A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY PRINCI‘PALS OF THE LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS IN, MICHIGAN AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES Thesis for the' Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JACK K. MAWDSLEY 1968 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY PRINCIPALS OF THE LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AS RELATED TO SELECTED. VARIABLES presented by JACK K. MAWDSLEY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ' Educational , Ed.D. degree in Administration /// " 1" MM Idifiw Maljor professor Date 2/8/68 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY PRINCIPALS OF THE LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES by Jack K. Mawdsley The general purpose of the study was to contribute toward the improvement of high school administration through an ascertainment of the delegation of administrative tasks by principals of the large high schools in Michigan and the determination of relationships which might exist between the utilization of this administrative technique and selected variables. The principals were interviewed with regard to their delegation of sixty-five administrative duties within six major areas of educational administration. A delegation score was obtained on each individual and correlation co- efficients were computed between the delegation scores and the data gathered on each of the variables. The findings, generally, revealed a mean age of forty-nine, while the average experience, as principal of a large high school, was slightly under five years. Less D“ . .r. o“ ~. 0" ... .. . p u— l" Jack K. Mawdsley than half of the principals had taken the major part of their graduate work in educational administration, and the greatest number had experienced most of their class- room teaching in the field of social studies. The princi- pals estimated spending almost fifty-seven hours per week in fulfilling the responsibilities of the position, with over one-quarter of the time being devoted to the instruc- tional program and curriculum development. Most want to remain in the high school principalship until retirement, and the great majority feel an immediate need for more administrative assistance in their buildings. The study bore out the assumption that there is no common or set pattern in the delegation of administrative tasks by high school principals. It also pointed out that the large, comprehensive high school provides an advanta- geous environment for delegating duties to others, and the principals of these schools in Michigan are successfully utilizing the technique. Most of the principals completely delegated more duties than they performed personally, and the delegation came more often in the principals' least preferred areas of administration than in their most preferred area. Administrative tasks were most often delegated in pupil personnel matters and least often in the area of school and community relations. Jack K. Mawdsley No significant linear relationships were found to exist when the delegation scores of the principals were correlated with the following variables: 1. the number of years experience the principals had as chief building administrators in large high schools; 2. the ages of the principals; 3. the number of full—time administrative assistants in the buildings; 4. the percentages of students going on to college from the schools; 5. the school enrollments; 6. the state equalized valuation of the school districts; 7. the fact that the principals had taken the major part of their graduate work in educational admin- istration as opposed to other graduate areas; and 8. the fact that the principals wanted to remain in the high school principalship as opposed to a move to other professional goals. Findings of the study were in accord with previous rresearch which denied that certain personal, professional arid institutional variables affect the administrative hxehavior of principals, but in disagreement with studies mduich indicated that most high school principals receive tflle major part of their graduate training in educational Jack K. Mawdsley administration. The results, also, seriously question generalizations which are presently being made, in the professional literature, regarding high school principals being bogged down in trivial matters and not concerning themselves with the instructional and curricular programs of the school. The author recommends that similar studies of a ‘wider scope be undertaken so that comparisons might be Inade in schools of different administrative organization .and.size. This study should be replicated for the purpose (Jf exploring other variables which might have a relation- ship to the delegation of administrative tasks. Two factors which might be considered are the personality of time principal and the quality of his administrative assist- antms. Visitations should be encouraged for those adminis- trators not presently using the delegation technique, so tluit they might have the Opportunity to observe situations in.vflnich the method is effectively being utilized. Investigation should also be made into the present con- cemui of principals regarding the administrative under- staffing of their schools and the increasing involvement of central office personnel in matters pertaining to the high school . A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY PRINCIPALS OF THE LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES BY Jack K3 Mawdsley A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1968 éHQQH+ svaalég ACKNOWLEDGMENT S A number of pe0ple influence the success or permit the failure of a doctoral candidate. The author owes a debt of gratitude to a good many who made the difference in his case. A heartfelt thanks is extended to: An outstanding committee: Dr. Richard Featherstone, Chairman, whose sincerity, genuine respect for the worth and dignity of every individual, and administrative expertise make him an outstanding school executive; Dr. Maurice Seay, whose initial encouragement led to the pursuit of the degree; Dr. Carl Gross, whose professional approach and scholarly manner make him an inspirational teacher; Dr. James McKee, whose busy schedule never pro- hibited time for counsel and discussion; and Dr. George Myers, whose graciousness in joining the committee during the writing of the disser- tation gives evidence of his willingness to help others. ii The principals of the large high schools in the state, without whose cooperation the study could not have been made. Mrs. Natalie Sproull, Mrs. Cay Bettinghaus and Dr. David Wright, Consultants, School for Advanced Studies, whose research knowledge and skills were greatly appreciated. The Battle Creek Board of Education, whose grant- ing of a leave made completion of the program possible, and Superintendent Harry Davidson, whose personal interest and support was a valua- ble asset. The many friends and colleagues, whose allegiance along the way meant so much. Norma, Kim and Beth, whose sacrifices throughout the program and acceptance of a "weekend husband and father" during the residency truly made them the outstanding contributors. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS o o o o o o ‘ o o o o o o o o o o o o i i LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ix LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIST OF APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Xii Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O l O O l Deve10pment of the High School Principal- Ship 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Present Status of the Role . . . . . 2 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . 4 Statement of Purpose . . .-. . . . . 7 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 8 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 10 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hypotheses O O O O O 0 O O O O . O O O O 0 13 Plan of Presentation . . . . . . . . . 15 II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 “Foreword . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . 17 Society and the School . . . .‘. . . . . 18 iv _...-r ‘ \o- _._—-‘ ___...~ ~_"—‘. ,.._—5 flr—d 7—— *— Chapter History and Growth of Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . Early Beginnings . . . . . . . . . . . The Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Public High School . . . . . . Twentieth Century Growth . . . . . . . Influential Forces . . .‘. . . . . . . The American Educational Dream . . . . The High School Principalship . . . . . . The New Relationship . . . . . . . . . Professional Recognition of the Princi- pal-Ship O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A Perpetual Problem . . . . . . . . The Administrative Solution . . . . . . General Areas of Administration . . . . Related Studies of the High School Princi palship . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . State and National Surveys . . . . . . Primary Responsibility . . . . . . . . Present Practice . . . . . . . . . . . Delegation of Administrative Tasks The Necessary Environment for Delegating O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Democratic School Administration . . . . A Forced Rebirth . . . . . . . . . . . The Fundamental Principles . . . . . . Page 19 19 21 23 25 26 30 32 35 36 39 43 45 46 47 49 51 54 55 58 59 60 Chapter Misunderstandings, Apprehensions and Dangers O O O O O O O O O I O O The Future of Secondary School Administration . . . . . . . . . The Needed Principal . . . . . . . National Trend . . . . . . . . . . . III. PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY . . Population of the Study . . . . . . . . . . The Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . The Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trial Interviews . . . . . . . . . Judgment by Principals . . . . . . . . . Statistical Treatment of the Data . Methodology in Analysis of the Data . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . PART I General Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Institutions . . . . . . . . . . The Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART II Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 62 67 67 69 71 71 79 80 84 85 87 87 89 90 90 91 103 106 109 112 Chapter Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Questions Question Question Question Question Question Question QuestiOn Question la lb lc 1d 1e 1f 2 3 4 . . . . 5 . . . . 6 . . . 7 . . . . . . PART III PART IV Concomitant Findings and Responses Additional Relationships Administrative Assistants . Instructional Leadership Present Concern . .-. . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . Summary Simplified Listing of the Major Findings . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 115 118 120 122 126 126 129 132 135 139 143 146 148 151 151 152 155 156 158 158 160 Chapter Page Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Implications . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . 167 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 viii Table 3-1. 4-7. 4-8. LIST OF TABLES Study Participants, High Schools They Represent, Cities in Which the Schools are Located, and School Enrollments . . Schedule of Interviews With Participants in the StUdy o o o o o o o o lo 0 o o 0 Percentage of Time Spent in Each of the Major Areas of Administration Studied as Estimated by the Principals . . . . Areas in Which the Principals Did Most of Their Classroom Teaching . . . . . . Responses of the Principals Concerning the Disposition of Administrative Tasks Ultimate Professional Goals as Expressed by the Principals and the Percentages Desiring Each . . . . . . . . . .A. . . Graduate Preparation of the Principals (Major Areas) and Percentages in Each category 0 ' o o o o o o I o o o o o o o 0 Mean Delegation Scores of the Principals and the Number of Years Each Has Had as the Chief Building Administrator of a Large High School . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Delegation Scores of the Principals and the Number of Full-Time Administra— tive Assistants in Each School . . . . Mean Delegation Scores of the Principals and Percentages of Graduates Going on to College From Each School . . . . . .». ix Page 74 81 92 93 98 101 102 107 110 113 Table 4- 9. 4-12. 4-21. Page Principals' Most and Least Preferred Administrative Areas and Mean Delegation Scores in Each . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Number of Administrative Tasks Which Were Completely Delegated and Personally Performed by the Principals . . . . . . . 119 Responses of Principals Regarding Their Involvement in or Disposition of the Task of Observing and Assisting Teachers in the Instructional Program . . . . . . . . 121 Responses of Principals Regarding Attendance at Professional Meetings in the Six Major Areas of Administration . . . . . . . . . 124 Principals' Responses in Major Administra- tive Areas Regarding Meeting Attendance . 125 Mean Delegation Scores of the Principals and Enrollments in Each of the Schools in the Study a o o ‘ o o o o o o o o o o o o 127 Mean Delegation Scores and Ages of the PrinCipals O O I I O O I I O O I I O O I O 130 Mean Delegation Scores of the Principals and the State Equalized Valuations (Per Student) in Each of the School Districts . 133 Mean Delegation Scores and Areas in Which the Principals Performed the Major Part of Their Classroom Teaching . . . . . .-. 137 Mean Delegation Scores and Major Areas of Graduate Training of the Principals . . . 141 Mean Delegation Scores and Professional Goals of the Principals . . . . . . . . . 144 Correlation Coefficients Between the Estimated Time-Involvement of Principals in the Major Areas of Administration and Nine Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . 150 Present Number of Administrative Assistants in the Buildings, the Number Desired by the Principals, and the Number Needed . . 154 X In.» . ‘I Figure 3-1. 4-90 4.10. 4-11. LIST OF FIGURES Geographical Locations of Study Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graphic Illustration of the DifferenceS' in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . Scattergram of Data in Table 4-6 . . Scattergram of Data in Table 4-7 . . . Scattergram of Data in Table 4-8 Scattergram of Data in Table 4-14 . . Scattergram of Data in Table 4-15 . . . Scattergram of Data in Table 4-16 . . . Graphic Illustration of the Similarity in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals Who Formerly Taught in the Social Studies and Those Who Taught in Other Areas of the Curriculum .-. . . Graphic Illustration of the Similarity in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals Who Took Their Graduate Training in Administration and Those Who Studied in Other Graduate Areas . . . . Graphic Illustration of the Similarity in Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals Who Wish to Remain in the Principalship and Those Who Do Not . . . Estimated Time Percentages in Major Areas of Administration . . . . . . . . xi Page 76 100 108 111 114 128 131 134 138 142 145 147 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Introduction to the Interview and Study . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . . . 187 B Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 C Principals' Interview Cards . . . . . . 195 D Related Correspondence and Material Concerning the Detroit Public Schools' Involvement in the Study . . 210 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Development of the High School Principalship The growth of the public high school in America, since its inception in 1821, has been phenomenal. The increase in the number of schools, the continued improve- ment of curricular offerings, the expansion in the size of schools, and the general acceptance of the institution provide evidence of the success of one of the most exciting concepts in the history of education. Accompanying the maturation of the secondary school has been the evolution of a position which offers great potential in terms of instructional leadership. From its , origin as "head teacher" in the building, the principal- ship has emerged as the oldest and one of the most challenging administrative positions in American education. During the early years of secondary school admin- istration, the building principal, as part of the teaching staff, performed the administrative tasks whenever he could find the time and without the assistance of other staff members. However, as high schools grew from the .-1 original one-room structures to more complex educational facilities, the chief building administrator found himself teaching less, managing the enterprise more, and gradually in need of administrative assistance. The necessity to apportion some of the administrative duties to others became a reality, and school practitioners and theorists began to reexamine their views relating to the new dimen- sions of the high school principalship. Present Status of the Role The challenge in the high school principalship has never been greater than it is today. The responsibility is overwhelming at times, and the position, without question, demands a man of many talents. He must be an organizer, an innovator, a planner, a leader, an inspira- tion to others, and above all--a warm, sincere human being endowed with a capability of working successfully with others. He must be cooPerative; he must be able to dis- tinguish between the important and the insignificant; and Im must be able to perceive the time for involvement and the time for abstention. He must be able to share the leadership role with other members of his staff through the delegation of certain administrative tasks. He is no longer able to personally execute all of the various dwres associated with managing a high school, especially ifthe school is of a large, modern, comprehensive nature. .tn UM As Douglas, an observer of secondary education and administration for many years, suggests: The wise principal, particularly one in a larger school, learns that he should delegate many of his responsibilities. Although the principal still has general supervision of these matters, the individual to whom these responsibilities are delegated must be given ample Opportunity to discharge those responsi— bilities without too much direction.1 The chief administrator of a large high school is no longer able to make every decision or be personally involved in every minute detail of the school. He must discover a method of dividing the administrative tasks in such a way as to insure the freedom of responsibility to which Douglas refers. For without that freedom, the subordinates of the principal simply mark time until they are given the signal to proceed by the chief administrator, and are rendered completely ineffective in terms of any individual or unique contribution they might make toward the welfare of the institution. Corbally et a1. sum up the situation quite well when they write, "Teamwork is imperative in the modern administrative organization . . . the one man show in administration is as outdated as the Model-T-Ford."2 1Harl R. Douglas, Modern Administration of Secon- dary Schools (New York: GIfin and Company, 1963?, p. 28. 2John E. Corbally, T. J. Jenson, and W. F. Staub, Egpcational Administration: The Secondary School (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. 139. Statement of the Problem The acceptance of the team approach in administering a large high school has been difficult for many principals. The theory has never completely permeated the practice. Chief building administrators have not been able to relin- quish the reins of the organization, and the delegation of administrative tasks, to which authorities in the field refer, has simply not occurred. Principals have continued to perform inconsequential duties which might have been assigned to nonprofessional personnel and, as a result, some of the more important responsibilities of the princi- palship have been neglected. Commenting on the actuality of principals being perpetually occupied with the lesser administrative duties of the position, Wilhelms offered 'this statement after observing the situation throughout the nation: It is simply not possible to do the job one wants to do. More and more principals see curriculum develop- ment and the improvement of teaching as the heart of the job. But they are endlessly frustrated, forced to fritter away time on a thousand and one chores . . . trivial, maybe, but they have to be done, and in all too many cases, the principal has to do them.3 J. Lloyd Trump, Associate Executive Secretary of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 3Fred T. Wilhelms, "The Principalship: An Institu- tion in Distress?" S otli ht (Washington: National Association of Secon ary SC 001 Principals, Nov.-Dec., 1966), p. 1. added these words in relation to the same issue: The problem arises when the principal tries to carry out this responsibility for educational leadership. He often gets bogged down with a multitude of demands regarding attendance, discipline, student activities, public relations, guidance, testing, clerical services, plant management, transportation, cafeteria Operation, and so on. The notion both men advance, it should be noted, is based upon the assumption that the principal's major efforts should be in the area of curriculum development and instruction. Some might disagree and claim that the responsibilities listed by Trump above are equally as im- portant. In any case, if the principal is to be free to choose the tasks he deems most in need of his personal attention, he must be able to delegate other administrative jobs to his colleagues. At the present time, high school principals, in the midst Of enrollment explosions, new administrative and curricular innOvations, increased federal participation in public school programs, and additional staff involvement as a result Of professional negotiations legislation, find themselves in more of a dilemma than did their counterparts in previous years. Some Of the responsibilities which have been traditionally assumed by the chief building 4Lloyd J. Trump, "The Principal's Role in ZMmroving Instruction," N. A. S. S. P. Bulletin (Washington: thtional Association of Secondary School Principals, May, 1967), p. 77. administrators have been completely removed from their control, while others, in which they had little or no time involvement in the past, are suddenly demanding their undivided attention. In regard to federal involvement alone, for example, a study this year by School Management Magazines indicated that almost three-fourths (74%) of the secondary school principals in the nation had personally assisted in federal aid programs during the past year. American school districts will continue to grow in the future, both in geographic size and in population. Culbertson and Hencley quote Reller who predicted that "the approximate 40,000 in the nation may well be reduced to 5,000 in a couple of decades."6 Accompanying the consolidation of school districts will undoubtedly be the Operation of larger and more complex high schools. More competent professional staffs, coupled with power never previously experienced, will desire and clamor for more involvement in the decision-making matters of the school. Herein will lie new Opportunities for school executives with vision, imagination, and a willingness to attempt a different administrative technique. Corbally 5Editorial Staff, "How Well Is Your High School Principal Doing His Job?" School Management (Greenwich, Connecticut: June, 1967), p. 54. 6Jack Culbertson and Stephen P. Hencley, Preparing Administrators: New PerSpectives (Columbus: University Council fOr Educational Administration, 1962), p. 104. points out that the field of school administration is not alone in its need for a change in administrative method. He states, Both in business and education, shared responsibility for administrative-services will grow and increase with the ever mounting complexity of organizations. Much more needs to be learned about administrative team Operation.7 The problem is a serious one which summons the attention of research workers in the field of educational administration. Demands upon the principal's time and efforts require that he delegate some of the administra- tive tasks to other personnel. The apparent difference which exists between principals in the acceptance and employment of the delegation technique is an important segment of the problem. The team or shared leadership approach in the operation of a large high school is Obviously one answer to the problem at hand, whether the principals are ready for it or not. This study, it is the hope of the author, expedites that readiness. Statement of Purpose The general purpose of the study is to contribute toward the improvement of high school administration through an investigation Of the delegation of administra- tive tasks by principals of large high schools. 7Corbally, Jenson, and Staub, op. cit., p. 79. More specifically, it is hOped that the investiga- tion will have direct implications for: 1. the improvement in the utilization of the delega- tion technique in administering the large, comprehensive high school; the more effective selection of future high school principals; the improvement of programs of preparation for high school administrators; the betterment of in-service training programs for high school principals; the improvement in the allocation of time, within the six major areas of administration studied, by high school principals; and the promotion of the team or shared leadership approach in the administration of the large, comprehensive high school. Limitations of the Study This study is concerned with and confined to the delegation of administrative tasks by principals of large high schools in Michigan to other personnel within their buildings. Although the data has been gathered by means of individual rather than group methods, no attempt is made to evaluate the performance of any individual principal- in a comparative manner with other subjects in the study. Specific limitations of the study are as follows:8 1. Only principals of Michigan high schools with en- rollments Of 2,000 or more students are studied. This particular enrollment figure was selected for two fundamental reasons: a. Due to school consolidation movements within the past decade, as well as the prediction for more in years tO come, and because Of the constant increase in high school enrollment figures in general, the trend seems to be toward even larger high schools. These schools will need administrators well trained in the area of delegating responsibility to others. b. Schools with enrollments of 2,000 or more students, because of North Central accredita- tion standards in Michigan, are more than likely to be adequately staffed in terms of professional personnel. 2. Only principals of Michigan high schools which are administratively organized on a ten through twelve grade level basis are studied. This 8Resource used in limiting the study: Michi an Education Directory and Buyer's Guide (Lansing, Micfilgan: Michigan Education Directory, 1966-67 Edition), pp. 133- 232. 10 administrative organization was selected because of the fact that the majority (77%) of the high schools in the state, which conform to the desig- nated size, are organized in this fashion. 3. Cass Technical High School, in the Detroit Public School System, is excluded because Of the unique- ness of its staff and student body in comparison to the other comprehensive high schools in the study. Due to the Specific limitations listed above, the reader is cautioned that the conclusions reached and the implications drawn may or may not apply to other high schools in the state of different size and administrative cuganization. The same caution should be regarded in terms of other large high schools which are located in gmographic regions outside the State of Michigan. The reader is encouraged to become thoroughly familiar with the Operational definitions of the study kmfore reading the findings, conclusions and recommenda- tions made by the author. Definition Of Terms In order that the reader might better understand some Of the words and phrases used in stating the hypoth- eses, definitions of these terms are included below. The explication of terms is also necessary so that any research ll worker with the intent Of replicating the study might do so in an exacting manner. Delegation of Administrative Tasks--the assignment of administrative duties by the high school principal to other members of the high school staff. Administrative Assistant--a professional member Of the high school staff who has no teaching or counseling responsibilities, and who is serving full-time in the performance of admin— istrative tasks. Large Michigan High School--a public high school in Michigan which has an enrollment Of 2,000 or more students, and is administratively organized on a ten through twelve grade level basis. Technical Administrative Area--one of the major areas of school administration used in this study including Finance and Business Manage- ment; Instruction and Curriculum Development; Pupil Personnel; School Community Relations; School Plant and Services; and Staff Personnel. Estimated Time Involvement-~that percentage of time estimated by the principal that he spends in each of the technical areas of administration. 12 Administrative Tasks--specific tasks of an administrative nature which are either per- formed by the principal or delegated to other members Of his staff. College--any post high school educational experi- ence. Principal and Chief Building Administrator--shall be used synonymously. Administrative Tasks and Administrative Duties-- shall be used synonymously. Assumptions After an extensive review of the literature, the following two basic assumptions were made by the author in relation to the utilization of the delegation technique in the administration of public high schools in the United States: 1. There is no common or set pattern for the delega- tion Of administrative tasks by high school principals. 2. The delegation of administrative tasks by high school principals is related to certain causa- tive factors which are closely associated with the principals themselves and/or the institutions they represent. 13 Hypotheses As a result of the review of the literature, and with the above assumptions established, the hypotheses listed below were advanced in regard to the principals of the large high schools in the State of Michigan: H1: H2: H3: H4: H5: H6: The delegation of administrative tasks by principals increases as the principals' number of years as chief building administrators in large high schools increases. The delegation of administrative tasks by principals increases as the number of full-time administrative assistants in the buildings increases. The delegation of administrative tasks by principals increases as the percentages Of their graduates going on to college increases. Most of the principals delegate more in the techni- cal administrative area they least prefer than they do in the area they most prefer. Most of the principals completely delegate fewer administrative tasks to other members of their staffs than they perform personally. There are more principals who perform half or more of the task of observing and assisting teachers in the instructional program than those who delegate most Of this task. 14 H7: There are more principals who perform half or more Of the task of attending meetings in most of the‘ technical administrative areas than those who delegate most of this task. Although the literature in the field fails to establish a theoretical foundation on which additional hypotheses can be advanced, it does point out the need for an investiga- tion Of the following questions: 01. How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to: a. The school enrollments? b. The ages of the principals? c.‘ The state equalized valuation behind each student in the school districts? d. The former major teaching areas of the principals? e. The area in which the principals have done the major part of their graduate work? f. The ultimate professional goals of the princi- pals? Q2. In which of the technical administrative areas do the principals estimate spending most of their time? Q3. How is the estimated time-involvement of the principals related to: 15 a. The school enrollments? b. The ages of the principals? c. The principals' number of years as chief administrators of large high schools? d. The number of administrative assistants in the buildings? e. The state equalized valuation behind each student in the school districts? f. The percentages Of the schools' graduates going on to college? g. The former major teaching areas Of the principals? h. The areas in which the principals have done the major part Of their graduate work? i. The ultimate professional goals Of the principals? Plan of Presentation Chapter I has been comprised of a general intro- duction to the study, the limitations of the study, a listing of Operational definitions, the assumptions made and hypotheses advanced by the author, and a recording of additional questions which are explored. The introduction encompassed a capsule summary Of the development of the high school principalship, a statement Of the problem, a statement of purpose, the limitations of the study, 16 definitions of terms used, assumptions made, and hypotheses and questions advanced by the author. Chapter II which is a review of the related lit- erature, presents a concise reference to the relationship between the school and society, a general background and growth of American secondary education, a more detailed account of the development of the high school principal- ship, a summary of the related studies on the high school principal and his Office, a section on the delegation of administrative duties, a review of the theory of demo- cratic school administration, and a look toward the future of secondary school administration in the United States. Chapter III describes the planning and conducting of the study, including the selection Of the population,~ the method of investigation, the advantages and disadvan- tages of the interview technique, the interview schedule, the instrument utilized, and the statistical treatment of the data. Chapter IV presents an analysis Of the data, while Chapter V consummates the study with the author's conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE Foreword A study concerning the American high school principalship would be incomplete without a brief reference to the mutuality which exists between the school and the society in which it functions, a concise history of the growth Of secondary education in the United States, and a resume of the develOpment of the principalship itself. The following accounts are not intended by the author to repre- sent completely detailed descriptions Of these areas, but should, in capsule form, provide the reader with a general background which will permit a better understanding of the investigation undertaken in the study. The chapter also contains a review of the most prominent related studies of the high school principalship, succinct treatises of the philosoPhy of democratic school administration, the dele- gation of responsibility, and the future of secondary school administration. 17 18 Society and the School The school, in any society, serves as an instrument for preparing future citizens for that society. "The public secondary school in the United States, as a product of American culture," according to Anderson and Gruhn, "has its function determined by the ideals and aspirations of the society which it serves. In achieving its goals, the secondary school is committed to a policy of educating competent, responsible, intelligent citizens for a free society."9 American schools have a distinct American character. They are unlike their contemporary institutions of other nations and are, with little doubt, a reflection of the democracy which they serve. The schools represent a con— cern for the individual differences of the students, and continually strive, through a wide diversity of program Offerings, to mold an educational pattern for every youngster. In brief, the secondary schools in the United States stand for the rightful Opportunity of every child in the nation to pursue an education based upon his own interests, abilities and needs. 9Vernon E. Anderson and William T. Gruhn, Prihciples and Practices of Secondarnyducation (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1962), p. 76. I ‘1: (I) 1.. ..~. 4 ‘ w‘s :'~ 19 History and Growth of Secondary Education Early Beginnian Greatly influenced by traditional European educational practices, American schools had their early beginnings in the colonial period of the nation's history, and were originally conceived by the settlers as formal avenues for spiritual enlightenment. All of the students were taught to read and understand the Scriptures, some were prepared for a future in the church or government, and a select few were primed for a college education. As the new nation developed, and as the country took on its own way of life, the educational philOSOphy of its schools gradually changed to more effectively meet the needs of the communities and their citizens. The devia- tion in ideology was not, particularly, an intentional Objective of the American pioneers. As Gross and Chandler point out, The colonists did not come to North America with the purpose of establishing a new type of school system or organizational pattern. It is nevertheless remarkable that, though the culture established by the colonists and immigrants was rooted in their own EurOpean experiences, their educational philOSOphy and the resulting pattern eventually became entirely different from its EurOpean background. 10Carl H. Gross and Charles C. Chandler, The History of American Education Through Readings (Boston: IL C. Heath and Company, 1964), p. 3. . 20 According to most authorities in the field, the Boston Latin Grammar School, organized in 1635, was the nation's first secondary educational institution. As a replica Of the English Latin Grammar School, it presented a rigid, academic curriculum. Nevertheless, it did represent the first formal approach in the education of American youth and, as such, was an important milestone in the educational progress of the country. Due to its primary weakness Of not meeting the needs of the community, though, it was never completely accepted by the American public. Soon after the introduction of the Latin Grammar School, the colonists in Massachusetts registered their endorsement of the idea for educating all Of the children in the community. In 1642, a law was passed in that colony which set precedent for the entire nation. The legislation, Cressman and Benda relate, "clearly placed upon parents the responsibility for seeing that their children received the benefits of apprenticeship training and fundamental education that would enable them to understand the many capital laws of the colony."11 In 1647, another law, commonly referred to as the "Old Deluder Satan Act," transferred the responsibility from the parents 11George R. Cressman and Harold W. Benda, Public Education in America (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966) ’ p. 25. i -- ops .- ,‘- rub 2'“ e "I a "CA’ n..- "'h... n... ma 21 to the communities. Neither law, it should be noted, was \mry effective from the standpoint of enforcement. Potter cmmments on this aspect as he states, "Although this law was very limited in its demands on the towns and did not specify length of school term or other details, apparently a number Of towns continued to neglect their duty."12 Cressman and Benda add, "Compulsory education was not provided for and was not really required until 1852."13 The philosophy Of having every child in school attendance, quite obviously, came long before compulsory schooling was practiced in a conscientious and law-abiding manner. The Academy The demand for a change in the type of educational institution in America actually came from the public, who, as stated earlier, never entirely accepted the Latin Grammar School. By the middle Of the eighteenth century, the critics of the grammar school were making their feelings known. Some of the most vocal were Benjamin Franklin and his associates in Philadelphia. Their main contention, write Anderson and VanDyke, was that "the secondary school should assume dual functions, preparing 12Robert E. Potter, The Stream of American Educa- tion (New York: American Book Company, 1967), p. 24. l3Cressman and Benda, Op. cit., p. 26. 22 some youth for college, and some for business and trades."14 In order to adequately provide the educational program outlined, one of the first academies was established by Franklin in 1751 in Philadelphia, and as Elicker Observes, With the growth of America, the eXpansion westward and the establishment of frontier communities, the increase in trade and commerce, the growth in the diversity of religions and the growth of civil government, a new secondary school began to blossom in many communities. 15 The primary intent of these schools was never quite realized. Partially responsible was the decline of the grammar schools and the accompanying fact that the academies had to take over the responsibility of preparing students for college. Although it never actually fulfilled the promise Of Franklin and other advocates, the academy did represent the first well-accepted secondary school in the United States. Its number grew rapidly, but declined in a similar fashion. Two of the basic reasons for its decline were: it proved too expensive for many American families and its curriculum was dominated by the academic subjects. Nevertheless, several new innovations were introduced to secondary education through these schools. Citizenship and character education was developed, secondary l4Lester W. Anderson and Lauren A. VanDyke, Secondary School Administration (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1963f, p. 50. 15Paul E. Elicker, The Administration of Junior and Senior High Schools (Englewood CIiffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 245. - I" .5: .- 23 education for girls was initiated, vocational and business subjects were Offered for the first time, extra-curricular activities became an integral part of the school program, and opportunities for more youngsters were quite evident. The Public High School In the develOpment stages at approximately the same time was still another concept in secondary education --the public high school--which actually represented a simple extension of the common school. The following quotation, originally taken from the Regulations of the School Committee in Boston, was published as the purpose for the new school: It was instituted in 1821, with the design of furnish- ing young men of the city who are not intended for a collegiate course of study, and who have enjoyed the usual advantages of other public schools, with the means of completing a good English education to fit them for active life and qualify them for eminence in public or private station.16 The dignity and worth of every individual was, obviously, becoming one of the prime objectives of American tugh schools. The primary purpose Of the high school was, and still is, to educate all of the youngsters in the cmmmunity in a manner appropriate to their future possibilities. In 1827, Massachusetts again took the lead in passing a law which required a public high school in every 16Anderson and Gruhn, Op. cit., p. 33. 24 town with five hundred families. Stiles et a1. submit that this law "provided these schools with legal endorse- ment Of the curriculum which emphasized preparation for 17 In the following years, several court life and work." decisions, including the famous Kalamazoo case of 1874, brought about the legality for requiring public financial support for high schools. The concept of free high school education for all was readily accepted by the American public, but relatively few of the nation's inhabitants immediately became high school attendants. Krug reports, Although high school attendance increased throughout the 1880's, the figure of 202,963 pupils in public high schools reported by the commissioner for 1889- 1890 represented less than 1 percent of the total 18 pOpulation. It was a rare thing to go to high school. However, the recognition Of the importance of the high school by the communities was evident in the actual increase in the number of schools. Gross and Chandler write, "Whereas there were but a few hundred public high schools in 1865, there were more than 6,000 by the turn of the century."19 17Lindley J. Stiles, Lloyd E. McCleary and Roy C. Turnbaugh, Secondagy Education in the United States (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962), p.769. 18Edward A. Krug, The Shaping of the American High School (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), p. 11. 19 Gross and Chandler, Op. cit., p. 197. n s I 25 Partially due to this hurried growth, many different kinds Of high schools began to emerge, and as a result, programs varied widely and no real consistency was developed within the area of instruction. In order to somewhat standardize the curriculum in 1892, the National Education Association appointed a committee to work toward this goal. The recommendations Of this group contributed immensely to secondary education in America, especially since the final counsel of the committee included a reference to a sequence of studies for terminal students as well as for the college bound. Twentieth Centurinrowth Since the beginning of the 1900's, high school enrollments have continued to rise. Speaking in relation to this rise, Tanner cautions, Many peOple erroneously attribute this amazing eXplo- sion in secondary school enrollment to the increase in our nation's population of 14-17 year olds. But between 1890 and 1962, the number of 14-17 year Olds slightly more than doubled in size, while the high school enrollment multiplied threefold.20 The increase in birth rate and the steady growth of the nation, as a whole, did play a part in this increase; but far more important seemed to be the philosophy Of "an education for all," the emergence of programs designed to 20Daniel Tanner, Schools for Youth (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965), p. 75. 0" 26 meet the needs of all of the students, and the enforcement of compulsory school attendance legislation. American educators have not, it should be men- tioned, become complacent with their success in holding students in school. Cramer and Browne call attention to the fact that: Although the prOportion Of 14-17 year Olds who continue in secondary schools is higher than in any other country, administrators of secondary schools have been concerned with the holding power of the high school, the ability Of.the secondary school to adapt its Offerings to the need of a heterogeneous student group and to retain as many as possible until the end of the twelfth grade.21 The attitude of the administrators seems to indicate that the continued improvement in providing an education for every student commensurate with his talents and abilities will improve even more in the years ahead. Influential Forces Committees of distinguished educators, such as those who served in the previously mentioned group in 1892, have, through the years, had tremendous influence on the shaping of American secondary education. One Of these committees, appointed in 1918 by the National Education Association, was formed for the purpose of 21John F. Cramer and George S. Browne, Contemporary Education (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965), p. 234. c 27 reorganizing secondary education. The "Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education," which were recommended as the seven Objectives for the field, have continued to serve for fifty years after their original inception. Anderson and VanDyke list the Objectives as health, command of the fundamental processes, worthy home membership, vocation, civic education, worthy use of leisure, and ethical character.22 Various organizations and appointed committees have, as times have progressed, concentrated on concerns of the nation as well as those of the educational family. Representative of these concerns is the following listing of some of the tOpics with which the Educational Policies Commission has dealt since its formation in 1935 by the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators: 1937 - The Unique Function of American Education in a Democracy 1939 - Educational Policies for Occupational Adjustment 1940 - Education and Economic Well-Being 1944 - Education for All American Youth 1950 - Education for the Gifted 1951 - Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools 1962 - Education of the Disadvantaged American 1965 - American Education and the Search for Equal Opportunity23 22Anderson and VanDyke, Op. cit., p. 67. 23The National Committee on Secondary Education, Background for Choice Making in Secondary Education (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1966), pp. 11-12. 28 In scanning this partial listing of the key volumes published by this committee, it is apparent that the educational world has kept abreast of not only the problems of American education, but also, the crucial issues in American society. The contributions of group and committee activity in secondary education are too numerous to mention all of them in this account. It should suffice to say that the results of the work they have done have more than once indicated that American educators are not content to simply hold to the status quo. Typical Of the findings, which somewhat shocked the world of education, was the report given by the Progressive Education Association after its eight year study, completed in 1941. One of the major conclusions reached by the group indicated that no special subject matter need be followed in high school in order for a student to achieve success in college. The results of the study continue to be a topic of conversation and research today. Individual educators and scholars have, too, given impetus tO the field of secondary education. Some of the nmdern day critics have found fault with not only the 3milOSOphy, but the curriculum content as well in today's tugh schools. "The widest attention," according to Emuglas, "has been accorded to various intellectuals - such msAlbert Lynd, Arthur Bestor, and Mortimer Smith - who 29 have sharply (and Often sensationally) criticized what seemed to them to be lack of provision, particularly in the area of secondary education, for develOping the in- tellectual traits of young people."24 Some have been critical Of the methods Of teaching and have campaigned vigorously to persuade the secondary teachers to deviate from the traditional approaches in the classroom. A new approach is needed to teaching and learning, according to these authorities. In summarizing the thinking of the modern day critics, the National Committee on Secondary Education, appointed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1965, point to Bruner who claims that we need "to get the learner right into the structure, the frame of reference - to help him think nethematics as a mathematician does, to look at history through the eyes Of a historian."25 This school of thought has had powerful influence in many of the subject areas of secondary education during the past decade. The concept which Bruner advances is basic to most of the modern nethematics and science Offerings at the present time. A discussion of influential educators in secondary eflucation would be incomplete without mention of 24Harl R. Douglas, Trends and Issues in Secondary Education (Washington: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962), p. l. 25The National Committee on Secondary Education, Op. cit., p. 35. 30 James Bryant Conant, former United States Ambassador to Germany and President of Harvard University. The research completed under Conant's direction and the publications Offered by this educator have succeeded in focusing much attention on the field of secondary education within the past decade. Although initially in agreement with the academicians who severely criticized the schools for their lack Of excellence, Conant has, since, become the country's leading proponent of the comprehensive high school. The American Educational Dream The comprehensive high school, accepted by most as the most common and popular type of high school in the United States today, is an institution of which the founders of American secondary education would have been proud. Bent and McCann proclaim: The American people have adOpted the comprehensive high school as the typical secondary school for this country. This is true not only for public high schools, but for some private secondary schools and for a large percentage of parochial high schools as well. Success- ful academic, vocational, fine arts, or other 26 comprehensive high school is the typical variety. When given a choice, the majority Of secondary educators, as well as the general public, favor the comprehensive nature of educating American boys and girls. 26Rudyard K. Bent and Lloyd E. McCann, Administra- tion of Secondary Schools (New York: McGraw-HiII Book Company, 1960), p. 17. 31 To paraphrase Crow, Ritchie, and Crow, the school has three main objectives. If it is truly comprehensive, it must provide a program Of general education for all future citizens, it must provide a program for the students who wish to utilize the skills learned immediately upon high school graduation, and it must provide a program to adequately prepare those youngsters who will need more training or education beyond their high school years.27 After an extensive study of all types Of high schools in Operation in the country, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has gone on record as recom- mending the comprehensive high school as the most promising to accomplish the task of educating all of the youth Of the nation. In a formal endorsement, this professional organization purports: The curriculum of the comprehensive high school offers the best structure and content for fulfilling the American ideal of adequate educational Opportunities for all youth. This type of secondary school provides Opportunity for students of all socio-economic groups, all levels Of ability, and all types and purposes to live and work together.28 In addition to this official statement by an organization of educators who work daily in the field Of secondary education, Conant, eight years after his initial 27Lester D. Crow, Harry E. Ritchie and Alice Crow, Education in the Secondary School (New York: The American Book Company, 1961), p. 48. 28 Elicker, Op. cit., p. 260. 32 book on the American high school, had this to say regarding the goals Of the comprehensive high school and its stand in the field of education today: The comprehensive high school attempts to accomplish these ends: it endeavors to provide a general educa- tion for all future citizens on the basis of a common democratic understanding; and it seeks to provide in its elective offerings excellent instruction in academic fields and rewarding first class vocational education. These tasks are not easy to accomplish. The difficulties have been emphasized time and time again. Yet in spite of all criticism, the comprehen- sive high school remains characteristic today of American public secondary education.29 The comprehensive high school has proven its worth; the endorsement by educators and laymen alike hold true to the foundations on which the educational system of this nation was founded . . . a school for all of the youth of the community. The High School Principalship The early school in the American colonies had no real need for a principal. Many of these institutions were one room buildings with only one teacher. The admin- istrative duties, including the supervision of instruction, was accomplished by lay committees of the community, while the teacher was charged with the instructional process and in carrying out some of the necessary daily administrative 29James B. Conant, The Comprehensive High School (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 4. ,. \ N s. 33 tasks. As school enrollments increased in the late eighteenth century, more rooms and teachers were added, and the need for someone to assume some Of the supervisory responsibilities became manifest. Laymen found they could simply not give the time necessary for setting time schedules, supervising teachers, managing the building, handling materials and equipment, and relating the growing nature Of the school program to parents. Although very few were given released time for fulfilling the administrative responsibilities, Corbally EE_E$° states, "whenever a school had more than one teacher, a head-teacher or principal-teacher was almost always appointed by the school committee."30 In retrospect, one of the concomitant advantages of one of the teachers also serving as the administrator of the building was the close relationship which existed between the instructional program and the administrative Operation of the school. An additional advantage was also evidenced in the direct communication between the school board and the teaching staff. However, as schools became too large for one person to perform both teaching and administrative responsibilities, principals were given released time to administer the school and supervise the instructional program and staff. And so was born the principalship, 30Corbally, Jenson and Staub, op. cit., p. 25. 34 which, according to Anderson and VanDyke, "was the first administrative type position in American education."31 A close relationship continued to exist for some time between the lay board and the teaching staff due to the fact that the principal was still the individual responsible to the board. A definite change in the role took place during the early part of the twentiety century. With the growing pOpulation, the increased attendance, and the necessity for a greater number of schools within each community, the demand for an executive position to coordinate the func- tions of the entire school system was apparent. Lay committees, although attempting to continue in their administration Of the schools through the principal, experienced great difficulty in carrying out the respons- ibility. The following statement, initially made by a special school committee in Providence, and utilized by Griffin in his treatise on the school superintendency, illustrates the feeling of the public toward the super- vision Of the schools at that time: Unless schools be visited frequently and examined thoroughly and unless school committees determine to give this subject all the attention and reflection and labor necessary to carry the system of education to as great a degree of perfection as the case admits, 31Anderson and VanDyke, Op. cit., p. 7. 35 everything will be fruitless. Without this, every plan Of education will fail and with it almost any may be made to succeed.32 The realization Of the need for supervision by the lay committees definitely pointed the way toward the principalship becoming a full-time administrative position. Had they not felt that supervision was a necessary ingredient in a successful program, the professional administrative Offices in our present day school system may have never come about. The New Relationship Several communities have made claim to having appointed the first superintendent of schools. According to several competent authorities on the development of the position, the Office was first created in 1837 in 33 The idea Louisville, Kentucky and Buffalo, New York. spread quickly throughout the nation, and in some com- munities, high school principals were instantly given the additional responsibility. Corbally et al. summarize the movement in this manner: 32Daniel E. Griffiths, The School Superintendent (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), pp. 5-6. 33Harl R. Douglas, American Public Education (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948), p. 57; Griffiths, Op. cit., p. 10; Emma Reinhardt, American Education (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1960), p. 383. 36 By the last of the nineteenth century, there was a growing tendency to recognize a profession of educa- tional administration. Administrative duties became too burdensome for school committee members and the superintendency became recognized as the administrative aim of the committee. In many cases, high school principals were named as superintendents and the duties Of the superintendent were added to those of the principalship. In other cases, the two positions were kept separate.3 In school districts which elected to have two separate offices, a new relationship began to exist between the principals and the lay boards, and because of this new association, the high school principalship took on a new role in the educational family. He was now responsible to the superintendent of schools, and although the principalship continued to carry the high status of years gone by in the community, the superintendent, in most cases, was now the contact person between the schools and the local citizenry. Professional Recognition of the PrincipalEhip The high school principalship has, through the years, grown in professional status, responsibility, and importance to the educational program. It has become, especially in larger schools, an ultimate goal, rather than a necessary step toward administration of an entire school district. As Bent and McCann put it, "Not 34Corbally, Jenson and Staub, Op. cit., p. 26. 'o 37 withstanding the fact that superintendents are Often selected from the ranks of principals, the principalship is rapidly ceasing to be a stepping-stone to the superin- 35 tendency." Through their own professional organizations, principals have steadily upgraded the standards for admission to the profession, and institutions of higher education have constantly improved upon their programs of gmeparation for these administrative positions. The increasing amount and degree of specialization which is rmeded for the principalship is commented upon by Douglas: The requirements for the principal's certificate vary from state to state and are changing with time. All but a few require a year Of graduate work, usually with a major in education for a master's degree. Many specify courses or credit hours in certain fields such as secondary education and school administration and supervision. Not mentioned in the foregoing statement are the additional professional forces which are brought to bear in the professionalization of the principalship. Michigan, for example, is pointed out by Anderson and VanDyke37 as the only state in the nation without administrator certification. However, the presumed weakness is, at least partially corrected through the following criterion, 35Bent and McCann, Op. cit., p. 22. 36Douglas, Op. cit., p. 95. 37Anderson and VanDyke, Op. cit., p. 14. I 38 which has been established by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools: The principal Of a member school shall hold a master's degree with at least twenty semester hours of graduate work in education with major emphasis on administration and supervision. The preparation should include such graduate courses as educational philOSOphy, secondary administration and supervision, curriculum, guidance, educational psychology, and related courses. He shall have had a minimum of two years successful teaching experience. Although membership in and accreditation by the association is strictly voluntary, there is much prestige connected with belonging to the organization. The indirect result is unofficial certification of the principals. Due to the constant improvement in the position and the upgrading of standards for entry into the profes- sion, the high school principalship has become one of the most influential Offices in the educational organization. "For large high schools, at least," Newsom asserts, "the principalship has attained the rank of a highly respected profession with rapidly increasing standards of educational "39 preparation and experience. In smaller high schools, the practice of assigning one Of the teaching staff to 38North Central Association Of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Policies and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools; 1965 Revision, p. 13. ' 39William N. Newsom, R. Emerson Langfitt, et al., AdministrativejPractices in Large High Schools (New York: American Book Company, 1940), p. 45. 39 administer the building on a part time basis has somewhat been sustained, but departure from this administrative method seems almost certain with the growth of high schools and the consolidation of school districts. A Perpetual Problem Since the birth of the principalship, authorities have differed on the responsibilities assigned to the position. However, on one basic principle most authors and practitioners seem to agree--that the principal, as part of his over-all management of the school, should devote a major portion Of his effort to the supervision of the educational matters of the enterprise. Advocation of this theory was noted early when Johnson wrote, "It is apparent that the improvement Of instruction is the most important aim which the principal should have in mind in "40 arranging the schedule of his activities. Alberty and Thayer echoed the view in stating, "It would seem logical that the major function of the secondary school principal should be the direct improvement of learning."41 40Franklin Johnson, Administration and Supervision of the High School (New York: D. C. Heath andCompany, 1925), p. 339. 41 . . . H. B. Alberty and V. T. Thayer, SuperViSIOn in the Secondary School (New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 1931), p. 435. 40 Time has not altered the commitment! Educators «continue to subscribe to the idea that the principal is the director of the instructional program in his building. .Anderson and VanDyke, referring to the principal, submit, WHe is looked upon as the educational leader Of his school,"42 while Corbally et a1. contend, "He is the key person charged with the responsibility of improving instruc- 43 tion." Downey claims that the high school principal is a specialist among educational administrators and lists instructional leadership as the most crucial task.44 Theoretically, the principal has always been the instructional leader Of the building. However, a quandary Ims existed concerning this major responsibility for the life Of the principalship. Cubberly was one of the first to notice the problem when he commented, "Many principals give their time entirely to administrative duties and do little supervisory work, although the latter ought to be their most important function."45 Douglas and Boardman 42Anderson and VanDyke, Op. cit., p. 10. 43Corbally, Jenson and Staug, Op. cit., p. 139. 44 Donald J. Leu and Herbert C. Rudman, Preparation Programs for School Administrators (East Lansing, Michigan: lfichigan State University, 1963), p. 130. 45Ellwood Cubberly, The Principal and His School Khmbridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1923), p. 28. 41 observed the same dilemma in asserting, "In large high schools, the administrative activities consume a major portion of the principal's time."46 The great professional strides made by principals over the last quarter century have not, it seems, eliminated the problem. Cronin sees the principals anchored to their desks most of the time. He says, Principals all over the country have been allowed to drown in a sea of paperwork and related administrative trivia. Principals in most school systems must sign all requisitions, payroll sheets, attendance registers, and many documents pertaining to student transfers. Nolte adds a discouraging note when he states, However regretfully, the fact must be acknowledged that since 1930, the principalship has not moved ahead very much. Today the principal's duties remain much the same as they were three decades ago.48 Wilhelms feels the principals are being torn in half because Of two separate demands. He suggests, The nub of the problem is that the principal is struggling to be two things at once; a manager and an 46Harl R. Douglas and Charles W. Boardman, Su er- vision in Secondary Schools (Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1934), p. 78. 47Joseph H. Cronin, "School Boards and Principals-- Before and After Negotiations," Phi Delta Kappan (Dayton: The Otterbein Press, November, 1967), p. 124. 48Chester M. Nolte, An Introduction to School Administration: Selected Readings (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), p. 268. 42 instructional leader, and the dismaying fact is that the minor role tends to gobble up the time needed for the major one.49 Bent and McCann sum up the Opinions of many who feel the same way with this analysis: One of the difficult aSpects of the position has been said to be the necessity which the principal faces of being effective on so many fronts at once. In addi- tion to being an academic supervisor, he must now be a superintendent of building and grounds, a director Of public relations, a record keeper, a non-tax funds raiser and bookkeeper, a director of transportation, guidance, and other pupil services, and a manager of books, supplies, and equipment.50 Nevertheless, there is one point which most critics fail to mention when discussing the demands on the principal and the way in which he spends his time. Almost all high school principals, due to their position as chief executive within the building, have the Opportunity to smmewhat shape their own role by selecting the administra- tive tasks they most prefer and those which they feel should have priority. In making this selection, principals, at times, bring criticism upon themselves by choosing duties to perform which lie outside the realm of instruc- tional leadership and actually have no bearing upon the curricular program. As Johnson explains, 49Fred T. Wilhelms, "An Open Letter to the Public," Spotlight (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, Sept., Oct., 1967), p. l 50Bent and McCann, Op. cit., p. 23. 43 Some administrators seem to be more interested in straight window shades than in straight thinking, more impressed by neat bulletin boards than creative teach- ing, more concerned about promptness with which teachers file reports than about the soudness of their scholar- ship.5l In these instances, the criticism is certainly valid. The Administrative Solution The natural and initial reaction to the problem was offered by Koos when the issue first began to appear on the educational horizon. He claimed, "In order to perform the professional duties peculiar to the position as head of the high school, the principal must have time k."52 for his wor The implication here, of course, was that someone else should absorb some of the duties which previously had fallen solely on the principal. The obvious answer seemed to lie in the delegation of some of the administrative tasks to other staff members by the principal. However simple it may have seemed, principals, through the years, have hesitated to take this route for several apparent reasons. Some had the apprehension of losing authority in their buildings, others placed no con- fidence in the persons to whom some of the duties could 51Mauritz Johnson, Jr., AmericapSecondary Schools (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., I965), p. 123. 52Leonard V. Koos, The High School Principal (Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1924), p. 71. a u fi 44 be delegated, and many simply did not have an adequate staff, in terms of numbers, so that this administrative technique could be utilized. During the last twenty years, pressures upon the public schools and their administrators have mounted. In addition to authorities in the field clamoring for better management of the instructional program, the general public, in the wake of scientific and educational advances Of other nations, has joined the critics in the attack. Faunce claims that these forces have tended to "force the school administrator in the direction of sharing the planning of school policies."53 The increasing demand by teaching staffs to be involved in decision-making matters Of the school has also played a major role in forcing the shared responsibility concept. Regardless Of the reasons, principals across the country are recognizing the fact that they do need assistance in administering the school, and that the delegation of duties to others is an integral part Of their jobs. Jacobson.gr_3l., writing in regard to the many duties involved in administering a smhool, gave additional impetus to the movement and a rationale for principals with this statement: "While the 53Roland C. Faunce, Secondary School Administration (New York: Harper Brothers, 1955): P. 4. 45 principal is responsible for their (duties) performance, it does not follow that each must be personally performed by the school head."54 In order to accept this method of administering a high school, the principal must be willing to take on an entirely different character than that Of his predecessors in the position. To paraphrase Mitchum, for the effective Operation Of a high school today, a principal must know his staff well, accept its point Of view, and be willing to share in the leadership role.55 General Areas of Administration Since one of the solutions to the administrators' dilemma lies in the division Of administrative duties, a review Of the separation of major areas of building administration by competent current authorities seems appropriate.56 Although there are slight differences in categorizing the major areas of school administration, a 54Paul Jacobson, W. C. Reavis and J. D. Logsdon, The Effective School Principal (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963): P. 21. 55Paul M. Mitchum, The High School Principal and ifls Staff Plan For Program Improvement (New York: Columbia University, 1958), pp. 1-9. 56Roald Campbell, John E. Corbally and John A. Ihmseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), p. 66; Samuel Goldman, The School Principal (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), pp. 29-31; Daniel E. Griffiths, David L. Clark, D. Richard Wynn and Lawrence Iannaccone, Organizinngchools for Effective Education (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers 46 consensus of recently published treatments of the subject indicates the inclusion of the following: finance and business management; instruction and curriculum develop- ment; pupil personnel; school community relations; school plant and services; staff personnel; and organization and structure, which is actually an integral part of each of the previously listed six areas. For a better understanding of the high school principal's involvement in each of the areas, a scrutiny of the related studies on the position seems necessary. Related Studies Of the High School Principalship A number Of studies have been conducted on the high school principalship and the individuals who occupy the position. Much of the work has included a summariza- tion of the professional and personal characteristics Of the principal, while some of the studies have concentrated on the status of the Office, the training required to attain it, and the problems inherent in the job. The leading sources for reviewing the studies are the Bulletin cm the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the various state secondary principals publications. and Publishers, Inc., 1962), pp. 171-188; Leu and Rudman, Op. cit., pp. 129-130; Lloyd E. McCleary and Stephen P. Hencley, Secondary School Administration (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1965), pp. 10-11 & 86-91. 47 The author does not attempt to recapitulate all Of the studies in this treatise; only those which have been recognized as major contributions to the field and those which are directly related to the investigation undertaken in this study are mentioned. State and National Surveys Two landmarks in the field, both of which were concerned with the status Of the principalship on a national basis, were conducted by Eikenberry in 1923 and Farmer in 1947. Eikenberry's main contribution was in his accumulation of data concerning the principal and his 57 position, while Farmer's study, which effectively com— pared his own findings with those of Eikenberry, was significantly more meaningful in terms of measuring the growth of the principalship over the twenty-four year period.58 The latter pointed out several gains, perhaps the most notable Of which was the preparation level of high school administrators. An interesting difference was also noted in the median age Of the principals; the 1923 k 57Dan H. Eikenberry, "Status of the High School Principalship," United States Bureau of Education Bulletin (Washington: UnitedOStates GovernmentIPrinting Office, NO. 24, 1927), 71 pp. 58Lloyd M. Farmer, "The High School Principalship," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals, April, 1948), pp. 82-91. 48 figure was 33.4 years, while the age of the principals in 1947 was 43.3 years. Farmer's finding in this regard seems to have held fairly steady since, with several researchers reporting a median age of high school principals between 45 and 50 years.59 One Of the most comprehensive of the recent studies on the high school principalship was made by Richards and Hemphill, who conducted a national survey which included approximately 14,000 high schools and their chief adminis- trative Officers. Richards, who summarized the institu- tional data, found that eighty-one percent of the high schools in the nation are of a comprehensive nature, and seventy percent of these are located in three sections Of the country--the mideast, midwest, and southwest.60' Hemphill, whose report concerned the principals, found that ninety percent were male, their major field of graduate 59James H. Goette, "A Study Of the Senior High School Principal in Texas," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National AssociatiOn of Secondary School ETincipals, February, 1960), p. 46; J. K. Hemphill, "Progress Report: A Study of the Secondary School Princi- ;mlship - Part II," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: hhtional Association of Secondary School Principals, April, 1964), p. 219; A. L. White, "The Secondary School Principal in Virginia," Virginia Journal of Education (Richmond: \flrginia Education AssociatiOn, March, 1956), p. 21. 60J. M. Richards, "Progress Report: A Study Of the Secondary School Principalship - Part I," The Bulletin Board of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, April, 1964), pp. 211—216. 49 study was educational administration, their median work week was 54 hours, and while one-fourth of the principals had one or more full-time assistants, only eight percent had two or more.61 The work week, it is interesting to note, was somewhat higher than that found by White62 in Virginia Of 48.6 hours and that reported by Goette63 in Texas of 46.5 hours. Primary Responsibility Almost complete accord is found in studies which have been confined to assessing the Opinions Of principals, authorities in the field and laymen concerning the chief responsibility of the high school administrator. Romine, in a nation-wide examination of the duties of the high school principal, concluded that the area which was of most concern to the school men was the area which also demanded most of their time--that of organizing, adminis- tering and improving the curriculum. Two other areas which Romine reported to be increasing in their demands upon the principal were the guidance and public relations 61Hemphill, Op. cit., pp. 217-230. 62White, Op. cit., p. 22. 63Goette, Op. cit., p. 47. 50 programs of the schools.64 A Pennsylvania study stressed the fact that the two most important roles Of the high school principal were the professional improvement of staff and the improvement Of instruction.65 Austin and Collins, after studying the attitudes of the community and school peOple toward the principalship, stated, "The principal's modern role is first and foremost that of leading in the instructional program."66 McAbee, who combined the Opinions of principals in Oregon and author- ities in the field of school administration, recommended that about one-fourth of the principal's time should be devoted to the supervision of teachers and the improvement 67 A look at the present practice of high Of instruction. school principals indicates a wide divergence from the advice so Often given. 64Stephen Romine, "The High School Principal Rates His Duties," The Bulletin Of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, May, 1950). pp. 13-18. 65Lehigh University, "A Study of the High School Principalship," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary SOhOOl Principals, December, 1953), pp. 118-122. 66David B. Austin and James S. Collins, "A Study Of Attitudes Toward the Principalship," The Bulletin Of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, January, 1956), p. 138. 67Harold V. McAbee, "Time for the Job," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, March, 1958), pp. 39-44. I‘ 51 Present Practice The consensus of those who have investigated the position and its responsibilities, as well as those who have written extensively on the tOpic, agree almost unani- mously; the principal should devote a major portion of his time and effort to the curriculum and the instructional program. However, this has not been the prevailing practice throughout the nation. Ovard mentions that in studies as far back as 1921 and 1932 by Davis and Billet reSpectively, both pointed out that "Although principals spend less time teaching than formerly, they are still spending too much time in routine administration and 68 This activities and not enough time on curriculum." conclusion is reached and repeated through almost every study related to the principal and his allocation of time and effort. Eckhardt, in the late '40's, after looking specifically at the principals' relationship to curricular development, stated, "Principals personally spend much more time on pure administrative problems than on curriculum development, especially during the school day."69 68Glen F. Ovard, Administration Of the Changing School (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966), pp. 16-17. 69John W. Eckhardt, "The High School Principalship in Relation to Curriculum Development," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National AssociationOfSecondary School Principals, April, 1948), p. 103. 52 In reference to the principals in the south, Tonelson says, "They were not able to devote a sufficient amount of time on supervision of teachers and improvement of instruction."70 Lynch, in investigating principals and their time involve- ment in Arkansas, reported, The high school principals in Arkansas devote a rela- tively small prOportion of their time to supervision of instruction. They are thus neglecting what should be their most important function. Many principals are spending an undue amount of time on routine clerical work. A lack of instructional leadership, obviously, does exist in many high schools. Few studies have been conducted to discover the reasons for this weakness, but some have given an indication that the principal himself is the key to the improvement in the future. The reasons, naturally, vary from building to building and from person to person, but Williams accounts for the differences as he refers to McAbee's Oregon study and comments, The study indicates that the prOportion Of a principal's time that is spent in any particular category of duty depends a great deal on his personal interests, the size of the school, the allocation of responsibility 70A. R. Tonelson, "The Principalship in Large High Schools in the Southern Association Of Colleges and Secondary Schools," Doctoral Dissertation (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963), p. 144. 71Audie J. Lynch, "The High School Principalship," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Associa- tion of Secondary SchoOI_Principals, March, 1954), p. 27. 53 by higher authorities, and the clerical and professional assistance that he may or may not have.72 Hemphill, in specifically examining the relationships between_the manner in which a principal functions and personal variables of the individual, disclosed several interesting associations. He claims that The style Of administration of a principal may be understood in part as an expression Of measurable per- sonality characteristics. The different patterns of administrative performance also appear to lead to dif- ferences in the way a principal is regarded by his superiors and his teachers.7 Some evidence has been shown, then, that the personal traits Of the principal have some influence upon the manner Of Operation in the school. However, conflicting conclusions were reached by Lien?4 in his five state in- quiry into the factors associated with administration of the high school. This researcher reported, among other things, that such factors as age, years of experience and size of school served do not, even remotely, determine the behavior of a principal in administering his school. 72Stanley W. Williams, Education Administration in Secondary Schools (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), p. 60. 73John K. Hemphill, "Personal Variables and Ad- ministrative Styles," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, National Society for the Study of Educa- tion, 63rd Yearbook, Part II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 198. 74Ronald L. Lien, "Democratic Administrative Be- havior," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, March, 1964), pp. 31-38. 54 It is difficult to reach a conclusion concerning the factors which influence the methods Of school adminis- tration from the few studies which have been conducted on the tOpic. Nonetheless, it is not difficult to conclude that the delegation of some of the administrative tasks by the principal is a sound technique and should be utilized more, especially in large schools. Delegation Of Administrative Tasks In light Of the increasing complexity in high school administration, the delegation tactic and use of the group process should be given serious consideration by principals. High school administrators need tO sincerely face the foregone conclusion that, as Wilhelms prOposes, "The days of the principal as a solo performer are about over. The influence of the principalship will remain substantial, but increasingly it will be exercised in a group setting rather than by unilateral decision and "75 action. The job is changing, and with the change the standard methods Of Operation must be altered. The principal's function in the building is not the same as in years gone by; rather, he needs to think of himself as the leader of a decision-making team. The team will make 75Fred T. Wilhelms, "The Principalship on The Spot," The Bulletin Of the NASSP (Washington: National Association of Secondary School Principals, November, 1967), p. 65. 55 the decisions for the school in the future, and because of the importance of the team approach, the principal should see himself as one, and only one, part of the group. Chamberlain and Kindred advise, "When administration is viewed as a process of working with people and coordinating their efforts into a smooth functioning whole, it is ob- vious that responsibility can no longer be centered in a single individual."76 The principal, thus, becomes a single spoke in the wheel of progress, but the importance Of his position, although somewhat changed, is still as great in the Operation of the total program. The Necessarnynvironment for Delegatimg Delegation of duties alone will not contribute toward the improvement of the school's management. Dele- gated responsibility needs to be accompanied by delegated authority to accomplish the task, a shared relationship in the decision-making process, and a certain amount of free- dom in which to Operate. A climate Of mutual respect is a necessity if the delegation of duties by the administra- tor is to be a smooth working Operation, and the principal needs to be the guiding force in creating the proper climate. 76Leo M. Chamberlain and Leslie W. Kindred, The Teacher apd School Organization (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,ii958), p. 422. 56 TOpe et a1. asserts, In a social situation, peOple are resources and the administrator must make the most Of the resources available. TO what extent the members Of the internal organization can and should be involved in problem solving is one of the vital problems confronting the school administrator.77 Conflicts are likely to occur whenever decisions are made by_more than one person; principals need to recognize the fact and make provision for compromising situations if avoidance is impossible. EXperiments have been conducted at the University of Michigan relating to the necessary environment for the delegation of responsibilities. According to the Lairds, Delegating works most successfully, in general, when the human climate is democratic, permissive, equalita- rian, not secretive, not smothering. In such a climate, the person delegated to feels that he is an associate rather than a subordinate, and also feels that he is sharing purposes with his chief, not merely going through the motions the chief prescribes.78 If principals are to govern their actions by this and other research which will lead eventually to the more effective administration of the schools, much more concen- tration will be needed on the human relations aspect of 77Donald E. TOpe, et al., The Social Sciences View School Administration (EngIewood CIiffs, Newfiersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965), p. 26. 78Donald A. Laird and Eleanor C. Laird, The Techniques of Dele ating (New York: McGraw-Hill Book company ' Inc 0 ’ 1g5 ) p p o 2 0 o O ' 57 the work. The end result will depend a great deal upon their ability to create and encourage the prOper surrounding for effective school administration, and upon their day-to—day relationships with their staffs. The ability to work with all kinds of people is one of the necessary ingredients to make a good principal. In all areas of administration, the need for human understanding and empathy for others is a required part of the job. "Wynn's studies of interpersonal relations in educational leadership have indicated," according to Prestwood, "that a school administrator needs to Spend at least ninety Percent of his time working with people,"79 Williams, commenting on this segment Of the responsibility, writes, "Building harmonious human relationships has emerged as a crucial phase of administrative behavior."80 The literature indicates that the time is ripe for an adOption Of a method Of school administration which has long been recommended by some authorities in the field. Democratic school administration is not new to the scene in American education. A review of the foundations on 79Elwood A. Prestwood, The High School Principal and His Staff Work Together (New York: Columbia University, 1957), p. 47. 80Williams, Op. cit., p. 23. 58 which it is based is most appIOpriate in a study involving the delegation of administrative duties in high school management. Democratic School Administration The democratic administration of educational in- stitutions has long been a topic of discussion among school administrators. Early in the twentieth century, Dewey responded to the claim that the schools were being admin- istered in an autocratic fashion in this manner: Until the public school system is organized in such a way that every teacher has some regular and represen- tative way in which he or she can register judgment upon matters Of educational importance, with the assurance that this judgment will somehow affect the school system, the assertation that the present system is not, from the internal standpoint, democratic seems justified.81 Dewey left no doubt in the reader's mind as to his assessment of the administration of the schools at that time. A half century later, Harlow reaffirmed Dewey's insistence that "good democrats cannot be developed in an atmosphere of personal authoritarianism; that the quality of American social life is in fact determined through the schools."82 A powerful force in the building and shaping 8J'John Dewey, "Democracy In Action," The Elemgntary School Teacher (Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1903), pp. 194-195. James G. Harlow, "Building the Principal's Team," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals, February, 1957), p. 48. 59 Of the country's future citizens, the schools, without doubt, should be administered in a manner appropriate and fitting to the democratic ideals on which the nation is founded. A Forced Rebirth Democratic administration of the high school has never, in the Opinion Of most authors, completely been accepted by practicing principals. Until recently, the concept seemed to be contained within the pages of the texts on the shelves in the principal's Office, but has not been Observed in the manner of Operation of the build- ing. At the present time, principals are aware of the need for help. Increasing problems, more students, larger staffs, and mounting pressures are forcing the rebirth of the shared leadership concept. One of the leading reasons for a change to this manner of school administration has come as a result of legislation designed to give the class- room teacher more voice in the decisions of the school system. Typical is Michigan Public Law 379, which generally gives teachers, as public employees, the right to organize and bargain with their employers. Specifically, the law reads, in this regard: It shall be lawful for public employees to organize together or to form, join or assist in labor organiza- tions, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining 60 or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their public employers 83 through representatives of their own free chOice. Sharing the decision-making process, it might be said, is no longer an Option for school administators, although legislation alone has not been the only reason for the return to more democratically administered schools. Harlow,84 in discussing the trend toward sharing the leadership in school settings, lists the rise in the level Of teacher training, the increase in the knowledge of the learning process, and the growing emphasis on the human relations aspect of school administration as contributing factors in the change. The Fundamental Principles Almost a quarter century ago, Koppmen, Miel and Misner Offered five basic guidelines for practicing school administrators which would assist them in their thinking and Operational procedures. These principles are listed below: 1. To facilitate the continuous growth of individual and social personalities by providing all persons with Opportunities to participate actively in all enterprises that concern them. 83Michigan Public Employees Act, Public Act 379 (Lansing, 1965), 17.455, Section 9. 84HarlOW, OE. Cite, pp. 47-68. 61 2. To recognize that leadership is a function of every individual, and to encourage the exercise of leadership by each person in accordance with his interests, needs and abilities. 3. To provide means by which persons can plan together, share their experiences, and OOOperatively evaluate their achievement. 4. To place the responsibility for making decisions that affect the total enterprise with the group rather than one or a few individuals. 5. To achieve flexibility or organization to the end that necessary adjustments can readily be made.85 The five principles listed above could be applied to any situation in which the individual in charge was interested in administering an enterprise in a democratic fashion. They would not, necessarily, have to be applied to a school situation. Chamberlain and Kindred, more specifically, defined this type of administration for school use: 1. The development Of policies and the planning of educational programs should be undertaken jointly by teachers and administrators with authority shared equally among those who participate in the process. 2. Planning should grow out of recognized needs and interests Of those affected by the plan, and be based upon a carefully organized series of facts. 3. Responsibility for the execution of policy and pro- gram should be centered in either the administrative leader of the school or certain committees to which definite aspects of administration have been assigned. 856. Robert KOppman, Alice Miel and Paul J. Misner, Democracy in School Administration (New York: D. Appleton- Century Company, Inc., 1943i, pp. 3-4. 62 4. Teachers must have the right to disagree with existing policies and programs and to make recom- mendations for their modifications and improvement. 5.- Teachers must have the right to form their own professional organization without criticism or obstruction on the part of the administration and the school board. 6. Public school administration must be based upon a deep understanding Of human nature and a genuine respect for human personality. 7. Administrative procedures must be flexible and readily adjustable to new needs and conditions. 8. The products of group planning must be subjected to a continuous process of evaluation. 9. Standards Of efficiency in professional services and the use of material resources should be develOped and maintained at all times.86 The foundations Offered by the authorities for the more effective democratic Operation of the schools is sound advice. Perhaps if more principals and other school administrators had practiced the philOSOphy, there would have been no need for legislation on the matter. Misunderstandings, Apprehensions andeangers It is an established fact that the principal is the person responsible for the overall Operation Of the high school. Discussions for years in school administra- tion circles have centered around the question of whether 86Chamberlain and Kindred, op. cit., pp. 425-428. 63 or not the responsibility could or could not be delegated. Many feel that the principal should always assume that, no matter who carries out the specific task, he is the person on whom the ultimate responsibility falls. Others advocate the notion that with the delegation of the task also goes the delegation of the responsibility. Regardless of the outcome of this argument, principals do need to fix, in their own minds at least, some philOSOphical foundation for interpreting the meaning of being responsible for the administration Of the school. Mort points out that in his investigation Of the matter, he found "every stage and interpretation of its meaning by principals."87 To some, it means every decision must be made by the school adminis— trator; to others, it means never making a decision without initially polling the faculty. The fact that a principal utilizes his staff in decision—making certainly does not detract from his ability as an administrator. He is simply using a technique to which Gibb refers as "an emerging concept Of administrative philOSOphy which is more suited 88 to the society we're trying to become." More and more 87Paul R. Mort, Principles Of Secgpdary School Administration (New YOEE: McGraw-Hill Company, 1946), p. 110. 88Jack R. Gibb, "Expanding Role of the Administrator," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Association Of Secondary School Principals, May, 1967), p. 59. \ 64 principals are accepting the trend with open arms because of the growing complexity of their school situations. Problems which arise in the modern comprehensive high school are becoming too numerous and too varied for one individual to be expected to handle. As Bent and McCann prOpose: Employing the group process as a technique in solving problems, formulating policies, and making decisions is becoming one of the most frequently used democratic methods in school administration. It is based on the assumption that group thinking is superior to that Of individuals because each person in the group is able to make some contribution and because all aspects of a problem will be considered.89 One potential danger is always present when school administrators speak Of democratically ruling their schools. The group process should not be used as a disguise for decisions which are still being made by one individual. Principals who superficially run through the motions of involving their staffs are only creating more of a problem. Staff personnel are aware of whether or not they are being used or actually involved in decision—making. The dif- ference can spell success or failure for the school and the administrator. The method will not be effective if con- flict prevails among the individuals involved. It can only succeed when the entire staff works as a team, and as 89Bent and McCann, Op. cit., p. 43. 65 Congreve suggests, represents a "composite of many peOple working together in interlocking but complementary roles."90 Hanson gives consolation to those principals who feel that their days of decision-making are over: Formulation Of policy and development of procedure is a legitimate expression of the group processes, but final decisions can rarely be rendered by a group. Even when a group votes democratically in favor Of a certain decision, the decision does not thereby become a group decision; it becomes a compilation of indivi- dual decisions. And the individual on whom the final decision must rest, often even after a vote, is still the principal.91 The chief building administrator is still the key to final decisions, and to actions taken as a result of the decisions; however, by utilizing the group process, the principal should be able to make more sound, logical and profitable decisions on behalf of the school family. In working with his staff in this manner, the principal, while improving on the quality of decisions reached, is building a spirit of unity that will surely be demonstrated in the performance of the teaching staff with regard to the administrative Operation of the school. As Williams states, "The teaching staff of any secondary school will support 90Willard J. Congreve, "The Role of the Principal in School Improvement," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National AssociationOiSecondaryflSchool Principals, March, 1964), p. 9. 91Kenneth H. Hanson, "Design for Decision," The Bulletin of the NASSP (Washington: National Associaiian of Secondary School Principals, November, 1967), p. 113. 66 more wholeheartedly the policies they have helped to develop, for peOple respond better to an idea or a policy when they have been active in its develOpment."92 The concept of shared leadership will be nothing more than a hollow phrase unless faithfully practiced in any and all decisions of the school. Beautifully written philOSOphical positions on democratic school administration have no worth unless there is some evidence of their practice in every day activity. Mitchum remarks in this regard: Democratic leadership, shared leadership, emerging leadership should pervade all phases of school life. If the most significant curriculum changes are to take place - changes significant in schools in a democratic society - they must occur in the day to day living, planning and achieving of school peOple as well as through organized COOperative attacks on long term issues. Through this manner of use, democratic administra— tion becomes a part of the school rather than a facade which can be put on or taken off at will. The years ahead will demand principals with the ability to share in the direction Of school programs with their staffs. Without this ability or the intent to learn it, the individual who desires a place in the future of school administration will find no place. 92Williams, Op. cit., p. 105. 93Paul M. Mitchum, Op. cit., p. 9. 67 The Future of Secondary School Administration American high schools in the years ahead will continue to flourish within the philOSOphy of an educational Opportunity for every boy and girl. Curricular programs will be expanded, services will be extended, there will be fewer and larger high schools, fiscal develOpments are likely to occur at the local level, and more flexible facilities will be utilized at near maximum efficiency. Along with these changes will be a greater mobility in the school pOpulation, a wider range of interests and abilities possessed by the students, and more specialized school staffs. In a word, educational instutitions at the secondary level will become much more complex. The Needed Principal In order to effectively manage the secondary schools of the future, the principal will need to accept these changes as a part of the responsibility, and meet each one with confidence and the skills necessary to per- fOrm the task at hand. The qualities which he will need to possess will steadily increase. Williams predicts, Tomorrow's school administrator will be expected to be a recognized scholar, a competent teacher, a natural leader, a dynamic expert in human relations, and an individual who has sensitivity, imagination and courage.94 94Williams, Op. cit., p. 519. 68 Two schools Of thought are beginning to develop in regard to the principal of tomorrow and his association with the instructional program. Some authorities would divorce the principal from the traditional teaching back- ground entirely, and advocate that there are qualities more important for the job of the future. Elicker, as an emissary Of this philOSOphy, suggested, in regard to the future appointment Of high school principals, "There will be more emphasis on his leadership and administrative ability than on his success as a classroom teacher."95 This view conflicts directly with the conventional belief that the principal should always be the instructional leader in his building. Those who Oppose the view claim that it would, certainly, be doubtful that the principal, if selected for reasons other than his effectiveness as a teacher, would continue to command the respect.of his staff concerning problems of an instructional nature. Most authors remain faithful supporters of the customary credence--that which places the principal as the director of the curricular program and the supervisor of instruction. Linder and Gunn represent the majority with their Opinion on the principal of the future and his 'primary responsibility: 95Elicker, Op. cit., p. 241. 69 He will not have one, but many roles to play as a leader of a complicated enterprise and as a profes- sional leader of his staff and of the community, while fulfilling, at the same time, his greatest single obli- gation of instructional and curricular develOpment.96 Regardless of his placement in the instructional program, the key word in all predictions is leadership, and the reference more often than not implies a shared endeavor. Shaw submits that only when each person on the staff "understands and accepts his role in the administrative function can an institution fully realize its central purpose: learning."97 It has Often been said that the school is an elongated shadow of its principal; perhaps this cliche, in the future, will have to be modified to include the entire school staff. National Trend In addition to the trend toward school staffs working together on matters which affect the school, a movement on the national scene, which is perhaps even more significant, seems to be taking place. The nation's aggregate Of educational enterprises seems to be progressing 96Ivan H. Linder and Henry M. Gunn, Secondary School Administration: Problems and Practices (Columbus: Charles E. MerrilI Books, Inc., 1963i} p. 296. 97Walter G. Hack, John A. Ramseyer, William J. Gephart and James B. Heck, Educational Administration: Selected Readings (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p. 27. 70 as a whole rather than as separate entities as in the past. Each is gradually becoming more interdependent upon the other and as a result, the nation's schools are improving as a total school system much more than was previously possible. The movement Offers another challenge for school administrators of the future, and in the words of Jenson and Clark: The school administrator of the future will be the participant in a nation-wide, organized process of change not dissimilar from that which has existed in the field of agriculture for the past half century. Federal and state governmental agencies, responsible for educational coordination, research and improvement, institutions of higher education, and the public schools will become teams of professional employees working toward the improvement of education. Local school administrators will be placed in the center of this process and will spend the bulk of their time implementing the results of the process and determining its future course of action.98 Increased federal and state participation in the educational affairs of local school districts is only one of the many forces with which the secondary school principal of the future will have to reckon. The question is not whether the many changes that are taking place are good or bad for education, but rather, will the school administra- tors in the years ahead possess the abilities to accept the challenge? 98Theodore J. Jenson and David L. Clark, Educational .Administration (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), p. 110. CHAPTER III PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY The literature in Chapter II provides a sound basis for concern regarding the delegation of administra- tive duties by high school principals. It further pointed out, quite clearly, the need and necessity for greater utilization of the administrative technique in the future, due to the increasing complexity of high school adminis- tration. The theoretical foundation laid generates the two most important interests of this study; (1) the ascertainment of the amount or degree of delegation of administrative tasks by principals of the large high schools in Michigan, and (2) the determination of the relatiOnships which exist between the delegation Of the tasks and the selected variables which are closely asso— ciated with the principals and/or the institutions they represent. Population Of the Study The evidence conclusively points to larger, more complex high schools in the years ahead. Primarily be- mmoom Omaha .0 mmsose Homm secflmmm Hoocom roam Haflm uncund oxommoaw .3 OHOHcm mmmm oucfiom mmmonw Hoocom swam oucflom cmmonw cownco .o munch momm uaonuoo Hoocom swam cumummocusom ouccamo camcflcuom «mam cuonnmoo Hoosom swam compuom HOmem .< >m>umm mmom omaucom Hoocom scam acuucmo coumcauum sumac mmmm psaam Hoocom swam cumummssusom season .m upouumo Noam ocucsmamx Hoocom swam Hmnucou coco ccoo oamm OHHH>omom Hoocom scam OHHH>Omom Hommno .m cuchHm ooem ufiouuoo Hoocom roam acou concamcoo omuocw moam moaxnom Hoocom swam moaxnmm zounmwo .¢ ccnoq omom xumm cHoocHA Hoonom swam xucm cHoocflq ONNosO mesons mama mwco>flq Hoocom swam woaucom xooumsoo xoco mmam quuumo Hooeom ease mflncmmomz Hence .2 escaq omvm uwouuoo Hoosom roam cumummscuuoz cmsmmco phenom Hmmm “HOHDOQ Hoonom swam Ouomcmm Hospnmmfidmm .2 phenom smam maco>aq Hoorom roam aaaxcmnm spasmsw pa>mo mucoEHHOHcm weapflo maoocom roam mo moamz mammwocflnm mucosaaoncm Hoonom can .coumooa one maoosom ecu scans ca mmflufio .ucomonmou mocu maoozom cows .mucmmflOfluumm mcsum .Hlm mqmda 75 mmem uaouumo Hooeom seam mcflemsmm xoaN Luanda Homm uaouump Hooeom spam spawn mesa: wasps moom OMHucOm Hoorom swam chocuuoz cflaomucz mflaflcm mmmm pamapflz Hooeom emflm pauses: mam: smaaaflz omom Emsmcfisnam Hoocom swam anccom Hocmmz .c mmom omvm ufiouuoo Hoocow swam cuomadz mmfim3cccm .o ccmuuuom Nmmm uflouuoo ummm Hoocom roam uflonuoo Dmmm mumccmm ccoo emam spasm Hooeom ream cuwummzeusoz mppom unmnom smhm uwouuoo Hoocom swam cuom mucom coda: Hosscm ooam xmmuo mauumm Hooeom ream Hmupcmo saunas .e pumspm mmom mcflmcmq Hoocom swam uuouw>m Hmumoq .m CHEMncom mmmm moan: Hoocom swam moans mumcumq ca>mo momm quuumo Hooeom roam anonmo uHom .2 spasms mama pfimflmeusom Hooeom nose pamaueusom Hams nuance mucofiaaoucm moauwu maoonom roam mo mosmz maddfiocwum a .wmzzwucoo .HIM mqmgm 76 214 28 3 25 27 19 1 22 23., 61’ 3-1. Geographical locations Of study participants. 77 2. The interview technique, generally, produces a higher percentage of returns than the question- naire method. 3. The interview method, representing a more personal approach, usually influences a larger percentage of participants. 4. Semantic difficulties, which are, at times, a problem in the questionnaire method of collecting data, are virtually eliminated in the interview technique. 5. Since the interview technique actually forces the interviewee to concentrate on the question at hand, rather than allowing him to glance ahead as is possible on a questionnaire, the continuity of the investigation is held. 6. The interview method allows the freedom necessary to administer the questions at a speed appropriate to each situation. 7. The personal visit Offers the investigator the opportunity to introduce and explain the purpose of the study more thoroughly to the participants. Good and Scates supplement the last reason listed wl'ienthey submit, "The interview permits an exchange of JLCiees and information; it is not necessarily a one-way 78 street."102 This is quite beneficial since it affords the interviewer the Opportunity to interpret items on which 103 the participant has requested clarification. Parten Offers still another advantage when she suggests that most respondents would rather talk than write, and the inter- ‘view satisfies this preference. The Maccobys, in acclaim c>f the method, add, "Some of the most impressive contri- lautions to social science knowledge have been made by satudies which employed the interview as their central technique . "104 While Observing the many advantages of the inter- ‘vfiiew technique, it is quite often possible to overlook the fact that the method is not without certain hazards. The Ilsser needs to be cognizant of the weaknesses, especially 1:11e potential problems inherent in the interaction process ixtself. Travers warns, "The interview must be considered £153 a complex social situation in which the interviewer and ‘tlie interviewee are making continual adjustments to the . 102Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods 5LI1 Research: Educational, Sociological (New York: ZAEXpIeton—Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954), p. 356. 103Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, Samples (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950). p. 94. 104Eleanor Maccoby and Nathan Maccoby, "The Interview: A Tool of Social Science," Handbook of Social IP53 cholO -(Cambridge: Addison and Wesiey Publishing cDmnpany, 954), p. 483. 79 responses of one another."105 In order to eliminate the danger pointed out by Travers, the investigator in this study elected to conduct a somewhat structured interview, with the participant's responses being limited to the choice of a word, a phrase or a numeral. The only dia- logue, during the conferences conducted for purposes Of 'the study, came in the introductory exchange, and in the eavent of a request for clarification on one of the items c>n the instrument. In regard to the latter interpreta- t:ions, a standard explanation was utilized, thereby aivoiding leading statements or misleading comments. The Inelated extemporaneous responses of the principals were Imecorded when they did occur, and are included in a sepa- rate section in Chapter IV. The Interview Schedule Each Of the participants was contacted by phone, £31: which time the purposes of the study were introduced, iarid an interview was tentatively scheduled. Of the total I?<>pulation, all except one of the principals indicated a ij_1lingness to participate, giving a 97 percent response for the study. The procedure for proceeding was somewhat differ- ent for the principals in the Detroit Public School System. ~.____ 105Robert M. W. Travers, An Introduction to Edu- czestional Research (New York: The MacMillan Company, Mr, p. 240. 80 In this instance, the initial contact was made through the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, who, in turn, referred the request to the Department of Research in that system. After several phone conferences and one visit to the Office Of Research, which involved submission Of a copy of the instrument to be utilized in the study, approval was granted and the principals were contacted. The interview schedule was tentatively set through phone conferences with each of the principals and extended over a four week period of time. With one exception, all conferences were held on the day scheduled. A few neces- sitated alterations in the time of day, and one was post- poned due to a conflict in the participant's calendar. The four week interview schedule is presented in Table 3-2. The Instrument The instrument utilized in the study was con- structed by the author, with the assistance of a consult- ant. in. the Office of Research Consultation, College of EdLIcation, Michigan State University. It is divided into two Separate sections. The initial section, which is intended for gather- ing factual information concerning the principals and the schools' they represent, consists of the simple question- answer approach. Questions pertaining to variables which could be obtained from other sources were not included in TABLE 3-2. 81 Schedule Of interviews with participants in the study Month Week Interview Location (Name of High School) October October November November November 23-27 30- 13-17 Lansing Everett High School Kalamazoo Central High School Battle Creek Central High School Midland High School Saginaw Arthur Hill High School Flint Northwestern High School Flint Southwestern High School Pontiac Central High School Pontiac Northern High School Utica High School Birmingham Seaholm High School Southfield High School Berkley High School Livonia Bentley High School Livonia Franklin High School East Detroit High School Roseville High School Dearborn Fordson High School Grosse Pointe High School Lincoln Park High School Wyandotte Roosevelt High School Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Detroit Cody High School Denby High School Henry Ford High School MacKenzie High School Mumford High School Northwestern High School Osborn High School Pershing High School Redford High School Southeastern High School 82 the interview in order to more effectively utilize the time. A sample question, one concerning the principalzs professional background, is given below: In.what subject area was most of your classroom teaching before entering the field of adminis- tration? The interviewee's response to this question, and others similar to it, was recorded on an appropriate check list, which appears on the "Interview Guide." This method of recording the responses kept the interview moving at a steady pace, and saved the time which would have been required had the investigator written each response. The second section of the instrument is a listing of administrative tasks, which has been adapted from an inventory previously used by McCleary and Hencley106 in a report concerning the suggested interrelationships among the various Offices within the administration of an entire school system. The listing includes six major areas of school administration: 1. Finance and Business Management 2. Instruction and Curriculum Development 3. Pupil Personnel 4. School Community Relations 5. School Plant and Services 6. Staff Personnel 106McCleary and Hencley, op. cit., pp. 86-91. 83 Each Of the major technical areas Of administration are subdivided into more specific tasks; however, since the original listing had reference to all of the administrative positions in a school system, all were not appropriate for use in this study. Only those tasks which the high school principal performs or delegates are included in the instru- ment utilized in the investigation. A total of sixty-four administrative tasks were thus adapted from the original report, all categorized within one of the six major tech- nical areas of administration. Each of the major areas was covered independently during the investigation. Each participant, while respond- ing to the items in this section Of the interview, referred to a card labeled "Principals' Interview Cards" as in- structed by the interviewer. On each card was a separate major area of administration, with each of the specific tasks listed beneath it. A partial listing under one of the major areas is given below as an example: SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS A. Preparation of reports to the community B. Confer with citizen groups C. Supervision Of the school's public relations program At the tOp of each card, above the major area classification and specific administrative tasks, was a legend from which the participant selected the most 84 appropriate response. This response, given verbally or in the form of the numeral which represents the choice of responses indicatesthe principal's involvement in or disposition of the particular administrative task. All of the tasks were completed in a like manner. The legend utilized provides a five-point con- tinuum which extends from the chief building administra- tor's personal performance of the task to his complete delegation Of it. The interim steps between the two extremes allowed the participants a certain amount of leeway with regard to their degree Of delegation and involvement. The legend is shown below: LEGEND 1 — I do all of this. N I I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. 3 - I do about half of this, but delegate about half of it to other staff members. 4 - I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. 5 - I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. Trial Interviews Two experimental or trial interviews were held in order that the instrument might be tested before actual use in the study. The principal of Lansing Eastern High School, whose school feel just below the required standard 85 for inclusion in the study, was one of the interviewees; the other was the former principal of Battle Creek Central High School, who had retired just three months earlier after approximately twenty-five years experience in high school administration. Both interviews were very produc— tive, and from them came the addition of an administrative task not included in the original listing. The principals tested felt that since the advent of the professional negotiations movement, the duty of administering the master contract, within the high school building, was now the reSponsibility Of the high school administrator. The duty was added to the major administrative area of Staff Personnel, and the total number Of tasks was firmed up at sixty-five. For an examination of the "Interview Guide" used by the investigator and/or the "Principals' Interview Cards," which were utilized by the participants during the interviews, the reader is referred to Appendices B and C. Judgment by Principals For purposes of the study, it is assumed that the principals interviewed are able to accurately relate the disposition of administrative tasks within their own buildings. Their judgment is involved to this extent. 86 A judgment, as defined by Shelly and Bryan "refers to any verbal reaction (or its equivalent) that is the direct product of the individual's processing his sensory inputs in combination with his memories of stored experi- ences."107 The interviewees in this study, due to their unique positions as the determining factor in the assign- ment Of administrative duties within their buildings, should be the most appropriately equipped individuals, with the necessary "stored experiences," to make this judgment. Good, Barr and Scates had this to say in rela- tion to judgment in educational research: For those who feel that all is lost whenever a research worker allows judgment to enter his data, it should be pointed out that social scientists are confronted with problems which differ fundamentally from those of the physical scientist, and they must utilize procedures which are appropriate to their problems. The judgment necessary in this study, then, can be considered adequAte and as accurate as possible, since the principals involved are the Only individuals, within the high school buildings, who are aware of the total operation of the school and are the persons actually 107Maynard W. Shelly III and Glen L. Bryan, Human Judgments and Optimality (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 7. 108Carter V. Good, A. S. Barr and D. E. Scates, The Methodology Of Educational Research (New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1936), p. 410. 87 responsible for the assignment of administrative tasks to other members Of the staff. Statistical Treatment of the Data Each "Interview Guide," on which the responses from all participants were recorded, was thoroughly checked for completeness and the raw data was summarized. The responses which utilized the legend and applied to the delegation Of administrative tasks were totaled; a mean delegation score was computed for every principal in the study, as well as a delegation score for each participant in the six major areas of building administration. Statistical treatment of the data in the study was conducted through the use of the facilities of the Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. The data was proc- essed through the use of the Control Data Corporation (CDC) 3600 Computer, which is a large scale electronic computer suited for scientific analysis. Methodology in Analysis Of the Data The responses were coded on the required Data Coding Form and submitted to the Computer Laboratory for transfer to IBM cards and verification. Sixty-nine col- umns were utilized on each of the cards, thereby providing a recording of all data collected. A program was written, with the assistance of a computer consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan ‘11 .‘1 'H ‘II ‘- id 7‘ .\ 88 State University, and the entire package was submitted for analysis. One re-submission was necessary at a later date due to the omission of one directional instruction in the program which was needed to transform three of the varia- bles from raw data to meaningful and employable statistics. The program was written to specifically ascertain the re- lationships between the principals' delegation of adminis- trative tasks to other members Of the staff and the selected variables which are closely associated with the chief administrators and/or the buildings they represent. The computer provided a summarization of each Of the twenty-three items programmed into it, the means Of each, the standard deviations from the means, and the coef- ficients of correlation between each of the selected varia- bles and the delegation scores by the principals, thereby indicating the degree Of linear relationship which exists in each case. The computer calculations were checked at random to verify the results and the accuracy of the pro- gram directions. The coefficients of correlation were analyzed and checked with the results Of the computer tflnrough the use of the following formula:109 r = ZXY - n§Y 2 / (z: x2 - n22) (z y - nYZ) 109Henry L. Alder and Edward B. Roessler, Intro- gyyction to Probability and Statistics (San Francisco: W- Ii. Freeman and Company, 1960), p. 159. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The-analysis of the data presented in this chapter is divided into four sections, and is reported in the following manner: 1. Part I is an overview of the general findings of the study. A personal and professional descrip- tion of the principals is included, as well as a brief resume of the institutions they represent. In Part II, the hypotheses, as advanced by the author, are stated indiVidually with the statis- tical results Of testing and the rationale for acceptance or rejection of each. Part III contains the additional questions which have been raised throughout the related literature. Each is treated in a similar fashion tO that; utilized in presenting the hypotheses in Part II. The final section of the chapter, Part IV, includes the concomitant findings of the study and the re- sponses, both fOrced and extemporaneous, Of the principals to several of the questions during the interviews. 89 90 Although the results and decisions presented in this chapter are applicable to the principals and schools included in the study, the investigator is able to logi- cally make some conclusions, draw certain implications, and recommend action that does apply to the administrative behavior Of all high school principals. PART I General Findings In this section of the analysis of data, the author presents a description of the principals included in the study and the institutions in which these adminis- trators serve. The institutional data is comprised Of information on the student population, the state equalized valuation of the districts, and the administrative staffs of the schools. The elements examined in relation to the principals incorporate factual knowledge on the adminis- trators' ages, former teaching areas, graduate training, experience, and ultimate professional goals. In addition, an account is given concerning the principals' estimated time spent on the job and percentage of time given to each of the major areas Of school administration. The Institutions The study includes the principals of thirty-one large, comprehensive high schools in the State of Michigan, 91 which enroll 75,728 students--approximately 20% of the total student pOpulation in grades ten through twelve. The mean enrollment figure of the schools studied was 2442.84 pupils, and the mean state equalized valuation per student was $16,403. The schools send slightly more than half of their graduating classes on to some type of post high school educational experience. In addition to the principal, who is the chief building administrator, the institutions have an average Of 2.8 full time administrative assistants. The Principal A personal and professional description of the average principal of the schools included portrays a man of forty-nine years of age with almost five years (4.9) of experience as the chief building administrator in a two-thousand student high school. He is, more likely than not, a former social studies teacher, who, in all probability took the major portion of his graduate work in the field Of educational administration. He estimates spending fifty-six hours per week in fulfilling the many responsibilities of his position, and, in his opinion, gives the largest percentage of his time (26%) to instruc- tion and curriculum development and the smallest percent- age (6.6%) to the school plant and services aspect of 92 administration. In Table 4-1, the percentages of time estimated by the principals in each of the major areas of administration are listed. TABLE 4-1. Percentage of time spent in each of the major areas of administration studied as estimated by the principals Administrative Area Estimated Percentage of Time Instruction and Curriculum Development 26.0 Staff Personnel 22.9 Pupil Personnel 20.1 School Community Relations 14.4 Finance and Business Management 8.9 School Plant and Services 6.6 The principals performed most of their classroom teaching in a total of seven entirely different subject areas. The largest group (41.9%) were former social studies teachers. The various subject fields and percent- ages of principals who performed most Of their teaching in each area are listed in Table 4-2. It is interesting to note that two of the academic areas (Social Studies and English) account for the former major teaching areas of two-thirds of the principals in the study. 93 TABLE 4-2. Areas in which the principals did the most Of their classroom teaching Former Teaching Area Percentage of Principals Social Studies 41.9 English 25.8 Science 12.9 Mathematics 6.4 Music 6.4 Business Education 3.2 Vocational Education 3.2 The principals delegated administrative tasks to other members Of their staffs most Often in the major administrative area of Pupil Personnel (4.2 mean delega- tion score) and least Often in matters pertaining to School Community Relations (2.9 mean delegation score). The three specific administrative tasks most often delegated by the principals were: 1. The distribution of equipment and supplies (4.8 mean response) 2. The inventory of equipment and supplies (4.8 mean response) 3. The maintaining of student records (4.8 mean response) 94 The tasks most often handled personally by the principals and not delegated to other staff members were: 1. The attendance at professional meetings outside the buildings concerning finance and business management matters Of the school (1.6 mean response) 2. The administration Of the master contracts with employees in the building (1.7 mean response) 3. The direction of research and/or experimentation within the administrative area Of Staff Personnel (1.9 mean response) Table 4-3 is a compilation of the responses by all of the principals regarding their disposition of the sixty-five administrative tasks within their own build- ings. The key to the table precedes the numerical re- sponses, and a bar graph (Figure 4-1) illustrates the differences in the utilization of the delegation technique by the principals. The majority (54.8%) Of the principals interviewed indicated that they intend to remain in the high school principalship until their retirement from the profession. Only one of the entire population in the study expressed the desire to become a superintendent Of schools in the future. A listing is presented in Table 4-4 of the ultimate professional goals of the principals and the percentages desiring each category. It should be noted Number \lONU'luwa 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 95 KEY TO ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS AND PRINCIPALS' RESPONSES IN TABLE 4-3 Administrative Task Construction of the school budget (or building recommendations) Administration of the school budget Determination of equipment and supplies Ordering Of equipment and supplies Distribution of equipment and supplies Inventory of equipment and supplies Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning finance and business management Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management Direction of curriculum content and organization Selection of curriculum materials Direction and articulation of curricular programs Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program Diagnosis Of pupil learning difficulties Direction of adult education program Direction of school testing program Coordination of instructional equipment and materials Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum develop- ment Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum develOpment Provision of student orientation Scheduling of students into classes Provision of student counseling Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation Scheduling of students for health services Maintaining of student records Number 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 96 Administrative Task Provision of occupational and educational information Assessment and interpretation Of student growth to students Administration of student discipline Administration of student attendance Administration Of extra-curricular activities Direction of school guidance program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel Preparation of reports for the community Confer with parents Confer with citizen groups Supervision of the school's public relation program Preparation of releases to communications media Supervision of the use of school by non-school groups Direction of reporting to parents on student progress Attendance at staff and professional meetings concerning school community relations Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations Supervision of plant Operation and maintenance Supervision of grounds maintenance Direction Of plant safety program (fire drills, etc.) Direction of transportation safety program (behavior on bus, etc.) Administration Of the school lunch program Attendance at staff and professional meetings concerning school plant and services Number 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Number 97 Administrative Task Direction Of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services Selection of professional staff members Induction Of professional staff members Scheduling of professional staff members Supervision of professional staff members Evaluation of professional staff members Direction of in-service for professional staff members Selection of non-professional staff members Induction of non—professional staff members Scheduling of non-professional staff members Supervision of non-professional staff members Evaluation of non-professional staff members Direction Of in-service for non-professional staff members Maintaining of staff personnel records Direction of substitute teachers Administration of master contract(s) Attendance at staff and professional meetings concerning staff personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel Principals' Response I do all Of this. I do more than half Of this, but delegate some Of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I‘do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. Responses of the principals concerning the disposition of administrative tasks TABIJE 4‘3. P r i n c i p a l s ..ean I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 9 8 98 oaw~o® Efflméfim Continued. TABLE 4-3. 4ean .‘ A 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 9 8 99 ©r~u3OLnC>®korhdr~m(VrierU‘m<3P~Ohrncxoranun® Bumxm Mean 3. Scores 100 .cmmflcowz ca maoonom cows mound may mo mammaocHHm an mxmmp m>flumuumflcwecm mo GOHummOHoc we» BA mmoamumumflp we» do :oALmuumsHHA useampo .Hua .msa m A d m H D Z H m m HmommmwmrmwwmmvmmmmmHNONmeHSH oH mawfimH NH HHo~mm pmmwm NH 2&142 QHQWU mo Honssz ma 5H 0H ma ca ma NH AH 0H m m N. m m v UJUOHQJU) mm mm mu 2_ ~ o~ as anus mu 2 m IIIIIIMW. ms .3 .. «a 2 mm mN Hm OGHQU‘MJJ-r-IOC 109 Hypothesis 2: The delegation of administrative tasks by principals increases as the number of full—time adminis- trative assistants in the building increases. Result of Statistical Analysis: r = .21121 Decision: The hypothesis is rejected. Although the corre- lation coefficient indicates a somewhat positive linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. Table 4-7 includes the mean delegation scores of the principals and the number of full-time administrative assistants each has on his staff. The number of adminis- trative assistants in the buildings ranged from two to six, while the mean for the group was 2.8. Figure 4-3 is a scattergram which graphically illustrates the correlation between the two variables. llO TABLE 4-7. Mean delegation scores of the principals and the number of full-time administrative assistants in each school Administrative Principals Mean Delegation Scores Assistants 1 3.26 2 2 3.18 3 3 3.37 3 4 3.75 2 5 3.77 2 6 3.71 2 7 3.12 2 8 4.18 2 9 3.58 2 10 3.58 2 11 3.22‘ 2 12 3.52 2 13 3.72 2 14 3.60 2 15 4.00 2 16 3.26 4 17 3.32 4 18 3.98 4 19 3.12- 2 20 3.14 3 21 4.09 3 22 3.82 5 23 4.11 6 24 3.83 3 25 3.65 4 26 2.97 3 27 3.40 3 28 4.02 3 29 3.11 3 30 3.09 2 31 3.51 2 lll .th magma ca camp may no Ewumuouumom .MIv .mwm mucmumflmma m>wumuumficwfivd mo umnfisz w m v m N o p . . . m IH m I H I o I U . I m IN I a I o I H mm 8.3 o 3:; Im u SIS N fl I m 2-». 3st I m I I - II iIoTa x I m mm 21.. I S :N T... I H 3 2 “Na .2 Iv m m I Q Im OJfUC U34 '14 112 Hypothesis 3: The delegation of administrative tasks by principals increases as the percentage of their gradu- ates going on to college increases. Result of Statistical Analysis: r = .11472 Decision: The hypothesis is rejected. Although the corre- lation coefficient indicates a slight positive linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. The mean delegation scores of the principals are presented in Table 4-8, as well as the percentages of students going on to college from each high school. The percentages going on to college from these large high schools ranged from twenty-eight to eighty-three, while the mean percentage going on to work beyond the high school level was 52.8%. The correlation between the variables is illustrated in Figure 4-4. 113 TABLE 4-8. Mean delegation scores of the principals and percentages of graduates going on to college from each school Percentage of Graduates on Principals Mean Delegation Scores to College 1 3.26 50 2 3.18 71 3 3.37 80 4 3.75 57 5 3.77 36 6 3.71 50 7 3.12 68 8 4.18 50 9 3.58 70 10 3.58 45 11 3.22 40 12 3.52 45 13 3.72 60 14 3.60 28 15 4.00 50 16 3.26 35 17 3.32 58 18 3.98 83 19 3.12 52 20 3.14 50 21 4.09 35 22 3.82 70 23 4.11 60 24 3.83 65 25 3.65 55 26 2.97 31 27 3.40 28 28 4.02 55 29 3.11 72 30 3.09 38 31 3.51 50 114 .mIv magma Ga mumo mo Emumumuumom .vIv .mflm mmmaaoo ou mmumopmuw mo wmmucmoumm mm om mm. on mm 00 mm om mq ow mm om mm om - . . . . p - u u . - u u . m mm mm a 2 3 on N Z S a f m In HI 2 i. mm 3 X m ma mm m .l «N .a ._ m 2 mm mm 3 8 (DOOHGU) QQ’HQO‘MU-HOE Emma: 115 Hypothesis 4: Most principals delegate more in the technical administrative area they least prefer than they do in the area they most prefer. Result of Statistical Analysis: Seventy-one percent of the principals delegated more in the administrative area they least preferred than they did in the area they most preferred. Decision: The hypothesis is accepted. In Table 4-9, the principals' most and least preferred administrative areas are presented, as well as their mean delegation scores in-each. The two columns to the far right in the table indicate an acceptance or rejection of the hypothe- sis. The most preferred area of administration among the principals in the study was Instruction and Curricu- lum DevelOpment, as indicated by 74.2% of the partici- pants. The area of Staff Personnel was preferred by 16.3% of the principals, 6.4% elected Pupil Personnel, 3.2% preferred School Community Relations, and none of the principals chose Finance and Business Management or School Plant Services as their most preferred area of administration. 116 The least preferred area of administration was School Plant and Services, as indicated by 51% of the principals, while Finance and Business Management followed closely, being elected by 41.9%. Pupil Personnel was selected by 6.4% of the principals as their least preferred area, and none indicated that they least preferred the areas of Instruction and Curriculum Development, Staff Personnel, or School Community Relations. TABLE 4-9 ABBREVIATION KEY I.C.D. - Instruction and Curriculum Development P.P. - Pupil Personnel S.C.R. - School Community Relations S.P. - Staff Personnel F.B.M. - Finance and Business Management S.P.S. - School Plant and Services ll7 x mh.m .2.m.m on.m .Q.U.H Hm vH.m .m.m.m om.m .Q.U.H cm x mv.v .m.m.m om.N .D.U.H mm x NH.v .z.m.m om.m .Q.U.H mm x va.v .m.m.m o>.m .Q.U.H hm oo.~ .m.m.m om.m .Q.U.H mm x oo.v .m.m.m om.m .D.U.H mm x om.m .Z.m.m vm.m .m.m vm x mm.v .m.m.m om.m .D.U.H mm x mm.m .z.m.h oa.m .Q.U.H mm X ma.v .E.m.h av.m .m.m Hm x oo.m .m.m.m mm.N .m.m ON mH.m .2.m.m vm.m .m.m ma x wm.v .m.m.m oa.v .Q.U.H ma x mh.m .z.m.b hv.m .m.m ha x va.m .m.m ~m.~ .m.m 0H MH.M .£.m.h oo.v .Q.U.H ma x oo.m .m.m.m om.m .D.U.H vH x mh.m .E.m.h mm.N .m.U.m ma oo.m .2.m.m om.m .Q.U.H NH X Ah.m .m.m.w oo.m .Q.U.H Ha x Hh.m .m.m.m ov.m .Q.U.H OH om.m .E.m.m om.v .Q.U.H m x oo.m .m.m.m oo.v .Q.U.H m mm.m .w.m.m mv.m .m.m n mm.m .m.m.m oo.v .Q.U.H o x mo.m .Z.m.m om.m .Q.U.H m x mv.v .m.d ov.m .Q.U.H v x hm.v .m.m.m om. .Q.U.H m mh.N .F.m.m oo.m .Q.U.H N x oo.v .m.& om.m .Q.U.H H ex muoom mmufi .cflEpd ouoom pond .cflEU< mHMQHUCme ummoo< .Hmo cmuuwwmum umqu .Hwo omuuwwmum umoz com: com: comm CH mmuoom coflummmamp some can mmmnm w>fiowuumflcflspm omuuwmwum ummma 0cm umoe .mamdflocflud .mIv mqmde 118 Hypothesis 5: Most of the principals completely delegate fewer administrative tasks to other members of their staffs than they perform personally. Result of Statistical Analysis: The great majority (87.1%) of the principals completely delegated more administrative tasks than they performed personally; 12.9% completely delegated fewer tasks than they performed personally. Decision: The hypothesis is rejected. Table 4-10 includes the number of administrative tasks which were completely delegated by principals to other members of their staffs, the number which they performed personally with no assist- ance from others, and an acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis in each case. All of the principals completely delegated at least one of the administrative tasks, and one principal completely delegated forty-two of the sixty-five duties. The range of those tasks which were performed personally by the principals was somewhat smaller with four of the subjects not performing any of the tasks alone, and one, at the other extreme, handling nineteen of the duties by luimself. 119 Twenty-six percent of the principals completely delegated approximately one-fourth of the tasks, while only 3% performed this portion personally with no assist- ance from other members of their staffs. TABLE 4-10. Number of administrative tasks which were completely delegated and personally per- formed by the principals Number of Administrative Tasks Completely Performed Accept Reject Principals Delegated Personally H5 35. 1 8 2 X 2 9 12 X 3 l4 5 X 4 16 l X 5 20 6 X 6 ll 4 X 7 1 7 X 8 42 8 X 9 20 9 X 10 17 6 X 11 7 6 X 12 20 9 X 13 24 7 X 14 33 14 X 15 25 5 X 16 13 10 X 17 16 10 X 18 34 7 X 19 l 15 X 20 13 0 X 21» 25 0 X 22 20 0 X 23 33 3 X 24 17 5 X 25 17 3 X 26 12 19 X 27 10 9 X 28 21 0 X 29 14 12 X 30 7 4 X 31 14 5 X 120 HypothesiS-6: There are more principals who perform half or more of the task of observing and assisting teachers in the instructional program than those who delegate most of this task. Result of Statistical Analysis: A slight majority (54.8%) of the principals assumed half or more of the responsibility in observing and assisting teachers in the instructional programs in their high schools. Approximately a quarter (25.8%) of the total group indicated that they assume half or more of the responsibility for performance of this task, while another 29% felt that they perform more than half of the duty. The remaining 45.2% of the principals delegate most of this task to other members of their staffs, but none, it should be noted, completely delegate it to others. Decision: The hypothesis is accepted. In Table 4-11, re- sponses (on the five point continuum as discussed on page 97) of the principals to the question regarding the performance of the task of observing and assisting teachers in the instructional programs are listed. Evidence is also given in the table in terms of indi- vidual acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. 121 TABLE 4-11. Responses of principals regarding their involvement in or disposition of the task of observing and assisting teachers in the instructional program Accept Reject Principals Response of the Principal H6 H6 1 3 X 2 4 X 3 4 x 4 2 X 5 3 X 6 4 X 7 4 X 8 4 X 9 4 X 10 4 X 11 3 X 12 3 X 13 4 X 14 2 X 15 4 X 16 2 X 17 3 X 18 4 X 19 2 X 20 4 X 21 3 X 22 3 X 23 4 X 24 4 X 25 4 X 26 2 X 27 2 X 28 3 X 29 2 X 30 2 X 31 2 X 122 Hypothesis 7: There are more principals who perform half or more of the task of attending meetings in most of the technical administrative areas than those who delegate most of this task. Result of Statistical Analysis: Seventy-one percent of the principals perform half or more of this administrative task. The action of the principals concerning attendance at professional meetings was widely diversified. Table 4-12 represents a listing of the responses of principals to meeting attendance in all six major administrative areas, and an indication of acceptance or rejection of the hypoth- esis in each case. Decision: The hypothesis is accepted. In order for the hypothesis to be accepted, it was necessary that the majority of the principals respond with numerals l, 2 or 3 in four of the six areas, indicating a delegation of half or less of this particular duty. 123 A compilation of individual responses by the principals indicates, as seen in Table 4-13, that, as a total group, these chief administrators take the most responsibility for meeting attendance in the areas of Finance and Business Management and Staff Personnel, while they delegate this task the most in School Plant and Services and Pupil Personnel. TABLES 4-12 AND 4-13 NUMERICAL RESPONSES KEY I do all of this. H I N I I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. 3 - I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. 4 - I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. 5 - I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. TABLES 4-12 AND 4-13 ABBREVIATIONS KEY F.B.M. - Finance and Business Management I.C.D. - Instruction and Curriculum Development P.P. - Pupil Personnel S.C.R. - School Community Relations S.P.S. School Plant and Services S.P. Staff Personnel Responses of principals regarding attendance at professional meetings in the six major areas of administration TABLE 4-12. Rejects H7 Accepts H7 I.C.D. P.P. S.C.R. F.B.M. Principals 11 12 13 14 124 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 125 vm.H mm.m mo.N mm.m oo.m mm.H mmcommmm 2mm: MH H m o m H o m.m Hm H MH v mH NH m m.v mm o m m m h m m.m Nv 0H v HH v m m m.N mm MH v HH H m cm m.H mHmmHOCHHm mo noncommmm Hmnmsdz menace ‘.m.m .m.m.m mocmpcmuum mcHume ucHUHmmmH mmmum m>HpmuuchHEUm momma cH noncommmu .mHmmHocHum .mHIv mqmfia 126 PART III Questions In this section of the analysis of data, additional questions are presented in an individual manner, much the same as were the hypotheses in Part II. The only difference in format lies in the fact that in- stead of a decision being given, as in the section deal- ing with the hypotheses, an answer is given to the question in a similar statistical fashion. Tables and figures are again utilized in order that the reader might have a more graphic picture of the relationships as they exist. Question la: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to the school enrollments? Result of Statistical Analysis: r = .33283 Answer: Although the correlation coefficient indicates a somewhat positive linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. In Table 4-14, the mean delegation scores of the principals are presented in addition to the enrollments 127 in each of the schools studied. The enrollments in the schools ranged from 2,003 to 3,400, while the mean en- rollment figure was 2,442 students.’ The correlation between the two variables is graphically illustrated in Figure 4-5. TABLE 4-14. Mean delegation scores of the principals and enrollments in each of the schools in the study Principals Mean Delegation Scores School Enrollments 1 3.26 2100 2 3.18 2106 3 3.37 2030 4 3.75 2192 5 3.77 3400 6 3.71 2501 7 3.12 2787 8 4.18 3128 9 3.58 2450 10 3.58 2430 11 3.22 2802 12 3.52 2499 13 3.72 2891 14 3.60 2209 15 4.00 2552 16 3.26 2134 17 3.32 2285 18 3.98 2896 19 3.12 2102 20 3.14 2059 21 4.09 3030 22 3.82' 2317 23 4.11 2197 24 3.83 2228 25 3.65 2089 26 2.97 2003 27 3.40 2810 28 4.02 2201 29 3.11_ 2985 30 3.09 2295 31 3.51 2020 .eauv magma an 8066 no smumumuumom .muq .mflm 128 mucmfiHHoncm Hoocom anm cocm covm comm cccm comm comm covm comm cccm mooumm N 8 a on mHo~ mm H” 6H «H R as m mm x ml 8 a on :2 mu m S 3N 5 mH mm m LN 02 mm QQHGUHU-l-J-HOG 20rd: 129 Questionzlb: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by the principals related to the ages of the principals? Result of Statistical Analysis: r = -.10065 Answer: Although the correlation coefficient indicates a slight negative linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. In Table 4-15, the mean delegation scores of the principals are presented, as well as the ages of each individual included in the study. The age range of the principals was.from thirty-one to sixty-four years, while the mean of the ages was 49 years. The correlation between the variables is graphically illustrated in Figure 4-6. TABLE 4-15. 130 Mean delegation scores and ages of the principals Principals Mean Delegation Scores Ages (Years) 1 3.26 38 2 3.18 55 3 3.37 62 4 3.75 43 5 3.77 58 6 3.71 64 7 3.12 57 8 4.18 61 9 3.58 38 10 3.58 39 11 3.22 63 12 3.52 46 13 3.72 49 14 3.60 54 15 4.00 31 16 3.26 46 17 3.32 55 18 3.98 55 19 3.12 40 20 3.14 57 21 4.09 53 22 3.82 41 23 4.11 40 24 3.83 52 25 3.65 33 26 2.97 58 27 3.40 56 28 4.02 54 29 3.11 50 30 3.09 39 31 3.51 46 131 .mHIv mHnma CH pump mo Emucumpumom .ons .mflm vc mm cc mm cm om 0mm rx ,—4 mm m: mHmmHocHum wnu mo mood «m mm go :m cm “N cm I>‘ mm mH cw II! C)! F‘ I“. we IV".10 «v mv cv cm cm vm mm cm mlom Im S m X I. mm I I <1‘ mm (1)00me OCDI-ICDO'IUUw-IOC 132 Question lc: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to the state equalized valuation behind each student in the school districts? Result of Statistical Analysis: r = .03199 Answer: Although the correlation coefficient shows a very slight positive linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. The mean delegation scores of the principals and the state equalized valuation figures (number of dollars behind each student in the district) are pre- sented in Table 4-16. The state equalized valuation per student ranged from $7,746 to $32,365, while the mean valuation was $16,403. Figure 4-7 represents a graphic illustration of the correlation between the variables. 133 TABLE 4-16. Mean delegation scores of the principals and the state equalized valuations (per student) in each of the school districts State Equalized Valuation Principals Mean Delegation Scores (Per Student) 1 3.26 $16,936 2 3.18 9,129 3 3.37 17,075 4 3.75 32,365 5 3.77 16,749 6 3.71 16,749 7 3.12 16,749 8 4.18 16,749 9 3.58 16,749 10 3.58 16,749 11 3.22 16,749 12: 3.52 16,749 13 3.72 16,749 14 3.60 16,749 15 4.00 9,897 16 3.26 17,779 17 3.32 17,779 18 3.98 25,581 19 3.12 18,658 20 3.14 15,024 21 4.09 7,746 22 3.82' 12,884 23 4.11 12,884 24 3.83 22,041 25 3.65 18,806 26 2.97 18,806 27 3.40 8,720 28 4.02 16,097 29 3.11 16,319 30 3.09 12,139 31 3.51 14,343 134 .cHIv mHQme cH sumo How Emumumuumom .hI¢ .mHm AmHMHHooc ucmcsum umm coflumsam> emanamswm mumum Oocmm ocoom ccomm OOOON oocmd OOOOH Occm . u a u u a m on ma h wuow S "a a 612 H .6 RN mfiwwm m cH :m mH Hm QwHOU‘MH-HOG €000me ZIDaSG 135 Question«ld: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to the former major teaching areas of the principals? Since there were a total of seven areas of teach- ing in which the thirty-one principals had experienced their classroom work, in order to statistically check a relationship that might exist, six of the areas were combined and compared to the one area in which the most (42%) principals had taught (social studies). In this manner, a result could be obtained in correlating the delegation scores of the principals who were former social studies teachers and those who had taught in another area of the curriculum. Result of Statistical Analysis: r = -.06049 Answer: Although the correlation coefficient indicates a very slight negative linear relationship between the variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level.- 136 In Table 4-17, the mean delegation scores of the principals and the areas in which each had experienced the major part of his classroom teaching are presented. Figure 4—8 is a graph in which the former social studieS' teachers are separated from those who had not taught in this subject; the similarity between the two groups in terms of the delegation of administrative tasks is illustrated. The means of the delegation scores of the two groups were almost identical; the mean of those princi- pals who formerly taught social studies was 3.52, while that of the principals who taught in other areas of the curriculum was 3.56. The range of individual scores was somewhat larger in the group which formerly taught social studies; it reached from 2.97 to 4.18, while the other group's range was from 3.11 to 4.02. TABLE 4-17. 137 Mean delegation scores and areas in which the principals performed the major part of their classroom teaching Principals Mean Delegation Scores Former Teaching Area 1 3.26 Social Studies 2 3.18 Music 3 3.37 English 4 3.75 Science 5 3.77 Vocational Education 6 3.71 English 7 3.12 Social Studies 8 4.18 Social Studies 9 3.58 English 10 3.58 English 11 3.22 Social Studies 12 3.52 English 13 3.72, Science 14 3.60 English 15 4.00 Social Studies 16 3.26 Social Studies 17 3.32: Music 18 3.98 Social Studies 19 3.12 Social Studies 20 3.14 Business 21 4.09 Social Studies 22 3.82 English 23 4.11 Social Studies 24 3.83 Mathematics 25 3.65 English 26 2.974 Social Studies 27 3.40 Social Studies 28 4.02 Mathematics 29 3.11 Science 30 3.09 Social Studies 31 3.51 Science 138 .EdHooHHHoo may mo mmmum Honyo :H uncomu 0:3 mmonu was mmHooum HmHUOm on» :H unmomu mHumEHow 033 mHmmHocHnm ma mxmmp m>HumuuchHEom mo coHummmHmo may cH manmHHEHm mzu mo coHumuumsHHH UHnmmuw .mIv .mHm mmHUSDm HmHoom unmome MHHmEHom 033 mHmmHocHnm ombmcmmmHmchHcH mH Hch H mepsum HmHoom swap Hmnpo mmmu< CH unooma mHquuom on: mHmmHocHum Hmcmcmmm¢mmmcm>HvaHmHoH ccmvm N 0300340)") QOJHmtDI‘UJJ-r-IOC. “3C. 139 Question le: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to the area in which the principals .have done the major part of their graduate work? Since there was a total of ten areas in which 1:he principals had taken the major part of their gradu— aate work, the question was treated in the same manner as cruestion 1d. In order to statistically test a relation— :sluip which might exist, nine of the graduate areas were <3<3mbined and compared to the one area in which most (442%) of the administrators had studied at the graduate Sleevel (educational administration). Through this proc— ess, it could be determined whether or not principals' vvlio had received their training in educational adminis- ‘taration differed from those who had taken their graduate ‘fltork in another area in terms of the delegation of administrative duties . Result of Statistical Analysis: r = .15556 Aniswer: Although the correlation coefficient indicates a slight positive linear relationship between the variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. 140 The mean delegation scores of the principals and the areas in which they took the major part of the graduate work are listed in Table 4-18. Figure 4-9 is a graph inwhich the principals who took their graduate work in educational administration are separated from those who did not; the similarity of the two groups in the delegation of administrative tasks is illustrated. The means of the delegation scores of the two groups were almost identical; the mean of the delegation scores of those who had received the major part of their graduate training in administration was 3.58, while that of the other group was 3.52. TABLE 4-18. Mean delegation scores and major areas of graduate training of the principals v f Principals Mean Delegation Scores Graduate Study Area 1 3.26 Administration 2 3.18 Administration 3 3.37 Secondary Education 4 3.75 Guidance 5 3.77 Administration 6 3.71 Guidance 7 3.12 Law 8 4.18 Administration 9 3.58 English 10 3.58 Guidance 11 3.22 Political Science 12 3.52 Guidance 13 3.72 Science 14 3.60 PhYSiCS‘ 15 4.00 Administration 16 3.26 Administration 17 3.32 Administration 18 3.98 Curriculum 19 3.12 Administration 20 3.14 Administration 21 4.09 Administration 22 3.82 Administration 23 4.11 Administration 24 3.83 Mathematics 25 3.65 Curriculum 26 2.97 History 27 3.40 Administration 28 4.02 Mathematics 29 3.11 Science 30 3.09 Social Studies 31 3.51 Science 142 .mmmum mumsomum umnuo cH omHooum 0:3 mmonu can coHumuuchHEom cH mchHmuu mumsomum HHmnu xoou 0:3 mHmmHocHum an mxmuu m>HumuuchHEom mo soHumcmHoo map cH muHHmHHEHm on» no coHumuumoHHH oHnmmuw .muq .mnm :oHumuumHCHEom HmcoHumosom CH mchHmua mumsomnw uHmcu £009 on: mHmmHocHHm bmmmmmHmcmchHchHcmmH IX Hmcuo mmmud :H mchHmua mumopmuo uHmnu mo pumm Acnmz one xooa 0:3 mHmmHocHum HmomcmcmcmmmwmcHHuHmH mHHHchpcvm It coHumnuchHEU¢ HmcoHumospm cmnu UJOOHGJU) QmHTU‘MM-HOC E 083G 143 Question 1f: How is the delegation of administrative tasks by principals related to the ultimate professional goals of the principals? Due to the fact that the participants elected a total of six different responses, this question was~ treated in a similar manner to the preceding two ques- tions. Most (55%) of the principals want to remain in the high school principalship until retirement from the field; this group was compared with those who desire a move in the future in regard to the delegation of admin- istrative tasks. Result of Statistical Analysis: r = -.10131 Answer: Although the correlation coefficient indicates a slight negative linear relationship between the two variables, the value is not significant at the .05 level. In Table 4-19, the mean delegation scores of the principals and the ultimate professional goal of each are listed. Figure 4-10 is a graph in which the principals who wish to remain in the principalship are separated from those who do not; the similarity of the two groups in terms of the delegation of administrative tasks to other members of their staffs is illustrated. 144 The means of the individual delegation scores of the two groups were very close; the mean of the scores of those who chose to remain in the principalship was 3.51, while that of the principals who desire another type position was 3.58. TABLE 4-19. Mean delegation scores and professional goals of the principals Ultimate Professional Principals Mean Delegation Scores Goals (Titles) 1 3.26 Superintendent 2 3.18 Principal 3 3.37 Principal 4 3.75 College Administrator 5 3.77 Principal 6 3.71 Principal 7 3.12 Principal 8 4.18 Principal 9 3.58 Undecided 10 3.58 Asst. Superintendent 11 3.22 Principal 12 3.52 Principal 13 3.72 Principal 14 3.60 Principal. 15 4.00 College Administrator 16 3.26 Asst. Superintendent 17 3.32 Principal 18 3.98 Principal 19 3.12 Principal 20 3.14 Principal 21 4.09 College Administrator 22 3.82 Asst. Superintendent 23 4.11 Asst. Superintendent 24 3.83 Principal 25 3.65 College Administrator 26 2.97 Principal 27 3.40 College Administrator 28 4.02 Principal 29 3.11 College Administrator 30 3.09 Asst. Superintendent 31 3.51 College Professor 145 .uos on on! moon» can mHanamHocHum on» :H :Hmsmu on :qu 0:3 mHmmHocHum an uxmuu o>HumuuchHEom mo :oHammmHuo cH muHumHHeHm on» no coHumuuusHHH oHanuw .caug .mHm IN mHanmmHo Vucwum Hoocom can: 0:» aH :Hmaum cu cmHz 0:3 mHanocHum cmcmwmomchHbHvaHmHHHcponmm mwsmHmmwocHum was cans Macao :oHuHuom a oHHmmo 0&3 mHmmHUCHum HmomcmpmmmmmmmHmchHch0H cam-4009044440: mooumu 2200:: 146 Question 2: In which of the technical administrative areas do the principals estimate spending most'of their time? Result of Statistical Analysis: A compilation of the estimated percentage of time spent by the principals in the six administrative areas studied were as follows: Instruction and Curricu- lum—-26%; Staff Personnel-—22.9%; Pupil Personnel—-20.l%; School Community Relations--l4.4%; Finance and Business Management--8.9%; and School Plant and Services--6.6%. Answer: The principals in this study estimate spending the most of their time (69%) in three administrative areas--Instruction and Curriculum Development, Staff Personnel, and Pupil Personnel. Figure 4-11 is a bar graph which indicates the percentages of time estimated by the principals spent in each of the administrative areas . 147 Estimated Percentage of Time 1234 567891011121314151617181920212223242526 24442141421345.142/6/77/ //////// //////// ///// // /fl zé<<4447///////////// ‘(///////' // //7 /.1/4:;<4//////// ’ 56////// 1 / // // / ///////////_/// School Community Relations ////// ///z //// / ‘/F{6;néé/é d / Business / Managemenl/j: ////,/ lSchoorr Plant and 5821254 Fig. 4-11. Estimated time percentages in major areas of administration. 148 Question 3: How is the estimated time-involvement of the principals related to: a. b. The school enrollments? The ages of the principals? The principals' number of years as chief admin- istrators of large high schools? The number of administrative assistants in the buildings? The state equalized valuation behind each student in the school districts? The percentages of the schools' graduates going on to college? The former major teaching areas of the principals? The areas in which the principals have done the major part of their graduate work? The ultimate professional goals of the principals? Results of Statistical Analysis: In correlating the estimated time-involvement of the principals in each of the six areas of administration with the nine factors listed in Question 3 above, only one coefficient indicated a linear relationship signifi- cant at the .05 level. A positive relationship existed (r = .36921) between the percentage of students going on to college and the amount of time the principals estimate 149 spending in the area of Finance and Business Management. Although a significant relationship does appear, the writer does not suggest causality. Table 4-20 is a cross reference chart which lists the correlation coefficients of all areas of administration studied and the factors to be investigated in Question 3. 150 .mmum flGH‘ Hmow oumopmuw canommB .HHou ou .mummm mono .cHum ucofi .moum Momma nosuom ucmuuom .>.m.m .cHEo< IHummxm no mc< IHHoucm mwmmH. mmomH. FMHmc.I momNH. «Hmmc.I nahmm. nonmm. omovH. momvo.I HFMHN. mesmo.u oomvm.I anmo.I Hommm. mHmmH.I mmHmH.I mammH. ovmm~.I omomm. QHMmH.I mmmno.I vavo.I mvwcm. thH~.I momoo.I whoVH. enhmm. hHmmo. hmmOH. nmCHm. nohmm.u nvmom.I wmnmm.I momHo.I mmomo. mmmHo.I omom~.I wmmoo. mman. mnHHo. mHmmo.I oHono. «homo. mmnMH.I mmmmo. mnmmm.u mHOH~.I mvvvm.I Hmmom. menm. mommo.u mmeH.I ommmH.I anmH.I HQGGOWHGQ MMMUW mmoH>uwm paw uQMHm Hoonom mcoHumHmm >UHcoEEoo Hoonow HoGCOmHmm HHmsm ucwsmon>mo EsHso IHHHSU was coHuosuumcH ucmfimmmsmz mmmchom pom monmch m u c w H o H m m m o 0 c o H u m H w u u o 0 mmmu< m>HumuumHCHEo< :H mHmmHocHum mo ucmEm>Ho>cHImEHu pwumEHumm may cmw3umn mucwHonmmoo coHucHwHuoo mmHanum> pogomHmm mCH: paw :oHumuuchHEpm mo mmoum HommE on» .chv mqmdh 151 PART IV Concomitant Findings and Responses This section of the analysis of data includes the concomitant findings of the study which concern re- lationships existing between some of the variables, and the responses of principals to several of the questions during the interviews, both forced and extemporaneous. Additional Relationships In addition to the correlations already discussed, which were computed for the purpose of testing the hypoth- eses and answering the questions raised in the literature, a number of significant linear relationships were found to exist in the study. The following are the significant positive ones: 1. The enrollments of the schools and the delegation of administrative tasks by principals in the area of School Plant and Services (r = .45334). 2. The ages of the principals and the number of years experience as chief administrators of large high schools (r = .45057). 3. The ages of the principals and the desire to remain in the high school principalship until retirement from the profession (r = .70824). exist: 152 The number of administrative assistants in the buildings and the delegation of administrative tasks by the principals in the administrative area of Finance and Business Management (r = .36920). The percentages of students going on to college from the high schools and the time estimated by the principals as being spent in the administra- tive area of Finance and Business Management (r = .36921). Two negative linear relationships were found to The state equalized valuation of the school districts (number of dollars behind each student) and the number of principals who had received the major part of their graduate study in the field of educational administration (r = -.49297). The hours per week the principals estimate spending fulfilling their responsibilities and the delegation of administrative tasks by princi- pals in the area of Instruction and Curriculum Development (r = -.42718). Administrative Assistants In addition to being questioned in regard to the number of full-time administrative assistants they 153 presently have in their buildings, each principal was asked what number of assistants he felt was necessary to adequately meet the administrative demands of the school in which he served. The number of assistants ranged from two to six, with a mean of 2.8 individuals working on a full-time basis. The great majority (84%) of the princi- pals, regardless of the number of assistants they had, felt the need for additional help. Fifty-five percent of the principals expressed the desire for one more assistant, while 29% want, at least, two more persons added to their schools in administrative capacities. In Table 4-21, the responses of all the principals are listed with regard to the number of assistants they now have, the number they desire, and the number which would be required to meet their need. 154 TABLE 4-21. Present number of administrative assistants in the buildings, the number desired by the principals, and the number needed Principals Administrative Assistants Present Number Number Desired Number Needed 1 2 4 2 2 3 4 1 3 3 4 1 4 2 3 1 5 2 4 2 6 2 3 1 7 2 4 2 8 2 3 1 9 2 5 3 10 2 3 1 ll 2 2 0 12 2 3 1 13 2 3 1 14 2 3 1 15 2 4 2 16 4 4 0 17 4 4 0 18 4 4 0 19 2 4 2 20 3 4 1 21 3 4 l 22 5 7 2 23 6 8 2 24 3 4 1 25 4 5 1 26 3 4 1 27 3 3 O 28 3 4 1 29 3 6 3 30 2 3 1 31 2 3 1 155 Instructional Leadership During the interview, each of the principals was asked the following question in relation to instructional leadership: With the present trend toward more involvement on the part of the teachers in decision-making in the public schools, do you feel that the principal of a large high school is still looked upon as the instructional leader of the building? 14 The majority of the principals (77%) answered the question in an affirmative manner. The following extemporaneous responses were recorded concerning the issue: "Principals haven't lost a thing through the nego- tiations movement; teachers continue to look to the principal in matters concerning the instructional program and curriculum." "Whether the principal continues to be the instruc- tional leader, as seen by his staff, depends upon the man and the school; here, the principal is still the person who is looked upon as the person in charge of the program and instruction." "If the theory of the principal being the instruc- tional leader is to hold up, we will have to be more 114Question taken from Principals' Interview Guide in Appendix B. 156 adequately staffed, so that we can handle some of the administrative matters that continually get in the way of instructional work." Present Concern Many of the principals expressed real concern over one prevalent problem which seems to be arising in all school districts. This distress revolves around the increasing involvement of central office personnel in the operational matters of the high school. A feeling seems to exist, among the principals, that the responsi- bility for instruction and curriculum is being usurped by specialists in every area. Some of the responses, which represent the feeling of many of the participants in this study, are presented below: "I never know whether I'm really in charge of the building or someone from the main office is!" "I realize that instruction is the principal's job, but the main office doesn't. They keep taking more and more of my authority away by adding specialized help for every segment of the program." "I would like to continue to supply the leadership in all areas of administration, but the role of the principal is changing rapidly, and the leadership in instruction is changing with it." 157 "I seem to be doing the things that the central office doesn't have a consultant to handle." This concludes the analysis of the data collected during the investigation of the delegation of administra- tive tasks by the principals of the large high schools in Michigan. Chapter V will present observations and recom- mendations made by the author, along with some of the ~ implications of the findings. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study, of the delegation of administrative tasks by the principals of the large high schools in Michigan, was made because of a concern frequently expressed in recent years by a number of recognized authorities in the field of high school administration. The concern, which has dominated several professional publications, has to do with the inability, refusal, or lack of Opportunity of high school principals to share the many duties of the high school principalship in administering a large public school. The investigator in this study believes wholeheartedly in the team or shared leadership approach in educational admin- istration of any kind. To achieve this ultimate goal in the large public high school, the principal, necessarily, needs to delegate some of the administrative tasks to other members of his staff. The literature repeatedly points out the inefficiency in situations where the chief building administrator attempts to handle all of the administrative chores personally. Because of the focus upon this concern, 158 159 the author set out to ascertain the status of the delega- tion technique, as it is presently being utilized by the principals of the large high schools within the state, and, at the same time, to determine the relationships which might exist between the delegation of these duties by the principals and certain selected variables which are associated with the individuals occupying the positions and/or the institutions they represent. This chapter, after a brief review of the general aspects of the study and the procedures utilized during the actual investiga— tion, deals with the conclusions reached, the implications observed, and the recommendations made by the author. The study was confined to the principals of the large comprehensive high schools in the state which had enrollments of at least 2,000 students and an administra- tive organization of grades ten through twelve. An instrument was constructed which permitted the collection of the necessary personal, professional and institutional data as well as measuring the degree of delegation of administrative tasks by principals on sixty-five separate administrative duties in six major areas of school adminis- tration. The principals were all interviewed in order that an adequate response might be secured and a uniform interpretation of interview questions might be presented. Hypotheses were advanced by the author based upon the foundation of facts established in the related literature, 160 and additional questions were stated which have been raised as a result of the written material on the topic. Both the hypotheses and questions were statistically treated through the computation of correlation coefficients between the delegation scores of the principals and the selected variables. Following the simplified listing of the major findings of the study on the next few pages, the author presents his conclusions and recommendations, in addition to the implications observed in the findings of the study. The two final recommendations made by the author are com— pletely subjective, and are based upon one repeated extemporaneous response by many of the principals and upon some of the comments made by the administrators regarding the performance of the administrative tasks. The reader should continually keep in mind, while reading the remainder of this chapter, that the findings, conclusions and impli- cations all have reference to the participants and schools included in this study, and no predictions are meant to apply to positions, individuals or institutions not men- tioned in the investigation. Simplified Listing of the Major EIndings I. General findings: A. The mean age of the principals was 49.5 years. B. The mean number of years experience as principal of a large high school was 4.9 years. II. 161 The largest percentage (41.9%) of the principals had experienced most of their classroom teaching in the field of social studies. The principals estimated spending an average of 56.7 hours per week in the fulfillment of their many responsibilities. Slightly less than half (45.1%) of the princi- pals took the major part of their graduate work in educational administration. Within the six major areas of school adminis- tration studied, the principals estimated spending the largest percentage (26%) of their time in the area of Instruction and Curriculum DevelOpment. Most (54.8%) of the principals want to remain in the high school principalship until their retirement from the profession. The great majority (84%) of the principals feel the immediate need for more administrative assistance within their buildings. Most (77%) of the principals feel that they are looked upon, by their staffs, as the instructional leaders of their schools. Findings related to the delegation of administra- tive tasks by the principals to other members of their staffs: 162 The delegation of administrative tasks by principals is most often performed in the administrative area of Pupil Personnel and least often performed in School Community Relations. The mean delegation score for the principals was 3.54 on a continuum which had a possible range of from 1 (which indicated sole personal performance of the task) to 5 (which indicated complete delegation of the task). Most (71%) of the principals delegate more in the administrative area they least prefer than they do in the area they most prefer. The great majority (87.1%) of the principals completely delegate more administrative tasks to other members of their staffs than they perform personally. Slightly over half (54.8%) of the principals perform half or more of the administrative duty of observing and assisting teachers in the instructional program, rather than dele- gating most of this task to others. None, it should be noted, completely delegate the duty to other members of their staffs. Most (71%) of the principals perform half or more of the administrative task of attending 163 meetings in at least four of the six major areas of administration, rather than dele- gating most of this duty to others. G. As a group, the principals who had experienced most of their classroom teaching in the field of social studies did not differ significantly from the group made up of principals who had most of their teaching in other areas of the curriculum, with regard to delegation of ad- ministrative tasks. H. As a group, the principals who had received the major part of their graduate training in educational administration did not differ significantly, with regard to the delegation of administrative tasks, from the group made up of principals who had taken the major por- tion of their graduate work in other areas. I. As a group, the principals who had expressed a desire to remain in the principalship until retirement did not differ significantly, with regard to the delegation of administrative tasks, from the group made up of principals who prefer other professional goals. III. Findings concerning relationships between the delegation of administrative tasks by principals and selected variables: 164 No significant relationships were found to exist between the delegation of administrative tasks by principals, in their over-all admin- istration of the buildings in all six areas of 1. The administration, and any of the following: The principals' number of years as chief building administrators of large high schools The number of full-time administrative assistants in the buildings The percentages of students going on to college from the schools The school enrollments The ages of the principals The state equalized valuation behind each student in the districts following significant positive relation- ships were found to exist between the delega- tion of administrative tasks by principals within the six major areas of administration and the variables: 1. The enrollments of the schools and the delegation of administrative tasks by principals in the administrative area of School Plant and Services 165 2. The number of administrative assistants in the buildings and the delegation of administrative tasks by principals in the administrative area of Finance and Business Management C. The following significant negative relation- ship_was found to exist: 1. The number of hours estimated by the principals in the fulfillment of their responsibilities (per week) and the dele- gation of the administrative tasks in Instruction and Curriculum Development One additional highly significant relationship of a positive nature was found to exist between the age of the principal and his desire to remain in the principal- ship until retirement. Conclusions A study such as this, quite naturally, leads to many varied conclusions, and, at the same time, suggests innumerable implications. Caution must be exercised by the investigator in distinguishing between the two cate- gories. After careful analysis of the results of the study, the author reached the following conclusions: 166 The results of the study are in accord with the previous research done by Lien which concluded, among other things, that certain personal, professional and institu- tional variables do not determine the behavior of a principal in administering a school. The findings of the study strongly support the work of Goette, Hemphill and White concerning the age range of high school principals (45-50). The results of the investigation disagree with Hemphill's findings which indicated that the major field of graduate study of high school principals is educational administration. Slightly less than half of the principals included in this study had taken the major part of their gradu- ate work in this area. The results of the study seriously question the wide sweeping statements made recently by Trump and Wilhelms con- cerning high school principals being bogged down in trivial administrative matters, and as a result, not spending their time in directing the instructional 167 and curricular programs of their schools. The high school administrators in this study estimated spending the largest per- centage of their time in this vital area of school administration. 5. A wide diversity exists among the princi- pals of the large high schools within the State of Michigan with regard to the delegation of administrative tasks to other staff members. 6. The personal preference of the principal, in relation to the major areas of admin- istration, plays a definite role in the determination of administrative tasks to be delegated to members of the staff. 7.~ Although the mean age of the group of principals studied is almost fifty, the individuals presently serving as the ad- ministrative heads of the large high schools in Michigan are surprisingly inexperienced in terms of administering schools of this size. Implications The findings of the study, in addition to pro- viding an opportunity for the author to reach certain 168 conclusions, suggest a number of implications--some of a general nature regarding high school administration, and others which, more specifically, deal with the delegation of administrative tasks by principals of large high schools. The following implications seem apparent to the author: The absence of any significant relation- ship between the delegation of administra- tive tasks by principals and the six variables listed in the first finding in this chapter seems to imply that in the selection of future high school principals for the large comprehensive high schools in Michigan, these factors should not be considered as reliable determinants for choosing a person who will delegate part of the administrative duties to others. The expressed desire for more administra- tive assistance by the great majority of the principals, coupled with the hours which the principals estimate in spending on their jobs per week, strongly suggest an administrative understaffing of these large high schools within the state. 169 With slightly less than half of the principals having taken the major part of their graduate work in educational administration, it would seem that many of the school districts involved are either not looking for people specifically trained in this area, or they are con- vinced, at this point, that educators trained in other graduate areas are equally as competent in the administration of a large public high school. It would seem, with the majority of the principals indicating a desire to remain in the position until retirement from the profession, that the high school princi- palship, at least in the large schools, has become a professional goal in itself, rather than continuing to be a stepping stone to other administrative offices as it has so often been in the past. The fact that the principals are dele- gating most in the administrative area of Pupil Personnel offers, at least, one implication.l The delegation in this area may be due to the thrust which has been made in recent years in the addition of 170 more and better qualified counseling personnel at the high school level. Perhaps if equally competent personnel were added in the other areas of admin- istration, the principals might be more willing to delegate administrative tasks more readily in these areas. The finding in the study which indicates that the principals are completely dele— gating more of the administrative tasks than they are performing personally seems to imply that the chief building adminis- trators of the large high schools within the State of Michigan are successfully utilizing the delegation technique, and that the large, comprehensive public high school provides an advantageous environ- ment for this method of operation. The absence of a significant difference, with regard to the delegation of admin- istrative tasks, between the principals who had received the major part of their graduate training in educational adminis- tration and those who had not suggests several possible implications: 171 The theory and technique of delegating duties to others receives no more attention in graduate programs of edu- cational administration than is found in other programs of preparation at the graduate level. Students of educational administration are either not accepting the notion of delegation, or they are simply not putting into practice the methods they have been taught. Principals who have received training in shared leadership are not in situa- tions which are particularly conducive to the use of this method of operation. Principals of large high schools, regardless of their graduate training, learn and employ the delegation technique as a result of reasons other than their academic backgrounds. Since the principals delegate more in the administrative area they least prefer than they do in the area they most prefer, assistants, it would seem, should be hired in a manner appropriate to the need. In order that all areas of administration are 10. 11. 172 adequately covered by some member of the administrative staff, it would seem logical that assistants should be assigned to supervise the administrative areas in which the principals are least interested. The negative linear relationship between the estimated time the principals spend per week on the job and their delegation of administrative tasks in Instruction and Curriculum Development seems to have implications for what the principal does with the additional time he spends on the job. Perhaps this greater degree of personal involvement in instructional and curricular program with the longer hours on the job is due to the fact that many of the administrative tasks in this area can be performed outside the regular school hours. The least delegation of administrative tasks in-School Community Relations seems to imply that the principals feel this area demands their personal attention. The highly significant positive relation- ship between the age of the principal and 173 his desire to remain in the principalship until retirement certainly gives the school district an indication regarding the age of a person to employ if they are interested in someone staying on in the position for a number of years. On the other hand, the district would need to face the good possibility that a young man might have professional goals other than remaining in the high school princi— palship. Recommendations Upon completion of the investigation and a review of the findings, conclusions, and implications, the author offers the following general recommendations in relation to the tOpic: 1. As long as the principals of the large high schools within the state sense a lack of adequate administrative staffing in their buildings, they will, in all probability, continue in their hesitation to delegate more of the administrative tasks to others. Efforts should be made to evaluate the present situations and 174 supplement the administrative staffs if necessary. If the concept of shared leadership or democratic school administration is de- sired in high school administration, a more concentrated effort needs to be made in graduate programs of educational administration in terms of delegating administrative tasks to members of the building staff. Due to the divergency found in the utilization of the delegation technique among the principals studied, Visitations should be encouraged for those principals not effectively using the method, so that they might see its advantages in actual operation. Encouragement should be given to the principals of all high schools to give as much of their time as possible to the instructional and curricular programs in their schools, while the principals in- cluded in this study should be commended for spending the time estimated in this vital administrative area. 175 5. More importance should be placed upon the necessity for principals of the large high schools in Michigan to have had most of their graduate training in the field of educational administration. Prior to a move in this direction, however, programs of training in this area will need to be improved so that differences in the use of administrative methods are evident in future studies of this nature. 6. Principals need to be encouraged to send representative members of their staffs to some of the professional meetings they now personally attend. It seems rather doubt- ful, in the mind of the author, that principals of high schools the size of those included in this study should be attending as many of the meetings as indicated in the investigation. On the basis of the results of this study, the author would also offer the following recommendations for further research, in order that these findings might be verified, disapproved, or supplemented: l. The study should be replicated on a wider scope, perhaps to include more principals of large high schools outside the state, 176 or all the principals within the state regardless of the size of the high schools. Comparisons might be made, in the latter, regarding the most productive environment for the delegation of tasks in a school situation, and concerning the effects of different staffing patterns on this method of administration. 2. A parallel study seems advisable to determine the effect of a concentrated program of training in delegating admin- istrative duties to others. Pre and post evaluations might be made to ascertain the possibilities in such a program. 3. A similar study should be conducted for the purpose of investigating other variables which might be related to the delegation of administrative tasks by principals. Two distinct possibilities lie in the personality of the principals and in the quality of his administrative assistants. The final two recommendations are based upon the extemporaneous responses of the principals during the interviews: l. 177 An in-depth study should be conducted in relation to the concern expressed by so many of the principals regarding the accelerated addition of central office personnel in all areas of administrative and curricular work. An overlapping of responsibilities exists, according to the participants in this study, and the high school administrators are beginning to resent what they feel is an intrusion into their sphere of influence. There seems to be an over-due need to identify and describe the duties and responsibil- ities of these new staff officers. With- out further clarification, conflicts will continue and the efficiency of the edu— cational institutions involved will be impaired considerably. In delegating administrative duties to others, principals should make certain that the person to whom the task is delegated has the authority and freedom necessary to carry out the responsibility. In discussing the performance of adminis- trative tasks by other staff members, many of the principals, who effectively 178 utilized the delegation technique, strongly emphasized this fundamental administrative principle. This study, it is hoped by the author, will contribute, in'a small way, toward the improvement in school management at the high school level. It is offered as an encouragement in the utilization of the delegation technique and the shared leadership approach in administering the large, comprehensive high school, and as an instrument to aid in the advancement of edu- cational administration in general. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alberty, H. B., and Thayer, V. T. Supervision in the Secondary School. New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 1931. Alder, Henry L., and Roessler, Edward B. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1960. Anderson, Lester W., and Van Dyke, Lauren A. Secondary School Administration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1963. Anderson, Vernon E., and Gruhn, William T. Principles and Practices of Secondary Education. New York: The Ronald PreSs Company, 19621 Bent, Rudyard K., and Kronenberg, Henry H. Principles of Secondary Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.* Bent, Rudyard K., and McCann, Lloyd E. Administration of Secondary Schools. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. Campbell, Roald; Corbally, John E.; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to EducationalAAdministration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962. Chamberlain, Leo M., and Kindred, Leslie W. The Teacher and School Organization. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:‘ Prentice-Hall? Inc., 1958. Conant, James B. The Comprehensive High School. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Corbally, John E.; Jenson, T. J.; and Staub, W. F. Educational Administration: The Secondary School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. 179 180 Cramer, John F., and Browne, George S. Contemporary ‘ Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965.‘ Cressman, George R., and Benda, Harold W. Public Edu- cation in America. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1966. Crow, Lester D.; Ritchie, Harry E.; and Crow, Alice. Education in the Secondary School. New York: The American Book Company, 1961. Cubberly, Ellwood. The Principal and His School. Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1923. Culbertson, Jack A., and Hencley, Stephen P. Preparing Administrators: New Perspectives. Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1962. Douglas, Harl R. American Public Education. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948. ’ Douglas, Harl R. Modern Administration of Secondary Schools. New York: Ginn and Company, 1963. Douglas, Harl R. Secondary Education in the United States. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1964. Douglas, Harl R. Trends and Issues_in Secondary Edu- cation. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962. Douglas, Harl R., and Boardman, Charles W. Supervision in Secondary Schools. Cambridge: Houghtone Mifflin Company, 1934. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Holt, RInehart and Winston, Inc., 1966. Elicker, Paul E. The Administration of Junior and Senior High Schools. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Faunce, Roland C. Secondary School Administration. New York: Harper Brothers, 1955. Goldman, Samuel. The School Principal. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. 181 Good, Carter V., and Scates, Douglas E. Methods in Research:' Educational, Sociological. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. Good, Carter V.; Barr, A. S.; and Scates, D. E. The Methodology of Educational Research.' New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1936. Griffiths, Daniel E. The School Superintendent. New ‘York: The Center for Applied ResearCHIin Edu- cation, Inc., 1966. Griffiths, Daniel E.; Clark, David L.; Wynn, Richard; and Iannaccone, Lawrence. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Publishers and Printers, Inc., 1962. Gross, Carl H., and Chandler, Charles C. The History of American Education Through Readings. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1964. Hack, Walter G.; Ramseyer, John A.; Gephart, William J.; and Heck, James B. Educational Administration: Selected Readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Jacobson, Paul; Reavis, W. C.; and Logsdon, J. D. The‘ Effective School Principal. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentICe-Hall, Inc., 1963. Jenson, Theodore J., and Clark, David L. Educational Administration. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. Johnson, Franklin. Administration and Supervision of the High School. New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 1925. Johnson, Mauritz, Jr. American Secondary Schools. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965. Koopman, G. Robert; Miel, Alice; and Misner, Paul J. Democracy in School Administration. New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1943. Koos, Leonard V. The High School Principal. Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1924. ‘ Krug, Edward A. The Shaping of the American High School. New York: HarperIand Row Publishers, 1964. 182 Laird, Donald, and Laird, Eleanor C. The Techniques of Delegatigg. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19 7. Leu, Donald J., and Rudman, Herbert C. Preparation Pro- grams for School Administrators. East Lansing, MIChigan: Michigan State University, 1963. Linder, Ivan H., and Gunn, Henry M. Secondary School Administration: Problems and Practices. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. McCleary, Lloyd E., and Hencley, Stephen P. Secondary School Administration. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1965. Mitchum, Paul M. The High School Principal andeis Staff Plan for Program Improvement. New York: Columbia University, 1958. Mort, Paul R. Principles of Secondary School Administra- tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1946. Newsom, N. William; Langfitt, R. Emerson; et al. Adminis- trative Practices in Large High Schools. New" York: AmeriCan Book Company, 1940. Nolte, M. Chester. An Introduction to School'Administra- tion: Selected Readings. New York: The ’ MacMillan Company, 1966. Ovard, Glen F. Administration of the Changing School. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966. Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls, Samples. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Potter, Robert E. (The Stream of American Education. New York: American Book Company, 1967.- Prestwood, Elwood A. The High School Principal and His; Staff Work Together. New York: Columbia University, 1957. ‘ Reinhardt, Emma. American Education. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1960. Shelly, Maynard W. III, and Bryan, Glen L. Human Judgments and gptimality. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. 183 Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Be- havioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Stiles, Lindley; McCleary, Lloyd E.; and Turnbaugh, Roy C. Secondary Education in the United States.‘ New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Tanner, Daniel. Schools for Youth. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1965. Tope, Donald E., et al. The Social Sciences View School Administration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964. Williams, Stanley W. Educational Administration in Sec— ondary Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Periodicals Austin, David B., and Collins, James S. "A Study of Attitudes Toward The High School Principalship." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 40, No. 216, Ifianuary, 1956), pp. 104-139. Cawelti, Gordon. "Proceedings of the Commission on Sec- ondary Schools." The North Central Association Quarterly, (Summer, 1967), pp. 56—160. Congreve, Willard J. "The Role of the Principal in School Improvement." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 48, No. 290, (March, 1964), pp. 3-9. Cronin, Joseph H- "School Boards and Principals - Before and After Negotiations." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. XLIX, No. 3, (November: 1967), pp. 123-125. Dewey, John. "Democracy In Action." The Elementary School Teacher, Vol. 3, 1903, pp. 194-195. r 184 Eckhart, John W. "The High School Principal in Relation to Curriculum Development." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals, Vol. 32, No. 154, (April, 1948i, pp. 101-112. Editorial Staff. "How Well is Your High School Principal Doing His Job?" School Management, Vol. 11, No. 6, (June, 1967), pp. 50-54. Farmer, Lloyd M. "The High School Principalship." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 32, No. 154, (April, 1948), pp. 82—91. Gibb, Jack R. "Expanding Role of the Administrator." The Bulletin of the National Association of Sec- ondary School Principals, Vol. 51, No. 319, (May, 1967). PP- 46-62. Goette, James H. "A Study of the Senior High School Principalship in Texas." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 44, No. 253, (February, 1960), pp. 45-48. Harlow, James G. "Building the Principal's Team." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secofidgry School Principals, Vol. 41, No. 226, (February, 1957), pp. 47-54. Hanson, Kenneth H. "Design for Decision." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School. Principals, Vol. 151, No. 322, (November, 1967), pp. 105-113. Hemphill, J. K. "Progress Report: A Study of the Sec- ondary School Principalship - Part II." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 48, No. 291, (April, 1964), pp. 217-230. Hemphill, J. K.- "Personal Variables and Administrative Styles." Behavioral Science and Educational Admin- istration, National Society for_the Study of Education 63rd Yearbook, Part II, 1964. Lehigh University. "A Study of the High School Principal- ship." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 37, No. 198, (December, 1953), pp. 118-120. 185 Lien, Ronald L. "Democratic Administrative Behavior." The Bulletin of the National Association of Sec- ondary School Principals, Vol. 48, No. 290, (March, 1964), pp. 31-38. Lynch, Audie J. "The High School Principalship." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 38, No. 201,i(March, 1954), pp. 26-280 Maccoby, Eleanor, and Maccoby, Nathan. "The Interview: A Tool of Social Science." Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, (1964). McAbee, Harold V. "Time for the Job." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals, Vol. 42, No. 236, (March, 1958), pp. 39-44. Richards, J. M. "Progress Report: A Study of the Second- ary School Principalship - Part I." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 48, No. 291, (April, 1964), pp. 211-216. Romine, Stephen. "The High School Principal Rates His Duties." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 32, No. 171, (May, 1950), pp. 13-18. - Stanavage, John A. "Educational Leader: An Authentic Role." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 51, No. 322, (November, 1967i, pp. 3—17. Strickler, Robert W. "The Evaluation of the Public School Principal." The Bulletin of the National Associa- tion of the Secondary School Principals, Vol. 41, No. 226, (February, 1957), pp. 55-58. Trump, J. Lloyd. "The Principal's Role in Improving In- struction." The Bulletin of the National Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 51, No. 319, (May, 1967), pp. 77-90. White, A. L. "The Secondary School Principal in Virginia." Virginia Journal of Education, Vol. XLIX, No. 7, (March, 1956), pp. 21-22. Wilhelms, Fred T. "An Open Letter to the Public." Spotlight (September-October, 1967), pp. 1-4. 186 Wilhelms, Fred T. "The Principalship: An Institution in Distress?" Spotlight (November-December, 1967), pp. 1-4. Wilhelms, Fred T. "The Principalship on the Spot." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Vol. 51, No. 322, (November, 1967). PP. 65-75. Other Publications Eikenberry, Dan H. Status of the High School Principal- shi . United States Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 24, (1927), 77 pp. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. (1966- 1967 Edition), Michigan Education Directory, 344 pp. North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Policies and Criteria for the Approval of Secondary Schools. (1965 Revision), 40 pp. The National Commission on Secondary Education. Back— ground for Choice Making in Secondary Education. (1966), 74 pp. Tonelson, A. R. "The Principalship in Large High Schools in the Southern Association of Colleges and Sec- ondary Schools." Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University (1963), 195 pp. APPENDIX A INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERVIEW AND STUDY 187 188 INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERVIEW AND STUDY As I mentioned during our phone conversation, this is a study of the delegation of administrative responsibil- ities by principals of the large high schools in Michigan. Large high schools, as defined in this study, are those with an enrollment of 2,000 or more students and are admin- istratively organized on a 10 through 12 grade level basis. There are thirty-two such high schools in Michigan, and I am in the process of interviewing each of the principals. It is an accepted principle of good school admin- istration that the school principal is responsible for the overall operation of his building, and that he is con- stantly kept informed of decisions made and actions taken by his staff. This study, in no way, intends to overlook that basic principle, but is not, primarily, concerned with that overall responsibility. Rather, it is the purpose of this investigator to determine your actual disposition of each of the many technical administrative tasks in managing a large high school such as this one. More specific direc- tions will be given concerning this part of the study as we proceed through the interview. Initially, I would like to ask for some factual information concerning you and your school. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE 189 190 PRINCIPAL INTERVIEN GUIDE NAME OF HIGH SCHOOL CITY NAME OF PRINCIPAL I. What is your age? years 2. How many years have you been principal of such a school? years A FULL-TIME ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, AS DEFINED IN THIS STUDY, IS A PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER WHO IS ASSIGNED TO THE BUILDING TO ASSIST THE PRINCIPAL IN THE ADMIN: ISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE STAFF MEMBERS WITH PART-TIME TEACH- ING AND/0R COUNSELING RESPONSIBILITIES AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SECRETARIAL PERSONNEL. 3. How many full-time administrative assistants do you have? If you could have as many as you wanted, how many would you have? (Note difference if any) 4. what percentage of your graduates go on to a two or four year college? Z 5. In what subject area was most of your classroom teaching before entering the field of school administration? Art Music Business Physical Education Foreign Language Science Industrial Education Social Studies Mathematics Speech English Other 6. What was (or is) your major area of preparation at the graduate level? Administration Guidance Curriculum Other 7. With the present trend toward more involvement on the part of teachers in de- cision making in the public schools, do you feel that the principal of a large high school is still looked upon as the instructional leader of the building? Yes No 191 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE INTERVIEN, WE WILL BE REFERRING TO THE CARDS I HAVE JUST GIVEN YOU. 8. 0n card number 1 you will find several statements concerning ultimate professional goals as they might be conceived by high school principals. Which of these state- ments most clearly describes the situation in which you would like to find your- self before retiring from the field of education? Principal College Professor Superintendent of Schools Junior College, College, or University Administrator Assistant Superintendent of Schools Other m _ —-———- NEUUOU> AUTHORS IN THE FIELD OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION LIST SEVERAL MAJOR TECHNICAL AREAS OF ADMINISTRATION WITH WHICH THE PRINCIPAL OF A LARGE HIGH SCHOOL 15 CONCERNED. SIX OF THESE MAJOR AREAS ARE LISTED ON CARD NUMBER 2. WILL YOU LOOK AT THESE AREAS? 0N CARDS 3 THROUGH 8 THE MAJOR AREAS ARE SUBDIVIDED INTO MORE SPECIFIC ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS. PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO READ THROUGH THESE SIX CARDS BEFORE WE PROCEED TO THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS. 9. Referring back, now, to card number 2, in which of these major areas of adminis- tration do you most prefer to work? (Mark "M") Least prefer? (Mark "L") Finance and Business Management Instruction and Curriculum Development Pupil Personnel School Community Relations School Plant and Services Staff Personnel MMUOG> WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO THE QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN AND/OR DELEGATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS NECESSARY IN MANAGING A LARGE HIGH SCHOOL. YOU MAY PEEL THAT SOME OF THE TASKS LISTED ARE NOT FULLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR BUILDING AND THAT SOME OF THE TASKS ARE A SHARED OBLIGATION WITH OTHER PERSONNEL IN THE SYSTEM. REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF WORK DONE ON EACH TASK, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN OR DISPOSITION OF THE TASK WITHIN YOUR SCHOOL. 10. ll. 1532 On card number 9 you will find one of the major areas of school administration, FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. It is subdivided into specific administrative tasks. The legend at the top of the card provides five varying responses. One of these should indicate the principal's involvement in or disposition of each of these administrative responsibilities. Let's look at the legend together. Lsctgg do all of this. do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. do less than half of this; 1 delegate most of it to other staff members. 1 2 3 - 4 5 do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. HHHHH Now let's look at the administrative tasks listed below FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. Item A is construction of the school budget. In referring to the legend at the top of the card, you are to select one of the five responses-- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - or 5 - the one which £335 accurately describes how 12! handle 25412925. FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Construction of the school budget (or building recommendations) Administration of the school budget Determination of equipment and supplies Ordering of equipment and supplies Distribution of equipment and supplies Inventory of equipment and supplies Attendance at staff or professional meetings con~ cerning finance and business management Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management OWMUOW> I On card number 10 you will find another of the six major administrative areas, INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. It too is subdivided into specific administrative tasks. The legend at the tOp of the card provides the same five varying responses. Using the legend, please indicate which of the re- sponses most accurately describes how X22 hagdlg each task. INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT A. Direction of curriculum content and organization 8. Selection of curriculum materials C. Direction and articulation of curricular programs D. Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program E. Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties F. Direction of adult education program G. Direction of school testing program H. Coordination of instructional equipment and material 1. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum develOpment Direction of research and/or experimentation in in- struction and curriculum development L. 193 12. On card number 11 you will find the major area of PUPIL PERSONNEL. It is similarly subdivided into specific administrative tasks. Using the legend, please indicate which of the responses most accurately describes how you handle each task. :FKLAHIONNUOU> PUPIL PERSONNEL Provision of student orientation Scheduling of students into classes Provision of student counseling Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation Scheduling of students for health services Maintaining of student records Provision of occupational and educational information Assessment and interpretation of student growth to students Administration of student discipline Administration of student attendance Administration of extra-curricular activities Direction of school guidance program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel 13. On card number 12 you will find the major area of SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS. It is similarly subdivided into specific administrative tasks. Using the legend, please indicate which of the responses most accurately describes how you handle eases-as- FO'UEUUPU) H 0 SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS Preparation of reports for the community Confer with parents Confer with citizen groups Supervision of the school's public relations program Preparation of releases to communications media Supervision of the use of school by non-school groups Direction of reporting to parents on student progress Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school-community relations Direction of research and/or experimentation in school» community relations lb. On card number 13 you will find the major area of SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES. It is similarly subdivided. Using the legend, please indicate which of the re- sponses most accurately describes how 123 handle each task. III III! A. B. C. D. SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES Supervision of plant operation and maintenance Supervision of grounds maintenance Direction of plant safety program (fire drills, etc.) Direction of transportation safety program (behavior on bus, etc.) Administration of the school lunch program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school plant and services Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services 15. 16. 194 On card number 14 you will find the area of STAFF PERSONNEL. It is similarly subdivided. Please indicate which of the responses most accurately describes how 193 handle each task. STAFF PERSONNEL Selection of professional staff members Induction of professional staff members Scheduling of professional staff members Supervision of professional staff members Evaluation of professional staff members Direction of in-service for professional staff members Selection of non-professional staff members Induction of non-professional staff members Scheduling of non-professional staff members Supervision of non-professional staff members Evaluation of non-professional staff members Direction of in-service for non-professional staff members FKHHEOMMUOURP M. Maintaining of staff personnel records N. Direction of substitute teachers 0. Administration of master contract (3) P. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning staff personnel Q. Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel And now, one last question in relation to your time involvement as the principal of one of Michigan's largest high schools. Realizing that the principal's days and weeks are not all typically the same, and that many of your responsibilities are of a seasonal nature, How many hours per week would you estimate that you spend in fulfilling your responsibility as a high school principal? hours In referring back to card number 2, and keeping in mind all of the various tasks involved in each major area, please estimate the percentage of your total time on the job in each area. (You might want to use this scratch pad and pencil.) Finance and Business Management Instruction and Curriculum Development Pupil Personnel School Community Relations School Plant and Services Staff Personnel Other OWNPOU> APPENDIX C PRINCIPALS' INTERVIEW CARDS 195 196 A. CARD 1 ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL GOALS I intend to remain in a high school principalship until my retirement. I would like to attain the rank of college professor before I retire from the field of education. I would like to eventually become a superintendent of schools. I would like to serve as a junior college, college, or university administrator before I retire from the field. I would like to eventually serve as an assistant superintendent of schools. None of the above. I would like to 197 CARD 2 MAJOR AREAS OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION Finance and Business Management Instruction and Curriculum DeveIOpment Pupil Personnel School Community Relations School Plant and Services Staff Personnel 198 CARD 3 FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Construction of the school budget (or building recommendations) Administration of the school budget Determination of equipment and supplies Ordering of equipment and supplies Distribution of equipment and supplies Inventory of equipment and supplies Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning finance and business management Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management 199 9552.1 INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Direction of curriculum content and organization Selection of curriculum materials Direction and articulation of curricular programs Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties Direction of adult education program Direction of school testing program Coordination of instructional equipment and material Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum develOpment Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development 200 H. CARD 5 PUPIL PERSONNEL Provision of student orientation Scheduling of students into classes Provision of student counseling Scheduling of students for health services Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation Maintaining of student records Provision of occupational and educational information Assessment and interpretation of student growth to students Administration of student discipline Administration of student attendance Administration of extra-curricular activities Direction of school guidance program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel 201 CARD 6 SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS Preparation Confer with Confer with Supervision program Preparation Supervision of reports for the community parents citizen groups of the school's public relations of releases for communications media of use of school by non-school groups Direction of reporting to parents on student progress Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school community relations Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations 202 95332.1 SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES Supervision of plant operation and maintenance Supervision of grounds maintenance Direction of plant safety program (Fire drills, etc.) Direction of transportation safety program (Pupil behavior on bus) Administration of school lunch program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school plant and services Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services 203 M. O. CARD 8 STAFF PERSONNEL Selection of professional staff members Induction of professional staff members Scheduling of professional staff members Supervision of professional staff members Evaluation of professional staff members Direction of in-service for professional staff members Selection of non—professional staff members Induction of non—professional staff members Scheduling of non-professional staff members Supervision of non-professional staff members Evaluation of non-professional staff members Direction of in-service for non-professional staff members Maintaining of staff personnel records Direction of substitute teachers Administration of master contract(s) Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning staff personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel 204 9E_GE_N£ I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Construction of the school budget Administration of the school budget Determination of equipment and supplies Ordering of equipment and supplies Distribution of equipment and supplies Inventory of equipment and supplies Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning finance and business management Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management 205 95.3129. LEGEND I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Direction of curriculum content and organization Selection of curriculum materials Direction and articulation of curricular programs Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties Direction of adult education program Direction of school testing program Coordination of instructional equipment and materials Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum development Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development 206 UOUJZP' ZUNQH :3 Z O'UF'J CARD 11 LEGEND I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. PUPIL PERSONNEL Provision of student orientation Scheduling of students into classes Provision of student counseling Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation Scheduling of students for health services Maintaining of student records Provision of occupational and educational informa- tion Assessment and interpretation of student growth to students Administration of student discipline Administration of student attendance Administration of extra-curricular activities Direction of school guidance program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel 207 LEGEND I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS Preparation of reports for the community Confer with parents Confer with citizen groups Supervision of the school's public relations program Preparation of releases for communications media Supervision of the use of school by non—school groups Direction of reporting to parents on student progress Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school community relations Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations 208 CARD l3 LEGEND I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES Supervision of plant operation and maintenance Supervision of grounds maintenance Direction of plant safety program (Fire drills, etc.) Direction of transportation safety program (Behavior on bus, etc.) Administration of school lunch program Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school plant and services Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services 209 *YJFUUOEDIP' IO F‘WLIHIEO "U023 i CARD l4 LEGEND I do all of this. I do more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. STAFF PERSONNEL Selection of professional staff members Induction of professional staff members Scheduling of professional staff members Supervision of professional staff members Evaluation of professional staff members Direction of in-service for professional staff members Selection of non—professional staff members Induction of non-professional staff members Scheduling of non-professional staff members Supervision of non—professional staff members Evaluation of non-professional staff members Direction of in—service for non-professional staff members Maintaining of staff personnel records Direction of substitute teachers Administration of master contract(s) Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning staff personnel Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel APPENDIX D RELATED CORRESPONDENCE AND MATERIAL CONCERNING THE DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS' INVOLVEMENT IN THE STUDY 210 211 BATTLE CREEK PUBLIC SCHOOLS IA‘I'TlE CREEK. MICHIGAN DIVISION OF INSTRUCTION OFFICE OI: THE omecron OF SECONDARY EDUCATION October 27, 1967 Dr. Charles J. Wolfe Deputy Superintendent of Schools Detroit Public Schools 5057 Woodward Detroit, Michigan 48202 Dear Dr. wolfe: I am writing this letter as a follow-up to our phone conversation on Thursday, October 26, regarding my proposed interviews in your school system. Thanks very much for discussing this with me at that time. As I stated, the study concerns the degree of delegation of administra- tive tasks by high school principals. The study is limited to Michi- gan high schools with enrollments of 2,000 or more students and which are administratively organized on a ten through twelve grade level basis. (Resource used: 1966-67 Michigan Education Directory and Buyers' Guide). I am attempting to interview the total population of the study, and eleven of the qualified high schools are within your school district. Each interview will take approximately 20-25 minutes. The principals with whom I would like to visit, during the week of November 13-l7, if possible, administer the following schools: Cody Henry Ford Northwestern Redford Cooley MacKenzie Osborn Southeastern Denby Mumford Pershing (Cass Technical High School is excluded because of its uniqueness in comparison to other schools in the study.) Thank you very much for your consideration of the matter. I will look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Due to my scheduled interviews, I will be away during the day for the next two weeks; however, if you would care to call, I am certain Dr. Featherstone's secretary, Mrs. Lorraine Scarborough, would take the message for me in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. If you prefer writing, my address in East Lansing is 965 Rosewood. Again, thanks very much. Sincerely, '\JLI\LIKI_ “is {ALUs - C“ \s I Jack K. Mawdsley, Digzgtor Secondary Education JKM:mrr 212 NORMAN MACH!!! CHARLES 1. WOW Superintendent e! Sdleels healve Deputy Sena-Head“ DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS DETROIT PUIUC SCHOOLS CENTER . 5057 WOODWAID . DETROIT, MICHIGAN 4.202 . October 31, 1967 Mr. Jack K. Mawdsley Director, Secondary Education Battle Creek Public Schools Battle Creek, Michigan 49016 Dear Mr. Mawdsley: Thank you for so promptly writing to me to follow up our phone conversation of last Thursday. I have forwarded your request for proposed interviews in our school system to Dr. Robert Lankton, Director of Re- PHON! 033-7900 search for the Detroit Public Schools. Dr. Lankton passes upon all requests for research within our school system. He will review your request and be in touch with you im- mediately, indicating what we can do to assist you in this study. I am also suggesting to him that, when a decision is reached, he check with Mrs. Lorraine Scarborough, Dr. Featherstone's secretary, as you requested in your letter. Best wishes for a successful study. Sincerely, fl/ Charles J. Wolfe CJW:hf cc Robert S. Lankton 213 NORMAN DRACNLEI CHARLES J. WOLF! CARI. L. IYIRLY Superintendent of Schools Executive Deputy Superintendent Associate Went DETROIT PU BLIC SCHOOLS DIVISION OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, INSTRUCTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH IMPROVWT OF INSTRUCTION omen rumc scnoou came 0 5057 wooowm 0 omen, MICHIGAN «202 0 mom 033-7900 DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH av sac AWMD DEVEUDPNHB'I sutuinxuunslusuwo,unoocwunaunma ROI!" 5. warms. um: um omen. emu «204 ' mom 931.2400 November 1, 1967 Mr. Jack K. Mawdsley, Director Secondary Education Battle Creek Public Schools 965 Rosewood East Lansing, Michigan h8823 Dear Mr. Mawdsley: As you will know when you receive Dr. Wolfe‘s letter, he has forwarded to me your request to interview eleven high school principals in Detroit in connection with your research study. I have called the office of Dr. Featherstone at Michigan State University to leave word that my office will help you expedite your study in Detroit. Before I can proceed, however, I shall need to have in my file a copy of the interview content schedule that you will be using. An out- line of the kinds of questions you will be asking will be satisfactory. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a policy statement con- cerning procedures for conducting research studies in the Detroit schools. You will note from this statement that participation from school personnel is to be entirely voluntary on the part of the individuals concerned. Let me hear from you concerning the content of your planned interviews. Sincerely, fem Robert S. Lankton RSszs Enclosure cc: Charles J. Wolfe, Executive Deputy Superintendent Richard L. Featherstone, Chairman, Department of Administration and Higher Education, Michigan State University 21u4 SUBJECT: Policies and Procedures for Conducting Research Studies in the Detroit Public Schools Which Are Not Initiated by Official Departments or Divisions of the School System PROM : Administration To : Principals, Teachers, Supervisors, Divisions and Department Heads During the past few years there have been numerous requests to conduct studies of various kinds in the Detroit Public Schools. These requests have come from govern- mental and non-governmental agencies, universities, private groups, and from individual students engaged in graduate study. Most of these studies have been of such a nature that their completion would be impossible without the assistance and COOperation of school personnel. In light of the numerous requests which have been received in the past, and in anticipation of the requests which will be forthcoming, the Superintendent's Executive Committee and the Superintendent have reviewed the procedure used in processing these requests and approved the following statements of policy and pro- cedure. Being sensitive to the role research has played in various fields of endeavor, particularly education, the Detroit Public Schools will continue to foster educational research by official departments of the school system and by other individuals and organizations when the conduct of such projects is feasible and does not conflict with the major function of the schools. Therefore, it is the policy of the Detroit Public Schools to review requests for assistance in conducting research studies initiated by individuals and governmental and non-governmental organizations, and to notify schools of approved requests, inviting voluntary participation by the school personnel immediately concerned with the research proposal. Research projects and studies initiated by individuals or organizations not officially charged with research for the Detroit schools will be conducted in accord with the following principles and stipulations: 1. Participation of school personnel is to be entirely voluntary on the part of the individuals concerned. 2. Proposals for conducting studies should be sent to the Superintendent of Schools or the Educational Research Department. 3. The proposals should include a detailed plan of methods, procedures, and instrumentation to be used in completing the study. In the case of graduate student proposals, a statement from faculty adviser or committee endorsing the study as being educationally worthwhile should accompany the request. 4. The Detroit Public Schools assume no responsibility for completing any project or for providing technical or other types of assistance. 5. The entire proposal, including the instruments to be used, will be reviewed by the Educational Research Department. The department will keep the Field Executives informed, and if it considers such action advisable, refer the proposal for review to the Field Executives, a committee of the persons involved, or the Superintendent's Executive Staff. 'April 1967 215 6. Notice of approval will be sent to the individuals, schools, or depart— ments concerned with an appropriate form on which principals of schools involved may indicate their willingness to participate voluntarily in the project as proposed. 7. After the principal has indicated his willingness to participate in the study, arrangements for conducting the research may be made either by the Educational Research Department or by the personIs) conducting the study. 8. Individuals or organizations conducting approved studies will be responsible for supplying the Educational Research Department with a written summary of their findings, and if so requested, for reporting detailed study findings to interested school personnel at a meeting arranged by the Educational Research Department or others. Research projects sponsored or conducted by divisions of the Detroit Public Schools do not require the approval of the Research Department, although many administrators request such approval prior to committing their schools to participate in these projects. The Department offers its specialized skills and knowledge of research techniques in aiding all divisions in the designing of such research projects, in the creation or selection of necessary instruments, and in the evaluation of the results. The Department should be apprised of all such studies, whether or not its assistance is requested. Research projects, innovations, and experiments conducted by a teacher with his own classes require only the approval of the principal of his school. The Research Department offers its help to teachers in designing and evaluating research in new procedures. It should be apprised of all such experimentation. It is also advisablw that innovations in instruction be cleared with the appropriate departments in the Division for the Improvement of Instruction. MIIIILIIILIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIES 596