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. The 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 a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
ji the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

I

76-5619
ORCHARD, Mark Lee, 1940SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY OF
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN
MICHIGAN: 1968-1974.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975
Education, administration

Xerox University Microfilms ,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY OF PUBLIC
SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN:
1968-1974
By
Mark Lee Orchard

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1975

ABSTRACT
SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY OF PUBLIC
SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN:
1968-1974
By
Mark Lee Orchard

The study was designed to identify factors which
affected the mobility of Michigan secondary principals
from 1968 through 1974.

Further it was attempted in this

research to determine if the reasons that mobile principals
gave for leaving their last positions varied among the
categories of principals.
Limitations
The study was limited to principals serving the
public secondary schools of Michigan during the 19741975 school year and the data available on the mobility
that existed from 1968-1974.

Twenty-three selected

personal characteristics, school district characteristics,
and reasons for leaving the last position were in­
vestigated.

Particular emphasis was placed upon the

reasons for leaving section as the major concern of the
researcher.

Mark Lee Orchard
Procedures and Sources of Data
The Michigan Education Directory and Buyers
Guide supplied the names and addresses of the mobile
principals.

A post card survey was mailed to the 270

mobile principals to determine their degree of mobility,
longevity in the current school district, and former
positions held.

Responses were received from 228 or

84.4 per cent of the principals.

On the basis of the

post card survey, eight categories of mobile principals
were formed.

These categories were of mobility (highly

mobile or less mobile), origin (insiders or outsiders),
and status (promotees and transfers).

From the 228

principals a random sample of eighty-eight was mailed a
questionnaire.

Eighty-eight responses or 100 per cent

were received of which eighty-six were useable.

Multi­

variate Analysis was used to treat the data to determine
if differences existed between the categories of
mobility and the measures.
Findings
An analysis of the data from the questionnaire
showed:
1.

When compared to insiders, outsiders reported
past school board relationships to be highly influ­
ential reasons for leaving their last position.

Mark Lee Orchard
This was significant statistically at the .05 alpha
level.
2.

When compared to promotees, transfers have signi­
ficantly (alpha = .025) more years of experience as
principals.

Transfers had an average of just over

six and one-half years in the principalship, while
promotees reported less than four years of previous
experience.
3.

When school district characteristics were matched
with mobility categories, no statistically signi­
ficant effects were found.

A compilation of the post card data showed:
4.

Over two thirds of the highly mobile principals, as
defined in this investigation, were employed in three
or more different schools during the 1968-1974 time
span.

5.

Within the limits of this research, more than onehalf of the current Michigan mobile principals have
two or less years of experience in their present
position.

6.

Of the mobile principals included in this study,
over one-third currently held positions in the
Central region of Michigan and almost sixty per cent
of the principals held their last position in the
South East or Central sections of the state.

Mark Lee Orchard
Conclusions and Recommendations
The author concluded that the relationships
that a principal has with the board of education in the
district in which the principal is employed are very
important factors in determining if a principal will
leave a position.

It was also concluded that the years

of experience a principal has in the principalship has
a definite bearing on the type of mobility the principal
experiences.

It was recommended that additional research

be conducted to examine school board-principal relation­
ships .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without the help and encouragement of manyindividual s the writer would not have been able to
complete this work.

Among those people are:

my wife, Diane, who has been a constant
source of support and understanding,
my daughters, Lori and Kari, who endured
my absences and kept me smiling,
my committee chairman, Dr. Samuel A. Moore, II,
who has continually encouraged me, and
provided immeasurable counsel,
my committee members, Dr. Daniel Kruger,
Dr. Alexander Kloster, and Dr. Marvin
Grandstaff, who willingly served on my
guidance committee, and
my research consultant, Bob Wilson, who
was very helpful when I needed aid.
A heartfelt thanks is extended to all who have
had a part in helping me complete this research project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents

iii

List of Tables

,

List of Figures

v
vii

Chapter
I

II

III

THE PROBLEM

1

Introduction ................................
Need for the S t u d y .........................
Purpose of the S t u d y .......................
Generalizability of the Study
.............
Research Questions of the Study ...........
Hypothesis Investigated ...................
Statement of the P r o b l e m ...................
Basic Assumptions for the s t u d y ...........
Procedural Steps and Methods ...............
Definition of T e r m s .......................
O v e r v i e w ....................................

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...................

17

Introduction ................................
Theories of Career Development .............
Administrator Mobility .....................
Superintendent Mobility
.................
Principal Mobility .......................
Elementary Principal Mobility
..........
Teacher Mobility ...........................
Related Research ...........................
S u m m a r y ....................................

17
17
22
23
34
44
45
50
54

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

55

Introduction ................................
Selection of the P r i n c i p a l s ...............
Instrumentation ...........................
The Post Card S u r v e y .....................
The Survey I n s t r u m e n t ...................
The I n t e r v i e w ...........................

55
55
56
56
57
61

iii

Page

Chapter
V a l i d i t y ..................................
R e l i a b i l i t y ..............................
Data Treatment and C o l l e c t i o n ...........
Data A n a l y s i s ............................
S u m m a r y ..................................
IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OFDATA
Introduction ..............................
Post Card Survey D a t a ...................
Design Implications
...................
Derived Post Card D a t a .................
Questionnaire D a t a .......................
Main H y p o t h e s e s ..........
Multivariate Results ...................
Personal Characteristics ...............
School District Characteristics
. . . .
Reasons for L e a v i n g ...................
S u m m a r y ..................................

V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
S u m m a r y ..................................
Purpose of the S t u d y ...................
Limitations of the Study
Review of the L i t e r a t u r e ...............
Designs of the S t u d y ...................
F i n d i n g s ..................................
D i s c u s s i o n ................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..............................
Recommendations
..........................

62
63
63
66
68
69
69
69
69
75
82
82
84
85
88
88
96
99
99
99
100
101
102
104
105
108
109

APPENDICES
A

Post Card S u r v e y ..........................

113

B

Post Card Survey Cover L e t t e r ...........

114

C

Questionnaire

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

115

D

Questionnaire Cover Letter ...............

118

E

Interview Instrument ......................

119

F

Selected Sections of the Questionnaire Used
in the Study of the Occupational Mobility
of Assistant P r i n c i p a l s ............... .

121

Interviewee Biographical Sketches and
C o m m e n t s ..................................

129

Michigan Divisions to Locate Mobile
P r i n c i p a l s ................................

138

G
H

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

............................
iv

139

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1

Page
Mobility Statements and Type of Superin­
tendent

25

Distribution of Insiders and Outsiders by
Population of School District

30

Chief Assignment Immediately Prior to
Appointment to the First Principalship

39

3.1

Additional Data Sources

60

3.2

Number in Each Classification of Mobile
Principals

64

3.3

Responses of Mobile Principals

65

3.4

Time-Line of Surveys

66

3.5

Alpha Limits for the Study

67

4.1

Post Card Survey Summation

70

4.2

Results of the Post Card Classification

72

4.3

Number of Highly Mobile and Less Mobile
Principals Derived from the Post Card Survey

73

Number of Insiders and Outsiders Derived
from the Post Card Survey

73

Number of Promotees and Transfers Derived
from the Post Card Survey

73

Number of Outside Promotees, Outside
Transfers, Inside Promotees, and Inside
Transfers Derived from the Post Card Survey

74

Number of Positions Held by Highly Mobile
Principals, 1968-1975

76

Mobile Principal Type v s . the Number of
Different Schools in which the Principals
Held Positions

77

2.2

2.3

4.4
4.5
4.6

4.7
4.8

v

Si

Table
4.9

Page
Type of Mobile Principal vs. Longevity in
Current School District

78

Mobile Principal Type vs. Years in Current
Position

78

Mobile Principal Type vs. Position Type
Held Immediately Prior to Holding the
Current Position

79

4.12

Geographic Distribution of Michigan Mobile
Principals

80

4.13

Geographic Location of the Last Position of
Mobile Michigan Secondary School Principals

81

Multivariate Analysis of Mobility -Personal Characteristics, School District
Characteristics, and Reasons for Leaving

84

4.15

Univariate Analysis of Personal Charac­
teristic Variables

86

4.16

Means and Standard Deviations of Status -Years Experience as Principals

87

Univariate Analysis of School District
Characteristic Variables

89

Univariate Analysis of Origin -- Reasons
for Leaving

91

Means of Insiders and Outsiders -- Reasons
for Leaving

93

Rank-Order Table of Reasons for Leaving
Mean Differences with Origin

94

4.10
4.11

4.14

4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1

Use of Post Card Data

10

2

Dichotomization of Independent Variables

71

3

Categorization of Mobile Principals

71

4

Two by Two by Two Model for the
Independent Variables

74

5

Design for Multivariate Analysis

75

vii

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Why do secondary school principals change positions?
In this study the researcher attempted to find factors that
are related to the mobility of public secondary school
administrators in Michigan.
Introduction
The mobility of school administrators from one job
to another presents serious problems to schools, school
boards, and communities that wish to maintain cohesive
educational programs.

Last year'*' ninety-three public

secondary school principals in Michigan changed positions.
2
In 1973 , the year before, eighty-seven public secondary
school principals moved from one position to another.
cost of interviewing, selecting

and training new

secondary school principals is immense.

If factors re­

lating to and predicating administrator mobility can be

Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1974-73, Michigan Education Association Publication
(Lansing, Michigan, 1974) pp. 117-222.

2

The

Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1973-74, Michigan Education Association Publication
(Lansing, Michigan, 1973) pp. 121-220.

2
pinpointed appreciable economies may be realized by
school districts and their communities.

The researcher's

primary intent in this study was to discover reasons why
secondary school principals leave their jobs.

Personal

characteristics and school district characteristics of
mobile Michigan principals were also studied.

If the

reported reasons for leaving and specific conditions
accompanying mobility, whether they be personal, organiza­
tional, financial, locational, family,interpersonal, or
whatever, can be identified, then a first step toward
possibly determining causal factors may have been taken.
Need for the Study
Several studies on occupational mobility exist and
several research projects have been carried out in the
field of business and management.

However, if only the

area of education is considered, little interest seems to
have been expressed in studying the mobility of the public
secondary school principal.

Considerable research has

been conducted on the mobility of school superintendents.
Junior high principals, elementary principals, assistant
3

See (1) W. Lloyd Warner and James C. Abegglen, Big
Business Leaders in America (New York: Atheneum C o ., 1963)
(2) Gertrude Bancroft and Stuart Garfinkle "Job Mobility
in 1961," (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Labor
Force Report no. 35, 1963)
(3) Herbert Parnes, Research on Labor Mobility, (Social
Science Research Council, New York, 1954)
(4) John B. Lansing and Eva Mueller, The Geographic
Mobility of Labor, (The University of Michigan Survey
Research Center, Ann Arbor, 1967)
(5) Lloyd G. Reynolds, The Structure of Labor Markets
(New York: Harper Brothers Co., 1951)

3
principals at all levels, and even teachers have been
the objects of studies on mobility.

These studies have

been reviewed in Chapter Two of this research.

An

absence of facts in the area of secondary school principal
mobility has contributed to a partial void in information
most vital to the study of mobility in the education
profession.
There is a growing need for more background in­
formation concerning factors associated with administrator
mobility.

The educational program disruption, time lost

in the selection process, financial output in interview­
ing, hiring, and training new secondary school principals
added impetus to conducting the present study.
According to occupational mobility theory, personal,
organizational, and environmental factors associated with
mobile people are basic to the study of their mobility.
Detection of these factors and a determination of their
impact may add to the

body of mobility knowledge.

To

discover reasons why secondary school principals leave
their jobs will enhance our knowledge of the everexpanding general fund of information which we generate
to explain why people behave as they do.
Purpose of the Study
The author's purpose in this study was to obtain
reasons why mobile principals at the secondary school
level left their last jobs and to determine what selected

4

personal characteristics of the mobile principal and
what selected school district characteristics were re­
lated to secondary school principal mobility.

In addi­

tion, it was also the aim of the author to provide a
framework for further research in the area of secondary
school administrator mobility so that causal variables
might be determined.

It also was hoped that chief school

administrators and school boards might use these findings
to alleviate factors which would influence able adminis­
trators to leave or to magnify factors that might en­
courage an incompetent administrator to resign.

It was

further the purpose of this study to make new knowledge
available to:

colleges of education which train adminis­

trators, college placement bureaus that recommend
principals for placement, the boards of education and
superintendents who select principals, and the principals
of schools in general.

All of these persons and agencies

are interested parties and can use this type of mobility
information.
Generalizability of the Study
The findings of this study may have impact far
beyond the limits of the study itself.

First, the random

assignment of mobile secondary school principals in
Michigan to their study groups will allow the results to
be generalized to other mobile secondary school principals

5
in Michigan.

Second, there is no reason to believe that

mobility relationships of secondary school principals are
a phenomena of only Michigan secondary school principals.
Therefore, the findings may logically extend to those
principals anywhere having similar personal character­
istics and surrounding conditions.

Finally, this concept

of mobility is not confined to the field of education.
The findings might be applicable to personnel in other
occupations where people move to and from jobs.
Research Questions of the Study
The author's purpose in this study was to examine
factors affecting the mobility of public secondary school
principals in Michigan.

Theoretically, this called for

a careful scrutiny of as many variables as possible
associated with secondary school principals and their
mobility.

Personal characteristics of the mobile principals

as well as school district characteristics were studied.
However, the major thrust of the research was an in­
vestigation of the reasons mobile secondary school
principals gave for leaving their former positions.
General research questions such as the following
were answered:

(1)

Were there effects when reasons for

leaving past jobs are matched with the mobility of
secondary school principals in Michigan?

(2)

Were there

differences in personal characteristics of highly mobile

6
secondary school principals and less mobile secondary
school principals in Michigan?

(3)

Were there dif­

ferences in school district characteristics of districts
employing highly mobile secondary school principals and
less mobile secondary school principals?
Hypotheses Investigated
For each of these sets of measures (1) reasons for
leaving the past job,

(2) personal characteristics, and

(3) school district characteristics, the null hypotheses
examined w e r e :
1. There will

be no effect due

to mobility.

2. There will

be no effect due

to origin.

3. There will

be no effect due

to status.

4.

be no interaction between mobility and

There will
origin.

5.

There will be no interaction between mobility and
status.

6.

There will be no interaction between origin and
status.

7.

There will be no mobility by origin by status
interaction.
The researcher's primary purpose in the study was

to discover the relationship between reasons for leaving
a job and degree of mobility.

Research hypothesis number

one was the central concern in this investigation.

Alpha

was set at .05 for the "reasons for leaving the past job"

7
section and at .025 for the personal characteristics
section and the school district characteristics section
of the research.

An overall alpha (probability of type

I error) for the entire study was one-tenth (.10).
Additional information relating to the alpha limits is
presented in Chapter III and Chapter IV.
Statement of the Problem
The problem resolved itself to:
1.

Identify various categories of mobile principals by
means of a postcard survey to the mobile principals
of Michigan.

2.

Obtain

by means of a questionnaire from random

samples in each category, those factors which are
perceived as being influential in causing a principal
to leave his position and selected personal and
school
3.

Obtain

district characteristics.
selected school district data from publications

of the Michigan State Department of Education and from
the Michigan Census tapes.
4.

Interview respondents in each of the categories of
Michigan mobile principals who had responded to the
initial postcard survey and questionnaire to expand
and clarify their responses and to amplify the informa­
tion collected.

8
5.

Analyze the relationships among the categories of
mobile principals for (a) reasons for leaving their
past position;

(b) personal characteristics; and (c)

school district characteristics.
6.

Interpret the analysis to detect the most reliable
factors which explain the reported causes of secondary
school principal mobility.
Basic Assumptions for the Study
To provide the basis for this study the following

assumptions were made:
1.

It was assumed that the questionnaire was adequate
to elicit the actual reasons for a principal leaving
the last position.

The number of variables were

purposely limited because the variables presented were
the variables of major concern due to their grounding
in previous research.

The mobile principals who

responded to a field test of the questionnaire con­
curred that the reasons included in the instrument
were clear and unambiguous, but that in some cases,
broad enough reasons were not listed.

Space was pro­

vided at the end of the questionnaire for the respond­
ing principals to expand their replies or to give
additional reasons for leaving that were missing on
the instrument.
2.

It was assumed that the principal's perceptions and
recall of past events were accurate.

In order to

9
carry out this research it was necessary to assume
that reasons for leaving a past job could be remem­
bered, identified, obtained, classified, and analyzed.
It also was assumed that the perceptions of the
secondary school principals in the study were re­
lated to their overt behavior and that the replies
obtained accurately represented the reasons for
leaving.
In summary, it was necessary to assume that:
1.

The

sample was representative.

a.

This would not apply if one hundred per

cent of

the sample responded.
b.

If less than one hundred per cent responded, it
was necessary to argue that all rival explana­
tions were reduced to those found.

2.

The

responding principals have accuratelyrecalled

past events.
3.

The measuring instrument was valid and reliable for
the intended purposes.

4.

The categories of mobile principals represented a
correct classification of those principals.
Procedural Steps and Methods
It was necessary to learn the names of the mobile

principals.

Since the study was limited to the State of

Michigan, copies of the Michigan Education Directory and
Buyer1s Guide (1969-1975) provided the names of the

10

the mobile principals.
1.

The entire population of Michigan public secondary
school principals who had changed positions at least
one time in the past seven years and who were current
principals was sent a postcard^ to complete and return.

The purpose of the postcard information was

to divide the mobile principals of Michigan into the
categories described in the diagram shown below.
FIGURE 1
Use of Postcard Data
POSTCARD

SEN T

Promotees
Ins ide r s
Transfers

Highly
M o b ile

Promotees
! Outsiders
Transfers
Promotees
Insiders

Less
Mob ile
Outsiders

^See Appendix A (p. 113).

Transfers
| Promotees
i
Transfers

11
A total of 270 postcards was mailed."*

At the assigned

cut-eff date, 228 mobile Michigan principals had
responded.
2.

A questionnaire^ was sent to a random sample of eightyeight of the principals who had responded to the post­
card survey.

Eleven mobile principals from each

category were included in the sample.

At the cut-off

date, eighty-seven of the principals had responded to
the questionnaire.^

The refinement of the instrument,

so that it would elicit the desired information, yet
still have the brevity necessary to encourage co­
operation, was difficult.

It was decided to maintain

an open-ended questionnaire to allow the participant
to go as far as possible in presenting information.
Q

3.

Interviews

were conducted with one mobile principal

from each category.

The interview enlarged the scope

of the study and made available additional information
not available from the postcard survey and the
questionnaire.

"*See Appendix B

Postcard Cover Letter

^See Appendix C

Instrument

7

(p. 114).

(p. 115).

See Appendix D

Questionnaire Cover Letter

See Appendix E

Interview Instrument

(p. 118).

O

(p. 119).

12
Definition of Terms
Secondary School Principal - Any person listed in the
Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide who was
an administrator of at least grades ten through twelve in
a public high school in Michigan.
Mobility - The movement of a present secondary school
principal from one position to another.

(This movement

did not necessarily include a geographic relocation,
but in each case included a different position than the
last one.)
Highly Mobile Secondary School Principal (HMSSP) - Those
principals who had changed positions at least twice in
the past seven years and were currently secondary school
principals in public schools in Michigan.
Less Mobile Secondary School Principal (LMSSP) - Those
principals who had changed positions no more than once in
the past seven years and were currently secondary school
principals in public schools in Michigan.
Origin - The location of the former position.

Origin was

divided into two groups:
a.

Insiders - the last position was in the same
school district as the present position,

b*

Outsiders - the last position was in a different
school district than the present
position.

Status - A measure of the direction of the occupational
mobility.

Status was divided into two areas:

13
a*

Promotees - the last job was that of a teacher,
coach, assistant principal, elementary
principal, or any other position that
was below the normal status of the
secondary school principal,

b*

Transfers - a person whose former position was
that of a principal.

Reasons for Leaving Former Position - A principal's per­
ception of the importance of selected underlying factors
that influenced the decision to leave the former position.
SEV - The state equalized valuation of the real property
of a school district for the purpose of taxing for govern­
mental agencies.
SEV/Pupil - The state equalized valuation divided by the
number of pupils in the entire school district.

The

number of pupils in the district was determined by the
Fourth Friday Count.
Overview
The survey postcard and questionnaire provided an
adequate overview for the author's purposes in this re­
search.

These two instruments were developed from the

literature which is reviewed in Chapter II.
of the study is detailed in Chapter III.

The design

In Chapter IV

the results of the postcard survey and the questionnaire
are analyzed, and in Chapter V the entire study is
summarized, conclusions stated, and salient findings dis­
cussed.

14

The postcard survey and questionnaire are pre­
sented next as a practical overview.
A.

Postcard Survey Instrument:
Position
Held

Year

Name of
School

School
District

74-75
73-74
72-73
71-72
70-71
69-70
68-69

B.

Questionnaire
"SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY OF
PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN:
1968-1975"
Please supply the following information by:

encircling the appropriate number, checking the box, or
completing the blank.
A.

General Information
(1)

Your sex:

M

F

(2)

Your age:

______

(3)

Your family status:

1.
2.
3.
4.

single
widow or widower
divorced
married

(if married, number of
children)
____

15

(4)

In your educational career how many years have
you been a secondary school principal?

(5)

____ years

When you took your present job, did your spouse
hold a full time job outside your home?

(6)

no

How many students are enrolled in your high school?
_________

(7)

yes

students

Do the administrators in your school district
bargain with the school board concerning salary
and other benefits?

(8)

yes

Are you planning to change jobs in the near future?
yes

B.

no

no

Your Last Position
Major Reasons for Leaving your Last Position

(Please check the appropriate column indicating if the
item was highly influential, moderately influential,
or not influential in causing you to leave your last
position.)

16

Possible Reasons for
Leaving
1.

Insufficient salary and
fringe benefits

2.

Little challenge in my
last position

3.

My contract was not
renewed

4.

I didn't like the
community

5.

Lack of recognition for
personal accomplishments

6.

My family wanted me to
change jobs

7.

I wanted to influence
educational policies
more

8.

Inadequate facilities
and materials

9.

Excessive duties on my
last job

Highly
Influential

Moderately
Influential

Little or no
Influence

10. The move was a personal
career advancement
11. There was a poor school
climate
12.

Disagreement with the
Board's educational
policies

If there were other main reasons why you left your
last job would you please list them below.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
Pertinent information concerning principal mobility
is reviewed in this chapter in the following sequence:
Theories of Career Development, Educational Administrator
Mobility, Teacher Mobility, General Related Literature,
and Summary.

In the section on Administrator Mobility

three specific topics were reviewed:

Superintendent

Mobility, Principal and Assistant Principal Mobility, and
Elementary Principal Mobility.

Selected findings from

each of these topics provided the foundation for this
study.

The research cited was briefly recapitulated and

the major findings related to this research were presented.
These contributions were used as a basis for the research
questions and hypotheses of this research.
Theories of Career Development'*'
The area of vocational mobility provided a rich
background for looking at the mobility of workers from a

■^Samuel H. Osipow, Theories of Career Development
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofrts , 196S) .
17

18
great variety of jobs.

Osipow, in his classic work,

Theories of Career Development, gave an excellent over­
view of the major constructs affecting occupational
choice.

These theories were grouped into the following

categories:

(1) the economic theory -- a person chooses

a job mainly by the economic advantage it can bring;
(2) the sociological theories -- the social factors of
parentage, environment, etc. determine to a large extent
the choice of a job;

(3) the accidental theory --

fortuitous events of fate control our occupational
destinies and decisions;

(4) the psycho-dynamic theories -

that the subconscious release of libidinal energies is
very useful and influential in the working out of
occupational choices; and (5) the trait-factor theories -that try to tie specific personality traits to job choice
2
and enjoyment.
Among the prominent theorists considered by
Osipow was Anne Roe and her theory of Personality and
Career Choice.

3

Roe's theory, based upon her findings

that major personality differences exist between physicalbiological and social scientists and that the personality
differences that do exist between various kinds of
scientists are due in some part to the influences of child
rearing practices, is that people in different occupations

o
Osipow, pp. 10-12.
3Ibid., pp. 17-37.

19
on the same level should report childhood environments
that differ.
Holland^ categorized people into six personality
types:

Realistic, Intellectual, Social, Conventional,

Enterprising, and Artistic.

By carefully defining each

of these types into conceptual models, Holland claimed
that each personality type is best suited for a specific
kind of work.

His ideas

were well-accepted and several

research studies have extended his findings.

School

principals were categorized by Holland as having a Social
Personality.""

Holland defined the Social Person in the

following manner.
The Social Person copes with his environment by
selecting goals, values, and tasks in which he can use
his skills with an interest in other persons in order to
train or change their behavior.
The Social Person is
typified by his social skills and his need for social
interaction; his characteristics include sociability,
nurturance, social presence, capacity for status, dominance,
and psychological-mindedness. He is concerned with the
welfare of dependent persons:
the poor, uneducated,
sick, unstable, young, and aged.
In problem solving, he
relies on his emotions and feelings rather than on his
intellectual resources.6
Based on Holland's Theory, the mobile school principal
should be highly concerned about his dependents and their

^■John L. Holland, Psychology of Vocational Choice
(Waltham, Massachusetts:
Blaisdell Publishing Co.,
1966) pp. 16-17.
“"Holland, p. 113.
6Ibid., p. 25.

20
welfare.

Because of Holland's theory an item was included

on the questionnaire dealing with the family's feelings
about the change of position as an influential reason for
the mobile principal leaving his last position.
Super's Developmental Self-Concept Theory of
Vocational Behavior supported the idea that a person
strives to implement his self-concept by choosing to
enter the occupation he sees as most likely to permit him
7
self-expression.
Super also specified the particular
behaviors a person engages in to implement his selfconcept vocationally are a function of the individual's
stage of life development.
As one matures, his self-concept becomes stable.
The manner in which it is implemented vocationally,
however, is dependent upon conditions external to
the individual.
Thus, attempts to make vocational
decisions during adolescence assume a different form
than those made during late middle age. According
to Super, diverse vocational behaviors can be under­
stood better by viewing them within the context of
the changing demands of the life cycle on the shape
of attempts to implement a self-concept.°
In the personal characteristics section of the question­
naire, the inquiry concerning the age of the mobile
principal is an attempt to merge Super's concept of age
differences in vocational decision-making with types of
mobile principals.

^Donald E. Super, The Psychology of Careers (New
(York: Harper & Row, 1957) pp. 71-163.
8
Osipow, op. cit., p. 118.

21
Jennings has made significant contributions to
the study of mobility.

His book, The Mobile Manager,

gave insights into the science of mobilography (the study
of mobility) as it pertains to business managers.
Jennings lists ten mobilographical findings.

9

They are:

(1) Mobility and corporate strategy are highly related;
(2) Men at the top strengthen their own mobility routes;
(3) There is a strong relationship between mobility and
competency;

(4) Mobility is highly related to growth;

(5) Mobility is largely a relationship between two or
more people;

(6) Mobility is related to entrance age;

(7) Mobility is related to building a reputation;
(8) Mobility is not directly related to intelligence;
(9) Mobility is related to leveraging; and (10) Mobility
is creating mobicentric managers.

Jennings summarizes

by stating that mobility is intertwined with visiposure
(a combination of visibility and exposure) and sponsor­
ship.^®
In his discussion of the finding that mobility is
largely a relationship between two or more people,
Jennings adds:
An outstanding quality of the men in the arrival
stage who eventually become presidents is that they
have the capacity to trust and to be trusted.
Few
men arrive at the top who are not trusted by some­
body already there.
They move up by being sponsored

9
Eugene E. Jennings, The Mobile Manager (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967) pp. 10-24.
10Ibid., p. 30.

22
by someone who has the power to promote or recommend
promotion.
This means that successful executives
move into the arrival stage largely with the help of
others.H
The relationship of the mobile principal (as
perceived by the principal himself) and the school board
members of the board from which he moved was considered
in the "reasons for leaving" section of the study.

This

inclusion was a direct attempt to test Jenning's thesis
that a trusting relationship existed in the inside
promotion of a principal.
Several other theorists made contributions to
vocational choice models and ideas, but those presented
are currently the more dominant in the field of occupa­
tional theorists.

In using an eclectic approach to the

theories of career development the author of this research
project tried to combine the salient personal characteristics
of mobile secondary school principals and school district
descriptors with reasons for leaving their last position
to present an internal-external picture of vocational
choice.

The approach was mostly sociological in nature.
Administrator Mobility
Literature dealing with three distinct kinds of

administrators in education was considered in the follow­
ing order:

superintendent mobility, principal and assistant

principal mobility, and elementary school principal mobility.

^Jennings, p. 13.

23
Superintendent Mobility
One of the first studies of mobility in education
was carried out by Chase and Sweitzer in which they in­
vestigated the mobility of superintendents in twelve
Midwestern states in 1953.

They reported that the length

of a superintendent's tenure is directly related to the
size of the school district in which he works.

12

The

tenure of office is likely to be short in small school
districts and is likely to increase as the size of the
11
district increases. *'
Sweitzer state that:

In their conclusions Chase and
the size of a district is an

important factor in the stability of leadership, the high
turnover rate raises serious questions about the adequacy
of the preparation of Midwestern administrators, rela­
tively few superintendents gain promotion by transferring
to larger districts, and that the highest fatality rates
(those leaving the superintendency) occur during the
first few years of s e r v i c e . I n

this early study the

authors used the terms "entrants" and "transfers" to

12

Francis S. Chase, and Robert E. Sweitzer, "Swiftly
Come and Swiftly Go," The Nation's Schools, LI
No. 55 (March 1953) p. 3 3 “
13Ibid., p. 55.
14Ibid., p. 58.

24

give a classification framework for mobile superinten­
dents .^
It was left to Carlson to provide a structural
orientation for many of the studies of educational
mobility.

He uses the terms "career-bound" and "place-

bound" administrators.

1 fi

A "place-bound" person is tied

to one school system while a "career-bound" individual
had a career spread out over two or more school systems.
Currently many researchers incorporate this useful
dichotomy in their studies.

It is obvious that adminis­

trators place themselves in the "place-bound" or "careerbound" categories by what they do and where they move
when changing positions.
In a study of a sample of Oregon school superin­
tendents Rose used the following instrument to predict
differences between the "career-bound" (C.B.) and the
"place-bound" (P.B.) superintendents.

15Ibid., p. 55.
1 fi

Richard 0. Carlson, Executive Succession and
Organizational Change (Chicago, Illinois: Midwest
Administration Center, 1962) p. 8.

25
TABLE 2.1
Mobility Statements and Type of Superintendent

Mobility Statements

Mean Score

17

Predic­
tion

C.B.

P.B.

2.4

2.6

C.B. < P.B.

2. I would advise a young man
entering the superintendency to
find a satisfactory position as
soon as possible and remain there
until retirement.
1.6

1.8

C.B. < P.B.

3. A superintendent who plans to
get ahead in the profession must
5.2
be willing to move his family.

4.9

C.B. > P.B.

4. If I had started a major
project in my district I would
feel an obligation to remain in
the district until its comple­
tion even if I were offered a
much better job.

3.5

4.0

C.B.

5. A person owes it to himself
and his family to watch con­
stantly for better job
opportunities.

3.3

3.8

C.B. > P.B.

6. My career plans have always
been to advance to more important
district superintendencies.
2.6

2.8

C.B. > P.B.

7. The job should come before
family for a superintendent in
his decision to move elsewhere.

2.4

C.B. > P.B.

1. The increased pressure would
make me hesitant to move to a
superintendency with more
responsibility

2.9

< P.B.

Robert L. Rose, "Career-Bound; Place-Bound: An
Attitude Study of the Superintendency," 1967, given in
Richard 0. Carlson, School Superintendents:
Careers and
Performance (Columbus, Ohio, 1972) pp. 59-60.

26

Mean Score
P.B.

Predic­
tion

8. Career success for the school
superintendent does not neces­
sarily involve his moving from
district to district.
4.7

5.0

C.B. < P.B.

9. A superintendent who has his
mind on a better position for
himself cannot do justice to his
present job.

2.4

2.5

C.B. < P.B.

10. I would not move to a better
job if I felt such a move would
be detrimental to the district
in which I am now employed.
3.4

3.4

C.B. < P.B.

11. I would not let my friend­
ship ties in a community stand
in the way of moving on to a
better superintendency.

3.6

3.4

C.B. > P.B.

12. It is difficult to name
truly successful superintendents
who have not held two or more
superintendencies during their
career.

4.4

3.1

C.B. > P.B.

Mobility Statements

C.B.

Rose's findings indicate that "career-bound" men were
more favorably inclined toward mobility than "placebound" m e n . ^
Carlson found that the desire to remain in the
present superintendency until retirement is related to
age.

His data show

that the desire to remain until

retirement is expressed more often by "place-bound" men
than by "career-bound" men among those fifty years of age

1O

Rose, p. 61.

27
and younger.

19

Carlson noted that questions of mobility

were questions of attitude and using this idea he studied
twenty-six Oregon superintendents who had been interviewed
for new positions within the past two years.

20

Thirty-

four per cent of the interviewed superintendents were
identified as being "career-bound" while only thirteen
per cent were identified as being "place-bound."

The

differences in the numbers of insiders and outsiders who
interviewed for new positions was statistically significant
at the .05 level in this study by Carlson.

21

A study by Carlson of some psychological and
sociological differences between "place-bound" and
"career-bound" superintendents revealed some striking
contrasts.

"Career-bound" superintendents saw themselves

as more confident, optimistic, and progressive than did
"place-bound" superintendents.

The decision to become

a superintendent was made at an earlier age and at a lower
position by the "career-bound" superintendent, and there
was considerable evidence of a career management to reach
the superintendency in this group.

22

In the sociological

19

Richard 0. Carlson, School Superintendents:
Career
and Performance (Columbus, Ohio:
Carles E. Merrill Pub­
lishing Co., 1972) p. 61.
^Ibid. , p . 61.
^Ibid. , p. 61.
22
Career and Place Bound School Superintendents:
Some
Psychological Differences.
A Project Report (Washington,
D.C., Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Center for
Advanced Study of Educational Administration, May 1969) p. 68.

28
study Carlson found that "career-bound" superintendents
were quicker to adopt educational innovations, were more
involved in the social network of the superintendent,
had higher status among chief school officials, and had
more of an outside reference group than "place-bound"
23
superintendents.
Probably one of the more widely used inventions
of Carlson is his formulation of the "insider" and "out­
sider" classifications.

In describing school superin­

tendents Carlson defined the "insider" and "outsider:"
The man who waits can be called an insider.
An insider has held one or more positions in the
system immediately before becoming its superinten­
dent.
Ordinarily he completes his career as super­
intendent in the one home system and thus is a onecity superintendent.
If the insider leaves the
superintendency before retirement age has been
reached, he often takes an existing, or frequently
a new, lower level administrative position in the
same home district.
The man who does not wait, but seeks the posi­
tion wherever it is to be found, can be called an
outsider.
His career is always spread over two or
more school systems. Having been brought in from
outside, he has never served the district in which
he is superintendent in any capacity, other than
as superintendent.
Ordinarily his career does not
stop with one superintendency.24
In further distinguishing an insider from an
outsider Carlson elaborated:
23

Career and Place Bound School Superintendents:
Some Sociological Difference.
A Project Report (Washing­
ton, D.C., Office of Education, Bureau of Research,
Center for Advanced Study of Educational Administration,
May 1969) p. 18.
2A

Carlson, Executive Succession and Organizational
Change, p. 7.

29
A distinction bstween insiders and outsiders
exists in the importance they assign to career and
place.
Both have made investments and sacrifices to
obtain the superintendent's credentials.
The in­
sider, however, seems to want a career as superin­
tendent only if it can be had in a specific place:
his home school system. He puts place of employ­
ment above a career as superintendent.
The in­
sider is place-bound.
The outsider puts career above
place. He leaves the home school system and takes
a superintendency elsewhere.
The outsider is not
bound to a place; he is career-bound.25
Most researchers in this interest area seem to have followed
Carlson's directions and consider insiders and outsiders
to be approximately equivalent in meaning with the terms,
"place-bound" and career-bound."

The terms are frequently

found to be used interchangeably in the professional
literature.
A secondary analysis of data gathered for the
American Association of School Administrators in a
nation-wide survey of school superintendents indicates
that place-bound and career-bound superintendents do
not exist in equal numbers, nor are they found in the
same proportion in school districts of all sizes.

About

thirty-five per cent of the 859 superintendents whose
records were available were insiders and about sixty26
five per cent were outsiders.
It is noteworthy that

^"*Ibid. , p . 8.
26

Profile of the School Superintendent (Washington,
D.C., American Association of School Administrators,
Research Division of the National Education Association,
1960) p. 4.

30
insiders are disproportionately more heavily represented
in larger school systems.

Table 2.2 shows some of

the relationships that were shown in this study to exist
between size of the school district and the classification
of the superintendent as being an insider or outsider.
TABLE 2.2
Distribution of Insiders and Outsiders by
Population of School D i s t r i c t ^
Population of
School District

Per cent
all outsiders

Number

Per cent of
all insiders

11

4

7

1

100,000 to
499,999

38

13

44

8

30,000 to
99,999

68

24

88

17

10,000 to
29,999

85

29

177

33

5,000 to
9,999

65

22

145

27

500,000 and
over

'

i
1
I
|

I

;
;
1

2,500 to
4,999
Totals

Number

01 *

22

8

289

100

•...

14

72

1

533

1

100
j
---------- 1

Table 2.2 indicates about seventeen per cent of all in­
siders and only about nine per cent of all outsiders are
in superintendencies in systems of more than 100,000 in­
habitants .
In order to consider the element of size and its
effects upon principal mobility, the author of this

27Ibid., p. 71.

!

31
research included two measures of size:

the number of

pupils in the entire district in which the mobile principal
is employed and the number of students in the school
where the mobile principal is presently working.
Watson, in his study of superintendents' mobility
constructs and succession patterns, also used Carlson's
inside-outside dichotomy.

Watson found that outsiders

tended to use more general constructs of mobility, while
insiders were not particularistic in construct forma28
tion.
This was illustrated by Watson's findings in
which outsiders were less specific than insiders in dis­
criminating among categories of intrinsic motivations
toward mobility -- personal, family, or value-oriented;
while outsiders were less specific in discriminating b e ­
tween two kinds of extrinsic mobility inducements -materialistic and prestigious.

Watson's findings tended

to support the hypothesis that differences exist between
insiders and outsiders in their perceived reasons for
leaving their past jobs.
Charters reported on forty-three superintendents
who left their positions in 1971.

His major finding was

that the superintendency in a small district is readily
interchangeable with the principalship of, or a subordinate

28

Gene D. Watson, "Superintendent Mobility Constructs
and Succession Patterns" (Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, March 2-6, 1970).

32

central office position, in a larger school district.

29

Dorland's findings in a study of Colorado School Superin­
tendents supported Charters' results.

Investigating the

causes of superintendent turnover from 1970-1973, Dorland
emphasized the areas of (1) job satisfaction;
influences;

(3) selection procedures;

(5) job performance;
needs.

30

(2) political

(4) qualifications;

(6) career goals; and (7) family

Among Dorland's findings were:

(a) a smaller

proportion of the population of the state was affected
by superintendent mobility than the percentage of turn­
over indicated since the majority of changes occurred in
very small school districts;

(b) superintendents involved

in turnover did not, for the most part, improve their
occupational career status but were inclined to accept
positions at the same or lower occupational levels;
(c) mobile superintendents exhibited independently
motivated movement depending on personal needs and aspira­
tions, but as a group, were attracted toward larger
communities within or outside the state; and (d) relatively
inexperienced superintendents showed a tendency to leave

29

W.W. Charters, Jr. "Instate Migration of Oregon
Superintendents:
Base-Line Data. A CASEA Occasional
Paper" (Eugene, Oregon.
Center for Advanced Study of
Educational Administration, March 1972) p. 14.
30

Lyle Thomas Dorland, Abstract - A Study of Colorado
School District Superintendent Mobility: 1970-1972.

33
positions sooner, usually within one to two years, while
those with more experience were more inclined to stay
31
longer in the superintendency.

Once they remained in

the same district beyond five years, mobility became
even less likely.
In 1966 at Michigan State University, Holloway
studied the reasons why school superintendents were dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions.

32

In

Holloway's research the school board members of superin­
tendents who had left their jobs were asked to stipulate
their perception of the factors which precipitated the
superintendent leaving.

The major findings of the study

were that most school superintendents fail because of
"personal reasons," lack of integrity in the eyes of the
board of education members, and because of conflicting
role perceptions between the failing superintendent and
the board of education.

If just the reactions of the

board members are used, only an outside or third party
view of the "real" reasons why superintendents left their
jobs was given.

The author of this study stated that the

person who changed jobs had vital reasons that only she
or he knew.

Therefore, it seems logical to seek the

31T,
•j
Ibid.
■^Hugh H. Holloway, (Unpublished Michigan State
University Ph.D. dissertation, 1966) Why School Superin­
tendents are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave their
Positions - A Study as Expressed by Members of Boards
of Education Involved in Selected Cases in Michigan.

34
reasons for leaving directly from mobile individuals.
A major contribution to the study of principal
mobility was made by the authors of the reviewed studies
of superintendent mobility.
fundamental concern w a s :

However, the question of

do the same relationships of

mobility of superintendents hold for principals?

Some

of the answers were found in the literature of principal
mobility.
Principal Mobility
Background information concerning the personal
characteristics and school district data of principals
is plentiful.

Surveys conducted by the National Associa­

tion of Secondary School Principals on the Secondary
School Principalship, Junior High School Principalship,
and The Assistant Principalship, elicited a great variety
of information about principals in the United States.
However, only the latest study, that of the Assistant
Principalship, reported specifically as to the occupational mobility of administrators.

33

In studying the

occupational mobility of assistant principals the popula­
tion sample was asked to provide data with regard to
their socio-economic background, formal educational pre­
paration, previous employment, factors influencing

33

Report of the Assistant Principalship (Washington,
D.C., National Association of Secondary School Principals,
1966) pp. 49-100.

35
occupational choices, influence of other individuals
on career decisions, occupational values at several
o/

career stages, and job satisfactions.

Because this

career study of assistant principals greatly influenced
the present research study, several portions of the
questionnaire

35

are presented in Appendix F.

(p.

121) .
Hoy and Aho used Carlson's terms of insider and
outsider in their consideration of succession patterns of
high school principals.

They found that although there

were many differences in relationships between insiders
and outsiders in staff relationships, there were no
significant differences between insiders and outsiders
with respect to aspects of job mobility, salary, tenure
in position, age and sensed ability of principals to
persuade superintendents of the need for change.

36

Al­

though the researchers emphasis in the study was to see
if differences between insiders and outsiders affected
principal-teacher relations and the ability of the
principal to act as a change agent, Hoy and Aho cited
striking differences between Carlson's findings with

34Ibid., p. 49.
33Ibid., pp. 95-100.
36
Wayne K. Hoy and Fred Aho, "Patterns of Succession
of High School Principals and Organizational Change,"
Planning and Changing. IV No. 2 (Summer 1973) p. 86.

36
superintendents and their findings with principals.

Out­

siders who were superintendents tended to be "careerbound" while insiders were "place-bound."
necessarily the case with principals.

This was not

Attitudes toward

mobility and occupational goals were not significantly
different for principals.

37

Hoy and Aho expounded upon

an intriguing hypothesis that boards of education may
look for superintendents who are change agents more fre­
quently than superintendents seek principals who are
change agents.

There are twice as many superintendents

who are outsiders than insiders according to Carlson, yet
the opposite ratio holds for the New Jersey principals
OQ

studied by Hoy and Aho.
In a study of the extent of change of position
and turnover in California high school principals from
1964-1970 McConnell found that in general, the percentage
of schools with turnover of principals decreased in
direct relationship to the increased size of schools.

39

In a section of the research designed to determine reasons
for the change of position and turnover of high school
principals McConnell reported:

3^Ibid. , p . 86.
38Ibid., p. 87.
3^Arleigh W. McConnell, "Why California Is Losing
Its Principals," Journal of Secondary Education,
XXXXVI (March 1971) 106.

37

Unfair or unsatisfactory district administrative
relationships 'edged out' promotion to a more de­
sirable position within the district as the chief
cause for leaving a position as principal.
The
rest of the top five causes of leaving a position
were, in order, 'unsatisfactory working conditions
related to job tensions', 'transfer to another dis­
trict to obtain a more desirable position', 'un­
satisfactory school board relationships', and 'in­
adequate latitude for leadership and/or innovation
and/or involvement in policy development'.40
In another section of the research McConnell found that
only twenty-five per cent of vacated principalships were
filled by assistant principals in the same district.

This

finding confirmed the work of Brown and Rentschler in a
study of reasons why the assistant principals do not
receive the promotion to the principalship.

They cite the

following reactions of secondary school principals and
elementary school principals that were given during a
1971 workshop.

Assistant principals do not become

principals because:

(1) a person may be completely compe­

tent, happy, and satisfied in the role of assistant
principal;

(2) the assistant principal has not been in

the position long enough to gain the skills, maturity,
and knowledge needed for the principalship; and (3) the
decision-making bodies desire "new blood" in the school
system.In

further studying the question of professional

40Ibid., p. 107.
/1

Glenn J. Brown and James E. Rentschlei-, "Why Don't
Assistant Principals Get the Principalship," Education
Digest, XXXIX (January 1974) 9.

advancement Brown and Rentschler asked Indiana junior
and senior high school principals, "what was your posi­
tion prior to assuming your first principalship?"

Of

the 284 principals that responded, 105 principals re­
ported that they had been assistant principals, 175 held
teaching positions, and the remaining six had had other
/o
positions such as counselor or coach.
Data gathered
by the National Association of Secondary School Principals
tended to support the hypothesis that the most direct
route to the secondary school principalship is not
necessarily through the position of the assistant principal.
The report stated that the position held most frequently
immediately prior to one first becoming a principal was
that of a secondary school teacher and that this was a
pattern of slightly more than one out of three principals
/ *3
in the total sample.
A table in the Report of the
Senior High-School Principalship provides a response to
the question, what was your chief assignment immediately
prior to appointment to your first principalship?

See

Table 2.3.

42Ibid., p. 11.
43

Report of The Senior High-School Principalship
(Washington, D.C., National Association of Secondary
School Principals, 1965) p. 34.

TABLE 2.3
Chief Assignment Immediately Prior to Appointment to the First Principalship k

Type

Location
Previous Position
Assistant or Vice
Principal

Program

— r
r

|

33

22

23

21

;

4

6

4

6

i
1

1

0

1

1

:

7

6

9

4

|

;

6

3

1

1

;

6

8

!

|
j

j

'

\

Department Chairman
or Area Supervisor

25

13

\

Superintendent

_ ... i

i

i

I

Elementary School
Principal

i

i

*

Position in District
or County Office
Athletic coach and/or
Director

;
j

2

1

7

19

1

:

16

0

2

1

i

;

15

9

!
j

t

Secondary School
Teacher

i

!
i

Dean, Counselor, or
other Guidance Position
Other

29

42

35

42

37

33

j
\

i
1
t

7

4

8

9

4
.

8

9

5

12

8
- -----

.

13

!

. ...... j ------- i

40
Motives for entering the principalship may also
be motives for changing positions.

Stanavage reported

that of the motives researchers suggested for becoming
a principal, the opportunity to bring about educational
change in the school far outranked all others.

45

Nicholson observed job satsfiers and dissatisfiers for
principals and stated that motivation factors related to
recognition and achievement bring satisfaction to high
school principals.

The areas that gave satisfaction

to principals were reported to be:
(1) devising new curriculum programs which were
generally accepted by supervisors, staff and parents,
(2) devising effective master schedules for the
school, (3) accomplishing well-ordered moves from an
old school building to a new one which included re­
orienting teachers, students, and parents, (4) wit­
nessing students graduating or becoming successful,
(5) writing federal proposals and observing their
implementations and results, (6) convincing teachers
to use different methods in the classroom, and
(7) passing regional accrediting committee's evalua­
tions of their school.47
Nicholson enumerated the job dissatisfiers for a principal
as being:

44

Report of the Senior High-School Principalship
(Washington, D.C., National Association of Secondary
School Principals, 1965) p. 35.
4^John A. Stanavage, "NCA Principals' Perception of
Their Principalship," North Central Association Quarterly,
XXXXVI (Winter 1972) 3TT.
Everett W. Nicholson, "The Practitioner's Guide
to Research: What Motivates Principals?" National
Association of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin,
LVIII, (January 1974) 108.
47Ibid., p. 108.

41
(1) poor relationships with teachers because of their
unwillingness to accept his ideas, (2) disappointment
in the quality of teacher's work, (3) poor relation­
ships with students because of his unwillingness to
accept their demands, (4) disappointment in students'
behaviors and attitudes, (5) poor relationships with
teachers and superintendents during periods of
collective negotiations, (6) lack of agreement with
school board policy and administration in regard to
running the school district, (7) poor relationships
with superintendents or other superordinates because
of their lack of competence or their demands, (8) poor
relationships with parents because of their refusal
to accept a new school program or their refusal to
accept criticism and professional advice directed to­
ward their children, (9) failure to achieve on the
job, and (10) failure to receive recognition on
achievement.48
The age of principals seemed to be influential
in their outlook toward mobility.

Stanavage reported

that younger principals were far more definite about de­
siring to move into district office administration or
supervision than were the older principals.

49

The Report

of the Secondary School Principalship indicated that high
school principals were generally appointed to their first
administrative position at a relatively young age -- on
the average, somewhere between thirty and thirty-four.

50

Also in the total sample included in the report, about
three principals in ten responded that they were unequiv­
ocally satisfied with their present position in the sense

48

Nicholson, National Association of Secondary School
Principals' Bulletin, pp. 107-108.
49

Stanavage, North Central Association Quarterly,
p. 328.
•^Report of the Senior High-School Principalship,
p. 21.

42
of having no plans to move to another position.

Of those

desiring to move to another assignment, the position
most frequently indicated as being a desirable job was
51
that of a superintendency.
Age seemed to be a factor in the desire for unioniza­
tion among school principals.

Stanavage found that

support for unionization increases proportionately with
the age of the principal and the size of his school.

52

Urban principals also were more likely to favor the union
route, although less than twelve per cent of city
principals opted for this approach.

53

The greatest;

support for the independent organization (unionization)
of secondary school administrators came from young
principals in the medium-sized school in urban or suburban districts.

54

Questions regarding age and union

membership were incorporated into the questionnaire of
this research to see if these relationships harbingered
any predictions for Michigan secondary school principals.
Mas in 1968 studied the occupational mobility of
secondary school assistant principals.

In looking at

51Ibid., p. 91.
52

Stanavage, North Central Association Quarterly 324.

53
Ibid., p. 324.
54Ibid., p. 325.

43
determinants of mobility when considering entry, de­
parture and longevity patterns Mas found that only
eighteen per cent of the assistant principals projected
a desire to remain in the position.

55

It was interesting

to note that the assistant principalship was ranked be­
low teaching and all other educational positions studied
in all but two of nine job satisfaction categories.
Stanavage's report on principals differed from M a s '
findings on assistant principals when future career plans
were considered.

In Stanavage's study almost sixty-two

per cent of the senior high school principals hoped to
56

be in the principals office five years in the future.

A study exploring differences between the assistant
principals classified as being mobiles and immobiles
with respect to role, present and future job plans and
needs for job satisfaction was conducted by Foster.

He

found that the behaviors of the immobiles were perceived
as embracing the concerns of the institution for which
they worked, while the behaviors of mobiles were per­
ceived as aligned with the needs of the individual members
within tiie organization.

57

Joseph Mas, Abstract - The Occupational Mobility
of Secondary School Assistant Principals^ 1968.
56Ibid.
57

Morris Allen Foster, Abstract - A Study of Admin­
istrative Behavior and Factors Related to Upward Mobility
in Three Selected Metropolitan School Systems, 1969.

44
Elementary Principal Mobility
Two studies of elementary school principal
mobility provided background for this research.

Castagna

identified twenty-four items as having a high degree of
influence in a positive manner on the mobility among
public school elementary principals in Connecticut from
1953-1961.

Seventeen of the twenty-four positive factors

were in the fields of administration and operation of
schools.

Among the positive items were the prospect of

increased leadership and advancement opportunities, more
responsibility for the total school program, increased
involvement in the formulation and execution of school
policies and budgetary matters, dissatisfaction with
present salary and prospect of greater salary games,
differences of opinion and conflicts with central
administrative staff, boards of education and community
pressure groups disagreeing concerning the purposes of
the elementary school, inadequate professional staff and
high pupil-teacher and teacher-principal ratios.

58

Castagna reported that mobility was greatest in towns of
less than

10,000

in population and that the amount of

mobility that existed during the period studied was
approximately ten per cent per year . ^ 9

CO

Joseph Peter Castagna, Abstract - Mobility Among
Public Elementary School Principals of Connecticut from

Tg'57"'THr6ugirTTOTT9gT:
59Ibid.

45
A relationship between age and mobility was found
by Manning in a study of Ohio elementary school principals.
Manning found that the older a principal becomes, the
more likely he is to be classified as non-mobile and that
there appeared to be no relationship between mobility
and the size of the school district.^
Teacher Mobility
In 1970 a study by Kowitz, newly hired Oklahoma
teachers who were the more mobile were found to have higher
salaries than the less mobile.

61

Kowitz also reported

that there was no discernable age factor in the mobility
of men, and that marital status was not a predictive
factor in mobility.

6 9

Todd's findings support the notion

that age is a factor in teacher mobility.

In looking at

the circumstances related to mobility patterns of business
education teachers in Iowa public schools, the following
items were found to have a significant statistical rela­
tionship (at the alpha = .05 level) to the occupational
plans of male and female teachers:

age, number of years

of teaching experience, number of different school systems

60

Richard Franklin Manning, Abstract - A School
Principalship: A Study of Mobility and Its Relationship
to Educational Leadership, 1968.
^ G e r a l d T. Kowitz, Abstract - Mobility in the
Educational Profession, 1970.
62Ibid.

46

in which the teacher had been employed

and ultimate

geographic location in which the teacher planned to
6^
reside.
Female business education teachers' mobility
was related to the employment status of their spouses,
but male teachers showed no such relationship.

64

How teachers deferred status to their principal
appeared to be an important factor in their mobility and
promotability in a study conducted by Bogert in 1971.
The strength of teachers' status obeisance to principals,
and teachers' aspirations for upward mobility within
their employing school districts, were positively related (r = .72) to each other.

65

Bogert also discovered

that the strength of teachers' status obeisance to
principals and principals' perceptions of the promotability of teachers were positively related to each other.
Salary appeared to be a major contributor to
mobility of teachers in at least two studies.

In a 1972

North Carolina study of teacher interstate mobility
Pearson reported that the major reasons for leaving North
Carolina given by beginning teachers were inadequate

Richard John Todd, Abstract - Factors Related to
the Mobility Patterns of Business Education Teachers~in
Iowa Public Secondary Schools, 1970.

Promotability

66ibid.

66

47

aalary, poor working conditions and inadequate fringe
benefits, in descending order.

7

Butefish did an analysis of causative factors
in teacher mobility in a study of Texas teachers.

He

found that there existed a commonality of reasons for
which teachers leave small school systems.

Within the

limits of the research, Butefish showed that community
conditions, working conditions and administration of the
school were the categories receiving the greatest emphasis
/:o
as turnover factors.
But also included in the reasons
were:

low salary scale, lack of opportunity for advance­

ment, limitation of recreational activities, inadequate
school facilities, lack of administrative support,
excessive extra duties, inadequate supplies and the School
fin

Board's lack of awareness of youth's needs.
Normal "determinants of mobility" such as age,
number of dependents and prior labor market experience
were supported in a study by Otlewski of Indiana teacher
mobility in 1 9 7 2 . ^

In addition, certain attitudinal

fi7

Douglas Lamar Pearson, Abstract - Teacher Inter­
state Mobility in North Carolina: A Comparison of tEose
who Leave with Those Who Stay and Those Who Enter from
Other States, 1972.
_
William Lewis Butefish, Abstract - A n Analysis of
Causative Factors in Teacher Mobility, 1967.
69Ibid.
70

Robert E. Otlewski, Abstract - Economic and
Psychological Analysis of Labor Mobility:
A Study of
the Indiana Secondary School Teacher, 1972.

48

variables such as desire to teach

a different subject

area, lack of sufficient autonomy on the job and in­
adequate communication with supervisors were found to
contribute to mobility.

71

In a research project on college faculty mobility,
productivity, and achievement at Michigan State University
in 1964, Cammack reported that:

(1) voluntary termi­

nated faculty members were slightly younger and were
receiving higher mean salaries than those who had remained
at the university;

(2 ) faculty members who had remained

and were high on the productivity and achievement scales
were found to be more satisfied with the administrative
attitudes and practices and with physical facilities and
resources available at the university generally;
(3) economic compensations, especially salaries, were
found to be highly influential in the decisions of the
faculty members to remain in a position or to seek employ­
ment elsewhere and (4) tenure was found to be of greater
importance to faculty members who had been less successful
72
in gaining recognition within the academic discipline.

71

Robert E. Otlewski, Abstract - Economic and
Psychological Analysis of Labor Mobility: A Study of
the Indiana Secondary School Teacher, 1972.
72

Elwin F. Cammack, Ed.D., (Unpublished Michigan
State University Dissertation, 1964) A Study of Factors
Related to Mobility and Faculty Productivity' ancT
Achievement at Michigan State University; A FolTow-Up
Study.

49

Cammack's finding that administrative policies
were important in the retention of college faculty was
supported by Balyeat in a research study for the Office
of Education.

Balyeat classified employment satisfac­

tions and dissatisfactions with their accompanying levels
of faculty morale and motivation into two groups:

those

derived from the basic salary and those derived from socalled fringe factors.

Looking at the fringe factors

Balyeat discovered the majority of faculty turnover was
a result of the cumulative dissatisfaction with general
administrative policies and practices relating to
facilities and faculty personnel policies that did not
meet faculty needs.

73

Balyeat provided fifty-seven

factors which relate to institutional environment that
could motivate a college faculty.
In The Mobility of College Faculty, a 1964 book
by Marshall, many aspects of college faculty mobility
were considered.

Marshall presented a rank-ordered list

of reasons for holding faculty in their jobs.

Among

the factors given as reasons for faculty staying on their
jobs were:

tenure, salary, fringe benefits, geographic

location, community offerings, promotion opportunities,
"7/
and others.
Marshall's findings indicate that satis­
factory work condition, salary, geographic location and

73

Ralph E. Balyeat, Abstract - Factors Affecting the
Acquisition and Retention of College Faculty.
Final
Report, 1968.
^ H o w a r d D. Marshall, The Mobility of College Fac­
ulties (New York: Pageant Press Inc., 1964) p. 62.

50

promotion opportunity, in that order were most influ­
ential in determining the mobility of college faculty
members.7"*
Related Research
In a review of the research on occupational
mobility by Salome and Gould in 1974, the authors pointed
out that the factors motivating occupational mobility are
based on the values of society.

7 fi

Influential factors

in our class society are education, occupation, and in­
come.

The authors stated that occupational mobility can

be either positive or negative in its consequences.

77

Negative effects of occupational mobility char­
acteristically fall in the areas of family relationships,
the cost of movement, and personal dissatisfaction.
Imundo examined the increasing importance of the social
and psychological effects of mobility.

The problem of

relocation of wives and children is often harder for
families than for the mobile manager.

78

Imundo stated

that the "mobility syndrome" (behavior patterns and
roles geared to temporary relationships with friends,

7 5 Ibid.,

p. 62.

78Jerome J. Salomone and Betty Ann Gould, AbstractReview and Synthesis of Research on Occupational Mobility,
WTZT.
77
Salome and Gould.
78Louis V. Imundo, Jr., "Problems Associated with
Managerial Mobility," Personnel Journal,LIII, No. 12
(Dec. 1974) 911.

51

neighbors, and community affairs) is common among the
highly mobile families.

79

Types of associated problems

such as the "mobility syndrome" are causing large corpo­
rations to take a second long look at their policies of
constantly moving their top managers.
Longest and Clawson scrutinized the extremely
high cost of labor turnover in a hospital setting.

The

costs of hiring, training, loss of production, and in­
efficient use of facilities during the training period
are immense.

Their major contribution was the identifica­

tion of the most important factor in reducing personnel
turnover as being the careful selection of the employee
in the first place.

80

Additional suggestions for reduc­

ing turnover were listed.
In applying John Holland's Vocational Theory to
the study of occupational mobility of men age fortyfive to fifty-nine, Parsons found that "changers" were
81
more satisfied with their current job than "non-changers".
Parson reported that the percentage of changers to non­
changers increased significantly as the age cohort

7 9 Ibid.,

p. 913.

80

Beaufort B. Longest, Jr. and Donald E. Clawson,
"The Effect of Selected Factors on Hospital Turnover
Rates," Personnel Journal, LIII, No. 1 (January 1974)
32.
81

George Edward Parsons, Abstract - An Application of
John Holland's Vocational Theory to an Empirical Study of
Occupational Mobility of Men age 45 to 5 9 , 1971.

52

examined became younger, as the self-report of health
moved from poor to excellent, as one moved from the North­
east or Northcentral U.S., as the place of residency at
age fifteen changed from a rural to urban status and as
the number of school years completed increased.

82

Outstanding research on mobility has been done
by Warner and Abegglen.

In their book on the mobility

of business executives between 1928 and 1952, they looked
at sociological factors of occupational origins, educa­
tion, family and marriages of the American business
elite.

83

A most helpful section of the book presented

the methods and techniques used by Warner and Abegglen
in conducting their research.

Their second book., pub­

lished in 1963, seemed to be an extension and update of
their earlier work.

84

An additional section in the book

reported on the personality of the executive and a
classification of their wives.
In a classic book considering the mobility of
college professors, Caplow studied the faculties of ten
universities.

He considered how vacancies occur, pro­

cedures of recruitment, patterns of choice, the process

8 2 Ibid.

83

W. Lloyd Warner and James C. Abegglen, Occupational
Mobility (Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota
Press, 1955).
84

W. Lloyd Warner and James C. Abegglen, Big Business
Leaders in America (New York: Atheneum C o ., 1963).

53

of selection and the then current trends in the college
QC

teaching profession.
Present economic conditions and job openings have
affected the mobility of professionals.

Job availability

has placed serious limitations upon mobility.

O'Toole

stated:
A portentous social pattern is beginning to
emerge in many industrialized nations.
In socialist
and capitalist economies alike, increasing numbers
of highly trained and qualified workers are unable
to find jobs that require their skills.
Thus, a
large and growing number of individuals are forced
to take jobs that can be performed just as adequately
by workers who have far lower levels of educational
attainment .86
Morris, Stuckhardt and Kusel concurred:
For those seeking initial employment or transfer
employment in education today, it is no secret that
available opportunities are extremely limited.
O'Toole gave the prognosis of the "overeducated for the
job" plight of many present and future workers by saying:
People who feel they deserve better jobs than they
have come to suffer from what is known as status
conflict. At the extreme, some of these workers
come to feel trapped in bad jobs, sensing that by
rights they deserve better but by circumstances
they will probably never achieve more.
These
feelings are primary sources of dissatisfaction
with life and work and correlate highly with prob­
lems of poor physical and mental health.

85

Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee, The Academic
Marketplace (New York:
Basic Books Inc., 1958).
James O'Toole, "The Reserve Army of the Under­
employed," Change, Vol. XII, No. 4 (May 1975) 26.
®^Jerry W. Morris, Michael H. Stuckhardt and
Donald R. Kusel, "A Job Suitability Scale," Kappa Delta
Pi Record (April 1975) 114.
^O'Toole, Change, 28.

54

It had been axiomatic that job dissatisfaction has re­
sulted in increased mobility when jobs were available,
but when the work is not satisfying O'Toole gave the
following warning:
What is clear from almost every study of job
dissatisfaction is that the placing of intelligent
and/or highly qualified workers in dull and unchallenging jobs is a prescription for pathology -for the worker, the employer, and the s o c i e t y .
Summary
The research on occupational mobility provided
sample constructs and ideas for a study of the mobility
of secondary school principals in Michigan.
used an eclectic

The author

approach in selecting from the theories

and studies reviewed.

A great variety of factors appeared

to be related to mobility.

However, no one set of

circumstances surrounding the mobile educator or sample
population emerged as a distinct causative variable.

For

example, the factor of age was significantly present in
several studies, yet in other studies the authors stated
that age had no bearing on mobility.

In summarizing the

literature on mobility it might be appropriately stated
that no one factor seemed to be a consistent determinant
of mobility.

And, still, the researcher must be con­

cerned with exogenous variables.

Toole, Change, 28.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction
The author's intent in Chapter III was to explain
the techniques and procedures which were used in con­
ducting this research.

Topics covered in this chapter

are the selection of principals, the description of the
instrumentation, and the collection, treatment

and

analysis of the data.
Selection of the Principals
It was first necessary to identify current
secondary school principals who had changed positions
at least once during the school years included in the
time span between 1968 and 1974.

An annual publication

of the Michigan Education Association, the Michigan
Education Directory and Buyer's Guide, supplied the names
of principals of each secondary school for each year.
By comparing the names of the principals for each school
for successive years the writer was able to discover
which current principals had changed positions at least
once during the past seven school years.

It was found

that 270 current secondary school principals in Michigan
55

56

had changed positions at least once during the last seven
school years.'*'

It was also determined that of the 270

senior high schools having the mobile principals as the
administrator during the 1974-1975 school year, fiftyseven schools had reported at least two different princi­
pals and 213 schools indicated one change of principals
during the seven year time span.
Since a major concern in the study was to determine
the factors affecting the mobility of the subjects, suf­
ficient information was not available from the Michigan
Education Directory and Buyer's Guide regarding the move­
ment of the individual principal.

All that was ascer­

tainable from the directory was that the current principal
had changed positions at least once.

Therefore, to

classify the mobile principals into the eight predeter­
mined categories of highly mobile and less mobile, in­
sider and outsider, and promotee and transfer, additional
data were essential.

It was decided to collect this in­

formation through the use of a concise post card survey.
Instrumentation
The Post Card Survey
The author's purpose in conducting the post card
survey was twofold.

First, the collection of data would

permit the categorization of principals on the independent

Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide: 7
editions, 1968-1969 through 1974-1975, Michigan Education
Association Publication (Lansing, Michigan).

57

variables, and second, principals who responded to an
initial post card survey might be more predisposed to
cooperate in responding to a later questionnaire.
Several mobile educators who were not subjects in the
study were asked to contribute to the construction of the
material to be included on the post card.

They made

suggestions for the format, useability, and ease of
completing the desired information.

These suggestions

were incorporated into the final version of the post
card which was submitted to the population of mobile
Michigan principals.

See Appendix A (p. 113).

The Survey Instrument
Butefish stated concerning teacher mobility:
Regardless of which technique is used to get the
necessary information, a comprehensive questioning
is necessary.
To get to the heart of causative
factors in teacher mobility, a systematic, thorough
coverage of all possible reasons for which teachers
leave is basic to the interview or questionnaire .2
It can be argued that this also holds true for research
on principal mobility.

A composite questionnaire was

constructed as the principal research tool for this study.
The instrument was developed by the author who relied
heavily upon previous research, especially that of The
National Association of Secondary School Principals in
The Report of the Assistant Principalship and the work of
Butefish.

Pertinent parts of the questionnaire concerning

^William L. Butefish, "Do You Know Why Your Teachers
Are Leaving?" School Management, XV, No. 2 (May 1971) 16.

58
the career mobility of assistant principals were pre­
sented in Chapter II.

Butefish, The Director of Student

Teaching in the College of Education at the University of
Tennessee, has constructed a questionnaire to try to
elicit the causative factors of teacher mobility.
Butefish reported that his instrument was synthesized
from:
(1 ) an exhaustive review of professional literature
concerned with mobility, (2 ) exit questionnaires
already in use, and (3) interviews with school
administrators concerning their ideas as to why
teachers leave s c h o o l s . 3
The instrument for this investigation was designed
to include questions which would elicit objective data
and perceptions of mobile principals in the areas of
personal characteristics, school district characteristics,
and reasons for leaving the last position.

The specific

questions were derived from specific studies, theoretical
constructs, and personal interest.
listing of over

200

After an initial

possible reasons that principals might

give for leaving their last position, the author, upon
the advice of D r s . Samuel Moore II and Philip Marcus,
faculty members at Michigan State University, selected
what were perceived to be the most salient factors in
determining principal mobility.

The cluster of factors

was narrowed to twenty-three factors for inclusion in
this research.

These factors were partitioned into

areas of selected personal characteristics, selected

3Ibid., p. 16.

59

school district characteristics
for leaving the last position.

and selected reasons
Descriptors of these

divisions included:
A.

Personal Characteristics
1

. sex

2

. age

3.

family status

4.

number of children

5.

years spent as a secondary school principal

6

. spouse working

7.
B.

plans to change jobs

School District Characteristics
1

. number of students in current high school

2

. presence of an administrative bargaining unit

3.

total number of students in the district

4.

poverty level students in the district

5.

number of district residents who did not move
during the years 1965 - 1970

6

. state equalization value per pupil of the
district

C.

Perceived Reasons for Leaving the Last Position
1

. insufficient salary and fringe benefits

2

. little challenge in the last position

3.

contract not renewed

4.

dislike of community

5.

lack of recognition

60

6

.

7.
8

.

9.

family desire to move
desire to influence educational policies more
inadequate facilities and materials
excessive duties

10.

personal career advancement

11.

poor school climate

12.

disagreement with the Board's educational
policies

All the data for the personal characteristics section and
the reasons for leaving section were obtained from the
questionnaire.

The information for the school district

characteristics was collected from several sources.
These specific factors and the sources used to obtain
information about them are outlined in Table 3.1 which
follows.
TABLE 3.1
Additional Data Sources

Factor

Data Source

Size of current high school

mobile principal

Presence of an administrative
unit that bargains with the
Board

mobile principal

Total number of pupils in the
entire school district

Michigan Department of
Education Bulletin 1012

Number of poverty level students
in the district

1970 Census Fourth Count
School District Data
Tape

Number of immobile residents
in the school district

1970 Census Fourth Count
School District Data
Tape

State Equalized Valuation per
pupil in the school district

Michigap Department of
Education Bulletin 1012

61

To overcome the difficulty of obtaining the real
reasons for leaving from a given set of only twelve
factors, an open-ended question was included to elicit
comments from the respondents.

The open-ended inquiry

asked the mobile principal to state any other reasons
than those listed that contributed significantly to their
leaving the last position.

Through the open-ended

question it was hoped to gain knowledge of reasons which
were highly influential, yet individual in nature.
The Interview
It was reasoned by the researcher and advisory
committee that additional pertinent information might be
available from interviews of mobile principals who
participated in the study.

The interview was an attempt

to elicit further information that was alluded to by
written comments on the returned questionnaire and to
examine specific reasons that were given as causes for
leaving the last position.

Interviews were conducted

with one principal from each of the eight categories.
The interviews and observations included approximately
one-half day visits to each school.

Generally the inter­

views were about one hour in duration and were tape re­
corded with the permission of the administrator being
interviewed.

The inquiries during the interviews were

structured to give maximum opportunity for each principal
to elaborate on the reasons that were given on his

62

returned questionnaire.

Interview questions were con­

structed to provide a conducive atmosphere for drawing
out covert reasons for changing positions that were not
available from questionnaire data.
Validity
The validity of the survey instrument was estab­
lished through testing the questionnaire with current
principals who were not included in the formal study.
After a rough draft of the instrument was constructed,
five mobile principals were asked to respond to the
questionnaire.

They made recommendations that were in­

corporated in the second draft.

Then the instrument was

submitted to Office of Research Consultation personnel
at Michigan State University.

Members of the professional

staff there also made comments on the contents and
structure of the instrument.
were then made.

Additional adjustments

Finally, the questionnaire was submitted

to a panel of mobile educators, teachers, and principals
who had changed positions within the past year.

Recom­

mendations from this group were considered and incorporated
into the instrument following consultation with the
advisory committee and members of the Office of Research
Consultation at Michigan State University.

Since the

entire population of mobile Michigan principals was
initially surveyed and since a random sample from each of
the eight groups of mobile Michigan principals was taken,

63

the typical concerns for reducing both internal and
external validity were not inherent in the study.
Validity was assumed after the revisions were complete.
Reliability
Reliability was also established by the nattire of
the variables investigated in the study.

Information

garnered from the survey instrument if gathered again
using the same questionnaire would remain highly constant.
Four mobile principals not included in the study gave
the same reply, with one exception, when administered
the identical questionnaire a second time.

It can be

assumed that variables such as age, size of the school
district, and perception of reasons for leaving the last
position, if accurately reported, would remain stable
and consistent.

Such data can be considered reliable in

and of themselves.
Data Treatment and Collection
Post Card Survey
On March 17, 1975 the stamped post card with an
accompanying cover letter was mailed to the 270 mobile
principals.

As of the cut-off date, 228 principals had

responded to the intial post card survey.

The 228

principals were categorized into the eight divisions of
the independent variable.

A discussion and analysis of

the classification of the 228 returns will be presented

64

in Chapter IV.

The 228 responses represented an 84.4 per

cent return of the post cards mailed.

The following is

a breakdown of the classifications.
TABLE 3.2
Number in Each Classification of Mobile Principals
Number in the
Category

Classification
(HMOP)

42

(HMOT)

37

(HMIP)

32

(HMIT)

13

Less Mobile Outside Promotee

(LMOP)

36

Less Mobile Outside Transfer

(LMOT)

16

Less Mobile Inside Promotee

(LMIP)

26

Less Mobile Inside Transfer

(LMIT)

12

Of the total returns five principals or 2.19 per cent of
the sample were classified as demotees and therefore were
not applicable for this investigation.

Nine returns or

3.95 per cent of the returns were unable to be classified
for a variety of reasons.

Some responses were incomplete.

Others contained information not able to be classified
into the categories provided.

A total of 214 returns or

93.86 per cent of the returns of the post card survey
were useable for the purposes of this study.
The post cards were keyed numerically to aid the
researcher in identifying principals who later would be

65

mailed the survey instrument and randomly selecting a
population sample from each category.
The Questionnaire
A total of eighty-eight questionnaires were mailed
to those mobile principals randomly selected from each of
the eight categories.

Eleven subjects from each group

received a survey instrument.

Ninety-eight and nine-tenths

per cent or eight-seven of the eighty-eight questionnaires
were returned.

A breakdown of the responses follows:
TABLE 3.3

Responses of Mobile Principals
Potential
Returns

Group

Actually
Returned

Percentage of
Returns

Highly Mobile
Outside Promotee

11

11

100

Highly Mobile
Outside Transfer

11

11

100

Highly Mobile
Inside Promotee

11

11

100

Highly Mobile
Inside Transfer

11

11

100

Less Mobile
Outside Promotee

11

11

100

Less Mobile
Outside Transfer

11

11

100

Less Mobile
Inside Promotee

11

11

100

Less Mobile
Inside Transfer

11

10

90.0

Totals

88

87

98.86

66

It was the researcher's opinion that the excellent
response was due in part to the brevity of the ques­
tionnaire coupled with a carry over effect given by the
original post card survey reply.
The sequence of the data collection followed the
time line described below:
TABLE 3.4
Time-Line of Surveys
1975 Date_________________________ Activity
March 17

initial post card survey mailed

April

post card responses summarized and
categorized

1

April 3

questionnaire sent to random sample

April 15

where needed, personal letter reminder
mailed

April 25

remailing when needed

May 7

closing date for questionnaire returns
Data Analysis
It was decided to analyze the data using a two

by two by two design in which data were studied within
groups and compared between the eight groups on the in­
dependent variable.

Since alternative analyses required

that correlations between measures be equal, multivariate
analysis was chosen to treat the data.

The Multivariate

Analysis of Variance computer program constructed by

67

Jeremy Finn was used to provide the computational work.
Because a two by two by two design was used, post hoc
comparisons were not anticipated unless interactions were
found.

If statistical significance existed, a comparison

of group means on the variable under scrutinization might
give the direction of the finding.
The alpha for all the statistical tests was set
at .10.

Since the research was divided into a personal

characteristics section, a school district characteristics
section, and a reasons for leaving section, each section
was considered separately.

The alpha levels were estab­

lished at .05 for the reasons for leaving section, and
at .025 for each of the other sections.

Table 3.5

illustrates this.
TABLE 3.5
Alpha Limits for the Study

Characteristics_____ Leaving
.025

.025

.05

68

Summary
In Chapter III the researcher was concerned with
the research method, study population, instrumentation,
and data collecting, processing, and analysis procedures
used in this research.

Justification was made for

collecting data from more than one source and for the
instrumentation used.

The study population and sample

was described and techniques of data collection were
outlined.

Methods used for analyzing the data gathered

were presented.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction
The responses from the two mailings, the post
card survey and the questionnaire

included information

from 228 mobile principals and a random sample of eightyeight of these mobile principals.

The returns also

generated descriptive data which did not bear directly
on the hypothesis generated for this study.

A presenta­

tion of this descriptive information available from the
post card survey will be made in the first part of
Chapter IV while the results of testing the hypotheses
by Multivariate Analysis will be described in the latter
part of the chapter.

In Appendix G (p. 129 ) the author

presents a demographic sketch and comments collected in
the interviews of eight selected mobile Michigan principals.
Post Card Survey Data
Design Implications
For the school years of 1968-69 through 1974-75,
the principals who responded to the post card survey gave
their position held during the school year, the name of
the school where they held that position, and the
69

70

district for which they were working.

In Table 4.1 there

is presented a general summation of the post card response.
Table 4.1.

Post Card Survey Summation

Requests Mailed

270

Responses Received

228

Per Cent Returned

84.447.

The classification of principals was conducted in
the following manner.

If a principal reported that he

had held more than two different positions during the
past seven academic years he was placed in the highly
mobile principal category.

All those principals who held

two different positions during

the past seven academic

years were placed in the less mobile category.

If a

principal's last position was in the same district as
the present position he was classified as an insider.
But if the last position was in a different school dis­
trict, the principal was considered an outsider.

If a

principal's last position was that of an assistant prin­
cipal, teacher, coach or any job under the normal
jurisdiction of a principal, the mobile principal was
considered a promotee.

However, if the last position

was that of a principal, then the mobile principal was
placed in the transfer category.

The following figure

summarizes the categorization procedure.

71

Figure 2.

Dichotomization of Independent Variables
Highly Mobile

1.

Mobility
Less Mobile
Insiders

Outsiders
Promotee

Transfer
This type of categorization allowed the eight divisions
of the independent variable to be formed as the basis
for analysis.

Figure 3 shows these eight categories

Figure 3.

Categorization of Mobile Principals

1.

Highly

Mobile Inside Promotee

(HMIP)

2.

Highly

Mobile Inside Transfer

(HMIT)

3.

Highly

Mobile Outside Promotee

(HMOP)

4.

Highly

Mobile Outside Transfer

(HMOT)

5.

Less Mobile Inside Promotee

(LMIP)

. Less Mobile Inside Transfer

(LMIT)

6

7.
8

Less Mobile Outside Promotee

(LMOP)

. Less Mobile Outside Transfer

(LMOT)

Some difficulty was encountered in classifying
a few of the post card returns.
dents or

3.95

A total of nine respon­

per cent of the respondents were unable to

72
be classified in the provided categories.

Of these nine

responses some reported the last position such as being
a full-time student or being in business.

Others did

not complete the information asked for on the post card.
Five additional respondents could not be considered as
promotees or transfers, and on the basis of their replies
they were considered demotees.

Since the number of

demotees was small, these reports were discarded for the
purpose of this investigation.

Therefore, 214 useable

responses or 93.86 per cent of the total responses
received provided the population from which the samples
were drawn.

Table 4.2 represents the results of the

final post card classification.
Table 4. 2.
Category

Results of the Post Card Classification
Number Classified in the
Category

Per cent of
Total Sample

HMOP

42

19.63

HMOT

37

17.29

HMIP

32

14.95

HMIT

13

6.07

LMOP

36

16.82

LMOT

16

7.48

LMIP

26

12.15

LMIT

12

5.61

214

100.00

Totals

73

General summary information about the post card survey
classifications is presented in four Tables, 4.3, 4.4,
4.5 and 4.6.
Table 4.3.

Number of Highly Mobile and Less Mobile
Principals Derived from the Post Card Survey

Division

Number

Highly Mobile
Less Mobile

Table 4.4.

Division

Per cent in Division

124

57.94

90

42.06

Number of Insiders and Outsiders Derived from
the Post Card Survey

Number

Per cent in Division

Insiders

83

38.79

Outsiders

131

61.21

Table 4.5.

Division

Number of Promotees and Transfers Derived
from the Post Card Survey

Number

Per cent in Division

Promotees

136

63.55

Transfers

78

36.45

74
Table 4.6.

Number of Outside Promotees, Outside Trans­
fers, Inside Promotees, and Inside Transfers
Derived from the Post Card Survey

Division

Number

Per cent in Division

Outside Promotees

78

36.45

Outside Transfers

53

24.77

Inside Promotees

58

27.10

Inside Transfers

25

11.68

The two by two by two design resulting from the
dichotomization of the post card information is presented
in Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Two by Two by Two Model for the Independent
Variable

M^ = Highly Mobile
M 2 = Less Mobile
0-^ = Outsider
O 2 = Insider
= Promotee
S 2 = Transfer

75

Using the three mobility constructs and combina­
tions of their divisions the overall design for the
multivariate analysis is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5.
1

Design for Multivariate Analysis

i Personal
| School District !Reasons for
Mobility • Origin ; Status ; Character­ ; Characteristics
Leaving
istics
c, - c
b,
b
1
!
1
X
1
X
a1
i “ aX
i
i
1
i
S1
i
I °1
1
S2
'
M1L
Ir
i
t
i
si
:
°2
^
V

i

iI
i
M

Z

s2

j

S1

t

j

°i

1

:
S2

■
H
1

1

ij
i

°2

I
i
f

S1
t

S2

‘

i

Derived Post Card Data
The method of differentiation between a highly
mobile principal and a less mobile principal was the
number of positions the principal held during the past
seven years.

A highly mobile principal held three or

more positions while a less mobile principal held only
two positions from 1968-1975.

A compilation

of post

card information provided the following additional
analysis of the number of jobs held by the highly mobile
principals.

Number of Positions Held by Highly Mobile
Principal s, 1968-1975

Table 4.7.

Principal
Type

Held 3
Positions

Held 4
Positions

Held 5 or more
Positions

HMIP

23

7

2

HMOP

26

14

2

HMIT

6

6

1

HMOT

20

13

4

75

40

9

Totals

Table 4.7 shows that 60.48 per cent of the highly mobile
principals held three positions, 32,.26 per cent of the
highly mobile principals held four positions, and 7.26
per cent held five or more positions during the last
seven school years.
By nature of the predetermined limitations it
would seem evident that the highly mobile principals
would hold jobs in more schools than less mobile prin­
cipals.

Compiled post card data in Table 4.8 verified

this assumption.

Although it was not necessary to be

employed in more than three different positions to be
classified as highly mobile, over two-thirds of the
highly mobile principals were employed in three or
more different schools during the past seven academic
years.

77

Table 4.8.

Type of
Mobile
Principal
HMIP

Mobile Principal Type vs. the Number of
Different Schools in Which the Principal
Held Positions

Number of different schools in which positions
were held
5 or
1
2
4
3
j more
(same school)
j
14
10
1
6
i
1
i

HMIT

0

6

5

2

i

0

HMOP

0

: 7

25

9

j

1

HMOT

0

3

23

9

!

2

LMIP

24

2

0

0

I

o

LMIT

1

11

0

LMOP

0

36

LMOT

0

16

39

, 91

Totals

'

0

0
0

!

0

0

0

i

0

59

21

1

4

0

;

As might be expected insiders showed a much
greater tendency to stay in a school district longer
as is indicated in Table 4.9.

It is interesting to note

that more than three-fourths of all inside promotees have
been in their present school districts for at least
seven years even though they have changed positions at
least once during that time span.

78
Table 4.9.

Type of
Mobile
Principal

Type of Mobile Principal vs. Longevity in
Current School District

Number of Years in Present School District
1

2

3

4

5

6

HMIP

0

4

3

1

2

2

20

HMIT

1

2

1

2

0

1

6

HMOP

17

9

10

6

0

0

0

HMOT

19

11

3

4

0

0

0

LMIP

0

0

0

0

1

0

25

LMIT

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

LMOP

8

10

11

6

0

1

0

LMOT

2

3

6

4

0

1

0

47

39

34

23

3

5

63

Totals

7 or more

In order to determine if there were a difference
between groups in the number of years the principals had
been employed in their present positions, Table 4.10
was constructed from post card data •
Table 4.10.

Mobile Principal Type v s . Years in Current
Position

Type of
Mobile Principal

1

Years in Present Position
5
6
2
3
4

HMIP

11

11

4

5

0

1

HMIT

2

6

2

3

0

0

HMOP

16

10

9

7

0

0

HMOT

18

12

3

4

0

0

LMIP

3

10

9

3

1

0

LMIT

1

2

5

4

0

0

LMOP

10

11

9

6

0

0

LMOT

2

3

6

4

1

0

63

65

47

36

2

1

Totals

79

Since all the principals changed positions at least once
in the seven years considered in this investigation,
only six years are presented in Table 4.10.

In this

study almost three out of ten principals were in their
first year of the principalship and over one-half of
all Michigan mobile principals had two or less years
experience in their job.
The route that the mobile principals traversed
to arrive at their present position can be partially
determined by compiling data provided on the post cards.
Table 4.11.

Mobile Principal Type vs. Position Type
Held Immediately Prior to Holding the
Current Position

Type of
Mobile
lAss’t.
Principal jPrincijpal

Typ e of Immediate Prior Position
Teacher J Elem.
Coun­ I Jr. Higly Sr. High Other
Princi­ selor Princi- Princi­
pal
pal
; pal

HMIP

31

1

HMIT

0

0

HMOP

35

5

HMOT

o

'

0

0

3

0

0

1

0

1

0

i

LMIP

11

13

0

2

LMIT

0

0

1

0

LMOP

18

16

0

2

LMOT

0

0

0

5

5

Totals

95

o
35

:

0

0

1

0

;

3

2

0

o

1

5

25

6

0

0

0

9

0

o

0

0

o

16

0

10

52

11

;
i
i
!
1
;i
i
i
*

2

Among the other positions reported were three community
school directors, four college related jobs, one graduate

80
school student, one vocational school director, one
administrative assistant, and one personnel director.
Of all the promotees almost seventy per cent had as their
previous position an assistant principalship while
over one-fourth were teachers immediately prior to
accepting their present position as principal of a Michigan
public secondary school.
Information supplied by Michigan Education
Directories and Buyers Guides and the mobile principals
allowed the determination of the geographic location of
the current position and the past position.

Table 4.12

gives these compilations.
Table 4.12.

Geographic Distribution of Michigan Mobile
Principals

Type of
Mobile
South
Principal East

South
West

Michigan Location
South Cen­ North­ Upper
Cen­
tral ern
Peninsula
tral

HMIP

13

3

2

12

2

0

HMIT

5

2

1

2

2

1

HMOP

8

3

5

16

9

1

HMOT

6

9

4

9

6

3

LMIP

7

2

1

9

3

4

LMIT

3

1

1

6

1

0

LMOP

5

7

3

14

6

1

LMOT

3

5

0

5

1

2

50

32

17

73

30

12

Totals

81
For Table 4.12 the entire State of Michigan was divided
into six areas:

South East, South West, South Central,

Central, Northern, and Upper Peninsula to categorize
the current principals locations.
138) for the Michigan divisions.

See Appendix H (p.
Over one-third of the

mobile Michigan secondary school principals currently hold
positions in the Central sector of the State of Michigan
as defined in this investigation.
Table 4.13 responded to the question of where
these principals were last employed.

An additional

category of "Out of State" was included for a more
complete coverage of the supplied data.
Table 4.13.

Geographic Location of the Last Position of
Mobile Michigan Secondary School Principals

Type of
Geographic Location in Relation to Michigan
Mobile South South South Cen­ North­ Upper
Out of
Princi- East
West
Cen­
tral ern
Penin­ State
tral
sula
Pal.
HMIP

13

3

2

12

2

0

0

HMIT

5

2

0

3

2

1

0

HMOP

13

8

4

9

0

0

8

HMOT

5

8

3

13

0

0

8

LMIP

7

2

1

9

3

4

0

LMIT

3

1

1

6

1

0

0

mop

15

4

1

11

2

0

3

LMOT

1

6

3

3

1

0

2

62

34

15

66

11

5

21

Totals

82

Almost sixty per cent of the mobile principals included
in this investigation held their last position in the
South East or Central sections of the State of Michigan.
From the data collected it was not possible to determine
the number of principals who left Michigan when changing
positions, but it was interesting to note that nearly
one out of ten of the current mobile Michigan principals
held their last position in a different state.

Additional

treatment might have been performed on the post card
data and the compiled tables.

However, the information

and the tables shown were the central concerns of the
researcher in descriptive presentation of the post card
survey data.
Questionnaire Data
Main Hypotheses
Using the procedures and methodology described
in Chapter III, the author tested the hypotheses presented
in Chapter I.
1.

Recapitulated briefly they were:

Were there effects when reasons for leaving past
positions are matched with the mobility of secondary
school principals in Michigan?

2.

Will there be differences in personal characteristics
of highly mobile secondary school principals and
less mobile secondary school principals in Michigan?

3.

Were there differences in school district char­
acteristics of districts employing highly mobile

83
secondary school principals and less mobile secondary
school principals.
These general research questions were refined into
specific null hypotheses for this investigation.

These

hypotheses were:
1.

There will be no effect due to mobility.

2.

There will be no effect due to origin.

3.

There will be no effect due to status.

4.

There will be no interaction between mobility
and origin,

5.

There will be no interaction between mobility
and status,

6.

There will be no interaction between origin
and status,

7.

There will be no mobility by origin by status
interaction.

Based upon the above general research questions and
specific hypotheses generated, data will be presented
in the following order:

1. testing statistically for

significance the three sets of dependent variables
(personal characteristics, school district characteristics,
reasons for leaving the last position) by Multivariate
Analysis and 2. examining each of the three sets of
dependent variables for individual measures which may
be statistically significant.

84
Multivariate Results
Table 4.14 presents the results of a MANOVA
for the total study.
Table 4.14.

Multivariate Analysis of Mobility -- Personal
Characteristics, School District Char­
acteristics, and Reasons for Leaving

VariPersonal
School District
Reasons for
able______ Characteristics_____ Character is tics______ Leaving_________
Mult. F

p less
than

Mobility

2.2822

.0550

Origin

4.0505

.0027*

Status
Mobility
by_0rigin
Mobility
by Status
Origin
by Status
Mobility
by Origin
by Status
set alpha

6.3500

. 0 0 0 1 * 2 . 3 0 7 4 . 0 4 2 8 2 , 0 4 6 8
.0331
*
.0009
.8001_
.5731______ I*0628____ -A0 5 8 .

4.7479
3.0162

Mult. F

...0157

p less
than

.3966

.8790

.4922

2.2281

.0498

2.8857

__.6391_

.6986___

1.5070____ .1980_____ 1.5807_ ^ 1 6 5 0 ____
2.7111
____
level

alpha/test

.0265
_______
.025

______

.0036

Mult. F

_ ...8029
.9604_

p less
than
.9124
.0029*

._.6462_
.4946_

.2491
.9582
.5445
.8775
___________________________ ______
.025
.05
.0036

.0071

12 and 67

degrees of
freedom

5 and 74

6 and 73

degrees of
freedom for
error term

78

78

78

Significant at the stated alpha/test level

Statistical, significance at the .025 alpha level was
present when considering personal characteristics (as a
group of variables) of mobile principals with origin,

85
status, and the mobility by origin interaction.
Statistical significance at the .05 alpha level was pre­
sent when considering the reasons for leaving (as a
group of dependent variables) given by mobile principals
with origin.

No other statistically significant results

were found at the stated alpha levels for personal char­
acteristics, school district characteristics, or reasons
for leaving.

School district characteristic variables

was the only set of dependent variables which did not
produce at least one statistically significant result
with the Multivariate Analysis.
Personal Characteristics
Table 4.14 showed that there was a statistically
significant difference in the personal characteristics of
the status dimension of mobile principals.

That is,

mobile principals classified as transfers and promotees
differ in their personal characteristics.

The Multi­

variate Analysis does not indicate which personal char­
acteristic is the major determinant of that difference.
Table 4.15 presents the Univariate Analysis of each
personal characteristic variable that was statistically
significant within the limits set by the multivariate
analysis.

Since the alpha was set at .025 for the entire

personal characteristics section, and the reported proba­
bility for each of the seven levels of the independent
variable must be less than .0036 (.025/7) to be

Table 4.15.

Univariate Analysis of Personal Characteristic Variables
No. of C h i l d r e n Years Experience Spouse Working
Univar. p less Univar. p less Univar. p less
F
than
F
F
than
than

Variable

Age
Univar. p less
than
F

Origin

9.9220

.0024

.0043

.9478

2.2817
Status
Mobility
by Origin 4.1537

.1350

.042

.8369

.0450

4.3133

.0412

Degrees of Freedom:

.9134
13.708

5 and 74

p less than .0007a
Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 7 8

1,9502

Plans to change jobs
Univar. p less
F
than

.3422

1.1447

.2880

.1554

.6945

.0004a

8.3961

.0049

8.9331

.0038

.1666

7.7552

.0068

.7616

.3856

87
statistically significant, then the probability for
each of the five measures must be less than .0007
(.0036/5) to be statistically significant.

See Table

4.15 and Table 3.5 in Chapter III.
There is no statistically significant difference
for any one of the personal characteristic variables
(age, number of children, years in the principalship,
work status of spouse

and plans to change jobs) when

considered with origin
interaction.

and the mobility by origin

However, as a group they were statistically

significant when tested by the multivariate technique.
There is a difference (significant at alpha = .025) in
the years of principalship experience among promotees
and transfers.

In checking the means and standard devia­

tions to find the direction of the finding, it was dis­
covered that transfers have, on the average, more years
of experience than promotees.

Table 4.16 shows this

relationship.
Table 4.16.

Means and Standard Deviations of Status -Years Experience as Principals

Status_____________ Years Experience as Principal
Mean
Promotee

Standard Deviation

3.930

2.9425

6.535

3.4196

n = 43
Transfer
n = 43

Mobile principals classified as transfers had on the
average six and one-half years of previous experience as
principals while those classified as promotees had on
the average less than four years of experience.
School District Characteristics
Table 4.17 presents the Univariate Analysis of
school district characteristic variables with mobility
categories.

Since the alpha was set at .025 for the

entire school district characteristics section and the
reported probability for each of the seven levels of the
independent variable must be less than .0036 (.025/7) to
be statistically significant, no differences were found
in the multivariate analysis of the school district char­
acteristics with the seven independent variables of con­
cern.

Additional pursuit of differences was not attempted

with school district characteristics and mobility categories.
Reasons for Leaving
Table 4.14 showed that there was a statistically
significant difference in the reasons for leaving of
mobile principals classified as insiders and outsiders.
To detect where this difference existed Table 4.18 was
constructed to present the Univariate Analysis of each
reason for leaving variable with origin.

Since the alpha

was set at .05 for the entire reasons for leaving division
and thus the reported probability for each of the seven
levels of the independent variable must be less than

Table 4.17.
Variable

Univariate Analysis of School District Characteristic Variables
Number of high
school students
Univar. p less
than
F

Presence: of a Number of students
Bargain. unit in entire district
Univar. p less Univar.i p less
than
than
F
F

Poverty level
district students
Univar p less
F
than

.0660

.8072

.1923

.6623

.0006

.9812

.0001 .9937

Origin

8.7918

.0041

.0266

.8708

3.8863

.0523

2.7371 .1021

Status

.1301

.7192

.7519

.3886

.8521

.3589

1.5135 .2224

Mobility
by Origin

.1074

.7441

1.7604

.1885

.0025

.9600

.0003 .9873

Mobility
by Status

1.2264

.2716

1.3207

.2540

.0411

.8400

.0141 .9058

Origin by
Status

.0571

.8177

.6973

.4063

.9659

.3288

1.5282 .2201

Mobility
by Origin
by Status

.2202

.6558

.3342

.5649

.0101

.9205

.0053 .9424

Mobility

Table 4.17
Variable

(continued)
Number of immobile
residents
Univar. p less
than
F

SEV/pupil
in district
Univar
than
F

.0000

.9965

1.4899

.226

Origin

3.3756

.0700

2.4931

.1184

Status

1.2713

.2630

.9558.

Mobility
by Origin

.0002

.9902

.6301

Mobility
by Status

.0178

.8944

.4090

Origin by
Status

1.3059

.2567

.0153

Mobility
by Origin
by Status

.0061

.9380

.8019

Mobility

Degrees of

Freedom:

p less than .0007

.3313

6 and 73
No significance shown

Degrees of

Freedom for Hypothesis = 1

Degrees of

Freedom for Error = 78

Table 4.18.
Variable

Origin

Univariate Analysis of Origin -- Reasons for Leaving
Low Salary
Univar. p less
F
than
.8291

Variable

Origin

.3694

No Challenge
Univar. p less
F
than
1.7171

No Contract
Univar. p less
F
than

.1940

Family Pressure

No Policy Input

Univar.
F

p less
than

Univar.
F

p less
than

.8853

.3497

2.5602

.1137

.9233

Lack of
Facilities
Univar. p less
F
than
.1831

Variable

Bad School Climate
Univar. p less
F
than

Bad Board Relations
Univar. p less
F
than

Origin

5.5563

14.51

Degrees of Freedom:

.0210
12 and 67

p less than .0006b
Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 78
•L

Significant at alpha = .05

.3399

.0003b

.6699

Dislike Community
Univar. p less
F
than
9.4586

.0029

Personal
Advancement
Univar.
p less
F
than
1.5990

.2113

92

reasons for leaving must be less than .0006 (.0071/12)
for the measure to be statistically significant.
There was no statistically significant dif­
ference for any of the reasons for leaving variables
with the independent variables except with origin.

There

is a difference (significant at alpha = .05) in the re­
lationships with boards of education among insiders
and outsiders.
relationship.

The means give the direction of this
For outsiders, poor board relationships

were statistically significant reasons for leaving when
compared to reasons given by insiders within the limits
of this investigation.

In Table 4.19 a comparison of

the means for insiders and outsiders is presented for
each reason for leaving.

It is well to note here that

a Likert scale was used in scoring the responses in the
reasons for leaving section of the questionnaire.

A

highly influential response was scored as two, a
moderately influential response was scored as one, and
a response of little or no influence was scored as zero.
Therefore, the means of each measure fell between 2.00
and 0.000.

In Table 4.19 the mean differences of in­

siders and outsiders responses to reasons for leaving
are calculated.

To more clearly present these dif­

ferences in means Table 4.20 was constructed.

Table 4.19.

Means of Insiders and Outsiders -- Reasons for Leaving

Variable

Low
Salary

No
Challenge

°i
Insider

.5000

.6429

°2
Outsider

.3636

(difference)

.1364

Variable

No Policy
Input

°i
Insider
°2
Outsider
(difference)

.9762

1.250
.2738

No
Contract

Dislike
Community

No
Recognition

Family
Pressure

.0238

.0238

.2619

.1905

.4318

.0909

.3409

.3409

.2955

.2111

.0671

.3171

.0790

.1050

Lack of
Facilities

Excessive
Duties

Personal
Advancement

Bad School
Climate

Bad Board
Relations

.2857

.1905

1.476

.1905

.0476

.3409

.3636

1.568

.5227

.5000

.0552

.1731

.3322

.4524

.0920

Table 4. 20.

Rank Order Table of Reasons for Leaving Mean Differences with Origin
3
Bad Board
Relations
.4525

Differ­
ence m
Mean
Score
of
Insiders
and
Outsiders

.5
.45
.4
.35
.3
.25
.2
.15
.1
.05
.0

Bad School
Climate
3322

Dislike of
Community
3171

4
No Policy
Input____
2738

No
Challenge
2111

Excessive
Duties
.1731

.0
0

0
0

vO

•F'

0

Table 4.20

(continued)

8
Low
Salary
.1364
Differ­
ence in
Mean
Score
of
Insiders
and
Outsiders

.5
.45
.4
.35
.3
.25
.2
.15
.1
.05

.0

0

Family
Pressure
.1050

10

11

12

Personal
No
Contract
Lack of
Advancement Recognition Not Renewed Facilities
.0920

.0790

.0671

0

0

0

I

I

I

.0552

0
‘I

I = insider; 0 = outsider; ////////// = Significant by criteria;
.
= not
significant by criteria

96
Since the cell means and standard deviations for
each variable in the three sets of dependent variables
when given for each of the eight categories of mobile
principals are very bulky, they are not presented in
tabular form in the body of the dissertation.

Those

cell means of concern have been included in the previous
discussion in Chapter IV.
Summary
The three major research questions to be tested
in this investigation were:
1.

Were there effects when reasons for leaving past
positions are matched with the mobility of secondary
school principals in Michigan?

2.

Will there be differences in personal characteristics
of highly mobile secondary school principals and
less mobile secondary school principals in Michigan?

3.

Were there differences in school district char­
acteristics of districts employing highly mobile
secondary school principals and less mobile secondary
school principals?
Table 4.14, the Multivariate Analysis of personal

characteristics, school district characteristics, and
reasons for leaving with the seven levels of Mobility
categorization indicates statistical significance of the
following:
1.

Origin with Personal Characteristics (alpha = .025)

2.

Status with Personal Characteristics (alpha = .025)

97

3.

Mobility by Origin interaction with Personal
Characteristics (alpha = .025)

4.

Origin with reasons for leaving (alpha = .05)
Upon additional analysis the individual components

contributing to the group significance were disclosed.
It was found that no one factor was statistically signif­
icant when personal characteristics were considered with
origin and when considered with the mobility by origin
interaction.

However, there was a difference (significant

at alpha = .025) in the years of experience of transfers
compared to promotees.

Transfers have more years of

experience in the principalship than do promotees.
The Multivariate Analysis of school district
characteristics indicates the absence of effect.

The

data presented gave no sign of statistical significance
of the variables as the result of the treatment with the
mobility categories.
The result of Multivariate Analysis of mobility
categories and their effect on dependent variables
established statistical significance in poor board re­
lationships , which was one variable in the reasons for
leaving section of the study.

There is a difference

(significant at alpha = .05) in the relationship with
boards of education when insiders are compared with out­
siders.

Poor school board relationships were highly

influential reasons for the outsiders leaving the last
position when compared to reasons given by insiders.

98

Post hoc comparisons were not attempted because
they would provide additional useful information only if
interactions were found.

Since no interactions were

found with individual variables in any section, post hoc
comparisons were not examined.
Because of the content of the interview informa­
tion, the author has placed pertinent interview data and
comments in Appendix G (p. 129) f°r th® reader's inspec­
tion.

For each of the eight mobile principals inter­

viewed a short demographic sketch precedes the principal's
comments and discussion of the reasons given for leaving
the last position.
The results- of the Multivariate Analysis indicate
a few statistically significant differences between groups.
Definite differences anticipated between the highly mobile
and less mobile Michigan principals did not emerge, yet,
differences did appear when the status and origin vari­
ables were examined.

A discussion of the findings

is presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter a summary of the investigation
conducted has been presented.

It is followed by the

author's discussion of the findings and conclusions.
In addition, recommendations for areas of further in­
vestigation are considered.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
The author's purpose in this study was to in­
vestigate and examine the reasons why secondary public
school principals in Michigan change positions.

A post

card survey, a constructed questionnaire, and interviews
were used to elicit data desired for the study.

It was

attempted to determine if selected personal characteristics
of mobile principals, charactersitics of school districts
employing mobile principals, and the reasons mobile
principals reported as being influential in their leaving
their last positions affected mobility.

It was hoped

that the findings of the investigation might be helpful
information for school boards, colleges of education,
and interested principals.
99

100
Limitations of the Study
Twenty-three selected variables were investigated
in this research.

There is no assurance that these

variables of concern were the variables which would pro­
vide the most valuable insights into factors affecting
mobility.

Therefore, this study is limited by the

omission of other factors (exogenous variables) which
may have been highly influential in predicting or causing
mobility.
When considering reasons for leaving the last
position, only perceptions of the mobile principals were
considered.

Additional insights might have been provided

by gathering data from boards of education, superin­
tendents, assistant superintendents, teachers, family
members and friends.

No attempt was made to elicit in­

formation from these sources.
Only 270 Michigan principals who changed positions
in the last seven school years were subjects in this re­
search.

This restricts the generalizability of the

findings appreciably.

Even though over eighty-four per

cent of these principals, identified as being mobile,
responded to the initial post card survey, and all
eighty-eight subjects returned the questionnaire, in­
formation from fifty-two mobile principals was not avail­
able for inclusion in this study.
The validity of this study is dependent to a
large degree on the accuracy and frankness of the

respondents in responding to the items on the post card
survey and the questionnaire.

The comments of the mobile

principals interviewed (see Appendix G, p. 129) would seem
to lend credence to the responses received.
This study was not undertaken to prove or dis­
credit any theories of vocational choice, career develop­
ment, decision-making, or educational administration.
The writer was concerned with factors affecting the
mobility of secondary school principals in Michigan.

It

was not intended to cast unfavorable judgments upon any
categories of mobility or any of the dependent variables
under scrutiny.
Review of the Literature
Literature of theories of career development,
administrator mobility, teacher mobility, and of a gen­
eral related nature was reviewed.

Attention was focused

on four central questions of concern when examining the
literature.

They were:

(1) What specific factors were

presented or studied that directly relate to mobility?
(2) What were the salient findings or conclusions of the
authors' with respect to mobility?

(3) What models, con­

structs, or designs were used that might enhance profit­
able research on mobility?

and (4) What specific

recommendations were made for the study of mobility
questions?

In addition to the educational literature a

small amount of literature was reviewed from the areas

102

of business management and hospital administration.

No

attempt was made to cite from literature from the fields
of public administration, church administration or
military administration.
Design of the Study
In initially attempting to delineate factors
affecting the mobility of secondary school principals
the author listed over 200 possible reasons a principal
might state as being highly influential in the decision
to leave a position.

After consulting with research

personnel and committee members the 200 reasons for
leaving were narrowed to twenty-three factors to be
studied in this investigation.

These factors were

divided into three major areas, personal characteristics
of mobile principals, school district characteristics of
districts employing the mobile principals, and reasons
that the mobile principals might give for leaving their
past position.
An initial post card survey was mailed to prin­
cipals who had been identified as being mobile.

From

this survey principals were classified as being highly
mobile or less mobile, insiders or outsiders, and
promotees or transfers.

Eight (2 ) categories of mobile

principals were established.

From the eight population

pools a random sample of eleven subjects from each group

103

was selected.

A constructed questionnaire was mailed

to each of these eighty-eight subjects.

Space was pro­

vided on the instrument for the mobile principal to
state additional influential reasons why he might have
left his last position.

Data for four factors relating

to school district characteristics were taken from
the Michigan 1970 Census Fourth Count (Population) School
District Data Tape and from the State of Michigan DepartV

ment of Education Bulletin, Ranking of Michigan Public
High School Districts by Selected Financial Data:

1973-

1974.
The Jeremy Finn (Multivariate Analysis of
Variance) computer program was employed to determine if
significant differences existed on the dependent vari­
ables when compared to the mobility categories.

Tests

for statistical significance were conducted at the alpha
level of .025 for the personal characteristic set of
variables and the school district characteristic set of
variables.

Since the reasons for leaving set of vari­

ables contained the measures of major concern for the
study the alpha level was placed at .05 for that group
of variables.
Finally, interviews were held with mobile prin­
cipals from each of the eight mobility categories estab­
lished for this investigation.

The purpose of the inter­

view was to elicit additional information and comments

104
from mobile principals that would answer the basic
question of this research:

What factors affect the

mobility of secondary school principals in Michigan?
Findings
1.

When multivariate analysis of the mobility dimension
was conducted with the dependent variables, the group
of personal characteristic measures and the group of
reasons for leaving measures showed statistical
significance.

2.

Based upon a multivariate analysis of the personal
characteristic set of variables, a statistically
significant result was obtained when status inter­
acted with the number of years experience in the
principalship.

Transfers had significantly (alpha =

.025) more years of experience in the principalship
than did promotees.
3.

When school district characteristics were matched
with mobility categories using multivariate analysis,
no statistically significant interaction resulted.

4.

A multivariate analysis of mobility categories with
reasons for leaving measures produced a statistical
significance when origin was compared with poor school
board relationships.

Outsiders perceived poor board

relationships to be highly influential reasons for
leaving the last position when matched with insiders'
views.

This finding was significant at the alpha =

.05 level.

105

5.

As defined in this investigation, over two-thirds of
the highly mobile principals were employed in three
or more different schools during the school years
1968-69 through 1974-75.

6.

Within the limits set for this study, over one-half
of Michigan mobile secondary school principals had
two or less years of experience in their current
position.

7.

Of the principals included in this research, over
one-third currently held positions in the Central
section of Michigan and almost sixty per cent of the
principals held their last position in the South East
or Central sections of the State of Michigan.
Discussion
In the study of the American Association of School

Administrators it was reported that about thirty-five
per cent of the superintendents were insiders and about
sixty-five per cent of the superintendents were outsiders.
Of the mobile principals of Michigan included in this
research thirty-nine per cent were classified as in­
siders and sixty-one per cent were classified as out­
siders.

Therefore, the percentage of mobile principals

in Michigan adheres closely to the national norm for
superintendents.
This investigation also supported earlier findings
by McConnell that unfair or unsatisfactory district

106
administrative relationships were the chief cause for a
principal's leaving a position.

Statistical significance

and the explaining of what was meant by unfair or un­
satisfactory school district administrative relationships
were not reported in McConnell's study.

This cause for

principal turnover was not found in any other research
studies considered in the review of the literature.
In studying the past positions of current princi­
pals who were promoted to the principalship Brown and
Rentschler, and McConnell agreed that the assistant
principalship was not the most traversed route to the
principalship.

However, in this investigation almost

seventy per cent of the promotees reported that their
last position was that of an assistant principal.

This

finding does not support the earlier conclusions reached
by Brown and Rentschler, and McConnell.
The age of the mobile individual seemed to be
highly influential in mobility in the findings of the
research projects of Stanavage, Manning, and Todd.

With

the exception of the experience difference between pro­
motees and transfers, age did not emerge as an important
determinant of mobility in this research.

If other than

less mobile principals were used as a control group the
age of the principal might have been found to be an
important factor.

107
The lack of statistical significance when com­
paring school district characteristics to mobility
categories was somewhat surprising.

Several researchers

whose investigations were reviewed reported that the
size of the school district, the geographical location
of the school, and the number of students enrolled in
the school influenced mobility.

Within the limits of

this study no statistical significant findings were in
evidence as factors affecting mobility.

Even the attempt

to relate economic factors such as the number of povertylevel residents in a district (as given by the 1970
Census Population Data Tapes) and State Equalized Valua­
tion per pupil in the district with mobility categories
produced no statistical significance.

If in this in­

vestigation past school districts would have been compared
to present school districts, a different picture of
school district factors affecting mobility might have
been shown.
In this study, as in all research, a distinction
needs to be made between statistical significance and
meaningful significance.

Due to the design and treatment

of variables in a study statistical significance may
result.

However, because an investigation shows statis­

tical significance does not necessarily mean that the
finding has an applicable meaning for the practitioner
of the subject matter under scrutiny.

It is statistically

108
significant in this study that transfers have more years
of experience as principals than do promotees.

This

finding might be expected on the basis of the experi­
mental design, therefore this finding has little, if any
educational significance.

On the other hand, the dis­

covery that disagreement with the board's educational
policies differs significantly in a statistical sense for
insiders and outsiders may have meaningful implications
for practicing educational administrators, school boards,
and those training administrators.

The actions of the

school board might have far reaching consequences if a
school district or administration wishes to remove an
incompetent administrator.

Therefore, the finding that

poor school board relations with mobile principals is
a factor that influences principals to leave a position
is considered by the author to be both statistically
significant and educational significant.
Conclusions
It was concluded from the data gathered and
analyses performed that the relationships that a princi­
pal has with the board of education are very important
factors in determining if a principal will leave a posi­
tion.

It was also concluded that the years of experience

that a principal has had in the position of principal is
a factor that will affect mobility.

109
Since there was no statistically significant effect
of being highly mobile or less mobile on any of the three
sets of variables, it was concluded that there were no
significant differences between the two categories on the
variables tested.

This should not be construed to imply

that no meaningful differences exist.

At least two

reasons may account for this conclusion.

First, the

factors of influence were not included in the research,
and second, the design of the study was not sensitive to
other differences which may have existed.

It should be

mentioned that the post card survey and the questionnaire
used may not have been the most appropriate instruments
to elicit data to detect existing differences in mobility
studies.

It would appear to be difficult, if not impos­

sible, to isolate fully the factors affecting mobility
by the use of impersonal data collection.

Refined

subjective observations may be a better technique for
obtaining this type of sensitive information.
It is hoped that this research may, in part, con­
tribute a partial foundation for future studies dealing
with the mobility of school personnel.
Recommendations
1.

Since significant results were found when personal
characteristics as a set of variables were compared
with origin, and since no one variable included in
this research emerged as being a major contributor

110

to this significance, a refinement of the categories
and dependent variables in a refined study might
produce significant measures of mobility.
2.

A study of relationships that exist between princi­
pals and school boards might provide useful and
interesting results.

Since this research established

statistical significance for principals who were
insiders and outsiders with poor board relations,
a further examination of the components of "poor
board relations" would seem to be in order.
3.

More refined methods and techniques of collecting
sensitive information need to be developed.

It is

most difficult to obtain covert and sensitive reasons
for a person's actions through solicitation with a
written questionnaire.

There may be more appropriate

techniques for collecting such data.
4.

The construction of a concise language of mobility is
a necessity if mobility research is to progress.
Currently the term "mobility" may refer to geographic
movement, social interaction, the changing of positions,
or almost any type of movement.

Since each of these

definitions constitutes a field of study within it­
self, a developed language of mobility would enable
researchers to be specific in their constructs and
findings.

Ill

5.

Replication of the present study using both superin­
tendents and their principals might product enlighten­
ing results.

Although only a few principals stated

on the open-ended question on the survey instrument
that they moved because their superintendent moved,
the researcher was led to believe during the inter­
views that the movement of a superintendent tends
to be highly influential in the movement of a prin­
cipal .

Examination of this relationship might prove

fruitful.
6.

If a time-cost analysis were conducted on the process
of recruiting, selecting, training, and dismissing
school administrators, the study of mobility might
take on added importance.

Modern methods of manage­

ment, such as management by objectives, may force
boards of education and chief school administrators
to take a deeper look at the factors affecting
mobility.
7.

After conducting the research the investigator
strongly recommends that other approaches also be
considered in pursuing similar research projects in
the field of mobility.

The method used in this

study of defining the unit of concern by considering
broad areas of reasons for leaving and obtaining
sensitive information by using a written questionnaire
and traditional check-lists may well be less sensitive

112
than alternative techniques.

By using more specific

categories the researcher runs the risk of finding
no significance, but also may produce much more
applicable findings and conclusions.

By combining

more specific categories with multiple hypotheses,
future investigators might be able to obtain
results that have a greater educational significance.

Ill

Replication of the present study using both superin­
tendents and their principals might product enlighten­
ing results.

Although only a few principals stated

on the open-ended question on the survey instrument
that they moved because their superintendent moved,
the researcher was led to believe during the inter­
views that the movement of a superintendent tends
to be highly influential in the movement of a printipal.

Examination of this relationship might prove

Eruitful.
[f a time-cost analysis were conducted on the process
)f recruiting, selecting, training, and dismissing
school administrators, the study of mobility might
rake on added importance.

Modern methods of manage-

nent, such as management by objectives, may force
3oards of education and chief school administrators
:o take a deeper look at the factors affecting
nobility.
After conducting the research the investigator
strongly recommends that other approaches also be
considered in pursuing similar research projects in
-he field of mobility.

The method used in this

study of defining the unit of concern by considering
jroad areas of reasons for leaving and obtaining
sensitive information by using a written questionnaire
m d traditional check-lists may well be less sensitive

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
POST CARD SURVEY

.

Year

Position
Held

I
i

Name of
School

74-75
1

73-74
72-73
71-72

i
!
|
f
i
1

70-71
69-70
68-69

113

j

School
District

APPENDIX B
POST CARD SURVEY COVER LETTER

March 17, 1975
2950 Noble Road
Oxford, Michigan 48051

Dear Sir,
Factors Affecting the Mobility of Public Secondary
School Principals in Michigan is the title of a research
project now underway.
In order to determine the degree of mobility of the
principals, your cooperation is requested in filling out
the enclosed post card and returning it by April 1st.
Instructions for filling out the post card are as
follows:
(1)
held.

Please be specific in stating the position you

(ex.) Senior High Principal, Elementary Teacher,

Coach, Reading Consultant, etc.
(2)

Indicate if the position was at the elementary,

secondary, higher education, or other level.

If the job

was not in education, please state that as well.
(3)

Use ditto marks where convenient.

All information will be treated as being confidential.
Thank you for your aid.
Sincerely Yours,

Mark Orchard
Ph.D. Candidate

114

APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE

"SELECTED FACTORS AFFECTING THE MOBILITY OF PUBLIC
SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN:

1968-1975"

Please supply the following information by:
encircling the appropriate number, checking the box, or
completing the blank.
A.

General information
(1)

Your sex:

M

F

(2)

Your age:

_____

(3)

Your family status:

1.
2.
3.
4.

single
widow or widower
divorced
married

(if married, number of
children)
(4)

In your educational career how many years have
you been a secondary school principal?

(5)

When you took your present job, did your spouse
hold a full time job outside your home?

(6)

Yes

How many students are enrolled in your high
school?

(7)

___ years

students

Do the administrators in your school district
bargain with the school board concerning salary
and other benefits?

(8)

Yes

No

Are you planning to change jobs in the near
future?

Yes

115

No

No

116

B.

Your Last Position
Major Reasons for Leaving Your Last Position

(Please check the appropriate column indicating if the
item was highly influential, moderately influential, or
not influential in causing you to leave your last position.)

Possible Reasons
for Leaving

Highly
influential

Little or no
Influence

Moderately
influential
I

1.

insufficient salary
and fringe benefits

2 . little challenge in

1

my last position
3.

i

my contract was not
renewed

■
i

!
4.

I didn't like the
community

5.

lack of recognition
for personal
accomplishments

!
i
i
1

. . . . . . . . .

i
i
i

6 . my family wanted me
to change jobs
7.

I wanted to influ­
ence educational
policies more

8.

inadequate facilities
and materials

9.

excessive duties on
my last job

10.

the move was a
personal career
advancement

11.

there was a poor
school climate

ii
f

j
j

12. disagreement with
the Board's educa­
tional policies

;

U - - - - ------

'
1..

.....

117

If there were other main reasons why you left
your last job would you please list them below.

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER

2950 Noble Rd.
Oxford, Michigan 48051
April 3, 1975

Dear Sir:
A short time ago you responded to an initial survey
conducted for a study entitled, Selected Factors Affecting
the Mobility of Public Secondary School Principals in
Michigan.

Thank you for your prompt response.

It was

most helpful in determining the sample population.
Your cooperation is again requested.

Information

only you can provide is necessary to complete the study.
Please fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it in
the provided envelope by April 15th.
After the study is finished, an abstract of the re­
search will be sent to all questionnaire contributors.
All information given is confidential.
Again, thanks for your help.

Sincerely Yours,

Mark Orchard
Ph.D. Candidate

118 .

APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT

FORMAT OF INTERVIEW
1.

Introduce self and project
tape recorder, confidential, define mobility, past
and present job

2.

What was your undergraduate major?

3.

How many years did you teach before becoming an
an administrator?

4.

In what type of community did you grow up?

5.

What jobs outside of the field of education have
you held?
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAST POSITION

6.

Could you have been encouraged to stay at your last
position?
If so, what changes would have been
necessary?

7.

Would you share with me how your family felt about
your last change of position?

8.

Was there major disagreement with any one person
before you left your last position?
If so, was it
within the School Board, other administrators,
faculty, family, or community?

9.

Did the lack of anything in the community
bearing on your decision to change jobs?

have a

10.

Was there any one incident that was decisive in
your decision to leave your last job?

11.

You gave as a reason for leaving your last position
____________ . Would you explain that reason
further?
In what respect

12.

What do you consider the major reason you left your
last job?

13.

Would you consider a long distance move to improve
your career?
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR PRESENT JOB

14.

What gives you the greatest satisfaction about your
job?

15.

What is the area of greatest dissatisfaction?
119

120

16.

You made the change to your present job for specific
reasons.
In reality has this job met your expecta­
tions?

17.

What would influence you most to take another job
as a principal?

18.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

19.

In the recent past principals have moved a great
deal. Do you see this trend continuing? Why or
why not?

20.

Are there any other comments you would like to make?
Thank you.

Send an abstract of results.

APPENDIX F
SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN
THE STUDY OF THE OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY OF
ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS

I.

Your Family Status
1. Single
2. Widow or Widower
3. Divorced
4. Married
Number of Children _____

II.

Questions pertaining to Influences on Your Entry into
Teaching and Your Movement into Educational Administra­
tion.

A.

At what age did you first think of entering
teaching? _____

B.

At what age did you decide to enter teaching?

C.

At what age did you actually enter teaching?

D.

Rate the influence that each of the following
individuals or groups had on your decision to enter
teaching.
Great
Influence

1.

Parents

2.

High School Teachers

3.

College Instructors

4.

High School Peers

5.

College Peers

6.

Relatives

7.

Friends of the Family

'Moderate
Influence

____
____

i Little or no

j Influence
1
i

j
!
!
1
!
j
!
1
3
i

,

E.

Are there other persons not listed in question "D"
who had a great influence on your decision to
enter teaching? If so please identify ___________

F.

How important to you were the following statements
about jobs and careers at the time that you decided
to enter administration (Assistant or Vice
Principal)?

121

122

Most
{Highly
Impor- jlmportant
;tant

Administration Will
1.

Provide me with a chance
to make a good salary

2.

Provide an opportunity
to use my special
abilities and aptitudes

3.

Give me social status
and prestige

4.

Give me an opportunity
to work with people
rather than things

5.

Permit me to be creative
and original

6.

Give me a chance to
exercise leadership

7.

Enable me to look
forward to a stable
future

8.

Give me an opportunity
to be helpful to others

9.

Excellent hours and
vacations

Medium ’Little or no
Impor- {Importance
tance

10. Others (specify)

III.

Chronological List of Jobs Held in Education (for
each job)

1.

Employment Dates _________________________________

2.

Job Title and Brief Description _________________

3.

Other Duties Concurrent with this Assignment

4.

Employing School District _____________________

5.

Name of School _________________________________

6.

Grades Served _____________________

7.

Enrollment:

a.

School

b.

District

123
A.

Are there any positions that you have held outside
of education that were of great help in preparing you
for the assistant principalship?

B.

If so, please list.

Which of the following statements best reflect your
present feelings about your career?

C.

1.

I have made very good progress toward my
goals.

2.

I have made some progress toward my goals.

3.

I have made little progress toward my goals. ___

Future Aspirations
As you look ahead, recognizing that factors beyond
your control may intervene, what kind of job do you
EXPECT TO HAVE five years from now?
1.

Retired

2.

Classroom teacher

3.

Assistant Principal (same school)

4.

Assistant Principal (different school)

5.

Principal

6.

Central Office Staff

7.

Superintendent

8.

College Teacher

9.

Other, Please State

Place ia number 1 after the kind of job (as listed above)
that you would LIKE TO HAVE five years from now.
G.

At what point in time did you decide to enter educa­
tional administration?
1.

About the same I decided to enter teaching _____

2.

After my first few years of teaching _____

3.

After considerable experience (over 5 years)
as a teacher

124
H.

Which statement best summarizes your views at the
time that you accepted the position of assistant or
vice principal?
1.

I plan to make it a career

2.

It will be temporary.

3.

___

I eventually plan to:

a.

return to teaching _____

b.

be promoted to a higher position in the
district _____

c.

be promoted to a higher position else­
where _____

d.

accept another assistant principalship ____

I had no thoughts on the matter _____

Rate the influence that the following groups or
individuals had on your decision to enter educa­
tional administration.
Little or no
Influence

Great
j Moderate
Influence ; Influence
!
1.

Parents

2.

Spouse

:

3.

Colleagues

4.

Undergraduate Instructors

:
1
!

5.

Graduate Instructors

6.

An Administrator in your
District

7.

;

]

i
•

An Administrator in
another District

8.

Friends outside of
Education

9.

Others (please specify)

j
!

i
i
1
1
i
j
\

___________ i___________ i

J.

To what extent did the following individuals affect
the final decision by which you were appointed to
the assistant principalship?

125
Great
jModerate * Little or no
Influence Influence Influence
1.

Principal of the school

2.

Superintendent of the
district

3.

Board of Education

4.

Other professional contacts

5.

Friends

6.

Others (please specify)

(

i

IV. What is your perception of the importance of the
following items as they contributed to your first
appointment to the assistant or vice principalship?
M

<

CD
i-C

3
T)

W

ft

O
H- O
3 Hi B Hi
Xi
o CO o I-*
H o H H*
rt 3
rt rt
CD 3 r t
3 t-*
3
n CD
O

x)

O
H
0)

3
Tl

3
rt

CD

CD

rt !

ID

!
t

|

1.

Number of years teaching experience

2.

Success as a teacher

3.

Performance in informal assignments outside
of the classroom (Ex. assembly program
chariman)

4.

Performance in formal assignments outside the
classroom (Ex. department head)

5.

Amount and quality of professional preparation

6.

I was at the right spot at the right time

7.

The principal wanted me

i

8.

Contacts within the profession

i
i

9.

Contacts outside the profession

10.

Performance on competitive exams

11.

Successful job interview

12.

Others (Please specify)

i
l

--

or no

O
l-t

126
I.

Rate the following as they contribute to your prepara­
tion as an assistant or vice principal.
j
Great

i Little or j Never
Moderate 1 None
Held
\

1. Work as a teacher
2. Work as an advisor or coach
of a student activity
3.

Work as a guidance counselor

4.

Work as a department head

5.

Participation in community
activities

»
i
t
i
j
I
\
i

\

j
*
6. Participation in professional |
activities
!
.............................. ..-1....

J.

1
♦

!
j
i
!
f
J
!
'
j
|
;
! ......

!
i
t
j
|
. .... .....

If you held the position of assistant of vice principal
in more than one school, please list some of the
main reasons why you changed jobs from one school
to another.

K.

To what degree have the circumstances listed below
affected decisions you have made in relation to your
changing or not changing school districts?

An Impor- jOf Moderate
tant Factor! Importance

Of Little
or no Impor­
tance

i

....................
1. Family commitments
(such as
number of children, nearness
of relatives) have causes me
to pass up or not to seek
opportunities in other districts

i
____________
i
•
'
!
j
<
j
j

2.

I consider myself more placeoriented than career-oriented

j
|

3.

The school environment (such
as student discipline,
parental views on education)
has always been an important
factor in my selection of jobs

•
I
!
j
;

4.

The advantages of job security,
seniority and retirement
benefits outweigh the
advantages that might ensue
from changing school districts

i

5.

i
i

Other related factors that have
influences your career in
education (Please specify)

L.

If you presently hold a job different from the assistant
or vice principalship, what factors were important in
your decision to leave the assistant principalship?

128
M.

Job Satisfaction:

The following questions concern

the degree of satisfaction that you have obtained
from the assistant or vice principalship
Very
Satis­ Dissat­
Satis­
fied isfied
fied
1.

How satisfied were you with this
position when you consider the
expectations you had when you
originally took the job?

2.

How satisfied were you with the
amount of time which you devoted
to the job?

3.

How satisfied were you with the
results that you achieved?

4.

How satisfied were you with your
salary?

5.

How satisfied were you with the
amount of personal satisfaction the
job gave you?

6 . How satisfied were you with the
amount of recognition the job gave
you?
7.

How satisfied were you with the
physical working conditions?

8 . How satisfied were you with the
amount of assistance you received
from your immediate superior(s)?
9.

How satisfied were you with the
rapport that you established with
the student body?

APPENDIX G
INTERVIEWEE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES AND
SELECTED COMMENTS

A Highly Mobile Inside Transfer Principal
Biographical Sketch
This HMIT principal was a male, fifty years old,
and was responsible for 850 high school students.

He had

been a principal for six years, three years as a secondary
school principal in the current position, one year as a
middle school principal in the same district, and two
years as a junior high school principal in another dis­
trict.

In his current district the administrators

bargain with the board for salary and benefits.

This

HMIT principal checked the desire to influence educa­
tional policies, inadequate facilities and materials, and
the move was a personal career advancement as being
influential reasons why he left the last position.
Comments
"Many administrators that leave school districts
are not sufficiently involved in community activities
and affairs.

The greatest hinderance a chief adminis­

trator can have is no communication with the community."
"I left the last school because one favored assistant
was being groomed to take over the principalship that I
thought I deserved."

"I brought several staff members

with me to help influence the existing staff."

"The

reason so many principals are moving is that the building
principal must have authority and autonomy to adequately
run a building.

Today it's just not true."
129

"Last year

130

I interviewed for two out-of-state positions.

I didn't

go because the salary here is pretty good."
A Highly Mobile Inside Promotee Principal
Biographical Sketch
The HMIP principal was a male, forty-seven
years old, and had been a secondary school principal for
one year.

Approximately 1250 students were enrolled in

the school of which he was currently the principal.

The

last position held was that of assistant principal in
the same school.

This HMIP principal had taught in the

same school district for over eighteen years and been
an administrator for the past four years.
"home-town" promotee.

He was a

This HMIP principal checked the

items on the questionnaire as being influential in the
leaving of the last position:

little challenge, desire

to influence educational policies more, and the move was
a personal career advancement.
Comments
"I very definitely could have been encouraged to
stay in my last position, knowing sooner or later the
opportunity would come to be a principal."

"My family

was proud and pleased that the advancement came."
was being groomed for this job.

"I

It was pretty much

automatic, cut and dried, that I would become principal."
"The major reason I accepted the principalship was that

131

the move was a promotion."

"It was the opportunity and

the challenge to run the show that motivated me."
I have come up through the school system I have a supeior working relationship with the staff.

I think if a

principal would have come in as an outsider the staff
would have had the tendency to say,

'prove yourself'."

A Highly Mobile Outside Transfer Principal
Biographical Sketch
The HMOT principal was a male, thirty-seven year
old, married, and had been a secondary school principal
for six years.

During the past three years he had been

the principal of three different schools.

He was the

father of three children and throughout the interview he
referred several times to the difficulty his wife and
children were encountering in adapting to a new community
and school this year.

He checked that he was planning

to change jobs again soon if the opportunity presented
itself.

In the school he left, there had been six

principals during the past eight years.

The HMOT

principal listed only disagreement with the board as
being a highly influential reason for leaving his last
position.
Comments
I left for a variety of reasons.

"One of the

major reasons I left was because the board did not
follow my recommendations."

"Community pressure groups

132
began a power move and the board responded.11 Racial
strife caused many of the in-school problems.
quested the release of an incompetent teacher.

"I re­
The

board and teachers had a confrontation and I lost."
"Bad board relations occur when the board doesn't let a
principal do the job he's hired to do."

"The board

became intensely involved in personal matters and
second-guessed my recommendation."
happy in the last home we had.

"My wife was very

This move has been

irritating and unpleasant for her."

Principals move

for money, prestige, and challenge.
A Highly Mobile Outside Promotee Principal
Biographical Sketch
This HMOP interviewee was a m a l e , thirty years
old, married, and had been a secondary school principal
for the past two years.

He was principal in a high

school of approximately 800 students.

Administrators in

this district did not bargain with the school board.
The HMOP principal was promoted to the principalship from
an assistant principal's position in the last school
district.

During the year that he became principal he

held three different positions.

This HMOP principal

checked the areas of desire to influence educational
policies more, the move was a personal career advance­
ment, poor school climate, and disagreement with the
school board's educational policies as being highly

133

influential for leaving the last position.
Comments
"If I would have stayed in my old position I
would have died."
leadership."

"I was frustrated through a lack of

"I was unfortunately a white caught in a

black power structure."

"I was dissatisfied with the

promotional system used by the school board."

"The board

promoted people in one of the special programs of the
district rather than looking for qualified personnel in
the K-12 schools.

An assistant principal got a job I

felt I should receive."

"If they had the job I was

looking for and if I could hand pick my assistants, I
would go back ."
A Less Mobile Inside Transfer Principal
Biographical Sketch
This LMIT principal is a male, forty-one years
old, married, and has been a principal for seven years.
He plans to change jobs in the near future.

He has been

principal of a high school of 800 sutdents for three
years and was principal of a junior high in the same
district four years preceding his current position.

He

cited that the most highly influential reason why he
changed positions was that there was little challenge in
the last job.

134
Comments
"I could not have been encouraged to stay as a
junior high principal".

"What I had set out to do as a

junior high principal was accomplished."

"My wife

wasn't overjoyed because of the after hour commitments
this job entails."
plinarian."

"I'm the type that must have a challenge and

keep very active."
move."
bored."

"I was moved because I am a disci­

"It's the challenge that makes me

"There's never a dull moment.

I'm certainly not

"If I felt I could accomplish something for

another school district I would change jobs, but the
district must have the same philosophy as I do.

That's

vital."

A Less Mobile Inside Promotee Principal
Biographical Sketch
This LMIP principal is a male, thirty years old,
married and has been a principal for two years.

Previous

to becoming a principal he was a high school teacher in
the same district for six years.

Approximately 600

students are enrolled in the school of which he is the
principal.

This school contains grades 7-12.

He lives

in a nearby town out of the school district in which he
is presently employed.

Insufficient salary and fringe

benefits, the desire to influence educational policies
more, and the move was a personal career advancement were

135
cited by this LMIP principal as being highly influential
reasons for changing position.
Comments
"I was president of the teachers1 local educa­
tional association at the same time I was the appointed
high school principal.

At that time I was the head of

the negotiating team and I don't think there was much
conflict.

However, now I would only work on the team if

I was in an advisory position."
and proud that I moved up."

"My wife was thrilled

"My own ambition to be a

principal was decisive in my last change of jobs."
"Later I intend to become a superintendent.
aggressive person."

I'm an

"There was enough raise (financial)

for me to take on the added responsibilities."

"I

moved because of the chance to influence more of the
children instead of just the thirty in my classroom."
"Right now, I have no ambition to move to a larger
school."
A Less Mobile Outside Transfer Principal
Biographical Sketch
This LMOT principal was a male, fifty years old,
married, and taught three years before becoming a
principal.

He has been a principal for twelve years

and has been in his present position for two years.

The

last position was that of a principal out-of-state in
a large metropolitan area.

The current position is in a

136

high school of about 650 students in a resort town.
Little challenge in my last position, my family wanted
me to move, and the move was a personal career advance­
ment were checked on the questionnaire as being influ­
ential reasons for leaving the last position.
Comments
"I took this job because my friends are in this
area.

The board of education called me and asked if I

was interested.”

I want to retire here.

"We had made

up our minds to come back to Michigan and there was a
job opening here.”

"I tried another state and a large

school system, it worked out well and I guess I had
accomplished my ego trip.”

"My married daughter and

my wife wanted to move here."
raised in a small town.
retire."

"My wife and I were both

We wanted to move back here to

"If 1 were young I wouldn't consider education

as a career.

There are too many things that can't be

controlled today.

They prevent enjoyment of your work."

"The vacancy here was reason enough for me to move."
A Less Mobile Outside Promotee Principal
Biographical Sketch
This LMOP principal was male, thirty-nine years
old, married, and has been a secondary school adminis­
trator for seven years.

His last position was out-of-

state where he was an assistant principal in a large
school system.

He is currently very active on the school

137
district's bargaining team.

He has joined with other

administrators in this district to bargain collectively
with the board for salary and other fringe benefits.
This LMOP principal has been a secondary school principal
three years and was assistant principal out-of-state for
four years.

Highly influential items checked as being
¥

reasons for leaving the last position were:

desire to

influence educational policies more, excessive duties on
the last job, and the move was a personal career advance­
ment .
Comments
"It was in my career plans to move when the
opportunity came."

"As an assistant principal I had

assumed many of the responsibilities of a principal and
the work was just too much."

"My next move will be

into central office in personnel or curriculum work."
"My greatest satisfaction is to see change take place
in schools."

"I knew this community was going to

present new opportunities with increased growth of
schools."

"The constant turmoil in education will in­

crease mobility."
pressure.

"The principal is under unbelievable

There is no end in sight."

APPENDIX G
Michigan Divisions to Locate Mobile Principals

Upper Peninsula

North

South
East

South
West

South
Central

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
American Association of School Administrators.
Profile
of the School Superintendent.
Washington, D.C.,

T M

Caplow, Theodore and McGee, Reece J. The Academic
Marketplace. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1958.
Carlson, Richard 0. Executive Succession and Organiza­
tional Change. Chicago: Midwest Administration
Center, University of Chicago, 1962.
________ . School Superintendents:
Careers and Perfor­
mance . Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Co., 1972.
Chamberlain, Neil W. and Cullen, Donald E. The Labor
Sector. New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o ., 1971.
Holland, John L. Psychology of Vocational Choice.
Waltham, Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing
C o ., 1966.
Jennings, Eugene E. The Mobile Manager.
McGraw-Hill Book C o ., 1967.

New York:

Lansing, John B. and Mueller, Eva.
The Geographic
Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Survey Research Center, 1967.
Marshall, Howard D. The Mobility of College Faculties.
New York: Pagent Press Inc., 19647
Michigan Education Association.
Michigan Education
Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1974-1975.
Lansing/Michigan, 1975.
________ . Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's
Guidel 1973-1974.
Lansing, Michigan, 1974.
______ . Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's
Guide : 1972-1973.
Lansing, Michigan, 1973.
139

140
Michigan Education Association. Michigan Education
Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1971-1072'.
Lansing, Michigan, VTTT.
Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1970-1071. Lansing, Michigan, 1971.
. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1969-19/0. Lansing, Michigan, 1970.
________ . Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide:
1968-1969. Lansing, Michigan, 1969.
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Report of the Assistant Principalship. Washington,
D T c r r x M o : ------------------________ . Report of the Junior High-School PrincipalshipV Washington, D.C., 1966.
________ . Report of the Senior High-School PrincipalshipT Washington, D .C ., 1965.
Osipow, Samuel H. Theories of Career Development.
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

New

Parnes, Herbert A. Research on Labor Mobility. New
York:
Social Science Research Council, 1954.
Reynolds, Lloyd G. The Structure of Labor Markets.
New York: Harper and Brothers Co., 1951.
Super, Donald E. The Psychology of Careers.
Harper and Row, 1957.

New York:

Warner, W. Lloyd and Abegglen, James C. Big Business
Leaders in America.
New York: Atheneum Co. ,
T W T . -----------------

________ . Occupational Mobility. Minneapolis:
sity of Minnesota Press, 1955.

Univer-

141
PERIODICALS
Brown, Glenn J. and Rentschler, James E.
"Why Don't
Assistant Principals Get the Principalship."
Education Digest. XXXIX (January, 1974).
Butefish, William L. "Do You Know Why Your Teachers Are
Leaving?" School Management. XV (May, 1971).
---- • "Now for a Short Course in How to Keep Good
Teachers." American School Board Journal. CLIX
(September, 1972).
--------------------Chase, Francis A. and Sweitzer, Robert E.
"Swiftly Come
and Swiftly Go." Nation's Schools. LI. No. 5 5
(March, 1953).
----------------Davison, Ronald G.
Mobility."

"Work Satisfaction and Teacher
Clearing House. XXXXV (January, 1971)

Hoy, Wayne K ; and Aho, Fred.
"Patterns of Succession
of High School Principals and Organizational
Change." Planning and Changing, IV. No. 2
(Summer, 19737:
-- ----- — &
Immundo, Louis y., Jr.
"Problems Associated with
Managerial Mobility." Personnel Journal. LIII.
No. 12 (December, 1974).
Longest, Beaufort B . , Jr. and Clawson, Donald E.
"The
Effect of Selected Factors on Hospital Turnover
J o u r n a l , LIII, No. 1 (January,
McConnell, Arleigh W.
XXXXVI (1971).

"Why California Is Losing Its
Journal of Secondary Education,

Morris, Jerry W . , Stuckhardt, Michael H. and Kusel,
Donald R. "A Job Suitability Scale." Kappa
Delta Pi Record. XI, No. 4 (April, 19757
”
Nicholson, Everett W.
"The Practitioner's Guide to
Research: What Motivates Principals?" National
Association of Secondary School Principals *
Bulletin, LVIII (January. 1974^ ------ K--O'Toole, James.
"The Reserve Army of the Underemployed."
Change VII. No. 4 (May, 1975).
Stanavage, John A.
"NCA Principals' Perception of Their
Principalship." North Central Association
Quarterly, X X X X V l T W i n t e r , 1972).----------

142
Unpublished Material
Bogert, Francis E. "Mobility, Promotability and Status
Obeisance Among Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation Pennsylvania State University, 1971.
Butefish, William L. "An Analysis of Causative Factors
in Teacher Mobility." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta
tion, Texas Technological College, 1967.
Cammack, Elwin F. "A Study of Factors Related to
Mobility and Faculty Productivity and Achievement
at Michigan State University: A Follow-Up Study.
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1964.
Castagna, Joseph P. "Mobility Among Public Elementary
School Principals of Connecticut From 1953
Through 1961." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Conneticut, 1963.
Dorland, Lyle T. "A Study of Colorado School District
Superintendent Mobility:
1970-1972." Un­
published Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Colorado, 1973.
Foster, Morris A.
"A Study of Administrative Behavior
and Factors Related to Upward Mobility in Three
Selected Metropolitan School Systems." Un­
published Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State
University, 1969.
Holloway, Hugh H. "Why School Superintendents are Dis­
missed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions A Study as Expressed by Members of Boards of
Education Involved in Selected Cases in Michigan.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1966.
Manning, Richard F. "The School Principalship: A
Study of Mobility and its Relationship to Educa­
tional Leadership." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta­
tion, Case Western Reserve University, 1968.
Mas, Joseph.
"The Occupational Mobility of Secondary
School Assistant Principals." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1968.

143
Otlewski, Robert E. "Economic and Psychological Analysis
of Labor Mobility: A Study of the Indiana
Secondary School Teacher." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Indiana University, 1972.
Parsons, George E. "An Application of John Holland's
Vocational Theory to an Empirical Study of
Occupational Mobility of Men Age 45 to 59."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1971.
Pearson, Douglas L. "Teacher Interstate Mobility in
North Carolina: A Comparison of Those Who Leave
With Those Who Stay and Those Who Enter from
Other States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of North Carolina, 1972.
Todd, Richard J. "Factors Related to the Mobility Patterns
of Business Education Teachers in Iowa Public
Secondary Schools.
Unpublished Ph.D. disserta­
tion, University of Iowa, 1970.

144
PAPERS AND PAMPHLETS
Balyeat, Ralph E. "Factors Affecting the Acquisition
and Retention of College Faculty.
Final Report."
Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.,
1968.
Carlson, Richard 0. "Career and Place Bound School
Superintendents:
Some Psychological Differences.
A Project Report." Center for Advanced Study
of Educational Administration, Eugene, Oregon,
University of Oregon, 1969.
________ • "Career and Place Bound School Superintendents:
Some Sociological Differences.
A Project Report."
Center for Advanced Study of Educational Administra­
tion, Eugene, Oregon, University of Oregon, 1969.
Charters, W.W.,Jr.
"In-State Migration of Oregon Superin­
tendents:
Base-Line Data.
OCASEA Occasional
Paper." Center for Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, Eugene, Oregon, University of
Oregon, 1972.
Kowitz, Gerald T. et. al.
"Mobility in the Education
Profession." Oklahoma Public School Research
Council, Norman, University of Oklahoma, 1970.
Salomne, Jerome J. and Gould,
Synthesis of Research
Center for Vocational
Columbus:
Ohio State

Betty A.
"Review and
on Occupational Mobility."
and Technical Education,
University, 1974.

Watson, Gene D.
"Superintendents' Mobility Constructs
and Succession Patterns." Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association Annual
Meeting (Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2-6, 1970).