I

71-2192
WILLIAMS, Richard Jay, 1928AN EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
EXPERIENCE AS A TRAINING DEVICE IN EDUCATION­
AL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, administration

University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

AN EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
EXPERIENCE AS A TRAINING DEVICE IN
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Richard Jay Williams

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1970

ABSTRACT
AN EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
EXPERIENCE AS A TRAINING DEVICE IN
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Richard Jay Williams

The major purpose of this study was to conduct a
systemitized evaluation of the School Survey Team activi­
ties at Michigan State University.

This encompassed a

study of the activities of the School Survey Team and its
members and assessed the types of experiences, their value
to the individual, and the changes of individual percep­
tions wrought by the experiences.

Further, it examined

the organization and status of the School Survey Team over
the last decade in order to obtain information and make
recommendations concerning possible improvements which
would benefit the student participant, the College of
Education, and the school systems receiving the services.
The descriptive or normative-survey method of
research served as the basis for this study.

This was

implemented by the statistical treatment of the data taken

Richard Jay Williams
from a sample of the respondents in order to establish a
correlation between the value expressed by each respondent
and the effect of the experiences upon the individual
respondent.

Both a questionnaire and a structured inter­

view instrument were developed by the writer and were used.
The data were summarized in three parts:

the first,

experiences of School Survey Team members; the second,
values and effects of the experiences; and the third,
statistical analysis of the data.

General conclusions

were drawn from the data and specific recommendations were
given based on the major findings of the study.

Major

findings of the study were:
1.

The advanced graduate status and prior admin­

istrative experience did not prevent the team experience
from being a valuable one.
2.

The team experience provided broad exposure

to administrative concerns and provided broader experience
and training than did course work.
3.

The broadest training exposure was in the

areas of demography, school plant, and finance.
4.

The fewest experiences for team members were

in the areas of auxiliary services and business management
and practices.
5.

The respondents perceived the area of community

relations as being the most significant to them both in
value and in effect.

Richard Jay Williams
6.

Relating to the team director was of least

general overall value to the individual.
7•

Value to the individual of all of the experi­

ences was significantly higher than the effect upon the
individual•
8•

Recommendations made to school systems were

suspect as to their value, clarity, and practicality.
9•

The School Survey Team served as a natural

training laboratory for advanced graduate students but
should be re-examined as to organization, staffing, and
financing.
Six broad general recommendations to restructure
the team experience grew out of this investigation.
These were :
1.

Organizing the School Survey Team with a

clearer delineation of philosophy and objectives.
2.

Enlarging team membership so that more students

with backgrounds in varying disciplines could be trained.
3.

Financing School Survey Team experiences to

provide more financial autonomy to the team and its
director•
4.

Examining the relevance and importance of

planning experiences in the areas of auxiliary services
and business management and practices.

Richard Jay Williams
5.

Emphasizing the basic importance of combining

the needs of the school system and the needs of society
in any recommendations made by the team.
6.

Urging continued evaluation of the School

Survey Team experience in order that timely modifications
of the experience might be made.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The production of a dissertation is the work of
many people who have cooperated in numerous ways.
Special
assistance and encouragement came from the persons who are
specifically mentioned herein.
A very warm expression of appreciation is given to
Dr, Richard Featherstone, chairman of the doctoral guid­
ance committee.
His sensitive, constructive, and humane
counsel and leadership have been major factors in making
this study a reality.
A sincere expression of gratitude is extended to
Drs. Dale Alam, Clyde Campbell, and James McKee for their
advice and guidance.
This study could not have been completed without
the overwhelming support of the respondents to the survey
questionnaire. To these persons and to those who consented
to an additional personal interview the investigator
expresses his deepest gratitude.
A word of thanks goes to a friend and colleague,
Mr. Howard B, Peters, Director of Instruction in the
schools of Harford County, Maryland, for his personal
Interest in me and in my work over the years.
Sincere appreciation goes to my parents and to
the parents of my wife who have never questioned the
pursuit of my goal.
The last and most significant acknowledgement goes
to my wife, Ruth, for her many hours of work and her
patient, loving encouragement. Without her unfailing
support this study would never have become a reality.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................

V

LIST OF F I G U R E S ........................................ viii
CHAPTER
I.

THE P R O B L E M .................................

1

Introduction and Statement of the
Problem
. . . . .
......................
Purpose
...................................
Significance of the P r o b l e m .............
Definition of Terms
......................

1
3
4
7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A HISTORY OF
SCHOOL SURVEY SERVICE AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY .................................

8

History of School Surveys
...............
History of School Survey Services at
.............
Michigan State University
Professional Preparation for the
A d m i n i s t r a t o r ..........................
Summary and O v e r v i e w ......................
II.

III.

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ........................

8
21
26
36
41

S a m p l e .....................................
Survey Techniques
........................
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ........................
The I n t e r v i e w ............................
Treatment of the D a t a ....................

42
43
45
49
50

ANALYSIS OF D A T A .............................

53

Identification of the Respondents
. . . .
Prior professional position
...........
Length of School Survey Team
e x p e r i e n c e ............................
Age and academic p r e p a r a t i o n ...........
S u m m a r y .................................

53
54

iii

56
56
59

Page

CHAPTER
Experiences of the School Survey Team
M e m b e r s ..........................
59
Areas of school administration . . . .
Specific administrative experiences . .
79
A Summary of the E x p e r i e n c e s ....
The Values and Effects of the
82
E x p e r i e n c e s ......................
Other Effects of the Sahool Survey Team
E x p e r i e n c e s ............................
Opinions relative to when in the
graduate program team activities
were s e r v e d ..........................
Change in professional status .........
Continuing in educational administra­
.................................
tion
Relationships between the university
and the School Survey Team members
.
Effect upon educational theory and
p r a c t i c e ............................
General reactions to the School Survey
Team e x p e r i e n c e ......................
The values of the general overall
experiences . . . . .
...............
Comments on the School Survey Team
E x p e r i e n c e s ............................
Positive comments ......................
Negative comments ......................
Suggestions for improvement or change .
Summary of c o m m e n t s ....................
Statistical Analysis
....................
IV.

62
64

93
93
94
97
97
99
101
103
105
107
108
Ill
114
115

SUMMARY , CONCLUSIONS , AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

121

General Summary ..........................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..............................
Recommendations for Changing the School
Survey Team Experience
...............

121
129

BIBLIOGRAPHY

132

.......................................

136

A.

SAMPLE LETTER AND Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ...........

140

B.

INTERVIEW I N S T R U M E N T ......................

155

C.

PERSONS I N T E R V I E W E D ........................

157

APPENDIX

iv

LIST OF TABLES

POSITIONS HELD BY TEAM MEMBERS PRIOR TO
SERVING ON THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM . . . .

55

LENGTH OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE . .

57

AGE OF FORMER TEAM MEMBERS AT THE BEGINNING
OF THEIR SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
.

58

ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF FORMER INTERNS AT
THE BEGINNING OF THEIR SURVEY TEAM
..............................
EXPERIENCE

60

EXPERIENCES OF THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER
SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS ACCORDING TO VARIOUS
AREAS OF ADMINISTRATION .................

63

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
.............

66

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
...............

67

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
FINANCE ...................................

69

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICES . . . .

70

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
SCHOOL PLANT
............................

72

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
AUXILIARY SERVICES
......................

73

V

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ........................

75

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN STAFF
RELATIONS ...................................

76

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS
....................

78

EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
DEMOGRAPHY
.................................

80

THE TOP FOURTEEN ACTIVITIES AS EXPERIENCED
BY THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER TEAM MEMBERS
. .

81

VALUES AND EFFECTS OF THE EXPERIENCES OF
THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM MEMBERS
..............................

87

OPINIONS OF THE FORMER SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
MEMBERS RELATIVE TO WHEN IN THEIR GRADUATE
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES WERE SERVED
...........

95

OPINIONS RELATIVE TO THE PERIOD OF TIME IN
THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAREER THAT MEMBERSHIP
ON THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM WAS SERVED
. . .

95

THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBER­
SHIP IN PREPARING MEMBERS FOR A CHANGE IN
PROFESSIONAL STATUS ........................

96

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEAM EXPERIENCE IN
MAINTAINING OR INCREASING DESIRE FOR
POSITIONS IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION . .

98

THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNIVERSITY AND THE
VALUE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM MEMBER .................................

100

THE EFFECT OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
EXPERIENCE UPON EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND
PRACTICE
...................................

102

vi

TABLE
XXIV.
XXV.

XXVI.

Page
GENERAL REACTIONS TO THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
E X P E R I E N C E ................................

104

THE RESPECTIVE VALUES OF THE GENERAL
EXPERIENCES IN THE COMPLETE SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM A C T I V I T Y ............................

106

SELECTED RELEVANT DATA ON ANALYSIS OF
V A R I A N C E ...................................

118

Vil

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

FIGURE
1.

SIMILARITY BETWEEN SAMPLE AND POPULATION . .

2 . INTERACTION BETWEEN SAMPLE AND POPULATION

Viii

.

117
120

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction and Statement
of the Problem
The development of public education in America
has been accompanied by a series of movements which have
been traced by educational historians.

Each of these

movements has contributed to and fostered changes in the
public schools.

One such movement which appeared during

the second decade of this century was the school survey
movement.
The school survey movement has been designated by
educational writers as an important instrument for the
study and improvement of education.

This type of action

research has contributed a large body of information to
the literature in the field of education.

Public school

officials all over the nation have employed educational
consultants to survey their schools and to write survey
reports.

Many university professors of education have

taken part in these activities.

The demand for such

services and the demands upon the time of university

1

2
professors led some universities to provide personnel for
conducting school surveys.
Some universities set up bureaus or divisions
which carried on the survey work.

Many of these univer­

sities had varied purposes for their survey team activi­
ties.

The Michigan State University was one with broad

purposes including the desire to have the field service
team serve as a vehicle for rich field experiences for
advanced graduate students.
Field experiences have been provided for advanced
graduate students at Michigan State University since 1961.
Few formal statements concerning the activity of the field
service team at Michigan State University exist.

However,

informal working agreements list the following objective:
. . • provide a natural laboratory for training
advanced graduate students in field problems.^*
Although the continuance of the survey team over
the last decade appears to support the belief that field
problems are worthwhile experiences for training graduate
students at Michigan State University, no systemitized or
formal evaluation has been conducted.

The major task of

^William James Giddis, "A Study of the Methods and
Procedures Used in the School Survey Services at Michigan
State University and other Publicly Supported Big Ten
Universities" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1964), p. 63.

3
the writer of thia dissertation is to study thoroughly the
activities of the School Survey Team and its members and
to assess the types of experiences, their value to the
individual, and the changes in individual perceptions
because of the opportunity to serve on the School Survey
Team at Michigan State University.

The field service team

has operated for nearly ten years on assumptions or on a
feeling of its innate worth to the student.

No one has

systematically studied and evaluated the experiences;
their values to the person; nor the changes wrought by the
experiences.

Clearly the problem is one of a need to

assess the experiences, perceptions* and behavior of
former team members in order to justify the time, effort,
and expense involved in continuing the training aspects
of the field service team at Michigan State University.
The question becomes whether or not the survey team does
serve as a valuable training device in educational
administration.
Purpose
There has been no methodical attempt to determine
the overall effectiveness of the training experiences
provided to those who have served as student members of
the Michigan State University School Survey Team.
therefore, the purpose of this study:

It is,

4
1.

To discover the number and kinds of experiences

in which School Survey Team members have participated
2.

To establish the value of the experiences to

the individual and to the group
3.

To establish the change in behavior as per­

ceived by the individual as a result of survey team
experiences
4.

To obtain information and make recommendations

concerning possible improvements which will benefit the
student participant
5.

To obtain information and make recommendations

concerning possible improvements which will benefit the
College of Education at Michigan State University
6.

To obtain information and make recommendations

concerning possible improvements which will benefit the
schools and school systems receiving the service.
Significance of the Problem
When the College of Education was reorganized in
1954, a bureau was organized to conduct field studies.
Regular faculty members were appointed to the bureau and
numerous studies were carried out.

In 1959, an appraisal

was conducted and led to the formal dissolution of the
bureau to allow faculty members more time for teaching.
In December of 1960, Dr. William H. Roe submitted
to Dean Erickson a proposal to establish a field service

5
team to conduct school surveys.

This team was to consist

of three research assistants under the direction and
supervision of an administrative area faculty member.
The proposal was accepted and Dr. Roe in an interoffice
memorandum credited the field service concept with the
following purposes:
A.
Serve as a vehicle for rich field experi­
ences for our advanced graduate students
B. Afford faculty an opportunity to keep in
contact with the field and still give them more
free time for study, research, and writing
C. Provide an opportunity for the College of
Education to have more advanced graduate students
serve as research assistants
D. Provide a high level of service to the
field
E. Encourage close affiliation between
off-campus activities and curricular offerings
F. Provide us (the administration department)
with an organized approach for learning
G. Full-time faculty members would not get
bogged down in the "processes*' of conducting
field services but would consult on a high-level
basis.1
Purpose A abov*** relating to providing rich field
experiences for advanced graduate students written by
Dr. Roe was substantiated and clarified some three years
later in a study by William James Giddis entitled "A Study
of the Methods and Procedures Used in the School Survey
Services at Michigan State University and Other Publicly
Supported Big Ten Universities" where the objectives of

*W. H. Roe, Interoffice Memorandum "Field
Service Team Concept," December, 1960, p. 3.

6
the School Survey Team at Michigan State University
included the following one:
"Provide a natural laboratory for training
advanced graduate students in field problems."^
These two sources appear to establish clearly
that the field service team was to serve as a training
device for students of educational administration.
Because of the continuing interest and concern
for training programs for the practicing administrator
and the role that the field service team may play in
meeting this problem, the significance of this study is
emphasized by the following considerations:
1.

Administrators seeking to further and advance

their careers in educational administration, and the
institution which fosters this advancement, should have
some knowledge of the extent of the relative values of
the field service team experience.
2.

Both the university and the individual student

should give consideration to the experiences which team
members have had.
3.

Those concerned directly with the program, as

well as all interested in the professional preparation of
educational administrators, should be concerned with

^Giddis, op. cit., p. 63.

7
effects reported by the former interns in relation to
obtaining and holding later positions and desire for
staying in the profession in similar or related positions.
The general improvement of the School Survey Team
as a training device is the broad, expected outcome of
this study.

Other general outcomes of this study are

identified as an effort to:
1.

Present a concise review of the literature on

the school survey movement for the future survey teams
2.

Present a brief, up-to-date history of the

school survey service at Michigan State University.
The very specific purposes are identified as an
effort to use nominal measurement as a basis for:
1.

Assessing the kinds of experiences in which

field service team members have engaged
2.

Assessing the relative values of the field

service team experiences to each individual member
3.

Assessing the effects of field service team

experiences upon the individual after leaving the
university.
Definition of Terms
The definitions which follow express the terms in
the limited and specific sense used in this dissertation.

8
School survey— A study of one or more aspects of
education as found in the elementary or secondary schools
of a local community.
School Survey Service--* The provisions for making
personnel available who are equipped to conduct school
surveys and the services performed b* these persons.
Field service team— The terminology used at
Michigan State University to designate a group of graduate
assistants and their coordinator who conduct school
surveys under the coordinator's supervision.
Field service team coordinator— Refers to the
faculty member from the department of school administra­
tion assigned to supervise the field service team and
direct school surveys.
Field experiences— Opportunity for graduate
assistants and university faculty members to study and
assist with problems of elementary and secondary schools
in the local community.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND A HISTORY
OF SCHOOL SURVEY SERVICE AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
History of School Surveys
The school survey is an information-gathering
instrument applied to schools, school systems, or groups
of school systems which has as its purpose the evaluation
and improvement of the educational institutions to which

9
it is applied.

In the earliest surveys emphasis was upon

evaluation but as the years passed the survey developed
as an instrument for improving the schools.
In a general sense, scanning one or more segments
of a school program by a person or group of persons is a
school survey.

However, educators have come to understand

it in a stricter sense as a formal review undertaken at
the request of the Board of Education and intended to
study all areas of the schools or school system or at
least to study one or more major areas.
The school survey has become a broad and important
instrument in the growth and development of school
practices and school systems in the Twentieth Century.
Dan H. Cooper defines the school survey ast
. . . designed to secure as complete a
collection of data as is reasonably possible for
analysis; aimed at producing either carefully
considered evaluative judgments or important
recommendations for future development or b o t h ;
conducted by persons possessing superior quali­
fications for both authoritative and scientific
contributions in the conduct of the study. A
written report of this type of study is under­
stood as the typical school survey report.1
Therefore, as an administrative device the school
survey can be separated and defined and its service to

Dan H. Cooper, "School Surveys," Encyclopedia
of Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris {3d ed.j
New Vorxt Macmillan Co., 1960), p. 1211.

10
education can be traced.

The same is true of the school

survey movement which developed as a result.

The real

ancestry of the movement, then, can be traced back to an
act passed In 1843 by the Rhode Island Legislature which
empowered Henry Barnard to prepare a report on the condi­
tions of the Public Schools of Rhode Island.^

For more

than a score of years following this, Dr. Barnard and
Horace Mann became Involved In Inspecting the schools of
various New England states and In writing critical evalua­
tions of what they found.

During the same era, the

Legislature of the State of Ohio sent Calvin Stone to
Prussia for the purpose of studying the school system.
His recommendations were Instrumental In stirring farreaching reforms In the educational systems of Ohio.
In 1867, the United States Congress created a
Department of Education with Dr. Barnard as Its first
Commissioner.

Barnard's first piece of work was a survey

of the city school system of Washington, D.C.

In 1892,

William T. Harris was appointed Commissioner of Education
and the Congress again requested a study of the schools
of the District of Columbia.

Evaluated by present survey

methods, techniques, and organization, the New England

1Henry Barnard, Report on the Conditions and
Improvements of the Public Schools of Rhode Island
(^rovldencei B. Cranston & do., Id46) , pp. 1-12^.

11
and the Washington, D.C. surveys did not compare well with
the beat of the later surveys.

The purposes, however,

bore some striking resemblances.
"The attempt at diagnosis of ills, the gathering
of facts, and the efforts at prescription certainly are
recognisable as the ancestry of modern survey work."^
By the end of the first decade of the Twentieth
Century, the first modern school surveys were born.

Con­

cern about educational values and cost produced unrest and
dissent; those newly dedicated to education as a science
shifted to factual study and measurement, and the effi­
ciency movement in industry suggested how this science
might be used in practice.

Educators began to make

research tools while doing research and began utilizing
them to remake the schools.
The movement proper began in Boise, Idaho, but
spread rather rapidly across the nation with studies
taking place in two New Jersey school systems the follow­
ing year.

Few of the larger cities can be mentioned that

have not had school surveys and almost every state has
undergone some type of survey.

The New York City survey

which was in progress from 1911 to 1913 was a landmark

1Jesse B. Sears, "The School Survey Movement,"
Modern School Administration, ed. John C. Almack
(Boston: Houghton,
pp. 215-259.

12
study.

It attracted nationwide attention and appears to

be the survey which gave prestige and standing to the
survey movement.^*
The first nationwide survey was conducted by the
United States Office of Education shortly thereafter in
1916 dealing with Negro education.

Funds for four subse­

quent nationwide surveys on land-grant colleges, secondary
education, teacher preparation, and school finance were
forthcoming from the Congress of the United States.
As was noted above, the survey movement received
much of its impetus from the scientific movement in
education and the efficiency engineering movement which
focused attention of the public on efficiency in manage­
ment.

It was from the workers in these fields that

leadership came for the development of the survey movement.
While it is important not to overlook the contributions of
practical administrators and teachers, the leadership has
been largely based among those interested in the science
of education.

These persons were connected with state,

city, and county staffs, educational foundations, or
colleges of education in institutions of higher learning
as shown by the following remarks of Jesse B. Searst

^Charles H. Judd, "Contributions of School
Surveys," The Scientific Movement in Education, Thirtyseventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
of Education, Part II (Chicago: N.S.S.E., 1938), pp. 9-21.

13
Of the surveys made before 1914, Hanus of
Harvard directed those for Montclair (1911) and
New York City (1911-12); Moore, then of Yale,
directed that of East Orange (1911) and assisted
in the New York City Survey; Elliott, Judd and
Strayer of Wisconsin, Chicago, and Teachers
College, Columbia Universities made the second
Boise Survey (1913), and Elliott participated in
the New York City and the Portland Surveys;
Cubberley of Stanford University directed the
Portland Survey (1913), and participated in the
Baltimore Survey; Deahl of West Virginia
University directed the survey of Grafton,
West Virginia; Brown and Kay of the Northern
State Normal School at Marquette made the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan Survey; and Coffman, then
of the University of Illinois, directed the
Illinois State Survey (1913). Still other
university men participated in the Portland and
New York Surveys.
Other surveys of this period were mainly in
charge of men outside of universities.
Kendall,
State Superintendent, New Jersey, made the first
survey (Boise, 1910); Superintendent Snyder
directed the Harrisburg Survey (1912); The Russell
Sage Foundation had charge of the Greenwich (1912)
and the Newburg (1913) Surveys; The New York
Bureau of Municipal Research was in charge of the
surveys of Wisconsin (rural, 1912), Atlanta (1912),
St. Paul (1913), Waterbury (1913) , Ohio State
(1913), and Syracuse (1912). The Carnegie Founda­
tion for the Advancement of Teaching made the
Vermont Survey (1913). Brown, United States
Commissioner of Education, directed the Baltimore
Survey (1911), Superintendent Van Sickle directed
the Bridgeport Survey (1913), and the Minneapolis
(vocational) Survey (1913) was made by a local
group of teachers and others.
Of other agencies the Russell Sage Foundation,
the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
the General Educational Board, the United States
Office of Education, certain state departments of
education, and in a few cases teachers organiza­
tions , have made important contributions.1

^Sears, loc. cit.

14
Initially surveys were conducted by outside
experts.

Soon, however, recommendations were being made

and implemented in large cities to set up bureaus or
divisions of research to be staffed by local educators
who would carry out continuous survey activities.

This

idea was clearly adopted from industrial management which
had begun to set up industrial research laboratories late
in the Nineteenth Century.1
These divisions of research, nevertheless, were
too few to meet the burgeoning demand.

Most surveys

continued to be conducted by single individuals and by
groups of individuals.

A small group of "experts" seemed

to be the better plan as surveying developed rapidly into
highly professional work which no superintendent, no
teacher, nor any professor of education alone was competent
to perform.

Prominent educators discussed and deliberated

about what a survey was, when it should be made, what
methods were efficient, what conditions regulated the
publication of survey findings, and what outcomes might
be expected from surveys.

Outlines for conducting surveys

were developed and published and survey reports were
widely disseminated in educational journals.

As expertise

^Henry L. Smith, "Organizing for School Surveys,"
Plans for Organizing School Surveys, Thirteenth Yearbook
of the National Society for the &tudy of Education,
Part II (Bloomington, Illinoisi Public School Publishing
Co., 1914), pp. 7-68.

15
developed and the body of literature on school surveys
grew, objectives and leadership for surveys developed and
changed.

Certainly one of the most debated issues has

been that of objectives and purposes.

From a discussion

by Theodore L. Reller,^ three types of surveys in terms of
purposes were clearly identifiable.

These were the status

survey, the deliberative survey, and the implementative
survey.

The status study was one which was limited to

gathering and arranging information to establish the facts
as they are.

It served basically to evaluate conditions

as they existed.
The deliberative study was one for which the team
had been selected not only for its ability to collect
facts but also for its potential ability to propose solu­
tions out of a wide professional background.

The expected

outcomes were proposals for development and improvement.
The implementative study proceeded one further
step beyond gathering data and writing recommendations.
It attempted to create an atmosphere while carrying out
the survey itself that would improve the chances of
achieving survey suggestions.

This atmosphere was

actively fostered by the survey team through working with

^Theodore L. Reller, "Shall We Have a Status,
Deliberative, or Implementative Study of Our Schools,"
American School Board Journal, CIV (May, 1942), 9-12.

16
the local staff and lay citizens in analyzing needs,
interpreting facts, and developing strategies which would
move the proposals into action.
The relative merits of each type of survey and its
purposes seemed clear.

The survey which had as its sole

purpose the gathering of data received the most severe
criticism in the literature, but the deliberative and the
implementative types of surveys were generally valued.
Bach type seemed, however, to have a rational base and
served a valuable function in the correct situation.
As was the case with the purposes for surveys, the
leadership or approach for carrying out the survey fell
into three distinct categories.

From the very beginning

the outside survey specialist or "expert" had been the
major performer in making school surveys.

Voices of pro­

test arose based upon assumptions that this approach was
undemocratic and that no one team could possibly be so
thoroughly competent as to be able to analyze all aspects
(or even several aspects) of a school system.
Jesse B. Sears was an early advocate of taking the
survey out of the hands of the "experts" and placing it
in the hands of the professionals within the school or
school system.

He stated this clearly in the Preface to

his book on school surveys in the following way:

17
Accordingly, while the book Is not addressed
to beginning students In education. It Is addressed
to those who have made a start In their profes­
sional studies. Especially Is It addressed to all
those who are actually a', work— whether they be
school board members, administrators, supervisors,
research workers, or teachers— since It Is through
all and not any selected few of these officers that
the larger contribution of the survey movement will
regularly be brought to bear upon the normal
processes of school keeping.1
Landes and Sumption,

2

and the National Citizens

Commission for the Public Schools^ provided detailed
descriptions of the self-survey and the approaches to
self-study.

The self-study made a large contribution to

educational practice but it did not take over the survey
movement•
Out of the values and conflicts of the "expert"
survey and the self-survey came yet another type of survey.
This was the citizen or cooperative survey.

The coopera­

tive or citizen school survey used local laymen as well as
outside specialists.

The cooperative survey was so

closely related to the implementative type that they were

1Jesse B. Sears, The School Survey (Boston:
Houghton, 1925) , p. xiv.
2

Jack L. Landes and Merle R. Sumption, Citizens1
Workbook for Evaluating School Buildings (New York*
Harper,
, p. ^2.
^National Citizens Commission for the Public
Schools, How Can We Organize for Better Schools?
(Washington, b . £ . : Vhe Commission, 1953), 64 p p .

18
easily confused.

However, cooperative referred to the way

that the survey was staffed and implementative referred to
its purpose.
Numerous aids have been developed to assist in­
experienced persons who participated in a cooperative
survey.

Gerald Boicourt^ provided guidelines for evalu­

ating school buildings and school sites using laymen and
professionals on the study committees while Merle R.
2
Sumption developed a comprehensive text-workbook to
assist citizens in performing broad surveys of nearly all
aspects of a school system.

The assumption was that

sharpening the evaluating skills of laymen would not only
make them better able to perceive things as they now are
but also would equip them to promote favorable action
within the community following the survey.
The relative advantages of the "expert" survey,
the self-survey, and the cooperative survey depended upon
many factors.

The type and purpose had to be adapted to

the individual situation.

However, without trying to

^Gerald W. Boicourt, "The Construction and
Analysis of a Guide for Evaluating Elementary School
Buildings and Sites in Citizen School Surveys" (un­
published Doctor's dissertation. State University of
Iowa, 1953), p. 328.
2

Merle R. Sumption, How to Conduct a Citizens
School Survey (New Yorkt Prentice-Hali, 1^52) , 200 pp.

19
equate the value or extent of the contributions of the
school survey movement, some outcomes of this nationwide
movement appeared apparent.

Worthy products were

summarized as follows by Jesse B. Sears:
1. Our school practice has been improved.
2. Our school housing has been improved.
3. The status of the profession has been
improved in fact and in the estimation of the
public.
4. The science of education has been further
developed.
5. The teaching of education has been
benefited.
6. Education is more intelligently under­
stood and appreciated by the public.
.
7. Education is more liberally supported.
Schools and school practices have been affected
by survey work.

Research departments have developed and

school testing programs have taken shape.

School housing

has improved and health and safety factors in housing have
received needed consideration.

Areas of study which

received no prior exposure such as teaching, supervision,
guidance, and curriculum have been uncovered and culti­
vated.

Since teachers of education carried a major portion

of the responsibility for school surveys and the resultant
literature of the school survey movement, the survey has
done much to the teaching of education.
have affected legislators and laymen.

Finally, surveys
Increased financial

^Sears, Modern School Administration, pp. 215-59.

20
support has frequently followed well-prepared and wellcirculated survey reports.

Surveys as a valuable method

of stimulating action and progress could no longer be
challenged.

Without a doubt some surveys were more

valuable than others but there was little doubt that
surveys had contributed to the body of understanding about
schools, about communities, and about education.
By the late 1940's a new dimension appeared in
relation to school surveys and field studies.

Although a

few university bureaus of field studies existed early in
the history of the school survey movement, few universities
regarded their division of field work as an organized means
of giving advanced graduate students of school administra­
tion contact with actual school situations.

Yet in the

last two decades due almost entirely to the Cooperative
Program in Educational Administration and its organizers
and supporters, the school survey movement has emerged as
one which serves schools and communities, universities,
and graduate students in educational administration.

This

was clearly shown in the 1969 edition of the Encyclopedia
of Educational Research which no longer contained a section
entitled "School Surveys."

School surveys now clearly

appeared only under the topic of "Preparation of Adminis­
trators" with the preparation dimension of school surveys

21
being valued as highly as service to school systems.3.

The

school survey movement with its modern modifications con­
tinued into the decade of the seventies.

Its service to

universities and to students of educational administration
was by now firmly established.
History of School Survey Services
at Michigan State University
Michigan State University is considered to be the
pioneer land-grant institution with an understood commit­
ment to public service.

In fact, it was established in

recognition of the fact that although agriculture was the
major industry in the State of Michigan, no institution of
higher learning was available to service the needs of
agriculture and the mechanic arts.

Dr. John A. Hannah

described the founding philosophy of the college and
other land-grant colleges in the following w o r d s :
Reduced to simplest terms, the land-grant
philosophy is (1) that all of the problems of
ordinary people are worthy objects of interest
and attention on the highest academic plane;
(2) that the benefits of knowledge, both
scientific and humanistic, should be available
to all of the people in order that they may meet
their everyday problems armed with the truth;
and (3) that the privileges of a college educa­
tion should be freely available to all who are
capable of benefiting from advanced training.2

Russell T. Gregg, "Preparation of Administrators,"
Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel
(4tn e d .; Mew Yorks Macmillan C o . , 1969) , pp. 994-1002.
2
John A. Hannah, Hannah Speeches, "The Third
Challenge," October 24, 1 4 5 b , at Mississippi State College.

22
1 have referred to history to give emphasis
to the expression of my conviction that the landgrant college system has grown and expanded and
succeeded only because it was rooted firmly in
the philosophy of service to the people.1
The Agricultural College of Michigan, as it was
called at its founding, thrived and served as a model for
the many land-grant colleges which developed after
President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Morrill Act
of 1862.
The philosophy and concept of service which
permeated land-grant institutions continued at the
Agricultural College of Michigan as evidenced by yearly
Farmers' Institutes which were begun in 1876 and which
eventually developed into the Agricultural Extension
2
Service serving entire farm families and the agriculture
industry.
With the aim of service to the people of Michigan,
conditions were right for educational services and
eventually for educational survey services to schools and
school systems.

Prior to 1945, services performed for

schools by Michigan State College were provided on an
informal basis by staff members of the Division of

^John A. Hannah, Hannah Speeches, "The Land-Grant
College Serves the Future,w May 12, 1949, at Alabama
Polytechnic.
2

Lyle Blair and Madison Kuhn, A Short History of
Michigan State (East Lansing: Michigan State dollege
Press, f i T O , 39 pp.

23
Education in the School of Science and Arts.

However, on

October 18, 1945, an appointment was made which was to be
significant in the development of the school survey team
at Michigan State University.

Dr. Clifford E. Erickson

was appointed Director of the Institute of Counseling,
Testing, and Guidance which before long "became a service
center and laboratory for graduate students."*"
From 1945 to 1950 the Institute staff under the
leadership of D r . Erickson grew steadily both in size and
influence.

Dr. Noll described the activities of

Dr. Erickson and his staff in the following words:
He and his staff spent much time in the field
talking to groups of school people and leaders of
business and industry. They provided services to
school systems in setting up guidance and testing
programs, wrote bulletins and pamphlets for free
distribution, and taught graduate courses both on
the campus and off.2
During the same period of time. Dr. Clyde M.
Campbell, a professor in the Division of Education, was
serving extensively as an educational consultant to school
systems around the state and to the Michigan State Depart3
ment of Public Instruction.
Service to the people of the

^Victor H. Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at
Michigan State University pElaafc Lansing: College of
Education, 196B) , p. i2i.
2Ibid., p. 122.
3
Statement by Clyde M. Campbell, Professor of
Education, Michigan State University, personal interview,
January 21, 1970.

24
state was further emphasized and implemented during this
era by the appearance of what was to be called the Con­
tinuing Education Department which received its first
director in 1950.
The name of the Division of Education was changed
in 1952 to the School of Education with Dr. Clifford
Erickson as Dean.

Under Dr. Erickson's leadership the

School of Education was organized into seven departments
and a bureau was organized within the School of Education
to carry on field studies.

By 1955, the School of Educa­

tion had become the College of Education and at that time
a Department of Administration and Educational Services
was organized and charged with the direction of the school
survey service.
The years ahead were busy ones for the Department
of Administration and Educational Services according to a
brief historical review of this period.
During the years 1954 to I960, forty studies
were reported as having been completed by faculty
members. An appraisal of this service was con­
ducted, and the bureau was dissolved in 1959 to
allow faculty members to devote more time to
teaching.
Faculty members from the administration
department continued to conduct school surveys
during the next two years on an individual and
informal team basis. A second appraisal of the
service was made in 1960, and it was found that
approximately one-half of the time of the faculty
members in the administration department was
consumed in school survey work. This was con­
sidered exorbitant, and a new method for providing
survey service was sought.

25
In December of I960, Dr. Roe, as head of the
administration interest area, submitted to Dean
Erickson a proposal to establish a field service
team to conduct school surveys. The team was to
be composed of three research assistants under
the direction and supervision of an administrative
area faculty member called the "field team co­
ordinator." The team was to operate under the
administration of the assistant dean for offcampus programs.
Faculty members from the College
of Education were expected to serve as consultants
to the team. The team was to have responsibility
for conducting the school surveys which were
assigned to the school administration interest
area.
As the proposal was accepted, the team began
operation in the fall of 1961 under the supervision
of Dr. Floyd Parker.
In the three years of its
operation it has conducted fourteen school
surveys.1
In the six ensuing years the faculty leadership
of the field service team has changed several times.
Dr. John McNicholas followed Dr. Floyd Parker and served
until his death on November 17, 1965.

For the remainder

of the 1965-66 school year and the academic year there­
after, Dr. Donald Leu served as coordinator.

He was

followed by Dr. Carl Midjaas who served as coordinator
for three years.

Upon Dr. Midjaas' departure from the

University, Dr. Archibald Shaw was appointed as faculty
coordinator•
The number of studies carried out by the School
Survey Team have continued to mount.

There are presently

twenty-four studies which have been published and are

^Giddis, op. cit., pp. 57-58.

26
available from Educational Publication Services in the
College of Education at Michigan State University.

In

addition, there are numerous other published documents
which have been produced as an outgrowth of activities of
the School Survey Team which are in the permanent archives
but which are not available for purchase from Educational
Publication Services.
Historically there has been considerable variation
in the number of studies performed by the team each year
and in the number of graduate student members on the team.
Originally three graduate students were authorized as
School Survey Team members, this authorization has been
increased to six members with five serving in the 1969-70
academic year.3* Accordingly, the number of studies has
varied from a low of one or two a year to a high of four
or five.

The 1969-70 team was involved in two studies.

Professional Preparation for
the Administrator
The school survey movement did not begin as a
movement for the training of school administrators.
Within a few years, however, bureaus of educational
research appeared in large cities to perform self-studies

^Statement by Dr. Carl L. Midjaas, Educational
Consultant, Warren Holmes Company, Architects, Lansing,
Michigan, personal interview, January 30, 1970.

27
often utilizing currently employed staff members who
gained their expertise mainly from experience.

At about

the same time a few bureaus were developing in some
universities.

Jesse B. Sears in an article on the school

survey movement clearly indicated that some Divisions of
Field Studies began early to be a training ground for
administrators.
As early as 1913 universities began to
organize bureaus of educational research.
In
1921, Teachers College organized the Institute
of Educational Research with a Division of Field
Studies designed to carry on survey work and to
utilize it in training advanced students in
school administration.
George Peabody College
for Teachers has recently organized a somewhat
similar d i v i s i o n . [ e a r l y 1930*8]
The training which was received had scientific
management as its focal point since the administrator
during these decades was seen as a manager.

Great

importance was placed upon the administrator having at
his command all of the operational aspects of the school
system.

Emphasis was on the structure and upon efficiency

in operation.
Accordingly, during the first forty or fifty years
of this century, education for school administrators
emphasized the technical and mechanical aspects of

^Sears, Modern School Administration, p. 241.

28
administration.

The school survey movement was an

administrative expression of t h i s .
By the mid-Twentieth Century a new movement was
beginning to appear which was aimed at the development of
the professional administrator.

This brought much ferment

in the study of administration in the 1950's.^

The close

of World War II, the baby boom, Sputnik, and criticism of
the schools brought widespread turmoil on other fronts in
society.

These forces demanded the very best education

for students and educators alike as was succinctly stated
in the following:
If schools were to educate more and more
people and do it better and better, if they
were to meet the challenge of the times and the
competition of the Soviets, if they were to
answer their critics with solid educational
achievements— the effectiveness of educational
leadership in America had to be improved. The
key position for providing this essential leader­
ship was occupied by the educational administrator.
Some people were saying that it was time for the
educational administrator to leave his post as
'manager of technical details' and to accept the
role of 'educational statesman.'2
Fortunately several groups, professional organiza­
tions, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation perceived the need
for a new breed of administrators late in the 1940's and
several developments took place of lasting importance to

^ r e g g , op. cit., p. 994.
2
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Toward Improved
School Administration (Battle Creek, Michigan: The
Foundation, i96o ) , p . 9.

29
educational administrators.

At the American Association

of School Administrators Convention in Atlantic City in
1947 the Association's Planning Committee recommended that
the organization should immediately initiate studies and
programs for improving training for the superintendency
with the object of preparing professionals.
Concurrently, at the same AASA Convention a group
of professors of school administration met together to
discuss significant problems.

Their deliberations and

the recommendations of the AASA Planning Committee led to
the appointment of a committee to explore the need for
innovative new training programs for school administrators.
By the summer of 1948, a new association was formed to be
known as the National Conference of Professors of Educa­
tional Administration.

The W. K. Kellogg Foundation pro­

vided funds for the 1949 meeting of the NCPEA.

This was

the beginning of significant financial support coupled
with the professional leadership of the NCPEA and AASA
which became the basis for the Cooperative Program in
Educational Administration which was launched in 1950.
The Cooperative Program in Educational Administra­
tion grew and flourished throughout much of the next
decade.

The original eight centers expanded to nearly

thirty centers.

The Kellogg Foundation was so impressed

with the results that it provided several million
additional dollars when the original grant expired.

30
The purposes and objectives of the various CPEA
centers were varied but clearly one purpose of each center
was the improvement of preparation programs for the pre­
service education of potential administrators.

Divisions

of Field Studies performing school and community surveys
and providing field experiences for graduate students in
school administration were clearly a part of CPEA efforts
to improve professional education.

Russell T. Gregg saw

the following significant facets in the CPEA preparation
projects:
Many aspects of the general problem of the
preparation of administrative leaders has been
investigated and numerous experimental approaches
have been explored. Aspects which have received
particular attention include recruitment and
selection of students, evaluation of existing
programs, development of new curriculum patterns,
establishment of cooperative relationships with
school systems, provision of significant field
experiences and strengthening of the organization
and financial support of graduate institutions.!
Leonard Arden Brubaker in a study conducted in
1960 surveyed the eight original CPEA centers to discover
the important changes which occurred in preparation
programs of the participating universities.

These changes

were based on evidence of change rather than assumptions.
Among the conclusions of his study were the following:

Russell T. Gregg, "Administration," Encyclopedia
of Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris (3d e a .>
riew York: riacmlllan do., 1960), p. 23.

31
1. There la greater emphasis on recruitment
and selection.
2. The orientation of students to the field
of educational administration is receiving much
more attention than formerly.
3. New teaching methods (such as case study
and interdisciplinary approach) are being
introduced.
4. Courses are no longer based largely on
the mechanics of administration, but are grounded
in principles and theory.
5. There has occurred a breakdown of the
barrier between preparation programs for elemen­
tary and secondary principals and those for
superintendents•
6. Internships are receiving wide and varied
use.
7. Other forms of field service have become
highly important.
8. Evaluation of the students has come to
include appraisal of both knowledge about
administration and use of knowledge in real
situations.
9. Faculty members of the institutions now
have wider backgrounds from social science
disciplines.
10. There is more concern for guidance of
students.1
Conclusions six and seven above which are stated
in Brubaker's dissertation relate to the internship and
to "other" forms of field service.

These two statements

demonstrate graphically the apparent general emphasis
which each has had in the training of educational adminis­
trators.

There is an abundance of literature on the

internship and a dearth of references to field survey or
School Survey Teams and their functions.

Leonard Arden Brubaker, "A Study of the Prepara­
tion Programs for Educational Administrators at the Eight
CPEA Centers" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1960), p. 351.

32
There is, however, clear evidence that universities
1
2
3
such as Harvard, Ohio State, Minnesota, Teachers
4
5
College, Columbia, and Maryland were actively involved
in providing doctoral candidates in educational administration with field experiences by participating in
comprehensive school-community surveys.
There is further evidence that AASA very early in
the 1950's saw field experience including school surveys
as a possibility for solving problems which arose in the
efforts to expand the curriculum for the professional
educator.

The Thirty-first Yearbook of the Association

states t
There is increasing recognition of the
importance of field experience in the preservice
program.
Field work can be provided in various
ways.
The beginning courses in administration
are accompanied by field trips to communities
for a general view of the various elements
composing a school system— the arrangements for

^W. A. Anderson, "New Plan for Training School
Administrators," School Review. LX (September, 1952),
324-325.
2
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation, op. c i t . , p. 24.
^M. 6. Neale and Otto E. Domian, "Field Service
for School Districts at the University of Minnesota,"
School Board Journal. CXXII (June, 1951), 19-21.
*Jennie L. Pingrey, "Program Provisions for
Professional Preparation," Teachers College Record, LI1I
(January, 1952), 211-213.
------------------------5
Clarence A. Newell and Robert Will, "What Is an
Internship?" School and Society, LXXV (December, 1951) ,
358-60.

33
control and administration, the educational
program, the staff, the various groupings of
children, youths and adults involved, and the
school plant and other physical facilities.
In other cases, classes may organize in small
groups and obtain permission to attend schoolboard meetings or other examples of administra­
tive operation.
As the graduate student progresses in
competence he may be involved in school surveys
which offer an excellent opportunity for intensive
study of individual communities and their educa­
tional enterprises, and he may have a part in
collecting the data and engaging in the
deliberations upon which recommendations for
improvement in educational policy, program,
and practice are based.1
The literature of educational administration of
the decades from 1950 to 1970 contains sparse mention of
the merits of field study experiences in preparing school
administrators.

Efforts to provide field study experiences

continued to be spearheaded by the American Association of
School Administrators, the National Conference of
Professors of Educational Administration, the Kellogg
Foundation, and Colleges of Education and their Divisions
of Field Studies.
field experiences

Documentation of the importance of
(other than the internship)

seems to

emphasize both the training function and the important
function of bridging the gap between theory and practice.
The following series of comments gleaned from professional

^American Association of School Administrators,
The American School Superintendency, Thirty-first Yearbook
(Washington, B.cT: XASX, 1557)', pp. 395-396.

34
publications of this era demonstrates that field studies
and cooperative school surveys have survived and are still
serving varied and useful functions:
Since emphasis needs to be placed on behavior,
it is not enough that the student get only knowl­
edge about administrative behavior.
He must see
administrative behavior in others, and he must
have an opportunity to appraise and improve his
own behavior. This necessity implies that field
observation and field study become an integral
part of the training program.
At the preparation level, the campus-field
partnership is essential.
The laboratory, so
necessary at this point, is in the field. The
opportunity to examine the theory of administra­
tion and an ever growing body of research in
.
administration should be applied by the campus.
In the great evolution that has taken place
in the last ten years in preparation programs for
educational administration, it is clear that field
experiences have become a vital part of the
learning program in this field . . . field trips,
field observations, field projects, cooperative
school surveys, and field leadership projects
have all been tried in one place or another.2
The Commission (Yearbook Commission of 1960,
AASA) was interested in knowing what the colleges
and universities saw as their major strengths.
Respondents were asked to list and describe
briefly courses, seminars, workshops, field
experiences, internships and other elements
thought to be strengths.

Roald F. Campbell, "Research and the Selection
and Preparation of School Administrators," Educational
Research Bulletin, XXXV (February, 1956) , 29-33.
2
Halter A. Anderson and Richard C. Lonsdale,
"Learning Administrative Behavior," Administrative
Behavior in Education, ed. Roald F. Campbell and
Richard <3. Lonsdale (New York* Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1957), pp. 426-463.

35
It is interesting to note that field experience
for students other than internships, particularly
of the action research variety ranks highest.1
The same procedure used to gather data on
strengths in preparation programs was followed to
gain information on weaknesses. While good field
experiences topped the list of strengths, the
inadequacy of field or laboratory experiences was
noted as a weakness in the instructional program
of forty-two universities.2
Edinger (Ward) and Green (Norman S.) attribute
much of their learning about bridging the gap
between theory and practice to experiences they
had in working with professors in survey, con­
sultant, and advisory roles— Edinger as an
assistant to a professor who was active in field
work and Green as an intern in a city school
system.3
In the past, administrator preparation programs
often have consisted of courses in which lists of
administrative principles were digested, practices
of various school systems were examined, and
suggestions were given about how administrators
should perform.
Recently, the use of case studies,
field trips, simulated problems, and community
studies have been added in an effort to reduce the
gap between theory and practice.*

American Association of School Administrators,
Professional Administrators for America's Schools,
'thirty-eighth Yearbook (Washington, b . d . : a A s a , 1960),
pp. 70-71.
2Ibid., pp. 74-75.
2A S C D , The Case for On-Campus Residence
(Washington, D.CTt AAS a , 19^3), p. 19.
*Paul R. Hensarling, Handbook for the Supervision
of the Intern in School Administration (doliege Station,
Texas * innovative Resources, inc., 1969), p. i.

36
Viewing the preparation programs for school
administrators over the last two decades reveals increased
use of case studies, simulation materials, field experi­
ences, internships, gaming, and sensitivity training.
Some have had greater impact and acceptance than others.
The aim of each has been to help the student to build
research skill, to apply findings, to increase knowledge
of human interaction and to broaden and deepen the under­
standing of administration.

School Survey Teams and field

experiences have not been the most heralded of these
techniques but this technique has survived as a means of
understanding some of the stern realities of the field,
the obstacles to uncomplicated educational leadership,
and the strategies for attacking these obstacles.
Summary and Overview
The school survey movement had its earliest roots
embedded in the early public school or common school
movement in the New England states.

Early surveys were

carried out by Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and William
Harris.

The latter two educators became early United

States Commissioners of Education.

Their relationships

with the Congress were a potent factor in the dissemina­
tion of the possible values gained from studies of schools
and school systems.

37
At the outset, the emphasis of school surveys was
on evaluation.

However, by 1910 when the first modern

school survey took place in Boise, Idaho, the emphasis
was already changing the school survey into an instrument
for improving the schools.

The survey movement was feeling

the influences of public outcry against the schools, the
influences of the early testing and measurement movement,
and the influence of scientific management techniques in
the business world.
Throughout the next several decades, the school
survey movement grew and expanded with hundreds of studies
being carried out and hundreds of reports being written.
The outside survey specialist or "expert" was a frequent
performer in the carrying out of school surveys.

The

"expert" survey gave way to some extent to the more
democratic self-survey approach and both the "expert"
survey and self-survey frequently were joined into a third
type which is the combination survey.
The three types of surveys have served varying
purposes.
fiable.

The purposes or objectives are clearly identi­
The investigative or status survey served in the

main to evaluate existing conditions, the deliberative was
directed toward proposals for change and improvement, and
the implementative emphasized involvement of local
personnel in an attempt to enhance the chances of
achieving the proposals in the school community.

38
The school surveys and the volumes of literature
on the school survey movement affected profoundly the
development of schools and school programs in the United
States.

One aspect of the influence can be seen in the

role of the administrator during these years.

Both the

training and the role of school administrators reflected
the stress on the scientific management of schools and
school systems.
In 1947, school surveys began to take on a new
dimension.

Although a few universities were using their

divisions or field service to train graduate students in
administration, this was not generally the case.

Through

the leadership of several professional associations and
the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the training of a fully
professional school administrator began to evolve.

This

training program took shape as the Cooperative Program in
Educational Administration which had as one of its facets
the use of school survey teams as a training device for
advanced graduate students in educational administration.
Michigan State University was founded on the
premise of the importance of rendering service to the
people of Michigan.

The threads of service to the public

including service to the public schools go back for
generations.

In the 1940's and 1950's individual pro­

fessors in the Division of Education were carrying out

39
survey activities.

By 1960, a Bureau of Field Studies

was formed with service to the schools of the State of
Michigan clearly in mind.

Another clear objective was

the field training of prospective school administrators.
This activity continued with the School Survey Team having
contributed to the training of forty-two administrators in
slightly less than ten years at Michigan State University.
This study then was designed to provide informa­
tion concerning the growth of the school survey movement
with special emphasis upon the activities of the School
Survey Team at the Michigan State University since its
inception in 1961.

Its purposes were to determine what

contributions the School Survey Team experiences have made
toward the professional growth and understanding of its
former members as well as to provide information about
survey services and possible improvements which might be
made.
The study was planned as a descriptive survey
project using nominal statistical data since this method
seemed most appropriate to supply the information neces­
sary for the given purposes.

The sample included the

total population of former School Survey Team members at
Michigan State University who have had the closest rela­
tionship to the information anticipated from this study.
The study was carried out through the uee of mailed

40
questionnaires and through a series of interviews and was
analyzed as indicated in the description of the design*
The following chapters describe the design of the
study and the research activities carried out.

CHAPTER II
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The review of literature in Chapter I documented
the development of the school survey movement in the
United States showing how it changed and maintained its
vitality over the last half century.

Closely allied with

the adjusted dimensions of the school survey movement were
the more recent developments in the education of school
administrators.

Universities such as Michigan State have

moved forward with these developments being involved both
in modern school surveys and in using school surveys as a
training device for school administrators.

The foundations

laid in the previous chapter were directed toward an
evaluation of the types of experiences that administrators
in training have had as members of the School Survey Team
at Michigan State University* toward their perceptions con­
cerning the value and effect of these experiences* and
toward conclusions and recommendations which may reshape
the purposes and functioning of the School Survey Team.

41

42
Sample
The problem of sampling is particularly crucial in
survey research.

The sample in this study included the

total population of all former members who had served on
the School Survey Team at Michigan State University since
its inception with the exception of those serving at the
present time.

The total population which included thirty-

seven persons was surveyed.
George J. Mouly discussed some of the problems of
sampling in relation to survey research as follows :
The problem of sampling is of primary con­
cern in all survey studies, for unless the sample
on the basis of which data are collected is
representative of the population selected for
investigation, the conclusions drawn cannot apply
to that population.1
Empirical studies have shown that some
important differences exist between respondents
and non-respondents. . . . An incomplete sample
ordinarily indicates a greater representation of
the persons who are interested, who are coopera­
tive, who are favorable to the issue under
investigation, and so on. On the other hand,
it is logical to assume that the non-respondents
refusal to participate is frequently not
independent of such factors as a negative
attitude toward the sponsor of the investigation.2
The sample and the population in this study are
exactly the same group and the percentage of returns

Research
p. 235.

George J. Mouly, The Science of Educational
(New York* American Book Company, 1963),
2Ibid., p. 241.

43
approaches 100 percent.

The data collected from former

School Survey Team members should, therefore, be repre­
sentative of the whole population and of the negative and
the positive reactions of the sample.

This is supported

as follows by Carter V. Good when commenting on survey
studies with a high percentage of questionnaires returned:
Errors of judgment and of statement had an
opportunity to correct and to balance one another
and by so doing yield a net total which will be
a reasonable approximation of the truth.1
Survey Techniques
Upon completion of the identification of the
population of the study, the survey techniques decided
upon were the questionnaire supplemented by a series of
interviews of a selected group of former School Survey
Team members employed within the State of Michigan.

The

combination of the two techniques was designed to maximize
the advantages of each and to avoid some of the hazards.
The questionnaire approach had the following major
advantages for this study:
1.

It provided possible total coverage of all of

the former survey team members.
2.

It afforded wide geographical coverage and

reached persons who were busy and difficult to contact.

^Carter V. G o o d , How to do Research in Education
(Baltimore: Warwick and Vork,
, p. 13^.

44
3.

As no signature was required, it provided the

opportunity £or more candid and open replies.
4.

The questionnaire permitted the respondent

time to prepare considered answers.
5.

Questions were uniformly posed and answers,

therefore, more comparable.
On the other hand, the questionnaire did not allow
the researcher to note the apparent reluctance or evasive­
ness of his respondents.
through the interview.

This matter was better handled
Misinterpretation of questions,

too, could only be clarified in an interview setting.
Good and Scatss stated that "certain types of
information could be secured only by direct contacts with
people, for example, intimate facts of personal history
and opinions and beliefs."1

The superior aspects of the

interview over the questionnaire as they saw them may be
summarized as follows:
1.

Interviewees may provide personal and con­

fidential information which they ordinarily would not
place on paper.
2.

The one who is doing the interviewing may

follow up leads and take advantage of small clues.

^Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of
Research (New Y o r k : Appleton-Century-Crofts , Inc., 19S>4) ,
p. 637.

45

3.

The investigator may form an impression of

the person who is giving the information.
4.

The interview gives the interviewer the

opportunity to open the way to an exchange of information
and Hgive and take" not possible on a questionnaire.1
Combining the questionnaire with the interview
then served to improve the face validity of the survey
as well as to assist in interpreting the data.

The

following are representative statements from authors of
educational research textbooks supporting this view:
At the most elementary level, it is necessary
for the questionnaire to have face validity. A
possible solution is to follow the questionnaire
with an interview of a sample of the respondents
to see whether their responses to the question­
naire actually represent their views on the
subjects discussed.2
When the interview precedes the experimental
or statistical study, it is used as a source of
hypotheses, later submitted to systematic test.
In other cases, the procedure has been reversed.
The focused interview has served to interpret
previously ascertained findings.3 [questionnaire]
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed by the investigator
and was based largely upon lists of administrative

1Ibid.
2

Mouly, op. cit., p. 252.
3
R. K. Merton and Patricia Kendall, "The Focused
Interview,” American Journal of Sociology, LI (May, 1946) ,
557.

46
experiences gathered from the literature on the role of
the educational administrator.
Graff and Street devoted a complete chapter to
the tasks of the educational administrator.

Their aim

was to develop competent behavior in the performance of
a particular job.

They divided the job of educational

administration into the following seven operational
areas:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Organization and structure
Finance and business management
Student personnel
Curriculum and instruction
Staff personnel
School plant ,
Transportation

Roald Campbell described the following six major
task or operational areas of the school administrator:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

School community relationships
Curriculum and instruction
Pupil personnel
Staff
Physical facilities
2
Finance and business management

Orin B. Graff and Calvin M. Street, Improving
Competence in Educational Administration (New York:
Harper and Strothers, Publishers", 1956) , pp. 200*215.
2

Roald F. Campbell, The Organization and Control
of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: d. d. Merrill
Books, l4&£), p. 553.

47
Stephen P. Hencley,
and William J. Early

3

1

McCleary and Hencley,

2

included similar lists of areas

with extensive listings of tasks which the educational
administrator should be able to perform or should at least
have more than cursory knowledge of them.

In addition,

the publications of the School Survey Team at Michigan
State University provided a rich resource of tasks related
to the operation of school systems within the State of
Michigan•
A list of eighty-three administrative experiences
was selected from the previously mentioned resources on
school administration.

This list of experiences was

organized under ten major headings.

The major headings

included the following administrative functions:

curricu­

lum and instruction, personnel administration, finance,
business management and practices, school plant, auxiliary

^Stephen P. Hencley, "Functional Inter­
relationships Within Administrative Performance Systems,"
Preparation Programs for School Administrators, eds.
Donald J . Leu and tferbert d. ftudman (East. Lansing i
College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963) ,
pp. 61-95.
2

Lloyd E. McCleary and Stephen P. Hencley,
Secondary School Administration (New York: Dodd, Mead,
1^5$) , pp. 86-91.
^William J. Early, "An Evaluation and Analysis
of the Extern Program at Michigan State University"
(unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963), pp. 185-195.

48
services, community relations, staff relations, school
board relations, and community demography.

The question­

naire was then organized so that the respondent could
designate first whether each experience was one in which
he was involved as a student member of the School Survey
Team.

If the respondent answered affirmatively he was

then asked to make a value choice regarding the experience.
Further, he was to designate how much the experience
effected change in his perceptions, approaches, and
philosophy.

The choices provided were closed-ended ranging

from "much value" to "little or no value" and from "much
change" to "little or no change."
The closed questionnaire was used as this kept the
questionnaire to a reasonable length and encouraged comple­
tion and return of the questionnaire.

Further, the closed

questionnaire with its structured alternatives limited the
subject under study and minimized the risk of misinterpre­
tation.

Since, however, it is basic to allow all possible

answers, an extra category asking for "other" closed each
major section of the questionnaire.

In addition, a major

open question concluded the questionnaire soliciting
comments and suggestions.

Mouly supported this approach

in the following comment regarding open and closed
questionnaires *

49
The question of whether to use the open or
closed questionnaire can be resolved only on the
basis of the usual criteria of the validity,
reliability, and usability, and, inasmuch as
most of the problems to be covered in education
are varied and complex, a combination of the
two is generally better than the exclusive use
of o n e .1
In order to establish clarity and relevance to the
subject being studied, several trials of the questionnaire
were performed by present School Survey Team members.
Revisions were based upon their suggestions.

For an

examination of the questionnaire used by the investigator,
the reader is referred to Appendix A.
The Interview
Fourteen of the former School Survey Team members
were found to be employed in the school systems of Michigan.
Using the assistance of the Office of Research Consulta­
tion, College of Education, Michigan State University, it
was decided that six persons should be interviewed based
upon the fact that these persons grouped themselves in
categories of jobs such as college or university adminis­
trator, junior college administrator, superintendent of
schools, assistant-superintendent of schools, and
education-related association or foundation positions.
One person was chosen to represent each category.

^Mouly, op. cit., p. 235

50
Several trial interviews were held with present
survey team members and with one former team member.

With

the assistance of these persons, an interviewing instrument
was devised with semi-structured questions which required
a minimum of recording during the interview.

This type

of focused interview format allowed both for gathering
facts and for gathering feelings.

For an examination of

the interview instrument used by the investigator, the
reader is referred to Appendix B.
Treatment of the Data
The normative-survey method was used to analyze
the values and effects of the various experiences
(eighty-three) listed on the check-list section of the
questionnaire.

A value index was assigned to the responses

and a point value was derived for each activity experienced
thus providing a value judgment index for each administra­
tive experience while a member of the School Survey Team.
The former School Survey Team members were asked
whether the activity experienced was of "little or no
value," "some value," or "much value."

A value index

(number value) was assigned to each of these categories
so that a single point value could be reported for each
activity experienced.

"Little or no value" was assigned

a value of one point, "some value" was assigned three
points, and the category of "much value" was assigned a

51
value of five points.

Products of these multiplications

were totaled and then divided by the total number of
responses.

This quotient became the point value

experienced.
The former survey team members were also asked to
indicate to what extent their experiences on the School
Survey Team changed their perceptions, approaches, and
philosophy.

The same index scale and procedure were used

to ascertain the effect of the experience.

Respondents

indicated change by checking "little or no change,"
"some change," or "much change.”
The questionnaire also provided an opportunity to
express the type and frequency of the varied activities
experienced by each former member, providing a simple
record of the breadth of experiences.

Comments were

recorded and organized on the basis of positive statements,
negative or neutral statements, and statements suggesting
improvements.

The judgments or feelings expressed by the

respondents to the questionnaires and in the interviews
can be considered adequate for the purposes of this study
since the responses included almost 95 percent of the
total population and were derived through two descriptive
survey techniques.
Further, statistical treatment of the data in this
study was carried out through the Computer Laboratory of

52
Michigan State University with the hope of establishing a
correlation between the value expressed by each respondent
in each of the ten major areas and the effect upon the
individual in the ten areas.

The responses on each of

the ten areas of the questionnaire were tabulated for
each individual and placed on IBM cards.

A program was

written and the package was submitted for analysis.
the analysis of variance procedure, coefficients of
correlation were determined between value and effect
responses.

Using

CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Identification of the
Respondents
A more refined understanding of the School Survey
Team experience was obtainable by discussing the respond­
ents to the study.

Facts presented related to the posi­

tions held by team members prior to serving on the survey
team, to the length of the survey team experience, to the
age of former team members at the beginning of their
experience, and to the academic preparation of former
interns at the beginning of their team experience.
Thirty-seven questionnaires were mailed to
individuals who had participated in the activities of the
School Survey Team since 1960.

These questionnaires were

mailed January 8 , 1970, with one follow-up mailing early
the following m o n t h .
Of the thirty-seven mailed questionnaires, thirtyfive were returned in completed form (94.6 percent).
In addition, six interviews were held with former
team members serving in varied positions within the State

53

54
of Michigan.

A listing of these persons and the positions

they now hold may be found by referring to Appendix C.
These six persons were chosen with the assistance of the
Office of Research Consultation.

The rationale for

choosing these persons was that they presently occupied
the types of positions which were representative of those
held by the whole population.

In addition, these persons

represented approximately one-sixth of the whole popula­
tion and, therefore were considered representative of it.
As was noted above, only two of the respondents
did not return the questionnaire.

Several respondents

chose not to answer certain parts of the questionnaire.
This accounted for some variation in the number reported
on the various tables found in this chapter.
Prior professional position.

The thirty-five

former team members who replied to the questionnaire
indicated the types of positions which they held prior to
serving on the team.

Table I shows these positions with

the three largest groupings being superintendent of
schools

(20 percent), elementary principal (20 percent),

and high school principal (17.1 percent).
persons

Thirty-one

(88.6 percent) joined the survey team with some

prior administrative experience.

55
TABLE I
POSITIONS HELD BY TEAM MEMBERS
PRIOR TO SERVING ON THE
SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
Position

Number
reported

Percent

Superintendent of Schools

7

20.0

Assistant Superintendent

2

5.7

High School Principal

6

17.1

Assistant High School Principal

2

5.7

Junior High School Principal

1

2.9

Assistant Junior High School
Principal

1

2.9

Elementary Principal

7

20.0

Teacher

4

11.4

_5

14.3

35

100.0

Other administrative positions
Total

56
Length of School Survey Team experience.

Table II

records the length of time spent on the survey team by the
thirty-five respondents.
three quarters

The mode for the total group was

(45.6 percent) with the large majority

(80 percent) having served three or more quarters.

These

respondents were involved in team experiences a sufficient
period of time allowing them to meet a broad range of
experiences and to have opportunities for more complete
participation in the program.
Age and academic preparation.

Members of the

School Survey Team, in general, had completed a Master's
Degree from an approved institution and had been admitted
to a doctoral program at Michigan State University.

Both

of these considerations combined with the fact that team
members had some school, college, or business experience
beforehand, caused most former team members to be approach­
ing thirty years of age prior to the survey team experi­
ence.

The modal age for the group as seen on Table III

was 30 to 34 years (29.5 percent) while nearly four-fifths
(79.4 percent) of the group ranged in age between 25 and
39 years.

None had passed age 44 while only one was less

than 25.
Of the total group all of whom had Master's
Degrees, only a small group (14.7 percent) were just
beginning to pursue additional studies as can be seen on

57
TABLE II
LENGTH OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
Length of time

Number
reported

Percent

Less than one quarter

1

2.9

One quarter

2

5.7

Two quarters

4

11.4

Three quarters

16

45.6 (mode)

Four quarters

7

20.0

Five quarters

1

2.9

Six quarters

1

2.9

More than six quarters

3

8.6

35

100.0

Total

58
TABLE III
AGE OF FORMER TEAM MEMBERS AT THE
BEGINNING OF THEIR SCHOOL
SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
Age in years

Number
reported

Percent

Less than 25

1

2.9

25-29

9

26.5

30-34

10

29.5

35-39

8

23.5

40-44

6

17.6

_0

0.0

34

100.0

45-over
Total

(mode)

59
Table IV.

The vast majority (85.3 percent) were in their

sixth year of study or beyond.

At least one member had

already earned his Doctor's Degree.

These facts demon­

strated that the team was serving advanced students in
educational administration.
Summary.

On the previous pages of this section of

the chapter, general information has been presented in an
attempt to identify more clearly the characteristics of
those persons who have served on the School Survey Team at
Michigan State University.
Two other characteristics of the respondents were
of interest.

First, thirty-five

(100 percent)

former team

members who responded indicated their willingness to
participate in a personal, follow-up interview with the
writer.

Second, twenty-seven (77.2 percent) contributed

comments and suggestions to clarify their reactions and
to assist in broadening the scope and meaning of this
study.
Experiences of the School
Survey ‘Team Members
The practicing, successful school administrator
must be proficient in many areas of school administration.
Within these major areas he must have almost countless
specific skills.

A major stated purpose of the School

Survey Team at Michigan State University was to train

60

TABLE IV
ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF FORMER INTERNS
AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
Number
reported

Percent

Less than 10 hours

3

00
•
00

Quarter hours of graduate
study beyond the
master's degree

10 to 19 hours

2

5.8

20 to 29 hours

0

o
•
o

30 to 39 hours

11

32.3

40 to 49 hours

5

14.8

13

38.3

34

100.0

50 or more hours
Total

61
graduate students in educational administration, and, as
a consequence of this training, to develop a fundamental
knowledge and proficiency in these areas and skills.
A list of administrative experiences was compiled
from textbooks on educational administration, from
dissertations, from survey team publications, and from
suggestions of members of the writer's committee.

These

experiences were deemed both to be valuable and to be
suitable survey team activities.

This list of administra­

tive experiences consisted of eighty-three items separated
into ten major areas.
Each individual specified whether the experience
was one in which he was engaged while serving as a team
member.

By multiplying the eighty-three specific experi­

ences by the thirty-five respondents, it was possible to
participate in a grand total of 2905 experiences.

Of

this total, the former team members actually experienced
1331 (45.8 percent) of the listed activities.
It appeared appropriate that no single School
Survey Team member engaged in every administrative activity
listed.

This was due in part to the fact that studies

carried out were not tailored solely for the student but
were being performed to answer a need which the hiring
school systems articulated.

Many studies, for instance,

concerned themselves with facets of school plant planning

62
while few studies requested assistance or evaluation of
their business practices.

Further, it must be remembered

that although team members generally served for at least
one academic year, most of the participants were only
part-time employees.

Based upon these understandings, the

fact that almost half of the possible experiences were
participated in by each individual demonstrated the breadth
of the program over the years.
Areas of school administration.

The ten major

areas of school administration which were divided into
eighty-three specific administrative experiences were
curriculum and instruction, personnel administration,
finance, business management and practices, school plant,
auxiliary services, community relations, staff relations,
school board relations, and demography.

Table V contains

information concerning the experiences of the survey team
members according to the ten areas of administration.

An

examination of Table V shows the number of experiences
possible, the number actually experienced, and the per­
centage of participation.

Each of the major areas of

administration had differing numbers of experiences listed.
Therefore, in order to maintain a common basis for
interpreting the data, percentages were used.
Five of the ten areas had percentages above the
mean of all experiences (45.8 percent) with the area of

63
demography having the highest number of experiences
(70.7 percent).

Other areas exceeding the mean were

school plant (66.3 percent), finance (54.3 percent),
curriculum and instruction (50.6 percent), and school
board relations (46.4 percent).
(44.5 percent)

Community relations

fell just below the mean while staff rela­

tions had a 35.7 percent response, and personnel adminis­
tration had a 30.4 percent response.
The lowest percentages were in the area of
auxiliary services
and practices

(22.9 percent) and business management

(21.4 percent).

These relatively low factors

of participation may reflect multiple influences including
the types of studies participated in, the needs of the
school districts, the interests and skills of the team
members and their director, inappropriate items, or the
relative insignificance of these two areas in training
school administrators.
Specific administrative experiences.

Tables VI

through XV contain information abbut each of the specific
activities of the School Survey Team experience within the
ten general areas of school administration.

The ten major

areas were listed in the order in which they appeared on
the questionnaire.
The area of curriculum and Instruction ranked
fourth in the frequency of experiences met by team members.

64
TABLE V
EXPERIENCES OF THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER
SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS ACCORDING TO
VARIOUS AREAS OF ADMINISTRATION
Area of administration

Number of
Number
Percent
possible
actually
experiences experienced

Curriculum and instruction

490

248

50.6

Personnel administration

280

85

30.4

Finance

385

209

54.3

Business management and
practices

280

60

21.4

School plant

315

209

66.3

Auxiliary services

210

48

22.9

Community relations

245

109

44.5

Staff relations

280

100

35.7

School board relations

140

65

46.4

Demographic

280

198

70.7

2905

1331

45.8

Total

65
There were only two experiences participated in by more
than 60 percent of the respondents.

Examining course

offerings at the high school level ranked highest with
74.4 percent of the former team members having engaged in
this activity.

Developing a philosophy of the school

system was next highest with 60 percent of the respondents
having experienced this activity.

The activity which

showed the lowest percentage of experience was recommending
the adoption of textbooks with only 8.6 percent responding
to this item.
The area of personnel administration ranked eighth
in the frequency of experiences met by team members pro­
viding 30.4 percent of the possible experiences within
this area.

Evaluating personnel policies

(42.9 percent)

and studying professional preparation of administrators
(37.1 percent) were the two activities which provided the
largest percentages of experiences in this general area.
The lowest ranking activities in this area were
devising orientation programs for personnel and preparing
criteria for the selection of personnel.

Both of these

activities were engaged in by only 20 percent of the
former team members.
The area of finance, which ranked third among
the ten general areas of school administration, provided
54.3 percent of the possible experiences within the area.

66
TABLE VI
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Experiences in
curriculum and
instruction
Examining course offerings
at elementary school level
Examining course offerings
at high school level
Recommending adoption
of new textbooks
Recommending initiation
of new subjects
Recommending new programs
Recommending organization for
curriculum coordination
Visiting classrooms
Attending curriculum
committee meetings
Developing a philosophy
of the school system
Developing objectives
of curriculum
Recommending in-service
education programs
Recommending new educational
groupings of students by age
or grade (as middle school
or non-graded)
Studying class size as a
factor in instruction
Relating curriculum to time,
facilities, and personnel

Number who had
the experience

Percent

19

54.3

26

74.4

3

8.6

20
15

57.1
42.9

18

51.4

19

54.3

17

48.6

21

60.0

17

48.6

18

51.4

18

51.4

15

42.9

20

57.1
(50.6)

67
TABLE VII
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Number who had
the experience

Percent

Evaluating personnel policies

15

42.9

Proposing personnel policies

12

34.3

Studying professional
preparation of teachers

12

34.3

Studying professional
preparation of
administrators

13

37.1

Recommending job descriptions

10

28.6

Devising orientation programs
for personnel

7

20.0

Preparing criteria for
selection of teachers

7

20.0

Preparing criteria for
selecting administrators

9

25.7

Experiences in
personnel
administration

(30.4)

68
Assessing financial resources in the community (74.4 per­
cent} ranked highest in providing experiences to former
interns.

This was followed closely by studying state

equalized valuation (68.6 percent) and then by computing
per pupil costs and examining millage levied for varying
purposes both with a percentage of 62.9 percent.
Preparing financial information for millage
campaigns

(31.4 percent) and proposing revisions of salary

schedules

(22.9 percent) ranked lowest in the number of

experiences provided.
None of the specific activities within the area
of business management and practices received a percentage
in excess of 50 percent.

The general area provided

21.4 percent of the possible experiences within the area
and ranked last among the general areas of school adminis­
tration.

Analyzing the expenditures of a school district

(45.7 percent) was the only one which exceeded 40 percent
participation by former team members.

The two lowest

areas of participation were suggesting reorganization of
purchasing policies (14.3 percent) and organizing or
reorganizing the business department (11.4 percent).
School plant ranked second among the ten general
areas of administration with two-thirds or 66.3 percent
of the participants in school survey activities having
engaged in school plant experiences.

Four experiences

69
TABLE VIII
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN FINANCE
Experience■ in
finance

Number who had
the experience

Percent

Assessing financial
resources of community

26

74.4

Studying school indebtedness

21

60.0

Preparing financial
information for millage
campaigns

11

31.4

Evaluating existing salary
schedules

15

42.9

8

22.9

Examining financial effort
for schools

20

57.1

Studying state equalized
valuation

24

68.6

Examining millage levied
for varied purposes

22

62.9

Studying general fund
expenditures by
budget category

21

60.0

Evaluating and analyzing
state reports

19

54.3

Computing per pupil costs

22

62.9

Proposing revisions of
salary schedules

(54.3)

70
TABLE IX
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICES
Experiences in business
management and practices

Number who had
the experience

Percent

20.0

Studying purchasing policy
Suggesting reorganization
of purchasing policies

5

14.3

Studying accounting
procedures

7

20.0

Suggesting improvements in
accounting procedures

6

17.1

Organizing or reorganizing
business department

4

11.4

Developing businesslike
purchasing procedures

6

17.1

16

45.7

9

25.7

Analyzing the expenditures
of the school district
Studying equipment and
supply needs

(21.4)

71
were participated In by 74.4 percent of the persons
surveyed.

These were evaluating school sites, suggesting

new school plants, suggesting modifications of existing
facilities, and projecting future school housing needs.
These areas were followed closely by suggesting changes
in plant utilization (68.6 percent) and determining the
educational requirements of a new building (65.7 percent).
The lowest area was surveying plant operation and main­
tenance

(45.7 percent).

This experience was the only one

which fell below 50 percent.

Serving on the School Survey

Team provided team members with frequent experiences in
school plant and school plant planning.
The area of auxiliary services ranked next-to-last
with 22.9 percent of the former team members engaging in
experiences in this area.

Only one experience was engaged

in by more than one-third of the participants.

This area

was evaluating transportation needs with 34.3 percent.
Two other experiences exceeded the mean for the area.
These were studying transportation policies (28.6 percent)
and recommending changes in transportation policies
(25.7 percent).

The experience in which there was least

participation was suggesting new school lunch policies
and practices

(14.3 percent).

The area of community relations ranked sixth
of the ten major areas of administration with a mean

72
TABLE X
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN SCHOOL PLANT
Experiences in
school plant

Number who had
the experience

Percent

Selecting school sites

22

62.9

Evaluating school sites

26

74.4

Suggesting new school plants

26

74.4

Suggesting modifications of
existing facilities

26

74.4

Projecting future school
housing needs

26

74.4

Determining the educational
requirements of a new
building

23

65.7

Evaluating building and
site plans

20

57.1

Suggesting changes in
plant utilization

24

68.6

Surveying plant operation
and maintenance

16

45.7
(66.3)

73
TABLE XI
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN AUXILIARY SERVICES
Percent

Experiences in
auxiliary services

Number who had
the experience

Evaluating transportation needs

12

34.3

Studying transportation
policies

10

28.6

Recommending changes in
transportation policies

9

25.7

Suggesting new housing patterns

6

17.1

Evaluating existing school
lunch programs

6

17.1

Suggesting new school lunch
policies and practices

5

14.3
(22.9)

74
percentage of 44.5 percent.

Three of the experiences

listed within the area exceeded the mean percentage.

The

one ranking highest (65.7 percent) was participating in
reporting progress of the study to school board m e m b e rs,
lay committee members, and others; closely followed by
participating in the follow-up of the school survey report
(57.1 percent).
study committee

Serving as a temporary chairman of a lay
(45.7 percent) ranked third.

The lowest ranking activity according to the
amount of participation was participating in millage
campaigns with 11.4 percent indicating that they were
involved in that activity in the community.
The area of staff relations, which ranked eighth
among the ten major areas of school administration, had
35.7 percent of the former team members who engaged in
all of the listed experiences.

Soliciting suggestions for

improvement or change from teachers and administrators
(65.7 percent) was experienced by almost two-thirds of
the respondents.

This was followed by participating in

progress reports to staff (51.4 percent), participating
in follow-up reports to staff (40.0 percent), and recom­
mending additional administrative personnel

(37.1 percent).

The two lowest areas were being involved in
developing staff salary schedules (14.3 percent) and
developing policies regarding sick leave and other fringe
benefits

(11.4 percent).

75

TABLE XII
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Experiences in
community relations

Number who had
the experience

Participating in
millage campaigns

Percent

11.4

Participating in follow-up
of school survey report
with lay citizens

20

57.1

Participating in progress
reporting

23

65.7

Serving as temporary chairman
of a lay study committee

16

45.7

Attending PTA meetings

14

40.0

Conducting public opinion
survey

11

31.4

Organizing lay and professional
groups for participation in
educational planning

21

60.0
(44.5)

76

TABLE XIII
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN STAFF RELATIONS
Experiences in
sta£f relations

Number who had
the experience

Percent

Recommending additional
teaching personnel to
reduce class size

12

34.3

Recommending additional
administrative personnel

13

37.1

Participating in progress
reports to staff

18

51.4

Participating in survey
follow-up reports to staff

14

40.0

Soliciting suggestions for
improvement or change from
teachers and administrators

23

65.7

Cooperating in preparing job
descriptions for administra­
tive personnel

11

31.4

5

14.3

Developing staff salary
schedules
Developing policies regarding
sick leave and other
fringe benefits

11.4
(35.7)

77
The area of school board relations ranked fifth
of ten areas of administration.

Forty-six and four-tenths

percent of the former team members had experiences in this
area.

This percentage is just slightly above the mean for

the whole study.

Keeping the school board informed of

progress ranked highest with 62.9 percent.

This was

closely followed by soliciting suggestions from school
board members

(60.0 percent).

The most infrequent area of involvement was
participating in the survey follow-up activities with
board members

(28.6 percent).

The final area listed in the questionnaire was
demography.

More than seven-tenths

(70.7 percent) of the

former School Survey Team members were engaged in the
experiences listed in this area.

Projecting future school

enrollments (82.9 percent) and analyzing community popula­
tion trends (82.9 percent) were the experiences most
frequently engaged in.

These two experiences were closely

followed by four others which were recording past enroll­
ment figures

(80.0 percent), interpreting land use

information (77.1 percent), examining economic character­
istics of the area (74.4 percent), and interpreting
socio-economic characteristics

(68.6 percent).

No experiences in this area fell much below the
mean percentage for the whole study (45.8 percent).

78
TABLE XIV
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS
Experiences in
school board
relations

Number who had
the experience

Percent

Soliciting suggestions
from board members

21

60.0

Keeping the board informed
of progress

22

62.9

Advising the board on
policy information

12

34.3

Participating in follow-up
survey

10

28.6
(46.4)

79
Studying nonwhite-white population relationships scored
one-tenth of 1 percent below the mean (45.7 percent).
These percentages generally reflected the basic importance
of demographic materials in planning and preparing a school
survey report.
A Summary of the Experiences
Individual experiences receiving the highest
fourteen rankings by the thirty-five respondents are
listed on Table XVI.

These fourteen were those partici­

pated in by more than two-thirds of the respondents.

It

was interesting to note that the fourteen highest experi­
enced activities came from only four of the ten major
areas of school administration which were surveyed.

These

were the demographic area with six items* the school plant
area with five items* the finance area with two items*
and the curriculum and instruction area with one.

Further*

the nine most frequently noted experiences came from only
two areas which were demography with the first five
followed by school plant with the next four items.
The top fourteen activities were participated in
by 68.6 percent or more of the respondents.

The top

thirty-nine activities were participated in by at least
50 percent of the former School Survey Team members.

80
TABLE XV
EXPERIENCES OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
IN DEMOGRAPHY
Experiences in
demography

Number who had
the experience

Percent

Projecting future
school enrollment

29

82.9

Recording past enrollment
figures

28

80.0

Tabulating housing starts

19

54.3

Analyzing community
population trends

29

82.9

Studying nonwhite-white
population ratios

16

45.7

Examining economic charac­
teristics of the area

26

74.4

Interpreting land use
information

27

77.1

Interpreting socio-economic
characteristics

24

68.6
(70.7)

81
TABLE XVI
THE TOP FOURTEEN ACTIVITIES AS EXPERIENCED
BY THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER TEAM MEMBERS
Activity

Percent

Projecting future school enrollments

82.9

Analyzing community population trends

82.9

Recording past enrollment figures

80.0

Interpreting land use information

77.1

Examining economic characteristics
of the area

74.4

Evaluating school sites

74.4

Suggesting new school plants

74.4

Suggesting modifications of existing
facilities

74.4

Projecting future school housing needs

74.4

Assessing financial resources of the area

74.4

Examining course offerings at high school
level

74.4

Studying state equalized valuation

68.6

Suggesting changes in plant utilization

68.6

Interpreting socio-economic characteristics

68.6

82
The Values and Effects
o£ the Experiences
The evaluation of the School Survey Team as it
existed over the last decade was broadened beyond merely
determining which activities were engaged in and how
frequently these occurred.

The thirty-five respondents

were instructed to give a value judgment for each adminis­
trative experience which they had during their tenure on
the team.

This evaluation was to assess the value of the

major areas and of activities which team members experi­
enced in the program.
Each participant was asked whether each adminis­
trative experience was of "little or no value," "some
value," or "much value."

A number value was assigned to

each of these categories so that a single point value
could be reported for each activity experienced.

The

category of "little or no value" was assigned one point,
the category of "some value" was assigned three points,
and the category of "much value" was assigned five points.
The number of responses was multiplied by the point value
assigned to each category.

The products of the multiplica­

tions for each category were totaled and then divided by
the number who responded as having had the experience.
The quotient became the point value for each activity
experienced.

83
Former team members were also asked to respond as
to their feelings of how the experience effected change
in their perceptions, approaches, and philosophy.

The

same index and procedure described above was used to
ascertain the effect of the experiences.

The values and

effects of the experiences of the former survey team
members are presented in this section.
The uniqueness of the School Survey Team experi­
ence and the unusual type of personnel involved in the
program must be fully considered in judging the data to
be presented on the following pages.

Former team members

in their comments pointed out that their responses might
have been affected by too brief a period of time on the
team, by the fact that their professional position now
allowed little opportunity to test a practice or effect,
and that an expression of much value may not be followed
by an expression of much effect due to their extensive
prior experience as an administrator.
The thirty-five former team members responding
to the questionnaire stated that they had had 1331 experi­
ences on the survey team.

Of this total, the respondents

judged forty-one or 3.1 percent of the experiences of
"little or no value," 728 experiences or 54.7 percent of
"some value," and 562 or 42.2 percent of "much value."
Calculating the effect of the experiences upon the

84
individual in the same manner, the responses grouped
themselves as follows:

283

(21.3 percent) reported "little

or no change," 675 (50.7 percent) reported "some change"
and 373 (28.0 percent) reported "much change" in percep­
tions, approaches, and philosophy.
A mean point value was derived for the value and
the effect of the experiences upon former team members.
The point value derived for the judged value of the eightythree experiences in the ten major areas was 3.7 while
the point value derived for the judged effect of the total
experience was 3.0.

This clearly demonstrated that the

respondents judged the experiences as quite valuable and
judged the effects only slightly less so.
The point values for each of ten administrative
areas, for the individual experiences, and the grand
totals can be found on Table XVII.

All of the general

areas of administration have a point total ranging between
3.1 and 3.9 for value to the individual and between 2.1
and 3.4 for the effects of the experience.

The highest

values were given to the area of community relations with
a 3.9 indicated for its value and a 3.4 for the effects
of the experiences.

Demographic, which had the highest

incidence of involvement of individuals as indicated
earlier in the chapter, had point values of 3.9 and 3.3
respectively.

All areas of administration were judged

85
to be 3.5 or above in value with the exception of staff
relations (3.4) and auxiliary services (3.1).

The spread

between the most highly valued and the least valued
experience was eight-tenths.
Six of the areas of administration ranged above
3.0 in effect upon the individual.

These included commu­

nity relations, business management and practices, school
board relations, school plant, and demographic in descend­
ing order.

The two lowest areas were staff relations

(2.6) and auxiliary services (2.1).

The spread between

the areas which effected most change and the one which
effected least change was 1.3.

It was interesting to note

that community relations ranked highest on both value and
effect and that staff relations and auxiliary services
ranked lowest on value and effect.
The thirty-five former team members gave fortyfour of the eighty-three administrative experiences a
point value of 3.7 or better.

(A point value of 3.7 was

the mean value of activities experienced.)

They also

gave fifty-two of the eighty-three experiences a point
value of 3.0 or greater (average point value of effects
of experiences).

Community relations, finance, and

demographic areas had more scores above the mean in both
value and effect than any of the other areas.

Auxiliary

services had no scores for the individual experiences
above the mean score in either value or effect.

86

The lowest specific administrative experiences
were studying equipment and supply needs and suggesting
new school lunch policies and practices.

Studying equip­

ment and supply needs had a 2.9 for value and a 2.3 for
effect while suggesting new school lunch policies and
procedures had a 3.0 for value ar.J a 2.2 for effect.

The

greatest difference in point value between value and effect
for any specific activity (4.1 versus 2.3) was indicated
for attending curriculum committee meetings.

There were

only three of the eighty-three administrative experiences
which were rated both in value and in effect at or above
a 4.0 level.

These were participating in the follow-up of

a school survey report with lay citizens with a 4.4 for
value and a 4.1 for effect; relating curriculum to time,
facilities and personnel with a 4.0 for value and a 4.1
for effect; and suggesting improvements in accounting
procedures with a 4.0 both in value and effect.

Three

others which were rated very close to the aforementioned
were preparing criteria for selection of teachers,
examining economic characteristics of the area, and
interpreting socio-economic characteristics of the area.
In only six of the eighty-three administrative
experiences was the effect of the experience on changing
perceptions, approaches, and philosophy more highly rated
than was the value of the experience.

These were relating

87
TABLE XVII
VALUES AND EFFECTS OF THE EXPERIENCES
OF THE THIRTY-FIVE FORMER SCHOOL
SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
General areas and
specific experiences

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

19

3.8

2.7

26

3.6

2.5

3

3.0

3.0

20
15

3.5
4.0

2.7
3.6

18
19

3.9
3.3

3.2
2.8

17

4.1

2.3

21

3.7

2.6

19

4.0

2.8

18

3.5

2.6

18

3.8

3.3

15

3.5

1*9

20

4.0

4.1

248

3.6

2.8

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Examining course offerings
at the elementary school
level
Examining course offerings
at the high school level
Recommending adoption of
new textbooks
Recommending initiation of
new subjects
Recommending new programs
Recommending organization
for curriculum
coordination
Visiting classrooms
Attending curriculum
committee meetings
Developing a philosophy of
the school system
Developing objectives of
curriculum
Recommending in-service
education programs
Recommending new educa­
tional groupings of
students by age or
grade
Studying class size as
a factor in instruction
Relating curriculum to
time, facilities, and
personnel
Total

88
TABLE XVII
General areas and
specific experiences

(continued)

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

15

3.3

2.9

12

3.0

3.7

12

3.2

2.3

13

3.0

3.5

10

4.0

3.4

7

4.1

2.7

7

4.0

3.9

9

4.3

3.6

85

3.5

2.9

26

4.0

3.2

21

4.0

3.0

11

4.0

3.2

15

3.8

2.5

8

3.8

3.0

20

4.0

3.6

24

3.8

3.0

22

4.0

3.6

PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
Evaluating personnel
policies
Proposing personnel
policies
Studying professional
preparation of teachers
Studying professional
preparation of
admini s trator s
Recommending job
descriptions
Devising orientation
programs for personnel
Preparing criteria for
selection of teachers
Preparing criteria for
selecting administrators
Total
FINANCE
Assessing financial
resources of community
Studying school indebted­
ness
Preparing financial
information for millage
campaigns
Evaluating existing salary
schedules
Proposing revisions of
salary schedules
Examining financial effort
for schools
Studying state equalized
valuation
Examining millage levied
for varied purposes

89
TABLE XVII (continued)
General areas and
specific experiences

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

21

3.4

3.6

19
22

3.7
3.7

2.7
3.0

209

3.8

3.1

7

3.0

2.3

5

2.9

2.8

7

3.9

3.6

6

4.0

4.0

4

3.0

4.3

6

3.0

4.3

16

3.8

3.3

9

2.9

2.3

60

3.8

3.4

22
26
26

3.6
3.7
3.8

3.2
3.5
3.3

26

3.6

3.1

26

4.3

3.7

FINANCE (continued)
Studying general fund
expenditures by budget
category
Evaluating and analyzing
state reports
Computing per pupil costs
Total
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND
PRACTICES
Studying purchasing policy
Suggesting reorganization
of purchasing policies
Studying accounting
procedures
Suggesting improvements in
accounting procedures
Organizing or reorganizing
the business department
Developing business-like
purchasing procedures
Analyzing the expenditures
of the school district
Studying equipment and
supply needs
Total
SCHOOL PLANT
Selecting school sites
Evaluating school sites
Suggesting new school plants
Suggesting modifications of
existing facilities
Projecting future school
housing needs

90
TABLE XVII
General areas and
specific experience

(continued)

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

23

4.0

3.5

20

3.5

3.0

24

3.6

2.9

16

3.1

2.9

209

3.8

3.3

12

3.2

2.2

10

3.0

2.4

9

3.2

2.3

6

3.3

2.0

6

3.0

2.3

5

3.0

2.2

48

3.1

2.1

4

4.0

3.5

20

4.4

4.1

23

3.7

3.2

SCHOOL PLANT (continued)
Determining the educational
requirements of a new
building
Evaluating building and
site plans
Suggesting changes in
plant utilization
Surveying plant operation
and maintenance
Total
AUXILIARY SERVICES
Evaluating transportation
needs
Studying transportation
policies
Recommending changes in
transportation policies
Suggesting new patterns for
housing students
Evaluating existing school
lunch programs
Suggesting new school lunch
policies and practices
Total
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Participating in millage
campaigns
Participating in follow-up
of school survey report
with lay citizens
Participating in progress
reporting

91
TABLE XVII (continued)
General areas and
specific experiences

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

16
14

4.1
3.3

3.6
2.3

11

4.1

3.5

21

4.0

3.9

109

3.9

3.4

12

3.2

2.2

13

3.2

2.8

18

3.6

2.9

14

3.6

2.9

23

3.5

3.0

11

3.5

3.2

5

3.0

2.6

4

3^5

^0

100

3.4

2.6

COMMUNITY RELATIONS
(continued)
Serving as temporary
chairman of lay study
committee
Attending PTA meetings
Conducting public opinion
survey
Organizing lay and professional groups for
participation in
educational planning
Total
STAFF RELATIONS
Recommending additional
teaching personnel to
reduce class size
Recommending additional
administrative personnel
Participating in progress
reports to staff
Participating in survey
follow-up report to staff
Soliciting suggestions for
improvement or change
from teachers and
administrators
Cooperating in preparing
job descriptions for
administrative personnel
Developing staff salary
schedules
Developing policies regard­
ing sick leave and other
fringe benefits
Total

92
TABLE XVII (continued)
General areas and
specific experiences

Number
reported

Value
judgment

Effect of
experience

21

3.4

3.1

22

4.1

3.5

12

3.8

3.3

10

3^3

2^_9

65

3.7

3.4

29

3.9

3.3

28
19

3.7
3.6

2.9
2.9

29

4.0

3.5

16

3.8

3.1

26

4.1

3.8

27

4.0

3.4

24

4.0

3.8

198

3.9

3.3

1331

3.7

3.0

SCHOOL BOARD RELATIONS
Soliciting suggestions
from board members
Keeping the board informed
of progress
Advising the board on
policy information
Participating in follow-up
survey
Total
DEMOGRAPHIC
Projecting future school
enrollment
Recording past enrollment
figures
Tabulating housing starts
Analyzing community
population trends
Studying nonwhite-white
population ratios
Examining economic
characteristics of
the area
Interpreting land use
information
Interpreting socio­
economic
characteristics
Total
Grand Total

93
curriculum to time, facilities, and personnel, proposing
personnel policies, studying professional preparation of
administrators, studying general fund expenditures by
budget category, organizing or reorganizing the business
department and developing businesslike purchasing pro­
cedures .
Other Effects of the School
Survey Team Experience'
The two sections of analysis which preceded this
final section dealt with the experiences of survey team
members and with the value and effects of the eighty-three
administrative experiences upon those thirty-five persons.
Further information and evaluation of the effects of the
team experience was available based upon opinions expressed
both on the "Related Data" section of the questionnaire
and in the interview sessions.

These related to many and

varied aspects of the experience and are summarized on the
following pages.
Opinions relative to when in the graduate program
team activities were served.

It was the opinion of

87.9 percent of the former School Survey Team members that
they served on the survey team at an appropriate period
during their graduate studies.

It should be recalled that

earlier data indicated that more than 85 percent of the

94
former team members had entered their sixth year of study
by this time.
Only one respondent (3 percent) indicated that the
experience came too early in his graduate program while
three respondents

(9.1 percent)

indicated that the experi­

ence came later in their training program than it should.
(See Table XVIII.)
Table XIX indicates that the School Survey Team
experience never came too early in the professional
career of the participants while 30.4 percent of them
indicated that it probably came later than it should have.
Nearly 70 percent (69.6 percent) felt, however, that the
experience came at a proper time in their professional
life in the field of educational administration.
The high percentage of respondents who felt that
the survey team experience was served at the proper time
both in their graduate program of studies and their
professional careers supported the relevance of the
experience to the participants.
Change in professional status.

Former team

members were asked to indicate a change of professional
position following the School Survey Team experience as
well as whether they felt that the team experience was a
factor in this change of position (Table XX) •

Twenty-

nine (87.8 percent) of the respondents indicated that such

95
TABLE XVIII
OPINIONS OF THE FORMER SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS
RELATIVE TO WHEN IN THEIR GRADUATE PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES WERE SERVED
Period of time of team
service during
graduate program

Number
reported

Percent

29

87.9

Earlier than it should

1

3.0

Later than it should

3

9.1

33

100.0

At the proper time

Total

TABLE XIX
OPINIONS RELATIVE TO THE PERIOD OF TIME IN THEIR
PROFESSIONAL CAREER THAT MEMBERSHIP ON
THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM WAS SERVED
Period of time team
experience was
served
At the proper time

Number
reported

23

Percent

69.6

0

o
s
o

Later than it should

10

30.4

Total

33

100.0

Earlier than it should

96
a change did take place while only four persons noted no
change of position.

Further, nearly three fourths

(74.2 percent) indicated that the team experience was
important in the change of position.

The team experience

then not only was a factor in a change of professional
position but it was considered important in bringing about
the change of position.
Continuing in educational administration.

Former

survey team members were asked to evaluate the team experi­
ence in relation to their desire to continue in the
profession of education in the specific field of educa­
tional administration.
Table XXI indicates that 45.7 percent of the group
increased in their desire for positions in educational
administration while on the survey team, while 54.3 per­
cent remained unchanged in their desire to pursue a
career in educational administration.

No one indicated

a decreased desire due to the survey team experience.
The above noted responses provided information
that there was a positive effect upon individuals to
remain in school administration or related fields.
Relationships between the university and the
School Survey Team members.

Table XXII indicates the

feeling of closeness of the field team member to the

97
TABLE XX
THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM
MEMBERSHIP IN PREPARING MEMBERS
FOR A CHANGE IN PROFESSIONAL
STATUS
A.

Change of position
immediately after
team experience

Percent

Yes

29

87.8

NO

_4

12.2

33

100.0

23

74.2

8

25.8

31

100.0

Total
B.

Number
reported

Team experience was
important in change
of position
Yes
No
Total

98
TABLE XXI
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEAM EXPERIENCE IN MAINTAINING
OR INCREASING DESIRE FOR POSITIONS
IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
Desire for positions in
educational administration

Number
reported

Percent

Increased

16

45.7

Decreased

0

0.0

19

54.3

35

100.0

Remain unchanged
Total

99
university and its personnel as well as the value of
this closeness felt by the individual.
Thirty (88.2 percent) members indicated that team
membership contributed to a closer relationship between
the team member and the university.

Only two persons

(5.9 percent) felt that a closer relationship was not
developed while two others

(5.9 percent) could not

determine this.
It was interesting to note that 86.2 percent of
the respondents felt that this relationship was of much
value to them personally.

Thirteen and eight tenths

percent indicated that the relationship was of some value
to them.

No one indicated that the relationship was of

no value.
The responses above indicated a strong relation­
ship between the feeling of closeness to the university
and the value of this relationship to the person.
Effect upon educational theory and practice.

The

School Survey Team was initiated to provide graduate
students with "valuable experiences in the field."

These

valuable experiences were to assist individuals in meeting
practical problems and in applying solutions.

Therefore,

respondents were asked to evaluate whether or not the
team experience bridged the gap between theory and
practice.

Further, they were asked whether these

100

TABLE XXII
THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNIVERSITY AND THE VALUE
RELATIONSHIP TO THE SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM MEMBER
A.

Team membership
contributes to a
closer relationship

Percent

30

88.2

2

5.9

2

5.9

Total

34

100.0

Value of this
relationship

Number
reported

Percent

Yes
No
Not determined

B.

Number
reported

Little value

0

o
•
o

Some value

4

13.8

Much value

il

86.2

29

100.0

Total

101

experiences helped to reformulate their theories about
education and educational administration.
Table XXIII indicates that an overwhelming per­
centage

(91.1 percent) felt that team experiences helped

to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

In

addition, the respondents felt generally that their
theories of education were reformulated.

However, more

than 40 percent indicated that this was not the case at
all.
Clearly this experience was valuable to bridge
the gap but not so clearly valuable to reformulate
theories of education.

These responses clearly support

the earlier totals on value and effect as administrative
experiences were judged to be more valuable while the
amount of change

(effect) was judged to be less.

General reactions to the School Survey Team
experience.

Table XXIV summarizes five general reactions

to the survey team experience.

Sections A and B relate

to course work and course credit.

Slightly more than

three fourths (76.5 percent) of the respondents felt that
team experiences were better than course work and 60.6 per
cent of the participants favored granting course credits
for survey team activities.
Section C was designed to determine whether the
survey team experience was too specific or too narrow in

102

TABLE XXI11
THE EFFECT OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
UPON EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE
Team experience helped to
bridge gap between theory
and practice

31

No

_3
34

100.0

Number
reported

Percent

Team experience helped to
reformulate theories of
education

Total

Percent

Yes

Total
B.

Number
reported

00

\o

91.1
•

A.

Yes

20

57.1

No

15

42.9

35

100.0

103
its focus with a possible emphasis only upon training for
the superintendency.

Sixty-five and seven tenths percent

of the individual members said no while 34.3 percent said
yes.
When asked to determine the purposes of the School
Survey Team, the responses fell into three categories with
one group of responses encompassing two purposes.

To

utilize strengths of team members and to broaden back­
grounds of team members had an equal amount of response
(34.4 percent).

A third area (25.0 percent) of responses

indicated that the purposes encompassed both of the above.
Combining these three reactions

(93.8 percent) left

6.2 percent who felt that the purpose of assignments was
to meet the needs of the survey.
The final bit of reaction requested in Section E
of this Table relates to whether or not the individual
respondent would recommend serving on the School Survey
Team to others.

An affirmative answer was given by

91,1 percent of the respondents.

This clearly indicated

strong support for field experiences in the graduate
training program of educational administrators.
The values of the general overall experiences.
On the basis of the review of literature on the school
survey movement and the literature on the training of
educational administrators, the writer developed a list

104
TABLE XXIV
GENERAL REACTIONS TO THE SCHOOL
SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
A.

Survey team experience
better than course work
Yea
NO
Undecided
Total

B.

Total
Survey team experience
emphasized preparation
for the superintendency
Yes
No
Total

D,

26
6
2
34

76.5
17.6
5.9
100.0

20
11
_2

60.6
33.3
6.1

33

100.0

12
23
35

34.3
65.7
100.0

11

34.4

11
8
2

34.4
25.0
6.2

32

100.0

31
3
34

91.1
8.8
100.0

Purposes of team member
assignments

To utilize strengths of team
members
To broaden backgrounds of
team members
To do both of the above
To meet the needs of the survey
E.

Percent

Course credit should be
awarded for team experi­
ences
Yes
No
Undecided

C.

Number
reporting

Total
Recommend survey team
experience to others
Yes
No
Total

105
of eight broad general experiences that all survey team
members might be expected to meet while engaged in survey
team activities.

The respondents were asked by the

investigator to rank the respective values of the eight
general experiences.

It was pointed out by several

respondents that all of the experiences were valuable and,
therefore, it was difficult to give one experience much
more value than another.
The ranking represents the average value given to
each of the eight areas.

Sharing experiences and problems

with other team members clearly ranked first.

Benefiting

from working with professors in the College of Education
was rated second with gathering comprehensive data on a
community and relating this to the solution of educational
problems, and working on practical problems and suggesting
solutions following closely in third and fourth positions.
Receiving individual assistance from the survey team
director was rated distinctly lowest of all of the experi­
ences .
Comments on the School Survey
Team Experience
The information which follows was gathered from
two sources.

First, each former team member was asked to

comment in writing giving his ideas of things which might
be helpful to this evaluation of the School Survey Team

106
TABLE XXV
THE RESPECTIVE VALUES OF THE GENERAL EXPERIENCES
IN THE COMPLETE SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM ACTIVITY
General experience

Value of the experience

Sharing experiences and problems
with other team members

1

Benefiting from working with
professors in the College
of Education

2

Gathering comprehensive data on
a community and relating this
to the solution of educational
problems

3

Working on practical problems and
suggesting solutions

4

Sharing experiences with the
survey team director

5

Working on problems reflecting
every facet of school
administration

6

Working with school systems of
differing sizes and locations

7

Receiving individual assistance
from the survey team director

8

107
experience as a training device in educational administra­
tion.

Second, six personal interviews provided additional

comments and reactions.

These comments were separated

according to their content in terms of positive reactions,
negative reactions, and suggestions for improvement or
change.

Blank spaces may appear in some comments in order

to insure anonymity.
Positive comments.
1. Tremendous, profitable undertaking in
building awareness of public school problems.
Updating, yet brief.
2.

This was a positive experience.

3. A very valuable experience as it kept me
away from basing everything on money.
Learned
to base thinking on curriculum needs.
4. This gives broad exposure to school boards
and practical problems and a personal touch to
training of administrators.
5. Recommendations of the team were opera­
tionally achievable.
6. Extremely useful to me.
It was a wellinsulated platform and as useful as anything in
my graduate program.
7. Director treated team members as
professionals.
8.

Should be required of every program.

9. My experience at MSU was fine (outstanding)
because of the relationships encouraged by the
senior staff mesibers who worked with the survey
team.
10.
support.

Expand it; strengthen it; give it more

108
11. 1 felt it was invaluable and a real test
to my ability.
12. Meeting with the department as a whole
was useful.
13. Gained great knowledge.
However, was
experienced administrator and problems less
interesting because I already knew them.
14. Team members at least get to be where the
action is, i.e., in the schools and school systems.
15. Team serves its purposes to a remarkable
degree but serving or keeping a contract is of
first importance; giving financial support to
some students for full-time study is second; and
providing additional educative experiences for
interns is third.
16. Very helpful for fuller involvement with
faculty and peers in the department and college.
17. The Field Service Team is a strong link
to the "real world." All other experiences are
useless or even dangerous without a transfer of
learning to the real problems in education.
18. Combined with my cognate this was very
worthwhile training for my present job.
19. Field Service Team has an unlimited
opportunity to contribute to better education
for all.
20.
I an presently coordinator of a Field
Service Team at the University of . . . .
21. The most worthwhile of my doctoral
experiences.
Have perpetuated it at University
of . . . .
Negative comments.
1.
Studies should be spaced differently and
scheduled realistically.
Contracts should be
accepted with clear clauses as to time required
to do a good job.

109
2. Director should be a teacher rather than
always just one of the group.
3. Recommendations were unspecific, wishywashy, and vague.
Staff at MSU weakens suggestions
with too much theory.
4. Hidden agendas of superintendents and
boards should be unearthed, if possible, and
discussed with team members.
5. Recommendations were theoretical and
lacked innovativeness.
6. Team too loosely structured and was the
least part of my experience.
7.

Team fails to deal with social problems.

8. We were strongly committed to citizentype surveys. Participants were told that
recommendations would come from them not from
team.
Zn fact, however, the results were more
generally the recommendations of the survey team.
9. It would have helped if the philosophies
had been consistent but this did provide an
interesting experience in adjusting to different
situations.
10. We almost never get to interview the
local gas station attendant, the pensioner, or
the banker.
11. Small salary helps but even with wife
working it was difficult to recover financially.
12. University switches leadership around
too much.
13. Team did not have enough interaction with
the professors of the department of administration.
14. Experience should aid in getting the
degree. Presently it stands in the way as it
is difficult and time-consuming work.
15. We were finally moving to what should be
planning with rather than for school systems.

110

16. Other areas in the College of Education
were not used at all— Curriculum, Guidance, etc.
17. Survey team a good idea grown old.
Professors of administration no longer dedicated
to idea so work amounts to little.
18. Professors do not take their partial
assignments to the team seriously.
19. Survey team assignments not based on the
needs or desires of graduate students but rather
based on contracts which school systems are willing
to sign with the University.
20. Reports from this type of data gathering
together with written recommendations are nearly
useless. They are sought by administrators to
demonstrate that they are doing something and yet
can and usually seem to do nothing.
21. University team members descend on the
community and speak with authority couched on
past experiences and the make-believe world about
which they have read.
22. Inept.
Ineffective as it was practiced
as a change agent. OK at analyzing data and
drawing conclusions, but lousy at implementation.
23. Professors are using the team to dump
time for faculty load and rarely do anything.
24. A more proper model is citizen involvement
in an "expert" type study with citizen groups
involved during data collection steps.
Recommenda­
tions are clearly those of the University.
25. Reports that came out were superficial,
non-educational, and not a credit to Michigan State.
26. Over-reliance upon past practices and on
the status-quo are very detrimental.
27.
If the team is to provide quality service
in terms of creative and innovative thinking aimed
at the resolution of problems, it must be demo­
cratically based. Membership should not be defined
in terms of superiors and subordinates.

Ill
28. Most detrimental and inhibiting to the
team is the maintenance of the traditional
professor-student relationship between the
director and team members.
29.

The survey team was a joke.

Suggestions for improvement or change.
1. Include graduate students from curriculum,
elementary education, guidance, and the arts
along with professors from these areas.
2. Team coordinator should be open, flexible,
able to make decisions, have respect for others,
be able to write, and present himself well.
3. Should be part of the program for more
people.
4.

Deeper utilization of broader staff.

5. Team should have regularly scheduled
seminars with the coordinator and all assigned
professors present.
6. Team should always get a clear charge
from the school system on what is desired.
7. In the contract provide for part-time
employment in the school district for one team
member so that he can get to the real problems
and can do the "on the site" research and data
gathering needed by sub-committees, team members,
and professors.
8.

Should be at end of Ph.D. program.

9. Enlarge the operation so that members
are involved in more than one area of study.
10. Accepting responsibility and working with
other team members is most important— with faculty
help and support when needed.
11. Course work prevents living there but
university could plan administration courses to
work this out.

112

12. University professor heading the team is
the critical person.
He should be truly fine,
well-rounded educator.
13. Experience gained was most positive but
I'd have gained more by living in the community
for several weeks during the study.
14. Every member of the team should have been
a participant in the extern program.
This would
facilitate communication within the team and
between the team and constituents being served.
15. There should be more explicit evaluation
of the team and its functioning by the members
of the team— students and professors.
16. Move the district staff toward level of
skill in planning so they can work primarily
independently.
17. Should be part of the program for
curriculum majors.
18. The team should be formed to provide
educative experience first and be given money
to do this. Contracts should train students
first and serve schools second.
19. Team should utilize its energies in
constructive, brief, and relevant diagnostic
data gathering.
(Not worry about formal report.)
Should then provide appropriate resources to
implement significant and on-going relevant
change in that system with on-going diagnostic
evaluation.
20. Should assist the school district in the
resolution of immediate problems.
21. We are requiring all first year students
to spend a quarter in this area and then choose
our assistants from second year students.
Our
feedback has been most positive.
22. The major defect in the survey team
approach rested in the notion of the "lack of
follow-up." I urge that team members be dropped
off along with each survey, that the specified

113
members be assigned follow-up tasks to insure
the feasibility of implementation of the survey
recommendations.
23. Lay citizens and professional personnel
must be actively involved in data analysis and
decision making.
24. Provide field experiences for other
graduate students as a required part of their
professional work.
25. A complete survey should be assigned to
each person sometime during the experience.
It
would provide extremely important organizational
experience.
26. Professor-coordinator should lend
continuity to these studies and develop skill
and strength in the position.
27. Build into the school district staff
skills and understanding for continued futureoriented decision making.
28. The educational program should always be
considered no matter the focus of the study.
29. Assign a full professor as team coordinator
to insure adequate attention and continuity to the
Field Service Team.
30. Provide other non-study oriented activities.
Trips to and/or work in Atlantic City (AASA), AASA
office in D.C., U.S. Office of Education, Michigan
State Department of Education, etc.
31.

Grant credit for report writing.

32.

Increase the pay but don't give credit.

33. Pull in student team members from other
areas as:communications t psychology, sociology,
labor relations. Grant course credit for team
activities and reports.
34. The director should be a leader who
encourages new ideas and creative thinking among
team members. He should be one of several equals
on the team.

114
35. Team should contribute to growth of
members and should make a genuine contribution
to education.
36.
years.

Members should serve on team for two

37. More emphasis should be placed on the
training of team members in business management
functions.
38. Let the team hire faculty consultants
as they need them r a t h e r t h a n appointing members.
Get the team working with the department rather
than department working the team. Could be a
fantastic experience if done this wayl
39. Get one director for continuity and team
members with diversified backgrounds and gusto.
40. More and varied contracts should be
secured often for longer than a year.
Summary of comments.

The comments ranged from

highly positive ones to strongly negative ones.

This was

to be expected as each respondent was reacting on the
basis of his individual perspective and value system.
Therefore, the recurring patterns of disagreement or
difference of opinion drawn from the whole population
were treated as significant.
Clearly conflicting opinions related to the value
of the recommendations to school systems and to their
clarity and practicality, to the kind and amount of leader­
ship given to the team by its director, to the value of
the team experience as it was currently organized, to
whether or not the education of the graduate student was

115
more important than service to school systems, to faculty
commitment to the team concept* to the philosophical
question of the respective values of the "expert" or the
citizen survey* and to the amount and period of time
graduate students served as team members.
These differences of opinion which became apparent
from the investigation were given consideration and were
evaluated.
Statistical Analysis
Since the complete population of former School
Survey Team members was surveyed* any differences found
in this study were considered real differences.

However*

as there may be a desire to apply this data to future
populations* statistical analysis was applied.

This

analysis gave a feeling for the reliability of the results
of this study.
The mean values for both the value of the experi­
ence and the effect of the experience

(change) were

computed for each of the ten areas for each individual
respondent.

This data was punched onto IBM cards and

the mean of means was determined by the computer for each
of the ten major areas.
Of the thirty-five respondents* seven indicated
that they had participated in each of the eighty-three
administrative experiences.

The data for these seven

116
respondents was processed separately on the computer.
Figure 1 shows two graphs demonstrating a marked similarity
between the responses of all subjects and the seven
selected subjects.
A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance
was run on the seven selected subjects since they appeared
representative of the thirty-five subjects.

These seven

subjects were the only ones who had a response in each
cell which is required for this particular test.

The

analysis of variance on the seven subjects showed signifi­
cant differences across the ten general administrative
areas.

It supported the evidence that the value to the

individual was greater than the effect upon the individual.
The significance of value to effect was above the .05
level.

Relevant results of the analysis of variance are

presented on Table X X V I .
The values of auxiliary services and staff rela­
tions ranked generally below all others in value and
effect and indicated a need for a close look at the
administrative experiences listed and the importance of
these two areas in the training program for school
administrators.
In addition , Figure 2 shows the interaction of
the means across the ten areas for the thirty-five
respondents and for the seven selected subjects in the

Value

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A,

Effect

A

A

A

A

A

A

seven subjects
all subjects
FIGURE 1
SIMILARITY BETWEEN SAMPLE AND POPULATION

118
TABLE XXVI
SELECTED RELEVANT DATA ON ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE
Source

Degrees of
freedom

Sum of
squares

Mean
square

F

Areas

9

831.45

92.38

2.15*

Value-effeet

1

1433.60

1433.60

10.47*

Area x value-effect

9

215.12

23.90

*Signifleant at .05 level.
**Signifleant at .01 level.

14.58**

119
sample.

The analysis of variance test showed significant

interaction above the .05 level.

Value to the person

overall was higher than effect for each area but it was
much greater for some areas than others.

Interaction

based on seven subjects was not representative of the
total population and may have been an artifact of the
small sample size.

120

4.0

2.5
2.0
1.5
A

A

A

o-

-o value

X-

-x effect

A

A

A

A

A

A,

baaed on 7

-« value

baaed on all 35

-+ effect
FIGURE 2
INTERACTION BETWEEN SAMPLE AND POPULATION

A 10

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Summary
The purpose of this study was to collect, analyze,
and interpret the effects of the School Survey Team
experience upon the total population of former team
members who have served on the team at Michigan State
University since 1960.

A second purpose was to ascertain

the implications for improvement of the experience and to
present recommendations for further development of this
approach to training educational administrators as sug­
gested by the findings of this study.

The study acquired

its data from approximately 95 percent of the total popula­
tion.

The data were collected by means of a detailed

questionnaire followed by interviews with a selected sample
of respondents.
This study was primarily normative survey-type
research supported by statistical analysis which provided
a basis for further research and which gave a feeling for
the reliability of the results of this study.

It was a

canvass of the experiences in which the individuals and

121

122

groups participated and of their perceptions of the value
and effect of these experiences upon them.

In addition,

a further section of the questionnaire considered other
data related to the School Survey Team experience.
An analysis of related literature in Chapter I
traced the development of the school survey movement and
of training programs for school administrators.

By 1950,

these two movements had several common purposes which
included service to school systems and service to advanced
graduate students in educational administration.

Within a

decade Michigan State University joined numerous other
universities in using the School Survey Team as a device
to give broad training in the tasks of educational leader­
ship.
Excluding the present team members, thirty-seven
persons have served on the School Survey Team at Michigan
State University.

Thirty-one

(88.6 percent) of the members

joined the survey team with some prior administrative
experience and 80 percent of them served on the team for
at least one academic year.

The largest group of respond­

ents was between age thirty and thirty-four and the vast
majority of them were in their sixth year of study or
beyond.

They were experienced, mature, exposed in depth

to team activities, and well-advanced in their graduate
studies.

123
The thirty-five respondents reported that they had
experienced 45.8 percent of the eighty-three listed
administrative experiences.

Five of the ten areas had

percentages above the mean of all experiences (45.8 per­
cent) .

The two which were significantly higher than the

rest were demography
(66.3 percent).
services

(70.7 percent) and school plant

The two lowest percentages were auxiliary

(22.9 percent) and business management and

practices

(21.4 percent).

The top fourteen activities were engaged in by
more than two-thirds of the respondents.

These fourteen

experiences came from only four of the ten major areas of
administration which were surveyed.

The four major areas

were demographic, school plant, finance, and curriculum
and instruction.

Further, thirty-nine activities were

participated in by at least 50 percent of the former
School Survey Team members.
The former interns were asked to express a value
judgment for each activity experienced and a judgment
concerning the effect of the experience.

"Little or no

value or effect" was assigned a point value of one, "some
value or effect" was assigned a point value of three,
while "much value or effect" was assigned a value of
five.

This procedure allowed for the computation of a

single value index and a single effect index for each
experience.

124
The number reporting, and the computed means for
both value and effect are reported on Table XVII.
Experiences reported totaled 1331.

Means were computed

for each of the ten major areas as well as for the complete
table.

The overall point value derived for the judged

value of the eighty-three experiences was 3.7 while the
point value derived for the effect was 3.0.

The highest

values in both value and effect were given to the area of
community relations while demography, which had the highest
incidence of participation by individuals, followed very
closely.

The lowest values both in value and effect were

in staff relations and in auxiliary services.
Forty-four of the eighty-three experiences were
rated at or above the mean for value (3.7) and fifty-two
experiences were rated above the mean for effect (3.0) .
Community relations, finance, and demography had more
scores above the mean in both value and effect than any
of the other areas.

Auxiliary services had no scores for

the individual experiences above the mean score in either
value or effect.
The two highest individual administrative experi­
ences in both value and effect were participating in a
follow-up report with lay citizens and relating curriculum
to time, facilities, and personnel.

There were only six

of the experiences which were rated more highly in effect

125
than In value.

These included relating curriculum to

time, facilities, and personnel, proposing personnel
policies, studying professional preparation of adminis­
trators, studying general fund expenditures by budget
category, organising or reorganizing the business
department, and developing businesslike purchasing
procedures.
Further information and evaluation of the values
and effects of the team experience was available based
upon opinions expressed in the "Related Data" and in the
interview sessions.
From this data it was found that 87.9 percent of
the respondents felt that the survey team experience came
at an appropriate time in the graduate studies.

Earlier

data showed that this was at the beginning of the sixth
year of study or later.
Nearly seven tenths of the respondents felt that
the team experience came at the proper time in their
professional lives.

This fact combined with their indica­

tion that the experience came at the proper time in their
academic program supported the relevance of the experience
to the participants.
All respondents indicated that the School Survey
Team experience provided them with a continuing desire to
remain in educational administration.

They indicated

126
further that not only did they change positions after the
training but also that the training was important in
bringing about the change in position.

These responses

provided support for positive effects on individuals
derived from team experience.
Since the School Survey Team was "to assist
individuals in meeting practical problems and in applying
solutions,” respondents were asked to evaluate whether or
not the team experience bridged the gap between theory
and practice and further whether it reformulated their
theories of education.
(91.1 percent)

Support was clearly given

that the experiences helped to bridge the

gap between theory and practice but support was not over­
whelming

(57.1 percent)

for the experience causing re­

formulation of educational theories.

These responses

clearly support the higher totals on the value of the
experience as compared to the effect of the experience.
Other general reactions to the School Survey Team
experience indicated that the former team members felt
that team experiences were better than course work and
generally supported giving course credit for it.

Second,

they indicated that the program was appropriately broad
in its scope and gave strong support (91.1 percent) for
recommending this to others as a means of receiving a
meaningful training in educational administration.

Strong

127
support was indicated for field experiences in graduate
training programs in educational administration.
As a final assessment of value, former team
members were asked to rank order a list of eight broad
general experiences that all team members encountered
while engaged in survey team activities.

Sharing experi­

ences and problems with other team members ranked highest.
Benefiting from working with professors in the College of
Education ranked second.

This was supported earlier in

this study when 86.2 percent of the respondents indicated
that this relationship was of much value to them.

Gather­

ing comprehensive data on a community and relating this to
the solution of educational problems and working on
practical problems and suggesting solutions followed
closely in third and fourth positions.

Receiving individ­

ual assistance from the survey team director was ranked
last of the eight general experiences.
The questionnaire and the interviews provided
opportunities to make additional comments on any aspect
of the School Survey Team experience.

There were twenty-

one positive comments, thirty-one negative comments and
thirty-six suggestions for improvement or change.

The

suggestions for improvement or change were generally
supportive statements so that combined with clearly
positive statements the total reaction to the training

128
experience was quite positive.

Value and effect are not

questioned overall but: structure of the team and its
operation are.
Positive comments stressed that the experience
should be part of every administrator's experience, gave
broad experience in dealing with people and with practical
problems, provided a sounding board for ideas, taught that
money is not a sound base for educational decisions, gave
valuable opportunities for interchange with other team
members and professors, and kept contact open with real
problems allowing profitable transfer of training.
Negative comments concerned the unreality of
suggestions made to school systems, the superficiality
of contacts with persons and problems in school systems,
the frequent changes of leadership at the University
level, the failure to use resources from other departments
or disciplines, lack of dedication of professors assigned
to work with the team, and the separation by status
between team members and professors.
The comments regarding improvements or change
suggested deeper utilization of broader staff, broader
involvement of a greater number of graduate students-intraining, regular seminars for team members and assigned
professors to discuss problems and solutions, opportunities
for team members to live and work in communities for

129
several weeks at a time, thoroughly well-rounded, stable,
and competent leadership, more involvement of local staff
in studies, and thorough involvement in the follow-up of
the studies.
Conclusions
Based upon an analysis of the findings of this
investigation, the following conclusions are presented:
— that the optimal age for serving on the team
was between twenty-five and thirty-nine years of age.
— that advanced graduate status and prior
administrative experience did not prevent the team
experience from being a valuable one.
— that the team experience exposed team members
to a great variety of different activities.
— that the team experience provided broad general
training in the areas of educational administration.
— that every team member was involved in nearly
half (45.8 percent) of the eighty-three possible experi­
ences during his membership on the team indicating broad
exposure to administrative concerns.
— that the team experience had no detrimental
effect on the desire to continue in the profession as
educational administrators.

130
— that the team experience in the opinion of the
respondents provided more broad experience and training
than did course work.
— that course credit should be granted for survey
team activities.
— that the opportunity to be in a close working
relationship with the University and its professors was
valued highly by participants.
— that the team experience fostered a feeling of
closeness to the University among individual members.
— that the field experience as perceived by team
members resulted in increased status and better profes­
sional positions.
— that the team experience provided broadest
training exposure to team members in the areas of
demography, school

plant, and finance.

— that the experience provided thefewest

training

experiences in the areas of auxiliary services and business
management and practices.
— that the most valued general area of experience
in combination with the one which effected most change was
community relations.
--that the two specific activities of the eightythree listed which had the highest values and effects
related to community involvement and to curriculum and
instruction.

131
— that the least valued general area of
administration was auxiliary services.
— that the greatest general value to the individ­
ual derived from the team experience was sharing experi­
ences and problems with other team members.
— that the least general value to the individual
derived from the team experience was receiving individual
assistance from the survey team director.
— that the team experience assisted in narrowing
the gap between theory and practice.
— that the team experience had a positive effect
on the perceptions, approaches, and philosophy of former
team members.
— that the

survey team served both to use strengths

of team members and to broaden backgrounds of

team members.

— that the respondents clearly valued this approach
to training advanced graduate students in educational
administration.
— that the team experience was highly valued as a
means to implement

professional growth and to increase

competencies.
— that nearly all (91.1 percent) of the former
team members would recommend this training experience
to others.

132
— that the team experience has proved to be a
natural laboratory for training advanced graduate students
in field problems.
— that not all former team members found the team
experience worthwhile for them.
— that the recommendations made to school systems
sometimes were lacking in value, clarity, and practicality.
— that the philosophy and goals of the team
experience needed to be clarified as to the team's
primary purpose.
— that the length of time spent on the team and
the appropriate period during graduate studies for team
experiences should be evaluated.
— that the School Survey Team should be continued
but be re-examined as to organization, staffing, and
financing.
Recommendations for Changing
the School Survey Team
Experience
The many positive effects of the School Survey
Team experience have appeared repeatedly throughout this
study.

The findings of this investigation also included

significant negative comments as well as many recommenda­
tions to restructure the team experience to meet the needs
of the decade of the Seventies.

This being so, recommenda­

tions were developed relating to organization, staff,

133
finance, program, and further research with graduate
students, the College of Education, and school systems
fully in mind.

The recommendations are as follows

beginning with the broad category of organization of the
School Survey Team:
1.

A clear philosophy and purposes should be

prepared in the near future for the School Survey Team.
The team should be so organized as to include professors
and team members from other departments and other disci­
plines.

The structure of the team should be tightened and

regular meetings should be scheduled for team members, the
Director, other consulting professors, and the Chairman of
the department in order to discuss relevant issues and to
facilitate evaluation.

All general studies of school

systems should be based on curriculum and instruction as
the first focus with the studies of the other major func­
tions of the school system emanating from this central
core.

Team activities should be so organized as to allow

thorough study, lay and staff involvement, periodic and
general evaluation, and definite follow-up services to the
school system.

This would require longer and more

carefully scheduled studies and contracts.
2.

The School Survey Team should be enlarged to

add significantly to the number of team members who are
trained.

It should be staffed with team members from a

134
variety of departments and disciplines who could be
scheduled to spend brief working internships in the
communities being served in order to gather data and to
get to know the communities well.

The survey team

Director should be assigned full-time to the School Survey
Team and should remain as its Director over a period of
years.

This Director should be open, flexible, able to

make decisions, able to write and to speak well, and be
supportive of new ideas and innovations.

The survey team

staff should have the prerogative of employing professors
and other staff members as their expertise is needed by
the team.
3.

The School Survey Team should receive expanded

financial assistance from the College of Education and
from other Colleges that have members on the team for
training purposes.

As the team grows and its power and

value to school systems becomes more widespread, school
systems should be charged higher fees.

More financial

autonomy should be given to the team and its Director in
order to establish more flexible guidelines for hiring
consultants.

The University should work for the team as

well as the team for the University.
4.

The value of the team experience to the

individual graduate student trainee is of prime importance.
Since experiences in two general areas of administration

135
were met by so few team members, it is recommended that
the relevance and importance of these two areas in training
educational administrators be carefully examined and
evaluated to determine their place in the program of the
future.

Further, it is recommended that human relation­

ships be examined to minimize the professor-student
relationship and to foster a team feeling.
5.

Value to the hiring school systems is an

important consideration, too.

Studies should make

recommendations to school systems that are operationally
achievable and are fitted to the needs of the individual
school system.

Facing social realities within the school

community must be one of the duties of the team.

Being

immersed in the implementation and follow-up of the school
survey report is felt to be basic and should be spelled
out in the contract so that the team may give further
supporting services.
6.

Finally, the School Survey Team experience

should be evaluated thoroughly again within the next few
years.

Recommendations are not made now for changing the

age level, training level, or experience level of the
entering survey team member but the requirements of a
School Survey Team in the next decade cannot be accurately
predicted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Almack, John C . (ed.). Modern School Administration.
Boston:
Houghton, 1933.
American Association of School Administrators. The
American School Superintendency. Thirty-firs't
Yearbook. Washington, D.ti.: AASA, 1952.
The Case for On-Campus Residence.
AASA,' TfiTffT.
-------------

Washington,

Professional Administrators for America's
Schools'! Thirty-eighth Yearbook. Washington, b . C . :
AAS A 7 T 9 6 0 .
Barnard, Henry. Report on the Conditions and Improvements
of the Public Schools of Rhode tsiand. Providence:
B. c!r a m ton and C o . , 1846.
Blair, Lyle, and Madison Kuhn. A Short History of
Michigan State. East Lansing!
Michigan State
College P r ess, 1955.
Campbell, Roald F. The Organization and Control of
American Schools" Columbus, O h i o : C. E. Merrill
Books, 1965.
______ , and Richard C. Lonsdale (eds.). Administrative
Behavior in Education.
New York: Harper and Brothers,
Publishers, 1957.---Coladarci, Arthur P., and Jacob W. Getzels.
The Use of
Theory in Educational Administration. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, 1955.
Ebel, Robert L. (ed.).
Research. 4th ed.

Encyclopedia of Educational
New Y o r k : Macmillan d o ., T969.

136

137
Good, Carter V. How to Do Research in Education.
Baltimore: Warwick and York, 1928.
________ , and Douglas E. Scates. Methods of Research.
New Y o r k : Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954*
Graff, Orin B . , and Calvin M. Street.
Improving Competence
in Educational Administration. New York: Harper and
Brothers, Publishers, 19^6.
Halpin, Andrew W. The Leadership Behavior of School
Superintendents'! Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, University of Chicago, 1959.
Hannah, John A. Hannah Speeches.
Michigan State College, 1$4<>.

East Lansing, Michigan:

Harris, Chester W. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Educational
Research. 3d ed. New Y o r k : Macmillan C o ., 1960.
Hensarling, Paul R. Handbook for the Supervision of the
Intern in School Administration. College Station,
Texas: Innovative Resources, Inc., 1969.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Toward Improved School Administration. Battle Creek, Michigan: The Foundation,

imr.

—

Landes, Jack L., and Merle R. Sumption.
Citizens Workbook
for^Evaluatlng School Buildings. New York: Harper,
L e u , Donald J., and Herbert C. Rudman (eds.). Preparation
Programs for School Administrators. East Lansing,
Michigan: College of Education, Michigan State
University, 1963.
McCleary, Lloyd E., and Stephen P. Hencley.
Secondary
School Administration. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1965.
Mouly, George J. The Science of Educational Research.
New Y o r k : American Boole <io., 19^3.
National Citizens Commission for the Public Schools.
How Can We Organize for Better Schools? Washington,
D . C .: The Commission, 1953.

138
National Soolaty for the Study of Education.
Plane for
Organizing School Surveve. Thirteenth Yearbook,
Part i i . Bloomington/ TXlinois: Public School
Publishing Co., 1914.
________ . The Scientific Movement in Education. Thirtyseventh Yearbook, Part II. Chicago: N£»SE, 1938.
Noll, Victor H. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan
State University. East Lansing: College of Education,
Michigan State Univers ity, 1968.
Sears, Jesse B.
1925.

The School Survey.

Boston:

Houghton,

Sumption, Merle R. How to Conduct a Citizens School
Survey. New YorJcI Prentice-Hall, 1952.
Periodicals
Anderson, W. A.
"New Plan for Training School Adminis­
trators," School Review, LX (September, 1952),
324-325.
Campbell, Roald F.
"Research and the Selection and
Preparation of School Administrators," Educational
Research Bulletin, XXXV (February, 1956), 29-33.
Katz, Robert L.
"Skills of an Effective Administrator,"
Harvard Business Review, XXXIII (January, 1955),
33-42.-----------------Merton, R. K., and Patricia Kendall.
"The Focused
Interview," American Journal of Sociology, LI
(May, 1946) ,T5T:-----------------Neale, M. G . , and Otto E. Domian.
"Field Service for
School Districts at the University of Minnesota,"
School Board Journal, CXXII (June, 1951), 19-21.
Newell, Clarence A., and Robert Will.
"What Is An
Internship?" School and Society, LXXV (December,
1951) , 358-365":
Pingrey, Jennie L.
"Program Provisions for Professional
Preparation," Teachers College Record, LIII
(January, 1952)7 211-213.
11--------

139
Powers, F. R.
"A New Breed on the Way," Kentucky School
Journal, XXXXVI (October, 1967), 20-21.
Ramseyer, John A.
"Administrative Program Development,”
Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVII (April, 1956), 299-303.
Reller, Theodore L.
"Shall He Have a Status, Deliberative,
or Implementative Study of Our Schools7" American
School Board Journal, CIV (May, 1942), 1-12.
Sieber, S. D.
"The Case of the Misconstrued Technique,"
Phi Delta Kappan, IL (January, 1968), 273-276.
Unpublished Works
Boicourt, Gerald W.
"The Construction and Analysis of a
Guide for Evaluating Elementary School Buildings and
Sites in Citizen School Surveys." Unpublished Doctor's
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1953.
Brieve, Fred.
"A Follow-up Study of Selected Contract
Field Studies Conducted in Various Michigan Public
Schools by Michigan State University." Unpublished
Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963.
Brubaker, Leonard Arden.
"A Study of the Preparation
Programs for Educational Administrators at the Eight
CPEA Centers." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1960.
Campbell, Clyde M.

Personal interview.

January 21, 1970.

Early, William J.
"An Evaluation and Analysis of the
Extern Program at Michigan State University."
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963.
Giddis, William James.
"A Study of the Methods and Pro­
cedures Used in the School Survey Services at Michigan
State University and Other Publicly Supported Big Ten
Universities." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1964.
Midjaas, Carl L.

Personal interview.

January 30, 1970.

Roe, W. H.
"Interoffice Memorandum— Field Service Team
Concept." East Lansing, Michigan: College of
Education, Michigan State University, 1960.
(Mimeographed.)

APPENDIX A
SAMPLE LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

140

MICHIGAN

STATE

UNIVERSITY

i-ajt laniing

- Michigan

hum

Of EDUCATION * DiPAJITMAKT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIOHRft EDUCATION
UUCKtON HAU
A p a r t m e n t 2 -A
5946 Bois lie Drive
Haslett, Michigan 48840
D e c e m b e r 19,
1969

Dear
This

study

is

being

conducted

in

order

to

evaluate

the

School Survey Team as a training device
in educational
administration at Michigan State University.
We believe this
to be a useful study and p a r t i c u l a r l y that your experiences
as a member of the School S u rvey T e a m m a y a i d in improving
programs for training educational a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Although the number of former m e m b e r s of the School Survey
Team has grown steadily over the last decade,
there are still
less than fifty persons w h o have served on the team.
Therefore,
it is of g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e t h a t t h e r e s p o n s e s of e a c h of y o u be
included.
From this retu r n it is our i n t e n t i o n to d etermine
the experiences, values,
and c h a n g e s w h i c h g r e w out of School
Survey Team service and to propose recommendations and program
changes.
The questionnaire has been de v e l o p e d in such a way that
only check marks are required as responses
for the most part.
Completing it should require n o m o r e
than twenty-five minutes.
Your c ooperation in answ e r i n g as m u c h of the total questionnaire
as p o ssible will be appreciated.
Your reply will be kept
s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d n o i n d i v i d u a l w i l l b e n a m e d in the
report of the research.
R e s p o n s e s w i l l be u s e d o n l y for the
purposes of statistical analysis.
Your signature m a y be added
to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e if y o u w i s h s o t h a t t he re s u l t s of the
study M y
be shared with you.
Your cooperation in c o m p l e t i n g a n d
questionnaire at your earliest c onvenien
appreciated.
A self-addressed envelope
use.
Thank you for your h e l p and assista

returning the attached
ce will be greatly
is i n c l u d e d for y o u r
nce.

Sincerely,

Richard

J.

R i c h a r d L.
Chairman

Williams

Featherstone

141
AN EVALUATION OF THE SCHOOL SURVEY
TEAM EXPERIENCE AS A TRAINING DEVICE IN EDUCATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
INSTRUCTIONS
Column B contains a list of experiences which a
School Survey Team member might have while serving on the
School Survey Team.

Please check in Column A whether or

not you had the experience as a team member.

If you check

"No" in Column A, do not answer Column C and D.
Please express in Column C your opinion as to the
value of each of the experiences checked HYesM in Column A.
This evaluation should be an expression of the value of
these areas as experienced by a School Survey Team member.
In Column D, please indicate to what extent the
experience effected change in your perceptions, approaches,
and philosophy.
The final section of the questionnaire will serve
to provide broad information about the complete population
of former School Survey Team members.

142

No
M

°S
+> >
*>

3S
(chi c k
I

(chi c k

oi ia)
CURRICULUM

AND

INSTRUCTION

1

Examining couraa offaring*
alamantary achool laval

at

2

Examining couraa offaringa
high achool laval

at

3

Recommending
taxtbooka

adoption

4

Recommending
aubjacta

initiation

5

Racoonanding
Diatributiva

naw programa
Education)

(aa

6

Racaoaending organization
curriculum coordination

for

7

Viaiting

8

Attanding
maatinga

9

Davaloping a philoaophy
achool ayatam

of

naw

of

naw

claaarooma
curriculum

coomiittaa

objactivaa

of

tha

10

Davaloping
curriculum

11

Racoaaaanding i n - a # r v i c #
aducation programa

12

Racoaaaanding n a w a d u c a t i o n a l
groupinga of atudanta by aga
o r g r a d a (aa m i d d l a - a c h o o l o r
non-gradad arrangamanta)

13

Studying olaaa aiaa aa
factor in inatruotion

14

Relating curriculum to t i n a ,
facilitiaa, and paraonnal

IS

Othara

(apacify)

of

a

§
H

>

>

H
a

•-* a

V

s

?
o n •)

1

Little
or
no c h a n g e

Yaa

Effact of
Exparianca

Valua
Judgment

Adminiatrative Experience

„
§.

Had
Experience

.a1
u

iu
A

1
eck

i
o na )

143

Had
Exparianca

II
1

Value
Judgment

Effect of
Exparianca

PERSONNEL
Evaluating
Proposing

ADMINISTRATION

personnel
personnel

policies
policies

3

Studying professional
t ion of t aachara

4

Studying professional prepara­
tion of administrators
Recommending

Job

prepara­

descriptions

6

Devising orientation
for personnel

7

Preparing criteria
of teachers

for

selection

8

Preparing criteria
administrators

for

selecting

9

Others

programs

(specify)

III

FINANCE

1

Assessing financial
of community

2

Studying

3

Preparing financial information
for millaga campaigns

4

Evaluating
schedules

5

Proposing
schedules

revisions

of

4

Exeadning
schools

financial

effort

school

resources

indebtedness

existing

salary

salary

for

Little
or
no v a l u e
oi

3
H

3
H

5

s

~
§•

No

Yea

(ch< i c k

Administrativa Exparianca

•ck

3

A

a

X
o is)

n e
o e>
o S

r* A
■h

u
o

c

e
o>

s.

I 1
0

u

1

A
3
x

( c l i e c k <p ne)

144

A

B

Had
Experience
Ym

C

Mnlniitzatlva Experience

Valiw
Jadpant

MO

D
ifftot of
UprlMwt

1! Hi 1
s 1 32 !
1

32
(cha c k

(eh< ic k o
7

Studying i t t U
valuation

8

Examining millaga
variod purpoaaa

9

Studying
tures by

loviad

for

ganaral fund expendi­
budget category

10

Evaluating
reporta

11

Coogniting

12

Others

IV

aquilind

and

per

analysing

pupil

atate

costs

(specify)

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
purchasing

AND

1

Studying

policy

2

Suggesting
purchasing

3

Studying

4

Suggesting
accounting

5

Organising or reorganising
business departaMnt

S

Developing
purchasing

7

Analysing the expenditures
the school district

•

Studying
needs

•

Others (specify)

reorganisation
policies

accounting

of

procedures

improvements
procedures

in

business-like
procedures

equipawnt

and

of

supply

i

o n •i

(ch s c k

o

IS)

145

C

Tee

MilnHtrttlfd teperiemoe

Me

s
*8 ?

(OlMmil osr1
V

SCHOOL

PLANT

school

sites

Selecting

2

Evaluating

school

3

Suggesting

new

4

Suggesting modifications
existing facilities

of

S

Projecting
needs

housing

4

Determining the
requirements of

7

Evaluating
plans

•

Suggesting changes
utilisation

t

Surveying plant
smintenance
Otters

school

future

of

sites
plants

school

educational
a new building

building

in

and

plant

operation

and

(specify)

vx

ADXXLXAMr SBSVXCM

X

Pvslostlsg trssspsrtatlss

2

site

Stteylsg trstepertatlee
fSlisiM

3

4

•MPSllaf

•

BvslMtlaf eMistimp eeteel

«

flMppsstlf msM sstesl l a e e *
policies ate practises

m s

hassiai petteems

Effect of
Experience

i§H

U0
O

i
i
38 1 i

38

(chiI C k

1

10

value
Judgment

oir

W

8.

i0

change

■ad

Bsperlemoe

O

1

Much

»

tee k c

!
•

A

146

Had
Exparianca
Tee

Mo
*3
• **4
M 0
4* >
4*

11
s
t
JI 1i
s

8

>

8

38
(ohack o pa)

(eli ick « *)
Othare (epacify)

7

COMKJNITY ABLATIONS

VI1
1

Participating in mi11age
canpaigna

2

Participating in follow-up of
achool eurvey report with lay
citiaene

3

Participating in progreea
reporting

4

Serving aa fcanporary chairman of
lay atudy ooanittee

S

Attending PTA mootings

<

Conducting public opinion
aurvey

7

Organising lay and profeeaional
groups for participation in
educational planning

0

Others (epacify)

vxzx

STAPP EBLATXONt

1

Meoeaaaaadlag additional
teaching paraonnal to raduoa
claaa sise

2

Aacaonaading additional
■dilnlatratlva paraonnal

2

Participating in progress
reporta to ataff

4

Effect of
Experience

value
Judgment

Adninietrative Exparianca

Participating in aurvey
1 f o H w < e p report to etaf f

1

4*

38
_
(C tack me )

147

M

B

C

h i
Administrative
Tm

value
J u i p m t

B x p a r i m a

NO

*•4

• H

3

5

§

(ctl • c k
S oliciting suggestions for
improvement or change from
teachers and administrators

6

C o o p e r a t i n g in p r e p a r i n g
job d e s c r i p t i o n s for a d m i n i s ­
trative personnel

7

Developing
schedules

staff

•

Developing
sick leave
betief i t s

policies regarding
and other fringe

t

Others

s

s
H

3 2

5

i f f M t of
h p i r i M M

s s

z >

(eh) |«k «M • )

D

1
o ne)

w s
o e>
i !
* o
2 2

!0

f
u
j:

1

(cln e c k

u

5
<a n e )

salary

------(specify)

SCHOOL

IX

BOARD

RELATIONS

I

Soliciting suggestions
board members

a

Keeping the
progress

3

Advising the
i n f o r m t ion

4

Participating
survey

S

others

board

informed

board

in

from

on

policy

follow-up

(specify)

O M O O M P N I C
X

Projecting
enrollment

2

N o m e riling p o e t
figures

3

Tabulating
_

futere

eoheol

enrol leant

housing
■

starts
—

of

148

A

B

Had
Experience
Yea

C

D

Value
Administrative Experience

Effect of
Experience

Judgment

NO

°s
mh

h m
4* >

8

8
•H

5

S

4J

38
(ClMw h OfM)
4

1

(ch eck oine)
Analyzing community population
trends

S

Studying nonwhite-whito
population ratios

«

Examining economic characteris­
tics of the area

7

Interpreting land use
information

a

Interpreting socio-economic
characteristics

•

Others

(specify)

1
20

«!
U
■H O
^ e

43

I

1

(chkeck cine)

149
RELATED DATA
1.

THE POSITION WHICH I
ON THE SCHOOL SURVEY

HELD IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SERVING
TEAM WAS:

(Check the o m
position.)

most accurately describes the

which

1 ____ Superintendent of Schools
2 _____ Assistant Superintendent
3 ____ Business Manager
Assistant Superintendent in charge of business
Curriculum Director
Director of guidance or other district-wide
department
High School Principal
Assistant High School Principal
Junior High School Principal
10 ____ Elementary Principal
1
2.

Other

(please specify) __________________________

THE LENGTH OF TIME SPENT AS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL
IURVEY TEAM WAS:
Less than one quarter
One quarter
Tun quarters

Tilres quarters

Five quarters
Six quarters
Mere than six quarters

o

.

THE YEAR OR YEARS OF MY SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE
WAS:
1 ____ 1960-1961
2 ____ 1961-1962
3 ____ 1962-1963

4 ____ 1963-1964
5 ____ 1964-1965
6 ____ 1965-1966
7 ____ 1966-1967
8 ____ 1967-1968
9

____ 1968-1969

AT THE START OF MY SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCES MY
AGE WAS:
1 ____ Lass than 25
2 ____ 25-29
3 ____ 30-34

4 ____ 35-39
5 ____ 40-44

6 ______ 45-Over

i m M O M M A OF YEARS SINCE MY LAST EXPERIENCE AS A
TBAM M M M R
1

2 ^ ^

IS:

Xa a s than one year

On* year

3

™

y m

4_

Tte** years

151
7 ____ Six years
• ____ Seven years
9 ____ Bight years
4.

DID A CHANGE OF POSITION OR STATUS TAXI FLACB
I M H D I A T E L Y AFTER YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A TEAM MBMBBR7
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

7.

IF YES, WAS THE SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE OF IMPORTANCE
IN PREPARING YOU FOR THIS PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

••

9.

AT THE TIME OF MY SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE THE FOLLOWING
NUMBER OF TERM HOURS OF MY GRADUATE STUDY BEYOND THE
MASTER'S DEGREE HAD BEEN COMPLETED:
1

Less than 10 hours

2

10 to 19 hours

3

20 to 29 hours

4

30 to 39 hours

5

40 to 49 hours

4

50 or more hours

IN MY OPINION MY SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE WAS SERVED:
1

At the proper time in my graduate program

2 _ _ _ Earlier in ay graduate program than it eheuld
have heen
2
IS.

Lator in my graduate program than it should
have heen

IN MY OPINION MY SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE WAS SERVED:
1 ____ At the proper time in my professional career

152
2 ____ Earlier in my professional career than it
should have been
3 ____ Later in my professional career than it
should have been
11.

AS A RESULT OF MY SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE, MY
DESIRE TO CONTINUE AND ADVANCE AS AN EDUCATIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR HAS:
1 ____ Increased
2 ____ Decreased
3 ____ Remained unchanged
4 ____ Changed to other related educational fields

12a.

IN YOUR OPINION DOES THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERI­
ENCE CONTRIBUTE TO A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE UNIVERSITY AND THE TEAM MEMBER?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No
3

12b.

Not determined

IF YES, OF'WHAT VALUE IS THIS RELATIONSHIP?
1

Little value

2

Some value

3

Much value

13 . MAS YOUR SERVICE ON THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM COMBINED
WITH BEING ON CAMPUS AT THE SAME TIME A MAJOR FACTOR
IN FINISHING YOUR DEGREE?
1 ____ Yes
2

No

3 ____ Have not completed my degree

153
14.

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE TO
ANOTHER SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

15.

IN YOUR OPINION WAS SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE BETTER
THAN COURSE WORK?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

16.

IN YOUR OPINION SHOULD COURSE CREDIT IN ADMINISTRATION
BE GIVEN FOR SERVING ON THE SURVEY TEAM?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

17.

DID YOU FEEL THAT SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCES
EMPHASIZED PREPARATION FOR THE SUPERINTENDENCY
RATHER THAN FOR OTHER POSITIONS IN EDUCATION?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

18.

IN YOUR OPINION SURVEY TEAM ASSIGNMENTS WERE:
1 ____ Individualized to utilize the strengths of
team members
2 ____ Individualized to broaden backgrounds of team
members
3

19.

Not individualized for team members.

DID THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE HELP TO BRIDGE
THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE?
1

Yes

2

No

154

20.

DID THE SCHOOL SURVEY TEAM EXPERIENCE HELP YOU TO
REFORMULATE YOUR THEORIES OF EDUCATION?
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

21.

BY USING NUMERALS, PLEASE LIST IN ORDER OF PRIORITY
THE VALUES OF THE FOLLOWING EXPERIENCES.
(One would
be the highest priority while eight would be the
lowest.)
1 ____ Receiving individual assistance
survey team director

from

the

2 ____ Benefiting from working with other professors
in the College of Education
3 ____

Sharing experiences with the survey team
Director

4 ____

Sharing experiences and problems with other
team members

5 ____ Working with school systems of differing sizes
and locations
6 ____ Working on problems reflecting every facet of
school administration

22.

7

Gathering comprehensive data on a community and
relating this to the solution of educational
problems

8

Working on practical problems and suggesting
solutions

IF CALLED UPON, I WILL MEET (AT MY CONVENIENCE) WITH
THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PERSONAL
INTERVIEW.
1 ____ Yes
2 ____ No

23.

PLEASE COMMENT ON ANY EXPERIENCES ON THE SURVEY TEAM
WHICH MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THIS EVALUATION.
PLEASE
RECOMMEND ANY CHANGES OR IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SCHOOL
SURVEY TEAM AS A TRAINING DEVICE IN EDUCATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION.

APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT
What do you feel was the primary purpose of the School
Survey Team?
To help school systems
To get professors into the field____
To train graduate students____
Other:

Do you feel that your unique abilities were well used
by the team Director and/or by the types of studies
in which you were involved?
Yes____
No ____
Comment:

How would you describe an ideal School Survey Team
Director?
One who builds confidence and respect___
One who is committed to the objectives of field
studies_
One who relates well with people____
One who has status in the Department of
Administration____
O ther:

How would you characterize the recommendations made
to school systems by the team?
Creative
Innovative
Practical
Appropriate
Other:

Dull
Behind the times
Bookish
Relevant
Unfulfilledcontract

How would you evaluate the contribution to you from
serving on the team?
Much
Some
Little

Excellent
Very Good
Good

Fair____
Poor____
Useless_

Other:

In reflecting back what stands out as most valuable in
the whole experience?
Working with professors__
Sharing with team members
Receiving help from the
Director
Working in districts of
varying sizes
Working on practical
problems

Sharing with the team
Director____
Working on problems
relating to all facets
of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n __
Gathering comprehensive
data

Other:

In retrospect, how would you change the experience if
you were the Director?

APPENDIX C
PERSONS INTERVIEWED

157
PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Clifford Bedore

Administrative Assistant and
Business Manager
Montcalm Community College
Sidney, Michigan

Richard W. Goodwin

Principal
Lincoln Elementary School
Pontiac, Michigan

J. Edward Green

Director, Off-Campus Affairs
College of Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Kenneth Oleen

Superintendent
Okemos Public Schools
Okemos, Michigan

Maurice Pelton

Director of Curriculum
Waterford Township Schools
Pontiac, Michigan

Marilyn Steele

Consultant
Mott Projects Office
Mott Foundation
Flint, Michigan