INFORM ATION TO USERS This reproduction was m ade from a co p y o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the q u ality o f the rep roduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the m aterial su b m itted . The following ex p lanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which m ay ap p ear o n this rep ro d u ctio n . 1. The sign or “ ta rg e t” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, th ey are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting th ro u g h an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure com plete co n tin u ity . 2. When an image on th e film is o b literated with a round black m ark, it is an indication o f c ith e r blurred co p y because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, o r copyrighted m aterials th a t should n o t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f th e page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted m aterials were d eleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent fram e. 3. When a map, draw ing o r chart, e tc ., is p art o f the material being photographed, a definite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is custom ary to begin film ing at th e u p p er le ft hand co m er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is co n tin u ed again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. F or illustrations th a t can no t be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic p rints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into y o u r xerographic copy. These p rints are available upon request from the D issertations C u sto m er Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent m ay have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University MicrcSrilms International 300 N. Z e e b R o a d Ann Arbor, MMB106 8303843 Robinson, Bobby Ann AN EXAMINATION O F SELECTED CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES AND RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN NINE COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN Michigan State University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1982 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problem s en co u n tered with this d o cu m en t have b een Identified here with a check m ark V . 1. G lossy ph o to g rap h s or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, p ap er or p rin t______ 3. P hotographs with dark b ac k g ro u n d ______ 4. Illustrations a re poor co p y _______ 5. P a g e s with black marks, n o t original 6. Print show s th ro u g h a s th ere is text on both s id e s of page 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s ______ 8. Print ex ce ed s margin req u irem en ts______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ 10. C om puter printout p ag es with indistinct print______ 11. P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P age{s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b e re d _____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. O ther_______________________________________________________ copy__ University Microfilms International AN EXAMINATION OF SELECTED CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES AND RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN NINE COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN by Bobby Ann Robinson A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF SELECTED CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES AND RELATED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN NINE COUNTIES IN MICHIGAN By Bobby Ann Robinson The purpose of this study was to investigate selected curricular responsibilities and related professional develop­ ment needs of school principals as perceived by principals and superintendents in a nine county geographical location in Michigan. A series of sixteen research questions was investigated. These sixteen questions were divided into four groups repre­ senting four dependent variables. The dependent variables were investigated as to how they were dent variables: affected by two depen­ (a) level of administration, and teachers. Each teacher would think of one student and decide which of the ideals needed to be emphasized with the student. 15 Charters was also instrumental in contributing the process of functional analysis, which was a process of identifying logical relations between a function and the parts of a structure developed to accomplish the function. In contrast, structural analysis referred to differenti­ ating the structure into parts without a specific indica­ tion of their functions. Functional analysis could only take place after arrang­ ing the structure into parts and identifying the relation­ ships of each part for the achievement of the function. The function then became the criterion by which a decision was made concerning the value of any part. In educational terms, this means the curriculum worker first had to deter­ mine overall objectives. Thereafter, items of the curriculum had to be chosen and finally each item had to be performed constantly. The functions then became the control elements for deciding what could be included or excluded from the curriculum. The scientific movement of the 1920's emphasized efficiency in the schools and according to Raymond Callahan was the period in which the "transition of the superin­ tendent from an educator to a business manager took place," (Callahan, p.148). The scientism of curriculum purported by Bobbitt and Charters gained greater prominence with Ralph Tyler. Tyler outlined a process in which curriculum workers would deter­ mine curricular sources, choose basic objectives, produce educational experiences and evaluate learning outcomes. 16 This process was centered around four basic questions: 1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? 2. What educational experiences can be provided? 3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized? 4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (Tyler, 1950) Tyler also identifed three curriculum sources: Studies of society, studies of learners and the subject matter of the world. Several curriculum theorists have tried to enhance the Tyler Model. Hilda Taba's curriculum sequence was similiar to that promoted by Tyler and also reflected the scientific thinking of Bobbitt and Charters. According to Taba: If curriculum development is to be a rational and scientific rather than a rule of thumb pro­ cedure, the decisions about these elements need to be made on the basis of some valid criteria. These criteria may come from var­ ious sources — from tradition, from social pressures or from established habits. the dif­ ferences between a curriculum decision-making which follows a scientific method and develops a rational decision design and one which does not is that in the former the criteria for de­ cision are derived from a study of the factors constituting a reasonable basis for the curric­ ulum. In our society, at least, these factors are the learner, the learning process, cultural 17 demands and the content of the discipline (Taba, p.2). Taba emphasized the importance of sequence in which curriculum decisions were made and the standard utilized in arriving at conclusions. In her framework, the sequence of the decision-making contained seven stages: 1. Diagnosis of Needs 2. Formulation of Objectives 3. Selection of Content 4. Organization of Content 5. Selection of Learning Experiences 6. Organization of Learning Experiences 7. Determination of What to Evaluate and Ways and Means of Doing It Taba also emphasized the interrelations of curriculum on learning and instructional theory. Scientific curriculum development needs to -draw upon analyses of society and culture, studies of the learner and the learning pro­ cess and analyses of the nature of knowledge in order to deter­ mine the purposes of the school and the nature of curriculum. (Taba, p.3) The interrelations Taba suggested are illustrated on Table 2:1 which is based on curriculum as being "the concern for the decisions about what is to be taught, to whom and for what purpose" (Ward, 19 80) . Instructional theory is defined as "an integrated set of principles which prescribe guidelines for arranging conditions to achieve educational objectives" (Snelbecker, p.116). Human learning can be 18 defined as "How people acquire information, how information is retained and how what a person already knows guides and determines what and how he will learn," (Kintch, p.vii). Despite the great diversity in curriculum thought, many modern curriculum textbook writers such as Michaelis (1967), Tankard (1974), Unruh (1975) and Berman (1977) have continued to utilize the Taba Curriculum sequence in their teaching. Based upon the brief background data on curriculum, what role does today's principal play in curriculum? principal the curriculum leader in the school? Is the Do curri­ culum responsibilities consume most of that person's time? The next segment of this chapter will focus on research conducted during the past ten years on curricular responsi­ bilities of school principals and the amount of time the principal spends on curricular responsibilities. TABLE 2:1 INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING C U R R I C U L U M WHAT IS TO BE TAUGHT? TO WHOM SHOULD IT BE TAUGHT? LEARNING I for what purpose should it be taught? 'HOW IS INFORMATION ACQUIRED? HOW IS INFORMATION RETAINED? HOW DOES WHAT A PERSON ALREADY KNOWS GUIDE AND DETERMINE WHAT AND HOW HE WILL LEARN? LL-fl-S T -R _U _C_T I O .N UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD THE CURRICULUM BE TAUGHT? OR HOW SHOULD THE CONDITIONS BE ARRANGED TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES? OR HOW SHOULD THE CURRICULUM BE TAUGHT? 20 Related Studies Several studies have indicated that principals have little time to participate in curriculum responsibilities. One such study was conducted on middle and junior high school principals in school districts which comprised the Arkansas-Oklahoma Consortium for Emerging Adolescence. Within the consortium were school districts of various sizes and types. The purpose of the study was to determine how principals spent their time. in three phases. The study was conducted The first phase was a feasibility study and its purpose was to test items on the instrument and the practicality of the instrument's application. The study population consisted of fourteen middle and junior high school principals. The participants were to indicate how they spent their time during fifteen minute segments from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a designated date. The thirty-five activities on the instrument which the participants were to utilize comprised five categories: Office Responsibilities, Faculty/Community Relations, Curriculum, Students and Pro­ fessional Development. Results of the feasibility study revealed that with a cummulative of eighty-one hours for all participants, only two cummulative hours were devoted to curriculum. The most time was spent on office responsibilities which accounted for twenty-seven cummulative hours. How­ ever, personal interviews with superintendents from districts where the principals were employed indicated that 21 superintendents perceived that principals spent much more time on curriculum leadership. Furthermore, the superin­ tendents indicated that principals were instructional leaders above all else. The second phase of the study included sixty-one middle and junior high school principals in Arkansas and Oklahoma from various sizes and types of school districts. The principals completing the survey instrument indicated the amount of time spent on various activities during five designated days within a month period. As in the feasi­ bility study, there were thirty-five activities divided into five categories of responsibilities. When the data were analyzed, the principals spent the most time (32%) on office responsibilities and only 14% of their time on curriculum responsibilities. The curriculum category was divided into subcategories which included: scheduling students, coordi­ nating, course placement, supervision and observation. The third phase included a national sampling of prin­ cipals from all categories: and high school. elementary, middle/junior high The sampling included 16 3 principals from all sizes and types of school districts. The study was a cooperative project with the University of Tulsa, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the national elementary and secondary principal's associa­ tions. The survey instrument requested participants to indicate the amount of time spent on designated activities during thirty minute segments from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during a two day period. The principals were to select from 22 twenty-eight activities in seven categories. gories were: The cate­ Instructional Leadership, Office Responsi­ bilities, Community Relations, Student Relations, Extra­ curricular Supervision, Personal/Professional Development and Faculty Relations. The study's results indicated that all principals spent the majority of their time on office responsibilities which included correspondence and other forms of paperwork. ■ Middle/junior high school principals spent 45% of their time on office responsibilities while elementary principals spent 40% and high school principals spent 30%. Instructional leadership was the second largest amount of time spent with 30% for elementary principals, 25% for high school principals. The instructional leader­ ship category was divided into seven subcategories which included: tion, (1) Classroom Supervision, (3) Staff Development, Materials, (2) Teacher Evalua­ (4) Scheduling, (5) Selecting (6) Planning and (7) Testing/Evaluation. In those categories most of the time was spent on classroom supervision and teacher evaluation. spent on the other subcategories. Virtually no time was (Howell, 19 81). The Howell study had bearing on the present study because the seven categories of responsibilities used in Phase III of that study were also used for the present study. The study also reiterated the lack of research attention devoted to the principal's curricular responsibilities. In each of the three phases of the Howell study, the peri­ pheral attention given to curriculum focused on the manage­ ment aspects. Curriculum planning and development 23 activities were void in the study. Edward Grant (1978) studied eight key areas of respon­ sibility for school principals from large schools enrolling 1200 to 2500 students in south Texas. The study population included eighteen senior high school principals, their teaching staffs and superintendents. The study instrument consisted of a set of thirty-two instructional leader competencies developed by McIntyre (19 74). The competen­ cies were grouped into eight key responsibility areas: Goal Setting, (2) Staffing, (3) Allocating Time/Space, Providing Materials/Equipment/Facilities, Noninstructional Services, Relations, (1) (4) (5) Coordinating (6) Developing School-Community (7) Developing Inservice Training, and (8) Evalu­ ating Processes and Products of Instruction. Each person in the three groups of subjects made prior­ ity ratings of the eight key responsibility areas for principals on a seven-point scale. The design yielded data for three criterion variables (rating of priorities, ratings of performance and discrepancies between the two sets of ratings) and two independent variables (role of the respondents and student enrollment in the principal’s school). The findings of the Grant study indicated there were no significant differences in the priority, performance ratings or discrepancy scores with regard to school size. There were, however, significant differences in the priority and performance ratings between principals, teachers and superintendents. The findings also indicated 24 one curricular responsibility, Evaluation, was ranked low by each of the three groups of subjects. The Grant study had influence on the present study since its results suggested that one curricular responsi­ bility (Program Evaluation) was not one that was perceived as being important for high school principals to perform nor was it one that was perceived as being performed well. The Grant study was also influential on the present study since it also looked at size of school and role of the respondent as independent variables. The difference between the two studies is that the present study looked at the independent variable of the size of the school district while the Grant study looked at the size of the school where the principal was employed. Another difference in the independent variables is that the present study considered levels of administration as an independent variable while the Grant study included teachers along with principals and superintendents. The Grant study also reemphasized the lack of research attention devoted to curriculum responsibilities. Those responsibilities even remotely referring to curriculum involved the management aspects and not curriculum develop­ ment and planning. Franklin, Nicken and Alleby (19 79) conducted a study in a north central location of Florida to determine activities in which principals were most actively engaged. An instru­ ment was constructed listing activities which were under five designated areas of responsibility: Instructional 25 Responsibilities, Management Responsibilities, Leadership Responsibilities, Conferences and Meetings. The areas of instructional responsibilities included the following activities: Curriculum Planning Curriculum Implementation Curriculum Evaluation Classroom Observations Scheduling Pupils into Programs Program Coordination/Orientation Developing Schedules The instrument was completed by 100 elementary, middle, junior and senior high school principals. each activity a choice of one rating: Respondents gave Low, Medium or High. The findings revealed that all respondents gave the area of Instructional Responsibility a medium or high priority. The Franklin, Nicken and Alleby study influenced the present study since it is one of the latest to investigate responsibilities of school principals and one of the few to include principals from all levels of assignment. The study also includes aspects of curriculum planning and development under the area of Instructional Responsibilities. The study also points to a need for further investigation into the curricular responsibilities of school principals. A Michigan study was conducted during the 1971-72 school year with elementary principals (Jennings, 1972). The study was conducted with the endorsement of the Michigan 26 Association of Elementary School Principals. The study's purpose was to gather "statistical data relative to the prevailing state, thought and practices of Michigan school principals that could serve as information for various education groups," (Jennings, p.6). Five dimensions of the elementary principal were examined in the study which included: 1. Personal Characteristics 2. District and School Characteristics 3. Experience, Training and Aspirations 4. Working Conditions and Welfare 5. Administrative/Supervisory Activities/Viewpoints The data were obtained from a survey instrument com­ pleted by over one thousand principals who were members of the MAESP during the 1971-72 school year. The segment of the Jennings study which has applicabi­ lity to the present study is "Administrative/Supervisory Activities/Viewpoints." In that section principals were requested to give their opinions on (a) what they believed to be their most rewarding task, (b) the area where they spent the greatest amount.of time and (c) the area in which they would most like to spend more time. selection included: Organization and Management Periodic Classroom Teaching Working with Teaching Staff Pupil Adjustment and Guidance Program Development and Curriculum The areas for 27 Public Relations Several of the topics have curricular responsibility implications. .The topic "Program Development and Curriculum," however, has the greatest applicability to the present study. In the Jennings study only 17.94% of the principals reported that particular area to be their most rewarding and only 6.15% reported that was where most of their time was spent. However, 40.12% indicated a desire to spend more time in program development and curriculum. The Jennings study has applicability to the present study because it is one of the few to be conducted in Michi­ gan during the past ten years. The study also demonstrates the comparatively small amount of time Michigan principals spent on direct curriculum development. A study was conducted by the National Association of Secondary Principals (NASSP) in 1977 on sixty "effective" high school principals (Gordon, 1978). The principals were selected through a nomination process from state depart­ ments of education, professors from schools of educational administration and state associations of secondary prin­ cipals. From over three hundred nominations the subjects were finally limited to sixty. The criteria for an ef­ fective principal were: — The school appeared to be focused in a direction and moving to achieve its purpose. — The school leadership anticipated emerging problems and acted in an informed way to resolve them. 28 — The school included community persons in the develop­ ment of goals and objectives. — The school involved youth with learning in an adult community. — The school climate was supportive and reflected high morale. The principals were studied through an interview which included several dimensions of the principalship. These dimensions were: School Information Personal Information The Job Task Areas Problem Solving and Problem Attack Change Professional Contributions Future The data collection included interviews with the prin­ cipals as well as "significant others" which included one each from the following categories: (a) student, (b) teacher, (c) parent and (d) central office representative. In the task area of "curriculum/programs" the princi­ pals and "significant others" agreed that the departments, the faculty as a whole and the central office were the three main groups in the curriculum development process. • ^ Each of the "significant others" group was asked to describe the processes the principals used for planning major events, projects or programs. The parents and students 29 groups expressed uncertainty, but the teacher and central office groups agreed on the following planning process in descending order: sources, (1) organizing, (3) establishing needs, sion for planning, (2) planning for re­ (4) recognizing the occa­ (5) defining goals and objectives, (6) securing allegiances. (7) providing for needed training and (8) providing for evaluation. In the task areas, principals ranked in order from one to nine (one being where the most time was spent) the amount of time spent on various activities during a designated two week period and the time they had planned to spend. Prin­ cipals rated program development as number one where they had planned to spend the most of their time. However, they rated the area as number two where they had actually spent the most time and as number three where they would like to spend their time. The study illustrated "effective" principals rated Program Development as one of their top choices in three aspects where they had planned to spend their time, where they actually spent their time and where they would like to spend their time. 30 Summary of Chapter In this chapter a brief theoretical background of curriculum was provided, focusing upon the scientism in­ fluences which climaxed with Ralph Tyler. The Tyler influence was evident with Hilda Taba's works whose curri­ culum development sequence was used as a basis for develop­ ing the study's survey instrument. A review of recent descriptive research conducted on the responsibilities of school principals was also included in this chapter. Such literature revealed the lack of research studies devoted to curriculum responsibilities of school principals. Two of those studies, which included curriculum along with other responsibilities, emphasized the manage­ ment aspects of curriculum and not curriculum planning and development. This segment of the chapter also reviewed how the studies had influence on the present study. Such influences included: (1)’ A listing of seven responsibilities from Phase III of the Howell study which was used in the second section of the present study's survey instrument. (2) The utilization of the independent variables of size of school district and administrative position as in the Grant study. (3) The reiteration of the need for studies to be con­ ducted on the principal's curricular responsibili­ ties. CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURES This study was descriptive in nature utilizing the technique of the survey as the data gathering source. Good and Scates, in discussing this type of research, state: Much of the significance and importance of the descriptive study lies in the possibility of in­ vestigating the status of conditions at any given time and of repeating the survey at a later date, thus providing descriptions of crosssections at different times, in order that comparisons may be made, the direction of change noted and eval­ uated and future growth or development predicted. Such quidance is of relatively great importance in our complex and rapidly changing modern society. (Good and Scates, p.550) Whitney, in commenting on this type of descriptive research, said: To characterize it briefly, it may be said that descriptive research is fact finding with adeq­ uate interpretation. (Whitney, p.180) Restatement of the Purpose The purpose of the study was to investigate selected curricular responsibilities and related professional development needs of school principals in a nine county geographical location of Michigan. (size Two independent variables of school district and level of administration) were investigated as to their effects on four dependent 31 32 variables (percentage of time principals spend on curricular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities, degree of importance of selected curricular responsibili­ ties, degree of engagement in selected curricular responsi­ bilities and degree of professional development needs for selected curricular responsibilities). A series of sixteen questions were investigated. These sixteen questions were divided into four groups representing the four dependent variables and are as follows: Perceived Percentage of Time Spent on Curricular Respon­ sibilities 1. What percentage of a principal's time is spent on curricular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities as perceived by school principals and superintendents? 2. Is there a significant difference between the per­ centage of time spent on curricular responsibi­ lities, as perceived by school principals, and the grade level of principalship? 3. Is there a significant difference between the principal's and superintendent's perceptions of the percentage of the principal's time spent on curri­ cular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities? 4. Is there a significant difference between the percentage of time the principal spent on curri­ cular responsibilities, as perceived by principals 33 and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is employed? Perceived Importance of Curricular Responsibilities 5. Which of the selected curricular responsibilities are the most important to principals as perceived by principals and superintendents? 6. Is there a significant difference between the importance of the selected curricular responsi­ bilities, as perceived by school principals, and the grade level of principalship? 7. Is there a significant difference between.the principal's perceptions and the superintendent's perceptions of the importance of the selected curricular responsibilities for principals? 8. Is there a significant difference, between the importance of the selected curricular responsi­ bilities for principals, as perceived by principals and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is employed? Perceived Engagement in Selected Curricular Responsibilities 9. In which of the selected curricular responsibilities do principals most engage as perceived by school principals and superintendents? 10. Is there a significant difference between the selected curricular responsibilities in which prin­ cipals most engage, as perceived by principals, and the grade level of principalship? 34 11. Is there a significant difference between the principal's perceptions and the superintendent's perceptions as to the selected curricular responsi­ bilities in which principals most engage? 12. Is there a significant difference between the selected curricular responsibilities in which principals most engage, as perceived by principals and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is employed? Perceived Professional Development Meeds for Curricular Responsibilities 13. In which of the selected curricular responsi­ bilities do principals have the greatest professional development need as perceived by principals and superintendents? 14. Is there a significant difference between the principal's professional development needs, as per­ ceived by school principals, and the grade level of principalship? 15. Is there a significant difference between the principal's perceptions and the superintendent's perceptions of the principal's professional develop­ ment needs? 16. Is there a significant difference between the principal’s professional development needs, as per­ ceived by principals and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is 35 employed? Population The study focused on principals in sixty-five school districts in a nine county area of Michigan. This area begins in mid central Michigan and extends into mid southeastern Michigan. These sixty-five school districts were not ran­ domly selected from the total Michigan school districts. However, these districts were purposely selected because they constitute a designated location for a federal grant which is allocated by the Michigan Department of Education. The investigator had access to all of the principals and superintendents in this designated location since she is the coordinator of the federal grant. The sixty-five school districts range from small to large student populations. This area also ranges from urban to suburban to rural communities. The area comprises twelve percent of the school districts in Michigan. Nevertheless, since this study is focused on public school principals in a designated area of Michigan, the transfer of generali­ zations to other geographical regions should be made only by the reader who is willing to take upon himself the respon­ sibility for the validity of such extended generalizations. The study excluded assistant principals. The study also excluded persons employed as assistant superintendents, deputy superintendents or any other category of supcrintendency that is not the designated chief executive of the school district. Non-public school principals and superin­ tendents were also excluded from the study. 36 TABLE 3:1 SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACCORDING TO SIZE Small School District 54 Medium Sized School Districts 7 Large School Districts 4 TOTAL 65 Sample The sample included the following subjects from each of the sixty-five school districts. These subjects were randomly selected, when applicable, from the Michigan Education Directory (19 81). The subjects included the following: 1. One each of the following from each of the small and medium school districts: elementary, middle or junior high and high school principal (in those districts where only one category of each was avail­ able, random selection could not be achieved. Thus, those who were available were used.) 2. Two each of the following from the large school districts: elementary, middle or junior high school and high school principal. 3. One superintendent from each of the sixty-five school districts (not randomly selected since there is only one from each district). 37 TABLE 3:2 SAMPLE BREAKDOWN ACCORDING TO LEVELS OF ADMINSTRATION AND SIZE OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS Ele­ men­ tary Small School District Middle or Jun­ ior High High School Superintentent Total 54 42 54 54 204 Medium School District 7 7 7 7 28 Large School District 8 8 8 4 28 69 57 69 65 260 Totals Instrument A written survey instrument was used as the data gather­ ing source for the study and was constructed by the investi­ gator. The instrument design had three sections. The first section of the instrument requested participants to provide demographic data relating to administrative position and size of the school district where employed. The next section was designed to obtain the principal's estimated percentage of time spent on curriculum/instruc­ tional leadership responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities. Seven responsibilities were listed with adjoining spaces so the subject might write the appropriate percentage of time spent on each. In addition, an "other” category was listed with an accompanying space to write any 38 additional responsibility which occupied the administrator's time. The list of responsibilities included Curriculum/Instructional Leadership Office Responsibilities Community Relations Student Relations Extracurricular Supervision Personal/Professional Development Faculty Relations Others The list of responsibilities was derived from a national study conducted in 1980 as a cooperative Project with the University of Tulsa and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the national elementary and secondary principals' associations (op. cit. Howell). Principals were requested to indicate the perceived amount of time each personally spent on the designated responsibilities. The superintendent was requested to in­ dicate the perceived percentage of time spent by principals in his/her school district in general. The third section of the instrument was designed to obtain three responses concerning curriculum responsibili­ ties. The Taba Curriculum Model was used as a guide for determining a listing of responsibilities. The model emphasizes a sequence for curriculum decision making. steps are: 1. Diagnosis of needs 2. Formulation of Objectives These 39 3. Selection of Content 4. Organization of Content 5. Selection of Learning Experiences 6. Organization of Learning Experiences 7. Determination of What to Evaluate and Ways and Means of Doing It When necessary, the Taba sequence was broken into smaller activities. The activities were then written into a twenty- one item list utilizing a Likert-type scale. The instru­ ment design allowed each subject to give three responses for each activity. The first response requested the sub­ ject's perceptions as to the degree of importance of the activity. Possible responses were: 1 = low importance, 2 = medium importance and 3 = high importance. The second response requested the subject's perceptions of actual engagement in the responsibility. Possible responses on a Likert-type scale were: 1 = low engagement, 2 = medium engagement and 3 = high engagement. The third and final response requested the subject's perceptions as to the degree of professional development need for the stated responsi­ bility. The possible responses were: 1 = low need, 2 = medium need and 3 = high need. Principals were requested to respond to this section as to their perceptions as it personally applied to them. Superintendents were requested to respond as to their per-* ceptions as each applied to principals in general in their school districts. 40 Field Testing of the Instrument The instrument was field tested by fifteen adminis­ trators consisting of three each from the following levels of administration: elementary principal, middle school principal, junior high school principal, high school principal and superintendent. These administrators were from school districts other than those which were used for the study. The purpose of the field testing was to receive information on the understandability of the instrument and the amount of time needed for completion. Space was pro­ vided for respondents to make comments and suggestions. Respondents were also requested to indicate the approximate amount of time needed to complete the survey. The average time reported for completion was thirteen minutes. Sug­ gestions from the testing and from the investigator's study committee were incorporated into the final instrument design. Instrument Distribution and Collection The survey instrument was sent to the designated population by mail. A self addressed stamped envelope and a letter accompanied each instrument. The purpose of the letter was to explain the intent of the survey instrument as well as to encourage prompt completion and return. A telephone call was made to all partcipants between two days before mailing the instrument and five days after the mailing. The calls were to remind the subjects about the instrument and to encourage prompt return. Table 3:3 indicates the number of returned survey in­ struments according to sample breakdowns. TABLE 3:3 RETURNED SURVEY INSTRUMENTS FROM VARIOUS SUBPOPULATIONS , ELEMENTARY SMALL SCHOOL Sur­ ve y s Sent sur­ ve y s Retn. * of Total 54 42 7 7 .0 7 6 8 7 69 55 HIDLE/JR HIGH Sur­ Sur­ v e y s ve y s S e n t Retn. 42 37 85 7 6 87 8 7 57 50 % of T ota l 8 8 .0 HIGH Su r­ ve y s Sent Sur­ veys Retn. SUPERINTENDENTS % of T ota l Sur­ veys Sent S u r­ ve y s Retn. % of Total TOTALS Sur­ veys Sent. Sur­ % o f veys Total Retn. 54 45 83 54 48 8B 204 172 8 4 .3 1 85 7 5 71 7 6 85 28 23 82 .1 4 87 8 6 75 4 4 100 69 56 65 58 DISTRICTS MEDIUM SCHOOL DISTRICTS LARGE SCHOOL 28 24 85.71 260 219 84.23 DISTRICTS TOTALS 1 79.71 87.77 81 .1 5 8 9 .2 : — 42 Limitations of the Study There are three limitations to the study which include the data collection process. The first limitation is that a survey instrument was utilized for data collection. Certain limitations of the survey are discussed by Good and Scates ( p . 683), Mildred Parten C p •383) other authors on research methods. Whitney (p.140) and Included in these limita­ tions are: 1. It is extremely difficult to state the items in the questionnaire with sufficient clarity so that each respondent has exactly the same understanding of the information requested. 2. It is usually impossible for the respondent to express only the information specifically requested by the items without opportunity to give reasons for the responses, additional pertinent data, possible exceptions and other data which might give deeper meaning to data. 3. It is usually impossible to obtain returns from every member of a sample contacted through a mailed questionnaire. There is a question, therefore, whether those who responded are typical of the total population. The second limitation is related to the first in that items included on the survey are based on a particular cur­ riculum model. The four dependent variables, therefore, under investigation indicate "selected" curriculum respon­ sibilities. This study does not suggest that this "selected" 43 list is inclusive of all curriculum responsibilities or curricular professional development needs a principal may encounter. The selected list, therefore, is a limitation in this study. The third limitation is that the study focuses on the principals' and superintendents' perceptions as to the four designated dependent variables. The perceptions are a limitation since they are not the actual. Analysis of Data Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to analyze the results of the data. The purpose of the analy­ sis was to determine the effects of two independent vari­ ables, size of school district and category of admini­ stration, upon the dependent variables. Analysis included a twelve cell matrix as illustrated below: Small School District Superin­ tendents Elemen­ tary Prin­ cipal Middle/Jr. High School Principal High School Principal Medium School District Large School District 44 The Hotelling test was used to compute levels of sign­ ificance within the MANOVA. The level of significance was considered at ,.05. An a priori idea of specific differences between groups as stated in the research questions necessitated the use of Helmert contrasts. For the independent variable of admini­ strative position, elementary principals were contrasted with middle/junior high school principals and high school principals. Middle/junior high principals were contrasted with high school principals. Finally, superintendents were contrasted with principals. For the independent variable of position, small school districts were contrasted with medium and large school districts. Medium school districts were then contrasted with large school districts. The MANOVA process examined first the effect of size by position to determine if a significant interaction occurred. If there was no significant interaction, the effect of position at each of the three levels was analyzed for significance. If significant multivariate interaction occurred, univariate analysis and analysis of correlations between dependent and canonical variables were made. The process is illustrated in Figure 1. Research questions 1,2,3 and 4 focus on the perceived percentage of time the principals spent on curricular responsibilities. The mean and percentage for each of the twelve cells were graphically displayed to answer question 1. Figure 1: MANOVA Process for Analyzing Data MANOVA SIZE BY POSITION SIGNIFICANT? YES ■POSITION (1) (IF SIGNIFICANT) i POSITION (2) POSITION (3) STOP V UNIVARIATES +■ CORRILATIONS BETWEEN DEPENDENT AND CANONICAL VARIABLES STOP 46 Data regarding questions 2, 3 and 4 were subjected to the MANOVA process to compute the significance of differences among administrative positions, size of school districts and the interaction of the two. Research questions 5 through 16 focus on the selected curricular responsibilities as to their perceived import­ ance, perceived engagement and professional development need. For analysis, the twenty-one survey items were grouped into five subcurricular topics which included: 1. Preparation through Current and Professional Literature 2. Formulation of Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 3. Selection and Organization of Content and Student Learning Experiences 4. Evaluation 5. Conducting and Coordinating Inservice The survey items for each subtopic are indicated on Table 3:4. To answer questions 5, 9 and 13 which focus on the quanititive aspects of the three dependent variables, the mean scores were ranked from the greatest to the least for each set of categories, to determine those which are the most value for each of the three dependent variables of importance, perceived engagement and professional develop­ ment need. The MANOVA was used to analyze data for research questions 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 as to the TABLE 3:4 SUBCURRICULAR TOPICS AND RELATED SURVEY ITEMS SUB CURRICULAR TOPIC PREPARATION THROUGH CURRENT AND PROFES­ SIONAL LITERATURE OF PHILOSOPHY, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES formulation SURVEY ITEMS Keeping a b r e a s t o f c u r r e n t e v e n t s in n e w s p a p e r s, books and p e r i o d i c a l s Keeping a b r e a s t o f c u r r e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e OF CONTENT AND STUDENT LEARNING EXPER­ IENCES EVALUATION CONDUCTING AND COORDINATING INSERVICE 1 2 F orm ula tion o f d i s t r i c t ' s a n d / o r s c h o o l ' s p h i lo s o p h y o f education 3 F orm u lation o f d i s t r i c t ' s a n d /o r s c h o o l ' s e d u c a t i o n a l goals A F orm ula tion o f d i s t r i c t ' s a n d / o r s c h o o l ’ s e d u c a t i o n a l ob jectives 5 S e le c t io n o f con ten t for student lea rn in g SELECTION AND QRGANI7ATI0N ITEM NUMBERS O r g a n iz a t i o n o f c o n te n t fo r stu d en t learn in g F orm ula tion o f s t u d e n t o b j e c t i v e s A s s e s s i n g s t u d e n t needs 6 7 a 9 S e le c tio n o f stu d en t learning e xperien ces 10 O r g a n iz a t i o n o f s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s 11 S e le c tin g in str u c tio n a l m a ter ia ls fo r stu d en ts 17 E v a l u a ti n g s t u d e n t performance 12 E v a lu a t in g o v e r a l l prograra(s) 13 A s s e s s i n g t e a c h e r needs K O bservin g t e a c h e r perform ance i n t h e c la s s r o o m 15 O bse r vin g s t u d e n t performance in th e c la s s r o o m 16 E valuating p r o f e s s io n a l s t a f f u t i l i z i n g a desig n a ted process 21 T e a ch in g o b s e r v a t i o n l e s s o n s a s m odelin g t e c h n i q u e s f o r teachers IB Conducting i n s e r v i c e programs f o r t e a c h e r s 19 C o o r d in a t in g i n s e r v i c e programs f o r t e a c h e r s 20 I 48 effect of size and administrative position upon the three dependent variables. Treatment of Incomplete Data A total of 216 survey instruments was returned as indicated on Table 3:3. There were missing data, however, on some of the 216 returned instruments. Missing data were treated as follows: 1. Variable one focused on the perceived percentage of time principals spent on curricular responsi­ bilities. Subjects were requested to write the perceived percentage of time spent on seven listed responsibilities. The total time for designated responsibilities would be 100%. If a subject's responses did not total 100%, that section of the instrument was considered invalid and the subject's responses were not included in the total population's computations. Subjects who did not respond to this section at all, of course, were not included in the total population's computations. 2. Variables two, three and four focused on the perceived importance, perceived engagement and perceived professional development, need for the selected curricular responsibilities. On this segment of the instrument if the subject did not complete the entire column for each of the three variables, the column which was not completed was considered invalid and was not computed with the 49 total population. Table 3:5 indicates the number of valid survey re­ sponses for each dependent variable. TABLE 3:5 VALID SURVEY RESPONSES FOR EACH VARIABLE Medium S i z e d School D i s t r i c t Small School D istr ict Superintendent T otals VI, !i = 47 VI, II = 6 VI, H = 4 VI, II = 57 V2, H = 45 V2, 11 = 6 V2, H = 4 V2, H = 55 V3, H = 45 V3, II = 6 V3, H = 4 V3, II = 55 V4, 11 = 44 V4, 11 = 6 V4, N = 6 V4, 11 = 54 VI, N = 42 VI, 11 = 6 V I, 11 = 7 VI, 11 = 55 Elementary V2, 11 = 37 V2, 11 = 6 V2, 11 = 5 V2, 11 = 48 P rincipal V3, 11 = 36 V3, II = 6 V3, II = 6 V3, 11 = 48 V4, 11 = 35 V4, II = 5 V4, II = 6 V4, 11 = 46 VI, 11 = 37 V I, H = 6 VI, N = 7 VI, II = 50 V2, II = 28 V2, N = 3 V2, N = 7 VZ, 11 = 38 V3, II = 23 V3, 11 = 3 V3, 11 = 7 V3, II = 38 V4, II = 29 V4, II = 3 V4, II = 7 V4, II = 39 VI, II = 54 M id d le /J u n io r High School P rin cip als High School P rincipals T otals 1 Large School D istrict VI VZ V3 V4 = = = = ' VI, H = 43 V I, M= 5 VI, II = 6 V2, 11 = 37 V2, II = 4 V2, 11 = 3 V2, II = 44 V3, II = 34 V3, H= 4 V3, H = 2 V3, II = 40 V4, II = 32 V4, H= 4 V4, H= 3 V4, II = 39 VI, II =169 VI, H =23 VI, N =34 VI, H =216 V2, II =147 V2, H =19 V2, 11 =19 V2, 11 =185 V3, II =143 V3, II =19 V3, II =19 V3, 11 =181 V4, II =140 V4. II =18 V4, H =20 V4, N =178 V ariable Variable Variable Variable 1 2 3 4 ( P e r c e n t o f Time Sp en t on (Im p o rta n ce o f C u r r i c u la r (Engagement in C u r r i c u la r ( P r o f e s s i o n a l Development C u r r i c u la r R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) R e sp o n sib ilitie s.) R e sp o n sib ilitie s' Heed f o r C u r r i c u la r R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The analysis of the data obtained from a survey instru­ ment sent to 260 principals and superintendents in a nine county location in Michigan will be reported in this chap­ ter. The study focused on the effects of two independent variables (size of school district and level of admin­ istration) on four dependent variables. The analysis of data will focus on the sixteen research questions posed in the study. The sixteen questions were divided into four groups representing the four dependent variables. 1- The four variables were: The perceived percent of time the principal spent on curricular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities. 2. The degree to which selected curricular responsibilities were perceived as being important for school principals. 3. The degree to which principals were per­ ceived as engaging in selected curricular responsibilities. 51 52 4. The degree of perceived professional development needs for the selected curricular responsibilities. This chapter will be divided into four segments to re­ port the findings of the four sets of research questions. Percentage of Time Spent on Curricular Responsibilities The four research questions focused on this variable are as follows: 1. What percentage of a principal's time is spent on curricular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities as perceived by school principals and superintendents? 2. Is there a significant difference between the per­ centage of time spent on curricular responsibi­ lities, as perceived by school principals, and the grade level of principalship? 3. Is there a significant difference between the principal's and superintendent's perceptions of the percentage of the principal's time spent on curri­ cular responsibilities in comparison to other responsibilities? 4. Is there a significant difference between the percentage of time the principal spent on curri­ cular responsibilities, as perceived by principals and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is employed? To illustrate the findings for research question I, means scores and standard deviations were obtained for each of the twelve cells comprising size of school district and administrative position. these findings. Tables 4:1 and 4:2 illustrate The total population indicated that 15.71 of the principal's time is spent on curricular responsi­ bilities. Responsibilities, however, which consummed more of the principal's time were "Student Relations" and "Office Responsibilities" (21.04%). (25.10%) TABLE 4:1 PERCENT OF TIME PRINCIPALS SPENT ON CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES IN COMPARISON TO OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AS PERCEIVED BY VARIOUS SUBPOPULATIONS Total P opulation CURRICULUM/INSTRUCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OFFICE RESPONSIBILITIES COMMUNITY RELATIONS STUDENT RELATIONS EXTRACURRICULAR SUPERVISION PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL ' DEVELOPMENT FACULTY RELATIONS OTHER (Top figure = x, bottom figure = s) S u p e r i n te n d e n t s Snal 1 Med. Larqe Elem. P r i n c i p a l s Smal 1 Med. Larne 1 5 .1 7 10.51 13.40 8.34 3 5 .5 0 1 3 .7 5 1 6 .4 3 4 . 7 8 13.90 8.6 3 17.50" 8.22 24 .71 17 .6 2 13 .7 0 8.74 9.16 4 .9 1 1 1 .4 3 6.27 1 5 . 2 0 1 8 .6 0 1 0 .8 5 1 2 .8 3 21.67 15.71 21.04 1 0 .8 5 18.30 8 .4 0 15.0 25 .0 5.4 7 4 . 0 8 23 .1 7 1 1 .7 5 1 8 .3 3 6.86 22.86 1 2 .8 6 21 .4 3 11.71 1 4 .1 7 4.92 2 3 .5 7 16.51 2 1 .8 4 2 7 .0 1 1 .6 3 10.95 1 6 .6 7 6.83 9.83 6.02 9.80 7.93 10.0 4.B 2 1 1 .2 6 7.45 13.50 6.47 10 .71 8.86 7 .2 4 2.99 1 0 .8 3 9.70 9.29 4.49 25.10 14.82 28.13 1 8 .3 3 1 5 . 0 1 7 .5 0 5.4 7 6 . 4 5 25.90 1 1 .4 8 1 5 .1 7 5.87 1 3 .5 7 6.26 28.88 1 4 .4 7 4 0 .0 18.97 1 4 .8 5 6.90 7.80 6.05 8 .0 2 5.45 10.0 0 1 2 .5 0 8.66 4 .4 5 5.76 5.83 4.62 5.29 2.36 8.S J 6.33 9.16 8.61 5 2 .8 6 4 .87 • 5.25 3.52 5.06 3 .1 0 5 .0 0 5 .75 2.98 4.80 3.30 9 .6 7 4.96 6.43 3.77 5.06 3.58 5.83 2 .04 3.29 1 .7 9 1 4 .5 7 8.78 1 6 .0 9 1 1 .2 7 6 . 6 7 1 3 .7 5 2.58 4.7 8 1 5 .1 4 6.67 18 .3 3 11.25 1 3 .5 7 9 .4 4 13 .1 0 7.43 1 0 .8 3 2.04 1 9 .1 4 10.18 1.74 4.92 1 .19 2.33 1.75 2.36 1 .2 4 2 .5 4 1.67 4.08 2.85 4.07 2.70 8.7 0 0 0 10.0 0 1.67 2.58 liid d lc /J .U . P r in c ip a ls Smal I Larpe Lied. .5 7 .9 7 Hinh School P r i n c i p a l s Small Med. Larqc 7.90 2.82 9 .0 4.18 2 5 . 5 6 13.0 1 3 .9 0 9 . 7 7 . 7 2 13 .40 5.07 9 .63 5.46 4 .1 1 9.17 2.04 20.0 1 7 .3 2 11.0 7 .09 4.0 2.23 1 .6 7 1.96 14 .67 15.0 8 . 2 7 14.57 11.76 B .10 1.5 3 4.56 0 0 8.67 8 .9 8 TABLE 4:2 PERCEIVED PERCENT OF TIME PRINCIPALS SPENT ON CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES AS PERCEIVED BY VARIOUS SUBPOPULATIONS Small School District X s Superintendent Elementary Principal Medium Sized School District .. X .s 13.40 8.34 N=4? 35.50 16.43 13.90 8.63 17.50 8.22 13.70 8.74 15.20 10.85 ' N=43 14.04 High School Principal 15.75 13.75 4.78 N=4 12.83 N=7 N=6 18.60 12.83 N=5 N-50 16.23 21.67 15.71 20.25 N=55 N=7 11.43 6.27 9.16 4.91 N=57 15.66 24.71 17.62 N=6 N=37 Totals X X - - - - s- - - - - - - - - - s- - - - - N=6 N=42 Middie/Jr. High School Principal Large School District N=54 N=6 15.17 18.25 - N= 169 N=23 N=24 N=216 56 Research questions 2 , 3, and 4 focus on the effects of size of school district and level of administration on the percent of time the principal spent on curricular responsi­ bilities. To analyze the data for these questions the multivariate analysis of variance was used. The MANOVA indicates a significant interaction between the independent variables of size and position at .0004 level of signi­ ficance as indicated in Table 4:3. TABLE 4:3 MANOVA FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN INDE­ PENDENT VARIABLES OF SIZE AND POSI­ TION FOR PERCEIVED PERCENT OF TIME PRINCIPALS SPENT ON CURRICULAR RESPON­ SIBILITIES SOURCE o r VARIATION R lthln C ells Smal l Sc ho ol D i s t s . v i . I ted. A L a r g e OF SUM OF SQUARE5 1 9 ld . 5 4 3 7 204 34.2 3 02 1 I'E.VI SQUARE F SIO'.tFICAMCE c? r ■37.14 34 ,3 3 .3 53 37 •■JS2S7 •J31S2 Medium School OlICS. v s . U r g e 070.0403 1 97 0. 04 9 .9 8 5 0 0 S upts. v s. P r in c ip a ls 344.eao7 1 344.60 3 . 54 7 9 4 2 ,8 7 65 1 4 2 .0 7 45.5 20 0 1 4 5 .5 2 . 46 357 .43442 2520.0074 5 420.00 4.32324 • .:j :4 o E l e n . P r l i u . v s . M i d / J r . & U.S. P r f n s . M i d / J r . P r l n s , v i . H.S. P r l n s . S i t e By P o s i t i o n .44131 • I n d i c a t e ! s i g n i f i c a n t I n t e r a c t i o n o f s i t e by p o s i t i o n i t n c e l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e Is . 0 5 .:61C4 .EJ722 57 Due to the significant interaction, it was not deter­ mined which variable caused the main effect. However, charting of the variables helped to determine where the interaction may have occured. Tables 4:4 and 4:5 illustrate that the cause of interaction may have occured with super­ intendents from middle-sized school districts. It cannot be determined, however, if size or position caused the main effect. Summary of Percentage of Time Spent on Curricular Respon­ sibilities A 1. summary of this variable has the following conclusions: The total sample indicated that 15.71% of a prin­ cipal's time is spent on curricular responsibilities. This responsibility ranks third among seven others. "Student Relations" and "Office Responsibilities" were perceived as consumming more of the principal's time. 2. There was a significant interaction between the independent variables of size and position at .0004. 3. Due to the significant interaction between size and position, it was not determined if there was a significant difference between the percentage of time spent on curricular responsibilities and the level of principalship. 4. Due to the significant interaction between size and position, it was not determined if there was a significant difference between the principal's and TABLE 4 : 4 PERCEIVED PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES ACCORDING TO SIZE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT - io n ii'.D - Vi - 00 - r.5 - on 5ll |!U 75 70 - 75 - 70 fo 1.5 - [in i.O - 55 55 50 - 50 .15 - -lo •10 33 30 3(1 15 10 On ~ 5 lIP E IU IlT E H D E tlT - ELEM ENTARY PRINCIPAL Q = Small School District £ = Q = Large School District IU0DLE/JR. HIGH PRIUCIPAL In HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL in Medium Sized School District co TABLE 4 : 5 PERCEIVED PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATION 100 - Uk) 95 . 50 - 65 - - 95 - 90 - 65 - 60 - 75 - 70 - 65 H'J - - 60 - 55 - 5U - -Ir. - 40 » 35 - 30 - 35 - 30 s0* SHALL SCHOOL DISTRICT O “ Superintendent ■0 = High School Principal A = Middle/Jr. High School Principal ^ = Elementary Principal MLIUUM SCHOOL DISTRICT LARGE SCHOOL DISTRICT - 15 - 10 60 superintendent's perceptions on the percentage of time the principal spent on curricular responsi­ bilities . 5. Due to the significant interaction between size and position, it was not determined if there was a significant difference between the percentage of time spent on curricular responsibilities and the size of the school district where the principal is employed. The remainder of this chapter will focus on the follow­ ing three variables: (a) Perceived Importance of Selected Curricular Responsibilities, (b) Perceived Engagement in Selected Curricular Responsibilities and (c) Perceived Pro­ fessional Development Need for Selected Curricular Respon­ sibilities . For analysis of these variables the twenty-one survey items were grouped into five subcurricular topics which included: 1. Preparation through Current and Professional Literature 2. Formulation of Philosophy, Goals and Objectives 3. Selection and Organization of Content and Student Learning Experiences 4. Evaluation 5. Conducting and Coordinating Inservice The survey items for each subcurricular topic are indicated on Table 3:4, page 47. These subcurricular topics will be used for reporting findings for the next three variables. 61 Importance of Selected Curricular Responsibilities The four, research questions which focused on this .variable were follows: 5. Which of the selected curricular responsibilities are the most important to principals as perceived by principals and superintendents? 6. Is there a significant difference between the im­ portance of the selected curricular responsibili­ ties, as perceived by school principals, and the grade level of principalship? 7. Is there a significant difference between the principal's perceptions and the superintendent's perceptions of the importance of the selected curricular responsibilities for principals? 8. Is there a significant difference between the im­ portance of the selected curricular responsibili­ ties for principals, as perceived by principals and superintendents, and the size of the school district where the principal is employed? To illustrate the findings for research question 5, the mean score for each of the five subcurricular categories was determined. These mean scores reflected the responses ob­ tained from the total sample on a three point Likert-type scale. The mean scores were ranked from high to low to determine which categories were perceived as being the most important. Table 4:6 illustrates this ranking. TABLE 4:6 HANKING OF RESPONSIBILITIES IN CURRICULAR CATEGORIES FOR PRINCI­ PALS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE BY MEAN SCORES AS PERCEIVED BY PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS Survey Topic Formulation of Philosophy, Goals Mean Score £0n a three Point Scale") 2.68 and Objectives Evaluation 2.56 Preparation through Current and 2.43 Professional Literature Selection and Organization of 2.30 Content and Student Learning Experiences Coordinating and Conducting Inservice 2.09 63 The responsibilities in the subcategory, "Formulation of Philosophy, Goals and Objectives," was perceived as being the most important and was followed in order by the subcate.gory of "Evaluation." The responsibilities in the subcate­ gories of "Preparation Through Current and Professional Literature" and "Selection and Organization of Content and Student Learning Experiences" were third and fourth respect­ ively in rank order. The responsibilities in the subcategory of "Conducting and Coordinating Inservice" were perceived as being the least important. Research questions 6, 7 and 8 focus on the effects of size of school district and level of administration on the importance of the selected curricular responsibilities. The Hotelling test indicates a significant interaction at the .0 3745 level between size and position. TABLE 4:7 INTERACTION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES OF SIZE AND POSITION FOR PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED CURRICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES TEST IIAHE VALUE APPROX. F HYPOTHESIS O .F . H o te llin g s .27242 1.48275 3 0.000 ♦ In d ic a te s sig n ific a n t ERROR O .F . 6 65,000 SIGillFlCAKCE OF F. * .03 7 4 5 in te ra c tio n . ‘ Due to the significant interaction between size and position, the univariates were analyzed as were correlations between dependent and canonical variables. 64 In analysis of the univariate under position 1 (junior high school principals contrasted with high school princi­ pals) , there is a significant difference in the subcurricu­ lar category of "Conducting and Coordinating Inservice Programs" as indicated on Table 4:8. TABLE 4:8 VARIATE LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANT FOR MIDDLE/JUNIOR HIGH PRINCIPALS CONTRASTED WITH HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITIES IN SUBCURRICULAR CATEGORIES HYPOTHESIS 5UM OF SQUARE LITERATURE HYPOTHESIS MEAN SQ. ERROR MEAN SQ. F 512'iiriCANCE CF F ,10628 164.6 9 2 1 3 .10623 .9 5 1 9 8 .11 1 6 4 .73369 1.38414 2 3 5 . 7 1 1 OS 1 .3 8 4 1 4 1.36827 1.01160 .31 5 9 2 4.71904 1754.65290 4.71904 10.14250 .46527 .49603 9.62074 611.84625 9.6 2 0 7 4 3.53668 2.72027 .10090 12.31538 363.91034 12.31538 2.10353 5.85463 * .0 1 6 5 7 OBJECTIVES STUDENTS EVALUATION INSERVICE ERROR sq. sum c f * In d icates s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ce" High school principals perceive the curricular respon­ sibilities in this category to be more important than junior high school principals as indicated by the mean scores on Table 4:9. In position 2 (elementary principals contrasted with middle/junior high school principals) there is a significant difference in two subcurricular categories which are "Select­ ion and Organization of Content and Student Learning Exper­ iences" and "Conducting and Coordinating Inservice." 65 TABLE 4:9 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR PER­ CEIVED IMPORTANCE OF CURRICULAR RESPON­ SIBILITIES ACCORDING TO SUBCURRICULAR CATEGORIES AS REPORTED BY SUBPOPULATIONS J;r*ALL SC5*CCl" DISTRICT X [ -------- 1 1 M 4 '1 ■ J !i .1 ^ § E £ s & " A fS3StSt SI7ED SCHOOL CI5TAJC: . i 3 4,82 1.05 4,50 .54 5. SO 1.0 COALS A-'O C3JECf»ES 0.03 1,29 6.8] .40 9.0 0 16.46 3.25 15.50 2.81 14.25 7.C5 16.13 EVALUATION 15.51 2.15 16.65 1.50 15.75 2.0$ 15.65 [J.URVICE 6.44 1.67 a.o 0 7.25 t*7C 6.66 Liuwrnt 4.75 .83 4.33 .83 s.so 1.0 4.74