IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS This dissertation was produced fro m a m icro film copy o f the original docum ent* W hile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the qu ality is heavily dependent upon the q u a lity of the original subm itted. T h e fo llo w in g explanatio n o f techniques is provided to help you markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. understand 1. The sign o r "ta rg e t" fo r pages apparently lacking fro m the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to o b ta in the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cuttin g thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete c o n tin u ity . 2. When m ark, copy image. 3. W hen a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the m aterial being p h o to g ra p h e d th e photographer fo llo w ed a d e fin ite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from le ft to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning b e lo w the first ro w and continuing on until com plete. 4. T h e m a jo rity of users indicate th a t the textu al content is o f greatest value, however, a som ew hat higher q u ality reproduction could be m ade fro m "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" m ay be ordered at additional charge by w riting th e O rder D ep artm ent, giving the catalog num ber, title , autho r and specific pages you wish reproduced. an image on the film is o b literated w ith a large round black it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th a t the m ay have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred Y ou w ill fin d a good image o f the page in the adjacent fram e. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann A rbor, M ichigan 48106 A Xerox Education C o m p an y I I 72-22,239 JENNINGS, James Maxwell, 1935THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIF IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, administration U n iversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX Com pany , A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an THE E L E M E N T A R Y SCHOOL P R I N C I P A L S H I P IN M I C H I G A N By J a m e s Max w e l l J e n n i n g s A THESIS S u b mitted to M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y in par t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of, the r e q u i r e m e n t s for the d e g r e e of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y D e p a r t m e n t of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher E d u c a t i o n 1972 PLEASE NOTE; S o m e pa g e s may Indistinct pr int. F i l m e d as University Microfilms, hav e received. A Xero x Education Company ABSTRACT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINC1PALSHIP IN MICHIGAN By James Maxwell Jennings This study was designed to d e t ermine the status, thought, and practices of elementary school principals in Michigan w ith respect to personal characteristics; school and resources; experiences, training, and a s pir­ ations; welfare and conditions of employment; and administrative/super visory activities and viewpoints. Study data w e r e obtained from a questionnaire completed by 8 6 percent of the 1,179 full-time super­ vising principals w h o were members of the sponsoring Mi c higan A s s o c i a t i o n of Elementary School Principals. FINDINGS The typical elementary school principal in Mi c higan in 1971 was a married, w h i t e male between 3 5-4 9 years of age who had spent less than twenty years in education and fewer than ten years as a full­ time principal. In his present p osition he spends more J a m e s Max w e l l J a n n i n g s than f o r t y - e i g h t hours per w e e k d u r i n g his 4 2-43 w eek term of employment: s upervising a s uburban K-6 school of 15-24 f u l l-time c l a s s r o o m t e achers w h i c h has a perteacher ratio of 26-3 0 students. T h e M i c h i g a n principal r e p o r t e d hav i n g earned at least the m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e and had e n r o l l e d w i t h i n a t wo-year period in c o l l e g e - c r e d i t c o u r s e s s p e c i f i c ally o r i e n t e d toward the e l e m e n t a r y school and p r i n c i p a l s h i p . He also r e v e a l e d a p o s i t i v e d e g r e e o f s a tis­ faction toward his overall job p e r f o r m a n c e and his selection o f o c c u p a t i o n a l position. col l e a g u e s On e - t h i r d of his indicated some level of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith salary and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s r w h i l e four in e v e r y t en r e p o r t e d that they would r e t u r n to c l a s s r o o m teaching if o f f e r e d the same salary r e c e i v e d as principals. He c o n s i d e r e d salary increases for pr i n c i p a l s as lagging behind salary increases for teachers and ex p r e s s e d a d e s i r e to d e t e r m i n e his salary t h r o u g h individual or g r o u p negotiation. F o r t y - o n e p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d o p e r a t i n g in school d i s t r i c t s w h i c h w e r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a u s t e r i t y budget conditions. One in e v e r y three pr i n c i p a l s stated that his o f f i c e fa c i l i t i e s w e r e unsa t i s f a c t o r y . Twenty per­ cent repo r t e d no i n v o l v e m e n t in the t e a c h e r - n e g o t i a t i o n s process; 20 p e r c e n t indicated that they w ere not e v a l uated as to their p e r f o r m a n c e as principals; and 15 per c ent James M a x w e l l Jennings re c e i v e d no o p p o r t u n i t y for a d m i n i s t r a t o r inservice. A nd 30 p e r c e n t w e r e a s s i g n e d d i s t r i c t - w i d e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in a d d i t i o n to their p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . Fo u r t e e n p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d that no formal p a r e n t —o r g a n i z a t i o n g r o u p exi s t e d in their schools, while 4 9 p e r c e n t r e s p o n d e d that their p a r e n t g r o u p was not an a c t i v e and d y n a m i c o p e r a t i o n w h o s e m e e t i n g s w e r e r e a s o n a b l y w ell attended. S i g n i f i c a n t c o s t - q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s in v olving programs, facilities, and p e r s o n n e l w e r e found to exist in d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n to the w e a l t h of the school d i s t r i c t as indicated b y t h e o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e level per child. IMPLICATIONS The M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p needs a n i n c r e a s e d number of m i n o r i t y g r o u p m e m b e r s and females w i t h i n its ranks. The p r e v a i l i n g system of p a y i n g for public schools in M i c h i g a n produces i n e q u i t a b l e e d u c a t i o n a l situations w h i c h tend to d e n y equal o p p o r t u n i t y to children. M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s have r e c o g n i z e d the v a l u e of a d e q u a t e p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n for the principalship, and they d e s i r e to have a larger v o i c e in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and to use their o w n ideas c o n c e r n i n g the o p e r a t i o n of the schools w h i c h they administer. James M a x w e l l J e n n i n g s P r i n c i p a l s a r e not. in a g r e e m e n t w i t h the manner in w h i c h their salaries are d e t e r m i n e d , their e c o n o m i c and they r e port status has s u f f e r e d due to the d e m a n d s by other n e g o t i a t i n g groups. A s a g r o u p and as individuals, p r i n c i p a l s need to w o r k toward the e l i m i n a t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h d e t e r some e l e m e n t a r y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f rom d o i n g the job they m a y w a n t to d o and should do. P r i n c i p a l s need and d e s e r v e improv e m e n t s and r e c o m p e n s e for prof e s s i o nalism, time, and service. RECQMMENDATIONS It is recommended: (1) T hat p e r s o n s in p o s i t i o n s of in f l u e n c e and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g m o v e to e l i m i n a t e the i n equity a m o n g K-12 M i c h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s in the f i n ancing o f public education; (2) T h a t e v e r y e f f o r t be m a d e b y school b o a r d s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s to place e a c h e l e m e n t a r y school in the state under the d i r e c t i o n of a qualified, f u l l-time s upervising e l e m e n t a r y principal; (3) T h a t p e r i o d i c studies and ad j u n c t i v e r e s e a r c h p e r t i n e n t to the M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s h i p be u ndertaken. D E D I C A T E D TO M y W i f e and F a m i l y ii AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S T h e writer w i s h e s to express his sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n for the e n c o u r a g e m e n t a n d c o o p e r a t i o n received from the m a n y i ndividuals w h o helped m a k e this study possible: To m y parents w h o instilled in m e the v a l u e of an e d u c a t i o n , the w r i t e r offers his h u m b l e gratitude. To Mr. L a u r e n Pickett, Dr. D a v i d C. Smith, the late Mr. C h a r l e s G. Coggins, and a c k n o w l e d g m e n t is gi ven for their i n s p i r a t i o n and e n c o u r a g e m e n t w h i c h helped lead the w r i t e r to pursue u n i v e r s i t y studies. To the M A E S P e x e c u t i v e b o a r d and ex e c u t i v e secretary, Mr. Edw a r d P. Keller, the w r i t e r ex p r e s s es his thanks for the s p o n s o r s h i p and c o o p e r a t i o n g i ven in c o n d u c t i n g the study. To the m a n y M A E S P p r i n c i p a l s w h o took time from their b u s y schedules to res p o n d to the study q u e s t i o n ­ naire, a p p r e c i a t i o n is extended* To Mr. Sid Sytsma, the w r i t e r r e c o g n i z e s the a s s i s t a n c e received w i t h c o m p u t e r s e rvices and cal analyses. statisti­ To Dr. Louis Romano, D a l e Alam, Dr. J a m e s McKee, and Dr. special thanks are ex t e n d e d for serving on the d o c t o r a l committee. T o Dr. Ric h a r d F. F e a t h e r s t o n e , advisor for the d isse r t a t i o n , the a u t h o r a c k n o w l e d g e s his p a t i e n t c o u n s e l and guidance. F i n a l l y the w r i t e r ' s a p p r e c i a t i o n and love are ex p r e s s e d to his wife, and sacrifices, Shirley, for her u n d e r s t a n d i n g and to his sons, Mark, Brad, and Todd, for g i v i n g u p time w i t h their father so that this d o c t o r a l v e n t u r e m i g h t b e accom p l i s h e d . iv T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S Chapter 1. Pag e INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 S T A T E M E N T O F T H E P R O B L E M .................. 3 S T A T E M E N T OF THE P U R P O S E .................. 4 F O R M U L A T I O N OF STUDY H Y P O T H E S I S 5 S E L E C T I O N OF R E S E A R C H M E T H O D I N F O R M A T I O N SOU R C E S . .............. 5 ......................... 6 C O N S T R U C T I O N OF THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S P O N S O R S H I P OF THE STUDY . . . .................. 9 D E L I M I T A T I O N S OF THE S T U D Y .................. 9 P U B L I C I Z I N G THE STUDY ..................... A D M I N I S T R A T I O N OF THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E . 2. 6 . 11 . 12 T A B U L A T I O N OF THE D A T A ..................... 13 RELATED S T U D I E S ............................. 14 D E F I N I T I O N OF T E R M S ......................... 19 FORMAT FOR SUCCEEDING CHAPTERS 22 . . . . P E R S O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF THE M I C H I G A N E L E M E N T A R Y P R I N C I P A L ......................... 24 S E X ........................................... 24 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .................. N a tional S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings. . 24 25 26 27 v Chapter Page A G E ........................................... 28 .............. 1 9 5 1 — 1952 M i c h i g a n Study N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S ta tewide S tud ie s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . 28 28 31 32 R A C I A L - E T H N I C C O M P O S I T I O N .................. 33 S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . RES I D E N T I A L P A T T E R N ......................... 36 S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . 36 37 B I R T H P L A C E ................................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and F i n d i n g s . . M A R I T A L S T A T U S ............................ 1 9 5 1-1952 M i c h i g a n Study .............. N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . E M P L O Y M E N T STATUS O F SPOUSE 38 38 39 40 40 40 40 42 .............. 43 S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . 43 43 P O L I T I C A L PR E F E R E N C E ..................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and F i n d i n g s . . 3. 33 35 P R I N C I P A L ' S SCHOOL A N D R E S OURCES N U M B E R OF SCHOOLS IN D I S T R I C T 44 44 . . . . 47 . . . . 47 S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and F i n d i n g s . S c h o o l District E n r o l l m e n t .............. P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . . vi 44 47 48 49 49 Chapter Page C H A R A C T E R OF S C H O O L D I S T R I C T .............. 51 .............. 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings. . . SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING EXPENDITURE L E V E L ....................................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings. N U M B E R OF SCHOOLS S U P E R V I S E D . 54 . .............. N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings. . . G R A D E LEVELS A D M I N I S T E R E D .................. N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Fi n d i n g s . . . P U P I L EN R O L L M E N T U N D E R D I R E C T I O N OF P R I N C I P A L ................................... N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings. . . EC O N O M I C C H A R A C T E R OF S C H O O L NEIGHBORHOOD. N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings. . . P U P I L —T E A C H E R RATIO 51 51 51 52 54 55 55 56 57 61 61 61 62 63 63 64 66 67 67 67 69 ......................... 70 S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings. . 70 70 C L A S S R O O M TEA C H E R P O S I T I O N S .............. 73 N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings. . 73 73 75 vii C h a pter Page P E R C E N T A G E OF M A L E T E A C H I N G STAFF . . . P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s 76 . . 76 A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF S E C R E T A R I A L A S S I S T A N C E . 78 .............. 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... St a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and F i n d i n g s . . 78 78 78 80 A D E Q U A C Y OF SUPPLY A N D S E L E C T I O N OF L I B R A R Y BOOKS IN P R I N C I P A L *S SCHOOL. . 81 S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and F i n d i n g s . . 81 81 A D E Q U A C Y OF I N S T R U C T I O N A L M A T E R I E L IN PRINCIPAL'S SCHOOL ..................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and F i n d i n g s . • A D E Q U A C Y OF P R I N C I P A L ' S O F F I C E . . . . . . . P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Fi n d i n g s D a t a and F i n d i n g s 87 89 90 91 . 94 . 94 TY P E OF PARENT O R G A N I Z A T I O N .............. P r e s e n t a t i o n of 84 85 86 87 .............. 1 9 5 1-1952 M i c h i g a n Study N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... Presentation of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . • C O N D I T I O N OF 1971-1972 SCHO O L B U D G E T 82 84 84 N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and Fi n d i n g s . A D E Q U A C Y OF S P E C I A L I Z E D P E R S O N N E L 82 . 95 E V A L U A T I O N OF P A R E N T G R O U P O R G A N I Z A T I O N . 95 P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings 1 m m Vlll . 95 . 95 Chapter 4. Page EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, A N D A S P I R A T I O N S T O T A L N U M B E R YEARS IN E D U C A T I O N . . . . . 99 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .............. National S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . . YEARS S E R V E D A S F U L L - T I M E P R I N C I P A L 98 . 99 99 100 101 . 102 1 951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .............. National S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Fin d i n g s . • 102 102 104 106 P O S I T I O N H E L D PRIOR T O F I R S T P R I N C I P A L ­ S H I P ....................................... 107 1 9 5 1-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .............. N a t i o n a l S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Fin d i n g s . . G R ADUATE S C H O O L I N S T I T U T I O N .............. P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s 107 110 110 Ill 115 . . 115 . . 116 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .............. National S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and F indings . . 116 116 117 118 M A J O R F I E L D OF G R A D U A T E STUDY HIGHEST C O L L E G E D E G R E E EARN E D . . . . . . N a t i o n a l S t u d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . . LENGTH OF T I M E SINCE L AST E N R O L L E D F O R COL L E G E C R E D I T C O U R S E S .................. 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y .............. St a t e w i d e Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . . ix 118 118 120 121 124 124 124 125 Chapter Page F I N A L O C C U P A T I O N A L G O A L OF P R I N C I P A L . . N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . 126 126 12 8 P O S I T I O N D E S I R E D BY P R I N C I P A L S W H O A S P I R E .................................... 129 N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings . I N T E R E S T IN B E C O M I N G P R I N C I P A L IF S T A R T ­ ING A G A I N ................................ P R I N C I P A L ' S W E L F A R E A N D C O N D I T I O N S OF E M P L O Y M E N T ................................ L E N G T H OF A N N U A L E M P L O Y M E N T 129 129 130 131 N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . . 5. 126 131 131 132 134 .............. 135 N a t i o n a l Stu d i e s ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and F i n d i n g s . . PLANS T O CO N T I N U E IN P R I N C I P A L S H I P IF O F F E R E D SAME SALARY TO R E T U R N TO T E A C H I N G .................................... 135 135 136 139 P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . . 139 S U M M E R E M P L O Y M E N T OUT S I D E O F FIELD. . . 140 N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a anF F i n d i n g s . . 140 142 143 HOURS S P E N T O N S C H O O L D U T I E S .............. N a t i o n a l Studies ......................... S t a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . . x 14 3 143 14 4 145 Chapter P age OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL IMPROVE­ M E N T .......................................... 146 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study.................... National Stu d i e s ............................ S t a tewide S t u d i e s ............................ P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i n d i n g s . . 146 148 148 149 H O W PRINCI P A L ' S E X PENSES F O R C O N F E R E N C E A N D CONVENTION PARTICIPATION ARE H A N D L E D ....................................... 150 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y ............... S t a tewide S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i ndings . . DISTRICT-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES P r e s e n t a t i o n of . . Data and F i n d i n g s . . . 150 150 151 152 . M E T H O D OF F I L L I N G P R I N C I P A L S H I P OPENINGS. 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t udy ............... St a t e w i d e S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i ndings . . 152 153 153 153 155 D E T E R M I N A T I O N OF S A L A R Y ..................... 156 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n S t u d y ............... St a tewide S t u d i e s ......................... P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F indings . . 156 156 157 PRINCIPAL'S FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER SALARY INCREASES F O R PR I N C I P A L S A R E L A G G I N G B E H I N D S A L A R Y INCREASES F O R T E A C H E R S . 159 Na t i o n a l Stu d i e s ............................ P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and Findings . . S A T I S F A C T I O N W I T H SALARY A N D W O R K I N G D IT I O N S P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings 159 159 CON­ 161 . 161 V A L U E AND F U T U R E D I R E C T I O N O F MAE S P SERVICES A N D A C T I V I T I E S ..................... S t a tewide S t u d i e s ............................ P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i ndings . . xi 166 166 166 Chapter 6- Page ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES A N D V I E W P O I N T S ............................ ROLE W H E N T E A C H E R S N E G O T I A T E . . . P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s 169 . . 169 E X I S T E N C E OF P E R S O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E O B J E C ­ TIVES A N D / O R A N N U A L G O A L S .............. 171 P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s . 169 . . E V A L U A T I O N OF P R I N C I P A L S .............. P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and F i n d i n g s ATTITUDE TOWARD MAJOR FUNCTIONS 17 3 . 17 3 . . . 175 National Studies ..................... St a tewide Stu d i e s ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i n d i n g s . 175 176 176 P E R C E I V E D C E N T R A L OFFICE V I E W O F P R I N C I ­ P A L S H I P ................................... National S t u d i e s ......................... St a tewide Studies ..................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f Data and F i n d i n g s . . E XT E N T P R I N C I P A L S F E E L TE A C H E R S HAVE INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONALPROGRAM P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data 171 . 17 8 178 178 179 183 and F i n d i n g s . . 183 MOST IMPORTANT I M P R O VEMENT IN P R I N C I ­ PAL *S S C H O O L W I T H I N PAST F I V E YEARS . 184 . 184 P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . E XT E N T P R I N C I P A L HAS USED C O R P O R A L P U N I S H M E N T ................................ P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s . 186 . M E T H O D S OF R E P O R T I N G PUPIL P R O G R E S S TO P A R E N T S ................................... P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D ata * » XII and F i n d i n g s 186 188 . 188 Page E X T E N T OF P R I N C I P A L ' S P E R S O N A L S A T I S F A C T I ON W I T H O V E R A L L P E R F O R M A N C E ...................... 192 P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data and F i n d i n g s SUMMARY, . . 192 IMPLICATIONS, A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S . 195 O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF CO N C L U D I N G C H A P T E R . . . . 195 P E R S O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S ...................... 196 S e x ...............................................196 R acial - E t h n i c C o m p o s i t i o n ...................... 197 R e s i d e n t i a l P a t t e r n ............................. 198 B i r t h p l a c e ........................................198 Mar i t a l S t a t u s ............................ 198 Em p l o y m e n t of S p o u s e ......................... 199 Po l itical Pr e f e r e n c e ..................... 199 P R I N C I P A L ' S S C H O O L AND R E S O U R C E S . . . . 200 Numb e r of Schools in D i s t r i c t . . . . 200 School D i s t r i c t E n r o l l m e n t .............. 200 C h a r a c t e r o f School D i s t r i c t .................. 200 Number of Schools S u p e r v i s e d .................. 201 S cho o l D i s t r i c t O p e r a t i n g .E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s ........................................202 G rad e s A d m i n i s t e r e d ............................. 203 P upil E n r o l l m e n t ................................ 204 E c o n o m i c C h a r a c t e r of S c h o o l N e i g h b o r ­ hood ........................................... 204 P u p i l - T e a c h e r R a t i o ............................. 204 C l a s s r o o m T e a c h e r P o s i t i o n s .............. 205 Pe r c e n t a g e of M a l e T e a c h i n g Staff . . . 205 S e c r e t a r i a l A s s i s t a n c e ......................... 206 A d e q u a c y o f Specialized P e r s o n n e l . . • 206 C o n d i t i o n of 1971-197 2 S c h o o l Budget . . 207 A d e q u a c y o f Lib r a r y Books and Instruc­ tional M a t e r i e l ............................. 207 . . . . A d e q u a c y of Off i c e F a c i l i t i e s 208 Pare n t O r g a n i z a t i o n G r o u p ...................... 208 EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, A N D A S P I R A T I O N S . . 209 E x p e r i e n c e in E d u cation .................. 209 Years as F u l l - T i m e P r i n c i p a l .................. 209 P o s i t i o n H eld J ust P r i o r to First P r i n c i p a l s h i p ............................ 210 xiii Chapter Page G r a d u a t e Scho o l I n s t i t u t i o n .............. Major F i e l d of G r aduate W o r k .............. Highest C o l l e g e D e g r e e E a r n e d . . . . Last E n r o l l m e n t for C o l l e g e .............. Final O c c u p a t i o n a l G o a l .................. Interest in B e coming a P r i n c i p a l A g a i n . WELFARE A N D CONDITIONS OF EMPLOY M E N T . . . Length of A n n u a l E m p l o y m e n t .............. Plan to C o n t i n u e in P r i n c i p a l s h i p if O ff e r e d S a m e Sal a r y to R e t u r n to T e a c h i n g ................................ Summer E m p l o y m e n t o f Princi p a l s . . . . Hours S p e n t o n School D u t i e s .............. O p p o r t u n i t i e s for P r o f e s s i o n a l I mprove­ m e n t ....................................... District-Wide Responsibilities . . . . M e t h o d of Fil l i n g P r i n c i p a l s h i p O p e n i n g s ............................... 216 216 D e t e r m i n a t i o n of S a l a r y ............. Principals* Salary I n c reases Lagging B e h i n d Tea c h e r I n c reases .............. S a t i s f a c t i o n with S a l a r y and W o r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s ........................... 217 Value a n d F u t u r e D i r e c t i o n o f MAE S P Se r v i c e s and A c t i v i t i e s ............. 218 ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES AND V I E W P O I N T S ........................... 214 214 214 215 215 215 216 217 218 Principals' Role W h e n T e a c h e r s Negotiate. E x i s t e n c e of Personal P e r f o r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s and/or A n n u a l G o a l s . . . 219 Principals' E v a l u a t i o n ................. A t t i t u d e T o w a r d Major F u n c t i o n s . . • . C entral O f f i c e V i e w o f P r i n c i p a l s h i p • • Extent S t a f f Has I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n a l P r o g r a m o f Scho o l . . . 221 M ost I m p o r t a n t I m p r o v e m e n t .......... Extent C o r p o r a l P u n i s h m e n t Used. . . • Use of G r a d e s in R e p o r t i n g Pupil P r o ­ g ress .................................... S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h O v e r a l l Performance. . xiv 210 211 211 212 212 213 218 219 219 220 221 221 222 222 C h a pter Page STUDY I M P L I C A T I O N S ......................... 223 ....................... 239 ................................ 240 A P P E N D I C E S .............................................. 242 C O N C L U D I N G S T A TEMENT R E F E R E N C E S CITED. xv L IST OF TABLES ge N a t i o n a l P e r c e n t a g e of M e n and W o m e n S u p e r ­ v i s i n g P r i n c i p a l s 1928— 1968 .............. 25 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Pr i n c i p a l s b y Sex 27 , . . . . C o m p a r i s o n of V a r i o u s Levels of A g e by Sex . 29 C o m p a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s by Sex ................................ 30 N a t i o n a l M e d i a n A g e of S u p e r v i s i n g P r i n c i ­ pals, 1928-1968 ............................ 31 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Pr i n c i p a l s b y A g e 33 . . . . C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s by A g e ................................ 34 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Principals by R a c i a l - E t h n i c G r o u p ........................................... 36 R e s i d e n t i a l P a t t e r n of P r i n cipals 38 B i r t h p l a c e of P r i n c i p a l s . . . . ..................... 39 M a r i t a l Status of P r i n c i p a l s .................. 42 E m p l o y m e n t Sta t u s of Spouse 43 .................. P o l i t i c a l P r e f e r e n c e s of P r i n c i p a l s N u m b e r of Schools . . . in P r i n c i p a l ’s D i s t r i c t 45 48 .................. 50 C h a r a c t e r of Sch o o l D i s t r i c t .................. 52 C o m p a r i s o n of L e v e l s of O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s b y Type of Sch o o l D i s t r i c t .................. 53 School Di s t r i c t En r o l l m e n t xvi Table 18. 19. 20. 21. Page 1 9 7 0 — 71 O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l of School D i s t r i c t ................................ 55 N u m b e r of S e p a r a t e l y Named Sch o o l s S u p e r ­ ........................................... vised 57 C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels W i t h N u m b e r of Schools Supervised. 59 C o m p a r i s o n of N u m b e r of Sch o o l s S u p e r v i s e d b y Number o f H o u r s Spent Per W eek on School D u t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 22. G r a d e Levels A d m i n i s t e r e d .................. 63 23. N a t i o n a l M e d i a n E l e m e n t a r y School Enrollments, 19 2 8 - 1 9 6 8 ....................................... 64 P u p i l E n r o l l m e n t U n d e r D i r e c t i o n of P r i n c i ­ pal .............................................. 66 C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Lev e l s W ith P u p i l E n r o l l m e n t Under D i r e c t i o n o f P r i n c i p a l ......................... 68 26. E c o n o m i c C h a r a c t e r of School N e i g h b o r h o o d . 69 27. Pupi l - T e a c h e r R a t i o of P r i n c i p a l ' s School . 28. C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Lev e l s W i t h P u p i l - T e a c h e r R a t i o . . . 24. 25. 29. . . 71 72 N u m b e r of C l a s s r o o m Teacher P o s i t i o n s U n der P r i n c i p a l ' s D i r e c t i o n ......................... 75 30. P e r c e n t a g e of M a l e T eaching S t a f f ............... 76 31. C o m p a r i s o n of P e r c e n t a g e of M a l e T e a c h e r s on S t a f f by S e x .................................... 77 32. Availability of Secretarial Assistance 80 33. E v a l u a t i o n of S u p p l y and S e l e c t i o n of L i b r a r y Bo o k s and A d e q u a c y of I n s t ructional Ma t e r i e l in P r i n c i p a l ' s S c h o o l .............. 82 C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s W ith E v a l u a t i o n of L i b r a r y Book and I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a teriel A d e q u a c y . . . 83 34. xvii . . . Table 35. 36. 37. 38. Page Evaluation of Office Facilities in Princi­ pal's S c h o o l ................................... 87 C o m p a r i s o n of School District Expenditure Levels With Office Facility A d e q u a c y . . . 88 Comparative Evaluation of Amount of Service Received From Specialized Personnel in Areas of Curriculum and Learning Problems . 92 C o m p a r i s o n of School District Expenditure Levels W i t h A d equacy of Specialized Personnel Service ............................ 93 39. C o n d i t i o n of 1971-7 2 School Budget 94 40. C o m p a r i s o n of School District Expenditure Levels With Condition of 1971-72 School B u d g e t .......................................... 96 41. Type of Parent Organization G r o u p ............... 97 42. Evaluation of Whether Parent-Teacher Group Is an Act i v e and Dynamic Operation Whose M eetings Have Been Reasonably WellA ttended ...................................... 97 . . . . 43. Principal's Total Number Years Experience in E d u c a t i o n .......................................... 101 44. Compar i s o n of School District Expenditure Levels With Principal's Years of Experience in E d u c a t i o n .......................................103 45. Years Served as F u l l-Time Principal 46. C o m p a r i s o n of School District Expenditure Levels With Years Served as Principal. . . . . . 106 . 108 47. C o m p a r i s o n of Years Served as Principal by S e x ................................................. 109 48. Position Held Just Prior to First Elementary P r i n c i p a l s h i p .......................................112 49. Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels With Position Held Just Prior to First Elementary Principalship .............. xviii 114 T a ble 50. Page Rank O r d e r of Instit u t i o n s W h e r e P r i n c i p a l s R e c e i v e d Major P a r i of G r a d u a t e School E d u c a t i o n ....................................... 116 P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n s of P r e s e n t and R e l a t e d Studies R e g a r d i n g M a j o r F i e l d of G r a d u a t e W o r k .................................... 119 52. H i g h e s t C o l l e g e D e g r e e Earned .................. 121 53. C o m p a r i s o n o f School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s b y Hig h e s t Earned D e g r e e .............. 123 51. 54. 55. L e n g t h of Time S i n c e P r i n c i p a l Was L ast E n r o l l e d for C o l l e g e C r e d i t C o u r s e s . . . 125 N u mb e r o f Pr i n c i p a l s W h o C o n s i d e r the E l e ­ m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p as T h e i r F i nal O c c u p a t i o n a l G o a l ............................ 129 P o s i t i o n Desired b y P r i n c i p a l s W h o A s p i r e B e y o n d E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p .............. 130 I n t e r e s t in B e c o m i n g an E l e m e n t a r y Principal if S t a r t i n g A g a i n ............................. 13 3 58. L e n g t h o f A n n u a l E m p l o y m e n t ...................... 137 59. C o m p a r i s o n of Scho o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s W ith L e n g t h of A n n u a l E m p l o y m e n t 56. 57. 60. 61. 62. . 138 Plans to C o n t i n u e in E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l ­ ship if Offered Same Salary to R e t u r n to Teaching . . . . . ..................... 14 0 C o m p a r i s o n of Plans to C o n t i n u e in Elemen t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p if O f f e r e d the S ame Salary b y S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels. . . 141 Summer E m p l o y m e n t o f Pr i n c i p a l s in a Field O t h e r t han E d u c a t i o n ......................... 14 3 63. Hours S p e n t Each W e e k o n School D u t i e s 64. C o m p a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s W i t h Hours S p e n t E ach W e e k on School D u t i e s .................................... 65. • . O p p o r t u n i t i e s for P r o f e s s i o n a l Improvement. xix . . 146 147 . 14 9 T a ble 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. Page How the P r i n c i p a l ' s E x p e n s e s for C o n f e r e n c e and C o n v e n t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n A r e H a n d l e d . . 151 Number of P r i n c i p a l s W i t h D i s t r i c t —W i d e R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ................................ 152 Co m p a r i s o n o f School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels W i t h Number of P r i n c i p a l s W i t h District-Wide Responsibilities .............. 154 M e t h o d of F i l l i n g P r i n c i p a l s h i p O p e n i n g s in P r i n c i p a l ' s School D i s t r i c t .................. 155 Met h o d of S a l a r y D e t e r m i n a t i o n and P r i n c i p a l ' s V i e w p o i n t A b o u t How It Should Be D e t e r m i n e d . 158 Opi n i o n A b o u t Whe t h e r S a l a r y In c r e a s e s for P r i n c i p a l s are Lag g i n g Behi n d S a l a r y Increases for Te a c h e r s ......................... 160 Com p a r i s o n o f Sex W i t h O p i n i o n A b o u t W h e t h e r Salary I n c reases for P r i n c i p a l s A r e Lagging Behind S a l a r y Increases for T e a c h e r s . . . 162 Principal's L e v e l of S a t i s f a c t i o n W i t h Salary and W o r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s ......................... 163 C o m p a r i s o n o f School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels by P r i n c i p a l ’s Level of S a t i s f a c t i o n W ith S a l a r y and W o r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s . . . . 164 C o m p a r i s o n o f Years Ser v e d as P r i n c i p a l b y Level of S a t i s f a c t i o n W i t h Salary and Wor k i n g C o n d i t i o n s ............................ 165 76. Princi p a l ' s O p i n i o n A b o u t the F u t u r e D i r e c t i on of M A E S P S ervices and A c t i v i t i e s ............. 167 77. Pri n c i p a l ' s O p i n i o n R e g a r d i n g the B e n e f i t s of MAESP M e m b e r s h i p to the P r i n c i p a l s h i p . . . 168 78. Principal's Level of In v o l v e m e n t W h e n T e achers N e g o t i a t e W i t h the Board of E d u c a t i o n ......................................17 0 79. C o m p a r i s o n o f School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels b y P r i n c i p a l 's I n v o l v e m e n t W h e n Teachers N e g o t i a t e W i t h Board of E d u c a t i o n xx . 17 2 Table 80. 81. Page Existence of R e q u i r e d P e rsonal P e r f o r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s a n d / o r A n n u a l G o a l s ................. Co m p a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t Expend i t u r e Levels W i t h E x i s t e n c e of R e q u i r e d P ersonal P erformance Ob j e c t i v e s and/or Ann u a l G o a l s . 82. Evaluation o f 83. Principal's A t t i t u d e s Toward His M a jor F u n c t i o n s .......................................... 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. P r i n c i p a l s ...................... 173 174 175 177 Principal's P e r c e p t i o n of the Central O f f i c e V i e w of His Elementary Principalship . . . 181 Co m p a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t Expenditure Levels W i t h P r i n c i p a l ' s P e r c e p t i o n of Central O f f i c e V i e w o f His Principalship. , 182 Extent to W h i c h P r i ncipal F e e l s His Staff H a s Individualized the Instructional Pro g r a m to the Needs of C h i l d r e n ......................... 18 3 Comp a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t Expend i t u r e Levels W i t h E x te n t to W h i c h Principal F e e l s His Staff Has I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s tructional P r o g r a m ........................................... 185 M o s t Important Improvement in Principal's School W i t h i n P a s t F ive Y e a r s .............. 186 Exte n t to W h i c h Principals Have Used C o r p o r a l Punishment as a D i s c i p l i n a r y Mea s u r e W i t h i n the Past T w e l v e M o n t h s ......................... 187 Co m p a r i s o n of E x t e n t to W h i c h P r i n c i p a l s H a v e Used Corporal P u n i s h m e n t b y S e x ............... 189 Comp a r i s o n o f School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels W i t h E x t e n t to W h i c h P r i n c i p a l s H a v e Used Corporal P u n i s h m e n t ..................... M e t h o d s of R e p o r t i n g Pupil P r o g r e s s to P a r e n t s ........................................... xxi 190 191 Page Table 93. 94. Extent of P r i n c i p a l ' s P e r s o n a l S a t i s f a c t i o n W i t h O v e r a l l P e r f o r m a n c e .................. 192 C o m p a r i s o n of School D i s t r i c t e x p e n d i t u r e bevels b y E x t e n t of P r i n c i p a l ' s P e r s o n a l S a t i s f a c t i o n W i t h Ove r a l l Performance. 194 xxii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION In an attempt to contend w i t h the press for social change, the A merican public school institution is u n d e r ­ going rapid alteration. racial strife, Problems of economic disparity, international conflict, and the counter culture of you t h are being reflected in our educational thinking, and the di v e r s i t y of thought about what is good education for c h ildren is conspicuous. The uncertainties of present-day society have invaded the world of the elementary school principal and have combined to introduce new challenges and o p p o r­ tunities unparalleled in our nation's history. Dynamic changes are taking place w i t h increasing rapidity and pervasiveness in curriculum, methodology, cational technology. N e w knowledge and skills are being required to deal w i t h n e w content, zational patterns, and e d u ­ new o r g a n i ­ and n e w hardware. The human dimensions of the enterprise are calling for better human relations skill on the part of persons serving in the position of elementary school principal. Potent forces are at w o r k in the m a s s i v e insistence on 1 2 the p a r t of tea c h e r g r o u p s and a d e m a n d i n g c i t i z e n r y for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in m a j o r e d u c a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making. Moreover, eff o r t s of fed e r a l and state c o u r t s to a t t a i n the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s of societal p a r i t y h av e been and are being felt in the e ducational arena. As the tempo of chan g e in t e n s i f i e s in the n a t i o n ' s schools, it appears c e r t a i n that the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p will assume he i g h t e n e d im p o r t a n c e and b e c o m e i n c r e a s i n g l y diff i c u l t . In order to u n d e r s t a n d and i m p l e m e n t the b e s t of m o d e r n p r a c t i c e the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l m u s t be a s t u ­ d e n t of his profession. He m u s t find time for the analytic study and a p p raisal of his d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i ­ bilities, and become aware of the nat u r e and r a t i o n a l e of changes taking p l a c e in the princ i p a l s h i p . of e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s m u s t be m a d e Appraisals to a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s are s u f ­ ficient to enable them to m e e t the c h a l l e n g e s of t oday and to a g g r e s s i v e l y lead the w a y in e d u c a t i o n a l changes that wil l sur e l y come. C h a l l e n g e s facing a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p are no w here m o r e c o m p e l l i n g than in the state o f Michigan. Similarly, the o p p o r t u n i t i e s to shape e d u c a t i o n a l p o l i c y and practices, for r a i s i n g the competencies, standards, and p r o f e s s i o n a l status of p r i n c i p a l s are n o w h e r e m o r e exciting. 3 It is in respect to the overwhelming need and responsibility of elemen t a r y school principals of Michigan to make an appraisal of their leadership endeavors that this status study of the principalship has been devoted. STATEMENT OF THE PRO B L E M ~ — The major p r o b l e m approached in this study was the gathering of statistical data on the status of e l e ­ mentary school principals in Michigan that could serve as information for v a r i o u s groups having interests in the following questions: 1. What is the p r e s e n t status, thought, and practice of the elementary school principalship? 2. W h a t significant interrelationships exist w hen comparisons are made among selected aspects of the elementary school principalship? 3. H o w do certain characteristics of the prevailing status compare w i t h data from recent national and statewide studies of the status of e l e ­ mentary school principals? 4. H o w does the c u r r e n t status compare with identical aspects of an earlier study of the Michigan principalship? 4 The data g a t h e r e d regarding the status of the elementary principal n o w in service in Michigan were intended to serve several purposes. STATEMENT OP THE P U R P O S E The purposes of gathering statistical data regarding the status of the elementary school principal in the state of M i c h i g a n were f o u r f o l d . 1. They w e r e : To obtain information on cer t a i n aspects of the status of the Michigan principalship that will enable principals to make s elf—appraisals of their practices, thought, personal, and p r o ­ fessional characteristics. 2. To develop information w h ich m i g h t convince persons w h o influence and control public school expenditures that the present method of financing Michigan lower education is related to certain inequitable conditions af f e c t i n g elementary school p r i n cipals and principalships and, addition, 3. in that changes are in order. To obtain information which m a y serve as evidence for local superintendents and boards of education that elementary principals require and deserve improvements in welfare and conditions of employment. 5 4. To present: i n f o r m a t i o n t hat m a y e n c ourage the Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n of E l e m e n t a r y School P r i n ­ cipals to c o m m i s s i o n and support further studies of a d j u n c t i v e r e s e a r c h and per i o d i c investigation of the M i c h i g a n principalship. F O R M U L A T I O N OF STUDY HYPOTHESIS In order to investigate the status, p r a c t i c e s of M i c h i g a n el e m e n t a r y principals, thought, and the s u b ­ s e q u e n t hypothesis d e v e l o p e d from the s t a tement of the p r o b l e m was examined and tested for its validity. h y p o t h e s i s of i n terest is stated as follows: The That M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s exhibit analogous p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and pos sess s i m i l a r occupational situations, faction, sources of job s a t i s ­ and aspirations. S E L E C T I O N OF R E S E A R C H M E T H O D The nature of the type of study p r o b l e m implied the u s e of the n o r m a t i v e - s u r v e y m e t h o d of research. The m o s t practical and feasible m e a n s of g a t h e r i n g d a t a for this study was c o n s i d e r e d by the r e s e a r c h e r to be by us e o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e — a m e t h o d w i d e l y e m ployed in s u r v e y research involving large sample studies. With the r e a l i z a t i o n t hat restri c t i o n s are e x i s t e n t in r e s e a r c h projects u t i l i z i n g ques t i o n n a i r e s , it was 6 decided to p r o c e e d u n d e r the a s s u m p t i o n M i c h i g a n e l e ­ m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s w o u l d be i nclined to r e s p o n d in an a c curate and f o r t h r i g h t m a n n e r to an u n s i g n e d c h e c k type survey form. I N F O R MATION SOURCES The p r i m a r y sources of information f o r a s c e r t a i n ­ ing the p r e v a i l i n g status o f the M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s h i p w ere the f u l l-time e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s w h o were m e m b e r s of M A E S P d u r i n g the 1971-197 2 school year. S e c o n d a r y d a t a sources i n cluded r e c e n t doctoral d i ss e r t a t i o n s and p u b lished s t a t e and national studies of the status o f the e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i palship. C O N S T R U C T I O N OF T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E A q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u m e n t co n s i s t i n g o f sixtysix items and q u e s t i o n s was d r a f t e d to g a t h e r the desired i n f o r m a t i o n that w o u l d answer the q u e s t i o n s p o sed under the statement of the problem. Individual questions w e r e developed a f ter reviewing survey forms of r e c e n t statewide s t u d i e s dealing w i t h the elementary s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p and, also, que s t i o n n a i r e s used in the 1968 n a t i o n a l study of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p and the 1969 na t i o nal study of the a s s i s t a n t principalship. W h e r e v e r possible, 7 q u e s t i o n s similar to the 196 8 n a t i o n a l study were i ncluded e n abling r e l a ti o n s h i p s to b e considered b e t w e e n this study and the n a t i o n a l study. Questions were d e v e l o p e d also from the r e s e a r c h e r ' s personal interests as well as from s u g g e s ti o n s and o p i n i o n s offered b y the e x e c utive secretary o f MAESP, m e m b e r s of the M A E S P P r o ­ fessional Standards Commission, and f e l l o w administrators. The instrument included f o u r types of q u e s tions: questions of perception, (1) fact, and (2) information, (4) opinion. (3) s e l f ­ E m p h a s i s was p l a c e d on st r u c t u r e d questions t hat pr e s e n t e d the r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h f i x e d - r e s p o n s e items w o r d e d to induce single - c h o i c e o b j e c t i v e answers in terms of fixed alternatives. F o r c e d - c h o i c e q u e s t i o n s facilitated their a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and ease of h andling in the data a n a l y s i s stage. Empha­ sis w a s a l s o placed o n key words and instructions specific to the individual q u e s t i o n s in order to facilitate respondent understanding. T h e r e was e v e r y reason to a s s u m e that M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s saw a n e e d for the s t u d y and re s p o n d e d w ith a h i g h degree o f a c c u r a c y and honesty. B e c a u s e of invest i g a t o r con c e r n t h a t some of the i n t ensity and color of r e s p o n d e n t feeling m i g h t have been s a c r i ­ ficed b e c a u s e of use of structured questions, some o p p o r t u n i t y was p r o v i d e d for r e s p o n d e n t s to exp o u n d at leng t h on two specific survey q u e s t i o n s of their c h o o s i n g by the inclusion of a sec t i o n at the end of the I n s t r u m e n t 8 entitled: Questions to say:). Optional A d d i t i o n a l C o m m e n t s on Specific (About q u e s t i o n Furthermore, in sec t i o n _____ 1 w a n t questions in v o l v i n g items c o n ­ taining m u l t i p l e a l t e r n a t i v e s too n u m e r o u s to include n e c e s s i t a t e d i ntroducing an open category: (write in ______) . Other In t h i s way the r e s p o n d e n t w a s provi d e d w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to s p e c i f y ex c e p t i o n s to the c a t e g o r i e s p r e s e n t e d in each question. Written answers to the o p e n - t y p e questions w e r e sorted and cla s s i f i e d according t o similarity o f response. Concerns a b o u t the clarity and v a l i d i t y of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were a s s e s s e d and d e a l t w i t h t h r o u g h o u t the f o r m u l a t i o n stage o f development. Counsel and a review of the total i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and initial d r a f t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e sought from the D e p a r t m e n t of R e s e a r c h C o n s u l t a t i o n of M i c h i g a n State Un i v e r s i t y and f r o m leader m e m b e r s of MAESP. addition, In a nationally recognized a u t h o r i t y in the field of e d u c a t i o n a l research. Professor M a r y Ellen M c S w e e n e y of MSU, evaluated the clarity, organization, and content of the pr o c e d u r a l p l a n and survey form. A copy of the survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e will be found in the Appendix. 9 S PONSORSHIP OF THE S T UDY R e a l i z i n g that r a t i f i c a t i o n of such a c o m p r e h e n ­ sive r e s e a r c h study by a r e c o g n i z e d and p r e s t i g i o us state p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n m i g h t ena b l e the i n v e s ­ tigator to p r o d u c e a study o f g r e a t e r v a l u e and s i g n i f i ­ cance, the invest i g a t o r s o u g h t the s ponsorship and support of MAESP. The p r o j e c t was p r o p o s e d to the Pro f e s s i o n a l Standards C o m m i s s i o n of M A E S P w h o in turn recommend e d that the e x e c u t i v e board of MAE S P sponsor the survey o f their m e m b e r s h i p . A c o p y of the p r o j e c t proposal w i l l be found in the Appendix. The s t u d y w as endorsed a n d u n d e r w r i t t e n b y the e x e c u t i v e board as a m e a n s of s t r e n g t h e n i n g the stat u s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e pr a c t i c e s o f pr i n c i p a l s w i t h i n the state. D E L I M I T A T I O N S O F THE STUDY The stu d y was c o n f i n e d to the total p o p u l a t i o n of the m e m b e r s h i p of the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of E l e ­ m e n t a r y S c h o o l Pr i n c i p a l s s e r v i n g d u r i n g the fall of the 1971-1972 school year. It was further d e l i m i t e d to only f u l l - t i m e e l e m e n t a r y principals. E a c h eli gible M A E S P m e m b e r received the s u r v e y instrument. T h ose instruments r e t u r n e d by m e m b e r s o t h e r than f u l l - t ime principal s w e r e not i ncluded MAESP in the study. is a v o l u n t a r y g r o u p that d o e s h ave the m a j o r i t y of the estimated 2,000 M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y 10 pr i n c i p a l s h i p s in its m e m b e r s h i p ranks. school p r i n c i p a l s , however, are known to h o l d few m e m ­ be r s h i p s in the M A E S P organization. fact, D e t r o i t public B e c a u s e o f this the reader should e x e r c i s e c a u t i o n w h e n drawing study con c l u s i o n s a b o u t all e l e m e n t a r y school principals in the state. The in f e r e n c e s in the study should be m a d e onl y w ith reg a r d s to the full-time M A E S P principals who c o m p r i s e d the study sample, e ven t h o u g h the investi­ ga tor considers the M A E S P pr i n c i p a l to be g e n e r a l l y repr e s e n t a t i v e of the typical M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principal. The p e r c e n t a g e o f m i s s i n g e l e m e n t s e xpected in the sampl e d p o p u l a t i o n of M A E S P mem b e r s w a s n o t felt to be ext ensive e n o u g h in a n y c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of va riables to p r e s e n t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y signif i c a n t p r oblem. example, responses f r o m the r e m aining large u r ban school di s tricts in M i c h i g a n such as Flint, Rapids, For Grand and L a n s i n g w e r e considered by the researcher as p r o v i d i n g a large e n o u g h sample for the gathering of information c o n c e r n i n g p r i n c i p a l s in u r b a n districts. The study was u n d e r t a k e n to i d e n t i f y significant re lationships, note similarities, and d e t e c t inequities p o p u l a r l y thought to e x i s t r e g a r d i n g p r i n c i p a l s and p r i n c i p a l s h i p s serving school d i s t r i c t s o f v a r y i n g levels of financial support. In this s t u d y 1970-1971 school d i s t r i c t o p e r a t i n g expen d i t u r e s p e r pupil were 11 rank order e d in -three levels. and above; middle, These were: $7 00-$7 99; and low, high, $800 $699 and below. These three r a n k -order c r i t e r i o n s w ere e s t a b l i s h e d by locating the 2 5th and 7 5 t h pe r c e n t i l e r a n g e s above and b e low the s tatistical interval w h i c h c o n t a i n e d the m e dian o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e per pupil 527 K — 12 school d i s tricts in M i c h i g a n ’s in 1969-7 0, and then p r o ­ jecting a $100 increase acr o s s all d i s t r i c t s for the school ye a r of interest, 197 0-1971. The estimated pro j e c t i o n was d e v i s e d to c o v e r the i n c r e a s e in p erpupil state a i d to all d i s t r i c t s and the inves t i g a tor's e x p e c tati o n t hat the M A E S P sample g r o u p w a s more a f f l u e n t than the state group as a whole. The q u a r t i l e groups were then set at the n e a r e s t h u n d r e d - d o l i a r amount to facilitate e ase of r e s p o n d e n t checking. P U B L I C I Z I N G THE S T U D Y A s a m e a n s of a l e r t i n g m e m b e r p r i n c i p a l s who w e r e to be involved in the M A E S P - s p o n s o r e d survey, an advance n o t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f the study appeared in the October, letter . 1971 issue o f the MAESP N e w s ­ This p u b l i c a t i o n received total c i r c u l a t i on among M A E S P membership. Then, a r e m i n d e r notice printed in the December, 1971 iBsue o f M A E S P N e w s l etter assisted in soliciting c o o p e r a t i o n in c o m p l e t i n g and returning the survey instrument. 12 A n n o u n c e m e n t s stressing the importance of t h o r o u g h c o n s i d e r a t i o n and q u i c k r e t u r n were m a d e by the e x e c u t i v e s e c r e t a r y of M A E S P and the c h a i r m a n of the Profe s s i o n a l S t a n d a r d s C o m m i s s i o n at the b u s i n e s s session of the A n n u a l MAESP S t a t e Conference h e l d in G r and Rapids N o v e m b e r 3-5, 1971. A letter s t r e s s i n g the benefits of the study to e a c h individual p r i n c i p a l and his pr o f e s s i o n w a s also d i s t r i b u t e d at t his business m e e t i n g of the State Conference (see A p p e n d i x ) . A D M I N I S T R A T I O N OF T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R E On N o v e m b e r 12, 1971, t h e survey f orm was m a i l e d to the 1,300 elementary school p r i n c i p a l s w h o co m p rised the k n o w n eligible m e m b e r s h i p of MAE S P . En c losed w i t h the n i n e —page q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s a c o p y of the letter of transmittal a p p e a l i n g to s e l f - i n t e r e s t and a l t ru i s m (see Appendix). 1971 was indicated, A d u e date of D e c e m b e r 1, allowing e a c h principal sl i g h t ly less than three w e e k s in w h ich to complete and r e t u r n the questionnaire. F r o m the initial mailing, fifty-six s urveys wer e posi t i v e l y identified as b e i n g ineligible, while sixty-fiv e were r e t u r n e d too late for i n c lusion in the tabulated study data. Usable q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n s were r e c e i v e d from 1,011 respondents, or 8 6 p e r c e n t of the re m a i n i n g 1,17 9 principals. 13 Because sufficient, r e s ponses w ere received, follow- up proced u r e s d e s i g n e d to obtain replies from n o n ­ re s p onden t s w h o d i d not respond i n i tially w ere not employed (see A p p e n d i x ) . T A B U L A T I O N OF T H E D A T A The i n f o r m a t i o n recorded o n the c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n ­ n a i r e s from the M A E S P m e m b e r s h i p w a s t r a n s f e r r e d by k e y ­ p u n c h machine to 80-column co m p u t e r cards. The r e s ultant d a t a cards w ere t hen p r o cessed t h r o u g h the C o m p u t e r L a b o r a t o r y facilities of MSU. The C I S S R - A C T - P F C O U N T c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m was s e l e c t e d to com p i l e the d a t a a c c o r d i n g to the frequency and perce n t a g e s of responses for e a c h item and question. In addition to o b t a i n i n g composite results w i t h i n the questions , chi s q u a r e was s e lected as the s t a t i s t i cal a n a l y s i s met h o d to study the n a t u r e of the relat i o nships b e t w e e n selected variables. M o r eover, the chi square test of indepe n d e n c e was used to t e s t the null h y p othesis t hat the selected v a r iables w e r e e s s e n t i a l l y i n d e p endent or unrelated. The levels of co n f i d e n c e for the rejection of the null h y p o t h e s i s of no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s hips w a s de t e r m i n e d at the .05 level or greater. The d a t a w e r e a l s o c o m p a r e d w ith s e l e c t e d aspects of the p r i n c i p a l s h i p as r e vealed in recent national and st a t e w i d e studies and the e a r l i e r M i c h i g a n s t udy in 14 order to d e t ermine w h e t h e r s i m i l a r i t i e s or differ ences and trends existed. The d a t a r e l a t i n g to the several asp e c t s of the p r o b l e m w ere a s s e m b l e d in tables d e s i g n e d to include the f ollowing information: 1. The frequency and p e r c e n t a g e of each type of response for each q u e s t i o n and item, as w ell as cu m u l a t i v e frequencies a n d p e r c e n t a g e s on selected q u a n t i t a t i v e variables. 2. The value of chi square, deg r e e s of freedom, and level of c o n f i d e n c e at w h i c h the n ull hypothesis of no r e l a t i o n s h i p could be rejected. Si gnificant r e l a t i o n s h i p s that w e r e d e t e r m i n e d b y the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n as n e g a t i v e were n o t e d as such. The reader should note that q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s ponses w h i c h c o uld not c l e a r l y be a t t r i b u t e d to a single pa r t i c u l a r s u b - i t e m w e r e i n c l u d e d as m i s s i n g data. M i s s i n g d ata and d o u b l e r e s ponses to s i n g l e - r e s p o n s e qu e stions w ere c o n s i d e r e d as n o n - r e s p o n s e s and w e r e not included in the q u a n t i t i e s used to compute the value of chi squar e b e t w e e n v a r i a b l e s . RELATED STUDIES Three n a t i o n a l studies and at least t wenty-nine doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s dealing w i t h the status of e l e ­ m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s have b e e n c o m p l e t e d since 15 World War IX. The invest i g a t o r acknow l e d g e s that, although these r e l a t e d m a t erials h ave a general, larity to this investigation, c o l l e c t i v e sim i ­ there is a d i s s i m i l a r i t y in their scope and d i r e c t i o n of concern. R a t h e r than attempt to e x p l a i n in a g e n e r a l review of the literature how the r e l a t e d studies w e r e similar and d i s s i m i l a r to this investigation, the c o r r e s p o n d i n g points of likeness having p e r t i n e n t b e a r i n g u pon e a c h element of interest in this study w e r e r e ferred to in the tex t u a l chapters. Presenting the data of this study together w i t h the findings of these rel a t e d studies was done to facilitate reader u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the compar i s o n s that w e r e made and the c o n c l u s i o n s that w ere drawn. The e x a m i n a t i o n of s t a tewide studies w a s limited to those w r i t t e n since 1960 in o r d e r that o nly the most recent, u p - t o - d a t e i nformation w o u l d receive attention. National studies u n d e r t a k e n p r i o r to 1968 w e r e dealt with o nly w h e n it was a p p r o p r i a t e to d e m o n s t r a t e trends and changes w h i c h have t a k e n place over the years. The reader should note that re f e r e n c e s to tabular data in r e l a t e d status studies w h i c h form the basis of compariso n in succeeding chapters w e r e m a d e w h e n e v e r possible in terms of full-time s upervising principals. The liter a t u r e examined i n c l u d e d the f o l lowing studies: Lepick acteristics, (5), in 1961, training, stu d i e d the p e r s o n a l c h a r ­ experience, p r o f e s s i o n a l growth, 16 and c o m m u n i t y i nvolvement of C a l i f o r n i a principals from school d i s t r i c t s of v a r y i n g sizes. Youngblood (13), in 1961, s t u d i e d the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p in Texas schools in o r d e r to ascertain whether t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the status of p r i n c i p a l s grouped a c c ording to s uch factors as race, sex, and d e g r e e of t r a i n i n g and experience. Shelton (10) c o m p a r e d the s t a t u s of the A r k a n s a s elementar y school p r i n c i p a l in 196 3 w i t h the A r k a n s a s elementar y school p r i n c i p a l in 1953 to determine the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and tr a i n i n g needed. F r o m a 1964 s u r v e y of e l e m e n t a r y schools in Illinois, G i l l and M e r i g i s (4) d e f i n e d the p r i n c ipal's role and status in r e l a t i o n s h i p to c u r r e n t p r a ctices and emerging tren d s in the o r g a n i z a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of public sch o o l s in that state. Perkins (9), in a 1965 q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i n t e r v i e w study, a s s e s s e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p a m o n g O r e g o n p r i n c i p a l s according to variables of age, sex, preparation, experience, Moss and size of school administered. (8), a y ear later, u n d e r t o o k a survey study to d e t e r m i n e the job stat u s of e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i ­ pals in W y o m i n g as c o m p a r e d w ith the s u r r o u n d i n g states of Nebras k a , South Dakota, Montana, Modeland a n d Idaho. (7), in 1968, studied the p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a rati o n and p r a ctices of Kansas e l e m e n t a r y school 17 principals. The study g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n on such factors as highest degree earned/ in p r o f es s i o n a l organizations, earnings, m e m b e r s h i p school size, and p r o ­ fessional experience obtained before becoming a p r i n ­ c i pal . Warren (12) invest i g a t e d the p r a c t i c e s and p r o ­ cedures e x i s t i n g in M i s s o u r i public e l e m e n t a r y schools in 1968. Information w a s sought to d i s c o v e r op i n i ons of curren t e ducational i nnovations and the d e g r e e of the principal's sources of job satisfaction. Relation­ ships w e r e e x a m i n e d among pr i n c i p a l s a c c o r d i n g to v a r i a b l e s of type of community, and experience, Arms sex, age, p r e p a r a t i o n and the amount of salary received. (1) a n a l y z e d and c o m p a r e d the status of the m e m b e r s h i p of the Indiana A ESP in 196 8 to a m o d e l of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i ncipal as d e t e r m i n e d by a r e v i e w of current literature and research. A n e x a m i n a t i o n was c o n d u cted in the areas of p r o f e s s i o n a l and c o m m u n i t y involvements, opinions, and v i e w p o i n t s r e g arding important soc i a l and educational issues. Andlauer (2) stu d i e d changes that h a d taken place in the New Jersey e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s h i p b e t w e e n 1960 and 1968. He id e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­ f erences among persons serving in inner-city, suburban, and rural school d i s t r i c t s in 1968 in r e l a t i o n to t r a i n ­ ing, experience, assignment, role concepts, attitudes 18 toward teacher organizations, their assignments, p roblems p e r t a i n i n g to and e v a l u a t i o n of fed e r a l government programs. Br others (3), in 196 9, surveyed p e r s o n a l and p r o ­ fessional char a c t e r i s t i c s of persons s e r v i n g as p r i n cipals in Oklah o m a e l e m e n t a r y schools and, in addition, o b t a i n e d information p e r t a i n i n g to the school plant, organization, and supportive personnel. The m o s t recently p u b l i s h e d study of the s t a t e ­ w i d e general status of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p was u n d e r t a k e n in 1970 as a joint endeavor of the U n i v e r s i t y of G e o r g i a D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the Georgi a D e p a r t m e n t of E l e m e n t a r y Principals. Parker, and M o o r e Jarvis, {6) d e v e l o p e d a profile w h i c h dep icted the typical G e o r g i a pr i n c i p a l ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l pr e p a r ation and certification, ditions, financial status and w o r k i n g c o n ­ and c o m m u n i t y relations. The NAESP, m ore than any other source, has p u b ­ lished considerable inform a t i o n about the status of the ele m e n t a r y school principalship. The o r g a n i z a t i o n has made periodic studies of its m e m b e r s h i p in 1928, 1948, 195 8, and 196 8 in order to e n l i g h t e n and imp r o v e the p e r f ormanc e and conditions u n d e r which p r i n c i p a l s function. The 1968 national study (15) focused at t e n t i o n on the personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l c h a r a c t e r ­ istics of 2,300 r a ndomly s e l e c t e d e l e m e n t a r y school 19 principals from across the nation. The report determined the prevailing status of the profession and obtained a statistical profile of the characteristics/ duties, and opinions of the nation's elementary school principals. An earlier survey (14) of the status of the Michigan elementary school principal was undertaken by a five-member study commission of the MAESP in 1951-1952. The study, identified in the publication's foreword as "a rough survey for working purposes," was b a sed on a 35 percent return involving 379 replies. The investi­ gators in the initial Michigan study sought information in areas of professional status a n d experiences, personal characteristics, salary, and availability of special services. Clearly, then, the earlier Michigan study does not approach the present study in comprehensiveness, analysis, or evaluation of data. The investigator's doctoral study represents the first comprehensive attempt to assess the status of the M i c h i g a n principalship, and is an extensive, general investigation of the elementary principalship rather than an intensive study of a specific aspect. DEFINITION OF TERMS The specific meanings of technical terms used in this study are as follows: 20 Current. O p e r a t i n g Expenditures .— The basic e x p e n s e s of a school d i s t r i c t but not items of a c a p i t a l o u t l a y or debt r e t i r e m e n t nature. Elementary S c h o o l .— All forms of grade o r g a n i ­ zation w h i c h comprise a n y combination o f grades i n c l u d i n g k i n d e r g a r t e n through g r a d e six. Elementary S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l .— A full-time p e r s o n w h o is d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the e l e m e n t a r y school p l a n t and for the s u p e r v i s i on of learning w i t h i n that plant. In this s t u d y the term e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l refers to full-time p r i n ­ cipals w h o are members o f MAESP and is u s e d s y n o n y m o u s l y with principal ,s u p e r v i s i n g principal, a n d e l e m e n tary administrator. M A E S P .— The M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of E l e m e ntary School Principals, f o r m e r l y known as the D e p a r t m e n t of E l e m e n t a r y School P r i n c i p a l s of the M i c h i g a n E d u c ation Association. M i c h i g a n S t u d y — 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 5 2 .— A n e a r l i e r survey of the status of the M i c h i g a n elementary s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l ­ ship u n d e r t a k e n by a f i v e - m e m b e r study co m m i s s i o n of M A E S P and published in 1952. 21 N A E S P .— The N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of E l e m e n t a r y School Principals, f o r m e r l y k n o w n as the D e p a r t m e n t of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s of the National E d u c a t i o n Association; a v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n of n a t i o n a l p r i n ­ cipals and persons i n t e r e s t e d in the elementary p r i n c i p a l ­ ship . N A E S P National S t u d y — 196 8 .— The major n a t i o n w i d e survey of the status of the e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l ­ ship p u b l i s h e d in 196 8 by NAESP in c ooperation w i t h the National E d u cation A s s o c i a t i o n R e s e a r c h Division. lar studie s were iss u e d in 1928, yearbooks. Simi­ 1948, and 1958 as NAESP The term n a t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l s h i p is u s e d in this s t u d y to refer to the e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l as d e s c r i b e d in the 1968 nat i o n a l study. P e r s o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .— C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated w ith cer t a i n d e m o g r a p h i c and selected factors of an e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l ' s b a c k g r o u n d and c u r r e n t way of life w h i c h are d e e m e d to have a b e a r i n g upon an i n d i ­ vidual's status. I n c l u d e d are s uch factors as sex, age, r a c i a l - e t h n i c gr o u p i n g , political preference, r e s i d e n t i a l patterns, marital, and employment status. P r o f e s s i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .— C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as s o c i a t e d w i t h cer t a i n selected factors in the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c ipal' s training, experience, fessional a d v a n c e m e n t . and interest in p r o ­ Included are such factors as 22 number of years ser v e d in e d u c a t i o n and in the p r i n c i p a l ship, h i g h e s t e a r n e d college degree, m a j o r field of graduate work, and final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal. P r a c t i c e . — The e s t a b l i s h e d m e t h o d of p e r f o r m i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e action or process. R e s p o n d e n t s .— The e l i g i b l e full-time e l e m e n t a r y school pri n c i p a l s w h o c o m p l e t e d and r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s for this study. School D i s t r i c t .— A s y s t e m of schools w h i c h is governed b y a single a d m i n i s t r a t i v e staff, a single board of education, and w h i c h includes all g r a d e s from k i n d e r ­ g a r t e n thr o u g h g r a d e twelve. S t a t u s .--The t erm as used in this study r e f e r s to the mode of e x i s t e n c e w i t h i n a set of conditions a f f e c t i n g an ele m e n t a r y principal. T e a c h i n g P r i n c i p a l .— A p a r t - t i m e p r i ncipal w h o has regularly s c h eduled c l a s s r o o m t e a c h i n g duties w h i l e carrying out the ad d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a d m i n i s ­ tering and s u p e r v i s i n g the e l e m e n t a r y school. FORMAT FOR SUCCEEDING CHAPTERS The i n v e s t i g a t o r has u t i l i z e d seven cha p t e r s to present this study. The use of a u x i l i a r y ch a p t ers 23 was b a sed on the scope a n d nature of the p r o b l e m p r e ­ sented and w a s d e s i g n e d to facilitate readability. F o l l o w i n g the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter, gator d e v e l o p e d C h a p t e r s the i n vesti­ II through VI to p r e s e n t and analyze the m a t e r i a l p e r t a i n i n g to the s t a t u s , v i e w ­ points , and p r a ctices of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals. The c o l l e c t e d study data w e r e com p a r e d w it h s e l e c t e d va r i a b l e s w i t h i n the study a n d to an earlier M i c h i g a n study. C o m p a r i s o n s w e r e m a d e also w it h recent state and n a t i o n a l studies in o r d e r to determine r e l a t i o n s h i p s a n d d i s c o v e r d i f f e r e n c e s between M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s and their c o u n t e r p a r t s across the nation. The r e v i e w of l i t e r a t u r e and d a t a g a t h e r e d in each of the five t e x t u a l c h a p t e r s was r e p o r t e d in the following sequence: (2) n a t ion a l studies; (1) 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study; (3) s t a tewide studies; (4) p r e s e n t a t i o n of d a t a a n d findings. and T h e reader should note that f r e e - s t a n d i n g sideheads w e r e e l i m i ­ nated w h e r e v e r a r e v i e w of rel a t e d stu d i e s d e t e r m i ned that re f e r e n c e s to e l e m e n t s of interest in this study were not considered. In C h a p t e r VII the invest i g a t o r s u m m a r i z e d the entire study, d r e w conclu s i o n s , and f o r m u l a t e d r e c o m ­ men d a t i o n s b a s e d on f i n d i n g s and conclusions. S uggestions for a d j u n c t i v e r esearch a n d p e riodic i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e g a r d ­ ing the M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p were included. Chapter 2 P E R S O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF T H E M I C H I G A N E L E M E N T A R Y PRI N C I P A L D a t a related to the p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the M i c h i g a n el e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l are presented, analyzed, and c o m p a r e d in this chapter. T h e MAESP p r i n c i p a l was e x a m i n e d in r e l a t i o n to the study hypothesis that a n a l o g o u s personal c h a r a c t e r ­ istics are exhibited w i t h r e s p e c t to specific factors of sex, age, r a c i a l - e t h n i c grouping, p o l i t i c a l preference, marital, re s i d e n t i a l patterns, and e m p l o y m e n t status. I nformat i o n o btained f rom recent nat i o n a l and statewide studies a n d an earlier M i c h i g a n study served as c o m p a r a ­ tive dat a for this investigation. SEX 1951-1952 Mic h i g a n Study Of the 377 p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t i n g on this question in the e a r l i e r study of the M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l — ship, 151 respondents, or 40 percent, w ere men. 24 25 National Studies The N A E S P completed its fourth follow-up study on the elementary school principalship in 196 8. Of the 1,891 supervising principals reporting in the 196 8 study (15:11), 77.6 percent were male. In e a r l i e r surveys the proportion of men p r inci­ pals was lower. In 1928 44.5 percent were men. In 195 8 (16:110) the relationship stood at 62 percent men prin c i ­ pals, 3 percent higher than the 1948 national study. These findings indicated an increasing trend in favor of employing m e n as elementary principals. Data from the four national studies portray the increasing percentage of male elementary school p r i n c i ­ pals which has occurred during the last four d e c a d e s . Information from the four studies are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Na tional Percentage of Men and Women Supervising Principals, 1928-1968 Year of Study 1928 1948 1958 1968 Men 45 59 62 77.6 Women 55 41 38 22. 4 26 Statewide Studies Lepi c k in 1961, men. (5:118), in a C a l i f o r n i a s t u d y c o mpleted found the ratio to b e three to o n e in favor of The r a t i o m e n t i o n e d in the C a l i f o r n i a study was slightly lower than an Ind i a n a study by A r m s (1:14) w h i c h c o n t a i n e d p ercentages of male and f e m a l e r espondents of 8.25 p e r c e n t and 17.5 percent, respectively. The p e r c e n t a g e of m e n h o l d i n g s u p e r v i s i n g principalships in Oregon in 1965 was d e t e r m i n e d by Perkins to be 85 percent. (9:52) E i g h t y - t h r e e percent of the O k l a h o m a elementary school p r i n c i p a l s reporting in a 1969 study b y Brothers (3:68) w e r e a l s o ahead of the present n a t i o n a l trend toward pla c i n g m e n in the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p . Youngblood (13:20) re p o r t e d in a 1961 Texas study the e x i s t e n c e of a s i m i l a r imbalance b e t w e e n the number of m ale and female principals, but c a u tioned that the fact does not di s c r i m i n a t i o n n e c e s s a r i l y indicate t hat w o m e n suffer in selection b e c a u s e of t h e i r sex. Andlauer (2:40) found in his 1968 co m p a r a tive study that the number of fema l e el e m e n t a r y sch o o l p r i n c i ­ pals over a n i n e - y e a r per i o d d r o p p e d from m o r e than onethird to s l i g h t l y more than o n e - s i x t h of all elementary principals. G e o r g i a status study inves t i g a t o r s Parker, Moore, 6:6) (Jarvis, reported in 1970 that 79 percent of the prin c i p a l s in that state w e r e men. 27 Warren (12:33) reported that three-fourths of the responding principals in his Missouri study were male. The study located whi c h contained the lowest ratio of male to female principals was the 1964 study of white Arkansas principals conducted by Shelton (10:45). The study investigator reported 55 percent m ale and 45 percent female. Presentation of Data and Findings The percentage of m e n holding full-time principalships in Michigan in 1971 w a s determined by this researcher to be considerably greater than that of women. naire, Of the respondents to this item on the question­ 779, or 77.13 percent, were men, whi l e 231, or 22.87 percent, were women. is presented in Table 2. A tabulation of these data Thus, the results of this study show that, by actual count, slightly more than three in every four M ichigan elementary principals were men. Table 2 Distribution of Principals by Sex Sex Male Female Number 779 231 Percentage 77.13 22.87 28 The data o btained compare favorably to recent national and a m a jority of statewide studies. cant increase, 37 percent, A signifi­ in the proportion of men to women principals w a s noted to have occurred over the past two decades in Michigan. When the relationship b e t w e e n the variables of sex and age was examined, only nine of the 186 p r i n ci­ pals less than 35 years of age w e r e found to be female. Table 3 reports the significant relationship indicating that male principals tend to be proportionately younger than female principals at a .001 level of significance. The sexes of responding principals are p r e ­ sented by expenditure level of e m p loying school district in Table 4. No relationship was found to exist at the .05 level of significance. AGE 1951-1952 Michigan Study In the earlier Michigan s t udy (14:8) o n l y 21 p e r ­ cent of the 336 respondents to this question reported being less than 40 years of age; ages of 40 and 50; 52 percent b e t w e e n the and 2 7 percent o v e r 50 years of age. National Studies The median age of supervising principals included in the 196 8 national study (15:10) was 45 years. This was the same med i a n age reported in 1928, and represents 29 Table 3 C o m p arison of Various Levels of Age by Sex Age --------------------------------35-49 50-64 65 or Years Years Older Total Male Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total T h e o r e t . freq. Cell X 2 177.00 22. 75 95.16 17. 54 143.42 7. 86 471.00 60. 54 87. 87 46.68 413.29 8. 06 130.00 16.71 45.94 12.88 218.21 35.66 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00 3.08 3.08 778.00 100.00 77.11 77.11 9. 00 3.90 4. 84 .89 42 .58 26.48 65. 00 28.14 12.13 6.44 122.71 27. 14 153.00 66 .23 54.06 15.16 64.79 120.10 4.00 1.73 100.00 . 40 .92 10. 39 231.00 100.00 22. 89 22. 89 186.00 18. 43 100.00 18.43 536.00 53.12 100.00 53.12 283.00 28.06 100.00 28. 05 4. 00 1009.00 100.00 .40 100.00 100.00 .40 100.00 Female Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total T h e o r e t . freq. Cellx2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X2 - 238. 776; df - 3; Significant at unused =■ 2. .001 level; 30 Table 4 C o m p a r i s o n of School D istrict E x p e n d i t u r e Lev e l s by Sex Male Female Total 341.00 75.78 44 .58 34 .31 346.33 .08 109.00 24.22 47. 60 10.97 103.67 .27 450.00 100.00 45.27 45.27 226.00 78.47 29.54 22.74 221.65 .09 62.00 21.53 27.07 6.24 66. 35 .29 288.00 100.00 28.97 28. 97 198.00 77.34 25.88 19.92 197.02 .00 58. 00 22.66 25. 33 5. 84 58. 98 .02 256.00 100.00 25. 75 25. 75 765.00 76 .96 100.00 76.96 229.00 23.04 100.00 23.04 994.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 .747; df = 2; Not Significant; unus e d = 17. Expendit u r e Level High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. C e l l x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. C e l l x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. C e l l x2 Total Freq. Percent across P e r cent down P e r c e n t of total X2 = 31 only a slight d e c r e a s e compared w i t h the m e d i a n s reported in 1958 cent. (16:112) of 47.6 per c e n t and in 1948 of 46.5 p e r ­ Table 5 d e m o n s t r a t e s that the m e d i a n age of national supervising principals for the years 1928 t h r o u g h 196 8 has remained fairly constant in the m i d - f o r t y range. Table 5 National M e d i a n A g e of Supervising Principals, 1928-1968 Na t i o n a l Study M e d i a n Age 1928 1948 1958 1968 45 46. 5 47.6 45 Statewide Studies Texas p r i n c i p a l s w ere a s s e s s e d by Youngblood (12:23) in 1961 as po s s e s s i n g a m e d i a n age of 45 years. A l s o n o te d was the tendency for the m e d i a n age of p r i n c i ­ pals to increase as the size of the school system e n r o l l ­ m e n t increased. Shelton's 1964 study (10:45) of A r k a n s a s p r i n c i ­ pals d e t e r m i n e d that the typical e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l was 49 y e a r s of age. Moss (8:49) found the typ i c a l p r i n c i p a l in W y o m i n g in 1966 w a s 44.5 years of age and in four s u r r o u n d i n g states, 47 years. 32 The m e d i a n age of the Georgia e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i ­ pal was r e p o r t e d by Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:5) in 1969 to be fo r t y - f o u r years. A s o m e w h a t lower m e d i a n age w a s re p o r t e d in Oregon by P e r k i n s principal w a s (9:52) w h o revealed t hat the typical 4 3.4 years of age. A n d l a u e r ' s co m p a r a t i v e study (2:41) b e t w e e n the 1960 New J e r s e y principal and the 1968 N e w Jersey p r i n c i ­ pal found t h a t the med i a n age for b o t h w a s bet w e e n the ages of 41 a n d 45 years. Lar g e r p r o p o r t i o n s of p r i n c i p a l s w e r e noted in 196 8 in the 36 to 45 y e a r s age category. Presentati o n o f Data and Findings The d a t a in Table 6 show that 53.07 percent of the 1,010 M i c h i g a n principals reporting w ere w i t h i n the range of 35-49 y e a r s of age. M o r e than 18 p e r c e n t (18.42%) w e r e less t h a n age 35, w h i l e 2 8.52 p e r c e n t w ere over 50 years of age. Only four M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals r e p o r t e d ages o f 6 5 and over. A r e v i e w of recent state and n a t i o n a l studies revealed no signif i c a n t t r e n d in either d i r e c t i o n r e l a ­ tive to the m e d i a n ages of elementary s c h o o l principals. The median age of s upervising principals has, in fact, remained f a i r l y constant. The a s p e c t of age factor in m o s t all status was found to be a recognized studies of the per s o n a l 33 characteristics of elementary principals, although no data were located suggesting one best age or suggesting a quintessential range or limit for the elementary principalship. Table 6 Distribution of Principals by Age A»oe ge Number Numner Less than 35 35-49 years 50-64 years 65 or older 186 536 284 4 Percentaae Percentage 18.42 53.07 28.12 .40 Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 186 722 1,006 1,010 18.42 71.49 99.60 100.00 The ages of responding principals are presented by level of expenditure of employing school district in Table 7. There was a tendency for the age of supervising principals to be greater in high expenditure districts and for principals to be younger in the lower expenditure districts. RACIAL-ETHNIC COMPOSITION Statewide Studies Few investigators in statewide studies have examined the racial-ethnic characteristics of elementary principals. in fact, The Arkansas study by Shelton (10:4) was, limited by design to white elementary principals. 34 Table 7 Comparison of School District Expenditure bevels by Age Expenditure Level Age — -------------------------------Less 35-49 50-64 65 or 35n Years Years Older Total High &a Freq . Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 59.00 13.08 32.07 5.94 83. 48 7.18 250.00 55.43 47.44 25 .15 239.11 .50 141.00 31. 26 50. 54 14. 19 126.59 1.64 66.00 23 .00 35.87 6.64 53.13 3.12 135.00 47.04 25.62 13.58 152.16 1.94 85.00 29.62 30. 47 8.55 80.56 .25 1.00 .35 25.00 .10 1.15 .02 287.00 100.00 28. 87 28. 87 59.00 23. 05 32.07 5.94 47. 39 2 .85 142.00 55 .47 26.94 14.29 135.73 .29 53. 00 20. 70 19. 00 5.33 71. 86 4.95 2. 00 .78 50.00 .20 1.03 .91 256.00 100.00 25. 75 25. 75 184.00 18.51 100.00 18. 51 527.00 53.02 100.00 53.02 279.00 28.07 100.00 28.07 4.00 .40 100.00 .40 994.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1.00 .22 25.00 .10 1. 81 .37 451.00 100.00 45. 37 45. 37 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 2 X = 24.000; df = 6; Significant negative relationship at .001 level; unused = 17; p.m.c. = -.117985. 35 Brothers (3:66) reported that more than 90 per­ cent of the 641 O k lahoma elementary school principals responding to his survey were Caucasian. The black race was represented by 4.5 p e r c e n t , the Indian race by less than 1 p e r c e n t (.69%), w i t h no other race reported. Youngblood (13:21) r e p o r t e d that whi t e principals in Texas composed 89 percent of the respondent group. Black principals composed 11 p e r c e n t of the Texas respondents. Presentation of D a t a and F ladings The data in Table 8 indicate that 972, or 96.33 percent, of the 1,009 Michigan respondents were Caucasian. Eighteen principals, or 1.78 percent, were black. indicated that they Three indicated b e i n g Spanish-surnamed; principals reported Oriental heritage; and one principal revealed that he w a s an American Indian. cate, two The data indi­ then, that the vast m a j o r i t y of Michigan principal- ships are held by members of the white race. Only thirty- seven, or 3.67 percent, of 1,009 principals responding to this question indicated m i n o r i t y group membership. This was a smaller percentage than was reported in either the Oklahoma or T e x a s studies. It was interesting to n o t e that few statewide studies and none of the four N A E S P studies of the 36 e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p m a d e attempts to d e t e r m i n e the racial c o m p o s i t i o n of p e r s o n s serving in the p r i n c i p a l ­ ship . Table 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Principals by R a c i a l - E t h n i c G r oup R a c i a l - E t h n i c Group Number Afro-American A m e r i c a n Indian O r i ental A m e r i c a n S p a n i s h - s u r n a m e d Am e r i c a n Caucasian Al l others 18 1 2 3 972 13 Percentage 1. 78 . 10 .20 . 30 96. 33 1.29 It w o u l d appear t hat e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l principalships in m o s t M i c h i g a n s c h o o l s and in o t h e r parts of the n a t i o n h av e n o t been open to m i n o r i t y g r o u p s , or that m i n o r i t y - g r o u p i ndividuals h a v e not a s p i r e d to the principalship. R E S I D E N T I A L PATTERN Statewide S t u d i e s N e a r l y identical d a t a w e r e r e p o r t e d in studies w h i c h e x a m i n e d the p e r c e n t a g e of pr i n c i p a l s the bou n d a r i e s of the s c h o o l living w i t h i n system w h i c h e m p l o y s them. D a t a from a C a l i f o r n i a s t u d y by Lepick (5:266) revealed that 73.5 p e r c e n t of all e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s resided 37 within t h e i r school d i s t r i c t boundaries, w h i l e 26.5 p e r ­ cent lived in areas o u t s i d e school d i s t r i c t limits. A sim i l a r p e r c e n t a g e was found by She l t o n (10:72} w h o d e t e r m i n e d that 75.8 per c e n t of A r k a n s a s e l e m e n t a r y principals o w ned their h o m e s in the c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h they w o r k . Arms reporting (1:76) r e p o r t e d that 71.7 p e r c e n t of all Indiana p r i n c i p a l s lived w i t h i n the b o u n daries of the s c h o o l district w h i c h em p l o y e d them. R e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n regarding p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e noted slight d i f f e r e n c e s in the c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r c e n t a g e s for O r e g o n 9:135), 79.5 percent, 5:266), 73.5 percent. a n d for C a l i f o r n i a (Perkins f (Lepick, P r e s e n t a t i o n of Data a n d Findings D a t a pertaining to the location of r e s i d e n ce was sought in o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e the p e r c e n t a g e of p r i n cipals w h o live o u t s i d e the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t e m p l o y i n g them. More than 57 percent (57.5 8%) of the 1,002 M i c h i g a n principals responding to this q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e d that they lived w i t h i n the b o u n d a r i e s of the school d i s t r i c t w h ich e m p l o y e d them. principals, O n the other hand, or 42.42 p e r c e n t , a total of 42 5 r evealed that they lived outside s c h o o l district b o u n d a r i e s (Table 9). S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e n o t e d in the ratio of pr i n c i p a l s in other stat e s w hen c o m p a r e d w i t h M i c h i g a n 38 regarding the practice of maintaining residences within their employing district. California, Arkansas, and Indiana reported higher percentage differentials a m o u n t ­ ing to 15.9 percent, 18.2 percent, and 14.1 percent, respectively. Table 9 Residential Pattern of Principals Reside Within District Boundaries Number Yes No 577 425 Percentage 57.58 42.42 BIRTHPLACE Statewide Studies The New Jersey study (Andlauer, 2:41) was the only statewide status study of the principalship which examined the place of birth in relation to the principal's place of employment. It was found that the place of b i rth of the typical New Jersey principal in both 1960 and 1968 was withi n 50 miles of the school district in w h i c h he was employed. Moreover, a lesser proportion of p r i n c i ­ pals surveyed in 1968 were born in the districts in w h i c h they held their p r i n c i p a l s h i p s , and a lesser p e r ­ centage were born outside the state than those surveyed in 1960. 39 Presentation of Data and Findings Table 10 deals with the birthplace of Michigan principals in this study as it relates to the place of employment. Only 9.02 percent of the responding p r in c i ­ pals indicated that they were born in the district where employed; slightly more than one-third (35.68%) were born in Michigan within 50 miles of their present dis­ trict; 26.66 percent were born elsewhere in Michigan; and 28.6 4 percent reported their birthplace as being outside Michigan. Table 10 Birthplace of Principals Place of Birth Within present district Within 50 miles Elsewhere in Michigan Outside Michigan Number Percentage 91 360 269 2 89 9.02 35.68 26.66 2 8.64 Inquiries concerning the place of birth in relation to place of employment were not m ade in the four national studies. In only one statewide study was residential information investigated. A comparison of this study to the N e w Jersey study yielded the following observations: Nearly twice as large a percentage of New Jersey principals as Michigan principals administered in the districts in which they 40 were born and were presently employed. Closely comparative figures were reported regarding principals administering within 50 miles of where they were born, while a dif­ ferential of 11 percent fewer Michigan principals than New Jersey principals were born outside the state of their employment. MAR I T A L STATUS 1951-1952 M i chigan Study The investigators in the earlier M ichigan study (14:8) reported that of the 372 respondents, 60 percent of the elementary principals were married and 40 percent were not. National Studies Of the total sample group of supervising principals replying to the 1968 national study were reported as married; married; (15:12), 83.1 percent about 12 percent had never been and 5 percent were widowed, divorced, or separated. The national study investigators reported that only 32.7 percent of the female respondents were married, whereas 92.4 percent of the male respondents w ere married. Statewide Studies In 1961 Youngblood (13:27) reported that of all Texas principals in his study, 95.7 percent of the male 41 p r i n cipal s w e r e m arried, 62.6 p e r c e n t o f the female principal s w ere married, and 88.9 p e r c e n t of all p r i n c i ­ pals w e r e married. Returns from a study by W a r r e n principal s in M i s s o u r i (12:33) on m a r r i e d revealed t hat 75.2 percent w e r e m e n a nd 2 4.3 p e r c e n t w e r e women. Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:6) indicated that 83.8 p e r c e n t of all r e p o r t i n g G e o r g i a pr i n c i p a l s w e r e married, 11.4 per c e n t w e r e single, and r e s p o n d e d t hat they w e r e separated, 4.8 percent divorced, or widowed. An e x a m i n a t i o n of the m a r i t a l sta t u s of I n d i a n a principal s by A r m s (1:56) d e t e r m i n e d t hat 87.3 p e r c e n t of all pr i n c i p a l s w e r e married. r e p o r t e d as widowed, O n l y 2.5 percent w e r e separated, or divorced. The s t u d y also n o t e d that w h i l e o nly 9.8 p e r c e n t o f all p r i n c i p a l s w e r e n e ve r m arried, of this number, 54.5 percent of these single p r i n c i p a l s w e r e female. Of those r e s p o n d i n g to the M oss (8:50), 1966 Wyo m i n g study by close to 90 percent w e r e married. Results of this W y o m i n g study also i n d i c a t e d t h a t there w e r e more m a r r i e d m e n than w o m e n and that o n l y 2 7 percent of the w o m e n p r i n c i p a l s w ere married. S h e lton's study (10:46) of the A r k a n s a s e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p showed that 78 p e r c e n t of these p r i n c i p a l s w e r e marr i e d , 12.2 p e r c e n t w e r e single, and 10 p e r c e n t 42 were widowed. The above figure w a s slightly lower than the 86 percent-married figure reported in the Oklahoma study by Brothers (3:69 ),w h o reported also that 9.1 percent w e r e single. Presentation of D a t a and Findings Data o b t a i n e d in this study revealed that 85.25 percent of M i c h i g a n principals w ere married. The singleness due to non-marriage was reported at 8.25 per cent; 3.27 percent were reported as divorced or separated; widowed. and close to 3 per c e n t (2.97%) w ere Table 11 presents these data. Table 11 M a r i t a l Status of Principals Marital Status Single Mar r i e d Di vorced Separated Widowed Number Percentage 86 860 27 6 30 8.52 85.23 2.6 8 .59 2.97 The study data indicate a large percen t a g e (85.2 3%) of m a r r i e d elementary school principals in Michigan. A comparison of these data with other recent national and statewide studies revealed close similarities of findings in the 83-9 0 per c e n t range. 43 EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SPOUSE Statewide Studies Inquiries concerning information regarding the employment status of elementary school principals in state studies w e r e meager. California principals were asked to state whether they were the sole w age earner in a 1961 study by Lepick (5:136). Lepick revealed that a two-income family unit existed in approximately one-third of the cases reported. Presentation of Data and Findings To determine the degree to which spouses were employed, Mi c h i g a n principals were requested to state whether they w ere the sole w age earner in their families. According to the figures in Table 12, 61.69 percent of Michigan principals replied that they were the sole wage earner in their family. These data would indicate that nearly four in every ten M i c h i g a n principals have an employed s p o u s e . Table 12 Employment Status of Spouse Sole Wage Earner Yes No Number 620 385 Percentage 61. 69 38.31 44 It was noted that a higher percentage of Michigan principals (38.31%) reported two incomes in their families than was found in the California study (32.4%). POLITICAL PREFERENCE Statewide Studies In the 1961 California study by Lepick (5:143) it was found that 52.6 percent of the 62 7 principals responding indicated a preference for the Republican party; 46.1 percent preferred the Democratic party; and 1.3 percent indicated some other political affiliation. The results of the 1965 Oregon study (Perkins; 9:57) disclosed a alight margin of preference for the Republican over the Democratic party, 42 percent, respectively. 4 8.4 percent and Independent affiliations con­ stituted 6.2 percent of the remaining responses. Presentation of Data and Findings Of the responding Michigan principals, cent favored the Democratic party, 20.52 p e r ­ 3 8.43 percent selected the Republican party, and 40.74 percent expressed that they were "independent." The data in Table 13 reflect the preference of political affiliation by Michigan principals. 45 It was interesting to note that four in ten Michigan elementary school principals failed to indicate a preference for a maj o r political party. In addition, nearly twice as m any principals indicated a preference for the Republican party than those preferring the Democratic party. These findings w ere quite dissimilar to the data found in the Oregon and California studies. Table 13 Political Preferences of Principals Preference Democrat Republican Independent Other Number 204 382 405 3 Percentage 20.52 38.43 40.74 .30 Information pertaining to the political p r e f ­ erences of the elementary school principals was not included in previous national studies or the earlier Michigan study. Few statewide studies have been con­ cerned with political affiliations. Perhaps the scarcity of information was due to the fact that such information was considered as too personal or of such limited consequence to be assessed. Although such information may not be applicable to the successful operation of an elementary school, it may be important in suggesting the political leanings of principals. 46 The d a t a do take on a d d e d mea n i n g w h e n it is r e called that the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n has b e c o m e p o l i t i c a l l y active and that m ore than 90 percent of the n ation's educators v o t e d in the last C o n g r e s s i o n a l and P r e s i ­ d e n tial elections. Chapter 3 P R I N C I P A L ' S SCH O O L AND R E S O U R C E S Data pe r t a i n i n g to the a d equacy and a v ailability of school resources and the o c c u p a t i o n a l situations of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals are presented, analyzed, and compared in this chapter. The p r i n c i p a l s h i p was e x a m i n e d in relation to t he study hyp o t h e s i s that school resources and o c cupational situations of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s are a n a l o g o u s w i t h respect to specific factors of school and district e n r o llmen t s and character, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l aspects, materiel, staff and sp e c i a l i z e d services, financial situation, and parent g r o u p affiliation. Information o b t a i n e d from r e c e n t n a t i o n a l and statewide studies and an ear l i e r M i c h i g a n study served as compar a t i v e data for this examination. NUMBER OF SCHOOLS IN D I S T R I C T Statewide Studies An d l a u e r ' s (2:51) comparative study of the New Jers e y pr i n c i p a l s h i p found that the m e d i a n number of 47 48 schools in t hat state in 1960 and 1968 w a s five. He also reported t h a t the p e r c e n t a g e of d i s t r i c t s with fewer than t h r e e schools d e c r e a s e d from o v e r 30 p e r c e n t in 1960 to 20 p e r c e n t in 1968. P r e s e ntati o n of D a t a and Findings The r e s u l t s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the n u mb e r of elementary sch o o l s reported in T a b l e in the p r i n c i p a l ' s d i s t r i c t are 14. Over 36 percent (36.51%) i n di­ c a ted that five o r less schools existed in their d i s ­ tricts; 27 p e r c e n t 11 percent r e p o r t e d six to ten; and (10.71%) were in d i s tricts h a v i n g 31 or m o r e el e m e n t a r y schools. were (27.18%) A b o u t one in five principals/ then, in di s tricts of 11 to 30 e l e m e n t a r y schools. Table 14 N u m b e r of Schools in P rincipal's District N umb e r of Schools 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 or - 5 - 1 0 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 more Number 368 274 84 64 64 46 108 P er c entage 36 .51 27 .18 8 .33 6 .35 6. 35 4. 56 10. 71 Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 368 642 726 790 854 900 1008 36. 51 6 3.69 72 . 02 78.37 84. 72 89. 29 100.00 R e l a t e d r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g this a s p e c t of the study was almost non-existent. C o m p a r i n g the findings o f the M i c h i g a n and New J e r s e y studies r e v e a l e d 49 p e r c e ntag e s of 6 3.69 percent and 5 3.8 percent, respectively, in school districts of five or less elementary schools. At the o t her extreme, M i c h i g a n had m o r e than twice as large a pe r c e n t a g e of pr i n c i p a l s ser v i n g in districts w h i c h had mor e than sixteen elementary schools; N e w Jer s ey repor t e d 12.3 p e r c e n t and M i c h i g a n reported 2 7.97 percent. School District E n r o llment Investigators in the 196 8 national study (15:91) indicated that a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 5 per c e n t of respondents served in the largest systems (25,000 or m ore pupils); 47 p e r c e n t in m i d d l e range systems (3,000 to 24,999); and 28 percent from the smaller school d i s tricts (100 to 2,999) . P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings The i n c lusion of the size of school d i s t r i c t in the study c o n s t i t u t e d an aspect w o r t h y of c o n s i d e r a t i o n in o r der to d e t ermine the extent to w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s r e p r e s e n t e d small, medium, enrollments. and large school s y s t e m In c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the size of the school d i s t r i c t enrollment, the three c l a s s i f i c a t i on ranges identified in the n a t i o n a l study w e r e utilized. Table 15 indicates the d i s t r i b u t i o n of e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s by p o p u l a t i o n size o f the employing school district. 50 A total of 2 87 principals, or 2 8.5 percent, reported serving in the largest systems; 60.68 percent, districts; 611, or r e p o r t e d em p l o y m e n t in m i d d l e - s i z e d and 10.82 p e r c e n t in d i c a t e d b e i n g from smaller school systems under 3,000 pupils. Table 15 School D i s t r i c t Enroll m e n t District Enrollment 100 to 3,000 to 25,000 or 2,999 24,999 m ore Num b e r Pe r c entage 287 611 109 28.50 60.68 10.82 C o m p a r a t i v e data in related stu d i e s w ere limited, with o n l y the 196 8 n a t i o n a l study g i v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n to this aspect. G e n e r a l similarities w e r e found to exist between the data of the n ational study and these findings with r e s p e c t to the p r o p o r t i o n s of p r i n c i p a l s s erving in the larger systems w i t h 25,000 or m o r e pupils. The national study investigators did report a larger p r o ­ portion of principals serving in sma l l e r schools (10.8 p e r c e n t compared to 28 percent) and a smaller pe r c e n t a g e of principals reporting f r o m m i d d l e - r a n g e systems w i t h enroll m e n t s of 3,000 to 2 4,999 compared to 60.68 percent). (47 percent 51 C H A R A C T E R OF S C H O O L D ISTRICT 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study Seventy of 379 r espondents in the e a r l i e r M i c h i g a n study (14:18) r e p o r t e d that the p o p u l a t i o n of their city or type of school was "rural or consolidated", terms which were not defined. National Studies T h r e e - f o u r t h s of the s u p e r v i s i n g pr i n c i p a l s r e p o r t ­ ing in the 1968 n a t i o n a l study (15:91) cl a s s i f i e d their c ommunities as either urban or s u b u r b a n — 38.2 p e r c e n t and 36.4 percent, respectively. The s t u d y r esearchers cautioned that "it s h o u l d be k ept in m i n d that rural usually includes small towns and v i llages as w e l l as relatively open far m i n g areas." Statewide Studies New Jersey princi p a l s w e r e id e n t i f i e d b y A n d l a u e r (2:80) by the type of community to w h i c h they w e r e assigned as follows: 24 percent in suburban communities; in urban communities; 62.7 p e r c e n t and 13.3 per c e n t in r u r a l areas. The types of communities and pe r c e n t a g e s by G e o r g i a researchers (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, 6:8) w e r e as follows: 23.4 percent; 36.6 percent; and rural, urban, 40 percent. suburban, 52 Presentation of Data and Findings Of the principals queried, nearly 5 4 percent characterized their communities as suburban; 21 percent indicated their communities as urban; with 2 51 of the 996 respondents to this question locations as rural. (2 5%) reported their The types of communities employing responding elementary principals can be viewed in Table 16. Table 16 Character of School District District Character Suburban Urban Rural Number 534 211 251 Percentage 5 3.61 21.18 25.20 The investigator also determined that suburban principals were more likely to be employed in high expenditure districts than were urban or rural princi­ pals. The types of school districts employing respond­ ing principals are presented by level of operating expenditure per pupil in Table 17. 53 T a b l e 17 C o m p a r i s o n of Levels of O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e by Type of School District Expenditure L e v e l Type of School D i s t r i c t -------------------------------------------S u burban Urban Rural Total Hic[h Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of t o tal Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Middle 285.00 63.76 53. 98 28. 96 239.85 8.50 138.00 30. 87 66.03 14.02 94.94 19.53 24.00 5. 37 9. 72 2.44 112.20 69. 34 447.00 100.00 45 .43 45 .43 Freq. Percent across Pe r cent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Low 141.00 49.65 26. 70 14. 33 152.39 .85 41.00 14.44 19.62 4 . 17 60. 32 6.19 102.00 35.92 41.30 10.37 71.29 13.23 284.00 100.00 28. 86 28. 86 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. C ell x 2 Total 102.00 40. 32 19. 32 10. 37 135.76 8. 39 30.00 11. 86 14. 35 3.05 53.74 10. 49 121.00 47. 83 48.99 12.30 63.51 52.05 253.00 100.00 25. 71 25.71 Freq. P e r cent across P e r cent down Percent of total 528.00 53.66 100.00 53.66 209.00 21.24 100.00 21.24 247.00 25 .10 100.00 25.10 984.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 X 2 - 188. 560; df » 4; Significant at u n u s e d - 27. .001 level; 54 SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING E X P E N D I T U R E LEVEL P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings One of the p u rposes of i d e n t i f y i n g a s t a t i s t i c a l p o r t r a i t of the sta t u s of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l w as to determi n e w h e t h e r the p r e s e n t m e t h o d of f i n ancing M i c h i g a n lower e d u c a t i o n was r e l a t e d to i n e q u i t a b l e c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s and p r i n c i p a l s h i p s s e r v i n g school d i s t r i c t s of v a r y i n g levels of financial support. However, a meticulous e x a m i n a t i o n of all recent state a n d n a t i o n a l studies status failed to locate findings and i n f o r m a t i o n p e r ­ t a i n i n g to the c o s t - q u a l i t y relat i o n s h i p s of schools in w h i c h el e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s administered. The 1 9 7 0-1971 op e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s per p u pil of principals' s c h o o l d i s tricts in this study were g r o u p e d in three c l a ssifications. The r e p o r t e d num bers an d percentages were: (1) $800 and above p e r pupil, 451, or 45.33 percent; (2) $ 7 0 0-$799 per pupil, or 28.94 percent; percent. and (3) $699 p e r pupil, 256, These d a t a are i l l u s t r a t e d in T a b l e Of course, 288, or 25.73 18. the p e r - p u p i l e x p e n d i t u r e does not tell the whole s t o r y of qua l i t y and e q u a l i t y in M i c h i g a n schools, but it is taken as a s i g n i f i c a n t i n d e x of the 55 financial differentials among school districts to hold educational implication for this study. Table 18 19 70-71 Operating Expenditure Level of School District Expenditure Level Number Percentage Cumulative Cell N Cumulative Percent $800 and above per pupil 451 45. 33 451 45.33 $700 - $799 per pupil 288 28.94 749 74. 27 $699 and below per pupil 256 25. 73 995 100.00 Throughout this study a determination was made to discover whe t h e r the difference in dollars expended among school districts could be a dependent variable w ith respect to the qualitative and quantitative factors that relate to and affect the M ichigan elementary school principal. NUMB E R OF SCHOOLS SUPERVISED National Studies Among those elementary principals sampled in the national study (15:63), 10.3 percent were reported to supervise two schools; schools; 2.4 percent administered three and 1.9 percent were in charge of four or mor e schools. 56 Statewide Studies The number of separately named elementary schools under the direction of elementary principals was examined by Youngblood <13:36) in the 1961 Texas study. The percentage of Texas principals assigned to single schools was reported as 92.5 percent; served in dual principalships; 5.4 percent and 2.1 percent had multischool principalships serving three or more schools. Ninety-five percent of the responding principals in a recent Georgia study (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, 6:8) indicated supervision of only one separately named e l e ­ mentary school, while 3.8 percent had responsibility for two schools. A similarity of percentages was reported in the Indiana (Arms, 1:22) and Oklahoma principalship studies, (Brothers, 3:54) 87.7 per c e n t and 87.1 percent, re s p e ctive l y . Merigis and Gill (4:Table 2) found that of all reporting Illinois principals one school, 85 percent administered 12 percent administered two schools, and 3 percent were in charge of three or more schools. Shelton (10:28) reported in a 1964 study that only 74.2 percent of Arkansas principals supervised only one school and 17,2 percent supervised two schools. 57 Presentation of Data and Findings Close to e i ght hundred responders, or 78-99 pe r ­ cent, reported administering one school; 15-46 percent were in charge of two separately n a m e d schools; thirty- six principals r e ported supervising three schools (3.57%); and 1.9 8 percent of all responding Michigan principals had four or more schools under their direction. These data are presented in Table 19. Table 19 Number of Separately Named Schools Supervised Number of Schools One Two Three Four or more Number Numb e r 797 156 36 20 Cumulative Percentage Number Percentaae 78.99 15.46 3.57 1.08 Cumulative Percent 797 953 989 1009 One of every five Michigan principals, 78.99 94.45 98.02 100.00 then, was reported to be in char g e of more than one school. And the practice of a s s igning principals to multiple-school assignments was found to be more prevalent in Michigan than in all other r e p orting states, except Arkansas. One responding principal appended a comment to his survey form that his multi-school principalship was like running around attempting to h o l d his fingers over 58 leaks in a dam. A n o t h e r stated t hat supervising m o r e than one school r e q u i r e d too much o f f i c e duty and not e n o u g h time for c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t and work w i t h children. The number of separately n a m e d elementary schools under the d i r e c t i o n of responding p r i n c i p a l s is p r e ­ sented by level of school district o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e per p u pil in Table 20. The number of schools s u p e r v i s e d by respon d i n g p r i n c i p a l s was r e l a t e d to e xpenditure at the .001 level of significance. level The null h y p o t h e s i s of indepe n d e n c e w a s a ccepted for the factor of e x p e n d i t u r e level. Principals less from high e x p e n d i t u r e districts w e r e likely to h a v e m u l t i s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p s than w e r e p r i n c i p a l s from low expend i t u r e s c h o o l districts. A n intere s t i n g relat i o n s h i p was di s c o v e r e d w h e n c o m p aring the n u m b e r of schools a d m i n i s t e r e d to the n u m b e r of hours p e r w e e k spent on reg u l a r and schoolr e l a t e d duties. A s ignificant r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o und to e x ist between the number of schools admin i s t e r e d and the h o urs per w e e k b e i n g dev o t e d to the job. Multischool pri n c i p a l s were d i s c o v e r e d to spend fewer hours per w e e k on school w ork than principals w i t h o n l y a single scho o l assignment. These relationships are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 21. 59 Table 2 0 Co m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l D i s t r i c t E xpenditure L e v e ls With N u m b e r of Schools Supervised Number of Schools Superv i sed E x p e n d i t u r e Level One Two Three Four or M o r e Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cel l x2 Middl e 397.00 88.03 50. 38 39 .98 357.89 4 .27 46.00 10.20 30.07 4.63 69.49 7.94 5 .00 1.11 13. 89 .50 16. 35 7. 88 3. 00 .67 18.75 .30 7.27 2.51 451.00 100.00 45.42 45.42 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total T h e o r e t . freq. Cel l x 2 Low 219.00 76.04 27.79 22 .05 228.54 .40 49.00 17.01 32.03 4.93 44.37 .48 12 .00 4.17 33.33 1.21 10. 44 .23 8. 00 2.78 50. 00 .81 4.64 2.43 288.00 100.00 29. 00 29 .00 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total T h e o r e t . freq. C e l l x2 Total 172.00 67. 72 21. 83 17. 32 201.56 4. 34 58.00 22.83 37.91 5. 84 39. 14 9.09 19.00 7.48 52 .78 1.91 9.21 10. 41 5. 00 1. 97 31. 25 .50 4.09 .20 254.00 100.00 25.58 25 .58 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 788.00 79 .36 100.00 79 . 36 153.00 15.41 100.00 15.41 36.00 3.63 100.00 3.63 16. 00 1.61 100.00 1.61 993.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High X 2 = 50.185; u n u s e d - 18. df = 6 ; S i g n i f i c a n t at .001 level; Table 21 Comparison of Number of Schools Supervised by Number of Hours Spent Per Week on School Duties Number of Schools Number of Hours Spent on School Work 36 Hours or Less 36-41 42-47 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71 72 or More 8.00 1.01 88.89 .80 7.13 .11 51.00 6.42 80.95 5.08 49,89 285.00 35.85 79.39 28.39 284.27 .00 125.00 15.72 86.21 12.45 114.82 .90 47.00 5.91 77.05 4.68 48.30 .04 2.00 .25 50.00 .20 3.17 .43 2.00 .25 40.00 .20 3.96 .97 795.00 100.00 79,18 79.18 .02 275.00 34.59 76.82 27.39 283.48 .25 0.00 8.00 5.19 12.70 .80 9.66 .29 61.00 39.61 17.04 6.08 54.91 .67 53.00 34.42 14.76 5.28 55-07 .08 17.00 11.04 11.72 1.69 22.24 1.24 11.00 7.14 18.03 1.10 9.36 .29 2.00 1.30 50.00 .20 .61 3.13 2.00 1.30 40.00 .20 .77 1.98 154.00 100.00 15.34 15.34 1.00 2.86 1.59 .10 2.20 .65 17.00 48.57 4.75 1.69 12.48 1.64 12.00 34.29 3.34 1.20 12.51 .02 3.00 8.57 2.07 .30 5.05 .84 2.00 5.71 3.28 .20 2.13 .01 Q.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .14 .14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .17 .17 35.00 100.00 3.49 3.49 5.00 25.00 1.40 .50 7.13 .64 9.00 45.00 2.51 .90 7.15 .48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.69 1.00 5,00 1.64 .10 1.22 .04 0.00 .10 .18 3.76 3.00 15.00 4.76 .30 1.25 2.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 .08 .08 1.00 5.00 20.00 .10 .10 8.14 20,00 100.00 1.99 1.99 9.00 .90 100.00 .90 63.00 6.27 100.00 6.27 35B.00 35.66 100.00 35.66 359.00 35.76 100.00 35.76 145.00 14.44 100.00 14.44 61.00 6.08 100.00 6.08 4.00 .40 100.00 .40 5.00 .50 100.00 .50 1,004.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total One Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Two Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell \2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 1.38 O Three 1 req. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .31 .31 Four or More Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell \2 1.00 5.00 11.11 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X2 ■ 34.00B; df * 21; Significant negative relationship at .05 level; unused ■ 7; p.m.c, » -.018211 61 G R A D E LEVE L S A D M I N I S T E R E D National Studies The reporters of the 196 8 n ational study (15:62) showed that 39.2 per c e n t of the schools a d m i n i s t e r e d by supervisin g p r i n c i p a l s K-6; 20.4 per c e n t w e r e grad e s grades K-8; 1-6; 7.3 per c e n t w e r e 9.6 per c e n t w e r e grades w e r e pre-K-6. ways. in the total sample w e r e g r ades 1-8; 2.6 p e r c e nt Twe n t y per c e n t w ere o r g a n i z e d in o t her It w a s also n o t e d that a fewer number of schools included g r a d e s 7 and 8 in their o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a n w as present in ear l i e r nat i o n a l studies (17:44). Statewide Studies Of the Indiana p r i n c i p a l s reporting school organization (Arms, 1:98), o r g a n i z a t i o n type K-6; 54.1 percent i n d icated grade 15.9 per c e n t i n d icated type 1-6; and 5.5 p e r c e n t i n d icated type 1-8. M e r i g i s and Gill (4:Table 3) found a lower p e r ­ centage r e g a r d i n g the K-6 type of o r g a n i z a t i o n than did the national study investigators. The Illinois study e videnced t hat 36.9 per c e n t w e r e in schools type K-6; K-8; 8.4 p e r c e n t in type 1-6; 16.5 p e r c e n t in type 1-8. i n d i cating 23.5 p e r c e n t in type A n d 14.7 percent w e r e o rganized in some other manner. Moss (8:161) r e v e a l e d in his c o m p a r a t i v e study of the sta t u s of Wyo m i n g p r i n c i p a l s that the m o s t 62 p o p u l a r plan for that s t a t e 's p r i n c i p a l s w a s the K-6 p a t t e r n of o r g a n i z a t i o n (57.4%). Most Texas principals (Youngblood, found to ad m i n i s t e r grade combi n a t i o n s 13:39) w e r e i n c luding 1-6, 46.7 percent, w h i l e 2 4.8 p e r c e n t h a d g r a d e s 1-8 in t h eir schools. Brothers' (3:54) i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Ok l a h oma p r i n c i p a l s h i p sho w e d that 72.5 percent of their schools w e r e o r g a n i z e d on a K-6 or 1-6 plan. P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings The m o s t common p a t t e r n of school o r g a n i z a t i o n in o p e r a t i o n in M i c h i g a n schools i ncluded g r a d e s k i n d e r ­ g art e n thr o u g h six (61.94%). The next m o s t used p a t t e r n of o r g a n i z a t i o n w a s k i n d e r g a r t e n thr o u g h five (15.26%). The r e m a i n i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s , in order of t h e i r f r e q u e n c i e s , w e r e as follows: cent; K-3, K-4, 6.14 percent; 2.18 percent; P r e - K - 6 , 5.15 p e r ­ and all other c o mbinations in c l u s i v e of the r e m a i n i n g 8.12 percent. Table 2 2 indicate the var i o u s grade The data in frequencies regarding levels a d m i n i s t e r e d by M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s in this study. This study revealed, then, that K-6 and K-5 g r a d e o r g a n i z a t i o n p a t t e r n s w e r e found to be the m o s t common type of e l e m e n t a r y school p lan used in Michigan. M ore than 77 per c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d these p a t t e r n s 63 in o p e r a t i o n in t h e i r schools. O n the other h a n d the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s rep o r t e d in rel a t e d studies wer e found to vary across the nation. Lack of public school k i n d e r g a r t e n s was thought to b e r e s p o n s i b l e for r e f l e c t i n g somewhat d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s than w e r e present in M i c h i g a n figures. Table 22 G r a d e Levels A d m i n i s t e r e d Number G r a d e Levels Percen t age 61. 94 5 .15 15 .26 1. 19 .59 2.18 6 . 14 7. 53 625 52 154 12 6 22 62 76 G r a d e s K-6 Pre-K-6 K-5 K-8 4-6 K—3 K—4 Other PUPIL ENROLLMENT UNDER D I R E C T I O N OF P R I N C I P A L N a t i o n a l Studies A s reported b y the i n v e s t i g a t o r s na t i o n a l study (15:66-67), in the 1968 the m e d i a n e l e m e n t a r y school e n r o l l m e n t s of s c h o o l s a d m i n i s t e r e d by superv i s i n g p r i n c i p a l s was 540. A co m p a r i s o n of e n r o l l m e n t 1928, 1948, 1958, and figures o b t a i n e d in 1968 i n d i c a t e d that the p r e s ent trend is toward larger el e m e n t a r y schools. The 196 8 64 d a t a show an i n c r e a s e over the m e d i a n s of b u t not as high as the 1928 m e d i a n 1958 and 1948, (16:60). En r o l lment m e d i a n s from the f o u r n ational studies are s h o w n in T a b l e 23 in an a t t e m p t to e s t a b l i s h a b a s i s of c o m p arison for enroll m e n t fin d i n g s of this study. Table 2 3 N a t i o n a l Median E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Enrollments, 1928-1968 M e d i a n E l e m e n t a r y School E n r o l l m e n t s N a tional S t u d y Median Enrollment 1928 1948 1958 1968 632 520 536 540 S t a t e w i d e Studies The m e a n o f the total stu d e n t e n r o l l m e n t in M i s s o u r i public s c h o o l s was r e p o r t e d by W a r r e n to be 519.4 pup i l s and the m ode to be at the (12:42) level of 300-499 pupils. Schools s u p e r v i s e d by C a l i f o r n i a e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s had a m e d i a n e n r o l l m e n t of 582 p u p i l s (Lepick, 5:207). The t y p i c a l p r i ncipal in G e o r g i a Moore, (Jarvis, Parker, 6:9) r e p o r t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 600 p u p i l s enrolled in his school. T h i r t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d that they h a d 399 or less students, w i t h 65 2.65 percent of the schools they supervised having enrollments of over 1,000 students. Merigis and Gill (4:Table 3) revealed that principals from Illinois schools reported a median of 540 students. By district-size groups, for 1961 California the m e d i a n enrollment (Lepick, 5:208) schools was 582 students. A much smaller median number of students, 399.5, was found to be supervised by the typical elementary school principal in Arkansas (Shelton, 10:31). Indiana principals were reported by Arms (1:95) as supervising schools w i t h a mean enrollment of 536 students. In addition, almost 4 4 percent of reporting Indiana principals had schools with enrollments of 400-900 pupils, while 4.7 percent served schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more. The median enrollment of the schools administered by Oregon (Perkins, Supervising 13:45) 9:68) principals was principals in Texas 417.4. (Youngblood, had a median enrollment of 499 pupils. The largest Brothers' (3:56) percentage of respondents in 196 8 study of Oklahoma principals reported school enrollments within the range of 200 and 399. 66 Pre s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings A n e x a m i n a t i o n of the e l e m e n t a r y school e n r o llment distribut i o n s p r e s e n t e d in Table 60 p e r c e n t (60.54%) 2 4 showed that m o re than of the pr i n c i p a l s in this study were administe r i n g schools w i t h b e t w e e n the r e m ai n i n g respondents, 400-699 pupils. Of 2 4.85 per c e n t a d m i n i s t e red schools w i t h from 100-399 students; and 12.13 percent d i r e c t e d student b o d i e s of 700-999. Table 24 Pupil Enrollment U n d e r Direction of Principal Enrollment Below 100 400 700 1,000 100 399 699 999 or more Number 4 250 609 122 21 Percentage .40 24. 85 60. 54 12.13 2.09 Cumula t i v e Number 4 254 863 985 1,006 Cumulative Percent .40 25.25 85 .79 97. 91 100.00 At the e x t r e m e s , four r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d that their schools had e n r o l l m e n t s of fewer than 100 pupils, while 21 respondents (2.09%) indicated responsibility for schoo l s of m o r e than 1,000 pupils. The most c o m m o n enrollment interval of schools a d m i n i s t e r e d by p r i n c i p a l s in this study was 400-699. It s h o u l d be noted that the p a t t e r n in student enrollment was g e n e r a l l y s i m i l a r to most o t h e r recent state studies and t h e national study. 67 The total pupil enrollments of the schools under the responding principals' direction are presented by school district expenditure level in Table 25. The number of pupils supervised by responding principals was related to district expenditure at the .05 s i g n ifi­ cance level. The null hypothesis of independence was accepted for the factor of pupil enrollment. Those principals in high expenditure districts were found to be more likely to have schools w i t h small enrollments than those in lower expenditure districts. ECONOMIC CHARACTER OF SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD National Studies The investigators reporting the 1968 national study (15:92) found that 16.7 percent of the student bodies in principals' schools were m o s t l y disadvantaged, while 23.8 percent w ere reported as having few d i s ­ advantaged pupils. A w ide diversity in economic c h a r ­ acter was indicated by 27.5 percent of reporting principals. Statewide Studies Jarvis, Parker, and Moore (6:9) reported in the Georgia status study that 19 percent of the study respondents indicated that their pup i l s were p r e d o m i ­ nantly disadvantaged; w h ile 18 percent of the participants Table 25 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels With Pupil Enrollment Under Direction of Principal Pupil Enrollment Expenditure Level Below 100 100-399 400-699 700-999 1,000 or More 2.00 .44 50.00 .20 1.82 .02 124.00 27.56 50.00 12.53 112.73 1.13 277.00 61.56 46.40 27.98 271.36 .12 41.00 9.11 33.61 4.14 55.45 3.77 6.00 1.33 31,58 .61 8.64 .80 450.00 100.00 45.45 45.45 1.00 .35 25.00 .10 1.16 .02 70,00 24.48 28.23 7.07 71.64 .04 171.00 59.79 28.64 17.27 172.47 .01 41.00 14.34 33.61 4.14 35.24 .94 3.00 1.05 15.79 .30 5.49 1.13 286.00 100.00 28.89 28.89 1.00 .39 25.00 .10 1.03 .00 54.00 21.26 21.77 5.45 63.63 1.46 149.00 58.66 24.96 15,05 153.17 .11 40.00 15.75 32.79 4.04 31.30 2.42 10.00 3.94 52.63 1.01 4.87 5.39 254.00 100.00 25.66 25.66 4.00 .40 100.00 .40 248.00 25.05 100.00 25,05 597.00 60.30 100.00 60.30 122.00 12.32 100.00 12.32 19.00 1.92 100.00 1.92 990.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X2 ■ 17.352; df = 8; Significant at .05 level; unused = 21, 69 indicated few disadvantaged; and 26.8 per c e n t reported a wid e diversity in backgrounds. The study also found that economic level w a s associated with the size of school systems. As the size of the school district increased, the greater w e r e the percentages reported as being b e l o w average economically. Presentation of D a t a and Findings The m o s t "typical" principal in this study i n d i ­ cated the p r i m a r y economic character of his school neighborhood as average. The data p r e sented in Table 26 reports the following observations: above average, 18.11 percent; average, 48.56 percent; b e l o w average, 2 4.68 percent; and distinct diversity, 8.66 percent. Table 26 Economic C h a r a c t e r of School Neighborhood Neighborhood Ch a r a c t e r Above average Average Below average Distinct diversity Number 182 488 248 87 Percentage 18.11 48. 56 24.68 8.66 Only one recent state principalship study w a s located which d e alt with the economic level associated w i t h the school neighborhood supervised by the principal. The comparison found approximately twice as many 70 below-average neighborhoods existed in Georgia by p e r ­ centage of total than w ere indicated to exist in Michigan. When compared w ith the national study r Michigan principals were shown to have 8 percent fewer advantaged n e i g h b o r h o o d s , 8 percent greater disadvantaged n eighbor­ hoods , and proportionately fewer diverse s i t u a t i o n s . PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO Statewide Studies Moss (8:160) found that the average pupil-teacher ratio of classes in schools administered by Wyoming supervising principals was 26.2 to one. Modeland (7:79) revealed in his study of Kansas principals a statewide pupil-teacher ratio of 27.5 to one. A percentage distribution of 79.2 percent of Missouri classrooms was reported by Warren (12:42) in 1968 to be an enrollment of between 25-34 students. it was also reported that classroom enrollments of less than twenty-five comprised 13.2 percent of the total distribution; w hereas approximately 5 per c e n t of the classroom pupil-teacher ratios were 34 or above. Presentation of Data and Findings The largest group of principals in this study reported that 69.15 percent of their schools had a pupil-teacher ratio range of 26-30 students. Slightly 71 more tha n one in five principals, o r 20.3 percent, admin­ istered schools in w h i c h the ave r a g e number of students per c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r was b e t w e e n 21 and 25, w h i l e about one in ten s u p e r v i s e d schools w i t h 31 to 35 s t u ­ dents per classroom. The data c o n c e r n i n g p u p i l - t e a c h e r ratios are located in T a b l e 27. Table 2 7 P u p i l - T e a c h e r R a t i o of P r i n c i p a l ' s School Pupil-Teacher Ratio 15 16 21 26 31 36 or fewer - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 or above Number .10 .70 20. 30 69.15 9.65 .10 1 7 204 695 97 1 Mo s t classes C u m u lative Number Percentage 1 8 212 907 1,004 1,005 Cumulative Percent . 10 . 80 21.09 90.25 99.90 100.00 in M i c h i g a n schools a d m i n i s t e r e d by p r i n c i p a l s in this s t u d y fall w i t h i n the interval i n clud­ ing 26-30 students per c l a s s r o o m teacher. Sim i l a r ranges were f o und in rel a t e d studies. The c o m p a r i s o n of school d i s t r i c t e x p e n d i t u r e level w i t h p u p i l - t e a c h e r ratio is shown in Table 28. Interestingly, the no r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to e x i s t at .05 level of s i g n i f i c a n c e a l t h o u g h a r e l a t i o n s h i p was f o und to exist at the .10 level. It did not appear Table 28 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Fupi1-Teacher Ratio District Expenditure Level Pupi1-Teacher Ratio 15 or Less 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36 and above 1.00 .22 .10 .45 .66 6.00 1.34 85.71 .61 3.18 2.51 101.00 22.49 49.75 10,21 92.16 .85 303.00 67.48 44.56 30.64 308.72 .11 38.00 8.46 39.18 3.84 44.04 .83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .45 .45 449.00 100.00 45.40 45.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .29 .29 1.00 .35 14,29 .10 2.02 .52 62.00 21.66 30.54 6.27 58.70 .19 197.00 68.88 28.97 19.92 196.64 .00 26.00 9.09 26.80 2.63 28.05 .15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .29 .29 286.00 100.00 28.92 28.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .26 .26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80 40.00 15.75 19.70 4.04 52.14 2.82 180.00 70.87 26.47 18.20 174.64 .16 33.00 12,99 34,02 3.34 24.91 2.63 1.00 .39 100.00 .10 .26 2.15 254.00 100.00 25.68 25.68 1.00 .10 100.00 .10 7.00 .71 100.00 .71 203.00 20.53 100.00 20.53 680.00 68.76 100.00 68.76 97.00 9.81 100.00 9.81 1.00 .10 100.00 .10 989.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 00.00 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X2 3 16.650; df 3 10; Not Significant at .05 level; unused 22. 73 that h i g h expenditure d i s t r i c t s had p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y lower teacher-pupil r a t i o s than the low e x p e n d i t u r e districts. C L A S S R O O M TEACHER P O S I T I O N S N a t i o n a l Studies In 1968 the m e d i a n number of te a c h i n g po s i tions r e p o r t e d by researchers study in the (15:68) was 20, 1958 survey in the n a t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l s h i p as compared w i t h a figure of 18 (16:105). St a t e w i d e Studies The study by A r m s (1:100) of Ind i a n a p r i n cipals r e p o r t e d 11 percent h a d nine or less c l a s s r o o m teachers. Schools w i t h from 10-14 teachers w e r e p e r c e n t of the s u p e r v i s i n g principals; su p e r v i s e d 15-19 teachers; s u p e r v i s e d by 2 7 2 4.9 p e r c e n t and 16.9 p e r c e n t s u p e r v i s e d 20-24 teachers. In the 1969 N e w Jer s e y study A n d l a u e r (2:53) found that the m e d i a n r a t i o was l o c a t e d bet w e e n twentyone a n d twenty-five teachers. C l o s e to half the r e s p o n d ­ ing pr i n c i p a l s in the s t u d y had an a v e r a g e of b e t w e e n 16 and 25 classroom t e a c h e r s in t h e i r schools. S upervising T e x a s principals w e r e reported by Youngblood (11:45) as h a v i n g medians of 18 teachers, w i t h teac h e r medians d e c r e a s i n g as the size of the school system decreased. 74 The median number of full-time classroom teachers employed in Kansas schools was approximately twelve (Modeland, 7:79). A tabulation of replies revealed that the median number of teachers in California schools was 18.4 p e r ­ cent (Lepick, 5:206). The median number of full-time classroom teachers under the supervision of Oklahoma principals was reported by Brothers (3:57) as 12.4 percent, with almost 6 percent of the reporting principals indicating four or less teachers in their schools, and over 10 percent, 2 5 or more teachers on their staffs. Georgia (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, 6:10) principals reported that 35 percent of their schools had from 15 to 2 4 elementary teachers. The median supervised by Wyoming principals was 13.9 teachers, (Moss, and in surrounding states, 14.9 teachers 8:77). The median number of teachers supervised by Arkansas principals, according to Shelton (10:29), was 14.1, wit h 74.9 percent located wit h i n the range of ten through nineteen. Perkins (9:70) reported that the Oreg o n p r i n c i p a l ­ ship revealed a mode of 12-18 teachers and a m e d i a n of 16.6 teachers. 75 Presentation of Data and Findings In order to ascertain the approximate number of teachers in schools supervised by Michigan principals, respondents were requested to check the interval responding to the num b e r of full-time classroom teachers assigned to their buildings. Table 29 contains the data concerning the number of teachers supervised by principals in this study. Table 29 Number of Classroom Teacher Positions Under P r i n c i p a l *s Direction Number of Teachers Below 5 5 - 1 4 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 5 5 and above Number 1 250 567 160 20 7 4 Percentage .10 24. 78 56.19 15. 86 1.98 .69 .40 Cumulative Number 1 251 818 978 998 1,005 1,009 Cumulative Percent .10 24. 88 81.07 96.93 98.91 99.60 100.00 More than half, or 56.19 percent, of the p r i n c i ­ pals reported a mode of 15-24 full-time classroom teachers in their schools; one in four supervised a number within the range of 5-14; and 15.86 percent had 25-34 full-time classroom teacher positions under their direction. 76 PERCENTAGE OF M A L E TEACHING STAFF Presentation of Data and Findings One-hundred forty p r i n c i p a l s , or 13.86 percent, reported "zero" male classroom teachers under their direction; 3 4.65 percent of the responders indicated a percentage range of 1-5 percent male teachers; percent had 6-10 percent males; 11-20 percent males; 21-30 percent male; 17.33 22.57 per c e n t reported 9.11 percent reported a range of and only twenty-five elementary principals reported staffs w i t h 21 or m o r e percent male members. These data are found in Table 30. Table 30 Percentage of M a l e Teaching Staff Percent of Male 1 6 11 21 31 41 Zero - 5 - 1 0 - 20 - 30 - 40 and above Number 140 350 175 228 92 16 9 Percentage 13. 86 34.65 17.33 22.57 9.11 1.58 . 89 Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 140 490 665 893 985 1,001 1,010 13. 86 48.51 65. 84 88. 42 97. 52 99. 11 100.00 A cross tabulation of classifications regarding percentage of m ale teachers on a respondent's staff w i t h sex of principal showed a significant relationship e x i s t ­ ing at a .999 confidence level. Table 31 reports that Table 31 Comparison of Percentage of Male Teachers on staff by Sex Percent of Male Teachers £>ex Zero 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41 and above Total Male Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 92.00 11.83 65.71 9.12 107.95 2.36 249.00 32.01 71.14 24.68 269.87 1.61 144.00 18.51 82.29 14.27 134.94 .61 192.00 24.68 84.58 19.03 175.03 1.65 7.00 9.90 83.70 7.63 70.94 .52 15.00 1.93 93.75 1.49 12.34 .57 9.00 1.16 100.00 .89 6.94 .61 778.00 100.00 77.11 77.11 48.00 20.78 34.29 4.76 32,05 7.94 101.00 43.72 28.86 10,01 80.13 5.44 31,00 13.42 17.71 3.07 40.06 2.05 35.00 15.15 15.42 3.47 51.97 5.54 15.00 6.49 16.30 1.49 21.06 1.74 1.00 .43 6.25 .10 3.66 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,06 2.06 231.00 100.00 22.89 22.89 140.00 13.88 100.00 13.88 350.00 34.69 100.00 34.69 175.00 17.34 100.00 17.34 227.00 22.50 100.00 22.50 92.00 9.12 100.00 9.12 16.00 1.59 100.00 1.59 Female Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 2 9.00 1,009.00 .89 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 .89 - 34,634; df = 6; Significant negative relationship at .001 level; unused = 2; p.m.c. = -.064441. X 78 male pri n c i p a l s are m ore likely to have a g r e a t e r p e r ­ centage of male c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s on their staffs than female p r i n c i p a l s . N o information was loc a t e d in r e c e n t state and national status studies of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p dealing w i t h the pe r c e n t a g e of the c l a s s r o o m teaching staff that is male. A V A I L A B I L I T Y OF S E C R E T A R I A L A S S I S T A N C E 1951-1952 Mic h i g a n Study The ear l i e r M i c h i g a n study i n v e s t i g a t o r s (14:17) reported that of the 366 r e s p o n d e n t s to the q u e s t i o n of whether clerical h elp existed, 32 per c e n t r e p o r t e d none. Sixty-eight per c e n t did report that they r e c e i v e d clerical help. As stated in the report, "This does n o t indicate the e x t e n t w h i c h is m o s t l y very l i m i t e d . " National Studies S eventy-nine percent of the s u p e r v i s i n g p r i n cipals reporting in the 1968 national study (15:70) they h a d one or m o r e full-time secretaries. parable figure r e p o r t e d in the 1958 study stated that The c o m ­ (16:73) was 58 percent. Statewide Studies G i l l and Mer i g i s (4:31) d i s c o v e r e d in their Illinois study that w h i l e n e a r l y half the re p o r t i n g 79 elementary principals had one secretary, almost 18 percent had no secretary, and 19 percent had only a half-time secretary. Eight and one-half percent reported two or more secretaries. Responses to the Missouri study by Warren (12:44) indicated that almost 70 percent of principals in that state had at least one full-time secretary or clerk assigned to their school. Brothers {3:94} noted that 5 3.5 percent of Oklahoma respondents felt that they were provided with adequate clerical help. Almost 30 percent reported c o n ­ ditions as inadequate. In Wyoming {Moss, 8:76) only 22.6 percent of supervising principals had full-time secretaries. No secretarial help was reported by 27.4 percent of Wyoming principals, while almost 40 percent reported only parttime assistance. Survey data in the Georgia principalship study reported by Jarvis, Parker, and Moore (6:28) indicated that 74 percent of the principals had a full-time secretary. In the study only 3 percent of the p r i n c i ­ pals had no secretarial service, while 15 percent reported half-time assistance. The lack of clerical assistance was mentioned by New Jersey principals (Andlauer, 2:56) in 1958 as the 80 fifth m o s t critical pro b l e m facing elementary principals in that state, but they failed to include it as a problem area w h e n surveyed in 1968. Presentation of Data and Findings The study data in Table 32 revealed that of all reporting Michigan principals, only ten indicated that they h ad no secretary; time help; 3.27 percent had at least half- 6 7.33 per c e n t had one full-time secretary; 13.86 percent had a full-time and a half-time secretary; and 14.55 percent had two or more secretaries. Relatively speaking, more Michigan principals appear to have secretarial assistance than their counter­ parts across the nation. Less than one percent of the principals in this study were wit h o u t secretarial help, as compared with 8.7 percent in the national study. Table 32 Availability of Secretarial Assistance Secretarial Availability None One-half position One p o s iti o n One and onehalf p o s i ­ tions Two positions More than two positions „ Number _ Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 10 .99 10 .99 33 680 3.27 67.33 43 723 4.26 71.58 140 138 13.86 13.66 863 1,001 85.45 99.11 9 .89 1,010 100.00 81 A D E Q U A C Y OF SUPPLY A N D SELECTION OF LIBRARY BOOKS IN PRINCIPAL'S SCHOOL Statewide Studies Brothers (3:61) reported that 70.5 percent of Oklahoma principals felt that the supply of library books in their schools was adequate. Presentation of Data and Findings The elementary school library is a resource center for the total educational program and should furnish library books in such quality and quantities as to meet the reading and instructional needs of children. The findings presented in Table 33 demonstrate that 72.89 p ercent of the responders to this study felt that their schools had an adequate supply and selection of library books for students. On the other hand, 270 respondents reported that the supply and selection of library books in their schools were inadequate. The data apparently indicate that, while a large proportion of elementary school libraries are felt to be at a level of adequacy, m a n y Michigan principals consider that their libraries need improving. And based on study findings, Oklahoma and M ichigan principals apparently share similar perceptions regarding the adequacy of library books. 82 The opinion of responding principals regarding the adequacy of library books for students is presented by expenditure level of school district in Table 34. A significant positive relationship was found to exist at the .99 level of confidence. Principals from high expenditure districts were discovered to be more likely to report their library as adequate than were low expenditure district principals. Table 33 Evaluation of Supply and Selection of Library Books and Adequacy of Instructional Materiel in P r i n c i p a l 's School Evaluation Library Books Adequacy Nurc- Per-^ Adequate Inadequate 726 270 72.89 27.11 Instructional Materiel Number Percentage 788 205 79.36 20.64 A D EQUACY OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIEL IN PRINCIPAL'S SCHOOL Statewide Studies Seventy percent of Oklahoma principals responding to a similar question in Brothers' (3:61) an adequacy of instructional materiel. study indicated 83 Table 34 Comparison of School District; Expenditure Levels with Evaluation of Library Book and Instructional Materiel Adequacy Expenditure Level High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Library Book Instructional Materiel Total Ade­ quate Inade­ quate 77.00 446.00 381.00 62.00 443.00 82 .74 51.46 17.26 29.28 100.00 45.51 86.00 49.10 14.00 30.69 100.00 45. 30 37.65 7. 86 45.51 38.96 6. 34 45. 30 326.31 5. 59 119.69 15.23 351.50 2. 48 91. 50 9 .51 185.00 94 .00 279.00 207.00 75. 00 282.00 66.31 25.80 33.69 35.74 100.00 28. 47 73.40 26 .68 26.60 37.13 100.00 28. 83 18. 88 9.59 28.47 21.17 7*. 67 28. 83 204.13 1.79 74.87 4.89 223.75 1.25 58. 25 4.82 163.00 92.00 255.00 188.00 65.00 253.00 63. 92 22.73 36 .08 34.98 100.00 26.02 74. 31 24.23 25 .69 32. 18 100.00 25.87 16.63 9 .39 26.02 19.22 6.65 25. 87 186.57 2.98 68.43 8.12 200.74 .81 52.26 3. 11 717.00 263.00 980.00 776.00 202.00 978.00 73.16 100.00 26.84 100.00 100.00 100.00 79.35 100.00 20.65 100.00 100.00 100.00 73.16 26.84 100.00 79. 35 20.65 100.00 Ade­ quate Inade­ quate 369.00 X2 - 38.582; df = 2 Significant at .001 lettel; unused “ 31. ; Total x2 - 21.977; df = 2; Significant at .001 level; unused * 33. 84 P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings As shown in Table respondin g pr i n c i p a l s 33, 79.36 per c e n t of the indicated that the elemen t a r y schools u n d e r their d i r e c t i o n w e r e ad e q u a t e l y sup p lied w i t h t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l aids, w h ile 2 05 respo n d e r s r e p o r t e d that the m a t e r i a l s and aids wer e not adequate. The d ata indicate that one in five M i c h i g a n principal s r e ported that they w e r e a d m i n i s t e r i n g schools in w h i c h their teachers w ere w i t h o u t a dequate supplies to teach. T h e a d equacy of instructional m a t e r i e l p e r c e i v e d by e l e m e n t a r y school pr i n c i p a l s in this study is p r e ­ sented by e x p e n d i t u r e level of school di s t r i c t in Table The a d e qu a c y of m a t e r i e l was r e l a t e d to e x p e n d i t u r e of school d i s t r i c t at the .001 signif i c a n c e level level. P r i n c i p a l s from h i g h ex p e n d i t u r e d i s tricts were more likely to p e r c e i v e their i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i e l as adequate than w ere pr i n c i p a l s f rom lower ex p e n d i t u re levels. A D E Q U A C Y OF P R I N C I P A L ' S O F F I C E Na t ional Studies The 1968 n a t i o n a l study inves t i g a t o r s found t ha t s l i g h t l y m o r e than h alf (15:70) (54.6 percent) 34. of the s u p e r v i s i n g p r i n c i p a l s r e ported t h a t their offices wer e 85 satisfactory or better. It was i nteresting to note that the situation r e p o r t e d n a t i o n a l l y in 196 8 had not improved over conditions reported as 6 2 percent in the 195 8 study (16:69, Table 30). In fact, the total of the s a t i sfactory and exceptional ratings in d i c a t e d a loss of m o r e than 7 percent b e t w e e n 1958 and 196 8. The a u t h o r s of the m ore rec e n t study suggested that principals in 1968 w e r e more s e l ective about w h a t constituted an e f f icient off i c e setup (15:141). The 196 8 study r e s e a r c h e r s c o n c l u d e d their c o m m e n t s on office inadeq u a c i e s stating, "Undoubtedly, there has b e e n some i m p r o v e m e n t in the overall si t u a t i o n s but the gains in u p - t o - d a t e office facilities c o n t i n u e to come too slowly." Statewide Studies Youngblood (13:71) r e p o r t e d in the 1961 Texas study that 51.2 per c e n t felt that their o f f i c e status w a s satisfactory; almost 13 per c e n t i n d i c a t e d "tip top" space and equipment; w h i l e 2.6 percent r e p o r t e d no real office. A l m o s t h alf the r e s p o n d e r s to M o d e l a n d ' s (7:135) study of the K a n s a s p r i n c i p a l s h i p r e p o r t e d that they usually obt a i n sufficient space and e q u i p m e n t to c o n d u c t a reasonably e f f i c i e n t o f f i c e operation. Another 19.5 percent r e p l i e d t hat they always obtain s u f f i c i e n t offi c e space and equipment. 86 Oklahoma principals reported that 83.6 percent felt that office supplies and equipment w e r e adequate; while 70.4 percent indicated that office space was ade­ quate (Brothers, 3:63-64). Presentation of Data and Findings Forty-nine percent of the M i chigan principals in this study described their office facilities as satis­ factory in space and equipment. Seventeen percent reported exceptionally good facilities; 8 percent indicated that they had enough space but needed office equipment; 17.5 percent reported adequate equipment but need for more space. A total of sixty-one principals reported that their office consisted of just room for a desk but not much more, while twenty-six principals replied that no real office facility existed. Table 35 deals w ith the data of this question. It is apparent, then, that fewer M i chigan p r in c i ­ pals are laboring under serious office facility and e q u i p ­ ment limitations than were reported affecting the national principalship. A proportional differential amounting to 11 percent exists between the Michigan and national figures. The status of the principal's office is presented by school district expenditure level in Table 36. nificant relationship was found to exist at the A sig­ .99 level 87 of confidence. In this study p r i n c i p a l s from h i g h e x p e nditur e districts w ere found to have p r o p o r t i o nately better office facilities than o t h e r principals. Table 35 E v a l u a t i o n of Offi c e Facilities in P r i n c i p a l 's S c h o o 1 Ev a l u a t i o n of O f fice Number C u m u lative Number Cumulative P e r cent 16 .82 169 16. 82 491 65.67 10 CO * CD 169 V Exceptiona l l y good Satisfactory space and eq u i p m e n t Enough s p a c e , need e q u i p ­ men t Enough e q u i p ­ ment, need space Just room for a desk No real office at present Percentage 660 82 8.16 742 73. 83 176 17.51 918 91. 34 61 6.07 979 97. 41 26 2.59 1,005 100.00 A D E Q U A C Y OF S PECIALIZED PERSONNEL 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study The earlier M i c h i g a n study (14:16-17) r e p o r t e d the ava i l a b i l i t y of special services to an elementary school principal, however limited the contact, percentages: worker, special services, 6 4 percent, 6 8 percent; spe e c h correction, p sychologi c a l clinic, in the f o l l owing 65 percent. social 76 percent; and Table 36 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels With Office Facility Adequacy Adequacy of Office Facilities Expenditure Level Need Exceptional Satisfactory Equip­ Need ment Space Total Just Room No Real for Desk Office Hiah Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total 96.00 21.43 57.14 9.70 76.02 5.25 212.00 47.32 43.98 21.41 218.12 .17 21.00 4.69 26.58 2.12 35.75 6.09 76.00 16.96 43.68 7.68 78.74 .10 31.00 6.92 50.82 3.13 27.60 .42 12.00 2.68 46.15 1.21 11.77 .00 448.00 100.00 45.25 45.25 45.00 15.68 26.79 4.55 48.70 .28 137.00 47.74 28.42 13.84 139.73 .05 30.00 10.45 37.97 3.03 22.90 2.20 56.00 19.51 32.18 5.66 50.44 .61 13.00 4.53 21.31 1.31 17.68 1.24 6.00 2.09 23.08 .61 7.54 .31 287.00 100.00 28.99 28.99 27.00 10.59 16.07 2.73 43.27 6.12 133.00 52.16 27,59 13.43 124.15 .63 28.00 10.98 35.44 2.83 20.35 2.88 42.00 16.47 24.14 4.24 44.82 .18 17.00 6.67 27.07 1.72 15.71 .11 8.00 3.14 30.77 .81 6.70 .25 255.00 100.00 25.76 25.76 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 168.00 16.97 100.00 16.97 482.00 48.69 100.00 48.69 79.00 174.00 7.98 17.50 100.00 100.00 7.90 17.58 61.00 6.16 100.00 6.16 26.00 2.63 100.00 2.63 990.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 X2 - 26.888; df - 10; Significant at .01 level; unused - 21. 89 National Studies A comparison between selected aspects of the 1958 study (16:67, Table 29) and 1968 national survey (15:74-77), on the basis of the percent of principals reporting the unavailability of resource personnel, suggests that there have been both definite improvements and decreases in the availability of specialized personnel in areas of cur­ riculum and learning problems. A significant gain was noted in the increased availability of librarians, while slight improvements were o b t a i n e d in situations involving p s y c h o l o g i s t s , social workers, and reading specialists. Moreover, definite decreases were noted in the number of special­ ized personnel in the fields of physical education, and music. art, The situation involving speech teachers remained relatively similar, though more than one in every three school situations was reportedly without this important service. The 196 8 national survey speculated that the gains and losses in the availability of specialized resource personnel was reflective of the growing problems of the school systems and the acuteness of many community socio­ economic problems. Furthermore, they raised the issue of whether or not the availability of specialists is keeping pace w ith the emerging problems that are c o n ­ fronting elementary education and the principalship. 90 Statewide Studies It w a s stated in the Indiana study by Arms that of the reporting elementary principals, had no m u s i c teachers; teachers; (1:105) 6.8 p e r cent 19.7 percent w e r e without art 41.8 percent had no physical education teachers; and 54.7 percent were w i t h o u t remedial reading personnel. Indiana school principals also reported 18.8 percent had no nurses; 19.9 percent w ere without speech personnel; 75.9 percent had no c o n t a c t with psychologists in their schools; and 89.2 percent were wit h o u t curriculum c o n ­ sultants . The lack of availability of resource personnel in Oklahoma schools was revealed by Brothers follows: (3:97) as 39.6 percent wit h o u t general curriculum c o n ­ sultant services; 16.4 percent without m u sic teachers; 34 percent without reading teachers; 39.1 percent without p h y s i c a l education teachers; 55.2 percent without art teachers; 17 percent w i t h o u t nurses; percent w i t h o u t librarians; teachers; 49.9 32.3 p e r c e n t without speech a n d 42.7 p e r c e n t without the services of a psychologist. R e s o u r c e personnel were r e ported unavailable in many Arka n s a s schools by Shelton respondents, Of the 153 32.1 percent had no special teacher or supervisor of music, In addition, (10:100). art, and/or p h ysical education. 49 percent of Arkansas principals reported 91 that they were without the services of a nurse, while 95.4 percent were wit h o u t special help from a p s y ­ chologist. Presentation of Data and Findings The point established in this study was not w h e ther resource personnel was available, but rather whether s e r ­ vice received was perceived to be adequate. It was not possible to make a determination of adequacy between studies as services were not always reported in e q u i v a ­ lent terms. For example, a full-time resource person in a school w i t h an enrollment of 1,500 pupils could be quite inadequate, whereas part-time availability in a small-enrollment school might represent a satisfactory level of service. Principals in this study reported that their school received as much or more service from specialized personnel in areas related to curriculum and learning problems as other M ichigan s c h o o l s . A total percentage of 44.07 percent responded that their school received about the same amount of service; 2 7.62 percent replied that they received more service than other schools; while 6 percent felt that their school received much more s e r ­ vice. Twelve percent reported feeling that they received less specialized personnel service than other Michigan schools. Table 37 shows the percentage of situations concerning this question. 92 Li t e r a t u r e in the field indicated that resource p e r s o n n e l are not a v a i l a b l e in sufficient numbers to m eet a d e q u a t e l y the needs of c h i l d r e n in m any of our nation's schools. However, c ate that, the d a t a in this study t end to i n d i ­ in general, m o s t M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s feel they have av a i l a b l e as m u c h or more s p e c i a l i z e d service as other M i c h i g a n schools. t han three-fourths, More or 7 7.67 percent, of the principals r e p o r t e d their sch o o l r e c e i v i n g such services. Table 37 C o m p a r a t i v e E v a l u a t i o n of A m o u n t of Service R e c e i v e d from Specia l i z e d P e r s o n n e l in A r e a s of C u r r i c u l u m and L e a r n i n g Problems Service Receiv e d Num b e r Percentage M u c h m ore More A b o u t the same Less M u c h less 60 277 442 189 35 5.98 27.62 44.07 18. 84 3. 49 Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 60 337 779 968 1,003 5.98 33.60 77.67 96.51 100.00 The p e r c e i v e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of sp e c i a l i z e d p e r s o n ­ ne l in areas of c u r r i c u l u m and learning p r o b l e m s is p r e ­ sented by e x p e n d i t u r e Ta ble 38. level of school d i s t r i c t in The a d e q u a c y of s p e c i a l i z e d s e r v i c e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y rel a t e d to e x p e n d i t u r e level at the .999 level of confidence. It was o b s e r v e d that 93 Table 38 C o m p a r i s o n of S c h o o l Dist r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels w i t h A d e q u a c y of S p e c i a l i z e d P e r s o n n e l Service Expenditure Level A d e q u a c y of S p e c i a l i z e d Pe r s o n n e l Service Tot a l Much More More About Same Le s s Mu c h Less High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 45. 00 172.00 170.00 49 .00 8. 00 444.00 10.14 38.74 38.29 11. 04 1. 80 100.00 75.00 63.00 39.08 26. 49 23.53 44.98 4. 56 17. 43 17. 22 4.96 . 81 44.98 26.99 12.02 122.81 19 . 70 195.68 3. 37 83.22 14. 07 15. 29 3.48 11.00 65.00 141.00 62. 0 0 8.00 287.00 3. 83 22.65 49 .13 21. 60 2. 79 100.00 18. 33 23. 81 32. 41 33. 51 23.53 29.08 1.11 6 . 59 14. 29 6.28 .B1 29. 08 17.45 2. 38 79. 38 2 .61 126.49 1.66 53. 79 1.25 9. 89 .36 4. 00 36 .00 124.00 74. 00 18. 00 256.00 1. 56 14.06 48. 44 28.91 7. 03 100.00 6.67 13. 19 29. 51 40. 00 52. 94 25. 94 .41 3.65 12 .56 7. 50 1. 82 25.94 15.56 8.59 70. 81 17. 11 112.83 1.11 47.98 14. 11 8.82 9.56 60.00 273.00 435.00 185.00 34.00 987 . 0 0 6.08 27.66 44.07 18. 74 3. 44 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 6.08 27.66 44.07 18. 74 3.44 100.00 Midd l e Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 LOW Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X 2 ” 111.380; unused * 2 4. df — 8; Significant at .001 level; 94 principals from high e x p e n d i t u r e d i s tricts believe they received m o r e services, w h i l e pr i n c i p a l s diture d i s tricts from low e x p e n ­ felt they r e c e i v e d less. C O N D I T I O N OF 1971-1972 SCHOOL BUDGET P r e s e nta t i o n of D ata and Findings Pr i n c i p a l s in this study w ere que r i e d to d e t e r m i n e w h e ther their school d i s t r i c t ope r a t e d during the 19711972 school y ear under an austerity budget n e c e s s itated by a lack of local community support for p r o p o s e d millage. The figures in Table 39 show that 40.65 per c e n t of the respondents r e v e a l e d that they were o p e rating in d i s ­ tricts w h i c h w e r e confronted w ith a u s terity conditions during the 1971-1972 school year. Table 39 C o n d i t i o n of 1971-72 School Budget Number Condition Operated u n d e r austerity b u d g e t No austerity b u d g e t 402 587 Percentage 40. 65 59 . 35 The o p e ration d u r i n g the school y ear under an austerity b u d g e t was rel a t e d to e x p e n d i t u r e level of school systems at the estingly, .02 level of significance. Inter­ pr i n c i p a l s from h i g h e x p e n d i t u r e districts were more apt to have o p e r a t e d under austerity c o n d itions 95 than low e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t admin i s t r a t o r s (Table 40). This fact w o u l d tend to indicate that the taxpayer in the highe r e x p e n d i t u r e districts was m o r e likely to have rejected a larger p r o p o r t i o n of mil l a g e issues than the taxpayer in l o w —e xpenditure districts. T Y PE OF PARENT O R G A N I Z A T I O N Presentation of D a t a and Findings Pr i n c i p a l s in this study r e p o r t e d that 48.06 p e r ­ cent of their schools w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the M i c h i g a n and N a t io n a l C o n g r e s s of P a r e n t - T e a c h e r A s s o c i a t i o n s (P.T.A.); 38 per c e n t h a d schools that w e r e "p.t.o.'s," independent o r g a n i z a t i o n s not as s o c i a t e d with the P.T.A.; and 143, or 14.23 percent, of the r espondents r e p o r t e d that no fo r m a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b o d y existed. C o m p a r a t i v e d ata w ere not a v a ilable to d r a w c o n ­ clusions a b o u t the d i s t r i b u t i o n s p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 41. E V A L U A T I O N OF PARENT GROUP O R G A N I Z A T I O N Presen ta ti o n of Data and F i n d i n g s ------------------P r i n c i p a l s w e r e r e q u e s t e d to indicate w h e t h e r or not their p a r e n t - t e a c h e r group was an active and d y n amic operation w h o s e m e e t i n g s had been re a s o n a b l y w e l l attended during the past twelve months. O p i n i o n s were almo st 96 Table 40 Comparison of School D i s t r i c t Expend i t u r e Levels w i t h C o n d i t i o n of 1971-72 School Budg e t E x p e n d i t u r e Level Operated Under Austerity No Au s t e r i t y 201.00 45. 79 50. 76 20.64 178.48 2. 84 238.00 54 .21 41.18 2 44 260.52 1.95 439.00 100.00 45.07 45.07 102.00 36.04 25.76 10.47 115.06 1.48 181.00 63 .96 31. 31 18. 58 167.94 1. 02 283.00 100.00 29.06 29.06 93.00 36.90 23.48 9.55 102.46 . 87 159.00 63. 10 27. 51 16 .32 149.54 .60 252.00 100.00 25. 87 25. 87 396.00 40 .66 100.00 40.66 578.00 59. 34 100.00 59. 34 974.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq. P e r c e n t across Percent down P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. Cel l x 2 < Middle Freq. P e r c e n t across P e r c e n t down P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. Cel l x 2 Low Freq. P e r c e n t across P e r c e n t down P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. C ell x 2 Total Freq. P e r c e n t across P e r c e n t down P e r c e n t of total “ 8.755; u n u s e d “ 37. df * 2; S i g n i f i c a n t at .02 level; 97 evenly divided, w i t h 51 p e r c e n t re s p o n d i n g 49 percent re s p o n d i n g "no." "yes" and These d ata are dealt w i t h in Table 42. Table 41 Type of Parent O r g a n i z a t i o n G r oup Percentage Number Type P.T.A. P.T.O. No formal g r o u p 48.06 37.71 14.23 483 379 143 T able 42 E v a l u a t i o n of W h e t h e r P a r e n t - T e a c h e r G r o u p is an A c t i v e and D y n a m i c O p e r a t i o n W h o s e M e e t i n g s Have Been R e a s o n a b l y W e l l - A t t e n d e d Evaluation Yes No Number 480 461 P e r c entage 51.01 48. 99 F o u r - h u n d r e d s i x t y - o n e M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals r e p o r t e d that their p a r e n t - t e a c h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n was something less than an active and dynamic o p e r a t i o n whose m e e t i n g s have b een re a s o n a b l y w e l l attended. Chapter 4 EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, AND ASPIRATIONS D a t a pe r t a i n i n g to the experience, training, and p rof e s s i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals are presented, analyzed, and c o m p a r e d in this chapter. The p r i n c i p a l s h i p w a s e x amined in relation to the study h y p o t h e s i s that experi e n c e , training, and p r o ­ fessional a s p i r a t i o n s of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n cipals are analogous w i t h resp e c t to such factors as total number of y e a r s served in e d u c a t i o n and in the p r i n c i p a l ­ ship; p o s i t i o n held just p r i o r to the i n i t i a l p r i n c i p a l ­ ship; m a j o r field of g r a d u a t e work and the institution w h e r e it w a s taken; h i g h e s t earned c o l l e g e degree; of time since last e n r o l l e d for credit courses; o c c u p atio n a l g oal of principals; length final s e l e c t i o n of p r i n c i p a l ­ ship if s t a r t i n g over ano t h e r career; a n d c o n t i n u ation as principal or return to teaching if o f f e r e d the same salary. 98 99 Information obtained from recent national and statewide studies and an earlier M i c h i g a n Study served as comparative data for this investigation. TOTAL NUMBER YEARS IN EDUCATION 1951-1952 Michigan Study It was reported in the earlier Michigan study that 12 percent had less than five years experience before becoming a principal; fifteen years; 47 percent between six and 20 percent between sixteen and twenty years; and 21 percent possessed more than twenty-one years experience before becoming a principal. National Studies Respondents in the 19 2 8 national study (18:180) revealed that the median total years of experience was 2 3.8 years for the principal of an elementary school. The 1948 national study researchers (17:23-24) disclosed the median number of years in education to be 24 years for the supervising principal. the median had barely changed: By 1958 (16:244), 23.4 years in education. The total experience in e d u cation remained rela­ tively constant for the national p r i ncipal until the 1968 study (15:19) revealed that the m e d i a n had decreased to just eighteen years. The differential was explained by the entrance during the decade of a substantial number of young male principals. 100 Statewide Studies The m e d i a n for total years in e d u c a t i o n reported by O r e g o n pr i n c i p a l s in the Perkins study (9:96) was 15.2. Only 1.2 per c e n t r e p o r t e d less than six years of total experience. The typical el e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l of Indiana was reported by A rms (1:82) as having 22.7 years total experience in education. A r k a n s a s pr i n ci p a l s revealed a m e d i a n of 20.1 years of total service in the profession (Shelton, 10:57). Only 16.5 percent p r e s e n t e d nine years of ex p e r i e n c e or less at the lower e x t r e m i t y of the distribution, w i t h only 3.2 p e r c e n t with forty years of e x p e r i e n c e or more. Texas s u p e r v i si n g principals (Youngblood, 13:123) reported a m e d i a n of 18.8 years of p r o f e s s i o n a l experience. A nd there was a tendency among Texas p r i n c i p a l s for total years of ex p e r i e n c e to increase as the size of the d i s ­ trict increased. Slightly less than 57 of 100 G e o r g i a principals reported less than n i n e t e e n years total ex p e r i e n c e in education, Another revealed Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:11). 13.5 per c e n t of responding G e o r g i a p r i n cipals revealed less than nine years total e x p e r i e n c e in e d u ­ cation. A b o u t one in four (25.7%) w ere r e ported in the 20-29 years range, w i t h 17.5 per c e n t r e p u t e d to have spent thi r t y or m o r e total years in scho o l work. 101 Presentation of D a t a and Findings In order to d e t ermine length of service, princi­ pals in this study w e r e asked to state the total n u mber of years of e x p e r i e n c e in the e d u c a t i o n profession. The current year was to be included w h e n reporting total years of e x p e r i e n c e . The years t h a t responding p r i n c i p a l s had served in the education p r o f e s s i o n are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 43. Table 4 3 P r i n c i p a l ' s Total N u m b e r Years E x p e r i e n c e in E d u c a t i o n Numb e r of Years Less 10 20 30 40or Number than 10 - 19 years - 29 years - 39 years more _ Percentage 123 492 245 122 25 12.21 48.86 24.33 12.12 2.48 Cu m u l a t i v e Number Cumulative P ercent 123 615 860 982 1,007 12.21 61.07 85.40 97.52 100.00 T abulated r e s ponses i n d i c a t e d that 12.21 p e rcent of all Michigan e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s su r v e yed had nine or less y e a r s total experience; had 20-29 years experience; 24.33 p e r c e n t 12.12 p e r c e n t had 30-39 years in the profession; w h i l e 25, or 2.48 percent, more years of e xperience. percent, reported cation. had The lar g e s t proportion, 40 or 48.86 10-19 total y e a r s of service in e d u ­ 102 S i x ty-one p e r c e n t of M i c h i g a n pr i n c i p a l s r evealed that they had 19 years or The inves t i g a t o r s less e x p e r i e n c e in education. in the earlier M i c h i g a n study reported 79 p e r c e n t of the p r i n c i p a l s had less than 20 years experience. These fig u r e s are in d i c a t i v e t hat more M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p s are being h e l d by indivi d u als w h o are v e t e r a n professionals. T h e years that M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school pr i n c i p a l s had served in the e d u c a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n were found to be related to school d i s t r i c t e x p e n d i t u r e at the level .01 level of significance. Table 44 shows the tendency among v e t e r a n p r i n cipals to occupy positions in high e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s , and among younger, e x p e r i e n c e d e d u cators to occupy p o s i t i o n s less- in the lower e x p e n d i t u r e districts. YEARS SERVED AS F U L L - T I M E P R I N C I P A L 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study The ear l i e r M i c h i g a n study (14:8) c o n t a i n e d the following data r e g a r d i n g the n u m b e r of years served as principal: under five years, and ten years, years, b e t w e e n six 27 percent; b e t w e e n eleven and twenty 19 percent? National 38 percent; and over thirty years, 2 percent. Studies O v e r the p ast four dec a d e s there has b e e n little v a r i a t i o n in the total years e x p e r i e n c e of supervising 103 Table 44 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Principal's Years of Experience in Education Expenditure Level High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Principal's Years in Education 9 or Less 10-19 20-29 30-39 40 or More Total 34.00 222.00 116.00 61.00 14. 00 447.00 7.61 49.66 25.95 13.65 3.13 100.00 27. 87 45.68 48.74 50. 83 56. 00 45.11 3.43 22.40 11. 71 6.16 1.41 45.11 55.03 8.04 219.21 .04 107.35 .70 54. 13 .87 11.28 .66 47.00 128.00 70.00 34.00 9.00 288.00 16.32 44.44 24.31 11. 81 3.13 100.00 38.52 26.34 29.41 28. 33 36.00 29.06 4.74 12.92 7.06 3. 43 .91 29.06 35. 46 3.76 141.24 1.24 69. 17 .01 34. 87 .02 7.27 .41 41.00 136.00 52.00 25.00 2.00 256.00 16.02 53.13 20. 31 9.77 .78 100.00 33.61 27.98 21. 85 20. 83 8. 00 25. 83 4.14 13.72 5.25 2.52 .20 25.83 31.52 2.85 125.55 .87 61.48 1. 46 31.00 1.16 6. 46 3.08 122.00 486.00 238.00 120.00 25.00 991.00 12.31 49.04 24.02 12.11 2. 52 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 12.31 49.04 24.02 12.11 2.52 100.00 X2 * 25.170; df “ 8; Significant negative relation­ ship at .01 level; unused - 20; p.m.c. “ -.125466. 104 principals. The 1928 and 1948 n a t i o n a l studies (16:113) reported m e d i a n years experience as p r i n c i p a l of 10.1 years and 10.5 years, respectively. By 1958 (16:113), the m e dia n n u m b e r years of experience had d e c r e a s e d to 9.1 years. The m e d i a n number of years of ex p e r i e n c e as principal was reVealed in the 1968 study nine years. Slightly m o r e than half (15:21-22) as (50.5%) of the supervising principals r e ported less than ten years of experience in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , w h i l e alm o s t five in 100 had thirty or m o r e years e x p e r i e n c e as (4.6%) principals. Statewide Studies The Geo r g i a p r i n c i p a l s h i p study inves t i g a tors (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, 6:12) reported 50.8 per c e nt w i t h less than ten years ex p e r i e n c e as a p r i n c i p a l and 4.3 p e r ­ cent w ith t h i r t y years or m ore experience. The Texas study (Youngblood, data w h i c h r e vealed 60.4 percent w i t h 13:129) co n t ained less than ten years e x p e r i e n c e in e l e m e n t a r y administration. The Texas m e d i a n was reported as 7.5 years experience. Warren (12:63) indicated that 46.3 p ercent of el e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p al s in the state of M i s s o u r i p o s s e s s e d less than ten years of ex p e r i e n c e as principals. median was reported. No 105 Perkins (9:97) a s s e s s e d the O r e g o n p r i n c i p a l s h i p and found that the typical el e m e n t a r y scho o l p r i ncipal had been a supervising p r i n c i p a l for e i g h t years. Shelton's study (10:64) of the A r k a n s a s p r i n c i p a l revealed the m e d i a n years of ex p e r i e n c e in the p r i n c i p a l ­ ship to be 6.7 years. Oklahoma (Brothers, 3:52) p r i n c i p a l s rep o r ted that 46.7 percent had less than ten years experience, while 4.6 percent r evealed thi r t y or m o r e years experience. The m e d i a n for the O k l a h o m a r e s p o n d e n t s was The time that Ind i a n a (Arms, 1:43) 9.5 years. pr i n c i pals had served in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p was r e p o r t e d as s i g n i ficantly higher than other state studies, an ave r a g e peri o d of 15.9 years. Perkins (9:102) a l s o r e vealed t h a t 62.6 p e r c e n t had ten or less years of e xperience, and only .20 p e r cent reported ex p e r i e n c e b e y o n d thirty years. Andlauer (2:74) r e p o r t e d that the average N ew Jersey el e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l in 1960 p o s s e s s e d 2-5 years of experience as c o mpared w i t h 6-10 y e a r s 1968 N e w Jersey principal. Moreover, for the typical it was noted that the percentage of 1960 p r i n c i p a l s w ith o v e r 20 yea rs ex p e r i e n c e was m o r e than t w o times as large as the percentag e in the 1968 study. 106 Presentat i o n of Data and Findings The d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i ­ pals r e g a r d i n g years of e x p e r i e n c e as el e m e n t a r y p r i n c i ­ pals is p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 45. The figures s how that 67.13 p e r c e n t p o s sessed less than 10 years experience; 27.51 p e r c e n t had 2 0 - 2 9 years experience; and 5.36 percent had 30 or m o r e years as principal. Table 45 Years Serv e d as Full-Time Principal Number of Years 1 4 10 20 30 40 Number - 3 ye ars - 9 ye ars - 19 y e a r s - 29 y e a r s - 39 y e a r s or more Percentage 207 469 277 51 2 1 20 .56 46. 57 27.51 5.06 .20 .10 Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 207 676 953 1,004 1,006 1,007 20 .56 67. 13 94 .64 99. 70 99. 90 100.00 A p e r u s a l of the d a t a in this study r e v e a l e d a greater p r o p o r t i o n of i ndividuals w i t h less than 10 years experienc e than was i n d i c a t e d in any recently rep o rted state or n a t i o n a l study of the principalship. Although the e s t i m a t e d med i a n y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e of the current M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l was found to be somewhat less than that of the principal on the n a t i o n a l scale, the median number of y e a r s being s e r v e d by M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s appears t o be increasing. 107 The t o t a l years t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s had been f u l l ­ time el e m e n t a r y principals is compared to expenditure level of s c h o o l district in Table 46. The number of years and e x p e n d i t u r e level w ere found to be related at the .001 s i g n i f i c a n c e level, and the null hypothesis of independence w a s accepted for the factor of experience. The t o t a l years in the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p were highest for the s u p e r v i s i n g p r i n c i p a l s in high expenditure d i s t r i c t s and lowest in lower expenditure districts. A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to e x i s t w h e n c o m p a r i n g sex to the number of y e a r s served as principal. T a b l e 47 dep i c t s a d i f f e r e n c e between variables at an .001 level. It is a p parent that m a l e principals h a v e a greater likelihood to have served fewer years t h a n do the female group of principals. POSITION H ELD PRIOR TO F I RST PRINCIPALSHIP 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study The i n v e s t i g a t o r s in the e a r l i e r Michigan study (14:6) r e p o r t e d that t h i r t y - f i v e respondents, cent of the t o t a l sample, experience. or 20 p e r ­ h a d no e l e m e n t a r y teaching If this sample figure h e l d true in the general p r i n c i p a l s h i p at the time, it w o u l d indicate 108 Table 4 6 C o m p a r i s o n of School D istrict Expenditure bevels With Years Served as Principal E x pend!ture Level Years Served as Principal 1-3 High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x Middle Freq. P e r c e n t across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 4-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 None Tot a l 70. 00 15. 59 34.83 7.06 91.07 4 . 87 202.00 44.99 43.53 20.38 210.23 . 32 143.00 31.85 52 .38 14.43 123.69 3.01 33.00 7.35 66.00 3.33 22.65 4.73 1. 00 .22 50.00 .10 . 91 .01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .45 .45 449.00 100.00 45. 31 45. 31 65. 00 22.65 32. 34 6 . 56 58.21 .79 128.00 44.60 27.59 12.92 134.38 . 30 82 .00 28.57 30 .04 8. 27 79 .06 . 11 11. 00 3.83 22.00 1. 11 14.48 .84 1.00 .35 50.00 . 10 .58 . 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 .29 .29 287.00 100.00 28. 96 28.96 66.00 25. 86 32 . 84 6.66 51.72 3.94 134.00 52 .55 28. 88 13.52 119.39 1. 79 48.00 18. 82 17 . 58 4 . 84 70.25 7.05 6.00 2.35 12, 00 .61 12. 87 3. 66 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 .51 .51 1. 00 . 39 100.00 .10 .26 2 .14 255.00 100.00 25. 73 25.73 201.00 20.28 100.00 20.28 464.00 46 . 82 100.00 46 . 82 273.00 27, 55 100.00 27.55 50. 00 5 .05 100.00 5.05 2.00 .20 100.00 . 20 1. 00 .10 100.00 .10 991.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Low Freq . Percent across P e r c e n t down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Total Freq. Pe r c e n t across Pe r c e n t down Pe r c e n t of total 2 X ” 15.131; df - 10; Significant n egative relationship at u n u s e d - 20; p.m.c. - -.158837. .001 level; 109 T a bl e 47 C o m p a r i s o n of Years Served as Principal by Sex Yearsi Served as P r i n c i pa l Sex 1-3 4-9 10-19 20. 29 30-39 Tot al Male Freq. Percent across Percent down Perc en t of total Theoret. freq. Cell x F em a l e Freq. P ercent across P e rc en t d o wn P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 T o tal Freq. Percent across Percent down P e r c e n t of total 179.00 376.00 185.00 34.00 1. 00 775.00 23.10 48.52 23 .87 4. 39 . 13 100.00 86 .47 80. 34 66 .79 66 .67 50. 00 77.11 17.81 37. 41 18. 41 3. 38 .10 77. 11 159 .63 2. 35 360.90 .63 213.61 3. 83 39. 33 .72 1.54 . 19 28.00 92.00 92 .00 17.00 1.00 230.00 12.17 40.00 40. 00 7. 39 .43 100.00 13. 53 19.66 33.21 33 .33 50.00 22 . 89 2.79 9.15 9 .15 1.69 .10 22 .89 47. 37 7.92 107.10 2.13 63. 39 12. 91 11. 67 2.43 .46 .64 207.00 468.00 277.00 51.00 20.60 46.57 27 .56 5.07 .20 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 20 .60 46. 57 27.56 5.07 .20 100.00 X 2 = 33.764; u n u s e d = 6. df = 4; S i g n i f i c a n t at 2. 00 1005.00 .001 level; 110 that appr o x i m a t e l y one in e v e r y five persons assigned to elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p s w o u l d have had no teaching experience at that level. National Studies In the 1968 survey principalship, (15:12-13) of the national 57 in 100 r e s p o n d e n t s ent e r e d the p r i n c i p a l ­ ship from the e l e m e n t a r y school classroom; secondary classrooms; and 12 in 100 from the elementary assistant principalship. (16:106), 15 in 100 from C o m p a r e d to the 1958 study the 1968 study found that fewer individuals (8.4%) w e r e s e c ondary teachers b e f o r e b e c o m i n g s u per­ vising principals. Statewide Studies D a t a from the recent A r k a n s a s (10:64) study by Shelton r e v e a l e d that 61.3 per c e n t had b een e l e m e n tary teachers and 32.4 had been s e c o n d a r y teachers. The study by Brothers (3:45) found t hat 41.3 p e r ­ cent of the su p e r v i s i n g p r i n c i p a l s were e l e m e n t a r y school teachers i mmediately bef o r e accepting a ssignments to their first principalship. Moreover, a l m o s t 35 percent of the re s p o n d e r s in the O k l a h o m a study re p o r t e d that they h eld e d u c a t i o n a l p o s itions other than t hat of teacher. S i x t y - t w o of 100 O r e g o n (Perkins, 9:100) princi­ pals ide n t i f i e d the p o s i t i o n that they h a d h e l d just 1X1 prior to a c c epting their initial full-time p r i n c i p a l s h i p as e l e m e n t a r y school teacher. In the C a l i f o r n i a study Lepick (5:189) found that 53.4 perc e n t of the p r i n c i p a l s came to the p r i n c i p a l s h i p from the ranks of the e l e m e n t a r y a s s istant principals. The large m a j o r i t y of G e o r g i a principals were reported by Jarvis, Parker, served as c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s elementary principals and M o o r e (6:10) to have just p r i o r to bec o m i n g (46%). A c c o r d i n g to A r m s (1:85), Indiana p r i n cipals held the p o s i t i o n of e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s r o o m teacher in 6 0 percen t of the cases, and secondary teachers in 14.4 p e r c e n t of the s i t u a t i o n s named. P r e s e ntat i o n of Data and Findings N e a r l y 61 in 100 (60.77%) of the M i c h i g a n p r i n c i ­ pals in this study r e p o r t e d e ntering their p o s itions from the e l e m e n t a r y school classroom? 11 in 100 (10.98%) had just p r e v i o u s l y b e e n se c o n d a r y c l a s s r o o m teachers. T a b u l a t i o n s of the pe r c e n t a g e data from two national studies and the G e o r g i a study are p r e s e n t ed wit h the c u r r e n t findings in Table The category of 48. " O t h e r ” in this study included the following positions h e l d by individuals just p rior to their a s s i g n m e n t s as e l e m e n t a r y principal: teacher, reading h i g h school and e l e m e n t a r y counselor, g u i d a n c e Table 48 Position Held Just Prior to First Elementary Principalship Position Held Just Prior to First Elementary Principalship Position Held Classroom teacher (elementary) Classroom teacher (secondary) Assistant principal (elementary) Assistant principal (secondary) Central office specialist Member of college faculty Other 1958 Nat'1 1968 Nat11 Georgia Study % % % % N 45.84 35.87 5.23 3.32 60.77 10.98 8.84 2.34 4.88 .81 11.38 (598) (108) (87) (23) (48) (8) 56 24 7 / 5 57.4 15.6 12.4 2.8 4.5 - 1 . 1 8 6 . 1 1 . 6 6 .24 7.84 n . , Present Study (1 1 2 ) 113 director, t e a c h i n g principal, speech therapist, co m m u n i t y school director, superintendent, p h ysical e d u c a t i on teacher, m i n ister, admin i s t r a t i v e attendance o f ficer, team leader, Those status intern, b a n d director, and music teacher. studies s u r v e y e d p r e s e n t e d a w i d e range of p e r c e n t a g e s repres e n t i n g principals w h o served as classroom teachers M o s t researchers in their p r i o r educat i o n a l experience. indicated t hat c l a s s r o o m teaching p r e ­ sented the b est p a t h leading to the elementary p r i n c i p a l ­ ship, and that it w a s somewhat d i s c o u r a g i n g to ass ign persons to the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p from p o s i t i o n s outside this capacity. r e ported study, however, No a t t e m p t was m ade in any to a s c e r t a i n the numbers of persons w h o c a m e to the p r i n c i p a l s h i p w ith e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s r o o m tea c h i n g experience y e t had taken another po s ition enroute. The t y p e s of positions that principals in this study hel d just p r i o r to their first el e m e n t a r y school prin c i p a l s h i p are presented b y e x p e n d i t u r e em p l o y i n g school district in T a b l e was 49. level of Prior p o s i t i o n found to be r e l a t e d to e x p e n d i t u r e level at the .001 level of significance. M o r e principals from lower expenditure d i s t r i c t s tended t o come directly to the principals h i p f r o m the c l a s s r o o m than did high e x p e n d i t u r e principals. T h e r e was the t e n d e n c y for the latter to have Table 49 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Position Held Just Prior to First Elementary Principalship Assistant Principal Elementary Assistant Principal Secondary Elementary Teacher Secondary Teacher 263.00 60.32 44.80 27.17 264.39 .01 30,00 6.88 28.57 3.10 47.29 6.32 54.00 12.39 62.79 5.58 38.74 6.02 12,00 2.75 54.55 1.24 9,91 .44 5,00 1.15 33.33 .52 6.76 .46 34.00 7.80 70.83 3.51 21.62 7.09 6.00 1.38 75,00 .62 3.60 1.59 32.00 7.34 32.99 3.31 43.69 3.13 436.00 100.00 45.04 45.04 164.00 56.36 27.94 16.94 170.40 .24 40.00 14.23 38.10 4.13 30.48 2.97 21.00 7.47 24.42 2.17 24.96 .63 5.00 1.78 22.73 .52 6.39 .30 5.00 1.78 33.33 .52 4.35 -10 7.00 2.49 14.58 ,72 13.93 3.45 1.00 .36 12.50 .10 2.32 ,75 38.00 13.52 39.18 3.93 28.16 3.44 281.00 100.00 29.03 29.03 160.00 63-75 27,26 16.53 152.21 .40 35.00 13.94 33.33 3.62 27.23 2.22 11.00 4,38 12.79 1.14 22.30 5.73 5.00 1.99 22.73 .52 5.70 .09 5.00 1.99 33.33 .52 3.89 .32 7.00 2.79 14.58 .72 12.45 2.38 1.00 .40 12.50 .10 2.07 .56 27.00 10.76 27.84 2.79 25.15 .14 251.00 100.00 25.93 25.93 587.00 60.64 100.00 60,64 “ 105.00 10.85 100.00 10.85 86.00 8.88 100.00 8.88 22.00 2.27 100.00 2.27 15.00 1.55 100.00 1.55 48.00 4.96 100.00 4.96 8.00 .83 100.00 .83 97.00 10.02 100.00 10.02 968.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Secondary Principal Central Office College Faculty Other Row 1 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Row 2 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Row 3 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 2 \ - 43.762; df * 14; Significant negative relationship at .001 level; p.m.c. = >.021846 115 had o t her kinds of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and supervisory ex p e rienc e s p r e p a r a t o r y to assuming their initial e l e ­ m e n t a r y principalship. G R A D U A T E S C H O O L IN ST IT U TI ON P r e s e ntat i o n of D a t a and Findings Table 50 shows the r a n k order of institutions at w h i c h principals in this study r e ceived the major p a r t of their graduate school education. A n i n v e s t i g a t ion of these data revealed that only 73 of the 1,011 r e s p ondents took the m a j o r part of their graduate w o r k at i n sti­ tutions outside the state of Michigan. T w o hundred six, or 21 percent, of the p r i n c i p a l s in this study i n d i cated that they had r e c e i v e d their graduate scho o l ed u c a tion at M i c h i g a n State University. It w a s i nteresting to note the e x a c t num b e r and p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d to h a v e taken their g r a d u a t e w o r k at the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. F o l l o w i n g in rank o r d e r beh i n d M S U and UM, w e r e Wa yne State University, 15.67 percent; 14.39 percent; W e s t e r n M i c higan, Mi c h igan, 10.34 percent. Eas t e r n M i c higan, 13.01 percent; Central The re m a i n i n g twenty-five pr i n c i p a l s r e v e a l e d that the m a j o r p o r t i o n of their g r a d u a t e school e d u c a t i o n w a s ear n e d at N o r t h e r n M i c h i g a n (1.6%) Alma, and U n i v e r s i t y of D e t r o i t (1.07%). Aquinas, and A n d r e w s r e c e i v e d one response each. 116 It can be readily determined, then, that i n - state institutions c o n t r i b u t e d m o s t l y to the p r e p a r a t i o n of principals* A l m o s t 44 p e r c e n t of all pr i n c i p a l s in this study r e p o r t e d taking the m a j o r p o r t i o n of their g r a duate w o r k at MSU and UM. T a b l e 50 Rank Order of Instit u t i o n s Where Pr i n c i p a l s R e c e i v e d M a j o r Part of G r a d u a t e School E d u cation Institution Percen t age Number MSU UM WSU EMU WMU CMU NMU UD 21. 96 21.96 15. 67 14. 39 13. 01 10. 34 1. 60 1. 07 206 206 147 135 122 97 15 10 M A J O R FIELD OF G R A D U A T E STUDY 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study The e a r l i e r M i c h i g a n study question: (14:5) "Was any of your p r e p a r a t i o n Administration?" Nearly 300 principals, asked the in E l e m entary or 79 percent, r e s p o n d e d affirmatively. N a t i o n a l Studies The 1968 n a t i o n a l study inves t i g a t o r s (15:26) r e v e a l e d that e l e m e n t a r y school a d ministration, major as a field of study, w a s r e p o r t e d by 51 percent of 117 supervising principals. G e n e r a l school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was selected by 21.7 percent of the n a t i o n a l principals, wh ile 11.6 p e r c e n t took m a j o r course work in elementary supervis i o n and curriculum. Statewide Studies Data d e a l i n g with the m a j o r field o f graduate work for Geo r g i a principals (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, 6:14) showed that 90.84 percent of t h e r espondents c o n c entrated their study in t h e field of admin i s t r a t i o n , w i t h 60.24 pe r c e n t in d i c a t i n g elementary sch o o l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as their special a r e a of graduate study. E l e m e n t a r y school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w a s field of g r a d u a t e study for m o r e Kansas (Modeland, 7:67) the major than 4 3 p e r c e n t of e l e m e n t a r y school principals. A somewhat sim i l a r percentage, 45 percent, in the Oklahoma s t u d y by B r o t h e r s w a s reported (3:38). Data p r e s e n t e d in the O r e g o n study b y Perkins (9:82) pals revealed t hat 72.6 p e r c e n t of e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i ­ in that s t a t e majored in el e m e n t a r y s c h o o l a d m i n i s ­ tration. Slightly less than 14 percent c o n c e n t r a t e d t h eir work in a r e a s of i n s t r u c t i o n and curriculum. Si x t y - n i n e percent of r e p o r t e d Arms (1:80), Indiana princi p a l s , selected el e m e n t a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as their major f i e l d of study. Arkansas p r i n c i p a l s p r e s e n t e d s o m e w h a t different figures in S h e l t o n ’s (10:57) study. He f o u n d that only 118 36.3 p e r c e n t listed t h e i r g r a d u a t e major as e ducational administration, w h i l e 37.2 p e r c e n t m a j o r e d in elementary education o n the g r a d u a t e level. Pr e s e nta t i o n of Data and Findings Table principals* 51 p r e s e n t s a resu m e of the M i c h i g a n g r aduate field of work, in a d d i t i o n to data gathered f rom three state studies and the two most recent n a t i o n a l studies. The ranks of the M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p have within t h e m a c o n s i d e r a b l e n u m b e r of p r i n c i p a l s who have g r a d u a t e p r e p a r a t i o n in areas p e r t a i n i n g to the elementa r y principalship. N e a r l y 77 per c e n t of the respondents r eported m a j o r field w o r k taken w h i c h was s p e c i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d toward the e l e m e n t a r y sch o o l and the e l e m e n t a r y principalship. R e p l i e s to g e n e r a l school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o c c u p i e d 15.85 per c e n t o f the responses. The field of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n was g u i d a n c e and counseling. listed m o s t often C o m b i n a t i o n s c h e c k e d by the r e s p o n d e n t s i n v olving two or m o r e areas of interest were t r e a t e d as non-responses. H I G H E S T C O L L E G E D E G R E E EARNED National Studies A c c o r d i n g to the 1958 n a t i o n a l study investigators (16:149-150), "The amou n t of e d u c a t i o n in y e a r s or d e g rees Table 51 Percentage Distributions of Present and Related Studies Regarding Major Field of Graduate Work Present and Related Studies Major Field v Kansas Oklahoma . Georgia 1958 % Elementary school administration Elementary school instruction Elementary supervision and curriculum Secondary school administration General school administration An academic subject No graduate work or specialization 1968 Natll % Present study % N 43.72 2.62 45.7 19.7 60.24 2.65 60 5 51.0 4.8 51.43 12.37 (503) (121) 8.64 2.75 35.34 5.23 1.7 6.4 14.8 7.4 .70 2.2 30.6 1.93 19 4 4 5 11.6 3.7 21.7 4.0 12.88 2.86 15.85 3.99 (126) (28) (155) (39) .39 3.6 .48 3 1.5 .61 (6) 120 is one of the i m p o r t a n t quant i t a t i v e m a r k s available to describe the status of the p r ofession." Statewide Studies Data from the O k l a h o m a study b y Brothers (3:35) showed that 84.6 per c e n t of the e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i ­ pals in that state h eld the m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e or higher. Of Indiana principals r e p o r t i n g advanced degrees (Arms, only; 1:78), 1.2 percent p o s sessed a ba c h e l o r ' s degree 61.2 per c e n t had earn e d the m a s t e r ' s degree; and 1.6 percent had received the d o ctoral degree. Shelton (10:50} reported that almo s t 90 percent of principals in that state held a d e g r e e above the b a c h e l o r 's . The m a s t e r ' s degree was r e p o r t e d as the m o st commonly held degree by Wyoming p r i n c i p a l s Andlauer (2:42), Jersey principals, (Moss, 8:54). in his c o m p a r a t i v e study of N ew indicated that a l m o s t twice the p e r ­ centage of d o c t o r a t e s was earned in 196 8 than in 1960. In addition, p r i n c i p a l s at the s i x t h - y e a r level e x p e r ­ ienced a consid e r a b l e increase. The p r o p o r t i o n of New Jersey pr i n c i p a l s w ith training b e y o n d the master's degree improved from less than 40 p e r c e n t in 1960 to over 50 percent in 1968. In O r e g o n Perkins (9:79) found that only 9.1 p e r ­ cent of those sur v e y e d had not e a r n e d a master's degree. 121 O nly 7 percent of K a n s a s el e m e n t a r y principals were r e p o r t e d by M o d e l a n d (7:66) as not h a v i n g attained the m i n i m u m p r e p a r a t i o n of a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e , whereas nearly 2 per c e n t had earned doctorates. O ver 9 5 percent of the principals study by Y o u n g b l o o d master's degree, (13:88) in the Texas h a d attained at least a as compared w i t h almost 80 percent in the n a t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l s h i p study. Presentation of D ata and Findings R e g a r d i n g academic d e g r e e information, survey results r e v e a l e d that 95.84 p e r c e n t of the r espondents had earned at least a m a s t e r ' s degree and 12.19 percent had c o m p l e t e d degr e e work b e y o n d that level, 1.68 perc e n t w h o had a c h i e v e d the doctorate. including These data are p r e s e n t e d in Table 52. T a b l e 52 Highest C o l l e g e Degree E a r n e d Highest Degree Less than b a c h e l o r 's Bachelor 1s M a s t e r 's S p e c i a l i s t 's Doctorate 1928 N a t '1 54 30 15 1948 N a t '1 4 29 64 — 1 3 1958 N a t '1 2 16 76 3 3 1968 N a t '1 .6 10 79 .9 7.4 2 .2 Present Mi c h i g a n Study .69 3. 47 83. 65 10. 51 1. 68 N (7) (35) (844) (106) (17) 122 M i chigan principals without a degree today are almost nonexistent, whereas they constituted a sizable number in 1950-1951. The highest earned degree of principals in this study is presented in Table 5 3 as related to expenditure level of school district. The highest earned degree of responding principals was found to be significantly related to expenditure level at the nificance. .001 level of sig­ Principals from high expenditure districts were more likely to have a higher educational level than principals from lower expenditure districts. Moreover, supervising principals in high expenditure districts were found to be more likely to possess specialist and doctoral degrees. The percentage of principals on the state level holding at least the master's degree has increased significantly. Almost 95.84 percent of the principals in this study have attained at least a master's degree. This would seem to indicate that the educational level of the Michigan elementary school principalship appears to be higher than that indicated by the national or any other recently reported statewide study, except at the doctoral level where only seventeen, or 1.6 8 percent, of the responders reported the doctoral d e g r e e . 123 T ab le 53 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels by Highest Earned Degree Highest Earned Degree Expenditure Level High rreq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Preq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Less Than B.A. B.A. M.A. 6 Yr. Ph.D. Total 2.00 5. 00 363.00 65 .00 14.00 449.00 .45 1. 11 80. 85 14.48 3.12 100.00 40.00 15 .15 43. 53 62. 50 82. 35 45.22 .20 .50 36.56 6 .55 1.41 45. 22 2.26 .03 14.92 6.60 377.11 .53 47. 03 6. 87 7.69 5.19 3.00 13.00 246.00 25. 00 1.00 288.00 1.04 4. 51 85.42 8.68 .35 100.00 60.00 39. 39 29.50 24.04 5.88 29.00 .30 1. 31 24.77 2.52 .10 29.00 1. 45 1.66 9. 57 1.23 241.89 .07 30. 16 .88 4.93 3.13 0.00 15.00 225.00 14.00 2.00 256.00 0.00 5. B6 87. 89 5. 47 .78 100.00 0.00 45. 45 26. 98 13. 46 11. 76 25. 78 0.00 1.51 22.66 1. 41 .20 25.78 1.29 1.29 8.51 4 .95 215.01 .46 26 .81 6. 12 4.38 1.30 5.00 33.00 834.00 104.00 17.00 993.00 .50 3. 32 83.99 10. 47 1.71 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 83.99 10. 47 1.71 100.00 LOW Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total .50 3. 32 X 2 * 40.308; df - 8; Significant negative relation­ ship at .001 level; unused - 18; p.ra.c. * -.164728. 124 L E N G T H OF TIME S I N C E LAST E N R O L L E D F O R COLLEGE C R E D I T COURSES 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study To the item c redit," "date of last study w i t h or without 10 per c e n t of 1951-1952 M i chigan p r i n c i p als r e p o r t e d not b e i n g involved for ten or more years; 44 p e r ­ cent had p a r t i c i p a t e d w i t h i n a nine-year p e r i o d between 1942 and 1950; year and 47 per c e n t were studying during the in w h i c h the survey was taken. S t a t ewid e Studies Almost 3 in every 4 (74.9%) p r i n c i p a l s s u r v e y e d by Brothers O klahoma (3:41) r e p o r t e d e n r o l l ­ m e n t at colleges or universities, while 16 in 100 (15.7%) h a d not been e n r o l l e d for the p a s t ten or m o r e years. Of Kansas (Modeland, 7:86) p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t i n g intentions elementary school to complete enrollment in colle g e courses within a t wo-year period, only 17.5 p e r c e n t r e s ponded that c o u r s e w o r k was not in their plans. Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:50) found a definite i n t e r e s t in g r a d u a t e study on the part of e l e m e n t ary p r i n c i p a l s in that state. Seventy-one p e r c e n t of G e o r g i a p r i n c i p a l s w ere attending c r e d i t courses or h a d done so w i t h i n a three-year period p r i o r to being surveyed. 125 P r e s e nta t i o n of D a t a and Findings Re s p o n d e n t s in this s t u d y were q u e r i e d to d e t e r ­ mine h ow long it had been s i n c e they were last enrolled for credit c o u r s e s at a college or university. The length of time since l ast enrolled and the p e r c e n t a g e of response s follows: presently enrolled, less than one year, 18.02 p ercent; two years, 16.6 3 percent; 19.41 percent; one year, t h r e e years, 9.8 percent; 9.8 percent; years, 7.23 percent; cent. The t a b u l a t i o n of r e s p o n s e s is p r e s e n t e d in T a ble and five or more years, four 19.11 p e r ­ 54. Table 54 L e n g t h of Time S i n c e Principal Was Last Enrolled for College Credit C o u r s e s Term Number Presentl y enrolled L ess than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 or more years Percen t a g e Cumula t i v e Number Cumulative Percent 196 19. 41 196 19. 41 182 99 168 99 73 18.02 9. 80 16 .63 9. 80 7.23 378 477 645 744 817 37. 43 47. 23 63. 86 73.66 80. 89 193 19.11 1, 010 100.00 That e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r i o d i c a l l y return to the college c a m p u s for study is vital to m a i n t a i n i n g the s k ills and k n o w l e d g e necessary to keep up to date. 126 Graduate study has been a c o n t i n u i n g p a r t of the p r o f e s s i o n a l growth p r o g r a m of e l e m e n t a r y sch o o l p r i n c i p a l s in M i c h i g a n as shown by the d a t a in this study. 477 principals, or 47.2 3 percent, A cu m u l a t i v e total of reported being enrolled within a period of one year or less. A co m b i n e d total of 63.86 percent in d i c a t e d e n r o l l m e n t wit h i n the past two years, while 7 3.66 p e r c e n t had taken course w o r k at some time during the past three years. Only one in five p r i n c i ­ pals reported being away from college course work five or m ore years. F I N A L O C C U P A T I O N A L GOAL OF P R I N C I P A L National Studies A c c o r d i n g to the 196 8 national study inves tigators (15:16), 56.7 per c e n t c o n s i d e r e d the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n cipal- ship as their final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal. Respondents 1958 study reported that (16:245), on the other hand, 6 3 percent r e g a r d e d the p r i n c i p a l s h i p as the in the final o c c u ­ pational position. Statewide Studies A l m o s t three in every four Oregon p r i n cipals reported that they p l a n n e d to continue in the e l e m entary school p r i n c i p a l s h i p as their final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal 127 {Perkins, 9:121). T hirty-nine p e r c e n t rep o r t e d that they planned to seek other positions, while 15.5 percent were undecided. Brothers (3:107) q u e r i e d O k l a h o m a p r i n c i p als about making the p r i n c i p a l s h i p a terminal career. found that 75.8 percent r e s p o n d e d affirmatively, He while 12 percent s t a t e d that they e x p e c t e d to change positions. Only 7.4 percent of all Indiana p r i n c i p a l s sur­ v e yed by Arms (1:137) stated intentions of c h a n g i n g from elementar y administration. Seventy-eight percent indi­ c a ted a pr e f e r e n c e to continue in their pre s e n t o c c u ­ p a t ional type position. Shelton (10:67) r e p o r t e d that r espondents from the state of A r k a n s a s p l a n n e d to remain in the elementary p rin c i p a l s h i p at a rate of 89 in every 100. O nly 11.3 p e r c e n t of in d i v i d u a l s in that state re p o r t e d an interest in seeking a n o t h e r final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal. Views of Texas p r i n c i p a l s reported b y Y o u n gblood (13:140) r e g i s t e r e d p ercentages of 45.6 percent d esiring to remain in the principalship; to change; 29.9 percent desiring and 24.5 undecided. Indiana (Arms, 1:137) pr i n c i p a l s p r e f e r r i n g to r e m a i n in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p tot a l e d 78.4 percent, while onl y 7.4 per c e n t d i s c l o s e d a d e s i r e to seek o t h e r positions. 128 G e o r g i a p r i n c i p a l s were r e p o r t e d by J a r v i s , Parker, and Moore preferences. (6:21) to be s o m e w h a t divided in their Close to 57 percent r e v e a l e d their u l t i m a t e position t o be the e l e m e n t a r y school principalship, while 43 percen t reported that the p r i n c i p a l s h i p was d e f i n i t e l y not their occupa t i o n a l goal. Pre s e n t a t i o n of Data and Findings T h i s question w a s designed to determine w h e t h e r elementary principals v i e w the p r i n c i p a l s h i p as t h eir final o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n or w h e t h e r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p is r e g a r d e d as a pre l u d e to other t y p e s of positions. Less than half, or 47 in 100 (46.55%), apparently have no e x p e c t a t i o n beyond t h e i r present t ype of position, desiring instead to r e m a i n in the c a p a c i t y of e l e m e n t a r y school principal. T his amount is lower than the recent n a t i o n a l study and all but one r e c e n t state study. four, or 2 5.57 percent, About o ne in stated that the e l e m entary p r i n c i p a l s h i p was not t h e i r terminal aspiration; 279 respondents, or 27.87 percent, w e re undecided. principals Table and r e p l i e d that they 5 5 depicts the extent to w h i c h in the state of Michigan see the p r i n c i p a l s h i p as a final occupa t i o n a l position. 129 POSITION DESIRED BY PRINCIPALS WHO ASPIRE National Studies A review of the 1958 national study (16:114-115) showed that 2 4 percent desired to become superintendents; 17 percent wanted to do supervisory work; while 17 percent wished to do college teaching. Table 55 Number of Principals Who Consider the Elementary Principalship as Their Final Occupational Goal Elementary Principalship as Goal Percentage Number Yes No Undecided 46. 55 25.57 27 .87 466 256 279 The 1968 national study investigators (15:16-17) reported similar findings, with 24.5 percent of the respondents desiring the s u p e r i n t e n d e n c y ; 18.5 percent wanting to be supervisors; and 16 percent reporting an interest in college teaching. Statewide Studies Of Georgia (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, pals w ho had specific career goals, 6:21) p r i n c i ­ 25 percent reported that they looked forward to a university position, and 27.5 percent expressed an interest in the s u p e r i n t e n d e n c y . 131 Of that number, the lar g e s t p e r c e n t a g e , cent, 32.75 p e r ­ Indicated ambitions to b e c o m e a d i r e c t o r of ele­ m e n t a r y education. The s e c o n d m o s t p r e f e r r e d position w as r e p o r t e d to be the s u p erintendency, w i t h responding. A l m o s t 15 percent, 18.12 percent or 14.6 3 per c e n t , r e p l i e d that t hey w i s h e d to b e c o m e central o f f i c e supervisors. It w a s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t one in ten indicated a d e s i r e to b e c o m e an e l e m e n t a r y classroom teacher. The c a t e g o r y of "other" most o f t e n included p e r s o n s aspiring to college fac u l t y positions. This s t u d y did not s p e c i f y why p r i n c i p a l s sought these other positions. I N T E R E S T IN B E C O M I N G P R I N C I P A L IF S T A R T I N G AGAIN N a t i o n a l Studies The 1968 national s t u d y inves t i g a t o r s (16:15) r e p o r t e d that 82 in 100 p r i n c i p a l s across the nation r e v e a l e d that t hey "certainly w o u l d " or b e c o m e an e l e m e n t a r y p r i ncipal " p r obably would" if starting a career again. S t a t e w i d e Studies Indiana pr i n c i p a l s (Arms, 1:133) r e a c t e d by c h o o s i n g e d u c a t i o n as a career again in 83 of ations . 100 s i t u ­ Six p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d they w o u l d not choose e d u ­ c a t i o n as a c a r e e r again. 131 Of that number, the l a r g e s t percentage, 32.75 p e r ­ cent , indicated ambitions to b e c o m e a d i r e c t o r of e l e ­ m e n t a r y education. The second m o s t p r e f e r r e d p o s i t i o n was r eported to b e the s u p e r i n t e n d e n c y , with 18.12 percent responding. A l m o s t 15 percent, or 14.6 3 percent, replied that t h e y w i s h e d to b e c o m e central o f f i c e supervisors. It was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that one in ten indicated a des i r e to b e c o m e an el e m e n t a r y c l a s s r o o m teacher. The c a tegory of " o t h e r ” m ost often in c l u d ed persons a s p i r i n g to college f a c u l t y positions. This s t u d y did not s p e c i f y why p r i n c i p a l s sought these other positions. INTEREST IN B E C O M I N G PRINCIPAL IF S T A R T I N G A G AIN National Studies The 196 8 national study investigators r e p orted that 82 in 100 p r i n c i p a l s r e v ealed that they (16:15) across the nation "certainly w o u l d " or "probably would" become an e l e m e n t a r y p r i ncipal if starting a career again. Statewide Studies Indiana pr i n c i p a l s (Arms, 1:133) r e a c t e d by choosing e d u c a t i o n as a career a g a i n in 8 3 of ations. 100 s i t u ­ Six p e r c e n t i n d icated they would not cho o s e e d u ­ cation as a c a r e e r again. 1 32 Jarvis, Parker, G e o r g i a pr i n c i p a l s and M o o r e found that 87 in 100 i n d icated t h a t they or "probably w o u l d " "certainly w o uld" choose the p r i n c i p a l s h i p again. Less than 7 percent r e s p o n d e d w i t h a n e g a t i v e response. The a f f i r m a t i v e r e s p o n s e s as to w h e t h e r e d u ­ cati o n w o u l d be s e l e c t e d again w e r e rep o r t e d b y Per kins (9:123) to be 80 p e r c e n t in the O r e g o n study. P r e s e ntatio n of D a t a and Findings If they w e r e starting all o v e r again, 45.75 p e r ­ cent of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s in t his study i n d i c a t e d that they "certainly w o u l d " become a p r i n c i p a l again. third, or 33.97 percent, would." r e s p o n d e d that they O ne - " p r obably A c o m b i n a t i o n of these t w o c a t e g o r i e s i n d i c a t e d that nearly 80 p e r c e n t r e s p o n d e d w i t h a p o s i t i v e d e g r e e of sati s f a c t i o n t o w a r d their o c c u p a t i o n a l position. In the negative c a t e g o r i e s only s e v e n t y - e i g h t p rincipals, or 7.79 percent, not" response. in d i c a te d a " c e r t a i n l y not" or T h e s e data are loc a t e d in Table "probably 57. The survey appears to i n d i c a t e that the s a m p l e d m o r a l e w i t h i n the ranks of the p r i n c i p a l s t o w a r d their pro f e s s i o n was r e l a t i v e l y high w i t h eight in ten p r i n c i ­ pals positi v e l y d i s p o s e d toward s e l e c t i n g the p o s i t i o n if starting a c a r e e r again. T h e total p r o p o r t i o n w as s i m ilar to p r i n c i p a l s rep o r t i n g in the 1968 n a t i o n a l study when a s k e d w h e t h e r they w o u l d again be principals. 133 However, the study did not attempt to pinpoint the reasons why some principals would choose not to become an elementary principal again if given the opportunity. Table 5 7 Interest in Becoming an Elementary Principal if Starting Again Interest Certainly would Probably would About even for and against Probably not Certainly not Number Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 458 340 45. 75 33. 97 458 798 45 .75 79. 72 125 72 6 12. 49 7. 19 .60 923 995 1,001 92.21 99. 40 100.00 C h ap ter 5 PRINCIPAL'S WELFARE AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT Data ation and employment this pertaining attitudes are to the regarding presented, p r i n c i p a l ’s w e l f a r e certain analyzed, conditions and compared situ­ of in chapter. The principalship was examined in relation to the study hypothesis that the principal's welfare and c o n ­ ditions of employment are analogous w ith respect to such factors as length of current employment; summer employment hours spent on school work; opportunities for professional improvement activities; district-wide responsibilities; method of filling principalship openings; responses regarding salaries; attitudinal and opinions about p r e ­ sent benefits and future directions of MAESP. Information obtained from recent national and statewide studies and an earlier M ichigan study served as comparative data for this investigation. 134 135 LENGTH OF A N N U A L E M P L O Y M E N T National Studies The 1968 n a t i o n a l study investigators (15:38) sought to de t e r m i n e the length of the contract y e a r for elementar y principals. or It was f o u n d that one-half, 51 percent, of the s upervising p r i n c i p a l s were c o n t r a c t e d for ten b u t less than eleven months. worked a t e r m less t h a n ten m o n t h s . employmen t Twelve percent The m e d i a n t e r m of for national principals w a s ten months. In 1958 (16:121) the m e d i a n period of service for s u p e r v i s i n g pr i n c i p a l s was a l s o ten months. However, relativel y few, only 17 percent, w e r e e m ployed for service beyond ten m o n t h s . Statewide Studies Fifty-nine p e r c e n t of Ind i a n a pr i n c i p a l s w e r e reported b y Arms Arms (1:126) as c o n t r a c t e d to w ork ten months. found an almost normal d i s t r i b u t i o n curve from eight months to 11.5 months. The term of e m p l o y m e n t of responding p r i n c i p a l s in the T e x a s study by Youngblood (13:69) was as follows: 2 8.4 p e r c e n t co n t r a c t e d for nine months; for ten months; 10.3 p e r c e n t 40.2 p e r c ent 11.5 per c e n t for e l e v e n months; and for twel v e m o n t h s . The med i a n r e p o r t e d by S h e l t o n (10:67) regarding number of m o n t h s A r k a n s a s pr i n c i p a l s w e r e e m p l o y e d wa s 136 ten. A surprisingly large number of principals in the study w ere employed for twelve months (43.1%). Ten months was also the median length of employ­ ment of Wyoming principals, Jarvis, Parker, according to Moss and Moore (6:24) (8:28). found that 61 in 100 Georgia principals reported eleven months of employment. Thirteen in 100 worked for nine, but less than ten months, and only 1 in 4 was employed for twelve months. Information was sought by Warren (12:40) from Missouri principals as to the length of annual employment. Nearly two of every three respondents w e r e under contract for 43 weeks or less each year. Perkins (9:71) found that the annual term of employment for which Ore g o n principals w e r e contracted was a medi a n of eleven months. A bimodal distribution was disclosed with contractural arrangements of ten- and twelve-month principals, 34.4 percent and 2 8.4 percent, respectively. Presentation of Data and Findings Principals in this study were requested to indi­ cate length of employment, including any summer school duties but excluding v a cation weeks. The terms of c o n ­ tracted service in rank order were as follows: weeks, 3 8.02 percent; 4 4-4 5 weeks, 21.16 weeks; 42-43 137 40-41 w e eks , 19.46 percent; 48-49 weeks, 46-47 weeks, 6.49 percent. A t the extremes, principals, or 3.59 percent, less, w h i l e nineteen, 50 or m o r e weeks 9.38 percent; and t h i r t y -six r eported w o r k i n g 39 w e eks or or 1.9 percent, r eported w o r k i n g (Table 58). Table 58 Length of Annual E m p l o y m e n t Number of Weeks 39 weeks or less 40 - 41 42 - 43 44 - 45 46 - 47 48 - 49 5 0 or m o r e Number Percen t a g e 36 195 381 212 65 94 19 3.59 19.46 38.02 21.16 6.49 9.38 1.90 Cumulative Nu m b e r Cumulative Percent 36 231 612 824 889 983 1, 002 3.59 23.05 61.08 82.24 88. 72 98. 10 100.00 It is apparent that most M i c h i g a n principals are employed for service b e y o n d the t r a d i t i o n a l school t e r m worked by teachers. The findings a l s o indicate that Mi c higan principals a p p e a r to have p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y similar contr a c t u r a l arrang e m e n t s as the national principal. The sented b y Table 59. length of annu a l em p l o y m e n t in weeks is p r e ­ level of o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e per child in This study f o u n d that length of annual e m p l o y m e n t w a s related to level of e x p e n d i t u r e at the .001 level o f significance. Principals from low Table 59 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Length of Annual Employment Length of Annual Employment Expenditure Level 39 or Less 40-41 Weeks 42-43 Weeks 44-45 Weeks 46-47 Weeks 48-49 Weeks 50 or More Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle 12.00 2.69 34.29 1.22 15.83 .93 70.00 15.70 36.27 7.10 87.30 3.43 196.00 43.95 52.13 19.88 170.08 3.95 108.00 24.22 51.92 10.95 94.09 2.06 28.00 6.28 43.75 2.84 28.95 .03 28.00 6.28 30.43 2.84 41.61 4.45 4.00 .90 22.22 .41 8.14 2.11 446.00 100.00 45.23 45.23 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low 11,00 3.85 31.43 1.12 10.15 .07 68.00 23.78 35.23 6.90 55,98 2.58 96.00 33.57 25.53 9.74 109.06 1.56 52.00 18.18 25.00 5.27 60.33 1.15 19.00 6.64 29.69 1.93 18.56 .01 33.00 11.54 35.87 3.35 26.69 1.49 7.00 2.45 38.89 .71 5.22 .61 286.00 100.00 29.01 29.01 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total 12.00 4.72 34.29 1.22 9.02 .99 55,00 21.65 28.50 5.58 49.72 .56 84.00 33.07 22.34 8.52 96.86 1.71 48.00 18.90 23.08 4.87 53.58 .58 17.00 6.69 26.56 1.72 16.49 .02 31.00 12.20 33.70 3.14 23.70 2.25 7,00 2.76 38.89 .71 4.64 1.20 254.00 100.00 25.76 25.76 Freq, Percent across Percent down Percent of total 35.00 3.55 100.00 3.55 193.00 19.57 100.00 19.57 376.00 38.13 100.00 38.13 208.00 21.10 100.00 21.10 64.00 6.49 100.00 6.49 92.00 9.33 100.00 9.33 18.00 1.83 100.00 1.83 986.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High X2 = 31.740; df ■ 12; Significant at .01 level; unused * 25. 139 e x p e n d i t u r e d i s tricts w ere found to be e m p l o y e d for longer terms than p r i n c i p a l s from high e x p e n d i t u r e districts. PLANS T O C O N T I N U E IN P R I N C I P A L S H I P IF O F F E R E D SAME SALARY TO R E T U R N TO TEA C H I N G P r e s e n t a t i o n of D a t a and Findings Respondents in this study w ere q u e r i e d as to w h e t h e r they w o u l d c o ntinue in the e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s h i p if o f f e r e d the same salary to b e c o m e ful l ­ time cl a s s r o o m teachers. A review of the literature r evealed no sources d e a l i n g with the question. Elementary pr i n c i p a l s have been k n o w n to expound about the trials a n d tribulations of their p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . This q u e s t i o n was f o r m u l a t e d to a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r the removal of any factor of financial a d v antage w o u l d affect the respondent's d e s i r e to c o ntinue in the p rincipalship. In other w o r d s ,w a s the a t t r a c t i o n of status ac h i e v ed by financial rewards a d e t e r m i n a n t M i c h i g a n principals in the reasons sought the p r i n c i p a l s h i p ? Table 60 r e p o r t s the data of this q u e s t i o n as 60.1 p e r c e n t d e s i r i n g to c o ntinue in the principalship, w i t h 39.9 percent r e v e a l i n g that they w o u l d retu r n to teaching if given the o p p o r t u n i t y to e arn the same 140 salary. Nearly 40 in 100 principals, then, w o uld return to the position as full-time classroom teacher if given the opportunity to earn the same salary. Table 60 Plans to Continue in Elementary Principalship if Offered Same Salary to Return to Teaching Plas L e f S a “ ryed Nmnber Continue as principal Return to teaching Principals' Percentage 595 395 60.10 39.90 views toward returning to the class­ room if offered the same salary are compared with expenditure level of school district in Table 61. No relationship was found to exist at the .95 level of confidence between expenditure level of school district and views about returning to the classroom if offered the same salary. SUMMER EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE OF FIELD National Studies The 1958 study (17:31) reported that 37 percent of all principals were working outside the field of e d u ­ cation. A decade later the 1968 study (16:126) revealed that 61 in 100 males earned mon e y from outside employment 141 T a ble 61 C o m p a r i s o n of Plans to C o n t i n u e in E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p if O f f e r e d the Same Salary by School D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e Levels Plans If O f f e r e d Same Salary E x p e n diture Level Continue as Pr i n c i p a l Return to Te a c h i n g 266.00 60 . 32 45.55 27.28 264.15 .01 175.00 39.68 44. 76 17.95 176.85 .02 441.00 100.00 45. 23 45. 23 172.00 60.99 29.45 17.64 168.91 .06 110.00 39. 01 28.13 11.28 113.09 .08 282.00 100.00 28.92 28. 92 146.00 57.94 25.00 14.97 150.94 .16 106.00 42.06 27.11 10. 87 101.06 .24 252.00 100.00 25. 85 25 . 85 584.00 59. 90 100.00 59 . 90 391.00 40.10 100.00 40.10 975.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq. Percent across Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Middle Freq. Percent acro s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 L ow Freq. Percent across Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 T o tal Freq. Percent across Percent d o w n Percent of total X 2 = .577; df = 2; Not Significant; u n u s e d = 36. 142 while 10 percent of the female principals held outside employment, for a total of 42 percent employed. 1968 report (15:131) The also revealed that principals were "doing less moonlighting than they did in 1958." In 1968 male supervising principals reported that nonschool employment decreased to 42 percent, while females were involved in outside employment in only 5 percent of the cases. Statewide Studies Brothers (3:106) presents evidence that 49.8 per­ cent of Oklahoma principals did not hold an incomeproducing job outside the principalship. Moss (8:120) found that 17.7 percent of responding Wyoming principals earned extra income from employment carried on during the school year and during summer months. Arms (1:28) reported that 2 9.6 percent of Indiana elementary principals were employed at summer jobs involving fields other than education. Shelton's (10:71) tabulations show that 45 percent of Arkansas principals had employment outside their jobs as administrator, and that about two in every three of these "moonlighters" were employed during summer vacation. Jarvis, Parker, and Moore (6:24) reported that 64.65 percent of Georgia principals enjoyed seven to ten weeks vacation each summer. 143 Presentation Findings' of Data and Principals in this study were asked whe t h e r they normally worked during the summer months in a field other than education. One-hundred t h i r t y - t h r e e , or 13.45 percent, answered this question affirmatively. Table 62 presents the data concerning the incidence of summer employment of Michigan principals. Table 6 2 Summer Employment of Principals in a Field Other Than Education Employment Status Employed Not employed Number Percentage 133 856 13.45 86.55 The most recent national study reported a decrease in the percentage of principals supplementing their regular salaries from outside employment. The data in this study indicate that fewer Michigan p r i n c i ­ pals are accepting summer employment outside the field of education than is the practice across the nation. HOURS SPENT ON SCHOOL DUTIES National Studies When queried about the amount of total time spent on regular and school-related activities, national principals (15:43) reported a med i a n of 50 hours per 144 week. It was also found that those pr i n c i p a l s w i t h the most ex p e r i e n c e spent less time in all school d u t i e s than those with the least experience. Statewide Studies Georgia (Jarvis, Parker, Moore, indicated that m ore than half, 6:24) or 52.7 percent, between 4 0 and 45 hours at school each week. percent w o r k e d 51-59 hours. 46 to 50 hours, re s p o ndents spent Thirty-two and 7.12 percent w o r k e d A l m o s t 6 p e r c e n t r e ported 60 plus hours per week. Warren (12:46) re p o r t e d that 32 percent of Missouri e l e m e n t a r y principals spent 8 or more hours after school and on w eekends w i t h school duties. Ar k a n s a s principals (Shelton, 10:42) s p ent a me dian time of 8.4 hours at school w o r k each day and 4.8 hours at n i g h t and on the weekend. One in four principals s p e n t only 2 hours or less after school or during w e e k e n d s . Arms (1:130) found that 7 4.2 percent spent hours per day in carrying out their duties, 8.17 w i t h 48.9 p e r ­ cent worki n g 9 or more hours per day. Study results by M e r i g i s and G ill (4:33) co ntained data which s h o w e d 90.5 per c e n t of Illinois p r i n c i p a l s spending 8 hours or more; or more per day; more at school. 6 3.7 percent spending 9 h ours and 19.7 per c e n t spending 11 hours or 145 Presentation of Data and Findings The investigator found that, on the average, Michigan principals reported a day close to the median in the national study. If the assumption is made that any report of 4 8 or more hours is an "extra load normal expectations, beyond then 57 in 100 Michigan principals in the total sample were putting in overtime. More specifically, 1-6 hours overtime; 35.79 percent reported working 14.41 percent reported working 7-12 hours overtime; and 6.16 percent reported working 13-18 hours overtime. Four principals reported working 19-2 4 hours overtime, while five individuals indicated putting in 25 or more hours per week beyond normal expectations. Sixty-three principals, or 6.26 percent, reported working only 36-41 hours per week on regular and school-related duties. The tabulations of these data are located in Table 63. It is clear that Michigan principals are spending considerable time beyond the regular school day. Fifty- seven percent reported working 48 or more hours on regular duties and school-related activities. The shift toward a longer day found in related studies is contrary to the trend toward a shorter work period for the general working public, but is probably the cost of striving for professional status (16:104). 146 The total number of hours spent at school eac h week is p r e s e n t e d by level of e x p e n d i t u r e It w as in Table 64. found that the n u m b e r of hours spent on the job e a c h w e e k was rel a t e d to level of e x p e n d i t u r e at the .01 level of significance. A proportionately greater n u m b e r of principals in h i g h e x p e n d i t u r e districts was less likely to spend less than 42 hours on the job and more likely to spend at least 54 hours per week. Table 63 Hours S p e n t Each W e e k on School Duties N u m b e r of Hours Less than 3 6 41 36 42 — 47 48 — 53 54 — 59 60 — 65 66 — 71 72 or m ore — Number P e r c entage 9 63 358 360 145 62 4 5 . 89 6.26 35. 59 35. 79 14. 41 6.16 .40 .50 Cumulative Number 9 72 430 790 935 997 1, 001 1,006 Cumulative Percent . 89 7.16 42 .74 78.53 92.94 99. 11 99. 50 100.00 O P P O R T U N I T I E S FOR P R O F E S S I O N A L IMPROVEMENT 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study O nly one in four M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s in 1951-1952 (14:18) was allowed a b s e n c e for study; was a l l o w e d absence for travel; about one in five and n e a r l y four in five c o u l d take time off for p r o f e s s i o n a l reasons. Table 64 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Hours Spent Each Week on School Duties Hours Spent Each Week on School Duties Expenditure Level Less Than 36 36-41 48-53 54-59 60-65 66-71 72 or More 5.00 1,12 55.56 .51 4.07 .21 23.00 138.00 154.00 5.13 30. B0 34.38 37.10 39.09 43.75 2.32 13.94 15.56 28.06 159.74 159.29 .91 2.96 .18 88.00 19.64 61.54 8.89 64.71 B. 38 38.00 8.48 61.29 3.84 28.06 3.52 1.00 .22 25.00 .10 1.81 .36 1.00 448.00 .22 100.00 20.00 45.25 .10 45.25 2.26 .70 3.00 1.05 33.33 .30 2.60 .06 18.00 115.00 109.00 6.29 40.21 38.11 29.03 32.58 30.97 1.82 11,62 11.01 17.91 101.98 101.69 .00 1.66 .53 28.00 9.79 19.5B 2.83 41.31 4.29 10.00 3.50 16.13 1.01 17.91 3.49 1.00 .35 25.00 .10 1.16 .02 2.00 286.00 .70 100.00 40.00 28.89 .20 28.89 1.44 .21 21.00 100.00 8.20 39.06 33.87 28.33 2.12 10.10 16.03 91.28 1.54 ,83 27.00 10.55 18.86 2.73 36.9B 2.69 14.00 5.47 22.58 1.41 16.03 .26 2.00 .78 50.00 .20 1.03 .90 2.00 256.00 .78 100.00 40.00 25.86 .20 25.86 1.29 ,39 42-47 Total 2is!i Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 1.00 .39 11.11 .10 2.33 .76 89.00 34.77 25.2B 8.99 91.02 .04 9.00 62.00 353.00 352.00 143.00 62.00 4.00 5.00 990.00 .91 6.26 35.66 35.56 14.44 6.26 .40 .51 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100,00 100.00 100.00 6.26 .51 100.00 .91 6.26 35.66 35.56 14.44 .40 X2 9 34.910; df * 14; Significant negative relationship at .01 level; unused » 21; p.m.c, ■ -.10037. 148 National Studies The o p i n i o n s of s u p e r v i s i n g principals 196 8 national study in the (15:30) w e r e sought r e g a r d i n g the d e s i r abili t y of r e l e a s e d time for certain p r o f e s s i o n a l improvement activities. respondents Sixty-five percent of the felt that school s y s t e m inservice programs were very important. F o r t y - s i x percent tho u g h t that p r o f e ssion a l a s s o c i a t i o n programs w ere very important, w h ile 64.1 per c e n t indicated that exchange visits among principals were v e r y important. It was noteworthy, persons however, that 9 8 in 100 serving in the national p r i n c i p a l s h i p cre d ited their success as pr i n c i p a l s to their on - t h e - j o b e x p e r ­ iences as teachers and pr i n c i p a l s rather than to college preparation, intern exchange, and training p r o g r a m s local inservice, (15:28). Statewide Studies Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:17) ex a m i n e d the degree of i m p o r t a n c e attributed by Georgia p r i n c i p a ls to various p r o f e s s i o n a l improvement activities. Sixty- one percen t thought that inservice programs w i t h i n their school systems w e r e "very important." Next h i g h e s t item in p o p u l a r i t y was p l a n s for e x c h a n g e visit. more than half, or 51.57 percent, In addition, viewed the p r o g r a ms of their pro f e s s i o n a l associ a t i o n s as important e n o u g h to justify released time during sch o o l time. 149 A b o u t 34 in 100 O k l a h o m a p r i n c i p a l s w ere found by Brothers (3:76) to indicate that attendance at NAESP annual m e e t i n g s was not permitted. Pre s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Finding's Principals w ere asked to indicate the extent to w h ich they received o p p o r t u n i t i e s and encou r a g e m e n t to pa r t i c i p a t e in p r o f e s s i o n a l improvement activities. Responses are recorded in Table 65. Table 65 Opportunities for Professional Much Opportunity Inservice for administrators V i s i t a t i o n to other schools MAE S P / N A E S P as s o ciati o n meetings and conventio n s At t e n d a n c e at nonAESP w o r k s h o p s and conferences C o m b i n e d totals Improvement Some Opportunity No Opportunity N % N % N % 168 17. 25 660 67 .76 146 14 .99 208 21. 14 682 69 .31 94 9 .55 376 37.60 590 59. 00 34 3 .40 182 934 18. 72 701 72 .12 94. 71 2,633 268.19 89 363 9 .16 37 .10 F i f t e e n per c e n t i n d icated that they received no o p p o rtunity for a d m i n i s t r a t o r inservice. Ten percent reported no o pportunity for v i s i t a t i o n to o t h e r schools, w h ile 9 p e r c e n t rep o r t e d no opport u n i t y for attendance 150 at n o n -AE S P w o r k s h o p s and conferences. ference expense, Concer n i n g c o n ­ 58 percent rep l i e d that all conference and convention expenses w ere taken care of by their school systems. Six percent indicated that they w er e r e q uired to hand l e their own expenses, w h i l e 36 p e r c e n t re p orted sharing the costs of participation. M any s t a t e - w i d e studies report the number of state and n a tional a ssociation m eetings had attended w i t h i n a five-year period. that re s p o n dents The number of me e tings a t t e n d e d was co n s i d e r e d by this researcher to be less relevant than w h e t h e r respon d e n t s r e c e i v e d the opportunities and e n c o u r a g e m e n t to attend. Membership and lack of at t e n d a n c e at m e e t i n g s are not always i n d i c a ­ tive of whe t h e r the principals are able to attend. HOW P R I N C I P A L ' S E X P E N S E S FOR C O N F E R E N C E AND CONVENTION PARTICIPATION ARE HANDLED 1951-1952 M i c h i g a n Study Two dec a d e s ago only 31 in 100 pr i n c i p a l s in M i c h i g a n schools declared that their expenses were paid in part. in part for study S eventy-six in 100 w e r e r e i m bursed for p r o f e s s i o n a l meetings, how e v e r (14:18). Statewide Studies B r others (3:76) r e p o r t e d that the percentage of r espondents w h o received some financial h e l p from local 151 school d i s t r i c t s for e x p e n s e s to attend p r o f e s s i o n a l meetings in O klahoma w a s 4 4.5 percent. The m e t h o d by w h i c h O r e g o n {Perkins, 9:113) p r i n c i p a l s ' expenses w e r e p a i d for a t t e n d a n c e at c o n ­ ferences of the a ssociation w a s as follows: 100 percent self, 36 percent; 21.2 percent; 100 per c e n t by district, combinatio n of self and district, 32 percent. Presentati o n of Data and Findings More than one-half of the respondents, percent, or 5 7.57 rep l i e d that all their e x penses w e r e taken care of by their school system. T h i r t y - s i x p e r c e n t reported that they sha r e d the costs of conference and c o n v ention p a r t i c i p a t i o n w ith their school district, 6.03 percent, expenses. while 59, or indicated that they h a n d l e d their own The data for this question are located in Table 66. Table 6 6 How the P rincipal's E x p e n s e s for Co n f e r e n c e and C o n v e n t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n are H a n d l e d How Handled 100 p e r c e n t self 100 p e r c e n t d istrict C o m b i n a t i o n of 1 and Number 2 59 563 356 Percentage 6.03 57.57 36.40 152 The majority of principals in this state, then, are receiving total reimbursement for expenses incurred seeking participation in professional improvement activi­ ties . DISTRICT-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES Presentation of Data and Findings Michigan elementary school principals were asked whether they had any district-wide administrative r e s ponsi­ bilities in addition to their p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . Thirty in 100 responded that they did have district-wide responsi­ bilities. A n d the following district-wide responsibilities were specified: director of federal programs, attendance officer, in charge of substitutes, director of special education, in charge of bus transportation, director of elementary education. About 70 in 100 indicated that they did not have duties which were system-wide in scope (Table 67). Table 67 Number of Principals with DistrictWide Responsibilities Responsibilities Yes No Number 303 695 Percentage 30 .36 69 .64 153 In the case of district-wide responsibilities held in addition to the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , a significant difference was noted when compared w ith the three levels of expenditures. In this instance, principals from high expenditure districts reported proportionately fewer district-wide responsibilities than did low-expenditure district principals. Table 68 depicts these data. METHOD OF FILLING PRINCIPALSHIP OPENINGS 1951-1952 M i chigan Study The earlier Michigan study (14:9) revealed the manner of selection to the principalship as follows: recommendation by superintendent, dation by other administrators, examination, 16 percent; 62 percent; 19 percent; recommen­ competitive and personal application, 2 per­ cent . Statewide Studies Ten percent of Oklahoma principals were reported by Brothers (3:79) as being required to take an e x a m i ­ nation . Lepick (5:191) reported that California principals were required to take wri t t e n competitive examinations in about 30 in 100 cases in order to attain a promotion to the principalship. 154 Table 6 8 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Number of Principals w ith District-Wide Responsibilities ~ j *x. t . t Expenditure Level District-Wide Responsibilities ________________ Yes No Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 114.00 25.56 38 .38 11. 60 134.75 3.20 332.00 74. 44 48. 40 33 .77 311.25 1.38 446.00 100.00 45. 37 45. 37 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 97.00 34. 40 32.66 9 .87 85 .20 1.63 185.00 65.60 26 .97 18. 82 196.80 .71 282.00 100.00 28.69 28.69 86 .00 33.73 28. 96 8. 75 77.04 1.04 169.00 66 .27 24.64 17.19 177.96 .45 255.00 100.00 25.94 25.94 297.00 30.21 100.00 30.21 686.00 69. 79 100.00 69. 79 983.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 High Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X 2 = 7.824 ; df = 2; Significant n e g a t i v e relation— ship at .02 level; unused = 28; p.m.c. = -.079817. 155 Presentati o n of Data and Findings^ In an a t t e m p t to a s c e r t a i n how M i c h i g a n school districts fill p r i n c i p a l s h i p openings, r e s p o n d e n t s were requested to indicate w h e t h e r t h e i r district p r o m o t e d from w i thi n ranks, hired o u t s i d e applicants, or u sed a combination of these two p r a c t i c e s . A per u s a l of the d a t a in Table 69 rev e a l s that a majority of principals, or 62 percent, r e p o r t e d that their dist r i c t s h i r e d both f r o m w i t h i n and w i t h o u t the system. N e a r l y on e - t h i r d of the respondents that their d i s t r i c t s promoted It w o u l d appear, then, r e p l i ed f r o m w i t h i n ranks only. that more M i c h i g a n d i s ­ tricts are r e c r u i t i n g p r i n c i p a l s from o u t s i d e sources than was the case twenty years ago. Table 6 9 M e t h o d of F i l l i n g P r i n c i p a l s h i p O penings in Principal's School D i s t r i c t Number Promotes from w i t h i n ranks Hires out s i d e applicants C o m b i n a t i o n of those above 314 66 620 P e r c entage 31. 40 6 .60 62 . 00 156 D E T E R M I N A T I O N OF SALARY 1951-1952 Michigan Study In 1951-1952 (14:18) 379 Michigan principals responded -that their salaries w ere based as follows: on size and membership of building, their training, 219 principals; 2 32 principals. Furthermore, 125 principals; on and on their experience, 76 in 100 principals in this earlier study reported that their salaries were based on an established schedule. Statewide Studies Brothers (3:102) reported that one-third of Oklahoma principals favored a salary schedule based on a ratio tied to classroom teacher salaries; favored individual negotiation; 7.8 percent 12 percent favored single salary schedule considering experience; and 15.8 percent favored nature of school assignment. The Indiana study by Arms (1:69) found that ele­ mentary principals in that state received a salary based upon the teachers' the school system. salary plus an index or sum within Only 12.7 percent of Indiana princi­ pals reported negotiating for their salaries. The most common type of salary scheduling in the Wyoming principalship study by Moss the index system. listed (8:118) was 157 Presentati o n of D a t a and Findings Pr i n c i p a l s were que r i e d for their opinions as to h o w their p r i n c i p a l s h i p salary was d e t e r m i n e d and, h o w their salary shou l d be determined. also, Forty in 10 0 re p l i e d that their salary was d e t e r m i n e d by their s u p e r ­ i n t e n d e n t ’s o f f e r or a schedule. W h e n a s ked how they felt their salary should be d etermined, however, only 13 percent s e l e c t e d the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s offer or schedule, whereas 74 percent r e p o r t e d that it should an amount n e g o t i a t e d by a d m i n i s t r a t o r group. be Factors u sed in catego r i z i n g the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of salaries of e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s are reported in Table 70. C o m p a r e d w i t h the r e l a t i v e l y few numbers of principals n e g o t i a t i n g salaries in the two re p o r t e d s t ate studies, the p e r c e n t a g e of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s n e g o tiatin g s a l a r i e s through i n d i v i d u a l or g r o u p m e a n s is significant. A l m o s t 54 per c e n t of the p r i n c i p a l s in this study r e p o r t e d ne g o t i a t i n g A n d a total of for their salaries. 82.9 percent r e p o r t e d they felt their salary should be d e t e r m i n e d thr o u g h individual and g r o u p n e g o t i a t i o n means. Table 70 Method of Salary Determination and Principal's Viewpoint About How it Should be Determined Salary Determination Individual Negotiation N % Administrator Group Negotiation N % Superintendent's Offer or Schedule N % Other N How salary is determined 66 6.65 210 47.23 400 40.28 58 5.84 How it should be determined 83 8.35 741 74.55 128 12.88 42 4.23 149 15.00 1,210 121.78 528 53.16 100 10.07 Combined totals 159 PRINCIPAL'S FEELINGS ABOUT WHETHER SALARY INCREASES FOR PRINCIPALS A R E LAG G I N G BEHIND SALARY INCREASES FOR TEACHERS National Studies The 195 8 national survey (16:119) concluded that NAESP surveys during the years of 19 28 through 19 5 8 showed that the relative financial status of elementary school principals had d e clined as compared with the status of classroom teachers. and 1968 survey (15:132-133) Between the 1958 survey the med i a n salaries of elementary principals revealed an increase of $3,463, a gain of 55.5 percent. During the same period, the study reported that the med i a n salary of elementary school teachers exhibited an estimated increase of $3,770, a gain of 62.3 percent. Presentation of Data and Findings According to the data in Table 71, 51 percent of the principals in this study reported that salary increases for principals w ere lagging behind salary increases for teachers in their districts. Forty-nine percent responded that they did not feel they were. Several principals made comments to the effect that they received what was left over after teachers got their raises. 160 According to national s t u d i e s , principals have been steadily losing out in comparison with classroom teachers; that is, teachers' salaries have increased at a faster rate than have principals' principals' salaries. When salaries are based on a dollar differential or are scheduled independently of classroom teachers, the frequent result has been for principals to lose out in relation to t e a c h e r s . Table 71 Opinion A b out Whether Salary Increases for Principals are Lagging Behind Salary Increases for Teachers Salary Opinion Increases are lagging behind teachers Increases are not lagging behind teachers Number Percentage 503 50.96 484 49.04 In this study slightly more than half, or 51 p e r ­ cent, of the principals reported that salary increases for teachers have been going up at a faster rate than principals' salaries. A ttention is called to the figures in the previous table (Table 70) which report that nearly three-fourths of the principals felt that administrative group n e goti­ ation was most desired. 161 No significant relationship was determined when comparing the sexes of respondents to their views regard­ ing whether salary increases for principals are lagging. Table 72 compares these factors. SATISFACTION WITH SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS Presentation of Data and Findings Principals in this study were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction regarding their salary and w o r k i n g conditions. as follows: satisfied, The distribution of responses was very satisfied, 27.29 percent; somewhat 35.56 percent; both satisfied and dissatisfied, 26.56 percent; somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied, 2.29 percent. 8.17 percent; and The data dealing with level of satisfaction regarding salary and w orking con­ ditions are located in Table 73. Sixty-three percent of study respondents reported levels of definite satisfaction with salary and working conditions. That more than one-third, or 37 percent, of the persons serving in M ichigan principalships indi­ cated existing dissatisfaction with salary and working conditions, however, is worthy of further study. The attitude of responding principals, fied according to school district expenditure classi­ level, 162 Table 72 Comparison of Sex with Opinion A b o u t Whether Salary Increases for Principals are Lagging Behind Salary Increases for Teachers Salary Opinion Increases Are Lagging Increases Not Lagging Total Male Preq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. CeTl x 2 403.00 52.61 80.12 40. 87 390.77 .38 363.00 47. 39 75. 16 36 . 82 375.23 .40 766.00 100.00 77.69 77. 69 100.00 45.45 19. 88 10.'14 112.23 1.33 120.00 54.55 24 .84 12.17 107.77 1. 39 220.00 100.00 22. 31 22. 31 503.00 51.01 100.00 51. 01 483.00 48. 99 100.00 48.99 986.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Female Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X 2 = 3.503; df = 1; Not Significant; unused = 25. 163 was not found to be significant. Table 74 reports these data w h i c h suggest no difference other than that due to chance. Table 7 3 Principal's Level of Satisfaction With Salary and Working Conditions „ Level , .„£ of .. Satisfaction „ Number 274 Very satisfied Somewhat satis­ fied 357 Both satisfied and dis s a t i s ­ fied 268 Somewhat dissatis f ied 82 Very dissatisfied 23 Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 27.29 274 27.29 35 .56 631 62 .85 26 .69 899 89. 54 8. 17 2.29 981 1,004 97. 71 100.00 The number of years served as supervisory princi­ pal was also compared with the level of satisfaction with salary and working conditions. However, no relationship was determined to exist between the years served and the relative degree of satisfaction (Table 75). How well are Michigan elementary school principals doing in regards to working conditions and salary? Any realistic answer to the question requires far more than a simple reporting of dollars and cents paid. The adequacy of compensation depends on comparisons with other members Table 74 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels by Principal's Level of Satisfaction with Salary and Working Conditions Satisfaction with Salary and Working Conditions Expenditure Level Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Both Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied 137.00 30.58 50.55 13.05 122.76 1.65 158.00 35.27 44.89 15,98 159.45 .01 113.00 25.22 43.30 11.43 118.23 .23 32.00 7.14 39.02 3.24 37.14 .71 8.00 1.79 34.78 .81 10.42 .56 448.00 100,00 45.30 45.30 74.00 25.87 27.31 7.48 78.37 .24 106.00 37.06 30.11 10.72 101.79 .17 77.00 26.92 29.50 7,79 75.48 .03 23.00 8.04 28.05 2.33 23.71 .02 6.00 2.10 26.09 .61 6.65 .06 286.00 100.00 28.92 28.92 60.00 23.53 22.14 6.07 69.87 1.40 88.00 34.51 25.00 8.90 90.76 .08 71.00 27,84 27.20 7.18 67.30 .20 27,00 10.59 32.93 2.73 21.14 1.62 9.00 3.53 39.13 .91 5.93 1.59 255.00 100.00 25.78 25.78 271,00 27.40 100.00 27.40 352.00 35.59 100.00 35.59 261.00 26.39 100.00 26.39 82.00 8.29 100.00 8.29 23.00 2.33 100.00 2.33 989.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq, Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq, Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret, freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X2 ■ 8.599; df » 8; Not Significant; unused ■ 22. 165 Table 75 Comparison of Years Served as Principal by Level of Satisfaction with Salary and Working Conditions Satisfaction with Salary and Working Conditions Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisf ied 58 .00 28.29 21. 32 5 .80 55 .76 .09 68 .00 33. 17 19. 05 6. 80 73. 18 .37 57. 00 27. B0 21.43 5. 70 54 .53 .11 18.00 8.78 21 .95 1 .80 120.00 25.64 44. 12 12 .00 127.30 .42 164.00 35. 04 45.94 16. 40 167.08 .06 80 .00 29.20 29.41 8.00 74.53 .40 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 30 or More Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Years Served 1-3 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Very Dissatisfied Total 205.00 100.00 20. 50 20. 50 .08 4 .00 1.95 17 .39 .40 4.71 .11 130.00 27. 78 48.87 13.00 124.49 .24 41.00 8. 76 50.00 4 .10 3B. 38 .18 13.00 2. 78 56. 52 1. 30 10. 76 .46 468.00 100.00 46. 80 46. 80 103.00 37. 59 28.85 10. 30 97.82 .27 68.00 24.82 25. 56 6.80 72. 8B .33 19.00 6 .93 23.17 1. 90 22 .47 .54 4.00 1.46 17.39 .40 6. 30 . 84 274.00 100.00 27. 40 27. 40 13 .00 25.49 4 .78 1.30 13.87 .05 21.00 41. 18 5.88 2.10 18.21 .43 11.00 21.57 4 .14 1. 10 13.57 .49 4 .00 7 .84 4. 88 .40 4 .18 .01 2. 00 3. 92 8. 70 .20 1,17 .58 51. 00 100.00 5 .10 5. 10 1.00 50. 00 .37 .10 .54 .38 1.00 50.00 .28 .10 .71 .11 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 .53 .S3 0 .00 0. 00 0, 00 0. 00 .16 .16 0,00 0. 00 0.00 0. 00 .05 .05 2.00 100.00 .20 .20 272.00 27.20 100.00 27.20 357.00 35.70 100.00 35.70 266.00 26.60 100.00 26.60 B2.00 8 .20 100.00 8.20 23.00 2. 30 100.00 2. 30 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Both Somewhat Di ssatis f ied 16 . 81 4-9 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell X 2 10-19 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 20-29 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X 2 “ 7.303; df - 16; Not Significant; unused “ 11. 166 of the profession, term of employment, fringe benefits, and other factors which surround and influence the work of the principal. While there will probably always be variations among school districts in b o t h salary policies and salaries paid, this study indicates that m a n y Michigan principals believe that there is clearly r o o m for sub­ stantially improving their salaries. V A L U E AND FUTURE DIRECTION OF M A E S P SERVICES A N D ACTIVITIES Statewide Studies Of California principals responding to a question regarding the value of me m b e r s h i p in the state principal association, 51 percent of m a les and 73 p e r c e n t of females thought that the association was of "vital importance"; 38 percent males and 23 per c e n t females felt that member­ ship was "useful" (Lepick, 5:291). The rating reported by Youngblood (13:136) of Texas principals found that 37.2 percent felt that their association was of much value; value; 52.9 percent, of some 9.9 percent, of little or no value. Presentation of Data and Findings M ichigan elementary principals w e r e requested to indicate the extent to which membership in M A E S P benefits 167 the principalship. This inquiry was intended to determine the attitudes of Michigan principals toward the value of the Association rather than to determine the effective­ ness of the state office- Respondents were requested to indicate w h e t h e r membership in the state association was of much value, of some value, of little value, or of no value to the principalship. Of the 9 96 members responding to this question, 261, or 26.2 percent, much value; felt that MAESP me m b e r s h i p was of 602, or 60.44 percent, 133, or 13.35 percent, stated of some value; reported membership of little or no value. Presented with these data in Table 76 are the opinions of respondents about the future direction of MAESP services and activities. Ninety-one percent reported a desire for b alanced welfare and leadership activity. Table 76 Principal*s Opi n i o n About the Future Direction of MAESP Services and Activities Future Direction Number Percentage Professional welfare services only Leadership inservice activities only Balanced w e l f a r e and leadership activity 22 2.23 62 6.29 902 91.48 168 The majority of Michigan elementary school p r inci­ pals apparently rate their professional membership in M AESP as less than of much value to the principalship. Although only ten principals, or 1 percent, of all responding principals rated their professional m e m b e r ­ ship as of no value, less than 2 7 percent evaluated their membership as of much value. Data are shown in Table 77. Table 7 7 Principal*s Opinion Regarding the Benefits of MAESP Membership to the Principalship Membership Benefits Number Of much value Of some value Of little value Of no value Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative Percent 261 602 26.20 60.44 261 863 26.20 86.65 123 10 12. 35 1.00 986 996 99. 00 100.00 It should be noted, however, that the fall m e m b e r ­ ship of MAESP has g r own in each of the last four y e a r s : 1968, 975 members; bers; 1971, 1969, 1,125 members; 1970, 1,250 m e m ­ 1,366 members--although a 50 percent dues increase was levied.^ ^"Figures obtained from M A E S P state office. C h a p te r 6 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES AND VIEWPOINTS Data pe r t a i n i n g to the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / s u p e r v i s o r y a c t i v i t i e s of the M i c h i g a n p r i ncipal and, in addition, his viewpo i n t s toward role p e r c e p t i o n and sources of job g r a t i f i c a t i o n are presented, analyzed, and c o m p a r e d in this c h a p t e r . These factors w e r e e x a m i n e d as they r e l a t e d to the study h y p o t h e s i s of ana l o g o u s s i t u a t i o n s and v i e w ­ p o i n t s related to and affecting M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals. Limited c o m p a r a t i v e data w e r e av a i l a b l e from r e c e n t national and statewide studies and the e a r l i e r M i c h i g a n study. R OLE W HEN T E A C H E R S N E G O T I A T E Pres e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings The e n a c t m e n t of public e m p l o y e e l e g i s l a t i o n in the state of M i c h i g a n m ade a p p r o p r i a t e the i n c l u s i o n 169 170 in the survey inquiries r e g a r d i n g the role of the p r i n c i ­ pal when t e a c h e r s negotiate w i t h boards of education. T h e p o s i t i o n s M i c h i g a n el e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i ­ pals have taken w h e n teachers n e g o t i a t e w e r e re p o r ted in the following percentage amounts: principal repre­ sentative sits w i t h board n e g o t i a t i n g team, serves as a d v i s o r to board team, not involved percent. 48.4 percent; 31.7 percent; and is in the teacher n e g o t i a t i o n process, 19.5 The r e s p o n s e s c o n c e r n i n g this aspe c t of the study are r e c o r d e d in T a b l e 78. T a b l e 78 Pr i n c i p a l ' s Level o f Involvement W h e n T e a c h e r s N e g o t i a t e W ith the Board of E d u c a t i o n Number Re p r e sente d o n board team Serve only as ad v i s o r s to board Principals not involved Other Percentage 484 48.40 317 195 4 31.70 19.50 .40 The in f o r m a t i o n gained in this study a b o u t the role in tea c h e r negotiations w a s that almost h alf the principals in this study were re p r e s e n t e d either d i r e c t l y or v i a a group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e on the boa r d ne g o tiatin g team. It was a lso n o t e w o r t h y that slightly m o r e than half the r e s p o n d e n t s reported that t h e y were only advis o r s or not at all involved in the n e g o t i ation process. 171 Inter-relationships were sought to detect any significant difference among the degree of involvement in the teacher negotiations process as compared to level of expenditure. Table 79 graphically illustrates the results of the cross-tabulations w h ich were found to be significantly related at the cance. .001 level of s ignifi­ It is apparent that principals from higher- expenditure districts are more directly involved in the negotiations process than are principals from lowerexpendi ture d i s tr ic t s . EXISTENCE OF PERSONAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND/ O R A N N U A L GOALS Presentation of Data and Findings No statewide or national study was located which made reference to the existence of district requirements regarding personal performance objectives and/or annual goals of the principal. Of the 994 principals reporting on this aspect of the study, only one-third stated that objectives or goals were a requirement in their school system. The remaining two-thirds reported that goals and objectives were not required for the year ahead (Table 80). How­ ever, many principals did indicate that annual performance objectives were in the process of being developed in their districts. 17 2 T able 7 9 C o m p a r i s o n of Scho o l D i s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s b y Principal 1s I n v o l v e m e n t W h e n Teachers N e g o t i a t e W i t h Board of Ed u c a t i o n Level of Involvement in Teacher N e g o t i a t i o n s Exp e n d i t u r e Level On Board Team Advise Only 268.00 59.82 55. 95 27 .18 217.64 11.65 116.00 25.89 37.18 11.76 141.76 4 .68 62.00 13 .84 32.46 6.29 86. 78 7.08 2 .00 .45 50.00 .20 1.82 .02 448.00 100.00 45.44 45.44 134.00 47.18 27.97 13 .59 137.97 .11 96 .00 33 .80 30 .77 9.74 89 .87 .42 53 .00 18 .66 27 .75 5.38 55.01 .07 1. 00 .35 25.00 .10 1.15 .02 284 .00 100.00 28 .80 28.80 77 . 00 30.31 16 .08 7.81 123.39 17 .44 100.00 39. 37 32 .05 10. 14 80.37 4.79 76.00 29. 92 39.79 7.71 49.20 14.59 1.00 .39 25. 00 .10 1.03 .00 254.00 100.00 25.76 25.76 479.00 48.58 100.00 48 .58 312.00 31.64 100.00 31.64 191.00 19.37 100.00 19.37 4 .00 .41 100.00 .41 986.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Not Involved O t her Total High Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 M i ddl e Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Low Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x Total Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of t o tal = 60.888; unused = 25. df = 6; S i g n i f i c a n t at .001 level; 173 A n examination of the number of principals who submit annual performance objectives and goals to the central office administration according to expenditure levels indicated a relationship that was significant at the .999 confidence level. The study d ata located in Table 81 indicate that there is a greater tendency for high expenditure districts to require goals and objectives than low-expenditure districts. Table 80 Existence of Required Personal Performance Objectives and/or Annual Goals Performance Objective Required Not Required Number 331 66 3 Percentage 33.30 66.70 EVALUATION OF PRINCIPALS Presentation of Data and Finding's One in five M ichigan elementary principals, as revealed in Table 82, reported that he was not evaluated as to his performance. Twenty-five percent reported being evaluated according to formal policy developed w ith principal involvement, and 11 percent, according to formal policy developed without principal involvement. 174 Table 81 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels With Existence of Required Personal Performance Objectives and/or Annual Goals Existence of Personal Performance Objectives_____________ Expenditure Level_________ Required Required Total 191.00 43.02 58 .41 19.49 148.15 12.39 253.00 56 .98 38 .74 25.82 295.85 6.21 444.00 100.00 45 .31 45.31 79 .00 27 .92 24 .16 8 .06 94 .43 2.52 204.00 72.08 31.24 20.82 188.57 1.26 283.00 100.00 28.88 28 .88 57 .00 22.53 17 .43 5.82 84.42 8 .91 196.00 77.47 30.02 20.00 168.58 4 .46 253.00 100.00 25.82 25 .82 327.00 33.37 100.00 33 .37 653.00 66 .63 100.00 66 .63 980.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theor e t . f r e q . Cel l x 2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total X 2 = 35.748; df = 2; Significant at unused = 31. .001 l e v e l ; 175 A h i g h number o f principals, 4 27, or 4 2.57 percent, replied that t hey w e r e evaluated, but that no policy e x i s t s to g u i d e or gove r n the process. Ta ble 8 2 E v a l u a t i o n of P r i n cipals E v a l u a t i o n Procedure Number A c c o r d i n g to formal policy d e v e l o p e d W I T H O U T p r i n c i p a l involvement A c c o r d i n g to formal policy d e v e l o p e d W I T H pr i ncipal involvement No poli c y exists, but we're ev a luat e d We a r e not e v a l u a t e d Other Percentage 109 10.87 247 24.63 427 200 20 42.57 19.94 1.99 W r i t t e n c o m m e n t s to this aspect of the study included the following: third degree"; and "My b o a r d "Don't know"; interviews w i t h the "I wonder"; "This c a n be a Godawful l o n e l y job. "Not sure"; O n e exi s ts in a c o m p l e t e v a c u u m as far as e n c o u r a g e m e n t from any superior goes. Y o u are left to your p e rsonal surmising as to whether y o u ' r e a good p r i n c i p a l or a dud." A T T I T U D E TOWA R D M A J O R FUNCTIONS N a t i o n a l Stu d i e s S u p e r v i s i n g principals st udy (15:51) in the 1968 nat i o n al r e p o r t e d that t h e y w o uld like to d e vo t e less time to c l e r i c a l tasks and to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and more time to c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t and supervision. 176 Statewide Studies Youngblood (13:180) found the most rewarding duties of Texas principals in the areas of school organization and m a n a gement and guidance, staff, (32.1%); pupil adjustment 22.6 percent; and work w i t h the teaching 21.2 percent. V e r y few Texas principals reported their most rewarding duties in program development or parent and community relations. largest proportion of Texas principals (13:61) The responded that they wanted most to devote more time to working with their teaching staffs (30,6%); pupil adjustment (18.9%); and school organization and management (18.6%). Presentation of Data and Findings The purpose of this section was to summarize the opinions of M ichigan principals about what they believed to be their m o s t rewarding duty, the area in which they spend the greatest amount of time, and the area in which they would most like to spend more time. Limited information was found to be available in related status studies regarding these aspects. M o s t principals, 59.33 percent, are spending a majority of time organizing and m a naging their schools. No one area was found to be overwhelmingly the m ost personally rewarding duty, although one in four reporting indicated his work with the teaching staff 177 as rewarding. Forty percent, or 3 92 principals, reported a desire to spend m o r e time in program development and curriculum, while only 14 percent indicated that they were satisfied with their present time allotment. The real significance of the illustration in Table 83 is not that time in itself is important, but that, g i v e n the choice, Michigan principals aspire to activities more directly connected w i t h the improvement of instruction. Polled principals reported that they would prefer to give more time to program development and curriculum. Table 8 3 Principal's Attitudes Toward His Major Functions Major Functions Organization and management Periodic classroom teaching Working w i t h the teaching staff Pupil adjustment and guidance Program development and curriculum Public relations Present time allot­ ment satisfactory Most Rewarding Area Most Time Spent Desire to Spend M o r e Time % N % N % 195 20 .70 569 59.33 28 2 ,87 37 3 .93 6 .63 44 4 .50 247 26 .22 124 12 .93 242 24 .77 197 20.91 118 12.30 94 9.62 169 97 17 .94 10.30 59 83 6.15 8.65 392 41 40.12 4 .20 136 13 .92 N 178 P E R C E I V E D CENTRAL O F F I C E V I E W OF P R I N C I P A L S H I P National studies The 1958 and 1 968 national studies e x p l o r e d the status of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h respect to their u n d e r s t a n d i n g regarding t h e central o f f i c e view o f their role. 1958 study r e s u l t s (16:143) showed that 59 in 100 national p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e d that t h e y w ere placed the "leadership" role. (15:143) The in A n d the 1968 study i n v e s t i gators indicated that school systems w ere m o v i n g in the d i r e c t i o n o f giving p r i n c i p a l s gre a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to make decisions. The 1968 n a tional surveyors (15:78) p r e s e n ted statements r e l a t i v e to the p rincipal's supervisory r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and r e q u e s t e d each r e s p o n d e n t to c h o o s e the one w h i c h best d e s c r i b e d his status. percent indicated "primary" responsibility; selected "partial" responsibility; that they h a d Eighty-two 17 p e r c e n t a n d 1.1 percent felt "little" r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Statewide S t u d i e s Ei g h t y - s i x p e r c e n t of O k l a h o m a principals w e r e r eported by Brothers (3:84) to feel t hat they had s u f ­ ficient a u t h o r i t y to c a r r y o u t good e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s in their schools. O nly 4 9.8 percent, however, reported that the y had enough v o i c e in bud g e t p r e p a r a t i o n for their schools. 179 The A r k a n s a s study by Shelton that 64 per c e n t had cent had (10:107) "primary" r e sponsibility? "partial" responsibility; revealed 32.7 p e r ­ and 3.2 p e r c e n t had "little" responsibility. G e o r g i a participants w e r e r ecorded b y Jarvis, Parker, and M o o r e (6:38) as h a v i n g the f o l lowing p e r ­ centages r e g a r d i n g answers to the same q u e s t i o n as the Georgia and 196 8 national study: Youngblood (13:163) 26, 18, and 4 percent. found that less than half o f the Texas r e s p o n d e n t s r e v e a l e d themselves as leaders of their schools w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e a u t h o r i t y to plan, organize, and ad m i n i s t e r the e ducational p r o g r a m of their schools. Lepick question: (5:307) asked C a l i f o r n i a pr i n c i p a l s the "Does your s u p e r i n t e n d e n t implant the feeling that e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s play as i m p o r t a n t a rol e in e d u c a t i o n and c o m m u n i t y leadership a s d o junior and senior h igh school princi p a l s ? " One-fourth expressed a negative response. P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and Findings The s t u d y q u e s t i o n n a i r e presented three d e s c r i p t i o n s o f c e n t r a l office views of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p and asked r e s p o n d e n t s to s e l e c t the one that best d e s c r i b e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y g i v e n to the principal s in their district. T h e intent of the three 180 descriptions w a s to determine the degree to w h i c h the Michigan principal felt he had the authority to plan, organize, and administer his o w n school. Most M ichigan principals, or 54.13 percent, viewed themselves as heads of their schools w i t h con­ siderable authority. Forty-two in 100 principals felt that they were assigned p r i m a r i l y to carry out central office policies and plans, w i t h some encouragement to formulate their own plans. O n l y 4 percent reported that they were neither e n c o uraged nor authorized to proceed independently. T h ese d ata are reported in Table 84. It would appear that w h e n compared with their counterparts across the nation M ichigan principals saw themselves as having less au t h o r i t y delegated from the central office. The principals' perceptions of the central office view of the elementary principalship are presented by expenditure level of school district in Table 85. The two variables were found to be positively related at the .05 level of significance. Table 84 Principal's Perception of the Central Office View of His Elementary Principalship _ ^ . ... Central Office View „ , Number _ . Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative percent 544 54.13 544 54.13 The principal is viewed as the admin­ istrative head of the school, assigned primarily to carry out the policies and plans of the central office. He is given some encourage­ ment to plan for his own building. 423 42.09 967 96.22 38 3.78 1,005 100,00 The principal is neither encouraged nor authorized to proceed indepen­ dently to alter his own school's program in any significant manner. 181 The elementary principal is recognized publicly as the head of his school with considerable authority to plan, organize, and administer his school's educational program. 182 Table 8 5 C o m p a r i s o n of School Di s t r i c t E x p e n d i t u r e L e v e l s w ith P r i n c i p a l ' s P e r c e p t i o n of Central Office V i e w of His Principalship Central Office V i e w of P r i n c i p a l s h i p E x p e n d i t u r e Level Complete Leader Partial Leader Fo l l o w e r Freq. P e r c e n t across P e r c e n t down P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 254.00 56.44 47 .39 25.68 243.88 .42 187.00 41. 56 45. 06 18 .91 188 .83 .02 9. 00 2 .00 23 .68 .91 17 .29 3.97 450.00 100.00 45. 50 45.50 Middle Freq. P e r c e n t across Percent down P e r c e n t of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 154.00 54 .04 28 .73 15 .57 154 .46 .00 118.00 41. 40 28.43 11. 93 119.59 .02 13 . 00 4 . 56 34 .21 1. 31 10 .95 .38 285.00 100.00 28 .82 28 .82 128.00 50 .39 23.88 12.94 137.66 .68 110.00 43.31 26 .51 11.12 106.58 .11 16 .00 6 .30 42 .11 1.62 9 .76 3 .99 254.00 100.00 25.68 25.68 536.00 54 .20 100.00 54 .20 415.00 41. 96 100.00 41.96 38 .00 3 . 84 100.00 3 . 84 989.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Low Freq. P e r c e n t across P e r c e n t down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Total Freq. P e r c e n t across Percent down P e r c e n t of total X 2 = 9.596; u n u s e d = 22. df = 4; S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 level; 183 EXTENT PRINCIPALS FEEL TEACHERS HAVE INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM A question was formulated in an attempt to ascertain the extent to which Michigan principals feel that their teachers have individualized their schools' learning programs. Thirty in 100, or 303 principals, reported that considerable individualization has taken place; or 590 principals, 59 percent, indicated that their teachers have individualized somewhat; while 112, or 11.15 percent, reported that little or no individualizing of the instructional program has t a k e n 1place. These data are recorded in Table 86. Table 86 Extent to Which Principal Feels His Staff Has Individualized the Instructional Program to the Needs of Children Extent Individualized Considerable Somewhat Little None Number 303 590 109 3 Percentage 30.15 58 .71 10.85 30 Cumulative Number 303 893 1,002 1, 005 Cumulative Percent 30.15 88 .86 99.70 100.00 184 T h e extent to w h i c h the r e s p o n d e n t s ' staffs have i n d i v i d u a l i z e d and tailored the instructional p r o g r a m to the n e e d s of c h i l d r e n w i t h r e s p e c t to levels of expend i t u r e of schoo l d i s t r i c t w a s compared. Table 8 7 presents the data showing t h a t a positive s i g n i fica n c e level o f .001 was r e a c h e d as analyzed by the c h i square test. It is a p p a r e n t that principals from h i g h — e x p e n d i t u r e districts v i e w their staffs as more likely to h ave i n d i v i dualized their p r ograms than pr i n c i p a l s from l o w e r - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t ricts. M O S T I M P ORTANT I M P R O V E M E N T IN PRINCIPAL'S SCHOOL WITHIN PAST F IVE Y E ARS P r e s e n t a t i o n of D ata and Find ings Table 8 8 r e p o r t s the m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t improvement that had taken p l a c e in the schools of re s p o n d e n t s d u r i n g the p a s t five years, 1967-1971. Study p a r t i c i p a n t s w ere g i v e n six possible c h o i c e s from w h i c h to select the m o s t important improveme n t which had taken place w i t h i n the past five years. ment, T h ese were, namely: m a t e r i a l s and e q u i p ­ cur r i c u l u m and program, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change, m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a pproaches, ing staff, p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of t e a c h ­ and p a r a — profes s i o n a l involvement. 185 Table 87 C o m p a r i s o n of School District. Expenditure Levels With Extent to Which Principal Feels His Staff Has Individualised Instructional Program Expenditure Level E x t e n t Instructional Program Individualised C onsiderable Somewha t 166.00 36.89 55.52 16.78 136.05 6.59 247.00 54.89 42.66 24.97 263.45 1.03 37.00 8.22 34.26 3.74 49.14 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.37 450.00 100.00 45.50 45.50 Freq. Percent across Parcsnt d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 LOW 75.00 26.50 25.06 7.58 85.56 1.30 174.00 61.48 30.05 17.59 165.68 .42 32.00 11.31 29.63 3.24 30.90 .04 2.00 .71 66.67 .20 .86 1.52 28 3.00 100.00 28.61 28.61 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theor e t . f r e q . Cell x 2 Total 58.00 22.66 19.40 5.86 77 .40 4.B6 158.00 61.72 27.29 15.98 149.87 .44 39.00 15.23 36.11 3.94 27.96 4.36 1.00 33.33 .10 .78 .06 256.00 100.00 25.88 25.88 Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 299.00 30.23 100.00 30.23 579.00 58.54 100.00 58.54 108.00 10.92 100.00 10,92 3.00 .30 100.00 .30 Little Hone Total High Frag. Percent across Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Middle .39 X 2 “ 24.993; df ~ 6j Significant at .001 level; unused “ 22. 989.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 186 Th e a r e a s m o s t o f t e n s e l e c t e d b y p r i n c i p a l s t h i s s t u d y w e r e as development, 2 6 .92 percent; 25.47 percent; ties, was follows: curri cu l u m and program methodological approaches, n e w instructional m a terials and 18.4 p e r c e n t . in In a d d i t i o n , facili­ organizational change select e d b y 1 4 . 3 5 p e r c e n t a s the m o s t significant improvement. Table Most A r e a of M o s t 88 I m p o r t a n t I m p r o v e m e n t in P r i n c i p a l ' s School Within Past Five Years Important Improvement C u r r i c u l u m and p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a n g e (e.g., t e a m teaching) N e w instructional materials and facilities M e t h o d o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h e s (e.g.. individualization) Professionalization of teaching staff Para—professional involvement Number Percentage 259 26 .92 138 1 4 .35 177 18.40 24 5 25.47 62 81 6 .44 8 .42 E X T E N T P R I N C I P A L HAS U S E D CORPORAL PUNISHMENT P r e s e n t a t i o n o f D a t a and Findings Discipline in t h e s c h o o l s is w i d e l y d i s c u s s e d and often criticized. c i p l i n e a n d order, o v e r meaning, Nearly everyone believes but there policies, in d i s ­ is c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t and methods. 187 A q u e s t i o n w a s d e v i s e d to r e v e a l the extent to w h i c h M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s have used c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t as a d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e d u r i n g the p ast twelve months. Of all r e p o r t i n g e l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s Ta ble 89), 11, or 1.09 percent, corpo r a l p u n i s h m e n t "often." (see i n d icated they used On the o t her hand, w a s repor t e d by 173, o r 17.16 percent, it of the r e s p o n d e n t s that they used it "occasionally," w h i l e 210, or 20.83 p e r ­ cent, indicated t h a t they "seldom" spanked. number a n d p e r c e n t a g e for any r e s p o n s e w a s c h o s e n b y 3 55, or 3 5.22 percent. number and percentage, The g r e a t e s t "rarely," T h e second h i g h e s t 259, or 25.69 percent, of all e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s rev e a l e d that they used co r poral p u n i s h m e n t "never." Table 8 9 Ext e n t to W h i c h P r i n c i p a l s Have Used C o r p o r a l P u n i s h m e n t as a D i s c i ­ p l i n a r y M e a s u r e W i t h i n the Past T w e l v e M o n t h s Level o f U s e Number Percen t a g e Often Occasionally Seldom Rarely Never 11 173 210 355 259 1.09 17.16 20.83 35.22 25.69 11 184 394 749 1,008 1.09 18.25 39.09 74.31 100.00 It was i n t e r e s t i n g to n ote that m e n p r i n c ipals in this study i n d icated a g r e a t e r incidence of 188 e m p l o y i n g spanking t han did w o m e n principals. shows this s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e at the Table 90 .999 c o n fidence level. In Table 91 the d a t a r e l a t i n g the t h r e e expenditure levels to the i n c idence of e m p loying c o r p o r a l punishment is reported. A s i g n i ficant n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to have occurred. P r i n c i p a l s from h i g h e r - e x p e nditu r e d i s t r i c t s tended to employ s p a n k i n g less frequently than did pr i n c i p a l s from lowe r - e x p e n d i ture districts. M E T H O D S OF R E P O R T I N G P U P I L PROGRESS T O PARENTS P res e n t a t i o n of D ata and Findings Recent y e a r s have seen w i d e spread e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s of r e p o r t i n g and g r a d i n g pupil progress. Ideas h a v e var i e d f r o m precise nu m e r i c al systems to the e l i m i n a t i o n of all grading. A q u e s t i o n was formulated for this s t u d y in an attempt to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h m e t h o d s of r e p o r t i n g are m o s t c o m m o n l y u s e d in Michigan. Table 9 2 shows the types of meth o d co n s i d e r e d to b e the m ost pop u l a r ly used in M i c h i g a n schools. Six p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s were selected: p a r e n t - t e a c h e r conferences, i tem checklists, grades, written Table 90 Comparison of Extent to Which Principals Have Used Corporal Punishment by Sex Principal's Use of Corporal Punishment Occasionally Seldom Rarely Never Total 9.00 1.16 81.82 .89 8.50 .03 147.00 18.89 84.97 14.60 133.66 1.33 166.00 21.34 79.43 16.48 161.47 .13 290.00 37.28 81.69 28.80 274.27 .90 166.00 21.34 64.09 16.48 200,10 5.81 778.00 100.00 77.26 77.26 2.00 .87 18.18 .20 2,50 .10 26.00 11.35 15.03 2.58 39.34 4.52 43.00 18.78 20.57 4.27 47.53 .43 65.00 28.38 18.31 6.45 80.73 3,06 93.00 40.61 35.91 9.24 58.90 19.74 229.00 100,00 22.74 22.74 11.00 173.00 17.18 100.00 17.18 209.00 20.75 100,00 20.75 355.00 35.25 100.00 35.25 259.00 25.72 100.00 25.72 1,007.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Often Male Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Female Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 1.09 100.00 1.09 2 X = 36.067; df = 4; Significant at .001 level; unused = 4. 190 Table 91 Comparison of School District Expenditure Levels with Extent to Which Principals Have Used Corporal Punishment Principal1s Use of Corporal Punishment Expenditure Level Often High Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Middle Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Low Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Total Freq. Percent across Percent down Percent of total 2 Occa­ sionally Seldom Rarely Never Total 3 .00 68.00 83 .00 146.00 151.00 451.00 .67 15.08 18 .40 32 .37 33 .48 100.00 30.00 39.77 40 .49 41.83 58 .75 45.46 .30 6 .85 8 .37 14.72 15.22 45.46 4 .55 .53 77 .74 1.22 93.20 1.12 158.67 1.01 116.84 9.99 4 .00 50.00 59.00 104.00 68.00 285.00 1.40 17 .54 20.70 36.49 23 .86 100.00 40.00 29.24 28 .78 29.80 26.46 28.73 .40 5.04 5.95 10.48 6.85 28 .73 2.87 .44 49.13 .02 58.90 .00 100.27 .14 73.84 .46 3.00 53.00 63 .00 99.00 38.00 256.00 1.17 20.70 24.61 38.67 14.84 100.00 30.00 30.99 30.73 28.37 14 .79 25.81 .30 5.34 6.35 9.98 3.83 25.81 2.58 .07 44 .13 1.78 52.90 1.93 90.06 .89 66. 32 12.09 10.00 171.00 205.00 349.00 257.00 992.00 1.01 17 .24 20.67 35.18 25.91 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1.01 17.24 20.67 35.18 25.91 100.00 X * 31.67 9; d£ » 6; Significant negative relation ship at .001 level; p.m.c. ■ -.144664. 191 commentary, c o m b i n a t i o n s of the a b o v e including grades and combin a t i o n s e x c l u d i n g g r a d e s . Table 9 2 M e t h o d s of R e p o r t i n g Pupil Progress to Parents Method Grades (e.g., ABC's, S and U) Parent-teacher c o n f e r e n c e s Item chec klists Written commentary C o m b i n a t i o n involving grades C o m b i n a t i o n not involving grades Other Number Percentage 50 79 16 13 4.96 7.83 1.59 1.29 606 60 .06 244 1 24 .18 .10 The largest number of e l e m e n t a r y principals, 656, or 65.02 percent, grades (e.g., ABC's, reported t hat they ut i l i z e d S and U) in the process of c o m muni­ c a t i n g pupil p r o g r e s s to parents. or 34.98 percent, The remainder, 353, indicated that the m a j o r i t y of teachers in their schools w ere not involved w i t h the u s e of report card grades. Results show that the m a j o r i t y of teachers use m o r e than one m e t h o d of reporting to parents, w i t h the m o s t widely used m e t h o d s being p a r e n t - t e a c h e r c o n ­ ferences and grades. Methods i n c luding gra d e s were u s e d by nearly t w o - t h i r d s of the respondents, w h ile o n e — third employed met h o d s w h i c h did not involve grades. 192 E X T E N T OF P R I N C I P A L ' S P E R S O N A L SATISFACTION WITH OVERALL PERFORMANCE Presentation of D ata and Findings T a b l e 93 shows the e x t e n t of respondents' satis­ faction w i t h their overall pe r f o r m a n c e as e l e m e n t a ry principals, taking e v e r y t h i n g i nto consideration. T a b l e 93 E x t e n t of P r i n c i p a l ’s Personal S a t i s f a c t i o n W ith Overall P e r f o r m a n c e Level of Satisfaction V ery satisfied Somewhat s a t i s ­ fied Both satisfied and d i s ­ satisfied Somewhat d i s ­ satisfied Very dis­ satisfied Nu m b e r Percentage Cumulative Number Cumulative P e r cent 200 20.00 200 20.00 388 38.80 588 58.80 376 37.60 964 96.40 28 2.80 992 99. 20 8 .80 1, 000 100.00 Of the r e p o r t i n g e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s in this state, 2 00, or 2 0 percent, r e p o r t e d feeling very sati s— fied wit h their overall p e r f o r m a n c e ; 388, or 38. 8 percent, felt s o m e w h a t satisfied w i t h their performance. 193 F e w principals, o n l y 36 in number, r e p o r t e d being s o m e ­ w h a t or very d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h their o v e r a l l job p e r ­ formance . N o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e produced w h e n the respondents' school d i s t r i c t e x p e n d i t u r e level w a s compa r e d w i t h s a t i s f a c t i o n r e g a r d i n g o v e r a l l p e r formance. F r o m data r e l a t i n g to this a s p e c t of the study and found in Table 94, it is apparent that the m e a s u r e of p r o ­ fessional m o r a l e is not r e l a t e d to the amount of m o n e y expended by t h e school s y s t e m in w h i c h the Mi c h i g a n elementar y school p r i ncipal w a s employed. 194 Table 94 Comparison of School District. Expenditure Levels by Extent of Principal's personal S a tisfaction With Overall Performance Satisfaction With Overall Performance Expenditure Level .. Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied 108.00 24 .11 54 . 55 10 .98 90 .15 3.54 176.00 39.29 46.22 17.89 173.01 .05 14 9.00 33.26 40.27 15.14 168.46 2 .25 13 .00 2. 90 46 .43 1.32 12.75 . 00 2 .00 .45 25.00 .20 3 .64 .74 448 .00 100.00 45.53 45.53 55.00 19. 37 27 .78 5.59 57 .15 .08 104.00 36.62 27.37 10.57 109.67 .29 113.00 39 .79 30.54 11.48 106.79 .36 8 . 00 2.82 28. 57 .81 8 .08 .00 4.00 1.41 50. 00 .41 2.31 1 .24 284 .00 100.00 28.86 28. B6 35 .00 13.89 17.68 3 .56 50.71 4 .87 100.00 39.68 26.32 10. 16 97.32 .07 108.00 42.86 29.19 10 .98 94 .76 1 .85 7.00 2.78 25.00 .71 7.17 .00 2.00 .79 25.00 .20 2.05 .00 252.00 100.00 25.61 25.61 198.00 20.12 100.00 20 .12 380.00 38.62 100.00 38.62 370.00 37.60 100.00 37.60 28 .00 2.85 100.00 2.85 8 .00 .B 1 100.00 .81 984.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total High Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x2 Mi d d l e Freq. Percent a c r o s s Percent d o w n Percent o f total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 Low Freq. Percent ac r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total Theoret. freq. Cell x 2 T otal Freq. Percent ac r o s s Percent d o w n Percent of total X 2 ” 15.351; df - 6; Not Significant; unused " 27. C h a p te r SUMMARY, 7 IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The major problem approached in this study was to gather statistical data relative to the prevailing status, thought, and practices of Michigan elementary school principals that could serve as information for various educational groups. The survey research design and procedural plan utilized by the investigator facilitated the c r oss tabu­ lation of variables and comparisons with data from recent state and national studies and an earlier Michigan study. ORGANIZATION OF CONCLUDING CHAPTER In this concluding chapter the researcher sum­ marizes the major study findings relative to and charac­ teristic of each element of the status of M i c h i g a n ele­ mentary principals and p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . These findings are categorized and enumerated according to the five 195 196 m a i n headings of the textual chapters. Perso n a l C h a racteristics? Resources; These are: P r i n c i p a l ' s School and Experience, Training, and Aspirations; P r i n c ipal ' s W e l f a r e and C o n d itions of Employment; and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e / S u p e r v i s o r y A c t i v i t i e s and V iewpoints. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the c o l l e c t e d study findings w h i c h affected or strengthened t h e i n v e s tigator's beliefs are presented. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and suggestions for further study a r e o f f e r e d to b e n e f i t persons ser v ing in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p and the educat i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n as a whole. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS A summary of the major f i n d i n g s p e r t a i n i n g to the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a ry school pr i n c i p a l s and p r i n c i p a l s h i p s follows: Sex 1. The p e r c e n t a g e of m e n holding fu l l - t i me p r i n c i p a l s h i p s was c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than that of women; 77.13 w e r e male, 2. 22.87 w e r e female. A s i g n i f i c a n t increase a m o u n t i n g to 37 p e r ­ cent in the p r o p o r t i o n of m e n to w o m e n p r i n c i p a l s has occurred over the past two d e c a d e s 3. The d a t a obtained w e r e in Michigan. similar to rece nt natio n a l and a m a j o r i t y of s t a tewide studies. 197 4. examined, W h e n 'the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n sex a n d a g e w a s only of age were 186 found to be 5. younger 9 of the principals 35 y e a r s female. Male principals than less than tended to b e proportionately female principals. Age 1. within less More t h a n 53 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e t he r a n g e o f than age 35; 3 5 — 49 y e a r s o f a ge; and 18 p e r c e n t w e r e 29 p e r c e n t w e r e o v e r 50 y e a r s o f age . 2. The median age of supervising principals in r e c e n t st a t e and n a t i o n a l constant, and 3. is s i m i l a r It was more principals t o be less for a g e to increase studies has t o the f i n d i n g l i k e l y for remained fairly in t h i s s t u d y . the age of supervising in lower expenditure districts in t h e higher a nd expenditure districts (.0 0 1 ). Racial-Ethnic Composition 1. T h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p s are held by m e m b e r s of seven, or 3.67 the white race. percent, Only thirty- indicated m i nor it y group m e mb er­ ship . 2. of the The data i n d i c a t e t h a t 972, 1,00 9 r e s p o n d e n t s were Caucasian. or 96 p e r c e n t , 198 3. Eighteen principals, or 1.78 percent, were 4. Three principals indicated S p a n i s h - s u r names; black. two, Oriental; and one, American Indian. Residential Pattern 1. Fifty-eight percent live with i n the boundaries of the school d istrict which employs them. 2. A total of 42 percent live outside school district boundaries. 3. When compared with other states, a higher percentage of M ichigan principals are commuting from residences outside the communities in which they work. Birthplace 1. Only 9 percent of Michigan principals were born in the district in which they were employed. 2. One in three were born wit h i n fifty miles of their present district. 3. Twenty-seven percent were born elsewhere in Michigan, and 29 percent reported their birthplace as being outside the state. Marital Status 1. Eighty-five percent of Michigan principals were found to be married. 199 2. S i n g l e n e s s due to n o n - m a r r i a g e w a s reported at 8 percent, w h i l e 3 p e r c e n t w e r e w i dowed. The r e m a i n ­ ing 4 percent w e r e r eported as d ivorced or separated. 3. C l o s e simila r i t i e s w ere found to exist b e t w e e n these data and related studies. Employmen t of Spouse 1. S i x ty-two p e r c e n t of M i c h i g a n principals reported being the sole w a g e earn e r in their N e a r l y four in e v e r y ten w e r e mar r i e d family. to a n employed spouse. 2. w i d e study, Compared to the res u l t s of a similar s t a t e ­ this investigator found a h i g h e r percentage of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t i n g two incomes. Political P r e f e r e n c e 1. Of the respondents, Democrati c party, 21 p e r c e n t favored the while 38 p e r c e n t p r e f e r r e d the R e p u b l i ­ c a n party. 2. T h e r e are nearly twice as m a n y Republicans as Democrats b e l o n g i n g to the MAESP, b u t t h e most c o m m o n preference of p o l itical a f f i l i a t i o n was e x p ressed as "independent” 3. (41%). S t u d y findings w e r e quite d i s s i m i l a r to d a t a reported in other state studies, p a r t i c u l a r l y in re s p e c t to the large number of r e s p o n d i n g independents. 200 PRINCIPAL'S SCHOOL AND RESOURCES N u m b e r of S c h o o l s In District 1. T h i r t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d f i v e or less elementary schools six to ten; and in their d i s t r i c t ; 27 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d 11 p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d b e i n g i n d i s t r i c t s w i t h t h i r t y - o n e o r m o r e e l e m e n t a r y schools. 2. being About one in e v e r y f ive p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d in a d i s t r i c t of 11 to 30 schools. School District Enrollment 1. A t o t a l of 10.8 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d s e r v i n g in large e n r o l l m e n t d i s t r i c t s w i t h 25,000 or m o r e pupils. 2. N e a r l y €1 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d e m p l o y m e n t in m i d d l e enrollment d is tricts of 3. T w e n t y - n i n e p e r c e n t s m a l l — e n r o l l m e n t d i s t r i c t s of 4. 3 , 000 to 2 4 , 9 9 9 students. indicated employment in 2,999 or less. The typical Michigan principal was more l i k e l y to be s e r v i n g in d i s t r i c t s w i t h s m a l l e r e n r o l l ­ ments than w e r e p r i n c i p a l s a c r o s s the n ation. Character of School District 1. Nearly m u n i t i e s as suburban; as rural. 54 p e r c e n t c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e i r c o m 21 p e r c e n t as urban; and 2 5 p e rcent 201 2. The study f i n d i n g s closely pa r a l l e l e d the 1968 national study data. 3. U r b a n and rural principals w e r e m o r e likely to be employed in l o wer— e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s than were suburban principals (.001). N u m b e r of Schools Supervised 1. Sevent y - n i n e p e r c e n t r e ported b e i n g in charge o f o n l y one s c h o o l . 2. F i f t e e n per c e n t admini s t e r e d two schools; 4 percent reported s upervising three schools; 2 percent directed four or m o r e schools. 3. and nearly One in every five M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s w as in charge of m o r e than one s e p a r a t e l y named school. P r i n c i p a l s in c h a r g e of two or m o r e sch o o l s were found to d e v o t e signi f i c a n t l y fewer hours to reg u l a r and s c h o o l —related ac t i v i t i e s than did p r i n c i p a l s with o n l y a single school assignment. 4. The typical M i c h i g a n p r i ncipal was m o r e l i k e l y to be serving as p r i ncipal of two or m o r e schools t h a n was the n ational principal. 5. Princi p a l s from l o w - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i cts w e r e m o r e like l y to have m u l t i s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p s than w e r e princ i p a l s from h ig h - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s (.001). 202 School D i s t r i c t O p e r a t i n g Expendi ture LeveIs 1.In order to d e t e r m i n e whe t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s in dollars ex pended a m o n g M i c h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t to the q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i ­ tative factors that rel a t e to and a f f e c t the e l e m e ntary school principal, the 197 0-1971 o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s of M i c h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s w e r e rank ordered in three classifications- The numbers and p e r c e n t a g e s rep o rted by the r e s p o n d e n t s above per pupil, to this study were: 451, or 4 5.33 percent; (1) $800 and <2) $700-799 per pupil, 28 8, or 28.94 percent; and $699 and b e l o w per pupil, 25 6, or 25.7 3 percent. 2. The f i ndings of this study d e t e r m i n e d that c e r t a i n re l a t i o n s h i p s existed at the .05 level of s i g n i fican c e among M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s w hen c r oss tabulating school d i s t r i c t o p e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e levels w i t h selected v a r i a b l e s in the study. The major findings p e r t a i n i n g to an a n a l y s i s of the e l e ­ me n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l and p r i n c i p a l s h i p b y this factor were: a. T h e typical M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l in the l o w e r - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t was found to be more likely to be younger; employed m o r e likely to be in a rural or u r b a n district; m o r e likely to supervise two or m ore w i t h larger enrollments. and schools 203 b. The typical p r i ncipal from a low e r - e x p e n diture school d i s t r i c t was found to be m o r e lik ely to r e p o r t inadequate lib r a r y books and materials; facilities; learning have less s a t i s f a c t o r y o f f i c e and rec e i v e less service from specialized personnel. He was also found to be less involved in the n e g o t i a t i o n of the teacher m a s t e r c ontract and less l i k e l y to p e r c e i v e the cen t r a l o f f i c e vie w i n g h i m as a leader. c. His school tended to be less individualized t h a n schools in h i g h e r - e x p e n d i t u r e districts. He was also found to employ c o rporal p u n i shment w i t h greater frequency than d o p r i n c i p a l s e mployed in h i g h - e x p e n d i t u r e districts. Grades Administered 1. The m o s t c o m m o n p a t t e r n in o p e r a t i o n in M i c h i g a n schools was k i n d e r g a r t e n t h r o u g h six (62%). K-5 and K-4 pa t t e r n s w e r e the next m o s t - u s e d patterns, 15.26 per c e n t and 6.14 percent, 2. Few principals were grades higher than level six. respectively. found to a d m i n i s t er T h e earlier M i c h i g a n study r e p o r t e d a larger p r o p o r t i o n of p r i n c i p a l s with r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for seventh and eighth grades. same held true of d ata The in the n a t i o n a l study o f 1968. 204 Pupil Enrollment 1. The m o s t common e n r o l l m e n t interval reported b y M i c h i g a n principals w a s 400-6 99. 2. The p a t t e r n of student enrollment was found to be g e n e r a l l y similar to recent national and statewide studies. 3. wer e m o r e ments, Pr i n c i p a l s in lower-exp e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s likely to h ave schools w i t h larger e n r o l l ­ w h i l e p r i n c i p a l s in h i g h - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s w ere m o r e likely to supervise sch o o l s w i t h smaller enrollments (.05). Economic C h a racter of School Neighborhood 1. E i ghteen percent i n d i c a t e d their n e i g h b o r h o o d as a b o v e average; 25 percent, as b e l o w average; 4 9 percent, and school as average; 8 percent, as d i s t i n c t diversity. 2. W hen c o m p a r e d to the m o s t recent nat i onal study, Mi c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d 8 per c e n t fewer advantaged neighborhoods. P upi l - T e a c h e r R a tio 1. Sixty-nine percent r e p o r t e d s u p e r v i s i n g schools w i t h a p u p i l — teacher r a t i o of from 26— 30 students. 205 2. One in e v e r y five p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d supervising a school 21 a nd in w h i c h the r a t i o w a s b e t w e e n 25 pupils, w h i l e one in ten h a v e 31 to 3 5 s t u ­ d e n t s p e r c l a s s r o o m teacher. 3. No r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s e x p e n d i t u r e level o f ratio found to e x i s t b e t w e e n school d i s t r i c t and p u p i l - t e a c h e r (.05). Classroom Teacher Positions 1. mode of M o r e t h a n half the p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d a 15-24 f u l l - t i m e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s in t h eir schools. 2. One in four M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s supervise a r a n g e o f t e a c h e r s a m o u n t i n g to 5— 14, w h i l e have 2 5— 3 4 f u l l - t i m e 16 p e r c e n t teaching positions under their direction. P e r c e n t a g e of M a l e T e a c h i n g StaTf 1. male Thirteen percent reported teachers on their 2. 6-10; while 3. reported male. “ zero" staffs. Thirty-five percent had staff mem b e r s ; having 1-5 p e r c e n t m a l e 17 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d a p e r c e n t a g e of 9 p e r c e n t had 21— 30 p e r c e n t males. T w o - t h i r d s of the p r i n c i p a l s 10 p e r c e n t or less of t h e i r in t his teaching s t udy staff as 206 4. comparing A found w sex o f p r i n c i p a l w i t h p e r c e n t a g e o f m a l e teachers on a be more significant, r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s staff. likely to Male principals were have a greater classroom teachers on their found percentage staffs to of m a l e than w ere female p r i nc ipaIs. Secretarial Assistance 1. no One p e r c e n t of r e p o r t i n g p r i n c i p a l s had secretarial half-time 2. secretary, 3. have assistance; at least h e lp. S i x t y — seven p ercent had while 2 8 percent had m o r e one full-time t h a n one. Proportionately more Michigan principals secretarial across 3 p e r c e n t had assistance than their counterparts the nation. A d e q u a c y of S p e c i a l i z e d Personnel 1. school A total received other Michigan about the percent reported same a m o u n t of while as o t h e r 28 that their s e r v i c e as percent replied that service. Three-fourths of r e c e i v i n g as m u c h personnel 44 schools, they received more 2. of or m o r e schools the principals service from in M i c h ig a n . reported specialized 207 3. It was o b served that p r i n c i p a l s e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s bel i e v e d that they received from lowe less service from specialized p e r sonnel in a r e a s related to c u r r i c u l u m and l e arning problems. P r i n c i p a l s from h i g h - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s r e p o r t e d that t h e y re c eived m o r e services c o m p a r e d to o t h e r M i c h i g a n schools (.001). C o n d i t i o n of 1971-1972 S c h o o l Budget 1. F o r t y - o n e p e r c e n t reported o p e r a t i n g in school di s t r i c t s w h i c h w e r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h aus t e rity conditions during 2. the 1971-1972 school year. F i f t y - n i n e per c e n t reported no austerity c o n d i t i o n s n e c e s s i t a t e d b y a lack of local c o m m u n ity s u p p o r t for p r o p o s e d millage. 3. were P r i n c i p a l s from l o w e r - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s less likely to have o p e r a t e d under a u s t e r i t y c o n ­ d i t i o n s than w e r e p r i n c i p a l s from h i g h e r - e x p e n d i t u r e districts (.02). A d e q u a c y of L i b r a r y Books and Instructi o n a l M a t e r i e l 1. S e v e n t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t in d i c a t e d that their school had an a d e q u a t e supply and s e l e c t i o n of l ibrary b o oks for students. 2. S e v e n t y - n i n e p e r c e n t indicated that their s c h o o l s w ere a d e q u a t e l y s u pplied w i t h teaching m a t e r i a l s and instr u c t i o n a l a i d s . 208 3. Pr i n c i p a l s f r o m l o w - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s w e r e m o r e lik e l y to r e p o r t their s u p p l y and s e l e c tion of librar y books as inadequate 4. (.001). Pr i n c i p a l s from l o w - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s w e r e m o r e lik e l y to r e p o r t their s c h o o l ' s te a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s and i n s t r u c t i o n a l aids as inadequate (.001). A d e q u a c y o f Office F a c i l i t i e s 1. One in e v e r y three p r i n c i p a l s stated that his princ i p a l ' s o f f i c e facilities w e r e unsatisfactory. 2. Fewer M i c h i g a n pr i n c i p a l s w e r e wor k i n g in and w i t h inadequate o f f i c e facilities and e q u i p m e n t than were national principals. 3. Only o n e — half the r e s p o n d e n t s re p o r t e d s a t i s fact o r y facilities for the pr i n c i p a l ' s office. 4. Pr i n c i p a l s from l o w - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s w e r e found to have p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y less s a t i s f a c t o ry o f f i c e facilities than did other p r i n c i p a l s (.01). Parent O r g a n i z a t i o n G r oup 1. F o r t y - e i g h t percent of the principals repor t e d t hat their school was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h P.T.A.; 38 percen t w i t h p.t.o. F o u r t e e n p e r c e n t reported no formal o r g a n i z a t i o n a l b o d y existed. that 209 2. F o r t y - n i n e percent r e s p o n d e d that their parent o r g a n i z a t i o n g r o u p was n o t an active and d y n amic o p e r a t i o n w h o s e m e e t i n g s were r e a s o n a b l y w e l l attended. EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, AND A S P I R ATIONS E x p e r i e n c e in E d u c a t i o n 1. Sixty-one per c e n t r e v e a l e d 19 y e a r s or less in education. 2. The e a r l i e r M i c h i g a n study r e p o r t e d 79 p e r ­ cent w i t h less than 20 years experience, an i n d i cation that m o r e p r i n c i p a l s h i p s are b e i n g held c u r r e n t l y by veteran educators. 3. T w e n t y - f o u r percent indicated 2 0-29 years experience; 12 p e r c e n t reported 9 or less y e a r s experience; and 12 p e r c e n t r e v e a l e d 30-39 y e a r s in the profession. Years as F u l l - T i m e Principal 1. S i x t y - e i g h t percent r eported years experience; 27 percent, less than 10 20-29 years; and 5 percent, 30 or m o r e years as full-time principal. 2. The e s t i m a t e d m e d i a n y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e of the c u r r e n t M i c h i g a n principal is somewhat lower than that of the p r i ncipal o n the n a t i o n a l scale and other state studies. in 210 3. comparing pal. It greater A significant s e x to t h e n u m b e r o f y e a r s is a p p a r e n t likelihood principal than have 1. to h a v e served as p r i n c i ­ have a fewer y e a r s as female principals. Sixty-one their served that male principals Position Held Just Prior First Prrncipalship entered relationship existed wh to in 100 M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s positions directly from the elementary school classroom. 2. Elev e n p e r c e n t had secondary classroom 3. likely The to hav e teachers. typical Michigan principal entered the principalship elementary classroom and was to less t he e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p oriented position. Graduate School 1. reported school Almost education A of M i c h i g a n . 44 from the l i k e l y to h a v e c o m e from a secondary- p e r c e n t of all p r i n c i p a l s the m a j o r part of t h e i r graduate f r o m M S U or U o f M. total o f cated receiving was more Institution receiving 2. just p r e viously been their seventy— three principals graduate school education indi­ outside 211 M a jor Fi eld of G r a d u a t e Work 1. N e a r l y 77 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d that their m a j o r field of w o r k was s p e c i f i c a l l y o r i e n t e d t o w a r d the e l e ­ m e n t a r y school and e l e m e n t a r y school principalship. 2. Rep l i e s to g e n e r a l school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o c c u p i e d 16 p e r c e n t o f the responses. 3. The typical M i c h i g a n p r i ncipal w a s more likely to have taken g r a d u a t e w o r k in a r e a s p e r t aining to the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p than had the national principal. H i g h e s t C o l l e g e Deg r e e Earned 1. N i n e t y - s i x p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d e a r n i n g at least a m a s t e r ' s degree. O n l y seven p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d less than a m a s t e r ' s degree. 2. More than 12 p e r c e n t had c o m p l e t e d degree w o r k beyond the master's, including 1.6 8 p e r c e n t w ho had a c h i e v e d the d o c t o r a t e . 3. The r a n k s of the M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p have w i t h i n them a c o n s i d e r a b l e number of p r i n cipals w h o have g r a d u a t e school p r e p a r a t i o n and c o u r s e w o r k in areas p e r t a i n i n g to the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p . 4. The M i c h i g a n p r i ncipal is a m o r e highly trained and e d ucated p e r s o n t han w a s his 1951-1952 counterpa r t . The ed u c a t i o n a l level r e p o r t e d in this 212 study a p p e a r e d to be h i g h e r than the n a t i o n a l or other related state studies, e x c e p t at the d o c t o r a l level w h ere a lesser p e r c e n t a g e r e p o r t the t e r m i n a l degree. Last E n r o l l m e n t for C o l l e g e 1. 19 percent; P r e s e n t l y e n r o l l e d for c o l l e g e credit courses, less than o n e year, 18 percent; and one year, 10 percent. 2. three years, Two years s i n c e last enrollment, 10 percent; five years or more, 3. four years, 17 percent; 7 percent; and 19 percent. A total of 47 percent r e p o r t e d e n r o llment w i t h i n a period of o n e year or less. Final O c c u p a t i o n a l G oal 1. Less than half, or 47 percent, reported tha t they c o n s i d e r e d the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p as their final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal. 2. One in four r e p o r t e d that the el e m e n t ary p rin c i p a l s h i p was not their terminal occupa t i o n , while 28 p e r cen t w ere undecided. 3. Of those who expressed o t h e r ambitions, largest numbers, 33 p ercent, the preferred to become d i r ectors of e l e m e n t a r y education. The superintendency and c e n tr a l off i c e s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n s w e r e s e lected 213 by 18 and 15 percent, respectively. One in ten expressed a d e s i r e to b e c o m e a n e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s r o o m teacher. 4. nation, Compared to other p r i n c i p a l s acro s s the M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s are less likely to be c o n t e n t w ith the p r i n c i p a l s h i p and to v i e w it as their final o c c u p a t i o n a l goal. P r o p o r t i o n a t e l y fewer M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s t han n a t i o n a l p r i n c i p a l s e x p r e s s e d ambitions to a c h i e v e the s u p e r i n t e n d e n c y . Interest in B e c o m i n g a Principal Again 1. Of t h o s e r e p orting t hat they w o u l d start over a g a i n in the principalship, t hey c e r t a i n l y would; p r o b a b l y would. 46 p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d that 34 per c e n t reported t hat they C o m b i n i n g these two c a t e g o r i e s , n e arly 80 in 100 r e s p o n d e d w i t h a p o s i t i v e degr e e of s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n toward their s e l ection o f o c c u p a t i o n a l position. T h i s w as a high e r pe r c e n t a g e t h a n appeared in the 1968 n a t i o n a l study of the principalship. 2. or Only 8 p e r c e n t i n d icated a " c e r t a i n l y not" "proba b l y not" response, w h i c h was similar to results in the 1968 n a t i o n a l study. 214 WELFARE AND CONDITIONS OF E M P L O Y M E N T L e n g t h of Annu a l E m p l o y m e n t 1. M i c h i g a n pr i n c i p a l s h a v e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y similar c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e m e n t s as the n a t i o n a l p r i n c i ­ pal. 2. as follows: percent; The t e r m s of co n t r a c t e d 42-43 weeks, 40-41 weeks, 46-4 7 weeks, 50 or m o r e weeks, 38 percent; 19 percent; 7 p ercent; ser v i c e w e r e ranked 39 or 44-45 weeks, 48-49 weeks, less weeks, 21 9 percent; 4 percent; and 2 percent. P l a n to C o n t i n u e i n P r i n c i p a l s h i p if O f f e r e d Same S a l a r y to R e t u r n to Teachirig 1. The r e m o v a l of f i n a n c i a l a d v a n t a g e w a s shown to a f f e c t the d e s i r e of 40 p e r c e n t of M i c h i g a n p r i n cipals to c o n t i n u e in the principalship. ten pr i n c i p a l s In this study four in s t a t e d that t h e y w o u l d r e t u r n to c l a s s r o o m t e a c h i n g if o f f e r e d the same salary r e c e i v e d as p r i n c i ­ pals . 2. S i x t y p e r c e n t stated that they w o u l d c o n t i n u e in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p if o f f e r e d the same salary to b e c o m e a f u l l-time c l a s s r o o m teacher. 215 Summer E m p l o y m e n t o f P r i n c i p a l s 1. O n l y 13 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d that t hey n o r m a l l y w o r k e d d u r i n g the summer m o n t h s in a field o t h e r than education. 2. F e w e r M i c h i g a n pr i n c i p a l s h ave a c c e p t e d summer e m p l o y m e n t than is the p r actice a c r o s s the nation. Hours S p e n t o n Sch o o l D u t i e s 1. time F i f t y - s i x p e r c e n t r e ported p u t t i n g in o v e r ­ (time bey o n d normal e x p e c t a t i o n of 48 h o u r s per week). 2. C l o s e to 36 p e r c e n t indicated w o r k i n g 1-6 hours overtime; 14 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d 7-12 h o u r s overtime; and six per s o n s w e r e w o r k i n g 13-18 hours overtime. 3. M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s are w o r k i n g a similar p a t t e r n w h e n c o m p a r e d to the national princ i p a l s h ip. 4. wer e P r i n c i p a l s in h i g h — e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s less lik e l y to spend fewer than 42 h o u r s per w eek on the job and w e r e m o r e likely to spend a t l e a s t 54 hours per week. Opportunities Imp r o v e m e n t 1. for P r o f e s s i o n a l F i f t e e n p e r c e n t indicated that t h e y recei no o p p o r t u n i t y for a d m i n i s t r a t o r inservice. Ten percent 216 reported no o p p o r t u n i t y for v i s i t a t i o n to other schools, wh ile 9 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d no o p p o r t u n i t y for a t t e n d a n c e at n o n - A E S P w o r k s h o p s and conferences. 2. F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t r e p l i e d t hat all c o n ­ ference and c o n v e n t i o n e x p e n s e s w e r e h a n d l e d by their school systems. Six p e r c e n t indicated that they w e r e r e q uired to handle t h e i r o w n expenses, w h i l e 36 p e r c e n t reported sha r i n g the c o s t s of p a r t i c ipation. District-Wide Responsibilities 1. Thi r t y in 100 r e s p o n d e d that t h e y w e r e assigned d i s t r i c t - w i d e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in a d d i t i o n to their p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . 2. Seventy p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d no d i s t r i c t - w i d e re s p o n s ibi l i t i e s . Method of F i l l i n g P r i n c i p a l ­ ship O p e n i n g s 1. A m a j o r i t y o f districts, 62 percent, hire p r i n c i p a l s b o t h from w i t h i n and w i t h o u t their school systems. 2. Nearly o n e - t h i r d r e p o r t e d t hat their d i s ­ tricts p r o m o t e d from w i t h i n ranks only. D e t e r m i n a t i o n of Salary 1. F o r t y in 100 r e p o r t e d that their salary w d e t e r m i n e d b y an offer f r o m their s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o r a 217 schedule, w h e r e a s o nly 13 per c e n t felt that their s a lary should be d e t e r m i n e d in this manner. 2. Seventy-four percent r e p o r t e d t h a t their salary s h o u l d be an a m o u n t n e g o t i a t e d b y an a d m i n i s t r a t o r group. 3. A l m o s t 54 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d n e g o t i a t i n g for their s a l a r i e s presently, w h i l e 83 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d a desire to d e t e r m i n e s a l a r y thr o u g h in d i v i d u a l or g r o u p negotiation. P r i n c i p a l s 1 Salary Increases Lagging B e h i n d Teacher Increases 1. F i f t y - o n e p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d that salary increases for pr i n c i p a l s w e r e lagging behind salary increases for teachers. 2. No signif i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w a s d e t e r m i n e d w h e n c o m p a r i n g the sexes of r e s p o n d e n t s to their v i ews re g a r d i n g w h e t h e r salary increases w e r e lagging b e h ind teacher increases. S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h Salary and Working C o n d i t i o n ^ 1. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of principals' level of s a t i s f a c t i o n r e g arding salary and w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s was as follows: very satisfied, 2 7 percent; somewhat 218 satisfied, 27 percent; 36 percent; both sat i s f i e d and dissatisfied, s o m e w h a t dissatisfied, diss a t i s f i e d , 8 percent; and very- 2 percent. 2. M ore than o n e — third of those persons s e r vi in M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p s indicated some level of d i s ­ s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h salary and w o r k i n g c onditions. V a l u e and Future D i r e c t i o n of M A E S P Services and Activitie~s 1. Of those responding, 26 p e r c e n t stated that M A E S P m e m b e r s h i p was of m u c h value; value; 60 percent, of some and 13 p e r c e n t of little or no value. 2. N i n e t y - o n e per c e n t indicated t h a t the future d i r e c t i o n of M A E S P s e rvices and a c t i v i t i e s should involve a b a l a n c e of w e l f a r e and l e a d ership d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i ­ ties . ADMINISTRATIVE/SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES AND VIEWPOINTS Principals' Negotiate Role w h e n Tea c h e r s 1. the b o a r d team; F o r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d sitting w ith 32 p e r c e n t indicated t h a t they served o n l y as advisors to the b o a r d team; r e p o r t e d no i n v o l v e m e n t whatsoever. and 20 p ercent 219 2. It w a s a p p a r e n t that principals e x D e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s were less involved in the teacher n e g o t i a t i o n s p r o c e s s than w e r e principals expenditure districts from low- f r o m higher- (.001). E x i s t e n c e of P e r s o n a l P e r f o r m a n c e O b j e c t i v e s and/or A n n u a l Goals 1. O n l y o n e - t h i r d of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d the e x i s t e n c e o f personal o b j e c t i v e s or a n n u a l goals as a d i s t r i c t r e quirement. 2. Study data indicate t hat the p r i n c i p a l serving in a l o w e r — e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t w a s less l i k e l y to be re q u i r e d to submit personal o b j e c t i v e s or a n n u a l goals to the centr a l o f f i c e than w ere o t h e r p r i n c i p a l s (.001). Pr inc i p a l s ' Evalua tion 1. One in five r e p o r t e d that they w e r e not e v a l u a t e d as to their p e r f o r m a n c e as p rincipals. 2. evaluated, F o r t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t replied t h a t they were but that no policy existed to g u i d e or govern the p r o c e s s . A t t i t u d e Tow a r d M a j o r Fu n c t i o n s 1. M o s t principals, or 59 percent, a r e spend a m a j o r i t y of their time o r g a n i z i n g and m a n a g i n g their schools. 220 2. F o r t y p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d a d e s i r e to spend m o r e t i m e in p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t and c u r r i culum. Only 14 p e r c e n t indicated s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h their p r e s e n t time allotment. 3. T h e s e d a t a w e r e similar to d a t a o n the na t ional principalship. C e n t r a l O f f i c e V i e w of Pr i nc i p a 1 ship 1. Only 54 per c e n t felt that their central o f f i c e v i e w e d them as heads of their schools, w i t h c o n ­ s i d e r a b l e i n d e p e n d e n t authority. 2. M a n y principals, 42 percent, f elt that they w er e a s s i g n e d p r i m a r i l y to c a r r y out c e n t r a l office p o l i c i e s and plans, w i t h some e n c o u r a g e m e n t to plan. Only 4 percent reported that t h e y were n e i t h e r e n c o uraged nor a u t h o r i z e d to pro c e e d independently. 3. M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s w e r e less likely to feel that t h e y w ere v i e w e d by the c e n t r a l o f f i c e as c o m p l e t e leaders in their b u i ldings than w e r e their c o u n t e r p a r t s across the nation. 4. level and A c o m p a r i s o n of the v a r i a b l e s o f e x p e n d i t u r e the principals* p e r c e p t i o n of the central office v i e w of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p r e v e a l e d that the p r i ncipal in the l o w e r - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t w as m o r e l i k e l y to be v i e w e d as a follower (.05). 221 Extent Staff Has I n d i v i d u a l i z e d Inst r u c t i o n a l Program! o f School 1. T h i r t y p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d that c o n s i d e r a b l e i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n has t a k e n p l a c e in their 2. schools. F i f t y - n i n e p e r c e n t indicated that their teachers had i n d i v i d u a l i z e d s o m e w h a t , w h i l e 11 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d that little or no i n d i v i d u a l i z a t i o n had taken place. 3. viewed Principals from low-expenditure districts their staffs to b e less h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l i z e d than did p r i n c i p a l s from high-expenditure districts (.001). Most Important Improvement T h e a r e a s m o s t o f t e n s e lected in w h i c h the m o s t important i m p r o v e m e n t had taken p l a c e w i t h i n the p ast five years w ere as follows: development , c u r r i c u l u m and p r o g r a m 27 percent; m e t h o d o l o g i c a l a pproaches, 25 percent; n e w i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s and facilities, 18 percent; and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change, 14 percent. Extent C o r p o r a l P u n i s h m e n t Used 1. Of all r e p o r t i n g principals, indicated u s i n g s p a n k i n g often; and 21 percent, seldom. 17 percent, 1.09 p e r cent occas i o nally; 222 2. T h e h i g h e s t percentage, using c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t rarely, 3 5 percent, while reported 26 p e r c e n t indicated that they never u sed it. 3. a greater It w a s n o t e d that m a l e p r i n c i p a l s in d icated i n c idence o f e m p l o y i n g s p a n k i n g t h a n d i d female principals. 4. Principals in l o w e r - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s tended to e m p l o y c o r p o r a l p u n i s h m e n t m o r e than d i d p r i n c i p a l s frequently f rom h i g h - e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s (.0 0 1 ). Use of G r a d e s in R e p o r t i n g Pupil P r o g r e s s 1. Sixty-five percent replied that g r a d e s w e r e used in the p r o c e s s o f r e p o r t i n g pupil p r o g r e s s to parents. 2. T h i r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t i n d i c a t e d t hat the m a j o r i t y of t e a c h e r s in their sch o o l s w e r e not involved w i t h the u s e of r e p o r t - c a r d grades. Satisfaction with Overall Performance 1. Twenty percent reported wi t h their o v e r a l l p e r f o r m a n c e ; satisfied; fee l i ng v e r y sati 38 p e r c e n t felt s o m e w h a t 37 p e r c e n t i n d icated b o t h s a t i s f a c t i o n and dissatisfaction• 223 2. O n l y t h i r t y - s i x M i c h i g a n pr i n c i p a l s reported feeling s o m e w h a t or v e r y d i s s a t i s f i e d with the i r overall p e r f o r m a n c e as e l e m e n t a r y school principals. 3. S a t i s f a c t i o n r e g arding overall p e r f o r m a n c e w a s not found to be r e l a t e d to the amo u n t or m o n e y expended b y the school system in w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l was emplo y e d (.05). STUDY IMPLICATIONS Implications wer e derived from r e l a t i n g the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s o p i n i o n s and b e l i e f s to the m a j o r findings. T h e s e i m p l i c a t i o n s were as follows: 1. T h e M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s is d e f i n i t e l y a m a l e p r i n c i p a l s h i p . national study A c o m p a r i s o n of stu d i e s and a n earlier M i c h i g a n study w i t h present d a t a cle a r l y i n d icates t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of w o m e n p r i n c i p a l s has d e c r e a s e d o ver the past t w o decades. It is sp e c u l a t e d that the large number of m a l e p r i n c i p a l s is d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to the i n c r e a s e in s o c i a l and e conomic s t a t u s w h i c h r e n d e r s the p r i n c i p a l s h i p m o r e a t t r a c t i v e to men. This invest i g a t o r b elieves t h a t M i c h i g a n school c h i l d r e n need a r e a s o n a b l e n u m b e r of b o t h sexes in the p r i n c i p a l s h i p for a balanced feminine and m a s c u l i n e influence. 224 Recent changes in the social milieu are expected to have an appreciable effect u p o n the numbers of women who are m i x i n g principalship careers with personal family responsibilities. 2. The M ichigan elementary school p r i n cipalship is d e f i nit e l y a w h ite principalship. Because the Michigan elementary school principalship n e e d s indi­ viduals of all racial and ethnic groups w i t h i n its ranks, the extremes identified give credence to the call for increased numbers of m i nority g r o u p members in principalships as inspirations and e x amples of persons holding leadership positions. 3. Due to the fact so m a n y principals reside outside the boundaries of the school districts which employ them, it would appear that most M i c h i g a n princi­ pals are not required by school-board edicts wi thin school-district boundaries. to reside Although data are unavailable as to why such a higher percentage of M i c higan principals are c o m muting from re s i d e n c e s out­ side the communities in which t h e y work, it is speculated that M i c h i g a n ’s w e 11-developed system of rap i d transit highways and the development of suburban a r e a s m a y have facilitated principals' employment in school systems outside their residential area. 4. Principals have reportedly become involved in the administration of more than one school for reasons 225 of economy, for lack of q u a l i f i e d personnel, and for the p u r p o s e of s p r e a d i n g an e f f e c t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t o r to m o r e t han one building. Whatever the reason, the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n sim p l y a d m i n i s t e r i n g a school and p r o v i d i n g sound, f u l l - t i m e i n s t r u c t i o n a l and s upervisory l e a d e r s h i p m u s t be kept c l e a r l y in m i n d w h e n m u l t i s c h o o l p r i n cipalships a r e contemplated. 5. T h i s study has d e m o n s t r a t e d that our p r e ­ v a i l i n g system of paying for p u b l i c schools in M i c h i g a n d e n i e s the g u a r a n t e e s of e q u a l e ducational o p p o r t u n i t y by p r o d u c i n g e d u c a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g programs, facilities, a n d personnel w h i c h v a r y w i t h the r e l a t i v e w e a l t h of the school districts' residents. School r e v e n u e are p r i m a r i l y a function of the value of the p r o p e r t y of a school district, coupled w i t h the w i l l i n g n e s s of the d i s t r i c t ' s r e s i d e n t s to tax t h e m s e l v e s for education. As a p r a c t i c a l matter, w i t h small tax bases principals in school d i s t r i c t s find t h a t taxes c a n n o t b e levied at a rate s u f f i c i e n t to p r o d u c e the e d u c a t i o n a l d o l l a r s that m o r e a f f l u e n t d i s t r i c t s r e a p w i t h m i n i m a l tax efforts. M o r e t h a n 4 0 p e r c e n t of M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s reported ser v i n g in d i s t r i c t s in w h i c h a u s t e r i t y b u d g e t c o n d i t i o n s w e r e n e c e s s i t a t e d b y a lack of local c o m m u n i t y support for p r o p o s e d millage. P r i n c i p a l s s e r v i n g in these d i s t r i c t s are t o r n bet w e e n the c h a l l e n g e s of h igh ideals 226 and the e r o d i n g f o r c e s of n a g g i n g r e a l i t i e s l a c k of w h e r e w i t h a l t o d o the job. q u a l i t y and equality it is es s e n t i a l greater in public c a u s e d by a If the q u e s t schools for is t o h a v e m e a n i n g , t h a t s o m e t h i n g d r a s t i c be d o n e to produce f i n a n c i a l p a r i t y b e t w e e n M i c h i g a n s c h o o l systems. T h e n e e d s o f s c h o o l s m u s t be f o r c e f u l l y c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n of t h e p u b l i c , and others who can the c o u r t s , to the the l e g i s l a t u r e , i n f l u e n c e a n d c h a n g e the e d u c a t i o n a l f i n a n c i n g m e t h o d s i n M i c higan. 6. T h e p r o b l e m of c l a s s s ize p e r p l e x e s p r i n c a n d o t h e r p e r s o n s c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o s t —q u a l i t y r e l a t i o n ­ ships in i n s t r u c t i o n . can be established, W h i l e n o p r e c i s e i d e a l c l a s s size i t is a p p a r e n t t hat as l a r g e r n u m b e r s o f c h i l d r e n are a s s i g n e d to a t e a c h e r , the p o s s i b i l i t y of m e e t i n g individual needs decreases. It is s p e c u l a t e d t hat t h e l ack of p u p i l — teacher r a t i o d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g school d i s t r i c t s g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g to e x p e n d i t u r e l e v e l s cou l d be a t t r i b u t e d n u m b e r of factors, including: the to a n y o f a tendency o f the c o l ­ lective bargaining process in M i c h i g a n to h a v e ized classroom the e m p l o y m e n t o f p r o p o r ­ "overload"; t i o n a t e l y l a r g e r n u m b e r s of p a r a — p r o f e s s i o n a l in h i g h e r — e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t ricts; or standard­ personnel the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t h i g h — e x p e n d i t u r e d i s t r i c t s a r e s p e n d i n g m o r e of their dollars in a r e a s oth e r t h a n p r o d u c i n g t e a c h e r ratios, materials. including higher low pupil— s a l a r i e s and instructional 227 7. Study fig u r e s tend to i n dicate that, contrary to p o p u l a r opinion, m a l e pr i n c i p a l s d o h i r e m a l e teachers and that they m a y not b e fearful o f h a v i n g their p o s i t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p t h r e a t e n e d by other m a l e s on their staffs. On the o t h e r hand, the f i g u r e s m a y i n d i c a t e that there m ay be m o r e fact t han f a n c y to the o f t e n - h e a r d q u i p that m a l e t e a c h e r s d o not w a n t to w o r k u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n of female principals. Whatever p o t e n t i a l and competency, the reason, not sex, indivi d u a l should be the d e t e r m i n a n t s for s e l e c t i n g teachers. 8. To o p e r a t e a n y m o d e r n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r o ­ g r a m effectively, a d e q u a t e personnel, e q u i p m e n t a r e essential. facilities, T r a d i tionally, a nd the b u r d e n of r o u t i n e c l e r i c a l t a s k s has intruded h e a v i l y u p o n the truly ins t r u c t i o n a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e asp e c t s o f the principals h i p . r e a lized M i c h i g a n school d i s t r i c t s have a p p a r e n t l y this as the trend o v e r the p a s t two d e c a d e s has b e e n for M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s to i n c r e a s i n g l y r e c e i v e s e c r e t a r i a l assistance. W h e n e v e r o f f i c e a r r a n g e m e n t s and o f f i c e e q u i p m e n t are inadequate, they a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l ' s time, m a k i n g him more a c l e r i c a l a i d e than a d i r e c t o r of instruction. M i c h i g a n study, In the r e p l i e s to the n e a r l y o n e - t h i r d w e r e to the e f f e c t that the principal had a n o f f i c e t hat w a s p e r c e i v e d to 228 be unsatisfactory, a figure too high for such a n i m por­ tant factor to the o p e r a t i o n of these schools. The growing co m p l e x i t y of the educational o p e r ­ ation has increased the need for the principal having various specialized personnel available to serve the staff and students of the school. S uch specialized personnel help provide for the enrichment and c o o r d i ­ nation of learning ex p e r i e n c e s essential to the superior educational program. W h e n resource personnel are not available in sufficient numbers to m e e t adequately the needs in a school building, a n increased burden is placed on that principal and his staff. The availability of federal government aid, under the aegis of the v a r i o u s title programs, m i g h t best e x p l a i n the large number of r espondents r e p o r t i n g that teaching materiel was adequate. 9. Due to the fact that 14 percent reported that an organized P.T.A. or p.t.o. d i d not exist in their schools, and half of the r espondents r e vealed that their parent-teacher organization was something less than an active and d y n a m i c operation w h o s e m e etings have been reasonably well attended, it would appear that parent organizations p r e s e n t a problem of some m a g n i t u d e to m a n y M i c h i g a n principals. These figures tend to indicate that greater a t t ention to providing leader ship 229 and careful planning are needed to cre a t e more active and productive parent-teacher organizations in Michigan schools. 10. Although the years of experience of the typical M i c h i g a n school principal has not changed sig­ nificantly over the past twenty years, background has. his educational It is a p p a r e n t that M i c h i g a n principals recognize the value of a d equate professional preparation for the principalship. A l t h o u g h the educational standards have been raised considerably for principals in Michigan, relatively few principals appear to be attaining the doctorate. This situation m i g h t be d u e to the fact that either the attainment o f the degree is a stepping stone to another position, or the hurdles in the path of d o c t o r al- d e g r e e attainment are considerably higher than can be generally overcome. The profession has additional c a use to c o n g r a t u ­ late itself on the raising of educational standards over the past two decades. F e w principals are being ap p ointed from the ranks of secondary-school teaching or a d m i n i s ­ trative positions. The elementary c l a s s r o o m represents the best path leading to the elementary principalship in Michi g a n schools. 11. Agreements r e a c h e d in negotiations m u s t be administratively viable at the building level. Par­ ticipating in the process of developing contracts, 230 either i n d i v i d u a l l y or thr o u g h a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , is one w a y to p r e c l u d e b e i n g c a u g h t in t h e m i d d l e of c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n the p u b l i c and e m p l o y e e s g u a r a n t e e d o n e - s i d e d w o r k i n g conditions. M a n y M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s d e s i r e to h a v e a larger v o i c e in d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and the u s e of their o w n ideas concerning the o p e r a t i o n of the s c h o o l s w h i c h t h e y administer. M i c h i g a n school b o a r d s and central o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s should take c o g n i z a n c e of this d e s i r e and take steps to fa c i l i t a t e a g r e a t e r d e g r e e of m e a n i n g f u l p a r t i c i p a t i o n by e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s on m a n a g e m e n t teams. 12. M a n y M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s are not in ag r e w i t h the m a n n e r in w h i c h their s a l a r i e s are p r e s e n t l y determined. M a n y pr i n c i p a l s a p p e n d e d comments to the question which requested their o p i n i o n as to h o w their s a lary was p r e s e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d . "That's a g o o d q u e s t i o n l "; T y p i c a l r e s p o n s e s were: "Who knows!"; "I d o n ' t know"; "It's a big m y s t e r y how the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t c o m e s u p w i t h the amount!" Should s u c h c o n c e r n b e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a general d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n on the p a r t of m a n y p r i n c i p a l s over m e t h o d s o f salary d e t e r m i n a t i o n , further s t u d y and i n v e s t i g a t i o n w o u l d appe a r to b e needed. It a p p e a r s that m a n y m o r e p r i n c i p a l s a r e d e s i r o u s of becoming i n volved in the p r o c e s s of a d m i n i s t r a t o r g r o u p n e g o t i a t i o n than a r e p r e s e n t l y i n v o l v e d . Such a 231 differential between the way in w h i c h m a n y principals' salaries are determined and h o w principals believe salaries should be determined c a n be expected to create the need for M A E S P consultant services as m o r e and more M i c h i g a n elementary principals become members of collec­ tive bargaining groups. It is apparent to m a n y elementary principals that their economic status has suffered due to the demands by other negotiating groups, b u t it is doubtful that such a trend will continue as m o r e and more principals seek and secure administrator bargaining agreements. 13. It is v e r y apparent that MAESP members believe that the future d i r ection of A ssociation services and activities should involve a balance of w elfare and leadership inservice activities. Through their state organization, M i c h i g a n principals have the opportunity to speak with a collective v o ice o n matters pertinent to the advancement of the principalship. Improvement of both elementary education and the status of the principal­ ship necessitates the cooperative efforts of principals throughout the state of Michigan. As a g r oup and as individuals there is an urgent responsibility to work toward the elimination of conditions which deter some elementary administrators from d o ing the job that they may w a n t to do and should do. This study has offered 232 evidence -that: many principals need and deserve improve­ ments and recompense for professionalism, time, and service. 14. Although career morale within the Michigan elementary principalship appears to be relatively high, wit h eight in every ten positively disposed toward selecting the position if starting a career again, a significant number of M i c h i g a n principals appear to be attracted to their positions by the financial advantages which are o f f e r e d . A considerable number reported they would return to teaching if offered the same salary. The investigator ponders the devotion to d u t y of persons performing in job roles sought mainly due to financial advantages. The majority of Michigan elementary school administrators did, however, indicate they were satisfied with their overall performance as principals. 15. The best in educational facilities, materials, programs, and organizational plans are important, but should not be the first consideration of a school. Instead, it is whether the staff has effectively util­ ized these elements to individualize and tailor the instructional program to the needs of every child. With the exception of the high-expenditure districts, most Michigan school districts d o not appear to have extensive individualized learning programs that are tailored to the needs of children in their s c h o o l s . 233 16, Thoughtful educators realize that pro­ fessional p r o f i c i e n c y is not g a i n e d s o l e l y f r o m p r e ­ service p r e p a r a t i o n . it is h i g h l y i m p o r t a n t that p e r s o n s in p r i n c i p a l s h i p s be p r o v i d e d w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s for g r o w t h on their jobs. Therefore, one o f the m o r e v a l i d e a r m a r k s of a p r o g r e s s i v e s c h o o l system is the c o n t i n u i n g p r o v i s i o n for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o engage i n p r o f e s s i o n a l activities w h i c h e n c o u r a g e s e l f - i m p r o v e m e n t . The i n v e s t i ­ gator feels it is somewhat u n r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t a hig h level of c o n f e r e n c e a t t e n d a n c e b y p r i n c i p a l s w h o a r e not encouraged o r w h o m u s t c o v e r their own p r o f e s s i o n a l expenses. It is k n o w n that j u s t slightly m o r e t han half the m e m b e r s h i p of M A E S P a t t e n d s the A n n u a l C o n ­ ference of the A s s o c i a t i o n i n a n y one year. 17. The M i c h i g a n p r i n c i p a l s h i p is a p o s i t i o n w h i c h involves c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e beyond a 4 8 -hour w o r k week. A large n u m b e r of e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s reported r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h e x t e n d e d d i s t r i c t w i d e and beyond the confines of t h e i r in d i v i d u a l buildings. The i n v e s t i ­ gator b e l i e v e s t h a t re g a r d l e s s o f the n a t u r e o f the job, time c an be c o n s e r v e d and b e t t e r d e p l o y e d w h e n p r i n c i p a l s b e c o m e involved w i t h efforts to un d e r t a k e l o n g - r a n g e planning. saving, P l a n n i n g is r e a l l y a time-saving, and a m o n e y - s a v i n g activity. a n effort- S e t t i n g annual obj e c t i v e s a l l o w s pr i n c i p a l s t o select w i d e l y from m a n y p r o g r a m s o f action, and l e s s e n s the need to p u s h the 234 panic b u t t o n and to o p e r a t « b y expediency. c o m m ented o n this area, saying "there never s e e m s to be time for e v e r y t h i n g t h a t needs doing. m u s t be r e a d y like One respondent Every decision ' y e s t e r d a y 1'M STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS T h e i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and s u g gestions for a d j u n c t i v e r e s e a r c h p e r t i n e n t to M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i p a l s and p r i n c i p a l s h i p s w e r e as follows: 1. T h a t in v i e w o f e v idence w h i c h i n d i c a t e s a d e c r e a s i n g trend of e m p l o y i n g w o m e n in the p o s i t i o n of e l e m e n t a r y principal, a s t u d y b e m a d e to d e t e r m i n e what factors a r e n e c e s s a r y to i n f l u e n c e a trend o f e m p l o y i n g m o r e w o m e n for M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p positions. 2. T hat a s t u d y be u n d e r t a k e n to d e t e r m i n e the course of a c t i o n n e e d e d to fa c i l i t a t e the t r a i n i n g and e m p l o y m e n t of e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s w h o a r e m e m b e r s of m i n o r i t y groups. 3. T h a t a s t u d y b e u n d e r t a k e n to d e t e r m i n e the extent and w i s d o m of b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n p o l i c i e s w h i c h restrict the r e s i d e n c y o f e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s w i t h i n school d i s t r i c t b o u n d a r i e s . 4. T h a t e v e r y e f f o r t b e m a d e b y sch o o l boards and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s to p l a c e e a c h e l e m e n t a r y sch o o l in the state u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n o f a qualified, s u p e r v i s i n g e l e m e n t a r y principal. ful l -time 235 5. T hat an intensive research study be u n der­ taken to investigate all aspects of the m u l t i s c h o ol principalship, 6. That persons in positions of influence and decision m a k i n g m o v e to eliminate the inequity among K-12 M i c h i g a n school districts in the financing o f public e d u ­ cation, thereby providing each child a t t ending Michigan schools w i t h a m ore equal opportunity for qua l i t y e d u ­ cation. 7. That Michigan school boards and superintendents make every effort to strive for and m a i n t a i n low pupilteacher ratios by employing adequate numbers of competent professional personnel. 8. T h a t an i n-depth study be made to determine why m a l e principals are m o r e likely to have a greater percentage of m a l e classroom teachers o n their staffs than are female principals. 9. That an ade q u a t e staff of general and specialized personnel should be available in all Michi g a n schools to render consultant services and assistance w ith group and individual problems of instruction. 10. T h a t a detailed study be u n d e r t a k e n to d e te mine specific factors r e s p o n s i b l e for proportionately 236 more austerity budget conditions occurring in highexpenditure districts than in lower-expenditure districts. 11. That M A ESP initiate plans to conduct inservice programs at state conventions and regional meetings in order to improve p r i n c i p a l s ' effectiveness in providing leadership to parent-teacher o r g a n i z a t i o n groups. 12. T h a t a study be u n d e r t a k e n to discover why so few M i c h i g a n elementary school principals are c o m ­ pleting d octoral programs. And to a s c ertain what hurdles, if any, are blocking the path of principals in this state toward d octoral deg r e e attainment. 13. T h a t consideration be g i v e n in future studies to investigating the professional commitment, and performance of those persons serving in the principalship d ue to financial d e t e r m i n a n t s . 14. That central office administrators and boards of education should provide the encouragement, opportunities, and funding needed to enable elementary principals to participate in professional improvement opportunities. 15. That an investigation be made of the d e s i r ­ ability and eff e c t of district-wide responsibilities on the morale and performance of el e m e n t a r y school p r i n c i ­ pals . 237 16. T h a t MAESP Board of Directors take cognizance of the projected need to employ field-service consultants to handle the rising concerns and interests of principals regarding w e l f a r e and conditions of employment. 17. That a study be u n d e rtaken to determine specifically w h y acme M i c h i g a n principals are dissatisfied wit h conditions of their employment and, in addition, to ascertain h o w these dissatisfactions m i g h t be remedied. 18. T h a t many more superintendents and boards of education of M ichigan school districts pro v i d e o p p o r t u n i ­ ties for principals, either individually or collectively, to become involved in the teacher negotiation process. 19. That central office administrative personnel provide the encouragement and, if needed, the inservice training that will enable elementary principals to formulate p ersonal performance objectives and/or annual goals. 20. That m any M i c h i g a n principals should exercise more leadership in assisting teachers to e s t a b l i s h indi­ vidualized learning programs that are tailored to the needs of each child. 21. T h a t additional study be m a d e to determine whether the variations in the incidence o f employing corporal punishment expressed by principals in this study is supported by variations in behavior o n the part of their general student bodies. 238 22. That: M i chigan school d i s t r i c t s which are presently u t i lizing grades to report elementary pupil progress should move to discontinue this invidious practice* 23. T h a t MAESP leadership c o n t i n u e to involve the m e m b e r s h i p of the o r g a n i z a t i o n in a balance of inservice and welfare p r o g r a m s and activities. 24. T hat elementary school principals who do not hold m emberships in their local, state, and national principals * associations give serious consideration to their professional obliga t i o n of joining, supporting, and participating in the activities and programs of these organizations. 25. T h a t MAESP Board of Directors actively seek dialogue w i t h leader m e m b e r s of the D e t r o i t Public Schools principals' group in an attempt to determine areas of m u t u a l benefit and collective concern. 26. That periodic studies of the Michigan e l e ­ mentary school principalship be undertaken every decade which would correspond to the national sur v e y and would provide meaningful data for elementary principals to ascertain their prevailing status, and to e s t a b l i s h trends. thought, and practices In addition, M A E S P should commission ann u a l studies o f adjunctive re s e a r c h p e r ­ tinent to the elementary principalship. 239 CONCLUDING STATEMENT The p r o b l e m of this study w a s to i d entify a s t a t istic a l p o r t r a y a l of the status o f the e l e m e n tary school p r i n c i p a l s h i p in M i c h i g a n t h a t c o u l d serve as i n f o r m a t i o n for v a r i o u s e ducational groups. The study p r o b l e m has b e e n invest i g a t e d and the d a t a analyzed. Of c o n c e r n n o w is t h a t d e c i s i o n s m a d e in the light of these findings b e d i r e c t e d toward the g oal of i m p r o v i n g and eq u a l i z i n g the qua l i t y of e d u c a t i o n w i t h i n all of the schools in the state of Michigan. Hopefully, M i c h i g a n e l e m e n t a r y school principals, u n i v e r s i t y faculty m e m b e r s w h o are charged w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n of p r i n c i ­ pals, boards o f e d u c a t i o n members, c e n t r a l office personnel, s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s an d and others w h o a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the i m p r o v e m e n t of t h e e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p will take the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , tively, i n d i v i d u a l l y and c o l l e c ­ for b r i n g i n g a b o u t this goal. REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED Arms, H a l t e r E. "The E l e m e n t a r y Sch o o l P r i n c i p a l s h i p in Indiana." U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r ' s d i s s e r tat ion, Ind i a n a University, 1968. Andlauer, H e r b e r t R. "The E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i ­ p a l in N e w Jersey, A C o m p a r a t i v e Study." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. Brothers, J o h n E. "The E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l ­ s hip in O k l a h o m a . " Unpublished Doctor's dis­ sertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Oklahoma, 1969. Gill, Donald, and Merigis, Har r y . "A S t u d y of the S t a t u s and F u n c t i o n s o f the E l e m e n t a r y School P r i n c i p a l s h i p in Illinois." Charleston, Illinois: E a s t e r n I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. Lepick, J o h n A., Jr. "P e r s o n a l and P r o f e s s i o n a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of E l e m e n t a r y School P r i n cipals." U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r ' s d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h e r n C alifornia, 1961. Jarvis, O. T., Parker, C. A., and Moore, A. A., Jr. "Status S u r v e y of the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l ­ s h i p in Georgia, 1969." G e o r g i a D e p a r t m e n t of E l e m e n t a r y School Princi p a l s , GEA, a n d Bureau o f E d u c a t i o n and Field Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia, 1970. M o d el a n d , L e m u e l O. "The S t a t u s of the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s h i p in Kansas, 1966-1 9 6 7 ." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation. University o f Oklahoma, 1968. Moss, R o b e r t H. "A C o m p a r a t i v e Study o f t h e JobS t a t u s o f the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s in W y o m i n g a n d Selected O t h e r States." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Brigham Y o u n g Un i v e r s i t y , 1966. 241 9. Perkin s , L a w r e n c e H. HT h e S t a t u s o f t h e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l in O r e g o n . 1* U n p u b l i s h e d D o c t o r ' s dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1965. 10 . Shelton, A u b r e y W. "The A r k a n s a s E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Pr i n c i p a l s h i p of 1963." Unpublished Doctor's d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A r k a n s a s , 1964. 11 . Stoker, W. M . , a n d R a s c o e , J o h n . "The E l e m e n t a r y School P r i nc i p a l s h i p in Texas." C a n y o n , Texas: W e s t T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1966. 12 . Warren, H a r o l d L . "Characteristics and Selected Edu­ cational Views of M i s s o u r i ' s Public E l e me n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s o f 1967." Unpublished Doctor's d i s s e r t a t i o n , St. L o u i s U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. 13 . Y o u n g b l o o d , C h e s t e r E. "A S t u d y o f t h e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s h i p in T e x a s . " Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, North Texas State Col­ lege, 1961. 14 . D e p a r t m e n t o f E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s , MEA. "Eleven Hundred Principals of M i c h i g a n Examine T h e i r S t a t u s in 1 9 5 1 - 1 9 5 2 . " The Study Commission of t h e M D E S P , 1952. 15. D e p a r t m e n t o f E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s , NEA. The E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s h i p — T o d a y and T o m o r r o w . Twenty— Seventh Yearbook. Washington, D . C .: T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 194 8. 16 . _________ * T h e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s h i p — A Research S t u d y . Thirty-Seventh Yearbook. W a s h i n g t o n , DTC.: T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1958. 17 . The Elementary School Principalship— A Research S t u d y . Washington, D . C . : The Associ­ a t i o n , 1968. APPENDICES Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals Affiliated with the Micmgan Congress ot School Administrate! Associations POST OFFICE BOX 1455 • EAST LANSING, M ICHIG AN 48823 • PHONE 517 353:8770 A STUDY OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP IN MICHIGAN November 12, 1971 DEAR MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL: Your cooperation Is needed to carry out an M A E S P - sponsored research study to determine the present status, viewpoints, and practices of Michigan elementary school principals. The survey data being collected are expected to have direct benefits for you and your profession. Published results will become a formidible weapon in MAESP*s arsenal for upgrading the status and welfare of its membership. When presented to boards of education and superintendents, it may offer evidence that principals need and deserve help to improve their performance and conditions of employment. The DEADLINE for insuring that your response will be included in the study data is DECEMBER 1st. Although you will find the questionnaire quite comprehensive, all questions can be answered with a single checkmark. Note that you are not to sign your name and that the survey is not coded in any way which will permit identification. This, we hope, will encourage forthright answers. In order to provide this anonymity, yet enable us to follow up with reminder notices to non-respondents, we have enclosed a stamped postcard to Identify ineligibles and principals who have completed and mailed the form. Follow-up reminders are costly but necessary to this study because every individual response is really important to assure the necessary validity and accuracy in our results. Postage and a mailing label are also enclosed for your conven­ ience in returning the survey to MAESP State Office. Please set aside a 15-20 minute period of time in your busy schedule to complete and return the postcard and questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation. James M. Jennings Study Researcher Dr. R. L. Featherstone Directing Professor, MSU Edward P. Keller Exec. Sec., MAESP THE STATUS OF THE MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP A STUDY OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1971 - 1972 ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDY To be eligible for the study, the respondent should meet the following criteria: 1. You should be a full-time principal with no regularly required teaching assignment. 2. Your principalship may include any combination including grades K-6 (e.g., K-8, K-S, 4-6, 5-8). If your answer is NO to these conditions, your survey is not necessary to this study. Please sign and return the postcard withholding any completion reminder notices. If your answer is YES to both these conditions, please complete the questionnaire and mail it to MAESP State Office. You are then requested to sign and return the postcard indicating study completion. STUDY DIRECTIONS FOR THE FULL-TIME ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL: Please check ALL items in the survey as they apply to you in your present situation and past experiences. All questions can be answered with a single checkmark within a 15-20 minute period. Upon completion, attach the enclosed stamp and address label to the envelope in which you received the survey and mail before DECEMBER 1st. You are also requested to return the postcard in order that we can withhold any completion reminder notices. I. PERSONAL INFORMATION 1. Please indicate your SEX: 2. What is your AGE? 3. Please indicate your RACIAL-ETHNIC group: Male Female (1) (2) -01 Less than 35 35-4 9 years 50-64 years 65 or older (1) (2) (3) (4) -02 Afro-American American Indian Oriental American Spanish-surnamed American Caucasian All others (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) -03 (nearest birthday) */ 4 Do you LIVE WITHIN the boundaries of the school district which employs you? YES NO <1> (2) -04 5 Please indicate your BIRTHPLACE: In district where presently employed In Michigan, within 50 miles of present district Elsewhere in Michigan Outside of Michigan (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4) -05 (1) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) -06 YES NO (1 ) (2) -07 Democrat Republican independent Other <1> (2 ) f3) (4) -08 - 5 -10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 more (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) -09 100 to 2999 3000 to 24999 25000 or more (1) (2) (3) -10 (1) (2) (3) -11 What is your current MARITAL STATUS? Single Married Divorced Separated Widowed 7 Are you the sole WAGE EARNER in your family? 8 What is your POLITICAL PREFERENCE? Spec i fy________ II. YO UR S C H O O L A N D ITS R E S O U R C E S 1. How many elementary schools are there in your SCHOOL DISTRICT? 2. What is your school system ENROLLMENT? 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 or How would you characterize the COMMUNITY of your total school district? What was your school district's 1975-7I OPERATING EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL? Suburban Urban Rural $800 & per $700 per (Please consider carefully as this $600 item is of critical importance to this per study. You can request the inforroations ,.Q_ from your business office or leave the *1,1,9 & per item for MAESP to check by providing us with the following :) SCHOOL DISTRICT COUNTY (write in) above pupil $799 pupil $699 pupil below pupil < * > . (2) (3) (4) (write ini -12 jiy y 5. How many SEPARATELY NAMED SCHOOLS arc under your direction? 6. Please indicate what GRADES ARE TAUGHT under your direction: One Two Three Pour or more Specify Grades K-6 Pre-K-6 K-5 K-8 4-6 K-3 Other 7. Please indicate thetotalPUPILENROLLMENT Below of the school (s)under yourdirection: 100 400 700 1000 or 8, How would you characterize the NEIGHBORHOOD your school serves? (indicate its primary economic character) Above average Average Below average Distinct diversity 9. What is the average number of STUDENTS PER CLASSROOM TEACHER in your school(s)? 15 or fewer 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 or above How many FULL-TIME classroom teacher POSITIONS arc under your direction? (1)____ (2) (3) (4) (5)____ (6)____ (7)____ (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7).. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Zero -5% - 10% - 20% - 30% - 40% - 50% above (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) None One-half position One position One and one-half positions Two positions More than two positions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 6 11 21 31 41 51% & -i: -1^ (1)____ -IE (2) (3) (4)__ (5) Below 5 5-14 15 ~ 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 & above What PERCENTAGE of your classroom teaching staff is MALE? How much SECRETARIAL HELP is available to you on a regular basis? 100 - 399 - 699 - 999 more (X) (2)' (3) (4) (7) (8) lib 13. Does your school have an ADEQUATE supply and selection of LIBRARY BOOKS for students? YES NO (1) (2) -21 14. Do your teachers have available ADEQUATE TEACHING MATERIALS and INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS? YES NO (1) (2) -22 15. Which ONE item best describes your OFFICE FACILITIES: Exceptionally good Satisfactory in space and equipment Have enough space but need office equipment Have enough equipment but need space Just room for a desk; not much else Have no real office for principal at present time (1 ) -23 16. Do you feel your school RECEIVES as much SERVICE from SPECIALIZED PERSONNEL in areas related to curriculum and learning problems as other Michigan schools? (e.g., reading specialist, social worker, music teacher, testing specialist, science consultant, psychologist) 17. Did your district operate during the 1971-72 school year under an AUSTERITY BUDGET necessitated by a lack of local community support for proposed millage? (2 ) (3) (4) (5) (6 ) Much more More About the same Less Much less (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) -24 YES NO (1 ) -25 (2) 18. What type of PARENT ORGANIZATION GROUP presently serves P.T.A. (associated with Michigan & National Congress) p.t.o. (independent organization; includes councils) No formalized organizational body exists 19. Is your parent-teacher group an active and dynamic (D. operation whose meetings have been reasonably well- NO (2) attended during the past twelve months? your school? -26 (1) (2) (3) III. EXPERIENCE. TRAINING, AND ASPIRATIONS Indicate your TOTAL NUMBER YEARS of EXPERIENCE in education: (include current year) How many YEARS have you served as a full-time elementary principal? (include current year) Less than f9 (1) 10 - 19 years (2) 20 - 29 years (3) 30 - 39 years (4) (5) 40 or more 1 - 3 years (1) (2) 4 - 9 years 10 - 19 years (3) 20 - 29 years (4) 30 - 39 years (5) (6) 40 or more None; I'm part-time (7) -27 3. What position did you hold just prior to your FIRST elementary school principalship. classroom teacher (elementary)__ (1)____ -30 Classroom teacher (secondary) (2)____ Assistant principal (elcmon.) (3)____ Assistant principal (second.) (4)____ Secondary principal (5)____ Central office specialist (6)____ Member of college faculty (7)____ Graduate student in college (8)____ Other (write in) (9)____ 4. Please indicate where you received the major part of your GRADUATE SCHOOL EDUCATION: CMU EMU MSU NMU UD (1)____ (2)____ (3) (4)____ (5) UM (6)____ WMU WSU Outside Michigan (7)____ (8)____ (9i)____ 5. Indicate the area that best describes your MAJOR FIELD of graduate work: 6. What is the highest COLLEGEDEGREE you have earned? 7. How long since you were LAST ENROLLED for credit courses at a college or university? 8. Do you consider the elementary school principalship as your FINAL OCCUPATIONAL GOAL? -31 Elementary-school administration (1)____ -32 Elomentary-school instruction (2)___ Elem. supervision & curriculum (3)__ Secondary-school administration (4)____ General school administration (5)_ An academic subject (6)_ No graduate work or specialization (7)_ Less than Bachelor's Bachelor's Master's Specialist's Sixth Year Doctoral degree (1)____ degree (2)____ degree (3)____ degree (4)____ degree__(5)____ Presently enrolled Less than 1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 or more years YES NO Undecided If your answer to the question above is "NO", to what position do you ASPIRE? Classroom teacher (elementary) Classroom teacher (secondary) Secondary principalship Supervisor (central office) Director of elem. education Superintendent of schools Position outside education Other (write in) -33 (1)____ (2)____ (3)____ (4)____ (5)____ (6)____ (7)____ -34 (1)____ (2) (3) -35 (1)____ -36 (2)____ (3)____ (4)____ (5)____ (6)____ (7)____ (8) 2-^/ i 9. 10. Suppose you were starting Certainly would over again, would you BECOME Probably would an elementary principal? About even for & against Probably not Certainly not (1) (2) (3)____ (4)____ (5)____ If you were offered the SAME SALARY to become a full-time CLASSROOM TEACHER as you presently earn as an administrator, would you continue in the elementary school principalship? YES, I would continue as principal (1)____ NO, I would return to teaching (2)____ -37 -38 IV. WELFARE 3 WORK CO.IDITIO.IS What is the LENGTH of your current EMPLOYMENT? (include any summer school duties; exclude vacation weeks) 39 weeks or 40 42 44 46 48 50 or 4. On the average, how many HOURS PER WEEK do you spend at school on regular duties and school-related activities? (include lunch periods, and any evening and/or weekend service) more (1) <2) -39 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) YES NO (1) (2) -40 Less than 36 36 - 41 42 - 47 48 - 53 54 - 59 60 - 65 66 - 71 72 or more (1) (2) -41 Do you normally work during the SUMMER MONTHS in a field OTHER than education? (consider only years served as principal) 3. less - 41 - 43 - 45 - 47 - 49 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) To what extent do you receive opportunities and encouragement to participate in PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT activities: ACTIVITY MUCH OPPORTUNITY Inservice for administrators (1) Visitation to other schools (1) MAESP/NAESP association (1) meetings & conventions Attendance at non-AESP (1) workshops & conferences If you have indicated conference and convention participation in the questions above, indicate how your EXPENSES were handled: SOME OPPORTUNITY NO OPPORTUNITY (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3) -42 -43 -44 (2) (3) -45 100% Self 100% District Comb, of 1 & 2 (1) (2) (3) -46 in "i 5. Do you have anyDISTRICT-WIDE administrative responsibilities in addition to your principalship? (e.g., transportation, cafeteria) 6. Please indicate how your district generally fills principalship OPENINGS: Promotes from within ranks Hires outside applicants Combination of 1 & 2 above 7. 8. 9. 10 , YES NO (1) (2) -47 (1) (2) (3) -48 Please indicate HOW your principalship SALARY IS DETERMINED: By individual negotiation (1)_ By administrator group negotiation (2)_ By superintendent's offer or schedule (3)_ Other (write in) (4) What is your opinion about HOW salary SHOULD BE DETERMINED: By individual negotiation (1 ) (2) By administrator group negotiation By superintendent's offer or schedule (3) Other (write in)______________________ (4) Do you feel salary increases for PRINCIPALS are laggingbehindsalary increases for TEACHERS in your district? Taking everything into consideration, are you presently SATISFIED with your SALARY AND WORKING CONDITIONS? YES NO (1 ) Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Both satis. & dissat. Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4) (5) -49 -50 -51 (2 ) -52 11. What should be the FUTURE direction of MAESP services & activities? Professional welfare services only (1) -53 Leadership inservice activities only (2) Balanced welfare & leadership activity (3) 12. What is your opinion concerning the benefits of MAESP membership to the principalship? Of much O f some Of little Of no value va1ue value value (1) (2 ) (3) (4) -54 (1) -55 V. ADi IIrlISTRATI VE/SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES & VIEWPOINTS 1. What is the principal's ROLE in your school system when TEACHERS NEGOTIATE with the board of education? A representative of the principals sits on the board negotiating team Principals serve only as advisors to the board negotiating team Principals are not involved in the teacher negotiation process Other (write in) (2) (3) (4) Aro principals in your district required to submit personal PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES and/or GOALS for the year ahead to the central office administration? YES NO {1) {2) How are principals in your school district EVALUATED? According to formal policy developed WITHOUT principal involvement According to formal policy developed WITH principal involvement No policy exists, but we're evaluated We aro not evaluated Other (write i n ) ______________ (3) (4) (5) In what ONE AREA do you find your most personally REWARDING DUTIES as an elementary principal: Organization and management of the school Periodic classroom teaching Working with the teaching staff Pupil adjustment and guidance Program development and curriculum Public relations: building understanding (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) In what ONE AREA do you SPEND the greatest amount of T I M E : Organization and management of the school (1) Periodic classroom teaching (2) Working with the teaching staff (3) Pupil adjustment and guidance (4) Program development and curriculum (5) Public relations: building understanding (6) In what ONE AREA would you MOST LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME: Am satisfied with my present time allotment(1) Organization and management of the school (2) Periodic classroom teaching (3) Working with the teaching staff (4) Pupil adjustment and guidance (5) Program development and curriculum (6) Public relations: building understanding (7) In your school system, what is your perception of the CENTRAL OFFICE VIEW of the elementary principalship? a. b. c. The elementary principal is recognized publicly as the head of his school with considerable authority to plan, organize, and administer his school's educational program. The principal is viewed as the administrative head of the school, assigned primarily to carry out the policies and plans of the central office. He is given some encouragement to plan for his own building. The principal is neither encouraged nor authorized to proceed independently to alter his own school's program in any significant manner. (1) (2) (3) JL* ) Considerable Somewhat Little None (1) (2) (3) (4) 8. Please indicate the extent to which your teachers have INDIVIDUALIZED and tailored the instructional program to the needs of each child in your school: 9. Please indicate the one most SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT that has taken place in your school within the past FIVE years: Curriculum and program development (1) (2 )' Organizational change (e.g., team teaching) New instructional materials & facilities (3)' (4)* Methodological approaches (e.g., individualizing) Professionalization of teaching staff (5 ) Para-professional involvement <6>; 10 . To what extent have you used CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (spanking) as a disciplinary measure within the past twelve months: Often Occasionally Seldom Rarely Never (1 ) (2 ) (3)' (4)' (5)' 11, What method(s) do the majority of teachers in your school use in communicating P U P I L P R O G R E S S to parents? a. Grades (e.g., ABC':3, S + U) (1) (2) b. Parent-teacher conferences (3) c. Item checklists (4) d. Written commentary (5) e. Combination of a & b (6) f. Combination of a & d (7) g. Combination of d & b (8) h. Combination of c & d i. Other (write in) (9) 12. Taking everything into consideration, to what extent are you SATISFIED with your overall PERFORMANCE as an elementary principal: (please be frank) Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Both satis. & dissat. Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) -62 -63 -64 - U OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Oil SPECIFIC QUESTIONS About Question_______ in section______ I want to say: About Question______ in section______ I want to say: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS STUDY OF THE MAESP MEMBERSHIP Survey Mailing: The enclosed postage and mailing label may be attached to the envelope in which you received the questionnaire. Postcard Mailing: You may now mail the enclosed postcard inaicaCIKg'you are returning the study questionnaire. This will notify MAESP that costly follow-up reminder letters need not be sent. Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals Affiliated with the Michigan Congress of School Administrator Associations POST OFFICE BOX 1455 * EAST LANSING, M ICHIGAN 48823 * PHONE 517 353,8770 A STUDY OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP IN MICHIGAN Professor Directing Study: Dr. R. L. Featherstone, M.S.U. Researcher Conducting Study: James Jennings, PhD Candidate Dear Michigan Elementary School Principal: Acting upon the endorsement of the Professional Standards Commission, your MAESP Executive Board is sponsoring a compre­ hensive research study of our Association membership. STUDY DESCRIPTION The study will determine the present status, thought, and practice of the elementary school principalship in Michigan. A thorough investigation will be made of the Michigan elementary principal's personal characteristics, duties and functions, wel­ fare and conditions of employment. It will compare the prevail­ ing status with a 1951-52 MAESP-sponsored status study of the Michigan principalship and with a recent national study. Rela­ tionships will be examined among principals grouped according to expenditure level of school district. STUDY METHOD The information for this study will be obtained from a questionnaire sent to the membership of MAESP in November. Each MAESP member will receive the survey instrument. BENEFITS TO THE ASSOCIATION AND MEMBERSHIP The survey data being collected «r» expected to have direct benefits for you and your profession. The study information will be used to develop a statistical portrayal of the rapidly changing personal and professional characteristics of elementary school principals. Published results will become a formidable weapon in MAESP's arsenal for upgrading the status and welfare of its membership. When presented to superintendents and boards of education, it may offer evidence that principals need and de­ serve help to improve their performance and conditions of employment. OUR RECOMMENDATION We commend this study as being in your professional inter­ est, We hope you will set aside a period of time in your busy schedule to promptly complete and return the survey form. MAESP STUDY COMPLETION NOTIFICATION FOR ELIGIBLE PRINCIPALSt I h a v e f i l l e d o u t m y q u e s t i o n n a i r e and m a i l e d i t to MA E S P S t a t e Office. Please withhold any forth­ coming completion reminder letters. (Signa t u r e ) (Date) IF I N E L I G I B L E ; I am n o t a full-time elementary principal and do n o t q u a l i f y for t h e M A E S P s t u d y . Please withh ol d any forthcoming completion reminders. (Signa t u r e ) P.S. (Date) T h a n k y o u for y o u r p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t a n d p r o m p t return of the s u r v e y and this card. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP IN MICHIGAN A Research Project Proposal Presented the Board o f to Directors Michigan Association of E l e m entary School F A L L - 1971 by JamzA M. Jznn^ingi Principals THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP IN MICHIGAN PROPOSAL TO THE ASSOCIATION It is proposed that the Executive Board of MAESP sponsor a comprehensive research study of the status of the membership of the Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals. STUDY DESCRIPTION The study will determine the present status, thought, and practice of the elementary school principalship in the state of Michigan. A thorough investigation will be made of the Michigan elementary principal's personal characteristics, duties and functions, welfare and conditions of employment, community and professional involvements. His professional growth, training and experience, educational views, aspirations, and sources of job gratification will be explored as well. The study will compare the prevailing status with a 1951-52 MAESP sponsored status study of the Michigan principalship and with a recent national study. Relationships will be examined among principals of differing types and from different kinds of communities. STUDY METHOD The information for this study will be obtained from a questionnaire sent to the membership of MAESP. Each MAESP member will receive the survey instrument. It is an extensive, general study of the Michigan principalship rather than an intensive study of one segment. AESP SPONSORSHIP PRECEDENCE There exists considerable precedence for state elementary principal associations granting study sponsorship to researchers undertaking status studies. Within the past ten years, the following state AESP groups have provided financial assistance to status study projects similar to the one being proposed: Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Ohio, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California. Sponsorship of studies undertaken as dissertation projects has included such considerations as: 1. direct commissioning of the total project 2. provision of endorsement letters 3. printing of the questionnaire 4. supplying mailing costs and clerical assistance 5. arranging project publicity in Association media and meetings MAESP SPONSORSHIP REQUESTED It is felt both MAESP and the researcher can mutually benefit by joining forces in producing what should become the most extensive and comprehensive status study of a state elemen­ tary principal group ever attempted. The Board of Directors should note that a "dust collecting" study of lesser dimension and scope, involving considerably less cost and effort, could be produced without MAESP support and assistance. Instead, the investigator offers to produce a study of significance that should be of real value to the Association and its membership in improving their status and welfare. In order to gain the opportunity to become associated with the proposed status study of Michigan elementary principals, the Association is being requested to provide the following sponsor­ ship support: 1. use of the Association mailing list 2. advance notification of the project in Association publications and at the state conference 3. designation of the state office for the return of the completed questionnaires 4. assistance from members of the Board who might communicate with fellow principals in their regions about the importance of the study and the need for a prompt return of the survey 5. assistance with selected phases of questionnaire preparation and mailing costs used in surveying the membership: $66 - mailing and return envelopes $47 - letterhead stationery and paper $300 - mailing and return postage $20 - bound copy of study for MAESP files $17 - clerical costs to state office $4 50 - PROJECTED COST TO ASSOCIATION BASED ON ESTIMATED SAMPLE SIZE (membership expected to be processed by 11/12/71 survey mailing date) 2^>- 7 Note: So as not to unduly affect the operation of the state office, the researcher has made other arrangements for the collating, stapling, stamping, and envelope stuffing of the survey instruments ($100). Furthermore, he will assume computer analysis charges, including data card, code sheet, and key punching costs ($300), as well as production costs for the dissertation itself ($600). BENEFITS TO THE ASSOCIATION AND MEMBERSHIP Possible national attention and identification with the most comprehensive and extensive status study of the elementary prin­ cipalship to date. This study should become a formidable weapon in MAESP's arsenal for improving conditions and practices of elementary principals. When presented to boards and superintendents, it may offer evidence that principals need and deserve help to improve their status and welfare. For an organization that has recently instituted a dues increase, it would seem wise to demonstrate immediate interest in each principal’s personal situation and viewpoints. The involvement of the total membership in contributing to the study data will do much to make them more cognizant of M A E S P 's concern for their welfare and status. In addition, total sampling involvement will lead to greater interest in arrf utilization of published results in upgrading and improving themselves in position. The study may serve as a guideline for local superintendents and boards of education in developing policies and formulating realistic job descriptions for principals. Results should provide meaningful data for colleges and universities regarding the professional preparation of the elementary principalship. The results may aid in helping local districts develop improved plans for recruiting, selecting, and preparing candi­ dates for the principalship. The study may indicate and suggest the need for improvements in Association inservice programs Findings may be applied to increase MAESP efforts in achiev­ ing state certification standards. The study should provide a meaningful base from which MAESP leaders and members may make more adequately confirmed judgments regarding current administrative issues and practices. A current 1971-7 2 research study would update the 1951-52 status study that was sponsored by the Association. No compre­ hensive study of the elementary principalship has been made in the past two decades. In light of scarcity of past studies which assess the status of the elementary principal in Michigan, it has been conjectured that this study might serve as a guide to future periodic studies of MAESP. Hopefully, the Association will undertake the project as a part of the organization's long-range planning program. BENEFITS REALIZED BY THE RESEARCHER Sponsored endorsement of a study of this magnitude by a recognized and respected state professional organization would accomplish the following for the researcher: 1. encourage a greater response to the survey questionnaire 2. provide needed financial and service assistance made necessary by the breadth and depth of the proposed study 3. increase the probability that study results will reach the attention of those interested in improving the status and welfare of elementary principals 4. consultation with the Executive Secretary and MAESP leadership leading to project improvement CONSIDERATIONS GRANTED BY THE RESEARCHER The investigator submits that in return for the sponsorship necessitated to conduct the study at the level indicated, the Association will be granted the following considerations: 1. complete access to and full use of the collected data will be rendered to the Association and its members 2. recognition of all support and assistance provided by MAESP will be made within the publication of the study. The Association's endorsement and Executive Secretary's name/title will appear on the transmittal letter and/or questionnaire 3. authorization will be given to MAESP to publish wholly or in part sections being pertinent to Association members. Monies derived from any sale of material published by MAESP for member distribution will be used to further the work of the organization. 4. Consideration will be given to the inclusion of special data-seeking questions within the questionnaire which MAESP leadership considers pertinent 5. Collected literature and research material dealing with status studies will be turned over to the MAESP Library (over $100 in purchased materials to date) NAESP ENCOURAGES STATE STATUS STUDIES Statewide studies of the status of elementary principal groups are recommended by the National Association of Elementary School Principals in their Twenty-seventh Yearbook. The National Association recommends: "If principals, through their own professional groups, are to help lift the principalship to higher standards they need to begin by examining the charac­ teristics of principals serving the schools today. From these basic facts and self-appraisal they can set in motion the plans and programs necessary to produce the levels of experience and preparation desired both in the principals of today and those yet to be born professionally." "State and local associations in the next few years should make studies of the principalship so as to bring out further details with respect to the ages, experience, and preparation of principals now in service." COMMENT BY IDA MCGUIRE, PRESIDENT OF MICHIGAN DESP, 19 50-5 2 (Excerpt from 1951-52 status study of Michigan principals) "The Elementary Principal must have professional status. He must be freed from routine and clerical tasks, to take his rightful place of leadership in the elementary school program. This problem of Elementary Principal status, of his identifying himself in his role in elementary education for the purpose of raising the present standard, was taken as the major work effort by the Executive Board in 1951-52." ASSOCIATION REQUIREMENT MET The research project has received unanimous approval from the investigator's doctoral committee and satisfies dissertation requirements of the Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, Michigan State University. The study is being directed by a former vice-president of MAESP, Dr. Richard Featherstone. A letter from Dr. Featherstone on behalf the committee has been for­ warded to the Association requesting support for the project. ABOUT THE RESEARCHER The researcher has been a practicing elementary principal in Michigan schools for the past ten years. He has participated in Association activities at the regional, state, and national levels while serving principalships at Galesburg-Augusta (Region 3) , Water­ ford Township, Pontiac (Region 7), and East Lansing (Region 8). He has been working concurrently toward the doctoral degree in Educational Administration since his 196 8 appointment to the principalship of Whitehills School, East Lansing Public Schools.