I

71-31,230
HOMES, Michael Jon, 1939THE K-12 CURRICULUM DIRECTOR IN MICHIGAN: HIS
CHARACTERISTICS, AND HIS SELF-PERCEPTIONS OF
LEADER BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO STAFF
DEVELOPMENT.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Sociology, general

University Microfilms, A XEROXCom pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THE K-12 CURRICULUM DIRECTOR IN MICHIGAN:

HIS

CHARACTERISTICS, AND HIS SELF-PERCEPTIONS
OF LEADER BEHAVIOR W I T H RESPECT TO
STAFF DEVELOPMENT

By
Michael Jon Homes

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education
and Curriculum
1971

ABSTRACT

THE K-12 CURRICULUM DIRECTOR IN MICHIGAN:
HIS
CHARACTERISTICS, AND HIS SELF-PERCEPTIONS
OF LEADER BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
By
Michael Jon Homes

The purposes of the study were to identify and de­
scribe

(1) selected general characteristics of the K-12

curriculum director in Michigan public schools; and

(2) the

self-perceptions he holds with respect to his behavior in
providing leadership for staff development as a specified
dimension of his responsibility and role.
The population to which the results of the study
were generalized was defined as that group of individuals
in K-12 public school districts in Michigan, exclusive of
the city of Detroit, having a specified responsibility for
providing leadership with respect to curriculum develop­
ment and instructional improvement.

These individuals

were identified by such titles as "Assistant Superintendent,
"Director," or "Curriculum Coordinator," w ith a specific
designation of responsibility for curriculum, instruction,
or both.

As the population was such that N-89, the total

membership was used for data gathering p u r p o s e s .

Michael Jon Homes
A General information Survey

(GIS) developed by

the researcher was used to gather the demographic data
about the curriculum director.

This instrument covered

four general categories of information:

Professional-

Experiential Background,School District Data, Professional
Position Data, and Staff Development Data.
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ)

developed by the Personnel Research Board at The Ohio State
University was used to measure the curriculum director's
"ideal-self" and "real-self" perceptions of leader behavior.
This instrument also provided measurements with respect to
the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
Seventy-one returns were received from the popula­
tion.

These represented a 79.8 percent response.

The data

collected were analyzed both descriptively and statistically.
A two-part computer program was used for the statistical
analysis of data from both instruments.

The demographic

data were also analyzed separately and reported in tabular
form.

A characteristics profile based on these data was

developed for the population.
The focus of the study centered on four objectives.
Objective O n e :

To describe the K-12 curriculum

director in Michigan public schools with respect to four
general categories of demographic data and develop a charac­
teristics profile from these data for the population.
Objective T w o :

To identify and describe the dif­

ferences in the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior

Michael Jon Homes
perceptions of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools with respect to his role in staff develop­
ment .
Objective T h r e e ;

To identify and describe the d i f ­

ferences in the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior
perceptions of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools with respect to his role in staff development within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE.
Objective F o u r ;

To examine the data obtained from

the General Information Survey

(GIS) and those obtained

from the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ)

with respect to the curriculum d i r e c t o r 's leader behavior
perceptions of his role in staff development, to note any
relationship between the variables of the respective in­
struments .
The following major findings are reported:
1.

The K-12 curriculum directorship in Michigan

public schools is a relatively recent phenomenon, the
majority of such positions being created within the last
ten years, with a significant number new since 1965,
2.

The curriculum director is most likely a

"first-timer" in his position, having had little or no
comparable experience prior to entering the position.

He

is likely to be a veteran educator, however, with several
years of experience in the field.

Michael Jon Homes
3.

The curriculum director is most: likely "home­

bred ," coming bo his position from within the staff ranks
of his present district.

In addition, he is likely to

have served the district in other

roles for a number of

years prior to assuming the curriculum position.
4.

In general, the "ideal-self" and "real-self"

leader behavior perceptions of the curriculum director
tended to be highly related.

Differences in the perceptions

of the directors, individually and as a group, tended to be
relatively slight.

That is, the population tended to per­

ceive little difference between how they believed they
ought to behave and how they believed they actually behaved
with respect to providing leadership for staff development.
5.

In general, the population and its constituent

members tended to perceive their "ideal-self" and "realself" leader behavior with respect to staff development as
highly related within the factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE.

Differences in these perceptions

tended to be relatively slight.

That is, the curriculum

directors tended to perceive little difference between how
they believed they ought to behave and how they believed
they actually behaved in their role of providing leadership
for staff development with respect to the factors of
CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
6.

The high degree of perceptual relatedness between

dimensions and within factors suggests that those in the
population have tended to associate their behavior with that

Michael Jon Homes
of effective leadership, and have responded in ways in
which effective leaders might be expected to respond.
7.

In general, the characteristics of K-12 curri­

culum directors in Michigan public schools are not highly
related to their self-perceptions with respect to their
role in providing leadership for staff development.
8.

While the "ideal-self" dimension of the LBDQ

tended to h>e the best predictor of curriculum director
leader behavior with respect to staff development, its
value as a predictor was marginal.

In addition, the use

of demographic data tended to contribute little in being
able to predict the director's perceptions with respect to
his role in providing leadership for staff development.
9.

The general characteristic of "curriculum

director total areas of responsibility” and the LBDQ dimen­
sion of "ideal-self" leader behavior tended to be the most
highly related of the variables considered.

However, this

relationship tended to be low.
Recommendations for Future Research
1.

The curriculum director's leader behavior per­

ceptions with respect to staff development should be examined
in relationship to perceptions held of his leader behavior
in this area by other school district personnel such as
teachers, principals, and the superintendent.
2.

An investigation of the curriculum director's

CONSIDERATION behavior and INITIATING STRUCTURE behavior

Michael Jon Homes
should be conducted to determine what variables in role
expectations, organizational factors, and personal charac­
teristics tend to account for these behaviors most.

If

conflict is evidenced in the behavior of the curriculum
director with respect to these factors, the consequences
for the director's role performance in providing leader­
ship in the school setting should also be investigated.
3.

A study should be conducted on the effect of

curriculum director "in-breeding" with respect to the school
district's staff development program and the implications
this phenomenon may hold for behavioral change in the curri­
culum director and the professional staff.
4.

The number of K-12 curriculum directorships in

Michigan has increased dramatically since 1965.

This in­

crease should be examined in relationship to the enactment
of Public Act 379, which, in 1965, provided collective
bargaining rights for teachers to see what effect it has
had with respect to curriculum development and instructional
improvement.
5.

The role of the curriculum director should be

examined with respect to his effectiveness as a change
agent in providing leadership for staff development and
facilitating improvement in the instructional program.
This examination should take place in the light of how other
district personnel see him functioning in this capacity.

Michael Jon Homes
of effective leadership, and have responded in ways in
which effective leaders might be expected to respond.
7.

In general, the characteristics of K-12 curri­

culum directors in Michigan public schools are not highly
related to their self-perceptions with respect to their
role in providing leadership for staff development.
8.

While the "ideal-self" dimension of the LBDQ

tended to be the best predictor of curriculum director
leader behavior with respect to staff development, its
value as a predictor was m a r g i n a l .

In add i t i o n , the use

of demographic data tended to contribute little in being
able to predict the director's perceptions with respect to
his role -n providing leadership for staff development.
9.

The general characteristic of "curriculum

director ':otal areas of responsibility" and the LBDQ dimen­
sion of "..deal-self" leader behavior tended to be the most
highly related of the variables considered.

However, this

relationship tended to be low.

«

Recommendations for Future Research
1.

The curriculum director's leader behavior per­

ceptions wi t h respect to staff development should be examined
in relationship to perceptions held of his leader behavior
in this area by other school district personnel such as
teachers, principals, and the superintendent.
2.

An investigation of the curriculum director's

CONSIDERATION behavior and INITIATING STRUCTURE behavior

DEDICATION

This effort and all my graduate pursuits and future endeavors
are lastingly dedicated to my wife, Lynne, for her constant
love, encouragement, patience, personal sacrifice and un­
tiring support to see this project through to finality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer expresses a deep debt of gratitude to
Dr. Charles A. B l a c k m a n , doctoral chairman,

for his

insight, support, advice and ready counsel during the
preparation of this T h e s i s , and for providing valuable
stimulation and guidance in making m y graduate studies at
Michigan State University an enriching and rewarding
experience.
The writer is also m ost appreciative of the support,
counsel and constructive criticism provided by his guidance
committee:

Dr. Dale V. Alam, Dr. Louis Romano and Dr.

Grafton Trout.

A special w ord of appreciation is due Miss

Mary Kennedy of Educational Research Services for her help
in the development of the study design and the statistical
analysis of the data.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS,
Page
DEDICATION...............................................

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................

ill

LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................

vi

LIST OF F I G U R E S ............................................viii
LIST OF A P P E N D I C E S .....................................

ix

Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION.....................................
Purpose of the S t u d y .......................
Statement and Significance of the Problem
Objectives of the S t u d y ....................
Basic Assumptions Underlying the Study .
Limitations of the Study....................
Procedure for Data C o l l e c t i o n .............
Population Identification
.............
Instruments for Data Collection
. . .
Administration of the Instruments.
.

II.

1
•
.

.

4
6
9
10
10
12
12
12
12

Definition of Critical Terms
.............
The Organization of the S t u d y .............

14
17

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................

19

Leadership and the Curriculum Director .

.

19

An O v e r v i e w ..............................
The Problem of D e f i n i t i o n .............
Theory and P r a c t i c e ....................
Staff D e v e l o p m e n t .......................
School Organization
....................

19
22
29
39
46

S u m m a r y .....................................

51

iv

Chapter
III.

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

56

The P o p u l a t i o n ........................ ...
The I n s t r u m e n t s ............................

56
57

The General Information Survey (GIS) .
The Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBD5T? .
I . . .
The Factors of cbNSID^RATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE
..............
Procedure for Data Collection
. . . .
Objectives of the S t u d y .................
Procedure for Data A n a l y s i s ..............
S u m m a r y ......................................
IV.

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA.

.

.

Examination of Objective O n e ..............
Category O n e : ProfessionalExperiential Background
. . . .
Category Two:
School District Data
.
Category T h r e e : Professional
Position D a t a ........................
Category Four:
Staff Development
D a t a ...................................
Examination of Objective T w o ..............
Examination of Objective Three . . . .
Examination of Objective Four
. . . .
S u m m a r y ......................................
V.

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS F O R FUTURE RESEARCH
.

.

.

57
59
62
65
66
67
69
71
72
73
79
80
83
86
88
90
98
103

The Purpose of the S t u d y .................
The Design of the S t u d y .................

103
104

The P o p u l a t i o n ........................
The I n s t r u m e n t s ........................
Procedure for Data Collection and
A n a l y s i s ...........................

104
104

The Objectives of the S t u d y ..............
Major F i n d i n g s ............................
Discussion and Conclusions
..............
Recommendations for Future Research
. .
Concluding Statement
.....................
BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

A P P E N D I C E S ..................................
V

105
106
106
109
113
115
119
126

LIST OP TABLES
Table
1.1

Page
Common titles associated with K-12 curricu­
lum leaders in M i c h i g a n ....................

73

1.2

Curriculum director total years in education .

75

1.3

Curriculum director total years in present
district (regardless of role) .............

76

Curriculum director total years in current
position in present district
.............

77

Curriculum director total years in current
position in other districts................

78

Curriculum director total years of experience:
A summary....................................

78

Years curriculum directorship has existed
in Michigan school districts
.............

81

Staff development:
Curriculum/instructional
council relationship .......................

84

Types of general staff development provisions
r e p o r t e d ....................................

85

Correia.'on of LBDQ "ideal-self" and "realself" leader behavior perceptions.
. . .

86

Correlations of LBDQ "ideal-self" and "realself" leader behavior perceptions WITHIN
the factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE .......................

88

Comparison of differences in the partial
correlation coefficients BETWEEN the
"ideal-self" and "real-self" dimensions
of the LBDQ and six GIS characteristics.

.

91

Comparison of differences in the partial
correlation coefficients BETWEEN the LBDQ
factors of CONSIDERATION ani INITIATIlJG
STRUCTURE and six GIS characteristics
. .

92

1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
3.0

4.1

4.2

vi

Table
4.3a
4.3b

Page
Multiple correlation coefficients of four
LBDQ dependent variables ....................

95

Partial correlation coefficients for six
GIS independent variables with respect to
four LBDQ dependent v a r i a b l e s ..................97

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1.

Expectations that

2.

A

influence leaders . . . .

quadrant scheme for describing leader's
behavior on the INITIATING STRUCTURE and
CONSIDERATION factors .........................

viii

36

63

LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
EXHIBIT ONE:

Letter to Curriculum Directors

EXHIBIT TWO:

Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire^
I
"

EXHIBIT T H R E E : General Information Survey
EXHIBIT FOUR:

Supplementary Tables
Table A:

Table B:

.

127

.
•

129
.

.

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

Rank order of responsi­
bilities commonly asso­
ciated with the K-12
curriculum director in
Michigan .................
Rank order of specific
provisions for staff
development activities
most frequently mentioned
by K-12 curriculum
directors in Michigan.

ix

133
139

140

141

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Leaders and leadership have long been topics of
concern and challenge in education.

In times of rapid

change, the role of contemporary educational leadership has
taken on new significance.

In part, it has become as

important as the teaching function itself.^- The need for
the study of leadership roles in public education has been
clearly identified by Westwood.

He states,

A great deal of organizational research reveals
what common sense suggests— that the role of the
leaders in any organization will have a considerable
influence upon its efficient working and the attain­
ment of its goals.
The amount of research in recent
years into roles of managers, administrators and
supervisors of all kinds of industrial and other
organizations is vast. As yet, the systematic
investigation of leadership roles in the school,
c.nd in the educational system generally, is
virtually non-existent.2
Those in leadership roles in public education are
being particularly challenged to recognize and meet the
need for continuous improvement in the quality of instruc­
tion being offered the school's clientele.

Major

1Ben M. Harris, "Preface," Supervisory Behavior in
Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
T O , p. v i i .
2

T. J. Westwood, "The Role of the Teacher--II,"
Educational Research, X (November, 1967), pp. 28-29.
1

2
responsibility for this task has come to b e centered in
the curr i c u l u m director in a school system.^

He has become

a key figure in providing the leadership for instructional
improvement.
Such a function implies a need for a large and
diverse set of competencies in the behavioral repertoire
of the curric u l u m director.

F o r this reason, his role is

perhaps best characterized as a versatile one.

For

example, the writings and research of Stogdill and Shartle,
3
4
A m i d o n and Powell,
and Doak
speak to the importance of

2

relationships and interactions between people as the
avenue to change and improvement in the instructional
process.

Hamilton considered the need for the curriculum

worker to develop skill in p r o b l e m identification and
T h r o u g h o u t the text of this study, the term
curriculum director will be considered synonymous with
such other leadership terms as director of instruction,
curriculum supervisor, curriculum leader, curriculum
worker, curriculum coordinator, etc.
2Ralph M. Stogdill and Carroll L. Shartle, "Preface,”
Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership
{Columbus:
The Ohio State University, Bureau o f B u s i n e s s
Research M o n o g r a p h No. 80, 1955), p. vii.
3
Edmund J . Ami d o n and Evan Powell, "Interaction
Analysis as a Feedback System in Teacher Preparation," in
The S u p e r v i s o r : Age n t for Change in T e a c h i n g , ed. by James
Raths and Robert R. Leeper (Washington, D .<j. : Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1966), p. 60.
4
E. Dale Doak, "Organizational Climate:
Prelude
to Change," Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970),
p. 367.

3
conceptual perspective as crucial in dealing with issues of
"educational policy and leadership."1

Johnson and Wilson

gave reference to the personal qualities of curriculum
leaders as the most important factor in leadership for
instructional improvement.

2

Finally, Rubin contends that

trust, respect, conviction, professional knowledge and
skill, ability to deal with change, building a stronger
degree of linkage between teaching and learning, and pro­
viding for the continuous growth of educators are the keys
to successful leadership and the avenues of fulfillment
for the curriculum director in meeting his responsibilities.^
T h u s , not only a variety of functions tend to
characterize the curriculum directorship, but the role of
the curriculum leader seems to be clearly focused in the
arena of human relationships.

Inherent in this arena is the

need to provide means that allow for the improvement of
instruction by those directly engaged in this process.
The goal is the enhancement of learning opportunities for
all who participate in the educational process.

To the

1

Norman K. Hamilton, "Sensing and Timing in Change,"
Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970), p. 342.
2

Paul Johnson and Harold Wilson, "Educational
Leaders in Action," Leadership for Improving Instruction
(Washington, D.C.; Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1960), p. 116.
3
Louis J. Rubin, "A Study on the Continuing
Education of Teachers" (Santa Barbara:
The University of
California, Center for Coordinated Education, 1968-69),.
p. 1.

4
degree that this characterization is accurate, it is not
surprising that the curriculum director's perceptions of
leadership should be a prime source of influence in his
role behavior.
Evidence is available to indicate that those in
positions of leadership may at times be unaware of the
image they present to others with whom they work.

For

example, while a given leader in a public school system
may perceive himself to be functioning in a manner appro­
priate to his r o l e , his actual behavior may be exhibited
or interpreted in an entirely different or conflicting
manner.

In effect, the role perceptions held by the

curriculum leader with respect to his work relationship
with others may be different than his day to day behavior.
As such they remain the source for some serious problems
which tend to confound efforts to attain excellence in the
quality of instruction in public schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purposes of the study are to identify and
describe:

(1) the general characteristics of the K-12

curriculum director in Michigan public schools, and

(2)

the self-perceptions he holds with respect to his role
behavior in providing leadership for staff development as
a specified dimension of his responsibility.

5
Specifically the study will attempts
1.

To describe the curriculum director with

respect to certain demographic characteristics as a means
for considering his role behavior in providing leadership
for staff development;'1'
2.

To identify and describe the leader behavior of

the curriculum director with respect to his "ideal-self"
and "real-self" perceptions as measured by the Leader
Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) as a means for

considering his role in providing leadership for staff
development;
3.

2

To identify and describe the leader behavior

perceptions of the curriculum director with respect to
the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE as
measured by the LBDQ as a means for considering his role
in providing leadership for staff development;"* and

The origin and nature of the instrument used for
gathering these data is discussed in Chapter III. A
definition of the general scope of the instrument appears
at the end of this chapter., A copy of the instrument can
be found in the Appendix.
See Exhibit Three.
2

The origin and nature of the LBDQ is described in
some detail in Chapter III. A definition of the general
scope of the instrument appears at the end of this chapter.
A copy of the instrument can be found in the Appendix.
See Exhibit Two.
3The factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUC­
TURE are defined later in this chapter.
A more detailed
explanation of them follows in Chapter III.

6
4.

To determine the extent to which the general

demographic characteristics of K-12 curriculum directors in
Michigan public school districts tend to be related to
their self-perceptions of leader behavior with respect to
staff development.
Statement and Significance of
The Problem
A major task of the curriculum leader in many
Michigan school districts is providing for, and promoting,
staff growth.

The ultimate goal of this effort is the

achievement of an improved educational program for the
children and youth of the school district.

The responsi­

bility for leadership in this assignment has increasingly
become vested in a member of the central office administra­
tive staff.

This person has come to be commonly identified

by such titles as "Assistant Superintendent,"

"Director,"

or "Coordinator" with a specific designation of responsi­
bility for curriculum, instruction, or both.
The curriculum leader's activity spans a wide range
of working relationships and levels of interaction with
others.

His basic function in providing leadership for

staff development is concentrated in a search to find better
ways of recognizing and realizing human potential.

While

from an historical perspective this search has assumed dif­
ferent postures, it has consistently remained directed
toward the process of human growth.

7
Public demands for qualify in the instructional
program being offered boys and girls in local school
systems serve as unrelenting reminders of the need for
providing the teaching staff with on-going opportunities
for improving their skills and competencies.

Pressured by

a prolific rate of social and technological change, a
rapidly expanding body of knowledge, rising tension and
conflict in human relations, and a dramatic need to move
boldly toward new goals and levels of excellence in educa­
tion, public school leadership in Michigan finds itself at
a critical point.
The provision of effective leadership in such a
setting is crucial to the growth and development process
of others.

Therefore, the person charged with this

responsibility must be able to identify and understand the
behavior of those he is leading.

More importantly, however,

he must have a significant degree of self-understanding and
awareness.

This self-understanding and awareness on the

part of the curriculum leader in the local school setting
holds the key for the kind of growth and development others
may experience through the leadership he provides.
Self-understanding and awareness have long been
promoted as critical needs of those engaged in leadership
roles.

The development of these attributes on the part of

leaders in the educational arena has been no easy task,
however.

In relationship to specific dimensions of their

8
role responsibility it has been a challenge of unique
proportions.

In a period of great educational turmoil

emphasized by a society at odds with its own condition,
an investigation of the personal perceptions held by
those in identifiable and defined positions of curriculum
leadership in public school settings takes on importance
as a prelude to change and innovation in classroom prac­
tice.

This need is clearly pointed out by Van Til.

In

discussing the nature of change and the process of education
in relationship to leadership he states,
. . • the choice of professional educators is not
a new one.
The same choice has been offered them
throughout many y e a r s . Educators may accept the
tendencies of the times in which they find them­
selves and develop school programs which reflect
all prevalent social forces.
Or, educators may
appraise the tendencies of the times and develop
school programs through which learners can reflect
upon and help shape social forces.1
Hamilton indicates that only as curriculum leaders
are encouraged to become students of their own behavior and
the environment in which they hold forth will they become
effective initiators for change and leaders for construetive program and staff improvement.

Thus, the curriculum

d i r e c t o r 1s perceptions of his own behavior become an impor­
tant element in gaining insight and perspective with
William Van Til, "In a Climate of Change," Role of
Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of change
(Washington, b . d .s Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1965), p. 16.
2
Hamilton, op. c i t ., pp. 341-342.

9
respect to his leadership role in staf£ development.

With

this new insight, his overall role may also be enhanced.
By investigating a single view of the leadership
role of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan public
schools it may be that a clearer picture of his contemporary
stance will emerge.
though

The implications of this single view,

limited, may in turn provide some much needed

assistance in making decisions about preparation programs
for people interested in leadership positions in curriculum
and/or instruction, particularly in public schools.
Objectives of the Study
1.

To describe the K-12 curriculum director in

Michigan public schools on the basis of four general
categories of demographic data and develop a character­
istics profile from these data for the population.
2.

To identify and describe the differences in

the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior percep­
tions of the K-12 curriculum director with respect to
his role in staff development.
3.

To identify and describe the differences in

the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions
of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan with respect
to his role in staff development within the factors of
CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
4.

To examine the data obtained from the General

Information Survey

(GIS) and those obtained from the

10
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) with

respect to the curriculum d i r e c t o r 1s leader behavior per­
ceptions and his role in staff development, to note any
relationship between the variables of the respective
instruments.
Basic Assumptions Underlying the Study
1.

The behavior of the curriculum director in pro­

viding leadership for staff development will be influenced
by the perceptions he holds with respect to that process.
2.

As the curriculum director expresses the per­

ceptions he holds about his leadership role with respect
to staff development, an increased understanding of his
behavior in that area will emerge.
3.

Insight gained in identifying and describing

the self-perceived leader behavior of the curriculum
director with respect to staff development will provide a
reference point for examining other dimensions of his role.
4.

Better understanding of the self-perceived

leader behavior of the curriculum director will provide a
sound basis from which he may respond to the challenge of
change more effectively.
Limitations of the Study
It is anticipated that the outcomes of this study
will be affected by the following factors:

11
1.

Recognition that the population under study is

composed of a single position that is only generally
uniform in title identification and job responsibility
throughout the population;
2.

The school districts from which the population

is constituted are all K-12 public school districts in the
State of Michigan, excluding the city of Detroit, that have
a specifically identified curriculum leader

(i.e.,

"Assistant Superintendent," or "Director," or "Coordinator"
for the areas of curriculum and/or instruction K-12);
3.

Curriculum leaders who have staff leadership

responsibilities and who may serve in the same broad
capacity under generally similar conditions but with dif­
ferent titles or role identifications are excluded in this
study

(i.e., building principals, directors of elementary

or secondary education, subject matter consultants,
department heads, etc.);
4.

The condition that the responses from the

participants in the study may be influenced by circumstances
unique to their own position and disposition, immediate
state of activity or the larger factors existing within
their local school district; and,
5.

The assumption that the individual curriculum

director will respond honestly to the LBDQ items with true
perceptions of his leader behavior with respect to the area
of staff development.

12
Procedure for Data Collection
Population Identification
The population to which the results of this study
will be generalized is identified as that group of indi­
viduals in K-12 public school districts in Michigan
exclusive of the city of Detroit having a specified
responsibility for providing leadership for curriculum
development and instructional improvement.

These indi­

viduals have been specifically identified by such titles
as “Assistant Superintendent," "Director," or "Coordinator"
for curriculum and/or instruction K-12 with no more than
one such identified individual per school district.

As

the population has been identified such that N = 89, the
total population will be used for data gathering purposes.
Instruments for Data
Collection
1.

The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBPQ).

2.

A General Information Survey

(GIS).

Administration of the
Instruments
Each person identified in the population will
receive a written communication (a cover letter of

The source used for identifying the population was
the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1969-70
(Lansing: Michigan Education Directory), pp. I2o-2l8.

13
introduction and a brief overview stating the purposes of
the study)

requesting:

1.

his participation in the study, and

2.

completion and return of each oi the data
gathering i n s t r u m e n t s .

The LBDQ will serve as the m e d i u m for obtaining
and measuring the dimensions of c u r r iculum director "idealself" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions with
respect to staff development.

It also provides the infor­

m a tion necessary for examining the self-perceptions of the
curriculum director with respect to the factors of C O N ­
SIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.

In cases where the

LBDQ has b een used to describe the behavior of a leader, a
reference point proved a helpful element in considering the
dimensions and factors measured.

The reference point in
i
this study of leader behavior is staff development.

The value of the L BDQ lies in its ready a d apt­
ability to a wide variety of situations wit h o u t altering
the meaning of the items or the intent of the instrument.
It has been used extensively in leadership studies in the
military, in industry, in public schools, and in colleges
and universities.
(See for example the following articles
in Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons, e d s ., Leader
Behavior;
Its Description and Measur e m e n t (Columbus: The
Ohio State University, Bureau of B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h Monograph
No. 88, 1957):
Andr e w Halpin, "The Leadership and Effec­
tiveness of Aircraft Commanders;" Bernard M. Bass,
"Leadership Opinion and Related Characteristics of Salesmen
and Sales Managers;" Andrew Halpin, "The Observed Leader
Behavior and Ideal Leader Behavior of Air c r a f t Commanders
and School Superintendents."
See also J o h n K. Hemphill,
"Patterns of Leadership Behavior Associated w i t h A d m i n ­
istrative Reputation of the Department of a College,"
Journal of Educational P s y c h o l o g y , X L V 1 , N o . 7 (November,
I»S5), pp7 385-'401.)

14
The G1S will serve to gather the demographic data
about the curriculum director thought to be pertinent to
the study of his leader behavior perceptions with respect
to staff development.
Definition of Critical Terms
Consideration
"CONSIDERATION refers to behavior on the part of a
leader that is characterized by warm, friendly relations
with group members, concern with group welfare, respect for
their integrity, etc."1
Curriculum Director
The staff position and/or individual in a K-12
public school district in Michigan that by title, definition,
or other specified criterion for designation, is charged
with a primary responsibility for providing staff leader­
ship for curriculum development and instructional improve­
ment.

These positions and/or individuals are commonly

identified by such titles as "Assistant Superintendent,"
"Director," or "Curriculum Coordinator."

The basic

function of the person in this position is one of providing
leadership for staff development in such a way that human
potential can be more effectively recognized and realized.

1 Hemphill, op. cit., p. 75.

15
Initiating Structure
"INITIATING STRUCTURE refers to activities on the
part of the leader that introduce organization, new ways
of doing things and new procedures for solving group p rob­
lems, e t c . " 3*
Instructional or Professional
Teaching Staff
All duly and properly certified personnel with
direct or related classroom teaching responsibilities
legally employed and contracted by the governing body of
a K-12 public school district in Michigan.
Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ)
This forty-item instrument developed by the staff
of the Personnel Research Board, The Ohio State University,
is used to identify the self-perceptions of leader behavior
of the participants in the study.

The items contained in

this instrument describe a specific way in which a leader
m a y behave.

Responses are made on a five point scale

ranging from "Always" to "Never."

The LBDQ provides a

technique whereby the behavior of designated leaders
curriculum directors)

in formal organizations

(K-12

(Michigan

public school districts) m a y be described w ith respect to
a given area of job responsibility
for staff d e v e l o p m e n t ) .
1Ibid.

(providing leadership

16
General Information Survey

(GIS)

A four part, twenty-item instrument developed by
the researcher.
information

It is used to gather certain demographic

(i.e., Professional-Experiential Background,

School District Data, Professional Position Data, and Staff
Development Data)
study.

from each of the participants in the

The GIS is designed to describe the curriculum

director with respect to a number of general characteristics
which may tend to have a relationship to the leadership
role he plays in staff development.
K —13 Public School District
in Michigan
A legally constituted and defined entity established
by appropriate action of the legislature of the State of
Michigan for the purpose of conducting and maintaining a
program of public education within the limitations set by
law; the children of the legal entity

(district)

tradi­

tionally in the common grade placement designations of
Kindergarten through Grade 12.
Role Dimension
Any single element within the total framework of
leadership responsibility specifically designated or implied
in the role of the curriculum director.

(Defined by this

study to be the provision of leadership for staff develop­
ment .)

17
Staff Development
A dimension of the roie of the curriculum director
charging him with the responsibility of providing leader­
ship in promoting and making available to the staff of the
school district opportunities to improve their skill and
competency in relationship to the effectiveness of their
performance in implementing the instructional program of
the district.
The Organization of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized into the
following four chapters:
Chapter II:

Review of the Literature.

The

literature pertinent to the nature of this study is pre­
sented.
Chapter III:

The Design of the Study.

The

population and data gathering procedures used in the study
are identified, described, and discussed.

The development

of the two data gathering instruments is also described
and each is briefly discussed.
Chapter IV:

Presentation and Analysis of the Data.

The demographic characteristics of the curriculum directors
are reported and described.

The data for these character­

istics are analyzed and a population profile is developed.
The results from the statistical analysis of the data
obtained from the LBDQ instrument are presented and dis­
cussed.

The data obtained from the two questionnaires are

also analyzed statistically to note the extent of the
relationship between the general characteristics of the
curriculum director and his leader behavior perceptions
with respect to staff development.
Chapter V.
for Future Study.

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
In this final chapter, the study is

summarized and discussed as to its findings, conclusions
are drawn, and recommendations for future research are
presented.

CHA P T E R II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A leader is best
When people barely know that he e x i s t s ,
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him.
Worst when they despise him.
Fail to honor people
They fail to honor you;
But of a good leader, w h o talks little,
When his work is done, his aim fulfilled.
They will all say. We did this ourselves.
Bynner^
Leadership and the Curriculum Director
An Overview
The abundance of comment and study of leadership
attests to its importance and place in contemporary society.
Key questions and issues still remain, however.

The e x ­

amination of these questions and issues has both enhanced
and reduced leader behavior and effectiveness.

For example,

the authenticity and challenge of leadership has often
centered about the need for clarity in definition and in
the relationships between those in leadership positions
and those not.

Fiedler has observed that,

"Each and every

m an is a potential leader, and society has to give some
i
Witter Bynner, The W a y of Life A c c ording to L o a t z u ,
An American Version (New York:
The John Day Company,
1944), pp. 34-35.
19

20
thought to the identification and proper training of men
who will be able to guide its institutions."^
Confusion and conflict are all too often common to
leadership in the American educational scene.

Ultimately,

the effectiveness of public school leadership may well de­
pend upon the perceptions held by the leader in any given
situation and his ability to recognize the needs of that
situation.

Hass observes that,

"Principles of leadership

apparently can be discovered but their application to a
specific situation is another matter."

According to

Combs,
People do not behave according to the facts as
others see them, they behave in terms of what seems
to be so to them.3
. . . to the behaver himself,
behavior always seems relevant, purposeful and caused
. . . behavior at anytime is internally consistent
with the way he sees things.4
In this respect, it would seem crucial that leader­
ship in education accept the on-going challenge of re­
defining its perceptions and reformulating, where necessary,
its behavior.

Clarity in performing this task is called

^Fred E. Fiedler, A Theory of Leadership Effective­
(New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1£67), p. 31
2
Glen Hass, "Introduction," Leadership for Improv­
ing Instruction (Washington, D. C.: Association for Super­
vision and Curriculum Development, 1960), p. 4.
3
Arthur W. Combs, "Seeing is Behaving," Educational
Leadership, XVI (October, 1968), p. 23.
4
Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual
Behavior (New Yorks
Harper and Row, 1959), p. T51
ness

21
for.

In discussing the need and urgency for this clarifi­

cation, Ward states,
To begin, we must get outside the confines of
education and consider social enterprise at l a r g e .
To see ourselves, and most important, to open our
eyes to new viewpoints on ourselves in relation to
other elements of our social order, we must occasion­
ally back off; we must face up to the provincialism
which we have helped build.1
In summarizing the relationship between the educa­
tional program and leadership in education,

it is the view

of Castetter and Burchell that,
Only through competent leadership can the unprecise and nebulous plans which pass for educa­
tional programs be strengthened to the
point
where they make a difference in the lives of
children.2
Clearly, the focus of the curriculum leader's respon­
sibility is on the improvement of the instructional program.
Inherent in this responsibility of leadership is making
provision for the opportunity for others to experience
growth.

Complicating this process, however, is the charge
*

that,
The role of the curriculum director is not easily
identified.
Since the appointment of the first cur­
riculum director, the responsibilities and actual
duties assigned to this position have undergone con­
stant change.
Different titles for these positions
Ted W. Ward, "Professional Integration and Clinical
Research," in The Su p e r v i s o r : Agent for Change in Teaching ,
ed. by James Raths and Robert R. beeper (Washington, D . C .:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1966) , p. 60.
2

William B. Castetter and Helen R. Burchell, Educa­
tional Administration and the Improvement of Instruction
(Dansvilie, i l l .: The Interstate Printers and Publishers,
Inc., 1967), p. 23.

22
have caused further difficulty in identifying the
functions which curriculum leaders should perform.
Curriculum directors have been called helping teach­
ers, directors of curriculum, directors of instruc­
tion, and assistant superintendents in charge of
instruction.
It has been difficult, therefore, to
state clearly what functions such a person ought to
perform to improve the instructional programs of
schools.1
As this last statement from the Illinois Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development indicates, one
of the single largest sources of confusion in attempting
to address and understand leadership and the behavior of
leaders in the area of curriculum is the very definition
of leadership itself.
The Problem of Definition
Educational leadership has been subject to a vari­
ety of definitions.

At t i m e s , any one of them may have

been quite as acceptable as another.

This section of the

chapter will treat the problem of defining curriculum lead
ership and the urgent need for clarifying the role of the
curriculum director.

Much attention has been focused on

this task in recent years.

Babcock, in discussing the

emerging role of the curriculum director, has commented,
School people today, in the face of ever chang­
ing demands made upon them, are finding it increas­
ingly necessary to turn to a curriculum specialist.
This specialist is a relative newcomer to the leader­
ship team in many school systems.
His role as yet
The Illinois Association for Supervision and Cur­
riculum Development, "The Curriculum Directorship:
A
Platform for the Professionalization of Curriculum Direc­
tors" (Illinois Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1 9 6 4 ) , p . 4 .

23
has not been clearly defined.
The need for defining
the role of the curriculum specialist regardless of
his title, in the functional organization of the
school system is imperative.
His relationship with
general administration, with the individual building
principal and with the teaching corps as a whole are
still in a state of confusion in many school systems.^
Shores stated the problems attendant to the role
quite clearly when he said,
Almost all professional educators understand
what a teacher, principal, or superintendent is and
almost all educators have ideas about what these
roles should be and how they relate to each other.
The same cannot be said for the generalist in super­
vision and curriculum.
His duties are almost as
diverse as his titles.
That he is a key gatekeeper
in curriculum development and improvement, no one
would deny, but what he is and what he does, and
what he is becoming, and what he should be are
clouded with misunderstandings.2
Drummond suggests the role definition of the curri­
culum director with respect to staff development is largely
complicated by the accelerating rate of change today and
contends,
In periods of little change, supervisors and curri­
culum directors have roles to perform which can be
rather effectively designed and defined.
The tasks
are not even simple, then, of course, for creating
conditions which result in desirable human changes
Chester D. Babcock, "The Emerging Role of the
Curriculum Director," in Role of Supervisor and Curriculum
Director in a Climate of Change, ed. by Evelyn F. Carlson
and Robert R. Leeper (Washington, D. C . : Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965), p. 50.
2

Harlan Shores, "Forward," Toward Professional
Maturity of Supervisors and Curriculum Workers (Washington,
D . C .: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop­
ment, 1967), p. v.

24
is always a complicated process.
When old "truths"
are challenged, when "proven" methods are q u e s tioned
and when traditional content is rapidly r e placed by
"new" p r o g r a m s , role expectations for supervisors
and curriculum directors become vastly m ore complex
and s i g n i f i c a n t .
The n e e d for clearly defining the role of the c u r ­
riculum leader is evident in the research in recent years.
2
3
4
5
B a t s a k i s , Carlson,
Grizzle,
and Cotton
have all placed
emphasis on the need for role clarification,

specificity

of the leader*s relationship to the organizational setting
he is in, a better job description concerning the i m p o r ­
tance of the position and the duties to be performed,

and

the assignment of commensurate authority to the leader in
order that he can effect and support the best ins t ruc­
tional and curriculum program possible.
Harold D. Drummond, "Foreward," in Role of Super­
v isor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of C h a n g e , ed.“
by Evelyn F. Carlson and Robert R. Leeper {Washington, D . C . :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1965), p. v.
2
Angelo Gus B a t s a k i s , "An Analysis of the Role of
the Director of Instruction in a Selected School District,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University,
1964.
3
Darwin Grove Carlson,
"A Case Study of Central
Office Personnel with Designated Responsibility for C ur­
riculum— Instruction in Four Selected School Systems,"
unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of N e w
York at Buffalo, 1967.
4
James Dennis Grizzle,
"The Director of Instruction:
A Study of His Duties in Texas Public Schools," unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1967.
5
Hullian D. Cotton, "A Study to Determine the Role
of the Director of Instruction and Curriculum in Selected
Alabama School Systems," unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Alabama, 1969.

25
Similar concerns regarding the ambiguity of the
curriculum director's role and the n eed to define it have
1

2

been clearly cited in the literature b y Allen,
Hass,
3
4
Mackenzie,
Papillon,
and the Illinois Associ a t i o n for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

This latter group

prepared a position paper on the pro b l e m w h i c h stated in
part,
The difficulties in defining the curriculum
d i r e c t o r ’s role as it should be lie in the history
of the development of the position, the confusion
and diffusion of the current roles, and the peculiar
needs of individual school systems * There is c o n ­
siderable similarity between the functions and a c t i ­
vities of administrators and cu r r i c u l u m directors.
This is true because administrators rightly see
supervision as one of their important r e s p o n s i bili­
ties.
It becomes i m p o r t a n t , however, to determine
the unique functions of a curriculum director*
If
these functions can be determined, a school system
will be able to select a person qualified to serve
as a curriculum director.5
Thus, essential agreement appears to be lacking in
defining the role and functions of the curriculum director.
Rowanetta S. Allan, "Role and Fu n c t i o n of S u p e r ­
visors and Curriculum Workers," Educational L e a d e r s h i p ,
XXII (January, 1966) , pp. 330-331"!
2

Glen Hass, "Role of the Director of Instruction,"'
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , XVIII (November, 1960), p. 101
^Gordon Mackenzie, "Expectations T h a t Influence
Leaders," in Leadership for Improving I n s t r u c t i o n , Glen
Hass, chairman (Washington, D . C . : Associ a t i o n tor S u p e r ­
vision and Curriculum Development, 1960), p. 70.
4
Alfred L. Papillon, "The Business M a n a g e m e nt Role
of the Curriculum Director," Educational L e a d e r s h i p , X X V
(October, 1967), p. 63.
5

Illinois Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, op. c i t ., p. 5.

26
In addition, many factors are contributing to his role to
make it a highly fluid and changing one particularly as they
relate to his leadership responsibilities for a given area
such as staff development.

In discussing these factors,

Ramseyer observes,
. . . the leadership action about w h ich w e are
speaking is goal centered, value oriented, c o m m uni­
cative, catalytic, energizing, initiatory and/or
creative; the leader is understanding, perceptive,
communicative and accepted; what he does or what
happens within groups identifies, strengthens, sup­
ports, suggests n e w alternatives, alters relation­
ships and a r r a n g e m e n t s , provides new structure or
means of operation, creates n e w understandings,
m o t i v a t e s , provides n e w perspectives and concep­
tualizations .1
Miller, after describing the functions of the c u r ­
riculum leader and summing up the array of forces affecting
this role, considers him a generalist w ith an impossible
task.2
In an effort to come to grips with the problem of
definition,

Saunders, Phillips and Johnson have proposed

that,
Leadership is an essential ingredient in the im­
provement of instruction and is defined as that
action w h ich facilitates the achievement of the o b ­
jectives identified by the people involved.
Accep­
tance of this point of v iew implies that leadership
John Ramseyer, "A Concept of Educational L ead e r ­
ship," in Leadership for Improving I n s t r u c t i o n , Glen Hass,
chairman (Washington, D"I C . : Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1960), p. 26.
2
Wil l i a m C. Miller, "Curriculum G e n e r a l i s t — A
Vanishing Breed?" Educational Leadership, X X X V (December,
1966), p. 227.

27
can be performed by the status lead e r , by any member
of the group, or by the group as a whole.
Conse­
quently, the responsibility for making decisions
about instructional improvement should be extended
to include all persons affected by those decisions.^
While there is no widespread agreement on a satisfactory
definition of the curriculum director's role or his leader­
ship function with respect to staff development, Rutrough
perceives that,
In summary, the director of instruction is a
generalist, assigned the responsibility of providing
leadership for the improvement of the total instruc­
tional program within the school system.2
Klohr tries to bring these definitions of leader­
ship into perspective.

He suggests,

Analyses of the function of the curriculum direc­
tor make quite central his role as an inducer and
coordinator of change.
The designation "change
agent," perhaps more than any other, reflects this
key responsibility.
If the supervisor and curriculum
worker are, indeed, change agents, then it becomes
a matter of great importance that they be able to
help chart the direction of change and to keep track
of it.3
Generalizing, it may be said the curriculum leader
should be an individual able in his job performance and
his staff relationships and an individual high in ability,
Robert L. Saunders, Ray C. Phillips, and Harold T.
Johnson, A Theory of Educational Leadership (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1966}, p. 135.
2

James E. Rutrough, "Emerging Role of the Director
of Instruction," Educational Leadership, XXVII (April, 1970),
p. 721.
“
3
Paul R. Klohr, "Looking Ahead in a Climate of
Change," in Role of Supervisor and Curriculum Director in
a Climate of Change, ed. bv Evelvn F. Carlson and R o b e r t R .
Leeper (Washington, D . C . : Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1965), p. 150.

28
who is professionally competent and deeply interested in
the goals and orientation of the group with whom he works
and of which he is a part.

In the final analysis, the

curriculum director's exercise of leadership may be ulti­
mately dependent for success on his being able to come to
grips with the array of human forces and relationships at
work in any given setting at any given t i m e .

His role and

function seem to be destined to constant reflection, re­
definition, and reformulation by both himself and others,
with particular reference to the democratic values held for
the school as an institution of society.

It is in a con­

text of differing definitions and a lack of role clarity
then, that the adequacy of the curriculum director as a
leader must be considered and his actual behavior observed,
recorded and described as opposed to, and contrasted with,
the ideal behavior of a hypothetical leader.
In considering the role of the curriculum director
of the future, Shafer and Mackenzie prophesy,
It is interesting to note that the generalist
of the future is being thought of as a new breed.
One description being used is that of the "perceptive
generalist."
Such an instructional leader is de­
scribed as one who will be gifted in comprehending
and making decisions about problems which are charac­
terized by complexity and by tangled relationships.1
1

Harold T. Shafer and Gordon Mackenzie, "Securing
Competent Instructional Leaders," in Role of Supervisor
and Curriculum Director in a Climate of Cha n g e , ed. by
Evelyn F. Carlson and Robert R. Leeper {Washington, D . C . :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1965), p. 68.

29
Theory and Practice
The theoretical and the practical are examined in
this section in an effort to build a frame of reference
for considering the leadership role of the curriculum
director w i t h respect to staff development.
In viewing the role and function of curriculum
leadership from a theoretical base, Heffernan and Bishop
state,
Effective . . . leadership operates within a
m a t r i x of many facets.
Included are (a) local chal­
lenges and realities of decision making; (b) p r o ­
fessional and societal realities; (c) an educational
structure w i t h roles and responsibilities; (d) c o n ­
cerns for impact and consequent behavior of pupils;
(e) few or m a n y persons affected by c h a n g e . 1
Out of this m a t r i x of need regarding the nature of man,
learning, and society and its ideals emerge the m a j or functions of curriculum l e a d e r s h i p .
In the construction of a theory relevant to the
leadership role of the curriculum director, Ramseyer states
fourteen propositions about leadership w h i c h speak to its
stature.

3

In summarizing these propositions, Hass observes,

Helen Heffernan and Leslee J. Bishop, "The Super­
visor and Curriculum Director at Work," in Role of Super­
visor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of C h a n g e , ed.
by Evelyn P. Carlson and Robert R. Deeper (Washington, D . c . :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1965), p. 119.
2
M il d r e d E. Swearingen, Supervision of Instruction;
Foundations and Dimensions (Boston:
Allvn and Bacon, 3796 2) ,
p. 41.----------------------3
Ramseyer, op. c i t ., pp. 56-57.

30
These research conclusions indicate that, to be
democratic it is imperative that leadership activity
be exercised in such ways as to:
(a) increase group
interaction and cooperative planning, and (b)
create a favorable climate for the growth of indi­
viduals and the emergence of potential leaders.1
Ramseyer's fourteen propositions about leadership are as
follows:
1. Changes in the behavior of people are manifesta­
tions of changes in their perceptions, understandings,
insights, values, beliefs, motivations, habits, and/
or skills.
2.
Institutional changes are dependent upon the amal­
gamation of changes in individuals.
3. Leadership is a product of the interaction which
takes place among individuals in a group, not of the
status or position of these individuals.
4. All normal individuals and groups, at all levels
of the hierarchical structure of a group, institu­
tion and society exhibit leadership behaviors to
some degree.
5. The quality of the interaction of persons in a
group may be distinguished by such action terms as
initiative, originality, communication, empathy,
understanding, cohesiveness, morale, productivity.
6. Activity on the part of an individual that tends
to clarify thinking, create better understanding,
or otherwise cause group action is called leader
behavior or leader behavior activity.
7. Because a person exhibits leader behavior in one
group is no guarantee that he will or can do so in
other groups.
All people exhibit this behavior in
some degree in certain groups.
8. Situations that are different make different
demands upon the leader.
9. People who exhibit leader behavior in several
kinds of groups come to be called leaders.
10. Status assignments may either enhance or reduce
the effectiveness of leader behavior.
11. Leadership leads to an ordering of events ac­
cording to importance.
12. Designating a person as a leader implies that
authority is attributed by group members to someone
they perceive as an appropriate person to carry out
this role for them.
1Hass, op. c i t ., pp. 182-183.

31
13. The leader does not determine the norms of the
group:
groups choose, as leaders, the persons who
best exemplify their norms.
14. The effectiveness of leader behavior is measured
in terms of mutuality of g o a l s , productivity in the
achievement of these goals, and the maintenance of
group solidarity.
A major intent of curriculum leadership is to guide
and influence the growth of others.

At any point in this

process, the curriculum director can both help and hinder
the workings of a sound educational program.

This observa­

tion has been substantiated in the research of B a t s a k i s .
He found that the effectiveness of the curriculum leader
depended greatly on the extent to which he was able to
resolve the problems attendant to his working relationship
i
with staff members.
Van Til believes the curriculum director occupies
a pivotal position in the development and dissemination of
growth experiences for others.

He indicates,

The good curriculum director knows and fosters
learning opportunities which are based soundly upon
philosophical, psychological and sociological founda­
tions which draw upon many subjects and areas. . . .
Some among the participants in educational change
must bear the responsibility for the long and com­
prehensive view of the curriculum.
The final touch­
stone of generalists must be the best possible e n ­
tire program for the education of individual chil­
dren and y o u t h .2
The need for sensing rationality in change is also
an important aspect of the curriculum director's role.
^Batsakis, op. c i t .
2
Van Til, o p . c i t ., p. 27.

He

32
must; provide leadership that is orderly, thoughtful,

and

capable of being translated into m e a n ingful procedures.
According to Hamilton,
. . . the instructional leader helps identify the
problems and assists in developing alternate strate­
gies.
The instructional leader uses his sensitivity
and skills in human relations to lessen professional
r i s k .1
Expanding on the idea of leader sensitivity and
skill, Castetter and Burchell comment that it is also i m ­
portant to consider the attitudes and perceptions leaders
hold with respect to self, individual, group, and o r gani­
zational need satisfaction.

They state,

One of the elements in administrative behavior
is attitudinal; i.e., the attitudes and perceptions
which administrators hold concerning the nature of
people and their capabilities and the points of view
they hold w i t h respect to the individual and the
organization. . . . One of the prime prerequisites
of any effective style of leadership is an u n d e r ­
standing of the relationship between the satisfaction
of human needs and personnel performance on the
educational program.
In a fundamental sense, satisfaction of human
needs is essential to attainment of instructional
objectives.
The will of the members of the school
organization to cooperate in, or to resist, the
attainment of objectives is strongly influenced by
the extent to which each is able to experience work
s a t i s f a c t i o n .2
A study by Srisa-an tends to bear out this c o mmen­
tary.

In an investigation of the effectiveness of the cur­

riculum director's role performance, he found that the
perceptions and expectations of curriculum directors were
^Hamilton, op. c i t . , p. 342.
2
Castetter and B u r c h e l l , o p . c i t ., pp. 57-58.

33
affected by the level of understanding they held, especially
with respect to p e r s o n n e l .^
The importance of the curriculum director's ability
to function responsively and effectively as a leader wit h
respect to the personnel with w h o m he works can not be
underestimated.

It is possible however, that unless he

has an accurate perception of what his staff leadership
responsibility is, and what that perception m e ans for his
behavior,

conflict is likely to occur.

In analyzing the

behavior of principals, Wiles and Grobman said,
Unfortunately, persons in official positions
frequently fail to recognize the differences b e ­
tween their own behavior and the behavior w h i c h
they know to be desirable.2
This kind of discrepancy is also illustrated in a study of
the elementary

principalship by Hunt.

He concluded that

principals expectations for their own behavior were not in
agreement with respect to their perceptions.

That is, the

principal expected higher behavior from a principal than
he actually perceived in his own performance.

3

Wichit Srisa-an, "A Macros c o p i c Analysis of Role
Dimensions of Curriculum D i r e c t o r s : Perceptions and E x ­
pectations of Superintendents, Curriculum Directors, and
Principals," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University
of Minnesota, 1967.
2
Kimball Wiles and Hulda Grobman, "Principals as
Leaders," The Nation's Schools, LVI (October, 1955),
pp. 75-77.
^James Edmund Hunt, "Expectations and Perceptions
of the Leader Behavior of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, St. John's University, N ew
York, 1967.

34
Urick and Frymier reported how such conflicting
ideas of role may inhibit growth and change.

They concluded,

The existence of ill-defined relationships among
teachers, administrators and supervisors and of con­
flicting perceptions of the role each sees himself
and others playing may combine to inhibit the con­
sideration of change, and may, therefore, have a nega­
tive effect on teachers' attitudes.
If teachers see
the principal as the leader in bringing about changes
while the principal sees the stimulus for change as
needing to originate among the faculty there will
likely be a built-in resistance to change.
All involved in improving the instructional program
and the competency and quality of staff should have a clear
understanding of their r o l e , as well as the role others
may play.

Wiles described the necessity for common role

expectations as follows:
As people work together in curriculum change, as
in other human cooperative enterprises, they need
to have relatively common role expectations and need
to feel free to perform the functions inherent in
these roles.
Unless roles are understood, conflict
develops because individuals feel that others are
either not concerned or are presumptuous, that they
lack good will or common purpose.
If curriculum
change is to progress smoothly, agreement on roles
is essential.2
Gross and Herriott added to the knowledge and
literature about role congruency with respect to leader­
ship with their study of the behavior of principals.

They

were primarily interested in whether or not the leadership
Ronald Urick and Jack R. Frymier, "Personalities,
Teachers and Curriculum Change," Educational Leadership,
XXI (November, 1963), p. 108.
2
Kimball Wiles, The Changing Curriculum of the
American High School (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: £renticeHall, Inc.,1963), p. 221

35
efforts of the building principal had a significant effect
on the functioning of the s c h o o l .

To do this they measured

the behavior of a number of principals and labeled it,
"Executive Professional Leadership"

(E.P.L.).

They de­

fined E.P.L. as an effort to provide for improvement in
the quality of staff performance by the leader
in a professionally staffed organization

(executive)

(the school) on

the premise that the leader's role definition obligated
him to do so.

Their study sought to, and did, substantiate

twelve major hypotheses and thus determine that E.P.L. did
influence the performance of teachers to improve.

The

twelve major hypotheses were:
1.
The more a principal permits his teachers to
share in his decisions, the greater his E . P . L . ;
2.
The more egalitarian a principal's relationship
with his teachers, the greater his E.P.L.;
3.
The more social rapport a principal offers to
his teachers, the greater his E.P.L.;
4.
The greater the managerial support a principal
offers his teachers, the greater his E.P.L.;
5.
The greater the principal's support of his
teachers in case of conflict between teachers and
pupils, the greater his E.P.L.;
6.
The higher a principal's evaluation of his abil­
ity to provide educational leadership to his staff,
the greater his E.P.L.;
7.
The more off-duty time a principal devotes to
his job, the greater his E.P.L.;
8. The more fully a principal internalizes the pro­
fessional leadership definition of his role, the
greater his E.P.L.;
9. The greater importance a principal attaches to
his routine administrative duties, the less his E.P.L.;
10. Principals with a service motive for seeking
their positions will provide greater E.P.L. than
those without it;
11. The greater the intellectual ability of the
principal, the greater his E.P.L.; and,

36
12. The greater a principal's interpersonal skills,
the greater his E.P.L .1
In earlier studies, Halpin, 2 and Jenkins and Blackman 3 had
concluded that to be effective, leadership must be both
task and people oriented.

In treating the same areas,

Mackenzie suggests the quality of leadership productivity
and staff morale "will be related to the clarity, inter­
relatedness and agreement relative to the expectations held
4
for various roles by the role incumbents."
He also pro­
vides an illustration of the expectations that are likely
to influence leaders

(see Figure 1).

The Curriculum Worker

The Principal

The Teacher

_______________ i-----------1
i

Tasks

Influences

I

Role

Clarification
Self Perceptions

(Self Concept)

Perceptions of Others

Figure 1.— Expectations that influence leaders.

1

Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, Staff Leader­
ship in Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry (toew Y o r k :
John Wiley and Sons, 1965), Chapter 7, pp. 121-134 for
numbers 1-5; Chapter 8 , pp. 135-149 for numbers 6-12.
2

Andrew Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School
Superintendents (Columbus! The Ohio State University,
College of Education, 1956), p. 10.
3
David H. Jenkins and Charles A. Blackman, Ante­
cedents and Effects of Administrator Behavior (Columbus:
The Ohio State University, College of Education, 1956),
p. 45.
4
Mackenzie, op. cit., p. 68.

37
Periodic research has been conducted over the past
years in the areas of leadership, group dynamics and other
related phenomena.

In a study of leadership effect upon

group activity, Campbell concluded,
These and other relationships found support the
general finding of much recent research to the effect
that the successful leader or supervisor allows his
subordinates responsibility and initiative, and is
egualitarian and considerate in his treatment of
the m .1
Also, reporting on leadership in relation to the group,
Hemphill concluded,
. . . it appears to be strongly related to maintain­
ing the group as a unit (viscidity, homogeneity, and
stability). This may in part define the functions
of a leader of a group.
When we consider leadership in relation to the
individual who is judging its adequacy, we find it
most highly related to the dimension hedonic tone,
the measure of agreeableness which accompanies member­
ship in a group.
If membership is agreeable, leader­
ship tends to be judged as adequate.
As far as the
individual is concerned, adequate leadership tends
to equal satisfaction in group membership.
When the individual and the group are considered
together, we might make the highly oversimplified
statement: adequate leadership results in keeping
the group together and its members satisfied.
More
precisely, these observations raise the question of
the part played by leadership phenomena in the
dynamics of group activities .2
In a rather extensive work on supervision, Burton
and Brueckner describe a three-part typology of the
1
Donald T. Campbell, Leadership and Its Effects
Upon the Group (Columbus:
The Ohio State University,
Bureau of Business Research Monograph No. 83, 1956), p. 70.
2

John K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leader­
ship (Columbus:
The Ohio State University, Bureau of E&ucational Research Monograph No. 32, 1949), p. 58.

38
curriculum director's role in planning and conducting staff
improvement activities.

The three types described are:

TYPE I : The director of curriculum and instruction
plans and conducts staff improvement activities with
little or no intent of securing the cooperation of
teachers and other staff in planning, implementing
and assessing those activities.
TYPE II:
The director of curriculum and instruction
plans staff improvement activities but teachers and
other staff cooperate in implementing and assessing
the a c t i v i t i e s .
TYPE III:
The director of curriculum and instruction
serves as a member of the total staff in identifying
problems or needs, planning staff activities on the
basis of those problems or needs, implementing the
plans for the improvement of the instructional p r o ­
gram and cooperatively assessing the o u t c o m e s . 1
Summarizing the role of leadership in his study on
continuing teacher education,

Rubin said,

In general, . . . our most successful f a cilita­
tors were characterized by a quality of openness,
by an obvious interest in the progress of each p e r ­
son w ith w h o m they worked, by the ability to respond
spontaneously to facilitating opportunities w hen
they arose, and by a belief in their own r o l e . 2
Thus,

in summarizing the literature on theory and

practice, the m a jor role of the curriculum director is
focused on improving the instructional program.

Central to

this task is the need for a continuing program of staff
development.

Within the context of the staff development

arena the functions of the curriculum director are m u l t i ­
dimensional.

vision:
Crofts,

He must be sensitive to the relationships

Wil l i a m H. Burton and Leo J. Brueckner, S uperA Social Process (New York:
Appleton-CenturyInc.7 1955), p. 473.
2
Rubin, op. c i t ., pp. 19-20.

39
between his immediate tasks and the broader scene of growth
and change in o t h e r s ; he must be more coherent and compre­
hensive in understanding the means and ends of his own role;
he must be knowledgeable and competent in the area of group
dynamics and human relations; he must provide a climate of
reassurance where those who find change more difficult can
build the security needed to modify their practices; and,
above all, he must recognize the importance of all people
as individuals with a unique right to participate in the
conduct of affairs paramount to their own welfare.
Staff Development
It has been established that the central focus of
curriculum leadership is the improvement of the instruc­
tional program.

Affecting staff change is an integral

part of this process.

Frequently, however, curriculum

workers are confronted with the problem of having to re­
move irritating features in order to provide effective
leadership and free-up the creative potential of the
teaching staff.
Hass views the critical thrust of the curriculum
director's behavior in staff development in the following
way:
The goal and responsibility of the curriculum
director's role specifically in relationship to the
area of staff development is the continuing improve­
ment of the instructional program and climate for
learning for boys and girls.
The heart of this en- _
deavor is nurturing classroom teacher effectiveness.
^Hass, "Democratic Leadership and the Future,"
Leadership for Improving Instruction, op. c i t . , p. 183.

40
The pressing demands for quality instruction in
schools require a conscious effort of the part of both
curriculum leaders and the teaching staff.

One avenue

which has been cited as a barrier to this effort, however,
is that of teacher resistance.

Rubin,

continuing education of teachers,

in his study on the

concluded,

. . . the impotence of so m u c h of our in-service
effort is attributable, not to teacher resistance,
but the ineffectiveness of the system we use.
The
potential of in-service education as a consequence,
would seem to be great:
if we can find the right
formulas we m a y well make a profound difference in
the quality of schooling.
Substantiation of these viewpoints is found in the
research of K l i n e .

He reported that teacher perceptions

of CONSIDERATION behavior of central office curriculum
decision makers was significantly related to teacher i m ­
plementation of curricular plans.

He further concluded

that teacher-decision m a k e r agreement w ith respect to
INITIATING STRUCTURE behaviors of the central office curri­
culum decision maker was significantly and negatively r e ­
lated to teacher perceptions of curricular plan implementa2
tion.
Further support can be found in a study by Shinn.
He reported that the curriculum director's role was not
only perceived as "greatest overall w i t h the educational
program" as compared to the role of superintendents and
^■Rubin, op. c i t . , p. 24.
2
Charles Ewert Kline, "Leader Behavior, Curricular
Implementation and Curricular Change," unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969.

41
principals, but greatest as specifically perceived with
respect to revision of curriculum, selection of materials,
articulating elementary and secondary programs, in-service
education, and the scheduling of district equipment.^
One area of continuing concern regarding the cur­
riculum director's role in providing leadership for staff
development has been the perception, understanding, and
interpretation of his efforts.

On the one hand, they have

been viewed as challenging; while on the other, the same
behavior has been viewed as threatening.

Saunders,

Phillips and Johnson comment on this situation:
An objective in educational leadership should
be to provide a situation that is challenging but
not unduly threatening.
This is a difficult task
because a situation that is perceived as a challenge
by one person may be perceived as a threat by another.
Therefore, a close working relationship with a per­
sonal understanding of the people involved in a situ­
ation seems necessary.
Xn view of this it seems that
participation and a close working relationship b e ­
tween the status leader and the followers are neces­
sary conditions for reducing threat which may result
from change itself . 2
Combs and Snygg share a similar position and speak
of confrontation as a challenge and an important opportunity,
if seized upon, for self-enhancement.

They state,

We feel challenged when we are confronted by
situations in which we feel fairly adequate, but
in which we also see some opportunities for testing
Byron Merrick Shinn, Jr., "A Study of Superinten­
dent, Principal and Curriculum Director Perceptions of
Role in the Educational Program," unpublished Ed.D. disser­
tation, University of Illinois, 1969.
2
Saunders, Phillips and Johnson, op. c i t . , pp. 69-70.

42
and enhancing our adequacy.
There may even be some
small degree of threat involved in the possibility
that we might fail.
The situation is exciting and
a challenge because the problem is perceived as one
within our capacities and having inherent in it
important opportunities for self e nhancement.^
A part of this feeling of challenge or threat is
due to the confusion over the role of the curriculum direc­
tor.

The growing importance of the position and the

breadth of responsibilities ascribed and assigned to it
have clouded the leadership dimension which is so crucial
to staff development.

In a climate for change, openness

and the opportunity for objective examination of alterna2

tives are important fac t o r s .

Concern is expressed over

this aspect of the role of the leader in the operation of
an organizational institution such as the school.

Getzels

and Guba suggest the primary role of the leader in this
kind of setting is the bringing about and blending of the
institution and its roles and expectations with those of
the individual and his personality and needs disposition.
With respect to curriculum leadership for staff development,
Castetter and Burchell clearly outline this task.
. . . A highly significant facet of every leadership
role is staff development. . . . It is reasonable
to assume that every individual in the organization
^Combs and Snygg, op. c i t ., p. 179.
2

3

Doak, op. c i t ., p. 369.

Jacob W. Getzels and Egon G. Guba, "Social Be­
havior and the Administrative Process," The School Review,
LXVI (Winter, 1957), pp. 423-441.

43
wants to succeed in fulfilling his expectations.
The leader's role is to find opportunities to make
this possible .1
One critical element in staff development is the
ability of the curriculum director to influence behavior.
In examining the emerging role of the director of instruc­
tion, Rutrough suggests the major thrust of the director's
leadership function must be geared toward continuously:
Helping professional staff members to discover,
to define, and to understand their tasks, their goals,
and their purposes as they strive to implement curri­
culum change and to improve the instructional pro­
gram.
Helping professional staff members to achieve
their tasks, their goals, and their purposes as they
go about their daily tasks of providing opportunities
for meaningful learning experiences for pupils.
Helping the professional group to maintain itself
and to improve its performance.
The director of instruction as such may be char­
acterized as a decision maker, a group leader, and a
human relations engineer .2
In studying the continuing education of teachers,
Rubin hypothesized that for professional growth to occur,
an on-site agent with the ability to manage programs of
self-development would be necessary.

He found, however,

that this agent, or facilitator as he was termed in the
study, did not serve as a change agent per se.

Rather,

according to Rubin, he served as "an ever present symbol
3
of the improvements which are expected."
1

2

3

Castetter and Burchell, op. c i t ., p. 61.
Rutrough, op. c i t ., p. 721.
Rubin, op. c i t ., pp. 11-12.

44
In summary,

the curriculum director m u s t face his

leadership responsibilities in a climate of change.

In

his leadership capacity, he must w o r k constantly and con­
sistently to help improve the instructional quality of the
staff.

Central to this task is his ability to provide for,

and facilitate,
growth.

the kinds of things that allow for teacher

Saunders, Phillips and Johnson are v ery explicit

in their v i e w on w h a t is meant by allowing for teacher
growth.

They state very clearly.

To change the curriculum it is necessary to
change the individuals involved in the curriculum;
moreover, change m ust come about in relation to
the values, experiences, feelings, and attitudes of
those w h o m the change affects.-*The research of Rubin supports this concept.

He

concludes,
The implications for the professional growth of
teachers seem clear; programs designed to enhance
the teacher *s effectiveness m u s t attack a specific
objective and produce demonstrable ability to p e r ­
form this facet of the teaching t a s k . 2
The improvement of instruction through staff d e v elop­
ment is a growth process in relation to a larger situation.
An effective staff development p r o g r a m , m o r e o v e r , recognizes
the involvement of the professional staff and the curricu­
lum director on a mut u a l basis.

Effective staff d e v e l o p ­

ment can result in an improved relationship between the
curriculum director and the professional staff as together
^Saunders, Phillips and Johnson, o p . c i t . , p.
2

Rubin, op.

c i t . , pp.

5-6.

88

.

45
they move toward a quality educational program for chil­
dren and youth in their school district.

For a curricu­

lum director to be effective, he must not only be selfaware, but attuned to the social order in which he operates
as well.

As Ballou has observed, " . . .

individuals can

come closest to achieving the fullest measure of their
individuality only in concert with other individuals."^
Allen cited the recognizable trend in recent litera­
ture which places emphasis on the cooperative nature of
staff development and the need for a "team approach."
Underscored was the need for the curriculum director as a
person of trained professional leadership to give guidance
to the group effort.

2

The heart of the instructional program and the
thrust of staff development in terms of the curriculum
director's leadership function is teacher effectiveness in
the classroom.

The continued growth of leaders in curri­

culum and a deeper cognizance of their own role behavior
is imperative to the attainment of this effectiveness.

(Boston:

^■Richard B. Ballou, The Individual and the State
The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 2£2.
2

Allen, op. c i t ., p. 332.
See also, "Principles
and Recommendations for the Professionalization of Super­
visors and Curriculum Workers," News Exchange, Supplementary
Edition, July, 1967.
These principles were developed as
an outgrowth of an in-depth investigation into the problem
of professionalizing the role of the curriculum director
by the Commission on Problems of Supervisors and Curriculum
Workers of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

46
School Organization
Most groups exist and function with some degree
of organization,

structure and leadership.

With respect

to staff development, improving the quality of the instruc­
tional program and the leadership role of the curriculum
director, the local school provides the setting for action.
In t h e o r y , the role of the curriculum director
focuses on facilitating individuals and groups toward the
achievement of their goals within the organizational set­
ting of the school as an institution of society.

To func­

tion effectively, the curriculum director needs a firm
understanding of the structure and influence of the organi­
zational setting with respect to his role behavior and p er­
ceptions of leadership.

Contemporary educational leader­

ship, however, seems caught in the dilemma of meeting the
challenge of rapid technological advancement on the one
hand, and the need to maintain a high degree of humaneness
on the other.

According to Stogdill in his studies of

leadership.
Leadership is concerned with the problems of
human performance and interaction . . . . The leader
in any actively operating organization is constantly
confronted by discrepancies between the demands of
organization and the performance of organization.
This means the leader is concerned with the coordi­
nation (restructuring) of interactions and perform­
ances as necessary in order to accomplish the tasks
at hand.l
^Ralph M. Stogdill, Leadership and Structures of
Personal Interaction (Columbus: The Ohio &tate University,
Bureau of Business Research Monograph No. 84, 1957), p. 3.

47
The behavior patterns and perceptions of

the cur­

riculum director are likely to be affected as hemoves to
provide leadership to others in such a situation.

Evidence

indicates that the organizational climate exerts consider­
able influence on the occurrence of change and the conse­
quent behavior of school personnel.

A study by Hughes re­

vealed, "Innovative districts did evidence a climate which
could be described as more open than did non-innovative
districts."^

Commenting on Hughes' findings, Mangione said,

Since the behavior of leadership personnel is
an important factor in the kind of organizational
climate which prevails, it would seem reasonable to
assume that such behavior can serve tostimulate or
stifle change in a given situation .2
In an extensive study of organizational climates, Halpin
identified and described six such climates which he be­
lieved characterized the range of atmospheres in which a
principal or teacher may be perceived to be functioning.
These six climates were the open, autonomous, controlled,
familiar, paternal, and closed.

3

Early, in the initiatory

Larry W. Hughes, "Organizational Climate— Another
Dimension to the Process of Innovation," Educational
Administration Quarterly (Autumn, 1968), pi 21.
2

Samuel Mangione, "Bringing Perspective to the
Changing Situation," Educational Leadership, XXVII (January.
1970), p. 370.
3
For a complete discussion of these six climates,
see Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956), Chapter 4,
pp. 131-249.

48
stages of the studies of leadership done by the Personnel
Research Board at The Ohio State University, Stogdill and
Shartle hypothesized,
. . . the pattern of behavior in a given leadership
position will be determined in part by the performance
demands made upon that position*
However, it was not
anticipated that all the differences between leaders
would be accounted for by differences in the demands
made upon them by their jobs.
Rather, it was hypoth­
esized that the behavior of a leader in a given posi­
tion would also be related to factors such as the fol­
lowing:
his status in the organization hierarchy,
the structure of interaction among members of the
organization, the responsibility-authority structure
of the organization, and the performances of the
members of the organization.
In other words, leader­
ship was viewed as one of the structure and function­
ing of a total organization.
This hypothesis has been both supported and q ues­
tioned in recent research.

In a study of central office

personnel with responsibilities for curriculum leadership,
Carlson reported the existence of many similarities operat­
ing in school systems pertinent to matters of curriculum
improvement.

2

Shinn, in researching the role of the curri­

culum director in the educational program, found that the
school organization expectations are perceived as more im­
portant to roles than are professional expectations,

situa-

3

tional d e m a n d s , and personal p r e f e r e n c e .

In contrast, however, Pederson concluded that while
there was general agreement as to the role of the director
^Stogdill and Shartle, o p . cit *, p. 1.
2

C a r l s o n , op. c i t .

^Shinn, op. c i t .

49
of instruction, complete agreement within systems was in­
frequent.

Although certain general duties describing the

role of the director of instruction were applicable to
most school systems, there were strong indications that
each school system has certain unique n e e d s .

T h u s , the

instructional directorship might best be defined in terms
of a specific district.^

Some research has also been done

with respect to organizational factors believed pertinent
to the leader behavior of the curriculum director.

A num­

ber of studies have emphasized thatj, for effectiveness,
the curriculum directorship be established as a line posi­
tion with commensurate authority in the organizational
hierarchy, rather than a staff position.

2

In investigating

the size of the organizational unit with respect to student
enrollment, some researchers have found this variable to
have little effect on the perceptions and leader behavior
3
of the curriculum director.
In contrast, however, Pederson
reported that school size in terms of student enrollment
and location did exercise a strong influence on the percep­
tions and expectations of superintendents, principals and

^Orville Joel Pederson, "The Role of the Director
of Instruction as Perceived by Superintendents, Principals
and Directors of Instruction," unpublished Ph.D. disserta­
tion, University of Iowa, 1968.
2

op. c i t .
3

See Batsakis, Carlson, Cotton, Grizzle and Pederson,
See Carlson, Srisa-an and Shinn, op. c i t .

50
directors of instruction with respect to the role behavior
of the director of instruction.^
In the final analysis, it is possible that any
organizational climate and leadership behavior pattern
could be construed to be promotional of staff development
and individual growth.

However, the organization of which

the curriculum director is a part, and the programs for
staff development which he tries to effect must give spe­
cific attention to the procedures by which group potential
can be released and change realized.
In summary, Ramseyer delineated eleven principles
of organization which he feels to be consistent with modern
leadership theory.

These eleven principles suggest cer­

tain implications for the role of the curriculum director
as he strives to provide leadership for staff development.
One assumption being made is that the quality of leadership
productivity, the morale of staff and the organizational
setting will be related.

The eleven principles are:

1. Organizational structure is designed as an in­
strument by which members of an organization to­
gether with their clients outside of the organization
arrive at mutual goals and ways of achieving them.
2. Organizational structure is invented to carry
policy agreements into action.
3. The operational procedures must provide for a
division of labor with a definite set of job expec­
tations for each of the workers.
4. The authority for the activity carried on by the
members of the organization is derived from three
sources: the legal limitations placed upon the
institution, the institutional policy and the agree­
ment on job expectations.
^"Pederson, op. c i t .

51
5. Adequate provision is made for the emergence of
leadership within the organization.
6 .
Status in an organization is earned through
group acceptance and demonstration of competence
and not by virtue of assignment.
7. Organizational structure makes provision for
catalytic, coordinating, expediting, consulting,
helping, appraising and controlling functions.
8 .
Organizational structure encourages both formal
and informal communication.
9. Organizational structure provides resourceful
people who work toward organizational betterment
through small groups.
10. Innovation, creativity, experimentation are en ­
couraged as means of improving the achievement of
institutional purposes.
11. Appraising the effectiveness of the school is of
vital importance.i
Summary
The review of literature was conducted in five
sections around the central theme of leadership and the
curriculum director.

The first three sections consisted

of an overview of leadership, the problem of defining it
with respect to the role of the curriculum director, and
a look at theory and practice as it applies to his leader­
ship role*

The last two sections considered the nature of

the curriculum director's leadership role with respect to
staff development as one of his major responsibilities,
and the organizational climate in which he endeavors to
carry out those tasks pertinent to i t .
Leadership rates a high place in the framework of
education.

In these contemporary times it serves as a

vital link between individual function and group performance
^Ramseyer, op. c i t ., pp. 58-61.

52
in the drive to achieve quality educational programs for
boys and girls.

The literature points to leadership as

the key factor in developing programs of opportunity for
improving staff competency within the local school setting.
As a leader, the curriculum director must be responsive to,
and responsible for, change as he goes about the task of
trying to meet the urgent and long range needs of both
staff and school system.

In public education today he,

along with his professional educator colleagues, is being
challenged for an accounting of behavior.

In addressing

this challenge, the modern day curriculum leader is faced
with a role dichotomy:

on the one hand he is being asked

to perform a releasing function in terms of staff develop­
ment, instructional improvement and response to change;
while, on the other, he is being asked to perform a con­
trolling function with respect to staff structure and
district organization.
While indicating the importance of the curriculum
leader in the educational enterprise, the literature also
attests to the fact that his identity and role have not
been clearly defined.

The struggle to arrive at a meaning­

ful and satisfactory definition has cast the curriculum
director in many molds.

He has been defined in terms of

directing others, working with them toward mutually accept­
able goals, facilitating the achievement of objectives
identified by others and as a charismatic individual,

53
"disposed to lead, hot to administer; and with altering
conditions, not with maintaining them . " 1
The variation apparent in the efforts to define
the role of the curriculum director may best be explained
and accounted for by the multi-faceted nature of the
leadership phenomenon itself.

Whatever he is or may be

expected to be, one characteristic remains prominent above
all others— he must be human.

In the last analysis, it is

the importance he attaches to humanity and the human process
that will provide the basis for his effectiveness as a
leader, and the productive growth, development and change
that occurs in his behavior and that of the people with
whom he wor k s .
Widespread agreement on a theory of leadership with
respect to the role of the curriculum director is also
lacking.

However, by way of summarizing what seems to be

indicated in the literature, Doll identifies the educational
leader as a person who should be empathetic, surgent, a
recognized member of the group he leads, helpful to those
he leads, emotionally controlled, intelligent, and interested in assuming his leadership role.

2

1Samuel Moore, Jr., "The Charismatic Leader--unpublished paper (East Lansing: Michigan State University,
Department of Administration and Higher Education, 1969),
p. 1 .
2

Ronald C. Doll, Curriculum improvement:
DecisionMaking and Process (Boston! Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1964),
pp'J 153-154.

54
Agreement: was evident in the literature that the
main function of the curriculum director was focused on
the provision of leadership for the improvement of the
instructional program and the enrichment of the quality of
classroom teacher performance.

Staff development was cited

as one of the most fundamental ways of providing for change
and professional and personal growth.

It was also recog­

nized in the literature that the curriculum leader functions
within an organizational framework and that the climate of
the organization brings influence to bear on his role p e r ­
formance .
In conclusion, many unresolved issues face the cur­
riculum director in his efforts to provide competent l ead­
ership for the development of a professional teaching
staff capable of implementing a quality educational program
for the clients of his school district.

As an agent for

change, the perceptions of leader behavior held by the
curriculum director are critical to his ability to develop
and provide opportunities that will release the growth p o ­
tential of others.

In order to render dynamic leadership,

the curriculum director in the local school setting must
be able to call upon a large and varied repertoire of
skills, understandings, perceptive insights and com p eten­
cies.

Further, he must continuously evaluate his approaches

to leadership so that he can be a positive influence in
changing those factors that can effect a higher degree of

55
staff performance and program quality.
of evaluation,

In this process

the curriculum director m u s t consider his

professional staturte, his perceptions of leadership, his
role in the process of helping others grow, his openness
and relationship w ith others, and the continuing need to
strive for consistency and clarity in his role behavior
and p e r f o r m a n c e .

CHA P T E R III
THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This study is ba s i c a l l y exploratory in nature.
It is designed to:

(1) identify and describe the general

characteristics of the K-12 curriculum director in M i c h i ­
gan public schools; and,

(2 ) examine the self-perceptions

he holds with respect to his role behavior in providing
leadership for staff development.

To pursue the o b j e c ­

tives outlined in Chapter I , it was necessary to identify
and describe the population,

select, procure and prepare

suitable instruments for data collection, develop and im­
plement appropriate data collection procedures, and select
proper techniques and methods for data analysis.
The Population
The population, as defined for the study, is that
group of individuals in K-12 public school districts in
Michigan, exclusive of the city of Detroit, having a spec­
ified responsibility for providing leadership w i t h respect
to curriculum development and instructional improvement.
These individuals have been more specifically identified
by sych titles as "Assistant Superintendent,"
or "Curriculum Coordinator"

"Director,"

for a K-12 public school
56

b7
district in the state such that N=89.

Only one such per­

son has been identified per school district.

No other

limitations or restrictions of definition or identifica­
tion are placed on the population.

As the population num­

bers 89, it is used in total for collecting data.
The Instruments
A suitable instrument was needed in order to
gather information with respect to the demographic charac­
teristics of the curriculum director.

A second instrument

was needed to obtain his self-perceptions of leader behav­
ior.

In the first instance, a General Information Survey

(GIS) was developed by the researcher; and in the second,
the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) was

selected.
The General Information Survey

(GIS)

This instrument was designed and prepared by the
researcher.

Its purpose is to provide the basis for

describing the curriculum director with respect to a set
of four categories of general demographic characteristics.
In reviewing the literature, these characteristics tended
to emerge most frequently as factors of potential related­
ness to the self-perceived leader behavior of the curricu­
lum director and his role in the staff development process.
The four categories of demographic characteristics are t

58
1.

Professional-Experiential Background

(i.e.,

years of professional education service and e x p e r i e n c e ) ;
2.

School District Data

(i.e., class of district,

K-12 enrollment, and number of K-12 teaching s t a f f ) ;
3.
curriculum

Professional Position Data

(i.e., years the

directorship has existed in the local district

and general areas of responsibility associated w i t h i t ) ;
and,
4.

Staff Development Data

(i.e., different kinds

and numbers of provisions made for staff development in
the d i s t r i c t ) .
This instrument was refined prior to implementation
by field testing with professional colleagues and c o n sulta­
tion with university specialists.

Final modifications c o n ­

sisted of clarifying specific items, structuring the length
of the instrument, and simplifying the format.
implemented form,

In its

the GIS consisted of 20 items in the

format of a checklist and a series of blanks calling for
a single numerical response.

Seven of the 20 items treated

the area of respondent professional-experiential background,
three were concerned with broad school district ch a racter­
istics, and two w i t h information about the curriculum
director's position itself.

The remaining eight items

focused on the area of staff development.

In addition,

one open-ended opportunity for comment was p r ovided the
respondent.
A ppendix

A copy of this instrument can be found in the

(see Exhibit T h r e e ) .

59
The Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire (LBDQi
According to Seeman,

"One of the recurring prob­

lems in the study of leadership,

. . . , is that of achiev­

ing an objective portrait of how the leader behaves , . .
The purpose of this instrument is concerned with a method
of describing leader behavior, or at least the behavior of
persons placed in leadership positions.

In developing

the LBDQ it was hypothesized that performance in a leader­
ship position was marked to a large degree by the demands
and dimensions associated with the position.
The original questionnaire as developed by the
Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University con­
tained 150 items which evolved from an examination of some
1800 short, descriptive statements of ways in which leaders
behave.

Subsequent use of the questionnaire, particularly

by Halpin, pared the original 150 item, nine-factor instru­
ment to one of 30 items which provided measures for two
of these factors:

CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE .3

Melvin Seeman, "A Comparison of General and Specific
Leader Behavior Descriptions," in Leader Behavior:
Its De­
scription and Measurement, ed. by Ralph M. Stogdill and
Alvin E. Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State University, Bureau
of Business Research Monographs, No. 8 8 * 1957), p. 8 6 .
2

Carroll L. Shartle, "Introduction," in Leader Be­
havior:
Its Description and Measurement, e d . by Ralph M..
Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (Columbus: The Ohio State Uni­
versity, Bureau of Business Research Monographs, No. 8 8 ,
1957), pp. 1-2.
3
Andrew W. Halpin and B. James Winer, "A Factorial
Study of the Leader Behavior Descriptions,” in Leader Behav­
ior:
Its Description and Measurement, e d . by Ralph M. Stog­
dill and Alvin E . Coons (Columbus« The Ohio State Univer­
sity, Bureau of Business Research Monographs, No. 8 8 , 1957),
pp. 39-51.

60
On the basis of factor analysis, CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE accounted for 4 9.6 and 33.6 percent,
respectively, of the common variance.

As these two factors

thus accounted for 83.2 percent of the common variance,
the original 150 item LBDQ was revised to a 30 item form
measuring them, w i t h 15 items appearing for each category.
The estimated reliabilities for CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE are

.93 and

.86, respectively.^

In its present form,

40 items appear on the L B D Q :

15 for measuring CONSIDERATION;
STRUCTURE;

15 for measuring INITIATING

and 10 buffer items included for the purpose of

maintaining instrument tone.

The respondents to the q u e s ­

tionnaire are asked to indicate the frequency of their b e ­
havior by marking one of five adverbs:

"Always," "Often,"

"Occasionally," "Seldom," and "Never."

This met h o d of r e ­

sponse is used with respect to the dimensions of "idealself" and "real-self"

leader behavior perceptions of the

respondent included wit h i n each of the two factors measured.
Each item, excluding the ten buffer items, is scored on a
scale from f o u r to zero.

Thus the possible range of scores

for each of the two factors mea s u r e d and their concomitant
2
dimensions extends from zero to 60.
^Halpin, The o r y and Research in A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o p .
c i t ., p. 88.
2

A leader behavior score is defined as the average
of all the descriptions of a respondent on a single d i men­
sion of leader behavior.

61
In summarizing the work of the Personnel Research
Board with respect to the implementation of the L B D Q ,
Ramseyer says,
The staff of the Ohio State Leadership Studies,
as a result of its investigations, found it was more
meaningful to speak of the leader behavior of people
rather than their leadership ability or capacity.
Describing leader behavior permits one to speak of
what people do when they are leading.
When leader­
ship is thought of in this way, attention is focused
upon the interaction of people and the roles they
play in a group situation, not upon the kinds of
people in the situation and their personal attri­
butes .1
One limitation in the use of the LBDQ as a means
of measuring self-perceptions of behavior is cited by Seeman.
He suggests.
We are pointing here to the possibility that the
description of leader behavior (by the leader him­
self) through the use of general items may increase
respondent consistency at the cost of accuracy in
description— that i s , to the extent that the items
do not direct the respondent's attention to fairly
specific behavior to be described, he may build into
his responses a consistency which reflects his own
needs and attitudes more than it reflects the con­
sistency of the leader's behavior . 2
Campbell, in his studies of leadership, however,
tends to dispel this fear of contamination.

He suggests

that self-descriptions are useable on several counts:

(1 )

they are relatively more differentiated by topic and thus
less subject to a "halo" effect;

(2 ) they are unlikely to

be contaminated by stereotyped attitudes;
^■Ramseyer, op. c i t ., p. 55.
2
Seeman, op. c i t ., p. 92.

(3) that although

62
they may tend to be somewhat more favorable to the respon­
dent, they are also more discriminating;

(4) they do not

have to wait for an observable moment; and,

(5) the bias

that may be present in self-descriptions is much less sys­
tematic than that which tends to be present in o n e 's be ­
havior description by o t h e r s .^
The value of the LBDQ is that it can readily be
adapted to a wide variety of situations without altering
the meaning of the items or the intent of the instrument.
The design is simply to describe the behavior of a leader
as he perceives and believes himself to be functioning in
a given context.

It is for this reason that it was selected

for use in this study.
in the Appendix

A copy of this instrument appears

(see Exhibit T w o ) .

The Factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE
Evidence shows that effective leadership is charac­
terized by high CONSIDERATION and high INITIATING STRUCTURE
and that these two factors are representative of leader
behavior fundamental and pertinent to the various aspects
of leadership skill.

From studies done by Halpin and

others, it is clear that these factors are found to be
^Campbell, o p . c i t ., pp. 37-38.

63
highly rated in the behavior of effective leaders.

1

This

is shown schematically in Figure 2.
CONSIDERATION
CS+
(IV)
INITIATING
STRUCTURE

c+
s+

MEANS OF
INITIATING

(I)
S.

-

oTKUCTUKE

SCORES
cs-

c+
s-

(III)

(II)

MEAT rs o f
CONSIDE:RATION
see>RES

LEGEND
(C=CONSIDERATION)
(S=INITIATING STRUCTURE)

Figure 2.— A quadrant scheme for describing leader's behavon the CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE factors.®
aFrom Andrew W. Halpin, "The Superintendent's
Effectiveness as a Leader," Administrator's Notebook, Vol. 7,
No. 2 (October, 1958) .
What this figure indicates is that,
. . . the leaders who fall into Quadrant I are eval­
uated as highly effective.
Those in Quadrant III,
whose behavior is usually accompanied by group chaos,
are evaluated as most ineffective. The leaders in
See Halpin, Theory and Research in Administration,
op. c it,, and the monographs in the leadership series o£
Tne Ohio State University studies in personnel (refer to
the Bibliography for a complete listing of these monographs).
See also, Hemphill, "Patterns of Leadership Behavior Asso­
ciated with the Administrative Reputation of the Department
of a College," o p . c i t .; Leonard L. Mitchell, "The Expressed
Perceptions and Expectations of Selected Prospective Second­
ary School Teachers as They View the Leader Behavior of the
Secondary School Principal," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1969; and Lond Durfee Rodman,
"Relationship of Personal Variables to Real-Role and IdealRole Behavior Perceptions," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1968.

64
Quadrant XV are disciplinarians and "cold fish" who
are so intent upon getting.a job done they forget
they are dealing with human b e i n g s . The leaders in
Quadrant II are also ineffective and may be exceed­
ingly benevolent, friendly, and gentle.
This behav­
ior of the leaders in Quadrant II contributes little
to effective performance unless the behavior is ac­
companied by a required minimum of Initiating Struc­
ture .1
In summary, the LBDQ is concerned with a way of
describing leader behavior, or at least the behavior of
people in leadership positions.

It is a method designed to

achieve some objective measure of how a leader perceives
his behavior.

This instrument assumes that the perceptions

of a person in a leadership position will be associated
with, and related to, the demands, dimensions, and factors
pertinent to the position.

Thus, because the LBDQ is de­

signed to measure two dimensions of leader behavior

("ideal"

and "real"), and because past research has shown the factors
of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE to be highly re­
lated to the behavior of effective leaders, it was selected
for use as a data gathering instrument.

As indicated in

Chapter I , in cases where the LBDQ has been used to describe
the behavior of a leader, a reference poiht has proven to
be a helpful element in considering the dimensions and
factors of the leader behavior being measured.

Therefore,

the point of reference in this study is staff development.
^Mitchell, op. c i t ., pp. 41-42.

65
Procedure for Data Collection
Initially, 92 curriculum directors were contacted
in writing.

This correspondence served as the means for

inviting participation in the study.

Accompanying the

communication of invitation was a copy of each of the ques­
tionnaires.

For the convenience of the respondent, a re­

turn, self-addressed, stamped envelope was included to
facilitate prompt completion

and return of the instruments.

A copy of the correspondence inviting participation can be
found in the Appendix

(see Exhibit O n e ) .

To simplify completion

of the G I S , the statements

were structured so that only a simple check or numerical
response was required.

On the LBDQ the "ideal-self" and

"real-self" responses were paralleled on a single form.

In

this way, the respondent could address the statements of
leader behavior individually and respond to each of the
behavioral dimensions in t u r n , before moving on to the
next item.

Further, the instrument design allowed the re­

spondent to simply and quickly indicate his response to
each item by circling the adverb of frequency he perceived
most appropriate.

T h u s , by attempting to simplify the

means of response to the items on each of the instruments
in the ways indicated, it was hoped a minimum time invest­
ment for the respondent could be achieved and a correspond­
ingly high rate of response attained.

As stated at the

outset of this section, 92 packets of material were mailed

66

to initiate the data gathering process.

Due to the d i s ­

continuance of the curriculum director's position in three
cases, the final population for the study became N*=89.
From this population, a total of 71 returns were received.
This represented a 79.8 percent response.
Objectives of the Study
Objective O n e :

To describe the K-12 curriculum

director in Michigan public schools on the basis of four
general categories of demographic data and develop a
characteristics profile from these data for the population.
Objective T w o :

To identify and

describe the dif­

ferences in the "ideal-self” and "real-self"

leader behavior

of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan public schools
with respect to his role in staff development.
Objective T h r e e ;

To identify and describe the dif­

ferences in the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior
perceptions of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools with respect to his role in staff develop­
ment within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE.
Objective F o u r :

To examine the data obtained from

the General Information Survey

(GIS) and those obtained from

the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) with

respect to the curriculum director's leader behavior p er­
ceptions and his role in staff development to note any r e ­
lationship between the variables of the respective instruments.

67
Procedure for Data Analysis
The GIS data gathered regarding the curriculum
director's professional-experiential background/ the nature
of his school district, his job position in the district,
and the area of staff development are presented in tabular
form and analyzed descriptively.

These demographic data

are reported as frequency distributions, m e a n s , and simple
percentages.

They provide the basis for development of a

characteristics profile of the population.
The data yielded from the LBDQ are presented and
analyzed in statistical terms.

To facilitate the statis­

tical analysis of these data, a program requiring the use
of the CDC 3600 computer and the services of the Michigan
State University Computer Center was developed.

The pro­

gram design included a basic statistic routine

(BASTAT) and

a least squares routine

(LS).

During the run of the BASTAT

portion of the computer program, three new variables were
calculated to facilitate the analysis of the LBDQ data.
These new variables were:

the difference between the cur­

riculum director's total scores for his "ideal-self 11 and
"real-self" leader behavior perceptions, and total scores
for the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
These new variables were calculated by including a trans­
formation procedure in the BASTAT routine.
The statistical analysis of the data collected also
involves an examination of the relationship of the general

68

demographic characteristics of the curriculum director
with his "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior p er­
ceptions and the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE.

This examination, to determine which of the

general demographic characteristics tend to be most highly
related to the curriculum director's self-perceptions of
leader behavior with respect to his role in staff develop­
ment, is accomplished by an analysis of variance procedure
for overall regression performed during the LS routine.
With respect to the LBDQ data, numerical scores for
each respondent are derived for the factors of CONSIDERATION
and INITIATING STRUCTURE and the concomitant dimensions
of "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions.
These scores are generated from the following scale developed
by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University:
four points for each "Always" response;
three points for each "Often" response;
two points for each "Occasionally" response;
one point for each "Seldom" response; and,
zero points for each "Never" response.
Thirty items on the LBDQ
INITIATING STRUCTURE)
scale.^

(15 for CONSIDERATION and 15 for

are scored on the basis of this point

The ten buffer items retained in the LBDQ to m a i n ­

tain instrument tone are not scored.

Thus, the possible

^The construction and wording of the LBDQ required
that three items treating the factor of CONSIDERATION be
scored in inverse order.

69
range of scores for each

of the

comitant dimensions extends

two factors and their con­

from zero to 60.

For the G I S , numerical values are assigned to the
items scored within each

of the

four general sections of

demographic data covered

in the

instrument. Scores were

calculated for each of these four general categories by
summing the values for individual items within each section
and assigning the resulting amount as the total score for
that section or part of a section.
Summary
The population under study consists of 89 K-12
curriculum directors in Michigan public schools excluding
the city of Detroit.

These individuals have been identi­

fied by title and defined to have a role responsibility
in providing leadership for curriculum development and in­
structional improvement.
Two instruments are used to obtain data with respect
to this population.

These instruments are:

General Information Survey

(1) a 20-item

(GIS) prepared by the researcher;

and (2) the 40-item Leader Behavior Description Question­
naire

(LBDQ) developed by the Personnel Research Board of

The Ohio State University.
■

The data from the GIS are presented descriptively
in tabular form and analyzed using frequency distributions,
means, and simple percentages.

A characteristics profile

based on these data is developed for the population.

The

70
LBDQ data are presented and analyzed in statistical t e r m s .
A computer program calling for a basic statistic routine
(BASTAT) with a transformation is used for the statistical
analysis of these data.

To assist in this analysis, the

transformation procedure calculates three new variables.
The data from both instruments are then statistic­
ally examined to determine the extent to which any relation­
ships exist.

A least squares routine

(LS) providing an

analysis of variance for overall regression is used for
this purpose.

Both the BASTAT and LS routines are run on

a CDC 3600 computer.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The data gathered are presented and analyzed in
descriptive and statistical terms.

The demographic data

are presented and described in tabular form using frequency
distributions, averages, and simple percentages.

These

data are also used as the basis for developing a character­
istics profile of the population.

Statistical measure­

ments of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire
(LBDQ) data are presented and analyzed with respect to:
(1 ) differences in the curriculum director's "ideal-self"
and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions of his role in
staff development; and (2 ) differences in these perceptual
dimensions within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIAT­
ING STRUCTURE.
Finally, the demographic data obtained from the
General Information Survey

(GIS) are examined in relation­

ship to the dimensions of curriculum director "ideal-self"
and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions and the factors
of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE as measured by
the LBDQ.

71

72
Examination of Objective One
To describe the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools on the basis of four general categories of
demographic data and develop a characteristics profile of
the population from these d a t a *
As an entree to a consideration of the curriculum
director's leadership role in staff development, certain
demographic data were gathered.

These data were concerned

with the curriculum director's professional-experiential
background, his school district, his position, and the
local district staff development program as he perceived it.
As indicated in Chapter III, the population under
study consisted of 89 K-12 curriculum directors in the
public schools of Michigan.
variety of titles,

Although identifiable by a

all shared the common responsibility of

providing leadership for curriculum development and instruc­
tional improvement.

It is noteworthy that, at the incep­

tion of this study, these 89 people occupied all of the
known K-12 curriculum directorships in the state excluding
the city of Detroit.

This population broadly represented

the geographic regions of the state and the range of school
district size existing in Michigan.
data is reported below.

An analysis of the

73
Category O n e ;_ ProfessionalExperiential Background'
The most common title reported for the K-12 curri­
culum leader in Michigan was "Assistant Superintendent for
Instruction.”

Some 15 other titles were reported

(see

Table 1.1).
TABLE 1.1.— Common titles associated with K-12 curriculum
leaders in Michigan schools.

Title Reported
Director of Curriculum
Director of Instruction
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
Assistant Superintendent for Instruction
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
and Instruction
Curriculum Coordinator
Administrative Assistant for Curriculum
and Public Relations
Director of Instructional Services
Deputy Superintendent for Instruction
Director of Curriculum and Guidance
Assistant Superintendent for Instruction
and Personnel
Executive Director of Curriculum
Services
Associate Superintendent for Instruction
Director of Curriculum and Personnel
Curriculum and Teacher Consultant

Number
Responding
(N=71>
7
9
1

5
22

Percent
Response
9.9
12.7
1.4
7.0
31.0

7
7

9.9
9.9

1

1.4

2

2.8

2

2.8

1

1.4

1

1.4

1

1.4

2

2.8

2

2.8

1

1.4

74
Of the 71 respondents,
held a Master's degree;
percent a Doctorate.

53.5 percent reported they

25.4 percent a Specialist;

and 21.1

Since all respondents were beyond the

level of the Bachelor's degree, the data tend to suggest
that curriculum directors appear to see a need for advanced
graduate study.

It may also be that an advanced degree is

held as a practical expectation for the potential incumbent
to the curriculum directorship.
With respect to total years of experience, Tables
1.2

through

1.6

show various categories of data.

O b s e r v a t i o n s .— By and large, the curriculum d i r e c ­
tor is a veteran educator, having been in the field an
average of more than 20 years

(see Table 1.2).

He is also

not a newcomer to the school system where he is presently
employed, enjoying a longevity period of m o r e than
on the average

10

years,

(see Table 1.3).

The curriculum director has been in his present
position in the district for a m u c h shorter period of time
however.
years.

The m e a n for this category of service is 4.2
In addition, it should be noted that 56.4 percent

of the respondents have been in their present position
three years or less,

26.8 percent four to six years, and

12.6 percent seven to ten years.

C u m u l a t i v e l y , 83.2 p e r ­

cent of the respondents have been in the curriculum p o s i ­
tion in their district six years or less, and 95.8 percent,
ten years or less.

From these data it can also be seen

TABLE 1.2.— Curriculum director total years in education.

Range of
Years
Reported

Number
Reporting
(N-71)

Percent
Response

Cumulative
Years
Reported

Cumulative
Number
Reporting

Cumulative
Percent of
Response

0-5

0

0.0

5

0

0.0

6-10

2

2.8

10

2

2.8

11-15

10

14.1

15

12

16.9

16-20

26

36.4

20

38

53.3

21-25

18

25.4

25

56

78.7

26-30

7

9.9

30

63

88.6

31-35

2

2.8

35

65

91.4

36-41

6

8.6

41

71

100.0

71

100.0

Mean=21.6 years.

TABLE 1.3.— Curriculum director total years in present district (regardless of role).

Range of
Years
Reported

Number
Reporting
(N=71)

Percent
Response

Cumulative
Years
Reported

Cumulative
Number
Reporting

Cumulative
Percent of
Response

0-5

17

23.9

5

17

23.9

6-10

14

19.7

10

31

43.6

11-15

16

22.5

15

47

66.1

16-20

13

18.3

20

60

84.4

21-25

8

11.3

25

68

95,7

26-30

3

4.3

30

71

100.0

71

100.0

Mean=12.0 years.

TABLE 1.4.— Curriculum director total years in current position in present district.

Number
Years
Reported

Number
Reporting
(N=71)

Percent
Response

Cumulative
Years
Reported

Cumulative
Number
Reporting

Cumulative
Percent of
Response

1

9

12.8

1

9

12.8

2

14

19.7

2

23

32.5

3

17

23.9

3

40

56.4

4

7

9.9

4

47

66.3

5

7

9.9

5

54

76.2

6

5

7.0

6

59

83.2

7

2

2.8

7

61

86.0

9

5

7.0

9

66

93.0

10

2

2.8

10

68

95.8

11 •

1

I-4

11

69

97.2

15

2

2.8

15

71

100.0

71

100.0

Mean=4.2 years.

78
TABLE 1.5.— Curriculum director total years in current
position in other districts.
Total Years
Reported

Number
Reporting
(N=71)

Percent
Response

0
3
4

64
1
3

90.1
1.4
4.3

6

2

2.8

10

1

1.4

71

100.0

Mean=0.5 years.

TABLE 1.6.— Curriculum director total years of experience:
a summary.
Category of Years of Experience

Total years in education
Total years in present district
Total years in present position in
current district
Total years in present position in
other districts

Mean in
Years

Range in
Years

12.0

8-41
1-29

4.2

1-15

0.5

0-10

21.6

79
that: over 50 percent of the curriculum directors in Michigan
came into their positions approximately three years ago,
about two-thirds of them four years ago, and over 80 per­
cent within the period 1965-70.

These data strongly sug­

gest the recent emergence and growth of the K-12 curriculum
position across the state, particularly since the mid-60's
(see Table 1.4).

Noteworthy, also, is that when asked if

they had held a curriculum directorship in a district pre­
vious to their present one, slightly over 90 percent of
the respondents indicated they had not

(see Table 1.5).

These data strongly suggest that the curriculum director
is a "home-bred animal" coming from within the ranks of
the local district staff.
In summary, it is likely that the curriculum direc­
tor has had a substantial number of years in education and
a relatively long period of service in his district but, is
a newcomer to his position having had no prior experience
in it.

Finally, the curriculum director in Michigan public

schools tends to come from the ranks of the staff of his
home district.
Category Two;

School District Data

This category was concerned with the general areas
of district class, total K-12 enrollment, and total number
of teaching staff in the district.^

With the exclusion of

^*Class of district is related to the number of
school children ages 5-20 in a legally constituted Michigan
school district.
As.defined by the Michigan General School

80
Detroit from the study, no Class I school district was re­
ported.

Of the 71 respondents, 7*0 percent were in

Class II districts, 87.4 percent reported they were in
Class III districts, and 5.6 percent were in Class IV
districts.

All 71 respondents reported the fourth Friday

K-12 enrollment for their district for 1970-71, and 67
reported the number of K-12 teaching staff employed by the
district for the same period.

The range of enrollments

ran from 992 to over 45,000, and the number of teaching
staff from 44 to 2,000.

The means were 9,200 students and

430 teachers respectively.
Category Three:
Position Data

Professional

These data refer to the number of years the curri­
culum directorship has been in existence for those districts
reporting and the general areas of responsibility cited
by curriculum directors as most common to the position.
Observations.— From Table 1.7, it can be seen that
some 45 percent of the curriculum directorships in Michigan
were created about three years ago, two-thirds of them six
years ago, and just under 85 percent of them within the ten
Laws, these classes are: Class I, more than 120,000 chil­
dren; Class II, 30,000 to 119,000 children; Class III,
2,400 to 29,999 children; and Class IV, 75 to 2,399 chil­
dren. Enrollment and size of staff figures were reported
by the respondents and may be subject to local interpreta­
tion as to what constitutes a teacher, etc.

TABLE 1.7.— Years curriculum directorship has existed in Michigan school districts.
Range of
Years
Reported

Number
Reporting
(N—71)

Percent
Response

Cumulative
Years
Reported

Cumulative
Number
Reporting

Cumulative
Percent of
Response

1

7

9.9

1

7

9.9

2

10

14.1

2

17

24.0

3

15

21.1

3

32

45.1

4

7

9.9

4

39

55.0

5

5

7.0

5

44

62.0

6

4

5.6

6

48

67.6

7

2

2.8

7

50

70.4

8

1

1.4

8

51

71.8

9

4

5.6

9

55

77.4

10

5

7.0

10

60

84.4

11-15

5

7.0

15

65

91.4

16-20

4

5.6

20

69

97.0

25-40

2

2.8

40

71

100.0

71

100.0

Mean=6.6 years.

82
year period since 1960,

The average length of time the

curriculum directorship has been in exi s t e n c e in school
districts across the state is

6.6

years*

T h e s e data

strongly suggest the recent emergence of the K-12 c u r r i c u ­
lum position and its establishment in a gro w i n g number of
school districts across the state.
Xn examining a set of 15 responsibilities drawn
from the literature as those most frequently associated
with the role of the curriculum leader,

six eme r g e d as the

mos t common w ith respect to the population u n d e r study.
These responsibilities in rank o r der a r e :
1

.

program planning and curriculum development;

2

.

providing for pre- and in-service programs for

staff m e m b e r s ;
3.

identifying and providing resources for staff;

4.

conducting general program e v a l u a t i o n on a

district-wide basis;
5.

developing and coordinating federal programs

and,
6

1

.

performing general administrative duties.

A complete rank ordering of the 15 responsibilities
commonly associated with the curriculum d i r e c t o r s h i p in
Michigan can be found in the A p pendix (see T a b l e A) »
2
For a more detailed examination of the curriculum
director's involvement in this area sees
James W i l l i a m
Perry, "A Study of the Role of the Cu r r i c u l u m D irector in
Federal Programs in Fourteen Selected School Districts in
the State of Michigan," unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1968.

83
It should also be noted that in those districts
where a curriculum or instructional council exists, the
curriculum director most frequently functions as chairman
of that body.

Of 71 respondents, 84.5 percent reported a

council existed in their district.

Of these same 71 re­

spondents, 61.6 percent indicated they served in the role
of chairman.
Curriculum directors were also asked to indicate
the nature of the relationship they saw between the staff
development program in the district and curriculum/instruc­
tional council activities.
sponded to this question.

Fifty-six of the directors re­
These responses are reported in

Table 1.8.
Observations.— From Table 1.8, it appears that the
council functions primarily as a discussion center with
respect to staff development activities in the district,
acting largely as a clearinghouse for ideas.

These data

tend to suggest that the council probably does not play a
major role in the staff development program of the local
district, but rather, a limited one.
Category Four:

Staff Development Data

This section focuses on the general concept of
staff development with respect to the different kinds and
numbers of activities curriculum directors reported as pro­
vided in their districts.

84
TABLE 1.8.— Staff development: Curriculum/instructional
council relationship.

6

10.7

25

44.6

1

1.8

2

3.6

2

3.6

1

00

No relationship
Council acts as a clearinghouse
for ideas
Council sets standards and
criteria for staff development
programs in the district
Council plans the staff development
programs for the district
Council implements the staff
development programs in the
district
Council evaluates the staff develop­
ment programs in the district
Council plans, and/or implements,
and/or evaluates the staff
development programs in the
district
Council acts as an advisor to the
Superintendent

Frequency and Percent
of response
Frequency Percent

.

Description of Staff Development:
Curriculum/Instructional
Council Relationship

18

32.1

1

1.8

Observations: ~ Table 1.9 clearly indicates that
curriculum directors feel avenues are available through
which staff development can take place in the local district.
A rank ordering of the specific staff development provisions
cited by curriculum directors can be found in the Appendix
(see Table B ) .
In summary, the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools:
1

.

is most commonly identified by the title,

"Assistant Superintendent for Instruction";

85
TABLE 1.9.— Types of general staff development provisions
reported.
Type of Staff
Development Provided

Pre- and in-service programs,
staff orientation, and
other professional
growth activities
Teacher participation in
planning and implementing
staff development
activities
One-to-one planning with
staff members for their
own growth
Curriculum or Instructional
Council provided for

Frequency and Percent
of Response
Yes Percent
No Percent

69

97.2

2

2.8

69

97.2

2

2.8

56

78.9

15

21.1

60

84.5

11

15.5

2.

has a Master's degree or better;

3.

is a veteran educator, averaging

4.

is a relatively long time employee of his

21.6

years of

service;

school district having served there an average of

12.0

years.;
5.

occupies a position which has been in existence

in local districts across the state an average of
6

.

6.6

years;

has been in the curriculum directorship an

average of 4.2 years;
7.

tends to be "home-bred," coming to his present

position from within the ranks of the local district staff
where he has served in other roles; and.

86
8

.

is In a position recently emerging in the

Michigan educational scene, being established or created
largely within the decade of the 6 0 's and primarily since
1965.
Examination of Objective Two
To identify and describe the differences in the
"ideal-self" and ’’real-self" leader behavior perceptions
of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan public schools
with respect to his role in staff d evelopment.
Ob s e r v a t i o n s .— Respondents indicated

(see Table 2)

their perceptions for the dimensions of "ideal-self" and
"real-self" leader behavior.

A total score for each of

these LBDQ dimensions was obtained for every respondent.
A total score for each dimension was then computed for the
population.

The total mean score for the "ideal-self"

dimension of the curriculum director's leader behavior
perceptions exceeded that for the "real-self" dimension.
TABLE 2.— Correlation of LBDQ "ideal-self" and "real-self"
leader behavior p e r c e p t i o n s .
Leader
Behavior
Dimension

____ _________Curriculum Director
______
Total Mean
Standard
Significance
Score
Deviation
of the Mean

"Ideal-self"

87.0

9.62

.0005

"Real-self"

77. 0

8.72

.0005

r = .79

87
The correlation of these mean scores was .79.

This high

positive correlation suggests that the two dimensions of
leader behavior perceptions of the population tend to be
highly related.

The total mean scores for both dimensions

were found to be statistically significant at the .0005
level.

These significance levels tend to suggest a rather

high degree of likeness in the population.

That is, a high

level of similarity tends to be evident in the extent to
which respondents agreed on their responses with respect
to describing their "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader
behavior perceptions.
In general, the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader
behavior perceptions of the curriculum director tend to
be highly related and differences in the perceptions of
individual directors tend to be relatively slight.

More

specifically, this population of curriculum directors tend
to perceive little difference between how they believe they
ought to behave in providing leadership for staff develop­
ment, and how they believe they actually behave in perform­
ing this role function.
suggested by Halpin

With respect to the quadrant model

(see Figure 2, Chapter III), it can be

inferred that since a high degree of perceptual relatedness
exists between dimensions, the population has tended to
associate their behavior with that of effective leadership,
and have responded in ways in which effective leaders might
be expected to respond.

88

Examination of Objective Three
To identify and describe the differences in the
“ideal-self" and "real-self11 leader behavior perceptions
of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan public
schools with respect to his role in staff development
within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUC­
TURE.
Observations.— Respondents indicated

(see Table 3)

their perceptions for the dimensions of “ideal-self" and
“real-self" leader behavior.

In keeping with the design of

the LBD Q , responses were categorized for scoring according
to the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
Scores for each dimension were obtained for every respondent
with respect to each factor.

Means for each of the respec­

tive dimensions were then computed for the population with
respect to each factor.
TABLE 3.— Correlations of LBDQ “ideal-self" and "real-self"
leader behavior perceptions WITHIN the factors of CONSIDERA­
TION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
Leader
Behavior
Dimension

Leader Behavior Factor
CONSIDERATION
INITIATING STRUCTURE
Mean
Mean
Score
S.D.
Sig.
Score
S.D.
Sig.

“ideal-self"

47.0

4.75

.0005

40.0

6.94

.0005

“real-self"

41.0

4.10

.0005

36.0

6.00

.0005

r = .7 3

r->.8 0

89
The respondents mean scores for the dimensions of
the CONSIDERATION factor exceeded those for the INITIATING
STRUCTURE factor.

The within factor correlation of the

mean scores for the perceptual dimensions of population
leader behavior with respect to CONSIDERATION was

.73.

The within factor correlation of these mean scores with
respect to INITIATING STRUCTURE was

.80.

These high posi­

tive correlations suggest that the dimensions of "idealself" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions in the
population tend to be highly related within the factors of
CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.

These correlations

also suggest a rather high level of perceptual consistency
in the population between the group members "ideal-self"
and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions within each
factor with respect to their role in staff development.
Means for the dimensions of each factor were found
to be statistically significant at the .0005 level.

As

before, these significance levels tend to indicate a rather
high degree of similarity among individuals in the popula­
tion.

This high level of similarity tends to be evidenced

by the degree to which respondents agree on their responses
in describing their leader behavior in staff development
with respect to the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE .
In general, the population tend to perceive their
"ideal-self" and "real-self"

leader behavior w i t h respect

90
to staff development as highly related within the factors
of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.

Differences

in these perceptions are relatively slight.

More specifi­

cally, curriculum directors in the population tend to per­
ceive little difference between their CONSIDERATION behavior
and their INITIATING STRUCTURE behavior with respect to
their role in providing leadership for staff development.
Since earlier studies have found that the most effective
leaders are those who characteristically tend to score high
on both CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE, it can
again be inferred that the population and its membership
have tended to associate their leader behavior with that
of effective leaders, and have responded in ways in which
effective leaders might be expected to respond (see Figure 2,
Chapter III).
Examination of Objective Four
To examine the data obtained from the General
Information Survey

(GIS) and those obtained from the

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) with re­

spect to the curriculum director's perceptions of his
leader behavior role in staff development, to note any re­
lationship between the variables of the respective instru­
ments .
Observations.— From Table 4.1, the "curriculum
director's total areas of responsibility" tends to emerge
as the GIS characteristic most highly related to the LBDQ

91
TABLE 4.1.— Comparison of differences in the partial corre­
lation coefficients BETWEEN the "ideal-self” and "real-self"
dimensions of the LBDQ and six GIS characteristics.

GIS
Characteristics

Curriculum Direc­
tor total years
in education

LBDQ "Ideal-self"
Dimension
---------Part.
Corr. Deletes Sig.
Coef.

.15

Total number of
K-12 teaching
staff in the
district
-.17
Total years cur­
riculum posi­
tion has
existed in
the district
.04
Curriculum Direc­
tor's total
areas of responsiblity
.29
Total provisions
for staff de­
velopment in
the district
.04
Director's total
years in
curriculum
-.08

dimensions measured.

LBDQ "Real-self"
Dimension
R2
P art.
Corr. Deletes Sig
Coef.

29

.231

.15

.14

.231

29

.186

-.17

.13

.186

31

.779

.04

.16

.779

24

.019

.29

08

.019

31

.772

.04

.16

.772

30

.552

-.08

.30

.522

The correlation of this characteristic

with each of the dimensions was .29.

This low positive

correlation tends to suggest that the different kinds and
numbers of responsibilities the curriculum director has are
more highly related to his "ideal-self” and "real-self"
leader behavior perceptions than are any of the other GIS

92
characteristics considered.

The correlation of this char­

acteristic with each of the dimensions was found to be
statistically significant at the .019 level.

This signifi­

cance level indicates the probability that this correla­
tion would be unlikely to change over t i m e .
From Table 4.2, the "total, number of K-12 teaching
staff in the district" emerges as the GIS characteristic
TABLE 4.2.— Comparison of differences in the partial correla­
tion coefficients BETWEEN the LBDQ factors of CONSIDERATION
and INITIATING STRUCTURE and six GIS characteristics.

GIS
Characteristics

LBDQ Factors
CONSIDERATION
INITIATING STRUCTURE
R2----Part.
r 2"
Part.
C o r r . Deletes
C o r r . Deletes Sig.
Sig
Coef.
Coef.

Curriculum Direc­
tor total years
in education
.17
Total number of
K-12 teaching
staff in the
district
-.27
Total years cur­
riculum posi­
tion has
existed in
the district
.07
Curriculum Direc­
tor 1s total
areas of re­
sponsibility
.17
Total provisions
for staff de­
velopment in
the district
.11
Director's total
years in
curriculum
-.08

14

.164

11

09

.400

10

.031

-.05

10

.682

16

.582

-.003

11

.983

14

.170

.30

02

.016

16

.376

-.02

10

.859

16

.508

-.06

10

.611

93
most highly related to the LBDQ factor of CONSIDERATION.
The correlation of these variables was -.27.

This low

level correlation suggests that the curriculum director's
CONSIDERATION behavior in providing leadership for staff
development is more highly related to the number of teach­
ers in the district than to any other of the GIS character­
istics considered.

Since this correlation is negative,

however, it also suggests that as the number of teachers
in the district tends to increase, the curriculum direc­
tor's tendency toward this kind of behavior may be likely
to decrease.

The reverse would also be true.

The corre­

lation of these two variables was found to be statistically
significant at the .031 level.

This level of significance

tends to indicate that the long run probability of this
correlation occurring again is unlikely to change.
The "curriculum director's total areas of respon­
sibility" emerges as the GIS characteristic most highly
related to the factor of INITIATING STRUCTURE.
lation of these variables was

.30.

The corre­

This low level correla­

tion suggests that the curriculum director's INITIATING
STRUCTURE behavior in providing leadership for staff de­
velopment is more highly related to the different kinds
and numbers of responsibilities he has than to any other
of the GIS characteristics considered.

This correlation

also suggests that as the different kinds and numbers of
responsibilities the curriculum director has tend to in­
crease, his tendency toward this kind of behavior is also

94
likely -to increase.

The reverse would also be true.

The

correlation of these variables was found to be statistically
significant at the

.016 level.

This level of significance

tends to indicate that the 1long run probability of this c o r ­
relation occurring again is unlikely to change.
O b s e r v a t i o n s .— The analysis of variance met hod is
a statistical technique for simultaneously comparing several
means in order to decide if some relationship exists b e ­
tween a set of independent variables
istics)

(i.e., GIS character­

and a set of dependent variables

sions and f a c t o r s ) .1

(i.e., LBDQ d i m e n ­

Bear in mind, the independent variable

in this case stands for a numerical amount w ith respect to
the measurement of GIS characteristics and the dependent
variable stands for a numerical amount with respect to the
measurement of the LBDQ dimensions and f a c t o r s .
Table 4.3a describes the proportion of total variance
2

(R ) accounted for within the LBDQ variables by all of the
GIS variables;

the correlation

with the GIS characteristics;
multiple determination
tion coefficient

(r) of the LBDQ variables
the average coefficient of

(R Bar ); and, the average correla­

(R B a r ) .

The F-ratio is simply used to

draw inferences about variability.
In general,

the self-perceptions and general charac­

teristics of K-12 curriculum directors in M ichigan are not
'^William L. Hays, Statistics (New York:
Rinehart and Winston, 1963j^ p ~ 31T5T

Holt,

95
TABLE 4.3a.— Multiple correlation coefficients of four LBDQ
dependent variables.
LBDQ
Dependent
Variables

df

"Ideal-self"
total
"Real-self"
total
CONSIDERATION
total
INITIATING
STRUCTURE
total

highly related.

Multiple
Correlation
Coefficients

Sig. of
the R
Multiple
R2

R

P
Ratio

R 2
Bar^

R
Bar

7

.001

.31

.55

.23

.48

4.00

7

.130

.16

.40

.06

.25

1.68

7

.097

.17

.41

.08

.28

1.83

7

.402

.11

.32

.01

.07

1.06

The data presented suggest that of the four

dependent variables measured by the L B D Q , only the dimension
of "ideal-seIf" perceptions tends to be a predictor of cur­
riculum director leader behavior with respect to staff de­
velopment.

However, the original correlation between

the

“ideal-self" dimension and the GIS variables of .55, yields
2
an R value of .31. This suggests, that little is contri­
buted to the value of the "ideal-self" dimension as a pre­
dictor of curriculum director leader behavior with respect
to staff development by using demographic data.

The r-

multiple for predictability was found to be significant at
the .001 level.

This level of significance suggests that

in the long run, the tendency of the "ideal-self" percep­
tions of the curriculum director to predict his leader

96
behavior with respect to staff development would be unlikely
to change.
Table 4.3b describes the partial correlation coeffi­
cients

(r) or, the degree to which some variable or vari­

ables may tend to .influence other variables to either correlate or fail to correlate.

The R

2

deletes indicate the

amount of variance accounted for in the dependent variables
by all independent variables excluding the one being con­
sidered at the moment.

The level of significance is that

achieved between each independent variable and each depen­
dent variable and assumes that all other independent vari­
ables have been taken out in establishing this relationship.^
Within this context, the GIS characteristic of "cur­
riculum director total areas of responsibility" and the
LBDQ dimension of "ideal-self" perceptions emerge as the
most highly related variables with respect to curriculum
director leader behavior in staff development.
tion of these variables was .29.

The correla­

This low positive correla­

tion, while indicating that these two variables are more
highly related than any of the others considered in the
study, suggests that the different kinds and numbers of
curriculum director responsibilities are really only slightly
related to his "ideal-self" leader behavior perceptions with
respect to his role in staff development.

This correlation

was found to be statistically significant at the .02 level.
1Ibid., pp. 574-576.

TABLE 4.3b.— Partial correlation coefficients for six GIS independent variables with
respect to four LBDQ dependent variables.
LBDQ Dependent Variables
GIS
Independent
Variables

"Ideal-self"
Total
r

R2
gig,
deletes

"Real-self"
Total
r

R2
sig,
deletes

INITIATING
STRUCTURE
Total

CONSIDERATION
Total
r

R2
sig,
deletes

r

R2
sig,
deletes

Curriculum direc­
tor total years
in education

.15

.29

.23

.15

.14

.23

.17

.14

,16

.11

.09

.40

Total number K-12
teaching staff
in the district

-.17

.29

.19

-.17

.13

.19

-.27

.10

.03

-.05

.10

.68

Years curriculum
position has
existed in the
district

.04

.31

.78

.04

.16

.78

.07

.16

.58

-.003 .11

.98

Curriculum direc­
tor total areas
of responsi­
bility

.09

.24

.02

.29

.08

.02

.17

.14

.17

.30

.02

.02

Total provisions
for staff de­
velopment in
the district

-.08

.31

.77

.04

.16

.77

.11

.16

.38

-.02

.10

.86

Director total
years in
curriculum

-.08

.30

.52

-.08

.15

.52

-.08

.16

.51

-.06

.10

.61

98
This level of significance suggests that, in the long run,
the correlation between each independent variable with re­
spect to any dependent variable to be considered after all
the variance is taken out of both is unlikely to change.
In summary, the "ideal-self” dimension of the LBDQ
tends to be the best predictor of the curriculum director*s
leader behavior with respect to staff development.

Further,

the "curriculum director's total areas of responsibility"
tends to be the GIS characteristic most highly related to
the predictability of his leader behavior perceptions with
respect to staff development.

Based on the evidence, how­

ever, both of these tendencies are slight on credibility.
Summary
The data gathered in the study have been presented
and analyzed in descriptive and statistical terms.

The

major findings from these data are reviewed with respect
to each objective.
Objective One was concerned with certain demo­
graphic characteristics of the curriculum director.
data were reported and analyzed descriptively.
are present

as a population profile.

These

The results

The K-12 curriculum

director in Michigan public schools:
1.

is most commonly titled,

"Assistant Superinten­

dent for Instruction";
2.

holds a Master's degree or better;

3.

is a veteran educator with an average

years of service;

of 21.6

99
4.

has served his present school district an

average of 12.0 years;
5.

is a relative newcomer to his position having

been in it an average of 4.2 years;
6.

is in a position recently established in many

school systems, emerging in the Michigan educational scene
largely in the last ten years and more specifically since
1965;
7.

tends to have had little or no comparable ex­

perience in this position prior to entering it;
8.

tends to be "home-bred," coming from within

the staff ranks of his present district; and,
9.

is responsible for at least six major areas of

school district activity.
Objective Two was concerned with the LBDQ dimen­
sions of curriculum director "ideal-self" and "real-self"
leader behavior perceptions with respect to staff develop­
ment.

These dimensions were measured, and statistically

reported and analyzed with the following results:
1.

The dimensions of curriculum director "ideal-

self" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions were
found to be highly related and positively correlated at
the .79 level.
2.

The means for each of these LBDQ dimensions

were found to be statistically significant at the .0005
level.

100

3.

Curriculum directors, both individually an

a population,

tended to perceive little difference between

their "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior p e rcep­
tions wi t h respect to staff development.
Objective Three treated the LBDQ dimensions of
curriculum director "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader
behavior perceptions of his role in staff development with
respect to the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE.

These variables were measured,

and statistically

reported and analyzed with the following results:
1.

The dimensions of curriculum director "ideal-

self" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions w i t h r e ­
spect to staff development were found to be highly related
within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
They were highly and positively correlated at the

.73 and

.80 levels respectively.
2.

The means for each of these LBDQ dimensions

within the respective factors were found to be statisti­
cally significant at the
3.

.0005 level.

Curriculum directors, b oth individually and as

a population,

tend to perceive little difference between

their "ideal-self" and their "real-self" leader behavior
perceptions with respect to staff development within the
factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
4.

Based on the evidence, the population, as indi­

viduals and as a group, have tended to associate their

101

perceptions with effective leadership behavior by respond­
ing in ways in which effective leaders might be expected
to respond.
Objective Four examined the relationship of the GIS
data with that of the LBDQ.

The variables from both instru

ments were reported and analyzed statistically w i t h the
following r e s u l t s :
1.

The "curriculum director's total areas of re­

sponsibility" tended to be the GIS characteristic most
highly related to the LBDQ dimensions of "ideal-self" and
"real-self" leader behavior perceptions w ith respect to
staff development.

This characteristic had a low positive

correlation with each dimension of .29.

This correlation

was found to be statistically significant at the

.019 level

for each dimension.
2.

The "total number of K-12 teaching staff in

the district" tended to be the GIS characteristic most
highly related to the LBDQ factor of CONSIDERATION.

These

variables had a low negative correlation of - . 2 7 * '"This
correlation was found to be statistically significant at
the .031 level.
3.

The "curriculum d i r e c t o r 's total areas of re ­

sponsibility" tended to be the GIS characteristic most
highly related to the LBDQ factor of INITIATING STRUCTURE.
These variables had a low positive correlation of

.30.

This correlation was found to be statistically significant
at the .016 level.

102

4.

In general, the demographic characteristics of

K-12 curriculum directors in Michigan public schools are
not highly related to their self-perceptions with respect
to their role in providing leadership for staff development.
5.

While the "ideal-self" dimension of the LBDQ

tends to be the best predictor of curriculum director
leader behavior perceptions with respect to their role in
staff development, its ability to predict was marginal at
best.

Further, the use of demographic data tends to do

little to enhance the power of prediction or contribute to
the dimension as a predictor.

The r-multiple for predict­

ability was found to be statistically significant at the
.001 level.
6.

The GIS characteristic of "curriculum director

total areas of responsibility" and the LBDQ dimension of
"ideal-self" leader behavior perceptions tend to be more
highly related than any of the other variables considered
in the study.

Their correlation was .29.

This correlation

was found to be statistically significant at the .02 level.
However, the different kinds and numbers of responsibilities
the curriculum director has tend to be only slightly related
to his "ideal-self" perceptions of leader behavior with re­
spect to his role in staff development.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This summary of the study includes a review of the
purpose, design, and objectives, and a presentation of
the major findings.

Conclusions are drawn based on a dis­

cussion of the findings.

Finally, recommendations for

future research are presented and a concluding statement is
made.
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was largely exploratory.
Its focus centered o n :
1.

A description of the K-12 curriculum director

in Michigan public schools with respect to four general
categories of demographic data.

These data further pro­

vided the basis for developing a characteristics profile
of the population.
2.

The identification and description of the self­

perceptions of curriculum director leader behavior with
respect to staff development.
3.

The relationship between these two

data.
103

sets of

104
The Design of the Study
The Population
The population for this study was defined as that
group of individuals in K-12 public school districts in
Michigan, exclusive of the city of Detroit, having a speci­
fied responsibility in providing leadership for curriculum
development and instructional improvement.

These indi­

viduals were specifically identified by such titles as
"Assistant Superintendent," "Director," or "Curriculum
Coordinator," for K-12 public school districts in the
state, exclusive of Detroit, such that N=«89.

Only one

such person was identified per school district.

No other

limitations or restrictions of definition or identification
were placed on the population.

Further, as the population

was such that N=89, the total constituency was used for
data gathering purposes.
The Instruments
An instrument was necessary in order to gather the
desired demographic data about the curriculum director.
For this purpose, a General Information Survey
developed by the researcher.

(GIS) was

This 20-item instrument

treated four general categories of information:

Professional-

Experiential Background, School District Data, Professional
Position Data, and Staff Development Data.
A second instrument was needed in order to gain a
measurement of the curriculum director's self-perceptions

105
of leader behavior with respect to staff development.
Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

The

(LBDQ), developed

by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University,
was selected for this purpose.

This 40-item instrument

provided measurements with respect to the dimensions of
curriculum director "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader be­
havior perceptions and the factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE.
Procedure for Data Collection
and Analysis
Each member of the population identified received
a packet of material containing:

(1) a letter explaining

the nature of the study and inviting participation in it;
and

(2) a copy of each of the data gathering instruments.

Seventy-one returns were received from the population.
This represented a 79.8 percent response.
The demographic data were analyzed and presented
separately in tabular form.

A characteristics profile

based on these data was developed for the population.
The LBDQ data collected were analyzed statistically.
A basic statistic

(BASTAT) computer program was used for

the analysis of these data.

The data from both instruments

were also treated statistically to note any relationship
between them.
routine.

This program involved a least squares

(LS)

Both the BASTAT program and the LS routine were

run on a CDC 3600 computer.

106
The Objectives of the Study
Objective O n e ;

To describe the K-12 curriculum

director in Mic h i g a n public schools w i t h respect to four
general categories of demographic data and develop a
characteristics profile from these data for the population.
Obj ective T w o ;

To identify and describe the di f ­

ferences in the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior
perceptions of the K-12 curriculum director in M i c h i g a n
public schools w ith respect to his role in staff development.
Objective T h r e e :

To identify and describe the d i f ­

ferences in the "ideal-self" and "real-self" leader b e h a v ­
ior perceptions of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools w i t h respect to his role in staff d e v e l o p ­
ment within the factors of CONSIDERATION and INITIATING
STRUCTURE.
Objective F o u r :

To examine the data obtained from

the General Information Survey

(GIS) and those obtained from

the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) w i t h

respect to the curriculum director's leader behavior p e r ­
ceptions for staff development to note any relationship
between the variables of the respective i n s t r u m e n t s .
M a j o r Findings
1.

The K-12 curriculum directorship in Michigan

public schools is a relatively recent phenomenon, the m a j o r ­
ity of such positions being created wit h i n the last ten
years, wi t h a significant number new since 1965.

107
2.

The curriculum director is most likely a "first-

timer" in his position having had little or no comparable
experience prior to entering the position.

He is likely,

however, to be a veteran educator with several years ex­
perience .
3.

The curriculum director is most likely "home­

bred," coming to his position from within the staff ranks
of his present district.

In addition, he is also likely to

have served the district in other roles for a number of
years prior to his entering the curriculum directorship.
4.

In general, the "ideal-self" and "real-self"

leader behavior perceptions of the curriculum director
tended to be highly related.

Differences in the percep­

tions of curriculum directors, individually and as a group,
tended to be relatively slight.

That is, this population

of curriculum directors tended to perceive little differ­
ence between how they believed they ought to behave and
how they believed they actually behaved with respect to
providing leadership for staff development.
5.

In general, the population and its constituent

members tended to perceive their "ideal-self" and "realself" leader behavior with respect to staff development as
highly related within the factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE.

Differences in these perceptions

tended to be relatively slight.

That is, the curriculum

directors tended to perceive little difference between

108
how they believed they ought to behave and how they b e ­
lieved they actually behaved in providing leadership for
staff development with respect to the factors of CONSIDERA­
TION and INITIATING STRUCTURE.
6.

The high degree of perceptual relatedness be ­

tween dimensions and within factors suggests that members
of the population have tended to associate their behavior
with effective leadership and have responded in ways in
which effective leaders might be expected to respond.
7.

In general, the characteristics of K-12 curri­

culum directors in Michigan public schools are not highly
related to their self-perceptions with respect to their
role in providing leadership for staff development.
8.

While the "ideal-self" dimension of the LBDQ

tended to be the best predictor of curriculum director
leader behavior with respect to staff development, this
dimension's value as a predictor was marginal.

In addition,

the use of demographic data tended to contribute little in
being able to predict the curriculum director's perceptions
with respect to his role in providing leadership for staff
development.
9.

The general characteristic of "curriculum direc­

tor total areas of responsibility" and the LBDQ dimension
of "ideal-self" leader behavior perceptions tended to be
more highly related than any of the other variables con­
sidered.

However, this relationship tended to be low.

109
Discussion and Conclusions
The demographic characteristics of the curriculum
director give rise to several conclusions.
F i r s t , the curriculum directorship is a fairly
recent development in Michigan public school districts
emerging primarily within the last six to ten years.
S e c o n d , while the curriculum directorship is most
likely staffed by an individual w i t h several years of
service to both education at large and his district in
particular, he is a relative newcomer to the job having
been in it a short period of time.

In short, the curricu­

lum director is very likely a "first-timer" in his job,
coming to it w ith little or no prior experience in such a
position.
T h i r d , the curriculum director is most likely
"home-bred" coming from the staff ranks of his current
district.
F i n a l l y , by the curriculum director's own a d m i s ­
sion, the curriculum or instructional council does not
appear to play a very major role in the staff development
program of the local district.

This is especially inter­

esting since the council is usually chaired by the curri­
culum director and one of his main charges has been identi­
fied as the provision of leadership for staff development.
The curriculum director's total "ideal-self" and
total "real-self" leader behavior perceptions w i t h respect

110

to staff development were found to be highly related.

On

the basis of this relationship it can be said the curri­
culum director is quite consistent in his leader behavior
perceptions with respect to staff development and tends to
see little difference between how he believes he ought to
behave and how he believes he actually does behave.

Ho w ­

ever, it is also possible that he is failing, or unwilling,
to recognize and acknowledge that what he perceives he
should do with respect to providing leadership for staff
development is in fact different from that which he p e r ­
ceives he actually does.

It could also be that he possesses

a low tolerance level for recognizing differences in his
"ideal-self" and "real-self" leader behavior perceptions.
T h u s , when the curriculum director engages in any leader­
ship activity with respect to staff development, he may have
to be particularly careful about how he proceeds because
he may have built into his perceptions an element of con­
sistency which reflects his own needs disposition and atti­
tudes more than it reflects the consistency of his leader
behavior.
The curriculum director's "ideal-self" and "realself" leader behavior perceptions on the LBDQ were also
highly related within the factors of CONSIDERATION and
INITIATING STRUCTURE.

Again, it may be that the curriculum

director tends to be consistent in his leader behavior p e r ­
ceptions or, that he is unable or unwilling to acknowledge
differences in his professed "ideal” and "real" behavior

Ill

or, that he has a low tolerance level for perceiving d i f ­
ferences, thus reflecting his own needs disposition rather
than a consistency in his leader behavior.
On the surface, it appears that the curriculum
director is attempting to maintain some perceptualbehavioral equilibrium with respect to his role in p r o ­
viding leadership for staff development.

What in fact may

be happening however, is the emergence of a reluctance on
his part to reveal his perceptions to some critical selfexamination and thus have to face the challenge, and p e r ­
haps threat, of changing his behavior.

If this observa­

tion is correct, personal anxiety and staff conflict are
likely results.
In g e n e r a l , the self-perceptions and demographic
characteristics of the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan
public schools are not highly related with respect to his
behavior in providing leadership for staff development.
From this, it appears that such things as the general set­
ting the curriculum director is in and his length of ser­
vice time in education, district and position, actually
contribute little to his self-perceptions of leader behav­
ior.

It has been concluded by others that, in the final

analysis, variables of this kind apparently do not affect
leadership behavior significantly.1
1

See T. B. Greenfield, "Research on the Behavior
of Educational Leaders:
Critique of a Tradition," Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 14, No. 1 (March,
1968), £5-76 for a further analysis of this kind of rela­
tionship.

112

In view of the evidence, five major conclusions can
be drawn:
O n e , by virtue of the high level of relatedness
achieved, curriculum directors appear to be internally con­
sistent in their perceptions of "ideal" and "real" leader
behavior.

However, if it is that the curriculum director

is unaware of discrepancies in his perceptions or, knowing
they exist is unwilling to acknowledge them, then he is
likely to harbor dissonant beliefs and exhibit inconsistent
behavior with respect to his role in providing effective
leadership for staff development.
T w o , it is quite evident there is a high degree
of similarity among curriculum directors in the population
about how they perceive their leader behavior with respect
to staff development.

But, these individuals may also be

tending to avoid critical self-examination of their behav­
ior, especially about less favorable kinds of leader be­
havior.

Paradoxically, it also appears that the curriculum

director places a high value on what constitutes "good”
leadership.
T h r e e , the curriculum director, by associating his
leader behavior perceptions with a high level of leader­
ship effectiveness, seems to be acknowledging staff develop­
ment as a major function of his role.

In order to render

effective staff leadership and avoid potential conflict,
he will have to weigh carefully his priorities with respect

113
to the Individual and collective needs of staff members as
opposed to the organizational needs of the school system.
That is, he must determine if his behavior is to be people
oriented or thing oriented.
F o u r / the curriculum director in Michigan education
is a relatively new breed.

With his acknowledgement of

the need to provide effective leadership for staff growth
as a major function of his role, he has the potential of
being able to make a contribution toward producing a more
effective teaching-learning climate.

However, he must con­

tinually meet the challenge of honest self-examination and
recognize the need for continuous improvement in the quality
of instructional leadership he is providing the staff of
the school district.
F i n a l l y , in a period of great turmoil in education,
the curriculum leader in the local school setting is being
challenged to become an effective initiator of change and
a leader for constructive program and staff improvement.
His acceptance of this challenge may well depend on whether
the perceptions he holds with respect to his leadership role
are merely symptomatic of effective behavior or can, in
fact, be literally transferred into dynamic action.
Recommendations for Future Research
1.

The curriculum director's leader behavior p e r

ceptions with respect to staff development should be ex ­
amined in relationship to perceptions held of his leader

114

behavior in this area by other school district personnel
such as teachers, principals and the superintendent.
2.

An investigation of the curriculum director's

CONSIDERATION behavior and INITIATING STRUCTURE behavior
should be conducted to determine what variables in role
expectation, organizational factors, and personal charac­
teristics tend to account for these behaviors most.

If

conflict is evidenced in the behavior of the curriculum
director with respect to these factors, the consequences
for the director's role performance in providing leadership
in the school setting should also be investigated.
3.

A study should be conducted on the effect of

curriculum director "in-breeding" with respect to the
school district's staff development program and the implica­
tions this phenomenon holds for behavioral change in the
curriculum director and the professional staff.

For ex­

ample, as a product of the system in which he works, the
curriculum director might be vulnerable to the possibility
of ingraining his thinking to the system per se, thus re­
stricting the potential for change from outside.
4.

The number of K-12 curriculum directorships in

Michigan has increased dramatically since 1965.

This in­

crease should be examined in relationship to the enactment
of Public Act 379 which, in 1965, provided collective bar­
gaining rights for teachers, to see what effect it has had
with respect to curriculum development and instructional
improvement.

115
5.

The role of the curriculum director should be

examined with respect to his effectiveness as a change
agent in providing leadership for staff development and
facilitating improvement in the instructional program.
This examination should take place in the light of how
other district personnel see him functioning in this ca­
pacity.
Concluding Statement
A body of knowledge has been developing about the
nature of curriculum leadership.

This study has been an

attempt to examine the general characteristics and self­
perceptions of K-12 curriculum directors in the public
schools of Michigan and report on them with respect to
staff development as one arena of the curriculum worker's
involvement.

Hopefully, it has contributed to the develop­

ment of a framework which can serve as a vehicle to help
move toward a more comprehensive examination of the broad
spectrum of activity and responsibility associated with
curriculum leadership in Michigan schools.
A critical literature is also developing about the
role of the curriculum leader and the responsibility he has
for the improvement of the instructional program in the
local school setting.

This literature clearly demonstrates

that those in positions of curriculum leadership have the
potential to make a difference in producing a more effective
teaching-learning climate.

The goal of this study has been

116
an attempt to bring a portion o£ this potential to the
light of objective description and analysis.
Finally, a word about the preparation of curriculum
leaders is in order.

John Gardner has said.

I'm convinced that 20 years from now we'll look
back at our school system today and ask oufselves
how we could have tolerated anything as primitive as
education today. I think the pieces of an educational
revolution are lying around unassembled, and I think
w e 're going to pull them together in the next few
years.
Clearly, Gardner's insight proposes a seriousness
of purpose and scope which ought to be evident in a compre­
hensive program of preparation for those interested in
assuming roles as curriculum leaders.

Within the context

of this seriousness of purpose and scope, the preparation
program of the future curriculum leaders ought to provide
for a cooperatively planned sequence of learning experiences.
These experiences should do more than develop knowledge and
understanding, they should also

provide for the experience

of applying the skills of leadership to practical, every­
day, real world situations.

Some greater effort should be

made to Involve the potential curriculum worker in the on­
site activities of local school districts.

This kind of

first-hand experience would provide opportunity for him not
only to practice his skills of leadership, but to come to
a greater practical sense of just what it is curriculum
leadership is about.

The possibility of creating a Curri­

culum Leadership Center should also be investigated whereby

117
the elements of theory, research and practice can be
brought into focus.

This could be of particular help to

the curriculum director in the local district as an inservice component as it appears the job tends to precede
preparation for it.

That is, people don't prepare and then

seek the job, rather, the job comes first and thus creates
the need for an on-the-job type of preparation.
Society is experiencing a rapid rate of change.

In

light of this phenomenon, the role of education, as one of
society's major institutions, is not only being subjected
to criticism and analysis, but is also being required to
expand.

As a part of this expansion, the need for the

curriculum leader to continue his professional development
throughout his career is imperative.

Therefore, colleges

and universities engaged in the preparation of curriculum
leaders should give consideration to the development of a
continuing program of education to accommodate more oppor­
tunity for feedback between the curriculum personnel of
institutions of higher education and their counterparts
in the local school district.

The establishment of this

kind of opportunity for sustained dialogue would seem to
take on a particular aire of importance in light of the
finding that the curriculum director is "home-bred" and
is therefore likely to be vulnerable to the possibility of
ingraining his thinking to the system per se and thus re­
strict the potential for change from outside agents or
agencies.

118

As a means of facilitating this d i a l o g u e , considera­
tion should be given to the creation of an on-going series
of leadership conferences,

localized seminars or planning

exp e r i e n c e s , or an externship opportunity for present as
well as future curriculum leaders.

Such a series of acti­

vities may well be jointly sponsored by the Michigan Associ­
ation for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the
various major colleges and universities in the state speci­
fically engaged in the preparation of curriculum leaders.
Finally,

leadership in education is too crucial to

be left in the hands of those ill-equipped to provide it,
at whatever l e v e l .

The type of role the curriculum leader

may be called upon to play in the context of contemporary
education necessitates that he possess a high level of
professional competency.

Therefore opportunities for some

sort of curriculum internship should be established with
selective placement of the intern in a situation where his
talents can best be displayed and the process of his p re­
paration more carefully observed and evaluated with appro­
priate counsel and guidance given where n e c e s s a r y .
Ideas such as those suggested here, may provide the
basis upon which the role of the curriculum leader can
assume an even more prominent position in the challenging
years which lie ahead for education.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Ballou, Richard B. The Individual and the State*
The Beacon P r e s s , 1953.

Boston:

Burton, William H . , and Brueckner, Leo J.
Supervision:
A Social Process.
New York: Appleton-CenturyCro'fts," 1955. --Bynner, Witter.
The Way of Life According to Loatzu.
An
American Version.
New Y o r k : The John Day Company,
1944 .
Castetter, William B . , and B u rchell, Helen R.
Educational
Administration and the Improvement of Instruction.
Dansville, 111.:
The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc., 1967.
Combs, Arthur W . , and Snygg, Donald.
Individual Behavior.
New York:
Harper and Row, 1959.
Doll, Ronald C. Curriculum Improvement: Decision-Making
and Process. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, I n c . , 1964.
Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.
Gross, Neal and Herriott, Robert E.
Staff Leadership in
Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, ± n c ., 1965.
Halpin, Andrew W.
The Leadership Behavior of School
Superintendents. C o l u m b u s : The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r ­
sity, College of Education, 1956.
_______ . Theory and Research in Administration.
The Macmillan Company, 1966.

New York:

Harris, Ben M.
Supervisory Behavior in Education.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.
Hays, William L.
Statistics.
and WinstonT 1963.

New York:

Holt, Rinehart

Jenkins, David H . , and Blackman, Charles A. Antecedents
and Effects of Administrator Behaviorl
Col u m bus:
The Ohio State University, College of Education,
1956.
120

121

Saunders, Robert L., Phillips, Ray C. and J o h n s o n , Harold T.
A Theory of Educational Leader s h i p . Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. , 196 6 .
Swearingen, Mildred E.
Supervision of Instructioni
Foundations and Dimensions-. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon,
T n c 7 , - " l d W ; -------------

Wiles, Kimball.
The Changing Curriculum of the American
High S c h o o l . Englewood Cliffs, N. J . : PrenticeHall, Inc., 1963.
Publications of Learned Societies
and Other Organizations
Carlson, Evelyn F., C h r . , and L e e p e r , Robert R . , Ed.
Role
of Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate
of C h a n g e . Washington, E7 C .: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1965.
Hass, Glen, Chr.
Leadership for Improving Instruction.
Washington^ Dl C". : Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1960.
Michigan Education Directory and Buyer *s G u i d e , 196 9-70.
L a n s i n g , M i c h .: Michigan Education Directory.
R a t h s , James, and Leeper, Robert R., Eds.
The Su p e rvisor:
Agent for Change in T e a c h i n g . Washington, D. C . :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop­
ment, 1966.
Rubin,

Louis J.
"A Study on the Continuing Education of
Teachers."
Santa Barbara:
The University of
California, Center for Coordinated Education,
1968-69.

Shores, Harlan.
Toward Professional Maturity of Super­
visors and Curriculum W orkers“ W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop­
ment, 1967.
The Illinois Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
"The Curriculum Directorship:
A
Platform for the Professionalization of Curriculum
Directors."
Illinois Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1964.

122

Monographs in the Leadership Series in
Ohio Studies in Personnel
Published in cooperation with the Personnel Research Board
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Bureau of Business Research Monographs
R-80

Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership,
by Ralph M. Stogdill and Carroll L. Shartle, 1755,
77 pp.

R-81

Patterns of Administrative Performance,
by Ralph M. Stogdill, Carroll L. Shartle and
Associates, 1956, 108 pp.

R-82

Leadership and Perceptions of Organization,
by Ellis L. Scott, 19&6, 122 p p .

R-83

Leadership and Its Effects Upon the Group,
by Donald T. Campbell, 1956, 92 pp.

R-84

Leadership and Structures of Personal Interaction,
by Ralph M. Stogdill, 1£57', 96 pp.

R-85

A Predictive Study of Administrative Work Patterns,
by Ralph M. Stogdill, Carroll L. Shartle, E l l i s L .
Scott, Alvin E. Coons and William E. Jaynes, 1956,
68 pp.

R- 8 6

Leadership and Role Expectations,
by Ralph M. Stogdill, Ellis L. Scott and William E.
Jaynes, 1956, 168 pp.

R-87

Group Dimensions; A Manual for Their Measurement,
by John K. Hemphill, 1356, 6 6 p p .

R- 8 8

Leader Behavior:
Its Description and Measurement,
by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin EV Coons, Eds.,
1957, 168 pp.
Bureau of Educational Research Monographs

No. 32

Situational Factors in Leadership,
by John K. Hemphill, 1949, 1 4 0 pp.

No. 33

Leadership and Supervision in Industry; An
Evaluation of a Supervisory Training Program,
by kdwin A. Fleishman, Edwin F. Harris and
Harold E. Burtt, 1955, 110 pp.

123
Periodicals
Allen, Rowanetta.
"Role and Function of Supervisors and
Curriculum Workers."
Educational Leadership, XXII
(January, 1966), 330-353.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
"Principles and Recommendations for the Profession­
alization of Supervisors and Curriculum Workers."
News E x c h a n g e , Supplementary Edition (July, 1967),
1— 6 •

Combs, Arthur W.
"Seeing is Behaving."
Educational
Le a d e r s h i p , XVI (October, 1968) , 21-26.
Doak, E. Dale.
Organizational Climate:
Prelude to Change."
Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970),
36-?— 371.
Getzels, Jacob W . , and Guba, Egon G.
"Social Behavior
and the Administrative Process."
The School Review,
------------------LXVI (Winter, 1957), 423-441.
Greenfield, T. B.
"Research on the Behavior of Educational
L e a d e r s : Critique of a T r a d i t i o n ." Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, XIV, No. 1 (March,
1 9 5 3 5 5 - 7 6 .-------------------Halpin, Andrew W.
"The Superintendent's Effectiveness as
a Leader."
A d m i n i s t r a t o r 1s N o t e b o o k , Vol. 7, No. 2
(October, 1958).
Hamilton, Norman K.
"Sensing and Timing in Change."
Educational Leadership, XXVII (January, 1970),
3 41-342.

s------------

Hass, Glen.
"Ilole of the Director of Instruction."
Educational Leadership, XVII (November, 1960),
101-108.
Hemphill, John K.
"Patterns of Leadership Behavior Asso­
ciated with Administrative Reputation of the De­
partment of a College."
Journal of Educational
Ps y c h o l o g y , XXXXVI (November, 1336)7 3 8 3-401.
Hughes, Larry W.
"Organizational Climate— Another Dimen­
sion to the Process of Innovation."
Educational
Administration Quarterly (Autumn, 1963), l S - 2 3 .
Mangione, Samuel.
"Bringing Perspective to the Changing
Situation."
Educational Leadership, XXVII (Janu­
ary, 1970), 359-352'.

124
Miller, William C.
"Curriculum Generalist— A Vanishing
Breed?" Educational Leadership, XXXV (December,
1966) , 225=2"3'6;
Papillon, Alfred L.
"The Business Management Role of the
Curriculum Director." Educational Leadership, XXV
(October, 1967), 63-67.
"
Reynolds, James.
"Curriculum Reform and Social Behavior."
Educational Leadership, XXV (February, 1968),
3“97-4o6.
Rutrough, James E.
"Emerging Role of the Director of
Instruction." Educational Leadership, XXVII
(April, 1970) , 717^751'.
Urick, Ronald, and Frymier, Jack R.
"Personalities,
Teachers and Curriculum Change." Educational
Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 167-111.
Westwood, T. J.
"The Role of the Teacher— II." Educational Research, X (November, 1967), 21-377
Wiles, Kimball and Grobman, Hulda.
"Principals as
Leaders." The Nation's Schools, LVI (October,
1955), 75-777
Unpublished Material
Batsakis, Angelo G u s . "An Analysis of the Role of the
Director of Instruction in a Selected School
District." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne
State University, 1964.
Carlson, Darwin Grove.
"A Case Study of Central Office
Personnel with Designated Responsibility for Curri­
culum— Instruction in Four Selected School Systems."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University
of New York at Buffalo, 1967.
Cotton, Hullian D.
"A Study to Determine the Role of the
Director of Instruction and Curriculum in Selected
Alabama School Systems." Unpublished Ed.D. dis­
sertation, University of Alabama, 1969.
Grizzle, James Dennis.
"The Director of Instruction:
Study of His Duties in Texas Public Schools."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Houston, 1967.

A

125
Hunt, James Edmund.
"Expectations and Perceptions of the
Leader Behavior of Elementary School Principals."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, St. John's Univer­
sity, New York, 1967.
Kline, Charles Ewert.
"Leader Behavior, Curricular Imple­
mentation and Curricular Change.” Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1969.
Mitchell, Leonard L.
"The Expressed Perceptions and Expec­
tations of Selected Prospective Secondary School
Teachers as They View the Leader Behavior of the
Secondary School Principal." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969.
Moore, Samuel Jr.
"The Charismatic Leader
." Unpub­
lished paper.
East Lansing: Michigan State Uni­
versity, Department of Administration and Higher
Education, College of Education.
1-3.
Pederson, Orville Joel.
"The Role of the Director of
Instruction as Perceived by Superintendents,
Principals and Directors of Instruction." Un­
published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa,
1968.
Perry, James William.
"A Study of the Role of the Curri­
culum Director in Federal Programs in Fourteen
Selected School Districts in the State of Michigan."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1968.
Rodman, Lond Durfee.
"Relationships of Personal Variables
to Real-Role and Ideal-Role Behavior Perceptions."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1968.
Shinn, Byron Merrick Jr.
"A Study of Superintendent,
Principal and Curriculum Director Perceptions of
Role in the Educational Program." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1969.
Srisa-an, Wichit.
"A Macroscopic Analysis of Role Dimen­
sions of Curriculum Directors: Perceptions and
Expectations of Superintendents, Curriculum Direc­
tors, and Principals." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta­
tion, University of Minnesota, 1967.

APPENDICES

126

EXHIBIT ONE:
LETTER TO CURRICULUM DIRECTORS

127

308 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 4 8823
November
• 1970

This letter is an invitation to participate in a
research study examining the leader behavior of curricu­
lum personnel in Michigan public schools with respect
to their responsibility for staff development.
This in­
vitation is being extended to some 84 curriculum leaders
in K— 12 school districts across the state.
Leadership
to provide growth opportunities for the instructional
Staff in the local setting has come to be vested in the
person charged with curriculum responsibilities.
The
ultimate goal of this effort is directed toward the
achievement of quality educational programs implemented
by a competent staff.
This study seeks a deeper under­
standing of the role of providing leadership for staff
development.
It is for this reason that your assistance
is being sought.
The data gathering phase of the study is scheduled
for completion by December
, 1970.
Your willingness
to participate through the investment of a few minutes
of your time will be greatly appreciated.
Enclosed for
your convenience, find copies of the two data gathering
instruments and an envelope for their return.
Directions
for completing the instruments are indicated on each.
Your contribution to this study will be highly
valued and lend significantly to its outcome.
Your
identity and that of your school district will be held
in confidence at all times in considering the data.
A
coded mailing list known only to the researcher will be
retained in order that the results of the study can be
forwarded to all who request them.
Because of deadlines faced by the researcher, it
is hoped that you will return the data requested by
December ___ , 1970.
Thank you.
Sin c e r e l y ,
Michael J. Homes
Charles A. Blackman
Department of Secondary Education
and Curriculum
128

EXHIBIT TWO:
LEA D E R BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

129

LEADER BEHAVIOR DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE
Developed by Staff Members of the
Ohio State Leadership Studies
Personnel Research Board
Ohio State University
Columbusj Ohio

DESCRIPTION:

On the following pages is a list of IiO items that are being used to describe your
behavior as a leader with respect to the area of staff development as you perceive
it to be in your school district. Each item describes a specific kind of behavior
engaged in by leaders* The items do not ask you to make a value judgment as to
the desirability or undesirability of the behavior described* You are simply
being asked to descrioe your behavior as a person with leadership responsibility
in an area of the school program on the basis of two dimensions: "IDEAL-SELF"
and "REAL-SELF"* That is, you are to indicate your behavior as you would Ideally
like to perform your role as a leader in the area of staff development, and as
you actually believe yourself to be performing your role as a leader in the area
of staff development*

130

DIRECTIONS:
1.
2*
3*
U*
5.

READ each item carefully*
THINK about how frequently you engage in the behavior described by each item on the
basis of your "IDEAL-SELF" and "REAL-SELF" perceptions*
Record your decision on whether you act as described by the item on the following
frequency scale: a* AIHAYS b. OFTEN c. OCCASIONALLY d* SELDOM e* NEVER
Draw a circle around ONE of the five letters following each item to show the response
you have selected* Do this fpr BOTH the "IDEAL-SELF" and "REAL-SELF" dimensions*
RESPONSE KEY:
a. ALWAYS
b* OFTEN
c* OCCASIONALLY
d* SELDOM
e. NEVER

"Copyright, 1957, by The Ohio state University.11

IN THE PROCESS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT:

" JpF-A T^TgT.gw

"REAL-'SELF"

1.

I do personal favors for staff members•

ABODE

ABODE

2.

I make my attitudes clear to the staff*

ABODE

ABODE

ABODE

ABODE

3*

I do little things to make it pleasant to be
member of the staff*

li.

I try out new ideas with the staff*

ABODE

ABODE

5*

I act as the real leader of the staff*

ABODE

A 3 C D 2-

6.

I am easy to understand*

ABODE

ABODE

7*

I rule with an iron hand*

A 30 D E

ABODE

8,

I find time to listen to staff members*

ABODE

A 3C D S

9*

I criticize poor work*

ABODE

A

10*

I give advance notice of changes*

ABODE

ABODE

U*

I speak in a manner not to oe questioned*

ABODE

ABODE

12.

I keep to myself*

ABODE

ABODE

13*

I look out for the personal welfare of
individual staff members*

ABODE

ABODE

lli*

I assign staff members to particular tasks*

ABODE

ABODE

15*

I am the spokesman of the staff*

ABODE

ABODE

16*

I work without a plan*

ABODE

ABODE

17*

1 maintain definite standards of performance*

ABODE

ABODE

18*

I refuse to explain ny actions*

ABODE

A 3 C 0E

19*

1 keep the staff informed*

ABODE

A a 0 D j,

j

0 D E

131

22,

I emphasize the meeting of deadlines*

ABC D E

A BC D E

23*

I treat all staff members as my equals*

ABC

D E

A 3C D E

2h,

I encourage the use of uniform procedures*

ABC D E

ABODE

25*

I get what I ask for from my superiors*

ABC D E

ABODE

26*

I am willing to make changes*

a

27*

28*
29*

I make sure that my part in the organization is
understood by staff members*
I am friendly and approachaole*
I ask that staff members follow s tandard rules
and operating procedures*

ao

D E

ABODE

ABC D E

A 3C D E

ABC D S

ABODE

ABO D E

H K D £

I fail to take necessary actio- .

ABC 1 E

A * 0 DE

31*

I make staff members feel at ease when talking
with them*

ABC D S

ABODE

32*

I let staff members know what is expected of them*

ABC D S

A 3C D E

33*

I speak as the representative of the staff*

ABC D E

ABODE

3u.

I put suggestions made oy the staff into operation*

ABC D E

ABODE

33'*

I see to it that staff members are working up to
capacity*

ABO D E

ABODE

I let other people take away my leadership in the
staff*

ABC D E

ABODE

I get my superiors to act for the welfare of staff
members*

ABC D E

ABODE

I get staff approval on important matters before
going ahead*

ABC D E

ABODE

1 see to it that the work of staff members is coordinated*

ABO D E

ABODE

36*

37*

38*

39.

132

30*

EXHIBIT THREE:
GENERAL INFORMATION SURVEY

133

GENERAL INFORMATION SURVEY

Directions:

Please respond to each of the following
general information items by checking
the appropriate response or by filling
in the required numerical data.
The purpose of this instrument is to
gather sane general data about your
professional-eJtperiential background,
the composition oi1 your school district,
the concept held of your position in
the district, and the broad view of
staff development present in your
district.

CODE NUK3ER

PART As
!•

Professional-Experiential Background
Title of Your Position:
______ Director of Curriculum
_____ Director of Instruction
_____ Director of Curriculum and Instruction
_____ Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum
_____ Assistant Superintendent forInstruction
_____ Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
_ _ _
Curriculum Coordinator
Other (Please Specify) _____________________________

2.

Highest Degree Held:
_____
_____
_____

Bachelors
Masters
Specialist
Doctorate

3*

Total Years in Present District* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

U.

Total Years in Present Position in This District:

5*

Total Years in This Position in Other Districts: __

6

.

7«

Total Years in Education:
Experiential Background:
_ _ _
_____
_ _ _
_ _ _
_____

PART B:
1*

(Indicate by number of years)

Elementary teacher
Junior high teacher
Middle school teacher
High school teacher
Elementary principal
Junior hi^h principal
Middle school principal
High school principal
Central office (Please specify) ________________
Other (Please specify)

School District Data
Class of District*
_____

Class
Class
Class.
Class

I (more than 120,000 children ages 5-20)
II (30,000 - 119,OCO children ages 5—20)
ITI (2&0G - 29,999 children ages 5-20)
IV (75 - 2399 children ages 5-20)

2,

Total X-12 Enrollment in your District as of the Fourth
Friday Count for the 1970-71 school year:
~

3«

Total Teaching Staff in y. xt School District as Contracted
for the 1970-71 School fear: ____________
__________

135

PART Ci

Professional Position Data

1*

My Position In the bintrict was created

2,

Plnaue Indicate the Degree of Responsibility Yon Have in
the Areas Listed Dolow Ifeing the Following Keys
KEY:

AREAS
_____
_____
_____
_____
____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____

FART Dt

1,
2.
3«

ynar\3 ago,

Major Responsibility
Some Responsibility
Little or No Re3ponsioility

OF CONdTDERA'fION >
Program Planning and Curriculum Development
Instructional Supervision
Identifying and/or Providing Resources for Staff
Program Evaluation
Staff Evaluation
Pre-Service and In-Service Training or Professional
Growth Development
Contract Negotiations
Teacher Education
Administration
Personnel Functions
Research

_____

School-Community Relation:;

_____
_____
_____
_____

Federal Programs
Finance and Budgeting
Building anti Site Planning and Development
Other (Please Specify) ____________________

Staff Development Data

1*

Does Your District Provide Pre-Service, In-Service, Orientation
or Other Professional Growth Opportunities for Staff:
_____ Yes
_____ No

2.

Do Teachers in Your District Participate in the Planning
and Implementation of Staff Development Activities in
the District:
_ _ _ _ Yes
_____
No

3*

Is There Any One-To-One Planning with Individual Staff
Members with Respjct to Their Professional Growth Activities:
Yes
No

136

If You Responded "Yes'* to Number 3 Above, Indicate In What Way
This Individualised Planning Takes Placet
Through Teacher Consultation Initiated by and with*
You
_
The Building Principal
Through Regular or Periodic Evaluation Sessions Stipulated
by District Procedure Involving:
You
________ The Building Principal
______ Profess! onal Colleagues
Professional Staff Committees
Through Teacher Initiative or Evaluation With or By*
You
______ The Building Principal
______ Professional Colleagues
_
Professional Staff Committees
Is There an Instructional or Curriculum Council or
Its Equivalent in the District? _____ Yes
______

No

If You Answered "Yes'1 In Number 5 Above Please Indicate Which
of the Following Best Describes Your Role in That Body*
Chairman
____
Member, Full Voting
______ Resource Person, Consultant, Advisor
______ Member, Ex Officio
________ Other (Please Specify) ___________________
Which ONE of the Following Best Describes the Staff Development
Instructional/Curriculum Council Relationship in Your districts
______
______
______

None
The Council acts as a clearing house forideas.
The Council sets the standardsandcriteria for
staff development and/or professional growth in
the district.
______ The Council plana the staff development process
and/or professional growth activities.
______ The Council implements the staff development
process and/or proressional growth activities.
_____ The Council evaluates the staff development process
and/or professional growth activities.
The Council plans anu/or implements and/or evaluates.
_______ Other (Please Specify)

8

.

What Specif3c Previsions are made by Your District for
Staff Development Opportunities and Activities: (please
check only those which apply directly)
_____
_____
_____
_____

_____
_____

PART Et

Study Committees
Released Time for Teacher Planning
Summer or Extended Year Opportunities for Staff
Contract Negotiated
Staff Meetings for Staff Development purposes on
a Regular or Periodic Basis
Outside Consultants
Conference Attendance at District Expense
Out of District Visitations at District Expense
In District Visitations at District Expense
Sabbatical Leave
Other (Please Specify) ______________________

Would you like a copy of the findings of this study?
Yes
No

PART F s

If you have any further comments you would wish to make
about the nature of the staff development process and/or
the professional growth activities in your district
please feel free to do so.

138

EXHIBIT FOUR:
TABLE A
TABLE B

139

TABLE A . — Rank order of responsibilities commonly associated wi
the K-12 curriculum director in Michigan.
Area of
Responsibility

Program planning
and curriculum
development
Providing preand in-service
training p r o ­
grams for staff
Identifying and
providing r e ­
sources for
staff
Conducting g e n ­
eral program
evaluation on
a districtwide basis
Developing and
coordinating
federal programs
Performing g e n ­
eral admi n i s t r a ­
tive duties
Instructional
supervision
Research
S choo1-community
relations
Teacher education
Personnel
Building and site
planning and
development
Staff evaluation
Finance and
budgeting
Contract
negotiations

Rank
Order

Total
Number
Responding

Degree of I m p o r t a n t
Major

Some

Litt:

71

67

71

50

19

71

49

22

71

48

21

70

39

24

70

36

29

7
8

71
70

27
22

31
38

13
10

9
10
11

71

11

68

70

19
19

55
35
25

5
13
26

12
13

70
70

8

38
33

24
29

14

71

6

32

33

15

71

6

27

38

140

8

TABLE B . — Rank order of specific provisions for staff devel­
opment activities most frequently mentioned by K-12 curriculum
directors in Michigan.
Frequency
of Mention

Provision Specified
Conference attendance at district expense

69

Study committees

65

Outside consultants

60

Out-of-district visits at district cost

55

Staff meetings for staff development purposes
(both individual building and district-wide)

52

Released time for teacher planning

47

In-district visits at district expense

46

Sabbatical leave

40

Contract negotiated

36

Summer or other extended year opportunities

30

Released time for in-service education

2

Saturday workshops with pay

2

Full time K-12 curriculum consultants

1

Travel credit

1

Professional library provided

1

Orientation camp

1

Associate teacher supervision

1

141