71-2044 CLARK, Sister Anne Lawrence, 1926A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATION­ AL CLIMATE FACTORS AND THE ACADEMIC PREPARATION, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND OTHER RELATED VARIABLES OF INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, special University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by SISTER A N N E L A W R E N C E CLARK 1971 J'i'UDY OF T HE R E L A T I O N S H I P S B ET W E E N O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L CLIMATE FACTORS AND T H E A C A D E M I C PREPARATION, PROFESS ION AL EXPERIE NCE , AND O T H E R R E L A T E D V A RIA B L E S OF I N T E R M E D I A T E D IST R I C T SPE CIA L E DUC A T I O N D IRE CTOR S IN M I C H I G A N By S ist er Anne Lawrence Clark A THESIS S u bmi tte d to M i c h i g a n State University in partial ful fil lmen t of t he r e q u i r eme nts for the degree of D O C T O R OF PHI LOS O P H Y Department of Ele men t a r y and Special E d u c a t i o n 1970 ABSTRACT A STUDY OP THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN O RGA NIZATIONAL CLIMATE FACTORS AND T HE ACADEMIC PREPARATION, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AN D OTHER RELATED VARIABLES OF INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS IN MICHIGAN By Sister Anne Lawrence Clark This research was concerned with the relationships between climate factors as m easured by the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) and variables associated with the academic training, professi ona l e xpe ri­ ence, age, tenure, and sensitivity training of intermediate district directors of special education in the State of Michigan. It was postu lat ed that there would be no r e l a ­ tionships between these variables and the climate factors. Although the OCDQ, developed by H alp in and Croft In 1962, has been used in many studies in which different variables have been related to the climate factors, no * studies have been reported to date uti lizing this I nstru­ ment In studies of special education personnel. The criteria for selecting the intermediate districts to participate in the study w e r e : employment of a full­ time directors of special education, approved for state Sister Anne L a w r e n c e Clark reimbursement, and m ill age levied b y the district for support of special e duc a t i o n pro grams a n d services, under the p rovisions of Public Act 18 of 1954 as amended. Twenty-nine districts met th ese criteria, p r o v i d i n g a total po pul ati on of 29 directors and 491 staff members. Two instruments were u s e d to collect the required data. The first inc luded a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the O C D Q and certain biograph ica l information. The second was a q u e s ­ tionnaire for directors, dev el o p e d by the writer. Since the OCDQ was deve l o p e d for us e in elemen tar y schools, some m in or changes were n e c e s s a r y to mak e it appropriate for use in the interm edi ate d istrict situation. The Instrument contains 64 Lik ert -ty pe items, each a s t a t e ­ ment of i nterpersonal b e h a v i o r am o n g staff me mbe rs and w i t h the director. The eight factors Ide nti f i e d by Hal pin a n d Croft also a ppe are d in the r e s p o n s e s to the m o d i f i e d OCDQ, as determin ed by factor analysis procedures. Disengagement, Hindrance, Esprit, Production Emphasis, Thrust, The y are: Intimacy, Aloofness, and Consideration. The qu es t i o n n a i r e for d i r e c tor s w a s used to obtain in formation r e g a r d i n g the academic pr eparation, pr of e s s tional experience, and other demographic i n f o r m ati on c o n ­ cerning the directors. Scores on the eight factors were cor rel a t e d with ea ch of the dependent variables, u s i n g the P e a r s o n productmoment c o r r e lat ion technique. In some cases, wh ere the Sister Anne Lawrence Clark d 1:;tr3 butionn were unbalanced, dichotomies were forced on the data, and point biserial correlations were computed. Findings and Conclusions The eight factors which appeared as a result of factor analysis of the modified OCDQ corresponded with the factor:! found by Ilalpin and Croft. It was concluded* therefore* that the revised OCDQ could be used to measure climate factors in intermediate district special education staffs. No relationships were found between scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the fo llowing variables: of eoursework tional in education, special education, admin.Lstrat.i o n ; directors' amount or e du c a­ reported undergraduate grade point average; amount of sensitivity training of the director; age; length of tenure of the director; previous employment of the director on the staff before becoming director. Statistically significant correlations were found at or beyond the .Oh level of confidence in the following 1n s t a n c e s : * 1. A positive correlation between recency of degree attainment and Hindrance Indicates that directors who have received their highest academic degree more recently are perceived by their staffs as relatively more "hindering" than facilitating with regard to task accomplishment. 2 . With respect to teaching experience, three signif­ icant relationships were found. Elementary grade teaching Sis ter Anne Lawrence Clark and total amount of teaching experience both correla ted negatively with Consideration, to-aching negatively while secondary grade correlated with Thrust. This suggests that dire ctors who have had these te a ching experiences are perceived by their erate" and to have . staffs to be r elatively less ''consid­ less thrust respectively. U on -cJassroom special educa tion experience correlated negatively with Aloofness, suggesting that directors who had tills experi en c e a r e •perceived by their staffs to tie less . "aloof" or impersonal. Negative co rr elations appeared betw een non- eduoatLonai a d mi n is t ra t iv e experience and Esprit, tion Emphasis, and Thrust. P r od u c­ This suggests that morale is lower in staffs wtiere directors have had. such experience; also they are perceived by .their staffs not to "move the organization," whether by close superv i si o n or by their example. Any type of a d mi n is t ra t iv e experience correlated positively with hindrance, negatively with Esprit and Production Emphasis. indicates This were seen as relati vely more that these Directors "hindering" with regard to task accomplishment; mor ale ap p eared to be lower among their staffs; and these direc tors were not perceived to be highly directive or to closely supervise b. their staffs. A positive c o rrelation was found between in t er n ­ ship experience and Product ion Emphasis, which suggests that the directors who had such experience were perceived t.o bo highly d i r e r 1 1ve and to closely supervise their staff Sister Anne Lawrence Clark Caution should be exercised in interpreting these results because of the small size of the sample (29 directors) and the imbalance in the distribution within the dependent variables in many instances. The findings do suggest, however, the need for further research to determine what aspects of training and administrative experience may influence the behavior of administrators as measured by climate factors. AC KN OW L E D G M E N T S To all those who gave generou sly of their time and effort to make this study a reality, I am grateful. Ve ry special and w a r m a p p r e c i a t i o n goes to Pr ofessor Charles V. Mange, chairman of my doctoral committee, who gr aci ous ly and selflessly gave of his time and talents. Wi thout his inexhaustible patience, support and assistance, this study would hardly have been brought to successful completion. To the other members of my committee, Dr. Charles E. Henley, Dr. Ri chard L. Featherstone, an d Dr. A rth ur A. Seagull, I extend sincere gratitude. For Invaluable assistance wi th the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l procedur es of the study, I a m mos t grateful to Dr. An d r e w Po rter and his staff in the Office of R ese a r c h Consultation. This study could not have been c a r r i e d out without the cooperation of the Su perintendents, D ire c t o r s of Special Ed uca tio n and staffs o f the Interm edi ate School Distric ts p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study. To all of t h e m I a m grateful. I express my heartfelt thanks to my community, Sisters of St. Joseph, especially to those at the College o f St. Rose, to my mother, wh ose love, prayers, the to all my fa m i l y and friends and en cou rag eme nt w ere a constant source of inspiration. For her moral support, as wel l as for endless hours of typing, ii I a m eternally grateful to Sister Mary Magdala, R. S. M. Finally, I am gra teful beyond words to express to Edward L. Birch and Harrold W. Spicknall, my co-researchers, who never doubted! ill T A B L E OF CONTENTS Page A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ........................................... 11 LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................... vi LIST OF F I G U R E S ............................................. vlil LI ST OF A P P E N D I C E S ....................................... lx Chapter I. I NTRODUCTION ................................... The P r o b l e m .................................... Need .................. Purpose ............................ Assumpt ion s .................................... Ov erv i e w ..................... . . . . . II. RE VIE W OF R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E ................. I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................... L e a d e r s h i p .................................... Definit ion s of L e a d e r s h i p .................. Re sea rch Studies D e a l i n g w i t h Leadership, O r g a n iza tio nal Climate ..................... De fin iti ons of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate. . R e s e a r c h on O rga ni z a t i o n a l Climate. . . The O r g a n iz ati onal Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Qu est ion nai re ............................ Open C l i m a t e ................................ Closed Climate . . . . . . . . . Summary of Previous R e s e a r c h .............. III. 1 1 5 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 13 16 17 19 23 26 26 34 M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D P R O C E D U R E S ..................... 36 I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................... D e fi nit ion s of Terms ......................... H y p o t h e s e s ................................... Subjects . . . . . I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ................................ Co lle cti on of D a t a . ......................... Pilot S t u d y ................................ A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Instruments . . . . 36 37 38 4l 47 49 49 49 iv Ch apter Page T e c h ni que s of Analysis ..................... Pr eli min ary Procedures .................. Analysis of D a t a ......................... S u m m a r y ....................................... IV. V. 52 52 56 67 ANA L Y S I S OP R E S U L T S ............................ 68 In tro duc tio n ................................ An aly sis of D a t a ............................ S u m m a r y ....................................... 68 68 86 FINDINGS, C O N C L USI ONS AND RECOMMENDATION. . 88 In t r o d u c t i o n ................................ S u m m a r y ....................................... Fi ndi ngs and Conclusions .................. Conclusions . - ............................ R e c o m men dat ion s for F ur t h e r Study . . . 88 89 90 101 102 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ............................................. A P P E N D I C E S ............................................. v 10** 110 LIST OP TABLES Table 1. Page Michigan intermediate school districts with approved directors of special education. . 44 2. Biographical information on staff members. 45 3. Rotated Item factor matrix for 64 Items of revised O C D Q .................................. . 54 4. Factor-match of original and revised OCDQ. 5. OCDQ subtest scores by Intermediate district. 57 6. Years In which directors received highest academic d e g r e e s ........................... 59 Summary of coursework in education taken by d i r e c t o r s ...................................... 60 Undergraduate grade point averages of d i r e c t o r s ...................................... 61 7. 8. 9. Amount of sensitivity training of directors . . 61 10. Teaching experience of the directors 11. Non-classroom special education experience of the d i r e c t o r s ............................... 63 Number of years of administrative experience of d i r e c t o r s ............................... 64 Amount of Internship and practicum in administration ............................... 65 Length of tenure of directors in Intermediate school districts . 66 Correlations between year of highest academic degree and OCDQ factor s c o r e s .............. 69 Correlations between amount of education coursework and OCDQ factor scores. . . . 71 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. vi . . . 55 62 Correla tio ns be t w e e n amount of special e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e w o r k and OCDQ factor s c o r e s .......................................... 71 Co rrelations be t w e e n amount of course wor k In a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and O C D Q factor scores 73 Co rrelations be twe en u n d e r g rad uat e GPA and OCDQ f actor s c o r e s ............................ 73 Co rrelations b et w e e n sensitivity t rai nin g and OC DQ fa c t o r s c o r e s ............................ 7^ Co rrelations b e t w e e n t e a c h i n g experie nce of d ire c t o r s and O C D Q factor scores . 76 Correla tio ns b et w e e n n o n - c l a s s r o o m special e d u c a t i o n e xpe rien ce and O C D Q factor s c o r e s ........................................... 78 Correla tio ns b et w e e n a d m i n i str ati ve ex p e r i ­ ence of directors and OCDQ factor scores 81 Co rre lat ion s b e t w e e n d i r e c t o r s 1 internship and p r a c t i c u m ex per i e n c e and O CDQ factor s c o r e s ........................................... 82 Correla tio ns b et w e e n age of di rec tor s and OCDQ factor s c o r e s ............................ 84 C orr ela tio ns b e t w e e n length of t enure of directors and O C D Q factor scores . 84 Co rrelations b e t w e e n O C D Q factor scores and directors* m e m b e r s h i p on the staff 85 Summary of hy pot hese s and tests of s i g n i f i ­ cance ........................................... 87 vii L I S T OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 . Geographic dis t r i b u t i o n of population. viii 43 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Page Organizational Climate Description ............................ Questionnaire Ill Intermediate School District Special Education Questionnaire ................. 120 Letter to Superintendents of Districts Participating In Study ................. 130 Questionnaire for Directors of Special E d u c a t i o n ................................... 132 E. Supplementary I n s t r u c t i o n s .................. 137 F. Random Numbers Assigned to Intermediate School Districts Participating In Study. 139 Intercorrelation Matrix for 64 Items of Revised O C D Q ............................... 141 B. C. D. Q. H. Intercorrelation Matrix for OCDQ Subtest Scores and Dependent Variables. . . ix . 144 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The Interest of students of educational administra­ tion has been focused during the past several years on theory of organization and especially on the relationship of leadership to organizational climate. Much attention has been given by researchers to the concept of organizational climate, but the bulk of this research has dealt with organizational climate in business, industry, and government. Andrew W. Halpin, while working on the Ohio State Leadership Studies, became interested in the development of theory in educational administration, which led to the notion of organizational behavior. The main focus of the Ohio State studies was the behavior of leaders as It relates to group effectiveness. Halpin rejected the "trait" approach to leadership, as have many*other researchers 1964; Fiedler, 1967). (Gibb, 1947; Gouldner, In his report of a study of leadership among school superintendents, Halpin clarified his notion of leadership: 1 2 . . . to ask "What is lea der shi p?" p r e s u p pos es the existence of a sp eci fie d capacit y in regard to "leading." This qu est ion pr edi cat es w i t h i n the indiv idu al an a ttri but e or inherent ch aracteristic of behavior, and implies further that this attribute, like int e l l i g e n c e or clerical aptitude, functions with equal force in a variety of situations. A q ues tio n so ph rased also suggests that individuals d i f f e r in their capacity or p ote n t i a l for "leadership" and that this p o t e nt ial is p r o b a b l y det erm i n e d by intrinsic factors in the person. It is an easy step f r o m this p o s i t i o n to the inference that this pot en t i a l is id ent ifi abl e and hence m e a s u r a b l e — that some individuals po ssess it in high degree and others in les ser degree; and that if we only can d i s c o v e r h o w to m easure it, we shall be able to screen the "leaders" from the "non-leaders." Those w h o ho ld this view tend to set little store by the prospect of t rai nin g individuals in l e a d e r - b e h a v i o r skills, for when leadership is con ce i v e d pr i n c i p a l l y as an inherent capacity or pot en t i a l i t y , there is m e a g e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n for d e v o t i n g time to tr ain ing for it. T he chief p e r s o nne l task becomes one of d i s c o v e r i n g the pr o p e r formula for i de n t i f y i n g and m e a s u r i n g leadership "ability." In c o n t r a s t , con sid er the concept of "leader be hav ior " and what it implies. First of all, it focuses upon o bse rve d b e h a v i o r rather than up on a pos ite d capacity in ferred f r o m this behavior. . . . With a tte n t i o n focused upon b e h a v i o r ra ther than capacity, there is g rea ter p romise of thfe p o s s i b ili ty o f tra i n i n g individuals in specified forms of leader behavior. Changes in behavio r p res uma bl y can be induced th rou gh a p propriate training, but the concept of capacity, by definition, Implies a fixed level of ability and hence thrusts the burden of p ers onn el de ter m i n a t i o n upon selection, not t r a i n i n g (Halpin, 1959, pp. 1 1 - 1 2 ) . 1 Halpin seems to create a di cho tom y between the potential for leadersh ip and le ade rsh ip beh a v i o r to the point of oversi mpl ifi cat ion . While a t t e m p t i n g to d i s ­ countenance the Idea of cha rac ter ist ics or attributes of l eadership and focus a t t e n t i o n upon behavior, he appears to ignore the fact that some "capacity" or "potential" Is ne ces s a r y In ord er that b eha v i o r may be 3 In attempting to study this leadership behavior, Halpin first used the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), an instrument constructed by Hemphill and Coons and later adapted by Halpin and Winer. The LBDQ became the prototype of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire 2 (OCDQ) which was developed by Halpin and Don B. Croft in 1962. One area of education to which research dealing with leadership and organizational theory has been little applied is special education. The rapid development of special education programs in Michigan, particularly since the enactment of Public Act 18 in 1954> is evidence of a growing concern to provide the best possible education for all handicapped children. Leadership and organization are two important aspects of the continuing growth and development of special education. It is reasonable to expect that strong leadership will upgrade any system of education, Including special education. (1967)* "... According to Fiedler, the success or failure of an organization is determined in large part by the quality of its changed by training. However, this writer believes that this is a matter of emphasis on H a l p i n rs part, rather than a total disparagement of the idea. 2 Throughout the remainder of this paper, the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire will be referred to as the OCDQ. See Appendix A for the original OCDQ. leadership" (p. 235). Brown and House (1 9 6 7 ) suggest that o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h in e d u c a t i o n is urgently ne ede d because of the "immensity of p r a c t i c a l problems c o n f r ont ing school a dmi ni s t r a t o r s today and the re ali zat ion that their solutions will be i n d i ca ted in or gan i z a t i o n a l ter ms" (p. 413). They go on to say that crucial q ues tio ns d e a l i n g wi th the org a n i z a t i o n of human resources w i l l be ans w e r e d by an a p p l i c a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory. Therefo re, the focus of this study is the a d m i n i s t r a ­ tive leade rsh ip of special e d u c a t i o n at the Intermediate School District level in the state of Michigan. need for competent, w e l l - tr ain ed, The ca refully selected adminis tra tor s of special e d u c a t i o n makes it imperative that special ed ucators make a co nsci ent iou s effort to study o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l ead ers hip and t h e i r r e l a t i o n ­ ships to one another. In a d d i t i o n to s tud y i n g certain aspects of special edu cat ion ad min is t r a t i o n , an attempt is made to c o n t r i b u t e to the body of kno wl e d g e ha v i n g to do with le a d e r s h i p and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory. order to a c c o m p l i s h these o bjectives, in a slightily m o d i f i e d form. In the O C D Q was used R ela t i o n s h i p s were st udied b e t w e e n the dim ens i o n s found by fac tor a n a l y z i n g the items, and c e r t a i n variables h a v i n g to do with the formal academic t r a i n i n g and a dmi n i s t r a t i v e ex periences of the Director. 5 The OCDQ is described in detail in Chapter II. Suffice it to say here that Halpin and Croft identified eight dimensions of organizational climate by factor analyzing the sixty-four items in the questionnaire and assigning items loading heavily on the eight dimensions to eight corresponding sub­ tests. Four of these subtests pertain to the behavior of the faculty as a group; the other four, to the behavior of the administrator as a leader. The eight subtest scores were used to construct a "p rofile11 for each school which depicted that s c h o o l ’s organizational climate (Halpin, 1966, p. 135)• Need Many of the leading universities in the United States, encouraged by federal and state funding, have developed programs specifically for special education administrators in which theories of organization, supervision, and administration are applied to special education. Since the overall performance of an o r g a n i z a ­ tion generally depends upon the leadership behavi or of its administrators, it Is essential that those responsible for programs of preparation of administrators make an effort to discover more about the relationship between trainin g for leadership and the actual leader behavior. 6 Research findings seem to indicate that the success of school ad min ist rat ors does not d epe nd up on course work in education o r adminis tra tio n, n o r upon the amount of tea chi ng e xperience and Herriott, 1965; (Dreeben and Gross, Smith, 1966). 1965; Gross Yet, many school systems give consid era ble weight to these factors in se lecting administrators. The recently de vel ope d programs for special ed uca tio n a d m i n i str ato rs are an attempt on the part of special educators In h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n to p r o v i d e the best p ossible p r e p a r a t i o n for those w h o wi ll be ass ign ed to positions of a d m i n i str ati ve r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and who wi ll be e xer tin g I nfl uence In the f o r m u l a t i o n of policy. The present study Is an attempt to d i s c o v e r rel a t i o n s h i p s wh ich may exist bet w e e n the leadership b e h a v i o r of directors of special ed uca t i o n a nd t h e i r a c a d e m i c t r a i n i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l experience. It should p r o v i d e I n f o r m a t i o n that will benefit those in h i g h e r ed uca t i o n in vo l v e d In tr ai n i n g programs for adm in i s t r a t o r s of sp eci al education. Th e I nte rme dia te school districts, the special educators of Michigan, and ult ima t e l y all special educators should also profit from the findings. Finally, this research will hop ef u l l y add to the body of k n o w l e d g e con cer nin g leadership and o r g a n iza tio nal theory. 7 Purpose The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship of certain selected aspects of the formal academic training of Mic higan Intermediate School District Special Education Directors, as well as previous teaching and administrative experience, to the leadership variables w hich result from factor analysis of the OCDQ. In this research, therefore, the following questions are studied: 1. Will the revised OCDQ which has bee n made appropriate for use in the intermediate school districts, yield results comparable to those of the original OCDQ which was specifically oriented to elementary education? 2. Are there relationships between the perceived factors of the O C D Q and other characteristics of the director of special education, including such variables as academic preparation, p r o ­ fessional experience, age, tenure, and » amount of sensitivity training? 8 As s u m p t i o n s In this study it is ass u m e d first, that the OC DQ me as u r e s cer tai n aspects of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b etw een te ach ers and p rin ci p a l s in e l e m e n t a r y schools, and that this rel a t i o n s h i p Is similar to that b e t w e e n a D i r e c t o r of special e d u c a t i o n and his staff. Secondly, there is an as s u m p t i o n that the a d m i n i s t r a t o r plays a crucial part in d e t e r m i n i n g this relationship. Ove rvi ew Pertinent literature, e s p e c i a l l y that d e a l i n g wit h l eadership and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate, is rev i e w e d in Ch apt er II. In Chapter III, the m e t h o d o l o g y an d pro ced ure s for a n a l y z i n g the data are explained. This e x p l a n a t i o n in­ cludes a d e l i n e a t i o n of the p roc ess u s e d to de ter min e whether the OCD Q can be used to des cri be beh avi ora l dimensio ns or ch ara c t e r i s t i c s in Interm edi ate School Di strict special e d u c a t i o n staffs, and w h e t h e r the d i m e n ­ sions identi fie d can be c o n c e p t u a l i z e d in a m a n n e r similar to that of e lem ent ary schools. The data is ana lyz ed and the res ults are I n t e rp ret ed In Chapter IV. In Ch apter V, a summary of the r e s e a r c h findings t oge the r w i t h d i s c u s s i o n and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for further r e s e a r c h are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction An abundance of literature dealing with leadership as it relates to organizational climate has appeared during the past ten to fifteen years. The trend has moved from the so-called "trait" approach to leadership, to the treatment of leadership as a "process" or "function. Needless to say, the act of leading is contingent upon the presence of someone to be lead--a group or organiza­ tion. A growing Interest in organizations, then, has been a natural consequence of the shift in emphasis from studies of characteristics or qualities of leaders to studies of their behavior as they Interact with those whom they lead. It would be impossible in a work of this nature and scope to present a thorough review of the literature dealing with leadership. Experts have researched, theorized, and reviewed the subject until a plethora of literature is available, the very magnitude of which makes necessary a rather selective review. this review will consist of three parts. Therefore, The first 10 section contains literature on leadership. section is a r eview of the The second literature p e r t a i n i n g to o r g a ni zat ion al climate; while in the third section special at ten tio n is given to the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate De scr ipt ion Questionnaire. Leadersh ip Literally hundreds of studies on leadersh ip have been reported. Stogdill (1948), one of the foremost authorities on the subject, rev i e w e d 124 of these. As a result of his ex hau sti ve survey, he co ncl u d e d that, leadership is not a m a t t e r of pas siv e status, or of the mere p o s s e s s i o n of some c o m b i nat ion of traits. It appears ra t h e r to be a wo r k i n g re lationship amo ng m embers of a group, in wh ich the leader ac quires status th rough active pa rt i c i p a t i o n and d e m o n s t r a t i o n of his capacity for c arr yin g c ooperative tasks t hr o u g h to completion (p. 66). After a series of studies of leadership, Shartle Stogdill and (1948) had similarly r e p o r t e d that leadership is not a "unitary human t r a i t , but r a t h e r a fu nction of a complex of individual, factors in interaction" group, and o r g a n i zat ion al (p. 286). Gibb, who has i de voted over twenty years to the study of leadership, concurs with Stogdill and Shartle. In 1947 he wrote, "There is no one leaders hip type of personality. , . . Leadership resides not e x c l us ive ly in the individual but in his functional r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h other members of his group" (p. 231). Aft er several years and much 11 research, he reiterated hi3 findings: "... that numerous studies of personalities of leaders have failed to find any consistent pattern of traits which characterize leaders" (1954, p. 8 8 9 ). If it Is true, as Stogdill, Shartle, Gibb, Halpin, and others have concluded, that leadership is not basically a sum of personality traits, what is it? Definitions of Leadership Bass (I960), in his summary of the various definitions of leadership, mentions an unpublished paper by Bentz in which the author lists no less than 130 definitions of leadership which he gleaned from a sampling of literature prior to 1949 (p. 87). Although one can find almost as many definitions of leaders and leadership as there are authors on the subject, the idea of leadership as influence seems basic to most. suggests, ", . .It As Bass [leadership] has been equated with any positive influence act; with behavior required to direct a group and with behavior making a difference among groups" (p. 8 9 ). It is this act or behavior of the leader upon which Shartle and his associates in the Ohio State Leadership Studies focus in their definitions. leader in several w a y s : They define a 12 . . . as an i n d i v i d u a l who exe rci ses pos itive influence acts upon others • . . . a n individual who exercises most inf lue nce in goal se tting or goal ac hievement of the group or o rg a n i z a t i o n . . . an i ndi vi d u a l in a given office or pos iti on of apparent ly h igh inf luence p o t e n t i a l (Shartle, 1963, pp. 121-122). For Hem phill (1958), on the o t h e r hand, l ead er s h i p acts do not include acts of influ enc e o c c u r r i n g outside of mutual p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g , no r do they d e p e n d upon "the intent of one person to influence others, but upon the d e m o n s t r a t i o n of a r ela t i o n bet wee n the act and subsequent con sis ten cy in i nteraction" (pp. He defines leaders hip acts as those that structure-in-lnteraction pr o b l e m - s o l v i n g " 98-99). "initiate in the process of mu t u a l (p. 111). The concept " str ucture-in- interac tio n" is fur the r d e f i n e d by Hem phi ll (1958) as "a consistency in b e h a v i o r o c c u r r i n g du r i n g i n t e r a c t i o n that permits the p r e d i c t i o n of the b e h a v i o r that will oc cur in future in ter act ion " (p. 9 6 ). Sto gdi ll (1957) clarifies i n t e r a c t i o n by d e f i n i n g it as "a r e l a t i o n s h i p between two or more pe rsons in w h i c h the b e h a v i o r of each is d e t e r m i n e d by the b e h a v i o r of the ot her(s)" Hemphill (p. (1958) d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between le ade rsh ip acts, a c t a of leaders, and the lead er s h i p role. Leader­ ship acts are a r e s t r i c t e d group of acts, while acts of leaders leadership. include all acts, not just those in vol v i n g As s o c i a t e d w i t h the leadersh ip role are es t e e m and prestige, as well as a c er t a i n ex pec tan cy of 4). 13 leadership acts. Since the success of attempted leadership acts often depends upon the esteem in which the leader is held, it is an important variable, which should be given serious consideration one (pp. 111- 1 1 2 ). Research Studies Dealing With Leadership In their study of Executive Professional L e a d e r ­ ship (EPL) among elementary school principals, and Herriott Gross (1965) attempted to examine the variables that apparently make a difference or account for behavioral variability. They defined EPL as "the phenomenon of an executive of a professionally staffed organization and his effort to conform to a definition of his role that stresses his obligation to improve the quality of staff performance" (p. 8). They found little or no relationship be tween the type or length of previous teaching experience, previous administration experience, sex or marital status and the EPL scores. However, a negative relationship was noted between the EPL scores and the n umber of semester hours of education courses taken by the principals. In discuss ing the three tests comparing the relationships between the E PL and the number of courses in undergraduate education, graduate education, and educational administration respectively, Gross and Herriott reported, "As in the case of the two 14 previous tests [graduate and u n d e r gr adu ate edu cat ion courses], the trend of the d a t a supports the as sum pti on of tr ained incapacity; moreover, significant s t a t i s tic all y" cases, the r el a t i o n s h i p is (p. 67). In all three "the less extensive the formal p r e p a r a t i o n of principals, the gre a t e r their EPL" (p. 67). In co mpa r i n g EPL scores and the age of first p r i n c i p a l s h i p , Gross and Her riott found no significant d i f f er enc e b e t w e e n the EPL scores of the thirty-six to forty age group, w h o had the highest scores, and those thirty years of age or younger. Howev er, the group whose first pri nc i p a l s h i p was obt ained at age forty-f ive or older h ad EPL scores t h a n those thirty and yo unger Se v e r a l research ers Antley, signifi can tly lower (p. 156). (Dreeben and Gross, 1966; M orphet and Schutz, 1965; 1966) hav e concluded that lengthy te aching requirements are "not only unnecessary, but actually are a deterent to obt aining effecti ve a d m i n is tra tor s" D r e e b e n and Gross (Morphet and Schutz, p. 31). suggest that the rea s o n f o r this is that the longer a princip al has b e e n a teacher, the m d r e likely his perspectives will be limited to the kinds of problems that arise in classr oom settings, and the less able he wi ll b e to u n d e r ­ stand problems from a schoolwide van tag e point or in terms of the school's place in the larger system (p. 7 *24). Since the te n-year p rog ram at Ohio State, most the re sea rch de aling with leadership and o r g a n i zat ion of 15 has concentrated on the behavior of the leader. Attempts have been made to find ways of estimati ng administrative effectiveness, of des cri bin g and analyzing the behavior of administrators, and other phenomena concomitant with leader behavior. The Ohio State Leadership Studies were directed by Shartle, who was assisted by a staff of social scientists, among them, Coons, Stogdill, Hemphill, Campbell, Westie, Morris and Seeman. These researchers had for their main objectives the development of research methods for studying leadership, to obtain information which would assist in the understanding of leadership, and which would have value in the selection, education, and training of leaders for every facet of our society. As a result of these studies, two important conclusions were drawn: that leadership behavior can be reliably d esc ribed and behavior d i f ­ ferences shown quantitatively; and that group or staff behavior can also be described reliably and quantitatively (Guetzkow, 1963, p. 130). The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire was the instrument developed by Hemphill and Coons (LBDQ) (1950) to describe and measure aspects of leader behavior. Halpin and Winer (1950) adapted this and used it in a study of Air Force commanders. Two fundamental dimensions of leader behavior were identified on the basis of factor 16 analysis, namely, "Initiating Structure" and " C o n s i d e r a ­ tion" which, a c c o r d i n g to Halpin (1966), a p proximately respectively, 3^ and 50 percent, common variance" Halpin "accounted for of the (p. 88). (1955) defines "initiating structure" as the be ha v i o r of the leader which interprets the r e l a t i o n ­ ship be tween h ims elf and his staff; wh ich establishes "clear patterns of o r g a n i z a t i o n , channels of c o m m u n i c a ­ tion, and ways of g ett ing the Job done" defines (p. 82). He "consideration" as a d m i n ist rat ive beh a v i o r w h i c h gives evidence of friendship, respect, mutual trust, and good interper so nal relations. It appears rather conclusive that the per for man ce of an o rga n i z a t i o n depends in large measure upon the quality of its leadership. As T a n n e n b a u m (1961) remarks, The successful leader is keenly aware of the forces whi ch are most relevant to his beh avior at any given time. He accurate ly understands himself, the individuals and group he is de a l i n g with and the br oad er social en vir onm ent in which he operates (pp. 78-79). It is this l ead er- gro up awareness and i nte rac tio n which has been r e f e r r e d to as o r g a ni zat ion al climate. * O r g a n i zati ona l Climate The concept of o r g a n iz ati ona l climate has ev olved over the years, ment," sometimes called "atmosphere," "social climate," and most recently climate." " env i r o n ­ "organizational As early as 1939, Lewin, Lippitt and White 17 spoke of a characteristic atmosphere w hich developed in g r o u p s , an atmosphere which was the result of the patterns of leadership in the organization. Perkins, in 1951, in a study of climate influences on group learning, pointed out that "the quality of teacher-pupil relations might be expected to be a major determiner of group c l i m a t e , the emotional tone or quality of interpersonal feeling arising from group interaction" (p. 115). P e r k i n s ’ definition of "group climate" might be included in the eve r-growing list of definitions of organizational climate. Definitions of Organizational Climate Of the many definitions which may be found in the literature, only a few of the most presented here. As Taguiri significant ones are (1968) pointed out, it is necessary in describi ng organizational environments and their influence on behavior, that "theoretically m e a n i n g ­ ful and operationally useful concepts" be used (p. 26). It will be noted that some of the following definitions are more others. "meaningful and operationally useful" than * Peterson the beliefs, He continued, (1955) defined climate as "a complex of feelings, and attitudes of group members." "It has a vital effect on group life . . . determines the vigor with which the group tackles its problems" (p. 29). 18 F ore han d and Gilmer definition: (1964) of fer a quite dif ferent O r g a n iza tio nal climate is "the set of charact eri sti cs that describe an o r g a n i z a t i o n a nd that (a) d i s t i n gui sh the o r g a n izat ion from ot her o r g a n i z a ­ tions, (b) are rel ati vel y e n d u r i n g over time, and (c) influence the b ehavior of people in the o r g a ni zat ion " (p. 362). tions are As they point o u t , these features of o r g a n i z a ­ "amenable to s pec ification, m eas ure men t, i n c o r por ati on into empirical r ese arch" (p. and 362). T a g u l r i de fined o r g a n i z a t i o n climate as follows: O r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate is a r e l a t i v e l y e n d u r i n g quality of the internal e n v i ron men t of an or g a n i zat ion that (a) is e x p e r i e n c e d by its members, (b) Influences their behavior, and (c) can be d e s c r i b e d in terms of the values of a pa r t i c u l a r set of c h a r a c teri sti cs (or attributes) of the o rg a n i z a t i o n (p. 27). Litwin and Str i n g e r (1 9 6 8 ), who were co nce rne d w i t h the re l a t i o n s h i p be tween climate and mot iva tio n, or gan i z a t i o n a l climate as "the perceived, effects of the formal system, define subjective the i nfo rma l managers, and other important e n v i r o n m e n t a l ' s t y l e 1 of factors on the attitudes, beliefs, values, a n d m o t i v a t i o n of people who w o r k in a par tic u l a r organiza tio n" on to say that (p. 5). They go "climate is d e f i n e d here in terms of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l and i n t e r per sona l factors that directly mold an d shape m o t i v a t i o n and b e h a vi or" Ha lpi n and Croft (p. 6). (1 9 6 2 ) define o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate as the "o rga nizational p e r s o n a l i t y of a school; 19 figuratively, 'climate' 'p ers ona lit y1 is to the Individual what is to the organization" (p. 1). This obviously is a metaphorical definition rather than an operational one. Research on Organizational Climate' In 195*1, Bey reported a study of administrative organizations of four school systems in which he measured aspects of "social climate" and Interpersonal relations of school personnel. directed by Cornell This study was one of several (1955) over a pe riod of four years. The researchers measured "variables of organizational climate," "administrative actions," and "teacher behavior." "teacher variables," A mong the conclusions drawn from these studies are two of significance: 1. Climate or environment is a dynamic and important aspect of organizational effectiveness. 2. Organizational environment is genuine and perceptible, and its effect upon the performance of an organization is just as genuine and perceptible Barnes (Cornell, p. 223). (I960) reported a study in which he compared two eng ine eri ng groups, matched in size and duties, but with different systems of authority. Barnes labeled "closed" the group which had tight control, little authority among members, and few opportunities for 20 members' interaction. The other group, w h i c h e n c o ur age d greater au ton omy and less constraint, he ca lle d "open." In 1 9 6 3 , shortly after H alpin and Croft's study of Or gan iza tio nal Climate of Schools had been published, a five year r ese arc h p r o g r a m in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate was begun at Harvard Business School. Climate, Ta guiri and L i t w i n of the researchers involved. In Or gan i z a t i o n a l (1968) report the findings The volume is a series of research papers origin all y p r e s e n t e d at one of the re por tin g conferences he ld at Ha r v a r d in 1967. Ta guiri and Li twi n point out four p a r t i c u l a r problems r esearchers have had in d e a l i n g w i t h o r g a n i z a ­ tional climate: 1. is the The first problem, wh ich affects all the others, "distinction of ob jec t i v e and subjective e n v i r o n ­ ments, b e t w e e n the (p. 13). Halpin 'actual* and 'conceptual* situations" (1 9 6 6 ) makes this point w h e n he mentions the influence on climate of demogr aph ic "whether it Is a ne w or old school, wh e t h e r it *#• such as, factors, is located in a wealthy suburb or in a d et e r i o r a t e d slum and wh eth er It is set in a m e t r o p o l i t a n center, a village, oi? a rural area" (p. 201). He also suggests the need for further studies to show the r e l a t io nsh ip between o rga n i z a t i o n a l climate and various b i o g r aph ica l •a and persona lit y characteristics. o JSeveral research ers have since carried out Halpin's suggestion. 21 2. The second prob lem men ti o n e d by Taguiri and Li twi n is closely allied to the first; namely, d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b etween the p ers on and the situation. This is seen when a person, who has inter nal ize d social norms, moves to a not her se tting where these same norms do not exist, but continues to behave as if they did (p. 1*0. 3. D e t e r m i n i n g the aspects of the environment which need to be specified is the third problem. Al tho ugh it is agreed that all aspects of the e n v i r o n ­ ment w hic h influence b e h a v i o r should be included, is not practical. The fact that this "different aspects of the environment become relevant dep en d i n g upon conditions internal to the person and upon variatio ns in the environment itself" (p. 14) places the r e s e a r c h e r on the horns of a dilemma. 4. The fourth pr o b l e m m ent i o n e d is that of "identifying the structures and dynamics of the e n v i r o n ­ ment" pp. (p. 13). In his paper, Sells (Taguiri and Litwin, 85-102) presents a social systems model w h i c h views organiz ati ons as "social systems" and the be ha v i o r of persons in* org anizations as "functi oni ng aspects of social systems in which the p a r t i c i p a t i n g persons are components Inter act ing with o ther components in t hei r respective systems" (p. 86). His factor analytic a p p r o a c h may of fer a solution to this problem. suggests that Sells "a taxonomic analysis of social systems" 22 Its a "necessary preliminary to generalizable research on organizational behavior and the related problem of organizational climate" (p. 102). One study of special interest here was concerned with the influence of leadership styles and o rga niz a­ tional climate on motivation. Litwin and Stringer (1968) used college students in several simulated business organizations. Three different styles of leadership used resulted in the emergence of three distinct social and work climates. In addition, the climates had significant effects on motivation, performance, and job satisfaction (pp. 93-117). Litwin and Stringer concluded that leadership style is an important and dramatic determinant of climate. The emphasis a leader puts on adherence to rules, the kind of goals and standards he sets, and perhaps most important, the nature of his informal relationships and communications with his p e o p l e , have very great impact on the climate (p. 188). It remains to be d emonstrated that similar results will occur in a real business situation and in other types of organizations. In all the research reported to date, with the exception of Halpin's and Croft's study, there is a noticeable lack of research on organizational climate in schools or other educational organizations. Assuming that it is true that "the development of techniques for Improving climate in 23 or ganizations appears to have great p o t e n t i a l for improving the p e r f o rma nce of individu als and groups" (Meyers, p. 162), then it w o u l d see m e s s e n t i a l to develop a g reater u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the climate of educatio nal organizations. The w o r k of H alpin and Croft, the OCDQ, appears to be the only instrument developed and used ext ens ivel y in s tud y i n g the organiza ti ona l climate of e d u c a ti ona l organizations. The Or gan i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Qu est ion nai re The OCD Q is a qu est ion na i r e - t y p e instrum ent w hic h yields subscale scores m e a s u r i n g individ ual and group b e ha v i o r and "climate" profiles. It is Halpin's and Croft's c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the social In t e r a c t i o n taking place in an organization. In their original study, Halpin and Croft analyzed the climate of seventy-one e lem ent ary schools in six different regions of the Un ite d States. The p e rceptions of 1151 respond ent s pro vid ed the data fr om w h i c h eight dimensions were a bst rac ted by factor analysis. Pour of these pe r t a i n to characte ris tic s of the fa cul ty as a group, and four, to cha rac ter ist ics of the pr inc i p a l as a leader. A pr ofile d e p i c t i n g each school's o r g a n iz ati ona l climate was c o n s t ru cte d from the subscale standard scores. By e x a m i n i n g the profiles, using the Q-technique of fa ctor analysis, the sevent y-o ne 24 profiles were classified in six major clusters, each depicting a different type of climate Croft, 1962, pp. 70-72). (Halpin and Only after analyzing the behavior characterizing each climate did Halpin and Croft attempt to describe and name them. They explain that their decision "to rank the climates on the Open vs. Closed continuum was determined, in part, by Rokeach's work on The Open and Closed Mind and was also influenced by Lewin's concept of "functional flexibility" vs. "functional rigidity" (p. 7 8 ). The eight dimensions of organizational climate are described by Halpin (1 9 6 6 , pp. 150-151)> as follows: Teachers* B e h a v i o r : 1. Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendency to be "not with it." This dimension describes a group which is "going through the motions," a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. 2. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary "busywork." The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. 3- Esprit refers to morale. The teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying » a sense of accomplishment in their job. 4. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. 25 Principal's B e h a v i o r ; 5. Alo ofness refers to b e h a v i o r by the pri ncipal wh ich is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as formal and Impersonal. His behavior, in brief, is u n i v e r s a l i s t i c ra t h e r than par ticu lar ist ic; n o m o t h e t i c r at h e r than idiosyncratic. 6. Pro duc tio n Emphasis refers to b e h a v i o r by the p r inc i p a l whi ch is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by close s u p e r v i s i o n of the staff. His c o m m u n i c a t i o n tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to fee dba ck f rom the staff. 7. Thrust refers to b e h a v i o r by the p r i n cip al w h ich is c har a c t e r i z e d by his evident effort in try ing to "move the o r g a n i z a t i o n . " Thrust b e h a v i o r is marked not by close supervision, but by the pr incipal's at tem pt to m oti v a t e the teachers t h r o u g h the e xample w h i c h he personal ly sets. 8. C ons i d e r a t i o n refers to b e h a v i o r by the p r inc i p a l w hic h is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an i n c l i nat ion to treat the te ach ers "humanly," to try to do a little s o m e t h i n g ex tra for them in human t e r m s . The six o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climates id ent i f i e d in order of d e c r e a s i n g Autonomous, "openness" are called: Controlled, (Halpin and Croft, Familiar, 1962, pp. Only the two extremes, Open, Paternal, and C los ed 80-89). "Open" and "Closed" climates will be de scr i b e d here. F r o m these it is not too difficult to determine, u s i n g a "common-sense" approach, t h e pos s i b l e d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e m a i n i n g four. The detailed descr ipt ion s o f these interme dia te climates may be found in e ith er Ha l p i n and Croft (1962, pp. 80-89) or in Ha lpi n (1 9 6 6 , pp. 17^-181). 26 Open Climate Openness depicts a climate characterized by high esprit, thrust, and consideration; low disengagement, hindrance, and production emphasis. There is con­ siderable flexibility, job satisfaction, and freeflowing communication. Closed Climate Rigidity, authoritarianism, low job satisfaction, little freedom for initiative and inadequate leadership are all marks of a "closed'’ climate. It is interesting to note that only seventeen of the seventy-one schools in the original study are characterized by an "open" climate; nine are "autonomous"; twelve, "controlled"; and fifteen, "closed" six, "familiar"; twelve, "paternal"; (Halpin and Croft, 1962, p. 186). The authors caution the interpretation of these results because of the fact that their sample was not random. The questions of reliability and validity are dealt with by Halpin and Croft (p. 64-69). (1962) in the original monograph Three methods were used to estimate coefficients of internal consistency, "coefficients of equivalence," and communality estimates, all of which were statistically satisfactory. On the estimate of Internal consistency, which was the split-half coefficient of reliability, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, 27 "aloofness" was the only d i m e n s i o n with a coefficient less than .55. The "estimates of eq uivalence" were correlations b e t w e e n scores of the od d - n u m b e r e d and the e v e n - n u m b e r e d re spo nde nts in each school. The fact that over two h u n d r e d studies using the OC DQ have been r e p o r t e d since 1963 is evidence of the interest it has aro u s e d and of its th eor eti cal vitality. Many of these studies have been attempts to cope with the limitations p o i n t e d out by H alpin original study The first (pp. (1962) in the 11-12). l imi tat ion is one w i t h whi ch Halpin was reluctant to deal, that is, the rela t i o n s h i p bet w e e n OC DQ m easures and "external cr it e r i a of the s c h o o l ’s ef fec tiv ene ss" (p. 11). Halpin (1966) explains that this re luc tan ce was r e i n f o r c e d by st r o n g and i n c r e a s i n g e vide nce that many of the mea sures w h i c h have been used in educa tio n as p u r p o r t e d indexes of a school's effectiveness, or of an ad min i s t r a t o r ' s e ffe cti ven ess , do not justify the b lin d confide nce that many of us have placed in them (p. 19*0. He goes on to say that We cannot rule out the p o s s i bi lit y that the c l i m at e-p rof lie s may actually constitute a b etter criterion of a school's e f f e c tiv ene ss than many measure s that already have e nte r e d the field of e d uca tib nal a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and now mas que rad e as criteria (p. 195). A m o n g those who have dealt with the no t i o n of validity is An drews (1965) w ho r eported a series of studies p r o d u c i n g evidence of the "construct validity" 28 of the OCDQ. He explains that ". . .a measure is valid to the extent that it demonstrates relationships with other measures which can be predicted in accordance with theory" (p. 318). In a study of 165 Canadian schools, Andrews compared the results of the OCDQ with three scales: a measure of teacher satisfaction; rated school effective­ ness; and rated principal effectiveness. A significant relationship was found between teacher satisfaction and climate and especially between esprit and teacher satisfaction. Six of the eight dimensions were sig­ nificantly related. Seven of the eight were also significantly related to principal effectiveness. Andrews found that teachers' ratings of school effectiveness correlated most highly with "esprit" (.59). Disengagement was significantly negatively related (.-42) to school effectiveness (pp. 329-330). In comparing his results with those of Halpin and Croft, Andrews found no difference at the .05 level either in his total sample or In just the elementary schools. He concluded that "the subtests provide reasonably valid measures of important aspects of school principals' leadership^ in the perspective of interaction with his staff" (p. 333). Smith £1 9 6 6 ) also attempted to deal with the relationship between external variables and the OCDQ. He conceptualized 31 variables in three groups, the situation, the group, and the leader. Factor analysis 29 y i eld ed 23 variables whi ch cl ustered into five factors named by the author: 1. Situation: Real and P erc eived 2. Size 3. Principal: Pr o f e s s i o n a l Stability 4. Principal: Perc eiv ed Behavior, 5. Principal: Attributes and In his comparison of those variables with these of the OCDQ, the author found a significant rel ati ons hip between aloofness and the age of the pri nci pal at the time of his first pr incipalship, the i m p l ic ati on b e i n g that the older a person, the higher the aloofness as me asu red by the OCDQ. Pro duc t i o n emphasis and age were also signifi can tly correlated, sug ges t i n g that the older principals are more directive and supervise more closely. Nei the r sex nor the n umber of years of teaching experi en ce corre lat ed s ign ificantly w ith any of the eight dimensions of the OCDQ. However, i n ter est ing to note that a significant negative it is correla­ tion was found b et w e e n thrust and the nu m b e r of courses in a d m i n i str ati on taken by the principal. This seems to support the same pat ter n of evidence wit h r e g a r d to the ed uca tio n of principals fou nd by Gross and Herriott (1965). There have be en many studies i nve s t i g a t i n g the relation shi p b etween leadership beh a v i o r as m e a s u r e d by 30 the OCDQ or the LBD Q and personality characteristics. In the studies by Andrews (1965) of organizational climate In Canadian schools, the results of the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator were compared with OCDQ scores. No overall significant relationships were found. Berends (1967)* in a study of the relationship of perceptions of principals' personality to organizational climate, used Cattell's 16 Factor Personality Test; 16 Polar Adjective Checklist for the principal's perception of himself; for teachers' OCDQ. 16 Polar Adjective Checklist perceptions of the principal; and the He found that organizational climate scores related primarily to the teachers' perceptions of the principal's personality, but there was no significant relationship between organizational climate and the principal's perception of h imself nor his personality as measured by a standardized personality test. Bell (1967) also used Cattell's 16 Factor Personality Test, but he used the LBDQ to study relationships between personality characteristics of school superintendents and their administrative behavior. He found no significant difference between personality characterft istics and the Consideration or Initiating Structure as measured by the LBDQ. Anderson (1 9 6 5 ) found no significant difference between "open-climate" schools and "closed-cllmate" 31 schools and the p e r s o na lit y att rib ute s of the teachers as m e a s u r e d by Edwards Persona lit y Prefe ren ce Schedule (EPPS). In ano t h e r study in wh ich the EPPS was used to study the r e l a t i o n s h i p bet ween school climate and E d w a r d s ’ manifest needs of teachers, Eb erl ein (1967) found that teachers who saw th eir sc hool as closed had hi g h e r need for achievement, autonomy, sexuality and less need for deference, abasement. and h e t e r o ­ order and The author sug gested that age and experi enc e a c c o u n t e d for much of the d iff ere nce in the results. The least happy teachers were y o u n g and Inexperienced. Levy (1 9 6 8 ) studied the r ela tio nsh ip of d o g m a t i s m and o p i n i o n a t i o n of princ ipa ls to the or gan iza tio nal climate in t heir schools, u sing R o k e a c h ’s D o g m a t i s m and O p i n i o n a t i o n Scales and the OCDQ. The only r e l a t i o n ­ ships of signif ica nce were those b e t w e e n the principals' d o g m a t i s m and their p e r c e p t i o n of Pro duc t i o n Emphasis (which cor rel a t e d positively) and Thrust (which correlat ed negatively). Most researchers seem to agree that there is little significant r e l a t i ons hip bet w e e n p e r s o n ali ty character­ istics andI adm ini s t r a t i v e be ha v i o r as m eas ure d by ei ther the LB DQ or the OCDQ. Brown (1964) and Nov otney H a l p i n ’s and Croft's study, (1965) re pli cat ed Brown In elemen tar y schools in the Twin Cities area of M i n n e s o t a and N ovo tne y in 32 parochial schools in California. Both studies generally supported the original study, although Brown's factor analysis of the intercorrelation matrix yi elded only two factors with eigenvalues similar to the original study. Although Novotney found factor loadings which permitted a clustering of items into eight subtest dimensions similar to Halpin*s and Croft's, some respondents indicated with “unsolicited c o m m e n t s 1* that some of the items in the OCDQ were inappropriate for a parochial school setting (p. 110). In a study relating principals' divergent thinking . ability in interpersonal relationships to the org ani za­ tional climate, Hargraves relationship. (1 9 6 9 ) found no significant He defined "principal's divergent thinking" operationally as creative ability to interpret verbal and non-verbal interpersonal behaviors through written productions of various structured situations. These structured situations were presented to the respondents in the form of pictures representing various types of interpersonal behaviors. The principals' task was to "create" possible situations, p rov idi ng suggestions for dialogue between the persons pictured and possible outcomes. The subjectivity which might enter into the interpretations of the respondents' written productions causes one to consider any conclusions drawn as rather tenuous. Further research is necessary to confirm the 33 the author's c onc lus ion that a p r i n c i p a l who has had more hours of graduate credit is "more sensitive to o t h e r s " ( p . 6 5 )• One study wh ich is of special Interest in the present research was m e n t i o n e d by Ha l p i n stated that Mu laik's (1966), who (1 9 6 6 ) u n p u b l i s h e d study of o r g a ni zat ion al climate In hos pit als has d e m o n s t r a t e d that the OC DQ (or as M ula ik calls it, the OCQ) was used in an org a n i z a t i o n other than an e l e m e n t a r y or secondary school. Besides c han g i n g the items slightly to fit the n u r s e - s u p e r v i s o r relation shi p, M u l a i k also added items to provide for the two levels in the o r g a n iza tio nal hi erarchy of a hospital, b r i n g i n g the number of items to seventy-two. Us ing the same statis tic al p roc edu res as Ha lpin and Croft, that is, c omp u t i n g an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x which was then s ubj ect ed to a principal component factor analysis, M u l a i k found nin e t e e n factors. W hen these n ine t e e n factors were r ot a t e d to a simple structure co nfi gur ati on usi ng Kaiser's Var i m a x method, seven of the eight factors re por ted by Ha lpi n and Croft were identified.i Aloofness, which, as Mulaik points out, was the least definitely e s t a bli she d factor among Halpin's and Croft's eight, was not clearly I den t i f i a b l e am ong the nineteen. M u l a i k con clud ed that the O C D Q can be ad ap t e d to organizations ot her than schools. 34 Summary of Previous Re search Since res ear ch to date has p rovided su bst ant ial evidence of e ither a lack of or a negative co rre lat ion be twe en the e f f e c t ive nes s of school a dmi nistrators and their academic preparation, it is of interest to the writer to attempt to de ter m i n e w h e t h e r the outcomes wil l be similar in a study of special educators. Al tho ugh one cannot help but be impressed by the bulk of evi dence s u g g e s t i n g that or gan i z a t i o n a l climate is an important variable, the focus of the present study will be the di men sio ns the climates, of leadership b eha v i o r rather than themselves. Other than d i s c o v e r i n g w hether the " o r g a n i z a t i o n s ” in the present study have climates similar to those Jn Hal pin*s and Croft*s schools, more useful in for mat ion about the climate is not expected. The vagueness of H alp in* s climate c ate gor iza tio ns p r e ­ cludes useful nes s more, as Andrews of the six categories here. (1 9 6 5 ) po int ed out, Further­ "the o v e r a l l climate does not predict a n y t h i n g that is not b et t e r pre dic ted by the subtests" (p. 333). In conclusion, In the review of literature dealing wi th leadership and o r g a ni zat ion al climate, especially the w o r k of H a l p i n and Croft, the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate De s c r i p t i o n Question nai re, an attempt was made to show the r e l a t io nsh ip b e t w e e n these concepts. Authorities seem to agree that the i n t e r act ion b e t w e e n leaders and 35 those they lead has a significant effect on the climate of the organization. There is co nsi der abl e evidence that leader behavior, as w ell as the or gan i z a t i o n a l climate resulting, are measurable. The OCDQ, an i ns t r u ­ ment used to d esc rib e characteristic b eha viors re sul t i n g from the in ter act ion of members of an organization, was used in the present study with the hope that m u c h could be learned from a study of these b e h a vi ors about the prepara tio n necessary for success ful ad min i s t r a t o r s of special education. <1 CHAPTER III M E T H O D O L O G Y AND PROCEDUR ES In tro duc tio n This study was part of a larger p roj ect w h i c h e n ­ gaged the wr i t e r and two other researc her s who shared a m u tua l interest in special edu ca t i o n ad min ist rat ion , p e cially at the int erm edia te district level, and in o r g a n ­ izational climate as it relates to administration. l a bor ati on with Birch (1970) and Spicknall e s­ Col­ (1970) in the c o lle cti on and p r o c e s s i n g of data made it pos s i b l e to use all, r ath er than a sample, of the i n t e r med iat e school d i s ­ trict special e d u c a t i o n staffs in M i c h i g a n w hic h have a p ­ proved special ed uca ti on directors. This res ear ch was e ndorsed by the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a ­ tion of Intermediate Special Ed uca tio n A d m i n is tra tor s whe n the pr oposal for the study was p r e s e n t e d to the members at their Oct obe r meeting. In this chapter, study are defined; * the terms whi ch are germane to the the null hypotheses are presented; p o p u l a t i o n is described; the the Instruments u s e d and the m a n n e r in w hic h the data were collected are discussed; and the procedures used in a nal yzing the da ta are explained. 36 37 Definitions of Terms 1. Intermediate School Districts are Michigan edu­ cational agencies operating at a regional level, providing services to constituent local districts, and serving as administrative links between local districts and the State Department of Education. For the purposes of this study, the intermediate school district should be considered with regard to Its specific responsibilities for special educa­ tion as provided under Public Act 18 of 195^ and subse­ quently amended by Public Act 190 of 1962. 2. Directors of Special Education are those employed full-time by the Intermediate school districts, reimbursed by the State and approved by the State Department of Edu­ cation as qualified to fulfill the duties assigned. 3. The Special Education Staff consists of non­ classroom personnel employed by the intermediate school district, possessing qualifications to function In special education positions, Including speech correctionlsts, diagnosticians for the mentally handicapped, supervisors, consultants for the mentally handicapped, teacher con­ sultants for the physically handicapped, teachers of the homebound .and/or hospitalized, and such other professional personnel as approved by the Superintendent of Public In­ struction. 38 4. O r g a n iza tion al Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Qu es t i o n n a i r e is an instrument used by Halpin and Croft (1962)^ to m e a ­ sure ce rtain aspects of i n t e r pe rso nal b e h a v i o r and o r g a n i ­ zational climate in elementary schools. study, It has bee n m odi f i e d slightly, ve rs i o n is r eferred to as the In the present and this m o d i f i e d "revised OCDQ" (see App end ix B). Hypotheses A l though the O CDQ has been used in m any studies in w h ich different variables have b e e n r e l a t e d to the OCDQ, there have been no studies u t i l i z i n g the O C D Q In which special ed uc ati on pe rso nne l or di rec t o r s have been studied. In the present research, each of the eight O C D Q factors has been rel a t e d to other selecte d variables. T h e variables selected fall into two m a i n groups: those dea l i n g with the e ducational p r e p a r a t i o n of the d i rector of special education, and those d e a l i n g w i t h his p r o f e s s i o n a l experience. Other r e s e a r c h e r s have found that n ei t h e r the academic p r e p a r a t i o n nor the amount of te ach ing experie nce of school p rin ci p a l s seems to have po sit ive influence on the eff ect ive nes s of their l ea d e r ­ ship (Antley, 1966; Gross and Herriott, Schutz, 1966;, Smith, 1966). 1965; M or p h e t and This fact aroused the ^P erm iss ion was obtained f r o m the M a c m i l l a n Company, p ublishers, to use the O C D Q in this study and to modify the items as shown in A ppendix B. 39 curiosity of the writer to determine whether similar r e ­ sults would accrue in the present study. hypotheses evolved from this i n t e r e s t . The following They are stated in the null form: Hyp o t h e s i s 1 : There is no relationship between scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the year in which the directors received his highest academic degree. H y p othesis 2: There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the amount of coursework in education taken by the director. Hypothesis 3 : There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the amount of special education coursework taken by the director. Hypothesis *1 : There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the amount of coursework in educational administration taken by the director. Hypothesis 5 : There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the amount of coursework in special education administration taken by the director. Hypothesis 6 : * There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors a,nd the director's scholastic achievement as measured by his reported undergraduate grade point average ( G P A ) . ^When referring to the director of special education in the remainder of this thesis, the title will be shortened, and simply "director" will be used. 40 Hypothe sis 7 : T h e r e is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the eight OCD Q factors and the amount of s ens ­ itivity t r a i n i n g w hic h the di re c t o r has had. (This includes " T - g r o u p i n g , " "encounter grouping," and similar formal experie nce s in group dynamics.) Hy pot hes is 8: Th ere is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the num ber of years of t e ach in g e xpe rie nce of the director. Hypothe sis 9: There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b etw e e n the scores on any of the eight O C D Q factors and the number of years of n o n - c l a s s r o o m sp ecial e d u c a t i o n experience of the director. Hypothesis 10; T h e r e is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the eight O C D Q factors and the adminis tra tiv e ex per ien ce of the director. Hypothe sis 11: T h e r e is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the eight O C D Q factors and the amount of i n ter ns hip and p r a c t i c u m experie nce in a d m i n i s t r a ­ ti on w h i c h the dir ect or has had. Hy pot h e s i s 12: There any of the director. is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n eight O C D Q factors and the Hy pot h e s i s 13: the scores on age of the . T h e r e is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the O CD Q factors and the length of te nur e of the d i r e c t o r in his present position. Hy pot h e s i s 14: Th ere any of the is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n eight O C D Q factors and the the scores on d i r e c t o r ’s 41 previous employment as a special education staff member in the intermediate district in which he is now director. Sub.1 ects Th e population of special education directors and their staffs was derived from all of the intermediate school districts in the state of Michigan. The criteria for selecting the participating districts were the follow­ ing: 1. The intermediate district employed a full-time director of special education approved for state reimbursement. 2. The intermediate district levied Public Act 18 m i l l a g e .^ Thirty districts met these criteria. One of these was omitted because of the illness of the director at the time the study was being conducted. Of the remaining 29 districts, all special education directors and their staffs participated in the study. Letters were sent to the Superintendents of each participating district (Appendix C) requesting cooperation ^The, provisions of Public Act 18 of 1954, as amended, have now biben incorporated within Public Act 190 of 1962. These provisions allow millage to be levied for the support of special education programs and services upon favorable vote within the entire intermediate school district area. Details of the law may be found in Sections 3 ^ 0 . 291-330u of the Compiled School Laws of the State of Michigan. 42 and p e r m i ssi on to conduct the study in that d i s t r i c t . All Su per intendents cooperated in the study. Figure 1 is a map of the state of M i c h i g a n showing the loc ation of the 29 districts. It will be n oticed that 26 of them are in the lower peninsula, peninsula. three in the up per The names of the districts with the numbers of special e d u c a t i o n pe rso nne l from each are listed in T a b l e 1. The initial p o p u l a t i o n was comprised of twe nty -ni ne directors and 499 s taff members. However, eight answer sheets of staff members could not be used b ecause of i n ­ complete data. population. 74. The r e m a i nin g 520 comprised the total The size of the staffs ran ged from three to The numbers of staff me mbe rs in the various positions are shown in Table 2. B iographical informa tio n on the re spondents according to their pos itions is found in Ta ble 2. listed This in for mat ion includes the ages, num ber of years they have been on the present staff, the highest deg ree held and the years these were received, the number of years of experience in e duc ati on and in special education. In this table can also be found percentages and mea ns where these we r e . c o n s i d e r e d meaningful. It will be noticed, for example, that the m e a n age of all 520 respondents 37 years, while that of directors Is 40 years. Is It should also be noted that 24 of the 29 directors have at least a Figure^ 1,— Graphic Distribution of Population. Note: Unshaded areas represent 29 Intermediate School Districts p articipating In this study. TA BLE 1 MICHIGAN INTERME DIAT E SC H O O L D I S T R I C T S W I T H A PPR OVE D DIR ECT ORS OP S PEC IAL E D U C A T I O N HaB1D Name of District N o - of> Staff Members P a r t i c i p a t i n g in the Study Bay-Arenae 13 Berrien County Branch 15 12 Calhoun 10 Charlevoix-Emmet 15 11 Delta-Schoolcraft Dickinson-Iron 6 Eaton 13 Genesee Hillsdale 15 10 Huron 11 Ingham 33 8 Ionia Isabella 3 Jackson Kalamazoo 29 14 Kent 74 Lenawee 22 Livingston 18 Ma r q u e tte -Al ger 19 Monroe 3 Montcalm 7 50 Oakland Ot taw a * 14 Saginaw 20 Shiawassee 21 St. Joseph 16 Tuscola 15 Washtenaw TOTAL 23 520 TA3LE 2 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATICS OK STAFF MEMBERS P o s it io n s T o ta l N o. R e s p o n d in g 2 0 -2 9 D ir e c to r s S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W orkers S p eech C o r r e c tlo n ls ts T ype C C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r C o n s u lt a n t s (T y p e 4 } T e a c h e r s o f H om eb oun d a n d / o r H o s p ita liz e d O th e r TOTAL As e a 4 0 -4 9 3 -0 -3 ? 1 4 13 11 86 7 12 14 12 36 22 23 13 22 12 6 15 30 14 4 11 0 3 7 24 3 6 0 3 1 2 3 1 43 54 5 to “ 11 20 5 17 15? 9 14 8 2 8 1 155 ipr No. Sex* I** 0 29 25 74 88 128 33 46 26 sc 16 64 50 36 26 18 6 0^ 42 54 519 10 20 41 20 >. . 13 24 37 To SOT I.' ■3 * 24 52 102 1‘ 4C 32 34 311 0 0 -5 “ 53 Y ears 4 -9 10 36 32 55 80 45 87 10 13 35 48 84 26 18 13 7 29 32 29 6 23 76 63 24 34 14 18 n r "5T m ;n P resen t 1 0 -1 9 29 25 74 83 123 33 46 1 2 16 20 59 2 4 7 5 21 30 4? 11 43 ;4 8 6 2 0 T T S ta ff 20 o r o v e r Mean A ges 4 0 .7 38 3 8 .3 4 2 .9 3 0 .3 4 0 .2 3 5 .4 43 35 37 K ea n l i o . o f Y ears 14 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 .4 5 .5 5 .2 4 .5 4 .2 2 .8 5 .4 5 1 5T 0 1 “? 4 .8 3 .8 4 .6 6 5 10 B H o. Y ea rs E x p e r ie n c e i n E d u c a tio n 4 -9 1 0 -1 9 2 0 -2 9 0 -3 D ir e c to r s S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W ork ers S p eech C o r r e c tlo n ls ts T ype C C o n s u lta n ts T ype A C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r s o f H om eb ou n d a n d / o r H o s p ita lis e d 60 o r o v e r 29 25 74 88 128 33 46 H D ir e c to r s S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W ork ers S p eech C o r r e c tlo n ls ts T ype C C o n s u lta n ts Type 4 C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r s o f H om eb oun d a n d / o r H o s p ita liz e d O th e r TOTAL 5 0 -5 9 M ean 30 o r o v e r 17 15 13 32 30 23 15 ?4 5 4 A 6 4 3 0 1 1 1 2 o 2 1 I 1* . 1* 14*1 1 0 ,2 9*9 6 .2 1 2 .9 1 0 .8 11 30 7 13 14 _4 3 1 1 4 .4 1 1 .7 0 -1 D ir e c to r S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W ork ers S p eech C o r r e c tlo n ls ts T ype C C o n s u lta n ts T ype 4 C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r s o f H om eb oun d a n d / o r H o s p ita liz e d * O th e r TOTALS ? V i i 12 14 32 0 ▲ 29 25 74 86 128 33 46 42 54 51? 13 26 28 4 8 15 0 0 0 0 3* 0 0 29 25 74 88 126 33 45 41 54 51? 0 3 "T? O ne p e r s o n d i d 29 25 74 88 126 32 46 0 2 17 13 46 3 10 41 54 51? 9 16 m r n o t resp on d to Two i n d i v i d u a l s d i d th is n ot resp on d to *T w o s p e e c h c o r r e c t l o n l s t s , resp o n d t o t h is ite m . aT h e s e S p e e c h C o r r e c t l o n l s t s 20 m B a c h e lo r s N b. X 5 15 32 9 14 6 .7 1 7 .0 65 2 7 .3 3 0 .4 19 18 4 6 .3 3 ij. 3 i7 4 i n 4 10 16 17 H i g h e s t D e g r e e H e ld M a s te r s N o. X S p e c ia lis t N o. ■ X 24 22 53 62 40 23 30 8 2 .8 88 7 1 .7 7 0 .4 3 1 .8 6 9 .7 6 5 .2 13 11 0 l .1 22 27 5 3 .7 50 0 4 w r 3J m 2 1 8 2 3 .0 1 4 .8 3 6 .5 9 .4 2 1 .7 22 2 9 .6 4 4 12 23 29 9 7 3 15 lSU 8 5 13 21 21 6 12 2 7 .6 20 1 7 .6 2 3 .9 1 6 .7 1 8 .8 2 6 .1 4 6 10 10 8 4 2 6 1 4 .6 4 4 “57 I t il "5? 1 3 .8 16 1 6 .2 2 6 .0 2 3 .0 2 8 .1 1 5 .3 7 .3 2 7 .8 2 0 .6 8 or over i 19 16 27 14 26 11 23 6 .9 4 .0 1 7 .6 1 2 .6 15 15 I5 5 - 32 D o c to r a te N o. r 3 2 3 2 .2 3 0 1 0 1 7 .4 o r 0 5 15 Y e a r H i g h e s t D e g r e e Was A t t a i n e d 1 9 6 2 -6 3 1 9 6 4 -6 5 1 9 6 6 -6 7 N o. N o. r Mb. "X X 1 9 6 8 -6 9 N o. - r D ir e c to r s S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W ork ers Speech C o r r e c tio n is ts f T ype C C o n s u lta n ts T ype 4 C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r s o f H om eb ou n d a n d / o r H o s p ita liz e d O th e r TOTALS 4 12 "5? 0 0 2 .4 4 5 6 19 13 12 7 15 29 6 7 10 11 9 6 T T S p e c i a l E d u c a tio n S 6 -7 t 2 1 14 2 A s s o c ia te t lo . X D ir e c to r s S u p e r v is o r s D ia g n o s tic ia n s S c h o o l S o c i a l W ork ers S p eech C o r r e c tlo n ls ts * * T ype C C o n s u lta n ts Type 4 C o n s u lta n ts T e a c h e r s o f H om eb oun d a n d / o r H o s p ita liz e d * * O th e r TOTALS :io . Y ea rs E x p e r ie n c e i n 2 -3 1 4 -5 1 0 .3 8 .0 4 .8 2 .2 9 .3 ~T~ 6 l or b e fo r e "N o. X 1 3 .8 24 1 3 .5 1 1 .4 6 .3 1 2 .5 4 .3 13 8 22 21 22 10 15 4 4 .8 32 2 9 .7 2 3 .9 1 7 .5 3 1 .2 3 2 .6 9 .8 7 .4 r o r 19 14 im r 4 6 .3 2 5 .9 "5B “ ite m . th is ite m . o n e T y p e C C o n s u lt a n t , a n d tw o t e a c h e r s o f t h e hom ebound a n d /o r h o s p i t a l i z e d a r e e m p lo y e d i n a n e x p e r im e n ta l p rogram . d id not 47 m a s t e r ' s degree degrees (82.856); two have e d u c a t ion al specialist (6. 956); and three have d o c t ora tes (10 .356 ). Ins tru m e n t a t i o n Two instruments were used in the present i n v e s t i g a ­ tion: the I n t e r med iat e School Distr ict Q u e s ti onn air e Special E d u c a t i o n (Appendix B ) , and a Q ues t i o n n a i r e for Directors of Special E d u c a t i o n dev el o p e d by the author (Appendix D ) . The Intermediate School District Special E d u c a t i o n Qu es t i o n n a i r e includes the OC DQ and bio gra phi cal 7 tlon.1 11. informa- The O C D Q has been d iscu s s e d in detail in Chapter It will be r eca lle d that the instrume nt was d eve l o p e d by Halpin and Croft (1962) for use in m e a s u r i n g o r g a n i z a ­ tional climate in ele men tar y schools. The O C D Q contains 64 L i k e r t- typ e items, each a statement of interper son al b eha v i o r among teachers and the principal. The res pon dent indicates the de gree to which the item applies to his s itu ati on by use of a four- point scale: 1. Rarely occurs 2. 3. Sometimes occurs * O f t e n occurs 4. Very freque ntl y occurs 7 'Additional items d eal i n g with c o m m uni cat ion b eha vio r and "Desired" be hav ior were included for use in Spicknall's and Birch's r ese a r c h respect ive ly, but were not use d in the present research. 48 Halpin and Croft found by factor analysis that the items grouped into eight factors, four of which described faculty or group behavior, and four which described the behavior of the principal. The group variables were called disengagement, hindrance, esprit, and intimacy; the princi­ pal (or leader) variables were aloofness, production em­ phasis, thrust, and consideration. A description of each of these dimensions, as well as the climates derived from the scores on them, is found in Chpater II. The original Instrument used by Halpin and Croft is found In Appendix A. Since the Instrument was originally developed for use in elementary schools, all of the Items refer to the principal-teacher relationship in typical school situa­ tions. For this study, it was necessary to change "princi­ pal" to "director" and "teachers" to "staff members" in all of the Items, as well as to modify some of the items which were Inappropriate for the present study. It will be noticed that five "buffer" items were added by Halpin and Croft to the original questionnaire for the purpose of filling out the IBM cards. Since these were not scored, they were omitted from the revised OCDQ. The second instrument used In this study was a ques­ tionnaire for directors of special education. The pur­ pose of this questionnaire was to obtain information re­ garding the formal academic training and professional experience of the intermediate district directors of 49 special ed uca tio n p art i c i p a t i n g in the study. A portion of the d a t a used as dependent variables In this study was ob tai ned from this questionnaire. Collecti on of Data Pilot Study Before adm in i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to any of the d i stricts In the populat ion , a pilot study was con ducted by two of the resear che rs in one of the I n t e r m e d i a t e d i s ­ trict special e duc a t i o n staffs selected from those not in^ eluded in the population. This district dif fer ed from those in the p o p u l a t i o n only in that the dir e c t o r was not certified, nor was he a full-time d ire c t o r of special e d u ­ cation . T he pilot study p rov ide d an opportunity to check the r e v i s e d Items for ambiguity and to clarify the p r o c e d u r a l and substantive re quirements for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the questionnaire. It was found that additio nal i nstructions were necessary, and these were s ubsequently d e v e l o p e d and used consistently in further adminis tra tio ns of the I n s t r u ­ ments (see Appendix E). One item whi ch p r e s e n t e d d i f f i ­ culty be cause of ambiguity was rewritten. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of Instruments F o l l o w i n g the pilot study, a ppointments were made with the d i r e c t o r and/or the superintendent of each 50 .Intermediate school district, questions answered. the r ese arc h explain ed and The co lle cti on of data was begun on De cem ber 12, 1969 and was com pleted on Febru ary 6, 1970. In all but four of the i n t e rme dia te districts, one of the three research ers a d m i n i s t e r e d the qu est ion nai res to the di rec tor and his staff at a m e e t i n g sometimes called for this purpose. Because of emergency tions and other d ifficulties, tion in these four districts. cancella­ others per fo r m e d this f u n c ­ In two of them, a staff D i a g n o s t i c i a n a d m i n ist ered the questionnaire. other two, the d i r e c t o r was responsible. In the In all cases, the examiners were instru cte d to use the same pr oce dur es used by the researc her s In the other districts and to read the suppl eme nta ry I n s t ruc tio ns w h i c h were provided. At the b e g i n n i n g of the meeting, the study was given, an e x p l a na tio n of and there was an opport uni ty for those p a r t i c i p a t i n g to ask questions. answered, the materials Whe n these had been (questionnaires, m a r k - s e n s e answer sheets, and pencils) were distributed. A fter the r e ­ spondents had been given time to read the pr int ed i n s t r u c ­ tions, the supplementary ex aminer (.Appendix E). instructions w ere gi ven by the Questions w h i c h arose subsequently were answered Individually. W h e n the que sti onn air es were completed, each respondent pl a c e d his a nsw er sheet in a large envelope p r o v i d e d for this purpose. This was done 51 to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of the r e ­ spondents and to encourage frankness in their responses. Questionnaires, answer sheets, pencils, printed copies of the additional instructions, and stamped, a d ­ dressed envelopes were left for the staff members who were not present at the meeting. These questionnaires and answer sheets were to be sealed in the envelopes and r e ­ turned by the respondents to the researchers by United States mail. Approximately thirty staff members followed this procedure. The directors responded to both questionnaires at the same time as the staff meeting, cedures outlined above. following the p r o ­ In three instances, however, be­ cause of time limitations, the directors did not complete the questionnaires during the meeting and returned them at a later date to the researchers. The average time for the staff to complete the questionnaire was thirty minutes. The d i r e c t o r ’s questionnaire took an additional fifteen to twenty minutes. Individuals and districts were advised that the con­ fidentiality of their responses would be respected. This necessitated a coding system for maintaining the anonymity of the respondents. Therefore, numbers were assigned to each district from a table of random numbers. presented in Appendix P. These are 52 Te chn i q u e s of Analysis Preliminary Procedures T h e r e v i s i o n of the items of the OCD Q n e c e s s i t a t e d a factor analysis of the items in o r d e r to compare these findings w i t h those of H a l p i n and Croft. Use of all 29 districts with respond ent s nu mbering over 500 ma de this factor analysis feasible. Ma r k - s e n s e a nswer sheets were used by the r e s p o n d ­ ents, and from these IBM cards were pu nched and v e r i f i e d by the M i c h i g a n State Uni vers ity E v a l u a t i o n Service. The CI)C 3600 c omp ute r was used to factor analyze the re vised O C D Q Items and to compute all the necessary d a t a from the O IBM cards. I nte rco rrelations (N = 520) of the 64 Items in the m o d i f i e d O C D Q were obtained as shown in the i n t e r ­ co r r e l a t i o n m atr ix found In Appendix Q. Th e st ati sti cal procedures u s e d in the fac tor a n a l y ­ sis of the original O C D Q (Halpin and Croft, 69) were used in the present study. 1962, pp. 47- This p roc edu re was an attempt to d isc o v e r whe the r the r evi sed O C D Q factors were si mil ar to those found by H a l p i n and Croft. factor analysis of the revised O C D Q had two steps. a p r i n ci pal component Items. The First, solution was run on the revised T h e results of this solution, which p r o d u c e d 21 Q Use of the M i c h i g a n State Un ive rsi ty computing facilities was made possibl e through support, In part, from the Nat ional Science Foundation. 53 factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater, were then rotated toward a simple structure by using a Varimax r o ­ tational solution. This solution produced the orthogonal factors which are present in the revised OCDQ. The factor loadings on each revised item are presented in Table 3. The second step was the comparison of the factor loadings for each revised OCDQ item with parallel loadings for each original OCDQ item. matching are seen in Table 4. The results of this factorThis process of factor- m a tching was necessary in order to determine whether the revised OCDQ is m e a s u rin g the same factors as the original O C D Q .^ Since four of the correlations were over only one below .67 (Factor six correlated .90 and .41), it was determined that the revised O C D Q was mea sur ing basically the same factors as the original OCDQ. On the basis of this procedure and these findings, it was decided that the original eight factors found by Halpin and Croft, the names assigned to them, and further statistical procedures of the original study would be used in the present study. ^This Fo rtran Program for Relating Factors Between Studies Based on Different Individuals was developed by Bianchi and Kaiser (1964). The authors state that the factors of, two factor-analytic studies are related "by determining the cosines of the angles between the factor vectors of the two studies after the two sets of common variables have been m atched as closely as possible. Since these cosines are measured in a space where cosines of angles me an c o r r e l a t i o n s , they may be descriptively inter­ preted as correlation coefficients" (p. 1). 54 TABLE 3 ROTATED ITEM FACTOR MATRIX FOR 64 ITEMS OF THE REVISED OCDQ (N = 520) I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 07* -0 1 01 21 07 -1 5 24 19 01 -0 5 34 -0 4 04 -1 5 09 05 02 02 28 -0 8 20 08 15 -0 3 -0 7 -1 4 31 77 51 -0 8 24 63 38 10 44 61 49 00 -0 4 09 62 44 -0 3 10 20 16 -3 2 49 36 08 -0 1 63 14 09 28 17 13 -1 2 51 -1 2 30 64 36 44 The II III IV 08 38 07 04 04 36 03 07 -0 8 42 -1 6 11 11 31 -0 1 16 21 53 -2 7 14 -0 4 58 -0 5 20 13 50 -1 7 -0 2 -0 2 25 -2 1 -1 1 15 19 -1 5 02 14 19 -0 8 02 -0 9 03 -0 3 33 03 18 23 15 02 08 04 -0 4 11 -4 4 03 -1 8 -1 4 -5 9 -0 3 -1 7 05 -6 7 -1 4 -0 8 01 -6 3 -1 8 -0 7 -0 9 -5 1 -0 0 -2 0 11 -4 8 -0 7 -1 3 -0 4 -0 5 01 -2 2 -0 9 -3 3 37 -1 6 -0 4 -2 7 21 -2 1 04 -0 5 -1 1 02 -0 2 08 -1 1 -0 2 -1 1 -1 3 10 -0 9 -0 5 -1 8 05 -0 4 -1 8 -0 4 11 05 -2 4 01 -1 2 -1 0 -0 0 -0 2 02 -1 2 04 06 -0 7 -0 4 13 16 -0 3 11 06 08 19 18 15 -0 3 05 03 02 -0 8 05 -1 2 14 -0 9 05 23 -0 5 -2 0 01 -1 0 -2 7 -5 8 -0 4 -0 3 -0 6 50 • -0 3 19 -4 6 49 -1 0 13 -1 0 49 -03 20 -3 8 61 -0 4 14 06 -1 0 12 10 01 -1 0 03 02 -0 4 15 04 14 11 -0 3 - m -0 2 -0 9 -2 6 -0 5 02 15 -1 0 -0 4 -06 -0 7 d e c im a l p o in ts have V 08 -0 4 01. -1 9 -1 3 09 -0 0 -0 5 -1 1 02 -0 2 08 -1 1 -0 2 -1 1 09 -0 1 33 58 -0 4 34 60 -2 3 35 46 22 06 IB 10 22 07 10 19 05 28 20 -0 4 20 05 47 -0 2 31 37 been -16 03 -0 1 -08 -0 4 01 09 -0 9 05 -0 7 07 06 -3 2 08 -0 4 -0 1 26 14 -1 0 -1 0 06 -1 4 -1 5 -0 3 o m itte d . VI V II V III h2 -0 0 21 -0 6 10 13 07 33 22 -1 2 37 05 -1 0 -0 7 38 05 -0 5 -1 7 35 -0 1 -0 0 -0 7 13 03 11 12 12 -0 3 24 01 49 03 -1 9 06 16 60 -1 7 14 17 -0 6 -0 0 -0 3 04 09 -0 3 -0 1 -2 0 -1 5 -1 4 -0 4 -1 2 -1 9 24 04 -1 9 02 -1 4 05 10 22 -0 2 -0 2 06 52 22 18 39 15 13 35 -0 4 13 -0 2 -0 1 -1 4 -0 9 04 -0 3 -0 2 09 -1 4 03 -1 0 14 -0 3 -0 4 04 08 21 01 -1 0 11 -1 1 01 -0 3 -1 6 15 22 29 40 29 45 34 31 38 47 31 33 33 46 33 37 29 32 33 27 36 30 43 30 47 18 33 48 62 44 16 -0 5 36 -0 0 02 -0 1 27 -0 0 18 20 27 02 00 -0 1 -0 7 -0 5 10 08 05 32 21 23 -0 9 07 08 -0 2 02 -1 1 -1 2 05 -0 1 -0 5 -0 3 -0 2 44 08 -0 8 13 -1 6 08 -0 8 -2 8 00 18 -0 6 -1 3 23 15 -0 1 09 43 29 09 53 45 -1 4 11 13 05 05 12 . -18 30 09 -2 9 -0 7 52 29 -06 -0 6 -0 1 -0 3 11 -0 2 -0 1 01 26 13 -1 1 33 21 09 -2 4 02 44 33 01 -0 3 01 -1 1 13 -5 7 17 22 22 21 . 26 50 50 40 25 55 51 40 26 15 36 45 37 37 20 34 37 27 41 26 10 16 44 35 36 18 23 47 28 37 40 37 48 34 42 TABLE 4 FACTOR MATCH OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED OCDQ Revised OCDQ Factors * 1 5 6 7 8 .10 .08 .07 .11 .16 .11 CO 0• .04 .11 .14 .32 .11 .96 .04 .01 .13 .19 .12 .02 .07 .80 .01 .44 .22 .23 5 .08 .03 .02 .03 .99 .10 .08 .02 6 .22 .24 .10 .56 .01 .41 .33 .55 7 .03 .01 .15 .03 .11 .38 JZ .24 8. .02 .18 .18 .17 00 .66 .09 .67 1 .97 .02 2 .04 .92 3 .04 4 Note: 0• • OCDQ 3 VO 0 Original 2 on CM • Factors 1 All negative correlation signs have been omitted. 56 It is believed that the correspondence of the two sets of factors is further evidence of the validity of the revised instrument. Analysis of Data New cards were then punched by the Evaluation S e r ­ vice with the raw scores for each subt'est or factor. The raw scores were then converted to standard scores for each individual respondent with a me an of 50 and a standard d e ­ viation of 10. In order that other analyses of the data might be conducted, the standard scores were punched onto a new set of summary cards. A mean subtest score was computed for each of the eight subtests, district by district. These scores define the average response for the staff members for each re ­ spective subtest. in Table 5. The subtest scores are shown by district A brief explanation of the scores of the s u b ­ tests may be in order here. Disengagement means, according to Halpin and Croft (1962), that the group is merely tions" (p. 40). "going through the m o ­ High scores on this subtest suggest, then, an Inclination on the part of the staff to be "not with It" with respect to the task at hand. High scores on hindrance seems to indicate a feeling among staff members that the director burdens them with construe a3 unnecessary. "busywork” which they 57 TABLE 5 O C D Q SUBTEST SCORES BY I NTE R M E D I A T E DISTRICT* O C D Q Subtest Scores co CO d) c O O i—1 G O CO •H *H -p CO o cd =5 x: Td O4 0 e G Ph w 4-J CO O G x; E-< c o +3 cd f-t c 0) £ (U hO cd b0 C CD CO •H Q Districts 01 05 07 11 18 19 23 29 30 3** 39 42 53 56 60 62 63 65 67 68 70 73 75 77 79 80 85 88 93 » 44 55 45 50 46 52 55 48 41 51 49 46 54 52 45 42 47 46 55 59 52 51 43 54 58 49 51 45 52 QJ O C cd S-. T» C •H 52 51 45 49 47 55 53 48 46 42 52 49 59 48 49 48 54 54 49 46 45 46 51 53 52 55 50 47 50 4-> •H G 04 co w >s o cd e •H +> c w 48 48 56 53 53 46 44 61 55 36 46 51 48 50 50 45 48 41 42 45 53 55 54 49 43 45 47 52 47 52 50 53 54 48 46 56 55 53 42 48 50 50 54 49 45 46 54 45 51 48 49 51 47 47 39 49 43 49 *Note: Scores are st andardized wit h a m e a n of 50 and a standard d evi a t i o n of 10. 58 High scores on esprit, as would be expected, gest high morale. su g­ The staff feels that their social needs are being satisfied, and they seem to enjoy a feel­ ing of accomplishment in their work. timacy suggest, further, that staff members enjoy friendly relations with each other. intimacy High scores on i n ­ As Halpin and Croft explain, "describes a social-needs satisfaction which is not necessarily associated with task accomplishment" (p. 40). High scores on aloofness suggest that the director is perceived as formal and impersonal in his relations with the members of the staff, as "emotionally distant," so to speak. On the subtest production emphasis, high scores seem to indicate a need on the part of the director to "dominate," to closely supervise the staff; communication appears to go in only one direction. Thrust is leadership behavior which is characterized by an effort to "move the organization." High scores on thi3 subtest suggest that the director attempts to motivate his staff by his personal example rather than by close supervision. High scores on consideration would appear to indicate that the director is perceived by the staff as ft thoughtful of their needs, anxious to treat them "humanly." Pearson product-moment correlations were obtained between the eight OCDQ subtest scores and the dependent variables categorized principally as academic preparation 59 and p r o f e s s i o n a l experi enc e of the director. In add i t i o n to the O C D Q scores, d ata used in th ese co rre lat ion s were ob tai ned from the Q u e s t i onna ire for Directors of Special Education. T a b l e 6 contains a list of the years in whi ch the di rec tor s re ceived th eir highest academic degree and the numbers of directors r e c e i v i n g degrees in that year. TABLE 6 YEARS IN W H I C H D I R E C T O R S R ECE IVE D H IGHEST A C A D E M I C D EGR E E S Year Num ber of Directors R e c e i v i n g Highest Aca dem ic De gre e 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 4 2 3 1939 1950 1953 195^ 1955 1957 1958 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 * N = 29 A summary of the coursewo rk in ed uca t i o n taken by the directors is shown in Ta ble 7. The n u m b e r of credit 60 hours of undergraduate education, graduate education, the total combined undergraduate and graduate education courses, courses in special education, educational admin­ istration and special education administration are included. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF COURSEWORK IN EDUCATION TAKEN BY THE DIRECTORS Number of Directors No. of credit hours Combined Under­ Special graduate Graduate gp£duate Special E d u c . Educ. Admin. Educ. Educ. Eduo& graduAdm. ate educ. 0 1 2 1 3 11 1-10 1 4 9 14 15 11-20 7 5 1 9 9 3 21-30 8 3 1 5 3 0 31-40 6 6 3 4 0 0 o in 1 H 6 9 5 1 0 0 51-60a 10 61-70 2 71-80 3 81+ 4 * ^ h e s e are estimates representing the minimum number of credit hours. 6l The undergr adu ate grade point averages as re por ted by directors are shown in T abl e 8. TA B L E 8 UN DER G R A D U A T E GRADE POINT A V E R A G E S OP DIR ECTORS GPA Number of Directors 2 8 11 6 2 3-75 or higher 3.5 - 3.74 3.0 - 3.^9 2.5 - 2.99 2.5 or less Table 9 contains d a t a r ela t i v e to1 sensi tiv ity training of the director. TABLE 9 AMOUNT OP SEN SIT IVI TY TRAINING OF D I R E CT ORS N u m b e r of days of Sensitivity T r ain in g Number of Directors none 20 one day or less 1 two - three days 3 fouir - seven days 0 eight - ten days 1 more th an ten days - 4 62 The number of years of teaching experience in ele­ mentary and secondary grades and in special education classes is presented in Table 10. Although a large m a j o r ­ ity reported no experience in elementary, secondary, or special education (21, 21, and 17, respectively), when one examines the table from the viewpoint of "any teaching ex­ perience," there are ten directors who have had no c l a s s ­ room experience at all in either elementary or secondary grades or in special’ education classes. TABLE 10 TEACHING EXPERIENCES OF THE DIRECTORS Number of Directors No. of Years Elementary Secondary Special Educ. Classes Grades Grades Any Classroom Teaching Experience 0 21 21 17 10 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 3 n 2 0 5 6 7 8 * 1 10 1 11 1 63 T h e amount of n o n - c l a s s r o o m s pecial ed uca tio n e x ­ pe ri e n c e was also examined and Is re po r t e d in T abl e 11. This inc luded p osi t i o n s such as speech therapists, d i a g n o s ­ ticians, school social workers, and others. r e p o r t e d that they had no such experience. m o r e tha n 5 0% of the directors, of such experience. Nine, directors Sixteen, or had at least three years T e n directors had both t eac h i n g and n o n - c l a s s r o o m special edu cat ion experience. T A B L E 11 N O N - C L A S S R O O M S PECIAL E D U C A T I O N EX PER IEN CE OP T H E D I R E C T O R S No. of Years Ex p e r i e n c e in N o n - c l a s s r o o m Special E d u c a t i o n 0 N umber of Directors N = 29 1 9 2 2 2 3 4 H 2 5 1 6 8 1 2 9 1 10 11 3 1 13 1 64 Another variable used in this study was the ad m i n i s ­ trative experience of the director. Table 12 contains the number of years of administrative experience of the d i r e c ­ tors. Eleven directors had no other administrative ex­ perience before becoming directors of special education. Included are: educational administration, non-educational administration (e.g. business, industry, government, etc.). Ten directors had five years or more of some type of a d ­ ministrative experience in addition to their present p osi ­ tion. TA BLE 12 NUMBER OF YEARS OF ADMINIST RAT IVE EXPERIENCE OF DIRECTORS Number of Directors No. of Years Experience 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 14 27 30 Educational Admin Non-educational Admin N = 29 Eit her Educa tional, Noneducational or Both 15 19 2 2 2 2 11 2 4 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 1 65 Since an in ter n s h i p and p r a c t i c u m are an integra l part of most programs p r e p a r i n g special e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s ­ trators at the present time, it was d e c i d e d to include this as one of the variables to be r e l a t e d to the O CDQ factors. The d a t a use d in this r e l a t i o n s h i p are p r e s e n t e d in T able 13. It is obvious that very few of the di rectors have had any intern shi p experience. If one considers w h e t h e r the directors had any in ter nsh ip at all, e i t h e r educatio nal or special education, 23 of the 29 di rec tor s had 200 clock hours or less. TA BLE 13 A M OUN T OF I N T E R N S H I P AND P R A C T I C U M IN A D M I N I S T R A T I O N No. of C l o c k Hours Number of D i r e c t o r s N = 29 ----------------------------------------------Edu c a t i o n a l Special Educ. tr-t Admin. Admin. tinner 0 25 21 19 80 1 0 1 100 1 0 1 200 1 2 2 250 0 1 *100 0 1 1 450 0 0 1 500 1 1 1 600 0 1 1 900 0 1 0 960 0 1 1 1400 0 0 1 66 The last two v ari a b l e s had to do wit h the n u m b e r of years the dir ector has been in his present p o s i t i o n and p r evious employment director. on the staff before he became the As shown in Tab le 14, three of the directors re por ted one y e a r in their present position, while 18 were not m e m b e r s of the same staff before be co m i n g d i r e c t o r s . TAB LE 14 L E N G T H OP T E N U R E OP D I R E C T O R S IN IN T E R M EDI ATE SCHOOL DIS T R I C T Nu m b e r of Years As Di rec tor 0 As Special E d u c . Staff Me m b e r Prior to Be com ing Di rec tor 18 1 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 7 2 1 1 5 6 4 0 3 1 2 0 2 9 10 3 1 0 0 16 1 0 7 8 . 0 ft In ad dit i o n to the correlations of the 64 Items of the O C D Q (Appendix G), Int erc orr e l a t i o n s were obtaine d 67 between all the variables, I n c l u d i n g O C D Q factors and those dependent var iables re lated to the d i r e c t o r ’s t r a i n i n g and pr ofe ssi ona l experie nce (Appendix H ) . The v ari abl es appear In this m a t r i x in the order in whi ch they appear In the tables In Chapter IV, the O C D Q factors as the first eight. Summary T h e procedur es followed in c o l l e cti ng and a nal yzi ng the data used in e x p l o r i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n the scores on O C D Q factors and c er t a i n selected aspects of the formal academic tra i n i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l experien ce of interme dia te district dir ect ors of special e d u c a t i o n in M ich i g a n were e xpl ain ed in this chapter. was defined, The p o p u l a t i o n and the Instruments used in g a t h e r i n g the data were described. In Chapter IV, the results are analyzed and Interpreted. CH APTER IV AN AL Y S I S OP R E S U L T S In t r o d u c t i o n The s tat ist ica l analysis of the d a t a in this study was carried out by the M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y Com put er Center. The P earson p r o d u c t - m o m e n t c o r r e lat ion te chn iqu e was used, and c orr ela tio n co efficients wer e computed m e a s u r i n g the strength of the r ela t i o n s h i p s of the v a r i ­ ables . A cor rel at ion matrix of Pe arson p r o d u c t - m o m e n t relations may be found in A ppe n d i x H. However, cor­ as the hypotheses are discussed, those portions of the m a t r i x w hic h are cr itical to each hypothe sis are p r e s e n t e d in table form. S tatistical tables Indicate that c orr ela tio ns signifi can tly different from zero at the 29 ob servations are ac hie ved at .05 level across .381 or greater. Analysis of the Data Hypothesis 1 : 4 T h ere is no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n scores on any of the eight O C D Q factors and the y e a r in w h i c h the d i r e c t o r r ece ive d his highest ac ade mic degree. O n s eve n of the eight O C D Q factors, there Is no r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith the y ear In which the d i r e c t o r r e c e i v e d 68 69 his h ighest degree. However, in Ta ble 15 3 it can be o b ­ served that the year of* highest degree is significantly re lat ed to H ind rance (r = .41). TA BLE 15 CO R R E L ATI ONS B ET W E E N YEAR OP H IG H E S T ACADEMIC DE GRE E AND O C D Q FA C T O R SCORES O C D Q Subtests £ O •H £ a> E Variable CD faO n) faO £ d) m •H n Recency of Hi ghest Ac ade m i c De gre e -.20 *S ignifleant at the •H £ a CO w •H +-> £ M O r -l < £ O CO •H t H CO o n) £ Xi T3 a O 6 £ W P-t .15 .09 .08 .17 aj o £ a) £ tj £ •H .41# >9 o E CCJ CO CO CD £ d-H o E-* 0) £ CD •o •H CO £ O o .10 .12 CO £ £ XI .05 level of confidence. Th ere is a significant positive correlat ion b etw een hindrance and the year in wh ich directors r ece i v e d their highest degrees. This suggests a te ndency for directors who have rec ei v e d their degrees more recently to be p e r ­ ceived by ^their staff as less facil ita tin g than directors who r e c e i v e d their degrees at an earlier date. basis of this relationship, je cte d . On the the null hypothes is Is r e ­ 70 Hypothesis 2 : T h er e is no rel a t i o n s h i p bet wee n the scores on any of the eight OCD Q factors and the amount of co urs e w o r k in edu cati on taken by the director. In Table 4, a summary of coursew ork in ed uca t i o n taken by the directors is presented. The r e l a t ion shi p be tw e e n such course wor k and O C D Q subtest scores was ex amined in three ways. First, the correlations were c o m ­ p ute d b e t w e e n the OCDQ factor scores and the un de r g r a d u a t e and g r a d u a t e courses taken separately. Then, the two were combined, and the total amount of edu cation c o u r s e ­ w o r k was correlated with the OCDQ factor scores. r e l a t ion shi ps are shown In Tab le 16. These It is r eadily seen that there are no significant correlations, and Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected. Hypothes is 3: Th ere Is no r e l a t ion shi p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the amount of special ed uca tio n coursework take n by the director. One of the m a j o r concerns of this study was to d e t e r ­ mine w h e t h e r there are significant relatio nsh ips be tw e e n special edu cat ion t raining and experien ce and the l e a d e r ­ ship variables as m e a s u r e d by the OCDQ. In this instance, as shown by Tab le 1 7 » there are no correlations of s u f f i ­ cient strength to reject the null hypothesis. 71 T A B L E 16 CORRELA TIO NS BETWEEN AMOUNT OP EDU CA T I O N CO URS E W O R K AND OCDQ F A C T O R SCORES O C D Q Subtests 4-3 c c Variable o £ bO td b£> G s O cd £ *H -P G p *H G ft CO CO to ■H Q i p G ft to W o cd e *H P G M to VI a> G •H CO G O O Amount of Special Ed ucation C o u r s e ­ -.22 - .03 -.18 -.23 - .26 -.32 -.10 - .17 work 72 Hypothesis l\ : There is any of the coursewo rk of special director. Hypothesis no r e l a t i o n s h i p bet w e e n the scores on eight O C D Q factors and the amount of in educati ona l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (exclusive e d u c a t i o n administration) t a k e n by the 5' There is no r e l a t i o n s h i p be t w e e n the scores on any of the eight O CDQ factors and the amount of co urs ewo rk in special e d u c a t i o n a dmi ni s t r a t i o n t a k e n by the director. It may be recal led that the data pr ese n t e d in Ch apt er III i ndi cated that both of the distri but ion s on amount of t r ain ing In educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and in special e d u ­ cation a d m i n i s t r a t i o n dev iat ed c onsiderably from normal (3ee T abl e 7). As shown In Ta ble 18, none of the c o r r e l a ­ tions approaches significance, and n eit her Hypothesis 4 nor Hypothesis 5 could be rejected. H ypothesis 6 : There is no r e l a t i ons hip be twe en the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the d i r e c t o r ’s s c h o l a s ­ tic achievem ent as m e a s u r e d by his reported u n d e r ­ g r adu ate grade point average (GPA). R e l a t ion shi ps b etw e e n the O C D Q factors and u nde rr g r adu ate grade point average are shown in Table 19. The re Is apparen tly no r el a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the academic a chievement of the d ire c t o r as m e a s u r e d by his rep ort ed u n d e r ­ gr adu ate grade point average and the leaders hip variables m e a s u r e d by the OCDQ. On the basis of the corre lat ion s in T abl e 19* Hypothe sis 6 could not be rejected. 73 TABLE 18 CORRELATION BETWEEN AMOUNT OP COURSEWORK IN ADMINISTRATION AND OCDQ FACTOR SCORES OCDQ Subtests p G QJ £ » o cd £ P P p P Fh a to w d CD *r~t co to 03 c O o 1—1 G M > o cd E •H -P £ M CO CO a> 1— 1 < O CO •H *H 4-3 CO o cd £ x: P. O E £W Ph £ o o «H ■P cd £ £ -P to £ £ j£ a) TJ •H CO £ o O Amount of Se n s i ­ tivity T r a i n i n g .11 .02 -.06 -.16 .22 .06 .09 -.12 Sensitivity T rai n i n g (none vs. some) .05 .03 .23 -.01 .16 -.09 First, .10 -.20 correl ati ons were found b e t w e e n the O C D Q factors and the amounts of sensitivity training, using a 75 scale of one to six to represent the amounts from " n o n e ” to "more than ten days" respectively. The n a dichotomy was forced on the distribution, one group with no se n s i ­ tivity training, the other with some sensitivity training. Obviously, considerable information is lost in this p r o ­ cess, and the point biserial correlations which resulted in the second instance are still so low that rejection of the null hypothesis is not warranted in either case. Hypothesis 8 : There is no relationship between the scores on any of the eight OCDQ factors and the number of years of teaching experience of the director. Examination of Table 10 shows that w hen the three areas of teaching experience were combined, only ten of the directors had no teaching experience at.all. The teaching experience of the directors was correlated with the OCDQ scores in several ways as shown in Table 21. The OCDQ scores were correlated with each of the areas of teaching separately (elementary, secondary, and special class); then, with the total combined teaching experience. Finally, a dichotomy was forced on the d i s ­ tribution and point biserial correlation coefficients were obtaihed between the OCDQ scores and "any teaching experience" or "no teaching experience." The relationship (.41) between elementary teaching experience and c ons id­ eration is perhaps not as high as one would desire in view 76 T A B L E 21 CO R R E L A T I O N S B E T W E E N TEACHING E X P E R I E N C E OF DI REC TOR S AND OC DQ F AC T O R SCORES O C D Q Subtests 4-5 c 0) G o G TJ G w •H «H SC a 4-> •H G (X E •H 4-> G 03 W M 03 CO (U G o o rH < -.03 -.36 .13 .07 * l No. of Years Special E d u c a ­ tion Class Te ac h i n g t— o No. of Years Secondary Te aching ■=r -.25 -. 16 -.04 -.35 -.29 H • 1 No. of Years Elementary Te aching .03 -.17 O •H 4-> O 3 03 *H 03 Cd XI "CJ P . O E G W a. G a> ts •h CO 4-5 CO 3 x: Eh C o O G o cd C a> !>> O cd G U) Variables •H 4-> cd G • H E -,4l« -.01 -.17 -.39* -.33 .22 -.07 -.12 .03 To tal No. of Years Te aching -.10 -.26 -.13 -.36 -.05 -.07 -.32 -.43* Te ac h i n g (none vs. some) -.02 -.05 -.29 *Signifleant at the .05 -.32 .04 .14 -.16 .05 level of confidence. of the vi ola tio n of the a s s u m p t i o n of b iva riate normal distribution. However, the robustness of the test in p e r ­ mi tting violations of this a s s u m p t i o n , 10 toge the r with the Hayes (1963) states that, "It Is not necessary to make any assumptions at all about the form of the d i s t r i ­ bution, . . . In order to employ l inear r e g r e s s i o n and 77 higher correlation between the combined teaching exp eri ­ ence and consideration permits rejection of the null h y p o ­ thesis . The correlations on consideration were such that the investigator decided to combine elementary and s e c o n ­ dary grade teaching and correlate that total exclusive of special education class teaching. The results were the following correlations between total elementary and se con ­ dary teaching and OCDQ f a c t o r s : Disengagement -.23 Aloofness Hindrance -.36 Production Emphasis Esprit -.10 Intimacy -.19 .02 Thrust -.21 Consideration -.50 -.31 As expected, the correlation on consideration was even higher when special education class teaching was omitted from the total teaching experience. correlation Indices to describe a given set of data. So long as there are N distinct cases, each having two nu mer ­ ical scores, X and Y, then the descriptive statistics of correlation and reg res sio n may be used. In so doing, we describe ttfie data as though a linear rule were to be used for prediction, and this is a perfectly adequate way to talk about the tendency for these numerical scores to associate or "go together" in a linear way in these data" (p. 510). 78 Hypothesis 9 : Th ere is no rel a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the number of years of no n - c l a s s r o o m special edu ca t i o n experie nce of the director. N o n - c l a s s r o o m special e d u c a t i o n per so n n e l include speech c o r r e c t i o n i s t s , school social workers, consultants for the men tal ly ha ndicapped, d i a g n os tic ian s for the me ntally ha ndicapped, etc. As shown in Table 11, there were nine directors wh o had no experie nce of this type. The rel ati ons hip s found bet w e e n n o n - c l a s s r o o m special e d u ­ cation experie nce and the OC DQ subtest scores are found in Table 22. TA BLE 22 C O R R E L A T I O N S B ETWEEN N O N - C L A S S R O O M SPECIAL E D U C A T I O N EX PER IEN CE AND OCDQ F ACT OR SCORES OC DQ Subtests p c (1) B > o cd e to CO CD O I •I CO o • 1 No. of Years NonCl ass roo m Special E d u c . Experien ce No n- c l a s s r o o m Special Educ. E x ­ pe rience (none vs. some) G o •H P cd Fh E 0) >3 4-> Fh P. CO W •H G •H W -.05 -.17 .15 O cd E •H 4-> G M o o r-i O CO 4-> CO o cd G -C a O E Fh M Ph -.13 .03 -.13 .23 -.35 -.07 .2 6 - .2 0 - .0 8 .24 -.09 Non-educ. adm. (noneso m e ) * - .0 2 .1 1 -.39* -.27 Total Admin. Experie nce -.09 .1 0 - .2 0 •17 d) G G -.44* -.24 -.09 -.13 .45** -.44* -.24 *Signif lea nt at the **Signi fle ant at the -.17 -.13 -.07 .08 cd •H tH - .2 1 No. of Years Non-Educ. Adm. E x p e r i ­ ence Admin. Ex­ pe rience (none-some) CO CO .36 -.46** .05 level of confidence .02 level of confidence 4-» CO G Fh XX Eh Fh bO cd bO c a> co *H Q Total Cloak Hours of Internship and Practicum Internship (none-some) ^Significant at the a> o £ a) £ T3 £ •H tc -P •H £ Cu to W >» o cd £ 4£ £ M -.15 .07 .19 -.24 .21 .18 .04 £ CO co a> O CO *H t -\ ■p CO o cd 3 £ •o a . o s £ W PL| £ O O £ E-t O o .34 .11 .18 .51* .17 .18 < .00 T3 nH .01 level of confidence. 83 The positive r e l a t io nsh ip bet w e e n P r o d u cti on E m p h a ­ sis and c omp let ion of an internship experience is above the .01 level of significance and suggests that direct ors who had an internship experi enc e in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n tended to have hi ghe r scores on p r o d u c t i o n emphasis. strength of this r elationship, On the the null h ypo the sis is re- jected. Hypothesis 1 2 : There is no re la t i o n s h i p bet w e e n the scores on any of the OCD Q factors and the age of the director. The ages of the di re c t o r are rep orted in Table 2. Of the 29 directors, 49. 26 were be tween the ages of 30 and Only one d irector was u n d e r 30 years were over 59. of age, and two When correla ted with the O C D Q factors, as shown in Table 25 5 no r ela tio nsh ips were found to be significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null h y p o ­ thesis could not be rejected. Hypothesis 1 3 : There is no r e l a t ion shi p b e t w e e n the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the length of tenure of the dir ect or in his present position. Th e dat a used to test this hypothesis are present ed in Table 1*4. It should be noted that seven of the d i r e c ­ tors have held their p osi tio ns for two years or less. Since the d a t a were collected in large part dur ing the month of January, those who rep ort ed that they have held 84 their present position one year, had in fact, been direc­ tors for approximately five months. As shown in Table 26, there are no relationships high enough to reject the null h y pot he sis . TABLE 25 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE OP DIRECTOR AND OCDQ FACTOR SCORES OCDQ Subtests P P p P g a CO a P -.28 I o O 1 Age of Directors • « C o 1— i G M P P P co o cd P G CD *3 t5 3 CO 3 .G a «M O P -.31 O CO o s Fh W Cu < P CO G o G O Eh .01 -.27 -.21 H CD CO o cd £ P P cd G CO CO CD >s 1 60 G ID O G cd G T3 G • CD bO cd H ro Variables G o • c CD £ TABLE 26 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LENGTH OP TENURE OP DIRECTORS AND OCDQ FACTOR SCORES OCDQ Subtests p C CD e CD P P cd G Variable t bO cd bO G CD CO p Q Length of Tenure of Director o co CD O G cd G G P SG TJ P P G a co W o CO CD E Ip G M p cd p p 24 -.30 -.00 -.09 G o o < G O p p o 3 CO p co cd ,G •o a °M g a a .09 -.24 G p CO 3 G -C Eh CD Td p CO G o o .02 -.09 85 Hypothesis 1 4 ; There is no r e l a t i ons hip b e t w e e n the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the d i r e c t o r ’s previous employment as a special e d u c a t i o n staff m e m b e r in the intermediate school d istrict in wh ich he is now d i r e c t o r . El e v e n of the 29 directors held pos iti ons on the staff before b eco m i n g directors, while 18 were not me mbers of the same staff before bec o m i n g its director. This hypothesis was tested by d i c h o t o m i z i n g the group as in several other analyses. Correlations were comput ed b e ­ tween the O CDQ factor scores and two g r o u p s — those who were me mbers of the same special ed uca tio n staff before becoming its di rec tor and those who wer e not. TA BLE 27 CO R R E L ATI ONS BE TWE EN OC DQ F A C T O R SCO RES AND D I R E C T O R ' S ME M B E R S H I P O N STAFF O C D Q Subtests •P £ a) E a> bO cd bO £ a> Va ri a b l e CO •H a Me mbe r s h i p on Staff before Be coming Di rec tor £ o <1) a £ cd £ £ •H -.18 -.00 •P •H U O, CO W o cd S •H •P £ M .31* .12 CO CO £ O CO •H *H •P CO -P cd £ o cd £ 43 X) Cu O E UW CL* -P CO £ £ si Eh £ O o .10 .05 .22 .13 •H CO There are no re lat ion shi ps, and the null h ypo the sis could not be rejected. Summary It seems that the most succinct m a n n e r of s u m m a r i z ­ ing the hypotheses tested is in the for m of a table. Table 28 contains such a summary with a list of the tables in w hic h the correlations b e t w e e n the OC DQ subtests and all of the variables r e l a t e d to t hem may be found. Where there were significant relati ons hip s, th ese are repor ted with the O CDQ factor, the level of s i g n i fi can ce and r e j e c ­ tion of the hypothe sis be recalled that the signified by "yes" or "no." It may .05 level of s i g n i f i c a n c e was a r b i ­ trarily chosen for r e j e c t i o n of the null hypotheses. ever, there were four Instances si gnificance was g r e a t e r than How­ in whi ch the level of .02 or .01, and these are indicated in T abl e 28. It is apparent from a study of this ta ble that five of the fourteen hyp oth ese s were rej ect ed on the strength of significant rel a t i o n s h i p s found b etw een the O C D Q fac­ tors and various factors re lat ed to the p ro f e s s i o n a l t r a i n ­ ing and backgro und of the directors of special education. These relati ons hip s w ill be d i s c u s s e d in g r e a t e r detail in C hapter V. 87 T A B L E 28 SUMMARY OP H Y P O T H E S E S AND TESTS OF S I G N I F I C A N C E Table No. 15 Variable Year of Highest De gre e 16 E d u c a t i o n C o u r se wor k 17 S p eci al Edu ca t i o n C o urs e w o r k 18 Re l a t e d C l i ­ mate Factors Hindrance Prob­ Rej ecability t ion .05 ---- yes no no C o u r s e w o r k In Administration --- no 19 Un de r g r a d u a t e GPA --- no 20 Se n s i t i v i t y T r a i n i n g ---- no 21 T e a c h i n g Experie nce E l e m en tar y Secondary To tal 22 23 2H Co nsi d e r a t i o n Thrust C o nsi d e r a t i o n N o n - c l a s s r o o m Special Aloofness E d u c a t i o n E x p e rie nce Administrative Exper­ ience Non-educat ional Esprit Production Emphasi s Thrust All Admin. E x p e r ­ ience (dichotomy) Hindrance Esprit Product ion Emphasis Interns hip and Practicum Product ion Emphasis .05 .05 .05 yes .02 yes .05 yes .02 .05 .02 .01 yes 25 Ag e of Di rector ---- no 26 T e n u r e of Direct or --- no 27 M e m b e r s h i p of D i r e c t o r on Staff ---- no CHAPTER V FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Underlying the present research is an interest in the education of handicapped children and the administra­ tion of special education programs. A study of adminis­ tration and organizational theory, together with an effort to relate this study to the growth and development of special education, led the writer to draw some con­ clusions about leadership and organizational behavior, which ultimately led to the present research. These conclusions may be considered as premises upon which this study is based. They appear to be well- documented by other researchers, as pointed out in Chapter I I . 1. The climate of an organization Influences the behavior of individuals, and therefore, the factors related to climate may be important aspects of a group's effectiveness . 2. These climate factors are influenced by the mutual interaction of the group and its leader. 88 89 In this study, it is the behavior of the leader or a d m i n is tra tor upo n w hic h a t t e n t i o n is focused, spe­ cifically the intermed iat e district directors of special education in Mi ch igan, since they are in positions of importance to the field of special education, with an opportunity to p rovide initia tiv e and thrust. The writer is especi all y interested in the leadership variables of the O CDQ as they are identified among special e d u c a t i o n directors. Summary For the present study, D e s c r ipt ion Qu es t i o n n a i r e the Org an i z a t i o n a l Climate (OCDQ) was s elected to m easure the leadership be hav ior of the intermediate district directors of sp ecial e d u c a t i o n as they interact with the members of their staffs. The instrument which was originally dev el o p e d by H a l p i n and Croft (1962) for use in elementary schools, was rev i s e d slightly (Appendix B) to make it a ppr opr iat e for this situation. It was ad ministered to the direct ors and staffs in the 29 i n t e r ­ mediate dis tricts with full-time directors holding Mi chi gan approval. In addition, an other instrument dev elo ped by the writer was adm i n i s t e r e d to the directors to provide informa tio n rel ati ve to a cademic preparation, profes sio nal experience and other demogra phi c v a r i a b l e s . Us ing the information gat her ed from the two instruments, Pe arson 90 product-moment correlations were computed to test fourteen hypotheses which had been generated with regard to the relationships between OCDQ variables and the d i r e c t o r ’s academic training, professional experience, age, tenure, and sensitivity training. Findings and Conclusions This research resulted in two main findings: 1. The eight factors of the OCDQ revised for use in intermediate school district special education staffs were shown to be statistically comparable to the eight factors in the original OCDQ. As explained in Chapter III (pp. 52-55), the factor loadings of the revised items corresponded to those of Halpin and Croft. 2. OCDQ factors were statistically significantly correlated with certain selected variables dealing with the academic training and professional experience of the director. Twelve such relationships were identified at or above the .05 level of significance. The first hypothesis which stated that there is no relationship between scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the year in which the director received his highest academic decree was rejected. Hindrance was found to be positively related with the year of degree attainment. The reader may recall that this suggests that directors who have received their highest degrees more recently are perceived by 'their staffs to burden them wit h paper work, 91 reports, and "busywork" ra t h e r than to facilitate their work. As one w o u l d expect, related; however, age and year of d egr ee are age is apparently not rel ated to any of the OCDQ factors. It might be conject ure d that the directors who have most recently re cei ved their degrees, having had a more theoret ica l orientation, might tend to be concerned with activities of a more academic than applied or pr act ica l nature. the demands This might carry over into they make on their staffs, and staff members may construe such demands as bo the r s o m e and Irrelevant "busywork." more These directors are pe rce i v e d as relatively "hindering" in the acc omplishment of the staff's goals than other d i r e c t o r s . Five hypothe ses were concerned with the academic preparat ion of the director. It was postulat ed that there is no r e l a tio nsh ip be tw e e n the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and: (Hypothesis 2) the amount of coursework in ed uca tio n taken by the director; (Hypothesis 3) the amount of special edu cation co urs ewo rk taken by the director; (Hypothesis 4) the amount of coursework in e d u c a ­ tional a d m i n i s t r a t i o n taken by the director; (Hypothesis 5) the amount of coursework in special ed uca t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n taken by the director; (Hypothesis 6) the director's scholastic achievement as me asu r e d by his rep orted underg rad uat e grade point average. 92 No significant relationships appeared, and none of the hypotheses could be rejected. The findings wi th regard to coursework in education were consistent with those of Gross and Herriott (1965). Smith (1966) found that thrust was negatively correlated with the number of courses in administration taken by the principal. The results of the present study should be interpreted with caution because of the unbalanced distribution on the dependent variables in some cases. Perhaps the failure of relationships to appear is as significant as their appearance would have been. As far as these climate factors are concerned, training does not appear to have a significant relationship. If relationships were to appear where the population was larger and there was a better distribution within the variables, it is likely that the correlations w oul d not be high. If climate factors are viewed as Important by personnel in administration training programs, some research is needed to suggest ways in w hic h training might influence this type of behavior. Those Involved In a dminis­ tration training programs might be concerned about ways of structuring behavior in o rder to optimize their * development. Because no relationships were found between the OCDQ factors and variables pertaining to the academic preparation 93 of the director, it wou ld be u n w a r r a n t e d to conclude that academic p r e p a r a t i o n is not r e l a t e d to leadership variables other than those m e a s u r e d by the OCDQ. It may very well be that a cademic p r e p a r a t i o n may make a person more profici ent in his job. It can only be c o n ­ cluded as a result of this study that there app ear ed to be no rel a t i o n s h i p in this p o p u l a t i o n b e t w e e n the OCD Q factors and any of the sel ect ed variables p e r t a i n i n g to e duc ati ona l training. In testing hypothe sis seven, that there is no r e l a t ion shi p betv/een the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the amount of sensitiv ity directors had, no s ign ifi cant and the null hypothesis tr ain ing the correlations were found, could not be rejected. However, caution must be exe rc i s e d in d r a w i n g conclusions from these results, since only nine of the directors r e p o r t e d ha ving had any sensitiv ity training. In this research, no e vidence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n sensitivity tr ain ing and any of the OCDQ factors Is demonstrated. Some i n t e r est ing r ela t i o n s h i p s w e r e found w h e n testing the null hypothes is that there is no r e l a t ion shi p be tween the^ scores on the OCD Q factors and the director's teaching experience. A sig nif ica nt neg ati ve r e l a t i o n s h i p was found b e t w e e n thrust and the n umber of years of secondary teaching. of other researchers. This is consistent wit h the findings M orp het and S chu tz (1966), for 94 e x a m p l e , found that lengthy teaching experience was actually a deterent to effective administration. Dreeben and Gross (1965) offer the explanation that lengthy teaching experience tends to limit the p e r ­ spectives of the administrator (p. 724). Significant negative relationships were also found between consideration and both elementary grade teaching experience and the total number of years of teaching experience. The results of this study would lead one to conclude as other researchers have, that the leadership of ed uca ­ tional administrators, at least that measured by the OCDQ, does not seem to be enhanced by previous lengthy teaching experience. A test of the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and non-classroom special education experience showed that aloofness was significantly negatively related when no n-classroom special, education experience was dichotomized. It appears that directors who have had experience as school social workers, diagnosticians, speech c o r r e c t i o n i s t s , and so on, are perceived by their staffs as less impersonal, inflexible, ’'official", in their manner than those directors who have not had such experience. 95 It appears that the dir e c t o r who has had experience similar to that of the members of his staff Is cognizant of their w o r k and able to identify and empathize with them in th eir tasks and the p r o b l e m s a s s o ci ate d w i t h them. Thus, the staff p erce i v e s h i m as personal ly con ­ cerned for them as i n d i v i d u a l s . In testing the n u l l hy pot h e s i s that there Is no r e lationship be t w e e n the scores on any of the O C D Q factors and the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e experien ce of the director, no r el ati ons hip s were fou nd b e t w e e n the OCDQ fa cto r scores an d e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e experience. How­ ever, w hen n o n - e d u c a t i o n a l adm ini s t r a t i v e experie nce was correlated as a dichotomy, significant re lat ion shi ps were found on three of the O CDQ factors, negative. all of them Those d ire ctors who have had ad min i s t r a t i v e experience in bus ine ss or industry, in govern men t or in the armed forces tend to have lower scores In esprit, suggesting that mor ale is not e s p e ci all y high. If mo r a l e is typically low in b u s i n e s s organizations, w h i c h m ay be highly competi tiv e by nature, no r e s e a r c h was found to give evidence that such is the case. Any conclusions dra wn at this point wit h reg a r d to reasons for this result w o u l d be * highly s peculative in v i e w of the paucity of r e s e a r c h on the subject. Pr odu c t i o n emp has is and thrust are also neg ati vel y correlated wi th n o n - e d u c a t i o n a l a dmi ni s t r a t i v e experience. This p h e n o m e n o n is difficult to e x p l a i n since they seem to be contradictory. 96 On the one hand, the negative correlation on pr o­ duction emphasis suggests directors who have had noneducational administrative experience are perceived by their staffs as having low production emphasis. reader may recall that Halpin and Croft The (1962) define production emphasis as behavior which is "characterized by close supervision of the staff . . . highly directive." The administrator "plays the role of a 'straw boss.' His communication tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to feedback from the staff" (p. 40). On the other hand, the negative correlation on thrust indicates that staff members perceive directors who have had non-educational administrative experience to be low on thrust. Thrust behavior is characterized by an "evident effort in trying to 'move the organization.'" It is marked not by close supervision, but by an attempt to motivate the staff "through the example which he p e r ­ sonally sets." Perhaps the key to the problem is in this part of Halpin's and Croft's definition: behavior, starkly task-oriented, favorably by the teachers" "... his is nonetheless viewed (p. 43). It would appear that both factors have a common element— both are concerned with t the task-orientation of the director. The difference is in the manner in which he "moves the organization," or at least is felt to do so by his staff. t 97 The pro b l e m may be with the d efinitions given by Halpin and Croft for these two f a c t o r s . tions were accurate, If their d e s c r i p ­ it seems unlikely that the cor rel a­ tions found here would be possible. It might be appropriate to refine these d e s c ri pti ons so that their independence, w hic h is d e m o n s t r a t e d by the factor analysis is more evident in the descriptions. An other possible e x p l a na tio n may have to do with the factor, p r o d u c t i o n emphasis, Itself. It ma y be recalled that, in the f a c t o r - m a t c h i n g procedure, the lowest c o r r e l a ­ tion was on the sixth factor (production emphasis -.41). This, to gether wi th the results of the correlations here, would suggest the need for further e x a m ina tio n of the items which make up this factor, as well as the d esc rip tio ns for both product ion emphasis and thrust. When all a d m i n is tra tiv e experience was c ombined and correlated with the O C D Q factors as a dichotomy, again, three relati ons hip s appeared. (significant at the A positive rel ati ons hip .02 level of confidence) b e t w e e n hindrance and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e expe rie nce Indicated that staff members feel that directors who have had previous administrative ex per ien ce tend to bur d e n them.with reports and paperwork w hic h hinders th em in the ac com pli shm ent of their work. Ne gat ive co rre lati ons on esprit and p r o d u c t i o n emphasis appeared ag ain here. It appears that directors with previous ad min i s t r a t i v e experie nce do not tend to 98 elicit high morale among their staff members. According to Halpin's and Croft's definitions 40-41) (1962, pp. these directors are not perceived by their staff members as highly directive or as insensitive to feedback from others, as indicated by the negative correlation on p r o ­ duction emphasis. The reasons for such results are not readily apparent, but certainly warrant further study. were found in subsequent research, If similar results one would want to d i s ­ cover why this is so. The eleventh hypothesis stated that there is no relationship between scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the amount of internship and practicum in a d m i n i s t r a ­ tion which the director has had. A significant positive relationship was found on production emphasis when this hypothesis was tested by correlating internship as dlchotomous data. The results suggest that directors who have had internship and practicum experience are perceived by their staff as being highly directive, as communicating in only one direction, closely supervising, and not sensi­ tive to feedback from the staff. It may be that internships are, by their very nature, t situations which are highly directive and characterized by close supervision. Persons in administrative training may typically assign internship experiences which are structured in such a way that specific activities can be carried on by 99 the intern. The activities are usually of the type that can be used in e v a l u a t i n g the p e r f o r m a n c e of the intern. Because the intern is new in a very real situation, the internship supervi sor may have a t endency to be highly directive, to limit the paramete rs w i t h i n w h i c h the intern may work, to pr ovide h i m w i t h m u c h i nfo rma tio n about the situation in order that the intern can function within the restrictions of that i nternship placement. Directors who have had this type of m o d e l might tend to carry over the same kind of b e h a v i o r in r ela t i n g to their staffs. In any case, there seems to be a r e l a t ion shi p between pr odu cti on emphasis and the internship experience. Those wh o select such experiences mi ght wish to i n v e s t i ­ gate this relatio nsh ip further. There seems to be no evidence at this time that a h i g h or low score on p r o ­ duction emphasis is an i ndi cat ion of m o r e ef fec tiv e a d m i n i s ­ tration. We are simply ope rat ing on an a p riori basis when we assume that h igh thrust and low p r o d u c t i o n emphasis are characteristics of effective administrators. remains, is so. It first, to be empirically de mo n s t r a t e d that this Then, those who select internships may act a c c o r d ­ ingly . . In testing hy pot hes is 12, that there is no r e l a t i o n ­ ship b et w e e n the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the age of the director, it was found that, a mon g these 100 directors of special e duc atio n at least, age was not si gnificantly c orr ela ted w i t h the OCDQ scores. The t hir te e n t h hypoth esis , that there is no r e l a t i o n ­ ship b e t w e e n the scores on any of the OCDQ factors and the length of tenure of the d i r e c t o r in his pr esent position, could not be rejected. It appears that, for this p o p u l a ­ tion, there are no rel a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n the number of years that a di rec tor has be en in this p o s i t i o n and any of the O C D Q s c o r e s . In te sting the f our tee nth hypothesis: relatio nsh ip b e t w e e n the scores there Is no on any of the OCDQ factors and the di rec t o r ' s previous employment as a special ed uca t i o n staff m e m b e r In the in termediate district in which he is now director, no significant correlations were found, and the null hypoth esi s was not rejected. It has b e e n suggested that it is an ad van tag e to an o r g a ni zat ion to employ an a d m i n istr ato r from outside that organization. If one Is c onc erned about the effect of such a pra cti ce on or gan i z a t i o n a l climate, the evidence fr om this research does not seem to support this contention. This is not to say, however, that In c er t a i n situations where a special pro ble m was encountered, might not b*e helpful, or for other c a u s e s . such a pra cti ce for r easons as soc iat ed wit h the climate 101 Conclusions To summarize briefly, as a result of this research, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The OCDQ can be modified for use with inter­ mediate school district special education staffs. 2. No relationships were found between scores on the OCDQ factors and the following variables: a. amount of coursework in education, special education, educational administration, special education administration taken by the director. b. the director's scholastic achievement as measured by his reported undergraduate grade point a v e r a g e . c. the amount of sensitivity training the director has had. d. the age of the director. e. the length of tenure of the director in his present position. f. previous employment of the director on the staff before becoming director. 3. The following variables were related to the scores on the OCDQ factors: a. Year of highest academic degree was positively correlated with hindrance. b. Elementary grade teaching was negatively cor­ related with consideration. c. Secondary grade teaching was negatively correlated with thrust. 102 d. L ength of t eac hing experie nce was negatively correlated w i t h consideration. e. N o n - c l a s s r o o m special edu ca t i o n experience was negative ly f. corr el a t e d with aloofness. N o n - e d u c a t i o n a l adm in i s t r a t i v e ex per ien ce was negatively correla ted w i t h esprit, pr odu cti on emphasis, and thrust, g. All a d m i n is tra tiv e experien ce was positively c orrelated with hindrance; negatively with esprit and p r o d u c t i o n emphasis. h. Internship and p r a c t i c u m experien ce was positively correlated with p r o d u c t i o n emphasis. R e c o m m end at ions for Fu rth er Study Se veral ideas for further study emerged as a result of this research: 1. The study s hould be re pli cat ed in other states with an ed uca tio nal structure similar to intermediate school districts, w ith a larger population, and with a greater d i s t r i b u t i o n wit hin the selected variables. 2. H a l p i n ’s and Croft's sug ges tio n that a team of observers do a case study in several districts should be carried o u £ . These observers could rate the staff on each of the O CDQ factors and on climate. administered, Aft er the OCDQ had b e e n a group of experts could OCDQ results w i t h the ratings "blindly match" the of the observers. Such a 103 procedure would, as Halpin and Croft point out (1962, p. Ill), provide a criterion of the validity of the instrume nt. 3. Some effort should be made to obtain measures of the effectiveness of an organization; then to discover whether this effectiveness relates to any of the climate factors, singly or in combination. It should be determined whether behaviors lead­ ing to climate scores can be influenced either by academic training or certain administrative experiences. If so, one might wish to incorporate such elements into a train­ ing program. 5. Attempts should be made to refine the OCDQ, particularly with respect to the sixth factor, production emphasis, and to improve upon the descriptions of the fa c t o r s . BIBLIOGRAPHY * 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, D. D. Personality attributes of teachers in organizational climates. Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 6-2, 441-43. Andrews, J. H. M. School organizational climate: some validity s t u d i e s . Canadian Education and Research D i g e s t , 1965, 5, 317-334. Ant3ey, E. M. Creativity in education administration. Journal of Experimental E d u c a t i o n , 1966, 34_, 21-27. Argyris, C. Some problems in conceptualizing organiza­ tional climate: A case study of a bank administra­ tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958, 11, 501-520“ Barnes, L. B. Organizational systems and engineering g r o u p s . B o s t o n : Division of Research, Harvard Business School, I960. Bass, B. M. Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior-! New York: Harper and Bros., 1£&0. Bell, T . 0. A study of personality characteristics of school superintendents in relation to administra­ tive behavior" (boctoral dissertation, Utah State Un ive r s i t y) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Mi cro ­ films, 1967. No. 68-13767. Berends, E. H. Perceptions of the principal's per­ sonality: a study of the relationships to organiza­ tional climate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Bey, D. R* Modified discriminant analysis of school organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1954. Birch, E. L. A study of the differences between perceived and desired organizational climate In special educa­ tion staffs of selected intermediate school districts in the State of Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. 105 106 Brown, A. P. and House, J. H. The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l component In education. Re v i e w of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1967, 31, 399-416. Brown, W. J. I d e n t if yin g and c l a s s i f y i n g o r g a n i zat ion al climates In twin cities areas ele men tar y s c h o o l s . (Doctoral disserta tio n, U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota) Ann Arbor, Mich.: U n i v e r s i t y Microf ilm s, 1965. No. 65-7324. Cornell, P. G. Socially p e r c e p t i v e adm ini stration. D e lta K a p p a n , 1955, 36., 219-223. Phi Dreeben, R. and Gross, N. The role b e h a v i o r of school p r i n c i p a l s . Cambridge, Mass.: Gr ad u a t e S c h o o l of Education, H a r v a r d U n i v e rs ity , 1965. Eberlein, E. L. The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n school climate and E d w a r d s 1 M ani f e s t Needs of the elementa ry school t e a c h e r . (Doctoral dis ser tat ion , M i c h i g a n State University) A n n Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967. No. 68-4126. Erickson, D. A. The school administrator. R e v i e w of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1967, 3£, 417-432. Parber, B. E. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l cl ima te of public elementary schools as r e l a t e d to d o g m a t i s m and se lec ted b i o ­ gr aph i c a l c h a r a cte ris tic s of principals and t e a c h e r s , and selected school and school communi ty c h a r a c t e r ­ istics (Doctoral d iss ert ati on, W a y n e S tat e U n i v e r ­ sity) A n n Arbor, Mich.: U n i v e r s i t y Microf ilm s, 1968. No. 69-6050. Fiedler, P. E. A theory of leadership e f f e c t i v e n e s s . New York: McGraw-llill B o o k Company , 1 9 . Forehand, G. A. and Gilmer, B. Environmental variation in studies of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior. Psychologi­ cal B u l l e t i n . 1964, 62, 361-381. Gibb. C. A. The princ ipl es and traits of leadership. Jo urn al of A b n o r m a l and S oci al P s y c h o l o g y . 1947, 42., 267-284. Gibb, C. A. Leadership. In G. Li ndzey (Ed.), H a n d b o o k of social p s y c h o l o g y . Cambrid ge, MasB.: Ad dis onWesley, 1954. 107 Gouldner, A. W. The situationist theory. In C. Kemp, Group process. Boston: H oug hto n - M I f f l l n Company, 1964. Gross, N. and Herriott, R. E. Staff leadership In public schools: A sociological I n q u i r y . New York: J o h n Wiley and SonsT 1965. Guetzkow, H. (Ed.) Groups, leadership and m e n . Russell and R u s s e l l , I n c ., 1963. New York: Halpin, A. W. The leadership Ideology of aircraft com­ manders. Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y , 1955, 39 82-84. Halpin, A. W. Administrative theory In e d u c a t i o n . York: The Ma cmi lla n Company, 1958* New Halpin, A. W. The leadership behavior of school sup er­ intendents'! (2nd ed.) Chicago: Midwest Admlnis tra tlon Center, University of Chicago, 1959. Halpin, A. W. Theory and research In a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: The M a c m illa n Company, 1966. Halpin, A. W. and Croft, D. B. The organizational climate of s c h o o l s . Washington, D. C.: United States Office of Education, 1962. Halpin, A. W. and Wines, B. J. The leadership be havior of the airplane c o m m a n d e r . T ech nical Report III prepared for Human Resources R ese arc h Laboratory, Dept, of the Air Force. In A. W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966. Hargrave, C. L. The principal's divergent thinking ability in interpersonal relationships: its r e l a t e d ­ ness to the organizational climate of selected high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mi chi gan State University, 1969. Hays, W. 1^. Statistics for p s y c h o l o g i s t s . Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963. New York: Hemphill, J. K. Administration as pr obl em solving. In A. W. Halpin, Ad ministrative theory In e d u c a t i o n . New York: The M acmi l l a n Company, 19 5$ • Hemphill, J. K. and Coons, A. E. Leader behavior d e s c r i p t i o n . Columbus, Ohio: Personnel Research B o a r d , The Ohio State University, 1950. 108 Leavitt, H. J. M a n a g e r i a l p s y c h o l o g y . Chicago: Un ive r s i t y of C hic ago Press, 1958. Levy, M. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of d o g m a t i s m and o p l n i o n a t l o n of principals to the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate of elementary s c h o o l s . (Doctoral dissertation, U niversity of Georgia) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univer­ sity Microfilms, 1968. No. 69-9500. Lewin, K., L i p p i t t , R., and White, D. M. Pattern s of aggress ive b e h a v i o r in e x p e r ime nta lly cr eated social c l i m a t e s . J o u r n a l of S oci al P s y c h o l o g y , 1939, 10, 271-279. Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R. J. M o t i v a t i o n and o r g a n i ­ zational c l i m a t e . Boston: D i v i s i o n of Research, H arvard Business School, 1968. Meyer, H. H. A chi eve men t m o t i v a t i o n an d industr ial climates. In R. Taguiri and G. H. L i t w i n (Eds.), O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e . Boston: Harvard Univer­ sity, 19 6F. M o r p h e t , E. L. and Schutz, W. C. Procedu res for i d e n tifying persons w i t h poten t i a l for public school a d m i n istrative p o s i t i o n s . Berkeley: Un ive r s i t y of California, 1966. Mulaik, S. and Mulaik, J. M e a s u r e m e n t and p r e d i c t i o n of nu r s i n g performance. M i m e o g r a p h e d Paper, Uni ver sit y of Utah, 1966. Novotney, J. M. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate In p a r o c h i a l schools. Catholic E d u c a t i o n a l R e v i e w , 1967, **5. 92-113. Perkins, H. V. Climate Influences gr oup learning. J ournal of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1951, 5, 115-119. Peterson, O. P. L e a d e r s h i p and gro up behavior. In L. Lippitt (Ed.), L e a d e r s h i p in a c t i o n , No. 2. Washington, D. C.: N a t i o n a l T r a i n i n g Laborat ori es, N . E %A., 1961. Sells, S. B. An app roa ch to the nature of o r g a n i zat ion al climate. In R. Tag uiri and G. L i t w i n (Eds.) O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e . Boston: D i v i s i o n of Research, Gra d u a t e S cho ol of Business A dmi nis t r a t i o n , Ha r v a r d University, 1968. 109 Smith, D. C. Relationships bet w e e n external variables and the organizational climate description que sti on­ naire . (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University M i c r o ­ films, 1967. No. 66-14,067. Spicknall, H. W. The relationships between i nno vat ive ­ ness, organizational climate factors and c ommuni­ cation variables in intermediate school district departments of special education in Michigan. Un published doctoral dissertation, Mi chi gan State University, 1970. Stogdill, R. M. Leadership and structures of personal i n t e r a c t i o n . Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated w ith leader­ ship: A survey of the literature. Journal of P s y c h o l o g y , 1948, 25, 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. and Shartle, C. L. Methods for d e t e r ­ mi nin g patterns of leadership behavior in rel ation to organization structure and objectives. Journal of Applied P s y c h o l o g y , 1948, 3j2, 286-291. Taguiri, R. and Litwin, G. H. (Eds.). Organizational c l i m a t e . Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Eusiness Administration, Harvard University, 1968. Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I. R., and Massarik, P. Leadership and organization: A behavioral science a p p r o a c h . New York: McGraw-Hill, 19^1. APPENDICES V. APPENDIX A ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE 111 APPENDIX A O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L CLIMATE D E S C R I P T I O N Q U E S T I O N N A I R E A. W. Hal p i n and D. B. Croft The items in this q u e s t i o n n a i r e d esc rib e typical behaviors or conditions that occur w i t h i n a school organization. Please Indicate to what extent each of these descrip tio ns c haracterizes yo ur s c h o o l . Please do not eva lua te the items in terms of "good" or "bad" behavior, but read each item carefully and r e s p o n d In terms of how well the statement des cri bes y o u r school. The d e s c ri pti ve scale on w h i c h to rate the items is pri nte d at the top of each page. Please read the Instructions whi ch describe how you should mar k your answers. The purpose of this que s t i o n n a i r e is to secure a descript io n of the different way3 in w h i c h teachers be have and of the various conditions under w h i c h they must work. After you have an swe red the q u e s t i o n n a i r e we wil l examine * the behaviors or conditions that have b e e n des cr i b e d as typical by the maj ori ty of the tea chers in your school, and we will construct from this description, a portrait of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate of your school. Copyrighted, 1966, Andrew W. Halpin, the M a c m i l l a n Company Re pro duc ed wi th pe r m i s s i o n of publisher. 112 113 M A R K I N G I N S T RU CTI ONS Printed below is an example of a t yp i c a l item found in the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire: 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. O fte n Occurs 4. Very fre que n t l y occurs T e ach er s call each other by their first names 1 2 3 4 In this example the re spo nde nt m a r k e d i alt ern ati ve 3 to show that the i n t e r -per son al r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e d by this item "often occurs" at his school. Of course, any of the other a l t e r nat ive s c ould be selected, d e p e n d i n g upon how often the b e h a v i o r de scr i b e d by the i t e m does, indeed, occur in your school. Please mark your re sponse clearly, example. as in the PLEASE BE SURE T H A T YOU M A R K E V E R Y ITEM. 114 B I O G R APHI CAL INFORMATION Please place a check m a r k to the right of the ap pro pri ate 8. 9. category. Position: Sex: Pr inc ipa l Teacher 2._____ Ot her 3._____ Man Wom an 10. 11. Age: 20-29 Years of e x p e ri enc e in education: 1._____ 1._____ 2._____ 1._____ 30-39 2._____ 40-49 3._____ 50-59 4._____ 60 and over 5._____ 0-3_______________ 1._____ 4-9 2._____ 10-19 3._____ 20-29 4._____ 30 and over_______ 5._____ 12. Years at this school: 0-3_______________ 1*_____ 4-9 i 2._____ 10-19______________ 3._____ 20 or over 4. 115 1. 2. 3. 4. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very freque ntl y occurs 13. Teachers' closest friends are other faculty members at this school. 12 14. The manne ris ms of teachers at this school are annoying. 12 3 4 15. Teachers spend time after school w i t h students who have individ ual problems. 12 3 4 16. Instructions for the operation of teaching aids are available. 12 3 4 17. Teachers invite other faculty to visit th em at home 12 3 4 18. There is a min ori ty group of teachers who always oppose the majority. 12 3 4 19. Ex tra books are available 12 3 4 20. Sufficient time is g iven to prepare ad min ist rat ive reports. 12 3 4 21. Teachers know the family b a c k g r o u n d of other faculty members. 12 3 4 22 . Teachers exert group pressure on nonco nfo rmi ng faculty members. 12 3 4 23. In faculty meetings, there is a fe eling of "let's get things done." 12 3 4 24 . Adminis tra tiv e p ape r work is burdens ome at this school. 12 3 4 25 . Teachers talk about t heir per son al life to other faculty m e m b e r s . 12 3 4 26 . Teachers seek sp ecial favors f r o m the principal. 12 3 4 27. School supplies are readily av ailable for use in classwork. 12 3 4 28. Student progress reports require too much work. 12 3 4 for c l a s s r o o m use. 3 4 116 1. 2. 3. 4. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs 29. Teachers have fun socializing together during school time. 12 3 4 30. Teachers interrupt other faculty members who are talking in staff meetings. 12 3 4 31. Most of the teachers here accept the faults of their colleagues. 12 3 4 32. Teachers have too many committee r e q u i r e m e n t s . 12 34 33. There is considerable laughter when teachers gather informally. 34. Teachers ask nonsensical questions in 12 34 12 34 faculty meetings. 313. Custodial service is available when needed. 12 34 36. Routine duties interfere wi th the job of teaching. 12 34 37. Teachers prepare administrative reports by themselves. 12 34 38. Teachers ramble when they talk in faculty meetings. 12 34 39. Teachers at this school show much school spirit. 12 34 40. The principal goes out of his way to help teachers. 12 34 41. The principal helps teachers solve personal problems. * Teachers at this school stay by themselves. 12 34 12 34 43. The teachers accomplish their work with great vim, vigor and pleasure. 12 34 44. The principal sets an example by w orking hard himself. 12 34 42. 117 1. 2. 3. 4. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs O fte n occurs Very frequently occurs 45. The principal does per sonal favors for teachers. 12 3 4 46. Teachers eat lunch by themselves in th eir own classrooms 12 3 4 47. The morale of the teachers is high. 12 3 4 48. The principal uses 12 3 4 49. The principal stays after school to help teachers finish their work. 12 3 4 50. Teachers socialize together in small select groups. 12 3 4 51. The principal makes all c l a s s - s c h e d u l i n g decisions. 12 3 4 52. Teachers are contacted by the p rin cipal each d a y . 12 34 53. The princip al is well prep are d when he speaks at school functions. 12 3 4 54. The principal helps staff members settle minor differences 12 34 55. The pr inc ipa l teachers. 12 34 56. Teachers leave the grounds du rin g the school day. 12 34 57. The principal rather than a criticizes a specific act staff member. 12 34 58. T eachers help taught. select which courses wi ll be 12 34 59. The principal corrects teachers' 12 34 12 34 constructive criticism. schedules the work for the * 60 . The principal talks a great deal. mistakes. 118 1. 2. 3. 4. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs Often occurs Very frequently occurs 61. The principal explains his reasons for criticism to teachers. 1 2 34 62. The principal tries to get better salaries for t e a c h e r s . 12 34 63. Extra duty for teachers is posted conspicuously. 12 34 64. The rules set by the principal are never questioned. 12 34 6 5 . The principal looks out for the personal welfare of teachers. 12 34 66. School secretarial service is available for teachers use. 12 34 67. The principal runs the faculty meeting like a business conference. 12 34 68. The principal is in the building before teachers a r r i v e . 12 34 69. Teachers work together preparing administratlve reports. 12 34 70. Faculty meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. 12 34 71. Faculty meetings are mainly principalreport meetings. 12 34 72. The principal tells teachers of new ideas he has run across. 12 34 73. Teachers talk about leaving the school system. 12 34 74. The principal checks the subject-matter ability of teachers. 12 34 75. The principal is easy to understand. 12 34 119 1. 2. 3. 4. Rarely occurs Sometimes occurs O fte n occurs Very frequently occurs 76. Teachers are inf or med of the results of a supervisor's visit. 12 34 77. G r a d i n g pra ctices are s ta n d a r d i z e d at this school. 12 34 78. The principal insures that teachers work to th eir full capacity. 12 34 79. Teachers leave the b u i l d i n g as soon as possible at d a y 's end. 12 34 80 . The pri ncipal clarifies w r o n g ideas a te a c h e r may have. 12 34 * APPENDIX B INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION QUESTIONNAIRE I N TE R M E D I A T E SCHOOL D I S T R I C T SPE C I A L E D U C A T I O N QUESTIONNAIRE General Instructions This q u e s t i o n n a i r e is d e s i g n e d to m e a s u r e the o r g a n i ­ zational behavior, c o m m u n i c a t i o n behavior, as w e l l as to gather g ene r a l b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a co n c e r n i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e d e p a r t m e nts of special education. Y o u r respo n s e s to items on this q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l b e h e l d in the s t r i c t e s t confidence. To.protect the ano n y m i t y of each r e s p o n d e n t and to insure a m e a n i n g f u l r e s p o n s e , p l e a s e o bserve the f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e s : 1. Use a N u m b e r 2 or soft lead pe n c i l to m a r k the answer sheet. 2. M a r k each r e s p o n s e carefully. 3. C o m p l e t e l y erase all e r r o r s . 4. Do not discuss items w i t h other staff m e m b e r s w h i l e answering the questionnaire. 5. Place your an s w e r sheet in the 8*s x 11 m a n i l a e n v e l o p e provided. 6. Turn in this questionnaire. S p e c i f i c Instructions On the u p p e r left h a n d side of the answer sheet is a b o x m a r k e d “Position." P l e a s e indicate y o u r p o s i t i o n b y m a r k i n g t h e .a p p r o p r i a t e space accor d i n g to the follo w i n g code: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Director S u p e rvisor Diagnostician School Social W o r k e r Sp e e c h C o r r e c t i o n ! s t 6. 7. 8. 9. Type C Consultant T e a c h e r C o n s u l t a n t (Type T e a c h e r of H o m e b o u n d and/or H o s p i t a l i z e d Other Each s e c tion of this q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be p r e c e d e d by its own s p e c ific instructions. 1 O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L CLIMATE D E S C R I P T I O N Q U E S T I O N N A I R E A. W. H a l p i n and D. B. Croft The items in this q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e s c r i b e typical behav i o r s or conditions that occur w i t h i n an organization. Please i n dicate to w h a t extent each of these des c r i p t i o n s charac t e r izes your special e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t staff in the interm e d i ate office. P l e a s e do not e v a l u a t e the items in terms of "good'1 or "bad" b e h a v i o r , b u t read each i t e m c a r e ­ fully and r e s p o n d in terms of h o w w e l l the s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b e s your staff. The d e s c r i p t i v e scale on w h i c h to r a t e the items is pr i n t e d at the top of e a c h page. P l e a s e r e a d the i n s t r u c ­ tions w h i c h d e s c r i b e h o w you should m a r k y o u r answers. The p u r p o s e of this q u e s t i o n n a i r e is to secure a d e s c r i p t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t ways in w h i c h m e m b e r s of the staff b e h a v e and of the v a r i o u s conditions u n d e r w h i c h they mu s t work. This q u e s t i o n n a i r e also asks each r e s p o n d e n t to indicate w h a t b e h a v i o r h e desires for the staff and d i r e c t o r of i n t e r m e d i a t e special e d u c a t i o n departments. After you have a n s w e r e d the q u e s t ionnaire, we w i l l e x a m i n e the b e h a v ­ iors or conditions that h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d as typical by the m a j o r i t y of the staff members, from this description, and w e w i l l const r u c t a p o r t r a i t of the O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C l i m a t e of y o u r staff. Co p yrighted, 1966, A n d r e w W. Halpin, the M a c m i l l a n Co. R e p r o d u c e d w i t h p e r m i s s i o n of the publisher. 2 M A R K I N G INSTRUCTIONS P r i n t e d b e l o w is an example of a typical item found in the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire; REAL DESIRED 1. R arely occurs 1. Sh o u l d ra r e l y occur 2. Sometimes occurs 2. Should sometimes o c c u r 3. O f t e n occurs 3. Sh o u l d often occur 4. V e r y frequently occurs 4. Should v e r y freque n t l y occur Sample item: REAL 2 Staff m e m b e r s call each o t h e r by t h e i r first names. 3 DES I R E D 4 --- --- ggg --** ~ 1 --- 2 3 --- --- In this e x a m p l e , the r e s p o n d e n t m a r k e d alternativ e 3 u n d e r the REAL c o l u m n on the A n s w e r Sheet to show that the i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e d by this item does in fact "often occur" among his colleagues. The r e s p o n d e n t also ma r k e d a l t e r native 2 u n d e r the D E SIRED c o l u m n to indicate that he desires that this b e h a v i o r "should sometimes occur." P l e a s e m a r k y o u r responses clearly, m a k i n g sure that you m a r k evdry item in BOTH C O L U M N S . sary, If changes are n e c e s ­ c o m p l e t e l y erase the r e s p o n s e you w i c h to change. DO N O T C ONTI N U E UNTIL SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS A R E GIVEN. 3 REAL 1. 2. 3. 4. *** DESIRED Rarely occurs 1. Should r a r e l y occur Sometimes occurs 2. Should somet i m e s occu r O ften occurs 3. Should o f t e n occur V e r y freque n t l y occurs 4. S h o u l d v e r y freque n t l y occur ********************************************************** 1. Staff members' staff. 2. The m a n n e r i s m s of members of this staff are annoying. 3. Staff me mbers spend time after hours w i t h teac h e r s w h o have individual problems. 4. Instructions for o p e r a t i o n of e d u c ational m e d i a are available. 5. Staff members invite other m e m b e r s to v i s i t t h e m at home. 6 . 7. 8 . 9. closest friends are o t h e r members of this There is a m i n o r i t y group of staff m e m b e r s w h o opposes the majority. E x t r a m a t e rials are a v a i lable for staff use. S u f f i c i e n t time is g i v e n to pre p a r e admini s t r a t i v e reports. Staff mem b e r s k n o w the family b a c k g r o u n d of other staff members. 10. Staff members exert g r o u p p r e s s u r e on n o n c o n f o r m i n g staff members. 11. In staff meetings, things done." 12 . 13. 14. there is a feeling of "let's get A d m i n i s t r a t i v e p a p e r w o r k is b u r d e n s o m e in the i n t e r ­ m e d i a t e office. Staff m e m b e r s talk about their p e r s o n a l life to other staff members. 4 Staff members seek special favors f r o m the director. 15. O f f ice supplies are read i l y available for u s e of i n d i vidual staff members. 16. S t udent contact reports require too m u c h work. 17. Staff m e m b e r s h a v e fun socializing together du r i n g w o r k hours. P L E A S E CONTINUE 4 REAL DESIRED 1. Rarely occurs 1. Should rarely occur 2. Sometimes occurs 2. Should sometimes occur 3. Often occurs 3. Should often occur 4. Very frequently occurs 4. Should very frequently occur ************************************************************* 18. Staff members interrupt other members who are talking in staff meetings. 19. Most of the staff accept the faults of their colleagues. 20. Staff members have too many committee requirements. 21. There is considerable laughter when the staff gathers informally. 22. Members ask nonsensical questions in staff meetings. 23. Custodial service is available when needed. 24. Routine duties interfere with individual job require­ ments . 25. Staff members prepare administrative reports by them­ selves. 26. Members ramble when they talk in staff meetings. 27. Members of this staff show loyalty to the inter­ mediate district. 28. The director goes out of his way to help staff members. 29. The director helps staff members solve personal problems. 30. Members of this staff stay by themselves. 31. Staff members accomplish their work with great vim, vigor, and pleasure. 32. 33. The director sets an example by working hard himself. I The director does personal favors for members of the staff. 34. Staff members eat lunch by themselves. 35. The morale of the staff is high. 36. The director uses constructive criticism. 37. The director stays after finish their work. hours to help staff members PLEASE CONTINUE REAL DES I R E D 1. R arely occurs 1. S h o u l d r a r e l y occur 2. Sometimes occurs 2. Sh o u l d s o m e times occur 3. O f t e n occurs 3. S h o u l d o f t e n occur 4. V e r y freque n t l y occurs 4. Should very frequently occur ************************************************************* 38. Staff m e m b e r s socialize t o g e t h e r in small s e l e c t groups. 39. The dire c t o r makes all travel schedu l i n g decisions. 40. Staff members are c o n t a c t e d by the d i r e c t o r each day. 41. T h e director is w e l l p r e p a r e d w h e n h e speaks at i n t e r ­ m e d i a t e d i s t r i c t functions. 42. The director helps staff m e m b e r s set t l e m i n o r d i f f e r ­ ences. 43. T h e director schedules the w o r k for the staff. 44. Staff members m a y devi a t e from their w o r k s c h e d u l e at t heir own discretion. 45. Staff m e m b e r s help select areas of d i s c u s s i o n for staff meetings. 46. T h e d i r e c t o r corrects staff members' mistakes. 47. T h e dire c t o r talks a g r e a t deal. 48. T h e director explains his reasons for c r i t i c i s m s taf f m e m b e r s . 49. T h e d i r e c t o r tries to get b e t t e r salaries for staff members. 50. E x t r a duty for staff m e m b e r s is p o s t e d conspicuously. to 51. T h e rules set by the d i r e c t o r are n e v e r questioned. 52. T h e direc t o r looks out for the p e r s o n a l w e l f a r e staff.* of his 53. S e c r e t a r i a l service is a v a i l a b l e for staff members' 54. The d i r e c t o r runs the staff m e e t i n g s conference. 55. T h e dire c t o r is in the o f f i c e b e f o r e staff m e m b e r s arrive. PLEASE CONT I N U E 6 like a b u s i n e s s use. REAL DESIRED 1. Rarely occurs 1. Should rarely occur 2. Sometimes occurs 2. Should sometimes occur 3. Often occurs 3. Should often occur 4. Very frequently occurs 4. Should very frequently occur ************************************************************* 56. Staff members work together preparing administrative reports. 57. Staff meetings are organized according to a tight agenda. 58. Staff meetings are mainly director-report meetings. 59. The director tells staff members of new ideas he has run across. 60. Staff members talk about leaving the intermediate district. 61. The director checks the competence of staff members. 62. The director is easy to understand. 63. Staff members are informed of the results of a super­ visor's visit. 64. The director insures that staff members work to their full capacity. Items 65 through 71 are intended to gather Biographi­ cal information. Please mark the appropriate response on your Answer Sheet for each item. 65. Age * 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or over 66. Sex 1. 2. Male Female 67. Years on this staff 1. 2. 3. 4. 0-3 4-9 10-19 20 or over PLEASE CONTINUE 7 68. Years of e x p e r i e n c e in e d u c a t i o n 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0-3 4-9 10-19 20-29 30 or over 69. E x p e r i e n c e in special education 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0-1 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 6-7 years 8 years or more 70. H i g h e s t degree held 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Associate Bache l o r s Masters Specialist Doctorate 71. Year of h i g h e s t degree 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1968-1969 1966-1967 1964-1965 1962-1963 1961 or bef o r e P L E A S E CONT I N U E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ON THE N E X T PAGE. Items 72 through 85 were designed to measure the commun­ ications behavior of Intermediate Special Education Departments. Please mark the appropriate response on your answer sheet for each item. Items 72-81 Please indicate your most important source(s) of information about new ideas in Special Education. Place a mark under Number 1 after the source(s) that you feel are most important. 72. Intermediate Director of Special Education. 73. Intermediate Special Education staff. 74. Local Special Education personnel. 75. Non-educator lay persons. 76. State Department of Education consultants. 77. Conventions of professional organizations. 78. Publications i.e. Journals of Professional Organizations. 79. Intermediate school district publication e.g. Newsletter. 80. State Department of Education publications. 81. The mass media i.e. radio, television, newspapers. Items 82-86 Please write your response (a number) on the line after the appropriate number on the answer sheet. 82. In how many professional organizations are you a dues paying member? 83. How many professional journals do you read regularly? 84. How many days during the 1968-69 school year did you spend away from the intermediate district attending professional conferences, conventions, committee meetings, or organization meetings? 85. On the lines provided, please write the Position (Social worker, Director, etc.) of three persons on the inter­ mediate staff with whom you discuss new ideas for special education p rograms, practices, or procedures. 86. On the average, how many hours do you spend in the intermediate office each week. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS STUDY APPENDIX C LETTER T O S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S O F DISTRICTS PARTI C I P A T I N G IN STUDY October, 1969 Dear We are asking for your cooperation in obtaining some informa­ tion regarding special education staffs of Intermediate School Districts in Michigan. This information will provide part of the data for three dissertations currently in progress at Michigan State University. Approximately one hour of staff time will be necessary to obtain this i nformation. All three of the studies use the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), which is a measure of p e r ­ ception of group interaction. The OCDQ has been used in innumerable studies of K-12 districts in Michigan as well as in other states and Canada. However, this instrument has never been used in a study of Intermediate School Districts. To use the OCDQ with Intermediate School Districts, we must standardize it with this population. Therefore, it is essential that we obtain information from all Intermediate School Districts in Michigan. This study has been proposed to the Michigan Association of Intermediate Special Education Administrators, and on October 15, 1969, this group gave their endorsement to such a study. We will be contacting you within a few days to request an a ppoin t m ent, and at that time we will be happy to answer . any questions you may have. Sincerely yours, Sister Anne L. Clark Harrold W. Spicknall Edward L. Birch cc. Director of Special Education 131 APPENDIX D QU E S T IONNAIRE FOR D I R E C T O R S OF S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N * 132 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION This questionnaire is p a r t of a study of Special Education Departments on the Intermediate level in the state of Michigan. Please answer all questions. Your cooperat i o n is appreciated, and all responses will be held in strictest confidence. 1. 2. W h a t is the hig h e s t degree wh i c h y o u have received? _____ B a c h e l o r 's or less _____ M a s t e r 's _____ Educational Specialist _____ D o c t o r 1s When did you receive this degree? _____ 3. (year) With respect to scholastic achievement, w h a t is your best estimate of your grade point average as an undergraduate? (Use the scale 4 = A; _____ 3.75 or higher _____ 3.5 to 3.74 3 = B; 2 = C) 3.0 to 3.49 4. _____ 2.5 to 2.99 _____ below 2.5 W h a t was your major area of study as a graduate student? _____ E d u c ation(NOT Special Education or Administration) _____ Spe*cial Education _____ A d m i n istration _____ Other (Specify (Specify area____________________ ) ) Page 2 What was y o u r m a j o r area of study as an u n d e r g r a d u a t e ? _____ Education (NOT Special Education) ______ Special E d u c a t i o n ______ Other (Specify area__________________) (Specify ) How m a n y years h a v e y o u b e e n D i r e c t o r of this D e p a r t m e n t of Special Education? C o u n t this y e a r as one. ______ years H ow m a n y years w e r e y o u a m e m b e r of this staff in this Special E d u c a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t b e f o r e y o u b e c a m e the D irector? ______ years In w h a t c a p a c i t y ? ____________________________________________ In a d d i t i o n to y o u r p r e s e n t type of position, w h a t previous e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s h a v e y o u held? Indicate the n u m b e r of y e a r s in each. ______ Princ i p a l _____ A s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ______ Assistant principal ______O t h e r _____ S u p e rvisor (Specify________ ) If y o u have h a d any o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or m a n a g e r i a l p o s i t i o n other than e d u c a t i o n a l ; for example, as m a n a g e r of a store, pl e a s e indicate the type of p o s i t i o n and the n u m b e r of years y o u h e l d it. ______ N o n e No. of Years How m a n y years d i d y o u teach in r e g u l a r e l e m e n t a r y grades (NOT S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N ) ? ______ years Page 3 11. How many years did y o u teach in regular secondary grades (NOT SPECIAL E D U C A T I O N ) ? ______ 12. How many years d i d y o u teach in Special Education classes? _____ 13. years Have y o u had other Special Education experience (Speech Correction, etc.)? Specify type and number of y ears in each. _____ 14. years None How m u c h time have y o u spent in formal sensitivity training or similar experience involving group dynamics? (Include such activities as T - grouping, etc., b u t NOT micro-lab sessions w h i c h w e r e merely pa r t of a class activity.) none 15. No. of Years ______ four to seven days ______ one day or less ______ eight to ten days _____ ______ more than ten days two or three days Did y o u have an internship and p r a c t i c u m experience in educational a d m i n istration (NOT Special Education) as p a r t of your formal academic training? If so, estimate as closely as possible the number of clock hours spent in it. None ______ Clock hours 16. Did y o u have an internship and p r a c t i c u m experience in Special Educa t i o n Administration. If so, estimate as closely as possible the number of clock hours spent in it. None C l o c k hours Page 4 For numbers 17 through 22, s e l e c t the c o l u m n w h i c h is appropriate, d e p e n d i n g upon y o u r situation. Esti m a t e the number as closely as p o s s i b l e and check t h a t column. S eme s t e r Credits 0 m 1 rH CN 17. H o w m a n y cre d i t hours of e d u c a t ion courses did y o u have as an u n d e r g r a d u a t e student? ................. , 18. H o w m a n y credit hours of e d u c ation courses did y o u have as a gradu a t e student? 19. How m a n y c r e d i t hours of courses i n - e d u c a t i o n h a v e y o u t a ken since 1965. (Include school y e a r 196566 up to the p r e s e n t ) . . . In a n s w ering q u e s t i o n s 20 -22, do NOT include courses in general e d u c a t i o n o r e d u c a t i o n a l psychology in w h i c h Special Education and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were only a p a r t of the course. 20. How m a n y of the credit hours in e d u c a t i o n courses (No. 17 and 18) w e r e in S p ecial Educat i o n ? . . . 21. In all, h o w m a n y credit hours of courses have y o u h a d in e d u c a t i o n a l . a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ? ......... 22. Of t h e se (No.21) h o w m a n y c r e d i t hours w e r e in S p ecial E d u c a t i o n Administration?. . . . o II r— cn Term C redits a) in c H o I S r-i m I H m 0 VO 1 vo V O APPENDIX E S UPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTIONS S U P P L E M E N T A R Y INSTRUCTIONS After r e a d i n g pages 1, 2, and 3 of the questionnaire: 1. Please note that for each item, y o u will first re s p o n d to how y o u presently perceive the situation to be and then how you would desire it to be. Notice also that the an s w e r sheet is n u m b e r e d across the entire line for numbers 1 and 2; 3 and 4 on the second line, etc. 2. When statements do not directly apply to an experience yo u have had, please answer the q u e s t i o n on the basis of how you believe such an experi e n c e w o u l d have res u l t e d h a d it o c c u r r e d — and how you w o u l d have d e s i r e d it to be. 3. Questions which relate to "supervisor" b e h a v i o r s hould be a n s wered with respect to the s u p e r v i s i o n regard l e s s of wh e ther it is the director, supervisor, or chair m a n of a department. 4. You will notice on the answer sheet for items 72 t h r o u g h 8l that only space number 1 is numbered. Of items 72-81, please fill the first space only for those items which you feel are the most important source(s) of info r m a t i o n about new ideas in special education. 5. Items 82, 83, 84, and 86 require a nu m b e r to be w r i t t e n on the red line to the right of the item number. If a "0" is appropriate, please place a "0" on the line rather than leaving it blank. 6. For item 85 you are asked to write the positions o f three people on your staff with w h o m you most often discuss new ideas, practices, or p r o c edures for special education. For example, if you discuss new ideas most often w i t h two speech therapists and a c o n s u l t a n t , your resp o n s e might be: line 1 - speech therapist; line 2 - sp e e c h t h e r a p i s t ; line 3 - c o n s u l t a n t . 7. When you have finished, please check your ans w e r sheet to make sure you have respo n d e d to all items. An envelope is being p r o v i d e d for r e t u r n i n g the q u e s t i o n ­ naire and answer sheets. 138 APPENDIX P RANDOM NUMBERS ASSIGNED TO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS PARTICIPATING IN STUDY k 139 TABLE FI R A N DOM NUMBERS A S S I G N E D TO INTE R M E D I A T E SCHOOL DISTR I C T S PART I C I P A T I N G IN STUDY* District Code Number District Code Number 1 01 16 62 2 05 17 63 3 07 18 65 4 11 19 67 5 18 20 68 6 19 21 70 7 23 22 73 8 29 23 75 9 30 24 77 10 34 25 79 11 39 26 80 12 M2 27 85 13 53 28 88 14 56 29 93 15 60 ■ * T hese code numbers will be used to identify the d istricts throughout the remainder of this paper. APPENDIX G INT E R C O R R E L A T I O N M A T R I X FOR 64 ITEMS OF R E V I S E D OCDQ 142 a gSSRJSSSSS'SSSSSSSaSSKSSSSaSSSSSSIC iii » i * i * g%3»g:;:3S&S3SS3&S38S?2S2£33S3&5£33 A 4 *4 I * • I * I H fei o i neeat e r -ot -Ho O a no n et N ® O ? 1® ° 2 8 mS mi 4noh3 aH« 0h oA emoneiomomonomome H OK H & ne " *«|ll III I II III III lllll II 1(11 88SSs!S3S:!8**&S:jlg3S3*3:7S3S(3SB3383S3S;SiS ^ < - i i i « i g3;TC3aSS5%SS2?32S£2£ft;CSS5SS23:2S£2S3&£ " A « ■ i * i 3A2:?;^2S3rt5d22£2£gR332&3£332£a3S32S333 At i i i ga5&2&3S2&aSS3S52S35333S?S2g:5:3S2S5&2S2S *4iii it ii «ii*i i* iii i•*iii » iiii °* « us SogSa23ao3oo3So2o5o £32S3aoggaoooo5aoaS3o ** A i i i i i • i i i i i i i i i i i 4 0 « 0 0 * * A N 4 # 4 f« « K N a « N H IItN ft« H H » N H M N H * « 0 tN « « « n ONOHOOHAJeHHOHOOHOOHOOOOOOOOHOOOHHHOOOOO 8 01 « N *4*111111111 II III II I I I III 5HOOHH H0H400 HHOOOOHOO oaOOMDOOOnOO 090*40*4*4*4*4 *41111 I I I I ■ mnmnmi>»KHO oHW'»"l 'NNN#*rtinNmno>o04ift04 n N i n t j t C f g o o oo oo oo *4 * 4* 4 oo o e* 4 oo o oo *4 oo *4 *4 o oo o oo o Bo oo o oo o o o ifH A V ts# * «lf-iA0nn9»f‘ l> -* u ” *4 * * * 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 NwmiaaovoiifiNuniMi^eio *4 1 1 1 1 I I I I OH« Mr>m«4«0O >0i #n4 ii **«000* UtOnH mm n i /m^ o n h 5oo*4f40*4oeo*4ooooooo*40ooooooooH oooo*4ooo*4aooo*4*4o a *4111 I II II 111 II III I II iTHf«wd*4maffinAmmh-rvta*4mw *4« *4n»• t-iqmooosooho«4*nh>onf-o *4f l l | | | | l t i l l II S H rtNeHH0HHN*»HO4OONMOHOeHHQO*4O4HOOO4aOHOOOHO'4NHH o*4nAf*>NiriN(iKnn o u u i n m ia« « (a n b * h ia m s o ia n h n ia b n « owi HHr>mrv4 n o * 4 * 4 o ra o * 4 o ra o o a * 4 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o * 4 o o o * 4 o o o o o o o o * 4 0 0 o o m 04 K *41 I I I II I II • I ll« III I II O4«AM1 NA0M A 4«44 USVI*4>44*1010HONftNfti 4«a0n01*0O*4l£»*4US*4IrtOIp*49 OnOBNOHOOOOOHHOOHOrlOOOOBOOOMOOOHOOOOOHOOnOOOflBHO *4 1 I I I I II I I I I 40000000*40 *400OOOOOO 0090000000000900*4000000 3 0*40*40*4* H *4 | IIIIIII II II 8 nip«0m o0 i0 K* U4OO H(*40* >Ao4 i*> d«H4**i aiMOf4 a* i4 i0 A 09ora*4 400U O*4*4)*K 4N 00* 40000*4 4w>«d 4 i* « 4 m m m 0 0 n ) A t 4 im e < C I * 0 V M H OB44 HOmNO*|A4NNN04 IA 4N I*«l*M ON *41 I l i l t l l l l l l l l l l l l Nna K0 * 4* ■ h -4 1H(V0NH0Kn0N I I I I I I t i l l I I I I I 09 N0 WWAOW4 O*0AA0N000 0400* 0(40lH< AB00BO 1-00*00l-0* -O*4**WlfdON«hH 0*400000 0*4*400*40 00*40^O*40* 0O0000Q000000* 4O0O 4O*4OOOO0O A i t i i ii ii i i O(40B0(nM0tni»Hl>M US90(»»*40inoomIA(40B00*14*4 H00M00nei-0KO0 « A | 00*4000*4000000000000*400*4*400* 4 0 0 * 4 0 * 4 0 0 * 4 * 4 0 0 0 0 e0 0 0 5 * 4 * 4 * 4 0 s0 0 0 A i * i i i i i i ii i ii ii ii i i i S amf-ao Atmp-rffiAimor-f'iokrfow>« m m m o f - o o o f - i-0 * 0 0 09000*4N i n o N f - i i a* OO*4*4OOO *4O*4OOOO*40SO*4*4o1*1o1* 10OMM*40O*414*4094 0 >O*4*4OOOO*414*4*40*4A**4A*OA*f4 3 *41111111 I I I I I I I B»eNflBh*0H«HHA«nQD«0«O4mil|<«0*4mN*jWHI>A»*«««IM« OiH00HHN« m 00 *4100*40*4*40O*40*40000*40*40*40000*40000*4000*4Q0900000*400000000# 8 N 04 A t i i i i i i i i i i i i ii ii 8a«NnBH(40n i4 0d*4**4ft0«i0«« -0440OOO 004441 0*4O* nmmaK«n«OH 0009 000*40* 4o0NHiin4«0AMr*0 *4*4OOOOOO3*4*400*40*4000000 OOO 1 OOO OO0OO 4O*40OOO*4O A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I | ain0*4e0HonHO00injn90WNKi>H«0i>0nmDHe00(40 * 4 010 use010*0< 9 9 0 0 0 oi-eusm 8A 00* 4*40*40000*4000*40000*400*4*400*4*40000*4OOO *44901**4 *4*400*400000*4*400*40*4 A i • i i i i i i i i i i i • i i i i 0O*4*4O1-0010OMVOI-«f*4*4*m4WaONn*4 IKMta9*lHNOONN4OOO4 *4US*4*09NBNHM00 4OONeO4f 01*4*4OOO US04 1* 4US*49USUSMO4-01-91-001 44O4HOO*OOQ4O40H OO(IISOO*]eOn0HNISN *4 II lllll I I 1 1 1 1 III 8l AHH(4M*41-0lOOO«4* IM9I—<4U4»* 40SO>4*4OO*4 Kh9 AS0( SAMOOOIUI-O 0>US*4m>04« 04000000000* St-US0IUVUS*49*4004*40000 n#4WO OOOAlf4OO0 HOOO*4 OOOaO*4 O*4*4O*4OOO*4 OOOO*4O 0* *411111 • II lllll III till II II 11 I lllll OO^0Hf>nHO*4 HM0OKenMMHH90990 *4^00011 04< 041*400*40 -0*910S0S0 11-01*4 0U0 S4 (AAKA40449 »®*4us* 04 1A N9 0040 010*4Omo 00*400000 *40000*4*40*4*4 * OOO 04* 4*400*4*400*4000 *4-*O 4> 4*4 *41 I I I I I II II 83S,J,3!?gX3SSS3XS2S3S33*3SS2SSS5SSSSS?Sa338S2SSS383S23gSg233SS3 US * 4 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 833SS5SS*SSS33£SS33SSSSS83S3:;3S8833S3S3SS33SS'S3S’3S3SS2SSS38388 *4 | || || | t i l l || lit | ft 8SS8^S5S335S5SS333SS^SS333S3S3r:S'S2S3SS3SS833g28S3SSSSSS3=33SS3g *411 II I I III II| II III l l l l l l lllll 1 lllll - 88SSasa388S8S2333338S*S333SS3SSSSa382SSSSS33S3SS3SS3333^S33SS?8S A I I I II | I I I I ! I I •"•"»«*»<— ■*33353S3S33R3aS«*rcj^R*SaBft«*ISSSM35*S*»3?SRK5!3;!R*R*S!S3353 *fiw dtelnl polata ba?t bm oalttad, S 3* 35 56 37 38 1.00 * 08 1 .00 92 1.0 0 05 18 20 30 • 01 • 06 - 11 05 02 03 02 10 11 01 33 39 26 05 15 02 - 01 08 10 00 08 00 22 19 02 12 2) • 00 _ 26 - IB 01 91 31 02 29 25 01 - 02 05 01 . 08 • 02 • 01 30 33 06 26 25 00 18 15 . • 00 12 19 09 * 19 13 09 03 07 00 • 10 • 12 08 21 35 • 02 • 92 • 22 19 - 07 29 07 92 99 - 01 36 27 02 26 37 1.00 OS 08 09 23 23 01 05 05 19 - 02 15 IB 02 05 26 12 - 00 19 12 05 • 07 28 - 11 17 22 12 25 1.00 06 03 11 - 03 - 05 05 - 01 03 11 - 03 - 03 09 - 00 01 - 63 09 03 13 19 11 - 09 05 09 - 05 - 01 - 03 39 80 U 82 83 98 8$ 86 87 1.00 05 1.00 08 10 1.00 - 02 07 11 19 21 29 07 09 > 02 06 01 • 01 05 09 16 12 19 07 15 - 03 19 OS - 01 12 03 02 11 09 • 05 08 09 ■ 27 01 07 23 13 00 - 02 * 16 17 27 19 03 10 20 19 07 08 19 20 1.00 * 09 - 02 03 19 - 11 - 07 01 - 03 - 03 08 19 - 19 12 - 02 - 22 - 07 . os *8 ** 50 10 09 32 15 08 05 13 06 07 29 22 15 1.00 03 01 03 15 07 07 07 - 01 00 - 09 01 S1 « 53 5* 55 56 57 1.00 10 1.00 12 1.00 09 0« 10 09 - 01 16 27 - 03 02 07 19 12 17 • 16 - 07 - 05 19 21 06 20 11 09 11 12 IT 19 16 17 1.00 09 - 03 15 08 12 11 25 16 1.00 16 06 - 05 17 07 08 18 56 59 60 61 62 6J 6* £ t7 1 33 1.00 U 09 19 29 13 oi 00 09 16 01 10 or 05 08 03 u 07 09 22 01 01 12 16 08 06 06 07 10 11 07 13 1.00 20 01 18 - 12 06 09 06 - 03 05 00 07 - 03 • 01 19 - 05 08 10 01 - 02 - 08 09 00 - 09 11 1.00 09 1.00 19 20 28 - 02 • 02 - 01 20 19 21 07 01 * 22 07 32 21 05 10 - 03 07 • 11 09 27 03 17 11 19 20 09 16 19 09 06 - 06 • IB 16 33 05 * *3 21 16 06 92 19 29 16 23 1.0 0 11 1.00 - 02 • 09 21 09 20 17 09 - 09 02 31 11 17 02 12 06 11 08 26 10 09 08 09 01 09 08 12 08 17 08 - 09 26 09 - 12 03 17 23 09 29 12 28 22 13 .0 0 30 n 18 22 1.00 02 - 09 02 06 09 12 12 - 02 11 Q1 09 - 10 20 03 10 - 03 1.00 09 09 16 11 10 - 05 35 - 12 23 35 16 29 m 12 01 06 06 00 10 1.00 32 - 06 1.00 36-16 23 1.00 23 - 15 26 26 1.00 • 33 - 16 « 32 36 1.00 - APPENDIX H INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR OCDQ SUBTEST SCORES AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES 1 2 3 4 1.00 IB „ 40 04 57 24 lfi 23 * 20 • 15 00 16 • 22 - 20 • 09 11 • 11 « 05 • 25 • 03 13 * 10 • 02 01 OB 05 15 • OB 02 • 09 17 15 _ 24 - 00 24 - IB 1 00 - 25 - 02 40 _ 14 - 23 • 03 41 - 01 24 15 - 03 • 02 25 15 02 03 - 16 - 36 07 26 - 05 - 29 - 26 • 17 23 24 11 10 45 07 • 22 • 28 _ 30 * 00 1 00 42 . 33 42 74 64 15 • 03 * 16 • 13 ll - 06 *■ 12 14 • 06 10 • 04 - 14 * 03 - 13 05 01 - 06 21 • 35 • 09 • 39 • 20 • 44 19 16 - 12 m 00 34 1 00 OS 20 36 65 09 * 05 - 03 - 05 - 23 03 22 02 - 16 • 20 • 35 - 07 - 17 • 36 * 32 • 06 - 04 - 13 • 07 - 20 - 27 - 24 24 24 04 - 31 - 09 13 5 1.00 - 13 - 11 - 06 06 06 14 10 - 26 11 15 24 22 13 - 29 - 01 22 - 05 04 - 34 • 46 03 26 * - 6 1.00 2B 37 17 - 15 • 00 - 14 - 32 - 02 - 06 27 06 • 01 10 - IT - 07 - 07 14 13 * 23 - 13 - 17 l l - 07 08 - 44 09 - 13 36 - 46 34 04 00 51 01 17 10 - 24 10 05 B 7 1.00 73 10 - 12 23 04 - 10 07 15 . 06 09 16 - 03 - 39 • 12 - 32 - 16 IB 02 - 04 - 26 - 17 - 39 - 16 - 29 11 IT - 27 02 22 1 .00 12 - 15 19 - 9 IT 02 _ 16 - 16 • • - 10 * . . _ . . . . 0 22 6• . 2 7 1 8 1 6 21 • • 09 - 13 11 12 13 1* IS 16 IT 1.00 13 • 04 * 18 a. 02 • 30 05 15 03 12 • 06 13 20 13 09 IB 11 35 31 - 27 - 26 12 1 00 17 12 02 13 - 12 01 09 - 12 . 41 04 07 • 23 - 24 * 16 * 12 23 19 - 03 - 02 61 1 00 86 45 - 15 - 01 19 15 * 04 - 10 29 34 * OB 09 10 34 20 21 • 03 • 00 40 10 19 30 21 72 23 2* 25 26 27 26 79 30 31 3? 33 3* 35 36 1.00 00 - 07 14 03 - 12 - 09 * 41 33 03 . 43 • 29 • 02 10 . - 31 23 43 04 34 39 03 04 07 08 20 24 02 39 14 26 46 21 16 13 12 03 39 46 63 61 03 1.00 - 17 74 36 47 10 01 - 19 - 14 - 04 31 26 32 60 - 46 * 29 03 - 16 09 32 09 10 35 40 - OB - 05 - 14 1.00 54 1.00 ?8 1 00 07 64 42 1.00 35 44 42 53 $5 06 0? 12 12 12 15 • 09 03 07 _ 09 • 16 03 04 12 20 09 • 21 14 14 33 * 09 15 09 - 15 _ 32 21 22 20 41 16 16 37 32 - 17 . 23 - 19 22 * 05 . 09 - 21 24 26 19 27 07 09 27 32 - 07 04 12 . 06 14 00 28 08 10 09 15 23 14 29 27 05 42 46 19 19 42 44 11 32 - 36 - 30 00 - 30 44 - 40 00 - 25 - 07 - 17 - 23 - 05 StTl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2? 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 •The decimal points have been omitted. 1 00 39 1.00 - 11 09 00 - 20 IB 56 17 37 - 13 13 - 03 OB 24 11 10 15 - 08 - 12 14 - 08 04 00 OB 22 14 06 24 14 * 11 05 - 04 03 40 16 1 00 02 1 OO 6l 46 1.00 36 46 75 1.00 . 29 _ 24 - 24 - 36 1.00 . 13 - 14 - 11 66 1 00 14 1.00 12 - 08 14 05 IT 00 6B 1.00 20 05 03 • 20 - 03 16 18 * 00 21 - 03 20 - 01 10 04 22 26 17 * 07 33 38 13 * 01 01 52 23 57 06 06 13 14 10 51 76 06 03 09 15 12 22 07 37 - 04 06 03 05 • 03 03 06 17 53 * 31 _ 45 • 02 44 14 • 04 09 11 23 09 - 01 01 06 • 12 • IB • 21 03 06 03 - 06 * 17 - 04 - 03 10 12 - 09 09 1.00 49 1.00 82 42 28 57 46 19 23 - 07 44 10 - 16 - 21 - 19 - 12 1,00 52 1.00 12 1.00 42 18 • 03 71 61 12 07 - 11 - 12 - 29 - 11 03 15 1.00 - 07 - 32 03