. esmfs * "' ‘”' l TH 13""? f This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE SUPERINTENDENTS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS presented by Timothy R. Jenney has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Administration and Curriculum MSU is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Institution 0—12771 IVISSI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from Jul-(SIEIL. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. a? i " M! £5. 38? nus ’,: : - . l. 9 5 :‘1 3‘ 3 i a v r ' ' f i ' it": nJ‘ I! 'u 0‘" 1; ’1- 31‘“ i? it,” 55$: 8 . * AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE SUPERINTENDENTS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS By Timothy R. Jenney A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1983 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE SUPERINTENDENTS' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS By Timothy R. Jenney Teacher education does not end with completion of the certi— fication process. Inservice activities continue to be a part of every teacher's professional development. Superintendents recommend professional-development programs based on the information that is available to them in the daily opera- tion of the school system. Many researchers, educators, and consult- ants have devoted vast amounts of time, energy, and money to studying professional-development programs. The superintendent recommends the commitment to be made for particular programs, and more was to be learned about factors influencing recommendations for professional- development programs. The Professional Development Survey was constructed, tested, and then mailed to all K-l2 and intermediate public school superin- tendents in Michigan. The superintendents provided information regard- ing their year of birth, the number of years of teaching experience, the number of years as superintendent, the number of years as super- intendent in the present district, the highest graduate degree com- pleted, and the university from which their most recent graduate Timothy R. Jenney degree had been attained. They also responded to the extent that the 34 factors listed in the survey influenced their recommendations for professional-development programs. A variety of descriptive and inferential techniques were employed to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics included fre- quencies, means, and percentages. Inferential statistical tests were t-tests performed with a .05 alpha level. As a result of the data analysis, the researcher found that l. There was a difference among superintendents with respect to the factors that influenced their recommendation. 2. There was no significant difference among superintendents, based on age, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommen- dation. 3. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their graduate education, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation. 4. There was no significant difference among superintendents, based on their experience as a superintendent, in regard to the fac- tors that influenced their recommendation. 5. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their length of experience in the present district, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation. 6. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their years of teaching experience, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation. To Becki, for without her total dedication, sacrifice, and belief in me, this would not have transpired. To my children-- Theresa, Tim, and Jeff--for their enduring an experience not normally expected of children. And to my parents, for their unwavering and unquestionable support. My appreciation is also extended to Dr. Richard Featherstone for his guidance and ability to pave the way. And to committee mem- bers Dr. Banks Bradley, Dr. James McKee, and Dr. Louis Romano. Their cooperation and assistance were outstanding. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS —I LOO LO WNOSONU'l-D-hw-H RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES ANALYSIS OF THE DATA LIST OF TABLES ......................... Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ....................... Introduction ..................... Purpose and Importance of the Study .......... Research Questions and Hypotheses ........... Research Questions ................. Research Hypotheses ................. The Study Population ................. Generalizability of the Findings ........... Definitions of Important Terms ............ Overview ....................... 11. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............. Introduction ..................... The Need for Professional Development ......... Professional-Development Studies ........... The Financial Investment in Professional Development . The Role of the Teacher and Principal ......... The Superintendent and Staff Development ....... Summary ........................ Introduction ..................... Research Procedures .................. Construction of the Professional Development Survey . Data-Collection Procedures ............. Research Design .................... Hypotheses ...................... Summary ........................ Introduction ..................... Demographic Data ................... iii Page Results of Hypothesis Testing ............. 42 Supplementary Analysis ................ 60 Summary ........................ 66 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 67 Summary ........................ 67 Conclusions ...................... 69 Recommendations for Further Research ......... 72 Reflections ...................... 73 APPENDICES ........................... 74 A. THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY ........... 75 B. THE EXPERTS AND SUPERINTENDENTS EMPLOYED IN DEVELOPING AND PRETESTING THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY . . 78 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................... 80 iv Table 10. ll. l2. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Data-Collection Results ............ Ages of Superintendents in the Study ........... Number of Years of Teaching Experience of Superin- tendents in the Study .................. Number of Years as a Superintendent ............ Number of Years as a Superintendent in the Present District ........................ Educational Level of Superintendents in the Study ..... University From Which the Superintendents' Most Recent Degrees Had Been Received ................ Extent to Which Individual Factors Influenced Superin- tendents' Recommendation for Professional-Development Programs ........................ Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Factors, According to Age Group ................. Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Factors, According to Graduate Degree Level ........... Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Factors, According to Experience as Superintendent ........ Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Factors, According to Experience as a Superintendent in the Present District .................. Comparison of Superintendents' Responses to Factors, According to Years of Teaching Experience ........ Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients of 34 Factors With Superintendents' Age ............ 38 4O 4] 42 43 44 47 50 53 55 58 62 Page l5. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients of 34 Factors With Superintendents' Length of Experience as a Superintendent ................... 63 l6. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients of 34 Factors With Superintendents' Length of Experience in the Present District ................. 64 17. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients of 34 Factors With Superintendents' Teaching Experience . . . . 65 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Teacher education does not end with completion of the cer- tification process or with the individual teacher deciding not to continue with additional formal course/degree work. Inservice activi- ties continue to be a part of every teacher's professional develop- ment. In fact, professional-growth activities are considered essential in maintaining teathers' skills (Barth, 1979). Furthermore, Dillon (1978) stated that because 85% or more of the average district's operating budget is spent on staff salaries . . . , staff development designed to main- tain or increase the efficiency and effectiveness of teachers, administrators, and classified personnel is a kind of insur- ance on that investment in salaries. (p. 4) The present study was undertaken to investigate the factors that might influence superintendents to recommend expenditures for professional-growth activities. One important influencing factor is the current financial crisis being faced by educational institu- tions across the country. Because of declining enrollments and reductions in revenues, many districts have had to reduce the size of their teaching staffs. Such staff reductions have brought about considerable changes in the responsibilities of the remaining teachers. McLaughlin and Berman (l977) reported that teachers frequently have larger classes and are often assigned classes that previously had 1 been assumed by support personnel, such as art, music, and physical education. Staff reductions have also resulted in the reassignment of teachers to positions for which they have had little or no train- ing. Thus the conditions resulting from declining enrollments and reductions in revenues may enhance the need for teacher inservice and other professional-growth activities. Another important factor that might influence superintendents to recommend professional-development activities is the increased mean age of currently employed teachers. The mean age has increased because of the limited number of teaching positions available for young beginning teachers. There might also be an increased amount of time since formal training for the older, currently employed teachers. The financial crisis that has contributed to the need for inservice training has also jeopardized the continuation and improve- ment of inservice programs. Saracen (l97l) stated that the amount of funding and upgrading of teaching skills depends largely on the school board and administration's viewpoint regarding the relation- ship between staff professional-growth activities and the quality of the students' educational experiences. The superintendent is responsible for recommending to the board of education the most productive use of available funds. Superintendents recommend professional-development programs based on the information that is available to them in the daily operation of the school system. Some of the factors that influence such recommendations are school district financial records, enrollment 3 statistics, faculty profiles, advice and input from constituents, students' test results, and knowledge gained from the professional literature and college courses. Inservice programs are developed, funded, and implemented to the extent that the superintendent is influenced by these factors. Purpose and Importance of the Study The purpose of the present study was to determine the amount of influence and interrelatedness of selected factors on superin- tendents' decisions to recommend expenditures for professional- development programs. In addition, the researcher sought to estab- lish whether a superintendent's age, graduate education, experience as a superintendent, longevity in the present district, and/or length of teaching experience affected the recommendation of professional- development programs. The investigation is important for at least three reasons. l. Many researchers, educators, and consultants have devoted vast amounts of time, energy, and money to studying how teachers and principals deal with professional-development programs. Delivery systems and program effectiveness are under scrutiny. However, little time and money have been invested in studying what factors influence superintendents in their recommendation of professional- development programs. Because the superintendent recommends the commitment to be made for particular programs, more should be learned about the factors that influence these recommendations. 2. A recognition of the factors that affect the superin- tendent's reconmendation for professional-development programs may increase the possibility of inservice education being considered an integral part of the school district's operation. 3. As professional-development programs become an integral part of the school-district operation, teacher productivity and quality may be improved because of increased motivation and reduced anxiety. Research Questions and Hypotheses Professional staff-development programs are undertaken in school districts partially because of the superintendent's leadership and his/her recommendation to invest district capital for such pur- poses (Farquhar, l978). One would expect that certain factors that are common to every school district would influence superintendents with regard to setting priorities for professional-development programs. In addition, superintendents with similar age, education, experience as a superintendent, longevity in the present district, and length of teaching experience would be expected to be influenced by essentially the same factors. The superintendents' responses to those factors may help in understanding their attitudes toward and recommendations for professional staff-development programs. Research Questions The investigator sought to answer the following research questions in the present study. l. Do superintendents differ in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs? 2. Based on a superintendent's age, do the factors that influence the recommendation for professional-development programs differ among superintendents? 3. Based on a superintendent's graduate education, do the factors that influence the recommendation for professional-development programs differ among superintendents? 4. Based on a superintendent's experience as a superintendent, do the factors that influence the recommendation for professional- development programs differ among superintendents? 5. Based on a superintendent's length of experience in the present district, do the factors that influence the recommendation for professional-development programs differ among superintendents? 6. Based on a superintendent's length of teaching experience, do the factors that influence the recommendation for professional- development programs differ among superintendents? Research Hypotheses From the research questions regarding the factors affecting superintendents' recommendation for professional-development programs, the following six research hypotheses, stated in the null form, were formulated for testing: Ho l: There will be no difference among superintendents in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Ho 2: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on age, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional- development programs. Ho 3: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on graduate education, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. Ho 4: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on experience as a superintendent, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Ho 5: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on length of experience in the present district, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. Ho 6: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on length of teaching experience, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. The Study Population The population for the study comprised the superintendents of the 529 K-lZ public school districts and 57 intermediate school districts in Michigan, as listed in Bulletin lOl4, published by the Michigan State Board of Education (1981-82). The population and the sampling procedures used in the study are described more fully in Chapter III. Generalizability of the Findings Findings of this study should be generalized only to school districts in Michigan. It is reasonable to assume that differences in other states' public educational structure, funding sources, financial structures, and demographics would influence the recommendations of superintendents in those states. Therefore, generalizing the results to superintendents in other states should be done with caution. Another factor affecting the generalizability of the conclu- sions of this study is the manner in which the sample was drawn. The conclusions of this study apply only to the superintendents who completed and returned the questionnaire. A personal bias might have influenced whether a survey was completed and returned. Definitions of Important Terms The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this dissertation. Decreased enrollment-~a decrease in pupil membership to the extent that it seriously affects school-district revenues. Delivery system--the method of providing professional- development programs. District statistics--the financial data collected on a school system, which allow comparison for reporting purposes. The following statistics are presented in the annual 1014 Bulletin published by the Michigan State Board of Education and were included among the influen- tial factors used in the survey developed for the present study: Total General Fund Expenditures per Pupil, State Aid Membership, S.E.V. Per State Aid Member, Total Operating Millage Rate, Debt Retirment, and Average Teacher Salary. Increased enrollment--an increase in pupil membership to the extent that it seriously affects the revenues of the school system. Overview Chapter I included an introduction to the study, the purpose and importance of the investigation, research questions and hypothe- ses, and definitions of key terms used in the dissertation. Chapter II contains a review of literature related to the study, a description of the important components of a comprehensive professional-development program, and the results of previous research on staff development. An explanation of the study design and methodology may be found in Chapter III. Also included is a brief description of ques- tions found in the survey instrument. Results of the data analysis are contained in Chapter IV. A summary of the entire study, conclusions, and recommendations for further research are found in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains a review of literature and research in five areas related to the present study. Those areas are (1) the need for professional development, (2) professional-development studies, (3) the financial investment in professional development, (4) the role of the teacher and principal, and (5) the superintendent and staff development. The Need for Professional Development Johnson (1980) emphasized that continuing staff development is "recognized by all professions as a necessity for keeping practi- tioners abreast of new knowledge and developments in their field" (p. vii). In Michigan, this need has been intensified by societal, economic, and legislative demands made on school districts in recent years. The present situation requires a coordinated effort on the part of all components of the educational community and the profes- sion to meet the challenge of the 19805 (Johnson, 1980). Johnson listed 12 major forces that have affected American public schools in recent years: 1. The movement among minorities, women, and the handicapped for equal educational opportunity, bringing significant 10 changes in the student population and necessitating attend- ant changes in curriculum, instruction, facilities, and extracurricular activities; 2. Public distrust of government, generating cries for more efficient management of education and "greater productivity" from schools; 3. An economic slowdown, causing retrenchment in school spending; 4. The spread of social ills (drug abuse and pollution), prompt- ing new school services and courses; 5. Violence in America, spawning violence in schools; 6. The explosion of knowledge, putting severe stress on educators to keep up with their fields; 7. Instructional technology, promising more individual attention to students but demanding changes in the roles and functions of educators; 8. Television, often influencing children negatively and compet- ing (unnecessarily) with schools for children's time and attention; 9. Declining enrollments and a teacher surplus, contributing to more educated, more experienced, and more costly faculties with fewer external incentives for self-improvement; 10. The growth of teacher power, bringing assertions of the need for more involvement of teachers in matters affecting them; 11. Research and experience pointing to the importance of the teacher in curriculum reform and instructional improvements; and 12. The realization that four years of undergraduate preparation make only a beginning teacher. (p. ix) In 1975, a change in the Education for All Handicapped Child- ren Act (Public Law 94-142) was mandated. This change was part of the federal government's response to the campaign for the full par- ticipation of handicapped individuals in society. The law has been called the "most important piece of educational legislation in this country's history" (Corrigan, 1978, p. 10). However, a recent survey of nationally accredited teacher-training institutions revealed that even with mandated legislation and emphasis on mainstreaming handi- capped children in the schools, regular classroom teachers lack pre- service preparation to work with these children (Vacc, 1978, p. 42). Of 174 reporting institutions of higher education with elementary ll education programs, only 34% required a special-education course. Of 175 institutions with secondary education programs, just 24% required such a course. Many of the regular classroom teacher's inservice-education needs relative to Public Law 94-142 are shared by special-education teachers and supervisors, administrators, and instructional support personnel. Although school personnel may have had training and experience in working with handicapped children, the law has estab- lished new responsibilities and requires new work patterns. Violence in America and vandalism in America's schools are fixtures of society (U.S. Congress, 1977). The Violent Schools-- Safe Schools study commissioned by the U.S. Congress generated descriptive statistics on violence and vandalism in the schools. The following are examples of the findings of that study: 1. About 8% of the nation's schools (6,700) have a serious problem with crime. Secondary schools are more likely to have a serious problem than elementary schools. 2. About 2.4 million secondary school students (11%) have some- thing stolen from them in a typical month. About 1.3% of the students (282,000) report being attacked in a month. Relatively few are injured seriously enough to need medical attention. 3. Among secondary school teachers, about 12% (130,000) have something stolen at school in a month's time. Some 5,200 are physically attacked, about 1,000 of whom are seriously enough injured to require medical attention. Around 6,000 have something taken from them by force, weapons, or threats. 4. Over 25% of all schools are subject to vandalism in a given month. The average cost of an act of vandalism is $80. Ten percent of schools are burglarized, at an average cost per burglary of $183. The annual cost of school crime is esti- mated to be around $200 million. Most offenses are commit- ted by current students. (National Institute of Education, 1978, p. iii) 12 An investigation by the 0.5. Senate Judiciary Committee dealt in detail with the kinds of teacher training needed to cope with school violence and vandalism. It was noted that discipline, violence, and vandalism are not often subjects of instruction in teacher-training programs (U.S. Congress, 1977). Thus it seems that inservice education would be an important strategy in helping to alleviate this school problem. At one time, most of the substance of a field could be learned with some effort, when the slate and the book were the teacher's only aids, and when children passed evenings conversing with family, listen- ing to stories, or studying for the next day's lesson. Such a time no longer exists (Postman, 1970). A knowledge explosion has occurred in the last 150 years and has increased most dramatically since World War II. Postman (1970) described the knowledge explosion: Imagine a clock face with 60 minutes on it. Let the clock stand for the time men have had access to writing systems. The clock would thus represent something like 3,000 years, and each minute on the clock, fifty years. On this scale, there were no sig- nificant communication or technological changes until about nine minutes ago. At that time, the printing press came into use in Western culture. About three minutes ago, the telegraph, photo- graph, and locomotive arrived. Two minutes ago: the telephone, rotary press, motion pictures, automobile, airplane, and radio. One minute ago, the talking picture. Television has appeared in the last ten seconds, the computer in the last five, and commu- nication satellites in the last second. The laser beam appeared a fraction of a second ago. (p. 2) Traditionally functioning as society's transmitters of learn- ing, schools and teachers have been caught short by the explosion in knowledge. Most are still trying to dispense facts as if facts in today's world were immutable and condensable. The basic curriculum of the school has changed little in the last 50 years, despite the birth 13 of many new disciplines and problems in the larger world (Postman, 1970). As Mead (1970) stated, "Education has been built on accumulated past knowledge and experience. It must now include articulate ignor- ance of the emerging future combined with a determination to master the skills necessary to shape the future for the well-being of mankind" (p. 20). Professional-development programs can increase the capability of teachers to obtain more knowledge with which to pass on and cape with new, revitalized curriculum. The teacher market is directly affected by growth and decline in the school-age population. The 19505 and 19605 were decades of substantial growth in the American population, largely because of the postwar baby boom. This growth was dramatically reflected in the school-age population, which grew from about 30.9 million pupils in 1950 to about 52.5 million in l970--a 70% increase (National Center for Education Statistics, 1978). The population boom then began to wane, necessitating layoffs and reductions in teacher force. Such measures have tended to affect newer teachers and minorities because of their shorter tenure. Fewer beginning teachers and more early- and mid-career teachers are now employed (Wilken, 1978). Having a more experienced professional staff carries a number of implications for inservice education. Educators have traditionally regarded new recruits as a major source of innovations and fresh ideas. Yet the number of new teachers has been shrinking. Professional development might provide the fresh ideas and innovations once supplied by early- and mid-career employees. 14 With an experienced professional staff, the old incentives for participation in inservice education-—standard credentials, tenure, salary increments, and advanced degrees--are blunted. State departments of education and local school districts must resort to other means of securing teacher participation in inservice education (Johnson, 1980). Another reason inservice education is receiving increased attention is the recent realization that four years of undergraduate preparation provides skills for a beginning teacher, not an accomp- lished one (Johnson, 1980). For decades, teacher educators focused their attention on raising the level of teacher preparation from the depths of normal-school standards (at one time, six weeks of prepara- tion) to the current requirement of four years and a bachelor's degree (in some states, five years and a master's degree). Not until these standards were reached did the public become aware that some teaching knowledge and skills are better learned on the job and that others cannot be learned anywhere else (Howey, 1978). In summary, professionals have always needed inservice educa- tion to keep up with developments in their fields. Now they also need such education to help them cope with social progress, economic disruption, demographic developments, and technological advances. An array of forces in these areas has compelled a new look at inservice education for school staffs after they have been functioning as full professionals (Johnson, 1980). 15 Professional-Development Studies The Bing Foundation, under the direction of Les Birdsell, surveyed a number of operational staff-development programs. As a result of this survey, Birdsell enumerated the following requirements for staff development: 1. \l 0" 01 b 00 N o o o o o o The organization and operation of the school should encour- age staff to work together to improve the instructional process. The principal, staff and parents should view staff develop- ment as a major component of instructional improvement. The roles of school site personnel should contribute to staff development. The resources of the school site should contribute to staff development. Training activities should be designed to reflect individual and school needs. The administrative and teaching staff should have a system for keeping abreast of the latest developments. The administrative and teaching staff should continually monitor, evaluate, and revise the inservice programs and change processes at the school. (Cited in Oliver, 1977) A National Inservice Teacher Education Study directed by Bruce Joyce for Stanford University considered staff development from two perspectives: what it is and what it should be. Some highlights of the study findings are as follows: 1. Many teachers are over age forty and they have a strong desire to remain in teaching. This suggests fewer and fewer new teachers will be coming into the system, especially in these days of declining enrollments and program reductions. In response to a question asking, "How much inservice help do you receive?", it is interesting to note the diversity of responses. From the set of feedback, it appears there are a number of educators in California who receive plenty of staff development input while nearly an equal number of other educators suggest they receive too little help with too little quality. Most teachers indicate they get most of their ideas and sug- gestions for improving classroom operations from other teachers--as opposed to administrators, supervisors, profes- sors, others. At least at first glance, respondents indicated 16 they got little but desired more assistance from principals. Professors and central office personnel seemed to rank very poorly when "teacher help" was analyzed; apparently the farther away from the classroom the lower the teacher per- ceptions that help is available. The survey revealed that well over half of the educators said they got themselves engaged in inservice activities to improve teaching performances--as opposed, say, to taking inservice for the purpose of advancing higher on the salary schedule. (Cited in Oliver, 1977) A third project, the Rand Study, offered considerable insight into means for effective staff-development programs. The researchers examined the components of inservice programs and also analyzed the results of effective and ineffective efforts. Operational programs were studied within the regular context of the school day, and then it was determined how the inservice activity contributed to or detracted from the success of the school's goals and objectives. The major findings of this study were: 1. Local schools should define the staff development program through continuous school-level planning. Too often, according to the study, central office or other well-meaning agencies "laid on" outside designs which more often than not were not seen by those individuals as particularly relevant. Commitment of appropriate time and energy by a majority of the staff was essential. The positive attitude of a critical mass of the staff helped assure continuation and follow- through. Ongoing release time allowed staff to participate when the energy level is high. People can't be expected to put their best abilities into the staff development exercises at the close of a hard school day. There are a number of factors to consider with this issue, but time to contemplate, think, and relax is imperative. For example, many teachers feel guilty if they are away from their students for any appre- ciable length of time; too, parents and students aren't always excited about having teachers out of the classroom and a less talented substitute attempting to uphold expected instruc- tional quality. Joint governance in the development, implementation and evaluation of inservice programs. This point shouldn't come as a surprise to any of today's educators; pe0p1e who are l7 affected by decisions not only expect--they insist--to be involved in the decision-making process. (McLaughlin & Berman, 1977, p. 54) The Rand Study also reported that schools generally had either no staff-development model or only a sketchy concept of one. The researchers pointed out that unsuccessful projects consistently relied on outside consultants, who made a one-time presentation to the staff with little or no consistent follow-up. Although such pre- sentations may be effective for transmitting information, there is little likelihood that they will do much to improve teachers' effec- tiveness in the classroom (Oliver, 1977). Although researchers have been somewhat vague about the effectiveness of inservice training, McLaughlin and Berman (1977) suggested that inservice is a positive component in improving instruc- tion. Writers seem to be in general agreement about several things: (1) those who will receive the training should be involved in planning such inservice, (2) incentives for inservice participation should be intrinsic rather than extrinsic, (3) the school campus should be the focal point for inservice training activities, and (4) inservice should be based on a developmental rather than a deficit program (Farnsworth, 1981; Howey, 1978; McLaughlin & Berman, 1977; Miller, 1977). Smith (1980) wrote that since the heart of staff development is the individual training program, the steps in the process of plan- ning, implementing, and evaluating such a program are vitally impor- tant. He recommended using the following steps as a guide to 18 establishing a quality training program. However, he did not intend that this list be used as an inflexible step-by-step plan. Review staff-development activities. Establish needs. Establish priorities. Identify target group. Plan the content. Select training strategies. Identify fiscal considerations. Select trainers. Select training site. 10. Arrange for released time for participants. 11. Design and implement evaluation strategy. 12. Implement activities. LOWNO‘U'l-th-fl According to Smith, individuality within each school district complicates the assimilation of the appropriate information for pur- poses of growth. Leadership is imperative in promoting and guiding the training endeavor to its ultimate goal. The Financial Investment in Professional Development Because of millage votes, educational programs are directly linked to the economic mood of the people. Keough (1978) stated that compounding the problems faced by educational institutions has been a decline in school enrollment, which began at the elementary level in 1971 and moved to the secondary level in 1977. Widespread pub- licity about enrollment declines has affected the public's voting behavior. Voters expected fewer students to mean lower school costs. Also, in many suburbs that grew rapidly in the postwar years, the decline in school enrollment has coincided with stabilization and aging of the community; the priority of education is often lower for those voters (Keough, l978). 19 Rogus and Martin (1979) reported that administrators have used different strategies to manage budget cutbacks and enrollment declines. Some of these strategies are consolidation of services, elimination of whole programs, across-the-board cuts in all programs, permanent closing of schools, and early retirement programs. Ulti- mately and inevitably, though, staffs have been affected by the retrenchment efforts because education relies so heavily on people. In some cases, retrenchment has meant reassignment of tenured teach- ers from positions that are judged expendable to positions in which a need remains. According to Rogus and Martin, some teachers do not readily take such changes in stride. Howey (1978) stated that some individuals restrict the purpose of professional-development activities to job- or school-related improvement, with largely public benefit. Others embrace professional- growth activities that have some public benefit but also significant individual value. Still others include personal growth, with largely individual merit. One kind of inservice education aims to improve teachers' job performance or the school program; according to Johnson (1980), this kind of education should be publicly financed. Van Ryn and Santelli (1979) asserted that investment in the competence of employees is good business practice, especially for an enterprise like education, which depends heavily on people, not machines. Much of the current need for professional development has arisen from court orders, legislative mandates, and financial incen- tives. Legal decisions have changed many of the conditions and 20 assumptions under which most present school personnel were trained and employed, conditions such as separate education of the handicapped and the assumption that all children come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Yet, as Van Ryn and Santelli (1979) noted, when industries introduce new equipment, they do not make their employees responsible for learning how to operate the equipment, nor do they hire a new group of employees to work the equipment. They retrain their present employees; it is a company responsibility. The problem of finding an appropriate combination of financial resources for professional development is compounded by a lack of information on the present mix. According to Floria and Koff (1977), there is no big picture but only fragments of many pictures. For example: 1. Some support is indirect and hence unreported. A prime example is the millions of dollars that districts give each year in salary increments and promotions to staff members who have earned a specified number of credits. The benefit of this investment to the school program is often left to chance (Floria & Koff, 1977). 2. Some support is categorical--that is, tied to improvement of personnel working with target populations, such as handicapped or bilingual. It is one part of many programs and hence widely scattered. Much state and federal money is of this sort. Coordination becomes critical with such funding because the potential for duplication of effort and for other inefficiencies is great. Also, perspectives are fragmented. For example, needs assessments may focus on special 21 education rather than all education, and planning occurs within categories, not across them (Johnson, 1980). 3. Some support is not regularly or consistently reported and hence is not properly weighed. Thus, a 1976 study pegged federal expenditures for staff training, as reported by a representative sample of local districts, at $48.9 million in the 1972-73 academic year and succeeding summer (National Center for Education Statistics, 1976), and a 1980 report identified about $356 million appropriated within the Office of Education in fiscal year 1979 for the support of both preservice and inservice personnel development (Feistritzer, McMillon, & Lewis, 1979). Such confusion about financial support underscores the need for leadership in funding inservice education. The most recent impetus for such leadership is a federal-government requirement that for states to receive funds under Titles IV and V-B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, they must submit a comprehensive plan for the coordination of Federal and State funds for training activities for educational personnel in the State including preservice and inservice training, [which] shall be developed with the involvement of teachers, profes- sional associations, institutions of higher education, and other interested individuals" (U.S. Congress, 1978). After several years of discussions with a variety of profes- sional groups, Michigan adopted a state plan in 1979 for developing and implementing professional-development programs. Underlying the plan is an entitlement program, which earmarked $3.2 million in 1979-80 to fund inservice education at $25 per professional in districts or consortia with fewer than 750 professionals and $35 per professional 22 in districts or consortia with 750 professionals or more. To receive such funds, local program planners must assess needs for inservice education, identify the most urgent needs, decide on objectives, identify agencies that might help carry out the proposal, and develop a plan for evaluation. Although education cannot be compared directly to private business or industry, it is sometimes useful to draw parallels between the two fields. No physical product is involved in the educational process, but results are expected nevertheless. Product-improvement costs in industry are comparable to staff-development costs in educa- tion, yet there is great disparity between the two. A successful American business may spend 10% of its annual gross on product improvement, yet very few school districts earmark as much as one one-hundredth of that amount specifically for staff development, which is solely designed to improve job performance (Dillon, 1978). Many criticisms leveled at schools concern imperfections or inadequacies of the product. Dillon concluded that one of the best ways to improve the performance of students is to enhance the skills of those who work with them. The Role of the Teacher and Principal The most important persons in a professional-development program typically are professional personnel--that is, teachers and principals. Several studies have identified the characteristics of elementary schools and school personnel that foster effective basic- skills instruction. Hersh et a1. (1978) reviewed these studies and 23 concluded that the following factors are positively associated with school productivity: 1. Strong administrative leadership by the school principal, especially in regard to instructional matters; 2. A school climate conducive to learning, i.e., safe and orderly; 3. School-wide emphasis on basic skills instruction, which entails agreement among the professional staff that instruc- tion in the basic skills is the primary goal of the school; 4. Teacher expectations that students can reach high levels of achievement; and 5. A system for monitoring and assessing pupil performance that is tied to instructional objectives. (p. 12) The school unit is an important context in which to consider school effectiveness. Howey (1978) stated that attributes such as schoolwide discipline, high teacher expectations for pupils, homework assignments, and high academically engaged time reveal an important structural theme: that schools are social institutions, collectives of professionals and students. In more effective schools, students and staff engage in particular behaviors and create a set of norms, values, rules, and expectations that are different from those in less effective schools. Hersh et a1. (1978) stated that even if one were to assume identical and optimal preservice education programs for teachers and administrators, some schools are more effective social entities than others because of a special combination of technically competent professionals who arrange and order school life differently than others. Eiken (1977) reported that effective inservice requires strategies for reaching agreement at the school-building level on such topics as goals and expectations. However, these strategies 24 have not yet been identified. Eiken also noted that inservice should be undertaken to help teachers whose skills need to be enhanced. It would do little good for an inservice program to achieve schoolwide teacher and administrator agreement on particular goals and strate- gies if teachers were incapable of implementing such strategies in the classroom. For inservice education to help implement school policy on basic-skills instruction, educators must know how inservice education affects teacher productivity. The present knowledge in this area is weak. Previous research on inservice education has focused primarily on descriptions of isolated, individual inservice programs and their immediate effects on teacher knowledge and attitudes (Johnson, 1980). Hersh et al. (1978) stated that very few studies have examined the possible links between inservice education and enhanced teacher pro- ductivity, even though such links provide the ultimate justiciation for devoting school-system resources to inservice education. Further- more, according to these authors, there do not appear to be any studies that have explored the interrelationships between the inservice experi- ences of individual teachers over a specific time. McLaughlin and Berman (1977) asserted that teachers are dis— satisfied with traditional professional-development programs. Teachers' dissatisfaction has been documented in at least two fairly recent sur- veys: a representative national teacher sample and a sample of teach- ers from California, Georgia, Michigan, and 21 urban/rural projects across the nation (Bartholomew, 1976). Bartholomew reported that 25 l. Inservice education has not addressed teachers' urgent day- to-day needs. [It has] tended to focus upon the theoreti- cal fads of the moment, giving little attention to the basic problems of the classroom world. 2. Inservice education has been required of teachers and imposed and delivered by others. The bulk of the programs are sporadic and disorganized. 3. Inservice education has been fragmented, unsystematic, and devoid of a conceptual framework. (p. 80) Bhaerman (1976) characterized inservice as lacking integrated activities developed on the basis of assessed priorities. According to a number of writers, there has never been a broad scheme of inser- vice education with a clear concept of purpose, appropriate under- girding of policy, legitimacy in commitment, and fixed responsibility for attaining agreed-upon goals (Bartholomew, 1976; Bhaerman, 1976; Edelfelt & Lawrence, 1975; Howey, 1978; Rubin, 1976). Jansen, Betz, and Zigarmi (1978) reported that the degree of involvement and control afforded the planning group depends on the principal's leadership style, the past experiences of the staff in similar situations, and the degree of trust existing between the prin- cipal and the faculty. Ideally, the principal can maintain a lower profile in the decision-making process as the program and the process skills of the teaching staff develop. Rogus and Martin (1979) con- curred with this view: The key to the potential effectiveness of any professional development program identified is the spirit with which it is carried out. The principal's bearing and attitude, both in his/her daily interactions and within the process of program planning and implementation, set the limits of staff develop- ment program potential. (p. 31) In La Plant's (1979) view, the quality of an educational program largely depends on the school principal. He said that the 26 principal's role is an important element in the schooling process and that despite the lack of a research-proven relationship between formal preservice preparation and job effectiveness, a case can be made for inservice education as a means of improving principals' performance and ultimately the quality of pupil education. According to La Plant, importance of inservice education for principals is underscored by the following notions: (l) the principal is cast as the preserver of tradition, yet some of these traditions may not serve today's educa- tional needs; and (2) there are fewer young principals today because fewer new positions are being created, as a result of declines in the school-age population. Another set of materials that provided insight into the principal's role was "The Remaking of the Principalship," a series of articles that was the major content of four issues of the NAESP publication (La Plant, 1979). These articles revealed two major con- cerns: (1) the inadequacies of the preparation program and the lack of opportunities for continuing education and (2) the widespread agreement on the need for inservice training for principals but con- siderable disagreement over what such training should accomplish. The report indicated that no startling new methods for inservice training for principals had been introduced in the five years pre- ceding the study. According to La Plant, there is little evidence that any serious consideration has been given to the experiences that will develop intro- spective principals--the knowledge, skills, and critical insights they need. Therefore, it should not be surprising that so many principals 27 are so ill-prepared to assume leadership of externally funded projects. Le Plant found that principals had difficulty even thinking about what kind of inservice would be useful to them. The Superintendent and Staff Development Miller (1977) contended that perhaps one reason staff develop— ment has not been particularly successful is that the requisite leader- ship qualities have not existed. In brief, he said that at least four keys to change are essential for those who are responsible for provid- ing effective inservice. These keys to change include involvement, philosophy, communication and problem solving, and modeling direction. Certainly other leadership talents are required, but these four are so common they should not be ignored. Oliver (1977) stated that leader- ship today requires that different audiences be involved in the staff- development process; often this may mean that groups with competing interests will be seeking the same scarce resources. Maintaining the status quo in this setting calls for creative and imaginative lead- ership. The superintendent is the educational leader of the community and is able to view the school system as a whole. Farquhar (1978) wrote, Because his accountability is to laymen rather than to senior professionals, he must play a heavy role in educating them about education and in generating policy recommendations or alternatives for their consideration. In order to maintain credibility with the board, the chief executive must spend enough time with his staff in the schools to know, with con- fidence, what is going on out there. On the other hand, the relationship between the superintendent and his staff may often be under-emphasized. Spending time in the field could 28 enhance his potential to lead, the staff recognizing that his primary accountability is not to a remote bureaucracy . . . but rather to elected representatives of the public in his juris- diction, that is, board members who are close to the parents of students with whom the staff members interact daily. (p. 7) To have a successful staff-develOpment plan, staff members must perceive that the district officials are truly committed to pro- fessional growth. According to Farquhar, such a perception is enhanced by at least some of the following actions: 1. District office leaders illustrate by their modeling behavior that they are willing to learn and grow. 2. The district office supports with money, time and policy plans for growth. 3. The district offers incentives for those who participate. Farquhar listed some qualities of an effective superintendent: [The superintendent] must have the skill to inspire confidence to support, to steer, and to effect a professional and personal growth in others. He must be able to motivate, to stimulate, and to challenge. In sum, he requires the ability to recognize and meet the individual needs of others, while at the same time, tap- ping their full potential to contribute to the achievement of the school system's objectives. (p. 9) Summary Literature on five tapics relevant to the study was reviewed in this chapter. Those topics were (1) the need for professional development, (2) professional-development studies, (3) the financial investment in professional development, (4) the role of the teacher and principal, and (5) the superintendent and staff development. The importance of knowing more about the factors that influ- ence superintendents' recommendations for professional-development programs was supported by this review. A substantial knowledge base concerning the necessity for professional development was established, 29 and the research findings in the area were summarized. Inservice education must be considered an integral part of the school-district operation. Improved teacher productivity and student achievement are mltimately the result of effective professional-development programs. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction This study was conducted to determine whether superintendents differ in their responses to selected factors thought to influence the recommendation for professional-development programs. Relation- ships based on age, education, experience as a superintendent, longevity in the present district, and length of teaching experience were also examined. Research Procedures Construction of the Professional Development Survey Because no suitable instrument for evaluating the factors that influence superintendents' recommendations for professional- development programs was available, the researcher developed the Professional Development Survey. (See Appendix A.) The instrument was developed in four steps, all of which preceded the test adminis- tration. The first step was to construct statements of factors thought to influence superintendents' recommendations for professional- development programs, based on pertinent literature and the advice of experts in the field. Each statement had to meet two criteria: (1) it had to reflect a common factor a superintendent is exposed to 30 31 in the daily operation of a school system, and (2) it had to be expressed in both a terminology and in a context that would be understandable and relevant to a superintendent. The statements so constructed constituted the major portion of the Survey. The second step was to validate the instrument. To accomp— lish this task, the Survey was administered to three recognized experts in the field of inservice education. (See Appendix B for the names of these individuals.) Each expert was asked to decide whether the statements in the Survey were actually factors influencing superintendents to make recommendations for professional-development programs. New and revised questions were integrated into the instru- ment as recommended by the professionals. The final Survey contained 34 statements concerning influential factors. The third step was to field test the revised instrument by administering it to two superintendents. Field testing was done to determine whether superintendents understood and could respond properly to the instrument. (See Appendix B for the names of the two superin- tendents.) They completed the Survey and verbally commented on the statements about which they had questions. The fourth step was the final revision of the instrument. Some words and the order of statements were changed to improve reada- bility and to make the sequence more logical. The changes were approved by the experts involved in the preliminary assessment of the instrument. 32 Data-Collection Procedures The population comprised the 586 superintendents of Michigan's K-12 public school districts and intermediate school districts. The survey instrument was mailed to the entire superintendent population. A cover letter of introduction requested their participation in the study. Each copy of the Survey was numerically coded to allow follow-up of those who had not returned completed instruments within two weeks, should a second mailing be needed. The cover letter assured the superintendents that individual responses would remain confidential and that participants could not be identified by name. Responses were received from 343 superintendents, for a return rate of 59%. Before computerizing the data, the researcher reviewed all surveys for completeness; only those instruments containing suffi- cient responses were included in the analysis. Thirty-six surveys were rejected because they did not contain sufficient information. With a population size of 586, 234 completed surveys were needed to attain a 95% confidence level (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Therefore, the 307 usable surveys received in this study did constitute a reli- able sample. A summary of data-collection results is shown in Table 1. Table l.-vSummary of data-collection results. Surveys mailed 586 Surveys returned . 343 Surveys rejected -36 Surveys accepted for analysis 307 33 Research Design, The Survey included 34 statements concerning influential fac- tors. Participants responded to each statement by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed that each factor influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. Point values were assigned to each response in the following manner: Agree to a great extent Agree to a certain extent Neutral or unsure Disagree to a certain extent Disagree to a great extent (II-kWN—J Each of the 34 statements represented a single cell. The statements concerned five major topics: (1) school district statistics, (2) changes in enrollment, (3) faculty profiles, (4) communication networks, and (5) tests and printed materials. Participants were also asked to answer questions regarding (1) year of birth, (2) the number of years of teaching experience, (3) the number of years as superintendent, (4) the number of years as superintendent in the present district, (5) the highest graduate degree completed, and (6) the university from which their most recent graduate degree had been attained. Hypotheses The following research hypotheses were constructed to analyze the data collected in this study. Ho 1: There will be no difference among superintendents in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. 34 Ho 2: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on age, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional- development programs. Ho 3: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on graduate education, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. Ho 4: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on experience as a superintendent, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Ho 5: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on length of experience in the present district, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. Ho 6: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on length of teaching experience, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Hypothesis 1 was tested by means of descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and percentages. This technique was chosen as a means of summarizing and reducing to a manageable form an otherwise unwieldy mass of data. Hypotheses 2 through 6 were tested with independent t-tests. The data gathered through the Survey were dichotomized for each hypothesis to approximate 50% in each group. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) subprogram provided inferential statis- tical data that tested each of the five hypotheses at the o = .05 level with the corresponding statistical null hypothesis. Any differ- ences that were found were determined by inspection. Where there were two levels, the direction of the differences was determined by the same procedure. 35 Summary The research design and procedures were described in this chapter, and the hypotheses were stated. The steps involved in the construction of the instrument were described, as were the data- collection techniques. The Professional Development Survey was constructed because no existing instrument was available to obtain data to answer the research questions posed in the study. Validity of the instrument was supported by three education professionals and two intermediate superintendents. The population for the study comprised the 586 K-12 public school and intermediate school district superintendents in Michigan. Of that group, 307 returned usable instruments that were acceptable for analysis. Generalization of the findings of this study to superintendents in other states should be done with caution, taking into account the demographic characteristics of the sample and Michigan's educational structure. A variety of descriptive and inferential techniques were employed to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics included fre- quencies, means, and percentages. Inferential statistical tests were the t-tests. All tests were performed with a .05 alpha level. The results obtained from the statistical analyses are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction Analysis of the data collected regarding the factors that influence superintendents' recommendation for professional-development programs is reported in this chapter. Included are the results of hypothesis testing and of a supplementary analysis. Demographic Data Six questions in the Survey concerned the superintendents' age, experience, and training. Respondents were asked to indicate their age, highest graduate degree obtained, number of years as a superintendent, number of years as a superintendent in the present school district, number of years of teaching experience, and the uni- versity from which their most recent degree had been obtained. Three hundred five superintendents responded to the question concerning age. (See Table 2.) Respondents' ages ranged from 30 to 64 years. The ages appeared to be evenly distributed, with no more than 6.2% (19) of the respondents in any one age group. The mean age of the superintendents was 48.6 years, and the modal age was 53 years. Table 3 shows the number of years of teaching experience of superintendents in the study. Three hundred five superintendents responded to this question. Teaching experience ranged from none at 36 37 Table 2.--Ages of superintendents in the study (N = 305). Age Number Percent 30 l 0.3 32 2 0.7 33 2 0.7 34 4 1.3 35 7 2.3 36 5 1.6 37 5 1.6 38 8 2.6 39 13 4.3 40 8 2.6 41 9 3.0 42 11 3.6 43 12 3.9 44 12 3.9 45 9 3.0 46 12 3.9 47 12 3.9 48 12 3.9 49 10 3.3 50 19 6.2 51 11 3.6 52 11 3.6 53 22 7.2 54 11 3.6 55 13 4.3 56 19 6.2 57 5 1.6 58 9 3.0 59 6 2.0 60 8 2.6 61 6 2.0 62 8 2.6 63 l 0.3 64 2 0.7 38 Table 3.--Number of years of teaching experience of superintendents in the study (N = 305). Years of Experience Number Percent 0 l 0.3 l 5 1.6 2 13 4.3 3 35 11.5 4 32 10.5 5 45 14.8 6 39 12.8 7 28 9.2 8 12 3.9 9 13 4.3 10 20 6.6 11 10 3.3 12 10 3.3 13 8 2.6 14 3 1.0 15 5 1.6 16 3 1.0 17 l 0.3 18 2 0.7 19 2 0.7 20 4 1.3 21 l 0.3 22 2 0.7 24 2 0.7 27 1 0.3 28 l 0.3 31 2 0.7 32 3 1.0 33 2 0.7 39 all to 33 years. The mean was 7.9 years of teaching experience, and the mode was five years. Table 4 provides the data relative to the number of years the respondents had been a superintendent. Three hundred four superin- tendents responded to this question. The range of experience was from one year to 32 years. The mean years of experience was 10.2, and the mode was two years. More than half of the respondents had been superintendents fewer than eight years. Table 5 shows the number of years the respondents had been superintendents in their present districts. Three hundred four super- intendents responded to this question. The experience in the most recent school district ranged from less than one year to 32 years. The mean years of experience within the district was 6.9 years, and the mode was two years. More than half of the respondents had been in their present districts for five years or less. When comparing the data in Tables 4 and 5, it appears that the majority of the respondents had been superintendents longer overall than they had served within the present district. Thus, to a great extent, super- intendents were probably not in their original positions. Table 6 contains a tabulation of data relative to the super- intendents' educational level. Three hundred two superintendents responded to this question. The respondents varied in terms of edu- cational level, but the group seemed to be clustered primarily at the master's-degree level. Slightly below 40% had earned a master's degree. Several respondents indicated they had taken college classes beyond the M.A. but had not received a specialist or doctorate degree. 40 Table 4.--Number of years as a superintendent (N = 304). Years Number Percent l 19 6.3 2 33 10.9 3 16 5.3 4 22 7.2 5 16 5.3 6 16 5.3 7 12 3.9 8 19 6.3 9 9 3.0 10 13 4.3 11 8 2.6 12 18 5.9 13 10 3.3 14 7 2.3 15 14 4.6 16 9 3.0 17 10 3.3 18 7 2.3 19 8 2.6 20 8 2.6 21 3 1.0 22 l 0.3 23 6 2.0 24 3 1.0 25 2 0.7 26 4 1.3 27 3 1.0 28 3 1.0 30 l 0.3 31 1 0.3 32 3 1.0 41 Table 5.--Number of years as a superintendent in the present district (N = 304). Years Number Percent l 1 0.3 l 38 12.5 2 46 15.1 3 23 7.6 4 32 10.5 5 22 7.2 6 20 6.6 7 18 5.9 8 14 4.6 9 8 2.6 10 16 5.3 11 4 1.3 12 11 3.6 13 8 2.6 14 4 1.3 15 8 2.6 16 5 1.6 17 5 1.6 18 1 0.3 19 5 1.6 20 5 1.6 21 2 0.7 23 5 1.6 25 l 0.3 26 1 0.3 32 l 0.3 42 Table 6.--Educational level of superintendents in the study (N = 302). Degree Level Number Percent B.A. 3 1.0 M.A. 119 39.4 Specialist 81 26.8 Ed.D. 53 17.5 Ph.D. 46 15.2 Three hundred three superintendents responded to the question regarding the university from which they had obtained their most recent degree. (See Table 7.) Ninety-four percent of the respondents had received their most recent degree from a Michigan institution. Of those, nearly 30% had received their most recent degree from Michigan State University. Results of Hypothesis Testing, Ho 1: There will be no difference among superintendents in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Hypothesis 1 was formulated to answer the first research ques- tion, which asked whether superintendents differed in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional- development programs. To analyze the data for this hypothesis, the researcher used descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and percentages. Table 8 provides data relative to the 34 influential factors listed in the Survey. A complete breakdown by factor is given, 43 Table 7.--University from which the superintendents' most recent degrees had been received (N = 303). University Number Percent Michigan State University 86 28.4 Central Michigan University 48 15.8 University of Michigan 44 14.5 Wayne State University 35 11.6 Western Michigan University 32 10.6 Eastern Michigan University 28 9.2 Northern Michigan University 10 3.3 University of Toledo 3 1.0 Ball State University 2 0.7 Columbia University 2 0.7 Andrews University 1 0.3 Arizona State University 1 0.3 East Coast University 1 0.3 Indiana University 1 0.3 Kent State University 1 0.3 Mankato State University 1 0.3 Ohio State University 1 0.3 St. Louis University 1 0.3 Syracuse University 1 0.3 Waldon University 1 0.3 Western Kentucky University 1 0.3 Western Reserve 1 0.3 University of Wisconsin 1 0.3 44 acmuxo 44449 4 o» 444444.o 444444 4.44444 4 o» 044444.o 4444:: 40 .444342 u m acouxo c.44444 4 cu oo4m< m acouxo 44444 4 cu 4444< . _ “44444444: 44 44x 4.. 4.4 4.44 .4 4.4. 44 4.44 44. 4.4. .4 4.4 4 444444.444 4444 44. ..4 4.44 44. 4.4. 44 ..44 44. 4.4 4 4.4 . 444.44 4444444 4444444 ... 4.4 ..44 44 4... .4 4.44 4.. 4... 44 ..4 4. .44444444 4444444 .4.44 44 4444444444 4.. 4.4 4.44 44 4... .4 4.44 44. 4... 44 4.4 4 .44444444 4444444 .4.44 44 4444444444 4.. 4.4 4.44 44 4.4. 44 ...4 44. 4.4. .4 4.4 4 .44444444 4444444 .4..4.4444 .4 4444444444 4.. 4.4 4.44 44 4.4. 44 4..4 44 4.44 44 ..4 4. 444444 4.4 44444 444 .4.4.4 ... 4.4 4.4. 44 4.4. 44 4..4 44. 4.44 .4 4.4 4. .44444444 4444444 .4.: 44 4444444444 4.. 4.4 4.4. 44 4.4. 44 4.44 44. 4.44 44 4.4 4. .44444444 4444444 .4.4 44 4444444444 4.. ..4 4.44 44 4.4. 44 4.44 4. 4.44 44 4... 44 4.4444444: 4.4 44444 ... 4.4 4.4. 44 4.4. 44 4..4 44 4.44 .4. 4. 4 4.444 ..44444444444 4444444 4.. 4.4 4.4. .4 4.4. 44 4..4 44. 4.44 44. ..4 4 4.444 4444 4444 44444. 4.. 4.4 4.4. .4 4.4 44 4.44 44 ..44 44 4... 44 4444..4444 4. 4444444. 4444.4.44.4 4. Q4 m: 2 92 2 44444 .4444 44..4 3243:345248.38 4.. 4.4 4.4 44 4.4. 44 4.44 4.. 4.44 44. ..4 44 44444 44 444444444 .4.44444 44 444442 4.. 4.4 4.4. 44 4.4 .4 ...4 44 4.44 .4. 4.4. 44 444.44 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.. ..4 4.4. .4 4.4. 44 4.44 44 4.44 44. ..4. 44 ..444 444 4444.444444 444. .444444 .444. 4.. ..4 4.4 44 4.4. 44 ..44 44 4.44 44. ..4 4. 4444444 .4.444 4.444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.. 4.4 4.4 44 4.4. 44 4.44 44 ..44 44. 4.4 44 44444.44444 44.4444.44 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.4 ..4 4. 4.4 44 4.44 ... 4.44 4.. 4.4 4. 4444444 444..44 4444 4444.4444 4.. 4.4 4... 44 4.4 44 4.44 44 ..44 .4. 4.4. 44 4444..4444 4. 44444444 4444.4.44.4 ... 4.4 ..4 .4 ..4 4. 4.44 44 4..4 44. 4.4. 44 4.444 44 4444444. 44 444 444: 4.4 4.4 4.4 4. 4.4 .. 4.44 4. 4.44 44. 4.4. 44 .4.:4444 .444.4444444 444. 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.4 4.4 4. 4.4 4. 4.44 4. 4..4 44. 4.4. 44 4444444. 444 4444.444 444. 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.4 4.4 4. 4.4 4. 4.44 44 4.44 44. 4.4. 44 4444444 4444444444 44.444444 444.44.: 4.4 4.4 4.4 4 ..4 4. 4..4 44 4.44 44. 4.4. 44 4..444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.4 4.4 4 4.4 4 4..4 44 ...4 44. 4.4. 44 444.444... .444.4444444 4444 4444.4444 ... 4.4 4.4 4. 4.4 4. 4.4. 44 4.44 .4. 4.44 44 4.444.4444444444.444444.4444444.44444 444: 4.4 4.4 4.4 4 4.4 4. 4.4. 44 4.44 .4. 4.4. 44 4444444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.4 4.4 .. 4.4 4. 4.4. 44 4.44 44. 4.44 44 44444 4444444.:44 4.4 ..4 4.4 4 4.4 4 ..4. 44 4.44 44. 4.4. 44 44444444444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.. ..4 4 4.4 4 4... 44 4.44 44. 4..4 .4 .4.444 44.444 .444444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.. 4.4 4 4.4 4 4... 44 4.44 44. 4.44 44. 44.444444 .4 44444 444. 4444. 444 44.444 4.4 4.. 4.. 4 4.4 4 4.4 4. ..44 44. 4.44 44. 4.44.44.44 444. 4444. 444 44.444 4. 4.. 4.4 4 4.. 4 4.4 4 4.44 44. 4.44 44. 44444444 4444 4444. 444 44.444 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 z 4 2 mm .M 4 n . 444444 h “l".ldnpg fithuafiy “Juud1“.nw .u I. k 444con4m¢ 4 u , u VIII." n“ “4110111 1.1 ..th1»“ ”lib “J“.lq.E“" . 4. ”fiafilI .ufliflfi .4544moea “guano—o>mu-—4co.44m404a co. no.4oucmssoomc .4ucoc:44:.444=4 umuco:_4=. 444444» .4:4.>.u:. :u.:3 o. acmuxwtt.m v.44» 45 including the number and percentage of respondents indicating the extent to which the individual factor influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs, the mean score, and the stand- ard deviation for that factor. Four factors had means of less than 2.0, indicating that the majority of the respondents identified these factors as being important--to a great extent or to a certain extent--in influencing their recommendation for professional-development programs. Three hundred five superintendents responded to the factor of advice and input from teachers, which had a mean score of 1.4689. This figure indicates that 60% of the respondents agreed to a great extent that teachers' advice and input influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. Three hundred two superintendents responded to the factor of advice and input from principals, which had a mean score of 1.4868. Nearly 59% of the respondents agreed to a great extent that principals' advice and input influenced their recommendation for professional- development programs. Three hundred two superintendents responded to the factor of advice and input from the board of education, which had a mean score of 1.8808. Approximately 84% of the respondents agreed to a great or a certain extent that advice and input from the board of education influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. Two hundred ninety-four superintendents responded to the factor of advice and input from central office administration, which had a mean score of 1.9388. Approximately 83% of the respondents 46 indicated that they agreed to a great or a certain extent that advice and input from central office administration influenced their recom- mendation for professional-development programs. One factor had a mean score greater than four, indicating that a majority of the respondents disagreed to a great extent that it influenced their recommendation for professional-development pro- grams. This factor was the amount of debt retirement, which had a mean score of 4.0642. Nearly half of the respondents indicated that they disagreed to a great extent about its influential effect. Fifty percent of the factors had mean scores from 2.5 to 3.5, indicating that the majority of respondents were not sure of or were neutral about the influence of these factors. Based on the data shown in Table 8, differences existed among superintendents in terms of the factors that influenced their recommen- dation for professional-deveTOpment programs. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 2: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on age, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional- development programs. Table 9 shows a breakdown of the data concerning superin- tendents'responsesto the 34 influential factors, relative to the age of the superintendents. To test Hypothesis 2, the researcher divided the respondents into two age groups: Superintendents 49 years old and below constituted 50.5% of the group, and those 50 years and above represented 49.5% of the group. The statistical technique used was independent t-tests with an alpha level of .05. 147 mm.o no.0 wmufl mmnm MW” 44mmwwm .mccom444 4444444 .o.:4 44 4444444444 em.o o~.o wmnn ”mum MW” Lumunwm .44444444 4444444 .o.4u 4o 4444:44444 44.o 44.4 “flu” wwum MW” 44mwnwm .44444444 4444444 44.—4.4444 44 4444444444 44.o 44.o ”WU" ”mum mm” 4omuwwm .44404444 4444444 .<.: 44 4444444444 44.4 4... “mm” ”MUM MW” 44mmnwm .44444444 4444444 .<.4 44 4444444444 44.4 44.4- mwnn ”mum WM” 44mmmwm 44444 44 444444444 .4.44444 44 4442:: 44.4 44.o- “mu” ”mum ”m” 44mmnwm 44444 :4 44444444 44 can :44: 44.4 o4.o- mwun anm mm” 44mmnww 44444 no 44444444 44 44:4.444xo .4 44444 :44: .~.o 44..- wwnfl “Mum mm" 4mmmnwm 4.444 ..aanxsoguuuu 4444o>< 44.4 44.4 ”mm” “WNW MW” 44mwnwm 4:42..44:4 4. 44444944 4444.4.co.4 44.4 ~...- mmnfl ”WNW MW” 4mmunwm 4:45..44c4 4. 4444444. 4444.4.cm.m mm.o n4.o mmnw “Mum mm” 44mmuwm 444.44 goguoou 4444o>< 44.4 m~..- wmuw “Mum mm” 44mnmwm 444344.444 4444 44.o 4m.o ”MM” mmum wm” 44mmnwm 4444 444...: mc.uugoao .4444 o~.c 4~.o ”mu” mmnm "M” Lawnmww 444545 4.4 mumum Lon .>.m.m 44.4 44.4 ”MN" “wum mm” 44mmnwm 4.:4444242 4.4 44444 4..o 44.. wmnfl “WNW Wm” 4umnnwm ..444 444 4444.4444xm 4:44 .444444 .444. m=h4> oawo> om .m z om< 444444 I".M.|'|II-”-l|'!1lu" Uh" “v“ u "-H 4‘ III-d1...“ " ’II nnlfll nI-IH “NI N. "I‘ll...“ lulu TM u. " I‘ll-.. Ill .44444 444 44 44.444444 .4444444 44 444444444 .44444444:.44444 4o 444.4uasou-.m 4.44. 48 44.4 44.4- Mwnw “mum MW” 44mwmww 4.445 4344 5444 44445. 44.4 44..- wmnw “mum Wm” 44munww 44444444.. .44o.4444o44 5444 4444.:o4x 44.. .4.4- “MM” wmnm WW” 44mnnwm 4444444 444..44 5444 4444.:444 4..4 44..- wwuw mmn4 mm” 44munww 44444 44454>4.44< 44.4 44.4- “flu” ”mum mm” 44mmnww 5444444 4445444444 .44o.44444u 444.44.: 44.4 44..- mmnw “Mum ”m” 44mmmwm 44444444444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 .4.4- ”an” “Mum mu” 44munwm 44444.:4444 44.444>.4: 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 4..4 “MU” ”mum WM” 44mmmwm .4.44444 .44o.4444o44 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4 Mwnw MMHM MN” 44mnnwm 4444444 .4.>o4 44444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4 ”Mn“ mmnw WW” 44mmnwm 4444444. 444 4444.444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 4..4- mun” mun” WM” 44mnuwm 44.444444 44 44444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4- ”wuw wwnm mm” 44mnnwm 4..4:4 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4- “mm” ”HUM "my 44munww 4444444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4- "mm” ”mum mm” 44munwm 444.4: 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4- mwuw ”WU" MM” 44munwm 44444444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 .4.4 “WM” “NH” Wm” 44mmnww 4.44.44.44 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 44.4 44.4 “Mum mun” “w” 44mnnwm .4.544 44.444 .444444 5444 4:44. 444 44.>4< 4=h4> 4ah4> 44 .m z 444 444444 “dd" 7‘5 ..1 '1: k W- " ‘OOIII ‘l..l|lr,‘!Hn.-IH I all II- .. 0|}-- .4o==.4=ou--.4 4.44. 49 A review of Table 9 reveals that there was no statistically significant difference between age groups on any of the 34 influential factors. In terms of age, the superintendents can be considered a homogeneous group. The null hypothesis was accepted; therefore, there did not appear to be any differences between age groups regard- ing influential factors. ‘ Ho 3: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on graduate education, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional—develOpment programs. Table 10 shows a breakdown of the data concerning superin- tendents' responses to the 34 influential factors, relative to the graduate education of the superintendent. To test Hypothesis 3, the researcher divided the respondents into two groups, according to level of graduate education. Superintendents possessing a master's degree or less comprised 40.4% of the sample, and those possessing a Special- ist degree, an Ed.D., or a Ph.D. represented 59.6% of the group. In testing the hypothesis, the researcher used independent t-tests with an alpha level of .05. Statistically significant differences between groups existed on four of the factors. (The lower the mean score, the more impor- tant the factor.) 0f the four factors on which significant differ- ences occurred, three were considered more important by those with a master's or a bachelor's degree; those factors were state aid member- ship, S.E.V. per state aid member, and average teacher salary. The fourth factor was considered more important by those with a Special- ist, Ed.D., or Ph.D. degree; that factor was advice and input from central office administration. 50 .‘ti‘ ... I '1. b .“'.l0liulu co.o mo.o- ann ”mum MM” m .eeeemcee eeecmme .o.:e we eoeuceecee ow.o mm.o- mmun wwnm WM” m .eeeemcee eeegmee .o.em we emeueeeeee .m.o No.—- man” mmnm “M” m .eeeemgee eeegmee Haw—eweoem we emeueeeeea om.o om.o- ”an” wmnm MM” m .eeeemcee eeesmee .<.z we emeueeeeee oo.o ¢¢.o- mun” mmnm WM" m peceemgee eeecmee .<.m we eueueeecea «v.0 _m.o- “fin” “mum “M” m wweum :e ancegeeeu peweeemg we geese: No.o om.o ”mu” ”mum MM” m wweum :e msegueeu we emu cue: me.o u~.o ”mu” “Mum MM” m wweum so awesome» we eueewgeexe we memo» cue: eo.o mm.—- "nu” “MUM WW” m ewes; ..e:e\ceceeeu eoece>< ~—.o om.~- ”mu” Mwnw WM” m “cusp—exec cw emeoceee aceuwwwemwm wo.o mm..- MWH” “WNW MM” w ueesp—eLee cw emeeeeew ueeuwwweowm up.o mm..- ”mm” Mwnw WM” m use—em cegeeeu emege>< Ed 8..- mm; wwnm MN.” W 22552 23 m~.o «...- ”Mum mmnw WM” m eye; eae_—ws mewueeeee .eaew 85 8.? “Mn” "me Mn N. 328. 2a 33... ...... 5.: 85 92. mm.” mm Mn N 3534.2. 2... 33m m~.o mo.—- MMH" ”MUM MN” m .weee gee ogeuweeeexe ecew pegeeeo peach eehe> eehe> am R 2 seven“ , u Allin,“ H.” u "IMINMIHH u. “.-4 l «Jaulfiw ... §J,'llll|llpid H n... ._e>m— eecoee eueeeegm eu mcweeeeoe .mceueew ea memeeemec .meeeeceucweeeem we eemweeeseu--.o_ e_eew 5] eecmee .c.ca ce .o.em .m.umw_u_ueem u saw: muceeceucwceeem . N eeecu oecome m.ceumus ce m.cepeceue u new: muceeceucwceeem u — eeegwu o~.o om.o- anm MMHM MM” m mnmuw uweee mzec eecw uuueE. ~—.o om.p “mu” ”mum WM” m “”muw eceuuceuwp pucewmmewece secw mace—secs ew.c —m.o “Mum wwnw “M” m mumuw memceee emu—pee eecw emeepxecx mm.o mm.o wwnw “Mum WM” m “nwuw mummy acese>ewce< pa.o pp.o- wmnw wmnw MM" m mumuw augmeca «cosmmemmc pucewuueeeu cumwcewx mp.c om.o- “WNW ”Mum MM” m nnm“w moececewcee secw «sec. ecu eew>e< eo.o eo.o ”mu” ”MUM MM” m unmuw mucuu—emcee auwmce>wce Eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< uu.c ww.o- “mu” wmum MM” m mumuw .uwcumce .ucewmmewece eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< no.o mu.o- mmnfl ”Mum ”A” m mumuw meeceem .u.>em euuum secw «sec. ecu eew>e< pm.e ~—.e- “Mum ”Mum NW” N mnwuw xcumeecw ecu «mac—mac secw «eecw ecu eew>e< mm.o a_.c- mmnw mun” MM” m mumuw cewuuueee we ecuee secw usecw ecu eew>e< nm.o ~0.o- “MU” wmnw MM” m mumuw m—weee eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< ~u.o om.o- ”MU” mwnm “M” m mumuw mucecue eecw «sec. ecu eew>e< m—.c mc.— MMH” mwnm MM” m muwuw mcewce secw ueecw ecu eew>e< ew.o mm.o- mwnm mun” ”M” m numuw mcoceuea eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< a~.c he._ ”mum mun” %M” m mumuw m_uewecwce Eecw aeecw ecu eew>e< oo.o we.m “Mum mmum “M” m “nwuw .cwseu eewwwe pucucee secw ueecw ecu eew>e< uehu> e:—u> cm H z ueeecu ceueuw ll aul'l . 1vul|h uuu.|..n.'|n:hnn.unl..nhau . .uuhduuudvldfll. u . . ..qiafinflgiflulfl "Iii.”- .uu==_»=ue--.o_ a_guw 52 Based on the analysis, the null hypothesis was rejected. Significant differences existed between graduate-education groups regarding influential factors. Ho 4: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on experience as a superintendent, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Table ll contains a breakdown of the data concerning superin- tendents' responses to the 34 influential factors, relative to the length of experience as a superintendent. To test Hypothesis 4, the researcher divided the sample into two groups, based on years of experience as a superintendent. Respondents with eight years or less experience constituted 50.3% of the group, and those with nine years or more experience composed 49.7% of the group. Independent t-tests were used with an alpha level of .05. No significant difference existed between the two groups regarding the factors that influenced them to recommend professional- development programs. Thus the sample can be considered a homogen- eous group when considered on the basis of length of experience as a superintendent. The null hypothesis was accepted. Therefore, in terms of length of experience as a superintendent, there did not appear to be any difference between groups in terms of factors influ- encing recommendations for professional-development programs. Ho 5: There will be no significant difference among superin- tendents, based on length of experience in the present district, in regard to the factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. Table l2 contains a breakdown of the data concerning superin- tendents' responses to the 34 influential factors, relative to the 53 m¢.o m~.o mmnfl ”mum MN” m mumuw —eccemcee eeecaee .o.ce we emuuceecec ou.o mm.o wan” “mum mu” m mnmuw —eccemcee eeecmee .o.em we emuuceucee w—.c mm.p ”mum “mum MN” m mumuw peccemcee eeecmee amwpuwueem we emuuceecec oo.o em.c mmnfl MWHM MN” m mnwuw _eccemcee eeecmee .<.: we emuuceecee we.o ~o.o wwnfl "Mum MW” m “MM“M peccemcee eeecmee .<.m we umuuceucee ~m.o c—.c- “WU” ”mum MW” m “nwuw wwuem ce =mceceuea puweeemg we geese: om.o oe.e ”nu" “mum mm” m muwuw wwuum ce mceceueu we eau cue: mm.o mo.o “an” Mme wm” m “umuw wwuum ce mcecuueu we eecewceexe we mcuea cue: No.o cm.c "nu” mwnm mm” m mnmuw ewuuc pweeexceceueu emuce>< e~.c G... “Wu” ”mum “w” m mumuw acoEP—ecce cw emueceee ucuuwwwcowm e_.o me..- ”mu” mmnm MN” m unnuw aces—pecce cw emuecucw ucuuwwwcmwm wa.o cc.o ”nu” "MUM MN” m mnnuw acu_um ceceueu emuce>< Bu 8..- “an,” MN.“ mu” m unflw 222:2 28 mm.o mo.o WMH” mmnw MW” m mumuw euuc emu—pwe mcwuuceee —uuew 35 £5- mm.” mm.” mm” w “my.” $39.. Bu 3:” ....a .>.u.m po.o .m.c "mu” mwnm MN” m “MNHM ewcmceeses ewu euuum Nw.o on.o MMH” WMHW WW” m nuwuw .weee gee eceuweceexe ecew pucecem .uuew eehu> eehu> om m z ueeeco ceuuuw ,.nul|.u.lu.l.|..dlll||’”"uon. "INT“ H . M ludifl-"luul.u ”JIM "I": . n J .. «1|. dv1.4l3.u|“ H 4 ‘ "lflllwWhlfiul" I Wingfid“ "H". 3. run Illa“ .l 1 LI... l l .. I'I'IIIH .ucmeceucwceeem mu eecewceexe ea mcweceeeu .mceueuw eu memceemmc .muceeceucwceeem we cemwcueeeu--.—— e_euw eecewceexe wees we mcue» a cap: maceeceuc_cme=m N neeco eecewceexe ewe. Le mcue» a saw: muceeceucwceeem . — eeeccu 54 m—.o me..- ”WNW wwnm MN" m mnwuw uweee exec Eecw “euge— o_.o pm.p- wmnw Mmuw mm” m “uwHw eceauceuwp pucewmmewece Eecw eoee—zecx ~e.o om.o- “Mn“ “mum mm” m “umuw memceee eoe__eu secw emeepzecx oe.o mm.o- mwnw meW MW” m nnwuw mama» aceeo>ewce< mo.o mo._- mmum ”mum mu” m mumuw augmecc acesmmemm< pucewuueeeu cumwcuwz ~—.o mm.p- mwnw ”Mum MN” m mumuw meececewcee eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< mo.o pu.c- ”WU” “WNW mm” m unmuw mucuupemceu xawmce>wca Eecw usecw ecu eew>e¢ ~m.o -.o- ”MU“ mmum “M” m mnmuw .chumce .ucewmmewece Eecw «sec. ecu eew>e< mo.o .e.o- ”mum WMHM mm” m “uwuw meeceem .u.>ea euuum secw aeecw ecu mew>e< mw.o m~.o- wmnw mmnw mm” m “umuw xcumeecw ecu mmecwmee secw aeecw ecu eew>e< mw.o pn.c- wwnw ”mm” mm” m mnmuw cewuueeee we ecuee eecw unecw ecu eew>e< em.o mc.c- “mum “mum mm” m mnwuw m—weee Eecw uaecw ecu eew>e< m~.o w~.o- ”Mum ”WNW MN” m MNNHw mucecue eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< eu.e u~.o- ”mu” ”WNW NW” N “MMHM meowes sate eacc. ecu uu.>u< oe.o mm.o- mwuw ”mm" mm” m mumuw mcecuueu secw ueecw ecu eew>e< ~m.o ~—.o- "wuw mun” mm” m muwuw mpuewecwce secw ueecw ecu euw>e< wo.o ~c.o mmnw MMH” MN” m “”Muw .c_Eeu eewwwe pucucee secw ueecw ecu eew>e< eehu> eehu> om R z ueeecu ceueuw ,L l UTIVI .l . I I u l .H . . ll. . V N ... rim. . ..|. I. .. " “'TNUT.".IH "l".~.uln ‘11. H "u“lfl“ “.ghllllunl." "kin...“ . "lug” . | in ‘Vlh: I IcllllDll .uu==_e=oe--.__ u_uuw 55 om.o mo.o “WU” mmnm mm” m mnmuw peccemcee eeecoee .o.ce we euueceucea m~.o cm.p Man” ”Mum Mm” m numuw .eccemcee eeecuee .o.eu we emuuceecec p_.o om.— “mu” mmum Mm” m mnwuw .eccemcee eeecmee umwpuweeem we eaueceecee ~_.o em._ man" “mum mm” m mnwuw .eccemcee eeecuee .<.z we emuuceucec mo.o o~.~ mmnn “mum Mm” m mnwuw peccemcee eeecmee .<.m we eauaceucec ee.o we.o- “mu” wmnw am” m “umuw wwuum ce zmcecuueu puweeemg we cease: em.c mm.o- “mu” “mum mm” m “nMHw wwuum ce meeceueu we emu cue: mm.o co.o- mun” “mum Mm” m uuwuw wwuem ce «ceceueu we eecewceexe we ecuea cue: mm.e mm.o awn” Mwnm Wm" m mnwuw eweuc .weeewceceue» emuce>< wa.o eo.o- MWH” ”mum MM” m unwuw aceswpecce cw emuecuee ecuewwwcmwm me.o mw.o- WWH” “Mum mm" m mumuw aces—pecce cw emuecucw acuewwwcmwm m_.o um.p “HM” mwum Mm” m mumuw xcupum ceceueu eouce>< nw.e em.o- wwnw man“ Mm” m muMHw aceeecwuec ueea mm.o wm.o “mu” WMHW Mm" m mnwuw euuc emu—wws acwuuceee puuew ae.o no.9 “MU” “mum Mm” m mumuw ceases ewu eauum gee .>.m.m $5 9... WM.” mm mm” m ”....”un 5:235... Bu 33m mo.c n~.~ ”MU” “MUM "M” m “MNHM .weee Lee eceuweceexe ecew pucecem puuew eehu> eehu> om .m z unseco ceueum . , . - -- -,..z- -a.--:..---; .-,.-ll- ---,:.--z_ ;, .WMWHWMMWI:-:--.--TT acemeca ecu cw aceeceucwceaem u mu eecewceexe ea acweceeou .mceeeuw e» memceemec .meceeceucwceeem we cemwcueseu--.~— e—euw 56 ue_cem.e ucemece ecu cw eecewceexe ecee ce ecuex c cuwz meceeceucwceeem n N eeecu uowcumwe acemece ecu cw eecewceexe ewe. ce mcuea m new: meceeceucwceeem u — eeecuu mm.o mo..- ”mum wwum MM” m mufluw uweee mzec Eecw «cues— ec.o mo.~- "mum “mum mm” m mumuw eceeuceuw— .ucewmmewece eecw emee_:ecx ——.o oo.—- mmnw wmnw mm” m mmwuw memceee emep—ee secw emeepzemx mp.o mu.—- “Mum “mum mm” m mumuw meme» acese>ewce< po.o mm.~- wmum "Hum MM” m “”muw augmecc acesmmemm< pucewuueeem cumwcew: m~.o om..- “mu” “mum mm” m unmuw meececewceu secw ueecw ecu eew>e< m~.o mo..- MWH” wwum mm" m muwuw mecuu_=mcee xuwmce>wca secw ueecw ecu eew>e< —e.c mm.o- MMH” “MUM “m” m mnwuw .uwcuace pucewmmewece secw ueccw ecu eew>e< mm.o mm.o- mmuw ”WNW mm” m mnmuw meeceem .u.>em euuum secw ueecw ecu eew>e< pw.o wm.o- “MU” mwnm Mm” m muwuw acamaecw ecu mmecwmee Eecw «cecw ecu eew>e< mu.o pw.o- Mwnw mwnn ”M" m mumuw cewuueeee we ecuee Eecw ueecw ecu euw>e< mm.o oe.o ”Mum ”mum mm” m nnmuw m_we=e Eecw unecw ecu eew>e< mo.c No.o- "MU” “Hum Mm” m muwuw mucecue Eecw eeecw ecu eew>e< on.o wm.c- “mu” ”mum mm” m muwuw mcewce Eecw ueccw ecu eew>e< wu.o Nu.cu “Wm“ ”WM” mu” m mnmuw mceceuea secw ueecw ecu eew>e< w~.o op.—- wwum “Wu” mm” m mumuw m—uewucwce Eecw weecw ecu eew>e< mm.c om.c- ”mun wmnfl mm” m muwuw .c_5eu eewwwe .ucucee secw ueecw ecu eew>e< ee_u> eehu> cm H z ueeecu ceaeuw M "dual“ u “Huulh “M“IIHI“ “lurfllllluv “liq“ "I‘ll": .1 “l“.“gfl “an” A ”I". IQ... . t E .ue==_ecoe--.~. e_nuw 57 respondents' length of experience as a superintendent in the present district. To test Hypothesis 5, the researcher divided the sample into two groups, based on years of experience as superintendent in the present district. Superintendents with five years or less experi- ence in the present district constituted 53.3% of the group, and those with six years or more experience represented 46.7% of the group. Independent t-tests were used with an alpha level of .05. Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on four factors. (The lower the mean score, the more important the factors.) Of these four factors, two were considered to be significantly more important by the more experienced group; these factors were total general fund expenditure per pupil and the per- centage of B.A. degreed personnel. The other two factors were con- sidered significantly more important by the less experienced group; these factors were Michigan Educational Assessment Program and knowl- edge gained from professional literature. The null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, based on length of experience in the present district, significant differences existed between the two groups of superintendents in terms of factors influ- encing recommendations for professional-development programs. Ho 6: There will be no significant difference among superin— tendents, based on length of teaching experience, in regard to the factors that influence their recommenda- tion for professional-development programs. Table 13 shows a breakdown of the data concerning superin- tendents' responses to the 34 influential factors, relative to length of teaching experience. To test Hypothesis 6, the researcher divided 58 .o.o .w.~- WWH” wmmm am” m mwmuw weccemcee eeecoee .o.ca we emuuceucea oo.o om.~- "mu” WMHM am” m mnwuw .eccemcee eeecmee .o.eu we emuuceucec po.o me.~- "mu" mwnm Mm” m unmuw .eccemcee eeecmee yaw—uweeem we eauaceecec No.0 um.~- wwufl mwnm mm” m “umuw weccemcee eeecmee .<.: we emuuceecec w~.o ~_._- wmun mmnm "M” m mnmuw _eccemcee eeecoee .<.m we eauuceecec and 22.. “mm” mm mm” m “mam t3... .8 .9568“ 38%.. we tees: Nn.o co..- wan” mmuw "m” m mnmuw wwuum ce mcecuueu we emu cue: ow.o am.o- ”an” ”mum mm” m mnmuw wwuum ce mceceueu we eecewceexe we ecue» cue: wu.o Nw.o- mmnn "wnm mm” m “MWHM ewuuc pweeewceceueu eauce>< Nn.o oo._- MWH” “mum ”M” m mnmuw acesp—ecce cw emueceee ucuewwwcmwm u~.o Np..- awn” mmnm ”M” w mumuw aceeppecce cw emuececw ucuewwwcmwm em.o o~.o- wmnfl mmnm mm” m mumuw acu—um ceceueu eouce>< mw.o mm.o- wmum man" mm” m mmwuw acesecwuec ueeo ~u.o _m.e- wmnn mmum mm" m mnwuw euuc emu—pwe mcwuucece .uuew —~.o m~._- ”mu” ”MUM "m” m muwuw ceases ewu euuum Lee .>.m.m mu.o ew.o- “MU” wmum mm” m mnwuw ewcmceecee ewu euuum c~.o on..- WWH” wwum mm” m mnwuw pweee cee eceuweceexe ecew .ucecem puaew eehu> eehu> cm H z ueeecu ceueuw ” I‘!l III-l l..l||ll...‘|lll I'D- 'lull . f s "-.,. lull.- "I’dfllhuu."lnl“" nun I..H|.lll ."nv'll'lll nun.» H.hl.IJ.u:HII4Ilfl”.H1N. hi ’I | I! N.|. |l| ll" ”if. . .Illrl -Ilo..lui..n-o.h-ulno. , . . [Mlllllllnliulnlulr .eecewceexe mcwceuee we ecuex ea mcweceueu .mceueuw ea memceemec .meceeceecwceeem we cemwcueseu--.m_ epeuw 59 eecewceexe ocwceuee we ecuex egg: Le w cuw: muceeceucwceeem eecewceexe ocwceueu we mcue» o-o saw: muceeceucwceeem . — eeecuu N eeeco o—.o oe.—- wmnw ”mum mm” m mum“w uweee exec Eecw «euge— m~.o ow..- ”Mum Wmnm mm” m mumuw eceuuceuw_ .ucewmmewece secw emee_:ecx mo.o pw.w- “mum wwnw mm” m mnmuw memceee emep—ee secw eaee_3ecx oo.c mp.m- mwuw "mum mm" m MMNHW meme» acese>ewce< mo.o c~.~- “flu” wwnw ”M” m muwuw augmecc eceEmmemm< pucewuueeeu cumwcew: um.o oN.o “mu” mwnm Mm” m mumuw meucecewcee Eecw necc. ecu eew>e< u~.o mp..- Man” “Mum mm” m mumuw mecuupemceu xewmce>wce secw aeecw ecu eew>e< om.o mo.o- “Mum mmnm mm” m mnwuw .uwcumce _ucewmmewece eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< me.o mo.c ”Mum wwnm mm” m mumuw meuceem .u.>eo euuum Eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< o~.o m~.p- ”MU” “mum mm” m mnmuw acumeecw ecu mmecwmee secw aeecw ecu eew>e< m~.o u_._- anw ”WU" mm” m “anw =o_uuu=ue we ecuou cocw ”sac. ucu eu_su< oo.o ow..- wwnm “mum mm” m mmwuw upweee secw weecw ecu eew>e< uo.o o—.~- “mum wmnw WM” m mumuw mucecue eecw weecw ecu eew>e< e_.o cu..- “mu" “Mum mm" m mnmuw mcewce secw ueecw ecu eew>e< No.9 mw.o- ”Wm” ”WM” MM” m mumuw mcecuueu Eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< co.o wo.~- mmum “WU” Mm” m uuwuw m_uewecwce Eecw ueecw ecu eew>e< e—.o ou.p- “mum mwnm ”m” m muwuw .cwEeu eewwwe .ucucee secw ueccw ecu eew>e< e=_u> eewu> mm m z ueeecu ceuuuw “fig-IHM.J luv”... . v ....I .ue==_e=oe--.u_ e_ouw 60 the sample into two groups, based on years of teaching experience. Superintendents with 0-6 years of teaching experience constituted 55.7% of the group, and those with 7 or more years of teaching experience represented 44.3% of the group. The researcher used an independent t-test with an alpha level of .05 to test this hypothesis. Statistically significant differences existed on 8 of the 34 influential factors. (The lower the mean score, the more important the factor.) The eight factors were: percentage of M.A. degreed personnel, percentage of Specialist degreed personnel, percentage of Ed.D. degreed personnel, percentage of Ph.D. degreed personnel, advice and input from principals, advice and input from pupils, Michigan Educational Assessment Program, and achievement tests. The group with the least teaching experience considered all of the eight factors to be significantly more important than did the group with more teaching experience. The null hypothesis was rejected. Statistically significant differences existed between the two teaching-experience groups in terms of factors influencing recommendations for professional- development programs. Supplementary Analysis The researcher was interested not only in dividing the sample into two groups for use with t-tests, but also in investigating whether a linear relationship existed between the various demographic char- istics of the superintendents and their responses to the influential factors. Pearson product-moment correlations were run on every vari- able. 61 Table l4 shows the data relative to the relationship between the superintendents' age and the responses given to the 34 factors in the Survey. Three factors were found to be significant at the .05 level and indicated a slight relationship with age. Older superin- tendents found the following factors to be significantly less impor- tant than others: significant increase in enrollment, advice and input from conferences, and achievement tests. Table 15 depicts the data relative to the relationship between the superintendents' years of experience as a superintendent and the responses given to the 34 factors in the Survey. No significant relationships were found; thus there was no significant correlation between a superintendent's length of experience and the influential factors listed in the Survey. Table 16 is a tabulation of the data relative to the relation- ship between the superintendents' years of experience in the present district and the responses given to the 34 factors included in the Survey. Two factors were found to be significant and indicated a slight relationship with years of experience in the present district. Superintendents with more experience in the district found the fol- lowing factors to be significantly less important than did superin- tendents with less experience: advice and input from parents and advice and input from conferences. Table l7 shows the data relative to the relationship between superintendents' length of teaching experience and the responses to the 34 factors listed in the Survey. One factor was found to be statistically significant and indicated a slight relationship with 62 Table l4.--Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients of 34 factors with superintendents' age. Factor N rx‘y P Value Total general fund expenditure per pupil 283 -0.03 0.62 State aid membership 294 -0.05 0.40 S.E.V. per state aid member 295 0.01 0.83 Total operating millage rate 297 0.01 0.90 Debt retirement 294 0.10 0.08 Average teacher salary 293 -0.02 0.70 Significant increase in enrollment 288 0.12 0.04 Significant decrease in enrollment 294 -0.02 0.76 Average teacher/pupil ratio 296 0.07 0.26 Mean years of experience of teachers on staff 297 0.03 0.67 Mean age of teachers on staff 295 0.05 0.42 Number of "special teachers" on staff 298 0.09 0.13 Percentage of B.A. degreed personnel 295 -0.04 0.45 Percentage of M.A. degreed personnel 295 —0.03 0.56 Percentage of Specialist degreed personnel 293 -0.02 0.78 Percentage of Ed.D. degreed personnel 291 0.0l 0.81 Percentage of Ph.D. degreed personnel 291 0.04 0.52 Advice and input from central office admin. 292 -0.01 0.90 Advice and input from principals 300 0.03 0.62 Advice and input from teachers 303 0.07 0.21 Advice and input from unions 294 0.06 0.34 Advice and input from parents 295 0.05 0.39 Advice and input from pupils 294 0.04 0.55 Advice and input from board of education 300 0.03 0.58 Advice and input from business and industry 296 0.02 0.78 Advice and input from state gov't. sources 294 -0.002 0.97 Advice and input from professional organiz. 298 -0.003 0.97 Advice and input from university consultants 295 0.03 0.61 Advice and input from conferences 298 0.11 0.05 Michigan Educational Assessment Program 297 0.04 0.48 Achievement tests 296 0.12 0.04 Knowledge from college courses 293 0.04 0.45 Knowledge from professional literature 298 0.11 0.06 Impact from news media 293 0.04 0.49 63 Table 15.--Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients of 34 factors with superintendents' length of experience as a superintendent. Factor N rx‘y P Value Total general fund expenditure per pupil 282 -0.04 0.46 State aid membership 293 -0.05 0.42 S.E.V. per state aid member 294 0.02 0.70 Total operating millage rate 296 -0.02 0.72 Debt retirement 293 0.08 0.15 Average teacher salary 292 -0.05 0.37 Significant increase in enrollment 288 0.07 0.23 Significant decrease in enrollment 294 -0.04 0.53 Average teacher/pupil ratio 296 0.05 0.44 Mean years of experience of teachers on staff 297 -0.01 0.88 Mean age of teachers on staff 294 -0.03 0.64 Number of "special teachers" on staff 297 0.03 0.57 Percentage of B.A. degreed personnel 294 -0.07 0.23 Percentage of M.A. degreed personnel 294 -0.07 0.22 Percentage of Specialist degreed personnel 292 -0.10 0.08 Percentage of Ed.D. degreed personnel 290 -0.06 0.33 Percentage of Ph.D. degreed personnel 290 -0.03 0.59 Advice and input from central office admin. 291 0.02 0.75 Advice and input from principals 299 0.06 0.28 Advice and input from teachers 302 0.07 0.22 Advice and input from unions 293 0.08 0.20 Advice and input from parents 294 0.06 0.30 Advice and input from pupils 293 0.00 0.99 Advice and input from board of education 299 0.00 0.94 Advice and input from business and industry 295 -0.01 0.90 Advice and input from state gov't. sources 293 0.00 0.99 Advice and input from professional organiz. 297 -0.02 0.76 Advice and input from university consultants 294 0.00 0.96 Advice and input from conferences 297 O.ll 0.06 Michigan Educational Assessment Program 296 0.09 0.11 Achievement tests 295 0.04 0.47 Knowledge from college courses 292 -0.0l 0.90 Knowledge from professional literature 297 0.08 0.19 Impact from news media 292 0.06 0.28 64 Table l6.--Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients of 34 factors with superintendents' length of experience in the present district. Factor N rxy P Value Total general fund expenditure per pupil 282 -0.10 0.08 State aid membership 293 -0.10 0.10 S.E.V. per state aid member 294 -0.05 0.41 Total operating millage rate 296 -0.02 0.75 Debt retirement 293 0.04 0.46 Average teacher salary 292 -0.08 0.15 Significant increase in enrollment 288 0.07 0.23 Significant decrease in enrollment 294 0.02 0.70 Average teacher/pupil ratio 295 -0.02 0.70 Mean years of experience of teachers on staff 296 0.02 0.68 Mean age of teachers on staff 294 0.04 0.54 Number of "special teachers" on staff 297 0.02 0.72 Percentage of B.A. degreed personnel 294 -0.09 0.12 Percentage of M.A. degreed personnel 294 -0.08 0.19 Percentage of Specialist degreed personnel 292 -0.10 0.10 Percentage of Ed.D. degreed personnel 290 -0.02 0.69 Percentage of Ph.D. degreed personnel 291 0.08 0.20 Advice and input from central office admin. 299 0.11 0.06 Advice and input from principals 302 0.09 0.11 Advice and input from teachers 293 0.10 0.10 Advice and input from unions 294 0.14 0.61 Advice and input from parents 293 0.03 0.02 Advice and input from pupils 299 0.08 0.16 Advice and input from board of education 295 0.09 0.11 Advice and input from business and industry 293 0.08 0.20 Advice and input from state gov't. sources 297 0.06 0.33 Advice and input from professional organiz. 294 0.06 0.30 Advice and input from university consultants 297 0.14 0.11 Advice and input from conferences 296 0.09 0.02 Michigan Educational Assessment Program 295 0.06 0.34 Achievement tests 292 0.06 0.35 Knowledge from college courses 297 0.08 0.16 Knowledge from professional literature 295 0.06 0.34 Impact from news media 292 0.04 0.48 65 Table l7.--Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients of 34 factors with superintendents' teaching experience. Factor N' rxy P Value Total general fund expenditure per pupil 283 -0.02 0.80 State aid membership 294 -0.05 0.40 S.E.V. per state aid member 295 0.00 0.98 Total operating millage rate 297 -0.02 0.67 Debt retirement 294 0.01 0.83 Average teacher salary 293 -0.07 0.23 Significant increase in enrollment 288 -0.02 0.71 Significant decrease in enrollment 294 -0.01 0.90 Average teacher/pupil ratio 296 0.00 0.96 Mean years of experience of teachers on staff 297 -0.05 0.40 Mean age of teachers on staff 295 -0.03 0.64 Number of "special teachers" on staff 298 0.03 0.60 Percentage of B.A. degreed personnel 295 -0.05 0.35 Percentage of M.A. degreed personnel 295 0.01 0.91 Percentage of Specialist degreed personnel 293 0.04 0.51 Percentage of Ed.D. degreed personnel 291 0.06 0.33 Percentage of Ph.D. degreed personnel 291 0.08 0.20 Advice and input from central office admin. 292 0.06 0.34 Advice and input from principals 300 0.03 0.60 Advice and input from teachers 303 0.02 0.74 Advice and input from unions 294 0.01 0.88 Advice and input from parents 295 0.11 0.07 Advice and input from pupils 294 0.06 0.32 Advice and input from board of education 300 0.02 0.79 Advice and input from business and industry 296 0.09 0.14 Advice and input from state gov't. sources 294 0.00 1.00 Advice and input from professional organiz. 298 -0.03 0.59 Advice and input from university consultants 295 0.03 0.67 Advice and input from conferences 298 -0.03 0.63 Michigan Educational Assessment Program 297 0.04 0.46 Achievement tests 296 0.14 0.02 Knowledge from college courses 293 0.08 0.16 Knowledge from professional literature 298 0.03 0.55 Impact from news media 293 0.00 0.96 66 length of teaching experience. The longer the superintendent had taught school, the less important was the factor of achievement tests. Summary The researcher's primary purpose was to determine whether differences existed among superintendents with respect to factors that influence their recommendation for professional-development programs. 0f major interest was whether personal characteristics of the superintendents significantly affected their recommendation for professional-development programs. Significant differences were found on Hypotheses 3, 5, and 6, which were dichotomous analyses of the superintendents' level of graduate education, length of experi- ence as superintendent in the present district, and length of teaching experience. No significant differences were discovered on Hypothe- ses 2 and 4, which concerned the superintendents' age and total length of experience as a superintendent. Finally, a slight linear relation- ship was discovered to exist between the superintndents' age, experi- ence in the present district, and length of teaching experience and certain factors influencing recommendation for professional-development programs . Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions based on the research findings, recommendations for further research, and reflections. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A rapidly increasing number of educational leaders are con- cluding that future success of the public-school educational system within a continuously changing society will depend more and more on providing the necessary training for professional personnel to enable them to implement appropriate instruction (Rubin, 1976). Professional- development programs and inservice education are believed to be the key to such training (Barth, 1979). The effectiveness of staff-development programs, including their cost effectiveness, has been severely limited by inconsistent approaches to professional development and teachers' lack of knowl- edge and understanding of the superintendent's rationale for planning and/or implementing professional-development programs. Most research has been conducted with the teacher and the principal as the focus of the study. Generalizing results from such research to superintendents is risky, at best. Many suppositions about how a superintendent is motivated to pursue a program for professional development have been voiced, but these theories have been based on logical inference rather than on systematic investigation in controlled situations. The Professional Development Survey developed for this study was sent to superintendents from all of the K-12 public school 67 as 1 districts and intermediate school districts in Michigan. Superin- tendents were chosen for study because of the lack of research reflecting the superintendent's importance in professional develop- ment. Survey participants provided information regarding their age, highest graduate degree, length of experience as a superintendent, length of experience as a superintendent in the present district, length of teaching experience, and the university from which their most recent graduate degree had been received. Respondents also indicated the extent to which individual factors influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. Data obtained from 307 super- intendents were analyzed, using frequencies, means, and percentages, as well as t-tests with an alpha level of .05. As a result of the data analysis, the researcher found that 1. There was a difference among superintendents with respect to the factors that influenced their recomendation for professional- development programs. 2. There was no significant difference among superintendents, based on age, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommen— dation for professional-development programs. 3. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their graduate education, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. 4. There was no significant difference among superintendents, based on their experience as a superintendent, in regard to the 69 factors that influenced their recommendation for professional- development programs. 5. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their length of experience in the present district, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation for professional- development programs. 6. There was a significant difference among superintendents, based on their years of teaching experience, in regard to the factors that influenced their recommendation for professional-development programs. In addition, the researcher examined whether a linear rela- tionship existed between the various independent measures and the superintendents' responses to the 34 factors by using the Pearson product-moment correlation. A relationship was found to exist between superintendents' age and the factors of significant increase in enroll- ment, advice and input from conferences, and achievement tests; between superintendents' experience in the present district and the factors of advice and input from parents as well as advice and input from conferences; and between superintendents' length of teaching experience and the factor of achievement tests. Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, it appeared that super- intendents did, in fact, accept the advice of those individuals who are directly involved with the receipt of, or who will sanction the policy for, professional development-—specifically, teachers, 7O principals, board members, and central office administrators. This conclusion appears to be compatible with the findings of the Rand Study, as discussed in Chapter II. Support for these four influential factors was evident in the mean scores for these factors, which indi- cated that superintendents participating in this study believed that the advice and input from teachers, administrators, and board members influenced their recommendation for professional-develOpment programs. This finding led the researcher to conclude that among the factors that could influence the superintendent, the suggestions from these four groups of people were most important. Some evaluators of professional-development programs would theorize that older superintendents, because of their orientation to a different era, might be influenced by other factors than would their younger counterparts. However, this was not found to be true in the present study. The researcher suggests that professional-development programs may be recommended, regardless of the age of the superintendent. Continuing education for a superintendent appeared to have the effect of alleviating financial concerns with regard to profes- sional development. The higher the superintendent's degree, the less important were finances and the more important were people in influ- encing the recommendation for professional-development programs. These findings might suggest that universities have the capability of instill- ing methods of dealing with situations in a more humanistic style, as opposed to looking primarily at data. Pressure from the community to produce with measurable results, as well as scrutiny of school superintendents by the media, provide 71 hints as to why the Michigan Educational Assessment Program was an influential factor, as was the up-to-date information that can be gleaned from the professional literature. The findings of the study seemed to suggest that as a superintendent gained more seniority in a district, his need to rely on specific measurable instruments declined. These results are potentially useful for young superin- tendents and for school boards as they evaluate their new and experi- enced superintendents. The effect of length of experience as a teacher appeared to be consistently meaningful. The group of superintendents with the fewest years of teaching experience apparently valued a more exten- sive education among teachers and looked to results from tests. These data indicate that the longer an individual is a teacher, the less likely he/she is to be influenced by external forces. This conclusion could be extremely important to colleges and publishers of professional literature in targeting a heterogeneous group such as this one. Three trends in the demographic characteristics of the super- intendents in the study had additional importance because of the research findings. First, the mean years of experience as superin- tendent in the present district were fewer than the mean years of experience as a superintendent altogether. This led the researcher to believe that many superintendents were not in their first job, which implies less seniority in the district, and consequently were subjected to those factors that affect superintendents with less experience in a district. Second, the ages of the superintendents 72 were fairly evenly distributed. Because age had no effect on the influential factors, it might be concluded that recommendations by young superintendents would be as credible as those by older superintendents. Third, the length of teaching experience appeared to be low overall, leading the researcher to conclude that organiza- tions are likely to be subject to external manipulation. Michigan superintendents indicated that they believed teach- ers, administrators, and board members should be involved to a certain degree in professional-development programs. They did not indicate, as a group, that age or experience as a superintendent would make a measurable difference in their recommendation for professional- development programs. Teaching experience and longevity in the dis- trict, however, did make a difference between the dichotomous groups. In summary, this researcher believes that, based on responses to the Professional Deve10pment Survey, superintendents, for the most part, appeared to rely on the advice and input of people. Nonetheless, when differences did appear, typically it was the younger or least- experienced superintendents who moved from relying on input from people to relying on numerical data or evidence. Recommendations for Further Research Based on the study findings, the researcher recommends that further research be conducted in the following three areas. 1. Research could be done to provide a description of super- intendents' perceptions of the need for professional-development programs. These perceptions may affect the recommendations for 73 professional development as it related to the personnel of a given school district. 2. Superintendents delegate various administrative tasks in many different ways. Research could be conducted to determine the degree of delegation involved in recommending professional-development programs, and specifically, to whom the task is assigned. 3. The Professional Development Survey could be employed with a random sample of superintendents across the nation to validate the results of the present study in areas other than Michigan. The data could be used to compare various aspects of the Michigan educational structure to those of other states. Reflections This research was conducted to determine the factors that influence superintendents' recomendation for professional-development activities. The study findings supported the contention that decisions concerning professional-development programs are heavily influenced by the advice and input of the people closely involved with the school system's operation: teachers, principals, central office administra- tors, and board members. Knowledge of this fact should help superin- tendents be aware of the influencing factors as they relate to the superintendent's own age, experience, and education, ultimately leading to logical and conscious decisions with regard to recommendations for professional-development programs. APPENDICES 74 APPENDIX A THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY 75 76 PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF: Please fill in the blanks I was born in 19 I taught school for years. I have been a Superintendent for years. I have been a Superintendent in this district for years. Please check (X) one Highest Level of Schooling Completed: ( ) Bachelor's Degree ( ) Master's Degree ( ) Specialist's Degree ( ) Educational Doctorate (Ed.D) ( ) Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Please fill in the blank The University I attended where I received my highest degree was 77 For each statement indicate with an "X" whether you: The following factors influencegmy recommendation forgprofessional development programs: great extent certain extent 3-Neutral or unsure 4-Disagree to a certain extent 5-Disagree to a great extent 6 O u 0 m L cn < I I N l-Agree to a Total General Fund Expenditure Per Pupil ......... State Aid Membership ................... S.E.V. Per State Aid Member ................ Total Operating Millage Rate ............... Debt Retirement ...................... Average Teacher Salary .................. Significant Increase in Enrollment ............ Significant Decrease in Enrollment ............ Average Teacher/Pupil Ratio ................ Mean Years of Experience of Teachers on Staff ....... Mean Age of Teachers on Staff ............... Number of "Special Teachers" on Staff ........... Percentage of B.A. Degreed Personnel ........... Percentage of M.A. Degreed Personnel ........... Percentage of Specialist Degreed Personnel ........ Percentage of Ed.D. Degreed Personnel ........... Percentage of Ph.D. Degreed Personnel ........... Advice and Input From Central Office Administration. . . . Advice and Input From Principals ............. Advice and Input From Teachers .............. Advice and Input From Unions ............... Advice and Input From Parents ............... Advice and Input From Pupils ............... Advice and Input From Board of Education ......... Advice and Input From Business and Industry ........ Advice and Input From State Government Sources ...... Advice and Input From Professional Organizations ..... Advice and Input From University Consultants ....... Advice and Input From Conferences ............. Michigan Educational Assessment Program .......... Achievement Tests. .................... Knowledge From College Courses . ............. Knowledge From Professional Literature .......... Impact From News Media .................. APPENDIX B THE EXPERTS AND SUPERINTENDENTS EMPLOYED IN DEVELOPING AND PRETESTING THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SURVEY 78 79 Experts Employed in Developing the Professional Development Survey Dr. Donna Nanous Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education and Senior Researcher, Institute for Research and Teaching Michigan State University Paula Tissot Director of the Office of Professional Development, Michigan Department of Education Margo Johnson Director--0ffice of Professional Development 511 G Street Washington, 0.0. 20024 Superintendents Employed in Pretesting the Professional Development Survey, James Pavelka Superintendent, Allegan County Intermediate School District Allegan, Michigan Henry Gudith Superintendent, Van Buren County Intermediate School District Lawrence, Michigan SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 80 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Barth, Roland S. "Teacher Evaluation and Staff Development." National Elementary Principal 58 (January 1979): 74-77. Bartholomew, B. R. "A National Survey Highlights the Issues." Today's Education 65 (1976): 80-84. Bhaerman, R. D. "A Brief Statement of the AFT's Views on Inservice Education." Syracuse, N.Y.: The National Dissemination Center, Syracuse, University, 1976. Bridge, Jacque. "Faculty Stability and Effective Schools." NASSP Bulletin (April 1978). Burch, Barbara G., and Danley, Elzie W., Sr. “Self-Perception: An Essential in Staff Development." NASSP Bulletin (April 1978): 15-19. Cawelti, G. "National Competency Testing: A Bogus Solution." Phi_ Delta Kappan (1978): 619-28. . Cooperative Accountability Project. Legislation by the States: Accountability and Assessment in Education. Denver, Colorado: CAP, 1974. Corrigan, D. C. "Political and Moral Contexts That Produced P.L. 94-142." Journal of Teacher Education 29 (1978): 10. Dangle, Richard F., and others. "Follow-Up on In-Service Teacher Training Programs: Can the Principal 00 It?" Journal of Educa- tional Research (November-December 1978): 94-103. Dillon, Elizabeth." A School Board Member's Guide to Staff Develop- ment." Washington, D.C.: National School Boards Association, 1978. Edelfelt, R. A. "Inservice Education of Teachers: Priority for the Next Decade." Journal of Teacher Education (1974): 250-52. , and Lawrence, G. "In-Service Education: The State of the Art." Rethinking In-Service Education. Washington, D.C.: National EdUcation Association, 1975. 81 82 Eiken, K. P. "Teachers' Unions and Curriculum Change Process." Educational Leadership(December 1977): 174-77. Farnsworth, Briant J. "Professional Development: Preferred Methods of Principals and Teachers." Education 101 (Summer 1981): 332-34. Farquhar, Robin H. "The Role of the Chief Executive Office in Educa- tion." Paper presented to the Saskatchewan Association of Locally Employed Administrators, Directors of Education, and Superintendents of Schools, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1978. Feistritzer, C. E.; McMillion, R. J.; and Lewis, C. J. "The 1980 Report on Educational Personnel Development." Washington, D.C.: Feistritzer Publications, 1979. Floria, D. H., and Koff, R. H. "Model State Legislation: Continuing Professional Education for School Personnel." Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1977. Geering, Adrian D. "A Prescriptive Model for Determining Professional Development Needs of Principals." South Australia: N.p., 1980. Gelina, Robert J., and Keller, Denise Helene. "An Assessment of the Roles, Functions, and Needs for Personnel Development Coordination Within Area Schools and Area Education Agencies." Ames: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, 1977. Greene, Helen. "Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Elementary Principals and Teachers Regarding Needs for Inservice Education." New York: N.p., 1978. Halstead, David. "Developing a Professional Growth Program in Small Schools." NASSP Bulletin 64 (October 1980): 26-32. Harty, Harold, and Schmoll, Janis. "Higher Education's Warming Up to School-Based Identified Inservice Education Needs." Catalyst for Change_9 (Fall 1979): 4-7. Herman, Jerry J. "West Bloomfield's Approach to a Successful Staff Development Program." Michigan School Board Journal 29 (May 1982): 20-22. Hersh, Richard H., et al. "The Management of Education Professionals in Instructionally Effective Schools: Toward a Research Agenda." Eugene: University of Oregon, September 1978. Hilgert, Raymond L. "Positive Personal Motivations: The Manager's Guide to Influencing Others." Personnel (October 1975): 210-19. 83 Hopkins, Kenneth 0., and Glass, Gene V. Basic Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 978. Howey, K. R. "Inservice Teacher Education: A Study of the Percep- tions of Teachers, Professors and Parents About Current and Projected Practice." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, 1978. In-Service Education (National Society for the Study of Education). Vol. 56. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957. Jensen, Darrell; Betz, Loren; and Zigarmi, Patricia. "If You Are Listening to Teachers, Here Is How You Will Organize Inservice." NASSP Bulletin 62 (April 1978): 9-14. Johnson, Margo. "Inservice Education: Priority for the '805.“ Professional Development. Syracuse, N.Y.: National Dissemina- tion Center, 1980. Jutras, Phillip F. "Structural Re-arrangement: Changing Organizational Variables, Implications for Public Schools." A concept paper pre- pared for the Organizational Studies Group, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology. 1980. Keough, W. F., Jr. "Enrollment Decline: The Dilemma From the Super- intendent's Chair." National Institute of Education, 1978. Klopf, Gordon J. "Moving Up the Career Ladder: The Case for Mentors." Principal 61 (September 1981): 41-43. Krejcie, Robert V., and Morgan, Daryle W. “Determining Sample Size for Research Activities.” Educational Psychological Measurement (November 1970): 604-10. Kritek, William J. "The Implementation of a Program for the Profes- sional Development of Urban Secondary School Principals." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Association, National Institute of Education, April 1976. La Plant, James. "Inservice Education for Principals (The State of the Art)." U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education Reproduction. Ohio, 1979. Lindquist, Jack; Bergquist, William H.; Mathis, Claude; Case, Chester H.; Clark, Thomas; and Buhl, Lance C. Designing Teaching Improvement Programs. The Council for the Advancement ofTSmall Colleges,Tl979. 84 Little, Judith Warren. "Contributions of Staff Development to Prin- cipals' Instructional Leadership Practices: Gleanings From One Case Study." The Developer (February 1982). Lyle, J., and Hoffman, H. R. "Children's Use of Television and Other Media." Television and Social Behavior. Vol. 4: Television in Day-to-Day Life: Pattern of Use. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing’Office,TT972. . "Television in the Daily Lives of Children." Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, Washington, 0.0., September 1971. McCormick, William J. “Teachers Can Learn to Teach More Effectively." Educational Leadership (October 1979): 59-60. McLaughlin, Milbrey W., and Berman, Paul. "The Art of Retooling Edu- cational Staff Development in a Period of Retrenchment." Educa- tional Leadershjp_35 (December 1977): 191-94. Mead, M. "Age Discrepancies in the Understanding and Use of Modern Technology. Especially the Mass Media, or How Parents and Teach- ers Fail to Tune in on the Children's Media Environment." Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development, 1970. Medley, Donald M. "A Process Approach to Teacher Evaluation." Ihg_ National Elementary Principal (February 1973): 33-35. Michigan State Board of Education. Bulletin 1014. Lansing: Michigan State Board of Education, 1981-82. Miller, W. C. "What's Wrong With In-Service Education? It's Topless!" Educational Leadership (October 1977): 31-34. Morison, Sidney H. "The School as an Intellectual Community, Part 2." Principal 60 (May 1981): 54-55. Nash, Nicholas, and Culbertson, Jack. "Linking Processes in Educa- tional Improvement: Concepts and Applications." Columbus, Ohio: University Council for Educational Administration, 1977. National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1976. . The Condition of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978. . The Condition of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. 85 National Institute of Education. Violent Schools--Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to the Congress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978. Nelson, Marilyn E. "In-Service Training for Curricular Change: Focus on Delivery of Integrated Training for Principals, Teachers, and Paraprofessionals." Maryland: National Institute of Education, 1978. Oliver, James L. "Staff Development: Or Gettin' the Act Together. What Are the Promising Practices and Potential Problems in California?" Burlingame: Association of California School Administrators, 1977. Peck, Robert F., and Tucker, James A. "Research on Teacher Education." In Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Postman, N. "Curriculum Change and Technology." Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development, 1970. Pressure Pot Communications. Develppment of Skills to Handle Profes- sional Development Programs. Burlingame: Association of Cali- fornia School Administrators, January 1980. Reavis, Charles, and Mehaffie, Shamus. "Staff Recruitment and Inser- vice Development in Smaller Schools.‘l NASSP Bulletin 64 (October 1980): 32-35. Rogus, Joseph F., and Martin, Mary. "The Principal and Staff Develop- ment: Countering the School Culture." Clearing House 53 (September 1979): 28-31. Rubin, L. J. "Innovation in In-Service Education and Training of Teachers: United States." Paris: Organization for Economic COOperation and Development, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 1976. . "Perspectives on Preservice and Inservice Education." Syracuse, N.Y.: The National Dissemination Center, Syracuse University, 1978. Saracen, Seymour. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Seagren, Alan T. "A Process to Determine Professional Deve10pment Needs of Principals in a School District." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Conference of Professionals of Educational Administration, Norfolk, Virginia, August 10-15, 1980. 86 Smith, Theodore. "A Monograph on Staff Development." Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1980. "Staff Development." By Oregon University. Chapter 19 of The Best of the Best of ERIC.” Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearing- house on Educational Management, 1979. "Staff Development." Research Action Brief Number 10. By Oregon University. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educa- tional Management, 1980. Tyler, Ralph. "An Interview With . . ." Phi Delta Kappan (1977): 544-47. United States Commission on Civil Rights. Fulfilling the Letter and Spirit of the Law: Desegregation of the Nation's Public Schools. WaShington, D.C.: Government’Printing Office, 1976. United States Congress, House of Representatives. Education Amend- ments of 1978: Conference Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1978. Vacc, N. A. "Preservice Programs Deficient in Special Education Courses." Journal of Teacher Education (1978): 107-10. Van Ryn, M., and Santelli, C. "Financing Inservice Education: A Dialogue." Syracuse, N.Y.: The National Dissemination Center, Syracuse, University, 1979. Wilken, W. H.; Callahan, J. J.; and Boonin, R. A. "Declining Enroll- ment: The Cloud and Its Silver Lining." Maryland: National Institute of Education, 1978. Wyant, Spencer M., and others. "Of Principals and Projects." Reston, Virginia: Association of Teacher Educators, 1980.