INFORMATION TO USERS
The m ost advanced technology has been used to photograph and
reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any
type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

U n ive rsity M icro film s International
A Bell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y

Order N um ber 9102698

Selected roles/fu n ction s o f M ichigan elem entary principals:
A stu dy o f perceived needs for preparation and continuing
professional developm ent
Kuckel, Jane E., Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1990

Copyright © 1990 by K uckel, Jane E. A11 rights reserved.

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

SELECTED ROLES/FUNCTIONS OF MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS
A STUDY OF PERCEIVED NEEDS FOR PREPARATION AND
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

By

Jane E. Kuckel

A DISSERTATION

Submitted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
for the degree o f

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department o f Teacher Edu ca tio n

ABSTRACT

SELECTED kOLES/FUNCTIONS OF MICHIGAN ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS:
A STUDY OF PERCEIVED NEEDS FOR PREPARATION AND
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
By
Jane E. Kuckel

T h is s tu d y was d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r dat a in i d e n t i f y i n g
ro les/fu n ctio n s
" e f f e c t i ve"

that

are

school s.

associated

L iterature

with

was

p rin cip a ls

review ed

that

p r i n c i p a l as bei ng key t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e s c h o o l
w ithin

the

sch ool.

correlated

with

developed,

which

From

effective
was

sent

behaviors

p rin cip als,
to

Michigan K-12 p u b l i c sc ho o l
instrument,

the

a

and

lead

cited

the

ch a ra cteristies
instrum ent

random

sample

e le m en ta r y p r i n c i p a l s .

t h e p r i n c i p a l s were asked t o

who

and o f s t u d e n t s

a survey

stratified

selected

of

was
639

In t h e s u r v e y

i n d i c a t e how i mp or ta nt

34

r o l e / f u n c t i o n d e s c r i p t o r s were t o t h e i r s u c c e s s , t h e d e g r e e t o which
t h e y f e l t a need f o r f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g in t h o s e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ,

and

where t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e i r most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g f o r e a c h .
R ole/function

descriptors

were grouped

into

the

four

broad

cate­

g o r i e s o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n , L e a d e r s h i p , Curriculurn D e v e l o p ­
ment and Implementation, and S t a f f Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el Management.
The r e s u l t s

of

the

su rv ey

showed

a high

correlation

what p r a c t i c i n g e le m en ta r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o

between

be i m po r t a nt

and

Jane E. Kuckel

the

roles/fun ctions

"effective"

cited

principals.

in

the

literature

as

There was an av e r ag e

being

need

further

training.

When compared t o

the

gender,

age,

of

an e l e m e n t a r y

years

experience

s i z e o f t h e sc ho ol d i s t r i c t ,

as

common

expressed

in de pe nde nt

variables

principal,

to
for
of
and

i t was found t h a t f e m a l e s p e r c e i v e d a l 1

f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s t o be more important than d i d m a l e s .

I t was

a l s o found t h a t w h i l e p r i n c i p a l s in l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s f e l t t h e r o l e s /
functions

to

be

more

p e r c e i v e d more o f

important,

a need

for

principals

continuing

The most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g
and

Curriculum

conference.

Development

and

for

in

smaller

professional
Instructional

Implementation

was

a

d istricts

d ev elo p me nt .
Supervision
workshop

or

The most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g f o r Le adership and

S t a f f Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el Management was o n - t h e - j o b t r a i n i n g .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First

of a ll,

Blackman,

and

Ignatovich,

I would l i k e

com m ittee

Dr.

George

to

thank my a d v i s o r ,

m em be r s,
Ferns,

Dr.

and

Cass

Dr.

Ted

Dr.

G entry,
Duane,

Cha rles

Dr.
for

Fred
th eir

a s s i s t a n c e , s u p p o r t , a d v i c e , and e x p e r t i s e .
Most o f a l l ,
husband,

Gary,

I owe a huge de bt o f g r a t i t u d e t o my f a m i l y .

not o n l y suppo rted and encouraged me,

on many a d d i t i o n a l

My

but al so too k

home and f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s so t h a t I would

have q u a l i t y tim e t o work on t h i s

project.

The l o v e and c a r i n g o f

Gary, K a r i , Heat he r, Sa ra , Mike, and Danny made i t a l l w o r t h w h i l e .
My f r i e n d s Judy DuShane and Ina Whitney prodded and encouraged
me a l l al on g t h e way.
School,

Coldwater,

under st and
all

A special

Michigan,

and a p p r e c i a t e

thanks a l s o t o t h e s t a f f o f Edison

and

s c h oo l

Dick

Fitzgerald,

"effectiveness"

who

and

helped

me

value

to

its

t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an e le m e n t a r y s c h o o l .
Without

research.
p arallel

Dan A u s t i n
Dan

and

I

I

might

worked

not

closely

studies.

v

have

pursued

through

all

th is
phases

valuable
of

our

C op yri ght by
JANE E. KUCKEL
1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ..........................................................................................................

viii

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...............................................................

1

Introduction
.......................................................................................
Background o f t h e Problem ..........................................................
St ate m ent o f t h e Problem ..........................................................
Purpose o f t h e Study
....................................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n s
.........................................................................
Research Methodology
....................................................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y ..........................................................
A s s u m p t i o n s ............................................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ..........................................................
D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y .....................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms .........................................................................
O v e r v i e w .................................

1
3
6
9
10
11
13
18
18
19
19
20

SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................

22

Introduction
.......................................................................................
H istorical Perspective
...............................................................
The P r i n c i p a l ’ s R o l e ....................................................................
E f f e c t i v e S c h o o l s Research
.....................................................
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Q u a l i t i e s , and Be ha vi or s o f
E ffective Principals
...............................................................
E f f e c t i v e Leaders/Managers
.....................................................
Summ ary .................................

22
22
26
29

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

32
39
42

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

45

Introduction
.......................................................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n s ................................................................... .
D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedure ..........................................................
P o p u l a t i o n and Sampling De si gn
............................................
Survey Instrument Development .................................................
Dependent V a r i a b l e s ........................................................................
Independent V a r i a b l e s ....................................................................

45
45
46
46
50
53
54

vi

Page

S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis
....................................................................
Summ ary .....................................................................................................

54
56

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA...............................

57

Introduction
.......................................................................................
Demographic D a t a .............................................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n ...1 ........................................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n ...2 ........................................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n ...3 ........................................................................
Rese arch Q u e s t i o n 4 ........................................................................
Research Q u e st i on ...5 .....................................
Sum mary .....................................................................................................

57
57
63
74
79
91
95
112

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................

115

Sum mary .....................................................................................................
Demographic Inf or m at io n ..........................................................
Research Q u e s t i o n s
....................................................................
Comparison Ac r o s s Independent V a r i a b l e s ....................
Comparison o f Importance and Need Respo nse s . . . .
C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................................................................
Recommendations ..................................................................................
R e f l e c t i o n s .........................................................

115
117
118
126
128
130
132
134

SKILLS LIST FROM PROFICIENCIES FOR PRINCIPALS
( 1 9 8 6 ) ..........................................................................................................

135

B.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THIS S T U D Y ....................................

139

C.

INITIAL LETTER AND POST CARD SENT TO THESELECTED
SAMPLE OF ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS .................................................

145

FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO NONRESPONDENTS ...............................

147

IV.

V.

APPENDICES
A.

D.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

v ii

148

LIST OF TABLES

Tab le
3. 1

3.2

3.3

Page
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f School D i s t r i c t s and P r i n c i p a l s
in t h e Sample by School D i s t r i c t C o d e ..............................

49

Number and P e r c e n t a g e o f Respondents by School
D i s t r i c t C o d e .............................................................................

49

R e l i a b i l i t y Alpha L e v e l s f o r t h e Broad C a t e g o r i e s
o f P r i n c i p a l Role D e s c r i p t o r s f o r Importance
and N e e d .....................................................................................................

53

4.1

D istribution

o f Participants

by Gender ..................................

58

4.2

D istribution

o f Participants

by Age

59

4.3

D istribution

o f Participants

by Years o f E x p e r i e n c e

4.4

D istribution

of Participants

by Degree H e l d ...................

60

4.5

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r t i c i p a n t s by T h e i r Current
Primary Assignment as P r i n c i p a l s ............................................

60

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r t i c i p a n t s by t h e S i z e o f T h e i r
School D i s t r i c t ( S t u d e n t En roll men t) ..................................

61

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r t i c i p a n t s by L i k e l i h o o d o f T h ei r
R e t i r i n g Within t h e Next F i v e Y e a r s ..................................

62

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Importance o f t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s /
F u n c t i o n s o f t h e P r i n c i p a l s h i p , in Rank Order . . .

63

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Importance o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o
I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n , i n Rank Order .........................

65

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Importance o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o
Curriculum Development and I m p le m e n ta t io n .
in Rank O r d e r .......................................................................................

66

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

viii

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

59

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Importance o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o
L e a d e r s h i p , in Rank Order .................................................

68

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
Importance o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o
S t a f f De ve lo pm e nt /P er s on n el Management, in
Rank Order .......................................................................................

69

H i g h e s t - and Lowest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f
Importance f o r t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s . . . .

70

The F i v e Highest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f
Importance A c r os s A ll 34 Role D e s c r i p t o r s

. . .

72

The F i v e Lowest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f
Importance A c r os s A ll 34 Role D e s c r i p t o r s

. . .

73

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f V ari anc e on t h e Importance o f
t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and
G e n d e r ..................................................................................

74

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Vari anc e on t h e Imporcance o f
t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and
A g e .....................................................................................................

76

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Var ia nce on t h e Importance o f
t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and
Years o f E x p er i e n c e
...............................................................

77

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Var ia nc e on t h e Importance o f
t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and
School D i s t r i c t S i z e ...............................................................

79

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h ei r
Per sonal Need o f Fu rther P r e p a r a t i o n in t h e Four
Broad C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f t h e
P r i n c i p a l s h i p , in Rank O r d e r .............................

80

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h ei r
Per sonal Need o f Fu rther P r e p a r a t i o n in t h e
R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o I n s t r u c t i o n a l Su p er ­
v i s i o n . i n Rank Order ..........................................................

82

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h ei r
Pers ona l Need o f Fur th er P r e p a r a t i o n in t h e
R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a t e d t o Curriculum Development
and I m p le m e n ta t io n , in Rank Order .............................

83

ix

P age

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

4.29

4.30

4. 3 1

4.32

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h ei r
Per sonal Need o f Fu rt her P r e p a r a ti o n in t h e
R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a te d t o L e a d e r s h i p , in Rank
O r d e r ..........................................................................................................

85

Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h ei r
Per sonal Need o f Fu rther P r e p a r a ti o n in t h e
R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s R e l a te d t o S t a f f Dev elopment/
Per sonnel Management, in RankOrder ....................................

86

H i g h e s t - and Lowest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f Need
f o r t h e Four Broad C a t e g o r i e s ................................................

88

The F i ve Highest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f Need
f o r P r e p a r a t i o n and Con tin ui ng P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development A c r o s s All 34 Role D e s c r i p t o r s ......................

89

The F i ve Lowest-Ranked R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s o f Need
f o r P r e p a r a t i o n and Con tin ui ng P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development A c r os s All 34 Role D e s c r i p t o r s ....................

90

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Va riance on t h e P r i n c i p a l s ’
Personal Need f o r P r e p a r a t i o n and Con tin ui ng
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development in t h e Four Broad
C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and Gender ........................

92

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Var ia nce on t h e P r i n c i p a l s ’
Per sonal Need f o r P r e p a r a ti o n and Con tin ui ng
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development in t h e Four Broad
C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and A g e .............................

93

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Va riance on t h e P r i n c i p a l s ’
Personal Need f o r P r e p a r a ti o n and Con tin ui ng
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development in t h e Four Broad
C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and Years o f
E x p e r i e n c e ................................................................................................

94

One-Way A n a l y s i s o f Var ia nc e on t h e P r i n c i p a l s ’
Per so nal Need f o r P r e p a r a t i o n and C o n tin ui ng
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development in t h e Four Broad
C a t e g o r i e s o f R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s and School
D i s t r i c t S i z e .......................................................................................

96

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Most V a l u a b l e Source
o f P r e p a r a t i o n and C o nt in ui ng P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n
....................

97

x

Page

4.33

4.34

4.35

4.36

4.37

4.38

4.39

4.40

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Most V a l u a b l e Source
o f P r e p a r a t i o n and Continuing P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development f o r Curriculum Development and
I mplementation .......................................................................................

99

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Most V a l u a b l e Source
o f P r e p a r a t i o n and Con tin ui ng P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development f o r Lead ership ..........................................................

100

P e r c e n t a g e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e Most V a l u a b l e Source
o f P r e p a r a t i o n and Co ntinuing P r o f e s s i o n a l
Development f o r S t a f f D e ve lo pm en t/ Per so nn el
Management
....................................................

103

P e r c e n t a g e Ranges and Mean P e r c e n t a g e s by Role
Cate gory f o r Most Va lu ab le Sourc es o f P r e p a r a t i o n

.

105

Comparison o f t h e F i v e R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s Ranked
H i g h e s t in Terms o f Importance With T h ei r
.......................................
Most V a l u a b l e So ur c e s o f T r a i n i n g

106

Comparison o f t h e F i v e R o l e s / F u n c t i o n s Ranked
H i g h e s t in Terms o f Need f o r Fu rther T r a i n i n g
With T h e i r Most Va lu a bl e So ur c e s o f T r a i n i n g . . . .

108

T r a i n i n g So ur c e s That Received 50% or More o f t h e
R e s p o n s e s ................................................................................

109

So ur ce s o f T r a i n i n g That Received 5% o r Less o f
t h e R e s p o n s e s .......................................................................

110

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction
In c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e about s ch oo l e f f e c t i v e n e s s , t h e p r i n c i p a l
is cited

as t h e key t o a s u c c e s s f u l

Goodlad,

Lezotte,

and

other

school.

researchers

S t u d i e s by Brookover,

continue

to support

t h e o r y t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e s and pr oc ed ur es o f t h e b u i l d i n g
as a l e a d e r ,
the

have a s i g n i f i c a n t

school,

particularly

as

the

p rincipal,

i n f l u e n c e on t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

measured

by t h e v a r i a b l e

of

of

student

a c h i ev e m en t.
In

his

c o n c lu d e d
school

s tu dy

that

w ill

entitled

the

principal

take.

The

and

school

feelin g

is

central

"It

is

articulates

m is s io n "

to

the

the
main

Goodlad

direction
link

(197 9)
that

between

a

the

The p r i n c i p a l must have an u n d e r s t a n d i n g

how t h e

community

perceives

the

role

of

the

t h e p r i n c i p a l , more than
the

p revailin g

any o t h e r

ambiance and c r e a t e s

individu al,
a

sense

of

( La za rus , 1 9 8 4 ) .

In t h e i r

1979

s tu d y

of

Michigan

l ow -in co m e and m i n o r i t y c h i l d r e n ,
the

is

Are F o r .

in or de r f o r t h a t p r i n c i p a l t o d e v e l o p a s e n s e o f m i s s i o n and

direction .
who

for

Schools

principal

community and t h e s c h o o l .
of

What

behaviors,

ch aracteristics,

with other c lim ate f a c t o r s ,

schools

enrolling

Brookover and L e z o t t e
and

b eliefs

of

found t h a t

principals,

c le a r ly influenced the level

1

prim arily

along

o f student

2

achievement.

Their

appropriate school

stu dies

suggested

learning clim ate i s

that

the

creation

a more e f f e c t i v e

low s t u d e n t a c hi eve m en t than i s t h e c l i n i c a l
students.

the

of

an

remedy f o r

a n a ly s is o f individual

E f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s have p r i n c i p a l s who b e l i e v e and promote

b elief

that

all

students

can

r a c e , or s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s .

learn

regardless

of

background,

L i t e r a t u r e on e f f e c t i v e

s c h o o l s has

s u g g e s t e d t h a t such s c h o o l s have p r i n c i p a l s who a r e n ot c o n t e n t
t h e s t a t u s - q u o and

who e x h i b i t

toward t h e pre mise

that every

hi gh

the principal

ac h i e v e m e n t,

i d e n t i f y i n g -the

sch ool’s

ac hi ev e m en t

for

all

m on ito r a l l

sc h o o l

deliberate

s t u d e n t can

activities

and th e n
to

learn.

assumes

educational

students

instructional

see

the

leadership

In s c h o o l s

wit h

resp onsibility

for

m ission
proceeds

w it h

as
to

high

student

coordinate

that they contribute to

and
th is

goal.
P r i n c i p a l s r e p r e s e n t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e sc ho ol
and, in t h a t r e g a r d , t h e y s e r v e t o s y m b o l i z e what t h e sch ool
s t a n d s f o r , how i t w i l l o p e r a t e , and what i s im p o r t a n t .
In
g e n e r a l, they s e t the educational tone for the s c h o o l.
The
research
on
effective
sch ools,
effectiv e
educational
i n n o v a t i o n s , and e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r p l a n n i n g change a l l
p o i n t t o t h e p r i n c i p a l as a s i n g u l a r l y imp ortant person in t h e
successful
school
system .
(L ezotte,
H a th a w a y ,
Mi 1 1 e r ,
P a s s a l a c q u a , & Brookover, 1980, p. 93)
According

to

the

U .S.

Department

of

Education

p r i n c i p a l s s ta n d at t h e c e n t e r o f s ch ool refo rm .
a vision

o f what t h e

command a t t e n t i o n ,

school

sho ul d

be,

but

(1987),

They not o n l y have

they

sat

high

goals,

and m o t i v a t e t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s t o meet t h o s e

goals.
In

19 83,

the

American

undertook a s tu d y t o

identify

A ssociation
strategies

of

School

Administrators

and programs c o n t r i b u t i n g

3

t o more e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s .
more

than

a decade

ch aracteristics

of

As p a r t o f t h e i r c h a r g e ,
research

associated

and

w ith

w ritin gs

effectiv e

t h e y r ev iew ed

related

to

sch ools.

In

the
that

r e s e a r c h , t h e p r i n c i p a l was o v e r w he lm in g ly c i t e d as one o f t h e most
important keys t o e x c e l l e n c e in s c h o o l s .
way g o o d

sch ools

function

plus

the

"Research f i n d i n g s on t h e
accum ulated

exp erien ce

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and p r i n c i p a l s combined t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t
site

leadership

is

an e s s e n t i a l

ingredient

for s u c c e ssfu l

of

school schools"

(p. 5 ).

Background o f t h e Problem
With

the

growing

com p lexity

of

today’ s

c o nc om it an t importance o f t h e r o l e o f t h e s c h o o l
a d u l t s who w i l l
it

is c r itic a l

for the building principal

staff-developm ent

p l a n n e r , and i n s t r u c t i o n a l
At

present,

available
for

to

col leg e

and

the

in d e v e l o p i n g young

be a b l e t o meet t h e c h a l l e n g e s o f tomorrow’ s w o r l d ,

d iverse leadership r o le s .
setter,

so ciety

there

assist
and

state

t o be s k i l l e d

Some o f t h e s e r o l e s ar e f o r e c a s t e r ,
sp ecialist,

finance

director,

goal

c u r r ic u l u m

leader.
is

1 im ited

knowledge

policymakers,

u n iversity

school

those

and

o r g a n iza tio n s o f school

s ch ool

and l o c a l

inform ation

providing

admi ni s t r a t o r

programs, p r o f e s s i o n a l
adm inistrators,

in many and

direction

preparation

principals

and o t h e r

s c h o o l d i s t r i c t l e a d e r s t o respond

t o t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t ne e ds o f
building p r in c ip a ls.
In r e c e n t y e a r s ,
the

passage

of

th is

Pub lic

concern has come t o
Act

163

in

the

M ichigan,

forefront

with

requiring

the

4

certifica tio n

of

school

ad m in istrators

E d uc at io n.

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r

January 14,

198 9.

processes

and

These

professional

rules

requirem ents

for

(a)

the

State

rules

Board

of

became f i n a l

on

were d e s i g n e d

ad m in istrator

in itial

to

detail

preparation,

adm inistrator

u n iv ersities,

every f i v e y ea rs,

preparation

(b)

based

on

State

and ( c )

programs
Board

at

the

certifica tio n ,
continuing

dev elop ment r e s u l t i n g from t h e r e q u i r e d renewal

adm inistrator c e r t i f i c a t e
s c h oo l

certification

final

in clu d in g requirements f o r

by

state-approved

state

Standards

o f the

colleges

and

Q uality

for

of

A d m i n i s t r a t o r P r e p a r a t i o n Programs.
B e f o r e p a s s a g e o f P u b l i c Act 163,
and

the

legislatu re

o r g a n i z e d programs,

had

not

t h e S t a t e Board o f Education

articulated

or d e v e l o p e d

state

id en tifiab le

policy

for

the

standards,
preparation

and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l de velopment o f s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
review

of

State

legislature

Board m in u te s

d u r in g

the debate

and t h e
of

public

P u b l i c Act

comments

163

before

(House B i l l

A
the

4282)

s u g g e s t s t h a t much o f what c o n s t i t u t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r p r e p a r a t i o n had
been

done

through

autonomous

c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t i e s .
of

Public

o p e r a te d
little

Act

163

coordination

from

among

degree

programs

at

state

The d i s c u s s i o n l e a d i n g up t o t h e p a s s a g e

indicated

independently

advanced

that
any

these

programs

statewide

institu tion s

and

policy

have

generally

direction ,

w it h

minimum l i n k a g e s

with

p r a c tic in g school a d m in is tr a to r s .
Although

the

requirem ents

of

M ichigan’ s

P ub lic

Act

163

e s t a b l i s h a framework f o r d e v e l o p i n g s t a t e p o l i c y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r
p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t programs,

it

is

5

only the beginning.

Deciding the content of th e se

programs i s

the

next

if

is

have

any

Board

of

critical

phase

adm inistrator

preparation

to

e f f e c t on t h e p r a c t i c e s and q u a l i t y o f s c h o o l s in Michig an.
In

response

Education,

in

Commission

for

to

th is

December

need,

19 8 8 ,

the

M ichigan

ap p oi n t e d

Administrator

a

Preparation

State

Professional

and

Sta nda rd s

C ertification.

The

Commission was charged by t h e S t a t e Board t o d e v e l o p and recommend
standards

of quality

for

adm inistrator

preparation

s t a n d a r d s , when adopted by t h e S t a t e Board, w i l l
and

approve

colleges

all

and

adm inistrator

universities

that

preparation
want

to

programs.

The

be used t o r e v i e w

programs

recommend

at

Michigan

candidates

for

Michigan a d m i n i s t r a t o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
T h is

same

c o nc ern

has

been

ad d r e s s ed

nation ally,

as

w ell,

through v a r i o u s s t u d i e s and n a t i o n a l

task force rep orts.

Since the

relea se

A Nation

(N ational

of

the

n ation al

Commission on Exc e lle nc e

report,

in E d uc a tio n,

1983),

at

R isk

there

have been many

r e p o r t s t h a t f o c u s e d on t h e s t a t u s and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n
in t h e U n ite d S t a t e s .
of

diverse

These n a t i o n a l r e p o r t s r e s u l t e d from t h e work

com m ittees--public,

b u sin ess-all

of

which

studied

private,
various

educational,
elem ents

governmental,

of

the

present

s y s te m o f e d u c a t i o n and recommended changes f o r t h e f u t u r e .
These i n i t i a l
o f instruction,
preparation
and c i t i z e n s

r e p o r t s f o c u s e d on c a l l s

in d e l i v e r y

s t a n d a r d s o f q u a l i t y in s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t , t e a c h e r

and c e r t i f i c a t i o n ,
in

f o r reform

educational

and f u n c t i o n s

decision

making.

and

roles

One

of

resu lt

parents
of

all

t h e s e r e p o r t s was t h e c h a l l e n g e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e g o v e r n o r s o f t h e 50

6

s t a t e s , who t o o k up e d u c a t i o n a l
1987).

The

reports

also

reform as a f i r s t p r i o r i t y
focused

criticism

on

(M iller,

educational

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e j u s t not
as competent as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in o t h e r f i e l d s

(G riffiths,

Stout,

&

Forsyth, 1987).

S ta tem en t o f t h e Problem
The
lo ca lly

resu lts
and

of

recent

n a tio n a lly ,

research

about

the

reports

and

stu dies,

p rin cip alsh ip

both

(Blumberg

&

G r e e n f i e l d , 1980; Brookover & L e z o t t e , 1979; Duke, 1987; Fi nn , 1988;
Goodlad,

1984;

strongly

suggested

his/her role,
and

Land & Walberg,
how

an

Lezotte,

e le m e n t a r y

develops buildin g clim a te ,

promotes

student

achievem ent.
principals

that

1987;

learn in g

Therefore,

and t h o s e

it

aspiring

to

the

M iller,

principal

fosters

greatly

seems

1980;

visu alizes

s t a f f d e ve lo p m e n t ,

inf!uences

c ritica l

1987)

that

principalship

student

p racticin g

gain

knowledge

about t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s t h a t enhance s c h oo l e f f e c t i v e n e s s and t h a t
t h e y have o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d e v e l o p s k i l l s and p r o f i c i e n c i e s in t h o s e
roles.

"With t h e i n c r e a s e d e v i d e n c e t h a t p r i n c i p a l s ar e c r u c i a l

to

t h e o p e r a t i o n o f e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s w i l l come t h e r e c o g n i t i o n f o r t h e
need

to

provide

(Lezotte e t a l . ,
In

1986,

P rincipals
tics
s tu d y

for

th eir

continuing

professional

1980, p. 9 6 ) .
the

N ational

A ssociation

of

Elem entary

(NAESP) under too k a s t u d y t o d e t er m in e t h e

and a p t i t u d e s most needed by t o d a y ’ s p r i n c i p a l s
at te m pt e d

development"

to

set

forth,

in

a

position

pa pe r ,

School

characteris­
(K-8).
the

T h ei r
sk ills,

7

traits,

and c a p a b i l i t i e s

t h a t make f o r t h e ki nd s o f p r i n c i p a l s who

d e v e l o p K-8 s c h o o l s o f o u t s t a n d i n g q u a l i t y .

Like Goodlad, t h e NAESP

research

revealed

1eader,

principal

is

the

effectiven ess
p rin cip als
aptitudes

that

sin gle

of

"As

and t h a t

sch ool’s

most important

those

possess

the

y ea rs."

They

appropriate
their

figure

stressed

personal

professional

in

the

build in g

determining
that

effective

ch a ra cteristics

preparation

be

the

and

r e l e v a n t and

effective.
C h e s t e r E. Fi nn , J r . ,
t o t h e U.S.
of

the

S e c r e t a r y o f E d uc a tio n,

N ational

A dm inistration,
programs

former A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y and C ou nse lo r

for

Commission

underscored

school

principals

in w r i t i n g f o r t h e 1987 Report

on

the

Excel 1en ce

need

for

Educational

stronger

and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s

f o r promoting h i g h - a c h i e v i n g s ch oo l s y s t e m s .

in

preparation

as

a necessity

He o b s e r v e d t h a t :

P r a c t i c a l l y n e v e r d o e s one e n c o u n t e r a good s c h o o l w it h a bad
p r i n c i p a l o r a h i g h - a c h i e v i n g s c h o o l s y s t e m w i t h a 1 ow
perform ance
superin tendent.
Ample r e s e a r c h
into the
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s c o n f ir m s t h e
c o n c l u s i o n o f common s e n s e .
The c a l i b e r o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
lea d ersh ip pow erfully in flu en ces the q u a lity o f education.
Y e t, a t a t im e when t h e n a t i o n i s d e e p l y c o nc ern ed about t h e
performance o f i t s s c h o o l s ,
and n e a r - t o - o b s e s s e d w it h t h e
c r e d e n t i a l s and c a r e e r s o f t h o s e who t e a c h in them, s c a n t
a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d t o t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
o f t h o s e who l e a d them. (p. 89)
A chilles

(198 7)

o b s e r v ed

adm in istrator preparation
practitioners,
who de a l

w it h

all

have

the

and c r i t i c s
indicated

instructional

s c h o o l - s i t e management.

that

that

1iterature

of the

on

programs,

education

educational
as w e l l

ne e ds

as

principals

l e a d e r s h i p and change and are adept a t

However, A c h i l l e s s u g g e s t e d t h a t :

The c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between c o u r s e work and p r a c t i c e sh o ul d be
given serio u s a tte n tio n sin ce current research suggests that

8

s t u d e n t outcomes seem r e l a t e d t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r b e h a v i o r s t h a t
a r e n o t commonly i d e n t i f i e d through o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s i n
s c h o o l s or t a u g h t i n p r e p a r a t i o n programs, (p . 44)
The

NAESP, i n

theif

Proficiencies

echoed A c h i l l e s ’ s c on c e r n :

for

P r i n c i p a l s K-8

(1986),

"Most p r e p a r a t i o n programs do a good j ob

o f p r o v i d i n g an adeq uat e knowledge b a s e .

They t o o o f t e n f a l l

short,

however, i n t r a n s l a t i n g such knowledge i n t o p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n a t
t h e e l e m e n t a r y / m i d d l e s c h o o l l e v e l " ( p. 1 ) .
The demographic t r e n d s in Michig an, showing a s i g n i f i c a n t r a t e
o f r e t i r e m e n t o v e r t h e n e x t few y e a r s , make i t even more c r i t i c a l
be c on ce rn ed

about t h e

preparation o f

aspiring

principals

who can

and w i l l make a d i f f e r e n c e in how and what s t u d e n t s can l e a r n .
studies
and

condu ct ed

by t h e Michigan Department o f

1987 on t h e e l i g i b i l i t y

employed

sc h o o l

elem en tary

and p l a n s

principals

school

p rin cip als

a c t u a l l y planned t o r e t i r e
by 1991.

The

who w e r e

E d u c a ti o n ,

elig ib le

This

trend.

means

1986

of

the

retirem ent
schools

c u r r e n t l y employed e le m e n t a r y
in

turnover

During t h e

current p rin cip a ls w ill

1987).

for

in

Two

currently

in Michigan p u b l i c

experience

a national

of

a p p r o x i m a t e ly 86%

from s e r v i c e

M ichigan

reflects

al m os t h a l f o f a l l
of

that

Th is r e p r e s e n t s 34% o f a l l

p rin cip a ls.
principals

found

Edu ca tio n

for retirement

to

that

retire

of

next ten
(U.S.

sign ifican t

school
years,

Department
numbers

b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s employed o v e r t h e n e x t t e n y e a r s w i l l

of

be new t o

t h e i r p o s i t i o n as a b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l .
The problem,
knowledge
those

and

therefore,

information

providin g

is

that

available

d irectio n

for

at present,
to

assist

co lleg e

and

there

state

is

1 i m it e d

policym akers,

u n iversity

school

9

adm inistrator

preparation

programs,

professional

organizations

s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s and o t h e r s c h oo l

adm inistrators,

d istrict

the

leaders

to

respond

to

and l o c a l

preparation

and

to

organizations

gather

in

information

designing

that

w ill

T h is s tu dy

be h e l p f u l

adm inistrator-preparation

s c h oo l

continuing

p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t needs o f e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s .
was d e s i g n e d

of

to

these

programs

and

c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l de ve lo p m e nt .

Purpose o f t h e Study
The purpose o f t h i s
p rin cip als

perceived

study,

then,

certain

was t o

assess

ro les/fu n ctio n s

how impor tan t

associated

with

l e a d e r s h i p e f f e c t i v e n e s s t o be t o t h e i r own s u c c e s s as a p r i n c i p a l .
It

was

also

intended

professional
principals
these

to

developm ent

effective

source

in

the

degree

these

of

need

ro les/fu n ctio n s

for

further

and

where

had r e c e i v e d t h e i r most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g

roles/functions.

perceive

reveal

principals
to

of

be

do

with

imp ortant

information

adm inistrator

Comparing t h e

in

preparation

usable

to

those

update

principals

to

for

what

Michigan

their

success

defining
programs.

institu tions
th eir

research

and
role,

basic

reports

about what

practicing

principals

sh o ul d

and

For

th is

also

be

common

a

valuable

content

information

organizations
they

for

that

need

to

to

pr e pa r e

for
be
and

know where

p r i n c i p a l s r e c e i v e d t h e i r most v a l u a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev elo p me nt f o r
those r o les/fu n ctio n s.
Th is s tu d y was d e s i g n e d t o c o l l e c t and a n a l y z e d a t a t h a t may be
helpful

to

state

policymakers,

faculty

of

college

and

university

10

school

adm inistrator

tions

of

school

sc h o o l

d istrict

preparation

principals

and

perception

of

impor ta nce

of

principals

identify

sional

other

professional

school

l e a d e r s t o under st and b e t t e r

r e l a t e d t o t h e Michigan sc ho ol
the

programs,

selected

de velopment

job

for
to

p rin cip als

roles,

(b)

the

further preparation
respond

what e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s

adm inistrators,
three

principalship.

elem en tary

to

the

identify

organiza­

im po rt a nt

and
areas

These a r e a s ar e
about

the

needs

that

range

job

and

e le m e n t a r y

and c o n t i n u i n g

selected

(a )

roles,

as t h e most v a l u a b l e

profes­
and

source

(c)
of

t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l de ve lo p m e nt .
It
wi 11

is

be

hoped t h a t

helpful

roles/fun ctions

in
that

the

information

preparin g
enhance

and

gleaned
updating

their

through

th is

s tu d y

ad m in istrators

effectiveness

toward

in

student

achievement.

Research Q u e s t i o n s
Res ponses were s o u g h t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :
1.

What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o be t h e d e g r e e o f

importance o f t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?
2.
regarding

What

di f f e r e n c e s

their

roles/fun ctions,
service

as

an

perceptions

exi st
about

among
the

el ementary

importance

of

comparing t h e v a r i a b l e s o f g e n d e r ,
elementary

prin cip al,

and

size

p rin cip als
adm inistrator

age,

of

length

th eir

of

school

district?
3.
of

need

What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e
for

further

preparation

and

to

be t h e i r

con tin u in g

develop ment in each o f t h e s e l e c t e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?

degree

p rofessional

11

4.

What

d ifferen ces

ex ist

among

elem en tary

p rin cip als

r e g a r d i n g t h e d e g r e e o f need f o r f u r t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l
comparing

the

variab les

of

gender,

age,

length

of

de ve lo p me nt ,

service

as

an

e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l , and t h e s i z e o f t h e i r s c h oo l d i s t r i c t ?
5.

What do e l e m e n t a r y

valuable

source

of

p rin cip als

preparation

and

id en tify

as

continu ing

th eir

most

p rofessional

d ev elo p me nt f o r each o f t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?

Research Methodology
T h is s t u d y was d e s i g n e d as d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h .
( 19 83)

defined

the

purpose

of

descriptive

research

Borg and Gall
as

being

to

" c h a r a c t e r i z e a sample" ( p . 3 0 ) .
This

study

preparation
elementary
perceptions

is

and
and

one

of

continu ing

secondary

about

ro les/fu n ction s.

the

pair

stu d ies

and

study

principals
importance
focused

continu ing p ro fessio n a l-d ev elo p m en t
principals.

of

lookin g

p rofession al-d evelop m en t

s c h oo l

range

This

a

on

in

the

the

to

their
job

preparation

and

needs o f elem entary

No a tte m pt has been made t o

r e s u l t s o f t h e two s t u d i e s .

of

selected

The o t h e r s t u d y , w r i t t e n by C. Danford A u s t i n ,

on s e co n d a r y p r i n c i p a l s .

the

needs

relation

of

at

school
focused

compare t h e

Such co mparisons c o u l d be t h e f o c u s o f

a futu re study.
I t was not t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s w r i t e r t o be comp reh en si ve in
addressing a ll

t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f t h e e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p .

The r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
they

form

the

addressed

common t h r e a d

in

th is

in

the

s tu d y were
effective

selected

schools

be c au s e

1iterature

12

regard ing

the

success-en hancin g

roles

of

both

elem en tary

and

s e co n da r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s .
A review

of

the

1iteratu re

suggested

that

the

ro les

of

elementary* m i d d l e , and hig h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ar e more s i m i l a r than
d ifferent.

However, as Dulce ( 19 87 ) note d in Thinking About School

Leadership,

a

review

some d i f f e r e n c e s
p rincipals.

of

in

p r in c ip a ls ’ job

exp ectation s

These d i f f e r e n c e s

for

relate

descriptions
elem en tary

to

span

of

does

and

reveal

secondary

control,

age

of

s t u d e n t s , c o m p l e x i t y o f c u r r ic u l u m , and community e x p e c t a t i o n s .
The

first

literature

step

in

conducting

and r e s e a r c h

that

o f s ch ool

was

were

correlated

effectiveness.

These

broad c a t e g o r i e s

of

w ith

or

review

between

the

certain

and sc h o o l

As t h e 1 i t e r a t u r e

b e h a v i o r s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

1 inked

roles/fun ctions

Instructional

to

principals

T h is r e v i e w i s p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter I I .

was r e v i e w e d , t h e r e s e a r c h e r noted a l l
that

s tu d y

showed a c o r r e l a t i o n

b e h a v i o r s and l e a d e r s h i p a c t i v i t i e s
success.

the

to

were

school
then

Supervision,

success

grouped

and

into

the

Curriculum D e v e l o p ­

ment and Imp lem ent at ion , L e a d e r s h i p , and S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t / P er s o n n el
Management.

The s ur ve y i n s tr u m e n t was p i l o t t e s t e d .

made,

on t h e

based

comments o f

the

respondents

R e v i s i o n s were

and a r e l i a b i l i t y

s tu d y t h a t was condu ct ed t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s i n each
c a t e g o r y were r e l i a b l e t o t h a t c a t e g o r y .
A s u r ve y
stratified
public

i n s tr u m e n t

with

42

questions

was

then

sent

random sample o f Michigan e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s

s c h oo l

districts.

asked t o i n d i c a t e

For each r o l e

function,

to

a

in K-12

r e s p o n d e n t s were

(a ) how imp ortant t h i s r o l e / f u n c t i o n was t o t h e i r

13

success

as

a

p rin cip al,

p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g

(b)

th eir

personal

professional

need

development

as e f f e c t i v e as t h e y would l i k e t o be,

and ( c )

s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l

d e ve lo p m e nt .

eight

q u e s t i o n s were used

the respondents.

to

for

further

in o r d e r t o

be

t h e i r most v a l u a b l e

g a t h e r demographic

An a d d i t i o n a l

information

about

Chapter I I I c o n t a i n s a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e

pr oc e du r e s f o l 1 owed in c o n d u c t in g t h e r e s e a r c h .
The s ur ve y i ns tr um e nt was d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about
the

lead ersh ip

q u a lities

and b e h a v i o r s

of

today’ s

elem entary

p r i n c i p a l s as a s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n f o r d e s i g n i n g p r e p a r a t i o n and
continu ing

profession al-d evelop m en t

programs

for

aspiring

and

practicing p rin cip a ls.

S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study
Recent r e s e a r c h
tics

and b e h a v i o r s

schools,

id en tification

of

a s s o c i a t e d w it h p r i n c i p a l s who l e a d

c ou pl e d w i t h t h e

curren tly
findings

r e la ted to the

p racticin g

and a n a l y s i s

expected

school

retirement

of

adm in istrators,

from t h i s

s tu d y w i l l

characteris­
"effective"

large

numbers

suggests

that

be u s e f u l

of
the

in p r e p a r in g

and up da tin g e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s w it h t h e p r o f i c i e n c i e s and s k i l l s
for th e ir leadership ro le

i n pr e p a r in g s t u d e n t s

as problem s o l v e r s

and d e c i s i o n makers in t h e t w e n t y - f i r s t c e n t u r y .
Former U. S . S e c r e t a r y o f Education Will iam J . Be nn et t ( c i t e d in
U.S. Department o f E d u c a ti o n , 1987) ob s e r v ed t h a t :
The q u a l i t y o f t h e men and women who t a k e t h e i r
g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e t h e k i n d o f e d u c a t i o n we
e v e n t u a l l y , t h e k i n d o f s o c i e t y i n w h i c h we
lea d er sh ip they provide w i l l determine, to a la rg e
kind o f t e a c h e r s ar e r e c r u i t e d , how many good ones

pi a c e s w i l l
enjoy,
and
1ive.
The
e x t e n t , what
s t a y in th e

14

p r o f e s s i o n , and how many i n e f f e c t i v e o ne s l e a v e .
We must t a k e
t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i l l our s c h o o l s w i t h dynamic, committed
l e a d e r s , f o r t h e y p r o v i d e t h e key t o e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s where we
w i l l e i t h e r win or l o s e t h e b a t t l e f o r e x c e l l e n c e in e d u c a t i o n .
At

present,

available
for

to

co lleg e

there

assist
and

state

is

1 im ited

know ledge

policymakers,

university

school

those

inform ation

providing

adm in istrator

programs, p r o f e s s i o n a l

o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f sc h o o l

school

and l o c a l

adm inistrators,

and

direction

preparation

principals

school d i s t r i c t

and o t h e r

l e a d e r s t o re spond

t o t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t n e e d s o f
elementary p r i n c i p a l s .
T h is s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n t o

assist

these

groups w i t h t h i s c o n c e r n .

I t t o o k a c l o s e r l o o k a t how p r a c t i c i n g

p rincipals

importance

perceived

the

a s s o c ia t e d with e f f e c t i v e

sc ho o l

of

leaders,

selected

whether t h e y

need f o r more t r a i n i n g i n t h e s e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ,
received

th eir

roles/fun ctions.

most

valuable

source

of

roles/fu n ction s
perceived

a

and where t h e y had

preparation

for

these

Such i n f o r m a t i o n i s e s p e c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h i s

tim e due t o t h e p r o j e c t i o n t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be a 32% r e t i r e m e n t r a t e
o f p r i n c i p a l s between 1986 and 1991

( Michigan P u b l i c School

R etire­

ment R e p o r t , 1 9 8 7 ) .
I t i s hoped t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y w i l l
in some measure,
1.
preparation
instructional
tion,

in answe ri ng t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :

How sho ul d c o l l e g e s ,
programs

m odify

supervision,

leadership,

p ro ve h e l p f u l ,

universities,

th eir

cu r r ic ul um

programs

and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r
in

development

and s t a f f d e v e lo p m e n t /p e r s o n n e l

the
and

areas

of

imp lementa­

management s o

as

15

t o a s s i s t p r o s p e c t i v e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in becoming b e t t e r prepared f o r
the v a r ie ty o f r o le s required o f a b u ild in g p r in cip a l?
2.

What c r i t e r i a s h o u l d l o c a l

selection

process

that

w ill

be

presently

employed

elementary

s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s c o n s i d e r in t h e
used

school

to

replace

principals

up

when

to

32%

they

of

retire

over the next three to f i v e years?
3.

What

principals

con tin u in g

must

be

met

p rofession al-d evelop m en t

to

assure

that

principals

needs
can

of

respond

e f f e c t i v e l y t o changes in s o c i e t y and t h e r e s u l t a n t e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r
schools?
4.

What mechanism(s)

in itial

sho ul d

be

in

place

The Governors*

t i o n . the n a t io n ’ s governors reported th a t
the

key

However,

ingredient

several

adm inistration,
be ar s

re sp o nd

to

the

and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t need s o f p r i n c i p a l s ?

In A Time f o r R e s u l t s :

be

to

1it t le

as

of

the

secon d

research

stu d ies

practiced

by

r e sem bl anc e

to

1991

Report on Educa­

"school

wave

of

have

leadership

reform"

found

superintendents

school

g r a d u a t e s c h o o l s o f e d u c a t i o n ( P e t e r s o n & Fi nn, 1985;
The 1987

Report

of

the

National

Commission

that

and

adm inistration

on

(p.

as

w ill
51).

school

principals,
taught

in

P itn er, 1982).
Excellence

in

Ed ucational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n c o nc lu de d t h a t "at l e a s t 300 u n i v e r s i t i e s
and c o l l e g e s sho ul d c e a s e p r e p a r in g e d u c a t i o n a l
20).

Nancy

N at i on al

Pitner,

Commission

ob s e r ve d t h a t ,
faculty

J.

on

in

w riting

Excellence

for
in

the

adm inistrators"
1987

E d uc at io na l

Report

had e x p e r i e n c e

as

1 ine

the

Adm inistration,

in g e n e r a l , t h e c o m p l a i n t s o f p r a c t i t i o n e r s

have not

of

( p.

adm inistrators

are t h a t
in

public

16

s c h o o l s , t h a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y programs do n o t p r o v i d e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
fo r applying

theoretical

theory

itself

is

needs,

and t h a t

d ev elo p me nt .

knowledge t o

too o fte n

actual

irrelevant

p ractitioners

or

are not

situation s,

tangential

used in

that

the

to

real-w orld

teaching

and c o u r s e

P itn er a l s o observed that:

. . . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore th e testim ony o f school
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t h a t t h e i r t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s a r e f a r from
ade qua te in p r e p a r i n g them t o r e s o l v e t h e problems t h e y f a c e .
S in c e a d m in is t r a t o r s c la im t h e y are unprepared f o r th e
r e a l i t i e s o f managerial work, i t be ho o v es us t o examine what
t h a t work e n t a i l s and i t s impact on t h e s c h o o l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
(p . 368)
P e t e r s o n and Finn (1 9 8 5 )

disparaged adm in istration preparation

programs f o r t h e i r "Mickey Mouse" c o u r s e s , f o r f o l l o w i n g an a r t s and
sciences

model

a d m is s i o n s
(1979)

rather

than

standards,

argued

adm inistration

and

that

a
for

the

practice

professional

is

poor

s c h oo l

clinical

m od e l,

training.

th eo retica l

underpinning

under

on

attack

a

low

G riffiths
of

number

for

of

school
g r o un ds .

Summary r e p o r t s by Hawley ( 1 9 8 7 ) , P i t n e r ( 1 9 8 2 ) , and McCarthy ( 1 98 7)
described a c o ll e c t i o n o f serious d i f f i c u l t i e s

in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f

sch o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h e U n ite d S t a t e s .
Several
principals
1978;

observational

(Crowson & P o r t e r - G e h r i e ,

Wolcott,

majority

of

have

1973)

th eir

with e f f e c t i v e
stu dies

stu d ies

of p rin cip als
1980;

have r e v e a l e d t h a t

tim e

pe r fo rm in g

principals
suggested

the

in e f f e c t i v e

that

principals

M o r ri s,

principals

and a s s i s t a n t
1981;

do n o t spend

roles/fun ctions
schools.
spend

Peterson,
a

associated

These d e s c r i p t i v e
most

of

th eir

t im e

working w it h s t u d e n t s who a r e d i s c i p l i n e problems and w i t h t e a c h e r s
who

have

noninstructional

needs

(Peterson,

1978);

attending

to

17

lo g istics,

external

requirements,

and s o c i a l

pleasantries

(Sproull,

1 9 7 9 ) ; and o v e r s e e i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m ai n t e n a n c e , p u p il c o n t r o l ,
extracu rricu lar

a ctiv ities

(M artin,

1980).

P rin cip als

and

engage

p r e do m in an tl y in s e r v i c e , a d v i s o r y , and a u d i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; t h e y
n e i t h e r become d i r e c t l y
level

nor

seek

involved

change

or

s ta b iliz in g relation sh ips
the

fundamental

tenet

in t h e w o r k - f l o w a t t h e

im p r o v e m e n t

(Peterson,

of

the

through

1978).

innovation

T h is i s

job--that

the

s c h oo l

(Jacobsen,

Logsdon,

& Wiegman,

effective

1973;

or

in c o n t r a s t t o

p r i n c i p a l sho ul d be f i r s t and f o re m o s t t h e " i n s t r u c t i o n a l
the

classroom

building
leader" o f

Lezotte,

1980;

Lipham & Hoeh, 1974; Roe & Drake, 1 9 8 0 ) .
Be cause
principals,

th is
it

study

w ill

have

continu ed p r o f e s s io n a l
M ichig an.

great

addressed

leadership
in

with

importance

Michigan
for

the

r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y w i l l

organizations,

educational

concerns

co nducted

elementary
in itial

developm ent o f e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s

In t h a t s e n s e ,

to professional
based

was

th is

as well
programs

s tu d y

are

and
in

be d i s t r i b u t e d

as t o l e a d e r s o f u n i v e r s i t y in

Mich iga n.

also

national

However,

the

issues.

The

1 i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g t h e importance o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s t h a t enhance
school

s u c c e s s has shown 1 i t t l e

the country.

Therefore,

or no d i f f e r e n c e

in s c h o o l s

across

t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s s h o u l d have i m p l i c a ­

t i o n s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev elo p me nt o f
a ll principals nation ally.

18

Assumptions
In c o n d u c t i n g t h e s t u d y , t h e r e s e a r c h e r assumed t h a t :
1.

The

elementary

principals

selected

for

the

s tu d y

would

w illin g ly participate.
2.

The e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s who re sponded t o t h e s t u d y would

be h o n e s t in t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .

3.

The

entire

sampled p r i n c i p a l s would

population

be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

o f elementary p r i n c ip a l s

in K-12

of

the

public

s c h oo l

districts.
4 . Those p r i n c i p a l s who responded t o
no l o n g e r

elementary

t h e s u r v e y and who were

p r i n c i p a l s answered

the questions

from

the

p e r s p e c t i v e o f an e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l .

L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
1.

The

collection ,

resu ltin g
a m a il e d

data

in a m a il e d s u r v e y .

2.

The s t u d y f o c u s e d

their

range o f

need

for

1imited

questionnaire.

control

about t h e

were

by

Nonresponse

on i n d i v i d u a l

preparation

method
is

and

of

data

d ifficu lt

perceptions

importance o f t h e i r j o b

further

the

of

principals

roles/fun ctions
continuing

to

and t o

professional

d e v e lo p m e n t .
3.

The s u r v e y i n s tr u m e n t was n o t meant t o be c o m pr eh en si ve

addressing a l l
The

study

focused

principalship:
opment and

the r o le s

(a)

on

in

and f u n c t i o n s o f t h e e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l .
only

four

main

ro les/fu n ctio n s

Instruction al Supervision,

Im p le m en ta t io n ,

m e n t/ P e r s o n n e l Management.

(c)

Leadership,

of

the

(b) Curriculum D e v e l -

and

(d)

Staff

Develop­

The c a t e g o r i e s o f i n q u i r y in t h e su rv ey

19

in s tr u m e n t
effective

were

selected

be c au s e

schools lit e r a t u r e

they

form

the

r e g a r d in g t h e r o l e s

pals/lead ers.

Th is

represents

one view o f what

principals

to

know

and

It

functions

or

principal

of

percep tions

of

doe s

not

con stitu en t

of

school

is

in

p rinci­

important

address
groups

thread

other
about

for

roles/
desired

b e h a v i o r s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

4.
size

do.

common

The sampled p o p u l a t i o n was s t r a t i f i e d
school

district.

A representative

only

population

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e may n o t have been sampled.

f o r ge nd e r and

for

age

and

Therefore, g e n e r a li-

z a t i o n s c a nn o t be drawn f o r t h o s e two c a t e g o r i e s .

Del i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
1.

The

study

sp ecifica lly

focused

on

curren tly

employed

p r i n c i p a l s o f Michigan s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s .
2.

The s t u d y f o c u s e d

on i n d i v i d u a l

perceptions

of

principals

about t h e ra nge o f importanc e o f t h e i r j o b r o l e s and t h e i r need f o r
f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e lo p m e nt .
3.

Data were c o l l e c t e d by use o f a w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t

asked f o r p e r c e p t u a l

responses o f individual

p r i n c i p a l s r a t h e r than

an e x t e r n a l o b s e r v a t i o n a l r o l e a n a l y s i s co nducted by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
E ffe c tiv e schools research :
show c o r r e l a t i o n a l

The r e s e a r c h t h a t was condu ct ed t o

characteristics

between

aspects

of

a

school’s

c l i m a t e , r o u t i n e , and l e a d e r s h i p , and s ch oo l s u c c e s s .
Elementary p r i n c i p a l :

A person

required

elem en tary a d m in is t r a t o r ’ s c e r t i f i c a t e

to

hold

a Michigan

e n d o r s e m e n t and who h as

20

primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for

supervising

instruction

and t e a c h e r s

p r e k i n d e r g a r t e n through gr ade 9 a t t h e b u i l d i n g l e v e l .
was s e n t t o p r i n c i p a l s
through g r a d e s

5,

6,

in

The surv ey

in s c h o o l s w i t h p r e k i n d e r g a r t e n / k i n d e r g a r t e n

7,

8,

or 9,

but n o t g r a d e s

5 through 8 or 6

through 8 .
Secondary
secondary

p rincipal:

A pe rs on

required

a d m in istra to r’ s c e r t if i c a t e

primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

for

supervising

to

h ol d

endorsement

instruction

a

Michigan

and who ha s

and t e a c h e r s

in

g r a d e s 5 through 12 a t t h e b u i l d i n g l e v e l .

Overview
Chapter I c o n t a i n e d an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e s t u d y ,
and s t a t e m e n t
study,

theory

methodology
tions,

of

of

the
and

the

problem,

the

su pp ortive
study,

purpose

and

research,

as s u m p ti o n s ,

a background

importance

research

1im ita tio n s

the

q u estio n s,

and

del i m i t a ­

and d e f i n i t i o n o f key t erm s.

Chapter

II c o n t a i n s

a r e v i e w o f t h e 1 i t e r a t u r e from which t h e

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s were d e r i v e d f o r t h e su rv ey i n s t r u m e n t .
was

of

focused

behavi ors

on
of

those

primary

el ementary

and

summary

p rin cip als

stu dies

that

The r e v i e w

regarding

in flu en ce

the

student

achi eve men t and sc h o o l s u c c e s s .
Chapter
meth odo lo gy,

III

contains

a

and d i s t r i b u t i o n

description
procedures.

of

the

The p i l o t

sample, and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n ar e d e s c r i b e d in d e t a i l .

survey
study,

design,
su rv ey

21

Chapters

IV and V c o n t a i n t h e

t h e study r e s u l t s .

findings

and

interpretation

of

CHAPTER II

SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
The

review

q u a lities,

of

the

ch a ra cteristics,

effective

school

settin gs,

effectiveness

of

the

literature

leaders.

organization

and

in

th is

chapter

behaviors

that

In both t h e p u b l i c

focuses

are

school

been

accomplished.

In

to

and b u s i n e s s

i s measured by how w e l l t h e goal

has

common

on

or m i s s i o n

public

school

e d u c a t i o n , t h a t has not always been e a s y t o d e f i n e or measure.

H istorical
A look, h i s t o r i c a l l y ,

Perspective

a t t h e major s h i f t s t h a t have take n p l a c e

in t h e p u b l i c s c h o o l s o v e r t h e y e a r s r e v e a l s a need f o r e d u c a t o r s t o
be more p r o a c t i v e in c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g t h e g o a l s o f t h e sc ho ol and in
more s c i e n t i f i c a l l y

analyzing

the e f f e c t

o f every

o p e r a t i o n toward t h e accomplishment o f t h o s e g o a l s .
the lit e r a t u r e c ite d

phase

of

school

As no te d from

in Chaper I, t h e b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l

i s s e e n as

key t o t h i s t a s k .
In t h i s
of

Full an

section,

(1982),

t h e r e s e a r c h e r l e a n e d h e a v i l y on t h e w r i t i n g s

R av it ch

( 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 8 4 ) , and Campbell
The e a r l y c o l o n i a l
on

to

what

was

learned

(1983),

Hall

and

Hord

(1987),

Goodlad

(1987).

s c h o o l s were e s t a b l i s h e d t o p r o v i d e an add­
through

the

22

home

and ch ur c h.

After

the

23

R e v o l u t i o n a r y War, new c o n d i t i o n s and v a l u e s emerged.
l e s s and l e s s equipped t o e d u c a t e t h e i r c h i l d r e n

P a r e n t s were

i n t h e home.

The

c r e a t i o n o f a new n a t i o n added a new di m e n s i o n t o what appeared t o
be b a s i c

to

any e d u c a t i o n a l

p r o g r a m - - th a t

and e nh anc in g t h e i n d i v i d u a l .
t h e most

imp or ta nt b i l l

of

preserving

democracy

In 1786, Thomas J e f f e r s o n n ot e d t h a t

b e f o r e t h e Un ited S t a t e s

Cong res s was

He s t a t e d ,

t h e d i f f u s i o n o f knowledge among t h e p e o p l e .

for

"No o t h e r

s u r e f o u n d a t i o n can be d e v i s e d f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f freedom and
happiness."
to

a dd r e s s

And s o began t h e lo ng e v o l u t i o n o f t h e r o l e o f s c h o o l s
societal

needs

as well

as c o g n i t i v e

sk ills,

to

produce

c i t i z e n s who were p r o d u c t i v e , law a b i d i n g , and s o c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e .
The

home

Schools

stressed

eth nicity,

emphasized

common

family

origin s,

When

learnings.

s c h o o l s were asked t o do more.

and

the

individu al.

the

home

did

less,

S c h o o l s were put in a p o s i t i o n t o be

r e a c t o r s r a t h e r than t o be p r o a c t i v e .
Throughout
stronger.

all

of

H e/s he

teacher/p rincipal

th is,

changed

the

from

comb ina ti on

role

of

primarily

wit h

added

the
a

concept

of

a

f u l 1 -tim e

1900s

and equipment,

saw

the

a d m in istration ,
Prospective
analysis,

and kee ping

first

un iversity

em phasizing

principals

were

achievement t e s t s ,

introduced

emerged,
tasks,

s ch oo l

to

to

a

functions,

as

w ith

a dd e d

m o n i t o r i n g sc h o o l

records.

courses

efficien cy

became

During t h e l a t e 1 8 0 0 s ,

p rin cip al

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r perfo rm ing j a n i t o r i a l
fa cilities

disciplin arian

adm inistrative

from p r e s i d i n g t e a c h e r t o d i r e c t i n g manager.
the

principal

in

w ell

age-grade

and b u i l d i n g management.

The

early

educational
as

efficacy.

tables,

cost

24

In

1921,

the

stu d ies

and

A ssociation

of

p rofessional

p o ten tia lities

leadership

Elementary

(Ravitch,

p u b lication s

School
of

1983).

of

P rin cip als

the

for

N ational

stressed

p rin cip al

They c a l l e d

the

for

more

the

ed u cation al

leadership

and

l e s s r o u t i n e work t o improve t h e q u a l i t y o f t e a c h i n g and c u r r ic u l u m .
School a d m i n i s t r a t i o n moved from management t o t h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l and
cultural

aspects o f leadership.

S c h o o l s were b e g i n n i n g t o be l oo k e d

a t as complex s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
In 194 5, e d u c a t i o n was h i g h l y d e c e n t r a l i z e d .

Everyone c o u l d go

t o s c h o o l , but t h e d i f f e r e n c e in q u a l i t y between t h e b e s t and w o r s t
s c h o o l s was enormous.
equal b a s i s t o a l l

A c c e s s t o h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n was n o t open on an

talen ted youths.

One’ s e d u c a t i o n a l

c ha nc e s were

1 i m i t e d by t h e a c c i d e n t o f b i r t h and by t h e c o l o r o f o n e ’ s s k i n .
some im po ve ri sh ed d i s t r i c t s ,

t e a c h e r s d i d not have c e r t i f i c a t i o n and

t h e a b s e n t e e i s m r a t e o f s t u d e n t s c o u l d av e r a g e as hig h as 48%.
nation’ s

schools

opportunity

and

were p e r c e i v e d
economic

In

to

plenty.

be

the

key t o

Between

realizing

1870

and

1940,

The
equal
the

p o p u l a t i o n t r i p l e d and s c h o o l e n r o l l m e n t s o a r e d .
Another p o l i t i c a l

i s s u e t h a t s p i l l e d o v e r i n t o t h e s c h o o l s was

t h e t h r e a t o f communism.

By 1950, 33 s t a t e s had adopted l e g i s l a t i o n

permitting the ouster o f d is lo y a l teach ers.

In 26 s t a t e s ,

teachers

had t o s i g n a 1o y a l t y o a t h .
The Elementary and Secondary Ed ucation Act o f 1965 c a l l e d

upon

the s c h o o ls t o address the i s s u e o f poverty.

The s c h o o l s became t h e

providers

and

of

compensatory

such

th in gs

education,

and

as

breakfast

health-care

lunch

services.

In

programs,
addition,

25

there

was

an

increase

in

parental

participation

in

the

sc ho ol

decision-making pro cess.
Another c h a l l e n g e

for

school

c u r r ic u l u m emerged

w i t h t h e Russian laun ch o f S p u t n ik .

in

The U n it e d S t a t e s

the

1950s

educational

s ys te m appeared t o be l a g g i n g behind t h a t o f o t h e r c o u n t r i e s .
was a g e n e r a l

outcry for

improved s c i e n c e

and math c o u r s e s

There
at

all

levels.
The

N ational

mandated
Career

V ocational

all

that

awareness

schools

Education

offer

and e x p l o r a t i o n

c u r r ic u l u m in most d i s t r i c t s

career
were

Acts

of

1963

counseling

incorporated

and

1968

and

guidance.

into

the

th ro ug ho ut t h e c o u n t r y .

K-12

S c h o o l s were

c a l l e d upon t o "purge t h e m s e l v e s o f academic s n o b b er y . "
In 1 9 6 5 ,
rights,

federal

with

the

Education A c t .
focus,

aid r e f l e c t e d

passage

of

In 19 69,

resulting

in

the

a dominant

federal

t h e Gallup P o l l

more

s ch ool

c o n c e rn w i t h

Elementary
created

and

civil

Secondary

another national

reform movements--the

problem

of

la c k o f d i s c i p l i n e in the s c h o o ls .
The 1970s
research

stu d ies

learning.
and

brought an o u t c r y f o r c o m p re he ns iv e

actual

established

had r e v e a l e d

certain

changes.

p ractices

that

Some

enhanced

The c h a l l e n g e now was t o b u i l d a b r i d g e between r e s e a r c h
practice.
with

The

National

a 25% fundi ng

Institute

level

for

earmarked

for

E d uc ati on

was

research

and

evaluation.
Much r e s e a r c h o f t h e
with

school

ac hievemen t

1970s r e l a t e d t o

and

showed

that

the

factors

schools

could

associated
teach

all

26

ki nd s

of

children.

principals
(1980)

is

accepted

also

a key t o

pioneered

reputable

It

the

studies
that

that

pointed
success.

effective

s up p or te d

when t h e

out

of

the

leadership

While L e z o t t e

sch ools

their

goals

that

the

and Brookover

research,

findings.

It

school

ar e

of

many

became
clear

other

commonly
and

staff

members ar e committed t o t h e ac hi eve m ent o f e v e r y s t u d e n t r e g a r d l e s s
of eth n icity,
I t was

background,

found t h a t

or

income,

how s c h o o l s

ar e

students

can

operated

and w i l l

corresponds

learn.

with

how

w e l l s t u d e n t s perform.
The e v o l u t i o n
resp on sib ilities
em phasis

of
for

the

discip lin e

on c u r r i c u l u r n

instructional

principalship

leadership,

and

moved from ha vi ng

clerica l

developm ent,

tasks

professional

to

primary
a

major

develop m ent,

and s t u d e n t ac h i e v e m e n t.

The P r i n c i p a l ’ s Role
Throughout c u r r e n t 1 i t e r a t u r e i s t h e p e r v a s i v e n o t i o n t h a t t h e
principal
The

plays

principal

a key r o l e
is

building l e v e l .

the

of

demands.

The p r i n c i p a l
of

the

the

1930s,

school

q u a litie s that w ill

all

critical

The p r i n c i p a l

principal

m ission

in

is
of
and

phases

pe rson

of
in

o f the 1990s,
confronted

the

1990s

put

forth

school
s c h oo l

the

accomplish th a t m ission

reform

at

the

in comparison w i t h t h e

with

must

effectiven ess.

be

a

kaleidoscope

able

kinds

to
of

define

of
the

1ea d ersh ip

(Blumberg & G r e e n f i e l d ,

1980; Goodlad, 1979; L e z o t t e , 1 7 9 ) .
As h i s t o r y has d e m o n s tr a t e d , t h e p r i n c i p a l not o n l y i s d i r e c t e d
by t h e c o u r t sy ste m and governmental a g e n c i e s , but a l s o must respond

27

to

a

p lu ralistic,

ad visin g

diverse

groups d i r e c t

direction s.

community

the

The e f f e c t i v e

whose

prin cip al

principal

in

is

formal

some wh at

and

informal

incom patible

able to o rch estrate a ll

of

t h e s e demands toward s t u d e n t s u c c e s s .
A s c an o f v a r i o u s t e x t b o o k s and manuals a d d r e s s i n g t h e r o l e s o f
the elementary

principal

reveals

that

the

principal

f a c e d w i t h a p r o f u s i o n o f prob le ms, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,

of

is

and t a s k s :

1.

S u p e r v i s e and e v a l u a t e sc h o o l p e r s o n n e l .

2.

Pr ov id e i n s t r u c t i o n a l

3.

B u il d and m ed ia t e scho ol- co mmu ni ty r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

4.

B u il d and m a in t a i n s t a f f m o ra l e .

5.

today

leadership.

I n i t i a t e change.

6.

Arrange and p a r t i c i p a t e
community f u n c t i o n s .

in numerous

school, d i s t r i c t ,

7.

C o n t i n u a l l y be v i s i b l e t o t h e community.

and

8.

C r e at e and s u s t a i n a s u p p o r t i v e sc h o o l environment in which
e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g o c c u r .

9.

In su r e t h e s a f e p a s s a g e o f c h i l d r e n t o and from s c h o o l .

10.

Take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
school.

for

11.

Refer students appropriately fo r sp e c ia l s e r v i c e s .

12.

Insure th at
practiced.

13.

Ma intain s t u d e n t r e c o r d s .

emergency

the

physical

procedures

14.

Perform as a team
tion.

member w i t h

15.

P la n , im plem ent,
d ir e c t, coord in ate,
s c h o o l ’ s c u r r ic u lu m and program.

condition

are

of

the

review ed

and

other d i s t r i c t

adm inistra­

and e v a l u a t e

the

28

16.

D e v e l o p and i m p l e m e n t
c u r r ic u l u m improvement.

17 .

Plan and implement s t a f f i n s e r v i c e .

18.

Promote e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n .

19.

Support and o r g a n i z e s c h o o l - i n v o l v e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s .

20.

Assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .

21.

R ecruit, s e l e c t ,

22.

Be f i s c a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e .

23.

Handle b u i l d i n g equipment and s u p p ly n e e d s .

24.

Ma inta in awa reness o f c u r r e n t t r e n d s and r e s e a r c h in e d u c a ­
tion.

25.

P o s s e s s ade quate communication s k i l l s .

26 .

Handle d i s c i p l i n e .

28 .

O rga n ize s c h e d u l e s .

29 .

S u p e r v i s e c u s t o d i a l , bu s , and food s e r v i c e s .

30.

Manage pup il a c c o u n t i n g .

The l i s t

stra teg ies

that

bring

about

and o r i e n t s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l .

g o e s on, depe ndi ng on t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f

each i n d i v i d u a l

building,

students,

on each o f t h e

above a r e a s

also

and s t a f f .

varies

from a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r .

The emp hasis p l a c e d

from s c h o o l

to

school

Some a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

and

never g e t

out from under t h e burden o f " a d m i n i s t r i v i a . "
The q u e s t i o n

t he n

a n o t h e r in c r e a t i n g

becomes,

an e f f e c t i v e

What s e p a r a t e s
school?

one

principal

In t r y i n g t o

from

answer t h i s

q u e s t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r r e v ie w e d s e v e r a l ki nd s o f s o u r c e s .

29

E f f e c t i v e S c h o o l s Research
The

name

pro ba bl y

most

associated

s c h o o l s " i s Lawrence L e z o t t e .
that

distin gu ish

effectiv e

with

the

term

"effective

In h i s s e a r c h f o r t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
sch ools

fro m n o n e f f e c t i v e

sch o o ls,

L e z o t t e (197 8) found se ven p r a c t i c e s common t o e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s :
1.

S a f e and o r d e r l y e nv ir on m e nt .

2.

C l e a r s c h o ol m i s s i o n .

3.

St ro ng i n s t r u c t i o n a l

4.

High e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s u c c e s s .

5.

O ppo rtu nit y to l e a r n and s t u d e n t s ’ t im e on t a s k .

6.

Frequent m o n it o r in g o f s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s .

7.

Home-school

l e a d e r s h i p by t h e p r i n c i p a l .

relations.

L e z o t t e ’ s r e s e a r c h emphasized t h e importance o f t h e r o l e o f t h e
p r in c ip a l t o develop
th e school

a c le a r perception o f the r o le

and purpose o f

( m i s s i o n ) , which i s un d er s to od and a c c e p t e d by t h e s t a f f

and communicated t o t h e community.

He t he n s t r e s s e d t h e importance

o f the p r i n c i p a l ’s a c tiv e r o le in insuring th a t in s tr u c tio n r e f l e c t s
strategies

that

research

supports

as

e f f e c t i v e p r in c ip a l understands t h a t a l l
has hig h e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t
to

promote

the

same

tenet

m o n it o r s t h a t p r o c e s s .

with

enha nci ng

s t u d e n t s can l e a r n .

a c hi eve m en t
their

The e f f e c t i v e

learning.

and e x p e c t s

students

principal

c u r r ic u l u m d ev elo p me nt and i m p l e m e n t a t io n .

The
H e/she

teachers

and

continually

is also

i n v o l v e d in

Time on t a s k i s an area

o f s p e c i a l co ncern t o t h e e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l .
In h i s

l a t e r r e v i e w o f t h e r e s e a r c h surr oun di ng achi eve men t o f

lo w- in c o m e s t u d e n t s ,

Lezotte

( 1 98 0)

found t h a t ,

in b u ild in g s

where

30

low -inc om e and m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s made achi eve men t g a i n s beyond what
would

be

expected,

the

prin cip al

was

a

ke y

factor

in

th is

phenomenon.

His r e v i e w showed a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between s t u d e n t

achievem ent

and t h e

in stru ction al-lead ersh ip

q u alities

of

the

principal.
As t h e l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y , t h e p r i n c i p a l sh o ul d i n s u r e t h a t
t h e s c h o o l ’ s g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s ar e known, and t h a t t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs are d i r e c t e d toward a t t a i n m e n t o f t h o s e
g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s .
The p r i n c i p a l sh o u l d a c c e p t shared
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e s , b e l i e f s and
e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s and, above al 1 , sh o u ld a c c e p t
r e s p o n s ib ilit y for the students,
regardless of t h e ir sex,
s o c i a l c l a s s , o r i g i n s , or r a c e , and s t u d e n t ’ s a c h ie v e m en t.
( L e z o t t e , 19 8 0 , p. 94)
He went on t o

present

sp ecific

actions

that

principals

should

t a k e t o improve s t u d e n t a chi e ve m en t:
1.

Implement t h e Mastery Learning Model thr oug hou t t h e s c h o o l .

2.

See t o i t t h a t t e a c h e r s r e c e i v e n e c e s s a r y r e s o u r c e s , s u p ­
p o r t , encouragement and r e c o g n i t i o n r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s ­
f u l l y implement t h e m ode l.

3.

Ov ersee and e v a l u a t e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t io n .

4.

Adopt a m i s s i o n s t a t e m e n t , s c h o o l - w i d e ,
b e l i e f t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s can l e a r n .

5.

S e t g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s r e l a t e d t o ac h ie ve m en t.

6.

Ev a l u a t e p r o g r e s s based upon a c h i ev e m en t.

7.

Manage t i m e ,
priority.

so

that

instructional

which r e f l e c t s

leadership

is

the

a daily

The Michigan S t a t e Department o f E d uc at io n, in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h
the

Edu ca tion al

Testing

s t u d i e s on s ch ool
c a l l e d School

Service,

effectiveness

E ffectiveness.

in

an e f f o r t

into p ra ctice,

to

translate

valid

published a booklet

Eight V a r i a b l e s That Make a D i f f e r e n c e

31

(1985).

In t h i s b o o k l e t , t h e y combined t h e r e s e a r c h o f many l e a d i n g

authorities

in

the

are a

of

school

research

(Edmonds,

Lieberman,

Brookover, Bloom, Brophy, and S t a l l i n g s ) t o d e s c r i b e s e v e n v a r i a b l e s
that

affect

pupi1

expectations,

(b)

achievem ent.

teacher

expectation s,

cl assroom

management,

recitation,

and ( g ) p a r e n t a l

Goodlad
sen sitive

(1 9 8 4 )

i n vo lv e m e n t

in

by

part o f tea c h e r s.

are:
(c)

(a)

t im e

reinforcem ent

and

prin cip al

on

task,

(d)

feedback,

(f)

i n v o lv e m e n t .
that

the

schoolwide

g r e a t e r e n t h u s ia s m ,

connected with

(e)

proposed

leadership

They

supportive

prin cip al,

decisions

p r o f e s s i o n a l ism,

conditions

a vailab ility

t en d

to

be

and c a r e e r

of

such
help,

associated

fu lfillm en t

as
and
with

on t h e

Improvements ar e most 1 i k e l y t o o c c u r when t h o s e

schools,

especially

principals

and t e a c h e r s ,

become

r e s p o n s i v e t o t h e i r own problems and need s t o d e v e l o p mechanisms f o r
e f f e c t i n g continuous self-im provem ent.

R e s p o n s i v e s c h o o l s m a in t a i n

a s t a t e o f r e a d i n e s s t o respond t o probl ems, s e t p r i o r i t i e s ,

and use

a l t e r n a t i v e i d e a s a p pe ar in g t o be u s e f u l , wh at e ve r t h e s o u r c e .
For t h e l a s t two d e c a d e s ,
the

and

q u a l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p o s i t i v e s c h oo l c l i m a t e (Fox, 1 9 7 3 ) .

In

early

F.

Kettering

1970s,

they

Fo un dat io n,

has

in c o n j u n c t i o n w it h
factors

the

C h ar le s

Phi D e l t a Kappa,

studied

formed a c o n s o r ti u m

of

the

leading

authorities

r e l a t e d t o sc h o o l c l i m a t e and p u b l i s h e d a handbook f o r a s s e s s i n g and
improving

school

clim ate.

Their

research

revealed

six

clim ate

f a c t o r s th a t a f f e c t school e f f e c t i v e n e s s :
1.

Continuous
cu r r ic u l u m
leader.

academic and s o c i a l g r o w t h .
i s a r t i c u l a t e d and mon itor ed

A well-rounded
by t h e b u i l d i n g

32

2.

R e s p e c t . Within t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g , s t a f f members are
r e s p e c t e d and encouraged t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e d e c i s i o n
m aki ng a n d ,
in
return,
students
are resp ected
as
i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h high e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e i r growth and
d e v e lo p m e nt .

3.

Hioh m o r a l e - - c o h e s i v e n e s s .
The p r i n c i p a l i s conc ern ed f o r
t h e dev elop ment o f a team e f f o r t toward a c c o m p l i s h i n g
common g o a l s .
H e / s h e i s a good problem s o l v e r and manages
c o n f l i c t b e f o r e i t a f f e c t s m o ra l e .
The p r i n c i p a l has
r e s p e c t and c onc ern f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and i s a good l i s t e n e r .

4.

Op po rtu ni ty f o r i n p u t .
The e f f e c t i v e b u i l d i n g l e a d e r i s
ade pt a t g a t h e r i n g l o t s o f d a t a b e f o r e making d e c i s i o n s and
a p p r o p r i a t e l y s o l i c i t s i n p u t f o r d e c i s i o n m aki ng from
s t a f f , e s p e c i a l l y when t h e y w i l l be a f f e c t e d by t h o s e
decisions.

5.

School r e n e w a l .
Both sc h o o l c l i m a t e and e f f e c t i v e n e s s are
improved when t h e p r i n c i p a l d e v e l o p s a s y s t e m a t i c way f o r
measuring s u c c e s s and t a k i n g s t e p s t o d e v e l o p p l a n s f o r
improvement.
T h is i n v o l v e s be in g a b l e t o a n a l y z e s t u d e n t
a s s e s s m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n and l o o k a t p e r c e p t i o n s o f p a r e n t s ,
s t a f f and s t u d e n t s .

6.

Caring.
An atmosphere o f supp ort and c a r i n g
good s c h o o l c l i m a t e .

is

basic

to

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Q u a l i t i e s , and B e h a vi or s
o f E ffectiv e Principals
The a ut ho r s o f

P roficiencies

for

Principals

(1986),

published

by t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s (NAESP),
atte m pt e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e s k i l l s ,

traits,

and c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t are

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f p r i n c i p a l s who d e v e l o p K-8 s c h o o l s o f o u t s t a n d i n g
quality.

The o b s e r v a t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n t h i s r e p o r t were based

on f i n d i n g s o f r e s e a r c h on t h e d a y - t o - d a y e x p e r i e n c e s o f p r a c t i c i n g
K-8 p r i n c i p a l s

and on recommendations from p r o f e s s o r s

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

educators.

o f education

Input f o r t h i s document was so ug ht by

n a t i o n a l l y known l e a d e r s in t h e f i e l d o f e d u c a t i o n a l

adm inistration

33

(Barth,

C aw elti,

Glickman,

report

Hunter,

others).

The

strands:

leadership p r o f ic i e n c i e s ,

ad m in istrative
examples

of

grouped

principal

p ro ficien cies.

the

a b ilities

L ezotte,

S ergiovan n i,

proficien cies

supervisory

L isted

and s k i l l s

each

strand

ch aracterize

p r i n c i p a l s and s u g g e s t i o n s o f t h e ki nd s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
and c o n t i n u i n g development t h a t would enhance t h e s e
In t h i s document,
first

century

and
were

effective

preparation

proficien cies.

t h e NAESP emphasized t h a t l e a d e r s o f t h e t w e n t y -

must

qu ality schools.

three

p roficien cies,

under

that

into

and

possess

sk ills

and

proficien cies

that

promote

A ll o f t h e s k i l l s are o u t l i n e d i n Appendix A.

In summary, t h e P r o f i c i e n c i e s f o r P r i n c i p a l s document o u t l i n e d
t h e f o l 1owing r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s

as b e i n g

characteristic

of effective

principals:
L e a d e r s h i p --An e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l b u i l d s upon t h e s t r e n g t h s o f
s t a f f members t o a c c o m pl is h t h e g o a l s o f t h e s c h o o l through
p a r t i c i p a t i v e management p r a c t i c e s ,
problem-solving
sk ills,
c o n s i s t e n t and c l e a r co mmu nication s, c o n f l i c t management, and
strong lea d ersh ip .
S u p e r v i s o r y p r o f i c i e n c i e s --An e f f e c t i v e
principal
promotes
e x c e l l e n c e through h ig h e x p e c t a t i o n s , i s s e l f - m o t i v a t e d ,
is
p o s i t i v e and s u p p o r t i v e , i s a c t i v e i n c u r r ic u l u m de v e lo p m e n t ,
and r e g u l a r l y s u p e r v i s e s i n s t r u c t i o n .
Admini s t r a t i v e p r o f i c i e n c i e s - - A n e f f e c t i v e
p rin cip al
is
organized,
has time-management s k i l l s ,
e f f e c t i v e l y manages
s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s , and u n d e r s t a n d s how t o work w i t h t h e
p o l i t i c a l fo rc e s w ithin the school c lim a te .
B1umberg

and

G reenfield
to

fin d

(1980)

suggested

p rin cip als

learn

rou tin es

for

structures

and

th eir

efforts

structures.

They c i t e d Lipham and Francke ( 1 9 6 6 )

d ifferen ces

between

concentrate

"Beacons

of

that

m ain tain in g

Bril 1 iance"

on

effectiv e
ex istin g

in itia tin g

new

in d e s c r i b i n g t h e
and

"P otholes

of

34

Petulance."
are

In s c h o o l s t h a t ar e "Beacons o f B r i l l i a n c e , " p r i n c i p a l s

charism atic

th eir

staffs

high.

and a r e
are

without

having

hand,

They ar e

able

Principals

learning
other

leaders.

to

foster

confident
to

to

in still

they

can

"P otholes

Morale

provide

on t r a d i t i o n a l

are

enthusiasm

a team approa ch .

that

lean

sch ools th at

able

is

purposeful

crutches.

of

in

On t h e

Petulance"

c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l a c k o f e n t h u s ia s m and e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

are

Principals

l e a n on r o u t i n e and r i g i d i t y and become o b s e s s e d w i t h t h e d e t a i l s o f
running a s c h o o l .
In

an

principals,

effort

to

B1umberg

find
and

common

ch aracteristics

G reenfield

( 19 80 )

of

und er to ok

effective

a

study

to

i n t e r v i e w and o b s e r v e e i g h t p r i n c i p a l s who were l a b e l e d

"effective"

by

professors.

their

T heir

colleagues,

fin d in g s

styles,

teachers,

revealed

they did

that,

have t h r e e

parents,

and

although

each

id io sy n cra tic
in

common.

They were goal o r i e n t e d and

had a keen s e n s e o f goal

clarity.

differen t

t h e y wanted t o

o f what

had

q u a !ities/ch aracteristics

Each had a v i s i o n f o r h i s / h e r b u i l d i n g .

images

college

Although a l l
see

the p r in c ip a ls

th eir

schools

had

become,

none o f them c o n c e i v e d o f t h e image s im p l y as m a i n t a i n i n g t h i n g s t h e
way t h e y we re .
make

thin gs

They were
happen.

If

continually
the

t h e m s e l v e s , t h e y c r e a t e d them.
create

a better

learning

alert

opp ortu n ities

opportunities
did

not

to

present

They were alway s l o o k i n g f o r ways t o

environment f o r

effort,

t h e y seemed t o have

rather

include

them.

each

Second, t h e y

for

their

students.

need s

to

want

a sense

of

security,

high

felt

In t h i s
others

to

which

35

enabled

them t o

approach,
wide

work.

open w i t h

t h e y were a b l e t o

variety

placed,

be

of

themselves

and

others.

With

th is

permit and enc our ag e t h e t e s t i n g
If

not

but t h e f a i l u r e was viewed as s im p l y an i d e a t h a t d i d

not

the principal

the

ideas

who l e a d s

failed ,

a

blame was

T h ir d ,

new i d e a s .

of

has a r a t h e r high

tolerance

f o r a m b ig u it y .
Dav is and Thomas ( 1 9 8 9 ) ,

i n t h e i r s tu dy o f e f f e c t i v e

schools,

f o c u s e d on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s c h o o l s t h a t ar e r e l a t e d t o h i g h e r
levels

o f s t u d e n t a c h i ev e m en t,

t o s c h oo l

success,

traits

and t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r s

They emphasized t h e

role

to

learning

and

Thomas

analyze

the

(student

stressed

various

body,

s t a f f organization)

that

who c o n t r i b u t e

enhance a c h i e v e m e n t .

importance o f d e v e l o p i n g a s c h o o l

is in str u c tio n a lly e ff e c tiv e for all
Davis

o f principals

that

students.

the

importance

components

groupings,

clim ate

of

the

of

the

school

community v a l u e s ,

and t o d e v e l o p an improvement

principal’s
that

affect

expectations,

plan.

Although

t h e y supp orted Blumberg and G r e e n f i e l d ’ s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e
i s no one i d e a l

leadership s t y l e ,

and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

that

they did c i t e p r incipal

make a d i f f e r e n c e .

d e v e l o p a p r o d u c t i v e and s a t i s f y i n g
They

continually

promote

student

E ffective

behaviors
principals

work environment f o r

learning

and

growth.

teachers.
They

set

l o n g - and s h o r t - r a n g e g o a l s toward i n c r e a s e d s t u d e n t ac hi ev e m en t and
c o n t i n u a l l y a s s e s s t h e d e g r e e o f goal
stated,

"Good i n s t r u c t i o n a l

leaders

attainment.

Gary and Thomas

a l s o m on it or t e a c h i n g

progress

by o b s e r v i n g t h e i r t e a c h e r s a t work i n t h e c la s s r o o m and p r o v i d i n g
feedback a f t e r every observation"

(p.

29).

They went on t o

state

36

that

principals

also

need

to

he

p ositive

with

and

supportive

of

teachers.
Lane and Walberg

(1987)

noted t h a t

successful

schools

have a

s t r o n g s e n s e o f c u l t u r e , which s t e e r s p e o p l e i n a common d i r e c t i o n .
They emphasized t h e
go a l

role

of

the

principal

and problem s o l v i n g .

settin g

implement ch a n g e,

effectiv ely

in

Today’ s

manage

the

the
role

expectations
is

to

p la n

in crea sin g ly

s c h o o l , and m ed ia t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e s c h o o l

of
and

complex

s y s te m and i t s

Lane and Dal berg w r o t e :

su r r ou nd in g p u b l i c s .

I f p r i n c i p a l s ar e t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r r o l e s and t h e problem
agenda o f t h e i r s c h o o l s , t h e y need t o become as c o n s c i o u s l y
i n v o l v e d in problem f i n d i n g as t h e y a r e i n problem s o l v i n g
working a c r o s s t h e f u l l problem c y c l e w i t h e a s e and c o n t r o l .

(p. 149)
They went on t o s u g g e s t t h a t th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f p r i n c i p a l s can be
u nd er s to o d by n o t i n g t h e p e r c e p t u a l
can

be

influenced

clim ate

of

the

by

situation al

school

and

the

evaluation
factors

by s u b o r d i n a t e s

lik e

technology

the

level

and

interpersonal
of

the

school

d istrict.
Hall

and

Hord

characteristics
settin g ,
w i de s pr e a d

of

(1987),

effective

concluded
acceptance

effectiveness

on t h e

in

that
that
job.

th eir
change

there

is

14-year

study

fa cilita to rs
no

regarding
in

d efin itiv e

certain

leadership

Ra th e r ,

they

s c h oo l

research

styles

suggested

the

w ill

that

the

for

create

effective

s c h o o l l e a d e r s a d j u s t t h e i r s t y l e t o f i t t h e s i t u a t i o n and p e r s on ne l
involved.

Good s c h o o l managers s e e k t o u n d er s t an d t h e p r o c e s s e s and

s t a g e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s go through in a change p r o c e s s .

Change i s

37

not

an

event,

d ifferen tly.
able

to

but

a

process

that

affects

each

p articip an t

Change a g e n t s must under st and change p r o c e s s e s and be

in itia te

and s u s t a i n

the

change

and

improvement

process.

The s t a g e s o f c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g an i n n o v a t i o n b e g i n a t t h e awarenes s
level

and p r o g r e s s th ro ug h t h e need f o r c o m p l e t e

th e change.

Before

a pe r s o n

is

able

to

information

accept

the

need

about

for

the

change and b e g i n t o adopt t h e new b e h a v i o r s and t e c h n i q u e s needed t o
manage t h e c h a n g e ,
have

an o p p o r t u n i t y

individual w ill
w i 11

h e / s h e must know t h e purp os e f o r t h e change and

need

to

travel

a ssista n ce

im plications

for

th is

able to

the

proposed

when

com m unication

they learn to

un d er st an d

successful

must be a b l e

that

and a d d r e s s

to

breaks
leaders

facilitate

v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f c o nc e rn and l e v e l s
The p r i n c i p a l

new r o u t i n e s .

the

o f use

assess

and

dow n.
are

change

ne e ds

of

The

not

born,

effectively
em p lo y e e s

at

in t h e change p r o c e s s .
intervene

as

In o t h e r words, d e v e l o p i n g e f f e c t i v e

change.

Each

a t a d i f f e r e n t pace through t h e s e s t a g e s and

approach d i c t a t e

but r a t h e r d e v e l o p as
and ar e

practice

needed

for

leadership

b e h a v i o r s i s more im po rt a nt t o s u c c e s s f u l s c h o o l s than i s p o s s e s s i n g
a successful

style.

The American A s s o c i a t i o n
their C ritical
Schools:
w ritings

of

Administrators

(AASA),

in

I s s u e s S e r i e s , The Role o f t h e P r i n c i p a l i n E f f e c t i v e

Problems and S o l u t i o n s
related

achievement.

School

to

(1983),

how p r i n c i p a l s

made

studied
a

the

research

difference

They a l s o c o n c lu d e d t h a t t h e major f a c t o r s

w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f good s c h o o l s were:

in

and

student

associated

38

1.

G e t t i n g good t e a c h e r s
p rofessionally.

and

helping

them c o n t i n u e

to

grow

2.

P r o v i d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l s up po rt through an emphasis on
i n s t r u c t i o n , a g o o d s c h o o l c l i m a t e and r e s o u r c e s f o r
teachers.

3.

S k illed supervision/evaluation o f teachers.

4.

M o t i v a t i n g and c o o r d i n a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n among t e a c h e r s .

5.

E l i m i n a t i n g o b s t a c l e s t o t h e accomplishment o f t h e s c h o o l ’ s
m ission.

P r i n c i p a l s a r e , o f c o u r s e , e x p e c t e d t o f u n c t i o n a s g oo d
managers— p e o p l e who n o t o n l y p r o v i d e f o r t h e com fo rt and
s a f e t y o f s t u d e n t s and s t a f f , but who han d le such t a s k s as
d i s c i p l i n e p r o b l e m s , k e e p i n g an e y e on t h e b u d g e t and
communicating e f f e c t i v e l y w it h t h e c e n t r a l o f f i c e , t e a c h e r s and
o t h e r b u i l d i n g s t a f f and p a r e n t s and o t h e r community members.
(P. 6)
The

AASA

al so

di s c o v e r e d

that

e f f e c t i v e pri n c ip a ls

are

o r g a n i z e d , unders ta nd change t h e o r y , and can u s e i t

t o implement new

programs.

with

able

to

evaluate

They e s t a b l i s h
foster

high

personnel,

a working

morale
carry

out

among

relationship
staff,

sc ho ol

and

make

sound

d istrict

staff,

are

decisions,

p olicies,

are

committ ed and m o t i v a t e d , and have a t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b ig u it y .
Faber and Shearron (197 0) a na ly z ed and o u t l i n e d t h e r o l e o f t h e
principal

from

two

perspectives; e ff e c tiv e

principals

must

pay

a t t e n t i o n t o both t a s k and p r o c e s s f u n c t i o n s .
1.

Their ta sk r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s include o v e rseein g in s t r u c t io n
and t a k i n g an a c t i v e r o l e in c u r r ic u lu m de v e lo p m e n t .
They
a l s o must a t t e n d t o s t u d e n t and s t a f f a c c o u n t i n g and
record-keeping.
In a d d i t i o n t o budget and p l a n n i n g r e s p o n ­
sib il i t i e s ,
t h e e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l must show l e a d e r s h i p
a b i l i t i e s both in t h e sc ho ol s e t t i n g and in t h e community.

2.

P r o c e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d e c is i o n - m a k i n g / p r o b l e m s o l v i n g , ar r a n g in g s c h e d u l e s and programs, b e i n g a b l e t o
e f f e c t i v e l y communicate, which i n v o l v e s a c t i v e l i s t e n i n g ,

39

c o n t r o l l i n g and a p p r a i s i n g and r e a p p r a i s i n g t h e
t o a s s e s s s u c c e s s and s e t g o a l s f o r improvement.

situation

E f f e c t i v e Leaders/Managers
In

a

sim ilar

effectiv e

school

manner

to

the

lead ers,

research

Drucker

and

studies

(1967)

describing

described

fiv e

c h a r a c te r istic s o f e ff e c tiv e executives:
1.

E f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e s ar e a b l e t o manage t im e

in o r d e r

not

t o be consumed by r o u t i n e t a s k s .

They s e t a s i d e t im e t o c o n c e n t r a t e

or

to

to

direct

their

vision

and

accomplish

resu lts

toward

the

growth o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .
2.

E f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e s f o c u s on outward c o n t r i b u t i o n s .

ar e go al
work.

o r i e n t e d and g e a r t h e i r e f f o r t s toward r e s u l t s r a t h e r than
They

continually
do i n g

They

a

understand
strive

better

emplo ye es

to

that

"change"

m a n ip u la t e

job.

They

and c o n s t i t u e n t s

improve t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,

in

is

procedures

continually
order

to

a

fact

and

of

personnel

communicate

find

what

when t h e y sh o ul d do i t ,

1ife

with

they

can

and how i t

and

toward
their
do

to

might

b e s t be a c c o m p l i s h e d .
E f f e c t i v e work i s a c t u a l l y done in and by teams o f p e o p l e o f
d i v e r s e knowledges and s k i l l s .
These p e o p l e have t o work
t o g e t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y and a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l o g i c o f t h e
s i t u a t i o n and t h e demands o f t h e t a s k , r a t h e r than a c c o r d i n g t o
a formal j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , (p . 66)
3.

E ffective executives

also

c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e

t h e i r em ployees and c o n c o m i t a n t l y make t h e i r w e a k n e s s e s
They

start

requires.

with

what

a

pe rs on

can

do ,

rather

than

strengths

of

irrelevant.
what

a

job

40

4.

E ffective

executives

continually

look

for

and

elim inate

a c t i v i t i e s and r o u t i n e s t h a t a r e no l o n g e r needed o r p r o d u c t i v e .
C o n c e n t r a t i o n - - t h a t i s , t h e c o u r a g e t o impose on t im e and
e v e n t s h i s own d e c i s i o n as t o what r e a l l y m a t t e r s and comes
f i r s t - - i s t h e e x e c u t i v e ’ s o n l y hope o f becoming t h e m a st e r o f
t im e and e v e n t s i n s t e a d o f t h e i r whipping boy. ( p . 112)
5.

E f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e s make e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s .

. . . E x e c u t i v e s who make e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n s know t h a t one
does not s t a r t with f a c t s .
One s t a r t s w i t h o p i n i o n s .
These
a r e , o f c o u r s e , n o t h i n g but u n t e s t e d h y p o t h e s e s and, a s s u c h ,
worthless unless te ste d against r e a li t y .
The e f f e c t i v e e x e c u ­
t i v e encourages o p in io n s.
But he i n s i s t s t h a t t h e p e o p l e who
voice
them a l s o
thin k
through
wh at
it
is
that
the
" e x p e r i m e n t " - - t h a t i s , t h e t e s t i n g o f the o p i n i o n a g a i n s t
r e a l i t y - - w o u l d have t o show. ( p . 44)
The e f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e do e s n o t s t a r t o u t w i t h t h e as sumption
t h a t one proposed c o u r s e o f a c t i o n i s r i g h t and t h a t a l l o t h e r s
must be wrong. Nor d o e s he s t a r t o u t w i t h t h e assu mp tio n "I am
r i g h t and he i s wron g."
He s t a r t s o u t w i t h t h e commitment t o
f i n d o u t why p e o p l e d i s a g r e e . . . . The e f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e i s
c on ce rn ed f i r s t w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g , (pp. 153, 154)
In

his

discussion

of

the

psychology

of

leadership,

DeVille

( 1 9 8 4 ) proposed t h a t :
Men and women who l e a d o t h e r s must c a p i t a l i z e on t h e i n n a t e
human ne e ds t o h a v e , t o do and t o become by managing t h e i r
gr oups so p e o p l e c o n s i s t e n t l y f e e l p l e a s u r e r a t h e r than p a i n a t
t h e p h y s i c a l l e v e l , p r e s t i g e and e s t e e m r a t h e r than d e v a l u a t i o n
a t t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l l e v e l and purpose and performance r a t h e r
than m e a n i n g l e s s n e s s a t t h e s p i r i t u a l l e v e l . When t h i s v i e w o f
how and why p e o p l e ar e moved t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h p e o p l e t h e y
t r u s t i s i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s and a t t i t u d e s o f
managers, g r e a t t h i n g s a r e p o s s i b l e i n an i n d i v i d u a l ’ s c a r e e r ,
( p . 255)
He rsey
leadership

and
and

Blanchard

organizational

and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
that

effective

behavior.

(1982),

in

behavior

that

study

of

en ha nc es

the

kind

of

productivity

r e v ie w e d t h e r e s e a r c h on m o t i v a t i o n and no te d

managers do more than

Th ey

th eir

d evelop

sk ills

in

just

un d er st an d

d irectin g ,

and p r e d i c t

changing,

and

41

controlling

behavior.

They must have a background i n and working

knowledge o f t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s .

They

must know which m o t i v e s

o r ne ed s o f p e o p l e e vok e a c e r t a i n a c t i o n a t a p a r t i c u l a r t im e and
s t r u c t u r e an env iro nm en t
for

need s a t i s f a c t i o n .

involves
that

developing

ar e

most

situation al
at

i n which

Influ en cin g

a working

i m po r t an t

to

lead ership theory

analyzing

appropriate

the maturity

another

goals

are

available

person’s

behavior

knowledge o f t h e m o t i v e s and ne e ds
that

person

at

that

tim e.

Their

s u g g e s t e d t h a t managers become ade pt

level

o f e m pl oy ee s and a d j u s t i n g t h e i r

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e t o f i t t h e needs o f i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s .
For ex amp le,
direction

highly s k ille d

and s u p p o r t .

and m o t i v a t e d

They f u n c t i o n

best

p e r s o n s need l i t t l e

when t h e y

are g iv en

a

t a s k and have t h e l a t i t u d e t o f i g u r e out how b e s t t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e
assignment.

Hersey and Blanchard s t a t e d :

Research i n d i c a t e s t h a t commitment i n c r e a s e s when p e o p l e are
i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r own g o a l - s e t t i n g .
I f i n d i v i d u a l s are
i n v o l v e d , t h e y w i l l t en d t o en gage i n much more go a l - d i r e c t e d
a c t i v i t y b e f o r e t h e y become f r u s t r a t e d and g i v e up.
On t h e
o t h e r hand, i f t h e i r b o s s s e t s t h e g o a l s f o r them, t h e y ar e
l i k e l y t o g i v e up more e a s i l y be c a u s e t h e y p e r c e i v e t h e s e as
t h e i r b o s s ’ s g o a l s and n o t as t h e i r own. ( p . 23)
On t h e o t h e r hand, p e r s o n s who ar e n e i t h e r w i l l i n g nor s k i l l e d
need v e r y

sp ecific

direction s

and c l o s e

supervision.

Hersey

and

Blanchard o b s e r v e d :
P e op le who a r e both u n a b le and u n w i l l i n g t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
t o do so mething a r e not co mpetent or c o n f i d e n t .
In many c a s e s ,
t h e i r u n w illin g n e s s i s a r e s u l t o f t h e i r i n s e c u r i t y regarding
the necessary task .
Thus, a d i r e c t i v e " t e l l i n g " s t y l e . . .
t h a t p r o v i d e s c l e a r , s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s and s u p e r v i s i o n has
the h ig h e s t p r o b a b i l it y o f being e f f e c t i v e with i n d i v id u a ls at
t h i s m a t u r i t y l e v e l . T h is s t y l e i s c a l l e d " t e l l i n g " b e c a u s e i t
i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e l e a d e r ’ s d e f i n i n g r o l e s and t e l l i n g

42

p e o p l e what, how, when and where t o do v a r i o u s t a s k s .
It
e mp ha s iz e s d i r e c t i v e b e h a v i o r .
Too much s u p p o r t i v e b e h a v i o r
w i t h p e o p l e a t t h i s m a t u r i t y l e v e l may be s e e n a s p e r m i s s i v e ,
e a s y and most i m p o r t a n t l y , as rewarding o f poor performance.
(P . 53)
They co nt en de d

that

effective

managers

human a s p e c t s o f t h e work e nv ir o n m e nt ,

pay

as well

attention

to

the

as th e t a sk a s p e c t.

They c i t e d t h e Herzberg and Hawthorne s t u d i e s as i n d i c a t o r s t h a t j o b
sa tisfa ctio n
com petence,

is

high ly

sense

correlated

o f m astery,

to

workers’

recogn ition ,

and

feelin g s

of

involyem ent

in

d e c i s i o n making.
Blanchard
Manager,

and Johnson

focused

organization

as

th eir
they

ar e

in

a tten tion

suggested

a c c o m p l i sh ed through q u i c k
reprimand."

(1982),

th eir
on

that

book

the

The

em ployees

" effective

and e f f i c i e n t g o a l

One

i n v e s t in p eople.

for

resu lts,

it

certain ly

settin g,

makes

of

the

management

The b a s i s o f t h e i r management t h e o r y i s t h a t ,

responsible

Minute

good

praise

is
and

i f people
sense

to

They b e l i e v e d t h a t g o a l s b e g i n b e h a v i o r s and t h a t

c o n s e q u e n c e s m a in t a i n b e h a v i o r .

Summary
T h is
formed

review

the

basis

highlighted
for

the

identifying

primary
roles,

literature
functions,

sources
and

that

behaviors

t h a t a r e promoted a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f p r i n c i p a l s / l e a d e r s who f o s t e r
s t u d e n t a c hi eve m en t and make a d i f f e r e n c e

in school

effectiven ess.

In r e v i e w i n g t h e s e s o u r c e s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r p u l l e d o u t and note d t h e
primary

lead ersh ip

behaviors,

q u alities,

ch a ra cteristics,

and

programs t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d as ha vi ng a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on sc ho ol

43

organ ization ,

effectiven ess,

or

student

achievem ent.

Those

q u a l i t i e s and b e h a v i o r s were t he n grouped under t h e broad c a t e g o r i e s
of

(a)

in stru ction al

su p ervision ,

(b)

student

c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n ,
building

management,

(f)

parent

and community

s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t / p e r s o n n e l management.
to

d e t e r m in e

literature
(a)

behaviors

sources.

in stru ction al

implementation,

that

formed

Those f e l l

(c)

lead ersh ip ,

(e)

relation s,

and

the

(b)

(g)

The l i s t s were t h e n scanned
common

thread

across

i n t o t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s

su p ervision ,

(c) lead ership,

(d)

rela tio n s,

curriculum

and (d)

developm ent

the
of
and

s t a f f development/personnel

management.
In stru ction al

su p erv isio n .

The

c on ce rn ed about s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t.
learn

and

is

con tin u ally

effectiv e

prin cip al

H e/she e x p e c t s a l l

involved

in

is

students to

prom oting

effective

i n s t r u c t i o n , s e t t i n g l e a r n i n g g o a l s , and a n a l y z i n g ou tc om e s .
C u r r i c u lu r n d e v e l o p m e n t and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .
principal a s s i s t s teachers

The e f f e c t i v e

in c u r r ic u lu m d e ve lo p m e n t ,

articulation,

c o o r d i n a t i o n , and i m p l e m e n t a t io n .
Leadership.
works

with

solving

staff

sk ills,

The e f f e c t i v e
toward
knows

communicates s o t h a t a l l
whole.

principal

common g o a l s .
how
feel

to

is

vision

He/she

motivate

and

has

oriented
good

develop

informed and an i n t e g r a l

The e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l

leads a ll

and

problem­

staff,

and

part o f the

s t a f f toward t h e m i s s i o n

o f t h e s c h o o l and r e g u l a r l y m o n it o r s t h e i r p r o g r e s s toward t h a t end.
S taff
principal

develop m ent/p ersonnel
builds

on

the

strengths

management.
of

staff

The

members

effective
and

becomes

44

a ctiv ely

involved

s tu d e n t achievement.

in s ta f f-d e v e lo p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s

t h a t enhance

CHAPTER I I I

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The purpose o f t h i s r e s e a r c h s tu d y was t o i d e n t i f y what r o l e s /
f u n c t i o n s p r a c t i c i n g e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o be important
t o t h e i r s u c c e s s , where t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e i r most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f
training

for

those

roles/fun ctions,

continuing profession al
a 1i s t i n g

of

i n s tr u m e n t

the

sa mpling d e s i g n ,
choices,

questions,

roles/fun ctions

Chapter I I I i n c l u d e s

a description

data-collection

procedure,

v a r i a b l e s and s t a t i s t i c a l

and s t a t i s t i c a l

which

deve lopment i s ne eded.

research

d e ve lo p m e nt ,

and f o r

of

the

su rv ey

population

techniques,

and

indepe nde nt

analysis.

R esearch Q u e st i o n s
Responses were s ou gh t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :
1.

What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o be t h e d e g r e e o f

imp ortance o f t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?
2.
regarding

What
th eir

roles/fun ctions,
service

as

an

d ifferen ces

ex ist

perceptions

about

among
the

elem entary

importance

of

comparing t h e v a r i a b l e s o f g e n d e r ,
elementary

p rincipal,

d istrict?

45

and

size

of

p rin cip als
adm inistrator

age,

length

their

of

s ch ool

46

3.
of

What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o

need

for

further

preparation

and

be t h e i r d e g r e e

con tin u in g

professional

development in ea c h o f t h e s e l e c t e d r o l e f u n c t i o n s ?
4.

What

d ifferen ces e x is t

among

elem entary

p rin cip als

r e g a r d i n g t h e i r d e g r e e o f need f o r f u r t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l d e ve lo p m e n t ,
comparing

the

variables

of

gender,

age,

length

of

service

as

an

e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l , and t h e s i z e o f t h e i r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ?
5.

What do

valuable

source

elementary p r i n c i p a l s
of

preparation

and

id en tify

as

con tin u in g

th eir

most

professional

development f o r each o f t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?

D a t a - C o l l e c t i o n Procedure
Data c o l l e c t i o n

thr oug h t h e

use o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e

followed

a

t w o - s t e p pr oc ed ur e:
1.

The

q u e s t i o n n a i r e , an

explanatory

p o s t card were s e n t t o a s t r a t i f i e d ,
Michigan e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l

letter,

and

a

return

randomly s e l e c t e d sample o f 634

principals

in August

1989

( s e e Appendix

a f o l l o w - u p reminder l e t t e r

and a second

C).
2.

In O ct o be r 1 9 8 9 ,

copy o f t h e su rv ey were s e n t t o p r i n c i p a l s i n t h e sample who had not
returned

the

post

card.

The

post

cards

each

had

numbers

c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e name o f t h e pe rs on i n t h e sample ( s e e Appendix
D).

P o p u l a t i o n and Sampling Design
The p o p u l a t i o n o f t h i s
principals

s t u d y co mprised

i n Michigan p u b l i c

schools.

all

e le m e n t a r y

According t o

school

t h e Michigan

47

Department o f E d u c a t i o n ’ s P r o f e s s i o n a l
88,

Pers onn el

t h e r e were 1 , 7 9 8 e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l

public sch ools.
30% (53 3)

Of t h e s e ,

M ichigan.

principals

They were d i s t r i b u t e d

(ISDs) r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e t o t a l

W ithin

the

in K-12 Michigan

a p p r o x i m a t e ly 70% ( 1 , 2 6 5 ) were m a le s and

were f e m a l e s .

school d i s t r i c t s

R e g i s t e r f o r 1987-

57

ISDs,

there

i n 57 i n t e r m e d i a t e

geographical

were

56 4

area o f

local

school

d i s t r i c t s , which v a r i e d in pu p il p o p u l a t i o n s i z e .
For

purposes

of

categorizin g

school

d istricts

by

pupi1

p o p u l a t i o n , t h e f i v e - c o d e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ys te m r e f l e c t i n g t h e pu p il
population

size

o f school

d istricts,

School Code o f 1976, was u s e d .

as

sp ecified

by t h e

Michigan

The co de s ar e as f o l l o w s :

1.

A s ch ool d i s t r i c t o f t h e F i r s t C l a s s w ith a pu p il
t i o n o f 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 o r more.

popula­

2.

A sch ool d i s t r i c t o f t h e Second C l a s s w i t h a pu p il
t i o n o f more than 3 0 , 0 0 0 and l e s s than 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 .

popula­

3.

A s ch ool d i s t r i c t o f t h e Third C l a s s w i t h a pu p il p o p u l a ­
t i o n o f more than 2 , 4 0 0 and l e s s than 3 0 , 0 0 0 .

4.

A s ch ool d i s t r i c t o f t h e Fourth C l a s s w i t h a pu p il
t i o n o f more than 75 and l e s s than 2 , 4 0 0 .

5.

A s ch ool d i s t r i c t o f t h e F i f t h
t i o n o f l e s s th an 75.

A sample

size

error

pre sumption

of

no
a

e l e m e n t a r y s ch ool

w i t h a pu p il p o p u l a ­

o f 474 e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s

the r e search er to provide a l e v e l
samp lin g

Class

greater

than

75% r e t u r n

was de t er m in ed

o f c o n f i d e n c e equal
plus

rate

of

or

minus

m a il e d

popula­

10%.

t o 95% and a
Based

on

questionnaires,

p r i n c i p a l s were s e l e c t e d t o r e p r e s e n t a t o t a l

1 , 7 9 8 e le m e n ta r y sc ho ol

principals

in t h e s t a t e .

by

a

634
of

Because Michigan

s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s vary in pu p il p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , a p r o b a b i l i t y sample

48

proportionate to
was drawn.

t h e pu p il

To m a in t a i n

d istricts

as

in

the

population s i z e

the

sc ho o l

district

t h e same p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s

population,

p ro ce du re was u s e d .

of

All

a

schools

system atic

in

the

stratified

first

sc ho ol

sampling

and second

classes

were p a r t o f t h e sample, and e v e r y o t h e r s c h oo l was i n c l u d e d f o r t h e
third-,

f o u r t h , and f i f t h - c l a s s s c h o o l s .

The f o u r l a r g e s t urban s c h o o l

d istricts

and 2) were added as c e r t a i n t y s e l e c t i o n s .
Public Schools,
and Lansing
selected

ratio

Public Schools.

from

d istricts,
(the

F Iin t Public Schools,

the

pool

of

r e p r e s e n t i n g s c h oo l
proportion

were s e l e c t e d )

of

in the s t a t e

These were t h e D e t r o i t

Grand Rapids

Then 280 l o c a l
the

(codes 1

remaining

sc h o o l

Public Schools,
d istricts

stratified

560

were

sc ho ol

code s 3 t o 5 and u s i n g t h e sampling

s ch ool

d istricts

in

the

population

o f o n e - h a l f f o r each s t r a t i f i e d g r o u p i n g .

that

The f i r s t

s c h o o l d i s t r i c t on t h e l i s t o f each s t r a t i f i e d d i s t r i c t gro up in g was
selected ;

then

every

second

school

s e l e c t e d f o r t h e d i s t r i c t sample.

d istrict

Table 3. 1

follow in g

it

was

shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n

o f s c h oo l d i s t r i c t s by s i z e o f t h e s e l e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n and sample.
Once t h e sample o f s ch oo l d i s t r i c t s was s e l e c t e d , a 1 i s t o f a l l
e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s in t h e s e sc ho ol d i s t r i c t s was pre par ed.
A separate 1 i s t

f o r males and f e m a l e s was made.

Then a sample o f

189 f e m a l e p r i n c i p a l s and 445 male p r i n c i p a l s was s e l e c t e d
from each 1 i s t .

These numbers formed t h e

t h e p o p u l a t i o n (30% f e m a l e s and 70% m a l e s ) .

randomly

same g en de r r a t i o

as

in

49

T ab le 3 . 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f s ch oo l d i s t r i c t s and p r i n c i p a l s in t h e
sample by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c o d e .

School D i s t r i c t Code
Tot al
Fourth

Fifth

First

Second

Third

School d i s t r i c t s
in t h e p o p u l a t i o n

1

3

132

412

16

564

School d i s t r i c t s
sampled

1

3

73

201

11

289

69

68

288

208

1

634

P rincipals
sampled

The

proportion

of

these

classification s

in

the

sample

was

d e s i g n e d t o r e f l e c t t h e same p r o p o r t i o n in t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e 564
school d i s t r i c t s .
The

figures

in

T ab le

3.2

show t h e

number

of

principals

who

r esponded from each c a t e g o r y and t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e compared
to

those

surveyed.

Tab le 3 . 2 . --Number and p e r c e n t a g e o f r e sp o n d e n t s by s c h o o l d i s t r i c t
code.

School D i s t r i c t Code
Tot al
First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

P r i n c i p a l s sampled

69

68

288

208

1

Number o f
respondents

29

19

222

82

0

Response
percentage

24%

28%

77%

39%

0%

352

56%

50

Survey Instrument Development
The s u r v e y in s tr u m e n t used in t h i s s t u d y was d e v e l o p e d from t h e
litera tu re
effective

regarding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
principals.

effectiv e

The

lead ership,

principal

role

determine

broad

literature

other

descriptors

and b e h a v i o r s

survey

on

of

effective

and

and scanned

principal

w it h

schools

instrum ents,

were r ev iew ed

categories

associated

and

various

in itia lly

resp on sib ilities.

to

T h is

review included:
1.

The e f f e c t i v e

schools

research

of

Lezotte

and

Brookover

(1979, 1980).
2.

Other

qualities

and

effective:

recent

research

behaviors

American

of

studies

that

principals

who

A ssociation

of

(1980);

Bossart,

Bowles

(1987);

Daud

Brandt

were

School

B1umberg and G r e e n f i e l d
(1968);

a t te m p te d

to

identify

perceived

Administrators

to

be

(1983);

Dwyer, Rown, & Lee ( 1 9 8 1 ) ;

(1988);

Duke

(1987);

Geneck

( 1 9 8 3 ) ; Golanda ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; G o t t f r e d s o n ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; G r e e n f i e l d ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; Hoy &
Miskel

(1982);

H o y le ,

English,

& Steffy

(1985);

( 1 9 8 7 ) ; Madaus, A i r i a s i a n , & Kel lagn an ( 1 9 8 0 ) ;
of

Elementary

Secondary

School

School

Excellence

in

Principals

Principals

E d uc a ti o na l

(1986);

(1 9 8 2 ,

Administration

Public R elations A sso cia tio n

National

National

1986);

Land

National
(1987);

& Walberg
A ssociation

A ssociation

of

Commission

on

National

( 1 9 8 1 ) ; Roe & Drake ( 1 9 8 0 ) ;

School

Ruthe rf ord

( 1 9 8 5 ) ; Smith ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; Southern Regional Board ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; and T a l e r n g s o k
(1984).
3.
effective

Survey in stru m en ts
leadership

that

qualities:

id en tified
the

School

ro les/fu n ctio n s
Instructional

of

Cli ma te

51

Survey

( SI C S) ,

developed

by J a c k s o n ,

Logan,

and T a y l o r

( 19 83)

based on sc h o o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e s e a r c h ; t h e I n s t r u c t i o n a l
Survey

(ILS),

d e v e lo p e d

by

Patterson

(1977);

and

a

and

Lead er sh ip

study

on

the

i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p o f hig h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s by Smith and Muth
(1985),

f o r which were d e v e l o p e d t h e

Inventory

(PSQ I)

and

the

Perception

In stru ction al

of

School

Quality

Leadership

Behavior

o f execu tive

m anagers:

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (ILBQ).
4.
Ben nis
(1984),

E f f e c t i v e management p r a c t i c e s
and

Nanus

Drucker

(1985),

(1985),

Blanchard

Hersey

and

Johnson

and Blanchard

(1982),

(1982),

DeVille

and Herzberg

(1988).
5.

A

review

A ssociation

of

of

the

Elem entary

p u b lication s
School

A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School
From

th is

resp on sib ilities
Student
(d)

review ,
were

R elations,

Leadership,

R elations,

and

when i n d i v i d u a l

(e)
(g )

(c)

seven

noted:

P rin cip als

br o a d

and

(a)

categories

Instructional
Development

B u i l d i n g Management,

roles

both

N ational

the

N ational

(f)

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

Parent

1 i t e r a t u r e as be in g d e s i r a b l e and e f f e c t i v e ,
one o f t h e broad c a t e g o r y h e a d i n g s .

were

of

prin cip al

Supervision,

and

Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el

•instrument t h a t a d d r e s s e d a l l

the

Principals.

Curriculum

Staff

of

(b)

I m p le m en ta t io n ,
and Community

Management.
identified

Then,
in

the

t h e y were p l a c e d under

With an awareness t h a t a su rv ey

s e ve n f u n c t i o n s would be t o o l o n g and

cumbersome t o a d m i n i s t e r and r e p o r t ,

it

was d e c i d e d t o

concentrate

o n l y on t h o s e broad c a t e g o r i e s t h a t formed t h e common t h r e a d in t h e

52

school

effectiven ess

prim arily

into

the

litera tu re.

four

broad

Supervision,

(b)

Curriculum

L eadership,

and

(d)

categories

Development

S taff

roles/fu n ctio n s
of

and

(a)

Instructional

Developm ent/Personnel

categories

of

fell

I m p le m e n ta t io n ,

Therefore,

the

Management,

and Parent and Community R e l a t i o n s ,

the total

broad

Those

S tu de nt

(c)

Management.

R elations,
while

Building

important to

r o l e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l , were not i n c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

D e s c r i p t o r s under each o f t h e s e s e l e c t e d f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s
w e r e worded

so as

to d escribe

a role

w e r e t he n

screened f o r d u p li c a t i o n ,

the

c a t e g o r y he a d i n g .

broad

i n t o two c a t e g o r i e s ,
12

years

of

strengths

of

addressed

both

as

an

e le m e n ta r y

They

and c o n s i s t e n c y

with

descriptor

s t a f f members."
as an

principal,

An example o f t h i s

"The p r i n c i p a l

Leadership r o le .

clarity,

behavior.

fell

a d e c i s i o n was made, based on t h e r e s e a r c h e r ’ s

experience

descriptor,

function

Where a r o l e / f u n c t i o n

c a t e g o r y was most a p p r o p r i a t e .
role

or

has

sk ills

Throughout

Instructional

in

the

as

situation

building

literature

Supervision

to

task

which
is

the

upon

the

th is
and

was
as

a

T h is r o l e was deter min ed t o be more o f an e v e r y d a y

L e a d e r s h i p f u n c t i o n beyond t h e s c o p e o f S t a f f Development.
As

a

descriptors

resu lt
were

of

the

in itial

identified

for

review
the

and

four

screening,

categories

46

noted

role
ab ove .

T h e s e were then fo rm a tte d i n t o a s u r v e y i ns tr um e nt t h a t would a l l o w
t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n about how p r i n c i p a l s
the

im portance

of

each

role/fu n ction

p r i n c i p a l , t h e d e g r e e t o which t h e y s t i l l

to

th eir

perceived

success

as

a

f e l t a need f o r c o n t i n u i n g

53

p r o f e s s i o n a l development in t h a t r o l e / f u n c t i o n , and an i n d i c a t i o n o f
where t h e y r e c e i v e d t h e i r most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g .
T h is su rv ey in s tr u m e n t was f i e l d t e s t e d w i t h 77 e l e m e n t a r y and
secondary

p rin cip als

across

relia b ility

was t he n c o n d u c t e d ,

the Social

Sciences

(SPSS)

the

state.

using

software

the

An

item

Statistical

program,

to

a n alysis

of

Package

for

insure

that

each

item under each broad c a t e g o r y was s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h a t c a t e g o r y , f o r
both importance and ne ed .

As a r e s u l t

s u r ve y in str um e nt was a g a in r e v i s e d t o
and

eigh t

demographic

coefficien t

alpha

questions

levels

for

the

of

the

ite m

analysis,

i n c l u d e 34 r o l e

(Appendix
revised

B).

The

survey

the

descriptors
relia b ility

in s tr u m e n t

are

l i s t e d in Table 3 . 3 .

Table 3 . 3 . - - R e l i a b i l i t y al ph a l e v e l s f o r t h e broad c a t e g o r i e s o f
p r i n c i p a l r o l e d e s c r i p t o r s f o r impor ta nc e and ne ed .

Category

Importance

Need

In s tr u c tio n a l Supervision

.52 5 6

.7671

Curriculum Development and Implementation

.5 463

.8357

Le adership

.6957

.9313

S t a f f D e ve lo pm ent /P ers onn el Management

.90 88

.9 135

All 34 items

.8823

.9 52 6

Dependent V a r i a b l e s
The p e r c e p t i o n s o f t o d a y ’ s e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s
importance o f

roles/fun ctions,

to g eth e r with

regarding the

principals’

need

for

54

f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
selected

roles/fun ctions,

study.

These

variab les

composed o f 34
categories:

were

role/function

Instructional

Im p le m en ta tio n ,
ment.

formed

A

i mportance

the

depe nde nt

measured
ite m s

by

the

questionnaire

four

major

and S t a f f De v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el

scale

was

and

these

variables,

of

into

a

of

broad

Curriculum Development

forced-choice
need

variables

using

divided

Supervision,

Leadership,

deve lop me nt o f t h e

used

for

measuring

r an gi ng

and

Manage­

both

from

5

the
(very

i m p o r t a n t / h i g h need) t o 1 ( n o t p a r t o f j o b / n o n e e d ) .

Independent V a r i a b l e s
Four

ind ep en de nt

included

gender,

variables

length

of

were

service,

used
a ge ,

in

th is

study.

and

size

of

These

the

s ch ool

d istrict.

S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis
Data

analysis

d escriptive

pro ce ede d

in

two

main

various c a te g o r ie s o f the
age,

functions.
perceived

In

phase

a n a l y s e s were used t o examine t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s

de pendent v a r i a b l e s in t h e sample as a w h o le ,

service,

phases.

indepe nde nt v a r i a b l e s

and s i z e o f sc h o o l

S p ecifically,

d istrict),

of the

as w i t h i n t h e

(gender,

length

of

f o r each o f t h e r o l e s /

t h e mean and t h e stand ar d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e

importance and t r a i n i n g

f u n c t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d

as w e l l

1,

needs

f o r each o f t h e

four r o le

f o r t h e sample as a whole and w i t h i n t h e

c a t e g o r i e s o f t h e indepe nde nt v a r i a b l e s .

55

A r o l e / f u n c t i o n was judged
it

average

A ctually,

t o d e t er m in e t h e range o f import ance o f e f f e c t i v e
perceived

rating

training

of

at

need

if

and t h e i r

an

a priority

train in g

roles/fun ctions

received

imp or ta nt o r

needs,

lea st

the

for
3.5.

s ch oo l

follow ing

s c a l e was used:
1.0 -2.49
2.5 -3 .5
3.51-5.0

Not i m p o r t a n t / n o need
M i l d l y i m p o r t a n t /m o d e r a te need
Very i m p o r t a n t / h i g h need

The means o f t h e p e r c e i v e d importance and t h e t r a i n i n g ne e ds o f
the

four

roles/function

roles/fun ctions

were

that p rin cip als

t h e most needed f o r t r a i n i n g .
preparation

and t r a i n i n g

distribution

the n

in

rank

o r de r ed

to

d e t e r m in e

p e r c e i v e d as t h e most

im po rt a nt

the
or

To f i n d t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e s o f
these

roles/fun ctions,

(frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n )

was

the

constructed

percentage

for

each

of

t h e i te m s o f t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
In

the

second

program SPSS was

phase

used

of

to

the

analyze

analysis,
the

the

perceived

computer

software

impor ta nc e

of

the

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and t h e i r t r a i n i n g need s as compared t o t h e v a r i o u s
c a t e g o r i e s o f t h e ind ep en de nt v a r i a b l e s :
a g e , and s i z e o f sc ho o l d i s t r i c t .
one-way a n a l y s i s
categories
d ifferen ce

used
was

To do t h e c o m p a ri s o n , a t - t e s t or

o f v a r i a n c e was u s e d ,
for

the

found,

a n a l y s i s was a l s o used t o

ind ep en de nt
a

gender, len g th o f s e r v i c e ,

depe ndi ng on t h e

variab les.

Student-Newm an-Keuls

If

a

number o f

sign ifican t

p ost-com parison

i d e n t i f y which two g ro ups o f in de pe nd e nt

v a r i a b l e s were c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e i n g t e s t e d .

56

Summary
T h is s t u d y was d e s i g n e d t o c o l l e c t d a t a r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r c e i v e d
import a nce

of

selected

elementary

principals,

roles/fun ctions
the

need

for

associated
further

with

training

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s , and t h e primary s o u r c e o f t h a t t r a i n i n g .
th is

inform ation,

a m a il e d

effective

s u r ve y was s e n t t o

in

these

To g a t h e r

a stratified

random

sample o f a l l e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s in Michigan K-12 p u b l i c s c h o o l s .
The

roles/fu n ction s

developed
certain

from t h e
p rin cip al

roles/fu n ction s
schools

addressed

the

literatu re,

which

behaviors

and

that

formed

1iteratu re f e l l

Supervision,

in

the

survey

n ot e d

a correlation

school

common

instrum ent

were

between

effectiv en ess.

thread

i n t o t h e broad c a t e g o r i e s

in
of

the

The

effective

Instructional

L e a d e r s h i p , S t a f f D e v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el Management, and

Curriculum Development and Imp lem ent at ion .

The f i e l d - t e s t e d

i n s tr u m e n t

A

was

tested

for

relia b ility .

v a r i a n c e compared t h e s u r v e y r e s p o n s e s t o t h e

one-way

survey

analysis

of

in de pe nd en t v a r i a b l e s

o f g e n d e r , a g e , y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e as a p r i n c i p a l , and s i z e o f t h e
school d i s t r i c t .

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

Introduction
In August
stratified
public

Chapter

634

survey

questionnaires

were

random sample o f e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s

school

variables

1 98 9,

districts,

of

school

III,

the

inform ation

about

with

stratification

d istrict
survey
variou s

size

and

instrum ent

was

the
As

of

a

in de pe nd e nt
described

design ed

ro les/fu n ctio n s

to

in Michigan K-12

for

gender.

mailed

to

the

in

gather

elem entary

p r in c ip a ls h ip in the areas o f In stru ctio n a l

Supervision,

Development and Im p le m en ta t io n ,

and S t a f f

D ev el op me nt /

asked

indicate

Per so nn el

Management.

impo rt ant

each

Leadership,

The p r i n c i p a l s

role/fu nction

was

to

were
their

to

success

as

Curriculum

how

elementary

p r i n c i p a l s , whether t h e y t h o u g h t t h a t more t r a i n i n g was ne e de d,

and

t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h a t r o l e / f u n c t i o n .

The

responses

were

a n a l y z ed

to

answer

the

five

research

questions

p r e s e n t e d in Chapter I I I .

Demographic Data
L i s t e d in T a b l e s 4 . 1 th ro ugh 4 . 7 ar e t h e demographic s t a t i s t i c s
t h a t d e s c r i b e t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s who r e tu r n e d t h e s u r v e y .

In a l l , 355

r e s p o n s e s were r e c e i v e d , which c o n s t i t u t e d a r e t u r n r a t e o f 56%.

57

58

The

requested

demographic

information

included

y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e as a p r i n c i p a l , d e g r e e h e l d ,
o f the

s c h oo l

district

primary a s s i g n m e n t ,

gender,

student enrollment

i n which t h e y were e mp loy ed ,

and t h e i r

likelihood

of

age,

th eir

retirem ent

current

w ithin

the

next f iv e years.
Gender.

The d a t a i n Ta bl e 4 .1

show t h a t

63% o f t h e

returned

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were from males and 36% from f e m a l e s .

T ab le 4 . 1 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by g e n d e r .

Gender

Number

Male
Female
M is s i n g
To ta l

A oe .
responses
groups,

31

Percent of
Population

Percent

222
127
6

63
36
2

70
30

355

100

100

The d a t a in T ab le 4 . 2 show t h a t t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f
(46%) was from t h e age group o f 41 t o 5 0 .
to

40

(18%),

51

to

55

(20%),

and

ov e r

ac c ou nt ed f o r about 20% o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g sam pl e.
of

responses

of

group 31 t o 40 ,

the

population

a 22% r e s p o n s e

shows

t h o s e o v e r 55.
survey.

55

age group 41

(16%)

each

The p e r c e n t a g e

a 35% r e s p o n s e

for the

r e s p o n s e f o r t h e age group 51 t o 55 ,

The o t h e r age

for
to

and an 11% r e s p o n s e

the

50,

age

a 19%

rate

for

More yo un ge r than o l d e r p r i n c i p a l s responded t o t h e

59

T ab le 4 . 2 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by ag e .

Age Group

< 30
31-40
41-50
51-55
> 55
M is s i n g
Total

Years

of

P o p u la t io n
Number

Number

63
162
72
55
3

180
733
377
508

355

1,798

exD erience.

(26%) was w i t h i n

the 0 to

The

highest

Percent o f
Returns

35
22
19
11

percentage

5 years category

(see

of

principals

T a b le 4 . 3 ) .

The

n e x t c a t e g o r y , 6 t o 10 y e a r s , had 18%; 11 t o 15 y e a r s , 17%; 16 t o 20
years,

18%; and 21+ y e a r s , 21%.

Tab le 4 , 3 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e .

Years o f E xp er ie nc e

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16 -2 0
21 +
M is s i n g
Total

Number

Pe r ce nt

93
62
60
63
74
3

26
18
17
18
21
1

355

100

60

Degree
master’ s

held.

degree,

Seventy-two

percent

16% a s p e c i a l i s t

of

degree,

the

respondents

6% an

Ed.D.,

and

had

a

5% a

Ph.D. d e g r e e ( s e e Table 4 . 4 ) .

T a b le 4 . 4 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by d e g r e e h e l d .

Degree Held

Number

Percent

Master’s
Specialist
Ed.D.
Ph.D.
M is s i n g

254
58
21
18
4

72
16
6
5
1

Total

355

100

Assignment.

As shown in Table 4 . 5 , 93% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were

e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s , 4% j u n i o r hig h p r i n c i p a l s , and 1% s e n i o r high
principals.

Ta bl e 4 . 5 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by t h e i r c u r r e n t primary
a s s ig n m e n t as p r i n c i p a l s .

Current Primary Assignment

Number

Percent

Elementary
J u n i o r hi g h
S e n i o r high
Missing

330
14
4
7

93
4
1
2

Total

355

100

61

D istrict

The h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e

of

responses

from t h e d i s t r i c t s w i t h a s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t

of

2,400 to

T able 4 . 6 ) .

size.

Principals

had a 24% r e t u r n

rate;

(77%) was
30,000(see

in d i s t r i c t s w i t h e n r o l l m e n t s o v e r 1 2 0 , 0 0 0
those

in d i s t r i c t s

with

30,000

to

120,000

s t u d e n t s , a 28% r e t u r n r a t e ; and t h o s e in d i s t r i c t s w i t h 75 t o 2 , 4 0 0
s t u d e n t s , a 39% r e t u r n r a t e .

Table 4 . 6 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by t h e s i z e o f t h e i r s ch oo l
d i s t r i c t (student enrollm ent).

S tu de nt Enrollment

Number

> 120,000
> 30,000; < 120,000
> 2,400; < 30,000
>
75; < 2 , 4 0 0
<
75
M is s i n g

Number in
Sampled
Population

42
28
77
39
0

69
68
288
208
1

29
19
222
82
9
3

Total

634

355

Likelihood o f r e tir e m e n t.
principals

Percent o f
Response by
D is t r ic t Size

were

Combining t h e

"Very

Li k e l y "

"Very L i k e l y "

Acc ording t o Ta bl e 4 . 7 ,
to

and

retire

in

" P o s s ib ly "

the

next

columns

in

27% o f t h e
five

years.

Ta bl e

4.7,

t h e r e c o u l d be a s much as a 37% t u r n o v e r o f e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s in
the

next

five

years.

T h is

projection

is

higher

than

the

32%

p r o j e c t e d by t h e Michigan Department o f Education f o r t h e f i v e y e a r s
between 1986 and 19 9 1 .

Comparing t h i s r e t i r e m e n t p r o j e c t i o n t o a g e ,

t h e d a t a in Tab le 4 . 2 show t h a t more than 36% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s were
o v e r 50 .

62

Ta bl e 4 . 7 . - - D i s t r i b u t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a n t s by l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r
r e t i r i n g w ithin the next f i v e y e a r s.

Likelihood o f R etiring

Number

Percent

Very L i k e l y
Possibly
Not L i k e l y
M is s i n g

96
37
218
4

27
10
61
1

Total

355

100

The f i g u r e s

i n Ta b le 4 . 3

show an a lm o s t ev en d i s t r i b u t i o n

of

r e s p o n s e s among t h e f i v e c a t e g o r i e s o f y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e , w i t h t h e
h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s (26%) havin g f i v e y e a r s o r l e s s o f
experience.
Accor ding t o t h e s t a t i s t i c s i n Table 4 . 4 , 99% o f t h e r e s p o n d i n g
principals
degrees

had

at

least

a master’ s

beyond t h e m a s t e r ’ s .

degree,

Th is p o i n t s

and

27% had

advanced

ou t t h e predominance o f

c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y programs as be in g common t o t h o s e p r a c t i c i n g
p r i n c i p a l s who responded t o t h e s u r v e y .
As can be s een in T ab le 4 . 6 , t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f r e t u r n s
(77%) was from s c h o o l d i s t r i c t code 3 (more than 2 , 4 0 0 and l e s s than
30,000).

Codes 1,

2,

and 4 averaged c l o s e r t o

There was no r e s p o n s e from code 5.

a 30% r e t u r n

rate.

63

Res ea rch Q u e s t i o n 1

What do elementary principals perceive to be the Importance of
the selected administrator roles/functions?
The d a t a i n T a b l e s 4 . 8 through 4 . 1 5 show, by broad c a t e g o r y and
survey

question

perceived

the

within

ea c h

importance

of

category,
the

how

various

elementary

principals

roles/fun ctions

of

the

e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p l i s t e d in t h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t .
Although

the

broad

category

of

L eadership

ranked

h ighest

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e mean, t h e r e was o n l y a . 1 6 - p o i n t sprea d between t h e
mean o f t h e h i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d c a t e g o r i e s o f impor ta nc e ( s e e
Table

4 .8 ).

The

Instructional
and

Curriculum

categories

fell

three

Supervision,

broad

ca teg o ries

Staff

Development

and

ranked

D e v e l o p m e n t / P er s o n n el
I m p le m en ta t io n .

within the h igh est

imp ortance

A ll

range

next

were

Management,
four

broad

(3.51-5.0),

as

d e l i n e a t e d in Chapter I I I .

Ta bl e 4 . 8 . - - E le m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
importance o f t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s /
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p , in rank o r d e r .

Rank

Role/Function

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

1

Lead er shi p

337

3

5

4.66

.29

2

Instru ction al Supervision

338

3

5

4.63

.3 2

3

S t a f f Dev elopment/
Pe rsonnel Management

335

3

5

4.55

.36

Curriculum Development
and Implementation

337

3

5

4.50

.43

4

64

The
listin g

figures

in

Tables

4.9

o f the r o les/fu n ctio n s

th rough

4.12

show

a

rank-order

o f importance f o r each o f t h e

four

broad c a t e g o r i e s .
For

the

broad

role/fu nction
highest

of

category

"Maintains

( s e e Ta bl e 4 . 9 ) .

of

In stru ction al

that

Th is

all

S u p ervision ,

students

role/fu nction

can

was

th r o u g h o u t t h e l i t e r a t u r e on e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p .
very

little

difference

in

means

f o l 1 owed

by

between

also

ranked

predominant

A g a in , t h e r e was
the

highest-

and

"Knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h " ranked

lowest-ranked r o le / f u n c t i o n .
second,

(.23)

learn"

the

"Encouraging

teachers

to

use

research-based

p r i n c i p l e s o f t e a c h i n g , " " P o s s e s s i n g g o a l - s e t t i n g s k i l l s , " "Bri nging
instructional

issues

to the

facu lty,"

"Student t im e

on t a s k , "

and

"Using t e s t s c o r e s t o recommend ch a n g e s ."
For

the

broad

I m p le m e n t a t io n .
first

(see

category

"Helps

Ta bl e

of

teachers

4.10).

T h is

Curriculum

implement
was

the

Development
cu rriculum"

f o l 1 owed by

and

ranked

"Has knowledge o f

c u r r i c u l a r r e s e a r c h , " "Coor di nat es c u r r ic u lu m dev elo pm en t w i t h i n t h e
build in g,"
"Aids

staff

needs."

"Demonstrates
in

that

in

c u r r ic u lu m

c u r r ic u l u m

is

articulation,"

applicable

to

and

student

" D i s a g g r e g a t i n g and a n a ly z in g t e s t s c o r e data" ranked l a s t .

There was a .1 5
ranked

assuring

sk ills

p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e h i g h e s t -

role/fu nction

in

th is

category.

w i t h i n t h e hig h imp or ta nt range ( 3 . 5 1 - 5 . 0 ) .

A ll

and l o w e s t -

roles/fu n ction

were

T a b le 4 . 9 . - - E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e im p o r t a n c e o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
r e l a t e d t o I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n , i n ra n k o r d e r .

Rank

1

2

3

4

5

Item
#

6

1

5

2

7

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

M ain tai ns t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s can l e a r n and
e x p e c t s them t o suc cee d

346

1

5

4.86

.41

Has knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d
to instruction

350

3

5

4.75

.44

347

3

5

4.72

.49

Uses goal s e t t i n g t o improve i n s t r u c t i o n and
t h e in vol ve m ent o f s t a f f in g o a l - s e t t i n g

348

2

5

4.68

.55

Brings i n s t r u c t i o n a l
for discussion

345

2

5

4.52

.58

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o use i n s t r u c t i o n a l
techniques relevan t to cu rricu lar ob jec­
t i v e s and r e s e a r c h - b a s e d p r i n c i p l e s o f
teaching

SD

iss u e s to the fa cu lty

6

4

Promotes s t u d e n t tim e on t a s k

344

1

5

4.47

.66

7

3

Uses t e s t s c o r e s t o recommend changes in
i n s t r u c t i o n a l program

349

3

5

4.39

.60

I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n (Ite ms Combined)

349

3

5

4.63

.32

T a b le 4 . 1 0 . - - E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e im p o r t a n c e o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
r e l a t e d t o C u r r ic u lu m D e v elo p m en t and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , i n r a n k o r d e r .

Rank

Item
#

1

11

2

8

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Helps t e a c h e r s implement t h e cur ric ul um

346

3

5

4.65

.52

Has knowledge about t h i n k i n g / r e s e a r c h
r e l a t e d t o c u r r i c u l a r needs o f s t u d e n t s

351

2

5

4.59

.54

Item Content

3

9

C oo rd in at es cu rr icu lu m development w i t h i n
the building

349

1

5

4.55

.66

4

13

Demonstrates s k i l l s in c ur r ic ul um a r t i c u ­
lation

346

1

5

4.51

.61

5

10

Aids s t a f f in a s s u r i n g t h a t cur ric ul um
a p p l i c a b l e t o s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s
p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s need as a d u l t s

351

1

5

4.35

.72

Has t h e a b i l i t y t o d i s a g g r e g a t e and exam­
i n e t e s t s c o r e da t a t o make recommenda­
t i o n s f o r cu rr icu lu m r e v i s i o n

347

1

5

4.32

.77

337

3

5

4.50

.43

6

12

Curriculum Development and Implementation
( Ite ms Combined)

67

As

illu strated

in

T ab le

4.11,

principals

thought

it

most

im por ta nt among t h e L e ade rs hi p r o l e s t o be adep t a t t h e s k i l l s t h a t
f o s t e r teamwork among s t a f f .
second,

f o l l o w e d by " P r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s k i l l s , "

sk ills,"
ranked

"Good w r i t t e n and o r a l

and

“Knowing

six th ,

follow ed

planning,"

"Keeping

analyzin g

d a t a , " and

differen ce

when

in

to

by

abreast

means

delegate."

sk ills"

"D ecision-m aking

"Conflict

"Situ ation

lead ersh ip ,"

of

research,"

current

"Applying

between

research ."

the

management"
"Long-range

"Gathering

There

h igh est-

ranked

and

was

a

and
.15

low est-ran k ed

role/fu n ction .
The h i g h e s t - r a n k e d

Staff

Developm ent/Personnel

Management

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o "Encouraging t e a c h e r s t o t r y new i d e a s , "
"B u il d i n g upon t h e s t r e n g t h s o f s t a f f , " "Taking c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n on
personnel m atters,"
4.12).
were

and " A s s i s t i n g s t a f f i n goal s e t t i n g "

The s i x l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s in t h i s broad c a t e g o r y
"Conducting r e l e v a n t

le a d e r s h i p , " "Arbitrating
of

( s e e Ta bl e

m e e t i n g s , " "Encouraging

s t a f f disputes,"

in -serv ice

s t a f f , " "A ssessin g

learning s t y l e s ."

staff

staff

" S t a f f - d e v e l o p m e n t needs

needs,"

and

"A pplying

adult

There was a .31 p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e in means between

t h e h i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e / f u n c t i o n in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
L i s t e d i n T a b le 4 . 1 3 are t h e h i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s /
f u n c t i o n s o f importance f o r each broad c a t e g o r y .
variation
each

in

responses

broad c a t e g o r y

"M aintaining

that

for

than
all

the

for

the

students

r o le s /fu n c t io n s across the

lowest-ranked

There was a w i d e r
roles/fun ctions

highest-ranked.
can

le a r n ," the

In a d d i t i o n

for
to

highest-ranked

f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s m a in l y emphasized

Table 4 . 1 1 .--Elem entary school p r i n c i p a l s ’ p ercep tions o f th e importance o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
r e la t e d to L eadership, in rank order.

Rank

Item
#

1

23

2

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Develops sense o f teamwork among the s t a f f

350

3

5

4.81

.40

21

Has good written and oral communication s k i l l s

349

2

5

4.77

.47

3

16

Is a good problem-solver

349

2

5

4.77

.47

4

22

Involves others appropriately in decision
making

351

3

5

4.72

.46

5

14

Knows when to delegate

347

3

5

4.71

.50

6

20

Is adept at c o n f l i c t management

350

2

5

4.71

.50

7

15

Adjusts leadership s t y l e to f i t the needs
o f the situat ion

348

2

5

4.62

.58

Is vision-oriented and aids s t a f f in longrange planning

351

2

5

4.62

.53

Keeps abreast of current research and
trends in education

351

3

5

4.62

.50

352

2

5

4.48

.61

Applies valid research findings to school
practice

350

2

5

4.41

.62

Leadership (Items Combined)

337

3

5

4.66

.29

8
9
10

11

18
19
17

24

Has the a b i l i t y to gather and analyze data
toward cognitive, a f f e c t i v e , and climate
needs of the building
■

Table 4 . 1 2 . --Elementary school p r i n c i p a l s ’ percep tions o f th e importance o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
r e la t e d t o S t a f f Development/Personnel Management. in rank order.

Rank

Item
»

1

31

2
3
4

5

26
33
34

32

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Encourages teachers to try new ideas without
fear o f reprisal or f a ilu r e

351

3

5

4.76

.46

Has s k i l l s in building upon strengths of
s t a f f members

349

3

5

4.68

.50

Takes corrective action on personnel matters
in order to maintain quality and e ffe cti ven ess

353

1

5

4.67

.57

353

2

5

4.67

.57

Conducts s t a f f meetings that teachers per­
ceive to be relevant and informative

353

2

5

4.62

.55

A s s i st s s t a f f members in s ett in g r e a l i s t i c
and appropriate goals for growth and
improvement

6

29

Encourages leadership by s t a f f and students

353

2

5

4.59

.55

7

27

Is able to arbitrate disputes and agreements

352

3

5

4.55

.58

8

30

Ensures that staff-development programs are
based on teacher s’ needs

348

1

5

4.54

.63

Assesses i n -s e r v ic e needs and seeks
resources to f i l l those needs

353

1

5

4.38

.67

Is able to understand and apply adult
learning motivation theory

346

1

5

4.18

.77

S t a f f Development/Personnel Management
(Items Combined)

335

3

5

4.55

.36

9
10

28
25

70

Table 4 . 1 3 . - - H i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f
importance f o r t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s .

Item
#

Role

Mean

SD

In stru ctio n a l Supervision

Highest
Ranked

6

M a in ta in s t h a t s t u d e n t s can l e a r n
and e x p e c t s them t o s u c c ee d

4.86

.41

Lowest
Ranked

3

Uses t e s t s c o r e s t o recommend
cha nges i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs

4.39

.60

Curriculum Development and Implementation

Highest
Ranked

11

Helps t e a c h e r s implement t h e
c u r r ic u lu m

4.65

.52

Lowest
Ranked

12

Has t h e a b i l i t y t o d i s a g g r e g a t e and
examine t e s t s c o r e d a t a t o make
recommendations f o r cu rr icu lu m
revisions

4.32

.77

Lead ership

Highest
Ranked

23

De v e lo ps s e n s e o f teamwork among
the s t a f f

4 .8 1

.40

Lowest
Ranked

24

Applies v a lid research fin d in g s to
s c h oo l p r a c t i c e

4. 41

.62

S t a f f D e ve lo pm en t/ Per so nn el Management

Highest
Ranked

31

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o t r y new i d e a s
w i t h o u t f e a r o f r e p r i s a l or f a i l u r e

4.76

.46

Lowest
Ranked

25

Understands and a p p l i e s a d u l t l e a r n ­
ing and m o t i v a t i o n t h e o r y

4.18

.77

71

the

principal’s

curriculum,"

role

in

"Helping

"Develop a s e n s e

teach ers/staff

o f teamwork,"

to

and

implement

the

"Try new i d e a s . "

The l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s were "Use o f t e s t s c o r e s f o r c u r ­
ric u l u m

improvement"

(Instructional

Supervision),

t e s t s c o r e s f o r c u r r ic u l u m improvement"
Implementation),
and

"Applying

"Applying

adult

valid

learning

(Curriculum Development and

research

theory"

"Disaggregating

findings"

(Staff

(Leadership),

Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el

Management).
Highlighted

in T a b le s 4 . 1 4 and 4 . 1 5 ar e t h e f i v e h i g h e s t -

lowest-ranked r o le s /f u n c t io n s
o f the f iv e

a c r o s s t h e 34 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .

w r i t t e n and o r a l
(see

communication s k i l l s , "

Table

"M ain tain ing
vision) .

Three

h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s were in t h e broad c a t e ­

go r y o f L e a d e r s h i p - - " D e v e l o p i n g a s e n s e o f teamwork,"

solver"

and

that

4.14).

all

The

students

and "Being a good problem-

highest-ranked
can

learn”

The f i f t h - r a n k e d r o l e / f u n c t i o n

t r y new id e a s" ( S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t ) .

"Having good

role/fu nction

(Instructional

was

Su p er­

was "Encouraging s t a f f

to

No r o l e / f u n c t i o n f o r Curriculum

Development was in t h e f i v e t o p- r a nk ed r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
Two o f t h e f i v e l o w e s t- ra n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s were in t h e broad
category

of

Staff

De v e lo pm e nt --" U si ng

"Assessing i n - s e r v i c e needs o f s t a f f "

adult

learning

( s e e Ta bl e 4 . 1 5 ) .

theo ry"

and

Two were in

t h e broad c a t e g o r y o f Curriculum Dev e lo pm e nt -- " D i s a g g r e g a t i n g

test

s c o r e s f o r c u r r ic u l u m development" and "Assuring t h a t c u r r ic u l u m i s
applicable
program

to

student

changes"

sk ills."

( In stru ction al

"Using

test

scores

S up ervision)

was

to

recommend
the

fifth

72

r o l e / f u n c t i o n in the lowest-ranked f i v e .

There was n ot a Le ad e r s hi p

r o l e / f u n c t i o n among t h e f i v e l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .

Table 4 . 1 4 . --T he f i v e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f impor ta nce
a c r o s s a l l 34 r o l e d e s c r i p t o r s .

HIGH
Rank

Category

Item
#

Instructional
Supervision

Role

Mean

SD

M a in ta in s t h a t a l l
s t u d e n t s can l e a r n
and e x p e c t s them
to learn

4.86

.41

L e ade rs hi p

23

D ev el ops a s e n s e
o f teamwork among
the s t a f f

4.81

.40

L e ade rs hi p

21

Has good w r i t t e n
and o r a l communi­
cation s k i l l s

4.79

.42

4

Le ad e r s hi p

16

Is a good problem
solver

4.77

.47

5

S t a f f Dev elopment/
Per sonnel Management

31

Encourages s t a f f
t o t r y new i d e a s
w i t h o u t f e a r or
r e p r i s a l or
failure

4.76

.46

73

T a b l e 4 . 1 5 . - -T he f i v e l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f imp ortance
a c r o s s a l l 34 r o l e d e s c r i p t o r s .

LOU
Rank

Item
Category

#

Instructional
Supervision

Role

Mean

SD

Uses t e s t s c o r e s
t o recommend
c han ge s i n i n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l program

4.39

.60

S t a f f Development/
Per sonnel Management

28

Assesses in -se r v ic e
ne e ds t o s e e k
resources to f i l l
t h o s e needs

4.38

.67

Curriculum D e v e lo p ­
ment and Implemen­
tation

10

Aids s t a f f in
assuring th at cur­
r ic u l u m i s a p p l i c ­
a b l e t o s k i l l s and
a b i l i t i e s that
present students
w i l l need as a d u l t s

4.35

.72

Curriculum D e ve lo p­
ment and Implemen­
tation

12

Has t h e a b i l i t y t o
d i s a g g r e g a t e and
exami ne t e s t s c o r e
d a t a t o make recom­
m endations f o r c u r ­
ric ul um r e v i s i o n

4.32

.77

S t a f f Development/
Per sonnel Management

25

Understands and
applies adult
l e a r n i n g and m o t i ­
vation theory

4.18

.77

74

Research Q ue sti o n 2

What differences exist among elementary principals regarding
th eir perceptions about the Importance of administrator
roles/functions, comparing the variables of gender, age, length
of service as an elementary principal, and size of their school
district?
The f i g u r e s i n Table 4.16 show t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n how

Gender.

m al e s and f e m a l e s

perceived

t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s .

the

all

four

p erceived

(at the

in how t h e y r a t e d t h e

broad
the

categories

of

roles/fu n ction s

As shown in t h e t a b l e ,

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found
and f e m a l e s

importance

a statistically

level)

between males

importance o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s

addressed

ro les/fu n ctio n s

.01

for

in

all

in

the
four

survey.

Females

ca teg o ries

to

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more important than d i d t h e i r male c o u n t e r p a r t s .

Ta bl e 4 . 1 6 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e importance o f t h e
f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and g e n d e r .

Gender

N

Mean

SO

Instructional
Supervision

Male
Female

210
122

4.55
4.76

.3 4
.2 3

35.52

.0 0 0 0 *

Curriculum
Development and
Im pl ementation

Male
Female

209
122

4.42
4.65

.4 5
.3 4

24.66

.0 0 0 0 *

L ea de rs hi p

Male
Female

209
122

4.60
4.77

.30
.24

28.55

. 0 00 0*

S t a f f Develop­
m e n t/ P e r s o n n e l
Management

Male
Female

213
117

4.49
4.66

.37
.30

19.66

. 00 00 *

Role/Function

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .

F - R a t io

in

P

be

75

Aae.

The f i g u r e s

responding
functions

groups

Table 4 . 1 7

perceived

show t h e

the

Curriculum

between

age

Development

groups

and

Management.

for

of

in

the

how

ro les/

There was no s i g n i f i c a n t

In stru ction al

Imp lem en tat ion ,

A statistically

found ( a t t h e .0 5 l e v e l )

differences

im portance

in t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s .

d ifferen ce

P er so nne l

age

in

or

S u p ervision ,

Staff

sign ifican t

De v e lo pm e nt /

difference

was

among age groups in t h e broad c a t e g o r y o f

L e a d e r s h ip when a na ly z ed

by t h e

one-way a n a l y s i s

Student-Newman-Keuls Procedure a n a l y s i s

revealed

of

variance.

that

there

A

was

a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between r e sp o n d e n t s in t h e 41 t o 50 age group
and t h o s e

over 55.

The 41

to

50 age group

perceived

Le a de r s hi p

r o l e s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more important a t t h e . 0 5 c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l
than d i d t h o s e o v e r 55 .

However, t h e mean s pr e a d between t h o s e two

age c a t e g o r i e s was o n l y . 1 2 .
considered

all

four

I t can be ob s e r v ed t h a t a l l

broad

categories

of

age groups

roles/fun ctions

to

be

imp or ta nt ( 3 . 5 1 - 5 . 0 ) .
Years
differences

of

experience.

in

The

how r e sp o nd in g

figures

T a b le

with

4.18

show

differen t

the

years

of

e x p e r i e n c e p e r c e i v e d t h e importance o f t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s

of

roles/fun ctions.

principals

in

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found among t h e f i v e

years-of-experience

groups

for

the

broad c a t e g o r i e s

of

Curriculum

D e v e l o p m e n t and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n and S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t / P e r s o n n e l
Management.
l e v e l ) was

A statistically
found

in

how t h e

sign ificant
five

difference

experience

groups

(at

the

.0 5

perceived

the

76

T ab le 4 . 1 7 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e importance o f t h e
f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and a ge .

Role/Function

Age

N

Mean

SD

F - R a t io

P

Instructional
Supervision

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

61
155
68
51

4
4
4
4

64
64
54
68

.3 0
.2 8
.3 6
.38

2.41

.0667

Curriculum
Development and
Implementation

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

60
153
71
50

4
4
4
4

47
49
44
64

.47
.3 7
.5 2
.3 4

2.50

.0 595

Lea der shi p

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

59
154
70
51

4
4
4
4

68
76
63
64

.2 9
.3 0
.28
.2 5

2.70

.0 455 *

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

59
152
68
53

4
4
4
4

57
52
51
66

.31
.3 6
.4 0
.3 4

2.30

.0771

S t a f f Develop­
m en t/P e r s on ne l
Management

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l .

importance
functions.

o f Instructional

Supervision

A Student-Newman-Keuls

and L e ad e r s h ip

Procedure

analysis

roles/

showed

no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between any s i n g l e e x p e r i e n c e gr oup s f o r t h e
broad

category

Leadership,

of

In stru ction al

t h o s e who had been

in

S u p ervision .
the

principalship

However,
for

11

for
to

15

y e a r s p e r c e i v e d l e a d e r s h i p r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s t o be more im po rt an t than
did

those

who had

been

principals

for

16

to

20

years.

p r i n c i p a l s seemed more c on c e rn ed w i t h s u c c e s s as a l e a d e r .

Newer

77

T a b le 4 . 1 8 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e imp ortance o f t h e
f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and y e a r s o f
experience.

Years o f
Experience

N

Mean

SO

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20+

90
59
58
60
68

4.66
4.68
4.66
4 .6 1
4.53

.29
.28
.31
.29
.4 0

2.41

.0492*

Curriculum
Development and
Im pl ementation

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20+

90
59
56
60
69

4.57
4.48
4.49
4.48

.41
.45
.47
.42
.3 8

.1 0 2

.3951

Le a de r s hi p

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20+

90
58
56
61
69

4.69
4.63
4.73
4.58
4.67

.3 0
.32
.2 5
.2 8
.27

2.41

.0 4 8 8 *

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20+

86
60
54
61
71

4.54
4.57
4.59
4.52
4.53

.42
.31
.30
.32
.3 9

.36 5 4

.8 332

Role/Function

Instructional
Supervision

S t a f f Develop­
m e n t/ P e r s o n n e l
Management

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l .

4.44

F - R a t io

P

78

School

district

differences
perceived

in

size.

The

how p r i n c i p a l s

the

im portance

ro les/fu n ctio n s.

figures

in

of

various

the

No s i g n i f i c a n t

in

Ta b le

sized

four

d ifferen ce

the

broad

statistically

category

sign ificant

of

revealed

ca teg o ries

was

found

of

between

student populations

In stru ction al

S u p ervision .

in how t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e

o f Curriculum Development and Im p lem en tat ion ,

a n alysis

districts

A

d i f f e r e n c e was found among p r i n c i p a l s

v a r i o u s s i z e d s c h o ol d i s t r i c t s

D e ve lo pm e nt /P er s c nn e l

show t h e

school

broad

responding p r i n c ip a l s in d i s t r i c t s o f d i f f e r e n t
for

4.19

Management.
that

Leadership,

importance
and S t a f f

A Student-Newman-Keuls Procedure

p rin cip als

in

school

d istricts

w ith

e n r o l l m e n t s o v e r 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 c o n s i d e r e d t h e Curriculum Development
Implementation
(at the
f ew e r

roles/fun ctions

.0 5 l e v e l )

than

to

be

sign ifican tly

than d i d e i t h e r t h o s e

2,400

students

or

in

in

in

school

school

d istricts

e n r o l l m e n t between 2 , 4 0 0 and 3 0 , 0 0 0 s t u d e n t s .

For

more

and

imp or ta nt

d istricts
that

with

had

Leadership

an
and

S t a f f D e ve lo pm en t/ Pe rs on n el Management, p r i n c i p a l s in d i s t r i c t s w i t h
enrollm ents
sign ifican tly

over

120,000

considered

those

roles/fu n ction s

to

be

more important than d i d t h o s e in d i s t r i c t s w i t h f ew e r

than 2 , 4 0 0 s t u d e n t s .

79

Ta bl e 4 . 1 9 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e i m por ta nc e o f t h e
f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and s c h o o l
d istrict size.

School D i s t r i c t
S iz e (Student
E n ro ll m e nt )

N

Mean

Instructional
Supervision

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

29
18
210
78

4.71
4.72
4.63
4.56

.25
.2 6
.3 2
.3 4

2.37

.0 70 8

Curriculum
Development
and Imple­
m e n ta t io n

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

28
18
213
75

4.74
4.58
4.46
4.49

.31
.35
.4 4
.40

3.85

.0 1 0 0 *

Lead er shi p

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

26
19
210
79

4.77
4.79
4.66
4.61

.2 4
.2 2
.3 0
.2 9

3.55

.0 1 4 8 *

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

26
19
214
73

4.69
4.63
4.55
4.48

.2 7
.36
.36
.3 7

2.75

.0 4 2 9 *

Role/Function

Staff
De velopment/
Personnel
Management

SO F - R a t i o

P

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l .

Rese arch Q u e s t i o n 3
What do e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o be t h e i r d e g r e e o f
n e e d f o r f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
deve lopment i n ea ch o f t h e s e l e c t e d r o l e f u n c t i o n s ?
The f i g u r e s
for

the

four

in Ta bl e 4 . 2 0 show t h e p r i n c i p a l s ’ d e g r e e o f need

broad c a t e g o r i e s

of

roles/fun ctions,

in

rank o r d e r .

Whereas Curriculum Development and Im plem entation was ranked l a s t in
i m por ta nce , i t was ranked f i r s t
appears

that,

although

in ne ed .

p rin cip als

From t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n ,
thought

that

it

C u r r i c u lu r n

80

Development was l e s s imp or ta nt than t h e o t h e r broad c a t e g o r i e s , t h e y
p e r c e i v e d more o f a need f o r c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
th is

are a

than

in

the

other

three.

However,

development

again,

it

must

in
be

p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e r e was a sprea d o f o n l y . 2 5 in means between t h e
f i r s t - and l a s t - r a n k e d c a t e g o r i e s ; a l l f o u r c a t e g o r i e s f e l l
average

range

d e ve lo p m e n t .

of

need

for

Instructional

ranked t h i r d ,

further

con tin u in g

Supervision

ranked

into the

professional

second,

Lead er shi p

and t h e broad c a t e g o r y o f S t a f f D e v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el

Management ranked l a s t among t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s f o r ne ed .
can

be

ob s e r v e d

Lead er shi p ( 2 . 9 0 )

that

there

was

very

1i t t l e

and S t a f f Development ( 2 . 8 9 ) .

a .1 9 mean d i f f e r e n c e

betwe en

Le ad er sh ip

(2.90)

difference

It

between

However, t h e r e was
and

Instructional

Supervision ( 3 .0 9 ) .

Tab le 4 . 2 0 . - - E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r
p e r s o n a l need o f f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n in t h e f o u r broad
c a te g o r ie s o f r o le s /fu n c t io n s o f the p r in c ip a lsh ip ,
i n rank o r d e r .

Rank

Role/Function

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

1

Curriculum Development
and Im pl ementation

325

1

5

3.14

.89

2

In stru ctio n a l Supervision

323

1

5

3.09

.84

3

Le ad er sh ip

320

1

5

2.90

.87

4

S t a f f D ev el op me nt /
Per so nne l Management

322

1

5

2.89

.83

81

Tab le 4.21

through 4 . 2 4 c o n t a i n a l i s t

o f the

roles/fu n ction s

f o r need f o r c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lop ment in each o f t h e f o u r
broad c a t e g o r i e s ,

in rank o r d e r .

Instructional

Supervision

was t h e

second-highest-ranked

c a t e g o r y f o r both importance and need ( s e a Ta bl e 4 . 2 1 ) .
category,

the

mean sprea d

between

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s was . 4 2 .
first

w ith in

th is

highest-

and

Within t h a t
lowest-ranked

"Has knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h "

category

ad d r e s s ed in t h e s u r v e y .
use r e s e a r c h -b a s e d

the

and

among

al 1

34

I t was f o l l o w e d by "Encourages t e a c h e r s t o

i n s t r u c t i o n , " "Use s g o a l - s e t t i n g

to

issu es to the s t a f f ,"

scores

changes,"

recommend

time on t a s k . "

ranked

roles/fu n ctio n s

i n s t r u c t i o n , " "Brings i n s t r u c t i o n a l
to

broad

instructional

"Maintains t h a t a l l

in t h i s broad c a t e g o r y f o r ne ed ,
r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s f o r im po r ta nc e .

and

improve

"Uses t e s t

"Promotes

student

s t u d e n t s can l e a r n " ranked l a s t

but i t

ranked f i r s t

among a l l

A ll r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s f e l l

the

w ith in the

av er ag e range o f need ( 2 . 5 - 3 . 5 ) .
For t h e broad c a t e g o r y o f Curriculum Development and Implemen­
tation.

"Has knowledge about t h i n k i n g and r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d

r i c u l a r needs o f

students"

ranked

first,

followed

by

to

cur­

" C o o r di na t e s

c u r r ic u lu m development w i t h i n t h e b u i l d i n g , " "Aids s t a f f in a s s u r i n g
t h a t c ur ric ul um i s a p p l i c a b l e t o s k i l l s
will

n e e d ," "Disaggregates t e s t

m a k in g ," "Demonstrates
fin ally

sk ills

and a b i l i t i e s

score data

last-ranked

i n c u r r i c u l u r n a r t i c u l a t i o n , " and
( s e e Ta bl e 4 . 2 2 ) .

.2 9 between t h e means o f

roles/fu n ction s.

students

f o r curriculum d e c is i o n

"Helps t e a c h e r s implement t h e curriculum"

There was a d i f f e r e n c e o f

that

The

greatest

mean

the

first-

and

difference

was

T a b le 4 . 2 1 . - - E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l n eed o f f u r t h e r p r e p a ­
r a t i o n i n t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n , i n ra n k o r d e r .

Rank

Item
#

1

1

I

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Has knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d t o
instruction

347

1

5

3.51

.95

5

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o use i n s t r u c t i o n a l t e c h ­
ni q u e s r e l e v a n t t o c u r r i c u l a r o b j e c t i v e s and
research-based p r in c ip le s o f teaching

340

1

5

3.30

1.09

3

2

Uses g o a l - s e t t i n g t o improve i n s t r u c t i o n and
t h e in vo lve m en t o f s t a f f in g o a l - s e t t i n g

344

1

5

3.18

1.11

4

7

Bri ngs i n s t r u c t i o n a l
discussion

342

1

5

3.09

1.15

5

3

Uses t e s t s c o r e s t o recommend changes in
i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs

342

1

5

3.02

1 .0 9

6

4

Promotes s t u d e n t tim e on t a s k

337

1

5

2.76

1.11

7

6

Main tains t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s can l e a r n and
e x p e c t s them t o suc c ee d

340

1

5

2.71

1 .3 3

I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n ( Ite ms Combined)

323

1

5

3.09

.84

issu es to fa cu lty for

Table 4 . 2 2 . - -E le m en ta r y s ch oo l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l need o f f u r t h e r
p r e p a r a t i o n in t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s r e l a t e d t o Curriculum Development and Imple­
m e n t a t i o n . i n rank o r d e r .

Rank

Item
#

Item Content

N

Miri.

Max.

Mean

SD

1

8

Has knowledge about t h i n k i n g and r e s e a r c h
r e l a t e d t o c u r r i c u l a r needs o f s t u d e n t s

345

1

5

3.43

.99

2

9

C oo r di na te s c ur ric ul um development w i t h i n
the building

344

1

5

3.15

1.12

3

10

Aids s t a f f in a s s u r i n g t h a t cu rr icu lu m i s
a p p l i c a b l e t o s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s p r e s e n t
s t u d e n t s w i l l need as a d u l t s

344

1

5

3.08 1.10

4

12

Has t h e a b i l i t y t o d i s a g g r e g a t e and examine
t e s t s c o r e da ta t o make recommendations f o r
cur ric ul um r e v i s i o n

341

1

5

3.08 1.25

5

13

Demonstrates s k i l l s in cur ric ul um
articulation

342

1

5

3.06

1.12

6

11

Helps t e a c h e r s implement t h e cu rr icu lu m

338

1

5

3.01

1.16

325

1

5

3.14

.89

Curriculum Development and Implementation
( Ite ms Combined)

84

between t h e

first-

and s e co n d- r a nk ed

roles/functions.

All

roles/

f u n c t i o n s f e l l w i t h i n t h e av e r a g e range o f need ( 2 . 5 - 3 . 5 ) .
The c a t e g o r y o f Lead er sh ip was ranked h i g h e s t in imp ortance and
third

highest

difference

for

need

i n means

(see

Tab le 4 . 2 3 ) .

between t h e

functions within t h is category.
average

range

of

vision-oriented"
first,

delegate,"

communication

.31

and l o w e s t - r a n k e d

point
roles/

All r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s f e l l w ith in the
Within

staff

valid

"Ap plies

"Develops

"Is

a

in

th is

category,

"Being

pia nn in g "

ranked

long-range

by "Keeps a b r e a s t o f r e s e a r c h , " " G a t h e r s

data,"

m anagem ent,"

highest-

(2 .5 -3 .5 ).

and "Aiding

follow ed

analyzes

need

There was

research,"

a sense

of

"Involves

ade pt

team w ork,"

a good p r o b l e m - s o l v e r , "
sk ills,"

" Is

at

con flict

"Knows

when

"Has good w r i t t e n

others

in

decision

and

to

and o r a l

m a k i n g , " and

"A dj ust s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n . "
S t a f f Development/Personnel Management ranked l a s t f o r need and
third

for

4.24).
between

importance

the

h igh estfell

corrective

f o i l owed by
learning

four

broad c a t e g o r i e s

(see

Ta bl e

Within t h i s c a t e g o r y t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e in means o f

roles/fun ctions
" Tak es

among t h e

action

ar o u n d

d isp u tes,"

"B uilding
by s t a f f

the
on

staff

"Assessing

developm ent

leadership

low est-ranked

w ithin

"A ssists

theory,"

and

range

personnel
in

goal

and s t u d e n t s , "

and

need

m atters"

needs,"

perceived

stren gth s

of

of

All

(2.5-3.5).

ranked

s e t t i n g , " "Applying

in-service

teachers’
upon

av e r ag e

ro les/fu n ctio n s.

.21

" D e s ig ni n g

first,
adult
staff

n eed s,"

"A rbitrating

sta ff,"

"Encouraging

"Conducting

relevant

staff

Table 4 . 2 3 . --Elem entary school p r i n c i p a l s ’ p ercep tion s o f t h e i r personal need o f fu r th e r
p reparation in th e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s r e la t e d t o Leadership, in rank order.

Rank

Item
#

1

18

2

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Is vi sio n-oriented and aids s t a f f in Icngrange planning

347

1

5

3.21

1.11

19

Keeps abreast o f current research and trends
in education

346

1

5

3.17

1.13

3

17

Has the a b i l i t y to gather and analyze data
toward c og ni tiv e, a f f e c t i v e , and climate
needs o f the building

348

1

5

3.14

1.07

4

24

Applies valid research findings to school
practice

341

1

5

3.12

1.00

5

20

Is adept at c o n f l i c t management

348

1

5

3.01

1.13

6

23

Develops a sense o f teamwork among the s t a f f

347

1

5

2.77

1.14

7

14

Knows when to delegate

345

1

5

2.25

1.24

8

16

Is a good problem-solver

342

1

5

2.73

1.11

9

21

Has good written and oral communication s k i l l s

346

1

5

2.66

1.21

10

22

Involves others appropriately in decision
making

346

1

5

2.68

1.14

11

15

Adjusts leadership s t y l e to f i t the needs
of the sit uation

342

1

5

2.63

1.16

Leadership (Items Combined)

320

1

5

2.90

.87

SD

Table 4 . 2 4 . --Elem entary school p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c ep tio n s o f t h e i r personal need o f fu r t h e r prepa­
r a t io n in th e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s r e la t e d t o S t a f f Development/Personnel Management,
in rank order.

Item
Rank

I

1

33

2
3

Item Content

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

SD

Takes corrective action on personnel matters
in order to maintain quality and e ff e c ti v en es s

347

1

5

3.10

1.10

34

A s s i s t s s t a f f members in settin g r e a l i s t i c and
appropriate goals for growth and improvement

349

1

5

3.09

1.10

25

Understands and applies adult learning and

337

1

5

2.98

1.10

motivation theory
4

29

Assesses i n -s e r v ic e needs and seeks resources
to f i l l those needs

350

1

5

2.94

1.09

5

30

Ensures that staff-development programs are
based on teacher s’ needs

345

1

5

2.88

1.09

6

27

Is able to arbitrate disputes and agreements

345

1

5

2.87

1.09

7

25

Has s k i l l s in building upon strengths o f
s t a f f members

344

1

5

2.86

1.10

8

29

Encourages leadership by s t a f f and students

349

1

5

2.84

1.10

9

32

Conducts s t a f f meetings that teachers per­
c eiv e to be relevant and informative

349

1

5

2.79

1.19

10

31

Encourages teachers to try new ideas with­
out fear o f reprisal or f a il u r e

346

1

5

2.51

1.20

322

1

5

2.89

.83

S t a f f Devel opment/Personnel Management
(Items Combined)

87

th is

category

and l a s t

among t h e

34

roles/fun ctions

addressed

in

t h i s study.
The h i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f need f o r each
broad c a t e g o r y o f need ar e r e p o r t e d in Ta bl e 4 . 2 5 .

By broad c a t e ­

g o r y , t h e s m a l l e s t range o f means was w i t h i n t h e Curriculum D e v e l o p ­
ment and Implem ent at ion c a t e g o r y ,
was

within

ranked

the

areas

"Knowledge

Instructional

of

of

need

latest

across

and t h e g r e a t e s t

Supervision
the

research

four

related

o f means

The

highest-

category.

broad
to

range

categories

cu r r ic u l u m

related

and

to

instruc­

tion,"

"Long-range p l a n n i n g , " and "Taking c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n on p e r ­

s on ne l

m atters."

all

students

The l o w e s t a r e a s

o f need were

can l e a r n , " "Encouraging t e a c h e r s

"M ain tain ing

to

try

that

new i d e a s , "

" A d ju st in g l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e t o f i t t h e s i t u a t i o n , " and " A r t i c u l a t i n g
t h e c u r r i c u l u m ."
H ighlighted
five

in T a b l e s 4 . 2 6 and 4 . 2 7 ar e t h e f i v e

lowest-ranked r o le s /fu n c t io n s

highest-

in which p r i n c i p a l s

and

expressed

a

need f o r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e lo p m e n t , a c r o s s
all

34 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .

No r o l e d e s c r i p t i o n from S t a f f Deve lo pm en t/

Pe r s on ne l Management was in t h e f i v e
f o r need ( s e e Table 4 . 2 6 ) .
functions

for

need

related

related to instruction,"

highest-ranked r o le s /f u n c t io n s

Three o f t h e f i v e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s /
to

r e se a r c h - -" K n o w l e d g e

"Knowledge o f r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d

lum," and "Knowledge o f c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h and t r e n d s . "
were s k i l l s
a

of

roles/fun ctions.

of

.34

between

the

first-

and

to curricu­

The o t h e r two

in "Long-range planning" and " G o a l - s e t t i n g . "

d ifferen ce

research

There was

fifth -ran k ed

88

Ta bl e 4 . 2 5 . - - H i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f need
f o r t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s .

Item
#

Role

Mean

SD

In stru ctio n a l Supervision

Highest
Ranked

1

Has knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h
related to instruction

3. 5 1

.95

Lowest
Ranked

6

M a in ta i n s t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s can
1 earn and e x p e c t s them t o l e a r n

2.71

1.33

Has knowledge about t h i n k i n g and
research rela ted to cu rricu lar
needs o f s t u d e n t s

3.43

.99

Uses s k i l l s in c u r r i c u l a r a r t i c u ­
lation

3.06

1.12

Curriculum Development and Implementation

Highest
Ranked

Lowest
Ranked

8

13

Leadership

Highest
Ranked

18

I s v i s i o n o r i e n t e d and a i d s s t a f f
in l o n g - r a n g e p la nn in g

3 .2 1

1.11

Lowest
Ranked

15

Adjusts le a d er sh ip s t y l e to f i t
the needs o f the s i t u a t i o n

2.63

1.16

S t a f f D e ve lo pm en t/ Pe rs onn el Management

Highest
Ranked

33

Has t h e a b i l i t y t o t a k e c o r r e c t i v e
a c t i o n on pe rs onn el m a t t e r s in o r d e r
t o m a i n t a i n q u a l i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s

3.10

1.10

Lowest
Ranked

31

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o t r y new i d e a s
without f e a r o f r e p r is a l or f a i l u r e

2.51

1.20

89

T a b le 4 . 2 6 . --The f i v e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f need f o r
p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l dev elop ment
a c r o s s a l l 34 r o l e d e s c r i p t o r s .

HIGH
Rank

Item
#

Category

Role

Mean

SD

1

Instructional
Supervision

1

Has knowledge o f
l a t e s t research
related to
instruction

3.51

.95

2

Curriculum D e v e l o p ­
ment and Implemen­
tation

8

Has knowledge
about t h i n k i n g and
research rela ted
to curricular
needs o f s t u d e n t s

3.43

.9 9

3

Leadership

18

Is v i s i o n - o r i e n t e d
and a i d s s t a f f in
l o n g - r a n g e pl a n n i n g

3.21

1.11

4

Instructional
Supervision

Uses g o a l - s e t t i n g
t o improve i n s t r u c ­
t i o n and t h e
i nv o lv e m e nt o f s t a f f

3.18

1.11

5

Le adership

Keeps a b r e a s t o f
current research
and t r e n d s in
education

3.17

1.13

roles/fu n ction s

fell

The
between

means
2.51

19

for

and

2

the

2.71

five
(see

C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t and
lowest-ranked r o le s / f u n c t i o n s .

lowest-ranked
Ta bl e

4.27).

No

role/fu nction

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n was w i t h i n

the

The l o w e s t ranked r o l e / f u n c t i o n

need was "Encourages s t a f f t o t r y new i d e a s . "

for
fiv e
for

The n e x t t h r e e were

from t h e Leadership c a t e g o r y - - " S i t u a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , " "Having good
communication

sk ills,"

and

"Involving

others

in

decision

making."

90

The f i f t h was a l s o t h e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e / f u n c t i o n f o r i m p o r t a n c e - "Maintains t h a t a l l

s t u d e n t s can l e a r n and e x p e c t s them t o l e a r n . "

A l s o in t h e f i v e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s f o r importance were "Good com­
m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s " and "Encourages s t a f f t o t r y new i d e a s . "

T a b le 4 . 2 7 . - -T he f i v e l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s o f need f o r
p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lop ment
a c r o s s a l l 34 r o l e d e s c r i p t o r s .

LOU
Rank

Cate go ry

Item
#

Role

Mean

SD

M a in ta i n s t h a t a l l
s t u d e n t s can l e a r n
and e x p e c t s them
to succeed

2.71

1.33

5

Instructional
Supervision

4

Le ad er sh ip

22

Involves others
a p p r o p r i a t e l y in
d e c i s i o n making

2.68

1.14

3

Le ad er sh ip

21

Has good w r i t t e n
and o r a l communi­
cation s k i l l s

2.66

1.21

2

Lead er sh ip

15

Adjusts lead ersh ip
s t y l e to f i t the
needs o f the
situation

2.63

1.16

1

S t a f f Develop­
m e n t/ P e rs o n n e l
Management

31

Encourages t e a c h e r s
t o t r y new i d e a s
w i t h o u t f e a r or
r e p r is a l or f a i l u r e

2.51

1.20

6

91

Research Q u e st i o n 4
Nhat d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g
t h e i r d e g r e e o f need f o r f u r t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l de v elo p me nt ,
comparing t h e v a r i a b l e s o f g e n d e r , a g e , l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e as an
e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l , and t h e s i z e o f t h e i r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ?
One-way a n a l y s i s
If a statistically
New ma n- Keu ls

o f v a r i a n c e was used t o

sign ifican t

Procedure

difference

a n alysis

was

make t h i s

was

f oun d,

used

to

analysis.

the

Student-

id en tify

the

d ifferences.
Gender.
m ale s

and

The f i g u r e s in Ta bl e 4 . 2 8 show t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between

females

professional

in

how t h e y

development

categories.

in

perceived

the

No s t a t i s t i c a l l y

the

need

for

continuing

of

the

four

roles/fun ctions
sign ificant

difference

was

broad
found

between m ales and f e m a l e s in how t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e need f o r f u r t h e r
p r o f e s s i o n a l development i n t h e f o u r c a t e g o r i e s .

However, i t can be

o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e r e was a h i g h e r mean o f need f o r m ale s in a l l

four

broad c a t e g o r i e s .
Ag e .

The f i g u r e s

according to
sign ifican t

i n Table 4.29 show t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

t h e age gr oups f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .
difference

at the

.05 l e v e l

was

in need

A statistically

found

among d i f f e r e n t

age groups f o r t h e c a t e g o r y o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n and a t t h e
.0 1

level

for

Development.

C urriculum

D evelopm ent,

A Student-Newman-Keuls

that principals

between t h e a ge s o f 41

need f o r c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
o f Instructional

Leadership,

Procedure

analysis

and

Staff

revealed

and 50 e x p r e s s e d more o f

a

development i n t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s

S u p e r v i s i o n than d i d t h o s e who were o v e r 55.

For

92

the

roles/fu n ction s

Leadership,

of

and S t a f f

sign ifican tly

Curriculum Development
Development,

principals

and

I m p le m en ta t io n ,

over

55 p e r c e i v e d

l o w e r need f o r f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g th a n d i d

e i t h e r t h e 30 t o 40 or

the

41

to

5 0 age g r o u p .

It

those
can

from

also

o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e n e e d s d e c r e a s e d as age i n c r e a s e d .

T a b le 4 . 2 8 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e p r i n c i p a l s ’
p e r s on al need f o r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l development in t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f
r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and ge nde r.

Role/Function

F - R a t io

a

Gender

N

Mean

SD

Instructional
Supervision

Male
Female

201
116

3.10
3.04

.8 4
.8 4

.42 50

.5 149

Curriculum
Development and
Imp leme nt at ion

Male
Female

201
118

3.15
3.10

.88
.91

.2 8 0 0

. 59 70

Le ad e r s hi p

Male
Female

200
114

2.92
2.83

.8 7
.8 5

.81 80

.3 665

S t a f f Develop­
m e n t/ P e r s o n n e l
Management

Male
Female

206
111

2.94
2.78

.81
.83

2.6299

.10 64

P

be

93

Ta bl e 4 . 2 9 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e p r i n c i p a l s ’
p e r s o n a l need f o r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l dev elop ment in t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f
r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and a g e .

Role/Function

Age

N

Mean

SD

F-Ratio

p

Instructional
Supervision

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

59
149
65
47

3.18
3.17
2.99
2.78

.79
.8 3
.80
.8 7

3.26

.0 21 9*

Curriculum
Development and
Implementation

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

58
148
71
45

3.32
3 .2 1
3.05
2.77

.8 5
.88
.90
.8 5

4.17

.0064^

Le ad er sh ip

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

51
150
66
50

3.03
2.99
2.80
2.56

.9 0
.8 0
.92
.83

4.00

.0 0 8 1 ♦ ♦

30-40
41-50
51-55
> 55

55
149
65
50

3.04

.82
.81
.8 4
.76

4.15

,0067^

S t a f f Develop­
m en t/ P e rs on n e l
Management

2 .9 8
2.79
2.57

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l
♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l

Years

of

experience.

The

figures

d i f f e r e n c e s i n how r e s p o n d i n g p r i n c i p a l s
groups p e r c e i v e d
There
groups

was
for

no

in

T a b le

4.30

Instructional

difference
Supervision,

the

in the y e a r s - o f - e x p e r i e n c e

t h e need f o r c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l

sign ifican t

show

between

d e v e lo p m e n t .

years-of-experience

Curriculum

Development

I m p le m en ta t io n , o r S t a f f D e v e l p m e n t / P e r s o n n e l Management.

and

Although

t h e f i g u r e s in t h e t a b l e show a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

94

at the .05 le v e l
Procedure

in t h e a r e a o f L e a d e r s h i p , t h e Student-Newman-Keuls

an alysis

revealed

no

differen ce

between

a ny

two

categories.

T a b le 4 . 3 0 . --One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e p r i n c i p a l s ’
p e r s o n a l need f o r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l dev elop ment i n t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f
r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e .

Years o f
E x p er i e n c e

N

Mean

SD

0- 5
6-10
1 1 -1 5
16-20
20+

85
58
54
60
63

3.10
3.18
1q

1.22

.30 3 9

3.03
2.90

.78
.81
.84
.8 9
.87

Curriculum
Development and
Im pl ementation

0- 5
6-10
1 1 -1 5
1 6 -2 0
20+

85
59
54
59
65

3.25
3. 2 1
3.08
3.16
2.93

.85
.83
.8 4
1.01
.8 9

1.39

.2358

Le ad e r s hi p

0- 5
6-10
11-15
16 -2 0
20+

84
55
52
60
66

2.95
3.14
2.80
2.91
2.67

.7 5
.92
.77
.93
.9 0

2.49

.0435^

0- 5
6-10
1 1- 15
16-20
20+

84
58
49
59
69

2.93
3.03
2.86
2.86
2.74

.75
.88
.68
.91
.87

1.05

.3796

Role/Function

Instructional
Supervision

S t a f f Develop­
m e n t/ P e r s o n n e l
Management

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l .

F - R a t io

P

95

School
differences

d istrict

size.

The

figu res

in

Table

4.31

show

in need f o r f u r t h e r s t a f f dev elo pm en t among p r i n c i p a l s

in d i s t r i c t s o f various s i z e s o f student population.

The r e s u l t s o f

t h e one- way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e . 0 5 o r .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e between any s c h o o l s iz e categories

for

all

four

broad c a t e g o r i e s

of

roles/fun ctions.

However, p r i n c i p a l s in d i s t r i c t s w i t h s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s l e s s
30,000

gen erally

professional

perceived

development

larger d i s t r i c t s .

more

in a l l

of

a

broad c a t e g o r i e s

for

continu ing

than d i d

those

in

I t s h o u l d be note d t h a t , w it h one e x c e p t i o n , need

i n c r e a s e d as s i z e o f d i s t r i c t d e c r e a s e d .
the

need

than

Curriculum Development

and

The e x c e p t i o n was w i t h i n

Im plem entation

category.

That

2,400 to

30,000

c a t e g o r y showed a h i g h e r mean f o r need w i t h i n t h e
c a t e g o r y than w i t h i n t h e 3 0 , 0 0 0 t o 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 c a t e g o r y .

Research Q u e st i on 5
What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s i d e n t i f y a s t h e i r most v a l u a b l e
s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l development
f o r each o f t h e s e l e c t e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ?
The f i g u r e s in T a b l e s 4 . 3 2 through 4 . 3 6 show t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f
responses
survey.
other

for

each

source

of

training

of

those

r e sp o n d i n g

to

the

M is s i n g r e s p o n s e s in t h i s s e c t i o n were s i m i l a r t o t h o s e in
sections,

Q u e st i on 6.

r an gi ng

from

1.7%

for

Q u e st i o n

1

to

4.8%

for

96

Table 4 . 3 1 .- -O ne -w a y a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e p r i n c i p a l s ’
p e r s o n a l need f o r p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s ­
s i o n a l development in t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f
r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i z e .

School D i s t r i c t
S i z e (S tu d e n t
En roll men t)

Role/Function

H

Mean

SD

F-Ratio

P

Instructional
Supervision

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

26
17
198
79

2.80
2.88
3.09
3.17

.95
.88
.83
.78

1.66

.17 5 3

Curriculum
Development
and Imple­
m en ta t io n

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

26
16
205
75

2.92 1.09
2.67
.8 5
3.15
.87
3.26
.83

2.56

.0552

Le ad er sh ip

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

27
17
198
75

2.56
.95
2.64 1.03
2. 9 1
.87
3.03
.7 2

2.51

. 05 90

> 120,000
30,000-120,000
2,400-30,000
< 2,400

25
16
205
73

2.64
.88
2.76 1.82
2.92
.8 4
2.90
.73

.93 7 2

.40 5 6

Staff
Dev el opm en t/
Personnel
Management

In stru ction al
Instructional

S u p ervision .

For

the

broad

category

of

S u p e r v i s i o n , w orkshop/conference r e c e iv e d t h e h i g h e s t

p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e s a s t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n
f o r four o f the seven r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ,

and i t

r e c e i v e d more th a n a

50% r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r two o f t h o s e f o u r ( s e e Ta bl e 4 . 3 2 ) .

Thirty-

se v en p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s e l e c t e d O n -t h e - J o b E x p e r i e n c e f o r
the r o le /fu n c tio n

"Promotes s t u d e n t tim e on t a s k . "

highest

category

response

l ear n" was a l s o

for

"Maintains

O n -t h e - J o b E x p e r i e n c e .

that

all

Sim ilarly,

the

students

can

M entor/Collegial

Relations

Table 4 . 3 2 . --P erc en ta g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e most v a lu a b le source o f p rep a ration and con tin u in g
p r o f e s s io n a l development f o r I n str u c tio n a l S u p e r v is io n .

Item Content

1. Has knowledge o f l a t e s t
research related to
instruction

On-the-Job
Experience

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

University/
College

3

2

33

59

3

23

10

13

50

5

25

8

16

41

10

37

10

19

33

2

13

9

15

55

8

6. Maintains that a l l s tu ­
dents can learn and
expects them t o succeed

35

7

24

31

4

7. Brings instructional
issues to s t a f f for
discussion

19

7

43

29

3

2. Uses g o a l - s e t t i n g to
improve instruction
and the involvement o f
s t a f f in g o a l - s e t t i n g
3. Uses t e s t scores to
recommend changes in
instructional program
4. Promotes student time
on task
5. Encourages teachers to
use instructional tech­
niques relevant t o cur­
ricular obj ectives and
research-based p r i n c i ­
ples o f teaching

98

and U n i v e r s i t y / C o l l e g e

received

a 10% or lo we r r e s p o n s e r a t e

for

a l l seven o f the r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
Curriculum Development and I m p le m e n ta t io n .
selected

response

continuing

o f most

professional

valuable

source

d ev elo p me nt f o r

The most f r e q u e n t l y
of

preparation

and

t h e Curriculum Development

and Im plem entation c a t e g o r y was Workshop/Conference f o r f o u r o f t h e
six

ro les/fu n ctio n s

received

the

highest

(see

Table

response

4 .3 3 ).

rate

t e a c h e r s implement t h e c u r r i c u l u m . "

for

O n-the-Job
the

E xperience

role/fu nction

"Helps

Uni v e r s i t y / C o l 1e g e r e c e i v e d t h e

h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r "Aids s t a f f in assuring t h a t c u r r i c u l u m i s
applicable
a d u lts."
source

to

sk ills

and

The r e s p o n s e s ,
of

a b ilities

present

students

w ill

need

as

in g e n e r a l , were more sp re ad among t h e f i v e

preparation

for

C u r r ic u lu m

Development

than

for

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Supervision or S t a f f Development/Personnel Management.
Leadership.

O n -t h e - J o b E x p e r i e n c e and Workshop/Conference were

t h e two t o p c h o i c e s o f most v a l u a b l e p r e p a r a t i o n s o u r c e f o r 8 o f t h e
11 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
4.34).

in t h e

Professional

role/fu nction
education."

of

broad c a t e g o r y o f

L e ad e r s h i p

(see

Ta bl e

Readings r e c e i v e d a 65% r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e

"Keeps a b r e a s t

o f current

research

and t r e n d s

in

T h is was t h e h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e p e r c e n t a g e i n any o f t h e

f i v e c a t e g o r i e s f o r a l l 34 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
and O n -t h e - J o b
good w r i t t e n and

E x p er i e n c e

received

33% o f

o r a l communication s k i l l s . "

Both U n i v e r s i t y / C o l l e g e
the

responses

for

"Has

T able 4 . 3 3 . - - P e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t io n and c o n t i n u i n g
p r o f e s s i o n a l d evelop m en t f o r Curriculum Development and I m p le m e n ta tio n .

Item Content

8. Has knowledge about
thin kin g and research
related to curricular
needs o f stu d e n ts
9. Coordinates curriculum
development wi th in
the buil din g
10. Aids s t a f f in assu rin g
t h a t curriculum i s
a p p l i c a b le t o s k i l l s
and a b i l i t i e s pr es ent
stu den ts w i l l need
as adul ts
11. Helps t e a c h e r s imple­
ment the curriculum
12. Disaggregates and
examines t e s t sco re
data t o make recomda t io n s f o r c u r r i c u ­
lum r e v i s i o n
13. Has s k i l l s in cur­
riculum a r t i c u l a t i o n

On-the-Job
Experience

Mentor/
Collegial
R e la ti o n s

P r o f es s io n al
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

U niversity/
C ol leg e

4

2

34

46

15

28

14

11

38

8

24

16

10

28

34

38

16

10

32

4

21

8

10

46

16

21

8

19

35

17

T a b le 4 . 3 4 . - - P e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m o st v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g
p r o f e s s i o n a l d evelop m en t f o r L e a d e r s h ip .

On-the-Job
Experience

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

14. Knows when t o d e l e g a t e

54

16

7

20

4

15. A d ju s t s l e a d e r s h i p
s t y l e t o f i t t h e needs
o f the s it u a t io n

50

11

11

21

6

48

16

7

25

4

21

7

15

46

12

21

11

18

43

8

3

2

65

26

5

Item Content

16. I s a good problemsolver
17. Has t h e a b i l i t y t o
g a t h e r and a n a l y z e
da ta toward t h e c o g ­
nitive, affective,
and c l i m a t e needs o f
the building
18. I s v i s i o n - o r i e n t e d
and a i d s s t a f f in
l o n g - r a n g e plan nin g
19. Keeps a b r e a s t o f c u r ­
r e n t r e s e a r c h and
t r e n d s in e d u c a t io n

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

U niversity/
College

T a b le 4 . 3 4 . - - C o n t i n u e d .

On -the-Job
Experie nc e

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

39

13

7

33

8

33

4

10

20

33

Involves others
a p p r o p r i a t e l y in
d e c i s i o n making

47

12

6

29

5

23. Develops a s e n s e o f
teamwork among t h e
staff

49

12

8

28

5

24. A p p li e s v a l i d r e s e a r c h
f i n d i n g s t o scho ol
practice

10

5

39

36

11

Item Content

20. I s adept a t c o n f l i c t
management
21. Has good w r i t t e n and
oral communication
sk ills
22.

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

U niversity/
College

102

S t a f f D e ve lo pm e nt /P er s on n el

Management.

O n- t he - Jo b Ex perien ce

and Workshop/Conference were ag a i n t h e two most f r e q u e n t l y s e l e c t e d
s o u r c e s o f p r e p a r a t i o n f o r 9 o f t h e 10 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s

in t h e broad

c a t e g o r y o f S t a f f D e ve lo pm e nt /P er s on n el Management ( s e e T a b le 4 . 3 5 ) .
Professional

Readings was t h e secon d h i g h e s t

response category for

t h e r o l e / f u n c t i o n o f "Is a b l e t o und erstand and ap pl y a d u l t l e a r n i n g
and m o t i v a t i o n t h e o r y . "
frequently

selected

O v e r a l l , Workshop/Conference was t h e most

category.

U n iversity/C ollege

was

the

least

f r e q u e n t l y s e l e c t e d c a t e g o r y f o r 9 o f t h e 10 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
The f i g u r e s

in T a b le 4 . 3 5 show the percentage ra ng es f o r each

broad c a t e g o r y and t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e s f o r each c a t e g o r y .

When t h e

p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n s e s were averaged f o r each c o u r s e c a t e g o r y
broad r o l e / f u n c t i o n
highest

response

category,

rate

for

the

W orkshop/Conference r e c e i v e d
broad

categories

of

Experience

was

the

Lea de rs hi p and S t a f i

most

freq u en tly

the

Instructional

S u p e r v i s i o n and Curriculum Development and Im p le m en ta tio n .
Jo b

by

selected

On-t he -

source

De v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el Management.

for

O v e r a ll, the

n e x t h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e r a t e was in t h e broad c a t e g o r y o f P r o f e s s i o n a l
Readings/Self-Study.
A comparison

of

the

five

roles/fun ctions

ranked

highest

in

terms o f importance and t h e f i v e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ranked h i g h e s t w it h
r e g a rd t o need f o r t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g ar e shown in
T a b l e s 4 . 3 7 and 4 . 3 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
As

shown

frequently

in

Ta bl e

selected

p e r c e i v e d as most

4.37,

source

of

important,

O n- th e -J o b
preparation

E x p er i e n c e
for

the

and C o l l e g e / U n i v e r s i t y

was

the

most

roles/fun ctions
was

the

least

T a b le 4 . 3 5 . - - P e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e m o st v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g
p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e lo p m e n t f o r S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t / P e r s o n n e l Management.

Item Content

25. I s a b l e t o understand
and apply a d u l t l e a r n ­
ing and m o t i v a t i o n
theory

On -the-Job
Ex per ie nce

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

16

26. Has s k i l l s in b u i l d i n g
upon s t r e n g t h s o f
s t a f f members

49

13

27. A b i l i t y t o a r b i t r a t e
d i s p u t e s and a g r e e ­
ments

52

12

32

20

48

13

28. A b i l i t y t o a s s e s s ins e r v i c e needs and
seeks resources to
f i l l t h o s e needs
29. Encourages l e a d e r s h i p
by s t a f f and s t u d e n t s

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Con ference

20

38

8

28

28

8

38

28

U n iversity/
College

18

T a b le 4 . 3 5 . - - C o n t i n u e d .

Item Content

30. Ensures t h a t s t a f f development programs
are based on t e a c h e r s ’
need
31 . Encourages t e a c h e r s
t o t r y new i d e a s
without fea r o f
r e p r i s a l or f a i l u r e
32. Conducts s t a f f meet ­
in g s t h a t t e a c h e r s
p e r c e i v e as r e l e v a n t
and i n f o r m a t i v e
33. Takes c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n
on pe rsonnel m a tt e rs
t o m ain ta in q u a l i t y
and e f f e c t i v e n e s s
34. A s s i s t s s t a f f members
in s e t t i n g r e a l i s t i c
and a p p r o p r i a t e g o a l s
f o r growth and
improvement

On-t he-Job
Ex perien ce

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

48

16

11

30

2

48

15

12

23

2

54

13

10

21

2

31

12

9

41

7

31

12

9

41

7

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Con ference

U niversity/
College

T a b le 4 . 3 6 . - - P e r c e n t a g e r a n g e s and mean p e r c e n t a g e s by r o l e c a t e g o r y f o r m o st v a l u a b l e s o u r c e s
o f p r e p a r a tio n .

Category

On-the-Job
Exp eri enc e

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

University/
College

Instructional
Su p e r v i s io n

% Range
Mean %

3- 37
22

2-10
7

1 3 -4 3
23

29 -5 9
41

2 - 10
5

Curriculum
Development and
Implementation

% Range
Mean %

4-38
23

2- 16
10

1 0 -3 4
19

32-46
39

4 - 17
11

Leadership

% Range
Mean %

3-54
45

2-16
9

6-65
18

20 -4 6
30

4- 33
9

S t a f f D e v e lo p ­
ment/Personnel
management

% Range
Mean %

16-54
41

7-20
14

6-20
10

21-41
31

2-18
5

T a b le 4 . 3 7 . --C o m p a r is o n o f t h e f i v e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ran k ed h i g h e s t i n t e r m s o f im p o r ta n c e
w i t h t h e i r m ost v a l u a b l e s o u r c e s o f t r a i n i n g .

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Rank

N

Maintains t h a t
a ll students
can l e a r n

1

6

35%

7%

24%

31%

4%

2

23

49%

12%

8%

28%

5%

Has good
communication
sk ills

3

21

33%

4%

10%

20%

33%

Is a good
problemsolver

4

16

48%

16%

7%

25%

4%

Encourages
s t a f f to try
new i d e a s

5

31

48%

15%

12%

23%

2%

Develops s e n s e
o f teamwork

On-t he -J ob
Exp eri enc e

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

R ol e /F u n c ti o n

Workshop/
Con ference

U niversity/
College

107

frequently
where

selected ,

except

sp lit

respondents

for

"Has

th eir

good

communication

preference

at

33%

sk ills,"
for

both

C o l l e g e / U n i v e r s i t y and O n -t h e - J o b E x p e r i e n c e .
Wo rks hops/Conferences was t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f t r a i n i n g
f o r t h e f i v e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d need a r e a s e x c e p t f o r t h e r o l e / f u n c t i o n
of

"Uses

research

Readings

received

trends."
the

trends"

65% o f

The l e a s t

high est

and

need

the

(see

T ab le

responses

frequently selected
areas

were

4.38).

for

Professional

"Uses

research

sources o f preparation

M entor/C ollegial

R elation s

and
for
and

College/University.
Table 4.39 shows t h e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s f o r which t h e r e was a 50%
or more r e s p o n s e
ences

and

agreement

O n- t he - Jo b

on t r a i n i n g

Experience

received

r e s p o n s e s on s e v e n r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
a

50% or

more

response

for

techniques

more

"Knowledge

relevant

Worksho ps/Co nfe r­

50% o f

than

of

latest

research

"Encourages

teachers

curricular

objectives."

to

t h e - J o b E x p er i e n c e r e c e i v e d a 50% or more r e s p o n s e f o r
to

delegate,"

disputes,"

and

"A dj ust s

leadership

"Conducts

current

research

and

style,"

relevant

R eadings/Self-Study received

staff

"A bility

Two

of

for

these

to

for
use
On-

"Knows when

to

m eetings."

a 65% r e s p o n s e

trends.

the

W ork sho ps/C onf erences r e c e i v e d

i n s t r u c t i o n , " " G o a l - s e t t i n g , " and
instructional

source.

arbitrate

Professional

"Keeps

abreast

of

ro les/fu n ctio n s,

"Knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h f o r i n s t r u c t i o n " and "Keeps a b r e a s t o f
current

research

and t r e n d s , "

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s f o r nee d.

were

among t h e

five

highest-ranked

T a b le 4 . 3 8 . -- C o m p a r is o n o f t h e f i v e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ra n k ed h i g h e s t i n t e r m s o f n e e d f o r
f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g w i t h t h e i r m o st v a l u a b l e s o u r c e s o f t r a i n i n g .

R o l e /F u n c ti o n

Has knowledge
o f the l a t e s t
r e se a r c h f o r
instruction

Uses t h i n k i n g
and r e s e a r c h
curricular
needs

Uses l o n g range pl ann in g

Uses g o a l settin g

Keeps a b r e a s t
o f research
and t r e n d s

Rank

N

On-t he -J ob
Ex perien ce

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

U niversity/
College

1

1

3%

2%

33%

59%

3%

2

8

4%

2%

34%

46%

15%

3

18

21%

11%

18%

43%

8%

4

2

23%

10%

13%

50%

5%

5

19

3%

2%

65%

26%

5%

109

T a b le 4 . 3 9 . - - T r a i n i n g s o u r c e s t h a t r e c e i v e d 50% o r more o f t h e
responses.

N

T r a i n i n g Source

Knowledge o f l a t e s t r e s e a r c h
for instruction

1

Workshop/Conference

59

Goal s e t t i n g

2

Workshop/Conference

50

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o use
in s tr u c tio n a l techniques
relevant to curricular objec­
t i v e s and r e s e a r c h r e l a t e d
to p r in c ip le s o f teaching

5

Workshop/Conference

55

Role

%

Knows when t o d e l e g a t e

14

O n -t h e - J o b E x p er i e n c e

54

Adjusts lea d ersh ip to the
situation

15

O n- t he - J o b E x p er i e n c e

50

19

P rofession al Readings/
Self-Study

65

A b ility to arbitrate
disputes

27

O n- th e -J o b E x p er i e n c e

52

Conducts r e l e v a n t s t a f f
m e e t in g s

32

O n- t he - J o b E x p er ie nc e

54

Keeps a b r e a s t o f c u r r e n t
r e s e a r c h and t r e n d s

The

figures

in

r e c e i v e d a 5% o r l e s s
p rofessional

39

developm ent

roles/fun ctions;

roles/fu n ction s;
roles/fun ctions.
for

and

sources

of

training

that

r e s p o n s e r a t e as t h e most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f
for

U n iversity/C ollege received l e s s
the

show t h e

Table 4 . 4 0

all

of

O n- th e -J o b

the

im portance--"M aintains

ro les/fu n ctio n s.

than 6% o f t h e r e s p o n s e s on 20 o f
Experience,

M entor/Collegial

Four o f

the

five

that

on

Relations,

on

highest-ranked
all

students

three

of

the

five

of

the

roles/fun ctions

can

1earn"

(6),

Table 4 . 4 0 . - - S o u r c e s o f t r a i n i n g t h a t r e c e i v e d 5% or l e s s o f t h e r e s p o n s e s .

Item Content

1. Has knowledge o f
research

On-the-Job
Experience

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

3%

2%

Professional
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

University/
College

3%

2. Uses g o a l - s e t t i n g

5%

4. Promotes stud en t
time on t a s k

2%

6. Maintains t h a t a l l
s t u d e n t s can le a r n and
e x p e c t s them t o lea r n

4%

7. Brings i n s t r u c t i o n a l
issues
8. Uses r e sea rc h r e l a t e d
to curricular issues

3%

4%

2%

10. Ap pli es curriculum
t o s k i l l s o f s tu d e n ts

5%

11. Implements curriculum

4%

12. D e l e g a te s

4%

16. Is a p r ob le m - s o lv e r
19. Keeps ab r e a s t o f
r esearch

3%

2%

Table 4 . 4 0 . --C ontinued.

Item Content

21. Has communication
sk ills

On-the-Job
Experience

Mentor/
Collegial
Relations

P r o f es s io n al
Readings/
Self-Study

Workshop/
Conference

University/
C o ll eg e

4%

22. D e c i si o n making

5%

23. Sense o f teamwork

5%

24. A p p li c a ti o n o f
research

5%

26. St r en g th s o f s t a f f

2%

27. A r b i t r a t e s d i s p u t e s

3%

28. S t a f f i n - s e r v i c e

2%

29. S t a f f and s tu de nt
leadership

2%

30. S t a f f development

2%

31. New id e as

2%

32. Relevant s t a f f meetings

2%

33. Handles personnel
matters

5%

112

"Develops

a

sense

of

teamwork"

(23),

" Is

a

good

( 1 6 ) , and "Encourages s t a f f t o t r y new i d e a s"
less

r e s p o n s e f o r Uni v e r s i t y / C o l 1e g e .

ranked r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
U n i v e r s i t y / C o l 1e g e .
fo r instruction"

problem-solver"

(3 1 ) r e c e i v e d a 5% or

Three o f

the

five

f o r need r e c e i v e d a 5% o r l e s s

highest-

response fo r

They are "Has knowledge o f t h e l a t e s t

( 1 ) , "Uses g o a l - s e t t i n g "

research

( 2 ) , and "Keeps a b r e a s t o f

l a t e s t research" ( 1 9 ).

Summary
R esults o f the data a n a ly sis
about t h e

respondents

pr ov id e d demographic

and answers t o t h e

five

information

research

questions.

T a b l e s were used t o p r e s e n t t h e da t a t h a t were used i n answe ri ng t h e
research question s.
Research

Q ue sti o n

1

as ke d,

What

do

elementary

p e r c e i v e t o be t h e importance o f t h e s e l e c t e d
functions?
broad

In

categories

summary,
of

category ( 3 .5 1 - 5 .0 ) .

e le m e n ta r y

roles/fun ctions

adm inistrator

principals
in

the

all

four

imp ortance

The means ranged from 4 . 1 8 t o 4 . 8 6 .

The broad

(mean =

be

perceived

roles/

hig h

c a t e g o r y o f Lead er sh ip

to

principals

4.66) was ranked f i r s t , f o l 1 owed by

I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n (mean = 4 . 6 5 ) , S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t / P er s o n n el
Management (mean = 4 . 5 5 ) , and Curriculum Development and Implementa­
t i o n (mean - 4 . 3 0 ) .
Research Q u e s t i o n 2 a s k e d , What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among e l e m e n ­
t a r y p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s about t h e import ance o f
adm inistrator

roles/fu n ction s,

comparing

the

variables

of

gender,

a g e , l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e as an e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l , and s i z e o f t h e i r

113

school

d istrict?

In

summary,

females

considered

all

four

broad

c a t e g o r i e s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more im po rt a nt than d i d m a l e s .

For

a g e , t h e age group o f 41 t o 50 p e r c e i v e d Le ad e r s hi p r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
to

be

more

important

than

did

those

over

50.

d i f f e r e n c e was found f o r y e a r s o f experience.

No

sign ificant

For s c h o o l

d istrict

s i z e , p r i n c i p a l s in d i s t r i c t s with a s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n o v e r 1 2 0 , 0 0 0
considered

Curriculum

Development

and

I m p le m en ta t io n ,

Leadership,

and S t a f f D e ve lo pm en t/ Per so nn el Management t o be more im po rt an t than
d i d t h o s e in d i s t r i c t s w i t h fewer t han 2,400 s t u d e n t s .
Research
perceive

to

be

Q uestion
their

3

asked,

degree

of

What do e l e m e n t a r y
need

deve lop ment

for

in

further

each

preparation

professional

functions?

The d e g r e e o f need a c r o s s a l l f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s f e l l

and

Implementation

Supervision ( 3 .0 9 ) ,

(3.14)

ranked

first,

the

selected

and

continuing

i n t o t h e av e r ag e range f o r need ( 2 . 5 - 3 . 5 ) .

of

p rin cip als

role

Curriculum Development

f o l 1 owed by

Instructional

Lead ership ( 2 . 9 0 ) , and S t a f f D e v e l o p m e n t / P e r s o n ­

ne l Management ( 2 . 8 9 ) .
Research Q u e st io n 4 as k e d , What d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among e l e m e n ­
tary principals
sional

r e g a r d in g t h e i r d e g r e e o f need f o r

de ve lo p m e nt ,

further p ro fes­

comparing t h e v a r i a b l e s o f g e n d e r ,

age,

length

o f s e r v i c e as an e le m en ta r y p r i n c i p a l , and t h e s i z e o f t h e i r s c h o o l
district?

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r g e n d e r ,

o f e x p e r i e n c e , o r sch ool d i s t r i c t s i z e .

For a g e , p r i n c i p a l s between

t h e a g e s o f 41 and 50 e x p r e s s e d more o f
S u p e r v i s i o n than d i d t h o s e o v e r 5 5 .

years

a need f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l

For Curriculum Development and

114

Imp leme nt at ion ,
ment,

Leadership,

and S t a f f D e v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el

t h o s e o v e r 55 p e r c e i v e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

Manage­

l o w e r need than d i d

e i t h e r t h o s e between 30 and 40 o r t h o s e between 41 and 50.
Research

Q uestion

5 asked,

What do e l e m e n t a r y

p rin cip als

i d e n t i f y as t h e i r most v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t i n u i n g
professional

dev elop ment

roles/fu n ction s?

for

each

of

the

W orkshops/Conferences

selected

adm inistrator

r e ceiv ed the h ig h est

r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e broad c a t e g o r i e s o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l

Supervision

and

O n-the-Job

Curriculum

Development

Ex p er ie nc e was t h e

most

and

frequently

Im plem entation.
selected

source

for

Le ad er sh ip

and S t a f f De v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el Management.
A summary o f

the

major

findings

and

t h o s e f i n d i n g s are p r e s e n t e d in Chapter V.

c o n c l u s i o n s drawn

from

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
The
useful

purpose

to

th is

policymakers,

organizations,
selected

of

s ch oo l

group

s tu d y

was

colleges

to
and

adm inistrators,

of

p ro ficien cies

gather

data

u n iversities,

and s c h o o l
and

that

districts

sk ills

that

p e r c e i v e d as imp ortant t o t h e i r s u c c e s s as

where t h e y

received

these ro les/fu n ctio n s,

source

of

be

professional

principals

t h e i r most v a l u a b l e

w ill

about

a

elem en tary
a prin cip al,

preparation

and where more t r a i n i n g i s ne e de d.

for

The s tu d y

was prompted by r e c e n t demographic s u r v e y s co nd uc te d by t h e Michigan
Department o f E d uc a tio n, which r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e c o u l d be as much
as a 50% t u r n o v e r o f c u r r e n t e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s o v e r t h e n e x t t e n
years,

and by r e c e n t

effective

schools

research,

which

cited

enacted

Public

Act

the

p r i n c i p a l as a key t o s c h o o l s u c c e s s .
In

19 86,

requiring
the n

how

s h ou ld

Michigan

certification

become,

certifying

the

What

of

criteria

prospective
colleges,

Legislature
school

adm inistrators.

sho ul d

principals

the

c u r r ic u l u m

to

u n iversities,

ensure

that

of

other

for

these p o sitions

115

use

positions,

and

principals

questions

Michigan

for principalship

o f f e r t r a i n i n g t o pr epa re c a n d i d a t e s
their

State

The

organizations

have

the

163 ,

in
and

that

structure
necessary

116

i n f o r m a t i o n and s k i l l s t o meet t h e c h a l l e n g e o f a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e in
today’s

and tomorrow’ s

continual
adjust

up d a tin g

their

society.
school

of

schools?
practicin g

practices

to

In a d d i t i o n ,
d istricts

positions.

as

A se con d

meet

seek

was

for

for

them

principals

in

order

new demands

of

a rapidly

the r e su lts o f the

they

c on c e rn

study w i l l

new a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

to

cha ng in g

be u s e f u l

to

the

fill

to

va ca nt

The importance o f t h i s study comes from t h e p l e t h o r a o f

r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g e f f e c t i v e and s u c c e s s f u l s c h o o l s , which has c i t e d
the principal
s c h oo l

as one o f t h e

especially

success,

s i n g l e most
when

imp or ta nt c o n t r i b u t o r s

sc h o o l

success

is

measured

to
by

s t u d e n t a c h ie v e m en t.
Given t h e importance o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p
success

and s t u d e n t

Goodlad,

1984;

universities,

achievem ent

H o y le ,

1985;

(Brookover,

Lezotte,

1978),

it

in

fostering

1979;

Doud,

be ho o v e s

school
1989;

colleges,

p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s t o be

c onc erned about t h e ki nd s o f l e a d e r s h i p s k i l l s t h a t p r i n c i p a l s have
and p r a c t i c e .
aspiring

Those

principals

institu tion s

for

that

role

and

organizations

s h ou ld

be

that

esp ecially

pr e pa r e
eager

c o o r d i n a t e t h e i r c u r r ic u l u m and e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h what r e s e a r c h
s u g g e s t e d about l e a d e r s h i p t h a t makes a d i f f e r e n c e
students learn.
programs

for

to
has

in how and what

Those who o f f e r c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t

practicing

principals

sh ou l d

n ot

only

be

addressing

s k i l l s f o r e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p , but a l s o become kno w!e dge abl e about
t h e a r e a s in which more t r a i n i n g i s nee ded.
The f i n d i n g s in t h i s s tu d y w i l l be most imp ortant t o a l l
organizations

and

agencies

that

offer

preparation

o f the

programs

for

117

aspiring

and p r a c t i c i n g

also

helpful

be

to

school

school

adm inistrators.

d istricts

as

they

The

findings

look

for

will

desirable

q u a l i t i e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p r i n c i p a l c a n d i d a t e s .

Demographic In f o rm a t io n
The

respondents

represented

a

cross-section

groups by s c h o ol d i s t r i c t s i z e and g e n d e r .

of

the

sampled

By age gr o up , a l m o s t 50%

o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s were between 41 and 5 0 , 36% were o v e r 50, and o n l y
18% were
younger

40

or

under.

p rin cip als

There

was

a

compared t o

as

higher
the

response

p o p u la tio n .

rate

among

A higher

p e r c e n t a g e o f f e m a l e s than m ales responded to t h e survey r e q u e s t , as
compared t o t h e p o p u l a t i o n s i z e .

A higher percentage o f p r in c ip a ls

responded

w it h

from

school

d istricts

student

populations

between

2 , 4 0 0 and 3 0 , 0 0 0 than from sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s in t h e o t h e r f o u r c o d e s .
I t must be n o t e d t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n was not s t r a t i f i e d by age
or y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e a s a p r i n c i p a l .
s u r ve y

may n ot

have

been

Those who responded t o t h e

representative,

proportionately,

of

the

by

the

p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h o s e two c a t e g o r i e s .
The
M ichigan

1ik elih ood -of-retirin g
Department

of

data

Education

su pp ort ed
(cited

in

the

stu dies

Chapter

p r o j e c t e d a 34% r e t i r e m e n t r a t e between 1986 and 199 1.

I),

which

The r e s u l t s

o f t h i s s tu d y r e v e a l e d t h a t 27% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s were "very 1 i k e l y "
t o r e t i r e in t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s and t h a t t h e r e c o u l d " p o s s i b l y " be
a 37% t u r n o v e r

of

elementary

principals

w i t h i n t h a t same f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d .
26% r a t e

of

new

principals

within

due

just

Those f i g u r e s ,
the

last

to

retirem ent

combined w i t h a

five

years,

would

118

i n d i c a t e t h a t , between 1981 and 19 91, 53% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s pro ba bl y
w ill

be new t o t h e i r p o s i t i o n .

T h is s i t u a t i o n

suggests a c r it ic a l

need t o be aware o f how c l o s e l y a l i g n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t and
p r e p a r a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s / p r o g r a m s ar e t o t h e a c t u a l
ties

t h a t new

principals

w ill

focus

for th is

preparation

face

in

their

job r e s p o n s i b i l i -

new p o s i t i o n s .

sh ou l d be p r i m a r i l y

toward t h e

The

univer­

s i t y / c o l l e g e m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e programs as 99% o f t h e p r e s e n t p r i n c i ­
p a l s had a t l e a s t a m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e .

Research Q u e s t i o n s
Rese arch Q u e s t i o n 1.
be t h e i m p o r t a n c e
functions?

What do e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s p e r c e i v e t o
o f the s e le c te d a d m in istrator r o l e s /

As p e r c e i v e d by p r i n c i p a l s , t h e h i g h e s t - r a n k e d broad c a t e g o r i e s
of

roles/fun ctions

were

L e ade rs hi p

and

Instructional

Supervision.

Ranked as l e s s important were S t a f f Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el Management
and Curriculum Development
effective

schools

id entified
1978).
must

If

teachers

have

in

ar e

an

to

which

on

student

the

supports

principal

an i n s t r u c t i o n a l

influence

influence

the

T h is

leader

has

been

(Lezotte,

achievement,

teaching

the

strategies

they
that

They must f r e q u e n t l y m on ito r s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s and

make

e x p e c t e d out co mes .

Im p le m en ta tio n .

and f o r e m o s t

principals

enhance l e a r n i n g .
help

1ite r a tu r e ,

as f i r s t

know and

and

ad ju st m en ts

when

a ch iev em en t

doe s

not

meet

Although c u r r ic u lu m deve lop men t and impl eme nt a­

t i o n a r e imp ortant t o t h i s p r o c e s s , about o n e - t h i r d o f t h e d i s t r i c t s
have c e n t r a l o f f i c e s up po rt f o r c u r r ic u l u m development o r l o o k a t i t
as a d i s t r i c t w i d e r a t h e r than a b u i l d i n g - l e v e l p r o c e s s .

119

In

review ing

functions,

it

the

fiv e

sin g u la rly

most

was found t h a t f o u r o f t h e

im portant

five

also

fell

c a t e g o r i e s o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n and L e a d e r s h i p .
individual

role/function

expects that

all

challenging

students

role

research.

are a

importance

can 1 e a r n ."

expectation

To i n f l u e n c e

of

This

emerging

student

from

t o g e t h e r w i t h s t a f f members toward t h i s en d.
is

a leadership

importance among t h e

34

roles/fun ctions

The

other

three

roles

in

the

five

is
the

achievement,

teamwork among s t a f f

was

ro les/
into

The h i g h e s t

"M aintains

probably

the

effective

principals

lead

that

ranked

ad d r e s s ed

in

highest-ranked

must

through

staff

support,

work

secon d

th is

most

increased

com m unication,

in

survey.

important

Today’ s p r i n c i p a l

and support t h e cha nges needed f o r

achievem ent

most

schools

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s were good communication and p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g

able to

and

Developing a sense o f

sk ill

and e n c ou r ag in g s t a f f t o t r y new i d e a s .

the

and

sk ills
must be
student
problem

solving.
On t h e
last

five

o t h e r hand,

for

importance were a b i l i t y

motivation theory,
tional
A b ility

use o f t e s t

improvement,
to

the r o le s /fu n c t io n s

appl y

staff

adult

to

that

ranked

ap pl y a d u l t

among t h e

learning

and

scores

for

c u r r ic u l u m

and

in-service,

and

c u r r ic u l u m

d e v e lo p m e n t .

learning

theory

and

to

instruc­

disaggregate

test

s c o r e s are both a r e a s t h a t have been promoted in t h e 1 i t e r a t u r e ove r
the l a s t three to f iv e years.
know led ge abl e

about

how t h e s e

a f f e c t s c h o ol s u c c e s s .

P r i n c i p a l s pro bab ly ar e n o t y e t f u l l y
areas

ar e

implemented

and how t h e y

120

In comparing t h e h i g h e s t - and l o w e s t - r a n k e d r o l e / f u n c t i o n a r e a s
f o r impo rt anc e, i t must be kept in mind t h a t t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e
in

mea ns

of

only

role/fu nction
4.86)

.68

between

the

mean

(No. 6: M a in ta i n s t h a t a l l

and

the

lowest-ranked

understand

and

ap pl y

roles/fun ctions

learning
in

the

the

highest-ranked

s t u d e n t s can l e a r n , mean =

role/fu nction

adult

addressed

of

(No.

theory,

s ur ve y

25:

mean

Is

able

= 4.18).

instrument

were

to
All

in

the

" h i g h l y important" c a t e g o r y , s c o r i n g above 3 . 5 .
Research Q u e st io n 2 . Mhat d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t among e l e m e n t a r y
p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s ab out th e impor ta nce o f
a d m in is t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s , comparing th e v a r i a b l e s o f
g e n d e r , a g e , l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e as an elementary p r i n c i p a l , and
s i z e o f t h e i r s c h oo l d i s t r i c t ?
In

all

Curriculum

four

broad

Development

D e ve lo pm ent /P ers onn el
functions

to

be

counterparts.
two

m ales

principals

categ o ries o f Instructional
and

Im p le m en ta tio n ,

Management,

sign ifican tly

Leadership,

females

more

Supervision,
and

considered

imp or ta nt than

Staff

the

did

roles/

their

male

Although s t a t i s t i c s show t h a t t h e r e ar e ap p r o x i m a t e ly

for

every

appeared

fem ale

to

feel

elem entary
more

of

p rin cip a l,

a sense

of

the

fem ale

importance

about

t h e s e a s s i g n e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s than d i d m a l e s .
No s t a t i s t i c a l l y
r e sp o n d e n t s

in

Instructional

the

sig n ifica n t

four

Supervision,

and

41 t o

50 age group p e r c e i v e d
important

was

found

perceived

the

importance

groups

Curriculum

tion ,

more

Staff

age

d ifferen ce

Development

Dev el op m e nt /P er so nn el

than d i d

the

those

and

Management.

The 41

c o n t a i n e d t h e g r e a t e s t number o f p r i n c i p a l s ,

to

how
of

Implementa­
However,

Leadership r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s

o v e r 55 .

in

50

age

the

to

be

group

and t h e y pro ba bl y f e l t

121

t h e h e a v i e s t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y toward t h e c h a l l e n g e s
schools research.

More than l i k e l y ,

o f the

effective

t h e y had been in e d u c a t i o n

t h i s r e s e a r c h was i n i t i a t e d and d e v e l o p e d .

as

They ar e b u i l d i n g t h e i r

c a r e e r s and t r y i n g t o "make t h e i r mark" in t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n .
Years o f e x p e r i e n c e d i d n o t make a d i f f e r e n c e in how p r i n c i p a l s
perceived

the

Supervision,

importance

Curriculurn

D e ve lo pm e nt /P er s on n el
who

had

been

were

principals

for

more
16 t o

ro les/fu n ctio n s

Development

Management.

principals

fu n ction s

of

for

11

im portant
20 y e a r s .

and

15

than

In stru ction al

Im p le m en ta tio n ,

However,
to

for

for

years

and

Staff

Leadership,

those

thought

respondents

Perhaps

those

the

who

roles/

had

principals

been

who had

been on t h e j o b l o n g e r than 15 y e a r s f e l t more c o n t e n t w i t h how and
what t h e y were d o i n g .
It is
d istricts

i n t e r e s t i n g t o note th a t the p r in c ip a ls
(120,000 students

o f Curriculum Development

o r more)
and

perceived the

Im plem entation

to

in l a r g e r s c h oo l
roles/fun ctions

be more

important

than d i d t h o s e in sc ho o l d i s t r i c t s o f 3 0 , 0 0 0 s t u d e n t s or l e s s .

For

L e ade rs hi p and S t a f f D e v e lo pm e nt /P er s o nn el Management, p r i n c i p a l s in
d istricts

w i t h more than

120,000

students

considered

those

roles/

f u n c t i o n s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more imp ortant than d i d r e s p o n d e n t s in
d istricts
was

that

with

p rin cip als

roles/fun ctions
than d i d t h o s e
less.

fewe r than 2 , 4 0 0

in a l l

in

the

students.
larger

An o v e r a l l

d istricts

f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s

to

observation

consid ered
be more

the

important

in d i s t r i c t s w i t h a s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n o f 3 0 , 0 0 0 or

T h is c o u l d

be due t o t h e e f f e c t

o f more s up po rt

staff

and

122

sp ecialists,

more s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l

competition,

and more community

pressure within larger d i s t r i c t s .

Research Question 3. Mhat do elementary principals perceive to
be their degree o f need for further preparation and continuing
professional development in each of the selected role
functions?
Although

Curriculum

lowest-ranked

broad

ranked

of

area

d e ve lo p m e n t .
th is

ar e a as

primary

for

in t h o s e

related

of

Principals

usually

a
do

n ot
as

have

Instruction

curriculurn

have

than
as

they

it

training

may not

d istrict

Imple men tat ion

i mp or ta nc e,

to

for

developm ent

and

further

principals

resp o n sib ility

curriculurn

in

Again,

more

a

the

and
felt

the

highest-

professional
as

a de qu at e

and L e a d e r s h i p .

developm ent
building

much
do

was

was

is

in
The

often

resp on sib ility.

individual

in stru ction

control

within

over
th eir

However, t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h i s s t u d y a p p a r e n t l y

buildin gs.
the

category

need

considered

felt

Development

need

to

be

more

informed.

Staff

Devel o pm e nt /P e r s o nn e l

Management was n o t ranked a t t h e t o p f o r e i t h e r imp ortance o r ne ed .
Generally, p r i n c ip a l s J o o k to ou tsid e co n su lta n ts, u n i v e r s i t i e s ,
professional

organizations

to

design

staff-developm ent

and

opportuni-

ties.
The

highest-ranked

sin gle

u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p l y i n g

role/fu n ction

research to

need

areas

were

cu r r ic ul um and i n s t r u c t i o n ,

e s p e c i a l l y when i t comes t o u s i n g t h a t r e s e a r c h in go al

s e t t i n g and

planning.

or

Principals

generally

do n o t

have t h e

t im e

research

s k i l l s t o keep up w i t h t h e importance and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e w e a l t h
of

educational

research

that

is

being

conducted

on

an

on-going

123

basis.

The f i v e

prim arily to
seemed t o

lowest-ranking

Instructional

have l e s s

of

role/fu nction

need

areas

S u p e r v i s i o n and L e a d e r s h i p .

a need

for

further

training

related

Principals

in

supporting

t e a c h e r s t o t r y new i d e a s and i n f i t t i n g

t h e ir leadership s t y l e

the sit u a t io n .

o f a need f o r c o n t i n u i n g

preparation
well

in

They a l s o
their

perceived

communication

as in m aintaining th a t a l l

less

and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g

s t u d e n t s can 1 e a r n .

sk ills,

to

as

Three o f t h e

h i g h e s t - r a n k e d a r e a s o f importance ( e n c o u r a g i n g t e a c h e r s t o t r y new
ideas,
can

good communication s k i l l s ,

learn)

T h is c o u l d
some o f

the

were a l s o

three

indicate that
areas

that

of

and m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t a l l

the

five

lowest-ranked

p r i n c i p a l s might be f e e l i n g
they

are

also

perceiving

as

students

need

areas.

confident

in

imp or ta nt

to

th eir success.
As w i t h i m por ta nc e,

i t must be note d t h a t t h e r e was o n l y a one-

p o i n t d i f f e r e n c e i n means between t h e r o l e / f u n c t i o n
in terms

of

instruction,

need

(No.

1:

mean = 3 . 5 1 )

Knowledge o f
and t h e

latest

ranked h i g h e s t

research

role/function

ranked

related

to

lowest

in

terms o f need (No. 31:

Encourages t e a c h e r s t o t r y new i d e a s w i t h o u t

fear

fa ilu re,

of

rep risal

roles/fu n ction s

or

add r e s s ed

mean

in t h e s ur v e y

= 2 .5 1 ).

G en erally,

all

fell

the

i ns tr um e nt

within

"moderate need" c a t e g o r y .

Research Question 4. Mhat differences exist among elementary
principals regarding their degree of need for further
professional development, comparing the variables of gender,
age, length of service as an elementary principal, and the size
of their school district?
No

statistically

males and f e m a l e s

sign ificant

differences

were

found

in terms o f need f o r f u r t h e r t r a i n i n g .

between
However,

124

t h e mean was h i g h e r f o r males than f o r
categories.

females

in

all

four

Age was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r in t h i s a r e a .

broad

Principals

between t h e a ge s o f 41 and 50 e x p r e s s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f a need
f o r t r a i n i n g and c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lop ment i n t h e r o l e o f
I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n than d i d t h o s e who were o v e r 5 5 .
broad c a t e g o r i e s
Leadership,

For t h e

o f C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n ,

and S t a f f

D e ve lo pm en t/ Per so nn el

who were ov e r 55 p e r c e i v e d

a sign ifican tly

Management,

principals

l o w e r need f o r

further

t r a i n i n g than d i d t h o s e from e i t h e r t h e 30 t o 40 o r t h e 41 t o 50 age
gro up.

The yo un ge r

prob abl y
collegial

have

had

principals

f ew er

are

usually

opportunities

relation sh ips.

Without

less

for

experienced

workshops

exception,

the

and

means

and

men tor/

for

needs

d e c r e a s e d as age i n c r e a s e d .
No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in need was found among
principals

in v a r i o u s

sized

s c h oo l

d istricts

or

across

experience

c a t e g o r i e s f o r any o f t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
It

is

in terestin g

that

perceived

many

of

the

important

and,

as

an

p rin cip als

in

larger

roles/fun ctions
observation,

to

be

perceived

school

d istricts

sign ifican tly
less

of

a

need

more
for

f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n than t h o s e in s m a l l e r d i s t r i c t s .
As o b s e r v e d ,
under

30,000

development

perceived
than

larger d is t r ic t s
de ve lop me nt .

principals

did

more

those

u su ally

in d i s t r i c t s
of
in

a

need

larger

h a v e more

with
for

student
further

districts.
resources

enrollments
professional

P rincipals
for

in

p rofession al

125

Research Question 5. What do elementary principals identify as
their most valuable source of preparation and continuing
professional development for each of the selected administrator
roles/functions?
The most r e v e a l i n g r e s p o n s e s came in t h e c a t e g o r y o f s o u r c e s o f
preparation.
12% o f

U niversity/C ollege

the

functions.

responses

for

all

received
four

an a v e r a g e

broad

of

categories

less
of

than

roles/

I t r e c e i v e d 5% or l e s s o f t h e r e s p o n s e s f o r f o u r o f t h e

f i v e a r e a s ranked h i g h e s t in terms o f importance and 8% o r l e s s

of

t h e r e s p o n s e s f o r f o u r o f t h e f i v e a r e a s ranked h i g h e s t in terms o f
need.

preparation

U n iversity/C ollege

received

r e s p o n s e f o r 20 o f t h e 34 r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .

that

c u r r ic u l u m

is

applicable

than

a

6%

The h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e in

t h e U n i v e r s i t y / C o l l e g e c a t e g o r y was 34% f o r
assuring

less

Item 10 (Aids s t a f f

to

sk ills

and

in

a b ilities

p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s w i l l need as a d u l t s ) .
The h i g h e s t r e s p o n s e c a t e g o r y f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l S u p e r v i s i o n and
Curriculum Development
The

highest

Implementation was Works hop /Con fer enc e.

and

response

category

for

Leadership

and

for

Staff

D e ve l op m e n t / P er s on n el Management was O n-t he- Job E x p e r i e n c e .
A chilles
c on ten de d

that

(1987),
there

work and p r a c t i c e
th is

in

s tu dy would l e a d

linkages

Finn ( 1 9 8 5 ) ,
ar e

contradictions

educational
one t o

between m a s t e r ’ s

Pitner (1987),

and Hawley (1987)

between

adm inistration.

(college)
The

results

degree

programs

and t h e

roles/fun ctions

be no te d t h a t demographic i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e major and
for

the

m aster’ s

of

conclude f u r t h e r t h a t t h e r e ar e few

p e r c e i v e d t o be important t o t o d a y ’ s p r a c t i c i n g p r i n c i p a l .

em phasis

course

degree

pro gr am

was

not

I t must
minor

so licited .

126

Therefore,

a c o r r e l a t i o n between a d m i n i s t r a t o r - p r e p a r a t i o n programs

and t h i s r e s e a r c h ca nn ot be drawn.

One might a l s o c o n c lu d e t h a t t h e

c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y programs a r e not a d d r e s s i n g t h o s e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
from t h i s

s t u d y f o r which

principals

c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e ve lo p m e n t .
a 10% r e s p o n s e

for

p e r c e i v e more o f

is

U niversity/C ollege

preparation

as

the

primary

would i n d i c a t e

that

m a s t e r ’ s d e g r e e programs were not viewed as r e l e v a n t t o what

being

su pp ort ed

leadership.
had

for

The extreme p e r c e n t a g e o f o n l y

s o u r c e o f p r e p a r a t i o n f o r most r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
formal

a need

desirable

for

effective

Th is may be be c a us e many c o l l e g e

recent

schools

as

adm inistrative

in

or de r

to

experience

keep

pace

and

with

do

the

e le m e n ta r y
professors

not

sc ho o l

have not

regularly

changing

role

visit
of

the

p rincipal.

Comparison Ac r o s s Independent V a r i a b l e s
A look
and

need

at the data

to

the

resulting

independent

from a comparison o f

v ariab les

sh o ws

some

importance

in terestin g

findings.
Gender.

While women p e r c e i v e d a l l

f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s t o be

s i g n i f i c a n t l y more im po rt a nt than d i d men, t h e men, by o b s e r v a t i o n ,
perceived

a

higher

dev elo pm en t in a l l
c o n c l u d e from t h i s .

degree

need

four c a t e g o r ie s .
Pe rhaps,

important,

they

continuing

professional

ne ed .

of

had take n

for

further

I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o know what t o

be ca us e women f e l t

more e f f o r t

development

professional

to

and

seek

these

t o be more

and p a r t i c i p a t e

therefore

perceived

in

less

127

A ge .

In comparing v a r i o u s age g r o u p s ,

5 0 , by o b s e r v a t i o n ,

perceived

t h e age group o f 41 t o

Instructional

Supervision,

Curriculum

Development and Im p le m en ta tio n , and Lead er shi p t o be more imp or ta nt
than d i d t h e o t h e r age g r o u p s .

They a l s o p e r c e i v e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y

g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f need f o r f u r t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l deve lop me nt than d i d
older

groups.

perceived

the

However,
greatest

in

general,

need f o r

the

further

age

group

of

professional

30

to

40

de v e lo p m e n t .

T h is c o u l d be r e l a t e d t o t h e i r l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e or c o u l d s up po rt
t h e r e s e a r c h e r ’ s pre mi se t h a t t h e i r u n i v e r s i t y / c o l 1e g e t r a i n i n g di d
n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y pre pare them f o r t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s .
Years o f e x p e r i e n c e .
tions

I t was d i f f i c u l t t o draw any g e n e r a l i z a -

from t h e d a t a r e g a r d i n g y e a r s

For L e a d e r s h i p ,

those with

11 t o

of

experience

15 y e a r s

for

im p o r t a n c e .

o f experience

perceived

more importance in t h e s e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s than di d t h o s e w i t h 16 t o
20 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e .

For nee d,

however,

t h e mean was l o w e r f o r

t h e group w i t h 11 t o 15 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e than f o r t h e group w i t h
16 t o 20 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e .
less

perceived

Management,

more

of

a

Those w i t h 10 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e or
need

for

Staff

De ve l op m e n t / P er s o n n el

Curriculum Development and Im p lem en tat ion ,

and

L ea der ­

ship.
Size
d istricts

of

d istrict.

with

30,000

By

students

observation,
or

more

those

perceived

p rin cip als
all

four

in

broad

c a t e g o r i e s o f r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s t o be more important than d i d t h o s e in
d i s t r i c t s w i t h few er than 3 0 , 0 0 0 s t u d e n t s .

C o n v e r s e l y , t h o s e in t h e

larger

continuing

districts

developm ent.

felt
With

less
one

of

a need

exception

for

(Curriculum

professional

Development

and

128

Im p lem en tation ),
decreased.

need

increased

as

the

size

of

the

d istrict

U s u a l l y , l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s have g r e a t e r bu d g et s f o r s t a f f

dev elop ment and a r e a b l e t o o f f e r more i n - d i s t r i c t t r a i n i n g in a r e a s
that

ar e

might

considered

make

a

imp or ta nt

d ifferen ce.

to

that

S taff

d istrict.

Also,

location

developm ent

offered

through

c o n s u l t a n t groups u s u a l l y t a k e s p l a c e in t h e more h i g h l y
and e a s y - a c c e s s a r e a s .

Ther e i s ,

by o b s e r v a t i o n , more o f a need f o r

continu ing

professional

districts.

From t h e w r i t e r ’ s own e x p e r i e n c e ,

larger d i s t r i c t s

there

developm ent

is

for

p rin cip als
it

in

There

is

also

sm aller

i s t h o u g h t t h a t in

more p r e s s u r e on p r i n c i p a l s

ac hi ev e m en t and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y .

po p u la t e d

more

for

student

pressure

from

s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l c om pa ris ons w i t h i n l a r g e r d i s t r i c t s .

Compari son o f Importance and Weed Responses
According
surveyed,

the

to

the

survey

imp ortant t o t h e i r

p ercep tions
in s tr u m e n t

of

the

targeted

p rin cip als
those

roles

s u c c e s s as an e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l .

who

were

that

are

On a f i v e -

point s c a le ,

t h e means o f importance f o r t h e f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s

ranged

4.50

from

moderate

need

dev elop ment

in

for
all

to

4.66.

further

The

sur ve ye d

preparation

four c a te g o r ie s ,

principals

and c o n t i n u i n g

with those

means

also

felt

a

professional
ranging

from

2.89 to 3.14.
The range o f s c o r e s w i t h i n t h e f o u r r o l e / f u n c t i o n c a t e g o r i e s o f
importance

was

w ithin

four r o le /fu n c tio n

the

Principals

smaller

seemed t o

(4.18

to

4.86)

categories

than

the

range

of

scores

o f need

(2.51

to

3.51).

be more in agreement about

the

importance o f

129

these

roles

than t h e y were about t h e need f o r f u r t h e r p r e p a r a t i o n

and t r a i n i n g .
There was
ca teg o ries

little

between

sim ilarity

in

im portance

and

rankings

for

need.

In

the

four

fact,

broad

Curriculum

Development and Im plem entation was t h e 1o we st in importance but t h e
h ig h e s t in need.
In comparing importance and need f o r t h e h i g h e s t ranked

in d ivid u al

sim ilarity.

ro les/fu n ctio n s,

None

of

the

five

t h e r e was

and l o w e s t -

also

roles/fun ctions

very

ranked

1ittle

highest

in

impor ta nce were in t h e f i v e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ranked h i g h e s t in terms
o f need.
in

Sim ilarly,

none o f t h e f i v e r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s ranked l o w e s t

import ance were among t h e f i v e

roles/fun ctions

ranked l o w e s t

terms o f ne ed .

However,

three o f the r o le s /fu n c tio n s

and

highest

in

31)

ranked

importance

ranked l o w e s t in terms o f nee d.
where

principals

functions

received

revealed

r e s p o n s e f o r No.
31

(Encourages

w ritten

and

that

th eir

training

O n-the-Job

oral

to

among

the

five

try

communication

for

these

Experience

four

th eir

most

On-the-Job
th eir

broad

categories

valuable

training

Experience.

most v a l u a b l e

of

areas

s t u d e n t s can l e a r n )

and No.

for

the

roles/functions,
either

at

roles/
high est

sk ills),

Conversely,
train in g

21,

the

new i d e a s ) ;

was

three

No.

highest

21

(Has

good

response

s p l i t between O n -t h e - J o b E x p e r i e n c e and U n i v e r s i t y / C o l 1e g e .
the

6,

Going one s t e p f u r t h e r t o f i n d out

6 ( M a i n t a in s t h a t a l l
teachers

were

(Nos.

in

principals

Acr oss
received

from Workshops/Conferences
very

the

few

principals

U n iversity/C ollege

was

or

received
1e v e l .

130

Althoug h a s t a t i s t i c a l

a n a l y s i s was not made o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

in

r e s p o n s e s by l e n g t h o f t im e in t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f
responses

for

U niversity/C ollege

roles/fun ctions

(5% t o

10%)

was

much

less

than t h e p e r c e n t a g e

had been in t h e j o b f i v e y e a r s or l e s s

for
of

most

of

the

principals

who

(26%) and pro bab ly c l o s e s t in

t im e t o t h e i r u n i v e r s i t y or c o l l e g e p r e p a r a t i o n .

Conclusions
F irst of a l l , i t
to

is

keep a b r e a s t o f t h e

being

imp ortant f o r a l l
roles

and f u n c t i o n s

that

important t o t h e e le m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l

sup po rte d as be in g e f f e c t i v e .
in Chapter
ties,

educational

I,

the

need

to

ar e

perceived

and t h a t

research

as
has

In r e sp on di ng t o t h e q u e s t i o n s posed

researcher

especially,

institu tion s

suggests

that

continually

colleges

update

and u n i v e r s i -

and

revise

their

c o n t e n t and c o u r s e s t r u c t u r e t o a dd r e s s c u r r e n t r o l e s o f importance
and

effectiveness

insure that

their

and c o m p e t e n c ie s

as

perceived

teaching
in t h e s e

by

principals

methods
areas.

help

on

the

principals

job

develop

and

to

sk ills

Implied from t h e d a t a h e r e i n

is

t h e n o t i o n t h a t formal e d u c a t i o n and d e g r e e t r a i n i n g

is fa llin g

far

short

importance

for

of

being

relevant

to

the

roles/fun ctions

of

today’ s practicing p r in c ip a l.
Second,

it

is

im portant

that

professional

organ ization s,

e d u c a t i o n a l c o n s u l t a n t s , and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s s t r u c t u r e t h e i r s t a f f development o f f e r i n g s

to

be more r e l e v a n t

to

the

imp ortant

f u n c t i o n s t h a t are a l s o p e r c e i v e d t o enhance s ch oo l s u c c e s s .

roles/

131

Th ir d,
Education

it
to

is

critical

review

certification

for

carefully

categories

the
the

Michigan
criteria

as

w ell

for

Department

all

as

classroom

and i n t e r n

courses.

The

Con tin ui ng Education U n i t s (CEUs) s h o u l d , i n p a r t ,

of

adm inistrator

and c o n s i d e r o t h e r s o u r c e s o f

t h a t might f o c u s more on j o b p r o f i c i e n c i e s
exp erien ces,

State

preparation
(on-the-job)
awarding

of

be f o c u s e d toward

r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s t h a t are sup po rte d in t h e e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s r e s e a r c h
and in t h i s s t u d y .
Fourth, sch ool d i s t r i c t s sh ou l d b e g i n t o t h i n k about i n t e r n s h i p
opportunities

for

p rospective

p rin cip a ls,

w h ic h

would

c a n d i d a t e s t o have e x p e r i e n c e s w it h b u i l d i n g - l e v e l
Curriculum

Development

sion,

Staff

and

and

Imp lem ent at ion ,

Dev e lo pm e nt /P er so nn el

Leadership,

Instructional

Management.

boards o f e d u c a t i o n and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s sho uld

allow

Supervi-

In

addition,

s e e k t o h i r e p e r s o ns

who show e v i d e n c e o f competency in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e s / f u n c t i o n s
d e s c r i b e d in t h i s s t u d y .
Fifth,
Michigan

s ch ool

State

districts,

Department

resources

to

develop

principals

that

a

focuses

of

professional
Education

formal
on

sh ou l d

support

effective

organizations,
all

combine

process

leadership

and

for

sk ills.

the

their

beginning
Holcomb

(198 9) condu ct ed a s tu d y o f t h e t y p e s o f s up p o rt t h a t new p r i n c i p a l s
need

and

solicited

recommendations

for

the

types

of

orientation,

new p r i n c i p a l s t ho ug ht would be most

in-service,

and s up po rt t h a t

effective.

F i r s t - y e a r p r i n c i p a l s e x p r e s s e d a hi gh need f o r d i s c u s ­

sion /supp ort

gr o u p s ,

workshops,

d is tr ic t training/orientation.

university/college

courses,

and

132

Recommendations
The

primary

recommendation

based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s
preparation

for

development

th is

activity

that

researcher

would

make,

s tu d y and t h o s e t h a t were r e v ie w e d in

study,

for

th is

is

the

that

preparation

e le m e n t a r y

and

staff-

be

focused

principalship

more toward r o l e s t h a t a r e p e r c e i v e d by t h e e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l
be

imp or ta nt

to

the

principalship

and

a s s o c ia te d with e f f e c t i v e sc h o o ls.
sta ff-d e v e lo p m e n t d esign be,

to

those

roles

that

to
are

I t would a l s o be s u g g e s t e d t h a t

in p a r t ,

experientially

based.

Staff

dev elo pm ent i n c l u d e s programs d e s i g n e d t o pr epa re n o n p r i n c i p a l s

for

the

and

principalship

role,

as

well

as

those

pianned

to

update

refresh current p ra cticin g p r in c ip a ls.

A v i s i o n would be t h a t both

c e r t i f i c a t i o n and employment be b as e d ,

in p a r t , on t h e d e m o n s tr a t io n

of proficiencies
principals
p iloting

and

such

in t h e a r e a s / r o l e s . o f importance t o t h e p r a c t i c i n g
effective

a program,

would d e v e l o p a p o r t f o l i o
sk ills

(S mit h,

1989).

(1989),

content

courses

e m p h as iz e ,

schools.
in

Butler

which

all

master’ s

information

and

only

a

addressed

as

roles/fun ctions

graduates

r e s e a r c h by J o y c e and Showers

awareness,
5% t o

in

been

key l e a d e r s h i p

such

as

most

10% t r a n s f e r

t e a c h e r s o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o be a b l e t o u s e t h e s k i l l s
ties

has

degree

t h a t c o n t a i n s examples o f

Acco rdi ng t o

have

U niversity

th is

s tu dy

college

rate.

For

and a b i l i -

effectively,

l e a r n e r s must not o n l y under st and t h e t h e o r y and c o n t e n t ,

the

but t h e y

must a l s o have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e d e m o n s t r a t i o n s and be a b l e
to p ractice

the d esired

sk ills

with

f e e d b a c k and s u p p o r t .

It

is

133

imperative

that

all

college/university

facu lty

who

offer

staff

deve lop ment have a s t r o n g background in how a d u l t s l e a r n and p r o c e s s
i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t r a n s f e r (Krupp, 1 9 8 8 ) .
school

I t i s a l s o recommended t h a t

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s work c l o s e l y w i t h c o l l e g e f a c u l t y toward t h i s

end.

Practicing

adm inistrators

sh o ul d be used a s r e s o u r c e

in c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y c l a s s r o o m s ,

p e r s on s

and c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s

sh o u l d spend tim e in s c h o o l s as p a r t o f t h e i r emphasis on r e l e v a n c e .
It

is

also

recommended

that

those

organizations

and

in stitu tions

t h a t fund and p r o v i d e c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t o p p o r t u n i ­
ties

do

more

to

include

principals

from

d istricts

w it h

student

p o p u l a t i o n s o f 3 0 , 0 0 0 or l e s s .
Recommendations r e l a t e d t o f u r t h e r s tu d y are :
1.

That a comparison be made o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y and

the p a r a lle l

s e co n da r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p

s tu dy con duc te d

by C.

Danford

Austin.
2.

That an o n - g o i n g e f f o r t be made t o c o n t i n u a l l y

update t h e

imp ortant r o l e s and f u n c t i o n s o f t h e e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s h i p .
3.

That

a sim ilar

s tu d y

be

con duc te d

s tu dy

be con duc te d t o

in

other s ta t e s

w it h

comparison d a t a .
4.
and

That a s i m i l a r

resp on sib ilities

b u ild in g

management,

relation s,
5.

o fthe

e le m e n ta r y

co m m u n i t y

include other

principalship

rela tio n s,

roles

related

to

student

and

parent

to

p rincipals’

and board o f e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t .

That

demographic

graduate-degree

m a jo r s ,

in

data
any

professional-developm ent needs.

be

collected

further

s tu d y

of

show

preparation

and

134

R eflections
The

findings

experienced
The

in

th is

study

reflected

what

the

in her p r e p a r a t i o n and term as a p r a c t i c i n g

researcher

di d

c om p le t e

a master’ s

degree

in

researcher
principal.

adm inistration,

which o f f e r e d v e r y l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e coursework and t h e
rou tin es o f the job.
principal

for all

along the 1 in e ,

There a r e so many demands on t h e

o f t h e r o l e s a d d r e s s e d in t h i s

to

become

study.

Somewhere

p r o s p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s must under st and t h o s e

and how t o o r g a n i z e and p r i o r i t i z e
easy

elementary

a

victim

of

toward

paperwork,

r e sp o n d i n g t o c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s .

"effectiven ess."
building

roles
It

management,

is
and

Today’ s and tomorrow’ s p r i n c i p a l s

must be s k i l l e d and d e l i b e r a t e in t h e i r d e c i s i o n s and b e h a v i o r s .
The e x p e r i e n c e o f d e s i g n i n g and c o n d u c t i n g a s tu d y t h a t would
resu lt

in

usable

i n f o r m a t i o n was most

r e w ar d i n g.

The

researcher

i n t e n d s t o sh a r e t h e s e r e s u l t s w i t h t h o s e who o r g a n i z e and approve
train in g

and c o n t i n u i n g

p rofession al-d evelop m en t

programs

for

elementary p r i n c ip a l s .
It

is

t h e hope o f t h i s

researcher that train in g

programs such

as t h e e x p e r i e n t i a l - b a s e d program a t B u t l e r U n i v e r s i t y w i l l
i mp ac t.

It

is

critical

to

bridge

the

c u r r e n t p r i n c i p a l s and u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s .

gap

between

the

have an
ne e ds

of

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SKILLS LIST FROM PROFICIENCIES FOR PRINC1PAIS (198 6)

135

S k i l l s L i s t from P r o f i c i e n c i e s f o r P r i n c i p a l s ( 1 9 8 6 )

LEADERSHIP SKILLS i n c l u d e :
LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR
* I n s p i r e a l l c on ce rn ed t o j o i n in a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e s c h o o l ’ s
m ission.
* Apply e f f e c t i v e human r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s .
* Encourage t h e l e a d e r s h i p o f o t h e r s .
* An alyze i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o pr ob le m s , make d e c i s i o n s ,
and d e l e g a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as a p p r o p r i a t e .
* Cre ate a powerful e s p r i t de c o r p s , a s t r o n g s e n s e o f t o g e t h ­
e r n e s s , through e f f e c t i v e human r e l a t i o n s t e c h n i q u e s .
* I d e n t i f y and c r e a t i v e l y u t i l i z e human, m a t e r i a l , and f i n a n ­
c ia l resources to achieve the s c h o o l’ s g o a ls .
* Apply i s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s and s t r a t e g i e s o f e f f e c t i v e
leadership.
* E x e r c i s e v i s i o n i n d e f i n i n g and a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e m i s s i o n o f
the sc h o o l.
* P a r t i c i p a t e as a member o f l o c a l , s t a t e , and n a t i o n a l p r o ­
f e s s i o n a l groups.
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
* P e r s u a s i v e l y a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r b e l i e f s and e f f e c t i v e l y d e fe n d
th eir d ecisions.
* Write c l e a r l y and c o n c i s e l y so t h a t t h e message i s und er­
s t o o d by t h e i n t e n d e d a u d i e n c e .
* Apply f a c t s and d a t a t o d e t er m in e p r i o r i t i e s .
* Understand t h e impact o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l image and how t o
make t h a t image an e f f e c t i v e and u s e f u l o ne .
* Know t h e i r ve rba l and nonverbal communications s t r e n g t h s and
w e a k n e s s e s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s .
* Use c u r r e n t communication t e c h n o l o g y t o communicate t h e
s c h o o l ’ s p h i l o s o p h y , n e e d s , and ac c o m p l i sh m e n t s .
* Understand t h e p h i l o s o p h y , f u n c t i o n i n g , and p r a c t i c e s o f t h e
mass media.
* Be an a c t i v e l i s t e n e r s o a s t o t r u l y he a r o t h e r s .
* Be a b l e t o f o r t h r i g h t l y d i s a g r e e w i t h o u t b e i n g d i s a g r e e a b l e .
* Promote and u s e h i g h e r - l e v e l t h i n k i n g s k i l l s .
* Model t h e b e h a v i o r e x p e c t e d o f o t h e r s .
GROUP PROCESSES
* I n v o l v e o t h e r s i n s e t t i n g s h o r t - and l o n g - t e r m g o a l s .
* Apply v a l i d a t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f group dynamics and
facilitation sk ills .
* Understand how t o r e s o l v e d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s by u s e o f
c o n f l i c t - r e s o l u t i o n methods.

136

* Be aware o f v a r i o u s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t e c h n i q u e s and be a b l e
t o match t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t e c h n i q u e s t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a ­
tion .
* I d e n t if y - - w it h s t a f f - - t h e decision-making procedures the
school w i l l f o llo w .
* Understand t h e p r o c e s s o f c o n s e n s u s b u i l d i n g and ap p l y t h a t
p r o c e s s both as a l e a d e r and as a member o f a group.
* A c h i e v e i n t e n d e d outcomes through t h e u s e o f p r i n c i p l e s o f
m otivation.

SUPERVISORY PROFICIENCIES i n c l u d e :
CURRICULUM
* They d e v e l o p a s t r o n g f o u n d a t i o n in t h e fu nd a m en ta ls o f
r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , and m ath em ati cs ; and t h e y a c q u i r e b a s i c
knowledge and un d er s t a n d i n g in s c i e n c e , s o c i a l s t u d i e s , f i n e
a r t s , h e a l t h , and p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n .
* They become competent v e r ba l and nonverbal comm unic ator s-1 e a r n i n g t o e x p r e s s t h e m s e l v e s w e l l in s p e a k i n g , r e a d i n g ,
and w r i t i n g ; t o be a t t e n t i v e l i s t e n e r s ; and t o be a t home
with information techn ology.
* S t u d e n t s work in an environment o f e x c e l l e n c e marked by high
e x p e c t a t i o n s and p e r s i s t e n t s t r i v i n g toward mastery l e v e l s
o f a c h i e v e m e n t.
* They become s e l f - m o t i v a t e d , l e a r n t o t a k e adva nt age o f
o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p e r s o n a l d e ve lo p m e n t , and emerge w i t h a
la stin g z e st for learning.
* They r e s p e c t and d e m o n s tr a t e a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e i r p e e r s ,
t h e i r t e a c h e r s , th e s t a f f , and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s
i t s e l f ; t h e y p r a c t i c e t o l e r a n c e , f l e x i b i l i t y , empathy, and
equality.
* S t u d e n t s d e v e l o p p o s i t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s , r e c o g n i z e and v a l u e
t h e i r own u n i q u e n e s s , and a c c e p t both t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s and
th eir lim itations.
To be p r o f i c i e n t i n s u p e r v i s i n g t h e deve lop me nt and i m p l e ­
m e n ta t io n o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m , t h e p r i n c i p a l must:
* Understand t h e community’ s v a l u e s and g o a l s and what i t
wants t h e c u r r ic u l u m t o a c h i e v e .
* S e t f o r t h , as a continuum, t h e s k i l l s and c o n c e p t s t h e
c u r r ic u l u m i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e .
* Monitor t h e c u r r ic u l u m t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n ­
t e n t and se qu e nc e a r e f o l l o w e d .
* Be f a m i l i a r w i t h c u r r ic u l u m m a t e r i a l s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p
t o program g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s .
* Seek a p p r o p r i a t e r e s o u r c e s o f t i m e , money, and m a t e r i a l s t o
s u p p o r t t h e c u r r ic u l u m .

137

INSTRUCTION
* Understand and a p p l y t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f c h i l d growth and
de v elo p me nt .
* R e g u l a r l y a s s e s s t h e t e a c h i n g methods and s t r a t e g i e s b e i n g
used a t t h e s c h o o l t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e y a r e a p p r o p r i a t e and
varied.
* Understand and a p p l y v a l i d a t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f t e a c h i n g and
learning.
* Apply g r o u p i n g p r a c t i c e s t h a t most e f f e c t i v e l y meet s t u d e n t
needs.
* Understand and a p p l y e f f e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n and c o n f e r e n c i n g
sk ills.
PERFORMANCE
* S e t hig h e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s , s t a f f , p a r e n t s , and
self.
* A p p r o p r i a t e l y match p a r t i c u l a r l e a r n i n g s t y l e s w i t h p a r t i c u ­
la r teaching s t y l e s .
* Enhance s t u d e n t and s t a f f s t r e n g t h s and re m e di at e
weaknesses.
* Implement v a l i d a t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f b e h a v i o r management.
* R ec og ni ze and show co nc e rn f o r p e r s on a l g o a l s o f s t u d e n t s
and s t a f f .
* De si gn e f f e c t i v e s t a f f and p r o f e s s i o n a l development programs
t h a t match t h e g o a l s o f both t h e s c h o o l and t h e p a r t i c i p a t ­
i ng i n d i v i d u a l s .
* I d e n t i f y and u t i l i z e a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s up po rt
services.
* Engage in a program o f c o n t i n u i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d e ve lo p m e nt .
EVALUATION
* Use a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s and s t r a t e g i e s t o a s s e s s :
S t u d e n t per for m anc e.
I n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r and s t a f f performance.
The achi eve men t o f curriculurn g o a l s .
The e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e t o t a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l program.
* A s s e s s p r o g r e s s toward a c h i e v i n g g o a l s e s t a b l i s h e d f o r s t u ­
d e n t s , t e a c h e r s , t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p , and t h e in v o lv e m e n t o f
p a r e n t s and t h e community a t l a r g e .
* Se ek and e nc ou r ag e in p u t from a v a r i e t y o f s o u r c e s t o
improve t h e s c h o o l ’ s program.
* Use due p r o c e s s p r o c e d u r e s and l e g a l a s s i s t a n c e i n d e a l i n g
w i t h d i s c i p l i n a r y and d i s m i s s a l c a s e s .
* Deve lo p a s s i s t a n c e p l a n s and r e m e d i a t i o n e f f o r t s t o improve
t e a c h i n g p e rfo rm an ce .
* I n s p i r e even t h e most e x c e l l e n t t e a c h e r s t o a c q u i r e new
c o m p e t e n c i e s and e x p e r i e n c e s .
* De m onstrate a l e v e l o f human r e l a t i o n s s k i l l s t h a t makes t h e
e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s h e l ; 'ul r a t h e r than d e s t r u c t i v e .

138

* Bring about t h e kind o f r a p p o r t among s t u d e n t s , t e a c h e r s ,
s t a f f , p a r e n t s , and t h e community t h a t f o s t e r s c o n s t r u c t i v e
s u g g e s t i o n s f o r making t h e s c h o o l program even s t r o n g e r .

ADMINISTRATIVE PROFICIENCIES i n c l u d e :
ORGANIZATION
* Comprehend and employ v a l i d a t e d p r i n c i p l e s o f e f f e c t i v e tim e
management.
* C a p i t a l i z e on t h e f i n d i n g s o f r e s e a r c h in making program
decisions.
* Devel op and implement e q u i t a b l e and e f f e c t i v e s c h e d u l e s .
* C o l l e c t and a p p r o p r i a t e l y u s e - -with pr ope r r e s p e c t f o r
c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y - - s c h o o l and s t u d e n t d a t a .
* A l l o c a t e and o r g a n i z e s t a f f in such a way as t o a s s u r e
accomplishment o f t h e s c h o o l ’ s m i s s i o n .
* Devel op and use e f f e c t i v e , un b ia se d i n t e r v i e w i n g s k i l l s .
* A t t r a c t v o l u n t e e r s and be adep t in t r a i n i n g and a s s i g n i n g
them.
* Manage t h e o p e r a t i o n and ma intena nce o f t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n t .
* Know e d u c a t i o n l a w , i n c l u d i n g t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f 1 i a b i l i t y ,
and keep a b r e a s t o f d e v e lo p m e n t s .
* Develop and implement a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h board p o l i c y and c o n t r a c t u a l a g r e em e n t s.
* Use s t r a t e g i c p l a n n i n g t o implement l o n g - r a n g e g o a l s .
FISCAL
* Understand t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t budget and i t s s p e c i f i c
im plications for the sch o o l.
* P l a n , p r e p a r e , j u s t i f y , and d e fe n d t h e s c h o o l b u d g e t .
* Manage t h e s c h oo l w i t h i n t h e a l l o c a t e d r e s o u r c e s .
* Use c o s t c o n t r o l pr oc e du r e s and i n s t i t u t e c o s t - e f f e c t i v e
practices.
* I n t e r p r e t budget p r i o r i t i e s and c o n s t r a i n t s t o t h e s t a f f and
t h e community.
POLITICAL
* Understand t h e dynamics o f l o c a l , s t a t e and n a t i o n a l p o l i ­
tics.
* Develop p l a n s and s t r a t e g i e s f o r h e l p i n g t o a t t r a c t approp­
r i a t e f i n a n c i a l s up p o rt o f e d u c a t i o n .
* I n v o l v e t h e community’ s movers and s h a k e r s i n t h e d e v e l o p ­
ment and supp ort o f t h e s c h o o l * s programs.
* I d e n t i f y and ap pl y e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r d e a l i n g w i t h
p o l i t i c a l f o r c e s t h a t impinge on t h e s c h o o l ’ s o p e r a t i o n .
* P a r t i c i p a t e in l o c a l , s t a t e , and f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n
program.

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THIS STUDY

n& *M T K M MB COKTIMIINB PRDFtSSIWM. CEVEVOPKEWT MEEDS Of NIWIGMI EUKHTAW PRINCIPALS

DIRECTIONS: L isted In th e q u e stio n n a ire a re v arious ro le s/fu n c tto n s asso cia ted w ith t h t p r ln c lp e lsh lp . The a e jo r headings fo r th ese e r e : I ) DtSTTUCTIONAL SUPERVISION: 2) CU8U0UUM
OEVRjOPfOfT AM) DPLDCHfATIOM; 31 LEADERSHIP; end 4) STAFF OEYElOneMT/P£RSO»£L KWUGOCMT. For each r o le d e s c r ip to r , p le a s e provide th re e p ie ces o f In fo ro at ton: 1) DVCTTAKX TO
TOUR ROLE AS PRDCtRU. (P lea se In d ic ate hew le p o rta n t th i s ro le /fu n c tio n Is to your success as a p r in c ip a l. P le a se reeeab er th a t w a r e looking fo r p e rce p tio n s based on In d iv id u al s itu a tio n s ) !
2) TOUR PERSONAL NEED FOR FURTHER REPA81TICM AND CBfflMjlNG PROFESSIONAL GEVEU&ttEHT (P lease In d ic ate th e degree to which you f e e l a need fo r f u r th e r co n tin u in g p ro fe ssio n a l developeent
In ord er t o be a s e f f e c tiv e e s you would liv e to be In each o f the ro le /fu n c tio n s l i s t e d ) : and 3) K35T VALUABLE SOURCE OF PREPARATION AM) GONTIMIXNB PROFESSIONAL 0EVEL0BCMT (P lea se IttJIc ate
where you received th e g r e a te s t aeount o r th e e a s t v alu ab le kind of ln fo re atlo n /eo n tln u in g p ro fe ssio n a l developeent to be su ccessfu l In each r o le /f u n c tio n ) . C ir c le on ly one response fre e
each heeding. PLEASE USE A 97 LEAD PENCIL AND CIRCLE ONLY ONE RESPONSE IN EACH CATEGORY,

SAfgLE QUESTION

CATEGORY AND CUESTICKS

YOUR PERSONAL VEED FOR
FURTHER PREPARATION AKfr
OCWTIMJHC PfOFESSIGNU.

IMPORTANCE TO TOUR ROLE AS FttlHCIPAL

rfpmcfm'tt

(U irclo~only1onel response)
Very
Moderately L i t t l e
le p o rte n t te p e rte e t fep crtsn ce
9
4
9
oem criO N A L

MOST VALUABLE SOURCE OF PREPARATION ANO
CDN7tHJI« PROFESSIONAL OEVELCFMOflT

Net P e r t o f
Hot
My Job/
fs p o rte n t Never Do If

3

1

[C irc le o n ly one resoonse)
H igh Moderate Me
Heed
Need
Need
S 4
9
2
I

College?* * —
U niversity ttorfeshep
Course
Confereece
3

4

Readings/
S elf-S tu d y
9

Mentor
C o lle g ia l
R elatio n s
1

On th e Jo b
Merit
t* p a r la n c e
I

supervision

The p rin c ip a l re g u la rly e v a lu ate s th e
In s tru c tio n prograe.

0

0

O

MftTANCE TO TOUR t t U AS PRINCIPAL

C ATOOffr M O gUESTZGKS

tw irc io only one response)
Very
M oderately L i t t l e
le p o rta n t le p o rta n t Importance

4

3

2

1

Ths p rin c ip a l Is lincwledgasM® o f th s
l a t e s t r®s@srch re la te d to In s tru c tio n
efilch enhances le arn in g ,

9

4

3

3

1

The p rin c ip a l uses g o a l-s e ttin g to Isprove
In s tru c t Ion end Involves s t a f f n s b s r s In
g o a l-s e ttin g toaerd s o re e ffe c tiv e schools,

9

4

3

2

1

nemtcTiOHAi

2.

High Moderate Mo
Need
Need
Need
9

5

1.

Rot P a rt o f
Not
My Jcfe/
le p e r te n t Never Do I t

TOUR PERSOtUL WED FDR
n x m c R p re p a ra tio n am
CDKT1MIINS PROFESSIONAL
rg a ^ fy a jrv r.
[C irc le on ly cne response)

s j^

^

A

9

2

I

C o li# |* T ^ “
f ®Sp0ft8? r a f e s s lo a a l Mentor
U niversity Workshop
Readings/ C o lle g ia l
Course
C onference S elf-S tu d y
R elatio n s
9

4

3

2

On th e Job
Work
exp erien ce
1

isio h

5 , Ths p rin c ip a l uses t e s t sco res end o th e r
euteose-hased d a te In o rd er to r o c m n d
e e d lfle a tic n /e h a n g e s In th e in s tru c tio n a l

4,

HOST VALUABLE SOURCE OP REPARATION AM)
CONTOijlMS 8SFESSI0NAL GEVELORGfT

Ths p rin c ip a l ensures stu d en t t i e s e t
lis t.

9

4

3

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

9

4

3

2

1

Ths p rin c ip a l encourages teach ers to use
In s tru c tio n a l techniques end s tr a te g ie s
ehlch a re relev an t to th e c u rr ic u la r
o b je c tiv e s end to research-based
p rin c ip le s o f le a rn in g ,

3

4

3

2

1

6.

The p rin c ip a l s a in fo in s th a t o il students
can le arn end ©spacts thea to succeed,

9

4

3

2

1

7.

The p rin c ip a l re g u la rly b rin g s In stru c ­
tio n a l Issues to th e fa c u lty fo r discussion

9

4

3

2

1

o

cateqort and

guEsriCHS

t)06RTttCE TO TOUR ROLE AS PRINCIPAL
'C ir c le only one response)
Very
Moderately L i t t l e
te p e rte n t tsp o rta n t taportene©
9

CUS&IOJUM QEVELjORStfT m o

4

3

Not
le p o rta n t
?.

Not P a rt of
My Jeb /
Never Co I t
1

TOUR PERSONAL ICED FOR
FURTHER PREPARATION MO
GOrfTDAJINS PROFESSIONAL
n eu eireu ftfr
[C ircle on ly one reioonsa)
High Moderate Ho
Heed
Head
Need
3

4

3

2

TOST VALUABLE SOUflX OP PREPARATION MO
CCHTTHUI® PROFESSIONAL CEVELOfNENT
(Ci rfil4 e T W 222
U niversity Workshop
Course
leafersftce
4

1

Readings/
S elf-S tu d y
3

Mentor
C o lle g ia l
R elatio n s

On th e Job
Mark
Experience

2

I

d pib c n t a t b r s

e.

Ths p rin c ip a l Is knowledgeable cbcut
th in k in g end research re la te d to the
c u r r ic u la r needs o f h is /h e r s tu d e n ts.

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9.

The p rin c ip a l co o rd in ates e u r r l o tlt a
development w ithin th e b u ild in g .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

S

4

3

2

I

10.

The p rin c ip a l a id s th e s t a f f in assuring
th a t th e curriculum is ap p licab le to the
e k l l l s and a b i l i t i e s th s t present
stu d e n ts e l l ! need a s a d u lts .

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

it.

Ths p rin c ip a l helps to sc fears to is p le se n t
th s curricula® .

9

4

3

2

I

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l Is ab le to disaggregate end
e s s sln e t e s t s co re d a te In order to eake
re c a o e n d a tio n s fo r e u r r te y lia re v isio n .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l l e t s k i l l s in e u rrieu lu a
a r t ic u l a tio n .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

12.

IS.

UUSERSffP
14.

The p rin c ip a l knows ehen to d e le g a te .

3

4

3

2

I

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

IS.

The p rin c ip a l a d ju s ts h is /h e r leadership
s ty le to f i t th e needs of th e s itu a tio n .

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l is & good problee*solver.

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

10.

CATEGORY MO CUESTICKS

i c t r e l e only one response)
Vary
M pderatety L i t t l e
le p o rta n t le p o rta n t Xsportsnee
9
I? .

18.

19.

SO.

21.

22.

23.

24.

23.

2fl.

27.

TOUR PERSONAL tCEO fOR
RBmCR PREPARATION AND
COVriWING PROFESSIONAL

lMaORTMCE TO YOUR ROLE AS PRINCIPAL

4

3

Kbt P a rt o f
My Job/
Hot
le p o rta n t Haver So I t
2

(C irc le on ly one response)
High Moderate Mo
Heed
Heed
Hoad
9

5

4

3

2

1

(OST'VAUIABLE SOURCE OF REPARATION AND
COKmsJDC PROFESSIONAL OEVELBXEMT
" a s m r 1’ * * rM ,,on,& u 9, m
U niversity Morfeshep
Raadlngs/
Scars©
Conference S elf-S tudy
9

4

3

Mentor
C o lle g la t
R elatio n s

On th e Job
Mork
Experience

2

1

Ths p rin c ip a l is ab le to gather and enalyz
d a ta re la te d to th e c o g n itiv e , a f f e c tiv e
end clim a te nneds o f th e b u ild in g .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l la v is io n -o rie n te d and aIda
s ta f f in long-range planning.

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

I

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l beeps ab rea st of e u rren ?
research end trends in education.

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

I

3

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l is edept a t c o n f lic t
eanegeeent.

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l has good a? i t ton and o r a l
c s s u n ic e tio n s t i l l s .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

Ths p rin c ip a l involves o th e rs ap p ro p riately
In d ec isio n -ash in g .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l develops a sense o f teasvork
seong th e s t a f f .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l a p p lie s v a lid research
findings to sehoal p ra c tic e .

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l understands end Is a b le to
apply a d u lt learning end o o tlv s tle n theory

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l has s h i l l s in b u ild in g upon
stre n g th s c f s ta f f e e sb s rs .

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l is a b le to a r b i t r a t e
d isp u te s and agreements.

3

4

3

2

1

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

eUEGOftr AND QUESTIONS

UffOOTAfCE ID m m ROLE AS PRINCIPAL
W lfC lt only tytfl f i p o n m
Very
le p o rta n t
9

28.

29.

30.

33.

34.

High fe d e ra te Re
Reed
Reed
Reed
9 4
3 2
1

HOST VALUABLE SOURCE OP REPARATION AMD
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL OEVELOFtENT
,Cc 5 . W y — rMP” * f U » U « l
U n iv ersity kbrfaghop
R aidings/
Course
C onference S e lM tu d y
9

The p rin c ip a l la ab le to a sse ss ln -e erv lc
needs and seek resources to f i l l those
3

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l encouregtte le ad ersh ip hy
s ta f f and stu d e n ts.

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l en su res th a t s t a f f develop*
s e n t progress a r e based on te a c h e rs ' need

3

4

3

2

1

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l conducts s t a f f e a stin g s
whleh th e te ach ers p erceive to be relevan
end Inform ative.

9

4

3

2

1

The p rin c ip a l i s a b le to take co rre c tiv e
ac tio n on parsonnsl s e t t e r s in order to
e a ln ts ln q u a lity end e ffe c tiv e n e s s .

5

4

3

2

1

The p r V c lp a l I s a b le to a s s i s t s ta f f
aeebers in s e tt in g r e a l i s t i c and
a p p ro p ria te g o als to r growth and
ieprovonent.

3

4

3

2

1

31* The p rin c ip a l encourages teach ers to try
new ideas w ithout fe a r o f r e p r is a l for
f a i lu r e .
32.

Not P a r t o f
M oderately t i t t l e
Hot
My Job/
le p o rta n t Im portance le p o r ta n t Rover Do I t
4
3
2
1

TOUR PERSONAL ICED R *
FURTHER PREPARATION AND
GMTMIHG PROFESSIONAL
r p g in a g v r
(C ircle only one resoonse)

4

3

Mentor
C o lle g ia l
R elatio n s

O .th .M ,
Work
Experience

2

1

144

35 .

What i s your age group?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

36 .

_
Less than 30 Years o f Age
____ 30 to 40 Years o f Age
____ 41 to 50 Years o f Age
____ 51 to 55 Years o f Age
_____ Over 55 Years o f Age

How many years have you been a p r in c ip a l (in c lu d in g a s s is t a n t p r in c ip a l)?
a . __ 0-5 Years
b._____6-10 Years
c ._____ 11-15 Years
d._____ 16-20 Years
e.
Over 20 Years

37.

What i s your current and p rlaary a sslg n a e n t as a p r in c ip a l?
a. ___ _ Elementary (1 -6 or 1-8)
b._____ J r . High (7 -8 or
7 -9 )
c .__ ___ Sr. High (9-12 or 10-12)
d. _____ J r .- S r . High

38.

What I s th e stu d en t enrollm ent a t th e sch ool d i s t r i c t in which you are
c u r r en tly employed?
a . ___
b. ___ _
c . ____
d. _____

39.

1st
2nd
3rd
4th

C lass
C lass
C lass
C lass

(more
(more
(more
(more

than
than
than
than

120,000 s tu d e n ts )
3 0 ,0 0 0 , l e s s than 120,000 stu d en ts)
2 ,4 0 0 , l e s s than 30,000 stu d en ts)
75, l e s s than 2.400 stu d en ts)

What i s th e h ig h e st degree you have earned?
a.
b.
c.
d.

__
__
__
__

M aster's
S p e c i a l i s t ' s Degree
Ed.D.
Ph.D.

40.

What i s your gender?

_____ Male

____ Female

41.

How l i k e l y i s i t th a t you w i l l r e t i r e w ith in th e next f iv e years?
a . _____ Very l i k e l y
b. _____ P o ssib ly
c.
Not l i k e l y

42.

I f your response to #41 i s "Very lik e ly " , p le a se in d ic a te the year you are
most l i k e l y to r e t i r e :
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

___ _ 1989
_____ 1990
_____„ 1991
_____ 1992
_____ 1993

APPENDIX C

INITIAL LETTER AND POST CARD SENT TO THE SELECTED
SAMPLE OF ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS

145

A u gust 2 1 , 1989
D ear C o lle a g u e :
You have b een s e l e c t e d a s p a r t o f a sam p le o f c u r r e n t ly em ployed
M ich ig a n e le m e n ta r y p r i n c i p a l s t o p a r t i c i p a t e in a r e s e a r c h s tu d y I am
c o n d u c tin g t o h e lp b e t t e r u n d er sta n d t h r e e im p o rta n t a r e a s r e l a t e d t o
t h e M ich ig a n e le m e n ta r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p .
The t h r e e a r e a s o f t h e e le m e n ta r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p w h ic h form th e
f o c u s o f t h i s s tu d y a r e :
1) t h e range o f j o b r o l e s and t h e i r
im p o r ta n c e as p e r c e iv e d by p r i n c i p a l s ; 2 ) n e e d s p r i n c i p a l s i d e n t i f y
f o r f u r t h e r p r e p a r a tio n and c o n t in u in g p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev elo p m en t t o
re sp o n d t o t h e i r j o b r o l e s ; and 3 ) what p r i n c i p a l s i d e n t i f y a s th e
p rim ary s o u r c e o f t h e i r p r e p a r a tio n and c o n t in u in g p r o f e s s i o n a l
d e v e lo p m e n t.
C u r r e n t ly , t h e r e i s l i m i t e d knov?ledge t o a s s i s t s t a t e p o lic y m a k e r s ,
c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y s c h o o l a d m in is t r a t o r p r e p a r a tio n p rogram s,
p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n iz a t io n s o f s c h o o l a d m in is t r a t o r s and o t h e r s c h o o l
a d m in is t r a t o r s , and l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t le a d e r s t o resp o n d t o t h e
p r e p a r a tio n and c o n t in u in g p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev elo p m en t n e e d s o f b u ild in g
p r i n c i p a l s . A ls o , a Michigan D epartm ent o f E d u c a tio n s tu d y p r o j e c t s a
t u r n o v e r o f up t o 60 p e r c e n t o f c u r r e n t ly em ployed b u ild in g p r i n c i p a l s
by 1 9 9 3 . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s tu d y may be u s e f u l in b u ild in g
a d m in is t r a t o r p r e p a r a tio n program s f o r t h e c a n d id a t e s who a s p i r e t o th e
p r in c ip a ls h ip .
Your i n d i v id u a l responses to t h i s s u r v e y w i l l rem ain s t r i c t l y
c o n f i d e n t i a l . The s u r v e y m eth o d o lo g y d o e s n o t i d e n t i f y s u r v e y
r e s p o n s e s w it h an i n d i v i d u a l . P le a s e do n o t s ig n you r s u r v e y . A l l
d a ta w i l l be r e p o r te d in a g g r e g a te form . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s
s tu d y i s v o lu n t a r y . A p o s t c a r d i s e n c lo s e d w it h t h e s u r v e y f o r you t o
m a il a t t h e same tim e t h a t you m a il you r c o m p le ted s u r v e y in s tr u m e n t,
s o t h a t I w i l l know t h a t y o u r su r v e y has been r e tu r n e d and t h e r e f o r e , I
w i l l n o t sen d you f o llo w - u p l e t t e r s .
The v a l i d i t y o f t h i s s tu d y d ep en d s on t h e number o f responses r e tu r n e d
by t h e sam p le p o p u la t io n .
S o , p le a s e s e t a s id e 2 0 -3 0 m in u te s o f
u n in t e r r u p te d tim e d u r in g th e n e x t week t o resp on d t o t h e s u r v e y
in s tr u m e n t.
P l e a s e r e tu r n t h e s u r v e y in str u m e n t by Septem ber 1 , 1 9 8 9 .
I f you w is h
t o d i s c u s s t h i s s tu d y w it h me, I can be r e a ch ed a t my o f f i c e a t (3 1 3 )
8 7 8 - 3 1 1 5 , o r a t my home a t ( 5 1 7 ) 2 7 9 -7 1 3 0 . Thank you f o r you r
c o o p e r a t io n .

'ane K uckel

146

N°-

Please mail th is postcard when you
have completed and returned your
survey. That way, a follow-up
reminder le tte r w ill not be sent to
you.
Again, thanks for your assistan ce.

Jane Kuckel

140

APPENDIX D

FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO NONRESPONDENTS

147

October 2 . 1989

Dear Colleague:
A few weeks ago you re ce iv ed a l e t t e r from me asking you to respond to a
survey and research study r e la te d to the r o le s and r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s o f the
p r in c ip a lsh ip .
My records show th a t 1 have n o t received a response from you. I f you have
completed an m ailed i t .
p le a se disregard t h is l e t t e r . I f you have n ot or
have m isplaced the o r ig in a l copy, I have e n clo sed another fo r
your
convenience.
This study i s prompted by the recen t demographic surveys which in d ic a te th a t
Michigan sch o o ls may be h ir in g up to 500 new p r in c ip a ls over th e n ext f iv e
y e a r s. The purpose o f
t h is study i s to look a t th e important r o le s and
r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s o f the p r in c ip a ls and the major sou rces o f preparation fo r
those r o le s .
While the study i s p art o f my d is s e r t a t io n research fo r a
PH.D. a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r sity , the r e s u lt s w i l l be shared w ith th e S ta te
Department o f Education and the major adm in istrator p rep aration s programs
across the s t a t e to use as they ad ju st th e ir programs to meet the demands o f
education fo r the 2 1 s t centu ry. I t i s c r i t i c a l th a t p r o sp e c tiv e p r in c ip a l
candidates have the opportunity fo r experiences and in s tr u c tio n in the kinds
o f s k i l l s which they w i l l need to m aintain and continue the progress th at has
taken place in Michigan sc h o o ls over the l a s t few y e a r s .
The v a lid it y o f t h is study depends on the number o f resp on ses returned by the
sample population. So, p le a se a s s i s t me in gathering t h is important data by
taking 15-20 minutes over the n ext few weeks to share your v a lu ab le in s ig h ts
about your r o le as p r in c ip a l. H opefully, the con ten t o f the survey w i l l a ls o
be valuable to you as you develop your v is io n and g o a ls fo r t h is sch ool year.
I thank you, in advance, fo r your a s s is ta n c e . I f you have any q u estion s or
would lik e a copy o f the r e s u lt s o f t h is stu dy, p le a s e c a l l me a t home, (313)
231-0068 or work (313) 878-3115.
R e sp e c tfu lly ,

iane E. Kuckel
jm s\ad\deao

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A c h i l l e s , C. M.
(1987).
Unlocking some m y s t e r i e s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r p r e p a r a t i o n : A r e f l e c t i v e p r o p o s a l .
In
Leaders f o r America’ s S c h o o l s (pp. 4 1 - 6 7 ) .
Report and papers
o f t h e N a t i o n a l Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in E du ca tio nal Admin­
istration .
B e r k e l e y , CA: McCutchen.
American A s s o c i a t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Education News
Services.
(1983).
The r o l e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l in e f f e c t i v e
schools:
Problems and s o l u t i o n s .
Arin-Krupp, J .
( 1 9 8 1 ) . Adult dev elop ment:
Im plications fors t a f f
d e v e l o p m e n t . C o l c h e s t e r , CT: P r o j e c t RISE.
Arin-Krupp, J .
( 1 9 8 2 ) . The a d u l t l e a r n e r .
P r o j e c t RISE.
Barr, R . , & Dreeben, R. ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s .

C o l c h e s t e r , CT:

How s c h o o l s work.

B e n n i s , W., & Nanus, B. ( 1 9 8 5 ) .
Leaders:
ing c h a r g e . New York: Harper & Row.

Chicago:

Un i­

The s t r a t e g i e s f o r

tak­

B la nc har d, K . , & Johnson, S.
(1982).
The one minute manager:
q u i c k e s t wav t o i n c r e a s e vour own p r o s p e r i t y . New York:
B e r k e l y Books.

The

B 1 i s s , J . R.
(1987).
P u b l i c s ch oo l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s in t h e Un ited
States:
An a n a l y s i s o f su p p ly and demand.
In Leaders f o r
Ame rica ’ s S c h o o l s (pp. 1 9 3 - 1 9 9 ) .
Report and papers o f t h e
N a t i o n a l Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in Edu ca tion al A d m i n i s t r a ­
tion.
B e r k e l e y , CA: McCutchen.
Blumberg, A . , & G r e e n f i e l d , W. C.
Bo st on: A l l y n & Bacon.

(1980).

The e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l .

B o s s a r t , S. T , , Dwyer, D . , Rown, B . , & Lee, G. V.
(1981).
The
i n s t r u c t i o n a l management r o l e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l : A p r e l i m i n a r y
r e v i e w and c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o :
Far West Labora­
t o r y f o r E du ca tio nal Research and Development.
Bow les , D. R.
(1968).
E f f e c t i v e e le m e n t a r y s ch oo l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
West Nyack, NY: Parker P u b l i s h i n g Co.

148

149

Brandt, R. ( 1 9 8 7 , Se pt e m be r ).
On l e a d e r s h i p and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e ­
ment: A c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Richard Andrews.
Ed uc a tio na l Lead­
ersh ip.
Brookover, W. B . , & L e z o t t e , L. W.
(1979).
Changes in s c h o o l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c o i n c i d e n t w i t h changes in s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t .
East Lansing: Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o l l e g e o f Urban
Development.
B u s s i s , A . , C h i t t e n d e n , E . , & Amarel, M.
(1976).
c u r r i c u l u m . B o u ld e r , CO: Westview P r e s s .

Beyond s u r f a c e

C a l i f o r n i a Elementary School A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n .
(1968).
Role o f t h e e le m e n t a r y s c h oo l p r i n c i p a l . Pal o A l t o , CA:
National Press.
t
Campbe ll, R. F . , Fleming, T . , N e w e l l , J . L . , & Bennion, J . W.
(1987).
A h i s t o r y o f t ho ugh t and p r a c t i c e in e d u c a t i o n a l
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: Teac her s C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r ­
sity.
Carey, J .
( 1 9 8 4 ) . An i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f p a r e n t s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
ju n i o r - a c a d e m y p r i n c i p a l ’ s r o l e in t h e Lake Union Co n fe r e nc e o f
Seve nth-Day A d v e n t i s t s (D o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Andrews
U n i v e r s i t y ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 46 , 1136A.
Cowan, A. T.
(1960).
The F I i n t b u i l d i n g d i r e c t o r :
Role e x p e c t a ­
t i o n s he l d bv r e l e v a n t g r o u p s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Crowson, R . , & P o r t e r - G e h r i e , C.
(1980).
The d i s c r e t i o n a r y
b e h a v i o r o f p r i n c i p a l s in l a r g e c i t y s c h o o l s .
E du ca tio nal
Administration Q uarterly. 1 6 ( 1 ), 45-69.
Daresh, J . C . , & Liu, C-J.
(1985).
High s c h oo l p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p ­
t i o n s o f t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o r . Paper
p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual m ee tin g o f t h e American E du ca tio nal
Research A s s o c i a t i o n .
D a v i s , G. A . , & Thomas, M. A.
(1989).
E f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s and
e f f e c t i v e t e a c h e r s . Boston: A l l y n & Bacon.
D eV ille, J.
(1984).
The p s y c h o l o g y o f l e a d e r s h i p :
Managing
r e s o u r c e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . New York: New American L i b r a r y .
D i g e s t o f E d uc ati ona l S t a t i s t i c s . ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
Washington, DC: U.S.
O f f i c e o f Ed u c a ti o n , D i v i s i o n o f E d uc ati ona l S t a t i s t i c s .
Doud, J . L.
( 1 9 8 9 ) . The K-8 p r i n c i p a l in 1988: A t e n y e a r s t u d y .
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .

150

Dow, J . , J r .
( 1 9 7 1 ) . A co mp ar at iv e s tu dy o f i n n e r - c i t v e le m e n t a r y
t e a c h e r s * and p r i n c i p a l s * p e r c e p t i o n s o f and r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s
f o r the lea d e r s h ip behavior o f s e l e c t e d i n n e r - c i t v elementary
p r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e
U niversity.
Drucker, P. F.
& Row.

(1967).

The e f f e c t i v e e x e c u t i v e .

New York:

Duke., D. L.
(1987).
School l e a d e r s h i p and i n s t r u c t i o n a l
me n t. New York: Random House.

Harper

improve­

E f f e c t i v e s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s : A r e p o r t t o t h e Southern Regional
Board bv i t s Commission f o r Education Q u a l i t y .
(1986).
A t l a n t a , GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
E n g l i s h , F. W.
(1975).
School o r g a n i z a t i o n and management.
Worth ing to n, OH: C h a rl e s A. Jone s P u b l i s h i n g .
Es br e e , W. S . , McNally, H. J . , & Wynn, R.
(1967).
Elementary
s c h oo l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n . New York: American
Book Company.
Faber, C. R . , & Shea rr on, G. F.
(1970).
Elementary s c h o o l a d m i n i s ­
t r a t i o n . New York: H o l t , R e i n h a r t , & Winston.
Finn, C. E . , J r .
( 1 9 8 8 , J u n e ) . Expand your v i s i o n and p i c k p r i n c i pals with v i s i o n .
The E x e c u t i v e E du ca tor . 1 0 ( 6 ) , 2 0 - 2 1 .
Fox, R. S . , e t a l .
(1973).
School c l i m a t e improvement:
A chal­
l e n g e t o t h e sch ool a d m i n i s t r a t o r . Bloomington, IN: Phi D e l t a
Kappa.
F u l l a n , M.
(1982).
The meaning o f e d u c a t i o n a l c h a n g e .
Te ac her s C o l l e g e P r e s s .

New York:

Geneck, F. H.
(1983).
Improving sc ho o l performance: How new
s c h o o l management t e c h n i q u e s can r a i s e l e a r n i n g , c o n f i d e n c e ,
and m o r a l e . New York:
P r a e g er .
G l a t t h o r n , A. A.
(1987).
Good Year Books.

Curriculum l e a d e r s h i p .

G le nv ie w ,

IL:

G1ickman, C. D.
(1987, A p r i l ) .
Good a n d / o r e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s :
What do we want? Phi D e l t a Kappan.

151

Golanda, E. I .
(1982).
The e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l as an i n s t r u c ­
tio n a l leader;
An a n a l y s i s o f t h e p e r c e i v e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l
s u p e r v i s o r y s k i l l s , a t t i t u d e s and p r a c t i c e s o f s e l e c t e d M i c h i ­
gan e le m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s . Unp ubl ished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r ­
t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Goldhammer, K . , & T a y l o r , R. C.
(1972).
Career e d u c a t i o n :
Per­
s p e c t i v e and p r o m i s e . Columbus, OH: C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l .
Goodlad, J . C.
(1979).
What s c h o o l s a r e f o r .
U niversity o f C alifornia.
Goodlad, J . C.
(1 9 8 4 '
f u t u r e . New York:

A place c a lle d school:
McGraw-Hill.

Los A n g e l e s :

Prospects fo r the

G o t t f r e d s o n , G. 1)., & Hy ble , L. G.
(1987).
An a n a l y t i c a l
d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l ’ s .job (Report No. 1 3 ) .
B a l t i m o r e , MD: Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y , Cen te r f o r Research
on Elementary and Middle S c h o o l s .
G r e e n f i e l d , W. D.
( 1 9 8 2 , March). Empirical r e s e a r c h on scho ol
p r i n c i p a l s : The s t a t e o f t h e a r t . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e
annual m ee tin g o f t h e American Education Research A s s o c i a t i o n ,
New York C i t y .
G r i f f i t h s , D. E . , S t o u t , R. T . , & F o r s y t h , P. B.
( 1 9 8 7 ) . The
preparation o f educational adm in istration .
In Leaders f o r
A m e r ic a 's S c h o o l s (pp. 2 8 4 - 3 0 4 ) . Report and papers o f t h e
N a t i o n a l Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in Ed uc at io na l A d m i n i s t r a ­
tion.
B e r k e l e y , CA: McCutchen.
G ro s s , N . , & H a r r i o t t , R. E.
( 1 9 6 1 ) . The p r o f e s s i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p
o f e le m e n t a r v s ch ool p r i n c i p a l s . Washington, DC:
U.S. O f f i c e
o f E d uc at io n, Department o f H e a l t h , Ed ucation & W e lf a r e.
H a l l , G. E . , & Hord, S. M.
(1987).
Change in s c h o o l s :
F acilitati ng t h e p r o c e s s . Albany: S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o f New York P r e s s .
Hawley, W. D.
(1987).
U n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e improvement o f s c h o o l
management: Ro le s f o r t h e s t a t e s .
In Leaders f o r America’ s
S c h o o l s (pp. 8 2 - 8 8 ) .
Report and pa pe rs o f t h e N a t i o n a l Com­
m i s s i o n on E x c e l l e n c e in Ed uc at io na l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Berkeley,
CA: McCutchen.
H er s e y, P. & Blanchard, K.
(1982).
Management o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
b e h a v i o r s : U t i l i z i n g human r e s o u r c e s . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ:
P rentice-H all.
H erz ber g, F.
( 1 9 8 8 , J a n u a r y - F e b r u a r y ) . One more t im e :
How do you
m o t i v a t e employees? Harvard B u s i n e s s Rev ie w, p. 57.

152

Hoard, S . , R u t h e r f o r d , W. L . , H u l i n g - A u s t , L . , & H a l l , G. E.
(1987).
Taking c ha r ge o f c h a n g e . A l e x a n d r i a , VA: A s s o c i a t i o n
f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and Curriculum Development.
Howard, E . , Howel1, B . , & B r a i n i a r d , E.
(1987).
Handbook f o r
c o n d u c t i n g s c h o o l c l i m a t e improvement p r o j e c t s . Blo om ing to n,
IN: Phi D e l t a Kappa.
Hoy, W. K . , & M i s k e l , C. G.
(1982).
E du ca tio nal a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
t h e o r y , r e s e a r c h , and p r a c t i c e (2nd e d . ) .
New York: Random
House.
H oyl e, J . R . , E n g l i s h , F . , & S t e f f y , B.
(1985).
S k ills for
s u c c e s s f u l s c h o o l l e a d e r s . A r l i n g t o n , VA: American A s s o c i a ­
t i o n o f School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
J a c o b s o n , P. B . , Logsdon, 0 . D . , & Wiegman, R. R.
( 1 9 7 3 ) . The
principalship:
New p e r s p e c t i v e s . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ:
Prentice-H all.
J o y c e , B . , & Showers, B.
(1987).
St ud e nt achi eve men t through s t a f f
d e v e l o p m e n t . New York:
Longman.
J o y c e , B . , Showers, B . , & R o T h e is e r - B e n n e t , C.
(1987, O cto b e r ).
S t a f f dev elop ment and s t u d e n t l e a r n i n g :
A synthesis of
r e s e a r c h on models o f t e a c h i n g .
Ed uc a tio na l L e a d e r s h i p ,
pp. 1 1 - 2 3 .
King, C. T.
(1978).
Pr o f e s s i o n a l development needs as p e r c e i v e d bv
f u l l - t i m e t e a c h e r s n o t pu r su in g advanced s tu d y and f a c t o r s
a f f e c t i n g t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o f programs d e s i g n e d t o meet t h o s e
n e e d s . Un published d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i ­
versity.
K i r s t , M. W.
Freeman.

(1984).

Who c o n t r o l s our s c h o o l s ?

Lane, J . J . , & Walberg, H. J .
B e r k e l e y , CA: McCutchen.

(1987).

New York:

E f f e c t i v e school

W. H.

leadership.

L e z o t t e , L. W., Hathaway, D. V . , M i l l e r , S. K . , P a s s a l a c q u a , J . , &
Br ook ov er, W. B.
(1980).
School l e a r n i n g c l i m a t e and s t u d e n t
achievement. T allah assee:
F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Teacher
Educa tio n P r o j e c t s .
L e z o t t e , L. W., & P a s s a l a c q u a , J .
(1978).
I n d i v i d u a l sc h o o l
b u i l d i n g s do a c co unt f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in measured pu p il
p e r fo r m a n c e . East Lan sing : Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
I n s t i t u t e f o r Re search on T e a c h i n g .

153

Lieberman, A.
(1986, February).
Leadership. 4 3 ( 5 ), 4 -8 .

C o l l a b o r a t i v e work.

Liphum, J . , & Hoeh, J .
(1974).
The p r i n c i p a l s h i p :
j u n c t i o n s . New York: Harper & Row.

Edu ca tion al

Foun dat io ns and

Madaus, G. R . , A i r i a s i a n , P. W., & K e l l a g n a n , T.
(1980).
School
effectiveness:
A r e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e e v i d e n c e . New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mann, D. ( Ed. ) .
(1978).
College Press.

Making change happen?

New York:

Tea ch er s

Marti n, W. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The man ag eri al b e h a v i o r o f hig h s c h o o l p r i n c i ­
p a l s . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , The P e n n s y l v a n i a
State U niversity.
Michigan Department o f E d u c a ti o n .
(1989, January). Adm inistrative
r u l e s g o v e r n in g t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n o f Michigan s c h o o l a d m i n i s ­
t r a t o r s . Lansing:
Michigan Department o f Ed u c a ti o n .
Michigan S t a t e Board o f
retirement r e p o r t.

E d u c a ti o n .
( 1 9 8 6 ) . Michigan p u b l i c sc ho o l
Lansing: Michigan Department o f Ed u c a ti o n .

Michigan S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n .
( 1 9 8 7 ) . Report on s u r ve y o f
Michigan s c h o o l s t a f f e l i g i b l e t o r e t i r e . Lansing: Michigan
Department o f E d uc at io n.
Michigan S t a t e Board o f E d u c a ti o n .
( 1 9 8 8 , Dece mb er). A pro pos al t o
c r e a t e a p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s commission f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r
p r e p a r a t i o n and c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Lansing: Michigan Department
o f Ed uc ati on.
Michigan S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e .
M i l l e r , E. A.
Trenton:

(1986).

P u b l i c Act 1 6 3 .

( 1 9 8 7 ) . A new b a l a n c e :
Reshaping t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p .
New J e r s e y P r i n c i p a l s and S u p e r v i s o r s A s s o c i a t i o n .

M i l l e r , R. W. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A d e s c r i p t i o n o f s a t i s f a c t o r y p r i n c i p a l
l e a d e r s h i p from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t e a c h e r s (D o c to r a l
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f North C a r o l i n a a t G r e e n s b o r o ) .
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 4 5 , 12591A.
M or ri s, V. e t a l .
(1981).
The urban p r i n c i p a l : D i s c r e t i o n a r y
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i n a l a r g e e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Chicago:
University o f 111inois.
Murks, J . R . , S t o o p s , E . , & K i n g - S t o o p s , J .
(1985).
Handbook o f
educational su p ervision :
A g u i d e f o r t h e p r a c t i t i o n e r . Newton,
MA: A l l y n & Bacon.

154

N at i on a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .
(1984).
Sta nda rds f o r Q u a l i t y e le m e n ta r y s c h o o l s . R e s t o n , VA:
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .
N at i on a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .
(1986).
P r o f i c i e n c i e s f o r p r i n c i p a l s . A r l i n g t o n , VA: N a t i o n a l
A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s .
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s .
(1982).
e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l : A r e s e a r c h summary. R e s t o n , VA:
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s .

The

N at i on al A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s ’ A ss e ss m e nt
Center.
( 1 9 8 6 , J a n u a r y ) . S e l e c t i n g and d e v e l o p i n g s c h oo l
leaders:
P articip ants r e la te experiences, describe values.
NASSP B u l l e t i n . 7 0 ( 4 8 6 ) , 1 - 5 8 .
N at i on al Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in Ed u c a ti o n .
(1983).
A nation
at r is k :
The i m p e r a t i v e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l r e f o r m . Washington,
DC: Department o f Ed uc a tio n.
Na ti on al Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in E d uca tio nal A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
(1987).
Leaders f o r America’ s s c h o o l s . Tempe, AZ: U n i v e r s i t y
Council f o r Ed uc at io na l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
N at io na l School P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n .
(1981).
Good
schools:
What makes them work ( S t o c k No. 4 1 1 - 1 3 3 5 8 ) .
A r l i n g t o n , VA: N a t i o n a l School P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s A s s o c i a t i o n .
Osborne, W. D.
( 1 9 8 7 ) . An a n a l y s i s o f a c t u a l and d e s i r e d t a s k s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e hi gh sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s h i p in Oklahoma.
D isser ta tio n Abstracts In te r n a tio n a l.
P e t e r s o n , K. D.
(1978).
The p r i n c i p a l ’ s t a s k .
N ot e bo ok . 2 6 ( 8 ) , 1 - 4 .

Administrator

P e t e r s o n , K. D . , & Fi nn, C. E . , J r .
(1987, S p r in g ) . P r in c ip a ls ,
s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s , and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ’ s a r t .
The P u b l i c
I n t e r e s t . 79 , 4 2 - 6 2 .
P i t n e r , N. J .
( 1 9 8 2 , March). The Mintzberq method: What have we
r e a l l y l e a r n e d ? Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual m ee t in g o f t h e
American Education Research J o u r n a l , New York, NY.
P i t n e r , N. J .
(1987).
School a d m i n i s t r a t o r p r e p a r a t i o n : The s t a t e
o f the a rt.
In Leaders f o r Ame ric a’ s S c h o o l s (pp. 3 6 7 - 4 0 2 ) .
Report and pap ers o f t h e N a t i o n a l Commission on E x c e l l e n c e in
Ed uc a tio na l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
B e r k e l e y , CA: McCutchen.
R a v i t c h , D.
( 1 9 8 3 ) . The t r o u b l e d c r u s a d e :
( 1 9 4 5 - 1 9 8 0 1 . New York: B a s i c Books.

American e d u c a t i o n

155

R i c e , R. H.
(1984).
D i f f e r e n c e s in r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s between urban
and suburban e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s (D o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
Temple U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 8 3 ) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a ­
t i o n a l . 44A.
R o b e r t s , A. D . , & C a w e l t i , G.
(1984).
Redefining general education
in t h e American h i g h s c h o o l . A 1 e x a nd ri a , VA: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r
S u p e r v i s i o n and Curriculum Development.
,
Roe, U . , & Drake, I .
m illan.

(1980).

The o r i n c i p a l s h i o .

New York:

Mac­

Runkel, P.
( 1 9 8 5 , W i n t e r ) . H i g h l i g h t s from t h e 24-hour+ c o n f e r ­
e n c e . Lan sing : Michigan C o a l i t i o n f o r S t a f f Development and
School Improvement.
Ru th e r f or d , W. L.
tiv e leaders.

( 1 9 8 5 , S e p t e m b e r ) . School p r i n c i p a l s as e f f e c ­
Phi D e l t a Kappan. 6 7 ( 1 ) , 3 1 - 3 4 .

S a l l e y , C . , McPherson, R. B . , & Baehr, M. E.
(1979).
What
p r i n c i p a l s do: A p r e l i m i n a r y o c c u p a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s .
In D. A.
Ev idson & T. L. R e l l e r ( E d s . ) , The p r i n c i p a l in m e t r o p o l i t a n
s c h o o l s . B e r k e l e y , CA: McLuthan.
Shi e v e , L. T . , & S c h o e n h e i t , M. B. ( E d s . ) .
(1987).
L e ade rs hi p:
Examining t h e e l u s i v e . A l e x a n d r i a , VA: A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Su p er­
v i s i o n and Curriculum Development.
S i r o t n i k , K. A . , & Oakes, J . ( E d s . ) .
(1986).
C ritical perspectives
on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and improvement o f s c h o o l i n g . Boston:
N ijh o ff Publishing.
Smith, C. R . , & Muth, R.
(1985).
I n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p and
s c h o o l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual m e e t in g o f
t h e American Ed uc a tio na l Research A s s o c i a t i o n .
Smith, J . M.
( 1 9 8 9 , Summer). Pr ep ar in g p r i n c i p a l s f o r t h e f u t u r e :
E x p e r i e n t i a l l e a r n i n g in e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
Educa­
t io n . 109.
Snyder, F. A . , & P e t e r s e n , D. A.
(1970).
Dynamics o f e l e m e n t a r y
s c h oo l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n .
S p r o u l l , L.
(1979).
Managing e d u c a t i o n programs:
b e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s . Unpublished paper.

A m icr o-

Staff.
(1982).
The r o l e o f e le m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s :
A
summary o f t h e r e s e a r c h . A r l i n g t o n , VA: E du ca tio nal Research
S ervice.

156

S t e v e n s , B. ( E d . ) .
(1985).
School e f f e c t i v e n e s s :
Eight v a r ia b le s
t h a t make a d i f f e r e n c e . East Lansing: Michigan S t a t e Board o f
E d u c a ti o n .
S t e v e n s o n , J . B.
( 1 9 7 3 ) . An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o c a r e e r e d u c a t i o n .
Wor thington: C h a r l e s A. J o n e s .
T a l e r n g s o k , S.
(1984).
A s t u d y o f t h e p e r c e i v e d impor ta nc e o f
ma nag eri al s k i l l s o f e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ( D o c to r a l
d is se r ta tio n , I l l i n o i s State U niversity).
D issertation
A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l . 4 5 , 2723A.
U.S. Department o f E d u c a ti o n , O f f i c e o f E d uc a ti o na l Research and
Improvement.
(1987, June).
Principal s e l e c t i o n g u id e .
Washington, DC: U .S . Department o f E d u c a ti o n .
Walton, M. C.
( 1 9 8 5 , J a n u a r y ) . S c h o o l s and h o m e s- - C o n n ec t in g with
c om p ut e r s.
Communicator. 9 ( 5 ) , 2.
W i l e s , J . , & B on d i, J .
(1981).
The e s s e n t i a l m id d le s c h o o l .
Columbus: Ch a rl e s E. M e r r i l l .
W o l c o t t , H.
(1973).
The man in t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s o f f i c e :
e t h n o g r a p h y . New York: H o l t , Ri neh ar t & Winston.

An