PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATION FULFILLMENT AND PERCEPTION FORMATION AMONG HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS Thesis for the Dogma of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Kenneth William Olsen 1966 h.“ LIB F . R Michigan State Universxty I .5 This is to certify that the thesis entitled PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATION FULFILLMENT AND PERCEPTION FORMATION AMONG HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS presented by KENNETH WILLIAM OLSE N has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration \g 7334/ 6 /21/1/0\ /"’LZ Major professor Date November 22, 1966 0-169 Mar" r; ABSTRACT PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATION FULFILLMENT AND PERCEPTION FORMATION AMONG HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS by Kenneth William Olsen Statement of Problem This study treats two primary questions. First, to what extent are the professional expectations and their fulfillment alike for high school principals and teachers? Second, to what degree, if at all, does the principal influence the perceptions teachers have toward the superintendent of schools? Research Methodology Twenty high school principals and one hundred and eighteen high school teachers responded to a research instrument containing eighteen items, each paired with each, for a total of 15h response sets. Six categories of the educational enterprise were each represented by three of the eighteen items. The categories were: (1) Teachers, (2) Superin- tendents, (3) Students, (h) Curriculum, (5) Principals, and (6) Commun- ity Support and Building Adequacy. belest ——.— Respondents were asked to make item selections based upon that item which most nearlygmeets_your professional expectations." Principals were selected from ten urban, two suburban, and eight rural high schools. Teachers were selected from each school on the vari— ables of years experience, primary or secondary wage earner, sex, aca- demic discipline, and age. Data were collected on machine scored answer sheets and were processed on an IBM 1620 Computer. Rank order correlations were run on Kenneth William Olsen a total of 39 variables producing 7&1 relationships as a base for anal- ysis. The study was predicated upon a synthesis of the Theories of Sym- bolic Interaction and Reference Group. Major Findings First Hypothesis The data produced evidence that high school principals and tea~ chers do not perceive the educational enterprise in a significantly different fashion. Rank order correlation for both groups on scales of the instrument was .888. Correlations between perceptions of principals and sub-categories of teachers, i.e., age, experience, academic training, sex, et cetera were above .7 in every instance. Ancillary findings revealed differential perception between the groups on specific scales of the research instrument. Second Hypothesis The data produced evidence which indicates that principals influ- ence teachers' perceptions of the superintendent in urban settings, but apparently have little influence in rural areas. The hypothesis was accepted in seven of nine cases of urban schools. Urban and suburban schools showed strong evidence of principal influence on teacher per- ceptions in this area. Rural schools evidenced a marked absence of reaponse pattern. PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATION FULFILLMENT AND PERCEPTION FORMATION AMONG HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS by Kenneth William Olsen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have made significant contributions to the com~ pletion of this dissertation. Their help and cooperation far trans- cended what their positions required of them. The writer's apprecia- tion for their support is sincere and commensurate with their efforts. Formal thanks are extended to the following people: To Dr. James E. Heald, Chairman of my doctoral committee, for his administrative support, professional counsel, and personal friend- ship. To Dr. Donald Leu, Dr. Lee Shulman, and Dr. James McKee for their willingness to consider an atypical approach and provide both the freedom and guidance which allowed its conduct and completion. To Dr. William J. Emerson and Dr. Kenneth W. Brown, Superin- tendent and Deputy Superintendent of Oakland Schools, for their very significant encouragement and administrative support. To Mrs. Fern Chapman, my secretary, whose willingness to spend CXtra hours and unwillingness to compromise with her standard of ex- cellence was a major factor in the organization and completion of the study. To my wife, Sarah, for having faith and patience enough to provide encouragement during preparation, and confidence enough not to be surprised when the work was accomplished. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . LIST OF TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL BASIS FOR STUDY. Reed. 0 O O C O O O O O O O O mpose O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Theoretical Basis for Study . . . . . . . MOtheseSo e o e o o e o o o o o e o e 0 Overview of Chapters. . . . . . . . . . . mm OF LITERMIJRE. O O O O O O O 0 O I I 0 Development of an Empirical Foundation For the General Hypotheses. . . . . . . Anaxysis of Other Research Related to The Two General Hypotheses. . . . . . . REWCH DESIGN 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Operational Hypotheses. ktthlog O O O O I O O O O O I O O C FEM meGSo O O O O O O C O O O O O O IntrOdUCtioneeoeeoeeeeoeeso Findings - Differential Perception in the Fulfillment of Educational Expectation. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings - Principal's Role as Intermediary In Teachers' Perception Formation . . . S WY 0 C O O I O O O O O I O O O O I 0 iv Page iii vi viii 0’1?me Page Chapter V.SUPPLEMENTALFINDDIGS............. 76 IntrOduction O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O C 76 Data Presentation and Analysis. . . . . . . 77 SWeooooooeooeoooooeo 102 VI.SUI'E'lARY-eeeeoeeooeeooooeoeo 103 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 DiSCUSSion...........oo..oo 109 Implications for Future Research. . . . . . 115 APPENDIXES A. ILLUSTRATIONS RELEVANT TO FIRST AND SECOND GENERAL HYPOTHESES. . . . o o o o e . . . o o 117 B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT . . o e . e e o . e e u . 0 IRS 161 BELIWRAPIIY. O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Correlation of Principals' Perceptions With Various Sub-Categories of Teachers . . . . . 5h 2 Correlation of Principals' Perceptions With Teachers by Number of Years and Teaching aperience O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 55 3 Perceptions Held by Total Population of Teachers And Principals on the Three Scales of categOI'yV-Princlpal....o...... 57 h Perceptions Held by Total Population of Teachers And Principals on the Three Scales of Category II - Superintendent . . . . . . . . 57 5 Differences Between Perceptions by Principals And Selected Teachers from Four Urban Schools Of the Same District on Three Scales of Category II - Superintendent . . . . . . . . 58 6 Differences Between Perceptions by Principals And Selected Teachers from Three Urban High Schools of the Same District on Three Scales Of Category II - Superintendent. . . . . . . 63 7 Differences Between Perceptions by Principals And Selected Teachers from Two Urban High Schools of the Same District on Three Scales Of Category II - Superintendent. . . . . . . 67 8 Differences Between Perceptions by Principal And Selected Teachers from One Urban High School on Three Scales of Category II - Superintendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 9 Differences Between Perceptions by Principals And Selected Teachers from Two Suburban High Schools of Two Separate Districts on Three Scales of Category II - Superintendent. 72 Table 10 ll 12 LIST OF TABLES Differences Between Perceptions by Principals And Selected Teachers from Eight Rural High Schools of Eight Separate Districts On Three Scales of Category II - Superin- tendent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Positive Perception Toward Principal and Mean Rank Difference in Perception of Superintendents for Teachers And Principals of Eight Rural High Schools. Rank Order of Professional Expectation Fulfill- ment by Category as Perceived by Principals AndTeaChersoooeoooooooooeso Rank Order of Professional Expectation Fulfill- ment by Scales as Perceived by Principals And TeaChers. O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vii Page 110 Ill LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Teachers on All scales 0 o o o o 0 a o o o o o o o o o o o 53 2 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Primary Wage Earner Teach-rs on All Scales. . . . . . . . 118 3 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Secondary Wage Earner Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . 119 h Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Male Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 5 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Female Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 6 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with First Year Teachers on All Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 12? 7 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Second Year Teachers on All Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 123 8 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Third Year Teachers on All Scales . . . . . . . . . . . 12b 9 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Teachers With Over Eight Years on All Scales . . . . . . . 125 10 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Physical Science Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . . . 1?6 11 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Natural Science Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . . . 127 12 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Social Science Teachers on All ScaleS. . . . . . . . . . £9 13 Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Human- ities Teachers on All Scales. . . . . . . . . . . 129 1h Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Guidance and Counseling Teachers on All Scales . . . . . . 133 viii l7 l8 19 20 91 on LIST OF Mean Ranks of All Princ 71' V' 7 pm“ (7‘ "r eff: liJi.|TulI\Al \JHJ v ipals Compared with Teachers Age no-5o on All Scales. . . . . . Mean Ranks of All Princ lpals Compared with Teachers Age 26-3“ on All Scales. . . . . . Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Teachers Age BO~25 on All Scales. . . . - . Mean Ranks of All Principals Compared with Teachers over 50 Years of Age on All Scales Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban Scales. . . . . . . Mean Ranks of Princ1pal Teachers From Urban Scales. . . . . . . Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban Scales. . . . . . . Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban 8 , 1 L8..L€S. o o o o o 0 Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban Scales. . . . . . . Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban scales. 0 O O O O 0 Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban SCalCS. o o e o o 0 Compared with Selected School No. i on All O O O 0 O n O O O I O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 2 on All School No. 3 on Al Compared with Selected School No. u on All Compared with Selected school No. b on All C O O O D O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 7 on All Compared with Selected School No. 8 on All (T (M) Q» Figure 28 29 30 31 32 33 3h 35 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Urban scaleseeeeeee Mean Ranks of Principel Teachers From.Urban SCH-1830000000 Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From urban Scales....... Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural Scales....... Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural Scaleaoeeeeee Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural Scfles....... Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural SCfllCBQeeeeee Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural SCQlCSeoeeeee Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural Scalel.....oo Mean Ranks of Principal Teachers From Rural scales. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 9 on All 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 10 on All Compared with Selected School No. 5 on All 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. ll on All 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 12 on All Compared with Selected School No. 13 on All Compared with Selected School No. lb on All C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Compared with Selected School No. 15 on All Compared with Selected School No. 16 on All Compared with Selected School 30. 17 on All Page 69 7O 71 135 136 137 138 139 1&0 lhl LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 36 Mean Ranks of Principal Compared with Selected Teachers From Rural School No. 18 on All seal-es. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1‘42 37 Mean Ranks of Principal Compared with Selected Teachers From Suburban School No. 19 on All scales. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1h3 38 Mean Ranks of Principal Compared with Selected Teachers From Suburban School No. 20 on mscawlCSeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeee 1M 39 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Professional Competence 0f Faculty mmbers e e e e e e e e 77 to Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Numbers and Quality Of Innovations by Faculty Members . . . . . . 78 hi Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers On Job Satisfaction Of Faculty Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 he Mean Rank Comparison of Principals With Sub- Categories of Teachers on Ability of District Superintendent to Deal with People. . . . . . 82 k3 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Numbers and Quality Of Innovations by District Superintendent . . 83 hh Mean Rank Comparison of Principals With Sub- Categories of Teachers on Superintendent's Ability to See and Meet Present and Future Needs of District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8h “5 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Students' Ability To Work Without Supervision . . . . . . . . . 85 xi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page h6 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Students' Motivation To Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . h? Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Students' Satisfaction With School. . . . . . . . . . . 87 M8 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on This School's Curriculum For Students From the Full Range of Academic Ability . . . . . . . . . . 89 h9 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers On Capacity of This School's Curriculum To Meet Present and Future Needs of Students. . . . . . . . . . . 9O 50 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on This School's Concern For the Student in Both Academic And Non-Academic Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . 91 51 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Ability of This School's Principal To Deal With People. . . . 93 52 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Number and Quality of Innovations by This School's Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9h 53 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Principal's Ability to See and Meet Present and Future Needs of This School . . . . . . . . . 95 5h Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on This Community's Willingness To Pay For Quality School ”()ng O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 97 xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 55 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on Extent to which Parents Take An Active Interest in This SChOOl'BPrOSI'aJII......o....... 100 56 Mean Rank Comparison of Principals with Sub- Categories of Teachers on the Educational Adequacy of This School's Building or Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 xiii CHAPTER I Part 1 Need Conditions which offer different perceptions of reality to different perceivers provide no mutual foundation for discussion or understanding. It is quite possible that disagreement, in many in- stances, is not based upon the inability of groups to agree to a solu- tion, but to agree to an articulation of the problem.1 It is from the premise that school effectiveness is influenced and often the consequence of, differential perception that the needs of this paper proceed. I. There is a need for the development and synthesis of a theoretical framework which will provide for the predic- tion and control of variables contributing to differential perception. 2. There is a need for the development of a method to determine In 1966 Northern High School in Detroit, Michigan experienced a student revolt against "substandard education." A particular target of the rebellion was the school principal who didn't see conditions as did the dissident students. The uprising and boycotting of classes resultei in the eventual removal of the principal and the unfavorable publicity was believed to have contributed to the defeat of a crucial bond issue sought by the City's Board of Education. A measure of the differential Perception held by the principal, teachers, and students might have un- covered a high degree of dissonance and possibLy provided the informa- tion which would have averted the unfortunate situation which developed. the areas and degree of consensual perception shared by the several representative groups of an educational unit. 3. There is a need for the isolation and analysis of variables contributing to differential perception affecting educa- tional effectiveness. The organizational milieu of the American high school provides, functionally, for a nearly autonomous educational unit. The adminis- tration, faculty, and student body represent interacting but discrete populations, and the intra-group perceptions of these societal units determine the educational atmosphere of the school. A school in which administration, faculty and students share a general or near perceptual consensus on major issues is likely to be harmonious. Whether that school is dynamic or static depends upon the expectations of the people involved. A school in which there is great dissonance of perception between major organizational divisions may be distinguished by unrest, mili- tancy, agitation, and disharmony. To maintain that the only factor preventing the smooth and dynamic movement of a high school program is the differing perception held by p90ple would be naive. Clearly defined and communicated differences of Opinion over acknowledged reality might well be the reason for disunity and lack of progress. However, problems and conditions which are unan- imously understood provide a common ground for discussion and eventual agreement or disagreement. There is a critical need for a rationale and methodology which will provide schools and districts a clear picture of what is perceived to be real. Part 2 Purpose The purpose of this study is to attempt solutions to the needs enumerated in Part One of this chapter. Stated in a positive manner, these purposes are: 1. To develop a synthesis of theory which will provide the framework for the prediction and control of variables contributing to differential perceptions. 2. To develop a method of determining the areas and degrees of consensual perception shared by the several representa- tive groups of an educational unit. 3. To isolate and analyze the variables contributing to differential perceptions affecting educational effective- mess. The needs which justify the conduct of this study will be met to the extent that these purposes are realized. "IF A MAN DOES NOT KEEP PACE WITH HIS COMPANIONS, PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE HE HEARS A DIFFERENT DRUMMER. LET HIM STEP TO THE MUSIC HE HEARS, HOWEVER MEASURED OR FAR AWAY." Henry David Thoreau Walden Part 3 Theoretical Basis for Study The theoretical section of this document is intended to offer solid base for the two general hypotheses listed in this chapter, and provide a rational framework for the operational hypotheses which generate from them. What is presented here is not a new theory. It is, rather, a synthesis of a relatively old formulation known as Symbolic Interaction and a more contempory approach primarily recognized as Reference Group Theory. The latter is a logical outgrowth of the first. Symbolic Interaction is an issue from the seminal mind of George Herbert Mead. Symbolic Interaction When George Herbert Mead died in 1931 at the age of sixty-eight, he had not published a single book. Indeed, he had published few major papers for someone who would gain recognition posthumously as one of the most brilliantly original of American pragmatists. During the decade before his death, sociologists at the University of Chicago, where Mead taught phiIOSOphy, discovered what original contribution Mead was making to that branch of their field known as "Social Psychology." Graduate students in sociology flocked to his classes and later were instrumental in introducing his writings on social psychology into the standard sociological literature. His concepts became common property among sociologists; his lines were quoted freely in text books, and his pages were reproduced in readers designed for most student audiences. Through the sociologists, social psychologists who were trained in psychology departments also discovered Mead. While his point of view can hardly be said to be a dominant influence on American sociology and social psychology since World War II, his impact continues to be felt, moreover, he remains an oft- quoted elder statesman in both fields.2 2Anselm Strauss, Editor, George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology (Chicago and London: university of Chicago Press, 19647, pp. l-E. The theory of symbolic interaction is complex and not all of it is relevant to the subject of this paper. What is considered salient is put forth in the "IF, THEN" format with detailed justification for assumptions, propositions, and ultimately hypotheses. Succinctly said, symbolic interaction holds that men are social— ized-~develop a self-«as the function of being born into a society which exists and initiates on the basis of communication through gestures which have become internalized and Operationalized as symbols. Each individual develops an orientation to a series of symbols based upon his membership--real or imagined--in one or many sub-cultures. Such 9 sub-cultures or communities of interaction are known as the 'generalized other." The process of thinking, singular to man, is "the internalized conversation of gestures." Since man cannot internalize those systems of symbols with which he has had no contact, man's thinking is largely determined by his experiential background. As thinking is the result of ability to interact symbolically, so also is perception of reality influenced by one's range of possible or desirable interpretations. Those "generalized others" which have the greatest influence on the development of the self are termed reference groups’ or "reference relationships." Individuals of particular significance are defined as "significant others." Because not all people have identical backgrounds and simila. generalized or "significant others," they do not all think with the same symbols nor do they perceive all things in the same fashion. The first general hypothesis of this thesis is that high s'h‘ml principals and teachers have internalized symbols which proceed frag different experiential backgroundsJ including different reference groups and "significant others" and, therefore, perceive the same phenomena from different and dissimilar points of view. The Specifics of such dissimilarity and the attendant causes are developed in succeed- ing sections of this paper. + cs The second general hypothesisgposits that a principal represen a "significant other" for teachers. As such he becomes a mediator of their perceptions toward another, more obscureJ "significant other" in the_person of the superintendent of schools. High school teachers who exhibit high positive perceptions of their principal will tend to share the principal'sgperception of the superintendent of schools. If, in fact, the principal is a significant person in the lives of teachers, either positive or negative, it can be eXpected that he will influence, even mitigate, perceptions. Development of Theogy for General Hypothesis I The following assumptions are taken primarily from the writings of George Herbert Mead,3 and in some instances the formulations of Arnold M, Roseh are utilized in this progression. Each statement presented in this initial syllogistic sequence is considered in detail later in the section. If 1. society precedes any existing individual and provides the matrix for the socialization (humanization of every entrant into that society5 3George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Soci-ty (Chicago and Loni;n: univerSity'of Chicago Press, 1954 , (190371 bArnold M. Rose, Editor, Human Behavior and Social Pr*;css (Boston: Houshton, hernia Company, 19.62.) 531‘20, P. .15. And, if the process of socialization takes place in three stages: a. The psychogenic process of infant learning, b. The internalization and operationalism of gestures into meaningful symbols, and Communication through the interaction of symbols;6 And, if 2. the individual defines (has meaning for) himself, as well as other objects, actions, and character- istics,7 the organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self, being called the ”generalized other"; And, if 3. man's thinking is the internalized conversation of gestures and can take place only in relation to the "generalized other"; even though 'old' groups, cultural eXpectations, and personal meanings and values may be drcpped, in the sense that they become markedly lower on the reference relationship scale, they are not lost or forgotten; Then, man's thinking is conlucted throegh use of symrols and _£estures, the meaning cf which, is the result of experiences \D erelired received in relation to his p§°t or present "gen .a others." Men of different ffiliations--real or imagirei- will operate with different symbolic interpretations an! q will think and_perceive differently. The preceding development and interpretation is offered as the legitimizing rationale for the first general hypothesis. Justification of Assumption 1. The first assumption taken from the development of the the“ry if symbolic interaction states that man is preceded by a society wrichgpro- .1 . \— vides for his socializationihumanizatitn)A ari su:h scti liratién ti? In place in stages. "Man is not born human. It is only slowly and lat:r- iously, in fruitful contact, cooperation, and conflict with his fellows, that he a‘tains the distinctive qualities of human nature." The "self of the individual is the result of the interesting processes of socialization.9 First the infant, through trial an? error, conditioning, or other processes also found among other animals, becomes Such inter- hatituated to a particular sequence of events or behavior. action is based upon the internalization of gestures and these function in a triadic relationship. 0 ' A adjustive response made to 1+ by another organism In its indicative capacity as pointing to the completi n resultant of the act it initiates (the meaning of the "The relation of the gesture of one organism to the I n 4' . '? ~ ~ ‘V‘ ‘:&S“: Arne I‘LL-X: 8Robert E. Park, Principals of Human Frhavizr ‘ Corporation, 1915),p. 9. EL‘.‘V'V‘Q‘: .‘ a.. «taxi. o , - . . ’Feral children may be considered as an example tnrcugn lO gesture being thus the response of the second organism to it as such, or as a gesture.) What, as it were, takes the gesture out of the social act and isolates it as such-- what makes it something more than Just an early phase of an individual act--is the response of another organism, or of other organism, to it. Such a response is its meaning, or given its meaning . . . the gesture arises as a separable element in the social act, by virtue of the fact that it is selected out by the sensitivities of other organisms to it; it does not exist as a gesture merely in the experience of the single individual."1 The three parts of the triad are the gesture, the initiator and the respondent. An unknown gesture (one which has not become internal- ized as a symbol) which is performed in solitude and to which there is no response, will continue to be an unknown gesture and will have no part in communication or socialization. Often the same gesture and the same initiator with a different respondent will develop a different meaning. This is a contributing factor to the differentiation of roles entered into by each individual. Unless there is a respondent representing society toward whom the individual can direct his gesture he cannot become a member of society. Gestures are operationalized with specific meaning and become Symbols. Such symbols become the language of communication and may be R in the form of speech and hand movements or ever changing expressicns and countenances. "We always assume that the symbol we use is one whirh will call out in the other person the same response; provided it is a part of his mechanism of ccnduct.r A person who is saying something is saying to himself what he says to others; otherwise he does not know what he is talking about."11 lOMead, pp. 135-136. 11Ibid., p. 1&7. 11 In this statement Mead impresses the point that the respondent must have internalized the same mechanism. The meaning implied by "part of his mechanism" is crucial. The subtleties of experiences which make men different--even while basically the same--can militate against identical understandings of the same gesture. Consequently we have misunderstanding and incomplete com- munication. The gestures may be the same; the initiation the same; the respondents different and the reception and perception dissimilar. The process of socialization, therefore, takes place in three stages: 1. The infant becoming "habituated" to a sequence of behaviors and events through some psychogenic process. 9 The introduction of the triadic relationship of the gesture, the initiation and the respondent. 3. The internalization of symbols and the emergence of commun- ication. 2. If the individual defines (has meaning for) himself, as well as gihgr obiects, actions, and characteristics, the organized ccmmnnizi or social group which gives to the individual his unity of called the “generalized other." It is inevitable that as the individual expands his scope (1 interaction and increases the number of respondents and becomes a This is respondent, that he will begin to distinguish his identity. concluded in the develOpment of "self." 12 "The self is something which has a develOpment; it is not initially there at birth, but arises in the pro- cess of social experience and activity, that is, devel- ops in the given individual as a result of his relations to that process as a whole and to other individuals within that process."12 "Self consciousness, rather than affective experience with its motor accomplishments, provides the core and primary structure of the self, which is thus essentially a cogni- tive rather than an emotional phenomenon."13 It is here that the concepts of role and role-playing are revealed in Mead's plan. They arc in the context of another essential concept, that of reference groups.11+ Two central terms introduced by Mead are "I" and "me". They rise out of the development of the concept of self and he defines them as follows: "The "I" is the response of the organism to the attitudes of the others; the “me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes. The attitudes of the others constitute the organized "me", and then one reacts toward that as an "I". The individual which entered society as a "not-yet-human" is niw gaining an awareness of self and things not self and is begin ing to interact with others to the point of internalization of attitudes into "me". The question might be asked if such a dramatic role on the part of cultural others doesn't mean the introduction of cultural dete :‘n- ism. Arnold Rose in his introductory chapter in human penav:.r_;;-_ . - ;,u ,:.;. Social Process antiCipates such a question and presents ei ”t pt-.., as an answer. l2Ihid., p. 135. 13_I_b_i_d., p. 173. l‘L‘Reference group theory will be developed separately, but it is important for its point of origin in symbolic interaction. 15Mead, p. 175. 13 "(a) Some of the interaction between individuals is on a non—cultural or natural-sign level, so that some learned behavior is universally human and independent of specific cultures. (b) Most cultural expectations are for ranges of behavior rather than for specific behaviors. The ex- pectations that people will wear clothes, for example, sets limits for permissible coverings for the human body, but leaves room for considerable choice within those linnts. (c) Most cultural expectations are for certain roles, rather than for all individuals, and for certain situations, rather than all situations, and the individual has some "freedom of choice" among the roles and situations he will enter. Different occupations, for example, require differ— ent clothing, and the process of entering a given OCCUpation is not completely culturally determined. (d) Some cultural expectations are for variation rather than conformity. The scientist and the fashion designer, for example, are cultur- ally expected to be innovators in certain ways, and their innovations are not predictable from the culture. (e) The cultural meanings indicate possibilities for behavior (as the cultural values do.) The fact that a chair is an object to be sat on, for example, does not mean that the chair is only to be used for sitting or that one must always sit when a chair is available. (f) The culture, especially our culture, is often internally inconsistent, and one may move from one culture or subculture to another, so that there are conflicting cultural expectations for an individual. This does not mean solely that the individual has a choice be- tween the two conflicting patterns of behavior he is exposed to, or can make a synthesis of them, but also that he can-- within the lindts permitted by the culture--define for him— self somewhat new patterns suggested by the variaticn among the old ones. (g) To extend the last point somewhat, when- ever the individual is "blocked" in carrying on behavior expected within the society, he has some possibility of innovating-—within the limits of cultural tolerance--to devise new behavior patterns that will take him around the block. The self—-Mead's "I"--is a creative self (the nature of thinking in symbolic interaction theory has already been indicated.) (h) Finally, the symbolic interactionist does not exclude the influence of biogenic and psychogenic fac- tors in behavior, even though he does not incorporate them into his theory. These eight important qualifications to a cultural determinism do not nullify the importance of the basic assumption that all men are born into an on-going society and are socialized in some significant degree into behavior which meets the expectations of its culture.’ '16 As a person gains definition of self he becomes symbolically involved with a larger number of socializing agents. ‘ l6Rose, pp. 13, 15. lb The total community or social group which contributes to the com- plete development of the self Mead names the "generalized other." It is his position that ". . . the behavior of an individual can be under- stood only in terms of the behavior of the whole social group of which he is a member;17 since his individual acts are involved in larger, social acts which go beyond himself and which implicate the other mem- bers of that group."18 3. _fian's thinking_is the internalized conversation of_gcstures ani v can take_place only in relation to the [generalized others." It is Head's position that since man has become socialized (humanized) through the interaction of symbols learned in relation to others, he can conduct an internalized conversation with these gestures only in relation to his "generalized others." When the thought patterns are abstract his relation to the 'gener- alized others" does not assume a reference to any particular individual. The broader the definition of the "generalized other", the more abstract is the thought, For example, when a person contemplates the purpose of man's existance or the poor of the world, his thinking may become very abstract.19 17Further development of reference group theory advances the im- portance of groups to which a person does not belong. l8Mead, pp. 6-7. 19It is interesting to recall the sterotypic image of the "absent-minded” professor or the "unrealistic" philosopher or dreamer. The nature of some mental activities precludes specificity and even Objectivity. 15 When the thinking is concrete it takes that attitude which is expressed toward his behavior by the attitudes of others most closely associated with him in the social situation eliciting thought.20 ". . . only by taking the attitude of the "generalized others" toward himself in one or another of these ways, can he think at all, for only then can thinking--or the internalized conversation of gestures which constitutes thinkinguoccur."21 An obvious implication of this point, and one which is seen by Mead, is that the self-Conscious human being takes his outlook and social attitudes toward a given question or situation from the atti- tudes of a social group, groups, or part of a group to which he belongs. Based upon these memberships the individual makes his choices and governs his actions. What then of the heretics, renegades, mavericks and deviates of society who appear to reject all prior social- ization? The answer to this might be found in the fact that had they not been influenced by their culture or sub-culture, they could not react against it. The relationship between individual and reference groups need not always be positive. However, if there is no surrogate culture which represents the reactionary views of the non-conformist, his actions will be based upon an obscure "generalized other” and his thinking will be very abstract. It is through this process that man learns and becomes a part of a culture or sub—culture. Indeed it is in this way that cultures and societies exist. 20The "generalized other" needn't be a group or even an individ- ual, but might be an object. 21Mead, p. 156. 16 "In this sense and only in this sense, society is more than a collection of individuals; it is a collection of individ— uals with a culture, which has been learned by symbolic communication from other individuals back through time, so that the members can gauge their behavior to each other and to the society as a whole." h. Even though 'old' groups, cultural expectations,_ani personal meanings and values may be dropped, in the sense that they_beccme markedly_lower on the reference relationshipgscale, thgy are not lost or forgotten. "Symbolic interaction's theory shares with psychoanalytic theory the assumption that man never forgets anything.”3 This statement certainly does not mean that all that a person has ever thoughzor done is within range of recall. It does mean that we are the total of our parts and cannot dissever ourselves from anything that has influenced us. Ralph Waldo Emerson used the analogy of food and its effect upon the body when he said that even though we cannot attribute any particular physical characteristic to a given meal, its influence is there and cannot be denied. In the framework of reference group theory this concept has singular implication which will be pursued in some detail in the seccni section of this theoretical presentation. In the setting of symbolic interaction it means that there is no act or event perceptable to man which does not permanently modify his set of symbols. Further, since it is through the conversation of cym- bols that man thinks, no experience is inert as pertains to his ccgni- tive process. 22Rose, p. 10. 3 h) Itid., pp. 16, 17. l7 Bruner says that "thinking is basically an endeavor to anticipate reality.” How an individual interprets an event or condition determines what is "reality" for him.2h 2uThis could Open the entire philosophical question of relativism versus universalism. Although this dichotomy will not be explored as a part of this paper, the contributions from cultural anthropology are are suggested as an excellent source. 18 Presentation of Assumptions for General hypotheses II The introduction of this chapter contains the statement that the theory of reference groups is a "logical outgrowth" from symbolic inter- action. The following presentation of assumptions is taken largely from symbolic interaction. If And, And, And, And, a "significart other" for teachers. 1. if 2. if 3. if h. if 5. 6. The second general hypothesis posits that app. the socialization of an individual is the function of his interaction with individuals and groups, some individuals and some groups exert, or have poten— tial to exert, greater influence than others and thereby become "significant others," "significant others" may be monomorphic or polymorphic in their influence, individuals develop their internalization and interpre- tation of symbols in relation to others, thinking is the "internalized conversation of gestures" and determines perception as well as interpretation, individuals who are perceived as significant--positive;y or negatively--influence the thinking and perception uf those for whom they are significant in those areas which are considered significant. _: .4‘ As such he becomes a mediator .. cirr‘fi:ant other in their perceptions toward another, more obc‘ure, votes EBELPGTSHn of the superintendent of schools. 19 Justification cf Assump‘icns l. The socialization of an individual is the function of his inter- action with individuals andggroups. This assumption parallels the first under the theoretival development for General Hypothesis I. 2. Some individuals and some groups exert, or havegpotential to exert, a)“ t‘A‘A \ U greater influence than oth;rs and thereby become others." Man is a social animal. As an infant he is dependent upon other humans for his sustenance and existance and from that time forth relies upon others and groups of others as a reference fnr his indiVidual identity. The groups of membership and association, aspiration or repulsion open to an individual are almost infinite. A per:;n may have as many different aspects of his ”self" as there are groups in his experiential environment. These variations cf so in relation to one's relative positions to others are defined as 'roles' and "each man in his time plays many parts." Individuals are significant in the lives of others. u may represent many things, both desirable and undesirable, o: .. -.,_ a; in L18 4;-.. another and as such become a "significant other" "Significant others" may be significant because of the rcle they play or their relation to the role or roles played by others. :‘- rother, ani ~"j‘wvee example, a man may be a father, husband, son, F . 7 ‘s- A '3“ ,' ‘ . ' A V r .4 Q. J 1 ‘1‘“; ‘~_ ,r'p' ‘. Arsa‘ we Robert K. Merton, Sc.ial Tuefiry a“. t?”-9A ~«-~ ‘._ J ’ f‘ q . . f ,; llinOis: The Free Press, 19.91, p. Lye. 20 His significance in one role may be far greater than in another, i.e., as a father he may be more significant to this child than to his professional colleagues. It is impossible for a person to exist totally isolated from human culture. Cultures are composed of the inter-relations of individuals and groups . The vast body of literature in group dynamics attests to a fairly recent definition of man's affective, cognitive, and gen- etic interdependence upon man. The greater part of such litera- ture finds genesis in the twentieth century. The writings of Lewin, Cartwright, Zander, Bales, Bogardis, Gibb, and others have been spread with speed and penetration. However, before the advent of those names most commonly associated with reference group theory, there was an intellec- tual harbinger by the name of George Herbert Mead. "Mead was, of course, a forerunner and an important fore- runner in the history of reference group theory, particu— larly with respect to his central conception, variously expressed in his basic writings, but adequately captured in the statement that 'the individual experiences himself as such, not directly, but only indirectly, from the par- ticular standpoints of other individual members of the same group, or from the generalized standpoint of the [H L social group as a whole to which he belongs . Merton goes on to take Mead to task for not engaging in systematic empirical studies and failing to see the significance of groups to which a person did not belong. Head's writings do not specify the particular influenre cf non-membership groups nor do they negate the possible validity 26Ibid., p. 238, 239. 21 of such an inclusion that more recent investigators advance the extension as an expansion rather than a repudiation of the orig- inal notion. The same condition prevails concerning the place of the individual as a reference group.27 The second general hypothesis of this study holds that the building principal is perceived as a "significant other" by his or her teachers. More specifically, since teachers in most large public school systems have little interaction with the superintendent, it is posited that the building principal plays the role of liaison. In this setting the opinions of the prin- cipal, if he is positively perceived by his teachers, would be- come the opinions of his teachers. If he is negatively per- ceived by this teachers,they may or may not share his perceptions. It is important to note that this hypothesis does not imily that the principal is a "significant other" in all Spheres of activity. Merton, in a paper on the pattern of influence, differentiates between the person who has great influence in one area and the leader who has influence in many areas. "Some influentials, and these may be termed monomorphic, are repeatedly cited as exerting influence, but only in one rather narrowly defined area--e.g. the area of politics, or of carrons of good taste, or of fashion. The monomorphic influentials are the "experts" in a limited field, and their influence does not diffuse into other spheres of decisions. Others, and this includes a good number of the top influen- tials, are polymorphic, exerting interpersonal influenc in a variety Of (Sometimes seemingly unrelated) spheres."“' 27 id., p. 28h 281bid., pp. hi3, 1411+. 22 3. "Significant others" may be monomorphic or polymogphic in their influence on others. Because of the near autonomous role the high school prin- cipal enjoys as a "Dean of the Faculty" he is, for good or bad, a "significant other" in the professional lives of teachersf9 The review of literature in Chapter II will present studies which substantiate this statement. However, the principal may not be a person of significance beyond a narrow spectrum of professional activity. He may exert influence on teachers in one area of the school's program or he may be polymorphic to the extent that he is a leader in all areas. It is a consideration of this study that a principal may be of monomorphic significance for teachers representing some reference groups and of polymorphic significance to teachers representing others. 29Two pieces of Michigan State legislation may modify this situa- tion greatly in the coming years. (1) Teacher Tenure Act-~this law provides teachers with job security and freedom from worry about unjust or capricious acts by principals, or (2) Michigan law (Act 336, h23.€09 General Schools Laws, Part III) now provides authorization for collec- tive bargaining by public employees. One of the major purposes of this dissertation is to determine if principals and teachers represent a different community of interests--if in fact they do, it will be further indication that there is a measurable schism between "management and labor" roles of principals and teachers. As these lines become better defined and strengthened, the principal will continue to be a "signifi- cant others" but, in the labor relations Jargon, he will be in an ad- visory position representing management. It is expected that this will be the case and suggest that a replication of this study in a few years will show an interesting change in emphasis between the perception of teachers and principals. 23 Individuals develop their internalization and interpretation of symbols in relation to others. Principals were teachers before they became administrators. As teachers they experienced the same "perceptual mass" as all other classroom teachers. Many of the internalized symbols of the principal were placed into his cognitive pattern as the re- sult of his teaching background. From this shared history, teachers and principals can be expected to have many of the same perceptions. Those which are dissimilar are the result of different experiences and associations introduced to the role of principal. Thinking is the "internalized conversation of gestures" and deter- mines perception as well as interpretation. This assumption is covered in section one of this chapter. Then,¥individuals who aregperceived as significant--positively_cr negatively--influence the thinkinggand perception of those fcr whom they are significant in those areas in which they are considered signifi ant. The preceding development and interpretation is offered as the legitimizing rationale for the second general hypothesis. 2h Part h Hypotheses First Generalgflypothesis High school_principals and teachers have internalized symbols whichgproceed from different experiential back- grounds, including different reference groups and ".13- nificant others" and, therefore,_perceive the same phenomena from different and dissimilar points of view. Second General Hypothesis Agprincipal represents a "significant other" for teachers. As such he becomes a mediator of their perceptions toward another, more obscure, "significant other" in the person of the superintendent of schools. High school teachers who exhibit highgpositive perceptions of their principal will tend to share the principal's perception of the superintendent of schools. 25 Part 5 Overview of Chapters Chapter I - Theoretical Basis The needs for, purposes of, and theoretical Justification of the study are presented in this chapter. Chapter II - The Review of Literature The research reviewed in this chapter is presented under two main headings. 1. Development of a theoretical and empirical foundation for two general hypotheses. (The theoretical section is offered in Chapter One. The empirical foundation constitutes Part 1 of this chapter.) 2. Analysis of other research related to the two general hypotheses. Chapter III - Research Design In Chapter Three the determination of sample selections is explained; the development of instrumentation is presented; hypotheses, design, and analysis are reviewed; and a summary of the chapter is given. Chapter IV - Primarygfindings Data relevant to the two primary hypotheses are presented under two headings in Chapter Four. Those data pertinent to The First Hypothesis are given in Part One: lgindings - Fifferenfial Perceptions in the Fulfillment of Hiu~a- tional Expectations. 26 Data pertinent to the second hypothesis are given in Part Two: Findipgfi - Prinpipal's Role as Intermediary in Teachers' Perception Formation. Chapter V - Supplemental Findings Data related to the major hypotheses in a tangential way are presented and analyzed in this chapter. Findings are reviewed which are supportive xu‘ critical of the results of the primary research. Chapter VI - Summary Chapter Six is divided into three parts. 1. Summapy - This section offers an abstract of the most cogent contributions of the study, together with a concise statement of review in which the purposes, pro- cedures and findings are described in a capsulized format. Discussion - In this section attention is paid to those findings representing the most significant defense or refutation of the assumptions put forth in the study. Implications for Future Research - This study represents a first step. Possible future steps in the same and other directions are outlined in this part of the chapter. CHAPTER II Review of Literature A survey of the literature in educational administration, psychol- ogy, sociology, and social-psychology failed to reveal a study which paralleled the questions at hand closely enough for comparative anal- ysis. Because of the multiple variables involved in this study there are inherent difficulties in the clear delineation of the specific problem within a single discipline. The frame of reference is, therefore, taken from several areas of social science and the conditions are presented under two main headings. 1. Development of a theoretical and empirical foundation for two general hypotheses. (The theoretical section is offered in Chapter One. The empirical foundation constitutes Part I of this chapter.) 2. Analysis of other research related to the two primary hypo- theses. To deal with such a bifurcation of the research question this chapter is organized into two sections, each treated under a separate heading. 27 23 Part 1 Development of an Empirical Foundation For the General Hypotheses Differential Perception "The light within meets the light without." Plato1 In Chapter One an attempt was made to show why people might see the same thing in different ways. In this section of the review of literature studies will be presented which show, in fact, that people do perceive according to what Plato called the "light within" and what Mead and others suggest to be the individual interpretation and internalization of gestures and symbols. "Shared per5pectives are the products of common communi- cation channels. DeSpite the frequent recitation of this proposition, its full implications, especially for the anal- ysis of mass societies, have not been fully appreciated. Variations in outlook arise through segregation, conflict, or simply reading different literature-~leads to the formation of distinctive cultures."2 James Bagby,3 in a study of perception in a cross cultural for- mat compared Mexican and American subjects. He set up ten sets of slides to be viewed through a stereoscope. On one side were mounted pictures of objects familiar to most Mexicans--such as a matador, a dark haired girl and a peasant. On the other side were mounted lQuoted on page 161 of The Nature of Prefiudice by Gordon N. All- port. Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday a Company, Inc. Garden City, N.Y. 1958. 2Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups and Social Control, "gggan —_'. Behavior and Social Processes (Boston: Houghzon, Mifflin Company, l9o2), p. 13h. 3James W. Bagby, "A Cross—Cultural Study of Perceptual Predomin- ance in Binocular Rivalry,f figurnal of Abnormal and Social Psy:hclcgy, Vol. Sh (1957), PP: 33l~33h. 29 pictures of objects in the same general setting of light, shadows, and placement, but familiar to most Americans, i.e., a baseball player, a blond girl, and a farmer. There were some exceptions, but generally the Americans saw what was familiar to them and the Mexicans saw those scenes which represented their culture. Another example of differential perception is presented by Jerome Bruner in his chapter, The Cognitive Process in The Nature of Prejpdices by Gordon Allport where he quotes E. G. Malhurbe.“ "In South Africa on a Public Service Examination, can- didates were instructed to "underline the percentage that you think Jews constitute of the whole population in South Africa: 1 percent, 5 . . . ., lO . . . ., 15 . . . ., 2O . . . ., 25 . . . ., 30 percent." When tabulated, the modal estimate turned out to be 20 percent. The true answer is just a little over 1 percent." It would be interesting to replicate such a questionnaire in America and expand it to other ethnic or religious groups. "When Mead spoke of the 'generalized others' he was not referring to people but to a shared perspective."5 The more peOple have this "shared perspective" or the more they relate themselves to the same or similar "generalized others" the more they will tend to have common perceptions. "The more alike members of a teaching group are in terms of their attitudes toward leadership, the more they are alike in the amount of satisfactions derived from working in the school situation."b 1‘E. G. Malhurbe, Race Attitudes and Education, Hornle Lecture, l9h6. Johannesburg: Institute of Race Relations. SShibutani, p. 132. 6Donald C. Mayer, "Leadership that Teachers Want," Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The university of Chicago, Vol. III, No. 7, (March 1955 . 30 In the two examples of perception based upon, or influenced by, attitudes about ethnic grouping the facts of reality were clear to the respondants. They could see the slides and that which is seen by witnesses is admitted as valid evidence in the courts. The people who were sure that there were more Jews than I in 100 could draw upon their The significant factor personal experiences as a basis for Judgment. in these cases is that two different groups actually viewed the same thing differently in one instarce and perceived reality differently in the other. According to the theory of symbolic interaction there is a sound explanation of how people develop their individual sets of symbols based upon experience gained through interaction. The question which becomes apparent is how can different people see reality in different ways and accommodate to their interpretation? One explanation to gain wide circulation is put forth by Leon Festinger under the title of A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.7 The Basic hypo- theses are: The existence of dissonance being psychologically uncom- "l. fortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance. 2. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to re- duce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance."8 Testing defines dissonance as "nonfitting relations among cogni- If a person experiences something which is in contradiction to tions." what his pattern of symbolic interaction would predict, he experiences TLeon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, and Company, l957). arm's. , p. 3. 31 Such dissonance, is as Festinger says "uncomfortable and dissonance. These steps may take various forms. steps are taken to reduce it." One way a person may diminish the effects of dissonance is to seek information which tends to lessen it while avoiding additional information which would cause its increase.9 For example, the teacher or principal who perceives a situation in a particular way may seek support of what he feels should be, while ignoring conflicting details. Another technique which may work toward the reduction of disso- nance is demonstrated in decision behavior. "Once dissonance exists following a decision, the pressure to reduce it will manifest itself in attempts to increase the relative attractiveness of the unchosen alternative, to establish cognitive overigp, or possibly to revoke the decision psychologically." "Following a decision there is an increase in the con- fidence in the decision or an increase in the discrepancy in attractiveness between the alternative involved in the Bach reflects successful reduction of choice, or both. dissonance." Once a person makes a commitment through private or public deci- sion he begins to seek information which will Justify his choice. A principal must often make decisions which could likely be viewed by teachers as not entirely in their interests. Their cognitive pro- cesses of symbolic interaction could have them seeking support for a position quite opposite that of the principal's. A concluding statement by Festinger which has pertinence in the teacher-principal dyad is as follows: 0 ’Ibido, pp. 21, 22- lOIbid., p. #7. llrbid., p. 83. 32 "If a person is involuntarily exposed to information that will increase dissonance, then in addition to the usual procedures whereby he may reduce this dissonance, there are also set up quick defensive processes which preveng the new cognition from ever becoming firmly established."l“ After a person becomes committed to a position he may actually prevent himself from perceiving conditions contrary to what he wants to see.13 Osgood and Tannenbaum, in their development of the Principal of Congruity, appear to have said much the same thing as Festinger, if not in as much depth. "The Principal of Congruity in human thinking can be stated quite succinctly: changes in evaluations are always in the direction of ificreased congruity with the existing frame of reference."1 Summary of Part I In Chapter One, and to this point in Chapter Two, much has been said about the general theoretical basis for positing that people in different role positions do perceive the same things differently. This study deals with the perceptions of a number of factors in the operation of the American high school as seen by teachers and prin- cipals. The list of dichotomous relationships in human interaction is long. Such role pairs as leader-follower, ruler-subject, superior- subordinate, management-labor, and administrator-teacher are accepted lelbid., p. 137. 13The principal who adheres to the "old ways" while his school foments for change may quite honestly plead unawareness of the current of unrest. l"Charles E. Osgood and Percy H. Tannenbaum, "The Principal of Congruity in the Prediction of Attitude Change," Psychological Review, Vol. 62, so. I, (1955). 9- A3. 33 as real by most observers. Secondary characteristics, in fact and word, reinforce this relationship of strata. Terms like "white collar", blue collar", ”front office", and "executive washroom" tend to formal- ize these differences. Practices of salary differentiation, power to hire or fire, and union negotiations with management offer empirical evidence to solidify a concept into an observable fact. The research reviewed in this chapter is representative of docu- mented differential perceptions. This study is addressed to the investigation of possible differential perceptions by teachers and principals. Part 2 Analysis of Other Research Related To the Two General Hypotheses The research reported in this section has bearing upon the general hypotheses in a less direct manner than that presented in The analysis of variables and data based upon this research Part One. The literature is presented in Chapter Five as supplemental findings. reviewed here has strong, albeit, indirect relevance for the main themes of this paper. Teachers are unquestionably important within the walls of their Because teachers do not enjoy the same degree individual classrooms. of "professional prominence" as principals they could be expected to see themselves and their roles in a less secure fashion and, therefore, seek to defend against any implied threat. A relationship which might be expected to issue from this setting is that teachers would tend to rate very high any questions dealing with competency and innovativeness of teachers. "Each individual adjusts to the situation according to Since the the way he perceives it, and not as it "really" is. leader’s perceptions of the prevailing attitude trends exist- ing in a group tend to be more realistic than those of non— leaders and isolates, the changes of their adequate adjustment are greater than those of non-leaders and isolates."1) Principals, having been teachers, have experienced the frame of reference of the teachers. Changes in the perception of the two groups are assumed to be the result of a broader, more varied set of symbols on the part of the principals. 15Kamla Chowdey and Theodore M. Newcomb, "The Relative Abilities of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own Groups," 09°). pp. 51-57. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. #7, (1,,c 35 Job satisfaction may be a function of principal and teacher interaction. "Those teachers whose wants and needs were in agreement with their principal's expectations would express significantly higher job satisfaction than those teachers whose wants were in conflict with the principal's definition of the teacher's role." An observation made in this study was that teachers who were in 16 agreement with the principal were laudatory of his ability, while This would those who never mentioned him, complained of other things. seem to support an expected relationship that teachers perceive prin- cipals more positively than do principals. In 196Q.Ruth E. Hartley conducted a study with college freshmen to determine if, how, and to what extent a new reference group met the needs of students.17 Just as a class becomes, positively or negatively, a reference A group for a student, so also, does it become such for a teacher. teacher is more closely identified with the success or failure-real The teacher or imagined--of a class than is any individual student. is perceived by students of the class most often in reference to that class. How students are perceived by the teacher is a function of how well they meet expectations held for students by that teacher. "The more successful a new group is perceived to be in meeting the personal needs of an individual, in comparison with his established groupé, the more likely he is to accept it as a reference group." 16Merton V. Campbell, "Teacher-Principal Agreement on the Teach- er Role," Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago, Vol. VII, No. 6, (February 1959). l7Puth E. Hartley, "Personal Needs and the Acceptance of a New Group as a Reference Group," The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 51, (1960), pp. 3h9'358- 18mm” p. 350. 36 A teacher must rely upon the activities of a class for a large measure of professional and personal gratification. How well these personal and professional needs are met determines teacher perceptions of students. In the instance of teacher perception of students the factor of expectation is the crucial variable. In the area of curriculum a new notion is introduced--a process, a method, a result, rather than a person or persons. "The higher the status position of the group or individ- ual, the greater the tendency for that group or individual to internalize responsibility for an improved state of affairs.“19 Unlike the situation in which the person of authority and secur- ity may minimize his personal importance, in matters of perceived achievement the internalization is great. (Pepitone substantiated the above hypothesis but posits the question as to whether failure would bring the same reSponse.) On items dealing with curriculum the principal can make positive responses on the questionnaire without appearing immodest or insincere and at the same time attribute excellence of administration and program to himself. Teachers are also involved with curriculum to the point that they will internalize a degree of responsibility for programs in their area. A presentation of the possibility that teachers and principals would perceive the same situations in a dissimilar fashion may appear as a "commonplace ponderously announced." It would, perhaps, seem l9Albert Pepitone, ”Attribution of Causality, Social Attitudes, and Cognitive Matching Processes," Person Perce tion and Interlersoual Behavior, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,Ti9iE-) pp.‘ 258-275. as obvious to state that the more highly valued a person perceived himself to be to a group, the greater will be his attraction and his evaluation of himself in its function. Jay M. Jackson discovered this assumption to be invalid.20 He found that a person tended to minimize his perceived value if he really was important and to maximize it if he was not. The principal of a school is, by definition, a valued person. If he or she is secure as an individual in that position, he or she would not, according to Jackson, have to prove the point. There are three scales in the research instrument which consider the principal; one dealing with ability to meet the needs of the school, one with the number and quality of innovations, and one with the prin- cipal's ability to deal with people. If, in fact, the principal is not threatened in his position, he or she could be expected to mini- mize the principal's role in each of these scales. There is evidence to support the possibility that teachers would be willing (and able under the provisions of Festinger's theory) to accommodate weakness and errors on the part of the principal in an effort to preserve the positive image. "Can it be assumed that when contrast occurs between associated events, this has the effect of decreasing the probability of activation of one event by the other so that the connection between the events will actually be weakened? If so, a familiar reaction to a certain situation might be A reSpected person performs some act that is explained. socially disapproved. Instead of this disapproval general- izing to the man, the act may actually tend to be forgotten or to remain dissociated from the concept of the man. QQJaer. Jackson, "Reference Group Processes in a Formal Organ- Group Dynamics Research and Theory, 2nd ed. D. Cartwright Row, Peterson and Company, 1960). ization," and A. Zander (Evanston, Ill.; 38 "...The relation is stronger from antecendent to con— In this case, generaliza- sequent than in other directions. tion is more likely to occur from act to man than from man to act."2 The teacher is the person who must work for the school district in the public relation aSpects of bond and millage elections which, in salaries. The teachers represent many instances, directly affect The principal represents their classes and themselves in this effort. the school. The principal meets with community representatives at a different A level which is often free from individual level than do teachers: The principal many times sees only the extremes student orientation. Both principals and teachers of the community support or opposition. see their claim for tax and community support to be the most important. Blake and Manton researched this aspect of group identification and found that: "...group members evaluate their own group above the Judgments they accord to the proposal from a comparison The over evaluation of one's own group product rela- group. tive to a comparison group can be interpreted in several (a) as due to perceptual distortion stemming from ways: group identification and needs in a situation where personal adequacy via group adequacy serves as a criterion of accept- ance or rejection under win-lose conditions; (b) as stemming from distortions in reporting evaluations for the instrumental purpose of "winning" or because of greater familiarity with the rational reasons and premises of one's own group's solu- tion." 21Helen Peak, "Psychological Structure and Person Perception," _Pgrson Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, ed. Renato Taguiri and Luigi Petrullo (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1928‘, PP- 337-352. 22Robert R. Blake and Jane Suggley Manton, "Over Evaluation of " Journal of Abnormal Our Own Group's Product in Intergroup Competition, and Social Psychology, Vol. 6h, No. 3, (1962), pp. 237-235. 39 From the foregoing statement the assumption is taken that those for whom the school represents a very significant reference group will tend to see community support as less favorable than those for whom the schools are less significant. Principals and primary wage earners represent the two groups for whom schools could be expected to be most closely associated with ego. For these groups the school represents the setting of career commit- ment and personal success is interrelated with school success. The principal is subject to the same factors of identification with school as are other primary wage earners. In addition to these, he is influ- enced by two other conditions. First, whereas the teacher is most specifically associated with the happenings of one class or subject, the principal is associated with all aspects of the school program. For him school could be ex- pected to represent an even more significant generalized other than for teachers. An important aspect of school success is community support of that school. The intimate connection between school accept- ance and professional stature is strong for a principal. It would tend to enhance his view of self if his perception of community support were favorable. Second, a more measurable consideration is apparent in the higher salaries received by principals. This might also tend to re-inforce a natural prOpensity to perceive community support positively. From this rationale an expected relationship would be that prin- cipals would rank community support higher than would teachers. In 1961, A Robert Kahn and Fred E. Feidler reported a study in which they measured the people perception of subjects on the variables of age and sex. Their hypothesis that "Females will perceive significant no figures in their interpersonal environment more favorably than will males,’ was confirmed.23 If this finding were to be interpreted in an educational setting it might be suggested that female teachers are not in professional competition with the principal or superintendent. The assump- tion that female teachers are not comparing themselves to princ-pals and superintendents and, therefore, not as critical is given additional cred- 'Fe~ ence in the non—significance of Kahn's and Feidler's hypothesis that males will assume more similarity to 'significant others' than will males."2u Age is an important variable in that as well as exerting influence alone, it subsumes many other factors. All the forces that impinge over time can be demonstrated as a function of age. This study considers the newest teachers, and the most experienced, by age. Kahn and Feidler confirmed a hypothesis that "older subjects will perceive more differences in personality traits among their 'significant others' than will younger subjects."25 Summary of Part 2 The preceding pages describe research considering various aspects of interaction among people according to selected variables. These studies tend to legitimize a more inclusive study but do not represent a definitive body of research in this area. Related studies have been conducted in social-psychology, sociol- ogy, and psychology. A broad look at educational administration with;n the framework presented has yet to be made. 23A. Robert Kahn and Fred B. Feidler, "Age and Sex Difference in the Perception of Persons," Sociometry, Vol. 2h, No. 2, (June l9tl). 2“ Ibid. 251bid. CHAPTER III Research Design The design of this study is directed toward the collection of data which will provide evidence for the acceptance or rejection of two general hypotheses. An ancillary purpose of this approach is the development of a large number of related variables for analysis. These data will be presented in Chapter Five as Supplemental Findings. The operational hypotheses are presented here. OPERATIONAL HYPOTHESES First Operational Hypothesis High school teachers and principals will exhibit significantly different perceptions of professional expectation fulfillment as re- flected by rank order correlations of teachers' and principals' re- sponses to the research instrument. This statement implies only difference and not extent or direc- tion of that difference. Implicit in the theoretical foundation of the study is the acknowledgment that teachers and principals have many shared experiences because principals have also been teachers and some teachers aspire to become principals. The difference posited in this hypothesis are those which might issue from the differentiating demands and experiences of the educator as administrator. 1d he Design for the study of this hypothesis includes the presentation of a rank order correlation of various population segments on many per- ceptual variables. A.scale by variable presentation will diSplay dif- ferences or sameness in specific areas under investigation. A number of relationships will be treated individually as evidences in support of the hypotheses. Second Qperational_§yppthesis High school teachers with a mean rank of 12 or higher on the three scales of the Principal Category of the research instrument used in this study will tend to share their principal's perception of the superintendent as measured by mean differences on the three scales of the Superintendent Category of the same instrument. It is expected, therefore, that teachers exhibiting positive perception of the principal will tend to share his perception of the superintendent. The design for analysis of this hypothesis will involve a rank order correlation of principals and staff by schools. Comparisons, displayed graphically, will be made between schools of the same dis- trict, and all urban schools compared with all rural and suburban units. Scales dealing with perceptions of principals and superintendents will provide the variables. The collection of data relevant to the support or rejection of the hypotheses has been facilitated through the develOpment of an in- strument designed to measure differential perceptions. The perceptions ultimately chosen for measurement comparisons were based upon the degree to which the professional environments of principals and teachers lived up to their respective professional eXpectations. h3 After consideration was given several approaches, the matrix of a forced choice, dyadic set was accepted. The instrument was organized to measure three items (scales) in each of six areas (categories) of the educational enterprise. The six areas dealt with the perceptions held by teachers and principals toward: 1. Faculty 2. Superintendent 3. Students h. Curriculum 5. Principal 6. Community - Parents — Building These six categories were selected on the premise that they represented the four major individuals or groups associated with the daily operation of the high school as well as considering the curric- ulum and outside influences such as community, parents, and school plant. The selection of the Specific items for each category was made through use of a panel of nine experts who chose the eighteen items from a group of fifty-four. They were picked on the assumption that they would be both discriminating and comprehensive within categories. The items from which the instrument was developed are presented below by category and scale. Category_I - Faculty Scale 1 - Professional competence of faculty. Scale 2 - Numbers and quality of innovations by fac ty members. Scale 3 - Job satisfaction of faculty members. Scale h Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 Scale 2 ale 10 U) (3 Scale 11 Scale 12 l§1ale lé C‘ ‘ v7 of‘fl-.e lg ‘t—u.“ Students' Students' ha Category II - Superintendent Ability of district superintendent to deal with people. Numbers and quality of innovations by district superintendent. Superintendent's ability to see and meet present and future needs of district. Category III - Students Students' ability to work without supervision. motivation to learn. satisfaction with school. Category IV — Curriculum Curriculum for students from the full range of academic ability. - Capac1ty of curriculum to meet the full range of academic ability. Concern for the student in both academic and non-academic 81‘283. . Catgicfiy V - Principal Ability of principal to deal with people. Number and quality of innovations by this school's principal. future needs Principal‘s ability to see and meet present and of district. Category VI - Community - Parents - Building Community's willingness to pay for quality school program. Extent to which parents take an active interest in this school's program. Educational adequacy of this school's buildi.g or tuildings. Each of the eighteen items was paired with every other item, appearing as Part A in half the pairing, and appearing as Part B in the other half. The l53 dyads developed through this process were arranged in random order. The inclusion of a question as to whether the respondent was interested in the results of the study brought the total number of selection opportunities to 15h and completed the body of the instrument. A cover page containing a statement of purpose and marking direc- tions was attached to each questionnaire A second page called "Pro- fessional Category Questions" was also included and will be explained in greater detail in this chapter. The final page of instructions COUtfilflEd sections on organization and points of clarification. The criterion upon which reSpondents were asked to make their decision in each dyad was: Select the one item in each set which m:rt This standard of comparison was explained on pages 1 and 3 of the introduction and appeared at the top of pages 1, 5, 8 and 10 in the body of the questionnaire.1 Page two of the introduction was designed to gather informaticn about the respondent's professional background and be:ame the source of data analysis by variables. All scoring of answer sheets and or~an~ ization of data was acccmplished by data processing, consequently page two was developed to meet the specifications of an eighty column unit record card. By classification and number, the variables to te considered were as followS‘ 1See Appendix B for research instrument. #6 1. Professional position - Two variables 2. Wage earner status - Two variables 3. Gender - Two variables h. Years experience — Ten variables 5. Curriculum areas - Ten variables 6. Age - Seven variables This sheet made possible the comparison of data through combina— tions of thirty-three professional information variables. The further variables of schools (20) and types of schools (3) increased the possibility for data analysis by twenty-three. Each scale could also becompared on every other variable (18) as could each category of information (6), resulting in a potential of in excess of 5,000 combinations for statistical or graphic correlations and pre- sentations. Experimental Design Of the possible 5000 correlations possible under the general design of this study in which all variables would be measured against all others, delimitation has limted the choices as follows: PROFESSIONAL CATEGORY QUESTIONS 1. All scales - Principal/Teacher Groupings - 2 2. All scales - Primary/Secondary Groupings - 2 3. All scales - Sex Groupings - 2 h. Teachers by Experience Groupings - h 0 N = 37 1 N = 13 2 N = 16 9 N = 21 (All over 8 years) h? 5. Teachers by Curriculum Groupings - 5 12 Physical Science 13 Natural Sciences 16 Social Science 26 Humanities l3 Guidance Services mwNHO 22222 ll 6. Teachers by Age Groupings - h o N = 36 (20-25 years) 1 N = 17 (26-30 years) 5 N = ll (hé-so years) 6 N = 1h (Over 50 years) 7. All scales by school Groupings - 20 01 Urban District 11 Rural District 02 H H l 2 H n 03 n n 13 N H m II n l)" I. I. O 5 n n l 5 N 06 .. " 16 ~ 0 7 n " l 7 n O 8 n n 18 u n 09 n N 10 " " l9 Suburban District 20 " " Analysis of the thrity-nine selected variables will produce 7L1 rank order correlations from which pertinent information will be selected. Further delineation of the categories is presented with the directions to the instrument. See Appendix B. Precedent for Format Selections The forced choice dyad is based upon the same organizational rationale as the Edwards Personal Preference Scale. Pilot Test In order to test the instrument for clarity of instructions and understanding by respondents it was admdnistered to the principal and eighteen staff members of a large suburban high school. Post-test h8 interviews confirmed that, although repetition was great, the meaning was clear and the instructions adequate. An analysis by inSpection of the results of the pilot test gave no indication that the instrument would not measure what it was intended to determine. Further testing of the instrument alone would constitute a complete study. Since the purposes of this study were not directed toward such a goal, need for continued instrument testing is acknowledged as a limitation of this design. Design of Analysis Methodology This study is addressed to two major hypotheses. Because of its complexity and reliance upon forced choices, it did not yield to a simple null hypothesis with a statistical determination of significance. ReSponses to all scales of every category were analyzed by rank order correlation. Such correlations were run on an IBM 1620 computer. Sample The data used in this study are taken from responses made by 20 high school principals and ll8 high school teachers to a research in- strument. These subjects represent twenty high schools, of which ten are urban, eight rural, and two suburban, selected randomly from all high schools within a one hundred mile radius of East Lansing, Michigan. Urban schools represent four major population centers in units of one, two, three and four. Rural areas are represented by eight schools of varying sizes and student body composition. The two suburban schools are from the same county and represent middle to upper middle income areas surrounding a large population center. “9 The questionnaires were delivered to each principal and a short orientation session was conducted in which the desired sample of school staff was explained and a commitment to c00perate was received. Two of the twenty principals are women and all are primary wage earners. All principals in the sample for this study had served as class- room teachers prior to gaining their administrative positions. It is reasonable to assume that as teachers they were subject to the same stimuli as their peers. Their motives for entering professional edu- cation may or may not have similarities to their counterparts who re- mained in the classroom situation. This study does not encompass a measurement of possible value change between the teaching and admin- istrative phases of the individual careers. It is assumed that while there will be.much that is held in common, differences between teachers and principals in their perception of the school situation are a func- tion of their reSpective roles each with its attendant symbolic inter- nalization and interaction. Teachers in each school were selected on the following criteria: Female, primary wage earner who has taught three years or 1. less. 2. Female, primary wage earner who has taught more than five years. 3. Female, supplemental wage earner who has taught three years or less. h. Female, supplemental wage earner who has taught more than five years. Male teacher who has taught less than three years. 5. Male teachers who has taught more than five years. 6. \fi C) 7. Staff member who is not in a classroom setting, i.e., counselor, librarian, et cetera. Not all schools participating in the study had personnel in every category. This accounts for the total sample of 138 rather than the 160 which would have constituted a complete group from each school. Number of subjects in each variable category are shown in Table l on page 5h. CHAPTER IV PrhmuyithUngs In this chapter data will be presented in two parts. Part One titled Findings - Differential Perceptions in the Fulfillment of Edu- cational Expectations will treat the premise of the first hypothesis. Data for this part will be summarized in the chapter with the predon- derance of graphically displayed information placed in Appendix A. Part Two called Findings - Principal's Role as Intermediary in Teachers' Perception Formation will treat the premise of the second hypothesis. Data for this part will be analyzed in tabular form.and summarized in the chapter with the majority of graphically displayed information placed in Appendix A. Part 1 Findings - Differential Perceptions in the Phlfillment of Educational Expectatiops First General Hypothesis High schoolpprineipals and teachers have internalized symbols which proceed from different experiential bachgzgundsi,includingpdiffnr- ent referencepgroups and ”significant others" and4_theref3re, perceive _£§e same_phenomena from different and dissimilar points of view. A rank order correlation of all responses made by all subjects On each of the eighteen scales of the research instrument is presented in Figure 1. 51 52 If the respondents selected a particular scale item each time it was paired with each other item it would have the highest rank of 18, meaning that of all those factors under consideration it most nearly met the professional expectation of the respondents. That scale item selected least often when paired with each other scale item would have the lowest rank of 1. If an item were ranked as 9 it would mean it was selected ninth.most often of the eighteen scale items when paired with each of the other, and so on throughout each possible ranking. Principals and teachers each ranked every scale item as paired with each other scale item. Rank order correlation of choices by teachers and principals on the total instrument was .888. Correlations of pOpulation sub-categories compared to all prin- cipals appear as Figures 2 through 18 in Appendix A and are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 presents a comparison and correlation of all principals and all teachers on all scales and is found on page 53. 53 mam. .- any Fall! In... .4435: all. u D. on 3 a ma Na d 3 a w a. w m 4 m m a 56m 38 35m H» > E HS 3 H umoouaH HHH HH Hmouna >H HHH umooua E HHH HH H Nmouwa 3 Autummog ‘K IIIQV P998 v-i . A redrawn; R 1 ‘K .1 UOI'iBADUUI 5' ‘ ~ H I'd‘FOUI-Id "IiIIqu affiooa ,1 ItdIOUtza I omepwsv-uog _. r put awepeav , 52313 4 K AQIIIQV aims—:63 ‘ H thrusting 3011313ltlts 4H *1 1; ‘1 15 16 17 18 \ A v SCALE 13 In. 4A4’4“ l 101112 QUOPWAS 60" 3‘AI 3* N1“ ‘ Qu’PIWS *‘ III SCALE 8 £3113?!“qu _ I "’ auopnig .. ’ I V‘ I . _ / “"mmu— '_ ,0 Innqv peas , ) 4V1 '3dns “4 4~ I uor’iikouul 'tdns £$IITQV Otdoaa ’ ‘3 mdnell V) J ,J: {301133591199 < "7 qop Karma-I I H g N uomoxouul LEN i I I\ I I SCALE 5 ffi~1+_ fiarnavs [anomadmog Teacher- nrirais l a. “Iv-Ff Fig. 25. - MEAN RANKS 0F PRINCIPAL COMPARED WITH SELECTED TEACHERS FROM URBAN SCHOOL N0178 ON ALL SCALES C A T E G O R Y [awnbap ”UTPIIDE VI SCALE -_§'535¢UI H quervg A? zioddns Aarunmuog strtqv Peas T‘dT mus TI 13 Ilh 15 16 17 18 ~a=¢=====t=egr notiwsouuz tvdwuud [a I. v "Iittrqv ardoea ItdIaUIza OIWQp‘DV-UOR pus aruopvav “‘1 ‘8‘ tie IV SCALE aiuwg £1IIIQV III I SCALs 0 11 12 t 819 eietdmoo Intnarsxno suopnzs POIzavziizvsl 14/ 1.; Borsziuow zuapnzs L'X h— Iaulpusdspnx nuapnns liIIIQV P°°N 'adns II SCALE notiiaouut °idns Iztttqv ardooa '26“? --¢__, 001%3'191138 qor Kirnaeg notiwaouuz turnovs Kauaiédmos Ann"; h—nfi==--__i E 15"1 ‘\ .4.4 I] -—-——-Te-ch-ri o-u—-!51nci'all O‘- ‘J in Table 7 data from two Schools in the same urban school dis- trict are presented. TABLE 7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS BY PRINCIPALS AND SELECTED TEACfiEhS FROM TWO URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS OF THE SAME DISTRICT ON THREE SCALES OF CATEGORY II - SUPERINTZHDENT Positive Principal Difference of Superin— Total Lifferenne School Perception by Scale tendent Perception by School by Scale 13 in 15 k 5 6 Q "" "" 11+ 105 2 305 7 10 -— .-- 15 1 O 5 6 Difference by Scales 2.5 2 8.5 H 13 Teachers having the highest perception of their principal exhibited a pattern of superintendent perception most like those of their pri:*i:al (School 10). Those teachers having lower perc ptions of their principal exhibited a commensurately lower agreement of perception with their principal (School 9). Summarv of data from nine urban high schools representing three school ——_— _-I..— district ()1 Considering the relation between positive perceptions of prin- cipal and total differences between teavhers and principals there are nine incidents of measure, one for each of the schools. The combination of highest perception of principal by tea2hers and lowest total differences between teachers and principals on fh (0 three scales of Category II ~ Superintendents, was observed seven times. One tie Occurrei and there was one :ase wher the highest prin2igal 68 ranking was two ranks higher than the second. Thus seven cases out of nine measures were in a direction supportive of the second hypo- thesis. Individual Urban School In Table 8 data from one urban school are presented. TABLE 8 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS BY PRINCIPAL AND SELECTED TEACHERS FROM ONE URBAN HIGH SCHOOL ON THREE SCALES OF CATEGORY II - SUPERINTENDENT Positive Principal Difference of Superin- Total Difference School Perception by Scale tendent Perception by School by Scale 13 1h 15 h 5 6 5 -- -- l2 3 3.5 O 6.5 This single school represents an urban area with onLy one high school and, therefore, cannot be compared within the district. The mean difference between perceptions of the superintendent held by teachers and the principal is 6.5. (,u aha: econ. Idea"... .2 .330 . c _ U nu p m." NH HA OH m w v w m 3 Mg gm 30m > >H HHH HH y m o o m .H. < o wgom a 20 qoomom ZOE mmflmofifi. Qweémm IE3 am >H HHH HH H HmoomaH HHH NHOOHB- aroma; 0-— ——4— ——<>— OI'H .4,— __ exauxwg 33?“ Kanpuooas sxauxva sang Axvmlgd NUMBERS AND QUALITY OF INNOVATIONS BY FACULTY MEMBERS sxaqovam ‘\ Fig. hO. - MEAN RANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WTTH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON STVJIDKIHd A4 3 R: ll 16 15 in 13 12 10 L__l;_____1. __ 79 two scales, teachers ranked teacher competence and innovation higher than did the principals thirty-two times, below principals once, and the same three times. Remark Teachers ranked those scales in the Faculty Category dealing with competency and innovation higher than did principals on thirty-two of a possible thirty~six occasions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principals and teachers. Category I — Faculty Scale 3 - Job satisfaction of faculty members. Data presented in Figure Al. The mean rank of all principals is 10. The mean rank of all teachers is 10. 0f the eighteen teacher classifications, two rank job satisfaction above 10, ten rank it below 10, and six at 10. BM Principals ranked Faculty Job Satisfaction higher than did teachers on ten of a possible eighteen occasions with six ties. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationship as evidence of differential perception between principals and teachers. Category II - Superintendent Scale h - Ability of district superintendent to deal with pecpie. Scale 5 - Numbers and quality of innovations by district superin- tendent. Scale 6 - Superintendent's ability to see and meet present and future needs of district. II LAC ‘ Litiif‘. '7‘ OF .I m-CATE'IGI’IE’IES {- O WI’I“! 7‘ u) .i .' 1.11 ‘-.. ~Dn ------ JI "R 8:931 09 JaAO 09-9w 83v OE-9a 83v 4~——— sa-oa vBV Suttasunoo I > ? BOUBPIUD |,/ SQIQIUVWHH I A BOUSIDS I > IBIOOS I I BOUuIOS qr TBJUQBfi I . aouaios I N I Inotsfiud . gr I SJBGL 8 JBAO {I I 1L A ‘ I ‘_ I mdx pit II V" LP4 A 0" I II Noni} -. _ MK" ‘L—Ay— «r- —+-—-4>— —f— I '4' I atemag I 9T9?! __“ ___ '1 e _- SJaUlQE 838“ I ct). I I I ' C‘ ; / I : I maPuooao «I—II 'i/ _+ +— L—T SJdUJBS shun - 4L— - -f- - I - — SJBQDBOL KIT I I I \ I I -4>——4 1r 0 Li 9 4r 1r 1} o-- —-l- —O —4 — 1» e o o 0—— -1> - - » o— ‘»—+- snunmnn I I II t n+- é ! I K:- ID '3 (n O- A f" .3 {If {veg ‘.',_3I(" If- .—4 C2 LSIHIr—ILHr—«HHH I l I l i_'_ i l i l l 81 Data for this relationship are taken from Scales h, 5, and 6 of Category II and are displayed in Figures h2, A3, and uh. The mean rank of a11 principals on Scale h is 3. The mean rank of all teachers is 5. 0f the eighteen teacher classifications, eight rank the superintendent's ability to deal with people above 3, four rank it below 3, and five at 3. The mean rank of all principals on Scale 5 is l. The mean rank of all teachers is 2. 0f the eighteen teacher classifications, twelve rank the superintendent's innovativeness above 1, and five at 1. There are, of course, no selections below 1. The mean rank of all principals on Scale 6 is 13. The mean rank of all teachers is 13. Of the eighteen teacher classifications, four rank the superintendent's ability to meet needs above 13, six rank it below 13, and seven at 13. Remark Principals ranked those items dealing with the superintendent lower than did teachers on twenty-four of a possible fifty-four occas- ions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principal and teachers. CategorinII - Students Scale 7 - Students' ability to work without supervision. Scale 8 - Students' motivation to learn. Scale 9 - Students' satisfaction with school. Data are presented in Figures h5, h6, and A7. The mean rank of all principals on Scale 7, Category III is a. The mean rank of all teachers on Scale 7 is l. BEAN FISH COMPARISON OF PPINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON Fir. LIP. - JITH PEOPLE JTHYDEXT TO DEAL if TICTRICT SURF} APILTTY CF axis; 09 13AO og-9w 83v oE-9a 33V i./ 98-08 83V [I Surtasunog Q GOUFPTDD \[ :11..- satqtuemng /\ fi aouatos IBIOOS aouatog TanieN BOUBIOS Ivorsfind /\ 9193; 8 JQAO Ina; pJE sea; pug 3‘33 QSI aremag 919“ VA\\ SJBUJBE 989“ Axepuooag —-4 szaUJea 389M Kismet: ssaqosem >—--1 "Al iz’"4 ‘1 I“'—“h”—fi— SIVdIQNIHd E Ct 13 17 l6 15 IO Q 31331 05 1350 og-9n 88v 0E-9a 83v 'Y‘WT‘ ni‘a ,P‘ IA Sa-oa arv v-v- ‘ I SITPHRIII‘I‘HI‘. SutIasunoa aouwp n satituumnn aouatos IBIoos sonatos Turning aouatos tsetsfiud 51991 8 ISAC FY DISTRICT Ive; DIE snag pug 1981 QSI aIsmag 3T?” ssauxea a M filepuooag SJBUJBH even filtm’ SJdQOBdL ‘ - IID QUAJ TW OF INIJCE'A’T‘IONF‘; (w 'v~(V 'JJF‘A'II In INK SIVdIONIdd _‘ r \L‘ \ g: PWIC- H I Fig. AB. - ?_JUIFANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON ‘u'uxoS-tuo 05-911 09v oE-9a 09V 92-02 09V Buttosnnoo 9 93“‘PI“9 satqtnvunfl am annexes V1008 annexes Inxnaeu annexes twotsfind 81‘31 9 JGAO 1‘31 Pig ]\ IP31 PUB \] 1‘31 3ST /I arenas 3I‘H BJOUJ‘Z 333M fimwpuooas -——4r— wanna 399M filvmlld Slaqowal STVJIONIHd SUPERIN'I‘EIIDENT'S ABILITY TO SEE AND MEET PRFSENm ’6 m Fig. uh. - MEAN RANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON 18 1? 16 15 1h 12 10 lava; 0g saao 09-9n 98v 08-98 93v 98-03 98v Iasunoo sequnemnn aenexes rewos aenexes Ivlnsvn aenexes twatsfiud save; 8 Jeao 1‘31 Fig 1‘31 PVC 1931 QSI aromas arvw sieurea n Amepnoees 9130193 afien £19m sxeqeee; STUDENTS' ABILITY TO WORK WITHOUT SUPERVISION STleafllfid Fig. “5. - MEAN RANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON 5 a: I-IEAN RANK COT'EPARISON C‘F PRINCIPALS WITH Sim-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON Fig. us. - amxog Juo 06-9n 39v OE‘93 39V 58-08 83v mtasnnoo Q “au‘Ptnfl saxsxnuuna aenexes macs 301181 OS reruns eenexes Isorsfiud .4».— sxwex g Jaao 1931 pig -—4 1931 DUB -IL. “"I" -—4>———- 1‘31 19I KI —4>— -—- IZTUDEIYI‘F' MOTIVATION TO LEARN exnmeg OIVW <——4I _.I_ _I__ __lr_n sxeuxns e39“ Amepnoees 4 - — ——<>———1}——- sxeuzeg eSnM Asemxgg SJBQOBBL T7 — ———+—-— -0-— STVdIONIHd 14 ’6 Ct: 18 17 15 13 12 11 IO 5 ON 'm H p" 1 JA\ Fin. A7. - FIAN RANK COMPARISON or PRINCIPALS WITH CUP-CATEGORIES or T” C CATITFACTION WITH SCHOOL f"NHWTWT' expel 0g Jano 09-9n 88v OE‘98 39V 62-08 83v Buxxesunoo T eeuepxns sequuemng aenexes IRIOOS aenexes IVJHQBN aenexes Ivaisfiud area; 8 Jeno Ina; pig see; pUg Ives 1ST exemeg 3T9“ smeuaeg eBnM Axepuoees sseuseg efien ABFWIL1_ SlBQDBdL S'IVdIONIHd I I E rerUWMWQH NQL cw. a: H H H H I I 88 Of the eighteen teacher classifications, seventeen rank Scale 7 below h, one ranks it above h, and there are no ties. The mean rank of all principals on Scale 8, Category III is 12. The mean rank of all teachers on Scale 8 is 7. Of the eighteen teacher classifications, seventeen rank Scale 7 below 12, there are nine above, and one at 12. The mean rank of all principals on Scale 9, Category III is 6. The mean rank of all teachers on Scale 9 is 6. 0f the eighteen classi- fications, six are above 6, four are below, and eight are tied. 133M Principals ranked the three items dealing with students higher than did teachers on forty of a possible fifty-four occasions. Indica- tions appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principal and teachers. Category IV - Curriculum Scale 10 - Curriculum for students from the full range of academic ability. Scale 11 - Capacity of curriculum to meet the full range of aca- demic ability. Scale 12 - Concern for the student in both academic and non- academic ability. Data are presented in Figures h8, h9, and 50. The mean rank of principals on Scale 10 is 16. The mean rank of teachers is 1h. 0f the eighteen teacher classifications, fourteen rank below the principals, one is above and three show no difference. The mean rank of scale IA is 18 (highest possible) for principals, and 15 for teachers. 0f the eighteen classifications of teachers, seven- late; 09 aaAo 099*; 09v 0998 09V EMIABILITY 63-03 33V Puxtasunoa 9 aW‘PIWD \ _..)\_ -.. OF saqunwmng 90331.38 macs F aenexes I‘JU29H aenexes twexslna :— axwa; 9 Jane 3‘91 Pig 3‘31 P33 Fig. ha. -MEAN RANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON mu 2m arena; OI‘H clauses afien lmwpuoeas axanxes afien fisnmxxdg azaqeea; STVJIQNIHJ THIS SCHOOL'S CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS FROM THE E 1? 16w 15 1h 13 10 89 H H s m m 1. m m a. w _ m O CH l 3 a .3 ma III! \/ >1 ma K / > .2 I \ III / / wa XIIL /I I I N 1 NH IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIUNIII I ma S S S 8 I SM I m a m m wen .m.a.Mm a u s a a m..a. s e e e mIm I. 1.11. P D. 1m I 08.19 J P eIemes... a eoeme M h: 8 8 emu ueu HI. I L 1 I u “u. Em C. 9 9 O a I. OIOWDOB a a a a Hpflha fl 0 . . . I04 a a an. n n n n n 1 C. C. 3 Tat. 1 1m... 8 W a o o s was a w w s n a. .. .. 8 s s 3 5.1.5:?“ ma mus/EPA gas Bum Hui. umd Hume” o... u. ..5UH..w_.SU uhomfiuu mwmh m0 ML u...F1..G zo mmubmoje mo mamOCmpROImDm mEH3 mémHUZHE ho HMOGHE‘QEOU Ham gfifi I .C: .mwh S BIBBL 0g Jaao I os-9q 83v I {IE AREA 08-93 83v .4 . hex! AAII ‘11 92-03 88v ORIES OF TEACHERS ON I I Suxxesunoo I /J a eeuepxng I ‘1 I sequuemnu / BOUGIOS I IBIOOS I aenexes vansss KI aenexes Ivoxsfind 0TH ISAEEXIC AND NON- 4 L: I v 1‘. 1931 DIE OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATE( I I I Site; 8 ieao 4i: I I JFQL pug I # 1331 491 exnmeg 3T9” fimepuoees MEAN RANK CCMPARISON sxeuJes e89“ I I I I I I sseumag ass“ I I I was F sséfieeeg -'0 «y—«r —— 30¢ Fir. STVdIDNIHd E R: rUTCHV3U\ 18 17 16 15 1H 13 P 11 10 q teen are below the principal's mean, there are nine above with no difference on one. The mean rank of principals on Scale 12 is 17. The mean rank of teachers is also 17. Of the eighteen teacher classifications, eight are below principals, three are above, and seven show no difference. Remark Principals ranked items dealing with curriculum higher than did teachers on thirty-nine of a possible fifty-four occasions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of ifferential perception between principal and teachers. Category V - Principal Scale 13 - Ability of principal to deal with people. Scale lh - Number and quality of innovations by this school's principal. Scale 15 - Principal's ability to see and meet present and future needs of district. The data for this relationship are given in Figures 51, 52, and 53. The mean rank of the principals on Scale 13 in Category V is 8. Of the eighteen classifications of teachers, five rank principals below eight, and ten rank them above eight on this scale, with no difference in three cases. The mean rank of principals on Scale lh in Category V is 5. Cf the eighteen classifications of teachers, six rank principals below five, six rank them above five, and six are the same as principals at five. (“.3 II . *lnlfiIH I. Tilt I!__+M M I . I 4f- ..|+ I -LwI II -kT I I ILT- I H? II I Ill.-iIH -. I.-. -- YIIL -ILII-IIl N » \r a m. N D a m N x \m t,” I> I>-- a JIII II INI IIIIIII \I. I --I-Imx- I -AKII m / N x /\ o / < c 3 K I a d N M w ma ¢ N a ma C fl 4 3 ma 5 ma m w w w wmn wwwmew a w n a m Mamas m a a 3 m Y! T». I. «.7 I. D. p 1. W TL 0 2 7t? I J 8 3 a PM W Tm. m m. 1 L A 1 I a a o 3 mm. m m m a m .mu ”mam”.9 . a a a swan“ .i a: a s a 1.: n; m n 3 mm“ s a 1 o C.- m 9 8 u u w 0 n. a a a a S n I J J I S S S Edema Eh: as ea fiaSié 3.898..“ an? ,8 EBB? zo mmmzofie .8 mfimoomefiuea EH3 mQaSEE .3 283528 25E 2S2 .. .Hm 2m: 5?. Fig. - MEAN RANK COM?ARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON I nu; 05 1M0 05-9n 09v oE-9a 39‘! 93.08 39V SUTIasunoo 9 aouvptno 931 QIMH aauatos I‘TOOS aauatas I‘ln33N sonatas I‘9193Qd save; 9 Jane :\l._,_ _,- -. I931 pig 1‘31 pug 1‘91 QST atvmag atvw NUMBER AND QUALITY OF INNOVATIONS BY THIS SCH sxauxua 339M fizvpuooas szauang 389M fixamtgd szaqonam STVdIDNIEd E a: 18 17 16 15 1h 13 12 IO - MEAN RANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS WITH SUB-CATEGORIES OF TEACHERS ON 53. Fig. OF THIS SCHOOL ICIPAL'F’: ABILITY TO SEE AI'D IvIEF‘T‘ PFFTFTICTI'I‘ AND FUTURE NEEDS PF. 17. 91331 0g JaAO OS-9n 93v o€*9a 83V QZ‘OB 33V Suxtasunoo Q aoueptng satqtuwwnfl aouatos TW 005 sonatos vanuau aouatos TVOISKNd 91991 g JBAO IBEX pJE \chfi X7 4931 pug I931 QSI stewed atvw saauxng 839M £J9onoaS saauxaa 989M Klawtid sxa§59.L STVdIQNIHd E Q: l? 17 16* 15 1D ll IO IA: 96 The mean rank of principals on Scale 15 in Category V is 1h. Of the eighteen classifications of teachers, four rank principals below fourteen, and three are the same as principals at fourteen. Remark Principals ranked those items dealing with principals lower than did teachers on twenty-seven of fifty—four occasions with no difference between the two groups in twelve instances. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differen- tial perception between principal and teachers. Female teachers' mean ranks of the three scales of Category V are 9, 5, and 17. Male teachers‘ mean ranks of the three scales of Category V are 7, h, and II. Remark Female teachers ranked the three scales dealing with the prin- cipal higher than did male teachers on three of three occasions. Indications appear to indicate a differential perception between male and female teachers on their views of the principal. Category VI - Community - Parents - Building Scale 16 - Community's willingness to pay for a quality school program. Data are presented in Figure 5A. The mean Score of principals on Scale 16, Category VI is ll. The mean score of teachers is 8. Of the eighteen classifications of teachers, three rank above ll, thirteen rank below ll, and two show no difference. 3 OF TEACHERS ON 1H SUB-CATEGORIE: TO PAY FOR QUALITY FCEEOOL PETRA” IJUIFANK COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS N Fig. Sh. - ‘VT‘ '1 lInrt“ .I. A l.’ THIS COMMUNITY'S WILLINC axes; 0g JBAO 09-9n 93v oE-9a 38v 63-03 63v Suttasunoo Q GOUFPIUD satqtuemnu aouatos IPI°OS sonatos IBJUQBN aouatos Tactsfiud 51931 8 3350 1‘31 pJE JFBL pug \/ xvai 181 atwmag aIVN sxaumg 3813M Kanpuooag Ix saauxag 389M filgglid sxaqoeom STVdIQMIEd E an 19 17 16" 15 1h 13 12 ll IO 77 95 Remark Teachers ranked the community's willingness to pay for a quality school program below principals on thirteen of eighteen occasions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principal and teachers. Scale 16, Category VI is ranked at II by principals; primary wage earners rank it at 8, and secondary wage earners at 6. Remark It appears that the primary wage earners perceive the community's willingness to pay for quality school programs more like principals than do secondary wage earners. A rank order correlation of responses by all principals on all scales and all primary wage earners on all scales is .9u6. A rank order correlation of responses by all principals on all scales and all secondary wage earners on all scales is .876. Remark There appears to be a tendency for primary wage earners to per- ceive the total educational enterprise in a manner more similar to that of principals than do secondary wage earners. Teachers aged h6-SO and over 50 ranked principals higher on all three scales of the principal category than did teachers aged 20-2 and 26-30. Remark Older teachers appear to perceive their principals in a more positive fashion than do younger teachers. Category VI - Community - Parents - Building Scale 17 - Extent to which parents take an active interest in this school's program. Data are presented in Figure 55. The mean score of all principals on Scale 17, Category VI is 2. The mean score of all teachers is h. Of the eighteen teacher classifi- cations, fourteen rank above the principals, four show no difference, and there are nine below. Remark Teachers ranked the extent to which parents take an active inter- est in their schools higher than did principals on fourteen of eighteen occasions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principal and teachers. Category VI - Community - Parents - Building Scale l8 - Educational adequacy of this school's building or buildings. Data are presented in Figure 56. The mean score of all principals on Scale 18, Category VI is 7. The mean score of all teachers is ll. Of the eighteen teacher classi- fications, all eighteen rank Scale 18 above the principals. Remark Teachers ranked the educational adequacy of their school's build- ing or buildings higher than did principals on eighteen of eighteen occasions. Indications appear sufficient to accept the relationships as evidence of differential perception between principal and teachers. 100 300mm pgoomom erB E Bmafibfl marmfioiq HQ BEE mtfiwam FUSE CE Efimhfim zo mNEwofih ho mmHmOowB uuapnus if ,t III C A T E G O R Y SCALE Teachers vetzanioH ,2 quapnns ‘~Tfic~~e ‘I i“ A 1H Knuapuadspul ‘1‘1‘ :ely iuapnig 4 ‘ KatIqu peas '1dns '1 Li D; WAGE BAIUIFIR TEACHERS ON ALL SCALES II SCALE 56789+ notitxouui ~4l~._ °udns MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH SPIIONDARY fizIIqu 3Id03d ,.1 01d“? ’4 3. uotiosgstiag qor flatness Fig. -..-- Principals uopiwxouul . Authors Lohfdr SCALE KauaiSHmog flitnosg 18 17 16* 1E" 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 4: u 1; 2 1 15 RANK VI SCALE Kasnbapv I_ ' Burptrna “‘KN * .915 13313131 auarwd XL iroddns paw“ Astunmmog ’1 rho = SCALE 13 1h A1 \k j} \ SCALE 10 11 12 fl SCALE C A T E G O R Y III ON ALL SCALES II SCALE 15 16 17 18 itIqu peas ,1 Indium-Id 7' L» TN noriwxouul ‘-~.-{W~o>, I‘dTOUIId 1. \fi Kittrqv atfioaa in?“ twdtourrd , .—"’e»r‘ OIWGpUJV-UON puw atmapsov ; \ eSuwg I \ KirIqu 1, aiatdmoo ~ untnotrrng ==tm=;: uoriavrsxzvs :uapnss 1 T I 9 ;]‘\‘Il “OTQVAIQOK ,--" 4 guapnig "-w.1_ - 8 Kauapusdapul ‘NW 1‘ 5' inapnzs ""' -———— Teachers \O £1111 v 52:: _53;j:3£]‘_‘ notiixouul ‘LI 'udns Azrttqv atdoad g, .3 ',¢ °adng 5g?-” MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WIT}! MALE TEACHERS h. SCALE Fig. noxzavssxzss e “ "‘ qor fiarnova “rk/ notiwxouul ,/ ‘“ fizrnava e” 1" --- Principals Kauaiadmog V, V '* flatnova “T ' St! 2: 2% 18 17 16 15 l 13 awn. u oFH Ramadan. I nagauouum III! .- u D. a Smasmamadoamm» 548 38 gm H> >H HHH MmoomaH HHH wmooma* In C) (J a: 9* ,< (J 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 1h 15 9 8 can apv 9U?PII“8 iuarsd 110 ng Ritunmmog ztttqv peas Isdtourzd notisaouul Isdtaura1 urtiqv at 08d TFdIDUIJd otmapaov-UON pus otmapeov a usg. AQIIIQY 9131 mop, mnfnotrrna notiosgstieg auapnig IisAiuow quapnig iuapnig lIIIQV peas °1dns °idng 1IIIQV °Id0°d ‘35“? ”011393911981 qop £11“393 uorisxouul Airnoag ouaia mog Airnoag F) L’\ rho = -———- Teachers - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH TEACHERS WITH OVER EIGHT YEARS 9. Fig. >. a: O O (I! E4 1< L) 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 9 8 can 9p, SUTPITNH A iuarsg 11 “S Airunmmog QIIIQV PGGN TBdIUUIId notiaxouuz IBdIOUIai IIIQV 91 03d Iadrourrd' strapsav-uog pus otmapaov' neg Aurttqv aiaI moo mnrnorrrng UCIQJBJSIQRS uuapnus 119A110H :uapnis ! 1U9Pn18i QIIIQV Dean °1dns °1dns urtxqv aIdoad °3dng uotioagsriag qor flatness uotinaouul Kirnoagi .01 rho = - Teachers --- Principals 93:33. | :1: 05.5 its 126 :5. I 08h 9 u 0. ma ma H a ma NH 3 ca 9 m N448 N448 mic“... "540m H> > >H HHH Mmoome B H: y m o o m a < 0 ac awn—BE moEHum .3552 E cage mifiofima a: mo 82E 2%: - .3 .wE - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHERS Fig. 12. ON ALL SCALES C A T E G O R Y L VI SCALE 18 Koafifapv' BUIpIIne .J A —_J ”Quazaiu: qualad .0' -r—4»—— I U 1:035:13 Autunmmog >_—J rho = 11 IV SCALE Kaxttqv paaul T9dIDUIld1 1A 1A We II SCALE uquaAoquY TBdIDUIld *szrtqv ataoaa tediouxxd Y «I oxmapaov-uoN| pun oxmapaovi \ ¢___ 4 afiuegl AQIIIQVE AZ 91916303} murnonyng III SCALE uctzaagsgzug quapngg uoxzaAzon' QUBPHQS. K3U5puédépu; zuapnns II SCALE fizIIqu paau °1dn9 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 15J16 17 vorzaAcuu: °qdng KQIIIQV aIdoad "1d“? u011393s;1vfi SCALE uoIQBAouu' A V I qop fizrncugl l [urnasx KauagaEdETI Aqrnhwxl !i H RANK ""1 l6 UN 3 U4 -———— Teachers ----- Principals E3 b] E E E E C! E g 23 E E E :3 <1 S é 5 13. Fig. >4 :0 fig m 5—1 <1CJ 15 I6 17 10 ll 12 13 1h 9 sen apy 9UIPIT“€! quaxvg 110 ng Azxunmmog QIIIQV P995. IBdIOUIld; uoggquuul IUdIOUIId QIITQV 9I 09d” {adIOUIJaW axmapaaV-uog pun armapaov U95 Anttrqv' 9191 may mnfnaxjxng' ucilaagsgiegy zuapnqg UOIIBArzqg :uapnugl d Li uuapnuv; lIIIQV pBBN “zdfis A °1dns iIIIQV atdoad "an1? U013393811Rh qor Karnrfia‘ uotzaAouu1~ fizrnasg. aua1a mo; Aqrnaug 'Low 'rd r4—wr ( 39.”: r-4 P4 1%: . I I l : #11:? ‘1‘. ‘ -J .4 ————- Teauhers --- Principals Fig. IA. - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING (‘ ‘ fl >« a: C) 0 C!) E4 1< O 18 17 16 10 ll 12 13 1h 15 9 own apv Surprrne quaxad, 110 mg Anxunmmog QIIIQV p55i: Isdtaurxd' u011BAoqu tedtouxxd QIIIQV 3t 09d, IndIoUIth ogmapwov-uou pun ormapeav' a mug XIIITQY: agar meg: mnfnatxlngf uc:1aa;sgaag. zuapnzs' u0119A110K :uapnqgi ., t ; nuapnisi ittqu paax' “ang ‘zdns ltrrqv aIdoad anb u011a93811&n qor Klrnsvg' uorgaaouuli finrnoez' cuazapdgf fizfnoagl M Z < (I: .ch} rho ————— Teachers ----E51ncipala Fig. 15. - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH TEACHERS AGE hé—so >4 In C) L: a: 94 1< L) 12 13 1h 15 16 17 18 10 ll 9 sun apv Burpttnq quaxvd 110 ng fiuxunmmog uttrqv Dean T9dIOUIld uoxquoqu IUdIDUIld. urttqv at 09d 19dIDUI1d' oxmapsov-uog pus otmapaav' UB3 Autttqv 3191 1:10;)| WHIRDIJJUQ uoiloagsgzwg zuapnzs uo IBAIQOK; :uapnqgl auapnao! \)i lIIIQV paax. “adnsl °1dng iIIIQV atdoad -1dng uoruavjsxavs qor Kurnsva uorquoqu Kafnoag ouaaa mo: Aqrnouq! k: l H 2 [CD I‘- 1< r4r4 m H fl: 1'") I -———- Teachers ‘rinc1pala '— ---- x can ap fiatptrna quaxud 110 ng fiqxunmmog urttqv paex IBdIaUIzd uoxquoqu IadtouIA1 1IIIQV 91 09d IUdIOUIld CO H I“ H \D H m H OImapaav-uog pun otmapaav' uag Autttqv 3331 moo, mntnaxeng uoygangsxzvs nuapnzs IIBAIQOH :uapngg 10 ll 12 13 1h C A T E G 0 R Y 9 nuapnns QIITQV paau °1dn8 °qdng 1¥ITQV aIdoad qung uoxuavssxues qor KlTn393 uorunAoqu finrnoag ouaqa Q flurnvvi Fig. 16. - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WI’IB TEACHERS AGE 26-30 ON ALL SCALES 5d 2 -———- Teachers --- Principals IIIaufibapv Burprrna 17 18 VI usaxaiuI Qualw& SCALE 15 16 gloddhs fiatunmmog KAIIIQV Dean Iadxauxzd uoguaAoqu IUdIOUILi fl SCALE KAIIIQV aIJOBd Iadtautld (A) .HQR ‘]’/ T; ‘ Ij\ rho AA 111 1 37 \\ synapaoV-uou pus oxmapaav 33693 KQIITQV SCALE aqatdmog mntnoxjxng ucxaavgsxlas uuapnzs ON ALL SCALES III SCALE uoy1aA110H auapnus C A T E G O R Y ’Kauapuadapul uuapnis fizxttqv paax‘ °1dng II SCALE HOTifiAOUU: °1dns 11 all flutttqv atdoad °qdng h S 6 T 8 9 10 ll ISJIIB 1h 1‘ ‘k' I]— ’jL U11 Teachers 1 AW L \ \ . A; I uorzaassrzes qor fizrncna SCALE 2 UOIQBAOUUI £1Tn393l Xbuagéfihog Fig. 17. - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRTNCIPALS COMPARED WITH TEACHERS AGE 20-25 5d 2 2% N L5L ---—- Principals 18 17 16 15 1h 13 1?— ll 13 Fig. 18. - MEAN RANKS OF ALL PRINCIPALS COMPARED WITH TEACHERS OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE >4 CE 0 0 I'll B < 0 Jun apv SUIpIIne L quaxad 11 “S fizxunmmog 1¥IIQV paau TFdTDUIld uoxquoqu IFdIDUILi I qu 91 09d IFdIDUIJd synapeov-uox pus axmapaav nag Autttqv 3191 moo mnfnoijng uoguaagsyqeg zuapnus IlBAI1OH auapnns zuapnzs lIIIQV paeN °1dns °1dns ilthv 91 09d ‘ang UOI3SBJSIQBS qor fizrnava uogquoqu flurnaag QU913 3 Kufnoag bud z < a: rho = - Teachers ----- Principals Fig. 29. - HEAL EAKKS 0F PRINCIPAL COMPARED WITH SELECTED TEACHERS L‘ Q ICAlE ( \ 11 ON ALL FEOH FUEAL SCHOOL NC. >4 in (D (D Ed 54 1< L) 10 11 12 13 1b 15 16 17 18 9 sun apv SUIDIIEE L quaxad :10 n3 finxunmm03 AIIqu peau TFdIOUIJd uoxuququ IBdIDUIld QIIIQV 91 09d IFdTOUIJd DIWGpBDV-UON‘ DUB DIWGPBDV U93 Knittqv 3131 moo WHIRDIJJUQ ucyiaagsxiws‘ uuapnus uox18A110K Quapnqg quapnqg 1111qv pean- °1dnsi °1dns 1¥IIQV aIdoad °3dng “01139393393: qor flarncvg' UOIQBAOUUI Kurnovs aua1a no; fiarnoug a: :z .< a: -———- Teachers ----- Principals OF PRINCIPAL COIvTARED WITH SELECTED TEACHERS - MEAN RANKS Fig. 30. n U LCALE* 1? ON ALL S C A T E G 0 R Y E?III{/XIL f](3?i()(311 Elf) . FROM VI SCALE lovfifibpv SUIPITna ‘1I3131U: guaxtd \1 axoddng Anamo: /4 }_. III SCALE II SCALE 15 16 17 18 luttrqv peas I‘dIUUIld ’\ If I *4 UOIQGAOUUI IvdIOUtza Vrr\ SCALE 13 1h 1 Kztttqv atdoaa IFdIDUIJd II X \ 31m3p93v-uox pus atmapaav aflusa KitIIQV SCALE 10 11 12 9 aqatdmog mntnoyxxng \b/ =t=t==st=::— uoyzaugaxzws zuapnzs [I‘u_ 8 00119A110K zuapnus 1L AsuapuauépuI quapnug KI QIIIQV P3°N 'zdns LE 1 uotzaAouu: °1dns fluttxqv atdoad ’1593 “01339351198 qor fizrnovg SCALE uoIQBAouu: Aqrnang Kauazaduou Aurnosg. 5d RAN I v 18 l7 16 1_15 13 ll 10 (*3 (N Teachers ---- Principals RS 1 J E} ‘5 E4 c: a: E4 c) ‘4 H a: U} E1 H 3 E3 E? E’ c c) CL F4 S2 F; a: a. a. C L“. E5 3? a: g1 l Fit. 31. [’1 31 <2 0 L") 'Q 23 Z c, m H O 9 *4 S Eé s J FROM RU?! >4 a: O (J In] E" < D Jan apv SUIDIInq A guaxng 110 ng fiqrunmmog ilIIQV paax TFdIDUTld UOIQBAOUUI IFGIOUIIJ 111QV 91 09d 19dT3UIJd synapsov-ucg pus atmapaay nag KQIITQV 9191 mos mnfnaxxxng U0110838119€ :uapngg OIlBAIlOH Quapngg uuapnas lIIIQV PéaN' “qdng °3dns irrxqv atdoad “adnc uoxzsessxumm qor KIInSRa u011BAouu1' fizrnavs. auaia no: [qrnoug ———-— Teachers --- Principals . w*_ E3 E3 E3 5* E3 E—* C) E3 {:1 on 32 E1 :3 E2 & E L) 2% 04 e4 52 F3 63 u. C no E? Si 5% E? I (G «1 zb ‘H k. (i 41) <, L) Li 3 2 C) J H SB § ZI‘. L) U) *fl 5: 6% (I: h< >4 a: C) (3 E) E4 ‘< L) 15 16 17 18 10 ll 12 13 1h 9 8 can apv fiatprtna A quaxnd 110 ns Aqxunmmog AIIqu Dean: dexauraa OI1BAOUUIi Ivdtouxzal IIqu 31 03d IFdIDUIld' DIWOpBOV-UON p09 atmapaav UB5 flurIrqv OQOI moo WHIRDIJJHQ ucxuaegsxivg uuapnus 119A: 10w zuapnus uuapnus 1IIIQV paag' °1dn9 °1dns iIIIQV °Id03d °qdn¢ “01139381198 qor Rarncwg UOIQQAOUUI Kurnoeg, oua; g [urnaeg Teachers ---- Principals Fig. 33. - MEAN RAITKS OF PRINCIPAL COI-CPAJ4 a: CD (D 31 E‘ .< C) 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 1h 9 sun spy SUIPIIHE quaxsg 1.1 ns fiqxunmmog urtxqv 999x TBdIDUIJd U0119AOUUI IFdIOUILJ QTIIQV 81 09d TFdIOUIJd oymapsav-uog pUB axmapsav U88 flutITqv 8191 mogl mflTnOIJJnQ u0113939319g :uapnss 0119A110E :uapnqgl A uuepnas 1111qv PGGN °1dns °1dng -1TITQV atdoad °zdn9 uorasvssrnmn qor Azrncsa' UOIQBAOUUI fiutnova. Juana mo; *4 ————— Teachers ---- Principals 1M0 anon anon. :1: 221 I... 35m 33m >H HHH w m o u m .H. < o 20 3 oz 400:8 1.2.158 12.181,an mo SEE 51 HH mafia... magma 883% E3 6 l 044m OMHK 11.1 :1: 05$ .1... one: 30a. madam gum >H HHH HH wmoom9H HHH HH wmoum9b. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193K (1963). Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George, and Tannenbaum, Percy H. .222 Measurement of Meaning. university of Illinois Press, 19f7. Park, Robert E. Principals of Human Behavior. Chicago: The Zalaz Corporation, 1915. 162 Pepitone, Albert. Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. Rose, Arnold M. (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes: An lnteractionist Approach. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1962. Shibutani, Tamotsu. "Reference Groups and Social Control," Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1962. Strauss, Anselm.(ed.). George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19Gb. Taguri, Renato, and Petrullo, Luigi. Person Perception and Interper- sonal Behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1950. Thibaut, John W., and Kelly, Harold H. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959. Thurstone, L. L. The Measurement of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. White, Ralph K., and Lippitt, Ronald O. Autocracy and Democragy, An 'Experimental Inquiry; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1900. Articles and Periodicals Bagby, James W. "A.Cross-Cultural Study of Perceptual Predominance in Binocular Rivalry," Journal of Abnormal and Social Pa : chologyz Vol. 5A, 1957. Outgroup Position Blake, Robert R. "Comprehension of Own and of f Conflict Resolu- Under Intergroup Competition", Jgurnal 0 tion, 1961. Blake, Robert R. and Manton, Jane Suggley. "Over-Evaluation Of10u: Own Group's Product in Intergroup Competition, Journal 0. Abnormal and Social PsychologyA Vol. 6h, No. 3, 1902. Bovard, Everett W. Jr. "Group Structure and Perception," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychologyi Vol. ho, 1961. Merton V. "Teacher-Principal Agreement on the Teafher Eire, Midwest Administration Center, . 1- 6, (February 1959.) "Group Dynamics and the 1957. Campbell, Administrator's Notebook, Versity of Chicago, Vol. VII, No. Cartwri ht Dorwin and Lippitt. Ronald- fl, 8 ’ , International Journal of Psy3ho—Therflvlz Individual." ,., Chowdey, Kamla, and Newcomb, Theodore M; "The Relative Abilities of geaders an: Non-Leaders to Estimate Opinions of Their Own roups " ournal of Abnormal and Social P 3:, (1952 S sycholo Vol. h7, DeSoto, Clinton, Kuethe, James L., and Wernderlich, Richard. "Social Perception and Self Perception of High and Low Authoritarians," Journal of Social Psychoig, 1960. Getzels, J. W. A.Psycho-Sociological Framework for the.Study of Educa- §ion§ledministration. (Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 22, o. O Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. Social Behavior and the Administrative Process. School Review 65"(Winter 1957.) Goslin, David A. "Russel Sage Foundation, Accuracy of Self Percep- tion and Social Acceptance," figgigmetgy, Vol. 2h, No. 3, Sept. 1962. Hartley, Ruth E. "Personal Needs and the Acceptance of a New Group as a Reference Group," The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 51, 1960. Hartley, Ruth E. "Relationships Between Perceived Values and Accept- ance of New Reference Group," The Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, February, 1960. Hicks, Jack. "The Influence of Group Flattery Upon Self Evaluation," Journal of Social Psychology,_1962. Kahn, A. Robert, and Feidler, Fred B. "Age and Sex Difference in the Perception of Persons," Sociomctry, Vol. 2h, No. 2, June, 1961. Mayer, Donald C. "Leadership That Teachers Want." .Administrator's Notebook, Midwest Administration Center, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. III, No. 7, March, 1955. anford M. "A Test of Interaction- Myamoto, Frank S., and Dornbusch, S eption,’ American Journal of ist Hypothesis of Self-Cone Socioiog, Vol. 61, No. 5, March 195?. "The Principal of Con- Osgood, Charles E., and Tannenbaum, Percy H. §§ychological gruity in the Prediction Of Attitude Change," Review, Vol. 62, No. 1 (1955). and Person Perception," Person Peak, Helen, "Psychological Structure Stanford Perception and Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford: ‘University Press, 1958. George A., and Biblarz, Arturo. "Conceptions American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, Reeder, Leo G., Donohue, of Self and Others," 1960. 16h Ritter, James. "Attractiveness of Group as Function-of Self Esteem and Acceptance by Group," Journal of Abnormal Social-Psychology, 1959. Scarborough, 0, and Harris. "Graduate Students' Perceptions of Leadership Roles," Journal of Teacher Education, 1962. Seodel, Alvin, and Mussen, Paul. "Social Perceptions of Authoritar- ians and Non-Authoritatians," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. h8, No. 2, 1953. Steiner, Ivan D. "Human Interaction and Interpersonal Perceptions," Sociomet , Vol. 22, No. 3: Sept. 1959. Torrance, Paul. "Perception of Group Functioning as a Predictor of Group Performance,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1955. Turk, Herman. "Expectation of Social Influence," Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 37, 1962. Turk, Theresa, and Turk, Herman. "Group Interaction in a Formal Setting: The Case of the Triad." Sociometry, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 1962. Other Sources Halpin, Andrew. The Leadership Behavior of School Superintendents: The Perceptions and Expectations of Board Members, Staff Members and Superintendents. Columbus: College of Educa- tion, Ohio State University, 1956. Malhurbe, E. G. Race Attitudes and Education. Hornle Lecture, 19M3. Johannesburg: Institute of Race Relations. Springer, Owen. A Study of the Relationships Between the Educational Characteristics Criterion, (E.CC.) The Stanford Achievement Test and Selected Cost Factors. Unpublished Ed.d. Disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 196A. Stock, Dorothy, and Thelen, Herbert A. Emotional Dynamics and Group National Training Laboratory, 1955. .Esllaisi "'T'IlfllfijrfilfliMilifljflflfljflm