« 70-20,514 POTTS, Vernon Russell, 1928A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, administration U niversity Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany, A nn Arbor, M ichigan STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN By Vernon Russell Potts A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL NEGOTIATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN By Vernon Russell Potts The Problem One of the most important educational changes that has taken place in the past decade has been the passage of professional negotiations statutes and the impact this legislation has had on educational activities. This study is an attempt to examine the possibility that there has been a change in the administrative task performance of principals. The study examined the effect of professional negotiations in one state and the lack of a professional negotiations in another state upon the task performance of high school principals. A second problem under investiga­ tion was the effect of school organization in non­ professional negotiations and professional negotiations states upon principal task performance. investigated were as follows: Subproblems (1) the interaction between nonprofessional negotiations and professional negotiations Vernon Russell Potts states and organizational patterns, (2) the Interaction between principal task performance categories and nonprofessional negotiations and professional negotiations states in which the principals were employed, and (3) the interaction between task performance categories and the school organizational pattern found in the principal's district. Methodology The Michigan and Indiana sample were made up of 20 principals each, selected at random from schools having 1,500 or more enrollment. The sample was stratified on the basis of organizational pattern. Ten principals were selected for each stratum. The data was gathered by means of individual interviews. The interview process was divided into two distinct sections. The first section was intended to gather factual information concerning the principals being studied and the schools they serve. This consisted of a simple pre-interview questionnaire. The second section was intended to obtain information on the task performance of the principals being studied. This consisted of pre­ test and posttest responses to the list of tasks that formed the basic test instrument. The difference between pre-test and posttest responses were reflected as gain scores• These data were tested for statistical Vernon Russell Potts significance by an analysis of variance. This was considered attained when the .05 level was satisfied. Findings The findings related to the effect of a profes­ sional negotiations statute upon the task performance of principals as obtained by the investigative instrument are as follows: The state in which the principal was employed, meaning one having a professional negotiations statute and one not having such a law, has no relation to task perfor­ mance change over the past five years if one is looking at change as being of directional nature. Change, when viewed from a nondirectional position, rejects this position pointing up a greater amount of task performance change taking place in Michigan than in Indiana. The organizational pattern of the school district in which the principal is employed has no relation to his task performance. No significant interaction was found between state of employment and school organizational patterns. No significant interaction was found between state of employment and task performance categories. No significant interaction was found between school organizational patterns and task performance categories. Vernon Russell Potts These findings suggest that the state in which the principal is employed has no relation to principal task performance. Implications for Future Research Within the limitations of this study, the follow­ ing recommendations seem warranted: 1. This study should be replicated using several other states, with and without professional negotiation statutes. 2. A similar study of task performance should be made looking at the authority of principals to perform their traditional administrative tasks. 3. Replicate this study using teachers' or superin­ tendents ' views of principal task performance. 4. Studies should be conducted to determine the effect of student population on principal task performance. 5. The entire question of staff involvement in the decision making process and its effect on principal task performance needs to be studied, so that a determination might be made as to what decisions may be made only by the principal by state statute. Vernon Russell Potts Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions have been reached: 1. Change has taken place in the task performance of Michigan and Indiana high school principals over the past five years. 2. These task performance changes have been greater in Michigan than those found in Indiana, a state not having compulsory professional negotiations. 3. These changes of task performance cannot be directly attributed to the passage of a profes­ sional negotiation statute. 4. The organizational patterns of high schools have no relation to the task performance of principals ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the encouragement and professional direction given to me by my guidance committee: Dr. Charles A. Blackman, Dr. James Heald, and Mr. Grafton Trout. My heartfelt thanks is extended to Dr. Louis Romano, who has served as the chairman of this outstanding committee. His encouragement and assistance throughout this study is greatly appreciated. Special acknowledgment is due many persons who hav e , in varying w a y s , made contributions that this dream might be fulfilled. To Dr. Jack K. Mawdsley and Dr. Robert Schmatz, whose friendship and counsel have been beyond value. To those high school principals in Michigan and Indiana, without whose cooperation the study could not have been made. To Mr. F. R. Wilson, consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, whose research knowledge and skill were greatly appreciated. ii To Mrs. Barbara Randolph and Mrs. Margaret Smithson of the staff of W. K. Kellogg Junior High School for their assistance during the preparation of this study. To the Battle Creek Board of Education, whose granting of a leave made the completion of my doctoral program possible, and to Superintendent Harry R. Davidson, whose thoughtfulness and consideration was a valuable asset. The author owes a particular debt of gratitude to my wife, Virginia and our two children, Joe and Joy, for their assistance, patience, and understanding throughout my graduate work and particularly during the preparation of this dissertation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .................................... vii LIST OF F I G U R E S .................................. ix CHAPTER I. THE P R O B L E M .............................. 1 Introduction ............................... Statement of the P r o b l e m .............. 3 Objectives of the S t u d y .............. 4 6 Definition of T e r m s .................. Assumptions upon which the Study is B a s e d ........................ Scope and Limitations of the Study . . . . H y p o t h e s e s ............................. 11 11 P r o c e d u r e s ............................. 15 Overview of the S t u d y ................ II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED R E S E A R C H .......... 8 9 17 Introduction ............................... Principal-Task Performance Related R e s e a r c h ............................. 20 Development of the Principalship . . . . 1 17 20 The Social Setting of the Principalship . 29 The Goals and Purposes of Secondary E d u c a t i o n ........................... 30 The Task Performance of Principals . . . . 34 Principal-Negotiation Related Research . . 42 S u m m a r y ............................... 51 III. RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY ......... 52 Introduction ............................... 52 S a m p l e .................................. 53 The I n s t r u m e n t ......................... 57 The I n t e r v i e w ......................... 62 iv Page CHAPTER IV. The Interview S c h e d u l e .................... Trial I n t e r v i e w s .......................... The Design of the S t u d y .................. Statistical Hypotheses .................... Statistical Treatment of the Data . . . . S u m m a r y ................................... 65 65 69 72 74 75 ANALYSIS OF THE F I N D I N G S .................... 76 PART I General Findings .......................... The P r i n c i p a l ............................. 78 79 PART II H y p o t h e s e s ................................. Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 2 3 4 5 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 87 87 88 88 95 95 PART III Additional Questions ...................... Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 .......................... .......................... .......................... 96 96 97 98 PART IV V. Concomitant Findings ...................... 100 The Principal as the Instructional L e a d e r ................................. Current Trends .......................... 100 102 S u m m a r y ................................... 105 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 106 Introduction ............................... S u m m a r y ................................... v 106 106 CHAPTER Page F i n d i n g s ................................... 107 Simplified Listing of the Major F i n d i n g s .............................. 10 9 C o n c l u s i o n s .............................. D i s c u s s i o n ............ Recommendations for Future Research . . . 113 113 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 117 APPENDIX A. C O R R E S P O N D E N C E ..................... B. PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW GUIDE ................. 129 C. INTERVIEW C A R D S ............................ 134 D. GUIDE TO THE TERMS OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE E. OUTLINE FOR THE CONDUCTING OF A SAMPLE I N T E R V I E W ................................ 147 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE S A M P L E ................................ 150 LISTS OF SAMPLE PARTICIPANTS ............... 153 F. G. Vi 125 . 142 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 Page SAMPLE S U M M A R Y ............................... 55 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS WITH MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS IN THE S T U D Y ............... 66 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS WITH INDIANA PARTICIPANTS IN THE S T U D Y ............... 67 BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPATING MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THIS STUDY ............... 81 BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPATING INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THIS STUDY ............... 82 AREAS IN WHICH PRINCIPALS DID MOST OF THEIR CLASSROOM TEACHING ........................ 83 ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL GOALS OF PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE AND THE PERCENTAGE DESIRING EACH BY S T A T E ............................ 85 ADMINISTRATIVE TASK PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE MOST ENJOYED WORKING IN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PREFERENCE BY S T A T E ...................... 86 ADMINISTRATIVE TASK PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE LEAST PREFERRED WORKING IN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PREFERENCE BY S T A T E ...................... 86 A SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NONDIRECTIONAL CHANGE SCORES FOR TASK PERFORMANCE OF MICHIGAN AND INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS .................... 89 vii TABLE 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-13 G—1 G-2 Page A SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIRECTIONAL CHANGE SCORES FOR TASK PERFORMANCE OF MICHIGAN AND INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS .................... 90 A SUMMARY OF NONDIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN .................... 91 A SUMMARY OF NONDIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE . . . . . . 92 A SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN .................... 93 A SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE ........... 94 ORIGIN OF THE CONTRACT DESIGN USED BY TEACHERS AS VIEWED BY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCI­ PALS IN THE S A M P L E ........................ 98 TASK PERFORMANCE AREAS OF MOST IMPORTANCE TO PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE AT PRESENT AND FIVE YEARS A G O ............................ 100 MICHIGAN STUDY PARTICIPANTS, THE HIGH SCHOOLS THEY REPRESENT, THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, AND SAMPLE S T R A T A ........... 153 INDIANA STUDY PARTICIPANTS, THE HIGH SCHOOLS THEY REPRESENT, THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, AND SAMPLE STRATA ........... 155 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3-1 Study D e s i g n ................................. F —1 Geographical Locations of Michigan Study Participants ................................ 150 Geographical Locations of Indiana Study Participants ................................. 152 F-2 ix 70 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The dominant characteristic of modern America is change. Nowhere in our society is this more true than in secondary education. The implications of change in secondary education challenge no person more than it does the secondary school principal. Among the major changes in secondary education has been professional negotiations. Research workers in the field of educational administration must examine this educational change. Principals have long been pointed out as people who help to shape the educational direction of the schools. In recent years teacher groups have been able to obtain, through the process of negotiations, contracts which have been very broad in scope. Their contracts have not been limited to improvement of teacher salaries and grievance procedures. Teachers have gone beyond this to demand inclusion in their contracts of items which cover a wide range of subjects. Items like class size, teacher 1 2 -transfer, promotion policies, extracurricular services, teacher recruitment, school calendars, and building physical improvements are common to teacher contracts today. Many school boards, regardless of possible reluc­ tance , now are forced by statute or social pressures to come to terms and learn to work with professional negotia­ tions . The principal's position is clearly defined by a considerable number of state l aws, board rules, court decisions, and regulations of state departments of educa­ tion. Their operational style is marked by unwritten codes which spring from years of practical experience, community expectations, and justifiable patterns of tradition. The weight of responsibility for total build­ ing operation is born by the principal. He is held accountable for every phase of the educational life of the modern secondary school. Professional negotiations cannot change these facts. Out of the struggle that marks professional negotiations may develop radically new patterns of teacher-principal relationships. The principal i s , by law, clearly not a teacher; yet his role is not clear. What is happening to the traditional teacher-principal relationships and the traditional task performance of principals is also not clear. 3 Statement: of the Problem One of the most important educational changes that has taken place in the past decade has been the passage of professional negotiations statutes and the impact this legislation has had on educational activities. This study is an attempt to examine the possibility that there has been a change in the administrative task performance of principals. The study will examine the effect of profes­ sional negotiations in one state and the lack of a pro­ fessional negotiations in another state upon the task performance of high school principals. A second problem under investigation will be the effect of school organiza­ tion in nonprofessional negotiations and professional negotiations states upon principal task performanee. Subproblems to be investigated are as follows: (1) the interaction between nonprofessional negotiations and professional negotiations states and organizational patterns, (2) the interaction between principal task performance categories and nonprofessional negotiations and professional negotiations states in which the princi­ pals were employed, and (3) the interaction between task performance categories and the school organizational pattern found in the principal's district. 4 Objectives of -the Study The general purpose of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the impact of professional negotiations on the administrative tasks performed by the principals of large high schools in Michigan and a deter­ mination of relationships which might exist between the effects of the passage of a professional negotiations statute and selected variables. This study will contribute to our information on the effect of the type of professional negotiations legis­ lation in use in Michigan. New patterns of educational administration will be needed to meet the conditions brought about by such legislation. The high school administrator has often been pointed to as the key man in the school. Some knowledge of the impact of professional negotiations is needed to prepare high school administra­ tors for their future and in training future administra­ tors . The operational style of the high school administrator has been rooted in facilitating the activities of the teaching staff. To perform this task, certain co-ordinative and communication functions have rested in the hands of the high school administrator. change in the relationship of the administrator to his A 5 staff would certainly change his relationship to these functions. The American high school in the years ahead will continue to grow within our current philosophy of an educational opportunity for every child. Educational plants will grow large in keeping with current building trends. Curricular programs will be expanded and far ranging in nature. There may be a shift in fiscal develop­ ments to balance the cost of such programs. The rising costs will demand greater plant and staff efficiency. These changes will be linked to greater population mobil­ ity. A wider range of educational interests and abilities possessed by the students will demand a greater degree of specialization on the part of secondary school staffs. Educational institutions on the secondary level w i l l , t h u s , become much more complex. To this general outlook for secondary education, one need only add professional nego­ tiations and the tasks performed by the chief administra­ tor at this level which are enlarged and made more complex. This study seeks to systematically examine the impact and scope of these demands settled by collective negotiations as they relate to the tasks performed by the secondary school principal. 6 Definition of Terms The definition of the terms which follow are presented so that this study might be explicitly under­ stood, accurately interpreted, and replicated at some future time. Professional Negotiations. A set of procedures by which teachers' associations and local boards of educa­ tion might negotiate the settlement of issues of common concern through professional channels, and arrive at a settlement mutually agreeable to both groups. This also calls for the establishment of procedures for mediation and appeal should an impasse be reached. Collective Bargaining. A process used by labor and management to determine conditions of employment and to establish the obligations and responsibilities of both groups. This is the result of negotiations on the part of the representatives of both parties; the termination of such negotiations being a collective bargaining agreement that has the approval and support of both parties. This process is an on going accommodation on the part of both parties with the intent being not only the economic improvement of labor, but also the protection of the rights and freedom of the worker. Collective Negotiations. This term seems to be a blend of both the labor-management and the professional 7 bargaining concept:. While this term is favored by the educational associations to describe the process by which representatives of both groups meet to negotiate on matters of mutual concern, this study shall use the term Profes­ sional Negotiations, at the same time realizing that the Michigan statute on this matter terms it Collective Bargaining for Public Employees. In the literature, the terms tend to be used interchangeably. High School Principal and Secondary Administrator. A public school administrator who is a full time super­ visor of a high school, grades 10-12 plus any others the school system may choose to add. These two terms are used synonymously. Administrative T a s k s . Those specific tasks of an administrative nature performed by the high school principal. As defined by McCleary and Hencley in their book. Secondary School Administration, and used in the study questionnaire. Traditional Administrative T a s k s . Those specific tasks described in the literature of school administration and being the result of the traditional concept of admin­ istration as the execution of policy made by the local board of education. This concept tends to limit the sharing and delegation of administrative authority and responsibility. 8 Assumptions upon which the Study is Based This study was designed to be a self-contained investigation for securing information particularly perti­ nent to the development of an appraisal of the present operational state of the task performance of high school principals in relation to the nature of their task perfor­ mance before professional negotiations laws were enacted in Michigan. In view of the nature of this study and the procedures used, the following basic assumptions were made: 1. There has been some change in the position of the high school principal in Michigan. 2. Any difference in organizational climate between the Michigan principals1 in the study and the Indiana principals' taking part in the study would produce no significant difference in task perfor­ mance scores. 3. The time lapse of five years which demands the use of recall for the pre-test of task performance would produce no significant difference in the pre-test task performance scores of the two groups under study. 4. The method of selection of principals to partici­ pate in the study would produce no significant 9 difference in principal -task performance scores on the pre-test or posttest. 5. The questions prepared and organized were appro­ priate in measuring the task performance of high school principals. 6. The use of the same interviewer and test instru­ ments would lead to adequate uniformity of measurement. 7. It is assumed that the same social forces have been felt by both groups of principals over the past five y e a r s . 8. It is assumed that all school systems negotiate with teachers in some manner. Scope and Limitations of the Study 1. Only principals of high schools with enrollments of 1,500 or more students were studied. This enrollment figure was selected for basic reasons: a. Due to school consolidation movements in the past deca d e , as well as the prediction of more in the future, and because of constant in­ creases in high school enrollment figures, the trend seems to be toward large high schools. These schools demand and obtain professional administrators. 10 b. Schools of this enrollment, or more students, because of North Central accreditation, are more than likely to be adequately staffed in terms of professional personnel, thus demanding professional performance from their administra­ tors . 2. The schools studied were picked because of enrollment size and organizational patterns. 3. Technical high schools were not included because of their uniqueness of staff and student body in comparison to other comprehensive high schools to be used in the study. 4. The high schools of this size that are part of the Detroit Public School System were not used as part of the sample or of the population of the study because of their past history of negotiations which makes them atypical of the study population in Michigan and Indiana. 5. The instrument used does not attempt to measure degrees of task performance change only gross change measures were taken. The limits set by this study establish the limits for the conclusions to be reached and the implications to be drawn from this study. The conclusions reached can only be applied to the situation that falls within these limitations. 11 Hypotheses The dimensions of the problem as it has been outlined can best be conceptualized in the following hypotheses which will be tested in this study. Hq :1 There will be no significant difference between the Michigan and Indiana high school principals when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. Hq :2 There will be no significant difference between principals in schools organized on the 6-3-3 pattern and those organized on the 8-4 pattern when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. Hq :3 Hq :4 There will be no significant interaction between state and school organizational pattern. There will be no significant interaction between state and task performance categories. Hq :5 There will be no significant interaction between organizational pattern and task performance categories. Procedures This study is concerned with the impact of profes­ sional negotiations on the task performance of secondary school administrators of high schools in Michigan and 12 Indiana of 1,500 or more students. The Michigan sample was made up of 20 principals, selected at random from schools having 1,500 or more enrollment. The sample was stratified on the basis of organizational pattern. Four strata were established to cover the organizational patterns being studied. Ten principals were selected for each stratum. The large high schools of the Detroit Public Schools were left out of the sample because of the size of the district and the background of this system in teacher negotiations. The state of Indiana does not have such a teacher negotiation law so it will offer data to compare with that obtained in Michigan schools. The Indiana sample was made up of 20 principals selected at random from schools of 1,500 or more enrollment. Ten principals were selected at random for each stratum. The method of sampling and the number of principals in the sample was statistically developed with the help of a consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. The method used is called disproportional stratified sampling. This study shall be concerned with and confined to the effect of professional negotiations on the 13 administrative tasks performed by the secondary school principal. interviews. The data was gathered by means of individual No attempt was made to evaluate the perfor­ mance of any individual principal in comparative manner with other subjects in this study. This study will analyse data in relationship to the following task performance categories. 1. finance and business management tasks 2. instruction and curriculum development tasks 3. pupil personnel tasks 4. school community relations tasks 5. school plant services tasks 6. staff personnel tasks This study seeks to find out if these task performance categories indicate performance level changes in relationship to the introduction of professional negotiation laws. Having identified the sample for this study and what we are concerned with, the interview technique was selected as the most appropriate method for this study. It should be noted that this technique gets a good data return. The Maccobys' support this, and and, "Some of the most impressive contributions to social science 14 knowledge have been made by studies which employed the interview as their central technique."^ Statistical treatment of the data was conducted through the use of the facilities of the Computer Labora­ tory, Michigan State University. This study used two groups of principals as the sample. One group made up of Michigan high school principals were tested as to the administrative tasks they performed five years ago and then tested as to the administrative tasks they now per­ form. The second group was made up of Indiana high school principals. They were tested as to the administrative tasks they performed five years ago and tested as to the administrative tasks they presently perform, the passage of the state professional negotiation statute being the control of this study. The statistic used to test the hypotheses was an analysis of variance. The computations were processed through the use of the Control Data Corporation (CDC) 3600 Computer which is suited for this type of analysis. IBM cards, programming, and research design advice were obtained from the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education. ^"Eleanor Maccoby and Nathan Maccoby, "The Inter­ view: A Tool of Social Science," Handbook of Social Psychology (Cambridge: Addison and Wesley Publishing Company, 1954), p. 483. 15 Respondents were assured of and will be given a report of the results of this study. Each principal was contacted by phone or by letter just prior to the inter­ view. He was also sent a pre-interview questionnaire. The interview process was divided into two distinct sections. The first section was intended to gather factual information concerning the principals being studied and the school they serve. This consisted of a simple pre­ interview questionnaire. This should gain information on variables which need not be covered by the interview. This was done because these men were busy. The second section was intended to obtain informa­ tion on the task performance of the principals being studied. Overview of the Study In the preceding pages of this chapter, an attempt has been made to establish the need for studying the task performance of high school principals to see if there is any relationship between the present state and nature of the administrative task performance of high school princi­ pals in Michigan and the enactment of a professional negotiations statute. This study will attempt to point up where we were and where we are now. 16 In Chapter I a problem statement has been m a d e , objectives of the study have been set forth, terms have been defined, assumptions made, limits set, hypotheses stated, and procedures described. Chapter II, the related literature in two areas are reviewed: Principal-task performance related research and professional negotiationsprincipal related research. In Chapter III the research procedures and methodology are given. The chapter covers general out­ line of methods used, the instrument, summary of the sample, the statistical hypotheses, analysis procedures, and summary. Chapter V gives a summary of the findings of the study, states conclusions drawn from the study, and makes recommendations for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED RESEARCH Introduction In the fall of I960, the United Federation of Teachers staged a one-day strike. This strike, in New York City, to enforce the demands of this teacher group to obtain an election, and to select the exclusive bargaining agent for the teachers of that city was the first in the nation. This group won the election that followed; and, also, opened a new era in teacher-administrative relations. Teachers for a long time petitioned for better salaries and working conditions. efforts were futile. All too often these The efforts of the teachers of New York City changed all of t h i s . Their victory was followed in many states by the passage of collective bargaining negotiations legislation. states to have such a law. Michigan was one of the early There were twelve states having such legislation in 1967 and twelve more had similar legislation under consideration. 2 2 "Professional Negotiations: Growth and Pros­ pects," The Education Digest, April, 1967, p. 13. 17 18 If -this trend continues, and there is no reason to expect that it will not, it is clear that within the next few years professional negotiation will become commonplace throughout the nation. Existing negotiations statutes cover about twentyfive per cent of the teachers teaching in the nat i o n s ' 3 classrooms. Add to this the fact that many boards of education are negotiating voluntarily with teachers in the absence of any such laws. Looking at these facts, we must realize that this situation may have an impact on the operational patterns of public secondary schools. The introduction of this technique in teacher-school board relations has brought with it a new manner of gaining teacher demands; the scope of which are still taking shape in teacher school board contracts. The secondary school administrator faces many challenges today. The responsibility is overwhelming at times, and the position without question demands a man of many skills. The principal must be an organizer, a planner, an innovator, a leader, an inspiration to oth e r s , and above all--a man skilled in getting along with others. To find out more about how principals face the demands placed upon them, we must move out into the public 3Ibid., p. 14. 19 schools. Before we go out to the principal, it might be well to find out about the development of the principalship in the first place. principalship? What are the roots of the To find this out, one must look at the development of the American secondary school. The develop­ ment of the secondary school is rooted in our social order so we must also look at the social forces that brought it into being. The mission of the secondary school can best be seen in the aims and goals of secondary education that have played an important part in shaping American secondary education. These aims and goals offer a broad outline within which the administrative function must take place. We should look at the major patterns and theories of administrative behavior to establish the manner in which principals may be conducting the operation of schools. The principalship under study offers yet another approach after we have looked at the historical setting, social setting, and the process: this is the task approach. The task of the principal is of major importance to this study. The views of the major writers in this field and the reports of the researchers will help us to better understand the day to day task performance of the principals in the field. 20 The focal point of this study is the relationship of professional negotiations to the task performance of principals. The writer has attempted in this introduction to point out the importance of this educational change to the relationship of the principal to teachers. The study will also undertake the development of a background of related research in the area of the principals and negotia­ tions. The relationship of the principal's leadership role to his playing a part in the negotiations process; the impact of professional negotiations on the perceptions that other professionals and non-professionals hold of the principalship; and the need for further training of administrators to meet the challenge of professional negotiations. This chapter, dealing with analysis of the related research, is divided into two major sections: (1)Principal- Task Performance Related Research, and (2) PrincipalNegotiations Related Research. In these sections, the writer hopes to offer answers to the questions posed in this introduction. Principal-Task Performance Related Research Development of the Principalship The title High School Principal, as it is presently used, describes a position that is the product of an 21 evolutionary process lasting well over a century. This position was not born with the public secondary school. The American high school grew out of the American Latin grammar schools. This type of high school was established in New England by the Pilgrims. The curriculum consisted primarily of the study of Latin and Greek, which were the languages of knowledge and the key to education during this period. The program of study did little to prepare people for life in early New England. The Latin grammar schools were for boys, although later, some girls were admitted to some schools. During this period, several groups of people believed that the Latin grammar schools were not the educational answer for America. They were interested in a more practical and realistic type of education. The answer they offered to these needs were the academies. The Academies put less dependence on the learning of just words; and instruction was in English. New subjects like science, English, and history were added to the curriculum. Most of these schools were not public and were generally not publicly supported. They offered enrollment to both boys and girls, but it was not until the end of this era that they were taught together. 22 The first high schools in the United States grew out of dissatisfaction with the academies which soon developed on many points. Here are some of the major ones: 1. They were not publicly supported; but, rather they charged tuition. 2. They were not publicly controlled. 3. The curriculum had retrogressed toward the Latin grammar school type. 4. They combined religion with education in a way that was contrary to both the melting pot idea of the United States and the fundamental American doctrine of separation of church and state. 5.They admitted youngsters at too early an a g e . 6. They did not prepare the sons and daughters of the large middle class to earn a living.4 As a result of this dissatisfaction, a new type of secondary school was school. born. This school was the public high This school was soon to replace the Latin grammar school and the academy as the prevailing institution of secondary education for the children of the United States. The first of these schools was the English High School in Boston, founded in 1821. The major source of information on the historical development of the school principal comes to us from Paul 5 Revere Pierce, who examined the published reports of the executive officers of twelve large metropolitan school systems. 4 Harl R. Douglas, Secondary Education In the United States (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1332), p. 10. 5 Samual Goldman, The School Principal (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966), p . 3. 23 Pierce points out that the high school principal­ ship predates the elementary school principalship, but both £ developed in response to similar influences. It is natural that the principalship was born in the large cities along the Eastern seaboard of our nation. As the cities grew and the numbers of children enrolling in school increased, staff was adc 2 d and schools were expanded. The development of grade assignments and subject departmentalization brought more pressure for someone in the school building to be responsible for its administra­ tion. The position was entitled by way of the title Principal Teacher. Pierce states that in 1839 the Cincinnati Board of Education set up a committee to study the responsibilities of the principal teacher. They were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To function as the head of the school charged to his care* To regulate the classes and course of instruction of all the pupils; To discover any defects in the school and apply remedies; To make defects known to the visitor or trustee of the ward or district if he were unable to remedy conditions; To give necessary instruction to his assistants; To classify pupils; To safeguard schoolhouses and furniture; To keep the school clean; 6Ibid., p. 3. 24 9. 10. 11. To Instruct: assistants; To refrain from impairing the standing of assis­ tants, especially in the eyes of their pupils; To require the cooperation of his assistants.? All other faculty members were referred to as Assistant Teachers. With the growth and expansion of American public schools came the demand for more time to administer. Time was needed to visit classrooms, to help teachers, to make out reports, and to observe classroom activities. This was pointed out, in 1857, when to meet the situation the principal teachers in Boston were given some released time from teaching for inspection and examination of primary classes.8 In 1862, the principal teacher in most of the schools in Chicago were relieved of about half of his 9 former teaching time, and in New York City by 1867 no principal teacher had a class or grade "for whose progress and efficiency he was especially responsible 8 This releasing of the principal from the task of classroom teaching seems to have marked a turning point in ^Ibid., p . 4. 8Ib i d ., p. 4. 9Ib i d ., p. 4. 10I b id., p. 4. 25 the development of the position. The principal with his classroom visits now moved into supervision. While the chance for a major leadership role was open, the early school principal seems to have been poorly prepared to take advantage of the opportunities then available. These early principals seem to be busy with details and the routine activities of the schools. stayed constant until the 1920's. This situation In the 1920's a serious attempt was made to focus upon the principalship as a major educational position. As a separate subject of study, school administra­ tion, and the preparation of professional administrators dates back to 1 8 9 7 . The development of this field of study and the high level of interest in scientific manage­ ment studies brought a new level of interest in the principalship. Fillers did a study of the managerial duties of a principal. He looked at the clerical, inspectorial, coordinative, and generalized control activities of the principal. Efficiency pTmnn He found many principals performing activities Raymond E. Callahan, Education and the Cult of (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962) , 26 that might well be performed by teachers and clerks leaving 12 them free to perform other activities. The work of Frederick Taylor and his system of scientific management, which was having some impact on the nations' superintendents, also seems to mark studies of the principalship.13 Stanton, looking at the office routines of princi­ pals and from his study offered a number of time-saving* administrative procedures for principals.14 In 1930, Fred C. Ayers did a study on the values preferences assigned to administrative tasks by principals and superintendents. He points out a need for school administrators to better understand administrative procedures. The orientation of principals during this period reflects the prevailing interest in the business-executivein-education. Raymond Callahan states: The result was an emphasis upon the techniques and the mechanics of administration. While this kind of program did not require extensive study in 12 Harold D. Fillers, "The Managerial Duties of the Principal," School Review, XXVIII (December, 1927), pp. 48-53. 13 Callahan, op. c i t ., p. 188. 14 Edgard A. Stanton, "Saving Time in Office Routine," Elementary School Journal, XXVII (December, 1927), pp. 263-T72. ------------ 27 the disciplines upon which a real understanding of education must be based and was not oriented toward basic inquiry and the production of knowledge, it did provide students with the knowledge and skills to operate the schools in a business like way— a prerequisite for job survival in most school dis­ tricts in the twenties.15 The 1930's, with its economic bewilderment and social unrest, brought about a number of dramatic events which have had dramatic implications for American education and the principalship. The depression brought education a new face and changed the philosophy of educational adminis­ tration. This new philosophy came from the work of indus­ trial psychologists, sociologists, and others interested in the study of social organizations. The impact of this trend and study of the psychological aspects of administra­ tion are brought into sharp focus by the works of Mayo^6 and Roethlisberger 17 who were interested in the human relations of the administrator's tasks. ) , p. 256. 44 Curriculum Personnel Policies Transfers and Promotions Grievance Procedures Salaries and Wages Leaves of Absence Discharge and Discipline of Teachers43 Inservice Education Teaching Assignments Recruitment of Teachers Lunch and Rest Periods Class Size Provisions of Physical Facilities for Teachers Looking at this list, one can see that the teacher organizations have moved into areas which teachers in the past have shown little interest and which have been within the traditional role of the building administrator. Many of these topics must by their nature change the traditional role of the secondary school principal. about conflict and readjustment. This must bring This process of conflict and readjustment is a real force for educational change. 44 The process of conflict was investigated by Cave when he visited ten school districts that were involved in teacher-negotiation problems. Cave looked at the impact of leadership behavior of school administrators on teachernegotiation strife. a Leadership Behavior Questionnaire was used to develop an ideal for administrator behavior. A sample made up of school administrators, teacher1s union ja William B. Levenson, "The Superintendent's Role in Negotiations," Impact, April, 1967, p. 12. 44 David R. Cave, "A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior of School Administrators in Conflict with Teacher's Unions" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967), pp. 14-15. 45 representatives, and school board members were given the questionnaire in each conflict situation. They were then asked to record the actual behavior of administrators in their present situation. Cave reports that administrators contribute to conflict by their lack of arbitration and group skills. This points up an area of need for adminis­ trator training programs. Olsen 45 did a survey which pointed up the fact that most principals felt they should be involved in profes­ sional negotiations as members of a total teachers' organization. Membership in a total teacher organization was needed to retain the principal's authority. The study points out that where the future of the child is at stake, there should be no teacher-principal conflicts or they should be avoided at all c o s t s . L o v e , ^ in 1968, looked at the impact of teacher negotiations and school system decision making. He found that although administrative and school board discretion is narrowed by collective negotiations, administrators quickly learn to use the negotiation process to preserve 45 Allen Dale Olsen, "The Principal and Professional Negotiations," The National Elementary Principal, XLVI (April, 1967), pp. 31-32. 46 Thomas Michael L o v e , "The Impact of Teacher Negotiations on School System Decision Making" (un­ published doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1968). 46 areas of discretion and school boards retain their right to represent the public interest and make all final decisions. B i r d s e l l ^ looks at the principal's position in negotiations. In 1965 he surveyed the state of profes­ sional negotiations in some 1 2 midwestern states using a population of 71 large school districts, from which he obtained a sample of 49 districts. His findings point up a high level of disagreement over the classification of the principal. Teachers felt he was an administrator when far more superintendents felt he was a teacher. More superintendents than teachers felt he should be a member of the local teachers' organization. The position of the principal in the grievance 48 procedure is the subject of a study by Summerer. Summerer, looking at the negotiated contracts of selected school districts in Michigan, found that three-fourths of these districts in Michigan had contracts that contained specific reference to the resolution of problems by ^ D o n a l d F. Birdsell, "A Study of the Status of Professional Negotiations in Selected Schools in Twelve Midwestern States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Iowa, 1965). 48 Kenneth Summerer, "Agreements Negotiated between Boards of Education and Teachers under Michigan Public Law 379 of 1965," Metropolitan Educational Research Association (East Lansing: Michigan State University, March, 1965), p. 20. 47 discussion with the principal without involving the bargaining unit* if these agreements were within the negotiated contract. 49 Radebaugh, in his study of the democratic values in relationship to those found in contracts that were pro­ duced by collective negotiations, found that one of four values emphasized in the study was the wise use of profes­ sional staff. This proper utilization of staff tends to indicate the involvement of principals in negotiations to produce realistic and workable agreements between teachers and management. This is carried one step further by Garver's5® study of the attitudes of 291 principals in Oakland County, Michigan, toward teacher negotiations. Gar v e r 1s study revealed that principals who participated on the board of education bargaining team had a better attitude towards the total process of negotiations than did those who did not. Participation thus tends to dissipate fears of teacher-board negotiations. 49 Byron F. Radebaugh, "Democratic Values and Collective Negotiations' Agreements" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. Department of Education, University of T o ledo, 1966). 50George G. Garver, "A Study of the Relationship between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oakland County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers" (un­ published Ed.D. dissertation. College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967). 48 In a study made in 1969, Munger 5 1 goes a step further when he investigated the attitudes of principals towards negotiating their own school board contract. Using selected variables, Munger attempts to predict the attitudes of Michigan Principals toward their right to negotiate and their desire to negotiate a local master contract for principals. The sample was made up of 280 principals which reported that 89.8 per cent felt that principals should themselves have the right to negotiate their own master contract and 61.2 per cent felt that their local principals' group should negotiate a contract with their local board of education. Michigan has had a collective bargaining law in affect since May 28, 1963. The impact of such a law on the instructional tasks of principals has not been investi­ gated, but the impact on the improvement of instruction has. 52 Steele investigated this feature of the problem and found that there were significantly more instructional provisions in Michigan master teacher contracts in the second year of 51 Benson Scott M u n g e r , "A Study of the Relationship between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Michigan Principals Toward Organizing for Negotiations" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969). 52 Marilyn H. Steele, "Has Collective Bargaining Contributed to Instructional Improvement in Michigan Schools?" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969). 49 bargaining than were present in the first year of bargaining. This tends to point up teacher interest in having a part in making instructional decisions that had been made by principals or the central office staff. 53 In the area of decision making, McCumsey found that principals in schools involved in professional nego­ tiations were as involved in decision-making as were principals in schools not involved in the process of professional negotiations. Non-professional negotiations principals perceived a somewhat greater exclusive principal involvement in decision-making than did professional nego­ tiations principals. Both groups agreed on the level of principal involvement in decision making so as to have a base from which to evaluate. The studies reported tend to point out a need for preparing school administrators to meet the challenge of 54 this educational change. Scott surveyed the nature of the training school administrators were receiving in nego­ tiations . His survey utilized a sample of a number of key 53 Norman Lee McCumsey, "The Effect of Professional Negotiations on Secondary School Principal's Decision Making Functions" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967) . 54 Walter W. Scott, "A Study of Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective Negotia­ tions" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966). 50 professors of school administration at each of 1 1 midwestern universities and 98 school superintendents randomly selected from midwestern school districts which were in the process of teacher negotiations. Scott was interested in whether administrators were prepared to deal with professional nego­ tiations and whether universities offered programs to prepare them to deal with this educational change. He found no appropriate programs or agreement on what plan to utilize in teaching administrators the information and skills needed to face this task. The research related to principals and negotiations shows that principals should be better trained to meet this challenge, should be a part of the procedure of negotia­ tions, and need not fear it. In fact, the research tends to point up the fact that a new role is emerging for the building principal. Forrest Conner makes this statement about this emerging role in a recent monograph: . . . school administrators cannot afford to be in the untenable position of trying blindly to apply traditional concepts to the new and changing circumstances. School administrators must reassess, and when appropriate, reshape and redesign their leadership role, using all the intelligence, insight, and understanding which can be brought to b e a r . Many old established traditions and processes will no longer suffice . 5 5 55 Forrest E. Conner, Preface to School Administra­ tors View Professional Negotiations (Washington, D .C .: American Association of School Administrators, 1966). 51 This study is planned to reassess the traditional task performance of secondary school principals in the light of changing circumstances. Summary A review of the literature revealed no studies directly related to the problem under investigation. The studies that have any relation to the problem have been reported h e r e . It should be noted that no empirical investigation specifically concerned with the relationship between the administrative task performance of secondary school principals and professional negotiations have been conducted. This survey of recent related research into the principalship and professional negotiations prepares the foundation for this investigation. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY Introduction The literature reported in Chapter II provides a background for an investigation of the relationship between professional negotiations and the task performance of secondary school principals. The complexity of the task performance of the principals, due to the ever changing demands of our society, points up a need for an investiga­ tion of the present state of the task performance of secondary school principals. To better understand the present situation, the study shall also look at the pre­ negotiations period of principal task performance. In this chapter, the population of the study will be identified and the sample specified. The instrument will be specified in accordance with the design of the study proposed in Chapter I. The statistical hypotheses will then be stated, and the procedure of analysis will be followed by the summary of the chapter. 52 53 Sample This study is concerned with the impact of professional negotiations upon the task performance of a sample of secondary school principals of North Central Association accredited high schools with a student enroll­ ment of over 1,500 and organized on a 6-3-3 or a 8-4 pattern in Michigan and Indiana. The choice of these organizational patterns limits the population of this study to some extent. In Indiana there are 40 such schools,5** while in Michigan there are 34 North Central Association accredited high schools fitting these organizational patterns and size qualifications.57 The literature of school administration presents evidence to support the fact that schoolB are growing larger and more complex. This is why this study looks only at schools with an enrollment of 1,500 or more. Studies of these high schools by Conant, Trump, Baynham, and others, spend little time on organizational patterns. Their interest is in the fact that this organizational pattern and this level of enrollment tend to bring together in one 55John A. Stanavage, "Proceedings of the Commission on Secondary Schools," North Central Association Quarterly, Summer, 1969, pp. 64-197"! 5 7 Ibid., pp. 117-123. 54 place the resources needed to distinguish those high schools that are on the growing edge of secondary educa­ tion. In this setting, the principal is called upon to perforin those tasks that distinguish him as an administra­ tor and he feels the forces of social change to the fullest. The large city school systems of Detroit and Indianapolis were left out of this study sample because of the size of the districts, their background in negotiations with teachers, and the standardization of administrative responsibilities which tend to make them atypical. The sampling method chosen with the assistance of Office of Research Consultation is called disproportional stratified sampling. In disproportional stratified sampling, usually an equal number of cases are drawn from each stratum, regardless of how the stratum is represented in the total population. The major advantage of this method of sampling is the fact that all of the strata are equally reliable from the point of view of the size of the sample. When an equal number of cases are drawn from each stratum, comparisons of the different strata are facili­ tated . The Table 3-1 that follows points out the make up of the sample. 55 TABLE 3-1 SAMPLE SUMMARY Stratum Indiana I II Michigan III Number of Schools Sample Size 6-3-3 1 1 1 0 8-4 29 1 0 6-3-3 51 1 0 33 1 0 i IV Organizational Pattern GO State 124 Total 40 Each principal was interviewed, and a sample of this nature best lent itself to this technique of investi­ gation. All schools included in this study were members in good standing in the North Central Association of 58 College and Secondary Schools. This fact points up a minimum standard for the professional background of the principals, and establishes a minimum standard of staffing within the schools under investigation. The subjects for the study were drawn from a list of all principals of accredited high schools of this size in each state. The Indiana sample of 20 principals were chosen with an equal number coming from each strata. 58Ibid. The 56 Michigan sample was chosen in the same manner. The samples were drawn at random from the list of the selected popula59 tion. No principal was included in the study who did not have five or more years of administrative experience. This administrative experience would thus enable him to evaluate his task performance in the past. Principals not having experience were dropped from the sample and a new name was drawn from the list. This sample meets the requirements of efficiency, representativeness, reliability, and flexability. In Table 6-1, of Appendix G, an alphabetical list of the Michigan participants of the study are presented, the high schools they represent, their location, and the size of the school. The Indiana sample is presented in a like manner in Table G - 2 , Appendix G. The geographical location and distribution of the Michigan sample is indicated in Figure F-l and the Indiana sample is presented in Figure F-2 found in Appendix F. It should be noted that the numerals used on the maps corre­ spond to the order of the participants of the study found in Tables G-l and G-2 of Appendix G. 59 Ralph Thomlinson, Sociological Concepts and Research (New Y o r k : Random House, 1967), pp. 54-55. 57 The Instrument The instrument: used was constructed by Dr. Jack K. Mawdsley with the assistance of a consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University, permission. and is used in this study with his The instrument is based on a listing of administrative tasks taken from an inventory of administra­ tive tasks of school administrators by McCleary and Hencley. 61 The instrument was picked after a review of the literature disclosed that this instrument provided the most current and complete listing of the tasks principals per­ form. The instrument was reexamined and changed to fit the demands of this study through the aid of a consultant in the Office of Research Consultation. While the instrument still kept its original list of some 65 administrative tasks, the method of responding to each task was changed. The response to each task a dichotomous question. was set up in the form of The chief advantage of the dichot­ omy is its simplicity both from the point of view of ®®Jack K. Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1968), pp. 80-87. 61McCleary and Hencley, op. c i t . , pp. 86-91. 58 interviewing and of statistical manipulation. It takes relatively little time to ask, and gives a clear-out answer which can be easily recorded and tabulated. 62 The instrument looks at only gross changes in each of the six task performance categories and does not reflect the degree of change in each task performed by the princi­ pals in the study. The instrument was not intended to exam­ ine finite changes within each task performance category. The instrument was set up to serve as a pre-test, posttest instrument. The pre-test element calls for retro­ spection on the part of the interviewee. It is clearly understood in the posttest element of this instrument that facts pertaining to the current situation are relatively easy to collect and are likely to be comparatively reliable. In the case of retrospection, what people remember and are able to report depends upon the impression made by the experience itself and the condition under which it was recalled in the present . b 3 Taking this last fact into consideration it was felt that present task performance would be best linked to past performance by using a single instrument. 62 Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples {New Y o r k : Harper and Brothers, 19S6) , pp. 1S4-1SS. 63Ibid., p. 179. 59 Par-ten developed a list of ten factors important to recall. It was felt that the pre-test instrument met nine of the ten factors governing the recall of past task performance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . 7. 8 . 9. They are as follows: Primacy Frequency Duration Vividness Interest Meaningfulness Setting Set Mode 6 4 For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the principals interviewed were able to accurately recall basic task performance details that cover the past five years. Since in the performance of their day-to-day tasks, they meet nine of the ten conditions noted for high quality of recall. Since these principals must recall those tasks to perform them year after year and report details of them to the administrative level above them, their perception of past task performance can be considered to be as adequate and as accurate as possible. The pre-testing of task performance before the passage of professional negotiations legislation in Michigan would have been ideal; but that moment in time is passed, and any study of this nature of Michigan's Principals must count on retrospection and principals' perceptions. 64Ibid., pp. 179-180. 60 The first section of the instrument is intended to give a complete picture of the principal and his school. This section is based on six questions dealing with the principals personal-professional background and his feeling about his position. This information is gained by a simple question and answer approach. The items in this section obtained data dealing with variables which could be obtained from no other source. These questions sample experience, educational background, and career plans. The questions also ask for an expression of preference as to areas of task performance. The second section of the instrument is a listing of 65 items dealing with principal task performance. This list of tasks is organized in six major areas of adminis­ trative task performance and follows a previous inventory prepared by McCleary and Hencley in a report dealing with the types of administrative tasks performed by all of the members of the administration within a given school system. This inventory does not deal with the task performance of the principal alone, but points up the relationship of task performance of all administrators. The list which makes up the major divisions of the instrument are as follows: **5McCleary and Hencley, op. c i t . , pp. 86-91. 61 1. Finance and Business Management: 2. Instruction and Curriculum Development 3. Pupil Personnel 4. School Community Relations 5. School Plant and Services 6 . Staff Personnel The major administrative task divisions are sub­ divided into a number of specific tasks.This instrument, lists a total of 65 specific tasks most of which came from the original study by McCleary and Hencley r and only one was added in the Mawdsley study. Each interview was conducted with the use of a number of interview cue cards. The interview, after gain­ ing background information, moved on to the use of the printed cue c a r d s . There was a cue card for each of the major task areas covered in the interview. Each partici­ pant in the investigation was presented eight cue car d s. They were numbered to correspond with numbered major sections of the "Interview Guide." Each cue card repre­ sented a major task area, and it was further divided into specific lists of tasks. These tasks denoted the tasks performed by principals as they carried out their official responsibilities. A partial listing of the tasks used on the interview is given below as an example. 62 STAFF PERSONNEL < 1. Selection of professional staff members 2. Induction of professional staff members 3. Scheduling of professional staff members 4. Supervision of professional staff members 5. Evaluation of professional staff members Each interviewee was asked to react to each task in the following manner. 1 — I perform this task 0--I do not perform this task The respondent was asked to respond to each task over a time or| recall b a s i s . The interviewee was asked if he presently performs this task; and then, if he performed such a task five years ago. It was felt that linking present performance with past performance would give accuracy of response. For ari examination of the "Interview Guide," Principals Interview C a r d s , Guide to the Terms of the G u ide, and the Outline of the Sample Interview which present a complete picture of the instrument and its use, the reader is referred to Appendices B, C, D, and E. The Interview The interview was selected as the most appropriate research technique for collecting the necessary data for this study for a number of reasons. They are as follows: 63 1. The -total population in the study was small enough and their geographical distribution was such that visitation was not prohibitive. 2. The interview technique of gathering data was much more personal. 3. The personal contact of this technique produces a higher percentage of data returns than does the questionnaire method. 4. The interviewee was forced by this technique to concentrate on the questions being asked; thus, could not glance ahead as was possible in a questionnaire approach. This tends to establish continuity for the investigation. 5. The meaning of words or questions which are a problem with questionnaires tends to be virtually eliminated by the use of the interview. 6 . The interview method facilitates the flow of con­ crete and precise data with no recording errors. 7. The interview technique allows for an adjustment in the speed of presentation of questions to better fit each interviewing situation. 8 . The interview technique allows for a more complete introduction and explanation of the study and what the investigator is attempting to do.®® ®®Maccoby and Maccoby, op. c i t ., pp. 449-484. 64 The interview was used as a standardized interview. This means that the questions were decided upon in advance of the interview, and were asked with the same wording and in the same order for all interviewees. The arguments advanced in support of this technique are summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. They incorporate a basic principal of measure­ ment: that of making information comparable from case to case. They are more reliable. g 7 They minimize error in question wording. The approach was taken in reaction to a warning by Travers, who states, "The interview must be considered as a complex social situation in which the interviewer and the interviewee are making continual adjustments to the responses of the other." 68 To deal with this problem, the interview was standardized and the questions made dichotomous needing only a limited response. The introduction was the only dialogue held during the conferences. In the event of a question about the questions asked, the comments were recorded and standard answers were given from a standard guide to the task listed. The extemporaneous statements made by the interviewees were also recorded for inclusion in the summary of the study. 6 7 68 Ibid., p. 451. Robert M. W. Travers, An Introduction to Educa­ tional Research (New York: MacMillan Company, 1964), p. 240.-------- 65 The Interview Schedule The procedure for developing the interview schedule was very basic. Each participant was contacted by phone, at which time the purpose of the study was ex­ plained, and tentative interview date was established. The tentative interview date was followed in 95 per cent of the interviews. scheduling of the interview. Two cases called for a re­ One was based on a time conflict; and the other, the principal, was so busy at the time that he had to establish another d a t e . The interview schedule is presented in Table 3-2 for Michigan principals and in Table 3-3 for Indiana principal interviews. It was found that while the principals, interviewed were very busy; nevertheless, they were willing to talk about the state of their profession and the demands the position places upon them. views. Five weeks were required to complete the 40 inter­ The interviews ranged in length from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes in length. The average interview lasted 50 minutes. Trial Interviews Two trial interviews were held in order that the instrument might be tested before being used to collect data. Robert Marion, Principal of Highland Park High School in Highland Park, Michigan, who fell below the \ 66 TABLE 3-2 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS WITH MICHIGAN PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY Month Week Interview Location (Name of High School) November 3-7 November 10-14 Ferndale High School Grosse Pointe High School St. Clair Shores Lakeview High School Mt. Clemens High School Roseville High School November 17-21 Trenton High School Belleville High School Southfield High School Berkley High School Warren High School Royal Oak Dondero High School Grand Rapids Creston High School Grand Rapids Central High School Jackson Senior High School Battle Creek Lakeview High School Muskegon Mona Shores High School Owosso High School Saginaw Arthur Hill High School Muskegon High School Birmingham Ernest W. Seaholm High School 67 TABLE 3-3 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS WITH INDIANA PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY Month Interview Location (Name o£ High School) Week November 13 Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Wayne Wayne Wayne Wayne R. Nelson Snider High School South Side High School North Side High School Elmhurst High School November 19-21 Huntington High School Marion High School Kokomo High School Gary Horace Mann High School La Porte High School Michigan City Elston High School South Bend John Adams High School Elkhart High School Mishawaka High School November 24-26 Anderson High School Bloomington High School Evansville Bosse High School Evansville Central High School Evansville Harrison High School Evansville North High School Evansville Reitz High School 68 experience level being included in the study, was one of those interviewed and the other was Richard Lyden, Princi­ pal of Wylie E. Groves High School in Birmingham, Michigan. These principals were chosen because they reflected the proper school size and at the same time were principals of high schools that were organized on two different pattern, 8-4 and 6-3-3 organizational patterns. One principal was new to the profession, and the other reflected experience both as a principal and assistant principal. Both interviews were productive and aided the interviewer in improvement of presentation and timing. The principals interviewed felt that the task list was very complete. Both felt that it should be noted that the delegation of tasks still left the responsibility and co­ ordination of the administrative task with the principal. They felt that the study should be looking for a change in relationship of the principal to the task. If he delegated the task before and still followed this manner of dealing with the task, there would be no change in task performance. This point of clarification was made in the interviews that followed. Both principals felt that responsibility for the task called for task performance. In addition, the trial interviews indicated that it was more effective to permit the principals to describe in detail, without interruptions, the process used to perform general task areas before 69 asking him to react to his specific role in their performance, and if it had changed in his school. The Design of the Study Pre and post measures were taken to gain knowledge of the effect of professional negotiations on the task performance of high school principals. This was done through the use of the instrument described in this chapter. The purpose of these measures were to portray the current status of principal task performance and to identify changes in principal task performance which might be attributed to the passage of a state professional negotiations statute. represents the study sample drawn from Michigan Secondary School Principals administering schools of over 1,500 student enrollment and G 2 refers to the study sample drawn from Indiana Secondary School Principals that admin­ ister schools of over 1,500 student enrollment. In this study, Michigan, represents the state with a professional negotiation statute, and Indiana, represents the state that does not have a state professional negotiations statute covering teachers. and N 2 indicate the study sample and refer to the 6-3-3 pattern of school organization and the 8-4 pattern of organization respectively. 70 and S^ q indicate subjects in the sample, through Cg indicate categories of principal task per­ formance under examination. The following diagramatic representation reflects the nature of the data gathered. Categories Organiza­ tion Subject State C Ni rj Gi 1 C 2 C3 C4 C5 C 6 si N 2 ■ • • N 1 • • • N 2 Cl 2 S 40 Figure 3-1. Study Design Analysis of variance of gain scores was used within a repeated measures desrgn to test for the significance of gain affects and interactions. interest in this study: Two main effects were of the state in which the principal' was employed and the organizational pattern used in his school district. interest: Three interaction effects were also of the interaction between state and organization pattern, the interaction between categories of response and 71 the state in which the principal was employed, and the interaction between task performance categories of response and the organizational pattern of the principals' school district. Two different indices of change were used as data in this study. First a gross index of change which ignored the direction of the change was computed by squaring the difference between pre-test and posttest response and summing these squared differences over categories. Then a second index was obtained by summing the simple pre-test and posttest differences over categories to produce an index which reflected the direction of change. The first of these two indices of change, referred to throughout the study as nondirectional change, reported the addition or loss of tasks performed by high school principals over the five year period under study. This addition or loss of tasks was reported as a change in the operational pattern of principals (e.g., if the principal no longer directs the adult education program for his school and he did five years ago, this would be squared and reported as a change in task performance or as 1 , giving no direction for the change in task performance). The second index of change, referred to throughout the study as directional, reported principal task perfor­ mance change noting the addition or loss of tasks performed 72 by principals over the five year period and pointed out their direction (e.g., if the principal no longer directs the adult education program for his school and he did five years ago, this would be reported as a loss of task performance and would be recorded as a directional change showing a loss of task performance or a - 1 ). The data was examined from two positions; one looked at gross task performance change and the other looked at gain or loss of task performance. A separate analysis of variance was done for each of these sets of data. Statistical Hypotheses The following hypotheses were formulated for test­ ing purposes in accordance with the previously stated operational design: Hq :1 There will be no significant difference between the Michigan and Indiana high school principals when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. There will be significant difference between the Michigan and Indiana high school principals when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. 73 Hq :2 There will be no significant difference between principals in schools organized on the 6-3-3 pattern and those organized on the 8-4 pattern when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. H2 There will be significant difference between principals in schools organized on the 6-3-3 pattern and those organized on the 8-4 pattern when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. Hq :3 There will be no significant interaction between state H3 There will be a significant interaction between state Hq :4 and school organizational pattern. and school organizational pattern. There will be no significant interaction between state and task performance categories. H4 There will be a significant interaction between state and task performance categories. Hq :5 There will be no significant interaction between organizational pattern and task performance categories. H5 There will be a significant interaction between organizational pattern and task performance categories. 74 This study, while limiting additional hypotheses to those based on task performance, points up the need for the investigation of the following questions: Ql. What was the origin of the contract design used by teachers in those states presently having negotia­ tion laws and in what manner was it developed? Q2. Do secondary school administrators find more or less job satisfaction under professional negotia­ tions? Q3• What tasks have become the most important for secondary school administrators? Statistical Treatment of the Data Each "Interview Guide," on which the interview responses were recorded were checked for completeness and the raw data was summarized. The data was examined for non-directional and directional changes of task performance. A mean task performance score was computed for each group of principals in the study and a task performance score was computed for each of the six major areas of task perfor­ mance . All responses were coded on the required Data Coding Form and submitted to the Computer Laboratory for transfer to IBM Cards and verification. 75 The analysis of variance is the appropriate technique to test the null hypotheses. This technique tests for differences among a number of means according to different treatments. The statistical method used in this study is an F ratio which was then checked for significance at the .05 level. The statistical treatment of the data in the study was conducted through the use of the facilities of the Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University. The data was processed through the use of Control Data Corporation (CDC) 3600 Computer, which is a large scale electronic computer used in this type of statistical analysis. program for the study of variance was used. A The data was treated through the assistance of Mr. F. R. Wilson, a consultant, in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. Summary This chapter describes the population and sample for the study, the instrument selected, and presents its uses. The design of the study was developed, the statisti­ cal hypotheses were stated, and the analysis process for testing them was presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS The findings of -this investigation focus on the past and present state of principal task performance in public high schools having an enrollment of over 1,500 students. The primary data consists of the pre-test and posttest scores of 40 public high school principals, 20 in Michigan and 20 in Indiana. The difference between pre­ test and posttest results were reflected as gain scores. Analysis of variance of gain scores was used within a repeated measures design to test the significance of gain effects and interactions. interest in this study: Two main effects were of the state in which the principal was employed and the organizational pattern used in his school district. Three interaction effects were also of interest in the investigation: the interaction between state and organizational patterns, the interaction between task performance category responses and the state in which the principal was employed, and the interaction between task performance category responses and the organizational patterns used in the principal's school district. 76 77 Two different: indices of change were used as data for this study. The first was a gross index of change which ignored the direction of the task performance change taking place. This was obtained by squaring the difference between pre-test and posttest response, and summing these squared differences over task performance categories. This index of change looks at difference in task performance regardless of direction, and is reported as nondirectional change. A second index was obtained by summing the simple pre-test and posttest differences over task performance categories to produce an index which reflects the direction of change. This change looks at the direction of change and reports the gain or loss of task performance from pre­ test to posttest for each task performance category, which is reported as directional change. A separate analysis of variance was done for each of these sets of data, and each was tested for statistical significance. This was attained when the .05 level had been satisfied. The statistical analysis of all data for this study were done at the Computer Center at Michigan State Univer­ sity. The data were processed through the use of Control Data Corporation (CDC) 3 600 Computer. The program for the analysis of variance was prepared by the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University. 78 The analysis of -the findings of this study presented in this chapter is divided into four parts and is reported in the following fashion: 1. Part I contains a report of the general findings of the study. A personal and professional descrip­ tion of the sample is presented by states. 2. Part II presents the hypotheses, as advanced by the study, each is stated individually with statistical test results of its being tested and the rationale for the acception or rejection of each hypotheses. 3. Part III contains the additional questions which have been raised as a result of discussion and reading the related literature in this field. 4. Part IV deals with concomitant findings of the investigation and the extemporaneous responses of the principals to several of the questions asked during the interview sessions. PART I General Findings In this section of the study, the writer presents a description of the principals included in the study. Data were collected on the principal's age, former teaching areas, graduate training, experience, time spent in his 79 present position, and the principal's ultimate professional goals. These elements of the study were examined by state because of the study's interest in the reaction of princi­ pals in a state having no professional negotiations statute in relation to those of principals in a state that has such a statute. No attempt was made to identify organizational patterns in relation to principal responses. The Principal A description of the high school administrator studied in this investigation presented the following picture. The average high school principal was a man of 51 years of age with over 10 years of experience his present position and with over 15 perience as a principal. (10.4) in (15.5) years of ex­ He was the chief administrator of a building of over 2,000 enrollment (2,063) . This composite principal was more likely than not, a former social studies or mathematics teacher having a master's degree plus 30 additional hours of graduate work; and, in all probability, has taken the greater part of his graduate work in the field of educational administration. working in the area of pupil personnel He enjoys (32.5%) or in the area of instruction and curriculum development (30%). The area of task performance that he shows least interest in was finance and business management (55%). 80 In Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the biographical characteristics of the administrators taking part in this study are presented. All of the principals were m a l e . The mean age of Michigan principals was 54.1 years of age while the mean age of the Indiana sample was 48 years of age. The amount of time each had spent in his present position shows a mean of 15 years for Michigan principals and 5.7 years for those in Indiana. The amount of experience reported shows 20.8 years as the mean for Michigan principals and 10.2 years for the Indiana principals. Seventy-five per cent of the principals in the Michigan sample were over 50 years of age, while only 30 per cent were in this age group in Indiana. In terms of experience in the present position, Indiana principals reported 90 per cent having less than 10 years in their present position, while Michigan principals reported that 30 per cent have less than 10 years in their present position. Fifty per cent of the Michigan principals reported experience as a principal of over 20 years while only 5 per cent reported this much experience in Indiana. The professional training and educational background of the sample points out that 50 per cent of each group of principals had 30 hours beyond the m a s t e r 's degree. 81 TABLE 4-1 BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OP THE PARTICIPATING MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THIS STUDY Male Female Sex 20 0 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Age 0 Total number of years as a principal Educational level of principals 0 11 5 4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 or over 2 2 6 1 1 8 P h .D . or Bachelor M. A. M.A. M.A. Ed. Degree -30 -60 S pec. Ed.D. 0 2 10 6 2 0 82 TABLE 4-2 BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICIPATING INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THIS STUDY Male Female Sex 0 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 Age 1 0 Total number of years In present position Total number of years as a principal Educational level of principals 4 13 2 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 or over 1 18 0 1 0 0 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30 or over 4 12 1 3 0 0 Bachelor M.A. M.A. M.A. Ed. P h .D . or Degree -30 +60 S p e c . Ed.D. 0 3 10 5 1 1 83 The classroom -teaching experience of all the principals studied fell In six distinct teaching areas; the largest group of all principals were former social studies teachers (37.5%). In Michigan, 54 per cent taught social studies, while In Indiana only 30 per cent taught this sub­ ject. The various subject matter areas and the percentages of principals who performed most of their teaching In these areas are listed in Table 4-3. It is interesting to note that three subject matter areas (social studies, mathe­ matics, and physical education) account for 95 per cent of the teaching areas of Indiana principals while they account for only 55 per cent of Michigan principals in the study. TABLE 4-3 AREAS IN WHICH PRINCIPALS DID MOST OF THEIR CLASSROOM TEACHING Percentage of Principals by State Former Teaching Area Indiana Michigan Social Studies 30 45 Mathematics 40 5 Physical Education 25 5 Science 0 25 English 5 10 Music 0 10 84 The area of graduate preparation of the high school principals interviewed was found to be in the field of educational administration. Seventy-five per cent of the principals in the Michigan sample report this fact and 95 per cent in the Indiana sample. Only four different areas of graduate preparation were represented. Social studies was the next most popular area. The professional goals of the total sample indicated that 53 per cent of the principals interviewed intended to remain in the high school principalship until their retire­ ment. It should be noted that only one of the entire sample of the study expressed an interest in becoming a superintendent of schools in the future. A complete list­ ing of choice categories is presented in Table 4-4 for the ultimate professional goals of the principals and the per­ centage desiring each category by state. The sample being used in this investigation was asked to respond to the six major areas of administrative concern by reporting the area they liked to work in most and the area they least preferred to work in. It was found that the Michigan sample enjoyed working in the area of pupil personnel (45%); and, second was instruction and curriculum development (35%). The response of the Indiana sample points out that these principals like to work in the area of staff personnel (45%); and, second was instruction 85 TABLE 4-4 ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL GOALS OF PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE AND THE PERCENTAGE DESIRING EACH BY STATE Percentage of Principals Desiring Each by State Ultimate Professional Goals Indiana Michigan High School Principalship 55 50 Assistant Superintendency 35 10 Educational Administration Professorship 10 10 Other Related Positions 0 20 Higher Education Administration 0 5 Superintendency 0 5 and curriculum development (25%). The Michigan sample reports only a 20 per cent interest in working with staff personnel. These findings are presented in Table 4-5. In the findings, the areas of least preference were finance and business management services (55%) and school plant and (35%) for the total sample. When we look at these findings by states, Michigan reports finance and business management (60%) and school plant and services (35%). The Indiana sample reports finance and business management (50%) and school plant and services (35%). The complete listing of areas of least preference are reported in Table 4-6. 86 TABLE 4-5 ADMINISTRATIVE TASK PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE MOST ENJOYED WORKING IN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PREFERENCE BY STATE Percentage of Principals Preferring Each by State Administrative Task Categories Indianal Michigan 5 25 20 5 0 45 Finance and Business Management Instruction and Curriculum Pupil Personnel School Community Relations School Plant and Services Staff Personnel 0 35 45 0 0 20 TABLE 4- 6 ADMINISTRATIVE TASK PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES PRINCIPALS IN THE SAMPLE LEAST PREFERRED WORKING IN AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PREFERENCE BY STATE Percentage of Principals Least Preferring Each by State Administrative Task Categories Finance and Business Management instruction and Curriculum Pupil Personnel School Community Relations School Plant and Services Staff Personnel Indiana Michigan 50 5 0 10 35 0 60 0 0 5 35 0 87 PART II Hypotheses This section of the findings presents each of the hypothesis, the result of its statistical analysis, and that rationale for a decision to reject or accept each. The tables will also present a summary of the data to make for a more meaningful interpretation of the findings. H :1 There will be no significant difference between the Michigan and the Indiana high school princi­ pals when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. In testing the first hypothesis, the data showed that the analysis of variance of directional change yields an F ratio of 3.91 and F' was set at 4.17? however, the analysis of variance of nondirectional change yields an F ratio of 11.15 and F* was set at 4.17 for the .05 level. These data support the hypothesis on the dimension of directional change and the analysis points up no signifi­ cant statistical difference between the two groups by state. The directional nature of these task performance changes between the two groups of principals can be found in Tables 4-8, 4-11, and 4-12. The hypothesis was rejected when investigated from a nondirectional change position for P < .05. This hypothesis shows in nondirectional change a support for the position that change has taken place, but it cannot be 88 attributed to any event that took place in the five year period under study. The testing of mean scores in this dimension is pointed out in Tables 4-7, 4-9, and 4-10. H :2 There will be no significant difference between principals in schools organized on the 6-3-3 pattern and those organized on the 8-4 pattern when group mean scores for administrative task performance categories are compared. Hypothesis 2 was concerned with differences between organizational patterns and task performance change. The analysis of variance of directional change yields an F ratio of 3.13 and for nondirectional change an F ratio of 1.91. The hypothesis, when tested on a directional and nondirectional dimension with F' at 4.17, failed to yield any significant statistical difference and was accepted. Tables 4-7 and 4-8 present a column on the far right that indicates acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. It is fully understood that this means no proof of equality in the case of failure to reject the null hypothesis. Hq :3 There will be no significant interaction between state and school organizational pattern. Hypothesis 3 deals with interaction between the principal's state of residence and school organizational patterns. When tested by an analysis of variance the data yielded the following results: the F ratio for directional change was 3.13 and for nondirectional change an F ratio of 2.39. TABLE 4-7 A SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NONDIRECTIONAL CHANGE SCORES FOR TASK PERFORMANCE OF MICHIGAN AND INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS R Ratio Result < Testin< 28.016667 11.157080 P < .05 1 4.816667 1.918141 31.683 5 6.336667 6.887681 State-Organization 6.017 1 6.016667 2.396017 NSD State-Measures 8.183 5 1.636667 1.778985 NSD Organization-Measures 2.483 5 .496667 .539855 NSD State-OrganizationMeasures 2.383 5 .476667 .318116 NSD 90.400 36 2.511111 165.600 180 .920000 Source of Variation State Organization Measures Subject: StateOrganization Subject-Measures: State-Organization Sum of Squares df Mean Square 28.017 1 4.817 NSD P < .05 The testing of the data was based on F being set at 4.17 to reach the .05 per cent level of significance. TABLE 4-8 A SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF DIRECTIONAL CHANGE SCORES FOR TASK PERFORMANCE OF MICHIGAN AND INDIANA HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Source of Variation Result < Testis Sum of Squares df Mean Scores State 6.017 1 6.016667 3.914458 NSD Organization 4.817 1 4.816667 3.133735 NSD 19.283 5 3.856667 6.459678 State-Organization 4.817 1 4.816667 3.133735 NSD State-Measures 4.983 5 .996667 1.669355 NSD Organization-Measures 5.483 5 1.096667 1.836849 NSD State-OrganizationMeasures 5.783 5 1.156667 1.937345 NSD 55.333 36 1.537037 107.467 180 .597037 Measures Subject: StateOrganization Subject-Measures: State-Organization F Ratio P < .05 The testing of the data was based on F being set at 4.17 to reach the .05 per cent level of significance. TABLE 4-9 A SUMMARY OF NONDIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN Task Performance Categories Nondirectional Data State Organization •P C! 0) £i 0) tn (Cl C (0 c s Id 0) a) oi 0 tt> c c: (0 *H C 01 •H 3 >1 -P -H G g C (0 G o s *H 9 4 )H o 3 3 0 H-H ■P u o) U G 3 H u rl a) G c H 0 -H 01 3 a) Pi Pi g 0 0) u c 0 iH *H 0 -P 0 10 AH o a) CO tf Q*U ■P 0) c 0 (0 0 I-I *r| Pi > U H a) G H Q) 0 CO 0 j3 >d 0 g CO 10 M-l 0 m-i a (0 u ■P 01 CO Pi Sub Total g 6-3-3 .500 1.600 1.000 .800 .500 2.200 1.100 8-4 .000 .500 .000 .800 .200 1.500 .500 6-3-3 .000 .100 .100 .000 .000 .400 .100 8-4 .000 .100 .000 .000 .000 .700 .133 Total .125 .575 .275 .400 .175 1.200 .458 Michigan Total .800 Indiana .116 .458 TABLE 4-10 A SUMMARY OF NONDIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE Task Performance Categories 43 g 9 B 9 tn at a •0 id Nondirectional Data State gS id (0 Q) to O ID g g id *h G to •H 3 fc 0 ■P V •H g id g C_ 0 B •H 3 +3 H 0 3 3 0 M-rl 43 H to P G 3 H U H 9 g 43 to € 6 0 tt u c 0 c iH *H •H n O 43 o id H 0 CUP 3 0 0< PU J3H 0 0 to pj G 9 id o rH -H cu > VI H Q) O 01 r) 9 G G mo 0 m to id p 43 a) to m 01 ft £ *0 o a VO IO Total Michigan .225 1.050 .500 .800 .350 1.850 .800 Indiana .000 .100 .050 .000 .000 .550 .116 .125 .575 .275 .400 .175 1.200 .458 Total TABLE 4-11 A SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONAL MEANS FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERN Task Performance Categories ■P « at Is (1) » fd ft •o g ft S3 1 ■P •H ft ft g g 0 o U ft 0 rl r| 0 -P o id -P 09 ft 0 id o r-l-H O. > 0 0) CO P5 o 0 CO 0 A *0 0 ft c o id •H a) ft ft 0 09 Id P -P a) co a Sub Total -.400 -.200 -.500 -.200 -.533 -.300 .000 -.600 -.200 1.300 .033 .000 .100 -.100 .000 .000 .400 .067 .000 -.100 .000 .000 .000 .500 .067 -.125 -.425 -.125 -.200 -.175 .500 -.183 u h Michigan Total -.250 Indiana .067 Total -.183 TABLE 4-12 A SUMMARY OF DIRECTIONAL MEANS' FOR TASK PERFORMANCE MEASURES BY STATE Task Perform ance C a te g o rie s ■p d a> 6 0) O' id d V id dS id Directional Data State Michigan Indiana Total to i -H d tJ d at d 0 6 •H 3 ■P «H I) 3 3 0 d-H ■P iH Q) d d id*H d a •H 3 fa ffl -p p 0) p G 3 H U H 0 f t 00 & P 3 0) fa fa -.250 -.850 -.200 .000 .000 -.125 -.425 3 -P 00 u d On iH iH fa > o id H d) o to O 43 *0 O H *H O -P 43H O 80 15 5 School Community Relations 15 5 5 0 School Plant and Services 0 0 10 0 25 10 5 25 Staff Personnel PART IV Concomitant Findings This section of the findings includes responses recorded during the course of the 40 interviews. The Principal as the Instructional Leader During the course of the principal interviews, the principal was asked the following questions: 101 Do you feel -that -the principal is looked to by the staff as the instructional leader of the building? Was he five years ago? The reaction of Michigan principals to this was that 100 per cent felt that they were looked to as the leader 5 years ago. Today only 65 per cent feel they are viewed by their staff as the instructional leader of the building. The response of Indiana high school principals to this question was that 5 years ago 95 per cent felt that they held a position of leadership with their staff while only 60 per cent feel they are viewed in this manner today. Table 4-12 reported a greater loss over task per­ formance categories for Michigan high school principals than for Indiana high school principals. These reported losses over task performance categories tend to be re­ flected in the principal's feeling of job satisfaction and leadership. The following responses were recorded during the interviews dealing with this question: — "The position of the principal in the area of instruction has not been the victim of professional negotiations but of subject matter specialization." — "The principal may be looked to as the instruc­ tional leader but only in a formal manner— teachers ' committees and central office subject matter specialists have changed that fact." 102 — "The formal contract with teachers has established when I can call meetings and how long they will be. I find it hard to get teachers together to talk about instructional improvement•" — "The high quality of teachers and the level of their specialization is a great challenge to the principal's role as an instructional leader." — "More pressing administrative problems seem to get in the way of my instructional interests." Current Trends The interview guide investigated a question that proved to be one that all of the principals interviewed were happy to talk about at length. This question was: What major force in contemporary society has had the greatest impact on the task performance of high school principals? Teacher militancy and professional negotiations was the response of 50 per cent of the Michigan principals interviewed, while only 2 0 per cent of the Indiana princi­ pals felt this was a major force in the performance of their administrative tasks. Eighty per cent of the Indiana principals felt social revolution was the major force in determining the nature of the principals' position. Only 4 0 per cent of the Michigan sample identified this issue as a major force. 103 Student unrest was not mentioned by the Indiana sample, perhaps feeling It was a part of the social revolu­ tion Issue. Ten per cent of the Michigan principals inter­ viewed felt it was important enough to identify as a separate force acting upon the task performance of principals. In general , principals expressed real concern over social revolution and the use of the school and students to further the interests of special groups. A feeling seems to exist among principals that education is becoming secondary and social issues primary. Some of the responses which represent this feeling are reported below: — "I never know when someone will come in off the street and lead the students out of the building." — "The special instruction students receive in the community often keeps students from receiving instruction in school." — "Social issues have become our major interest in the humanities and written expression or facts are of secondary importance." — "These are challenging times and we must meet the challenge with new ideas, but we must not forget where w e 've b e e n ." The concerns expressed by those who viewed student unrest as a force that influenced their task performance 104 presents no consistent pattern in the viewpoints expressed by those interviewed. tion of student unrest. There seemed to be no common defini­ Schools just seem to be in differ­ ent stages of development of a social sensitivity. What would be noted as student unrest in one school, would pass without notice in another. Principals' opinions on the issue of teacher militancy seems to depend on the nature of their contact with teacher negotiations. In the Michigan sample where 50 per cent saw this as a force in shaping task performance, administrators' opinions were evenly divided, as represented by the comments below: — "Your study should not be on task performance, but on the power relationship of the principal as he performs his administrative tasks." — "Principals haven't lost a thing through profes­ sional negotiations; we now know where we stand." — "It seems to me that there has been no clear effect either way— some are happy with the situa­ tion and others are n o t ." — "We are no longer teachers; we are management, and it is time we acted like it.” — "I'm not doing anything that I didn't do before the law was passed— but I must be more considerate of others.” 105 — "It isn't what I want now— it's what we want." — "A teachers' contract is a good thing for now everyone knows the rules of the game, not just me." Summary Five null hypotheses were tested and reported on in this chapter. One of these hypotheses measured the relationship of the principal's task performance when a nonprofessional negotiations state was compared with a professional negotiations state. of a directional nature was found. No significant difference The second focused on the relationship of principal task performance when com­ pared by organizational patterns. The data yielded no significant difference in task performance based on organi­ zational patterns. The last three hypotheses were con­ cerned with interaction between state, organizational patterns, and task performance categories. None of the null hypotheses dealing with interaction were rejected. The F test established no significant difference over the pre-test and posttest scores. This is the conclusion of the analysis of the data collected during the investigation of the relationship of professional negotiations to task performance change of administrative tasks performed by high school principals in Michigan. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction In this chapter, the central concepts and components of the study are extracted from the proceding chapters. A summary of the design of the study, the findings, and the data upon which these findings are based is presented. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations of the study are stated. Summary This investigation was designed to assess the relationship between professional negotiations and the principal's task performance. A second main effect was the relationship of school organizational patterns to the task performance of principals. were also of interest: Three interaction effects the interaction between state and organization pattern, the interaction between task per­ formance categories and the state in which the principal was employed, and the interaction between task performance 106 107 categories and the organizational pattern of the principal's school district. A total of 40 experienced principals participated in the study. The instrument used was constructed and revised to fit the needs of this study. This instrument delineates six major areas of administrative task performance. Each principal in the sample was asked in the course of an interview to respond to the tasks listed in these six areas. Responses were made on a pre-test and posttest basis. Each principal was asked to recall his task p e r­ formance at present, and his performance of these same tasks five years ago. used as data. Two different indices of change were The first, a gross index of change between test scores; and the second, was an index of change which reflected the direction of change of task performance between pre-test and posttest. A separate analysis of variance was done for each of these sets of change data. The analysis of variance, biographical information, and related principal task performance questions provided the data for the findings of this study. Findings This study of the relationship of administrative task performance to professional negotiations was made because of a concern oftentimes expressed recently by a 108 number of the authorities in the field of high school administration about the changing role of the high school principal. This concern, which has often found its way into a number of professional publications, has to do with the changing position of the principal in the administra­ tive family. The literature reports him as isolated, limited in the performance of his traditional tasks, and unwanted by the people with whom he works daily. The investigator in this study knew that to investigate all of these statements would be impossible. The changing role of the high school principal, as is frequently mentioned in professional literature, seems to deal with everything but his daily tasks. This study attempted to find out if the administrative task performance of high school princi­ pals in Michigan has changed over the five year period in which compulsory professional negotiations have been in effect by statute in Michigan. To do this, another state having no such statute was investigated to find out the effect of the past five years on the administrative task performance of high school principals. Indiana was chosen since no law of this nature was in effect in this state. It should be noted: that the findings, conclusions, and implications brought forth have reference only to the participants and schools included in this study, and no conclusions are meant to apply to principals or schools not mentioned in this investigation. 109 Simplified Listing of the Major Findings I. Descriptive findings: A. The mean age of the principals in the study was 51 years. The mean age in Michigan was 54.1 years and Indiana 48 years. B. The mean number of years in their present posi­ tion was 10.4 years for the total study. The mean for Michigan high school principals was 15 years and 5.7 for those in Indiana. C. The mean number of years experience as a princi­ pal for the total group was 15.5 years. The mean for experience as a principal was 20.8 years for the Michigan sample and 10.2 years for the Indiana sample. D. The largest percentage of the total group of principals had their teaching experience in the field of social studies: 37.5 per cent. Michigan principals who taught social studies made up 54 per cent of their sample and Indiana principals 30 per cent of theirs. E. The educational level of most high school principals (87.7%) is above the masters degree plus 30 additional hours of graduate work. 110 F. The field of educational administration has been the area of graduate preparation for most (84%) high school principals. G. Most (53%) of the principals felt that the high school principalship was their ultimate profes­ sional g o a l . H. The principals (32.5%) in the study were most interested in working in the area of pupil personnel or in instruction and curriculum development II. (30%) . The findings related to the effect of a professional negotiations statute upon the task performance of principals as obtained by the investigative instru­ ment. A. The state in which the principal was employed, meaning one having a professional negotiations statute and one not having such a law, is not related to the task performance change over the past five years if one is looking at change as being of a directional nature. Change, when viewed from a nondirectional position, rejects this position pointing up a greater amount of task performance change taking place in Michigan than in Indiana according to the task performance gain scores reported in Tables 4-7 and 4-8. Ill B. The organizational pattern of the school district in which the principal is employed is not related to his task performance. C. No significant interaction was found between state of employment and school organizational patterns. D. No significant interaction was found between state of employment and task performance categories. E. No significant interaction was found between school organizational patterns and task per­ formance categories. These findings suggest that the negotiations and nonnegotiations state in which the principal is employed has no relation to principal task performance. III. Findings dealing with additional questions. A. Most principals Indiana) (55% in Michigan and 60% in see the state teachers' organization as the source of guidelines for teachers1 contracts with local issues as a matter of primary concern. B. Principals report a high level of job centered dissatisfaction (Michigan 65% and 55% in Indiana). 112 C. There has been a change In time spent working in certain task performance categories over the past five years. Principals in Michigan report a shift from working in instruction and curricu­ lum (70% of their time) to pupil personnel (80%) . During this same period, Indiana high school principals report a shift also from instruction and curriculum (65%) to the area of pupil personnel IV. (55%). Concomitant findings dealing with principal task performance. A. Most (100%) Michigan principals felt they were looked to as the instructional leader of their building five years ago. feel they are. Today only 65 per cent In Indiana, 95 per cent felt they were viewed in this manner, and only 60 per cent feel they are today. B. Most (80%) Indiana principals felt that social revolution in our nation is the major force acting on their task performance today. high school principals Michigan (50%) felt that teacher militance and professional negotiations is the major force. 113 Conclusions There are few people who would disagree with -the position that the job of the principal has changed as a result of professional negotiations; however, under analysis this change is complex and difficult to assess. This study has looked for change in the day to day tasks performed by the high school principal, and no other dimension of the high school principal's position. Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions have been reached: 1. Change has taken place in the task performance of Michigan and Indiana high school principals over the past five years. 2. These task performance changes have been greater in Michigan than those found in Indiana, a state not having compulsory professional negotiations. 3. These changes of task performance cannot be directly attributed to the passage of a profes­ sional negotiation statute. 4. The organizational patterns of high no relation schools have to the task performance of principals. Discussion The subject complex nature. It under investigation was one of a very was difficult to find a definitive 114 listing of the tasks performed by high school principals. The Interrelations found In task performance tended to make the task performance of high school principals overlap those of the superintendent and other members of the central office staff. When does one perform a task? performance rests on this question. The question of task The amount of the task performed by the principal and the responsibility of the principal for the performance of a given task presents a problem because of a lack of definition of task performance. When principals were asked the question they tended to be unclear and offered different definitions. Principals Interviewed tended to confuse the administrative process and administrative task performance in the frame of reference of their role preception as a secondary principal. The instrument used in the investigation attempted to measure task performance from a yes or no position and does not leave room for the consideration of the foregoing problems. The measurement of the addition or loss of tasks does not measure the feelings or preceptions of the princi­ pal about the addition or loss of these administrative tasks. Most of the data gathered in the concomitant findings reflect this state of affairs. Principals, when 115 questioned about the gain or loss of tasks, report one thing, and when questioned about their feelings about the impact of professional negotiations upon their r o l e , report something else. The empirical data found in this study reported change in the task performance of high school principals of a nondirectional nature. There was also change of a directional nature that pointed up the loss of tasks by Michigan high school principals but not enough to be statistically significant. This amount of change may have been enough to generate the preceptions that the data for the concomitant findings reported in the study by Michigan principals. How much change is needed for principals to react to the source of the change is a problem worthy of study. It might be well for another researcher to study the foregoing problems. This study tends to point up a need for principals to up date their administrative background. The prepara­ tion of secondary school administrators to live with and understand professional negotiations should be an important part of the preparation of current and future high school principals. The principal must be prepared to face the future as part of the new educational environment brought about by professional negotiations. The high school principal 116 operating as a part of this new educational environment must serve as a catalysis for change and this means a sharp departure from traditional patterns of task per­ formance . Recommendations for Future Research Within the limitations of this study, the following recommendations seem warranted: 1. This study should be replicated using several other states, with and without professional negotiation statutes. 2. A similar study of task performance should be made looking at the authority of principals to perform their traditional administrative tasks. 3. Replicate this study using teachers' or superin­ tendents' views of principal task performance. 4. Studies should be conducted to determine the effect of student population on principal task performance. 5. The entire question of staff involvement in the decision making process and its effect on principal task performance needs to be studied so that a determination might be made as to what decisions may be made only by the principal by state statute. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alberty, H. B., and Thayer, V. T. Supervision in -the Secondary School. New York! D . C . Heath and Company, 1 9 3 1 . Allen, Roy B., and Schmid, John, eds. Collective Negotia­ tions and Educational Administration. Fayetteville, Arkansas: College of Education, University of Arkansas, 1966. American Association of School Administrators. School Administrators View Professional Negotiations. Washington, D .C .: American Association oi School Administrators, 1966. ________ . The School Administrator and Negotiations. Washington: The American Association of School Administrators, 1968. Anderson, Lester W . , and Van Dyke, Lauren A. Secondary School Administration. B o s t o n : Houghton-Miiflin Company, 1963. Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organization Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human Organizations. New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill, 1966. Bishop, Leslie J. Collective Negotiations in Curriculum and Instruction: Questions and Concerns. Washington: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, 1967. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1^63. 117 118 Campbell, Ronald; Corbally, John E.; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 19<>2. Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Corbally, John E.; Jenson, T. J.; and Staub, W. F. Educational Administration: The Secondary School. Bosbon: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 196S. Conner, Forrest E. Preface to School Administrators View Professional Negotiations. Washington, D . C . : American Association o£ School Administrators, 1966. Corwin, Ronald G. A Sociology of Education. Appleton-Century-Crofis, 1965. New York: Cramer, John F ., and Browne, George S . Contemporary Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965. Cressman, George R., and Benda, Harold W. Public Education in America. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1 T O T. Doby, John T. An Introduction to Social Research. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: The S t a c k p o l e C o m p a n y, 1954. Douglas, Harl R. American Public Education. The Ronald Press Company, 1948. New York: . Modern Administration of Secondary Schools. New York: Ginn and Company, 1963. . Secondary Education in the United States. The Ronald Press Company, 1964. New York: ________ , and Boardman, Charles W. Supervision in Secondary Schools. Cambridge: Houghton-Mif f1in Company, 1£ 34. ________ . Trends and Issues in Secondary Education. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1962. Educational Policies Commission. Education for All American Youth. New Y o r k : Dodd, Mead and Company, 1^44. 119 The Purpose of Education in American Democracy. Washington, D . C .: National Education Association, 1938. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New Yorks H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, I n c ., 15*66 . Epstein, Benjamin. The Principal's Role in Collective Negotiations'Between Teachers and School Boards . Washington: The National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1 9 6 5 . Faunce, Roland C. Secondary School Administration. New York: Harper Brothers, 1955. Goldman, Samuel. The School Principal. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. Good, Carter V., and Scates, Douglas E. Methods in Research: Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1 9 3 6 . Hack, Walter G.; Ramseyer, John A.; Gephart, William J.; and Heck, James B. Educational Administration: Selected Readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., issn— ----------- Jacobson, Paul B., and Reavis, William C. Duties of School Principals. New York: Prentice-Hall1941. Jenson, Theodore J., and Clark, David L. Educational Administration. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1 9 6 4 . Johnson, Franklin. Administration and Supervision of the High School. New York: D. C. Heath and Company, 19"2'5". ---Johnson, Mauritz, J r . New York: American Secondary Schools. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1965. Koos, Leonard V. The High School Principal. Cambridge: Houghton-Miff1 in Company, 1 9 2 4 . Krug, Edward A. The Shaping of the American High School. New Y o r k : Harper and Row Publishers, 1 9 6 4 . 120 Leu, Donald J., and Rudman, Herbert C . Preparation Programs for School Administrators. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1963. McCleary, Lloyd E . , and Hencley, Stephen P. Secondary School Administration. New Y o r k : D o d d , M e a d a n d Company, 1965. Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza tion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945. Moehlman, Arthur B. School Administration. Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1951. Boston: Morphet, Edgar L.; Johns, Roe L.y and Reller, Theodore T. Educational Administration: Concepts, Practices and Issues. Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : PrenticeHall, Inc., 1959. Mort, Paul R. tion. Principles of Secondary School Administra­ New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1946. Moskow, Michael H. Teachers and Unions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1966. Newsom, N. William; Langfitt, R. Emerson; et a l . Administrative Practices In Large High Schools. New Y o r k : American Book Company, 1940. Ovard, Glen F. Administration of the Changing School. New York! The MacMillan Company, 1968. ________ . Change and Secondary School Administration. New Y o r k : The MacMillan Company, 1968=. Oliva, Peter F. The Secondary School Today. The World Publishing Company, 1967V Cleveland: Parten, Mildred. Surveys, Polls, and Samples. Harper and Brothers, 1950. New York: Parsons, Talcott; Blau, P. M . ; and Scott, W. R. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publish­ ing Company, 1962. Reinhardt, Emma. American Education. New York: and Brothers Publishers, 1960. Roethlisberger, Fritz. Management and Morale. Harvard University Press, 1941. Harper Cambridge: 121 Schmidt, Charles T. Jr.; Parker, Hyman; and Repas, Bob. A Guide to Collective Negotiations in Education. East Lansing, Michigan: Social Science Research Bureau, 19 6 7 . Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Be­ havioral Sciences. New Yorks McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956. Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Adminis­ tration. Better Teaching in School Administration. Nashville, T e n n .: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1 9 5 5 . Stiles, Lindley; McCleary, Lloyd E.; and Turnbaugh, Roy C. Secondary Education in the United States. New Y o r k : Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1 9 6 2 . Stinnet, T. M. Turmoil in Teaching. MacMi 1 lan Company, 1 ^ 6 8 . New York: The Summerer, Kenneth. Agreements Negotiated between^Boards of Education and''Teachers Unaer Michigan Public Law Act 3 7 9 of 1 9 6 5 . East Lansing: Metropolitan Educational Research Association, Michigan State University, 1 9 6 6 . Taylor, L. O.; McMahill, Don R.; and Taylor, Bob L. The American Secondary School. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, I n c ., 19^0. Thomlinson, Ralph. Sociological Concepts and Research. New Y o r k : Random H o u s e , 1 9 6 7 . Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964. Williams, Stanley W. Educational Administration in Secondary Schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I n c ., 1 9 6 4 . Periodicals Callahan, Raymond E., and Button, Warren H. "Historical Change of the Role of the Man in the Organization: 1865-1950." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration^ Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 73-92. 122 Carr, William G. "The Principal's Role in Professional Negotiations." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (April, 1966). Cronin, Joseph H. "School Boards and Principals--Before and After Negotiations." Phi Delta Kappan, X L I X :3 (November, 1967) . Davis, H. Curtis. "Where Does the Time Go?" California Journal of Secondary Education (October^ 1953) , P . 349. Fillers, Harold D. "The Managerial Duties of the Princi­ pal." School Review, XXVIII (January, 1923), pp. 48-53. Griffiths, Daniel E. "New Forces in School Administration." Overview, January, 1960, pp. 48-51. Gross, Bertram. "The Scientific Approach to Administra­ tion ." Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Edited by Daniel E. Griffiths. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 33-72. Hemphill, J. K. "Progress Report: A Study of the Secondary-School Principalship, Part II." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (April, 1964), p. 222. Levenson, William B. "The Superintendent's Role in Negotiations." Impact, April, 1967, p. 12. Lieberman, Myron. "Collective Negotiations: Status and T r e n d s ." The American School Board Journal (October, 196V), p. 9. M c A b e e , Harold V. "Time for the Job." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary"~£>chool Princi­ pals (March, 1958), p. 41. Maccoby, Eleanor, and Maccoby, Nathan. "The Interview: Tool of Social Science." Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge: Addison and Wesley Publishing Company (1954), p. 483. A Olsen, Allen Dale. "The Principal and Professional Negotiations." The National Elementary Principal, XLVI (April, 1967) , pp. 31-32. 123 "Professional Negotiations: Growth and Prospects." Education Digest, April, 1967, pp. 13-14. The Stanton, Edgard A, "Saving Time in Office Routine." Elementary School Journal, XXVII (December, 1927), pp.' ■263-272“ -----------Stanavage, John A. "Proceedings of the Commission on Secondary Schools." The North Central Association Quarterly, r i y , Vol. XLIV, Mo. 1 (Summer, 1969) , p p . 57 = T 9 7 . "The Functions of Secondary Education." Bulletin of the Secondary School Principals of the National Educa­ tion Association, No. 64 (January, 1937), pp. 1 - 2 6 6 . "The Study of the High School Principalship in Pennsyl­ vania ." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (December, 1953), p. 119. Watson, Bernard C. "The Role of the Principal in Collec­ tive Negotiations." The North Central Association Quarterly, Vol. XLII, No. 3 (Winter, 1968). Unpublished Materials Birdsell, Donald F. "A Study of the Status Negotiations in Selected Schools in western States." Unpublished Ph.D. Department of Education, University of Professional Twelve Mid­ dissertation, of Iowa, 1965. Cave, David R. "A Critical Study of the Leader Behavior of School Administrators in Conflict with Teacher's Unions." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967. Clark, Dean O. "Critical Areas in Administrative Behavior of High School Principals." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of Education, The Ohio State University, 1956. Garver, George G. "A Study of the Relationship between Variables and Attitudes of Public School Principals in Oakland County, Michigan, Concerning Collective Bargaining for Public School Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967. 124 Love, Thomas Michael. "The Impact of Teacher Negotiations on School System Decision Making." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1968. Mawdsley, Jack K. "A Study of the Delegation of Adminis­ trative Tasks by Principals of Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Educa­ tion, Michigan State University, 1968. McCumsey, Norman Lee. "The Effect of Professional Negotia­ tions on Secondary School Principal's Decision Making Functions." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967. Munger, Benson Scott. "A Study of the Relationship between Selected Variables and the Attitudes of Michigan Principals Toward Organizing for Negotiations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969. Pylman, John H. "Expectations of High School Principals and Relevant Others for the Role of High School Principals in Teacher-Board Negotiations." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1968. Radebaugh, Byron F. "Democratic Values and Collective Negotiations' Agreements." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Department of Education, University of Toledo, 1966. Scott, Walter w. "A Study of Preparation Programs in School Administration as Affected by Collective Negotiations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1966. Steele, Marilyn H. "Has Collective Bargaining Contributed to Instructional Improvements in Michigan Schools?" Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE 125 (Sample letter from the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, supporting this research project) October 29, 1969 Mr. Vernon R. Potts Principal W. K. Kellogg Junior High School 60 West Van Buren Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 Dear M r . Potts: This letter is to inform you that the Executive Committee of the Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals has endorsed your study on the relationship of professional negotiations to the task performance of high school principals in Michigan. I would be interested in obtaining a copy of your dissertation when it is completed. As ever, Theodore B . Southerland Executive Secretary TBS/af 126 (A sample of letters sent to school systems requesting permission to visit high school principals) October 19, 1969 M r . Hugh D . Rice Director of Secondary Education Fort Wayne Community Schools 1230 South Clinton Street Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 Dear M r . R i c e : I am working on a study dealing with the impact of professional negotiations upon the task performance of secondary school principals. Your school district is one of several Indiana Districts selected for study. I am interested with the high school principals in your school whenever it might be convenient for them. The will be no more than one hour in length. School in visiting system interviews I would appreciate any help you might be able to give me in this matter. Sincerely y o u r s , Vernon R. Potts 127 FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS 1230 SOUTH CLINTON STREET • FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46802 PHONE 319/742-0X11 October 23, 1969 Mr. Vernon R. Potts Battle Creek Public Schools W. K. Kellogg Junior High School Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 Dear Vernon s It was good to hear from you and be brought up to date on your work. Your letter was received at a most appropriate time. We had our regular high school principals meeting on the afternoon it arrived. The letter was presented to them and they were willing to cooperate. We have four high schools which now have enrollments which exceed fifteen hundred. One is seventeen hundred seventy five, one is nineteen hundred forty three, one nineteen hundred sixty nine and one two thousand sixty t w o .. We can arrange with any or all of these four. Will you send some preferred dates so I can arrange one when all of them can be visited? Sincerely Hugh pf. Ri Director of Secondary Educ H D R :e 128 EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH SCHOOL CORPORATION CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EVANSVILLE.* IN DIANA 4770S November lU, 1969 Mr. Vernon R. Potts W. K. Kellogg Junior High School Battle Creek, Michigan U9017 Dear Mr. Potts: Replying to your letter of November 11, 1 would be pleased to see you in my office on November 26th at 10:00 a.m. Very truly yours, ELK:CW Edgar L. Katterhenry, Principal APPENDIX B PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW GUIDE 129 PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW OUIDE NAME OP HIGH SCHOOL____________________________ CITY NAME OF PRINCIPAL 1. What la your ago? years 2* Haw many years have you bean in your present position? 3* How long have you been a principal? U* What subjects did you teach before becoming a principal? ______years years 5* What is (or was) your major area of preparation at the graduate level? 6. Do you fee1 that the principal is looked to by the staff as the instructional leader of the building? yes no Was he five years ago? y es no FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE INTERVIEW, WE WILL BE REFERRING TO THE CARDS I HAVE GIVEN YOU. 7. Card number 1 lists several statements concerning your personal professional goals* Which of ths statements on the card best describes your plans for the future* 1* 2* 3* U* S* 6* Principal College Professor Superintendent Junior College, College, or University Administrator Assistant Superintendent of Schools Others 130 THE AUTHORITIES IV THE FIELD OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION LIST SIX MAJOR TBCWICAL AREAS OF ADQNISTRATXVS CONCERN FOR PRINCIPALS OF LAROE HIGH SCHOOLS. THESE AREAS ARE LISTED OH CAES NUMBER 2. PLEASE LOOK AT THESE AREAS. 8. Which of these areas do you feel most comfortable in? 9. Which do you leaat prafer to work in? Least Prefer ______ _____ _____ _____ _____ Prefer ' _____ _____ 1. Finance and Business Management 2. Instruction and Curriculum Development 3. Pupil *ereonnel h. School Community Relations 5« School Plant and Services 6. Staff Personnel WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE QUESTIONS REGARDING TOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE AD­ MINISTRATIVE TASKS NECESSARY TO OPERATE A LARGE HIGH SCHOOL. YOU MAY WISH CLARIFICATION OF TASKS, IF SO PLEASE ASK. YOU MAY AISO FEEL THAT SOME OF THE TASKS LISTED ARE NOT FULLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR BUILniHO OR THAT SGME OF THE TASKS ARE SHARED WITH ADMINISTRATORS AT THIS OR ANOTHER LEVEL. REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL QUANTITY OF WORK DONE ON EACH TASK, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PERFORMANCE 0: THE TASKS. ON THE FOLLOWING SIX CARDS WILL BE LISTED AREAS OF TASK PERFORMANCE. AREAS ARE BROOM DOWN INTO INDIVIDUAL TASKS. I AM INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO EACH TASK ITEMs THOSE 1.— I perform this task' 0.— I do not perform this task I AM ALSO INTERESTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE TASKS IN THE PAST. ASX YOU TO RECALL IF YOU PERFORMED THESE SAME TASKS FIVE YEARS AGO. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? 1. I SHALL DO How let us move on to card number 3. This card deals with FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. How do you presently deal with these tasks and how have you dealt with them? Administrative TSak Category A. Presently Performed ______ FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Performed Five Years Ago _____ 1. Construction of the school budget (or building roc a— sndations ) 131 2. 3. U. 5. 6. 7. Administration of the school budget Deterainstlon of equipment end supplies Ordering of equipment end supplies Distribution of equipment end supplies Inventory of equipment end supplies Attendance at staff or professional aeetings concerning finance end business management 8. Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management Total performance score 11. On card number U we will find another of these six areas of adainistretiont INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. It tosis sub­ divided into individual tasks. Please respond in the same manner as you did to card number 3* B. Presently Performed INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Performed Five Tears Ago 1. 2. 3. U. Direction of curriculum content and organisation Selection of curriculum materials Direction and articulation of curricular programs Observation and assistance to teachers in the Instructional program 5> Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties 6 . Direction of adult education program 7# Direction of school testing program 8. Coordination of instructional equipment and material 9. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum development 10. Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development Total performance score 12. On card number 5 we deal with the area of PUPIL PERSONNEL. This area is also subdivided into individual performance tasks. Please indicate how you deal with these tasks at present and how you handled them in the past. C. Presently Performed PUPIL PERSONNEL Performed Five Tears Ago 1. 2. 3. U. 5. Provision of student orientation Scheduling of students into classes Provision of student counseling Scheduling of students for health services Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation 132 6* 7. Maintaining of studsnt records Provision of occupational and educational information 8« Assessment and Interpretation of student growth of student* 9a Administration of student discipline 10. Actainistration of student attendance 11. Administration of extra-curricular activities 12a Direction of school guidance program 13a Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel 11*a Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel Total performance score 13* Card number 6 deals with SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS. It is similarly divided into specific administrative tasks. Please respond accurately to each task in the same manner as before. D. Presently Performed SCHOOL COMMUNITY Rg,ATI0NS Performed Five Years Ago 1« 2. 3. li. 5a 6. 7a Preparation of reports for the community Confer with parents Confer with eitisen groups Supervision of the school's public relations Preparation of releases for communications media Supervision of use of school by non-school groups Direction of reporting to parents on student progress 8a Attendance at staff or professional meetings■con­ cerning school community relations 9 a Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations Total performance score lUa On card number 7 you will find the area of SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES. It is similarly subdivided. Please respond accurately to each task in the same manner as before. K. Presently Performed SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES Performed Five Years Ago 1. Supervision of plant operation and maintenance 2. Supervision of grounds maintenance 3* Direction of plant safety program (Fire drills, etc.) 1). Direction of transportation safety program (Pupil behavior on bus) 5. Administration of school lunch program 133 6* Attendance at staff or professional meetings con­ cerning school plant and services 7. Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services Total performance score 15 • On card number 8 you will find the area of STAFF PERSONNEL. It is similarly subdivided. Please respond accurately to each task in the same siarmer as before. F. Presently Performed _____ _____ ______ _____ ___ _____ _____ ____ STAFF PERSONNEL Performed Five Tears Ago 1. Selection of professional staff members 2. Induction of professional staff members _______ 3. Scheduling of professional staff members _____ U. Supervision of professional staff members _____ 5. Evaluation of professional staff members _____ 6. Direction of in-service for professional staff members _____ 7- Selection of non-professional staff members _____ 8. Induction of non-professional staff members ____ 9. Scheduling of non-professional staff members _____ 10* Supervision of non-professional staff members _____ 11. Evaluation of non-professional staff members _____ ^2. Direction of in-service for non-professional staff members 13. Maintaining of staff personnel records 1U. Direction of substitute teachers 15. Administration of master contract (s) _____ 16. Attendance at staff or professional meetings con­ cerning staff personnel 17. Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel ____ Total performance score And now a few closing questions in relationship to the administrative tasks performed by High School Principals. 16. Do you personally find more or less Job satisfaction in the prlneipalship than you felt five years ago? _____ Moire _____ Leas 17. What major foree has shaped your administrative task performance over the last five years? 18. What is the origin of the contract design used in negotiations by your teachers and howiMas it developed? 19. Of the six areas of administrative task performance which do you feel is the most important? Today Five years ago APPENDIX C INTERVIEW CARDS 134 CARD 1 ULTIMATE PROFESSIONAL GOALS 1. I Intend to remain in a high school principalship until my retirement. 2. I would like to attain the rank of college professor before I retire from the field of education. 3. I would like to eventually become a superintendent of schools. 4. I would like to serve as a junior college, college, or university administrator before I retire from the field. 5. I would like to eventually serve as an assistant superintendent of schools. 6. None of the above. I would like to CARD 2 MAJOR AREAS OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION 1. Finance and Business Management 2. Instruction and Curriculum Development 3. Pupil Personnel 4. School Community Relations 5. School Plant and Services 6. Staff Personnel 136 CARD 3 FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 1. Construction of the school budget (or building recommendations) 2, Administration of the school budget 3. Determination of equipment and supplies 4. Ordering of equipment and supplies 5. Distribution of equipment and supplies 6. Inventory of equipment and supplies 7. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning finance and business management 8. Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management 137 CARD ± INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 1 . Direction of curriculum content and organization 2 . Selection of curriculum materials 3. Direction and articulation of curricular programs 4. Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program 5. Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties 6 . 7. Direction of adult education program Direction of school testing program 8 . Coordination of instructional equipment and material 9. 10. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning instruction and curriculum development Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development 138 CARD 5 PUPIL PERSONNEL 1. Provision of student orientation 2. Scheduling of students into classes 3. Provision of student counseling 4. Scheduling of students for health services 5. Provision of placement or follow-up after graduation 6. Maintaining of student records 7. Provision of occupational and educational information 8. Assessment and interpretation of student growth to students 9. Administration of student discipline 10. Administration of student attendance 11. Administration of extra-curricular activities 12. Direction of school guidance program 13. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel 14. Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel 139 CARD 6 SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS 1. Preparation of reports for the community 2. Confer with parents 3. Confer with citizen groups 4. Supervision of the school's public relations program 5. Preparation of releases for communications media 6. Supervision of use of school by non-school groups 7. Direction of reporting to parents on student progress 8. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school community relations 9. Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations 140 CARD 7 SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES 1. Supervision of plant operation and maintenance 2. Supervision of ground maintenance 3. Direction of plant safety program (Fire drills, e t c .) 4. Direction of transportation safety program (Pupil behavior on bus) 5. Administration of school lunch program 6. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning school plant and services 7. Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services 141 CARD 8 STAFF PERSONNEL 1. Selection of professional staff members 2. Induction of professional staff members 3. Scheduling of professional staff members 4. Supervision of professional staff members 5. Evaluation of professional staff members 6. Direction of In-service for professional staff members 7. Selection of non-professional staff members 8. Induction of non-professional staff members 9. Scheduling of non-professional staff members 10. Supervision of non-professional staff members 11. Evaluation of non-professional staff members 12. Direction of In-service for non-professional staff members 13. Maintaining of staff personnel records 14. Direction of substitute teachers 15. Administration of master contract(s) 16. Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning staff personnel 17. Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel APPENDIX D GUIDE TO THE TERMS OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE 142 GUIDE TO THE TERMS OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE A. FINANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. B. Construction of the school budget i s : a. Do you keep data on departmental needs? b. Do you designate funds to be spent by depart­ ments? Administration of the budget is: a. Do you authorize budget requests of the departments? b. Do you develop a priority list for budget requests? Determination of equipment and supplies i s : a. Are you part of groups selecting equipment and supplies? b. Do you help develop specification for such equipment? Ordering equipment and supplies i s : a. Are they requisitioned through your office? b. Do you review such requisitions? Distribution of equipment and supplies is: a. Do you distribute from your office or under your direction? Inventory of equipment supplies i s : a. Are departmental inventories processed and reviewed by your office? Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning finance and business management is: a. Do you attend whenever held? Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management is: a. Do you review and/or make changes in your internal accounts system? b. Are you a part of a system wide review of these procedures? INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 1. 2. Direction of curriculum content and organization is: a. Are you a member of departmental curriculum study groups? b. Do you have final interschool approval of changes to be studied in your building? Selection of curriculum materials i s : a. Are you a member of the group that makes the selection for your building? 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Direction and articulation of curriculum programs are: a. Are you a member of the interschool group that develops ways to present curriculum changes to the public? b. Do you plan the nature and timing ofcurriculum change with the aid of others? Observation and assistance to teachers in instruc­ tional programs a r e : a. Do you help teachers with instructional problems? b. Do you refer subject matter specialists to aid teachers with problems? Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties Direction of adult education program i s : a. Do you assign staff to the program? b. Do you schedule classes? Direction of school testing program is: a. Do you schedule testing? b. Do you help in picking the tests used? Coordination of instructional equipment and materials i s : a. Do you schedule the use of instructional equipment? b. Do you order equipment and materials from other parts of the system? Attendance at staff or professional meetings con­ cerning instruction and curriculum development is: a. Do you attend whenever held? Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development i s : a. Do you review and make changes in procedure? PUPIL PERSONNEL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Provision of student orientation is: a. Do you prepare a student orientation program? b. Do you review and help rewrite the student handbook? Scheduling of students into classes Provision for student counseling i s : a. Do you personally meet with counselors to discuss the counseling program? Scheduling of students for health services Provision of placement or follow-up after gradua­ tion i s : a. Do you organize or direct student follow up studies? b. Do you organize university student conferences? 144 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. D. Maintaining of student records i s : a. Do you review student transcripts and sign them? b. Do you direct a review of your student record procedures periodically? Provision of occupational and educational informa­ tion is: a. Do you organize a college night and/or provide a "job fair" each year? b. Do you check to see if the counseling staff keep an up to date file of occupational information? c. Do you organize occupational meetings and/or experiences for students on school time? Assessment and interpretation of student growth of students a r e : a. Do you use testing information in preparing future educational plans for your school? b. Do you review student growth information from year to year? Administration of student discipline is: a. Are you the last word in student discipline cases? b. Do you review all student discipline? Administration of student attendance is: a. Do you review attendance records? b. Do you form building policies on attendance? Administration of extra-curricular activities is: a. Do you schedule such activities? b. Are you in attendance at such activities that involve the total student body? Direction of the school guidance program is: a. Do you meet with the guidance staff regularly? b. Do you select guidance staff members? Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning pupil personnel i s : a. Do you attend such meetings whenever held? Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel i s : a. Do you review and make changes in your procedures? SCHOOL COMMUNITY RELATIONS 1 . Preparation 2 . Confer with 3 . Confer with 4. Supervision a. b. of reports for the community parents citizen groups of school's public relations is: Do you review school publications? Do you review the school newsletter? 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Preparation of releases for communications media Supervision of use of school by non-school groups is: a. Do you schedule such groups? b. Do you assign staff to supervise the building at such times? Direction of reporting to parents on student progress is: a. Do you establish reporting dates? b. Do you help develop methods to be used? Attendance at staff or professional meetings con­ cerning school community relations i s : a. Do you attend whenever meetings of the nature are held? Direction of research and/or experimentation in school community relations i s : a. Do you review and make changes in your procedures? SCHOOL PLANT AND SERVICES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Supervision of plant operation and maintenance is: a. Do you sign all work orders for building repairs or changes? b. Do you approve operational schedule changes? c. Do you approve staff changes? Supervision of grounds maintenance i s : a. Do you meet and discuss improvements or changes with your maintenance leader? Direction of plant safety program i s : a. Do you conduct fire drills? b. Do you review safety of the building with staff? c. Do you suggest improvements? Direction of transportation safety program is: a. Do you confer with the school director of transportation on this subject? b. Do you review bus loading and unloading procedures? Administration of school lunch program i s : a. Do you confer with the school director of food services on this matter? b. Do you assign or direct supervision? Attendance at staff or professional meetings con­ cerning school plant and services is: a. Do you meet with the directors of these programs periodically? Direction of research and/or experimentation in school plant and services i s : a. Do you review procedures and make operational changes in your procedures? STAFF PERSONNEL . Selection of professional staff members . Induction of professional staff members 3. Scheduling of professional staff members 1 2 4. 5. 6 . 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11 12 . . 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. Supervision of professional staff members is: a. Do you conduct staff meetings to inform staff? b. Do you write bulletins to inform staff? Evaluation of professional staff members Direction of in-service for professional staff members is: a. Do you schedule such meetings? b. Do you establish the nature of such meetings? Selection of non-professional staff members Induction of non-professional staff members Scheduling of non-professional staff members Supervision of non-professional staff members is: a. Do you meet with this group to give them information? b. Do you write bulletins to inform this group? Evaluation of non-professional staff members Direction of in-service for non-professional staff members i s : a. Are meetings for this group called by your office? b. Do you decide the nature of the training to be given? Maintaining of staff personnel records is: a. Do you keep personnel records for the staff of your building? Direction of substitute teachers i s : a. Do you assign them? b. Do you select those to be assigned? Administration of the master contract i s : a. Are you the first level of supervision on any and all contracts with employees? Attendance at staff or professional meetings concerning staff personnel is: a. Do you attend whenever they are held? Direction of research and/or experimentation in staff personnel i s : a. Do you review and make changes in staff personnel procedures? APPENDIX E OUTLINE FOR THE CONDUCTING OF A SAMPLE INTERVIEW 147 OUTLINE FOR THE CONDUCTING OF A SAMPLE INTERVIEW I. Introduction to the Person to be Interviewed: I am Mr. Vernon Potts, principal of W. K. Kellogg Junior High School in Battle Creek, Michigan. II. Statement of Purpose of the Interview: I wish to learn about the task performance of high school principals. I want to learn about the types of tasks principals normally perform. I am interested in the types of tasks you pres­ ently perform and the types you performed five years ago. The use of professional negotiations by teachers has made it important that principals look at the nature of task performance over this important period of time. Thus we will be able to measure the nature and degree of change that has come about in this period of time. You can help me make these measure­ ments . The Principals of Michigan Secondary Schools and Michigan State University are interested in my findings so that we might better understand what is happening or has happened to the job of the principal in schools of this size. III. The Pre-interview Questionnaire: I really know very little about your school, so perhaps we should start from there. (After the respondent moves into the background of the school we can move to the more personal data of the data sheet.) IV. The Introduction to the Interview Questionnaire: Let us take a look at the kinds of tasks principals all seem to perform and see how they fit into your situation and experience. 148 V. The Interview Questionnaire: Go through the interview questionnaire using the questionnaire guide to give a standardized presenta­ tion of the questionnaire. VI. The C l o s e : Thank you for your help in getting a picture of what is happening to this job of ours. If you are ever in Battle Creek, please drop in and let me show you around the school and community. Thank you. APPENDIX F GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE 149 Figure F - l . Geographical Locations of Michigan Study Participants 150 11 15 20 19 10 17 12 Figure F-l 13 151 Figure F-2. Geographical Locations of Indiana Study Participants 152 13 14 18 15 19 10 12 16 Figure F-2 APPENDIX G LISTS OF SAMPLE PARTICIPANTS TABLE G-l MICHIGAN STUDY PARTICIPANTS, THE HIGH SCHCX)LS THEY REPRESENT, THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, AND SAMPLE STRATA Principals Names of High Schools Cities Enrollments Stratc Owosso High School Owosso 1805 IV Murel G. Burdick Muskegon High School Muskegon 1956 III Loren A. Disbow Berkley High School Berkley 2101 III Richard Drager Roseville High School Roseville 1800 III Elmer Eschenburg Warren High School Warren 1637 III G. Bruce Feighner Dondero High School Royal Oak 2820 IV John Ford Belleville High School Belleville 1926 IV Jerry J. Gerich Grosse Pointe High School Grosse Pointe 2574 IV Harold Gieseche Arthur Hill High School Saginaw 2329 III Robert E. Hall Southfield High School Southfield 2876 III C. Wm. Hanichen Mona Shores High School Muskegon 1765 IV Earl Holman Jackson Senior High School Jackson 1521 III 153 Carl Blood TABLE G-l— Continued Principals Names of High Schools Cities Harold E. Jones Mt, Clemens High School Mt. Clemens 1740 IV John McGregor Ferndale High School Ferndale 2528 IV Romulus Romiani Central High School Grand Rapids 1817 IV Robert H. Schaublin Lakeview High School St. Clair Shores 1863 XII Ted Thomas Lakeview High School Battle Creek 1692 IV Neil E. Van Riper Trenton High School Trenton 2090 IV Ross Wagner Ernest W. Seaholm Birmingham 2267 III Russell Waters Creston High School Grand Rapids 1558 III Enrollments Strati TABLE G-2 INDIANA STUDY PARTICIPANTS, THE HIGH SCHOOLS THEY REPRESENT, THE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, AND SAMPLE STRATA Principals Names of High Schools Cities Enrollments Strati North Side High School Ft. Wayne 1839 I Harold L. Buck North High School Evansville 2169 II Maurice Davis R. Nelson Snider High School Ft. Wayne 1764 I Noel Douglas Anderson High School Anderson 2138 I Charles Eickho£f Elmhurst High School Ft, Wayne 1500 I Frank A. Firmani Mishawaka High School Mishawaka 1968 II Lawrence Gehring Horace Mann High School Gary 1995 II Jack Hyde LaPorte High School LaPorte 1817 I Paul Jennings Bosse High School Evansville 1822 II John Jones Bloomington High School Bloomington 1785 I Warren E. Jones Elston High School Michigan City 2751 I Edgar L. Katterhenry Central High School Evansville 1691 II 155 William Anthis TABLE G-2— Continued Principals Names of High Schools Cities Enrollments Strata Virgil Landry John Adams High School South Bend 2075 II Floyd Longenbaugh Elkhart High School Elkhart 3011 I Frank G. Moore Kokomo High School Kokomo 2243 II Neil V. Pierce Reitz High School Evansville 2242 II William T. Pritchett Harrison High School Evansville 2481 II Robert M. Straight Huntington High School Huntington 1653 I Paul G. Weaver Marion High School Marion 2373 II Jack C. Weicker South Side High School Ft. Wayne 2128 I