of salary schedule for teaching
staff.

32. Reconendation of salary schedule for the
nonvteaching staff.

33. Selection of supplementary instructional
materials and equipent (e.g. projectors.
audio—visuals. etc.).

34. Selection of non-instructional equipment and
supplies (e.g. desks. playground. custodial. etc.).

SCHEDULING

3S. Determining the calendar for the school year.

36. Determing the daily schedule.

37. Scheduling special events (e.g. field trips.
athletic contests. etc.) .

38. Determining the frequency and dates of faculty
meetings.

39. Setting the agenda and leading the faculty
meetings.

Below are five possible hierarchies for identifying the structure of authority and
responsibility in a Lutheran elementary school.

(The diagrsl shows authority and responsibility flowing downward.)

A. CONGREGATION B. CONGREGATION C. CONGREGATION
COUNCIL COUNCIL PASTOR
PASTOR SCHOOL BOARD COUNCIL
SCHOOL BOARD PASTOR SCHOOL BOARD
PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL
D. PASTOR E. CONGREGATION F. OTHER
(Please structure your own
hierarchy if other than
CONGREGATION COUNCIL those listed.)
COUNCIL SCHOOL BOARD
1’ (Pastor advisory
member)
SCHOOL BOARD ~L
PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL

40. Please place here the letter of the hierarchy which you would
think to be IDEAL for a Lutheran elementary school. The IDEAL is not

necessarily what the situation is. but rather what you think it should be.

41. Please place here

the letter of the hierarchy which exists
in your school.

This is not what you think it should be. but rather is

what you perceive the situation to actually be.

 

Please complete the following:
1. Total number of years served as PASTOR PRINCIPAL TEACHER
2. 3y PRESENT POSITION and number of years in the present position are

PASTOI PRINCIPAL TEACHER

 

 

3. Enrollment in our school this fall is

 

4. PASTORS ONLY I have served as pastor in one or more congregations with
schools before being called to my present position.

223 NO

 

 

If yes. how many?

 

S. PRINCIPALS ONLY The extent of academic preparation

a. Please list all earned degrees

b. Have you graduate work. but not a degree in school administration?

c. Have you a graduate degree in school administration?

As indicated in the cover letter. your responses will be held in strictest
confidence and your anonymity preserved. But. to attain maximum response. follow-
up techniques will be used to encourage nonprespohdents. To save a second mailing
of almost 200 letters. or a like number of phone calls. would you please sign
below. If you prefer not to sign. this is your privilege. Whichever you decide,
thank you for your time and consideration. Results will be sent to all parti-
cipants as soon as they are available.

Sign here. please
THANK YOU!

 

APPENDIX F

LIST OF SCHOOLS
PARTICIPATING IN STUDY

253

The following schools were invited to participate in

the study.

Bethel Lutheran School
Bay City, Michigan

Christ Lutheran School
Saginaw, Michigan

Emanuel Lutheran School
Flint, Michigan

Emanuel Lutheran School
Tawas City, Michigan

Emanuel-Redeemer Lutheran School
Yale, Michigan

Grace Lutheran School
Durand, Michigan

Grace Lutheran School
Eau Claire, Michigan

Grace Lutheran School
Falls Church, Virginia

Grace Lutheran School
Muskegon, Michigan

Grace Lutheran School
St. Joseph, Michigan

Good Shepherd Lutheran School
Burton, Michigan

Holy Trinity Lutheran School
Wyoming, Michigan

Memorial Lutheran School
Williamston, Michigan

Messiah Lutheran School
South Windsor, Connecticut

Mt. Olive Lutheran School
Bay City, Michigan

 

254

New Salem Lutheran School
Sebewaing, Michigan

Peach Lutheran School
Livonia, Michigan

Redeemer Lutheran School
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Salem Lutheran School
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Salem Lutheran School
Owosso, Michigan

St. Bartholomew Lutheran School
Kawkawlin, Michigan

St. John's Lutheran School
Bay City, Michigan

St. John's Lutheran School
Pigeon, Michigan

St. John's Lutheran School
Westland, Michigan

St. Matthew's Lutheran School
Benton Harbor, Michigan

St. Paul's Lutheran School
Columbus, Ohio

St. Paul's Lutheran School
Livonia, Michigan

St. Paul's Lutheran School
Saginaw, Michigan

St. Paul's Lutheran School
Sodus, Michigan

St. Paul's Lutheran School
South Haven, Michigan

St. Paul's Lutheran School
Stevensville, Michigan

St. Peter's Lutheran School
Plymouth, Michigan

St. Peter-St. Paul Lutheran School
Hopkins, Michigan

255
St. Stephen's Lutheran School
Adrian, Michigan

Trinity Lutheran School
Bay City, Michigan

Trinity Lutheran School
Jenera, Ohio

Zion Lutheran School
Monroe, Michigan

Zion Lutheran School
Toledo, Ohio

APPENDIX G

RESPONDENT STRUCTURED HIERARCHIES OF AUTHORITY
REPRESENTING THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE IDEAL
HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY FOR
LUTHERAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

256

RESPONDENT STRUCTURED HIERARCHIES OF AUTHORITY
REPRESENTING THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE IDEAL
HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY FOR
LUTHERAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Pastor #1
J:—— Congregation-———:L
Church Council School Board
(Pastor Advisory)
I v
Pastor Principal
Pastor #2

Congregation
School Board

xix

Pastor
(Superintendent)

~J/

Principal

257
Principal #l

Congregation

Council

\1/

JSChOOl Board-1’

Pastor <§é> Principal

Principal #2
Congregation*

Council
x)

School Board
(Pastor Advisory
Member)

\J/

Principal

Principal #3

Congregation

\l’

Council

4'

School Board
(Pastor & Principal
Advisory Members)

\I/

Principals

*2 Members of School
Board elected
directly by cong.;
2 members of S. B.
from council.

258

Teacher #1
Congregation

Council

\1/

School Ed.

I

Pastor - Principal

Teacher #2
Principal
Pastor

School Board

I

Council

x)

Congregation

Teacher #3

Congregation

\1/

Council

4’

Pastor

~11

Principalx‘

J,

School Board

259
Teacher #4

Congregation

v

Council

v

School Board

(Pastor Advisory Member)

I

Principal

Teacher #5

Congrejation <9————]

Council <$——— Pastor*

Schoollfoard <$-—-—J

Principal

Teacher #6

J:_.Congregation:L

School Bd. Council

I \1/

Principal Pastor

L. mail... ..I

Students

*The pastor advises,

directs, and is
responsible in all
three areas; how-
ever, he is not a
fixed point in the
chain of command.
Rather, he steps
in as needed.

APPENDIX H

RESPONDENT STRUCTURED HIERARCHIES OF AUTHORITY
REPRESENTING THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE REAL
HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY OPERATING
IN THEIR SCHOOL

260

RESPONDENT STRUCTURED HIERARCHIES OF AUTHORITY
REPRESENTING THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE REAL
HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITY OPERATING
IN THEIR SCHOOL

Pastor #l

Congregations

v

Joint School Board
(Chaired by Pastor)

v

Principal

Pastor #2

Congregation

I

School Board

v

Pastor
(Superintendent)

v

Principal

261

Principal #l
Congregation*
Council

School Board
(Pastor Advisory
Member)

v

Principal

Principal #2

Congregation

I

Council

v

School Board
(Pastor & Principal
AdviSory Members)

v

Principal

Teacher #1

Congregation

v

Council

W

School Ed.

I

Pastor

*2 Members of School
Board elected
directly by cong.;
2 members of S. B.
from council.

Principal

262

Teacher #2

Congregation

v

Council

v

School Board
(Pastor Advisory
Member)

v

Principal

Teacher #3

Congregation é

Council.<}___Pastor*

School Board E I

v

Principal

Teacher #4

\£ Congregation {ll
School Bd. Council
Principal Pastor

\1/

Students

*The pastor advises,
directs, and is
responsible in all
three areas; how-.
ever, he is not a
fixed point in the
chain of command.
Rather, he steps in
as needed.

263

Teacher #5

Pastor

v

Principal

\l/

Council

I

School Board

v

Congregation

Teacher #6

Pastor

\J/

Cong.

I

Council

v

Prin.

I

School Bd.

Teacher #7

Congregation

I

Council (Pastor Adv.)

v

School Board (Pastor Adv.)

v

Principal

264

Teacher #8

Pastor

v

Congregation

v

Council

v

Principal

v

School Board

Teacher #9
Cong

Board of Ed
Council
Pastor

v

Principal

Teacher #10

Pastor

\l'

Principal

v

Council

A

School Board

v

Congregation

265

Teacher #11

Pastor

v

Vicar

v

Congregation

v

Council

A

Board

v

Principal

v

Staff

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. PRIMARY MATERIALS
A. Books

Bidwell, Charles E. "The School as a Formal Organization."
In Handbook of Organizations, pp. 972-1022. Edited
by James G. March. Chicago: Rand McNally College
Publishing Company, 1965.

 

Boles, Harold W. and Davenport, James A. Introduction to
Educational Leadership. New York: Harper and Row,
1975.

 

 

Cartwright, Dorwin. "Influence, Leadership, Control."
In Handbook of Organizations. pp. 1-47. Edited by
James G. March. ChICago: Rand McNally College
Publishing Company, 1965.

 

Drucker, Peter. The Practice of Management. New York:
Harper, 1954.

 

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

 

Glass, Gene V. and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical
Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood
CIiffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.

 

 

Hall, Richard H. Organizatigns: Strgcture and Process
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1972.

 

Knezevich, Stephen J. Administration of Public Education.
New York: Harper and Row, PubliShers, 1969.

 

Laetsch, Theodore, ed. The Abiding Word, Vol. 2.
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947.

 

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961.

 

March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958.

 

266

267

Massie, Joseph L. "Management Theory." In Handbook of
Organizations, pp. 387-422. Edited by James G.
March. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company, 1965.

 

Maurer, Charles Lewis, ed. Early Lutheran Education in
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Dorrance and Company,
Inc., 1932.

 

Mueller, Arnold C. The Ministry of the Lutheran Teacher:
A Study to Determifie the Position of the Lutheranj
Parish School Teacher Within the Public Ministry of
the Church. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
IP64.

 

Mueller, John T. Christian Dogmatigs. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1955.

 

Owens, Robert G. Organizational Behavior in Schools.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1970.

Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory." In Handbook of
Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 223-258. Edited
by Gardner Lindzey. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley, 1959.

 

 

Schmidt, Stephen A. Powerless Pedagogues. River Forest,
Illinois: Lutheran Education Association, 1972.

 

Schuetze, Armin W. and Habeck, Irwin J. The Shepherd
Under Christ. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern
Publishing House, 1974.

 

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. and Carver, Fred D. The New
School Executive: A Theory of Administration.
New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

Stellhorn, A. C. Schools of the Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

Taylor, Fredrick W. The Principlesof Scientific Manage-
ment. New York: Harper, 1947.

Tosi, Henry L. and Carroll, Stephen J. Management:
Contin encies, Structure. and Process. Chicago:
St. Clair Press, 1976.

 

 

Walpole, Ronald E. Introduction to Statistics. New York:
MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1974.

 

268

B. Periodicals

Beck, E. M. and Betz, M. "Comparative Analysis of
Organizational Conflict in Schools," Sociology
of Education 48 (Winter 1975): 59-74.

 

 

Carroll, Archie B. "Role Conflict in Academic Organiza-
tions: An Exploratory Examination of the Department
Chairman's Experience." Educational Administration
Quarterly 10 (Spring 1974): 51-64.

 

 

Estes, Nolan. "Concept of Shared Power," National
Association'of Secondary School Principals Bulletin
55 (May 1971): 69-75.

 

 

 

Getzels, J. W. and Guba, E. G. "Role, Role Conflict and
Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American
Sociological Review 19 (April 1954): 164-175.

 

Magid, Alvin. "Dimensions of Administrative Role and
Conflict Resolution Among Local Officials in
Northern Nigeria," Administrative Science Quarterly
12 (September 1967): 321-338.

 

Mueller, A. C. "For or Against Ordination: A Reaction,"
Lutheran Education 104 (September 1968): 17-23.

 

Osing, Richard A. "The Case For Ordination," Lutheran
Education 103 (March 1968): 344-350.

 

 

Pharis, William L. "Evolution of the Elementary School
Principal," The National Elementary Principal 52
(January 1973): 73.

 

Pondy, Louis R. "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and
Models," Administrative Science Quarterly 12
(September 1967): 296-320.

 

Sauer, Richard P.; Rosenberg, Don; and Toven, David O.
"The Changing Status of the Lutheran Teacher,"
Lutheran Education 103 (January 1968): 225-234.

Shull, Fremont A., Jr. "Professional Stress as a Variable
in Structuring Faculty Roles," Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly 8 (Autumn 1972): 49-66.

 

 

C. Bulletins

Keuer, Edward J. "The Lutheran Elementary Principal,"
Board for Parish Education Bulletin #303, (rev.)
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.
#1788.

 

269

Kohn, W. C. "Christian Day Schools of the Lutheran
Church." In Educational Work of the Churches in
1916-1918. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Education, Bulletin, 1919, No. 10. Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1919.

 

 

Kramer, William A. "The Ethics of the Lutheran Teacher,"
Board for Parish Education Bulletin, No. 109,
(rev.), St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

 

. "Lutheran Schools," Board for Parish Education
Bulletin, No. 301 (rev.), St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1961.

 

 

 

Senske, A1. H. "Ordination of Teachers: Anti-Scriptural?"
Board for Parish Education Bulletin, No. 331-332
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975.

D. Unpublished Works

Free, Gerald. "The Pastor's Role in Regard to the Christian
Day School." (Typewritten)

"General Statement: Duties of the Principal." Stellhorn
Papers, Box 47, folder 1, Concordia Historical
Institute. (Typewritten)

Homann, W. E.; Nitschke, Walter; and Meyer, W. H. "Prelimi-
nary Report of Committee on Status of Parochial
School Teacher." Stellhorn Papers, Box 34, folder 15,
Concordia Historical Institute. (Typewritten)

Kirchhoff, W. James. "A Comparison of Teacher Perceptions
of the Leader Behavior of Principals in Operating
Lutheran Elementary Schools with Principals in
Recently Closed Lutheran Elementary Schools."

Ed. D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University,
1976.

Kramer, William A. "Increasing the Lutheran Elementary
School Principal's Effectiveness." Used for
discussion at Regional Education Conferences of
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, 1964. William
A. Kramer Papers, Box 1, Concordia Historical
Institute. (Typewritten)

. "The Lutheran Teacher as an Educational Leader."
Essay delivered to Southern Nebraska District Teachers'
Conference, 14 September 1960, Concordia Historical
Institute. (Typewritten)

270

Kretzmann, Paul E. "Church Government and Church Offices
in a Lutheran Congregation." Translation of Doctrinal
Essay read before meeting of South Dakota District,
1928, Concordia Historical Institute. (Typewritten)

Krueger, William. “The Basis for a Properly Balanced
Relationship between Pastors and Teachers."
(Typewritten)

Lassanske, Roland R. "A Comparative Study of the Ideal
Role and the Actual Role of the Lutheran Elementary
Principal in Southern California." Ph. D. disserta-
tion, Claremont Graduate School, 1970. '

Schultz, Erhardt. "The Teacher's Divine Call--Its Limitations
and/or Scope." Paper delivered to Michigan District
Teachers' Conference, St. Joseph, Michigan, 11 October

1973. (Typewritten)
Stellhorn, A. C. "The Lutheran Teacher"s Position in the
Ministry of the Congregation." Paper to Educational

Conference, Seward, Nebraska, 7-8 July 1949.
Stellhorn Papers, Box 46, folder 4, Concordia
Historical Institute. (Typewritten)

E. Letters

Letter from Msgr. Francis X. Barrett, Executive Diredtor,
Department of Chief Administrators, National Catholic
Educational Association, Washington D.C., 25 February
1977.

Letter from Henry Krenz, New Ulm, Minnesota, 13 June 1977.
Letter from Bernard Lall, Professor of Educational Administra—
tion, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan,
15 February 1977.

Letter from Arthur J. Meier, em., Phoenix, Arizona,
19 July 1977.

Stellhorn, A. C. letter to Victor Cronk, LaGrange, Illinois,
17 June 1930. Stellhorn Papers, Box 2, file 24, #1064,
Concordia Historical Institute.

F. Miscellaneous

Handbook for Local Boards of Christian Education St. Louis:
Board for Parish Education, n.d.

 

Merkens, Albert G. "The Policies of theEvangelical Lutheran
Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States with regard to
Elementary Education by_Means of Christian Day-Schools."
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1935.

271

Schmidt, Martin. "Kirche und Schule, Pfarrer und Lehrer."
(Church-and School, Pastor and Teacher) Translator
unknown, Berlin, 21 May 1949. Stellhorn Papers,
Box 46, folder 4, Concordia Historical Institute.

Stellhorn, A. C. Lutheran Schools. A Manual of Information
on the Schools of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod,
#978, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, n.d.

 

II. SECONDARY MATERIALS
A. Books

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard, 1938.

 

A Century of Lutheran Schools in America. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, n.d.

 

Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967.

 

Kraushaar, Otto F. American Non-Public Schools: Patterns
of Diversipy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press, 1972.

 

 

Kretzmann, Paul E. .A Brief History of Education. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, n.d.

 

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

 

B. Periodicals

Afton, A. "Perceptions of the Principal's Role," National
Association of SecondarySchool Principals Bulletin
58 (September 1974): 71-75.

 

 

Brauer, E. F. "The Pastor's Role in Strengthening the Congre-
gation's Program for Christian Growth--Particular1y
Through the Day School," Parish Education Bulletin
(January 1961): 3-4.

 

Callard, E. D. "Living with Conflict," The American Biology
Teacher 34 (September 1972): 350.

Erickson, Donald A. "The Book of the Decade on Nonpublic
School?" Independent School Bulletin 32 (October
1972): 7-12.

 

Kemerer, F. R. "Conceptualizing the Role of the School
Administrator," Independent School Bulletin 34
(December 1974): 53-54.

 

272

Koehneke, Martin L. "Teaching--Ministry or Profession?"
Lutheran Education 99 (September 1963): 2-7.

 

Kolb, Erwin. "The Case Against Ordination,” Lutheran
Education 103 (March 1968): 345-352.

 

 

Litwak, Eugene. -"Models of Organization Which Permit
Conflict," American Journal of Sociology 67
(September 1961): 177-184.

 

FLutheran Parochial Schools," Church and State 23 (October
1970): 14-16.

 

Pondy, Louis. "Varieties of Organizational Conflict,"
Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (December 1969):
499-505.

Sylvester, Robert and Krause, Victor. "Research Studies
in Christian Education," Lutheran Education 101
(January 1966): 215-227.

 

C. Miscellaneous

Brenner, John. "The Status of the Christian Day School
Teachers of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod
of Wisconsin and Other States." Stellhorn Papers,
Box 52, folder 5, Concordia Historical Institute.
(Typewritten)

Kuhlmann, Fred L. "Brief Filed by Alfred,R. Manske and
the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the Question
of the Status of the Lutheran Teacher as a Minister
of the Gospel under Section 107 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954." #428. Concordia Historical
Institute. '

"A Statement on the Philosophy and Purpose of the Christian
Day Schools of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran
Synod." Paper located in the Minutes of the Wisconsin
State-Teachers' Conference, 1959.

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES

1'11

5014

31293100