INFORM ATIO N TO USERS This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy o f the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an imaga and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large 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. You w ill find a good image o f the pege in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part o f the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the m ateriel. 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. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 6. PLEASE NO TE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St John's Road. Tyler's Green High Wycombe. Bucks. England HPtO 8HR 78-3525 MARMION, Roland David, 1941A COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ROLES FOR URBAN FRINGE ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Education, administration University Microfilms International tAnn Arbor, Michigan 48106 © Copyright by ROLAND DAVID MARMION 1977 A COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ROLES FOR URBAN FRINGE ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN By Roland David Marmion A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP ROLES FOR URBAN FRINGE ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN MICHIGAN By Roland David Marmion Purpose of the Study This study was conducted to determine if signifi­ cant differences exist between the actual perceptions of and the ideal expectations for the instructional leadership role of urban fringe elementary school principals as per­ ceived by themselves, their elementary teachers and their superintendents. Additionally, the study was designed, through inclusion of interviews with elementary principals, to reflect an added dimension and clarification of the elementary principal's instructional leadership role in relation to the total building administrative role. Methodology A sample size of eighteen elementary principals was determined as being sufficiently large for the desired sta­ tistical treatment, while remaining small enough to permit personal interviews to be conducted at school locations. Roland David MaTmion From a population of one hundred thirty urban fringe school districts, twenty-five districts were randomly selected to form a district pool from which to randomly select eighteen elementary principals. The selected principals were c o n ­ tacted by telephone in consecutive order until one p r i n c i ­ pal from each of eighteen school districts had agreed to participate in the research study. The sample also in­ cluded the eighteen district superintendents and two h u n ­ dred twenty-seven participating elementary teachers. Survey data were collected from all participants with the Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire (PILO) developed for this study. Interview data were c o l ­ lected from the eighteen elementary principals with the Task Ranking Deck and the Role Area Time Allocation W o r k ­ sheet. Personal interviews with the principals produced findings which were then related to the statistically t e s t ­ ed data findings. Actual and ideal instructional leadership scores gathered with the PILO were analyzed to test the first nine hypotheses using dependent t^-tests. The tenth hypotheses, related to interview data, was tested with Spearman*s rank-correlation coefficient. Roland David Marmion Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions have been reached: 1. Elementary principals* ideal instructional leadership role expectations are significantly higher than their actual instructional leader­ ship role perceptions. 2. Elementary pr i n c i p a l s ’ actual instructional leadership role perceptions are significantly higher than elementary teachers' actual perceptions of their principals' instructional leadership behavior. 3. Elementary principals' ideal instructional leadership role expectations are significantly higher than actual instructional leadership role perceptions held by superintendents for elementary principals. 4. Elementary p r i n c i p a l s ’ ideal instructional leadership role expectations are significantly higher than actual instructional leadership role perceptions held by teachers for elementary principals. 5. Ideal instructional leadership role expecta­ tions of superintendents for elementary princi pals are significantly higher than elementary Roland David Marmion principals* actual instructional leadership role perceptions. Ideal instructional leadership role expecta­ tions of teachers for elementary principals are significantly higher than elementary principals' actual instructional leadership role perceptions. There is a significant positive correlation between the ideal value elementary principals assign to their role areas and their e s ti ma­ tion of the time they spend in these role areas. Elementary principals spend significantly more time in Administration and Office Mana g e ­ ment role areas than they feel these areas warrant. Dedicated to the loves of i life--my wife, Pamala; and our sons, David and Rob. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere appreciation and gratitude are extended to many individuals and groups for their encouragement and contributions throughout this study. Among those acknowledged are: my wife, Pamala, for sharing her love, encouragement and assistance each day, my sons, Roland David, Jr. and Robert David, for understanding and enduring my frequent absence, my committee chairman, Dr. Samuel A. Moore, II, for his friendship, guidance and invaluable assistance throughout my doctoral program, committee members, Dr. Louis G. Romano, Dr. James E. Snoddy and Dr. Arthur M. V e n e r , for their willingness to serve, Dr. Philip A. Cusick, for his advice and council, my superintendent, Wendell Price Hill, for his encouragement and support, the Kentwood Board of Education, for granting my sabbatical leave, my parents, R. D. and Carmen Marmion and Robert and Lola Smith, for their assistance, faith and support, my family and friends, both old and new, for their companionship and encouragement, my research consultant, Dr. Marcia Carlyn, for statistical and technical aid, and administrators and teachers participating in the study. A reverent thanks is proffered to my Heavenly Father for daily blessings and strength. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ ix LIST OF F I G U R E S ...................................... x INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 CHAPTER I. ...................... Statement of the Problem Statement of the Purpose ...................... Assumptions ...................................... Significance of the Study ...................... Definition of Terms ............................. Research Questions Tested inthe Study . . . . Research Questions ........................ H y p o t h e s e s ...................................... M e t h o d o l o g y ...................................... The S a m p l e .................................. P r o c e d u r e s .................................. Overview ...................................... CHAPTER II. A REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE . . . . F o r e w o r d ........................................ Origin and Development of the Elementary Principalship ............................... One Teacher S t a g e ......................... Head Teacher S t a g e ......................... Teaching Principal Stage .................. Building Principal Stage .................. Supervising Principal Stage ............... Remaking the Elementary Principalship ......... Role E x p l o s i o n ............................. Role A m b i g u i t y ............................. Role P r i o r i t i e s ........................... Roadblocks to Instructional Leadership . . Role A n a l y s i s .................................... Selected Role T h e o r y ...................... P e r c e p t i o n s ............................... Expectations ............................... Cognitive Dissonance ...................... S u m m a r y .......................................... vi 2 3 3 5 6 9 10 12 14 15 15 17 19 19 20 21 23 27 29 32 34 34 37 39 43 47 47 48 48 49 52 PAGE CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . S a m p l e .......................................... Statistical Hypotheses ........................ Instrumentation ................................. Survey Instrument ......................... D e s i g n ............................... Pilot S t u d y ........................... R e l i a b i l i t y ........................... Interview Format ........................... Data Collection . . . . . Survey D a t a ............................... Interview D a t a ............................. Procedures for Data A n a l y s i s .................. S u m m a r y .......................................... CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A Introduction .................................... Presentation of the D a t a ...................... Hypothesis 1 ............................... Hypothesis 2 ............................... Hypothesis 3 ............................... Hypothesis 4 ............................... Hypothesis 5 ............................... Hypothesis 6 ............................... Hypothesis 7 ............................... Hypothesis 8 ............................... Hypothesis 9 ............................... Hypothesis 1 0 ............................. Additional Analysis ...................... Interview Findings ............................. Staff F e e d b a c k ................................. S u m m a r y .......................................... CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 53 53 56 59 59 60 61 63 65 66 66 68 70 71 72 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 84 86 89 92 95 S u m m a r y .......................................... 95 97 F i n d i n g s ........................................ C o n c l u s i o n s .........................................104 Recommendations ................................. 106 APPENDIX A ............................................... 108 APPENDIX B ............................................... 113 APPENDIX C ............................................... 116 vii PAGE B I B L I O G R A P H Y .............................................. 141 LIST OF TABLES Page Summation of PILO Response 57 Actual Score Reliability Results of the PILO Test-Retest 64 Ideal Score Reliability Results of the PILO Test-Retest 65 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 1 73 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 2 74 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 3 75 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 4 76 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 5 77 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 6 78 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 7 79 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 8 80 T-Test Results for Hypothesis 9 81 Computation of Sample r 5 83 T-Test for Role Areas 85 Interview Responses to Question 1 90 Interview Responses to Question 2 90 Summary Results of Survey Data Hypotheses 93 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 PILO Response Variables 2 Selected Combination of PILO Response Variables 10 3 Initial PILO Response Format 62 4 Revised PILO Response Format 62 x 9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Our hope for the future rests on the young! If man is to solve his problems in coming generations, the skills, attitudes, beliefs and ideals capable of success must be developed in our children. Because children are important to the solution of challenges in the future, the develop­ ment of children is important today. Schools have been increasingly accepting a greater responsibility for the development of the whole child. The issue of the school's responsibility for the development of the future citizen is realized in the expectations and demands given by the p a r ­ ents to teachers and principals. "The principal of the modern American elementary school is important not primar­ ily because of the principal but because the elementary school is so important to our society and its children. Much of the literature, many experts in the field, and even practicing administrators indicate that instruc­ tional leadership for the improvement of instruction is the highest achievement of the supervising principal. ipeter Palmer Mickelson and Kenneth H. Hansen, Elementary School Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill kook Company, I n c . , 1 9 57J, p . T7 1 Yet, 2 instructional leadership is an ideal that seems to be one of the first mentioned, most discussed, and least accom­ plished roles of the elementary principal. Mazzarella states that "No part of the principal's role is debated with more fervor than the role he or she must play in the instructional p r o g r a m . S h e goes on to comment, "One reason the principal's role in the instructional program is written about with so much fervor is that most princi ­ pals today have almost nothing at all to do with instruc­ tion."^ The changing role of the elementary principalship provided the impetus for the development of the present study of the elementary principal's instructional leader­ ship role. Statement of the Problem The problem was the apparent incongruity between the actual instructional leadership behavior perceived of elementary school principals and the ideal instructional leadership behavior expected of elementary school princi­ pals. The study was designed to compare the actual ^Jo Ann Mazzarella, "The Principal's Role in In­ structional Planning," N A E S P , School Leadership Dige s t , no. 8 (Washington, D.C.l National Association of Eiementary School Principals, 1976), p. 7. 3 Ibid., p. 17. 3 instructional leadership role perceptions and the ideal instructional leadership role expectations for elementary principals by superintendents, elementary teachers and elementary principals from urban fringe school districts in Michigan. The perceptions and expectations were m e a ­ sured on the Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire (PILO) developed by the researcher. Statement of the Purpose The researcher's purpose in this study was to d e ­ termine if significant differences exist between the actual perceptions of and the ideal expectations for the instruc­ tional leadership role of urban fringe elementary school principals as perceived by themselves, their elementary teachers and their superintendents. In addition, it was the researcher's aim, through conducting a semi-structured interview with each elementary principal, to determine an added dimension and clarification of the elementary princi­ pal's instructional leadership role in relation to the total building administrative role. Assumptions The following assumptions were made when designing the present study: 1. It was assumed that perceptions and expecta­ tions of elementary principals, elementary 4 teachers and school -superintendents could be accurately measured. 2. The instruments developed to measure the in­ structional leadership role perceptions and expectations of elementary principals were assumed to be adequate. 3. It was assumed that participants would a c c u ­ rately express their true feelings about the situations being examined. 4. It was assumed that the elementary principals would accurately and candidly express their thoughts and feelings to the researcher during the semi-structured interviews. 5. It was assumed that the elementary principals* estimation of the amount of time allocated to their role areas would be accurate. 6. It was assumed that the sample is representa­ tive, appropriately selected and adequate to permit conclusions and inferences for the population from which it was drawn. 5 Significance of the Study Educational theorists, researchers, and practitio­ ners have examined the role of the elementary school prin­ cipal, and many of them have concluded that the function which should receive the principal's highest priority is instructional leadership. However, dissenters note that "Principals traditionally have experienced difficulty r e ­ solving the theory-practice dilemma of improving instruc­ tion."^ Administrative theory stresses the importance of accurate interpersonal perceptions necessary if organiza­ tional goals are to be successfully achieved. Educational goals, likewise, should be more successfully accomplished if the teaching staff's and superintendent's perceptions of their principal's instructional leadership role are congruent. The homogeneity of perceptions and expectations for the instructional leadership role of elementary prin­ cipals by themselves and their significant colleagues is the major focus of this study. Additionally, the researcher has investigated cur­ rent literature treating the present state of the elementa­ ry principalship. The rise of teacher militancy during the ^James A. Hoeh, "Feeling Guilty For Not Being An Instructional Leader? Don't," NASSP Bulletin 57 (November 1973): 7. --------------- 6 1960's hastened an erosion of the authority of the tradi­ tional principalship. To varying degrees, principals b e ­ came confused by the changes, and struggled to define their role among changing roles. Writing in the Phi Delta Kap- p a n , John H. Langer stated: It is my personal theory that the principalship will become more a policy making and administrative role, with the curriculum role devolving upon c o n ­ sultants, paid teachers' committees, curriculum supervisors, and others who have more time to spend on thinking about educational improvement.5 That there is a continuing need for research which may help establish a clearer definition of the instruction­ al leadership role for elementary principals is evident from the divergent thinking and the burgeoning definitions and redefinitions of the principal's role. It became a p ­ parent to the researcher that only by going into the field and asking specific questions about the elementary princi­ pal's instructional leadership role, could any meaningful description of an elementary principal's role responsibil­ ities be concluded. Definition of Terms The following specific meanings are used for clar­ ification of certain technical terms in this study. 5John H. Langer, "The Emerging Elementary Princi­ palship in Michigan," Phi Delta Kappan 48 (December 1966): 161. 7 Elementary Scho o l .--Any public school which is o r ­ ganized to include any combination of a majority of grades between kindergarten and grade six. Elementary T e a c h e r -Any person possessing a valid teaching certificate who is engaged in the teaching of e l e ­ mentary students within the school. Elementary Principal.--The full-time administrative head of an elementary school who is responsible for the supervision of learning within the school. School D i s trict.--A system of public schools under the direction of a single administrative staff and a single local board of education which is organized to include all grades from kindergarten through grade twelve. Superintendent.--The chief administrative official responsible for the operation of the school district. In this study, the response from the superintendent's office may have come from the administrative official within the central office charged with the supervision and evaluation of the elementary principals. Instructional Leadership.--The set of acts or b e ­ haviors designed to guide and direct teachers to the f or­ mulation and performance of a desired proficiency of instruction. 8 Urban F r i n g e .--Any of one hundred thirty public school districts (130) in Michigan with a mailing address of a city or metropolitan core city; or a community within five (5) miles of the center of a city, or within ten (10) miles of the center of a metropolitan core city. (see Appendix A for a more detailed descri ption). Actual Perception.--Each respondent's perception of the degree to which the specified elementary principal is really involved in the performance of the listed in­ structional leadership behaviors. Ideal Expectation.- -Each respondent's expectation of the degree to which any elementary principal should be involved in the performance of the listed instructional leadership behaviors. Task R a n k i n g .--A modified Q-sort of ten (10) d e ­ scribed role areas which each elementary principal rank ordered during an interview. arrange the ten cards, Each principal was asked to listing the ten role areas, from most important to least important according to the ideal value a principal should grant these areas to be an effective principal. PILO-Form P .--The instrument used by each el ementa­ ry principal to describe the actual perceptions of and 9 ideal expectations for their instructional leadership role. PILO-Form S .--The instrument used by each superin­ tendent and participating elementary teacher to describe their actual perceptions of and ideal expectations for their elementary p r i n c i p a l ’s instructional leadership role. Research Questions Tested in the Study During the development of the research p r o p o s a l , research questions were formulated in conjunction with the six possible response variables (Figure 1) for the PILO instruments and the r e s e archer’s interviews with the eighteen elementary principals. FIGURE 1 PILO Response Variables Actual Ideal Principal PA I do PI I would like to Super intendent SA My principal does SI My principal should Teacher TA My principal does TI My principal should With the elementary principal as the unit of in­ terest, the six PILO variables were conjoined to form nine combinations (Figure 2) for the formulation of the first nine research questions. 10 FIGURE 2 Selected Combination of PILO Response Variables The following nine research questions are related to the PILO response variables. Research Questions 1. actual How do elementary principals describe their (PA) instructional leadership role in relation to their ideal 2. (PI) instructional leadership role? How does the actual (PA) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the actual (SA) instructional leadership role d e ­ scribed by the superintendent? 3. How does the actual (PA) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the actual (TA) instructional leadership role 11 described by the teachers? 4. How does the ideal (PI) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the actual (SA) instructional leadership role d e ­ scribed by the superintendent? 5. How does the ideal (PI) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the actual (TA) instructional leadership role d e ­ scribed by the teacher? 6. How does the ideal (PI) instructional l e ader ­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the ideal (SI) instructional leadership role described by the superintendent? 7. How does the ideal (PI) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the ideal (TI) instructional leadership role described by the teachers? 8. How does the actual (PA) instructional leader­ ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the ideal (SI) instructional leadership role described by the superintendent? 12 9. How does the actual (PA) instructional leade ship role described by the elementary principal compare with the ideal (TI) instructional leadership role described by the teachers? In addition to the PILO response, each elementary principal participated in a semi -structured interview (I) with the researcher to describe their total leadership role, rank order the ten defined role areas and indicate the percentage of time they allocate to each role area. The researcher developed the following research questions which were explored using the information g ath­ ered during the interview. 1. actual How do elementary principals describe their (PA) instructional leadership role in relation to their total 2. (I) role? How does the priority elementary principals give to defined role areas correlate to the time allocated to each defined area? Hypotheses Nine directional hypotheses related to the PILO data were tested at the .05 level of significance using the t-test for dependent groups. 13 1. Elementary principals rate their ideal instructional leadership role higher than they rate their actual 2. instructional leadership role. (PI>PA) Elementary principals rate their actual instructional leadership role higher than superinten­ dents rate principals' actual instructional leader­ ship role. 3. (PA>SA) Elementary principals rate their actual instructional leadership role higher than teachers rate principals' actual instructional leadership role. (PA>TA) 4. Elementary principals rate their ideal instructional leadership role higher than superin­ tendents rate principals' actual instructional lead­ ership role. 5. (PI>SA) Elementary principals rate their ideal instructional leadership role higher than teachers rate principals' 6. actual leadership role. (PI>TA) Elementary principals rate their ideal instructional leadership role higher than superin­ tendents rate principals' leadership role. ideal instructional (PI>SI) 14 7. Teachers rate principals' ideal instructional leadership role higher than elementary principals rate their ideal instructional leadership role. 8. Superintendents rate principals' (TI>PI) ideal instructional leadership role higher than elementary principals rate their actual instructional leader­ ship role. 9. (SI>PA) Teachers rate principals' ideal instruc­ tional leadership role higher than elementary principals rate their actual instructional leadership role. (TI>PA) A tenth hypothesis related to the data gathered during the semi-structured interview with each p r i n c i ­ pal was tested at the .05 level of significance using Spearman's rank-correlation coefficient. 10. There is no significant difference between the ideal priority elementary principals give their defined role areas and the amount of time they allocate to the defined role areas. Methodology The researcher's dual a design involving the use of purposes in the study led to a survey instrument with each participant as well as a semi-structured interview with 15 each elementary principal. The Sample The sample in this study was selected from the population of one hundred thirty Michigan urban fringe school districts (see Appendix A) identified by the M i c h i ­ gan Department of Education^ in the fall of 1971. Twenty- five urban fringe school districts were randomly selected from the population of one hundred thirty to form a d i s ­ trict pool for the random selection of one elementary p r i n ­ cipal from each of eighteen school districts. The sample was limited to eighteen elementary principals due to the anticipated large amount of time required to travel to each school district, conduct a semi-structured interview with the participating principal and administer the PILO to the staff. Procedures A comparison of The Michigan Education Directory and B u y e r ’s Guide for (1975-1976) and (1976-1977) provided the names of all Michigan urban fringe elementary p r i n c i ­ pals in the same position for at least one school year. ^Michigan Department of Education, Local District and School Report: Explanatory Materials (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education; Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services, [1973]), pp. 31-32. 16 From these names, one elementary principal (and where p o s ­ sible an alternate) was randomly selected from each of the twenty-five sample pool districts. The selected principals were contacted by telephone in consecutive order until one full-time elementary principal in each of eighteen urban fringe school districts had agreed to participate in the study. With the agreement of each participating principal, the researcher contacted their superintendent to explain the research study, indicate that one of their principals had agreed to participate, request permission to conduct the study in the school district, and request that a survey instrument regarding the principal's instructional leader­ ship role be completed by the central office administrator responsible for the supervision and evaluation of the ele­ mentary principal. A letter of confirmation (see Appendix B) was sent to each superintendent along with a PILO, form S (see Appendix C) to be returned to the researcher in an enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Participating principals were again contacted by telephone to schedule a date and time for the personal, semi-structured interview with the researcher, and arrange for a procedure to administer the PILO, form S to the teaching staff. The researcher administered the survey instrument to teachers in sixteen schools, while complica­ tions required the staff in two schools to respond at a 17 later time and return the instrument to the researcher by self-addressed stamped envelopes. All eighteen districts were retained in the sample with a set of data from each superintendent, principal and elementary teaching staff. The data were programmed using the SPSS Program through the Michigan State University Computer Center. An alpha level of .05 was chosen for use with all hypotheses tested by use of the _t-test and Spear­ man's rank-correlation coefficient. Overview In Chapter II the literature and research deemed relevant to this study are reviewed. The first section of Chapter II deals with the historical development of the elementary principalship through five identified stages. In the second section the remaking of the elementary p rin­ cipal is examined, while in the third stage the role of the elementary principalship is analyzed. The design and method of conducting the study is presented in Chapter III. This chapter includes a descrip­ tion of the source of the data, the design and development of the instruments used to collect the data and the p r oce­ dures selected to analyze the data. Chapter IV includes a presentation of the data gathered during the study in both table and descriptive 18 form. The analysis of the data and a summary of findings conclude the chapter. The final chapter contains a summary of the entire study, a presentation of the findings, a statement of c o n ­ clusions and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE Foreword The literature and research reviewed in this chap­ ter are presented to provide the reader with a general background which will permit a better understanding of this study. The chapter includes a discussion of the historical stages in the development of the elementary principalship. Predating the superintendency, the elementary school prin­ cipalship provides the longest historical record in A m e r ­ ican public educational administration.^ Although change proceeded slowly during the evolution of the elementary principalship, a glimpse back through the developmental stages will give added perspective to the results. The second part of the chapter presents a discussion of c ha l ­ lenges involved in the remaking of the principalship. final section contains a role analysis, The including a discus­ sion of theory, perceptions, expectations and the resultant conflict. ^-Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary School Principalship in 1968: A Research Study (Washington, D . C . : Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1968), p. 5. 19 20 The Origin and Development of The Elementary Principalship Historically, in America the position of principal evolved from the European archetype where the "headmaster"^ was considered the master teacher of the school. Colonists established forms of education patterned after their E u r o ­ pean experience. The type of school was not the same in every colony or community, but a common pattern developed after the American Revolutionary War. The five stages in the development of the elementa­ ry principalship identified by Crouch^ and refined by Stoops and Johnson^ are: Stage Chief Duty 1. One teacher Teaching 2. Head teacher Teaching (plus discipline) 3. Teaching principal (part-time) Teaching (plus reports) ^American Association of School Administrators, The Right Principal for the Right School (Washington, D . C . : American Association of School Administrators, 1967), p. 14. 3Roy A. Crouch, "The Status of the Elementary School Principal," the Fifth Y earb o o k , (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, National E d u ­ cation Association, 1926), p. 208. 4Emery Stoops and Russell E. Johnson, Elementary School Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Idb7), p. 4"! 21 4. Building principal (full time) Office management 5. Supervising principal (full time) Supervision of instruction The progression through these stages has not always been clear or steady, and even today there are principals at almost all stages of development. One Teacher Stage The elementary school " . . . is a development of the early colonial rudimentary school of Massachusetts in which the children were taught merely to read and under­ stand the elements of r e l i g i o n . Early educational ef ­ forts throughout the colonies can be appreciated by looking at a typical New England town school. Kelly's study of the schoolmasters of seventeenth century Newbury, Massachu­ setts, describes the establishment of one of the earliest town schools in New England in 1639.® Typically, these early New England schools were one room church facilities operated for the teaching of local children by one 5William C. Reavis, Paul R. Pierce, and Edward H. Stullken, The Elementary School, Its Organization and Administration (Chicago, fll.: The University of Chicago Press, 1 9 3 1 ) , p . 1. ^Richard Edward Kelly, "The Schoolmasters of Seventeenth Century Newbury, Massachusetts" (Ph.D. d i s ­ sertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 25. 22 "schoolmaster," 7 often the Puritan minister. Kelly indicates that the growth of Newbury, and the subsequent dispersal of the population created a desire for local schools in each section of the town. Parents wanted their children to attend a school close to their home. This situation was resolved by the establishment of a "moving" school with one schoolmaster responsible for teaching in the various local schools at different periods of the year.® The typical school throughout the colonies during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the small " . . . one room, one teacher school. It remained typical in the rural regions which dominated the American scene throughout the nineteenth century."® schools, " . . . In these one room one teacher gave all the instruction, kept all the records, and was held absolutely responsible for the success or failure of the school in all educational matters."*® This form of school was not wholly unlike rural one room schools of today. 7Ibid., p. 7. 8 Ibid., p. 291. ®Willard S. Elsbree, Harold J. McNally, and Richard Wynn, Elementary School Administration and Supervision (New York: American Book c o m p a n y ^ 19b 7 J , p. T~. *°Crouch, p. 209. 23 Head Teacher Stage As towns grew and developed into cities, and more children were enrolled into schools, the need for m u l t i ­ room facilities created a new stage. The increases in e n ­ rollment necessitated the employment of additional teachers to assist in instruction. Accordingly, there was a ranking system developed to identify the leaders. Terms such as " . . . head teacher, chief teacher and principal teacher . . ."I* were thereafter found in annual school reports. At times these early head teachers were selected to serve as principal teachers of the school because of their demonstrated superior teaching skills and recognized leadership ability. In other situations, more practical considerations of seniority and physical demeanor prompted selection of the head. The position of principal teacher was narrow in scope and the principal's tended to be authoritative in style. Principals dealt primarily with " . . . discipline, routine administrative acts, and grading of pupils in the various classrooms."1^ 11Ibid. 12paul R. Pierce, The Origin and Development of the Public School Principalship [Chicago: frhe University ot Chicago Press, 1935J , p. 12. 24 In large cities by the nineteenth century, the s t u ­ dent population was a great burden on the educational s y s ­ tem. The Lancaster Bell monitorial was heralded as a marvelous solution to the problem of overcrowding and the desire for universal education. monitors One teacher, assisted by instructed large groups of children in an o r g a n i ­ zation like an army. Although adopted by New York City in 1806 and promoted as a solution for the problem of mass public education, " . . . it was not long before it was discovered that the monitorial system was a means where by at next to no cost at all a community could secure next to I T no education at all." The monitorial experiment did stimulate an interest in education and served to assure public support for a public education. Large schools were divided into grades and a more contemporary school structure was instituted. Pierce cites a Cincinnati Board of Education policy in existence by 1838 which provided for all departments der a single head t e a c h e r . A in the school to be u n ­ year later in 1839 a c o m ­ mittee, chaired by the president of the Cincinnati Board of Education, presented the following clarification of duties 13James H. Dougherty, Frank H. Gorman, and Claude A. Phillips, Elementary School Organization and Management (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950J, Pl^Pierce, p. 9. 25 to the principal teachers: 1. To function as the head of the school charged to his care; 2. To regulate the classes and course of instruc­ tion of all the pupils; 3. To discover and defects in the school and apply remedies; 4. To make defects known to the visitor or trustee of the ward or district if he were unable to remedy c o n ­ ditions ; 5. To give necessary instructions to his a s s i s ­ tants ; 6. 7. To classify pupils; To safeguard schoolhouse and furniture; 8. To keep the school clean; 9. To instruct assistants; 10. To refrain from impairing the standing assistants, especially in the eyes of 11. of their pupils and To require the cooperation of his assistants.15 In 1859, at the close of Divoll's annual report was included the following set of school board regulations pertaining to the duties of the principal. Section 26. The principal teachers shall keep a register in which they shall record the name, age, 1 5p ierce, p. 12. 26 birthplace, residence, and date of admission of each pupil for the first time entered in the p u b ­ lic schools and also the name and occupation of the parent or guardian. Section 27. They shall also make a daily record of the pupils admitted, present, absent or tardy, and at the close of each quarter and the close of the year furnish the superintendent with an abstract of the same according to prescribed forms. Section 28. The principal shall have a general supervision of the grounds, buildings and appurte­ nances of the school, and shall be held responsible for any want of neatness or cleanliness on the prem­ ises; whenever any repairs are needed he shall give notice thereof to the superintendent. Section 29. The principal of each school shall furnish the director of the ward in which such school is situated, the names of those pupils whose parents or guardians declare themselves u n ­ able to provide said pupils with the necessary school books, and upon satisfactory evidence of such inability, the aforesaid directors shall order such books to be furnished at the expense of the board. It shall be the duty of such principal to account to the board at the end of each quarter for all books and stationery furnished for the use of indigent children. Section 30. The principal of each school shall as soon as convenient after the commencement of the first quarter furnish the superintendent with a program of the daily exercises of the different rooms. Section 31. Each principal shall examine the classes of assistants as often as practicable, without neglecting the pupils under his immediate charge. 16Ira Divoll, Fifth Annual School Report (1859), quoted in Roy A. Crouch, "The Status of the Elementary School Principal," the Fifth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, National Edu cation Association, 1926), p. 210. 27 The head teacher or teaching principal as described by Elsbree et. al., typically had a full time teaching load, usually in the upper grades. Such little time as he had for administration was usually devoted to such p e d e s ­ trian tasks as meting out punishment to misbehaving scholars, monitoring school facilities and e q uip­ ment, keeping school records, and often performing such janitorial tasks as bringing in firewood, sharpening pen nibs, and cleaning lamp wicks. The principal t e a che r *s usual qualifications for his job were that he was a man, taught the older c h i l ­ dren, had more seniority, or wielded the hickory stick with more conviction than his colleagues.17 Additional responsibilities gradually accumulated until increased time was justified for the principal teacher to deal with administrative duties, an thus the delineation of a new stage. Teaching Principal Stage The accumulation of duties expected of principal teachers soon exposed the inadequacy of this role. It proved inefficient to expect a person to attend to the m a n ­ agement of a growing school while teaching full time. With the introduction of a grading of students into usually eight levels " . . . during the latter part of the first half of the nineteenth century . . the management of the school program became more complex and time demanding. 17Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, p. 4. 18Reavis, Pierce, and Stullken, p. 1. 28 It soon became obvious that if teachers were to be super­ vised and instructed, and students were to be graded, grouped and promoted, the principal would need released time away from the classroom to accomplish the tasks. By 1857,1® the principals in some Boston schools were relieved of a portion of their teaching duties to p r o ­ vide time for inspection and examination of classes. A teaching assistant or head assistant took charge of the principal's class during this released time. The partial release of principals from the classroom, described as "the opening w e d g e " 2 0 in the development of the contemporary principalship, eventually led to total release from teach­ ing responsibilities in large schools. Full time assign­ ment to management and administration of school programs did not automatically lead to growth of the professional role of principals. Pierce states that, especially during the period from 1895-1910, " . . . principals were slow individually and as a group to take advantage of the opportunities for professional leadership which were granted them."^! He supports this by the fact that large numbers of principals l®Pierce, p. 15. 20crouch, p. 211. 21pierce, p. 21. 29 " . . . were satisfied to attend to clerical and petty rou­ tines, administering their schools on a policy of laissez faire."22 Seemingly contradictory, Reich refers to this same general period, from 1890 to the end of the First World War as the ” . . . golden age of the elementary prin- cipalship"2^ primarily due to the autonomy vested in the principal to manage the school program. Building Principal Stage Release from formal classroom teaching responsibil­ ity and full time assignment to the management of the school led to the acceptance of the principal as the chief administrator of the school. While the organizational structure developed slowly, by the latter part of the n i n e ­ teenth century, the principals in some large cities were gradually relieved of teaching responsibilities and given full time overall management duties. The crowded condi­ tions of the schools and a large number of poorly trained teachers increased work demands on the principal and led to a role of " . . . directing manager, rather than presiding 22Ibid. 23Jerome R. Reich, "The Principalship: A Brief History," quoted in Jo Ann Mazzarella, The Principalis Role in Instructional Planning, NAESP School LeadersKTp Digest (Washington. D . C . : National Association of Klementary School Principals, 1976), p. 7. 30 teacher of the school." *7 A. Early in the twentieth century, cipals were concluding that " . . . some building p r i n ­ clerical duties took up much of their time"2^ and that action must be taken to save the principalship from deteriorating into the position of a glorified clerk. "In 1920 under the guidance of the D e ­ partment of Education at the University of Chicago, and working with elementary principals, a new organization was b o r n . "26 The Department of Elementary School Principals, in affiliation with the National Education Association for nearly fifty years, gave new status to the elementary p r i n ­ cipalship and fostered a renewed mission for the d e v e l o p ­ ment of a role as supervisor of the instructional program. Early efforts and publications by the Department of Elementary School Principals in 19282 ? and 19482® stressed 2 4p i e r c e , p. 211. 2®Albert H. Shuster and Don H. Stewart, The P r inci­ pal and the Autonomous Elementary School (Columbus, O h i o : Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, T 9 7 3 ) , p. 30. 2 6 Ibid. ^ D e p a r t m e n t of Elementary School Principals, "The Elementary School Principalship, in the Seventh Y e a r b o o k , (Washington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School fc'rincipals, National Education Association, 1928). 2®Department of Elementary School Principals, "The Elementary School Principalship - Today and Tomorrow," in the Twenty-Seventh Y e a r b o o k , (Washington, D.C.: Department of ETementary School Principals, National Education A s s o c i ­ ation, 1948). 31 to elementary principals the importance of being released from teaching responsibilities to permit more time for s u ­ pervision and staff development as supervising principals. Urban schools, having grown very large because of increased population attracted by "rapid growth of industrial c e n ­ ters ,"29 were adding staff and programs. The Department "was formed to seek answers to the problems"^® of defining job responsibilities of new staff and principals. In many smaller schools principals continued, even as some do today, to be burdened with too many clerical and administrative duties to become educational leaders. Mc­ Carty, emphasized the yoke of managerial responsibility that developed and has increased for the principal, in his statement, "The modern school administrator is the unfortu­ nate descendent of the teaching principal, an office his31 torically restricted to second-rate clerical duties." While the distinction between the building principal stage 29lda G. Sergeant, "Foreword," the Fifth Y e a r b o o k , Bulletin of the Department of Elementary School Principals, Arthur S. Gist Editor (Washington, D.C.: Department of E l e ­ mentary School Principals, National Education Association, 1926), p. 198. 30 Ibid. 3lDonald J. McCarty, "Organizational Influences on Teacher Behavior," Selected Readings on General Supervi­ sion , James E. HealcT^ Lou is G . R o m a n o , and Nicholas P. Georgiady, eds. (New York: Macmillan Company, 1970), p. 127. 32 and the supervising principal stage is not absolutely d i s ­ tinguishable , it is generally recognized that the building principal is more completely burdened with administrative duties, and consequently accomplishes limited instructional supervision. Supervising Principal Stage The beginnings of instructional supervision can be traced to the rapid growth of large educational systems, and the inability of local school superintendents to make sufficient classroom visits to supervise and evaluate in­ struction. As early as 1859, principals in selected cities were delegated responsibilities for the "supervision of in­ struction," and "principals autonomous schools. "32 in New York were calling for Howland maintained in his 1888 C h i ­ cago School Report that "The real supervision of teachers and pupils and the healthful activities of the school must now, as ever, rest with the principal who alone can control and direct the daily work and become personally familiar with the progress of the pupi l s . "33 Since the inception of the Department of Elementary 32Shuster and Stewart, p. 29. 33George Howland, Thirty-Fourth Annual School R e ­ port, City of C h i c a g o , quoted in Roy A. Crouch, ,vthe Status of the Elementary School Principal," the Fifth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: The Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1926), p. 212. 33 School Principals near the beginning of the twentieth c e n ­ tury, the people in principalships have been encouraged and challenged to strive for a higher professional role. In­ structional supervision was embraced as the highest and most important priority for the elementary school p r i n c i ­ pal. Improvement of the instructional p r o g r a m ^ »^5,36 widely acclaimed not only as the primary responsibility, but the highest opportunity of service for the elementary principal. Yet, while a considerable amount of r e ­ s e a r c h ^ * 38 indicates that principals give instructional leadership a high priority in their list of concerns, few ■*4 Stuart E. Dean and Harold J. McNally, "The E l e ­ mentary School Principal," Preparation Programs for School Administrators, e d s . Donald J. Leu and Herbert C. Rudman (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University College of Education, 1963), pp. 111-122. ^ C h a r l e s R. Spain, Harold D. Drummond and John I. Goodlad, Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principalship (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967) , pT 16. •^Emery Stoops and James R. Marks, Elementary School Supervision: Practices and Trends (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), p . 78. 37Department of Elementary School Principals, "The Principal and Supervision," the Thirty-Seventh Y e a r b o o k . The National Elementary Principal (Washington, DTCT1 TEe Department of Elementary School Principals, National E d u ­ cation Association Research Division, 1958). 38Department of Elementary School Principals, The Elementary Principalship in 1968: A Research Study (Wash­ ington, D.C.: Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1968). 34 appear to act accordingly. F r a n k ^ found that even though the literature, experts and practicing administrators indi­ cate that the major role of a principal should be that of instructional leadership, his study seemed to indicate that principals are actually giving primary emphasis to clerical and administrative tasks. Although most of the developmental stages of the principalship are still being exhibited by principals in various localities, the supervising principal stage is g e n ­ erally perceived to be the ideal goal to be attained. How reasonable and realistic this goal is may be determined by the degree of agreement between expectations by principals and their significant others. Remaking the Elementary Principalship Role Explosion The role of the elementary principal is changing,*® and has over the years expanded to include many subroles**^®Roland G. Frank, "An Analysis of the Communica­ tions Patterns of Selected Elementary Principals in M i c h i ­ gan" (Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969), p p . 78-79. *®Kenneth A. Tye, "The Elementary School Principal: Key to Educational Change," in The Power To C h a n g e , ed. by Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban (.toew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), p. 25. *lStoops and Marks, p. 79. 35 which collectively " . . . ing the goals of the are directed toward accomplish­ s y s t e m . " ^ The expansion of educa­ tional systems to accommodate the growth in the school p o p ­ ulation, increased community participation, a broadened curriculum and widened bureaucratic involvement has con­ tributed sizably to the increase of duties and job demands placed on the elementary school principal. Matthews, describing the expansion of the elementa­ ry principal's role during the second decade of the twenti­ eth century said: The greater part of the elementary school principal's duties formerly consisted of the m a n ­ agement of the routine work necessary to keep the school in operation without much attention being given to the activities and needs of the communi­ ty, but in the last generation the increase in the number of supervisors of special subjects, the creation of bureaus and departments of edu­ cation, the demands of the public to know more about our school system, and our efforts to c o ­ ordinate and socialize the school have added to the work of the p r i n c i p a l . Today's principals are as busy as ever! However, while most elementary principals serve as full-time admin­ istrators, and seem to have fulfilled the early goal of the 42james E. Heald and Samuel A. Moore, II, The Teacher and Administrative Relationships in School Systems (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), p. 206. 4^Nora a . Matthews, Principal and His Growth in Yearbook (Lansing, Michigan: School Principals, Michigan p. 138. "The Michigan Elementary School the Profession," the Second Department of Elementary Education Association, 1928), 36 Department of Elementary School Principals to rid the prin cipalship of teaching responsibilities, they have not gen­ erally accomplished the goal of instructional leadership. McNally, summarizing The National Elementary Principal Chautauqua Series, said: For a variety of reasons, which are often (perhaps even usually) beyond the principal's control, principals are not exercising to any considerable degree the instructional and leadership function that is widely agreed to be their most important responsibility.44 That the elementary principal's role is complex, cluttered and often unmanageable is forcefully illustrated by Goldhammer's statement from the same series: . . . we've expected the administrator, particu­ larly the elementary school administrator, to be all things. . . . The good Lord himself couldn't perform all the roles that have been expected of elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . 45 Keller says: Regrettably, it has become a fact of life for most principals that they are expected to handle with dispatch every problem that might interfere with the efficient operation of the school. . . . All too many principals, by caring equally about all the little things that take place in the school, reduce the improvement of instruction to 44narold J. McNally, "Summing Up," The National Elementary Principal 54 (September, October 1974): 8. ^ P a u l l . H o u t s , "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer," The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): 28.------------ -------- B— 37 a filler in their daily act ivities. In attempting to handle everything, the principal risks fighting little fires and never making time to accomplish the priorities, if in fact priorities are even established. Role Ambiguity The complex nature of the elementary principal's role perpetuates a general ambiguity that may warrant the primary attention of the profession. Mitchell, in a study fittingly subtitled "A Look at the Overlooked," emphasized that the role of the principal needs increased clarifica­ tion if principals are to serve as educational leaders. Having been given subroles that sometimes conflict, Mitchell states, "The principal today is a man caught in the m i d d l e . I n the middle of school demands, parent e x ­ pectations, board policy, teacher militancy, collective bargaining and a host of changing curricular innovations. Langer, writing in the Phi Delta K a p p a n , stated that due to the period of radical change in public educa­ tion during the last two decades, "The principals t h e m ­ selves appear to be confused and concerned about the role ^ A r n o l d J. Keller, "Inside the Man in the Princi­ pal's Office," The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): 23. ^Donald Mitchell, Leadership In Public Educa­ tion S t u d y . A Look At The Overlooked (Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development, Inc., 1972), p. 15. 38 to be allotted them."^® In a national study of the problems perceived by elementary school principals conducted under the direction of Keith Goldhammer, Becker et al. , found that " . . . the role of the elementary school principal is not well d e ­ fined. "49 ship, "role Related to the area of administrative leader­ i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " 5 0 problem for administrators. was identified as the major Describing foreseeable prob­ lems, the study revealed that many elementary school prin­ cipals . . . are not confident of their ability to cope with the many problems they expect to encounter as the nature of elementary education changes. They feel overworked. But they expect to be forced to assume even greater responsibilities in the future and they fear they will be deprived of the author­ ity to fulfill these responsibilities. They are uncertain of their future and feel a critical need to define more clearly their increasingly ambigu­ ous role and responsibilities.51 The present role for principals appears to require proficiency or expertise in everything from plant ^®John H. Langer, "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan," Phi Delta Kappan 48 (December 1966): 161. ^ G e r a l d Becker et al., Elementary School Princi­ pals and Their Schools, Beacons of" Brilliance g Potholes of Pestilence (Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced ktudy of Educational Administration, 1971), p. 56. SOlbid., p. 53. 51Ibid., pp. 154-155. 39 management to instructional leadership with a lot of area in between with which to become preoccupied. The challenge for the profession is to identify and designate a reason­ able role for the elementary school principal, and there­ fore ” . . . decide whether principals should be educa­ tional leaders or organizational m a n a g e r s . " ^ Role Priorities Most of the relevant literature, and many experts and administrators in the field indicate that instructional leadership for the improvement of instruction is the high­ est achievement of the supervising principal. Agreeing that managerial responsibilities are important, Hansen and Mickelson stress that, "Far more important to his real suc­ cess and worth as a principal is his direct and indirect instructional leadership in the school p r o g r a m . " ^ Harrison states that while there are things a p ri n­ cipal could do, should do and must do, "The principal's many responsibilities must never be allowed to inhibit his ^ A l b e r t h. Shuster, "Going It Alone: The Autono­ mous School," The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): ST. S^Peter Palmer Mickelson and Kenneth H. Hansen, Elementary School Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. / I'D57) , p. 72.---------- 40 educational leadership. Stoops and Johnson write that Although the elementary school principal has many roles, none can equal that of being the education­ al leader of his school. He must never forget this, regardless of the myriad duties which d e ­ scend upon him . 55 Trump says that " . . . school improvement demands principals with high priorities on improving instruction along with the right techniques for doing it."88 McNally adds that "One of the most important things a principal has to deal with is the climate he developes within the school."57 According to Hansen, "The public is demanding that the administrator again return to his primary function--en­ hancer of the learning process through the improvement of and his participation in the instructional p r o g r a m . I n 54Raymond H. Harrison, Supervisory Leadership in Education (New York: American Book Co., 1968), p. 293. 55stoops and Johnson, p. 16. ®®J. Lloyd Trump, "Principal Most Potent Factor in Determining School Excellence," NASSP Bulletin (March 1972): p. 4. --------------57Harold J. McNally, "The Principalship - A People Business," in The Principal in Prospective ed. by John E. Reisert (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University School of Education, March 1968), p. 12. 58J. Merrell Hansen, "Administration: Role and Function in Education," NASSP Bulletin 58 (December 1974): 84. --------------- 41 agreement, Jenkins^® exhorts his fellow principals to r e ­ turn to their original role as master teachers. Kuralt contends " . . . w e ' v e got plenty of rhet­ oric, but not too much educational leadership."®® Gil­ christ agrees and calls for a new shift in emphasis " . . . that would mean that the major portion of our time be spent on curriculum and instructional leadership. Just how realistic are these instructional leader­ ship expectations for elementary principals? A good number of dissenters would argue that they are unreasonable and idealistic. Hoeh calls the instructional leadership role of the principal an outdated "charade" and directs p r inci­ pals to work towards the "improvement of learning."®2 Taking a more critical position, Myers says, "I believe, in fact, that the principal is a functionary" in that " . . . almost all significant decisions concerning his 59John M. Jenkins, "The Principal: Still the Pri n ­ cipal Teacher," NASSP Bulletin 56 (February 1972): 32. ®®Richard C. Kuralt, "The Principal's Turn," The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974) : 38. ®^Robert S. Gilchrist, "A Radical Shift in E m p h a ­ sis," The Nations Schools 65 (January I960): 48. ® 2James A. Hoeh, "Feeling Guilty For Not Being An Instructional Leader? Don't.," NASSP Bulletin 57 (November 1973): 7. ---------------- 42 role are made for h i m . "63 The radical, and in some people's thinking, the unthinkable " . . . palship possibility of eliminating the princi- . . ."64 is promulgated by Hoban. He attacks the principalship because of the unrealistic expectations set for the role. Responding to the dissenters, Wayson counters that, "Even if we should abolish the principal's position, as some critics have proposed, or openly reduce it to that of a mere functionary, we will not abolish the need for q u a l ­ ity leadership in every one of America's s c h o o l s . "65 The general role of the elementary school principal as an instructional and educational leader is well sup­ ported in the literature and research, making only clarifi­ cation of the role with respect to changing conditions seem j ustified. 63oonald A. Myers, "The Chautauqua Papers: A D i s ­ sent," The National Elementary Principal 54 (September, October 1974) TS^Tff. — 6*Gary J. Hoban, "The School Without A Principal," in The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative E d u c a t o r , e d . "by Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban (toew York: MeGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973), pp. 145-146. 65williara W. Wayson, "Introduction: Chautauqua Series," The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): 10. 43 Roadblocks to Instructional Leadership The battle of instructional leadership is often won or lost in the mind of the principal. Most of the condi­ tions and roadblocks can be solved or neutralized if a positive attitude is maintained. Principals must personal­ ly think through and determine their own philosophy of education and administration from which they can determine what things are important and consistent with this philos­ ophy. Time is always too short when "every problem is i m p o r t a n t " ^ and thus the only answer is to set priorities. Rather than use time as an excuse for not accomplishing important jobs, Gilchrist says as administrators, we " . . . must grow hard boiled in the use of our time"**? and henceforth accomplish our priorities. Principals can learn from Drucker's advice that "Effective executives concen­ trate on a few major areas where superior performance will produce outstanding results."^® Stoops and Marks say "Lack of time, involvement in a myriad of other duties, and a feeling of personal 66Keller, p. 23. ^ G i l c h r i s t , p. 48. ^®Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper $ Row, 1967), p. 2V. 44 inadequacy . . ."69 have hampered principals in achieving instructional leadership goals. Lack of time may not be the major problem if a principal lacks the confidence to provide instructional leadership. It is difficult, indeed to gain credibility as a school's leader if one is inept at, and relatively ignorant of, good classroom teaching procedure. Lacking such skills, the principal is likely to fall back on that which he feels he can do well; that is, paperwork, scheduling and rescheduling, and so forth.70 In agreement, Becker et al., found that "The majority of principals are confident of their ability to oversee the routine operation of their buildings, but relatively few have any degree of confidence in their ability to assume a leadership role in instructional improvement. Keller counters, saying that some school systems discourage principals from concentrating on instruction by generating " . . . an infinite number of clerical tasks that have little relationship to the teaching function. . . . doing so with such mindless zeal that many principals now find themselves drowning in a sea of paperwork." In such a situation the superintendent might find it " . . . convenient to rate a principal on the neatness and 69Stoops and Marks, p. 80. ^ V i n c e n t R. Rogers, "A Sense of Purpose," The N a ­ tional Elementary Principal 53 (May, June 1974): 9-10. ^ B e c k e r et al., p. 9. 45 promptness of his reports and his allegiance to the organi­ zation, rather than on the quality of education in his school." 72 Likewise, because the management function might be the easiest to evaluate, "The reputation of the principal with his teachers, his administrative superiors and his patrons often rests largely on his effectiveness as a manager and organizer of the school program."73 The most discouraging aspect of the role identifi­ cation problem for principals is that every individual and group views the problem and its solution in a different way. Too many solutions present a problem as complex as having no real solution. The self-determination of prior­ ities, measuring perceptions with expectations, is an im­ perative if elementary school principals are going to remake the principalship. The path to the principalship is clearly defined. "Anyone interested in entering the field of school adminis­ tration must go through an elaborate, ritualistic series of steps. First he must attain the status of teacher."74 Having once been a successful teacher, the principal is 72Keller, p. 24. ^ M i c k e l s o n and Hansen, p. 52. 74Mitchell, p. 23. 46 assumed to be capable of instructional leadership. King says "Common to all definitions of the function of instruc­ tional leadership is the provision for the ’improvement of teaching.' This means that successful experience as a teacher is basic to effective instructional le adership. Sarason suggests that "being a teacher for a number of years may be in most instances antithetical to being an educational leader or vehicle of change. Although principals have shed themselves of c l a s s ­ room responsibilities and would appear to have increased time available for instructional leadership, they have hesitated to venture back into the classrooms as instruc­ tional leaders. Sarason contends that principals know what they should be doing, however they experience d i f f i ­ culty discharging their supervisory responsibilities b e ­ cause their " . . . strong influence. experience as a teacher asserts its The principal views going into the classroom for the purpose of evaluation and change as an act that will be viewed by the teacher as a hostile intru­ sion."^ The principal may experience role conflict and ^ M a r t h a L. King, "Knowledge and Competence for the Instructional Leader," Educational Leadership 20 (April 1963): 449-452. 76Seymour B. Sarason, The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Boston: Allyn 5 Bacon, I n c ., 1971), p. 115. 77Ibid ., p. 120. 47 guilt because, MA1though he has the power to do so, and feels a responsibility to do so, the principal prefers not to visit classrooms, a preference very much shared by teachers."?® Role Analysis The intent of role a n a l y s i s ? ® i s to determine what the principal does and what other people think he should do. Role®® has been defined as a set of expectations, in­ cluding those held by the principal and those expectations which are held for him by significant others. There is generally variation among not only what a principal does, but also what a principal should be doing. This variation can be the cause of considerable stress to the principal. Selected Role Theory Levinson defines role concepts as; (1) l Organizationally given role demands, referring to the complex system of demands, external to the individual that appear to be required by the organization. 1" Ibid. ?®Alan K. Gaynor, "Preparing the Organization for Effective Response," in Performance Objectives for School Principals: Concepts a n d T n s t r u m e n t s ed. by Jack A. Culbertson, Curtis Henson and Ruel Morrison (Berkley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974), p. 54. ®®I bi d ., p . 55. 48 (2) Personal role-definition, referring to the in­ dividuals adaption into the organization through individual role-conceptions and individual role performance.81 In this study the personal role definition of the princi­ pal's role was examined from the perspective of principals, their superintendents and their teachers. Perceptions The concept of role perception may be seen as the indicator to measure the extent to which given overt b e ­ havior was perceived by a selected person or the actual behavior exhibited by a particular elementary principal. Role perceptions are limited to the extent that the person has sufficient contact with the perceived person. Sarason82 found that teachers interact with principals far less frequently than one would think, and therefore their perceptions of the role of the principal are based on a narrow sample of experience. Expectations Role expectation may be seen as an indicator to determine from selected persons, the degree of 8lDaniel J. Levinson, "Role Personality, and Social Structure in Organizational Settings," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology LVIII. No. 2 (March 1959): 170-180. 82sarason, p. 114 49 appropriateness and d e s i r a b i l i t y of a g i v e n overt behavior. Expanding on T a l c o t t P arson's general concept of role, Stogdill has set forth the following definition: tion, defined as readiness of drive, for reinf orcement, "Expecta­ is a f u n ct ion the e s t i m a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e of a p o s ­ sible outcome, and the e s t i m a t e d d e s i r a b i l i t y of the o u t ­ come ."83 The e s t i ma ted p r o b a b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e of an o u t ­ come a c c o rdi ng to Stogdill, . . . refers to an individual's p r e d i c t i o n , j u d g e ­ ment or guess relative to the l i k e l i h o o d that a giv en event w ill occur. The e s t i m a t e d d e s i r a b i l ­ ity o f an o u tc ome consists of an individual's judgement relative to the s atis fyingness of, n e e d for, d e mand for, a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of, or p l e a s a n t ­ ness or u n p l e a s a n t n e s s of, a p o s sible outcome. Stogdill goes on to say that estimates of p r o b a b i l i t y a nd estimates of d e s i r a b i l i t y are not opposites; rather, they "interact to det ermine the level of expectation. Cognitive D i s s o n a n c e When a p e r s o n is una ble to r a t i onalize or e x p lain away the incongru ence b e t w e e n something they are d o ing and something the y think they should be doing, chological dis c o m f o r t arises. a type of p s y ­ From the field of social 83Ralph M. Stogdill, Individual Be havior and Group Achiev eme nt (New York: O x fo rd U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959J , r p . 63. 84ibid. 50 psychology, Leon Festinger calls this discomfort "cognitive dissonance." "Festinger's Theory of dissonance assumes that each individual seeks a state of harmony, of c o n s i s ­ tency or balance within himself, a state where what he knows and believes is consistent with what he d o e s . " ® ^ The elementary principalship appears to present a high potential of cognitive dissonance because of the g e n ­ erally high role expectations. held by elementary principals, Egner, studying perceptions found that logical inconsis­ tency was one source of cognitive dissonance. It is logically inconsistent to expect the p r i n c i ­ pal, who must handle a mass of administrative routine, to show leadership in curriculum and i n ­ struction. The principal who knows and accepts the expectation for leadership behavior and puts a high value on this expectation is going to e x per i­ ence considerable dissonance.®6 Fearing*s study of principal-faculty perceptions concerning the principal's role yielded results that indi­ cate principals and faculty perceptions might frequently be dissimilar. Seeking to test Chester I. Barnard's postulate that inter-personal perceptions must be similar for the efficient operation of cooperative systems, Fearing c o n ­ cluded that either the sample schools were not functioning ®®Joan Roos Egner, "The Principal's Role: Cognitive Dissonance," The Elementary School Journal 67 (February 1967): 276. ® 6I bid., p. 277. 51 efficiently or Barnard's postulate needed revision.®7 Within a few years, Latimer completed a suspicious­ ly similar study of principal and faculty perceptions of the principal's role behaviors. Although identical in word and method in many respects, the results refuted Fearing's findings and indicated support for Barnard's postulate.®® It is not sufficient to just analyze role p e r c e p ­ tions and expectations to determine the degree of a g r ee­ ment. Realizing that dissonance is present, there is r e a ­ son to be hopeful that cognitive dissonance can be reduced or eliminated. Egner concludes with an optimistic reminder that "Central to a theory of dissonance is the hypothesis that the psychological discomfort of dissonance will m o t i ­ vate the individual to try to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance."®9 ® 7Joseph Lea Fearing, "Principal-Faculty Percep­ tions of Certain Common and Observable Role Behaviors of the Elementary School Principal" (Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1963). (Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 25, no. 1. Ann Arbor, M i c h i g a n : University Microfilms, July 1964, p. 224.) ®®Lowell Francis Latimer, "The Role of the Elemen­ tary School Principal As Perceived by the Faculty and P r i n ­ cipal through selected Role Behaviors" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1966). (Pissertation A b stracts. Vol. 27, no. 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, April 1967, p. 3266-A.) ®®Egner, p. 279. 52 Summary Evolving from a humble but honorable beginning as the headmaster of a one room school, the modern day su per­ vising principalship is an ever changing position. The position has such an abundance of subroles that role a m ­ biguity, brought about by a lack of priorities, has become a major problem. The challenge of a definition of role is heavily dependent on individual principals setting personal priorities and collectively working with the profession to set role priorities. There is general agreement in the literature, from research and practicing administrators that instructional and educational leadership is the highest and most impor­ tant role goal for principals. Regrettably, these same sources indicate that the instructional leadership goal is not adequately accomplished. The gap between the expected goal and the achieved behavior appears to produce cognitive dissonance among principals. There is hope that through accurate perceptions and expectations for their role b e ­ havior by themselves and from significant others, p r i n c i ­ pals will be able to assess their condition and work for an improved role behavior expectation. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES The researcher's purpose in this study was to d e ­ termine if significant differences exist between the actual perceptions and ideal expectations for the instructional leadership role of urban fringe elementary school princi­ pals as perceived by themselves, their teachers and their superintendents. Additionally, the study was designed, through inclusion of interviews with elementary school principals, to reflect an added dimension and clarification of the elementary principal's instructional leadership role in relation to the total building administrative role. The present chapter contains a description of the sample, research hypotheses, instrumentation, data collec­ tion, procedures for data analysis and summary. Sample The sample of eighteen full-time elementary school principals was randomly selected from the target population of elementary principals in the one hundred thirty Michigan urban fringe school districts. 53 54 The urban fringe classification1 developed by the Michigan Department of Education in the Fall of 1971 is defined as any community with the mailing address of a city or metropolitan core city; or a community within five miles of the center of a city; or within ten miles of the center of a metropolitan core city. Twenty-five urban fringe school districts were r a n ­ domly selected from the population of one hundred thirty to form a district pool. The sample of eighteen elementary school principals was selected from this pool of urban fringe school districts. A sample size of eighteen was chosen to assure an adequately large N for statistical testing, while avoiding an excessive number of long d is­ tance trips to conduct personal interviews. A comparison of The Michigan Education Directory and Buyerfs Guide for (1975-1976) and (1976-1977) provided the names of all Michigan urban fringe elementary school principals in the same administrative position for at least one school year. From these names one elementary principal (and where possible, an alternate) was randomly selected from each of the twenty-five districts in the sample pool. M i c h i g a n Department of Education, Local District and School Report: Explanatory Materials (Lansing, M i chi­ gan: Michigan Department of Education; Research, Evaluation and Assessment Services, [1973]), pp. 31-32. (See Appendix A for a more detailed description). 55 The selected and alternate principals were contact­ ed by telephone in consecutive order until one full-time supervising principal in each of eighteen urban fringe school districts had agreed to participate in the study. Principals were contacted in twenty-one school districts before the sample of eighteen was obtained. Three school districts were not included because no principals were either eligible or interested in participating. Sixteen of the participating principals were part of the original ran­ domly selected group, while two principals were selected as alternates. Two principals refused to participate; another principal was ill and unable to participate. The sample consisted of four female principals (22%) and fourteen male principals (78%), closely approxi­ mating the 1976 female/male ratio of Michigan elementary school principals--428 females (20%) and 1678 males (80%).^ One hundred percent of the eighteen participating principals and their superintendents responded to the Prin­ cipal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire (PILO). All PILO's administered to teachers by the researcher were r e ­ turned. Building principals distributed PILO's, instruc­ tions (see Appendix B) and addressed stamped envelopes to teachers in two schools. More than two-thirds of these ^Michigan Association of Elementary School Princi­ pals, "1975-1976 Salary Analysis," East Lansing, Michigan, Fall 1976. (Typewritten.) 56 PILO's were retur n e d to the re s e a r c h e r by mail. teacher responses e x c e e d e d 96%. results Total The summary of response is illustrated in Table 3.1. Statistical H y p o t heses Nin e r e s e a r c h hy p o t h e s e s r e l ated to the PILO data were tested at the .05 level of sign ificance using the t^-test for d e p endent groups. Based on the revi e w of r e l e ­ vant lit erature and the researcher*s experience reasonable to state the following hy p o t h e s e s it seemed in a specific direction: 1. E l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their instructional ideal leadership role higher than they rate their actual instruc­ tional leadership role. 2. (PI»PA) El e m e n t a r y p r i n cipals rate their a c ­ tual instructional lea dership role h i gher t han superintendents rate principals' actual instructional leaders hip role. 3. E l e m e n t a r y p r i n cipals rate their a c ­ tual instructional leadership role higher than teachers rate (PA»SA) TABLE 3.1 SUMMATION OF PILO RESPONSE School District Code Number of Principal Responses Number of Superintendent Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 18 Total Number of Teacher PILO's Distributed Number of Teacher Responses 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 8 13 9 12 13 16 13 12 10 14 13 11 14 16 11 17 16 17 8 13 9 12 9 16 13 8 10 14 13 11 14 16 11 17 16 17 1004 235 227 Administrator Return Rate Teacher Return Rate 1004 1004 1004 1004 694 1004 1004 674 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 1004 > 96.44 58 principals' actual instructional (PA>TA) leaders hip role. 4. E l e m e n t a r y p r i n cipal s rate their ideal instructional leadership role h i g h e r than super i n t e n d e n t s rate principals' actual instructional (PI>SA) leadership role. 5. E l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their ideal instructional leadership role hig her than teachers rate p r i n c i ­ pals' 6. actual leadership role. (PI»TA) E l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their ideal instructional role higher than s uper i n t e n d e n t s rate p r i n c i p a l s ' ideal instructional leadership (PI>SI) role. 7. Teachers rate principals' instructional ideal leadershi p role higher than e l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their ideal instructional leader­ ship role. 8. Superintendents rate principals' (TI>PI) 59 ideal instructional leadership role higher than elementary principals rate their actual instructional (SI >PA) leadership role. 9. Teachers rate principals' ideal instructional leadership role higher than elementary principals rate their actual instructional leadership role. (TI >PA) A tenth hypothesis related to the data gathered during the semi-structured interview with each principal was tested at the .05 level of significance using Spear­ man's rank-correlation coefficient. 10. There is no significant difference between the ideal priority elementary principals give their defined role areas and the amount of time they allocate to the defined role areas. Instrumentation Survey Instrument The Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire used to gather survey data from principals, superintendents and teachers was developed and field tested specifically for this study. 60 Design Development of a conceptual base was required to permit systematic investigation of the concept of perceived and expected instructional leadership behaviors of elemen­ tary school principals. A preliminary review of literature led to a realization that instructional leadership is and has been viewed and defined in numerous ways and terms. For the purpose of the present study, instructional leadership was defined to include behavorial indicants from the following role areas: 1. Curriculum activities, 2. Evaluation, 3. Inservice and 4. School climate. These indicants, derived from the conceptual base, were placed in statement form and combined to form the Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire (see Appendix C ) . The PILO is a fifty-six item survey instrument d e ­ signed to measure the actual perceptions and ideal expecta­ tions for the instructional leadership role behavior of elementary school principals. The instrument contains seven statements for measuring each of the instructional leadership role areas. The first twenty-eight statements are worded to reflect actual perceptions regarding a p r i n ­ cipal's instructional leadership role behavior. In the 61 last h a l f of the instrument, the statements are r e p e a t e d in a form to reflect ideal ex p e c t a t i o n s r e g a rding a p r i n ­ cipal's instructional leaders hip role behavior. Pilot Study A p r e l i m i n a r y f orm of the Pr incipal Leadership O p i n i o n n a i r e (see A p p e n d i x C) was Instructional field tested in two u r b a n fringe e l e m e n t a r y schools not s e l ecte d in the random sample. T w e n t y - f o u r PILO's w ere d i s t r i b u t e d to teachers during the first w e e k of J a n u a r y 1977. Twenty c o m p leted responses w e r e r e t u r n e d to the researcher. ing the third w e e k of J a n u a r y 1977, Dur­ the same teachers were asked to c o m p l e t e the retest form of the same instrument. Eig hteen co m p l e t e d retests wer e r e t u rned and m a t c h e d with the twenty initial responses, y e i l d i n g sixteen pairs of scores for c o m p u t a t i o n of a r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient. The pilot study r e v e a l e d that the subjects were generally able to complete the instrument w i t h i n fifteen minutes and that r e s p onding to the instrument did not a p ­ pear to be threatening to teachers or principals. the respon dents M o s t of included commen ts and a p p ea red to u n d e r ­ stand the statements. The initial f i f ty-six statements w ere all r e t ained in the final v e r s i o n w i t h o n l y cosmetic revisions. Likert-typ e r e s p o n s e format used The in the p r e l i m i n a r y form of 62 the PILO was c h a n g e d from an alp h a b e t i c a l format ure 3) to a numerical in the final format (see Figure 4) and r e v ersed form of the PILO. the p l a c ement of the p h rase (see F i g ­ The o t her r e v i s i o n c h anged introducing each s t a t ement to a single in tr o d u c t o r y p hra s e at the top of each page. FIGURE 3 Initial PILO Re sponse Format a> p «-h i at C cr Ih i—i a> M O U. »-! a > e -M m O (A) (B) >> a* --H rt E os tn at O o O o t-H > (C) (D) (E) T3 FIGURE 4 Re v ised PILO Res ponse Format >> c a> r~i rH 0) H CO U Cd OS 6 t-l > o I a> co CD (2) >s 3 CT* C o 0) l-t --H C 4-» oh O t-l « > (4) (5) tn at a> u o O (3) The revised form of the Principal >■* Instructional Leadership O p i n i o n n a i r e was p r o d u c e d in P I L O - f o r m P to o b ­ tain responses from e l e m e n t a r y principals, and P I L O - f o r m S 63 to obtain responses from superintendents and teachers. The revised form of the PILO is presented in Appendix C and is assumed to have reasonable content validity. Reliability Data from sixteen matched test-retest forms of the PILO were used from the field testing to compute a r e l i ­ ability coefficient for the PILO instrument. Actual scores on the initial test were compared with actual scores on the retest, and ideal scores on the initial test were compared with ideal scores on the retest. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were determined for each of the two sets of scores. The actual perceptions of a principal's instruc­ tional leadership behaviors, measured by responses to the first twenty-eight statements, appeared to have limited reliability due to a sizable drop in the mean score on the retest. This drop in the mean score probably indicates that teachers notice their principal's instructional lead­ ership behaviors more frequently after having taken the initial test. There appears to be a significant testing effect with regard to the actual perceptions teachers hold of principal's instructional leadership behaviors and a tendency for teachers to give their principal a more favor­ able rating the second time they were tested. 64 The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient yields a reliability of .33 with significance at the .1 level. Actual score reliability figures, means and sta n ­ dard deviations are illustrated in Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2 ACTUAL SCORE RELIABILITY RESULTS OF THE PILO TEST-RETEST N * 16 Variable Means Standard Deviations Initial Test 38.438 12.775 Retest 36.313 10.104 Correlation Coefficients .33 Probability .10 The ideal expectations of a p r i n c i p a l ’s instruc­ tional leadership behaviors, measured by responses to the last twenty-eight statements, appear to be extremely r e l i ­ able due to a very small deviation in the mean scores of the test-retest forms. Slight deviation in mean scores indicates that the instrument reliably measures the ideal expectations of a principal's instructional leadership b e ­ havior. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient yielded a reliability of .83 with significance at the .001 level. Ideal score reliability figures, means and standard deviations are illustrated in Table 3.3. 65 T ABLE 3.3 IDEAL SCORE R E L I ABILI TY RESULTS OF THE PILO TES T - R E T E S T N - 16 V ariable Means Standard D e v i ations Initial Test 30.500 10.752 Retest 30.438 9. 550 ***Significant at the Correlation Coeffic ients Probabili ty 83 .0 0 1 * * * .001 level. The PILO instrument appears to be s u f f i ciently re- liable for the sample under study Interview Format The personal s e m i - s truc tured interview w i t h the eighteen p a r t i c i p a t i n g princi pals was designed to provide information to: 1. Compare w ith their self-perceptions of their actual instructional leadership b ehavior taken from the PILO. 2. Determine the degree of c o r r elatio n b e ­ tween the p r i o r i t y that principals give to the defined role areas and the amount of time they allocate to each role area. The interview stage co nsisted of the following: 1. Greeting and introduction 2. E x p l anation of the research p r o b l e m and instruments 3. Ideal T as k Rankings of the ten defined role areas 66 4. Indication of the percentage of time allocated to each of the ten role areas 5. Discussion and comparison of the Task Rankings with Role Area Time Allocations and a 6. General discussion of the administra­ tor's role. The ideal Task Ranking was organized as a modified Q-sort with one defined role area and explanation printed on each card. C. The Q-sort deck is illustrated in Appendix Each principal was asked to arrange the ten cards, listing the ten role areas, from most important to least important according to the ideal value a principal should grant these role areas to be an effective principal. A Role Area Time Allocation Worksheet was developed for recording the principal's estimated recollection of the amount of time allocated to each role area. The worksheet is illustrated in Appendix C. Data Collection Survey Data The twenty-five randomly selected principals from the district pool were contacted by telephone in consecu­ tive order until a sample of one elementary principal from each of eighteen urban fringe school districts had agreed to participate in the research project. Each participating principal was asked to specify the name of the person that 67 s up e rv i se s ^ elementary principals in the school district. Each superintendent, of the eighteen participating principals, was contacted by telephone and told that one of their elementary principals had agreed to participate in the research study. An explanation of the purpose of the study was given to each superintendent, followed by a r e ­ quest for permission to conduct the study in the district. Permission being granted, superintendents were asked to participate by responding to a form of the Principal structional Leadership Opinionnaire. In­ All eighteen super­ intendents agreed to participate and were sent a letter (see Appendix B) confirming the telephone agreement and a copy of the PILO-form S along with a stamped self-addressed envelope. The eighteen participating principals were again contacted by telephone to schedule a date and time to c ol­ lect the survey data and conduct the semi-structured inter­ view. Interviews were scheduled during a six week period from January 24, 1977 to March 4, 1977. The data collec­ tion plan was to interview the principal and administer the PILO to the principal and teachers during the same school visit. All principals originally agreed to provide time for the researcher to meet with the staff, but later this ^Superintendent or other designated school offi­ cial . 68 was not available in two schools. Severe winter weather during the first two weeks of data collection forced the postponement of the scheduled meeting in three schools. One staff was unable to meet on the day of the interview, requiring the principal to distribute the PILO's to teach­ ers. In another school the principal, preferring not to call a special staff meeting, teachers. distributed P I L O ’s to the Individual instructions (see Appendix B) and self-addressed stamped envelopes were included with each copy of the PILO distributed by the two school principals. In excess of two-thirds of the PILO's distributed to teach­ ers by principals were returned to the researcher. The researcher completed the personal interviews with the e i g h ­ teen principals by March 2, 1977 and administered PILO's to all principals and the teachers of sixteen schools. Interview Data The semi-structured interview with each of the eighteen principals, to gather data to test the tenth h y ­ pothesis, required approximately forty minutes to complete. After a greeting and exchange of introductory remarks, each principal was reminded of the purpose of the present r e ­ search study and shown a copy of the Principal Instruction­ al Leadership Opinionnaire. Next, the principal was given a deck of ten Task Ranking Cards containing the ten defined 69 instructional leadership role areas organized as a modified Q-sort. After reading each role definition, the principal was asked to arrange the ten cards in rank order, from most important to least important, according to the ideal value a principal should grant these areas to be an effective principal. The Task Ranking order was recorded by the re ­ searcher for comparison with Role Area Time Allocations. A Role Area Time Allocation Worksheet was given to the p r i n ­ cipal, with directions to recollect and indicate on the worksheet an estimate of the percentage of time allocated to each of the ten role areas during the year. The principal's attention was next directed to any incongruence between the Role Area Time Allocations and the recorded Task Rankings as a basis for discussion. Commenc­ ing with this discussion, with the permission of the p r i n ­ cipal, the remainder of the interview was tape-recorded for ease of recollection and analysis by the researcher. The remainder of the interview centered around a discussion of the: 1. Reality of the principal as the instruc­ tional leader; 2. Practicality of the principal as the instructional leader; 3. Role areas where principals would like to allocate additional time and 70 4. Roadblocks to a principal realizing ideal role expectations. Procedures for Data Analysis Data for the present study were of two types; that collected through survey instruments completed by princi­ pals , superintendents and teachers, and data collected d u r ­ ing the interview of principals in the form of Task R a n k ­ ings and Role Area Time Allocations. Additional interview information was used to support statistical findings and lend credence to conclusions and recommendations. The survey responses on the PILO's were transferred from the instruments to scoring sheets by the researcher and subsequently electronically read and punched on comput­ er cards at the Michigan State University Scoring Office. Programs for the analysis of data were written for the SPSS Program with the assistance of consultants from the office of Research Consultation in the College of Edu­ cation at Michigan State University. After consultation it was decided that the nine hypotheses involving survey data should be tested by use of the t_-test for dependent groups at a .05 level of significance. Spearman's rank-correla- tion coefficient was selected to test the tenth hypothesis, involving the congruity of the Task Rankings and the Role Area Time Allocations, at a .05 level of significance. 71 The data were verified and processed through the CDC 6500 Computer at the Michigan State University C o mpu t­ er Center. Summary In Chapter III the research design and procedures used to accomplish the present study have been presented. A random sample of eighteen urban fringe elementary school principals, their superintendent and teachers participated in a survey of the actual perceptions and ideal expecta­ tions of elementary principals' behavior. instructional leadership These perceptions and expectations were measured on the Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire d e ­ veloped for the present study. Elementary principals in the sample were interview­ ed by the researcher after completing a Task Ranking and Role Area Time Allocation Worksheet of ten defined role are as. Descriptive statistics using the SPSS Package were generated with t^-tests and a Spearman rank-correlation c o ­ efficient through the use of the CDC 6500 Computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center. C H A P T E R IV A N A L Y S I S OF THE D A T A Introduction The present al instructional instructional study was d e s i g n e d to compare the a c t u ­ leadership role p e r c eptions and the ideal leadership role expectations principals by superintendents, mentary pr i n c i p a l s Michigan. for el e m e n t a r y el e m e n t a r y teachers and e l e ­ from u r b a n fringe school districts in Survey data were gathered w i t h the Principal structional L e a d e rship O p i n i o n n a i r e twenty-seven teacher, perintendents. (PILO) In­ from two h u n d red e i g hteen pr i n c i p a l s and eighteen s u ­ Interview data were g athered wit h the T a s k Ranking Deck and the Role Area Time A l l o c a t i o n Wo rksheet during s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d interviews w i th eighteen principals. The results of the analysis of the data c o l lecte d with the survey and interview instruments are p r e s e n t e d in this chapter. The first nin e hypotheses, related to the PILO data, w ere tested using t^-tests for d e p ende nt groups at an alpha level of .05. The tenth hypothesis, r e l ated to the i n t erv iew data, was tested using Spearman's rank-correlation c o e f f i c i e n t at an alpha level of .05. findings were use d to complement these data. 72 Interview 73 P r e s e n t a t i o n of the Data Hypothesis 1 El e m e n t a r y pri ncipals rate tional leadership role h i gher than they rate their actual instructional Hypothe sis ideal their ideal i n s t r u c ­ leadership role. 1 was tested by comparing the average instructional leadership score w i t h the a v e r a g e a c t u ­ al instructional leadership score c o m p u t e d for el e m e n t a r y principals from their PILO responses. results are shown cipals* The statistical in T a ble 4.1 and indicate ideal m e a n score was their actual m e a n score. that the p r i n ­ s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than H y p o t hesis 1 was therefore retained. TABLE 4.1 T - T E S T R E S U L T S FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 1 N - 18 One T a il ed P r o b a b i l i t y M B Varia ble M ea n Standard D e v iation Principals * Actual Score 108.389 13.95 Principals * Ideal Score 126.333 14.84 * **Signif icant b e y o n d the t Value 5.52 .001 alpha level. P .0005*** 74 Hypothesis 2 El e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their actual tional instruc­ leadership role higher than s u p e r i nten dents rate principals* actual instructional leaders hip role Hy p o t h e s i s actual 2 was instructional the average actual superintendents tested by c o m paring the average leadership score of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h instructional for principals. l e a d ersh ip score giv en by The statistical results of the _t-test are shown in Table 4.2 and suggest that the principals* actual m e a n score was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the superintendents* Hypothesis 2 w as actual m ean score for principals. therefore not retained. TABLE 4.2 T - T E S T R E S U L T S FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 2 N - 18 One T a i l e d P r o b a b i l i t y Va r iable M e an S t a ndard Deviation Principals Actual Score 108.389 13.95 Superintende nts Actual Score 109.944 10.74 t Value 44 P 333 75 Hypothesis 3 E l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s rate their actual tional leadersh ip role higher than teachers rate p r i n c i p a l s 1 actual Hy p o t h e s i s actual instruc­ 3 was ins tructional the average actual i nstructional tested by co m p a r i n g the average le a d e r s h i p score of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h instructional teachers for principals. t^-test are shown leade rship role. l e a d ership score given by The statisti cal results of the in Table 4.3 and indicate that the p r i n ­ c i p a l s 1 actual m e a n score was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than the t e a c h e r s 1 actual m e a n score for principals. Hypothesis 3 was therefore retained. TA BLE 4.3 T - TEST FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 3 N = 18 One T a i l e d P r o b a b i l i t y Va r i a b l e Mea n Sta ndard Deviation Principals1 Actual Score 108.389 13.95 Teachers 1 Actu a l Score 109.944 12.49 * * S i g nificant b e yond the t Value 3.25 .01 alpha level. P .0025** 76 Hypothesis 4 E l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s rate their ideal tional instruc­ leadersh ip role h i gher than s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s rate principals' actual instructional leadership role. Hyp o t h e s i s 4 was ideal instructional average actual perintende nts leadership score of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h the i nstructional le a d e r s h i p score g i v e n by s u ­ for principals. The statistical results of the _t-test are shown principals' tested by c o m p a r i n g the average in Table 4.4 and indicate that the ideal m e a n score was the superintendents* Hypothesis 4 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than actual m e a n score for principals. therefore retained. TABLE 4.4 T - T E S T FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 4 N * 18 One T a i l e d P r o b a b i l i t y Variable Mean Principals * Ideal Score 126.333 Superintendents * Actual Score 109.944 Standar d Deviation 14.84 t Value 4.56 10.74 ***Si g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d the .001 alpha level. P .0005*** 77 Hypothesis 5 Elementary principals rate their ideal instruc­ tional leadership role higher than teachers rate principals' actual instructional leadership role. Hypothesis 5 was tested by comparing the average ideal instructional leadership score of principals with the average actual instructional leadership score given by teachers for principals. The statistical results of the t-test are shown in Table 4.5 and indicate that the princi­ pals ideal mean score was significantly higher than the teachers' actual mean score for principals. Hypothesis 5 was therefore retained. TABLE 4.5 T-TEST FOR HYPOTHESIS 5 N - 18 One Tailed Probability Variable Principals * Ideal Score Teachers' Actual Score Mean 126.333 94.639 Standard Deviation 14.84 t Value 7.66 12.49 ***Significant beyond the .001 alpha level. P .0005*** 78 Hypothesis 6 E l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s rate their ideal i n s t r u c ­ tional le a d e r s h i p role h i ghe r t ha n s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s rate principals' ideal in structional l e a d ership role. Hyp othesis ideal 6 was tested by c o m p a ring the average instructional average ideal perintendents' leaders hip instructional score of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h the leadership score g i ven by s u ­ for principals. The statistical results of the _t-test are shown in Table 4.6 and suggest that there is no sig nificant d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the ideal m e a n scores of p r i n c i p a l s and superintendents. Hy p o t h e s i s 6 was t h e r e ­ fore not retained. TABLE 4.6 T-TE S T FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 6 N - 18 One T a i l e d Pro b a b i l i t y Variable Mean Standard Deviation Principals' Ideal Score 126.333 14. 84 Superintendents * Ideal Score 121.222 12. 37 t V alue 1.32 P .102 79 Hypothesis 7 Teachers rate principals' instructional lead­ ership role higher than princ ipals rate their ideal instructional l e a d ership role. Hypothe sis ideal 7 was instructional average ideal le a d e r s h i p score of p r i n c i p a l s w i t h the teachers for principals. ers* tested by comparing the average instructional t^-test are shown ideal leaders hip score given by The statistical results of the in Table 4.7 and indicate that the t e a c h ­ ideal m e a n score for pri n c i p a l s was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the principals' ideal m e a n score. H y p o thesis 7 was therefore not r e t a i n e d and it appe ared that the p r i n c i ­ pals' score m a y be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the teachers* scores for principals. TABLE 4.7 T - TEST FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 7 N - 18 One Tailed P r o b a b i l i t y Variable Mean Standard Deviation t V a lue P -3.17 .0 0 3a Principals' Ideal Score 126.333 14.84 Teachers * Ideal Score 115.372 5. 77 aA l t h o u g h appearing to be signif icant b e y o n d the .05 alpha level, results were not in the di r e c t i o n hypothesized. 80 Hypothesis 8 Superintendents rate principals' ideal instruction­ al leadership role higher than principals rate their actual instructional leadership role. Hypothesis 8 was tested by comparing the superin­ tendents' average ideal instructional leadership score for principals with the principals' average ideal instructional leadership score given by superintendents for principals. The statistical results of the t^-test are shown in Table 4.8 and indicate that superintendents rate principals' ideal score significantly higher than principals rate their actual score. Hypothesis 8 was therefore retained. TABLE 4.8 T-TEST FOR HYPOTHESIS 8 N - 18 One Tailed Probability Variable Principals * Actual Score Mean Standard Deviation 108.389 13. 95 Superintendents' Ideal 121.222 Score 12.37 t Value 2.98 **Significant beyond the .01 alpha level. P .004** 81 Hypothesis 9 Teachers rate principals' ideal instructional lead­ ership role h i g h e r than p r i n c i p a l s rate their actual inst ructional le a d e r s h i p role. Hy p o t h e s i s 9 was average ideal instructional with principals' score. tested by c o m p ari ng the teachers' leadership score for pr i n c i p a l s average actual inst ructional leadership The stati stical results of the t^-test are shown Table 4.9 and indicate that teachers rate principals' in ideal score s i g n i f i c a n t l y high e r than p r i n c i p a l s rate their a c ­ tual score. H y p o t hesis 9 was therefore retained. TA BLE 4.9 T - T E S T FOR H Y P O T H E S I S 9 N * 18 One T a i l e d P r o b a b i l i t y V ariable Mean Standar d Deviation Principals' Act ual Score 108.389 13.95 Teachers * Ideal Score 115.372 5.77 • Signific ant b e y o n d the t Value 2.20 .05 alpha level. P .021* 82 Hypothesis 10 There is no si gnificant di f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the ideal p r i o r i t y e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s give their def ined role areas and the amount of time they a l l ocate to the d e f i n e d role areas. The tenth hypothesis, r e l a t e d to data g a t h e r e d d u r ­ ing the interviews wit h p r i n c ipals, was man's r a n k - c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient. tested w i t h S p e a r ­ D i f f ere nces b e t w e e n Task R a n k i n g s and Role Are a Time A l l o c a t i o n Ranks wer e a n ­ alyzed b y c o m p u t i n g a S p e arman r a n k - c o r r e l a t i o n coe f f i c i e n t (rs ) for each principal. Each of the e i g h t e e n c o r r e l a t i o n coefficien ts was c o n v e r t e d to a sta ndard Z score using Fisher's Z - t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .* The eighteen s t a ndard scores were a v e r a g e d p r o d u c i n g an average Z score for the group. This avera ge Z score was then t r a n s f o r m e d to one r s score in order to o b t a i n the average r s score for the e i g hteen principals An (see Table 4.10). avera ge r s score of .758 s i g n ificant at the .02 alpha level was o b t a i n e d for the e i g hteen principals. This r s v alue i n d icated that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y posit i v e r e l a t i o n ­ ship e x i st ed b e t w e e n e l e m e n t a r y principals' ideal T ask Rankings and their Role A r e a Time Allocations. This hig h *Gene V. Glass and J u l i a n C. Stanley, Statistical Met hods In E d u c a t i o n and P s y c h o l o g y (Englewood Cliffs, N ew J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c ., 1970), p. 265. 83 correlation s u g g e s t e d that p r i n c i p a l s spend mos t of their time d o i n g things c o n s i s t e n t w i t h their ideal role area values and t h e r e f o r e H y p o thesis 10 was retained. TABLE 4.10 C O M P U T A T I O N OF SAMPLE r s N - 18 Principal By School District Code Fisher Z rs 01 - .079 - .079 02 .800 .803 1. 099 03 04 .612 1.111 .712 05 .855 1. 274 06 07 .900 .894 1.472 1. 442 08 .373 .392 09 . 734 .938 10 11 .736 .942 .879 1.372 12 .806 1.116 13 .382 .402 14 .818 1.151 15 1.116 16 .806 .834 1. 201 17 .894 1.442 18 .618 .722 Z« ^ S i g nificant b e y o n d the 18 - .990 - r s - .758* .05 level. 84 Additional Analysis In order to test whether principals ranked the a c ­ tual time spent on certain role areas significantly differ­ ent than the rank they ideally would like to assign the role areas, average Task Ranks for the role areas were compared with average Role Area Time Allocations. Ten t^-tests for paired samples were performed. A conservative alpha level of .01 was selected for this e x ­ ploratory analysis. Scores for each role area were not independent of each other. Results are shown in Table 4.11, and indicate that the actual Administration and O f ­ fice Management role area ranks are significantly higher than the ideal ranks principals indicate as being desir­ able . It was concluded that principals spend more time working in Administration and Office Management role areas than they feel the areas warrant. TABLE 4.11 T-TESTS FOR ROLE AREAS N = 18 Role Area Actual Mean Ideal Mean Difference t-value P Administration 4.56 6.88 + 2.32 -3.55 .002** Building maintenance 7.81 8.44 + .63 - .45 .659 Business and finance 8.39 7.50 - .89 +1.30 .212 Curriculum activities 3.14 2.42 - .72 + 2.08 .05 Evaluation 3.00 2.44 - .56 +1.69 .109 Inservice 6.42 5.27 -1.15 + 2.19 .042 Office management 6.06 7.77 + 1.71 -3.00 .008** Public relations 4.28 3.94 - .34 +1.01 .328 School climate 2.50 2.13 - .37 + .88 .391 Supply management 8.42 8.00 - .42 +1.37 .187 ^Significant beyond the .01 alpha level. 86 I nterview Findings The interview d i s c u s s i o n w i t h each pri ncipal c e n ­ tered around the: 1. Role areas where the principal w o uld like to spend additional time; 2. R oadblocks to the principal rea lizing role expectations; 3. Reality of the principal serving as the dom inant instructional leader and 4. Pra c t i c a l i t y of the p r i n cipal serving as the do minant instructional leader. Almost all pr i n c i p a l s ideal interviewed e x p r essed a d e ­ sire to devote additional time to some p a r t i c u l a r role area. The majority, a p p r o x i m a t e l y two-thirds, that they w o u l d like to do more indicated in the C u r r i c u l u m and/or Inservice role areas. Expression s by three p r i n cipals were typical: "I would d e f i n i t e l y like to spend more time in c u r r i c u l u m and inservice." "I'd like to do more it's ver y important." "Inserv ice in curriculum; I think is an area we w o u l d like to increase." A few pr i n c i p a l s also m e n t i o n e d a desire to i n ­ crease their involvement in either school climate or evaluation. When discussing roadblock s to a t t aining ideal role expectations, most princ ipals e xpressed a "lack of time" as the p r i m a r y deterrent. A r e p r e s e ntative c omment was, "I am 87 d e f i n i t e l y n ot s p e n d i n g time w h e r e I'd like to. almost a ny p r i n c i p a l w o u l d tell y o u that. There I think is w a y too much d e a l i n g w i t h o f f i c e m a n a g e m e n t and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " N e a r l y h a l f of the p r i n c i p a l s r e f e r r e d to the fact that a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o f f i c e m a n a g e m e n t r e q u i r e too m u c h time. C o m m e n t s were: a ssignmen ts, " T oo m a n y times, paperwork, lated to the things I think we're given r e p o r t s and such that are n ot r e ­ that are important." "If the y t ook some of the o f f i c e s t u f f away, m a y b e we c o u l d m a i n t a i n o u r ­ selves for i n s t r u c t i o n a l have m e e t i n g s there leadership." "Lots o f times for the sake of m e e t i n g . " (administration) T h ese f e e l i n g s elementary principals that p r i n c i p a l s is b e c a u s e they "Most o f w h a t I do I have to." e x p r e s s e d by a large p e r c e n t a g e of s u p p o r t the f i n d i n g s spend s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e in T a ble 4.11 time areas of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a nd O f f i c e M a n a g e m e n t in the role t h an they d e s i r e .3 The r e a l i t y and p r a c t i c a l i t y o f the p r i n c i p a l ing as the d o m i n a n t instructional leader was not t o t a l l y resolved. The o p i n i o n s wer e e v e n l y d i v i d e d w i t h principals e x p r e s s i n g support the i n s t r u c t i o n a l serv­ seven for the role o f p r i n c i p a l as l e a d e r and s e v e n p r e f e r r i n g to be v i e w e d ^In T h e E f f e c t i v e E x e c u t i v e (p. 51), P e ter D r u c k e r states, "One still gives p r i o r i t y in o n e ' s m i n d a nd in one's s c h e d u l e to the less im p o r t a n t things, the things that h a v e to b e d one e v e n t h o u g h they c o n t r i b u t e l i t t l e . " 88 as staff facilitators rather than instructional leaders. Supporters said: "I think the princi pal the instructional l e a d e r . ” istic to be an instructional "It is v e r y p r a c ti cal and r e a l ­ leader, not an expert area, but overall the pr incipal person." should be sets the tone and is a key "I v e r y d e f i n i t e l y do feel the principal be the instructional leader; I feel example b y innovating; should I k n o w h o w to teach." "Principals are an extension of the teaching staff; should be resource persons. in every A pr i n c i p a l they should set the by a c t u a l l y doing some teaching." Principals feeling that do m i n a t i o n of the i n s t r u c ­ tional le adership area is not their style said: "We are not instructional In essence, leaders, but staff facilitators. we are ma nagers or m i ddle managers. you*re a foreman." "A pr i n c i p a l can't be the total structional leader for a bu i l d i n g . " but a leader in setting c l i m ate in­ "Not a m a s t e r teacher, in the build i n g that sets teachers free to think and imagine." er; To be real l y honest, "I was n e ver a t e a c h ­ I don't feel co mfortable about m a k i n g suggestions except for the general things." Four princi pals were un d e c i d e d about the p r a c t i c a l ­ ity and r e a lity of the p r i n cipal as the dominant instruc­ tional leader or failed to express an opinion. D i v e rgence of o p i n i o n and any a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c ­ tion w i t h PILO dat a appeared to center on each pri n c i p a l ' s 89 definition of i nstruct ional leadership, administrative style or d e gree of s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e p e r m i t t i n g d o m i n a t i o n of the le adership of specific instructional areas. N one of the interviewed p r i n c i p a l s e x p r essed the o p i n i o n that p r i n ­ cipals should not be a c t i v e l y involved w i t h instructional leadership. V a r i a n c e was e x p r e s s e d o nly in the d e gr ee and style of leadership. Staff Feedb a c k In an effort to v a l i d a t e the initial data c o l l e c ­ tion contacts w i t h e l e m e n t a r y pr i n c i p a l s and e l e m e n t a r y teachers, and seeking to p r o v i d e c o m p l e m e n t a r y i nformation about the r e s earch findings, the re s e a r c h e r r e v i sited two e l e m entary school teaching staffs during M a y 1977. teachers, r e p r e s e n t i n g over hal f of the teachers schools, p a r t i c i p a t e d in a b r i e f p e r s o n a l Eleven in the two interview. The i n t e rview sessions c o n s i s t e d of a d i s c u s s i o n of the following: 1. What m a kes y o u h a p p y to teach at this school? 2. What makes this a good school? 3. What is the d e c i s i o n m a k i n g process at this school? 4. What things w o u l d you change at this school if y o u h ad the p o wer? R e s ponses to the first two questions are shown in Table 4.12 a nd Table 4.13. 90 TABLE 4.12 INTERVIEW RESPONSES TO QUESTION 1 N - 11 Question 1: What makes you happy to teach at this school? Responses Number of responses* Freedom 3 Kids 4 Materials 4 Parents 2 Principal 5 Staff 5 *Some teachers gave two or imore responses. TABLE 4. 13 INTERVIEW RESPONSES TO QUESTION 2 N = 11 Question 2: What makes this a good school? Responses Number of responses* Freedom 3 Kids 1 Parents 1 Principal 6 Staff 6 *Some teachers gave two or more responses. 91 Question three, dealing with the decision making process in the schools, produced quite different responses in each school. The first principal has no formal decision making process, although staff members are consulted before many decisions are reached. Staff members said the princi­ pal makes the decisions in their school. They were gener­ ally satisfied, but would like to be systematically c o n ­ sulted before decisions involving them are made final. The second principal provides for a very formal decision making process through a biweekly staff meeting for reaching decisions. Any teacher may present a topic for the agenda one week in advance at the regular staff meeting ordirectly to the principal. During the decision making meeting parliamentary procedures are followed, al ­ lowing each interested person an opportunity to voice an opinion prior to a formal vote. Topics of limited interest are delegated to committees for decisions at a later m e e t ­ ing. Teachers were generally happy with the formal d e c i ­ sion making process; They especially like the opportunity for staff input on decisions. The major negative feature is the time consuming discussion that can be tedious on occasion. be changed. No teacher expressed a desire for the process to 92 Only a few teachers responded to the fourth q u e s ­ tion reflecting changes they would make at their school if they had the power. The responses indicate that teachers would like their principal to visit in the classrooms more frequently. Summary Results of nine directional hypotheses related to survey data and tested with t^-tests at an alpha level of .05 are summarized in Table 4.14. Hypothesis 10 There is no significant difference between the ideal priority elementary principals give their defined role areas and the amount of time they allocate to the defined role areas. The tenth hypothesis related to interview data and tested with Spearman's rank-correlation coefficient at a .05 alpha level was retained based on an rs value of .758, indicating a significantly positive relationship exists be tween principals' ideal Task Rankings and actual Role Area Time Allocation Rankings. An experimental analysis of interview role area data tested with t^tests at a conservative alpha of .05 suggested that principals spend significantly more time in 93 T A B L E 4.14 S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S OF S U R V E Y D A T A H Y P O T H E S E S Tabled Results H y p o t h e s is P Decis ion (PI>PA) 4.1 Retained .000 5*** Hypothes is 2 (PA>SA) 4.2 Not Retained . 333 Hy p o t h e s i s 3 (PA>TA) 4.3 Retained .0025** Hypothesis 4 (PI>SA) 4.4 Retained .0005*** Hyp othes is 5 (PI>TA) 4.5 Retained .0005*** Hypothe sis 1 Hy p o t h e s i s 6 (PI>SI) 4.6 N ot R e t a i n e d .102 Hy p o t h e s i s 7 (TI>PI) 4. 7 No t R e t a i n e d .0 0 3 a Hy p o t h e s i s 8 (SI>PA) 4.8 Retained .004** Hypothesis 9 (TI>PA) 4.9 Retained .021* * S i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d the .05 a l p h a level. ** S i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d the .01 a l p h a level. * * * S i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d the .001 a l p h a level. aA l t h o u g h a p p e a r i n g to be s i g n i f i c a n t b e y o n d a .05 a l p h a level, r e sults w e r e not in the h y p o t h e s i z e d directi on. L e gend for T a b l e 4.14 PA: Principals* a c tual PI: SA: Princi pals' ideal i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p score. Superintendents' actual instructional leadership s c ore for pr i n c i p a l s . SI: S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ' ideal score for pri ncipals. TA: Teachers' actual principals. T I : Teachers* ideal principals. instructional l e a d e r s h i p score. instructional instructional instructional leadership leadership score for l e a d e r s h i p score for 94 Administration and Office Management role areas than they feel the areas warrant. Interview findings from eighteen principals support the conclusion of the experimental analysis, however, p r i n ­ cipals are equally divided on the reality and practicality of the principal being the instructional leader. Brief interviews with eleven teachers in two schools revisited two months after data collection tended to validate the findings from the original data. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, C O N C L U S I O N S AN D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S Summary The rese a r c h e r ' s p u r p o s e termine in this study was if s i g n i fic ant difference s perception s and ideal expe ctations to d e ­ exist b e t w e e n the actual for the instructional leadership role of M i c h i g a n u r b a n fringe e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i ­ pals as p e r c e i v e d by themselves, superintendents. Additionally, their teachers and their the study was designed, through inclusion of interviews wit h e l e m e n t a r y school principals, to reflect an added d i m e n s i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the el e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l ' s instructional lead ership role in r e l a t i o n to the total b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e role. The relevant II. literature was d i s c u s s e d in Cha pter The section on remaking the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p prese nted the idea that instructional l e a d ership for the improvement of instructio n is the h i g h e s t form of a c h i e v e ­ ment for principals. Included in the chapter was a d i s ­ cussion of the o r i g i n and d e v e l opmen t o f the e l e m e n t a r y p rin c i p a l s h i p and a role analysis of the e l e m e n t a r y p r i n ­ cipalship . 95 96 A sample size of eighteen elementary principals was determined as being sufficiently large for the desired st a ­ tistical treatment, while remaining small enough to permit personal interviews to be conducted at school locations. From a population of one hundred thirty urban fringe school districts, twenty-five districts were randomly selected to form a district pool from which to randomly select eighteen elementary principals. The selected principals were c o n ­ tacted by telephone in consecutive order until eighteen principals from eighteen districts had agreed to p a r t i c i ­ pate in the research study. The sample also included the eighteen district superintendents and two hundred twentyseven participating teachers. Survey data were collected from all participants with the Principals Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire (PILO) developed for this study by the researcher. Inter­ view data were collected from the eighteen principals with the Task Ranking Deck and the Role Area Time Allocation Worksheet. Personal interviews with the principals p r o ­ duced findings which were then related to the statistically treated data findings. Actual and ideal instructional leadership scores gathered with the PILO were analyzed to test the first nine directional hypotheses using dependent t_-tests at an alpha of .05. The tenth hypothesis related to the interview 97 data was t e s t e d w i t h S p e a r m a n ’s r a n k - c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i ­ cient at an a l p h a o f .05. The d a t a w e r e p r o g r a m m e d w i t h the SPSS P r o g r a m for s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t i n g at the M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y C o m p u t e r Center. Fi n d i n g s The nine directional hypotheses, data, w e r e c o m b i n e d discussion. As into five groups e x p e ct ed, Hypothesis cat ing t hat e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s * l e a d e r s h i p rol e e x p e c t a t i o n s w e r e their a c tual instructional A l t h o u g h no surprise, instructional Hypotheses to f a c i l i t a t e 1 wa s ideal their retained indi­ instructional s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than l e a d e r s h i p rol e p e r c e p t i o n s . the r e s ults i n d i c a t e d that e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s d e s i r e to s u b s t a n t i a l l y their r e l a t e d to PILO improv e a n d l e a d e r s h i p r ole increase involvement. 2 a nd 6 w e r e not r e t a i n e d s u g g e s t i n g that t h er e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the p r i n ­ cipals* a nd s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ' ship rol e p e r c e p t i o n s perintendents' tions. actual ideal actual or b e t w e e n the p r i n c i p a l s ' instructional A l t h o u g h not s i g n i f i c a n t , instructional may exist. leader­ and s u ­ l e a d e r s h i p rol e e x p e c t a ­ the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s * l e a d e r s h i p role p e r c e p t i o n s c ore e x ­ ceeded the p r i n c i p a l s ' p e r c e p t i o n score. instructional actu a l instructional l e a d e r s h i p role Two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s for this First, m o s t of the p r i n c i p a l s tend e d to be tre nd 98 modest w h e n d i s c u s s i n g plishments during self-perceptions the p e r s o n a l of t h eir a c c o m ­ intervie ws. Se c o n d l y , one s u p e r i n t e n d e n t c o m m e n t e d to his p r i n c i p a l that n o t r e a l i z ­ ing e x a c t l y w h a t the p r i n c i p a l instructional leade rship rol e area, d id in the he gave his p r i n c i p a l the b e n e f i t of the doubt a nd c o n s e q u e n t l y he m a y h ave g i v e n his p r i n c i p a l an u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y h i g h actual instructional leadership role score. W h a t e v e r the causes, indicate that there r e s u l t s of H y p o t h e s e s is c l o s e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s pals* 2 and 6 p e r c e i v e d an d e x p e c t e d in r e l a t i o n to the p r i n c i ­ instructional l e a d e r s h i p role. Why p r i n c i p a l and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s a n d e x p e c t a ­ tions w e r e c o n g r u e n t can o n l y be speculated. real c o n d i t i o n , the n sonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s it m a y be If this that p r i n c i p a l s ' are s t r o n g e r w i t h is a inter-per­ superintendents than with their t e a c h e r s . Hypotheses 3 and h o wever o n l y H y p o t h e s i s 7 was s t ated to exist. 7 produced significant results, 3 was reported because Hypothesis in the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n fro m w h a t w as The r e s u l t s of b o t h H y p o t h e s e s agr eement a n d s u g g e s t al and e x p e c t t h e i r 3 and that p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e ideal instructional in t h eir a c t u ­ leadership behavior to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e i r teachers' tional 7 are f o und instruc­ l e a d e r s h i p r ole p e r c e p t i o n s a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s . 99 Agreeing with Sarason,* principals far less that t e a che rs f r e q u e n t l y t h a n one w o u l d think, t h e refore their p e r c e p t i o n s s e l f - e x p e c t a t i o n s o f the ship role. The r e s u l t s i n d i cate faulty t h i n k i n g a n d that in fact tional for l e a d e r s h i p role t han their principals* desire the r e s e a r c h e r t e a chers w o u l d h o l d h i g h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s their p r i n c i p a l s 1 inst r u c t i o n a l pals* and of the role of the p r i n c i p a l are b a s e d on a n a r r o w s a mple of e x p e rience, s u s p e c t e d that interact with instructional leader­ that this w as p r o b a b l y it a p pears that p r i n c i ­ to p e r f o r m at s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r l e a d e r s h i p r ole levels t h a n t h ei r instruc­ teachers* expecta­ tions for them. As a n t i c i p a t e d , Hypotheses 4 and 5 w e r e r e t a i n e d i n d i cating that e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s ' leade rship role e x p e c t a t i o n s their teachers* a nd t h e i r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s * instruc­ an d the a m o u n t of i n d i c a t e a v e r y large r a n g e of d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the p r i n c i p a l s ' ers' actual t han Although somewhat the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s ults mean d i f f e r e n c e instructional are s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r tional l e a d e r s h i p r ole p e r c e p t i o n s . obvious, ideal ideal e x p e c t a t i o n s a nd s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ' a n d t h eir t e a c h ­ a c tual p e r c e p t i o n s . ^-Seymour B. Sarason, Th e C u l t u r e of the S c h o o l and the P r o b l e m of C h a n g e (Boston! A l l y n 5 Bacon, I n c . , 1971), p! 114. 100 Tru e to e x p e c t a t i o n s , tained a nd indicate Hypotheses that ideal instructional role e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d b y t e a chers their p r i n c i p a l s pals' actual instructional for than the p r i n c i ­ leadership perceptions. A g a in, the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the results and the amount of m e a n d i f f e r e n c e i n d icate a m o d e r a t e of d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the p r i n c i p a l s ' l e a d ership ro l e p e r c e p t i o n s ideal leadership and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r a l t hough s o m e w h a t obv io u s , intendents* 8 and 9 were r e ­ a c tual instructional a nd their teachers* instructional r a nge and s u p e r ­ leadership role e x p e c t a ­ tions . Hypothesis tained. 10 r e l a t e d to i n t e r v i e w data was r e ­ A n a v e r a g e r s score o f alpha level .758 s i g n i f i c a n t at the .02 i n d i c a t e d that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e r e l a ­ tionship e x i s t e d b e t w e e n e l e m e n t a r y p r i n cipals' ideal T a s k Ranki n g s and their Rol e A r e a T i m e A l l o c a t i o n s . Relevant literature a n d r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t e d that p r i n c i p a l s o f t e n hav e n ot done w h a t has b e e n e x p e c t e d of them b y t h e m s e l v e s and others. high c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n the and the actual a ideal total role a r e a score total rol e a rea score. couraging and appears principals S u r p r i s i n g l y there was to i n d icate that, This r e s u l t overall, is e n ­ elementary s a t i s f a c t o r i l y a c c o m p l i s h a s i z a b l e a m o u n t of their role e x p e c t a t i o n s . In o r d e r to test w h e t h e r p r i n c i p a l s r a n k e d actual 101 time spent in certain role areas significantly different than they ideally would like to assign the role areas, average Task Rankings for role areas were compared with average ranked Role Area Time Allocations. Because this procedure was not directly testing Hypothesis 10, a conser­ vative alpha of .01 was selected for this experimental analysis. The researcher hoped that examination of the role area data from a different perspective would reveal significant differences between certain actual and ideal role area scores. Ten ranked t-tests for paired samples revealed that two actual ranked role area scores were significantly dif­ ferent from the two same ideal ranked role area scores. The finding that principals spend significantly more time than they desire in the role areas of Administration and Office Management supports some research findings and lit­ erature. Referring to Chapter II (page 35) of this study, Frank^ found that his study seemed to indicate that prin c i ­ pals are actually giving primary emphasis to clerical and administrative tasks. Unlike Frank's finding, Administration and Office Management role areas were not ranked highest by elementary ^Roland G. Frank, "An Analysis of the Communica­ tions Patterns of Selected Elementary Principals in Michi­ gan" (Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969), pp. 78-79. 102 principals in this study. Three of the four instructional leadership role areas, defined in this study as Curriculum Activities, Evaluation, Inservice and School Climate, were ranked highest by participating principals. Only the In- service role area failed to rank in the top half of the role area rankings, Administration. falling just below Public Relations and School Climate was top ranked, Evaluation second and Curriculum Activities ranked third for a strong representation by the instructional leadership role areas. This finding lends support to much of the literature sug­ gesting that principals consider instructional leadership for the improvement of instruction as their highest achievement and greatest responsibility. Interview findings revealed that most elementary principals desire to increase their involvement in instruc­ tional leadership role areas. Nearly half of the prin ci­ pals indicated that they spend too much time in the role areas of Administration and Office Management. It was puzzling to the researcher that elementary principals' and superintendents' perceptions and expecta­ tions would be most alike, when most principals indicated during the interviews a desire to be more involved in instructional leadership areas at the deprivation of A d m i n ­ istration and Office Management. Why do teachers observe, expect and desire less instructional leadership by 103 principals tion or than s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s ? is it a m a t t e r of d i f f e r e n c e s reasonable expectations? unab l e T he instructional leader P r i n cipals* think t h eir p r i n c i p a l s leader. to be to serve as the i n d i c a t e d that they S e v e n of the e i g h t e e n p r i n ­ the p h i l o s o p h i c c o n c e p t o f the p r i n c i p a l leader. it is p r a c t i c a l er, p r e f e r r i n g that t e a c h e r s the p r a c t i c a l i t y a n d r e a l i t y o f b e ­ b e i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n a l do not and employed were the d e g r e e interview responses instructional s u p port in p e r c e p t i o n s in the school. remain undecided about ing the r e a l l y the s i t u a ­ instruments to g a t h e r d a t a to d e t e r m i n e or s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s d e s i r e cipals Is this Another to be the seven p r i n c i p a l s instructional staff facilitators. lead­ Four p r i n c i p a l s wer e u n d e c i d e d a b o u t the p r a c t i c a l i t y a n d r e a l i t y of the principal the s e r v i n g as instructional l e a d e r or f a i l e d to e x p r e s s an opinion. Results principal te a ching s e r v i n g as the s t aff It a p p e a r s s t r u ctional either indicate that the c o n c e p t of the e l e m e n t a r y instructional leader is o n l y m o d e r a t e l y for the supported by principals. t ha t r o l e a m b i g u i t y w i l l c o n t i n u e for the i n ­ l e a d e r s h i p r ole u n til one p h i l o s o p h i c p o s i t i o n , the p r i n c i p a l as the instructional p r i n c i p a l as a s t a f f f a c i l i t a t o r , Most principals l e a d e r or the dominates the other. f a v o r i n g the s t a ff f a c i l i t a t o r p h i l o s o p h y w e r e n ot w i l l i n g to a c c e p t the idea of 104 principals being mere functionaries or managers. This r e ­ futed a dissenting opinion in the literature. A majority of the eleven teachers interviewed on a revisit at two sample schools were very supportive and complimentary of their principals. Although positive c r i t ­ ical suggestions were given, the researcher was encouraged by the presence of a happy staff and a positive school climate. The principals were highly regarded and were given much of the credit for the good school and the p o s ­ itive school climate. Conclusions It was concluded from the survey data gathered and analyses performed that elementary principals desire to significantly improve their instructional leadership from their present level of accomplishment. Additionally, it was concluded that principals perceive their level of in­ structional leadership as being significantly higher than teachers perceive principals' havior. instructional leadership b e ­ It appears that principals may desire to improve their instructional leadership beyond the expectations teachers indicate as desirable. Principals desired an in­ structional leadership level significantly higher than teachers' and superintendents' perceptions of the present level of instructional leadership. Finally, teachers' 105 and superintendents' desired instructional leadership ex­ pectations were significantly higher than the principals' actual perceived accomplishments. It was concluded from interview data that princi­ pals' overall actual and ideal role areas are highly corre­ lated. This high correlation does suggest that a low level of cognitive dissonance prevails among elementary princi­ pals, but does not indicate an accurate measure of job satisfaction or happiness. Principals indicated during interviews that they would like to spend less time in A d ­ ministration and Office Management and more time in in­ structional leadership areas. There appears to be a genuine desire among princi­ pals to improve instructional leadership effectiveness even though all principals do not desire to function as a dom i ­ nant instructional leader. This being the case, it was concluded that principals must develop an expertise in cur­ riculum areas allowing for credible instructional leader­ ship . It is hoped that this research study may assist and encourage elementary principals to examine their instruc­ tional leadership philosophy and function. Likewise, as one reenters college for advanced training in administra­ tion, it is hoped that one will be exposed to the opportu­ nity for development of instructional leadership expertise. 106 Recommendations The findings in this study indicated that instruc­ tional leadership is a desired and expected role for e le­ mentary school principals. However, because this study was necessarily limited in scope, generalizations should be limited to the described or similar population. In this light, the following recommendations are made: 1. Additional research studies should be under­ taken to verify, refute and/or complement the findings of this study. 2. Instruments should be developed that will measure instructional leadership without relying exclusively on perceptions and expectations. 3. Research studies should be undertaken to explore the variables and conditions at schools where the principal's and the teachers' instructional leadership role perceptions and expectations are congruent. 4. Research studies should be undertaken to e x ­ plore variables and conditions in school dis­ tricts where the principals' and the super­ intendent's instructional leadership role perceptions and expectations are congruent. 107 5. A replication of this study might be made involving the population of all elementary school principals in Michigan or the p o p ­ ulation of principals from school districts in different community type classifications. 6. A study should be undertaken to investigate the need for an administration preparation program for career building administrators with appropriate emphasis on instructional leadership. 7. A study should be undertaken to investigate the degree of self-confidence and expertise exhibited by elementary principals in instructional leadership role areas. 8. Variables and conditions such as leadership style and staff morale should be investi­ gated in buildings where the principal serves as an instructional leader. 9. Variables and conditions such as leadership style and staff morale should be investi­ gated in buildings where the principal serves as a staff facilitator. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CLASSIFICATIONS APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNITY TYPE 1. Metropolitan Core C i t i e s : Communities are classified as Metropolitan Core Cities if they meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) the community is the central city of a Michigan Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area; or (b) the community is an enclave within the central city of a Michigan Standard M e t r o ­ politan Statistical Area. (c) the community was previously classified as a Metropolitan Core City. N o t e : The U.S. Census Bureau defines the central city of a standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as those cities named in the titles of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. (See U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Washington: Bureau of the C e n s u s , 1968 J , pT 2.) 2. Cities: Communities are classified as Cities if they have a population of 10,000 or more and have not been c l assi­ fied as a Metropolitan Core City or Urban Fringe. 3. Towns: Communities are classified as Towns if they have a population of 2,S00 to 9,999. Rural communities im­ pacted by large military installations nearby are also classified as Towns. 108 109 4. Urban Fringe: Communities are classified as Urban Frin ge, regardless of their size, if they meet at least one of the follow­ ing criteria: 5. (a) the mailing address of the community is a Metropolitan Core City or a City unless it is on a RFD Route; or (b) the community is within ten miles of the center of a Metropolitan Core City; or (c) the community is within five miles of the center of a city. Rural: Communities are classified as Rural if they have a population of less than 2,500, or if their address is an RFD Route of a Town, City, Urban Fringe, or M e tro­ politan Core, and they lie outside the perimeter d e ­ fined above under Urban Fringe. APPENDIX A MICHIGAN K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED AS URBAN FRINGE Allen Park Public Schools Atherton Community School District Avondale School District Bangor Township Schools Bath Community Schools Bedford Public School District Beecher School District Bendle Public School District Bentley Community School District Berkley City School District Bloomfield Hills School District Brandywine Public School District Bridgeport Community School District Buena Vista School District Bullock Creek School District Carman School District Carrollton School District Center Line Public Schools Cherry Hill School District Chippewa Valley Schools City of Troy School District Clarenceville School District Clawson City School District Clintondale Public Schools Comstock Public Schools Comstock Park School District Corunna Public School District Crestwood School District Davison Community Schools De Witt Public Schools Dearborn City School District Dearborn Heights School District 7 Dexter Community School District East Grand Rapids Public Schools East Detroit City School District East Jackson Public Schools East Lansing School District Ecorse Public School District Essexville Hampton School District Farmington Public School District 110 Ill Ferndale City School District Fitzgerald Public Schools Flushing Community Schools Forest Hills Public Schools Fraser Public Schools Fruitport Community Schools Galesburg Augusta Community School District Genesee School District Godfrey Lee Public School District Godwin Heights Public Schools Grand Blanc Community Schools Grand Ledge Public Schools Grandville Public Schools Grass Lake Community Schools Grosse lie Township Schools Grosse Pointe Public Schools Harper Creek Community Schools Harper Woods City School District Haslett Public Schools Hazel Park City School District Holt Public Schools Jefferson Consolidated School District Jenison Public Schools Kearsley Community Schools Kelloggsville Public Schools Kenowa Hills Public Schools Kentwood Public Schools L'Anse Creuse Public Schools Lake Shore Public Schools Lakeshore School District Lakeview Consolidated School District Lakeview Public Schools Lamphere Schools Lincoln Consolidated School District Lincoln Park City Schools Madison Heights School District Marysville Public School District Melvindale North Allen Park School District Michigan Center School District Mona Shores School District Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools Napoleon School District North Dearborn Heights School District North Muskegon City School District Northview Public Schools Northville Public Schools Northwest School District Oak Park City School District 112 Oakridge School District Okemos Public Schools Orchard View Schools Parchment School District Pennfield School District Portage Public Schools Redford Union School District Reeths Puffer Schools River Rouge City Schools Riverview Community School District Roseville Community Schools Royal Oak City School District Saginaw Township Community Schools Saline Area School District South Lake Schools South Redford School District Southfield Public School District Southgate Community School District Spring Lake Public School District Springfield City School District Swan Valley School District Swartz Creek Community School District Taylor School District Trenton Public Schools Utica Community Schools Van Dyke Community Schools Vandercook Lake Public School District Warren Consolidated Schools Warren Woods Public Schools Waterford School District Waverly Schools Wayne-Westland Community Schools West Bloomfield Township School District West Ottawa Public School District Western School District Westwood Community Schools Westwood Heights School District Whitmore Lake Public School District Willow Run Public Schools Woodhaven School District Wyoming Public Schools Ypsilanti City School District1 1Michigan Department of Education, 1972-73 Third Report, Michigan Educational Assessment Program, "Local District and School Report: Explanatory," pp. 34-35. APPENDIX LETTERS APPENDIX B LETTER SENT TO SUPERINTENDENT January 22, 1977 Dear Regarding our conversation of January 22, 1977, I have enclosed a Principal Instructional Leadership Opinionnaire to be filled out in your office. It will be used in my study of the elementary principal's actual and ideal instructional leadership role. Responses from principals, superintendents and teachers will be compared. (Name of Principal) has agreed to participate in an inter­ view with me within the next few weeks. The teachers at Elementary School will be asked to volunteer responses to the same opinionnaire. All responses will be totally confidential, and no school or individual will be identified. Let me thank you in advance for your response and prompt return of the opinionnaire. Cordially, Roland D. Marmion 1612 D Spartan Village East Lansing, Michigan 48823 1 (517) 355 9747 113 APPENDIX B LETTER INCLUDED WITH FIELD TEST PILO'S January 3, 197 7 Dear Educator: People have different ideas about the instructional leader­ ship role of an elementary principal. As an elementary principal in Kentwood Public Schools near Grand Rapids, I have struggled to delineate my responsibility for instruc­ tional leadership. Your principal has agreed to participate in the field test­ ing of the instrument to be used in a research study that I am conducting as a basis for my doctoral dissertation. The study seeks to contribute to a better understanding of perceptions and expectations of the elementary principal as an instructional leader. On the following pages is a list of leadership items that may be used to describe your principal. Eighteen school districts in Michigan have been randomly selected for this study and your participation is important and will be greatly appreciated. Realizing that elementary teachers are very busy, this opinionnaire has been designed to be brief and still provide necessary information. About 10 minutes will be required to complete the opinionnaire. Field testing is a very important process to establish the degree of reliability that can be given to the instrument during data collection and analysis. Information provided will be anonymous and used only for establishing instrument reliability by the researcher. Please complete Part I to­ day and return to the office unsigned and sealed in the attached envelope. On or about January 17th, please c o m ­ plete Part II and return to the office in the same manner. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Roland D. Marmion Comments: 114 APPENDIX B LETTER INCLUDED WITH PILO'S DISTRIBUTED BY PRINCIPALS February 1977 Dear Educator: People have different ideas about the role of an elem e n ­ tary principal. As part of a current research study at Michigan State University, I am seeking to contribute to a better understanding of the perceptions and expectations of the elementary principal's role. Your school is one of eighteen selected at random in M i c h ­ igan to be included in the sample. Realizing that teachers are very busy, the opinionnaire is brief and requires only about ten minutes to complete. All responses will be totally confidential and no person or school will be identified. Answer each item candidly, and promptly return the opinionnaire to the researcher sealed in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. Allow me to thank you in advance for your time and cooperation. Cordially, Roland D. Marmion 115 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX C PRINCIPAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OPINIONNAIRE PRELIMINARY FORM Part I Field Test Part II Field Retest DIRECTIONS: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently your principal engages in the behavior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether your principal (A) very frequently, (B) often, (C) occasionally, (D) seldom, (E) very rarely acts as described by them. 4. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five letters C D E) following the item to show the answer have selected. (A B you A ■ Very Frequently B « Often C - Occasionally D ■ Seldom E ■ Very Rarely 5. MARK your answers as shown below. Example: My principal often acts as described... A © C Example: My principal seldom acts as described.. A B C <2>E 1. My principal does use staff involvement with shared responsibility and r e c ogni­ tion of accomplishment......................... 116 DE A B C D E 117 A “ Very Frequently B * Often C * Occasionally D » Seldom E = Very Rarely 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. 1. 2. M y p r i n c i p a l does e n c o u r a g e e x p e r i m e n t a ­ tion and use of c r e a t i v e i d e a s ................. A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l does a l l o w s t a f f p a r t i c i p a ­ tio n in the s e l e c t i o n a nd o r g a n i z a t i o n of t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s ..............................A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l does keep the s t aff i n f o r m e d of n e w r e l e v a n t r e s e a r c h and trends in e d u c a t i o n ........................................... A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l does use s t aff i n v o l v e m e n t in the s e l e c t i o n and a s s i g n m e n t of n e w s t aff w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e ............................ A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l does a s s i s t the s t a f f in d e f i n i n g a p h i l o s o p h y of e d u c a t i o n for the s c h o o l A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l doe s d i r e c t the s t a f f in im p r oving a p r o g r a m for t e s t i n g a n d r e p o r t i n g s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .................. A B C D E My principal professional A B C D E A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l doe s e n c o u r a g e and a r r a n g e for s t a f f m e m b e r s to v i s i t a n d o b s e r v e o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s ....................................A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l does for s t aff m e m b e r s conferences A B C D E A B C DE does u s e s t a ff m e e t i n g s for d e v e l o p m e n t s e s s i o n s ............... M y p r i n c i p a l does d e m o n s t r a t e e f f e c t i v e a n d p r o m i s i n g t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s to the staff encourage and arrange to a t t e n d a p p r o p r i a t e M y p r i n c i p a l does p r o v i d e for the d e v e l o p ­ m e n t and m a i n t e n a n c e o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l library 118 A - Very Frequently B ■ Often C « Occasionally D - Seldom E ■ Very Rarely 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. My principal does work with small groups of the staff on common interests.............. A B C D E My principal does encourage and assist in sharing good teaching ideas A B C D E My principal does visit classrooms to p a r ­ ticipate in and observe the instruction A B C D E My principal does confer with staff members following an observation to share thoughts... A B C D E My principal does evaluate the staff members performance for the improvement of instruction A B C D E 18. My principal does encourage staff involvement in evaluation of the instructional program... A B C D E 19. My principal does meet with specialists on a regular schedule to keep current on school programs 20. 21. 22. 23. A B C D E My principal does supervise all building p r o ­ grams under the direction of specialists A B C D E My principal does provide a means and opportunity for the staff to evaluate and share thoughts on the improvement of build­ ing administration A B C D E My principal does demonstrate a respect and trust for people through the practice of democratic principles.......................... A B C D E My principal does teach good human relation techniques through demonstration of actions expected of o t h e r s B C D E A 119 A ■ Very Frequently B ■ Often C » Occasionally D “ Seldom E - Very Rarely 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. My principal does encourage communications and cooperation while respecting individual opinions........................................ A B C D E My principal does assist staff members in becoming group leaders........................ A B C D E My principal does work to harmonize dif­ ferences and manage conflicts while allowing for rights of a p pe al A B C D E My principal does involve students and staff members in a definition of their roles and responsibilities.................... A B C D E My principal does provide consistent correc­ tive discipline for students and staff m e m b e r s ......................................... A B C D E My principal should use staff involvement with shared responsibility and recognition of accomplishment.............................. A B C D E My principal should encourage experimenta­ tion and use of creative ideas................ A B C D E My principal should allow staff participation in the selection and organization of teach­ ing materials A B C D E My principal should keep the staff informed of new relevant research and trends in education A B C D E My principal should use staff involvement in the selection and assignment of new staff when appropriate.................................A B C D E My principal should assist the staff in d e ­ fining a philosophy of education for the school B C D E A 120 A = Very Frequently B * Often C * Occasionally D * Seldom E ® Very Rarely ►5. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d d i r e c t the s t aff in im p roving a p r o g r a m for t e s t i n g a n d r e ­ p o r t i n g s t u dent a c h i e v e m e n t .....................A B C D E ►6. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d use staff m e e t i n g s for p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s e s s i o n s .............. A B C D E ►7. My principal should demonstrate effective and p r o m i s i n g t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s to the s t a f f . .. A B O D E >8. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e and a r r a n g e for s t a f f m e m b e r s to v i s i t and o b s e r v e other c l a s s r o o m s ......................................... A B O D E M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e a nd a r r a n g e for s t a f f m e m b e r s to a t t e n d a p p r o p r i a t e c o n ­ f e r e n c e s ............................................ A B O D E M y p r i n c i p a l shou l d p r o v i d e for the d e v e l o p ­ m e n t and m a i n t e n a n c e of a p r o f e s s i o n a l l i b r a r y ............................................. A B C D E 19. 10. H. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d w o r k w i t h small g r o u p s of the s t a f f on c o m m o n interest.*;.................A B O D E 12. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e and a s s i s t in s h a r i n g g o o d t e a c h i n g i d e a s .................. A B 0 D E 13. M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d v i s i t c l a s s r o o m s to p a r ­ t i c i p a t e in a n d o b s e r v e the i n s t r u c t i o n .......... A B O D E 14. My principal should confer with staff members f o l l o w i n g an o b s e r v a t i o n to share thoughts... A B O D E M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d e v a l u a t e the s t a f f m e m ­ ber s p e r f o r m a n c e for the i m p r o v e m e n t of i n s t r u c t i o n ........................................ A B C D E M y p r i n c i p a l s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e s t aff i n v o l v e ­ men t in e v a l u a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m ............................................. A B C D E 15. *6. 121 A » Very Frequently B * Often C * Occasionally D * Seldom E * Very Rarely 47. My principal should meet with specialists on a regular schedule to keep current on school p r o g r a m s ................................. A B O D E 48. My principal should supervise all building programs under the direction of specialists*. A B O D E 49. My principal should provide a means and opportunity for the staff to evaluate and share thoughts on the improvement of b u ild­ ing administration..............................A B C D E 50. My principal should demonstrate a respect and trust for people through the practice of democratic p r i n c i p l e s ....................... A B O D E My principal should teach good human relation techniques through demonstration of actions expected of o t h e r s ................. A B O D E My principal should encourage communications and cooperation while respecting individual o p i n i o n s ......................................... A B O D E My principal should assist staff members in becoming group l e a d e r s ........................ A B O D E My principal should work to harmonize differences and manage conflicts while allowing for rights of a p p e a l ................ A B O D E 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. My principal should involve students and staff members in a definition of their roles and responsibilities........................... A B O D E 56. My principal should provide consistent corrective discipline for students and staff m e m b e r s .......................................... A B C D E APPENDIX C PRINCIPAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OPINIONNAIRE Form P DIRECTION: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently you engage in the b e ­ havior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether you (1) very rarely, (2) seldom, (3) occasionally, (4) often, (5) very frequently act as described. 4. CIRCLE ONE NUMBER following EACH statement to indicate your response. >*. rH x e r-t t-H D 4-( O > CPO O > I DO: Example: . . often act as described., 12 Example: . . seldom act as described, l(?)3 4 5 3 @ 5 START HERE 1 1. . . . use staff involvement with shared re sponsibility and recognition of accomplish m e n t ......................................... 122 1 2 3 4 5 123 >N rH rH H a> u ed DC e o -a rH O > 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. >N rH 4H e a 9 O* O V go ed n o ■rH m . . . encoura ge e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n and use of creative i d e a s ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . a l l o w staff p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the sel ection and o r g a n i z a t i o n of teaching m a t e r i a l s .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . keep the staff informed of n ew r e l e ­ vant research and trends in e d u c a t i o n ........ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . use staff i nvolvement in the select ion and assignment of n e w teaching staff when a p p r o p r i a t e ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . assist the staff in defining a p h i l o s ­ oph y of e d u c a t i o n for the s c h o o l ............... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . direct the staff in improving a p r o g r a m for testing and r e p o rting student a c h i e v e m e n t ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . use staff m e e tings for professional development s e s s i o n s ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . d e m o nstrate effectiv e and promising teaching techniques to the s t a f f ............... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to visit and obse rve other classrooms... . . . en courage and a r r ange for staff m e m ­ bers to attend a p p r o priate c o n f e r e n c e s ........ 12 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 124 >•. c i-H O r-t rH 3 cd 5 ’ co o o > nn • i uu. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. uC f- i t 12. w . . . provide for the development and main­ tenance of a professional library 1 23 45 . . .work with small groups of the staff on common interests 1 23 45 . . . encourage and assist in sharing good teaching ideas 1 23 45 . . .visit classrooms to participate in and observe the instruction 1 23 45 . . .confer with staff members following observation to share thoughts 1 23 45 . . . evaluate the staff members performance for the improvement of instruction 1 23 45 . . . encourage staff involvement in evalua­ tion of the instructional p r o gram 1 23 4S . . .meet with specialists on a regular schedule to keep current on school programs.. 12 . . . supervise all building programs under the direction of specialists 1 an 3 4 5 23 45 . . . provide a means and opportunity for the staff to evaluate and share thoughts on the improvement of building administration 1 2 3 4 5 Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 125 I DO: 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. . . . demonstrate a respect and trust for people through the practice of democratic principles....................................... 12 3 4 5 . . . teach good human relation techniques through demonstration of actions expected of o t hers ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage communications and coopera­ tion while respecting individual opinions.... 12 3 4 5 . . .assist staff members in becoming group leaders................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . .work to harmonize differences and manage conflicts while allowing for rights of appeal........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . involve students and staff members in a definition of their roles and responsibilities................................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . .provide consistent corrective d i sci­ pline for students and staff m e mbers .......... 1 2 3 4 5 I WOULD LIKE T O : 29. . . . use staff involvement with shared responsibility and recognition of accomplishment.................................. 1 2 3 4 5 I WOULD LIKE TO: 30. 31. Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 126 . . . encourage experimentation and use of creative ideas 1 2 3 4 5 . . . allow staff participation in the selection and organization of teaching materials....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 32. . . . keep the staff informed of new relevant research and trends in education.... 1 2 3 4 5 33. . . .use staff involvement in the selection and assignment of new staff when appropriate. 34. 35. 12 3 4 5 . . .assist the staff in defining a philos­ ophy of education for the school.............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . .direct the staff in improving a p r o ­ gram for testing and reporting student achievement...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 36. . . .use staff meetings for professional development sessions............................ 1 2 3 4 5 37. . . . demonstrate effective and promising teaching techniques to the staff.............. 38. 39. 40. 12 3 4 5 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to visit and observe other classrooms... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to attend appropriate conferences....... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . provide for the development and m a i n ­ tenance of a professional library............. 1 2 3 4 5 127 f— ( rH H -M c 43 3 e s *— 1 0> s- o cd oc W O ULD LIKE TO: 1. •2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. a> > cr u cd S O *T3 i-H 4> C/3 •H «/) cd u u o pc (t> VH o a > . . . w o r k w i t h small groups of the staff on c o m m o n i n t e r e s t s .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage teaching i d e a s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 . . . c o n f e r w i t h s t aff m e m b e r s f o l l o w i n g an o b s e r v a t i o n to share t h o u g h t s .............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . e v a l u a t e the s t aff m e m b e r s p e r f o r m a n c e for the i m p r o v e m e n t of i n s t r u c t i o n 1 2 3 4 5 . . . e n c o u r a g e s t aff i n v o l v e m e n t in e v a l u a ­ tion of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o g r a m 1 2 3 4 5 . . . meet w i t h s p e c i a l i s t s on a r e g u l a r sc h e d u l e to keep c u r r e n t on school p r o g r a m s . . 12 . . . s u p e r v i s e all b u i l d i n g p r o g r a m s u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n of s p e c i a l i s t s 1 . . . p r o v i d e a m e a n s and o p p o r t u n i t y for the s t aff to e v a l u a t e and share thou g h t s o n the i m p r o v e m e n t of b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . .. 12 . . . d e m o n s t r a t e a r e s p e c t and t r ust for p e o p l e t h r o u g h the p r a c t i c e of d e m o c r a t i c p r i n c i p l e s ......................................... 1 . . . visit and o b s e r v e and a s s i s t in s h aring good c l a s s r o o m s to p a r t i c i p a t e in the i n s t r u c t i o n ..................... 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. . . . t e ach good h u m a n r e l a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s t h r o u g h d e m o n s t r a t i o n of a c t i o n s e x p e c t e d of o t h e r s ........................................... . . . encourage communications and c o o p e r a ­ tion while respecting individual opinions.... Occasionally Often Very Frequently I W O ULD LI K E T O : Very Rarely Seldom 128 1 2 3 45 12 3 4 5 . . . a s s i s t s t a f f m e m b e r s in b e c o m i n g g r oup l e a d e r s ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . .w o r k to h a r m o n i z e d i f f e r e n c e s a n d m a n ­ ag e c o n f l i c t s w h i l e a l l o w i n g for r i g h t s of a p p e a l ............................................... 1 2 3 45 . . . involve s t u d e n t s and s t a f f m e m b e r s in a d e f i n i t i o n of their roles and r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t i e s ............................................. 1 2 3 45 . . .p r o v i d e c o n s i s t e n t c o r r e c t i v e d i s c i p l i n e for s t u dents and s t aff m e m b e r s . . . . P r o m p t l y r e t u r n to r e s e a rche r. T H A N K Y O U for y o u r a s s i s tance. 12 3 4 5 APPENDIX C PRINCIPAL INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OPINIONNAIRE Form S DIRECTIONS: 1. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK about how frequently your principal engages in the behavior described by the item. 3. DECIDE whether your principal (2) seldom, (3) occasionally, frequently acts as described. 4. CIRCLE ONE NUMBER following EACH statement to indicate your response. (1) very rarely, (4) often, (5) very >x i"H o> x. cd >s £ rH D t-H 4) cd o' c a> oc g •«O-» uMu O to O O > My principal D O E S : Example: often act as described Example: seldom act as described 1 2 5 START HERE My principal D O E S : 1. . . . use staff involvement with shared responsibility and recognition of accomplishment................................. 1 2 3 4 5 My principal D O E S : 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. . . . encourage experimentation and use of creative ideas Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 130 1 2 3 4 5 . . . allow staff participation in the selec­ tion and organization of teaching materials.. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . keep the staff informed of new rele­ vant research and trends in education........ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . use staff involvement in the selection and assignment of new teaching staff when appropriate...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . assist the staff in defining a philoso­ phy of education for the school............... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . direct the staff in improving a p r o ­ gram for testing and reporting student achievement...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . use staff meetings for professional development sessions............................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . demonstrate effective and promising teaching techniques to the staff.............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to visit and observe other classrooms... 1 2 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to attend appropriate conferences....... 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 My principal D O E S : 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 131 . . . provide for the development and m a i n ­ tenance of a professional library............ 1 2 3 4 5 . . .work with small groups of the staff on common interests............................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage and assist in sharing good teaching ideas............................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . .visit classrooms to participate in and observe the instruction................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . .confer with staff members following an observation to share thoughts............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . evaluate the staff members performance for the improvement of instruction 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage staff involvement in evalua­ tion of the instructional p r ogram ............ 1 2 3 4 5 . . .meet with specialists on a regular schedule to keep current on school programs.. 12 . . . supervise all building programs under the direction of specialists.................. 1 . . . provide a means and opportunity for the staff to evaluate and share thoughts on the improvement of building administration... 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Frequently Very My principal D O E S : Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often 132 ... demonstrate a respect and trust for people through the practice of democratic principles...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . . teach good human relation techniques through demonstration of actions expected of o t h e r s ....................................... 1 2 3 45 ... encourage communications and coopera­ tion while respecting individual opinions.... 12 ... assist staff members in becoming group leaders................................... 1 2 3 45 ... work to harmonize differences and m a n ­ age conflicts while allowing for rights of ap peal .......................................... 1 2 3 45 ... involve students and staff members in a definition of their roles and responsibilities 1 2 3 45 . . . provide consistent corrective disci­ pline for students and staff m e m bers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 3 4 5 My principal SHOU L D : 29. ... use staff involvement with shared r e ­ sponsibility and recognition of accomplish­ m e n t ............................................. My principal SHOULD: 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. . . . encourage experimentation and use of creative ideas............................... Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 133 12 3 4 5 . . . allow staff participation in the selec­ tion and organization of teaching materials.. 1 2 . . .keep the staff informed of new rele­ vant research and trends in education......... . . . use staff involvement in the selection and assignment of new staff when appropriate. 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 . . .assist the staff in defining a philoso­ phy of education for the scho ol ............... 1 2 3 4 5 . . .direct the staff in improving a p r o ­ gram for testing and reporting student achievement...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 . . .use staff meetings for professional development sessions............................ 1 2 3 4 5 . . . demonstrate effective and promising teaching techniques to the staff.............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to visit and observe other classrooms... . . . encourage and arrange for staff m e m ­ bers to attend appropriate conferences....... . . . provide for the development and main­ tenance of a professional library........... 12 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12 3 4 5 My principal SHOULD: 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally Often Very Frequently 134 . . . work with small groups of the staff on common interests............................. 1 2 34 5 . . . encourage and assist in sharing good teaching ideas.................................. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . visit classrooms to participate in and observe the instruction.................... 1 2 34 5 . . . confer with staff members following an observation to share thoughts.............. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . evaluate the staff members performance for the improvement of instruction............ 1 2 34 5 . . . encourage staff involvement in evalua­ tion of the instructional program............. 1 2 . . . meet with specialists on a regular schedule to keep current on school programs.. . . . supervise all building programs under the direction of specialists................... 12 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 34 5 . . . provide a means and opportunity for the staff to evaluate and share thoughts on the improvement of building administration... 12 . . . demonstrate a respect and trust for people through the practice of democratic principles................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. . . . teach good human relation techniques through demonstration of actions expected of ot he r s ....................................... 1 . . . encourage communications and coopera­ tion while respecting individual opinions.... 12 Often Very Frequently My principal SHOULD: Very Rarely Seldom Occasionally 135 2 3 45 3 4 5 . . .assist staff members in becoming group leaders.................................. 1 2 3 45 . . . work to harmonize differences and m an­ age conflicts while allowing for rights of appeal.......................................... 1 2 3 45 . . .involve students and staff members in a definition of their roles and responsi­ bilities........................................ 1 2 3 45 . . .provide consistent corrective disci­ pline for students and staff m e m bers 1 2 3 45 Promptly return to researcher. THANK YOU for your assistance. APPENDIX C ROLE AREA TIME ALLOCATION WORKSHEET 1. ____________________ Administration 2. ____________________ Building maintenance and operation 3. ____________________ Business and finance 4. ____________________ Curriculum activities 5. ____________________ Evaluation 6. ____________________ Inservice 7.__ ____________________ Office management 8.__ ____________________ Public relations 9. School climate 10. ____________________ Supply management 136 APPENDIX C TASK RANKING DECK* ADMINISTRATION Examples: 1. Interpreting policy 2. Attending administrator meetings 3. Scheduling BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION Examples: 1. Planning and inspecting 2. 3. Supervising and assisting Conferring and evaluating *A modified Q-sort. 137 138 BUSINESS AND FINANCE Examples: 1. Budget development 2. 3. Fund accounting Record keeping CURRICULUM ACTIVITIES Examples: 1. 2. Planning and developing Improving instructional materials 3. Improving services to teachers EVALUATION Examples: 1. 2. 3. Conversing with staff Supervision and evaluation Discussing and resolving problems 139 INSERVICE Examples: 1. Staff meetings 2. Demonstration teaching OFFICE MANAGEMENT Examp les: 1. Office routines 2. 3. Reports and correspondence Student records and services PUBLIC RELATIONS Examples: 1. Bulletins and publications 2. Conferring with parents 3. Interpreting school to community 140 SCHOOL CLIMATE Examples: 1. Student discipline and supervision 2. Defining roles and responsibilities 3. Teaching good human relations SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Examples: 1. 2. Purchase - requisition 3. Utilization - replacement Storage - distribution BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS American Association of School Administrators. The Right Principal for the Right S c h o o l . Washington, d 7 c .: American Association of School Administrators, 1967. Becker, Gerald; Withycombe, R . ; D o y e l , F.; Miller, E . ; M o r ­ gan, C.; De Loretto, L.; and Aldridge, B. under the direction of Keith Goldhammer. Elementary School Principals and Their Schools, Beacons of Brilliance 6 Potholes of Pestilence. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational A d m i nist ra­ tion, 1971. Dean, Stuart E., and McNally, Harold J. "The Elementary School Principal." In Preparation Programs for School Administrators, pp. lll-izi. Edited by Donald J. Leu and Herbert C. Rudman. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University College of E d u ­ cation, 1963. Department of Elementary School Principals. The Elementary Principalship in 1968: A Research Study"! Washing­ ton, D . C . : Department of Elementary School Princi­ pals, National Education Association, 1968. Dougherty, James H . ; Gorman, Frank H . ; and Phillips, Claude A. Elementary School Organization and M a n a g e m e n t . New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950. Drucker, Peter. The Effective Ex e c u t i v e . Harper 8 Row, 1967. New York: Elsbree, Willard S.; McNally, Harold J . ; and Wynn, Richard. Elementary School Administration and Supervision. New York: American Book Company, 1967. 141 142 Gaynor, Alan K. "Preparing the Organization for Effective Response." In Performance Objectives for School Principals: Concepts and Instruments, p"! 54. Edited by Jack A. Culbertson, Curtis Henson and Ruel Morrison. Berkley, California: McCutchan Publish­ ing Corporation, 1974. Glass, Gene V., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Harrison, Raymond H. Supervisory Leadership in Education. New York: American Book Company, 1968. Heald, James E., and Moore, Samuel A. II. The Teacher and Administrative Relationships in School Systems. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. Hoban, Gary J. "The School Without A Principal." In The Power to Change: Issues for the Innovative Educa­ t o r , pp. 145-146. Edited by Carmen M. Culver and Gary J. Hoban. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. McCarty, Donald J. "Organizational Influences on Teacher Behavior." In Selected Readings on General Super­ v i s i o n , p. 127. Edited by James E. Heald, Louis G . Romano and Nicholas P. Georgiady. New York: Macmillan Company, 19 70. McNally, Harold J. "The Principalship - A People Busi­ ness." In The Principal in Prospective, p. 12. Edited by John E. Reisert. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University School of Education, March 1968. Mickelson, Peter Palmer, and Hansen, Kenneth H. Elementary School Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Michigan Education Association. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide: 1976-1977. Lansing, M i c h ­ igan, 1 9 7 7 / -----------------_________. Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's G u i d e : 1975-1976. Lansing, Michigan, 1976. 143 Pierce, Paul R. The Origin and Development of the Public School Pri ncipalship. C h i c a g o : The University of Chicago Press, 19357 Reavis, William C . ; Pierce, Paul R . ; and Stullken, Edvard H. The Elementary School, Its Organization and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . C h i c a g o , 1 11. : The University of Chicago Press, 1931. Sarason, Seymour B. The Culture of the School and the Problem of C h a n g e . B o s t o n : Allyn § Bacon, Tn*c. TTTT. ------- Shuster, Albert H . , and Stewart, Don H. The Principal and the Autonomous Elementary S c h o o l . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 19 73. Spain, Charles R . ; Drummond, Harold D.; and G o o d l a d , John I . Educational Leadership and the Elementary School Principalship"! taew York: McGraw-Hill Book C o m p a n y , 1967. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group A c h i e v e ­ ment . New Y o r k : Oxford University Press, 1959. Stoops, Emery, and Johnson, Russell E. Elementary School A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: McGraw-Hill Book C o m p a ­ ny, 1567. Stoops, Emery, and Marks, James R. Elementary School Su ­ pervision: Practices and T r e n d s . Boston: A l l y n a n d Bacon, I nc., 1965. Tye, Kenneth A. "The Elementary School Principal: Key to Educational Change." In The Power To C h a n g e , p. 25. Edited by Carmen M. Culver and Gary jT Hoban. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. 144 PERIODICALS Egner, Joan Roos. "The Principal's Role: Cognitive Disso­ nance." The Elementary School Journal 67 (February 1967): 27T. Gilchrist, Robert S. "A Radical Shift in Emphasis." Nations Schools 65 (January 1960): 48. Hansen, J. Merrell. Education." The "Administration: Role and Function in NASSP Bulletin 58 (December 1974): 84. Hoeh, James A. "Feeling Guilty For Not Being An Instruc­ tional Leader? Don't." NASSP Bulletin 57 (November 1973): 7. Houts, Paul L. "A Conversation with Keith Goldhammer." The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974) : ZTT Jenkins, John M. "The Principal: Still the Principal Teacher." NASSP Bulletin 56 (February 1972): 32. Keller, Arnold J. "Inside the Man in the Principal's O f ­ fice." The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): 23. King, Martha L. "Knowledge and Competence for the Instruc­ tional Leader." Educational Leadership 20 (April 1963): 449-452. Kuralt, Richard C. "The Principal's Turn." The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1^74): 38. Langer, John H. "The Emerging Elementary Principalship in Michigan." Phi Delta Kappan 48 (December 1966): 161. -Levinson, Daniel J. "Role Personality, and Social Struc­ ture in Organizational Settings." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology LVII1, No. 2 Dlarch 1959): 170-lSOT -------e-----McNally, Harold J. "Summing Up." The National Elementary Principal 54 (September, October 1974): 8. 14S Myers, Donald A. "The Chautauqua Papers: A Dissent." The National Elementary Principal 54 (September, Octo7" ber 19 74 J : 18-19. Rogers, Vincent R. "A Sense of Purpose." The National Elementary Principal 53 (May, June 1674): 9-16. Shuster, Albert H. "Going It Alone: The Autonomous School." The National Elementary Principal 53 (March, April 1974): 53. Trump, J. Lloyd. "Principal Most Potent Factor in Deter­ mining School Excellence." NASSP Bulletin (March 1972): 4. --------------Wayson, William W. "Introduction: Chautauqua Series." The National Elementary Principal 53 (March. April 1574): 10. ---- -------- 146 YEARBOOKS, REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS Crouch, Roy A. "The Status of the Elementary School Prin­ cipal." In the Fifth Y e a r b o o k . Washington, D . C . : Department of Elementary School Principals, N a tion­ al Education Association, 1926. Department of Elementary School Principals, "The Elemen­ tary School Principalship." In the Seventh Y e a r ­ b o o k . Washington, D . C . : Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1928. _________. "The Elementary School Principalship - Today and Tomorrow." In Twenty-Seventh Y e a r b o o k . W a s h ­ ington, D . C . : Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, 1948. _________. "The Principal and Supervision." In ThirtySeventh Y e a r b o o k . The National Elementary Prin c i ­ pal . Washington, D . C .: Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association Research Division, 1958. Matthews, Nora A. "The Michigan Elementary School Princi­ pal and His Growth in the Profession." In the Second Y e a r b o o k . Lansing, Michigan: Department of Elementary School Principals, Michigan Education Association, 1928. Mazzarella, Jo Ann. "The Principal's Role In Instructional Planning." In School Leadership D i g e s t , no. 8. Washington, D.CT7 National Association of Elementa­ ry School Principals, 1976. Michigan Department of Education. Local District and School Report: Explanatory M a t e r i a l s . L a n s i n g , Michigan: Michigan Department of1 Education; R e ­ search, Evaluation and Assessment Services, [1973], Mitchell, Donald P. Leadership In Public Education S t u d y , A Look At The Overlo oked. Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development Inc., [1972]. Sergeant, Ida G. "Foreword." In the Fifth Y e a r b o o k , B ul­ letin of the Department of Elementary School Prin­ cipals. Washington, D . C . : Department of Elementa­ ry School Principals, National Education A s s o c i a ­ tion, 1926. 147 U N P U B L ISHED MATE RIAL Fearing, Jose p h Lea. "P r i n c i p a l - F a c u l t y Perceptions of C e r t a i n C o mmon and Obs ervable Role Behaviors of the E l e m entary School Principal.*' Ed.D. dissertation, Co lorado State College, 1963. (D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 25, no. 1. Ann Arbor, M i c h i g a n : U n i v e r s i t y Microfilms, July 1964, p. 224.) Frank, Roland G. "An Analysis of the C o m m u n ications P a t ­ terns of Selected Elementary Principals in M i c h i ­ gan." Ed.D. dissertation, M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i ­ ty, 1969. Kelly, R i c hard Edward. "The Schoolmasters of Seventeenth C e n t u r y Newbury, M a s s a c h u s e t t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­ tion, M i c h i g a n State University, 1971. Latimer, Lowell Francis. "The Role o f the E l e m entary School Principal As Perceived by the Facul ty and Principal through selected Role B e h a viors." Ed.D. dissertation, U n i v ersity of North Dakota, 1966. (D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 27, no. 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan: U n i v e r s i t y Microfilms, April 1967, p. 3266-A.) M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of El e m e n t a r y School Principals. "1975-1976 Salary A n a l y s i s . " East Lansing, M i c h ­ igan, Fall 1976. (Typewritten.) 148 GENERAL R E F E RENC ES Barnard, C h e ster I. The Functions of the E x e c u t i v e . Cambridge, M a s s a c h u s e t t s : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1938. Cubberley, E l l wood P. The Principal and His S c h o o l . Boston: H o u g h t o n M i f l l i n Company, 1923. Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert E. The Professional Leadership of E l e m e n t a r y School P r i n c i p a l s~, Cambridge, Massachusetts: H a r v ard U n i v e r s i t y , Graduate School of Education, 1964. Halpin, Andrew, ed. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Theory in E d u c a t i o n . Chicago: M i d w e s t e r n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Center, OnXversity of Chicago, 1958. Hansen, J. Merrell. Education." pp. 82-88. "Administration: Role and F u n c t i o n in NASSP B u l l e t i n , De cember 1974, Harris, Ben M. " Supervisor C o m p et ence and Strategies for Improving Instruction." Educational L e a d e r s h i p , February 1976, pp. 332-33TI Hicks, Hanne J. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Leadership in the E l e m e n t a ­ r y School" New York: The konald Press Company, Klopt, Gordon J. The Principal and Staff Development in the E l e m e n t a r y School. Princeps Series: Developing the ftole of the E l e m entary "School Principal as an Educationa l Leader. Occas ional Paper N o . 4 . New Y o r k : Banks Street C o l lege of Education, [T974]. Morley, F r a n k l i n P. "Becoming A n Instructional Leader." Educa tional L e a d e r s h i p . December 1971, pp. 239-241. Otto, He nry J. El ementary School O r g a n i z a t i o n and A d m i n i s tration. New Y o r k : Appleton-Century-Crofts . I n c . . T t t T . --- Ramsey, Curtis Paul. "Leadership in Instructional I m p r o v e ­ men t." E d u c a t i o n , D e c ember 1961, pp. 200-202. Reavis, W i l l i a m C.; Pierce, P.; Stullken, E.; and Smith, B. A d m i n i s t e r i n g the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . Englewood Cliff's, N e w Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1953. 149 Sweitzer, Robert E.; Hayes, L . ; Rearden, J.; Sutker, S.; Twyman, J . ; and Goldman, S. "Role Expectations and Perceptions of School Principals." Cooperative Research Project No. 1329, Stillwater, Oklahoma, Research Foundation, Oklahoma State University, January 1963. Weisbrod, Kenneth. "The Role of Leadership." Educational Leadership. December 1962, pp. 155-159, 21?. Weischadle, David. "The Principal: Reviving a Waning E d u ­ cational Role." The Clearing H o u s e , April 1974, pp. 451-455.