A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENT, TEACHER ANO PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS 0F ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BETWEEN MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITH HIGH ' LEVELS AND THOSE WITH LOW LEVELS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL CONCEPT IMPLEMENTATION Dissertation for the Degree Of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JACQUELINE L. CAUL 1975 mmafih IIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIII II III III III IIII II IIII 293 10147 923 II III 3., . 2' 5’: This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Comparative Study of Student, Teacher And Principal Perceptions of Organizational Structure'Between Middle Schools With High Levels And Those With Low Levels Of Middle School Concept Implementation presented by Jacqueline L. Caul has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degree in Education (fa/i n Lieu/i, If Major professor Date June 26, 1975 0-7639 ; AHELZEZWO : Nfifixm‘“ ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENT, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BETWEEN MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITH HIGH LEVELS AND THOSE WITH LOW LEVELS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL CONCEPT IMPLEMENTATION BY Jacqueline L. Caul Purpose This study was concerned with identification of the organizational management style which best facilitates the implementation of middle school concepts. Methodology This study was based on the research of Rensis Likert on participative management and his model of man- agement systems. Comparisons were made of the organiza- tional structure in the schools of two selected groups of Michigan middle schools. The instruments used to collect data included the Profile of a School Principal Questionnaire, Profile of a School Teacher Questionnaire, Profile of a School Student Short Form and Joe Raymer's questionnaire for determining implementation level of middle school concepts. Jacqueline L. Caul A panel of middle school experts identified three middle schools (Group I) which currently demonstrate a low level of implementation of middle school characteristics and three middle schools (Group II) which currently demon- strate high levels of implementation of these same middle school characteristics. School Profile instruments were administered to the professional staff members in faculty meetings at each school and to a one-third random sample of students in regular classroom sessions. Perceptions of students, teachers and principals were consolidated into Group I and Group II scores, then the means of clustered management indices were compared by applying a t—test to determine significant differences. Results Significant differences were found between student perceptions of leadership, peer team building, motivation and their attitude toward school in Group I and Group II schools. Students in Group II perceived their schools' leadership as consistently more toward the participative management style. A significant difference was found between teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the principals' management practices in Group I and GroupIEI schools. Teachers from middle schools with higher imple- mentation of middle school concepts perceived their Jacqueline L. Caul principals' management practices as consistently more toward System 4 management. Significant differences were found between teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I and Group II schools. Teachers in Group II schools consistently saw themselves as more toward System 4 man- agement in relation to students. There were no significant differences between principal perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the superintendents' management practices in Group I and Group II schools except for the factor of goal commitment. Excepting the factors of goal commitment and student motivation, no significant differences were found between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to stu- dents and teachers in Group I and Group II schools. Conclusions 1. Group II middle schools, with a higher level of implementation of middle school characteristics, have a more participative organizational structure than Group I schools. 2. Management practices of the principal are reflected in teacher management practices toward students. 3. Better student and teacher attitudes and moti- vation result from more participative management style. Jacqueline L. Caul 4. In this study the most effective indicators of principals' management styles are the perceptions of stu- dents and teachers rather than principal self-perceptions. Recommendations 1. Further research using the Profile of a School in similar studies designed with secondary and elementary school concepts. 2. Further research using the Profile of a School with a larger base of middle schools. 3. Continued research in the area of supervisors' self-perceptions of management style. I 4. Further research to study the effect of princi- pal management styles on teacher management styles and resulting behavior of students toward each other. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STUDENT, TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE BETWEEN MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITH HIGH LEVELS AND THOSE WITH LOW LEVELS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL CONCEPT IMPLEMENTATION BY Jacqueline L. Caul A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1975 Copyright by JACQUELINE L . CAUL 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely thankful to the chairman of my committee, Dr. John Suehr, whose personal interest, con- tinuous support and flexibility have enabled me to design a doctoral program consistent with my belief system. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Louis Romano, Dr. Robert Scrivens, Dr. Larry Sarbaugh and Dr. Glen Gerard for serving on my committee. I am especially thankful that Glen, whose leader— ship style inspired this study, was able to serve on my committee. I am also grateful to Frank Blom who donated his time to help me collect data and who has been an encourag- ing and supportive friend. I extend a personal message of love and apprecia- tion to John. And finally, this dissertation is dedicated to my father who has always encouraged me to take the next step forward, and to my mother who has convinced me that I can. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LI ST OF TABLES O O O O O O I O O O O O O C C O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses to Be Tested . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . Review of the Related Middle School Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . History of the Middle School . . . . . Characteristics and Needs of Middle School Students . . . . . . . . . . Middle School Program . . . . . . . . Likert's Participative Management Theory A Review of Studies Using Likert's Profile of a School . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 0 DESIGN OF STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O C . Description of Sample . . . . . . . . . Measuring Instrument . . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . Validity . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis Procedures Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . iii Page vi I-‘ l6 17 24 27 35 44 48 50 5O 50 50 52 53 53 SS 55 56 57 Chapter General Hypothesis IV . . . . . . . General Hypothesis V . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis VI . . . . . . . Significance Level . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis II . . . . . . . General Hypothesis III . . . . . . . General Hypothesis IV . . . . . . . General Hypothesis V . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis VI . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . Summary and Discussion Of Research . . Student Perceptions . . . . . . . . Teacher Perceptions of Principal Management . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Perceptions of Themselves as They Relate to Students . . . . . Page Principal Perceptions of Superintendents' Management Practices . . . . . . . Principal Perceptions of Themselves as ’They Relate to Students and Teachers Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . SCHOOL PROFILE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE SCHOOL PROFILE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE . SCHOOL PROFILE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE . . 58 . . 59 . . 60 . . 62 . 62 . . 64 . . 64 . . 64 . . 64 . . 66 . . 66 . . 68 . . 71 . . 71 . . 74 . . 74 . . 76 . . 76 . . 77 . . 78 . . 78 . . 79 . . 80 . . 81 O O 82 . . 83 . . 84 . . 85 . . 87 . . 89 . . 90 . . 92 . . 94 QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 0 O 96 . 111 . . 118 LIST OF TABLES Table , Page 1. Student Perceptions of the State of the Organization in GrOUp I and Group II SChOOlS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 65 2. Teacher Perceptions of the State of the Organization in Relation to Principals' Management Practices in Group I and Group II Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3. Teacher Perceptions of Themselves as They Relate to Students in Group I and Group II Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4. Principal Perceptions of the State of the Organization in Relation to Superin- tendents' Management Practices in Group I and Group II Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5. Principal Perceptions of Themselves as They Relate to Students in Group I and Group II Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 6. Principal Perceptions of Themselves as They Relate to Teachers in Group I and Group II SChOOlS O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 73 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Leadership Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2. A Systems Approach to Organizational Effectiveness in Schools . . . . . . . . . 42 3. Factors in Effective School Leadership . . . 43 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION After more than a half century of experience with the junior high school, many American educators are begin- ning to stress the need for a new organizational structure and philOSOphical focus to educate the pre-adolescent and early adolescent child. To answer this need, the middle school concept is presently receiving widespread attention. Margaret Mead, the noted anthropologist, has criti- cized the junior high school of today stating that our problems have multiplied when a type of school which was developed to cushion the shock of the change in scholastic demands has become the focus of the social pressures which were once exerted in senior high school. Children in the age group ll-l4 years have unique needs and developmental characteristics. They are under- going rapid changes physically, intellectually, socially and emotionally. Their education requires unique and highly flexible programs designed to change as individual and group needs change. There is considerable evidence, however, that even though there has been a relatively large shift to the "middle school" name tag, and some shift in grade group- ings, most of these "new" schools are staying well within , the boundaries of conventional procedures. There are a few notable exceptions—-middle schools which are taking some bold and exciting steps to modernize and to make their programs more effective. One of the basic concerns of this study is whether the schools that demonstrate this willingness to experiment and change pos- sess identifiable characteristics which have a significant relationship to their level of implementation of middle school concepts. This move toward middle schools poses a number of exciting opportunities for American educators today. Very seldom in our history have we been given such an Opportu- nity to make dramatic, effective shifts in our organiza- tional structure. This dramatic change provides us with an unparalleledchallenge--a challenge to more thoroughly understand effective and ineffective organizational strate- gies as they relate to planned change in our schools. Our activities in education, agriculture, medicine, industry and the like are often without the benefit of the most current research knowledge. The gap between what is known and what is effectively put to use needs to be closed. To bridge this gap we must understand how new ideas spread from their source to potential receivers and understand the factors affecting the adoption of new ideas. Richard O. Carlson in his critique of educational diffusion (1968) notes: The startling fact is that even though research has taken the school systems as the adopting unit, very limited attention has been paid to concepts related to organizational theory. . . . The fact that school systems are organizations has been generally over- looked.1 One of the distinctive aspects of educational innovation according to Everett M. Rogers is that the dif— fusion (communication of new ideas) often occurs within bureaucratic structures. ". . . Researchers have largely ignored (1) consideration of communication channels, and (2) how the social structure acts to impede or facilitate diffusion."2 If today's educators are truly interested in affect- ing a purposeful change as bold as the proposed shift from "junior high school" to "middle school" they must commit themselves to gaining a thorough understanding of how such a change can be efficiently and effectively managed. They must begin to look at the school system as the organization that it is. Statement of the Problem In searching for possible methods of improving the organization and administration of schools, knowledgeable lEverett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Commu- nication of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 61. 21bid. educators must begin to look toward valuable research in other disciplines. Numerous suggestions have been made in recent years that approaches generated from organizational theory and considered successful in industry, engineering and the military be applied to the field of education. In reviewing literature pertaining to organizational theory, a general pattern of categorization is consistent among most scholars who have conducted research in organ- izations and developed theoretical models of effective and ineffective organizations. Each places effective and ineffective models at opposite ends of a continuum. For example, Likert refers to authoritative--participative, Bennis to habit--prob1em-solving,2 Barnes to closed and Open systems,3 Litwak to bureaucratic—-human-relations,4 and McGregor to Theory X and Theory Y5 organizations. lRensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961). 2W. Bennis, "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (1959). 3L. Barnes, Organizational Systems and Engineering Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University, 1960). 4 B. Litwak, "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict," Journal of Sociology 67 (1961). 5Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960). Of these scholars, Likert has developed one of the most comprehensive differentiations of types of organizations by dividing the two broad categories into four. He first differentiates between the authoritarian and participative systems but further conceptualizes author- itarian as exploitative, benevolent, and consultative. The participative system is conceptualized as the participative group. Initially, these systems were devised to illus- trate comparative differences among management systems and have since been adapted to a continuum, labeled System 1, 2, 3, 4, representing degree of organizational control. System 1 has the most unilateral control, whereas System 4 has more mutually shared control. The participative group form of organization as defined by Likert is characterized as an integrated, internally consistent system with an overlapping group form of organization as its primary structure. Inherent in this organizational structure is an administration which places emphasis on effective group functioning, a supportive, ego—building climate and Cooperative relationships. This study focused on the relationship between Likert's participative group form of organization and the level of implementation of middle school concepts in two groups of Michigan middle schools--Group I having a low level of implementation of middle school concepts and Group II having a high level of implementation of these same concepts. The level of middle school concept imple- mentation was measured on the basis of the 18 Basic Char- acteristics of Middle School Concepts as originally defined by Jack D. Riegle and further clarified in a Michigan State University doctoral study by Joe Raymer (1974). The problem of the study was to determine whether middle schools with a higher level of concept implementa- tion exhibited certain identifiable and achievable char- acteristics of organizational structure. More specifically, using the eight-point ordinal continuum of the Likert Profile of a School questionnaires (see Appendices A, B, and C) which classify the variables as Causal (those which are within the capability of the leadership to modify), Intervening (the behavior of subordinates toward each other), and End-Result (attitude and satisfaction); teacher, stu- dent and principal perceptions were collected for each of the two groups of middle schools to determine: 1. whether a difference exists in the causal ' variables of climate and leadership in the two groups of schOols in the study, 2. whether a difference exists in the intervening variables in the two groups of schools in the study, and 3. whether a difference exists in the end—results in the two groups of schools in the study. Procedures A panel of three middle school experts identified three Michigan middle schools (Group I) which currently demonstrate a low level Of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics Of Middle School Concepts as identified by Riegle, and three Michigan middle schools (Group II) which currently demonstrate a high level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts. The panel used a survey instrument deveIOped by Joe Raymer (1974) to determine the level of implementation of these same 18 characteristics (see Appendix D). The researcher administered the Profile of a School Teacher Form and Principal Form (see Appendices A and B) to the total faculty and the principal at each of the six schools in the study during faculty meetings scheduled between April 15, 1975, and May 15, 1975. The Profile of a School Student Questionnaire (see Appendix C) was admin- istered to a one—third random sampling of the students at each of the six schools studied. The scores for eaCh individual school were consoli- dated into Group I and Group II scores for students, teach- ers and principals separately. The means for each cluster of management indices as perceived by the students, teach- ers and principals were calculated for each of the two groups. A t-test was then used on differences in means on clustered scores to determine the significance of the difference between the responses of the students, teachers and principals of the two groups of organizations in the study. Hypotheses to Be Tested This study was based on the general hypothesis that a group of middle schools which demonstrate a high level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts as defined by Riegle will demon- strate more participative management styles than a group of middle schools with a low level of implementation of these same characteristics. Given a common set of managerial indices, the fol- lowing null hypotheses were tested to provide direction for the investigation: 1. There is no significant difference between the student perceptions of the state of the organization in Group I schools and student perceptions of the state of the organization in Group II schools. 2. There is no significant difference between the teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to principals' management practices in Group I schools and the teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to principals' management prac- tices in Group II schools. 3. There is no significant difference between the teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I schools and the teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group II schools. 4. There is no significant difference between the principal perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the superintendents' management practices in Group I schools and the principal perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the superintendents' management practices in Group II schools. 5. There is no significant difference between the principals' perceptions of themselves as they relate to Students in Group I schools and the principals' perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group II schools. 6. There is no significant difference between the principals' perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group I schools and the principals' perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group II schools. Assumptions This study has been developed with certain basic assumptions clearly important to its validity. They are listed below: 1. The three middle schools selected for Group I are a representative sample of the existing middle schools in Michigan which exhibit a low level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts. 10 2. The three middle schools selected for Group II are a representative sample of the existing middle schools in Michigan which exhibit a high level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Con— cepts. 3. The instrument used to determine the implemen- tation level of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts represents an accurate description of concept implementation at the middle school level. 4. The instrument used to measure organizational structure in the middle schools is an accurate representa- tion of the significant characteristics of organizational structure as described by organizational theory. 5. Educational institutions have certain uniform organizational characteristics that can be identified. 6. Certain kinds of organizational structures are more conducive to implementation of effective school pro- grams than are other kinds of organizational structure. 7. Different organizational structures will pro- duce different psychological and sociological climates for the participants. 8. The perceptions relating to the organizational structure of a school, by individuals within that school, will have a significant influence upon the implementation of desired school programs. ll Significance of the Study There are a number of possible reasons for con- ducting a study of this nature. The following reasons were specifically intended: I. At a theoretical level, this study might well become one important part of a growing body of knowledge regarding methods for effecting large-scale change. We cannot really even begin to discuss "planned" change until we determine whether or not certain characteristics do have a positive relationship to change as bold as the shift from junior high school to middle school. 2. If it can be verified that middle schools with a high level of implementation of middle school concepts share certain specific characteristics, administrators interested in effecting change could have valuable added insight into the methods necessary to achieve an environ- ment and climate conducive to change. 3. This study will provide an important Opportu- nity to expand the understanding of organizational struc- ture and how it relates to the effective growth of a social organization like a school. 4. This study will also give added insight into the question of whether or not organizational theory can, in fact, be applicable to the field of education and whether or not we do, as critics claim, need to begin to look at schools in organizational terms. 12 Definitions The following definitions are offered for the key terms used in this study: Organization: A social system made up of a plur- ality of parts maintaining themselves through their inter- relatedness to achieve specific objectives. State of an organization: The current situation of an organization with respect to such items as leader— ship behavior, the motivations of its members, its com- munications and decision-making processes, its productivity and other internal forces that influence the whole. Indices of management: The natural or acquired skills or talents involved in administering, controlling and directing the personnel and programs in a school organ- ization. In Likert's Profile of a School these indices are defined as: I. Climate (Causal) A. Goal commitment B. Decision process C. Team cooperation II. Leadership (Causal) A. Support by principal B. Principal receptivity to teacher ideas C. Goal emphasis D. Team building E. Work facilitation 13 F. Decision making G. Principal receptivity to student ideas III. Trust (Causal/Intervening)——Trust by and in principal IV. Other variables (Intervening) A. Influence teachers have B. Communication (teacher, principal) C. Peer team building (teacher) D. Motivation (teacher) E. Student acceptance of goals V. End results A. Social attitude (teacher) B. Frustration 1. Teacher vs. principal 2. Student vs. teacher Participative approach to management: An approach based on the assumption that people enjoy work, are stimu- lated by challenge, desire to achieve, will accept respon- sibility, can be self-directing and self-correcting, desire recognition and wish to be involved in decisions that affect their level of work in the organization.1 Authoritarian approach to management: An approach based on the assumption that people prefer to do nothing, fear of demotion or firing keeps people productive and lPaul Pigors and Charles A. Meyers, Personnel Administration, a Point of View and a Method (New York: l4 dependent on leaders, that peOple need to be told how to work, they will resist change and they need to be pushed . 1 or driven. Middle school: An educational unit with a philos- Ophy, structure and program which will realistically and apprOpriately deal with 11 to 14 year olds as they indeed are and behave. Its commitment is primarily to the youth it seeks to serve.2 Ogganization of the Study In the first chapter an introduction to and state- ment of the problem has been presented along with a brief description of the research design. The major hypotheses to be tested have been stated and assumptions, signifi- cances and definitions for the study have been presented. Chapter II contains three sections: (1) A Review of Related Middle School Literature, (2) A Review of the Concepts of Participative Management Theory, and (3) A Review of Studies Using Likert's Profile of a School. The design of the study is described in Chapter III. The study sample is described and detailed information on the measuring instruments is presented along with explana- tions of the procedures for collecting and analyzing data. 1Ibid.. pp. 9-10. 2Louis Romano, guest editor, Michigan Journal of Secondary Education (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Associa- tion of Secondary School Principals, Summer 1971). 15 The hypotheses to be tested are stated and a description of the statistical analysis is made. Chapter IV reports the findings of the study. Conclusions and recommendations, as well as impli- cations for educational management, are presented in the final chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE This chapter will contain three sections designed to provide the reader with a sound background necessary for understanding the conceptual framework of this study. The three sections include (1) A Review of Related Middle School Literature, (2) A Review of the Concepts of Participative Management Theory, and (3) A Review of Studies UsingIdkert'sProfile of a School. Review of the Related Middle School Literature The review of middle school literature includes a look at the historical background of the middle school con- cept from its similarities to early junior high school phiIOSOphical foundations to its response to today's increasing societal demands on pre—adolescent youth. The pre-adolescent, himself, is looked at closely in an attempt to identify the special needs and character— istics middle school educators must understand if they are to develop consistent instructional programs. Finally, this section will present a number of specific characteristics which middle school experts feel must be included in any functional middle school program. 16 17 Historygof the Middle School Since the early 19605 when pioneer schools in Centerville, Ohio; Barrington, Illinois; Eagle Grove, Iowa; Mount Kisco, New York; and Upper Saint Clair, Penn- sylvania, suddenly emerged, there has been much discussion regarding the middle school. Many educators have described this movement as a new concept, but, as a review of litera- ture demonstrates, the present movement is basically a rededication to the basic principles of pre-adolescent education. The events and forces that have set the stage for the consideration of the middle school were paralleled in the develOpment of the junior high school from 1890 to 1920. Lack of standardization of secondary school programs was causing considerable difficulty for colleges in admis- sion procedures by 1890. The increase in industrializa- tion and a discernible shift from rural to urban living was placing a heavier demand on colleges at that time, and they in turn demanded more of secondary schools.1 An NEA commiteee headed by the then president of Harvard, Charles Eliot, made recommendations that college preparation start two years earlier with the secondary school including grades 7—12.2 Eliot's committee felt 1R. P. Brimm, "Middle School or Junior High? Back- ground and Rationale," NASSP Bulletin, March 1969, p. 2. 2Charles W. Eliot, Educational Reform: Essays and Addresses (New York: The Century Co., 1898), pp. 151-76. 18 that by extending the secondary school downward by two years, a better college preparation could be achieved. In reaction to the focus on college preparation, the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education was organized in 1907 to represent the interests that wanted terminal education as well as college prepara- tion.1 This group played an important role in the draft- ing and passage of the Smith-Hughes Act, exerting additional influence on the college-dominated committees working on the reorganization of secondary education. The first known city to depart from the eight-four plan of traditional grade organization and place the seventh and eighth grades in a separate building was Richmond, Indiana, in 1896. Other schools to follow this example were Lawrence, Kansas, 1901; and New York City, 1905.2 The school year 1909-1910 is ordinarily considered as the beginning of the junior high school movement. Dur- ing this school year, Columbus, Ohio, and Berkeley, Cali- fornia, modified the traditional organization with the six- three-three plan of grade structure.3 The reorganization lBrimm, op. cit., p. 3. 2William T. Gruhn and Harl R. Douglass, The Modern Junior High School (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1947). p. 17. 3 Ibid., p. 18. 19 Of these schools appeared tO Offer an answer to the prob- lem that had been debated for the past several years. The climax Of these events is found in a report Of the Commission On Reorganization Of Secondary Education in 1918. The recommendations included a separate junior high school with a compromise on the instructional program. The college preparatory areas were to dominate but in a broad exploratory manner, and the fine and practical arts were tO be introduced in the junior high school.1 In 1924, at the North Central Association annual meeting, support was given for a "Standard Junior High School." The program Of studies expected from a "Standard Junior High School" included the following: The apprOpriate subjects to be offered by the junior high school are: English, Mathematics, Foreign Language, History and Civics, Geography and Vocational Information, and Practical Arts for boys and girls, including commercial subjects. The program Of studies shall be organized into a single curriculum with limited electives. Electives prior to the second semester Of the 8th year are considered ill advised. Prior tO this semes— ter exploration and review Of subject matter should be provided by the content Of the course and the admin- istration of the curriculum, and not by electives. Instruction shall be departmentalized. The school shall practice flexible promotion rather than promotion by subject. Flexible promotion means that pupils shall be promoted when the occasion arises and without restric- tion Of subject promotion. It means pupil placement. It implies the use of Opportunity classes and coaching teachers. The school shall provide within the school day for pupil club and social activities under the direction Of faculty. lBrimm, Op. cit., p. 3. 20 The school shall provide adequately for keeping in contact with the homes and home life Of the pupils and introduce only gradually the freedom in disci- pline characteristic Of the senior high school. In 1956 William T. Gruhn and Harl R. Douglass listed the functions Of the junior high school as integra- tion, exploration, guidance, differentiation, socializa- tion, and articulation.2 But, as Max E. Bough states, These widely quoted functions were less realities for junior high school pupils than they were ideals for junior high school advocates. The majority Of junior high schools remained in the rut dug by the senior high school.3 In reality, most junior high school literature sug- gests that the student entering junior high schOOl found himself in a fully departmentalized secondary school with a schedule more demanding than the one he would have in senior high school. In addition tO traditional academic studies, a student activities program, copied from senior high school, added tO the time demands. TO a greater and greater extent, the junior high school was simply a reflec- tion Of the senior high school. Many educators looked at the junior high school as nO longer a departure from the 1Samuel H. Popper, The American Middle School: An Organizational Analysis (Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Pub- lishing Company, 1967), pp. 230-31. 2Max. E. Bough, "The Intermediate Schools: The Junior High and Middle Schools," The Education Digest, October 1973, p. 25. 3 Ibid. 21 traditional; it was the traditional.1 There were paren- tal complaints that the junior high school was forcing their children to grow up tOO fast.2 As American educators began to hear more and more criticisms about the junior high school, the consistency Of the complaints appeared to focus on the high degree Of similarity between the high school and junior high school programs. I John R. Dettre attributes the "failure" Of the junior high school tO meet its original goals toward pre- adolescent education tO the following: Based on all kinds Of physiological, psychologi- cal, sociological, curricular and instructional research, the junior high school concept had the weight Of evidence in its corner, yet it never really emerged as a separate and distinct entity within the public schOOl milieu. It failed tO achieve its announced goals not because it lacked right on its side; rather, it failed in part because the overall mentality Of those in education was such that they were not capable Of intellectually and psychologically capitalizing on the emergence Of a "third force" and moving tO create for themselves a separate and equal status with ele- mentary and secondary. Like Cinderella, the junior high school movement could never gO to the ball or assert its own personality because it was forced to continue tO live in the same house under the overall direction Of its stepmother called Secondary Education. lStanley Sanders, "Challenge Of the Middle School," Educational Forum 32 (January 1968): 197. 2Paul Woodring, "The New Intermediate School," in Social Foundations Of Education, ed. Dorothy Westly-Gibson (New York: The Free Press, 1967), p. 235. 3John R. Dettre, "The Middle School, A Separate and Equal Entity," The Clearing House, September 1973, p. 20. 22 Dissatisfaction with the junior high school has led to the develOpment Of the middle school concept as an edu- cational alternative. The name middle school implies a position between elementary school and the high school. It is not intended tO be either an extension Of elemen- tary school, or an imitation Of senior high school, as the junior high school became. According to Donald H. Eichhorn, there are at least three significant forces motivating efforts Of edu- cators to redefine the functions Of schools in the middle: 1. There is a growing body Of knowledge relating to the characteristics Of boys and girls in late child- hOOd and early adolescence that is causing a reaffir- mation Of the principle Of uniqueness espoused by early junior high leaders. The fact that biological matura- tion is occurring at an earlier age adds to its impact. 2. There are significant changes in our culture such as pOpulation shifts, pOpulation mobility, the dream of racial equality, develOpments in transporta- tion and communication, and the forces involved in a developing technology which are prompting a reconsid- eration Of school building as well as organizational pattern. 3. There is a growing realization that schools in the middle have become rigid and institutionalized. A variety Of develOping educational concepts such as con- tinuous learner progress, flexible schedules, nongrad- ing, interdiscipline curriculum, cooperative planning and teaching and affective programs appear more likely tO succeed in a revised framework. Within the last 15 years, middle schools Of all sizes, shapes and grade levels have been organized for var- ious reasons. There were, in fact, a few middle schools existing in the 19505 but the largest growth occurred lDonald H. Eichhorn, "Middle School in the Making," Educational Leadership, December 1973, p. 196. 23 during the 19605. William H. Cuff conducted a survey and reported in the 1965-66 school year a total Of 446 school districts in 30 states containing 499 middle schools.1 In 1968, William M. Alexander reported a national figure Of 1,100 middle schools Operating during the 1967-68 school year.2 Approximately 4 percent Of these identified middle schools belonged tO the pre-l955 era, and nearly 50 percent Of these schools were organized in 1966 and 1967.3 In a more recent study, Joe Raymer determined that there are 1,906 middle schools in the United States. Of these middle schools, 421 house grades 5-8 and 1,092 house grades 6-8. There are also 393 schools called "middle school" that house various grade combinations from grade four to grade nine.4 The rapid growth indicated by these surveys con- stitutes a major reorganization in American education. A lWilliam Cuff, "Middle Schools on the March," National Association Of Secondary School Principals Bul- letin 51 (February 1967): 82-86. 2William M. Alexander and Ronald P. Kealy, "From Junior High School to Middle School," The High School Jour- nal, December 1969, p. 1. 3William M. Alexander, "Middle School Movement," Theory Into Practice 7 (June 1968): 119. 4Joe T. Raymer, "A Study to Identify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level Of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics in Selected United States and Michigan Schools" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974), p. 72. 24 recent study, however, revealed that 85 percent Of the middle schools existing hithe United States still had con- ventional programs.1 The prOmise for the pre-adolescent child cannot be guaranteed with a name change. In setting up any kind Of program, organizers must be intent on meeting the needs Of the group they are representing. With the middle school age it is even more crucial tO meet student needs if they are tO receive the best possible learning experience. Characteristics and Needs Of Middle School Students Who are the middle school students? Whether we call them transescents, pre—adolescents, or "in-between- agers" these students whom the middle school is to serve-— students in transition between childhood and young adulthood--have unique needs. In less complex societies, the movement from child- hOOd to adulthood is Often less traumatic and more ritual- istic than in the industrialized Western world. Shortly after puberty and Often following ritualistic transition rites, the adolescent settles down to a prescribed sex role, vocation and position within the community.2 In America today it is quite different. lWarren T. Dexter, "A Philosophy That Can Be Imple- mented," Secondary Education Today, Summer 1973, p. 25. 2Andrea Boucon Mock, "Speech Communication in the Middle School," National Association Of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, December 1970, p. 41. 25 As in all cultures, the early adolescent is exper- iencing dramatic physiological changes over a short period Of time. These changes are Often difficult tO handle and understand. In an article concerning the role Of middle school counselors, Martin Stamm and Blossom Nissman compare the early adolescent years to a journey through the hall of mirrors at a carnival. Entering the hall Of mirrors, the view Of the individual is seen as distorted. Depending on the twist or curve Of the mirror, the reflection lengthens, shortens or widens the image. Often students in the pre-adolescent and adolescent years View themselves with similar feelings Of distortion. The normal growth patterns are so varied among peer groups that confusion and fear of abnormality are Often a serious concern Of the individual. He may find himself unattractive in one situation and seem to approve Of his appearance or actions in another instance. . . . Blemishes on the skin become major catastrophes. Enlarged featuris seem to be more pronounced as he views himself. Along with this physiological revolution, the early adolescent knows that he must try tO step away from his childish past, but he does not yet know alternative beha— viors. Parents, teachers and social organizations all have ideas about how the adolescent should behave. But, 1Martin L. Stamm and Blossom S. Nissman, "The Counselor's View Of the Middle School Student," The School Counselor, September 1973, pp. 34-35. 26 as Sherif notes, in complicated societies, these norms and ideas Often conflict.l Erikson notes that the sense Of continuity and sameness established in childhood is des— troyed by all these tensions and the adolescent must ques- tion everything again.2 The early adolescent's gravitation toward others Of his age creates perhaps the strongest single influence upon him--the peer group. Erikson notes the importance for a child at this stage to identify with others, even tO the point Of complete loss of identity tO the clique: Growing and develOping youths, faced with the physiological revolution within them, and with tangible adult tasks ahead of them, are now primarily concerned with what they appear to be in the eyes Of others as compared with what they feel they are, and with the question Of how tO connect the roles and skills culti- vated earlier with the occupational prototypes Of the 3 day. . . . The danger Of this stage is role confusion. The adolescent wants to belong and he becomes intolerant Of anyone who does not belong tO his chosen clique. The peer group is an extremely potent force. It is the dominant reference group which regulates the atti- tudes, interests, activities and aspirations of the ado- lescent. Parents and other adults are nuisances. lMazafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Omission Of Social Psychology (New York: Harper and Row, 1956), p. 642. 2Erik H. Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1950), P. 261. 31bid., pp. 48-49. 4Mock, Op. cit., p. 43. 27 While the young adolescent rebels consistently against parental control, he will slavishly submit to the controls Of time peer group--even when it results in ser- ious conflicts within himself. The fear Of failure, Of not belonging, deters many adolescents from accepting the inde- pendence and responsibility they so eagerly seek.l The middle school child is half child, half adult; adhering to group pressures while pulling for independence. He is confused by the psychological and physiological changes occurring within him. Unsure Of himself and his place in society, he fears failure or anything that will cause him to be different or "out-Of-it." He is striving to find out and establish his own set Of values and indi- vidual morality, while at the same time he is being pres- sured on all sides by concerned, yet, to him, suffocating adults. Middle School Program In light Of what we know about the pre-adolescent, middle school child, more and more educators are placing emphasis on the sound development Of a middle school pro- gram specifically designed tO meet the intellectual, social, emotional and physical needs Of this age group. Middle school programs should reflect a strong philosoph- ical base geared to the specific needs Of the pre-adolescent. 1Sherif and Sherif, Op. cit., pp. 641-642. 28 These programs, according tO Dexter, should be similar enough tO the elementary program to make the stu- dents feel comfortable upon arrival and yet similar enough to the secondary program that the students can achieve a sufficient level Of academic independence and applicable knowledge.l Alexander also stresses the importance Of bridging this gap between elementary and secondary schools and further elaborates middle school aims as follows: 1. TO serve the educational needs Of the "in- between-ages" (Older children, pre-adolescents, and early adolescents) in a school bridging the elemen- tary school for childhood and the high school for adolescence. 2. TO provide Optimum individualization Of cur- riculum and instruction for a population character- ized by great variability. 3. In relation to the foregoing aims, to plan, implement, evaluate and modify, in a continuing cur- riculum development program, a curriculum which includes provision for: (a) a planned sequence Of concepts in the general education areas, (b) major emphasis on the interests and skills for continued learning, (0) a balanced program Of exploratory exper— iences and other activities and services for personal development, and (d) appropriate attention to the devel- Opment Of values. 4. TO promote continuous progress through and smooth articulation between the several phases and levels Of the total educational program. 5. TO facilitate the Optimum use Of personnel and facilities available for continuing improvement Of schooling.2 lDexter, Op. cit., p. 26. 2Alexander and Kealy, Op. cit., p. 19. 29 The National Education Association Research Bulletin describes seven features which must be part of a functioning middle school: 1. A span Of at least three grades between five and eight tO allow for the gradual transition from elementary to high school instructional practices. 2. Emerging departmental structure in each higher grade to effect gradual transition from the self- contained classroom to the departmentalized high school. 3. Flexible approaches to instruction--team teach- ing, flexible scheduling, individualized instruction, independent study, tutorial programs--and other approaches aimed at stimulating children to learn how to learn. 4. Required special courses, taught in departmen- talized form and frequently with an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach. 5. Guidance programs as a distinct entity tO fill the special needs of this age group. 6. Faculty with both elementary and secondary certification, or some teachers with each type (until special training and certification are available for this level). 7. Limited attention to interschOOl sports and social activities. The Michigan Association Of School Boards states, "The 'middle schOOl' is literally and functionally a school 2 for growing up." To achieve this purpose, the M.A.S.B. suggests that a middle school instructional program should exhibit the following characteristics: 1. The room group, while representing an entity, will participate in learning activities with other room groups and use the resources Of the school and commu- nity freely. 1National Education Association Research Bulletin 47 (1969): 49-52. 2Michigan Association Of School Boards, "The Middle School," p. l. 30 2. Learning activities should include individual study, small study and work groups, performance level groups and non-performance level groups. 3. Provision should be made for experimental Opportunities, problem-solving situations, real-life situations and investigation of areas of special interest. 4. A rich environment of learning materials should be available and used--supplementary textbooks, library materials, audio-visual materials. 5. Activities should develOp good work, study and play habits, as well as good health habits. 6. Activities should provide for experiences with democratic living and learning as well as the exercise of authority.1 In addition to these common characteristics, the M.A.S.B. suggests that if fifth-graders are included in the middle school, the teachers should stay with the same group all day for a period of a year, preferably for two years. The class group should Operate on an all-day block schedule and be "task-oriented" rather than "bell-schedule- oriented." At the sixth-grade level, students should continue to have the same teacher for most of their subject areas, while some special learning activities will be directed by other teachers, specialists and consultants--some form Of the teacher team concept. At the seventh and eighth grade levels, according to the M.A.S.B., students in a class group should stay with one teacher for a block of time but should also gO to 1Ibid., p. 7. 31 special teachers for mathematics and science laboratories, music, unified arts and physical education.1 In 1970-71, Jack D. Riegle conducted a study designed to identify basic middle school characteristics. On the basis of a review of middle school literature at the time, Riegle identified 18 basic middle school char- acteristics which he sent to five noted authorities in the area of middle school education for validation. The char- acteristics gave attention to: (1) continuous progress programs, (2) multi-media use, (3) flexible schedules, (4) social experiences, (5) physical experiences, (6) intra- mural activity, (7) team teaching, (8) planned gradualism, (9) exploratory-enrichment experiences, (10) guidance ser- vices, (11) independent study, (12) basic learning skills, (l3) creative learning experiences, (14) student security factors, (15) evaluation practices, (16) community rela- tions, (17) student services, and (18) auxiliary staffing. A more detailed listing of the 18 characteristics has since been prepared through the combined efforts of Georgiady, Riegle and Romano.3 11bid., p. 8. 2Jack Riegle, "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michi- gan State University, 1971), pp. 60-68. 3Louis G. Romano, Nicholas P. Georgiady and James E. Heald, The Middle School: Selected Readings on an Emerging School Program (Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1973), PP. 73-84. 32 1. Continuous Progress: The middle school program should feature a nongraded organization that allows stu- dents to progress at their own individual rate regardless Of chronological age. Individual differences are at the most pronounced stage during the transescent years of human develOpment. Chronological groups tend to ignore the span Of individual differences. 2. Multi-Material Approach: The middle school program should Offer to students a wide range of easily accessible instructional materials, a number Of explana- tions and a choice Of approaches to a tOpic. Classroom activities should be planned around a multi—material approach rather than a basic textbook organization. 3. Flexible Schedules: The middle school should provide a schedule that encourages the investment of time based on educational needs rather than standardized time periods. The schedule should be employed as a teaching aid rather than a control device. The rigid block schedule provides little Opportunity to develop a program to a spe- cial situation or to a particular student. 4. Social Experiences: The program should pro- vide experiences apprOpriate for the transescent youth and should not emulate the social experiences Of the senior high school. Social activities that emulate high school programs are inappropriate for middle school students. The stages of their social develOpment are diverse and the ques- tion Of immaturity is pertinent in the planning of activi- ties for this age level. 5 and 6. Physical Experiences and Intramural Activities: The middle school curricular and co-curricular programs should provide physical activities based solely on the needs of the students. Involvement in the program as a participant rather than as a spectator is critical for students. A broad range Of intramural experiences that provide physical activity for all students should be pro- vided to supplement the physical education classes, which should center their activity Upon helping students under- stand and use their bodies. The middle school should feature intramural activities rather than interscholastic activities. 7. Team Teaching: The middle school program should be organized in part around team teaching patterns that allow students to interact with a variety Of teachers in a wide range of subject areas. Team teaching is intended to bring to students a variety of resource persons. 33 8. Planned Gradualism: The middle school should provide experiences that assist early adolescents in mak- ing the transition from childhood dependence to adult independence, thereby helping them to bridge the gap between elementary school and high school. 9. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies: The pro- gram should be broad enough to meet the individual inter- ests Of the students for which it was designed. It should widen the range Of educational training a student experi- ences rather than specialize his training. There is a need for variety in the curriculum. Elective courses should be a part Of the program of every student during his years in the middle school. 10. Guidance Services: The middle school program should include both group and individual guidance services for all students. Highly individualized help that is of a personal nature is needed. 11. Independent Study: The program should provide an Opportunity for students to spend time studying indi- vidual interests or needs that do not appear in the organ- ized curricular Offerings. 12. Basic Skill Repair and Extension: The middle school program should provide Opportunities for students to receive clinical help in learning basic skills. The basic education program fostered in the elementary school should be extended in the middle school. 13. Creative Experiences: The middle school pro- gram should include Opportunities for students to express themselves in creative ways. Student newspapers, student dramatic creations, musical programs, and other student- centered, student-directed, student-developed activities should be encouraged. I 14. Security Factor: The program should provide every student with a security group: a teacher who knows him well and whom he relates to in a positive manner; a peer group that meets regularly and represents more than administrative convenience in its use of time. 15. Evaluation: The middle school program should provide an evaluation of a student's work that is personal, positive in nature, nonthreatening, and strictly individ- ualized. The student should be allowed to assess his own progress and plan for future progress. 34 16. Community Relations: The middle school should develOp and maintain a varied program of community rela- tions. Programs to inform, to entertain, to educate, and to understand the community as well as other activities should be a part Of the basic operation of the school. 17. Student Services: The middle school should provide a broad spectrum of specialized services for stu- dents. Community, county and state agencies should be utilized to expand the range of specialists to its broad- est possible extent. 18. Auxiliary Staffing: The middle school should utilize a highly diversified array of personnel such as volunteer parents, teacher aides, clerical aides, student volunteers, and other similar types of support staffing that help to facilitate the teaching staff. As mentioned earlier, surveys by Alexander in 1968 and by Raymer in 1974 indicate that the number of middle schools in the United States has almost tripled in the past six years. But numbers alone do not indicate that the ultimate middle school purpose--the education of pre- adolescent youth—-is being achieved. Middle school pro- grams must reflect an understanding Of the youth they are designed to serve. Educators interested in facilitating the middle school concepts as described above must take a critical look at school-wide organizational practices as they relate to effective implementation of middle school strategies. In the next section of this chapter, the researcher will review Rensis Likert's Participative Management Theory attempting to build an understanding of organizational 35 patterns which this study hopes to indicate are most con- ducive to the implementation of middle school concepts. Likert's Participative Management Theory Rensis Likert is identified as a leader in the "human relations" school Of organizational theorists. He has been responsible for large-scale research and con- sulting programs directed toward management and leadership styles in industry and schools. A large number Of his organizational studies have been made in business organizations where objective per- formance criteria have been compared with changes in organizational structure over a period Of time. His find- ings support the theory that participative management creates an organizational climate for a firm or department which results in higher productivity, earnings and employee health and satisfaction. As Rensis Likert Associates (RLA) points out, however, In education, it is much more difficult than in most business organizations to obtain precise mea- sures Of performance. Many variables, in addition to the educational process, are present. Socio- economic status, home environment, and other factors have a major influence on educational achievement. As a consequence, the evidence concerning the impact of the administrative system of the school upon edu- cational performance is much less clear than it is in business. Nevertheless, a number of studies, partic- ularly doctoral dissertations, completed in recent years, are providing evidence that System 4 is as effective in educational institutions as it is in 36 business organizations. For widely different kinds of desirable outcomes, System 4 appears to be supe- rior to other systems of educational administration. The key elements in Likert's organizational theory are concerned with how the human resources Of the organ- ization are managed by its leaders. According to RLA, "The personal leadership pattern of a supervisor at any level is the triggering factor in the effectiveness of the performance which is achieved at each level below "2 him. In 1961, Likert's book, New Patterns of Management, presented his organizational findings on the basis of a continuum Of existing management patterns. Along this continuum he identified "System 1, 2, 3, 4." System 1, according to Likert, is "exploitive-authoritative" in its approach to employees. System 2 describes a "benevolent- authoritative" pattern, while System 3 becomes "consulta- tive" and System 4 is "participative." On a horizontal continuum, with System 1 on the extreme left to System 4 on the extreme right, the four systems really blend into one another and make one con- tinuum with many intermediate patterns. As one examines the Operating characteristics of performance qualities of the different forms of organization, lRensis Likert Associates, Inc., Manual for Ques- tionnaire Use, 1972, p. VI-2. 2 Ibid., p. A-2. 37 two facts emerge: First, is that to function at its best each sys- tem Of organization requires personalities, skills, and characteristic ways Of interacting on the part Of leaders and members which fit that particular sys- tem. For instance, authoritarian organizations require dependent personalities on the part of all except those in control (Argyris, 1957c). Partici— pative organizations require emotionally mature per- sonalities (Morse and Reimer, 1956; Tannenbaum and Allport, 1956; Vroom, 1960c). The second fact about these different forms of organization is that each tends to produce people suited to function well within that system. Each system tends to mold peOple in its own image. Author- itarian organizations tend to develop dependent people and few leaders. Participative organizations tend to develOp emotionally mature persons capable of effec- tive interaction, initiative and leadership. Thus the organizational structure usually reflects the style of its leaders. As RLA states: By his own actions, the work group leader becomes a major "linking pin" or a major obstacle in helping fit his work group's task into the whole organization. By his own leadership, he sets the example of how sub- ordinates deal with him as their chief, and with each other as peer members of the same group. RLA describes the work group as the basic compon- ent through which an organization gets its mission accomp- lished. The four systems are defined in terms of the relationship between these "work groups" and the leadership style employed: lRensis Likert, New Patterns Of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961), pp. 235- 236. 2Rensis Likert, "The Nature of System 4 Manage- ment," Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1972, p. A-2, 2. 38 System 1: This work group Operates on a one—man coercive model. The leader is usually extremely competent and often a charismatic personality. In addition, he always knows exactly what needs to be done. His subordinates are hired solely to do what he orders. The leader needs or wants no information from his employees. All communications come downward, and the system has immediate punishment for anyone who does anything beyond the leader's orders. It is a coercive, fear-laden model of operation. System 2: This work group operates on a man-to-man competitive model. The same type of pattern often arises in schools but looks like a man-to-man isolative model. The leader supervises each of his subordinates on a man-to-man basis. He assigns Specific tasks in accordance with the special talents Of his people. Normally, he makes all decisions of what is to be done and passes orders. In selected cases (but not with all his subordinates) he finds it useful to Obtain information or a reaction from a subordinate before he takes action. TO conserve time, such contacts are generally on a one-to—one basis. He motivates his people through a reward system Of incentives based on individual competition or isolation. Since the leader is held responsible for a given function, he sees to it that his functional boundaries are respected by other managers. Because competitive recognition is based on an individual performance, the System 2 manager does not encourage collaboration or interaction among his subordinates, let alone with those in other similar work groups. System 3: This work group Operates on a man-tO-man consultative pattern. Here the leader develOps a con- sultative way to deal with his subordinates individ- ually. He encourages each subordinate to become an accomplished specialist and he respects that compe- tence once it is developed. Frequent and candid com- munication evolves. This is genuinely a two—way flow of information, ideas and influence on the decision which is finally made by the leader. In a System 3 model, the leader realizes the subordinate has more specific or better information which may bear on the problem to be solved. However, he usually sticks to a man—to-man method of obtaining and screening such information. In the consultative System 3 pattern, the competitive need (System 2) for maintaining bar- riers between levels or functional areas is replaced by informational exchanges on a vertical and lateral basis. The work group leader begins to consult with 39 his peers who head similar groups or related functions which somehow affect the quality of the work his own group performs. Mirroring their leader's behavior, some of the subordinates find it advantageous to exchange information within the group on a man—to- man basis rather than hoard it. On an informal and discreet basis, the same type of exchange begins to happen among subordinates from separate work groups. System 4: This work group has learned how to Operate under a group interactive-collaborative model. Here the leader uses all the man-to—man consultative rela- tionships of System 3. In addition, the two-way com— munication becomes a team-building process for the entire work group. When decisions appropriate for his level need to be made, the System 4 leader habitu- ally uses group meetings, rather than individual con- ferences, to develop the maximum relevant information. He invites the Open participation of as many of his immediate work group as can conveniently attend. The leader conceals no information from the group. He not only obtains a candid up-down exchange of ideas, but also promotes lateral exchange of views and infor- mation and critique among all participants. It becomes a group session for problem identification and problem solving. The leader does not abdicate his responsibil- ity for a decision. If there is no group consensus on the best way to proceed, he readily makes the deci- sion, confident that the group's members have shared all the relevant facts they can muster. Under a System 4 model, effective ad hoc groups can be created to identify and resolve problems across major func- tional or organizational lines. The representatives chosen for such groups are now well aware of what really goes on in their leader's own work group. They understand how their leader has been linking his group into the total effort. Consequently, they are comfort- able to share this same information Openly with the rest Of the task force. They are encouraged to seek the solution which is best for the total organization, rather than preserve a vested interest. In such an environment, it becomes unnecessary to rely on the win- lose bargaining or the stalemate posture typical of most committees and task forces.1 [See Figure 1.] Likert has identified a number of basic organiza- tional factors which explain these overall differences in 1Ibid., p. A-2—3—4. 40 Figure l LEADERSHIP PATTERNS ONE-MAN: COERCIVE SYSTEM * O ./ "’ MAN-To-MAN: COMPETITIVE MAN-To-NAN: CONSULTATIVE GROUP INTERACTION: COLLABORATIVE * For further characteristics of these four systems, see Rensis Likert, THE HUMAN ORGANIZATION: ITS MANAGEMENT AND VALUE, 1967, McGraw-Hill. Copyright © Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1972. Reprinted with written permission of Rensis Likert Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 41 organizational structure. He has classified the major fac- tors relating to school operations as Causal, Intervening and End-Result variables. RLA defines the three classifi- cations of variables as follows: The causal variables are those which the leaders can modify, and if modified, they cause change to occur subsequently in the intervening or intermediate vari- ables, and later in the final performance results. Organizational Climate, Supervisory Leadership, and Structure are the causal factors that should be the main targets for change. Technical competence is also a key element but is omitted here since it is not a behavioral characteristic in itself. The intervening variables reflect the internal state and health of the organization, e.g., the loyal- ties, attitudes, and motivations of all members and their collective capacity for effective interaction, lateral communication, sharing of influence, and decision making. The state of these intervening variables is determined by the causal variables and, as a rule, changes in the intervening variables lag in time behind changes in the causal variables. The end-result variables are the actual perfor- mance achieved and include also the satisfactions with various aspects of the school environment. There is usually a time lag before the full effects Of this causal-intervening-end-results linkage becomes evi- dent.1 [See Figures 2 and 3.] According to RLA, the "causal" variables are the key to organizational improvements. When an organization is seeking to make a shift toward System 4, the effort to cange should focus initially on causal variables. There is a close interrelationship between all three categories of variables. Change brought about in the causal variables lAlbert F. Siepert and Rensis Likert, "The Likert School Profile Measurements of The Human Organization," (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1973), PP. 4-5. 42 .cmmwguwz .Lont< cc< .mmomwoomm< utmxwo mwmcmm .6 85358 53.2; 5.; BLESS .22 tozu .8280qu 55.3 mazmm @ EoEES .mmofi: so» LE 52. 52 .moflimaam mEszE LE m>om< SLR: 3.2 E Ezmmmofin to 5me SCSEB LE ml 8.3130 2225580 a >wOJOZIUMH uHm3azm " n 2253132 2%: 538 22252430 All W :55: . _ l NOS/Ema CEO I \zoco .285 MJOOIUm ZH mmmzw>HHummum 4m < N ousmflm 4Z3 .cmowcu_z .Lont< cc< .mmumwoomm< prmst armcmm to cowmm_stma spouse: now; uppercase . News..ozr .mmpm4 mMZOJ waz wIH k< mmohu oznzw>mwpzm ** .mmrko Iu<3 th mm mark * m02m:p Op >AH>Lpamomm mzorp<4um sammmooma zolmlomo mzlx03azm gee; 1A1: xmoz Iplz app: zo_poupoz 4 .386 demmma~kummmm zH machu .0000 in student perceptions of leadership, peer team building, student motivation and school atti- tude between Group I and Group II schools. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. 64 65 ma £OH£3 mocm0flmacmflm mo HO>OH m mODOOHOCH oooo. .Hooo. cmnu uoumoum .mmanmu mcflomooosm can manna was» co« oooo. Hm.ma av.a hm.m 00.0 mow an.m mm.v wow Oosufluum Occufluua Hoonom unoccum .U 0000. oo.oa mo.H mm.m no.m moo mm.m mo.¢ mmv coflumbfluoz ucoosum oooo. w>.m mo. HH.m mm.m moo hm.m om.v owe mcfioaflsm some noon moaomfium> Hosuo .m oooo. Hm.em ms.m mn.m mm.o mam mm.m no.m ope Hpmfioaflum so opossum oooo. oo.m we. mn.H mm.o moo mm.m mm.m vow mammsmam Hmow oooo. H>.va vm.a vo.a hm.m moo om.m mo.v one MOSOOOB ho uuommsm mwnmuoomoq .4 N N . Hm> Nx NZ . Hm> x z «oonOwacmHm pmoulu xI x II I. muouomm can mOOHOCH I. I. HH @5050 H msouo .maoocom HH dsouw one H msouu CH coflumnwcmmuo Ono mo oumum onu mo mcoHudoouom ucoosumnl.a OHQOB 66 General Hypothesis II The second general hypothesis stated: "There is no significant difference between teacher perceptions of the state Of the organization in relation to principals' management practices in Group I schools and teacher per- ceptions of the state Of the organization in relation to principals' management practices in Group II schools." Results of the t—tests for Hypothesis II can be seen in Table 2. A significant difference of > .0000 is shown in the indices Of climate, leadership, trust and other vari- ables with the exception Of teacher peer team building which shows a significance level of .0008. Under the index of principal influence, the factor of influence a principal should have shows a significance level of .0023 and the factor of influence the principal has shows a sig- nificance level of .0004. The index Of attitude and frus- tration shows a significance level of > .0000 for teacher attitude and a significance level of .0005 for teacher frustration. On the basis of these findings, the null hypothesis for this series of research questions is rejected. General Hypothesis III The third general hypothesis stated: "There is no significant difference between teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I schools and teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to 67 mooo. vm.m mm.l om.m ON.H Nb mm.m mm.~ mo :Owumuumsum oooo. hm.b mv.H om. Hm.h Nb HH.N mn.m on monufluud coaumuumsum pom mosufluum .m «000. Ho.m mm. om.H Hm.o mm v>.N mm.m oh wow mmoo. oa.m on. oo.a hm.o Nb m©.~ Hm.m mm O>mm caoonm OOCODHmcH Hmmflocflum .m 0000. mm.m mo.H mm. mH.o an mv.H mo.m mo mamow mo mocmumooom Rm 0000. mm.m mm.H mm. v0.0 NS w¢.H HH.m on coflum>fluoz Honomoa mooo. mv.m mo. mm.H mm.m an H¢.H mm.m on mcHoHHsm Emma “mom me 0000. Nn.h om.H mv.a hm.o mm mv.H Hm.w mo coflumowcdeeou ma\mm oooo. oa.o Om.H mo.m No.0 Hm nv.m mm.v on o>mm muonomOB OOCODHMGH moanmflum> Hocuo .o 0000. mm.© no.H mm.a vm.o Nb mn.m 5H.m on Hmmflocflum am can 5H umsue .o . . . . . . . mOOOH osmosum oooo om m cm a no N mm v on on H mm m mm on >uw>flumooom mm 0000. ma.v om.H hm.m vm.o mm on.m vm.v mo mewxmz coamflooo me\mm oooo. ov.oa mv.m on.H mm.m Nb mm.m mm.m on coaumuwawomm xuoz mm 0000. mm.m mo.~ mm.a mm.m Nb vo.m mm.v on mcfloaflom BOOB m9\mm oooo. mH.m ov.m mm.H mm.© Nb oo.m mH.¢ mo mammzmsm Hmow mm o o . . . . . N . . HOOOH me o 0 mm 0 mm H mm H vm w b He m av e on on >uw>fiumooom mm 0000. mH.m om.m No.m an.w mm vv.m mv.w on mm >3 uuommsm mflnmuoomoq .m 0000. nv.m oo.m mm.H mv.o mu mm.m hm.v on cowumuomoou some 0000. mv.v mo.H vm.m ma.m NS mm.a no.v mo mmoooum coamflooa oooo. m¢.w ma.H mo.H mv.m on 0m.H 0m.m mm useEUHEEOU Hmow OHOEAHU .< N N.um> mx Nz .um> x z OOCOUAMflcmwm amoulu x: x I. I. muouomm can moowocH I I E 96.6 H macho .maoonom HH msouw one H.dsouw ca mOOHuomHm useEommcmE .manmwocflum ou coflumaou CH cowumNflcmmuo on» mo oumum on» no mcoHudoonom MOSOOOBII.~ manna 68 students in Group II schools." Table 3 shows that there is a significance level of > .0000 for all factors of climate and for all factors of leadership with the excep- tion of support by teacher which shows a significance level of .0009 and student team building with a signifi- cance level of .0069. The index of trust shows a signifi- cance level of .0002 and the index of other variables shows a significance level of > .0000 for all factors except student peer team building which shows a significance level of .0027. The factor of student attitude shows a significance of > .0000 but the factor of student frustra- tion shows a significance of only .8149. On the basis of these findings, hypothesis III is rejected except for the factor of student frustration. General Hypothesis IV The fourth general hypothesis stated: "There is no significant difference between principal perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the superin- tendents' management practices in Group I schools and principal perceptions of the state Of the organization in relation to superintendents' management practices in Group II schools." Results of the t-tests for Hypothesis IV can be seen in Table 4. It can be seen that there is no evi- dence to reject the null hypothesis for any of the indices. The factor of goal commitment with a significance level of 69 mva. MN. vo.l mo.H MN. HF HN.N 5N. Oh coaumuumfiuh OOOO. mw.HH mH.N Hm.H mm.® H5 ©O.H om.v mo mvfluwuud aoHumuumsum ppm mpsuHuua .m 0000. Nm.m ©O.H mm. mH.® HF mv.H mo.m mm mHMOU m0 mocmummood Fm 0000. No.5 om.H H0.H Nh.m Nb Nm. Nv.v Oh COHUM>HHO£ ucmvaum hNoo. wo.m mm. ov.H HN.® an hH.N Nm.m mo maflvawsm EMOB wam 9m 0000. 0H.m om.H Hm.H Hm.® Oh mm.H av.v Oh COHUMUHCSEEOU mm\9m OOOO. mm.¢ 00. mo. wN.® Hm Vb. ¢®.m Oh GOHHMOHGSEEOU MB\Em OOOO. mm.v NH.H HH.N NN.m Hm vm.H vo.v Oh mucmflfium MO OOGODHMGH mOHQmHHm> Honuo .o NOOO. Nm.m mm. mm. NN.© an ma.H mm.m Oh HOSOMOB hm Una CH udeB .U . . . . . . . mmmpH opossum 0000 00 b mm A no N mm v on vb H No N mo ou %#H>HHQOOOM mm 0000. m®.m O©.H O©.N Mb.m an Nm.N MH.v mm mafixmz GOHmHOOQ Em mooo. VB.N MG. Nm. mv.m H5 mm. 00.0 on OCHCHHDm EMOB Em . . . . . . . mmOoH ucoosum 0000 mm 0 mm H mm H vm 0 Nb Hm m av v on on >ufl>flummomm MB mooo. mm.m mm. on. mH.O H» mm. op.m on upcomwa so uuomdsm mflnmuoomoq .m 0000. h¢.m ®O.N Nm.H mv.® Nb mm.N hm.v Ob COflumHOQOOU Emma 0000. mv.v mO.H @m.N mH.m Nb om.H ho.v mo mmmUOHm COHmHOOQ OOOO. mv.® mH.H mO.H m¢.® Oh om.H Om.m mo HCOEHHEEOU H006 OUMEHHU .d N N.Hm> Nx NZ .Hm> X Z OOGOOHMHsmHm umouru x: x I. . I. muouomm can mOOHocH I. I. HH msouo H msouu .mHoosom HH dsouo can H msouw :H mucoosum ou ODOHOH away we mO>HOmEO£u mo mcoHumoouom uozomoell.m manna 70 Homm. om. -.H oo.m oo.~ m ov.m on. m :oHumuumsum HdeoeHAm moan. so.H no.HI mm.o mm.m m oo.H oo.h m mpsuHuue Hoonom HmdfiocHum coHumHumsum can OODHHDUH .m comm. eo.H OO.HI mm.> hm.m m mm. mm.n m eoflnm>Huoz HdeucHum emmm. vm.H OO.HI mm.v so.m m mm. mm.» m ocApHHsm same Home mm anO. em. mn.- mo.m mm.m m mm.H HH.O m :oHumowesssoo mm\om mmHm. Ha. em. mm. E0.0 H mm. mm.o m mm: mm mucosHmcH mOHQflHHm> HOSHO .Q oemm. em. em.- mm.m mm.m m mm.m so.m m om Hm ppm 2H umsue .o vmmm. hm. mo.u MH.m m>.m m mm.m mm.m m meflxmz aOHmHomo «mom. mH.H em.HI Hm.H -.m m mm.H om.o m coflumuHHHomm Rhos om cmom. mo.H mm.HI mm.m om.v m mm.e mm.o m mcflpHHsm some 5m mmmn. mm. EH.I om. om.n m mm. be.» m mflmmrdsm Hmoo om come. om . cm .7 mm .o mm .v m mod 8. m m .983 mm on mfifiudmomm 5m mono. we. mn.u om.m HH.m m sm.o mm.m m am so uuomdsm mflnmuwppmu .m mmeo. om. mm.- mo.H EH.O H mm. om.o m coflumumdooo same man. me. no. om. HH.O m om.v om.m m mmmuoum :onHomo EOHo. on.m HE.H mm. me.n m Hm. mm.m m ucmsuflssoo Hmoo mumsHHo .« m N.Am> «x m .Am> x z OOGOOHMHcmHm umouuu xi x I. I. mnouomm can mOOHccH I. I. HH msouw msonw .mHoonom HH moonw can H msouw :H mOOHuOOHQ usoEommcwE .mucoocoucHuomsm Ou GOHDOHOM GH :OHuONHcmmHO on“ mo oumum on» no mcoHumoonom HOQHOGHH&II.¢ OHoma 71 .0107 is the only factor which can be rejected for this series Of research questions. General Hypothesis V The fifth general hypothesis stated: "There is no significant difference between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I schools and principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group II schools." As can be seen in Table 5, no significant differences were found in the indices of leadership and attitude and frustration. This portion of the null hypothesis is therefore accepted. In the index of other variables no significant differ- ences were found except in the factor of student motiva— tion with a significance level Of .0530. This factor of the index is therefore rejected but the remaining factors of the index are accepted. The index of climate shows a significance level of .0107. Thus, this portion of the null hypothesis is also rejected. General Hypothesis VI The sixth general hypothesis stated: "There is no significant difference between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group I schools and principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group II schools." Results for the t-tests of Hypothesis VI can be seen in Table 6. It can be seen 72 NHOH. NH.N 00.H mm. 50. m mm.N mm.HI m COHumuumSHh ucmcflum owvm. 00.H 00.vn mm.H mm.© m mm.H mm.m m wflsufluud Hoonom ucmflfium COHumCumCHm OCH Oosuwuué .o mmmm. 00.H h®.ml mm. b©.® m 00.H 00.0 m mamow NO wocmummood 9m 0mm0. m0.N 00.ml mm.H mm.@ m mm. mm.v m COHUM>HUOZ ucmwsum II II 00.0 00.0 00.5 N 00.m 00.0 m COHuMUHCdEEOU mm\8m 0505. Nm. no.6I mm. mm.m m 00.m 00.m m m>mm mucwvdum OUCODHMCH mmafldflhm> HOSUO .U . . . I . . . . mmmpH opossum eoeH em H be m mm mm m m mp 00 p m on suH>Aummomm mm mmmm. 0H. Nm.wl mm. 50.m m mh.H 0m.m m HMQHOCHHQ >3 uuommnm mHCmHOOOOH .m hoao. 05.m ¢©.ml mN. No.5 N HN. Nm.m m “COEHHEEOU H600 mumsHHo .a N N.Hm> Nx N .Hm> x Z OOCOOHHHCmHm umoqu xI x I. I. muouomm OCM mOOHcCH I. I. HH adouw QCOHU .mHOOCom HH msouw OCO H msouw CH muCOOCum Op OOOHOC NOCC mm mO>HOmEOCu mo mCoHpmoouom HOQHOCHCCII.m OHCOB 73 meHH. H0.~ 0m.H 00.H mm. H mm. p0.I m cofiomuumsum Apropos II II 0m.H 0m. 0m.s m 00.0 00.0 m mpsufluua Hoosom Apropos coHumAumnum 00m mpsufluua .m 0mmH. m0.m HH.H 0m. 0m.0 m mm. mm.m m coHum>Huoz me II II mm.H 00.0 00.> N mm. s0.m m unflpHflsm saws Comm me hemp. mm. EH. mm. no.0 m mm. 0m.0 m coflumoucsesoo mmxme II II 00.0 00.~ 00.n m 00.0 00.n m m>mm mumnomos mocmsHmaH mmHnmAAp> Amnuo .0 swam. mm.H m0. 00.H m0.0 H mm. 00.0 m deflocflum 0H one am umsue .O 0000.H 00.0 00.0 mm. mm.e m mm. mm.s m mcflxmz coAmHomo Hmmm. no. em. on. 0m.0 m we. -.0 m coflupuHHHomC CA0: mpmH. mm.H 00.H 00.H 00.» m mm. 00.0 m mcflpHAsm same . . . . . . . mmmoH mHOComoB epHp 0m. pm I mm H mm 0 m H0 H mm 0 m on sufl>fiummomm mm Noam. mm. mm. 0H.H H0.0 m mm.~ 00.m m defiucflum an uneddsm . . QHCNHOOOOH .m II II mm.H mm. mm.s m 00.0 00.0 m coflupnmmooo same mean. me. E0. 0m. EH.0 m 0m.0 0m.m m mmmooum conHumo EOH0. 05.m HE.H 0m. m0.n m Hm. mm.m m ucmsuflssoo H000 mumsHHo .4 m ~.Am> mx 0 .Am> x z OOCOOHMHCmHm umoulu xI x I. I. muouomm OCO mOOHOCH I. I. HH ozone H dsouo H QCOHU CH muonomou .mHOOCom HH msouw OCO Op oumHOH monu.mm mO>HOmEOCu mo mCOHudOOCOd HOQHOCHCCII.O OHQOB 74 that there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis for any of the indices. The factor Of goal commitment with a significance level of .0107 is the only factor which can be rejected for this series Of research ques- tions. Summary Findings 1. A significant difference was found between student perceptions of the state of the organization in Group I and Group II schools. The null hypothesis was rejected. 1 2. A significant difference was found between teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to principals' management practices in Group I and Group II schools. The null hypothesis was rejected. 3. A significant difference was found between teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to stu— dents in Group I and Group II schools on every factor but student frustration. The null hypothesis was rejected excepting this one factor. 4. NO significant differences were found between principal perceptions Of the state of the organization in relation to the superintendents' management practices in Group I and Group II schools except for the factor of goal commitment. The null hypothesis was accepted except- ing this factor. 75 5. NO significant differences were found between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I and Group II schools in the indices of leadership and attitude and frustration. This portion of the null hypothesis and the index of other variables, excepting the factor of student motivation, were accepted. A significant difference was found in the index of climate. This portion of the null hypothesis was rejected. 6. No significant differences were found between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group I and Group II schools except for the factor Of goal commitment. The null hypothesis was accepted excepting this factor. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents a review of the problem, a summary of the procedures employed to collect the data, a summary and discussion of the research findings, conclu- sions drawn from the findings and recommendations for further study. Summary The problem of the study was to determine whether middle schools with a higher level of implementation Of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts, as defined by Riegle, exhibit certain identifiable and achievable characteristics Of organizational structure. Six major research questions were considered for this study: They were the following: 1. Is there a significant difference between the Student perceptions Of the state of the organization in Group I and Group II schools? 2. Is there a significant difference between the teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to principals' management practices in Group I and Group II schools? 76 77 3. Is there a significant difference between the teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to stu- dents in Group I and Group II schools? 4. Is there a significant difference between the principal perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the superintendents' management practices in Group I and Group II schools? 5. Is there a significant difference between the principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I and Group II schools? 6. Is there a significant difference between the principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to teachers in Group I and Group II schools? Design of the Study This study was based on the research of Rensis Likert on participative management and his model of manage- ment systems. Comparisons were made of the organizational structure in the schools of two selected groups of Michigan middle schools. The instruments used to collect data included the ngfile of a School Principal Questionnaire, Profile of a §ghool Teacher Questionnaire, Profile of a School Student §port Form and Raymer's questionnaire for determining implementation level of middle school concepts. A panel of middle school experts identified three middle schools (Group I) which currently demonstrate a low 78 level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics of Middle School Concepts as identified by Riegle and three middle schools (Group II) which currently demonstrate high levels of implementation of the 18 Basic Character- istics Of Middle School Concepts. School Profile instruments were administered to the professional staff members in faculty meetings at each school and to a one-third random sample of students in regular classroom sessions. Perceptions of students, teachers and principals were consolidated into Group I and Group II scores, then the means of clustered management indices were compared by applying a t-test to determine significant differences. Summary and Discussion of Research Student Perceptions Significant differences were found between student perceptions of leadership, peer team building, motivation and their attitude toward school in Group I and Group II . schools. Students in Group II (higher level of implemen- tation of 18 basic characteristics Of middle school con- cepts) perceived their schools' leadership as consistently more toward the participative management style (System 4). The significantly higher levels Of peer team building, :motivation and attitude toward school might indicate that System 4 management is in itself the determiner of the high level of these indices. 79 It is difficult, however, from this study to determine whether the variables affecting student per- ceptions are related to participative management styles or whether the differences in student perception are more directly related to the high level of implementation of middle school concepts in Group II schools. This finding that attitude can be indicated by differences in school program was supported by Thomas Petrie in his study comparing third graders' attitudes in teamed and non—teamed staffs. Petrie found a significant difference in favor Of students in differentiated staff situations. Using the Likert terminology, it appears that the causal factor Of System 4 leadership makes possible the implementation of middle school concepts which become intervening factors to establish the end results of better student attitude toward school. Teacher Perceptions of Principal Management A significant difference was found between teacher perceptions of the state of the organization in relation to the principals' management practices in Group I and Group II schools. Teachers from middle schools with a higher imple- mentation of middle school concepts (Group II) perceived their principals' management practices as consistently more toward System 4 management. These findings are similar to 80 those of Johnson and Marcum who also found significant differences between teachersl perceptions of organiza- tional climate in innovative and non-innovative schools. The implication of these results is that System 4 management facilitates the implementation of middle school concepts by creating an environment which includes high levels of support, goal emphasis, team building, work facilitation, leader's receptivity to ideas and shared decision making. Consistent with Group II students, teachers' attitudes in these environments are also signifi- cantly higher. Teacher Perceptions of Them— selves as They Relate tO Students Significant differences were found between teacher perceptions of themselves as they relate to students in Group I and Group II schools. Teachers in Group II consistently saw themselves as more toward System 4 management in relation to students. This consistency between the way teachers perceive their own management practices and the way they perceive their principals' management practices indicates that the organizational structure reflects the style of its leader. This is a particularly crucial consideration for princi- pals who are interested in school-wide goal commitments to middle school concepts. Meeting the needs of middle school students requires classroom management strategies that 81 encourage high levels of trust, student/teacher communi- cation, support by teachers, teacher receptivity tO student ideas, student peer team building and Opportunities for student decision making. These are all behaviors that can be modeled by the principal. Principal Perceptions of Super- intendents' Management Practices There were no significant differences between prin- cipal perceptions of the state of the organization in rela- tion to the superintendents' management practices in Group I and Group II schools except for the factor of goal commit- ment. Group I (low implementation Of middle school con- cepts) principals ranked their superintendents more toward System 4 management on all factors but goal commitment, decision process and influence principal has. Both groups saw superintendents' management practices as System 2-1/2 to 3. The lack of significant differences between Group I and Group II principals' perceptions of superintendent man- agement practices indicates that both groups of principals are working under similar supervision. If this is the case, the System 4 management practices of principals in Group II can mOre directly be credited for the higher level of imple- mentation of middle school concepts in Group II schools. 82 It is possible, however, that Group I principals, being less participative in style, may compensate by rat- ing processes out of their immediate control higher than those they actually control. Similarly, Group II princi- pals, being more participative themselves, might have higher expectations for superintendent management practices. Principal Perceptions of Themselves as Thengelate to Students and Teachers Excepting the factors of goal commitment and student mOtivation, no significant differences were found between principal perceptions of themselves as they relate to stu- dents and teachers in Group I and Group II schools. The lack of significant differences in relation to the principal questionnaire might be accounted for by the small number (three principals in each of the two groups) of responses considered in the analysis of data. As Tables 5 and 6 indicate, although there were not significant differ- ences, Group II principals' perceptions Of themselves as they relate to students and teachers were higher on all factors excepting principal receptivity to student ideas. The lack of significant differences is also explained by the fact that Group I principals tended to rank them- selves higher than teacher and student perceptions had ranked them, while Group II principals tended to rank themselves at a level consistent with teacher and student perceptions. 83 The findings are consistent with those of Hall who noted that supervisors generally perceive their behavior to be more toward System 4 than do their subordinates. This error, according to Rensis Likert Associates, is especially characteristic of those whose behavior is in the System 1 and 2 ranges. This statement is supported by Caprielian who found in a sample of urban superintendents of schools in California, that the less effective superin- tendents assert they make more use of participative manage- ment than the more effective superintendents claim. Conclusions On the basis of the data from this study the fol- lowing conclusions can be made: 1. Group II middle schools, with a higher level of implementation of the 18 Basic Characteristics Of Middle School Concepts, have a more participative organizational structure than Group I schools. 2. The best indicators of principals' participa- tive management styles in this study are the perceptions of students and teachers. 3. Principals' perceptions of themselves are the least effective indicators of participative management style in this study. 4. Management practices Of the principal are reflected in teacher management practices toward students. 84 5. Better student and teacher attitudes result from more participative management style. 6. Higher student and teacher motivation results from more participative management style. Recommendations On the basis of these research findings, the fol- lowing recommendations are made for further research: 1. Further research using the Profile of a School (IT- A F -‘.l." ' -l- AéhQI-A.n A}: l“ A is . . I; l t, " . with a larger base of middle schools is recommended. A replication of this study with a larger group of schools would help to collaborate the findings of this study. ' 2. Further research using the Profile of a School in similar studies designed with secondary and elementary school concepts is recommended to determine the effective- ness of participative management styles in relation to program implementation at all levels. 3. It is recommended that research continue in the area of supervisors' self-perceptions of management style in an effort to develop an instrument that can help the supervisor more accurately analyze his own management style. If a System 1 or 2 supervisor continues to believe that he uses System 4 management practices, there is very little hOpe for change. 4. Further research is recommended to study the effect of principal management styles of teacher management 85 styles and the resulting behavior of students toward each other. Implications This study, in addition to the specific conclusions stated above, has a number of very important implications for the public school administrator at all levels of the organizational structure. The public school administrator is faced daily with tasks directly related to the diffusion of innovations. This study strongly implies that large-scale changes such as the shift from junior high school to middle school are mOre effectively realized in schools with significantly higher levels Of participative management., Using this knowledge that certain management characteristics do have a positive relationship to change, educators can begin to understand more clearly the specific administrative strate— gies necessary for planned change. The study further implies that such bold changes are not possible unless decisions are based on shared knowledge and shared goals at all levels of the organiza- tion--from students to superintendent. These aspects of participative management, according to this study, will be practiced by the faculty and students to the same degree that they are modeled by the administrator. In other words, the entire climate of a school is a reflection of the admin- istrative management style practiced. This implication 86 places a heavy responsibility on the administrator who must be constantly aware that schools are for kids and that his actions toward faculty will be reflected in their actions toward those kids. It is impossible to have stu- dents who are highly committed to the goals of a school unless the teachers who work with them daily are them- selves highly committed to those goals. Another important implication of this study is that schools with a high level of implementation of middle school concepts will have significantly higher levels of student peer team building, motivation and attitude toward school. It is difficult to determine whether the imple- mentation level of middle school concepts or participative management is the most important factor related to these high indices. What this study appears to indicate, however, is that System 4 management makes possible the high imple- mentation of middle school concepts which in turn aid in establishing higher levels of student peer team building, motivation and attitude toward school. Using Likert's terminology, it appears that System 4 leadership makes possible the implementation of middle school concepts which become intervening variables to establish the end results Of better student attitude toward school. Finally, this study is important as an expansion of the understanding of organizational structure and how it relates to the effective growth of a social organization 87 like a school. It strongly supports the assumption that organizational theory can be extremely useful to the field of education and that educators do need to begin to look at schools in organizational terms. Reflections The researcher believes that this study has extremely important implications for organizational administration in general and for school administration specifically. I On the basis of these findings as well as my years of Observation in the public schools, I am convinced of the effectiveness of participative management styles. But hOw does an administrator implement System 4 management in his or her school? The answer to this question for me lies not so much in an outline of specific administrative strategies as it does in the establishment of a strong personal philosophy based on the belief that each person in the school is an important component of the total unit. But there are extreme dangers in the democratic process. In allowing others to make decisions, the deci- sions that the administrator anticipates are not always made, the behaviors that the administrator desires are not always present. The administrator can tolerate democratic participation in decision making only when he or she truly believes in all people as positive contributors to the system. 88 I believe that the development of administrative styles that allow peOple to explore, trust and enjoy the infinite possibilities Of Open decision making and goal sharing relationships deserves the highest priority in our schools. APPENDICES 89 APPENDIX A SCHOOL PROFILE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE 90~ Please note that the Profile of a School, Principal's Questionnaire, copyright 1973 by Jane Gibson Likert and Rensis Likert, has not been printed at request of Rensis Likert Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Please contact the author for consultation. 91 APPENDIX B SCHOOL PROFILE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 92 Please note that the Profile of a School, Teacher's Questionnaire, cOpyright 1973 by Jane Gibson Likert and Rensis Likert, has not been printed at request of Rensis Likert Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Please contact the author for consultation. 93 APPENDIX C SCHOOL PROFILE STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 94 Please note that the Profile of a School, Student's Questionnaire, copyright 1973 by Jane Gibson Likert and Rensis Likert, has not been printed at request of Rensis Likert Associates, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Please contact the author for consultation. 95 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS 96 PART I: APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE TO EVALUATE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF EIGHTEEN BASIC MIDDLE SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS Place a check mark before the SINGLE BEST answer that explains your current program as it relates to the question. I-A. Continuous progress programs are: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) N not used at this time. used with special groups. used for the first two years. used by selected students. used by all students. -A. Continuous progress programs are planned for a student over a CALENDAR year Span of: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (0) (l) (2) (3) ‘I’ m uh not used. one year. two years. three years. more than three years. not used. The multi—textbook approach to learning is currently: used in a FEW courses. used in MOST courses. used in NEARLY all courses. houses: (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) IIIII 1000 books 3000 books 4000 books 5000 books 5001 books -B. The instructional materials center in this building or less. or less. or less. or less. or more. 97 98 PART I, page 2 S-B. The materials center has a paid certified librarian: (0) no. (1) part-time only. (2) one full-time. (3) more than one full-time.‘ 6-B. For classroom instruction, AUDIO VISUAL MATERIALS other than motion pictures are: (0) not used. (1) rarely used. (2) occasionally uSed. (3) frequently used. (4) very frequently used. 75C. The basic time module used to build the schedule is: (0) 60 minutes. (1) 45 to 59 minutes. (2) 30 tO 44 minutes. (3) 10 to 29 minutes (4) a combination of time so diversified that no basic module is defined. -C. Which of the below best describes your schedule at present: (I) (0) traditional. (1) traditional, modified by "block-time," "revolving period," or other such regularly occurring modi- fications. (2) flexible to the degree that all periods are scheduled but are not identical in length. (3) flexible to the degree that changes occur within defined general time limits. (4) flexible to the degree that students and teachers control the daily time usage and changes occur regularly. other 99 PART I, page 3 9-D. How are sponsorships for club activities handled? (0) staff members DO NOT work with club activities. (1) staff members are ASSIGNED WITHOUT PAY. (2) staff members are ASSIGNED WITH PAY. (3) staff members VOLUNTEER WITHOUT PAY. (4) staff members VOLUNTEER AND ARE PAID. lO-D. What percent of your student body regularly partici- pates in at least one club activity? (0) we have no club program. (1) 25% or less. (2) 50% or less. (3) 75% or less. (4) 100% or less. ll—E. How is the physical education program individualized? (0) not at all. _____(1) slightly. (2) moderately. (3) highly. 12-F. Inter—scholastic competition is: (0) offered in two or more sports. (1) offered in one sport only. (4) not Offered. l3-F. Intramural activities Often use the same facilities as interscholastic activities. When this causes a time conflict how do you schedule? (0) we have no INTRAMURAL program. (0) interscholastic activities take first priority and others must schedule around their needs. (4) we have no INTERSCHOLASTIC program. (4) intramural activities take first priority and others schedule around their needs. 100 l4-G. How many students participate in team teaching programs? (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) H U1 I 0 none. 25% or less. 50% or less. 75% or less. 100% or less. . What percentage of your teaching staff is involved in team teaching programs? (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) none. 25% or less. 50% or less. 75% or less. 100% or less. l6-G. How many minutes per day does a student in grades FIVE or SIX average in a team teaching program? (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) |—' \I I 0 none. 40 minutes or less. 80 minutes or less. 120 minutes or less. 160 minutes or less. 161 minutes or MORE. . How many minutes per day does a student in grades SEVEN or EIGHT average in a team teaching program? (0) IIIIII (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) none. 40 minutes or less. 80 minutes or less. 120 minutes or less. 160 minutes or less. 161 minutes or MORE. 101 PART I, page 5 18-H. Which of the following best describes your school program as it evolves from enrollment to completion of the last grade? (i.e., grades FIVE thru EIGHT) (0) completely self-contained and/or completely departmentalized. (1) modified departmentalized (block-time, core, etc.) (2) program moves from largely self-contained to departmentalized. (3) program moves from largely self-contained to partially departmentalized. *- other l9-I. How many years is ART instruction required for all students? (0) none. (1) one year. (2) two or more years. 20-I. How many years is MUSIC instruction required for all students? (0) none. (1) one year. (2) two or more years. 21-I. The amount of student schedule time set aside for elective courses: (0) decreases with each successive grade, or is the same for all grades, or does not exist at any grade level. (1) varies by grade level but not in any systematic manner. (2) increases with each successive grade. 22—J. For what percent of students are guidance services normally available? (0) not available. (1) 25% or less. (2) 50% or less. (3) 75% or less. (4) 100% or less. 102 PART I, page 6 23-J. Guidance staff members: (0) never work with teachers. (1) SELDOM work with teachers. (2) OFTEN work with teachers. (3) ALWAYS work with teachers. 24-J. Guidance counselors are: (0) not expected to help teachers build their guidance skills. (1) EXPECTED to help teachers build their guidance skills. (2) EXPECTED and REGULARLY encouraged to help teachers build their guidance skills. 25-L. Clinics or special classes to treat the problems of students with poor basic learning skills are: (0) not available. (2) available only to the most critically handicapped learners. (3) available to all students needing such help. 26—L. The amount of time provided in the classroom for instruction in basic learning skills: (0) remains constant or increases with each successive grade. (1) decreases with each successive grade. (2) varies greatly due to individualization of program by teachers. 27—M. Does your school have an official newspaper? (0) no. (1) yes, and publishes four or less issues per year. (2) yes, and publishes five or more issues per year. 28—M. DO students get experiences in creative dramatics? (0) no. (1) yes. 103 PART I, page 7 29-M. Dramatic productions at this school are produced from: (0) does not apply. (1) purchased scripts only. (2) materials written by students only. (3) materials written by students and purchased scripts. w 0 3 . This school has oratorical activities such as debate, public address, etc.: ' (0) no. (1) yes, as a part of its enrichment program. (2) yes, as a part of its planned program of instruction. l-M. Talent shows are: U) (0) not a part of our program. (1) produced on an all school basis. (2) produced at each grade level. (3) produced at each grade level with some of the acts entering an all school talent show. IIII 32-N. In the Operational design of this school the role of the teacher as a guidance person is: (0) left strictly to the individual teacher's personal motivation. (1) mentioned to the teacher BUT NOT emphasized. (2) emphasized. (3) strongly emphasized. 33-N. As a general policy, provisions are made for the teacher to provide guidance services: (0) no. (1) yes, to a limited number of students. (2) yes, to all their students. 104 PART I, page 8 34-0. How many times per year is a student's academic progress reported to parents? (1) two times, or less. (2) four times, or less. (1) six times, or less.~ other 35-0. How many times per year are parent-teacher or parent-teacher-student conferences held on a school- wide basis? (0) not at all. (1)'Once. (2) twice. (3) three times. (4) four or more times. 36—P. Community service projects by students in this school are: (0) not a part of our program. (1) carried out occasionally for a special purpose. (2) an important part of the planned experiences for all students. 7-P. What is the status of the parents' organization in your school? I» (0) none. (1) relatively inactive. (2) active. (3) very active. The master class time schedule can be changed by teachers when need arises by: (0) requesting a change for next year. (1) requesting a change for next semester. (2) requesting administrative approval. (3) planning with other teachers on a WEEKLY BASIS. (4) planning with other teachers on a DAILY BASIS. co on I O 105 PART I, page 9 39-K. Students working in independent study situations work on tOpics that are: (0) we have no independent study program. (1) assigned to them by the teacher. (2) of personal interest and approved by the teacher. 40-O. Formal evaluation of student work is reported by use of: (1) letter or number grades. (2) teacher comments written on a reporting form. (3) parent-teacher conferences. (4) parent-teacher-student conferences. other What percentage of physical education class time is devoted toward COMPETITIVE TYPE ACTIVITIES? (4) 25% or less. (3) 50% or less. (2) 70% or less. (1) 100% or less. .5 I—' I LT.) 42-E. What percentage of physical education class time is devoted toward DEVELOPMENTAL TYPE ACTIVITIES? (1) 25% or less. (2) 50% or less. (3) 75% or less. (4) 100% or less. 43-J. Do your guidance counselors offer regular group guidance sessions? (4) yes. no. A 4-K. Independent study Opportunities are provided for: (2) some students. (4) all students. not provided. 106 PART I, page 10 45-L. Daily instruction in a developmental reading program is provided for: (2) poor readers only. (4) all students. 'not provided. PART II: For each question in this section check ALL THE ANSWERS that apply to your school. 46-B. Which of the following types Of materials are housed in your instructional materials center? (1) general library books. (1) current newspapers. (1) below grade level reading materials. (1) current magazines. (1) files of past issues of newspapers. (1) above grade level reading materials. (1) card catalogue of materials housed. (1) student publications. (1) files of past issues of magazines. (1) filmstrips. (1) collections (coins, insects, art, etc.). (1) motion pictures (include if you are a member of a central service). (1) microfilms. (l) overhead transparancies. (1) phonograph records. (1) ditto and/or mimeo machines. (1) photo or thermal OOpy machines. (1) maps, globes and charts. (1) display cases or areas. 107 PART II, page 11 47-D. School dances ARE NOT held for: (1) grade five. (1) grade six. (1) grade seven. (1) grade eight. .c. 00 U . A club program for students is offered in: (1) grade five. (1) grade six. (1) grade seven. (1) grade eight. .0. \D '11 . The intramural program includes: (1) team games. (1) individual sports. (1) various activities. O-I. Students are allowed to elect courses of interest from a range of elective Offerings: (1) no. (1) in grade five. U1 (1) in grade seven. (1) in grade eight. UI I" H . Electives offered in this building are: (1) art (1) family living (1) band (1) vocal music (1) unified arts (1) orchestra (1) drawing (1) natural resources (1) drama (1) journalism (1) wood shOp (1) speech (1) typing (1) creative writing (1) foreign language 108 PART II, page 12 52-K. How much time would you estimate the average student spends in independent study? (1) 20 minutes or MORE per day in grades five or six. (1) 30 minutes or MORE per day in grades seven or eight. (0) less than the above. 53-L. Students with poor basic skills can receive special help on an individual basis from a special staff member trained to treat such situations in the fol- lowing areas: (1) reading (1) mathematics (1) spelling (l) grammar (1) physical other education 54-M. Dramatic presentations by students are: (0) not a part of the school program. (1) a part of the activities program. (1) a part of certain class activities planned by the teachers. other SS-P.' In regard to community relations this school: (0) does not send out a parents' newsletter. (1) sends out a parent newsletter. (1) uses the commercial newspaper. (1) uses a district-wide newsletter to send out information related to this school. other 56-P. The staff presents informational programs related to the schools' functions: (1) when requested by parents. (1) once or twice a year at regular parent meetings. (1) at open house programs. (1) at regularly scheduled "seminar type" meetings planned for interested parents. other PART II, 109 page 13 57-0. From the specialized areas listed below, check each service which is AVAILABLE to students in your ’ building. (1) (l) (l) (1) (l) (1) (l) (l) (l) U1 (1) (l) (1) (l) guidance counselors. school nurse. school psychologist. diagnostician. speech therapist. visiting teacher. clinic services for the emotionally disturbed. special education programs for the mentally handicapped. special reading teacher. other 8-R. Teaching teams are organized to include: fully certified teachers. para-professionals. clerical helpers. student teachers. others 59-R. From the following list check those types of auxiliary helpers available in your building: __(1) <1) _<1) (1) paid para-professionals. volunteer helpers from the community. student teachers and interns. high school "future teachers" students. other 60-D. School social functions are held at this school: During the afternoon During the evening (1) Grade 5 (0) Grade 5 (1) Grade 6 (0) Grade 6 (1) Grade 7 (1) Grade 7 (1) Grade 8 (1) Grade 8 PART II, page 14 61-E. The physical education program serves all students in: (1) Grade 5 (1) Grade (1) Grade (1) Grade 004m 62-F. Intramural activities are scheduled for: not scheduled not scheduled BOYS ONLY GI RLS ONLY _____(1) Grade 5 (1) Grade 5 (1) Grade 6 (1) Grade 6 (1) Grade 7 (1) Grade 7 _____(1) Grade 8 _____(1) Grade 8 APPENDIX E LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS 111 APPENDIX E LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS Student Short Form Subordinate Perceptions Question Numbers LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Teacher 1, 2, 4 Goal Emphasis 5 Support by Principal 8 OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) Peer Team Building 7 Student Motivation 3 END RESULTS Student School Attitude 9 Note: Question #6 has not been included in the indices. 112 113 LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: Teacher Subordinate Perceptions CLIMATE (Causal) Goal Commitment Decision Process Team COOperation LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Principal PR Receptivity to TR Ideas Principal Goal Emphasis PR/TR Team Building PR WOrk Facilitation PR/TR Decision Making PR Receptivity to Student Ideas TRUST (Causal/InterveningL Trust By and In Principal OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) Influence Teachers Have PR/TR Communication TR Peer Team Building Teacher Motivation ST Acceptance of Goals OTHER INFLUENCE SHARING END Influence PR Should Have Influence Principal Has RESULTS Teacher School Attitude Teacher Frustration: Influence TR Should Have, Less Teacher Involvement KEY TO INDEX ITEMS Question Numbers 63, 56, 55 26, 29, 62 43, 44, 58 40, 27, 34 49, 54 24, 65 37 36 48 35 64 57, 61 42, 59 32 53 45, 46 41 28 50, 51, 52, 33, 47 58 -32, 114 LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS ‘Teacher Self-Appraisal RE: Student Question Numbers CLIMATE (Causal) Goal Commitment 39, 40 Decision Process ~ 56, 57, 61 Team Cooperation . 55 LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Teacher 1, 5, 10 TR Receptivity to ST Ideas 6, 7, 8, 9 ST Team Building 21 ST Decision.Making 15 PR Receptivity to ST Ideas 40, 41 TRUST (Causal/Intervening) Trust By and In Teacher 3, 4 OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) Influence Students Have 11, 12 ST/TR Communication 17, 18, 20 ST/PR Communication as Seen by Teacher 19 ST Peer Team Building 22 Student Motivation 23, 25 Student Acceptance of Goals 65 END RESULTS , Student School Attitude 16 Student Frustration: 13, 14 Influence ST Should Have, 2 Less Student Involvement _ 8 9 15 I I 115 LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS Principal Subordinate Perceptions CLIMATE (Causal) Goal Commitment: School System Decision Process Team Cooperation: School System LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Superintendent SU Receptivity to PR Ideas SU Goal Emphasis SU Team Building SU Work Facilitation Decision Making TRUST (Causal/Intervening) Trust By and In Superintendent OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) END Influence Principal Has SU/PR Communication PR Peer Team Building Principal Motivation ST Acceptance of Goals: System RESULTS Principal School Attitude Principal Frustration: Influence PR Should Have, Less Principal Involvement: Question Numbers 39, 4O 36, 71, 73 69, 35 50, 67, 74 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60 82 68, 77 61, 62, 63 72, 78 51, 52 21 64, 65, 66 49 44, 81, 76 85 7O 22 _( 3 116 LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS Principal Self-Appraisal RE: Student Question Numbers CLIMATE (Causal) Goal Commitment: School 39, 40 LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Principal 2, 32 PR Receptivity to ST Ideas 10, 11, 13, 14 TRUST (Causal/Intervening) Not Applicable OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) Influence Students Have 17, 18 ST/PR Communication 30 Student Motivation 42 ST Acceptance of Goals: School 41 END RESULTS Student School Attitude 31 Student Frustration: 19, 20 Influence ST Should Have, 2 Less Student Involvement: -13 14 I 117 LIKERT SCHOOL PROFILE: KEY TO INDEX ITEMS Principal Self-Appraisal RE: Teacher Question Numbers CLIMATE (Causal) Goal Commitment: School 39, 40 Decision Process 36, 71, 73 Team C00peration: School 35 LEADERSHIP (Causal) Support by Principal 1, 7, 38 PR Receptivity to TR Ideas 8, 9, 12 Team Building 33, 48 Work Facilitation 45, 46, 47 Decision Making 37 TRUST (Causal/Intervening) Trust By and In Principal 5, 6 OTHER VARIABLES (Intervening) Influence Teachers Have 15 TR/PR Communication 27, 29 TR Peer Team Building 34 Teacher Motivation 43 END RESULTS Teacher School Attitude 25 TR Frustration: 16 Influence TR Should Have, _12 37 I Less TR Involvement: -——§——_ BIBLIOGRAPHY 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Books Barnes, L. Organizational Systems and Engineering Groups. Cambridge: Graduate School of Business, Harvard University, 1960. Eliot, Charles W. Educational Reform: Essays and Addresses. New York: The Century Co., 1898. Erikson, Erik H. Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1950. Gruhn, William T., and Douglass, Harl R. The Modern Junior High School. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1947. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960. McGregor, Douglas. -The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1960. Pigors, Paul, and Meyers, Charles A. Personnel Adminis- tration, A Point of View and a Method. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Popper, Samuel H. The American Middle School: An Organi- zational Analysis. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967. Rogers, Everett M., and Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communication of Innovations: A Cross—Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Romano, Louis G.; Georgiady, Nicholas P.; and Heald, James E. The Middle School: Selected Readings on an Emerging School Program. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1973. Sherif, Mazafer, and Sherif, Carolyn W. An Omission of Societal Psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1956. 119 120 2. Periodicals Alexander, William. "Middle School Movement." Theory Into Practice 7 (June 1968). , and Kealy, Ronald P. "From Junior High School to Middle School." The High School Journal, December 1969. Bennis, Wr "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (1959). Bough, Max E. "The Intermediate Schools: The Junior and Middle Schools." The Educational Digest, October 1973. Brimm, R. P. "Middle School or Junior High? Background and Rationale." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, March 1969. Cuff, William. "Middle Schools on the March." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Dettre, John R. "The Middle School, A Separate and Equal Entity." The Clearing House, September 1973. Dexter, Warren T. "A PhilOSOphy That Can Be Implemented." Secondary School Today, Summer 1973. Eichhorn, Donald H. "Middle School in the Making." Edu- cational Leadership, December 1973. Litwak, B. "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit Conflict." Journal of Sociology 67 (1961). Mock, Andrea Boucon. "Speech Communication in the Middle School." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, December 1970. Romano, Louis. Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, Summer 1971. Sanders, Stanley. "Challenge of the Middle School." Educational Forum 32 (January 1968). Stamm, Martin L., and Nissman, Blossom S. "The Counselor's View of the Middle School Student." The School Counselor, September 1973. 121 Woodring, Paul. "The New Intermediate School." Social Foundation of Education. Edited by Dorothy Westly-Gibson. 1967. 3. Dissertations Caprielian, E. C. "California Urban School District Superintendents." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1972. Carr, Robert W. "A Study of the Job Satisfaction of High School Principals." Ph.D. dissertation, The Uni- versity of Michigan, 1971. Ferris, A. E. "Organizational Relationships in Two Selected Secondary Schools: A Comparative Study." Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965. Hall, J. W. "A Comparison of Halpin and Croft's Organiza- tional Climates and Likert and Likert's Organiza- tional Systems."' Ed.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1970. Haynes, Philip. "A Comparison of Perceived Organizational Characteristics Between Selected Work Stoppage and Non—Work StOppage School Districts in the State of Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1971. Raymer, Joe T. "A Study to Identify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics in Selected United States and Michigan Schools." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Riegle, Jack D. "A Study of Middle School Programs to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Principles." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Teaney, Lane Bauer. "Characteristics of Selected School District Management Systems." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1969. Wagstaff, L. H. "The Relationships Between Administrative Systems and Interpersonal Needs of Teachers." Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1969. 122 4. Other Materials Michigan Association of School Boards. "The Middle School." Rensis Likert Associates, Inc. The Likert Profile of a School, New Survey Instruments for Public Schools to Use to Improve Organizational EffectivenessL Manual for Questionnaire Use. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1972. Siepert, Albert F., and Likert, Rensis. "The Likert School Profile Measurements of the Human Organization." Ann Arbor, Michigan: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc., 1973. r, £ij “:1‘I4:...I’¢‘ a; 33 lg PIE?!” EHIAL 7., _ ‘ _' r- ‘u’ no" " L .' , mnmmfll'n 31111111; Ulllllllll 3 IIHIIUUIH MICHIGAN STATE u \IlllWllWIINH‘WIHWI 31293101 LI Iifllm (MT 4379)