A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF ' SELECTED FACTORS ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY. SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HARRY JOSEPH GROULX 1968 L [B .I’ i R Y Michig. 1 State Ul’llVCfSlty mm IIIIIIIIIHIII This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS presented by ?_ Harry Joseph Groulx has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ‘ ' - ., .7 ' ED. D. degree ian 0-169 ‘ : ‘5'.- :: A x» BINDING BY " IIOAE 8: SONS. E. W. 3mm me. 1 «MW BINDERS ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS by Harry Joseph Groulx The purpose of this study was to collect empirical evidence to determine whether selected factors would influ- ence the role of the elementary school principal in curric- ulum development as perceived by selected elementary teach- ers and elementary principals in selected school districts in the State of Michigan. This study developed from the descriptions of the elementary principal's role in cur- riculum development as found in educational and general literature. The survey instrument in this study was designed to test role choice items that the elementary school principal should follow in the curriculum development process as selected by elementary classroom teachers and elementary school principals. The school districts and schools that formed the population for this study were randomly selected. Fifty schools participatedixithe study and fifty elementary school principals along with four hundred ten teachers returned the questionnaires. Harry Joseph Groulx The hypotheses in general research form were: Hl Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will have different per- ceptions as to what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development from elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. H Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development will be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development. Additional data was collected to determine if they would be significant. These selected factors were: age, sex, experience, years member of Michigan Education Harry Jospeh Groulx Association, tenure teacher, size of school district, region, principal, and teacher. The chi—square analysis test was used to test the hypotheses and the significance of the selected variables. The hypotheses and selected variables were not found to be significant to the .05 level. This indicates that the availability of special curriculum personnel, strength of the school district in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum, amount of formal education in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum, should not influence the perceptions of elementary teachers and principals in the role the elementary principal should play in curriculum development. The variables of age, sex, experience, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure teacher, size of school district, and region did not influence the selection of the principal's role in curriculum development. A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN _CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AS PERCEIVED BY SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS BY Harry Joseph Groulx A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1968 Q 5122/ //~’ / 23? I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer particularly wishes to thank Dr. Troy L. Stearns, Chairman of the Doctoral Guidance Committee, for his continuous encouragement, support, and guidance through- out all phases of my doctoral program. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Calhoun Collier, Dr. George R. Myers, Dr. Louise M. Sause, and Dr. Edgar A. Schuler for their many valuable suggestions and support. The writer is also indebted to the Michigan Educa— tion Association and the forty-seven school districts for their cooperation and participation in making this study possible. This study would not have been completed without the encouragement and support of my family. I owe gratitude to my wife, Sally, and children, Kathie and Bruce, for their understanding and patience during the time required to write this dissertation. ***** ii Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . Definition of Terms for the Purpose of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elementary Teacher . . . . . . . . Elementary Principal . . . . . . . Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Development Process . . Professional Negotiations . . . . Formal Education . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . Procedure for Collecting Data . . Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Role . . . . . . . . . . . Research Studies Dealing with Principal's Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DES IGN O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of Sample . . . . . . . Development of the Survey Instrument . Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures for Analysis of the Data . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page NF‘F‘ ©mmm\l\IO\O\O\O‘ 14 22 28 30 3O 30 34 35 38 4O 41 Chapter IV. v. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data from Survey Instrument . Statistical Procedure . . . . . Hypotheses Testing . . . . . Special Personnel in Area of Curriculum . . . . . . . . Strength of Professional Negotiations Formal Education . . . . . . Region . . . . . . . . . . . Size of District . . . . . . Teacher . . . . . . . . . . Principal . . . . . . . . . .Age . . . . . . . . . . . . Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . Experience . . . Years Member of Michigan Education Association . . . . . . . Tenure . . . . . . . . . Overview of Choices . . . . ASummary . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design . . . . . . . . . . . .SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Analysis of Survey Instrument Data . . . . Analysis of Data for Which There Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . .Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX iv .Were No Page 42 42 42 42 43 43 46 50 53 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 63 66 68 68 68 69 71 72 73 77 79 83 Table LIST OF TABLES Distribution of special personnel . . . . . Chi-square values as they relate to first hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of respondents on the basis of strength rating by Michigan Education ,Association Field Representatives in area of professional negotiations in the area of curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-square values as they relate to the second hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution by quartile of the formal education of respondents . . . . . . . . . ”Chi-square values as they relate to third hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number and percentage of total respondents by reg ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .Chi-square values for region variable . . . Respondents in the groups . . . . . . . . . Chi-square values for size variable . . . . Chi-square values for teacher variable . . .Chi-square values for principal variable . Chi-square values for the age variable . . Chi-square values for sex variable . . . . Chi-square values for the experience variable 0 , O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O Page 45 46 49 49 52 52 54 55 56 57 58 58 59 6O 61 Table Page 16. Chi-square values for years member of Michigan Education Association variable . . . . 62 17. Chi-square values for tenure variable . . . . . 63 18. Choices of respondents on each stage . . . . . 64 19. The role choice, he should cooperate with others, is presented in each of four stages by per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 vi LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 1. .Counties by Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 2. _School Districts by Regions . . . . . . . . . 85 3. Letter to Superintendent of Schools . . . . . 87 4. Letter to Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5. .Letter to Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6. Follow-Up Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O 7. Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 8. Questionnaire on Curriculum Development . . . 92 vii CHAPTER I IN TRODUCT ION This study develops from the hypothesis that the elementary principal's role in curriculum development may be changing. Earlier research on the elementary principal's role in curriculum did not have to consider the influences of professional negotiations, the large number of recent appointments of curriculum directors in the administrative organization of public schools, and the more extensive for- mal education of teachers and administrators than that of their predecessors. The Problem Statement of the Problem It is the purpose of this study to determine whether selected factors influence the role of the elementary school principal in curriculum development as perceived by selected elementary school principals and elementary school classroom teachers. An instrument has been designed to measure role choice items that an elementary principal may assume at each stage of curriculum development. .The instrument is used in this study to determine how elementary teachers and elementary principals see the elementary principal functioning at dif- ferent stages of curriculum development. The methodology of the comparisons is presented in research design form in Chapter III. Igpgrtance of the Study Considerable evidence can be found to show that the elementary principal's role in curriculum development may be undergoing change. The Michigan Association of Elementary Principals recognized the changing role of the elementary principal in a letter to members in August, 1967, stating: The foremost conclusion seems to be that the principal's role is changing, that he is moving in a new direction of leadership. Some feel that his leadership role is being taken from him because of the direct confrontation between boards of education and teachers in establishing policies that the prin- cipal is required to implement, but has no voice in developing. Some feel that the principal's role is strengthened, that his leadership abilities will have full opportunity to blossom in a stimulating, sharing or policy determination as part of a total educational team . . . teachers, administrators, and boards of education. Erickson predicts, ". . . that the instructional supervision component of the principal's role will steadily 1Letter from Michigan Association of Elementary Principals to members, August, 1967. lessen in importance as the principal's responsibility for strategic coordination is given increased emphasis."2 Greig and Lee3 suggest that if cooperation efforts of teachers improve instruction, then the effectiveness of the principal in this area might also be improved by col- laboration. The need to study the elementary principal's role in curriculum development is presented by the report of The Project on Instruction.4 The committee, in discussing curriculum, recognized the legal authority of state and local districts in making curriculum decisions. The project committee also pointed out that there are influencing forces that affect these decisions. The project committee raised many questions as to who should make curriculum decisions today and cited the need to resolve the discrepancies between what has been the traditional picture, what is the actual practice of curriculum decision, and what should be the practice in the 1960's. Curriculum planning is referred to as a political process, and the relationships in the educational 2Donald.A. Erickson, "Changes in the Principalship," The National Elementary Principal, XLIV (April, 1965» 20. 3James Greig and Robert R. Lee, "Cooperative Admin- istration," The National Elementary Principal, XLIV (January, 1965), 73. 4DorothyM. Fraser, Deciding What to Teach (washing- ton, D.C.: National Education Association, 1963), p. 204. organization affect the way in which various curriculum projects enter the flow of American education.5 What should be the role of the elementary principal in this curriculum development process? Herrick6 in discussing how curriculum study could be carried out suggests that curriculum study be done from the points of view of the roles of the individuals involved in its operation. This approach was suggested because some View the school system as a social system, and as such the human interaction within the school system will influence the curriculum. What role will the elementary principal play in cur- riculum decisions? This needs to be investigated further if, "the principal, as instructional leader in the school, must have an active role in determining the priority of problems to be solved; the methods and limitations that are to be used in solving them, and the proctering of leadership and re8ponsibility for the resulting decisions."7 5John I. Goodlad, School Curriculum Reform in the United States (New Ybrk: .Fund for Advancement of Education, 1964). pp. 10-11. 6Virgil E. Herrick, What Are the Sources of the Curriculum (washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A., 1962), pp. 68-69. 7Glenys G. Unruh (ed.), New Curriculum.Developments (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curric- ulum.Development, N.E.A., 1965), p. 99. Because the elementary principal is in a key posi- tion to facilitate curriculum development, some teachers look to the elementary principal for support when they try new instructional approaches. However, some perceive the elementary principal's role as diminishing in the area of curriculum; while others see increasing difficulty for the elementary principal to maintain his instructional leader- ship reSponsibility due to the recent introduction of pro- fessional negotiations in the Michigan school systems. The principal's responsibility for instruction and curriculum development is only one of his many responsibil- ities. How.the principal perceives his role is influenced by many factors: (1) his professional preparation and eXpe— rience; (2) the provisions the school system's policies make in clarifying his role in the area of curriculum; (3) the role the teachers expect him to play in the area of curric- ulum; (4) special personnel available; and (5) the commu- nity's curriculum expectations. If educators are to determine whether there are common role expectations of elementary principals in curric- ulum development, it is imperative that they gain an under— standing of how elementary principals and teachers perceive the principal's role in curriculum development. The roles of educational personnel will continue to change as new circumstances dictate. .A continuous evalua- tion of roles will need to be conducted so that feedback on the training and preparation of all educators is more nearly valid. Definition of Terms for the Pgrpgses of This Study The terms used are defined in appropriate places in the body of the thesis. However, in order to make them clear in the initial presentation, certain basic terms are defined here: elementary teacher, elementary principal, curriculum, curriculum development process, professional negotiations, and formal education. Elgmentary,Teacher An elementary school teacher possesses a valid teaching certificate and is responsible for teaching a classroom of pupils within grades Kindergarten through Eighth Grade. Elementary Principal An elementary principal possesses a valid teaching certificate. He supervises an elementary building and is given the title of "Elementary Principal" by the school district. Curriculum The total academic and non-academic experiences within the formal organization of the school. Curriculum Development Process Stage lyiggeveloping educational goals.--Expressions of learning objectives that a curriculum program should use as a reference for establishing a curriculum. Stagegg. Developing curriculgm experiences.--A general overview of the content, experiences, and/or spe- cific materials of instruction that the school should offer. Stage 3. Developing teachinggprocedures.--The organization of learning experiences in the classroom. Stage 4. Developing an evaluation process.-- Evaluating how well the school is achieving educational goals. Professional Negotiations The process through formal agreement of the Board of Education and local Education Association; by which they collectively negotiate items directly related to wages, hours, and working conditions of the teacher. (Strong or weak ratings of school districts in pro- fessionalgnegotiations in the area of curriculum.--School districts participating in the study were rated strong or weak in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum by the Field Representatives of the Michigan Education Association. Formal Education More formal education would be from 6 to 10 courses; less formal education would be from O to 2 courses in the area of curriculum or elementary supervision. Design of the Study Sources of Data The sample is composed of randomly selected elemen- tary schools up to grade eight only in kindergarten through twelfth grade school districts that are affiliated with the Michigan Education Association. Initially, school districts were ranked into six groups by size, according to number of pupils. Group I 20,000-49,999 pupils Group II l0,000-19,999 pupils Group III 5,000- 9,999 pupils Group IV 4,000- 4,999 pupils Group V 2,000- 3,999 pupils Group VI 500- 1,999 pupils The school districts in each group were listed and randomly selected for the study's population.8 When the districts were chosen, the elementary schools in the sample districts were listed and sample schools were randomly 8Ranking of Michigan High School Districts by Selected Financial Data 1966-67, Bulletin No. 1012, Published by State Board of Education, Lansing, Michigan, January, 1968. selected.9 Ten schools were selected for a sample in each group. The principal and ten teachers selected at random in each of the elementary buildings constitute the pOpula- tion of this study. Potentially there were sixty principals and six hundred teachers in the sample population. The sampling on a geographical basis was divided into three areas (listed by counties in Appendix, Exhibit 1): Area Regions 12-18 I M.E A. Area II M.E.A. Regions 2,3,6,7,8,10,11 Area III M.E A. Regions 4,5,9. This basis divides the State of Michigan into three regions for the purpose of this study. Area I is primarily Northern Michigan, Area II is Southeastern Michigan, and .Area III is Southwestern Michigan. Procedure for Collecting Data A role choice questionnaire was developed on each stage of curriculum development and sent to the sixty prin- cipals and six hundred teachers for completion (Appendix, Exhibit 8). A follow-up letter was sent to the selected schools that did not return the questionnaire after a three week interval (Appendix, Exhibit 6). gMichigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide 1967-68, Michigan Education Directory, 701 Davenport Build- ing, Lansing, Michigan. 10 The superintendents of the selected school districts were asked first to give their permission and approval for participation in the study (Appendix, Exhibit 3). The cover letter and directions for administering the questionnaire were sent to the building principal (Appendix, Exhibit 7). Additional letters with directions were addressed to the teacher (Appendix, Exhibit 5). The final sample for the study consisted of fifty schools and over four hundred teachers. The school districts of the respondents were rated "strong" or "weak" in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum by the Field Representatives of the Michigan Education.Association. Treatment of Data The questionnaires were statistically analyzed to see if the elementary teachers and elementary principals differ in respect to formal education, presence of special curriculum personnel, age, sex, experience, strength of association in professional negotiations in area of curric— ulum, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure, and in respect to the number of cases which fall into sepa- rate classifications. These variables will be evaluated in relation to the following hypotheses. 11 Hypotheses Following is a listing of the general hypotheses. They are restated in testable form in Chapter III. Hl Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will have different per- ceptions as to what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development from ele- mentary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' per- ception of what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development will be depen- dent on the strength of the school system's educa- tion association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. 3 The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development. Variables that relate to the hypotheses are pre- -sented in Chapter III. 12 Delimitations It was assumed that the questionnaire used was inter- preted and answered correctly by the respondents. The pilot administrations of the survey instrument along with revision of the instrument should hold response error to a minimum. The rating of the school district's strength in pro- fessional negotiations in the area of curriculum is limited to the judgment of the Michigan Education Association Field Representatives. The study was limited to elementary teachers and elementary principals and designed with that purpose in mind. It is recognized that parents, administrators, and other school personnel also have their perceptions of what role the elementary school principal should follow in the curric- ulum development process. Another delimitation of the study was to limit the population to only those school districts that are affili- ated with the Michigan Education Association. ”Another delimitation was to narrow the scope of this research to include only elementary schools in the State of Michigan. Structure of the Thesis Chapter I develops the frame of reference for the entire study. 'Included are the introduction, statement of the prdblem, importance of the study, definition of terms 13 for the purpose of this study, design of the study, and general hypotheses to be examined. A review of the related literature is presented in Chapter II. This includes both the theoretical role and related research on the role of the elementary principal in curriculum development. In Chapter III the plan of research for the study is presented. This chapter centers upon the identification of the sample, development of the survey instrument, the hypotheses in testable form, the research design, and the statistical treatment of the data. The examination and analysis of the data is pre- sented in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents a summary of the study, conclu- sions, and recommendations for further research. _CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE In carrying out an investigation of the role of the elementary principal in curriculum development, the writer reviewed the literature in two parts: (1) that which per— tained to theory, and (2) that which pertained to research. Theoretical Role This section presents in theory how the role of the elementary principal in curriculum development is generally perceived, at the present time and his possible future role. The principal functions as the leader in curriculum development due to the nature of his position, according to Doll.1 Doll believes curriculum improvement must occur at the classroom level, which further supports the thought that the position of principal, because of his accessibility to the classroom, makes him the leader in curriculum develop— ment. This point of view was further presented by Shuster 1Ronald C. Doll, Curriculum Develgpment: Decision- Making and Process (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), pp. 166-167. 14 15 and Ploghoft.2 They also pointed out that if central admin- istrative staff are not involved in the curriculum develop- ment process at the building level, support for enacting a new curriculum improvement technique may be denied. This suggests that the principal must function as a member of a team which includes central administrative staff when it is part of the school system's administrative organization. Heffernan and Alexander see the principal function— ing to bring about coordination and utilization of current curriculum developments. They suggested these ways of work- ing to achieve coordination and utilization: l. Investigating reports of research, innovations, materials, and of other curriculum development projects, and communicating information about the projects to those associates concerned. 2. Organizing and leading curriculum planning and evaluation groups in assessing local practices, and planning needed program modifications with use of .such current projects as reported in this publica— tion. 3. Developing proposals and experimental programs to meet local needs when no adequate programs are available. 4. .Assisting specialists in various curriculum areas in the introduction of new programs and the exchange of information about such programs. 5. (Arranging for tryout of new plans and materials with adequate provision for careful experimental designs. 6. Organizing in—service education activities to assist the personnel involved in introducing new programs. 7. Communicating with school boards and citizen groups information about current curriculum needs, innova- tions, and issues in the community. 2A1bert H. Schuster and Milton E. Ploghoft, The Emerging Elementary Curriculum (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963), p. 538. 16 8. Preparing for appropriate duplication and distribu- tion materials which will aid his associates in curriculum improvement efforts. .A complex, difficult role of the principal was pre- sented by Neagley and Evans.4 The recognized leader of his school, the principal, works with his staff to improve instruction, initiate research, to eXplore new materials, and to identify problems in need of research. The principal must also be part of the school district team, and his efforts must be coordinated with the K-12 curriculum program. A detailed list of curriculum responsibilities for an elementary principal is presented to indicate the scope of just the curriculum phase of an elementary principal's position. 1. To work with the staff in the formulation and execu- tion of an adequate philosophy of education consis- tent with the district-wide philosophy. 2. To assume leadership for providing, within his build- ing unit, a continuous program of curriculum improve- ment which will at the same time contribute to dis- trict-wide curriculum improvement. 3. To work with the staff within his building unit in the development of instructional goals consistent with district goals for the various levels and curriculum areas. 3Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, Usinggcurrent Curriculum Developments, A Report Pre- pared by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,.N.E.A., 1963), p. 6. 4Ross L. Neagley and N. Dean Evans, Handbook for Effective Cgrriculum Development (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 136. 17 4. To work with the staff in the development and execution within his unit of a system-wide program of evaluation and appraisal. 5. To work with the staff in the development, applica- tion, and supervision within his unit of programs for atypical children. 6. To work with the staff in the formulation and execution within his unit of district-wide policies relative to pupil classification, marking, reporting, and promoting. 7. To ascertain the need for instructional staff spe- cialists in his unit and to direct and supervise their work. 8. To assume responsibility for a continuous program of supervision within his unit. 9. To assume responsibility, within the framework of the district plan, for a continuous program of in- service education for the staff members in his unit. 10. To keep abreast of new educational developments on the local, state, and national levels and to inform his staff concerning them. 11. To provide for the interchange of information and ideas among teachers and other staff personnel. 12. To see that the necessary facilities, equipment, books, and supplies are available when required. The role of the elementary principal in curriculum development at the building level is depicted as providing leadership services and a program of in-service education so that quality teaching may occur. (Curriculum leadership should point the way to the solution of curriculum problems and accomplish determined educational goals when plans have been formulated and carried out cooperatively in an atmos- phere of understanding and acceptance.6 The principal's leadership role in curriculum devel— opment will vary with the situation in which he is working. 51bid., pp. 87-88. 6Jane Franseth, Supervision as Leadership_(Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson and Company, 1961), p. 29. 18 At one time he will be participating in a systemawide cur- riculum study or an over-all budget preparation and analysis. Within his building the principal may be performing an in- structional leadership role by assisting a teacher in unit preparation, demonstrating a teaching technique, suggesting resources, or leading discussion on learning theory as it relates to instruction in a subject matter area.7 Cooper further refined the functioning role of the elementary principal in curriculum development in relation to the following limiting factors: Opportunity for the principal to exert leadership in curriculum development does not rest solely on his knowledge of the subject and his skill in coordinating the efforts of others. To a large extent it depends also upon the amount of the autonomy possessed by the school in developing its curriculum. Those principals who administer schools in which teachers are relatively free to determine learning content and materials, assisted by common objectives and system wide curric- ulum guides, can affect the curriculum in more signif- icant ways than can those principals whose main respon— sibility is confined to seeking conformity to system- wide dictation. - Ragan9 Saw the elementary principal as the leader in curriculum development. (He also recommended that the prin- cipal organize the curriculum development program in a 7John E. Cooper, Elementary School Principalship (Columbus, Ohio: (Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967), p. 194. 81bid., p. 101. 9William B. Ragan, Modern Elementary Curriculum (3rd. ed.; Chicago: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. 226-227. 19 democratic manner. To administer democratically requires that the principal have a broad understanding and skill in human relationships. The principal's role in curriculum development was further theorized to be one of a human relationist. The principal's function in this role was described as one where he coordinates the talents of the persons involved in the teaching-learning process. To do this he must be able to identify and develop the capabilities of those involved in the instructional program.10 This idea of the principal's role being a human relationist in the cooperative approach to curriculum devel- opment is again presented by Morphet g£_gl.ll The principal is also recognized as the curriculum leader, skilled in help— ing people identify, analyze, and explore the curriculum problems they are endeavoring to solve. The cooperative development of curriculum by the principal was supported by Stratemeyer g£_§l.12 They described the principal's c00perative role in categories of 10Paul J. Misner, Frederick W. Schneider, and Lowell G. Keith, Elementary School Administration (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963), p. 198. llEdgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore L. Reller, Educational Administration (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), pp. 104-126. l2Florence B. Stratemeyer, Hamden L. Forkner, Margaret G. McKim, and A. Harry Passow, Developing a Curric- .glgm for Modern Living (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957), pp. 692—695. 20 (l) improving group effectiveness, (2) improving communica- tion among curriculum workers, (3) furnishing needed eXpert- ness and coordination, and (4) releasing the potentialities of individuals and groups. A national elementary principal's workshop defined the function of the elementary principal as: The principal's role, as leader, is one of setting the atmosphere for productive interaction, of learning to operate without promoting, of developing the ability to generalize, and of being sensitive to the human factor in all phases of personal and group relation- ships.1 Professional negotiations have become a factor having influence on the principal's role in curriculum development. Much forecasting on the principal's role as affected by professional negotiations is emerging. Langer,l4 whose view is similar to most, conceives the emerging elementary prin- cipal's role as still hazy; however, he has the opinion that the principal's role will either be elevated or challenged, depending on the demands made upon him by his superiors and the pressure put upon the principal by the teachers through the process of professional negotiations. 13Herbert C. Rudman (ed.), Administrative Leadership for the Changing School Progpam (National Workshop of Ele- mentary Principals, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1957), p. 119. 14John H. Langer, "The Emerging Elementary Princi- palship in Michigan," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII (December, 1966), 160-161. 21 King15 views negotiations as a process of changing policy making from the Board of Education-Superintendent level to a bilateral development of school policy with the involvement of teachers. He also points out that it would be interesting to note if teachers who feel the need to protest the principal's responsibilities the most are those who have not had the eXperience of working cooperatively with the principal and other teachers in making decisions related to the operation of the school. The role of the principal as affected by profes- sional negotiations according to Cunninghaml6 will depend on the principal's ability to survive, flourish, respond, and adapt during a period of transition. The principal who has established cooperative methods with his staff will survive and the autocratic administrator will not survive the change in the authority structure. The future or emerging role of the administrator is uncertain; however, in the area of curriculum development many combinations and arrangements of personnel are seen, such as: curriculum resource specialists, team leaders for liaison with these specialists, and individual school 15James C. King, “New Directions for Collective Negotiation," The National Elementary School Principal, XLVII (September, 1967), 45. l6Lavern L. Cunningham, "Collective Negotiations and the Principalship," Theory Into Practice, VII (April, 1968), 62-70. 22 curriculum coordinators. It appears there may be a staff of specialists in each school.17 The future role of the principal was foreseen by Trump and Baynham as follows: Principals of the future will assume enhanced educational leadership. They will not act on the fringes of education; they will be at the heart of it. What they do will be critically important. They will know this and so will their staffs and communities at large. They will be men of stature in the profes- sion of education. Basic changes will be made in the way they Spend their time and energy. They will spend considerable time, for instance, in working with teaching teams on the organization of instruction in tomorrow's schools. At times, they will do some of the teaching themselves, because they are particularly competent persons in presenting given ideas. They will be able to do this because teaching a particular class will not be a five- day-a-week, every-week-in-the-year job. The success of the school of the future, with its highly diversified staff, will depend to a significant degree on the selection, assignment, coordination, and in-service training of staff members. Principals will know very well the competencies of various staff mem- bers. All these important duties will be aided by the team-teaching setting and by enough time and opportunity to work with the staff.18 Research Studies Dealing with Principal's Role The role of the elementary principal has been the object of much research. Studies related to the principal's l7WilliamAlexander, Influences in Curriculum Change, ed. by Glenys G. Unruh and Robert R. Leeper (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, N.E.A., 1968), p. 44. " 18J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Focpg on Change-- Guide to Better Schools (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961), p. 66. 23 role in curriculum development have been reviewed histor- ically, generally, and in the area of role expectations. ,A historical study conducted by Frey19 from a review of literature identified trends of the elementary princi- pal's role between 1921 and 1961: (1) from disjoining detail toward emphasis upon the integrated entity of the job; (2) from autocratic direction toward democratic staff in- volvement; (3) from a few duties to a greater variety of duties; and (4) from the eXpectations of following a dic- tated program to programs that encourage creativity in pro- gram development. Another historical study done byMay20 on the changes in the elementary principalship between the years 1947 and 1962 concluded: (1) there have been measurable changes in the role of the elementary principal during the period from 1947-1962, (2) the role of the elementary prin- cipal is viewed differently by other groups who are asso- ciated with public schools, and (3) because of outside pres- sure groups the modern day principal is forced to put greater emphasis on public relations. 19Barbara Ruth Frey, "An Analysis of the Functions of the Elementary School Principal" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1963). 20JosephWilliamMay, "The Changing Role of the Elementary Principalship During the Post War Years of 1947— 1962" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of South- ern California, Los Angeles, California, 1964). 24 Generally, the elementary principal has the re- sponsibility for curriculum development in the school. A research study Sponsored by the Department of Elementary School Principals of the National Education Association21 indicated that 71 per cent of the principals in the study were reSponsible for curriculum improvement in their schools. Ranniger22 reported that the responsibilities of the elementary principal are not generally agreed upon, that the principal's duties are not usually defined in the policies or job description, that the principals spend a large amount of their time on routine-secretarial duties, and that elemen- tary principals do not give adequate time to their responsi- bilities in supervision, public relations, and curriculum development. In studying actual and ideal roles of elementary principals Seymour23 found: (1) principals conceived their ideal role in curriculum development to be one of a demo- cratic-participating leader, (2) they also held actual role 21'Department of Elementary School Principals, N.E.A., The Elementary School Principalship (Washington, D.C.: Thirty-seventh Yearbookrl958), p. 13. 22Billy Jay Ranniger, "A Summary Study of the Job Responsibilities of the Elementary School Principal" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Oregon, 1962). 23Harry—Seymour, Jr., "A Study of Ideal and Actual Curriculum Role Conceptions of Selected Elementary School Principals from Southern Illinois" (unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 1963) . 25 conceptions which were generally oriented toward the role of a democratic-participating leader, and (3) teachers in the buildings of the principals surveyed were generally in agreement with the principal's conception of their actual role. .A study by'Wallace24 dealing with concepts of the principal's role as held by elementary principals, superin- tendents, and assistant superintendents found that they regarded the major functions of an elementary principal to be: (1) leadership in the instructional program of the individual school, (2) supervision of the teaching staff, and (3) interpretation of the educational program to the school community. Tansey25 studied supervisory practices of principals in the elementary schools of Connecticut to examine the ele- mentary principals' reSponsibility in supervision and to conclude the frequency of use and value of such supervisory practices. She concluded that the principals assumed and carried out the responsibility for all supervisory practices. 24Mildred Reed Wallace, "Concepts of Instructional Roles of Elementary School Administrators" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1965). 25CeciliaM. Tansey, "Supervisory Practices of Principals in the Public Elementary Schools of Connecticut" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, New YOrk, New York, 1962). 26 Some practices were delegated by the principal to the super- visor, teacher, or other school personnel. Carter26 found that teachers and administrators of a suburban community of Detroit perceived curriculum devel- opment to be one of a cooperative endeavor of teachers and administrators. Employing the case study technique,.Christiansen27 interviewed, examined records, observed, and questioned personnel in an attempt to determine the relationship of the principal's behavior to the functioning level of the princi- pal's school. He discovered that the elementary principal occupies an important position and his behaviors do influ- ence the behavior of the school. His summary indicated that the principal's strengths became the school's strengths and the weaknesses of the principal, likewise, were the weak- nesses of the school. Perceptions of the principal's role differ and Medsker28 interviewed teachers to determine what they zépaul D. Carter, "Perceptions of Classroom Teachers and School Administrators Concerning Curriculum Development in a Suburban School System" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1955). 27Winfield Scott Christiansen, "The Influence of the Behaviors of the Elementary School Principal Upon the School He Administers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1962). 28Leland L. Medsker, "The Job of the Elementary School Principal as Viewed by Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1954). 27 considered the elementary principal's leadership role to be. Teachers related competence with such things as staff leader- ship, working relationships with pupils, and good school- community relations. In a study of nine supervisors, one hundred eight principals, and a random sample of two hundred twenty-two 29 found that 70 per cent of the participants teachers Hall agreed that supervision should come from the principal and supervisor working together. Teachers expected principals and supervisors to take the initiative in supervision. Brackett30 studied the elementary principalship in Colorado and found that the elementary principals perceived instructional leadership as their major responsibility. In an investigation of relationships between situa- tion factors and behavior dimensions Campbell31 found that teachers placed high value on the behavior actions of super- visors that illustrated warmth, mutual trust, friendship, 29Matthew H..Ha11, “A Study of the Perceptions of Supervisors, Principals, and Teachers Regarding the Supervi- sory Program in the Mobile Public Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 1962). 30Walter Lee Brackett, "The Elementary School Prin- cipalship in Colorado" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1962). 31Ona L. Campbell, "The Relationships Between Eight Situational Factors and High and Low Scores on the Leader- ship Behavior Dimensions of Instructional Supervisors“ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1961). 28 and respect. He further concluded that the adequacy of instructional leadership is related to the demands of the situation in which supervision takes place. In Michigan, Beach32 reported that teachers consid- ered personal qualities of character more desirable in the principal than academic training and exPerience. The elementary principal's perception of his role in curriculum development will be reflected in the style of leadership he diSplays. .A recent yearbook of the elementary principals presented the following styles of leadership: authoritarian, friendship, majority rule, compromise, and cooperative.33 Summary In theory, the elementary principal is the curric- ulum leader and viewed as a person highly skilled in human relations and able to involve democratically people in the curriculum development process. The elementary principal's role may vary with the curriculum situation; as other influ- encing factors dictate, such as central administration, and 32L. W. Beach, "A Study of the Supervisory Leader-' ship of the Elementary Principal" (unpublishengh.D. disser- tation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1953). 33The National Elementary Principal's Association, Elementary School Organization (Washington, D.C.: N.E.A., 1961), Chapter 2. ' 29 K-12 curriculum plans as they relate to his individual building. Since professional negotiations are relatively new, little was found in the literature Specifically as to what his role will be in curriculum development as a result of professional negotiations. His future role is viewed to be one of importance in the area of curriculum development. The principal is also viewed as a member of a team of Specialists that are located in a building to facilitate the teaching-learning process. .A review of the research on the elementary princi- pal's role indicated that (l) the principal's role may be changing, (2) the principal's role is viewed differently by teachers and principals, (3) the principal's role is not generally defined, and (4) it is apparent that many princi- pals are not accepting their curriculum responsibilities. This gave direction for the study of possible sources of conflict on the principal's role in curriculum development. CHAPTER III DESIGN Introduction Considerable preliminary work preceded the actual testing of the hypotheses. The school district sample was chosen; the school sample within the selected school systems was identified; the instrument was developed, field tested, and revised; and categories of analyzing the data were devel- oped. This chapter describes in detail how the preceding steps were developed in this study. Identification of Sample The sample used in this study was drawn from the population consisting of Michigan's 531 K-12 School Districts for the 1966-67 school year.1 The school districts were ranked into six groups by size in relation to the number of pupils in the school district. 1Ranking of Michigan High School Districts by Selected Financial Data 1966-67, Bulletin No. 1012, Published by The State Board of Education, Lansing, Michigan, January, 1968. 30 31 GROUP CLASSIFICATION Group Pupils I 20,000-49,999 II 10,000-19,999 III 5,000- 9,999 IV 4,000- 4,999 V 2,000- 3,999 VI 500- 1,999 The Michigan Education Association affiliated school districts in each group were listed, and in all the groups, except Group I, ten school districts were randomly selected. In Group I two schools from each of the five districts were drawn from the nine districts for a sample of ten schools for this group. The schools in each selected district were listed, and one school from each district-was randomly selected for Groups II-VI.2 This gave ten schools for each group in the sample population of sixty elementary schools. The principal and ten teachers randomly selected in each building constituted the sample population. The geographical regions for the purpose of this study divided the State of Michigan into three regions: Region.I,-M.E.A. Regions 12-18, Northern Michigan; Region II, M.E.A. Regions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, Southeastern Mich- igan; and Region III, MIE.A. Regions 4, 5, and 9, Southwest- ern Michigan. Region I, included the counties in the Upper 2Michigan Education Directopy and Buyer's Guide 1967- 1968, Michigan Education Directory, 701 Davenport Building, Lansing, Michigan. 32 Peninsula which are Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Dickinson, Delta, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft. .Also included are the counties north of a line drawn on the southern boundary line of Bay, Midland, Isabella, Mecosta, Newaygo, and Muskegon county lines. They are Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Bay, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Grand Traverse, Iosco, Isabella, Kalkaska, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Midland, Missaukee, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Ogemaw, Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Island, Roscommon, and wexford. Fifteen schools of the study were in this region. Region II was made up of.A11egan, Barry, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Hillsdale, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kent, Montcalm, Ottowa, St. Joseph, and Van Buren Counties. Ten schools in the study were in this region. Region III,waS composed of the following counties: Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Gratiot, Huron, Ingham, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saginaw, Sanilac, St. Clair, Shiawassee, Tuscola, Washtenaw, and Wayne. Twenty-five schools of this study were located in this region. The school systems in- volved in this study are listed by regions in the Appendix, Exhibit 2. The fifty-five school districts selected from.which the sixty sample schools were drawn were invited to partic- ipate in the study by a letter sent to the individual 33 superintendents, illustrated in the Appendix, Exhibit 3. All the superintendents but one agreed to take part in the study and a Similar district was selected to replace this one. The principals and teachers who were asked to partic- ipate in the study were mailed the study instrument, accompa- -nied by a letter of explanation and directions for comple— tion of the questionnaire. Enclosed was a self-addressed envelope for the return of the instrument (see Appendix, Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and 8). A follow-up letter was sent to the districts that had not returned the questionnaire three weeks after the initial mailing and again two weeks later. All questionnaires were mailed and replies received in the Spring of 1968. The number of school districts that actually returned the study instrument was forty-seven. From these forty—seven districts a population of fifty elementary schools with their reSpective elementary principals (100% of possible responses) and four hundred ten elementary teachers (82% of possible teacher responses) made up the study's population. 34 TOTAL OF RESPONDENTS BY GROUP CLASSIFICATION Number ' Number of Number of pf_ Principal Teacher Group Schools Respgndents Respondents I 7 7 54 II 9 9 71 III 9 9 80 IV 7 7 57 V 8 8 64 VI _19 .19. .132. Total 50 50 410 Deyelopment of the Survey Instrgment Each elementary principal and the randomly selected teachers in his building completed the questionnaire illus- trated in the Appendix, Exhibit 8. This instrument was developed for the purpose of providing the data to analyze the hypotheses. The survey instrument was formulated by first isolating the general areas of information needed to test the hypotheses and additional information to test the effects of certain characteristics of the respondents on their responses. These variables are: formal education, special curriculum personnel, age, sex, experience, strength of education association in curriculum through professional negotiations, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure teacher, size of school district, region, principal, and teacher. Next, a branched questionnaire was developed for each stage of curriculum development (see Appendix, Exhibit 8). The basic consideration relied upon when making the branched-questionnaire was whether the questions or 35 branches could be answered concisely and.whether they would contribute valid data to the analysis. When a rough draft of the instrument was developed, it was administered to principals and teachers. This initial trial run resulted in a few modifications and a clarification of the directions. This field test verified the adequacy of the directions, items, and the length of the instrument. Null Hypotheses The following hypotheses were prepared for testing purposes in accordance with the operational definitions previously stated: HOl Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will not have different perceptions as to what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development from elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. H0 Elementary principals and elementary teachers in 1a school systems with personnel in the area of cur— riculum or instruction will not perceive the principal's role in curriculum development to be one where he cooPeratively develops curriculum. 36 The elementary principal and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will not perceive that the elementary principal's role should be one where he highly influences curric- ulum development. Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' per- ceptions of what the role of the elementary princi- pal should be in curriculum development will not be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. 2a Elementary principals will not perceive that their role should be one where they cooperatively develop or highly influence curriculum develop- ment, regardless of the strength of the local education association in professional negotia— tions in the area of curriculum. Elementary teachers that are in school systems with a teacher association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum develop- ment will not perceive that the elementary prin- cipal's role should be one where he closely follows the school system's program without trying to influence curriculum development. 3 37 Elementary teachers that are in school systems that do not have a teacher association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curric- ulum will not perceive that the elementary prin- cipal's role Should be one where he highly influences curriculum development or operates cooperatively. The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have no influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development. 3a H03b Elementary principals and elementary teachers with more formal education in the area of super- vision and curriculum will not perceive the ele- mentary principal's role as one where he coopera- tively develops curriculum any different than elementary principals with little formal educa- tion. Elementary principals and elementary teachers with little formal education in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum will not perceive that the elementary principal's role as one where he carries out the school's program without trying to influence the development of 38 curriculum any different than elementary prin- cipals with more formal education. Hypotheses Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will have different per— ceptions as to what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development from ele- mentary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. H 1a H1 Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems with personnel in the area of cur- riculum or instruction will perceive that the elementary principal's role in curriculum devel— opment should be one where he cooperatively develops curriculum. The elementary principal and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will per- 'ceive that the elementary principal's role should be one-where he highly influences curriculum development. 39 Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perceptions of what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development will be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. H2 H2 a b Elementary principals will perceive that their role should be one where they cooperatively develop curriculum or highly influence curric- ulum development, regardless of the strength of the local teacher education association in pro- fessional negotiations in the area of curriculum. Elementary teachers that are in school systems with a teacher education association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curric- ulum will perceive that the elementary princi- pal's role should be one where he closely follows the school systems program without trying to influence curriculum develOpment. Elementary teachers that are in school systems that do not have a strong teacher association in professional negotiations in curriculum will perceive that the elementary principal's role Should be one where he highly influences curric- ulum development or operates cooperatively. 40 H The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development. H3 Elementary principals and elementary teachers a with more formal education in the area of ele- mentary supervision and curriculum will perceive the elementary principal's role should be one where he cooperatively develops curriculum. H3 Elementary principals and elementary teachers with little formal education in the area of ele- mentary supervision and curriculum will perceive that the elementary principal's role Should be one where he carries out the school's program without trying to influence the development of curriculum. Procedures for Analysis of the Data The chi-square method of analysis will be used to measure the null hypotheses and the effect of the before mentioned variables. The data resulting from the survey instruments were analyzed to seek differences among elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perceptions of the elementary principal's role in curriculum development. 41 Summary This chapter describes the design, methodology, and procedures used to develop this study. The sample used in this study was randomly selected from 531 K-12 School Dis- tricts in Michigan. The data used in the analysis were collected with a survey instrument. The data were measured with the chi-square analysis test. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction This chapter analyzes the data collected by the survey instruments concerning what the role of the elemen— tary principal should be in the curriculum development process as perceived by elementary classroom teachers and elementary principals. Analysis of Data from Survey Instrument The data analysis provides a basis for describing how the role of the elementary principal should be fulfilled in the process of curriculum development. Besides, it pro- vides evidence to evaluate the previously predicted role of the elementary principal based on generalizations from theory and research. Statistical Procedure The chi-square analysis was used to analyze the data in this study. The data are presented in.percentage form to evaluate whether it follows the prediction in the research hypothesis when significant values of the chi-square test 42 43 are further analyzed by the contingency coefficient to deter- mine the amount of relationship between the variables. Hypotheses Testing Special Personnel in Area of Curriculum The first hypothesis predicted that the variable of special personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will affect the perception of what the elementary principal's role Should be in curriculum development. H0l Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will not have different perceptions as to what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development from elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. 1 Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will have different per— ceptions as to what the role of the elementary prin- cipal Should be in curriculum development from ele- mentary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. la 44 Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems with personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will not perceive the principal's role in curriculum development to be one where he cooperatively develops curriculum. Elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems with personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will perceive that the elementary principal's role in curriculum devel- Opment Should be one where he cooperatively develops curriculum. The elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will not perceive that the elementary principal's role should be one where he highly influences curric— ulum development. The elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will per- ceive that the elementary principal's role Should be one where he highly influences curric- ulum development. 45 The data collected by the survey instrument indi- cated that one hundred eighty-eight reSpondentS were in school districts with special personnel in the area of cur- riculum or instruction, and two hundred seventy—two respon- dents were in districts that did not have Special personnel (see Table 1). Table 1. Distribution of Special personnel Number of Per Cent Respondents of Total Have Personnel 188 40.9 Do not have Special Personnel 272 59.1 Total 460 100.0 The first null hypothesis was tested using the chi- square technique following the procedures set forth by Dixon and Massey.1 The chi-square values were not large enough to reject the null hypothesis at any stage. Table 2 indicates the chi-square values. lWilfred J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Tntroduction. to Statistical Analysis (New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951), pp. 188-189. 46 Table 2. Chi-square values as they relate to first hypothe— SiS* Measured Chi—Square Value Accept Reject Chi-Square at .05 Level of Null Null Value Significance~ Hypothesis Hypothesis Stage 1 8.664 15.507 X Stage 2 9.099 14.067 X Stage 3 5.070 15.507 X Stage 4 11.857 18.307 X *See page 6 for definitions of stages. Strength of Professionaleegotiations The second hypothesis predicted that the elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perceptions of what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development will be dependent on the strength of the school systems education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. H02 Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perceptions of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal Should be in curriculum development will not be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. 47 H2 .Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal Should be in curriculum development will be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. H0 H2 Elementary principals will not perceive that their role Should be one where they cooperatively develop or highly influence curriculum develop- ment, regardless of the strength of the local education association in professional negotia- tions in the area of curriculum. Elementary principals will perceive that their role should be one where they cooperatively develop curriculum or highly influence curric- ulum development, regardless of the strength of the local teacher education association in pro- fessional negotiations in the area of curriculum. Elementary teachers that are in school systems with a teacher association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum develop— ment will not perceive that the elementary prin- cipal's role should be one where he closely fol- lows the school system's program without trying to influence curriculum develOpment. 48 b Elementary teachers that are in school systems with a teacher education association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curric- ulum will perceive that the elementary princi- pal's role should be one where he closely fol- lows the school system's program without trying to influence curriculum development. HOZC Elementary teachers that are in school systems that do not have a teacher association strong in professional negotiations in the area of curric- ulum will not perceive that the elementary prin- cipal's role Should be one where he highly influences curriculum development or operate cooperatively. c Elementary teachers that are in school systems that do not have a strong teacher association in professional negotiations in curriculum will perceive that the elementary principal's role Should be one where he highly influences curric- ulum development or operates cooperatively. The data collected showed that three hundred sixteen respondents were from districts rated weak and one hundred forty-four reSpondentS were from districts rated strong by the Field Representatives of The Michigan Education Associa- tion. Table 3 indicates this tabulation. 49 Table 3. Distribution of respondents on the basis of strength rating by Michigan Education Association Field Representatives in area of professional negotiations in the area of curriculum Number Per Cent Weak 316 68.7 Strong 144 31.3 Total 460 ' 100.0 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi-square analysis for each stage of the survey instrument to determine whether it could be rejected. The chi-square values were not large enough to reject the null hypothesis at any stage. Table 4 indicates the chi-square values. Table 4. Chi-square values as they relate to the second hypothesis Measured Chi-Square Value .Accept Reject Chi-Square at .05 Level of Null Null Value Significance Hypothesis Hypothesis Stage 1 14.134 15.507 X Stage 2 12.063 14.067 X Stage 3 10.157 15.507 X Stage 4 9.477 18.307 X 50 Formal Education The third hypothesis predicted that the formal education of the respondents would influence how the prin- cipal's role in curriculum development would be perceived. H03 The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elemen- tary supervision and curriculum will have no influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum ' development. The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal should be in curriculum development. 3a Elementary principals and elementary teachers with more formal education in the area of super- vision and curriculum will not perceive the ele- mentary principal's role as one where he coopera- tively develops curriculum any different than elementary principals with little formal educa- tion. Elementary principals and elementary teachers with more formal education in the area of 51 elementary supervision and curriculum will per- ceive the elementary principal's role Should be one where he cooperatively develops curriculum. H03b Elementary principals and elementary teachers with little formal education in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum will not perceive that the elementary principal's role as one where he carries out the school's program without trying to influence the development of curriculum any different than elementary prin- cipals with more formal education. b Elementary principals and elementary teachers with little formal education in the area of ele- mentary supervision and curriculum will perceive that the elementary principal's role Should be one where he carries out the school's program without trying to influence the development of curriculum. The data collected with the survey instrument indi- cated a range of zero to ten or more courses in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum. The:reSpondents were put into quartiles according to their formal education responses in order to present a better perspective in rela- tion to their reSponses on the instrument. Table 5 shows this tabulation. 52 Table 5. Distribution by quartile of the formal education of respondents Education Courses .Quartile *Number of Respondents 6-10 4 111 3—5 3 98 1-2 2 103 0 .1 _14_a Total 460 The null hypothesis was tested using the chi-square analysis at each stage. The null hypothesis was not rejected because none of the chi-square values were large enough to Obtain a .05 level of significance. Table 6 indicates the chi-square values as they related to this hypothesis. Table 6. Chi-square values as they relate to third hypothe- sis Measured Chi-Square Value Accept Reject .Chi-Square at .05 Level of Null Null Value Significance Hypothesis Hypothesis Stage 1 25.384 36.415 X Stage 2 28.478 32.671 X Stage 3 27.745 ' 36.415 X Stage 4 29.586 43.773 X 53 The data collected with the survey instrument con- tained other selected variables that did not relate to the hypotheses tested: age, sex, eXperience, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure teacher, Size of school district, region, principal, and teacher. These variables were all tested with chi-square method of analysis to see if they made a difference as to how the respondents perceived the elementary principal's role in curriculum development. Region The geographical regions for the purpose of this study divided the State of Michigan into three regions: Region I, M.E.A. Regions 12-18, Northern Michigan; Region II, M.E.A. Regions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, Southeastern Mich- igan; and Region III, M.E.A. Regions 4, 5, and 9, Southwest- ern Michigan. Region I included the counties in the Upper Peninsula which are Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Dickinson, Delta, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft. Also included are the counties north of a line drawn on the southern boundary line of May, Midland, Isabella, Mecosta, Newaygo, and Muskegon county lines. They are Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Arenac, Bay, Benzie, Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Grand Traverse, Iosco, Isabella, Kalkaska, Lake, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Midland, Missaukee, Montmorency, Muskegon, Newago, Oceana, Ogemaw, 54 Osceola, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Island, Roscommon, and wexford. Fifteen schools of the study were in this region. Region II was made up of Allegan, Barry, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Hillsdale, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kent, Montcalm, Ottowa, St. Joseph, and Van Buren Counties. Ten schools in the study were in this region. Region III was composed of the following counties: Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Gratiot, Huron, Ingham, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, Saginaw, Sanilac, St. Clair, Shiawassee, Tuscola, Washtenaw, and Wayne. Twenty-five schools of this study were located in this region. The number of respondents are presented in Table 7 by regions. Table 7. Number and percentage of total respondents by region m = Number of Respondents Per Cent of Total Region I 159 34.6 Region II 222 48.3 Region III 79 17.1 Total 460 100.0 55 The chi-square technique was used to test the influ- ence of the region variable at each stage. The chi-square values were not large enough to be Significant at the .05 level. Table 8 relates the chi-square values for the region variable. Table 8. .Chi-Square values for region variable Measured Chi-Square Value ' Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif- Signife Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 16.563 , ‘26.296 x Stage 2 23.012 23.685 X Stage 3 16.233 26.296 X Stage 4 27.525 31.410 X §_i_z__g gfijgtrict The school districts were ranked into six groups by size in relation to the number of pupils in the school dis- trict. Table 9 indicates the number and per cent of respon- dents for each group. 56 Table 9. Respondents in the groups Group Pupils Respondents Per Cent of Total I 20,000-49,000 61 13.3 II 10,000-19,999 80 17.4 III 5,000- 9,999 89 19.3 IV 4,000- 4,999 64 13.9 V 2,000- 3,999 72 15.7 VI 500- 1,999 _24_ ,_2Q;4 Total 460 100.0 The chi-square test was used with the Size variable to see if there was a difference on how the elementary prin— cipal's role was perceived in curriculum development at each stage. The results indicated that Size is a Significant variable for stages 1 and 2 but not 3 and 4. Table 10 presents the chi-square values for the Size variable. The groups that had a percentage of between 93.1 per cent through 96.8 per cent selection on the first two stages of curriculum development for role choice item, "He Should Cooperate with Others" were from groups IV, V, and VI. 57 Table 10. Chi—square values for size variable Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 66.180 55.8 X Stage 2 50.837 49.8 X Stage 3 48.803 55.8 X Stage 4 46.902 67.5 X Teacher Four hundred ten teachers returned the questionnaire and the chi—square technique was used to analyze their replies to see if elementary teachers were different from elementary principals in perceiving what the elementary principal's role should be in curriculum development. None of the chi-square values was large enough to be significant at the .05 level for any stage. Table 11 relates the chi- square values for the teacher variable. 58 Table ll._Chi—Square values for teacher variable Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 3.103 15.507 X Stage 2 3.036 14.067 X Stage 3 10.998 15.507 X Stage 4 3.050 18.307 X Principal The manner in which the elementary principals replied was tested by the chi-square technique. The chi- square method was applied to the four stages and Showed that the principal variable was not large enough to be signifi— cant at the .05 level. Table 12 Shows the chi-square value for the principal variable. Table 12. Chi-square values for principal variable k Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 2.940 15.507 X Stage 2 3.006 14.067 4X Stage 3 11.561 15.507 X Stage 4 3.108 18.307 X 59 Age The age variable was coded into seven groups: Group I (20-25), Group II (26—30), Group III (31-35), Group IV (36-40), Group V (41-45), Group VI (46-50), Group VII (51 and up). The data was analyzed to see if age was an influ- encing variable. The chi-square technique was applied at each of the four stages and Showed age was not a significant variable to the .05 level of significance. Table 13 lists the chi-square values for the age variable. Table 13. (Chi-square values for the age variable m 41— = Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 39.750 73.3+ X .Stage 2 50.438 66.0+ .X Stage 3 60.157 73.3+ 1X Stage 4 62.055 90.5 X 6O §p§ The respondents grouped according to sex were eighty-seven males, three hundred seventy females, and three replies that did not indicate sex. The chi-square method of analysis was used to mea- sure the difference of the respondents according to sex. The sex variable was measured at each stage and the results indicated that sex was not a significant variable at the .05 level. Table 14 indicates the chi-square values for the sex variable. Table 14. Chi-square values for sex variable Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 5.136 29.296 X Stage 2 5.772 23.685 X Stage 3 15.369 26.296 X Stage 4 12.586 31.410 X 61 Experience Experience was a variable collected in the data. Experience was coded: (l) 0 years, (2) 1 to 5 years, (3) 6 to 10 years, (4) 11 to 15 years, (5) 16 to 20 years, (6) 21 to 25 years, and (7) 26 and up years. The experience variable was analyzed by the chi-square method at each stage and none of the chi-square values were large enough to be significant at the .05 level. Table 15 indicates the chi-square values for the experience variable. Table 15. Chi-square values for the experience variable Measured Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 34.027 64.5 X Stage 2 38.915 58.0+ X Stage 3 49.900 64.5+ X Stage 4 65.619 79.1 X 62 Years Member ongichigan Education Assogiation The years a teacher or principal was a member of the Michigan Education Association was collected in the data. This variable was coded: (1) 0 years, (2) 1 to 5 years, (3) 6 to 10 years, (4) 11 to 15 years, (5) 16 to 20 years, (6) 21 to 25 years, and (7) 26 and.up years. The variable, years member of the Michigan Education Association, was tested using the chi-square analysis at the specified level of significance of .05. None of the mea- sured chi-square values was large enough at any of the four stages to be significant. Table 16 presents the chi-square values for the Michigan Education Association years of mem- bership variable. Table 16. Chi-square values for years member of Michigan Education Association variable Measured Chi-Square Value Not .Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif— Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 49.905 74.0+ .X Stage 2 56.105 66.0+ X Stage 3 57.116 74.0+ .X Stage 4 68.808 90.5 X 63 Tenure (Whether the respondent was on tenure was collected in the data. This variable was tested with the chi-square method and at the .05 level of significance. None of the measured chi-square values was large enough at any of the four stages to be Significant. Table 17 indicates the chi- square values for the tenure variable. Table 17. Chi-square values for tenure variable Measured ,Chi-Square Value Not Chi-Square at .05 Level of Signif- .Signif- Value Significance icant icant Stage 1 8.128 15.507 X Stage 2 2.389 14.067 X Stage 3 7.136 15.507 X Stage 4 12.273 18.307 X Overyiew of Chpices The respondents choices of what the elementary prin- cipal's role should be in curriculum development were grouped into four categories: he Should cooperate with others, he Should do most of it himself, he should closely follow the school system's program, and he Should not be involved in the curriculum development process. Table 18 indicates 64 these choices by number of respondents and per cent for each category for each stage of curriculum development. Table 18. Choices of respondents on each stage He Should He Closely He Should Should Follow the He Cooperate Do Most School Should with of It System's Not Be Others Himself Program Involved 420 l 35 4 Frequency Stage 1 91.3 0.2 7.7 0.9 Per Cent* 421 1 35 3 Frequency Stage 2 91.5 0.2 7.7 0.7 Per Cent* 402 5 21 2 Frequency Stage 3 87.4 1.1 4.5 0.4 Per Cent* 414 13 28 2 Frequency Stage 4 89.9 2.8 6.1 0.4 Per Cent* *Rounding error makes the percentage totals Slightly more or less than 100%. The category, he Should cooperate with others, was broken down into five role choices for the elementary prin- cipal in the curriculum development process. These choices were: (1) he Should cooperate with a curriculum supervisor, (2) cooperate with classroom teachers only, (3) cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors, (4) cooPerate with other building principals, or (5) cooper- ate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. Table 19 65 0.0m m.o 6.~m «.6 R.H a «seam H.a¢ o m.¢m 6.5 m.o m mmmum. m.mm o H.6m. o.~ m.H m mmmpm m.mm «.0 6.6m H.a H.H a mmmum muoumeapnooo_ mammflosflum muomfl>ummsm haso mumnomma mace Homfl>ummsm pom.mammflosflum mgflpaasm Edasoflnuso_psm Eooummmaog ESHSUHHHSO .mumnomma Hmnuo nuHB muonomme Eooummmao nuflz mumummooo £ua3 mumummooo Suez mumummooo mumummoou nuw3 mumuwmooo undo use an mommum “sow mo comm SH poucmmmum ma .muozuo nua3 mumummooo pasonm on .moaono maou one .ma manme 66 shows the four stage role choices under each of the cooper- ate headings. Under the role choice item, "He Should Cooperate with Others" the two most frequently chosen were (1) "Cooper- ate with Classroom Teachers and Curriculum Supervisors" and (2) "Cooperate with Teachers, Principals, and Coordinators." The percentages for these two choices ran from 78.9 per cent to 88.9 per cent for all four stages of curriculum develop- ment. Summary This chapter analyzed the data collected by the survey instrument. The hypotheses were tested with the following results: 1. The hypothesis which predicted that the variable of whether special personnel were available in the area of curriculum development in school systems would make a difference in the respondents role choice items was not acceptable. 2. The hypothesis that maintained the strength of the education associations in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum would make a difference in how teachers and principals perceived the elementary principal's role in curriculum proved to be incor- rect. . /—-— 67 3. The hypothesis that predicted that the formal educa- tion of the respondents would influence their role choices was found to be invalid. Other variables were tested for significance in relation to the sample population's choices. The variables measured were: age, sex, experience, years member of Mich- igan Education Association, tenure teacher, size of district, region, principal, and teacher. The chi-square values of the variables were examined and only one was found to be significant at the .05 level. The size variable was signif- icant only for the first two stages of curriculum development. The data was analyzed in relation to the selections made in the four categories of role choices. The majority of choices were under the heading of "cooperate with others." In the four stages of curriculum development the percentage ran from 87.4 per cent to 91.5 per cent of the possible total under the "he should cooperate with others" classification. The role choice selection of "cooperate with others" was broken down in the instrument into five role choices. The largest percentages under these choices were under the two headings, "cooperate with classroom teachers and curric- ulum supervisors" and "cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordinators." CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter summarizes the study from its inception through the interpretation of the data. .A number of specific recommendations for possible actions and future study will also be presented. Summary This study was designed to collect empirical evidence to determine whether selected factors would influence the role of the elementary school principal in curriculum devel— 0pment as perceived by selected elementary teachers and ele- mentary principals in selected school districts in the State of Michigan. The study developed from the descriptions of the elementary principal's role in curriculum development found in educational and general literature. Of special concern in this investigation was evidence that would clarify what the role of the elementary principal should be in the curric— ulum development process. 68 69 The Design This study was concerned with analyzing elementary teachers' and elementary principals' responses in relation to their role choices on each of four stages of curriculum development: developing educational goals, developing our- riculum content, developing teaching procedures, and devel- oping an evaluation process. The school system sample population was chosen on the basis of Size, location, and whether they were a member of the Michigan Education Association. A review of the literature indicated that theoreti- cally the elementary principal's role in curriculum develop- ment should be one where he c00perative1y develops curric- ulum. The literature also pointed out that the elementary principal's role may be changing due to the addition of Special personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction and the introduction of professional negotiations. The lit- erature in addition stated that the elementary principal's role in curriculum development is viewed differently by elementary teachers and elementary principals. The following three general hypotheses were con- structed for statistical testing. H Elementary principals and elementary teachers in 1 school systems that have personnel in the area of curriculum or instruction will have different per— ceptions as to what the role of the elementary 70 principal should be in curriculum development from elementary principals and elementary teachers in school systems that do not have personnel in the area of curriculum and instruction. H Elementary principals' and elementary teachers' perceptions of what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum development will be dependent on the strength of the school system's education association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum. H3 The formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers in the area of elementary super- vision and curriculum will have influence on the perception of what the role of the elementary prin- cipal Should be in curriculum development. A survey instrument was developed to provide the data necessary for analyzing the hypotheses. The survey instrument was designed to test role choices that the elementary principal Should follow in rela- tion to each of the four stages of curriculum development as selected by elementary teachers and elementary principals. The instrument was modified after field testing for adequacy of directions and length. The statistical design used for testing the hypotheses and the variables of age, sex, experi- ence, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure, 71 size of school district, region, principal, and teacher was the chi-square method of analysis. The school districts and schools that made up the population for this study were randomly selected. Fifty schools participated in the study and fifty elementary principals along with four hundred ten elementary teachers returned the questionnaires. Analypis of Survey Instrument Data The data analysis indicated that no positive state— ment can be made concerning the first hypothesis. This hypothesis which predicted Special personnel available in the area of curriculum or instruction would not have an influence on what the elementary principal's role Should be in curriculum development could not be rejected at the .05 level of significance. The second null hypothesis which predicted no dif- ference in how elementary teachers and elementary principals perceived the elementary principal's role in curriculum development in relation to the strength of the local educa- tion association in professional negotiations in the area of curriculum could not be rejected at the .05 level of Signif- icance. The third null hypothesis which predicted no differ- ence would be found due to the level of formal education in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum in relation 72 to how the role of the elementary principal in curriculum development is perceived by elementary teachers and elemen- tary principals could not be rejected at the .05 level of significance. Analysis of Data for Which There Were No Hypotheses Analysis of selected variables: age, sex, eXperi- ence, years member of the Michigan Education Association, tenure teacher, Size of school district, region, principal, and teacher for which no hypotheses were written was done to determine if any of these variables would be significant. The only variable that was Significant at the .05 level of significance was the size variable, and this was significant only for the first two stages of curriculum development. Stage 1 was developing educational goals and Stage 2 was developing curriculum experiences. The role choice at both stages was over 90 per cent for the cooperative approach. This approach was also the choice for over 87 per cent at stages 3 and 4. In a general overview of role choices the majority of the respondents (between 87.4% and 91.5%) perceived that the elementary principal's role in curriculum development should be one where "he cooperatively develops curriculum." The "cooperate with others," category was broken down into five role choices of (l) cooperate with a curriculum super- visor, (2) cooperate with classroom teachers only, (3) 73 cooperate with classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors, (4) cooperate with other building principals, and (5) cooper- ate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. The head- ings "cooperate with classroom teachers and curriculum super— visors" and "cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordi- nators" were selected by 78.9 per cent to 88.9 per cent of the possible total. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to test selected generalizations and variables as they related to role choice selections that an elementary principal should follow in each of four stages of a curriculum development process. The data collected and analyzed in the study suggests that the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Whether curriculum supervisors, curriculum coordi- nators, and directors of instruction are available in a school system or not makes no difference in how elementary teachers and elementary principals per— ceive how the elementary principal should function in the curriculum development process. This indi- cates that the availability of Special curriculum personnel should not influence the extent of involve- ment an elementary principal should participate in the curriculum development process. 74 The strength of professional negotiations in the area of curriculum did not make a difference in how elementary teachers and elementary principals viewed what the role of the elementary principal should be in curriculum. This evidence would seem to indicate that education associations will not negotiate the elementary principal out of the curriculum develop— ment process, but will actually force him to become actively involved with the total instructional per- sonnel. The generalization that the formal education of elementary principals and elementary teachers would have influence on how they perceived what the role of the elementary principal Should be in curriculum development did not prove to be true. That the amount of formal education in the area of elementary supervision and curriculum development may influence educators perception was not found to be true in this study. Age, sex, experience, years member of Michigan Education Association, tenure teacher, size of school district, region, principal, and teacher were vari- ables selected to test in relation to the respondents' selection of role choice items. None of the selected variables was found to be significant. This indi- cates that the elementary teachers and elementary 75 principals perceive in a similar manner what the elementary principal's role should be in curriculum development without being influenced by these vari- ables. The size variable did indicate that it was Signif- icant on the first two stages of curriculum devel- opment; however, the selection of the size of the districts in relation to an overview of role choice selections did not vary enough to make a difference as to how the elementary principal Should function in the curriculum development process. The role choices of the elementary principals and elementary teachers were analyzed in relation to what role choices the elementary principal should follow in the first stage of a curriculum develop- ment process. The role selection, should not be involved, was selected by .8 per cent of the popu- lation. Role choice item, he should do most of it himself, was chosen by .2 per cent. The role choice selection, he should closely follow the school sys- tem's program, had 7.7 per cent. The choice he should cooperate with others was chosen by 91.3 per cent of the total population. With the majority of reSpondents selecting, the choice he Should cooper- ate with others item indicates that elementary teachers and elementary principals perceive that the 76 principal Should be cooperatively involved in devel- oping the educational goals in the curriculum devel- opment process. The second stage of the curriculum development pro- cess, developing curriculum experiences, was analyzed and the percentages under the various role choice items were similar to the first stage of the curric- ulum development process. The conclusion made for the first stage could be made for this second stage as well. ,Stages 3 and 4, developing teaching procedures and developing an evaluation process, were similar in .percentage breakdown with a large majority of 87.4 per cent to 89.9 per cent of the total population selecting"he Should cooperate with others!’ The elementary principal's role in curriculum develop- ment Should be one where he cooperates with others is made quite explicit in this study. The category, he should cooperate with others, was divided into five choices: he should (1) cooperate with a curriculum supervisor only, (2) cooperate with classroom teachers only, (3) cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors, (4) cooperate with other building principals, and (5) cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordi- nators. The respondents, by a large percentage 77 selected: "he should cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors" and "he Should cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordina- tors.” The overall perception of elementary teach- ers and elementary principals agree with the educa- tional theory that the elementary principal's role in curriculum development Should be one where he c00peratively develops curriculum. Recommendations It is recommended on the basis of this study that the possibility of the following studies be considered: 1. A study be done of the actual curriculum development process being practiced in various school districts, and the actual role the elementary principal plays in this process analyzed. The master contracts of school districts be analyzed in relation to what is actually being negotiated in the area of curriculum. The perceptions that superintendents and curriculum specialists have of what the elementary principal's role Should be in the curriculum development process be-studied. An in depth analysis of courses in curriculum and elementary supervision be done to determine how teachers and administrators are being trained to 8. 78 participate productively in the cooperative approach to curriculum development. A replica of this study be done in school districts that are affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers to see if there is a difference in how the elementary principal's role in curriculum develop- ment iS perceived. A study be conducted to determine the understanding of curriculum concepts that are held by elementary teachers, administration, and curriculum personnel. In depth interviews conducted to determine the most effective methods of cooperatively developing curric— ulum. A study be done to determine if the personal charac- teristics of principals and curriculum personnel are related to effective or ineffective curriculum study programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Cooper, John E. Elementary School Principalship. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967. Dixon, Wilfred J., and.Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New Ybrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. Doll, Ronald C. (Curriculum Development: Decision Making and Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Franseth, Jane. .Supervision as Leadership. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson and Company, 1961. Fraser, Dorothy M. Deciding What to Teach. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1963. Goodlad, John I. School Curriculum Reform in the United States. New York: Fund for Advancement of Education, 1964. Herrick, Virgil E. What Are the Sources of the Curricplum. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1962. Misner, Paul J., Frederick W. Schneider, and Lowell G. Keith. Elementary School Administration. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. Morphet, Edgar L., and others. Educational Administration. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Neagley, Ross L., and Dean N. Evans. Handbook for Effective Curriculum Development. Englewood.Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1967. Ragan, William B. .Modern Elementary Curriculum. 3rd. ed. Chicago: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 79 80 Shuster, Albert H., and Milton E. Ploghoft. The Emerging Elementary Curriculum. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965. Stratemeyer, Florence B., and others. Developing a Curric- ulum for Modern Living. New York: Bureau of Publica- tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957. Trump, Lloyd J., and Dorsey Baynham. Focus on Change-~Guide to Better Schools. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1961. Unruh, Glenys G. (ed.). New Curriculum Developments. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1965. Unruh, Glenys G., and Robert R. Leeper (eds.). Influences in Curriculum Change. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1968. Publications of the Government, Learned Sociegies, and Other Organizations Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Using Current Curriculum Developments. A Report Prepared by the Association for Supervision and Curric- ulum Development. _Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Educa- tion Association, 1963. M_ichigan Education Directory and Buyer's Gpide 1967-1968. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Education Directory, 1967. National Elementary Principal's Association. Elementapy, SchoolyOrganization. Washington, D.C.: National Educa- tion Association, 1961. National Elementary Principal's Association. The Elementary School Principalship, p. 13. Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the National Department of Elementary School Principals. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1958. Ranking of Mighigan High School Districts by Selected Financial Data 1966-67. Bulletin No. 1012. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education. 81 Periodicals Cunningham, Lavern L. "Collective Negotiations and the Principalship," Theopy Into Practice, VII (April, 1968), 62-70. Erickson, Donald A. "Changes in the Principalship," The National Elementary Principal, XLIV (April, 1965), 20. Greig, James, and Robert R. Lee. "Cooperative Administration," The National Elementary Principal, XLIV (January, 1965), 73. King, James C. "New Directions for Collective Negotiation," The National Elementary Principal, XLVII (September, 1967), 45. Langer, John H. "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan," Phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII (December, 1966), Unpublished Materials Beach, L. W. "A Study of the Supervisory Leadership of the Elementary Principal." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1953. Brackett, Walter Lee. "The Elementary School Principalship in Colorado." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, 1962. Campbell, Ona L. "The Relationships Between Eight Situa- tional Factors and High and Low Scores in the Leadership Behavior Dimensions of Instructional Supervisors." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North Texas State Col- lege, Denton, Texas, 1961. .Carter, Paul D. "Perceptions of Classroom Teachers and .School Administrators Concerning Curriculum Development in a Suburban School System." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1955. Christiansen, Winfield Scott. "The Influence of the Behaviors of the Elementary School Principal Upon the School He Administers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1962. 82 Frey, Barbara Ruth. "An Analysis of the Functions of the Elementary School Principal." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1963. Hall, Matthew H. ”A Study of the Perceptions of Supervisors, Principals, and Teachers Regarding the Supervisory Pro- gram in the Mobile Public Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 1962. Leibson, Edward. "Administrator Staff Relationships and Their Effects Upon the Climate of the Elementary School." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1965. May, Joseph William. "The Changing Role of the Elementary Principalship During the Post War YSarS of 1947-1962." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1964. Medsker, Leland L. "The JOb of the Elementary School Prin- cipal as Viewed by Teachers.” Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1954. Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals. Letter From Associgtion to Members, August, 1967. Ranniger, Billy Jay. "A Summary Study of the Job Responsi- bilities of the Elementary School Principal." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Oregon, 1962. Rudman, Herbert C. (ed.). "Administrative Leadership for the Changing School Program." East Lansing, Michigan: National Workshop of Elementary Principals, 1957. (Mimeographed.) Seymour, Harry, Jr. "A Study of Ideal and Actual Curriculum Role Conceptions of Selected Elementary School Princi- pals from Southern Illinois." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 1963. Tansey, Cecilia M. "Supervisory Practices of Principals in the Public Elementary Schools of Connecticut." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, New YOrk, New York, 1962. Wallace, Mildred Reed. "Concepts of Instructional Roles of Elementary School Administrators." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1965. APPENDIX Upper Peninsula Alger Baraga Chippewa Dickinson Delta Gogebic Houghton Iron Keweenaw Luce .Mackinac Marquette MenOminee Ontonagon Schoolcraft Allegan Barry Berrien Branch Calhoun Clinton Eaton Genesee Gratiot Huron Ingham Jackson EXHIBIT 1 COUNTIES BY REGIONS Region I Lower Peninsula Alcona .Alpena .Antrim Arenac Bay Benzie Charlevoix Cheboygan Clare Crawford Emmet Gladwin Grand Traverse Iosco Isabella Kalkaska Lake Region II Cass Hillsdale Ionia Kalamazoo Kent Rggion III Lapeer Lenawee Livingston Macomb Monroe Oakland Saginaw 84 Leelanau Manistee Mason Mecosta Midland Missaukee Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oceana Ogemaw Osceola Oscoda Otsego Presque Island Roscommon Wexford Montcalm Ottowa St. Joseph Van Buren Sanilac St. Clair Shiawassee Tuscola Washtenaw Wayne EXHIBIT 2 SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY REGIONS Region I M.E.A. Region Bangor Township 12 Bay City 12 Beaverton 12 Boyne City 14 Cadillac 15 Charlevoix 14 Chippewa Hills - Barryton 13 Clare ll Escanaba l7 Essexville 12 Iron.Mountain 17 Mt. Pleasant 12 Midland 12 Muskegon l7 Traverse City 15 Region II M.E.A. Region Adrian 3 ,Almont 10 Ann Arbor 3 Badpre ll Bellevue 8 Birmingham 7 Bloomfield Hills 7 Bridgeport ll Carman 10 Chesaning ll Clio 10 Jackson Union 3 Lamphere 7 Lansing 8 Lapeer 10 Livonia 2 Monroe 3 Port Huron 6 St. Louis 11 South Lake 6 Troy 7 Warren Consolidated 6 Waterford 7 85 86 Region III M.E.A. Region Allegan Battle Creek Benton Harbor Carson City - Crystal Godwin Heights Grand Haven Grand Rapids Holland Kenawa Hills LOKOKOKOKOLOU'IbLO EXHIBIT 3 LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS March 12, 1968 Mr. Superintendent of Schools School District Street Address City, State, Zip Code Dear Mr. : I am an elementary principal in Okemos, Michigan and am presently working on a dissertation to complete my doctoral degree at Michigan State University. AS part of my disser- tation, I will administer (by mail) the enclosed question- naire on the elementary principal's role in curriculum development. With your permission I would like to send the enclosed material to Elementary School (which I have randomly selected). The principal and ten teachers would be asked to complete the questionnaire. .All individ- uals participating will remain anonymous and school districts will not be identified by name in the dissertation. we are all aware of the changing role of the elementary prin- cipal and this study will focus on the elementary principal's role in curriculum development. '1 An abstract of the study will be sent to all districts that participate. Knowing how busy superintendents are, I will mail my ques- tionnaires to the selected building after five days from the mailing of this letter, so that a reply from you is not necessary unless you are not willing to participate in this study: Sincerely, Harry J. Groulx 87 EXHIBIT 5 LETTER TO TEACHER Dear Teacher: I am an elementary principal in the Okemos Public School System, Okemos, Michigan. I am presently working on a dissertation to complete a doctoral degree at Michigan State University. My study is on the changing role of the elementary principal in curriculum development. Your school has been randomly selected for this study's population. This study is being conducted with the knowledge and approval of your superintendent. .After the completion of this study an abstract of the find- ings will be sent to your school. Being a principal I recognize the importance of time, and have developed a questionnaire that takes only several minutes to complete. I want to ask you for your cooperation which is needed to complete this survey. If further information is needed please advise me. Sincerely, Harry J. Groulx 4496 Dobie Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 89 EXHIBIT 6 FOLLOW-UP LETTER April 22, 1968 Mr. School District Street Address City, State, Zip Code Dear Mr. : I want to thank you and your staff for cooperating on my study. .As of this writing eight of your teachers have returned the questionnaire; however, I need your return to make my study more meaningful. Enclosed is another questionnaire in case the first one was misplaced. I appreciate you and your staff taking the time to complete the questionnaire. Sincerely, Harry J. Groulx 90 EXHIB IT 7 DIRECTIONS Directions for the Principal 1. Please randomly select ten teachers. If you have more than ten teachers under your supervision it is suggested you list the teachers and then choose every other teacher until you have ten. 2. Please complete one questionnaire yourself. General Directions Pages 2—5 are the same except each page deals with a differ- ent stage of curriculum development. The questionnaire is a branched questionngire. If you select 1A you also answer question 2. If you select 13 you would go on to question 3, and if you select 1C you would also answer question 4. 91 EXHIBIT 8 QUESTIONNAIRE ON CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT The purpose of this study is to determine what part the elementary principal Should have in the process of curriculum development. The study will concentrate on four stages of curriculum development. The four stages of curriculum development are: 1. Developing 2. Developing 3. Developing 4. Developing Your answers are anonymous, needed. lo educational goals curriculum content teaching procedures an evaluation process but the following information is (School district in which you are employed) 2. Present position: Teacher Principal 3. Number of courses you have had in elementary supervision and/or curriculum 4. Does your school system have at least one full-time person reSponsible only for coordinating or directing curriculum or instruction? Yes _____ No ____. 5. You age 6. Sex 7. Total years of teaching experience . 8. How many years have you been a member of M.E.A.? . 9. Are you a tenure teacher? 92 93 Role Choice Items 1. What do you think is the appropriate manner for the elementary principal to act in developing educational goals? The first stage of curriculum development is developing educational goals (eXpressionS of learning objectives that a curriculum program Should use as a reference for establishing a curriculum). 000:»- D. He should cooperate with others. He should do most of it himself. He should closely follow the school system's program. He should not be involved. (If your answer was 1A above) Should he? (Select one item.) A. Cooperate with a curriculum supervisor (director of instruction, curriculum coordinator, etc.) only. Cooperate with classroom teachers only. Cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors (director of instruc- tion, curriculum coordinator, etc.). Cooperate with other building principals. Cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. (If your answer was 1B above) Should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Do it entirely himself. Do it himself with minor assistance from a curriculum coordinator, etc. (If your answer was 1C above) should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Try to influence the school system's curriculum development Not try to influence the school system's curriculum development. Choice 94 Role Choice Items 1. What do you think is the appropriate manner for the elementary principal to act in developing educational goals? The second stage of curriculum development is developing curriculum experiences (a general overview of the content and/or Specific materials of instruction that the school should offer). Chpige A. He should cooperate with others. ( ) B. He should do most of it himself. ( ) C. He should closely follow the school system's program. ( ) D. He should not be involved ( ) (If your answer was 1A above) should he? (Select one item.) A. Cooperate with a curriculum supervisor (director of instruction, curriculum coordinator, etc.) only. ( ) B. C00perate with classroom teachers only. ( ) C. Cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors (director of instruction, curriculum coordinator, etc.). ( ) D. Cooperate with other building principals. ( ) E. ,Cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. ( ) (If your answer was 1B above) should he? (Select one item.) A. Do it entirely himself. ( ) B. Do it himself with minor assistance from a curriculum coordinator, etc. ( ) (If your answer was 1C above) should he? (Select one item.) A. Try to influence the school system's curriculum development. ( ) B. (Not try to influence the school system's curriculum development. ( ) 95 Role Choice Items 1. What do you think is the appropriate manner for the elementary principal to act in developing educational goals? The third stage of curriculum development is developing teaching procedures (the organization of learning experiences in the classroom). ow» D. He Should cooperate with others. He should do most of it himself. He should closely follow the school system's program. He should not be involved. (If your answer was 1A above) should he? (Select one item.) A. Cooperate with a curriculum supervisor (director of instruction, curriculum coordinator, etc.) only. Cooperate with classroom teachers only. Cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors (director of instruc- tion, curriculum coordinator, etc.) Cooperate with other building principals. Cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. (If your answer was 1B above) should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Do it entirely himself. Do it himself with minor assistance from a curriculum coordinator, etc. (If your answer was 1C above) Should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Try to influence the school system's curriculum development. Not try to influence the school system's curriculum development. Choice 96 Role Chpice ggeme 1. .What do you think is the appropriate manner for the elementary principal to act in developing educational goals? The fourth stage of curriculum development is developing an evaluation process (evaluating how well we are achieving our educational goals). (301» Do He should cooperate with others. He should do most of it himself. He Should closely follow the school system's program. He Should not be involved. (If your answer was 1A above) Should he? (Select one item.) A. Cooperate with a curriculum supervisor (director of instruction, curriculum coordinator, etc.) only. Cooperate with classroom teachers only. Cooperate with both classroom teachers and curriculum supervisors (director of instruc- tion, curriculum coordinator, etc.). Cooperate with other building principals. Cooperate with teachers, principals, and coordinators. (If your answer was 1B above) should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Do it entirely himself. Do it himself with minor assistance from a curriculum coordinator, etc. (If your answer was 1C above) should he? (Select one item.) A. B. Try to influence the school system's curriculum development. Not try to influence the school system's curriculum development. Choice HICH IGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 103400416 31293