finwwsrr- ~.' - - m ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITY BY MICHIGAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION by Gilmore L. Edson Body of Abstract Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1963 Gilmore L. Edson It was the purpose of this study to determine relationships between levels of adequacy of superintendents pertaining to important aspects of their job. Its specific purpose was to present the levels of adequacy and levels of satisfaction reported by selected public school superin- tendents and professors of educational administration, and to determine relationships between levels of adequacy and satisfaction so that hypotheses may be formed. It was the intent of this study that the hypotheses, so formed, would be potentially useful in re-examination and improvement of college and university programs designed to prepare graduate students for public school administration and to improve performance of experienced school administrators. An instrument was constructed for the purpose of collecting data from selected public school superintendents and selected professors of educational administration rela- tive to five areas of administration associated with the public school superintendency: Area 1, Administrative Leadership, Area 2, Personnel Administration, Area 3, Ad- ministration of the School Program, Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel and Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. A committee of experts selected twenty-five ad- ministrative activities associated with the public school Gilmore L. Edson superintendency for use in the instrument. The instrument was pretested in a pilot study and mailed to sixty-six superintendents in districts with grades kindergarten through twelve. Fifty—five or eighty—three per cent of the instruments were returned resulting in slightly over the ten per cent sample desired for the study. Data gathering instruments were mailed to eight professors of educational administration in three Michigan universities and were delivered personally to seven pro- fessors in one other university in Michigan. All fifteen or one hundred per cent of the instruments were returned by the professors. Conclusions It was concluded that: l. Superintendents, in general, feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs while most superintendents feel least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. 2. Professors of educational administration feel that superintendents are most adequate in Area 5, Administra- tion of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Ad- ministration of the School Program. 3. Both superintendents and professors rank the five areas of administrative activity in the same order, however, professors feel that superintendents are less Gilmore L. Edson adequate in all the five areas than superintendents feel themselves to be. u. Most superintendents are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area u, Administration of Pupil Personnel. 5. Professors of educational administration are most satisfied with the superintendents' level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with the superintendents' level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. 6. Superintendents have about the same level of adequacy in each of the five areas of administrative activity regardless of size of district, wealth of district, educational training and experience as a superintendent. 7. Professors of educational administration are knowledgeable in regard to the adequacies of public school superintendents. Recommendations 1. This study dealt with five areas of administra- tion and compared these areas with each other. A careful analysis of the individual items within an area may rein- force the results obtained here or may open new avenues of investigation. This study was limited by an analysis of the mean discrepancy scores between areas because of the nature and scope of the material and data obtained. Further study Gilmore L. Edson and analysis of specifics may be of value to the researcher interested in item analysis. 2. Professors of educational administration are knowledgeable in regard to the adequacies of public school superintendents. It is assumed that college training for superintendents has a realistic base. The above finding and assumption needs further study and investigation. 3. Superintendents and professors were to ascertain levels of adequacy with respect to selected activities associated with the public school superintendency. Further study may measure the importance attributed to the adminis- trative activities by both superintendents and professors. n. This study indicates that there appears to be no difference in the perceptions of superintendents regard- ing the adequacy of superintendents when analyzed on the basis of size, wealth of district and experience as a super- intendent. This unexpected finding would seem to indicate the areas are unimportant in totals. A longitudinal study may provide additional information that is not available in this study. 5. This study reveals that relative to the factors of size, wealth of districts, educational training and experience of superintendents there is a great amount of similarity among superintendents in their feeling of ade- quacy and satisfaction. This may be an indicator that the sociological differences between communities may be Gilmore Lu Edson vanishing in terms of their impact on school systems and school administrators. The long held position that a school program should reflect the general makeup and educa- tional needs of a community may be changing since administra- tors from varying kinds of communities have similar adequacy and satisfaction perceptions. A study along these lines and in more depth may prove worthwhile. 6. Another study might be undertaken to determine what is necessary to create satisfaction and competency in the administrative areas of least adequacy. 7. A study might be done amongst professors of educational administration based upon the amount of educa- tional experience they have had and how long ago this ex- perience occurred. The study might also include the nature of the contacts of the professors with the school administra- tors in the field. A careful analysis of this data might result in an explanation of why professors of educational administration are able to perceive the adequacy areas of public school superintendents. 8. This study revealed a great amount of similarity of the school administrators' adequacy and satisfaction per- ceptions regardless of the size and wealth of district, and educational training and experience as superintendents. Therefore, the Michigan Association of School Administrators might well turn its attention to organizing and developing programs for improving those areas in which superintendents feel least adequate. Copyright by Gilmore Louis Edson 1965 AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITY BY MICHIGAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND PROFESSORS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION BY Gilmore L: Edson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1963 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer hereby acknowledges his appreciation to Dr. Robert L. Hopper for his encouragement, understanding and counsel during the preparation for this dissertation. The writer is also grateful for the assistance given him by Dr. Karl Hereford, Dr. John Useem, Dr. Walker Hill, Dr. Floyd Parker, and Dr. Harold Dillon. Special acknowledg- ment is given to Dr. Donald Leu for assuming the chairman- ship at a very difficult time. The writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia- tion for the assistance, guidance and inspiration provided by Dr. James B. Tintera. The writer is also indebted to Dr. John Patterson for his invaluable assistance in the preparation of the measuring instruments and statistical procedure for the study. The aid in editing provided by the writer's wife and Mr. Jack W. Rice was especially valuable in the preparation of this study. A special acknowledgment to the writer's family, whose patience, understanding and encouragement were so vitally important to the completion of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL PROBLEM OF THE STUDY A Review of Selected Literature Related to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . General Problem of the Study . . Assumptions Underlying the Study Definition of Terms. . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . . . Overview of the Study. . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . The Pilot Study. 0 O O O O O I O O The Instrument . . . . . . . . Populations and Sample Used in the Procedure for Collecting Data. . . Tabulating Data for Analysis . . . Statistical Methods. . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00m... ANALYSIS OF SUPERINTENDENTS' AND PROFESSORS' ADEQUACY RESPONSES . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . Superintendents' Adequacy Responses. Size of District . . . . . . . . . Wealth of District . . . . . . . . Educational Training . . . . . . . Experience as Superintendent . . . Professors' Adequacy Responses . . Comparison of Adequacy Responses Be Superintendents and Professors . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . t S (D 00:000.... I C O O O O '~ ). Hypothesis Two-A.-—There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents in districts of'<:—999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). 27 Hypothesis Two-B.—-There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents in districts of 500-999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 4 = Area 5). Hypothesis Two-C.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents in districts of 1000-1999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Two-D.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of 2000- students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area H = Area 5). Hypothesis Three.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents from districts of varying wealth (Ho: <:-$7000 = $7100-$10000 = $10100-$15000 = $15100-:> ). Hypothesis Three-A.--There are no differencesin the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of <:-$7000 state equalized valuation 28 behind each resident pupil (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 1+ = Area 5). Hypothesis Three—B.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts with $7100-$10000 state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Three-C.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts with $10100-$15000 state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Three—D.-—There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts with $15100—:> state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). 29 Hypothesis Four.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents with varying educational training (Ho: Master's degree = One or More Years Beyond Master's degree). Hypothesis Four-A.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with Master's degrees (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Four-B.-—There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with one or more years beyond the Master's degree (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Five.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with varying experience (Ho: <:-5 = 6-12 = 13-22 = 23-:> ). 30 Hypothesis Five-A.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy with reSpect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents with years experience as a superintendent (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). 31 Hypothesis Six.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy of superintendents with respect to five areas of administrative activities as perceived by professors of educational administra- tion (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Seven.--There are no differences in the levels of adequacy as perceived by superintendents and as perceived by professors with resPect to five areas of administrative activities associated with the public school superintendency (Ho: Super- intendent Area 1 = Professor Area 1 = Superintend- ent Area 2 = Professor Area 2 = Superintendent Area 3 = Professor Area 3 = Superintendent Area 4 = Professor Area 4 = Superintendent Area 5 = Professor Area 5). Hypothesis Eight.—-There are no differences among superintendents in their levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities associated with the public school super- intendency (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Nine.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five 32 areas of administrative activities among super- intendents from districts of varying size (H0: (499 = 500-999 = 1000-1999 = 2000-) ). Hypothesis Nine-A.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of <:-999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 4 = Area 5). Hypothesis Nine-B.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of 500-999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Nine-C.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of 1000- 1999 students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Nine-D.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect 33 to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of 2000-;> students (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area u = Area 5). Hypothesis Ten.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintend- ents from districts of varying wealth (Ho: <<-$7000 = $7100-$10000 = $10100-$15000 = $15100-> ). Hypothesis Ten-A.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of <<~$7000 (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Ten-B.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of $7100- $10000 (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). an Hypothesis Ten-C.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents in districts of $10100-$15000 (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area H = Area 5). Hypothesis Ten-D.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superinmndents in districts of $15100->> (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Eleven.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents with varying educational training (Ho: Master's Degree = One or More Years Beyond the Master's Degree). Hypothesis Eleven-A.—-There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with Master's Degrees (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). 35 Hypothesis Eleven-B.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with reSpect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with One or More Years beyond the Master's Degree (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Twelve.—-There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among super- intendents with varying experience (Ho: ‘<}5 = 6-12 = 13-22 = 23->). Hypothesis Twelve-A.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction with respect to five areas of administrative activities among superintendents with< years ex- perience as a superintendent (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Thirteen.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction of superintendents with reSpect to five areas of administrative activities as perceived by professors of educa- tional administration (Ho: Area 1 = Area 2 = Area 3 = Area 9 = Area 5). Hypothesis Fourteen.--There are no differences in the levels of satisfaction as perceived by superintendents and as perceived by professors with respect to five areas of administrative activities associated with the public school 37 superintendency (Ho: Superintendent Area 1 = Professor Area 1 = Superintendent Area 2 = Pro- fessor Area 2 = Superintendent Area 3 = Professor 5 Area 3 = Superintendent Area 9 = Professor Area H = Superintendent Area 5 = Professor Area 5). The Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to test the face validity, reliability, clarity of expression and the length of time needed to fill out a trial instrument constructed for this investigation (Appendix A-l - A-u). This instrument sought to determine the levels of adequacy and the levels of satis- faction of superintendents with reSpect to thirty-seven selected administrative activities associated with the public school superintendency as perceived by the super- intendents and as perceived by professors. A first draft of the list of thirty-seven activities was submitted to the chairman of the researcher's Guidance Committee and to a member of the Bureau of Educational Research at Michigan State University. Their changes and suggestions were incor- porated into the trial instrument (Appendix A-l). Letters were mailed to seventeen public school super- intendents in the mid-Michigan area inviting them to partici- pate in the pilot study (Appendix A-2). Ten responded affirmatively. Six professors spending half of their teaching time or more in the area of educational administration at Michigan State University were invited to participate. Five 38 responded affirmatively. The instrument was administered to the superintend- ents and professors, who were assured that names of individuals and school districts would remain confidential. The data collected from the pilot study were recorded on three-by-five inch cards and on working sheets for purpose of analysis. The Hoyt technique1 was used for determining homOgeneity reliability of the data yielded by the trial instrument. It was assumed that the coefficient of .93 that resulted was sufficient to establish the reliability of the instrument. Since the planned study would include fifteen professors of educational administration (population) and fifty-two or more public school superintendents (10 per cent sample of the pOpulation), it appeared that the varia- tion in means likely to be obtained would result in significant differences.2 It also was assumed that there would be leril Hoyt, "Test Reliability Obtained by Analysis of Variance," Psychometrika, VI (June, 1941), 153-60. 2t = difference between means 2 2 S1 + 82 N1 N2 assuming: -(l) N1 = 15 (2) N2 = 52 2 _ 2 _ 2 (3) 8l - 82 - S (u) t(.05) 65 d.f. - 2.00 Then: Difference between means that could be found to be significant would have to be larger than .5868. 39 differences in the levels of adequacy perceived by super- intendents and those perceived by professors, and that the differences in levels of adequacy would be shown by variance in the central tendency of responses of the two groups. The significance of the differences, it seemed, would best be examined by checking for variation in means. The F 3 was used to determine the test, followed by the t test, significance of difference in means among the various groups and areas compared. The level of significance was set at .05. The Instrument The instrument develOped and administered in this study, like the trial instrument administered in the pilot Study, sought to determine the levels of adequacy and the levels of satisfaction of superintendents with respect to selected administrative activities associated with the public School superintendency as perceived by superintendents and as perceived by professors. The instrument was submitted for final approval to the researcher's Guidance Committee; and changes and suggestions by committee members were incor- Porated (Appendix B). The instrument is comprised of three basic parts: . u . (l) administrative activities assoc1ated by Adams With 3Guinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1955), pp. 109-12, 255. ”Adams, loc. cit., pp. 71-75. 40 public school administration, (2) a Lickert-type scale5 that measures the levels of adequacy at which superinten- dents believe themselves to be, and at which professors believe superintendents to be, concerning each activity, (3) a second Lickert-type scale6 that measures the levels of satisfaction at which superintendents believe themselves to be, concerning each activity. Administrative activities:——Initially selected and included in the pre-test were thirty-seven administra- tive activities-associated by Adams with the administrative practices of public school superintendents. A committee of experts made up of one member each from the office of the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Michigan Association of School Boards, and the Michigan Education Association reviewed and classified the activities, con- sidering their relevance and importance with regard to the practices of public school superintendents in the state. The committee reduced the activities to twenty—five (Appendix A-3 and A-H). Scale to measure levels of adequacy:-—A Lickert- type, ordinal five-point scale, with statistics designed for interval scales, was developed for the instrument. The scale permits a spread of individual responses, and allows for individual perceptions of levels of adequacy 5Allan I. Edwards, Techniques of Attitude Scale Con- struction, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957), pp. 6Ibid. Ml associated with the twenty-five administrative activities. Two columns in the instrument call for level-of-adequacy reSponses. Column 1 measures the levels at which respondents, if they are superintendents, feel themselves to be adequate, and if they are professors, feel superintendents to be ade- quate as regards each of the twenty-five activities. Column 3 measures the levels at which respondents feel adequacy is ideal as regards each of the twenty-five activities. The level at which a superintendent is considered to be adequate as regards each of the activities is determined by the dis- crepancy, or difference, between scores in Column 1 and scores in Column 3. For a discrepancy to occur in connec- tion with any one of the activities, the score in Column 1 must be less than the score in Column 3. When the score in Column 1 is subtracted from the score in Column 3, the difference between the two is called the "discrepancy score." The discrepancy score governs the level at which a superintendent is considered to be adequate in the per- formance of an activity. There is an inverse relationship between a discrepancy score and the level at which a superintendent is considered to be adequate. The higher the discrepancy score, the lower is the level at which a superintendent is considered to be adequate. Conversely, the lower the discrepancy score, the higher is the level at which a superintendent is considered to be adequate. n+2 Scale to measure levels of satisfaction:—-A Lickert- type, ordinal five-point scale, with statistics designed for interval scales, was deve10ped. The scale permits a spread of individual responses and allows for individual perceptions of varying levels of satisfaction regarding levels of adequacy associated with the twenty-five administra- tive activities. Column 2 in the instrument calls for level-of- satisfaction responses. Superintendents used this column to indicate how satisfied they were with the levels at which they perceived themselves to be adequate as regards each of the administrative activities. Professors used Column 2 to indicate how satisfied they were with the levels at which they perceived superintendents to be adequate as regards each of the activities. 43 Populations and Sample Used in the Study Population and sample of superintendents:--Of the 529 school districts in Michigan offering instruction in kindergarten through twelfth grade in 1959,7 two were excluded from the study because they were considered atypical.8 Thus, the remaining 527 districts established the population of superintendents from which the sample used in this study was selected. The districts were divided into four cate- gories on the basis of size, from the smallest to largest (Table l), and this was the pattern from which a 10 per cent fixed interval sample was extracted. Table l.--Size and Number of Districts Operating K-12 Programs Size of District Number of Districts Per Cent of Total Under 500 136 26 500 to 999 154 28 1,000 to 1,999 120 zu 2,000 and Over _113 __22 527 100 7Data obtained from the Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing. 8Detroit was excluded because of its size, the laws under which its school district must operate, and the special provision of the state aid act relative to its deductible millage. Beaver Island Community School, because of its size, was excluded since it does not employ a superintendent. nu Sixty-six superintendents were invited to participate in the study. Fifty-two completed instruments were required for a 10 per cent sample, and fifty-five superintendents completed and returned test instruments (Table 2). Table 2.--Superintendents Invited and Responses Required and Obtained No. of Superintendents Size of District Districts InVited Required Obtained < to 500 136 17 11+ in 500 to 999 15” 19 15 17 1,000 to 1,999 129 15 12 12 2,000 and > 113 15 ll 12 527 66 52 55 It had been assumed that the educational training and experience of superintendents in small districts were less than the educational training and experience of superintendents in large districts. This assumption proved to be valid. It also had been assumed that a sample of the population se- lected on the basis of size of district would result in a representative sample. This assumption, however, proved to be invalid. Forty-eight of the fifty-five districts had $15,000 or less state equalized valuation per resident stu— dent, and only seven districts had more than $15,000 state equalized valuation per resident student (Table 3). The 45 state average, at the time this study was made, was approxi- mately $15,000 per resident student.9 Table 3.--Fifty-Five Districts by Wealth Wealth* No. Districts <( - $7,000 19 $ 7,100 - 10,000 15 10,100 - 15,000 13 15,100 — )> 7 55 *Number of dollars per resident student Population of Professors:--The researcher queried deans of the Colleges of Education at Michigan State Uni— versity, Wayne State University, University of Michigan, and Western Michigan University requesting the names of professors who spent half of their teaching time or more in the area of educational administration. The names were supplied: Fif- teen professors selected from the four state institutions comprised the population of professors used in this study (Table 4). Because professors of educational administration are responsible for the formal instruction of school administra- tors, it was accepted that they are knowledgeable about and 9Data obtained from the Michigan Department of Public Instruction, Lansing. #6 familiar with the various aspects of the role of public school superintendents. Table H.—-Professors and Institutions Participating in Study Institution Professors Michigan State University 7 University of Michigan u Wayne State University 2 Western Michigan University _2 15 Procedure for Collecting Data Collection of data from superintendents.--The researcher mailed letters to sixty-six superintendents, inviting them to participate in the study and assuring them that names and school districts would remain confidential. Superintendents were asked to indicate on enclosed post cards, addressed to the researcher, whether they would participate. Accompanying the letter of invitation was a letter from the chairman of the researcher's Guidance Com- mittee (Appendix C). Fifty-five of the superintendents responded affirma- tively; and instruments were mailed to them. Two weeks after the mailing of the instruments, reminders were sent to those who had not returned completed instruments. Although fifty- five respondents completed and returned instruments within a 47 thirty-day period, only fifty-two completed instruments were required for a ten per cent sample of the population (Table 2). Collection of data from professors.--The instrument was mailed to two professors of educational administration from Wayne State University, to four at the University of Michigan, and two at Western Michigan University. Instru- ments were delivered personally to each of the seven pro- fessors at Michigan State University. The participants were assured that their names would not be used in the study, and that the data supplied would not be identified by institu- tion. The fifteen professors completed and returned instru- ments within sixteen days of the mailing and distribution date. Because of the promptness of the respondents, it was not necessary to send out reminders. Tabulating Data for Analysis Data collected from the respondents were recorded on specially developed forms and on three-by-five-inch cards for the purpose of tabulation and analysis (Appendix D and E). The following information supplied by each super- intendent was tabulated: (1) area discrepancy scores, (2) area satisfaction scores, (3) size of school district, (9) wealth of school district, (5) educational training, and (6) experience (Appendix F). The following information supplied by each professor was tabulated: (1) area dis- crepancy scores, and (2) area satisfaction scores (Appendix G). 48 Statistical Methods Three statistical techniques were applied to the data in this study. 1. Hoyt's technique for determining homogeneity reliability. 2. An F test for determining homogeneity of variance. 3. A t test for determining significance of difference. Hoyt's technique for homogeneity reliability:—-The Hoyt technique was used for determining homogeneity relia- bility of the data yielded in the instrument. The scales in the instrument ranged from one to five points; hence, the Hoyt technique provides a formula for estimating the reliability coefficient when item scores are not restricted to 1 nor 0. It was assumed that the coefficient of .92 obtained for instruments completed by superintendents, and the coefficient of .91 obtained for instruments completed by professors were sufficient to establish reliability of the instrument. F test for homogeneity of variance:--The F test was used for determining whether the probability of variance within areas compared was significant. The level of sig- nificance was set at .05. The F test assumes random samples of normal populations, and assumes samples have the same H9 variance but necessarily the same mean. t test for significance of difference:-—The t test was selected as appropriate to be used for determining the significance of difference because the data collected for the study were tabulated by mean scores. The level of significance was set at .05. Summary A statement of the statistical hypotheses has been presented in this chapter. The composition of the sample and how it was obtained have been described; and the details of the methodology have been discussed. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF SUPERINTENDENTS' AND PROFESSORS' ADEQUACY RESPONSES In this chapter the responses of fifty-five superin- tendents andfifteen professors of educational administration were classified by five areas of administrative activity: Administrative Leadership, Personnel Administration, Adminis- tration of the School Program, Administration of Pupil Per- sonnel and, Administration of Business Affairs. The responses of superintendents were further classi— fied by the factors of size of district, wealth of district, educational training of superintendent and experience or number of years as a superintendent. The responses of superintendents and professors were then classified by the level of adequacy variable; comparisons were made between the mean discrepancy scores of each area for superintendents and professors. Statistical Analysis Instrument reliability for both superintendents and professors was established by the use of Hoyt's technique for determining homogeneity reliability. Total instrument relia- bility for superintendents was .92 and for professors, .91 (Table 5). 50 51 Table 5.--Reliability of Instruments Area Superintendents Professors l .77 .82 2 .82 .76 3 .82 .83 H .73 .72 5 .73 .66 Total instrument .92 .91 Superintendents' Adequacy Responses The mean discrepancy scores of superintendents for each of the five areas were ranked (Table 6). The mean discrepancy scores represented the difference between scores obtained in column one and column three of the adequacy scales. Column one referred to how adequate superintendents felt they were in the selected activities associated with the public school superintendency. Column three referred to, ideally, how adequate superintendents felt they should be in each of the activities. Adequacy is hereafter taken to be the amount of difference (discrepancy) between reported adequacy and the ideal adequacy in a given area. In interpret- ing the mean discrepancy scores, the higher the mean the less the adequacy of superintendents, the lower the mean the greater the adequacy of superintendents. 52 A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. A line extending from one area to another indicated no significant differences between these areas. Table 6 thus revealed that in terms of extremes superintend- ents felt most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Table 6.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy Scores for Superintendents Area 5 H 2 l 3 Scale of Means l 2 3 n 5 Means 1.67 2.51 3.38 H.16 3.55 Size of District The mean discrepancy scores for each of the five areas of administrative activity for superintendents were distributed according to size of district (Table 7). A comparison of the mean discrepancy scores for each area was made by using the F test to determine significant differences among areas due to size of district. Since no significant differences were reported, superintendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area re- gardless of the size of the school district. 53 Table 7.--Mean Discrepancy Scores by Areas for Superintend- ents by Size of District Size of Area District ’1 2 3 h 5 <:- #99 3.86 3.71 4.86 2.07 1.71 500- 999 3.76 3.12 3.u7 3.18 2.06 1000-1999 ”.50 u.u2 5.H2 3.17 1.75 2000—:> 1.92 2.33 3.08 1.42 1.00 F N.S.* N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. *Not Significant The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean discrepancy scores for each group of superintendents with respect to the size of district. A t test was run to determine significant differences be- tween these areas. An analysis of Table 8 in terms of extremes indicated that regardless of the size of district, superintendents felt most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of School Program with one exception: Superintendents in dis- tricts of 500-999 students felt most adequate in Area 5 but least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. 51: Table 8.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy Scores for Superintendents by Size of District Area Scale << -499 Students 5 u 21 3 of Means l 2 3 H 5 Means 1.71 3.71 0.86 2.07 3.86 500-999 Students Area 5 2H 3 1 Scale of Means 1 2 3 H Means 2.06 3.12 3.76 3.18 3.47 1000-1999 Students Area 5 u 21 3 Scale of Means 1 2 7? 4 5 Means 1.75 3.17 H.02 5.02 4.50 2000€>> Students Area 5 H 1 2 3 Scale of Means l 2 3 u Means 1.00 1.u2 1.92 3.08 55 Wealth of District The mean discrepancy scores for each of the five areas of administrative activity for superintendents were distributed according to wealth of district (Table 9). A comparison of the mean discrepancy scores for each area was made by using the F test to determine significant differences among areas due to wealth of district. Significant differ- ences were not apparent; consequently, superintendents per- ceived the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area regardless of the wealth of the district. Table 9.--Mean Discrepancy Scores by Areas for Superintend- ents by Wealth of District Wealth* Area 1 2 3 0 5 <:- 7000 3.70 3.53 0.26 2.07 1.02 7100-10000 3.19 3.38 0.06 2.25 2.00 10100—15000 3.50 3.69 0.08 3.15 1.85 15100-:> 3.86 2.03 3.86 2.03 1.29 F N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. *Number of dollars per resident pupil The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean discrepancy scores for each group of superintendents with respect to the wealth of district. A 56 t test was run to determine significant differences between these areas. An analysis of Table 10 indicated in terms of extremes that, regardless of the wealth of district, superintendents felt most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program with one exception: Superintendents in dis- tricts with $15100 or more per resident pupil also felt least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. Educational Training An examination was made of the data according to the educational training of superintendents. The mean discrepancy scores for each of the five areas of administra- tive activity were compared between one group of superintend- ents possessing only a master's degree and another group with one or more years beyond the master's degree (Table 11). A t test was used to determine whether or not there were significant differences between the means of the five areas for the two groups. Area 3, Administration of the School Program, was the only area in which a significant difference occurred. A 2.009 at the five per cent level was necessary to be significant. Superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree felt more adequate in administering the school program than did superintendents who possessed only a master's degree. 57 Table 10.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy Scores for Superintendents by Wealth of District <:-$7000 Per Resident Pupil Area 5 0 2 l 3 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 5 Means 1.02 2.07 3.53 0.26 3.70 $7100-$10000 Per Resident Pupil Area 5 0 1 2 3 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 5 Means 2.00 3.19 0.06 2.25 3.38 Area 5 0 l 2 3 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 5 Means 1.85 3.15 0.08 3.50 3.69 $15100—> Per Resident Pupil 2 1 Area 5 0 3 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 Means 1.29 2.03 3.86 58 Table ll.--Mean Discrepancy Scores by Areas for Superintend- ents According to Educational Training Educational Area Training 1 2 3 0 5 Master's Degree 3.56 3.06 0.37 2.06 1.61 One or more years beyond master's degree 2.77 2.00 2.31 2.23 1.38 t N.S. N.S. 2.177 N08. N08. The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean discrepancy scores for each group by educational training (Table 12). A t test was used to determine significant differences between the areas as ranked for each group. Superintendents possessing only a master's degree felt most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree also felt most adequate in Area 5 but least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. 59 Table 12.—-Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Discrep— ancy Scores for Superintendents by Educational Training Master's Degree Area 5 0 g 3 Scale of Means III 2* 3 0 5 Means 1.61 2.06 3.06 0.37 3.56 One or More Years Beyond the Master's Degree Area 5 2 0 3 1 Scale of Means I 2 3 Means 1.38 2.00 2.23 2.77 2.31 Experience as Superintendent The mean discrepancy scores for each of the five areas of administrative activity for superintendents were distributed according to the factor of experience. A comparison of the mean discrepancy scores for each area was made by using the F test to determine significant differences among areas with respect to experience. There were no significant differences among areas since superin- tendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area regardless of their experience as superintendents (Table 13). 60 Table 13.--Mean Discrepancy Scores by Area for Superintend- ents According to Experience* Area Experience 1 2 3 0 5 13-22 3.33 3.25 3.92 2.75 1.83 F N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. *Number of years as superintendent The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean discrepancy scores for each group of superintendents based on their experience as a superintendent. A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. An analysis of Table 10 indicated that, in terms of extremes and regardless of experience, superintendents felt most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. Superintendents with 6-12 years' experience and 13-22 years' experience felt least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Those with 0-5 years' experience felt least adequate in Area 1, Administra- tive Leadership and superintendents with 23 or more years' experience felt least adequate in Area 2, Administration of Pupil Personnel. 61 Table l0.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy Scores for Superintendents By Experience <:-5 Years Area 5 0 2 3 1 Scale of Means l 2 3 0 5 Means 1.87 2.67 3.73 0.00 0.60 6-12 Years Area 5 0 2 l 3 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 5 Means 1.13 2.13 2.53 0.07 2.80 13-22 Years Area 5 0 21 3 Scale of Means II 2 7?’ 0 Means 1.83 2.75 3.25 3.92 3.33 23->> Years Area 5 0 l 32 Scale of Means 1 2 3 0 5 Means 1.85 2.77 3.38 0.00 0.08 62 Professors' Adequacy Responses The mean discrepancy scores of professors of educa- tional administration for each of the five areas of adminis- trative activity were ranked (Table 15). The mean discrep- ancy scores represented the difference between scores obtained in column one and column three of the adequacy scales. Column one referred to how adequate professors felt super- intendents were with respect to each of the twenty-five administrative activities. Column three referred to how adequate professors felt superintendents should be, ideally, with respect to each of these activities. A t test was run to determine significant differences between the areas as ranked. An analysis of the data revealed, in terms of extremes, that were most adequate in Area Affairs and least adequate School Program (Table 15). Table 15.--Significances 0 Scores for Prof professors felt superintendents 5, Administration of Business in Area 3, Administration of the f Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy essors Area 5 0 2 l 3 Scale of Means 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Means 0.60 6.13 9.13 10.07 11.13 63 Comparison of Adequacy Responses Between Superintendents and Professors Comparisons were made between the mean discrepancy scores of each area for superintendents and professors by using the t test to determine significant differences. A value of 2.131 was necessary to be significant. There were significant differences between the mean scores of all five areas as the t values exceeded the value demanded for sig- nificance (Table 16). Table 16.--Mean Discrepancy Scores by Areas for Superintend- ents and Professors Area 1 2 3 0 5 Superintendents Mean Score 3.55 3.38 0.16 2.51 1.67 Professors Mean Score 10.07 9.13 11.13 6.13 0.60 t 5.962 6.065 6.567 0.835 3.621 The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean discrepancy scores for both the super— intendents and professors (Table 17). An analysis of Table 17 revealed that the level of adequacy of each area for public school superintendents as perceived by superintendents had the same relative priority as the level of adequacy which professors perceived for the 60 Table l7.--Area Rankings by Mean Discrepancy Scores for Superintendents and Professors Superintendents Professors Means Area Area Means 5.: 1'0 -‘ ‘I: 15.- 4.. 171-12- .I‘Z-.|"l- c 0 men H mu: m NH 0.) l” 1‘” 4‘ ll Scale of Means 65 superintendents. Both superintendents and professors ranked the five areas in the same order. Both felt superintendents were most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Though the ranking of areas was the same by both groups one important difference was noted. The lowest mean discrepancy score for professors was greater than the highest mean discrepancy score for superintendents. Area 3, ‘which ranked highest for superintendents, had a mean of 0.16; and area 5, which ranked lowest for professors, had a mean of 0.60. A t test was run to determine significant differences between the areas ranked for both superintendents and pro- fessors. No significant difference occurred between Area 3 of superintendents and Area 5 of professors. A significant difference did occur between Area 3 of superintendents and Area 0 of professors. All areas, except the mean discrepancy score of Area 5 for professors, were significantly above the mean discrepancy scores of superintendents. In the final analysis even though the ranking of areas was in the same order for both superintendents and professors, the mean discrepancy scores of each area for professors were significantly higher than the scores for superintendents. Professors perceived a lower level of adequacy for super- intendents in each area than superintendents perceived for themselves. 66 Summary The level of adequacy responses of fifty-five super- intendents and fifteen professors of educational administration were classified by the five areas of administrative activities and the responses of superintendents were further classified by the factors of size and wealth of district, educational training and experience of the superintendent. The responses of superintendents and professors were also scaled by the level of adequacy variable. Hoyt's technique for determining homogeneity reliability was applied resulting in a total instrument reliability of .92 for superintendents and .91 for professors. The F test followed by a t test was used to determine significant differences between compared variables. Superintendents Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores of super- intendents by areas indicated that superintendents perceived themselves to be most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Sigg.--Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores of superintendents with respect to size of district indicated superintendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area regardless of the size of school district. 67 The ranking of areas according to mean discrepancy scores for each of the size classifications indicated super- intendents perceived themselves to be most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, with one exception: Superintendents in districts of 500-999 students perceived themselves to be least adequate in Administrative Leadership. Wealth.--Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores by areas indicated superintendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area regardless of the wealth of the school district. Educational Training.--Comparison of the mean dis- crepancy scores by areas indicated that regardless of educa- tional training superintendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in the areas of Administra- tive Leadership, Personnel Administration, Administration of Pupil Personnel and Administration of Business Affairs. Superintendents possessing only a master's degree perceived themselves to be less adequate in the Administration of the School Program than did superintendents with one or more years' educational training beyond the master's degree. The ranking of areas according to mean discrepancy scores indicated superintendents with a master's degree per- ceived themselves to be least adequate in the Administration of the School Program and most adequate in the Administration of Business Affairs. 68 The ranking of areas according to mean discrepancy scores indicated superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree perceived themselves to be least adequate in the area of Administrative Leadership and most. adequate in Administration of Business Affairs. Experience.--Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores by areas indicated that, regardless of the amount of experience, superintendents perceived about the same level of adequacy for themselves in each area. The ranking of areas according to mean discrepancy scores indicated that, regardless of the amount of experi- ence, superintendents perceived themselves to be most ade- quate in Administration of Business Affairs. Those with 0-5 years' experience perceived themselves to be least ade— quate in Administrative Leadership. Superintendents with 6-12 years' and 13-22 years' experience perceived themselves to be least adequate in Administration of the School Program. Superintendents with 23 or more years' experience perceived themselves to be least adequate in Administration of Pupil Personnel. Professors Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores of pro- fessors by areas indicated that professors of educational administration felt superintendents were most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. 69 Superintendents and Professors Comparison of the mean discrepancy scores by areas for both professors and superintendents indicated that the scores of professors were significantly higher in all areas than the scores of superintendents. Professors, then, perceived a lower level of adequacy in each area for super— intendents than did superintendents for themselves. The ranking of areas according to mean discrepancy scores indicated both superintendents and professors felt that superintendents were most adequate in Area 5, Adminis— tration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. The following hypotheses were generated: 1. Superintendents, in general, tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program than in other areas of school administration under study. 2. Regardless of the size of school district, superintendents, in general, tend to possess the same level of adequacy in the areas under study. 3. Regardless of the wealth of districts, superin- tendents, in general, tend to possess the same level of adequacy in the areas under study. 0. Regardless of educational training, superintend- ents, in general, have about the same level of adequacy in the areas of administrative leadership, personnel administration, .\.. 70 administration of pupil personnel and administration of business affairs. 5. Superintendents with one or more year's educa- tional training beyond the master's degree tend to feel more adequate in administering the school program than do super- intendents possessing only a master's degree. 6. Regardless of experience, superintendents, in general, tend to possess the same level of adequacy in the areas under study. 7. Professors of educational administration tend to feel that superintendents are most adequate in the ad- ministration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 8. Professors of educational administration tend to feel that superintendents are not as adequate in the areas under study as superintendents feel themselves to be. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF SUPERINTENDENTS' AND PROFESSORS' SATISFACTION RESPONSES The responses of fifty-five superintendents and fifteen professors of educational administration were classi- fied by the five areas of administrative activity: Admin- istrative Leadership, Personnel Administration, Administra— tion of the School Program, Administration of Pupil Personnel and, Administration of Business Affairs. The responses of superintendents were further class- ified by the factors of size of district, wealth of district, educational training of superintendent and experience or number of years as a superintendent. The responses of superintendents and professors were then classified by the level of satisfaction variable; com- parisons were made between the mean discrepancy scores of each area for superintendents and professors. Superintendents' Satisfaction Responses The mean satisfaction scores of superintendents for each of the five areas of administrative activity were ranked (Table 18). The mean satisfaction scores represented how satisfied superintendents were with the levels at which 71 72 they perceived themselves to be adequate as regards the five areas of administrative activity. In interpreting the mean satisfaction scores, the higher the mean the greater the degree of satisfaction. Table 18.—-Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Satis- faction Scores for Superintendents Area 0 3 2 l 5 Scale of Means 15 16 17 18 19 20 Means 16.85 19.07 19.09 18.07 18.29 A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. A line extending from one area to another indicated no significant differences between these areas. Table 18 thus revealed in terms of extremes that, superin- tendents were most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 0, Administra- tion of Pupil Personnel. Size of District The mean satisfaction scores of superintendents for each of the five areas of activity were distributed with reSpect to size of district (Table 19.) Comparison of the mean satisfaction scores for each area was made by use of 73 Table l9.--Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin— tendents According to Size of District Size of Area District 1 2 3 0 5 <:- 099 19.21 18.57 18.28 18.60 19.28 500- 999 19.70 18.70 19.05 16.58 19.76 1000-1999 17.08 17.25 16.01 15.25 18.01 2000—:> 20.00 19.25 19.08 16.75 20.01 F 2.97 N.S. N.S. 3.50 N.S. the F test to determine if there were any significant differ- ences in the level of satisfaction among areas. An analysis of the data indicated that significant differences did occur in Area 1, Administrative Leadership and Area 0, Administra- tion of Pupil Personnel. The mean satisfaction scores of superintendents for Area 1 and Area 0 were ranked (Tables 20 and 21). A t test was run to determine where the differ- ences occurred. An examination of the data revealed in terms of extremes that, superintendents in districts of 2000-:> students felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in the leadership aspects of admin- istration and superintendents in districts of 1000-1999 students were least satisfied with their adequacy in this area (Table 20). 70 Table 20.—-Significances of Area 1 (Administrative Leadership) Rankings by Mean Satisfaction Scores for Superin- tendents by Size of District Size* C A B D Scale of Means l5 16 17 18 19 20 Mean 17.08 20.00 19.70 19.21 *A. <:—099 c. 1000—1999 B. 500-999 D. 2000-:> Superintendents in districts of <:-099 students felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 0, Administration of Pupil Personnel and superintendents in districts of 1000-1999 students felt least satisfied with their adequacy in this area (Table 21). Table 21.--Significances of Area 0 (Administration of Pupil Personnel) Rankings by Mean Satisfaction Scores for Superintendents by Size of District Size* 0 B D A Scale of Means 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mean 15.25 16.75 18.60 16.58 *A. <1 -099 c. 1000-1999 B. 500 -999 D. 2000—;> 75 The five areas of activity were then ranked accord- ing to the mean satisfaction scores for each group of super- intendents based on size of district (Table 22). A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. An analysis of Table 22 indicated in terms of extremes that, regardless of the size of districts, superintendents felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and in districts with 500 or more students superintendents felt least satis- fied with their level of adequacy in Area 0, Administration of Pupil Personnel. In districts with ‘<:-099 students, superintendents were least satisfied in Area 3, Administra- tion of the School Program. Wealth of District The mean satisfaction scores of superintendents for each of the five areas of activity were distributed with respect to wealth of district (Table 23). Comparisons of the mean satisfaction scores for each area were made by use of the F test to determine if there were any significant differences among areas. There were no significant differ- ences and superintendents perceived the same level of satis— faction for themselves in each area regardless of the wealth of district. 76 Table 22.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Satisfac- tion Scores for Superintendents by Size of Dis- trict <-099 Students Area 3 20 15 Scale of Means 16 17 18 19 20 Means 18.28 18.60 19.28 18.57 19.21 500-999 Students Area 0 2 3 15 Scale of Means 16 17 18 19 20 Means 16.58 19.05 19.76 18.70 19.70 1000-1999 Students Area 0 3 l 2 5 Scale of Means 15 16 17 18 19 20 Means 15.25 16.01 17.25 18.01 17.08 2000-) Students Area 0 32 l 5 Scale of Means 16 17 218' 19 20 Means 16.75 19.25 20.01 19.08 20.00 77 Table 23.--Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin— tendents by Wealth of District Wealth of Area District 1 2 3 0 5 <:- 7000 19.10 18.52 18.57 16.36 19.31 7100-10000 19.18 18.68 18.06 17.75 20.75 10100-15000 18.76 17.92 17.53 16.00 18.30 15100-:> 19.28 18.85 19.02 17.71 19.28 F IqIS. N.S. N.S. IqOS. N.S. The five areas of activity were ranked according to the mean satisfaction scores for each group of superintend- ents by wealth of district (Table 20). A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. An analysis of Table 20 indicated in terms of extremes that, regardless of the wealth of districts, superintendents felt least satis- fied with their level of adequacy in Area 0, Administration of Pupil Personnel. In districts with <:-$7000 and $7100- 310000 per resident pupil superintendents felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. Superintendents in districts with $10100-$15000 per resident pupil felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. In districts with $15100 or more per resident pupil greatest satisfaction was in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. 78 Table 2u.--Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin- tendents According to Wealth of District Area Scale of Means Means Area Scale of Means Means Area Scale of Means Means Area Scale of Means Means <:-$7000 u 23 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 16.3% 18.57 19.31 18.52 19.10 $7100-$10000 u 3 2 1 5 17' 18 19 20 21 18.06 19.18 20.75 17.75 18.68 610100-615000 u 3 2 5 1 16 17 18 19 20 16.00 17.92 18.76 17.53 18.30 $15100-:> 1 u 2 5 3 16 17 18 19’ 20 .28 17.71 18.85 19.82 19.28 79 Educational Training Comparisons were made of the mean satisfaction scores between superintendents possessing a master's degree and superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree. A t test was used to determine if there were sig— nificant differences between the means of the five areas for the two groups. Educational training did not affect the level of satisfaction as there were no significant differences be- tween the means of the two groups (Table 25). Table 25.-~Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin- tendents by Educational Training Educational - Area Training 1 2 3 u 5 Master's 18.75 18.31 18.02 16.68 19.26 One or more years beyond 20.00 19.15 19.46 17.38 20.15 master's t N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. The five areas of activity were ranked according to the mean satisfaction scores for each group of superintend- ents based on educational training (Table 26). A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas for the two groups. An analysis of Table 26 revealed in terms of extremes that, regardless of educational training, A... 80 S\Ipencintendents were most satisfied with their level of éadtuquacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and lxaast satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area H, Adndnistration of Pupil Personnel. Table 26.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Satis- faction Scores for Superintendents Based on Educational Training Area Scale of Means Means Area Scale of Means Means Master's Degree 2 4 3 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 18.31 16.68 18.31 19.26 18.02 One or More Years Beyond Master's Degree 8 2 3 1 5 17 18 19 20 21 17.38 19.86 20.15 19.15 20.00 Experience as Superintendent The mean satisfaction scores of superintendents for each of the five areas of activity were distributed with respect to experience as a superintendent (Table 27). A comparison of the mean satisfaction scores for each area was made by use of the F test to determine if there were Significant differences among areas. An analysis of the 81 data indicated that significant differences occurred only iJ1.Area 8, Administration of Pupil Personnel. A t test idas run to determine where the differences occurred. Table 27.--Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin- tendents According to Experience Area Experience I’ 2 3 k 5 19.07 18.15 18.23 16.61 19.61 F N.S. N.S. N.S. 3.598 N.S. An examination of the t test results revealed in terms of extremes that, superintendents with 6-12 years ex- perience were more satisfied than other superintendents with their level of adequacy in Area H, Administration of Pupil Personnel, and superintendents with 13-22 years experience were least satisfied (Table 28). The five areas of administrative activity were ranked according to the mean satisfaction scores for each group of superintendents by experience (Table 29). A t test was run to determine significant differences between areas. An analysis 82 Talile 28.--Significances of Area 8 (Administration of Pupil Personnel) Rankings by Mean Satisfaction Scores for Superintendents by Experience Experience* C DA B Scale of Means 15 16 17 18 19 20 Means 15.66 16.73 18.20 16.61 *A. years of Table 29 indicated in terms of extremes that superintend— ents with twelve years experience and under had about the same degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in all areas. Superintendents with thirteen or more years experience were more satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied in Area 8, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Professors' Satisfaction Re5ponses An F test was performed to determine if tfere were significant differences in the means among the five areas of administrative activity for the professors. No signifi- cant differences occurred which indicated that professors perceived about the same level of satisfaction for all five areas of activity (Table 30). 83 (Cable: 29.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Satisfac- tion Scores for Superintendents by Experience ; <:-S years Area H 2 3 Scale of Means 16 17 18 19 20 Means 16.73 18.13 18.86 17.86 18.60 6-12 years Area 8 3 5 1 2 Scale of Means 716 17_’ 18 19 28 Means 18.20 19.80 19.60 19.46 19.26 13-22 years Area H 3 2 l 5 Scale of Means 16 ’17 18 19 20 Means 15.66 17.33 17.91 19.00 20.16 23-:> years Area H 23 l 5 Scale of Means 16 17 18 719 20 Means 16.61 18.23 19.07 19.61 18.15 i‘iillilll) .lliill‘ilw ‘1... 1 .. . . .ii.fi .. . .1 p7..- { i i .111.‘ .rWIIW.‘ ll .4 ...“.,fl ..¥u . .. .11.. - 4.1.31. .. 2.- 1‘ .11H33EEJwFII—l.Oa94M;v.sx...A.Mme r... t... .Wini .. .95.. .10.»: ashlnf.wgnau¥flfi,r.... . Vt... if...» . . 89 (fable 30.--Significances of Area Rankings by Mean Satisfac- tion Scores for Professors ; Area 3 1 2 1+ 5 Scale of Means 13 14 15 I6 17 Means 13.n0 14.80 16.86 13.06 16.66 85 Cc>mparison of Satisfaction Responses Between Superintendents and Professors Comparisons were made between the mean satisfaction scores of each area for superintendents and professors by using the t test to determine significant differences. An analysis of the data indicated the mean satisfaction scores of superintendents were higher in every area than the scores of professors (Table 31). However, significant differences occurred in Areas 1, 2, 3, 5 and not in Area 4. Superin- tendents appeared to have a greater degree of satisfaction with their perceived level of adequacy in Areas 1, 2, 3 and 5 than did the professors. There was no significant differ- ence in the degree of satisfaction between both groups in Area 4. Table 31.--Mean Satisfaction Scores by Areas for Superin- tendents and Professors Area 13 2 3 E 5 Superintendents 19.07 18.47 18.29 16.85 19.49 Professors 13.40 14.80 13.06 16.66 16.86 t 11.224 8.111 10.345 N.S. 2.727 86 Summary The level of satisfaction responses of superintend- ents anid professors were classified by the five areas of administrative activity and the responses of superintendents were further classified by the factors of size and wealth of district, educational training and experiences of the superintendent. Superintendents Comparison of the mean satisfaction scores of super— intendents by areas indicated that superintendents were most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Sigg.--Comparison of the mean satisfaction scores of superintendents with respect to size of district indi- cated that significant differences in the level of satis— faction occurred in Area 1, Administrative Leadership and Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. The ranking of areas according to mean satisfaction scores for each of the size classifications indicated in terms of extremes that, regardless of size of district, superintendents felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Busi- ness Affairs and in districts with 500 or more students, 87 éuPer‘i—ntendents felt least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. In distrdxzts with <:-499 students superintendents were least Satisfied in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Wealth.--Regardless of wealth of district, superin- tendents felt least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. In districts of <:-$7000 and $7000-$10000 per resident pupil superin- tendents felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. In districts of $10100-$15000 per resident pupil superintendents felt a greater degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in Area 1, Administrative Leader- ship. In districts of $151004:> per resident pupil greatest' satisfaction was in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Educational Training.--Regardless of educational training, superintendents were most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Experience as Sgperintendent.--Comparison on the mean satisfaction scores of superintendents with respect to experience as superintendents indicated significant differences in the level of satisfaction occurred only in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Superintendents 88 with 5—12 years experience were more satisfied than other suPer‘intendents with their level of adequacy in Area 4 and 5uperin‘tendents with 13-22 years experience were least Satisfied. An examination of superintendents' responses in each of the four classifications of experience indicated that superintendents with<1~5 years and 6—12 years experience had about the same degree of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in all areas and superintendents with 13-22 years and 23-:>years experience were more satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Professors Professors of educational administration perceived about the same level of satisfaction with the adequacy of superintendents in all five areas of administrative activity. Superintendents and Professors Superintendents were more satisfied with their level of adequacy with respect to the administrative activities than were the professors of educational administration. The following hypotheses were generated from the data: 1. Superintendents, in general, tend to feel most satisfied with their level of adequacy of the administration of business affairs and least satisfied with their level of . . 2.1.6.9 . r u. ., . 6 .. a"... .8... M. . m. ..<~I” . —’V._.. x . a... .2 MW%IHH1.1...._.,HJ.$..... . f , .. . . ..... . If... .y...-. y , . .l 89 adeQUaCy in the administration of pupil personnel. 2. Regardless of size of district, superintendents, in general, are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of business affairs and least satis- fied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 3. Superintendents in districts with <:- $7000 state equalized valuation behind each student tend to be most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administra- tion of business affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 4. Regardless of wealth of district, superintendents tend to feel least satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 5. Regardless of educational training, superintendents tend to perceive the same level of satisfaction for them- selves in each area under study. 6. Regardless of educational training, superintendents tend to feel most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of business affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 7. Regardless of experience, superintendents tend to perceive the same level of satisfaction for themselves in each area under study except Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. 90 8. Regardless of experience, superintendents tend tgp'PeIxzeive themselves to be most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of business affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administra- tion of pupil personnel. 9. Professors of educational administration perceive about the same level of satisfaction with respect to the adequacy of superintendents in the areas under study. 10. Public school superintendents are more satisfied with their level of adequacy with respect to the administra- tive activities under study than are professors of educa- tional administration. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary It was the purpose of this study to determine re- lationships between levels of adequacy of superintendents pertaining to important aspects of their job. Its specific purpose was to present the levels of adequacy and levels of satisfaction reported by selected public school superintend- ents and professors of educational administration, and to determine relationships between levels of adequacy and satisfaction so that hypotheses may be formed. It was the intent of this study that the hypotheses, so formed, would be potentially useful in re-examination and improvement of college and university programs designed to prepare graduate students for public school administration and to improve performance of experienced school administrators. An instrument was constructed for the purpose of collecting data from selected public school superintendents and selected professors of educational administration. A committee of experts selected twenty-five administrative activities associated with the public school superintendency for use in the instrument. The instrument was pretested in a pilot study and mailed to sixty-six superintendents in 91 92 d1StI‘icts with grades kindergarten through twelve. Fifty— five or eighty-three per cent of the instruments were re- turneui resulting in slightly over the ten per cent sample desired for the study. Data-gathering instruments were mailed to eight pro— fessors of educational administration in three Michigan universities and were delivered personally to seven pro- fessors in one other university in Michigan. All fifteen or one hundred per cent of the instruments were returned by the professors. The data were analyzed as follows: 1. Hoyt's Technique for determining homogeneity was applied and the total instrument was found to be reliable. 2. The F test was applied to determine significant differences of the mean discrepancy scores for all areas according to size of district, wealth of district, and ex- perience of superintendents. 3. The t test was applied to determine significant differences in the mean discrepancy scores. 4. Hypotheses were generated from the data. General Conclusions A prime purpose of exploratory studies is to rec- ommend certain activities and operations which emerge from within the study. In order to arrive at this objective for this exploratory analysis it is necessary to consolidate and describe the general conclusions resulting from the 93 ifiqestigations of this study. The data can be summarized by presenting information relative to the five areas of administrative activities in which public school superintendents and professors of educational administration reported levels of adequacy and satisfaction. Adequacy Superintendents in General.--Superintendents in general feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administra- tion of the School Program. Size of District.-—Superintendents have about the same level of adequacy in each of the five areas of ad- ministrative activity regardless of the size of district. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to the size of district, superintendents feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, regardless of the size of district, with the exception that superintendents in districts with 500—999 pupils feel least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. Wealth of District.--Superintendents have about the same level of adequacy in each of the five areas of administrative activity regardless of the wealth of district. When the five areas of administrative activity are 91+ fafiked Within each group of superintendents with respect to Wealth of district, superintendents feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, regardless of the wealth of district, with the exception of districts with $15100 or more per pupil also feel least ade- quate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership. Educational Training.--Superintendents have the same level of adequacy in each of the five areas of administra- tive activity, regardless of educational training, with the exception that superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree feel more adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, than do superintend- ents possessing only a master's degree. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to educational training, all superintendents feel most ade- quate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and superintendents with a master's degree feel least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, while superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree feel least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leader- ship. Experience as Superintendent.—-Superintendents have about the same level of adequacy in each of the five areas of administrative activity regardless of their experience 1' ..... 1105' 9:1 .Dl 7!. Q? A 1... .12... 95 39 a. SuPerintendent . When the five areas of administrative activity are rankxxi within each group of superintendents with respect to experience as a superintendent, all superintendents feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program, with the exceptions that superintendents with five or less years experience as a superintendent feel least adequate in Area 1, Administrative Leadership and super- intendents with 23 or more years experience feel least adequate in Area 2, Personnel Administration. Professors of Educational Administration.--Professors feel that superintendents, in general, are most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least ade- quate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Superintendents and Professors.--Both superintend- ents and professors rank the five areas of administrative activity in the same order, however, professors feel that superintendents are less adequate in all the five areas than superintendents feel themselves to be. Both super- intendents and professors feel that superintendents are most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, was, without exception, reported as the area of greatest I adequacy by both superintendents and professors of educational 96 administration. Although there was some variance in the lea-St adequate reported category, Area 3, Administration of the School Program was predominantly reported by both superintendents and professors as the area of least adequacy for superintendents. It can be concluded that superintendents, in general, feel most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, while most superintendents feel least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. It can also be concluded that professors of educa- tional administration feel that superintendents are most adequate in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, and least adequate in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Satisfaction Superintendents in General.--Superintendents, in general, are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, and least satis- fied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Size of District.--Superintendents have the same level of satisfaction in Area 2, Personnel Administration, Area 3, Administration of the School Program and Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, regardless of the size of districts. In districts of 2000 or more pupils, super- intendents are more satisfied with their level of adequacy 97 if) AIWEa 1, Administrative Leadership than superintendents iJX Offlier districts and superintendents in districts of 1000-1999 pupils are less satisfied with their level of adequacy in this area than superintendents in other districts. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to size of district, superintendents are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel, with the exception that superintendents in districts with 499 pupils or less feel least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Wealth of District.--Superintendents have the same level of satisfaction for themselves in each area regard- less of the wealth of district. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to wealth of district, superintendents in districts with $7000 and less and $7100-$10000 are most satisfied with their level of adequacyin Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. Superintendents in districts with $10100-$15000 are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 1, Administrative Leadership and superintendents in districts with $15100 and more are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. All superintendents, regardless of the wealth of district, 98 are lxflast satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Educational Training.—-Superintendents have the same level of satisfaction for themselves in each area regardless of educational training. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to educational training, superintendents are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Experience as Superintendent.--Superintendents have the same level of satisfaction with their level of adequacy in each area with the exception that superintendents with 6-12 years experience are more satisfied than other super- intendents with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Adminis- tration of Pupil Personnel and superintendents with 13-22 years experience are less satisfied with their level of ade- quacy in this area than other superintendents. When the five areas of administrative activity are ranked within each group of superintendents with respect to experience as a superintendent, superintendents are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Adminis- tration of Business Affairs with the exception that superin- tendents with 6-12 years experience are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 2, Personnel Administration. All superintendents, regardless of experience, are least 99 satittfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Adminis- tration of Pupil Personnel. Professors of Educational Administration.--Professors of educational administration are most satisfied with the superintendents' level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with the superin- tendents' level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Superintendents and Professors.--Professors are less satisfied with the superintendents' level of adequacy in Area 1, Administrative Leadership, Area 2, Personnel Ad- ministration, Area 3, Administration of the School Program and Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs, than super- intendents. Superintendents and professors have the same level of satisfaction with the superintendents' level of ade- quacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. Both superintendents and professors reported most frequently that they were most satisfied with the superin- tendents' level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs. Although there was some variance in the least satisfied reported category, most superintendents were least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel and professors were least satisfied with the superintendents' level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. In conclusion, most superintendents are most satis- fied with their level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration .. .. c0; .. I . I. 0 I . \ _.... stay v... 100 of Ehisiness Affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in Area 4, Administration of Pupil Personnel. It can also be concluded that professors of educa- tional administration are most satisfied with the superin- tendents' level of adequacy in Area 5, Administration of Business Affairs and least satisfied with the superintend- ents' level of adequacy in Area 3, Administration of the School Program. Hypotheses Generated From Data The following hypotheses were generated from the data: 1. Superintendents, in general, tend to feel most adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program than in the other areas of school administration under study. 2. Regardless of the size of school district, super- intendents, in general, tend to possess the same level of adequacy in the areas under study. 3. Superintendents in districts with 500-999 students tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in administrative leadership than in the other areas under study. 4. Superintendents in districts of 1000—1999 students tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school prOgram. 101 5. Superintendents in districts with 2000-:> students tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program than in the other areas under study. 6. Superintendents, in general, tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program than in the other areas of school administration under study re- gardless of the size of district. 7. Superintendents in districts of <:—$7000 state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 8. Superintendents in districts of $7100—$10000 state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 9. Superintendents in districts with $10100-$15000 state equalized valuation behind each resident pupil tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 10. Superintendents in districts with $15100-:> state equalized valuation behind each pupil tend to feel most adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program 102 and auhninistrative leadership. 11. Regardless of the wealth of district, super- intendents, in general, tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program and in adminis- trative leadership. 12. Regardless of educational training, super- intendents, in general, tend to have about the same level of adequacy in the areas of administrative leadership, personnel administration, administration of pupil personnel and administration of business affairs. 13. Superintendents with one or more year's educa- tional training beyond the master's degree tend to feel more adequate in the administration of the school program than do superintendents possessing only a master's degree. 14. Superintendents with a master's degree tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 15. Superintendents with one or more years beyond the master's degree tend to feel more adequate in the ad- ministration of business affairs and least adequate in ad- ministrative leadership. 16. Regardless of experience, superintendents, in general, tend to possess the same level of adequacy in the areas under study. 103 17. Superintendents with 6-12 years experience tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 18. Superintendents with 13—22 years experience tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 19. Superintendents with 23fi>~years experience tend to feel more adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of pupil personnel. 20. Regardless of experience, superintendents, in general, tend to feel more adequate in the administra- tion of business affairs. 21. Professors of educational administration tend to feel that public school superintendents are most adequate in the administration of business affairs and least adequate in the administration of the school program. 22. Professors of educational administration tend to feel that superintendents are not as adequate in the areas under study as superintendents feel themselves to be. 23. Professors of educational administration from institutions of higher learning included in this study are familiar with public school administration in Michigan to the degree that they are able to perceive the areas of 104 adnddiistrative activity which superintendents possess the most and least adequacy. 24. Superintendents, in general, tend to feel most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administra- tion of business affairs and least satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 25. Regardless of size of district, superintendents, in general, are most satisfied with their level of adequacy in the administration of business affairs and least satis- fied with their level of adequacy in the administration of pupil personnel. 26. Superintendents in districts with