ABSTRACT WHY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS - A STUDY AS EXPRESSED BY EMBERS 0F BOARDS OF EDUCATION INVOLVED IN SELECTED CASES IN MICHIGAN by Hugh Horace Holloway Purpose The purpose of this study was to find new knowledge about superintendent-school board relationships, specifically concerning friction situations in Michigan associated with the severance of the tenure of the superintendent. Basic‘Assumptions Basic assumptions were employed embracing the following concepts: that random samples were sufficient from.which to draw inferences, that board members committed themselves when given sufficient opportunity, that board members expressed truthful answers, and that the combination of a check list evaluation and an open-ended answer tended to provide internal validity. Hyggtheses The following five hypotheses were confirmed. l. flhen a superintendent of schools is dismissed or is encouraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. 2. These specific factors can be classified in both general categories and specific categories. 3. Of all general classifications in the survey, there is 5. more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all others. Of the several specific factors that fall within a general classification, there are those special factors that are more prominent than others within each general classification. Of all specific factors in all general classifications, there is more than likely one that occurs more predomi- nately, more intensely, than all others. Mesa-2225. The instrument of the research used was a check list evaluation questionnaire with many open-ended questions to allow the respondent to expose his thoughts often and extensively. Specific Findings In confirming the hypotheses, three specific facts were apparent: 1. 20 3. The most common general reason given by board members for the dismissal of superintendents in.Michigan is community relationships, but an analysis of the state- ments of reasons by board members conclusively indi- cates that the real general reason concerns matters of personal qualities. The.most common specific reason for the dismissal of ‘Michigan superintendents deals with matters of inte- grity. A second and noticeably evident specific reason for the dismissal of Muchigan superintendents involves failure to execute the policies and wishes of the board of education. Inferences Confirming the several hypotheses of this research, the out- standing inferences may be noted. 1. 2. 3. School boards and superintendents, working together with the assistance of a well-drafted instrument, could in many cases determine potential conflict areas and expose them for possible resolution. In matters of general classification school board members tend to believe that more superintendents are released because they failed to carry out the board policy than for any other reason. However, the apparent reason, on analysis of written responses, indicates that dismissal is due to factors that con- cern personal qualities. Superintendents of schools usually rate high in qualities of educational leadership and in matters of finance. At the same time those who are failing superintendents and who rate high in matters of finance tend most frequently to have difficulties in community relationships. we may infer that if the five hypotheses of this thesis are valid for superintendents in general, they are equally valid for a superintendent individ- ually. amen Most failing superintendents fail because of "personal qualities." Failing superintendents tend to evidence reason to have their integrity suspect in the eyes of the board of education. Failing superintendents are found most often in situations where the board of education and the superintendent of schools have conflicting views of their roles. Failing superintendents are accused of "failure to keep the board of education informed" more often than any other single item other than "personal qualities." Failing superintendents tend to fail in communication. Failing superintendents tend to be those who are unable to handle the opposition to their recommendations. Many boards of education do not know how to employ a super- intendent of schools. Many boards of education do not know how to release a super- intendent. The absence of an acceptable agreement as to how to evaluate the work of the superintendent is the most noticeable factor of con- cern. Failing superintendents are usually not advised of the real or the specific reasons for their dismissa1.; IMost failing superintendents owe their failure to themselves. Some superintendents fail because they are too strong for the position, have standards of education too high for the commun- ity, or have standards of ethics too high for some or all of the board members. WHY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DISMISSED OR.ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS - A STUDY AS EXPRESSED BY DERERS 0F BOARDS (F EDUCATION INVOLVED IN SELECTED CASES IN MICHIGAN By Hugh Horace Holloway A THESIS Submdtted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1966 PREFACE My sincere gratitude is eXpressed to Dr. Don Leu who has served as advisor for the preparation of this thesis on the com- pletion of my Doctoral Program, to Dr. William Roe who started me along the way and served as my original chairman, to Dr. Clyde Campbell and Dr. Carl Gross whose many years of supervision and help have been a true inspiration, and to Dr. John Useem, Profes- sor of Sociology, who has guided all of my graduate cognate work in that area. 11. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE LIST or TABLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter I. DISCUSSION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Need of the Study The Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Statement of the Problem Basic Assumptions Procedural Steps and Methods Definition of Terms Overview II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Role of the Superintendent The Right to Know Why A Superintendent Is Released General Characteristics of the Superintendent Role Perception: Board of Education-Superintendent Selecting A Superintendent Span of Responsibility Why Superintendents Get Fired Discussion of the Literature Swmmary III. DESIGN OF THE PROJECT Introduction POpulation Instrumentation Classification of Cases Stimulating the Board Member to Think Reliability Factors Description of Boards of Education Generalized Reasons for Termination Specific Reasons Determined Hypotheses Analysis iii. Inferences Summary Chapter IV’ ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction Population Instrumentation Identifying the Correct Superintendent Stimulating the Board Member to Think Reliability Factors Description of Boards of Education Reviving Memories in the Board Members Generalized Reasons for Termination Specific Reasons Determined Correlating Remarks with the Check List Hypotheses Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Alternate Hypotheses Analysis Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Hypothesis No. Inferences Summary UI-l-‘ri-l UI-PwND-d V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Purpose Basic Assumptions Hypotheses The Instrument Specific Findings Inferences Summary APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY iv. Table 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 LIST OF TABLES Sample of one of the seven generalized reasons as bro- ken into specific reasons for questionnaire purposes .. Community papulation, student body, and teachers super- vised for dismissed superintendents . . . . . - - . . . Dates of dismissal of superintendents . . . . . . . . . - Number of board members responding for each superinten- dent stadied O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 Board members support of action taken in dismissing superintendentaeeeeeeeesaeeeeaesss How board members replied to questionnaire by board position--estimates compared with actual . . . . . . . General classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents show- ing weakest and strongest classifications . . . . . . . Numerical summary of the strongest and weakest areas of the twenty-eight superintendents studied . . . . . . Distribution of ratings of the specific classifications in each of the seven general classifications . . . . . A. Relationship with the board. A tabulation of "Part- ly Cause of Release" indications of board members. re‘pondinz O O O O - C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B. Community Relationships. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members re- Sponding.....o.................. C. Staff and personnel relationships. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding.c..................... D. Educational Leadership. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members re- .pondi-Ms O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 53 64 65 66 70 72 75 76 78 8O 81 82 83 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 E. Business and finance. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members reaponding e e s.s e e e e s e s s e s a s s s a s s s. F. Personal qualities. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding O O O . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G. Competence and efficiency. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board member8re.pondingeee_aeseassesses... A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members. A. Relationship with. the board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members.‘ B. Community relation- shipseasseaeseeeseeseeesseeees A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members. C. Staff and personnel relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members. F. Personal qualities . . General classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents Chow- ing weakest classification by specific remarks . . . . Personal qualities breakdown of board members' remarks listing specific reasons for dismissal . . . . . . . . Distribution of ratings of the specific classifications , in each of the seven general classifications - A per- centage distribution (See Table 4.8) . . . . . . . . . An analysis of personal qualities as indicated by specific remarks of board members. . . . . . . . . . . vi. 84 85 86 89 91 93 95 97 98 102 108 CHAPTER I. DISCUSSION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction ‘Asking questions about why someone was discharged has been a forbidden subject. Absence of facts in this area has caused a void in the information most vital to the study of human relations with respect to superintendent-school board action. It is conceivable that many cases of release of a superintendent could have been avoided had information from previous cases been available as a guide. The core of this study is the following: When a superin- tendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. There are factors that go beyond the generalized reasons usually given. These are, in fact, discernable underlying reasons. That there is a reason or that there are specific reasons why a school superintendent is dismissed or encouraged to resign is obvious. The purpose of this thesis is more than just to determine reasons. It is to determine certain specific reasons for certain specific cases. It is not enough to secure generalized statements commonly known as public reasons such as poor relationship with the Board, poor community relationships, poor staff and personnel relationships, poor educational leadership, poor business and finance management, 1 poor personal qualities, and/or poor competence and efficiency. Rather, specific causes-~the specifications that would substantiate the general causes--are the reasons sought. Sometimes there are underlying reasons why board members vote to release a superintendent from his position or encourage him to leave. .At the time of the event, these underlying reasons may not V be clear enough in the board member's own.mind to be classified as specifications or charges orXspecific causes; but they are, neverthe- less, important to the decisionemaking process in the mind of the board member. These we seek to identify and classify. we call them underlying causes. Need of the Study The dismissal of a superintendent of schools is embarrassing both to the superintendent and to the board of education. were the specific factors or the more discernible underlying reasons for the need of this action detected by the board of education or the super- intendent of schools early in the superintendent's tenure, it is pos- sible that the reasons could systematically and intelligently be eased or eliminated. Such easement and elimination can be accom- plished only if one or both parties might be aware of the factors causing the difficulty. It is the purpose of thisstudy to make in- formation available about the many past cases in Michigan. Board members and superintendents may study the pattern of dismissal as one means of preventing similar occurrences in their districts. Sometimes the dimmissal of a superintendent appears to the public to be capricious, unwarranted, and without reason. This usually is due to the fact that the given reason is a public reason; I‘ll /' I'll e.g., a generalized statement of an obscure or at least of a non- specific nature. Hence, the dismissal of a superintendent is often cause for the projection of a bad image of the board of education, the school system as a whole, and the superintendent who is released. The esprit de copps of the teaching staff is involved in the dismissal of a superintendent. He is a professional, just as they. He is, by law in the State of Michigan, hired as a teacher the same as they. He is, by that same law, to enjoy tenure as a teacher, even though he does not have tenure as a superintendent. It is only logi- cal that the teachers of a school system view the destruction of the image of one of their leaders as reflecting adversely upon the image of the profession. Quite the contrary, if the causes for dismissal are removed, presumably the causes of other difficulties are like- wise removed and the total relations throughout the system can be im- proved. The implementation of teacher tenure in Michigan, under the law passed by the legislature in 1964 and mandatory on all districts, combined with the Michigan Labor Mediation Act and the Public Employ- ees Relations Act as amended in 1965, compel boards of education to draft policies and procedures for the reasonable and orderly dis- missal of teachers. The Tenure Act also permits boards of education to place superintendents on tenure as superintendent. In these cases, no superintendent of schools will be dismissed without the presentation of specific charges and without the right to a hearing of those charges unless the situation is so bad that the superintene dentpresents his resignation in order to avoid unfavorable publi- city. 4 Consolidation of school districts within the State of ‘Michigan brings with it unanswered questions concerning personnel policies and practices. ‘With each consolidation or annexation or reorganization, the board of education will find itself faced with new and challenging problems never before endemic to its particular situation. These become problems of leadership and pose potential school board-superintendent friction. The professionalization of the school superintendent and the sophistication of school board members in their respective duties combine to make information on the subject of school board-superin- tendent relations important to school operation. These are only a few factors which have, in the past, pro- duced cases of school board-superintendent differences. They will, in the future, continue to bring about the release of school super- intendents and will bring pressure on administrators to leave their positions. Knowing in advance many of the pitfalls of his predeces- sors, of his neighbors, and of his peers, a superintendent may plan his actions more carefully for the preservation of his job. Knowing in advance those areas of conflict and subjects that have caused friction in other parts of the state, the board of education can take action to guide its superintendent in the direction of policies it would wish to have executed. It can take action that may in many cases prevent friction which might lead to the necessity of removing the superintendent from his position. The Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to find new knowledge about 5 superintendent-school board relationships, specifically concerning friction situations associated with the severance of the tenure of the superintendent. Inferences about these causes of friction will be drawn. It is further the purpose of this study to make new know- ledge available: to the colleges of education who train adminis- trators, to the teacher placement bureaus who recommend superin- tendents for placement, to the boards of education who hire such superintendents, and to the superintendents of schools in general. All of these persons and agencies are interested in this most im- portant information. All wish to reduce conflict. Hypotheses It is anticipated that the resultant inferences will lead to the deve10pment of the following general hypotheses: 1. When a superintendent of school is dismissed or is en- couraged to leave his position there are specific factors involved which precipitate that action. 2. These specific factors can be classified in both general categories and similar specific categories. 3. Of all general classifications in the survey, there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all others. N 4. Of the several specific factors that fall within a general classification, there are those special factors that are more predominant than others within each general classification. 5. Of all specific factors in all general classifications, there is more than likely one that occurs more pre- dominately, more intensely, than all others. Statement of the Problem The problem.resolves itself to: 1. Identify by means of a questionnaire to school board members those factors which precipitate the dismissal or pressure upon a superintendent to leave his posi- tion. 2. Classify those factors within the seven selected general classifications to facilitate analysis by general classification and to further facilitate the analysis by specific classification within each general classification. 3. Draw inferences from.the relationship of the specific and the general factors, and eXpose them to intensity analysis. 4. Interpret the data, and choose among all possible inter- pretations the most reliable factors that explain the causes of school board-superintendent friction. Basic Assumptions On the assumption that the purpose of this particular study is to draw inferences about the causes for the dismissal of school superintendents, the important theoretical issue of sampling must be considered. If all the dismissed superintendents were included in the study, there would be no need for statistical inferences be- cause the mean of this group would be the papulation value. Be- cause responses are limited, one is forced to draw random samples from the population and, on the basis of these samples, estimate the population values. On the assumption that the core of this study is to find specific factors involved (known as discernible, underlying causes) which precipitated dismissal, the important theoretical issue of repetition of commitment must be considered. If all of the board members contacted were to give specific, clear-cut statements upon the first request, then the results would be final. Because board members responses are inherently conservative, it is necessary to repeat certain types of requests to cause the board member to com- mit himself in at least one place in the questionnaire. On the assumption that the results of this study are de- signed to assist boards of education in the future by making avail- able to than knowledge of friction situations, the theoretical con- cept of mutual assistance must prevail and, therefore, the answers given to the questionnaire must be assumed to represent the true and honest eXpressions of Opinions of the persons answering the survey. On the assumption that the technique of this particular study (survey technique of a question and answer check list type) is adequate only to the extent of the present state of the art and may even so omit certain facts or causes for consideration, it is desirable to utilize the open-ended survey to allow more complete and more adequate comitment of the person answering the survey sheet. Hence, the more personalized-type response of the comment- type answer lends itself to the more intimate view of the board members' opinions. Procedural Steps and Methods It was necessary to learn the names of superintendents of schools who had been dismissed or asked to leave their positions. This study was limited to the State of Michigan. Cases to be con- sidered were to have occurred between July 1, 1955, and July 1, 1965. To learn these names, a preliminary contact was made to most placement officers of college placement bureaus to solicit their coOperation should such a project be approved. Most con- tacted eXpressed interest in the study. To formalize the action a letter was sent to each of the following College Placement Bureaus in Michigan: 1 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Mr. George Peterson The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan MI. Evart Ardis Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti , Michigan Mr. Richard J. Nisbet Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant, Michigan Mr. Paul M.‘Winger All four replied giving suggestions. Another source of names and situations for this study was the Intermediate School Superintendent (formerly called County Superintendent). These superintendents were usually closer to the conflict situations than any other person not actually in the con- flict. A letter was sent to each Intermediate Superintendent of 1 See Appendix_l_ Schools asking his support in locating cases.2 The benefit of including these officials was the appor- tunity of cross-checking. Their suggested cases were compared with those suggested by the placement directors and with those suggested by other sources. Their information added apparent validity to many of the cases to be considered. Their participation was also useful in removing several cases not appearing to be truly represen- tative. Other less scientific sources provided names and cases to be considered. Fellow superintendents volunteered information. School board members offered leads to investigate. Friends of the writer offered leads. Several commercial placement bureaus provided loca- tions and dates of instances. All groups combined provided 83 cases that were investigated in the study. Validation of the list of names submitted by the various sources was done by the candidate and his advisor, Dr. Donald Leu. The next step was the location of board members who served on the boards at the time the incidents under study occurred. It was necessary to search the records, in some cases, of the indivi- dual district for this information. Some cases were found through the files of the Michigan.Department of Education. In a few cases where difficulty was encountered, the present superintendent of the district secured the name and address for the study. This name search was done by personal interview, by per- sonal record search, by mail, and by telephone inquiry. The names and addresses were carefully tabulated and checked to determine 2 See Appendixg__ 10 whether or not a reasonable number of informed board members for each case could be located. It seemed desirable, but not necessary, to select primarily those cases where no less than two board mem- bers were familiar with the dismissal. The refinement of the instrument, so that it would give sufficient information of the subject but still bear the brevity necessary to encourage cooperation, was difficult.3 It was nec- essary to maintain an open-ended survey sheet (questionnaire) to allow the participant to go as far as he desired in presenting in- formation. Since follow-up interviews were not anticipated, due to the geographical scatter of cases to be considered, it was deter- mined to sacrifice brevity in favor of comprehensiveness. The questionnaire was mailed to members of 83 boards of education. A 4 'At the cut-off date, total of 520 questionnaires were mailed. there were 28 superintendents whose boards of education responded with two or more replies and whose replies validated the case as a dismissed superintendent or a superintendent who was encouraged to leave. Seventy-two board members responded in these 28 cases. Definition of Terms Superintendent of Schools - One who has been employed by a board of education for the specific position of superintendent of schools and who held a contract for that position at the time of discharge, dismissal, or departure. School Board Member - One who legally held the position of member of a board of education at the time of the dismissal under consid- 3See Appendix 3, Instrument 4Cover Letter, See Appendix 4 11 eration. For the purpose of this study, only those members were questioned who served on a board which had either dismissed a super- intendent of schools or had encouraged a superintendent to leave. Dismissedpguperintendent - A superintendent who has been asked to leave his position or is specifically informed that his contract will not be renewed. This may also include cases where a board breaks a contract prior to the termination date. Even if after this action the superintendent agrees to resign, he is still, for the purposes of this survey, considered a dismissed superintendent because the boardh intent was clear. Spperintendent Encouraggd togLeave - Where inferences and sugges- tions were strong or where appositionwas great and the superin- tendent did see these signs and because of them.left, this is de- fined as a superintendent encouraged to leave. giggific Reggons and/or Underlyipg Reasons - These are the real reasons, as perceived by questionnaire respondents, of a specific nature, not the public reasons of a general designation. Charges are usually in general terms such as negligence or incompetence. Specifications of these charges may be called underlying reasons. Specific reasons of fact that are used to prove ambiguous charges such as negligence or incompetence, are the ones we seek. Overview The survey instrument provides the most adequate overview of the purposes of this research. It was developed from the lit- erature which is reviewed in Chapter II. The design of the study and the design of the instrument are spelled out in detail in Chapter III. In Chapter IV the results are analyzed, and in Chapter 12 V the study is summarized and the conclusions are stated. The instrument is presented next as a practical overview. C 0 N F I D E N T I A L Identification is by 1. 2. 3. 49 5e 6. 7. 8. Number Only (You need not sign) WHY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS A Study as Expressed by Members of Boards of Education Involved in Selected Cases in.Michigan When you were a member of a ( ) Fired board of education was the ( ) Contract not renewed superintendent of schools ( ) Based out conveniently ( ) Asked to leave ( ) Other, please explain On what date did this occur? (approximately) What was the name of the Superintendent? (If you can remember) Did you support the action stated in #1 at that time? Do you still feel it was the proper action to take? What was your age at that time: up to 25 26 thru 35 36 thru 45 46 thru 55 56 on up President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Trustee What was your position on the board at that time? ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( VVVVV VVVVV ( List approximately the inclusive dates of your service on the board of education 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 13 What was your occupation at the time of the incident? What kinds of reasons did the board give ( ) Very specific the man for the action taken? ( ) Specific ( ) General ( ) Vague ( ) None What notice was the man given of his ( ) None pending dismissal or release or desire ( ) 1 month that he should leave? ( ) 3 months ( ) 6 months ( ) 1 year ( ) Other, explain In your own.words (as best you can recall) as you saw the situation, will you reconstruct the events that led up to the termination of the superintendent's tenure? For an overall appraisal of the superintendent will you please indicate in the following: §_ for his strongest area of activity ( 1 only) and g for his weakest area of activity ( 1 only) Relationship with the board Community relationships Staff and personnel relationships Educational leadership Business and finance Personal qualities Competence and efficiency Ahhf‘hhh vvvvvvv Do you recall the official action entered into the Minutes at that time? ( ) Yes ()NO If you do recall, please describe. 14 EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R.ENCOURATED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 5 4 3 2 T1 0 1. Kept the board informed on issues, needs, and operation of the school SZSEE. 2. Offered professional ad- vice to the board on items requiring board action, with appropriate recommendations based on thorough study and analy- ' sis. 3. Interpreted and executed the intent of board pol- ' icy. 4. Sought and accepted con- structive criticism of ' his work. 5. Supported board policy and actions to the pub- lic and staff. 6. Had a harmonious working relationship with the board. 7. Understood his role in administration of board 8. Kept the board informed of concerns about the schools expressed by the ppblic. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Can you add any comments about his relation with the Board of Educa- tion? What were the things you disliked, the things that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 15 EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE B. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease §T_ 4 3 g. 1 0 l. Gained respect and sup- port of the community on the conduct of the school operation. 2. Solicited and gave attention to problems and opinions of all ' groups and individuals. 3. Developed friendly and cooperative relation- ' ships with news media. 4. Participated actively in community life and affairs. 5. Achieved status as a community leader in ' public educatiop. 6. Worked effectively with public and private agencies. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP Can you add any comments about his community relationships? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 16 EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex. Good Av Poor Bad lease C. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATION“ 5 4 3 2 1 O SHIPS l. Developed and executed sound personnel proce- dures and practices. 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the ogganizatiog.fi 3. Treated all personnel fairly, without favori- tism or discrimination, while insisting on per- formance of duties. 4. Delegated authority to staff members appro- priate to the position each holds. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available per- sonnel in terms of their competencies. 6. Encouraged participation of appropriate staff members and groups in planning, procedures and policy interpretation. 7. Evaluated performance of staff members, gave com- mendation for good work as well as constructive suggestions for improve- ment.. 8. Took an active role in development of salary schedules for all per- sonnel, and recommended to the board the levels which, within budgetary limitations, will best serve the interests of the district. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS Can you add any comments about his staff and personnel relationships? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT n, EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 1. 2. 3. l7 DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) ood Poor Bad artly use of Re- lease 0 Understood and kept in- formed regarding all aspects of the instruc- tional program. Implemented the dis- trict's philosophy of education. Participated with staff, board, and community in studying and developing cgrriculumplmprovemengg. 4. 5. 6. Organized a planned pro- gram of curriculum eval- uation and improvement Provided democratic procedures in curri- culum work, utilizing the abilities and tal- ents of the entire staff and lay people of the community. Exemplified the skills and attitudes of a mas- ter teacher and in- spired others to highest professional standards EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Can you add any comments about his educational leadership? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 18 EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMHSSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE E. BUSINESS AND FINANCE Good (Please Check One) Poor ‘Bad Partly Cause of Re- lease l. Kept informed on needs of the school program-- plant, facilities, equipment_gnd su lies 2. Supervised operations, insisting on competent and efficient per- formalise; 3. Determined that funds were spent wisely. 4. Determined that ade- quate control and accounting were main- ______.t.=.a_i.n_9_ yes> 577. 72% yes l4Z< no< 43% 23% yes 95% Noncommittal 51 100% 71 Description of Boards of Education A second reliability factor will be discussed under this tapic. It was believed of possible interest to know something of the composition of the board of education involved in these cases. This need was predicated upon the possibility of future studies necessi- tating comparative information. Therefore, the following two ques- tions were asked: 6. What was your age at that time? ( 0) up to 25 ( 8) 26 thru 35 (34) 36 thru 45 (20) 45 thru 55 ( 7) 56 on up 7. What was your position on the board at that time? (11) President ( 4) Vice President (13) Secretary (11) Treasurer (30) Trustee The numbers included in the parentheses for questions six and seven represent the returns of the board members who committed themselves on these two questions. It was presumed that a necessary balance of responses of a typical board of education would be re- quired. Estimates as explained in Chapter III are shown with the actual results in Table 4.5. 72 TABLE 4.5--How board members replied to questionnaire by board posi- tion--estimates compared with actual 1 Responses 2 Responses Acceptable Qééiee “Presumed 9.99.9.1. 21.119. Presidents 141 15% Yes Vice Presidents Negligible 62 Yes Secretaries 201 18% Yes Treasurers 14% 15% Yes Trustees 431 38% Yes Noncommittal 8% 82 Yes 1002 100% 73 Reviving Memories in the Board Members Questions 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were deliberately presented to cause the board member to think before getting into Sections A through G. 8. List approximately the inclusive dates of your service on the board of education. 9. What was your occupation at the time of the incident? 10. What kinds of reasons did the board give (27) Very specific the man for the action taken? (17) Specific (16) General ( 7) Vague ( 6) None 11. What notice was the man given of his ( 8) None pending dismissal or release or de- ( 6) 1 month sire that he should leave? (17) 3 months . (18) 6 months ( 9) 1 year ( 4) Other, explain 12. In your own.words (as best you can recall) as you saw the situ- ation, will you reconstruct the events that led up to the term- ination of the superintendent's tenure? The numbers in the parentheses represent the responses of the individual board members. Sixty-two of the seventy-two board members responded to ques- tion 12 with what were evaluated to be suitable answers. Generalized Reasons for Termination Question 13 was designed to determine whether or not superinten- dents' weakest areas of activity could actually be classified in gen- eral classifications. It was also desirable to know whether or not there was a pattern of general classifications. As a means of stimu- 74 lating positive thinking, the board member was asked to indicate the superintendent's strongest activity area. HOpefully, board members were discerning enough to see both sides of their superintendent-- his weak areas and his strong areas. No specific prediction of re- turns was made based on this question, except that a pattern would occur. What the specific pattern might be was unpredictable. 13. For an overall appraisal of the superintendent will you please indicate in the following: .§ for his stongest area of activity (1 only) and ‘3 for his weakest area of activity (1 only) Relationship with the board Community relationships Staff and personnel relationships Educational leadership Business and finance Personal qualities Competence and efficiency AAAAAAA VVVVVVV General classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents under consideration are shown in Table 4.6. f“ 75 TABLE 4.6-~General classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents showing weakest and strongest classifications Superintendents 45 46 28 68 78 3 1 10 42 Strongest area indicated Weakest area indicated to: I Relationship With The Board Community Relationships Staff and Personnel Relationships Educational Leadership Business and Finance Personal Qualities Competence and Efficiency CNNUOwD Illllllll 76 The tabulated summary of question 13 indicating both weak- est and strongest generalized areas is shown in Table 4.7. TABLE 4.7--Numerica1 summary of the strongest and weakest areas of the twenty-eight superintendents studied Weakest Strongest ( 7) ( 0) Relationship with the board (11) ( 2) Community relationships ( 4) ( 4) Staff and personnel relationships ( 0) ( 6) Educational leadership ( l) (12) Business and finance ( 3) ( 1) Personal qualities (_21 .(_ll Competence and efficiency 28 26* *Two superintendents did not have evidence of a strongest quality a 77 Specific Reasons Determined That board of education members did accept quite readily the general divisions and specific divisions as presented to them was demonstrated by their willingness to make differing check mark evalua- tions in the rating lists. It was predicted that acceptance of this form of rating scale would be evidenced by a rather normal curve of distribution of ratings from five through zero. The distribution of ratings of the specific classifications in each of the seven general classifications is shown on Table 4.8. 78 TABLE 4.8--Distribution of ratings Of the Specific classifications in each of the seven general classifications A. Relationship with the Board E. Business and Finance 5 - 11% 5 - 19% 4 - 20% 4 - 277- 3 - 35% 3 - 25% 2 - 15% 2 - 17% 1 - 8% l - 4% 0 - 127. 0 - 8% Total - 100% Total - 100% B. Community Relationships F. Personal Qualities 5 - 6% 5 - 13% 4 - 167. 4 - 19% 3 - 34% 3 - 24% 2 - 21% 2 - 21% l - 10% l - 8% 0 - 13% 0 - 15% C. Staff and Personnel Relationships Total - 1002 5 - 9% G. Competence and Efficiency 4 - 26% 3 - 30% 5 - 15% 2 - 18% 4 - 24% l - 4% 3 - 33% 0 - 13% 2 - 12% 1 - 5% Total - 100% O - 11% D. Educational Leadership Total - 100% 5 - 16% A I 90% of possible scores 4 - 22% B - 89% of possible scores 3 - 34% C I 88% of possible scores 2 - 13% D - 84% of possible scores 1 - 5% E - 91% of possible scores 0 - 10% F - 82% of possible scores G - 87% of possible scores Total 100% 79 It was next necessary to determine whether or not in each generalized category there was a specific element or a group of specific elements that could be listed as specific reasons. Zero was the desired indication of a specific underlying cause. It was necessary to tabulate the column, "Partly Cause of Release," for each item within each general category to determine whether or not any single item stood out as more prominant and more intense than any other. The breakdown of check marks for the column "Partly Cause of Release" is shown in Tables 4.9 through 4.15. TABLE 4e9--A0 80 Relationship with the board. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 1. Good Partly Cause of Re- Poor Dad lease 2 1 0 Kept the board informed on issues, needs, and operation of the school system. 8 Offered professional ad- vice to the board on items requiring board action, with appropriate recommendations based on thorough study and analy- sis. Interpreted and executed the intent of board pol- icy. Sought and accepted con- structive criticism of his work. 12 Supported board policy and actions to the pub- lic and staff. 10 Had a harmonious working relationship with the board. 10 Understood his role in administration of board olic not olic makin . Kept the board informed of concerns about the schools expressed by the public. ._—r Total 61 81 TABLE 4.10--B. Community Relationships. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR.ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Dad lease £1. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS 5 4 3 2 941E. 0 l. Gained respect and sup- port of the community on the conduct of the 14 school operation. 2. Solicited and gave attention to problems 7 and Opinions of all groups and individuals. 3. Developed friendly and cooperative relation- 7 ships with news media. 4. Participated actively in community life and 8 affaigg. 5. Achieved status as a community leader in 7 public education. 6. Worked effectively with public and private 8 agencies. Total 51 82 TABLE 4.ll--C. Staff and personnel relationships. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Goad Av Poor Bad lease C. STAFF AND PERSONNEL.RELATION- 5 4 3 2 1 0 A S y! 1. Developed and executed sound personnel proce- lO ggreg and practices. 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to 13 the organization. 3. Treated all personnel fairly, without favori- 11 tism or discrimination, while insisting on per- formance of duties. 4. Delegated authority to staff members appropri- 9 ate to the position each holds. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available per- 7 sonnel in terms of their emetenSLele 6. Encouraged participation of appropriate staff members and groups in 5 planning, procedures and W 7. Evaluated performance of staff members, gave come mendation for good work 5 as well as constructive suggestions for improve- ._______1luflhL 8. Took an active role in develOpment of salary schedules for all per- sonnel, and recommended 4 to the board the levels which, within budgetary limdtations, will best serve the interests of thepdistrict. Total 66 83 TABLE 4.12--D. Educational Leadership. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO'LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease D. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 5 4 3 _ 2 ,1 O 1.. Understood and kept in- . formed regarding all 5 aspects of the instruc- tionalgprogram. 5. Implemented the dis- trict's philosophy of 5 education. 3. Participated with staff, board, and community in 5 studying and developing curriculum improvements. 4. Organized a planned pro- gram of curriculum eval- 5 uation and improvement. 5} Provided democratic procedures in curri- culum‘work, utilizing the abilities and tal- 5 ents of the entire staff and lay people of the communitygg 6. Exemplified the skills and attitudes of a mas- ter teacher and in- g spired others to highest (professional standards. Total 36 84 TABLE 4.13--E. Business and finance. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease EI BUSINESS AND FINANCE 5 4 3 2 ,1 0 1. _Rept informEd on needs of the school programr- 5 plant, facilities, equipment and supplies. 2. Supervised operations, insisting on competent 4 and efficient per- formance. 3. Determined that funds were spent wisely. . . 6 4. Determined that ade- quate control and 5 accounting were main- tained. 5. Evaluated financial needs and made recom- 5 mendations for adequate financigg. Total 26 85 TABLE 4.14--F. Personal qualities. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding _L —— EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- , Ex‘ Good Av Poor Bad lease F, PERSONAL QUALITIES 5 4 3 2 ,yl O , l. Defended principle and conviction in the face 10 of pressure and parti- san influence. 2. Maintained high stand- ards of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all 12 personal and profes- sional matters. 3. Earned respect and standing among his pro- 9 fessional colleagges. 4. Devoted his time and energy effectively to 5 hisyjob. 5. Demonstrated his ability to work well with indi- 9 viduals and:groups. 6. Exercised good judgment and the democratic pro- 9 cesses in arriving at decisions. Total 54 86 TABLE 4.15--G. Competence and efficiency. A tabulation of "Partly Cause of Release" indications of board members responding 4.1 EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease GI COMPETENCE AND EFFICIENCY 5 4 3 #2 pl 0 l. Prompt and efficiently handled all reports. 5 2. Anticipated events and . occurrences and prepared 4 in advance to meet them Aproperly. 3. Knew his job well. 8 4. Provided well-planned agendas and had infor- 6 mation readily available to the board. 5. Kept the financial records well and kept 9 the board advised of such matters. 6. Overall leadership. 9 Total 41 87 Correlating remarks with the Check List In order to analyse the remarks and comments made by meme bers of the boards of education, it was necessary to translate those remarks to the more appropriate section to which the remarks related. The need for this was occassioned by the obvious prac- tice of board members to write their comments onto the page as ideas came to their mind. Often they disregarded the lack of re- lationship to the section they were checking. This translation was accomplished by classifying the remarks more apprOpriately within the generalized sections. As an example, a remark under Relation- ship with the Board was "dictatorial." This was translated as a personal quality for therurpose of this analysis. The reason was: the dictatorial attitude might exhibit itself not only in relation-' ship with the board but also in relationship with the community and in relationship with the teachers. Therefore, it was more truly a personal quality for analysis though the resulting effect did show fitself prominently in one or more of the other three categories. A complete rearrangement by general category of all the remarks made by members of the boards of education was necessary. Once these remarks were reclassified and translated to their more apprOpriate generalized area, an intrinsic evaluation and class- ification was begun. The weight of numbers, intensity of comment, and frequency of occurrence were all taken into consideration, and the Opinion of the researcher was used in making a final determination. It was presumed in Chapter III that the validity of the in- strument would be strengthened if the remarks classifications coin- cided with the check classifications under "Partly Cause of Release." 88 A summary of the remarks classification for all sections follows. A. Relationship with the Board. Fourteen superintendents of the twenty-eight were accused of items that related to the area ”failure to carry out board policy." Such related acts in this category were as follows: Did not carry out board policy or acts; Teacher minded, not board minded; Put the board of education in a bad light; Did not keep the board advised on actions. The second most prominant subject of this area was in the area of “false impressions and improper acts." Nine superinten- dents were so accused. Other areas and comments important to note fell under cate- gories of "incompatible--not fit for the job,” two superintendents; "relied on board for administrative decisions,” four superinten- dents; "worked separately with board members, not the whole board ," three superintendents} "failed to produce agendas," two; "would not develOp written policies," four; ”lack of board support," one; "too progressive for the district," two; "politics," one; "dominated dis- cussions, etc.,” three. ‘ The relationship between the remarks and the check list in- dications indicated a positive relationship--a predetermined indica- tion of internal validity. This is shown as Table 4.16. 89 TABLE 4.16--A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indi- cations given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members. A. >Relationship with the board EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease A, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 5 4 3 2 1 0 1. Kept the board informed on issues, needs, and "Did not Keep the board 8 operation of the school advised? 9 gape-infpnd nfm system. 2. Offered professional ad- vice to the board on items requiring board action, with appropriate 3 recommendations based on thorough study and analy- sis. 3. Interpreted and executed the intent of board pol- 7 icy. 4. Sought and accepted con- structive criticism of 12 his ygrk. 5. Supported board policy "Fa ilure to carry out board and actions to the pub- poLicy," ,4 auparinrp our 10 lie and staff- 6. Had a harmonious working relationship with the 10 boggd. 7. Understood his role in administration of board 6 policv.not policy making. 8. Kept the board informed of concerns about the 5 schools expressed by the public. 90 B. Community Relationships. Of all the possible classifi- cations Of comments under the subject "Community Relationships," no combinations producing more than three superintendents to be criti- cized for any one comment could be found. Such comments as "could- n't communicate to the general public" received only two votes; "re- fused public use of facilities," two votes; "couldn't produce win- ners in sports or get public support of the school activities," two votes; "did not mix in community affairs," three votes; "religion," two votes; "argued," three votes, but was even questionable as to . whether this may be considered a cause or an effect; “illness in the family," three votes; "other incidental remarks,"tone vote each, gave no indication of value. See Table 4.17. 91 TABLE 4.17--A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the in- dications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" members., B. + markings by board Community relationships EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) 1. 2. 3. Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease B, COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS 5 4 3 2 ,pl 0 Gained respect and sup- port of the community 14 on the conduct of the school opgration. Solicited and gave attention to problems "Argued," A superintendhnts 7 and opinions of all . . groupppand individuals. DevelOped friendly and cooperative relation-" 7 ships with news media. 4. Participated actively in community life and affair. e "Did fairi," 3 s "Ill not mix in c ess in famil perint 5. Achieved status as a community leader in ppublic education. 9Cou dn't c the eneral inte dents mnunit public 6. WOrked effectively with public and private agencies. "Ref sed pu lic u e of ties " 2 an erint ndent Q $0111 Total 51 92 C. Staff and Personnel Problems. This produced but one generalized subject (most difficult to measure) for consideration, "lost respect for staff." This, combined witthuch statements as Vdid not support the principals in the staff," "antagonized the cook," "couldn't get along with new teachers,U and "showed favori- tism,é built up ten superintendents for criticism. YAll other re- marks; such as "lack of fairness," "too exacting," "couldn't accept suggestions," and "too many staff meetings,“ produced but one and two superintendents each so challenged. The comparison of the remarks with the check list is worthy of analysis in that in the check list the most outstanding criticism was "failure to develop good staff morale and loyalty to the organi- zatiOn." See Table 4.18. 93 TABLE 4.18--A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indi- cations given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board IRE! bers. C. Staff and personnel relationships EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease C. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATION- 5 4 3 f 2 ,l O 8 . 1__ 15_1 1., Developed and executed ' 'sound personnel proce- 10 dures and practices. . V90? 8° 3‘ Lotresp ct offi‘e—s-EFF'JF— ”0:319 and loyalty to ._l superintendints . 13 the organization. 3. Treated aII personneI fairly, without favori- ll tism or discrimination, while insisting on per- formance of duties. 4. Delegated authority to staff members appro- 9 priate to the position each holds. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available per- 7 sonnel in terms of their cggpetegciega 6. Encouraged participation of apprOpriate staff members and groups in 6 planning, procedures and o c i r . 7. Evaluated performance of staff members, gave com- mendation for good work 6 as well as constructive suggestions for improve- ._______JIRUF- 8. Took an active role in develOpment of salary schedules for all per- sonnel, and recommended to the board the levels 4 which, within budgetary limitations, w ill best serve the interests of the distgict. 94 D. Educational Leadership; E. Business and Finance; G. Competence and Efficiency were all subjects with too few specific remarks to allow for drafting of conclusions. F. Personal Qualities. The translation of specific state- ments to the prOper general classification was most revealing. Of the twenty-eight superintendents under consideration the remarksm translated revealed that no other general classification approached the "Personal Qualities" classification in number of entries and re- marks; See Table 4.19.Y 95 TABLE 4.l9--A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the in- dications given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board Personal qualities members. F. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE F, PERSONAL QUALITIES 1. 3. 4. (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease 4 3 2 1 0 Defended principle and conviction in the face of pressure and parti- san influence. 10 Maintained high stand- ards of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and profes- sional matters. "Matt 14 an era of integrity' J peri n satin-n n 12 Earned respect and standing among his pro- fessional collea ues. Devoted his time and energy effectively to his ‘ob. "Ha d ULa k II st to kiow," J supts. of fvrcefu..ness," 8a1pts.9 us se ker " 7 an s. 5. 6. once in the charges. Demonstrated his ability to work well with indi- viduals and rou s. Exercised good judgment and the democratic pro- cesses in arriving at decisions. "Ant crari and ndipln arid," 6 s p "DO 1 "Ba erinf'ndnnf ’ neerilg," 8 supts. 9 judg rnt? 6 supts. Total 54 Please note in the above some superintendents appear more than dicted in that specific category. The number merely indicates the highest in- 96 When general classifications were assigned according to the remarks, "Personal Qualities" was the weakest area of twenty-two of the twentyéeight superintendents considered. The other remaining six cannot be classified because of lack of information. See Table 4.20. A detailed study of personal qualities as specified by mem- bers of boards of education exhibited many qualities that were pre- sent in different superintendents. Likewise, many individual super- intendents were attributed with several different qualities of a derogatory nature. Table 4.21, "Personal qualities' breakdown of board mem- bers' remarks listing specific reasons for dismissal," presents a com- plete summary. ' The fourteen superintendents whose integrity was in question actually received eleven of the twelve zero check marks, "Partly Cause of Release," given to the entire twenty-eight superintendents in the column F. Personal Qualities. 97 TABLE 4.20 - General classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents showing weakest classification by specific remarks. A. RELATIONSHIP wITH THE BOARD B. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS C. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS D. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP E. BUSINESS AND FINANCE F. PERSONAL QUALITIES C. COHPETENCE AND EFFICIENCY 98 s v: v O> mm>o no mum: o Damp o unH m H OOH>mm «on O a mum H up we no uuxoo no a «0 wow no no a Homooaow «o x as a mono o n u 0 up muoou O £33.30 izommmm .m Hmmmfismfim you snowman uawaoomm waaumwa mxumaou.muonaoa mason mo asomxmoun aoauwamsv fimaomuomuuau.¢ mqm¢H 99 Hypotheses It was presumed that the following five hypotheses would be confirmed and would provide basis for inferences to be drawn from this study. Hypothesis No. 1 When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or is encouraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. Hypothesis No. 2 These specific factors can be classified in both general categories and specific categories. Hypothesis NO. 3 Of all general clgsgifigations in the survey, there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more in- tensely, than all others. Hypothesis NO. 4 Of the several specific factors that fall within a general classification, there are those specific factors that are more prominent than others within each general classification. Hypothesis No. 5 Of all specific factors in all general classifications, there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all Others. 100 Alternate Hypotheses Alternate hypotheses were not anticipated but were not ruled out. The study confirmed the five original hypotheses and alternate hypotheses were not required. A section on analysis was prepared to indicate to what extent the hypotheses were verified. Analysis The analysis Of the data did confirm the five hypotheses. The analysis was founded upon the assumptions adopted earlier and it indicated that: Random samples were sufficient from.which to draw inferences. Board members did commit themselves when given sufficient opportunity. Board members did express what appeared to be truth- ful answers. The combination check list evaluation and Open-ended answers did tend to provide internal validity. Hypothesis No. 1 When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or is encouraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. It was predicted that a noticeable variation in answers con- cerning the evaluation check list would occur. It was predicted that a rather normal curve should evident itself except that among the responses may be a large number Of X replies in the zero column called "Partly Cause of Release." 101 This prediction did occur in results. A rather normal table of distribution of ratings is evidenced in Table 4.22. A very noticeable turn in the curve for the zero column as was predicted did occur. Otherwise the curve represented a normal curve. 102 TABLE 4.22--Distribution of ratings of the specific classifications in each of the seven general classifications - A percentage distri- bution (See Table 4.8) 40 3. // 2. w ' “fl m a ////7 . ‘V‘!" ’11.”? A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 3. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS C. STAFF AND ERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS D. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP E. BUSINESS AND FINANCE P. PERSONAL QUALITIES G. COMPETENCE AND EFFICIENCY 103 Another approach to the confirmation of Hypothesis NO. 1 was considered. The correlation of remarks with the check list which was mentioned earlier represented an analysis Of the open-ended questionnaire and the statements written by members Of the boards of education. These were statements of specific factors involved in the dismissal of a superintendent. Their mere existence was, likewise, confirmation of Hypothesis No. l. Hypothesis No. 2 These specific factors can be classified in both general categories and specific categories. Question No. 13 Of the instrument was analyzed to determine whether or not members of the boards of education accepted as valid the general classification system. Table No. 4.7, Numerical summary of the strongest and weakest areas of the 28 superintendents studies, evidenced indication that members of the boards of education did concur with the general classification procedure. It had been pre- dicted that members of the boards of education.wou1d be willing to indicate one specific area as the weakest area and one specific area as the strongest area for their individual superintendent. This did occur. The division into general categories was accepted. It was further predicted that if an anticipated curve of acceptance of Hypothesis No. 1 did develop it would, likewise, serve as proof of Hypothesis No. 2 concerning the acceptance of specific categories within the seven categories. Table 4.22-~Distribution of ratings Of the specific classifications in each of the seven general classifications - A percentage distribution, gives evidence of this acceptance. Both factors were necessary and sufficient for the 104 establishment of the Hypothesis No. 2. The analysis of the remarks of members of boards of education did likewise, give evidence of confirmation of Hypothesis NO. 2. Table 4.16-2A comparison of the most meaningful remarks with the indication given in the "Partly Cause of Release" markings by board members, shows this evidence. Table 4.17, Table 4.18, and Table 4.19, likewise, demonstrate this fact. Hypothesis No. 3 Of all general classifications in this survey there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all others. Question No. 13, which was used to establish Hypothesis NO. 2, was likewise used to establish Hypothesis No. 3. As shown on Table 4.7--Numerical summary of the strongest and weakest areas of the 28 superintendents studied, board members in general accepted the idea of classification and were recorded as indicating that community relationships was definitely the weakest general area for most super- intendents. Eleven superintendents were indicated as weakest in this area while seven were weakest in their relationship with the board. An alternate proof Of this hypothesis was approached through the specific statements in the open-ended questions. The proof of the hypothesis did not depend upon the congruency of the results of the reclassification of the Open-ended statements with the numerical scoring. It was stated earlier and must be restated: the translation Of specific statements to the proper general classification was most revealing. Of the 28 superintendents under consideration the remarks translated revealed that no other general classification approached 105 the "Personal Qualities" classification in number of entries and re- marks. When general classifications were assigned according to the remarks, "Personal Qualities" was the weakest area of 22 of the 28 superintendents considered. 'The other remaining six could not be classified because of lack of information. This is exhibited on Table 4.20--Genera1 classifications as indicated by members of boards of education for the 28 superintendents showing weakest classification by specific remarks. Both systems confirmed Hypothesis No. 3 though the opinion arrived at by each method was different. Hypothesis No. 4 Of the several specific factors that fall within a general classification, there are those specific fac- tors that are more prominent than others within each general classification. A simple statistical count of the evaluation check marks given by members of boards of education to the column zero, "Partly Cause Of Release," did confirm this hypothesis. Within the seven general classifications there were certain specific factors that stood out considerably above all others. This is demonstrated in Tables 4.9 through 4.15. A resume of these tables might serve as a theory of failure for it portrays the typical failing superintendent as follows: A. Relationship with the Board of Education 4. Failed to seek and accept constructive criticism Of his work. 5. Failed to support board policy and actions to the B. C. D. E. F. G. 106 public and staff. 6. Failed to have harmonious working relationship with the board. Community Relationships 1. Failed to gain respect and support of the community on the conduct of the school operation. Staff and Personnel Relationships 1. Failed to develop and execute sound personnel pro- cedures and practices. 2. Failed to develop good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. 3. Failed to treat all personnel fairly, without favori- tism or discrimination, while insisting on performance of duties. Educational Leadership 6. Failed to exemplify the skills and attitudes of a master teacher and inspire others to highest pro- fessional standards. Business and Finance 3. Did not determine that funds were spent wisely. 4. Did not determine that adequate control and accounting was maintained. Personal Qualities 2. Did not maintain high standards of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and professional matters. Competence and Efficiency 5. Did not keep the financial records well and did not keep the board advised of such matters. 107 The hypothesis was confirmed. Hypothesis No. 5 Of all specific factors in all general classifica- tions there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all others. The proof of this hypothesis was dependent upon the specific remarks made in the open-ended statements. The translation of the specific statements to the more appropriate general classification which revealed that 22 of the 28 superintendents were weakest in the area of personal qualities also revealed the specific quality which was more predominant and more intense than all Others, matters of in- tegrity. Table 4.23-2An analysis of personal qualities as indicated by specific remarks of board members, is a summary of all of the re- marks that occurred under the subject "Personal Qualities." 108 TABLE 4.23-~An analysis of personal qualities as indicated by specific remarks of board members Number of Times Qgglity Under Consideration Mentioned Matters of integrity 14 Autocratic and undiplomatic 6 Hard to know 3 Domineering 8 Unable to create harmony 4 Lack of forcefulness 8 Teacher minded 1 Communications poor 7 Poor long-range planning 2 Status seeker 7 Matter of personal affairs 1 Disregards advice 1 Religion 2 Failure to delegate 4 Confused or evasive 4 Bad judgment 7 109 Matters of integrity were so numerous--14 in all, out Of 28 superintendents-~and were so intense that there remained no doubt that the hypothesis was substantiated. Hatters of integrity were classified as the specific factor that was most predominant and most intense Of all factors of the total survey. It was necessary to tabu- late the remarks under the 14 named superintendents concerning matters of integrity so that intensity was Obvious. The listing is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Not always truthful Conduct not consistent on Sunday and‘Honday (plus other similar remarks) Dishonest, false credentials, gave false impression of his abilities, secret action unknown to the board Lack of personal integrity Outside interests in female personnel Demanded personal family favoritism and small in his dealings Dishonest and a liar Infidelity (included because of other comments with it) Ethics and honor and integrity suspect, misrepresentation Untruths, used position to get better prices for his own welfare, lied, could not be trusted, untruths Dishonest, ethics questionable Dishonest, improper and unprofessional attitude Couldn't trust him Dishonest with staff 110 Inferences From the proving of the several simple hypotheses, infer- ences were drafted. Hypothesis No. 1 When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or is en- couraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. Inference No. 1 - When a superintendent of schools is dis- missed from his position or is encouraged to leave his position and even though the public reason given is a generalized statement, there are, nevertheless, specific factors involved which have precipitated this action. Inference NO. 2 - After such an action has occurred, it is possible--by means of a well-drafted instrmment--to ascertain what those specific factors were. Inference No. 3 - School boards and superintendents, working together with the assistance of a well-drafted instrument could in many cases determine potential conflict areas and expose them for possible resolution. Hypothesis No. 2 These specific factors can be classified in both general categories and specific categories. Inference No. l - The classification of specific factors involved concerning the dismissal of a superintendent or the en- couraging of a superintendent to leave his job, makes it possible to develop an instrument that can be used as a tool for creating 111 effective school board-superintendent relations. Inference NO. 2 - This instrument, if properly used, will expose potential conflict situations and will assist both superin- tendents and school board members in understanding the concept of the respective positions as held by the other party. Inference No. 3 - Using a well drafted instrument school boards and superintendent candidates could well match their job con- cepts to determine whether or not compatability exists. Hypothesis No. 3 Of all general classifications in the survey, there is, more than likely, one that occurs more predominantly, more intensely than all others. Inference No. l - School board members tend to believe that more superintendents are released because they failed to carry out the board policy than for any other reason. Inference NO. 2 - The real general reason for the dismissal of most superintendents in the State of Michigan concerns personal qualities. Inference No. 3 - A superintendent of schools who rates poorly in personal qualities is sure to rate poorly in areas dealing with people such as relationship with the board, community relationship, or staff and personnel relationships. Hypothesis NO. 4 Of the several factors that fall within a general classifi- cation, there are those specific factors that are more prominent than others within each general classification. Inference No. l - In matters of school board relationships, 112 more superintendents are criticized for failure to carry out board policy than for any other item. The second most criticized factor is failure to keep the board advised. Inference No. 2 - In matters of community relationships, more superintendents failed to gain respect and support of the community. on the conduct of the school program than any other specific factor. Inference No. 3 - In matters of staff and personnel relation- ships, more superintendents fail to develop good staff morale and loyalty to the organization than fail for other reasons. Inference NO. 4 - Superintendents of schools usually rate high in qualities of educational leadership, however, their most critical factor rests in their inability to exemplify the skills and attitudes of the master teacher and inspire others to highest professional standards. Inference No. 5 - Superintendents of schools usually rate high in business and finance qualities, but of those criticized in this area, the most criticized factor rests with accounting and failure to spend the funds wisely. Inference No. 6 - Among failing superintendents, those who are rated high in business and finance tend to rate low in community relationships. Inference No. 7 - More superintendents are criticized for matters of integrity within the general classification of personal qualities than for any other item. Hypothesis NOI 5 Of all specific factors in all general classifications, there is more than likely one that occurs more predominantly, more intensely, 113 than all others. Inference NO. 1 - More superintendents of schools in Michigan who are released or encouraged to leave their positions are so released or so encouraged for matters of integrity than for any other single specific reasons. Summary The five hypotheses of this thesis were confirmed. The basic assumptions of this study were found to be valid and reliable. The most common general reason given by board members for the dismissal of superintendents in Michigan is community relation- ships, but an analysis of the statements of reasons by board members conclusively indicates that the real general reason concerns matters of personal qualities. The most common specific reason for the dismissal of Michigan superintendents deals with matters of integrity. A second and noticeably evident specific reason for the dis- missal of Michigan superintendents involves failure to execute the policies and wishes of the board of education. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS $152.22: The purpose of this study was to find new knowledge about superintendent-school board relationships, specifically concerning friction situations in Michigan associated with the severance of the tenure of the superintendent. Basic Asspgptions Basic assumptions were employed embracing the following con- cepts: that random samples were sufficient from which to draw in- ferentes, that board members committed themselves when given suffi- cient Opportunity, that board members expressed truthful answers, and that the combination of a check list evaluation and an Open- ended answer tended to provide internal validity. Hypotheses The following five hypotheses were confirmed. 1. When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or is encouraged to leave his position, there are specific factors involved which precipitate this action. 2. These specific factors can be classified in both general 114 3. 5. 115 categories and specific categories. Of all general classifications in the survey, there is more than likely one that occurs more predominately, more intensely, than all Others. Of the several specific factors that fall within a general classification, there are those special factors that are more prominent than others within each general classification. Of all specific factors in all general classifications, there is more than likely one that occurs more predomi- nately, more intensely, than all others. Theglpstrument The instrument Of the research used was a check list evaluation questionnaire with many open-ended questions to allow the respondent to expose his thoughts often and extensively. Specific Findings In confirming the hypotheses, three specific facts were apparent: 1. 2. 3. The most common general reason given by board members for the dismissal of superintendents in Michigan is community relationships, but an analysis Of the state- ments of reasons by board members conclusively indicates that the real general reason concerns matters Of personal qualities. The most common specific reason for the dismissal Of Michigan superintendents deals with matters of inte- grity. A second and noticeably evident specific reason for the 116 dismissal of Michigan superintendents involves failure to execute the policies and wishes of the board of education. Inferences Confirming the several hypotheses of this research, the out- standing inferences may be noted. 1. 2. 3. School boards and superintendents, working together with the assistance of a well-drafted instrument, could in many cases determine potential conflict areas and expose them.for possible resolution. In matters of general classification school board members tend to believe that more superintendents are released because they failed to carry out the board policy than for any other reason. However, the apparent reason, on analysis Of written responses, indicates that dismissal is due to factors that con- cern personal qualities. Superintendents of schools usually rate high in qualities of educational leadership and in matters of finance. At the same time those who are failing super- intendents and who rate high in matters of finance tend most frequently to have difficulties in community re- lationships. We may infer that if the five hypotheses of this thesis are valid for superintendents in general, they are equally valid for a superintendent individually. 117 Summary Most failipg_superintendents fail because offlflpersonal Qualities." Board members perceive the man as a failure because of poor community relations, poor staff relations, or poor board of education relations. This observation of board members could be pre- dicted because they tend to judge symptoms not causes. When asked for causes or specific reasons by questionnaire they reveal keen in- sights and point to personal qualities as the real factors. This fact is of major importance because it exposes personal qualities as a void in training or selection of school administrators. It is a foregone conclusion that one who is weak in personal qualities is destined to have trouble in one of the major areas dealing with people, the board of education, the community, or the teaching staff. Failingysuperintendents tend to evidence reason to have their integ;ity_suspect in the eyes of the board of education. Doubtlessly in reality it is true that many of the suspicious of board members are baseless. Nevertheless, a board member was given some reason to suspect questionable integrity in half of the cases studied. This is a serious indictment of the profession, the screening processes, and the system of training and recruiting. Superintendents ought to know that propriety is a must. Refusal to account for certain funds where shortages existed was often reported. Living beyond known means reasonably raised eyebrows. Family eating at school cafeteria on Sundays was logically suspect. These, and similar actions, seem almost too Obvious to believe, but they were reported. Failing superintendents are found most Often in situations where the board of educatignfiand the superintendent of schools have conflictingyviews Of their roles. In some cases this appeared to 118 result from the superintendent's refusal to accept reasonable com- promise. In other cases it appeared to result from the fact that either the board of education did not know its real role or refused to define that role. That many board members did not know their role was most seriously evidenced by the numerous questionnaire responses from board members themselves that their actions were not as a board but were as individuals, and their evaluation of the superintendent's work was not as a board but was as an individual board member. That many superintendents did not know their role was most seriously evidenced by the numerous responses from board members that the superintendent did not plan, prepare, or even urge board of educa- tion policies, did not operate the school program on standard practices and procedures, and did not try to develop an in-service training system for the board of education and the superintendent to learn their respective roles together. Failing superintendents are acgpsed of "failure to keep the board of educatigggipformed" more often thapZEny other single item other thapLgpersonal qualities." It was inferred that this resulted from the practice of the superintendent to work more with board members as individuals than as a whole board. This tended to give the other members of the board the impression that they were left out. Infer- ences were clearly perceivable that superintendents were not consistent enough in their actions so that board members could anticipate with certainty how similar matters would be handled without having to in- vestigate for themselves each single case. This indicated a serious lack of standard practices and adherence to a policy. Board members inferred that they were too often taken for granted and not actually 119 allowed to play their proper roles. Failing superintendents tend to fail in communication. They do not keep their boards informed. They are misunderstood by the community. They have difficulty in getting along with their teachers. Their inability to resolve conflict through dialogue is noticeable. For this reason they do not view their role as does the board of ed- ucation and their personal qualities become misunderstood and even accentuated. This communication failure appears to be due in a great part to a lack of a pattern of action, behavior, and judgments necessary to provide a template for subordinates to use as a sample for formu- lating judgments and decisions. Failure to be consistent in the de- cision making process, absence of standard thought patterns and practices, and outright favoritism all appear to bar the failing superintendent from communicating with his staff, the public, and the board of education. Failing supggintendepts tend to be those who are unable to handle the opposition to their recommendatigpg, whether the opposi- tion is a minority of the public, a dissident group of the staff, or an individual disagreeing board member. These superintendents tend to be unable to cope with an opposing force on a subject matter level but rather they personalize and tend to incur animosities which involve personality clashes. Manyjboards of educatign do not know how to employ a super- intendent of schools. It is often said that the employment of a superintendent of schools is the most important single function of a board of education. At the same time, most boards seem ill prepared to do this when the time comes that they must hire a superintendent. 120 This occurs in spite of the wealth of literature available on the sub- ject. The anecdotal comments clearly implied that often principals are promoted to superintendent because they were good principals, and no consideration was given to the fact they they may not qualify in the least for the superintendent's job. Some inferences were clear that superintendents were hired because they took the position for less money than other candidates. References to the use of teacher place- ment bureaus and their help in hiring a superintendent were noticeably absent in the anecdotal statements concerning failing superintendents. Many boards of education do not know how to release a super- intendent. The technique of release of a superintendent is clearly a fumbling art. Most boards of education simply wait until the very last minute possible and then advise the superintendent that his con- tract will not be renewed. Often belligerent activities ensue and hard feelings are developed, often splitting the community and the teaching staff as well as the membership Of the board itself. The absence of an acceptable aggeement as to how to evaluate the work of the supegippendent is the most noticeable factor of con- gggp. This, of course, stems from the earlier mentioned fact that boards and their superintendents do not view their respective roles alike. Failing superintendents are usually not advised of the real or the specific reasons fortheir dismissal. Like the public, they are given the public reason. Often the board of education as a board is not really aware, at the time of the dismissal, of the specific reasons. This is due to the inadequate dismissal practices of boards of education. There is no listing of charges or specifications, there is no hearing of the charges or specifications, and in general there 121 is no valid board action as a whole board. In most cases, after in- dividual prodding from individual board members, the superintendent is goaded into submitting his resignation. Seldom has board action been necessary to actually remove a superintendent from office. Even in those cases where actual board action is recorded, it is after the fact and a simple recording of the event. In truth, the specific underlying reasons for dismissal deal with specific perceptions of personal qualities held in the minds of the board members. These are seldom revealed. In the cases of the fourteen superintendents whose integrity were suspect in the eyes of at least one of their board members, they were seldom confronted with the accusation. Other public reasons were used to ease them out. In the very few cases where superintendents were actually con- fronted with problems of integrity they were allowed to quietly leave the community on the promise to be good. In several of these latter cases the boards even agreed not to blackball the man if he would simply leave without making a scene. Most failing superintendents owe their failure to themselves. These men simply have not learned to cope with the complicated system of public school operation as it is carried on in the modern political milieu. Perhaps some of these failing superintendents would have failed anyway because of other not mentioned factors. Nevertheless, it can be presumed that many of these men were capable men and could have been salvaged if their personal problems could have been solved, if their ability to communicate could have been improved, if their con- cepts of integrity could have been made to conform with the situation at hand, and if their role concepts could have been brought into agreement with those role concepts of the board of education. 122 Some superintendents fail because they are too stropg for the ppsition, have standards of education too high for the commun- ity, or have standards of ethics too high for some or all of the board members. Inferences rang clear that some superintendents were removed because Of beliefs or standards. Some boards felt the Sup- erintendent was too aggressive in the establishment of standards for their district or he had ideas too rich for their district. In a few cases it was noted that his ethical standards were higher than those of some board members and his insistence upon following the letter and intent of the law placed him at odds with certain board members, ultimately leading to his dismissal. Conceivably, this man could be a very successful superintendent when paired with a board of education where views of respective roles and expectations more closely matched his. 123 APPENDIX 1 December 1, 1965 1204 Kimball Street Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Mk. George Peterson Director of Teacher Placement Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Peterson: You are in a key position to be of service to school boards and superintendents of schools in Michigan. Why School Superintendents Are Dismissed or Encouraged To Leave Their Positions is a title of a Doctoral Thesis now underway. Here is how you can help. ‘Will you please make a list of all Michigan superintendents you know of that have either been fired or encouraged to leave their positions between July 1, 1955, and July 1, 1965? Please list the person's name and the school district name where the incident occurred and the date. After locating the cases for study (with your help) we will send a letter to the board members who were on the board at the time the incident occurred. The survey will be Ope n-ended so that the board member may write as much or as little as he pleases. Any suggestions you may have to add to the effectiveness of our study will be greatly appreciated. Your resppnse will be treated CONFIDENTIAL. Sincerely'yours, Hugh H. Holloway Superintendent of Schools Candidate for Ph. D. r— 124 APPENDIX 2 THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Phone MElrose 2-3379 EQEEIEEEEIAL 1204 Kimball Street Sault.Ste. Marie, Michigan would you like to know, "Why_School Superintendents Are Dis- missed or Encouraged to Leave their Positions?" You can help in a study to improve Michigan Superintendent- School Board relationships by helping to uncover hithertofore un- noticed causes of friction. This is the title of a Doctoral Thesis research study of ex- pressions of opinion by members of Michigan boards of education who have at one time been involved in the dismissal or the encouragement to leave of a superintendent. This survey is valid only if you give factual and complete information. Your confidence will be honored, and only the under- signed will know the individual cases concerned. I pledge secrecy. The results will be reported in generalized form to protect the par- ticipant's confidence. Certainly, you will join me in looking forward to the gener- alizations of these results which are intended to accomplish the following purposes: to find new knowledge about superintendent-school board relationships specifically concerning friction situations that have resulted in the severance of the tenure of the superintendent. to make this new knowledge available to School Board Members in Michigan, Colleges of Education, College Teacher Place- ment Bureaus, and Superintendents of Schools. For your cooperation you will be sent a brief of the general- izations of this survey which may be helpful to you in future activi- ties. . All information.will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Sincerely yours, Hugh H. Holloway, Candidate Superintendent of Schools Sault Ste. Marie,Michigan 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 125 What kinds of reasons did the board give ( ) Very specific the man for the action taken? ( ) Specific ( ) General ( ) Vague ( ) None What notice was the man given of his ( ) None pending dismissal or release or desire ( ) 1 month that he should leave? ( ) 3 months . ( ) 6 months ( ) 1 year ( ) Other, explain In your own words (as best you can recall) as you saw the situ- tion, will you reconstruct the events that led up to the termi- nation of the superintendent's tenure? For an overall appraisal of the superintendent will you please indicate in the following: .§ for his strongest area of activity (1 only) and H for his weakest area of activity (1 only) Eelationship with the board Community relationships Staff and personnel realtionships Educational leadership Business and finance Personal qualities Competence and efficiency AAAAAAA vvvvvvv Do you recall the official action entered into the Minutes at that time? ( ) Yes. ()No If you do recall, please describe. 126 APPENDIX 3 C 0 N F I D E N T I A L 1. 7. Identification is by Number Only __ (You need not sign) WHY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DISMISSED 0R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS A Study as EXpressed by Members of Boards of Education Involved in Selected Cases in Michigan When you were a member of a board of education was the superintendent of schools On what date did this occur? (approximately) Fired Contract not renewed Based out conveniently Asked to leave Other, please explain “AAA“ vvvvv What was the name of the Superintendent? (If you can remember) Did you support the action stated in #1 at that time? Do you still feel it was the proper action to take? What was your age at that time? ( ( ( ( ( What was your position on ( the board at that time? ( ( ( ( List approximately the inclusive dates I of your service on the board of education What was your occupation at the time of the incident? VVVVV: VVVVV up to 25 26 thru 35 36 thru 45 46 thru 55 56 on up President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Trustee QQEELBEEZLA}. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED on ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) A, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 127 Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease 5 4 3 l 0 l. Kept the board informed on issues, needs, and operation of the school system. 2. Offered professional ad- vice to the board on items requiring board action, with appropriate recommendations based on thorough study and analy- sis. 3. Interpreted and executed the intent of board pol- icy. 4. Sought and accepted con- structive criticism of his work. 5. Supported board policy and actions to the pub- lic and staff. 6. Had a harmonious working relationship with the board. 7. Understood his role in administration of board policyI not policy making. 8. Kept the board informed of concerns about the schools expressed by the public. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Can you add any comments about his relation with the Board of Educa- tion? What were the things you disliked, the things that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 128 C O N F I D E N T I A L * EVALUATION or ran surnames-r 13131113931) m ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease B, COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS 5 4 3 2 1 O 1. Gained respect and sup- __1 port of the community on the conduct of the school gperation. 2. Solicited and gave attention to problems and Opinions of all groups and individuals. 3. Deve10ped friendly and cooperative relation- ships with news media. 4. Participated actively in community life and affairs. 5. Achieved status as a community leader in _public_eggcation. 6. Worked effectively with public and private agencies. COMMUNITY’RELATIONSHIP Can you add any comments about his community relationships? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others,.etc., etc., etc.? 129 C O N F I D E N T I A L EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) f Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease C. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATION- 5 4 3 2 l O 1.. Developed and executed sound personnel proce- dures and practices. 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. 3. Treated all personnel fairly, without favori- tism or discrimination, while insisting on per- formance of duties._ 4. Delegated authority to staff members appro- priate to the position each holds. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available per- sonnel in terms of their competenciep. 6. Encouraged participation of apprOpriate staff members and groups in plannirg, procedures and policyginterpretation. 7. Evaluated performance of staff members, gave com- mendation for good work as well as constructive suggestions for improve- ment. 8. Took an active role in develOpment of salary schedules for all per- sonnel, and recommended to the board the levels which, within budgetary limitations, will best serve the interests of the district,_ STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS Can_you add any comments about his staff and personnel relationships? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? EQEELEEEILAL. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE D, EDUCATIONAL IEADERSHIP (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease 5 4 3 2 l l. Understood and kept in- formed regarding all aspects of the instruc- tional prggram. 2. Implemented the dis- trict's philosophy of education. 3. Participated with staff, board, and community in studying and developing curriculum ipprovements. 4. Organized a planned pro- gram of curriculum eval- uation and rovement. 5. Provided democratic procedures in curri- culum work, utilizing the abilities and tal- ents of the entire staff and lay people of the community. 6. Exemplified the skills and attitudes of a mas- ter teacher and in- spired others to highest professional standards. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Can you add any comments about his educational leadership? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 131 C O N F I D E N T I A L EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease E, BUSINESS AND FINANCE 5 4 3 2 1 0 l. Kept informed on needs of the school program-- plant, facilities, eguipment and supplies. 2. Supervised operations, insisting on competent and efficient perfor- mance. 3. Determined that funds were spent wisely. 4. Determined that ade- quate control and accounting were main- tained. 5. Evaluated financial needs and made recom- mendations for adequate financipg. BUSINESS AND FINANCE Can you add any consents about his business and finance? What was the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 132 C O N F I D E N T I A L EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE F PERSONAL UALITIES 1. 2. 3. 4. Good (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Av Poor Bad lease 3 2 l 0 Defended principle and conviction in the face of pressure and parti- san influence. Maintained high stand- ards of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and profes- sional matterp,__ Earned respect and standing among his pro- fessional colleagues. Devoted his time and energy effectively to hisgjob. 5. Demonstrated his ability to work well with indi-' 6. viduals and gropps. Exercised good judgment and the democratic pro- cesses in arriving at decisionp;_ PERSONAL QUALITIES Can you add any comments about his personal qualities? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 133 C O N F I D E N T I A L EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISMISSED (R ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE (Please Check One) Partly Cause of Re- Ex Good Av Poor Bad lease G, COMPETENCE AND EFFICIENCY 5 4 3 2 l 0 1. Promptly and efficiently handled all reports. 2. Anticipated events and occurrences and prepared in advance to meet them prOperly. 3. Knew his job well. 4. Provided wall-planned agendas and had infor- mation readily available to the board. 5. Kept the financial records well and kept the board advised of such matters. 6. Overall leadership. COMPETENCE AND EFFICIENCY Can you add any con-ents about his coapetence and efficiency? What were the things you disliked, that bothered you or others, etc., etc., etc.? 134 APPENDIX 4 December 13, 1965 1204 Kimball Street Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan Why School Superintendents Are Dismissed (or Encouraged to Leave Their Positiops This is the title of a Doctoral Thesis now underway. Your help is needed. Will you please make a list of all Michigan superintendents (Name, date, and school district) you know that have either been fired or encouraged to leave their positions since July 1, 1955, and prior to July 1, 1965? THESE NAMES WILL NEVER APPEAR IN THE THESIS. THIS IS cou- FIDENTIAL, Names of boards of education will not be revealed. The idea behind this study is to find out exactly why the board acted as it did. Enclosed is a self-addressed, stamped envelope for you to use in reply. Please do so immediately. If you wish to add com- ments to your list or any suggestions, you may do so and they will be greatly appreciated. After locating the cases for study (with your help), I will send a letter to the board members who were on the bogrd at the time the incident occurred. The survey will be open ended so that the board member may write as much or as little as he pleases. All information will be treated as CONFIDENTIAL. Sincerely yours, Hugh H. Holloway Superintendent of Schools Sault Ste. Mhrie,‘Michigan BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Association of School Administrators. On Selecting a Superintendent of Schools. Washington D.C.: AASA, 1962. American Association of School Administrators. Profiles of the School Superintendent. Washington D.C.: AASA. American‘Association of School Administrators. Roles,_Responsi- bilities, Relationships of School Board, Superintendent and Staff. “Shington, D.C.: “SA, 1965. American.Associatlon of School Administrators. The Superintendent as Instructional Leader. Washington D.C.: National Educa- tion Association, 1957. Appel, Paul Henry. Abstract--A Study of Selected Administrative Principles as they May be Supplied in Certain School Dis- tricts in the State of Michigan. Fensch, Edwin A., and Wilson, Robert E. The Superintendencz Team. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. Griffiths, Daniel E., 35 pl, Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1962. Gross, Neal. Who Runs Our Schools? New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Gross, Neal, Mason, Ward 8., and McEachern, Alexander W. Egplorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Pois, Joseph. The School Board Crisis-~A.Chicago Case Study. Chicago: Educational Methods, Inc., 1964. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education. Biennial Survey of Education 1922-24. ‘Washington D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 1927. Articles & Periodicals "A Few Philosophical Words from the Superintendent." ‘Weekly Bulletin #28, Sault Ste. Marie Public Schools. March 30, 1964. Baughman, M. Dale. "When Ybu Select a School Administrator," Th3 American School Board Journal. February 1961. Bortner, M; Doyle. "A Committee Approach to Selecting a Superinten- ' dent," The.American School Board Journal. June 1960. 135 136 Moffitt, Frederick, J. "Why Superintendents Get Fired," Nation's Schools, Volume 75, No. 5. May, 1965. . Norby, Theo John. "PerceptiOns of superintendents' Competencies by School Board Members." 1955. "Planning Education for the l970's--A report of the Superintendent of Sault Ste. Marie Public Schools." March 30, 1964. "Pressures Are Part of the superintendent's Job," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 67, No. 3. March, 1961. Strahl, Maurice. Interview with President of Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education. January, 1964. "Superintendent Relationship," The American School Board Journal. October, 1961. "The Letter for Administrators--Educator's Dispatch," Vol. 20, No. 15. April 15, 1965. "The Right to Know", The Nation's Schools, Vol. 67, No. 6. June, 1951. "What Holds School Superintendents Back?" School Management. January, 1959. "Why School Boards and Superintendents Clash," School Management. July, 1960. "Why Superintendents Get Fired," School Management. June, 1959. "Why, When and How to Fire a Superintendent--An SM Interview," School Management. August, 1961. Willis, Benjamin, C., 35 El, "When and How to Disagree with your Board," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 69, No. 5. May, 1962. Reports "A Case Concerning Misunderstanding of Respective Responsibilities," Report of an Investigation, Warwick, Rhode Island. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities of the NEA, October, 1962. "An Example of Some Effects of Board of Education Interference with Sound Administration of Public Education," Report of an Investigation, North College Hill, Ohio. Washington D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy through Edu- cation of the NEA, November 1957. "An Example of the Effects of the Injection of Partisan Politics into School Administration, Report of an Investigation, Miami, Florida." washington, D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the NEA. October 1952. 137 Brower, Robert. "How to Find and Select a Superintendent," School Management. March 1960. Bruce, William C. (ed.). "The Superintendent's Job," The American §chool Board Journal. May 1959. . Byers, Marion F. "Why, When and How to Fire a Superintendent," School Managgment. October, 1961. . Burbank, Natt B., "How to Superintend the Board," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 72, No. 2. August, 1963. Campbell, Roald F. "Guilt Feelings for the Superintendent," The American School §9ard Journal. August, 1958. Dils, Eugene W. "We're Looking for a Superintendent," The American School Boardfgournal. March, 1962. Dittman, Elva. "Selecting a New Superintendent," The Americap §chool Board Journal. July, 1958. Ebeling, George William. "The Status of Superintendents of Public Schools in.Michigan." Publication No. 5032. University of Michigan, 1953. Educational Policies Commission of the National Education.Associa- tion and.American Association of School Administrators. "The Unique Role of the Superintendent of Schools." Washington D.C.: 1965. . Ehret, Paul D., 25 3T, "Budgeting the Administrator's Time," The Nangn's Schools, Vol. 66, No. 2. August, 1960.. Essex, Martin, §£_§T, "How Should School Boards Measure the Compe- tence of an Administrator?" The Nation's Schools, Vol. 68, No. 3. September, 1961. "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent," School Management. August, 1965. , Immel, Robert. "How to Test Your Next Superintendent," School Management. December, 1961. Kennan, Richard Barnes. "What Causes School Crises?" June 14, 1961. Kramer, J. Howard. "How Well Does the Superintendent Speak?" The American School Board Journal. September, 1962.. Luketich, Donald Michael. "A Relationship of Perceptual Congruence to School Board-Superintendent Communications." 1962. McCarthy, Donald J. "On Better Board-Superintendent Relations," The American School Board Journal. July 1960. 138 "An Example of the Need for Fair Dismissal Procedures,"‘ Report of an Investigation, Chandler, Arizona. Washington D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the National Education Association, October, 1948. "A Study of an Unconscionable Combination of Politics and Education," Report of an Investigation, Carter County, Kentucky.’ Washington D.C.: Professional Rights. January 1963. "A Study of Conflict Between.Administrative and Policy-Making Agencies in a School System," Report of an Investigation, Hickman Mills, Missouri. Washington D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the NEA. January, 1960. "A Study of Deteriorating Relationships in a School System," .A Report of an Investigation, Ambridge, Pennsylvania. Washington, D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy through ' Education of the National Education.Association. May, 1959. "A Study of Difficulties Growing Out of Misunderstanding Between.A Board of Education and Its Chief Executive Officer,"' Report of an Investigation, Bridgwater Township, New Jersey. Washington D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the NEA. May, 1956. "A Study of Ineffective Leadership," Report of an Investigation, Missoula, County High School Montana. Washington D.C.: National Commission of the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the National EducationnAssociation. June, 1958. "A Study of Leadership Problems in a Rapidly Developed Community," Report of an Investigation, Levittown, New York. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsi- bilities of the NBA and the Ethical Practices Committee of the New York State Teachers Association. January, 1962. "A Study of the Sudden Forced Resignation of a Superintendent," Report of an Investigation, Indianapolis, Indiana. Washington D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the NEA. May, 1960. "A Study of Turmoil.Resulting from Ill-Advised Practices Affecting School Personnel," Report of an Investigation, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Commission for the Defense of Democracy Through Education of the National ' Education Association of the United States. January, 1961. "When a Board of Education Fails to Fulfill its Proper Responsibilities," Report of an Investigation, Cleveland, Ohio. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities of the NEA. June, 1964. 139 "When Personal Interest Interferes with Public Responsibility," Report of an Investigation, Conway, Arkansas. washington,D.C.: National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities of the NEA. May, 1964. "When Public Education Provides Patronage for a Political Systen," Report of an Investigation, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. Washington D.C.: National Commission on Professional Rights and Responsibilities of the NEA. December, 1964. MICHIGAN 13122 TTE V a I . LIBRARIES I” W” ll MIHIIWIWW 0 6605 UN WI 31 280 S "I! 53