IN F O R M A T IO N T O U SER S This material was produced from a microfilm copy o f the original document. W hile the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand The markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith 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 w ith a targe round black m ark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. Y ou w ill find a good image o f the page in the adjacent fram e. the photographer 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed in "sectioning" the m aterial. 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 w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. follow ed a definite m ethod 4. The m ajority o f 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 a t additional charge by w riting the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEA SE N O T E : Some pages may have indistinct print. Film ed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Z fttb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-18,619 FULTZ, David Arlo, 1931- A STUDY OF THE REASONS WHY MICHIGAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS WERE DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS BETWEEN 1965 AND 1975. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1976 Education, administration Xerox University M icrofilm s t Ann Arbor, M ich ig a n 48106 A STUDY OF THE REASONS WHY MICHIGAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS WERE DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS BETWEEN 1965 AND 197 5 By David A. Fultz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF FHILOSOFHY College of Education 1975 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE REASONS WHY MICHIGAN SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS WERE DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE THEIR POSITIONS BETWEEN 1965 and 1975 By David A. Fultz Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to discover new knowledge about superintendent-board of education relationships, especially as pertains to the severance of the tenure of superintendents in Michigan school districts during the period between July 1, 1965 and June 30, 1975. Both general and specific reasons for the dismissal or encouragement to leave were sought. Methodology The names of superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were obtained from university placement officials, intermediate school district superintendents, boards of education members, and local school district superintendents. It was required that a name be validated by at least two sources for it to be included in this study. Seventy-seven superintendents met this criteria and were included in the study. Questionnaires were mailed to 384 members of the boards of education who had served at the time the action was taken to release these superintendents. At least two members of a board of education had to respond for a case to be included in the data David A, Fultz analysis. A total of 226 board members responded to the survey, with at least two board members responding from 60 boards of education. The instrument that was utilized in this research requested a response to several questions and also included a checklist evaluation appraisal of the released superintendent with an opportunity for the respondent to write in remarks. Findings of the Study Six hypotheses were formulated prior to gathering the data for this study. The findings of the study regarding these hypotheses were: Research Hypothesis Number One; When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors involved which precipitate that action. Research Hypothesis Number Two: Superintendents included in this study were appraised by board members as performing weakest in the area of Community Relationships of six general classifications provided in the survey. Research Hypothesis Number Three: Superintendents included in this study were appraised by board members as performing strongest in the area of Business and Finance of six general classifications provided in the survey. Research Hypothesis Number Four: Of all the specific reasons listed in the general classifications of the survey, the lack of maintaining a standard of professional ethics, honesty and integrity, was not appraised by board members to be the most predominant factor in termination of the tenure of a superintendent. David A. Fultz Research Hypothesis Number Five; Of those superintendents who served as chief negotiator for management, a majority who were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave were not appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. Research Hypothesis Number Six: A majority of those superin­ tendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were not evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. The general conclusions reached in this study were that: 1. The most underlying reason for the release of Michigan school superintendents concerns their relationships with the board of education. In this performance area, superintendents are most often criticized by board members for not seeking and accepting criticism of their work. 2. Geographic location of a school district in Michigan is not a significant factor in the release of the superintendent. The percentage of minority students enrolled in the school dis­ trict is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. 4. The release of Michigan school superintendents has increased significantly over the past five years. 5. The superintendent's role as the chief negotiator for management is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school super in tendents. 6. There is a significant relationship between the dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave and the lack of an annual written evaluation. David A. Fultz There is a significant relationship between the dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave and the procedure uti­ lized in the selection process. Performance as an educational leader is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. Lack of respect by school personnel is a significant underlying reason for the release of Michigan school superintendents. Poor communications is a significant underlying reason for the release of Michigan school superintendents. DEDICATION To my loving wife, Joyce, and wonderful children, Sherrie, Brian, and Lori, whose support and sacrifices have made this possible, this volume is dedicated. i i ACKNOWL EDGEMEN TS This study was made possible only through the effort and cooperation of many. The writer wishes to thank the members of the dissertation committee, Dr. Carl Brautigam, Dr. Alexander Kloster, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. James McKee. The writer is especially indebted to Dr. Carl Brautigam who has been my advisor, dissertation chairman, and good friend through the doctoral experience at Michigan State University. It was only through the sincere interest, consideration, and cooperation of the Godwin Heights Board of Education that the com­ pletion of this study became a reality. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................. LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................... Page iii vi LIST OF A P P E N D I C E S ........................................... viii Chapter I. THE P R O B L E M ........................................... Introduction. . . . . . . . . . Need of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses............................................. Basic Assumptions ................. Procedural Steps and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............. The Role of the Super intenden t , ........ The Turnover and Mobility of the Superintendent . . . The Selection and Evaluation of the Superintendent. . The Dismissal of the Superintendent ................. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... . III. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ................................... Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population...................................... Instrumentation....................................... Hypotheses and Analysis of the D a t a ................. Summary ..................... IV. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ............................ 1 1 2 6 7 7 8 9 12 14 26 26 36 43 54 64 66 66 66 67 75 79 81 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population............................................. Instrumentation ....................................... Hypotheses and Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 81 83 120 125 Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . Summary . . . . . . . ................................ . Research Hypotheses Conclusions . . . . . Observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Further R e s e a r c h ............... 141 B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................................................. A P P E N D I C E S .................................................... Appendix A Appendix B ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . Appendix D .............................. .......... Page 129 129 130 133 139 143 146 146 148 150 152 v LIST OF TABLES Sample of one of six generalized classifications as broken into specific parts for questionnaire p u r p o s e s ............................................. Dates superintendents were released................. How board members responded to questionnaire by board position...estimates compared with actual. . . Distribution of superintendents released in relationship to student enrollment of districts - a percentage distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Checklist item distribution - Relationship with the Board.................................. .. Checklist item distribution - Community Relationships........... .. Checklist item distribution - Business and Finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... Checklist item distribution - Staff and Personnel Relationships. . . . . . . . . ......... . Checklist item distribution - Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Checklist item distribution - Personal Qualities . . Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Relationship with the Board , . . . . Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Community Relationships ........... . Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Business and Finance. . . . . . . . . Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release" — Staff and Personnel Relationships . . Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Educational Leadership. . . . . . . . vi age 74 83 85 93 98 99 lOO lOl 102 103 106 107 107 108 109 Table Page 4.15 Tabulation of checklist item: "Partial reason for release” - Personal Qualities . . . . . . H O 4.16 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Relation­ ship with the Board.................................. 4.17 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Community Relationships..................... 4.18 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Business and F i n a n c e . ................ 4.19 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Staff and Personnel Relationships. . . . . . . . 4.20 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 Comparison of remarks with checklist item: "Partial reason for release" - Personal Qualities. . . . .......................... . . . . . 114 115 116 117 118 119 vi i LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Letter sent to university placement officials requesting list of names of dismissed Michigan school superintendents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Letter sent to intermediate school district superintendents requesting names of dismissed Michigan school superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 146 148 C. Personal letter to board members that was attached to the questionnaire, ........................ ISO D. Cover letter to board members from Dr. Norman Weinheimer, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of School Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 vi i i CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Superintendents of schools have been dismissed from their positions for scores of years and there is some evidence that this will continue to occur. There continues to be an absence of facts which would explain the underlying reasons why some superintendents lose their position. It is conceivable that in many cases the release of a superintendent might have been avoided had information from previous cases been available as a guide. In 1966, Hugh H. Holloway, then Superintendent of schools at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, completed a study to determine the under­ lying reasons why superintendents lost their positions during the years from July 1, 1955 to June 31, 1965. The results of this study are reported in his doctoral dissertation,^ The role of the superintendent of schools has changed consider­ ably since the completion of this study in 1966. Public Act 379 has forced the superintendent into the field of labor negotiations; formal written evaluations have become commonplace; and community pressures for school administrators to provide evidence of accountability, have all complicated the responsibilities of the superintendent. Thus, it ^■Hugh H. Holloway, "Why School Sup>er in ten dents are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions: (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966). 1 2 becomes apparent that the underlying reasons for the termination of a superintendent may have changed since the completion of the study by Dr. Holloway; therefore this study was initiated. When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave his position, there usually are specific reasons given for this action by the board of education. Also, usually there are other latent factors that go beyond the manifested reasons given. These latent reasons for dismissal are seldom made public. Ten years have passed since Dr. Holloway conducted his research. It seems appropriate, especially since the role and responsibilities of the superintendent have changed considerably in the past ten years, that a similar study be conducted. This study intended to identify the underlying reasons why superintendents involuntarily left their positions during the years from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1975. This study was not a replication of the study completed by Dr. Holloway in 1966. However, the procedure and method of research were very similar. Due to the manner in which the role of the superintendent has changed over the past ten years, the instrument utilized in this study was developed to request additional information, particularly in the area of labor negotiations, evaluation of the superintendent’s performance and procedures in the selection of a supe r in ten den t . Need of the Study The uncertainty of continuance in position, which is a charac­ teristic of all high level management positions, is accentuated in the office of superintendent of schools. The continuance of the chief 3 admin istrator *s employment depends directly on the decision of a relatively small number of citizens. Most boards of education include five to seven members and any time a majority of this group becomes dissatisfied with the superintendent, he can assume that his position is in jeopardy. There are often factors of community pres­ sure which protect him temporarily from dismissal. It is generally true, however, that when a school board becomes disenchanted with its executive, a way will be found to dismiss him. In place of statutory protection, the school superintendent usually has a contractual agreement with his board for a specified term of years. The length of this period is commonly a matter of negotiation between the two parties. A flexible agreement is occa­ sionally used to minimize the impact of sudden community explosion. A sliding contract provides for a term of years, typically three, with a clause providing for annual review. If at the end of the first year both the board and the executive are content, a new three- year document is drawn up and signed. If, on the other hand, one party is doubtful of the desirability of extending the employment to cover the fourth year, no new contract is executed. This is a clear warning to the superintendent that he may not be reemployed for that additional year. When a superintendent is dismissed before the end of his con­ tract, he is confronted with a difficult choice. More often than not, the reasons are concealed in a mass of evasive verbiage uttered by the school board. He may demand a public hearing to bring charges out into the open. Another course open to him is court action to compel the board to honor the contract. In either case, the affair may be 4 expected to degenerate into emotional and other undesirable outcomes. The airing of charges and responses makes a public scene, which few schoolmen care to undergo. This very fact, which is known by both boards and administrators, plays a large part in determining the course of such a conflict. Boards count on the reluctance of professional people to take part in public airing of differences. The superintendent is concerned with the notoriety, and cannot be sure whether it will hurt or help his chances of getting another position. Consequently, he is likely to choose the less dangerous course, and leave without contesting his dismissal. Michigan, along with the rest of the nation, is witnessing a substantial turnover of superintendents in recent years. A Michigan Department of Education Report indicates that 45 percent of Michigan school districts had vacancies during 1969-74, an average of 9 percent turnover a year. The highest rate was in districts of over 10,000 students: 80 percent reported vacancies during the five-year period, for an average annual rate of 16 percent. The lowest rate was in districts of 2,501 - 5,000 students: 39.4 percent for the five-year period, or 7.9 percent annually. 3 Carl Brautigam provides further information on superintendent turnover in reporting that of 256 changes of superintendencies in Michigan during the five-year period, 1969-1974, 21 were second and 2Michigan Department of Education, "Superintendent Turnover Averages Nine Percent Annually," (January, 1975), p. 1. Carl Brautigam, "Superintendent Turnover in Michigan," Michigan School Board Journal (November, 1974), pp. 6-7. 5 third changes. Of the 51 1974 changes, 15 were filled by the movement of a superintendent to another superintendency; 13 were filled by promotion from within the district; and 23 were filled by nonsuperin­ tendents from other districts (eight central office persons; seven principals; and eight from other categories). Brautigam states that there seems to be no geographic factors present in the vacancies occurring in Michigan. The dismissal of a superintendent of schools can be embarrassing both to the superintendent and to the board of education. If the specific factors, or the more underlying reasons, for this action could have been detected by the board of education or the superintendent early in the superintendent's tenure, it is possible that the reasons could have been eliminated. However, resolution of this conflict can only be accomplished if one or both parties are aware of the factors causing the difficulty. There was a need for a study which could search out the information available about the many cases of dismissal in Michigan over the past ten years. Board members and superintendents need to study the patterns of dismissal as one means of preventing similar occurrences in their own districts. The dismissal of a superintendent often comes as a sudden shock to the superintendent, school personnel, and the community, even though tremors are usually evident prior to the final quake of dismis­ sal. In many instances, if some type of formal evaluation procedure had been conducted annually, the friction between the board and the superintendent would have surfaced openly. However, oftentimes no formal evaluation procedures have been followed, even though evaluation of administrative personnel is becoming more prevalent. The Educational Research Service^ reports that the evaluation of adminis­ trative personnel, especially superintendents, is receiving increasing attention by state legislatures. At least nine states now mandate periodic and formal evaluations of administrative personnel in their public schools. A superintendent, by knowing in advance of the pitfalls of his predecessors, of his neighbors, and of his peers, may plan actions more carefully for the preservation of his position. Knowing in advance of those areas of conflict that have caused frictions across the state, the board of education can take action to guide its super­ intendent in the direction of policies it would wish to have executed. It can take action that may in many cases prevent friction which might lead to the necessity of removing the superintendent from his position. Purpose of the Study It was the purpose of this study to identify and describe both manifest and latent reasons why superintendents of schools in Michi­ gan are dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions. The instriunentation was so structured that six general classifications of factors in dismissal were listed. Several specific classifications of factors in dismissal were listed under each general classification. The open-ended questions provided an opportunity for further analysis of underlying reasons for termination. It was further the purpose of this study to make new knowledge available to: the colleges of education who prepare administrators, university placement bureaus ^Educational Research Service, Inc., Evaluation Administrative Performance (Arlington, Virginia, 1974), p. 1. 7 who recommend superintendents for placement, boards of education through the Michigan Association of School Boards, and superintendents of schools through the Michigan Association of School Administrators. All of these persons and agencies should profit greatly from the information that was gathered. Statement of the Problem The problem can be summarized as follows: 1. Identify by means of a questionnaire to school board members, who served when a superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, those factors which precipitated their action. 2. Of six general factors, identify the weakest area of responsibil­ ity and the strongest area of responsibility of superintendents included in the study, through an appraisal by school board members. 3. Identify specific reasons, as a part of each general factor, that were considered by board members as conditions involved in the termination of tenure of a superintendent. 4. Expose the general factors, the specific reasons, and the comments listed on the open-ended questions to intense analysis. 5. Interpret the data, and select the most significant factors that tend to explain the causes of school board/superintendent friction which were severe enough to terminate the employment of the super- in tendent. Hypotheses The following general hypotheses were formulated regarding the findings of this study: 8 1. When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors involved which precipitate that action. 2. Of the six general classifications in the survey, community relationships will be appraised by board members as the weakest area of responsibility of those superintendents who were dismis­ sed or encouraged to leave. 3. Of the six general classifications in the survey, business and finance will be appraised by board members as the strongest area of responsibility of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave. 4. Of all the specific reasons listed in the general classifications of the survey, the one specific reason that will be appraised by board members to be the most predominant factor in termination of the tenure of a superintendent will be the lack of maintaining a high standard of professional ethics, honesty and integrity. 5. Of those superintendents who served as chief negotiator for management, a majority of those who were dismissed or encouraged to leave will be appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. 6. A majority of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were not evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. Basic Assumptions Since the purpose of this study was to discover underlying reasons for the dismissal of school superintendents, the important issue of sampling was considered. Since all superintendents who were validated 9 by at least two sources as having been dismissed or encouraged to leave were included in the study, and since every member of the boards of education who took action regarding these superintendents were contacted if they could be reached, and since at least two board members from 60 boards (78 percent of the cases involved in the study) responded to the survey, it was assumed that this was more than an adequate sample of the population. Since board members were made aware that the names of school districts and individuals would remain anonymous, and with assurance by the Executive Director of the Michigan Association of School Boards that the results of this study would be made available to board members to assist them in preventing board-superintendent friction situations, the concept of mutual assistance was assumed positive. Thus, the answers given to the questionnaire were assumed to represent the true and honest expressions of opinions of the persons responding to the survey. Since the listing of general and specific classification of reasons for terminating the tenure of a superintendent may omit cer­ tain reasons that should be considered, it was desirable to utilize the open-ended survey to allow more complete and more adequate commitment of the person answering the questionnaire. It was assumed that the personalized type response of the comment-type answer would generate a more intimate and detailed expression of the board member's opinion. Procedural Steps and Methods The initial step in this study was to obtain the names of school superintendents who had been dismissed or encouraged to leave io their positions during the time period of July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1975. The study was limited to the state of Michigan. To obtain these names, a personal contact was first made with placement officials in the seven major universities in Michigan to solicit their cooperation. A letter was then sent to each of the following university placement officials: 5 Dr. Carl Brautigam Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Dr. Evart Ardis University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Mr. Charles Alexander Central Michigan University Mt. Pleasant, Michigan Dr. Chester McCormick Wayne State University Detroit, Michigan Mr, Richard Nisbet Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, Michigan Mr. Keith Forsberg Northern Michigan Univers ity Marquette, Michigan Mr. Leon Burgoyne Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan All seven replied providing names of subjects for the study. A letter was sent to each of the 58 intermediate school district superintendents in Michigan, requesting that they provide names for the study.** Forty-two responded to the request. Also, fellow superintendents, school board members and friends informally provided names for the study. 5See Appendix A 11 It was determined that for a superintendent to be included in this study it was necessary that his dismissal be validated by at least two sources. While all the groups combined to provide the names of 146 superintendents who had been dismissed or encouraged to leave, 94 of these cases were confirmed by two or more sources. In order to secure the names and addresses of board members who served at the time the incidents in this study occurred, contacts were made with the Michigan Department of Education, intermediate school districts superintendents and the present superintendents of the school districts where the incidents occurred. This name and address search was conducted by personal interview, personal record search, by telephone inquiry, and by mail. The names and addresses were carefully tabulated to determine if enough board members for each case could be located. It was deemed necessary that for a case to be included in the study a response must be received from at least two members who served on the board at the time the incident occurred. The instrument to be sent to board members was revised several times and then pretested with board members prior to finalizing. It was necessary to develop an instrument that would provide sufficient information and be brief enough that cooperation in responding would be encouraged. An open-ended portion of the questionnaire was developed to allow participants to go as far as they desired in pre­ senting information. Two letters were included with the quesionnaire when it was mailed to the board member. The first letter was attached to the questionnaire, addressed personally to the board 12 member, and gave the name of the superintendent being included in 7 the study. The second letter was signed by Dr. Norman Weinheimer, Executive Director of the Michigan Association of School Boards, encouraging each board member to respond to the questionnaire, because of the value the findings of the study would have for board members in Michigan. The validated list of cases to be studied disclosed that, in several instances, some school districts appeared more than once. In fact, one school district was included four times in the ten—year period of the study. Since many of the same board members served during the tenure of more than one of the superintendents involved in the study, and since it was felt to be unreasonable to request a board member to complete a questionnaire on more than one superinten­ dent, only the most recent case for that sdiool district was included in the study. Thus, while 94 cases were confirmed in the study, questionnaires were only sent to members of 77 boards of education. Superintendent of Schools: Definition of Terms One who was employed by a board of education as the chief executive officer of a school district and who held that position at the time of dismissal or encouragement to leave. ^See Appendix C 8S ee Appendix D School Board Member: 13 A resident of a school district who was legally elected to serve as a member of a board of education of a school district* For the purpose of this study, only those members were questioned who served as a board member at the time the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave. Dismissed Superintendent: A superintendent of schools who was asked to leave or was specifically informed that his contract would not be renewed. This included the cases where the board of education (1) broke a contract prior to termination date, (2) refused to renew the contract, or (3) requested the resignation of the superintendent. Even if the superintendent agreed to resign, he was still, for the purpose of this research, considered a dismissed superintendent. Superintendent Encouraged to Leave: Where inferences and suggestions were strong, or where opposi­ tion was great and the superintendent saw these signs and left because of them. Specific and/or Underlying Reasons: These were the real or latent reasons, as perceived by the questionnaire respondents. They may not have been the reasons that were generally made public, but were the specific reasons that appeared in the open-ended questions. The specific reasons that were used to prove general charges were the ones being sought. Weakest Area of Responsibility: 14 This was the appraisal by a board member of the one activity, of six listed, in which a superintendent included in this study performed the poorest. Strongest Area of Responsibility: This was the appraisal by a board member of the one activity, of six listed, in which a superintendent included in this study performed the best. Overview The survey instrument provides the most adequate overview of this research study. Chapter II provides a review of the literature. The design of the study and the design of the instrument is provided in detail in Chapter III. In Chapter IV the results are analyzed. Chapter V provides a summary and conclusions of the study with recommendations for further study. QUESTIONNAIRE WHY SUPERINTENDENTS ARE DISMISSED OR ENCOURAGED TO LEAVE S T R I C T L Y C O N F I D E N T I A L When you were a member of a board of education the superintendent of schools was ( ) Dismissed during the contract period ( ) Contract not renewed ( ) Eased out conveniently ( ) None of the above, please expla What was your position on the board at the time the action was taken? What was your age at the time the action was taken? How many years had you served on the board at the time the action was taken? What was the approximate date that this occurred? What were the approximate number of years this per- son served as superinten- dent? What were your feelings about the board's action at that time? President Vice-Presiden t Secretary Treasurer Trustee Up to 25 26 thru 35 36 thru 45 46 thru 55 Over 5 5 Up to 2 3 thru 5 6 thru 10 Over 10 ( ) ( ) ( ) O thru 3 4 thru 6 7 thru 9 ( ) lO thru 12 ( ) 13 thru 15 ( ) Over 15 ( ) ( ) Support Nonsupport 16 8. What kind of reasons did the board give the superintendent for the action taken? 9. If the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, what was the length of notice given of his pending dismissal, release or desire that he should leave? Very specific Specific General Vague None None 1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year Other, please explain 10. What role did the super­ intendent play in teacher negotiations? Chief negotiator for management Resource person for management Member of management team No role 11. If the superintendent served as chief negotiator, what is your assessment of his competence in this role? 12. Was a formal evaluation of the superintendent con­ ducted? a. If yes, what was the type of evaluation that was utilized? b. How often was he evalu­ ated? 13. If the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, what process was utilized in his selec­ tion? Very good Average Poor Yes No Written Oral Annual1y At end of multi-year contract Whenever necessary Board screening all applicants Placement bureau team screening applican ts Paid consultant Other, please explain 14. As an overall appraisal of the superintendent, please indicate the fol­ lowing: _S for his strongest area of responsibility (1 only) W for his weakest area of responsibility (1 only) 15. What was the student enrollment of the district at the time the action was taken? 16. What was the percentage of minority students enrolled in the district at the time the action was taken? 17 ( ) Relationship with the board ( ) Community relationship ( ) Business and Finance ( ) Staff and personnel relation­ ships ( ) Educational leadership ( ) Personal qualities O thru 1,000 1.001 thru 2,500 2,501 thru 5,000 5.001 thru 10,000 Over 10,000 O to 5 percent 6 to 15 percent 16 to 25 percent 26 to 50 percent Over 50 percent 18 INSTRUCTIONS: On the following pages, items A through F, you are asked to rate the superintendent in each of six general areas. Please check only one (O to 5) on each of the sub-items listed. A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Excell. 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Supported board policy and board actions to the staff and to the public. 2. Clearly understood his role as am administrator of board policy, not a policy maker. 3. Kept the board informed on issues, concerns, needs and general operation of the school sys­ tem . 4. Offered profession­ al advice and recommendations, based on thorough study and analysis, to board on items needing action. 5. Sought and accepted constructive criti­ cism of his work. 6. Provided well-plan­ ned meeting agendas 7. Had information readily available for the board on agenda items. 8. Had a harmonious working relation­ ship with the board. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 19 Please write in any additional comments regarding the superin­ tendent's relationship with the Board of Education. List things that you came to dislike, the things that alienated the superintendent from board members, etc. B. COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS Excell. 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Was recognized in the community as a leader in pub­ lic education. 2, Developed friendly and cooperative relationships with news media. 3. Sought and gave attention to pro­ blems and opinions of community groups and individuals. 4. Actively partici­ pated in community organizations. 5. Had the respect and support of the com­ munity in the opera­ tion of the school sys tern. 20 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please write in any additional comments regarding the superin­ tendent's relationship with the community. List things that were disturbing to the community, individuals, etc. C. BUSINESS AND FINANCE Excell. 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Evaluated finan­ cial needs and made recommenda­ tions for adequate f inancing. 2 . Kept informed on needs of the school program, plant, facilities, equipment and sup­ plies . 3. Required adequate control and accounting of funds I 4. Required that funds were spent wisely. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 21 Please write in any additional comments regarding the superinten­ dent's performance in the area of business and finance. List things that were done that you questioned, disapproved of, etc. D. STAFF AND PERSONNEL Excell. RELATIONSHIPS 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Encouraged appro­ priate staff mem­ bers to partici­ pate in planning and decision making and then accepted their suggestions . 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. 3. Treated all per­ sonnel fairly without discri­ mination or favoritism. 4. Delegated authori­ ty to appropriate staff members. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available person­ nel in terms of their competencies. 6. Evaluated perform­ ance of staff mem­ bers and provided constructive criti­ cism that was acceptable, . 22 D. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS Excel1. 5 Good 4 Ave r- age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 7. Provided sura active role in developing salary schedules and recommending personnel proce­ dures and policies. 8. Was highly respect­ ed by school person nel at all levels. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please write in any additional comments regarding the superin­ tendent 1s staff and personnel relationships: List all other things that bothered you and school district staff members in this area. 23 E . EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Excel1. 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Provided the lead­ ership to imple­ ment innovative programs and initiate educa­ tional progress. 2. Kept informed regarding all aspects of the instructional pro­ grams of the district. 3. Was involved in educational con­ ferences and read considerably in order to keep abreast of current educational prac­ tices . 4. Required an organ­ ized and planned program of curri­ culum development, evaluation, and improvement. 5. Provided democrat­ ic procedures in utilizing the abilities and tal­ ents of staff members and citi­ zens . 6. Maintained politi­ cal awareness and was proficient in working with local and state legisla­ tors . 24 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please write in any additional comments regarding the superin­ tendent's performance as an education leader. List all other things that you felt were weaknesses in this area. F . PERSONAL QUALITIES Excel1. 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason f or Release O 1. Was not afraid to make decisions and would defend his convictions in the face of pressure and partisan influ­ ence. 2. Devoted his time and energy effec­ tively to the respons ibilities of his position. 3. Had the respect of school personnel. 4. Had the respect of his professional colleagues in area school districts. 5. Maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and inte­ grity in all per­ sonal and profes­ sional matters. 6. Possessed a pleas­ ing personality and reflected personal charisma. 25 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Please write in any additional comments regarding the personal qualities of the superintendent. List those things about his per­ sonal qualities that bothered you, that you questioned, etc. Number ___________ . Identification is by number only. You need not sign. Please check if you wish to receive a copy of the results when the study is completed. _______ CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature pertinent to this study is reviewed in this chapter in the following sequence: The Role of the Superintendent, the Turnover and Mobility of the Superintendency, The Selection and Evaluation of the Superintendent, The Dismissal of the Superintendent, and Summary. The Role of the Superintendent The super intendency of schools is one of the most crucial and perhaps most difficult public functions in American life today. The occupant of the position of superintendent, more than any other single person in the community, influences the shape of public edu­ cation. Thus, he has a basic role in determining what will become of the young people of his community, and through them to some extent what his community and nation will become. His role is changing rapidly because of rapid changes in civilization. These include: growth of knowledge and its impact on life, the population explosion, rural depopulation and urban growth, technological progress, and widespread demand for equal opportunity.1 The superintendent has many functions, but all are focused on a single goal: to provide the best possible education for the •'‘Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, "The Unique Role of the Superintendent of Schools" (Washington D.C. 1965), p. 1 26 27 community. This means creating conditions that allow other people to get things done and above all to create an environment in which the teacher in the classroom can perform to the best of his ability. It means also assisting the board of education in the formulation of policies governing the school system. Increasingly, it implies a key role in the development of general policies affecting the life of the locality, the state, and the nation. The superintendent is the leader in a real sense, for he must be an expert in bringing out the best in his community and his staff. The most important of his roles are: 1. The supervision of the instructional program of the schools. He seeks consensus of his board, community, and staff on the goals of the school as a basis for decisions on the program. 2. The Management aspect. This constitutes the task of making choices and stimulating action and consensus. Also, he plays a major role in the selection of personnel. 3. The administration of the school budget. The budget is prepared under the superintendent’s direction and calls for intricate balancing of many factors. 4. The solution of day-to-day problems. This involves the responsi­ bility to encourage a permanent re-examination of the purpose of the schools in light of changing conditions and values. 5. The practice of the art of human relations. This is vital to his relationship with school personnel, the school board, and the 2 community. 2 Ibid. , pp. 3-5. 28 Russell J. Huff, managing Editor of Nations Schools, conducted 3 a survey in 1969, based upon a 10 percent proportional sampling of 14,000 school superintendents across the nation, for the purpose of determining how superintendents view their roles and their problems. The findings indicated that the superintendency is an ulcer job for many, and is obviously no place for the faint of heart. When asked to rank the five major problems they face, superin­ tendents in the study touched virtually every imaginable section of educational concern. The five top problems in order were: 1 . School finance. 2. Curriculum development. 3. Personnel problems (adequate staffing, negotiations, etc.). 4. School-community public relations. 5. Adequate facilities. Lloyd Ashby‘S relates his feelings that some boards and superin­ tendents themselves are confused as to their respective roles. The superintendent is confused as to whether he is the board's man, the educational leader of teachers, or the man in the middle. The superintendent appears to be gradually moving into the position of being the bo a r d ’s roan. In defining the role of the superintendent, Ashby feels that school boards fall into these three groups: those who look for a public-relations man, those who look for a good business manager, and those who look for an educational leader. However, in many cases, boards often set out to find an educational -^Russell J. Huff,"How Superintendents See Themselves," Nation’s Schools, 84 (November, 1969), p. 35. 4Lloyd W. Ashby, Man in the Middle. (Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers, Inc., 1968) p. 35. 29 leader and then criticize the newly-hired superintendent for not being more businesslike. It is important that boards and superin­ tendents define their respective roles. Anton Hess, Commissioner for Basic Education, Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction, feels that teachers have become intimately involved in board policies formerly considered to be management prerogatives. Teachers are now requesting rights that no union professional organization enjoys. Teachers are literally wrestling from the superintendent and the board decisions on what should be taught, who should teach it, and who should supervise the teachers in their work. The man in the middle is the superintendent. It is nearly impossible for the superintendent to be the executive and the advisor to the board, and, at the same time, give credibility to his image as a professional leader of a teaching staff under this dilemma. The results of a study conducted by the University of Oregon in 1967, in which 45 superintendents from different size districts and from 42 states were interviewed, provide five categories of the most serious problems superintendents feel they are faced with in their roles. These categories are: 1. Educational change. Over 50 percent of the superintendents focused upon the influences pressing upon them to stimulate change in the schools. 2. Teachers Militancy. The problem of dealing with militant teacher groups who demand a role in the decision-making structure of the ^ fhid., p . 25. 30 schools have impressed a whole new set of concerns upon the super in tendents, 'i. Ins truct ion. How the schools will continue to teach the young and toward what ends are matters of considerable concern, 4. Critical Social Issues. Since the Supreme Court decision of 1954, it has been apparent that schools can no longer retreat into their ivy-covered cloisters for protection from the contro­ versies of contemporary social issues. The superintendent today frequently feels he is more involved in social than in purely educational issues. 5 * Finance. Financial worries plague the superintendent in the traditional role as the procurer of resources for the school organization. 6 The superintendent makes dozens of decisions every day. He makes policy decisions and value judgments. His decisions are always subject to criticism and second-guessing. What must be understood, however, is that these decisions frequently are complex and almost always have widespread ramifications,, In making these decisions the effective superintendent is probably right 90 percent of the time, but he cannot be right all of the time, and he cannot be expected to be right all of the time. 7 Generally, the superintendent has a very short time in which to decide: (1) to make a decision; (2) not to make a decision; (3) to ^Keith Goldhammer, William Aldridge, John Suttle, Gerald Becker, Issues and Problems in Contemporary Educational Administration. (University of Oregon Press, 1967), p. lO. 7Will iam Southworth, "The Superintendency-A Position in Flux," American School Board Journal. 154 (May, 1967), p. 38. 31 refer to someone else; (4) not to refer to someone else; (5) to tern- 0 porize; (6) or to refuse to consider the matter, Campbell suggests that there are three major functions of the g superintendent. These are: to help define and clarify the purpose and direction of the school, to establish and maintain an organiza­ tion to work at these purposes, and to secure and allocate resources needed by the organization. Campbell feels that increasing demands on school actainistrators are being made by the larger society. With the civil rights revolution, schools are now seen by many not only as traditional instructional centers, but as power instruments of social policy. Much of the current literature discusses the changing role of the superintendent. Teacher tenure laws, collective bargaining, and the growth of teacher unions have all been a factor in this changing role. In discussing the changing role and responsibilities of the school superintendent, Burbank lO suggests that the nature of leader­ ship within the school system is changing at a rapid pace. The direct personal influence of the superintendent is diminishing, particularly as districts become larger. Less and less do school employees have any personal kind of relationship with the superinten­ dent. All too often they know him only as a distant authority figure 8 lbid. , p. 39. 9 Roald F. Campbell, "The Changing Role of the Superintendent," Contemporary Education. 39 (May, 1968), p. 249. 10Natt B. Burbank, Superintendent of Schools. (Danville, Illi­ nois: Interstate Printers, Inc., 1968), p. 25. 32 who seems to be responsible for whatever they do not like about their conditions of work* As the advisor and executive to the school board of today, the superintendent is likely to find that the board is changing rapidly. Better educated and more articulate than ever before, the citizens who are responsible for policy making no longer accept policy proposals without sound basis. No longer is the superintendent’s advice taken on word alone. It must be supported by solid justification. The day of domination of a school board by an administrator with a degree is gone. The executive must be an educational statesman capable of putting together soundly-based recommendations and defending them vigorously under intelligent questioning of well-informed board members In order to identify the current problems facing the school superintendents in Nebraska, M. Scott Norton, conducted a study in the spring of 1971 which investigated four levels of problems expres­ sed by school superintendents. The 118 chief school executives included in the study were selected randomly and represented schools with widely varying enrollments. The findings of this study indicated that five areas of his responsibility create the greatest problem. These five areas are listed in rank order as reported in the study: 1. Problems of teacher personnel. 2. Public relations. 3. Pupil personnel problems. 4. Increasing educational costs and problems in finance. 11Ibid., p. 28. 33 5. Problems related to the board of education. 12 The escalating dynamism of teacher organizations and collective bargaining is challenging the superintendent to reasses his role in teacher-board relationships. The benevolent paternalism of other years is being rejected by teacher leaders. Their associations are now pushing for formalized lines of communication between the school board and the teacher association. 13 In the area of collective bargaining, the superintendent of schools is the man in the middle. Most factors indicate that the impact of negotiations on the superintendent is similar to the impact of the ball point pen on the blotter or the internal combustion engine on the one-horse shay. The superintendent really represents the students in the negotiating process. Thus, he is the man in the middle and he must exert a positive influence on both the teachers and the board. 14 Bradley 15 observes that negotiations between the teachers and the school board have affected the superintendent in two ways. One, the teachers no longer automatically accept at face value all the suggested proposals of the board of education and the superintendent. Two, there has been a major change in the relationship of the super­ intendent within the framework of the actual process of negotiations. 1 2 M. Scott Norton, "Current Problems of the School Superinten­ dent," The Clearing House. 46 (September, 1971), p. 15. 13Burbank, o p . cit.. p. 32. School Board Journal. 155 (February, 1968), p. 10. V. Rasmussen, "New Role for the Middleman," American 15Arnold Bradley, "The Superintendent and Negotiations," The Clearing House. 44 (January, 1970), p. 278. 34 Superintendents have for years kept their hold on the professional organizations representing teachers. They have encouraged their own teachers to become more active in the same professional organization without preparing for estrangement from the group. Now that teachers are in the process of dominating the leadership of such groups, superintendents are finding themselves outside the normally friendly paternalistic camp. They are representing the board of education and the students and teachers are representing themselves. If a superintendent who retired in the 1930*s could return in the 1970*s, he would find the superintendency recognizable, but he would also discover a new set of circumstances that call for new responses. One such set of circumstances is that created by organi­ zations of teachers. Until teacher organizations appeared, the best of superintendents when beset with political or financial pressures, or caught in the cross-fire from special interest groups, could usually rely on staff support, not only in a political way, but also to sustain their own morale and courage in time of crisis. This is no longer true today as collective bargaining is laced with a con­ siderable amount of gamesmanship. The impression is created today that teachers and administrators are adversaries. Individual teachers may have a different view of the superintendent, but according to the game plan, they do not dare let this be known,^ To find out whether there is reason to believe that a new kind of superintendent exists, in 1969 School Management editors mailed a four-page questionnaire to 776 superintendents, selected at random ^ F r e d M. Raubinger, "Long Term Contracts for Superintendents," Education Digest. 37 (September, 1971), p. 12. 35 from across the United States. A total of 360 questionnaires were returned. The survey results indicate that: 1. A significant number of superintendents do conceive of their leadership role in terms best characterized as active, rather than passive. 2. Superintendents who subscribe to a more passive self-concept tend to be less consistent in their responses to the survey questions, probably a result of confusion or uncertainty as to their leadership roles. 17 There are those in society today who would blame most of the faults of society on the schools and the persons who administer them. Those persons favor the removal of the prevalently school-oriented, professionally educated, broadly experienced, educator and replacing him with a finance expert, a managing wizard, a spiritualist in business, or just a sharp politician. Finis E. Engleman, 18 Executive Secretary Emeritus of the American Association of School Administra­ tors, feels that it will be a sorry day when the superintendent is tied to the coattail of the vote-seeking mayor or the political boss. Both political parties are the superintendent*s clientele, as are the League of Women Voters, the P. T. A., the Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Churches, and the labor unions. With these and others, he associates as the independent spokesman of the whole educational sys­ tem. His role is the most complex and the most harassing of all public leadership posts. 17Velma Adams and James Doherty, "A New Kind of Superintendent," School Management. 14 (February, 1970), pp. 28-29. 1 ft Finis E. Engleman, "The Big City Superintendent," Education Digest. 35 (October, 1969), pp. 20-21. 36 Southworth 19 suggests that the superintendency as we know it today cannot continue. The responsibilities of the superin tendency have so increased and multiplied that no single person can serve as chief administrator, professional negotiator, planner, executive, architect for change, and father figure as he has in the past. The demands of school boards and professional staffs have made the con­ tinuance of the superintendent in its present form impossible. Southworth suggests that the position of superintendent be divided and made two positions. One position would be a senior schoo] administrator, the second would be a senior educator. The senior school administrator would hold the top leadership position of the district, occupying a position slightly in authority to that of the senior educator. , t 20 Moffitt 21 summarized the changing role of the school superinten­ dent very well when he wrote; The successful superintendent today should possess the wizardry and escape mechanisms of Batman, the indus­ try of Paul Bunyan and his administrative assistant Babe, and the digestion of Peter Piper, who is reputed to have been able to masticate a peck of pickled peppers without suffering from stomach ulcers. The Turnover and Mobility of the Superintendency The position of superintendent of schools in Michigan and across the nation has become one that is vacated frequently and superintendents ^ W i l l i a m D. Southworth, "The Superintendency 1980," The Clear­ ing House. 43 (October, 1968), p. 79. 20 Ibid.. p. 81. ^Fre d e r i c k C. Moffit, "Sure Fire Test for Superintendents," Nation's Schools, 79 (June, 1967), p. 8. 37 are becoming a mobile lot. Carlson 22 discusses the mobility of the place-bound and the career-bound superintendent (the place-bound superintendent being one that is usually promoted from within the school system and is more interested in place of employment than liis career, while the career- bound superintendent is one who is bound to a career rather than a place of employment). His research indicates that much of the intra-occupational mobility of superintendents is horizontal career mobility {from one superin tendency to another of similar prestige) rather than vertical career mobility (from one superintendency to another of higher prestige). It appears that for the superintendent, the American dream of starting at the bottom with a small superin­ tendency and working to the top with a large superintendency is gust that: and only the exceptions realize the dreams. Men at the top of the prestige heirarchy of the occupation ordinarily start near the top, and men who start near the bottom ordinarily stay near the bot­ tom. Also, about 44 percent of the place-bound superintendents studied had held their gobs ten or more years, while 34 percent of the career-bound superintendents had been in their position that long. A special commission of the American Association of School Administrators was created in 1969 to report on the status of the superintendency and update a series of reports begun almost 50 years ago. A stratified sample of superintendents was selected with the assistance of the National Education Research Division. A 1958-59 22 Richard O. Carlson, School Superintendents: Careers and Per formance. (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1972), p. 25. 38 study by the American Association of School Administrators had challenged the commonly held notion that superintendents on the whole were a highly mobile group who changed positions frequently. The data collected in the 1969-70 study substantiated the findings of the earlier study somewhat and support the conclusion that the vast majority of superintendents confine their experience as chief school administrators to very few positions. Over three-fourths of the superintendents sampled in the 1969-70 study, involving districts with student enrollments of from less than 300 to over 25,000 have stayed in two or fewer districts. 23 A study of superintendent turnover in Colorado by Calvin Grieder in 1971 indicates that the post as superintendent may be losing its appeal. He indicates that the state of Colorado may not be representative of the 50 states. However, of the 181 positions of superintendents in Colorado in 1971, 41 left their positions, and as late as June, 25 super in tendencies were still vacant. Grieder states: Two factors have contributed to the loss of appeal of the superintendency. These are; (1) a work week that consists of approximately 60 hours, and (2) the extremely heavy pressure that is part of the work load.^4 A study conducted by the American Association of School Admin­ istrators in 1971 indicates that school superintendents do not stay in one position very long. The typical chief school administrator remains in his position approximately five years. Relatively f e w , however (15 percent), have changed positions more than five times. 2 ^ American Association of School Administrators, The American School Superintendent (Washington D.C., 1971), p. 39. ^^Calvin Grieder, "Appeal of Administrative Careers Declining Fast," Na t i o n (s Schools. 86 (October, 1970), p. lO. 39 About 87 percent of the superintendents in the study had served in three or fewer districts and 46 percent had been employed in only one district. Also, superintendents are very fickle about changing their state residencies; approximately 86 percent served as superintendents in only one state. 25 The issue most likely to cause superintendents to leave the field, according to the study conducted by A.A.S.A. in 1971, is an attack on superintendents. Yet 71 percent of the superintendents reported that if they had to start over again, they would still choose the superin tendency. Many said that superintendents must learn the skills of conflict resolution if they are going to maintain their effectiveness as administrators. 2 6 Talbot feels that many superintendents leave their positions because institutions of higher learning are producing graduates who are ill-prepared or unsuited to survive the guerrila warfare of pub­ lic service in the cities. He feels that training in teacher colleges and universities and experience as a teacher or a principal are largely irrelevant preparation for the staggering problems of running a large school system. It cannot be denied that there are sometimes conditions present under which a chief school administrator must move. Many conditions are manufactured, imagined, or grasped as reasons to justify a worthy Russell Gregg and Stephen Knezevich, ’’The Man We Call Superin­ tendent," Education Dinest. 37 (October, 1971), p. 21. 26Ibid.. p. 23. 2^A1len Talbot, "Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent," Harper’s Magazine, 232 (February, 1966), p. 81. 40 or unworthy motive in changing jobs, but setting aside these unfor­ tunate attitudinal misconceptions, we know that for some the time arrives when moving is the only answer. For reasons of health, finances, loss of self-confidence, loss of institutional confidence, irreparable error in judgment, and many more, a chief educational executive must be separated or must separate himself. It can be interpreted as a positive separation if it is self-imposed; it could be negative, personally and for the school district if it is not. 2 ft Knox summarizes the dilemma in which a superintendent may find himself when he writes: Above the door to the office of the chief adminis­ trator there should be a theater-type marquee, done in academic taste of course, reflecting these words "lOO Problems appearing daily 9 to 5. Matinee performances on Saturdays and Sundays with special showings at any hour without special arrangement." A nice added touch would be an accompanying bill proclaiming, "through these portals pass the most beautiful problems in the world.1,29 There have been some expressions of feeling that a long stay in office by the superintendent may be detrimental to the development and progress of a school system. There is some evidence that the innovativeness of the school system may decline progressively the longer some superintendents stay in the position. Superintendents see a dilemma: they realize that a school superintendent cannot act in a manner that assures his reappointment over and over while systematically developing the quality of educational service rendered by the school district. The sharper the focus on the one alternative, 2R Warren B. Knox, E*e_ of the Hurricane. (Corvellis, Oregon: Oregon State University P r e s s , 1973), p. lO. 29Ibid.. p. 17-18. 41 the less attention given to the other. The actions of one California superintendent who was able to cope with this dilemma is reported in a case study by Richard Carlson. The man who Carlson calls "Setwell," was a place-bound superintendent who served 27 years in a school system with over 7,000 students. The ingredients of administrative longevity cited in the case were: (1) Setwell never permitted himself to take a posi­ tion in conflict with his Board of Education. (2) He made the selection of new members of the Board of Educa­ tion {who were appointed by the mayor) a matter of vital concern to himself and normally succeeded in exerting significant influence in the naming of new members. (3) Setwellfs relationship with many members of the Board transcended the official relationship. (4) He was normally adroit in his ability to avoid a conflict- producing situation. (5) Setwell was an active member of essentially every community organization for which he was eligible. (6) He befriended hundreds of individuals in ways which created in them a feeling of personal indebtedness to him. {7) He made himself readily avail­ able for service in the multitude of community projects. (8) He carefully maintained personal contact with students in the schools, creating among them in each generation an affection for him. (9) Setwell had a reputation among colleagues and laymen of being a person who did not fall for every fad that came along and who felt that the three R*s were of basic significance. (lO) He seldom attempted to influence teaching methods or to organize in-service education.... ( H ) He was known to the teachers as a person who would not press for better salaries for teachers and to the business community as a person who did not insist that all money go for teachers salaries. (12) Throughout his career he enjoyed the confidence of the more prominent and influential elements of the community. (13) He survived a politically motivated attempt to remove him from office and emerged from the conflict a popular hero. (14) In his younger days Setwell was an athlete and a successful coach, a fact which was remembered affectionately by many and which gave him a contact with still another facet of the community. (15) He was a politician, both in the sense that he could distinguish the p>ossible from the impossible and in the sense that he was willing to sacrifice principle for expediency when he thought the larger good would thus be served. (16) Although his relationships with his subordinate administrators were notable for their excellence, the relationships were that of father 42 and son. Decisions of importance were made by Setwell, not by conference. (17) Setwell was sensitive to the picture of him carried in the mind of persons in the community. He, therefore, carefully constructed this picture, producing what can only be described as a legend, which depicted his activities in a highly entertaining and complimentary way. (18) He was a person of rare personal magnitude, a speaker of outstanding ability, and a raconteur of exceptional skill.3° What is included in this list of factors is no more significant than what is not included. The list is completely void of positive statements about Setwell's contributions to the development of the school system during the 27-year reign. There has been some common feeling that when board members change, so do superintendents. Based upon this premise, a study was conducted in 1965 in Southern California which included all school districts with a five-member school board. The study included 177 school districts over the period of July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1965. The major hypothesis held that the selection of a new board (as a result of an incumbent member being defeated in an election) would be followed within three years by the selection of a new superinten­ dent. However, the analysis of the findings of this study did not support the hypothesis. It was found that the change of the super­ intendency was the exception rather than the rule. In any given year, for each district that employed a new superintendent, over eight districts made no change. 31 3°Carlson, op. cit. . pp. 143-44. 3^-Robert Freeborn, "bocal School Boards and Superintendents," Phi Delta Kappan. 49 (February, 1968) , pp. 346-7. 43 The Selection and Evaluation of the Superintendent The selection of a superintendent of schools may be the most difficult and time-consuming, yet the most important task a board of education may face. There are different procedures that are followed in the screening and selection process. The manner in which the board of education selects the superintendent has a lot to do with whether the board will be satisfied with the superintendents performance after he has been on the job a year or two. Harold Spears, formerly President of the American Association of School Administrators and formerly Superintendent of the San Francisco Schools, states: The search for a superintendent, in spite of its sincerity, is often a blundering pilgrimage frought with uncertainties that mark the odds against a pro­ mising relationship. The first decision a district must make is whether to go outside or promote from within.32 If a school board decides to go outside the system to select a superintendent, the board may either complete the screening and selection process on their own or seek help from consultants or uni­ versity officials. College and university officials are able to examine credentials in a very professional manner and they can screen down to the number of candidates that the board wishes to call for personal interviews. When the board begins this selection search, however, it must remember that there is no perfect superintendent, just as there is no perfect board member. O '! ^ H a r o l d Spears, "The Precarious Search - Hunting and Rinding a New School Superintendent," Nation’s Schools. 82 (September, 1968) , p. 64. * * Ibid. , p. 6S . Johnson 34 Teels that the process of selecting a superintendent is almost as important as the final choice a board makes. In this process, the community should become very much involved. He favors the consultant - panel process, but at least one of the consultants should meet with teachers, administrators, and representatives of the students and the community. This consultant may also participate in a public session, conducted by the board, for parents and other district residents. The purpose of this public session should be to outline the dimensions and the procedure in the search for a superin­ tendent, to define the consultant’s role and why the board needs consultant advice, and also to make it clear that the board alone will make the final choice. Aaron Cohodes 35 observed that the reason so many Americans enter analysis is because they think they ought to have a perfect personality. The search for a superintendent with a perfect person­ ality is just as futile. When the candidate for a superin tendency satisfies all the concerns of the board and relieves all the anxieties of the board and relieves all the anxieties of the adult population, it may be time to back off and think a little harder about the selection process. The board may be hiring the right man, but for the wrong generation. Staires feels that the board should develop a rating sheet 3<*Carroll Johnson, "How to Pick a New Superintendent and Shine Up Your Public Image,” American School Board Journal. 158 (April, 1971) p. 35. 35Aaron Cohodes, "Where School Boards Fail Iheir Superintendents, Nation’s Schools. 91 (June, 1973), p. 10. 36Harlin Staires, "Selecting a Superintendent," School and Com­ munity. 56 (December, 1969), p. 15. 45 for each board member to use in evaluating the candidate's creden­ tials and his performance in an interview. He lists the following eight factors that the candidate should be rated on with a 1-5 scale: 1 . Professional preparation. 2. 3. 4. 5. Successful administrative preparation. Personal appearance. Ability to communicate. Ability to make decisions under pressure. 6 . Understanding of people. 7. 8. General attitudes towards 1 ife. Common sense answers during the interview Staires also feels a time table or calendar should be developed by the board of education for the hiring process. The board should allow the consul tant—panel approximately six weeks to publicize the vacancy, collect all required data, and make recommendations to the board. This consultant-panel would screen all candidates and reduce the number to be considered by the board to approximately five or six. The board should then invite these candidates for interviews. After narrowing the candidates down to two, it is important to invite an applicant's wife for the final interview. Then, after interviewing the final two candidates, a committee from the board should visit the home community of the first-choice candidate. The final selection by a unanimous vote of the board is a good policy and gives the new superintendent encouragement and a sense of teamwork in the iob ahead. 46 Fowler 37 reports on research he conducted in the state of New York in 1971 to study procedures followed and criteria established by school boards in selecting a superintendent. Two years after a superintendent was hired he checked back with the same boards to see if they were satisfied with the person they had hired and in what ways they were not satisfied. Four of the most significant findings were: 1. School boards that seek applicants from a wide geographic area (coast to coast) are most likely to be satisfied with the overall performance of the person they hire. 2. School boards that plan their selection procedures carefully, and use printed materials to describe their district in some detail, are likely to be most satisfied with the performance of the superintendent. 3. School boards that determine in advance, and in writing, the personal qualities they want in their superintendent are more likely to be pleased with the performance of their superintendent. 4. School boards that place emphasis on a detailed inter­ view format when hiring a superintendent, are more likely to be pleased later with the winning candidate's pe r f ormance. *7 Charles Fowler, "How You Hire Your Next Superintendent Can Foretell How He'll Work Out on the Job," American School Board Journal, 160 (March, 1973) , p. 32, 47 A valid conclusion that nay be drawn from this study is that school boards engage in certain self-fulfilling wishes when they set out to hire a superintendent. The effort may be a subconscious one, but boards do seem to design their selection procedures to identify certain qualities they most want in a candidate. 30 The formal evaluation of administrators is becoming much more prevalent today. This evaluation of administrators, especially of the superintendent, is receiving increasing attention by state legislatures, the public at large, and the education profession. Educational Research Surveys indicate that the percentage of large school districts {enrolling 25,000 or more) conducting formal evalua­ tions of school administrators has increased from less than 40 percent in 1968 to more than 54 percent in 1971. go There is a lack of consensus as to what is the best way for the school board to review the superintendent's performance. Theory and practice seem to go in opposite directions, according to an informal survey conducted by Aaron Cohodes, chairman of Nation's Schools Advisory Board. Cohodes observes that the model contract of the American Association of School Administrators supplies the approach that the board should provide the superintendent with periodic oppor­ tunities to discuss superintendent-board relationships and should inform him, at least annually, of any inadequacies as perceived by the board. While this regularly scheduled review may be all right as Ibid. , p. 33. 39 "Evaluating Administrative Porfomance" (Arlington. Virginia: Educational Research Service, Inc., 1974), p. 1. 4B a concept, in practice it appears to be poor strategy, in the view of the superintendents who were questioned by Cohodes. In general, the superintendents who were interviewed supported the notion of a review process, but they believed that a superintendent should avoid being locked into a set time and place for this review. 40 Turner 41 feels that the evaluation of the superintendent's performance is a responsibility that many school boards handle poorly, infrequently, or not at all. Yet, he feels that a board is shirking its responsibility if it doesn't reward a superintendent who merits it, if it doesn't recharge a superintendent who needs it, and if it doesn’t discharge a superintendent who deserves it. The Fort Worth School District has developed an appraisal instrument that is somewhat unique. The school board sets aside an annual period for the purpose of evaluating the superintendent. This is an objective composite evaluation in that individual board members grade the superintendent, using an A through F scale, on 21 qualifica­ tions. The individual appraisal forms are then delivered to the secretary of the board who plots the results on a composite graph. The result is a composite board's-eye view of the superintendent's performance, indicating whether he should be rewarded financially, recharged, or discharged. 42 4(^ Aaron Cohodes, "How Should Boards Review Superintendent Performance," Nation's Schools. 92 (October, 1973), p. 14. 4*-Lloyd Turner, "Your Superintendent: When to Recharge Him or Discharge Him." American School Board Journal. 159 {July, 1971), p. 21. 42 Ibid., p. 24. 49 Some school boards and superintendents agree at the beginning of each school year on a set of objectives which they jointly hope to accomplish. These objectives should be spelled out in detail in order that they may be measured objectively. Then, at the end of the school year, the superintendent and the board should set aside suffi­ cient time for an extended conference focusing on how much overall progress has been attained. Each board member should individually rank in what order the objectives have been met. Should the perfor­ mance of the superintendent be adjudged as satisfactory, his term contract should be extended an additional year and his salary increased accordingly. If the superintendent's performance is not up to standard, the nature of the financial adjustment might be more or less severe depending on the outcome of the evaluation, and, in extreme cases, it might lead to loss of the position. In any event, the superintendent knows where he stands with his board and he is better equipped to improve his performance. 43 It is the view of the Michigan Association of School Boards that board members, as a total board, have an obligation to annually evaluate the effectiveness of their superintendent and to make their findings known to him. Praise should be given where praise is warranted; criticism, where honest criticism is necessary. Also, any time that the school board seriously questions the professional leadership qualities of the superintendent, it is time for forthright talks between the board and its chief executive officer. Heart-to- heart talks between the two parties should be the first step toward Donald J. McCarty, "Evaluating Your Superintendent," School Hanagement. IS (July 1, 1971), pp. 38-39. 50 corrective action. At least, from such talks should come a better understanding of the nature of the friction or the problem. 44 The Kalamazoo, Michigan Board of Education has implemented a salary risk clause in the contract of the superintendent. The superintendent is evaluated annually and his salary may be increased or decreased based upon his attainment of the performance spelled out in the contract. Dale E. Pattison, President of the Kalamazoo Board of Education states: If a school board wants to get rid of a superin­ tendent who hasn't worked out, but who has a year or more left in his contract, the performance contracting scheme can save taxpayers a few thousand dollars and the board a great deal of face. It's a fact that cleaning house can be expensive, but it's something that happens frequently across the country and espe­ cially in Michigan. Some districts I know of had to pay up to $100,000 to break their superintendent's contract. With a salary risk clause, the board can invoke a negative percentage and save taxpayers that amount for each year remaining in the contract.4"* It is obvious from the review of the literature that there are several types of appraisal instruments being utilized across the country for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the super­ intendent. To complete the discussion on evaluation, it is well to consider "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent,"4^ which was published in the August, 1965 issue of School Management. The instrument presented here was developed by board members and superintendents in ^4"Boardmanship in Brief" (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Asso­ ciation of School Boards, 1972), p. 23. 4~*Philip G. Jones, "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent on Performance," American School Board Journal, 161 (February, 1974), p. 36. 46 "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent," School Management (August, 1965), p. 43. 51 California, which allowed a response of "yes" or "no" on answers to predetermined points for consideration. Since it has great bearing on this research study, the evaluation instrument is presented here. EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Board Su]pt. No No lYes Comments A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Yes 1. Keeps the board informed on issues, needs and operation of the school system. 2. Offers professional advice to the board on items requiring board action, with appropriate recommendations based on thorough study and analysis. 3. Interprets and executes the intent of board policy. 4. Seeks and accepts construc­ tive criticism of his work. 5. Supports board policy and actions to the public and staff. 6. Has a harmonious working relationship with the board. 7. Understands his role in administration of board policy, not policy making. 8. Keeps the board informed of concerns about the schools expressed by the public. B. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS 1. Develops and executes sound personnel procedures and practices. 52 Board No Yes Supt. No Yes Comments 2. Develops good staff morale and loyalty to the organiza­ tion . 3. Treats all personnel fairly without favoritism or dis­ crimination, while insisting on performance of duties. 4. Delegates authority to staff members appropriate to the position each holds. 5. Recruits and assigns the best available personnel in terms of their competencies. 6. Encourages participation of appropriate staff members and groups in planning, procedures and policy interpretation. 7. Evaluates performance of staff members, giving commendation for good work as well as con- structive suggestions for improvement. 8. Takes an active role in devel­ opment of salary schedules for all personnel, and recommends to the board the levels which, within budgetary limitations, will best serve the interests of the district. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 1. Understands and keeps informed regarding all aspects of the instructional program. 2. Implements the district's philosophy of education. 3. Participates with staff, board and community evaluation and improvemen t . 53 Bo ard Siupt. Yes No Yes No Conmen ts 4. Organizes a planned program of curriculum evaluation and improvenent. 5. Provides democratic procedures in curriculum work, utilizing the abilities and talents of the entire professional staff and lay people of the communi­ ty- 6. Exemplifies the skills and atti­ tudes of a master teacher and inspires others to highest pro­ fessional standards. D. BUSINESS AND FINANCE 1. Keeps informed on needs of the school program--piant, facili­ ties, equipment and supplies. 2. Supervises operations, insist­ ing on competent and efficient performance. 3. Determines that: a. Funds are spent wisely b. Adequate control and account­ ing are maintained. 4. Evaluates financial needs and makes recommendations for ade­ quate financing. E. PERSONAL QUALITIES 1. Defends principle and conviction in the face of pressure and partisan influence. 2. Maintains high standards of ethics, honesty and integrity in all personal and professional matters. 54 Board Supt. Yes No Yes No Comments 3. Earns respect and standing among his professional col­ leagues . 4. Devotes his time and energy effectively to his job. 5. Demonstrates his ability to work well with individuals and groups. 6- Exercises good judgment and the democratic processes in arriving at decisions. Comraents: Subject of Evaluation: Date: The Dismissal of the Superintendent The purpose of this study was to determine the underlying reasons why school superintendents are dismissed or encouraged to leave. It appears, as this review of the literature has indicated, that the position of superintendent is one where frequent dismissals occur. This section will review the literature written on why super­ intendents are dismissed and the manner in which this action is taken. Proper selection procedures of the superintendent may have been followed and objective evaluation procedures may have been adhered to, but even then, in some instances, the board may find the perfor­ mance of the superintendent unsatisfactory. If that be the case, he should be informed of this and asked to resign or his contract should not be renewed. Defeat, dismissal, and transfer are the standard experiences of city school superintendents, especially those who try 55 to achieve desperately needed imprDvements instead of coasting with the status quo.47 Frequently, boards give reasons indicating that the board wants to get rid of the superintendent in as palatable fashion as possible. These are often artificial reasons. The trouble is, after repeating them often enough, board members sometimes make the mistake of starting to believe them. 48 At the 1973 meeting of the National Association of School Boards Association, board members found it easier than ever to contain their enthusiasm for the superintendent they hire and fire. Most of the complaints about superintendents fell into the category of the feeling that their superintendent was performing well in some areas, but their particular school district needed someone who could perform well in other areas. Many of the boards acted as if they wanted the superin­ tendent to change everything while really changing nothing. They rarely thought through the implications that change brings, including the right and need to make a few mistakes. The boards, in effect, were saying that they wanted changes in the program, but they didn't A Q want to upset anyone. ’ Betchkal5® writes that he feels the firing of a superintendent of schools is like sex. This is because people are a lot more 47Allan Talbot, "Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent," Harper's Magazine, 232 (February, 1966), p. 18. 48Aaron Cohodes, "Where School Boards Fail Their Superinten­ dents," Nation's Schools, 91 (June, 1973), p. 9. 49Ibid., p. lO. 5(,James Betchkal , "How to Fire A Superintendent," American School Board Journal, 195 (April, 1972), p. 21. 56 interested in it than they will admit. He warns that unless a school board really knows why they fired their past superintendent, they are likely to find themselves firing the next and the one after as well. This series of dismissals will probably end with the third dismissal, because the community will have become fed up with the endless commo­ tion and will have replaced some board members. Unless at least a majority of the board members accept in their own minds whatever part of the guilt is theirs, a school district is many years from building the kind of board-superintendent relationship that is essential if energies are to be directed to strengthening the program instead of being squandered in family battles. Burbank51 feels that the success of the superintendent will depend more upon his skill in selecting, improving, and dead, ing with the human element than upon any other factor. Studies and experi­ ence in this area indicate that only a small percentage of school superintendents lose their jobs because of inept budgeting, pupil accounting, or building planning. They lose their positions because they cannot seem to acquire the skill to deal adequately with the human element of board members, citizens, teachers, and students. It is for this reason that emphasis is needed on the human relations phase of the administrators' responsibilities . It is not the function of board members to compare their own -.kills with those of the superintendent. But, this often happens. Board members often play a competing game with the superintendent. This attitude leads to resenting the superintendent for a lot of 51 Burbank, o p . c i t . , p. 1. 5 7 r e a s o n s that have nothing to d o with his ability. 52 Moffitt 53 reports that an informal study he conducted in 1965 to determine why superintendents get fired revealed the following four reasons were most often listed by board members: 1. For trying to do their jobs in a piebald community; i.e., the particular community where the superintendent's work is simply not his piece of pie. 2. Because they are prone to hardening of the arteries— they can't keep up with change. 3. Because automation has contributed to the speed-up of the firing process. 4. Because they build personality cults. Dana M, Cotton,5** Harvard placement officer whose business it is to interview and find positions for unemployed superintendents, says these are the 10 most common reasons why a superintendent gets fired: 1. He couldn't live with reasonable compromise. Every­ thing had to be done his way or not at all. 2. He failed to give high priority to educating his board members to the separate functions of the board and the administration. Consequently, the board usurped his job and he assumed the board's work--to everyone's dissatisfaction. 52 Cohodes, op. c i t ., p. 1C). 55Frederick J, Moffitt, "Why Superintendents Get Fired." Nation's Schools. 75 {May, 1965), p. 54. 54 "The Letters for Administrators," Educator's Dispatch. 15 (April 15, 1965), p. 1. 58 3. He failed to make decisions when they needed to be made. As a result, pressures of time often forced him into making unwise decisions. 4. He was unable to see, or to adapt himself and his educational goals to, the changing needs of his community and its youth. 5. He was overly possessive about his school system, often taking the attitude that he was right and the board wrong. 6. He refused to delegate authority, and his workload consequently overwhelmed him. He became a bottleneck to the entire school system. 7„ He became a superintendent in the first place because he wanted status. He was later surprised and dismayed to learn (though he never did learn the half of it) what the job entailed. 8. He neglected to teach his community what public educa­ tion means, what it involves, and why i t ’s important. As a result, he was without a strong base of community suppor t. 9. He lacked the courage to take a stand when necessary, and important principles were often compromised as a result. 10. He took the view that his personal life (which some­ times lacked discretion) was his own business. The board and the public disagreed. 59 The editor of the same Dispatch adds these comments: The hazards and complexities of the superintendent's job are increasing at a geometric rate. The problems are greater in number and different in kind, as well as more difficult. The opposition is much tougher. The oppor­ tunities for failure are much more numerous, and so are the critics. A study conducted by Carolyn Mullins, formerly a school board member and education writer in the midwest, called upon 15 of the most prominent and experienced past and present school board members in the United States and Canada (their combined service on school boards totaled more than 300 years) to list the actions by superin­ tendents that they felt were intolerable and a basis for dismissal. These four reasons appeared most frequently: 1. Communication gaps by not telling board members every­ thing they want to know about what is going on in their schools and why. Nothing so antagonizes school board members as first learning that a problem exists in their district from secondhand sources. 2. Divide and conquer techniques in which the superinten­ dent plays on the political differences, philisophical disagreements, and/or personal antipathies among board members in an attempt to manipulate the board. This may be trying to manipulate the board by vote, involving the calling of board members in advance to sound them out or enlisting support for a proposal until he is sure of obtaining the winning number of votes. Ibid. 60 3. Omitting information about possible, and, in his eyes, less desirable alternatives. By the time the information gets to the board, alternative solutions have already been sifted out and what is left is not really a package of choices. This often involves the omission of items on the board agenda. 4. Supporting candidates for the school board is considered intolerable. The 15 board members involved in the study all felt that the superin­ tendent should have no part in determining who serves on the board. 56 Chester Nolte 57 discusses a new dance step in education circles called the "Superintendents Shuffle." He cites the cases of four superintendents of some of the nation's largest school districts who have been caught up in the shuffle. 1* George Garver was hired by the Houston, Texas School District from Walled Lake, Michigan on a 4-3 vote. After one year on the job, even though the school district had been awarded the 1971 "Lamp of Learning" award by the National Education Association, he was fired by a 4-3 vote. Six months later, with a new school board in office, ^ C a r o l y n Mullins, "Board Members Look at Superintendents," American School Board Journal, 162 (February, 1975), pp. 22-20. ’^Ches ter Nolte, "The Superintendent's Shuffle is a Cruel Dance," American School Board Journal, 161 (September, 1974), pp. 44-45. 61 Garver was rehired. Two and one-half years later, after yet another power shift on the Houston School Board, Garver was fired a second time. 2. Hugh Scott was ousted as Superintendent of the Washington, D, C. School District for what he reports as reforming actions. Scott contends that the innovative superintendent can expect to stay only three years. The first year is a learning process, the second year recommendations are made, and the third year it is time for the superintendent to leave. 3. Mark Shedd, Superintendent of the Philadelphia Schools, had his contract bought up by the school board. it was his contention that power struggles between superintendents and school boards are a growing dilemma and any time the superintendent's views aren't consistent with the board's policies, it is best for everyone that the contract be terminated. 4. Norman Drachler, former Superintendent of the Detroit Schools, feels that the source of the shuffle problem facing school superintendents is that of dwindling power and time to get things done at the top of the administrative ladder. Former U. S. Commissioner of Education, Harold Howe II, argues that the shuffle of superintendents is sometimes necessary because 62 a strong system of checks and balances between school boards and their increasingly professional staff is necessary. Howe argues: A school superintendent is no more exempt from becoming a hometown Hitler than the most pompous and arrogant Babbit who ever headed a school board. Left unchecked, the superintendent is liable to become a dictator. It is sometimes necessary to recognize that, in most instances, when school boards finally file charges against a superintendent, the prospect of a fair trial at the board level will not become a reality. When this occurs, the honeymoon is over and the superinten­ dent must recognize that he has the options of resigning or resisting dismissal. Normally he can only be a loser if he fights the disrois- 59 sal. Chester Nolte,^° in discussing the manner in which the power of superintendents is slipping away, offers the following letter, which was actually received by a Minnesota school superintendent from his board of education: Dear Mr. __ _____ You are hereby notified that at the special meeting of the school board of Independent School District______ held on March 5, 1974, a resolution was adopted by a majority roll-call vote of school board members present to terminate your contract effective at the end of the current school year. Said action of the board was taken pursuant to M i n ­ nesota Statute 125.12 and said proposed termination of your contract shall be upon the following grounds, to wit: I. That you did within the past two years employ teachers who are clearly not accountable to the general 58T, Ibid. 59 Chester Nolte, "Is the Power of Superintendents Slipping Away," American School Board Journal, 161 (September, 1974), p. 46. 60 T. - , I b i d . 63 coraraunity and to their students for performance objec­ tives which constitute an "education" as defined on board minutes and official policy; 2. That you have, within the past two years, allowed students to get by with murder insofar as making them abide by reasonable rules of oonduct and dress within the high school of Independent School District » 3. That you have made no effort to discharge teachers and employees in the district who are obviously unfit to teach, in that they have demonstrated laxness in being accountable for their teaching; 4. That you have within the last three years failed to keep the board fully informed concerning matters vital to the proper administration of the district's schools, and other items of business of the board and district, such as cost/benefit ratios for certain educational pro­ grams offered by this district; and finally; 5. That your conduct as superintendent of schools in the performance of your duties thereof has disrupted the required normal operations of the schools, has defeated the cooperation ordinarily existing and required between teachers, employees and the board, and that such conduct and performance of duties has impaired the educational effectiveness necessary to and required of the position of superintendent of schools. The fact that school superintendent's positions may be threatened by many forces, even those external to the school board, is witnessed by Kanawha County, West Virginia, School Superintendent Kenneth Under­ wood in the 1974 controversy over textbooks in the school system. He, and three of his board members, were under direct attack in the cru­ sade led by local clergy and other special interest groups. Superin­ tendent Underwood's life was threatened and his resignation demanded by angry mobs. It was necessary for him to request round-the-clock police protection for his f a m i l y . ^ There are those who feel that the conflict that arises over the dismissal of a school superintendent may produce some positive 61Philip Jones, "A Clash on Dirty Books is Dividing a School Board, Threatening a Superintendent, and Shattering a Community," American School Board Journal, 161 (November, 1974), p. 43. 64 outcomes. Richard Wynn, Department of Education Chairman, University of Pittsburgh, contends that if such a conflict is resolved with justice and dispatch, it often leaves the organization stronger than before. Many organizations have developed a more wholesome climate following conflict. 62 There is an abundance of literature available dealing with the role of the superintendent of schools and also a great deal has been written describing the process and procedures utilized by boards of education across the country in the selection of a chief executive officer. From this abundance of literature in these areas, one would anticipate that there is little reason to believe that conflict between a superintendent and a board of education should occur. Nevertheless, conflict does occur and the literature available recom­ mending the means of resolving this conflict is almost negligible. Research results are available regarding the mobility of superinten­ dents and also the most commonly listed reasons for dismissal as provided by boards of education. However, these reasons appear to be those commonly given to the general public and not the specific or latent reasons that initiated the action. Though the general public may never know the specific reasons why the superintendent is dismissed, those specific reasons should be known by the superintendent involved, and by other superintendents, in order that they may avoid committing similar errors. 62 Richard Wynn, "Administrators Response to Conflict," Today * s Education. 61 (February, 1972), p. 32. 65 The oeneral consensus of the literature indicates that school boards and superintendents function best when the board and the super­ intendent view their respective roles in a similar light. Superin­ tendents and board of education members in California developed a very straight-forward approach for measuring the effectiveness of the superintendent in his role. This appears in School Management. 63 and, with some modification, this instrument could readily be adapted to a study of specific conflict situations. This instrument includes nearly all of the specific statements and remarks that have been attributed throughout the literature to the causes of school board- super intendent friction. Finally, an overall summary of the literature would indicate that if an executive and his board of directors hold similar ideas about who should do what, and if they agree on policies and programs for their organisation, then the most crucial ingredient is present for a smooth-working relationship. When this smooth-working relationship begins to break down, there is need for immediate appraisal of the relationship by both parties. It must became reality to all that, in some instances, it is best for all concerned if the relationship is terminated. The how and the why of this termination was the basis of this research study. 63-"How to Evaluate Your Superintendent," School Management. 2 (August, 1965), p. 43. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The design of the project and the order of research is described in this chapter. These are described under the following headings: Population, Instrumentation, Hypotheses and Analysis of the Data, and Summary. This chapter also describes the manner in which the six hypo­ theses were tested. Chapter IV provides the specific data that were utilized to either support or reject each hypothesis. Population The population under study in this thesis was comprised of those superintendents of schools in Michigan who were dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions between July 1, 1965 and June 31, 1975. Seventy-seven names were validated by at least two sources and constituted the subjects to be studied in this thesis. The population that was utilized to respond to the instrument in this study involved those board of education members who served on a particular board of education at the time the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave. It was determined prior to com­ mencing with the study that it would be necessary to receive responses from at least two board members from each district involved for a case to be included in the study. It was also determined that a minimum of 6b 67 2 5 cases would constitute an adequate sampling. With no less than two board members responding per case, the minimum number of board member responses required was established at 50, Since all confirmed cases were included in the study, it was not necessary to select a random sample. The study included all the geographic locations of school districts in Michigan, overall student enrollment of school districts in Michigan, and overall percentage of minority students enrolled in school districts in the state. Data to support this is provided in Chapter IV. Classification of Cases. Instrumentation In order to determine whether or not the termination of the tenure of a superintendent was under the conditions required to be included in this study, it was decided to initiate the questionnaire with a forthright question to encourage board members to commit them­ selves. The first question was: 1. When you were a member of ( ) Dismissed during the con- a board of education the superintendent of schools was tract period, ( ) Contract not renewed, ( ) Eased out conveniently. ( ) None of the above, please explain. In order to confirm the date the dismissal or termination of contract occurred, question No. 5 asked: 5. What was the approximate date ____________________________ that this occurred? 68 Determining Support or Nonsupport of Board Members. It seemed necessary that board members recall the particulars of the case prior to answering the checklist of items. Therefore, the following question was asked: 7. What were your feelings about the board's action at the time? ( ) Support ( ) Nonsupport Description of Boards of Education. The composition of the boards of education involved in the cases studied was important and since the information might prove valuable for future comparative studies, the following questions were in eluded; 2. What was your position on the board at the time the action was taken? 3. What was your age at the time the action was taken? 4. How many years had you served on the board at the time the action was taken? Pres iden t Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Trustee Up to 25 26 thru 35 36 thru 45 46 thru 55 Over 55 Up to 2 3 thru 5 6 thru lO Over 10 Evidence of the reliability of this study rested somewhat upon the proportionate distribution of ballots cast by various members of the board of education. This distribution was to be evidenced as follows: 1. Each board of education had one president out of seven members, hence, approximately 14 percent of the returns should have come from presidents. 69 2. Each board of education was allowed one vice-president. However, it has been mandatory to select vice-presidents of fourth class districts for only the past three years. Therefore, the number of returns from vice-presidents was expected to be approximately lO percent. 3. Each board of education had one secretary, hence, approximately 14 percent of the returns should have come from secretaries. 4. Each board of education had one treasurer, hence, approximately 14 percent of the returns should have come from treasurers. 5. Nearly all boards of education had three trustees. However, since some boards would not have had vice-presidents, the number of trustees would be increased. Trustees are normally the newer members of the board and possibly may not be as communicative as the older members. Therefore, approximately 43 percent of the returns should have come from trustees. 6. Persons not committing themselves on this particular question were estimated at approximately 5 percent. Length of Tenure of Superintendent. In order to determine if there was any pattern developing as far as the length of time superintendents had served in their positions prior to being dismissed or encouraged to leave, the following ques­ tion was included: 6. What were the approximate number of years this person served as superintendent? ) O thru 3 ) 4 thru 6 ) 7 thru 9 ) lO thru 12 ) 13 thru 15 ) Over 15 70 Reasons Given for Removal and Lenq :h of Notice Time. It was necessary to determine if board members felt that the reasons given for removal of the superintendent were vague, very specific, or in a range somewhere between. Also, it was felt that it was important to determine the length of notice time that boards of education gave before removing a superintendent. The following questions were included to provide this information: 8. What kind of reasons did the board give the superintendent for the action taken? Very Specific Specific General Vague None g. If the superintendent was dis­ missed or encouraged to leave, what was the length of notice time given of his pending dis­ missal, release or desire that he should leave? None 1 month 3 months 6 months 1 year Other, please explain Superintendent and Negotiations. Since it was assumed that Public Act 379, which provided for collective bargaining for teachers, has had a major impact on the role of the superintendency, it was important to determine what role the superintendents in this study played in the collective bargaining process. Also, if the superintendent was the chief negotiator for management, it was felt it was important to have the board members assess the competence of the superintendent in this role. In order to gather this information, the following questions were included: 71 10, What role did the super­ intendent play in teacher negotiations? 11 If the superintendent served as chief negotiator, what is your assessment of his compe­ tence in this role? ( ) Chief negotiator for management { ) Resource person for management ( ) Member of management team ( ) No role ( ) Very good ( ) Average ( ) Poor Evaluation of Superintendent. It was vital to this study to determine if the superintendents included in the study were formally evaluated. If they were formally evaluated, it was also important to determine if they were evaluated orally or in written form and how often evaluation took place, Ihe following question was included to obtain this information: 12. Was a formal evaluation of the superintendent conducted? a. If yes, what was the type of evaluation that was utilized? b. How often was he evalu­ ated? Yes No Written Oral Annually At end of multiyear contract ( ) Whenever necessary Procedure in Selecting Superintendent. Since several different procedures are followed by boards of education in the screening and selecting of a superintendent, it was important to determine if there was any significant relationship between the procedure of selection and the action to dismiss or encourage to leave. The following question was included to obtain this information: 72 13. If the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, what process was utilized in his selection? ( ) Board screening all applicants ( ) Placement bureau team screening applicants ( ) Paid consultant ( ) Other, please explain Description of School District. In order to determine if there was a significant relationship between student enrollments or percentage of minority students and the dismissal of a superintendent or encouragement to leave, the final two questions were included: 15. What was the student enroll­ ment of the district at the time the action was taken? ( ) O thru 1,000 ( { { ) 1,001 thru 2,500 ) 2,501 thru 5,000 ) 5,001 thru 10,000 16. What was the percentage of minority students enrolled in the district at the time the action was taken? ( ) O to 5 percent ( ) 6 to 15 percent ) 16 to 25 percent ( ( ) Over 50 percent General Reasons for Termination. An overall appraisal of the superintendent was asked of each board member. The checklist items provided a means for board members to appraise a superintendent in six general areas. It was considered important for board members to appraise the weakest and the strongest area of responsibility of the six general areas. To determine the weakest and strongest areas, it was determined that there must be agreement on the part of the majority of the board members responding for the data to be included. The following question was included to obtain this information: 73 14. As an overall appraisal of the superintendent, please indicate the following: for his strongest area of activity (1 only) fof for his weakest area of activity (1 only) ( ) Relationship with the board ( ) Community relationships ( ) Business and finance ( ) Staff and personnel relationships ( ) Educational leadership ( ) Personal qualities _§E£ cific Reasons for Termination. Each of the six selected generalized reasons for termination of the superintendent was broken down into separate and distinct specific reasons. Each board member had the opportunity to appraise the superintendent in each of these specific areas on a rating scale of from five to zero. Zero was designated to indicate that this was a "Partial Reason for Release." Ratings of one through five were not analyzed to a great extent in this study, as the purpose of the study was to determine underlying causes of termination. Zero was the indication of a specific underlying cause. Table 3.1 is a sample breakdown of one of the six generalized areas into specific component parts. A generous amount of space was provided at the bottom of each classification of checklist items. The design of the instrument was psychologically intended to stimulate the board member to add addi­ tional comments which could be correlated with the checklist items. 74 TABLE 3.1 -- Sample of one of the six generalized classifications as broken into specific parts for questionnaire purposes. |_ 1.L-. »l — A. RELATIONSHIP WITH Excel1. THE BOARD 5 Good 4 Aver­ age 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Partial Reason for Release O 1. Supported board policy and board actions to the staff and to the public. 2. Clearly understood his role as an administrator of board policy, not a policy maker. 3. Kept the board informed on issues, concerns, needs and general opera­ tion of the school system. 4. Offered profes­ sional advice and recommendations, based on thorough study and analy­ sis, to board on items needing action. 5. Sought and acceptec constructive criti­ cism of his work. 6. Provided well plan­ ned meeting agendas 7. Had information readily available for the board on agenda items. fi. Had a harmonious working relation­ ship with the board. 75 Correlating Remarks With the Checklist. It was predicted that a sufficient number of board members would make added comments in each of the six areas to the extent that these comments could be classified and placed in categories to either substantiate or contradict check mark classifications. It was presumed that the reliability of the instrument would be strengthened if the remark classifications coincided with the specific "partial cause of dismissal" check classifications. How­ ever, it was not considered that the instrument was invalid if this did not occur. Also, there existed the possibility that the remarks would uncover another general classification or specific reasons not already included in the instrument. Hypothesis and Analysis of the Data Six hypotheses were formulated prior to collecting the data for this study. While there was no adequate theoretical basis for predicting the outcome of this study, the findings of the Holloway study were utilized as a basis for the first four hypotheses. In order to usefully draw inferences from the present study, it was desirable that the hypotheses be confirmed. The analysis of the data for the purpose of testing the hypo­ theses was founded upon the assumptions adopted earlier: (1) that more than an adequate sampling of subjects were utilized and were sufficient from which to draw inferences, (2) that board members would provide a true and honest expression of their opinions, and (3) that the combination of a checklist and coroment-type instrument would provide a more intimate and detailed expression of the board member's opinion. Hypothesis Number O n e . 76 When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors involved which precipitate that action. In response of board members to the checklist evaluation, it was predicted that there would be a noticeable variation in the answers concerning the number valuations. It was also predicted that a normal distribution would occur in response to these checklist i terns , If the respondents rejected the rating scale and did not indi­ cate variations of merit for the specific factors concerned, then the hypothesis was rejected. If the responses provided a normal distribution of the ratings, the hypothesis was not rejected. Also, the possibility existed that an analysis of the additional comments might bring into focus specific statements that could be classified as specific factors. This was considered to be acceptable for not rejecting the hypothesis. Hypothesis Number T w o . Of the six general classifications in the survey, Community Relationships will be appraised by board members as the weakest area of responsibility of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave. Question 14 was designed to determine whether or not board members accepted the six general classifications of reasons for dismissal. In determining the weakest and strongest area of activity it was determined that it was necessary that a majority of the board members responding from a particular board must check an 77 area for it to be considered the weakest or strongest area for that superin tenden t . It was predicted that more superintendents would be rated weakest in Community Relationships than in any of the other general areas. If this occurred, the hypothesis was not rejected. If it did not occur, the hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Number Three. Of the six general classifications in the survey, Business and Finance will be appraised by board members as the strongest area of responsibility of those super­ intendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave. Question Number 14 was designed to test this hypothesis. It was predicted that more superintendents would be rated strongest in Business and Finance than in any of the other general areas. If this occurred, the hypothesis was not rejected. If it did not occur, the hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Number Four. Of all the specific reasons listed in the general classifications of the survey, the one specific reason that will be appraised by board members to be the most predominant factor in termination of tenure of a superintendent will be the lack of maintaining a high standard of professional ethics, honesty, and integrity. Tabulations were made for each superintendent individually. A statistical count of the evaluation check marks given by board members in the specific area "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all professional matters" provided evi- den ce „ If the respondents provided this as a "Partial Reason for Release" for more superintendents than any other specific area, the 78 hypothesis was not rejected. If it did not occur, or if there was a uniform distribution of checks for partial reason for dismissal, the hypothesis was rejected. Specific statements in the open-ended questions also were utilized in testing this hypothesis. Since these comments were cor­ related with the checklist items, they were utilized in testing this hypothes is. Hypothesis Number Five. Of those superintendents who served as chief nego­ tiator for management, a majority of those who were dismissed or encouraged to leave will be appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. Questions Number lO and 11 were designed to test this hypothe­ sis. If a majority of those superintendents who were classified by board members as chief negotiator for management, were assessed as performing poorly in this role, the hypothesis was not rejected. If a majority of the superintendents who performed in this role were assessed as performing average or very good, the hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Number Six. A majority of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were not evaluated in a formal, written manner at least annually. Question Number 12 was designed to test this hypothesis. If a majority of those superintendents included in this study were checked by board members to (1) not have been evaluated formally, (2) have been evaluated orally, but not in a written manner, or (3) have been evaluated in a formal, written manner, but less frequent than annually, 79 the hypothesis was not rejected. If a majority of those superinten­ dents were checked to have been evaluated formally in a written manner at least annually, the hypothesis was rejected. Summary The population of the subjects in this study was comprised of those superintendents of schools in Michigan who were dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions between July 1, 1965 and June 30, 1975. The instrumentation utilized in this study consisted of two parts. The first part included sixteen questions that were utilized to gain information that: described the board member responding, described the specific school district, specified the date of termi­ nation of the superintendent and length of time notice given in termination, identified the role the superintendent played in negotia­ tions, specified the existence or nonexistence and manner of evaluation of the superintendent that was utilized, the procedure that was used in selecting the superintendent, and an appraisal of the weakest and the strongest of six general areas of responsibility of the superintendent. The second part of the instrument consisted of checklist items where board members were requested to evaluate the superintendent specifically as the six general areas were broken down. This part of the instrument also included an open-ended comment section following each general area. A careful tabulation of remarks and classification of those remarks, where classification was possible, and where remarks could be properly identified, were compared to the statistical checks--"Partial Reason for Release." 80 A statistical tabulation of all the check marks placed in the column entitled ’'Partial Reason for Release", along with the remarks in the additional comments, indicated whether or not there were spe­ cific factors involved which precipitated the action of dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave his position. Also, these two parts of the instrument were utilized to indicate whether or not there was more than likely one that occurred more predominately than all others. Inferences were drawn from the relationship of the specific and general factors as they were analyzed. The data was interpreted, and from all possible interpretations, the most reliable factors that explain the causes of school board-superintendent friction were exposed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS Introduction This chapter will discuss the analysis of the data obtained in this study under the sane headings as were presented in Chapter III: Population, Instrumentation, Hypotheses and Analysis of the Data, and Summary. The chapter will also present specific data in the acceptance or rejection of the six hypotheses. Population Chapter I described the procedural steps and methods utilized in obtaining the names of the superintendents to be included in this study. As was indicated in Chapter I, questionnaires were sent to members of 77 boards of education. It was determined that for a case to be included in the analysis of the results it was necessary that a response be received from at least two board members. It was determined that a minimum of 25 cases would constitute adequate sam­ pling. Since board member response permitted 60 of the 77 cases (78 percent) to be included in the analysis of the results, the minimum requirement for sampling of the cases was met. Questionnaires were mailed to 384 members of the 77 boards of education. There were 191 board members who responded with a com­ pleted questionnaire. Thirteen additional board members, from two 81 82 districts, responded that their cases were in litigation and they could not complete the instrument. Fourteen additional board members, from two districts, responded that their superintendents had not been dismissed or encouraged to leave. Thus, 226 board members (59 percent) responded to the questionnaire. Since it had been determined that a minimum of 50 responses would constitute adequate sampling, the minimum was met. Cases from all geographic areas of the State of Michigan, including the Upper Peninsula, were included in the study. The areas of the state where the greatest number of school districts are located were represented by the greatest number of cases. Thus, the data indicates there were no geographic factors present in the dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave during this ten-year period. Because of the confidential nature of the study, the exact location of the cases are not reported. Most of the 60 cases included in the data analysis occurred during the last five years of the ten-year study. Forty-two (70 per­ cent) of the cases occurred between July 1, 1970 and June 30, 1975. Table 4.1 indicates the year the action took place and the number of superintendents included in the study that were released each year. 83 TABLE 4.1 Dates Superintendents Were Released Date of Action Number Involved 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1 6 3 2 6 9 9 9 11 4 Total 60 Instrumentation Classification of C a s e s . Question Number One was included to determine whether or not the termination of the tenure of the superintendent named in the letter to the board member was under the conditions to be included in this study„ This question also required board members to commit themselves prior to answering the remainder of the questionnaire. The question was answered as follows: 1. When you were a member of a board of education, the superintendent of schools was Number Responding (14) Dismissed (26) Contract not renewed (18) Eased out conveniently ( 2) None of the above, please explain Percent (24) (44) (31) ( 1) 84 The two boards of education that checked the column "None of the above" added comments that clearly indicated that their superin­ tendent left his position under conditions that would permit inclusion of the case in this study. In 44 percent of the 60 cases, the superintendent was released by refusal of the board of education to renew the contract. Determining Support or Nonsupport of Board Members. In order to encourage board members to recall the particulars of the case, prior to answering the checklist of items, it was neces­ sary for them to indicate whether or not they supported the action that was taken. A summary of the response to Question Seven follows: 7. What were your feelings about the board's action at the time? N umber Responding (153) Support ( 30) Nonsupport Percent (80) (17) Eight board members did not respond to this question. The greatest number (80 percent) of the responses were received from board members who supported the board action, whatever the action was . Description of Boards of Education. It was of interest to know something of the composition of the boards of education involved in these cases. This need was predi­ cated upon the possibility of future studies necessitating comparative information. Questions Two, Three and Pour provided information regarding the composition of the boards. These questions were answered as follows: 85 2. What was your position on the board at the time the action was taken? (26) President (20) Vice-President (3o) Secretary (23) Treasurer (84) Trustee Evidence of the reliability of this study rested somewhat upon the distribution of responses by various members of the boards of education. It was presumed that a necessary balance of responses of a typical board of education should be required* Question Number Two provided the data for this analysis. Estimates as explained in Chapter III are compared with the responses received in Table 4.2. TABLE 4.2 How board members responded to questionnaire by ^ a r ^ ^ o s i t i m ^ e ^ i m a t e ^ ^ m g a r e d _ w i t ^ & c t u a T Percent Responses Percent Responses Off ice Presumed Ac tual Acceptable Presidents V i ce- Pre s i den t s Secretaries Treasurers Trus tees Noncommittal 14 lO 14 14 43 5 13.6 10.5 15.7 12.0 44.0 4.2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes lOO Percent 100.0 Percent 3. What was your was taken? age at the time the action Number Responding { O) Up to 25 (26) 26 thru 35 (81) 36 thru 45 (55) 46 thru 55 (11) Over 55 Percent ( 0 ) (14) (42) (29) ( 6) Eighteen board members did not respond to this question. 86 The greatest number (42 percent) of those board members who served on boards of education when action was taken to terminate a superintendent were in the 36 thru 45 year age range. There were no board members in the 0-25 year age range. 4. How many years had you served on the board at the time the action was taken? Number Responding (71) Up to 2 (59) 3 thru 5 (37) 6 thru lO (12) Over lO Percent (37) (32) (19) ( 6) Twelve board members did not respond to this question. The greatest number (37 percent) of those board members who served on boards of education when action was taken to terminate a superintendent had served on the board two years or less. A total of 69 percent had served five years or less. Length of Tenure of Superintendent. It was necessary for board members to indicate the number of years their superintendent had served prior to his termination from this position. This information was necessary in order to determine if there was any particular pattern developing regarding length of tenure prior to termination. This information was obtained from Question Number Six and it was answered as follows: 6. What were the approximate number of years this person served as superintendent? Number Responding (25) O thru 3 (21) 4 thru 6 ( 5) 7 thru 9 ( 3) lO thru 12 ( 3) 13 thru 15 3) Over 15 ( Pe r cen t (42) (35) ( 8) ( 5) ( 5) ( 5 ) 87 The greatest number {42 percent) of the superintendents who were terminated from their position had served three years or less in that position. A total of 77 percent had served six years or less. Reasons for Removal and Length of Notice Time. It was necessary that board members indicate if they felt the reasons that were given for removal of the superintendent were vague, very specific, or in a range somewhere in between. Question Eight provided this information and it was answered as follows: 8. What kind of reasons did the board give the superintendent for the action taken? Number Responding (15) Very Specific (23) Specific (20) General ( 2) Vague ( O) None Percent (25) (39) (33) ( 3) ( O) The greatest number (39 percent) of the boards of education felt that the reasons for termination that they gave their superin­ tendent were specific. Thirty-three percent of the boards felt the reasons given were general and only three percent felt the reasons given were vague* In order to determine the length of notice time that boards of education gave before removing their superintendent, Question Nine was included. The responses were as follows: 9, If the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, what was the length of notice time given of his pending dis­ missal, release or desire that he should leave? 88 Number Responding ( 9) None ( 6 ) 1 month (23) 3 months (16) 6 months ( 6) 1 year ( O) Other, please explain Percent (15) (10) (38) (27) (1°) ( 0) Thirty-eight percent of the s u p e r in tendents were given three months notice; 15 percent of the superintendents were given no notice at all; and a total of 90 percent of the superintendents were given six months or less notice of their pending dismissal, release, or desire by the board that they leave. Superintendent and Negotiations. It was important to determine what role the superintendents included in this study had played in the collective bargaining pro­ cess in order to determine if there was a relationship between performance in the role of collective bargaining and removal from the superintendency. Hypothesis Number Five was based upon a predic­ tion of this relationship. Questions Number 10 and 11 provided the data necessary to determine this rel,\tionship. These questions were answered in the following manner: l O „ What role did the superintendent play in teacher negotiations? Number Responding (25) Chief negotiator for management (27) Resource person for management ( 5) Member of management team ( 3) No role Percent (42) (45) ( 8) ( 5) 89 The greatest number (45 percent) of the superintendents included in the study had served as a resource person for management. Forty-two percent of the superintendents had served as chief nego­ tiator for management. 11. If the superintendent served as chief negotiator, what is your assessment of his competence in this role? Number Responding ( 4) Very good (11) Average (lO) Poor Percent (16) (44) (40) Of the 25 superintendents who served as the chief negotiator for management, 60 percent were appraised as performing as average or very good in this role. Evaluation of Superintendent„ Question Number 12 was included in the questionnaire in order to determine if the superintendents included in this study were formally evaluated. Also, if they were formally evaluated, the question provided information as to whether they were evaluated orally or in written form and how often evaluation took place. Hypothesis Number Six was based upon a prediction of the number of superintendents who were formally evaluated. The responses to this question were as follows: 12. Was a formal evaluation of the superintendent conducted? a. If yes, what was the type that was utilized? b. How often was he evaluated? 90 Number Responding (27) Yes (33) No (lO) Written (17) Oral (17) Annually ( 1) At end of multiyear contract ( 9) Whenever necessary Percent (45) (55) (37) (63) (63) ( 4) (33) Fifty-five percent of the superintendents included in this study were not formally evaluated. Of those 27 superintendents who were formally evaluated, only 10 (37 percent) were evaluated in writ­ ten form. Also, of the 27 superintendents who were formally evaluated, 17 (63 percent) were evaluated annually. Procedure in Selecting Superintendent. It was important to determine the procedure that boards of education had utilized in screening and selecting the superintendents included in this study. With this information, it was possible to determine if there was any significant relationship between the pro­ cedure of selection and the action to dismiss or encourage to leave. Question Number 13 provided this data and was answered as follows: 13. If the superintendent was dismissed or encouraged to leave, what process was utilized in his selection? Number Responding (39) Board screening all applicants (21) Placement bureau team screening applicants ( 0 ) Other, please explain Percent (65) (35) ( O) Sixty-five percent of the superintendents included in this study were selected in a manner in which the board of education 91 screened all applicants and did not involve a placement bureau team or other consultants in the selection process. Description of School District, In order to determine the student enrollment in the districts that were managed by the superintendents included in this study, Question Number 15 was included. The responses to this question were as follows: 15. What was the student enrollment of the district at the time the action was taken? Number Responding (13) O thru 1,000 (21) 1,001 thru 2,500 (15) 2,501 thru 5,000 ( 5) 5,001 thru 10,000 ( 6) Over 10,000 Percent (22) (35) (25) ( 8) (10) The greatest number (35 percent) of the superintendents included in this study managed districts that had a student enrollment of from 1,001 thru 2,500 students; 22 percent managed districts with student enrollments of 1,000 or less; 25 percent managed districts with student enrollments of 2,501 thru 5,000; 8 percent managed districts with student enrollments of 5,001 thru 10,000; and lO percent managed districts with student enrollments over 10,000. Table 4.3 provides the percentage distribution of the superin­ tendents included in this study in relationship to student enrollment of the districts involved. The table also provides the percentage distribution of actual student enrollment in Michigan School Districts in 1973-74. Table 4.3 indicates that the release of superintendents in school districts with student enrollments of 2,501 thru 5,000 and over 10,000 was significantly higher (seven and five percent respec­ tively) than the percentage distribution of actual student enrollment of state school districts, and the release of superintendents in school districts with student enrollments of 1,000 or less and 5,000 thru 10,000 was significantly lower (eight and five percent respec­ tively) than the percentage distribution of actual student enrollment of state school districts. 93 TABLE 4.3. Distribution of superintendents released in relationship to student enrollment of districts - a percentage dis­ tribution . 50 40 20 lO O District Enrollment O thru 1000 lOOl thru 2500 2501 thru 5000 5000 thru 10,000 Over 10,000 Distribution of released superintendents in rela­ tionship to district student enrollment as found in study. Distribution of student enrollment in Michigan School Districts in 1973-74 (Source: Michigan Department of Education, "Michigan Educational Statistics," 1974, p. 26). 94 Question Number 16 provided information regarding the percentage of minority students that were enrolled in the districts that were man­ aged by superintendents included in this study. This information was necessary in order to determine if there was a significant relationship between the percentage of minority students in a district and the release of the superintendent. This question was answered as follows: 16. What was the percentage of minority students enrolled in the district at the time the action was taken? Number Responding (48) 0 to 5 percent (10) 6 to 15 percent ( 2) 16 to 25 percent ( O) 26 to 50 percent ( O) Over 50 percent Percent (80) ( 1 7 ) ( 3) ( O) ( O) The greatest number (80 percent) of the superintendents included in the study had served in districts with a aero to five percent minority student population. The Michigan Department of Education does not provide a break­ down of the percentage of minority students by district as was utilized in this question. However, the Michigan Department of Educa­ tion does provide information that 12 school districts, in 1973-74, enrolled 65.2 percent of the total minority group students in Michigan Public Schools and that 79.4 percent of Michigan’s minority students attended school in metropolitan areas.1 These statistics would indi­ cate that the fact that 80 percent of the superintendents included in this study served in districts with from zero to five percent minority students would be expected and is not significant in determining a rela­ tionship between superintendent dismissal and the percentage of minority students enrolled in these districts. ^■Michigan Department of Education, "School Racial Ethnic Census," (Bulletin 4066, 1975), p. 15. General Reasons for Termination. 95 Board members were requested to provide an overall appraisal of the superintendent in six general areas. They were requested to select the weakest and strongest area of responsibility of the six general areas. It was necessary that there be agreement on the part of the majority of the members of a board of education for the data to be included in the results. Hypothesis Number Six was based upon a pre­ diction of the manner in which the superintendents would be appraised. 14. As an overall appraisal of the superintendent, please indicate the following: JS for his strongest area of activity (1 only) W for his weakest area of activity {1 only) S t ronges t ( 2) Relationship with board ( 2) Community relationships (27) Business and finance ( 5) Staff and personnel relationships (11) Educational leadership ( 8) Personal qualities Weakest ( 4) (27) ( 4) ( 8) ( 6) ( 6) Five superintendents were not appraised as being strongest or weakest in any of the six areas by board of education members. Forty-five percent of the superintendents were appraised as being strongest in the area of Business and Finance. Educational Leadership was the next strongest area, where 18 percent of the super­ intendents were appraised as being the strongest. Forty-five percent of the superintendents were appraised as being weakest in the area of Community Relationships. The next weak­ est area was Staff and Personnel Relationships, where 13 percent of the superintendents were appraised as being the weakest. 96 Specific Reasons for Termination. Checklist Iterns--The Mean of Appraisals; The checklist portion of the questionnaire provided board mem­ bers with an opportunity to appraise the superintendent in six specific areas. The six generalized reasons for termination that were listed in Question 14 were broken down into specific areas. Board members appraised the superintendent on a scale of from zero to five. A five indicated that the superintendent was appraised as excellent in the specific area. A zero indicated this specific area was a "Partial Reason for Release." It was predicted that a normal distribution would occur in response to these checklist items. It was necessary to compute a mean of the responses of all board members responding for each individual case. A mean of the total cases was then computed, The percentage distribution of the responses to these checklist items in each of the six general areas is provided in Tables 4.4 through 4.9. Table 4.4 indicates that the lowest average rating (2.2) for all superintendents in the general area of Relationship with the Board was in the specific area "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work." Table 4.5 indicates that the lowest average rating (2.5) for all superintendents in the general area of Community Relationships was in the specific area "had the respect and support of the community in the operation of the school system." Table 4.6 indicates that the lowest average rating (3.0) for all superintendents in the general area of Business and Finance was 97 in the specific area "required that funds were spent wisely,'* Table 4,7 indicates that the lowest average rating (2,2) for all superintendents in the general area of Staff and Personnel Rela­ tionships was in the specific area "was highly respected by school personnel at all levels." Table 4,8 indicates that the lowest average rating (2.5) for all superintendents in the general area of Educational Leadership was in the specific area "provided democratic procedures in utilizing the abilities and talents of staff members and citizens." Table 4.9 indicates that the lowest average rating (2.3) for all superintendents in the general area of Personal Qualities was in the specific area "had the respect of school personnel." The highest average rating (3.5) for all superintendents in all areas was in the general area of Business and Finance, the specific area "evaluated financial needs and made recommendations for adequate f inancing." The lowest average rating (2.2) for all superintendents in all areas was in the general area of Relationship With the Board, the specific area "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work," and also in the general area of Staff and Personnel Relationships, the specific area "was highly respected by school personnel at all levels." There was no relationship between the size of the district stu­ dent enrollment and how the superintendents were appraised by boards of education. 98 TABLE 4.4. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Rating 5 4 3 2 1 O 1 Specif ic Area 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Supported board policy and board actions to the staff and to the public. 2. Clearly understood his role as an administrator of board policy, not a policy maker. 3. Kept the board informed on issues, concerns, needs and general operation of the school system. 4. Offered professional advice and recommendations, based on thorough study and analysis, to board on items needing action. 5. Sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work. 6. Provided well-planned meeting agendas. 7. Had information readily available for the board on agenda items. 8. Had a harmonious working relationship with the board. TABLE 4.5. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents 99 B. COMMUNITY RELATION 311 PS Rat ing 5 4 3 2 1 O Specific Area 1. Was recognized in the community as a leader in public education. 2. Developed friendly and cooperative relationships with news media. 3. Sought and gave attention to problems and opinions of community groups and individuals. 4. Actively participated in community organizations. 5. Had the respect and support of the community in the operation of the school system. TABLE 4.6. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents loo C. BUSINESS AND FINANCE Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 Specific Area 1 2 3 4 1. Evaluated financial needs and made recommendations for adequate financing. 2. Kept informed on needs of the school program, plant, facilities, equipment and supplies. 3. Required adequate control and accounting of funds. 4. Required that funds were spent wisely. lOl TABLE 4.7. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents D. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS Rating 4 3 2 1 O 1 Specific Area 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Encouraged appropriate staff members to participate in planning and decision making and then accepted their suggestions. 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. 3. Treated all personnel fairly without discrimination or favoritism. 4. Delegated authority to appropriate staff members. 5. Recruited and assigned the best available personnel in terms of their competencies, 6. Evaluated performance of staff members and provided constructive criticism that was acceptable. 7. Provided an active role in developing salary schedules and recom­ mending personnel procedures and policies. 8. Was highly respected by school personnel at all levels. TABLE 4.8. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents 102 E. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP Rating 5 4 3 2 1 O Specific Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Provided the leadership to implement innovative programs and initiate educational progress. 2. Kept informed regarding all aspects of the instructional programs of the district. 3. Was involved in educational conferences and read considerably in order to keep abreast of current educational practices. 4. Required an organized and planned program of curriculum development, evaluation, and improvement. 5. Provided democratic procedures in utilizing the abilities and talents of staff members and citizens. 6. Maintained political awareness and was proficient in working with local and state legislators. TABLE 4.9. Checklist Item Distribution - The Mean of all Superintendents 103 F. PERSONAL QUALITIES Rating o Specif ic Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Was not afraid to make decisions and would defend his convictions in the face of pressure and partisan influence. 2. Devoted his time and energy effectively to the responsibilities of his position. 3. Had the respect of school personnel. 4. Had the respect of his professional colleagues in area school dis­ tricts . 5. Maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and professional matters. 6. Possessed a pleasing personality and reflected personal charisma. 104 Checklist Items - Partial Reason for Release: It was necessary to determine whether or not there was a specific area, or a group of specific areas, in each of the six general areas, that could be categorized as specific reasons for release. Zero was the indicator of a specific underlying cause, as it was labeled "Par­ tial Reason for Release" on the checklist portion of the questionnaire. Tables 4.10 through 4.15 provide a statistical summary of the superin­ tendents included in this study who were checked by board members in the "Partial Reason for Release" column. Table 4.10 indicates that the specific area, under the general area of Relationship With the Board, that was checked most often (27 times) as a "Partial Reason for Release" was "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work." Table 4.11 indicates that the specific area, under the general area of Community Relationships, that was checked most often (20 times) as a "Partial Reason for Release" was "had the respect and support of the community in the operation of the school system." Table 4.12 indicates that there was no one specific area, under the general area of Business and Finance that was checked most often. Table 4.13 indicates that the specific area, under the general area of Staff and Personnel Relationships, that was checked most often (26 times) was "was highly respected by school personnel at all levels." Table 4.14 indicates that the specific area, under the general area of Educational Leadership, that was checked most often (13 times) was "provided democratic procedures in utilizing the abilities and talents of staff members and citizens." 105 Table 4.15 indicates that the specific area, under the general area of Personal Qualities, that was checked most often (21 times) was "had the respect of school personnel." There was no relationship between the size of the district student enrollment and the areas that were checked "Partial Reason for Release" by board members. 106 TABLE 4*10. Tabulation of" Checklist Items: "Partial Reason for Release' A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1 . Supported board policy and board actions to the staff and to the public. 2. Clearly understood his role as an administrator of board policy, not a policy maker. 3 . Kept the board informed on issues, concerns, needs, and general operation of the school system. 4. Offered professional advice and recom­ mendations, based on thorough study and analysis, to board on items needing action. 5 . Sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work. 6 . 7. Provided well-planned meeting agendas. Had information readily available for the board on agenda items. 8 . Had a harmonious working relationship with the board. Total: 60 Superintendents 19 15 17 13 27 9 15 18 107 TABLE 4.11. Tabulation of Checklist Items: "Partial Reason for Release" B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. Was recognized in the community as a leader in public education. Developed friendly and cooperative relationships with news media. Sought and gave attention to problems and opinions of community groups and individuals. Actively participated in community organizations. Had the respect and support of the community in the operation of the school system. Total: 60 Superintendents 11 9 io 6 20 TABLE 4.12. Tabulation of Checklist Items: "Partial Reason for Release" C. BUSINESS AND FINANCE Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1. Evaluated financial needs and made recom- mendation for adequate financing. 2. 3. Kept informed on needs of the school pro­ gram, plant, facilities, equipment and supplies. Required adequate control and accounting of funds. 4. Required that funds were spent wisely. Total: 60 Superintendents 11 7 11 11 108 TABLE 4.13. Tabulation of Checklist Items: '’Partial Reason for Release" D. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 6. 7. 8. Encouraged appropriate staff members to participate in planning and decision making and then accepted their sugges­ tions. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. Treated all personnel fairly without discrimination or favoritism. Delegated authority to appropriate staff members. Recruited and assigned the best available personnel in terras of their competencies. Evaluated performance of staff members and provided constructive criticism that was acceptable. Provided an active role in developing salary schedules and recommending per­ sonnel procedures and policies. Was highly respected by school personnel at all levels. Total: 60 Superintendents IS 25 22 17 9 19 7 26 109 TABLE 4.14. Tabulation of Checklist Items: "Partial Reason for Release" E. EDUCATIONAL LEADER 31IP Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1. Provided the leadership to implement innovative programs and initiate educational progress. 2. Kept informed regarding all aspects of the instructional programs of the district. 3. Was involved in educational confer­ ences and read considerably in order to keep abreast of current educational practices. 4. 5. 6. Required an organized and planned program of curriculum development, evalu­ ation and improvement. Provided democratic procedures in utilizing the abilities and talents of staff members and citizens. Maintained political awareness and was proficient in working with local and state legislators. Total: 60 Superintendents 11 4 3 io 13 2 110 TABLE 4.15. Tabulation of Checklist Items: "Partial Reason for Release" F. PERSONAL QUALITIES Specific Area Partial Reason for Release 1. 2. Was not afraid to make decisions and would defend his convictions in the face of pressure and partisan influ­ ence. Devoted his time and energy effec­ tively to the responsibilities of his position* 3. Had the respect of school personnel. 4. 5. Had the respect of his professional colleagues in area school districts. Maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal and professional matters. 6 * Possessed a pleasing personality and reflected personal charisma. 19 11 21 6 17 11 Total: 60 Superintendents Correlating Remarks With Checklist. Ill Space was provided at the bottom of each general area of the checklist items for board members to write in remarks regarding the specific areas listed under each general classification. Board mem­ bers were encouraged to write in comments. As was predicted, board members added comments that were classified and placed in categories to substantiate check mark classifications. Board members did not always write comments under the proper general classification. It was obvious that board members often wrote thoughts on the paper as they came to mind. Therefore, in order to analyze the written remarks, it was necessary to classify them under the proper general area. A complete rearrangement of remarks by general category was completed prior to tabulating them. It was presumed in Chapter III that the reliability of the instrument would be strengthened if the remarks classifications coin­ cided with the specific ’’Partial Reason for Release" checklist classifications. Tables 4.16 through 4.21 provide evidence that remark classifications coincided to a great extent with "Partial Reason for Release" classifications. It was discussed in Chapter III that the possibility existed that the remarks might uncover another general classification or specific reasons not already included in the instrument. Additional specific reasons were found in four of the general classifications. These are listed in Tables 4.17, 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21 at the bottom of each table. Summary of Remark Classifications: 112 Only those remarks that appeared for more than one superinten­ dent were included in Tables 4.17 through 4.21. There were additional comments on the questionnaire that were not included in the tabulation. If there was not a distinct similarity to a response for at least one other superintendent, these comments were not tabulated. In the general area of Relationship with the Board, nine super­ intendents were appraised as "providing only part of the facts;'1 seven superintendents were appraised as "playing board members against each other;" and five superintendents were appraised as "not following instructions of board members." See Table 4.16. In the general area of Community Relationships, there were very few written remarks. Two superintendents were appraised as "being loners," "providing no community relations," and "dividing the com­ munity with their actions." Three boards of education commented that their superintendent "didn't reside in the community." There was no specific classification for this remark. See Table 4.17. In the general area of Business and Finance, three superinten­ dents were accused of "employing their wives in the business office," and two superintendents were appraised as "not knowing how to prepare a budget." See Table 4.18. In the general area of Staff and Personnel Relationships, seven superintendents were accused of "having favorites on the staff;" four superintendents were accused of "being afraid to delegate authority;" and three superintendents were accused of "blaming staff members for their problems." Six boards of education remarked that "teacher unions were his downfall." There was no specific classification for 113 this remark. See Table 4.19. In the general area of Educational Leadership, four superinten­ dents were appraised as "providing no leadership in curriculum." Eight boards of education commented that "the district grew too fast for him." There was no specific classification for this remark. See Table 4.20. In the general area of Personal Qualities, five superintendents were appraised as "having an alcohol problem;" four superintendents were appraised as "not being able to make a decision;" and three super­ intendents were accused of "being involved with another woman." Six boards of education remarked that their superintendent "was a poor public speaker." There was no specific classification for this remark. See Table 4.21. The purpose of classifying and tabulating these remarks was not to provide additional numbers for the specific areas marked "Partial Reason for Release." It was the purpose of classifying and tabulating these remarks to correlate the remarks with the checklist items and to uncover other general or specific reasons than those included in the instrument. 114 TABLE 4.16. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" A. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BOARD 5 4 3 2 1 Partial Reason for Release 1. Supported board policy and board actions to the staff and to the public. 2. Clearly understood his role as an adminis­ trator of board poli­ cy, not a policy maker. 3. Kept the board informed on issues, concerns, needs and general operation of the school system. 4. Offered professional advice and recommen­ dations, based on thorough study and analysis, to board on items needing action. "Didn’t follow instruc­ tions of board." (5 superintendents) "Didn't understand role in administering policy." (2 superintendents) "Gave only part of the facts." (9 superinten- den ts) "Didn’t give the board recommendations." (2 superintendents) 5. Sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work. "Went into shell when criticized." (2 super­ in ten den ts) 6. Provided well-planned meeting agendas. "Long meetings due to poorly planned agendas." (5 superintendents) 7„ Had information read­ ily available for the board on agenda items. 8. Had a harmonious work­ ing relationship with the board. "Played board members against each other." (7 superintendents) 19 15 17 13 27 9 15 18 Total: 60 Superintendents 115 TABLE 4.17. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS! I PS 5 4 3 2 1 Partial Reason for Release 11 9 io 6 20 1. Was recognized in the community as a leader in public education. 2. Developed friendly and cooperative relation­ ships with news media. 3. Sought and gave atten­ tion to problems and opinions of community groups and individuals. 4. Actively participated in community organiza­ tions , er." (2 super- "Was a Ion in tendents ) 5. Had the respect and support of the com­ munity in the opera­ tion of the school system. "Community relations were nonexistent." (2 superintendents) "His actions divided the community." (2 super­ intendents) No specific classi­ fication. "Didn’t reside in com­ munity." (3 superin- ten den ts) Total: 60 Superintendents 116 TABLE 4.18. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" C. BUSINESS AND FINANCE 5 4 3 O 1 Partial Reason for Release 1. Evaluated financial needs and made recom­ mendations for adequate financing. "Didn’t know how to pare a budget." (2 s intendents) pre- up>er- 2. Kept informed on needs of the school program, plant, facilities, equipment, and sup­ plies. 3. Required adequate con­ trol and accounting of f un d s . "Employed wife in Business Office." (3 superinten- dents ) 4. Required that funds were spent wisely. 11 7 11 11 Total: 60 Superintendents 1X7 TABLE 4.19. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" D. STAFF AND PERSONNEL RELATIONSHIPS 5 4 3 2 1 Partial Reason for Release 1. Encouraged appropriate staff members to par­ ticipate in planning and decision making and then accepted their suggestions. 2. Developed good staff morale and loyalty to the organization. 3. Treated all personnel fairly without dis­ crimination or favor­ itism. "Always blamed staff members for his pro­ blems." (2 superin- tenden t s) "Had favorites on the staff." (7 superinten­ dents) 4. Delegated authority to appropriate s taff members. "Was afraid to delegate authority." (4 super- ten dents) "Didnft evaluate teachers or administrators." (2 superintendents) 5. Recruited and assigned the best available personnel in terms of their competencies. 6. Evaluated performance of staff members and provided constructive criticism that was acceptable. 7. Provided an active role in developing salary schedules and recommending person­ nel procedures and policies. 8. Was highly respected by school personnel at all levels. No specific classifi­ cation . "Teacher unions were his downfall," (6 supts.) Total: 60 Superintendents 15 25 22 17 9 19 7 26 118 TABLE 4,20. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" E. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 5 4 3 2 1 Partial Reason for Release 1. Provided the leadership to implement innova­ tive programs and ini­ tiate educational pro­ gress. 2. Kept informed regarding all aspects of the instructional programs of the district. "Provided no leadership in the area of curriculun • {4 superintendents) It 3. Was involved in educa­ tional conferences and read considerably in order to keep abreast of current educational practices. 4. Required an organized and planned program of curriculum develop­ ment, evaluation, and improvement. 5. Provided democratic procedures in utiliz­ ing the abilities and talents of staff mem­ bers and citizens. 6. Maintained political awareness and was pro­ ficient in working with local and state legislators. No specific classifi­ cation . "District grew too fast for him." (8 superinten­ dents) Total: 60 Superintendents 11 4 3 io 13 2 119 TABLE 4.21. Comparison of Remarks With Checklist Item: "Partial Reason for Release" P. PERSONAL QUALITIES 5 4 3 2 1 Partial Reason for Release 1. Was not afraid to make decisions and would defend his convictions in the face of pres­ sure and partisan influence• "Couldn't make a deci­ sion." (4 superinten­ dents) 2. Devoted his time and energy effectively to the responsibilities of his position. "Worked hard but spun his wheels." (2 super­ intendents) 3. Had the respect of school personnel. 4. Had the respect of his professional col­ leagues in area school districts. 5. Maintained high stand­ ard of ethics, honesty and integrity in all personal and profes­ sional matters. ,fHad an alcohol pro­ blem." (5 superinten­ dents) "Was involved with another woman." (3 superintendents) 6. Possessed a pleasing personality and reflected personal charisma. No specific classifi­ cation . "Was not a warm person." (2 superintendents) "Was a poor public speaker." (7 superin­ tendents) 19 11 21 6 17 11 Total: 60 Superintendents 120 Hypotheses and Analysis of Data Six hypotheses were formulated prior to oollecting the data for this study. It was predicted that the analysis of the data would confirm these hypotheses and provide evidence from which to draw further inferences. Two of the hypotheses were rejected and the other four were not rejected in the analysis of the data obtained in the study. Hypothesis Number One. When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors involved which precipitate that action. It was predicted that a noticeable variation in responses to the checklist items would occur. It was also predicted that a normal distribution would occur in response to these checklist items. Analysis of the data provided evidence that a noticeable variation in responses to the checklist item did occur. Also, a normal distribution in response to these checklist items in the six general areas occurred. Tables 4.4 through 4.9 provides this evidence„ The possibility existed that an analysis of additional comments might bring into focus specific statements that could be classified as specific factors. If this did occur, this would provide further evidence that Hypothesis Number One was not rejected. Tables 4.16 through 4.21 provide evidence that this did occur. Hypothesis Number One - Not Rejected. Hypothesis Number Two. 121 Of the six general classifications in the survey, Community Relationships will be appraised by board mem­ bers as the weakest area of responsibility of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave. The responses to Question Number 14 of the instrument were analyzed to determine which of the six General classifications of the survey were appraised by most boards of education as the weakest area of responsibility for superintendents included in this study. It was necessary that a majority of the board members responding from a particular board check a specific area of weakness for it to be considered the weakest for that superintendent. It was determined that if more superintendents were appraised as weakest in the area of Community Relationships than in any other general area, Hypothesis Number Two was not rejected. As was indi­ cated in the analysis of the responses to Question Number 14, 45 percent of the superintendents were appraised as being weakest in the area of Community Relationships. The next weakest area was Staff and Personnel Relationships, where 13 percent of the superintendents were appraised as weakest. Hypothesis Number Two - Not Rejected. Hypothesis Number Three. Of the six general classifications in the survey, Business and Finance will be appraised by board members as the strongest area of responsibility of those super­ intendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave. The responses to Question Number 14 of the instrument were analyzed to determine which of the six general classifications of the survey were appraised by most boards of education as the strongest 122 area of responsibility for superintendents included in this study. It was necessary that a majority of the board members responding from a particular board check a specific area of strength for it to be considered the strongest for that superintendent. It was determined that if more superintendents were appraised as strongest in the area of Business and Finance, Hypothesis Number Three was not rejected. As was indicated in the analysis of the responses to Question Number 14, 45 percent of the superintendents were appraised as being strongest in the area of Business and Finance. The next strongest area was Educational Leadership, where 18 percent of the superintendents were appraised as being strongest. Hypothesis Number Three - Not Rejected. Hypothesis N»™her Four . Of all the specific reasons listed in the general classifications of the survey, the one specific reason that will be appraised by board members to be the most predomi­ nant factor in termination of tenure of a superintendent will be the lack of maintaining a high standard of profes­ sional ethics, honesty, and integrity in all professional matters. It was necessary to tabulate the responses for each superinten­ dent individually. If the respondents checked the specific area of "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal matters" for more superintendents as a "Partial Reason for Release," than any other specific area, the hypothesis was not rejected. Tables 4,10 through 4.15 provide evidence that the specific area of "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal matters" was not checked for more superintendents as a 123 "Partial Reason for Release" than any other specific area. This specific area was checked for 17 superintendents. Ten other specific areas were checked for more superintendents than was "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal matters." The specific area of "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work" was checked as "Partial Reason for Release" for more super­ intendents than any other specific area. It was necessary to correlate the remarks written in the open- ended questions with the checklist items marked "Partial Reason for Release" as a further test of this hypothesis. Table 4.16 through 4.21 indicate that there was a high correlation of these comments with the checklist item marked "Partial Reason for Release." However, this correlation only added support to the analysis that the specific area "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal matters" was not checked as "Partial Reason for Release" for more superintendents than any other specific area. Hypothesis Number Four - Rejected. Hypothesis Number Five. Of those superintendents who served as chief nego­ tiator for management, a majority of those who were dismissed or encouraged to leave will be appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. The responses to Questions Number 10 and 11 were tabulated to test this hypothesis. It was determined that if a majority of those superintendents who were classified by board members as chief negotia­ tor for management were appraised as performing poorly in this role, the hypothesis was not rejected. If a majority of the superintendents 124 who performed in this role were appraised as performing average or very good, the hypothesis was rejected. As was discussed earlier, the tabulation of the responses to Questions Number 10 and 11 indicated that of the 25 superintendents who had served as the chief negotiator for management, only 40 percent were appraised as performing poorly in this role. Sixty percent were appraised as performing as average or very good in this role. Hypothesis Number Five - Rejected. Hypothesis Number Six. A majority of those superintendents who were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave were not evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. The responses to Question Number 12 were tabulated to test this hypothesis. If a majority of those superintendents included in the study were checked by board members to (1) not have been evaluated formally, (2) have been evaluated orally, but not in a written manner, or (3) have been evaluated in a written manner less frequently than annually, the hypothesis was not rejected. If a majority of the superintendents were checked to have been evaluated formally in a written manner at least annually, the hypothesis was rejected. As was discussed earlier, only 27 of the 60 superintendents included in this study were formally evaluated. Only 10 of these were evaluated in written form. Also, of the 27 superintendents who were formally evaluated, 17 were evaluated annually. A summary of these tabulations indicates that only eight (13 percent) of the 60 superintendents included in the study were 125 evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. Hypothesis Number Six - Not Rejected. Chapter IV presented the analysis and findings of the data collected from 60 of 77 boards of education that were contacted. This represents a return of 78 percent of the potential. Of the 384 members of boards of education who were contacted, 226 responded to the questionnaire. This represents a return of 59 percent of the potential. Most of the action to dismiss or encouragement of the superin­ tendents included in this study to leave their positions occurred between July 1, 1970 and June 30, 1975. Tabulation of the responses received to the questions in Part I of the questionnaire revealed the following: 1. Most superintendents were released by refusal of the board of education to renew their contract. 2. The greatest number of respondents to the questionnaire supported the action of the board of education at that time. 3. Predicted responses of board members by position provided evidence of reliability of the study. 4. The greatest number of those board members who served on boards of education when action was taken to terminate a superintendent were in the 36 thru 45 year age range at the time the action was taken• The greatest number of those board members who served on boards of education when action was taken to terminate a superintendent had served on the board two years or less. The greatest number of superintendents who were terminated from their position had served three years or less in that position. The greatest number of the boards of education included in the study felt that the reasons for termination that they gave their superintendent were specific. Ninety percent of the superintendents included in this study were given six months or less notice of their pending dismissal, release, or desire by the board that they leave. The greatest number of the superintendents included in this study had served as a resource person for management in the collective bargaining process. Sixty percent of those who had served as chief negotiator for management were appraised as performing as average or very good in this role. Only eight of the 60 superintendents included in this study were evaluated annually in a formal written manner. Thirty-nine of the 60 superintendents included in this study were selected in a process in which the board of education screened all candidates and made the selection with no help from university placement officials. The release of superintendents from school districts with student enrollments of 2,501 thru 5,000 and in districts over 10,000 was significantly higher than the percentage distribution of actual student enrollment of state school districts. The opposite was 127 true in school districts with student enrollments of 1,000 or less and in districts of 5,001 thru 10,000. 13, The greatest number of superintendents included in this study had served in districts with a zero to five percent minority student population. Analysis of the responses to the checklist items indicated that the lowest average rating for all superintendents in all areas was in the general area of Relationship with the Board, the specific area "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work," and also in the general area of Staff and Personnel Relationships, the specific area "was highly respected by school personnel at all levels." The highest average rating for all superintendents in all areas was in the general area of Business and Finance, the specific area "evaluated financial needs and made recommendations for adequate financing." Four of the hypotheses were not rejected and two were rejected in the analysis of the data. Hypothesis Number One - Not Rejected. When a superintendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors which precipitate that action. Hypothesis Number Two - Not Rejected, Superintendents included in this study were appraised by board members as being weakest in the area of Community Relationships of six general classifications provided in the survey. 128 Hypothesis Number Three - Not Rejected. Superintendents included in this study were appraised by board members as being strongest in the area of Business and Finance of six general classifications provided in the survey. Hypothesis Number Four - Rejected. Of all the specific reasons listed in the general classifications of the survey, the one specific reason that was appraised by board members to be the most predominant factor in termination of tenure of a superintendent was not the lack of maintaining a high standard of professional ethics, honesty, and integrity. Hypothesis Number Five - Rejected. Of those superintendents who served as chief negotiator for manage­ ment, a majority of those who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were not appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. Hypothesis Number Six - Not Rejected. A majority of those superintendents who were dismissed or encour­ aged to leave were not evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. Chapter V presents a summary of this study along with the report of the findings and conclusions. Observations are provided with implications for further research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND IMFl.ICATIONS The purpose of this study was to discover new knowledge about superintendent-board of education relationships, especially as they pertain to the severance of the tenure of superintendents in Michi­ gan. General and specific reasons for the removal of superintendents from their positions were sought. The names of Michigan superintendents of schools who were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave their positions during the period of July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1975 were obtained from several sources. The names and addresses of the members of the boards of education who served on the respective boards at the time action was taken to release these superintendents were then obtained and these board members were the source of information for the study. A research instrument was utilized which requested answers to specific questions and also included a checklist appraisal of the superintendent with an opportunity to provide written comments. Three basic assumptions were employed in the collection and analysis of the data. The assumptions were: (1) that the number of cases involved in the study provided more than an adequate sample, (2) that board members would provide accurate and honest expressions of opinion in responding to a survey, and (3) that the personalized type response of the comment-type answer 130 would generate a more intimate and detailed expression of the board member’s opinion. Research Hypotheses Six hypotheses were formulated prior to the gathering of the data. Two of the hypotheses were rejected and four were not rejected through analysis of the data. Research Hypothesis Number One postulated that when a superin­ tendent of schools is dismissed or encouraged to leave, there are factors which precipitate this action. The data supported the hypo­ thesis. There was a noticeable variation in responses to the checklist items and a normal distribution of response to the checklist items occured. Also, an analysis of written comments provided addi­ tional specific factors involved in the termination of superintendents from their positions. Research Hypothesis Number Two postulated that of the six general classifications that were listed in the survey, board members would appraise those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave as weakest in the area of Community Relationships. The data supported this hypothesis. Tabulation of the responses to Question Number 14 indicated that Community Relationships was identified as the weakest area of responsibility for more than three times as many superintendents included in this study than the next weakest area. Research Hypothesis Number Three postulated that of the six general classifications that were listed in the survey, board members would appraise those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave as strongest in the area of Business and Finance. The data 131 supported this hypothesis. Tabulation of the responses to Question Number 14 indicated that Business and Finance was appraised as the strongest area of responsibility for more than twice as many super­ intendents included in this study than the next strongest area. Research Hypothesis Number Four postulated that of all the specific reasons listed in the checklist section of the survey, the one specific reason that would be appraised by board members as the most predominant factor in termination of tenure of a superintendent would be the lack of maintaining a high standard of professional eth ics, honesty, and integrity in all professional matters. The data did not support this hypothesis. Analysis of the checklist responses indicated that ten other specific areas were checked for more superin­ tendents than was "maintained high standard of ethics, honesty, and integrity in all personal matters." Research Hypothesis Number Five postulated that of those super­ intendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave who had served as chief negotiator for management, a majority would be appraised by board members as having performed poorly in this role. The data did not support this hypothesis. Tabulation of the responses to Questions Number 10 and 11 indicated that 60 percent of those superintendents included in this study who had performed in the role as chief negotia­ tor for management were appraised as performing as average or very good in this role. Research Hypothesis Number Six postulated that a majority of those superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave were not evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. The data 132 supported this hypothesis. Tabulation of the responses to Question Number 12 indicated that only eight of the 60 superintendents included in this study were evaluated in a formal written manner at least annually. In rejecting or not rejecting the six hypotheses, the following inferences can be made from the data obtained: 1. When a superintendent of schools in Michigan is dismissed or encouraged to leave his position, and even though the public reason that is given is general, there are specific factors which have precipitated this action. 2. The most general reason given by board members for dismissal of superintendents of schools in Michigan is Community Relationships. However, an analysis of the checklist items and written remarks conclusively indicates that the underlying reason most often concerns the superintendent's relationship with the board of education. 3. Superintendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are considered to be most proficient in the area of Business and Finance. 4. In the area of School Board Relationships, more superintendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are criti­ cized for not seeking and accepting criticism of their work than for any other item. 5. In the area of Community Relationships, more superintendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are criticized for failure to gain the respect of the community in the operation of the school system than for any other item. 133 6. While superintendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are appraised as performing well in the area of Business and Finance, the most criticized factor is the failure to require that funds be spent wisely. 7. In the area of Staff and Personnel Relationships, more superin­ tendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are criticized for not gaining the respect of school personnel at all levels than for any other item in this category. 8. In the area of Educational Leadership, more superintendents in Michigan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are criticized for failure to provide democratic procedures in utilizing the abilities and talents of staff members and citizens than for any other item in this category. 9. In the area of Personal Qualities, more superintendents in Michi­ gan who are dismissed or encouraged to leave are criticized for the lack of respect by school personnel than for any other item in this category. 10. Performance as chief negotiator for management in the collective bargaining process is not a major factor in the release of Michi­ gan superintendents. 11. The greatest percentage of superintendents and boards of education in Michigan where superintendents are failing are not requesting a formal written evaluation of the superintendent at least annually. C on clusion s An almost unlimited number of conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the data obtained in this study. This chapter will include a section entitled "Observations.” The "Observations” section will include those observations made during the conducting of the study that cannot be concretely substantiated by the data obtained in 134 the study. The following conclusions, however, are based upon the evidence obtained in this study. The inference is made that if the data are valid for those superintendents of schools who were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave their positions between July 1, 1965 and June 30, 1975, that are included in this study, the data are also valid for all other Michigan school district superintendents who were dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions during that time period. 1. Geographic location of a school district in Michigan is not a significant factor in the release of the superintendent. Cases reported in this study came from all geographic locations of the state. The Southeastern part of the state, where the greatest number of school districts are located, were represented by the greatest number of cases. 2. The size of the school district is a significant factor in the release of Michigan superintendents. The data indicates that superintendents of school districts with student enrollments of 2,501 thru 5,000 and in those dis­ tricts with over 10,000 students are most susceptible to release. Those superintendents in school districts with student enroll­ ments of 1,000 or less and in those districts with from 5,000 thru 10,000 students are least susceptible to release. 3. The percentage of minority students enrolled in the school dis­ trict is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. Even though 80 percent of the superintendents included in this study had served in districts with from zero to five percent minority students, Michigan Department of Bducation statistics indicate that over 65 percent of the total minority group students in Michigan's Public Schools in 1973-74 were enrolled in 12 school districts. The release of Michigan school superintendents has increased significantly over the past five years. The data indicates that 70 percent of the cases included in th is study occurred during the past five years. While we might infer that the individual cases that occurred in the first five years of this study may have been forgotten more easily by those providing information, we must also recognize that the cases included in the study for the year 1975 do not include the two cases that were in litigation. Also, five of the boards of edu­ cation who did not respond to the survey had taken action to release their superintendent during 1975. The procedure utilized most often by Michigan Boards of Education in releasing a superintendent is the refusal to renew the con­ tract . The data indicates that 45 percent of the superintendents included in this study were released in this manner. Michigan achool superintendents who are released cam expect a sho r t advan ce no t i ce. Ninety percent of the superintendents included in the study were given six months or less advance notice and 15 percent were given no advance notice at all. 136 7. The superintendent's role as the chief negotiator for management is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. Board members responding to the survey indicated that 60 percent of the superintendents included in the study performed average or better in this role. 8. There is a significant relationship between the dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave and the lack of an annual written evaluation. Only eight (13 percent) of the 60 superintendents included in this study were evaluated by the board of education in a formal manner at least annually. It is recognized that the annual written evaluation of superintendents has become a more common practice in the past five years. However, we must recog­ nize that 70 percent of the cases included in this study occurred during the past five years. 9. There is a significant relationship between the dismissal or encouragement of a superintendent to leave and the procedure uti­ lized in the selection process. Sixty-five percent of the superintendents included in this study were selected in a manner in which the local board of educa­ tion secured no assistance in the screening or selection process from university placement officials or outside consultants. lO. Performance in the area of Business and Finance is not a signifi­ cant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. Superintendents included in this study were appraised by t.iard of education members as performing strongest in the area of Business and Finance of six general classifications. 137 11. Performance as an educational leader is not a significant factor in the release of Michigan school superintendents. The second strongest general area of responsibility of superintendents included in this study, as appraised by board of education members, was Educational Leadership. Also, specific areas of Educational Leadership received the lowest average num­ ber of responses for "Partial Reason for Release." 12. Poor relationship with the board of education is the most domi­ nant underlying reason for the release of Michigan school super­ intendents . While board members included in the study indicated the weakest general area of responsibility of released superintendents was Community Relations, an analysis of the checklist items and written remarks provides evidence that the most dominant under­ lying reason for release is the superintendent's relationship with the board of education. A combination of the checklist items marked "Partial Reason for Release" and the written comments indicates that the most dominant specific reasons for release of a superintendent in the area of Relationship with the Board of Education is in (1) the refusal to seek and accept criticism, (2) the lack of a harmonious working relationship with the board, and (3) failure to support board policy and follow the instructions of the board. 13. Lack of respect by school personnel is a significant underlying reason for the release of Michigan school superintendents. The specific area of "was highly respected by school person­ nel at all levels" was given an average rating of 2.2 by board 138 members for superintendents included in this study. The only other specific area to receive this low an average rating was "sought and accepted constructive criticism of his work." The area of "was highly respected by school personnel**was checked for 26 superintendents *s a "Partial Reason for Release." Only one other specific area received more responsei as a "Partial Reason for Release." The data would indicate that unless the superintendent gains and retains the respect of school personnel at all levels, he will be unable to survive in the long run. 14. Poor communications is a significant underlying reason for the release of Michigan school superintendents. The failure of the superintendent to communicate properly appears several times in responses to the survey. In the area of Relationship With the Board, 17 superintendents were checked as "Partial Reason for Release" in the specific area of "failure to keep the board informed" and nine superintendents received written comments that they gave board members only part of the facts. Also, 15 superintendents were checked as "Partial Reason for Release" for "failure to have information readily available for the board on agenda items." In the area of Personal Qualities, nine superintendents received written comments that they were poor speaker s. 15. Michigan school superintendents must become more proficient in the area of interpersonal relationships if they are to retain their positions. As was discussed earlier, few Michigan superintendents have 139 been released for performing poorly in the areas of business and finance and in educational leadership. It is in the area of interpersonal relationships that the underlying reason for release exists. Superintendents must become more proficient in maintain­ ing a satisfactory relationship with the board of education, school personnel, and members of the community. Observations The nature of this study is such that many interesting observa­ tions were made in the process of conducting the study. Some of the observations were hunerous, some were heart-warming, and others were discouraging. Even though the following observations cannot be con­ cretely supported by evidence obtained in this study, they should be of interest to school superintendents and board of education members. 1. University Placement officials and school superintendents are sincerely interested in obtaining the reasons for superintendent- school board frictions. University placement officials and school superintendents were most cooperative in providing information and validating the names of those superintendents who were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave during the ten-year period included in this study. 2„ Board of education members will be very honest and sincere in responding to a survey requesting why superintendents were dis­ missed or encouraged to leave„ Board members were very sincere and honest in responding to this survey. Scores of board members wrote remarks on the back of the questionnaire sheets when space provided on the front was not adequate. Eleven personal letters from board members were attached to the completed questionnaires when they returned. These letters expressed personal reasons why they felt their superintendent had been released, which went beyond the ques­ tions asked in the survey. These board members were personally concerned that the full story was related. Many board of education members do not comprehend the difference between the role of a board member and the superintendent. A common thread appeared in the written remarks of board members which indicated that many board members feel the need to become involved in the administrative process. These board members do not believe that it is the responsibility of the board of education to develop policy and the role of the superintendent to administer the adopted policy. Educators who have performed well as teachers, counselors, or building atfcninistrators do not necessarily perform well as a superintendent. Many written remarks that board members provided indicated that their superintendents had been very competent in another capacity within their particular school district. However, experience in other educational positions does not necessarily prepare a person for the superintendency. Some school districts are prone to the release of superintendents. As was indicated in Chapter I, 94 superintendents were con­ firmed by two or more persons as one who had been dismissed or encouraged to leave his position. However, several school dis­ tricts appeared more than once in this confirmed list and since 141 it seemed unreasonable to request a board member to complete a questionnaire for more than one superintendent, only 77 cases were included in the study. One school district released four superintendents and 11 other districts released two superinten­ dents during this ten-year period. 6. Released superintendents tend to move laterally or upward when they assume a new position. The survey utilized in this study did not request a response regarding the position the released superintendent was holding at the present time. However, the other information relative to the positions these persons now hold, indicates that a majority have moved to superintendencies or other administrative positions in school districts of equal or larger student enroll­ ments . 7. School superintendents may perform most competently as educational leaders, but, if they do not relate well with the members of their board of education, they will not survive in their position. The data, as reported in Chapter IV, indicates the importance of the relationship the superintendent has with the board of edu­ cation. Even beyond this, however, the written remarks of board members seemed to establish the very high priority they place on the superintendent's ability to relate with individual board members, not play one board member against another, and keep all of them informed. Implications for Further Research The following research needs became apparent during the course of this study; Research is necessary to determine what institutions of higher education are doing to prepare superintendents to fulfill the responsibilities of the school superintendency today. More than ever before, external factors are exerting pressures on the position. Conflict management training is of extreme necessity. Research is necessary to determine what are the professional implications of being released from the superintendency. While observations can be made that released superintendents move either laterally or upward, there is a need for documentation and analysis of this phenomenon. Research is necessary to determine what released superintendents feel were the factors present in their release. This study provided the factors that board of education members felt were present in the release of superintendents. A comparison of the factors present in the release of superintendents might be made if released superintendents were surveyed and compared with the results of this study. Research is necessary for the comparison of the procedure utilized in the screening and selection of a superintendent and the appraisal of the superintendent's performance in that position by the board of education two or three years after the superin­ tendent has assumed the position. Research is necessary to determine if there is a significant relationship between the educational training and professional positions held with the ability of superintendents to retain their positions. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Velma and Doherty, James. MA New Kind of Superintendent." School Management. Vol. 14,, February, 1970. Aldridge, William; Becker, Gerald; Goldhaminer, Keith, and Suttle, John. Issues and Problems in Contemporary Educational Administration. University of Oregon Press, 1967. Ashby, Lloyd W. Man in the Middle. Danville: Interstate Printers, 1968. Betchkal, James. "How to Fire A Superintendent." American School Board Journal. Vol. 159, April, 1972. "Boardsmanship in Brief." Michigan Association of School Boards. "Lansing, Michigan, 1972. Bradley, Arnold. "The Superintendent and Negotiations," The Clearing House. Vol. 44, January, 1970. Brautigam, Carl. " S u p e r int e n d e n t Turnover in Michigan." Michigan School Board Journal. November, 1974. Campbell, Roald F. Superin tendency of Schools. Danville: Interstate Printers, 1968. Carlson, Richard O. School Superintendents: Careers and Perform­ ances . Columbus: Merrill Publishing Co., 1972. Cohodes, Aaron. "How School Boards Review Superintendent Performance." Nation's Schools. Vol. 92, October, 1973. Cohodes, Aaron. "Where School Boards Fail Their Superintendents." Nation's Schools. Vol. 91, June 1973. Engleman, Finis E. "The Big City Superintendent." Education Digest. Vol. 35, October, 1969. "Evaluating Administrative Performance." Educational Research Service. Arlington, Virginia, 1974. Fowler, Charles. "How You Hire Your Next Superintendent Can Foretell How H e ’ll Work Out on the Job." American School Board Journal. Vol. 160, March, 1973. Freeborn, Robert. "Local School Board and Superintendents." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 49, February, 1968. 143 144 Gregg, Russell and Knezevich, Stephen. "The Man We Call Superinten­ dent." Education Digest. Vol. 37, October, 1971. Greider, Calvin. "Appeal of Administrative Careers Declining." Nation’s Schools. Vol. 86, October, 1970. Holloway, Hugh H. "Why School Superintendents are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent." School Management. Vol. 4., August, 1965. Huff, Russell J. "How Superintendents See Themselves." Nation1s Schools. Vol. 84, November 1969. Johnson, Caroll. "How to Pick a New Superintendent and Shine Up Your Public Image," American School Board Journal. Vol. 158, April, 1971. Jones, Philip. "A Clash on Dirty Books is Dividing a School Board, Threatening a Superintendent, and Shattering a Community." American School Board, Vol. 161, November, 1974, Jones, Philip. "How to Evaluate Your Superintendent on Performance." American School Board Journal. Vol. 161, February, 1974. Knox, Warren, B. Eye of the Hurricane. Corvellis: Oregon State University Press, 1973. McCarty, Donald. "Evaluating Your Superintendent," School Manage­ ment, Vol. 15, July 1, 1971. Moffitt, Frederick. "Sure Fire Test for Superintendents." Nation1s Schools. Vol. 79, June, 1967. Mullins, Carolyn. "Board Members Look at Superintendents." American School Board Journal. Vol. 162, February, 1975. Nolte, Chester. "Is the Power of Superintendents Slipping Away?" American School Board Journal. Vol. 161, September, 1974. Nolte, Chester, "The Superintendent’s Shuffle is a Cruel Dance." American School Board Journal. Vol. 161, September, 1974. Norton, Scott, "Current Problems of the School Superintendent." The Clearing House. Vol. 46, September, 1971. Rasmussen, L. V. "New Role for the Middleman." American School Board Journal. Vol. 155, February, 1968. Raubinger, Fred M. "Long Term Contracts for Superintendents." Education Digest. Vol. 37, September, 1971. 145 ’’School Racial Ethnic Census." Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Depart­ ment of Education, 1975. Southworth, William. "The Superintendency - A Position in Flux." American School Board Journal. Vol. 154, May, 1967. Southworth, William. "The Superintendency in 1980." The Clearing House. Vol. 43, October, 1968. Spears, Harold. "The Precarious Search - Hunting and Finding a New School Superintendent." Nation 1s Schools. Vol. 82, September, 1968. Staires, Harlin. "Selecting a Superintendent." School and Community. Vol. 56, December, 1969. "Superintendent Turnover Averages Nine Percent Annually." Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1975. Talbot, Allan. "Needed: A New Breed of School Superintendent." Harpers Magazine. Vol. 232, February, 1966. "The American School Superintendent." Washington, D. C „: American Association of School Administrators, 1971. "The Letters for Administrators," Educators Dispatch. Vol. 15, April 15, 1965. "The Unique Role of the Superintendent of Schools," Washington, D. C . : Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, 1965. Turner, Lloyd. "Your Superintendent: When to Recharge Him or Dis­ charge Him." American School Board Journal. Vol. 159, July, 1971. Wynn, Richard. "Administrators Response to Conflict." Today * s Education. Vol. 61, February, 1972. A P P E N D I X A 146 David A. Fultz 3239 Badger, S. W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Dr. Evart Ardis Placement Bureau University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Dear Doctor Ardis: I am presently involved in gathering data for my doctoral thesis. The title of this thesis is Why Superintendents Are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions. Dr. Norman Weinheimer, Executive Secretary of the Michigan Associa­ tion of School Boards, and Dr. Donald Currie, Executive Secretary of the Michigan Association of School Administrators, are both assisting me in the gathering of information and are supportive of the study. The results of the study will be of great value to boards of education and school superintendents in the state of Michigan. I am contacting placement officials at Central Michigan University, Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, and Michigan State Univer­ sity, to aid me in gathering information. Dr. Carl Brautigam, Assistant Director of Placement School Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University, is serving as Chairman of my Doctoral Guidance Committee. You would be of great help to me if you would provide me with a list of all Michigan school superintendents you know that were either dis­ missed or encouraged to leave their positions since July 1, 1965. Please list the superintendents name, school district where the inci­ dent occurred, and the approximate date. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed. After locating the cases for the study, a letter will be sent to the board members who were on each board at the time the incident occurred. The survey will be open-ended in order that the board member may write as much or as little as he pleases. Your response will be treated as STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL . Your help here will be most appreciated. The results of this study will be most valuable to you in your placement position. You will 147 Dr. Evart Ardis Page 2 be provided with a copy of the results of the study. Any sugges­ tions you may have to add to the effectiveness of the study will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David A. Fultz Superintendent of Schools Godwin Heights Public Schools Candidate for Ph.D. A P P E N D I X B 146 D avid A. Fultz 3239 Badger, S. W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Superintendent's Name Superintendent's Address Intermediate School District Dear Superintendent: I am presently involved in gathering data for my doctoral thesis. The title of this thesis is Why Superintendents are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions. Dr. Norman Weinheimer, Executive Secretary of the Michigan Associa­ tion of School Boards, and Dr. Donald Currie, Executive Secretary of the Michigan Association of School Administrators, are both assisting me in the gathering of information and are supportive of the study. The results of the study will be of great value to boards of education and school superintendents in the state of Michigan. I am contacting placement officials at the University of Michigan, Central Michigan University, Wayne State University, Eastern Michi­ gan University, Western Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, and Michigan State University, to aid me in gathering information. Dr. Carl Brautigam, Assistant Director of Placement School Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State Uni­ versity, is serving as Chairman of my Doctoral Guidance Committee. You would be of great help to me if you would provide me with a list of all Michigan School superintendents you know that were either dismissed or encouraged to leave their positions since July 1, 1965. Please list the superintendent's name, school district where the incident occurred, and the approximate date. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed. After locating the cases for the study, a letter will be sent to the board members who were on each board at the time the incident occurred. The survey will be open-ended in order that the board member may write as much or as little as he pleases. Your response will be treated as STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. 149 Superintendent1s Name Page 2 Your help here will be most appreciated. A summary of the results will be mailed to you following the completion of the study. Any suggestions you may have to add to the effectiveness of the study will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, David A. Fultz Superintendent of Schools Godwin Heights Public Schools Candidate for Ph.D. A P P E N D I X C 150 David A. Fultz 3239 Badger, S. W. Wyoming, MI 49509 Board Member * s Name Board Member's Address Dear Board Member or Former Board Member: I am presently involved in gathering data for my doctoral thesis. The title of this thesis is Why Superintendents Are Dismissed or Encouraged to Leave Their Positions. The purpose of this study is to determine the underlying reasons why superintendents of schools in Michigan have been dismissed or encouraged to leave since July 1, 1965. I have received excellent support and cooperation from The Michigan Association of School Boards, The Michigan Association of School Administrators, University placement officials, and fellow superin­ tendents. Also, my board of education is supportive of the study and is providing released time in order that I may complete the thesis. It has been ascertained that as superintendent in a school district where you were a board mem­ ber, can be classified as a member of the group for this study. I would appreciate it greatly if you would complete the enclosed questionnaire for the purpose of providing information for the study. . who served This survey will be valid only if you will give factual and complete information. Your confidence will be honored, and only the under­ signed will know the individual cases concerned. I pledge complete secrecy here. The results will be reported in statistical form only. No individuals or districts will be identified. The enclosed questionnaire is easy to complete and will require no more than ten minutes of your time. Most importantly, it will help provide information to school board members, administrators, adminis­ trator training institutions, and placement officials that can be utilized to reduce friction situations that have resulted in the severance of the tenure of the superintendent. Board Member Page 2 I will be looking forward to your prompt reply. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed. I will provide you with a summary of the results of the study if you desire, A space is provided on the last page of the questionnaire for you to indicate this desire. Remember, all information will be held in STRICT CONFIDENCE. Sincerely, David A. Fultz, Superintendent Godwin Heights Public Schools Candidate for Ph.D. a p p e n d i x d 152 Michigan Association of 6chool Boardc 421W. KALAMAZOO 6TRGET, LAN6ING, MICHIGAN 45Q55 -(5 1 7 )0 7 1 -5 7 0 0 April 25, 1975 Dear Board Member or Former Board Member: This letter Is to encourage your response to the enclosed question­ naire. We want to assure you that the Michigan Association of School Boards w a s in no way involved in identifying superintendents for this study. The results of the thesis, "Why Superintendents Are Dismissed Or Encouraged To Leave", can be of value to future board members and superintendents in preventing superintendent/board conflicts and misunderstandings. We do have assurance that the individual answers will be kept confidential and be used only to develop general data. A summary of the results of the study will be made available the Michigan Association of School Boards. to Hopefully, you will take time from your busy schedule to respond to the questionnaire. Sincerely, MICH I G A N ASSOC IA TI ON OF SCHOOL BOARDS /fi?r t t j N o r m a n P. weinheimer Executive Director NPW/dh Encl. Ewecuttre Com m ittee President JOHN J ENGELS M ttttngio n 4 8 7 * 0 President-Elect EARL O GABRIEL Dwboni Kn own *8177 MARY KEELER Q u i t ) (ta p h fe W O ' JO HN DODGE MAYNARD N COHEN C a m . 4 » T « CARL R STELTER C n w l W * * 7 3 f HOMER HILTO N JR M a r q u a r tt 4 8 8 M IDA T MURRAY D *4n7ft 4 83 10 HUGH HANSON B*v Crtv 48704 WARREN S Directors BREITHAUPT DUANE BROOKS MUKanO 48S40 DR W EDWARD DEWEY BantoCia** 4 8 c ii JEANNE A LARSON M a M M lq v * 4 8 8 8 * JEROME MATHIEU JR B M t L M * 48814 LELAND H SMITH Big n a e x h 48307 ROBERT E. SMITH 8 0-414 III* 48838 DICK TANIS *114710414 4 8 4 0 < GLENN WOLFE C w m r LWM 4 « 0 ie WILFRED SCHON On«of»o9«n 49953 VERNIS SCHAD ' OranO AapKM 48808 CARL AHLIN B*K 74—47 48807 State Legislative Chairm an HELEN FIELD H H B W n d P 47* 4 83 03 Federal Legislative Chairm an CARL W MORRIS B recu ttve D irector NORMAN P. W EINHEIMER D epu ty E xecutive D irector VARL O W ILKINSON A887878717 Erecutnre D irector DA VID M RUHALA A8*<#78717 L*8cu7tv8 Director HARRY W BISHOP