A 51on as sum Annammunvei BEHAWORS AMONG mmmsnmols g; mm “WWW“ Am ummvm ‘ " MICHIGAN mm unmm Mien by Klmgenberg .333 : " . """ £966 _ —————_—v THESIS LIBRA RY * 1 Michigan State ‘ /l//l/////////II///I/////l////I///II//////ll///I///l/////I////l ““5“” 100 This is to certify thatthe thesis entitled " A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIORS AMONG ADMINISTRATORS FROM INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS presented by Allen Joy Klingenberg has been' accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Cerriculum J/ggnflme A, Date July 20. I966 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIORS AMONG ADMINISTRATORS FROM INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS by Allen Jay Klingenberg The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze empirical evidence concerning differences between public school administrators from innovative and non—innovative school districts on selected administrative behavioral di- mensions. This study developed from the descriptions of innovative and nonuinnovative school administrators found in the educational and general innovation literature. Twenty public school systems were selected for study from the extreme ends of the distribution of Construc~ ted Innovative Scores developed by John WI Childso Childs used the data reported to the Michigan Department of Public Instruction in the Five Years Survey of Progress in Michigan School Districts to develop a rank ordered innovative list of all Michigan K«12 public school districts. The school districts selected from the extreme ends of the innovation scale were chosen on the basis of four educational cost fac- tors. These cost factors were school district: enrollment, utilization of operational millage, expenditure per pupil, Allen Jay Klingenberg and state equalized evaluation. On the basis of these cost factors the districts in the sample were identified as being innovative or non-innovative and as being high cost factor or low cost factor districts. The hypotheses in general research forms were: 1. Administrators in innovative school systems will earn a greater number of semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than those in non-innovative systems. 2. Administrators in innovative school systems will indicate more organizational involvement than those in non-innovative systems. 3. Administrators in innovative school systems will use a greater number of information sources than those in non-innovative systems. A. Administrators in innovative school systems will have more years of experience as educa- tors than those in non-innovative systems. 5. Administrators in innovative school systems will read more professional journals than those in non-innovative systems. 6. Superintendents in innovative school systems will use wider teaching staff involvement when instituting new curriculum practices than those in non-innovative systems. 7.' Superintendents in innovative systems will recognize the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members more when instituting new curriculum practices than those in non— innovative systems. 'Part of the data was collected by a specially con— structed survey instrument which proved highly reliable using the test—retest method. The remainder was collected by a non—structured interview technique. The chi-square analysis and Fisher Exact Probability Test were used to test the hypotheses. The first two hypo- theses were neither supported nor rejected at the .05 level. The third hypothesis was supported with a significant chi- square value at the .05,level. This indicates that admini- strators from innovative systems use more sources of infor— mation for new curriculum practices than those in non- innovative systems. The fourth hypothesis was also supported with a significant chi-square value at the .05 level. This indicates that administrators from innovative systems have more years experience as educators in general and administrators in particular than those in non—innova- tive systems. The fifth hypothesis was neither supported nor rejected by the data examined. The sixth hypothesis was supported with a signifi- cant Fisher value at the .05 level. This indicated that superintendents from innovative systems use wider teaching staff involvement in curriculum change than those in non- innovative systems. The data indicates this was particularly true at the awareness and decisionwmaking phases of the curriculum change process. The seventh hypothesis was also supported with a significant Fisher value at the .05 level. This implied that superintendents from innovative systems recognize the worth and dignity of 'heir teaching staff more on the fif— teen examined dimensions than those from non-innovative systems. 0f the fifteen dimensions examined, it was found that superintendents from innovative systems differed signi- ficantly on seven from those in non-innovative systems. A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIORS AMONG ADMINISTRATORS FROM INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Allen Jay Klingenberg A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1966 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I particularly wish to thank Dr. Troy Stearns, Chair- man of the Doctoral Guidance Committee, for his continuous encouragement, support, and guidance throughout all phases of my doctoral program. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. George Myers, and Dr. John Useem, the other members of the Guidance Committee for their many valuable suggestions and support. The writer is also indebted to the Michigan Department of Public Instruction in the persons of Dr. Nicholas Georgiaday and Mr. Alexander Kloster who made possible the conduct of this study in accordance with the research design. The will- ing co-operation of the twenty school districts participating in the study was greatly appreciated. This study would have been impossible without their assistance. This study would not have been attempted, and certain- ly not carried to completion, without the encouragement rendered by my family. I owe particular gratitude to my wife, Betty, and children, Debra and Sandra, for their pa— tient understanding and wholehearted support given without reservation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF EXHIBITS IN THE APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . Viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. 2 Importance of the Study . . 2 Assumptions upon Which the Study Is Based 4 Scope and Limitations of the Study. 5 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 7 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Overview. . . 10 II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH. 12 Introduction. . . . . . l2 Criteria for Selection of Related Research. . . ' 12 Review of Closely Related Studies . . . . . . 13 Studies Essential to Research Design - . . 14 Administrative Behaviors Related to ' InnoVativeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 III. RESEARCH PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Identification of Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Development of Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . 40 Development of Interview Schedule . . . . . . . 42 Format of Interview Schedule. . . . . . . . . . AA The Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Statistical Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . 45 Procedures for Analysis of the Data . . . . . . 49 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 52 iii Chapter Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . 53 Introduction . . . . . . . 53 Analysis of Data from Survey Instrument. . . . 53 Statistical Procedures. . . . . . . . . . 54 Hypothesis Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Formal Education . . . . . . . . . 54 Organization Involvement . . . . . . 56 Information Sources Used . . . . . . 58 Professional Experiences . . . . . . 63 Professional Reading . . . 68 Analysis of Data from Non-Structured Inter- views. . . . . . 70 Staff Involvement in Curriculum Change. . 70 Recognition of Staff Members' Worth and Dignity . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Exploration of Relationships . . . . 82 Interpretation of Survey Instrument Data. 82 Interpretation of Non-Structured Inter- view Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . 100 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 100 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 C 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 iv Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of administrators earning more or fewer semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than the mean of the total sample. . . 55 Distribution of extreme thirds of administrators on the dimension of semester hours earned be— yond the bachelor‘s degree. . . . . . . . . . 56 Distribution of administrators on the basis of above and below the mean number of organiza- tional involvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Distribution of the upper and lower thirds of administrators on the organizational involve— ment dimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Distribution of administrators on the basis of above and below the mean number of information sources used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Percentage of administrators categorized as using more or fewer than the mean number of informa- tion sources used by the total sample . . . . 60 Obtained chi-square values between usefulness of each information source and the administrators from innovative and non—innovative school sys- tems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Distribution of administrators on the basis of years spent as educators. . . . . . . . . . . 64 Distribution of upper and lower thirds of admi— nistrators on the basis of years spent as educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Percentage of administrators categorized on the basis of years spent as educators . . . . . . 66 Summary of chi-square values between administra- tors and the years spent in specific positions as educators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table Page 12. Percentage of administrators from upper and lower thirds of the sample categorized on the basis of years spent in administration dimen- sion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 13. Distribution of administrators who read more than or fewer than the mean number of pro— fessional journals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 14. Distribution of administrators from upper and lower thirds of the sample on their indicated professional reading behavior . . . . . . . . . 7O 15. Distribution of superintendents on the basis of high and low teaching staff involvement during three phases of the curriculum change process . 72 16. Percentage of superintendents using high and low teaching staff involvement during the curriculum change process . . . . . . . . . . . 73 17. The significance levels for the Fisher Exact Pro- bability Test comparing innovative and non- innovative superintendents on teaching staff involvement during three stages of the curri— culum change process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 18. Percentage of superintendents classified as high and low during the awareness and decision— making phases of the change process . . . . . . 75 19. Distribution of superintendents' responses of high and low behavior instances on fifteen predetermined dimensions. . . . . . . . . . . . 76 20. Percentage of superintendents categorized as high and low on fifteen predetermined dimen- sions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 21. Significance of the comparison between superin- tendents from innovative and non-innovative systems on each of fifteen dimensions indica- ting their recognition of the worth and dignity of teaching staff members . . . . . . 78 22. Percentage of superintendents classified as high and low on the seven significant dimensions in Table 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 vi Table Page 23. Mean number of semester hours earned by admini— strators from innovative and non-innovative systems on the basis of total and sub—group comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 24. Mean number of memberships and leadership posi— tions held by administrators as a group and in major sub—groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 vii LIST OF EXHIBITS IN THE APPENDIX Indications of Teaching Staffs' Worth and DIign-ilfltviy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 Survey of Five Years of Progress in Public Education in Michigan: Elementary and Secondary Forms. . . . . . . . . . . Correlations Between Cost Factors and Inno~ vation Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Sample Systems on Selected Cost Factors and Constructed Innovative Scores. . Invitation Letter Sent to Participating School DiStriCts I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geographic Location of the Twenty School Disc tricts in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Breakdown of the Administrators in [Iii-11:5 StUdy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S'urlvey Instrufl-Aen‘b O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Confirmation Letter Sent to all School Districts in the StUdy I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I Letters of Instructions Sent to all School Superintendents in the Study . . . . . . . . Non-Structured Interview Schedule. . . . . . . Interview Data Categorization Guidelines . . . viii Page !_| !__: I: 115 131 132 133 134 135 136 140 141 143 148 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction Before 1960 the information known about education— al change could best be summarized by the following two \generalizations: First, school systems which are the first to adopt new educational practices spend the most money per 'pupil and those which adopt new practices last spend the . least. Secondly, the characteristics and behaviors of school administrators are unimportant in explaining the adoption rates for new curriculum practices within school systems. The results of a number of research studies con- ducted since 1960 have challenged the validity of these generalizations. Most of these studies have found insigni— ficant correlations between the expenditures per pupil in school systems and the adoption of new curriculum practices. This suggests that there is no consistent monetary explana- tion for the rate of educational change within school systems. These studies also show the important role school administrators play in changing the curriculum. However, the writer found few studies which isolated specific behav— ioral differences between administrators from innovative and non-innovative school systems. This finding indicated a need for research to determine how school administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems differed on se- lected behavioral dimensions. Statement of the Problem This study was designed to collect empirical and descriptive evidence to determine how school administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems differed on seven selected administrative behavioral dimensions. The specific dimensions for which data was collected included the school administrators': experiences, preparation, organizational involvement, professional reading, information sources used, involvement of teaching staff in curriculum change, and re- cognition of teaching staff's worth and dignity. Importance of the Study The present time is characterized as an era of change. Today there are rapid changes, far reaching in scope and significance, which impose a variety of stresses and strains upon established institutions. Education is feeling the impact of these change forces as much as other institutions. In fact education is bombarded with pressures for change by both internal and external forces. Currently all forms of mass media and popular and professional jour- nals support the premise that educational change is necessary and depict the need for an increased rate of its occurence. The present study is of particular importance in that it provides much needed data concerning the impact of selected administrative behavioral dimensions upon curriculum change processes in local school systems. The two major variables in the present study, inno- vativeness and administrative behaviors, are very important in current research being conducted in many disciplines. While the writer was reviewing the literature summarized in Chapter II, he found that much effort has and is currently being expended to explain the diffusion of innovations in many disciplines. Rogers lists over 600 sources where innovation is a major variable in a recent bibliography.l During the initial phases of this study Rogers in a number of personal interviews also pointed to many oncoming stu- dies in the area of innovation research. The importance of this study is further emphasized by recent findings which indicate that the school administra— tor and his administrative style of operation are important variables in determining the rate of educational change. These findings show that selected administrative behaviors are related to the innovativeness or non-innovativeness of school systems. This study provides much needed evidence from a sample of school administrators concerning the asso- ciation between seven selected administrative behavioral dimensions and school system innovativeness. The evidence is of particular importance because many vague generaliza- tions have been made in the literature concerning the behavior of school administrators on these dimensions without providing research support from the field of education. lEverett M. Rogers, Bibliogfiaphy of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations (Michigan ateIUniversity, College 6? Communication Arts, 1964). Support for studying the relationship between school administrative behaviors and school system innovativeness also is implicit in the writing of Rogers. At a recent seminar on ”Change Proce see in the Public Schools” held at the Univera m sity of Oregon he stated that "an understanding of the be— havior of innovators (educational) is essential to a compre— hension of the central processes of social change (educational change, in this instance).”2 In summation this study provides much needed data concerning: the relationship between specific school admini— strative behaviors and school systems innovativeness;-the differences in the curriculum change processes between inno- vative and non-innovative school systems; and administrative behavioral dimensions which school boards and administrators can depend upon with some degree of reliability when select- ing administrative personnel who may inject new changes into existing curriculums. Assumptions upon Which the Study Is Based The basic assumptions upon which this study is based include: 1. The composite cost factor including size, effort, ability, and expenditure per pupil does not have a direct re- lationship with the innovativeness of the local school systems as determined by the constructed innovative scale. 2. The actions and behaviors of school administrators 2Everett M. Rogers, "What Are Innovators Like?" in Change Processes in the Public Schools, by Richard 0. Carlson and Others IEugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1965), p. 55. have a significant influence on the introduction of new curri— culum practices into school systems. 3. Selected administrative behaviors are associated with the number of new educational practices introduced into local school systems. 4. Selected administrative behaviors associated with the introduction of new educational practices can be identified. 5. School administrators from innovative school systems differ from school administrators in non-innovative school systems on selected administrative behavioral dimensions. Scope and Limitations of the Study In this study many possible variables were available for investigation. This section specifies the validity, varia- bles, data, sample, and the extent to which the results can be generalized. 1. The validity of the variables is directly re- lated to the survey instrument and non-structured interview schedule used to identify selected administrative behaviors. The quality of the data derived from the survey instrument and interviews is directly related to the skill, knowledge, and technique of the investigator in phrasing the questions precisely. The pilot administrations of the surVey instrument and interview schedule along with constant revision of both, should hold response error to a minimum. 2. The assistance provided by the Michigan Depart- ment of Public Instruction in collecting the data could effect the validity of the school administrator‘s responses on both the survey instrument and non-structured interviews. This would be particularly true if they should perceive this study as a form of State Education Department evaluation of their leadership in curriculum development. The letter of instruction accompanying each survey instrument assured the administrators in the sample of the anonymity of their responses. Furthermore, the superintendents involved in the non-structured interviews were assured at the beginning of the anonymity of their responses. 3. The analysis performed upon the data in this study is limited to testing the significance of different frequencies of school administrators categorized on the basis of a number of selected administrative behavioral dimensions and the degree of innovativeness of their school systems. The statistical analysis is performed on the total group of administrators and upon selected sub-groups cate— gorized according to their current employment position. 4. In this study the administrator population is limited to all school superintendents and full time principals who have served in this capacity for the previous three years in the twenty school systems involved in this study. The twenty school systems were not selected randomly, and no attempt will be made to generalize the results of this inves— tigation beyond the population of this study. 5. In this study four selected cost factors inclu- ding school district: enrollment, operational millage allocation, state equalized evaluation, and expenditure per pupil are all combined as a single composite cost factor. This composite cost factor is not intended to be inclusive. 6. The results of this study should be inter- preted as an indication of an association between the various administrative behavioral dimensions and the school systems' innovativeness, but not as a direct causal relationship be— tween these variables. Definition of Terms This section defines the terms used to form the operational hypotheses and those which are used in only a 1i— mited and specific sense in this study. ”Administrators": All superintendents of schools, secondary principals, and elementary principals in K—12 class four Michigan Public School Systems who have served at least three years in their current positions. "Class Four School Districts": All Michigan Public School Systems with a minimum of 1700 pupil membership and organized under the procedures as Specified by the Michi- gan School Code for "districts of the fourth class."3 "Constructed Innovative Scale": The summation of the total number of innovations within a school district as reported by the 1963 Survey of Five Years of Progress in Public Schools divided by the number of schools in each district. 3State of Michigan, General School Laws, Speaker- Hines and Thomas, Inc. (Lansing, MIcfiIgan, 1955), pp. 22-24. ”Innovative School Systems”: All class four K-l2 school systems which scored 35 or above on the constructed innovative scale. ”Non-Innovative School Systems”: All class four K—12 school systems which scored 10 or below on the constructed innovative scale. ”Professional Education Dimension”: The total num— ber of semester hours completed beyond the Bachelor of Arts or Science Degree. “Organizational Involvement Dimension”: The total number of membership and leadership positions held in both community and professional organizations during the last four years. ”Sources of Information Dimension": All media including personal contacts, reading, conference attendance, etc. utilized by administrators for information concerning ”new curriculum practices. ”Professional Experience Dimension”: The total number of years spent in education as either a teacher or ad— ministrator. ”Selected Administrative Behavioral Dimensions": The dimensions describing the administrator's educational preparation, experience, sources of information, organiza- tional involvement, professional reading, staff utilization, and recognition of the teaching staff's worth and dignity. "Staff Involvement Dimension": The degree to which the superintendent involves actively his teaching staff members in the awareness, investigation, and decisionmmaking phases of the curriculum improvement process. "Recognition of Teaching Staffs' Worth and T“Tigrity Dimension . The degree that the superintendents recognize and value their teaching staffs on the fifteen categories illustrated in Exhibit 1 of the Appendix. II ‘ II \\ (‘1 r' f‘ I. . ' 1 K. -..... v m 73m U) All legally organized class four (4' .yq. l ( Kul2 public school systems as specified by the General gchool Laws with a minimum pupil enrollment of 1700. Hypotheses The hypotheses presented in this section appear in general rese rch form. In Chapter III these hypotheses are operationalized and presented in testable form. H1 Administrators in innovative school systems will earn a greater number of semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than administra— tors in non-innovative school systems. H2 Administrators in innovative school systems will indicate more organizational involvement than administrators in non—innovative school systems. H3 Administrators in innovative school systems will use a greater number of information sources than administrators in non-innovative systems. “4 Administrators in innovative school systems will have more years of experience as educa- tors than administrators in non-innovative school systems. 10 H5 Administrators in innovative school systems will read more professional journals than ad- ministrators in non—innovative school systems. H6 Superintendents in innovative school systems will use wider teaching staff involvement when instituting new curriculum practices than superintendents in non—innovative school sys— tems. H7 Superintendents in innovative school systems will recognize the worth and dignity of teach— ing staff members more when instituting new curriculum practices than superintendents in non—innovative school systems. Overview Chapter I develops the frame of reference for the entire study. Included are the introduction, problem state- ment, importance of study, scope and limitations of the study, definition of terms, general hypotheses to be examined, and the basic assumptions underlying the study. A review of the related literature is presented in Chapter II. This includes the theoretical basis of the vari- ables and pertinent conclusions from related research inves- tigating the relationship of innovativeness and the behavior of innovators in education and other disciplines. In Chapter III the research procedures and method— ology employed are presented. This chapter centers upon the 11 source of the data, development and implementation of the survey instrument, development of the interview schedule, selection of school systems for investigation, the research design, and the statistical treatment of the data. The examination and analysis of the data is pre- sented in Chapter IV. This chapter is divided into three parts including: (1) an analysis of the data presented by the survey instrument, (2) an analysis of the data presented by the non-structured interviews, and (3) an interpretation of its relationships found from the statistical analysis of the data. Chapter V presents a summary of the study, conclu— sions, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Introduction Two generalizations emerged while reviewing the literature related to the problem under study. First, there has been a vast amount of research in the area of both edu- cational and general innovation research. Secondly, there has been a limited amount of research related to the speci- fic problem under investigation in the present study. Criteria for Selection of Related Research Given the nature of the previous research, it was evident that criteria should be established to determine which past research was appropriate for inclusion in this section. The following criteria were established to provide the guidelines for the decisions made: 1. The vast amount of previous research related to the topic under study and the dynamic nature of our industri— al society led to the decision to focus upon research conduc— ted after 1945. 2. The appropriateness of the previous research in light of the present design was of utmost importance in decision making. Many of the studies cited in the literature have related isolated variable associated with the economic 12 13 base of the school district including enrollment, per pupil expenditure, operational millage allocation, etc., to the innovativeness of the school system. Studies of this type are mentioned only as needed to develop the present research design. 3. Because of the rich body of diffusion and inno- vation literature available outside of education, studies which dealt with isolating the behaviors and characteristics of innovators from other areas are also cited when appropri- ate to the administrative behavioral dimensions being investigated. 4. The studies cited in this chapter are distin- guished by their focus upon behaviors and characteristics which appear associated with innovators in education specifically. The literature viewed as appropriate for the current study will be summarized in this manner: the first section will focus on previous studies essential to the present re- search design; the second section will deal with studies which identify specific behaviors and characteristics of individuals viewed as innovators. Review of Closely Related Studies Little research has been devoted to the relation- ship of specific school administrative behaviors and the districts' adoption of new curriculum practices. Considera— ble research, however, has centered on the innovators' l4 attitudes and values, educational background, group involve- ment, social status, size of operation, and information sources used. A frequently used method for collecting the data in studies relating innovator behaviors to the innova- tion of social systems has been the structured interview schedule; Studies Essential to the Research Design The majority of the past educational innovation research bears the mark of one man, Paul Mort, and his stu» dents at the Institute of Administrative Research at Columbia University. As mentioned in the problem statement, studies conducted in the Mort tradition are based upon the assumption that the administrative behaviors of school administrators are unimportant in explaining the adoption of educational change within local school systems. Carlson commenting on over 100 studies done in the Mort tradition between 1945-55 indicates that the basic assumption in these studies is that the local school administrators are trapped by their school budget. This would indicate that school systems which adopt new educational practices first, spend more money per pupil than those who adopt later. Mort and his associates have reported high positive correlations (r: .60 to .71) between per pupil expenditure and the adoption 1 of new curriculum practices. If the amount spent per pupil 1David H. Ross, Administration for Adaptabilit , (New York: Metropolitan SEBoBl’Study Council, 1958} p. 5. 15 is so highly related to the degree of educational innova- tion in the local systems then the assumptions underlying the present study would be meaningless. However, more recent research findings by Carlson and Childs indicate that the relationship between per pupil expenditure, teacher salary, operational millage levied, and the adoption of new educational practices are non-signifi- 2 in a 1961 study in a western Pennsylvania cant. Carlson county found a negative correlation (-.O2) between such school demographic factors as per pupil expenditure, teacher salary, millage allocation, etc., and the rate of adoption of new educational practices. These general findings were replicated in a state wide study by Carlson in West Virginia where again it was found that ”....the rate of adoption of new educational practices was not significantly related to expenditure per child.”3 Childs11L used the data from the 1963 Survey of Five Years of Progress in Michigan Elementary and Secondary Schools to construct innovative scores for each Michigan K—12 Public School District and found non- significant correlations (r=.l2 to .22) between the construc- ted innovative scores and these demographic factors: total 2Richard Carlson, "School Superintendents and Adoption of Modern Math-- a Social Structure Problem.” Innovation in Education, ed. Matthew B. Moles (Bureau of Publication, Teachers COllege,Columbia University, 196%, p. 3 0. 3Richard Carlson and others, Change Processes in Public Schools Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon—Press, 1965) , p . 8. ”Childs, ”A Study of the Belief Systems of Admini- strators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts"“ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1965),p. 60. 16 pupil membership, state equalized evaluation, millage allo- cated for operation, and expenditure per pupil. These findings indicate that administrators are more than victims of their budgets and support the assump- tions underlying the research design of this study. Carlson stated, ”To my way of thinking, these rather recent findings which indicate no significant relationship between rate of adoption of educational innovations and expenditure per child, are indeed happy ones."5 Rogers' research indicates how the behaviors and characteristics of educational innovators and non-innovators differ in such areas as: age, social status, education, income, information sources used, organizational involve— ment, and opinion leadership. However, his generalizations concerning the behaviors and characteristics of educational innovators and non-innovators are based almost exclusively upon research findings from areas outside of education. A major purpose of the present study is to collect the empir— ical and descriptive data needed to evaluate a number of Rogers' generalizations concerning differences in the be- haviors of school administrators from highly innovative Michigan public school districts and those from non—innova- tive school districts. The use of school administrators instead of tea- chers in this study is based upon previous research which 5Carlson and others, Change Process in Public Schools, p. 8. 17 indicates that school administrators are the central elements in deciding whether a new educational practice should be adopted. As early as 1938 Mort and Cornell in their study of nine curriculum adoptions in 48 Pennsylvania school ”....the role of the administrator was systems found that significant in the introduction of the nine adoptions stu- died in Pennsylvania.”6 Dementer7 in an unpublished doc- toral thesis found that building principals are the key figures in the educational change process. Ross in one of the most complete compendiums of educational change litera- ture, summarized over one-hundred fifty studies dealing with the adoption of new educational practices. He concluded that "the local school administrator, by virtue of his posi- tion and legal setting in which he finds himself in most states, is the most important link in the adoption process."8 Furthermore, he indicated that it is of little wonder that the studies of Mort, Skogsberg, Collins, Ebey, and Berthold (See Bibliography) have found the local school administrator to be the most significant individual in the innovation pro— cess in school systems. 6Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, American Schools in Transition (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941) p. 201. 7Lee H. Dementer, ”Accelerating the Local Use of Improved Educational Practices in School Systems” (doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951), p. 23. 8Donald H. Ross, Administration for Adaptability revised ed. (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, 1958),p. 407. 18 More recently, Brickell in his state wide study of educational change in New York State focused upon the impor— tance of the school administrator in changing the curriculum when he stated, ”New types of instructional programs are introduced by administrators. Contrary to general opinion, teachers are not change agents for instructional innovation of major scope.”9 Mackenzie after analyzing over thirty case studies of recent curriculum changes in the elementary and secondary schools of New York City concluded that ”in the descriptions analyzed principals were found to be very influential in changing the determiners."lo He also indi- cated that ”in many instances, the superintendents of schools appeared to be the most powerful single participant in change."ll The literature reviewed thus far is essential for establishing the assumptions, hypotheses, and general re- search design of the present study. The research reported to this point indicates that the behaviors and actions of school administrators are directly associated with the degree of innovativeness of their school systems. The basic ques- tion then is which administrative behavioral dimensions are clearly associated with the innovativeness of local school systems? 9Henry M. Brickell, Organizing New York State for Educational Change (Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, State Education Department, 1962),p. 22. H” 10Gordon N. Mackenzie, Curriculum Change-Participants, Power, and Processf'Innovation in Education, Ed. Matthew B. Moles (Bureau of Publlhations, TeaChers College, Columbia University, l964),p. 411. 11 Ibid., p. 411. 19 Administrative Behaviors Related to Innovativeness A review of the literature indicated that very little study has been devoted to the relationship of Specific administrative behaviors and school systems innovation. Skogsberg in an unpublished Ed. D. project based on an inten— sive study of six highly adaptive Metropolitan School Study Council Systems (M.S.S.C.) found that their administrative staff had a high level of professional training. He con- cluded, ”However, there is an almost fallow field for those who might wish to study empirically the measurable personal and professional characteristics of administrators predictive of the adaptability records of their schools or systems."12 Carlson conducted two studies, one in a western Pennsylvania county and one on a state wide basis in West Virginia, based on the assumption that the position a super- intendent holds in the social structure of school superin- tendents directly related to his school systems' adoption of such new education practices as: team teaching, modern mathematics, foreign language in elementary schools, pro- grammed instruction, ungraded primary, and advance placement classes. Social structure position for the superintendents in these studies was determined by: social network involve- ment based upon interaction with other superintendents; 12Alfred H. Skogsberg, Administration for Adapta— bility, edited by Donald H. Ross INew York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958L p. 415. 20 status referring to each superintendent's ranked position along the continuums of education, professionalism, and prestige. Results from both studies indicated that those high on measures of social network involvement and position in the status structure tend to adopt the new practices men- tioned above earlier than those scoring lower on these social structure variables. In addition, school administra- tors from innovative systems tended to differ from those in non—innovative systems when compared on the educational dimension.13 This conclusion is confirmed by research findings in other areas of innovation and diffusion literature. Rogers using data obtained from a state wide random sample of 104 farm operators and a state wide sample of 99 innova— tors points out that the characteristics of innovators indicate that they have more education.lLIr Adopters of New Farm Ideas, a compendium of the research studies describing the behaviors and characteristics of farm innovators between 1955 and 1961, emphasized that ”research findings generally indicate that farmers who are among the first to adopt new 13Richard Carlson, Innovations in Education, p. 339. lL‘LEverett M. Rogers, Characteristics of Agricultural Innovators and Other Adapter Categories_(Wooster, Ohio, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 882, May l961),p. 1. 21 "15 practices have the most formal education. In addition, Havens reviewed twenty-five studies from the general area of innovation and diffusion literature between 1952-61 which analyzed the relationship between formal education and inno- vation in various areas including education. He found that twenty—four of the twenty—five studies reviewed resulted in a significant positive relationship between these two fac- tors.16 Rogers has monopolized the articles describing the specific behaviors of educational innovators. In each he has indicated that educational innovators have more formal education but qualified this generalization as follows: ”I have drawn primarily on research.... in such diverse fields as rural sociology, industrial engineering, and anthropology.”17 The generalizations of Rogers describing the behaviors of educational innovators are not necessarily in- adequate even though based on research in different fields. However, neither is it known that they are accurate and adequate for describing educational innovators. They are and should be treated as empirical research questions. Gallagher in an unpublished Ed. D. project using data obtained from fifty communities in the New York 15Adopters of New Farm Ideas, Characteristics and Communication Behavior (North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 13, Ames, Iowa, October, l961),p. 6. 16A. Eugene Havens, A Review of Factors Related To Innovativeness (Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Mimeo Bulletin 329, Columbus, Ohio, February, 1962) pp. 7—9. 17Carlson and others, Change Processes in the Public Schools, p. 57. 22 Metropolitan area found that symbiotic groups (community organizations) have a greater impact on the adaptability of the school system to new educational practices when they have members drawn from the school administration or teaching staff. His research indicated that the correlation between school system adaptability and school staff membership in community organization was a significant (r=+.454).l8 Gallagher concluded that staff involvement in community organizations is important in determining the school systems' adoption of new educational practices. The research of rural sociologists with farmers indicates that those categorized as innovators are more active in farm and community organizations at the local, county, and state level.19 These findings have indicated that administrators from innovative and non-innovative school systems appear to differ on the organizational involvement dimension. Mason in the Public Opinion Quarterly reported that individuals in organizations who are high in relative influ- ence appear to use information from a variety of sources, not just mass media when introducing new practices. Research studies with farm innovators indicates that they not only receive more different types of information about new prac— tices but also receive it sooner and from more technically 18Ralph P. Gallagher, ”Some Relationships of Symbolic Groups to Adaptability in Public Schools and To- gether Related Factors" (New York: unpublished Ed. D. project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 19491 p. 24. 19Adopters of New Farm Ideas, p. 6. 23 accurate sources. Havens20 reviewed eighteen studies relat— ing farm innovation with sources of information used. His work indicated that seventeen of the eighteen studies showed positive significant results at (Alpha=.01) level. Rogers commenting on the sources of information used by educational innovators indicated they use more "impersonal and cosmopolite sources of information."21 He has indicated that at the time innovators decide to implement a new idea few members of their social system have experience with it. Thus, innovators must secure new ideas and information con- cerning these practices through impersonal sources such as mass media and research reports. These studies have indicated that school administrators from innovative systems seem to depend on different sources of information than those in non— innovative systems. McClellan using data from 41 Metropolitan School Study Council systems investigated some aspects of the struc— tural patterns of school systems which were related to adaptability. Of particular relevance for the present study was his investigation of the relationship between security of superintendents' position and the adaptability of their school systems to new educational practices. The results indicated that the relationship between McClellan's Index of Growth measuring the adaptability of the local district 20Havens, A Review of Factors Related to Innovative— ness, pp. 13—14. 21Rogers, Theory into Practice, p. 254. 24 and length of chief administrator service was a non-signifi— cant negative correlation of —.295.22 The school administra- tion literature indicates that time is needed for a chief school administrator to show his worth as an educational leader. McClellan is of the opinion that the desirable length of the superintendent's term of office is still un- determined with little empirical evidence to support any contention.23 Of particular importance for the present study are some of Griffiths' propositions concerning factors leading to change and inhibiting change in an organization such as a school system. Griffiths pointed out that change in an organization such as a school system is more probable if the chief administrator is from outside the system than from inside. He cited a study by Carlson (1961) which found that school systems which appointed their superintendents from within the system tend to continue the same educational program, while those systems appointing superintendents from outside the system tend to be more innovative.24 Griffiths 22George B. McClellan, Administration for Adapta- bility, edited by Donald H. Ross (New York, Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958L p. 425. 23 Ibid., p. 425. 24Daniel E. Griffiths, ”Administrative Theory and Change in Organization,” Innovations in Education, edited by Matthew B. Miles (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964) p. 433. 24 and length of chief administrator service was a non-signifi— cant negative correlation of -.295.22 The school administra- tion literature indicates that time is needed for a chief school administrator to show his worth as an educational leader. McClellan is of the opinion that the desirable length of the superintendent‘s term of office is still un— determined with little empirical evidence to support any contention.23 Of particular importance for the present study are some of Griffiths' propositions concerning factors leading to change and inhibiting change in an organization such as a school system. Griffiths pointed out that change in an organization such as a school system is more probable if the chief administrator is from outside the system than from inside. He cited a study by Carlson (1961) which found that school systems which appointed their superintendents from within the system tend to continue the same educational program, while those systems appointing superintendents from outside the system tend to be more innovative.24 Griffiths 22George B. McClellan, Administration for Adapta— bility, edited by Donald H. Ross (New York, Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958L p. 425. 23 Ibid., p. 425. 24Daniel E. Griffiths, "Administrative Theory and Change in Organization,” Innovations in Education, edited by Matthew B. Miles (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964) p. 433. 25 contended that a characteristic of all social systems which inhibits change is the length of chief administrator's tenure He stated that ”the number of innovations is inversely pro— portional to the tenure of the chief administrator.“25 Al- though no objective evidence is given, Griffiths used the underlying assumptions of his systems-theory model to account for this including: (1) All processes which bring a steady state to an organization are given time to oper- ate. (2) Feedback channels have become established. (3) Progressive segregation develops as the sub-systems become more independent and change becomes difficult because the frequency of interactions between sub—systems decreases. In other words, as a system operates, sub—systems develop interaction patterns designed to minimize conflict. Each says in effect, if you don't rock the boat, I won't. Havens summarized three studies with farmers which showed that farm innovators do not differ significantly from non-innovative farmers on the dimension of years of farming experience.26 Rogers indicated that there are sound theoretical grounds for expecting educational innova- tors to have less experience than non-innovators. He con- cluded that "since the young are less likely to be condi- tioned by traditional practices within the established culture, there are theoretical grounds for expecting them 25Ibid., p. 434. 26Havens, A Review of Factors Related to Innovative- ness, p. 21. 26 to be more innovative.”27 Past research indicates that the professional experiences of administrators from innovative systems appear to differ from the experiences of those in non-innovative systems. Research on the reading habits of farm innovators indicates they read significantly more extension bulletins and farm magazines than non-innovators. Havens summarized four studies conducted by rural sociologists which investi- gated the reading habits of farm innovators and non—innova- tors. Three of the four studies indicated that the reading habits of these two groups differed significantly.28 The review of the literature indicated that no attempt has been made in the field of education to relate the reading behavior of school administrators to the innovativeness or adaptabil- ity of the school districts in which they function. Robert H. Guest in Organizational Change pointed out that students of organizations generally agree that controls and changes imposed from the top of a hierarchy down, do not assure the co—operation of subordinates. He states, "There must be some kind of involvement from below which makes it possible for subordinates to accept and even initiate a cer- tain amount of change themselves.”29 In addition, Culbertson 27Rogers, Theory into Practice, p. 253. 28Havens, A Review of Factors Related to Innovative- ness, p. 20. 29Robert H. Guest, Organizational Change: the Effects of Successful Leadership (Homewood, Illinois, Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962; p. 153. 27 suggested that the current role of administrators in the change process is that of serving other educational personnel. Thus the administrator's role appears to be that of helping others change rather than making changes himself. In one of the first studies investigating educa- tional change Mort and Cornell30 indicated that the only way administrators can improve the adaptability of their schools, without assuming direct initiation, is by providing suffi- cient flexibility making it easier for the teaching staff to carry through changes before enthusiasm dies. Buley in an unpublished Ph. D. thesis using data collected from the teaching staffs of fifty Metropolitan School Study Council systems found that teachers in the most adaptable school systems believed many of the new practices they introduced were really the conscious product of their own originality. Furthermore, ”many administrators will be surprised to learn that the most adaptable staffs do not believe their ideas for changes have come from either the administration or educational and teacher training institu- tions.”31 Buley concluded that ”adaptable school staffs become so because they are not limited to the intellectual boundaries of one individual, the administrator, but rather have the strength and richness of all to accomplish that 3OMort, American Schools in Transition, p. 390. 31Hilton C. Buley, Administration for Adaptability, edited by Donald H. Ross (New York, Metropolitan School Stufiy Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958), p. 42. 28 which comes from the freedom of all to think and invent.”32 Lovos in an unpublished Ph. D. thesis compared the data from the 1946 and 1954 applications of the ”Growing Edge" (Survey of New Educational Practices Adopted) in the Metropolitan School Study Council systems. It was found that administrators in adaptable schools delegate responsi— bility and authority freely. Lovos indicated that these administrators induced the feeling among their staffs that personal prestige of the staff comes from the accomplish- ments of the whole group. In addition, he found that ad— ministrators in highly adaptable schools were willing to learn from their staffs and depended upon teaching staff discussion as leading to the best solutions of problems. These studies have indicated that administrators in innova- tive systems may differ from those in non-innovative systems in the amount and form of staff involvement used during the curriculum process. Why do some school systems adopt many new curricu- lum practices and others only a few when selected cost factors supposedly related to the quality of the education- al program are held constant as the studies of Carlson and Childs indicate? William Husk33 in an unpublished 32lbid., p. 443 33William Husk, An Exploratory Study of Possible Relationships Between the Educational and Professional Back- grounds of School Superintendents and Their Views of Instruc- tional Improvement (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, l964),pp. 8-33. 29 dissertation at Michigan State University contended that changes in the instructional program must be preceded by changes in the people involved. He cited a number of sources which show that far reaching changes in values, feelings, and behaviors of people occur in situations where their worth and dignity is recognized. In Perceiving Be— having Becoming, the 1962 Yearbook of Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the authors indicated that in- volving those to be effected by a change actively and in a significant manner is a strong indication that their worth and dignity is recognized and valued. One of the basic propositions investigated in this study is that school ad— ministrators in innovative systems involve more of their teaching staff actively when instituting new educational practices than those in non—innovative systems. In addi- tion, it is also expected that administrators from innova- tive systems interact with their teaching staffs in_a manner which recognizes their worth and dignity while those in non- innovative systems place less emphasis on the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members when instituting new educational practices. The dimensions identified in the operational defi- nition for worth and dignity, illustrated in Exhibit 1 of the Appendix, were based on the following research studies. Skogsberg using data collected from six highly adaptive Metropolitan School Study Council systems in communities ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 found that superintendents in 30 districts which seemed to be going places had certain charac— teristics in common. He found that ”in these people there is an awareness of the existence of the always better way to do things, of the advantages of team accomplishment, of the fact that ideas can come from every person involved in the undertaking.”3LL His research showed that these superinten— dents view their total educational staff as a functioning team along with lay people of the community. They delegated responsibility and authority freely to those who could or would try to do the job. They also appeared willing to learn from their teaching staffs and utilize the process of democratic discussion as the best solution to problems. This commitment to the democratic process has implications for the way the teaching staff is treated. Skogsberg con- cluded, ”The peculiar abilities of staff members are freely recognized and every opportunity is utilized for each to have his place in the sun.”35 Huber§6studying'the factors involved in the spread of High School Language Laboratories in seventy school systems throughout the United States, found that the majority of initiations were by teachers who needed the support from some administrator before adoption occurred. Similarly, Brickell in his state wide study of change in 34Skogsberg, Administration for Adaptability, p. 415. 35Ibid., p. 415 36Ralph Norman Huber, ”The Spread of an Innovation: High School Language Laboratoriesfi (unpublished paper, New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University, 1961; p. 116. 31 New York State found th t the key to successful innovation is the assistance of the administrators during the trial stage. Likert observed that ”changes which are made ra- pidly or which are superimposed by authority meet with strong resistance.”37 He added that errors are likely to be made in introducing major changes and that changes end abruptly if those at higher levels in the school system hierarchy do not support subordinates who make mistakes. One indication that administrators recognize and value the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs is the support provided them when mistakes are made during the implementa- tion of new educational practices. Chesler, Schmuck, and Lippitt in a pilot study in- volving the entire teaching staffs of nine elementary and secondary schools in the Detroit area found that these fac- tors influenced innovative teaching: (1) teachers' feelings that new practices can help solve problems important to them and their pupils, (2) teachers' feelings that a given practice is easily adaptable to their own style of teaching with little extra investment of time and energy, and (3) teachers' feelings that the school administration will support new teaching practices. The last finding is of importance for the present study in that school administra- tors can directly stimulate innovativeness by both suggesting 37Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961L p. 246. 32 and openly supporting new ideas suggested by their teaching staffs. The results of this research indicated a highly significant (rho=+.65) relationship between the amount of staff innovativeness as measured by the mean number of new practices introduced by each teacher and the staff's percep— tion of the principal's support for innovation. An even higher relationship (rho=+.73) was found between the teacher's perceptions of his principal's support and his perception of his colleagues'support for innovation. These investigators concluded that "the principal's attitude in— fluences staff norms, and both his orientation and peer standards combine to influence actual staff innovativeness."38 Along with this, principals with innovative staffs were found to be in tune with teachers' feelings and values about edu- cation and better involved in their informal relationships. It was also found that administrators with the least inno— vative staffs related more formally to their teachers and failed to consider their values and emotions. These findings have indicated that it is not enough that a school administra— tor be interested in staff innovativeness; his interest must also be obvious to the teaching staff. Chesler and associ- ates concluded that "the principal who publicly supports new classroom practices is more likely to have innovative teachers 38Mark Chesler, Richard Schmuck, and Ronald Lippitt, "The Principal's Role in Facilitating Innovation," Theor into Practice (College of Education, Ohio State UniVEEET%y, Vol. II, No. 5, December 1963), p. 274 33 than ones who do not."39 Pelley using data collected from the Metropolitan School Study Council systems found that administrative actions that resulted in various types of social recognition encouraged invention on the part of the teaching staff. His study indicated that teachers who are inventive need the encouragement and protection which comes only through membership in a sympathetic group. He emphasizes that it is the role of administrators to provide the opportunities for cooperation, collaboration and social approval which contribute to the secure environment necessary for trying new curriculum practices. Pelley emphasized the strategic position of school administrators in stimulating innovation when he stated, ”There can be no substitute for favoring friendly administration which provides the dynamic leader- ship, good human relations, adequate instructional supplies, and freedom for initiative to flourish.”1'l0 The previous re— search studies of Skogsberg, Huber, Chesler, and Pelley served as the basis for this study of how administrators from innovative systems differ from those in non—innovative systems in recognizing the worth and dignity of their teach— ing staffs. 39:bid., p. 275. 40James H. Pelley, Adaptability for Administration, edited by Donald H. Ross (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958), p. 39. 34 Summary The basis upon which this study was designed and conducted emerged from the review of the previous research in innovation. Only studies having a direct bearing on the research design of this study are included in this chapter. The review of the literature indicated that selected admini- strative behavioral dimensions appear to differentiate school administrators from innovative and non—innovative school systems. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Introduction Much preliminary work preceded the actual statisti cal testing of the hypotheses. The school system sample was identified; the administrative sample within the selected districts was isolated; instrumentation was developed, field tested, and restructured; the interview schedule formulated, field tested, and refined; and categories for analyzing the interview data were developed. This chapter describes in detail how the preceding steps were implemented in this in- vestigation. Identification of Sample The sample used in this study was drawn from the population consisting of all 433 class four K-12 Michigan Public School Districts in 1964. Class four K—12 districts were selected because: (1) they are of such size that the administrators are known throughout the system. (2) they are distributed in a random fashion over the entire State of Michigan. (3) data in the form of selected cost fac— tors and constructed innovative scores was available for the entire sample. 35 36 The constructed innovative scores formulated by Childs using the information reported to the Michigan De- partment of Public Instruction in the Survey of Five Years of Progress in Public Education in Michigan (illustrated in Exhibit 2 of the Appendix) was used to determine the degree of innovativeness for each class four K-12 system in the state. This information consisted of ”check and no-check” responses indicating the presence or absence of seventeen curriculum practices at the elementary and secondary levels in each school district in Michigan. Since many of the practices listed in the survey instrument were mutually ex- clusive while others were dissimilar, Childs developed a weighing system to insure that each practice was given equal consideration. He gave equal weight for each year that a practice was adopted during the five year interval covered by the survey. The number of new practices for each school system was then totaled and the school districts ranked on the basis of total number of practices adopted in the dis- trict. To eliminate the possibility that some districts might appear innovative only because they had a large num— ber of individual schools, Childs divided the total number of innovations per district by the number of individual school units in each district. This resulted in an average innovative score for each district and they were then rank ordered on the basis of their average constructed innovative scores. The scores ranged from O to 56 for all 604 K-12 Michigan School Districts. The range for all 433 class four 37 K-l2 districts was from O to 44. The school systems used in this study were selected from this rank ordered list. Previous research indicated that the distribution of data used to determine districts as innovative or non-innovative was skewed toward non-innovativeness. Childs concluded that the initial classification of schools as innovative and non-innovative on the basis of his constructed innovative scores was valid. He stated that "the data on the adoption of various educational practices indicated that the schools classified as innovative and non—innovative were different.”1 The manner in which particular school systems were selected for the study was related to previous research find— ings in the area of educational innovation. Until the find- ings of Carlson (1961-65) all past research had indicated a strong relationship between the number of new educational practices instituted in a school district and the size and expenditure factors of the school system. Childs in select— ing the sample for his unpublished study used the official statistics from the Michigan Department of Public Instruction for the 1962—63 school year concerning these educational cost factors: state equalized evaluation per student, stu- dent enrollment, current expenditure per student, and millage allocation for operation. To evaluate the past findings of educational research Childs computed Person Product Moment lChilds, "A Study of the Belief Systems of Admin— istrators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, l965),p. 66. 38 Correlations for all school districts in Michigan between the above four cost factors and their constructed innovative scores. These correlations are summarized in Exhibit 3 of the Appendix and, in general, show slight positive relation- ships but none of any statistical significance.) After eval- uating this data Childs concluded that for the purposes of his study, the minimum number of school districts needed to control the cost factor variables is eight.2 However, in the present study twenty school systems are included to insure: (1) an adequate number of school administrators for purposes of a statistical analysis of the results, (2) to insure an adequate geographic distribution of the sample throughout Michigan. The actual selection of school systems for inclu- sion in the study was done in the following manner. From the upper 4% of the rank ordered listing of class four K-l2 school systems on the constructed innovative scale, ten innovative systems were selected on the basis of a composite cost factor combining: pupil membership, per pupil expendi- ture, evaluation per child, and total operational millage allocated. Five of these innovative systems were selected on the basis of having a high composite cost factor and five with a low composite cost factor. Similarly, the ten non— innovative systems were selected from the lower ten per cent of the rank ordered listing on the constructed innovative scale. Every attempt was made to match the total composite 2Ibid., p. 35. 39 cost factors of the non-innovative systems with that of the innovative systems. Exhibit 4 of the Appendix illustrates a comparison of the twenty sample systems on the basis of cost factor expenditure. The final ten innovative systems selected for this study are among the upper one per cent of all Michigan K-l2 school systems on the constructed innova- tive scale and the upper three per cent of the innovative class four K-12 systems. The twenty school districts selected were invited to participate in the study by a letter from the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction, illustrated in Exhibit 5 of the Appendix. All twenty superintendents responded within two weeks agreeing to take part in the study and supplying a list of full time principals who had served in this capacity for the past three years. One school system was dropped from the sample at this time when it became clear that both the superintendent and his principals had not served for three years in their present positions. The school systems involved in this study are indicated by geo- graphic location on the map illustrated in Exhibit 6 in the Appendix. The administrative sample consisted of all full time school superintendents, secondary principals, and ele- mentary principals who have served in these capacities for the past three years in their present districts. It was decided to use only administrators who had three years of experience in their present positions for several reasons: 4O (1) These individuals were present when the ”Survey of Five Years of Progress in Public Education in Michigan” was con- ducted. (2) These individuals would be familiar with the change processes used to introduce new curriculum practices in their present districts. (3) These individuals were ine volved significantly in the curriculum changes described in the Five Year Study of Progress in Michigan Schools and could describe and discuss them with some degree of accuracy. There were fifty—five innovative school admini— strators in the sample and sixty-one non-innovative administrators. Exhibit 7 in the Appendix illustrates the breakdown of the sample used in this study. Development of Survey Instrument Each school administrator in the sample was ad— ministered the survey instrument illustrated in Exhibit 8 of the Appendix. This instrument was developed for the purpose of providing the data necessary to analyze the first five hypotheses. The survey instrument was formulated by first isolating the general areas of information needed to test the hypotheses. Next, the specific sub—items were de— veloped under each area. The basic criterion relied upon when forming the sub—items was whether they could be answered concisely and whether they contributed valid data to the an— alysis. After a rough draft of the survey instrument had been developed, it was administered as a pilot study to three Western Michigan University staff members who previ— ously had been school administrators. This initial trial 41 run resulted in many modifications of the survey's sub-items and a clarification of the directions. The survey instru- ment was then administered to three practicing school ad- ministrators who weren‘t involved in the actual study, to determine the clarity of directions, conciseness of items and responses, and evaluation of whether the survey could be completed in five minutes or less. The results of this trial run indicated that many of the surveyitems posed a potential threat to the practicing administrators. To reduce the po-“ tential threat in Some of the items it was decided that the responses of the administrators should be kept anonymous. tsThis field test also verified the adequacy of the directions, items, and length of the instrument. After the survey instrument had been finalized, the superintendent of each district in the sample was noti- fied by the letter illustrated in Exhibit 9 of the Appendix as to when the instruments would arrive at their office and the procedures for administering them to their administrative staff. Two weeks later the survey instruments, return enve— lopes, and a letter of instructions similar to that in Ex- hibit 10 of the Appendix were sent to each superintendent for distribution to his administrative staff. The survey instrument return was 109 out of 116 or ninety—four per cent. Specifically, 51 out of 55 innovative administrators responded, while 58 out of 61 non-innovative administrators responded. Due to the high return rate no follow—up letters were sent to the school systems in the sample. The reliability of the data gathered by the survey instrument was checked using an adaption of the test-retest method. The survey instruments sent two superintendents were coded for easy identification upon return. These superintendents then were asked orally the survey instru- ment items during their non-structured interviews. The comparison of each subject's survey instrument responses with those on the interview indicated nearly ninety—five per cent agreement. Development of Interview Schedule All twenty superintendents in the sample were interviewed using appropriate items from a non—structured interview schedule similar to that in Exhibit 11 of the Appendix. Only superintendents were interviewed because previous research indicated the importance of their role in changing the curriculum of local districts. The information provided by the non-structured interviews was used to ana- lyze the differences in staff involvement and treatment of staff members by superintendents from innovative and non- innovative systems. In developing the non-structured interview schedule the broad areas to be covered were first isolated from an examination of the hypotheses to be tested. The information desired included: (1) the kind and degree of staff involve— ment used in the curriculum change process and (2) the ex- tent administrators showed by their actions that they valued the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs. 43 Since a non-structured interview procedure was used the formal outline schedule illustrated in Exhibit 11 of the Appendix served only as a guide to give direction and con- tinuity to the interviews and not as a restrictive list of questions to follow. Direct questions aimed at eliciting this information were avoided because of the ease with which administrators could give stereotyped textbook responses rather than the information describing their actual behavior. Evidence to substantiate this is provided by: (l) the threatening nature of the questions involved which would lead many administrators to give responses showing them in a favorable light. (2) conversations with curriculum per- sonnel from Michigan State University, Michigan Department of Public Instruction, and Western Michigan University who felt that many administrators are "game players" in that their verbal responses to specific questions oftentimes are different than their actual behavior in the field. (3) the desire for all individuals to present themselves in the most favorable manner. For the above reasons it was decided that the non- structured, indirect, less threatening interview approach would yield more accurate data. The general approach used during the interviews involved having the superintendents reconstruct as accurately as possible the entire curriculum change process from initial awareness to evaluation after implementation with concrete illustrations. The change pro- cesses described varied from system to system with modern 44 mathematics being used in all interviews. As the superinten- dents were reconstructing the change process related to specific curriculum changes, a number of questions were in- troduced at critical points to measure the ”general behavior" of the administrator in regard to teaching staff involvement during the change process. A pilot interview was conducted with a school superintendent not included in the study as soon as the rough form of the interview schedule had been deter- mined. After the trial interview the superintendent was asked to react to the methodology employed and to suggest improvements in the questioning technique used. The tape of this trial interview was studied in depth to refine the questioning technique further. This process was repeated with two more superintendents to confirm the adequacy of the interview schedule. Format of Interview Schedule The arrangement of the general areas in the inter- view sequence required much consideration. The three pilot interviews proved helpful in determining the order of the major areas of the interview. Since none of the superinten- dents in the sample were personal acquaintances of the investigator, it was initially necessary to establish rapport and assure the interviewees of the anonymity of their responses. The practice interviews also indicated that information de- scribing the framework of the school districts‘ organiza- tional structure related to curriculum change should be identified early since it was involved in all the curriculum 45 change processes described later. This technique also con- tributed greatly toward building up initial rapport. The pilot interviews indicated that once the formal change struc- ture in a school system had been identified, the superinten- dent was ready to describe how specific curriculum changes were introduced. In addition, the trial runs indicated that it was more effective to permit the superintendent to de- scribe in detail, without interruptions, the process used to implement change before asking him to generalize on specific aspects of change in his district. The Interviews All interviews were arranged in advance by telephone. Each interview was recorded on tape and later transcribed for purposes of analysis. Six weeks were required to com- plete the twenty interviews with all but one being held in the offices of the superintendents of the districts in the sample. One interview was conducted by long distance tele— phone at the request of the superintendent. The interviews ranged in length from forty-five minutes to two hours with the average interview being one hour and fifteen minutes in length. Statistical Hypotheses The following hypotheses were formulated for test- ing purposes in accordance with the previously stated opera- tional definitions: 46 There is no difference between the proportion of administrators earning semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators earning semes— ter hours beyond the bachelor's degree in none innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of administrators indicating high organization- al involvement in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators indicating high organizational involvement in non—innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of administrators indicating the use of many information sources for curriculum change in innovation systems and the proportion of ad- ministrators indicating the use of many infor- mation sources in non—innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of administrators having many years of experi- ence as educators in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators having many years of experience as educators in non—innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in innovative systems and 47 the proportion of administrators indicatin the reading of many professional journals in non-innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of superintendents using wide staff involve- ment in changing the curriculum in innovative school systems and the proportion of superin- tendents using wide staff involvement in changing the curriculum in non-innovative systems. There is no difference between the proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in innovative systems and the proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in non—innovative systems. The proportion of administrators earning semes— ter hours beyond the bachelor's degree in innovative school systems is greater than the proportion of administrators earning semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in non- innovative school systems. The proportion of administrators indicating high organizational involvement in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of ad- ministrators indicating high organizational involvement in non-innovative systems. H4 H6 48 The proportion of administrators indicating the use of information sources for curriculum changes in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of administrators indicating the use of many information sources for curri- culum changes in non—innovative systems. The proportion of administrators having many years of experience as educators in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of ad- ministrators having many years of experience as educators in non-innovative systems. The proportion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in innovative systems is greater than the propor— tion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in non—innovative systems. The proportion of superintendents using wide staff involvement in changing the curriculum in innovative systems is greater than the pro- portion of superintendents using wide staff involvement in changing the curriculum in non- innovative systems. The proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they recognize the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in innovative systems is greater than the propor- tion of superintendents showing by their actions 49 that they recognize the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in non—innovative systems. Procedures for Analysis of the Data The null hypotheses were tested with the chi—square analysis and the Fisher Exact Probability Test using appro— priate methods extracted from Siegel,3 Dixon and Massey}+ and Hayes.5 The data resulting from the survey instruments was analyzed as follows: (1) using the total sample of admini— strators to seek differences in administrative behaviors be- tween those in innovative and non—innovative systems, (2) using the upper and lower thirds of the administrative sam- ple to seek differences in administrative behaviors between the extremes, and (3) using the major sub-groups of super- intendents and secondary and elementary principals to seek differences between administrative behaviors from those in innovative and non-innovative systems. The type of test em- ployed in each instance was guided by these considerations 6 from Siegel: 3Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the BehavioralSciences_(New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956). LLWilfred V. Dixon and Frank V. Massey, Introduc— tion to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hmill Bo—ok Company, Inc., 1951). 5William L. Hayes, Statistics for Psychologists (New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1963). 6Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavior- a1 Sciences, p. 110. 5O 1. When the sample is greater than 30 use the chi-square analysis corrected form to insure continuity. 2. When the sample is 30 or less use the Fisher Exact Probability Test. After the taped interviews had been transcribed, they were reviewed to isolate the responses of the superin- tendents as either a high, non—determinant or a low indica- tion of the behaviors outlined below (see Exhibit 12 for a complete statement): I. The degree and type of teaching staff involve- ment used at the awareness, investigation, and decision- making phases of the curriculum change process. II. The degree that the superintendents: A. recognize the value of praising their teaching staffs for contributions to curriculum development. B. recognize the teaching staff's ability to contribute to local curriculum development. C. recognize the teaching staff's sincerity to improve the curriculum. D. recognize the value of giving prime consi— deration to the teaching staff's desires in curriculum decision-making. E. recognize the value of diversity in their teaching staff's professional behavior. F. recognize the value of utilizing members of their teaching staff in leadership positions during curri— culum change. \j‘. H G. l. recognize the value of supporting teach— ing staff members prior to curriculum change. 2. recognize the value of supporting ing staff members during curriculum change. H. recognize the value of encouraging interested teaching staff members with opportunities to experiment. I. recognize the value of providing their teaching staffs with released time to improve the curriculum. J. recognize the necessity of justifying the rejection of their teaching staff's recommendations for curriculum change. K. recognize their teaching staff's commitment and readiness as crucial factors when making curriculum decisions. L. ecognize the value of encouraging their teaching staffs not to fear failure when trying new curri- culum practices. M. recognize the value of creating a climate where the teaching staff's desires are placed before finan- cial considerations in curriculum decision—making. N. recognize the value of facilitating teach- ing staff involvement in curriculum change rather than dominating it. O. recognize the value of teaching staff mem- bers committed to the development of each child to his poten- tial over those committed to achieving subject matter standards alone. \J 1 {\J Th reliability of the categorization system used in classifying the non—structured interview data was deter- (l) 7/) mined by using the Fisher Exacu Probability T t. That is, ,cted at fD }_J ’D one of the twenty interview transcripts was s. random and analyzed by both a college professor with a simi- lar educational background to the investigator and a public school administrator. Both individuals used the categori— zation method employed in this study and illustrated in Exhibit 12 of the Appendix. The results of their classifi- cation were compared with those of the investigator to see if they differed significantly. No Significant difference was found in the categorization of the interview data by the three individuals. Summary This chapter describes the design, methodology, and those procedures used to develop this study from its inception through the data analysis phase. The sample used in this study was not random but selected from premexisting data collected by the Michigan Department of Public Instruc— tion and the constructed innovative scale developed by Childs. The data used in the analysis was collected with a Specially designed survey instrument and with a non—struce tured interview technique. The data was analyzed by use of the chi-square analysis and the Fisher Exact Probability Test. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction This chapter analyzes the data collected by the sur- vey instruments and non—structured interviews concerning the differences between school administrators from innovative and" non-innovative systems on selected administrative behavioral dimensions. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section analyzes the data collected by the survey instrument with a format paralleling the statement of the first five hypotheses in Chapter I. The Second section an- alyzes the data from the non-structured interviews. The third section interprets the relationship found in the first two sections in terms of: (1) the present research design, (2) the past research findings, and (3) the behavior of educational innovators on selected dimensions. Analysis of Data from Survey Instrument The data analysis provides a basis for describing how the behavior of innovative school administrators differs from that of non-innovative administrators. Besides, it pro- vides evidence to evaluate the previously predicted behavior of innovative school administrators based on generalizations from other disciplines such as rural sociology, business and medicine. 53 54 Statistical Procedures The chi-Square analysis and Fisher Exact Probabil— ity Test were used to analyze the data in this section. The data was presented in percentage form to evaluate whether it follows the prediction in the research hypothesis when signi— ficant values were obtained with these tests. In addition, all significant values of the chi-square and Fisher Test are further analyzed by the contingency coefficient to determine the amount of relationship between the variables. HYPOTHESES TESTING Formal Education The first hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of administrators from innovative systems have earned more semester hours beyond their bachelor's degree than those from non-innovative systems. H01 There is no difference between the propor- tion of administrators earning semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators earning semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in non-innovative systems. H1 The proportion of administrators earning semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in innovative school systems is greater than the proportion of administrators earning se- mester hours beyond the bachelor's degree in non-innovative systems. 55 The data collected by the survey instrument indi- cated that the one hundred nine school administrators in the sample had earned semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree ranging from zero to ninety. For all administrators in the sample the mean number of hours earned beyond the bachelor‘s degree was 39.97. Using the mean score of 39.97 as the basis for categorization, the frequency of administrators earning more or fewer semester hours than the mean beyond the bache- lor's degree was determined. Table 1 shows the tabulation of these frequencies. TABLE l.-—Distribution of administrators earning more or or fewer semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than the mean of the total sample Semester Hours Innovative Non—Innovative Completed Administrators Administrators More than Mean of 39.97 23 3O Less than Mean of 39.97 Hours 28 28 The first null hypothesis was tested using the chi- square technique following the procedures set forth by Dixon and Massey.1 The resulting chi—square value of .476 was not equal to or greater than the 3.84 value needed to reject the null hypothesis at alpha .05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. When comparing the upper and lower one-thirds of all / lWilfred J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Introduction to Statistical Analysis (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New anflr 1 0E1 \ run '1 RR -1 R0 56 administrators in the sample on the dimension of semester hours earned beyond the bachelor‘s degree, the frequency distribution tabulated in Table 2 resulted. TABLE 2.—-Distribution of extreme thirds of administrators on the dimension of semester hours earned beyond the bachelor‘s degree Semester Hours Innovative Non-Innovative beyond bachelor‘s Administrators Administrators Upper One Third 18 18 Lower One Third 17 19 By testing the previously stated null hypothesis with the chi-square analysis a value of .055 was obtained. At the .05 level of Significance this chi-square value was not equal to or greater than the 3.84 needed. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Organization Involvement The second hypothesis predicted that a higher pro- portion of administrators from innovative school systems indicate more organizational involvement than those in non- innovative school systems. HO There is no difference between the proportion 2 of administrators indicating high organiza— tional involvement in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators indicating high organizational involvement in non- innovative systems. 57 H2 The proportion of administrators indicating high organizational involvement in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of administrators indicating high organizational involvement in non—innovative systems. The data collected with the survey instrument showed that total membership and leadership positions held during the four years ranged from two to twenty—seven for all administra- tors in the sample. Summing for each administrator in the sample the total number of professional and community organi- zation membership and leadership positions held during the last four years, one finds a mean of 9.16. The sample of ad— ministrators was categorized into a two by two table on the basis of above and below the mean number of organizational involvements. The frequencies in Table 3 indicate this tabu- lation. TABLE 3.--Distribution of administrators on the basis of above and below the mean number of organizational involvements Organizational Innovative Non-Innovative Involvement Administrators Administrators Above Mean Involvement 28 22 Below Mean Involvement 23 36 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi—square analysis and a value of 3.14 obtained. In order to reject the null hypothesis at the alpha=.O5 level of significance 58 with one degree of freedom a value of 3.84 is needed. Since the obtained chi—square value was not equal or greater than that specified, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The frequency distribution shown in Table 4 resul- ted when the upper and lower thirds of school administrators were compared on the dimension or organizational involvement. TABLE 4.—-Distribution of the upper and lower thirds of administrators on the organizational involvement dimension. Organizational Innovative Non-Innovative Involvement Administrators Administrators Upper One Third of Organizational Involvement 2O 16 Lower One Third of Organizational Involvement 14 22 The null hypothesis was tested with the chi—square analysis to determine whether it could be rejected. A chi— square value of 2.19 was obtained. This value wasn't large enough to reject the null hypothesis at the alpha=.O5 level of significance. Information Sources Used The third hypothesis predicted that a higher pro- portion of school administrators from innovative systems will indicate the use of a greater number of information sources for curriculum change than those in non-innovative systems. 59 There is no difference between the proportion of administrators indicating the use of many information sources for curriculum change in innovative systems and the proportion of ad- ministrators indicating the use of many in- formation sources in non-innovative systems. H3 The proportion of administrators indicating the use of many information sources for curri- culum change in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of administrators indica- ting the use of many information sources for curriculum change in non-innovative systems. The data collected with the survey instrument in- dicated that administrative use of the information sources investigated, ranged from zero to all ten sources. The mean number of sources depended upon by all one-hundred nine administrators in the sample was 5.3 sources. This value was obtained by summing for each administrator in the sample the number of items out of ten indicated as extremely and often useful. On the basis of the mean number of sources depended upon, the number of administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems above and below the mean were tabulated. Table 5 shows this tabulation. 60 TABLE 5.-—Distribution of administrators on the basis of above and below the mean number of information sources used —r Sources of Innovative Non-Innovative Information Administrators Administrators Above Mean Number Used 31 21 Below Mean Number Used 20 37 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi—square analysis and a value of 6.57 obtained. At the specified le- vel of Significance, alpha=.O5, a chi-square equal to or greater than 3.84 is needed to reject the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was rejected since the obtained chi- square value was greater than that needed. The above data expressed in terms of per cent of the entire sample is presented in Table 6. TABLE 6.-—Per cent of administrators categorized as using more or fewer than the mean number of information sources Administrator Per Cent Using Per Cent Using Category More than Mean Fewer than Mean Number of Sources Number of Sources Innovative Administrators 28.4% 19.2% Non—Innovative Administrators 18.3% 33.9% This table indicates that the discrepancy from the expected frequencies stated in the research hypothesis was in 61 the predicted direction. This indicates that there are a higher proportion of administrators who used many sources of information for curriculum change in innovative school systems than in non-innovative school systems. The contingency coefficient is an often used non- parametric measure of the correlation between two sets of variables. When the contingency coefficient is computed for the data in Table 5 using the procedures specified by Siegel,2 a positive coefficient of .238 is obtained. Siegel reports that the largest contingency coefficient for a two by two table such as Table 5 is .707. Thus, the results obtained above indicate that there is more than a slight degree of association between the number of information sources used by administrators and the innovativeness of their school systems. The data collected with the survey instrument was further analyzed using the chi-square technique to find differ— ences in the use of each separate information source by the administrators in the Sample. The response to each informa- tion source illustrated in Exhibit 8, item 19, of the Appendix classified as useful if marked extremely or often useful and not useful if marked seldom or not useful. The administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems were then classified into two by two chi-square tables and the appropriate chi-square values found. Table 7 indicates 2Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav- ioral Sciences, pp. l96-202. 62 the obtained chi-square values and the number of administra- tors in each analysis. TABLE 7.--0btained chi-square values between usefulness of each information source and the administrators from innovative and non-innovative school systems Obtained Chi-Square Number of Sources of values between Administrators Information Usefulness of Each in Chi+Square Source and Innovation Analysis Graduate Courses in Education .555 63 Professional Journals 2.160 79 Mass Media .439 63 Suggestions from Teachers 1.105 90 Suggestions from Fellow Administrators 3.105 88 Visits to Other School Systems 1.055 76 Contacts with Administrators from Other Systems .106 85 Educational Materials Representatives .203 59 State Department of Public - Instruction .851 76 Federal Government 1.295 69 63 None of the obtained chi-square values for each separate information source was significant. Professional Experiences The fourth hypothesis predicted that a higher pro- portion of administrators in innovative school systems would have more years experience as educators than those in non- innovative systems. H04 There is no difference between the propor- tion of administrators having many years of experience as educators in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators having many years of experience as educators in non—innovative school systems. H4 The proportion of administrators having many years of experience as educators in innovative systems is greater than the pro— portion of administrators having many years experience as educators in non-innovative systems. The data from the survey instrument for all one- hundred nine administrators in the sample Showed a range of experience in the field of education from three to forty-three years. The mean number of years spent as educators was 22.8 for those in the sample. Classifying all administrators in the sample on the basis of either above or below the mean number of years Spent as educators, resulted in the frequency tabulation illustrated in Table 8. 64 TABLE 8.—-Distribution of administrators on the basis of years spent as educators Years Spent Innovative Non-Innovative as Educators Administrators Administrators Above Mean Years as Educators 27 21 Below Mean Years as Educators 24 37 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi-square analysis and a value of 3.086 obtained. The obtained chi- square value was not equal to or greater than the 3.84 needed to reject the null hypothesis at the alpha=.O5 level of Sig- nificance. Even though the chi-Square value obtained from the data in Table 8 was insignificant, it fell in the direction predicted by the research hypothesis. To evaluate the data more adequately it was decided to compare the upper and lower thirds of the administrator sample to investigate if they differed in the direction predicted by the fourth hypo- thesis. The frequency distribution in Table 9 on the follow— page indicates the tabulation of this data. 65 TABLE 9.-—Distribution of upper and lower thirds of admini- strators on the basis of years Spent as educators Years Spent Innovative Non-Innovative as Educators Administrators Administrators Upper Third in Terms of Service 20 16 Lower Third in Terms of Service 9 27 Using the extreme thirds from the total sample of administrators the null hypothesis was analyzed with the chi- square test and a value of 6.986 obtained. At the alpha=.O5 level of significance a chi-square value of 3.84 is needed to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected at the specified alpha level. The data arranged in Table 9 indicates that the discrepancy from the expected frequencies is in the predicted direction. When this data is expressed as per cents there is a greater per cent of administrators with many years spent as educators in innovative rather than in non-innovative school systems. These percentages are illustrated in Table 10. 66 TABLE 10.--Percentages of administrators categorized on the basis of years spent as educators Administrator Per Cent with Per Cent with Many Years of Few Years of Categories Experience Experience Innovative Administrators 27.8% 12.5% Non-Innovative Administrators 22.2% 37.5% To analyze further the difference between the pro- portion of administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems on the years spent as educators dimension, a series of chi-squares were run using the following data: (1) num— ber of years spent as a classroom teacher, (2) years spent as an administrator, and (3) years spent in present position. The data in the above areas was analyzed using the total sam- ple of one-hundred nine administrators categorized as being above or below the mean and with respect to the upper and lower thirds of administrators from the total sample. Table 11 summarizes the obtained chi-square values. 57 TABLE 11.-—Summary of chi-square values between administra- tors and years spent in specific positions as educators Administrators Educational Cate orized Upper and Lower Experience on t e Basis Thirds of Dimensions of the Mean Administrators Years Spent in Classroom Teaching 1.711 .891 Years Spent in Administration 3.769 6.854* Years Spent in Present Position 1.711 3.657 *Chi-Square values which are Significant at alpha=.O5 level (3.84). The obtained chi—square values comparing the upper and lower thirds of all administrators on the dimension of years spent in administration was significant at the alpha: .05 level. The data from this comparison expressed as per— centages indicates that a greater proportion of administrators with many years of administrative experience are found in innovative rather than non-innovative school systems. The percentages expressed in Table 12 are based upon the seventy- two administrators in the upper and lower thirds of the sample. 68 TABLE l2.-—Percentage of administrators from upper and lower thirds of the sample categorized on the basis of years spent in administration dimension Many Years of Few Years of Administrator Administration . . . ‘ A i t at categories Experience iteiiéncéon Innovative Administrators 29.2% 13.9% Non-Innovative Administrators 20.8% 36.1% Professional Reading The fifth hypothesis predicted that a greater pro- portion of administrators from innovative systems indicate the reading of more professional journals than do those in non-innovative systems. HO5 There is no difference between the propor- tion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in innovative systems and the proportion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in non-innovative systems. H5 The proportion of administrators indicating the reading of many professional journals in innovative systems is greater than the propor- tion of administrators indicating the read- ing of many professional journals in non— innovative systems. 69 The data collected by the survey instrument for the total sample indicated a range of regular professional reading from zero to ten or more journals. The mean number of indicated professional journals read regularly by the total sample was 3.17 journals. Table 13 tabulates the num— ber of administrators who read more than or fewer than the mean number of professional journals. TABLE l3.—-Distribution of administrators who read more than or fewer than the mean number of professional journals Number of Professional Innovative Non-Innovative Journals Read Administrators Administrators Above Mean Number of Journals Read 21 15 Below Mean Number of Journals Read 30 43 The null hypothesis was tested with the chi-square analysis and a value of 2.877 obtained. Since the obtained value was not equal to or greater than that needed at the Specific level of significance, alpha=.O5, it was not rejected. Furthermore, when the upper and lower thirds of administrators are compared on the dimension of professional reading the frequency tabulation presented in Table 14 resulted. 70 TABLE 14.--Distribution of administrators from upper and lower thirds of the sample on their indicated profession— a1 reading behavior Professional Innovative Non-Innovative Journals Read Administrators Administrators Upper Third in Professional Journals Read 21 15 Lower Third in Professional . Journals Read 17 10 The null hypothesis was examined using the chi—square technique and a value of .891 obtained. The obtained value is not equal to or greater than that specified at alpha=.O5 level of significance and the null hypothesis was not rejected. Analysis of Data from Non-Structured Interviews Staff Involvement in Curriculum Change The sixth hypothesis predicted that a greater pro- portion of school superintendents from innovative systems use wider staff involvement in changing the curriculum than those from non—innovative systems. H06 There is no difference between the propor- tion of superintendents from innovative systems using wide staff involvement when changing the curriculum and the proportion of superintendents from non-innovative sys— tems using wide staff involvement when changing the curriculum. 71 H6 The proportion of superintendents using wide staff involvement when changing the curricu- lum in innovative systems is greater than the proportion of superintendents using wide staff involvement when changing the curricu— lum in non-innovative systems. The data collected by the non-structured interviews from the twenty school superintendents was analyzed to deter- mine whether teaching staff involvement was high or low during the awareness, investigation, and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process identified by Rogers.3 If the superintendent's interview statements concerning teaching staff involvement during curriculum change are highly incon- sistent, they were classified as non-determinant. All the non—determinant instances were dropped during the statisti- cal analysis and only the high and low instances were summed for the superintendents from the innovative and non-innovative systems. Table 15 indicates the frequency tabulation for the superintendents from innovative and non-innovative systems on the basis of high and low teaching staff involvement during the awareness, investigation, and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process. 3Everett M. Rogers, "Innovation and Education," (a paper presented at the Conference of Michigan Cooperative Curriculum Program, Boyne Mountain, Michigan, September 24, 1965), p. 2. 72 TABLE 15.--Distribution of superintendents on the basis of high and low teaching staff involvement during three phases of the curriculum change process Superintendent High Teaching Low Teaching Categories Staff‘Inv01VementV Staff Involvement Innovative Superintendents 21 8 Non-Innovative Superintendents 10 18 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi-square analysis and a value of 6.22 obtained. The obtained value was greater than the 3.84 needed at the alpha=.O5 to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the null hypothesis of no differ- ence in teaching staff involvement during the three phases of the curriculum change process is rejected. When the data expressed in Table 15 is expressed in percentages, it verifies that the discrepancy from the expec— ted frequency stated in the research hypothesis is in the predicted direction. That is, a greater proportion of superintendents who use wide teaching staff involvement in curriculum change are found in innovative rather than non— innovative systems. Table 16 presents these percentages. 73 TABLE 16.-- Percentage of superintendents using high and low teaching staff involvement during the curriculum change process ' Superintendent Per Cent Using Per Cent Using Categories High Staff Low Staff Involvement TInvClvement Innovative Superintendents 36.8% 14.1% Non-Innovative Superintendents 17.5% 31.6% The responses of the superintendents were analyzed separately using the Fisher Exact Probability Test at the awareness, investigation, and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process to find if the superintendents from innovative and non-innovative systems differed in the involvement of their teaching staff at each of these stages. The superintendents in the sample were categorized into two by two tables on the basis of high and low instances of teaching staff involvement at each of the three stages of the curriculum change process. The Fisher values were ob- tained and evaluated for significance using the procedures Specified by Siegel.4 Table 17 indicates the obtained signi— ficance levels for the awareness, investigation, and decision- making phases of the curriculum change process. ASiegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavior- al Sciences, pp. 97-104. 74 TABLE l7.--The significance levels for the Fisher Exact Pro- bability Test comparing innovative and non- innovative superintendents on teaching staff involvement during three stages of the curricu- lum change process Phases of Significance Number of Curriculum Levels of Superintendents Change Fisher Exact in Fisher Process Probability Test Analysis Awareness .05 Level 19 Investigation Non-Significant l9 Decision-making .05 Level 19 This analysis indicated that superintendents from innovative systems differed from those in non-innovative systems in their teaching staff involvement at the awareness and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process. When data used in the Fisher Analysis is expressed in per- centages, it indicates that a greater percentage of superin— tendents from innovative systems involve their teaching staffs in the awareness and decision-making phases of the change process than those from non-innovative systems. This is illustrated in Table 18. 75 TABLE l8.--Percentage of superintendents classified as high and low during the awareness and decision-making phases of the change process Superintendent Awareness Phases Decision-Making Phases Categories High Low High Low Involvement Involvement Involvement Involvement Innovative 42.1% 10.5% 21.1% 26.4% Non-Innovative 10.5% 36.9% 0% 52.5% Recognition of Staff Members' Worth and Dignity The seventh hypothesis predicted that a greater proportion of superintendents from innovative systems recog— nize the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members when changing the curriculum than those in non-innovative systems. HO There is no difference between the proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in innovative systems and the proportion of superintendents Showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in non-innovative systems. H7 The proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their teaching staff members in innovative systems is greater than the 76 proportion of superintendents showing by their actions that they value the worth and dignity of their staff members in non-innovative sys- tems. Using the data collected with the non-structured interviews the responses of each superintendent in the sample were analyzed on the fifteen predetermined criteria specified in Chapter III. The interview transcript of each superinten- dent was evaluated as to whether it indicated high or low behavior on each dimension. When the transcript indicated inconsistencies in the superintendents behavior the dimension was categorized as non-determinant and not considered in the final analysis. Summing the total highs and total lows on the fifteen dimensions for the superintendents from innova— tive and non—innovative systems the frequency distribution illustrated in Table 19 resulted. TABLE l9.--Distribution of superintendents' reSponses of high and low behavior instances on fifteen pre- determined dimensions Superintendent Sum of Highs Sum of Lows Categories on Dimensions on Dimensions Innovative . 109 27 Non-Innovative 49 79 Analyzing the data with the chi-square test a value of 46.36 was obtained. Since the obtained chi-square value was greater than the 3.84 needed at the alpha=.O5 level, the 77 null hypothesis was rejected. When the data from this com— parison is expressed in percentages, it indicates that the prediction in the research hypothesis is in the correct direction. That iS,a greater percentage of superintendents from innovative systems are categorized as high on the fif- teen predetermined dimensions than those from non-innovative systems. Table 20 indicates these percentages. TABLE 20.-— Percentage of superintendents categorized as high and low on fifteen predetermined dimensions Superintendent Per Cent Per Cent Categories of Highs of Lows Innovative 41.3% 10.2% Non-Innovative 18.6% 29.9% The responses of the superintendents were also ana- lyzed separately with the Fisher Exact Probability Test for each of the fifteen predetermined dimensions to indicate differences between the superintendents from innovative and non-innovative systems. The superintendents were categorized into two by two table on the basis of the total highs and total lows on each of the fifteen dimensions.” The Fisher Test was then applied to the tabulation for each dimension with the results summarized in Table 21. 78 TABLE 21.--Significance level of comparison between super- intendents from innovative and non-innovative systems on each of fifteen dimensions indicating their recognition of the worth and dignity of teaching staff members . ‘ Significance Number of Pre-Determined Dimension Level of Superintendents Fisher Test in Comparison l. Administrators recog— nize the value of praising teaching Non— staff for contribu- Significant 18 tions to curriculum improvement. 2. Administrators recog- nize teaching staffs' ability to contribute to local curriculum improvement. .01 Level 16 3. Administrators recog— nize teaching staffs' sincerity to improve the curriculum. .025 Level 15 4. Administrators recog— nize the value of giving prime consider- ation to the teaching staffs' desires on Non- curriculum questions. Significant 15 5. Administrators recog- nize the value of diversity in teaching Non— methods. Significant l7 6. Administrators recog- nize the value of utilizing the teaching staff in leadership positions in curricu- lum change. .05 Level 17 7.a. Administrators recog- nize the value of providing support to teaching staff prior to instituting curri— Non- culum practices. Significant l9 79 Significance Pre-Determined Dimensions Level of Fisher Test Number of Superintendents in Comparison 7,.b.. Administrators recog- nize the value of providing support to teaching staff during the institution of a Non- curriculum practice. Significant 16 Administrators recog— nize the value of providing teaching staff members with the opportunity to experiment with new Non- curriculum practices. Significant 18 Administrators recog- nize the value of providing teaching staff members with released time for Non— curriculum change. Significant l5 lO. Administrators recog- nize the necessity for justifying the rejecé tion of teaching staffs' recommenda- tions for curriculum Non- improvement. Significant l4 ll. Administrators recog- nize the teaching ' staffs' commitment and readiness as a crucial factor when making curriculum Non- decisions. Significant l6 12. Administrators recog- nize the value of encouraging their teaching staffs not to fear mistakes when trying new curri— culum practices. .05 Level 17 80 Significance Pre-Determined Dimensions Level of Fisher Test Number of Superintendents in Comparison 13. Administrators recog- nize the value of creating a climate for change where the teaching staffs' de- sires are placed be— fore finances in curriculum decision- making. .025 Level 19 l4. Administrators recog— nize their role as facilitating teaching staff involvement in curriculum change rather than dominating it. .025 Level 18 15. Administrators recog- nize the value of a teaching staff commit- ted to individual student progress rather than achieve— ment of arbitrary subject matter stan- dards. .025 Level 16 The significance levels found with the bility Test indicate that superintendents Fisher Exact Proba- from innovative systems differ from those in non-innovative systems on seven of the fifteen dimensions. The data used in the Fisher Analysis is presented in percentage form in Table 22. These percentages indicate that the per cent of superintendents from innovative systems classified as high on the seven Sig- nificantly different dimensions are in the predicted direction. 81 TABLE 22.--Percentage of superintendents classified as high and low on the seven significant dimensions in Table 21. Dimensions Categorization Superintendent Categories Non Innovative Innovative 2. Recognition of teaching staffs' a- bility to contribute to curricu— lum improve- ment. High Low Recognition of teaching staffs' sin- cerity to improve the curriculum. High Low 53.3% 6.6% 6.6% 33.5% Recognition of teaching staffs' lea— dership ability in curriculum improvement. High Low 35.3% 11.8% 11.8% 41.1% 12. Recognition of need to encourage teaching staff not to fear mistakes when institu- ting new practices. High Low 41.1% 11.8% 11.8% 35.3% l3. Recognition of teaching staffs' de- sires over finances in curriculum decision- making. High Low 47.4% 5.2% 15.8% 31.6% 82 Dimensions Categorization Superintendent Categories Innovative Non Innovative 14. Recognition of admini— strators' High role as facilitating change ra- Low ther than dominating it. 38.9% 11.1% 15. Recognition of the value of a teaching High staff interest- ed in student progress ra- ther than Low arbitrary subject mat- ter standards. 50.0% 17 7% 32.3% Exploration of Relationships This section of the chapter will explore the results of the data analysis in the same order as the null hypotheses were examined. The purpose of this section will be to: (l) isolate those relationships that best differentiate between administrators from innovative and non-innovative school systems, (2) relate the present findings to those described in the literature, and (3) indicate those areas in the pre- sent study which seem most appropriate for future research into the behavior of innovative educational administrators. Interpretation of Survey Instrument Data The research hypothesis predicting that a greater propor- tion of administrators from innovative systems have earned 83 more semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than those from non-innovative systems was rejected by the data collected. The data indicated that the proportion of administrators earning semester hours above the mean of the sample was no different for those from innovative or non-innovative systems. Furthermore, when the upper and lower thirds of the administrators were compared, it was obvious that those in the upper third in terms of semester hours earned beyond the bachelor's degree appeared to be equally distributed between innovative and non-innovative school systems. This finding may be viewed from several perspectives. First, the sample Size was relatively small. Although all the administrators in the twenty systems selected did form an adequate sample, the restrictions of: (1) at least three years service in their present positions and (2) that they be a full time principal or superintendent did limit the sample of administrators to one hundred sixteen of which one hundred nine responded. Secondly, an examination of the numé ber of semester hours earned beyond the bachelor's degree for both innovative and non—innovative administrators was quite Similar. The same was true when the sub-groups of superintendents, secondary principals, and elementary princi- pals from the innovative and non-innovative systems were compared. Table 23 summarizes the mean number of semester hours earned for each of the above groups. 84 TABLE 23.--Mean number of semester hours earned by admini- strators from innovative and non-innovative systems on the basis of total and sub-group comparison Administrator Innovative Non-Innovative Categories Means Means Total Administrator 40.6 39.5 Sample (N = 51) (N = 58) v 55.6 52.5 Superintendents (N = 9) (N = 10) Secondary 44.4 42.6 Principals (N = 14) (N = 21) Elementary 33.6 31.0 Principals (N = 28) (N = 27) The Similarity between the hours earned beyond the bachelor‘s degree for the total and sub-groups from the innovative and non-innovative systems can be explained by the requirements of most school districts which require that administrators have at least a master's degree or equivalent therof. The data in this study does not support the generalizations found in the educational change literature that innovative admini- strators have more formal education than those categorized as non-innovative. This can be attributed to the fact that these generalizations are based upon the research findings in other disciplines such as rural sociology, business, an- thropology, etc. where generally educational attainment separates innovative and non-innovative groups. In educa— tional administration more formal education, usually a 85 master's degree or its equivalent, is prerequisite for employ- ment. Thus, the differences in formal education between administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems is not significantly different. Since the results fail to reject the first null hypothesis of no difference in the formal education of administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems, no statement is made about the association between the innova— tiveness of school systems and the formal education of the administrators. Additional research is needed to determine if the hours earned beyond the bachelor‘s degree by admini— strators from innovative and non—innovative systems differ in areas of specialization. The second research hypothesis which predicted that a greater proportion of administrators from innovative systems would indicate more organizational involvement than those in non-innovative systems was not supported by the data collected. The proportion of administrators from the total sample indica- ting high organizational involvement was distributed equally among the innovative and non-innovative systems. Furthermore, when the upper and lower thirds of the sample were compared, it was evident that administrators with high organizational involvement were equally divided between the innovative and non—innovative systems. This result can be viewed in several ways. First, school administrators usually belong to many professional organizations and as a result of their positions as the 86 community's educational leaders they also get involved in many community organizations. This is substantiated by the mean number of organizational memberships and leadership positions held by administrators as indicated in Table 24. TABLE 24.-—Mean number of memberships and leadership positions held by administrators as a group and in major sub-groups. Total Mean Superintendent Secondary Involvement Involvement Principal ._.__. Elementary Principal Involvement Involvement Non—1* I** Non—I I Non—I I Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Non—I I Mean Mean Professional Workshop & Conferences Attended 7.6 7.6 8.0 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.5 8.0 Leadership in Confer— ences 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.2 2.7 Community 0r- ganizational Leadership Positions Held 1.3 1.3 2.5 1.0 1.2 1.5 Community 0r- ganizational Memberships 2.3 2.1 3.1 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.3 Professional Organization Memberships 4.3 4.4 4.3 5.1 4.2 3.9 * Non-Innovative Mean **Innovative Mean 87 Total Mean Superintendent Secondary Elementary Involvement Involvement Principal Principal Involvement Involvement Non-1* I** Non-I I Non-I I Non-I I Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Profession- al Organiza- tion Leader- ship Positions Held .9 l.2 .8 1.4 1.0 1.0 .9 1.2 Total Membership and Leader— ship Posi- tions Held 9.0 9.2 10.7 9.2 8.9 8.7 8.6 9.5 An examination of the data in Table 24 indicates that the mean number of organizational involvements differs little between administraters from innovative or non-innovative systems. This data indicates that the generalizations in the litera- ture concerning the greater organizational involvement of educational innovators is not supported in the present study. This stems from the fact that most of the generalizations concerning the organizational involvement of educators is based upon research in rural sociology and business rather than education. Educators are involved normally in a number of professional as well as community organizations indicating that organizational involvement does not adequately differen- tiate between administrators from innovative and non-innova— tive systems. Since the second research hypothesis was not supported by the data, this study does not make any statement * Non-Innovative Mean **Innovative Mean 88 concerning the relationship between school system innovation and the amount of administrator organizational involvement. The third research hypothesis which predicted that a greater proportion of administrators from innovative sys- tems rely upon more information sources than those from non- innovative systems was supported by the data collected. The proportion of administrators using many sources of informa- tion was centered in innovative school systems rather than being divided equally between innovative and non-innovative systems. Should the innovativeness of school systems be associated with the number of information sources used as the above results indicate, then administrators who want their systems to be on the growing edge of educational change, must constantly maintain contact with a wide variety of educational information sources. If this finding is viewed as a basis for future research, it indicates that Specific information sources must be investigated to determine at what phase of the curri— culum change process awareness, investigation, or decision- making, each source contributes the most. The fourth hypothesis which predicted that a higher proportion of administrators in innovative systems have more years experience as educators than those in non-innovative systems was not supported by the data for the total sample. However, when administrators from the upper and lower thirds of the sample were categorized as innovative and non-innova— tive administrators, it was found that a greater proportion 89 of administrators with many years of experience was found in innovative systems rather than non-innovative systems. This finding has several implications. If the re- lationship between the innovativeness of the local school systems and the experience as educators of its administrators is viewed as conclusive, then school systems which want to remain on the growing edge of change Should hire administra— tors with many years of experience. In addition, the results indicated that even though the length of service spent as administrators in the local school system is not associated with innovativeness, the total years of experience as admini- strators is associated with the innovativeness of the local school system. This may mean that local school systems who want to implement more curriculum changes Should employ administrators with many years' administrative experience. Should the results be viewed as a tentative basis for further research, then future studies should investigate how administrators with many years' experience differ from those with few years' experience on crucial dimensions thought to be associated with curriculum change. The fifth research hypothesis which predicted that a greater proportion of administrators from innovative school systems read more professional journals than those from non- innovative systems was not supported by the data. This result does not support the generalizations found in educational change literature that innovators read more professional jour- nals than non-innovators. However, one Should remember that 90 the generalizations concerning eduCational innovators are based on research in fields other than education where those who first adopt new practices utilize the information from journals more. Further research is needed to determine which professional journals are useful to the curriculum change pro- cess and at which stage of the change process these journals have their greatest impact on school administrators. Since the present findings do not support the fifth research hypothesis, no statement describing the relationship between school system innovativeness and the professional reading habits of their school administrators can be made. Interpretation of Non-Structured Interview Data The sixth research hypothesis which predicted that a greater proportion of superintendents from innovative sys- tems used wider teaching staff involvement during curriculum change process than those in non-innovative systems was supported by the data. This result may be interpreted in several ways. If this finding is accepted as conclusive, meaning that a relationship exists between school system inno— vativeness and the degree administrators involve the teaching staff in curriculum change, then the teaching staff must be meaningfully involved if curriculum change is desired. The data indicates that the teaching staff must not only be involved in proposed curriculum change, but also must be the source of many of the new curriculum practices. In addi- tion, the teaching staff must play a Significant role in de— ciding whether or not to implement or reject proposed changes. These statements are supported by selected comments from the 91 non-structured interviews. Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems regarding teaching staff involvement in the curriculum change process: ”We feel that if the ideas come from the grass roots, then change will be accomplished quicker." "I feel that one of the basic reasons we have seen some real progress is that our teachers have started many of our programs and have carried them all the way through." "In all our experimental programs the initial in— terest can obviously be traced to a group of interested teachers." ”We have always started with the teacher, a successful program is started by the teacher." Selected comments from superintendents in non-innovative systems regarding teaching staff involvement in the curricu— lum change process: ”The teaching staff isn't as productive of ideas as it could be." "You have to prod and you have to do the initial leadership." "I think the administrators have been the most helpful in developing this awareness.” "I think that the administrators have usually jumped in and gotten the study rolling." "Our administrators usually throw out ideas like, 'This year we are going to study mathematics and next year we are going to study English.'” Should this finding be viewed as the basis for future research, these studies should replicate the present investigation with larger samples. In addition, future re- search in this area should be designed so that the superin- tendents' views on teacher involvement in curriculum change is compared with those of the principals and teachers within 92 the system to determine the reliability of the superintendents' perceptions. The seventh research hypothesis which predicted that a greater proportion of superintendents from innovative systems recognize the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs than those in non-innovative systems was supported by the data analysis. This finding can be interpreted from many perspectives. If the result is accepted as conclusive, it implies that there is an association between the innovative— ness of a school system and the degree to which the administra— tors recognize the worth and dignity of the teaching staff. This implies that there are items which differentiate super- intendents from innovative and non—innovative systems in regard to their recognition of the worth and dignity of teaching staff members. The data analysis indicated that seven of the fifteen dimensions analyzed differentiated between administra— tors from innovative and non-innovative systems in regard to their treatment of the teaching staff during the curriculum change process. Following are selected comments from the non-structured interviews which support the statistical data. The number of comments quoted varies from one dimension to the next because only comments which were clearly related to the dimensions in question have been included. Dimension Two Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the teaching staffs' ability to make Significant contributions to curriculum change: 93 "When changing programs, staff readiness to move ahead is one of the first things I think of in evaluating proposed changes. If they are willing, I can usually find a way. "You can't buck a teaching staff, they must be for the program if you are going to change." "The ones to teach and carry out the program must be the ones to develop the program because those who are to put it into effect must have a stake in it." ”When we recommend new programs to the board, we bring on the teachers who are more capable of explaining the technical program than the administrators." "If the teachers aren't enthused about a new pro— gram, it‘s almost impossible for the administrator to effec- tively introduce the program.” Selected comments from superintendents in non—innovative systems regarding the teaching staffs' ability to make Significant contributions to curriculum change: "The administrators only have the time to investi- gate new approaches.‘l "It's not that our teachers aren't willing, it's that they don't know about the new practices." "As you know, the older teachers on any staff are less susceptible to change than the younger ones.” "It's hard to involve teachers in curriculum change; they aren't committed.” Dimension Three Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the teaching staffs' sincerity to improve the curriculum: ”Our curriculum committees last year were so enthusiastic about the new programs being developed for the high school that they often met on Saturdays and Sundays." "We rely on the teachers' recommendations. We feésl they are based on thought and study and go quite a way tOanrd implementing it." 94 "When teachers are given leadership positions, they do things to themselves, which if I had done them, they would hit the ceiling, such as; for example, meeting evenings, summers, etc.” "The reason why we have gone into so many new programs is the enthusiasm of the teachers." Selected comments from superintendents in non-innovative systems regarding the sincerity of the teaching staff to improve the curriculum: ”I feel that the staffs' knowledge of the lack of monies will dull their enthusiasm to work." "I think the reason many teachers resist change is that as they get older, they get tired and aren't enthused about new things.” ”We‘ve been involving teachers as best we can, but they are a little reluctant to participate in curriculum change. They want change in curriculum, but are a little re- luctant to say what they really want.” "When you take the number of married women who are competent teachers and keeping up a home as well as a full day's work in school, you find that there is a limit in how much you can push them into attending meetings after school." Dimension Six Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the worth of involving the teaching staff in leadership positions during curriculum change: "Leadership for curriculum improvement in our system often times comes from a key teacher rather than a Ibrincipal." ”Since the teachers requested the in-service days, 1N8 felt it essential to use this emerging leadership. They tuive their own steering committee, leadership, recorders, etc.” "We definitely feel that it is important that teachers assume leadership positions in our curriculum studies. The staff feels it is no edict and their own product." 95 "In any study group you have to have leadership. If you have a good teacher she can do the job just as well as the administrators. In fact, leadership has come most often in our system from the teachers in the new programs." Selected comments from superintendents in non—innovative systems regarding the involvement of the teaching staff in leadership positions during curriculum change. ”Our elementary coordinator selects all the ele- mentary curriculum committees and serves as chairman of each.” ”Our curriculum study groups are organized under the local school principals or secondary school department heads and all recommendations are passed up the chain of command to the superintendent." ”I think that the principals Should take chairman- ShipS because they are a little better trained." ”You have to prod and you have to do the initial leadership.” Dimension Twelve Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the worth of encouraging teaching staff members not to fear failure when implementing new curriculum practices. "We provide a climate where the program is not rigidly defined and this has helped get our teachers experi- menting with new approaches." ”If I'm not sold on a point and feel that the recommendation may fail, I still feel that it is worth ex— perimenting with." ‘ "I like to create the atmosphere that you can't be successful 100% of the time. I make mistakes, and I recognize that my staff will if they are trying to improve.” "We feel that if teachers come up with ideas and are willing to try them out, they should be encouraged.” "I don't care how ridiculous the idea might be. We encourage teachers to experiment with it and evaluate the experience.” 96 "If you don't let the teachers try what's on their minds, you're going to have a bunch of puppets." Selected comments from superintendents in non-innovative sys— tems regarding the worth of encouraging teaching staff members not to fear failure when implementing new curriculum practices: "We cannot afford to experiment with kids. Experi- menting implies you win sometimes and lose sometimes and with kids you can't lose.” "We feel that the administration has to give direc- tion and that the staff looks to us for direction.” ”We have never been a leader in curriculum change; perhaps we should but we have a conservative community." ”We have a kind of older faculty and they are kind of set in their ways." Dimension Thirteen Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the value of giving the teaching staffs' feelings and desires priority in curriculum decision-making: ”I think a directive from the administrative council would have an impact on the teaching, a very detrimental effect. You can get further if the teachers are given a Significant part in the total planning, evaluation, and decision—making." "The wise administrator will let the teacher honestly feel that she has had quite a part in bringing about the change." "We believe that wide staff participation in the total change process is necessary if you are going to have true change." "If the change is to be more than on paper only, wide staff participation is necessary." "If the teachers are committed and have placed a lot of effort into a recommendation, we go as far as our budget allows to implement it." Selected comments from superintendents in non-innovative sys- tems regarding the value of giving the teaching staffs' feelings and desires priority in curriculum decision-making: 97 "Our principals approach a change by stating we are going to try this, this year. Don't you think it's a good idea?” "That's the best kind of salesmanship you can use." "Our elementary coordinator brings his ideas to the study group members because he does a lot of reading and knows most of the materials available in the area." "In our system the assistant superintendent gives much guidance to the topic studied at each grade level. Probably much more than I'm led to believe, but he advises me that it came from the teachers." ”We feel that the administrators have to give direction and that the staff looks to us for direction.” Dimension Fourteen Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing their role as facilitating teaching staff involve— ment in curriculum change rather than dominating it: "It's the cooperative working together which makes all programs more successful." ”I don't look at it as a personal gain if we have something successful. I would rather give the teacher the credit and have a successful staff. Then it will look like I have done a successful job." ”I try to create the idea that I am one of the staff at their level rather than up on the throne above them.” ”We try to create an atmosphere where the teachers feel that anything in the instructional program can be had." Selected comments from superintendents in non—innovative sys— tems regarding their role as facilitating teaching staff involvement in curriculum change rather than dominating it.* "We have this agreement with all study groups. They are advisory only and we control. We tell them you win some and lose some." *The writer found it difficult to quote specific statements, word for word, from the non-innovative superintendents in regard to dimensions fourteen and fifteen. A composite of many instances throughout the interviews indicated that the superintendents from non—innovative systems felt the same way as the quoted comments on these two dimensions. 98 Dimension Fifteen Selected comments from superintendents in innovative systems recognizing the value of a teaching staff committed to indi- vidual student progress rather than achievement of arbitrary subject matter standards: ”Interest in kids is the most important factor in hiring teachers." ”I look for teachers who can work effectively with students. I'm not as concerned about the content of the biology class, but I'm interested in the teacher who can make biology interesting.” 7 "What is going to help pupils or people must be the orientation of teachers." ”I despise the teacher who is subject matter oriented. I feel that if we could take six months and talk about how people could get along better, we would be better off." ”One of the most important things I look for is the ability to work with people. To get along with people and understand them. This is one of the most critical areas.” Selected comments from superintendents in non-innovative sys— tems regarding the value of a teaching staff committed to individual student progress rather than achievement of arbi- trary subject matter standards:* "We want people who have a good academic training. This is most important.” "I look for specialists in their areas.” *The writer found it difficult to quote specific statements, word for word, from the non—innovative superintendents in regard to dimensions fourteen and fifteen. A composite of many instances throughout the interviews indicated that the superintendents from non-innovative systems felt the same way as the quoted comments on these two dimensions. 99 Summary This chapter analyzed the data collected by the survey instrument and the non-structured interviews. The analysis of the seven hypotheses indicated that administrators 'in innovative systems differed from those in non-innovative systems in the following manner: (1) a greater number of information sources are relied upon for new curriculum prac- tices, (2) more years of school administration experience, (3) more years of total professional educational experience, (4) a greater involvement of their teaching staffs in curri- culum change, and (5) a greater recognition of the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter.summarizes the study from its incep- tion through the interpretation of the data. A number of specific recommendations for possible actions and future study will be presented. Summary The Problem This study was designed to collect empirical evidence concerning the association between Selected school administrative behaviors and the adoption of new educational practices by their school systems. This study was based upon the behavioral descrip— tions of innovative school administrators found in the edu— cational and general innovation literature. Of special concern in this investigation was evidence substantiating or rejecting the generalizations made concerning the behavior of school administrators found in previous innovation research. The Design This study was based upon the following assump- tions: 1. The educational cost factors of school systems, enrollment, operational millage allocated, state equalized evaluation, and expenditure perpupil do not have a direct relationship with the innovativeness of the local school systems as determined by the constructed innovation scale. lOO 101 2. The actions and behaviors of school administra- tors have a significant influence on the introduction of new curriculum practices into School systems. 3. Selected administrative behavioral dimensions are associated with the number of new educational practices introduced into local school systems. 4. Selected administrative behavioral dimensions associated with the introduction of new educational practices can be identified. 5. School administrators from innovative systems differ from school administrators in non-innovative systems on selected administrative behavioral dimensions. This study was concerned with analyzing administra- tors from selected school systems at the extreme ends of the distribution of innovative scores constructed from the ”1963 Five Years Survey of Progress in Michigan Schools" by John Childs in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Public Instruction. The school system. sample was chosen on the basis of these educational cost factors: school system Size, school system millage allocation, school system state equa- lized evaluation per pupil, and school system expenditure per pupil. The administrator sample selected from these school systems was further delimited by requiring that they have served at least three years in their present positions and that they be either the superintendent or full time elemen- tary or secondary principals. 102 The education and general innovation literature in- dicated a number of administrative behavioral dimensions which appeared associated with the adoption of new educational prac- tices. A review of the literature indicated a need for sub- stantiation of the association between the adoption of new educational practices and selected administration behavioral dimensions. The following seven general hypotheses were con- structed for statistical testing: H1 Administrators in innovative school systems will earn a greater number of semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree than will admini- strators in non-innovative school systems. Administrators in innovative school systems will indicate more organizational involvement than will administrators in non-innovative school systems. Administrators in innovative school systems will use a greater number of information sources than will administrators in non— innovative systems. Administrators in innovative school systems will have more years experience as educators than will administrators in non—innovative School systems. Administrators in innovative school systems will read more professional journals than will administrators in non-innovative school systems. 103 H6 Superintendents in innovative school systems will use wider teaching staff involvement when instituting curriculum changes than will superintendents in non-innovative school systems. H7 Superintendents in innovative school systems will recognize the worth and dignity of teach- ing staff members more when instituting curri- culum changes than will superintendents in non—innovative school systems. A survey instrument was developed to provide the data necessary for analyzing the first five hypotheses. The data for the remaining two hypotheses was collected by non— structured interviews. The statistical design used for testing the hypotheses consisted of chi-square test, Fisher Exact Probability Test, and selected responses collected through the non-structured interviews. The reliability of the survey instrument's re— sponses was checked by asking two randomly selected superin- tendents (without their knowledge) all the questions on the survey instrument during their non-structured interviews. These responses were compared to the written responses of the superintendents on the survey instrument. The two superin- tendents' responses indicate nearly 95% agreement. The reliability of the interview data classification system was determined by comparing the researcher's classification of the responses on a randomly selected interview transcript with 104 that of a college professor of Similar educational background and a public School administrator. Using the Fisher Exact Probability Test to compare the classifications of the wri— ter with each of the others resulted in no significant differ- ences being found between any of the three categorizations of the non-structured interview data. The present study is limited in the following ways: 1. The validity of the variable is directly re- lated to the survey instrument and non-structured interview schedule used to identify selected administrator behaviors. The quality of the data derived from the survey instrument and interviews is directly related to the skill, knowledge, and technique of the investigator in phrasing questions pre- cisely. The pilot administrations of the survey instrument and interview schedule along with constant revision during construction of both, however, should hold response error to a minimum. 2. The assistance provided by the Michigan Depart- ment of Public Instruction in collecting the data could affect the validity of the school administrators' responses on both the survey instrument and non-structured interviews if they should perceive this study as a form of State Education Department evaluation of their leadership in curriculum develop- ment. The letter of instructions accompanying each survey in- strument assured the administrators of the anonymity of their responses, and the superintendents involved in the non—struc- tured interviews were assured at the beginning of the inter- views that their responses would remain anonymous. 105 3. The analysis performed upon the data in this study is limited to testing the significance of different frequencies of school administrators categorized on the basis of a number of selected administrative behavioral dimen- sions and the degree of innovativeness of their school systems. The statistical analyses were performed on the total group of administrators and-upon selected sub-groups categorized accord- ing to their current employment positions. 4. In this study the administrator population is limited to all superintendents and full time principals who have served in these capacities for the previous three years. The twenty school systems participating in the study were not selected randomly and no attempt should be made to generalize the results of this investigation beyond the population of this study. 5. In this study four selected cost factors were considered in each school system including enrollment, opera- tional millage allocation, state equalized evaluation, and expenditure per pupil which are all combined as a single composite cost factor. This composite cost factor is not in- tended to be inclusive. 6. The results of this study should be interpreted as an indication of an association between the various admini- strative behavioral dimensions and the school systems' innova- tiveness, but not as a direct causal relationship between these variables. 106 Analysis of Survey Instrument Data The data analysis indicated that no statement can be made concerning the first null hypothesis. This hypothe- sis which predicted no difference in the number of semester hours earned beyond the bachelor's degree by administrators in innovative and non-innovative systems could not be re- jected at the alpha=.O5 level. The analysis found that the second null hypothesis which predicted no difference in the organizational involvement of the administrators from innova— tive and non-innovative systems also could not be rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. The third null hypothesis which predicted no difference in the use of information sources used, between administrators in innovative and non-innovative systems was rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. This finding was interpreted from many perspectives in the discussion section of Chapter V. Basically, it indicates that a larger proportion of admini- strators from innovative systems used many more sources of information for new curriculum practices than those from non- innovative systems. The fourth null hypothesis which predicted no difference in the number of years spent in education by ad— ministrators from innovative and non-innovative systems was rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. The analysis of the data also found that administrators from innovative and non-inno- vative systems differed significantly at the alpha=.O5 level in number of years of administrative experience. This finding 107 indicates that school administrators in innovative systems have more years experience as educators in general and school administrators in particular than those in non-innovative systems. The fifth null hypothesis which predicted no difference in the reading of professional journals by admini- strators from innovative and non-innovative systems was not rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. A number of interpretations concerning this result were presented in the discussion section of Chapter IV. Analysis of Non—Structured Interview Data Analysis of the non—structured interview data found that the Sixth null hypothesis, which predicted no difference in teaching staff involvement during curriculum change by the superintendents from innovative and non-inno- vative systems, can be rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. This finding indicates that a greater proportion of super— intendents from innovative systems used wider teaching staff involvement in curriculum change than those in non-innovative systems. The analysis also found that superintendents from innovative systems involved their teaching staff Significantly more during the awareness and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process than those in non-innovative systems. The seventh null hypothesis which predicted that the superintendents do not differ in their recognition of the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs, was rejected at the alpha=.O5 level. These results indicate that a greater proportion of superintendents from innovative systems recognize 108 the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs on several predetermined administrative behavioral dimensions than those from non-innovative systems. When the fifteen be- havioral dimensions were analyzed to determine which differentiated between superintendents from innovative and non—innovative systems at the alpha=.O5 level the following seven were found Significant: 1. Recognition of teaching staffs' ability to contribute to curriculum improvement. 2. Recognition of teaching staffs' sincerity to improve the curriculum. 3. Recognition of teaching staffs' leadership ability in curriculum improvement. 4. Recognition of the need to encourage their teaching staff not to fear failure when instituting new educational practices. 5. Recognition of the importance of teaching staffs' desires rather than finances in curriculum decision- making. 6. Recognition of administrators' role as facili- tating curriculum change rather than dominating it. 7. Recognition of the importance of a teaching staff interested in student progress rather than one interes— ted in achievement of arbitrary subject matter standards. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to test selected generalizations concerning the behaviors of school administrators 109 found in the general and educational innovation liter- ature. These generalizations describing school administrators have usually been based upon research in areas other than education. The data collected and analyzed in the present study suggests that the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. School administrators from innovative and non- innovative systems complete a similar number of semester hours beyond the bachelor's degree. This indicates that the ”educa— tional preparation dimension” does not differentiate between administrators from innovative and non-innovative systems. This conclusion is contrary to the generalizations found in educational and general innovation literature concerning the greater formal educational preparation of administrators from innovative systems. 2. School administrators from innovative and non— innovative systems have Similar patterns of professional and community organizational involvements. This conclusion is contrary to the generalizations found in educational and general innovation literature concerning the greater organi— zational involvement of administrators from innovative systems when compared with those in non-innovative systems. 3. School administrators from innovative systems rely upon more information sources for new curriculum ideas than those in non-innovative Systems. This conclusion sub— stantiates the generalizations found in the general and educational literature concerning the actions of school admini- strators on this dimension. 110 4. School administrators from innovative systems were not found to rely more upon any particular source of information for new curriculum ideas than those from non- innovative systems. This conclusion is contrary to the generalizations found in educational and general innovation literature concerning the greater reliance of administrators from innovative systems upon more cosmopolitan sources of information. 5. School administrators from innovative systems have more years'experience as educators than those from non— innovative systems. 6. School administrators from innovative systems have more years experience as school administrators than those from non-innovative systems. 7. School administrators from innovative systems have served approximately the same length of time in their present administrative positions as those from non-innovative systems. This indicates that the crucial element associated with the innovativeness of a school system is not length of administrative service in present position but total admini— strative experience. 8. School administrators from innovative systems have spent the same number of years as classroom teachers as those in non-innovative systems. 9. School administrators in innovative systems read the same number of professional journals as those in non- innovative systems. This conclusion is contrary to the gener- alizations found in the general and educational innovation 111 literature concerning the wider reading habits of school ad— ministrators from innovative systems when compared with those from non-innovative systems. 10. School superintendents from innovative systems involve more of their teaching staffs in the curriculum change process than those from non—innovative systems. 11. Superintendents in innovative school systems involve their teaching staffs more in the awareness and de- cision-making phases of the curriculum change process than those in non—innovative systems. This indicates that super- intendents from innovative systems are more willing to Share responsibilities for change initiation and decision—making with their teaching staffs than those in non-innovative systems. 12. The data indicates that superintendents in innovative systems recognize the worth and dignity of their teaching staffs more when changing the curriculum than those in non-innovative systems. Specifically, the superintendents from innovative systems recognize: a. their teaching staffs'ability to contri— bute to curriculum improvement. b. their teaching staffs' sincerity to improve the curriculum. 0. their teaching staffs' leadership ability in curriculum improvement. d. the:need to encourage teaching staffs not to fear mistakes when instituting new curriculum practices. 112 e. the importance of their teaching staffs' desires rather than finances in curriculum decision-making. f. their administrative role as facilitating curriculum change rather than dominating it. g. the importance of a teaching staff interes- ted in student progress rather than one interested only in arbitrary subject matter standards. Recommendations The following recommendations are made for further research: 1. The present study be replicated with following changes in design: a. random selection of school systems. b. constructed innovativeness scores to be de- termined by present emerging curriculum changes rather than past changes. 0. in-depth analysis of administrative-teacher interactions during the change process. 2. The administrator perceptions of their treat- ment of the teaching staff Should be sustantiated for relia- bility by the teaching staffs' perception of the same situation. 3. The semester hours earned beyond the bachelor's degree Should be analyzed in depth to determine if course profile differences exist between administrators from innova- tive and non—innovative school systems. 113 4. The specific type of administrator involvement in professional and community organizations should be func- tionally defined prior to the analysis of differences between administrators from innovative and non—innovative systems. 5. The importance of Specific information sources should be determined for the awareness, investigation, and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process. 6. The importance of the selected professional journals should be determined for the awareness, investiga— tion, and decision-making phases of the curriculum change process. 7. The administrators' descriptions of teaching staff involvement at the awareness, investigation, decision- making phases should be substantiated for reliability by the teaching staffs' description of the same process. 8. The administrators' perception of their recog- nition of teaching staffs' worth and dignity should be substantiated by the teaching staffs' perception of admini- strator treatment on the same dimension. 9. The administrators from urban, small towns and rural K-l2 school systems Should be compared with non—innova- tive administrators from the same typed districts only rather than with each other (urban administrators with urban admini- strators only etc.). A P PEND IX 114 Exhibit 1 Recognition of Teaching Staffs' Worth and Dignity Dimension The degree that the superintendent recognizes and values: 1. The teaching staffs' ability to contribute to curriculum improvement. 2. The teaching staffs' sincerity in efforts to improve the curriculum. 3. The teaching staffs' desires and feelings when decisions concerning new curriculum practices are made. 4. The diversity inherent in the teaching staff. 5. The utilization of the teaching staff in lea- dership positions when improving the curriculum. 6. The provision of administrative support to the teaching staff during and after the curriculum change process. 7. The provision for interested teaching staff members to experiment with new curriculum practices. 8. Providing the teaching staff with released time to improve the curriculum. 9. Justifying the rejection of the teaching staffs' recommendations for curriculum improvement. 10. Teaching staffs' commitment and readiness when deciding to support or reject curriculum changes. 11. Encouraging the teaching staff to try new curri- culum practices without fear of failure. 12. Creating a climate for change where the teaching staffs' desires are placed before material questions in curri— culum decision—making. 13. Facilitation of the curriculum change process rather than dominating it. 14. Teaching staff commitment to the development of each child over the achievement of arbitrary subject matter standards. 15. The praising of the teaching staff for contri- butions to curriculum improvement. Exhibit 2 115 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY OF FIVE YEARS OF PROGRESS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN SECONDARY FORM THESE INSTEUCTIONS ARE To BE USED To COMPLETE Tms QUESTIONNAIRE FORM PART I Page 2. Simply check the appropriate column year (or years) when a change was made in or anization in your school as indicated by classifications (a) through (q). If there are any organization changes w '01) do not. appear on the list, add them to the list and check appropriate year (or years) in effect. Example—If Team Teaching was begun in 1960-61 and is still practiced then check (h) Team Teaching in col- umns 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63. Page 3. Complete Columns (A) through (I) to indicate details regarding organizational changes made. Example—If Team Teaching (h) was practiced in Science classes, see line (h) under first column (marked Part I, Page 2, Code NO.). For this, under Column A, write in “Science” alongside (h). Continue along the same line to indicate information called for with regard to Team Teachin (h) in Science under columns (B), C), (D), and (E). Under (F) and (G), use code details on page 4 and in 'cate code number in each column. omplete columns (H) and (1) according to your judgment. Page 4. Items (3) and (4), Self-explanatory; PART II Page 5. Simply check the appropriate column year (or years) when a curriculum Change was made in your school as identified by classifications (a) through (i). If there were any curriculum changes which do not appear on the list, add them to the list and check appropriate year (or years) in effect. Page 6. Complete Columns (B) through (J) to indicate details regarding curriculum changes made. Example—If Foreign Languages was checked on page 5, check and indicate number if special personnel were hired, column (B) and complete columns (C), (D) and (E). Under (F) and (G), use code details on page 7 and indicate code number in each column. Complete columns (H), (I) and (J) according to your judgment. Page 7. Items (3) and (4), Self-explanatory. PART III Page 8. A project which is more research oriented than those identified on previous pages ma have been completed or is in process in your school. Indicate here the title of the project, its nature (briefl )and t e name of the individual(s) actually involved in the planning or implementation. While the Superintendent or Princi a] ma have overall responsibility for the project, what is wanted here is the person(s) actually responsible or con ucting the re- search. Please supply other data requested. , ‘ l— Exhibit 2 I 116 flame of School . . Grade Range. """E'nroument , Person Completing Report L ' A sunvzv or FIVE runs or mosses: In some EDUCATION IN mcmam SECONDARY FORM Part I—SECONDARY ORGANIZATION I. Have there been any notable organization changes in the secondary school program in your building since the 1957-58 school year? Yes. ”””””” No ........... Note: Here we are concerned primarily with changes which have all‘ected the organizational structure of the secondary program. Listed below are examples of changes which you may have introduced: (Check year for which changes were made. If new practice was dropped, indicate by circling check for that year.) In Process 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63 Or Earlier a. Departmentalization — - - I b. Core or Block Time - - - l' c. Ungraded Classrooms - d. Change from Semi-Annual to: Annual Promotion - - e. Extended School Year - - f. Longer School Day - .. -. g. Staggered Sessions - - - ....... h. Team Teaching - - i. Additional Stall' Specialist (counselor, foreign language teacher, etc.) - - . j. Educational TV Classes - - In. Advanced Placement - - - 1. Counseling and Guidance - - In. Special Education - n. Secondary Curriculum Study Committees- - - . .-................-..... O. Homogeneous Grouping - - - p. Programmed Instruction . - \ q. Others (Specify) . .... i r. A . l I a ~ + I I . 2 Q Q Exhibit 2 ll 7 8. Please complete the appropriate squares below for those Innovations checked on Page 2. These responses should be for the latest year checked. (Please note, the left column' Is coded to the innovations on Page 2.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) “1 lndIcate School from Code Check Indicate Judgment of the fy 1: Estimate Minutes Indicate Group those Eflwfivww 0‘ Fromm Irt I Where Ap mg ropriate, al Person- Actual N umber of Week from Code Most Innova- Igo 2, Indicate ubjec nel Were Number of Students for this the Respon- tions . Not Pro- Jode AreasS Such as for Grades volved Activity. Agency sible for which are Work- m Imba- English. Science. Etc. Involved Indicate Most causing to 131- Good Fair in: where Ap- Helpml‘ Con- cellent as con- . proprlate to egin' tinned Planned tinned a. r b. c. d. e. f. g. h. L Q l. k. n. I. ’I l. 1. lode details to complete Columns “F" and “G" listed on Page 6. O '6' . 3 . Exhibit 2 Code Detallsécolumn F 118 Agency which provided most consultative assistance to local school with special projects. - .P ace the appropriate number from'the list below in the appropriate squares on the previous page. (1) Department of Public Instruction : (2) State Curriculum Committee of the Department of Public Instruction (3) Colleges or Universities . (4) County Education Oflice (5) Other School Districts (6) Others (Specify) (7 ) (8) Bode Details—Column G individual or group most responsible for causing program changes. . Place the appropriate number from the list below in the appropriate squares on the previous page. 3' (1) School Board (2) Teachers (3) Pupils I (4) Community Group (5) Department of Public InstructiOn (6) North Central Regional Accrediting Association (7) Colleges and Universities _ (8) University of Michigan Bureau of School Services (Accreditation) (9) Superintendent ' (10) Principal (11) County Education Office (12) Others (Specify) (13) 3. Please send any reports. materials, studies or articles which would support your appraisal that the innovations have improved the secondary??? ‘ 1 program. Please indicate below what materials are being sent: . ‘ l ‘...i a. - ' d. 4. If you wish to describe in greater detail any secondary organization changes named herein. pleas do so on additional pages. __ . I" ‘- I .4 . g l \ t K . Exhibit 2 119 ~ Part Il—SECONDARY CURRICULAFI OFFERINGS ._.'..._.. , u a . s"' . t‘-. -~ ~ Since the school year 1957-58, many local school systems have worked to. up-date specific sections of their secondary school programs. Please specify below for the year or years involved, which of the following subject areas have been strengthened in your system: l._ Have there been any notable curriculum changes in the secondary school program in your building since the 1957-58 school year? ' Yes No _ Note: Here we are concerned primarily with changes which have affected the curriculum of the secondary program. Listed below are examples * of changes which you may have introduced: . r { 3,} (Check year for which changes were made. If new practice was drOpped, indicate by circling check for that year.) ’ ‘ In Process ‘ 1957.58 1958-89 ' 1959-60 1960.61 1961-62 1962-63 Or Earlier . a. Comparative Government __- b. Economic Education . - - c.English---.- d. Foreign Languages - - - e. Mathematics - . - - f. Physical Education g.Science- - - - - - h." Social Studies . - . - i. S cial Education ‘ ( Instructions) Have there been any notable curriculum changes in other areas“:l If so, indicate below. j. k. ...‘........................ .. A .... ...\. I- av”. v’g , Exhibit 2 2. Please complete the appropriate squares below for those innovations checked on Page 5. These responses should be for the latest year checked: (Please note the left column is coded to curricular oil'erings on Page 5.) i 120 (B) (0) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) Specify ‘School Indicate Check Indicate Judgment of the if Estimate utes ‘ Indicate from Code those Specify if Eflectiveness of Program In Special Actual Number of per Week from Code Group Most Innova- Program is e 5. Personnel Number of Students for this the Res nsible tions Accnunwran Not Pro- ds Were Grades Involved Activity. Agency for easing Which or for Work- w Iber Hired for Involved Indicate oat Program to are to be Snow 191- Good Fair ing Project where Ap- Helpml‘ Begin° Con- Lnsmrans cellent as con- pro is tinned Planned tinned 'r \ ode details to complete Columns “F" and “G" listed on Page '3. . O o - Code Details—Column F Exhibit 2 ' ' 121 Agencawhich provided most consultative assistance to local school with special projects.) P co the appropriate number from the list below in the appropriate squares on the previous page. (I) Department of Public Instruction (2) State Curriculum Committee of the Department of Public Instruction (3) Coileges or Universities (4) County Education Oflice (5) Other School Districts (6) Others (Specify) (7) ' (8) Code Deialls—Column G Individual or group most responsible for causing program changes. . Place the appropriate number from the list below in the appropriate squares on the previous page. (1) School Board ‘ (2) Teachers (3) Pupils (4) Community Group (5) Department of Public Instruction (6) Colleges or Universities ' (7) Superintendent (8) Principal (9) County Education Oflce (10) Other! (specify) . _ A - ' (11) 3. Please send any reports. materials. studies or articles which would support your appraisal that the innovations have improved the secondary program. Please indicate below what materials are being sent: 4. Ifyouwishtodescribeingreaterdetailanysecondarycurriculumchangesnamedherein.pleasedosoonadditionalpages. .1. \ e Exhibit 2 . 122 Table Ill—SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ACTIVITIES Name and position of person filling out this report Name of school building and school system Range of grades covered by this report 1. Please list below any educational research or studies conducted in your school since the 1960-61 school year. Be as specific as possible. e.g. “A studyof the effect of television instruction on the achievement of pupils in U. S. Histo ." Include any com Ieted reports or demonstration Kroner. materials that you have available. Mention grade level and number of students Involved. Please list are even though activity may ve been referred to in Parts I or II of this questionnaire. Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study Grades Involved ...... ............ Number of students involved ................... Completed ........................In progress ...... ~. .......... Written report available b. ........ Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study Grades Involved ................... Number of students involved .. ....................Completed ..-........_............In progress .................-......Written report available 2. Please list below any educational research or studies in procem or contemplated in your school during the 1962-63 school year. Please mention grade level and number of students involved. . Name of educational research or study Date Study Began ...... Name of person in your school conducting study Grade Students b. ' -' ... Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study Grade Students 3. Please name the stafl‘ member in your school you feel most competent and most interested in educational research, innovatiOns or studies. Name _ . Title USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY Please include any completed research or study reports that are available. Exhibit 2 123 INSTRUCTIONS FOR 'COMPLETING THIS SURVEY OF FIVE YEARS OF PROGRESS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN . El: may The): FORM THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE To BE USED To COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FORM PART I Page 2. Simply check the appropriate column year (or years) when a change was made in orglanization in your school as indicated by claSSIfications (a) through (q). If there are any organization changes w 'ch do not appear on the list, add them to the list and check appropriate year (or years) in effect. Example—If Team Teaching was begun in 1960-61 and is still practiced then check (h)'Team Teaching in col- umns 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63. Page 3. Complete Columns (A) through (I) to indicate details regarding organizational changes made. Example—If Team Teaching (h) was racticed in Science classes, see line (h) under first column (marked Part I, Page 2, Code NO.). For this, under olumn A, write in “Science" alongside (h). Continue along the same line . to indicate information called for with regard to Team Teachin (h) in Science under columns (B), (C), (D), and (E). Under (F) and (G), use code details on page 4 and in 'cate code number in each column. Complete columns (H) and (1) according to your judgment. . Page 4. Items (3) and (4), Self-explanatory. PART II Page 5. Simply check the appropriate column year (or years) when a curriculum change was made in your ,school as identified by classifications (a) through (i). If there were any curriculum changes which do not appear on the list, add them to the list and check appropriate year (or years) in effect. Page 6. Complete Columns (B) through (J) to indicate details regarding curriculum changes made. Example—If Foreign Languages was checked on page 5, check and indicate number if special personnel were hired, column (B) and complete columns (C), (D) and (E). Under (F) and (G), use code details on page 7 and indicate code number in each column. Complete columns (H), (I) and (J) according to your judgment. Page 7. Items (3) and (4), Self-explanatory. PART III Page 8. A project which is more research oriented than those identified on previous pages ma have been completed or is . in process in your school. Indicate here the title of the pro'ect, its nature (briefly) and t e name of the individual (3) actually involved in the planning or implementation. Vilhil e the Superintendent or Princi al may have overall responsibility for the project, what is wanted here is the person(s) actually responsible or conducting the re- search. Please supply other data requested. .1. l— . i 7 Exhibit 2 124 Name of School ' 1 Grade Range "“"inronment ' Person Completing Report l_ A __l A SURVEY OF FIVE YEARS . OF PROGRESS IN PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY FORM Part I—ELEMENTARY ORGANIZATION 1. Have there been any notable organization changes in the elementary school program in your building since the 1957-58 school year? Yes No . Note: Here we are concerned marfly with changes which have affected the organizational structure of the elementary school program. Listed below are exampes f changes which you may have introduced: (Check year for which changes were made. If new practice was dropped, indicate by circling check for that year.) . I In Process 1957-58 1953-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 I 1962-63 Or Earlier I a. Departmentalization - - - i b. Self—contained Classrooms - : c. Ungraded Classrooms . - I d. Change from Semi-Annual to: I Annual Promotion - - i 0. Extended School Year - - I l f. Longer School Day - - - I g. Staggered Sessions - - - ....... i h. Team Teaching - - i. Additional Staff Specialist I (counselor. foreign language I teach Ir, etc.) - | j. Educational TV Classes - - i k. Accelerated Classes - - - ..... I Counseling and Guidance - - : ~ In. S ecial Education - l n. E ementary Curriculum Study: Committees - - ....................... o. Homogeneous Grouping - - _ p. Programmed Instruction - - l q. Others (Specify) - ’ - I r. ‘ . O s. I 'I .,\ 2. Please complete the appropriate squares below for those innovations checked on Page 2. These responses should be for the latest year checked. Exhibit 2 125 (Please note the left column Is coded to the innovations on Page 2.) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) School . (3,3100%, Chg“ Indicate Judgment or the 933W Estimate _ Minutes Indicate Group those E390“"°“°‘° 0‘ Program t I ete,Appr0pI-ia S alPerson- Actual Number of per Week from Code Most Innova- e 2. Indigo“! Subject nelW Number of Students for this the Respon- tions Not Pro- ds Areas Such as Hired for Grades Involved Activity. Agency sible for which are Work- 861:: etc English. Science. Etc. Involved ndicefie H5103! . Pct: tooo be “Iii:- ‘ Good Fair ing con ~ w are am n- en . as - proprlatl: p w Byegin° tinned Planned tinned ». l. L I. ll. lode details to complete Columns "1"” and "G" listed on Page 4. ' I . 3 . ' Code Details—Column F Exhibit 2‘ .126." Agengwhich provided most consultative assistance to local school with special projects. the appropriate number from the list below In the appropriate squares on the previous page. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Code Details—Column G f Department of Public Instruction . State Curriculum Commitwe of the Department of Public Instruction Colleges or Universities , . ' County Education Office Other School Districts . Others (Specify) I Individual or group most responsible for causing programc c.hanges ‘ Place the appropriate number from the list below In the appropriate squares on the previous page. (1) (2) (3) I ‘ (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) School Board Teachers Pupils Community Group Department of Public Instruction Colleges and Universities ' Superintendent Principal County Education Office Others (Specify) 3. Please send any reports. materials. studies or articles which would support your appraisal that the innovations have Improved the elementary program. Please indicate below what materials are being sent: 4. If you wish to describein greater detail any elementary organization changes named herein. please do so on additional pages. - m‘m ' p . \ s Exhibit 2 127 Part ll—ELEMENTARY CURRICULAR OFFERINGS Since the school year 1957-58. man local school systems hate worked to up-date specific sections of their elementary school programs. Please epecifiy below for the year or years involved, which of the following subject areas have been strengthened in your school. 1. Have there been any notable curriculum changes in the elementary school program in your building since the 1957-58 school year? Yes.... ...... No..-........... . Note: Here we. are concerned primarily with changes which have affected the curriculum of the elementary school program. Listed below are examples of changes which you may have introduced: (Check year for which changes were made. If new practice was dropped, indicate by circling check for that year.) ‘ In Process 1957.53 1951339 1959-60 1960.61 ' 1961-62 1962-63 Or Earlier . ' ‘- Arithmetio - - I c - l b. Comparative Government c. Economic Education - - - d. Foreign Languages - - - e. Other Language Arts f. Physical Education - - - g. Reading - - - - - h. Science - - - - - - i. Social Studies - - - - j. Special Education (Specify Type) swam; - - - - - Have there been any notable curriculum changes in other areas? If so, indicate below. 1. (B) Exh i b i t 2 ' 2. Please complete the appropriate squares below for those innovations checked on Page 5. These responses should befor the latest year checked: (Please note the left column is coded to curricular oil'erings on Page 5.) 128 (C) (D) (E) (F) . . (G) (H) (I) (J) Specify School Indicate Check Indicate Judgment of the it Estimate Minutes Indicate from Code those Specify if Effectiveness of Program rt II Special Actual Number of per Week from Code Group Most Innova- Program is % go 5. Personnel Number of Students for this the Res nsible tions Accnnnm-rnn Not Pro- 'ode Were Grades Involved Activity Agency for easing Which or for Work- , w unber Hired for Involved Indicate Most Program to are to be Snow Ex— Good Fair ing Project where Ap- Helpml‘ Begin‘ Con- Llamas. cellent as con- propriate _ tinned Planned tinned a. b. c. d. i i e. f. 8. h. l. is II. I. I. n. .. Bode details to complete Columns "F" and “G" listed On Page 7. . o .L ‘ cede Details—Column F Exhibit 2 129 will“: {SgiiadfiTuEfi‘i’iifimhfiiimfififffl “fl‘é’gpfiis'mi'upfim a. previous page. (1) Department of Public Instruction (2) State Curriculum Committee of the Department of Public Instruction (3) Colleges or Universities (4) County Education Ofice ' 1(5) Other School Districts (6) Others (Specify) (7) (8) Code Details—Column 0 Individual or group most responsible for causing program changes. ' ' i . Place the appropriate number from the list below“ In the appropriate squares on the previous page (1) School Board (2) Teachers (3) Pupil- ‘ “ (4) Community Group (5) Department of Public Instruction (6) Colleges or Universities (7) Superintendent (8) Principal (9) County Education Ofice (10) Others (Specify) (ll) 3. Please send any reports, materials. studies or articles which would support your appraisal that the innovations have improved the elementary program. Please indicate below what materials are being sent: I. 4. If you wish to describe in greater detail any elementary curriculum changes named herein. please do so on additional pages. .7- \ ' ‘ O Exhibit 2 ‘ 130 Part III—ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL IIESEABOI'I ACTIVITIES Name and position of person filling out this report Nam onohoonbumnuua sehoelamm " " - . mm om‘dmomedbymmwn- 1. Please list below any educational research or studies conducted in your school since the 1960-61 school year. Be as specific as possible, e.g. “A study of the effect of television instruction on the achievement of pupils in U. S. Histo Include any comnleted reports or demonstration project materials that you have available. Mention grade level and number of studentslmvolved. Please list ere even though activity may ave been referred to in Parts I or II of this questionnaire. a. i ' Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study . Grades Involved ..................... Number of students involved ...............-....-..-Completed ............_.........-In progress ..---........-.,.._...Written report available b. ‘ ....... Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study , Grades Involved ......... ,............Number of students involved ....................Completed ........................In progress .......«...............Written report available 2. Please list below any educational research or studies in procem or contemplated in your school during the 1962-63 school year. Please mention grade level and number of students invonved. a. Name of educational research or study Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study Grade Students b. ...... Name of educational research or study ‘ Date Study Began Name of person in your school conducting study Grade Students 3. Please name the stat! member in your school you feel most competent and most interested in educational research, innOvations or studies. Name Title USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY Please include any completed researcher study reports that are available. 131 Exhibit 3 Correlations Between Cost Factors and Innovation Scoresl P/C 2 Oper.3 Op. Sevu/Res. Membership Exp. Millage Innovation Sev./Res. 1,000 .089 .65 —.09 —.11 Membership 1.000 .16 -.lO -.10 P/C Oper. Expense 1.00 —.4M -.21 Millage 1.00 -.14 Innovation 1.00 lChilds, "A Study of the Belief Systems of Administra- tors and Teachers in Innovative and Non—Innovative School Districts," p. 60. 2 State Equalized Evaluation Per Resident Pupil 3Current Expenditure Per Pupil 132 Exhibit 4 Comparison of Sample Systems on Selected Cost Factors and Constructed Innovative Score Constructed Innovative P/C2 Score Sew/Res.l Membership Exp. Innovative System‘s Average 32.1 14,987.2 3,219.8 $409.9 Non-Innovative Systemls Average 8.8 l3,432.5 3,467.8 $354.0 lState Equalized Evaluation Per Resident Pupil. 2Current Expenditure Per Pupil STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION . . . THOMAS J. BRENNAN Lansing, Michigan 48902 ,mum LEON FILL. MD. 'I 33 Vice President EDWIN L. NOVAK. o.D. Secretary ALEXANDER l. KLOSTER C1IAR;:::3RTON Acting Superintendent 0/ Public Instruction Exhibit 5 CARMEN L. DELLIQUADaI July 30 , .1965 MARILYN JEAN KELLY PETER OPPEWALL MI’ . DONALD M. D. THURBER Superintendent of Schools Gamm“mmm““m”' Ex-Olllclo Name of District Street Address City, State Dear Mr. The department of Education is cooperating with Mr. Allen Klingenberg, Assistant Professor of Education, Western Michigan University, in a study which is presently entitled, ”Behavioral Differences Involved in the Process of Change in Michigan Schools." This study will be based on information the Department of Education gathered for its study of Five Years of Change in Michigan Public Schools published in 1964. From the data collected in the original survey, Mr. Klingenberg has selected your school for further study. He will be contacting you personally within the next few days to discuss the matter further with you and to answer any questions you might have. The names of all school districts contacted and persons interviewed will remain confidential. It would be helpful to Mr. Klingenberg if you would supply him with a list of principals who have served in your school system for three or more years. Please send this information to: Mr. Allen Klingenberg 50 West 21 Street Holland, Michigan Your cooperation in this study will be very much appreci- ated. Sincerely yours, Alexander J. Kloster Acting Superintendent 134 Exhibit 6 'M. .ATW“) M f” an m2». 11 1£¢£\ {iéottrcL‘v . J 1 {gmm‘x Mvm’ 1 7 K ~'1.- R_L.__. 1 o .fl'fiof/Ffm" 71 1 L“ . \ --- ' ON ‘1 1““1—“1 cam! iamwwi’mfi I ‘\ 153171—36”? a A ' r—I-_ _Jr. M‘CKINAc-uL 1...... __ _‘ \‘m.v4 ’_ loan 1 1- ‘1? 7‘ MICHIGAN ”3.511-...1. W511 Wicca. HEW?“ m1oatmw Io’sco ' ' o | ' A ' ____1 1 1__ 7r" (350712471 Téam- 1cunzl’ 0:410me- . f. 1-_' 1 11:13-flz’m \ .ocam umns—1 awrmzmm'1-m551 1 L__ 1 118er MW” “1'sfiuc‘1 0..-... 1_ ‘1... 23m] imncam— 1mm" Wm" . 1 4 1 ‘1’ Jim“ 1o 1_ 1 ' 1.1.1.} ,7h7_1mmt1 :7 'am ._\ .1 WAL 176nm CLIFWON ”TAM—£1 ' i O . ' 1 1 1 1 1 r-‘J" 'fiéAIEI-ifl «it“‘fl‘u‘s‘a; ‘i'zxwatr.matm—iz.&7;z;m‘.1w“w . J 1 1 '1 I ‘-L.5° 1 1.: .1... .. - .. [Ww‘i’mffiwmq wow ‘17‘1'4cx'sou ' 11'13A'5nr7nm‘13um? 1’) 1 1 1. 1 L1. 1 \I m" 134F1um—"1M'Tiuumif1'firiwu Wm ' 4;! __s- I._._I. 1 _ 1-x 0 Innovative Systems 0 Non—Innovative Systems 135 Exhibit 7 Professional Background of the Administrators in This Study Administrators from Innovative Systems Administrators from Non- Innovative Systems High Cost Superintendents Superintendents Factor 28 Principals 34 Principals Systems 33 Administrators 39 Administrators Low Cost 5 Superintendents 5 Superintendents Factor 17 Principals l7 Principals 22 Administrators 22 Administrators Total 10 Superintendents lO Superintendents Number of 45 Principals 5l Principals Administrators 55 Administrators ol Administrators 136 Exhibit 8 SURVEY INSTRUMENT How many years have you been in education as: a. A teacher? b. An administrator? c. Other? (Please specify ) Indicate with an (x) your present position: Elementary Junior High School Senior High School Central Office How many years have you been in your present position? Indicate with an (X) how you were promoted to your present position: From within the school system From outside the school system Indicate with an (x) the percentage which most clearly shows the amount of time you devote to introducing new education— al practices, pertaining to the curriculum into your school or school system: 0% 20% 40% 00% 80% 100% What were two of the most significant new educational prac— tices introduced by you and your staff during the past three years? a. b. In comparison to administrators from school systems similar to your own: How much time do you spend introducing new educational practices pertaining to the curriculum? (Indicate the most appropriate response with an (X).) Much More Slightly More The Same Slightly Less Much Less Indicate the number of graduate hours you have earned beyond your highest degree: Beyond the Bachelor's Beyond the Master's Beyond the Specialist or Six—Year Degree Beyond the Doctorate 137 Exhibit 8 (continued) 9. 10. ll. Indicate whether the hours earned in number 8 were: Term hours Semester hours Quarter hours Are you now enrolled in an advanced degree program? Yes No If‘your-response to number ten was yes: Indicate with an X) which degree program you are enrolled in. Master's Specialist or Six—Year Program Doctorate A GENERAL DIRECTIONS: In items l2—l8 select only one response for each and indicate it with an x). 12. 13. 14. 15. How many professional conferences and workshops have you attended during the past three years? 5 6 7 8 9 or more FWIUD-‘O In how many of the professional conferences and workshops which you attended during the past three years did you _0 ___5 _____ l _____ 6 _2 ___7 _3 ___8 4 9 or more In how many community organizations, other than those directly connected with the school, are you an active 8 I—“ U) Exhibit 8 (continued) 16. In how many professional organizations are you an active member? 0 5 l 6 ______ 2 .i 7 3 8 4 9 or more 17. During the past three years, how many offices have you held in professional organizations? O 5 l 6 _____ 2 _____'7 ______ 3 _____ 8 A 9 or more 18. How many professional journals do you read thoroughly? O 1 2 3 A GENERAL DIRECTIONS: For each part of item 19 select only one response and indicate it with an (x). 7 8 9 01” more l9. In getting information concerning new educational practices pertaining to the curriculum, I find: A a. GRADUATE COURSE IN EDUCATION Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful b. PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful 0. MASS MEDIA (Newspapers,Radio, T.V., etc.) Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful d. SUGGESTIONS FROM MY TEACHING STAFF Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful e. SUGGESTIONS FROM OTHER ADMINISTRATORS IN MY SCHOOL SYSTEM Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful Exhibit 8 (continued) 19. continued. f. VISITS TO OTHER SCHOOL SYSTEMS Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful g. CONTACTS WITH ADMINISTRATORS FROM OTHER SCHOOL SYSTEMS Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful h. CONTACTS WITH EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS REPRESENTATIVES Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful i. CONTACTS WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful 3. CONTACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION Extremely Often Somewhat Seldom Not Useful Useful Useful Useful Useful I40 Exhibit 9 Mr. Superintendent of Schools School District Street Address City, State Dear Mr. Thank you for consenting to serve in the state wide study of educational change being conducted by Al Klingen- berg of Western Michigan University for the Department of Public Instruction. When the study is completed, you will receive a copy of the results. In the near future you will receive a packet contain— ing survey instruments for you and the principals indicated below who have served as administrators in your school system for three or more years. The instruments require about eight minutes to complete. All responses are confi— dential and a stamped envelope is included inside each instrument for convenient return. It is very important that all the instruments be com— pleted and returned so that the results will be complete. It would be deeply appreciated if you would: I. Distribute the survey instruments at your next staff meeting or before if the opportunity presents itself to yourself and these principals who have been in your school system for at least three years: (Names of Principals) 2. Personally request those participating to complete the instrument at once and return in the envelope provided. I will be contacting you personally in the near future by either telephone or letter to arrange a brief interview with you at your convenience. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Al Klingenberg I41 Exhibit 10 October 20, 1965 Mr. Superintendent of Schools School District Street Address City, State Dear Mr. These are the survey instruments referred to in my letter of October 18, 1965. Would you and the following principals complete and return these in the envelopes pro— vided by November 5, 1965. (Name of Principals) Your cooperation in this study is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Al Klingenberg 142 Exhibit 10 October 27, 1965 Dear Sir: Earlier this year your school system agreed to serve as part of the sample in a state—wide study of educational change being conducted for the Michigan Department of Public Instruc— tion by Al Klingenberg, School of Education, Western Michigan University. A large amount of the data needed in this study will result from the survey instrument before you. The time needed to complete this survey instrument is between five and ten minutes. Most of the items require an (x) response in front of the appropriate alternative. In completing this survey please respond as accurately as possible. Your responses will be kept completely confidential. The findings of this study will be made available to you as soon as the data is analyzed. I'm sure that you are aware that the results of the study will be more complete if all the survey instruments are returned. Thus, you will find a stamped return envelope inside the survey instrument for your convenience. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated in completing and returning this survey as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Al Klingenberg AK/dc Mr. 143 Exhibit 11 Non-Structured Interview Format The purpose of this study is to investigate a number of factors involved in educational change in selected Michigan School Districts. I. Selected rapport facilitating items: A. B. Tell me how you have organized your staff for curriculum improvement? Which parts of the organization are permanent? Why? Can you tell me how many of your staff members are actively involved in curriculum studies of some type now? Is this the usual number? Do you feel that wide staff participation is necessary? Why? Who determines the areas of investigation for each of your study groups? Who determines which staff members will work in each group? Why this method? Describe the major functions of these curriculum study groups. II. Selected change process items: Reconstruct for me as accurately as possible, how you and your teaching staff instituted a new educational practice. You might begin with who in your school system first became aware of the new practice. A. Awareness and interest cueing items: 1. Which segments of your staff, teachers or admini— strators, first become aware of most new ideas? Why would you say this? 2. Once individuals in your school system become aware of a new idea, who really has to become interested in it before the staff as a whole or particular segments of it consider the idea? 3. Tell me, who determines whether the idea might work in your school s stem? (Principals, Admini- strative Council, You 14L: Exhibit 11 (continued) B- Curriculum organization process cueing items: l. 2. How was the curriculum study group made up? Why in this manner? Tell me how the leadership role was filled? Why in this manner? Tell me if you involve the public in any way in curriculum study? How? Why is it important? What special provisions are made for curriculum study groups? a. Is time set aside? b. What provisions of aid are made? c. What special personnel are used to.asSist in the study? \ d. Others? Administrator's role in curriculum change process cueing items: 10 When the staff is studying a problem, how do you and your administrative assistants work with the group? Why in this way? Tell me the extent it is necessary for you and your administrative assistants to take a direct approach at times in changing the curriculum? Do you think that change in your system usually emerges from administrative direction, or from the emerging ideas of the teaching staff? Why? Tell me, do you feel that a direction from the ad— ministration will make significant change in your district's curriculum? Why? product of curriculum study cueing items: What is the end product of the curriculum study group? Why? Once a curriculum group has studied a problem, who and by what means determines whether the new idea should be adopted by your district? Explain. Exhibit 11 (continued) 3. What factors are of crucial importance to you in making the final decisions concerning new ideas suggested by your staff? Can you rank in order of importance these items and why you place them there? a. Child Welfare b. Staff Commitments 0. Research d. Money e. Others 4. Tell me, how you explain if you cannot accept the staff's recommendations? Is this really necessary? How do they react? 5. Have you ever felt that your teaching staff's in- volvement in curriculum study isn't really as necessary as textbooks in school administration say? Why do you feel this way? 6. Tell me, to what extent can the administrator ne— glect the wishes of his staff and continue to have them strive diligently for curriculum change? Explain. E. Curriculum changes that failed cueing items: I. Tell me about a curriculum change which failed? How did you handle it? 2. Who arrived at the decision as to the actual failure? 3. What in your opinion caused the failure? Explain. A. Who took responsibility for the failure? Explain. F. Climate needed for curriculum change cueing items: 1. Tell me, what type of climate is necessary in order for your staff to be favorable to new curri- culum ideas? Explain. 2. How do you see yourself and other administrators fostering this climate in your system? 146 Exhibit ll (continued) I. 3. 7. Tell me, what amount of trust is necessary between administrators and teaching staff in order for curriculum change to occur? To successfully change an aspect of the curricu- lum must all staff members participate in the change? Explain where staff participation is really needed. If a teacher in one of your schools has an idea she wants to try, can she? To what extent can she? What if the rest of the staff isn't interested in the staff members idea? Can she still try it? Tell me, how do you handle new programs which the public criticizes? Explain. Methods of encouraging change cueing items: l. 2. Tell me, how you encourage your staff to become familiar with new ideas? Tell me, which method do you feel is best for introducing new practices into the curriculum? Rapid transfer or gradual introduction? Explain. Do you feel that all staff members must change once you adopt a new practice? Explain. Describe your methods for working with staff members who won't change. Explain. Resistance to change cueing items: 1. 2. Tell me, how do you react to teachers and admini- strators who are set in their ways? How do you work with them? Tell me, do you feel that it is good to have some staff members who are reluctant to change? Why? What type of staff members do you seek cueing items: 1‘ 2. 3. What do you look for in a teacher? Explain. What do you look for in administrators? Explain. Do you feel that all people want to improve? Explain. 147 Exhibit 11 (continued) 4. Do you feel that some people have to be prodded to change? Explain. How do you show that you value everyone's capacity to contribute? Explain. Tell me, do you find it useful to recognize teachers for trying new educational practices? Explain why. 148 Exhibit 12 Interview Data Categorization Guidelines The interview transcripts were analyzed to isolate appro- priate data on fifteen predetermined dimensions. The data was categorized as indicating "high," "non—determinant" or'1ow" indications of the behavior described on the dimension. The general criteria used for classification of data is indicated below with specific criteria specified after each of the fifteen dimensions. 1. The consistency of the administrator's response on each dimension was considered important. The admini— strator's behavior was judged as "non-determinant” if more than one contradiction or reversal was found on any particular dimension. If the administrator's statements and actions in curriculum change situations indicated that he highly values the behavior described by the dimension, his behavior was judged "high" on the dimension. The administrator was judged "low” on the dimension if he made generalizations which indicated that he didn't value the behavior on the dimension and his behavior in curriculum change situation supports this. The dimensions upon which the twenty superintendents in the study were measured consisted of the degree that they: 10 recognized the value of praising their teaching staff for contributions to curriculum improvement. H: N: L: In general mark H_when: a. the administrator's statements indicate that the teaching staff is consistently praised for its contributions to curriculum change. b. the administrator indicates that he highly values this action. c. the administrator's behavior indicates that he uses specific techniques to show that the teaching staff is praised for its contributions to curriculum change. In general mark L when there is no strong evidence of the above actions. 149 Exhibit 12 (continued) 2. recognized the teaching staff's ability to contribute to the improvement of the local curriculum. H: N: L: In general mark H_when: a. the administrator's statements indicate a consis- tent pattern of important teaching staff contribu— tions to the improvement of the local curriculum. b. there are indications that the teaching staff is used to contribute and investigate new curriculum practices. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the teaching staff's sincerity in efforts to improve the curriculum H: N: L: In general mark H_when: a. administrator's statements indicate that the teach— ing staff constantly strives to improve the curricu— lum. b. administrator's statements indicate faith in the teaching staff's ability and desire to improve the curriculum. 0. administrator's statements indicate a number of new practices which resulted from teaching staff's efforts. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of giving the teaching staff's desires and feelings prime consideration when decisions concerning new curriculum practices were made. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. the administrator indicates with his statements that the wishes and desires of the staff are given high consideration when decision—making situations concerning curriculum practices arise. 150 Exhibit 12 (continued) b. the administrator indicates by examples how the teaching staff's desires and feelings concerning new curriculum were highly valued in the decision-making process. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of diversity in teachers' methods. H: N: L: In general mark H_when: a. administrator statements mention a high valuing of individual behavior by the teaching staff. b. administrators show by example that the teaching staff is given time to implement new curriculum practices. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above situations. recognized the value of utilizing the teaching staff in leadership positions when improving the curriculum. In general mark H_when: a. administrator's statements indicate many curricu— lum improvements groups being led by teachers rather than administrators. b. administrator's examples show many teachers holding leadership positions in curriculum improvement studies. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of providing support to the teaching staff: a. prior to the institution of curriculum practices. N: L: . during the institution of curriculum practices. P??? N: L: 151 Exhibit 12 (continued) In general mark H when: 0. there are indications that the teaching staff is provided with resources and training prior to the actual curriculum change. d. there are indications that the teaching staff is given assistance when implementing new curriculum change. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of providing interested teaching staff members with the opportunity to experiment with new curriculum practices. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. administrator's statements indicate that one or more teachers are using curriculum practices not adopted on a system's wide basis. b. administrator's statements indicate that they highly value teaching staff members experimenting with new or different approaches. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of providing the teaching staff with released time to improve the curriculum. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. administrator's statements indicate that the teaching staff is provided with released time more than twice a year. b. administrators indicate that ”system—wide committee members“ are provided with substitutes during the regular school day when attending meetings. c. administrators provide examples where groups have released time to improve the curriculum. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. 152 Exhibit 12 (continued) 10. ll. 12. recognized the necessity for justifying the rejection of teaching staff recommendations for curriculum improvement. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. administrator's indicate by their actions that they give frank explanations when unable to insti- tute curriculum recommendations of their teaching staff. b. administrators mention that all or part of all staff curriculum recommendations are implemented and indicate with examples that they act this way. In general mark L when there is no significant evi— , dence of the above. recognized as a crucial consideration teaching staff commitment and readiness when deciding whether to support or reject a staff curriculum recommendation. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. the administrator states that this is one of his prime considerations when deciding to implement or reject staff curriculum recommendations. b. there are examples provided by the administrators which indicate that staff commitment and readiness influenced the decision to either reject or imple- ment a curriculum change. In general mark L when there is no significant evi- dence of the above. recognized the value of encouraging their teaching staff not to fear mistakes when trying new curriculum practices. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. the administrator indicates with consistent statements that he desires his staff to experi— ment with new practices. 153 Exhibit 12 (continued) 13. 14. b. the administrator recognizes that all curriculum practices tried will not succeed. c. the administrator recognizes that the failure of an innovation isn't necessarily the fault of the teaching staff. In general mark L when there is no significant evi— dence of the above. recognized the value of creating a climate for change where the teaching staff's desires are placed before material questions in curriculum decision—making. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. the administrator states that the teaching staff is the prime source for new curriculum ideas. b. the administrator indicates by example and state— ments that the teaching staff makes significant contributions to curriculum improvements. 0. the administrator indicates that the budget isn't the prime source for determining curricu- lum decisions. In general mark L when there is no significant evidence of the above. recognized the value of facilitating teaching staff involvement in the curriculum change process rather than dominating it. H: N: L: In general mark H_when: a. the administrators indicate by their statements that real change must come from the teaching staff through direct involvement. b. the administrators indicate by example that they help the staff arrive at new curriculum practices rather than directing them to new practices. 154 Exhibit 12 (continued) 15. c. the administrators indicate that their role is to provide the environment in which the staff will themselves arrive at the decisions to change curriculum practices. In general mark L when no significant evidence of the above is presented. recognized the value of a teaching staff committed to helping each student develop to his full capacity over those who value the achievement of arbitrary subject matter standards. H: N: L: In general mark H when: a. the administrators indicate by statements what they desire teachers who are interested in each student first and foremost. b. the administrators indicate by statements that they desire teachers who can work with people. 0. the administrators indicate by statements that subject matter competence isn't enough when selecting new teaching staff members. In general mark L when no significant evidence of the above is found. 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, E Perceiving Behaving Becoming. 1962 Yearbook, Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1962. Brickell, Henry M. Organizing New York State for Educa— tional Change. Albany, New York: University of the State of New York, State Education Department, 1962. Buley, Hilton C. Administration for Adaptability. edited by Donald H. Ross. New York: Metropolitan School Stugy Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 195 . Carlson, Richard 0., and Others. Change Processes in the Public Schools. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1965. Carlson, Richard 0. ”School Superintendents and Adoption of Modern Math: A Social Structure Profile,” Innovation in Education. edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Dixon, Wilfred J. and Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1951. Guest, Robert H. Organizational Change: The Effects of Successful Leadership. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962. Hayes, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963. Jenkins, David H. and Charles A. Blackman. Antecedents and Effects of Administrative Behavior. Columbus, Ohio: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1956. Mackenzie, Gordon N. ”Curricular Change: Participants, Power, and Process,” Innovation in Education. edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. 156 McClellen, George B. Administration for Adaptability. Edited by Donald H. Ross. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Michigan Department of Public Instruction. Five Years of Change in the Public Elementary and Secondary Schools in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: 1964. Miles, Matthew B. Innovation in Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Mort, Paul R. Administration for Adaptability. Edited by Donald H. Ross. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Mort, Paul R. and Francis G. Cornell. American Schools in Transition. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1941. , Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glenco, 1962. Ross, Donald H. Administration for Adaptability. Revised Ed.8 New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, 195 . Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGrawiHiII’Book Company, Inc., 1 5 c Skogsberg, Alfred H. Administration for Adaptability. Edited by Donald H. Ross. New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. State of Michigan. General School Laws. Lansing, Michigan: Speaker—Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1960. PERIODICALS Carlson, Richard O. ”Succession and Performance Among School Superintendents,” Administrative Science Quarterly, VI, No. 2, (September 1961). Eichholz, Gerhard. "Why Do Teachers Reject Change?" Theory Into Practice, II, No. 5, (December 1963). Rogers, Everett M. "What Are Innovators Like?” Theory Into Practice, 11, No. 5, (December 1963). 157 OTHER SOURCES Carlson, Richard O. ”Career and Place Bound School Superin- tendents: Notes on the Adoption of Innovations, Positions in Social Structure, and Reference Groups." Unpublished Manuscript, Institute for Community Studies, University of Oregon, 1964. Childs, John W. "A Study of the Belief Systems of Admini- strators and Teachers in Innovative and Non—Innovative School Districts." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan: 1965. Dementer, Lee H. ”Accelerating the Local Use of Improved Educational Practices in School Systems." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951. Gallagher, Ralph P. "Some Relationships of Symbiotic Groups to Adaptability in Public Schools and to Other Related Factors." New York: Unpublished Ed. D. Project, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949. Haber, Ralph N. ”The Spread of An Innovation: High School Language Laboratories.” Unpublished Paper, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, 19 l. Havens, A. E. A Review of Factors Related to Innovativeness. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Mimeo Bulletin 329. Columbus, Ohio: (February 1962). Husk, William L. "An Exploratory Study of Possible Relation— ships Between the Educational and Professional Back— grounds of School Superintendents and Their Views of Instructional Improvement.” Unpublished Ed. D. Disserta— tigfi, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 19 . Meuller, Van. ”A Study of Relationships between Teacher— Administrative Perceptions of Educational Quality Measured by Educational Characteristics Criterion "ECG” and Selected Cost Factors.” Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1964. Miller, Richard I. ”Program of Educational Change." Unpublished Working Paper, Lexington, Kentucky: University of KBntucky, December 1964. 158 North Central Rural Sociology Subcommittee f0r the Study‘0f Diffusion of Farm Practices. Adopters of New Farm Ideas: Characteristics and Communications Behavior. Ames, Iowa: North Central Regional Extension Publication No. 13, (October, 1961). Rogers, Everett M. Bibliography of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Communications Arts, 1964. Rogers, Everett M. Characteristics of Agricultural Innovators and Other Adopter Categories. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 882, May 1961. Rogers, Everett M. "On Innovations and Education." A paper preSented at the Conference of Michigan Cooperative Curriculum Program, Boyne Mountain, Michigan: (September 24, 1965). "I7'1'11'111111111'1111s ’