INFORMATION 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 of 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 ^ 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 NOTE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-5554 FROST, Alfrieda Mary, 1935A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Education, administration Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES By Alfrieda M. Frost A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in p artial fu lfillm e n t of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1975 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES By Alfrieda M. Frost Purpose of the Study This study was undertaken to determine the degree to which principals claim they delegate administrative tasks in each of six major school administration areas: (1) Instruction and Curriculum Development, (2) S taff Personnel, (3) Pupil Personnel, (4) Finance and Business Management, (5) School Plant and Services, and (6) School-Community Relations. The study was also made to ascertain i f there are differences in the degree to which principals delegate in each of these areas when related to the selected variables of sex, number of years as a p rincipal, school d is tric t size, number of students supervised, and number of buildings supervised. Another aspect of the study determined whether Michigan public elementary school principals delegated more in th eir least preferred adminis­ tra tiv e area than in th e ir most preferred administrative area. A lfried a M. Frost Design and Methodology The target population for the study was fu ll-tim e principals of Michigan public elementary schools which were administratively organized to include any combination of grades between kindergarten and grade six* excluding those located in the school system of the c ity o f D etroit. A random proportional allocation was drawn from each o f six stratum, based on building enrollment and school d is tr ic t size. The 911 selected schools were then each matched to the position of elementary principal, to whom was mailed the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey, a questionnaire used to obtain the measurement of delegation. The instrument specified 63 tasks to which each principal in the study was asked to select a response that indicated his involvement with each one. Responses could range from "I do a ll of th is ," to complete delegation of the responsibility, "I do none of th is ." Usable data were acquired from 627 respondents. The seven major hypotheses, developed and tested, were: I. There w ill be a significant difference between female elementary principals and male elementary principals in the delegation of administrative tasks. II. There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals with varied levels of experience as a p rincip al, in the delegation of administrative tasks. III. There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts in the delegation of administrative tasks. IV. V. There w ill be a significant difference between elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised in the delegation of administrative tasks. There w ill be a significant interaction between small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and small and large A lfrieda M. Frost numbers of students supervised in the delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals. VI. V II. There w ill principals principals delegation be a significant difference between elementary who supervise one building and elementary who supervise two or more buildings in the of administrative tasks. The delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals w ill be greater in th e ir least preferred administrative area than in th e ir most preferred administrative area. S ta tis tic a l Analysis Forty-two operational hypotheses were s ta tis tic a lly treated with an analysis of variance with appropriate "F" tests. If a significant difference were noted, the Scheffg post hoc comparisons procedure was used as a method for determining the location and the size of the s ta tis tic a l differences between groups. The dependent sample t-te s t was performed on the data of least preferred and most preferred administrative areas to determine i f there were a s ig n ifi­ cant difference between the mean scores. The Hoyt analysis of variance procedure was used to measure the internal consistency of the instru­ ment. Major Findings The researcher's major findings in the study were: 1. Michigan public elementary school principals make limited use of delegation in th eir administration. I t was affirmed that this may be due to the complexity of delegation, to a lack of its acceptance, or to a lack of understanding about its use. The limited use of delegation also suggests that there may be in s u fficie n t personnel A lfried a M. Frost within the elementary school organization to whom the principal can delegate responsibilities, and/or that delegation to s ta ff members may be lim ited or prohibited by provisions of the school d is tr ic t's negotiated contracts. 2. Michigan public elementary school principals employ some delegation in the areas of Pupil Personnel and Instruction and Curriculum Development. I t is of concern that the amount of dele­ gation in Instruction and Curriculum Development exceeds that of four other major administrative areas because delegation in organi­ zations generally appears most frequently with technical or routine tasks, and because the lite ra tu re on the elementary school principalship indicates that supervision of instruction should have p rio rity of a principal's time and energy. 3. The variables of sex, number of years as a p rincip al, number of students supervised, number of buildings supervised, and least preferred or most preferred administrative areas have no significant effe ct on the delegative behavior of Michigan public elementary school principals. The absence of any significant d if f e r ­ ence seems to in fe r that there may be exogenous variables and/or personal characteristics which influence or determine an individual's delegative behavior. 4. Principals in Michigan's small school d is tric ts delegate more in the area of School Plant and Services than do principals in medium or large school d is tric ts . This is considered an appro­ priate area for delegation, and indicates that the small d is tr ic t A lfrieda M. Frost principal is using delegation so that he may give proper emphasis to duties in other areas of administration. 5. Principals in Michigan's large school d is tric ts delegate less in the area of School-Community Relations than do principals in small or medium d is tric ts . This occurs because large d is tric ts tend to have assistant principals and/or supervisory personnel to assist the building principal in the areas of Instruction and Curriculum Development and Pupil Personnel. This allows the administrator to spend more time, and to delegate less, in functions relating to School-Community Relations. Recommendations Recommendations advanced by the researcher were: 1. Since delegation is viewed by authorities in the fields o f school administration and organizational theory as being a desirable but a complex administrative technique in any organization, the concept o f delegation needs to be promoted in university graduate programs o f educational administration so that current and prospective adminis­ trators are aware of the technique and can learn to use i t e ffe c tiv e ly . 2. In-service workshops and seminars should be held through­ out the state to assist elementary leaders who are not enrolled in university programs to acquire the a b ility to delegate. 3. So that elementary principals may be released from routine duties to perform as educational leaders, elementary schools should be staffed with personnel to whom principals can delegate. Efforts should be made to provide the elementary principal with an assistant A lfrieda M. Frost or with supervisory s ta ff, and with secretarial service, to the recommended ratio reported in the lite ra tu re . 5. Those seeking elementary administrators skilled in delegation should not use sex, number of years as a principal, number of students supervised, number of buildings supervised, or preferred administrative areas as indicators for selection. School boards and superintendents should be aware that these variables played no significant role in the reported delegative behavior of Michigan public elementary school principals. 6. Every principal should examine his own delegative behavior (1) to determine i f he believes in the concept, (2) to ascertain i f he is employing the technique, (3) to consider whether he is using i t advantageously for himself, for his s ta ff, and for his school, and (4) to seek ways of expanding and/or improving his u tiliz a tio n of the act of delegation. The study and its findings should be of importance to elementary principals, university educators who are responsible for training school administrators, superintendents, and members of boards of education. Since delegation is viewed as a necessary professional competency fo r today's school administrator, a concerted e ffo rt must be made to enhance its u tiliz a tio n , and thus, to improve the elementary principalship, the elementary schools, and the quality of instruction for elementary students in Michigan. DEDICATED TO My Faithful Friends ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses sincere appreciation and gratitude to many persons for th e ir encouragement and cooperation throughout this study. To Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Chairman of my Doctoral Committee, for his counsel, guidance, and continued support during my doctoral program; To Dr. Samuel A. Moore, Dr. James Snoddy, and Dr. William A. Mehrens for serving on my committee and giving insightful suggestions; To Dr. Maryellen McSweeney for her assistance with the research design and procedure of the study; To Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, and to Mr. Robert Witte of the Michigan State Department of Education for th e ir help in acquiring the data from which the sample was drawn for the study; To the MAESP Board of Directors, Leadership Commission, and Dr. Edward P. K eller, Executive Secretary, for the endorsement, funding, and support given; To the MAESP o ffic e s ta ff fo r th e ir assistance in preparing the questionnaire and accepting the returns; To the many elementary principals who took time from th eir already busy schedules to respond to the survey; To my friend Miss Alice Mae Wiseley who helped prepare the mail-out and assisted with the t a lly of returns; iii To Mr. Bob Carr and Mr. Joe Wisenbaker, Office of Research Consultation, whose research and s ta tis tic a l s k ills were invaluable; To Mr. Ron C. Stanton, Mr. Allen A. Moluf, Mr. B ill Brown, and Mr. Merle P ifer fo r th e ir assistance with computer services; To my NAESP colleague with whom a dinner conversation in Tijuana, Mexico generated the idea for this thesis; To the South Haven Board of Education for granting my sabbatical leave so that I could pursue my doctoral studies; To the Grosse Pointe Board of Education, Superintendent Dr. James A. Adams, and other administrators for th eir expressions of confidence in me; To my family for th e ir interest and pride in my continued educational effo rts ; and To my many fa ith fu l friends, both old and new, fo r th eir understanding, patience, companionship, and encouragement which made possible the accomplishment of my doctoral venture. t- E F- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... ix LIST OF F IG U R E S .................................................................................................. x ii LIST OF APPENDICES...........................................................................................x i i i Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .......................................................... 1 ........................................................... 2 Statement of the Purpose 4 Significance of the Study ........................................................... Theory and Supportive Research ............................................... 4 Delegation .................................................................................. 4 5 Delegation in Organizations ............................................... Delegation--An Administrator's Function ........................ 5 Definition of Terms ...................................................................... 7 Assumptions.............................................................................................. 10 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ........................ 11 Hypotheses.............................................................................................. 12 Endorsement of the S t u d y ................................................................. 19 Organization of the T h e s is ................................................................. 19 II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE PRINCIPALSHIP . . . . 21 Foreword....................................................................................................21 The Development of the Elementary School Principal ship . 21 Historical Background ................................................................ 22 Head T e a c h e r .................................................................................. 22 Teaching Principal ................................................................ 24 Building Principal ................................................................ 26 Department of Elementary School Principals . . . . 28 28 Supervising Principal .......................................................... Expanded Role and D u tie s ................................................................. 30 S k ill and Task C la s s if ic a tio n s ................................................30 Problems of S o c ie ty .......................................................................35 Influence by Government ..................................................... 35 Changes in the Elementary School ................................... 36 The Management Team.......................................................................37 Chapter III. The Principal's Dilemma .................................................... Use of Time ..................................................................... Importance of Supervision .............................................. A D ifferent View ............................................................... Whereto? ........................................................................... Assistance for the Principal ........................................ Why the Principal Needs Help ........................................ Forms of Assistance .......................................................... Recommendations ............................................................... The Future ........................................................................... Summary ................................................................................. Related Studies of the Elementary School Principal ship Role and Duties ..................................................................... Early 20th Century .......................................................... 1950-1970 ........................................................................... Department of Elementary School Principals Surveys Time Allocation ..................................................................... Perception by Principals . . . ............................. Allocation to Functions .............................................. Recommendations ............................................................... Department of Elementary School Principals Surveys Assistance for the Principal ........................................ Clerical Service ................................................................ Assistant Principal .......................................................... National Survey of Assistant Principals . Summary ................................................................................. 37 38 39 41 42 43 43 45 46 48 49 51 51 51 52 54 55 55 56 57 58 59 59 60 61 64 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DELEGATION ............................. 65 Foreword ....................................................................................... Delegation in Organizations .............................................. Theoretical Base ................................................................ Definitions ..................................................................... Purpose ................................................................................. Models ................................................................................. Acceptance by Subordinates ......................................... Benefits to the Organization ........................................ Benefits to the Administrator ................................... Benefits to the Subordinate ........................................ Disadvantages of Delegation ........................................ Can Responsibility be Delegated? ............................. An Administrator's Function .............................................. Barriers to Delegation .................................................... Favorable Conditions for Delegation ....................... Requisite S kills and Characteristics ....................... Guidelines for Implementation ................................... What to Delegate ................................................................ What Not to Delegate .................................................... To Whom to Delegate .......................................................... 65 65 vi 66 66 68 69 70 72 74 75 76 78 80 81 83 85 88 90 91 91 Page Chapter 92 Potential P itfa lls ................................................................ Delegation in Schools .......................................................... 94 Research Studies ...................................................................... 96 Non-Educational Organizations ......................................... 96 Educational Organizations .................................................... 98 S u m m a ry ....................................................................................... 103 IV. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE .................................................... 106 Introduction ................................................................................. 106 Research Design ........................................................................... 106 Target Population ................................................................ 106 Sampling Design ...................................................................... 106 Sampling Frame D iffic u ltie s ............................................... 109 Data C o l l e c t i o n ................................................................................ 110 M e th o d ............................................................................................110 F o llo w -U p ......................................................................................I l l T a b u la tio n ......................................................................................I l l Instrumentation ........................................................................... 112 D e s c r i p t i o n ................................................................................ 112 Rationale for Selection .................................................... 113 V a l i d i t y ......................................................................................115 R e l i a b i l i t y ................................................................................ 115 Response Format ...................................................................... 116 S co rin g ............................................................................................117 S ta tis tic a l Analysis of the D a ta ................................................... 117 P ro c e d u re ...................................................................................... 117 Significance Level ................................................................ 119 Computer Programs ................................................................ 119 V. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ...........................................................................121 Introduction ............................................................................ - 1 2 1 Summary Information ...................................................................... 121 Response R a te ................................................................................ 122 Variables of the Study .......................................................... 122 Summary S tatistics ................................................................ 129 Tests of H ypotheses...........................................................................131 ................................................... 131 General Hypothesis I General Hypothesis I I .................................................... 132 General Hypotheses I I I , IV, and V ................................. 139 General Hypothesis V I ................................. 149 General Hypothesis V II ............................................. 154 Summary ...................................................................................... 157 VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ............................................... Introduction ................................................................................. v ii 159 159 Chapter Page Summary....................................................................................................159 Background........................................................................................ 159 Purpose..............................................................................................160 Design and Methodology .......................................................... 160 S ta tis tic a l Procedures .......................................................... 161 162 A Discussion of the Major F in d in g s ............................ Principals Make Limited Use of Delegation . . . . 162 Principals Employ Some Delegation in Areas of Pupil Personnel and Instruction and Curriculum Development.................................................................................. 164 Principals' Sex, Experience, and Number of Students Supervised Have No Effect on Delegation . . . . 165 Principals in Small D istricts Delegate More in Area of School Plant and S e r v i c e s ....................................167 Principals in Large D istricts Delegate Less in Area of School-Community Relations 167 Principals Supervising Two or More Buildings D iffe r S lightly in Areas of S taff Personnel and School169 Community Relations .......................................................... The Difference Is Not M eaningful..........................................169 Principals Do Not Delegate More in Their Least Preferred Administrative Area ......................................... 170 ............................................................................ 171 Recommendations Areas for Further Research................................................................. 173 Concluding Statement ...................................................................... 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 176 APPENDICES............................................................................................................... 194 v iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1. Sampling D esign....................................................................................... 107 4-2. Revised Sampling Design ................................................................. j 4.3. Schools Sampled for the S t u d y .................................................. 109 I 4-4. R e lia b ility of Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey as Estimated by Hoyt's Analysis o f Variance Procedure . j 5-1. Response Rate by D is tric t S i z e .................................................. 123 | 5-2. Response Rate by Building S i z e .................................................. 124 | 5-3. Response Rate by Building Size and D is tric t Size . . . . t 108 116 125 5-4. Sex of Respondents in the S t u d y .................................................... 126 5-5. Levels of Experience of Respondents in the Study. . . . 5-6. D is tric t Size of Respondents in the S t u d y ...................................127 127 5-7. Number of Students Supervised by Respondents in the Study . 5-8. 5-9. 128 Number of Students Supervised and D is tric t Size of Respondents in the S t u d y ........................................ 128 Number of Buildings Supervised by Respondents in the Study 129 | | 1 5-10. Least and Most Preferred Administrative Areas of Respondents inthe S t u d y ..................................................................130 I j 5-11. Summary Scores for Delegation of Administrative Tasks S u r v e y .................................................................................................. 130 ! | 5-12. ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Sex of P r i n c i p a l .............................................................................................133 j | I 5-13. ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Sex ofP r in c ip a l............................................................................. 133 tt I I 5-14. ANOVA—Analysis of S taff Personnel by Sex of Principal . ix . 133 Page ANOVA--Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Sex of Principal . 134 ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Sex of Principal ............................................................................ 134 ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Sex of Principal ....................................................................................... 134 ANOVA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by Sex of Principal ....................................................................................... 135 ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Level of Experience ....................................................................................... 136 ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Level of Experience....................... ..... .................................. 137 ANOVA—Analysis of S taff Personnel by Level of Experience . 137 ANOVA—Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Level of Experience . 137 ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Level of Experience . . . . . .............................................. 138 ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Level of Experience ....................................................................................... 138 ANOVA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by Level of Experience ....................................................................................... 138 ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised ......................................... 141 ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised . . 141 ANOVA—Analysis of S ta ff Personnel by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised ............................................... 143 ANOVA—Analysis of Pupil Personnel by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised ............................................... 144 ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised . . . 145 ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised ................................... 146 Summary S tatis tic s and Post Hoc Comparisons for School Plant and Services by D is tric t Size ................................... 147 x . Table Page 5-33. ANOVA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised......................................... 148 5-34. Summary S tatis tic s and Post Hoc Comparisons for School Community Relations by D is tric t Size ...................................... 149 ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Number of Buildings Supervised ................................................................... 151 ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Number of Buildings Supervised ............................................ 151 5-35. 5-36. 5-37. ANOVA—Analysis of S taff Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised..............................................................................................151 5-38. Summary S tatistics of S taff Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised ................................................................... 152 5-39. ANOVA—Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised..............................................................................................153 5-40. ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Number of Buildings Supervised ............................................... 153 ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Number of Buildings Supervised . 153 ANOVA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by Number of Buildings Supervised .......................................................... 154 Summary S tatistics of School-Community Relations by Number of Buildings Supervised .......................................................... 154 Dependent Sample t-te s t for Least Preferred and Most Preferred Administrative Areas ............................................... 155 Dependent Sample t-te s ts for Least Preferred and Most Preferred Administrative Areas, by Cells ............................. 156 Administrative Tasks for Which All Principals Indicated ............................................................................ Responsibility 214 Administrative Tasks for Which 25 Percent or More Principals Indicated Lack of Responsibility ....................... 215 Administrative Tasks for Which 50 Percent or More Principals Indicated No Delegation ......................................... 216 Administrative Tasks for Which 50 Percent or More Principals Indicated "Most" or "All" Delegation 217 5-41. 5-42. 5-43. 5-44. 5-45. F -l. F-2. F-3. F-4. xi . . . LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Model of Administration fo r Elementary Schools ....................... 34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Page Model of Administration for Elementary Schools x ii ....................... 34 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Request for Endorsement by theMichiganAssociation of Elementary School Principals.................................................... 195 B. Cover Letter for S u r v e y ........................................................... 200 C. Return P o s tc a rd ............................................................................. 202 ...................................................... 204 D. Follow-Up Letter for Survey E. Delegation of Administrative TasksSurvey F. Concomitant Findings ........................... 206 ................................................................. 213 x iii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The elementary school principal is expected to discharge many and varied responsibilities. In recent years, his role has expanded to include the tasks associated with federal programs, accountability, 1 2 negotiations, integration, and the use of technology. 5 The prevailing view in the lite ra tu re would seem to be that of a ll the tasks which constitute the elementary school principalship, those relating to the instructional program and curriculum rank the highest in importance. The lim itations of time, however, prevent the elementary principal from doing what he considers to be important. "The average principal finds i t a challenge to provide enough time 3 in the day to work d irec tly with members of his s ta ff." A national research study, conducted by the Department of Elementary School Principals in 1968, reported that supervising principals would id eally a llo t more time each week to supervisory and curriculum development ^Samuel Goldman, The School Principal (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1966), p. 36. ? Albert H. Shuster and Don H. Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Co., 1973), p. 35. 3 Emory Stoops and Russell E. Johnson, Elementary School Adminis­ tration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 115. 1 functions. They were a c tu a lly spending more time each week with clerical and administrative tasks, than they ideally recommended. 4 I t is important, then, to investigate deleqation as an adminis­ tra tiv e technique which may be used by elementary principals to make i t possible for them to allocate the major portion of th e ir adminis­ tra tiv e e ffo rt to those functions considered most important by them. "The principal must be w illin g and able to delegate many of the administrative duties necessary fo r the operation of the school." 5 Assigning responsibility to others and the necessary authority to complete an assignment is a basic need through which the administrator can extend his influence. This is an absolute necessity for the successful operation of an organization. Without delegation, growth and development of the organization is limited to the capacity of one man.® Statement of the Purpose L ittle appears to have been done in investigating the process of delegating tasks within Michigan public elementary schools. The researcher w ill attempt to add to the body of knowledge about this process by focusing upon the elementary school principal's approach to delegation. S pecifically, the researcher w ill undertake to determine: 1. the degree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegate administrative tasks ^Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship—A Research Study, Thirty-eighth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1968), p. 51. ^Stoops and Johnson, Elementary School Administration, p. 130. ^Chester In g ils , "Advance to Administrators: The Clearing House, 42 (September 1967), 15-16. Clues for Success, 3 2. the degree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegate administrative tasks in each of six major school administration areas: 3. a. Instruction and Curriculum Development b. S taff Personnel c. Pupil Personnel d. Finance and Business Management e. School Plant and Services f. School-Community Relations i f there are differences in the degree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegate administrative tasks when related to selected variables: 4. a. Sex b. Numberof years of experience as a principal c. School d is tric t size d. Numberof students supervised e. Numberof buildings supervised i f Michigan public elementary school principals delegate more in th e ir least preferred administrative area than in th eir most preferred administrative area. Tangentially, the author w ill (1) provide knowledge about the functions of the elementary school principalship, (2) explore the concept of delegation as an administrative technique for elementary principals, (3) discuss the implications of the data collected for the Michigan public elementary school principalship, and (4) establish areas for further study. 4 Significance of the Study A result of examining the hypotheses investigated in this dis­ sertation, should expand current thinking concerning the delegative behavior of elementary principals, and may serve as a stimulus to other educational administrators to examine and evaluate th e ir use of the technique. This study adds to the knowledge gathered by Mawdsley^ in his investigation of the use of delegation by high school principals. The study may also be useful to university educators interested in the preparation, development, and improvement of elementary school administration. I t may, for example, indicate whether principals tend to delegate tasks in certain administrative areas, whether delegation is related to experience, or that delegation is used sparingly. This knowledge w ill allow university educators to compare current practice with theory and to consider its effe c t on the content of educational programs for school administrators. Theory and Supportive Research Delegation The administrative technique of delegation requires that an administrator of an organization assign some of his responsibilities to other members of the organization. Specific tasks are assigned to persons "where the necessary information, s k i ll , and experience exist ^Jack K. Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 5 to make a satisfactory decision," O although the administrator retains q ultimate accountability for performance of those tasks. Delegation in Organizations The use of delegation in an organization has benefits which are both direct and derived. Some of the significant ones are that delegation (1) extends results from what a man can do to what he can control, (2) releases time for more important work, (3) develops subordinates' in itia t iv e , s k i ll , knowledge, and competence, and (4) maintains decision le v e l.^ The use of delegation can also bring about a series of unan­ ticipated consequences in the organization, however, Selznick emphasizes that a major dysfunction resulting from delegation can be an increase in the bifurcation of interests among subunits in the organization.^ Delegation--An Administrator's Function The benefits which delegation can provide to an organization emphasize the importance of its administrator employing the technique. He must be able to coordinate the efforts of the organization, to pick good men to perform the tasks he wants done, and to exercise s e lf-re s tra in t 8 Harry J. Merigis, "Delegation in School Administration," The American School Board Journal, 144 (March 1962), 12. g Dale Emmett Traylor, "The Delegation of Authority and Responsi­ b ilit y as Practiced by Junior College Chief Administrators" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967), p. 8. ^ R . Alec Mackenzie, The Time Trap (New York: Amacom, 1972), p. 123. York: ^James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1958), pp. 40-41. 6 to keep from meddling with them while they do i t . 1 ? 13 * G riffith s believes that the effectiveness of a chief executive is "inversely proportional to the number of decisions which he must personally make concerning the a ffa irs of the organization."^ This view was supported by a study of 500 groups ranging from foundry gangs to bomber crews. Hemphill found that the good and excellent leaders were the ones who made the most use of the technique 15 of delegation. In other research surveys i t was disclosed that in a b ility to delegate responsibility was a cause of executive fa ilu r e . 1 * 17 The lack of consistent use of delegation by administrators may be due to its complexity or to a lack of understanding about its u tiliz a tio n . 18 Recent 12 Roald F. Campbell, "Application of Administrative Concepts to the Elementary Principalship," The National Elementary P rincipal, 44 (April 1965), 22. 13 James J. Cribbin, Effective Managerial Leadership (New York: American Management Association, In c ., 1972), p. 191. ^Daniel E. G riffith s , Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959), p. 89. 15 J. K. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, Number 32, 1949), pp. 66-67. 16 Ivan H. Linder and Henry M. Gunn, Secondary School Adminis­ tratio n : Problems and Practices (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill Books, In c ., 1963), p. 48. 17 "The Mystery of Executive Talent," Business Week, May 21, 1955, p. 46. 18 J. Foster Watkins, "Delegation: A Needed Ingredient for Effective Administration," The Clearing House, 46 (March 1972), 395. 7 studies by Mawdsley 19 and Vrooman 20 concluded that the delegative be­ havior of high school principals was not related to demographic data. Definition of Terms The following definitions of terms were used in this study: Delegation of Administrative Tasks—the claimed assignment of administrative duties by the elementary school principal to other mem­ bers of his s ta ff. The researcher acknowledges that there may be a difference between principals' claimed delegative behavior and th e ir actual delegative behavior. Administrative Tasks--specific tasks of an administrative nature which are eith er performed by the principal or delegated to other members of his s ta ff, and as defined by Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath in th eir book, The Elementary School Principal ship. 21 Administrative Area—one of the major areas of school adminis­ tration used in this study: Instruction and Curriculum Development S ta ff Personnel Pupil Personnel Finance and Business Management 19 Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables." 20 Theodore Herbert Vrooman, "The Perceptions and Expectations of Superintendents and th e ir High School Principals with Regard to Leadership Style and Delegated Formal Task-Performance" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1970). ^Stephen P. Hencley, Lloyd E. McCleary, and J. H. McGrath, The Elementary School Principal ship (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1970), pp. 82-87. 8 School Plant and Services School-Community Relations and as defined by Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath in th e ir book, The Elementary School Principalship. 22 School D is tr ic t--a legal e n tity created by the Michigan State Legislature for the purpose of operating and maintaining public education within the boundaries established by law. Public Elementary School--a publically supported and controlled school within a public school d is t r ic t, which includes any combination of grades between kindergarten and grade six. Principal —an employee of a school d is tr ic t who is c e rtifie d as a professional educator in Michigan, to whom has been delegated the responsibility for the general regulation, direction, supervision, and coordination of the a ffa irs of a school building(s); and who is assigned fu ll-tim e to execute these functions. School D is tric t Size—the number of students enrolled in a ll buildings within a school d is tric t as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Building Enrollment--the number of students enrolled in a building as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Number of Students Supervised—the number of students super­ vised by a principal, as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records for one or more buildings on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. 9 S ta ff—professional and nonprofessional personnel working within a school building. Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey—the instrument used in the study from which a measurement of delegation of adminis­ tra tiv e tasks was obtained. Administrative Task Score—the response to one task on the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Delegation Score—the mean score of a ll administrative task scores, excluding from the computation those tasks fo r which the principal indicated he was not responsible. Administrative Area Score—the mean score of the specific task scores included within each of the six administrative areas, excluding from the computation those tasks for which the principal indicated he was not responsible. There are six administrative area scores: Instruction and Curriculum Development S ta ff Personnel Pupil Personnel Finance and Business Management School Plant and Services School-Community Relations Small School D is tric t--a school d is tric t having less than 1499 students enrolled in a ll buildings as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Medium School D is tric t—a school d is tric t having between 1500 and 9999 students enrolled in a ll buildings as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. 10 Large School D is tric t—a school d is tr ic t having more than 10000 students enrolled in a ll buildings as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Small Building Enrollment--a building having less than 399 students enrolled as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Large Building Enrollment--a building having more than 400 students enrolled recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Small Number of Students Supervised--!ess than 399 students supervised by a principal in one or more buildings, as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Large Number of Students Supervised—more than 400 students supervised by a principal in one or more buildings, as recorded on o ffic ia l membership records on the fourth Friday following Labor Day in 1973. Assumptions The assumptions upon which this study is based are that: 1. the principals' responses to the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey represented th eir actual delegative behavior 2. the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey included the major tasks for which elementary principals are responsible 3. elementary principals from the sample were representative of the population of Michigan public elementary school principals, exclusive of the elementary principals of the c ity of Detroit n 4. that Michigan Department of Education data, from which the sampling frame was designed, was accurate. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study Every study, by nature of its design, has inherent certain lim itations as well as e x p lic it delimitations which control its parameters. 1. This study was concerned with and confined to the delegation of administrative tasks by Michigan public elementary school principals to other members of th e ir s ta ffs , as related to selected variables. No attempt was made to investigate factors which might influence a principal to increase or decrease his delegative behavior, nor to evaluate the effectiveness of any given principal. 2. The research design of the study did not permit any causal relationships to be established between the delegation scores of Michigan public elementary school principals and the selected variables. 3. The study was lim ited to a sample of principals selected at random from the population of principals of Michigan public e le­ mentary schools, excluding those in the school system of the c ity of D etroit, which were administratively organized to include any combination of grades between kindergarten and grade six. This administrative organization was selected because of its common acceptance as a d efinition of the elementary school. 4. Elementary principals of the school system of the c ity of Detroit were excluded because of atypical characteristics of that school d is tric t. 12 5. The data interpretations were confined to the responsibili ties included in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey, to the population included in the survey, and to the selected variables. 6. The study was lim ited to the extent that elementary princi pals from the sample were representative of the population of Michigan public elementary school principals, exclusive of the elementary principals of the c ity of D etroit. Hypotheses These hypotheses were tested in null terms at the .05 level of significance. General Hypothesis I : There w ill be a significant difference between female elementary principals and male elementary principals in the delegation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis HI a : There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean total delegation scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, as measured by the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis HIb: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area Instruction and Curricu­ lum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hlc: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area S taff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hid: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary 13 principals, fo r the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hie: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H If: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis HIg: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis I I : There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals with varied levels of experience as a princip al, in the delegation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis H2a: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2b: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the administrative area Instruction and Curriculum development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2c: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, fo r the administrative area S taff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2d: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, fo r the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2e: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, fo r the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2f: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, fo r the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2g: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, fo r the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis I I I : There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts in the delegation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis H3a: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3b: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Instruction and Curriculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3c: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school 15 d is tric ts , for the administrative area S ta ff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3d: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3e: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3f: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H3g: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis IV : There w ill be a.sig n ificant difference between elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised in the dele­ gation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis H4a: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4b: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Instruction and Curriculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 16 Operational Hypothesis H4c: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area S ta ff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4d: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, fo r the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4e: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4f: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, fo r the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4g: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis V: There w ill be a sig nificant interaction between small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and small and large numbers of students supervised in the delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals. Operational Hypothesis H5a: There w ill be a sig nificant interaction of mean to tal delegation scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and Targe school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 17 Operational Hypothesis H5b: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, fo r the administrative area Instruction and Curriculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5c: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, fo r the administrative area S taff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5d: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5e: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5f: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5g: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, fo r the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis V I: There w ill be a significant difference between elementary p rin c i­ pals who supervise one building and elementary principals who 18 supervise two or more buildings in the delegation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis H6a: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6b: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean of elementary principals who supervise one building and principals who supervise two or more buildings, fo r the tra tiv e area Instruction and Curriculum Development, of Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. sub-scores elementary adminis­ the Operational Hypothesis H6c: There w ill be sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and e le ­ mentary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the administrative area S taff Personnel, of the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6d: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6e: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6f: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 19 Operational Hypothesis H6q: There w ill be a sig nificant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, fo r the adminis­ tra tiv e area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis V I I : The delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals w ill be greater in th e ir least preferred administrative area than in th e ir most preferred administrative area. Operational Hypothesis H7: The mean sub-scores of elementary principals' least preferred administrative areas w ill be greater than the mean sub-scores of th e ir most preferred administrative areas, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Endorsement of the Study Realizing that the importance and scope of the research would be of interest to the Michigan Association of Elementary School P rin ci­ pals, the investigator requested its endorsement and support. The study plan was presented to the Executive Committee which gave its endorsement. The study was also explained to the Leadership Commission which recommended to the Board of Directors that MAESP support the project. The Board endorsed and supported the study as a means of increasing knowledge about Michigan public elementary school principals A copy of the request may be found in Appendix A (pp. 195-099) Organization of the Thesis This chapter has presented a statement of the problem, a statement of the purpose, the significance of the study, and the theory and research upon which the study is based. I t also included 20 the definitions of terms, the assumptions and lim itations of the study, the general and operational hypotheses, and the endorsement of the study. In Chapters I I and I I I , a review of related lite ra tu re is presented. The review includes the development of the elementary school principalship, related studies of the elementary school principal ship, and the theory of delegation in organizations. In Chapter IV, the procedure and methodology of the study are presented. The detailed description includes the sample design, data collection, the instrumentation, and the s ta tis tic a l analysis treatment. The results of the analysis of the data are presented in Chapter V. In Chapter V I, the summary, discussion of the major findings, recommendations, and areas for further research are presented. CHAPTER I I A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE PRINCIPALSHIP Foreword A study concerning the elementary school principalship would be incomplete without a b rie f history of its development, and a discussion of the expanded role and duties of the modern elementary school principal. These accounts should provide the reader with a general background which w ill permit a better understanding of the author's research. The chapter also contains a resume of related studies of the elementary school principalship. The Development of the Elementary School Principalship The elementary school principalship, which is the most numerous of a ll posts in educational administration, has developed slowly. Emerging in response to the many cle rica l tasks which were necessitated by increases in school enrollments, the graded school, and an expansion of curricula and services, the principalship has gradually developed into a position of educational leadership which is "vested with large public tru st and professional responsibility."^ ^Willard S. Elsbree, Harold J. McNally, and Richard Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision (New York: American Book Company, 1967), p. 3. 21 22 Historical Background Head Teacher The typical school in the American colonies was a one room school with one teacher. The administrative duties were accomplished by eith er the teacher or the school board. As towns and c itie s developed, and as more children enrolled in schools, multi-room and multi-teacher schools became common. It was then necessary to have a "head teacher," also called a "principal teacher" or "headmaster." "These early 'principals' represented an administrative convenience rather than positions of recognized leader2 ship." They "kept records of attendance and marks, saw that the “5 rooms were clean, distributed classroom supplies, and rang the b e ll." Responsibilities of the "principal teacher" in Cincinnati were outlined in 1839 as follows: 1. To function as the head of the school charged to his care 2. To regulate the classes and course of instruction of a ll the pupils 3. To discover any defects in the school and apply remedies 4. To make defects known to the v is ito r or trustee of the ward or d is tric t i f he were unable to remedy conditions 5. To give necessary instruction to his assistants 6. To classify pupils 7. To safeguard school houses and furniture 2 Charles R. Spain, Harold D. Drummond, and John I . Goodlad, Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principal (New York: Rinehart and Company, In c ., 1956), p. 24. ^M. Chester Nolte, An Introduction to School Administration: Selected Readings (New York! The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 275. 23 8. To keep the school clean 9. To instruct assistants 10. To refrain from impairing thestanding of assistants, especially in the eyes of th e ir pupils 11. To require the cooperation of his assistants^ An 1859 school report of St. Louis stated: There is to be one principal to each building, a ll the other teachers being assistants, also but one set of registers and reports to be taken charge of by the principal. The principal is to be p articu larly responsible for the deportment of the pupils while they are in the yard during the recesses and intermissions: he is also to have a general supervision over the whole school while in session, in matters of discipline and in stru ctio n .5 According to Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, since the "head teacher" had a fu ll teaching load, what time he had for administration was devoted usually to . . . such pedestrian tasks as meting out punishment to mis­ behaving scholars, monitoring school fa c ilit ie s and equipment, keeping school records, and often performing such ja n ito ria l tasks as bringing in firewood, sharpening pen nibs, and cleaning lamp wicks. The principal teacher’ s usual qualifications for his job were that he was a man, taught the older children, had more seniority, or wielded the hickory stick with more conviction than his colleagues. 4 Paul Revere Pierce, The Origin and Development of the Public School Principalship (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1935), p. 12, quoted in Samuel Goldman, The School Principal (New York: The Center fo r Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1966), pp. 3-4. ^Ira D iv o ll, F ifth Annual (School) Report (City of St. Louis, 1859), p. 25, quoted in John E. Cooper, Elementary School P rinci­ palship (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Books, In c ., 1967), p. 5. Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 4. 24 "For this extra work,, the head teacher or principal was given a higher salary, together with certain professional recognition that was denied the other teachers in the same school."^ Teaching Principal The inadequacy of the role played by the "head teacher" became evident with the growth and expansion of school programs, and with the establishment of graded schools in 1847. Time was needed to observe and tra in teachers, and to solve the problems inherent in the graded system such as promotion, evaluation, grouping, selection O of textbooks, and development of curriculum. To enable the "head teacher" to meet these added responsi­ b ilit ie s , superintendents in Boston, New York C ity, and Chicago hired q teaching assistants in about 1860. The "head teacher" was then relieved of part of his teaching duties, and became the "teaching p rincip al." This stage has been called the "opening wedge" in the e le ­ mentary school principalship as i t is known todayJ0 Time was being given to the principal to perform administrative routines, but also ^Roy A. Crouch, "The Status of the Elementary School P rin cip al," Fifth Yearbook (Washington: The Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1926), p. 208, quoted in RoscoeV. Cramer and Otto E. Domian, Administration and Supervision in the Elementary School (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 360. O Fred A. Snyder and R. Duane Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Administration (Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1970), p. 8. Q Cooper, Elementary School Principalship, p. 5. p. 211, in the ^Crouch, "The Status of the Elementary School Principal," quoted in Cramer and Domian, Administration and Elementary School, p. 361. Supervision 25 so that he might provide assistance to his teaching s ta ff to secure uniformity and efficiency in the graded plan. Teaching principals were also given responsibilities for management of f a c ilit ie s , discipline of students and "inspection to determine conformity to requirements re la tiv e to the curriculum and teaching."^ Shuster and Stewart say that teaching principals accepted the new supervisory role. They cited a St. Louis report of 1869 which said that "supervision is easily given, and is most e ffic ie n t in reducing the work of the lower grades to a common standard of excel­ lence, and in the correction of false tendencies on the part of individual teachers."^2 Pierce, however, f e l t that principals' behavior did not change in accordance with the new expectations. The principals were slow individually and as a group to take advantage of the opportunities for professional leadership which were granted them. This tendency was especially marked during the period 1895-1910. The principalship was well established from an administrative point of view, and at that point, p rin c i­ pals appeared content to rest. Except fo r sporadic cases, they did l i t t l e to study th e ir work, experiment with administrative procedures, or publish artic les on local administration and supervision. The large body of them were satisfied to attend to clerical and petty routine, administering th e ir schools on a policy of laissez fa ire . They generally entrenched behind th e ir tenure rights and they usually hesitated to show vigorous leader­ ship to th eir teachers who naturally were often as reactionary, Spain, Drummond, and Goodlad, Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principal, p. 25. ------12 Fifteenth Annual Report of the Board of Education of St. j=29.1.s (1869), p. 133, quoted in Albert H. Shuster and Don H. Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Co., 1973), p. 29. 2 6 professionally, as the principals themselves. They were content to use "rule of thumb" procedures in dealing with supervision of in s tru c tio n J 3 Jacobson, Reavis, and Logsdon also said that only a few principals exerted creative leadership in the improvement of instruc­ tion. They added however: Perhaps the principal should not be too greatly censured, for his shortcomings in supervisory work were not apparent before 1900 i f he maintained proper d iscip line, kept the teachers uni­ formly covering the courses of study, and secured reasonable conformity to the methods favored in the central o f f ic e .^ The teaching principalship was well established by 1900. Further evidence of the expanding nature of the job was the provision of regular custodial service and some clerical help. These services permitted him to attend to other school duties, but also increased his supervisory duties. Building Principal The next stage in the evolution of the elementary principal­ ship came with the appointment of building principals who were relieved of a ll teaching resp o nsib ilities. This move resulted from the accept­ ance by school o ffic ia ls of the d e s ira b ility to have the principal devote his fu ll time and energy to administrative concerns. I t was an important advancement in professionalizing the principal's career, as i t indicated he was responsible for the building and its 13 Pierce, The Origin and Development of the Public School Principalship, p. 21, quoted in Goldman, The School P rincipal, p. 5. 14 Paul B. Jacobson, William C. Reavis, and James D. Logsdon, The Effective School Principal (New York: Prentice-Hall In c ., 1954), pp. 573-574. 27 a c tiv itie s , and he had been granted the time in which to carry out the duties. The position was s t i l l prim arily administrative in nature, as described by Cubberley: As an administrator the principal stands responsible to the d ifferen t authorities above him fo r successful administration of his unit in the school system—looks a fte r a ll administrative details relating to janitors and th e ir work, and the needs of the teachers, oversees the attendance and conduct and health of the pupils; orders and receives and often gives out supplies; has charge of a ll inventories and keeps up stock rooms, e t c .'5 Compulsory attendance laws had swelled the elementary school enrollments, which increased the p rincipal's burden of policing student conduct. This development also prompted the " lib e ra liza tio n of the school curriculum to include not only the three R's but also learning more attuned to the everyday interests and needs" 16 of the students. This emphasis required administrators who could develop such a program. Their attention to the instructional program then tended to increase. As society changed and demanded personality, character, and citizenship development, the principalship had to change to keep abreast. "A professional person was needed to know what the community needed and desired, with the a b ility to help the whole school s ta ff to reach those objectives." 17 ^Ellwood P. Cubberley, The Principal and His School (Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1923), p. 39. 1 fi Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 5. 17 Shuster and Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School, p. 33. 28 Department of Elementary School Principals A major impetus toward the conception of elementary p rin c i­ pals becoming fu ll time educational leaders came in 1920 when a small group of principals who feared th e ir positions might become that of g lo rified clerks, met and formed the Department of Elementary School Principals. 18 The organization gained national stature by a f f ilia t in g with the National Education Association and began to urge principals to place greater emphasis on supervision of the instructional program and less on the administrative details of th e ir work. At that time, the position of building administrator s t i l l operated largely from a mechanical point of view, and stressed the practical s k ills and tech­ niques necessary to operate the schools. The principalship became a topic of study in universities, and studies of the p rincip al's job appeared in professional journals. These studies were mainly concerned with "the duties and functions of the school p rincip al, the proper use of time in carrying out these functions, and the delegation of administrative functions to assistants." Supervising Principal The greatest advance in the role of the elementary school principalship has been made since supervision of the instructional program was designated as the chief duty of the p rincipal. This assignment was delegated to the principal when the growth of school systems prevented superintendents from v is itin g classrooms. 18Ib id ., p. 30 19 Goldman, The School P rin cip al, p. 6. 19 29 Whereas supervision once meant "exhortation, inspection, and demonstration," 20 i t came to be perceived as a process by which principals provided "assistance in the development of better teachinglearning situations." 21 In the aftermath of the Great Depression and World War I I , persistent social and economic problems of the 1930's and 1940's forced the school administrator into a broader concern for the interpersonal and cultural aspects of school administration. The work of F o lle tt, Mayo, and Barnard affected the concept of educational leadership, and caused i t to be viewed as "the a rt and science of coordinating the purposes and needs of the organization with those of the individuals who inhabit i t . " 22 Theories of leadership, society, and human relationships became important areas of study for those training to be school administrators. 23 The principalship was now perceived as a position of both supervision and leadership. Cramer and Domian said: "The principal directs the en tire program of teaching and guiding the whole child in the whole elementary school in the whole community." 20 24 Cooper, Elementary School Principalship, p. 6. 21 Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (2nd ed.; Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, In c ., 1955), pp. 5-8. 22 Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 7. 23 24 Goldman, The School P rincipal, p. 8. Cramer and Domian, Administration and Supervision in the Elementary School, p. 73. 30 Expanded Role and Duties Accompanying the increased status fo r the elementary school principalship has been a corresponding increase in the duties and demands of the job. Snyder and Peterson say: "The elementary school administrator in charge of an elementary attendance center today has fa r more responsibility than the superintendent of a small d is tric t had a few years ago." 25 The job has new dimensions and new dilemmas. I t is more demanding and complex. ". . . School principals must often wish they had the wisdom of a Minerva, the legal acumen of a Justice oc Holmes, and the diplomacy of a U Thant." In a recent interview with the editor of The National Elementary P rincipal, Goldhammer noted, "The good Lord himself couldn't perform a ll the roles that have been expected of elementary school principals." 27 S kill and Task Classifications Katz said that administrators, in order to succeed, need: (a) su fficien t technical s k ill to accomplish the mechanics of the particular job fo r which he is responsible (b) su fficien t human s k ill in working with others to be an effective group member and to be able to build cooperative e ffo rt within the team he leads (c) su fficien t conceptual s k ill to recognize the interrelationships of the various factors involved in his situation, which w ill 25 Snyder and Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Adminis­ tra tio n , p. 25. ^Elizabeth Mallory, "To Our Principal Partners," The National Elementary P rincipal, 51 (April 1972), 63. ^Paul L. Houts, "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer," The National Elementary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 28. 31 lead him to take that action which achieves the maximum good fo r the to tal organization.28 Naylor and Traughber organized some of the new duties of principals into three categories: scheduled administrative responsi­ b ilit ie s , unscheduled daily demands, and professional growth and leadership. Examples of each category are: Scheduled Administrative Responsibilities 1. New state mandated instructional programs without additional resources (s ta ff, instructional materials, supplies, equipment, e tc .) 2. New state mandated testing programs--without additional staffing (qualified testers, released time to te s t, scheduling, e tc .) 3. New federal and state programs for inn er-city areas—without administrative or clerical support to handle paper work 4. Rising costs of education—without a corresponding increase in funding by the state and with local taxpayers often unwilling to support a tax rate increase Unscheduled Daily Demands 1. Growing public interest in education which means increased principal-community involvement 2. Increasing number of police reports to be file d —school break-ins, child beatings, vandalism to teachers' cars 3. Providing instruction for children when no substitute teachers are available—one to two rooms per day in many inner-city schools 4. Channeling nonschool problems to the appropriate institu tio n or governmental agency Professional Growth and Leadership 1. Involving educators with legislators to make quality education relevant and available to children ^Robert L. Katz, "Skills of an Effective Administrator," Harvard Business Review, 33 (January, February 1955), 42. 32 2. Keeping abreast of current technology and methodology in education 3. Being active in professional associations through which you can determine needs, plan corrections, and secure improvements from governing b o a r d s ^ Another classification of the specific tasks that principals do or ought to do was patterned a fte r a study was conducted by the Southern States Cooperative Program in Educational Administration (SSCPEA). Some of the c ritic a l tasks as formulated by SSCPEA are: C ritic a l Task Area: Instruction and Curriculum Development 1. Providing for the formulation of curriculum objectives 2. Providing for the determination of curriculum content and organization 3. Providing materials, resources, and equipment fo r the instruc­ tional program C ritic a l Task Area: Pupil Personnel 1. In itia tin g and maintaining a system of child accounting and attendance 2. Providing counseling and health services 3. Arranging systematic procedures for the continual assessment and interpretation of pupil growth C ritic a l Task Area: S taff Personnel 1. Providing for the recruitment, selecting, and assignment of s ta ff personnel 2. Stimulating and providing opportunities for professional growth of s ta ff personnel C ritic a l Task Area: 1. Communit.y-School Leadership Determining the educational services the school renders and how such services are conditioned by community forces ^Douglas H. Naylor and James V. Traughber, "As We See I t , " The National Elementary Principal, 47 (April 1968), 10-11. 33 2. Helping to develop and implement plans for the improvement of community l i f e C ritic a l Task Areas: School Plant and School Transportation 1. Developing an e ffic ie n t program of operation and maintenance of the physical plant 2. Providing for the safety of pupils, personnel, and equipment C ritic a l Task Area: Organization and Structure 1. Developing a s ta ff organization as a means of implementing the educational objectives of the school program 2. Organizing lay and professional groups for participation in educational planning and other educational a c tiv itie s C ritic a l Task Area: School Finance and Business Management 1. Preparing the school budget 2. Accounting for school monies. 30 Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath regard the elementary school principal as being involved in three phases of a c tiv ity which encompass the school program and are subject to forces from the community, the profession, and the school. 31 They identify the levels of a c tiv ity as technical management, organizational leadership, and broad policy making. Their formulation of administration in illu s tra tiv e form is shown in Figure 1. O f) Charles F. Faber and G ilbert F. Shearron, Elementary School Administration (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1970), pp. 212-213. ^Stephen P. Hencley, Lloyd E. McCleary, and J. H. McGrath, The Elementary School Principalship (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1970), p. 21. 34 I i Profession School policy- m a k i ng o^ 'e/ 6 ,oUP Leade^ / /) Cj^pervis/o^ School Program Instruction Guidance Activities Services w ^ -^fan agC^2, evaluation Studies Community Figure 1 .--Model of Administration for Elementary Schools (as illu stra ted in Ib id . ) . 35 Problems of Society Today's principal is confronted with new problems emanating from the community and from society at large. Among these are integration, religion in the schools, unemployment, crime, vandalism, drug abuse, and changing behavior patterns of youth. The population shifts from rural to urban areas are also requiring principals to consider curriculum changes that w ill provide students with a background for urban living and varied vocational opportunities.32*33,34,35,36 Influence by Government Another problem faced by today's principal is to keep informed of the various federal aid programs and see that his school ^gets its f a ir share of federal government expenditures for education. This, along with legislation and state department of education directives, defines additional responsibilities for the elementary principal. ^ G o ld m a n , 37 38 39 The School P rincipal, pp. 105-106. ^ E l s b r e e , McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 10. ^^Robin H. Farquhar and W. Michael Martin, "New Developments in the Preparation of Educational Leaders," Phi Delta Kappan, 54 (September 1972), 26. ■^Frank D. Dorey, "The Principal in American Life Today," The National Elementary Principal, 47 (May 1968), 9. ^Roald F. Campbell, Edwin M. Bridges, John E. Corbally J r ., Raphael 0. Nystrand, and John A. Ramseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1971), pp. 70-72. 37 Cooper, Elementary School Principalship, p. 391. OO °°Dorey, "The Principal in American L ife Today," pp. 7-8. 39 Spain, Drummond, and Goodlad, Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principal, pp. 36-37, 40. 36 Changes in the Elementary School Expansion of the curriculum, changes in organizational groupings, and innovations in instructional materials and methods are areas about which today's principal is expected to be knowledgeable. The modern elementary school curriculum has been broadened to include guidance services, health and safety education, foreign languages, conservation of resources, outdoor education, creative w riting, family liv in g , and education for world understanding. affords opportunities in music, a r t, and science. It Instruction in substance abuse and physical education, and observance of special days are le g is la tiv e requirements in some states. 40 The public also expects the school to assume responsibility for children's mental health, and for th e ir social and emotional adjustment. 41 Organizational groupings in the elementary school are varied. "The easily administered, self-contained classroom is giving way to fa r more complicated arrangements, such as team teaching, nongradedness, and multi-age groups." 42 Technology has affected instructional materials and methods. Programmed learning, television, language laboratories, teaching machines, and media centers emphasize the process of learning rather than the memorization of information. "These developments have brought 40Ib id . , p. 40. Faber and Shearron, Elementary School Administration, p. 340. AO Snyder and Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Adminis­ tra tio n , p. 15. 37 on problems of the reeducation of teachers, interpretation to parents, procurement of instructional materials and supplies, scheduling, and a host of others." 43 The Management Team Another factor contributing to enlargement of the p rincipal's role is participation in the administrative or management team. He is expected to assume a share of the responsibility fo r goal setting, for policy-making, for s ta ff selection, and fo r budget preparation. He must adjust to teacher militancy and be skilled in the negotiations process. He must face the issues of accountability, teacher evaluation, deschooling, performance contracting, education for exceptional children, pre-school education, and year-round school. In some communities, pressures exist fo r after-school and community-school a c tiv itie s . Coordination of these programs may be assigned to the elementary principal. 44 The Principal's Dilemma Confronted with such a m u ltip lic ity of responsibilities and tasks, the elementary school administrator must decide how to allocate his time and energy. He must determine which of his many duties w ill have p rio rity . AO Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 13. ^Snyder and Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Adminis­ tra tio n , pp. 266-267. 38 Use of Time The principal must recognize that his time is important and that i f he is to f u l f i l l his role and meet his obligations, he must use i t wisely. Drucker has said: There may not be in the l i f e o f a busy administrator more than a few hours each week for which he can plan and which he can devote to the re a lly important contributions he should make. All the more reason, therefore, to make sure that these hours are actually planned properly. Only by holding against each other the l i s t of the tru ly important contributions and the time schedule can an administrator re a lly make sure that the important things get done. I f he either does not think through the contributions or does not know his time schedule, he is bound to give p rio rity in time to the unimportant and to waste even the l i t t l e time that is his to spend.45 Goldman recommends that in allocating his time properly, the school principal must: 1. clearly understand what his functions are 2. establish a set of p rio ritie s fo r completion of these functions 3. set a time schedule in lig h t of these p rio ritie s 4. be fle x ib le in adherence to this schedule while at the same time be resolved that only matters of importance w ill be allowed to contravene the previously established schedule. Rudman also urges school leaders to plan and manage th e ir day, rather than react to i t . Managing the day allows a principal to schedule classroom v is its , appointments, and time fo r o ffic e d e tails. 47 Whereas the early principal was released from teaching duties to allow him the time to perform as an educational leader, the modern ^ P e ter F. Drucker, "The Effective Administrator,11 National Association of Secondary School Principals B u lle tin , 48 (April 1964), 162. ^Goldman, The School P rin cip al, p. 36. ^Herbert C. Rudman, "The P rincipal's Day," The Michigan Ele­ mentary Principal, 42 (March 1968), 8, 23. 39 principal now finds himself "drowning in a sea of paper w ork."^ This creates a co n flict for him, and he questions which of his functions should have p rio rity . Hencley, et a l . , say "successful performance of his adminis­ tra tiv e duties w ill depend upon his a b ility to separate the crucial functions from those that are t r iv ia l." 49 Importance of Supervision The roles of supervision and leadership are consistently emphasized in the lite ra tu re , and are supported by the national and state associations of elementary school principals. 50 In 1906, C. B. G ilbert wrote: The encroachment of petty duties is insidious. The many l i t t l e demands on the principal's time, calls for answering the telephone, and reports--always reports—are so insistent th at, unless he is very watchful, more and more time w ill be given to them u ntil he becomes that most ineffectu al, that deadest of pedagogues, the o ffic e principal. Every superintendent knows him. He is always there in his chair, at his desk. Seldom can he be surprised away from his customary spot and i f he is , he apologizes.51 Cubberley expressed a Similar view in 1923: Many principals give th e ir time almost en tire ly to adminis­ tra tiv e duties and do l i t t l e supervisory work, though the la tte r ought to be th e ir most important function. . . . the supervision of instruction, . . . is the prime purpose of freeing the principal from teaching, and is the end and goal toward which the organi­ zation and administration of the school should tend.52 ^Arnold J. K eller, "Inside the Man in the Principal's O ffice," The National Elementary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 24. 49 Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath, The Elementary School Principalship, p. 71. 5 QIb id . , p. 69. 51 S. Gordon Stewart, "The Principal's Efficiency as an Instruc­ tional Leader," Virginia Journal of Education, 60 (February 1967), 19. ^Cubberley, The Principal and His School, pp. 28, 43. 40 The same viewpoint was prevalent during the 1950's and 1960's. Principals were exhorted to view supervision of instruction as th e ir . . , 53,54,55,56,57,58 dominant responsibility. * Trask said, "Supervision has come to be defined as the most important role a c tiv ity of the elementary school p rincipal." 59 Curtin agreed, reporting that: . . . on the basis of c e rtific a tio n standards, colleges and university training programs, and expert judgment of professors, superintendents, teachers, and principals themselves, supervision and curriculum development are most highly regarded as important elements of the principal ship.60 co George C. Kyte, The Principal at Work (Boston: Company, 1952), p. 100. Ginn and William V. Hicks and Marshall C. Jameson, The Elementary Principal at Work (Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: P rentice-H all, In c ., 1957), p. 49. 55 Edgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore R eller, Edu­ cational Administration (Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall In c ., 1959), p. 285. Stuart E. Dean and Harold J. McNally, "Learnings Particularly Important for Elementary School Principals," paper prepared for the Seventh U.C.E.A. Career Development Seminar, November, 1962, p. 9, quoted in Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementary School, p. 214. Jacobson, Reavis, and Logsdon, The Effective School P rin cip al, p. 2 2 . CO Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 382. CQ Anne E. Trask, "Principals, Teachers and Supervision: Dilemmas and Solutions," Administrator's Notebook, 13 (December 1964), 1. fin James Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementary School (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964), p. 212. 41 The emphasis on supervision and leadership continues in the fil 1970's, and has been upheld by university personnel and by the Ohio fi? Department of Education. Campbell, et a l . , say, "Most educators would argue that the principal's basic responsibility should be directing the educational program of the school he leads." CO A resolution passed by the 1974 Delegate Assembly of the National Association of Elementary School Principals also supports this concept. I t read, "NAESP believes that the elementary school principal is the primary instructional leader in the school community in which he serves."^ A D ifferent View This conception of the principalship has not been shared by a ll educators, however. the d aily routine duties. Some stress the importance of accomplishing Hansford asserted that "unless [a principal] handles the more routine a c tiv itie s with a reasonable degree of ade­ quacy he w ill not hold a job long enough to display his educational leadership. ^Houts, "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer," p. 29. ^ Minimum Standards for Ohio Elementary School (Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, 1970), p. 13 quoted in Shuster and Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School, p. 133. Campbell, Bridges, Corbally, Nystrand, and Ramseyer, In tro ­ duction to Educational Administration, p. 365. fid National Association of Elementary School Principals, Summary of the NAESP Delegate Assembly (Anaheim, C alifornia: n .p ., April 30, 1974), p. 20. 65 York: Byron W. Hansford, Guidebook for School Principals (New The Ronald Press Company, 1961), p. 8 . 42 Keith, et a l . , acknowledged: " It is true that the real measure of a principal's worth is not found in the amount of e ffo rt he gives to routine. However, he can hardly be classed as an outstanding administrator i f he pays l i t t l e or no attention to routine." Harris maintained that "the typical school principal is much more a manager than an instructional leader." fn Hemphill, G riffith s , and Frederiksen pointed out that "adminis­ tra tiv e performance is much more than leadership and . . . when leader­ ship is stressed to the exclusion of other aspects of administration, go an incomplete picture is presented." Goldman also stresses the managerial functions: Success in the performance of many managerial tasks is extremely v ita l to the success of the on-going school program. Teachers need supplies and materials, the building must be cared fo r, special service programs must be maintained, and many, many other tasks th at, adjuncts to the program though they be, must nonetheless be carried out. . . . [The principal] must realize . . . that his successful accomplishment of the managerial aspects of the total school program is necessary to the success of this program. His role as principal encompasses these functions; he cannot abandon them.69 Whereto? The dilemma remains. The elementary school principal is trained to believe that he should be a supervisor and educational leader. He gg Lowell G. Keith, S. Robert In fe lis e , and George J. Perazzo, Guide for Elementary School Administration (Belmont, C alifornia: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1965), p. 5. 67 Ben M. Harris, Supervisory Behavior in Education (Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, In c ., 1963), p. 142. go John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. G riffith s , and Norman Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962), p. 345. fiQ Goldman, The School P rincipal, p. 79. 43 also knows that managerial tasks must be f u lf ille d . He feels the press of time in trying to accomplish a ll facets of his job. Assistance fo r the Principal The princip al's need for help is expressed clearly in the lite ra tu re . Jacobson, et a l . , said that principals do not have enough clerical assistan ce.^ Nolte even suggested that "the advancement of . . . the principal is retarded by inadequate clerical assistance. A sim ilar view was stated by Elsbree, et a l . : The current concept of professional leadership as the chief function of the principal requires not only that he be relieved of teaching responsibilities; he must be provided with assistance in taking care of the minor routine and administrative duties that would otherwise usurp a disproportionate part of his time. Goldhammer also comments, "We must give administrators time away from the pressing details of th e ir o ffic e ." 73 Why the Principal Needs Help The elementary school principal works within the constraints of physical energy and time. " It is physically impossible for a principal to do personally a ll of the things fo r which he has ^Jacobson, Reavis, and Logsdon, The Effective School Principal, p. 15. ^ N o lte , An Introduction to School Administration: Readings, p. 278. Selected 72 Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, p. 387. 73 Houts, "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer," p. 32. 44 responsibility." 74 Principals from small communities and urban areas 7 c 7£ a lik e , identify lack of time as one of th e ir major problems. ’ The major reasons given for the elementary principal's "lack of time" problem are the burden of adm inistrivia, and the lack of help. Hencley, et a l . , Elsbree, et a l . , and Shuster, et a l . , recognize that many details of o ffic e routine and the scope of administrative duties increase the principal's load. 77 7ft 7Q * 5 In a 1968 survey, lack of clerical help and lack of adminis­ tra tiv e help were cited by elementary principals as major hindrances to using more of th e ir time for supervision and curriculum develop* 80 ment. Educators reveal concern that principals with leadership expertise who receive good salaries from the taxpayers are bogged down with a c tiv itie s that could be performed by others with lesser 74 Hansford, Guidebook for School Principals, p. 8 . 75 "In Small Communities, the Principals Say . . . ," The National Elementary Principal, 32 (April 1953), 29-31. ^ " In Big C itie s , the Principals Say . . . ," The National Elementary P rincipal, 32 (February 1953), 31-32. ^Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath, The Elementary School Principalship, p. 242. ' 78 Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision, pp. 388-389. 79 Shuster and Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Ele­ mentary School, pp. 269, 334. 80 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--A Research Study, Thirty-eighth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1968), pp. 51-52. 45 professional competency. an educational leader," 81 They are calling for principals to "act lik e and to spend more time "with learning and teaching. The size of a school is another factor brought forward by Goldman and Hackman as a reason for the principal needing help. 83 8 4 ’ Forms of Assistance The most common form of assistance for the elementary school principal is the school clerk. "Unquestionably, a secretary is the best 'device' for saving time that the principal can have." 85 She can handle many routine matters of non-instructional nature. Faber and Shearron suggest that there is a trend toward increased employment of an assistant administrator in elementary schools, p articularly in the larger schools in metropolitan areas. This person is usually called an assistant principal or vice principal and f it s into one of three categories. 1. The substitute principal . . . who serves only when the p rin c i­ pal is absent and has no real administrative or leadership duties *^Myra H. Nissen, "Table Talk with Albert Shanker," The National Elementary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 46. 82 Jarvis C. Wotring, "Principals and Accountability," Michigan School Board Journal, 20 (January 1974), 27. ^Goldman, The School P rincipal, p. 19. 84 Thomas Hackman, "The Assistant Principalship," The National Elementary Principal, 42 (February 1963), 36. ^Robert L. Nash, "Good Office Help," The National Elementary P rincipal, 33 (May 1954), 27. 46 2. The disciplinarian . . . who handles student discipline cases and has few other administrative duties 3. The deputy principal . . . who is considered a member of the administrative team and shares the principal's responsibili­ tie s 88 Other sources of aid for the principal which have been trie d include s ta ff personnel to assist the principal with supervising 87 instruction, and a building manager who functions sim ilarly to an assistant principal. Recommendations Various suggestions have been made relating to the amount Of help that the elementary school principal should have. In 1948, the E ditorial Committee of the Department of Elementary School Principals recommended that every elementary school have at least part-time clerical assistance, that a school of 400 pupils have a fu ll-tim e clerk, and that a school of 800 pupils have two fu ll-tim e clerks. RQ Stoops and Johnson support this proposed ra tio . ~ 88 Jacobson, et a l . , advocated one clerk for each twenty teachers in the elementary school. 90 OC Faber and Shearron, Elementary School Administration, pp. 252253• 87 Mary McPhee, "Building Manager Manages to Free Building P rincipal," School Management, 16 (October 1972), 36. 88 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship—A Research Study, Thirty-seventh Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1958), p. 76. 8%mory Stoops and Russell E. Johnson, Elementary School Adminis­ tratio n (Mew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), p. 214. ^Jacobson, Reavis, and Logsdon, The Effective School P rin cip al, p. 572. 47 Michigan principals recommended a somewhat higher proportion in 1968, reflecting the need for additional support due to th eir increased and more complex re sp o n sib ilities. They prescribed that a second clerk be employed when the school enrollment exceeds 450, that a third one be hired when i t surpasses 750, and another i f i t reaches an enrollment of 1 ,50 0.^ Contemporary professionals are callin g fo r the use of at least one fu ll-tim e assistant, in addition to c le ric a l services, with whom the elementary school principal may share his resp o nsib ilities. Whenever the principal is not available in his o ffic e , there should be someone readily available to act as principal or as assistant p rin cip al--to meet c a lle rs , to take care of matters coming in over the telephone, to handle situations in the class­ room, and to cope with emergencies and situations in which pupils come to the o ffic e .92 Some authorities believe that any school with over 200 students should have a part-time assistant, and that in a school of over 700 students, more than one fu ll-tim e assistant to the principal is needed. 93 Michigan principals recommended one assistant principal fo r a school with a student enrollment between 750 and 1,500, and a second assistant when the number of students exceeds 1,500. 91 Michigan Michigan 92 (Boston: 94 Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals and Association of Secondary School Principals, "Guidelines fo r Principals" (East Lansing, Michigan, 1968), p. 29. Harl R. Douglass, Modern Administration of Ginn and Company, 1963), p. 28. SecondarySchools 93 Roald F. Campbell, John E. Corbally, J r ., and John A. Ramseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1966), p. 403. ^Michigan Associations of Elementary and Secondary Principals, "Guidelines for Michigan Principals," p. 29. 48 Other educators have suggested that an educational business manager could coordinate a c tiv itie s relating to the business aspects of the school, 95 and that curriculum co-ordinators community directors 97 96 and school- could assume other responsibilities tra d itio n a lly assigned to the elementary principal. The Future The purpose of elementary school administration, the f a c i l i go tation of teaching and learning, is not expected to change. The nature of the job, however, is expected to change and the principal is predicted to be "buffeted with even greater pressures." 99 He must keep abreast of new developments in the elementary school program, serve as a "catalyst for educational change rather than as the guardian of s ta b ility in his s c h o o l a n d "become a kind of social en g in ee r"^ who is thoroughly prepared in social science and human behavior. "Altogether, the elementary principalship of 1980 w ill be a more professionally demanding position than i t is today." 102 ^Francis P. Hunkins, "New Id en tities for New Tasks," Edu­ cational Leadership, 29 (March 1972), 505. ^ N o lte , An Introduction to School Administration: Selected Readings, p. 278. 97 Faber and Shearron, Elementary School Administration, p. 374. 9 8 Ib id . 99 Cooper, Elementary School Principalship, p. 401. ^ K e l l e r , "Inside the Man in the Principal's O ffice," p. 26. ^C o o per, Elementary School Principalship, p. 12. 10 ? William D. Southworth, "The Elementary School Principal s h ip 1980," The Clearing House, 46 (November 1971), 140. 49 Summary The elementary school principalship has developed slowly. The "head teacher" during colonial times had a fu ll teaching load and handled a few administrative duties. This position became inadequate with the establishment of graded schools in the mid-1800's. Time was needed to observe and tra in teachers and to develop curriculum. Thus, the "head teacher" was relieved of a portion of his teaching duties and was named a "teaching principal." ship was well established. By 1900, the teaching p rincipal­ School o ffic ia ls then recognized the d e s ira b ility of a principal devoting his fu ll time and energy to administrative concerns, and relieved the "teaching principal" of a ll teaching responsibilities. This new position of "building principal" was primarily administrative in nature. A major impetus toward the conception of elementary principals becoming instructional leaders came in 1920 when the Department of Elementary School Principals was formed. The principalship then became a topic of study in universities and in professional journals. When the growth of school systems required superintendents to delegate supervision of instruction to the principal, the "supervising principal" emerged to work d ire c tly with s ta ff to improve curriculum. Accompanying the new role of "supervising principal" has been an increase in the duties and demands of the job. A principal must have technical, human, and conceptual s k ills . He must respond daily to scheduled and unscheduled responsibilities. He must be prepared to f u l f i l l tasks associated with curriculum, pupil personnel, s ta ff, community leadership, transportation, and finance. The school 50 administrator now faces new problems and issues which are reflected by society and legislated by governmental agencies. Expansion of the elementary curriculum, changes in organization and methodology, and participation in the management team are additional areas about which today's principal must be knowledgeable. Confronted with multiple tasks and resp o nsib ilities, the elementary school administrator has a dilemma. He must determine which of his duties w ill have p rio rity and how he w ill allocate his time. Educators concur that the principal must be able to separate the important functions from the t r i v i a l. The dominant responsibility of the p rincip al, as consistently revealed in the lite ra tu re , is supervision of instruction. Some educators disagree and stress the importance of accomplishing daily routine d etails. Some help is available for the principal to meet his dilemma. The most common form of assistance is the school clerk or secretary who can handle many routine matters of non-instructional nature. Another form of help, p articularly in larger schools in metropolitan areas, is an assistant administrator with whom the principal may share his resp o nsib ilities. Other educators have suggested that a business manager, a curriculum coordinator, and a school-community director could relieve the principal of some of his responsibilities. The elementary school principal of the future w ill encounter d ifferen t and greater pressures. demanding than i t is today. This position w ill become even more 51 Related Studies of the Elementary School Principal The elementary school principalship has been the subject of numerous research studies. Investigators have sought to define the responsibilities of the elementary school principal, to determine the amount of time he allocates to major functions, and to identify the type of assistance provided for him. Role and Duties Many effo rts have been made during this century to analyze the role and duties of the elementary school principal. Studies were made in the early 1900's, in the middle 1900's, and by the Department of Elementary School Principals. Early 20th Century Boggs, a fte r studying school board regulations pertaining to responsibilities of the principal in th irty selected c itie s , found more than fiv e times as many rules and regulations for clerical and routine duties as for specific supervisory duties. He complained: I t appears that in the judgment of most school boards and superintendents, principals are not mainly officers of pro­ fessional supervision, but rather odd-job and clerical workers whose business i t is to keep the machinery w ell-oiled and smoothly running while other people perform the higher pro­ fessional functions J 0 3 ,104 This view was not shared by education professors. In 1919- 1920, they ranked the functions of the elementary school principal in im Cubberley, The Principal and His School, p. 42. Boggs, "School Board Regulations Concerning the Elementary School Principal," Elementary School Journal, 20 (June 1920), 730-742, quoted in Cooper, Elementary School Principalship, pp. 3-4. 52 order of importance as supervision of teaching, administration, cornmunity leadership, professional study, and c le rica l work. 105 A sim ilar p rio rity of functions was shown in an early study of 658 principals by Dyer. The a c tiv itie s rated of greatest importance and performed by 75 percent of the principals reporting were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. discusses general principles of teaching discusses special methods suggests how to adapt methods to individual differences suggests how to improve pupils' attitudes suggests how to improve study habits suggests how to improve lesson plans suggests remedial procedure for weak pupils suggests how to organize routine work -.gg holds individual and group conferences 1950-1970 Dean concluded from a study of elementary principals in 555 urban places that administrators are "very d e fin ite ly oriented to the necessity for improvement of the quality of instruction in our schools." The respondents in his survey viewed supervision of instruction as the leading p rio rity and cause of c o n c e rn .^ Worth McClure, "The Functions of the Elementary School Principal," Elementary School Journal, 21 (March 1921), 505-514, quoted in Cooper, Elementary Schoop Principalship, p. 3. ^ W illia m P. Dyer, A c tiv itie s of the Elementary School P rinci­ pal for the Improvement of Instruction (Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927), Chapter IV, quoted in Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship, The Seventh Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1928), p. 196. ^ S t u a r t E. Dean, Elementary School Administration and Organization (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1960), pp. 99-100, 109. 53 The opinion is also shared by laymen, professors, teachers and superintendents. Schmaus found "close agreement" in th e ir concern for including training for supervisory a c tiv itie s in a principal's preparation program. 108 Similar findings were revealed by Duneer and Skov. They asked professors and superintendents to rank the important elements of the elementary school principalship. There were 93 percent of the pro­ fessors and 92 percent of the superintendents who responded that the major emphasis in training programs for the principalship should be on supervision and curriculum developm ent.^ Zimmerman's study of the duties of elementary school principals in Minnesota found some differences in how principals perceive th eir functions. Principals in metropolitan areas attached more importance to supervision than did principals from suburban areas or rural and small com m unities.^ Gross and H erriott also found an emphasis on instructional leadership in th e ir interviews of 175 elementary principals in fo rty 108 Roger G. Schmaus, "A Survey Study Examining the Opinions Held by Laymen, College Professors, Teachers, and Superintendents as to What an Elementary School Principal's Preparatory Program Should Be" (un­ published Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, 1959), p. 31, quoted in Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementary School, p. 211. 109 V irg il Duneer and Kenneth Skov, "A Questionnaire Study Comparing the Attitudes of School Superintendents with those of Pro­ fessors of Education in the Selection and Preparation of Elementary School Principals" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, 1959), quoted in Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementary School, p. 212. no Roger M. Zimmerman, "A Survey of the Duties of Elementary School Principals in Minnesota" (unpublished Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, 1959), quoted in Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementary School, pp. 210, 215. 54 large school systems in a ll regions of the United States. All but 3 percent of the principals said that "working on the improvement of the curriculum" is of "great importance" as a part of th e ir jo b J ^ Another study of the re la tiv e importance of the tasks which constitute the elementary school principal ship was conducted in North Carolina. Professors, superintendents, elementary school teachers, and elementary principals ranked sixty-four tasks in order of importance. Although the professors, superintendents, and principals rated super­ vising the instructional program as the most important of a ll tasks, the teachers ranked i t in f i f t h place. Tasks of a c le ric a l, routine, or "housekeeping" nature were ranked as least important. 112 Department of Elementary School Principals Surveys The Department of Elementary School Principals periodically investigates the duties being performed by elementary principals, and has reported in 1928, 1948, 1958, and 1968 the consistent b e lie f that supervising elementary principals, even though allotin g more time to supervision than any other function, except in 1968 when an equal amount ^ N e a l Gross and Robert E. H e rrio tt, S taff Leadership in Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry (New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1965), pp. 2, 100-101. 112 Ted Byron Shoaf, "A Study of the Relative Importance of the Tasks of the Elementary School Principalship As Seen By Elementary School Principals, Teachers, Their Superintendents, and Professors of Educational Administration" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel H i l l, 1967). 55 of time was reportedly spent on administration and supervision, would lik e to give more time to that phase of th e ir w ork.^3 ^ 14’ ^ 5’ ^® Time Allocation Perception by Principals Gross and H e rrio tt, in th e ir 1960-61 study, asked principals, "How do you feel about the amount of time you devote to this activity?" Fifty-two percent of the 172 elementary school principals responded that "managing the school office" required too much of th e ir time. Of fifte e n items, to which the principals indicated spending too much time, none related to improving s ta ff perform ance.^ A recent nation-wide survey found elementary school principals expressing "lack of time" as th e ir greatest hindrance to adequate supervision and to engagement in or u tiliz a tio n of research. 118 113 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principal ship, The Seventh Yearbook, pp. 205, 207. 114 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--Today and Tomorrow, Twenty-seventh Yearbook (Wash­ ington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1948), p. 90. 115 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--A Research Study, Thirty-seventh Yearbook, p. 98. 1 1 fi Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--A Research Study, Thirty-eighth Yearbook, p. 51. 117 Gross and H e rrio tt, S ta ff Leadership in Public Schools: Sociological Inquiry, pp. 102-103. 118 A Gerald Becker, R. Withycombe, F. Doyel, E. M ille r, C. Morgan, L. DeLoretto, and B. Aldridge, Elementary School Principals and Their Schools (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, Center fo r the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1971), pp. 47, 59. 56 Allocation to Functions Other research indicates the actual use of time by principals. An early investigation by McMurry disclosed that two-thirds of the principal's time was spent in managerial duties. eighty-one New York elementary school principals. The study included 119 Time records from forty-three Seattle, Washington, principals during 1919-1920 revealed that principals spend one-third more time in administration than in supervision, and that they devoted only 8 percent as much time to cle rica l duties as they did to supervision. 120 Hampton used data from time diaries kept by 130 elementary school principals to determine the amount of time allocated to d iffe ren t functions. He discovered that 65 percent of th e ir time was spent on administrative tasks, 20 percent on supervision, 8 percent on clerical duties, and 7 percent on teaching and other duties. 121 Time diaries were also used in a study of sixty-seven ele­ mentary school principals in and near Baltimore. time on administrative duties then on supervision. They too spent more 122 The practice ^ F . M. McMurry, Elementary School Standards (Yonkers-onHudson: World Book Co., 1914), quoted in Cooper, Elementary School Principal ship, p. 3. ^2 % yer, A c tiv itie s of the Elementary School Principal for the Improvement of Instruction, Chapter IV, quoted in Department of Ele­ mentary School Principals, The Elementary School Principal ship, The Seventh Yearbook, p. 196. ^Departm ent of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship, The Seventh Yearbook, pp. 182-183, 206, 507. 122Ida V. Flowers, "The Duties of the Elementary School P rinci­ pal," The Elementary School Journal, 27 (February 1927), 414-422, quoted in Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship, The Seventh Yearbook, p. 506. 57 of spending more time on managerial or operational functions was again noted in the 1950's. Fitch found that supervising principals in Pennsylvania spent 53 percent of th e ir time on such a c tiv itie s . 1 23 Other research indicates that principals fa ile d to apportion th e ir time as they recommended. 124 Some admitted to spending less time observing classrooms than was specified by th e ir superintendents. 12*5 Others, according to a survey by Jennings, were devoting most of th e ir time to organizing and managing th e ir schools. Forty percent of them, however, would have liked to spend more time in program development and curriculum. Only 14 percent of the responding principals indicated 1 ?fi satisfaction with th e ir time allotment. Recommendations Recommendations vary concerning the elementary school p rin c i­ pal's allocation of his time among the various functions of the principalship. University professors in the 1919-1920 McClure study advised this distribution of time: 123 George E. Fitch, "A Survey of Administrative Operational Techniques Used by Supervising Principals in Pennsylvania" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State College, 1953), quoted in Daniel E. G riffith s , Human Relations in School Administration (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, In c ., 1956), p. 134. 124 Bernice Cooper, "An Analysis of the Quality of the Behaviors of Principals as Observed and Reported in Six C ritic a l Incident Studies," The Journal of Educational Research, 56 (April 1963), 410-412. 125 Trask, "Principals, Teachers and Supervision: Solutions," pp. 1, 4. 12 fi Dilemmas and James Maxwell Jennings, "The Elementary School Principalship in Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), pp. 176-177, 219-220. 58 Supervision of instruction Administrative duties . Community leadership Professional study . . Clerical work . . . . 40 percent 20 15 Current recommendations emanate from practicing principals. Two nearly identical studies of actual and ideal time allotments were made a decade apart. The 1958 study was conducted in Michigan; the 1968 study was implemented in C alifornia. In those studies, the elementary principals surveyed suggested the following percentages for allocation of time: 1958 28 17 15 14 15 Curriculum and instructional leadership Personnel guidance School-Community relations Administrative responsibility Evaluation Responsibility Professional Improvement 1968 31 18 12 14 11 How principals actually spend th eir time on the job, however, does not match perfectly with the prescribed role p rio ritie s . Department of Elementary School Principals Surveys Repeated comprehensive studies by the Department of Elementary School Principals have indicated discrepancies between a supervising principal's actual and ideal time allotment. Their data in rounded percentage figures, follow: 127 128 Cubberle.y, The Principal and His School, pp. 42-43. Joseph Melton, "Role Perceptions of the Elementary School Principalship," The National Elementary Principal, 50 (February 1971), 40-41. I3 59 1928 Function 1948 1958 1968 Actual Ideal Actual Ideal Actual Ideal Actual Ideal Administration Supervision Clerical Teaching Community A ctivities and Other Duties 30 34 18 4 14 25 51 6 6 12 29 39 15 2 15 24 55 4 3 15 30 35 14 3 25 49 4 2 30 38 14 4 24 53 4 4 129 131 18 20 13 16 I t can be noted that most principals spend over one-half of th e ir time on non-instructional duties, although they would ideally recommend expending that much time exclusively on supervisory a c tiv itie s . There is evidence of only a minor s h ift in the relationship of time for performing major functions of the elementary school principalship. Assistance for the Principal Clerical Service The Department of Elementary School principals surveyed approximately 2,500 elementary principals for the 1968 research study of the elementary principalship. Responses showed that 70 percent of the supervising principals had one or more fu ll-tim e secretaries, while 12.2 percent had one-half a secretary, and 8.7 percent had no clerical 129 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship, The Seventh Yearbook, pp. 205-207. 130 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship—Today and Tomorrow, Twenty-seventh Yearbook, p. 90. 131 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship—Research Study, Thirty-seventh Yearbook, p. 98. 132 Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--A Research Study, Thirty-eighth Yearbook, p. 51. 60 assistance. 133 This indicated some improvement since 1958, when a survey by the same organization disclosed that 23 percent had no clerical help, 19 percent had half-tim e help, and 58 percent had at least one fu ll-tim e c le rk . ^ 34 Becker, et a l . , concluded from a recent nation-wide survey of elementary school principals that "usually secretarial assistance is inadequate to e ffic ie n tly handle the work load. Thus usually is required to spend a large part of his time and secretarial chores." the principal on routine clerical 135 Assistant Principal A view mentioned by 21 percent of the college and university representatives in the same study was: The principal w ill find an even greater need fo r supportive specialized s ta ff to help him i f he is ever to assume adminis­ tra tiv e leadership. Such s ta ff could well take over many o f -,36 the detail roles that the principal now assigns for himself. One type of support, the fu ll-tim e assistant principal is not prevalent in elementary schools. According to the 1968 Department of Elementary School Principals survey, the position is clearly related to the size of the school system. In the large school systems, defined as 25,000 or more pupils, 24.2 percent of the supervising principals had fu ll-tim e assistants. 133 Ib id ., pp. 70-71. 134 Ib id ., p. 141. 135 The over-all average, however, Becker, et a l . , Elementary School Principals and Their Schools, p. 12. 136I b i d . , p. 160. 61 was 9.8 percent. At least nine out of ten supervising elementary school 137 principals did not have this form of help. The major functions of an assistant principal vary. F ifty - eight percent of the supervising principals who had assistants said that the assistant's major function was to serve as a general adminis­ tra to r and to work with a ll types of problems. Twenty percent of the assistant principals specialized in supervision and curriculum, 13 percent gave major time to pupil personnel, and 6 percent were lim ited to administrative and clerical tasks. 1 National Survey of Assistant Principals A separate study of the assistant principalship in public e le­ mentary schools was conducted by the National Association of Elementary School Principals in 1969. Assistant principals included in the survey were from school systems having a minimum of 3,000 students, and were generally found in school buildings having large student enrollments and large facu lties. Only 6.9 percent of the assistant principals were employed in schools of less than 400 students and 19.8 percent were working in schools having an enrollment between 400 and 700 students. Nearly 36 percent of the assistant principals were located in schools having between 700 and 1,000 students. 137 Another 37.7 percent were employed Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship--A Research Study, Thirty-eighth Yearbook, pp. 7273. 138I b i d . , pp. 73-74, 141. 62 in elementary schools exceeding an enrollment of 1,000. enrollment was 875 students. The median 139 The median number of fu ll-tim e teachers, in the schools where assistant principals were employed, was thirty-one for the total sample of respondents. I t ranged from nineteen teachers for schools with enrollments of 700 or less to fo rty-th ree teachers in schools with 1 , 0 0 0 or more students. 140 More than 45 percent of the assistant principals surveyed characterized the school neighborhood as below average economically. Forty percent thought i t was average, and only fourteen in a hundred assistant principals reported th e ir school neighborhood to be above average. 141 Regular teaching duties were not assigned to nearly 70 percent of the assistant principals. Fifteen percent of the assistant p rinci­ pals, however, were assigned to regular teaching for at least 60 percent of th e ir work week. 142 The assistant principals' mean time allotment to other major functions was: ^ N a tio n a l Association of Elementary School Principals, The Assistant Principal in Public Elementary Schools--!969, A Research Study (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Elementary School Principals, 1970), pp. 31-32. 140 Ib id . 141 , pp. 33-34. Ib id . , pp. 34-35. 142Ib id . , pp. 40-41. ! i 63 Clerical and Administrative duties Supervision and Curriculum Development Community Work Self-improvement 46 percent 25 5 4 The major responsibility reported most frequently was pupil personnel. 144 When asked for th e ir recommendations on the school size that requires a fu ll-tim e assistant principal, the total sample recommended a median of 600 pupils. was 2,000. The smallest estimate was 25 and the largest In general, they favored appointment of persons to th eir type of position at a lower point in school size than was reported as now being practiced. 145 Over h alf o f the assistant principals, 52.9 percent, indicated that th e ir duties were determined cooperatively with th e ir principals, in advance of th e ir employment; and 71.4 percent said that they had enough authority to carry out th e ir assignments with efficiency and s a t is fa c tio n .^ Only 12.1 percent of the respondents reported the unwillingness of the principal to delegate work, as being a hindrance to his e ffic ie n t functioning. This hindrance was given with more frequency as the enrollment of the school increased. 14 ^Ib id . , pp. 41-47. 144 Ib id ., p. 55. 145 Ib id . , pp. 32-33. 146 Ib id . , pp. 56-58. 147I b i d . , pp. 58-59. 147 6 4 Summary The role and duties of the elementary school principal have been the subject of numerous research studies. In the early 20th century, Boggs found that principals were routine and cle rica l workers, rather than supervisors of teaching. education professors. The la tte r role was espoused by Surveys conducted from 1950-1970 indicated that principals, professors, superintendents, and laymen viewed supervising the instructional program as the leading p rio rity for the elementary school administrator. Principals reported they would lik e to devote more time to supervisory functions. The allocation of a principal's time to his various functions has also been studied. Principals responded that they lacked time for supervision, and time diaries revealed that about two-thirds of a principal's time was spent on administrative tasks. Other research found that principals failed to apportion th e ir time as they recommended. Most elementary school administrators spend over one-half of th e ir time on non-instructional duties, although they would ideally recommend expending that much time exclusively on supervisory a c tiv itie s . The major assistance provided to the elementary principal is a secretary. About four out of fiv e supervising principals had a fu ll-tim e secretary in 1968. Another type of support, the fu ll-tim e assistant principal, was available in 1968 to only about ten percent of the supervising principals. The assistant was generally found in school buildings having large student enrollments and large fa c u ltie s , and reported his major functions to be pupil personnel and general administrative duties. CHAPTER I I I A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON DELEGATION Foreword This chapter includes a discussion of the theory of delegation in organizations;, guidelines for its use by administrators, and a summary of research studies involving delegation. These descriptions should give the reader an understanding of delegation as i t was used in this study. Delegation in Organizations Delegation is not a new idea. back as b ib lical times. Its history can be traced as fa r Moses had led his people out of bondage in the land of Egypt into temporary asylum near the margin of freedom. There were problems of organization with such a large number of people, and Moses worked hard to bring unity among them. fath er-in -law , for advice. He asked Jethro, his Moses heeded his counsel and: chose able men out of a ll Is ra e l, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of f i f t i e s , and rulers of tens. Andthey judged the people at a ll seasons: the hard cases theybrought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.' There has been substantial agreement in this country on the d e s ira b ility of using delegation as an administrative technique or 1 Exodus 18: 25-26. 65 66 management practice. Mooney included delegation in his l i s t of fiv e ? "principles of organization." Although i t has been frequently noted that delegation can increase the efficiency of executives, leaders 3 4 often admit that they do not use the method extensively. ’ Theoretical Base The concept of delegation has been discussed frequently in the lite ra tu re on organizational theory. I t has been c le arly defined, the reasons for its use have been explained, and the disadvantages of its u tiliz a tio n have been described. Definitions Many writers have defined delegation. i t as "conferring authority." Mooney and Reiley explained They said: Delegation means the conferring of a certain specified authority by a higher authority. . . . When an organization outgrows the possibility of universal face-to-face leadership there must ensue that feature of organization which we may call sub-delegation. The leader no longer delegates an authority to do certain specific things. He begins to delegate an authority sim ilar to his own, in other words, he delegates the right of delegation i t s e l f . 5 Rosenberger called i t an "assignment." He explained, "Delegation . . . requires one person to assign part of his authority to make O James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1958), p. 30. q Lyndall F. Urwick, The Elements of Administration (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1943), p. 117. ^Ernest Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure (New York: American Management Association, 1952), p. 157. ^Urwick, The Elements of Administration, p. 125. 6 7 decisions--but none of his fin a l responsibility for those decisions— g to another person." A sim ilar conception was used by Hemphill, et a l . , in th eir research studies. They defined delegation as "deputizing another to act in the subject's place in effecting a task or decision. In other words, an act was considered delegation only i f i t involved assignment of a task which the subject himself would normally be expected to do." 7 Torgersen declared that such assignment of an a c tiv ity also g required "both the granting and the acceptance of autonomy." Laird and Laird described the act of delegation as "entrusting" some part of one's a ffa irs to another person, with few strings attached They maintained that when an action is a true delegation and not a sham: 1. responsibility is shared with the subordinate 2. authority is passed along to him to help get i t done 3. decision making is shared with him, or l e f t largely to him 4. he is given freedom for actions he thinks are needed to reach the objective9 Much?" ^Horner T. Rosenberger, "Delegation: Who? What? Supervisory Management, 4 (December 1959), 23. When? How 7John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. G riffith s , and Norman Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality (New York: Teachers College Columbia University, 1962), p. 112. O Paul E. Torgersen, A Concept of Organization (New York: American Book Company, 1969), p. 122. Q Donald A. Laird and Eleanor C. Laird, The Techniques of Delegating (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957), pp. 83, 108. 68 Allen agreed with this explanation, and added; "Delegation is a process of sharing with others the work and decisions the manager would otherwise have to carry out h im s e lf."^ Loen included a purpose in his d efin itio n : "Delegation is assigning work, responsibility and authority so that everyone can use his a b ilitie s to the utmost." 11 Although the explanatory phrases d iffe r , the substance of the definitions is that delegation is the act of accomplishing work through other people. Purpose The chief purpose of delegation is to make the organization function better as an organization. Urwick said, "Without delegation no organization can function e ffe c tiv e ly ." 12 This declaration was also made by N o lte^ and Jones.^ Another reason set forth for using delegation in organizations is the need for specialized competencies which, according to Selznick, "tends to decrease the differences between organizational goals and ^Louis A. Allen, Professional Management: New Concepts and Proven Practices (New York! McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), p. 123. ^Raymond 0. Loen, "Manager or Doer? A Test fo r Top Execu­ tives," Business Management, 30 (May 1966), 100. 1? Urwick, The Elements of Administration, p. 51. 1? M. Chester Nolte, An Introduction to School Administration: Selected Readings (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 9. ^ J . L. Jones, "Decentralization as a Management Tool," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 55 (December 1971), 84. 6 9 15 achievement. 11 That is , things are done best when each employee does what he is best qualified to do. Other sub-purposes have been id e n tifie d . Dale suggested that an increase in efficiency may r e s u lt;^ and Torgersen said more work would be completed in the organization. 17 Models There are varied conceptualizations of the delegative process within an organization. A common view is that delegation occurs as a part of the scalar principle of the bureaucracy. 18 This means that a large organization establishes a hierarchy, creates positions for specialization of work, and specifies the responsibilities and expected outcomes for each position. 19 The process is generally illu s tra te d in a downward form. Another model of the tradition al conception of delegation is that of a network considered from the center to the periphery o f the organization. The administrator delegates part of his responsibility to others, who report back to him. 15 Proceeding in the outer direction March and Simon, Organizations, p. 41. 1f\ Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 156. ^Torgersen, A Concept of Organization, pp. 123-124. 18 James D. Mooney and Allan C. Reiley, Onward Industry (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), quoted in Charles F. Faber and Gilbert F. Shearron, Elementary School Administration (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1970), p. 87. 19 Roald F. Campbell, Luvern L. Cumningham, Roderick F. McPhee, and Raphael 0. Nystrand, The Organization and Control of American Schools (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 254265. 70 would be called the "Line of Delegation." Considering the organization from the subordinates' position inward to the persons who delegate resp o nsib ilities, the same network model would be called the "Line of Accountability." on Delegation of authority and responsibility has also been described by Mooney and Parsons as flowing upward and la te ra lly , as well as downward and outward. 21 22 5 Mackenzie calls this idea "delegation up," and cautions that i t should be considered carefully and used sparingly. 23 Acceptance by Subordinates Delegation is incomplete unless subordinates accept what is being entrusted to them. I t entails a willingness on th e ir part to take the task or responsibility which has been assigned to them. Barnard described the conditions under which a person w ill grant his acceptance of such an order as those in which he: 1. can and does understand the communication 2. believes that i t is not inconsistent with the purpose of the organization 20 Norman K. Hamilton, "The Decision-Making Structure of a School System," Educational Leadership, 29 (May 1972), 6 6 8 . 21 Mooney and Reiley, Onward Industry, as quoted in Faber and Shearron, Elementary School Administration, p. 87. 22 Donald J. Willower, Peter J. Cistone, and John S. Packard, "Some Functions of the Supervisory Role in Educational Organizations," Education, 92 (February, March 1972), 67. 23 R. Alec Mackenzie, The Time Trap (New York: pp. 137-138. Amacom, 1972), 71 3. believes i t to be compatible with his personal interest as a whole 4. is able mentally and physically to comply with i t 24 Within this zone of acceptance, the subordinate w ill consent to the requests of his superior. I t has also been proposed that individuals w ill be more w illin g to make contributions to an organization i f they receive inducements or rewards.^ The premise that members of an organization are w illin g to accept delegation is supported by McGregor's Theory Y, which is based on the assumptions that work is as natural as play, and that i t can be satisfying or punishing depending on circumstances. People not only are capable of assuming responsibility, but in the rig ht conditions seek i t . They are able to exercise self-d irectio n and have a capacity for imagination, ingenuity, and c re a tiv ity in the solution of organizational problems. 2fi Maslow theorized that man has basic needs, arranged in a hierarchy of importance from physical survival to s e lf-a ctu alizatio n . Self-actualization needs refer to an inner urge to fu lly develop one's potential. Managers and administrators have appealed to higher-level 24 / Chester I . Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938), p. 165. 25 March and Simon, Organizations, p. 84. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, In c ., 1960), pp. 45-48. 72 needs of th e ir subordinates through delegation, based on this b elie f that the workers w ill be motivated to satiate those needs. 27 Another view which gives credence to the idea that subordinates w ill w illin g ly accept delegation is the motivation-hygiene theory proposed by Herzberg. He suggested that responsibility and work i t ­ s e lf are some of the factors which motivate workers, give them incentive for improved work, and lead to employee satisfaction. 28 Benefits to the Organization The organization can benefit from having its leader employ the technique of delegation. Better decisions may be made, the span of control may be increased, and communication may be improved. A sig nificant benefit of delegation is that i t maintains decision-making authority at the lowest possible level in the organi­ zation, "where the relevant facts and required judgment to make sound decisions are available. . . . Operating decisions . . . are often fa r better i f they are made where the facts and special expertise are available. Dale expressed a sim ilar view: Since people on the spot know usually more about the factors involved in the decisions than those further removed . . . and 27 A. H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, 50 (July 1943), 394-396. 28 M. Gene Newport, The Tools of Managing; Functions, Tech­ niques, and S k ills (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 170-171. ?Q Mackenzie, The Time Trap, p. 123. 73 since speedy decisions may often be essential . . . of decision-making is advantageous.30 a delegation G riffith s asserted also that the chief executive should not make a ll of the decisions. He said, " It is his function to monitor the decision-making process to make certain that i t performs at the optimum lev el." 31 Another benefit that delegation may bring to the organization is an increase in the span of control. "Span of control is the number and range of d irect communication contacts between any executive o ffice and subordinates that can be effe ctive ly carried on without delay and confusion. This means simply that there are lim its to the number of subordinates who can be effe ctive ly supervised by one individual." 32 Urwick's oft-repeated theory was that "no superior can supervise d ire c tly the work of more than fiv e , or at the most six, subordinates whose work interlocks." 33 This theory has been challenged in recent years, and some authorities believe that with improved techniques of organization, supervision, and communication the effective span of control is much greater than has been assumed in the past. Dale points out that a shortened span of control in large organizations may produce an inordinate number of authority levels in 30 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 156. 31 Daniel E. G riffith s , Administrative Theory (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959), p. 89. 32 Theodore J. Jenson and David L. Clark, Educational Administration (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1964), p. 51. 33 Urwick, The Elements of Adm inistration, pp. 52-53. the chain of command, causing less satisfactory communication. He advocates the broader span, with an increase in the delegation of responsibilities, which gives more in itia tiv e and independence to the subordinates, and allows the executive to take a personal interest in as many aspects of his job as possible. 34 Dreeben suggests too that sharing or delegating responsibility can open up a channel for improved communication. 35 Benefits to the Administrator The broadened span of control, which is made possible by delegation, benefits the administrator as well as the organization. Use of delegation extends the leader's influence and results from what he can do to what he can control. Hagman and Schwartz stated: In the delegation of authority, the administrator does not lessen his own authority but rather places i t in relationship to other persons so that . . . i t can be used more e ffe c tiv e ly . . . . I f the delegation is well done, the administrator has in effect extended himself and has power through the person to whom dele­ gation has been m a d e . 36 The administrator who uses delegation w ill also find he can ease the job pressure on himself. of delegation, said: Carnegie, who made large scale use " It marks a big step in a man's development when 34 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, pp. 50-53, 72-74, 82. 35 Robert Dreeben, Role Behavior of School Principals (Harvard University: Graduate School of Education, 1965), pp. 6-29. OC Harlan L. Hagman and Alfred Schwartz, Administration in P rofile for School Executives (New York: Harper, 1955), p. 125, quoted in J. Foster Watkins, "Delegation: A Needed Ingredient for Effective Administration," The Clearing House, 46 (March 1972), 396. 75 he comes to realize that other men can be called in to help him to do a better job than he can do alone." 37 Barnard wrote in 1938 that each individual has biological lim itations which necessitates the assignment by supervisory heads of some matters to other s ta ff members. Valentine says: 38 This view has not changed. "Each can work ju s t so many hours a day, and be in only one place at a time. As the volume of a c tiv ity in an organization increases, management delegates larger and larger segments of au th ority . " 39 Reducing the physical and mental executive burden by dele­ gation of some tasks to subordinates releases time for the adminis­ tra to r to use for planning, for making higher-level decisions, and for in itia tin g innovative a c tiv ity .^>41 Benefits to the Subordinate The use of delegation benefits the subordinates, as well as the organization and its administrators. The advantage cited most frequently in the lite ra tu re is that delegation within an organization provides an opportunity for members of the group to learn, to achieve, and to develop th e ir talents. 37 They can use th eir own in itia tiv e and Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 14-15. OQ Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, pp. 60, 178-179. 39 York: Raymond F. Valentine, In itia tiv e and Managerial Power (New Amacon, 1973), p. 15. ^ L a ird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 90. 41 March and Simon, Organizations, pp. 198-199. 76 make the most of th e ir cap ab ilities; latent p o te n tialitie s fo r leader­ ship can be developed; and training in decision making can be experienced. 4 2 - 4 3 ’ 4 4 - 45 Another benefit which accrues to subordinates is that of increased pride and satisfaction in th e ir work and higher morale. Delegation provides enriched work th at, according to Glaser, enables people to act responsibly in the pursuit of meaningful g o a ls .^ The job becomes more f u lf illin g and the employee has greater g ra tific a tio n . The view was summarized by Rosenberger: "Delegation . . . leads to increased individual responsibility, greater pride in work, higher morale, and strong in itia tiv e . Practiced throughout an organization, delegation becomes a source of v it a lit y and progress."^ Disadvantages of Delegation Although the use of delegation is seen by many authorities as beneficial to the organization, to its administrators, and to its sub­ ordinates, i t is not en tire ly free of criticism . 42 43 Mitchell warns that Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 14, 21. Mackenzie, The Time Trap, p. 123. 44 Nolte, An Introduction to School Administration: Readings, p. 9. Selected 45 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 164. Scott Myers, "Every Employee a Manager," California Management Review, 10 (Spring 1968), 19. ^Rosenberger, "Delegation: p. 30. Who? What? When? How Much?" 77 delegation without some control may result in abdication, 48 supporting the findings of Lewin and his collaborators which indicated that abdication of responsibility in leadership results in anarchy or chaos.^ Failure to keep control of delegated operations caused h is to rians to rate Grant and Harding as failures among U. S. Presidents. 50 Delegation has been c ritic iz e d for restrictin g communication as i t passes through a complex pyramidal structure. teacher wants to order a special set of supplies. For example, "A He must ask the principal who in turn asks a d irector, who in turn asks the assistant superintendent, who in turn requests permission from the superintend­ e n t." ^ Hamilton added, " It re stric ts information up the organization; each person in the lin e receives only that information which the people reporting to him want him to have or think he needs." 52 Another fa u lt attributed to delegation is that i t causes the organization to become more rig id , and th ro ttles individual f le x ib ilit y and adaptability. 48 Eaton said, "Delegation of authority can be castigated Don G. M itch ell, Top Man (New York: Association, In c ., 1970), p. 80. American Management 49 Paul B. Jacobson, William C. Reavis, and James D. Logsdon, The E ffective School Principal (New York: Prentice-H all, In c ., 1954), p. 1 0 0 . 50 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 60-61. 51 Hamilton, "The Decision-Making Structure of a School System," p. 669. 52Ib id . 7 8 on the basis that i t w ill ultimately produce a tangled maze of connective lines which w ill promote a huge, complicated pattern. Rigidity w ill follow and stagnation of the creative power of the group w ill re s u lt." 51 An unanticipated consequence which may result from delegation is the increase in the bifurcation of interests among the subunits in the organization. Selznick explained that maintenance needs of the departmentalized subunits dictate a commitment to the subunit goals greater than th e ir contribution to the total organization. He also observed that the bifurcation leads to increased co n flict among the subunits. 54 Another disadvantage cited by Dale was that decisions could lack uniformity. 55 Can Responsibility be Delegated? The tradition al and most prevalent view on delegation includes the principle that an administrator remains fu lly and actively responsible or accountable for the authority vested in him, whether i t is exercised by himself or by a delegatee. 56 Many writers uphold this position. 57 58 * 53 Wallazz B. Eaton, "Democratic Organization: Myth or R eality," in Educational Administration: Selected Readings, ed. by Walter G. Hack, John A. Ramseyer, William J. Gephart, and James B. Heck (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1965), p. 271. 54 March and Simon, Organizations, pp. 40-42. 55 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 158. 56 57 58 Valentine, In itia tiv e and Managerial Power, p. 14. Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 157. Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," Harvard Business Review, 36 (March, April 1958), 98. 79 Morphet, et a l . , expressed i t this way: "The top executive may delegate power and authority to subexecutives, and he may hold them responsible for the proper exercise of the power and authority he has delegated to them. Nevertheless, a ll responsibility is u l t i ­ mo mately his i f things go wrong." The same declaration has been made by G riffith s and McGregor. The viewpoint is s t i l l germane. Hoffman stated: "Delegating authority to others does not mean absolving fi? oneself of final responsibility." A less popular, but emerging, theoryis that responsibility can beshared. As explained by Morphet, et a l . : shared, responsibility can be shared. " If leadership can be I f potential leaders in the organization are permitted to exercise th e ir leadership p o ten tial, they CO w ill voluntarily accept responsibility as well as authority and power." This concept had e a rlie r been argued by Taylor. was that authority and responsibility should correspond. His position He believed that any individual to whom had been assigned authority fo r which he was not held accountable would tend to exercise that authority with decreasing effectiveness.^ cq JJEdgar L. Morphet, Roe L. Johns, and Theodore R e lle r, Educational Administration (Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-H all, In c ., 1959), p. 63. fin Daniel E. G riffith s , ed., Behavioral Science and Educational Administration (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 230. ^Douglas McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGrawH ill Book Company, 1967), p. 32. fin Jonathan Hoffman, "The Administrator and S taff Leadership," School Management, 17 (April 1973), 15. ^Morphet, Johns, and R eller, Educational Administration, p. 65. 64 Urwick, The Elements of Adm inistration, pp. 45-46. 8 0 A theory which is intermediary to the two positions ju st described suggests that responsibility can be both delegated and retained. " It is a measure of obligation that is assigned to a subordinate, accepted by him, but s t i l l not lost to the superior . 1 An Administrator's Function The act of delegation is an important responsibility for the administrator of an organization. One of his main functions is "the selection of capable subordinates in whom confidence can be reposed, and the delegation of responsibility and authority to them." The a b ility to delegate has been called a "sk ill of leadership"^ and an "art" 68 which must be developed. Mackenzie suggests that i t involves learning how to "work smarter, not harder." 69 I t is considered to be an essential tool for the executive to use in managing his time. As Drucker observed; Time is [an executive's] scarcest and most perishable resource. The job of the executive is to look up--to keep the goals and purposes of the organization in view and not to le t them get pushed aside in a welter of daily d e t a i l . 70,71 ^Torgersen, A Concept of Organization, p. 121. ^Lloyd S. Woodburne, Principles of College and University Adminis­ tration (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958), p. 12. ^Boyd Lindop, "Qualities of the Leader," School A c tiv itie s , 35 (February 1964), 177. ^ L a ird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 61. ^Mackenzie, The Time Trap, p. 11. 70peter F. Drucker, "How to Be an Effective Executive," Nation's Business, 49 (April 1961), 44. ^ P e ter F. Drucker, "How the Effective Executive Does I t , " Fortune, 75 (February 1967), 142. 81 B arriers to Delegation Administrators have often rejected delegation for many reasons. Cribbin summarized some of the factors which have served as barriers to its use as being ( 1 ) unwillingness to give authority, ( 2 ) ignorance of what, how, and to whom to delegate, (3) lack of tru st in subordinates, and (4) fear of taking risks. 72 Additional reasons given by Mackenzie for the lack of delegation are the in a b ility to explain the delegated task, and the perfectionism 73 of the administrator. ' Some administrators explain that they do not delegate because of th e ir subordinates' lack of experience, lack of competence, or avoidance of responsibility. 74 Another barrier to the use of delegation by administrators is an unawareness of its advantages. the s k ill 75,76,77;,78 Many leaders have not been taught others have not discovered its benefits 72 James J. Cribbin, Effective Managerial Leadership (New York: American Management Association, In c ., 1972), p. 192. ^Mackenzie, The Time Trap, p. 133. 7 4 Ibid. 75 William H. Newman, "Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Dele­ gation," The Management Review, 45 (January 1956), 36. 7fi Urwick, The Elements of Administration, p. 51. 77 J. Sterling Livingston, "Myth of the Well-Educated Manager," Harvard Business Review, 49 (January, February 1971), 79. 78 Hoffman, "The Administrator and S taff Leadership," p. 14. 82 because of a reluctance to share the workload for fear of losing power or prestige.79>80,81 Fear of competition is another retardant. Some administrators hesi' tate to delegate for fear that th eir subordinates may surpass them. Even success can impede delegation. Ing ils said: The leader . . . often believes that his success is tru ly a result of his own a b ility and e ffo rts . This feeling becomes a psycholo­ gical block that impedes him from delegating responsibility and authority. Knowing his own success, he questions the a b ility of his subordinates to do as well as he can. Because of the competitive environment in which he has worked and progressed through the ranks, he often is concerned about the competition he w ill experience from subordinates. A latent fear of this competition causes him to be afraid that his subordinates w ill do the work as well as he can— or maybe b e tte r.82 A related barrier is the risk of fa ilu r e . An administrator may believe that his subordinate w ill make him look bad. Achenbach, chief executive of Piggly Wiggly Southern, described this fear: All the people who work for an executive are purely extensions of himself. The most appalling thought about i t is that when you delegate you are putting your reputation and your career in the hands of other people. And they can ruin you i f they are not the rig h t people to s ta rt with, i f you have not trained them properly, or i f you fa il to delegate p r o p e r l y . 83 79 Albert H. Shuster and Don H. Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Co., 1973), p. 131. 80 Allen, Professional Management: Practices, p. 123. New Concepts and Proven 81 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 167. 82 Chester In g ils , "Advance to Administrators: Clues for Success," The Clearing House, 42 (September 1967), 16., ^Mackenzie, The Time Trap, pp. 140-141. 83 Another risk taken is "that i f employees are given an opportunity to influence decisions affecting them, they w ill soon want to participate in matters which should be none of th e ir concern." 84 Other impediments to the use of delegation in organizations are "interference from a . . . superior administrative o ffic er" 85 and the 88 expense of "training and making mistakes." Favorable Conditions for Delegation I t is thought that delegation works most successfully when: . . . the human climate is democratic, permissive, equalitarian, not secretive, not smothering. In such a climate the person delegated to feels that he is an associate rather than a subordi­ nate, and also feels that he is sharing purposes with his chief, not merely going through motions the chief prescribes. Delegation works out better whenthe delegatee feels he is doing things with the executive or fo r a common goal, than when he feels that he is only doing chores for the executive.87 Wiles expressed a sim ilar view, 88 as did McGregor who said: "When mutual tru st is high, there is a genuine willingness to delegate many decisions from the leader to individual members and by members to each other." 84 RQ McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, p. 129. 85 Harry J. Merigis, "Delegation in School Administration," The American School Board Journal, 144 (March 1962), 12. 88 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, pp. 166-167. 87 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 20, 8 6 . 88 Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (2nd ed.; Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-H all, In c ., 1955), p. 83. 89 McGregor, The Professional Manager, p. 195. 8 4 Delegation w ill be most effective when the objectives are clear-cut and meaningful to the delegatees. Laird and Laird pointed out that delegation has to be planned to f i t the "notions of what the particular group thinks is ' f i t and proper,'" and may be more readily accepted whenever there is a change in processes, products, or personnel Although the pressure of time is usually considered to be an impetus to delegation, Tannenbaum and Schmidt view the lack of time pressure as a fostering condition. pressure is less intense, . . . They maintain: "When the time i t becomes much more possible to bring subordinates in on the decision making process." 91 Other factors which favor delegation, according to Brown are when: 1. the parties are physically distant from each other, whether they are several thousand miles apart or in offices or in d ifferen t floors 2. workloads are heavy, there is considerable overtime, and the primary e ffo rt is one of meeting commitments 3. the organization is young and vigorous, with emphasis on problem-solving and action 4. standards of job performance are general, attainable, and f a i r 92 90 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 64, 96. 91 Tannenbaum and Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," pp. 100 - 1 0 1 . 92 David S. Brown, "Why Delegation Works--and Why I t Doesn't," Personnel, 44 (January, February 1967), 47. 85 Requisite S kills and Characteristics The a rt of successful delegation requires great s k i ll , insight, and judgment from the delegator. Gorsuch, of the U. S. Steel Corporation, has observed that "time and e ffo rt and persistance are required to 93 develop the a rt and keep i t a liv e ." The administrator who wants to use the technique is advised to i n i t i a l ly undertake a self-analysis 94 96 of his time and of his delegating s k ills . * To prepare one's state of mind, Laird andLaird equally important. They believe that attitudes are noted, is asessential as procedures, and recommend that the administrator must be w illin g to: 1. entrust 2. give freedom for action 3. delegate to strengthen the organization 4. start by easy stages 5. 96 le t them make more of the decisions Appley, President of the American Management Association from 1948-1968, pointed out the importance of the executive having confidence in his subordinates. 97 The need for courage was mentioned by Urwick. 98 9^John H. Gorsuch, "Good Management Men Delegate Authority," Advanced Management, 19 (September 1954), 5. ^Charles D. Moody, Charles B. Vergon, and Alva KeithGuy, The Role of the Principal in the Desegregation Process(Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan School of Education, 1973), p. 15. ^ L aird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 53. 96 Ib id . , 97 p. 78. Lawrence A. Appley, Values in Management (New York: Management Association, In c ., 1969), pp. 182-183. 98 Urwick, The Elements of Administration, p. 51. American 86 The administrator must be able to decide what to do himself, and what not to do. He must consciously select the tasks he w ill reserve for himself and those which he w ill delegate. A significant requirement of delegation is careful planning. The delegator must be able to formulate clear and concise objectives. As expressed by Fayol in his seventh Administrative Duty, the delegator must know how to "define duties cle arly ." 99 Followingthe selection and planning of the administrator delegate. tasks to be delegated, must assess the capacities of those to whom he might "Managers must know both what men know and what they want to know.'^" He should consider any forces affecting his subordinates' behavior, and be aware of environmental p re s s u re s .^ to select his "lieutenants." He must be able 102 Another important s k ill required by the leader who desires to be an effective delegator, is his subordinates. the a b ility to communicate his plans to S ufficient instructions must be given to those who share in the organization's operation to f a c ilita te th e ir carrying assigned work through to completion. Mintzberg said: I f the manager is not prepared to provide e x p lic it and consistent guidelines as to goals and plans, then he must accept the fact " i b i d . , p. 53. ^ " P h ilip Marvin, Multiplying Management Effectiveness (New York: American Management Association, IncT, 1971), p. 108. ^01Tannenbaum and Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," pp. 98-100. i n? Melvin T. Copeland, The Executive at Work (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 21. 87 that he w ill be unable to delegate responsibility for any major decision for fear that the result w ill not comply with the goals and plans he has kept to himself J 0 3 Tannenbaum and Schmidt suggested that the administrator also be clear and honest in communicating what authority he is keeping and what role he is asking his subordinates to assum e.^ A willingness to grant autonomy to someone else, but s t i l l remain accountable, is an additional t r a i t needed by delegators. Gorsuch acknowledged that se lf-d isc ip lin e is required to avoid interference. 105 Fundamental to the process of delegation, however, is "the relationship that exists between the subordinate and his boss, the mutual confidence and respect they have for one another, the ideas and attitudes that each brings to the transaction, and the potential rewards and satisfactions that each perceives as coming from i t . " ^ The administrator must possess the a b ility to work with human resources. As Bursk said: I f the manager has the kind of temperament that makes him inclined to be suspicious of other men, i f he lacks inner certainty in the soundness of his judgment in choosing and placing men, i f he has something of the martinet in him and enjoys the exercise of power for its own sake, he is not lik e ly to do a wholehearted job of delegating. Nor w ill his subordinates have the freedom of action that w ill enable them to do th e ir best work, develop th e ir powers and attitu des, and grow in managerial capacity.' 0 ' 103 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 178. ^Tannenbaum and Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," p. 98. 105 1Dfi 107 p. 25. Gorsuch, "Good Management Men Delegate Authority," p. 5. Cribbin, Effective Managerial Leadership, p. 193. Rosenberger, "Delegation: Who? What? When? How Much?" 88 Guidelines for Implementation Management authorities have given many recommendations fo r improving the effectiveness of delegation. Foremost among the sug­ gestions is that an administrator should provide the necessary training and information that w ill enable his subordinates to f u l f i l l the dele­ gated functions. General suggestions can be given for ways to carry out the work but care should be taken by the administrator to "concern himself with results of th e ir a c tiv itie s and not with the details of their day-to-day performance." 108 The superior should provide assistance when help is needed. Tannenbaum and Schmidt proposed that the leader has useful ideas to contribute, and may function as a member of the group, even though he has delegated responsibility to them. 109 Some control should be exercised. Cribbin suggested: At the outset, the executive would be wise to keep his finger on the pulse of his subordinate's actions, though without intruding, for the reason that even w ell-intentioned disasters are no less d istasteful. As the subordinate proves himself, the superior can ta c tfu lly ease himself out of the picture, allowing the subordinate to supervise himself. I t is prudent, however, to set up in advance checkpoints and check times when the two w ill get together to discuss progress and problems Results can also be assessed by the administrator who is "frequently among his people. 10 R McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, p. 160. 109 Tannenbaum and Schmidt, "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern," p. 98. ^ C r ib b in , Effective Managerial Leadership, p. 195. m Brown, "Why Delegation Works--and Why I t Doesn't," pp. 50-51. 8 9 Another important guideline is that appropriate credit and rewards should be given to an employee who successfully completes a delegated assignment. said: '.He deserves recognition and praise. Brown "Rewards may be no more demanding on the exchequer than an increase in the esteem in which the employee is held, but they are important nonetheless." 112 Other recommendations are to "allow mistakes, balance the workload;" 113 assign short-run delegations, and rotate delegation from person to person as a procedure for developing the organization in d e p t h E a c h person "should know to whom and for what he is responsible." 115 Rosenberger has offered additional advice: 1. Delegate as much as you can of your authority in technical matters 2. Delegation must f u l f i l l a specific 3. The delegated function should be one that occurs reasonably often and is f a ir ly time consuming 4. Don't delegate to one subordinate the authority already delegated to someone else 5. Don't delegate to the detriment of your propers ta ff balance, nor to the impairment of over-all moral 6. Keep your delegatee informed 11 2 Ib id ., purpose that you have and lin e 1 1 fi p. 51. ^M ackenzie, The Time Trap, p. 176. 114 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 117. 115 Morphet, Johns, and R eller, Educational Administration, p. 57. ^Rosenberger, "Delegation: pp. 24-29. Who? What? When? How Much?" 90 What to Delegate Basic to successful delegation is an understanding by the administrator of what he can entrust to others. Allen advises that most technical, routine, and rep etitive work can be delegated i f the subordinates are able to do these functions as well as or better than the administrator himself. He says: "Routine and d e ta il, i f not delegated, w ill monopolize the manager's time and crowd out the opportunities for more creative and, in the long run, more satisfying . . . w ork."^ I f one of the organization's goals is to develop its employees, the responsibilities that are delegated to them should be chosen with the objective of adding to th e ir s k ills . As observed by Cribbin: Delegation is a process of job enrichment. Unless what is dele­ gated represents a challenge for growth and achievement over and above the perimeters outlined in the position description, nothing much w ill happen. Moreover, the manager must resist a temptation to delegate things that he dislikes handling. Subordinates are not stupid; they readily perceive that such spinoffs are no more than rank-has-its-privileges in action Laird and Laird recommended that recurring work elements and routine decision making can be delegated. They also suggested that delegating can be used "to compensate for executive weak spots." 119 Tasks involving only one specialist function can be delegated to the subordinate charged with that function. For example, the administrator's secretary can attend to o ffic e duties. ^ A l l e n , Professional Management: Practices, p. 131. 118 119 Mackenzie New Concepts and Proven Cribbin, Effective Managerial Leadership, p. 193. Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegation, pp. 130-133. suggested that outgoing and incoming phone c a lls , screening of visito rs and mail, and drafting of correspondence, can be handled by a competent secretary What Not to Delegate According to Allen, the administrator of an organization "should concentrate on performance of unique actions; that is , of work that must be done d iffe re n tly each time i t is performed." 1 21 Examples of unique actions, which should not be delegated, would be policy formu­ lation , decisions which bear on the objectives of the organization, disciplinary power, evaluation, and promotion of subordinates. 122 Laird and Laird cautioned administrators not to delegate a duplicate of th e ir job, 123 and Allen noted that tasks should not be delegated for which no one is qualified to perform them e ffe c tiv e ly . 124 To Whom to Delegate Work may be delegated to members of an organization who are "mentally and physically able" and who are w illin g "to accept autonomy and accountability." 125 The subordinate should have a talent for the ^M ackenzie, The Time Trap, pp. 96, 158-160. ^ A l l e n , Professional Management: Practices, pp. 130-131. ^Rosenberger, "Delegation: pp. 24, 26. 1 23 104 New Concepts and Proven Who? What? When? How Much?" Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 153. Allen, Professional Management: New Concepts and Proven Practices, p. 132. 125 Torgersen, A Concept of Organization, pp. 116, 124. 9 2 job entrusted to him. Rosenberger advised: to the man with imagination. "Assign broad planning Give work that demands extreme precision to your most meticulous subordinate. Assign delicate m atters--!ike direct contact with the public--to the person who is most diplomatic." Another perspective was offered by Laird and Laird. 1 ?fi They suggested that delegation and supportive training also be directed to those individuals who are not prepared. They argued: The long-run wisdom of delegating to the cream of the crop only has been seriously questioned. I t may overload a w illin g horse. And i t usually generates jealousy and opposition to the favorite: . . . The most impractical result of delegating to the bestprepared man only is that i t does not develop the other personnel to function as an organization. . . . A l l those hazards are avoided when one delegates to employees who are at the time not fu lly preparedJ Potential P itfa lls The administrator must be aware of possible problems which may be encountered in the delegative process. He must determine how much to delegate, being careful to neither under-delegate nor over-delegate. He must guard against "spur-of-the-moment delegating" and against abdication or relinquishment of a ll control. 128 A "dilemma of delegation" is faced by those entrusting some of th e ir functions to subordinates. The administrator has the in fo r­ mation required to make important decisions, but finds dissemination of i t is time-consuming and d if fic u lt because much of i t is in verbal ^Rosenberger, "Delegation: Who? What? When? How Much?" p. 26. 127 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, pp. 166-167. 128Ib id . , pp. 60-61, 80. 93 or memory form. "The result is that the manager finds i t d if f ic u lt to delegate certain tasks with confidence, since he has neither the time nor the means to send along a ll the necessary information." 129 Friction and jealousy are danger signals which may develop among the subordinates. They can occur . . . when the delegatee moves into an area that is not his own or does not perform his assigned tasks competently. At the f i r s t indication of fric tio n , the person or persons delegating authority should move into action, for the problem may be a simple one of resolving a d iffic u lty between two people or refining the function of one of the in d ivid u als.'^0 Conflict may also result i f the administrator ignores his immediate subordinates and makes direct contact with personnel below that level The administrator must recognize that delegated decisions may lack uniformity, 132 although retaining them a ll unto himself could be viewed as a means for retaining power and delegating only the unwanted and unimportant tasks. 133 I f the subordinate lacks self-confidence, he w ill not welcome delegation. The administrator should view this attitude as a cue to 129 Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work, p. 170. 130 (New York: 131 Daniel E. G riffith s , Human Relations in School Administration Appleton-Century-Crofts, In c ., 1956), p. 140. Valentine, In itia tiv e and Managerial Power, p. 17. 132 Dale, Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure, p. 167. 133 p. 16. In g ils , "Advice to Administrators: Clues for Success," 94 develop the individual's p o te n tia litie s and make him aware of his capacities. ever. The subordinate must not be overloaded with work, how- 134 Other attitudes of subordinates which could lim it or prevent successful delegation are pointed out by Cribbin: 1. Unwillingness to take on additional responsibility 2. Failure to see delegation as a means of growing and learning 3. An attitu de of once burned, twice shy 4. Resentment at not being given cred it for common sense 5. Fear of incurring the boss's wrath 6. Eagerness to delegate upward in order to keep the boss busy 7. Lack of respect fo r the manager 8. Fear of being chewed out for even minormistakes 9. Feeling of not being appreciated 10. Feeling of being used and abused 135 Delegation in Schools Although the concept of delegation as discussed in this chapter was derived from public and business administration, educational adminis­ trators have also been urged to employ the technique. The expansion of their role and duties accentuated the need fo r its use. In the 1920's, CubberTeyand F ille rs suggested that many administrative duties could be delegated to ja n ito rs , teachers, and 134 Newman, "Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Delegation, p. 40. 135 Cribbin, Effective Managerial Leadership, p. 192. 95 clerks. IOC * 10 7 Jacobson and Hansford submitted at a la te r time that the delegation might also extend to students and to parents. 1 oo ion The increasing specialization and expertise of school personnel and th eir desire to be involved may serve to encourage the use of delegation. Watkins said: "Boards of education should cap italize upon these trends and should encourage moves toward a greater degree of true delegation, along with adequate cooperative procedures for assessing the degree of acceptance of the delegated authority and responsibil ity . Current educators agree on the importance of delegation as a professional competency for today's le a d e r s .^ i t among the "keys which improve leadership a b ilit y ." Stoops included 143 An adminis­ trator must organize the overall operation of his school, and is Ell wood P. Cubberle.y, The Principal and His School (Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1923), p. 48. 137 H. D. F ille r s , "The Managerial Duties of the Principal School Review, 31 (January 1923), 48-53. 138 Jacobson, Reavis, and Logsdon, The Effective School P rincipal, p. 25. 139 Byron W. Hansford, Guidebook for School Principals (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1961), p. 8. 140 Watkins, "Delegation: Administration," p. 398. 141 A Needed Ingredient for Effective G r iffith s , Human Relations in School Administration, p. 139. 142 Fred A. Snyder and R. Duane Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Administration (Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1970), p. 18. Emery Stoops, "Keys to Leadership," Phi Delta Kappan, 45 (October 1963), 42. 96 legally responsible for the performance of a ll tasks associated with his o ffic e . 144 He must not, however, allow personal needs fo r control or routine duties to block his use of delegation. 145 146 ’ Research Studies Non-Educational Organizations Research studies of administrators in many types of business reveal that executives do not delegate s u ffic ie n tly , that outstanding leaders do employ the technique, and that the organization benefits from its use. The Management Review conducted a survey of thirty-seven executives who were presidents, o ffic e rs , or department heads in manufacturing companies employing about 7,000 persons. Nearly one- half of them reported that they failed to delegate enough and were personally handling duties which could be assigned to subordinates. One-sixth of the men retained th eir routine correspondence. A majority of the men suggested that delegation would be a timesaving. procedure. Strong concluded from the 1956 study that most executives are "sincere believers in delegation, whether or not they have been able to bring ^ R o a ld F. Campbell, Edwin M. Bridges, John E. Corbally, J r ., Raphael 0. Nystrand, and John A. Ramseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1971), p. 276. 145 Robert L. S in c la ir, "Leadership Concerns," The National Elementary P rincipal, 48 (September 1968), 18. ^Stephen P. Hencley, Lloyd E. McCleary, and J. H. McGrath, The Elementary School Principal ship (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1970), p. 242. 97 themselves to delegate as many of th e ir own responsibilities as they could w is h ." ^ The lack of delegation is not confined to executives in manu­ facturing companies. Mackenzie compiled a l i s t of "time wasters" from groups of Canadian m ilita ry o ffic e rs , black leaders of religious organizations, college presidents, and German managers. delegation" appeared in three of the four lis ts . 14R "Lack of Watkins cited a study of the characteristics of poor supervisors which indicated that 30 percent of the items listed involved the fa ilu re to delegate. 149 Excellent executives and below-average executives were compared in th eir use of delegation by Brooks, at Cornell University. He reported that 75 percent of the excellent executives delegated e f­ fectively, whereas none of the below-average executives used the techmque effe c tiv e ly . 150 Hemphill's study of leaders resulted in sim ilar findings, as was reported in Chapter I . 151 Research supports the idea that delegation to subordinates within an organization may result in th e ir increased productivity. Railroad laborers who had new details delegated to them tended to be ^ L y d ia Strong, "Of Time and Top Management," The Management Review, 45 (June 1956), 486-493. ^M ackenzie, The . ime Trap, pp. 4-5. 149 Watkins, "Delegation: Administration," p. 395. A Needed Ingredient for Effective 150 Earl Brooks, "What Successful Executives Do," Personnel, 32 (November 1955), 211-212. 1 ^1 J. k. Hemphill, Situational Factors in Leadership (Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, Number 32, 1949), pp. 66-67. 98 higher producers, even though they realized they had l i t t l e chance for promotions. 152 At American Telephone and Telegraph, jobs were redesigned for 120 g irls to include the addition of more responsibility and fewer supervisory checks. Results indicated a drop in turnover of 27 per­ cent, twenty-four clerks did the work that fo rty -s ix had done previ­ ously, and twelve jobs were eliminated. Savings to the company were estimated at $558,000 over a period of eighteen months. Educational Organizations Research of delegative behavior by school administrators is lacking for the period of time prior to 1950. Since then, isolated studies involving delegation have been made of elementary and high school principals, superintendents, and junior college administrators. The behavior of elementary school principals was studied during 1954 in Oakland, C alifornia. Qualities emphasized by the teachers as being important included the a b ility to share decisions and responsibilities with them. They also valued the principals being able to systematize routine operations and to delegate responsibility. In an extensive research project to determine c rite ria for successful performance for elementary school principals, Hemphill, 152 Laird and Laird, The Techniques of Delegating, p. 167. 15^ "Making a Job More Than a Job," Business Week, April 19, 1969, p. 88. 154 Nolte, An Introduction to School Administration: Readings, pp. 289-291. Selected 154 99 G riffith s , and Frederiksen found that there was very l i t t l e delegation in the simulated school situation which was used in the project. The researchers suggested that th eir finding was reasonable "since p rin c i­ pals generally have no one to whom to delegate except teachers, who have fu ll-tim e jobs;" and concluded that "delegation should not be expected in elementary schools u ntil the schools are staffed with personnel to whom principals can delegate." 155 A 1961 survey of elementary school principals in New York State sought to determine the relationship between the size of school d is tricts and the methods by which certain functions were performed. Delegation was one of the performance methods that principals could indicate they used to execute th e ir functions. A conclusion of the study was that delegation was not widespread, and where i t was in d icated, i t was reported most frequently in the larger d is tr ic ts . Using the Responsibility, Authority, Scale, 156 and Delegation (RAD) in F lin t, Michigan, Mitchel1 compared how elementary principals (as superordinates) described th e ir own delegation, and how community school directors (as subordinates) perceived the delegation from th e ir principals. 155 He found a significant (.05) difference between th eir Hemphill, G riffith s , and Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality, p. 347. 15fi Howard Everett Weiker, "The Staffing of the Elementary Schools of New York State and the Methods by Which Certain Functions of Educational Administration Are Performed" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1961). perceptions. The principals thought that they delegated more than was perceived by the community school directors. 157 High school principals in California recorded actual time spent on various administrative duties for one week in March, 1953. Most of them indicated that administrative assistance was provided; nevertheless they continued to a llo t some of th e ir time to duties in areas to which assistants were assigned. For example, although attendance and discipline were delegated, the principals gave 6.92 percent of th eir time to those functions. Davis concludes: "The data presented in this study suggest that principals might advantageously give some attention to the matter of delegation of duties to other s ta ff members.^ The delegating practices of secondary school principals in New York State, excluding New York C ity, were surveyed in 1966. The participants were identified as being from eith er "innovation schools" or "traditional schools." Innovation school principals were found to use more delegation than "traditional school" principals. Other results disclosed that a high percentage of the principals retained or shared th eir functions, rather than delegating them. Respondents in the study retained functions involving th e ir supervisors, the s ta ff, 157 Bobby Mack M itch ell, "Analysis of the Perceptions of the Role of the Subordinate and Super-Ordinate with Respect to Authority, Responsibility, and Delegation in the Community Schools of F lin t at the Attendance Center Level" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973). 158 H. Curtis Davis, "Where Does the Time Go?" California Journal of Secondary Education, 28 (October 1953), 360. 101 and the public; they delegated the technical, mechanical, and managingthe-school type of a c tiv itie s . 159 Mawdsley's study of principals in the large high schools of Michigan revealed that the technique of delegation was being success­ fu lly u tiliz e d . Most of the principals completely delegated more duties than they performed personally, and the delegation came more often in the principals' least preferred areas of administration than in th e ir most preferred area. Administrative tasks were most often delegated in pupil personnel matters and least often in the area of school and community relations. i fin A statewide study of chief school administrators was conducted in New York State during 1955 to assess the pattern of delegation of administrative functions. Tabulation of the responses indicated that tasks dealing d ire c tly with the instructional program were most often delegated. Other functions for which the chief school administrator delegated responsibility included pupil personnel procedures and a c tiv itie s , adult education, and inventory and distribution of supplies and equipm ent.^ 1 59 Richard P. Schmidle, "A Study of Delegating Practices of Secondary School Principals in New York State" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966). ^°Jack K. Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administra­ tive Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 162. ^ G r i f f i t h s , Human Relations in School Administration, pp. 134-138. 102 Appel concluded from a study of one hundred Michigan superin­ tendents that they were involved in many non-instructional a c tiv itie s which could better be assigned to others. 162 This suggests a lack of delegation. In 1967, junior college administrators were the subjects for research about the practice of delegation. Public and private college leaders agreed that they most frequently delegated student personnel work; the second most commonly delegated tasks were those dealing with instruction and curriculum development. The main factor considered prior to delegation was reported to be the a b ility and competency of 16 ? a delegatee to accomplish a given task. A sim ilar finding appeared in R ie lle 's research on the process of delegation. Interviews were held with delegators and delegatees in business and industry, as well as with professors of business organization and school administration to identify components in the process of delegating. I t was found that the components fe ll into four major categories: analyzing, organizing, deciding, and commu­ nicating. Other major conclusions from the study were: The person to whom a major function was delegated appeared to be the greatest single factor of consideration on the part of the superintendents in the study. The use of written job descriptions 162 Paul Henry Appel, "A Study of Selected Administrative P rin ci­ ples as They May be Applied in Certain School D istricts in the State of Michigan" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962), p. 150. 16*3 Dale Emmett Traylor, "The Delegation of Authority and Responsibility as Practiced by Junior College Chief Administrators" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967). 103 when delegating was not a common practice in the majority of school systems s t u d i e d . ! 64 Summary Delegation has been used since bib lical times, and the concept has been discussed frequently re la tiv e to organizational theory. Basically, delegation is the act of accomplishing work through other people, so that an organization can function more effe ctive ly by using the specialized conpetencies of its employees. A common model is that the administrator delegates part of his responsibility to others, who then report back to him. In order for the process to be successful, the subordinates to whom tasks and responsibilities have been delegated must consent to accept the requests of th eir superior. Benefits to the organization include decision-making at the lowest possible le v e l, an increase in the span of control of the adminis­ tra to r, and improved communication with subordinates. benefits the administrator also. Delegation I t extends his influence from what he can do to what he can control, and reduces the physical and mental job pressures. Subordinates within the organization gain from the use of delegation. They can develop th e ir in itia tiv e and cap ab ilities, exercise leadership, and experience increased job satisfaction. are some disadvantages to using the technique of delegation. There I t may result in abdication of responsibility, in restrictin g communication as i t passes through a complex pyramidal structure, or in creating a 164 Donald Francis R ie lle , "Perceptions of Components and Administrative Behavior in the Process of Delegating" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965). 104 more rig id organization. Many writers uphold the position that an administrator remains fu lly responsible for the authority vested in him, even i f he chooses to delegate i t to others. The s k ill of delegation is considered to be an essential tool for the executive to use in managing his time. Barriers cited for its lack of use include unwillingness to give authority, lack of trust in subordinates, perfectionism of the administrator, subordinates' lack of competence, and unawareness of its advantages. Conditions which foster its employment are a feeling of trust between the leader and other members of the group, and the communication of clear-cu t, meaningful objectives to be accomplished. The administrator who wants to use delegation effe ctive ly must have confidence in his subordinates, and must plan carefully which tasks he w ill reserve for himself and which he w ill delegate. He must then provide the necessary training and information to enable his subordinates to f u l f i l l the delegated functions, and give appropriate credit upon successful completion of an assignment. Most technical and routine work can be delegated to able and w illin g subordinates, as can tasks involving only one specialist function. Policy formulation and decisions bearing on the objectives of the organization should not be delegated by administrators. Potential p itfa lls which may be encountered in the delegative process include abdication of responsibility by the administrator, lack of time to disseminate information to the delegatees, and unwillingness of sub­ ordinates to assume extra responsibility. The concept of delegation in organizations has been accepted by educators. I t is viewed as a necessary professional competency for today's school administrator. 105 Research studies of administrators in business indicate that executives did not delegate as many of th e ir responsibilities as they desired. Effective leaders, however, used the technique consistently. In those organizations, productivity also increased. Most reported research of delegation by school administrators, conducted since 1950, indicates that the technique is not widely used. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Introduction The procedure and methodology of the study is presented in this chapter. The description includes the research design, the data collection process, a complete report of the instrumentation, and the s ta tis tic a l analyses used to examine the data. Research Design Target Population The target population for this study was fu ll-tim e principals of public elementary schools which are administratively organized to include any combination of grades between kindergarten and grade six , and which are located within Michigan public school d is tric ts , ex­ cluding those in the school system of the c ity of D etroit. Sampling Design Michigan Department of Education data for 1973-1974, available to the researcher on computer tape, were used to design a sampling frame for the studyJ The computer tape was programmed to exclude a ll school buildings not defined by the researcher as elementary schools, I Computer tape of building enrollments for 1973-1974 (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services). 106 107 and those located in the school system of the c ity of D etro it; and to arrange those remaining school buildings into nine s tra ta , as shown in Table 4-1, based on building enrollment and school d is tr ic t size. TABLE 4 - 1 Sampl ing Design. Building Enrollment S M L 202 61 6 M 914 462 57 L 340 328 28 S D is tric t Size 2398 = total number of schools Building enrollment groupings were: Small - 1 - 399 students Medium - 400 - 699 students Large - 700 + students School d is tric t size groupings were: Small - 1 - 1499 students Medium - 1500 - 9999 students Large - 10000 + students 108 Due to the existence of very few buildings with large enrol 1ment, medium and large buildings were combined. 2 Any building having more than 400 students was considered a large building. The revised sampling design, as shown in Table 4-2, had six strata. TABLE 4 -2 .—Revised Sampling Design. Building Enrollment D is tric t Size S 202 67 M 914 519 L 340 356 2398 = total number of schools From each stratum, a 38 percent random proportional allocation was drawn. The sample, selected by this method, provided a probability sample of Michigan public elementary school principals as related to two of the variables of interest: d is tric t size. building enrollment and school The number of buildings drawn for the study is recorded in Table 4-3. The position of elementary p rincipal, as the unit of interest for the study, was matched with each school building drawn in the sample. O Conferences held with Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology and Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Department of Administration and Higher Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, August 2, 1974. 1 0 9 TABLE 4 -3 .—Schools Sampled fo r the Study. Building Enrollment D is tric t Size S L S 77 25 M 348 197 L 129 135 911 = total number of schools School addresses were obtained from the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1973-1974. 3 Sampling Frame D iffic u ltie s The researcher was aware of some shortcomings in the research design. S p ecifically, these were: 1. The strata were formed mentary school buildings. based on data about individual e le­ Elementary principals who supervised more than one building had an increased probability of being selected in the sample. 2. The sampling frame did not contain information about the position of principal being fu ll-tim e or part-time. Since the study was concerned with only fu ll-tim e elementary principals, a f i l t e r 3 Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1973-1974 (Lansing, Michigan: 701 Davenport Building). question was included in the instrumentation to delete part-time e le ­ mentary principals from the study. 3. Elementary school buildings which may have ceased operation since the 1973-1974 school year were foreign elements in the sampling frame. 4. Elementary school buildings which may have begun operation since the 1973-1974 school year were missing elements in the sampling frame, and had no chance of selection in the sample. Data Collection Method The most practical means of gathering data for this study was considered by the researcher to be by use of a mailed questionnaire. This method is widely used in survey research involving large samples. The questionnaire, Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey, was mailed to the elementary principal matched to each of the 911 school buildings drawn in the sampling procedure. Questionnaires were printed in three colors to indicate school d is tric t size, and to fa c ilit a t e th eir coding upon return. A cover le tte r which solicited the cooperation of the pro­ portional and randomly selected participants and which carried the endorsement of the Michigan Association of Elementary School P rin ci­ pals was enclosed along with a stamped, addressed envelope for return of the questionnaire. A stamped, addressed postcard was included also so that respondents could indicate completion of the survey without identifying th eir responses. This procedure is Ill consistent with the ethics of survey research. 4 The participants were asked to return th e ir questionnaires and post cards within two weeks. A copy of the cover le tte r and post card may be found in Appendices B and C (pp. 200-203). Follow-Up Follow-up procedures were u tiliz e d for non-respondents at the end of the two week period. A duplicate copy of the question­ naire, Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey, another cover le tte r asking for cooperation with the study, a stamped, addressed envelope, principal for whom the original post card had not been returned. A copy of the follow-up cover le tte r may be found in Appendix D (pp. 204-205). Sufficient returns were received (see page 122) so that 5 further contact with non-respondents was unnecessary. The data were then analyzed. Tabulation As responses were received, those from part-time principals and those which were not completed for a ll administrative areas were deleted for analysis. The information recorded on the remaining com­ pleted questionnaires was coded and transferred to Data Coding Forms. ^Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, C alifornia: Wadsworth Publishing Company, In c ., 1973), pp. 166-167, 351. 5 Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. G all, Educational Research (2nd ed.; New York: David McKay Company, In c ., 1971), p. 209. Principals who reported supervising more than one building were considered for analysis in the cell based on the total number of students supervised. In some cases, a principal was included for analysis in the group, "Large Number of Students Supervised," although he may have been randomly selected from a building with a small en ro ll­ ment. The Data Coding Forms were then submitted to the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory for transfer by key-punch machine to 80-column computer cards and for v e rific a tio n . Frequency and percentage counts for the raw data were obtained by use of the CISSR-STAT SYSTEM computer program. The raw data were then converted to a second set of computer cards, through the services of Applications Programming at the Computer Laboratory, which produced a total delegation score and a sub-score for each of the six adminis­ tra tiv e areas included in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Instrumentation Description The instrument used in the study, from which a measurement of delegation of administrative tasks was obtained, is sim ilar to that constructed by Dr. Jack K. Mawdsley with the assistance of a consultant in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University, and was used with his permission. I t was also used 6Jack K. Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), pp. 80-87. 113 by Potts.^ The questionnaire was modified to f i t the elementary principal's role rather than the high school principal's role. The instrument was based on a lis tin g ofadministrative tasks, O adapted from an inventory by Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath, con­ cerning the suggested interrelationships among the various offices within the administration of an entire school system. The modified lis tin g includes 63 specific tasks, grouped into six major school administration areas: 1. Instructional and Curriculum Development 2. S taff Personnel 3. Pupil Personnel 4. Finance and Business Management 5. School Plant and Services 6. School-Community Relations A copy of the complete instrument may be found in Appendix E (p. 206-212). Rationale for Selection The instrument was selected a fte r a review of the lite ra tu re disclosed that this instrument seemed to provide a complete lis tin g of the tasks which elementary principals perform. The tasks specified 7 Vernon Russell Potts, "A Study of the Relationship of Pro­ fessional Negotiations to the Administrative Tasks Performed by High School Principals in Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). ^Stephen P. Hencley, Lloyd E. McCleary, and J. H. McGrath, The Elementary School Principal ship (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1970), pp. 82-87. 114 by Hencley, McCleary, and McGrath are in general agreement with those discussed by Cooper; 9 Ellsbree, McNally, and Wynn; 10 Faber and Shearron;^ Goldman;^ Shuster and S tew art;^ and Snyder and Peterson^ as being the main functions and responsibilities of the elementary principal. Other delegation studies based on responses to a sim ilar 1r lis tin g of administrative tasks have been made by Traylor, 1c Schmidle, and Welker Ohio: 9 John E. Cooper, Elementary School Principalship (Columbus, Charles E. M errill Books, In c ., 1967), p. 9. ^ W illard S. Elsbree, Harold J . McNally, and Richard Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision (New York: American Book Company, 1967), pp. 18-19. 11 Charles F. Faber and G ilbert F. Shearron, Elementary School Administration (New York: Hoit, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1970), pp. 212-213. ^Samuel Goldman, The School Principal (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1966), pp. 29-31. ^ A lb e rt H. Shuster and Don H. Stewart, The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e rrill, 1973), pp. 14, 268-269. 14 Fred A . Snyder and R. Duane Peterson, Dynamics of Elementary School Administration (Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1970), pp. 116-117. 15 Dale Emmett Traylor, "The Delegation of Authority and Responsi­ b ilit y as Practiced by Junior Col lege Chief Administrators" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967). 1 Richard P. Schmidle, " A Study of Delegating Practices of Secondary School Principals in New York State" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966). 17 Howard Everett Welker, "The Staffing of the Elementary Schools of New York State and the Methods by which Certain Functions of Edu­ cational Administration are Performed" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, The University of Buffalo, 1961). 115 V alidity The chosen instrument has not been validated by studies, nor was i t the researcher's intent to conduct a check on its v a lid ity . However, because of the previously stated rationale for selection, based on the views of recognized authorities on the elementary principalship, the instrument is believed to have content v a lid ity . R e lia b ility After administration of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey, Hoyt's analysis of variance procedure was used to measure the internal consistency of the instrument, as an aid for interpretation of the survey results. 18 The r e lia b ilit y was computed only on those subjects who responded to a ll items for a given scale, as was required by the CISSR-STAT SYSTEM computer program. This program was recommended by the Michigan State University Office of Research Consultation. An overall r e lia b ilit y coefficient of .92 was obtained fo r the total instrument. Table 4-4. Coefficients for each of the sub-scales are shown in These levels indicate that the questionnaire used in the study can be considered a re lia b le measuring device. 19 20 21 22 5 * * 18 Cyril J. Hoyt, "Test R e lia b ility Estimated by Analysis of Variance," Ps.ychometrika, 6 (1941), 153-160. 19 Borg and G all, Educational Research, 2nd ed., p. 360. 20 William A. Mehrens and Irv in J. Lehmann, Standardized Tests in Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1969), p. 41. 21 Oscar Krisen Buros, ed., The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey! Gryphon Press, 1972), p. 1528. 22 Anne Anastasi, Psychological Testing (2nd ed.; New York: Macmillan Company, 1961), pp. 552-553. 1 1 6 TABLE 4 -4 .--R e lia b ility of Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey as Estimated by Hoyt's Analysis of Variance Procedure. Number of Subjects Number of Items R e lia b ility Coefficient Instruction and Curriculum Development 353 11 .80 S taff Personnel 267 18 .83 Pupil Personnel 302 12 .84 Finance and Business Management 279 8 .73 School Plant and Services 240 8 .72 School-Community Relations 469 6 .69 105 63 .92 Area Total Response Format Each principal was asked to select a response that indicated his involvement with each administrative task. The legend used provided a fiv e point Likert continuum, which extended from the principal's personal performance of the task, "I do a ll of th is ," to his complete delegation of i t , "I do none of this; I delegate a ll of i t to other sta ff members." The interim steps between the two extremes allowed respondents some leeway to indicate th eir degree of delegation and involvement. I t was assumed that each task was weighted equally, and that there was an equal distance between numbers. The legend was the same as that used by Mawdsley in his study. I t was: 1. I do a ll of th is. 117 2. I do more than half of th is , but delegate some of i t to other s ta ff members. 3. I do about half of this and delegate about h alf of i t to other s ta ff members. 4. I do less than half of this; I delegate most of i t to other s ta ff members. 5. I do none of th is; I delegate a ll of i t to other s ta ff members. Anticipating that some principals included in the study might not be responsible for each of the tasks listed in the questionnaire, another response choice was added to the legend. 0, I t was: I am not responsible for this task. Scoring Using the numerical values of one to fiv e from the legend, a total delegation score and a sub-score for each of the six adminis­ trative areas was computed for each respondent. The total delegation score was the mean score of a ll 63 administrative task scores, and the sub-scores were the mean scores of the specific task scores included within each of the six administrative areas. Excluded from the computation were those tasks for which the principal indicated he was not responsible, or to which he failed to respond. S tatistical Analysis of the Data Procedure An analysis of variance with appropriate "F" tests was used to determine the significance of difference between mean scores as . 118 specified in each null hypothesis. This method of inferential sta­ tis tic s was used because i t is a robust test based on these assumptions 1. Random sampling within each population 2. Normal distribution of each population with respect to scores on the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey 3. Equal variances of each population with respect to scores on the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey 4. Independent samples in the study 23 Certain violations of these assumptions have l i t t l e effect on the results of the s ta tis tic a l analysis. 24 Glass and Stanley report that "the effects of non-normality on the nominal level of s ig n ificance of the F-test are extremely s lig h t," 25 and that "the influence of violation of the assumption of homogeneous variances is not very great when the N's are equal." For unequal N's, the variances may have a 2:1 range without violating the assumption of equal variances. 27 For those null hypotheses which were rejected, post hoc comparisons procedures were used as a method for determining the location and the size of the s ta tis tic a l differences between groups. Scheffg's method was used, rather than Tukey's, because pair contrasts 23 Gene V. Glass and Julian C. Stanley, S ta tis tic a l Methods in Education and Psychology (Englewood C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-H all, In c ., 1970), p. 340. 2 4 1bi d. 2 5 Ib id ., p. 372. 2 6 Ib id ., p. 371. 27 Conference held with Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, July 16, 1974. 119 of unequal sizes were being analyzed. The S-method gives a wider confidence interval around differences between means than the Tmethod, so i t w ill produce fewer significant differences between means when used with simple contrasts. 28 The dependent sample t-te s t was performed on the data of least preferred and most preferred administrative areas to deter­ mine i f there were a significant difference between the mean scores. 29 The formula used was: d sn / /_ " Significance Level The level of significance used for rejection of hypotheses expressed in null terms was chosen at the .05 lev el. This a p riori decision eliminates researcher bias which might occur when the significance level is not fixed before analysis of the data. 30 Computer Programs Data were processed through the use of the Control Data Corporation (CDC) 6500 Computer. Programs for analysis were written with the assistance of computer consultants in the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education and in the offices of the Computer 28 Glass and Stanley, S ta tis tic a l Methods in Education and Psychology, pp. 395-445. 29Ib id . , pp. 297-300. 30 Borg and G all, Educational Research, 2nd ed., p. 288. In stitu te for Social Science Research (CISSR), Computer Laboratory at Michigan State University. The CISSR-STAT SYSTEM, UNEQ. 1 was used to test hypotheses requiring a one-way analysis of variance, and for determining the difference in scores of principals' least preferred administrative areas and th eir most preferred administrative areas. This program was used because i t permitted interpretation of unequal cell sizes, and because i t could automatically delete subjects who had no sub­ score on a given scale. The CISSR-STAT SYSTEM was used to obtain frequency and percentage counts for the raw data, and for the twoway analysis of variance used to compute Hoyt's R e lia b ility . The Jeremy D. Finn Multivariance computer program was selected to test the hypotheses requiring a two-way analysis of variance of the data. This program is capable of analyzing unequal cell sizes and of producing p values for two orderings of the design. 31 Verda M. Scheifley and William H. Schmidt, "Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance—Occasional Paper No. 22" (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Education, October, 1973), pp. 1-5. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This chapter consists of two parts. The f i r s t section is con­ cerned with reporting general data about the response ra te, the variables of the study, and the summary s ta tis tic s for the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey. The second portion contains the information related to the seven general hypotheses and the forty-three operational hypotheses of the study. The results of the s ta tis tic a l testing of each hypothesis are presented. Summary Information In this section of the analysis of the data, the author presents information about the response rate and about the variables of the study. An account w ill be made of the number of persons in the population and in the sample, of the number of responses received, of those which were deleted, and of those actually used for analysis of the data. Factual knowledge w ill be given about the elementary principals 1 sex, number of years of experience, school d is tric t size, number of students supervised, number of buildings supervised, and th e ir least preferred and most preferred administrative areas. In addition, mean scores and standard deviations w ill be presented fo r the six administrative areas included in the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey, and for the total delegation score. 121 122 Response Rate The survey instrument was mailed to 911 Michigan public ele­ mentary school principals. Seven of these were returned to the sender as undeliverable, therefore 904 principals were considered to be the total group sampled. Of these, 749 responded to the study, representing 82.9 percent of the randomly selected participants. Incomplete returns were received from seventy-two principals, and f i f t y questionnaires from part-time principals were deleted. The remaining 627 responses used for analysis of the data represented 69.4 percent of the total group sampled. This information is summarized in Table 5-1 by school d is tric t size. The response rate by school building size can be noted in Table 5-2. As reported in Chapter IV, some principals who reported supervising more than one building were randomly selected from a building with a small enrollment, but were included for analysis with the group, "Large Number of Students Supervised," i f the total number of students they supervised exceeded four hundred. This explains why the number of responses for the "large" group exceeds the number in the sample. Table 5-3 shows the number of respondents for each cell of the research design. The discrepancy can again be observed between the categories used as a basis for sampling and as the basis for data analysis. Variables of the Study One of the author's purposes in this study was to determine i f there are differences in the degree to which Michigan public elementary TABLE 5 -1 .--Response Rate by D is tr ic t Size. Responses Group Small (0-1499 Students) Medium (1500-9999 Students) Large (10000 or more Students) Total Number in Population Number in Sample Deletions Used for Analysis N % N % Part-Time Principals Incomplete Returns 269 99 85 85.9 51 51.5 19 15 1433 543 457 84.2 418 77.0 31 8 696 262 207 79.0 158 60.3 0 49 2398 904 749 82.9 627 69.4 50 72 TABLE 5 - 2 .—Response Rate by Building Size. Deletions Group Small (0-399 Students) Large (400 or more Students) Total Number in Population Number in Sample Number of Responses Number Used for Analysis Part-Time Principals Incomplete Returns 1456 548 277a 215 48 14 942 356 472a 412 2 58 2398 904 749 627 50 72 aMany principals, who were sampled from small buildings, were classified for analysis with large buildings because of the reported number of students supervised. TABLE 5 - 3 .—Response Rate by Building Size and D is t r ic t Size. Deletions Group Number in Population Number in Sample Number of Responses Number Used for Analysis Part-Time Principals Incomplete Returns Small Buildings in Small D istricts 202 74 39a 15 19 5 Small Buildings in Medium D istricts 914 346 173a 144 29 0 Small Buildings in Large D istricts 340 128 65a 56 0 9 Large Buildings in Small D istricts 67 25 46a 36 0 10 Large Buildings in Medium D istricts 519 197 284a 274 2 8 Large Buildings in Large D istricts 356 134 142a 102 0 40 2398 904 749 627 50 72 Total aMany principals, who were sampled from small buildings, were classified for analysis with large buildings because of the reported number of students supervised. 126 school principals delegate administrative tasks when related to the selected variables of sex, number of years of experience as a princi­ pal, school d is tr ic t size, number of students supervised, and number of buildings supervised. Prior to testing these hypotheses, frequency and percentage counts were made of the raw data being used for analysis, from which a description of each of the variables can be made for the principals included in the study. Table 5-4 indicates that 81.82 percent of the usable responses came from male principals, and Table 5-5 shows that the largest group of participants had between four and nine years of experience as a principal. Two-thirds of the subjects in this research were from medium size school d is tric ts , as exhibited in Table 5-6, and supervised more than four hundred students, as can be observed in Table 5-7. Table 5-8 gives the number andpercent of cell of the study design. principals for each The largest group of respondents were those who supervised more than four hundred students in medium size school d is tric ts . TABLE 5 -4 .--Sex of Respondents in the Study. Number Percent Male 513 81.82 Female 114 18.18 Group Total 627 100 127 TABLE 5 -5 .--Levels of Experience of Respondents in the Study. Group Number Percent years 21 3.35 1- 3 years 108 17.23 4- 9 years 256 40.83 10-19 years 206 32.86 20-29 years 36 5.74 0 Total 627 100 TABLE 5 -6 .—D is tric t Size of Respondents in the Study. Number Group Percent 51 8.13 Medium (1500 - 9999 Students) 418 66.67 Large (10000 or more Students) 158 25.20 Small (0 - 1499 Students) Total 627 100 128 TABLE 5 -7 .—Number of Students Supervised by Respondents in the Study. Number Percent Small (0 - 399 Students) 215 34.29 Large (400 or more Students) 412 65.71 Group Total 627 100 TABLE 5 -8 .--Number of Students Supervised and D is tric t Size of Respondents in the Study. Group Number Percent Smal1 Number of Students Supervised in Small D istricts Small Number of Students Supervised in Medium D istricts 15 2.39 144 22.97 Small Number of Students Supervised in Large D istricts 56 8.93 Large Number of Students Supervised in Small D istricts 36 5.74 Large Number of Students Supervised in Medium D istricts 274 43.70 Large Number of Students Supervised in Large D istricts 102 16.27 Total 627 100 129 One out of four principals included in the research was responsible for supervising two or more elementary buildings. These data are given in Table 5-9. TABLE 5 -9 .--Number of Buildings Supervised by Respondents in the Study. Number Percent 1 Building 473 75.44 2 or more Buildings 154 24.56 Group Total 627 100 Additional variables of interest were the principals' least preferred and most preferred administrative areas. Examination of Table 5-10 reveals that the Finance and Business Management and School Plant and Services Areas were least preferred by respondents in the study. The administrative area in which most principals preferred to work was Instruction and Curriculum Development. Summary Statistics Summary scores from the sta tis tica l treatment of the data embrace the number of respondents included in the analysis, the mean score, and the standard deviation for each of the administrative areas and for the total delegation score. in Table 5-11. This information is found Areas in which the analysis of variance indicated a significant difference at the .05 level are noted and w ill be discussed with the reported findings of each hypothesis. 130 TABLE 5-10.—Least and Most Preferred Administrative Areas of Respondents in the Study. Least Most N % N 29 4.63 299 47.69 Staff Personnel 8 1.28 93 14.83 Pupil Personnel 9 1.44 157 25.04 Finance and Business Management 283 45.14 12 1.91 School Plant and Services 265 42.27 1 .16 School-Community Relations 24 3.83 61 9.73 9 1.44 4 .64 Area Instruction and Curriculum Development No Response Total 627 100 627 % 100 TABLE 5-11.--Summary Scores for Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Number Mean Standard Deviation Instruction and Curriculum Development 625 2.636a .5860 Staff Personnel 627 1.976° .5457 Pupil Personnel 627 2.751 .7299 Finance and Business Management 625 2.160a .7665 School Plant and Services 622 2.431a .7782 School-Community Relations 624 2.047a,b .7041 Total Score 627 2.333 .4446 Area S ig n ific a n t difference—by d is tr ic t size. S ig n ific a n t difference--by number of buildings supervised. Tests of Hypotheses This section of the analysis of the data includes a presentation by the author of each hypothesis, the result of its s ta tis tic a l analysis, and the rationale for a decision for acceptance or rejection of each. Each general hypothesis w ill be stated, followed by the operational or subhypotheses related to the specific administrative areas of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. General Hypothesis I: There w ill be a significant difference between female elementary principals and male elementary principals in the delegation of administrative tasks. Operational Hypothesis Hla: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean total delegation scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis HIb: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area Instruction and Cur­ riculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis HIc: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hid: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary 132 principals, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hie: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H l f : There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores for female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis Hlg: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub­ scores of female elementary principals and male elementary principals, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. An analysis of variance was performed on the mean scores of female and male elementary principals for each area of the survey, using the .05 level to determine significance. For each hypothesis relating to the sex variable, the difference between the mean scores of females and the mean scores of males was found not to be significant. Therefore, Operational Hypotheses Hla through Hlg were rejected. This information is displayed in complete form in Anova Tables 5-12 through 5-18. General Hypothesis I I : There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals with varied levels of experience as a principal, in the dele­ gation of administrative tasks. 133 TABLE 5-12.—ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS F P .2579 .612 .0510 1 .0510 Within Groups 123.7069 625 .1979 Total 123.7579 626 Significant No TABLE 5-13.—ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation SS df MS .1363 1 .1363 Within Groups 214.1233 623 .3437 Total 214.2596 624 Between Groups F P .3965 .529 Significant No TABLE 5-14.—ANOVA—Analysis of Staff Personnel by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation SS df MS F P .2866 .593 .0854 1 .0854 Within Groups 186.3221 625 .2981 Total 186.4075 626 Between Groups Significant No 134 TABLE 5-15.—ANOVA—Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation df MS .4046 1 .4047 Within Groups 333.1126 625 .5330 Total 333.5172 626 Between Groups SS F P .7593 .384 Significant No TABLE 5-16.--ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS .5003 1 .5003 Within Groups 366.0801 623 .5876 Total 366.5804 624 F P .8515 .356 Significant No TABLE 5-17.—ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS 2.0629 1 2.0629 Within Groups 374.0197 620 .6033 Total 376.0826 621 F 3.4195 P .065 Significant No 135 TABLE 5-18.—ANOVA--Analysis of School-Community Relations by Sex of Principal. Source of Variation SS df MS .1491 1 .1491 Within Groups 308.7183 622 .4963 Total 308.8674 623 Between Groups F P .3004 .584 Significant No Operational Hypothesis H2a: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean total dele­ gation scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2b: There w ill be of elementary administrative the Delegation a significant difference among the mean sub-scores principals in each level of experience, for the area Instruction and Curriculum development, of of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2c: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the administrative area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2d: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Adminis­ tra tiv e Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2e: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the 136 administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2f: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H2g: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals in each level of experience, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The difference among the mean scores of elementary principals with varied levels of experience was determined by an analysis of variance not to be significant for any of the administrative areas. Accordingly, Operational Hypotheses H2a through H2g were rejected. The supporting data are reported in ANOVA Tables 5-19 through 5-25. TABLE 5-19.—ANOVA--Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Level of Experience. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df .2100 4 Within Groups 123.5479 622 Total 123.7579 626 MS f P .0525 .2643 .901 .1986 Significant No 137 TABLE 5-20.--ANOVA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Level of Experience. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS 1.7674 4 .4418 Within Groups 212.4922 620 .3427 Total 214.2596 624 F 1.2892 P .273 Significant No TABLE 5-21 . —ANOVA—Analysis of Staff Personnel by Level of Experience. Source of Variation SS df MS F P .7439 .562 .8875 4 .2219 Within Groups 185.5201 622 .2983 Total 186.4075 626 Between Groups Significant No TABLE 5-22.--AN0VA—Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Level of Experience. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS F P .3974 .811 .8501 4 .2125 Within Groups 332.6671 622 .5348 Total 333.5172 626 Significant No 138 TABLE 5-23.—ANOVA—Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Level of Experience. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS 2.6650 4 . 6662 Within Groups 363.9155 620 .5870 Total 366.5804 624 F 1.1351 P .339 Significant No TABLE 5-24.--ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Level of Experience. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS F .1982 .4826 4 1206 Within Groups 375.6000 617 6088 Total 376.0826 621 P 939 Significant No TABLE 5-25.--AN0VA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by Level of Experience. Source of Variation df MS 3.1364 4 7841 Within Groups 305.7309 619 4939 Total 308.8674 623 Between Groups SS F 1.5876 P 176 Significant No 139 General Hypotheses I I I , IV, and V: The three general hypotheses which were s t a t is t ic a lly analyzed concurrently by the two-way analysis of variance are: General Hypothesis I I I : There w ill be a significant difference among elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts in the delegation of administrative tasks. General Hypothesis IV: There w ill be a significant difference between elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised in the dele­ gation of administrative tasks. General Hypothesis V: There w ill be a significant interaction between small, medium, and large school d istricts and small and large numbers of students supervised in the delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals. The three operational hypotheses based on these general statements and which have been advanced for each administrative area of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey w ill be stated, followed by the results of the statistical analysis. I f a significant difference was detected by the two-way analysis of variance, Scheffe's post hoc comparisons procedures were used to determine between which groups the significant difference existed. The .05 level was used for both the analysis of variance and for Scheffe's post hoc procedures. Operational Hypothesis H3a: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 140 Operational Hypothesis H4a: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5a: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean total delegation scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tricts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The difference among the total delegation scores of elementary Principals within each cell of the research design was found not to be significant. See Table 5-26. Therefore, Operational Hypotheses H3a, H4a, and H5a were rejected. Operational Hypothesis H3b: There w ill be a significant difference of elementary principals within small, d is tric ts , for the administrative area riculum Development, of the Delegation Survey. among the mean sub-scores medium, and large school Instruction and Cur­ of Administrative Tasks Operational Hypothesis H4b: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Instruction and Cur­ riculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5b: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school districts and with small and large numbers of students supervised for the administrative area Instruction and Curriculum Development, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 141 TABLE 5-26.--AN0VA--Analysis of Total Delegation Score by D is t r ic t Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P Significant D istric t Size .0030 2 .0015 .0074 .9927 No Number of Students Supervised .0433 1 .0433 .2187 .6402 No D is tric t by Number of Students .7522 2 .3761 1.8993 .1506 No 122 .9580 621 .1980 123.7565 626 Within Cells Total The analysis of variance reported in Table 5-27 indicates that a significant difference or significant interaction was not found among the principals' mean scores for the administrative area, In­ struction and Curriculum Development. Operational Hypotheses H3b, H4b, and H5b were thus rejected. TABLE 5-27.--AN0VA--Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P Significant 2.0320 2 1.0160 2.9702 .0521 No Number of Students Supervised .3187 1 .3187 .9317 .3348 No D istrict by Number of Students .1668 2 .0834 .2437 .7838 No 211.7599 619 .3421 214.2774 624 D istrict Size Within Cells Total 142 Operational Hypothesis H3c: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4c: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5c: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The analysis of variance reported in Table 5-28 illustrates that a significant difference or significant interaction was not found among the principals' mean scores for the Staff Personnel section of the survey. Accordingly, Operational Hypotheses H3c, H4c, and H5c were rejected. Operational Hypothesis H3d: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4d: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 143 TABLE 5-28.--AN0VA--Analysis of S ta ff Personnel by D is t r ic t Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS D is tric t Size df MS F P Significant 1.7692 2 .8846 2.9966 .0507 No Number of Students Supervised .3350 1 .3350 1.1349 .2872 No D is tric t by Number of Students .9878 2 .4939 1.6733 .1885 No 183.3192 621 .2952 186.4112 626 Within Cells Total Operational Hypothesis H5d: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The difference among the mean response scores of elementary principals for the administrative area of Pupil Personnel was found not to be significant by d is t r ic t size, by the number of students supervised, or by their interaction. The sta tis tica l test as reported in Table 5-29 supports the rejection of Operational Hypotheses H3d, H4d, and H5d. Operational Hypothesis H3e: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 144 TABLE 5-29.--AN0VA--Analysis of Pupil Personnel by D is t r ic t Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS D is tric t Size .2992 2 Number of Students Supervised .3220 D istric t by Numbers of Students .8500 Within Cells Total F P .1496 .2799 .7560 No 1 .3220 .6022 .4381 No 2 .4250 .7949 .4521 No 332.0487 621 .5347 333.5199 626 df MS Significant Operational Hypothesis H4e: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean subscores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5e: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d istricts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The analysis of variance reported in Table 5-30 illu strates that a significant difference or significant interaction was not found among the principals' mean scores for the Finance and Business Management section of the survey. and H5e were rejected. Accordingly, Hypotheses H3e, H4e, 145 TABLE 5-30.—ANOVA--Analysis of Finance and Business Management by D is tric t Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P Significant 3.3746 2 1.6873 2.9110 .0552 No Number of Students Supervised 2.1991 1 2.1991 3.7941 .0519 No D istrict by Number of Students 2.2270 2 1.1135 1.9211 .1474 No 358.7724 619 .5796 366.5731 624 D istrict Size Within Cells Total Operational Hypothesis H3f: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4f: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H5f: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school districts and with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 146 The analysis of variance reported in Table 5-31 found that there was a significant difference among the principals' mean scores in small, medium, and large school d is tric ts for the administrative area of School Plant and Services. Since the difference between their mean scores based on the number of students supervised, or on the interaction of d is t r ic t size with the number of students super­ vised was found not to be significant, Operational Hypotheses H4f and H5f were rejected. TABLE 5-31.--ANOVA--Analysis of School Plant and Services by D istrict Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P Significant 7.4306 2 3.7153 6.2523 .0021 Yes .0912 1 .0912 .1534 .6955 No D istrict by Number of Students 2.5196 2 1.2598 2.1200 .1210 No 366.0272 616 .5942 376.0686 621 D istrict Size Number of Students Supervised Within Cells Total Using Scheffe's post hoc comparisons procedures, the difference between the mean response scores of principals in small districts and in medium d is tric ts was found to be significant. The difference between principals' mean scores in small d is tric ts and in large districts was also found to be significant, whereas the difference 147 between mean scores of principals in medium and in large d is tric ts was not found to be significant. These data are listed in Table 5-32. Since significant differences were found by this procedure, Operational Hypothesis H3f was retained. TABLE 5-32.--Summary Statistics and Post Hoc Comparisons for School Plant and Services by D is tric t Size. Group Number Mean Pooled Standard Deviation Small Districts 49 2.756 .9320 Medium Districts 415 2.439 .7407 Large Districts 158 2.312 .7946 Post Hoc Comparisons Contrast Estimate of Contrast Calculated Value Medium Dist. - Small Dist. .317 + .2857 ( .0313, .6027) Yes Large Dist. - Small Dist. .444 + .3093 ( .1347, .7533) Yes Large Dist. - Medium Dist. .127 + .1768 (-.0498, .3038) No 95% Confidence Internal Sig. Operational Hypothesis H3g: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H4q: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals with small and large numbers of students supervised, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 148 Operational Hypothesis H5g: There w ill be a significant interaction of mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts and with small and large numbers of students super­ vised, for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. For the section of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey identified as School-Community Relations, a significant difference was found among the mean scores of principals in small, medium, and large school d is tric ts . The information given in Table 5-33 indicates that there was no significant difference related to the number of students supervised, nor was there any significant interaction of principals' mean scores for small, medium, and large districts with their mean scores for small and large numbers of students supervised. Operational Hypotheses H4g and H5g were thus rejected. TABLE 5-33.—ANOVA--Analysis of School-Community Relations by D istrict Size by Number of Students Supervised. Source of Variation F P df MS 8.5462 2 4.2731 8.8260 .0002 Yes Number of Students Supervised .6826 1 .6826 1.4099 .2356 No D istric t by Number of Students .4350 2 .2175 .4492 .6384 No 299.1738 618 .4841 308.8376 623 SS D istric t Size Within Cells Total Significant By employing the post hoc procedures, the difference between the mean scores of principals in small districts and in medium districts 149 was found not to be significant. The difference between principals' mean scores in small d is tricts and in large d is tric ts was found to be significant, as was the difference between the mean scores of p rin c i­ pals in medium d is tric ts and in large d is tric ts . Table 5-34 support retention The data listed in of Operational Hypothesis H3g. TABLE 5-34.--Summary Statistics and Post Hoc Comparisons for SchoolCommunity Relations by D is tric t Size. Mean Pooled Standard Deviation 50 2.284 .7771 Medium Districts 416 2.087 .7159 Large Districts 158 1.868 .6095 Number Group Small Districts Post Hoc Comparisons Contrast Estimate of Contrast Calculated Value 95% Confidence Internal Medium Dist. - Small Dist. .197 + .2555 (-.0585, .4525) No Large Dist. - Small Dist. .416 + .2770 ( .139, .6930) Yes Large Dist. - Medium Dist. .219 + .1595 ( .0595, .3785) Yes General Hypothesis VI: There w ill be a significant difference between elementary p rin c i­ pals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings in the delegation of adminis­ tra tiv e tasks. Operational Hypothesis H6a: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean total delegation scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Sig. 150 Operational Hypothesis H6b: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise twoor more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Instruction andCurriculum Development, of the Dele­ gation of Administrative Tasks Survey. ANOVA Tables 5-35 and 5-36 illu s tra te that the difference between the mean scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and the mean scores of elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings is not significant for the total delegation survey or for the Instruction and Curriculum Development area. Thereby, Operational Hypotheses H6a and H6b were rejected. Operational Hypothesis H6c: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The analysis of variance for the Staff Personnel section of the survey indicated that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of principals who supervise one building and those who supervise two or more buildings. Based on the data found in Table 5-37, Operational Hypothesis H6c was retained. The mean scores and standard deviations are given in Table 5-38. Operational Hypothesis H6d: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Pupil Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 151 TABLE 5-35.—ANOVA—Analysis of Total Delegation Score by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS .0262 1 .0262 Within Groups 123.7317 625 .1980 Total 123.7579 626 F P .1322 .716 Significant No TABLE 5-36.—AN0VA—Analysis of Instruction and Curriculum Development by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P .2661 1 2661 .7746 .379 Within Groups 213.9935 623 3435 Total 214.2596 624 Between Groups Significant No TABLE 5-37.—ANOVA—Analysis of Staff Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS 1.7288 1 Within Groups 184.6788 625 Total 186.4075 626 1.7288 .2955 F 5.8505 P Significant .016 Yes 152 TABLE 5-38.—Summary Statistics of Staff Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised. Number Mean Standard Deviation One Building 473 2.0057 .5439 Two or More Buildings 154 1.8837 .5427 Group Operational Hypothesis H6e; There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Finance and Business Management, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6f: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. The difference between the mean scores of principals who supervise one building and those who supervise two or more buildings was found not to be significant for the Pupil Personnel, Finance and Business Management, and School Plant and Services sections of the survey. rejected. Therefore, Operational Hypotheses H6d, H6e, and H6f were This information is given in Tables 5-39, 5-40, and 5-41. Operational Hypothesis H6g: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. 153 TABLE 5-39.--AN0VA--Analysis of Pupil Personnel by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS F P .0019 .965 .0010 1 .0010 Within Groups 333.5162 625 .5336 Total 333.5172 626 Significant No TABLE 5-40.--AN0VA--Analysis of Finance and Business Management by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation df MS .6907 1 .6907 Within Groups 365.8897 623 .5873 Total 366.5804 624 Between Groups SS F 1.1761 P .279 Significant No TABLE 5 - 4 1 ANOVA—Analysis of School Plant and Services by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation SS df MS F P .4426 .506 .2683 1 .2683 Within Groups 375.8143 620 .6062 Total 376.0826 621 Between Groups Significant No The analysis of variance for the School-Community Relations section, as reported in Table 5-42, showed a significant difference between the mean scores of principals who supervise one building and those who supervise two or more buildings. The difference being significant, Operational Hypothesis H6g was retained. Table 5-43 gives the mean scores and standard deviations. TABLE 5-42.—ANOVA—Analysis of School-Community Relations by Number of Buildings Supervised. Source of Variation Between Groups SS df MS 2.1860 1 2.1860 Within Groups 306.6813 622 .4931 Total 308.8674 623 F 4.4337 P Significant .036 Yes TABLE 5-43.—Summary Statistics of School-Community Relations by Number of Buildings Supervised. Number Mean Standard Deviation One Building 471 2.0134 .6779 Two or More Buildings 153 2.1510 .7724 Group General Hypothesis V II: The delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals w ill be greater in th eir least preferred administrative area than in th eir most preferred administrative area. 155 Operational Hypothesis H7: The mean sub-scores of elementary principals' least preferred administrative areas w ill be greater than the mean sub-scores of their most preferred administrative areas, as measured by the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Although i t was the researcher's original intent to conduct a one-tailed test, the dependent sample t - t e s t , performed at the .05 level and as a two-tailed test, was made on the data of the least preferred and the most preferred administrative areas of elementary principals in case a significant difference existed in the opposite direction from that hypothesized. The test indicated that there was a significant difference, as recorded in Table 5-44. TABLE 5-44.--Dependent Sample t - te s t for Least Preferred and Most Preferred Administrative Areas. Mean Standard Deviation Least Preferred 2.345 .7959 Most Preferred 2.425 .6997 1 O to Area .9232 L-M Calculated "t" df Tabled "t" Sig. -2.13 613 -1.97 Yes This hypothesis was further examined by performing the dependent sample t-te s t on the principals' scores within each cell of the research design. The computations displayed in Table 5-45 show that the only significant difference between the mean scores of principals' least preferred and most preferred areas was found with those subjects who supervised a large number of students in large d is tric ts . Examination of the mean scores, however, indicated that the most preferred TABLE 5-45.--Dependent Sample t-tests for Least Preferred and Most Preferred Administrative Areas, by Cells. Cell L-M Mean Score Standard Deviation Calculated "t" df Tabled "t" Sig. Small Number of Students Supervised in Small Districts .480 .864 2.08 13 2.16 No Small Number of Students Supervised in Medium Districts .025 .861 .35 142 1.98 No Small Number of Students Supervised in Large Districts -.237 1.015 -1.72 53 -2.01 No Large Number of Students Supervised in Small Districts -.110 1.077 - .61 35 -2.03 No Large Number of Students Supervised in Medium Districts -.071 .919 -1.27 269 -1.98 No Large Number of Students Supervised in Large Districts -.237 .885 -2.64 96 -1.99 Yes 157 administrative area score was higher than the least preferred adminis­ trative area score. Based on this information, Operational Hypothesis H7 was rejected. Summary A review of the testing of the forty-two operational hypotheses denotes that of a ll the possible differences between elementary principals' mean scores for the six areas of the Delegation of Adminis­ trative Tasks Survey, only four of these were s t a tis tic a lly significant. I t should be noted that, at the .05 level, two of these differences could have occurred by chance. The hypotheses retained were: Operational Hypothesis H3f: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School Plant and Services, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. A significant difference was found between the mean scores of principals in small d is tric ts and in medium d is tric ts , and between those in small d is tricts and in large d is tric ts . Operational Hypothesis H3g: There w ill be a significant difference among the mean sub-scores of elementary principals within small, medium, and large school d is tric ts , for the administrative area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. A significant difference was found between the mean scores of principals in small d is tricts and in large d is tric ts , and between those in medium d is tricts and in large d is tric ts . 158 Operational Hypothesis H6c: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area Staff Personnel, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. Operational Hypothesis H6g: There w ill be a significant difference between the mean sub-scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and elementary principals who supervise two or more buildings, for the adminis­ tra tiv e area School-Community Relations, of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey. A significant difference was also noted for Operational Hypothesis H7, but in the reverse direction from that stated. Princi­ pals who supervised large numbers of students in large districts delegated more in th eir most preferred administrative area than in their least preferred administrative area. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF MAJOR FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Introduction A summary of the purpose and methodology of the study, and a discussion of the major findings are presented in this chapter. Recommendations associated with the data, and suggested areas for further research are also included. Summary Background This study of the delegation of administrative tasks by Michigan public elementary school principals was conducted because of a concern by the researcher for the expanded role and the increase in the responsibilities of the elementary principal ship. A number of authorities in the fields of school administration and organizational theory have advocated delegation as an administrative technique which may be used by elementary principals to make i t possible for them to allocate the major portion of their administrative e ffo rt to those functions considered most important by them. 159 160 Purpose The investigator sought to determine the degree to which princi­ pals claim they delegate administrative tasks in each of six major school administration areas: (1) Instruction and Curriculum Development, (2) Staff Personnel, (3) Pupil Personnel, (4) Finance and Business Management, (5) School Plant and Services, and ( 6 ) School-Community Relations. The study was also made to ascertain i f there are d if f e r ­ ences in the degree to which principals delegate in each of these areas when related to the selected variables of sex, number of years as a principal, school d is tr ic t size, number of students supervised, and number of buildings supervised. Another aspect of the study determined whether Michigan public elementary school principals delegated more in their least preferred administrative area than in their most preferred administrative area. Design and Methodology The target population for the study was fu ll-tim e principals of Michigan public elementary schools which were administratively organized to include any combination of grades between kindergarten and grade six, excluding those located in the school system of the city of Detroit. A random proportional allocation was drawn from each of six stratum, based on building enrollment and school d is tric t size. The 911 selected schools were then each matched to the position of elementary principal, to whom was mailed the Delegation of Adminis­ trative Tasks Survey, a questionnaire used to obtain the measurement of delegation. The instrument, similar to that constructed by 161 Dr. Jack K. Mawdsley^ for his research of delegation by principals of large high schools in Michigan, specified 63 tasks and was based on a lis tin g of administrative tasks advanced by Hencley, McCleary, and 2 McGrath. Each principal in the study was asked to select a response that indicated his involvement with each administrative task, ranging from "I do a ll of th is ," to complete delegation of the responsi­ b i l i t y , "I do none of th is ." The use of Hoyt's analysis of variance 3 procedure indicated that the questionnaire could be considered a reliable measuring device. See Table 4-4 (p. 116). Statistical Procedures Hypotheses, e a rlie r advanced by the researcher, were sta­ t is t ic a lly treated with an analysis of variance with appropriate "F" tests. I f a significant difference were noted, the Scheff£ post hoc comparisons procedure was used as a method for determining the location and the size of the s ta tis tic a l differences between groups. The dependent sample t - te s t was performed on the data of least pre­ ferred administrative areas to determine i f there were a significant difference between the mean scores. ^Jack K. Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), pp. 80-87. 2 Stephen P. Hencley, Lloyd E. McCleary, and J. H. McGrath, The Elementary School Principal ship (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1970), pp. 82-87. ^Cyril J. Hoyt, "Test R e lia b ility Estimated by Analysis of Variance," Psychometrika, 6 (1941), 153-160. 162 A Discussion of the Major Findings Principals Make Limited Use of Delegation The researcher's findings in the study indicated that Michigan public elementary school principals do not widely employ the technique of delegation in their administration. See Table 5-11. The mean delegation score of a ll respondents on the total survey was 2.33 on a continuum ranging from 1 (" I do all of th is ." ) to 5 ("I do none of t h is ." ) . This was less than Mawdsley found among principals of large high schools in Michigan, whose mean delegation score was 3.54,^ but 5 concurs with that of Hemphill, G riffith s , and Frederiksen, who found very l i t t l e delegation in elementary schools and suggested that their finding was a reasonable one since elementary principals generally have no one to whom to delegate. Welker also found delegation by elementary principals not to be widespread. The lack of delegation by principals might re flect the adminis­ tra to r's lack of trust in his s ta ff, and/or an unwillingness to involve and to share with his subordinates the decision-making and responsibilities 4 Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables," p. 162. 5 John K. Hemphill, Daniel E. G riffith s , and Norman Frederiksen, Administrative Performance and Personality (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962), p. 347. Howard Everett Welker, "The Staffing of the Elementary Schools of New York State and the Methods by Which Certain Functions of Edu­ cational Administration Are Performed" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1961). 163 unique to the elementary school. I t might also suggest that elementary leaders discount the technique for fear of losing their own power or authority. This researcher believes, however, that the small amount of delegation by elementary administrators may be due to its complexity, to a lack of its acceptance, or to a lack of understanding about its use. This suggests a need for elementary school leaders to acquire more understanding of and s k ill in employing the method. Such need may range from an unawareness of delegation as an effective manage­ ment tool in school organizations, to a lack of s k ill in defining or communicating the tasks to be delegated. I t is also speculated that the lack of consistent use of delegation indicates insufficient personnel within the elementary school organization to whom the principal can delegate responsi­ b i l i t i e s , and/or that delegation to s ta ff members may be limited or prohibited by provisions of the school d is t r ic t 's negotiated contracts. This author propounds that Michigan elementary principals must be w illing and able to delegate. The act is essential in a school organization because i t eases the job pressure on the administrator, and extends his influence from what he can do to what he can control. I t is also important as a means of involvement and training for other staff personnel, who can exercise in it ia t iv e and develop leadership skills while contributing to the accomplishment of meaningful school goals. 164 Principals Employ Some Delegation in Areas of Pupil Personnel and Instruction and Curriculum Development Michigan elementary principals delegated most in the areas of Pupil Personnel and Instruction and Curriculum Development, with mean scores of 2.75 and 2.64 respectively, as reported in Table 5-11. These scores indicate delegative behavior approaching the position of "I delegate about half of The scores areinflated on (p. i t to other staff members." somewhat, however, by high task scores one or two specific tasks in each area. Table F-4 in Appendix F 217) shows that at least 50 percent of the responding administrators delegated to a large degree ( 1 ) diagnosis of pupil learning d if f i c u l ­ tie s , ( 2 ) assessment and interpretation of student growth to students, and (3) maintaining student records. These tasks, by their very nature, are suitable ones for the elementary school principal to delegate. Although an increased degree of delegation among the adminis­ tra tiv e areas does not necessarily imply a reversed ranking of importance to that area, the investigator holds some concern that the amount of delegation in Instruction and Curriculum Development exceeds that of four other major administrative areas. The degree of dele­ gation reported is not recognized by the researcher as being excessive, and could be interpreted to mean that, in the instructional area, Michigan elementary principals have learned to involve s ta ff and to share responsibilities. The concern, however, emanates from the belief that delegation should generally appear i n i t i a l l y and most frequently in those areas considered to be technical or routine in nature. The delegation score for Instruction and Curriculum Development 165 also seems to be in conflict with the prevailing view in the l i t e r ­ ature, which is that of a ll the tasks constituting the elementary school principalship, those relating to the supervision of instruc­ tion rank the highest in importance, and thereby require the p rio rity of a principal's time and energy. The findings of this study suggest that Michigan public ele­ mentary school principals may be more personally involved with other aspects of administration, such as Staff Personnel and School-Community Relations. The higher degree of personal involvement by school leaders in these areas tends to support a view that the elementary principal is "people oriented," and considers i t important to be personally involved with and seen by his s ta ff members, parents, and other citizens. The author concurs that certain leadership type tasks within these areas, such as evaluation and supervision of professional s ta ff and conferring with parents and citizens, should not be highly delegated by the administrator. Principals' Sex, Experience, and Number of Students Supervised Have No Effect on Delegation No differences were found to exist among the delegation of administrative tasks by elementary principals when related to the variables of sex, number of years as a principal, and number of students supervised. These results are in accord with previous research done by Mawdsley 7 8 and Vrooman which concluded that the ^Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables," p. 164. O Theodore Herbert Vrooman, "The Perceptions and Expectations of Superintendents and their High School Principals with Regard to 166 delegative behavior of high school principals was not related to demographic data. The investigator had expected, however, that males and females might show a difference from which an implication could be drawn regarding their administrative areas of emphasis, that individuals with increased years of experience as an administrator would have discovered the advantages of delegation, or that principals supervising large numbers of students would employ more delegation because i t typically occurs in large organizations as a part of the scalar g principle. The absence of any significant relationship seems to infer that there may be exogenous variables and/or personal characteristics which influence or determine an individual's delegative behavior. attempt was made to investigate such factors in this study. No The lack of significance associated with sex, experience, and number of students supervised also suggests to the investigator that, in the selection of elementary administrators, these factors should not be considered by Boards of Education as determinants for choosing a person who w ill delegate some of his duties to other personnel. Leadership Style and Delegated Formal Task-Performance" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1970). ^James D. Mooney and Allan C. Reiley, Onward Industry (New York: Harper and Row, 1931), quoted in Charles F. Faber and Gilbert F. Shearron, Elementary School Administration (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970). p. 87. 167 Principals in Small Districts Delegate More in Area of School Plant and Services A significant difference was found between the mean scores of elementary principals in small d istricts and in medium d is tric ts , and between those in small districts and in large d is tric ts , for the administrative area School Plant and Services. See Table 5-32. The mean delegation score of principals in small d is tric ts , 2.76, was greater than that of principals in medium or large d is tric ts , and greater than the 2.43 average for a ll principals included in the study, as was reported in Table 5-11. The data seem to suggest that the elementary administrator working in a small d is tric t of less than 1,499 students is attempting to use the technique of delegation for tasks related to School Plant and Services. Since supervisory or assistant personnel are usually not employed in small d is tric ts , the elementary principal is largely responsible for the school and its total educational program. He therefore, undoubtedly, has selected certain School Plant functions to be suitable for delegation, so that he may give proper emphasis to duties in other aspects of administration. The author considers School Plant and Services an appropriate area for delegation, and believes that principals in a ll d is tric ts , regardless of size, could increase their delegative behavior in this area of responsibility. Principals in Large Districts Delegate Less in Area of School-Community Relations A significant difference was found between the mean scores of principals in small d istricts and in large d is tric ts , and between 168 those in medium d is tric ts and in large d is tric ts , for the administrative area School-Community Relations. See Table 5-34. The mean delegation score of principals in large d is tric ts , 1.87, was less than that of principals in small or medium d is tric ts , and less than the 2.05 average reported in Table 5-11 for a ll principals in the study. The lower delegation value by large d is t r ic t principals supports Mawdsley's a 10 findings. - I t is known that large d is tric ts tend to have assistant princi­ pals and/or supervisory personnel to assist the building principal in the areas of Instruction and Curriculum Development and Pupil Personnel. Thus, i t is speculated that the large d is t r ic t elementary principal, i f he employs delegation, tends to use i t in those administrative areas, and retains for his own discharge the functions of Staff Per­ sonnel, Finance and Business Management, School Plant and Services, and School-Community Relations. School-Community Relations are of v ita l importance in large school d is tric ts . Parents seek association with a single school and/or with a single principal to establish an identity with the organization. The size of a large school system, or the impersonal rules of its bureaucracy, can be overwhelming to them. The researcher supports, then, the efforts of large d is t r ic t elementary principals to be personally involved in establishing and maintaining home-school relationships. ^Mawdsley, "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables," p. 162. 169 Principals Supervising Two or More Buildings Differ Slightly in Areas of Staff Personnel and School-Community Relations A significant s ta tis tic a l difference was found between the mean scores of elementary principals who supervise one building and those who supervise two or more buildings, for the administrative areas Staff Personnel (see Tables 5-37 and 5-38) and School-Community Relations (see Tables 5-42 and 5-43). For Staff Personnel functions, the mean delegation score of principals supervising two or more f a c i li t i e s was slig h tly less than that of principals responsible for one building. In the area of School-Community Relations, adminis­ trators of two or more schools delegated slig h tly more than did those who supervised one school. A plausible explanation for the difference in delegation of Staff Personnel responsibilities might be that the principal who cannot remain on one site for his administrative assignment and thereby be available to supervise and assist teachers, may make extra e ffo rt to compensate for his absence by retaining major responsibility for the tasks relating to Staff Personnel. A rationale for the d if f e r ­ ence in delegation of a c tiv itie s pertaining to School-Community Re­ lations is that principals who travel between and among buildings find the tasks related to this area more suitable for delegation and/or sharing than those in the other major administrative areas. The Difference Is Not Meaningful The author asserts, however, that the observed sta tis tica l differences are not meaningful differences. Examination of the mean 170 delegation scores just described w ill show very small differences of .13 and .14 respectively for the areas of Staff Personnel and School-Community Relations. These differences are believed to have no significance for the response scale used in the study. The researcher claims, therefore, that the variable "number of buildings supervised" also has no effect on the delegation of administrative tasks by Michigan public elementary school principals. Principals Do Not Delegate More in Their Least Preferred Administrative Area The findings of the study as reported in Tables 5-10 and 5-11 indicate a lack of correspondence between delegation and preference of major administrative areas. Michigan public elementary school principals do not delegate more in th eir least preferred adminis­ trative area than in their most preferred area, as was hypothesized by the researcher. This outcome is counter to that found by Mawdsley. S tatistical analysis of the data, however, found a significant difference between the mean scores of elementary principals' least preferred administrative areas and their most preferred administrative areas, but in the reverse direction from that hypothesized by the researcher. See Table 5-44. Further analysis of the data was made which showed that the source of this significance was from only one group of principals--those who supervised large numbers of students in large d is tric ts . They delegated more in th eir most preferred 11 171 administrative area than in th eir least preferred area, as was reported in Table 5-45. A defensible reason for this finding is that principals with large enrollments in large d is tric ts are more apt to have assistant principals or supervisory personnel to whom they can delegate, and because, according to the lite ra tu re , they frequently delegate, by muutual consent with their delegatees, in the areas of Instruction and Curriculum Development and Pupil Personnel. Hence, even though these are actually the preferred areas of responsibility for principals (see Table 5-10), they are also the areas in which delegation to assistants is reported to occur. The investigator contends though that the rioted sta tis tica l difference is not a meaningful difference. The mean delegation score of the most preferred administrative area exceeded that of the least preferred administrative area by only .24. This is thought to be a small difference on the study's scale, which provided a fiv e point continuum. I t is concluded, therefore, that preference or lack of preference for a given administrative area is not a determinant factor in the delegative behavior of Michigan public elementary school princi­ pals. Recommendations Upon completion of the research and a review of the major findings, the researcher advances the following recommendations relating to the topic of delegation of administrative tasks by Michigan public elementary school principals. 172 1. Since delegation is viewed by authorities in the fields of school administration and organizational theory as being a desirable but a complex administrative technique in any organization, the concept of delegation needs to be promoted in university graduate programs of educational administration so that current and prospective adminis­ trators are aware of the technique and can learn to use i t effectively. 2. In-service workshops and seminars should be held through­ out the state to assist elementary leaders who are not enrolled in university programs to acquire the a b ility to delegate. 3. So that elementary principals may be released from routine duties to perform as educational leaders, elementary schools should be staffed with personnel to whom principals can delegate. Efforts should be made to provide the elementary principal with an assistant or with supervisory s ta ff, and with secretarial service, to the recom­ mended ratio reported in the lite ra tu re (pp. 46-47). 4. Elementary principals should be encouraged to spend as much time as possible on instructional supervision, even i f they have administrative assistance in this area, and to delegate more frequently those administrative tasks considered to be technical or routine in nature. 5. Those seeking elementary administrators skilled in dele­ gation should not use sex, number of years as a principal, number of students supervised, number of buildings supervised, or preferred administrative areas as indicators for selection. School boards and superintendents should be aware that these variables played no 173 significant role in the reported delegative behavior of Michigan public elementary school principals. 6. Every principal should examine his own delegative behavior ( 1 ) to determine i f he believes in the concept, ( 2 ) to ascertain i f he is employing the technique, (3) to consider whether he is using i t advantageously for himself, for his s ta ff, and for his school, and (4) to seek ways of expanding and/or improving his u tiliz a tio n of the act of delegation. Areas for Further Research In order to ve rify, disprove, and/or supplement the results of this study, the f i r s t ever conducted relative to delegative behavior by Michigan public elementary school principals, areas for further research are suggested by the author. 1. The study could be replicated for only principals of large elementary schools in large school d is tricts in Michigan. Comparisons could be made to Mawdsley's findings, which were based on the delegative behavior of principals of large high schools in Michigan's large school d is tric ts . 2. A parallel study could be made for the purpose of investigating other variables which might be related to the dele­ gation of administrative tasks by elementary principals. Possibili­ ties are ( 1 ) the awareness of a principal to the d e s irab ility of delegation, (2) his s k ill in delegation, (3) his attitude toward delegation, and (4) the deterrants to delegation. 174 3. A study to determine the effect of graduate or in-service training on delegating administrative duties could be conducted to determine whether such a program could, in fac t, improve an elementary principal's delegative behavior. 4. A study could be executed to compare a principal's dele­ gative behavior with a rating of his effectiveness as an administrator. 5. Another study could investigate the degree to which ele­ mentary principals delegate tasks as related to the t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , or strength of defense, he holds for each of those tasks. 6. A study could be conducted to validate the instrument used in this research, to determine whether principals' claimed delegative behavior is the same as their actual delegative behavior. The study might also include a test of its s ta b ility r e l ia b i l it y . Concluding Statement This study was undertaken to determine i f Michigan public elementary school principals claimed to use the technique of dele­ gation in any of the major school administration areas, and i f there were any differences attributable to the selected variables. I t was also made to review the development, role, and duties of the elementary school principal ship. The study problem has been thoroughly investigated, and the data have been carefully analyzed. The findings and recommendations have been offered toward the goal of improving the elementary princi­ pal ship in Michigan, and thus, the elementary schools, and the quality of instruction for elementary students in Michigan. The researcher, 175 therefore, urges Michigan elementary school principals, university educators who are responsible for training school administrators, superintendents, and members of boards of education to respond to these challenges with a positive commitment. Since delegation is viewed as a necessary professional competency for today's school administrator, efforts must be made by and with Michigan public ele­ mentary school principals to enhance its u tiliz a tio n . BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 7 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Allen, Louis A. Professional Management: New Concepts and Proven Practices. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. Appley, Lawrence A. Values in Management. New York: Management Association, In c ., 1969. Argyris, Chris. Executive Leadership. New York: American Harper and Row, 1953. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Leadership for Improving Instruction, 1960 Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1960. Barnard, Chester I . The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938. Becker, Gerald; Withycombe, R .; Doyel, F . ; M ille r , E .; Morgan, C .; DeLoretto, L.; and Aldridge, B. Elementary School Principals and Their Schools. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1971. Belknap, Robert, and Lorbeer, George, eds. Readings in Leadership on Administration; Curriculum Developments. New York: Associated Educational Services Corporation, 1967. Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. Book Company, 1966. New York: McGraw-Hill Blau, Peter M., and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Bradfield, Luther E., and Kraft, Leonard E., eds. The Elementary School Principal in Action. Scranton, Pennsylvania: International Textbook Company, 1970. Campbell, Roald F.; Bridges, Edwin M.; Corbally, John E., J r .; Nystrand, Raphael 0 .; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1971. Campbell, Roald F.; Corbally, John E., J r .; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1966. 178 Campbell, Roald F.; Cunningham, Luvern L.; McPhee, Roderick F.; and Nystrand, Raphael 0. The Organization and Control of American Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Company, 1970. Cooper, John E. Elementary School Principalship. Charles E. M errill Books, In c ., 1967. Copeland, Melvin T. The Executive at Work. Harvard University Press, 1951. Columbus, Ohio: Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cramer, Roscoe V., and Domian, Otto E. Administration and Supervision in the Elementary School. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Cribbin, James J. Effective Managerial Leadership. Management Association, In c ., 1972. New York: Cubberley, Ellwood P. The Principal and His School. M ifflin Company, 1923. Boston: Curtin, James. Supervision in Today's Elementary Schools. The Macmillan Company, 1964. American Houghton New York: Dale, Ernest. Planning and Developing the Company Organization Structure. New York: American Management Association, 1952. Dalton, Gene W.; Barnes, Louis B.; and Zaleznik, Abraham. The D is tr i­ bution of Authority in Formal Organizations. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1968. Dean, Stuart E. Elementary School Administration and Organization. Washington, D.C„: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1960. Department of Elementary School Principals. The Elementary School Prin­ cipalship—A Research Study, Thirty-Seventh Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1958. Department of Elementary School Principals. The Elementary School Prin­ cipalship in 1968--A Research Study, Thirty-Eighth Yearbook. Wash­ ington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1968. Department of Elementary School Principals. The Elementary School Prin­ cipalship, the Seventh Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1928. Department of Elementary School Principals. The Elementary School Prin­ cipalship—Today and Tomorrow, Twenty-Seventh Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, 1948. Dodd, Peter C. Role Conflicts of School Principals. Graduate School of Education, 1965. Harvard University: 179 Douglass, Harl R. Modern Administration of Secondary Schools. Ginn and Company, 1963. Dreeben, Robert. Role Behavior of School Principals. Graduate School of Education, 1965. Drucker, Peter F. The Effective Executive. Row, 1967. New York: Boston: Harvard University: Harper and Elsbree, Willard S.; McNally, Harold J.; and Wynn, Richard. Elementary School Administration and Supervision. New York: American Book Company, 1967. Etzion, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Prentice-Hal1, Inc., 1964. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: Faber, Charles F., and Shearron, Gilbert F. Elementary School Adminis­ tra tio n . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Goldman, Samuel. The School Principal. New York: Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1966. G riffith s , Daniel E. Administrative Theory. Century-Crofts, 1959. New York: The Center for New York: Appleton- G riffith s , Daniel E., ed. Behavioral Science and Educational Adminis­ tra tio n . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. G riffith s , Daniel E. Human Relations in School Administration. York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. New G riffith s , Daniel E.; Clark, David L.; Wynn, D. Richard; and Iannaccone, Laurence. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Ill i n o i s : Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1962. Gross, Neal, and H erriott, Robert E. The Professional Leadership of Elementary School Principals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, 1964. Gross, Neal, and H erriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in Public Schools: A Sociological Inquiry. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1965. Gross, Neal, and Trask, Anne E. Men and Women as Elementary School Principals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University, Graduate School of Education, 1964. 180 Hack, Walter G.; Ramseyer, John A.; Gephart, William J .; and Heck, James B., eds. Educational Administration: Selected Readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1965. Halpin, Andrew W. Theory and Research in Administration. The Macmillan Company, 1966. Hansford, Byron W. Guidebook for School Principals. Ronald Press Company, 1961. Harris, Ben M. Supervisory Behavior in Education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc., 1963. New York: New York: The Englewood C lif f s , Heald, James E.; Romano, Louis G.; and Georgiady, Nicholas P. Selected Readings on General Supervision. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leadership. Ohio State University, 1949. Columbus, Ohio: Hemphill, John K.; G riffith s , Daniel E.; and Frederiksen, Norman. Administrative Performance and Personality. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962. Hencley, Stephen P.; McCleary, Lloyd E.; and McGrath, J. H. The Elementary School Principal ship. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1970. Hicks, William V., and Jameson, Marshall C. The Elementary Principal at Work. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: Prentice-HaTl, In c ., 1957. Jacobson, Paul B.; Reavis, William C.; and Logsdon, James D. The Effective School Principal. New York: Prentice-Hall, In c ., 1954. Jarvis, Oscar T ., ed. Elementary School Administration: Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1969. Readings. Jarvis, Oscar T ., and Pounds, Haskin R. Organizing, Supervising, and Administering the Elementary School. West Nyack, New York: Parker Publishing Company, In c ., 1969. Jenson, Theodore J .; Burr, James B.; Coffield, William H.; and Neagley, Ross L. Elementary School Administration. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. Jenson, Theodore J ., and Clark, David L. Educational Administration. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, In c ., 1964. 181 Keith, Lowell G.; In fe lis e , S. Robert; and Perazzo, George J. Guide for Elementary School Administration. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1965. Kyte, George C. 1952. The Principal at Work. Boston: Ginn and Company, Laird, Donald A., and Laird, Eleanor C. The Techniques of Delegating. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957. Leu, Donald J ., and Rudman, Herbert C., eds. Preparation Programs for School Administrators. East Lansing, Michigan: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963. Linder, Ivan H., and Gunn, Henry M. Secondary School Administration: Problems and Practices. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1963. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. H ill Book Company, Inc., 1960. McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Manager. Book Company, 1967. Mackenzie, R. Alec. The Time Trap. New York: Mann, Roland, ed. The Arts of Top Management. H ill Book Company, 1971. New York: New York: McGraw- McGraw-Hill Amacom, 1972. New York: McGraw- March, James G., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. New York: Marvin, Philip. Multiplying Management Effectiveness. American Management Association, In c ., 1971. New York: Mintzberg, Henry. The Nature of Managerial Work. and Row, 1973. Mitchell, Don G. Top Man. In c ., 1970. New York: New York: Harper American Management Association, Moody, Charles D.; Vergon, Charles B.; and Guy, Alva Keith. The Role of the Principal in the Desegregation Process. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, School of Education, 1973. Morphet, Edgar L.; Johns, Roe L.; and Reller, Theodore. Educational Administration. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hal1, Inc., 1959. National Association of Elementary School Principals. The Assistant Principal in Public Elementary Schools--1969, A Research Study. 182 Washington, D.C.: Principals, 1970. National Association of Elementary School Newport, M. Gene. The Tools of Managing; Functions, Techniques, and Skill s. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1972. Nolte, M. Chester. An Introduction to School Administration: Readings. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966. Paxton, Elmore, ed. Elementary Principals Handbook. of Elementary School Principals, 1969. Selected Ohio Department Pugh, D. S., ed. Organization Theory, Selected Readings. Maryland: Penquin Education, 1971. Baltimore, Saunders, Robert L . ; Phillip s, Ray C .; and Johnson, Harold J. A Theory of Educational Leadership. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, In c ., 1966. Shuster, Albert H., and Stewart, Don H. The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary School. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing Company, 1973. Snyder, Fred A., and Peterson, R. Duane. Dynamics of Elementary School Administration. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1970. Spain, Charles R.; Drummond, Harold D.; and Goodlad, John I . Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principal. New York: Rinehart and Company, In c ., 1956. Stoops, Emory, and Johnson, Russell E. Elementary School Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Torgersen, Paul E. A Concept of Organization. Book Company, 1969. New York: Urwick, Lyndall F. The Elements of Administration. and Brothers, 1943. Urwick, Lyndall F. The Pattern of Management. of Minnesota Press, 1956. Valentine, Raymond F. Amacon, 1973. American New York: Minneapolis: In it ia t iv e and Managerial Power. Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. 2nd ed. C liffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, In c ., 1955. Harper University New York: Englewood Woodburne, Lloyd S. Principles of College and University Administration. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958. 183 Periodicals Beegle, Bernard B. "Don't Do It--Delegate I t ! " 15 (April 1970), 2-6. Supervisory Management, -------- Bennett, James A. "The ABC's of Elementary School Administration." The National Elementary Principal, 40 (February 1961), 41-42. Braybrooke, David. "The Mystery of Executive Success Re-examined." Administrative Science Quarterly, 8 (March 1964), 533-560. Broadhead, Clare; Heald, James E.; Hecker, Stanley E.; Leu, Donald J .; and Rudman, Herbert C. "The Woman Principal—Going the Way of the Buffalo?" The National Elementary Principal, 45 (April 1966), 6-11. Brooks, Earl. "What Successful Executives Do." 1955), 210-225. Personnel, 32 (November Brown, David S. "Why Delegation Works--and Why I t Doesn't." 44 (January, February 1967), 44-52. Personnel, Campbell, Roald F. "Application of Administrative Concepts to the Elementary Principalship." The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 21-26. Cogan, Morris L. "The Principal and Supervision." The National Ele­ mentary Principal, 53 (May, June 1974), 20-24. Cooper, Bernice. "An Analysis of the Quality of the Behaviors of Principals as Observed and Reported in Six Critical Incident Studies." The Journal of Educational Research, 56 (April 1963), 410-414. Cowan, Alton W. "Principals Need Time for Planning: Let's Provide I t . " The National Elementary Principal, 48 (September 1968), 30-31. Cronin, Joseph H. "School Boards and Principals—Before and After Negotiations." Phi Delta Kappan, 49 (November 1967), 123-127. Cruickshank, Donald R. "The Use of Theory in Educational Adminis­ tratio n ." The National Elementary Principal, 44 (May 1965), 47-50. Culbertson, Jack A. "Changes in the Preparation of School Adminis­ trators." The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 54-59. Cunningham, Luvern L. "Continuing Professional Education for Elementary Principals." The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 60-66. 184 Davis, H. Curtis. "Where Does the Time Go?" California Journal of Secondary Education, 28 (October 1953), 347-361. Dawson, Dan T. "Changes in Preparation and C e rtific atio n ." The National Elementary Principal, 40 (February 1961), 21-24. Dawson, John E. "New Approaches to Decision Making: Implications for the Elementary School Principal." TheNational Elementary Principal, 47 (May 1968), 62-69. "Delegation: Don't be a Back-Seat Driver." (May 1960), 11. Supervisory Management, 5 Dorey, Frank D. "The Principal in American Life Today." Elementary Principal, 47 (May 1968), 4-9. The National Drucker, Peter F. "How the Effective Executive DoesI t . " (February 1967), 140-143. Fortune, Drucker, Peter F. "How to Be an Effective Executive." Business, 49 (April 1961), 34-35. 75 Nation's Drucker, Peter F. "The Effective Administrator." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 48 (April 1964), 157-166. Erickson, Donald A. "Changes in the Principalship: Cause for Jubilation or Despair?" The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 16-20. Erickson, Donald A. "Forces for Change in the Principalship." Elementary School Journal, 65 (November 1964), 57-64. Erickson, Donald A. "The School Administration." Research, 37 (October 1967), 417-432. The Review of Educational Farquhar, Robin H., and Martin, W. Michael. "New Developments in the Preparation of Educational Leaders." Phi Delta Kappan, 54 (September 1972), 26-30. F ille rs , H. D. "The Managerial Duties of the Principal." Review, 31 (January 1923), 48-53. Flory, Charles D., ed. "The Imperatives of Authority." and Modern Industry, 85 (February 1965), 49-50. School Dun's Review Forest, Robert G. "The Elementary School Principal--Doctor, Lawyer, or Indian Chief?" The Elementary School Journal, 67 (February 1967), 227-230. Gasson, I . John. "Autonomy, the Precursor to Change in Elementary Schools." The National Elementary Principal, 52 (November 1972), 83-85. 185 Goodlad, John I . "Beyond Survival for the Elementary Principal." The National Elementary Principal, 46 (September 1966), 10-15. Gorsuch, John M. "Good Management Men Delegate Authority." Management, 19 (September 1954), 5-8. Advanced Grant, Wayman R. F.; King, Robert N.; Lewis, Arthur J .; Reynolds, George R.; and Robinson, Harry W. "Checklist for the Princi­ pal." The National Elementary Principal, 33 (December 1953), 5, 32. G riffith s , Daniel E. "New Forces in School Administration." 1 (January 1960), 48-51. Overview, Gross, Neal. "Some Contributions of Sociology to the Field of Edu­ cation." Harvard Educational Review, 29 (Fall 1959), 275-287. Gross, Neal, and H erriott, Robert E. "The EPL of Elementary Princi­ pals." The National Elementary Principal, 45 (April 1966), 66-71. Hackman, Thomas. "The Assistant Principalship." Principal, 42 (February 1963), 36-37. The National Elementary Hamilton, Norman K. "The Decision-Making Structure of a School System." Educational Leadership, 29 (May 1972), 668-671. Hare, Norma 0. "The Vanishing Woman Principal." The National Ele­ mentary Principal, 45 (April 1966), 12-13. Hemphill, John K. "Relations Between the Size of the Group and the Behavior of Superior Leaders." The Journal of Social Psychology, 32 (August 1950), 11-23. Henderson, Charles A. "The Principal Speaks." 42 (March 1966), 411-413. Childhood Education, Hoffman, Jonathan. "The Administrator and S taff Leadership." Management, 17 (April 1973), 14-15. School Houts, Paul L. "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer." The National Elementary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 27-34. Hoyte, John. "Who Shall Be Principal--A Man or a Woman?" Elementary Principal, 48 (January 1969), 23-24. Hunkins, Francis P. "New Identities for New Tasks." Leadership, 29 (March 1972), 503-506. The National Educational "In Big Cities, the Principals Say. . . . " The National Elementary Principal, 32 (February 1953), 31-34. 186 "In Small Communities, the Principals Say. . . . " The National Ele­ mentary Principal, 32 (April 1953), 29-32. Ingils, Chester. "Advance to Administrators: Clues for Success." The Clearing House, 42 (September 1967), 15-18. Isherwood, Geoffrey B. "The Principal and His Authority: An Empirical Study." The High School Journal, 56 (March 1973), 291-303. Jacobson, Stanley. "Principals Under Pressure." Principal, 47 (May 1968), 70-73. Jones, Curtis H. "The Money Value of Time." 46 (July, August 1968), 94-101. The National Elementary Harvard Business Review, Jones, J. L. "Decentralization as a Management Tool." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 55 (December 1971), 83-91. Katz, Robert L. "Skills of an Effective Administrator." Harvard Business Review, 33 (January, February 1955), 33-42. Keller, Arnold J. "Inside the Man in the Principal's O ffice." The National Elementary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 20-26. Kimbrough, Ralph B. "The Behavioral Characteristics of Effective Educational Administrators." Educational Administration and Supervision, 45 (November 1959), 337-348. Kiri in, Vernon L. "The Office Without a Secretary." The National Elementary Principal, 40 (October 1960), 33-36. Langer, John H. "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan." Phi Delta Kappan, 48 (December 1966), 160-161. Lewis, Arthur J. "The Future of Elementary School Principalship." The National Elementary Principal, 48 (September 1968), 8-15. Lien, Ronald L. "Democratic Administrative Behavior." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 48 (March 1964), 31-38. Lindop, Boyd. "Qualities of the Leader." (February 1964), 175-181. School A c tiv itie s , 35 Lipham, James M. "The Role of the Principal: Search and Research." The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 28-33. Livingston, J. Sterling. "Myth of the Well-Educated Manager." Business Review, 49 (January, February 1971), 79-89. Harvard 187 Loen, Raymond 0. "Manager or Doer? A Test for Top Executives." Business Management, 30 (May 1966), 97-100. McNally, Harold J. "The American Principal Tomorrow." Elementary Principal, 47 (May 1968), 85-91. The National McPhee, Mary. "Building Manager Manages to Free Building Principal." School Management, 16 (October 1972), 36-37. "Making a Job More Than a Job." 89. Business Week, April 19, 1969, pp. 88- Mallory, Elizabeth. "To Our Principal Partners." mentary Principal, 51 (April 1972), 63. Maslow, A. H. "A Theory of Human Motivation." 50 (July 1943), 370-396. The National Ele­ Psychological Review, Melton, Joseph. "Role Perceptions of the Elementary School Principal­ ship." The National Elementary Principal, 50 (February 1971), 40-43. Merigis, Harry J. "Delegation in School Administration." School Board Journal, 144 (March 1962), 12-13. The American Murfin, Mark. "Forty Years of Change in the Elementary School." National Elementary Principal, 40 (February 1961), 8-12. The Myers, Donald A. "The Principal as a Procedural Administrator." The National Elementary Principal, 47 (February 1968), 25-29. Myers, M. Scott. "Every Employee a Manager." Review, 10 (Spring 1968), 9-20. Nash,Robert L. "Good Office Help." 33 (May 1954), 23-28. California Management The National Elementary Principal, Naylor, Douglas H., and Traughber, James V. "As We See I t . " The National Elementary Principal, 47 (April 1968), 8-12. Newman, William H. "Overcoming Obstacles to Effective Delegation." The Management Review, 45 (January 1956), 36-41. Nissen, Myra H. "Table Talk with Albert Shanker." The National Ele­ mentary Principal, 53 (March, April 1974), 44-50. Norton, John K. "Preparation Programs for Administrators." The School Executive, 75 (January 1956), 84-85. Otto, Henry J. "The Changing Environment of the Principalship." The National Elementary Principal, 40 (February 1961), 13-15. 188 Rich, Leonor M. "Clerical Help for Principals." The National Ele­ mentary Principal, 33 (December 1953), 12-14. Romine, Stephen A. "Current Influences Changing the Principal's Role." The North Central Association Quarterly, 42 (Fall 1967), 187-191. Rosenberg, Max. "How Does Your Principal Rate?" June 1974), 25-28. Teacher, 91 (May, Rosenberger, Homer T. "Delegation: Who? What? When? How Much? Supervisory Management, 4 (December 1959), 22-30. Ruchti, William. "Do You Delegate the Whole Job?" Management, 3 (September 1958), 2-9. Rudman, Herbert C. "The Principal's Day." Principal, 42 (March 1968), 8. Supervisory The Michigan Elementary Sartore, Richard L. "A Principal with a New Outlook Is Needed for the Open School." The Clearing House, 47 (November 1972), 131-134. Scherdel1, Raymond. "An Easy Way to Make a Principal More Effective." K-Eight, 2 (March, April 1973), 14-16. Schmidt, Warren H. "Executive Leadership in the Principal's Office." The National Elementary Principal, 41 (January 1962), 35-39. Sharp, George. "The Principal as a Professional Leader." Elementary Principal, 42 (November 1962), 61-63. The National S inclair, Robert L. "Leadership Concerns." The National Elementary Principal, 48 (September 1968), 16-20. Southworth, William D. "The Elementary School Principal sh ip --!980." The Clearing House, 46 (November 1971), 136-140. Stanton, Edgar A. "Saving Time in Office Routine." The Elementary School Journal, 28 (December 1927), 263-272. Stewart, Rosemary. "Diary Keeping as a Training Tool for Managers." The Journal of Management Studies, 5 (October 1968), 295-303. Stewart, S. Gordon. "The Principal's Efficiency as an Instructional Leader." Virginia Journal of Education, 60 (February 1967), 18-20. Stoops, Emery. "Keys to Leadership." 1963), 42-43. Phi Delta Kappan, 45 (October Strong, Lydia. "Of Time and Top Management." 45 (June 1956), 486-493. The Management Review, 189 Tannenbaum, Robert, and Schmidt, Warren H. "How to Choose a Leadership Pattern." Harvard Business Review, 36 (March, April 1958), 95-101. Taylor, Lloyd L ., and McPherson, Philip Eby. "The Superintendent and the Principal." The National Elementary Principal, 47 (May 1968), 80-84. "The Mystery of Executive Talent." pp. 43-46. Business Week, May 21, 1955, Trask, Anne E. "Principals, Teachers and Supervision: Dilemmas and Solutions." Administrator's Notebook, 13 (December 1964), 1-4. Trickett, Joseph M. "A More Effective Use of Time." Management Review, 4 (Summer 1962), 4-15. California Watkins, J. Foster. "Delegation: A Needed Ingredient for Effective Administration." The Clearing House, 46 (March 1972), 395-398. Wayson, William W. "A New Kind of Principal." Principal, 50 (February 1971), 8-19. The National Elementary Wayson, William W. "The Elementary Principalship: Will I t Be Part of the New Administration?" The National Elementary Principal, 44 (April 1965), 10-15. Whyte, William H., Jr. "How Hard Do Executives Work?" (January 1954), 108-111. Fortune, 49 Willower, Donald J.; Cistone, Peter J .; and Packard, John S. "Some Functions of the Supervisory Role in Educational Organizations." Education, 92 (February, March 1972), 66 - 6 8 . Wood, Thomas C. "The Changing Role of the Teacher—How Does I t Affect the Role of the Principal?" The National Elementary Principal, 47 (April 1968), 32-37. Wotring, C. Jarvis. "Principals and Accountability." Board Journal, 20 (January 1974), 21, 27. Michigan School Other Pub!ications Appel, Paul Henry. "A Study of Selected Administrative Principles as They May Be Applied in Certain School Districts in the State of Michigan." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. 190 Department of Elementary School Principals. Standards for Elementary School Principals of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Elementary School Principals, Michigan Education Association, 1953. Jennings, James Maxwell. "The Elementary School Principalship in Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Lucas, Robert Elwood. "Decisional Determinants of the Degree of Delegation by the Chief School Administrator." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962. Mawdsley, Jack K. "A Study of the Delegation of Administrative Tasks by Principals of the Large High Schools in Michigan as Related to Selected Variables." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals, and Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals. "Guidelines for Michigan Principals." East Lansing, 1968. M itchell, Bobby Mack. "Analysis of the Perceptions of the Role of the Subordinate and Super-ordinate With Respect to Authority, Responsibility, and Delegation in the Community Schools of F lin t at the Attendance Center Level." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. National Association of Elementary School Principals. Summary of the NAESP Delegate Assembly. Anaheim, California: n .p ., April 30, 1974. Potts, Vernon Russell. "A Study of the Relationship of Professional Negotiations to the Administrative Tasks Performed by High School Principals in Michigan." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. R ielle, Donald Francis. "Perceptions of Components and Administrative Behavior in the Process of Delegating." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965. Schmidle, Richard P. "A Study of Delegating Practices of Secondary School Principals in New York State." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966. "Sharing Out the Power." The Times Educational Supplement, 20, April 1973, p. 2. Shoaf, Ted Byron. "A Study of the Relative Importance of the Tasks of the Elementary School Principalship As Seen By Elementary School Principals, Teachers, Their Superintendents, and 191 Professors of Educational Administration." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel H i l l , 1967. Traylor, Dale Emmett. "The Delegation of Authority and Responsibility as Practiced by Junior College Chief Administrators." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1967. Vatcharakiet, Srichak. "A Study of the Relationships Between Selected Personality Factors and the Attitude Toward the Delegation of Authority by the Principals in Selected Michigan Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. Vrooman, Theodore Herbert. "The Perceptions and Expectations of Super­ intendents and their High School Principals with Regard to Leadership Style and Delegated Formal Task-Performance." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1970. Welker, Howard Everett. "The Staffing of the Elementary Schools of New York State and the Methods By Which Certain Functions of Educational Administration Are Performed." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1961. Reference Sources for Research Methodology and S tatistical Analysis Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. Co., 1961. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973. Borg, Walter R ., and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. 2nd ed. Buros, Oscar Krisen, ed. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972. Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. S tatistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Hoyt, Cyril J. "Test R e lia b ility Estimated by Analysis of Variance." Psychometrika, 6 (1941), 153-160. Huntsberger, David V., and Billingsley, Patrick. Elements of S tatistical Inference. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1973. Koosis, Donald J. 1972. S tatistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 192 McSweeney, Maryellen. "Supplemental Notes for Education 967." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1974. (Mimeographed.) McSweeney, Maryellen, and Olejnik, Stephen. "Notes, Exercises and Measures for Education 969 B." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. (Mimeographed.) Mehrens, William A., and Lehmann, Irvin J. Standardized Tests in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Michigan Department of Education. Computer tape of building enroll­ ments for 1973-1974. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services. Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Department of Education Builetin 1011 , 1972-73. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, 1973-1974. Michigan: 701 Davenport Building. Lansing, Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Raj, Des. The Design of Sample Surveys. Company, 1972. New York: New McGraw-Hill Book Robinson, John P.; Athanasiou, Robert; and Head, Kendra. Measures of Occupational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1969. Robinson, John P., and Shaver, Philip R. Measures of Social Psycho­ logical Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: In stitu te for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1969. Scheifley, Verda M., and Schmidt, William H. "Jeremy D. Finn's Multi variance—Occasional Paper No. 22." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, College of Education, October, 1973. (Mimeographed.) Slakter, Malcolm J. Statistical Inference for Educational Researchers. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Westey Publishing Company, 1972. Slonin, Morris James. Sampl irig. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960. Spiegel, Murray R. Theory and Problems of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1961 / New York: 193 Strunk, William, J r ., and White, E. B. The Elements of Style. York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. New Terrace, Herbert, and Parker, Scott, eds. Psychological S ta tis tic s . San Rafael, California: Individual Learning Systems, In c ., 1971. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers. 4th ed. University of Chicago Press, 1973. Chicago: The APPENDICES 1 9 4 APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR ENDORSEMENT BY THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 195 A STUDY OF THE DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS RELATED TO SELECTED VARIABLES A Doctoral Research Study By ' Alfrieda M. Frost Educational Administration and Higher Education College of Education Michigan State University Doctoral Committee: Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Chairman Dr. Samuel A. Moore Dr. James Snoddy Dr. William A. Mehrens 196 1 9 7 STUDY DESCRIPTION The study w ill determine thedegree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegateadministrative tasks in each of six major administrative areas: a. b. c. d. e. f. Instruction and Curriculum Development Staff Personnel Pupil Personnel Finance and Business Management School Plant and Services School-Community Relations when related to selected variables: a. b. c. d. e. Sex Number of years of experience as a principal School d is tr ic t size Building enrollment Number of buildings supervised I t w ill also determine i f Michigan public elementary school principals delegate more in their least preferred administrative area than in their most preferred administrative area. The study w ill review the development, role, and duties of the elementary principalship, and explore the concept of delegation as an administrative technique for elementary principals. STUDY METHOD Data is being collected from a questionnaire mailed to 911 Michigan public elementary school principals. MAESP ASSISTANCE REQUESTED Alfrieda made a request for MAESP assistance at the August 4, 1974 meeting of the Executive Committee. A copy of the proposal and a statement from the Committee Chairman were submitted to President Nichols. I t was moved by Rinck that MAESP endorse the research study, allow use of MAESP and Dr. Keller's name in the cover le t t e r to the questionnaire, and assist with mailing service. Motion was seconded and carried. Alfrieda was advised to meet with the Leadership Commission and the Board of Directors in September to request financial assistance. 198 COST OF STUDY 51.74 30.93 651.50 104.24 88.00 300.00 400.00 $1,626.41 mailing and return envelopes letterhead stationery and paper . mailing and return postage postcards clerical costs computer charges (estimated) dissertation publication costs (estimated) Total SPECIFIC BENEFITS TO MAESP In return for endorsement and financial assistance from MAESP, the researcher agrees to grant the Association fu ll use of the collected data. The researcher agrees to write a monograph based on the study, for MAESP publication. Authorization w ill be given to MAESP to publish wholly or in part information that is pertinent to the membership. The researcher w ill provide a bound copy of the study for the MAESP library. Recognition of MAESP support and assistance w ill be made in publication of the study. GENERAL BENEFITS TO MAESP MAESP is associated with the f i r s t study ever conducted relative to delegative behavior by Michigan public elementary school principals. Principals frequently comment about the constraints of time, energy, and the number of job responsibilities. Results of this study will indicate whether elementary principals are making use of the administrative technique of delegation to make i t possible for them to allocate the major portion of th eir efforts to those functions considered most important. The study w ill provide information regarding which areas of tasks are being delegated, and/or not being delegated. Findings w ill indicate which of the major administrative areas are most preferred and least preferred by Michigan elementary princi­ pals. _ 199 Results may be useful to university educators interested in the preparation, development, and improvement of elementary school adminis­ tration. The study may suggest the need for in-service programs in the use of delegation as an administrative technique. BENEFITS TO RESEARCHER Endorsement of the study by MAESP has encouraged a greater response to the survey questionnaire, and should help to bring the study results to the attention of those interested in elementary school administration. Clerical service in preparing the questionnaire for mailing was most helpfu l. Financial assistance is needed, due to the scope of the study. ABOUT THE RESEARCHER Alfrieda M. Frost has been a practicing elementary principal in South Haven, Michigan since 1966. She has been active in Region 5 and at the state le v e l, in Association a c tiv itie s . She is currently a state o ffic e r. Alfrieda has been taking courses continuously since August, 1971 and has been in residence at Michigan State University during 1974. APPENDIX B COVER LETTER FOR SURVEY 200 5232 "0 Association of Elementary School Principals R OOM 9, M A N L E Y M I L E S BL D G. • EA ST L A N S I N G , M I C H I G A N 48823 1405 S. H A R R I S O N RD. ■ P H O N E 517 353- 8770 August 15, 1974 EXECUTIVE BOARD — 19 73 -74 F re d e ric k N ic h o ls , P re s id e n t 6 4 3 2 S u rre y P o rta g e 49081 C h a rle s C ro m a r, P re s id e n t-E le c t 2 0 0 6 C re s th ill Royal Oak 48 07 3 Dear Michigan Elementary Principal: W iila im M ays, J r ., V ice P re s id e n t 1931 C oronada D riv e Ann A rb o r 481Q3 Your cooperation is needed to carry out a research study being done by Alfrieda M. Frost at Michigan State University, under the direction of Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. M s. A lfr ie d a F ro s t, S e c re ta ry 81 4 S u p e rio r So uth Haven 4 9 0 9 0 M rs . E ile e n P rin c e , T re a s u re r 6 0 3 H a m ilto n k m g s fo rd 49801 R ic h a rd J. R in c k , NAESP R e p re s e n ta tiv e J t)‘j 4 Jasm ine N F. C ra nd R apids 4 9 6 0 5 M rs . N an cy N e w m a n , im m e d ia te Pa st P re s id e n t J 0 7 1 0 Rush Avenue U K iJ u n CUy 4 8 1 3 5 We all know that elementary principals have many duties and respon­ sibilities, and only 24 hours a day in which to perform them. Therefore, the study will investigate and determine the degree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegate some of their administrative tasks. COM MISSIO N CHAIRM EN Thom as R ic h a rd s , C u r r ic u lu m and In s tr u c tio n r -'.'j l a s t B lu ff H arbo r S im n g s 4 9 7 4 0 Jotin W. P a p in e a u , L e a d e rs h ip A c tiv itie s ?? 33 2 G regory D e a rb o rn 48 12 4 P e te r M a r s ig lia , p r o fe s s io n a l W e lfa re V>l-» L.unev P o rta g e 49081 BOARD OF DIRECTORS M rs C e c e lia M u rp h y .56 O i.n h ** .v o rtn je a ib o r n H e ig h ts 4 8 1 2 7 Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule prior to the opening days of school, and complete the questionnaire. Each item can be answered with a single response. To insure that your response will be included in the research data, try to return it by August 30. Use the stamped, addressed envelope enclosed for your convenience. Note that you are not to sign your name, and that the question­ naire is not coded in any way which will permit identification except for color to indicate school district size. This we hope, will encourage forthright answers. Fred S te g a th 1446 Kui.'b nle Ann A rb o r 48 10 3 M rs . K a th ry n W a lk e r ''0 0 Sin und S tre e t la c .s o n 4920 3 R o b e rt LeGatley fiS in O .-k-K ie IM ! . | 'I > 46081 In order to provide this anonymity, yet enable us to follow-up with reminder notices to non-respondents, we have enclosed a stamped postcard to identify principals who have completed and mailed the questionnaire. M rs. M a ry B u e s in g 710 H u lh .im A v-niif? St I t r i 'p h 491)85 R o b e rt W . S m ith 4 h ',0 I n rm U tn .1 4 8 0 8 '/ C ha rle s Schoch ; / • ) B rP rt-.tp r Rn.id R 4901 6 ft G e ra ld O a nh nff M'VI 11 i Vi ’ ,1 i.i.id '.ln r tc .1 ,81 0 r fr tw a r d P. K e lle r , f j r m i t i v P ........ I, • t , r.y [ . ' I t •- .e:' 4 8 8 / 3 S e c re ta ry , Alfrieda M. Frost Researcher Dr. Edward P. Keller Exec. Sec., MAESP M s. B e ry l G a v itt, A d m r m s lu tiv .' A s s is ta n t M M ' . P.- - i . r I m e l a s t I ,m ,m g 48 82 3 /bjm 201 APPENDIX C RETURN POSTCARD 202 STUDY COMPLETION NOTIFICATION I have f i ll e d out my questionnaire and mailed i t to the MAESP office. Please withhold any completion reminder le tte r . (signature) (school) (date) (school d is tr ic t) Thank you for your help with this study. Prompt return of the questionnaire and postcard w ill be appreciated. APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER FOR SURVEY 2 0 4 Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals R O O M 9, M A N L E Y M I L E S BLDG. • E A S T L A N S I N G , M I C H I G A N 48823 1405 S. H A R R I S O N RD. • P H O N E 517 353- 8770 EXECUTIVE BOARD — 19 73 -74 F r e d e r ic k N ic h o ls , P re s id e n t 6 4 3 2 S u rre y P o rta g e 49 08 1 C h a rle s C ro m a r, P re s id e n t-E le c t 20 0 6 C r e s th iil R oyal Oak 4 8 0 7 3 September 9, 1974 W illa im M a y s , i r . , V ic e -P re s id e n t 1931 C oron ad a D riv e Ann A rb o r 48 10 3 M s. A lfr ie d a F ro s t, S e c re ta ry 8 1 4 S u p e rio r S o u tli H aven 4 9 0 9 0 Dear Michigan Elementary Principal: M rs . E ile e n P rin c e , T re a s u re r 6 0 8 H a m ilto n K in g s fo rd 49 80 1 R ic h a rd J. R in c k , NAESP R e p re s e n ta tiv e 36 6 4 ia s m m c . N E C r.nu l R a|» ds 4 9 5 0 6 M rs . N ancy N e w m a n , Im m e d ia te Past P re s id e n t 30 71 0 R ush Avenue G arden C ity 48 13 5 C O M M ISSIO N CHAIRM EN T hom as R ic h a rd s , C u rric u lu m 6 5 5 East B lu ff M .ub or S p rin g s 497*10 and in s tr u c tio n John W . P a p in ta u , le a d e r s h ip A c tw iU e *. 22 33 2 G re g o ry D e a rb o rn 48 12 4 P e te r M a r s ig lia , P ro fe s s io n a l w e lfa re 15 1 S u r r e y P o rta g e 49 08 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS M rs . C e c e lia M u rp h y 556 C h .ir le s w o r th jfiu r b o r n H e ig h ts 48 12 7 F red S te g a th 14-16 k u e h n le Ann A rb o r 48 10 3 M rs . K a th ry n W a lk e r nflO S e ro n d S tre e t la n v o n 4 9 2 0 3 R o b e rt L e G a lle y 8 5 1 0 O a ksid e P u rta g e 49 08 1 M rs . M a ry B u e s in g 710 B c jlti.ir t A ve nu e Si lo s e p h 4 9 0 8 5 R o b e rt W. S m ith 4660 I nu n IJ tir .i 48 08 7 C h a rle s S c h oc h 2 7 0 B r r - v ' t r r Road R ot h i " I e r 18 06 3 This is a follow-up to our Initial letter dated August 15, requesting your cooperation with a research study being done by Alfrieda M. Frost at Michigan State University, under the direction of Dr. Herbert C. Rudman. As you will recall, the study will investigate and deter­ mine the degree to which Michigan public elementary school principals delegate some of their administrative tasks. Every individual response is important. Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule to complete the question­ naire. Each item can be answered with a single response. Note that two of the pages have items on both sides of the page. After completing the questionnaire, please use the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope to return it. Your prompt reply will be appreciated, so that your responses can be included in the research data. All responses are anonymous. Both the postcard and the questionnaire should be returned to the MAESP Office at 1405 S. Harrison, Room 9, Manly Miles Building, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. If you have recently returned the questionnaire, please dis­ regard this notice. Thank you for your help- T rank O o m a ga ls k i I" .. mm NT G rand R ap ids 49 60 5 N orm an O ahl 12 16 G a rla nd f . \ t'.nw t 186 10 la w i c n e e O eVoogd 1 76 f f 'l/ . i. n n U hv p t>. -.kpgr n 19141 Sincerely yours, Alfrieda M. Frost Researcher T p rry Is e n b a rg e r Hi.-,' [)• !■ nri- 4961 6 G e ra ld O a n h o tt Hf'9 D akota ...... V '8 3 6 • E d w a rd P. K e lle r , E n e ru tiv e S e rri-ta ry i-,- 4*823 Me B e ry l G a v ift, r P u i n r . t u t i v i: A -.M st.m l 1 • -t 1 ar sH.g 48 82 3 205 Dr. Edward P. Keller MAESP Executive Secretary APPENDIX E DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS SURVEY 2 0 6 DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS SURVEY GENERAL DIRECTIONS: Please check ALL items in the questionnaire. with a single response. Each one can be answered Upon completion, put the questionnaire into the stamped, addressed envelope and mail to MAESP before AUGUST 30. You are also requested to return the postcard in order that we can with­ hold costly reminder notices. PART ONE: Please answer these questions about yourself and your school, so that delegation scores can be classified statistically. Indicate your answer in the space provided. 1. Are you a full-time supervising principal? a. b. 2. _____ No What is your sex? a. b. 3. Yes Male _____ Female How many years of experience do you have as a principal? (if you are a beginning principal, indicate 0) ________________ years 4. How many buildings do you supervise? _________________ building(s) 5. What was the Fourth Friday building enrollment for Grades K-6 in 1973-74? (if you supervise more than one building, give the enrollment for each building that you supervise) Building #1 Building #2 Building #3 a. 1-399 students ______ ______ ______ b. 400 + students ______ ______ ______ 207 go to the next page PART TWO: Listed below are administrative tasks grouped into six major areas. Please circle the number beside each one that indicates most accurately your involvement with that task Use this key for determining your responses: 0 - Iam not responsible for this task. 1 - Ido all of this. 2 - Ido more than half of this, but delegate some of it to other staff members. 3 - I do about half of this and delegate about half of it to other staff members. 4 - I do less than half of this; I delegate most of it to other staff members. 5 - I do none of this; I delegate all of it to other staff members. Instruction and Curriculum Development 1. Direction of curriculum content and organization 9 1 2 3 4 5 2. Selection of curriculum materials 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Relating curriculum to time, facilities and personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction and articulation of curricular programs 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of program for exceptional children 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. Planning and directing remedial instruction 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Direction of school testing program 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Observation and assistance to teachers in the instructional program 0 1 2 3 4 5 Diagnosis of pupil learning difficulties 0 1 2 3 4 5 Coordination of instructional equipment and materials 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of research and/or experimentation in instruction and curriculum development 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 208 go to the next page 0 - not responsible for task 1 - do all of this 2 - do more than half 3 - do about half 4 - do less than half 5 - do none of this Staff Personnel 1. Recruitment of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Recruitment of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Selection of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Selection of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Orientation of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Orientation of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Scheduling of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Scheduling of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Supervision of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Supervision of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 11. Evaluation of professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 12. Evaluation of nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 13. Maintaining staff personnel records 0 1 2 3 4 5 14. Obtaining and scheduling substitute teachers 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of in-service for professional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of in-service for nonprofessional staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 17. Administration of master contract(s) 0 1 2 3 4 5 18. Direction of research and/or experiment­ ation in staff personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 5. 6. 9. 10. 15. 16. 209 go to the next page 0 - not responsible for task 1 - do all of this 2 r do more than half 3 - do about half 4 - do less than half 5 - do none of this Pupil Personnel 1. Providing orientation for students 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Scheduling of students into classes 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Providing student counseling services 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Scheduling of students for health services 0 1 2 3 4 5 5. Maintaining student records 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. Providing occupational and educational information services 0 1 2 3 4 5 Assessment and interpretation of student growth to students 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Administration of student discipline 0 1 2 3 4 5 9. Administration of extra-curricular activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 10. Administration of student attendance 0 1 2 3 4 5 11. Direction of school guidance program 0 1 2 3 4 5 12. Direction of research and/or experimentation in pupil personnel 0 1 2 3 4 5 Construction of the school budget (or building recommendations) 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Administration of the school budget 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Determination of equipment and supplies 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Ordering of equipment and supplies 0 1 2 3 4 5 5. Disbribution of equipment and supplies 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. Inventory of equipment and supplies 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Administration of programs such as Title I 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Direction of research and/or experimentation in finance and business management 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Finance and Business Management 1. 210 go to the next page 0 - not responsible for task 1 - do all of this 2 - do more than half » 3 - do about half 4 - do less than half 5 - do none of this School Plant and Services 1. Planning for re-modeled or new facilities 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Supervision of plant operation and maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Supervision of grounds maintenance 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Scheduling of bus operations 0 1 2 3 4 5 5. Direction of plant safety program (fire drills, tornado drills) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of transportation safety program 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Administration of the school lunch program 0 1 2 3 4 5 8. Direction of research and/or experimentation in school 0 1 2 3 4 5 6. School-Community Relations 1. Preparation of reports for the community 0 1 2 3 4 5 2. Conferring with parents and citizens 0 1 2 3 4 5 3. Supervision of the school's public relations program 0 1 2 3 4 5 Preparation of releases to communications media 0 1 2 3 4 5 Direction of reporting to parents on student progress 0 1 2 3 4 5 Supervision of the use of the school by nonschool groups 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. 5. 6. 211 OC\ f~r» t*V»o n o v f- no on PART THREE 1. In which of the major administrative areas, do you least prefer to work? Mark only one area with an X. a. _____ Instruction and Curriculum Development b. _____ Staff Personnel c. _____ Pupil Personnel d. _____ Finance and Business Management e. _____ School Plant and Services f. _____ School-Community Relations 2. In which of the major administrative areas, do you most prefer to work? Mark only one area with an X. a. _____ Instruction and Curriculum Development b. _____ Staff Personnel c. _____ Pupil Personnel d. _____ Finance and Business Management e. _____ School Plant and Services f. _____ School-Community Relations T H A N K YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION Questionnaire Mailing: IN T H I S STUDY Place it in the stamped, addressed envelope and mail to MAESP before AUGUST 30. Postcard Mailing: You may now mail the postcard indicating that you are returning the questionnaire. This will tell us that costly follow- up reminder letters need not be sent. 212 appendix f CONCOMITANT FINDINGS 213 Appendix F CONCOMITANT FINDINGS Responses to the sixty-three specific items on the Delegation of Administrative Tasks Survey were examined to determine whether Michigan public elementary school principals shared common responsi­ b i l i t i e s , and whether certain tasks tended to be delegated less or more than others. Three of the tasks were the responsibility of a ll principals participating in the study. for this task." No one responded, "I am not responsible The common job assignments were supervising and evaluating s ta ff, and disciplining students. These items from the Staff Personnel and the Pupil Personnel sections of the survey are given in Table F - l . TABLE F-l.--Administrative Tasks for Which All Principals Indicated Responsibility. Task Number Percent Supervision of Professional Staff Personnel 627 100.0 Evaluation of Professional Staff Personnel 626a 99.84 Administration of Student Discipline 624b 99.52 a One principal did not respond to item. bThree principals did not respond to item. 214 215 Several items on the questionnaire were not the responsibility of some elementary principals. Almost one-half of those responding did not schedule bus operations, and about one out of four principals did not schedule substitute teachers or direct a program for exceptional children. Table F-2 lis ts seven tasks for which at least 25 percent of the principals had no responsibility. TABLE F-2.--Administrative Tasks for Which 25 Percent or More Principals Indicated Lack of Responsibility. Number Task Percent Scheduling of Bus Operations 306 48.80 Direction of Research and/or Experimentation in Finance and Business Management 275 43.86 Direction of Transportation Safety Program 195 31.10 Administration of Programs such as T itle I 173 27.59 Recruitment of Professional Staff Personnel 171 27.27 Obtaining and Scheduling Substitute Teachers 169 26.95 Direction of Program for Exceptional Children 158 25.20 One-half or more of the principals replied that "I do all of this" when responding to twelve of the administrative tasks contained in the survey. The items for which no delegation was indicated by at least 50 percent of the respondents included the evaluation and supervision of s ta ff, administration of the school budget, and super­ vision of public relations. in Table F-3. The complete l i s t of tasks is reported TABLE F-3.--Administrative Tasks for Which 50 Percent or More Principals Indicated No Delegation. Task Number Percent Evaluation of Professional Staff Personnel 553 88.20 Supervision of Professional Staff Personnel 524 83.57 Direction of Plant Safety Program 505 80.54 Scheduling of Professional Staff Personnel 414 66.03 Administration of the School Budget 378 60.29 Observation and Assistance to Teachers in the Instructional Program 376 59.97 Supervision of Non-Professional Staff Personnel 345 55.02 Ordering of Equipment and Supplies 343 54.71 Evaluation of Non-Professional Staff Personnel 341 54.39 Scheduling of Non-Professional Staff Personnel 333 53.11 Administration of Master Contracts 317 50.56 Supervision of the School's Public Relations Program 315 50.24 217 There were but three administrative tasks to which responding principals said, "I delegate most of it" or "I delegate a ll of i t . " These are given in Table F-4. TABLE F-4.--Administrative Tasks for Which 50 Percent or More Principals Indicated "Most" or "All" Delegation. Task Number Percent Diagnosis of Pupil Learning D iffic u ltie s 377 60.13 Assessment and Interpretation of Student Growth to Students 372 59.33 Maintaining Student Records 351 55.98