AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE. EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROU'NDS OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR VIEWS OF INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT THESIS FOR THE DEGREE. or Ed, D, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM LEWIS HUSK 1964 IHESEi This Is to certify that the thesis entitled An Exploratory Study of Possible Relationships Between The Educational and Professional Backgroundsoof School Superw intendents and Their Views of Instructional Improvement; presented by William Lewis Husk has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for EDD degree in Education (:anfl“ [’2 @flauaau, Major professor Date November 30, 1964 0-169 “A LIBRARY Michigan State University ”ii [£21. [at e F M113 «1w, ‘ UK “73 _<.~c§q 2. u ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR VIEWS OF INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT by William Lewis Husk Statement of the Problem The major assumption of this study was that the views of instructional improvement held by school superintendents are major determinants of their behavior. And that their behavior, in turn, has a major impact on the kind and qual- ity of the instructional program.in the districts for which they are responsible. The purpose of the study was to ex- plore possible relationships between the views of instruc- tional improvement held by superintendents and selected factors in their professional and educational backgrounds. Three concepts relative to instruction were stated and supported from.the literature: Concept I-- gvery‘function.g£.administration.ig.ge- lated tg_the instructional program. Concept II-- Changes in instruction occur when.pegp1e change. Concept III-- Instructional improvement occurs in situ- ations Where :the worth of'the indI‘idu aI i§_recognized. William Lewis Husk Study Procedures All of the school districts in the lower peninsula of Michigan having between 3,000 and 12,000 students were identified. The superintendents of the one hundred and nine districts thus identified constituted the study pOpu- lation. A thirty per cent random.sample of the population was chosen and interviews were conducted with thirty-two superintendents. Two kinds of responses were elicited from the super- intendents: (1) responses from.which inferences concerning their views of instructional improvement (relative to Concepts I, II and III) could be drawn. (2) responses relative to their professional and edu- cational backgrounds. Information concerning three areas of the superintendents' professional and educational backgrounds was collected: (a) experience as a supervisor, (b) experience in being supervised as a teacher, and (c) graduate school experi- ence. The superintendents' responses relative to Concepts I, II and III were categorized and inferences were drawn. The data relative to the superintendents' professional and educational backgrounds were classified. The data were expressed by number and per cent in each category. The background data were shown in relation to the data relative William.Lewis Husk to Concepts I, II and III. The findings were concluded on the basis of an inspection of the data thus compared. 3. Findings The superintendents in this study who were judged to be in agreement with Concept I-éEvery function g; administration i3 related 23 the instructional program: (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) had more graduate school preparation, (c) more often mentioned people when discussing their graduate school preparation, (d) more often chose gradu- ate school as an experience which.might help them be better instructional leaders. The superintendents in the study who were judged to be in agreement with Concept II--Changes in; instruction occur ghee people chang : (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) were more likely to have received their masters degree in the past nine to fifteen years. The superintendents in this study who were Judged to be in agreement with Concept III--Instruc- tional improvement occurs lg situations where William Lewis Husk the worth 2; the individual i3 recggnized: (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) more often mentioned people when discussing their gradu- ate school preparation, (c) more often chose gradu- ate school as an experience which might help them be better instructional leaders. Conclusions 1. Superintendents do hold differing views of instruc- tional improvement. 2. The way superintendents view instructional improve- ment is related to the quality of interpersonal relation- ships which they experienced with supervisors early in their careers and with instructors during graduate school. 3. The way superintendents view instructional improve- ment is, for the most part, not related to the pattern of their professional experience. h. The way superintendents view instructional improve- ment is, for the most part, not related to the recency or quantity of their graduate school preparation. AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS OF SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR VIEWS OF INSTRUCTIONAL IWROVEMENT BY William Lewis Husk A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1961:, ACKNOWIEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the contribution of others to the completion of this study. Dr. Charles Blacmman served as chairman of the guidance committee during the final stages of the program and guided the conduct of the study. ‘Dr. Louise Sause was the original chairman of the guidance committee and participated in the initial plan- ning of the study. My acknowledgement of Drs. Sause and Blackman is best expressed by reporting that they have been my teachers. Professors Walter Johnson, Troy Stearns, and Orden Smucker served as members of the guidance committee, parti- cipated in the oral examination, and provided encouragement and advice during the conduct of the study. The study would not have been possible without the cooperation.of the thirty-two school superintendents who gave of their valuable time and experience. My wife, Nancy, contributed substantially to every phase of the study while at the same time being a wife and mother of five. Billy, Amy,'Margi, Rae and Emily will now see more of Daddy. ii CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . Background of the Study . Purpose of the Study . . . Definition of Terms . . . Relationships to be Explored Assumptions of the Study . Methodology of the Study . Limitations of the Study . Thesis Organization . . . RELATED RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS Related Research . . . . . Basic Concepts . . . . . . Three Concepts: A Final Look RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY' Introduction . . . . . . . The Population . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . Arranging the Interviews . Conducting the Interviews DevelOpment of the Interview SOthulaeeeeeeeeee The Purpose of the Study: Second Look . . . . . . . iii A PAGE ~o -4 v1 F? I4 P' 11 12 BEES 28 33 33 33 31+ . 38 39 E1 I48 CHAPTER Classification and Analysis of the Data Summary . . Introduction iv Superintendents' Verbal Responses Relative to Concepts I, II and III . . Data Concerning the Super- intendents' Professional and Educational Backgrounds A Further Analysis Relative to Concept II and the Freeing- Directing Dimension of Concept Summary . . O V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND Summary . . Purpose . Design . . Findings . Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. Interview Schedule PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 0 III RECOMMENDATIONS 0 Letter to Superintendents . Q School Districts‘Where the Superin- tendents in This Study Served During the 1963-6h Schoolyear PAGE 53 58 S9 S9 59 69 92 100 103 103 103 105 105 108 108 112 118 12h 128 130 Table .I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. LIST OF TABLES Number of Superintendencies Held by Members of the Sample . . . Graduate Degrees Held by Superintendents in the Sample and Granting Institutions . . . . . Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept I . . . . . . . Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept II . . . . . . Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept III-- Children 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept III-- Freeing/Directing . . . . . . . . . Superintendents' Total Years of Supervisory Experience as Related to Concepts 1 and II . . . Superintendents' Total Years of Supervisory Experience as Related to Concept III . . . . . . Superintendents"Years in Present Position as Related to Concepts I and II . . . . . . . Superintendents' Years in Present Position as Related to Concept III Superintendents' Prior Experi- Once as Supervisors e e e e e e e 0 Experience as a Secondary Principal as Related to Concept I and II . . . . . . . . . V Page 36 37 60 62 66 7O 71 73 73 75 76 vi Table Page XIII. (Experience as a Secondary Principal as Related to concept III 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 77 XIV. Experience as an Elementary Supervisor as Related to Concept I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 XV. Experience as an Elementary Supervisor as Related to COnCGPtIIIeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee78 XVI. Superintendents' Responses Regarding Efforts to Improve Instruction in Schools Where They‘Worked as Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 XVII. Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places Where They Worked in Relation to Concepts I and II . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 XVIII. Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places Where They Worked in Relation to Concept III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 XIX. 'Recency of Receiving Masters Degree in Relation to Concepts I and II . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . 8h XX. Recency of Receiving Masters Degree in Relation to Concept III . . . . . . . 85 XXI. Extent of Graduate Study in Relation to Concepts I and II 0 O O 70 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 86 XXII. Extent of Graduate Study . in Relation to Concept III . . . . . . . . . . 87 XXIII. Remarks About Graduate School.Experience as Re- lated to Concepts I and II . . . . . . . . . . 89 XXIV. Remarks About Graduate School Experience as Related to Concept III . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Table XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. vii Page Superintendents' Choosing of Graduate School Experi- ence in Relation to Con- cepts I and II 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e O 91 Superintendents' Choosing of Graduate School Experience in Relation to Concept III . . . . . . . . . . 92 Combined Classification of Concept 11 and Concept III as Related to Total Years of Supervisory Experience . . . . . . . . . . . 9h Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Superintendents' Years in Present Position . . . . . . . . . . . 9h Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Experience as a Secondary Principal . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Experience as an.Elementary Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places Where They Worked . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to the Recency of Receiving the Masters . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to the Extent of Graduate Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Superintendents' Remarks About Graduate School Experience eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee99 Table viii Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to the Selection of Graduate School as a Valuable Experience . . . . Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page I. Geographic Distribution of the Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . 35 ix. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background gf.the“§§ggy. The superintendent of schools in any district is in a position to have a powerful influence over the nature of the school experiences which are provided for the children and youth in.that district. His values and beliefs influ- ence his behavior as he hires teachers and.other personnel, allocates the resources of the district, and develops and guides efforts toward instructional improvement. A state- ment from.a recent yearbook of the American.Association of School Administrators acknowledges some of the many ways the superintendent influences instruction: When a superintendent helps to build a better school building, he is setting the stage for better instruc- tion. ‘Hhen he is instrumental in getting a more ade- quate budget or teachers' salary schedule, he is lay- ing the groundwork for better teaching. ‘When.he refuses to succumb to pressure to employ an income potent teacher and when he protects teachers and children from.we11-meaning promoters of essay con- tests and from interruptions in.the daily schedule, he is making possible improved instruction. ‘When he is able to secure better lighting, acoustics, or imp proved sanitary conditions, he is making better in- struction.easier. When.he selects better teachers, bolsters their morale, creates better working con- ditions, defends teachers against unfair criticism, and utilizes as fully as possible the potential abilities of each staff member, he is contributing to the improvement of instruction.1 In a study to determine the relationship between the beliefs of superintendents and other supervisors and actual classroom practice, Beardsley concluded, ". . . the super- intendents must be the ones having the greatest influence on the level of learning opportunities in the schools studied."2 That the superintendent's activities influence the instructional program.can.hardly be debated. The quality, kind, and direction of this influence is perhaps different fron.one superintendent to the next. .A superintendent who sees the planning of a new building as an opportunity for students, staff and community to reevaluate the school pro- gram.and plan the building accordingly, influences the in- structional program in quite a different way than does the superintendent who views it strictly as a "bricks and mor- tar” process. 1American Association of school Administrators, "The Superintendent as Instructional Leader,“ 19 Yearbook (Washington, D. 0.: American Association 0 SchooI A - istrators, 1957), pp. 18-19. aFlorence E. Beardsley, "Oregon Administrators, Their Staffs, and Teachers View Learning Opportunities in the Elementary School: A Study to Help Determine Relation- ships Between the Desires and.Beliefs of Oregon Superin- tendents, Assistant Superintendents, Supervisors, Curricu- lum.Directors, and Elementary Principals with Respect to Learning Opportunities in Elementary Classrooms, and Those Learning Opportunities which Teachers Indicate Are Actually Provided for Their Children," (Columbia University, 1962), Abstracts XXIII, h253-h25h. In the first instance, the superintendent may in- volve the community in reevaluating the educational goals of the community, and the staff in looking at the goals of the instructional program; both activities being integrated with the actual planning of the new building. The second superintendent may work only with architects and contrac- tors in planning the building. The behavior of both super- intendents does, however, influence the experiences stu- dents will have in the new building. The conviction that the superintendent does occupy a central role concerning the instructional program, coup- led with the current universal concern among educators and the public for the improvement of instruction, led to the posing of two questions as the focus of this study. How do superintendents perceive instructional hu- provement? Do relationships exist between.the perceptions superintendents have concerning instructional ha- provement and their previous educational and pro- fessional experiences? Information relative to these questions should be useful to educators interested in.the improvement of in- struction. An answer to the first question would supple- ment the information contained in.the publications of pro- fessional organizations, such.as the American Association of School Administrators. Such publications probably re- semble the platform statements of political parties, in that many members of the organization would not subscribe b, to them completely. Knowledge of how others perceive in- structional improvement may serve as a stimulus to school superintendents to examine and evaluate their own percep— tions in this vital area. The second question suggests a hunch that there may be differences in the professional and educational back- grounds of superintendents who hold differing views of in- structional improvement. If this is true, there may be implications for the selection and preparation of prospec- tive superintendents and for the selection of individuals to serve in the superintendency. Educators in public schools and in colleges might find such relationships sug- gestive of the kinds of experiences which should be pro- vided for prospective administrators in extern and intern programs. The exploratory nature of this study suggests that much of its value will lie in its ability to raise ques- tions and suggest avenues for future study. Relationships among the data will hopefully lead other researchers to seek to determine the extent of causality and significance present. P_u_rpose 9f the Study This study was an attempt to determine the percep- tions of public school superintendents concerning instruc- tional improvement. As the study was undertaken, three dimensions of the superintendents' perceptions were chosen 5 for investigation: (1) outcomes of instructional improve- ment activities; (2) methods of working to bring about in- structional improvement; (3) qualifications for persons working to improve instruction. These dimensions of the superintendents' perceptions were selected because it was believed that they represent a wide range of the total spectrum of their perceptions concerning instructional improvement. A second purpose was to analyse relationships, if any, existing between the superintendents' perceptions and selected background data: (1) kind and.extent of super- visory and administrative experience; (2) kind of efforts to improve instruction experienced as a teacher; (3) kind and extent of graduate work completed. These background factors were chosen for investigation on the assumption that they represent significant professional and educa- tional experiences which might be related to the superin- tendents' perceptions of instructional improvement. This study was exploratory; The purposes, as stated, provided a framework in which the study was develOped and conducted. It was thought that the deveIOpment and conduct of the research process might give rise to ideas and lead to the discovery of data not anticipated by the researcher. Definition.g£.Terms Superintendent g£_Schools.--The administrative head of a school system.appointed by the board of education. 6 Instruction.--The definition and usage of the term instruction was central to the conduct and reporting of this study. Throughout the interviews which were used to collect data the term was used extensively, usually in the form "improve instruction" or "instructional improvement". The term was selected because it was believed that the con notation given to it by the superintendents would be more uniform than would be the connotation of such terms as curriculum, supervision, and teaching. Macdonald3 suggests a definition of instruction which is meaningful in the context of this study. Because of their interrelationships, his definitions of curriculum and teaching are also quoted: In order to clarify terms, a useful distinction can be made between curriculum, instruction, and teach- ing. Whether it is possible to hold these bounda- ries in actuality is another problem, but for the sake of sharpening our focus here a distinction will be made. 0f the three, curriculum has the greatest scope. Our understanding of curriculum extends from the politics of legislative bodies through the curri- culum setting and deve10ping activities in the school year itself. Ideally, curriculum finds its fruition in student learning, but in actuality there is a considerable segment of what we talk about in curriculum that is prior to and/or removed from classrooms. . The concept of teaching is the most restricted of the three toms. Teaching may take place without related learning; that is, a person may be said to 3James B. Macdonald, "The Nature of Instruction: Needed Theory and Research", Educational Leadership (Wash- ington, D. 0.: Journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Deve10pment, October, 1963). be performing the act of teaching whether or not there is resultant student learning. The teacher behavior in the c1assroom.had been, can be, and is being studied as a separate function. Instruction, then, would be the active process of goal-ofiented interaction— between pupils, teachers, materials, and facilities. This is meant to de- scribe the ongoipg classroom_ situation In its— en- tiret , which.includes teacher behavior and reflects curriculum decisions and activities.fl (Italics added by the writer.) The writer believed that the superintendents would attach a meaning to the term instruction similar to the one offered by Hacdonald. That is, they would see instruction as encompassing the teaching-learning processes in a class- room.and influenced by factors outside of the classrooms Curriculum.was not used because of the considerable confusion which seems to exist concerning its meaning. The bread definition.given by'Macdonald is a common one in the literature, but it is often used as being synonymous with ”course of study”. At best, it was anticipated that a question concerning ”improving curriculum? would be met with an inquiry as to the meaning of curriculum. As is suggested by Macdonald's definition,teaching can be seen in a rather restricted sense. It was not used for that reason. Relationship; _t_q pg Explored The statement of purpose of the study suggested several relationships which might exist among the data. thid., p. 5. The basic hunch.was that superintendents who had differing professional and educational backgrounds might tend to have differing perceptions of instructional improvement. Tenta- tive statements of relationships to be explored were made. 1. 3. Does a relationship exist between the superin- tendents' perceptions of the outcomes of in- structional improvement activities and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instructional improvement ac- tivities they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? Does a relationship exist between.the superin- tendents' perceptions of the methods of improving instruction and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instruc- tional improvement activities they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? Does a relationship exist between the superin- tendents' perceptions of the qualifications for persons working to improve instruction and (a) the kind and.extent of their supervisory experi- ence, (b) the kind of-instructional improvement activities they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? Assumptions gf_§hg.§§udy Two assumptions were seen as basic to the conception of this study: 1. 'The behavior of a superintendent has a signifi- cant influence on the instructional program in his district. 2. A superintendent's behavior is determined to a significant degree by his perception of instruc- tional improvement. In one sense, the first assumption is necessary in order to justify the conduct of this study. If the super- intendent's behavior does not influence the instructional program, then a study such.as this, focusing on the super- intendent's perceptions of instructional improvement, would serve no useful purpose. Another feature of the first assumption is that its validity is not dependent on the superintendent's awareness of the fact; that is, his behavior influences the instruc- tional program.whether he knows it or not. He may delegate instructional improvement responsibilities to others; how- ever, his behavior in selecting individuals and defining and.maintaining relationships will influence their beha- vior. Their behavior will, in turn, influence the instruc- tional program. The superintendent may report that his activities (behavior) as chief administrator keep him.some- what divorced from the processes of instructional improve- 10 ment. This perception will not lessen the influence that his behavior, whether it be centered on bonds, budgets, busses, or buildings, has on the instructional program of the district. The second assumption, that the superintendent's behavior is determined by his perceptions of instructional improvement, is supported by the concepts of perceptual psychology. BillsS states: The primary assumption of the perceptionist is that behavior is a function of perception. A person be- haves in ways which are consistent with his view of the world. That is, as he “sees" so does he behave. How he behaves is consistent with how £6 sees things, and what he believes ig_truth for him. From.this concept we can assume that the behavior of a superintendent who sees the financial aspects of his role as being unrelated to instruction will be somewhat different than that of the superintendent who perceives that his con- duct of the financial affairs of the district is so related. The superintendent who sees his connection with instruction primarily as a matter of selling new instructional ideas to the staff and community will not behave as does the super- intendent who sees new instructional ideas resulting from. the cooperative identification and solution of instruction- al problems by the staff and the community. 5Robert E. Bills, "Believing and Behaving: Percep- tion and Learning," Learning More About Learning (Washing- ton, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1959). 6110101., 1). 55. 11 Methodology 9_f_" the Study A brief description of the research procedures of the study is presented in this section. A more detailed treatment of the methodology is given in Chapter III. Population.--The pepulation for the study was de- fined as the superintendents in school districts in the lower peninsula of Michigan having betwaen 3,000 and 12,000 students during the 1963-611, school-year. This pepulation included 109 superintendents.7 Sample.--A thirty per cent random sample of the pepulation was chosen. Thirty-three superintendents con- stituted the sample. 9 M Collection.--A depth interview technique was determined to be the most appropriate method of data col- lection. Letters were written giving a brief statement of the purposes of the study and requesting the superinten- dents' cooperation. A phone call was utilized to estab- lish a time and place for the interview at the superin- tendents' convenience. 13.9.29. Analysis.--The responses of the superintendents, indicative of their perceptions of instructional improve- ment, were analysed to detemine relationships to their educational and professional backgrounds. 7Michi an Education Directogy and Bu er's Guide (Lansing, 6 chigan: Michigan Education Directory, 1963), pp. 101-20 . 12 Limitations 3; _t_h_e_ gm 1. The findings of this study which are descriptive, such as, facts about the professional and educational back- grounds cf the superintendents in the sample, can be gener- alized only to the population of the study. Findings rela- tive to relationships between.the educational and profes- sional backgrounds of the superintendents and their percep- tions of instructional improvement should have some validity for superintendents not in.the population, but possessing similar characteristics. 2. The study did not attempt to determine relation- ships between the superintendents' perceptions of instruc- tional improvement and the quality and kind of instruction in their districts. That such a relationship does exist is one of the basic assumptions of the study. It should be noted in this connection.that the writer recognizes that other factors, including the community, teachers, students, and finances, influence the quality of instruction in a school district. This study chose to concentrate on the superintendent as an important influence and one which we need to know more about. 3. The methodology of the study, eliciting respon- ses from.which inferences can.be made about the respondents' perception. has the inherent weakness that the inference made from.a given response may be open to question. An attempt is made to minimize this problem.by stating the 13 criteria used in classifying the responses in Chapter III. When the data are presented in Chapter IV, representative responses are included where appropriate. This will make it possible for the reader to raise questions and draw his own inferences . Thesis Manization Chapter I has served to outline the study as it was conceived at the outset. The original purposes, assump- tions, definitions, methods, and limitations of the study have been stated. Chapter II will report research directly related to this study and develop three concepts which the writer be- lieves are important to the processes of instructional im- provement. The research processes and procedures will be de- scribed in Chapter III. In this connection, certain changes which occurred in the writer's conception of the study, from the time of its proposal, through the develop- ment of the concepts in Chapter II, to the early stages of data collection and analysis, will be described. This description is given in the hope that something of the flavor of the research process will be revealed, as well as, in the interests of accuracy in reporting what happened. The data will be presented and analysed in Chapter IV. Chapter V will present a summary of the study, con- clusions, and recommendations . CHAPTER II RELATED RESEARCH AND CONCEPTS The first portion.of this chapter presents research directly related to the study. In the latter portion three concepts are presented and supported by references to the literature. These concepts provide the framework in which.the data of this study were collected and ana- lysed. Related Research Research.dealing with.administrative attitudes and behavior is of rather recent origin. In 1955 a chapter entitled “Administrative Roles and Behavior" was included in the Review'gf.Educational Research.1 The chairman of the committee which prepared the chapter commented: This issue differs most significantly, however, from previous issues in the great amount of ems phasis on the human relations aspects of adminis- tration. This is signalized by the introduction of a new topic, “Administrative Roles and Beha- vior" and the greatly expanded treatment of "School-Community Relations." The focus on human interaction in administration is not con- fined to these two chapters but permeates much lFrances 3. Chase, "Educational Organization, Ad- ministration, and Finance," Review 2;.Educational Research, XXV (October, 1955). 1h 15 of thg research reported in other chapters as well. Halpin,3 in discussing the state of research in ad- ministration in 1958, said, "The bulk of the studies re- viewed are eXhortations, how-to-do-it prescriptions, cata- logues of opinion, or normative 'status' investigations which do not permit us to generalize beyond the immediate data."h He was referring to Studies Lg School Administra- ‘tigg; A Report 22 the CPEA, which had reviewed the pub- lications of the nine centers of the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. In the same article, Halpin refers to a forthcoming publication, "The Uneasy Profession," by Neal Gross. He notes that Gross "deplores the horatory flavor of much that has been written about the superintendency and . . . points out that theory must be concerned with how the super- intendent dgg§.behave, not with someone's opinion of how he 233g; to behave."5 This reviewer found the literature after 1958, as well as that before, dealing more with how the superinten- dent "ought" to behave than how he “does" behave. This was highlighted by the fact that the titles of many 21bid., p. 279. “ 3Andrew‘w. Halpin, Administrative Theory iszduca- tion (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, 1953)- ”;msu p. 3. 5M. 16 articles indicated that they would deal with "does" whereas the article in fact dealt with "ought." Much.of the research in the last ten years has been concerned with validating the concepts which have been assumed for the purposes of this study. That is, the studies have attempted to show relationships between.the attitudes and behaviors of administrators and the learn- ing opportunities for students. For the most part, the studies have concentrated on the relationship between the attitudes and behaviors of the administrators and the morale or climate which seems to ensue among the faculties of the schools studied. No studies which dealt with superintendents and had concerns similar to those of this study were located. Two studies, investigating the attitudes and behaviors of ele- mentary principals as related to their professional and educational backgrounds, are reported. Smith6 studied forty-six elementary school princi- pals. He classified the principals as high, medium or low in "philosophic-mindedness" according to the Judgment of interviewers who interviewed the principals as a part of a larger study. The dimensions of philosOphicemindedness 6Philip G. Smith, IPhilosOphic-Mindedness in Educa- tional.Administration, School-Community Development Study fibnograph Series (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Univer- sity, 1956). 17 were defined as comprehensiveness, penetration, and flexi- bility. The three dimensions were described as follows: Comprehensiveness 1. Viewing particulars in relation to a large field 2. Relating immediate problems to long-range goals 3. Utilizing the power of generalization h. Maintaining tolerance for theoretical con- siderations Penetration 1. Questioning what is taken for granted or is self-evident 2. Seeking for and formulating fundamentals 3. Utilizing a sensitivity for implication and relevance h. Basing expectations on an abductive-deduc- ’ tive process Flexibility 1. Being free from.psychological rigidity 2. Evaluating ideas apart from their source 3. Seeing issues as many-sided and developing alternate hypotheses, viewpoints, explana- tions, etc. h. Maintaining a tolerance for tentativeness and suspended Judgment To examine the relationship between PM (philosophic- mindedness) and recency of graduate study, Smith divided the principals into three groups. . . . those who had done advanced graduate work in the past five years; those who had engaged in.such study five to ten years ago: and those who had not done advanced graduate study in the past ten years. In.the first group, ten rated as high in PM, eight as medium, and two as low. In the second group, none wereehigh in PM, two were medium, and seven were low. 71bid., pp. 30-31. 81bid., p. 77. 18 Although he failed to report the PM status of prin- cipals in the third group, the data he does present seem to support the existence of the relationship. Smith also noted relationships between the years of experience and ages of the principals and PM.9 Of the principals classified as high in PM, six had had one to five years of experience : two, six to ten; one, eleven to fifteen; and two, sixteen or more. Of those classified as low in PM, none had had one to five years of expe rience; three, six to ten: three, eleven to fifteen; and four, six- teen or more. As would be expected, due to the high cor- relation between age and years of experience, a similar re- lationship held for age and PM. Jenkins and.B1ackman10 reported other aspects of the same study from which Smith's findings were drawn. They attempted to discover relationships between the effec- tiveness of principals and the background factors of age, years of experience as a principal, and recency of graduate study. Faculty ratings of administrative procedures, sense of togetherness, direction, progress, contribution, and the degree of communication at various levels were used as 91b1d., p. 78. (Tables 1h and 15) 10David H. Jenkins and Charles A. Blackman, Ante- cedents and Effects g_f_ Administrator Behavigg: A Stud 9_1_!'_ _th_9_ Principal 53; Work with the School Staff, The Schoo - Communi ty Development Study Monograph Series (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio University, 1956). 19 measures of the principals' effectiveness. In considering the variables of age and years of experience, the research- ers reported: L a group, logger and less experienced principals are significantly more effective _i_._r_1 workirm with group. In considering this generalization it must be remembered, however, that at any given age or experience level there are peeple who are effective and people who are less effective. The study bears this out for there were some principals in the older age groups whose teachers reacted equally as favorably as did teachers whose principals were in the younger, less experienced group. . . . the seven principals forty years of age or younger were rated significantly higher than any of the older age groups on all five of the following variables: getting supplies, providing information, defining responsibilities, giving approval, and the ease with which the teachers communicated with the principal. These differences were some of the most marked in this entire study. Similar findings were present also when the years of experience were compared (see Table IIb, pp. 120-121). These, however, were not so clear-cut as those which were found under the age differ- ences. The less experienced principals, however, seemed to be more satisfactory to their faculties, generally, than the more experienced principals. Again this difference appeared most clearly in the items dealing with administrative practices.11 Recency of training, selection policies and a cadet principal program in the. district were pointed to as pos- sible explanations of these findings. 1111mm. . pp. 33-31» 20 The researchers found no significant relationship between recency of graduate study and principal effective- ness. Schools were compared on.the basis of whether or not the principal had engaged in graduate study within the preceding five years. In a comparison of these two groups of schools, there were no sig- nificant differences on any of the categories of morale and teacher reactions and administrative practices (see Table III, p. 122). However, the numerical differences which did appear almost ex- clusively favored the group which had engaged in some graduate study within the preceding five years. we must remember, however, that within that group are found the younger principals who, as we Just noted, tended to have significantly higher ratings on these items than did the older principals. Therefore the differences related to recency of graduate study, although.not sig- nificant, might have resulted from.¥5e effect of this younger group upon these data. The two studies reported above, focusing on elemen- tary principals, had a direct bearing on the question of relationships between.the attitudes and behaviors of ad- ministrators and their professional and educational back- grounds. The precise focus of the present study, the attitudes of superintendents toward the improvement of instruction as related to their’educationsl.and.profes- sional backgrounds, was not present in either'of these studies. In discussing desirable experiences for adminis- trators, Campbell, Corbally and Ramseyer,13 state, "There 121bid., p. 35. 13Roland F. Campbell, thn.E. Corbally, and Jehn.A. Ramseyer, "The Required Competencies,” Introduction.pp,§gp- cational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., i951). 21 are no studies which purport to tell exactly what kinds of experiences are most fruitful in developing administrative competency" and, "There is not much evidence from research to indicate what sort of teaching experience is most con- ducive to administrative effectiveness."1’4- The same authors discuss graduate school experience as a factor in developing the competencies of administra- tors. But they do not cite any research to substantiate the relationship.15 The dearth of research would seem to underscoretthe value of the present study. .3331" Concepts In this section three concepts are presented and discussed. The writer believes that superintendents who understand these concepts and behave in accord with them are more effective in bringing about instructional improve- ment than those who do not. The verbalizations of the superintendents inter- viewed in this study were gathered and analysed in a frame- work provided by these concepts. In Chapter III, this framework is described in detail. Literature dealing with the improvement of instruc- tion is voluminous. In selecting references to support the concepts presented, the publications of three groups were 1h:b1d., p. 311. 15Ib1d. 22 used: (1) American Association of School Administrators, (2) Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (3) University Council for Educational Administration. The AASA, as the professional association of school superintendents, has been very active in attempting to hm- prove the quality of preparation programs for superinten- dents and upgrade the profession in general. Many of their publications outline the association's position concerning instructional improvement. The University Council for Educational Administra- tion is an association of universities and colleges which prepare school administrators. Its publications reflect the understandings gained from.research and experience for over a decade. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum.De- veloPment holds the improvement of instruction as its major purpose. The role of the superintendent in.the improvement of instruction is often discussed in the association's pub- lications. Concept I Every function p§.administration.ip related jp_the instructional program. This concept, as it relates to the superintendency, is presented in Chapter I as a part of the rationale for concentrating on superintendents in this study. 23 Burnham.and King,16 in a recent publication of ASCD, state, "Concern for the instructional program is one of the myriad responsibilities of the superintendent. This must be his central concern, however, because all of the other activities of his office exist for the purpose of promoting instruction."17 The writers of Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming,18 lend a psychological dimension to the concept: His own philosophy about the nature of man, about how people learn and grow and, most of all, about what they learn about themselves and what inspires the learning then.permeates his own field of opera- tion: with.the school board, the community, the central office staff, the field staff in the vari- ous schools, principals, teachers, nonprofessional workers, children and parents. and The leader's philosophy in action affects the lives of all children in the school system. The way he feels about people, and the manner in which.he oper- ates, is felt by the lowliest and most elevated per- son on the staff and ghe weakest and the strongest child in the system.1 Goldhammer20 lists, "The pperations 93 the instruc- 16Reba M. Burnham.and.Martha L. King, Supervision 1p Action.(Washington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development, 1961). 17Ibid., p. to. 18Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming (Washington, D. 0.: Association. or Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook, 1962). 19Ib1de, Pp. 216-217e 20KeithGoldhammer, The Social Sciences and the Prepar- ation p§_Educationa1 Administrators (The University Council for Educational Administration, 1963). 2n the educational enterprise" first among what he calls "the substantive concerns of the educational administrators. . .". He goes on to say: The study of social systems indicates that every social system.must have a primary reason for exis- tence and in relation to which all of the functions of the system.are Justified. The proper education of the children of our society with respect to the total culture and the acquisition of the skills, understandings, appreciations and attitudes neces- sary for successful living in society is the primary purpose and reason for existence of the educational enterprise. All things pertaining to the instruc- tional program.are the concerns of the administrator. And all things other than those that are directly involved in instruction are Justified only to the extent that they facilitate, assist, improve or make possible instruction. In a narrow sense, if an ac- tivity cannot be found to be Justified in relation to the instructional program, it as no business to exist in the school organization. 1 Concept II Changes i__n instruction p-_cp_u__r_ ghpn people chang . The values and‘behaviors of people are the most sig- nificant elements of an instructional program. If instruc- tion is to be changed, values and behaviors of people must change. This is not to deny that changes in organization, subJect offerings, and materials do influence instruction. It is simply asserted that these changes, when not accomp panied by changes in people, are relatively insignificant. The concept is supported in.the ThirtyeFifth X353: 2113119.. . pp. 33-3h- 25 book22 of the AASA as follows: Whatever improvements a community brings about in its instructional program are due, in large measure, to changes in the professional behavior of its school personnel. Facilitating instructional improvement, therefore, means facilitating certain kinds of changes in classroom.teachers, supervisors, and ad- minisfigators as well as in parents, and other citi- zens. The authors of Leadership for Improving Instructionau say, "Any adequate theory of change in curriculum and teach- ing method, then, seems to be based on the fact (a) that such changes came through changes in thinking and behaving on the part of members of the professional staff."25 MacKenzie26 defines curriculum as ". . . the experi- ences of learners (or as) the opportunities afforded learn- ers . . . that which occurs within the teaching-learning situations of a school and which results in changed student behavior" and goes on to say: In discussing the curriculum, teachers are usually indicated as being the most important single 22"The Superintendent as Instructional Leader," ThirtyéFifth Yearbook (Washington, D. 0.: American Asso- ciation of School Administrators, 1957). 231b1d., p. 30. 2hLeadership for Improving Instruction (Washington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Develop- ment, 1960). ZSIbide 9 p. 37e 26Gordon R. MacKenzie, "Sources and Process in Cur- riculum Development,"‘What Are the Sources 22 the Curricu- lum? A.S osium.(Washington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1962), pp. 72-80. 26 determinant. An administrator, a supervisor, a board of education, a parent or a federal govern- ment who would influence the curriculum.must in- fluence the teacher. This influence upon the teacher can be exerted in many ways. It may come about through.shifts in the composition of the staff, through adding new staff or through remov- ing present staff members. It may come about through influencing the existing teachers by such means as ntimidation, bargaining, education or therapy.2 Concept III Instructional improvement occurs ip situations where the worth 9; the individual pp recognized. Literature on the improvement of instruction supports this concept in.many ways. The suggestion that people can and should be free to select problems which they believe are significant is perhaps the most frequent and strongest support of the concept. Allowing people the freedom.of problem identification and selection is a demonstration of belief in.their competencies as well as their values. In a pamphlet of the ASCD,28 the concept is sup- ported as follows: When and how a problem originates and by whom.it is presented make a vast difference in both the goals and the process of the democratic group. To have a readybmade problem handed down to people does not in any real sense make it their own. and 27Ib1d., p. 78. 28Instructional Leadershipip Small Schools (Wash- ington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1951), p. 77. 27 Only when a group recognizes a problem, seeks to define it, analyses it and makes progress toward its solution can we say that the group is working toward its goals. . . . plans affecting a group should originate always with the individuals who compose the group. A Commission of the AASA is very explicit: The Commission would like to make it clear that it is recommending something quite different from.im~ proving instruction by telling people what to do. The process recommended is one whereby theindivi- duals who are concerned about an instructional problem, using the best resources they can lay their'hands on, conduct their own study, experi- mentation, or research to improve their own prac- tices in relation to their p!p_problems. , The Commission's rationale for preferring this method to another is also interesting: Usually a school system.tries to better the in- structional program.by having an individual or a small group assess various teaching-learning situ- ations and arrive at improvements thru experimen- tation, reflection, or reference to exert opinion. These improvements are then prescribed or strongly recommended as changes that other people must carry out. The naJor Job of the instructional leader, when this process is being employed, is to persuade or otherwise get people to do what the leader believes will result in better instruction. While this telling or persuading approach to in- struction improvement is common and is undoubtedly sometimes successful, we believe it has a number of serious weaknesses. It assumes, for example, that people who are not working intimately in the situation to be improved can, nevertheless, diag- nose this situation realistically, prescribe fea- sible improvements, and get them adopted. Also, the method would seem.to place too high a value upon the school person who follows instructional directions conscientiously rather than upon.the one who wants to work creatively and.independently.31 291bid. 30Thirty-Fifth'Yearbook, pp. cit., p. 30. Bllbide, Ppe 29-300 28 Another advocated practice, which.implies belief in the value of peOple, is the involvement of people in the selection of goals. In summarizing the implications of re- search in educational administration in the past fifteen years, a pamphlet of the AASA states: In the truest sense, operating the school system is the process of creating and sustaining a professional climate which permeates every segment of the system, which permits and stimulates every employee to put forth his best effort, which uses the energies of all people involved in setting educational goals, and which brings the total resources 3E the system to bear in moving toward those goals. Each.of these statements envisions a school system. in which the worth of the individual is recognized; where a faith in people's ability to grow allows them.to do so. Three Concepts: §.Fina1 Look The writer has presented three concepts and shown that they are "abroad in the land" by referring to the literature. It seems appropriate to restate the concepts and make some final observation: Concept I-- Evegy function Lf administration is re- lated to the instructional program. Concept II-- Chapges in instruction occur when people change. Concept III-- Instructional improvement occurse Ln situations where the worth Lf individual Ls recognized. 32The Education Lf a School Superintendent (Washing- ton, D. C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1963), p. 8. 29 Concepts I and II are valueless. School administra- tors in a totalitarian country would find these concepts as useful as would administrators in a democratic country. As noted in connection with Concept I: The study of social systems indicates that every social system.must have a primary reason for ex- istence and in relation to which all the functions of the system are Justified.33 ‘ The values of the peeple in the social system (school) are of no consequence. The valueless aspect of Concept II is suggested by NacKenzie's listing of ways in.which.teachers can be influ- enced, "inthmidation, bargaining, education or therapy.“ The presentation of Concept II as valueless requires fur- ther comment. The attempt here is to point up the fact that an individual (educator, minister, politician, or whomever) may recognize that change in people is necessary to achieve certain ends. That he recognizes this fact does not tell us what means he will use to bring about the change. In the context of this study, it is suggested that a superintendent may see the need to change people in order to change instruction, but this fact does not indi- cate how he will go about changing them. This becomes known when his behavior toward other people is observed or his values concerning people are revealed. Concept III is a value statement. It speaks of ime provement in instruction, not simply ehan e, as in Concept 33Goldhammer, pp,‘g$§., p. 33. 30 II. Each of the statements in support of the concept con- tain words which imply a belief in the worth of people. This concept is an application of our society's evolving notion of democratic values to the schools. These values are reflected in educational research as well as in practice and the literature. After reviewing several studies, Pierce and merrill comment: Very similar, if not identical, factors of adminis- trator behavior are to be found in the Competency Pattern, the University of Tennessee Rating Guide, the University of Georgia Principal's Profile, Hal- pin's Study of Ohio Superintendents, and the other Ohio State University studies. Differences exist, to be sure, but a more striking factor is the simi- larities. It will be noted that one of the important common elements is an.emphasis on.human relations. In each case, desirable human relations are described as being those which spring from.an expression in behavior of the basic tenets of democracy, such as regard for the worth.and dignity of the individual.3u A psychology'has arisen which is helpful to those who wish to extend values inherent in Concept III. Pg;- ceivin , Behaving, Becoming is an explication of this psy- chology and its application to schools. The yearbook editors, drawing from the ideas presented in four articles, state: Administrators, because of their status position, are able to help teachers develop a feeling of self- worth. The principal who is able to work with his teachers in such a way that they feel they can af- ford to make mistakes provides an atmosphere in which teachers may grow personally as well as pro- 3hsoeld F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg, (eds.), Administrative Behavior pp Education (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). Chapter IX, "The Individual and Adminis- trator Behavior," p. 3H9. 31 fessionally. The administrator who is able to ac- cept the right of teachers to hold Opinions which differ from.his, who encourages faculty groups to make decisions regarding school policy, who does not use his position to squelch new and different ways of working or thinking, helps teachers to be- come self-acceptant and to be open to new ideas and ways of working. ‘When other persons accept a teach- er, the teacher is more able to accept himself. The principal or superintendent who enters a faculty or departmental meeting without "knowing" what de- cisions the faculty or department should make is able to say to the group, by his behavior, "I'm willing to trust your Judgement": "You are able to make sound decisions"; or, "YOu are important people and I accept you as such." It is in such meetings that teachers have the opportunity to explore the meaning that education, with all its ramifications, has for them. In such an atmosphere the teacher is able to examine his philosophy, his techniques, his strengths and weaknesses, to make a realistic ap- praisal of himself as a teacher. In such an atmos- phere the teacher is free to accept what he finds and to search for ways to improve himself as a teacher and as a person.3 ‘ \ . Ample evidence exists to support the validity of this "new psychology." But it will be accepted and applied by school peOple not on its validity alone. They will apply it only as its worth in attaining the values they hold is recognized. Chapter Summapy A This chapter has reported research directly related to this study. And the dearth of such research was noted. Three concepts were stated, discussed, and supported from.the literature. 3SPerceiving, Behaving, Becoming, pp, cit., p. 138. 32 In Chapter III the process of data collection and analysis will be described. During that discussion certain changes in.the original conception of the study will be re- corded. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY Introduction This chapter describes the several phases of the re- search procedures used in this study. The population of the study is defined and the sample chosen is described. The procedures followed in developing the interview sched- ule and obtaining and conducting the interviews are out- lined. Where appropriate, the rationale of specific ques- tions in the interview schedule is discussed. The Population The pepulation selected for study was "superinten- dents of school districts having between 3,000 and 12,000 students in the lower peninsula of Michigan.” The popula- tion was identified by consulting the l963-6h Michigan Education.Directory and Buyer's Epigp.1 One hundred and nine superintendents were included in the population. Schools whose superintendents were in the population and those included in the sample are shown in Appendix I. 1Michigan Education.Directory and Buyer's Guide l963-ég Tiznsing, Michigan: Michigan Education Directory), pp. 101-20 . 33 The Sample The sample was chosen by using a table of random numbers.2 Approximately thirty per cent of the pepulation, thirty-three superintendents, was chosen. The writer was unable to secure an interview with one of the superinten- dents chosen in the sample; the data for the study were secured from the other thirty-two superintendents and all computations in the presentation.of the data are relative to them. The map on page 35 (Illustration I) shows the geo- graphic distribution of the population and the sample. Due to the population density in southeastern Michigan, many of the superintendents were located in districts in Oakland, Macomb and‘Wayne Counties. Almost sixty per cent were located in this area, with the remainder scattered throughout the lower peninsula. Each superintendent in the sample had between nine and forty years of experience as a school administrator. The median number of years of experience was twenty-one. They had been in their present positions from.one to thirty- three years. The median number of years of tenure in.the present position was nine. Table I shows the number of superintendencies which had been held by the superintendents in the sample. Two 2Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- havioral Sciences (New York: Rinehart and"Company, Inc., , TaBIe I, Table of Random Numbers, pp. h72-h76. 35 Illustration I.--Geographic Distribution of the Population and Sample - Population * Sample I * C * - - _ , *3 - 3 - * - ‘t Z ' *-' * a : - - -- *- : * ***: - * 4* —:"".-'."£- *t.a& 2 e '3; £ - - * * - * 36 had held a total of five positions and for twelve the pres- ent position was their only superintendency. TABLE I.--Number of Superintendencies Held by Members of the Sample Number of ' Number of Positions Superintendents HNw-F’U'l NUIO‘N 12 Note: Four members of the sample had held positions as assistant superintendents. In addition to experience as superintendents, nine- teen.members of the sample had been secondary school prin- cipals, six had been elementary school principals, four had been assistant superintendents (two for business and two for instruction), one had been the head of a high.school department and director of adult education, one had been director of physical education and student activities, and one had been president of a college. Five members of the sample had no experience as an administrator or supervisor except in the superintendency. (See Table XI, p. 75) The graduate degrees held by the superintendents and the granting institutions are shown in Table II. 37 TABLE II.--Graduate Degrees* Held by Superintendents in the Sample and Granting Institutions Institution University of Michigan Michigan State University Wayne State University University of Alabama State University of Iowa University of Tennessee Columbia ‘Miami,University Central Michigan University University of Minnesota Harvard Northwestern University of Detroit Degree M.A. Ed.S. Ed.D. 17 1 (physical education) 1 (educational psychology) 1 (soil technology) h l (guidance) 3 l 1 (physical education) *In administration except where noted 38 Of the thirty-nine graduate degrees held by the superinten- dents, thirty-four were in some phase of school administra- tion. Two superintendents held masters degrees in physical education; one of these also held a doctorate in administra- tion and the other had completed the course work for that degree. One masters degree was in soil technology; that superintendent had also completed a year of graduate study in administration. One superintendent held a masters in guidance and a doctorate in administration. One had re- ceived his masters in educational psychology; he had minored in administration and taken some course work after receiv- ing his masters. The specialist in education degree was held by one superintendent. Six superintendents held doc~ tor of education.degrees. Arranging the Interviews A letter was composed and sent to each of the super- intendents in the sample. The letter outlined the interests of the investigator and requested the superintendents' co- operation (See Appendix II.) Each superintendent was then contacted by phone and a time for the interview was sched- uled. As was noted earlier, one superintendent did not choose to participate in the study. During these phone conversations, several superintendents suggested that more could be learned about the instructional program by speak- ing with another individual in their district. They were told that the purpose of this study necessitated a look at 39 the instructional program through the eyes of the superin- tendent. This explanation.was accepted in each case. Two superintendents were unable to keep their ori- ginally scheduled interview date. In both cases, the in- terview was rescheduled when.the investigator arrived for the first appointment and was conducted at the later date. Conducting the Interview Each interview was conducted in the office of the superintendent during the regular school day. The shortest interview was fifty minutes and the longest was two hours and ten minutes. The average length was one hour and six- teen minutes. Twenty-five of the interviews lasted from one hour to one hour and thirty minutes. The superintendents had scheduled at least one hour when they would be free for the interview. However, they were not requested to make the time completely private by not receiving phone calls, although several of them did instruct their secretaries that they would receive only urgent calls. The investigator felt that, although com- plete privacy might have been desirable, to request it could produce unnecessary tensions. The arrangement worked very satisfactorily. The occasional interruptions served as "breathers" for both the superintendents and the inter- viewer. (Overhearing the multitude of tepics which were brought to the attention of the superintendents during these phone calls also served to heighten the investigator's no understanding of the complexity of the superintendency and increase his respect for the men who serve in that posi- tion.) The material shown as "Introductory Remarks" on the cover sheet of the interview schedule (See Appendix III) was covered at the beginning of each interview. Two of the areas need some explanation. First, the superintendents were told that the inter- viewer was a graduate student at Michigan State University and the data secured in the interviews would be used in his doctoral study. The superintendents were 233 told that the interviewer had had some experience as a school administra- tor and that his major field of study was curriculum. It was felt that any tendency of the superintendents to be guarded in their replies might be heightened by this knowl- edge. Many of the superintendents requested and were given more information about the interviewer's background at the conclusion of the interview. Second, in.the section where the superintendents were told that the questions would cover two areas, in- structional improvement and background material about themp selves, a fine line was tread. It seemed necessary to tell the superintendents what areas would be covered without alerting them to the fact that relationships between the two kinds of data were being sought. Had they been so alerted, their responses in both areas would undoubtedly kl have been influenced. The investigator felt that in all but three instances this effort was successful. Three superintendents raised the question of the ”exact purpose of the study" when.given an Opportunity at the end of the introductory remarks. They were satisfied to continue the interview after previously stated information, with some embellishment, was repeated. It must‘be noted that the level of saphistication concerning education and research among the superintendents interviewed makes it impossible to suggest that many of them.did not make intelligent guesses about the nature of the research. However, it is the in- vestigator's opinion that the superintendents' responses were sincere and frank to the maximum degree. The responses quoted in Chapter IV will serve to support this Judgment. During the interviews the superintendents' responses were recorded in their exact words and phrases as far as possible. Within twenty-four hours after the interview the original notes were rewritten on four-by-six cards. This process included expanding the responses from.memory, where necessary, so they would remain intelligible when the classification of the data was undertaken. Developmentgg£.the Interview Schedule To accomplish.the purposes of the study, two kinds of information needed to be secured during the interviews; information about the professional and educational back- AZ grounds of the superintendents and information about the superintendents' perceptions of instructional improvement. Questions in both areas were developed and refined in consultation with.members of the guidance committee and other faculty members. Finally a tentative schedule was prepared and four pilot interviews were held; two with graduate students who were former superintendents and two with superintendents who were members of the population, but not chosen in.the sample. Some changes in.wording, to achieve clarity, were made as a result of the pilot inter- views. Also, several questions were dropped because they .proved to be repetitious. The general plan of the schedule was to ask first the questions concerning the superintendents' perceptions of instructional improvement and then raise the questions dealing with their educational and professional backgrounds. It was reasoned that their responses concerning instruction- al improvement might be influenced if the order were re- versed; that is, reflecting on certain aspects of their professional and educational backgrounds might have pre- judiced their other responses. The first six questions in the interview schedule were designed to elicit open-end responses concerning the superintendents' perceptions of instructional improvement. Questions one and two dealt with the outcomes of efforts to improve instruction: 1&3 1. Would you mention some things which you feel in- dicate that efforts to improve instruction in your district have been successful? 2. Are there some things which you feel would im- prove instruction which have not been accomp plished for one reason or another? In many instances it was not necessary to ask question two because the superintendent would talk freely about things that needed to be accomplished as he responded to question one. The investigator was not interested in discriminating between things which had been accomplished and things which had not; the purpose of the question was to give the superintendent an opportunity to reveal what he saw as outcomes of efforts to improve instruction. The superintendent's perceptions of the methods of bringing about instructional improvement were covered by questions three and four. 3. What ways of working seem to have been most successful in bringing about instructional im- provement in your district? h. Are there some ways of working which have not been tried which you think might be productive? Question four was sometimes omitted because the superinten- dent would cover it in his response to question three. Responses indicative of the superintendents' percep- tions of the qualifications needed by persons working to improve instruction were elicited by questions five and six. an 5. What are some of the experiences which the peeple who have responsibility for instructional improvement in your system.have had, which are helpful to them in that role? 6. ‘What are the experiences which you feel people should have to prepare them.for such a role? Question five was an attempt to relate the idea to people actually working in the district. Question six gave the superintendent an Opportunity to think about the question in a more theoretical way. Several superintendents found it difficult to respond to this question. An alternate question was used in.those cases: If you were hiring a person who would have responsibility for instructional improvement, what kinds of experience would you look for in his background? This question seemed to cover the same ground and the superintendents found it easier to answer. Starting with question seven, the interview schedule dealt with the educational and professional backgrounds of the superintendents. Questions nine, ten, and eleven were exceptions. They were included in the section where the superintendents were being questioned about their previous supervisory experience because their content made it logi- cal to do so. 1&5 9. Did you see the improvement of instruction as a part of your responsibility in those posi- tions? Yes , No . 10. As you think about your prior experience, what are some of the things which you feel you did well in attempting to improve instruction? 11. What are some of the things which you feel, looking back, you could have improved on? Although question nine required only a "yes" or "no" answer, most of the superintendents explained their answer. This free response often served to amplify the superintendent's perceptions of instructional improvement. Questions ten and eleven asked the superintendents to assess their own role in the improvement of instruction. Although.most of the superintendents did that in questions one through six, these questions provided a further look at their perceptions of instructional improvement. The data concerning the superintendents' previous supervisory experience were obtained in questions seven and eight. 7. How many years have you been in your present position? 8. Prior to taking this position as superintendent what supervisory positions had you held? Position Years he Question twelve was designed to obtain a free response concerning the experience the superintendents had had with instructional improvement efforts when they were teachers. 12. As you look back on your days as a teacher, what- stands out about the efforts to improve instruc- tion which.went on in the places where you worked? As most superintendents answered this question by saying, "nothing" or "not much",a probe was used to secure a response about the situations they worked in early in their careers. The probe was generally as follows: "Can you tell me something about the place where you worked?" In responding to this probe the superintendents usually re- called incidents which did have to do with instruction and made comments concerning the superintendents and principals they had worked for. Questions,thirteen, fourteen and fifteen secured fac- tual information about the graduate school experience of the superintendents. 13. I would like to get a picture of your graduate work now. Do you have a masters degree? Do you have a degree beyond the masters? Degree Institution £9.11! Migqg 2333 M.A . 6 yr. Ed.D. Ph.D . I+7 1h. Are you working toward a doctorate or a 6 year degree? Yes , No . 15. (a) Have you taken any graduate work since the completion of your last degree? Yes , No. . '(b) (If yes) 'What are the names of some of the courses you have taken? Question sixteen was an attempt to find out how the superintendents evaluated their graduate school experience in relation to their responsibilities for instructional improvement. 16. As you think about the experiences you had in graduate school, which have been most helpful to you as you work to improve instruction in your system? A probe, such as, “Can you tell me more about those experi- ences?" was usually used with this question. The final question, seventeen, did.not mention gradu— ate school, but was in the context of the earlier questions which were about graduate school. 17. If you wanted to have experiences which would help you be a better instructional leader, what kinds of experiences would you seek? 148 The responses to this question were analysed in relation to the superintendents' graduate school experience on the rationale that mentioning an experience at a college or university implied a "high-valuing" of the graduate school experience and not mentioning such an experience implied a relatively "low-valuing" of the graduate school experience. 1133 Pugpose 3; 11133 M: A Second Look Before proceeding with the final section of Chapter III, which will describe the procedure followed in classi- fying and preparing to analyse the data, a few threads of the research which have become crossed, if not tangled, need to be reexamined. The reader is reminded that al- though research reports often make it appear that the steps of the research.process took place in an orderly fashion, from."beginning to end," this is seldom the case. In this report, an attempt is made to describe one of the areas of confusion as it developed in the researcher's mind and evidenced itself in the early phases of the research proc- ess. As the research began, several things were in proc- ess at the same time: the purposes of the study were stated in the form of a proposal and restated in a rough draft of Chapter I; the interview schedule was developed and pilot interviews were conducted; and the literature was reviewed and the concepts presented in Chapter II were for- mulated. M9 The general purpose of the study was to find out how superintendents perceive instructional improvement and what relationships exist between their perceptions and their educational and professional backgrounds. As an attempt was made to make the purposes more explicit and detailed, the dimensions of the superintendents' perceptions of in- structional improvement to be examined were identified as, "(1) outcomes of instructional improvement activities, (2) methods of working to bring about instructional improvement, (3) qualifications for persons working to improve instruc- tion.” (See p. 5.) But where did these dimensions come from? They were develOped by the researdher as a framework for questions about instructional improvement to be included in the inter- view schedule. Their purpose was to provide a framework in.which questions could be asked which would get the super- intendents to talk about instructional improvement. From this modest beginning, the three dimensions be- came mainstays in the whole research design and purpose (they were subsequently used in the "Relationships to be Explored" section, as well.) This seems to have occurred because of the researcher's desire to state, as early as possible, a definitive purpose for the study. The three "dimensions of instructional improvement" have been identified as interlopers insofar as they became a part of the purpose of the study. It is now necessary 50 to reexamine the purpose of the study. 'What was the plan for investigating the superintendents'perceptions of in- structional improvement? With what perceptions of instruc- tional improvement was the study concerned? As mentioned earlier, the statement of three con- cepts, as presented in Chapter II, was in process at the same time the purpose of the study was being developed. These concepts were stated and supported from.the litera- ture as "important to the processes of instructional im» provement." The purpose of the study was to determine how the superintendents perceived instructional improvement, relative ththese three important concepts, and to identify relationships between those perceptions and their profes- sional and educational backgrounds. The statement of pur- pose should have read in part: This study was an attempt to determine the percep- tions of public school superintendents concerning instructional improvement. The superintendents' perceptions were investigated in relation to three concepts: Concept I-- Evegy function of administration is related to the Instructional program. Concept II-- Changes g3 instruction occur when pgople change. Concept III-- Instructional improvement occurs in situations where the worth of thefi individual ig recognized. These concepts are discussed and supported from.the litera- ture in Chapter II. 51 rather than: "This study was an attempt to determine the percep- tions of public school superintendents concerning instructional improvement. As the study was under- taken, three dimensions of the superintendents' perceptions were chosen for investigation: (1) outcomes of instructional improvement activities, (2) methods of working to bring about instructional improvement, (3) qualifications for persons working to improve instruction. These dimensions of the superintendents' perceptions were selected on the rationale that they represent a wide range of the total spectrum.of their perceptions."3 In the questions raised concerning possible relation- ships which might exist among the data,’-L the phrases dealing with "outcomes", "methods" and "qualifications" should be replaced by Concepts I, II and III and read as follows: 1. Does a relationship exist between the super- intendents' perceptions relative to Concept I-- Everyfunction g; administration ig related tg_ _t_i_1_e_ instructional program, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instructional improvement activities 3See Chapter I, p. h. “See Chapter I, p. 8. 52 they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? 2. Does a relationship exist between the superin- tendents' perceptions relative to Concept 11-- Changes i3 instruction occur when people change, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instructional im» provement activities they experienced as teach- ers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? 3. Does a relationship exist between the superin- tendents' perceptions relative to Concept III-- Instructional improvement occurs i3 situations where the worth 9; the individual ig recognized, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instructional im- provement activities they experienced as teach- ers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? Although this presentation.has pointed to an area of confusion, it should be noted that the "dimensions of in- structional improvement" are not unrelated to the “con- cepts" whose place they usurped in the statement of pur- pose. For instance, in the explication of Concept III, it is pointed out that one of the ways of inferring a superintendent's agreement or disagreement with that concept 53 is to find out how he sees himself and others working with the professional staff. One of the dimensions was con- cerned with "methods of bringing about instructional im- provement." And questions used in the framework of that dimension asked the superintendents about "ways of work- ing . . . in bringing about instructional improvement." This restatement of the purpose of the study and the relationships which were being explored was undertaken, in this manner, to give the reader an understanding of the "roads taken" and "not taken" during the early phases of the research process. Classification and Analysis 23.222.2225 The procedures followed in classifying the data relative to Concepts I, II and III, which were presented in Chapter II, is described in this section. The classi- fication of the data concerning the superintendents' pro- fessional and educational backgrounds is included in Chap- ter IV where those data are presented. Questions one through six and nine through eleven of the interview schedule elicited free responses from.the superintendents relative to the outcomes and methods of instructional improvement and the qualifications needed by persons working for instructional improvement. The rationale was that the superintendents in their responses to these questions would reveal their perceptions relative 51+ to Concepts I, II and III. This proved to be a satisfactory rationale. Classification of responses relative to Concept I--E!ggy function g; administration $5 related §g_the instructional program. The superintendents often.made mention of public re- lations, finance, buildings, and other functions of admin- istration sometimes not thought of as related to instruc- tion. When a response implied that the function was not related to instruction, it was classified as disagreeing with Concept I. ‘When the response implied that the function was related to instruction, it was classified as agreeing with Concept I. A third classification was used for those superintendents who made no response relative to Concept I or made contradictory responses. This classification was designated p922 or contradictgpy. The classification of these data was based on inferences drawn by the writer from responses made by the superintendents. The interviews used to collect these data made it possible for the interviewer to hear the responses in.the context of the total inter- view, establish rapport, and observe non-verbal responses to the various questions. This, as well as the opportunity to seek clarification when necessary, should have enhanced the validity of the inferences drawn. Examples of respon- ses classified as agreeing and disagreeing are given on p. 61, Chapter IV. 55 Classification of responses relative to Concept II—-Changes ig instruction occur when people change. The superintendents had numerous opportunities to talk about people changing as a part of instructional im- provement. For instance, they could point to changed teacher behavior as indicating that instruction had imp proved (question 1), or they could speak of ways of chang- ing people (question 3), or experience in changing people (question 5). Two categories were used in classifying the respon- ses relative to Concept II. If the response was either implicit or explicit about the need to change peOple, it was classified as agreeing with Concept II. The second category was made up of those superintendents whose re- sponses did not include any reference to the need to change people. Examples of agreeing responses are given on p. 62 of Chapter IV. Classification of responses relative to Concept III-slay structional improvement occurs l2 situations where the gggph g; the individual ;g_recognized. Two kinds of responses were seen as relative to Con- cept III. The first had to do with the superintendents' mentioning of children. It was noted that some of the superintendents mentioned children in their responses and some did not. Is the mentioning of children or the failure to do so, in an interview such as the one conducted, 56 related to Concept IIB‘ The question is certainly debatable. The writer chooses to argue that it is related; that we can infer something about a superintendent's valuing of chil- dren on the basis of whether or not he mentions them in discussing instructional improvement. And that this valu- ing of children is related to his feelings about the worth of individuals. The responses relative to children were placed in three categories. Those which mentioned loving, knowing, understanding children.were classified as understanding. Scientific was used to designate those responses which men- tioned children in a more impersonal way, such as, ways of grouping, results of measuring, and number of children. A designation of ngng was used for those superintendents who did not mention children in their responses. Examples of these responses are given on p.61; of Chapter IV. The superintendents had an Opportunity to express themselves about working with people to improve instruc- tion. They talked about how they do it, how others do it, how it ought to be done, and so on. The discussion of Concept III in Chapter II suggested that something can be inferred about a superintendent's perceptions of the worth of individuals from.the way he works with peeple in im- proving instruction. The responses relative to ways of working with people were classified as freeing or directing. Responses which 57 implied the need to allow peOple to grow, to free peOple, to respect their individuality, were classified as freeing. The responses which implied the need to tell, sell, mani- pulate, and direct people were classified as directing. A third classification, ngng or contradictony_was used when there were no classifiable responses and when the responses were contradictory. Examples of freeing and directing re- sponses are given on pp. 66-67 of Chapter IV. Classification of the data relative to Concepts I, II and III has been discussed in some detail because of the need to clarify the relationship between the responses and the concepts, and to make the methods of classification ex- plicit. The classification of the data relative to the professional and educational backgrounds of the superin- tendents is discussed when those data are presented in Chapter IV. The relationships between the superintendents' per- ceptions of instructional improvement (Concepts I, II and III) and their professional and educational backgrounds are analysed in Chapter IV. The classifications of the superintendents' responses relative to Concepts I, II and III are presented in the first part of the chapter. Then each of the background factors is shown in relation to those classifications. The number and per cent of super- intendents having a particular background factor in common 58 is shown with respect to each classification relative to Concepts I, II and III. Summary This chapter has described the research procedures including: identification of the population, selection and description of the sample, develOpment of the interview schedule, conduct of the interviews, and classification of portions of the data. One section of the chapter reexamined portions of the research process to this point and attempted to clarify the purpose of the study. The data of the study will be presented and analysed in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction The study data are presented and analysed in this chapter. Data describing the population and sample were presented in Chapter III. The data presented here were collected during interviews with the thirty-two superinten- dents who constituted the study sample. The verbal responses of the superintendents relative to Concepts I, II and III are presented in the first sec- tion of the chapter. Following this presentation, data relative to the superintendents' experience in supervisory positions, experience with instructional improvement as a teacher, and experience in graduate school are presented. Relationships between these data and the superintendents' responses relative to Concepts I, II and III are analysed. Superintendents' Verbal Responses Relative pg Concepts I, I; 9313 I_I_I_[_ The superintendents responded to a series of ques- tions concerning (1) what they saw as the outcomes of at- tempts to improve instruction, (2) how they saw themselves and others working in bringing about instructional improve- ment, and (3) what they saw as qualifications for people in S9 60 positions of instructional leadership. These responses have been classified in relation to Concepts I, II and III. Concept I--Eveny function g; administration i3 related pp. the instructional program. Three classifications were used in analysing the superintendents' responses: (1) responses which showed an agreement with Concept I, (2) responses which disagreed with Concept I, and (3) either contradictory responses or no responses which could be classified as agreeing or dis- agreeing with Concept I. The data thus classified are pre- sented in Table III. TABLE III.--Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept I .Type of Per Cent Response Frequency of Total Agreeing - 10 31.25 None or Contradictory l6 0 Disagreeing 6 18.75 ' The responses of ten superintendents were classified as being in agreement with Concept I; those of six were in disagreement with Concept I; and sixteen superintendents made remarks which were contradictory or made no remarks which were classifiable. Selected Comments.--Classified as disagreeinngith Concept I: 61 "We (superintendents) are concerned with instruc- tional improvement, but we must spend a large part of our time with budgets and bonds." "I guess I'm a 'bonds, busses and budgets' man." "I've always been.busy building buildings, worrying about drains, etc." Selected Comments.--Classified as agreeing with Concept I: "I've built buildings, which improve instruction, and secured federal money for the develOpment of our in- structional program." "To improve instruction, we need a new building; space is inadequate, severely so." "Our program would be better if we could have better relations with the community, like Flint." Concept II--Changes‘§p instruction ppppp|ghpp people chang . Twenty-five of the superintendents made remarks which implied a need for change in the attitudes and be- haviors of people if instruction was to change. Seven superintendents made no remarks which indicated a need for change in people. 62 TABLE IV.--Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept II Type of , Per Cent Response -Frequency of Total Agreeing 25 78.13 None 7 21.87 The remarks of the superintendents were classified as agreeing with Concept II if they implied a need for change in people in order to bring about improved instruc- tion. No attempt was made to judge either the superinten- dents' understanding of how people change or consider the methods of changing people implied in their remarks. This broad classification coupled with the large number of change-implying words in the vocabularies of most educators probably explains why the remarks of twenty-five superin- tendents agreed with the concept. The classification is less discriminating than those relative to Concepts I and III; however, some relationships between the professional and educational backgrounds of the superintendents are in- dicated in the data analysis. Selected Comments.--"Some teachers are reluctant to accept change. We have decided on a new math program, but some still don't want to do it. We are paying tuition for teachers to take a math course here." 63 "It (method of improving instruction) is basically a stimulus-response approach. 'Works well when.the stimulus gets the response, it doesn't always . . .“ “How do you turn a dull teacher into an inspiring one?" "We encourage the staff to better themselves." "We will have a man from the company demonstrate the many uses of this medium. Then, a few weeks later, we will ask teachers to list how many ways they have used it. This will, in a gentle fashion, give them incentive." "We (faculty) need to change away from our academic orientation." "We have student teachers in our system. This has a tendency to shape-up the critic teachers." Concept III-~Instructiona1 improvement occurs ;n_situations where the worth.p£.the individual in recognized. Two types of responses were considered in relation to Concept III. The superintendents' responses concerning children constituted the first type.‘ The responses were placed in one of three classifications: (1) those which did not mention children, i.e., during the interview the superintendent made no mention of children, (2) those which mentioned children in a scientific or detached way, and (3) those which.mentioned children in an affectionate or under- standing way. It was noted early in the interviews that some super- intendents did not mention children during the entire inter- 61L view and some did. An examination of the responses mention- ing children showed that some asserted the need to love, accept, and understand children, while others reported such things as measuring (testing) and grouping children. The terms "understanding" and "scientific" were chosen to iden- tify the two classifications. Table V shows the classifi- cation of verbal responses concerning children. TABLE V.--Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept III-~Children Type of Response Per Cent Concerning Children Frequency of Total Understanding 13 no.6 Scientific ll 3h.h None 8 25 Eight superintendents did not mention.children dur- ing the interviews; eleven mentioned children in a scien- tific or detached manner; and thirteen mentioned children in an understanding or affectionate way. Selected Comments.--Classified as scientific or detached remarks: "As a high school principal I provided broader course offerings for students to select from." "We may approach teachers and say, 'Are you having trouble getting kids to read?'" 65 "We need to have smaller groupings of kids, for in- stance, six rather than three groups in a class." "The success of our students on standardized tests is on the up-swing." "In junior high we have cut class sizes, added staff and reduced student time in study halls." Selected Comments.--Classified as understanding or affectionate remarks: "Pupil-teacher relationships were good; teachers respected kids and kids respected teachers." "I took a course called 'Individual Differences' back in the thirties; it has been very helpful as I work with teachers, kids and people in general." "Teachers need to accept and love every child. I spent two years working in a mental hospital. I came to believe that if love and acceptance is good for the men- tally ill, helps them get better, then it should be a part of the education process as we work in schools." "Basically it has something to do with how you feel about kids. I love kids. If you do, you want to improve things for them.” "Through experience, raising own kids, other people, you begin to see that schools are for kids. What I do has an influence on many people; this is scary." Also relative to Concept III were the superinten- dents' responses regarding how they work with staff in 66 bringing about the improvement of instruction. These verbal responses were placed in one of three classifications: (1) freeing, (2) directing, and (3) no classifiable remarks, or contradictory remarks. Responses which implied the need to allow people to grow, to free people, to respect their in- dividuality, were placed in the freeing category. Those which implied the need to tell, sell, manipulate and direct people were classified as directing. The third classifica- tion was used when the superintendent's remarks were con- tradictory and when there were no classifiable remarks. Table VI shows the distribution of the verbal responses in these categories. TABLE VI.--Superintendents' Responses Relative to Concept III-~Freeing/Directing Type of Per Cent Response Frequency of Total Freeing ' 13 h0.6 None or Contradictory 8 25 Directing ll . 3k.h Eleven superintendents made remarks which were classified as directing; thirteen made freeing remarks; and eight made either no classifiable remarks or contra- dictory ones. Selected Comments.--Directing: "K-12 subject coordinator works, pushing, provoking, 67 etc. K-12 curriculum director could work with new teach- ers; observing in their classrooms and suggesting ways to improve their teaching." "Organize a teacher's committee; they get assigned a job. Maneuver to get teachers thinking on problems." "WOuld like to be able to release principals from teaching. They could be in the classrooms and send super- visory reports directly to me; I don't want a 'supervision' person." "Each keeps the others (administrators) informed through our general administrative meetings. When we are ready with something, we clear a date and invite the teach- ers in to a meeting." "We have an elaborate committee organization; each teacher pppp be on at least one committee. An elaborate bulletin at the first of the year outlines goals, etc. Volunteers are secured for each committee; there is some shifting if too many are in one area. Assistant superin- tendent doesn't care who is working where, as long as the distribution is right." "In the administrative council, I dominate. Guess you could say an 'enlightened despot.‘ I structure and pick brains. They (other administrators) are an extension of the superintendent. Others (superintendents) may say they do it differently, but they don't." 68 Selected Comments.--Freeing: "Teachers develop ideas and say, 'Let's try this.I . . . principals are individuals; some work like I did, but some don't." "I want to permit our principals to grow. I operate on the 'faith principle'; give people responsibility and let them.know you will back them.up." "Principals meet as a group with.the superintendent. There is time for what they want to talk about (anything) at each meeting." "I want principals to work as I do, but they are in- dividuals, too. Those who can 'stand' the give and take of our discussions in administrative council use that method with their staffs. One young fellow wants to be his own boss; calls it undemocratic if he doesn't get his way. He doesn't give his staff any say." "Improving instruction is often a matter of getting together, blowing off steam.and getting down to problems. It is a matter of working with people (you can bring in technical people.) Proper relationships can make it pos- sible for things to happen." "You must give a group responsibility and authority to act. I don't always agree, but I don't have all the brains. We hire intelligent teachers." "We try for total involvement of staff in curriculum study and work; this is not done by calling in consultants 69 to dictate what we should do. You can get involvement by letting people gripe (problems aren't always directly re- lated to instruction); then identifying problems and start- ing to work on it." This section has reported the verbal responses of the superintendents relative to Concepts I, II and III. Data Concerning the Snperintendents' Professional and EducationalJ Backgrounds The superintendents reported on three areas of their professional and educational backgrounds during the inter- views. The three areas were: (1) experience as a super- visor, (2) experience in being supervised as a teacher, and (3) graduate school experience. In this section, the data concerning these background factors are reported and re- lationships between them.and Concepts I, II and III are explored. Superintendents' Experience §p_Supervisors.--The analysis includes three factors relative to the superin- tendents' experience as a supervisor: (1) years of ex- perience as a supervisor or administrator, (superintendent or assistant, principal or assistant, director of secondary or elementary education, etc.); (2) number of years in present position; and (3) kinds of supervisory experience prior to becoming a superintendent. Ypppp 2; Experience gp_g_Supervisor.--The rationale of this analysis was that the verbal responses concerning 70 Concepts I, II and III of younger, less experienced, more recently trained superintendents, might be different from those of older, more experienced and earlier trained super- intendents. The data revealed that five superintendents had less than ten years of experience, ten superintendents had eleven to twenty, nine had twenty-one to thirty, and eight had over thirty. Tables VII and VIII present these data and their relationship to Concepts I, II and III. TABLE VII.--Superintendents' Total'Years of Supervisory Experience as Related to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Years of Agree- Contra- agree- Agree- None Experience ing dictory ing ing r % r % f % f % r % 1-10 2 no 2 no 1 20 u 80 1 20 (N=S ) 11-20 2 20 6 60 2 20 10 100 0 0 (N=10) 21-30 h uh 3 33 2 23 7 77 2 23 (N=9) 31 and 2 25 5 62 1 13 u so u 50 over (N=8) Table VII indicates no relationship between the superintendents' total years of experience as a supervisor 71 and their responses relative to Concept I. Regarding Concept II, Table VII reveals that of the superintendents who have in excess of thirty years of super- visory experience, fifty per cent made responses in agree- ment with Concept II and fifty per cent failed to do so. Eighty per cent of the superintendents having less than ten years of experience made responses in agreement with.Con- cept II, one hundred per cent of those having eleven to twenty years did so, as did seventy-seven per cent in the twenty-one to thirty years of experience classification. In Table VIII the comparison between years of ex- perience and Concept III is shown. TABEE VIII.--Superintendents' Total'Years of Supervisory Experience as Related to Concept III _ Freeing Concept III Children Concept III-Directing Under- None or 'Years of stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Experience ing tific ing dictory ing r % r z r z r % r % f % 1-10 2 no 2 no 1 20 1 20 2 no 2 no (N=S) 11-20 5 so 1 10 n no n no 3 3o 3 30 (Nle) 21-30 3 33 h an 2 23 5 55 l 11 3 3h (N=9) 31 and 3 37 h 50 1 13 3 37 2 25 3 37 over (N=8) 72 The only notable relationship revealed by this analysis is that only twenty per cent of the least experienced super- intendents made freeing remarks, compared to forty per cent in the eleven to twenty year range, fifty-five per cent in the twenty-one to thirty year range, and thirty-seven per cent in the thirty-one and over category. nggg.in Present Position.--The superintendents in this study reported that they had been in the same position for a period of one to thirty-three years. The average tenure was eight years. It is sometimes supposed that people who stay in the same position are different from.those who do not. The data were examined to determine if any relationships ex- isted between tenure in the same position and Concepts I, II and III. Tables IX and.x illustrate the findings. The superintendents who had been in their present position from one to five years more frequently made re- marks in agreement with Concept I than did the superinten- dents in.the other three categories (n6% as compared with 25% in the six to ten year range, 12.5% in the eleven to fifteen year range, and 29% in.the sixteen and over range.) Superintendents who had been in their present posi- tions from.aix to ten years made remarks in agreement with Concept II less often than did the superintendents in the other categories (50% as compared with 92% in the one to five year range, 62% in the eleven to fifteen year range, and 86% in the sixteen years and over range.) 73 TABEE IX.--Superintendents' Years in Present Position as Related to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Die- Years in Pres- Agree- Contra- agree- Agree- None ent Position ing dictory ing ing 1' % f % f 75 f % 1‘ % 1-5 6 no u 30 3 2n 12 92 1 8 (N==13) 6-10 1 25 3 75 o O 2 SO 2 50 (11:11) 11-15 1 12.5 6 75 1 12.5 S 62 3 38 (N=8) 16 and over 2 29 3 n2 2 29 6 86 1 in N=7 TABLE X.--Superintendents"Years in Present Position as Related to Concept III Concept III-Children Concept III-gigziging ‘Years in Under- None or Present stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Position ing tific ing dictory ing r%t‘% 1‘ 7%! %r %f% 1-5 6116321; #30 6116 #303211 (N=13) 6-10 0 O 2 50 2 SO 0 0 0 0 h. 100 (N=l+) 31%? 1L 50 1 12.5 3 37.5 3 37.5 3 37.5 2 25 l6-over229571 oon57 11n 229 (N=7) 7h Superintendents who had been in their present posi- tions from six to ten years made no understanding remarks concerning children, compared to six (n9%) in the one to five year range, four (50%) in the eleven to fifteen year range, and two (29%) in the sixteen years and over range, who did make understanding remarks. Superintendents who had been in their present posi- tions from six to ten years made no freeing remarks concern- ing working with their staffs (0% as compared to n6% in the one to five year range, 37.5% in the eleven to fifteen year range, and 57% in the sixteen years and over range.) Four (100%) of the superintendents who had been in their present positions from six to ten years made directing remarks con- cerning working with their staffs (compared to 2n% in the one to five year range, 25% in the eleven to fifteen year range, and 29% in the sixteen years and over range.) gindg g£_Supervisory Experience Prior t3 Becoming a Superintendent.--Table XI shows the kinds of supervisory experience the superintendents had had before becoming superintendents. Nineteen of the superintendents had been secondary school principals prior to becoming superintendents. The superintendents who had been secondary school principals were compared to those who had not been in relation to Con- cepts I, II and III. Tables XII and XIII illustrate the findings. 75 TABLE XI.--Superintendents' Prior Experience as Supervisors Number of Type of Experience Superintendents Elementary Principal n Secondary Principal 16 Secondary Principal and Other: Assistant Superintendent- Instruction 1 Administrator of Adult Service Schools 1 Director of Adult Education and Head of Department 1 Elementary Principal and Other: Assistant Superintendent- Instruction 1 Assistant Superintendent- Business 1 Other Supervisory Positions: Director of Physical Education and Student Activities 1 Assistant Superintendent- Business No Supervisory Experience 5 76 TABLE XII.-4Experience as a Secondary Principal as Related to Concepts I and II m 3"; i I Concept I Concept II Experience None or Dis— as Secondary Agreeing Contra- agreeing Agreeing None Principal dictory r 75 r % r % r % f 75 Yes 5 26.3 10 52.6 n 21.1 11: 73.7 5 26.3 (N=l9) No 5 38.5 6 n6.1 2 15.n ll 8n.6 2 15.n (N=13) Relative to Concept 1, there appeared to be little difference between superintendents who had been secondary principals and those who had not. Five superintendents (38%) who had not had secondary principalship experience made remarks in agreement with Concept I; five (26%) of those who had the experience made agreeing remarks. Four- teen superintendents (73.7%) who had secondary principal- ship experience made remarks agreeing with Concept II; eleven (8n.6%) who had not had secondary principalship ex- perience made agreeing remarks. Table XIII shows that two superintendents (15.n%) who had experience as secondary principals did not mention children during the interview; six (h6.1%) of those with- out secondary experience did not. This difference was re- flected in the scientific mentioning of children as nine 77 (n2.5%) of the secondary-experienced superintendents men- tioned children in a scientific way as against two (15.k%) who had no secondary principalship experience. Table XIII reveals no notable differences between the secondary-experienced and secondary non-experienced relative to freeing and directing remarks. TABIE XIII.-4Experience as a Secondary Principal as Related to Concept III Concept III-Children Concept III_Freeing Directing Experience as Sec- Under- None or ondary stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Principal ing tific ing dictory ing f % f % f % f % f % f % Yes 8 n2.1 9 n2.5 2 15-h 8 n2.1 n 21.1 7 36.8 (N=19) No 5 38.5 2 15oh 6 N6.1 5 38.5 A 30-75 A 30-75 (N=13) Table XI shows that seven of the superintendents had had experience in the supervision of elementary programs prior to becoming a superintendent; six as elementary prin- cipals and one as an assistant superintendent for instruc- tion. Tables XIV and XV show the relationship between this experience factor and Concepts I, II and III. 78 TABLE XIV.-6Experience as an.Elementary Supervisor as Related to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Elementary Agreeing Contra- agreeing Agreeing None Experience dictory r % r % f % f % f % Yes 2 28.6 n 57.1 1 1n.3 7 100 o o (N=7) No 8 32 12 n8 5 20 18 72 7 28 (N=25) TABLE XV.-éExperience as an Elementary Supervisor as Related to Concept III Fr in Concept III-Children Concept III‘Dizzctfng Under- None or Elementary stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Experience ing tific ing dictory ing r % r % r % f % f % f % ¥637) 3 “.209 0 O h- 5701 h. 5701 2 28.6 1 1,443 N: No 10 no 11 nn n 16 9 36 6 an 10 no (N=25) Superintendents with.elementary supervisory experi- ence did not differ from those that were without such ex- perience relative to Concept I. 79 Seven (100%) of the superintendents with elementary experience made remarks in agreement with Concept II; eighteen (72%) of those without elementary experience made remarks in agreement with Concept II. Relative to Concept III, four (57.1%) of the ele- mentary-experienced superintendents did not mention chil- dren during the interview compared to four (16%) of the superintendents who did not have elementary experience. This difference was reflected in the number of scientific remarks concerning children, as the experienced made no scientific remarks compared to eleven (nn%) of the non-ex- perienced. Three (HZ-9%) of the elementary-experienced superintendents made understanding remarks while ten (n0%) of those without elementary experience made understanding remarks. Four (57.1%) of the elementary-experienced super- intendents made freeing remarks relative to working with their staffs as compared to nine (36%) of those without elementary experience. This difference was reflected in the number of directing remarks made, with one (1h.3%) ele- mentary-experienced superintendent making directing remarks compared to ten (n0%) of those without elementary experi- ence. ‘ Relationships between the superintendents' previous supervisory experience and Concepts I, II and III have been reported in this section. 80 Superintendents' Experiencg_in Being Supervised 35 Teachers.--Each superintendent responded to the question, "As you look back on your days as a teacher, what stands out about the efforts to improve instruction which went on in the places where you worked?" The initial responses were placed in three categor- ies: (1) responses indicating that little or no effort to improve instruction was present, (2) responses indicating that efforts were made, but the superintendents (as teach- ers) felt negatively about them, and (3) responses indicat- ing that efforts were made about which the superintendents (as teachers) felt positively. Table XVI shows the results of this categorization. TABLE XVI.--Superintendents' Responses Regarding Efforts to Improve Instruction in Schools Where They‘Worked as Teachers ——f Classification Frequency Per Cent of Response of Total Little or No Effort 23 71.1 Some Effort-Negative 5 12.5 Some Effort-Positive 3 9-H The data as presented in Table XVI are of interest as they show that only three (9.h%) of the superintendents gave responses indicating that they, as teachers, experi- enced efforts to improve instruction about which they felt 81 positively. Twenty-three (71.1%) indicated that there had been little or no effort and five (12.5%) indicated that there had been some effort, but that they felt negatively toward it. The small number of responses in the two "Some Effort" categories made it impractical to attempt a further analysis of these data. After the initial response to the question concerning efforts to improve instruction in places where they had worked, a general probing question was posed for each.of the superintendents. This probe was usually, "Would you tell me something more about the situation(s) in.which you worked?" The responses to this question were classified as ‘ follows: (1) those which mentioned people in a positive way, (2) those which did not mention people, and (3) those which mentioned peoP1e in a negative way. The results of this classification, in relation to Concepts I, 11 and III are shown in Tables XVII and XVIII. Four superintendents (n0%) who made positive remarks about people agreed with Concept I, three (30%) who did not mention people agreed with Concept 1, and two (18.2%) of those who made negative remarks concerning people agreed with Concept I. Nine (90%) of the superintendents from.both.the groups which.made positive remarks and the group which.made no remarks agreed with Concept II. 0f the eleven superin- tendents who made negative remarks about people, six (5h.5%) agreed with Concept II. 82 TABLE XVII.--Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places'Where They Worked in Relation to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Kind of .Agree- Contra- agree- Agree- None Remark ing dictory ing ing r % r % f % f % f % Positive n no 3 30 3 30 9 90 l 10 (N=10) None 3 30 n no 3 3o 9 90 .1 10 (N=10) Negative 2 1802 6 ELI-.5 3 2703 6 SLIHS S “-505 (N=ll) TABLE XVIII.--Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places Where They Worked in Relation to Concept III Concept III-Children Concept III-gi;:::§n8 Under- None or .Kind of stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Remark ing tific ing dictory ing r % r % r % r % r % f % Positive 7 70 l 10 2 20 9 9O 1. 10 O 0 (N=lO) None 2 20 7 70 1 10 2 20 3 30 5 50 (N=10) Negative 3 27.3 3 27.3 5 n5.n 1 9.1 n 36.n 6 5n.5 (N=ll) 33 Seven superintendents (70%) who mentioned peOple positively made understanding remarks about children, seven (70%) who failed to mention people, made scientific remarks concerning children, and five (n5.5%) who mentioned people negatively did not make any remarks concerning children. Nine (90%) of the superintendents who made positive remarks about people in places where they had worked made freeing remarks about working with their staffs. Two (20%) who did not mention people and one (9.1%) who mentioned peeple negatively made freeing remarks. Of these two lat- ter groups, five (50%) and six (5n.5%) respectively made directing remarks about working with their staffs. Relationships between the superintendents' experi- ence with efforts to improve instruction when they were teachers and Concepts I, II and III have been reported in this section. Superintendents' Graduate School Experience.--Several questions secured information about the superintendents' graduate school experience. Data concerning degrees held, when received, and institutions attended were presented in Chapter III (See Table II, p. 37) In this section, data concerning (1) recency of ob- taining the masters degree, (2) extent of graduate study, (3) remarks about graduate school experience, and (n) selec- tion of graduate school as a valuable experience, are pre- sented and relationships to Concepts I, II and III are ana- lysed. 8h Recency g£_0btaininngasters'Degree.--Each of the superintendents reported the date when he received his mas- ters degree. The most recent masters degree was granted in 1955, nine years ago: the earliest masters was granted in 1932, thirty-two years ago. Thirteen superintendents re- ceived their masters degree between nine and fifteen years ago. Nineteen received their degrees between eighteen and thirty-two years ago. The two groups are compared in re- lation to Concepts I, II and III in Tables XIX and XX. TABLE XIX.--Recency of Receiving Masters Degree in Relation to Concepts I and II W Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Degree Granted Agree- Contra- agree- Agree- None in the Past ing dictory ing ing r % r % r % r % r % 9-15 years n 30.8 7 53.8 2 15-h 12 93 1 8 (N=13 18-32 years 6 31.6 7 36.8 6 31.6 13 68.n 6 31.6 (N=19) No difference appeared between the superintendents who received their degrees eighteen to thirty-two years ago and those who received them nine to fifteen years ago in their statements in agreement with Concept I. Two (15.h%) of the superintendents in the nine to fifteen group made statements disagreeing with Concept I as against six (31.6%) in the eighteen to thirty-two year classification. 85 Twelve (92%) of the superintendents who received their degrees more recently made statements in agreement with Concept II as against thirteen (68.n%) who received their degrees earlier. TABLE XX.--Recency of Receiving Masters Degree in Relation to Concept III Concept III-Children Concept III-gi;:::%ng Under- None or Degree Granted stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- in the Past ing tific ing dictory ing r % r % r % r % r % f % 9-153 ears 6 no.2 2 15.h 5 38.h h 30.8 5 38.h h 30.8 N: 18-3$)years 7 36.9 8 n2.1 h 21 9 h7.h 3 15.8 7 36.8 N=l Of the superintendents who received their masters degrees more recently, six (n6.2%) made understanding re- marks concerning children, two (15.h%) made scientific re- marks, and five (38.h%) did not mention children. or those who received their degrees earlier, seven (36.9%) made un- derstanding remarks, eight (n2.l%) made scientific remarks, and four (21%) did not mention children. . Four of the superintendents (30.8%) in the recent classification made freeing remarks in discussing working with their staffs; nine (n7.h%) in the earlier classifica- tion made freeing remarks. 86 Extent 9; Graduate Study.--The superintendents were divided into three classifications according to the extent of their graduate study: (1) those who had a masters de- gree and little or no work beyond; (2) a masters degree plus twenty-five to thirty semester credits; and (3) a masters degree plus sixty semester credits, a specialist degree, or a doctorate. These data, in relation to Concepts I, II and III, are presented in Tables XXI and XXII. TABLE XXI.--Extent of Graduate Study in Relation to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or {Dis- Extent of Agree- Contra- agree- Agree- None Graduate Study ing dictory ing ing r % r % r % r % f % M.A. 2 18.2 6 5n.5 3 27.3 8 72.7 3 27.3 (Nzll) yfigé)plus 30 3 37.5 3 37.5 2 25 6 7s 2 25 M.A. plus 60 5 38.5 7 53.8 1 7.8 11 8n.6 2 15.n m:13) The superintendents with the least graduate study agreed with Concept I least frequently; two (18.2%) as com- pared to three (37.5%) and five (38.5%) of the superinten- dents in the masters plus thirty and the masters plus sixty classifications respectively. 87 There was little difference shown in the agreement with Concept II; eight (72.7%) 1n the masters classification agreed, six (75%) in the masters plus thirty, and eleven (8n.6%) in the masters plus sixty. TABLE XXII.--Extent of Graduate Study in Relation to Concept III Concept III-Children Concept III-Freeing Directing Under- None or Extent of stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- Graduate Study ing tific ing dictory ing r % r %r %’r %r %’r ‘7%' M.A. n 36.n S h5.n 2 18.2 5 ns.n 1 9.2 s n5.n (N=ll) m.Aé)plus 3o 5 62.5 2 25 1 12.5 n 50 1 12.5 8 37.5 N: h.A. plus 60 n 30.8 n 30.8 5 38.n n 30.8 6 n6.2 3 23 N=13 Five superintendents (62.5%) in the masters plus thir- ty classification made understanding remarks concerning children compared to four (36.h%) in the masters group and four (30.8%) in the masters plus sixty group. Five superintendents (n5.n%) in the masters classi- fication made freeing remarks concerning working with their staffs compared to four (50%) of the masters plus thirty and four (30.8%) of the masters plus sixty. Directing re- marks were made by five (HS-9%) of the superintendents in 88 the masters classification, eight (37.5%) in the masters plus thirty, and three (23%) in the masters plus sixty. Remarks About Graduate School Experience.--The super- intendents responded to the question, “As you reflect on your graduate school experiences, which have been most help- ful to you as you attempt to give leadership to the improve- ment of instruction in your system?" Nineteen superintendents mentioned people in their response to this question. They indicated that they had come to know certain instructors well, that they had main- tained communications with instructors, and generally im- plied that the experience had been helpful because of the peeple involved. Thirteen of the superintendents did not mention peOple; they mentioned courses, fields of knowledge, and specific kinds of experiences. Tables XXIII and XXIV compare the two groups in relation to Concepts I, II and III. Of the superintendents who mentioned people, seven (36.8%) agreed with Concept I and one (5.3%) disagreed with Concept I. Three superintendents (23%) who did not mention people agreed with Concept I and five (38.5%) disagreed. Sixteen superintendents (8n.2%) who mentioned people agreed with Concept II as compared to nine (69.2%) who did not mention people. 89 TABLE XXIII.--Remarks About Graduate School Experience as Related to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Mentioned Agree- Contra- agree- Agree— None People ing dictory ing ing r % r 3% r % r % r % Yes 7 36.8 11 57.9 1 5.3 16 8n.2 3 15.8 (N=19) No 23 5 38.5 S 38.5 9 69.2 n 30.8 (N=13) ' TABIE XXIV.--Remarks About Graduate School Experience as Related to Concept III _ _Freeing Concept III Children Concept III Directing Under- None or Mentioned stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- Direct- People ing tific ing dictory ing f’ %”f; i *f“ if r ar’r' 95 if 77" Yes 10 52.6 5 26.3 n 21.1 11 57.9 5 26.3 3 15.8 (N=l9) No 3 23 6 n6.2 n 30.8 2 15.n 3 23 8 61.6 (N=13) The superintendents who mentioned people most fre- quently made understanding remarks concerning children; ten (52.6%) as compared to three (23%) of those who did not mar- tion people. 9O Eleven superintendents (57.9%) who mentioned people made freeing remarks concerning working with their staffs compared to two (15.h%) of those who did not mention people. Eight superintendents (61.6%) who did not mention people made directing remarks compared to three (15.8%) of those who did mention people. Selection 9: Graduate School 3 a Valuable Experi- gggg.~-The superintendents responded to the question, "If you could choose an experience or experiences which would help you in your role of improving instruction, what kinds of experience would you choose?" This was the last question of the interview and followed four questions which had to do with graduate school experiences. The responses to the question were varied, including visitations, study, work within the system, reading, and graduate school. The responses were placed in two classifications; those which included an experience in a graduate school setting (not necessarily formal course work) and those which did not. Tables XXV and XXVI show the relationships between these classifications and Concepts I, II and III. Six superintendents (n6.l%) who chose graduate school experiences agreed with Concept I compared to four (21.1%) who did not. Only one (7.8%) who chose graduate school did not agree with Concept I compared to five (26.3%) who did not. There was little difference between the two groups 91 in relation to Concept II. Eleven (8n.6%) of those who chose graduate school agreed with the concept as compared to fourteen (73.7%) of those who did not. TABLE XXV.-—Superintendents' Choosing of Graduate School Experience in Relation to Concepts I and II Concept I Concept II None or Dis- Choose Graduate Agree- Contra- Agree- Agree- None School Experience ing dictory ing ing f%f%f 751‘ %f% Yes 6 n6.1 6 n6.1 1 7.8 11 8n.6 2 15.n (N=13) No n 21.1 10 52.6 5 26.3 1h 73.7 5 26.3 (N=19) Six superintendents (n6.l%) who chose graduate school made understanding remarks concerning children and two (15.n%) did not mention children. Seven (36.8%) of those who did not choose graduate school made understand- ing remarks concerning children and six (31.6%) did not mention.children. Nine superintendents (69.2%) who chose graduate school made freeing remarks about working with their staffs and three (23%) made directing remarks. or those who did not choose graduate school, four (21.1%) made freeing re- marks and eight (n2.1%) made directing remarks. 92 TABLE XXVI.--Superintendents' Choosing of Graduate School Experience in Relation to Concept III L 1x I Concept III-Children Concept III-Fr°°1n3 Directing Under- None or D ir- Chose Graduate stand- Scien- None Free- Contra- ect- School Experience ing tific ing dictory ing r 5 r % r % f % f % f :6 Yes 6 n6.1 5 38.5 2 15.n 9 69.2 1 7.8 3 23 (N=13) No 7 36.8 6 31.6 6 31.6 n 21.1 7 36.8 8 n2.l (N=19) g_Further.Analysis Relative tg Concept I; and the FreeingéDirectingIDimension.2;.Concept III The classification of the data relative to Concept II showed that twenty-five superintendents agreed with the concept and seven gave no responses relative to the concept. The classification was not very discriminating and few re- lationships were found between the classification and the data concerning the superintendents' backgrounds. As the analysis proceeded, the question arose as to what relation- ships might be discovered if the data relative to Concept II were combined with.that concerning the freeing-directing aspect of Concept III. To achieve a dichotomy, two classi- fications were used. The superintendents who made freeing responses relative to Concept III egg who made agreeing re- sponses relative to Concept II constituted one category. 93 The superintendents who made directing responses relative to Concept III and agreeing responses relative to Concept II constituted the second category. This classification made it possible to compare the backgrounds of these super- intendents who saw the need for change in people and who saw themselves, and others, working in a freeing way, with the backgrounds of those superintendents who also saw the need for change in people, but saw themselves and others working in a directing way. 6 Twelve superintendents constituted the agreeing- freeing classification and six were in.the agreeing-direct- ing. Each.background factor considered in the earlier anal- ysis was examined in relation to this new classification. Table XXVII shows the superintendents' total years of experience in relation to the combined classification. or those in the agreeing-freeing classification, one (8.3%) had one to ten years of experience: four (33.3%). eleven to twenty years; five (n1.7%), twenty-one to thirty; and two (16.7%), thirty-one or more. One (16.7%) of the superin- tendents in the agreeing-directing classification had one to ten years of experience, three (50%) had eleven to twen- ty, one (16.7%) had twenty-one to thirty, and one (16.7%) had thirty-one or more. l Efficn‘ O . . \ I l . a. ' ' I . . ' I .1 ' -. - - a I I § . \. . _- . , ' ~ ' 't A v . L l ,, . e . .1 ... . . v . l I ’ ‘ Q 0 I I L a l a. ' ‘ ' L, , 4‘ ' ‘ I he .- . . \. .c . , — e . , y D 911 TABLE XXVII.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III As Related to Total Years of Supervisory Experience Combined Classification Concept II-Concept III Total Years of Super- visory Experience Agreeing-Freeing l (N=12) AgreeingADirecting l (N=6) 1-10 11-20 21-30 3l-over % f % f % r 1 8.3 h. 33.3 S u1.7 2 16.7 16.7 3 50 1 16.7 1 16.7 The superintendents' years in their present posi- tion in relation to the combined classification is shown in Table XXVIII. TABLE XXVIII.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Concept III as Related to Superintendents' Years in Pres- ent Position Combined Classification Concept II-Concept III Superintendents' Years in Present Position f Agreeing-Freeing 6 (N=12) Agreeing-Directing 2 (N=6) 1-5 6-10 11—15 l6-over a: %f a: a 50 o o 3 25 3 25 33.3 2 33.3 0 0 2 33-3 Of those in the agreeing-freeing classification, six (50%) had been in their present position one to five years; none 9S (0%), six to ten years; three (25%), eleven to fifteen years; and three (25%), sixteen or more years. Of those in the agreeing—directing classification, two (33.3%) had been in their present position one to five years; two (33.3%), six to ten years; none (0%), eleven to fifteen years; and two (33.3%), sixteen or more years. The factor of experience as a secondary principal is shown in Table XXIX in relation to the combined classi- fication. Seven superintendents (58.3%) who had secondary principalship experience were in the agreeing-freeing clas- sification, as were five (n1.7%) who had not. Of those in the agreeing-directing classification, four (66.6%) had been secondary principals and two (33oh%) had not. TABLE XXIX.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to Experience as a Secondary Principal Combined Classification Experience as a Concept II-Concept III Secondary Principal Yes No f % f % AgreeingéFreeing 7 58.3 5 nl.7 (N=12) AgreeingADirecting n 66.6 2 33-8 N: ) Table XXX shows the relationship between the com- bined classification and experience as an elementary 96 supervisor. Six (50%) of the superintendents in the agree- ing-freeing classification had experience as elementary supervisors. One (17%) superintendent in the agreeing- directing classification had experience as an elementary supervisor. TABLE XXX.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to Experience as an Elementary Supervimx' Combined Classification Experience as an Concept II-Concept III Elementary Supervisor Yes No 1‘ % f % Agreeing-Freeing , 6 50 6 50 (N=12) AgreeingaDirecting 1 l7 5 83 (N= ) The combined classifications in relation to the re- marks the superintendents made about people in places where they had worked showed that eight (67%) of those in.the agreeing-freeing classification made positive remarks. None of the superintendents in the agreeing-directing clas- sification made positive remarks and two (33.3%) made negative remarks. Table XXXI shows this relationship. 97 TABLE XXXI.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to Superintendents' Remarks Concerning People in Places Where They Worked Combined Classification Remarks Concerning People Concept II-Concept III Positive None Negative 2 % r % r Agreeing-Freeing 8 67 3 25 1 8 (N=12) ‘ Agreeininirecting 0 0 n 66.7 2 33.3 N: Table XXXII shows the combined classification in re- lation to when the superintendents received their masters degree. Of those in the agreeing-freeing classification, four (37.n%) received their degrees in the past nine to fif- teen years; eight (66.6%) received their degrees in the past eighteen to thirty-two years. TABLE XXXII.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to the Recency of Receiving the Masters Combined Classification Recency of Receiving Concept II-Concept III the Masters Degree 9-15 18-32 r % r AgreeingéFreeing n 37-h 8 66.6 (N=12) Agreei -Directing 3 50 3 50 (N= ) 98 Of those in the agreeing-directing classification, three (50%) received the masters in the past nine to fifteen years and three (50%) received the degree in.the past eight- een to thirty-two years. The relationship between the superintendents‘ extent of graduate study and the combined classification is shown in Table XXXIII. Of those in the agreeing-freeing classi- fication, four (33.3%) have a masters, three (25%), a mas- ters plus thirty credits, and five (n1.7%), a masters plus sixty. In the agreeing-directing, three (50%) have a mas- ters, one (16.7%), a masters plus thirty, and two (33.3%), a masters plus sixty. TABLE XXXIII.--Combined Classification of Concept 11 and Concept III as Related to the Extent of Graduate Study _._A_. Combined Classification MJA. M plus 30 M plus 60 Concept II-Concept III f % f % f % Agreeing-Freeing h 33.3 3 25 5 h1.7 ( =12) Agreei -Directing 3 50 1 16.7 2 33.3 (N= ) Table XXXIV shows ten (83.3%) of the superinten- dents in the agreeing-freeing classification mentioned people while discussing the values of their graduate school experience. Only two superintendents (33.3%) in the agree- ing-directing classification.mentioned people. 99 TABLE XXXIV.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to Superintendents' Remarks About Gradu- ate School Experience Combined Classification Mentioned Pe0p1e Concept II-Concept III . Yes No f % f % Agreeing-Freeing 10 83.3 2 16.7 (N=12) , Agreeing-Directing 2 33.3 n 66.7 (N= ) Table xxxv shows that eight superintendents (66.7%) in the agreeing-freeing classification chose a graduate school experience as valuable in helping them work for in- structional improvement as compared to two (33.3%) in the agreeing-directing classification. TABLE XXXV.--Combined Classification of Concept II and Con- cept III as Related to the Selection of Graduate School as a Valuable Experience Combined Classification Chose Graduate Concept II-Concept III School Experience Yes No r % f % Agreeing-Freeing 8 66.7 h 33.3 (N=12) Agreein gDirecting 2 33.3 n 66.7 N: Summary The data of the study have been presented in this chapter. 100 In this summary an attempt is made to identify the more significant findings revealed through examination of the data. 1. The superintendents in this study who were judged to be in agreement with Concept I-éEvery function of administration is related 33 the instructional EI'O gram: (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) had more graduate school preparation, (c) more often mentioned people when discussing their graduate school preparation, (d) more often chose graduate school as an expe- rience which might help them be better instruc- tional leaders. The superintendents in the study who were Judged to be in agreement with Concept II-- hanges ig instruction occur when people change: (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) were more likely to have received their mas- ters degree in the past nine to fifteen years. The superintendents in this study who were Judged to be in agreement with Concept III--Instructional 101 improvement occurs in situations where the worth 93 the individual is recognized: (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) more often mentioned peOple when discussing their graduate school preparation, (c) more often chose graduate school as an ex- perience which might help them.be better instruc— tional leaders. Examination of the data also reveals that none of the superintendents who had been in their present position from six to ten years were judged to be in agreement with Concept III. M. In a further examination of the data, the back- grounds of the superintendents who were judged to be in agreement with Concept II--Changes in, instruction occur when people change, and placed in the "freeing" category in relation to Concept III were compared with those of superintendents who were also Judged to be in agreement with Concept II, but were placed in the "directing" category in relation to Concept III. The "agreeing-freeing“ superintendents in comp parison to the'hgreeing-directing" superinten- dents: 102 (a) more often made positive remarks about super- visors they had early in their careers, (b) more often.had experience as an elementary supervisor, (c) more often mentioned people when discussing their graduate school program, (d) more often chose graduate school as an ex- perience which might help them.become better instructional leaders. 5. Two of the background factors investigated were not associated with the superintendents' views concerning Concepts I, II and III. They were: (a) number of years of experience as a supervisor, (b) experience as a secondary principal. In Chapter V a brief summary of the study will be given, the findings will be reviewed, and recommendations will be made. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will summarize the study by briefly describing its purpose, design and findings. Conclusions based on the conduct and findings of the study will be stated. The final section will make recommendations for further research and action. Summary Purpose.--This study attempted to determine the per- ceptions of instructional improvement held by school super- intendents and to investigate relationships between these perceptions and the superintendents' professional and edu- cational backgrounds. The superintendents' perceptions of instructional improvement were assessed in relation to three concepts: Concept I-- Every function of administration is related to the instructional program. Concept II-- Chagges ig instruction occur when people changg. Concept III-- Instructional improvement occurs in situations where the worth of the in- dividual is recognized. Background factors selected for examination included: (1) kind and extent of supervisory experience, (2) kind of 103 10h instructional improvement efforts experienced as a teacher, and (3) kind and extent of graduate school experience. Relationships to be explored among the data were ex- pressed by the following questions: 1. Does a relationship exist between the superinten- dents' perceptions relative to Concept I--Every function.p£ administration i§.related 23 the pp: structional program, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experience, (b) the kind of instructional improvement activities they experi- enced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of then? graduate work? ' Does a relationship exist between the superinten- dents' perceptions relative to Concept II--Changes ip instruction pggpg_phpp'peop1e change, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experi- ence, (b) the kind of instructional improvement activities they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? Does a relationship exist between the superinten- dents' perceptions relative to Concept III-132- structional improvement occurs 5p situations where the worth.p£ the individual'ip_recognized, and (a) the kind and extent of their supervisory experi- . ence, (b) the kind of instructional improvement activities they experienced as teachers, (c) the kind and extent of their graduate work? 105 Design.--The population for the study was identified as the one hundred and nine superintendents in school dis- tricts in.the lower peninsula of Michigan having between 3,000 and 12,000 students. A random sample of approximately thirty per cent (thirty-three superintendents) was chosen from.the population. Interviews were conducted with.the thirty-two superintendents willing to participate in the study. The interviews contained Open-ended questions which allowed the superintendents to express themselves regarding instructional improvement. The responses to these ques- tions were classified in relation to Concepts I, II and III. Other questions secured information about the superinten- dents' professional and educational backgrounds. Findings.-4Examination.of the study data indicated that three factors fromrwhich inferences can be drawn about the superintendents' backgrounds were related to their ac- ceptance of the concepts concerning instruction which were put forth in this study. The superintendents who (a) made positive remarks about supervisors they had early in their careers, (b) mentioned people when discussing the value of their graduate school experience, and (c) chose graduate school as an experience which might help them be better instructional leaders, more often made remarks which in- dicated their agreement with.the concepts related to in- structional improvement, than did those who did not. 106 The data also indicated that (a) those superinten- dents who had relatively more graduate school experience most often made remarks which were classified as agreeing with Concept I; (b) those superintendents who had received their masters degree in the past nine to fifteen years more often made remarks which were judged in agreement with Concept II than did those who received their degrees earlier; (c) those superintendents who had been in their present positions from six to ten years made no understand- ing remarks concerning children and no "freeing" remarks concerning working with their staffs toward the improvement of instruction (the two kinds of remarks considered in re- lation to the superintendents' view of Concept III); (d) when the superintendents who were Judged in agreement with Concept II‘gpg who made "freeing" remarks relative to Con- cept III were compared with those who agreed with Concept II gpg_made "directing" remarks relative to Concept III, the former more often had experience as elementary super- visors. In considering the implications of these findings, the exploratory nature of this study must be recognized. The purpose of the study was to discover background factors which.might be related to the views of instructional im- provement held by the superintendents. No attempt was made to determine whether or not such relationships were causal. This is especially important as the particular relationships 107 indicated among the data are considered. The most consis- tent relationships would indicate that those superintendents Who experienced satisfying interpersonal relationships with their supervisors and with their instructors in graduate school are more likely to be in agreement with the concepts concerning instructional improvement which are discussed in this thesis. To the extent that these findings are considered valid, it can be suggested that a board of education would be well advised to consider this factor in selecting a superintendent. However, because the personal character- istics an individual brings with him.to a situation will help determine the quality of the relationships which will be established with peOple, it cannot be suggested that having satisfying personal relationships causes an indivi- dual to hold particular views concerning the improvement of instruction. While it is necessary to point out that the findings of this study do not permit a suggestion that the relation- ships indicated are causal ones, it would seem appropriate to consider a rationale which suggests that they could be. If we assume that the values inherent in the three concepts put forth in this study are held by instructors in graduate schools, it can be suggested that the studenth‘experiencing of satisfying personal relationships with those instructors would enhance the chances that he would adopt their values. 108 Furthermore, it may be argued that graduate school instruc- tors who do not hold such values (especially "respect for the worth of the individual" as represented by Concept III) would be less likely to provide opportunities for the growth of personal relationships between themselves and their stu- dents. . Another, yet related, rationale might also suggest that the indicated relationships would be causal. Although an individual's ability to enter into personal relationships varies, it is not a matter of "having" or "not having“ the ability. Each individual has it in varying degrees. As young teachers and prospective superintendents come in con- tact with supervisors and instructors respectively, that ability may be either enhanced or decreased, depending on the behavior of the supervisor and instructor. This beha- vior, on the part of the supervisors, during two critical phases of a prospective superintendent's career, might well influence the attitudes and values he would adopt. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions.--In accord with the exploratory purpose and design of this study, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. §pperintendents Qp_hold differing views pf instruc- tional improvement. While this study recognized that many factors in- fluence the quality and kind of instructional 109 program.in a school district, one of the basic assumptions was that the superintendent's view of instructional improvement is a significant factor. This conclusion then suggests that, in the school districts represented by the superintendents in this study, variations in instruction exist which are attributable to the superintendents' views of instructional,improvement. To state the conclusion in the context where all efforts in education begin to have meaning, chil- dren in some districts experience an instructional program which is influenced by a superintendent who sees each of the functions of administration as being related to instruction, realizes that in- struction changes when people change, and respects the worth of the individual. Other children ex- perience an instructional program.where the super- intendent does not have those understandings and values. It should be noted that, in the planning of this study, the writer made a tacit assumption.that superintendents would hold differing views of in- structional improvement. The need to highlight the fact that the study had verified that assump- tion occurred to the writer during the conduct of the study. Approximately one-third of the super- 110 intendents interviewed made comments related to this conclusion. Of the superintendents who made such comments, approximately one-half felt that the study would show that "all superintendents are about alike in the way they see instructional im- provement," while the others felt thatsuperinten- dents would be quite different in their views of instructional improvement. The wgy superintendents view instructional improve- ment i; related pg the quality pf interpersonal relationships which they_experienced with super- visors early ;p_their careers and with instructors during gpaduate school. Those superintendents who indicated that they had enjoyed warm personal relationships with super- visors early in their careers and with instructors in graduate school were most likely to agree with the view of instructional improvement put forth in this thesis. Although the relationships were most striking in relation to Concept III, which was concerned with "respect for people," they also held for Concepts I and II. This would seem to indicate that the views of instructional improve- ment represented by Concepts I and II, even though they are not necessarily related to the "worth of the individual" as is Concept III, are more likely 3. 111 to be held by superintendents who have had employ- ment and graduate school experiences where they felt the worth of the individual was an explicit value. The way superintendents view instructional imp provement lg, for the most part, not related 53 the pgttern pf_their professional experience. It would seem.that the fact of having, or not having, certain kinds of experiences is not re- lated to a superintendent's views of instruc- tional improvement, while the quality of personal relationships within those experiences is so re- lated. The factor of "years in present position" was in sharp contrast to this general conclusion. The superintendents who had been in their present position from six to ten years differed markedly in their view of instructional improvement. How- ever, due to the small number of superintendents (h) in the category and the absence of any ade- quate rationale to explain the relationship, it was given minimum.consideration in reaching this conclusion. The way_spperintendents view instructional improve- ‘mgpp Lg, for the most part, not related.pp_ppg.pg- cency pp qpantity:pf_their graduate school prgpara- tion. 112 ‘While the recency and quantity of graduate school experience is not related to the superintendents' views of instructional improvement, the quality of interpersonal relationships during that experi- ence is so related. Recommendations.--The recommendations growing out of this study are offered in the same framework in which the study was conducted; that is, the way a superintendent views the improvement of instruction is a major determinant of the kind of instructional programwwhich will exist in.the district for which he is responsible. Therefore, that fac- tor should be paramount in.the selection and preparation.of superintendents. This contention in no way denies the need for super- intendents to be capable in areas such as finance, manage- ment, and public relations; however, it is asserted that, as the main function of the school is instruction, the abil- ities of a superintendent should always be judged first in that area. It is hepe that the following recommendations will be useful to: (1) colleges and universities as they p1an.programs for prospective superintendents and select candidates for those programs; (2) boards of education as they select superintendents: (3) researchers as they seek evidence which.will make increasingly intelligent decisions possible regarding the selection and preparation of super- intendents. 113 Colleges and Universities 1. Those responsible for the selection of persons to enter administrative preparatory programs should examine the kinds of interpersonal relations can- didates have experienced with their previous supervisors. Patterns of supervisory experience do not seem to be related to a superintendent's views of instructional improvement and should not, therefore, be a major factor in the selection of prospective superintendents. It appears that the quality of personal relationships a superinten- dent has experienced is related to his views of instructional improvement. 2. Opportunities for the development of interper- sonal relationships between students and faculty should be a planned part of the preparation of school superintendents. In making this recommen- dation, the writer realizes that each prospective superintendent will come to the graduate school experience with a different ability to enter in- to interpersonal relationships. However, pp_ candidate will experience such relationships if opportunities for their development are not pres- ent. Boards 9f Education l. Boards of education, in selecting a superintendent, 11h should examine the kinds of interpersonal re- lationships candidates have experienced with supervisors where they have worked and with in- structors during their graduate school experi- ence. The pattern of a candidate's previous supervisory experience would not seem to be re- lated to the views he will hold concerning the improvement of instruction.* Research The findings of this study indicate that research should be conducted in several areas: 1. The general findings of this study should be checked with different populations in other areas of the country. The interview technique employed in this study might well be used in such studies, as well as studies utilizing more subtle means of measuring views about instructional improvement. 2. Further studies should be conducted to establish the relationship between the views superintendents hold of instructional improvement and the climates for teacher and student growth which ensue. Al- though this was not a focal point of the present *Although many boards of education list "experience as a secondary principal" as a requisite for candidacy as a superintendent, this study indicates that such experience, or lack of it, is not related to superintendents' views of instructional improvement. 115 study, the findings do suggest that further work in this area would make a significant contribution toward efforts to improve instruction. The findings of this study indicate that different superintendents do hold differing views of in- structional improvement. Much valuable informa- tion could be gathered through intensive case studies comparing the backgrounds of superinten- dents who hold differing views. Studies should be undertaken to determine the ef- fect of combining certain of the background fac- tors investigated in this study. Such studies should consider, in combination, the quality of interpersonal relationships eXperienced by super- intendents with their supervisors early in their careers and with instructors during graduate school. Although all of the conclusions of this study must be considered as hypotheses for further testing, two rather specific hypotheses are offered as fol- lows: (a) Superintendents who have been in.their present position from six to ten years differ in their views of instructional improvement from those who have been in their position either more, or fewer, years. 116 Although an adequate rationale for such a rela- tionship is not available, the findings of this study indicated consistently that it does exist. Further studies should seek to determine whether the relationship does exist or was simply a chance relationship among the data of this study. (b) Superintendents who were initially prepared to teach in the elementary schools hold views of instructional improvement different from those of superintendents initially prepared for sec- ondary teaching. In this study, the factor of experience as an elementary supervisor was considered and some tendency for those with such experience to differ in their views of instructional improvement from those without such experience was noted. How- ever, it was noted by the writer that of those with such experience, several had been initially prepared as secondary teachers. Many factors influence the instructional program. In recent years, studies have investigated the impact of the school administrator's behavior on the program. Other investigations have focused on the socio-political influ- ences which act as partial determinants of the administra- tor's behavior. The writer is convinced that the education 117 and other past experiences of an individual can be strong determinants of his behavior as an administrator. This study has been an initial investigation of some of the background experiences which may bear on the beha- vior of school superintendents. Hopefully, questions have been raised and answers suggested which will lead to the selection and preparation of school superintendents whose views of instruction will result in desirable experiences for children and youth in the school districts they serve. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS American Association of School Administrators - NEA Re- search Division. Profile pf the School Superin- tendent. Washington, D. C.: —IUndated). American Association of School Administrators. The Superintendent as Instructional Leader. ‘Washington, D. C.: 1957 Yearbook. Association for Supervision.and Curriculum.DevelOpment. Perceivin , Behaving, Becoming. Washington, D. C.: 1952 Yearbook. Campbell, Roald F. and Others. Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action. Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, UEIversity of Chicago, 1960. Campbell, Roald F., John.E. Corbally, and Jehn.A. Ramseyer. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. Campbell, Roald.F. and Russell T. Gregg (eds.). Adminis- trative Behavior in.Education. New Yerk: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Culbertson, Jack and Stephen Hencly (eds. ). Preparing Administrators: New Perspective. Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1962. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 19 Graff, Orin.B., and Calvin M. Street. Improving Compe- tence gp;Educational Administration. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. Halpin, Andrew'w. Administrative Theory in.Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1958. . The Leadership Behavior of School Su uper- intendents. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1936‘ 119 120 Jenkins, David.H. and Charles A. Blackman. Antecedents and Effects of Administrator Behavior: A Study_ of the Principal at Work with the School Staff. The School Community Deve10pment Study Monograph Series. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio University, 1956. Lucio, William H. and John.D. McNeil. Supervision: A Synthesis of Thought and Action. New York: MbGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. McLure,‘William P. and Van Miller (eds.). Government 2; Public Education for Adequate Policy Making. Urbana, Illinois: Bureau of Educational Research, Univer- sity of Illinois, 1960. Moore, H. A., Jr. Studies ip School Administration. Wash- ington, D. C.: American Association of School Admin- istrators, 1957. Smith, Philip G. Philosophic-Mindedness In Educational Administration. School-Community Development Study Monograph Series. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Uni- versity, 1956. Swearinger, Mildred E. Supervision and Instruction: Foun- gations and Dimensions. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. B. PERIODICALS Bills, Robert E. "Believing and Behaving: Perception and Learning," Learning More About Learning. Washing- ton, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curri- culum Development, 1959. Bridges, E. M. "Administration as a Tone Letter," Clear- ing House, October, 1958. Bruce, W. C. "School Leadership by Superintendents," American School Board Journal, February, 196h. Chase, Frances S. "Educational Organization Administra- tion and Finance," Review p£_Educational Research, October, 1955. * Foster, R. L. "Climate for Self-Improvement," Educa- tional Leadership, February, 196A. Getzels and Egar G. Guba. "Social Behavior and the Admin- istrative Process," The School Review, Winter, 1957. 121 Hencley, Stephen P. "The Conflict Pattenmaof School Super- intendents," Administrator's Notebook, May, 1960. J_ . "The School Superintendent and His Role: A Conflict Typology," Educational Research Bulletin, March, 1961. Kimbrough, Ralph B. "Behavioral Characteristics of Effec- tive Educational Administrators," Educational Ad- ministration and Supervision, November, 1959. Lipham, James M. "Personal Variables of Effective Admin— iszrators," Admdnistrator's Notebook, September, 19 O. Macdonald, James B. "The Nature of Instruction: Needed Thzory and Research," Educational Leadership, October, 19 3. Miller, R. S. "Educator's Attitudes Towards Educational Przctices," Journal gf_Educational Research, April, 19 3. Moser, Robert P. "The Leadership Patterns of School Super- intendents and School Principals," Administrator's Notebook, September, 1957. Reed, Gerald R. "Factors Influencing Educational Adminis- tration," National Association Secondary School Principal's Bulletin, April, 1962. Reutter, E. E., Jr. "Educational Administration: The Lack of Dialogue," Teacher's College Record, May, 1962. School Management. "Where Do Administrators Come From?", May, 1961. Smith, F. H. "Look at Minnesota Public School Superinten- dents," American School Board Jburnal, February, 1963. Story, M. L. "Undemocratic Practices in Administration," Educational Administration and Supervision, April, 1951. Swetzer, Robert E. "Superintendent's Role in Improving Instruction" Adminiptrator's Notebook, April, 1958. Wall, Bartholomew D. "Some Attitudinal Differences Among Educational Specialists, Administrators, and Teach- ers," Journal 3; Educational Research, November, 1959. 122 Willower, Donald J. "Leadership Styles and Leaders' Per- ceptions of Subordinates," Journal gf_Educational Sociology, October, 1960. . "Values and Educational Administration," Journal g£_Educational Research, November, 1961. Vroom, Victor H. "The Effects of Attitudes on Perception of60rganizational Goals," Human Relations, August, 19 0. C. PAMPHLETS AND DISSERTATIONS American.Association of School Administrators. The Educa- tion 9; a School Superintendent. Washington, D. C.: 1963. Appel, Paul Henry. "A Study of Selected Administrative Principles as They May be Applied in Certain School Districts in the State of Michigan," Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. Association for Supervision and Curriculum DeveloPment. Instructional Leadership i2 Small Schools. Washing- ton, D. C.: 1951. Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development. Leadershipéfor Improving Instruction. ‘Washington, D. C.: 19 0. Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development. What Are the Sources of the Curriculum? A’s - posium, Washington, 57.0.: 1962. Beardsley, Florence E. "Oregon Administrators, Their Staffs, and Teachers View Learning Opportunities in the Elementary School: A Study to Help Determine Relationships Between the Desires and Beliefs of Oregon Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, Supervisors, Curriculum Directors, and Elementary Principals with Respect to Learning Opportunities in Elementary Classrooms, and Those Learning Oppor- tunities Which Teachers Indicate Are Actually Pro- vided for Their Children," Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Columbia University, 1962. Burnham, Reba M. and Martha L. King. Supervision in A3- tion. “Washington, D. C.: Association for Super- vision.and Curriculum.DeveIOpment, 1961. 123 Goldhammer, Keith, The Social Sciences and the Preparation 9; Educational Administrators. The University Coun- cil for Educational Administration, 1963. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. l963-6h Issue. Lansing, Michigan: 1963. Rasmussen, Gerald Raymond. "A Study of Administrative Organization for the Improvement of Instruction in the Public Schools of the State of Michigan, Exclu- sive of the Upper Peninsula and the City of Detroit." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1962. APPENDIX A SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE THE SUPERINTENDEN‘I‘S IN THIS STUDY SERVED DURING THE 1963-614. SCHOOLYEAR Adrian Public Schools *Albion Public Schools Allen Park Public Schools Alpena Public Schools Avondale School District (Auburn Heights) Battle Creek Public Schools Bedford Public Schools (Temperance) Beecher School District (Flint) Benton.Harbor Public Schools Berkley Public Schools Bloomfield Hills District #2 Bridgeport Community Schools Buena Vista #9 (Saginaw) *Cadillac Public Schools *Carman School District (Flint) *Center Line Public Schools *Cherry Hill School District (Inkster) *Clarenceville Public Schools (Farmington) *Clarkston Community Schools Clawson Public Schools Clintondale Public Schools (Mount Clemens) *Clio Area Schools Goldwater Community Schools Davison Community Schools Dearborn Township District # (Dearborn Heights) *Dearborn Township District # (Dearborn Heights) District #7, City of Dearborn Heights (Dearborn Heights) Dowagiac Union School District East China Township School District #3 (St. Clair) *East Grand Rapids Public Schools (Grand Rapids) East Lansing Public Schools *Ecorse Public Schools Farmington Public Schools Ferndale Public Schools *Fitzgerald Public Schools (Warren) *Flushing Community Schools *Fraser Public Schools Godwin.Heights Public Schools (Wyoming) Grand Blanc School District Grand Haven Public Schools Grand Ledge Public Schools *Grandville Public Schools Greenville Public Schools Grosse Pointe Public Schools *Gull Lake Community Schools (Richland) Hamtramck Public Schools "The superintendents in these districts constituted the sample chosen for the study. 125 126 Hazel Park Public Schools *Heintzen Public School (Southgate) Highland Park Public Schools Holland Public Schools Holt Public Schools Howell Public Schools Huron Valley Schools (Milford) Kearsley Community Schools District #1H (Flint) Kentwood Public Schools (Grand Rapids) *Lake Orion Community School District Lakeview Public Schools (St. Clair Shores) Lakeview School District (Battle Creek) Lamphere School District (Madison Heights) L'Anse Crsuse Public Schools (Mount Clemens) Lapeer Public Schools Madison.District Public Schools (Madison Heights) Mason Public Schools MelvindaleéNorthern Allen Park Public Schools (Melvindale) Midland Public Schools Mona Shores School District Monroe Public Schools Mt. Clemens Community Schools *Mt. Morris Consolidated School District Mt. Pleasant Public Schools Muskegon Public Schools *Muskegon.Heights Public Schools *Niles Public Schools *North Dearborn Heights School District (Dearborn Heights) Oak Park School District Orchard View Schools (Muskegon) Oscoda Area Schools Owosso Public Schools Plymouth Community School District *Portage Township Schools *Redford Union Schools (Detroit) River Rouge Public Schools Rochester Community Schools *Romulus Township School District Saginaw Township Community Schools St. Clair Shores Public Schools St. Joseph Public Schools Southfield Public Schools *Southgate Community School District South Haven Public Schools *South Lake Schools (St. Clair Shores) South Redford School District (Detroit) Sturgis Public Schools Tecumseh Public Schools *Traverse City Public Schools *Trenton Public Schools 127 Troy Public Schools Utica Community Schools Van.Buren Public Schools (Belleville) Van Dyke Public Schools (Warren) Village of Inkster (Inkster) *Walled Lake Consolidated Schools *Warren Woods Public Schools (Warren) *Waverly Schools (Lansing) West Ottawa Public Schools (Holland) Willow Run Public Schools (Ypsilanti) *Wyandotte Public Schools Wyoming Public Schools Ypsilanti Public Schools APPENDIXAB LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS 359 Education Building Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan March 19, l96u Dear A study I am conducting concerns instructional improvement practices in Michigan schools. I believe that valuable information pertaining to this topic can be obtained through personal interviews with practicing school super- intendents. Thirty-three districts in which I hope to interview the superintendent have been chosen at random, 'Your district was selected in this manner. 'Would you be willing to grant me the time, approximately one hour, for such an interview? I will contact you by phone and, if it is agreeable to you, arrange an interview time and place at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your cOOperation. Sincerely, William L. Husk Assistant Instructor WLH:nh 129 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 131 IntroductoryiRemarks 1. 2. 3. General 109 districts in lower Michigan having 3,000-12,000 students. 33 were chosen at random. Remarks of respondents will not be identified with school district or superintendent. Will include questions about instruc- tional improvement and background questions on the superintendent. Because of open-end nature of questions, there will be some repeating. I will perhaps move us on to another question in.the interest of time. 132 Outcomes 1. Would you mention some things which you feel indicate that efforts to improve instruction in your district have been successful? 2. Are there some things which you feel would improve instruction which have not been accomplished for one reason or another? 133 Method 3. 'What ways of working seem to have been most success- ful in bringing about instructional improvement in your system? A. Are there some ways of working which have not been tried which you think might be productive? 131+ Qualifications 5. ‘What are some of the eXperiences which the peOple who have responsibility for instructional improve- ment in your system.have had, which are helpful to them in that role? (Probe in areas not mentioned) Educational Job Other 6. What are the eXperiences which you feel people should have to prepare them for such a role? (Probe) Educational Job Other 135 Previous Supervisory Experience 7. How many years have you been in your present position? 8. Prior to taking this position as superintendent what supervisory positions had you held? Position Years 9. Did you see the improvement of instruction as a part of your responsibility in those positions? Yes No 10. As you think about your prior experience, what are some of the things which you feel you did well, in attempting to improve instruction? 136 11. What are some of the things which you feel, looking back, you could have improved on? Experience with Supervision as 5 Teacher 12. As you look back on your days as a teacher, what stands out about the efforts to improve instruction which went on in the places where you worked? 137 Graduate School Experience 13. 15. I would like to get a picture of your graduate work now. Degree Institution Major Minor Date M.A. 6 Yr. Ed.D. Ph.D. Are you working toward a doctorate or a 6-year certificate? Yes No (a) Have you taken any graduate work since the completion of your degree? Yes No (b) Hf yes) ‘What have been the names of some of the courses you have taken? 138 16. As you think about the experiences you had in graduate school, which have been most helpful to you as you work to improve instruction in your system? 17. If you wanted to have experiences which would help you be a better instructional leader, what kinds of experiences would you seek? h.J‘