w‘v LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A MODEL FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL- -DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR K-lZ PRINCIPALS presented by William C. Schewe has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration XW ”724%- Major professor/ Date October 30, 1987 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 4 ___~_a-—__‘ - _,,,_4— MSU LIBRARIES n RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A MODEL FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR K-12 SCHOOL PRINCIPALS By William C. Schewe A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 Copyright by HILLIAM C. SCHEHE 1987 ABSTRACT A MODEL FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR K-12 SCHOOL PRINCIPALS By William C. Schewe This study sought to (a) determine the perceived professional- development needs and preferences of K-lZ principals, (b) assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers, and (c) develop a model for the delivery of professional-development programs for principals. The instrument used for the survey of principals and assistant principals was designed by the researcher with the assistance of many persons and a pilot study. The telephone survey was designed by the researcher. The central findings of the study were: l. The 124 principals and assistant principals rated all of the skill areas as important to principals. The ten skills rated highest as professional-development needs were: a. Developing staff professionally b. Conferencing with staff c. Conducting a school needs assessment d. Keeping abreast of curricular trends e. Developing and managing the instructional program William C. Schewe f. Implementing new programs or practices 9. Being knowledgeable in group processes h. Clinically supervising staff i. Observing in classrooms 2. There is a need for an alternative delivery system for the professional development of principals than that which is presently provided by local school districts, universities, and professional associations. 3. The programs at the ten principals’ centers surveyed varied depending on the need, with small group and seminar used most frequently. Most programs were long term, and some type of networking was offered in seven of the programs. 4. Principals were involved in deciding the principals’ centers’ programs, content, and curriculum and making some of the presentations. A needs assessment should be done annually. Attendance was voluntary at all ten principals’ centers surveyed. 5. Principals would make a commitment to and attend a princi- pals’ center program if they saw the program as worthwhile. 6. A fee will not cause principals to be more committed to a principals’ center but would help to defray expenses. The principals’ center model incorporated the preceding findings and should include both verbal and written evaluations of each program. This dissertation is dedicated to my best friend and wife, Andrea, whose support, love, unselfish assistance, and encouragement have enabled me to complete this study. It is also dedicated to my children: Scott, Erin, and Alison. As I encouraged my children to set high goals and to work hard to accomplish them, it reminded me to follow that creed also. When I was discouraged, I remembered the hundreds of hours spent on my dissertation and not in activities with my family and could not allow that sacrifice to be made without the completion of my dissertation. My parents, Erwin and Clara, are included in this dedication because they have given me unconditional love, support, encouragement, and inspiration throughout my life. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My grateful appreciation goes to Dr. Lawrence H. Lezotte for his assistance, inspiration, and direction in choosing a topic and writing and refining both my dissertation proposal and this dissertation. Many weekend telephone calls and visits were cheerfully accepted by him, and help and encouragement were always given. I also thank my committee members, Drs. Daniel Kruger, Roger Niemeyer, and Louis Romano, for their support and assistance. Additional thanks to go Dr. Donald Shebuski, Ingham Intermediate» School District Superintendent, and Garry Michaels, Ingham ISD Assistant Superintendent, for their assistance and support of this dissertation. My appreciation also to Phil Babcock, Ingham ISD programmer, for his assistance in processing my survey data and his willingness to talk with me at many odd times, and to Dr. David Kazen, Director of Ingham 180 Department of Planning and Evaluation, for his help with my survey of principals. Special thanks go to my colleagues, Drs. James Laidler, Cheboygan Area Schools Superintendent; Lee Gerard, Okemos Public Schools Assistant Superintendent; and Robert Cross, Troy Athens High School Principal, for their assistance and encouragement on my many questions. vi A thank you also to Doris Ruhf and Lynn Pitlanish, my former secretaries in Okemos, for their help and encouragement in the early stages of my dissertation proposal and survey. Finally, I thank Jo Colby, in the Office of Student Affairs in the College of Education at Michigan State University, for her help and encouragement, and Sue Cooley, typist extraordinaire, for her advice, patience, support, and outstanding typing in helping me complete the last steps of this dissertation. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............. Purpose ...................... Background of the Study .............. Importance of the Study .............. Research Questions ................ Definition of Terms ................ Assumptions of the Study ............. Limitations .................... Overview ..................... REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . Introduction ................... Present Practices of Principals ........... . Preparation of Principals ............. Effective-Principal Studies ............ Professional Development for Principals ...... Professional-Development Models .......... Principals’ Centers ................ Summary ...................... DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............... Introduction ................... Survey of Principals ............... Pilot Study .................... Survey of Principals’ Centers ........... Summary ...................... RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF DATA ........... Introduction ................... Initial Survey of Principals’ Centers and Academies .................... viii DOQGOU‘I—‘d IO Survey of Principals and Assistant Principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties, Michigan . . Demographic Data ................ V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... Summary ...................... Purpose ..................... Related Literature and Research Reviewed . . . . Review of Design of the Study .......... Findings and Conclusions ............. Principals’ Center Model ............. Recommendations .................. Recommendations for Future Research ....... APPENDICES A. PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS AND ACADEMIES ...................... B. SUMMARY OF 1983 SURVEY RESULTS ........... C. 1986 SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS .............. D. RESULTS OF 1986 SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS IN INGHAM, EATON, AND CLINTON COUNTIES . . E. 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS F. RESULTS OF 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS ....................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ ix 65 66 67 75 93 94 95 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.l Rank Ordering of Principals’ Perceptions of Professional-Development Needs, From Most to Least Important ................. 40 4.2 The Six Professional-Development Activities Rated as Successful or Very Successful by Principals and the Percentage of Principals Who Gave That Rating ....................... 43 4.3 Professional-Development Activities Rated as Slightly Successful or Not Successful ....... 43 4.4 Responses to Five Questions From the Telephone Survey of Principals’ Centers ........... 46 5.l The Ten Skill Areas with the Highest Percentage of Principals Uho Did Not Rate Their Skill in That Area as Quite Good or Very Good .......... 56 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Burma The purposes of this study were (a) to determine the perceived professional-development needs and preferences of K-12 principals, (b) to assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers, and (c) to develop a model for the delivery of professional-development programs for principals. W The role of the principal in improving the quality of education has become much more important because of the recent research coming from both the private and public sectors. The well-publicized management writings of recent years (Deal 8 Kennedy, 1982; Geneen, l984; Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982), which showed the importance of the manager in effective companies, combined with the studies of effective schools, have shown how critical the principalship can be in changing teacher behavior and in improving student achievement (Armor, 1976; Austin, 1979; Berman & McLaughlin, 1980; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Glenn, 1981; Levine & Stark, 1981; Trisman, 1976; Tursman, 1981). Governors have recently become more involved in educational improvement because they realize the importance of quality educational programs in attracting businesses to their states. Some governors have made the following statements: Governor William F. Winter, Mississippi: “I consider educational improvement absolutely essential to our economic progress." Governor James J. Blanchard, Michigan: ”We must strengthen our educational system. . . . Only then will we be able to maintain the quality that makes our educational system a selling point for attracting talented people and new high growth business." Governor John V. Evans, Idaho: ”The quality of our education system determines the future of our democracy and our economy." Governor Richard D. Lamm, Colorado: ”We will become a second- rate economy if we have a second-rate educational system.” Governor Dick Riley, South Carolina: ”Public education is the cornerstone of a free, democratic, and productive society. For a state to compete effectively with other states and other nations, it is important that we provide a quality educational program for all our citizens.” (Thomas, 1985) In all of the Fortune 500 companies that Peters and Waterman (1982) studied, there was a strong sense of corporate culture. The ad hoc task force was the company’s way to solve problems. Individuals were continuously recognized for their contributions to corporate success. Educators must learn from this. Because the function of’ management is to stimulate productive work toward organizational goals, principals must be concerned primarily with the school’s goal-development and implementation processes and with facilitating staff activity to that end (Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Snyder & Anderson, 1986). Naisbett (1982) found that we are shifting from autocratic decision—making patterns to more participatory practices in all dimensions of the culture. Leadership in the work setting is effective to the degree that it facilitates networking across boundaries and removes barriers to successful performance; Removing staff fear of sharing and teaching each other are major obstacles. Change processes that succeed increase participation by an emphasis on relationships and comunications rather than by policy and structures. Success for corporations requires that workers feel integrated into the whole rather than identified with a particular territory. The organizational structure and the informal structure either encourage or discourage workers from reaching for higher levels of achievement (Moss-Kanter, 1983). Recent research of highly successful companies has added further information for the practicing principal. Deal and Kennedy (1982) concluded from their analysis of highly productive companies that people are more effective when they are in control of their destinies. Peer group pressure is the single most powerful motivating force among people. Few principals ever received outside training in involving staff in decision making and in using peer group pressure to accomplish goals. In addition to being the manager of the program, the principal must become the educational leader of the school for change and growth. This requires that principals refine and/or acquire the management skills necessary for the planning and implementation of academic goals. Principals felt that their initial educational training programs in the universities were very limited in preparation for these aspects of the principalship (Snyder & Johnson, 1983). Because of the recent criticisms of education and the research on effective schools and principals, the role of the principal is changing. The principal can no longer be as involved in the management of the school. This must be left to subordinates. The principal must focus on improving the instructional program and, in most cases, on acquiring the skills to accomplish this. However, the present professional-development programs for principals do not meet the needs of today’s principal. These present programs include university courses and programs sponsored by local school districts, regional education centers, state departments of education, professional associations, and private agencies and consultants. The strongest argument in support of the statement that these programs do not adequately meet the needs of principals is the rapid growth of principals’ centers. In 1984, there were approximately 40 centers, 70 centers in 1985, and more than 100 in 1986 (McDonald, 1986). One can only conclude that the professional-development needs now being addressed by principals’ centers were not being met by the previous agencies. The role of principals in making schools more effective has been the subject of many research studies in recent years. These studies have shown that principals can change teacher behavior and improve student performance (Lezotte, 1980; Robinson, 1985). However, to accomplish this, the principal must change his/her role from one of a manager to that of an instructional leader whose number-one priority is to improve student learning (Snyder, 1983). This is a significant change from the traditional manager role, in which principals presently spend most of their time. A 1979 study by Sproull found that principals spend most of their time with discipline problems, logistics, social pleasantries, organizational maintenance, and extracurricular activities. A study of more than 400 principals showed that additional skills are needed in planning, goal setting, facilitating, and motivating people. Most principals need and want this training (Snyder, 1983). In the present study, the researcher used the adult- professional-development models of Fenstermacher and Berliner (1985), Rogers (1951), Arin-Krupp (1985), and Knowles (1973) to assess the characteristics of a sample of established principals’ centers and academies across the United States. A survey was used to determine the perceived needs and preferences of principals for their professional development. From the characteristics of established principals’ centers and academies and from the results of the survey of principals, a model for a principals’ center was developed. Importance of the Study The results of this research study were intended to provide (a) a model for the development of a principals’ center, (b) data on the professional-development needs of principals, (c) information that can assist administrative professional-development planners, (d) criteria that can provide a framework for the planning of any professional-development activity, and (e) opportunities for improved professional development for the practicing principal. W 1. What are the perceived professional-development needs of principals? 2. Is there a need for an alternative delivery system than those that presently' exist for the professional development of principals? 3. What types of programs would principals prefer for professional development? 4. What characteristics do these ten established principals’ centers have in common? 5. When a model is proposed based on (a) established principals’ centers and (b) an adaptation of Fenstermacher and Berliner’s framework for effective professional-development programs, will principals see it as worthwhile and make a commitment to it? 6. If principals had to pay a fee of approximately 5100, would they be more or less inclined to make a commitment to principals’ center programs? W M911. A school in a comunity of more than 100,000 people. £ffee111e_e11neieele. Principals of effective schools, whose behavior and actions have changed teacher behavior and improved student achievement. £1£§£111§..S£h001§- Schools that have been studied by researchers and shown to be effective by a predetermined criterion. An example of this is the definition of Edmonds (1981), who defined an effective school as one where low-income students’ achievement on standardized tests was the same as or better than the achievement of the rest of the students. Esteblished prineipels’ eenter. A center that has been in existence for two or more years. n rv n . A term used synonymously with professional development. Instreetjeee! leader. A principal whose top priority is improving the learning of students and who communicates this clearly to staff, students, and parents. n r'n . A person is assigned to a more experienced and/or well-qualified principal (mentor), and this mentor trains the other person in the specified skill. Neteegking. Three to five principals are grouped at a program. This group discusses and works together to solve problems. If, at a later time, one of the group needs assistance, he/she has a source (network) from which to call someone to seek advice. £ee:_e§§1etenee. Two principals working together to learn new skills by visiting, observing, and discussing with each other these skills. .Enineine1§1_eeedemy. A term used synonymously with principals’ center. W. A place where ongoing training programs designed to provide professional-development programs and collegial support for principals are held. rof 'ona eve o m n . Those programs or activities undertaken by professionals to increase their knowledge, skill, and performance in their field. r 001 . Schools that are in the country or the majority of whose student population is from the country. Sebgrban sehoels. Schools in which the majority of students reside in a community with a population of less than 100,000 on the outskirts of a city. um 'ons of he u l. Principals could and did share their honest opinions in the survey. 2. Principals were knowledgeable about recent studies on effective principals, effective schools, and successful managers. 3. The survey instrument accurately assessed the perceptions of the principals. 4. The respondents understood the survey and were able to respond in a meaningful way. 5. The principals’ centers from which the researcher chose common characteristics were successful in improving the competencies of principals. Limililiflni l. The researcher was assessing the perceptions of principals concerning their professional—development needs, but not including the perceptions of supervisors or subordinates. 2. No independent research studies have measured the effectiveness of the selected principals’ centers in meeting their goals. 916.1113! In the first chapter, the background and the purpose of the study were presented. The importance of the study and the research questions were stated. Definitions of important terms, the assumptions, and the limitations were given. In Chapter 11, related research and literature are reviewed. Chapter III presents the design and methodology of the two survey instruments. The first was sent to principals, and the second was used in the telephone survey of ten principals’ centers. In Chapter IV, the data are presented in answer to the research questions. The sumary, findings, and conclusions of the study are presented in Chapter V. The methodology and instruments are discussed. A model for a principals’ center is given. Finally, suggestions for further research are made. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH 111mm The main purposes of this study were to determine the perceived professional-development needs and preferences of K-12 principals, to assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers and academies, and to develop a model for the delivery of professional- development programs for principals. The review of related literature and research is ordered as follows: (a) present practices of principals, (b) preparation of principals, (c) effective-principal studies, (d) professional development for principals, (e) professional-development models, and (f) principals’ centers. Literature on these topics proved to be extremely limited. The best sources were through contacts around the country who were working with a principals’ center or another institution providing professional development for principals. The review of the literature led to telephone calls to persons such as Karolyn Snyder, a researcher presently at the University of South Florida, who were writing a considerable number of articles in the area of professional development for principals. These calls produced a considerable number of articles from many different people around 10 11 the country. Among the data was information on the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversation, a conference in San Antonio, Texas, in February 1986. Attending this conference enabled the researcher to meet the national leaders of the principals’ center movement and to learn about further literature and research articles. WW Recent studies have confirmed that schools are highly complex organizations in which peOple and activity are loosely coupled to purpose (Meyer, Scott, & Deal, 1977; Weick, 1982). Contrary to the concept of management noted previously, principals bounce from one set of interactions to the next, in a continuous stream of events, some planned and most not, designed to keep the operation moving. Principals spend most of their time working with students who are discipline problems and with teachers who have noninstructional needs (Peterson, 1978); attending to logistics, external requirements, and social pleasantries (Sproull, 1979); and overseeing organizational maintenance, pupil control, and extracurricular activities (Martin, 1980). Principals engage predominantly in service, advisory, and auditing relationships. Principals do not become involved in the work flow at the classroom level. Classroom observation and curriculum development are not the central focus for most principals (Pitner, 1982). Principals, particularly at the secondary level, are generally not considered instructional leaders by their staffs. They are 12 considered managers of the organization first. This must change so that they are instructional leaders first. The discontinuity and variety of tasks, decision making under conditions of uncertainty, and the pace of the work suggest that the school administrator' must have a high repertoire of critical- thinking skills. The unending stream of activities, people, and problems requires the administrator to be able to shift gears quickly and effectively. Ereperetiog of Erineipale Initial administrative training has been found to have little influence on performance on the job, while on-the-job training has been found to be a major influence. Thus, professional-development programs are very important (Snyder, 1984). In studies over the last two decades, principals continually reported that their initial administrative training programs were limited in both content and methodology and addressed school-maintenance functions rather than dynamic management concepts and skills. Thus, these initial programs have had a very limited effect on the role performance of school principals (Johnson & Snyder, 1985). Critical areas of omission in the initial training programs for principals versus the principals’ needs are: 1. Knowledge related to goal setting, long-range planning, and evaluation. 2. Strategies for improvement and for assessing alternatives. 3. Group processes and communication skills. l3 4. Educational leadership. 5. Educational improvement through resource allocation. 6. Human-relations training (Snyder, 1983). Research rarely speaks about positive results of university training for administrators except for providing a theoretical base. Pitner (1982) listed three differences between the corporate and the university educational systems: 1. The corporate participants are highly motivated and rewarded for success. 2. The setting is the workplace for the corporate learners, while it is not the workplace for university learners. 3. The corporate instruction is pragmatic, while the university instruction is theoretical. In most instances, university training does not provide the practical inservice that administrators are seeking (Murphy, 1986). \ -Pr' ci 1 u ' . The studies of effective schools have shown how critical the principalship can be in changing teacher behavior and in improving student achievement (Armor, 1976; Austin, 1979; Berman & McLaughlin, 1980; Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Edmonds, 1979; Glenn, l98l; Levine & Stark, 1981; Robinson, 1985; Trisman, 1976; Tursman, 1981). The existing principalship is calledinto question when comparing these studies of productive management in the corporate world and those of effective schools with those studies of what I4 principals do (Peters & Waterman, 1983; Purkey 8 Smith, 1983). Various studies have found that effective principals: 1. Have and communicate high expectations for student achieve- ment and behavior. 2. Implement programs of known effectiveness. 3. Frequently monitor student, teacher, and administrator per- formance. 4. Provide technical assistance to teachers through coaching, conferencing, and inservice. 5. Visibly demonstrate a commitment to instructional improve- ment. 6. Provide support and incentives for the instructional staff. 7. Receive support from teachers, students, central adminis- tration, and parents to be an instructional leader. 8. Clearly communicate the goals of the school to all of the above groups. 9. Are energetic, self-confident, and goal directed. 10. Are persuasive and committed to high standards. 11. Creatively find necessary resources. 12. Assertively move their schools forward and are not content with the status quo. 13. Display sensitivity to the dynamics of power. 14. Create situations in which teachers can learn from one another. 15. Show an awareness of excellent teaching and advising skills (Blumberg, 1980; Brookover, 1979; Cotton & Savard, l980; DeBevoise, 15 1984; Dwyer et al., 1983; Erickson, 1978; Fortenberry, 1985; Gersten 8 Carnine, 1981; Huff et al., 1982; Little, 1986; Persell 8 Cookson, 1982; Rutter, 1979). An analysis of case studies of eight principals defined as effective by colleagues and university faculty members found the following characteristics: 1. Clear school goals, which were a primary focus. A very self-confident, open person. An ability to tolerate ambiguity. A propensity to test the limits of the system. A person who was in charge. A knowledge of the dynamics of power. Noam-bum An analytical mind (Blumberg 8 Greenfield, 1980). Profegeienal Develooment for Principal; In the most exhaustive study of all of those reviewed, Johnson and Snyder (1983) analyzed 54 effective-school studies and organized the principalship into four dimensions: school-development planning, staff development, program development, and evaluation. They designed a self-report questionnaire, which was given to 442 principals in four states. Principals reported that their major concern was for motivating teachers to work in more productive ways. They' wanted to improve their skills in observing teaching, in coaching teachers to improve in specific ways, and in evaluating teachers’ effectiveness. Training interests for all principals were quite high. 16 Two studies were conducted by the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (Barnett, 1985) to determine the principal’s role in successful schools. One was an eight-week study of five Bay Area principals, and the second was a year-long study of nine Bay Area principals. The researchers followed these principals during the studies and later asked them why they pursued certain courses of action as opposed to alternative courses. From the results of these studies, the Far West Laboratory began two pilot projects for a program they called Peer Assisted Leadership (PAL). In October 1983, 14 California elementary school principals and in January 1984 ten Utah elementary school principals started in this program, which was designed to stimulate reflection and self-examination as well as to introduce research to the principals. There were three goals: (a) analyze their own and another principal’s management behaviors within the general frame- work of the research on effective principals, (b) gain support and insight from working with colleagues, and (c) learn how other principals lead their schools. All of these studies have shown areas in which principals need to change their focus and need the skills to do this. Principals must envision ways and develop the skills to accomplish their schools’ goals. Participatory decision making, teamwork, reexamin- ing of school functions and practices, and clear, well-defined goals must become the rule rather than the exception in schools. l7 Included in the principals’ greatest interests were ways to link the work of teachers to the developmental goals of the school, to determine staff training needs, and to control school events so certain goals are accomplished and student achievement improved. Administrators expressed interest in schoolwide, team-level, and individual teacher planning and evaluation. Skills for designing successful staff>development programs, providing on-the- job teacher coaching, performance monitoring and program development, implementation, and evaluation are very important. Involving other administrators, staff members, students, and parents in cooperative planning and action and assessing their own styles and their influence on these are also skills desired by principals. Principals must change their focus to facilitating improved learning and teaching in their schools. To accomplish this, the principal must identify the tasks necessary to accomplish the school’s goals, facilitate task groups in planning that focuses on the goals, manage quality control, and with the staff assess the results of the task groups and the school’s total instructional program (Snyder 8 Johnson, 1983). Presently, inservice programs for principals have provided either fragmented skills or none. They tend to respond to “hot topics" (Pitner, 1982). Examples of these are Title IX, clinical supervision, and student locker searches. Although these provide needed information, they are very narrow topics and of too short duration to result in the additional skills that principals need. 18 New programs, technology, and/or money by themselves do not bring about educational improvement. If personnel are untrained or unmotivated, the improvement will not take place. If educational improvement is the concern, then principals must be trained to facilitate it (LaPlant, 1979). A stronger knowledge base, reflecting the realities of the principalship, should be incorporated in revised administrative training. It should include the principles of quality teaching, staff‘ development, and school improvement more than traditional models. It also should reflect adult learning theory (Murphy 8 Hallinger, 1986). Prefeeeienel-Developmegt Moeele Researchers have identified certain factors of which designers and presenters of professional-development programs should be aware, which will make it more likely that the program will be effective. Fenstermacher and Berliner (1985) developed a model that separates various aspects of professional programs and can be of assistance in planning them. The model has four main components: (a) a definition, (b) a mapping sentence, (c) a description of participant roles, and (d) a method of evaluation. The definition simply defines the name of the program. The mapping sentence performs four functions. First, it specifies how the staff-development program is initiated. Is it internally proposed by the staff or externally proposed by superordinates? Second, what is the purpose of the staff-development activity? Is 19 it to cause compliance with laws, policies, or regulations; to remediate areas needing improvement of the persons involved; or to enrich? Third, it states who participates. How principals become involved, by free choice or mandate, is the fourth function. By mapping a professional-development activity, one can see whether it is a top-down (superintendent or board of education down) or bottom-up (teacher or other staff-up) activity. A top-down activity is externally initiated, for the purpose of compliance; all principals are required to participate. A bottom-up activity is internally proposed, for the purpose of enrichment; those principals who wish to, may volunteer (Fenstermacher 8 Berliner, 1985). The more bottom-up a profile, the easier it is, in general, to meet the conditions of a valued staff-development activity. In contrast, the more top-down a profile, the harder it is, in general, to meet the conditions for a valued staff-develOpment activity. Externally imposed, compulsory, compliance-oriented activities involving most or all principals face enormous obstacles to being considered worthwhile. This does not mean that compulsory inservices cannot be effective. However, in planning the sessions, one must aware of the possible negative feelings of participants. The third component, a description of participant roles, examines four participant roles in staff development: planners, providers, recipients, and evaluators. Planners conceive of and develop the activity. Providers offer the activity to the recipients. Evaluators determine whether the activity was done well or not, whether it was worthwhile, and whether it succeeded. 20 Decisions regarding staff-development activities are improved when a proposal is subjected to a definitional test, the mapping sentence is used, the participants are clearly specified, and an evaluation is completed. Other researchers have found that effective staff development (a) has district leadership commitment, (b) is long term, (c) has goals consistent with those of the district, (d) moves from orientation to awareness to skill building, (e) has job-related content, and (f) has minimal threat to the learner and is dominated by facts and a relation to reality (Loucks, 1983; Paskal, 1986; Rogers, 1951). Rogers (1951), Knowles (1973), and Arin-Krupp (1980) found similar results about adult learners. As an individual matures, the need and the ability to be self-directing, to use experience in assisting learning, and to organize learning around life’s problems increases. Knowles’s model is different from Fenstermacher’s in that his model discusses the pedagogical and andragogical teaching methods. The pedagogical model is the traditional teacher-student model in which the teacher takes the responsibility for what is learned, when it is learned, how it is to be learned, and measuring whether it has been learned. The andragogical model has the following assumptions. As people mature, they become more self-responsible and self- directed. As people grow and develop, they accumulate experiences that are a valuable aid in learning. Individuals become ready to 21 learn what they need to know. Adults learn better when learning is organized around life situations. The most potent motivator is the need to grow and develop. In planning professional development, the situation must be assessed. If the learners have no previous experience in an area, if they do not understand the relevance of an area, if a given amount of subject matter must be covered, or if learners have no internal need to learn, the pedagogical model is the appropriate one. In all other situations, the andragogical model should be used and is the desired goal in this case. Thus, the teacher who begins with the pedagogical model will attempt to have the learners take more and more responsibility for their own learning. Principals’ genterg Principals’ centers are programs that are being designed to help principals develop their professional skills. The first of these programs was begun in the late 19705 at the state level, mainly by chief state school officers who had participated in the American Management Association or the National Academy for School Executives (Patterson, 1983). Many studies have shown that principals want additional training because university training, workshops, and conferences do not meet their needs. The recent emergence of principals’ centers seems to suggest that such centers offer a method of professional development for principals that is presently unavailable. Many leaders of the principals’ center movement believe that when other 22 groups meet these needs, principals’ centers will blend in with them (Barth, 1986; Erlandson, 1986; VanDerBogert, 1986). Principals’ centers have only been in existence since the late 19705, and already there are more than 100 of them. Other organizations, such as state or' professional associations, were involved in inservice but not exclusively for principals. Principals’ inservice is usually but one of many other functions undertaken by the state or a professional association. The only function of a principals’ center is to provide inservice crucial to the professional development of principals. Recently, different types of principals’ centers have developed. These have been formed by principals, superintendents, university professors, and/or state mandate and have operated at a local or regional level. They are all experiments to improve principals’ skill, knowledge, and confidence. There is presently a National Principals’ Center Network, a bimonthly newsletter entitled w r w o , a project administrator, and a hotline. The fourth annual convention, the Principals’ Center Conversation, was held in Los Angeles in April 1987. Listed below is information on many of the more publicized principals’ centers. 1. The South Carolina Administrators’ Leadership Academy was established in 1979. Its advisory board is composed of practicing principals and school board members. All programs are based on the results of formal needs surveys and use local principals or other local personnel as presenters in regional sites. The Academy has three long-range programs: the Principal Apprenticeship Program, 23 the Springfield Simulation, and the Superintendency Internship Program. It also has an assessment center and networks with other principals’ centers. 2. The Maryland Professional Development Academy is sponsored by the Maryland State Department of Education. It offers ten institutes per year, each one week long during the summer and based on needs assessments from principals. Participants help to plan the institutes and also participate in two-day sessions in the fall and spring. Administrative networking teams are formed at each institute. Within these, principals are paired in coaching teams. They visit and meet with each other throughout the year. Nearly three-fourths of the principals in Maryland have experienced the Academy (Sanders, 1984). 3. The North Carolina Leadership Institute for Principals offers three programs: the Business/Industry Liaison Program, the Short-Term Internship Program, and the Executive Assistants Program. North Carolina firms offer one or two participant slots in their management inservice programs to school principals. The short-term internship allows principals to visit another principal. The Executive Assistants Program chooses three principals a year to serve as executive assistants for the institute. Their responsibilities include designing and delivering training programs and writing training materials and position papers on the principalship. During the five years the institute has been in 24 operation, 95% of the principals in North Carolina have been served (Grier, 1986). 4. Texas A 8 M University’s Principals’ Center began in 1985 with the purpose of assisting principals in becoming instructional leaders by offering programs for principals that will help them develop their skills and knowledge. From an initial summer and fall academy, nine regional clusters have been formed. Each cluster determines its own course based on the needs identified by the members of that cluster. The staff on the Texas A 8 M campus provide a hotline, a newsletter, and a variety of research and development activities (Erlandson, 1986). 5. The Baylor University Principals’ Center was begun in 1984 and has a four-pronged approach to meeting its purpose of facilitating the personal and professional growth 'of school administrators. First, collegial circles are sponsored, based on the idea that principals can learn from each other and can help each other with problems if they have the opportunity to meet and interact. with each other in a somewhat structured environment. Second, the center provides high-quality programs that qualify for the state-mandated training for administrators. Forums are a third area in which information on current developments is shared with administrators. The last activities presented at the center are monthly principals’ seminars (Estes, 1986). 6. The mission of the Meadowbrook Leadership Academy is to provide a program of professional development for principals that will help them in their efforts to improve their skills and 25 performance. There is an advisory committee composed of 16 principals, which identifies needs, selects program areas, and assists in program design and evaluation. The following principles of adult development and staff development guide the operations of the center: a. Individuals wish to be competent. b. Growth and change sometimes involve discomfort and anxiety. c. Trust is a major component of adult learning. d. Learning is at a maximum when the person is active and involved. e. Mentoring is an important method of staff development. f. Individuals have different concerns, strengths, and needs at different ages. 9. Individuals have different styles of learning. h. Programs that are planned and conducted by practitioners are more effective than those by outsiders. i. Individualized programs are the most effective. j. When the practitioner can choose his/her own goals and activities, the programs will be more successful than when others determine them. k. Mutual sharing and assistance programs are more effective than programs in which individuals work alone. 1. Programs that emphasize demonstrations, supervise behavior, give feedback, and offer modeling of skills and concepts are more effective than those that present only ideas. 26 m. Professional development is best served by responsive, innovative, and challenging programs (Pine, 1986). 7. The Tennessee Principal Administrator Academy moved in 1984 in the direction of the business model. Current Governor Alexander wanted the program modeled after the management programs run by business for chief executive officers and their key staff. 8. The Florida. Academy for School Leaders, established in 1982, is directed by a council on educational management appointed by the governor. The goals of the academy are to identify: a. Competencies that characterize high-performing principals. b. Methods to measure and evaluate those competencies. c. Training procedures for principals to acquire these compe- tencies. d. Procedures to implement competency certification for prin- cipals. e. Policies and procedures to implement a compensation program for successful performance. f. Criteria for screening, selecting, and appointing princi- pals (Pipho, 1985). 9. The Principal’s Institute in Arizona was legislatively mandated and begun in 1984. During that summer, a ten-day training session on classroom management was attended by more than 150 principals. These continue to be held each summer. 10. The Harvard Principals’ Center was begun in October 1981. It is managed by an advisory board of 18 Boston-area principals and four Harvard faculty. The principals’ center is dedicated to the 27 personal and professional development of school principals primarily and also to those others who influence the character and quality of a school. Workshops are held two to three times each month, and a summer institute was begun in the summer of 1984. Presenters range from nationally known persons and Harvard faculty to practicing principals. 11. The School Executive Management Institute in Mississippi is an example of a mandated program. During the 1984-85 school year, 2,300 principals and assistant principals from every school district in Mississippi were trained in effective-schools research. More than 90% of the participants rated the presentations as excellent or good. They now offer four programs: (a) instructional leadership, (b) instructional focus, (c) climate, and (d) measurement (Boyd, 1985). 12. The Northwest Suburban Principal Center, located outside St. Louis, Missouri, has been in existence for three years. Its purposes are (a) to inform, educate, and assist principals in becoming more effective in their work; and (b) to spend time together, away from school, sharing, questioning, debating issues, and being revitalized. The topics that were offered during 1985-86 include The Role of the Principal in School Reform, Administrative Applications of the Computer, Principal as Image Maker, Artistry of Principaling, School Discipline: Punishment or Prevention, and Evaluating Teachers. 28 A survey of 28 principals’ centers found that: . 1. Collegial relationships influenced most principals to par- ticipate. 2. Twenty-five centers have voluntary participation and three mandatory. 3. Principals were involved in policy decisions in 22 centers, in planning in 26 centers, in program offerings in 24 centers, and in program evaluation in 20 centers. 4. Government and university principal centers look similar and offer few incentives for principals to attend (McDonald, 1986). Just because a program is offered at a principals’ center does not mean that it is effective or likely to be successful. Those who work in schools, colleges of education, state departments, regional service centers, and upper management in school systems have a professional obligation to help principals become productive leaders and managers of their schools (Snyder 8 Johnson, 1984). Most principals feel that there are too many other responsibilities and demands on them to devote the time needed to instructional leadership. Reprioritization seems critical. Principals need drastic help with their organizational planning and their staff— and program-development skills. Most principals are interested and eager to begin their retraining (Snyder 8 Johnson, 1984). 5.9mm: In this second chapter, the related literature and research were presented. The research on the present practices of principals 29 was drawn from Meyer, Scott, Deal, Weick, Peterson, Sproull, Martin, and Pitner. Murphy, Daresh, LaPlant, Snyder, Johnson, and Pitner provided the research on the preparation of principals. The research of Armor, Austin, Berman, McLaughlin, Brookover, Lezotte, Edmonds, Glenn, Levine, Stark, Trisman, Tursman, Robinson, Peters, Waterman, Purkey, Smith, Little, Blumberg, Huff, Percell, Cookson, Dwyer, Sizer, DeBevoise, Gersten, Carnine, Rutter, Erickson, Cotton, Savard, and Greenfield contributed to the effective-principal studies. The studies of Johnson, Snyder, Barnett, the Far West Laboratory, Pitner, and LaPlant provided information (Hi the professional development for principals. Fenstermacher, Berliner, Loucks, Paskal, Rogers, Knowles, and Arin-Krupp provided the background on professional-development models. Information on principals’ centers was addressed in the writings of Patterson, Erlandson, Barth, VanDerBogert, Huddle, Grier, Estes, Pine, Pipho, Boyd, and ten principals’ centers. In the next chapter, the design and administration of the survey of principals and the telephone survey of ten principals’ centers are examined. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Inimdusjjen The purposes of this study were (a) to determine the perceived professional-development needs and preferences of K-12 principals, (b) to assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers, and (c) to develop a model for the delivery of professional-development programs for principals. This chapter begins with a description of a survey which preceded the dissertation proposal. Following this, the surveys that were used to collect data to fulfill the first and second purposes above are described. An initial survey of existing principals’ centers and academies was designed, using information from the National Institute of Education’s 1982 NIE Direetory ef Ingervice [mining Pregame fer Erjnejeele, the literature, and telephone conversations with various sources across the country. The purpose of this survey was to determine if there were sufficient data on principals’ centers to include as part of a dissertation. The instrument (Appendix A) was mailed to all of the 28 centers listed in the NIE directory and others that had begun after the printing of the directory. Sixteen of the centers responded. The 30 31 results of this survey (Appendix 8) gave further impetus to the researcher to pursue this topic. Musical: The survey of principals and assistant principals was designed using characteristics discussed by Snyder in her 1984 study, Fenstermacher and Berliner in their 1985 paper, information from principals’ centers, and the researcher’s experience as a teacher, assistant principal, and principal. This survey appears in Appendix C. Questions 1 through 13 asked for demographic data, such as whether the school was in a rural, city, or suburban area; the level of the school; sex; race; the highest college degree; the number of students in the school and in the district; age; and experience. Questions 14 through 22 asked the principals to rate the success of past professional-development activities they had attended. These areas were single-topic workshops, university classes, conferences, intermediate school district workshops, district inservices, and meetings or conversations with colleagues. In Items 23 through 68, principals were asked to rate the importance of various skills to the principal position and how well they thought they performed these skills. Examples of these skills are conducting a school needs assessment, setting school goals, planning and implementing change, managing time, being knowledgeable about group processes, understanding effective leader traits, involving staff in decision making, delegating responsibility, 32 maintaining positive human relations, and observing classroom instruction. Questions 69 through 72 requested information on the principals’ satisfaction with the current professional-development system, their familiarity with principals’ centers, whether they had ever participated in a principals’ center program, and how interested they might be in attending professional-development programs that might be offered in a new format, such as a principals’ center. These results appear in Appendix D. 'l tu The instrument was first reviewed by Lawrence Lezotte, a professor at Michigan State University and chairperson of the researcher’s doctoral committee. After initial revisions, the survey instrument was sampled by six principals, one assistant superintendent, and one superintendent to test the clarity of the cover letter and survey instrument. Based on these recommendations, the survey instrument was revised fUrtheru ‘The survey instrument was mailed to all 150 principals and assistant principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties in Michigan. These counties were chosen because they contain a variety of school districts and contain a large enough population to be a valid study. These counties also were chosen because Don Shebuski and Garry Michaels, the superintendent and assistant superintendent, respectively, of Ingham Intermediate School District, expressed interest in the feasibility 33 of beginning a principals’ center sponsored by Ingham Intermediate School District and Michigan State University to serve these counties. A cover letter, the survey, and a stamped envelope in which to return the survey were mailed to each principal. Most of the instruments were returned inmediately. Follow-up telephone calls and mailings resulted in the return of 124 of the 150 questionnaires that had been mailed. The responses to each of the questions were keypunched and loaded into a computer at the Ingham Intermediate School District Data Processing Center. The frequency and percentage were printed for each response, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Survey of Prjnejpele’ geggere Ten principals’ centers were chosen for the telephone survey. These were chosen from the literature, suggestions by Jim Rison, Director of the Harvard Principals’ Center, and from the researcher’s experience at the Principals’ Center Conversation in San Antonio, Texas, a national conference on principals’ centers. The questions asked in the survey were based on the initial principals’ center survey results, the Snyder (1984) survey results, the literature, and the Harvard Principals’ Center (1986) survey results. The survey included questions on the principals’ center’s board of directors; the center’s program, content, and curricula; 34 the role of principals in the center; the format, duration, and spacing of the programs; program preferences of principals; whether principals are required to attend; and whether principals pay a fee. The survey was taken during March and April 1987, and the data were tabulated using a cross-tabulation with the center’s name down the side and the question number across the top. The results appear in Appendix F. The data are analyzed in Chapter IV by looking for a pattern in the responses to each question and writing a summary of these responses. The principals’ center model was developed using the results of the research; the results of the survey of principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties; and the results of the telephone survey of ten principals’ centers. 52mm: The population for the survey of principals comprised the 150 principals and assistant principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. One hundred twenty-four surveys were returned, for a return rate of 82.7%. A self-administered survey was used, which had been pilot tested. The design and data-gathering and -reporting techniques were explained. A telephone survey of ten principals’ centers was described. An explanation of the selection of centers and questions was given. The method of data reporting was presented. 35 In the next chapter, the data from the survey of principals and the survey of principals’ centers are presented. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF DATA W In this chapter, the six research questions are answered and discussed. Also, the data collected in the three surveys are reviewed and summarized. These surveys are the Initial Survey of Principals’ Centers and Academies; the Survey of Principals and Assistant Principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties, Michigan; and the Telephone Survey of Ten Principals’ Centers. The data from the principals’ survey and the telephone survey of principals’ centers were designed to provide the information necessary to answer the six research questions. These questions are discussed in the order in which they were listed, using the data from the surveys to answer them. Initial Servey of Principals’ genters and Acedemiee A survey was sent to the 25 organizations listed in the National Institute for Education’s 1982 Direetery 9f Erincjpele’ Centers and Academiee. Sixteen surveys (64%) were returned. The results of this pilot survey helped to determine that there was widespread interest in a different format and a different agenda for professional development for principals throughout the country and 36 37 sufficient information to be a major portion of a dissertation. (See Appendix B.) The survey results included descriptions of principal inservice programs with a new and different agenda, now located in a single place and with a longer time frame. Using the criteria of time in operation and assured funding, the survey respondents judged their programs to be successful. r n’l n s tn i gelsjn ham t n an l'nton ounti s Michi an This survey was mailed to all 150 principals and assistant principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties; 124 were returned for a response rate of 83%. The purpose of this survey was to determine the perceived needs and preferences of principals for their professional development. The percentages reported below are based on the responses. (See Appendix D.) W Of the principals, 25.8% were in rural schools, 32.3% were in city schools, and 41.9%» were in suburban schools. Elementary principals comprised 52.4% of the survey population, 24.2% were middle/junior high principals, 21.8% were senior high principals, and 1.8% were other. Principals with an assistant principal were 24.2%; and 62.1% were principals with no assistant. Assistant principals comprised 13.7% of the respondents. 38 Females represented 25.2% of the population and males 74.8%. Caucasians held 86.3% of the positions, Blacks held 11.3%, Hispanics 1.6%, and others 0.8%. Ingham Intermediate School District (ISD) provided services to 77.4% of the principals, Clinton ISD served 12.1%, and 10.5% were within the boundaries of Eaton ISD. Only 0.8% had just a bachelor’s degree, whereas 37.9% had a master’s degree, 37.1% had a master’s degree plus 30 quarter hours, 9.7% had a specialist’s degree, and 14.5% had a doctorate degree. A mere 3.2% of the principals were in buildings with fewer than 200 students, 38.7% had 200 to 399 students, 28.3% had between 400 and 599 students, 12.1% had buildings of 600 to 999 students, and 17.7% had more than 1,000 students in their buildings. Districts with under 2,000 students had 25.9% of the principals, districts with 2,000 to 5,000 students employed 45.4% of the principals, and 28.7% were in a district with more than 5,000 students. The data on the ages of the principals showed that 17.4% of the principals were under 40, 46.2% were between the ages of 40 and 49, 32.3% were between 50 and 59, and 4.2% were 60 to 63. The data on years of experience showed that 10.5% of the principals had 0 to 4 years of experience as a building administrator, 20.1% had 5 to 9.5 years, 63.8% had been in their present positions for 10 to 22 years, and 5.6% had had between 23 and 29 years of experience. 39 To address the research questions, the data were analyzed by the computer in several different ways, with the final results reported using the frequency and percentage of responses in each category. i : What are the perceived professional- development needs of principals? The questions on pages 4 through 7 and numbered 23 to 68 of the principals’ survey (Appendix C) were written to provide the respondents with an opportunity to answer this question. The principals were asked first to respond as to (a) how important they perceived each category to be in the performance of a principal and (b) to estimate how well they perceived themselves to perform each skill. Areas were ranked high as a professional -development need if the percentage of principals who judged that a skill area was very important or important exceeded 90% and the percentage who rated their performance in that area as quite good or very good was less than 40%. Categories were rated as not as high a professional- development need if between 40% and 60% rated their skill as quite good or very good. The professional-development need was judged to be low if 60% or more rated their skill as quite good or very good. All of the areas were judged to be very important or important by 90% or more of the principals. The categories are rank ordered from high to low as a professional-development need for principals in Table 4.1. 40 The column Important/Very Important lists the percentage of principals who rated that skill area as important or very important. The column Quite Good/Very Good shows the percentage of principals who rated their skill in that area as such. Table 4.1.--Rank ordering of principals’ perceptions of professional- development needs, from most to least important. Principals’ Principals’ Rating of Rating of Importance Their Skill of Skill Skill Important/ Quite Good/ Very Imp. Very Good (95) (96) Developing staff professionally 98.4 30.9 Conferencing with staff 92.6 33.9 Conducting a school needs assessment 96.0 34.7 Keeping abreast of new curricular trends 96.8 34.9 Developing 8 managing the instructional program 97.5 35.5 Implementing new programs or practices 97.6 35.7 Knowledgeable in group processes 96.0 36.9 Clinically supervising staff 91.0 38.6 Observing in classrooms 98.4 39.7 Understanding effective-schools research 96.0 39.9 Knowledgeable in the teaching/learning process 96.8 40.7 Understanding of child growth/development 96.7 40.7 Planning 8 implementing change 96.0 41.3 Setting school goals 98.4 42.2 Understanding of effective leader traits 94.4 44.6 Interviewing 8 selecting new staff 97.6 52.4 Developing positive school/community relations 100.0 56.1 Managing time 99.2 58.7 Delegating responsibility 99.2 59.9 Involving staff in decision making 100.0 60.7 Maintaining positive relations 8 school climate 100.0 62.3 Communicating with staff 99.2 63.1 Visible throughout building 100.0 73.8 41 The skill areas included in the questionnaire were drawn from research, literature, and the researcher’s experience. All of these skill areas drew a response of important or very important from more than 90% of the principals, indicating a high degree of knowledge of current research and literature. As the ratings ranged from a low of 30.9% rating themselves as quite good or very good in a skill area to a high of 73.8% and with 15 of the 23 areas having only 30% to 50% of the principals rating their skill as very good or good, the principals indicated a significant need for the professional development of skills in most of the areas listed. In rank order, the top ten areas that were ranked by the principals as high as a professional-development need for principals based on the survey of principals are as follows. (The number in parentheses is the percentage who rated themselves as quite good or very good at that skill.) 1. Developing staff professionally (31%) 2. Conferencing with staff (34%) 3. Conducting a school needs assessment (35%) 4. Keeping abreast of new curricular trends (35%) 5. Developing and managing the instructional program (36%) 6. Implementing new programs and practices (36%) 7. Knowledgeable in group processes (37%) 8. Clinically supervising staff (39%) 9. Observing in classrooms (40%) 10. Understanding effective-schools research (40%) 42 The following areas were ranked lower as a professional- development need for programs for principals. (The number in parentheses is the percentage who rated themselves as quite good or very good at that skill.) 1. Excellent knowledge of the teaching—learning process (41) Understanding child growth and development (41%) Planning and implementing change (41%) Setting school goals (42%) Understanding effective leadership traits (45%) Interviewing, selecting, and orienting staff (52%) Natal-DUN Developing positive school-community relations (56%) The principals did not see a need for programs in the following areas which, although they felt that these areas are important for principals, they felt that they were more skillful in these six than in the other 17 listed previously. 1. Managing time (59%) 2. Delegating responsibility (60%) 3. Involving staff in decision making (61%) 4. Maintaining positive human relations and school climate (62%) 5. Communicating with staff (63%) 6. Visible throughout building (74%) Begeareh Questjen 2: Is 'there a need for an alternative delivery system than those that presently exist for the professional development of principals? Items 14 through 22 on the principals’ survey asked principals to rate the success of past professional-development activities. 43 Table 4.2 shows the professional-development activities that the majority of principals rated as successful or very successful. Table 4.2.--The six professional-development activities rated as successful or very successful by principals and the percentage of principals who gave that rating. Successful or Professional-Development Activity Very Successful ‘% Meetings or conversations with colleagues 86 Single-topic workshops 76 Professional reading 75 Intermediate school district workshops 75 Professional association conferences 69 Local school district inservices 66 Table 4.3 displays the categories that were judged as slightly successful or not successful and the percentage of principals who gave that rating. Table 4.3.--Professiona1-development activities rated as slightly successful or not successful. Slightly Successful or Professional-Development Activity Not Successful (%) State Department of Education sponsored conferences 63 University classes, credit 54 44 The specific questions that related to alternative professional-development activities for principals are discussed in the following paragraphs. On Question 69, concerning how satisfied the principals were with the present delivery system for professional development, 18.9% were very satisfied, 60.7% somewhat satisfied, 17.2% not very satisfied, and 2.5% totally unsatisfied. Question 72 asked the principals about their interest in attending nonrequired, professional -development programs offered in a new format, such as a principals’ center. The principals responded as follows: 42.5% were very interested, 52.5% were somewhat interested, 4.2% were not very interested, and 0.8% were uninterested. If, indeed, the six areas listed in Table 4.2 met the professional-development needs of principals, the survey results would bear this out. However, the survey results did not support that the present delivery system of professional-development activities for principals met their needs. Another indication of the need for an alternative delivery system for the professional development of principals is the rapid growth of principals’ centers. These would never have experienced the rapid growth they have, had the present delivery system met the professional-development needs of principals (VanDerBogert, 1986). In 15 of 23 or 65% of the skill areas listed on the survey of principals, the percentage of principals who listed themselves as quite good or very good on that skill was between 30% and 50%. The converse of this is that in 15 of the 23 skill areas used in the 45 survey of principals and supported by research and literature (McDonald, 1986; Pipho, 1985; Pitner, 1982; Snyder, 1983) as critical skills for principals, between 50% and 70% of the principals did not rate themselves as quite good or very good. These data show a definite need for an alternative delivery system for professional-development activities for principals. Reeeeteh_flee§tten_3: What types of programs would principals prefer for professional development? Several questions are listed below that were included in the telephone survey of principals’ centers, which assist in answering this research question. Appendix E shows the questions asked in this survey. Appendix F displays the results. 5. Is the format lecture, seminar, or small group? 6. What is the duration and spacing of your programs? 7. Do you use homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping of principals by skill level at your programs? 8. Is mentoring, networking, or peer assistance included in your programs? 9. What types of programs do principals prefer? The responses to these questions are shown in Table 4.4. fermet: All ten principals’ centers varied their fbrmat for various programs. They used lecture, discussion, seminar, and small-group, depending on the program and what they thought would be the best method for learning. Small group and seminar were used more than lecture. 46 Table 4.4.--Responses to five questions from the telephone survey of principals’ centers. Centers Format Duration Grouping Mentor Types Harvard seminar most long heter yes varies SGa term North Carolina varies varies both yes varies Syracuse 5G: all year heter no varies LG long Texas A 8 M varies varies heter yes varies Meadowbrook varies varies heter no varies Maine varies varies heter no varies Alaska varies 1 week heter yes varies 3 day Marin County varies breakfast heter network varies mtg 1/wk PALC Georgia State varies varies both peer varies Westchester varies varies both network. varies aSG - small group. bLG - large group. cPAL - peer-assisted learning. 47 W: Most of the centers had some short-term programs and some long-term programs. Alaska was one exception because of the great distances involved in principals attending programs. Thus, they had fewer sessions that were of short-term duration. Harvard and Syracuse both offered only year-long programs. WWW: Most used only heterogeneous grouping as program attendance was voluntary. North Carolina, Georgia State, and Westchester each offered one homogeneous program for first-year principals. n ri worki a : Seven of the ten programs had some form of mentoring, networking, or peer assistance. 0 r m : This varied at each of the principals’ centers, depending on the need and skill development of the group. If the skill to be learned was new, lecture and discussion were more likely to be used. Most of the time, small groups, seminar, or one- to-one were used. The directors expressed that the type of program was important to the extent that the skill level was considered in choosing the type of program. In summary, the results of the telephone survey of principals’ centers indicated that the format varied depending on the type of program. Small group and seminar were used most often. Most programs were long term. Most grouping of principals was heterogeneous. Some form of mentoring was used in seven of the ten centers. 48 . What characteristics do these ten established principals’ centers have in common? Responses to Questions 1 through 7, 9, and 11 on the telephone survey of principals’ centers were used to answer this question. (Appendix F displays the complete results of the telephone survey.) The results are summarized below: 1. All ten principals’ centers involved principals in deciding the center’s content and curriculum. 2. Eight of the ten principals’ centers did an annual needs assessment of the principals. Another center did a needs assessment every three years. 3. Nine centers involved principals in deciding which programs would be offered. 4. A11 ten principals’ centers used principals to make some of the presentations. 5. Most of the ten centers varied the type of program and pre- sentation as to lecture, seminar, small group, or one-to-one, depending on need. 6. Seminar and small group were the most frequently used types of presentations at these centers. 7. Most programs at these ten principals’ centers were offered over several days spread out over the year. 8. Mentoring, networking, and peer assistance are becoming more widely used as a part of the programs at these centers. 49 9. Attendance by principals at any of the professional- development activities sponsored by these ten principals’ centers was not required. W. When a model is proposed based on (a) established principals’ centers and (b) an adaptation of Fenstermacher and Berliner’s framework for effective professional-development programs, will principals see it as worthwhile and make a commitment to it? Question 72 on page 8 of the survey of principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties asked, 'Which of the following characterizes your interest in attending non-required professional- development programs offered in a new format such as a principals’ center? From the principals’ responses, 40.8% stated that they were very interested, 50.4% were somewhat interested, and 4.8% were not very uninterested or uninterested. The data from the survey of principals showed that all of the 23 skill areas on the survey were rated as important to the principalship. On 15 of the 23 skill areas, the percentage of principals who stated that their skill level was not quite good or not very good ranged from 50% to 70%. Research results (Dwyer, 1983; Johnson, 1983) found that training interests by principals are high and that principals would see training programs as worthwhile in areas they believe are important. Fenstermacher and Berliner’s (1985) framework for the professional-development programs that are the most likely to be effective include the following: 1. The professional-development program is proposed by the persons for whom the professional development is intended. 50 Attendance is voluntary. The purpose of the program is clearly stated. The participants are clearly defined. 0'"va The program is evaluated by participants. At all ten principals’ centers selected for the telephone survey, attendance was voluntary, and principals were making a comitment by serving on the boards, assisting in planning and presenting, and attending the programs. Beeeereh Queetien Q: If’ principals had to pay a fee of approximately $100, would they be more or less inclined to make a commitment to principals’ center programs? In the ten principals’ centers, it was found that the fee was not a condition of the principals being more or less inclined to make a commitment to the center’s programs. Although three of the ten centers did charge a fee to the principals for the year’s activities, the directors of these centers, like the other seven, felt that it was a combination of involving principals on the board, asking them to assist in planning and presenting programs, and offering programs based on the needs assessment that caused principals to make a commitment to the programs. Chapter V of this study discusses the entire research project and includes a review of the literature and research, a summary of the findings of the surveys, and a recommended model for a principals’ center. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Sum Bum The purposes of this study were (a) to determine the perceived professional -development needs and preferences of K-12 principals, (b) to assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers, and (c) to develop a model for the delivery of professional-development programs for principals. Researchers such as Meyer, Scott, Deal, Weick, Peterson, Sproull, Martin, and Pitner contributed to the studies which found that principals presently become involved in service, advisory, and auditing relationships. Their central focus is not classroom observation and curriculum development. The preparation of principals was studied through the writings of Murphy, Daresh, LaPlant, Johnson, Snyder, and Pitner. They found that initial administrative training programs omitted goal setting, long-range planning, evaluation, strategy for improvement, educational leadership, group processes, and human-relations training. Because of this, initial administrative training programs 51 52 had little influence on administrative performance, whereas on-the- job training and professional-development programs were most important. Studies by Armor, Austin, Berman, McLaughlin, Brookover, Lezotte, Edmonds, Glenn, Levine, Stark, Trisman, Tursman, Robinson, Peters, Waterman, Purkey, Smith, Little, Blumberg, Huff, Persell, Cookson, Dwyer, Sizer, DeBevoise, Gersten, Carnine, Rutler, Erickson, Cotton, Savard, and Greenfield on effective principals provided the information ‘that the principal can be critical in changing teacher behavior and improving student performance. Also, the behaviors and characteristics of effective principals were stated. Professional development for principals was reviewed, citing studies by Snyder, Barnett, Dwyer, Johnson, Pitner, LaPlant, Murphy, and Hallinger. The needs for principals to change their focus to instructional leadership and to acquire the skills to accomplish this were stated. Present programs were found to cover ”hot topics" and not the skills, such as quality teaching, staff development, school improvement, self-evaluation, and adult learning theory, needed to be an effective principal. Professional-development models were examined in studies by Fenstermacher, Berliner, Loucks, Paskal, Rogers, Knowles, and Arin- Krupp. Factors were identified in these studies that make professional-development programs more likely to be successful. Examples of these factors are involvement of participants as program planners, presenters, and evaluators; a clear definition of the 53 program’s purpose; voluntary attendance at the programs; practical application of the program; long-term duration of the program; and school district leadership commitment to the program. The research of Patterson, Erlandson, Barth, VanDerBogert, the South Carolina Administrators’ Leadership Academy, Huddle, Grier, Estes, Pine, the Tennessee Principal Administrator Academy, Pipho, the Principals’ Institute in Arizona, Boyd, the Northwest Suburban Principals’ Center, McDonald, Snyder, and Johnson assisted in reviewing the present status of principals’ centers. These studies reported a rapid increase in the number of principals’ centers over the last several years to the present number, which exceeds 100. The major focuses of 12 principals’ centers were each presented. A survey by McDonald (1986) of 28 principals’ centers found that collegial relationships influenced most principals to attend. In general, the principals’ centers were dedicated to the personal and professional development of school principals. Most offered programs that included mutual sharing and assistance, instructional leadership, and effective-principal characteristics. Snyder (1985) found that principals first need help with reprioritization so that the development or refinement of skills in organizational planning and staff and program development become the highest priority. Principals were found to be interested and ready to begin retraining. 54 Beyjew nf Design nf the Study Two of the purposes of the study were to determine the perceived professional-development needs and preferences of K-12 principals and to assess the characteristics of established principals’ centers. Two separate surveys were necessary to accomplish this. A written survey with 72 questions was developed to determine the professional-development needs of principals. The population for this study was the 150 principals and assistant principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. The questions were developed from research and literature findings and information from principals’ centers. Thirteen questions covered demographic data; nine items related to the principals’ ratings of the success of past professional- development activities. On the next 46 questions, the principals were asked to rate the importance of each skill to the principalship and then to rate their skill in each area. The last four items requested responses on the principals’ familiarity with principals’ centers and their programs and how interested they would be in participating in programs offered in a new format, such as a principals’ center. The responses were keypunched and loaded into a computer. The data were reported by listing the frequency and percentage for each response to each question. A telephone survey was developed and administered to assess the characteristics of ten established principals’ centers. The 55 population was chosen from advice from Jim Rison, Director of the Harvard Principals’ Center, and from discussions at a national principals’ center conference. The 12 questions requested information on the center’s board of directors; the program and curricula; the role of principals; the format, duration, and spacing of the programs; program preferences of pmincipals; whether attendance by principals was mandatory; and whether principals paid a fee. The responses were compiled by item for each principals’ center. E' d’ n! t 1 . BeeeeytmL_Qne§tinn__1: What are the perceived professional- development needs of principals? findinge. In all of the 23 skill areas, 90% or more of the principals judged each area as very important or important to a principal. The ten skill areas with the highest percentage of principals who did not rate their skill as quite good or very good are listed in Table 5.1. tnnelneinne. The 23 skill areas that were rated as important skills by various researchers were also rated as important by more than 90% of the principal respondents in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. The ten skills listed previously were the skills on which the highest percentage of principals did not rate their skill as quite good or very good. These would provide more than enough program topics for the first year of a principals’ center. Looking at all of the 23 skill areas in Table 4.1, the principals indicated 56 a significant need for the development of skills in most of the areas listed. In 19 of the 23 areas, between 40% and 69% of the principals did not rate their skills as quite good or very good in each area. These 19 areas are the perceived professional- development needs of principals. Table 5.1.--The ten skill areas with the highest percentage of principals who did not rate their skill in that area as quite good or very good. Skill Area Percent Developing staff professionally 69 Conferencing with staff 66 Conducting a school needs assessment 65 Keeping abreast of new curricular trends 65 Developing and managing the instructional program 64 Implementing new programs or practices 64 Knowledgeable in group processes 63 Clinically supervising staff 61 Observing in classrooms 60 Beseereh Onegtjnn 2: Is there a need for an alternative delivery system than those that presently exist for the professional development of principals? n in . In response to Question 69 on the principals’ survey, which asked how satisfied the principals were with the present delivery system for professional development, 19% were very satisfied, 61% somewhat satisfied, 17% not very satisfied, and 3%. totally unsatisfied. Question 72 on the same survey asked principals about their interest in alternative professional-development programs. Of the 57 principals, 43% were very interested, 53% were somewhat interested, 4% were not very interested, and 1% were uninterested. There has been a rapid growth of principals’ centers, with the first beginning the late 19705 and the number exceeding 100 in 1986 (VanDerBogert, 1986). Between 50% and 70% of the principals did not rate their skill as quite good or very good in 15 of the 23 skill areas that more than 90% of the principals had ranked as very important or important to a principal. mm. If only 19% of the principals and assistant principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties were very satisfied with the present delivery system for professional development for principals, 43% were very interested in alternative professional programs offered in a new format such as a principals’ center, there has been a rapid growth in the number of principals’ centers across the nation, and principals expressed a high need for skills they considered important to the principalship, then there is a definite need for an alternative delivery system for professional development for principals. Beneenen_gne§tinn_3: What types of programs would principals prefer for professional development? Ejndjngs. In the telephone survey of ten principals’ centers, it was found that: 1. All ten principals’ centers varied the format of their programs, using seminar, small group, discussion, and lecture as they felt most appropriate. 58 2. Most of the centers had some short-term programs and some long-term programs. The majority were of long-term duration. 3. As program attendance was voluntary, the grouping was always heterogeneous, with the exception of programs for first-year principals. 4. Seven of the ten principals’ centers had some form of men- toring, networking, or peer assistance. genelneinns. The telephone survey of ten principals’ centers indicated that the types of programs that principals preferred varied in format, depending on the need, with small group and seminar used most often. Most programs were long term, and some form of mentoring was offered at a majority of the centers. Researeh Questinn 5: What characteristics do these ten established principals’ centers have in common? Lind—1m:- 1. All ten principals’ centers involved principals inrdeciding the center’s program, content, and curriculum. 2. Nine centers did a needs assessment that involved princi- pals. 3. Principals were involved in deciding which programs would be offered at nine principals’ centers. 4. All ten centers used principals to make some of the presen- tations. 5. Attendance was voluntary at all ten centers. gnnclusinns. The above-mentioned 'common characteristics that these ten principals’ centers had should be included in a 59 principals’ center model. These are also the same as those found by Fenstermacher and Berliner (1985) when they proposed that staff- development programs are more likely to be effective when they are internally proposed and attendance is voluntary. Rogers (1951), Knowles (1973), and Arin-Krupp (1980) each found that adult learners, as they mature, have a need and an ability to be more self-directing. WM: When a model is proposed based on (a) established principals’ centers and (b) an adaptation of Fenstermacher and Berliner’s framework for effective professional-development programs, will principals see it as worthwhile and make a commitment to it? findings. In the survey of principals, Question 72 asked, Which of the following characterizes your interest in attending nonrequired, professional-development programs offered in a new format such as a principals’ center? The principals’ responses were: 41% were very interested, 50% were somewhat interested, and 5% were not very interested or uninterested. Of the 23 skill areas on the principals’ survey, all 23 were rated as important or very important by 90% or more of the principals. On 15 of the 23 skill areas, the percentage of principals who stated that their skill level was not good or not very good ranged from 50% to 70%. In the telephone survey of ten principals’ centers, it was found that principals were making a comitment by serving on the board of directors, assisting in planning and presenting programs, and attending the programs. 60 W. The findings showed that 41% of the principals were very interested and 50% were somewhat interested in attending nonrequired professional-development programs offered in a new format such as a principals’ center. This shows that principals would see a principals’ center as worthwhile. The data showing that 50% to 70% of the principals rated their skill in 15 of 23 important skill areas as not good or not very good indicated a need for professional development. This is supported by research results (Dwyer, 1983; Johnson, 1983), which found that principals’ interest in training was high and that principals would see training programs as worthwhile in areas they believed were important. Principals made a commitment at the ten principals’ centers and would make a commitment anywhere they saw the programs as worthwhile. Besenreh Queetion e: If principals had to pay a fee of approximately 5100, would they be more or less inclined to make a commitment to principals’ center programs? i in . At the ten principals centers surveyed, the fee was reported by the directors not to be a condition of the principals being more or less inclined to make a commitment to the center’s programs. Three of the centers charged a fee to principals. The directors of all ten principals’ centers stated that the involvement of principals in the board of directors and in planning and presenting programs, and not the fee, was what influenced a principal’s commitment to the programs. A fee was charged to pay 61 the expenses of the programs. This was paid in some cases by the principals, but more frequently by the school districts. gentlneinn, A fee will not cause principals to be more comitted to the center’s programs. The fee would help and is necessary to defray expenses. WW 1. Interested principals or other interested educators should arrange a meeting with one or two interested representatives from the intermediate school district, the nearest university, and local superintendents and principals for the purpose of discussing the possibility of beginning a principals’ center in the area. 2. Organize a board of directors, decide on the source of funding, develop a philosophy and goals, and decide on one or two programs that will be offered the first year. Choose these two programs from among the list of areas ranked high in need earlier in this chapter. 3. Involve principals in deciding which programs are offered and the format of the programs and have them make some of the presentations. 4. Involve principals with colleagues at these sessions. 5. Evaluate the programs verbally during the program and in writing at the conclusion. 6. Schedule follow-up activities for each program. 62 7. Meet with the board of directors, make necessary changes, do a needs assessment that involves principals in the spring, and plan and publicize for the following year. 8. Make attendance voluntary. The recommendations that are made below are based on the following assumptions: 1. The principals’ perceptions of their professional- development needs have been viewed as their actual needs. 2. The professional-development needs of principals as described in this dissertation could also be considered their "wants.“ 3. Supervisors and subordinates may view the professional- development needs of principals differently than the principals do. 4. The backlog of skills on which principals desire professional-development training as indicated in this dissertation is so great that a principals’ center with voluntary attendance could operate for three to four years to meet these needs. 5. A necessary next step after Item 7 above would be to survey supervisors and subordinates in assessing the professional- development needs of principals. Recemmendations Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made: 63 l. A principals’ center should be started in the area of Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties using the model proposed previously and the topics suggested in Table 5.1. 2. All professional-development activities should be planned with the findings of Fenstermacher and Berliner (1985), Loucks (1983), Paskal (1986), Rogers (1951), Knowles (1973), and Arin-Krupp (1980). These include: a. Involve the participants in as many of the following as possible: selection, planning, presenting, and/or evaluating the program. b. Have leadership support. c. Attendance is usually voluntary. d. The format of the program depends on the familiarity of participants with the topic. If it is a new topic, lecture is generally the best format. In all other cases, seminar and small group are advisable. Many of the principals’ centers have found excellent success with some form of networking, mentoring, or peer assistance. e. Most professional-development programs should be long- term as compared to one to three successive days. 3. Principals must reprioritize their goals and activities. Goal setting, staff development, planning, teacher evaluation, instructional improvement, and curriculum development must move to the top of the priority list. 64 mme i n r t s r l. A study to determine the characteristics of ineffective principals would provide valuable contrasts to the studies on effective principals. 2. A study should be conducted by an independent agency to determine the success of the ten principals’ centers surveyed. ’ 3. Replication of this study in another metropolitan area may provide other conclusions or reinforce those found in this study. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS AND ACADEMIES 10. 11. 12. 13. 65 ADMINISTRATIVE ACADEMY/PRINCIPALS’ CENTER QUESTIONNAIRE What is the name of your program? How long has it been in existence? What were the initial goals of the program? At the end of the first year, were these goals accomplished? YES NO If possible, please elaborate. Have the goals been modified? YES NO If yes, how? 00 you feel that the program is successful compared to these goals? YES NO Please elaborate. By whom are you funded? What is your annual budget? How many staff members do you have? Professional Clerical Was an initial needs-assessment instrument used? YES NO If yes, please attach a copy. What suggestions can you offer for the development of a Principals’ Center or an Administrative Academy? Other helpful information: May I telephone you for further information? YES NO Best time of day? Telephone Number Name Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed envelope to Bill Schewe, 3626 E. Hiawatha, Okemos, MI 48864. Thank you! APPENDIX 8 SUMMARY OF 1983 SURVEY RESULTS 66 i 2. . .8 8 2.288. .8 .5. 3.... .8. :28. 5.. 8.3 39.88.. .88.... 8.59... «81...»! 29.8.3... 38... .. .8... a... u... 8:25.... 3.... 3.... :28. a... .3. 38.33.... 8... 838......8. .85. so 388 .. .8... .8. 2. 3.38 33.5.... 2. .88....- 228. a... .3. 88¢ 83. a 8... .8- .8... 5.8..- .38..8 P... .8888 832 J... . 8 . 8:8 5 _. 33. 8.. .3 8:38.... . 8...... z... 3.38 88 a. .388 38.... ....... 8.3.3....8. 828. 9.8.38: 3.... :3. 8. .88 i .83 .0 1.9.8. 3. I... 3...: c... 28.8.... g 8.88 £3.83 .2 .....8 33. 3 8...... 8.5.... 8...... £8 .3... a. 83.88 5.8....- ..8.u...k 3 89.8.... i 31.8.... k... .888... .8... 2. 33. 8. 3.88.3... :3. .3... 8.8.... 3.... .88. a. 83.8.... :3. .88. 8.... 8.. 38...... .o .38. .8... 4... .5832... .8233... .8 .38.... 8.... 22...... . .3532! u... 3.8.3.... 3:88.388 3 3 8...... 83.3.38. .83. 2. 3.2.8.... 8.89... a g 888 §.T.g..8»98 £8 a: 8883 :3 ....... 888 33:38. .88.. . 8...... 2.9.8... 8.8.2.8 8. 8...... 3 888...... 388 :3. 8.88 5 .33 83.5.... 8. 835.....8. 3:... :58 2.3 9.3.»! .8988 .85. 832.85 .38 83.9.3.8 8:8... 28 8 3 8...... .85. .8... .8 2.8.8... .8... 5 33... :3... 3 88.8. .88... 8. 8.2.8 883. 1... «889.38 In! S .88.. z... 83 8.8.... 35.3.8. .8... t .89....3. .0835... 388.88 3 .88 ’3. :8. .88 .8828... s... 2...... 3 88.... o. .8. 5 03‘..— 2 8.388.... 3:58. 51...... a... :88. .38.... a... 8.833 38.8.... .o 888...... 888. 33.. 8.8.8.8. 31.8.... 9.3.83 2. 833...... i .6: 3.38 z... .8 .88.}... is... 883 3.8.8 :8 .8 8...... 8. 5.... 8.... 3 a 3.38 I .x. 58.8 .88.- 3. 33.2! ‘8 88:88 0...; .8388. 8.2.2. 8...... . 33m lei a. :3 and“: 53 n8— .8 a; APPENDIX C 1986 SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS 67 May 31, l986 Dear Fellow Principal, This questionnaire is part of a doctoral study and is designed to assess the value of present professional-development programs for principals and to determine which types of programs may be needed. This researcher and staff members from Ingham Intermediate School District and Michigan State University will review the results to evaluate the needs for principals in Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. You can help by completing the questionnaire and mailing it in the enclosed, stamped self-addressed envelope by June 8, 1986. It will take you approximately twelve minutes to complete. The responses to this instrument are confidential. The number on the instrument is only to assist in having sufficient questionnaires completed and returned so that the results are statistically valid and reliable. The results will be reported as summaries and not by district or school. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Bill Schewe 3626 E. Hiawatha Okemos, MI 48864 68 QEMQ§3A£fl1g_QAIA. Circle the letter of the response that is most 10. applicable. Hhich best describes the community your district serves? a. Rural b. City c. Suburban What level is your school? a. Elementary b. Middle or junior high c. Senior high d. Other What is your position? a. Principal with one or more assistant principals b. Principal with no assistant principal c. Assistant principal What is your sex? a. Female b. Male What is your race? a. Black b. Hispanic c. White d. Other What intermediate school district serves your district? a. Ingham b. Clinton c. Eaton What is the highest college degree which you hold? a. Bachelor’s b. Master’s c. Master’s +30 d. Specialist e. Doctorate Are you presently enrolled in a college degree program? a. Yes b. No How many students were enrolled in your building in l985-86? Approximately how many students were enrolled in your district in 1985-86? 69 ll. Hhat is your age? 12. How many years have you been a building administrator? 13. How many years have you been in your present position? N - V PM N A . Please rate the success of the activities listed below at improving your professional skills by circling the appropriate number. If you have not attended one of these activities, mark #5--Does Not Apply. Very Slightly Not Success- Success- Success- Success- Not ful ful ful ful Apply l4. Single-topic workshops l 2 3 4 5 l5. University classes, credit l 2 3 4 5 l6. University classes, no credit l 2 3 4 5 17. Professional association conferences l 2 3 4 5 18. State Dep’t. of Education conferences 1 2 3 4 5 l9. Intermediate district workshops l 2 3 4 S 20. District inservices l 2 3 4 5 21. Meetings or conversations with colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 22. Readings l 2 3 4 5 70 £31!C1£AL_§§1LL§. On this page, rate these statements in terms of how important you think they are to the role of the principal. On the adjoining page, rate your ability to utilize these skills. lflfigfllfiflgfi: How important should these skills be to a principal? Not Not Sure Very Very Totally How Impor- Impor- Impor- Unimpor- Impor- tant tant tant tant tant ELM 1. Conducting a school needs assessment l 2 3 4 5 2. Setting school goals l 2 3 4 5 3. Planning and implementing change 1 2 3 4 5 4. Managing time l 2 3 4 5 LEADEBSBLE l. Knowledgeable in group processes l 2 3 4 5 2. Understands effec- tive leader traits and behaviors l 2 3 4 5 3. Being visible throughout the building l Communicating with staff 1 Involving staff in decision making 1 . Delegating respon- sibility l . Maintaining positive human relations and school climate 1 2 3 4 5 NM AG M NT Natal-h NNNN 03000000 #h-fivh mmmm l. Interviewing, select- ing, and orienting new staff 1 2 3 4 5 2. Observing in classrooms l 2 3 4 5 3. Clinically super- vising staff 1 2 3 4 5 71 £313C1£AL_§§1LL§. Rate these statements in terms of how well you can perform the skill listed to the left on the previous page. UllLlZAILQfl: How well can I perform the skill? I am I do an I am not I am at I am unsure quite good adequate job very good a loss at how to at this at this at this at this rate myself l 2 3 4 5 (23,24) l 2 3 4 5 (25,26) 1 2 3 4 5 (27,28) 1 2 3 4 5 (29,30) l 2 3 4 5 (3l,32) 1 2 3 4 5 (33.34) l 2 3 4 5 (35,36) 1 2 3 4 5 (37,38) 1 2 3 4 5 (39.40) 1 2 3 4 5 (41,42) 1 2 3 4 5 (43,44) 1 2 3 4 5 (45,46) l 2 3 4 5 (47,48) 1 2 3 4 5 (49,50) 72 EBLHCLEAL_§51LL§, On this page, rate these statements in terms of how important you think they are to the role of the principal. On the adjoining page, rate your ability to utilize these skills. IMEQBIANCE: How important should these skills be to a principal? Not Not Sure Very Very Totally How Impor- Impor- Impor- Unimpor- Impor- tant tant tant tant tant 4. Developing staff professionally l 2 3 4 5 5. Conferencing staff l 2 3 4 5 W 1. Keeping abreast of new curricular trends l 2 3 4 5 2. Developing and managing the instructional program l 2 3 4 5 3. Developing positive school/community relations l 2 3 4 . 5 4. Implementing new programs or practices 1 2 3 4 5 5. Understanding the practices of effective schools l 2 3 4 5 6. Thorough knowledge of the teaching/ learning process l 2 3 4 5 7. Understanding of child growth and development 1 2 3 4 5 73 EBLHCLEAL_§§1LL§. Rate these statements in terms of how well you can perform the skill listed to the left on the pre- vious page. DILLLZAILQM: How well can I perform the skill? I am I do an I am not I am at I am unsure quite good adequate job very good a loss at how to at this at this at this at this rate myself l 2 3 4 5 (5l,52) l 2 3 4 5 (53,54) 1 2 3 4 5 (55,56) 1 2 ' 3 4 5 (57,58) 1 2 3 4 5 (59,60) l 2 3 4 5 (61,62) 1 2 3 4 5 (63.64) I 2 3 4 5 (65,66) k 2 3 4 5 (67,68) 74 A. How satisfied are you with the current delivery system for your professional development? Circle one. 1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Not very satisfied (69) 4. Totally unsatisfied 5 Unsure how satisfied 8. Are you familiar with the concept of a principals’ center? Circle one. A. Yes (70) B. No C. Have you ever participate in a principals’ center program? Circle one. 1. Yes (7l) 2. No D. Hhich of the following characterizes your interest in attending nonrequired, professional-development programs offered in a new format such as a principals’ center? Circle one. l. Very interested (72) 2. Somewhat interested 3. Not very interested 4. Uninterested Thank you for your assistance. Please return in the enclosed, self- addressed envelope by June 8 to Bill Schewe, 3626 East Hiawatha, Okemos, MI 48864. APPENDIX D RESULTS OF 1986 SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS AND ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS IN INGHAM, EATON, AND CLINTON COUNTIES 75 Variable Frequency Percent Community type Rural City Suburban Missing Total School level Elementary Middle school Senior high Other Missing Total Respondent’s position Principal & assistants Principal & no assistants Assistant principal Missing Total Sex Female Male Missing Total Race Black Hispanic White Other Missing Total Hhat ISD serves your district? Ingham Clinton Eaton Missing Total 32 52 125 125 30 77 17 125 31 92 125 14 107 125 96 15 13 125 25. 41. 100. 52. 24. 21. 100. 24. 13. 100. 24. 100. 11. 85. 100. 76. 12. 10. 100. OQQOON 0010!” OQOIOIO oooaiaioo OQOOO coo-boon 76 Variable Frequency Percent Highest college degree Bachelor’s 1 .8 Master’s 47 37.6 Master’s +30 46 36.8 Specialist 12 9.6 Doctorate 18 14.4 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Presently enrolled in college- degree program? Yes 17 13.6 No 105 - 84.0 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Number of students enrolled in building 56 124 125 150 200 213 N m 05 d‘N—l—l—lww—l—INQ—l—lwa—d—l—l—l—lu—l—l—l—Ju—J-fi—J—l N ooNmoooooo-haoooomooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 77 Variable Frequency Percent —l -au: -' —' NN N N N N banana.3888888288888888888888sabbaaaabbsaahaaabbb 78 Variable Frequency Percent 1250 1400 1416 1419 1450 2100 2128 2154 2300 2330 2333 3760 Missing Total ma—a—a—a—a—a—a—u—u—a—nw—a ommmmmmmmmmmhm ._a N 100. Numger of students enrolled in district 0 312 340 385 430 570 650 710 720 800 820 880 1000 1428 1450 1670 1675 1680 1720 1800 1813 1830 1850 1950 1980 2000 2100 2700 2800 3200 -l d# N bane.baaaaabbbabbbaaabab5.8888882» & 79 Variable Frequency Percent ._a N—DNNAm—lmdF—Jd—lw—JN—IN—l#deddhdwd—lmw—l—de—l _o N 0" NWh-‘h-fl-J dN 100. (”N03 0) dawn Oi omooaiaimoooJ-oooooooo-hooaiooasmnoomoooommm-hmmmhmmaoom 2:13.162»;va 80 Percent Frequency Variable 242622686868248848466820 98474471667643663132214fi 1 28068422688022202484 3 4] 6331‘. 237347682 1 41521844261549459813 .1 .1 rs as a building administrator 05000000005000000000 311234567899012345678 Ye 81 Percent Frequency Variable 4464828880 3323141115 1 8488200682828286684042868860 1| all 0 1311905769141967213534121125 .1 1|] 2 I n 0 .1. t .1 s 0 p t n e s 9 ml p 1| 93 D "an.“ .1 .1 $502500oooooosooooooooooooo “T 11112345678990123456789012I 11111111111222" Years 82 Variable Frequency Percent Single-topic workshops Very successful 29 23.2 Successful 64 51.2 Slightly successful 21 16.8 Not successful 3 2.4 Does not apply 5 4.0 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 University classes Very successful 12 9.6 Successful 36 28.8 Slightly successful 50 40.0 Not successful 16 12.8 Does not apply 9 7.2 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 University class, no credit Very successful 1 .8 Successful 17 13.6 Slightly successful 15 12.0 Not successful 10 8.0 Does not apply 77 61.6 Missing 5 4.0 Total 125 100.0 Professional association conference Very successful 18 14.4 Successful 67 53.6 Slightly successful 31 24.8 Not successful 2 1.6 Does not apply 6 4.8 Total 125 100.0 State Department of Education Very successful 1 .8 Successful 24 19.2 Slightly successful 55 44.0 Not successful 23 18.4 Does not apply 20 16.0 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 83 Variable Frequency Percent ISD workshops Very successful 26 20.8 Successful 66 52.8 Slightly successful 20 16.0 Not successful 2 1.6 Does not apply 9 7.2 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 District inservices Very successful 20 16.0 Successful 61 48.8 Slightly successful 34 27.2 Not successful 5 4.0 Does not apply 2 1.6 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Meetings of conversations with colleagues Very successful 44 35.2 Successful 63 50.4 Slightly successful 14 11.2 Not successful 1 .8 Does not apply 2 1.6 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Reading Very successful 27 21.6 Successful 66 52.8 Slightly successful 27 21.6 Does not apply 4 3.2 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Conduct school needs assessment Very important 53 42.4 Important 66 52.8 Not very important 3 2.4 Not sure 2 1.6 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 84 Variable Frequency Percent Conduct school needs assessment Quite good 26 20.8 Adequate 74 59.2 Very good 16 12.8 At a loss 1 .8 Unsure 4 3.2 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Set school goals Very important 85 68.0 Important 37 29.6 Not very important 1 .8 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Set school goals Quite good 44 35.2 Adequate 69 55.2 Very good 7 5.6 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Plan and implement change Very important 78 62.4 Important 41 32.8 Not very important 4 3.2 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 '100.0 Plan and implement change Quite good 41 32.8 Adequate 71 56.8 Very good 9 7.2 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Managing time Very important 81 64.8 Important 41 32.8 Not very important 1 .8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 85 Variable Frequency Percent Managing time Quite good 38 30.4 Adequate 46 36.8 Very good 33 26.4 At a loss 4 3.2 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Knowledge in group process Very important 58 46.4 Important 61 48.8 Not very important 4 3.2 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Knowledge in group process Quite good 32 25.6 Adequate 75 60.0 Very good 13 10.4 Unsure 2 1.6 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Understanding effective-leader traits Very important 52 41.6 Important 65 52.0 Not very important 5 4.0 Not sure 2 1.6 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Understanding effective-leader traits Quite good 47 37.6 Adequate 65 52.0 Very good 7 5.6 Unsure 2 1.6 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Visible throughout building Very important 96 76.8 Important 28 22.4 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 86 Variable Frequency Percent Visible throughout building Quite good 86 68.8 Adequate 32 25.6 Very good 4 3.2 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Communicate with staff Very important 103 82.4 Important 20 16.0 Not very important 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Communicate with staff Quite good 71 56.8 Adequate 45 36.0 Very good 6 4.8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Involve staff in decisions Very important 75 60.0 Important 49 39.2 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Involve staff in decisions Quite good 60 48.0 Adequate 47 37.6 Very good 14 11.2 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Delegating responsibility Very important 60 48.0 Important 63 50.4 Not very important 1 ’.8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 87 Variable Frequency Percent Delegating responsibility quite good 39 31.2 Adequate 49 39.2 Very good 34 27.2 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Positive human relations Very important 106 84.8 Important 18 14.4 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Positive human relations Quite good 73 58.4 Adequate 45 36.0 Very good 3 2.4 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Orienting new staff Very important 85 68.0 Important 36 28.8 Not very important 3 2.4 Missing 1. 8 Total 125 100.0 Orienting new staff Quite good 52 41.6 Adequate 52 41.6 Very good 12 9.6 Unsure 6 4.8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Observing in classrooms Very important 81 64.8 Important 41 32.8 Not very important 2 1.6 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 88 Variable Frequency Percent Observing in classrooms Quite good 37 29.6 Adequate 72 57.6 Very good 11 8.8 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Clinically supervising staff Very important 61 48.8 Important 50 40.0 Not very important 6 4.8 Totally unimportant 1 .8 Not sure 4 3.2 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Clinically supervising staff Quite good 16 12.8 Adequate 64 51.2 Very good 30 24.0 Unsure 9 7.2 Missing 6 4.6 Total 125 100.0 Develop staff professionally Very important 57 45.6 Important 65 52.0 Not very important 1 .8 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Develop staff professionally Quite good 21 16.8 Adequate 82 65.6 Very good 17 13.6 Unsure 3 2.4 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 89 Variable Frequency Percent Conferencing staff Very important 37 29.6 Important 76 60.8 Not very important 6 4.8 Totally unimportant 1 .8 Not sure 2 1.6 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Conferencing staff Quite good 23 18.4 Adequate '74 59.2 Very good 18 14.4 Unsure 6 4.8 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 Keeping up with new curricular trends Very important 50 40.0 Important 70 56.0 Not very important 4 3.2 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Keeping up with new curricular trends Quite good 24 19.2 Adequate 80 64.0 Very good 19 15.2 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Develop and manage instructional program Very important 83 66.4 Important 36 28.8 Not very important 2 1.6 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Develop and manage instructional program Quite good 34 27.2 Adequate 76 60.8 Very good 9 7.2 Unsure 2 1.6 Missing 4 3.2 Total 125 100.0 90 Variable Frequency Percent Develop positive school-community relations Very important 86 68.8 Important 37 29.6 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Develop positive school-community relations Quite good 65 52.0 Adequate 53 42.4 Very good 4 3.2 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Implement new programs or practices Very important 43 34.4 Important 77 61.6 Not very important 2 1.6 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Implement new programs or practices Quite good 34 27.2 Adequate 74 59.2 Very good 10 8.0 At a loss 1 .8 Unsure 4 3.2 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Understand practice effective schools Very important 64 51.2 Important 55 44.0 Not very important 4 3.2 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Understand practice effective schools Quite good 37 29.6 Adequate 69 55.2 Very good 12 9.6 At a loss 2 1.6 Unsure 3 2.4 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 91 Variable Frequency Percent Knowledge of teaching-learning process Very important 83 66.4 Important 37 29.6 Not very important 3 2.4 Not sure 1 .8 Missing 1 .8 Total 125 100.0 Knowledge of teaching-learning process Quite good 38 30.4 Adequate 71 56.8 Very good 12 9.6 At a loss 1 .8 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Understand child growth and development Very important 71 56.8 Important 48 38.4 Not very important 4 3.2 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Understand child growth and development Quite good 45 36.0 Adequate 71 56.8 Very good 5 4.0 At a loss 1 .8 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Delivery system for professional development Very satisfied 23 18.4 Somewhat satisfied 74 59.2 Not very satisfied 21 16.8 Totally unsatisfied 3 2.4 Unsure 1 .8 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 92 Variable Frequency Percent Familiar with principals’ center Yes 47 37.6 No 76 60.8 Missing 2 1.6 Total 125 100.0 Participated in principals’ center program Yes 4 3.2 No 118 94.4 Missing 3 2.4 Total 125 100.0 Interested in professional-development programs Very interested 51 40.8 Somewhat interested 63 50.4 Not very interested 5 4.0 Uninterested 1 .8 Missing 5 4.0 Total 125 100.0 APPENDIX E 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS 93 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS W ‘ n P r 1. Harvard Mr. Jim Rison 2. North Carolina Dr. Lee Grier 3. Syracuse Mr. Scott Shablak 4. Tetxas A a M Dr. David Erlandson 5. Meadowbrook Dr. Gerald Pine 6. Maine Dr. Gordon Donaldson 7. Alaska Dr. David Hagstrom 8. Marin County Dr. Linda Lambert 9. Georgia State Dr. Joe Richardson 10. Hestchester County Dr. Philip Hallinger Ask on N 01 01 «h o o o o o 10. 11. 12. Are principals on your board of directors? Are principals involved in deciding the center’s content and curricula? Is a needs assessment of principals in your area done? If so, how? Are principals involved in determining programs? 00 principals make presentations? Is the format of the programs lecture, seminar, or small group? Nhat is the duration and spacing of your programs? Do you use homogeneous or heterogeneous grouping of principals by skill level for your programs? Is mentoring, networking, or peer assistance included in your programs? Hhat types of programs do principals prefer? Are principals required to attend? Does the principal have to make a commitment to the principals’ center by paying a fee? APPENDIX F RESULTS OF 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS 94 RESULTS OF 1987 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PRINCIPALS’ CENTERS Question Number Principals’ Center 1 2 3 How 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Harvard Y Y Y H Y Y SEM LT HET Y Y N Y FEE SG North Y Y Y H Y Y V V BOTH Y V N N DOE Carolina FUNDED Syracuse Y Y Y NL Y Y L LT HET N V V Y FEE SG Texas A&M Y Y Y N Y Y V V HET Y V N N Meadowbrook Y Y Y N3 Y V V V HET N V N N Maine Y Y Y H Y Y V V HET N V N N Alaska Y Y N Y V V 1NK HET Y V N N VOL 30A DONATION Marin Co. Y Y Y H N Y V 1M0 HET Y V N N FOUND. FUNDS Georgia Y Y Y H Y V V V HET N V N Y FEE State Hestchester Y Y Y M Y V V V BOTH V V N N DIST. County FEE Key: Y - Yes N - Nritten assessment SEM - Seminar N - No H3 - Hritten assessment SG - Small group V - Varies every three years L - Lecture LT - Long term DOE - Dept. of Education HET - Heterogeneous BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Robert H., and Snyder, Karolyn J. I'Competencies for Managing Productive Schools.” on m uc ti r i 2,3 (1985/86): 25-32. Arin-Krupp, Judy. Ihe Adel; Learner; A Negleeted Speeies Houston: Gulf Publishing, 1978. . "Creating a Staff Support System.“ Ihe Developer (September 1985): 3-6. Armor, 0., et al. 1 i f th h r r R ad'n r in e ted An 5 Mi 0 . Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp., 1976. Austin, Gilbert R. "Exemplary Schools and the Search for Effective- ness." Educatienal Leaderehip 37 (October 1979): 10-14. Barnett, Bruce. "Peer-Assisted Leadership: Using Research to Improve Practice." [he Urben Review 17,1 (1985): 47-58. Barth, Roland. In McDonald, Kerida Scott, and Franklin, Michael. nci ’ e -- h r In ' . Boston, Mass.: Harvard Principals’ Center, February 1986. . ”Principal Centered Professional Development." Reflec- tions (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). . ”The Principals’ Center at Harvard University." Unpublished paper, 1984. . ”Public Education and the Secular Ministry: Educators Possess the Power to Restore Themselves.” Erineipele; firineielee 2 (April 1983): 4. Bayliss, S. "Call for In-Service Training Unit, Supervised by Schools Council.” Ihe Ijmee Edueetjenal Sgpplement, April 23, 1982, p. 7. Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M. H. "Factors Affecting the Process of Change." In ho 1 Conf i n Chan . Edited by M. Milstein. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980. 95 96 m r n - i n n v (R-1589/8—-HEN). Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp., May 1978. Blumberg, Arthur, and Greenfield, Hilliam. Ihe_£tfeet1ye_£r1ne1de1; Eersnest1xes_on_§chool_Leadecshin- Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1980. Boyd, Richard A. "The School Executive Management Institute, 1984- 85.“ Mississippi State Department of Education Memorandum, September 9, 1985. Distributed at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversation, San Antonio, Texas, February 1986. Brookover, H. B., and Lezotte, L. H. Change: id Sehdd] thereeterje- ties Cdinejdent Eith Change; jg Student Aehjeyement. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Educa- tion, Michigan State University, 1979. Callahan, Raymond E. Eddeatjdn end the let df Efficieney. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Carmichael, Lucianne. "Leaders as Learners: A Possible Dream." Eddeettede1_teede;§ntd 40 (October 1982): 58-59. Cawelti, Gordon. "Training for Effective School Administrators.” Educational_Leadgrsbin (February 1982)- Commission on Excellence in Education. Na io Ri . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1985. Cotton, K., and Savard, N. G. ”The Principal as Instructional Leader.” Report to the Honorable Jay S. Hammond, Governor of Alaska, December 1980. Cusick, Philip A. h 1i r an Id 1 n th Am ric n Hi Sendel. New York: Longman, 1983. Deal, T. E., and Kennedy, A. A. Cdrpdrete Cultures; lhe Bite; end Bltde1§_df_§erderete_ttfe. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1982. Dean, S. E. me t r h mini i r . U.S. Office of Education Bulletin No. 11. Hashington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. De Bevoise, Hynne. "Synthesis of Research on the Principal as Instructional Leader." Educatidnel Leederehjp (February 1984): 5- 6. 97 Deresh, John C., and LaPlant, James C. 'Inservice for School Principals: A Status Report.‘' h e i evi w (University of Iowa) 3 (April 1983). Devaney, K. (ed.). “Essays on Teachers’ Centers.” San Francisco: Teachers’ Center Exchange, Far Nest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1977. Dwyer, David C.; Lee, Ginny V.; Rowan, Brian; and Bossert, Steven. “Five Principals in Action; Perspectives on Institutional Management." San Francisco: Far Nest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1983. Edmonds, Ronald R. 'Effective Schools for the Urban Poor." Eddeetiede1_Leedeg§nip 37 (October 1979): 15-27. . "Making Public Schools Effective.” Seeie1_£dljey 12 (I981): 56-60. Education Commission of the States. "Action for Excellence." Almenee df Netidnal Reporte (NASSP). August 1983. Erickson, D. A., and Reller, T. L. T P n 1 in tro 0 an Senddle. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutcheon, 1978. Erlandson, David A. 'Principals’ Center--Diversity Reflects Strength of Concept." Befleettdne (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). Estes, 0. "Analysis of a University-Based Principals’ Center: The Baylor Principals’ Center.” Beflectjene (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). Fenstermacher, Gary D., and Berliner, David C. "Determining the Value of Staff Development.“ Ihe Elementary §ehddl dddrdal 85 (January 1985): 281-315. Fortenberry, R. "Effective School Leadership.” T ff iv Sehedl_3epdrt 2 (February 1985). Geneen, Harold, with Moscow, Alvin. Medegidg. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984. Gersten, Russell, and Carnine, Douglas. "Administrative and Super- visory Support Functions for the Implementation of Effective Educational Programs for Low-Income Students.” Eugene: Center fgglEducational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 98 Glenn, 8. C. 7 f EQQL.§1§£K_£hilQ£§fl- Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Law and Education, Harvard University, 1981. Goldhammeri K., et a1. ° e f ian d Goodlad, John 1. Th mi du i n . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. A Blade gelled §ehodl. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. Greenblatt, R.; Cooper, 8.; and Muth, R. “Managing for Effective Teaching.” i n l a r h (February 1984): 57-59. Greenwood, P. N.; Mann, 0. ; and McLaughlin, M. N. rfiedege1_£rdg_em§ ion h n h han e (R1589/3--HEN). Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp. , April 1975. Grier, L. "Building Bridges to a Changing Tomorrow: The North Carolina Leadership Institute for Principals." Refleetjons (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). Hall, 6.; Rutherford, N.; Houd, 5.; and Huling, L. "Effects of Three Principal Styles on School Improvement.” Eddeetideel Leedership 41 (February 1984): 25-29. Hallinger, P. ; Murphy, J. ; Neil, M.; Mesa, R. P. ; and Mitman, A. ”Identifying the Specific Practices, Behaviors for Principals. " mm (May 1983) Higley, Jerry. 'Inservice Training for Staff and Administrators." School Leadership Digest Series No. 8 & ERIC/CEM Research Analysis Series No. 10. Nashington, D.C., and Eugene, Ore.: NAEP and ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1974. Himelrick, John B. 'Nest Virginia Principals’ Academy.“ Nest Virginia Department of Education. Distributed at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversation, February 1986. Huff, Sheila; Lake, Dale; and Schaalman, Mary Lou. “Principal Differences: Excellence in School Leadership and Management." A study conducted for the Department of Education, State of Florida. Boston: McBer, 1982. Jentz, Barry C., and Nofford, Joan N. Leadership end Leernjng. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. 99 Johnson, Nilliam L., and Snyder, Karolyn J. “Leadership Training Needs for Secondary Administrative Personnel: A Texas Study.” MW 32 (Spring 1983). . “Training Needs of Elementary School Principals.”1ne —§_an.ad_i_an_AdLn_tnis_tr_am 24 (May 1985) Joyce, 8. R. 'A Memorandum for the Future.“ In Qrgepizetidp_0eye1ppmept. Edited by B. Dillon-Peterson. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981. , and Showers, 8. “Teacher Training Research: Norking Hypothesis for Program Design and Directions for Further Study.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. Knezevich, S. Ihe Amerieen Seppp! Superintendent. Nashington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1971. Knowles». 1". W Houston. Texas: Gulf Publishing, 1973. LaPlant, James. "Inservice Education for Principals.” Unpublished paper in McDonald, K. S. and Franklin, M. Eripeipele’ tenter§-- . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Prin- cipals’ Center, February 1986. . ”Principals’ Inservice Program." Dayton, Ohio: Insti- tute for Development of Educational Activities, August 1979. Levine, D. V, and Stark, J. Extended Summery en nd ten CIUSIQDS; ngti tdtional and Organiza ational Arrangements and Proceeee§_fp_ Imprpving Academic Aehievement at Inner City Elementary Sehoole. Kansas City: School of Education, Center for the Study of Metropolitan Problems in Education, University of Missouri-~Kansas City, August 1981. Lezotte. Lawrence (ed-1. W £1eetiee,2 (Fall 1985). “Instructional Leadership and Effective Teaching.” repared for Effective Leadership in Reading: A Conference for Administration sponsored by the Michigan State Department of Education and the Michigan Reading Association, February 7, 980. Lipham, J. M., and Hoek, J. A., Jr. Ihe Prineipelehip; Eoupdetipne epd_fdpetipn§. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. 100 Little, J. N. "Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Nork- place Conditions of School Success.” Amepieep_£ddeetidpe1 89.523311412932031” (1982): 325-40- . ”School Success and Staff Development in Urban Desegre— gated Schools: A Summary of Recently Completed Research.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. ”Teachers as Teacher Advisors: The Delicacy of Collegial —Teadership.' MW 43 (1986): 34-36. Loucks, 5., and Zacchei, 0. “Applying Our Findings to Today’s Innovations.” Eddeetippe1_teedepenip 41 (1983): 28-31. Manasse, A. L. ”Principals as Leaders of High-Performing Systems." Edueetipnal Leederehip 41 (February 1984): 5, 42-46. Manning, R. "Evaluation Strategies Can Be Improved Nith Peer Observers.” Ihe School Admipietpetpr 43,1 (1986): 14. Martin, N., and Nillower, D. ”The Managerial Behavior of High School Principals." ational dmi tr i te (Ninter 1981): 69-90. McClusky, H. Y. 'A Dynamic Approach to Participation in Community Development. " W. no. 1 (Spring 1970): 25-32. McDonald, K. S., and Franklin, M. Erineipale’ Cente §--A Stete of the Art lpguipy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Principals’ Center, February 1986. McFaul, Shirley A., and Cooper, James M. "Peer Clinical Supervision in an Urban Elementary School.” rn l T c r u i n 34 (September-October 1983): 34-38. McLaughlin, M. N., and Marsh, 0. 0. "Staff Development and School Change." W 80 (1978): 69-94- "Meadows Principal Improvement Programs." Department of Educational Administration, East Texas State University. Unpublished sheet distributed at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversa- tion, 986. 101 Meyer, J.; Scott, N. R.; and Deal, T. E. “Research on School and District Organization.“ In Ihe Streeture of Edueationel Sye- teme: Explpratiph ih the Thepry pf Lopsely Coupled Organize- tidhe. Edited by M. R. Davis, T. E. Deal, J. N. Meyer, 8. Rowan, N. R. Scott, and E. A. Stockhouse. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1977. Moss-Kanter, R. n ° n v i i the_Amehieeh_tdhpphetidh. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. Murphy, J., and Hollinger, P. “New Directions in the Professional Development of School Administrators: A Synthesis and Sugges- tions for Improvement.“ Unpublished paper, January 1986. Naisbitt, John. Megethehde. New York: Narner Books, 1982. rv r inin r m for Principale. Com- piled by Jeffalyn Johnson and associates, Falls Church, Va., for the National Institute of Education, 1982. “Northwest Suburban Principals’ Center, 1985/86 Schedule of Events.“ Northwest Suburban Principals’ Center, St. Louis, Mo. Unpub- lished handout at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversa- tion, San Antonio, Texas, February 1986. Ouchi, N. lhepry z--pr Ameriean Bgeineee Sen Meet the depeneee Shellehge. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Nesley, 1981. Paskal, Dolores, and Brandi, Fran. In Engel, Larry. “Improving Instruction Through Staff Development.“ h n ho r dddphel (July-August 1986): 12-13. Patterson, Arlene H. “Management Training for School Leaders: The Academy Concept.“ 1ta a a . 1983. Persell, C. H., and Cookson, P. N., Jr. “Effective Principals: Nhat Do Ne Know From Various Educational Literatures?“ Paper presented at the NIE Conference on Principals for Educational Excellence in the 1980s, Nashington, D.C., 1982. Peters, Thomas J., and Naterman, Robert H., Jr. Exeellehee. New York: Harper and Row, 1982. Peterson, K. “The Principal’s Task.“ Administratorls_floteboek 26,8 (1978): 1-4. Pine, G. “Organizing Principles of a Principals’ Center: The Meadowbrook Leadership Academy.“ Befleetidhe (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). 102 Pipho, Chris. “Tracking the Reforms, Part 3: Principals’ Acade- mies--Training the Leaders.“ Eddeetidh_heeh, March 20, 1985. Pitner, Nancy J. “Training of the School Administrator.“ Occa- sional paper through a grant by the NIE to the Center for Edu- cational Policy and Management, University of Oregon. Eugene: University of Oregon, February 1982. Brincipele’ lnetitdte (Georgia State University) 2 (December 1985). Purkey, S. C., and Smith, M. S. “Effective Schools--A Review.“ Report presented at a conference on the implications of research on teaching practice sponsored by the National Insti- tute of Education, Narrenton, Va., February 1982. Robinson, G. E. “Effective Schools Research.“ Educational Research Service: February 1985. Roe, N. H., and Drake, T. L. Th ri i i . New York: Macmillan, 1974. Rogers, Carl R. Ereedom td Leerh. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1969. arn ‘ . Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1951. Rutter, M., et al. Eifteen Ihoueehd figure. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. Sanders, 5. Personal communication, January 1984. Sange, P. “Leadership Training for Secondary Principals and Depart- ment Heads.“ Edueational Leaderehip 40 (October 1982): 55. Schlechty, P. C., and Nhitford, B. L. “The Organizational Context of School Systems and the Functions of Staff Development." In Steff Qeyelopmeht. Eighty-Second Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Edited by G. A. Griffin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Schmitt, N. “Validation of the NASSP Assessment Center: An Overview and Some Preliminary Findings.“ NASSP Bdlletih 64 (1980): 107-18. “School Traits Influencing Reading Achievement: A Case Study of Two Inner-City Schools.“ New York State Office of Evaluation Performance Review, March 1974. Sergiovanni, T. J. “Leadership and Excellence in Schooling.“ Edu- W (February 1984). 103 Shannon, 1. A. “Administrator Preparation--A Holistic Plan.“ , July 9, 1986, p. 3. “Bell Challenges School Boards on Excellence.“ Sehppl , July 23, 1986. Shoemaker, J., and Fraser, H. N. “Nhat Principals Can Do: Some Implications From Studies of Effective Schooling.“ £hi_Qe1te Keppeh (November 1981): 178-82. Snyder, K. J. “Instructional Leadership for Productive Schools.“ MW (February 1983): 32-36- “Invigorating the Nork Culture in Schools.“ Keynote a ress to the Annual Meeting of the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, Ninnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, March 15, 1985. . “Invigorating the Norkplace Called School.“ Speech delivered at Northwestern University, November 1984. . “Preparing Principals to Manage Productive Schools: A Neglected Dimension of Teacher Education.“ dourhel pf Ieeeher fiddeetidh 35 (March-April 1984): 55—57. , and Anderson, R. H. “Contingency School Management: A Research Agenda.“ n rn tion 1 Jou 1 d Admihietratiph (Ben Gurian University, Biersheba, Israel) (Summer 1985). an ' u v S . New York: Academic Press, _1_986. Snyder, K. J., and Johnson, N. L. “Instructional Leadership Effectiveness: A Research Analysis and Strategy.“ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, La., April 23-27, 1984. “Instructional Leadership Training Needs for Secondary Administrative Personnel.“ Aherieeh_Seeehdery_£ddeetidh 12 (Spring 1983). Sparks, G. “Synthesis of Research on Staff Development for Effec- tive Teaching.“ Eddeetiphe1_teeder§hip 41 (1983): 65-72. Sproull, L. “Managing Education Programs: A Micro-Behavioral Analysis.“ Unpublished paper, 1979. “Structure and Guidelines.“ Mississippi School Executive Management Institute, Mississippi Department of Education, 1984. Distrib- uted at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversation, San Antonio, Texas, February 1986. 104 Thomas, M. 0. “Good Schools Are Good Business.“ 1he_£ffeetiye Sehpdl_3epprt 2 (February 1985). Tough, Allen. Ihe_Adeltte_Leerh1hg_£rdjeet§. Toronto: Institute for Studies in Education, 1971. Trisman, D. A.; Naller, M. 1.; and Nilder, C. v Final W. Report, Vol. II (PR-75-26). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1976. Trussell, N. “Inservice Training of Instructional Leaders.“ Georgia Academy for School Administrators. Distributed at the Third Annual Principals’ Center Conversation, San Antonio, Texas, February 1986. Tursman, Cindy. Seed Sehppls; Nhat here: lhem hprh. Arlington, Va.: National School Public Relations Association, 1981. Tyack, D., and Hansot, E. a a r . New York: Basic Books, 1982. VanDerBogert, Rebecca. “Tillers of the Soil.“ Refleetiphe (Harvard Graduate School of Education) (1986). Neber, G. “Inner—City Children Can Be Taught to Read: Four Suc- cessful Schools.“ Nashington, D.C.: Council for Basic Educa— tion, 1971. Neick, K. E. “Administering Education in Loosely Coupled Schools.“ MW 63 (1982): 673-76- Nood, Burton L. “You’re the Teacher, Tell Us Nhat Ne’re Supposed to Know.“ MW 1.2. Article 5. Zigarmi, P. “Teachers’ Centers: A Model for Teacher-Initiated Staff Development.“ In Stetf_Deyelppmeht. Edited by A. Liebermann and L. Miller. New York: Teachers College Press, 1979.