A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES AS THEY MAY BE APPLIED IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE ' STATE OF MKHIGAN Thesis for The Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Paul Henry Appel 1962 WW1\\\’\\U\|\\WWUl 3 1293 10326 8516 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of Selected Administrative. Principles as They May Be Applied in Certain School Districts in the State of Michigan. presented by . Paul H. Appel has been accepted tcwards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. D. degree,“ Education ‘ " 0!. 4!. Win “-2..“qu Date August 3, f | 0-169 g awn-Y I'V‘ mm 300 L .1 Eu ? 1.. i3 3, . a 4" 5...] I « r ,5 1i ABSTRACT A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES AS THEY MAY BE APPLIED IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN by Paul Henry Appel It is the purpose of this investigation to study the or- ganization of schools in Michigan. It will attempt to analyze the weaknesses and pitfalls in organization which prevent the top educational leader from exercising instructional leadership with his staff. The acquisition of educational goals in the public schools of Michigan is greatly dependent upon the framework or organization designed by the superintendent and the local board of education. This investigation, therefore, is concerned in large part with universal principles of organization that may contribute to the purposes of education. The study presents data which support the following hypotheses: 1. ~Present public school administrative practices are at variance with basic principles of good organization. 2. rThe span of control for the superintendent is too llarge in most of the public school districts. 3. Superintendents in districts which employ fifty or :14 ‘less teachers identify themselves with more administrative Paul Henry Appel functions than superintendents in districts of two hundred or more teachers. 4. Superintendents of most districts perform functions primarily related to non-instructional activities. 5. The superintendent tends to share and assign more functions as the organization becomes more complex. Method of Investigation. A questionnaire listing sixty administrative functions was sent to one hundred superintendents in the lower peninsula of Michigan. The superintendents were re- quested to indicate beside each function the degree to which they were involved in the function. They did this by checking one of three columns entitled "alone," "share," or "assign." In the case of sharing or assigning, they indicated to whom the function was assigned or with whom it-was shared according to a listing of positions on the questionnaire. The districts included in the study were grouped according to the number of teachers employed. The divisions were: twenty- six to fifty, fifty-one to one hundred, 101 to two hundred, 201 to four hundred and over teachers. 0f the eighty-six question- naires returned, eighty-five were used to compile the data. The checks for all the respondents from all sized districts were totaled for each function. On the basis of this tabulation, the functions were grouped according to the degree of involvement of the superintendent. The first group of functions was the Paul Henry Appel one in which the superintendents assumed a great amount of res- ponsibility. The last group included functions which he assigned to others; the three middle groups represented functions which fell between these two limits. These data were then analyzed according to the principles of organization found in the review of educational administration. The principles selected were: line-staff, centralization-decen- tralization, and span of control. Some of the findings were: 1. The superintendent of schools in most districts is too involved with functions which are not directly related to the instructional program. There is evidence in this study that many of the superintendents are preoccupied with busses, budgets, bonds and buildings. However necessary these activities may be, the respondents indicate they give them a high priority and devote a disproportionate share of their time to them. Over half of the superintendents aSSUme sole responsibility for the performance of all the management functions. f 2. Only one district in the study is organized in such a fashion that it may be considered a decentralized operation. This district has moved many of the traditional functions to the office of an area administrator. .Furthermore, these areas attempt to serve the patrons of a particular attendance area on a building level. The dearth of this type of evidence indicates that in all the renaining districts the superintendent continues to Paul Henry Appel haze partial administrator in each of his buildings. ~The high degree of sharing among the functions on the questionnaire support this conclusion. 3. ‘With but few exceptions, the superintendents in this study do not have an organization which fosters participation on a wide basis or which involves many people who are affected by the organization. There is little evidence that the superin- tendent and board of education seriously consider the contributions which could be made by citizens, teachers and students in the areas of planning and policy making. It must be stated that in all too many instances the system-wide decisions and courses of action taken are determined by a relatively small number of persons at the central office level. ~A STUDY OF SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES AS THEY MAY BE APPLIED IN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE STATE or MICHIGAN by Paul Henry Appel A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University ~ in.partia1 fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education . .1952 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer should like to express his grateful appreciation to Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, his major professor, for wise counsel and A‘ encouragement. To the Members of the doctoral guidance committee, Dr. Carl B. Gross, Dr. William H.-Roe, and Dr. John H. Useem for their patience, helpful suggestions and criticism. : To the many professional colleagues in the public schools who responded to the questionnaire and gave of their time and xi effort for interviews. To other members of the administrative group in the College who contributed through formal classroom work and informal dis- cussions. To-Dr. Richard L. Featherstone and Dr. Raymond N. Hatch who aided by allowing a flexible work schedule during the past ;1 two years. . -And especially to his wife, Jeanette, for her patience li‘and understanding during the past two years. To Skipper, Tom, and Ricky who will come to appreciate- ‘- e' -<:;this endeavor as they continue their education. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ,I. AINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .Impottance of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Organization of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 "£11.“.REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE............... 11 III. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The Questionnaire. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 32 The Structured Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ‘IV. SRAN'OF CONTROL PRINCIPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Policy Statements and Legal Structure. . . . . . 41 E Communication Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 g VImPortance of Decision Location. . . . . . . . . . . 46 3 *Application of Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 f ": V, ‘OENTRALIZATION-DECENTRALIZATION PRINCIPLE. . . . . . . 49 , T Assumptions for Application of Principle . . . . . . 50 * Gentraliaation Affects Decision Making.. . . . . . . 52 mmsrmrnmcrrm............... 60 l 'mr‘l st‘ff. I I I - I 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 62 11’12"; ,Mliflry st‘ffo , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 63 ‘. ‘EM‘DIOII stiff. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 65 “5C .7. 32., PS - . ‘ I“. . “i. .h CHAPTER PAGE VII. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 Management Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Policy and Legal Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Board and Staff Assistance Functions. . . . . . . 89 I Shared Responsibility Functions . . . . . . . . . 99 >Assigned Responsibility Functions . . . . . . . . 108 VIII. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Group I Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Group II Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Group III Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Group IV Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Group V Superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 IX. PRESENTATION OF FINDING RELATED TO HYPOTHESES . . . 132 Conflict of Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Determination of Span . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . 133 Administrative Decentralization . . . . . . . . . 138 Line-Staff Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Data Related to Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 142 X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 The Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 BIBLIOGRAPHY, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 APPENDIX A. Letter to Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . 162 ' APPENDIX B. Summary of Results on Questionnaire. . . . . . 164 Li LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Number of Districts in Population and Sample by Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Number of Respondents in Each Classification Who Returned Questionnaire. III. Superintendents Selected from Sample for Personal Interview . IV. Selected Districts Which Were Sent question- naires. . . V. Functions for Which Total Superintendents Sample Indicate Greatest Degree of Sole Reaponsi- bility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. Functions for Which Total Superintendents Sample Indicate Major Degree of Sole Res- ponsibility . VII. Functions for Which Total Superintendents Sample Indicate Major Degree of Shared Respon- sibility. . . VIII. Functions for Which Total Superintendents ; Sample Indicate Major Degree of Shared or Assigned Responsibility . IX. Functions for Which Total Superintendents Sample Indicate Greatest Degree of Assigned Res- ponsibility . . . . . . . PAGE 31. 33 ‘35 36 75 83 90 100 109 AX. ‘XII XII. l xrn. ' XIVI -Total Responses from Structured Interviews According to Categories of Functions by Superintendents in Each Group . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Responses Between Functions on Questionnaire and Structured Interviews by Two Group III Superintendents . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Number of Functions Performed Alone by Superintendents with Fifty and Less Teachers to Those with 201 or More* Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Superintendents Who Reported That They Performed Listed Functions Alone, ‘ Shared, or Assigned to Others . . . . . . . . . -Comparison of Selected Functions Which Show the Increase of Sharing and Assigning in Larger Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 117 123 144 146 148 Vi...— CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to investigate the present structure of organization in the public schools of Michigan. It will attempt to analyze the weaknesses and pitfalls in public school organizations which detract from the purposes of education and which do not allow the top educational leader to maximize his efforts toward the coordination of his staff. The point will be defended in this thesis that the superintendent, fellow administrators, teachers, members of boards 0f education, and citizens in communities should function in an organization that fosters widespread participation. The democratic educational leader should have faith in his teachers; he should have confidence in the importance of cooperative action. There are many ideas about how the School administrator can and should carry out his administrative duties. No two school systems will , be exactly alike; no two school administrators or boards of education can or should expect to operate schools in an identical fashion. Com- munity mores and differences in philosophy among teachers, school board members and superintendents will cause differences to occur in the nature and organization of the administrative and supervisory staff found in various school systems. ~Economic factors play a part in the amount and kind of administrative help that can be made available in any given system. In addition to economic factors, the personal strengths of the chief administrator are of equal importance. Not all superintendents are equally well-trained or equally interested in all areas of administration. While these factors imply that school systems will have different kinds of school organization, there are certain basic principles common to most school systems; systems that employ a person or persons whose primary responsibility is something other than teaching. These principles are: 1. The superintendency is the same, in principle, in a village as in a large city. The same duties have to be performed in a small system as in a large system. 2. The superintendency consists of a constellation of tasks which need to be performed. As soon as there is more than enough work for one full time administrator, it becomes necessary to sub- divide the work and organize a central office for the school system. 3. If sound principles of management and organization are fol- lowed, the task of administration is facilitated. Their neglect makes the task more difficult. The chief executive of any organization possesses limitations which determine some of his activities. First, he cannot be an expert in every facet of the operation. Second, he needs time to plan, think, and rest. In spite of the differences in individuals and organizations, certain methods of operating may be standardized and applied to most organizations. Here the "methods of operation" shall be called prin- ciples of organization. From them, an attempt will be made to determine to what extent they are followed in public school systems. American Assocation of School Administrators, "The American Superintendency," 1952 Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: American Assocation of School Administrators, 1952), pp. 66-67. Failure to recognize the need for operating principles in public school organization has resulted in the development of school systems which have been structured seemingly without purpose. Much of the re- search in educational administration deals with methods of operation in structuresrxm'based on principles. Leo 0. Garber has said in commenting on research in the field of educational administration that one major aspect of administration as it relates to public education--organization as an administrative function--has come through relatively untouched and all but ignored. This statement is followed by this introductory state- ment in a recent book: Organization as an administrative function of education has been largely ignored in the literature and research of education. The authors selected at random fifteen standard textbooks in school administration and found not a single source which devoted as much as a full chapter to this function. This has definitely not been the case in the literature of business and public administration. In these fields the standard definition of the work functions of the executive has always included that of organization. This statement is a strong indictment against those who contri- bute to this field. Awareness of the problem may not have caused sufficient research and practice to bring about the necessary growth, but Moehlman said two decades ago that organization is an agency through which a purpose may be effectively achieved. In addition, he said: 'Social organization does not operate automatically. Education must function through a definite organization or structure of 2Daniel E. Griffiths and others, Organizing Schools for Effective Education (Dansville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1962), p. 3. »-—‘_ plans, procedures, personnel, material, plant, and finance. The level of operation is at all times dependent upon the quality, technical skill, and idealism of the personnel, who, through their attitude and daily effort, breathe life into the mechanics of structure. Since this personnel may be handicapped or stimulated by organization, objectives are best attained by determining the plan that most adequately satisfies democratic neegs in the opera- tion of the education process. (underscore added) It is not the purpose of this study to ferret out the causes for the lack of attention to organizational structure in the past; rather, it is to determine the present status of practice in selected Michigan public schools toward organization as it is related to organi- zational principles. Encouraging signs are coming from several fronts. One of them is the concern shown by the University Council for Educational Adminis- tration. One of their task forces has focused its attention on what they call the unsolved problems associated with administrative or- ganization. More help is needed; more concern should be forthcoming from those directly involved. This and other current studies may shed some light on what is being done and what needs to be done. HYPOTHESES 1. Present public school administrative practices are at variance with basic principles of good organization. 2. The span of control for the superintendent is too large in most of the public school districts. 3Arthur B. Moehlman, School Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940), p. 6. 3. Superintendents in districts which employ fifty or less teachers identify themselves with more administrative functions than superinten- dents in districts of two hundred or more teachers. 4. Superintendents of most districts perform functions primarily related to non-instructional activities. 5. The superintendent tends to share and assign more functions as the organization becomes more complex. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY It is essential that the superintendent of schools build a frame- work or organization. The person in this position in the mid-twentieth century faces critical problems and is expected to produce significant results. That he will be continually confronted with problems that have social, economic, and political implications cannot be denied. A large segment of the public has become aware of the problems confronting education; some of them have expectations which exceed the vision of school leaders. One of the current shortcomings in educational administration is the lack of an adequate type of organization--an organization which assures the opportunity of participation for those concerned. The or- ganization Should foster a program of instruction which is consistent With the needs of the community and society as a whole. One factor contributing to the dilemma may be the narrow approach taken in the preparation for the superintendency. In too many instances the procedural methods have been emphasized without due attention to the framework in which these methods become operative. A leader cannot fun¢=tion without organization anymore than an organization can exist without a leader. Too little effort has been expended in the design of a frame work in which a leader may become most effective. Preparation for the educational leader in operational methodology is not sufficient. The operational "know-how" must be supported by a philosophical "why." The challenge which the latter implies will set the stage for the framework of the operational activities. One of the greatest challenges today is to bring about a more functional type of organization. Many superintendents find them- selves operating in patterns of organization that are no longer defensible. The main reason why many administrators cannot exert genuine leadership is the general nature of the machinery with which they operate. In addition, the administrative organization of school districts is important because the superintendent has devoted.‘too much of his time to the mechanics of the operation. He has assumed tasks which might well be the responsibility of specialists such as bookkeepers or members of the clerical staff. The level of the instructional pro- gram cannot be expected to rise above the priority given to it by the superintendent. As long as he is more interested in busses, budgets, and buildings, he has automatically limited his communication with the staff and his involvement with citizens. The advancement of education is dependent to an immeasurable degree upon the kind of educational leader that is serving the school and community. Therefore, the educational administrator should be 4John T. Walquist and others, The Administration 23 Public Education (New York: Ronald Press Company, I952), pp. 566. cognizant of the relationship between the structure of his organization and the improvement of education for all the citizens of the community. Over twenty years ago, Moehlman said that: Public education in the United States will not be improved until executive organization is functionally conceived and operated, and the colleague principle is dominant. This statement does not deny the important part played by adequate structural (school district) organization, better teacher preparation, improved school plant, and more adequate finance. But these elements will not produce better schbols until organization is democratically planned and democratically administered in order to produce democratic competence in both children and youth as part of the total educa- tional process. The implication for reorganization on the local level applies to schools today. It is important to the success of schools; it contributes to the need of this study. DEFINITION OF TERMSo Administrative Organization. This refers to the framework es- tablished to enable people to work together effectively. The term is used to convey the notion of formal, legitimized structure which has been constructed to facilitate achievement of the institutional goals. Line and Staff. Line positions form a vertical chain of authority and responsibility in the administrative organization, extending through the various levels from the chief executive to the operational personnel. Staff positions are based primarily upon specialized functions and/or knowledge. Staff positions are advisory or auxiliary to the line and Possess neither operating responsibility nor authority in that line. _~—————— 5Arthur B. Moehlman, School Administration (Boston: Houghton 'Hifflin Company, 1940), pp. 93. Unity of Command. The concept of unity suggests that one position in the administrative organization has the responsibility and authority for the administration of the entire organization. Span of Control. The concept of span is concerned with the number of positions reporting directly to a single executive. The limits of adequate coordination and supervision define the optimum span for a given situation. Centralization - Decentralization. This concept refers to the extent to which authority and responsibility are concentrated at the top executive level or are dispersed throughout the administrative or- ganization. Machinery for Interaction. Machinery for interaction refers to those techniques such as advisory committees or councils that draw their personnel from all levels in the typical hierarchical structure and which focus attention on the cooperative solution of problems. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The limiting factors which were established to confine the scope of this study are as follows: 1. The functions listed on the questionnaire included many of the activities identified with central office operation, but it did not -assume to encompass all the contacts the superintendent has with his various publics. 2. Only the functions directly related to the principles studied are included in the analysis of data. 3. There was no attempt to check the responses of the superin- tender": with other members of the central administrative staff. 4. A personal interview with ten of the respondents to the questionnaire was accomplished in order to avoid complete dependence upon questionnaire techniques. THE SAMPLE l. The sample involved one hundred public school districts. 2. All the K - 12 districts in Michigan's lower peninsula (except Detroit) were divided into five groups according to the number of teachers listed in the Michigan School Directory for 1961-62. 3. The groups included districts with: 26 to 50 teachers 51 to 100 teachers 101 to 200 teachers 201 to 400 teachers 401 and over teachers A return from eighty-six per cent of the superintendents contacted was much higher than expected. Only one of the superintendents altered the questionnaire to the extent that it could not be included. ORGANIZATION OF THESIS Chapter II will review the literature from writers whose primary interest is public administration. Several educational writers of adndnistration will be reviewed to determine the degree of concern as Exr>ressed by others for principles of organization. Chapter III will ‘present in detail the methods used in gathering the data followed by an eKlilanation of three of the principles in Chapters IV, V, and-VI. Iflxe data from the questionnaires and structured interviews will be analyzed in Chapters VII and VIII. Chapter IX will discuss the hypotheses 10 of the data reported earlier. The sumary and conclusionsin I fill include recomendations and suggestions for further study. ?‘a (“t‘ 1“? ' ‘ "Q"i".F v_ ,,u , -. , ‘1 .L ‘2 . A ds‘tner- ..: . ,1, H»;- A. ‘g'llf'elat Grit!“ .» '~ 'J ,4 ,.' ' E - "’1 I I : ' l‘ I». " “~.‘ 1": ' ,- » 1‘2. . 1H; t ‘ ' ardef'mew‘ v? S‘chi I...‘ I. m, n. i3».- ' ' CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the literature among professional journals, short articles, and doctoral studies showed that little or no attempt has been made to ferret out principles of administration which may apply to all 1 which are related include: One types of organization. Three studies by Joseph M. Trickett which emphasizes the concept of staff in different organizations, one by Jongchol Kim is primarily concerned with leader- ,ship, and one by Paul M. Allen whose purpose was to compare educational and business administration on the basis of process. Although school and business administration, as it is known today in this culture, appears to be distinctly modern, the form of organiza- tion seems to be a product of the past. With its centralized authority and its descending scale or powers, it can be traced back to the Egyptian empire.2 -The third century saw the completion of the transformation of the principate of Augustus into an undisguised autocracy which received its definitive form under Diocletian and Constantine I. An Augustus 1Joseph M. Trickett, "A Synthesis of the Philosophies and Concepts 0f Staff in the Organization, Business, Government, and Education," (Stanford University, 1953), Abstracts XIII, 709-710; Jongchol Kim, "An Analysis of the Polar Orientations of Educational Administration and Their Implications for Educational Leadership," (University of Michigan, 195.9), Abstracts xx, 1659-1660; and Paul M. Allen, "The Administrative Process: A Comparative Study of Educational and Business Administration," (UnIVersity of Nebraska, 1956), Abstracts XVI, 2355-2356. 2John C. Almack, "Historical Development of School Administration," mm and Society (May 9, 1936), Vol. 43, pp. 626. 12 could appoint as a colleague, either as Caesar or as Augustus, anyone whom he wished to succeed him. Immediately below this office came the prefectures, dioceses, and provinces.3 The authority of each level was received from a superior above. It is from this background that most writers carry the development of present organizations. The practice of present day writers because of their individual 'specialization tends to limit their investigations and reporting to a single type of organization. Many of their names are identified only with the administration of government, business, hospitals, or education. Seldom, if ever, have they attempted to compare clearly the common elements of organization in hospitals, government, business concerns, and schools. As Litchfield has properly pointed out, "we seem to be saying that there is business administration and hospital administration and public ad- ministration; that there is military administration, hotel administration, 4 The and school administration. But there is no administration. challenge of this statement has caused the writer to glean from several authors principles which seem to have universal application. The procedure was to begin with Mooney and Reiley to determine their principles of organization. Additional writers in the field of administration likewise were studied. The summary below lists the areas Of agreement. 3Arthur E. R. Boak, A History of Rome to 565 A.D. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1955), pp. 448-455. 4Edward H. Litchfield, "Notes on a General Theory of Administration," ééflinistrative Science ggarterly (June, 1956), Vol. I, p. 7. l3 Historically, the principal forms of organization; were revealed in the institutions of state, church, and the military. Since the Industrial Revolution, industry has been added to the list. These four general categories contain remnants of the same cloth. The purposes for which they came into existence and the objectives which they attempted to gain did not detract from the general outline of their organizational structure. The general definition of organization by these writers as "the form of every human association for the attainment of a common purpose"5 applies to all of these organizations. From it, they draw their first and all-inclusive principle of organization: co-ordination. Coordina- tion pervades the organization and all other principles are subordinate to it; Mooney says, ”It is the orderly arrangement of group effort to provide unity of action in the pursuit of a common purpose."6 Mooney's second and third principle include the "scalar chain" and "functionalism." The aim of his contribution, therefore, was the study of its internal structure. This fact allows him to emphasize the art rather than the science of administration which he describes as the art of directing and inspiring people. The art, nevertheless, requires tech- niques or methods which he describes as that of relating to specific duties or functions in a coordinated whole. \— 5James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, The Principles gf Organization (NEW York: Harper and Brothers, 1939), p. 5. 6Ibid., p. 6. 14 The scalar principle is more easily recognized in our present public and private institutions because it has drawn heavily on the older organizations. It is frequently called "hierarchy." It implies a chain of command between those responsible for the execution of policy and those on the operational level; it is not conditioned by place, size, or purpose. Mooney takes exception to writers who discuss this principle in relationship to large organizations for they "seem to imply that the scalar chain in organization lacks universality. These great or- ganizations differ from others only in that the chain is longer. The truth is that wherever we find an organization even of two people. . . we have the scalar principle."7 The common illustration used to explain this principle refers to two men pushing a stone. Both must exert effort in concert in order to attain their goal. Mooney's third principle is called "functionalism." For lack of a better word, the correct interpretation does not mean "function." Mooney used an illustration from the military. The difference between generals and colonels in one of gradations in responsibility and is, therefore, scalar. The difference between an officer of infantry and an officer of artillery, however, is functional, because here there is a distinct difference in the nature of these duties. The basic ingredients of this principle provide for the initia- tion and determination of goals, for the action which makes their goals attainable, and for an evaluative procedure which has been agreed upon. Among the thousands of administrators in public and private or- ganizations, few are priviledged to begin with the concept of a set of 71bid., pp. 14-15. objectives from which to build. Rather, they are more likely to become part of an established organization with goals defined, functioning personnel, and financial means and/or support. They must, however, have these three basic tools with which to proceed. It is on this premise that the Dimocks discuss their general prin— ciples of organization. They have defined organization as the systematic bringing together of interdependent parts to form a unified whole through which authority, coordination, and control may be exercised to achieve a given purpose.8 Although the definition does not mention persons specifi- cally, they say that "to try to deal with organization without considering the people who run it and the people for whom its services are intended would be wholly unrealistic."9 The emphasis of people rather than things has caused these authors to focus their attention on the human relations aspect of formal organi- zation. They draw heavily on the writings. of Elton Mayo, W. Lloyd Warner, and Mary Parker Follet. In addition, they have given much credit to Alexander Leighton for the sociological viewpoint of organi- zation which was emphasized in his book "The Governing of Men." From the background of the writers mentioned above, the Dimocks feel that "it is possible to formulate certain principles of organiza- tion that are not too rigid and that apply to all kinds of institutions, Whether it is a government, business, school, church, hospital, or some- thing else." They include: 8Marshall E. Dimock and Gladys O. Dimock, Public Administration (NETV‘York: Rinehart and Company, 1953), p. 194. 91bid. l6 1. The administrative organization of any institution is always part of the patterns of leadership and authority in the social organization of the community in which it operates. 2. The administrator must understand his responsibility for ' effective social organization through effective administrative organization. I l i l 3. The administrator must recognize the social organization of | his institution and adjust his administrative organization to it. 4. The administrative organization must be a functioning social structure in accord with the nfsds, reactions, aspirations, and belief systems of its members. 9 These principles point to the importance of achieving internal 1 (the organization and its members) and external (social purposes) goals. i They cannot be separated; from them the finer details of organization may be identified. The most important one covered in this work was the the division of labor. How this is done and who does it makes up the structure of the whole organization. Yet, as Mary Parker Follett says, "the chief task of organization is how to relate the parts so that you have a working unit; then you get effective participation."11 The general acceptance of this idea directs attention to the principle that two persons accomplish more working together toward a common goal than when they work independently. The writer does not recognize any apparent conflict between the views of the Dimocks and Mooney. The former considered a more formal 101bid., pp. 106-107. 11Mary Parker Follett, "The Psychology of Consent and Participa- tion," Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwich (eds.), Dynamic Administration (New York: Harpers and Company , 1942), p. 212. WIT 17 approach, the latter chose to stress the social objective as a goal. 0r— ganization in and ofitself is not a goal. The more formal principles then fall into their rightful perspective. The next writer has taken a middle course relative to these positions. Graves12 twenty-five years experience in the field of public ad- ministration has allowed him to follow the development of this facet of the government in a very tangible way. He has played more than a small role in causing state and national groups to become interested in re- cognizing their important role in all areas of administration. He feels that the reason for the dearth of standardization of subject matter in this field is because the scientific study of public administration began so recently. Gulick and Urwich have contributed perhaps more than any other writers to a standardization of subject matter; their summary of basic content, as represented in the coined word POSDCORB, has been generally accepted and widely quoted. The letters in POSDCORB are intended to direct attention to the various functional elements in the work of an executive. They are: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co- ordinating, reporting, and budgeting.13 These seven terms embody the basic functions of an executive in most public and private organizations. They are based on the assumption that the organization has been created and has operated over a period Of time. This assumption is correct when applied to public school or- ganization. However, with the consolidation of many smaller districts, __________________ ———-—__—— 12W. Brooke Graves, Public Administration in a Democratic Society (Boston: D. c. Heath and Company, 1950). 131mm, p.47. some consideration should be given the newly created units where no pattern of tradition will determine the new structure. The process of organization involves three distinct steps: (1) de- signing the structure; (2) staffing the positions created; and (3) opera- ting the enterprise through the organization that has been created and staffed. The structure must not only bear some logical relation to the assignment of the agency, but it must also conform to established prin- ciples of organization. A partial listing follows: 1. There should be a single responsible executive head. If commissions or boards are used at all, they should be limited to purely advisory functions. This is the principle of unity of command. 2. The number of operating units under the executive should not exceed reasonable limits, from the point of view of span of control. 3. The principles of homogeneity require that in the assignment of duties to units and to individual employees, the effort be made to group similar duties to the same employee or group of employees. 4. The staff facilities provided for the executive should be adequate to permit proper coordination, integration, supervision, and control.1 This, as well as other listings, should be viewed as a whole. That is, the individual principle is related to what comes before and what follows. For example, to consider the assignment of individuals without making provision for staff facilities would not only be incorrect, but impossible. This statement also applies to the contributions of the next writer. 141bid., p. 492. -w‘ 1... l9 Pfiffner introduces his book with a discussion of several interesting questions: Is there a science of administration, what is public adminis- 5 In this discussion, he tration, what is the nature of administration?1 has exposed the reader to views opposite those held by other writers. Al- though he is reluctant to align himself wholeheartedly with one school of thought, he does agree that the structure of organization requires certain principles which may apply in most situations. The listing which follows includes most of the rules contained in previous lists. Although they are the authors own, it appears that a degree of in-breeding among the writers during this period (1945-1955) has taken place. Whether this situation should be construed to mean that these principles have and will stand the test of time or that new theories have not been validated sufficiently to replace them, is not known. Pfiffner has stated these as important. 1. There should be a hierarchy, sometimes referred to as the "scalar process," wherein lines of authority and responsibility run upward and downward through several levels with a broad base at the bottom and a single head at the top. 2. Each and every unit or person in the organization should be answerable ultimately to the chief administrative officer at the apex of the hierarchy. 3. The principal subdivisions on the level immediately under the chief ordinarily should be made up of activities grouped into departments on the basis of function or general purpose. 4. The number of these departments should be small enough to apermit the chief to have an effective span of control. 5. Each one of these departments should be self-contained insofar as this objective does not interfere with the necessities of inte- gration and coordination. \— 15John M. Pfiffner, Public Administration (New York: The Ronald Ptress Company, 1946), pp. 4-9. r "ml 20 6. There should be staff services, both general and auxiliary, to facilitate management and coordination. 7. In organizations large enough to warrant it, certain auxiliary activities, such as personnel and finance, should be directly under the chief administrative officer and should work very closely with similar units in the line departments. 8. The distinction between staff and line is recognized as an operating principle to be applied with variations appropriate to the situation. It should be apparent to the reader that a high degree of agree- ment has taken place among writers in the field of public administration. This writer feels that additional statements have not materially en- hanced the operating list of principles; rather, a look at the source has been fruitful. This statement has reference to the work edited by Gulick and Urwick.17 The third printing in 1954 of their Papers pp 532 Science pf Administration contain the same contributions as in 1937. The intital section entitled, "Notes on the Theory of Organization," was written by Luther Gulick18 as a member of the President's Committee on Administra- tive Management in December of 1936. It includes the concepts of span of control, unity of command, coordination, and the principle of homogeneity. However, it also includes statements which are not arbitrary, but much more flexible than one might gather from limiting his reading to references to this writing. For example, Gulick has subscribed to the principles of unity of command but added that: 16Ibid., p. 65. 17Luther Gulick and L. Urwick (eds.), Papers pp the Science pf Administration (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1937). 18Luther Gulick, "Notes on the Theory of Organization," Papers .2.,£§5 Science 2; Administration (New York: Institute of Public Ad- n1stration, 1937), pp. 3-45. ‘Arnold, 1921), p. 230. 21 One of the great sources of confusion in the discussion of the theory of organization is that some authorities work and think primarily from the top down, while others work and think from the bottom up. . . it makes this very important practical difference: those who work from the top down must guard themselves from the danger of sacrificing the effectiveness of the individual services in their zeal to achieve a model structure at the top, while those who start at the bottom must guard themselves from the danger of thwarting coordination in their eagerness to develop effective individual services. In any practical situation, the problem of organization must be approached from both top and bottom. This is particularly true in the reorganization of a going concern. This statement has a direct application to this study. Any significant change which may be expected in altering the present type of public school organization must be applied to an ongoing structure. The high percentage of professional members to the total number of employees in most school districts makes it mandatory that the present organization be viewed from both the top and bottom. Neither has Gulick been dogmatic in his adherence to the principle of "span of control." The range of this principle is conditioned by different kinds of work and in different size organizations. It must be concluded that there is no ideal number of persons with which the executive shares or to whom he assigns responsibility in all circum- stances. The older writers attempted to narrow the "span” as well as place minimum and maximum limits. Sir Ian Hamilton said, "The nearer we approach the supreme head of the whole organization, the more we ought to work towards groups of three; the closer we get to the foot of the whole organization, the more we work towards groups of six."20 19Ibid., p. 11. 1)Sir Ian Hamilton, The Soul and Body pf §p_Army (London: 22 The British Machinery of Government Committee of 1918 arrived at the conclusion that "the Cabinet should be small in number--preferably ten or at most, twelve."21 Henri Fayol said, "(in France) a minister has twenty assistants, where the Administrative Theory says that a manager at the head of a big undertaking should not have more than five or six."22 Graham Wallas expressed the opinion that the Cabinet should not be increased "beyond the number of ten or twelve at which organized oral discussion is most efficient."23 Leon Blum recommended for France a Prime Minister with a technical cabinet modelled after the British War Cabinet which was composed of five numbers."24 Gulick said, "It is not difficult to understand why there is this divergence of statement among authorities who are agreed on the funda- mentals. It arises in part from the differences in the capacities and work habits of individual executives observed, and in part from the non- comparable character of work covered."25 21Great Britain, Ministry of Reconstruction, Report of the Machinery of Government Committee_(London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1918), p. 5. 22Henri Fayol, "The Administrative Theory in the State,” Address before the Second International Congress of Administrative Science at Brussels (Brussels: September 13, 1923), Paper IVin this collection. 23Graham Wallas, The Great Society (London and New York: The MacMillan Company, 1919), p. 264. 24Leon Blum, LaReforme Gouvernementale (Paris: Grasset, 1918, reprinted in 1936), p. 59. ZSGulick. gp_. cit., p. 8. 1141c .. 23 Among the writers who have de-emphasized the framework or structure in organization, Barnard stands out in his approach to the relationship between the informal and formal aspects of administration. The formal does not refer to the "things” in the unit, and the informal to the "persons." In fact, in his discussion on the theory of formal organiza- tion he states that "an organization comes into being when there are persons able to communicate with each other who are willing to contribute action to accomplish a common purpose. The elements of an organization are therefore communication, willingness to serve, and common purpose."26 The point here is not how these elements are activated, but that they must be present in any and all (size) organizations. There is considerable evidence that Barnard agrees with Mooney that coordination is the central theme in organization. Although the former does not enumerate the subordinate principles in the manner of the latter, they are nevertheless present. The following excerpts27 will substantiate this point. 1. Communication: A person can and will accept a communication as authoritative only when four conditions simultaneously obtain: (a) he can and does understand the communication; (b) at the time of his decision he believes that it is not inconsistent with the purpose of the organization; (c) at the time of his decision, he believes it to be compatible with his personal interest as a whole; and (d) be is able mentally and physically to comply with it. 2. Responsibility for organization decision must be assigned positively and definitely in many cases because the aptness of decision depends upon knowledge of facts and of organization pur- pose and is therefore bound up with organization communication. ‘Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 82. Z71bid., pp. 94, 106, 165, 189. 24 3. Organization, simple or complex, is always an impersonal system of coordinated human efforts; always there is purpose as the coordinating and unifying principle; always there is the indispensable ability to communicate; always the necessity for personal willingness; and for effectiveness and efficiency in maintaining the integrity of purpose and the continuity of contributions. 4. Span of control: In practice a limit of usually less than fifteen persons obtains, and for many types of cooperation five or six persons is the practicable limit. As cited in Chapter I, the principles found in our review from the writers of business and public administration were largely ignored by those writing primarily for educational administrators. This situa- tion may be caused by the emphasis in the functions of administration rather than because organization is not considered important. The administration of a school organization belongs to the vast realm of public administration. There is much that is common to all kinds of public administration. According to most scholars who have written on administration, it is incorrect to think of different kinds of administration, such as public, educational, or business. Administration is'administration, regardless of its arena. This is undoubtedly true of broad purposes, general prin- ciples, and processes.2 It is not clear whether or not these writers fully subscribe to this statement since they qualify it by the phrase: according to most scholars. The general principles and processes may apply to most areas, but the broad purposes would have to be extremely broad to encompass educational administration. The over-generalized state- ment is somewhat qualified in this statement. The significance and nature of education in a democracy make the enterprise unique. Therefore, it is of extraordinary importance that the qualitative characteristics of administration in an educa- tional setting, ideally conceived, should be com atible with the role, processes, and goals of public education. 28Calvin Grieder, Truman M. Pierce, and William E. Rosenstengel, Public School Administration (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1961), p. 87. 291bid., pp. 87-88. 25 The attainment of goals referred to above requires the meshing of both the quantitive and qualitative characteristics of which ad- ministration must be a part rather than 222 part. This segregation makes a distinction between the routine aspects of organization as compared to all others. In fact, Whitehead3osaid, "The management of a university faculty has no analogy to that of a business organization." He admits that there are certain formal requirements, that class schedules are necessary, but the heart of the matter lies beyond all regulation. Few, if any, of the previous writers have stressed the dependence of one principle on the other. It would be difficult for an organization to operate on the principle of line-staff alone. Recently, Griffiths has attempted to show that all the functions are based on behavior, and furthermore, that decision making is the central concept in adminis- tration. The term "decision making" requires additional definition; Griffiths does this with four assumptions. In them, however, he uses terms which are included in the lists of principles mentioned previously. It is in the writing of Gregg that we see considerable duplication of terms with those writing on the organization of business and govern- ment. In every organizational effort it becomes necessary to make decisions, to plan, to organize, communicate, influence, coordinate, and evaluate. It is not maintained that no other components of the administrative process can be identified. It is possible, however, 30Alfred N. Whitehead, The Aims pf Education (New York: The HacMillan Company, 1929), p. 104. i .VW " 26 that these seven components, when defined in certain ways, can en- compass the entire administrative process." With the exception of influencing, this group of functions contains much agreement with both Mooney and Dimock. A pertinent contribution was made by Simon when he personified the organization and gave it the responsibility of unifying the several functions. He has not overlooked the importance of the human factor; rather, like Barnard, he has stressed the involvement of all members of the unit. He has emphasized that the organization divides work among its members, agrees upon procedures, provides a communication system, and designs in-service training for all its members.32 Naturally, the actual task is assigned to individuals but the viewpoint causes one to look at the whole rather than pick at activities or in- cidents. The division of work, communication, decision-making, and policy- procedure imply cooperation; the contributions from all the members, deciding on courses of action, and rules and regulations which aid and abet the acquisition of goals and/or objectives imply involvement. This is perhaps why individuals sometimes ask what the group is attempting to do. This question is asked on the assumption that the organizational and personal goals are in approximate agreement. One additional reference will suffice to demonstrate that educational writers of administration are aware of principles of 31Roald F. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg (eds.), Administrative 'Behavior 33 Education (New York: Harper and Brothers), p. 274. 32Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: The Enchillan Company, 1950), pp. 102-103. Wr—r va L,“ 27 organization. Having done this, the writer does not wish to imply that the principles are either practiced or very well known by educational practicioners. The list is somewhat weakened by the admission that the authors have made no attempt to restate these principles in terms specifically applicable to educational administration. The necessary ingredients are: 1. An organizational structure is necessary when any group has a common task. 2. The purposes and objectives of an organization must be determined and understood. 3. Every organization should have a single executive head. 4. Personnel policies should include selecting the competent, training the inexperienced, eliminating the incompetent, and pro- viding incentives for all members of the organization. 5. Coordination of functions, activities, interests, and assign- ments is necessary for successful accomplishment of results. 6. Continuity of policy and program until results can be evaluated is a prerequisite to good management. 7. Policies and programs should be stated in terms broad enough to permit reasonable flexibility in management. 8. The scheme of organization should provide for maximum homogeneity in the major divisions of work. 9. One executive can only deal effectively with a limited number of persons. 10. Every organization must make provision for effective plan- ning and decision making. 11. An effective organization must attain its goals if it is to survive. 12. 'Evaluation is essential to the progress of any group.33 33Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller, Educ- ational Administration: Concepts,‘Practices, and Issues (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959), pp. 54-61. t . a" 28 Even a cursory perusal ofthe above listings leads one to believe that the past structure of the state, church, and military are very much with us today. The democratic principles on which our country was founded seem to manifest themselves more along the ideas and ideals of Jefferson rather than Jackson. The concept of educating a limited number of persons for the clergy, law, and government service in order to establish an order which divided the governed from those who govern has filtered down through the years intbour systems of organizations today. When viewed from this perspective, it is little wonder that agencies most charged with the responsibility of furthering democratic principles have done relatively little. An appropriate dividing line between most other organizations and the structure for the public schools is that of goals and/or purposes. The principlesof organization which deal with the business functions and routine activities have much in common in all groups. From this point forward, the goals of education (contradictory at times) en- compass social values and objectives foreign to the major purpose of a business concern. The demarcation must also be emphasized in terms of personnel. Public schools, regardless of unit size, employ a large percentage of professional people in relationship to the total. This fact alone makes the structure of educational organizations different. In light of the foregoing statements, the listings of principles throughout the chapter have been gleaned to determine which of them might apply to educational organizations; some of the more important principles follow: 29 1. All organizations require headship. There should be a single responsible executive leader. 2. A division of work is necessary in even the smallest or- ganizations. 3. A system of priorities which determines what needs to be done and how to do it. 4. A communication system which helps the units work toward personal and organizational goals. 5. There should be staff services, both general and auxiliary, to facilitate coordination. 6. The distinction between staff and line is recognized as an operating principle to be applied with variations appropriate to the situation. 7. Every organization must make provision for effective plan- ning-and decision making. 8. Methods of evaluation which attempt to objectively measure the attainment of goals. The review of the data in this study (Chapter VII and VIII) shows that administrators have not given ample consideration to the prin- ciples listed above. The analysis will demonstrate that most adminis- trators adhere to the principles of organization which are usually identified with business and industry. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The sample. The sample included in this study was selected from the total number of Michigan school districts in the lower penin- sula operating a high school excluding the school district of Detroit.* The Michigan High School Athletic Association Bulletin was used for the division of the districts into fourgroups according to the number of students enrolled. Since this division (A, B, C, and D class)** did not determine the number of teachers employed in the district, reference was made to the Michigan Education Directory1 for the number of teaching positions in each district. The number of districts obtained by this method was reduced through the elimination of districts with less than twenty-six teachers. Very few of the superintendency districts of this size employ more than one or two administrators; some of them none. The number of the dis- tricts in the population was 366. *Detroit was excluded because of its size, the lack of any basis for comparison with other Michigan districts, and the role of the super- intendent found only in extremely large city school districts. **The classifications are determined as follows: Class A - 900 or more students Class B - 400 to 899 students Class C - 200 to 399 students Class D - less than 200 students Number of teaching positions is not relevent. 1Michigan Education Directory and Buyer’s Guide (Lansing, Michigan: 'Michigan‘Education Directory, 1961), pp.-126-225. ~17". ‘ 31 Table I shows the number of districts in each group and the sample used in each classification. TABLE I Number of Districts in Population and Sample by Classification ‘- Teachers Population Sample 26-50 131 27 51-100 114 23 101-200 71 20 201-400 25 '15 400-over 25 15 366 100 Several members of the Research Department aided the writer in determining the size of the sample and the number to be sampled in each grOUp. The large difference between the highest and lowest number of districts in each group required a disproportinate sample in each of the five strata. Hansen, Hurwitz, and Madow state that whenm highly skewed populations are encountered it is desirable to identify the units that are large in size and include in the sample a higher proportion of these than of the smaller units.2 This accounts for the difference of twelve districts between Group 1 and Group 5. 2Morris H. Hansen and others, Sample Survey Methods and Theory (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1953), Vol. I, p. 102. 32 The districts involved in the study were selected at random from a listing of all the districts by group.3 In addition, two districts were selected at random from each of the sample districts for personal interviews. The superintendents of the districts chosen for interviews had returned the questionnaire prior to the interview. The questionnaire. The body of the questionnaire included 4 sixty statements listing the functions or activities in which the superintendent is involved. He was requested to indicate whether the function was initiated and completed by himself, shared with others, or assigned to others. In the event the function was shared or assigned, he indicated this by referring to atumber placed beside a listing of the most common full and part-time administrators found in many of the school districts in the studyu Space was allowed for him to add position names for those present in his district not in- cluded on the list. At the end of the list of functions he reported the approximate number of pupils and teachers in his district. This information made it possible to place the completed questionnaire in the proper group. Prior to the submission of the questionnaire to the persons in the sample, the investigator sent copies of the preliminary question- naire to fifteen superintendents who could be expected to make an excellent evaluation of the statements. On the basis of this pre-testing, :‘Jilfred J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction _t_9 Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957), pp. 366-370. «Adapted from a list of functions identified in a study made by the Cooperative Development of Public School Administration in the State of New York. 33 several functions were added or deleted and others restated in order to eliminate ambiguity. In addition, members of the Administrative Interest Group at the College of Education gave helpful suggestions. The results from the respondents will be reported in Chapter VII; the number of replies by groups is shown in Table II. TABLE II Number of Respondents in Each Classification Who Returned Questionnaire Teachers Sample Respondents 26-50 27 25 51-100 23 20 101-200 20 15 201-400 15 13 401-over 15 12 100 85 The number of returns in each group was considered sufficient in order to draw generalized conclusions from both the total sample and grcup to the total population. The collation of data is reported in Chapter VII. The structured interview. As mentioned previously, two super- intendents from each group were selected at random from the original sample districts. They were contacted at their offices and arrangements Inade for the interview in the district. 34 The sixty functions included in the questionnaire were written on three by five cards and placed on a stacked pile in front of the interviewee. He was then requested to place them in five groups which were entitled: assume greatest responsibility, assume much responsibility, job specifications of subordinate cover this function, assign more than share, and share more than assign. The purpose of this activity was twofold: first, the results of this segregation enabled the investigator to verify the choices made on the original questionnaire; and second, it sharpened the line drawn between the degrees of responsibility the respondent assumed in sharing and assigning. Of equal benefit was the informal conversation that took place during the interview. This, and the consistent aspect of the method materially aided the investigator. Good and Scates have this to say concerning structured interviews: The use of a schedule or questionnaire in descriptive survey studies extends the investigators powers of observation by serving to remind the respondent of each item, to help insure response to the same item from all cases, and to keep the investigator from collecting only the uniqge, exceptional, or unusual facts particul- arly interesting to him. Table 111 lists the names of the superintendents who were salected from the sample. An additional name in each group was chosen ifil case one of the superintendents failed to respond to the written wuwuu a s o o s a H N oH N as s as -msanee< was «0 snemumemma .N N OH 0 o as N N N m a on N NN .uomesn was no Nouuaoo .H .mw m < o m < o m < m < o m < um>o use Hos cos-H0N QON-HoH ooH-sm om-oN wmma. > . mans ; >H :. mans ”HHH owns. HH mmung H Aunmamwmnnzv nwfimm< n o .1. oneozam «swam - m cohonam mumsomma mo uoaenz an masouu onoH< u < “Mom All WHHAHmHmZOmmmM meow no unease emmsammo meaoHozH ”3.54m mHZMGZMHszmmDm Hagen. mug mom. monHUZDm_. > mam<fl 76 o m m o m m o n m o m mH o a as .chHuHmco HHOoH>ummnm van o>wuoHUmHnHavm now macaumuwwwooam no“ wawusuz .m .maowufimom m>auwuumanwauo mo mno«uoowmwoonm wasnwahoumn .m o m < o m < u < 0 ml. 0 m ¢ um>o new ace ooano ooN mH ooH H omnoN . «an: > ..mHIn.: mwun mWH owns MH< . nuns. H Aunmaommnmzv nmwmm< a U 4 onHoznw madam a m uphoHnaw mumnoooa mo nonanz an wmnouu mnoH< u 4 "How HemacNucoov > mamas 77 MANAGEMENT Control of the Budget Slightly over fifty-fOur per cent of the superintendents report that they assume complete control of the budget in their districts. When added to those who share this function, the percentage is over eighty-eight per cent. The superintendents in Group I (twenty-six to fifty teachers) which represented twenty-five districts stated that all but two held sole responsibility and not one of them assigned this task to another staff member. Two of the respondents in Group IV (201 to 400 teachers) indicate that they neither share nor assign this function. The superintendents in Group V (four hundred or more teachers) reported that ten of them share this responsibility and two of them assign it to members of the central staff. It is not possible to determine the amount of time the superintendent spends on this function, but less than twelve per cent of them are involved in either budget making and administration or both. Staff Personnel Records The responsibility for maintaining teachers' credentials and personal folders was about evenly divided between those superintendents who do it alone and those who share or assign it. Two superintendents in Group V (four hundred or more teachers) report that they perform this function alone. Contrasted to this, six of the Group I superinten- dents share this function with other administrators or clerical employees. 78 A comparison of the number of districts in Group II and III with the number of respondents shows that three districts failed to indicate who performed this function. Itis difficult to understand how any district can operate without maintaining records for its teachers. Again, the superintendents in the larger districts tend to assign this function. Debt Management All of the superintendents in Group I report that they assume full responsibility for this function. Even though this group and Group II help bring the "alone" percentage to seventy-one, three superintendents in Group IV and one in Group V (four hundred and over teachers) report that they assume sole responsibility for this activity. Many districts with over one hundred teachers employ a business manager. Even with this specialized help available, eleven superinten- dents in this group said they did not share or assign this task with others. As in the case of budget control, only approximately eleven per cent of the superintendents indicate specific assignment of this function. State Department Rgports Exactly one-half of the superintendents report that they personally prepare all reports for the Department of Public Instruction. Although this means that one-half of them share or assign this function, the superintendents in Groups I, II, and III never assign the work, and the superintendents in Groups IV and V never perform the function alone. 79 The main report to the State is the Annual Financial and Statistical Report. All of the districts are required to submit this report according to the School Code. The fact that the smaller districts indicate some sharing and assigning implies that other special reports may be given to other administrators for completion. All of the districts reported on this function. Payroll Administration Fifty-five per cent of the superintendents reported that they performed this function alone. Only two of the twenty-five superintendents in Group I indicated that clerical help was involved in this work. It does not seem possible that they actually wrote checks themselves. Six- teen of the respondents in Group II did the work alone, three shared it with the business manager, and one assigned it to a clerk. A large majority of the larger districts assigned this function to another member of the central staff, usually the business manager. This function, however, was placed in this classification because seventy per cent of the superintendents reported that they were directly involved or shared a portion of this work. Recommendation of Nonéprofessional Personnel This function was the only function in this classification that did not exceed fifty per cent in the "alone" column. It did, however, represent eighty-six per cent of the responses when added to the "share" number. It is also a functia1 for which superintendents from all the groups indicated sole responsibility. Three out of twelve superintendents in Group V said they did this alone. 80 Since this function did not combine selection or evaluation with recommendation, some of the superintendents may be guided by other members of the central staff and only become involved in the actual action taken at board meetings. In addition, some of the respondents indicated that building principals shared this function. Some of the superintendents showed that several persons were assigned this function. This duplicity may be caused by the various classications: clerks, bus drivers and custodians. Determining Administrative Specifications Sixty per cent of the superintendents said they performed this function alone. None of them assigned this work to others. Forty per cent shared this responsibility with other administrators; none of them involved teachers. The building principal was involved in a few of the districts. In all of the other districts, the administrators who helped were members of the central staff. Specifications of a position usually outline the tasks to be performed, to whom the individual is responsible and aid others who seek help. Since specifications tend to determine the activities of the individual, the structure of the organization is affected by what they include. The high degree of involvement of the superintendent in this function will determine in a significant fashion the type of organization in the district. Writing Job Specifications This function is closely related to the function reported above. The one asked who determined the specifications, and the other who wrote the specifications. In Group 1, four superintendents shared in the determination, but five shared the writing. The difference in 81 Groups II, III, and V were not too different, but in Group IV only three superintendents determined the specifications alone whereas five wrote them alone. Out of the twelve respondents in Group V, two superintendents assigned the writing but did not assign the task of determining what they should include. The total percentage, however, showed little difference; the total of the "alone" and "share" columns was ninty-seven per cent. Administrative Council Leadership Only two superintendents, one in Group III and one in Group V, reported that the leadership or chairmanship of the administrators was assigned to another member of the central staff. It is to be expected that the superintendent would head this internal organization. The percentage of minty-seven therefore does not appear excessive. All the districts with one hundred or more teachers report the existence of an administrators' council or committee. The two smaller groups show that approximately one-third of the districts do not have such a council. POLICY FUNCTIONS This classification includes functions in which the superintendent indicated that he assumed a major degree of responsibility. The chief difference between this classification and management is that the per- centage of performing "alone" is lower and the "sharing" percentage ranged from fourteen per cent to eighty-one per cent. The reason for considering these functions as a major part of the superintendent's work is that the degree of sharing cannot be stated explicitly. In addition, all but one of the functions were shared by members of the central office staff. 82 Policy Formulation and Revision Only one superintendent assigned this function to another member of his staff. Forty-two per cent of them reported that they performed the task alone. In analyzing the fifty-seven per cent who stated that they shared this responsibility, it was noted that only three districts called on persons other than administrators. The high percentage of responses to this item implied that all but one district employed a formal means for Board adoption of policy. It should, however, not be construed to mean that all the districts have an up-to-date written policy. It could reflect merely the approval of the Board by a minute in the secretary's record. Reference to Table VI shows that even in the smallest districts the superintendent shares this function. Administering Insurance Program Superintendents from all the three lower groups reported that they are greatly involved in overseeing the various insurance programs for the district. In the several districts where the function is assigned, the question apparently was interpreted to apply only to student accident insurance. In these cases, the task was assigned to the building principal. Both the larger groups (two hundred and over teachers) reported that they completely assign this function to the business office. In spite of this great difference between districts, fifty-one per cent of the superintendents perform this function alone. > 1..~..‘~f\.§u 83 .wwmum HmconmoHoua mo ucme uHOHmEm pow uumom Ou GOHu m w H N HH 0 H HH m NH .N 0 NH w nopcmEEouou tam coHuooHom .o .zpumnucH nan mwmnHmsn N a N m N N m s 0 NH 0 o as NH suns muumueou wcnumnsncH .m .munnooom HmcumunH as N o as N o a N e N a N m we masseuse was waumn>smasm .q .moanosom >HmHmm mo noHumuumHnHEum bum cOHuonuumcoo can now venom o o o H a w H w m NH N H mH HH ou mGOHuounmEEoomu wcmez .m .aowwoua NH o o NH o o N o q q qH H H mm mocmuomcH wcHumumHnH6w< .N .aonH>ou can noHu umHDEuow HoHHom now usmom o m m o q o H m w m OH 0 ON m on mGOHumunmEeoomu monmz .H o m < o m a o m a mirru< o m < po>o new Hon ooanoN ooNaHoH ooHuHm omuom NH": mHun mHuc HHM OWMWIIMH mmus. AmCOHuoasm HUHHOHV :mem< n o onHUZDm madam c m vmonaam mumnoooH Ho ambasz an mmoouo onoH< u < “sou wHHHHmHmzommmm MHOm ho mmmomn MOH mqmuonnm .o .omuuHEEoo HonoomuuHOumuu a N N m m N a m H N N m m a -3553 no 3:23th N .HoGGOmumm mmdum HwGOHmmmw noun mo :oHunmuou new nOHuoE uoua How osmom Cu noHumu H m N H oH N H a q o mH H H ON unmEEoomu new :oHumsHm>m .m .Hmnnomuom wwdum HmGOHmmmmoun mo HH 0 o m m H N HH N o mH H o NN nOHumuanuo use nOHuooocH .N o m a o m a o m < o m < o m l po>o can Hoe ooIWHON OONsHoH ooHuHm omnoN NHuc > mHmn >H mHuc HHH ONus HH mNun H AmGOHuocnm hoHHomv anmm< u o nomoHaEm mumsommH Ho Hosanz an manouu onHUZDm madam n m mcoH< n < "sou Hemsauueoov H> mnmmo .N .mamuwoun maOHumHou UHHan mo H o m 0 HH H H NH N 0 0H m 0 ON m coHumcHuuooo was wcHnanH .a .aOHustuumHu Hmumcmw How maHumHHsn new muuonmu N N H N oH H o NH N o sH a o NH N HmHomam Ho aoHsmumaoHH .N .aoHuosuu H HH 0 0 NH 0 H 0H s 0 0H N c HN m unnoo was wanomHa uanm .N .NUchEBoo was «0 momma HonoHumonum mnu onHE 0 OH H 0 HH N 0 HH m O NH H 0 MN H numuou Ou spoon may mnHaHmm .H o m < u m < o m < o m < o m < uo>o pom Hoe ooquHON OONaHoH ooHuHm omuoN AmonmumHmm< NH": > NH": >H NH": HHH oNuc HH NNue H HHNHN New canons cmem< - o ZOHHUZDH mumsm u m umkoHnem mumnomma mo Honenz Nb manouu mcoH< u < "sou WHHHHmHmzommmm amm mHm ...~.~¢~(\.~- 91 .Hoc:0muma Human Hm:0Hmwmwoum mo oH o o NH H 0H m o m HH 0 m 0H noHumunoHuo was noHuonan .mH .mnnouw mmH oH c o N o 0H 0 N wH o N HN H Honuo pom ummnnH Ho :oHuooan .mH .wmmum OH 0 m 0H 0 NH H N NH 0 o mN N HononmmmoLa mo nonH>uonnm .NH .EanoHuuno Ho aoHuooHom HH 0 m OH 0 NH 0 H NH O o «N Q was EanoHuuoo mchOHmH>om .HH .oHuma aoHuooHnneaoo oHHnnm an wouocHammoHo on OH 0 N H m N 0H s o qH q 0 0H m noHumauowaH «0 :oHuouwmmum .oH .unoEmano van mmHHamsw Mom N o N s 0 HH o N NH o H NH N maoHsmoHHHuoam wchHaumumn .N m a. o m < m < o m < u m ¢ Hm>o can Hoe oquoN OONuHoH ooHuHm omuoN AmonoumHmm< NHun > mHnn >H mHuc HHH 0N": HH mNun H «Hmum new bumomv anmm< . o onHUZDm mumnm n m umNonam mumsumma Ho umnEsz ms mmnouo onoH< n < "mom ANNsEHHcooV HH> NHNaH .N .GOHumumao ram mocmnmusHmE oH H o NH 0 o N N H HH N o NH N man No amuNoua Ho EOHHUNNHN .N .mamNHuHo NmH Hmnuo new mucoumm m m H m OH O N .N o o NH 0 MN 0 suHs moonmummcoo HmooH>Han .m .manouw Hoonom anon Na mmHuHHHomm Hoosom mo N N o N IN N N N N N NH N NH NH was new eNsNosa Ho eoHuumuHN .N .HmGCONHma «Noam Hononmomouaucoc Ho m m 0 0H m o m OH 0 N 0H N HH oH :oHumHsmHuo new GOHuosunH .H u m < o m < o m < o m < m < um>o New HNN NON-HNN ooN-HoH ooH-HN ON-NN HNHHHHNHmcoHNNN NH"G > NHua.z,>H NH": HHH NNuc HH NNue NNHNHNV cNHNNN - u onHozam mumsm u m moNoHaSm Numsomma mo umnanz Nb manouo mnoH< u < "Now WHHHHmHmzommmm szuHmm< MO omm madman... A-..v-:. H .p.....»,v ~ ~ ~> u.~\~.~m .NH .mwcw. -tHHob HmnnH>HonH Ho coHu NH 0 0 HH N o 0H m O NH 0 H N mH N nmumoo How NuHHHmeconmmm .HH .cwEmmHmN NH o o N N o N N o N oH N H HH NH NHNNNN Hooeow NeHzmenmueH .oH .HoccONHoa mmoum N N H N N o N oH N N N H N NH N HmcoHNmmHoHa NcHHsemNoN .N o m < o m <. o m < o m < o m < um>o new Hoe oolvHON OONnHoH ooHnHm omuoN ANHHHHwacommom NHua > mHuc >H mHua HHH ONun HH mNun H woumbmv anmm< n o onHozam mumbm u m umNonEm mumbomma mo umbenz Nb museum oaoH< n < ”NoM NewscHueoov HHH> mHNHuoowmo waHn NH N o N .N N N N HH N H N NH -ENHN NH NHmNuNNH NNHNHNN .N .Ewuwoum nOHu oH N o N N o N N oH N N N N -Nusem NHsem No :oHuomuHo .N .moHuH>Huom HH o O NH N. o N N HH N 0 HH HH HN=NH>-0HNNN NcHHNEHNHooo .N .Eouwouo noHumouo N N o N o o N N N N N N H -mu Hmassm NaHHmHNHeHsNN .N .mppboomu oH N o NH H o N N NH N N NH N musuHNNNNN Hon NaHNENHNN .N oH N o NH H 0 HH N NH N o NH HH .soH>NeoN HHea No Houueoo .N qamumouo oH N 0 NH H o N N NH N o N HH NussH HooNoN Ho aoHsoNHHm .H o N < o N N o N o N N o N Hm>o New HNN NNN-HNN NON-HoH ooH-HN oN-NN HNHHHHNHmeoNNmN NH»e > NH...e >H NHuc oNuc HH NNua H NNENHNNNV aNHNN< - o oneozpm NHNNN - N boNoHaam wuoboome Ho ambasz Nb manouo mnon n < "NoM NNHHHNHNzoaNNN QMZUHmm< ho mmmumn Emmaammu mamoHazH MHmzHuHuoa HH H o o N o NH m 0 NH N o mH m o .800 no noHuouumHnHEu< .oH .munoonum 3oz HH H 0 0H m o 0H m o oH N 0 NH NH 0 Ho :oHuouanuo How mnon .m o m < o m < o m < o m < 0 m < :xum>o one Hoe ooquHON OQNuHoH ooHan OmnoN aNuHHHmenoonm NHna > Sun >H NHuc HHH 83 HH NNuHH H BENHNNS $23. 0 ZCHHUZDN ouobm . m uoNquam mumbowma Ho Hmbenz Nb museum ocoH< u < "NoM HemseHucoov NH NHNoo me om NN on w mH N mH NH mH wumchHObnm Ho mnoHumoHHHuoam bow oH a HH. w w NH mH N NH w NUHHHmenomw H buss moedmm< N N w HH mH N bN NN NH NN NuHHHmenomumu umoumouw moanmm< m < m < m < m < m < > >H HHH HH H umNoHefim muobomma mo umbenz Nb mnoouu N NuHanEEou : m H NuHanEEoo a < "Nox mMHmowmsmmHZH DmMDHUDMHm 20mm mumZOMmmm HGeneral Theory 9f Administration," Administrative Science Qparterly, 1, June, 1956. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. 1961-62 Issue. Lansing, Michigan: 1961. Report pf Dearborn Civic Committee 92 School Needs. Organization and Management Sub-Committee. Dearborn, Michigan, 1960. 160 Toward Improved School Administration. The W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Battle Creek, Michigan: Sequoia Press, 1961. C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Allen, Paul M. "The Administrative Process: A Comparative Study of Educational and Business Administration." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Nebraska, 1956. Kim, Jongchol. "An Analysis of the Polar Orientations of Educa- tional Administration and Their Implications for Educational Leadership.H Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Michigan, 1959. Trickett, Joseph M. "A Synthesis of the PhiloSOphies and Concepts of Staff in the Organization, Business, Government, and Educa- tion." Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Stanford University, 1953. APPENDIX A LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS 162 January 29, 1962 Dear The enclosed questionnaire represents the major portion of informa- tion needed for my thesis under the direction of Dr. Clyde Campbell. We expect to learn about administrative practices in schools in lower Michigan. Because this instrument'is being used for both large and small districts, please do not be concerned about any items that do not apply to your district. Since the size of our sample is small and the time to complete the questionnaire is short, a high percentage of returns is neces- sary. You need not sign your name. May we count on your cooperation? Thank you. Sincerely, Paul H. Appel College of Education PHA:lao Enclosure APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF RESULTS ON QUESTIONNAIRE 164 QUESTIONNAIRE PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS PURPOSE: To determine to what extent several principles of organiza- tion are practiced in Michigan public schools. DIRECTIONS: Please respond to each of the statements which apply to your situation by writing the proper number(s) from the positions listed below: l. Superintendent 9. Curriculum Coordinator 2. Asst. Supt. (Instruction) 10. Director of Athletics 3. Asst. Supt. (Business) 11. Maintenance Head 4. Secondary Principal 12. Cafeteria Manager 5. Elementary Principal 13. Director of Adult Educ. 6. Subject-matter Coord. 14. Transportation Supervisor 7. Dept. Head (Secondary) 15. 8. Guidance Counselor l6. COLUMN HEADINGS: Alone - a function which you carry out yourself to its completion (gather data, complile, report). Share - a function which you share with one or more of the positions listed (work to- gether or separately on particular tasks). Delegate - a function which you completely delegate to one or more of the positions listed (expect them to initiate and complete). Share Assign Alone With to EXAMPLES: a. Preparation of Board agenda ‘ 1 b. Chairmanship of Curriculum Council 2 c. Selection of textbook 2,4 STATEMENTS: 1. Induction and orientation of non-prof- 12 43 30 fessional personnel. 2. Direction of program for use of school 14 39 31 facilities by non-school groups. 3. Control of the budget. 46 29 10 4. Direction of school lunch program. 3 27 50 5. Leadership of Administrative Council. 53 16 2 165 Share Assign 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. “me With to Making recommendations to Board for policy 35 47 1 formulation and revision. Individual conferences with parents and 1 60 18 other lay citizens. Control of pupil behavior. 0 23 60 Helping.the Board to determine the educa- 8 73 0 tional needs of the community. Direction of program of bus maintenance 4 28 46 and operation. Plant planning and construction. 10 71 2 Preparation of Special reports and 16 59 4 bulletins for general distribution. Planning and coordination of public 14 65 2 relations program. Working with PTA and other lay groups. 1 66 14 Maintaining staff personnel records. 43 20. 19 Administering insurance program. 40 11 28 Developing procedures for reporting 0 58 26 pupil progress to parents. Inventorying supplies and equipment. 4 32 43 Inspection of buildings and grounds. 5 50 29 Counseling professional personnel. 16 66 3 Preparation of announcements for teachers. 12 59 10 Debt service management. 59 13 12 Preparation of the Department of Public 42 30 12 Instruction reports. Administration of the payroll. 46 12 25 Direction of program of plant maintenance. 11 40 31 166 Share Assign 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Scheduling non-professional staff personne1.18 Alone With to Determining specifications for supplies 7 49 24 and equipment. Making recommendations to the Board for 37 43 4 the construction and administration of salary schedules. Supervising and auditing internal accounts. 28 26 30 Initiating contacts with business and 29 34 9 industry. Selection and recommendation to the Board 14 64 7 for employment of professional staff personnel. Induction and orientation of professional 7 62 8 staff personnel. Purchasing of supplies and equipment. 25 31 28 Preparation of information to be dis- 20 55 5 seminated by public communication media. Direction of health and safety program. 1 40 38 Arranging for substitute teachers. 6 22 55 Administering summer recreation program. 7 10 30 .Revision of curriculum and selection of 0 76 7 curriculum materials. Coordinating audio-visual activities. 0 29 49 Scheduling professional staff personnel. 6 45 31 Determination of financial needs and 34 46 3 construction of budget. Supervision of professional staff members. 3 68 14 Direction of adult education program. 4 15 39 Helping teachers in planning effective 1 38 43 remedial instruction. 29 36 167 Alone Share ASSIgn 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. With to Interviewing school supply salesmen. 19 31 31 Direction of in-service program for 8 58 17 teachers. Recommendation to the Board for employ- 41 31 12 ment of non-professional staff personnel. Evaluation and recommendation to the Board 12 67 4 for promotion and retention of professional staff personnel. Direction of follow-up of graduates and O 20 64 drop-outs. Plans for orientation of new students. 0 26 59 Responsibility for operation of individual 3 28 53 buildings. Administration of competitive athletic O 18 25 program. Chairmanship of administratormteacher 15 20 20 committee. Evaluation of non-professional staff 16 36 29 personnel. Assisting teachers in diagnosing the 0 35 47 learning difficulties of pupils. Direction of guidance program. 0 29 49 Determine specifications of adminis- 47 32 0 trative positions. Writing job specifications for adminis- 44 32 2 trative and supervisory positions. Supervision of non-professional staff 14 33 34 personnel. Direction of program for exceptional 5 33 31 children. ******** Approximate number of pupils in district Approximate number of teachers in district / EXT: 135E GNU t .V‘ ”N” WIS V 91-.J3-J‘Ji'. 'V b-r. ' l" ‘ 3.31"!“ . W4 38: HICH IES lllllllllllilll