IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page{s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image o f the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NO TE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 I I 74-13,944 NIGRO, Kirk A . , 1941AN ANALYSIS OF AN APPRAISAL, BY GRADUATES, OF THE SPECIALIST AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1965-1972. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, administration University Microfilms, A © aERGXCom pany, 1974 KIRK A. NIGRO ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A nn Arbor, M ichigan AN ANALYSIS OF AN APPRAISAL, BY GRADUATES, OF THE SPECIALIST AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1965-1972 By Kirk A. Nigro A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration and Higher Education 1973 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF AN APPRAISAL, BY GRADUATES, OF THE SPECIALIST AND DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1965-1972 By Kirk A. Nigro Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the program in educational administration at Michigan State University, as viewed by graduates holding the specialist or doctoral degree, granted between 1965 and 1972, inclusive. Procedures for the Study A questionnaire was sent to each of the 350 living recipients of the specialist or doctoral degrees. A return cf 283 responses (82.3 percent) was the result of 132 specialist returns and 156 doctoral returns. Demographic data such as age, income, and present position were examined. In addition, respondents rated several reasons for their choice of M.S.U. as the institution at which to pursue their respective degrees. Respondents also rated components of the program in educational administration in terms of the contribution each made to the respondents' personal and professional growth while at M.S.U. Kirk A. Nigro Twenty skill areas were included in the questionnaire and respondents rated each in terms of how well the educa­ tional administration program at M.S.U. prepared them in each skill area. Three open-ended questions allowed respondents the opportunity to mention strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvements in the program. Data and findings were presented in tabular and written form, and indicated most frequently in sums and per­ centages. Chi-square and Cramer’s mean square contingency coefficient were used to statistically measure relationships between various groups of individuals and variables. Major Findings of the Study 1. The mean age of respondents entering the program was 35.8 years for specialists and 34.4 years for doctors. At the time the degree was received, mean ages were 39.4 years (specialists) and 38.4 years (doctors). 2. In terms of present position, 88.2 percent were in administration, 10.4 percent teaching, 1.0 percent con­ sulting and .3 percent research. 3. Only 6.9 percent of the respondents were earning $15,999 or less. A total of 52.4 percent were earning $22,000 or higher. 4. The most frequently cited reason for attending M.S.U. was offer of financial assistance (doctors) and proxi­ mity of M.S.U. to home or job (both doctors and specialists). Kirk A. Nigro 5. Seminars and the extern program (specialists) and association with major professors (doctors) received the highest ratings in terms of the contribution each made to the respondents1 personal and professional growth while at M.S.U. 6. The extern program was listed most frequently as the most valuable course by specialists and theory of administration, by doctors. 7. Eighty-five respondents stated that no course could be singled out as a least valuable course. 8. The highest rating by doctors in 20 different skill areas was school-community relations. rated decision-making skills highest. Specialists These ratings were based on respondents1 views of how well M.S.U. had prepared them in each skill area. 9. Respondents reported staff as being the greatest strength of the program. 10. One-fourth of all respondents reported that any weaknesses in the program were of their own making. 11. The leading suggestion for improvement, stated that course work should have a broad base, taught by instructors who have a great deal of practical experience. To Don J. Nigro, my father, whose respect for truth, knowledge, and intelligence has been a constant inspiration to me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals deserve my deepest thanks for their role in the completion of this dissertation. Dr. Alexander Kloster's guidance, patience, sug­ gestions and good humor all served to expedite the completion of this study. The other committee members, Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Louis Romano, and Dr. Harold Spaeth have all been com­ pletely supportive since the very initiation of the study. My immediate family, Mary, Bobbi and Pete, have exhibited great patience, over a long period of time. too, have Gert and Mike. So I thank them all for their never- ending confidence. My parents* support has been invaluable as well. In so many ways, and at so many times, their help and encourage­ ment have been instrumental since childhood in whatever success I may have achieved. A special thanks is due Captain William Hayes for his assistance in preparing the computer progiram for treating the raw data. Without his help, months would have been lost. The study would not have reached a conclusion were it not for the large number of degree recipients who responded to the questionnaire. The Board of Education of Harrison Community Schools, the late Robert M. Larson and Superintendent Wayne E. Bucholz iii all have been extremely cooperative in providing released time for me to finish this study. A one year leave of absence which was granted to me, made the completion of this study possible. I can only say thank you to these people and many other friends, all of whom deserve so much more. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .......................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ix Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE P R O B L E M .......................... 1 Introduction ................................ The P r o b l e m ................................... Design and Methodology ...................... Delimitations of the Study ................ Definition of Terms ......................... Significance of the Problem ................ Objectives ................................... II. 1 2 2 3 4 5 9 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ......................... 11 General Administrative Theory ............. 11 The Administrator as a Leader.................. 14 Training the L e a d e r ............................ 17 Appraisals of Education Administration Programs at Selected Universities. . . . 23 III. METHODOLOGY OF THE S T U D Y ......................... 30 The Variables The I n s t r u m e n t ............................... The Sample .................................. Data Collection and A n a l y s i s .................. IV. GRADUATES' PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROGRAM . . 30 31 33 34 .36 A g e ............................................ 37 Present Position ............................. 40 Job S a t i s f a c ti o n............................... 44 Income Levels ................................ 45 Other Graduate W o r k ............................ 46 Choice of Michigan State University . . . 49 Personal and Professional Development . . . 53 Return to Michigan State University . . . 57 Program Change ............................. 58 Skill A r e a s .................................. 65 General Hypotheses ......................... 88 v Chapter V. Page STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND SUGGESTIONS . . . 93 S t r e n g t h s .......................................93 S t a f f .......................................93 F l e x i b i l i t y ................................ 94 Extern Program ......................... 94 Mott I n t e r n s h i p ............................. 94 C h a i r m a n ....................................95 Course W o r k ................................ 95 Other S t u d e n t s ............................ 95 Other S t r e n g t h s .........................9 6 W e a k n e s s e s ................................... 96 ...................... 96 Individual Factors Course W o r k ................................ 98 Red T a p e ....................................98 Comprehensives or Residency ............. 99 Prior E x p e r i e n c e ............................ 99 Other W e a k n e s s e s ............................ 99 Respondents' Suggestions for Program I m p r o v e m e n t ............................... 100 Course W o r k ............................... 102 I n t e r n s h i p s ............................... 102 ...................... 103 Workshops-Seminars Residency Requirements . . . . . . . 1 0 3 Meetings......................................104 Field W o r k .................................. 104 Credit for Experience ................... 104 Current Problems ......................... 105 Comprehensive Exams ...................... 107 ...................... 107 Faculty Evaluation 108 Dissertation Substitution ................ Dissertation Proposal ................... 108 Language Requirement ................... 109 Statistics and Research Skills . . . . 109 C o g n a t e ......................................109 Additional Courses ...................... 110 Assistantship ............................. 110 Other Suggestions............................ 110 S u m m a r y ......................................Ill VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 113 F i n d i n g s ......................................113 C o n c l u s i o n s .................................. 118 Recommendations ............................. 122 S u m m a r y ......................................127 Page APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . ............. A. Cover Letters and Questionnaire . . . . B. Graduate Credit Taken Elsewhere.............13 9 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...................................... 144 vii 129 130 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Advanced Graduate Degrees Earned............. 36 . Z. Ages of R e s p o n d e n t s .......................... 38 3. Employment of Respondents .................... 41 4. Income L e v e l s ................................ 46 5. Choice of Michigan State University Respondents' Mean Scores................... 49 Choice of Michigan State University Respondents' Major Reasons ................ 51 Personal and Professional Development Specialists' Scores ...................... 55 Personal and Professional Development Doctors' and Total Mean Scores . . . . 56 9. Program C h a n g e s ............................. 58 10. Most Valuable C o u r s e ....................... 62 11. Least Valuable Course ....................... 64 12. Skill A r e a s ................................ 6. 7. 8. viii 66 LIST OF FIGURES Present Position ......................... 43 Income Levels . 47 ................... Choice of Michigan State University. 52 Personal and Professional Development . 54 Research Skills 67 ......................... Statistical Skills ...................... 68 Decision Making Skills ................... 69 School Law 70 ............................. School Buildings ......................... 71 General Finance 72 ......................... Business Administration ................ 73 ................................ 74 Millage/Bond Issues ...................... 75 Policy Development ...................... 76 ................................ 77 Budgeting Planning School-Community Relations ............. Staff Personnel Administration . 78 79 Conflict Management ...................... 80 Pupil Personnel Administration 81 . Community Special Interest Groups 82 Middle Management ...................... 83 Professional Staff ...................... 84 Non-Professional Staff ................... 85 ix ( Figure Page _24, Special Services ............................. 86 25. Students' Perceptions of Eight Major S t r e n g t h s ................................ 97 26. Students' Perceptions of Six Major W e a k n e s s e s ................................... 101 27. Students' Suggestionsfor Eight Major Program Improvements ...................... x 106 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The management of education is undergoing rapid and dramatic changes. New problems along socio-economic- political lines have affected educational administration in many respects. Collective bargaining has given teachers new strengths, courts have allowed students a more significant voice in the decision making process of operating the schools, consolidations have created districts with millions of dollars in assets and multi-million dollar budgets. Today's educa­ tional administrator must be knowledgeable in a multitude of areas. He must be capable of dealing with finance, business administration, public relations, labor relations and with other skills, all on a more complex level than before. The competencies needed by educational administrators to resolve problems in education must constantly be modified as society changes. Colleges and universities involved in educational leadership training programs must be responsive to such changes by offering appropriate preparation. A maintenance of the status quo is insufficient. Suggested changes in the training programs may come from a variety of input sources. For example, professors of 2 educational administration may recognize the need for certain changes and may seek to implement them. source of input is often overlooked. However, a valuable Graduates of programs in educational administration, who are in the field practicing the skills they presumably gained in their training, may have valuable contributions to make. The Problem It is possible that traditional programs in educa­ tional administration are not completely consistent with the problems and competency needs of today's practitioner of educational administration, therefore an appraisal, by graduates, can offer valuable suggestions for improvements in existing programs. The focus of this study was the educational administration program at Michigan State Univer­ sity. Graduates holding the Ed.S., Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree, granted between 1965 and 1972 inclusive, were surveyed. Their responses were analyzed to ascertain what the strengths of the program were, and to suggest where weaknesses existed and how they could be corrected. Design and Methodology The design of the study was constructed around a questionnaire. Recipients of the questionnaire were graduates of the Michigan State University Department of Administration and Higher Education, holding the E d .S ., Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree. Recipients of the respective degrees earned between 1965 and 1972 inclusive, who majored in K-12 administration, 3 were selected as the target population. A similar study, by Mr. Thomas O'Shea, was then currently underway, dealing with individuals in higher education positions. That study began with degree recipients from 1965 and extended through 1972. Consequently, the same dates were used in this study in order for the Department of Administration and Higher Education to be able to examine its entire program (higher education and K-12 administration) for the same time period. The construction of the questionnaire was accom­ plished by an intensive review of the literature, centering particularly around similar studies done at other institutions. A group of practicing administrators were also consulted in order to insure that all needed competencies of educational administration were included. Additionally, those practicing administrators commented on the wording of the items in order to correct confusing questions. Delimitations of the Study The questionnaire was sent only to graduates Ed.D., Ph.D.) between 1965-1972. (Ed.S., The beginning year, 1965, allowed for a large enough population, while still dealing with "recent" graduates. The study was limited to those who received degrees, and did not include those who were on programs at one time or another during 1965-1972, but did not complete the require­ ments for the degree. 4 The appraisal of the program was limited to those selected items which were included in the questionnaire, and was not comprehensive of all possible items. The study assumed that all answers to questionnaires were sincere and forthright. The findings suggested certain conclusions about the program, but without other and comparisons appraisal inputs, such asfaculty with other universities, the findingswere not all-inclusive. Definition of Terms E d .S .: The six year, or Specialist in Education degree. E d .S .; The Doctor of Education degree. Ph.D.: The Doctor of Philosophy degree. Doctoral or Doctor: Used to denote holder of either the Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree. Specialist: Used to denote holder of the Ed.S. degree. K-12 Administration: The practice of school administration as it relates to any grade combinations from kindergarten to grade twelve. Higher Education Administration: The practice of school administration as it relates to post-secondary schools such as community colleges or major universities. Recent Graduates: Persons who received the Ed.S., Ed.D., or Ph.D. degree from the Department of Administration and Higher Education during 1965-1972 inclusive. 5 Practitioners; Persons who are in the field, with full-time employment in K-12 administration or higher education administration. Significance of the Problem As society evolves, so must the educational process. As schools change, those persons in leadership positions in education must be prepared to meet new challenges. The institutions preparing such leaders must have the flexibility and willingness to adapt to changing times. Campbell, Corbally and Ramseyer point out that while American education has had a number of notable administrators, there have been relatively few scholars of administration. The limited number of scholars means that other sources of input for change must be found. Persons who are employed full time in educational administration have first-hand knowledge of the requirements of their respective jobs. In retrospect, they may have pertinent comments regarding their graduate study, prior to entering their current work. Their reactions to specific course work may vary from very useful to almost useless. Suggestions as to deletions or additions to current program content would prove useful. Other forms of training, such as internship, may be suggested by practitioners, or as Thompson found in a similar study at the University of Wisconsin, practitioners may suggest certain courses already in existence that they should have taken, but did not. 6 Overall, they are in an excellent position to make selected assertions regarding the congruence of the program and their present job responsibilities. Thus, they can make judgments as to the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Studies of this type have been done at other universities, such as the University of Arkansas (Parker, 1972), the University of Houston (Mayfield, 1971), the University of Akron (McDonald, 1971) and the University of Indiana (Williams, 1971). From these studies certain con­ clusions have been reached regarding the efficiency of graduate study in educational administration at the res­ pective universities. Additionally, Mr. Thomas O'Shea is conducting a somewhat similar study of graduates in higher education at Michigan State University. The combination of the two studies would enable the Department of Administration and Higher Education to consider an examination of its entire program as perceived by recent graduates. In contemporary times, if community resources are to be mobilized by educational leaders to assist in meeting the goals of the schools, new leadership skills are necessary. Metropolitan administrators face particular problems, as noted by Havighurst. For the next decade there is bound to be tension and conflict in the metropolitan area over school policies and practices, because social change will require new practices which must be worked out by people who have differing interests and attitudes. The Board of Education and Superintendent must adapt 7 their roles to each other and the changing situations. . . . The superintendent is the key actor in the situation. He needs to understand the whole complex of social systems and subsystems. This is difficult for the modern superintendent whose training has disposed him toward working for efficiency within his own subsystem of teachers, pupils, and administrators. Financial considerations continue to loom large on the horizon. dollars. Cities, townships and schools vie for tax At the same time, taxpayers have become more reluctant to approve increases in taxes in support of schools. Cost of education continue an upward spiral. (particularly teachers' salaries) New sources of revenue, and/or new methods of financing public education are being dis­ cussed nation-wide. As the dollar amount of money spent on public education increases, so too does the clamor for greater accountability. Power struggles also place demands on educational leaders. Negotiations, involving pay scales, working con­ ditions and other elements, are a problem area for the public school administrator. He must meet with diverse groups, including other educators, non-professional staff members and community special interest groups in settling conflicts and working toward the attainment of the organiza­ tion's goals. An ability to manage conflict is becoming essential to the successful educational administrator. ^Robert J. Havighurst, Education in Metropolitan Areas (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966), p. 241. 8 The profession is cognizant of the changes rapidly taking place in society which affect leadership in American schools. The Educational Policies Commission stated that: Educational leadership is at the center of virtually all the current social revolutions, shaping them and being shaped by them. . . . The superinten­ dent must be a person of considerable knowledge. Much of that knowledge is specific to education and educational administration and can be derived initially from technical courses specifically designed for the preparation of superintendents. In this cate­ gory is a knowledge of management techniques and of pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. But this is only part of the preparation. Because of the range of competencies required in the superintendency, preparation for that office calls for much more. The professional performance of a superintendent is directly affected by the degree to which he possesses understanding of his society and culture and of the forces affecting them. Only a student of the world can sense what the future is likely to require of young people. Only a man who is at home in the world of ideas can meet the complex responsibilities of educational leadership. While the quotation above is directed toward the superintendency, it is applicable, in some degree, to all administrative positions in education. Unfortunately, the process of managing education is not always responsive to change. Too often theory and practice trails other fields in modern management techniques. For example, business and industry have employed computer technology to a much greater extent than has education, although the potential for use is recognized by many. If those in the field are given the opportunity to be heard; 2 Educational Policies Commission, National Education Association and American Association of School Administrators, The Unique Role of the Superintendent of Schools. (Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1965), pp. 1-3. 9 to state specifically what training they should have had, but did not, then the training institutions have an oppor­ tunity to make appropriate changes. With suggestions from practitioners, institutions can close the gap between the training being given, and that needed by contemporary school administrators. Objectives Prior to the gathering of data, five general hypo­ theses were developed. The overall objective of this study was to provide a general appraisal of the Michigan State University program in educational administration as perceived by its graduates holding the degrees of Ed.S., Ed.D., or Ph.D. Following are the five general hypotheses as stated prior to data collection and analyzation: General Hypothesis I : Data from the questionnaire will show that holders of the doctorate degree are receiving higher average salaries than those holding the specialist degree. General Hypothesis I I : A number of factors influenced each graduate's decision to attend Michigan State University, rather than another graduate school. However, rankings will indicate that no single fac­ tor is more important than any other. General Hypothesis III: Factors such as course work, and association with faculty contributed to each graduate's personal and professional growth. A rating scale will measure selected factors and show that no single factor is more important than any other. General Hypothesis IV: Graduates will be asked if they would make changes in their programs if they were to repeat it. Course additions and deletions, 10 major and cognate changes and other factors will be considered. It is hypothesized that graduates will indicate general satisfaction with their programs by suggesting only minor changes. General Hypothesis V : Skill areas such as human relations, school law and negotiations will be con­ sidered in order to determine the graduates' view of how well Michigan State University prepared them for their current work. General satisfaction will be evidenced by relatively high rankings for each selected skill in the questionnaire. CHAPTER XI REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE General Administrative Theory Callahan and Button"** describe school management as transcending three stages: (1) scientific management, (2) human relations and (3) a theoretical and scientific phase with its emphasis on generalized laws and empirical evidence. Much the same is Etzioni*s discussion of the classical, human relations and structuralist approaches to administration, in general. 2 Etzioni refers to the classi­ cal theory as scientific management with an emphasis on the organizational approach. Workers are motivated by econo­ mic rewards, while the organization is characterized by a clearly defined division of labor. Other characteristics are a distinct hierarchy of authority and the use of highly specialized personnel. The human relations approach empha­ sized emotional, unplanned, non-rational elements. The significance of friendships and social groupings of workers were both noted. The importance of leadership and of ^Raymond E. Callahan and H. Warren Button, "Histori­ cal Change of Role of the Man in Organizations: 1865-1950", Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963 Yearbook), pp. 73-92. 2 Cliffs: Amitai Etzioni., Modern Organizations, (Englewood Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), pp. 20-49. 11 12 emotional communication and participation was also pointed out. The structuralist approach combined the two prior approaches. The structuralists view the organization as a large, complex social unit in which many social groups interact. They see some incompatible interests, the sharing of some values, and disagreement on others. Educational administration has been recognized as a subject for study, per se, since the beginning of the twentieth century. However, the more concentrated efforts have been made since 1950 when the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration (CPEA), financed by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, came into existence. The CPEA involved a ten year study of educational administration. A major finding of the CPEA evolved from research done at Teachers College, Columbia University. From it came the "Tri-Dimensional Theory," 3 analyzing school adminis­ tration in terms of the man, the job, and the social setting. The purpose was to develop a clear, concise statement of the essential elements necessary for educational administrators. The CPEA Center at George Peabody College for 4 Teachers developed the "Competency Pattern," which defined administration as performance in eight criticcil task areas, ^Howard W. Funk and Robert T. Livingston, A TriDimensional View of the Job of Educational Administration (New York: CPEAMAR, Teachers Co]lege, Columbia University, 1951) . 4Orin B. Groff and Calvin M. Street, Improving Competency in Educational Administration (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956). 13 which in turn took into account 52 tasks designated as administrative in nature. Human relations skills were found to be of great importance in almost all of the critical task areas. From the CPEA Center at the University of Chicago, Getzels et al. 5 developed a theory describing administration as being ". . . conceived of structurally as the hierarchy of subordinate-superordinate relationships within a social system; and functionally this hierarchy of relationships is the locus for allocating and integrating roles and facilities in order to achieve the goals of the social system." g The results of the CPEA studies were summed up by Hollis Moore: In very broad strokes there is a picture we can paint from the CPEA projects. The picture is one of improvements for school administration across the country. . . . we have unleashed so many status studies, pilot centers and experimental designs and other means of inquiry into the problems of school administration that we have grow^ accustomed to an intense study of administration. From the work of the CPEA evolved a report by the National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration 5 Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Pro­ cess," Administrative Theory in Education, ed. Andrew W. Halpin (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, 1958). g Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1959), p. 54. 7 Hollis A. Moore, Jr., "Studies in School Adminis­ tration,11 A Report of CPEA - AASA, 1957, p. 21. 14 dealing with the significance of administrative behavior in Q education. In the report a panel of professors reached the conclusion that many of the traditional concepts of educa­ tional administration lacked the support of scientific evidence. A significant outcome of the work of CPEA was the establishment of the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). This was to be an organization "taking the leadership in stimulating improvement in the preg paration programs of school administrators." The organi­ zation is composed of institutions offering graduate programs in educational administration. The organization carries on research in educational administration and publishes findings in reports and in the Educational Administration Quarterly. The Administrator as a Leader Over the years a number of authors have given their description of the administrative function. Sargent and Belisle view the administrator as "one having some formal authority with respect to the behavior of the other members of the organization."^ Q Roald P. Campbell and Russell T. Gregg, Administra­ tive Behavior in Education (New York: Harper & Row, 1957). Q Hollis A. Moore, Jr., "Ferment in School Administra­ tion ," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963 Yearbook), p. 29. ■^Cyril G. Sargent and Eugene L. Belisle, Educational Administration: Cases and Concepts (Nev; York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1955), p. 441. 15 . 11 Etzioni noted that an individual's ability to control the organization may derive from his position, his personality, or both. Additionally, the leader, or controller, in one field, may not be a leader in other areas. Stogdill1s study of leaders (1948) indicated the importance of (1) capacity, sibility, (2) achievement, (4) participation and (5) status. (3) respon­ Having examined records of executives he found that successful, ones demon­ strated (1) strong desire to achieve, social advancement, (4) decisiveness, (2) strong desire for (3) a liking for their superiors, (5) assertiveness and (6) practicality. 12 Argysis compiled an itemization of qualities he considered essential for successful executive work. 13 1. Ability to work effectively under frustrating conditions. 2. Ability and desire to obtain participation of others in solving problems. 3. Ability to objectively question ones own judge­ ment and actions. 4. Ability to take knocks without undue hos tility. 5. Ability to express hostility tactfully. ^ A m i t a i Etzioni, op. cit., pp. 58-67. 12 Ralph M. Stogdill, Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature, Journal of Psychology, XXV (1948), 35-71. 13 Chris Argyris, "Some Characteristics of Successful Executives," Personnel Journal, XXXII (June, 1953), 50-55. I 16 6. Ability to accept victory or defeat gracefully. 7. Ability to face adverse decisions from superiors gracefully. 8. Ability to identify oneself with the work or professional group. 9. Ability to set realistic goals. Lipham defined leadership as: . . . the initiation of a new structure or procedure for accomplishing an organization's goals and objec­ tives. . . . The administrator . . . may be identified as the individual who utilizes existing structures or procedures,to achieve an organizational goal or objective. French defined leadership in the following manner: Effective leadership— leadership associated both with high workers' morale and with the development of human resources rather than their dissipation— results from a complex combination of traits, behaviors, and conditions. Effective leadership is a multi-dimensional matter, involving attention to a wide variety of factors. Many argue that effectiveness as a leader cannot be learned; that it is a quality that an individual either does or does not possess. Drucker disagrees, stating that there are five habits of mind that can be learned: the time goes, (1) Know where (2) Focus on outward contribution (results), (3) Build on strength, (4) Set priorities in major areas that really count, and (5) Make effective decisions. X 6 14 James M. Lipham, "Leadership and Administration," Behavior Science and Educational Administration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964 Yearbook), p. 122. 15Wendell French, The Personnel Management Process: Human Resources Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 197 0), p. 124. 16 Peter F. Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 99. 17 Halpin, in a study at The Ohio State University classi­ fied leadership behavior on the dimension of consideration and initiating structure. There is nothing especially novel about these two dimensions of leader behavior. The principles involved in the concepts of Initiating Structure and Considera­ tion probably have always been used by effective leaders in guiding their behavior with group members, while the concepts themselves, with different labels perhaps, have been invoked frequently by philosophers and scientists to explain leadership phenomena. Prac­ tical men know that the leader must lead— must initiate and get things done. But because he must accomplish his purposes through other people . . . he also must maintain good human relations . . . In Barnard's terms he must be 'effective' and 'efficient.' Thus, leadership is a multi-dimensional concept. A variety of factors exert influence on, and from within, the person who exercises the leadership function. Training the Leader Bjarnason 18 noted that attempts to construct admini­ strative theory from models of other disciplines is a productive, recent development. He states that these include decision-making models,"^ models for group dynamics,^ 17Andrew W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Adminis­ tration (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 86. 18 Carl Bjarnason, The Preparation of Educational Administrators in Manitoba (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 28. 19 David W. Miller and Martin K. Starr, The Structure of Human Decisions (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1967) . 20 Dorwin Cartwright, "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics," Human Relations, IV (1951), 381-392. 18 22 23 group models, systems models, 24 25 performance measurement models, influence-change models communications models, 21 and many others, applicable to practically every phase of administrator preparation. Obviously, success has been varied in terms of translating models of other disciplines into models for training programs for educational administration. Too many practitioners are quick to reject theory, saying that practical lessons and work with real-life situations are more valuable. Yet, theory has a strong place as well, since it is a basis for action in day-to-day situations. Barnard Simon 27 26 gives much attention to the need for theory. deals with theory as it relates to the psychological basis of decision-making. 21 (Glencoe: Argyris also deals with theory E. Katz and P. F. Lazarfield, Personal Influence The Free Press, 1955). 22 George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York; Harcourt Brace, 1950). 23 A. K. Rice, The Enterprise and Its Environment (London: Tavistock Publications, 1963). 24 Rensis Likert, Measuring Organizational Performance, Harvard Business Review (March-April,1958) 41-50. 25 Edgar H. Schein, "Management Development as a Pro­ cess of Influence," Industrial Management Review (May, 1961), 59-77. 26 Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966). 27 Herbert Brown, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan Co., 1957). 19 in discussing various phases of the administrative process. Theoretically then, if you want to create a situation in which people are loyal and truly com­ mitted to the company's interests, then you must find a situation in which, from the outset, people are active rather than passive: in which, instead of feeling subordinate, people can honestly feel that they are thinking and making decisions— and X don't mean decisions about the location of th^g water coolers or the color of the wall paper. In the process of training educational administra­ tors, theory plays an important role. Theory is not in itself right or wrong; it suggests a way of thinking and the start of a process toward finding solutions to problems. March and Simon have assessed the literature on organizational theory. Their thought is that behind every proposition about organizations is a set of assumptions 29 regarding the behavior of people. Campbell, et. al., classified behavior of educa­ tional administrators by tasks as represented by (1) schoolcommunity relations, personnel, (2) curriculum and instruction, (3) pupil (4) staff personnel, (5) physical facilities, and 30 (6) finance and business administration. Each of these 28 Chris Argyris, "The Individual and the Organiza­ tional Structure," Personnel Practice and Policy (New York: American Management Association Personnel Series, No. 156, 1956) . 2 9James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wily and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 6. 30 Roald F. Campbell, John E. Corbally Jr., and John A. Ramseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966) p p . 96-128. 20 categories is replete with theory which the educational administrator will find useful, in varying degrees, in his pursuit of administrative preparation. The importance of the training received by a school administrator takes on added emphasis when measured against a nearly overwhelming list of competencies needed. The American Association of School Administrators cites ten expected personal qualifications and twenty critical fields of study.^ In recent years the recruitment and selection of potential administrators has received increased attention. 32 33 34 Among others, Hemphill , Whyte , Culbertson , Hall and 35 McIntyre have examined and commented on selection procedures. The University Council for Educational Administration, in a 1969 report, noted certain trends in doctoral programs for preparing public school superintendents. The study 31American Association of School Administrators, Professional Administrators for American Schools (AASA, 38th Yearbook, 1960). 32 John K. Hemphill e t .a l ., Administrative Performance and Personality, A Study of the Principal in a Simulated School (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962). 33 William H. Whyte, The Organization Man (New York; Simon and Schuster, 1956). 34 Jack Culbertson, Preparing Administrators— New Perspectives (University Council for Educational Administra­ tion, 1962). 35 Roy M. Hall and Kenneth E. McIntyre, The Student Personnel Program, Administrative Behavior in Education (New York: Harper and Row, 1957). 21 involved responses from 47 American universities, 181 superintendents who had received doctorates in 1963-1968 and views derived from a review of the literature dealing with the preparation of school superintendents. et a l . reported these trends: 1. There is an poration of content behavioral sciences business and public Culbertson, 36 established trend toward incor­ material from the social and and to a lesser extent, from administration. 2. There is an emergent trend toward new courses in topics which deal with contemporary problems. 3. There is an established trend toward both greater flexibility and increased internal structure in preparatory programs. 4. There is a trend toward more aggressive efforts to recruit talented persons in expanded talent pools. 5. There is an established trend in instructional approaches away from the traditional lecture-textbook method and toward a variety of audio-visual materials, reality-oriented materials, and alternative instructional strategies. 6. There is an established trend toward increasing the quantity and quality of field-related experiences. 7. There is an established trend toward the increased sophistication of student research. 8. There is an emergent trend toward increased opportunity for non-dissertation training and experience. 9. There is a trend toward full-time residence, elimination or reduction of foreign language require­ ments, and course work in other disciplines. Jack Culbertson, Robin Farquhar, Alan K. Gaynor, and Mark R. Shibles, Preparing Education Leaders for the Seventies (Columbus: University Council for Educational Administration, 1969), pp. 492-495. 22 10. There is an established trend in staffing from the adding of professors who are generalists with previous administrative experience, to specialists with particular competencies. 11. There is a trend toward increasing in-service opportunities. 37 Goldhammer et a l . interviewed faculty at 34 uni­ versities, finding that there was a great deal of similarity between institutions in preparation programs for educational administrators. He concluded that: It is apparent that universities face many unresolved problems relative to their roles in the preparation of educational administrators. . . . Few universities seem actually to have developed a balanced program for administrators in which all required gkills and knowledge receive proper emphasis. A number of studies of educational administration preparation programs have looked to practitioners for com­ ments. "Preparing Educational Leaders for the Seventies" is a report (1969) by the University Council for Educational Administration. The report was based, in part, on responses of 180 superintendents. Stated in general terms the problem of the study is the discrepancy which exists between the pro­ fessional training opportunities which are required by prospective educational leaders, and the training^ opportunities which are currently available to them. 37 Keith Goldhammer, John Suttle, William Aldridge, and Gerald Becker, Issues and Problems in Contemporary Educational Administration (Eugene, Oregon: Center for Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1967). 38Ibid., p. 113. 39 Jack Culbertson et a l ., o p . c i t ., p. 10. ! \ 23 Regarding the content of preparation programs, 566 superintendents were surveyed in 1966 by New York Regents Advisory Committee. 40 High value was placed on human relations courses, technical skills were second, and courses dealing with curriculum, theory and philosophy were third. In summary, much input for positive change may come from the scholars and professors. Yet the practitioner is often the best individual available to judge his own strengths and weaknesses, in terms of his own preparation program. . . . - -* Appraisals of Educational Administration Programs at Selected Universities Several studies have been conducted which seek to appraise graduate programs in educational administration at various American institutions. The following is a brief review of selected, recent studies. Wilson 41 conducted a study in 1969 with the purpose of appraising strengths and weaknesses in the doctoral pro­ gram at Brigham Young University. Strengths were reported in the area of competence of, and interaction with, the faculty. The faculty was reported (by degree recipients) to be well trained, with excellent background experience. The 40 New York Regents of Advisory Committee on Educa­ tional Leadership, Chief School Officers: Recommendations and Report of a Survey (Albany: The Committee, 19 67). 41 Grant L. Wilson, "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in Educational Administration at Brigham Young Uni­ versity as Perceived by its Graduates," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1969. 24 weaknesses reported, centered around the lack of practi­ cality of some courses and a lack of flexibility in the program. Parker 42 (1972) studied the educational administra­ tion program at the University of Arkansas in an attempt to determine the extent to which the program was meeting the actual needs of those who graduated from it. The interview technique was used, with 45 graduates comprising the sample. Over one-half cited human relations skills as the most important skill for the graduates to develop. No problem areas for which the graduates felt they lacked preparation were cited by more than one-sixth of the respondents. Faculty concern and assistance was cited as the primary strength of the program, while a lack of preparation in higher education was singled out as the main weakness. In a study at the University of Houston, Mayfield 43 (1971) utilized a questionnaire to survey 50 graduates of the doctoral program in educational administration from 19601969. Purposes included an appraisal of the University of Houston program and a comparison of the evaluations with similar evaluations done by Orso at the University of Alabama 42 George John Parker, "Doctoral Graduates in Educa­ tional Administration, University of Arkansas 1965-1970," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1972. 43 Ray Vernon Mayfield, J r . , "Selected Factors in the Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in the Department of Admini­ stration and Supervision in the College of Education, Univer­ sity of Houston, 1960-1969," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1971. 25 (1967) and by Lakers at the University of Michigan (1959). Based on responses, Mayfield's recommendations included: (1) consideration should be given to the continued avail­ ability of scholarships, fellowships and assistantships, (2) provision should be made for post-doctoral seminars in education, and (3) provision should be made for more course work and learning opportunities in the administration of higher education. The doctoral program in educational administration at the University of Wisconsin was the subject of a study 44 done by Thompson in 1970. The study was based on the last 100 graduates of the program, between 1958 and 1969. was gathered by use of a questionnaire. Data A number of vari­ ables were considered, and it was noted that all adminis­ trators and non-administrators considered field experiences to be either a "valuable" or "very valuable" part of the program. In singling out courses. Administrative Behavior was considered the most critical course by the largest seg­ ment of the respondents, while no course stood out as the least critical. Major strengths were assessed as being (1) interested advisors and (2) student-facuity relations, while weaknesses were (1) "useless" language requirement and (2) no intern program. A major conclusion reached, 44 Robert Iver Thompson, "An Evaluation of the Ph.D. Program in Educational Administration at the University of Wisconsin," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970. 26 stated that there was no significant difference between the administrator and non-administrator in the way in which they viewed educational administration courses. Thompson concluded that this indicated that separate programs were not required. DeSanctis 45 conducted a study of doctoral graduates in educational administration from Rutgers University. Eighty-eight degree recipients, from 1949-1969, were res­ pondents to a questionnaire. objectives: The study had three general (1) to determine opinions about selected phases of the educational administration program; (2) to determine what these opinions might signify in terms of future program development; and (3) to collect data about the present pro­ fessional responsibilities of the respondents. Nearly 60 percent of the respondents thought they could have benefited from full-time study. Both the younger and more recent graduates were more supportive of full-time study, based on chi-square tests at the .05 level. In terms of future innovations, recent graduates favored sensitivity training and the use of simulation as an instructional technique. 45 Vincent DeSanctis, Jr., "A Follow-up Study of Ed.D. Graduates from The Department of Educational Admini­ stration and Supervision at Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey 1949-1969." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey, 1970. Prasad's study 46 (1970) at the University of Pitts­ burgh was intended to measure to what degree the program of educational administration was providing educational leaders with the competencies needed for their jobs. Questions were constructed, relating to various competency areas, in such a way that each respondent's answer indicated the degree to which the particular conpetency was developed by the preparation program. Answers were scored on a rating scale from zero (missing), to five (excellent). Means were calculated for each set of scores and judged against the critical value of 2.5, the mean of the numerical values on the rating scale. Any competency item which scored less than 2.5 was considered weak, or below a desirable standard. Two prominent conclusions were that courses built upon con­ ceptual and technical, rather than human relations skills, received lower mean ratings. Williams conducted an appraisal of the Indiana University doctoral program in school administration in 1971. 47 Forty-six graduates responded through a combination written and verbal instrument. Major finds included the fact that professors in educational administration were the greatest 46 Amba Durga Prasad, "An Evaluation of the Program in Educational Administration at the University of Pittsburgh. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1970. 47 Fred Dennis Williams, "An Appraisal of the Indiana University Doctoral Degree Program in School Administration." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1971. 28 influence on the respondents when seeking admission; curri­ cular offerings were appropriate and adequate; greater attention should be given to the development of human relations skills; and, the faculty’s personal interest in the students was the greatest strength of the doctoral pro­ gram at Indiana University. Generally, appraisals by graduates of doctoral pro­ grams, have indicated overall satisfaction with programs in educational administration. However, specific weaknesses and shortcomings have been noted as well, allowing indivi­ dual institutions the opportunity for corrective measures to be applied. The noting of strengths is equally important, permitting a university to continue to channel its financial and human resources in a direction which former students have found to be beneficial. Three points deserve repetition. First, it was noted on page 12 that a clear, concise statement of the essen­ tial elements necessary for educational administration needs to be developed. Second, on page 14 it was noted that a panel of professors concluded that many of the traditional concepts of educational administration lacked the support of scientific evidence. Third, on page 22 it was noted that there is a discrepancy between professional training oppor­ tunities which are required by prospective educational leaders, and the training opportunities which are available to them. 29 Thus, it appears that an assessment of graduate programs is essential, and both strengths and shortcomings must be noted. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to define and des­ cribe the variables of interest, to provide a description of the instrument, to describe procedures involved in data collection and analysis, and to describe the sample. The Variables To totally enumerate all variables involved in the preparation of educational administrators is beyond the scope of this study. However, selected variables, grouped cate­ gorically, were examined to provide a basis for studying graduates' perceptions of the effectiveness of their training program at Michigan State University. Certain demographic data were Eurst collected in order to later compare subpopulations (i.e. specialist vs. doctorate, principal vs. superintendent) on a given variable. Demographic data collected included: age at start and com­ pletion of program, present position, nature of position, and present income. The initial category of variables centered around the respondents' reason(s) for choosing Michigan State Uni­ versity as the institution at which to work toward either the specialist or doctorate. 30 31 A second category was constructed seeking to assess components of the program (i.e. seminars, dissertation, extern program), and to what extent each was influential on the respondent. A third section permitted respondents to report changes (i.e. course additions or deletions, changes of major or cognate) they would have made if given the oppor­ tunity to repeat their specialist or doctoral program. In addition, questions asked the respondents to report what they felt were their most valuable and least valuable courses. A number of skill areas were considered, and ques­ tions constructed attempting to measure the extent to which the Department of Administration and Higher Education assisted in developing such skills, as rated by respondents. Skill areas considered were: negotiating, human relations and general skills. Questions were developed dealing with specific technical skills, such as financial management, research and statistical skills, and school law. Open-ended questions permitted the respondents to enumerate, and comment upon, the variables they conceived as contributing strengths and weaknesses to the program. The Instrument The instrument (see Appendix A) used to gather data was a questionnaire. A combination of closed and open-ended questions were utilized. Open-ended questions were con­ structed to seek respondents’ perceptions of strengths, 32 weaknesses and suggestions for improvements in the educa*tional administration program at Michigan State University. Other questions were constructed around a fixed alter­ nate response design to elicit the respondents' perceptions of various phases of the program. Such questions utilized rating scales to determine respondents' reasons for choosing to attend Michigan State University, for example. Responses to other questions, such as age, income, etc., also required a fixed response. The questionnaire method was used for several reasons. Because of the size of the population (35 0), the personal interview method was deemed unrealistic. Geographic dis­ persion of the 350 individuals in the population also made personal interviewing a difficult possibility. Consequently, telephone interviewing was also eliminated as a possibility. The length of the questionnaire would have resulted in con­ siderable expense in terms of long distance telephone inter­ views, and allowed little time for respondents to consider each item. The review of the literature indicated that in other similar studies, the questionnaire method was used with con­ siderable success, in terms of response rate. Mayfield**" gained a 92 percent response. For example, Consequently, it was believed that a questionnaire could be utilized with reasonable assurance that enough returns would be received to make meaningful comparisons. "*"Ray Vernon Mayfield, Jr. , op. c i t . 33 Individual questions were developed, in part, from questions used in similar studies. In addition, a review of the literature provided a source of information regarding the type of skills that educational administrators claimed they needed to carry out their professional responsibilities. A sample of seven practicing educational administrators was selected to examine the instrument for clarity and to sug­ gest additions or deletions from the questionnaire. The Sample The target population consisted of 350 elements. The decision was reached that the sample population would be the same as the target population. were several. The reasons for this decision Although it was not necessary to include every element in order to draw conclusions, the size of the target population was not unreasonably large. It was determined that in the target population there may have been a number of unique, excellent suggestions offered, any one of which could have been missed if the sample did not include all elements. Since individual replies were of interest, and the target population small, the study investigated the entire target population. It was recognized that a repli­ cation of this study, involving larger numbers of respondents could be accomplished through the use of random or stratified sampling procedures. 34 Data Collection and Analysis The Graduate Student Affairs Office (GSAO) at Michigan State University provided a listing of all Ed.S., Ed.D. and Ph.D. recipients in educational administration from 1965 through 1972. From this list, the target population (350 elements) was constructed. A number of sources were utilized to locate the cur­ rent addresses of each of the individuals. GSAO records indicated the advisor of each of the individuals. The advisors were contacted and in many cases the current add­ resses were known by the advisors. Departmental records, especially those of Dr. Clyde Campbell regarding the annual "alumni round-up" were utilized to add to the list of current addresses. The records pro­ vided by Dr. Peter Murk provided still more addresses of those persons who had participated in the Mott Intern Program. Membership lists of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals (MAESP), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) were also examined in order to locate more individual addresses, as well as the membership lists of the Michigan School Business Officials (MSBO) and American Association of School Administrators (AASA). The Michigan State University Alumni Office provided a list of the most recent addresses of the remaining 40 35 individuals whose addresses had not been located at that point in time by this researcher. The Initial analysis indicated that 172 individuals had earned the Ed.S. degree and 187 had earned either the Ed.D. or P h .D . degree. The total of 359 included seven persons who had earned both the specialist and doctorate. These seven were included only in the ana ly si is of doctoral respondents, thus a preliminary figure of 352 was used as the total number of potential respondents. In searching for addresses, it was found that two individuals were deceased, thus the final mailing list of 350 potential respondents was constructed. A total of 288 returns were received,- representing an 82.3 percent return. All returned questionnaires were analyzed with computer assistance, in an effort to ensure mathematical accuracy and to conserve time. Opon receipt of the returned questionnaire, each individual item was coded and transferred to scoring sheets. After all responses had been scored, they were transferred to standard punched data cards. The computer program used in the analysis was developed by Captain William L. Hayes, United States Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. An extensive experimental program, using simulated data with known results, was developed and processed with the computer program designed for this study. Upon assurance that the program was error-free, the actual data was processed and analyzed. CHAPTER IV GRADUATES' PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROGRAM An examination of Graduate Student Affairs Office records indicated that 172 specialists and 187 doctorates had been earned between 1965-197 2, inclusive. The number of degree recipients, by year of graduation, are represented in Table 1. TABLE 1.— Advanced Graduate Degrees Earned. i Year ... Specialist 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 Total ■ ■■■ . i_ jj ...wi ■■ Doctorate 29 23 26 20 19 19 18 18 10 17 16 17 30 38 27 32 172 187 As noted in Chapter III, the total of 359 specialists and doctorates included seven persons who received both degrees. Thus Table 1 represents only 352 individuals, although they received a total of 359 degrees. Because two of the degree recipients were deceased at the time of the 36 37 study, the figure 350 was used throughout the study in terms of potential respondents. A total of 288 responses (82.3 percent) were received. Thus, all future references to responses are to the 28'8 returns actually received. In the target population there were 187 doctoral degree recipients. The returns included 156 doctorates, a response rate of 83.4 percent. There were 172 specialists in the target population, and 132 responses were from specialists, for a response rate of 76.7 percent. latter figure was somewhat misleading. This As noted earlier, there were seven individuals who had received both the specialist and doctorate. Four of these individuals res­ ponded to the questionnaire, but were included in the tabu­ lations as doctoral respondents only. If they were also noted as specialist respondents (intentional double-counting) the response rate for specialists was increased from 132 to 136, or a percentage increase from 76.7 to 79.1. Age The first set of questions asked the respondent to list his age when accepted into the program, his age at the completion of the program, and his present age. Table 2 indicates the results. It was interesting to note that the average age of the doctoral recipients was less than that of the specialist recipients at both the time the individual started the 38 program, and at the time he completed the degree. However, a closer examination of the figures was required. TABLE 2 *.— Ages of Respondents.. Degree Age lc Age 2 Age 3 X 35.8 39.4 44.1 s2 39.2 42.9 53.1 6.3 6.5 7.3 X 34.4 38.4 42.0 s2 28.8 40.3 43.0 5.4 6.3 6.6 Specialist3 s Doctorate*5 s Legend a. b. c. n=132 n=156 Age 1 * age at start of program Age 2 = age at completion of program Age 3 = present age It was hypothesized that there was no statistically significant difference between the mean ages of candidates for the specialist or doctorate degree, at the start of the respective programs. Using an alpha of .05, a test statistic of 2.02 was derived which exceeded the critical value of -1.96. Consequently, it was determined that the null hypo­ thesis (no difference) should be rejected in favor of the assumption that there was a statistically significant 39 difference between the means. As further proof, a confi­ dence interval was generated (alpha = .05) for the difference in means, resulting in an answer that the difference in means was between .05 years and 2.75 years. Since the span did not encompass zero, there was a statistically significant difference between the means. It was also hypothesized that there was no statis­ tically significant difference in the mean age of doctoral and specialist recipients at the completion of their res­ pective programs. Using an alpha of .05, a test statistic of 1.31 was derived which was encompassed by the span of the critical value of -1.96. Thus, the null hypothesis (no difference) was not rejected in this instance. As further proof, a confidence interval was generated (alpha «= .05) for the difference in means, resulting in an answer that the difference in means was between -.49 years and 2.49 years. Since zero was encompassed in the interval, the difference in means could have been zero— that is, with 95 percent confidence the reader can note that there was no significant difference between mean ages at the completion of doctoral or specialist programs. Confidence intervals (alpha = .05) were generated for the mean age of both specialists and doctors at the start and completion of their respective programs. were as follows: The results 40 Specialist-start of program 95%C Specialist-completion of program 95%C Doctor-start of program 95%C Doctor-completion of program . 95%C = = = = (34.72^mu*36.88) (38.28 90 C dJ ) TC 80 & W) 70 0 PS 60 u 50 40 30 20 10 4 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 18.— Pupil Personnel Administration. 1 01 Number of Respondents 180 _ 170 160 150 Appropriate skill in settling disputes evolving from such sources as personality clashes, contract disagreements and policy management interpretations. Resolving conflicts which result from differences of opinion between and among various groups in the community. 140 130 Legend: 4 3 2 1 120 Number of Respondents 110 =» = = = well adequately poorly not at all 100 90 80 70 ~ 60 _ 50 40 30 20 10 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 19.— Conflict Management. 82 Number of Respondents 180 _ 170 I Identification of pressure groups and special interest groups. Working with them toward the attainment of the organization's goals. 160 150 Legend t I 4 3 2 1 Number of Respondents 140 130 I 120 - 110 - 100 - *» = = = well adequately poorly not at all 90 80 I 70 I 60 I 50 “ 40 I 30 I 20 I 10 ” 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 20.--Community Special Interests Groups. 83 Number of Respondents 180 - Dealing with and settling conflicts relating to principals, deans, department heads and other middle management positions. 170 160 150 Legend: I 4 3 2 1 Number of Respondents 140 130 I 120 - 110 - 100 - = well =• adequately ** poorly = not at all 90 • 80 ^ 70 ‘ 60 . 50 ] 40 ! 30 ! 20 ! 10 ; 0 4 - 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 21.--Middle Management. 1 84 Number of Respondents 180 . Dealing with and settling conflicts relating to teachers, instructors, guidance and library personnel and other similar professional staff. 170 160 Legend: 150 4 3 2 1 140 130 *= well = adequately = poorly = not at all 120 Number of Respondents 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 22.— Professional Staff. 1 85 Number of Respondents Dealing with and settling conflicts relating to aides, clerical and other similar non-professional positions. 180 _ 170 - Legend: 160 4 3 2 1 150 140 130 120 - 110 - = = = = well adequately poorly not at all 100 M e o 90 ~ ■U a o °* u i 0) m 80 I 70 'u 60 _ 0) 50 m 40 _ I 20 I 30 10 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 23.— Non-Professional Staff. Number of Respondents 180 _ Dealing with and settling conflicts relating to food service employees, custodial personnel and other similar special services. 170 Legend: 160 150 well adequately poorly not at all 140 130 120 Number of Respondents 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 4 3 2 Rating by Respondents Figure 24.— Special Services. 1 An acceptable score of 2.5 {mean of the numerical values on the rating scale) was established, and it was noted that only the statistical skills score as reported by specialists was below that level. That was not necessarily an indication that statistical skills are neglected on the Ed.S. level, but rather that they are more strongly emphasized, or even required, on the doctoral level. All other scores met, or exceeded, the 2.5 level of acceptability. Of the 20 categories of skills, based on average scores, doctoral respondents rated 13 of them at 3.0 or better, while specialists rated only seven of them at 3.0 or better. This was not surprising, and would seem to reflect more depth of training on the doctoral level. How­ ever, a closer examination was made to determine whether or not there was a true difference in the mean rating scores of doctoral and specialist respondents. It was first hypothesized that there was no difference in means. Using alpha = .05, a test statistic of 2.39 was derived which exceeded the critical value of -1.96. quently, it was determined that the null hypothesis Conse­ (no difference) should be rejected in favor of the assumption that there was a statistically significant difference between the means. As further proof, a confidence interval (alpha = .05) was generated for the difference in means, resulting in the answer that the difference in means was between .04 and .36. 88 Since the span did not include zero, there was a statisti­ cally significant difference between the means. In summary, the overall rating of all respondents of all skill areas resulted in a mean score of 2.9. This rep­ resented a score approximating the category, "adequate." The total mean score column (column 5, Table XII) indicated that 12 of the 20 skill areas the mean of 2.9. (60 percent) were at, or above, Additionally, none of the total mean scores were as low as 2.5, the minimum acceptable score. Table XII, page 66, provides the skill areas and mean scores of specialists, doctors, and a total mean score. Following Table XII, are Figures 5 through 24. These illustrate the total number of respondents rating each skill area ("does not apply" is not included), and the number of respondents scoring each item 4, 3, 2 or 1. General Hypotheses Before data was gathered and analyzed, five general hypotheses were developed. These should be re-examined at this point, in terms of the replies gathered from respondents. General Hypothesis I : Data from the questionnaire will show that holders of the doctorate degree are receiving higher average salaries than those holding the specialist degree. In analyzing the data, it was found by using a Pearson product-moment correlation that specialist and doc­ toral incomes co-varied with an r = .90. positive relationship was noted. Thus, a strong 89 The mean income ranges for both specialist and doc­ toral respondents were located in the $19,000-$21,000 range. Consequently, the general hypothesis that doctoral income, on the average, is higher than specialist average income, should be rejected. General Hypothesis I I ; A number of factors influenced each graduate's decision to attend Michigan State University, rather than another graduate school. How­ ever, rankings will indicate that no single factor is more important than any other. Each respondent rated eight different factors, on a scale ranging from "important” to "of no importance." Numeri­ cal scores ranged from 4.0 to 1.0. An examination of Table V indicates the differences in the rating of each factor, by respondents. Especially noteworthy, is the low total mean (2.2) of the factor, "advice of graduates of Michigan State University." Table VI shows that 34.4 percent of all respondents were most influenced by proximity of Michigan State University to home or job. The next most influential factor was the major choice of only 15.3 percent of all respondents. Thus, the general hypothesis that there would be no single factor singled out as more important than others should be rejected. General Hypothesis III: Factors such as course work, and association with faculty contributed to each graduate's personal and professional growth. A rating scale will measure selected factors and show that no single factor is more important than any other. Twelve factors were rated by respondents on a scale from 4.0 to 2.0. To assist in evaluating scores, a point of 90 3.0 (mean of the numerical values on the rating scale) was utilized as a minimum acceptable point. For all respondents (specialists and doctorates) only comprehensive exams and association with faculty or staff outside the department, received scores below 3.0. Thus, if two factors resulted in unacceptable scores, it also follows that all factors did not contribute equally to respondents' personal and professional growth. The range in scores extended from 3.8 (extern pro­ gram) to a low of 2.4 (comprehensive exams). Because of differences in the rating of factors by respondents, the general hypothesis that no factor is more important than any other, should be rejected. General Hypothesis IV: Graduates will be asked if they would make changes in their programs if they were to repeat it. Course additions and deletions, major and cognate changes and other factors will be considered. It is hypothesized that graduates will indicate general satisfaction with their pro­ grams by suggesting only minor changes. Analyzation of data supported this general hypo­ thesis. A total of 69.1 percent of respondents stated that they would make no changes in their program, if they were to repeat it. Only 3.1 percent stated that they would change their major, while only 7.6 percent would change their cognate. In addition, no course was suggested as an addition by more than eight respondents, while no course was suggested as a deletion by more than four respondents. In terms of all 91 respondents, only 17.4 percent would have added a course, and only 6.9 percent would have deleted a course. Consequently, with nearly 70 percent of all respon­ dents suggesting no changes, and the remainder making only minor alterations in their programs, the general hypothesis that students were generally satisfied, was accepted. General Hypo the sis V : Skill areas such as human relations, school law and negotiations will be considered in order to determine the graduates' view of how well Michigan State University prepared them for their current work. General satisfaction will be evidenced by relatively high rankings for each selected skill in the questionnaire. Twenty skill areas were rated by respondents, on a scale from 4.0 to 1.0. An acceptable score of 2.5 (mean of the numerical values on the rating scale) was established. Total respondents' ratings (specialist and doctoral) for the 20 skill areas were all above the 2.5 level. Since all areas scored above 2.5, and the average score was 2.9, the hypothesis that general satisfaction would be evidenced by relatively high rankings was accepted. CHAPTER V STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES AND SUGGESTIONS The preceeding chapter evaluated responses to questionnaire items dealing with demographic data and fixedalternate questions. The purpose of this chapter is to examine respondents' answers to the open-ended questions dealing with their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. In addition, the final question, asking res­ pondents to offer suggestions for improvements in the program, is dealt with. Strengths Three open-ended questions were asked of each respon­ dent. The first requested that they appraise the strengths of the program in educational administration at Michigan State University at the time they were enrolled in the specialist or doctoral program. The variety of answers was widespread, with some indi­ viduals merely listing a point or two, while others wrote as much as two pages. Some points of strength were mentioned many times, such as the instructional staff, while other points, such as the lack of red tape, were mentioned only once. 93 There were eight major strengths, each of which was mentioned by at least 5.9 percent of therespondents. are referred to as "major strengths"only because received the largest number of responses. They they The strengths were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Strong staff, throughout. Strong staff, generally. Flexibility of the program. Extern program. Mott internship. Assistance from chairman. Meaningful course work. Close association with other students. Other points were mentioned by 3.1 percent or less of the respondents. Staff First, in terms of the magnitude with which it was reported, was the strength related to staff. Respondents wrote of the experience, intellect and ability to teach, of the staff as a whole. In total, 74 (25.7 percent) respondents rated staff as a strength. Second, other respondents stated that with the exception of one or two poor instructors, the balance of the staff was a strength of the program. When these responses (17, or 5.9 percent) were added to those who referred to the entire staff, the percent of those attributing the staff to the strength of the program, rose to 31.6 per­ cent. The 91 responses were divided between 56 doctoral respondents (35.9 percent of all doctoral respondents) and 35 (26.5 percent) specialist respondents. A chi-square value of 2.89 was calculated, which at the .05 level of significance 94 indicated that degree, and the suggestion that staff was a strength of the program, were independent variables. In addition, Cramer's mean square contingency coefficient yielded a low association of .100. Flexibility Third, the individual freedom in planning, and the general flexibility of the program, was mentioned as a strength by 39 (13.5 percent) respondents. Comments cen­ tered around the fact that respondents believed they were allowed to make choices on their program, rather than being locked into an inflexible program and course of study. Extern Program Fourth, the extern program was highly rated by those respondents who had participated in it. Of the 196 respon­ dents who had been in the program, 35 (17.9 percent) rated it, and the interaction it provided with Michigan State University staff and professional peers, as a strength. The 35 in this category included only those respondents who specifically mentioned the extern program by name. Others may have alluded to it, when they rated staff as being a strength, because of their own involvement in the program. Thus the figure, 17.9 percent was considered conservative. Mott Internship Fifth, and closely associated, was the Mott intern­ ship. Reasons for it being a strength were the interaction 95 it provided with other professionals, and the practical experience involved. It was rated as a strength by 26 respondents, or 9.0 percent. Chairman Sixth, as reported by 24 respondents (8.3 percent) was the role played by their chairman (advisor), and in some cases, by their committees, as well. These respon­ dents praised the help and encouragement given them. Of the 24, 66.7 percent reported that had it not been for the support of their chairman (advisor), they would not have completed their respective programs. Course Work A lesser number, seventh area of strength. (21, or 7.3 percent), noted a This group commented on the course work, stating that their studies had been meaningful and pertinent to the work of educational administrators. They appraised the program as having strength in the fact that emphasis was placed on practical problems. Other Students The eighth strength, as expressed by 19 respondents (6.6 percent), was the close association with other students. They commented on the positive aspects of sharing problems and experiences, thus enriching one anothers1 knowledge. 96 Other Strengths The remaining strengths in the program, as stated by respondents, were ten in number. Individually, they were mentioned by 3.1 percent, or less, of the respondents. Fol­ lowing is a list of those ten additional strengths, rank ordered by number of respondents reporting each: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Seminars 9 respondents Statistics program 7 Variety in instructors' backgrounds 6 University resources 3 Graduate assistantships 2 Comprehensive exams 1 Lack of red tape 1 Independent study 1 Independent readings 1 Assistance from GSAO 1 Figure 25 (page 97) illustrates the percent of res­ pondents replying to each of the eight major strengths of the program. Weaknesses A second open-ended question asked each respondent to discuss the weaknesses in the Michigan State University program of educational administration, when the respondent was in the program. A total of 27 different weaknesses were mentioned. However, many of them (21, or 77.8 percent), were named by only three respondents, or less. Individual Factors First, and most frequently mentioned (by 72 res­ pondents, or 25 percent) was that omissions, deletions, 97 Percent of Respondents 30 — 25 - 20 - 15 - 10 _ 5 _ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Strengths Legend: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = = = = = = = = All staff Extern program Flexibility of program Mott internship Assistance from chairman Meaningful course work Close association with other students Some staff Figure 25.— Students Perceptions of Eight Major Strengths. 98 problems, etc., were of the respondents own making. For example, some (17) stated that their haste in attempting to finish the dissertation eventually caused extra work because of the necessity of extensive re-writing. Several (7) specialist respondents reported a lack of closeness to faculty, but went on to say that family, occupational con­ siderations and outside factors consumed so much time that they were not able to spend an appreciable amount of time with faculty and fellow students. Course Work A total of 58 respondents (20.1 percent), composed of 35 doctoral recipients and 23 specialists, reported that in their opinion there was too much class work and not enough field experience available. A third related weakness, sug­ gested by 58 respondents, evenly divided by degree, was the complaint of too much theory with an accompanying lack of "nuts and bolds" instruction. The general complaint of this group was that courses should be more relevant in dealing with the "how to" aspects of school administration. Red Tape A total of 38 respondents (13.2 percent) replied that "red tape" was a weakness of the program. Their definition of red tape centered around three particular areas: dency requirements, requirements. (1) resi­ (2) comprehensive exams and (3) course The respondents contended that residency requirements had made the program difficult for them and 99 unpleasant, comprehensive exams served no useful purpose, and course requirements were too rigid, forcing persons to take courses which would be of no use to them. Comprehensives or Residency Fifth, related to this area were those who specifi­ cally stated that comprehensive exams "were useless" or a "waste of time." and seven doctors. In this category were eight specialists Another seven specialists and seven doctors stated that residency requirements had not served any useful purpose. Prior Experience The sixth weakness which was mentioned by more than ten percent of all respondents centered around prior experience. A total of 29 respondents (15 doctors and 14 specialists) stated that their background and experience had not been taken into account when course requirements were designated by their advisors. Thus, they contended, they took courses which did not increase their competency, in fields with which they had first-hand knowledge before entering the doctoral or specialist program. Other Weaknesses The remainder of the weaknesses as suggested by res­ pondents were mentioned by small numbers of those responding to the questionnaire. (1 percent or less) The additional weaknesses and total number of responses to each are listed below: 100 7. Lack of field work 8. Some weak faculty-indifferent to students 9. Dissertation was a waste of time 10. Inflexible program— not individualized 11. No assistance from committee on dissertation 12. Absentee professors 13. Poor teaching of statistics sequence 14. Lack of availability of computers 15. Lack of counseling regarding course selection 16. Not enough interdisciplinary study 17. Use of graduate students to teach doctoral candidates 18. Little follow-up on graduates 19. Limited student-faculty contact 20. Hostility toward College of Education by cognate areas 21. Limited course offerings 22. Stringent prerequisites in cognate areas 23. Limited teaching of human relations 24. Limited teaching of p o l i c y development 25. Lack of a unifying element 26. Graduate students received preferential treatment 27. Failure to give women their rightful place 3 responses 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 26 (page 101) illustrates the percent of res­ pondents replying to each of the six major weaknesses of the program. They are referred to as "major weaknesses" only because they received the largest number of responses. Respondents' Suggestions for Program Improvements The last open-ended question asked each respondent to offer suggestions for improvements in the program. Sug­ gestions covered a wide range of topics, some including ideas previously covered in strengths and weaknesses in the program. However, no single suggestion was mentioned by more than 34 f t t 101 Percent of Respondents 25- 20 15— 10- 5_ 0_ Weaknesses Legend: 1 2 3 4 5 6 = = = = = = Individual factors Too much course work/limited field experience Too much theory/limited “nuts and bolts" Red tape Comprehensive exams or residency requirements Prior experience Figure 26.— Students Perceptions of Six Major Weaknesses. 102 respondents {11.8 percent). There were eight major sugges­ tions which received support from 12 (4.2 percent) or more respondents. The remainder were suggested by three percent or less. .Course Work Leading the list of suggestions was an idea expressed by 17 doctors and 17 specialists. They suggested that course work ought to have a broad base, with instructors deep in practical experience. In hiring new faculty, those with experience in public school administration ought to be given preference over those who have primarily been engaged in the teaching of administration. In addition, active practitioners f of educational administration with considerable expertise should be brought in to seminars and workshops to supplement the teaching of faculty. One doctoral respondent further suggested bringing to campus other planners and decision makers such as judges, political leaders and executives from business and industry. I Internships The second leading suggestion (22 respondents) was for the establishment of internships of some type. In this category, doctors outnumbered specialists 14 to eight. This group of respondents stated that benefits would be derived by placing students in administrative positions under the joint tutelege of Michigan State University faculty and respected practitioners of educational administration. Some 103 respondents compared it to student teaching, while others expressed a degree of envy for those who had been in the Mott intern program. It was noted that Mott interns had been complimentary of their internships in the rating of strengths of the program. Additionally, nine respondents (all doctors) specifically stated that the educational administration program could be strengthened by opening the Mott internships program to larger numbers of participants, or creating other internship situations using the Mott pro­ gram as a model. Thus, in total, there were 31 respondents who urged the use of internships. Workshops-Seminars The suggestion mentioned next most frequently was offered by 20 respondents (6.9 percent) composed of 13 specialists and seven doctors. They urged the offering of * more workshops and seminars dealing with contemporary, prac­ tical problems in educational administration. All 20 had been in the extern program, praised it highly, and suggested it could be replicated in part. Suggestions were for weekend workshops/seminars dealing with single topics of current interest. Residency Requirements Fourth, a total of 15 respondents stated that resi­ dency requirements for the doctoral program should be dropped. It was noted that 11 of the 15 were specialist'recipients. I 104 Each claimed that the full academic year in residence was all that stopped them from going on to the doctoral program. Meetings Fifth, meetings on a weekly or semi-monthly basis between departmental faculty and doctoral candidates were suggested by 14 respondents recipients. (4,9 percent), all doctoral The suggested purpose was to permit exposure of all doctoral candidates to all departmental faculty. The respondents urged an informal situation with loosely structured discussions as the focus of attention. Field Work Sixth, field work was suggested by 13 respondents, nine doctors and four specialists. The type of work sug­ gested was not necessarily an intern situation whereby an individual would be placed in a selected location for a fixed period of time. Instead, participants would have the tunity to work in a number of locales, with a variety of people. oppor­ The 13 respondents further stated that in such a situation they would be able to see theoretical constructs turned into practical applications. The closest approxi­ mation presentlyin existence is that of graduate assistants in the employ of Field Services. Credit for Experience Seventh, credit for experience was suggested by four doctors and nine specialists. Specifically, a counseling, 105 testing and advising system was suggested to assess the abilities and weaknesses of each specialist and doctoral candidate. Individual programs would be devised enabling the candidate to skip course work in areas where he already had measureable skills, and instead pursue course work to correct deficiencies and build upon marginal skills. Current Problems Eighth, the only other suggestion made by four per­ cent or more of the respondents was to gear course work to current problems in education. The idea was suggested by only three doctors, but by nine specialists. A related suggestion of one doctor and six specialists was to de-emphasize the teaching of theory in favor of more instruc­ tion aimed at problem solving. If the two suggestions were combined, a total of 15 specialists, but only four doctors, favored a greater emphasis on pragmatic details and less on theoretical constructs. It was further noted that of the 19 respondents favoring course work dealing with current problems and problem solving, 16 were principals. Figure 27 (page 106) illustrates the eight suggestions for improvements which received the largest number of res­ ponses. Remaining suggestions were offered by 3.1 percent, or less, of all respondents. 106 Percent of Respondents Legend: 1 = Course work should be broad based 2 = Establishment of internships 3 = Workshops/seminars dealing with topics of current interest 4 Drop residency requirement 5 Regular meetings between faculty and doctoral candidates 6 = Field work experiences 7 = Grant credit for past experience 8 = Gear course work to current problems in education 12 11 10 J 8 7 _ 6 _ 5 _ 4 J 3 0 i_L _L J__L 3 4 5 8 Suggestions Figure 27.— Students suggestions for eight major program improvements. 107 Comprehensive Exams A total of nine respondents (3.1 percent) suggested that comprehensive exams should be eliminated, stating that they serve no useful purpose. An additional 15 respondents, as noted previously, stated that residency requirements should be dropped. Tending to balance out these two sug­ gestions were eight respondents who stated that standards ought to be kept high to "weed out" those without sufficient ability and determination. Specifically mentioned were comprehensive exams and residence requirements. Faculty Evaluation Six respondents, three doctors and three specialists, suggested that students be allowed input into the evaluation of faculty. They contended that some faculty members were able to "hang on year after year" although their instruction is "poor and irrelevant." The six respondents appeared to have a negative outlook toward Michigan State University in general. Each directed some form of criticism at faculty in the section of this chapter devoted to weaknesses. overall scoring of skills Their (page 66) was 2.0, well below the mean of 2.8 of all respondents. It was noted that none had been in the Extern program, Mott internship, nor had any of them been graduate assistants, all areas which were highly rated by other respondents. None of the six were in any of the four upper income levels ($16,000 or higher), nor were any in positions of 108 leadership higher than assistant principal, or a central office position subserviant to the superintendent. Dissertation Substitution Six doctoral recipients suggested that some practical experience ought to be substituted for the dissertation, however, none offered any specific examples of what this might be. It was noted that the mean length of time required for these six respondents to complete their program was 5.9 years, as compared to the average of 4.0 years. Possibly, the fact that these respondents required an atypical amount of time to complete their respective programs had an effect on their suggestion that a substitute be made for the dissertation. Dissertation Proposal There were six additional doctoral respondents who stated that doctoral candidates ought to receive more help in selecting and "polishing" a dissertation proposal. Each of the six expressed some disappointment in the limited guidance given them by their chairman and committee members, in this regard. Two additional doctoral respondents suggested that more care should be taken in promulgating dissertation topics which lead to finished products that effectively contribute to knowledge, rather than merely result in a lengthy, but meaningless paper, written solely to fulfill a requirement. 109 Lanugage Requirement Five doctoral respondents suggested that the lan­ guage requirement ought to be removed. that this had been accomplished. Three "had heard" Each stated that they had had no ocassion on which they had used their foreign language since receiving their doctorate. One additional respondent stated that the language requirement should be reinstated. Statistics and Research Skills Four respondents, three doctors and one specialist, stated a need for greater emphasis on statistical skills, and a similar number suggested the same for research skills. Two additional doctoral respondents suggested that an exten­ sive series of courses in statistics and research should be accepted in lieu of a cognate from an area outside of education. Of the total of 156 doctoral respondents, only 3 (1.9 percent) stated the suggestion that less statistics should be required of doctoral candidates. Cognate Two doctoral respondents suggested that the cognate requirement should be eliminated, while four other doctoral recipients suggested that more than one cognate area should be required of all candidates. 110 Additional Courses Several respondents suggested additional courses that they believed would be helpful to practicing adminis­ trators if added to the program. The courses and number of respondents suggesting each were: advanced school finance (two), budget analysis (two), conflict management (two), and Michigan school law (three). Assistantships One doctoral respondent suggested that all candi­ dates for specialists and doctoral degrees should be given a graduate assistantship, if desired. While the idea would probably appeal to most prospective candidates, the financing of such a proposal contains inherent problems and probably would not be feasable. Other Suggestions Five other suggestions were made by one respondent each, as follows: 1. Eliminate use of graduate assistants as instructors. 2. Establish orientation program for doctoral candidates. 3. Greater emphasis on political role of the superintendent. 4. Promote hiring of women. 5. Reduce class size. Ill Summary A number of criteria were used to measure the effectiveness of the program in educational administration at Michigan State University. One such measure was whether or not a degree recipient would return to Michigan State University if he were to repeat his program. If the pro­ gram had not prepared graduates according to their own view of their needs, it would seem logical that they would not express an interest in returning to Michigan State University. However, it was noted that only 16 respondents stated that they would not return, a rate of only 5.5 percent. A second measurement centered around the skill areas as detailed on page 66. was utilized. A scale extending from 4.0 to 1.0 The mean possible score, 2.5, was designated as the low, acceptable score. for all respondents was 2.9. However, the total mean score Only one score, statistical skill as rated by specialists, was below the 2.5 level. The fact that nearly 70 percent of all respondents reported they would make no changes in their program if repeated was an indication of support. The only substantial individual program change suggested was a change of major, reported by only nine respondents. A graduate of the program in educational administra­ tion, if he had been effectively trained and had not changed his interests, should be able to secure a position as a practicing administrator. A total of 88.2 percent of all 112 respondents reported their current positions as being admini­ strative in nature, at the time of this study. An additional 8.7 percent reported their positions as higher education instructors, which was not considered as being contrary to the purposes of the department. The categories denoted as weaknesses and suggestions, both indicated that there was no single area which respon­ dents saw as detrimental to the program. Weaknesses were scattered and generally reflected personal interests of respondents. Suggestions generally were offered to enhance certain phases of the program. Thus, chapters IV and V indicate general support of the program, as it existed at the time of the study. However, there are areas which can be improved upon, as noted in the following chapter. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings Preparing educational administrators is a dynamic process undergoing constant change. Departments of Educa­ tional Administration, such as that at Michigcin State University, must keep pace with changing demands, techno­ logical developments and the changing nature of administration. Changes may evolve from within, yet suggestions from without also have their place. Practitioners of administration, in their day-to-day activities, are often first to see changing needs and new demands. The purpose of this study was to examine the program in educational administration at Michigan State University, as viewed by graduates holding the specialist or doctoral degree, granted between 1965 and 1972, inclusive. A questionnaire was sent to each of the 350 living recipients of the specialist or doctoral degrees. A return of 288 responses (82.3 percent) was the result of 132 specialist returns and 156 doctoral returns. Demographic characteristics of the respondents were examined. The mean age of respondents when they entered the program was 35.8 years for specialists and 34.4 years for 113 114 doctors. At the time the degree was received, mean ages were 39.4 years (specialists) and 38.4 years (doctors). The mean length of time since the degree had been received was 4.7 years for specialists and 3.6 years for doctors. In terms of present position, 88.2 percent were in administration, 10.4 percent teaching, 1.0 percent consulting and .3 percent research. A total of 8 0 (27.8 percent) reported they were not employed in a position which fully satisfied the primary employment objectives held while working toward their respective degrees. However, 66 of the 80 reported either that their lack of satisfaction was due only to a desire to "move higher up," or that they were very satisfied with their particular work, but it had not been their primary employment objective while working toward the degree. Income was examined and it was found that only 6.9 percent were earning $15,999 or less. cent were earning $22,0 00 or higher. A total of 52.4 per­ A Pearson product- moment correlation coefficient was calculated to determine to what extent doctoral and specialist salary levels co-varied. An r=.90 was derived, indicating a strong, posi­ tive relationship between doctoral and specialist salaries. In total 55.6 percent of the respondents had earned some graduate credit toward their degree at an institution other than Michigan State University. however, in terms of degree. There was a disparity, Of the specialists, 46.2 115 percent had earned credit elsewhere toward the degree, while 63.5 percent of doctoral recipients had. Only six doctoral recipients (3.8 percent) earned credit anywhere since earning the degree at Michigan State University, while 29.5 percent of the specialist recipients had done s o . Respondents were asked to rate each of several reasons regarding their choice of Michigan State University as the institution at which to pursue their respective degrees. The most frequently cited reasons by doctoral res­ pondents were, proximity of Michigan State University to home or job, and offer of financial assistance. Specialist respondents cited proximity of Michigan State University to home or job, most frequently. The lowest rating by specialists was offer of financial assistance, while the lowest rating by doctors was advice of graduates of Michigan State University. Respondents were also asked to rate each of several components of the program in educational administration, in terms of the contribution each made to the respondents’ personal and professional growth while at Michigan State University. The components receiving the highest scores from specialist respondents were seminars, and the extern program. Doctoral respondents rated association with mcijor professor, highest. Combining both specialist and doctoral scores resulted in the extern program receiving the highest overall rating. 116 The questionnaire asked respondents to reply to a series of questions about their programs regarding changes they would make if they were to repeat their degree. 70 percent reported they would make no changes. Nearly Only 3.1 percent reported a change of major would be made if they repeated their program. Each respondent was asked to list the most valuable and least valuable course taken. The extern program was listed most frequently (62 responses) by specialists, and Theory of Administration (34) by doctors, as most valuable. A large number of both specialists (34) and doctors (51) specifically stated that no course could be singled out as least valuable. Of those respondents listing a least valuable course, Crucial Issues in Education was listed most frequently (11) by specialists and both Philosophy of Education and Statistics 869 (13 each) by doctors. A list of 20 skill areas was included in the question­ naire. Respondents were asked to rate each of the items in terms of how well the program at Michigan State University prepared them in each skill area. Ratings were on a scale from 4.0 to 1.0, with the mean (2.5) being set as the minimum acceptable score. All total scores (doctors and specialists scores combined) were above the minimum acceptable score. Doctors rated all skill areas above 2.5, while specialists rated only statistical skills at less than 2.5. The highest ratings by doctors were in the skill area of school-community 117 relations. Specialist respondents rated decision-making skills highest, the same area receiving the highest combined scores. Strengths of the program were also commented on by respondents. The greatest strength of the program, in terms of magnitude with which it was reported, was related to staff. Respondents commented on the background experience and ability to teach of the staff in general. A total of 74 (25.7 percent) respondents rated staff as a strength of the program. Weaknesses of the program were also determined by the questionnaire. One fourth of the respondents (72) reported that any weaknesses were of their own making. They reported no weaknesses of the program per se, only that they made various personal decisions (i.e. course'selection, dissertation topic) which at a later point in time proved to be detrimental, to some degree. Some respondents (58) reported that the program involved too much course work and not enough field experience. A related weakness, suggested by an additional 20.1 percent of the respondents, was that instruction contained too much theory and not enough "nuts and bolts." Respondents were asked to suggest possible improve­ ments in the program, resulting in a variety of answers. The leading suggestion (34) stated that course work should have a broad base, taught by instructors who have a great deal of 118 practical experience. In hiring new faculty, respondents stated that those with administrative experience-be given priority. Internships were suggested by 22 respondents as a recommendation for improving the program in educational administration. An additional 20 respondents suggested that workshops and seminars dealing with practical problems existing in educational administration today would enhance the program. Conclusions Examining all responses to all questions indicated that a major component of Michigan State University’s pro­ gram in educational administration was the extern program. In six different areas of the study, the extern program surfaced as an important factor in the education of special­ ist and doctoral recipients. Respondents rated 12 areas in terms of the contri­ bution each made to the respondent's personal and professional growth while at Michigan State University. The extern program received the highest rating of all the 12 areas. The rating received was 3.8, with 4.0 as the highest possible rating. A total of 76 doctors and 120 specialists had been in the extern program. However, not a single respondent named the extern program as the least valuable course, nor did any of the respondents list it as a course they would delete if they were to repeat their program. 119 Of those 196 respondents enrolled in the extern program, 21.1 percent of the doctors and 51.7 percent of the specialists reported it as the most valuable course on their respective programs. No other course was named most valuable by more specialists, and only three other courses were named more frequently than the extern program by doctoral recipients. In terms of total responses (doctors and specialists) the extern program was the most frequently cited course (78) in the most valuable category, compared to Theory of Administra­ tion, which was the next most frequently cited as most valuable, named by 34 respondents. An open-ended question asked respondents to discuss weaknesses in the Michigan State University program in educa­ tional administration. Nowhere in the responses was any reference made to the extern program. Of the 196 respondents who had been in the extern program, none commented on any phase of it in terms of weaknesses. Thirty-five respondents mentioned the extern program in the open-ended question dealing with strengths of the program. Only two other items were mentioned more frequently as strengths of the program. The final open-ended question in the questionnaire asked each respondent to offer suggestions for improvements in the program. A total of 2 0 suggested greater use of work­ shops and seminars modeled after the extern program. Major components of a specialist program include course work, comprehensive exams and residence requirements. 120 A doctoral program includes the same, plus the dissertation requirement. The results suggest that respondents were satisfied with each of the components. If any of the aforementioned components had been complaints of respondents, they would have appeared in the answers to the open-ended question dealing with weaknesses. However, course work was not criticized, other than comments by 58 respondents that less theory and more practical instruc­ tion should be implemented. Residency requirements were criticized by only 13 respondents composed of seven special­ ists and six doctors. Comprehensive exams were named by only eight specialists and seven doctors, as weaknesses and the dissertation requirement was criticized by only three doctoral respondents. Consequently, the major thrust of the program appeared to coincide with the interests and needs of the graduates of Michigan State University's eductional administration program. This was exemplified by the fact that only 16 respondents reported they would not attend Michigan State University again if they were to repeat their program. In addition, 160 respondents (55.6 percent) reported that some portion of their degree program had been earned elsewhere. Thus, over half of the respondents were in the position of being able to make comparisons between Michigan State University and other graduate institutions. However, only two respondents specifically mentioned situations where, in their opinions, 121 other institutions were more effective in their preparation of educational administrators than Michigan State University. Examination of positions indicated that 88.2 per­ cent of the respondents were in administrative positions. The study did not attempt to measure how effective they were as administrators. Nonetheless, the reputation of Michigan State University, and the image that the graduates portray was favorable enough to assist in securing adminis­ trative positions for these individuals. If Michigan State University had not been effectively preparing administrators, it is difficult to imagine that 88.2 percent of the res­ pondents would have been in administrative positions. Even if it was assumed that none of the non-respondents were administrators, the total number of administrators in the population would have equalled 7 2.8 percent. The important point was that Michigan State University's program in edu­ cational administration was appraised by graduates who are, to a large extent, actively engaged as practitioners of educational administration. Such individuals are in a highly favorable position from which to appraise components of the program. Some components, such as the extern program and the Mott internship, were highly praised by those who participated. Consequently, there are areas in which the department should continue to maintain its strength. Weaknesses in the program were of a minor nature and generally were suggestions for making a strong program even more effective. This did not 122 mean that the program was perfect. A number of steps could be undertaken to strengthen the program even more. Recommendations In order to maintain the strengths extant in Michi­ gan State University's program in educational administration, as well as enhance components of lesser effectiveness, several steps may be taken. 1. Faculty of the Department of Administration and Higher Education should examine this study. The implica­ tions of the respondents’ appraisals may encourage suggestions for improvements originating from within the department. Additionally, it may be feasible to establish an advisory committee composed of former students to assist in the promulgation of suggestions. 2. Appointment of a faculty committee should be considered which would examine possible changes and take ini­ tiatory action on appropriate considerations. This responsibility may be assigned to the existing Curriculum Advisory Committee. 3. This study should be continuously up-dated via periodic follow-up studies of graduates of the program. The responsibility for follow-up may be accomplished through the cooperation of the Graduate Student Affairs Office. 4. tions. The program is not in need of radical altera­ The commentary offered by respondents indicates areas where improvements may be undertaken, but major changes are not needed. 123 5. An orientation session should be held yearly to acquaint new students with faculty, staff, available ser­ vices and other students. hour and welcoming speech. More is needed than a coffee New students could be shown campus facilities, be made aware of institutional policies and be given written guidelines covering all the require­ ments for the specialist or doctoral degree. The opportunity to meet all faculty and staff of the Department of Administration and Higher Education is essential and should be provided. 6. The closeness between students and faculty should be continued. rapport. All students and faculty will not share equal However, strong guidance and counseling services can be provided by a faculty which is genuinely interested in, and concerned with, the candidates* progress. Only those faculty who are genuinely concerned with students * needs and interests should serve as committee chairmen. 7. Every effort should be made to provide experiences for all students where they may participate in situations involving the competencies required of educational adminis­ trators. Internships, field and consultant work and graduate assistantships with Field Services are all appropriate means to this end. Every student should be a participant, however place­ ment should carefully consider the students prior experiences 124 in order to provide a worthwhile exercise to the participant. Such experiences should allow the participant to engage in a variety of activities. If such a program is to be seriously and fully under­ taken, funding should be considered to compensate participants. In addition, a faculty member from the Department of Adminis­ tration and Higher Education should be appointed to direct and coordinate the activities. 8. Course work should be complemented with the inclusion of additional forms of learning experience. Inde­ pendent study, independent readings, case studies and visitations may all be utilized, in addition to items sug­ gested in number 7, above. 9. If recommendations 7 and 8, above, are put into practice, it may be desireable to reduce the number of required courses in lieu of the fact that knowledge may be gained through experiences other than traditional classroom instruction. 10. Each candidate's program should be individually prescribed, giving careful attention to the individual's background, professional experience, formal education, strengths and weaknesses. The final program may containa widely varied approach to learning as exemplified in pre­ ceding recommendations. 11. exams. A closer look should be taken at comprehensive Administered early in a candidate's program, they could prove useful as evaluative tools to prescribe learning 125 experiences designed to eliminate deficiencies. This does not preclude the use of a second form toward the end of a candidate's program to determine whether or not sufficient competence has been gained. 12. Flexible dissertation requirements would allow degree candidates broad and varied opportunities. The dis­ sertation should not only contribute to the body of knowledge but also be of a useful purpose to the candidate as well. The dissertation should be a meaningful learning experience, not merely an academic exercise. Options such as a team situation should be allowable. 13. provided. Greater use of interdisciplinary study should be Areas such as political science, psychology, business, sociology and communications should all be explored 14. Greater emphasis should be given to the pro­ cesses of goal and objective determination, decision making, policy development, the planning function, conflict manage­ ment and the human relations aspects of successful leadership Varied learning situations should be employed to accomplish this phase of the candidate's education. 15. A variety of practitioners with expertise in various areas should be brought to the university, periodi­ cally. Decision makers, planners and administrators from business, industry, government and education should all be included. Such individuals would supplement the instruction of departmental faculty with current, first-hand commentary 126 dealing with contemporary problems and solutions related to the general administrative framework. 16. A single course should be instituted to be taken toward the end of each candidate's program to unify the knowledge gained from prior learning experiences. The course should be designed around a seminar model with numerous faculty involved. Various bodies of knowledge should be incorporated under the rubric of the total administrator and the administrative process. 17. Full-time study, including the residency require­ ment, should be required of all degree candidates. The responses of degree recipients and the literature both are supportive of this position. The addition of internships or graduate assistantships, for all candidates, in addition to varied learning experiences and individually prescribed pro­ grams would, in combination, make the residency a profitable and more meaningful experience for each candidate. 18. Candidates, upon earning their degrees, will enter into varied positions in educational leadership, requiring a wide range of competencies. Thus, trairting should encompass both theoretical constructs and pragmatic skills. Neither the responses to the questionnaires, nor the litera­ ture would support sacrificing one for the other. A blend of the two permits a practical balance between theory and working skills. 127 Consequently, there is a need for both traditional learning situations, and learning experiences such as field and consultant work, as well as internships. 19. Periodically, post-doctoral seminars for graduates should be utilized, with two purposes in mind. First, the Department of Administration and Higher Education could receive feedback from graduates, in terms of the relationship between the skills received at Michigan State University, and those actually required on-the-job. Second, the department could serve as a source of advice and assis­ tance for those who have entered new positions and are encountering difficulties they are unequipped to fully deal with. Summary The program in educational administration at Michigan State University generally is effective in terms of evalua­ tive responses from individuals who have received degrees and are now practitioners. nate. However, the program must not stag­ Time changes everything, and the program needs to keep pace. In order to continue an effective training program, a concerned faculty must keep abreast of graduates' attitudes and needs. Responsiveness and creativity are important qualities, as well as willingness to change, when warranted. High standards must not be relaxed if the degrees offered and the institution are to continue to be respected 128 in the field of education. Nevertheless, components of the program should be altered or deleted if they become rudi­ mentary appendages at some future point in time. Affinity between faculty and students both prior to and after graduation should continue to be utilized to full advantage in the future, to insure that the training of educational leaders at Michigan State University is as efficient, or better, than all other institutions. APPENDICES 129 APPENDIX A COVER LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY east l a n s in o • Mic h ig a n 48823 C O M J’GH OP E D U C A T IO N • DEPAR TM EN T OP A D M IN IS T R A T IO N A N D H IG H E R E D U C A T IO N ERICKSON IIAL1. April 23, 1973 Dear Colleague: Every organization should be concerned about the validity of its goals and objectives and the extent to which those goals and objectives represent the real needs of the client system. Universities and colleges within the university are not exempt from this responsibility. To determine the extent to which our program suits the needs of school administrators I have, encouraged Mr. Kirk Nigro to study this matter. The study will culminate in a doctoral dissertation. Having been a school administrator for a number of years, I realize that you are constantly requested to provide information. However, the enclosed questionnaire can be completed in a relatively short time, and I would sincerely appreciate your response. The data will be handled in a very professional manner, and you can be assured that no individual will be identified or quoted in any way. I appreciate your aid in this project, and if I can be of any assistance to you, please feel free to call on me. Sincerely, Alexander J.pRloster Associate Professor AJK/mlg 131 132 April 23, 1973 Dear Colleague: A common complaint among students and graduates is the lack of a vehicle through which they may appraise the department with which they are, or have been, affiliated. Institutions and departments appraise themselves, but those of you in the field have valuable contributions to make as well. How well do you believe you were prepared for your current position? Was there both breadth and depth in your training? Were some areas overemphasized while others were ignored? The following questionnaire has as its' goal an overall view, by graduates, of their perceptions of the specialist in education and doctoral programs in educational administration at Michigan State University. The results will be very useful to the depart­ ment and to the profession, but only if returns are secured from all recipients. The questionnaire can be answered in a brief period of time, and includes open-ended questions in order to afford each recipient an opportunity to fully state his or her perceptions. Any addi­ tional comments are welcome. Code numbers on the questionnaire will be used only for non­ respondent follow-up. After coding, the questionnaire will be destroyed. Strict confidence will be observed, and data collected will be handled solely by the researcher. Sincerely, Kirk A. Nigro Departmental Assistant Department of Administration and Higher Education Degree earned: Ed.5. Ed.D. Ph.D. Age when accepted into program _____ Age at completion of program _______ Present age _____ Present position: Title or Rank Employer {organization or institution)__________________________ Location (city and state) What is the nature of your professional responsibilities in your present position? ____ primarily administrative other {please explain) primarily research ________________ primarily teaching __ ___ primarily consulting Are you now employed in a position which fully satisfies the primary employment objectives you held while working toward the specialist or doctorate degree? ___ Yes No Present income: Below 9,999 ___ 16,000-18,999 25,000 or over 10,000-12,999__________ ___ 19,000-21,999 13,000-15,999 ___ 22,000-24,999 Was any graduate credit toward your degree earned at an institution other than MSU? . Yes No Ir Yes, where?__________________________________ ___________________ Have you earned graduate credit at any institution since completing your degree program? Yes No If Yes, where?____________________________________________ 134 7. How important were the following in your decision to enroll in the specialist or doctoral program at MSU? Use the following scale: (1) Important; (2) Of some importance, (3) Of little importance; (4) Of no importance. A. ____ Reputation of the institution B. ___ Reputation of the department C. ____ Reputation of certain faculty members D. ___ Offer of financial assistance E. _____ Proximity of MSU to home or job F. ___ Advice of graduates of MSU G. _____ Advice of friends or colleagues H. _____ Other (specify) Which of the above was the single most important factor in your choice of MSU? Circle one letter: A B C D E F G H 8. Using the following scale, rate each of the following as you feel it generally contributed to your personal and professional development while at MSU. (1) Much; (2) Some; (3) Little; (4) Does not apply. Seminars Course work independent study and readings Assistantship _____ Comprehensive exams Dissertation Association with major professor (advisor) Association with faculty on your committee Association with departmental faculty or staff Association with faculty or staff outside the department Association with fellow students Extern Program 9. If you were to begin your program again, would you attend Michigan State University? ___ Yes No If No, where would you attend?______________________________________ Why? 135 10. What changes would you make in your program if you were to repeat it? None ^ Change major. From what?_____________ To what?______________ ___ Change cognate. Add courses. From what? To what? What one(s)?_______________________________________ Delete courses. What one