ED 0 6 380

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOBUREAU NOPUB DATe..CONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FRom

DOCUMENT REsUME

24 EA 003 776

Becker Gerald; And OthersElementary School Principals and Their Schools.Beacons of Brilliance & Potholes of Pestilence.Oregon Univ., Eugene. Center for Advanced Study ofEducational Administration.National center fo7: Educational Research and.Development (DHEW/CE), Washington, D.C.CASEA-Monog 23BR-5-0217710EC-4-10-163209p.Publications Deoartment, CASEA, Unversty of Oreg n,Eugene, Oregon 97403 ($ .00)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$9 87DESCRIPTORS Administrator Education; Board Administrator

Relationship; Educational Change; EducationalFinance; *Educational Problems; *EducationalResearch; *Elementary Schools; InstructionalPrograms; Leadership Qualities; *Principals;Professional Associations; Program Effectiveness;Regional Laboratories; Resource Allocations; *RoleConflict; State Departments of Education; TeacherAdministrator Relationship

ABSTRACTThis study takes a critical look at the current

status of elementary school principals and their schools. The reportconcludes that the causes for a leadership crisis which exists in theelementary schools are both pbulic and professional. Through the_useof questionnaires and personal interviews, the researchers talkedwith 291 principals in 50 States, officials in twc nationaleducational organizations, spokesmen in 12 regional laboratories,representatives of 50 State departments of education, and facultyofficers of the State elementary school principals asoociations. Thestudy reports that the most critical problem faced by the elementaryschool principal is the general ambiguity of his position in theeducational community. A number of recommendations are made andaddressed to the U.S. Office of Education, Congress, the public, andthe education professiOn. (Author)

U,S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OP °PIN-IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY

Elementary School Principals

and Their Schools

Beacons of Brilliance& Potholes of Pestilence

Gerald Becker, Richard Witilycoinbe, Frank Doyel,Edgar Miller, Claude Morgan,

Lou De Loretto, and Bill Aldridgender the direction of

Keith Goldhammer

Center for the Advanced Study of Educational AdministrationUniversity of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon

1971

1

The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration atthe University of Oregon is a national research and development centersupported partly by funds from the United States Office of Education,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The opinions expressedin this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy ofthe Office of Education and no official endorsement by the Office ofEducation should be inferred.

-14

Library of Congress Catalog Number : 76-633073Printcd in the United States of AmericaUniversity of Orezon Press, Eugene, OregonCover Drawn by Anthony Walholm

DESIGNED, EDITED BY E. JOSEPH $CHNEIDER

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS

I. CONCLUSR NSAmbiguous Role 4Inadequacy of Training ProgramShortage of Resources 10

IL PURPOSES AND DESIGN OF STUDYObjectives of Study 18Procedures of Study 19

IIL PRINCIPALS' PROBLEMSSchool and Society 28Pupil Personnel 38Instructional Program 42Administrative Leadership 52Organizational Texture 60Finances and Facilities 62

IV SOURCES OF ASSISTANCEU.S. Office of Education 68State Departments of Education 73Colleges and Universities 75Principals' Associations 77Regional Laboratories 85Making Resources More Helpful 87

Contents

V

ix

1

16

27

V. PREPARATION PROGRAMSProgram and Procedures 105Contemplated Changes 128Principals' Perceptions of Training

VI. FORESEEABLE PROBLEMSCommunity Problems 139Instructional Problems 143Adaptability Problems 146Administrative Problems 148Other Perceptions of Problems 155

VII RECOMMENDATIONSRole Definition 166Preparation Programs 167Resources and Resource Agencies 169

APPENDIX ATables Developed from Q estionnaire

To Show Characteristics of Participantsand Their Schools

APPENDIX BInterview Guides

APPENDIX CCorrespondence

104

139

173

189

195

1 eface

MERICA'S schools are laiP:ely responsible for America'sfuture. All (or most) of the adults of the next genera-

tion will have gone through the schools and will have beenaffected Ly what the schools do to and for them. If we acceptthis notion, we must also accept the fact that the citizens oftoday were also to a large extent shaped by this nation'sschools. In those areas in which we have been successful,the schools are largely responsibleand, conversely, in thoseareas where we have failed, the schools are also accountable.If our population lacks a sense of mission, the schools didnot do their share in helping to develop it. If our populationhas prejudicial attitudes toward racial or religiolis minor-ities, it is because our schools have been unsuccessful indealing with them. If our population cannot successfullycope with our basic social problems, it is because our schoolsdid not teach them the skills and the knowledges they needed.

If our population is successf in achieving a high degree ofaffluence, it is because the salools contributed toward this

end.Good schools, which successfully prepare our children to

deal effectively with their problems, to perform their roles

vii

society competently, and to achieve a state of healthy self-fulfillment, don't just happen. They emerge through care-ful planning and, most of all, through effective leadership.In this context, tlir.2 principal is certainly the key. The find-ings of this study, involving visits with more than 300elementary school principals throughout this nation, con-firm this notion.

Children will someday bless the good schools it was theirright to attend- and those who were required to attendthe poor schools will st ffer in innumerable ways as this rightwas denied.

This study makes visible the state of leadership providedto this nation's elementary schools in a time of crises. Thefocus was not to evaluate schools and principals, but someconclusions are inevitably evaluative. The data containedclues which helped to identify the characteristics of the mostsuccessful principals and their schools as well as the char-acteristics of the least successful principals and their schools.

KEITH GOLDHAM MERSchool of Education

0 -e gon State University

Acknowledgments

T:__

, HIS STUDY is the result of the effor s of many people.Without the assistance and cooperation of all the ele-

mentary school principals, the presidents of elementaryschool principals associations, state department of educa-tion staff members, college and university personnel, De-partment of Elementary School Principals officials, the U.S.Office of Education. personnel, and regional educationallaboratory representatives, this study would not have beenpossible.

Dr. Glenn C. Boerrigter, acting director, Division of Ele-mentary and Secondary Education Research, U.S. Officeof Education, provided considerable assistance in the initia-tion of the study. Dr. Arch K. Steiner, research associateof the same branch, was particularly helpful in establishingschedules to expedite our intetiews in Washington, D.C.

The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Ad-ministration, University of Oregon, provided some financialassistance during the data collection stages of the report.

To the Oregon Elementary School Principals Associa-tion, who helped with the field testing of the interview guide,we wish to extend our thanks.

i x7

We are extremely grateful to Sherrie Schager for herparticipation as a team member during the writing stagesof the report. Her assistance, both as an editor and a writer,facilitated the organization and synthesis of the voluminousdata collected during the course of the study and contributedextensively to the development of a consistent sense of pur-pose and design in the report.

To Cheron Taylor, project secretary, we are indebtedbeyond measure. She provided unending support and cheer

addition to managing the office, arranging travel sched-ules, keeping records, and transcribing our extensive notesall without regard to the personal commitment of time andenergy it required.

Conclusions

rHE FOCUS of this study is on the elementary school princi-pals' perceptions of their problems. No one can intelli-

gently administer a school in today's world without recog-nizing the difficult problems associated with the task. Someprincipals obviously are near the point of helplessness ; otherprincipals, however, have found successful ways to meettheir responsibilities and thus they provide excellent leader-ship for their schools. A review of the data presented in thisstudy leads to the conclusion that the causes for i:he leader-,ship crisis are both public and professional and that the ele-mentary school principals of the countrythose who pro-vide competent leadership as well as those who don'tareseeking assistance to combat the pressing problems chal-lenging education.

A considerable range of conditions exists in the elementaryschools throughout the country. For this reason, the inter-viewers labeled the outstanding educational institutions"beacons of brilliance" and the extremely poor schools "pot-holes of pestilence."

,:In the "beacons of brilliance, ,, the principals are charis-matic leaders ; they seem to instill enthusiasm in their

1

ONE

teachers. The teaching staffs seem to he working as teamsbecause their morale was high, their services extend be-yond normal expectations. Teachers and principals, alongwith parents, constantly appraise the effectiveness of theschools in an attempt to devise new programs and strategiesto c ,'ercome deficiencies. Programs of study are adaptableand emphasis in the instructional program is placed onchildren's needs. Principals are confident they can providerelevant, purposive learning without having to lean ontraditional crutches. "Beacons of brilliance" are found inall of the different types of communities studied, but not insufficient numbers.

The "potholes of pestilence," on the other hand, resultfrom weak leadership and official neglect. The buildings,dirty and in disrepair, are unwholesome environments forlearning and child growth. The schools are poorly staffedand equipped. The morale of teachers and pupils is low ;where control is maintained, fear is one of the essentialstrategies employed. Instructional programs are traditional,ritualistic, and poorly related to student needs. The schoolsare characterized by unenthusiasm, squalor, and ineffective-ness. The principals are just serving out their time.

The principals of the "beacons of brilliance" have severalcharacteristics in common :

I Most did not intend to become principals. Most indicated thatthey had intended to teach but were encouraged to becomeprincipals by their superiors.

2 Most expressed a sincere faith in children. Children were notcriticized for failing to learn or for having behavioral difficul-ties. The principals felt that these were problems that the

10

Conclusions

school was established to correct, ._s the administratorsemphasized their responsibilities toward the solution of chil-dren's problems.

3. They had an ability to work effectively with people and tosecure their cooperation. They were proud of their teachersand accepted them as professionally dedicated and competentpeople. They inspired confidence and developed enthusiasm.The principals used group processes effectively ; listened wellto parents, teachers, nd pupils ; and appeared to have intuitiveskill and empathy for their associates,

4. They were aggressive in securing recognition of the needs oftheir schools. They frequently were critical of the restraintsimposed by the central office and of the inadequate resources.They found it difficult to live within the constraints of thebureaucracy ; they frequently violated the chain of command,seeking relief for their problems from whatever sources thatwere potentially useful.

5. They were enthusiastic as principals and accepted their re-sponsibilities as a mission rather than as a job. They recog-nized their role in current social problems. The ambiguitiesthat surround them and their work were Of less significancethan the goals they felt were important to achieve. As a result,they found it possible to live with the ambiguities of theirposition.

6. They were committed to education and could distinguish be-tween long-term and short-term educational goals. Conse-quently, they fairly well had established philosophies of therole of education and their relationship within it.

7. They were adaptable. If they discovered something was notworking, they could make the necessary shifts and embarkwith some security on new paths.

8. They were able strategists. They could identify their objec-tives and plan means to achieve them. They expressed concernfor the identification of the most appropriate proceduresthrough which change could be secured.

11

4

Am IGUOUS ROLE

Perhaps the most critical problem faced by the elementaryschool principal today is the general ambiguity of his posi-tion in the educational community. There is no viable, sys-tematic rationale for the elementary school principalshipto determine expectations for performance ; no criteria existsthrough which performance can be measured.

Although most districts have regulations with which prin-cipals are expected to comply, full specifications rarely arein evidence. The principal must depend on the matters dis-cussed w ith him or for which he feels he may he held account-aEe to obtain the ems as to what is expected of him.

In addition, both the central office and the teachers withina buildingand the parents, too, for that mattercan soaffect the nature of the position that they can practicallyforce the principal to perform a particular role. Under thesecircumstances, what the principal wants the role to be, orwhat he feels it should be, is not a matter of primary i n-portance.

The comments of the elementary school principals indi-cate that they believe they generally are viewed by theirsuperiors and by community citizens as subprofessionalsrather than as administrators with full professional statusand prerogatives. Within the context of the school organi-zation, the status of the elementary school principal prob-ably accounts for many of the practices that principalsconsider discriminatory. For example, elementary schoolprincipals generally are the lowest paid administrative per-sonnel in the school district and they do not have the inde-

12

Conc sions

pendence in the operation of their buildings accorded tosecondary school principals.

Increasingly, the elementary school principal appears tobe isolated from involvement in group decision-making thataffects his method of leadership and determines the operat-

g patterns within his school. As school districts increasein size, the elementary school principal becomes just onemore subadministrator. Policies for the allocation of re-sources, the employment of personnel, and the operatingrelationships within the district become more bureaucraticand centralized. The principal, feeling it is essential that hebe able to convey the needs of his school to the central admin-istration, is concerned that he has little or no opportunityto participate in districtwide decision-making processes.He deeply resents being thought of as a "second-class" ad-ministrator and attributes much of his frustration as anelementary school principal to this discriminatory situation.

The elementary school principal is equally uneasy abouthis relationship to his teaching staff. His association withteachers, once close, has been compromised by the growingintensity of teacher militancy. Consequently, the principalmust enforce policies decided around the bargaining table ;he frequently has no voice in formulating these policies,however, nor has he the opportunity to effectively react tothe agreements reached. He does not know whether heshould represent the board or the teachers and he cannot tellwhat the consequences will be for his leadership ability if hetakes either stance.

Even prior to the advent of the problems caused by teachermilitancy and professional negotiations, the elementary

6

school principal felt isolated and co _fused abo t his role.The rise of these additional problems has only further com-plicated his dilemma. Few, if any, useful guidelines for actionthus far have materialized to aid the principal in alleviatinghis confusion.

Principals typically are concerned about the imbalance ofmanagerial and educational responsibilities inherent in theirposition. The principals recognize that they must performthe managerial or "housekeeping" (Alores associated withbeing a school building administrator, but they are uncer-tain about how they might delegate these responsibilities toobtain more time for supervision, planning, and evaluation.They see their time usurped by trivialities; but if they do notattend to these matters, they may readily be criticized.

The elementary school principal feels imposed on by thedemands of central-office personnel; he feels alienated fromhis teaching staff and unjustly left out of the contract nego-tiations that determine his obligations to them ; he feelshelplessly bogged down with the daily duties of maintain-ing his school ; and he is unceriain of his relative position inthe district administrative structure and with respect to theteachers in his school.

Regardless of these' major handicaps, however, it maybe that the elementary school principal avoids performingsome of the duties he claims he should be handling. Forexample, principals say they would like to have more timefor the supervision of teachers; many principals, however,admit that they do not have the necessary skills to developadequate supervisory programs within their buildings.Others say they would like to have more time for program

Conc. sions 7

planning and evaluation, but they assert that they haveneither knowledge nor skill to determine how to involveteachers or how to get teachers to accept the results.

INADEOUACY OF TRAINING PROGRAMS

In colleges and universities the preparatory programs forthe elementary principalship appear to be relics of a pastage. Course content seems to emphasize studies "about"education. There is little evidence that any real considera-tion has been given to the experiences that will develop inprospective elementary school principals the knowledge,skills, and critical insights needed to assess the consequencesof alternative strategies. Internships and field experiencesare poorly developed or nonexistent in MOSt states. In somenstances, preparatory programs do not differentiate be-

tween the superintendency or the secondary school and theelementary school prMcipalships. Since these programs arebased on the recognition that administrators generally ad-vance through the ranks, a generalized preparation programis provided ; emphasis, poor as it may be, is placed on theterminal Job and functions rather than the steps along theway.

Ser ous deficiencies also exist in the certification require-ments in many states. Some states require no preparationfor the elementary school principalship beyond a teachingcertificate. Other states have requirements that amount toa full year of preparation beyond the master's degree. Al-though the practice appears to be declining, there are stillmany instances where a popular high school coach or teacherhas been rewarded with an elementary school principalshipdespite his inadequate educational qualifications. Many prin-

Ati

cipals even in states with well-defined certification requ_ -e-ments recei ve their preparation after being appointed tothe principalship. There also is evidence that in states wherefunds are limited and/or where qualified elementary schoolprincipals are in short supply, temporary certificates aregranted liberally and little effort is made to enforce mini-mum requirements for either initial certification or recertifi-cation.

Standards for admission to preparatory programs andfor initial certification are diffuse and ill-defined. Many can-didates for the elementary school principalship have hadno basic preparation or experience in elementary education.Little effort is made to develop screening procedures to iden-tify those people who have the personal qualifications neces-sary for good educational leadership. Many of those whonow become elementary school principals are not aggres-sive leaders and their lack of ambition may lie a contributingfactor in the perpetuation of the leadership crisis in elemen-tary education.

Because of the traditional nature of preservice programselementary school administration, principals tend to view

their roles in "old-style" managerial terms. Such directiveor managerial behavior severely damages the principal'seffectiveness as an educational leader and too often resultsin unresolvable conflicts among administrators, teachers,and community groups.

The largest number of problems identified by principalsinvolves their difficulty in establishing and maintaining suc-cessful human relationships. Present preservice programsfor elementary school principals place little emphasis on thedevelopment of skills related to effective communication and

Colic usions 9

the establishment of productive relatic ships with the dverse elements of the school and commuMty. Many princi-pals have acquired better understanding of both the com-munication and group processes since coming onto theirjobs. Some have done so vicariously and use techniques withvarious degrees of skill. Others have been fortunate to par-ticipate in inservice preparation programs or advanced grad-uate courses. Few, however, feel entirely comfortable withtheir present level of skill in this area.

Another critical problem fot the principal involves super-vising personnel within his building. An experienced princi-pal is anxious to develop a "team" consisting of his staff.He desires new teachers who can be a part of the team andhelp to extend its effectiveness. But principals feel that theyhave been prepared inadequately for managing the super-visory and personnel programs within their buildings. Theyneed greater opportunity for mastering the skills of super-vision, the techniques of teacher evaluation, the processesof group decision-making, and the technicalities involved inmaintaining morale.

The principals' lack of knowledge of the strategies toemploy in effecting educational change is a critical factorin the current leadership crisis. The majority of principalsare confident of their ability to oversee the routine operationof their buildings, but relatively few have any degree ofconfidence in their ability to assume a leadership role ininstructional improvement. The comments made by the prin-cipals suggest that they would prefer to be instructionalexperts rather than mere building Managers ; these samecomments, however, indicate that many principals presentlylack the skills te be instructional leaders.

10

Many elementary school principals lack the necessaryknowledge and skills for guiding planning and evaluationprocedures. They are convinced that instructional programsshould be designed to meet the diverse needs of the childrenin their communities but find it extremely difficult to pinpointthe deficiencies of their current programs. Many admit theyare unsure of their ability to provide leadership in the de-velopment of long-range educational objectives ; few cansuccessfully identify the means by which such objectivescould be accomplished. Current educational technology con-fuses many principals who have inadequate experience andpreparation in discerning the potential effectiveness of themany kinds of educational equipment and materials avail-able. Principals generally feel inadequately prepared to de-vise schemes for effectively utilizing resources for the pur-pose of instructional improvement.

These severe deficiencies in the principal's preparationprogram, coupled with his lack of skill in the area of humanrelationships, are perhaps the greatest barriers to the effec-tiveness of the elementary school principal as an instruc-tional leader.

SHORTAGE OF RESOURCES

Although all schools generally lack sufficient resources todo the jobs demanded of them, the elementary schools aremost severely crippled in the resources required to developand maintain high-quality educational programs. The gen-eral attitude among the public toward elementary educationcontributes much to this inequity.

At a time when educational needs are great, when newinstructional techniques mus be tested and evaluated and

Conclusions

when time for the planning, evaluation, and development ofnew programs is essential, the public is restricting its finan-cial allocations to the school. The public demands improve-ment, but does not want to pay for it. Typically, the elemen-tary school principal is expected to produce change withouthaving the opportunity to study his problems and cal efullydevelop the strategies throu2th which improvements couldbe implemented.

According to the principals, district administrators andstate department of education officials exhibit a degree ofindifference and/or ignorance of the needs of the elementaryschool similar to that displayed by the general public. Theneeds of the elementary school, they say, often are ignoredin favor of the secondary school. The elementary school cur-riculum increasingly is becoming dominated by considera-tions of the academic requirements of the high school. Ele-mentary school principals generally are convinced that suchan educational program does not constitute a suitable meansof meeting the needs of young children.

Principals tend to characterize the central-office person-nel as "secondary oriented." The principals feel that dis-trict funds are not as equitably distributed as tliy might bebecause the public and the administration alike considersecondary education programs more important than thoseof the elementary school. The latter, they say, usually getwhat funds are left over after the public's demands for im-provement of the high school program have been satisfied.These negative or indifferent attitudes have had a seriouseffect on the ability of the elementary school to provide ahigh-quality educational program. Elementary schools toooften suffer from overcrowded and outmoded buildings,

2

many of which are too inflexible to accommodate innova-tions in the instructional program. In some schools, suppliesand equipment are scarce and teachers must use their in-genuity to implement what materials are available.

The most severe indication of resource shortages, how-ever, is in the allocation of personnel. Few elementaryschools in the sample have any administrative, supervisory,or resource personnel assigned to them other than the build-ing principal. Usually secretarial assistance is inadequateto efficiently handle the work load. Thus the principal usuallys required to spend a large part of his time on routine cleri-

cal and secretarial chores.Except for a few instances, then, the elementary schools

lack the range of specialists who should be involved in amodern elementary education program : counselors, socialworkers, health personnel, special instructional and resourcepersonnel, special education personnel, and school psycholo-

sts.These personnel and material shortages underlie the prin-

cipal's resentment in having to spend such a large portionof his time handling petty details.

Although the elementary school principal is cognizant ofthe inadequate resources available to him in his own district,he does not seem to be aware of the resources available tohim from outside his district. A variety of services is pro-vided by the U.S. Office of Education, by state departmentsof education, by colleges and universities, and by state ele-mentary school principals' associations ; but the principal ofthe elementary school typically is unaware of the potentialassistance available to him from these sources.

However, the adequacy of the services available to ele-

Conclusions

rnentary school principals is q estionable. The principals'own associations do not appear to be organized to give as-sistance or to offer the specific kinds of aids needed. Theydo provide a social outlet and a feeling of professional iden-tity. As such, on the national, state, and local levels, theassociations tend to deal with generalized problems. Statedepartments of education appear to have some concerns,but generally they lack the resources to render the specificassistance desired. Discussions with the personnel in statedepartments reveal that they are more concerned abouttheir regulatory functions than their leadership roles. Theyemphasize concern for support levels of the schools morethan providing assistance in human relationships and in-structional improvement, the primary concerns of the prin-cipals. Although they provide some inservice programs, withfew exceptions these programs involve disseminating infor-mation that would be of value to the state department andthe accomplishment of its objectives. Universities offer fewmeans of assistance other than what is made availablethrough formal graduate programs. Regional educationallaboratories, though a potential resource, are not directlyaccessible to ,the majority of principals. And the USOE isso far removed from the sphere of the local school that whatresources are available from this agency seldom reach theelementary school principal.

Most principals recognize that they need help boththrough individual consultation and through inservice prep-aration programs. Some are obviously reluctant to seek help,fearing that by admitting they need more training theywould detract from their professional stature. Some indi-cate that they do not know how to use sources of assistance,

T1

14

and consequent y they do not seek it oi sea-- -h out the sourcesthrough which it could be obtained.

Such an attitude is unfortunately all too common amongelementary school ptincipals ; many seem prone to "profes-sional obsolescence" and exhibit their lack of current knowl-edge in their closed-minded attitude toward new ideas, theirinability to see the weaknesses in their instructional pro-grams, and their unwillingness to accept change. There areprincipals in elementary schools who have had no refreshercourses for more than twenty years. Many principals rarelyread a professional book or journal. Others are never re-leased from their duties to attend an educational conference.

There is no agency that consistently assists elementaryschool principals in maintaining their professional creden-tials. Their state associations are identified as the profes-sional counterparts of the local "Kiwanis Club." State de-partments of education, with few exceptions, lack resources,personnel, and understanding necessary to develop the kindsof inservice education programs needed. Universities, savefor the offering of graduate courses and workshops forcredit, appear to be indifferent toward the needs of this field.Systematic and consistent inservice programs are providedfor in less than a handful of states. Even these programsare not requirements for maintaining either contracts orcertificates to. practice.

Lacking any evidence that the public is willing to prov dethe essential resources for maintaining adequate instruc-tional programs ; denied adequate facilities and equitabledistribution of funds for supplies, equipment, and competentand sufficient personnel ; and uncertain of the public interestin the basic elements of a modern, professionally justifiable"

Conclusions 15

educational prograli, the elementary school principal in-evitably concludes that if he decried these conditions andattempted to remedy them, his efforts would be poorly re-ceived and his position endangered. Lacking the benefit ofwiequate assistance from outside his district and lacking thecurrency of knowledge that would help him cope with hisproblems, the elementary school principal understandablyis confused about the nature of his responsibilities and theextent of his influence as an educational leader.

TWO Purposes and Design of Study

S THE PRINCIPAL a manager or an educator ? is he a changeagent or a maintainer of the status quo ? Is he expected

to identify new needs and directions for the community, oris he supposed to keep the schools entirely in accord withthe community's expectations ? Is he the director of theenterprise, head teacher, guidance counselor, facilitatorobtaining necessary equipment and supplies, public rela-tions agent, selector of lunch menus, supervisor of custo-dians, repairer of pencil sharpeners, counter of lunch money,propagandist for school finance campaigns, mediator be-tween the school and the ccntral bureaucracy, chauffeur tosick children, advisor- to troubled teachers, psychiatrist fordisturbed parents, disciplinarian for overpressed chi'lren,defender of the educational faith . . . or what ? Chances are,he is all of these.

The literature on the adminstraton of elementary schoolsis replete with analyses of the general school functions withwhich administrators must deal, the administrative and or-ganizational patterns of today's schools, and the generalmaintenance techniques that elementary school principalsmay employ. However, there is.little evidence that the day-

y6:liV

Purposes and D esign 17

by-day problems of principals, bo h in giving leadership tothe staff and the community and in maintaining the schoolsas going concerns, have been sufficiently analyzed. Notenough is known to provide those involved in administra-tion and the preparation of administrators with the basison which to determine the knowledge and competencies prin-cipals must have to give effective leadership to their schools.

In a previous study of the issues and problems confront-ing school superintendents ( Goldhammer et al., 1967) itwas revealed that they are faced with problems they feelinadequate to handle. In their view, they have the technicalskills necessary to deal with the ordinary maintenance prob-lems of the schodl district ; but they lack the knowledge andtechniques required to deal with major social issues, theemerging changes in the technology of education, and thecomplex organizational and human problems, both withinthe community and within the school systems. Althoughthese concerns are similar to the problems of administratorsat all levels, it is apparent that the functional relationshipsof elementary school principals are sufficiently different towarrant a separate analysis.

Talcott Parsons describes three levels of an organization:institutional, managerial, and technical. The "institutionallevel" deals with relationships of the organization to society.Insofar as school organizations are concerned,- the institu-tional level is the legal governing agency that deals withthe general legislative or policy-making functions withinthe schools, determines objectives and priorities, and pro-cures resources and support from the community. The"managerial level" is concerned with the direction, coordi-nation, evaluation, and planning of procedures for main-

18

taining the organization. The "technical level" is the pro-ductive level or the level that performs the basic work orservices for which the organization has been established.

From Parsons' point of view the superintendent and theprincipal operate at different levels of the organizationalstructure ; hence, they have different functions within theorganization. The superintendent has managerial respon-sibilities and also is the professional representative of theschool district at the institutional level. The principal, how-ever, engages in his responsibilities primarily on the tech-nical level; he is closely associated with the managerial func-tions and personnel, but he is generally not involved in the

allocative, and policy-making functions of thesuperintendent. He serves as the link between the managerialand the technical levels of the organization.

The principal is in direct contact with teachers, parents,and pupils. He manages the processes through which goalsare effected, policies are implemented, and satisfaction ordissatisfactions with the school program are secured. Al-though he is probably more secure than the superintendent,be is the school official who can most easily be held account-able for the success or failure of the educational program.

The principal undoubtedly is in the key position to guidethe processes of change and the implementation of overallgoals and strategies that ultimately will influence the successor failure of an educational program.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objectives of this study Were :

1. To determine the elementary school principa.s'

C';.1114

Purposes and Design 19

perceptions of the problems they face in dmin-istering their schools

2. To develop a systematic framework for analyzingthe principals' perceptions of their problems andthe general societal and professional factors fromwhich they arise

3 To study the basic patterns for the preparation ofelementary school principals and to determine therelevance of preparatory programs to the prob-lems that confront elementary school principals

4 To make a systematic review of the literature andresearch on the elementary school principalshipto determine the extent to which there is concur-rence between the literature and the reported per-ceptions of principals

5. On the basis of findings, to make recommenda-tions for further research and development neededwith respect to the elementary school principal-ship, the preparatory programs for elementaryschool principals, and needed service programsestablished thyough state departments of educa-tion and the U.S. Office of Education

PROCEDURES OF STUDY

During the initial stages of the study, the research teammade a thorough review of the literature on the adminis-tration of elementary schools and the roles of the elemen-tary school principals. (The findings of that review :will bepublished in a separate document.)

27

20

From the review of the literature, information was gar-nered that served to generate basic categories of problemsand that assisted in the development of interview guides.The categorization system developed and utilized in theanalysis of the data is presented in table 1.

TABLE 1

CATEGORIZATION OF PROBLEMSOF ELEMENTARY

1. SCHOOL AND SOCIETY1.1 Community Influences1.2 Federal and State

Involvement1.3 Goal Setting14 Public Relations

2. PUPIL PERSONNEL2.1 Involvement2.2 Management2.3 Pupil Assessment and

Development2.4 Individual Differences2.5 Cultural Differences

3 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM3.1 Evaluation3.2 Personnel Selection and

Placement3.3 Supervision3.4 Innovation3.5 Inservice3.6 Communication3.7 Curriculum Development

4 ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP4.1 Climate

a. Personal Valuesb. Style

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

4.2 Preparation4.3 Resources4.4 Inservice Train ng4.5 Role identificat on4.6 Research

5. ORGANIZATIONAL TEXTURE5.1 Building Organization5.2 District Organization

( Policies)5.3 Militancy5.4 Negotiations5.5 Administrative Employ-

ment Practices5.6 Communications

6. FINANCES AND FACILITIES6.1 Maintenance6.2 Service Staff6.3 Records6.4 Equipment6.5 Supplies6.6 Referenda6.7 Transportation6.8 Buildings

Purposes a d Design 21

Two basic instruments, a question aire and an interviewguide, were used in the collection of the data. The question-naire was designed to collect demographic information aswell as other information that would reduce subsequent iterviewing time (see Appendix A). This instrument wasfield tested and refined prior to final data collection.

Interview data were collected and will be reported fromsix basic population sources. On the national level, officialsof the U.S. Office of Education and the department of ele-mentary school principals were interviewed. A second sourcewas twelve regional educational laboratories identified ashaving progrqms related to the elementary principals or tothis study. State-level representatives from three basicgroups were interviewed in each of the fifty states : officersin charge of programs in elementary education from statedepartments of education, the president of the state elemen-tary school principals association, preferably the 1968 presi-dent, and representatives of the major colleges or universi-ties engaged in the training of elementary school principals.

The primary source of information was obtained fromthe sample of elementary school principals representing eachof the fifty states. Because of the national scope of the study,t was decided that the sample should be equally representa-tive of all states and be stratified according to their rural-urban orientation. A rural-urban classification system of theBureau of Census was used as a model in establishing cate-gories of elementary school principals (see table 2).

A nomination technique was used to select a stratifiedsample of principals in each state. An officer of the statedepartment of education, the president of the elementaryschool principals associatioitlt.tid the dean or his designated

29

22

TABLE 2

RURAL-URBAN CLASSIFICATION OF PRINCIPALS

CATEGORY I = An inner-core school of the metropolitan center whichhas a population of approximately 50,000 inhabitants or

ore. The inner-core school is in the central portion ofthat metropolitan area.

CATE ORY : An outer-core school of a metropolitan center whichrefers to the peripheral districts within a city of 50,000inhabitants, or more, not to include the inner-core.

CATEGORY A school in a suburban area of 25,000 to 50,000 inhabit-ants outside of a standard metropolitan center.

CATEGORY IV = A school in an intermediate size district which is withinan area which has between 15,000 and 25,000 inhabit-ants.

CATEGORY V A school in a small district which is one which serves anarea of between 2,500 to 15,000 inhabitants.

CATEGORY : A school in a rural district which serves a populationarea of fewer than 2,500 inhabitants.

representative from one or two of the major colleges oruniversities who prepared elementary school principals wereasked to nominate three principals in each of the six cate-gories (see Appendix C). A total of 2,364 nominations werereceived. From these, the sample of 300 elementary princi-pals, one from each category in each state, was selected.

These "visibles" were chosen on the basis of (1) fre-quency of nomination and (2) geographical dispersionthroughout the state. Letters of invitation to participatewere sent to the principals selected (see Appendix C). Inthe few instances of ou itt:,(;ejection or unavoidable con-

Piirpo.es and Design 23

flict, alternate selections were made. Of the 300 principalsselected, 291 interviews were completed. The sample, byregions and categories of principals, is presented in table 3.

REGION

IIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIix

TOTALS

TABLE 3

PRINCIPALS INTERVIEWED BY REGIONSAND CATEGORIES OF SCHOOLS

1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL

5 5 5 5 5 30

6 6 5 6 6 6 35

6 5 5 6 6 6 34

6 6 6 7 6 37

7 7 7 7 7 5 406 5 6 6 5 6 346 5 5 6 6 6 346 5 6 6 6 6 35

2 2 2 2 2 2 12

50 46 47 51 49 4 291

The onsight interviews were approximately two hoursin length and included the completion or clarification of ques-tionnaire items when necessary. The states were clusteredinto nine geographical regions (see table 4) and interviewswere conducted throughout the regions by the research teamat approximately the same time. The original plan includedan analysis by regions ; however, this was eliminated as aresult of budgetary restrictions.

In total, the study included data from officials of the twonational offices, 12 regional laboratories, representatives of50 state departments of educiifaculty members repre-

24

REGIONOregonWashingtonIdahoMontanaWyoming

REGION IICaliforniaNevadaNew MexicoUtahColoradoArizona

REGION IIINorth DakotaSouth DakotaMinnesotaWisconsinNebraskaIowa

TABLE 4

REGIONS EMPLOYED IN T IE STUDY

REGION IVM issouriOklahomaTexasA rkansasLouisianaKansas

REGION Vichigan

IllinoisIndianaOhioKentuckyTennesseeWest Virginia

REGION VIMississippiAlabamaFloridaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaSouth Carolina

REGION vnDelawareVirginiaMarylandPennsylvaniaNew jerseyNew York

REGION VIIIMaineNew HampshireMassachusettsConnecticutRhode IslandVermont

REGION IxHawaiiAlaskaWashington, D. C.

senting 87 colleges and universities, 50 officers of the stateelementary school principals associations, and 291 visibleelementary school principals. In all, 509 respondents were in-terviewed for the data presented in the study. The inter-views held at the location of the interviewee were conductedduring the period from November 1968 to May 1969. Seethe maps on pages 25 and 26 for location of participants.

3 2

* LO

CA

TIO

N O

F P

RIN

CIP

ALS

INT

ER

VIE

WE

D

RE

GIO

NA

L L

AB

OR

AT

OR

IES

STA

TE

DE

PAR

TM

EN

TS

O U

NIV

ER

SITI,E

SO

PRE

SIDE

NT

S OF PR

INC

IPAL

S ASSO

CIA

TIO

NS.

Principals' Problems

_

H IS chapter focuses primarily on what elementary school_principals say about key problems they perceive. Com-

parative observations of college and university representa-tives, state departments of education officials, and elemen-tary school principals' association presidents are includedwhere they appear to lend additional insight.

These observations were elicited by asking the principalto identify and expand on what he considers to he his threemost critical problems. Members of the other three groupsalso were asked what they perceive to be the three most sig-nificant problems facing principals in their states.

Concerns expressed by individuals in these four groupsare encoMpassed by all six problem categories outlined intable 1. Data were drawn from 478 respondents : 291 prin-cipals ; 87 college and university officials ; 50 officers incharge of elementary education from the various state de-partments of education; and 50 presidents of elementaryschool principals' associations.*

* Interview data from the twelve regional educational laboratoriesand from the U.S. Office of Education are not integrated into this chap-ter. These sources are omitted because they show little reflection on theproblems facing elementary school principals.

27

THRE

By this method, the most significant problems facing ele-mentary principalsunder what circumstanceswere dis-covered. For example, 180 respondents (133 of them prin-cipals) named personnel selection and placement as one ofthe three key problems, indicating that this issue is the mostpervasive concern of both principals and other educatorsconcerned with the elementary principalship. Role identifi-cation was second in incidence of responses with 98, followedby 79 observations on buildings, 74 on supervision of theinstructional program, 71 on referenda, and 70 on districtorganization policies. Public relations was next with 69.Community influences concerned 66. These latter two issuesare allied so closely that their combined responses may in-dicate that the school's interaction with the community maybe the second largest problem of the elementary principal.Despite these larger frequency of responses, every categoryin table 1 proved to encompass at least one of the top threeproblems perceived by principals or other educators in thesample group.

Each problem category in this chapter is discussed in theorder in which it appears in table 1. The length and depthwith which each category is treated in this chapter generallyreflects the amount of attention it received from the totalnumber of respondents.

ScnooL AND SOCIETY

Table 5 consolidates the responses made by elementaryschool principals, college and university officials, state de-partment of education representatives, and elementary

Principals' Problems 29

school principals' association presidents. These responsesindicate the extent problems of "school nc1 society" areidentified by these interviewed groups as being among thesignificant problems facing the elementary school principal.

TABLE 5PROB EMS RELATED TO SCHOOL AND SOCIETY

k of Problem PrincipalsCLASSIFICATION 1 2 3 Total Only

Community influences 1 26 _0

Federal/state involvement 11 9 15 10

Goal setting 2 2 9 6 2

Public relations 21 18 30 69 58

COMMUNITY INFLUENCES

The issue of community mflue _ces elicited sixty-six re-sponses, fifty of them coming from principals. Views variedconsiderably regarding the influence of the commtmity onthe schools. Such variation revolves around the nature andextent of community involvement in the selection and direc-tion of principals and the promotion and control of schoolprograms. Judging from the number of responses, princi-pals view community involvement with greater concernthan do members of the other three groups. This topic ac-counts for 5 percent of all top three problems mentionedby principals, while accounting for only 3 percent of allproblems mentioned by the other three groups. It was thetopic mentioned with second most frequency in region III.

As a problem, community involvement is characterizedby the respondents in two ways : either there is too muchof it or there is too little.

30

One principal had this analysis of what he zonsiders un-desirable and excessive parental involvement :

Parents in this area have a high educational background anda high interest in their child's education. They feel they havea right to say and do what they please at the school and thiscreates problems for the teachers and administrators.

Other principals perceived a lack of community involve-ment in the schools as a lack of moral support for the edu-cational process.

Parents are not taking their responsibility of providing for theneeds of their children. Parents in this area cannot see the needfor education because of existing job discrimination and thelack of job opportunities.

One principal complained of "a lack of interest on the partof parents" who "do not care if their children attend schoolor not." Another principal lamented : "Parents are often notconcerned with the knowledge and skills that their childrenshould have."

Of the fifty times that principals refer ed to the problemsassociated with community influences in the school, twenty-five responses were registered in either inner-core or outer-core schools in the large metropolitan centers. Additionally,it is in these same dense population centers where principalstypically say that community involvement is lacking and thatparents are abdicating their responsibility for cooperativeeducation planning and implementation.

Where the inner-core school exists within the center ofa low socio-economic or racially diverse population area,the problems are compounded. One principal said : "Thisarea is loaded with low socio-economic people and the par-ents have little education. They offer us no support at all.

38

Principals' Problems

Another principal sa d : "Many of these families are ADC(Aid to Dependent Children) families and lack many things,but basically they lack experiences which would help makeeducation relevant.

On the other hand, principals in suburban areas gaveresponses that indicate a iigher degree of community in-volvement in the schools. If a principal expressed concernthat there was too much community activity inside his school,generally better-educated patrons were also indicated.

'Addressing the issue of community involvement in hisstate, the president of an elementary school principals asso-ciation said :

There is considerable apathy among community people aboutschools. It seems that people have trusted the schools too muchand expect them to do the job without their involvement. Par-ents need to get involved and know what is going on in schooland push for what is needed.

One university official remarked that the fundamentalquestion in regard to community influen- es is how to getthe community involved in its schools while allowing edu-cators to maintain control over the school system. The issueof community apathy versus community involvement in theframework of "professional control" is far from resolvedin many of the school settings where interviews were held.

Where population mobility patterns suggest a high degreeof localized population movement, principals indicated thatthe extent of community influence on the schools is mini-mized. In one such area, supported largely by a militarybase, the principal commented :

Many of the people here are in the military and they do not likethe area nor do they fully understand the school's problems. In

either case ley leave before they have become involved wthe school.

In areas where there is considerable low-rent housing,interviews revealed that parents typically are not involvedwith the school and that the schools suffer from low taxassessments and low property evaluations, factors that givethem a meager tax base. In addition to the financial burdenthat this often places on the total school district, the localaffect often is manifested in inadequate building mainten-ance, insufficient instructional equipment, and/or a totallyoutmoded physical plant. Overcrowded classrooms and highteacher-pupil teaching ratios are common in these settings.

Many of these same locales are faced with problems ofsocial and family degeneration that manifest themselves inthe school setting. One principal said : "Today we have morebroken homes, working mothers, and the general breakingup of the family unit. Our kids come to school with theseproblems.

Another principal added :The socio-economic background of this school is extremelypoor. Many of these children come from broken homes andmany do not live in their own homes. We have to provide manyof the welfare and social services in the school which are norm-ally ken care of in the home or in the community.

Many of the schools in these settings have increased theirefforts to provide more than a basic educational programwhen it has been necessary. Several principals said theirschools offer clothing, extended evening programs, and sup-plementary breakfast and dinner meals for pupils who comefrom disadvantaged homes.

A few principals in inner-city schools expressed concern.

40:_

cipals Problems 33

over increased incidents of youthful destructiveness cetered either on or within the school.

One Negro principal in such an area said : "There is anundertow in this area attempting to destroy law and order.Society wants law and order but we don't seem to want tocomply individually."

A college official who supports this line of opinion added :Civil disobedience and rebellion have moved into the elementaryschools. It seems to be more difficult to handle the students to-day. There is a tremendous push for excellence for all kids whichcontributes to this situation. With all this pressure, kids justdon't have .ime to be children. It seems we are trying to makeadults out of them too soon. We are letting students assumetoo much authority in policy-making at a much too early age.We are presenf ng the idea that whatever they want should bereadily provided. And if students don't like something, theyshould rebel, riot, or just change it. Television and news releasesonly help to maintain this situation.

In those settings where the school is a focus for commun-ity dissidence, agression, and disorder, each section of thecommunity is frequently depicted as having its own selfishobjectives.

FEDERAL AND STATE INVOLVEMENT

Within the general area of federal and state involvementn public education, most responses centered on issues relatedto school desegregation and federally funded progtams inthe elementary school.

School desegration problems were mentioned by respond-ents everywhere with the exception of the Northwest, whichhas a relatively small minority population. Judging fromthe proportion of responses, the issue appears to be of moreconcern to college and university officials and presidents of

34

of elementary school principals' associations than to pr-cipals or state department representatives. Of thirty-fiverespondents who considered this issue to be among the topthree 1A-oblems of elementary principals, principals them-selves accounted for only ten; five of that number were fromregions IV and V (see table 4), for the most part Southernstates, where school desegration and federal involvementare sensitive issues. The other twenty-five responses werefrom the other three groups, with university officials andpresidents of principals' associations accounting for themajority of that number.

Those respondents who addressed themselves to schooldesegregation problems underlined 'the intensity of feelingsthis issue engenders, especially among those affected bydesegregation pressures from the Department of 'Health,Education and Welfare ( which oversees and can withholdfederally funded projects) and the federal courts. A varietyof opinions were ventured on this issue of enforceo desegre-gation, which was often referred to, sometimes pejoratively,as "forced integration."

One of the problems principals ident fied hi hosting fed-erally f,!nded programs is a "systeiwof parallel administra-tion" in their buildings. Principals pointed out that manyof the supervisors, consultants, and other specialists as-signed to federal projects in their buildings are answerableonly to the school district's central-office. These principalssaid such an arrangement raises the question of who is ad-ministratively accountable for instructional programming.

Some principals, critical of state involvement in theirschools, complained that state education officials are not pro-viding the impetus and direction needed to strengthen

P Problems 35

school programs. One principal said : "The cc inmissioner'soffice does not have the resources of professional educatfsneeded and the commissioner himself is of questionable qual-ity." Some principals noted that state offices have addedconsultants to their staffs to strengthen services but com-plain that the consultants still fail to get out to the schoolor appear to be of marginal competence.

GOAL SETTING

The potential problems of establishing goals for the edu-cational systems in the communities of the nation drew littleattention from any of the respondents In relating their con-cern over the development of educational goals, the princi-pals indicated difficulty in translating the demands of theircommunities into some specific or general educational ob-jectives. One principal explained :

We have difficulty in determining what the public actuallywants. We are not aware of the voice of the public. We arechained to the past and comfortable with tradition and pastsuccesses.

There was some indication that a majority of the c tizensof the community are not verbalizing their ..oncerns aboutthe educational program in the school. A principal indicated :

There is a lack of awareness of the community's commitmentto education. There is a lack of a vocal middle group. The uppersocio-economic group sends its children to private schools andthe lower groups do not appreciate education.

Another principal indicated that minority groups arevocal, but their concerns often are not heeded because theyare considered the minority and not mportant enough tocause change." 43

36

A college official explained the apparent lack of educa-tional goals within the state as the direct result of populationflux and the presence of a diverse population mixture withinthe community. As a result, "there is no common communitybond upon which to develop common educational goals."

PUBLIC RELATIONS

Public relations and its related problems drew sixt---L_neresponses from four groups, with fifty-eight of the responsescoming from principals. Among the principals, there wasa balance of responses in each of the nine regions of thecountry and among all six classifications of schools.

However, public relations was the- number one concernamong principals interviewed in the Northwest. It tied forthe second place ( along with the topic of role identification)in region II, tied third in region IX, and tied fifth in bothregions V and VI.

It was clearly a problem of greater concern to principals,accounting for 6_percent of all top three problems mentionedby principals, while accounting for only 2 percent of all prob-lems mentioned by the other three groups. Some principalsadmitted having difficulty communicating with their pat-rons and many of them expressed their inability to improvetheir relations and image within the community.

In most cases, however, principals cited a disinterestedand uninformed public as the cause of bad public relations.One president of an elementary school principals' associationsaid :

There is a breakdown on all levels from the board on down tothe classroom teacher in the communications process. As a re-sult, the schools are not getting the support and reinforcementnecessary to maintain tl1j ograms that they deserve. It is

Print- als' Problems 37

necessary that the school personnel sell the public and the par-ents on the school and their program. It is important that theykeep the parents informed and help them to understand that itis a joint project in attempting to educate their children.

Several principals said they thought bad relations betweenparents and the school stem from parental misunderstand-ings about school programs and curriculum offerings. Oneprincipal said, "Religious backgrounds of many of thesefamilies conflict with some programs and parts of thecurriculum.

A large number of principals viewed working with par-ents as one of their most difficult problems. These principalsnoted that many parents are unhappy or dissatisfied aftermeeting teachers or administrators about child problems.These respondents suggested that teachers need more train-ing and experience in teacher-parent conferences. They alsosaid teachers need more time for such conferences. On, prin-cipal said more frequent contact w th parents woulc notonly improve teachers' "confidence in meeting with par-ents," but also help eliminate the situation where "we waitto have a conference with the parents until the situationbecomes critical.

Some principals said teachers are assigned students everyhour of their school day ; therefore, they are not availablefor conferences with parents or other interested parties ex-cept during the evenings. They noted that parents are re-luctant to come to the school after a day's work and teachersresent giving up their evening time for conferences andmeetings.

Several princ pals observed that they are completelyignored by parents seeking solutions to school-related prob-lems. "They always go to the iperintendent and board

rather han to tl e principal -Ind t becomes blown out ofproportion," said one principal.

Colleges and universities often were cited for ignoringproper public relations training in the format of their pre-service programs. The three responses of college and uni-versity officials on this subject (compared to fifty-eight re-sponses by principals) bear out the relative insignificancewith which administrator-training institutions view the pub-lic-relations aspect of the elementary ,;:hool principalship.

PUPIL PERSONNEL

Only 9 percent of all responses dealt with problems withinthe category of student personnel. Nearly half of those 134responses were directed to the topic of individual studentdifferences. Individual differences ranked among the topthree problem areas in regions I, IV, V, VII, and VIII. Ofthe 134 responses from four groups, only 16 came fromcollege and university officials, state department representa-tives, and ESPA presidents. Table 6 shows how the inter-view sample ranked the problems in the category of "pupilpersonnel."

TABLE 6PROBLEMS RELATED TO PUPIL PERSONNEL

CLASSIFICATIONRank of Problem

1 2 3 TotalPrincipa s

Only

Involvement 3 1 2 6 6Management 5 14 9 28 27Pupil assessment and

development 15 4 4 23 21Individual differences 22 22 19 63 56Cultural differences 2 8 4 14 8

Prim- als' Problems

INVOLVEMENT

Only six respondents wete concerned about the involvementof students in the actual operation of the school : all wereprincipals. Three of those responses were registered by prin-cipals in the inner core.

MANAGEMENT

Adverse conditions in the social environment, such as di-vorce and broken homes, create proLlems for the elementaryschool child. Most principals feel these problems must bedealt with in the school setting. Many schools are llcatedin strife-ridden areas where riots, fighting, and racial up-heaval are common experiences. According to the princi-pals, these influences often are reflected in increased disci-plinary problems in the school. For example, one principalsaid

. the total s- rrounding a nosphere of the school is that ofbroken homes, low-income families, poor home-backgroundsand poor attendance-patterns which create many of our disci-plinary problems.

Some principals, feel that disciplina =y problems often areenlarged by the common negative attitudes in the hometoward the school. They believe that the child's attitudeoften is reinforced by that of his parents.

Children are taught in the homes that you get w lat you wantby taking it and fighting. This is carried into the school. Prob-lems occurring in the neighborhood are brought to school andthis creates problems of conflict.

Many students come from families who have very little respectfor schools, teachers, or authority,..There is a failure of parents

40

to su_ port the school in cases of discipline. Parents resentauthority also.

Principals are concert ed about what techniques shouldbe utilized in dealing with disciplinary problems. Currentpractice ranges from corporal punishment to the counselitapproach. Some examples of student discipline were notedby the interviewers as they visited the schools.

One school had a 'drying out room' or 'drunk tank' for studentswho would come to school under the influence of alcoholic bev-erages. This room was about 6' by 8' with a cot.

A student was kneeling on the floor with his nose against thewall touching a point in a circle drawn on the wall.

Paddles were hanging on the walls which were there to eitherintimidate students or to administer swats for discipline.

Principals generally feel that disc plinary problems shouldbe handled by the teacher, but they are not confident of theteacher's ability or willingness to do so. Many teachers, theysaid, do not have adequate training in the area of disciplineand often fail to recognize the real problems of the child.

PUPIL ASSESSMENT

Principals showed consideration for pupil assessment anddevelopment and individual student differences. They areprimarily concerned about the apparent inability! of bothteachers and administrators to recognize individu41 differ-ences and to adjust the instructional program to /meet theneeds of the individual student.

Teachers lack the understanding and knowledge of recognizingthe levels or capabilities of students and teaching for these differ-ences. They want to keep all students at the same level.

Principals' Pro loins 41

There is a failure on the part of teachers to use test results andmany do not understand how to use the results.

Teachers are not trained to develop creativity in students. Ad-ministrators are not trained to help develop inservice programsfor teachers in this area.

We are just beginning to recognize the needs of individualchildren, but we lack the specialists to work in these programs.

The responses of the principals, however, indicated thateven greater problems prevent the successful implementa-tion of individualized instructional programs. Specializ.clstaff members are required in most cases ana phvsical facil-ities often are too inflexible to allow for necessary changesin scheduling and staffing patterns.

We lack the back-up staff for our individualized programs.When people are gone, we have no one to replace them. Thereis a lack of trained personnel and a lack of funds to provide thetime and facilities for al.! programs.

We have no facilities for learning and listening labs. There areno facilities for grouping into various group sizes.

When the addition was made to our building, there was no con-sideration given to special classes which require special facilities.

hough elementary school principals are aware of thecritical differences among elementary school children, theyface serious problems in attempting to revise their programsto allow for these differences. Better trained teachers, morespecialized teachers, and more appropriate physical facilitiesare considered the greatest needs relative to the develop-ment of individualized instructional programs.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

In those schools having large numbers of students of diverse

49

42

cultt ral backgrounds, the elementa -v principals have uniqueproblems. One principal said of his situation :

Fifty percent of the enrollment is Mexican-American. Thereis a great mobility of the migrant worker. The problem of bal-ancing the Mexican-American and other students in the variousclasses crea2s serious concern for our teachers and parents.

In many of these situations, principals noted, it is neces-sary to employ bilingual teachers ; however, such teachersare difficult to keep because of the demand for their services.

Principals of ghetto-area schools said they find it difficultto attract teachers who can deal with the unique problemsof the ghetto child. Many teachers are not properly trainedto teach in these schools and many qualified teachers arereluctant to teach in them, a number of principals said.

Responses of principals indicated that similar problemsexist in schools newly integrated. Pupils in these schoolshave dissimilar backgrounds and the need for well-trainedteachers and specialists, diverse materials and supplies, andflexible physical facilities is critical, some respondents said.Principals said they find it increasingly difficult to findteachers able and willing to take on the instructional prob-lems encountered in the recently mixed school.

INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

Problems mentioned most f equently by the interview sam-ple are those rdated to the maintenance awl improvementof the instructional program in the elementary school. Ascited at the beginning of this chapter, and as shown in table7, 133 principals and 47 respondents in the other threegroups were most concerned with the area of personnelselection and placement within the instructional program.

Print- -oblems 43

And seventy-four, including six -four principals, saw sup-ervision of the ji structio al program as a key problem area.

TABLE 7PROBLEMS RELATED TO INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM

CLASSI FI CATION

Principals3 Total Only

EvaluationPersonnel selection and

placementSupervisionInnovationInserviceCurriculum developmei-Communication

Rank of Problem

55 61 6433 24 1714 12 11

8 12 1311 23 188 7 4

13 3

81) 13374 6437 2733 2152 3919

EVA LUAT ION

Only three principals showed concern for problems involv-ing evalmtion of elementary school programs. Some presi-dents of elementary school principals' associations and somecollege and university officials said they believe that prin-cipals are not much concerned with evaluative procedures.

State department officials, however, expressed concernthat principals are not effective at evaluating teachers. Prin-cipals, they said, lack the proper criteria and techniques forthe evaluation of their instructional staffs. These officialssaid principals basically lack formal criteria on which tobase evaluative judgments. Consequently, these officials con-tended, evaluative criteria often are not clearly understoodand teachers tend to reject negative evaluations as subjec-tive and unprofessional. In some cases, school boards andsuperintendents require evaluations primarily for salary

44

schedule purposes, thus denying teachers fair evaluationsin terms of their instructional effectiveness.

PERSONAL SELECTION

Personnel recruitment, selection, and retention is the mostpressing problem of the elementary school principal, thisstudy found: Responses indicate that it ranks as the number-one problem in regions II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX, andsecond in region L Its mention amounted to 16 percent of allkey problems identi fied by principals. Responses were evenlydistributed among the six school classifications.

Principals said they have difficulty recruiting and retain-their teachers because salary schedules are relatively

low in comparison with those of other schools, becauseteacher-student ratios are high, and/or because the locale oftheir school is not attractive to the qualified teacher.

Principals' respons ,. s showed that recruitment proced-ures in small elementary school districts often consist ofreading placement papers, corresponding with candidatesby mail, and sending out brochuresall accompanied by aconsiderable degree of hope. While teachers occasionallyaccept positions in these districts for the sake of adventureor a new challenge, they rarely stay any length of time.

One college official described the recruitment problemsof the small school district as follows :

Schools in outlying areas al .1 not attractive to qualified teachers.Therefore, those teachers that lre professional do not go intothe rural areas. Rural teachers are usually housewives or some-one who owns a business in the community Or an old-time resi-dent of the area. Salaries are very low in these areas.

Responses indicated, however, that schools in densely pop-ulated urban areas also ha cruitment problems. Because

Principals' Pro &lems 45

inner-core school districts generally have a low tax base,funds for teachers' salaries often are severely limited. Highteacher-student ratios, poor physical facilities, poor \vorkingconditions, and the disciplinary problems of the inner-coreschool also discourage qualified teachers.

Many states do not have competitive teacher sa a r sched-ules and are unable to employ support personnel in the ele-mentary school. School districts lack the financial means toprovide adequate guidance personnel, aides, librarians, read-ing specialists, art and music specialists, or even adequatesecretarial help for the elementary school principal. Someprincipals said that the public and the superintendent recog-nize a need at the secondary level but still assume that "any-one" can teach elementarN çracles.

The role of the elementary teacher is bein6 scrutinizedn many states and the concept of differentiazed staffing pat-terns is under consideration. Teacher aides, educationaltechnologists, teaching interns, probationary and provi-sional teachers completing certification requirements, thecertified teacher, and the "master" teacher are all being con-sidered as integral components of an instructional staff_The success of such an innovation in the staffing patternof the elementary school depends largely on the availabilityof sufficient funds, and most principals feel that such achange cannot be implemented until present funding prac-tices are revised.

Respondents from all four groups indicated they aregrowing more concerned about the adverse effects noncom-petitive salary schedules and the public attitude towardthe teaching profession have on the profession as a whole.

Many principals expresse eat concern about staffing

53

46

their schools. They said that teachers are not prepared toenter their schools because the teachers are not familiar withmodern teaching techniques and programs being offered intheir schools.

This school is of the nongraded tyke and uses team teachingand other modern techniques of teaching. Many teachers areuncomfortable in this type of situation and therefore cannotfunction adequately. Turnover of teachers is high becauseyoung teachers move morc and that is the type of teacher whichis found in this type of school.

Some principals complained that college training pro-grams are failing to produce teachers abreast of the currenttrends, skilled in motivating the unmotivated, creative inproviding for cultural differences, and capable of copingwith classes of thirty c.r more students. Principals reportedthat if these teachers had an intern program whereby theymight experie ice some of these new concepts and tech-niques, the new teacher might be better prepared to meetthese situations. The intern program would also iielp allevi-ate the need for some of the inservice programs that couldin turn be directed toward other areas of concern to theteacher.

Some principals were not only concerned about the diffi-culty they have in attracting well-prepared teachers to theirschools, but they also were concerned that occasionally theyare not even involved in the selection of teachers.

SUPERVISION

Sixty-four principals were concerned about their apparentinability to provide adeqi ate supervision. Supervision ac-counted for 7 percent of problems outlined by principals.Regions IV, V, and VIII showed the greatest frequency of

Principa ls' Probleiiis 47

concern and principa 7 in i egions V and VIII indica edthat supervision is their single greatest problem.

Principals said that the greatest problem involving s per-vision is their lack of time for classroom visitations andteaeher conferences Administrative details and managerialresponsibilities preclude too much of their time to providegood supervision.

The primary reason the pri icipals gave for not havingadequate time for supervision is that they don't have sec-retarial assistance or supporti cc staff to handle routineduties.

There is too much detail work corning from the central officeand I lack the supportive assistance to adequately comply withthe d emands.

There are too many forms and too much red tape in acqui_ ngdistrict items. I lack the secretarial help that is necessary.

Too much time is spent on discipline problems, administrativedetails, and public relations.

Principals also noted that elementary teachers are burd-ened with nonteaching duties and are seldom available forconferences.

INNOVATION

Principals indicated that they face several significant prob-lems in the planning, development, and implementation ofinnovative programs. While a principal is expected to deter-mine which innovations best meet the needs of the studentsin his particular school, many principals indicated that theydo not feel capable of making such decisions. Several prin-cipals said that their own preservice training had not pre-pared them to evaluate research findings and to predict the

relative s ccess of an nuovative idea within the schoolsetting.

Some piincipals also expressed concern over what cotuted an innovation. One such principal said :

It is difficult to identify what is meant by some terms. Thereis also dishonesty in representing what is being done in ourschools. We like to make a big impression. It seems like thewhole system is like that. In college its "publish or perish". andin the public school we brag about how advanced we are It'ssort of a "publicity syndrome."

According to some state department of education officials,one of the first problems a principal encounters in makingchanges of any kind in the elementary school is the scarcityof district funds for developmental projects. 1?,lementaryschool principals said they are handicapped because anyavailable funds generally are allocated to secondarv schools.

The emphasis and pressure is from the top levels and the edu-cational organization responds to these pressures from the top.We therefore allow the kindergarten pupil as well as the primarypupil to attend school without the proper facilities and upgradedcurriculums. Twenty-two percent of kindergarten children inthis state, in the past several years, did not pass one of the firstthree grades in our elementary schools. Most of the chief schoolofficers are secondary-oriented people ; therefc re, the programsare designed with the secondary in mind with the remainingemphasis on the primary.

According to some principals, district ada :riistratorstend to be conservative in their attitudes toward innovativeideas ; they do not encourage the elementary school princi-pal to develop innovative programs.

Tha superintendent .. ,:. -- i ; to rock the boat. He is afrai tolet this school be cl'rfc. ,-,om others.

,

-

Prow 49

The district requires that we remain with the traditional pro-gram. Principals have little, if any, autonomy in their programs.

No active research is going on in the district and the super-intendent is reluctant to experiment ; he does not understandor is not aware of what is going on around him.

Some principals said that teachers, too, tend to resistchange. _Most teachers, they said, have had years of trainingand experience in the traditional programs and techniques.They are reluctant to take on the extra work involved inplanning a new program and they lack confidence in theirability to implement an experiemental program.

Teachers believe fit__ teaching is an end rather than a meansto an end. Teachers think too much about what they can coverrather than what they can uncover.

Several printipals said their communities are somewhatconservative ; the citizens prefer schools to operate underthe traditional methods.

There is still the old emphasis upon the Protestant ethics thatwork is virtuous ; therefore, we in education continue to main-tain a high level of activities in academic processes but fail toallow the children individual development and research. Manyschools today contribute to the mental health problem throughpressures and competitiveness of the classroom.

One respondent said parents and community memberstend to trust the 'known," even if it is of questionable effec-tiveness. "New ways mean work for people teachers aswell as the administrators and the public."

I NSERVICE

Noting the inclusion of innovative programs and sta mgpatterns into the elementa:ry schools, many principals indi-

50

cated an awareness of the need for ncreased inserviccteacher training.. Some i nncipals t -ley have difficultiestrying to provide inservice training for teachers. It is diffi-cult for some principals to decide what kind of training(or retraining) is needed most ; teachers in a sing-le schoolmay differ considerably in preparation, experience, and atti-tude. One principal said:

We need first to discover in what areas teachers need help. We

are unahle to recruit qualified personnel. The new teachers are

smarter hut less qualified to teach in our schools of today. They

are leqs dedicated to teaching and there are too few elementarytrained teachers.

Responses indicated that several factors rna e tlpals task even more difficult. Most elementary schoolteachers, assigned heavy teaching loads, cannkA afford timeaway from the classroom for self-improvement. iVIany arcunwilling to donate their own time to inseryice training. Aprincipal observed:

There is a lack of time for inservice on new techniques and

materials. Teachers are scheduled full time and have variousduties and some teachers lack the desire to develop new ideas.

Other responses showed that some states provide little orno incentive for teachers to seek inservice training. In onestate, life certificates are given to teacherF after five years'teaching and they are not required to have further trainingor coursework. Other states do not require certified person-nel to enroll in any inseryice training.

Finally, respondents indicated that many distyicts do nothave the financial ability to support inservice activities. Theycannot pay substitute teachers and they cannot afford thenecessary consultants to conduct special training prGgrams.

Prin Probfrins 51

In sonic cases, funds are so inadequate that orientationlcjflS for new teachers cannot be provided nor can actiy

be financed to upgrade the more poorly qualified teacher.

CURR 1 CULT:At PEVEIMPMENT

[any princii its observed that the elementary school cur-riculum is rapidly being expanded by many school districts

_ an effort to prepare elementary school children for sec-ondary-level ])rograms. Alany ofTerings have been addedto the elementary curriculum that require special teachersor at least more teachers. Principals complained, however,that additional staff members have not always been providedand that the regular staff has had to assume the extra re-spomibility. One principal observed :

Increased corricular requirements are not being met with in-creased .;taff. There is a watering down of the offerings becauseof the lack of finances for specially trained personnel or justplain additional staff for additional offerings.

Curriculum planning and development under these con-ditions are naturaily difficult, principals pointed out. Neitherthe principal nor the teaching stafir has the time -to becomeacquainted with new curricular designs and related mate-rials ; neither has the time to become involved in the carefulcooperative planning of curriculum changes within theschool. A principal commented:

We n .ed to develop the curriculum for the needs of the childrenrather than change children for the needs of the curriculum.We need active leadership from the administration rather thanjust talk. We need involve the staff in the decision-makingprocess.

Some prieipals cot tplained that cen ql-office personnel

52

their districts assume responsibility for the planning,development, and implementation of curriculum chang-esand fail to involve the principal to any significant extent inthese important aspects of the elementary school program.These principals said they would like to be given more op-portunities to participate in curriculum development. Theysaid they would like to be provided with the 4-iccessarv sup-port staff to give them more time to do so.

Responses made by college and university officials pointedto curriculum development in the elementary school as asignificant problem Many, however, said they do not thinkthe elementary school principal is properly informed or ade-quately trained to assume the leadership in this area,

COMMUNICATION

While relatively few principals refer ed d rectly to prob-lems involving communication with the public and withschool personnel, many of their responses implied that this isa problem. Many of these concerns have been discussedunder the general eaLe:4,ry of "public relations." Also, manyprincipals indicated that they have problems associated withcommunications when asked by interviewers to describetheir own personal weaknesses as administrators.

One state department representative attributed the lackof communication skills among many principals to their lackof proper trainino- in elementary school administration.

ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP

While the intervi nv sample generally was critical of theleadership abilities of the elementary school principal, itis siffnificant to note that the bulk of that criticism came fromrespondents who were notrrincipals. Of 183 respondents

Princiha

who i( en ified key proL,ems under the cat --E,,ory of "acmin-istrative lea( - hip," only 70 were principals and only partof that number were self-critical. As table 8 shows, "roleidentification" drew ninety-eight responses fifty-five ofthem from principalsmaking it the largest problem areaidentified under "administratil leadership" and the second-largest problem area in the study after "personnel selection"and "placement." As a major problem "role identification"tied for second in reo-ions II and III and fifth in rerrionsand V.

TABLEPROBLEMS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSTT IP

cLASsIFI CATIONRank of Problem

1 2 3 TotalPrincipals

Only

CliinatePersonal values 6 16 1

Style 10 19 5Prevaration 19 4Resources 9 3 3 S 0Inservice training 4 9 4 17 0Role identification 50 29 29 108 55Research 2 1 3 6

CLIMATE

Questions relating to the personal values and ,tyle of aschool administrator that influence the climate of the schooldrew thirty-five responses. However, only six of thoseresponses were from principals : one of sixteen responseson "personal values" and five of nineteen on "style." Thusit appears that principals do not see the values or style oftheir leadership as the problem that other educators mthe sample do. According tosonie respondents, principals

1

54

t difficult to provide the kind of leadership thatstinnilates an emerging group of professionals to do a moreadequate job of educating pupils. Respondents said chang-ing demands, the imiltiplicity of innovations, and compul-sory negotiations contribute to conditions that require lead-ership skills unfamiliar to i-Aany principals. The presidentof an elementary school pnncipals association observed :

Part of the problem is due to the principal. s own failure to rec-ognize the professional abilities of his own staff. He feels thathe should he adequate in all subject areas and this is not possi-ble. He must learn to provide leadership so that his professionalstaff feel that they are allowed to do it themselves. The principalshave been insecure and have felt that they had to provide theleadership themselves by possessing the expertise in all subjectareas. They behaved in such a way as to say my way, orit won't he done at an."

Other respondents felt that many principals are ignoringthe changes that have taken place around them. They havefailed "to assume a leadership role for fear that they mightrock the boat," said a college official. Their schools are not_movative and a lack of enthusiasm permeates the students

and staff, said another.

PREPARATION

Of nineteen respondents who identified the prepam-ation ofelementary principals as a major problem, only four wereprincipals. State department of education officials in all

e regions indicated that present preparation programselementary school principals are inadequate. A college

representative supported that contention with this obser-vation :

62

Principals' Problems 55

The training and preparation of elementary princ;pal are inade-quate. Priorities have been misplaced. There is a need to traininstructional leaders. The superintendent, however, often pushesunqualified people into the leadership role ; they may becomeplant managers really because they don't have the backgroundnecessary to be instructional change agents.

An ESPA president commented :

Most of the principals' training, as well as that of the teachers,is such that they are only capable of perpetuating the system asit is. Most training programs have not provided them with thene(-,essary skills to implement change and to make the adjust-ment necessary within the organization.

One ot i le principals who felt he lacked adequate pi eparari for his job had the following observation :

My concern is for my own limitation in the development of newprograms. This is due to the lack of training I have had and thelack of availability of courses or workshops to prepare myself.My background is in the secondary field and I feel inadequateto help elementary teachers, particularly in the primary areas.I do counseling with teachers and parents without adequatetraining and preparation. My preparation as a teacher andprincipal did not include courses to give me a background inthis area.

The prepara,ion of dome) hool principals IA de-tailed in chapter 5.

RESOURCES

Of eight responde its who identified --resources" as a majorproblem area, none was a principal. Four of those responseswere from ESPA presidents who felt difficulties exist insecuring resources to assist in improving administrativeleadership in the schools.

56

1NSERV ICE TRAIN I NG

Seventeen respondents identified insetvce training" as amajor problem area ; again, none of them was a principal.State department of education officials were the most fre-quent respondents to this issue. It was their general feelingthat existing inservice programs for elementary school prin-cipals arc inadequate.

ROLE IDENTIFICATION

As noted before, 'role identification elicited the secondmost responses in the study. Fifty-five of the ninetv-eightresponses on this subject came from elementary principalsthemselves and reflected an even distribution from princi-pals in all six school classifications. Sample responses on thissubject indicated that the role of the elementary school prin-cipal is not well defined. Many responses further indicatedthat the elementary principal feels he is accorded minimalrecognition lw school superintendents and the communityfor his position of professional leadership. As one principalcommented : "The elementary schools are not too importantin the eves of the people. They feel anyone can teach thereor be an administrator there."

An ESPA president observed:

The elementary principal is considered an errand boy and adisciplinarian rather than a professional administrator withleadership responsibilities in the district. The background ofthe elementary administrator in coining from areas other thanthe elementary school has had an affect on the evaluation anddefinition of his role.

A universIty official asked the critIcal q estion:

Pr J'ril'lciiis 57

How much authority is delegated to the principal lw the super-intendent ? Does it match his responsibility ? Public image isold fashioned. The principal does not have a self-image or real-ization of his role Principals tend to think of themstIves askeepers of buildings rather than educational leaders. Principalsstill think of themselves as the "principal-teacher I do notsee themselves as a manager or executive.

Tl self-coneei-,t cited in the precec mg paragraph hasample basis in fact. In one state, for example, a state edu-cation department official noted that only 28 princirals in450 elementary schools devote all of their time to admin-istration. In another state, a state department official saidthat out of 232 principals listed at the elementary schoollevel, only 35 are full-time principals ; all others are teach-ing principals. Some sample responses indicated that principals, in addition to teaching, often do their own office workbecause secretarial help is not provided. Other responsesrevealed that principals in sonie districts administer two ormore buildings at the same time. Many respondents saidthey feel that such cuts into the principal's administrativetime reflect the limited importance given to the position bythe school district's central administration.

Some respondents indicated that under such conditionsthe principal often finds it convenient to be a routine man-ager and difficult to take any other role concept seriously.Thus, according to one university representative:

Many elementary school principals use the position as a steppingstone upward. It's not really considered as a professional posi-tion. I find that very few men principals stay in their positionvery long. They tend to move on up to an assistant superinten-dent. Many are involved in extensive duties in addition to theirprincipalship duties, such as handling bus schedules and doing

5S

some COztcliiiig on thL side to get aclditioiiai pay. Many don'tunderstand what the duties of the elementary school principalare. They are inadequately trained and many are secondarypeople who have been appointed to the position of elementaryschool principal and don't really realize what they are supposedto do.

Mativ elementary principals were especially critical ofschool district central-office staffs, charging that centralstaffs are "oriented to the secondary school" to the detri-ment of the elementary school. The central staffs, many prin-cipals said, are unaware of or unconcerned with the issuesand problems of the elementary school. Principals said theyresent secondary schools receivincr (Trea ater share of thefinancial pie and they resent being accused of not adequatelypreparing pupils for entrance into the secondary level.

Further, principals expressed resentment that many ofthem are responsible for a school while being excluded fromplanning related to the school an(l its programs. ( As pre-viously noted, they object to being excluded from participa-tion in the selection of personnel who will ie assigned toprograms for which they are responsible.)

A university representative, who said principals shouldtry to reverse the conditions which prompted the complaints,noted:

The pr.acipal must be provided more opportunity for the con-trol of his own school and an opportunity to have a say in thetotal school operation as far as contributing to policy develop-ment Unless a principal takes it upon himself to identify morespecifically his role and to firm up his position, which includes aleadership role in policy-making, negotiations, and decision-making, he is going to be left out completely. At the present iime.some principals are not involved at all in total district leader-

66

.Princita /CMS

ship roles. Principals must take a stand and be in a position ofleadership.

Some principals said they feel too much is ex )ected ofthem in terms o overseein the school's t nnstructionalprogram. One said :

I cannot he an expert in all areas and fields. The nonmstruc-tional program takes too much time from the instructional pro-gram and there is a lack of supportive specialists to relieve theprincipal of some duties and responsibilities.

Sonic respondents noted that the roles of the supportivestaff often are no hetter defined than that of the principal.They added that Li lack of role definition and definitionof responsibilities often is the cause of conflict betweensupport staff and principals.

Respondents also noted that the role of th- principal in re-tion to his teaching staff is changing and becoming more

uncertain as teachers demand more rights, privileges, andimnmnities through unions, professional organizations, andcollective bargaining.

RESEARCH

"Researc drew only six responses from the sample, butfive were from principals. Those who responded to this issuesaid they could find little time to engage in research or toutilize research. "Finding time to keep up with current lit-erature is impossible because of all the time taken up by ad-ministrative detail work," commented one principal. An-other said, "There is too little time to do research necessaryfor innovation because of the many small details of the job."

67

60

ORGAN 1ZAT fONAL TEXTURE

Key problems under -_irganizational texL re" were identi-fied by 184 respondents in the sample, but only 69 of themwere principals. "District organization policies" elicitedseventy responses, thirty two of them from principals, mak-ing it the largest problem under "organizational texture"and the fifth-ranked problem in the study. Under "organiza-tional texture," "district organization" tied with "individualdifferences" in region 'VIII as the second most identifiedproblem mid was part of a three-way tie for third most sig-nificant problem in region IX. Table 9 shows the range ofconcern expressed by the interview sample with regard to4Corganizational texture,"

TABLE 9PROBLEMS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL TEXTURE

CLASS! FICAT ION

Rank of Problem1 2 3 Total

PrincipalsOnly

Building organization 0 1 4 5 3District organization 73 21 26 70 32

(Policies)Militancy 9 7 3 19 4Negotiations 15 16 12 43 9Administration employment

practices 6 3 6 15 1

Communications 9 11 12 3

BUILDING ORGANIZATION

"Building organization" was listed by only five respondents,including thi ee principals, as a major problem. No trendof thought was discernible among the responses to this issue.

LI

P -inci lc' o

DISTRICT ORGAN IZATION

Thcse responses in thc samole that deal with istrict or-ganization" as a major problem are tied in with previouslydiscussed responses on "role identification." As noted before,the elementary school principal feels excluded from the dis-trict's policy-making process. In addition, he often feels thatle has less status in the district than do other sdiool officials.

Several principals were critical of the political motivesof school-board members and superintendents or otherpowers in the community.

NEGOTIATIONS AND MILITANCY

The areas of "nego _ions _rnd ilita drew sixty-tworesponses. Principals accounted for thirteen of that total.Nine principals of forty-three respondents addressed "nego-tiations" as a major problem area and four principals ofnineteen respondents were concerned about "militancy.Neither issue was in the top five ranking in any region ofthe country. Most respondents pointed to past administra-tive practices and to rising social pressure as the causes ofthe recent upswing in what they regard to be teacher mili-tancy.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

While fifteen respondents iden lfied the select on of elemen-tary principals as a major problem, only one of them was aprincipal. Several of the respondents were critical of thecriteria used to fill vacancies.

Respondents suggested that certification requi -e lentsfor elementary school principals are inadequate in manystates. Some of them said temporary certificates too often

are liberally awarded and the rules for meet ng certificationstandards often are loosely enforced. Sonic of them believethis is the reason many elementary school principalships arestaffed by head teachers, former coaches, or other poorlyqualified personnel. They cited the failure of school districtofficials to recognize the importance of the elementary prin-cipalship as the main barrier to the elevation or creation ofcertification standards.

COMMUNICATION

Of thirt --two respondent:; who identified "communicat.as a key problem, twenty were principals ; most of them gaveresponses that indicate communication problems are tied inclosely with "role identification" and "district organizationalpolicies." However, no principals from the inner-core schooladdressed the subject of "communications." Several princi-pals were distressed at what they consider one-way com-munication : from district administrator to principal.

FINA CES AND FACILITIES

"Finances and facilities" and their related problems drew253 responses from the sample, including 176 from princi-pals. The three top issues were "buildings," "referenda,"and "service staff." "Buildings," listed as the second-rankedproblem in regions VI and IX, tied for second in region VII,tied for third in region IV, and ranked third in regions IIand III. "Referenda" ranked fourth in regions I and III andtied for fourth in region II. "Service staff" tied for thirdranking in region VIII and was fourth in region IV Table10 shows the distribution ,-)f responses.

70

cit.) ' Problems 63

TABLE 1.0PROBLEMS RELATED TO FINANCES AND FACILITIES

Rank of ProblemCLASSIFICATION 1 2 3

PrincipalsTotal Only

MaintenanceService staffRecordsEquipmentSuppliesReferendaTransportationBuildings

7o38

280

24

4 6 5

13 19 390 1 1

7 5 15 11

16 13 37 2824 19 71 39

2 3 5 428 26 78 60

MAINTENANCE AND STAFF SERVICE

Principals who iden ified "maintenai ce' and "service staff"as problems generally complained of difficulty in finding anadequate supply of personnel qualified or competent in theseareas. One principal commented :

The problen we have with custodians is that they will not doanything u.dess they are told to. They let things slide and willnot cooperate with the teachers. We have been unable to findcompetent people for these positions.

Several ESPA presidents cited shortage of qualified clericalassistance for principals as a major problem. They cited alack of funding for enough clerical personnel and low payfor existing clerical personnel as the underlying causes ofthis pniblem.

RECORDS

Only one respondentwho wasn a principalsaw themaintenance of records as a major problem.

EOUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

Eleven principals of fifteen respondents identified "equip-ment" as a ma jor problem and twenty eight of thirty sevenlisted "supplies." Generally the respondents cited a lack offunds for enough of these necessities. One principal said

_at at the opening of one school year he had 2,300 pupils1-this building and yet received only enough supplies for 200.

Many respondents also complained that administratorswho distribute funds give low priority to the needs of theelementary schools. Some elementary principals said theyget what is left after the secondary schools have been sup-plied ; some principals of predominantly Negro elementaryschools complained that the white schools get higher pri-ority.

REFERENDA

Insufficient financial support from local, state, and federalrevenues was identified as a major problem by seventy-onerespondents. Thirty nine of them were principals and nine-teen were ESPA presidents. Respondents blamed theirmoney shortage on local property taxes, inadequate taxbases, unequal appropriations of state funds to local dis-tricts, negative attitudes of legislators and the public towardeducation, and limited funds for schools. They cited over-crowded classrooms, low salaries, poor equipment, and mini-mal supplies as the result. Many felt little hope for any sig-nificant change.

Principals in several uburban and intermediate districtssaid rapid population growth is the major cause of financialproblems in the school. They noted that families are floodinginto areas that have little industry to share the tax burden.

72

Pr /ems 65

Conseciuentiv, people feel threa enec by property tax in-creases; in many cases, they have organized resistance toincreased property taxes.

Responses indicated that population mobility has causedfinancial problems in urban schools as well. As a universityrepresentative noted :

The rural areas do not have the industries and the cities that dohave the industry are finding that their assessed evaluation isbeing lowered because of the establishment of ghetto areas.

Respondents indicated serious concern that neither thepublic nor the state legislatures fully appreciate the needsof education, especially at the elementary level. Many re-spondents said educators need to do a more effective job ofcommunicating the needs of the schools to the public and itselected officials.

SCI WOL BUILDINC;S

Buildings ranked as the biggest concern of respondents _inthe area of "finances" and "facilities." Sixty principals ofseventy-nine respondents listed the condition of their build-ings as a major problem. Generally, the respondents saidbuildings are old, small, and incapable of adequately sup-porting new programs. Many principals complained thatthe elementary program too often is relegated to old build--ings discarded after high-school use. one principal said:

State accreditation standards require the district to build a newfacility for the high school, but there are few and in some casesno standards which require new and better facilities for theelementary schools.

Another pr icipal said:

66

This buildg was originally built as a sen or high school. Otherprograms are holsed in a church and other public buildings.These facilities are only conducive fc Lhe traditional approach.It is Cie only school with telephones in the lavatories. The boys'lavatory has been claimed for the school nurse and the girls'lavatory for the reading teacher.

Still another noted:

We need spccial space requirements for some of our programs.We are overcrowded and must use cafeteria space and suchareas which are not conducive to good teaching practices.

Many respondents accused superintendents and schoolboards of failing to press for better facilities, pointing- outthat these officials fear to jeopardize their positions by ask-ing constituents for additional funds.

TABLE 11R SPONSES OF PRINCIPALS 13XT SCHOOL CLASSIFICATION

AND PROBLEM CATEGORIES

COMBINATION OF ALL REGIONS

PROBLEA CATEGORIES

School ClassificationSub- Major

Total Head- Areaing% %2 3 4 6

1. School ar.d society 120 141.1 Community influences 17 8 7 8 9 1 50 61.2 Federal and state

involvement 4 2 2 2 10 1

1.3 Goal setting 1 2 .21.4 Public relations 12 11 8 10 8 9 58 7

2. Pupil personnel 117 142.1 Involvement 3 1 1 1 6 .52.2 Management 6 8 1 4 6 2 27 32.3 Pupil assessment and

development 8 3 1 5 3 1 21 22.4 Individual differences l 12 8 7 8 7 56 72.5 Cultural differences 3 1 2 2 8

Prim- /is 67

PROBLEM CATEGOR I ES

School Classification

6

Sub- MajorTotal Head- Area

1 2 3 4

3. Instructional program 298 353.1 Evaluation 1 3 .33.2 Personnel selection

and placement 21 22 91 26 23 24 137 163.3 Supervision 13 11 13 11 7 12 67 73.4 innovation 1 5 9 o 3 3 27 33.5 Inservice_ 2 4 5 2 4 4 21 23.6 Communication 1 1 ? 3 3 1 11 1

3.7 Curriculum 4 5 6 13 3 8 39 4

4: Administrative leadership 704.1 Climate (6) .6

4.1 a. Personal values 1 1 .14.1 b. Style 1 2 1 5 .5

4.2 Preparation 1 1 1 4 .44.3 Resources

Inservice training4.5 Role indentification 9 12 7 10 554.6 Research 1 1 1

5 Organizational texture 69 85.1 Building organization 2 3 .35.2 District organization

(policies) 1 5 7 6 4 9 32 35.3 Militancy 1 1 2 4 .45.4 Negotiations 1 5 1 1 1 1

5.5 Administrative employmentpractices 1 1

5.6 Communications 3 4 3 5 5 20

6. Finances and facilities 176 216.1 Maintenance 1 1 1 1 5 .56.2 Service stall 3 3 7 7 5 4 296.3 Records6.4 Equipment 1 1 4 2 2 1 11 1

6.5 Supplies 3 4 3 5 9 4 28 36.6 Referenda 3 3 6 6 10 11 39 46.7 Transporta on 1 1 2 4 .46.8 Buildings 10 5 7 9 13 16 60 7

FOUR Sou ces of Assis face

r:PRESENTATIVES of fi ve resource agencies were inter-cwed to find out what kinds of assistance they made

avagable to elementary school principals. An attempt wasmade to identify the assistance prOgrams available throughthe U.S. Office of Education (USOE), state departmentsof education, colleges and universities, state elementaryschool principals associations (ESPA ), and regional edu-cational laboratories. The functions of these agencies differconsiderably from each other, and their activities varygreatly in design and effect.

U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION

iinallv, the USOE concentrated on -_athering statisticsand distributing information regarding "the condition andprogress of education in th-2 several states and territories."Today its responsibilities encompass 76 separate programsthat provide services either directly or indirectly to the 55million students in our nation's schools, to 20 million adultsin continuing educ-ttion programs, to two and one half mil-lion teachers, 105,000 elementary and secondary schools,25,000 school districts, 2,200 institutions of higher educa-tion, and 55 state and territorial departments of education.

7 6- k.

68

Sources of sistance

CUM( :TERISTICS

Recognizing state and local responsibility for education,the multiplicity of programs to be implemented and the pressof the Legislature, the USOE now finds itself in a delicateposition confronted with numerous problems. To acconi-plish the objectives set forth in a deluge of legislative pro-grams while remaining neutral in exercising control over"curriculum, programs of instruction, administration, orpersonnel of any educational institution" calls for excep-tional care. The question of how much influence categorizedprograms, guidelines, reporting requirements, and matchingprovisions have on decision making at the local level is con-tinually asked but unanswered. Philosophical statements andguidelines emanatincr from the divisions of the U.S. Officeemphasize dedications to the premise that "free public edu-cation as conceived in this nation is the responsibility of, andmust operate under the control of, state and local govern-ments." Yet the USOE describes its purpose as "affording,and using its influence to cause to be afforded, the opportunityfor every person in the nation to be as well educated as hiscapacity permits" and sets forth criteria requiring that theAate educational agency make certain determinations con-stent with such basic criteria as the Commissioner may

establish . ." Despite this ambiguity, the intent of the U.S.Office seems to be to encourage and assist local school dis-tricts in the development of programs dedicated to changingpeople, providing services, and improving practices.

pRoGRANts

The vast array of programs administered by the USOE,which pour vast sums of money into elementary and second-

..

7C)

arv schools across the nat are devoted to (1 ) improvingthe quality of education at every level for all perHons in theUnited States, (2) bringing equality of educational oppor-tunity to various groups of citizens who have not had it inthe past, and (3) helping educational institutions examinethemselves in light of society's changing requirements. Someof the oblectives of these programs are to overcome educa-tional deprivation, to improve library resources, tostrengthen instruction, to encourage desegregation, to over-come language difficulties, to reduce school dropouts, toimprove counseling and guidance, and to strengthen person-nel who serve in elementary and secondary schools.

The extent of influence that existing programs have onlocal school districts is not clearly established. One estima-tion of effect is in terms of the amount of funds being fun-neled into specified programs. Approximately three-fourthsof Title I money goes into the elementary school since theU.S. Office considers this to be the most effective level atwhich to deal with problems of,educational deprivation. TheElementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), theTitle VII Bilingual Education and the Economic Opportun-ity Act ( EOA), and the Title II Follow-Through programsalso are directed toward elementary school children. Theseprograms are limited to those schools selected by the USOEon the basis of nominations from state agencies and/orinvitations to submit formal proposals. Because of limitedfunds, these programs are reaching only a fraction of thechildren eligible to receive assistance.

Interdepartmental difficulties exist between offices dealingwith civil rights problems. Where one office used to handleall problems dealing with desegregation, now two are in-

78

SOUrCeS of isszs1ancc

volved. The Divi.sion of Equal Educational Opportunities isresponsible for Title TV, the "carrot pro.gram,- or aid tolocal districts in developing and implementing desegrega-tion plans. The Civil Rights Department administers TitleVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the "axe program" orenforcement of the mandatory desegregation order. Exis -ing- relationships between these two offices consequently aremade difficult. Title IV is authorized to provide technicalassistance directly to local districts. On invitation, consult-ants from the USOE will work directly with superintendentsand school hoard members in developing plans and proc,A-ures for desegregation. The Civil Rights Division of theDepartment of Health, Education and Welfare administersTitle VI and deals directly with superintendents and schoolboards to help them develop plans of compliance with thedesegregation law.

ESEA Title V authorizes grants to state depa -tments forthe improvement of leadership resources and to assist themin identifying and meeting educational needs. Funds areexpended for inservice training of professional sta. If and theemployment of additional coordinators and supervisorsamong the many divisions within the department. With thissupport, state depnrtments have been able to provide moreeducational services than would have been possible throughregular state channels.

Programs designed to provide training for school ad-miMstrators are authorized under the Education Profes-sions Development Act (EPDA). This program is basedon the assumption that "the decisions, attitudes and abilitiesof school administrators have wide-ranging influence uponevery aspect of the school system." Projects to be supported

78

72

in lude the recruittnent and preparation of new elementaryand secondary administrators as well as inservice trainingfor administrators in the field. There are over two millioneducational pers(tnnel in the elementary and secondaryschools, so obviously thee programs cannot meet all thetraining and development needs. An examination of existingprojects reveals that no programs supported by EPDAfunds focus on the improvement of elementary school prin-cipals. The lack of funds could be considered a primarycause of this condition, but other factors have contributedto the situation. Presently, no one in the department appearsto be sensitive to the needs of elementary school principals.Although periodic conferences are held with professionalassociation representatives, and U.S. Office employees attendregular professional meetings, the department maintainsthe view :

. . . no vital need exists in the direction of elementary schoolprincipals. Other needs are much more evident at the presenttime and speak louder than those of the elementary principal.It is considered in this department that building principals havehad programs and sufficient salaries to buy their own trainingand inservice activities. There are also in existence programs inthe colleges to prepare principals. We also feel that elementaryschool principals have come out of top teachers who were eagerto get ahead, to get further training, and have spent their ownmoney to do so. Therefore these people are better trained andfederal funds should be diverted to other things as there aregreater needs in other areas.

Considering the extent of program offerings a d the levelof funds involved, it is surprising to discover the limitationsin the area of human resources that the U.S. Office can offerto aid local school districts. Due to the lack of adequate staff,

Solt o 73

the USOE personnel indicate tlla they "just go t -roughthe motions of offering- consultation services." The USOElooks to the state agency as a resource base ot consultativeservices for local school districts. But there is little evidencethat the effects of the,se services have been large or positivefor local schools because efficiency of the USOE is notmeasured in terms of the effect on the local recipient, but interms of input, that is, "getting the dollars to the states.

The Office does a token job of monitoring programs inoperation at the school district level. Reports are requiredcontaining statistical and fiscal information as well as narra-tive data describing program effectiveness. Some projectsare visited by the USOE personnel, but this practice is raredue to limited funds. It is evident that the U.S. Office reliesheavily on state agencies to keep it informed of programsn operation, existing needs, and effects resulting from its

intervention in the states.

STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION

The assista -ice the principal might receive from his statedepartment of education varies a great deal from state tostate. Consultative services are available in all nine regions,but opinion varies considerably as to what is meant by con-sultative services.

PROGRA S

Specifically designated personnel in different stateselude (besides the district or regional supervisors) consult-ants in curriculum, in inservice and workshop development,and in special programs such as reading, guidance, handi-capped, adult education, and vocational education. Two

74

states specifically mention consultative adv ice on school law.:\ [any of the smaller school districts cannot afford to hirefederal program directors ; therefore, this encourages statedepartments to provide a specialist to assist in writing proj-ects and presenting them for funding purposes under variousfeleral titles. Often consultants are available to the state orregion at large, but in several departments they are speci-fically designated for elementary school assistance only.One state, with 900 elementary school principals, has oneelementary consultant.

Many state departments provide assistance in the planningand implementation of inseryice programs and workshops.Their consultants assist in designing inseryice programs for

liyidual school districts and counties or they may planregional programs in con junction with colleges and uni-versities. The state department often is involved in work-shops developed for elementary school principals conductedon various campuses durina- the summer sessions. One stateoffers financial aid to coun ies, in special cases, to develop in-service programs for principals and teachers. A state witha 30 percelit yearly turnover of elementary school principalsconducts a conference for beginning principals each fall toassist in their orientation to the state's educational system asa whole. Other states hold regional curriculum conferencesthat involve elementary principals from around the state.This is to assist in utilizing developmental approaches hivarious subject areas.

Publications related to elementary and secondary educa-tion as well as selected special areas are a service providedby the state departments in all regions. Materials includemanuals and guidelines for elementary principals aimed at

Soz.-- s of 4ssis once 75

self-improvement, curriculum guides scope and sequencecharts, arid handbooks for patrons, studies of dropouts,evaluation guides, and publications on the implementation ofprograms and a variety of other topics. One state distributesa monthly newsletter containing ideas, activities, ongoingprograms, and information relating to the elementary schoolprincipals of the sta-

in a few states, the state board of education involves itselfin the elementary school principals association or has countysuperintendents on its staff. Evaluation programs (usuallycon(lucted at the request of the individual districts) also areprovided in several states. Other states have self-evaluationprograms or employ teams to evaluate whole districts on anestablished schedule. Programs mentioned only once or twicein the nine regions include state department commissions orcommittees on standards, policies, and goals ; researchcenters ; data-processing assistance ; visitations betweendistricts ; development of model programs ; funds for con-sultants and outside specialists ; teacher replacement serviceand teacher aides. Two states mentioned personal telephonecontacts directly between state department personnel andthe elementary schools of the state as one program for pro-vidincr assistance to these schools.

COLLEGES AND UNIVERsurEs

Officials of eighty-seven colleges and universities were _ rviewed and asked to name the resources within their insti-tutions available to assist the elementary school principal. Ascan be seen from the following summary of responses (table12), the college or university sees as its greatest resource itsfaculties and course offerings.

76

TABLE 12

RESOURCES WITH IN TETE UNIVERSITY :A COMPILATION OF UNIVERSITY PERCEPTIONS

RESOURCE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE ADEQUACY USE

University stConferences, classes,

workshops

52

27

25.6

13.3

4,3*

4.4 3.5

Educational resou :e cer er_ 27 13.3 4.4 3.3

University libraryservices 25 12.3 4.7 3.3

Centers of education; dresearch 23 11.6 3.9 2.9

riculum centers or labs 13 6.4 4.2 3.1

Audio-visual services 12 5.9 4.4 3.6

Laboratory schools 9 4.4 4.2 2.5

Special consultants : e,g,,math negotiations, orreading 5 2.4 2,7 2.1

Student teachers 4 1.9 3.0 3.0

Urban studies centers 3 1.5 3.0 2.5

Placement offices 3 1,5 4.2 4.5

TOTAL 203

*Rating Scale for Adequacy and Uce

Extremely Very Very ExtremelyInadequate Inadequate Inadequate Adequate Adequate Adequate

1 2 3 4 5 6

Not Little Moderately Often Very Often ExtensivelyUsed Used Used Used Used Used

urces of 4ssis ance 77

OCIAT IONS

I he presidents of the state elementary school principalsassociations ( ESPA) were asked to describe the programsbeing conducted by their associations designed to assistelementary school princip2ls in dealing with their problems.In addition, the presidents were asked to evaluate the ade-quacy Of each program and to indicate the extent to whichthe principals used these resources. Their responses rangedfrom "we do not have any program for the assistance of ourelementary school principals around the state" to an exten-sive listing of activities, publications, and committee proj-ects. Accompanying the wide range of existing programsare variations in philosophical views regarding the role ofthe association and the appropriate leadership it shouldprovide.

Representing one end of the continuum is the followingphi losophy :

The association's activities are not organized as problem-solvingsituations or as resources to elementary school principals. Onlyst' mulation. We have one state meeting per year and have verysmall participation in this meeting. AE president of the associa-tion, I wouldn't want it any different than it is. We are not agroup to turn over education. We're not involved in unions ornegotiations. We feel we are a profession rather than a craft ;therefore, we do not have to push, negotiate, and demand. Itseems as if we just have a one-hour speech from a well-knownauthority and then we have a social gathering.

At the other end:

The association has moved fro a profe onal Kiwan s Club

78

stance to tlru of an association which will take pol t cal actions.We have been forced into this role. We now have a. new presi-dent who is providing eager, energetic leadership in this direc-tion.

The Department of Elementary School Principals DESP)at the time of the interviews took a position somewherebetween these two views, but icaned toward the conservative.An executive office?. of DESP stated :

I have discouraged the addition of consultant staff here at thenational level. Also have avoided involvement politically, that is,attempting to obtain funds from the U.S. Office of Educationas I am personally against it. I think it is not right.

The incoming executive official, however, expressed the needto become politically active and to take an aggressive lead-ership role in strengthening- the elementary school principal-ship nationwide.

PROGRAMS

Among the programs being conduc ed by the associations,the activities considered by the presidents to be most ade-quate in providing aid to elementary principals are (1) amultiplicity of committee work, (2) workshops or seminarsconducted by state departments and universities, and (3)state association conferences. These three activities encom-pass 64 percent of all activities mentioned with the remaining36 percent distributed among 10 other distinct services seetable 13).

Sources of lissistance

TABLE 13

ESPA Risoui t Es: THEIR ADEOIJACY AND USEAS VIHcED By ESPA PRESIDENTS

RESOURCE FI-.EOUENCY PERCENTAGE ADEOUACY USE

Committee work 63 32.5 4.4* 4.0*Workshops and seminars 32 16.5 3.4 4,4State conferences 29 14.9 4.1 3.7Publications 17 8,8 3:8 4.0-Study groups 14 7,0 4.5 3.7joint association meeting 13- 6.7 3.7 3,3Regional meetings 7 3.6 4.2 3.6Consultant services 6 3.0 3.5 3,5Lobbying 6 3.0 3.0 3.0None 6 3.0Executive secretary 2 1.0 5.0 5.0Internship program 1 .5 4.0 Planning

StageNational conference 1 .5 4,0 4.0

TOTAL 197

c Rating Sca e on page 76.

Committee work comprises 32.5 percent of all activitiesconsidered by the presidents to be valuable resources to asso-ciation members. Ten different committees were mentioned.some having broad, overlapping functions and others specifi-cally focused on a single task :

Accreditation StandardsLecrislative ActionElementary Principals CertificatIonCurriculumResearch

SO

CommunicationsSalaryPreservice and Inservice TrainingProfessional StandingFoundations

Accreditation Standards top the list of committee assign-ments mentioned by the presidents with Legislative Action,Certification of Principa;s, and Curriculum all occupyingsecond place. All four of these committees were rated ade-quate or above in effectiveness, and moderate to extensive

The accreditation standards committees are dealingwith questions such as :

How does one effectively evaluate schools without involvementin red tape ?How does one obtain feedback from children, parents, and teach-ers that is meaningful for school improvement ?What constitutes a "good school ?"

Two accreditation groups have produced handbooks con-taining criteria and procedures for the principal's use inmaking judgments regarding the adequacy of the school.Legislative action groups are charged to "sense the postureof the organization, formulate resolutions and present themto the annual meetings and when possible to the state boardto influence the present financing of education." Certificationcommittees work independently as well as directly with statedepartment officials to evaluate certification standards andto make recommendations for improving the quality of theelementary school principal. Curriculum groups attempt tobring to the attention of the membership sound innovativepractices, encourage intelligent change, motivate principals

t88

S 81

to engap,-e in staff development, and assist principals in secur-ing aid as needed for curricular _improvement. Researchcommittees are engaged in seeking out significant research,condensing the infoi mation, and disseminating it to prin-cipals. Receiving little mention were the Communication,Salary, P. eseryice and inseryiee Training, ProfessionalStanding, and Foundations committees ; although, when dis-cussed by the presidents, they were considered to be adequatein effectiveness and often used by the association.

Workshops or seminars conducted by consultants frominstitutions of higher education and/or state departmentsof education were second in order of mention (16.5 percent)and were rated barely adequate and often ilsed. Summerprograms are sponsored by the associations and conductedon university or college campuses. These workshops coversuch topics as evaluation, public relations, educational man-agement, leadership, role of the principal as instructionalleader, and interpersonal relationships. Many of these work-shops carry academic credit and may be counted towardcertification. Orientation programs for new principals alsoare conducted on college campuses during the summermonths. One-day workshops were favored by principals be-cause they can be conducted in alternate locations and re-quire a minimal commitment of time away from the office.

The third most frequent mentioned resource (14.9 per-cent) was the state conference meetings. Most regions con-duct state meetings at least once a year with the majorityconducting both fall and spring conferences. Activities dur-ing these sessions include guest speakers, panels, symposia,idea sharing, and business meetings. Eight percent of thestates indicated they hold two- or three-day conferences

82

rather than the usual one-day, drive-in affair to develop astronger group feeling and to explore problems in greaterdepth. State conferences were rated as adequate and oftenused.

Area meet ngs were mentioned by only 3.6 percent of thepresidents and four out of the nine regions made no mentionof this resource. Joint association meetings with other ad-ministrators were listed by 6.7 percent of the sample but therated effectiveness was less than adequate and only moder-ately used by elementary pi incipals. The intent of these jointmeeti,----,s is to provide an opportunity for chief school officersand secondary and elementary principals to meet and discusscommon problems ; however, these sessions tend to be domi-nated by administrators other than the elementary prin-cipals.

Publications were fourth in rank among the services h_ted(8.8 percent ) as an aid to principals. The majority of thepresidents (62 percent) made no mention that the associa-tion was producing materials or newsletters as a resourceto the membership. Of those who did mention publications,the major output is a newsletter (20 percent). The news-letter was considered adequate in effectiveness and often wasused by principals as a source of information. Associationjournals were rated inadequate while often used, and pam-phlets, yearbooks, and handbooks were considered adequateand often used. Included in these publications are descrip-tions of innovations being attempted, current problems con-fronting elementary principals, outstanding features of spe-cific schools, needs, current news, and specific aids in dealingwith current issues. Many of the articles, pamphlets and

Sources of issisfancc

handbooks arc written by experts in the field an, I publishedthrough the use of association funds.

Study groups (7 percent) are actively engaged in (1) im-proving standards of elementary school principals ; (2) de-termining the role of the principal in a militant situation,negotiations, and curriculum development ; (3) proceduresfor effectively merging Negro and white organizations ; (4)effective innovative practices ; and (5 ) inservice education.These groups were rated LLdequate in effectiveness and oftenused. One of the committees reported that on completion oftheir study they published a pamphlet titled The Role of theElementary Principal that "was distributed throughout thestate, and a noticeable change has taken place at one univer-sity in Ole preparajon program for elementary school prin-cipals."

Consultant services (3 percent ), available to the member-ship on a voluntary basis, are provided by executive officersand association members and occasionally by hired profes-sional consultants. Executive officers, the majority who arefull-time principals, travel throughout their state on requestto investigate problems, evaluate programs, or conductworkshops on innovative practices.

Usually thc problems involve policy violation of the district orfailure of the district to have specific policies and individual prin-cipals find themselves in difficulty. W e go to the district, investi-gate the situation, and make recommendations to the board andsuperintendent.

Consultation on new and innovative programs is providedmainly through the voluntary services of principals whooperate such programs within their own schools. Period-ically, consultants with a national reputation are obtained

84

to conduct workshops and mmars on specific robicins andpractices.

Legislative lobbying comprises 3 percent of the listed re-sources. Two associations maintain a registered lobbyist topush for desired legislation while another indicated it hasjoined forces with NEA and the state education associationto present their united support for or against selected educa-tion bills. One state has formed a state council consisting ofrepresentatives of ESPA, ASCD, state department officials,school business officials, chief school officers, and the second-ary school principals association to improve conummicationsbetween all organizations and to take political action.

Previously, these associations only made resolutions which werecontained within their respective organizations. Now, the or-ganizations are joining together and approaching the legislaturewith an organized program. The group has discussed the possi-bility of utilizing lobbyists.

Only tv; o association preside ts (4 percent ) mentionedan executive secretary as a resource person to principals. Onepresident stated :

We are a branch of the State Teachers Association and have useof their executive secretary. This individual acts as a voice forthe organization and has intervened for some Negro principalswho have been let go without reason. They have then been rein-stated on the job.

The other reference consists of an executive-committeeplan to increase the association dues from three to five dollarsper year to hire a retired principal on a part-time basis toserve as an executive secretary. The dues increase also willpay some expenses for travel to national meetin

S 0 85

One association sponsors an inteniship program to im-prove the training of elementary school principals prior tojob placement.

In some cases they are actually on the job as a teacher and experi-encing some of the actions or having an opportunity to take oversome of the administrative responsibilities But in too manycases, they are employed as a full-time teacher and do not havesufficient time free to truly experience the administrative roleother than some minor details which can be shoved onto them.

The DESP Convention, mentioned only once as a resourceto principals, received a rating of adequate in effectivenessand was often used.

Of the fifty presidents, 12 percent indicated their associa-tion has no program to assist state principals. One officialsaid a lack of cooperation and enthusiasm exists on the partof the principals because most of them are teaching principalsand do not have the time to develop programs. Anotherpointed out that they have four meetings per year :

We sit around and tell lies and brag about the things we wouldlike to do but are not doing and then in the evening we playpoker.

Obviously, he cons iered these sessio s to be of little value.

REGIONAL LABORATORIES

Regional educational laboratories were visited to determinethe extent of assistance available to elementary school prin-cipals. Twelve of the twenty existing laboratories were se-lected for visitation on the basis of program descriptionsthat indicated involvement with elementary schools. Labora-tory officials were interviewed and asked to describe pro-

grams that pro - ded assistance to elementary school prcipals, specific methods used in the dissemination ofinformation, and barriers to the development of programs.

Twenty regional educational laboratories were establishedn 1966 under the authorization of Title IV of the Elem it-

at-v and Secondarv Education Act of 1965. These nonprofitcorporations are charged with improving the cinality of edu-cation nationwide by utilizing the results of scientific knowl-edge and technology in the development of specific productsand processes for use in education.

Initially, the laboratories were given extensive latitude inassessing regional needs, developing organizational struc-ture, and initiating- programs. As a result, many laboratoriesstarted without a clear definition of their primary functions.After several years of experience, and with the aid of theU.S. Office of Education staff, review teams, and consult-ants, the laboratories tightened the definition of their func-tions and specified procedures through which they hoped toachieve postulated outcomes. The number of projects under-way was reduced, and program components were phasedout or combined. At the time of this study, all of the labora-tories agreed that the laboratories' function is the develop-ment of tested products, operable systems, or processes thatwill contribute to the improvement of educational institu-tions.

All laboratory operations are varied, but all are involvedteacher education either directly as a major function or

indirectly as a means of accomplishing other goals. For mostlaboratories, all programs are in a phase of development

Soitrccc of --lssistance 87

and are operational only to the extent nf the field test, demon-stration, or refinement stage. A few products have beendeveloped to the marketing point and those laboratoriesresponsible are Lollaborating with other agencies for distri-bution, implementation, and continued evaluation of theseproducts.

MAKING RESOURCES MORE HELPFUL

None of the resources identified by the elementary schoolprincipals and the representatives of the resource agencieswere judged to be totally adequate or utilized to their fullestextent. Representatives of tne resource agencies were askedhow they thought the resources available to the elementaryschool principal could be made more helpful. In stating theiropinions, they identified the inherent problems in each agencythat constitute barriers to the greater utilization of resourcesby the elementary school principal. While some of these prob-lems are unique to the individual agency concerned, most aremore generally applicable and revolve around four majorconcerns :

Conununication

a. Keeping the elementary school principal informed of the as-sistance available to him

b. Keeping the resource agencies informed of the _ eeds of theelementary school principal

Leadership Developmei- t

a. Improvement of the elementary school principal's ability tolocate and utilize resources and define the principal's respon-sibilities for local ;'nstructional improvement

b. Improvement of leadership within the resource agencies to

recognize the problems of the elementary school and to de-velop useful assistance programs for the elementary school

Funding and Staffinga. Allocation of sufficient funds to accomplish program ob-

jectivesb. Provision of enough person el to fulfill the rest nsibilities

of each agency

Coordination of Efforta. Development of a systematic approach to providing efficient

and economical means of assistance to the elementary schoolsthat need it the most

b. Specific definition of the functions of each agency in relationto the others to most effectively utilize the staff and fundsavailable to each ; prevention of wasteful overlapping of ac-tivities

COMMUNICATION

According to those representatives nterviewed, most re-source agencies have developed some means of keeping theelementary school principal informed. For example, com-munications emanating from the usoE, beamed in the di-rection of the local school district, follow a common pro-cedure. The state departments of educafion in each statebecome the first stop for most information leaving the U.S.Office. The responsibility then lies with the state agency todisseminate directly to local school districts. Various formsof communication are issued including program informa-tion, program guides, pamphlets and booklets, printed flyers,and numerous reports. The amount of information leavingthe state agency depends on funds and personnel availableto handle it. Problems exist between the USOE, the stateagency, and the local sch district as communication

9,6

Sources of Assist Ice

(Ioesnt aIvavs pass through the state agency. The U.S. Officelacks funds to disseminate information to all individualswho should get it. rfhe federal agency is confident informa-tion reaches the states, but what arrives at the local schooldistrict is unknown. In addition, complications exist at thedistrict level information often is not distributed to theschools by the district's central office.

Other means used by the USOE to get information tolocal schools is through regional conferences, radio aud tele-vision presentations, press releases, articles in educationaljournals, and bulletins. Regional conferences are held in-volving- school superintendents, central-office staff, and statedepartment officials. These conferences are presented asmodels for state departments to follow. Some states conductmany, others few. USOE officials are scheduled for radioand television presentations during scheduled trips acrossthe nation. Press releases are distributed to newspapersacross the country and the U.S. Office works closely withNEA and other associations to prepare articles for publica-tion in their Journals.

State departments of education, on the other hand, gen-erally have a less clearly defined system of communication.No formal plan or program of assistance exists in mostregions. Generally it is up to the individual principal toinitiate any communication involving assistance neededfrom the state department. There is a vast difference ofopinion regarding the function of state departments of edu-cation in the total educational system. Some states subscribeto a "hands off" policy and regard offers of assistance toindividual school districts as interference unless such assist-ance is formally requested. 97

90

Sonic states, however, follow a different policy and initiatevolvement with local schools through a variety of planned

programs and ongoing services conducted by consultants inthe field. Some states, divided into regions or districts, areeither under the direction of a single supervisor operat'ngout 01 the state department office or are completely staffedas regional Offices. In the regional plan, the consultants knowthe personnel in the field and are able to become moreinvolved with the local schools than the consultants whooperate from a central office.

The state department representatives interviewed citeda need for better ways to disseminate information to thelocal district. Only two state departments feel they provideextremely adequate publication services. The others saidthat current methods of operation in many state departmentscause a needless duplication of effort and do not allow forthe most effective utilization of available resources by theelementary schools needing help.

The presidents of the state ESPA were asked to desc. ibethe methods used by the association to disseminate informa-tion to elementary school principals in the state and to esti-mate hoW successful these have been. Table 14 shows a tabu-lation of the methods used.

The newsletter and association meetings were the mostfrequent methods mentioned, followed by the associationJournals and incidental mailings of letters, minutes of meet-ings, and special bulletins. Fifty-eight percent of the associa-tions produce newsletters (from monthly to once a year),but only 38 percent publish a journal ( quarterly to once ayear). The number and quality of these publications arerelated to the availability of funds and personnel. Most of

98

Sources of 1ssistoncc

TABLE 14

c

_METHODS USED To DISSEMINATE INFORMATIONAMONG 50 ELEA: ENTA RN" Sci I OOL PR I NCI PAL ASSOCIATIONS

METI101) FREOCENCV PERCENT

Newsletter 29 58leetings 28 56

journal o 38Incidental mailings 16 32Bulletins 11 22Parent organization main 0-s 0 18Special reports 6 12Executive committee travel 4State department mailings 6Yearbook 1 2None 1 2

TOTAL 127

the newsletters and journals are developed as- a result of thedonated time and dedication of busy principals ; few associa-tions have sufficient funds to employ an editor and a staff ofwriters. One president describing his situation stated :

We are attempting to communicate with all principals in the statebut are having considerable difficulties with this. Many of theprincipals are not members of the association and thereforedo not get our material. We also had difficulty getting our pub-lication out this last year as we had a member of the associationin charge of this publication but he did not get it out during theyear. In order to deal with this problem, I asked the state de-partment of education to help us and now they print up ourpublication and add Mformation to it.

The newsletters and journals con ic_es describino-

new programs in operat_ discussions of current issues,Opinions regarding legal problems, and other relevant topics.Alanv of the articles are written by top educators in the state,college and state department personnel, and educators witha national reputaC n. The incidental mailings include sum-maries of conferences and workshops held around the state,letters from the president discussing current issues or an-nouncing forthconiing activities, and abstracts of relevantarticles from the literature.

A few of the associations ( 18 percent ) use the publicationsof the state education association as a vehicle to communicatewith elementary school principals. Articles, announcements,program descriptions, and references to available materialsand resources are incorporated into these mailings.

Several special reports or publications have been pro-duced by the associations ( 12 percent) and distributed to themembership. Topics such as legislation, role of the elemen-tary school principal, evaluation, pupil personnel services,innovation in the elementary school, and multi-ethnic ma-terials handbooks were among those mentioned.

1 he use of state department of education mailings andpresentations at regional association meetings by executiveofficers and area representatives also were listed as communi-cation efforts. Only one president stated that he has noorganized method of communicating with elementary prin-cipals in his state.

The college and university representatives interviewedalso felt a need for better dissemination of information tothe elementar; school principal. They said there is a need foithe establishment of some super-structure to simply dissem-inate materials and information from the various resources.

0

Soitrccs of Assistance

Most principals 'VOUICI ha e several times more resou ces ivailable to them if they knew what they wanted and who to ask forhelp. They tend to rely almost exclusively on whatever help thelocal 0.istrict might have.

Timre are cliliering practices regarding the disseminationof information relating to the activities of the regional edu-cational laboratorieq. Two of the laboratories communicatelittle or no information to educators in the region as theyconsider their function "not to disseminate information, butto develop programs." Most laboratories, however, maintainan unlimited flow of information and utilize a variety ofmethods of communication such as program newsletters,pamphlets, conferences, demonstration days, catalogs ofproducts, area councils, and traveling consultants. Somelimit distribution only to schools actively engaged in labora-tory programs while others spread the word throughouttheir region. Those laboratories limiting communicationsexpressed concern that demands would be made on themfrom the public and educational institutions that they wouldnot be able to meet.

The staff questioned for some time how mucl should be com-municated to agencies outside the lab. Some communicationswere made and we found that expectations from public schoolpeople were very high, and felt ourselves unable to deliver atthe level of expectations. Dissemination of information was thenlimited considerably and the communication was only throughthose individuals who were actually participating in lab ac-tivities.

Improved communications between the resource outletsand the elementary principals was one of the major recom-mendations made foi upgrading the profession. Principals

101

94

are not using many of the resources available to them due tolack of information col;,ernii4g the resource and its purpose.Better dissemination of information through brochures,mailing lists, journals, and inservice programs related to thespecific resources would be advantageous to elementary prin-cipals. In addition, it provides feedback to principals regard-ing resources for self-improvement.

Other methods of communication are suggested as wellthat may make resources more helpful to the elementaryschool principal.

There is presently a need for the systematic identification ofresource needs through construcive research aimed at the ele-mentary school principal. Such research would tell us wherethe problems are and where the resources should be directed ifthey are available, or at least, where new resources need to bedeveloped.

For resources to be more helpful, regional meetings and/or localmeetings must be initiated where present resource agencies orpersons ask the elementary school principal, either individuallyor in groups, "How can we help you ?"

One official of the DESP pointed out a lack of communi-cation between the association and the USOE.

A member of this office has never been invited to the Office ofEducation to assist or consult in developing programs, guide-lines, and so on. There is no communication between this officeand the Office of Education.

This lack of communication and involvement also _s evi-dent in the point of view expressed by a USOE official whendescribing funding priorities for the Education ProfessionsDevelopment Act :

P2

Sources of Assistance 95

no vita need exists in the direction of elementary schoolprincipals. Other needs are much more evident at the presenttime and speak louder than thosc of th_c_. elementary principal.

LEADERSIIIP DEVELOPMENT

One reason avaikble resources are not being fully utilizedmay be the principals themselves. Twenty-two percent of thepresidents of the state ESPA indicated a complacency toattend meetings of the association, an unwillingness to ac-cept responsibilities in the development of organization pro-grams, and an insensitivity to existing problems. Traditionstill maintains divsions between groups in some states ; ifprograms cross any of the lines of social or traditional cus-toms, many principals will not cooperate in their develop-ment. A resistance toward inservice programs also is evident.

There still are many principals who feel that they have a degreefrom a university and are certified and know what to do as aprincipal. They are not in favor of spending money for inservicetype activities as they consider they don't need it.

The barriers that confront presidents in the developmentof programs are similar among state associations across thenation. Only a limited number (8 percent) of the presidentsdescribed the picture as completely satisfactory.

Most presidents (92 percent) mentioned numerous dif-ficulties that confront them and expressed acute concern. Inmany instances, this concern was accompanied by varyingdeo-rees of discourauement

Most mentioned among all the barr ers discussed we ethose associated with the Jack of recognition of the elemen-

1

96

tarv scl -Doi ncipalship as a professional administrativeposition. Sixty percent of the presidents related instanceswhen superintendents and school boards did not releaseelementary school principals for attendance at associationmeetings or who did not pay expenses for the principals toattend meetings. Attendance at professional associationfunctions requires that many principals pay for a substituteplus travel and other incurred expenses. One principal said :

. even though this situation exists, most principals do attend.We actually have about 60 percent of the principals in the stateas members.

Other barriers discussed include low salary schedules,teaching assignments that accompanied administrative re-sponsibilities, the absence of secretarial or auxiliary person-nel, undefined administrative responsibilities, employmentof poorly trained people as elenlentary principals, and inade-quate or unenforced certification standards.

In some states no certification requirements exist forelementary school principals ; in others, standards are eitherignored or modified by state department officials and schoolsuperintendents.

There are a number of people constantly working in the fieldwho are calling themselves principals, but who in effect are headteachers. They are trying to function as classroom teachers andpseudo-principals and are lowering considerably the standardsof the principalship in the state. Superintendents themselves arepresenting barriers since they are standing in the way, in numer-ous cases, of actually .enforcing the certification requirements.By placing, intentionally or unnecessarily, uncertified schoolpersonnel in positions where they can act as principals has causeda good deal of problems.

104

Sources of Assistance 97

The organizational structu e within associations also hascreated barriers to the development ot state I-wog-rams. Thisconcern, expressed by 40 percent of the presidents, includedsuch barriers as the lack of hired leadership at the stateassociation level, annual change ot executive officers, and theoperational effect of regional gr(-)ups. Few state associationsare able financially to supwrt a full-time executive secretaryand a consultant staff. Under these conditions, any leader-ship must conic from elected officers functioning on borrowedtime as they are administering. their own schools fiye daysper week. I n many instances, these officers are changed everyyear. This "does not allow the individual the opportunity toreally become familiar with his position and develop theleadership necessary in this office.

Leadership of the state departments of education also isin need of improvement. The USOE is confronted with manyproblems because of a lack of leadership at the state level.

University officials hold similar opinions of the leadershipthe state and local level.

There needs to be a change in the Department of Public Instruc-tion. The superintendent of public instruction has to get out ofpartisan politics. His position is now an elective one and hetherefore spends a good portion of his time campaigning,

The State Department of Education is leaderless and amounts tolittle more than a haven for dismissed public school superintend-ents.

Most of the resource agencies lack leadership and are unable toidentify the real problems in the elementary School. Such a lackof leadership has ultimately had the effect of retardMg the initia-tive of these potential resource agencies.

Administrators generally do not know how to utilize available

105

93

resources% Elementary school principals need more trainingthe methods of properly utilizing an available resource and/where to go to find new resources

FUNDING AND STAFFING

All the major resource agencies p1nt to the lack of sufficientfunds and personnel as one of 'he primary reasons why theirassistance programs often are inadequate to mcet the needsof the elementary school principal.

The USOE, for example, receives more proposals request-ing support funds than it can handle. Funds are insufficientto cover all proposals ; in fact, funds are not extensiveenough to cover those proposals that survive the screen-ing process and are authorized for funding. In Title I, forinstance, approximately three-fourths of the appropriationis allotted to elementary schools ; however, only about halfof this authorization can be funded.

Federal funding practices also affect the efficiency withwhich new government programs are implemented. The de-velopment of programs is hindered by these factors as wellas difficulties in the field. Federal committees continually addto the list of people eligible to receive title benefits, but theapproptiation committeemen who authorize funds provideonly enough money to cover a portion of those eligible. Inaddition, the timing of appropriations affects the quality ofprograms implemented due to limited plannino- time at thelocal, state, and federal levels.

Little coordination of services between local school dis-tricts also is evident as parallel programs exist utilizingsimilar federal support funds with separate services b. ig

Sources o sislance 99

maintained. Coordination of developmental programs at thelocal level is designated as the responsibility of the state asthe U.S. Office lacks funds and personnel to do the job. How-ever, the same lack is voiced by state level officials when dis-cussing their involvement in monitoring funded programs.

Improvements in the assistance state departments canoffer the elementary school principal \ vi I necessitate the ex-pansion of state department staffs in all nine regions. Thereis a definite need for increased consultative personnel to dealwith more selected problems at every level, particularly per-sons trained in elementary education and administration.Additional staff would allow many states the freedom tomore widely disperse personnel. Incresed funding will benecessary before staff or programs can be added to thepresent services. In several states this will require organiza-tional change at the state department level or philosophicalchange at the legislative level.

Many of the difficulties the elementary school principalsassociations have in providing assistance to their membersare closely related to their need for more operating funds.Fifty-four percent of the presidents indicated low dues andlimited membership as obstructions to growth. Associationmembership among the states rang-es from 10 percent ofthe employed principals to approximately 100 percent. An-nual dues vary from a low of four dollars to a high of onehundred dollars. Interestingly, the association having 100percent membership also charges one hundred dollars peryear dues.

In an attempt to surmount these obstacles, associationshave doubled and tripled their dues, have sought assistancefrom DESii in the form of consultants and funds, and have

P7

100

consider the pssibilitv of consolidating a number Of statesinto one association. They have found, howerer, :,uch con-solidation creates even greater problems in communicationand travel.

Not only is DESP faced with limited income from itsmembers, but the membership itself is minimal. Of the 45,000elementary school principals across the nation, only 25,000are paid members.

College and university officials also share the opimo thatmore funds are necessary to provide elementary schools i hadequate assistance.

More money is needed to do the job in order for resources to beutilized more effectively. If resources could be made availablewithout all the "strings attached," then they would be used more.Much of the money which comes from the federal governmentnever gets to the place where it can really do the most good : inthe classroom to bene5t teachers and children. It seems that wehave had federal funds available since 1958 but our departmenthasn't received one dime of these funds. We have written manyproposals but haven't had any funds granted to us,

COORDINATION OF EFFORT

In addition to the need for more money and more resourcepersonnel, the need to more effectively coordinate the activi-ties of the different resource agencies also was cited often.Many of the officials interviewed felt that the present meth-ods of operation followed by these agencies contributed tothe frequent costliness and inefficiency of some of the assist-ance programs available to the elementar,, school.

The coordination and evaluation of ongoing programs bythe state agencies presents numerous ptoblems. Many proj-ects are operational within a state with little evidence of any

Sources o '1ssistancc 101

coordination. In addition, state department officials hesitateto assist local districts in the evaluation process and to pro-mote systematic changes in weak programs. it seems thatlocal administrators would rather maintain the status quoeven if considerable evidence suggests that long-range efectiveness is questionable. The USOE does not have suf-ficient staff to monitor programs at the local level; there-fore, it must depend on the state agency to carry out thisresponsibility. The U.S. Office recently has prodded statedirectors to move more forcefully into these areas.

The college and university officials interviewed, in tufelt the necessity of increasing the coordination of state department and university programs.

The state department should become an outspoken participantin the evaluation of university programs, and particularly out-spoken about requiring some type of university-based internshipprogram as an integral part of the training of elementary schoolprincipals. This might bring us together to parley the questionand hopefully provide us with a modus operandi for institutingthe internship program. It would appear that none of us indi-vidually is willing, or has the time, or perhaps gives a damn tomake the initial thrust ourselves.

The state department and the university should join in conduct-ing basic research into the area of the elementary school prin-cipalship in order to determine the needs which the principalspresently have. This research would then provide the basis forfuture attempts to make resources available to elementary prin-cipals.

The state department has not clearly differentiated its rolesand functions from the roles and functions of the university. Asa result, there is inherent overlapping in many services and orresource areas and great omissions in other areas that areneeded,

10

102

Lack of coordination is imp led In many of the generalcolnments made by college and university officials inter-.

viewed.

There must be developed a cross-regional effort within eachstate to equalize the resources available to the elementary schoolprincipal. In some areas within the state, resources are plentifuland in other areas resources scarcely exist.

There is not presently an effort being tnad2 at any level to pro-vide coordination necessary to make the variety of resourcesavailable to the elementary school principal of any real help.

Resources would be more helpful if they were geared specificallyto the elementary school and/or specifically to the problenlsfaced by the elementary school principal and his staff.

All resources would be more helpful if they would go directly tothe elementary school principal rather than relying on the :in-cipal to come to the resource.

There is presently a wealth of available resources : they are justnot being utilized ; until they are, no new resources are needed.

Attempts by the state elementary school principals asso-ciations to achieve -greater coordination of activities in theirstates generally have been unsuccessful. Professional educa-tional associations are not directly eligible to apply for fed-eral professional development funds. The only way anassociation can utilize federal funds to develop programsfor self-improvement is to team with a university or statedepartment and submit a joint proposal. This places limita-tions on associations as they lutist negotiate or temper ideasas well as periodically overcome a lack of commitment onthe part of state and university personnel.

Several states have formed coordinating councils CO1 1-

posed of representatives from each administrative grot p.

120

cs of 103

These councils have been valuable in iilanning proglam,improving communications, and identifying administrativeroles among the levels of leadership.

I feel that all administrators' organ zations as well as teacherorganizations must work closely together in order for the schoolsto benefit. I would suggest that the superintendents association,school board association, secondary principals association, theelementary school principals association, and the state depart-ment of education work cooperatively in order to develop pro-grams which will be helpful to all groups. This has just begun asa council and very little has been done yet, but I feel that it hastremendous potential.

Other associations expressed (lisenchantrneut with con-solidation effor s. They discovered :

the groups have divergent interests and the superinte dentsand secondary principals tend to dominate the elementary prin-cipals in their combined association meetings.

And existing programs often do not encourage principalsto participate in professional association activities.

FIVE Prepa ation Prograt -s

EPRESENTATIVES from colleges and universities in each ofthe fifty states were interviewed to obtain their percep-

tions of the problems facing elementary school principals intheir respective states and to determine the nature of thetraining being given to prospective principals. Eighty-seveninstitutions were selected that offered training programs inelementary administration. In most cases, the official inter-viewed was the person who works most closely with theactual elementary administration training program.

The interview focused on : (a) the awareness of the col-lege or university of the problems facing elementary scLoolprincipals in the state ; (b) the nature and extent oi the as-sistance provided principals through the resources of theuniversity; (c) the nature of the training programs de-veloped for elementary school principals ; and (d) the bar-riers to the development of effective training programs andinservice activities for both aspiring and practicing prin-cipals. (See Appendix B for the actual interview guide.)

Similar interviews were conducted with state departmentof education officials, presidents of the elementary schoolpr ncipals associations, representatives of the U.S. Office

112

Ira fion. I'rojra ms 105

of Education, rc)rCSCfl t tti ves of regional educationallaboratories, and practicifl g. elementary school principals toobtair: a more c()mplete understanding of the roles and prob-lems of the elementary school principal throughout thecountry. The portions of these additional interviews thatfocus on college or university training programs are in-cluded m this chapter.

PRoc;RAL A ND PROCEDURES

The observat ons and conclusions drawn in this chapter arederived from two types of data ol.'-ained by the study team.A large proportion of the data is the outgrowth of the formalinterviews held on the different college or university cam-puses. Additionally, a segment of the findings results fromsixty-two written summaries of these programs provided bythe various collecres and universities where interviews wereCOndUcted.

Integration of these findings reveals general patterns oftraining for the elementary principalship and identifies theunique features of some programs. Whenever possible, theextent of a similarity is indicated by a percentile figure basedon the total of eighty-seven programs being considered.

PRESERVICE PROGRA

Of the eighty-seven colleges or universities authorized togrant degrees in elementary school administration, seventy-nine schools (91 percent) have some kind of formalized pre-service. program. The remaining eight colleges or univer-sities (9 percent) indicated either that their programs aretotally individualized for each candidate or that their pro-grams are just in a developmental stage.

Ii

100

Of the seventy-nine colleges oi universities hayingpreservice programs for prospective elementary schoolprincipals, twenty-six (30 percent) indicated little or nodistinction between the nature or intent of their programsfor candidates wishing admission at either the elementary,secondary, or superintendency administrative levels. Whilethe,_ program; were most often ten-lied "general adminis-tration programs,' the inclusion of specific courses into acandidate's program, such as "Elementary School Adminis-tration" or "Guidance in the Elementary Schools," wouldtend to di fferentiate an elementary administration program.

Of the twenty-six colleges or universities with such a non-di fferentiated administrative program., reasons given forsuch a lack of specific emphasis included : (a) the collegeor university initially began its program to train publicschool superintendents or secondary school principals andhas retained this emphasis, (h) the college and/or univer-sity generally thinks that past distinctions between variouslevels of school administration are largely artificial and thatthere is a growing need to have candidates t-8-ained to be"generally familiar" with all levels of school administration.This latter rationale was presented by nineteen of the twenty-six officials interviewed.

One university policy statement regarding its own gener-alized administrative program tends to typify the assumptionunderlying all such generalized programs in educationaladministration:

Advanced study in educational administration begins with theassumption that making and executing wise educational policy isa primary task of the administrative leader the schools areexpected to promote economic growth, to overcome poverty and

1 4,

'on Programs 107

racial isolation, and generally to enhance the (Imlay of life.Creative ).dministrators are likely to hold a number of quite dif-ferent positions during their professional lives. Therefore, theschool does not prepare people for specific administrative roles,but tries, through a broad spectrum of intellectual pursuits andfield experiences, to prepare its students vith the skills needed tofunction effectively in a variety of existin( and emerging roles

All preserv ce programs represent ither a fivc- or six-yearst.nt for the preparation of elementary school principals: I fa doctoral degree is the 01, octive of a particular program,however, more than six years may be required for its com--p1,2tion

In cases where there is a fifth-year program it usually issynonomous with the master's degree program ( M.S., M.A.,or Ed.M.) and applies directly to a certification for etary school administration issued by the state departn-education. While state certification requirements vary,completion of a master's degree usually presupposes thatcertification will be possible if the candidate has taken thenecessary coursework.

There are certain exceptions to this general patter how-ever. One state requires only six quarter hours of graduatework in the area of supervision or administration for theelementary principal's certificate, which according to oneofiicialresults in "an extremely weak preparation pro-gram."

In a second tate, the department of education is nonregu-latory and provides no guidelines for the courses that mustbe taken to meet certification standards. The local publicschool districts, therefore, are forced to make professionaljudgments regarding the qualifications of an administrative

108

eat late. Since th:s sit uation exists statewide, a candidateoften is hired n- I1. administrative position before he takesany courses in cle-lentarv administration : "A candidate

Is no specific coursework in elementary adnlinistrationto find work in many districts of this state."

1 11 a third state, the liberal issuance of provisional cer-tificates has resulted in a situation that prompted one uni-versity official to state :

In the past we have had a considerable number of secondaryschool coaches going into the elementary principalship becausethey had a M.S. degree and could qualify for provisional certi-fication. Teachers protested this Idnd of leadership, however, andthey are forcing a change.

Where a college or university does have a --year piaration program, it is most often directed toward doctoraldegree work ( L=(.1.1). or Ph.D.) in elementary school admin-istration. In these cases, the state's certification regaire-ments arc part of the advanced degree requirements.

A general stu-vey of these sixth-year preparation pro-ams suggests that they offer measurably greater llexi-ity than do the five-year preparation programs.Courscwork at all eighty-seven institutions, as characte

ized by the school officials, ranges from "highly informal andtotally individualized" to "quite structured and basically thesame as the requirements for state certification as outlinedby the state department of education."

While it is difficult to generalize with regard to the k idsof preseryice coursework in these eighty-seven colleges anduniversities, the following compilation 'of courses designedfor candidates entering a program in elementary schooladministration is representative :

jig*

I'rcparaiioi IrO(Jr(iiJiS 109

Courses in Gel u ral ,-idminisintionPublic School _AdministrationSchool Law (occasionally a specinc state law,

State law )School FinanceSchool BuildingsSchool Personnel AdministrationOr mzation and Administration of Public Ethic2in n

T -hington

Courses in Elementary AdministrattonThe Elementary School PrincipalshipIssues in Elementary AdministrationLeadership and Change in the Element-try School

Courses in Curricular AreasScience in Elementary EducationSocial Studies in the Eleir.entary SchoolLanguage Arts in the Elementary SchoolMathematics in the Elementary SchoolModern Technology in EducationMememary chool Curriculum

Courses in Classroom SupervisionEducational SupervisionSupervision and Improvement of InstructionOrganization, Administration, and S pervision in the Elemen-

tary School

Courses in Foundations AreaHuman Growth and DevelopmentAdvanced Educational PsychologyGuidance in the Elementary Schools

Courses in Research-Related AreaIntroduction to Educational ResearchEducational StatisticsTests and Measurements

117.

I 10

Cross-Disciplinary Courses candidate typically selects one ortwo areas from among the ollowing)

Social SciencePhilosophy orPolitical ScienceEconomicsForeign LanguageSocial Psychology and/or PsychologyBusiness Administr: tion

e the aforementioned courses or generalized courseareas are representative of the preservice efforts of the ma-

lv of the universities and colleges included within thisstudy, several specific courses are unique and may well sug-gest new dimensions in eleiicntary administrative training.These atypical courses include:

i__-,ational Behavior AnalysisAdvanced Group DynamicsFrontiers of Knowledge in the Future of Education.-"ociology of School Adminiz,LrationThe Role of the Principal as 11,structional LeaderChange and Innovation in Educational OrganizationsSeminar in Group and interpersonal RelationsCommunications in Educational OrganizationsEnvironmental Factors and Forces Influencing Ed icational

Administration

Several of the college or university officials interviewedexpressed concern about the cross-disciplinary subject areas.Although the selection of one or two such areas ls requiredby most schools for the development of a candidate's minor,the departments offering these courses usually are totallyndependent of the school or department of educational

administration, Such departmental autonomy makes cross-1 4

Prcparit . Programs 1 1

campus coordination and cooperation in the clevclopnient ofa candidate's program difficult.

in addition, rigid scholastic requirements in many of thecross-disciplinary subject areas, or requirements stressingthe need for prior undergraduate coursework in these sub-jects, often make it nearly impossible for an elementary ad-ministration candidate to be admitted into certain cross-disciplinary fields.

fri addition to the coursework required in the preparationprograms of the college or universities having formalizedpreseryice programs, thirtv-two colleges and universities(37 percent) indicated they require either a field experi-ence or an internship experience for their elementary ad-ministration candidates. Par icipation in these programs bythe candidat is optional.

While it was generally agreed that an internship experi-ence has merit, 7;(21-101,1S Ijinitat fliS were mentiona: by col-lege or university officials regarding the actual establish-ment of such an experience for administrative candidates.Of the limitations mentioned, the following were recurringconcerns; (a) the university has no money budgeted forsuch an expensive program; (b) the university's facultyare incapable ot offering the necessary supervision becauseof the need to commit their time to other portions of the in-structional program; (c) there are not enough local schooldistricts willing to cooperate in the development of an in-ternship program; (d) without money to pay candidatesduring the period of time they are involved with an internprogram, few candidates will actually apply; and (e) whilethe university or college would like to develop an internship

112

-1 the ne ds of the total program make the implemen-of a new wograni a low priority.

Where the C( )1lei..e or university does have an internshipprogram or a field experience, the actual amount of coursecredit varies from three to twelve semester hours. Ninc col-leges and universities (10 percent) that offer an optionalinternship or field experience program do so in a single-credit course designed for this purpose. Thirteen of theschciols (15 .percent) do not have any candidates involvedin such an experience. 1 wo universities, however, have overt enty candidates involved each year in an internship pro-gram. And two universities permit a eanffidate to take aninternship experience in lieu of actual experience in the pub-:c schools On admission into the training program.

Althouo-h thirty-two institutions have som me for of field--N-related internship program, they commonly suffer from oneor all of the limitations mentioned earlier. Consequently,such a pr gram often is a "paper prefabrication," as onecollege official mentioned, and less of a reality than manycollege and university catalogs suggest.

One of the university representatives, howe\ r, who didsuggest that his internship program was both functionaland successful, accounted for this by saying that his pro-gram was heavily financed by both the university and bycooperating public school districts. The candidate spendsthe first _semester on the university campus where he receivesa S500 to S700 work assignment paid out of a $10,000 ac-count budgeted yearly by the university. During the secondsemester the Candidate is involved in his internship experi-ence with a local school district and is placed on its payrollfor $2,500. During the final semester the candidate returns

12D

Preparation Prof, rims 113

t ) the campus to comple e his training prt gram. In additiono the fiscal allocations that support this program, the uni-

versity provides the equivalent of two -full-time faculty posi-tkms for the supervision of candidates.

Beyond the opportunities for field experience in many ofthe eightv-seyen colleges and .universities, seventy-eightschools 89 percent ) provide SOrne form of research op:)or-tunity within t. framework of the preservice program.Such credit varies front six to nine semester hours tor can-didates for a master s degree or a maximum of thirty quar-ter hours ot credit for doctoral degree research.

Seven colleges or universities (8 percent), ANT eh onceoffered thesis credit in the course of the fifth-year trainingprogram, have discontinued this practice because of a lackof faculty andh faculty time to supervise research workor because the den-rind for candidates in elementary seh.,00ladm )uinistrati( nas forced the universities to rec::

length of its training programFor example, nine urn versity representatiN e, 10.percent)

mentioned that they could not tm-n out candidates rapidlyenough to meet the increasing demands of their state forqualified elementary school principals. One college, with 250graduate students in the School of Education, has gradu-ated only 11 candidates with a master's degree in elementaryadininistration since 1961. In this same state, a recent studyshowed the level of eduetional attainment for the state'selementary school principals as follows:

LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT PERCENTAGE

Sophomore year of college 2Two-year normal school graduateJunior year of college 1

114

Three-year schocl raduateBachelor's degreeBachelor's degree plus 30 hoursMaster's degreeMaster's degree plus 30 hoursOther professional degree or advanced certificationDoctoral degree

Certainly the addition of one to three grarLntes in cle -mentarv administration cannot quickly overcome this state'sadministrative de -encies. Unfortunately, this condition isnot unique. It can perhaps be expected that until the demandfor elementary school principals L-; satisfied, a trend towardshortening the length of college and nn:.versi_-- preseryiceprograms will continue.

471423

2

ADMTSSION PROCEDURES

There is a wide variety of screening procedu_ admis-sion programs in elementary school administration. Thefollowing is a compilation of the various techniques used,

1. Use of a candidate's grade-point average from undergraduateor post-graduate work at an accredited school :

An acceptable G.P.A. for most of the eighty-seven schoolsstudied was 3.00 on a 4.00 grading scale. Grades from a 2.50to a 3.25 G.P.A. usually are acceptable. While a gradepoint average seemed a universal screening device, the vastmajority of schools interviewed on occasion would waivethis requirement to admit an otherwise acceptable candi-date on a provisional basis.

2. Use of various screening tests aimed at measuring particularcompetencies or proficiencies desired of entering candidates :

a. The Miller's Analogy Test (range of admissible scorescenter around 50 with many uniyer ides indicating noparticular cutoff)

Pu tio Prop 'is 115

1). The Graduate I-Zecord Exam anp.-e of admissible scoresvary from ,:,(-10 to WO in both th,_ :antitative and lan-guage portions with several schools indicating no par-ticular anon )

c. Teacher-Student 1 nventoryd. Ed'vard's Personality Preference Testc. Cooperative English Examinationf. Strong-Interest Inventoryg, Minnesota Multi-Phasic fersonalit Inventoryh. Ohio State Psychological Eauiiiuiatiouii. The Doppel Reasoning Testj. Otis Psychological Examination

Gilford Temperament Survey1. National Teachers Examination

The Miller's Analogy and/or the Graduate Record Exam-ination are the most commonly used screening tests. Eicever, since many of the colleges and universities have nodc!nitive cutoff point, thc actual test results often suggestan established admissions "procedure" rather than an ef-fective screening device.

Li addition to these screening procedures, the followingconditions for admission to elementary administration pro-grams exist in the majority of the eighty-seven colleges or

1. Two to three years of successful teaching experience or re-lated experience at the elementary school level while holdinga valid elementary teaching certificate. While this is a generalrequirement of the majority of the colleges and universities,where interviews were conducted, several exceptions werenoted. Two universities do not require prior teaching ex-perience in the elementary schools and six college and/oruniversity officials indicated the possibility of waiving theteaching requirement. One official stated :

116

- accustomed to only getting - to 45-vear-old resi--- going into our principalship program. Our screening

procedures are devised only to rescreen these people. Weshould throw out the three-year teaching requirement foradmissions. Eeing an outstanding teacher may well not bean appropriate cHteria for ass_urance that this same personwill become a successful public school administrator,

2. Letters of reference from employers indicating that the pro-posed candidate A. vil he able to accomplish graduate level workand that he has the ,:italities necessary to become a successfulelementary school principal

3. The enodidate's signed letter of intent presented to either orhaul e graduate school of the university and the depart-ment of elementary school administration,

4. Copies of all official transcripts of courses taken at other m -versities or colleges presented to the adniissions office of theuniversity

In addition to these general procedures, sixty-nine col-lege officials ( 79 percent) indicated that some form of de-partmental interview with the potential candidate is requiredprior 1-) actual admissions into a degree program. Such aninterview takes one of two possible forms: (a) a personalinterview between the candidate and either tlie dean or thedepartment chairman of the department of educationaladministration, or (b) a personal interview between thecandidate and an officially delegated selection and/or screen-ing committee comprised of from two to five faculty mem-bers from within the departmelit. One university official in-dicated that the entire faculty of the department meets, ifpossible, with each applicant.

Seven university representatives 8 percent) indicatedthat the majority of their candidates come into their train-ing programs on the basis of "formalized preselection. Lo-

:or( ion J'raqrauis 117

cal public sch DI officials, asked to perforiii this service forthe college or university, forward t names of possible can-didates to a designated faculty member of the university.

After review, these "nominees" are invited to apply foradmission into the training- program. Each college officialwho indicated that this is a formalized screening and selec-tion procedure said that such a public school-universityliaison has resulted in the general upgrading of the qualityof elementary administration candidates.

LATER SCREENING PROCEDUR

The most universally accepted screening procedure for can-didates enrolled in an elementary administration trainingprogram is the student's prior grade-point average. Whilea candidate usually is required to maintain a 3.00 G.P.A. levelon a 4.00 grading scale, several collcges and universitiesmentioned that specific enlphasis is placed on the overall per-formance of candidates. In effect, certain courses becomethe actual screening device, not only in ter of the gradesreceived in these specified classes, but also with regard to aformalized faculty evaluation of the individual competen-cies of tile :ticiparts within such a (20111-Se.

The exact nature of the courses used in tli manner can-not be generalized. Seemingly, courses used for screenirof candidates tend to typify the general philosophy under-lying the overall preparation program; that is, if the prepa-ratory program has a strong research orientation, a course-1 educational research might be used to screen candidates.

Tf the college's emphasis is on the development of humanrelations skills, the course used might well be a graduateseminar in human relations

118

\lthough a candidate's course work and his G,P.A. arethe inost common screening procedures, the extent of for-malized screening beitig conducted by the majority of thecolleges and universities is uncertain. One college officialstressed

There is little or no actual evaluation of a candidate as he goesthrough our program. The cninhasis is upon screenn g at theentry level. Our faculty does have an opporLlnity to evaluateand screen candidates as they pass through their courses, but nocandidate has ever neen screeniA out of the program after hayingbeen admitted.

Related to this, a representati -e fr)m a Westensitv said that a candidate's G.P.A. is "more or less an arti-ficial arrangement used largely because the liberal arts pro-gram places such an emphasis upon grades and grade-pointaverages,"

In universities Dr colleges with ptepara ion programs thatstress the academic growth of their candi&tes, the use ofa grade as a screening device is more standardized. Onefaculty member indicated that screening at his school isbased exclusively on a candidate's G.P.A. This same schoolhas approximately a 50 percent attrition rate because "manyof our candidates do not have an adequate background topass our courses."

In a university where the state department requ -ementsfor certification are particularly lax, an official commented:

Because there is no law that tells any college or university 'n thisstate what an elementary school principal must have in the wayof training, we find it difficult to screen our candidates. In fact,there is no use attempting to screen, because regardless of screen-ing procedures, if a particular district wishes to hire a candidatehe will be hired with or \.thou our personai support

Pic r ion P;oranis 119

Beyond a candidate's cumulatiy GP.A. for cow sestaken, sixty-one colleges or universities indicated that allscreening procedures terr to be "informal." Unfortunately,the nature of this informality cannot be g-eneralized beyondthe speci tic comments of t\\ o officials. The first universityrepresentative stated :

If the faculty in general feels the candidate is a likely success inadministration, we encourage him ; otherwise, we give him aform of discouragement through our lack of encouragemen.L

A Southwestern college official concluded that in hisschool there is no formal evaluation of a candidate other thanhis attitude, his behavior, and, of course, his grades."

Tn many of the colleges or universities haying programsleading to elementary administration certification, the num-ber of candidates actually involved is small. In these cases,usually one or two faculty members, who teach courses thataffect all or nearly all of the elementary administration can-didates, comprise unofficial screening committees. Thesefaculty members, who usually are respected and recognizedby their colleagues, make their personal evaluation of thevarious candidates known to the educational professionwithin the state or geographical area served by the collegeor univerc

Beyond these formal and informal mai- ods, the only othereral screening occurs if it occurs at all, at the end of a

candidate's formal program during written comprehensiveexaminations.

These examinations generally are read 'by a committeeof three to five facu:tv members including the candidate'smajor advisor and a professor from a cross-disciplinary

1-Th

area. I n additio ii to thescolle,ies or universities

:alIii nat 1 ins, in the seventy-n Hepercent I that have some torn)

ot research proieet as a portion ot tne preserviee prog-ram,the oral examinations that accompanv the Completion of thisresearch protect act as a concluding screening procedure.While these latter screening opportunities do exist, few, i Ianv candidates are not grante,I degrees after having suc-cessfully conipleted all other phases of the preservice pro-gram. In all hut a few cases, the assumption made by mostcollege zuld univ(n-sitv o!licials regarding screening proce-dures during the candidate's actual program is that if a can-didate col-i1i-1,4s sultieient thne and energy to his programafter Iwing admitted, it can generally he assumed that heeventually will receive his administrative credentials.

INSERVICE PROGRAMS

Of the eighty-seven colleges and univers tics contacted,total of twentythree (a) percent) indicated they have someformalized, inservice program for principals working in thefield. The remaining sixty-four schools (74 per(ent) do notregard their iLservice programs as being formalized. (Be-cause the interviews often did not show appreciable differ-ences between the nature of the programs conducted, thepersonal interpretaLion made by the interviewer regardingwhat might constitute a "formalized" inservice programmay well reflect a semantic (lifference rather than an actualprogram difference.)

All inservice programs have some Common features: )

the bulk of all inservice efforts is in the form of various c_lege courses conducted either at the university or in univer-sity-sponsored or cosponsored workshops or extension pro-

tLriL8

Pr rams 1 2 1

grams held during- the i cgular academie year and throw.),-hthe SUilliMer (5) local, regional, or statewide confeletIcCson a variety of topics are prominent inservice activities ; andc) specially contracted public school district inservice pro-

us are a common means of presentin? 'cid-oriented:iervice programs.

While seyntv-eight colleges and universities 9 per-cent) indicated the use of One or all of the inseryice tech-niques, two schools specifically stated that inseryice is notconsidered to be a function of their schools. A third uniyer-sity official stated facetiously: -The only inseryice we con-

_

duct for our gTaduates is to pray for them.Although a variety of inservice programs is cond cted by

the c ghtV-seVen schools, fourteen college and university offi-cials t lo percent suggested that often these programs aremore adapted to the needs and interests of public schoolsuperintendents than they are to the needs of elementaryschool administrators. One such college representative con-cluded that elementary administration is basically "a latentstepchild- and that many schools have Hut as yet "tooled rip-to provide inseryice activities for the elementary school prin-cipals.

One college indicated that inservice provisions are madeonly for those candidates that have conie throucrli the school'ssix-year administrative preparatory program. This collegeofficial stated: "If a six-year preparation program is de-cided upon by the candidate rather than the more typicalfive-year program, then we do make an effort to provide in-service opportunities for him."

A total of eighteen colleges and universities 20 percent)regularly involve themselves with other agencies or groups

m _he development and pr dilation of i Tyice ogramsas a direct result 01- taculty representation n the - otherzigencies. -fhe most common _illiances tre: between the state ,11S,1).;\. the state department of education, or another uni-versity or college in the area.

ln cises where inservice is conducted jointly, the resultsvary. One university faculty member coutmented:

There is no formal program at this universi tv for inservice. Somedepartment members do work with the Elementary School Prin-cipals Association, but this is a hit or miss situation: At thepresent time, no one is designated as a liaison with this group.

secofld official stated that cooperation between his de-artment and the state ESPA is severely limited because

"neither the lt1 ' -\ nor this state's principals show theslightest signs of leadership.-

An additional college official ildicated that there is co-operation between the college and the :17, but the resultsare discriminatory

We do cosponsor inservice activities with die ES PA, providingthree-dav conferences where the principals come in and discussvarious problems. Hasicallv, these conferences are for the whiteprincipals even though the black principal will be accepted if hewishes to attend.

(Ironically, perhaps, tile focus of the last conferen e con-ducted by this group centered around the methods that couldbe used to promote school (lesegregation.)

Several college arki university representatives said theyencountered some prolents in developing irservice pro-grams for elementary school principals. Smh problems in-cluded : (a) faculty time is allocated only to work done in

U.

a ins

the colic inserv orts a Fe 11 t rewa led by in-creased salary allowance . b iere appears to be verylittle interest ir this state for inservice programming sincethe hulk of the principals are apathetic to their own situa-tion:" ( c ) there is a lack of sufficient numbers of facultyin the department to coordinate and develop an inserviceeffort ; and ( d) the university "acks commitment to oilerinservice assistance to their graduates.

Two universities conducting inserviee programs in theiistates apparently have overcome these limitations, however.Neither program depends on federal or fimandation hindsfor its support.

The basic cilipliasis in the first of tilese t vo programs ison instructional leadership. \\ hile the program originallywas designed for elementary school principals, all effortsnow center on work with the district's entire administrativestaff to insure a maxinium "multiplier effect." Each year theuniversity works cooperatively with a limited number ofschools over the course of an entire year. The cooperatingschool district must guarantee the allocation of one day permonth over an eight-month period for their entire adminis-trative :-;taff. In these eight full-dav sessions, fifteen struc-tured inseryice topics are handled utilizing a variety of simu-lated materials.

While fifteen separate topics are handled, one full day isspent in the general area of instructional supervision, "anarea where most administrators completely lack competen-cy." In this session, the focus is on "detraining" administra-tors in judgment making and "retraining" them in non-

ia2tive observational techniques. In addition to this basicinservice topic, other sessions concern feedback and corn-

131

124

munication, lagilostic testing procedures, interview teeh-nives, the group interaction process, curriculum design, thefornmlation ol instructional objectives, and library collee-

ns. Sin(:e 195i), these inseryiee programs haVC reaChedtpproxiniately 7,000 administrators in either three- or four-day workshops or on a year-long

The second university has developed an exter progi)1- elementary school principals. The emphasis in this

gram is on training- the principal "to work from a knowl-edge Lase rather than from a theoretical base ill problemsol ving

'Hie est enencL extends over au entire _adeinicschool year, with a total of ten weekend meetincrs. Two ofthese meetings are conducted on the university campus andthe renlaMing ei-:!-ht sessions are held in a camp setting"away from the administrator's home, his school, and histelephone." A series of guest speakers are provided to talkon a wide range of differing- "hut usually thought-provok-ing issues.'' Discussion groups, which follow diese generalsessions, f?mphasize the "faJs of the particular issue" ratherthan the theories that might seem apparent. Using thesesame "fact-Finding skills," the externs each do an indepthanalysis of a particular problem in their respective elemen-tary schools as a culminating project,

NESEARCIT AND DISSEMINATION

Of the eighty-seven colleges and untvers ties, a total oftwentv-two schools (25 percent) indicated they have somefi)rmalized research program; the rernaming six col-leges and universities (75 percent) have no research beingconducted in the general area of elementary school adminis-tration.

Pre

U the schools hayn done research in the area of theelementary school )1- the elementary school princif(it it WaS conducted by the school's elementary administra-tion candidates and reported in either master's theses ordoctoral dissertations. Such research \yas most often dis-seminated in abstracted form 01 ill complete form on the re-quest of interested principals throughout the local area.

Seven institutions that once required a thesis project havediscontinued this portion of their program consequently,they no hmger have any research done in the area of ele-meatary administration. I n each case, the research program\vas discontinued because it was becoming too expensive torele-,se faculty to act in a supervisory capacity.

Nine colleges and universities 1 0 percent conduct someof continuous research because they have a permanent

school study council, service bureau, or educational researchcenter located on their campuses. Three of these school studycouncils have developed extensive research programs : twoare working with twenty major public school districts andthe third is involved with thirty school systems. Where sucha formalized research agency exists, the dissemination pro-cedures also are formalized. In these cases, research dis-semination most often occurs through research journals,books, manuscripts, quarterly newsletters, or speeches madeby the participating researchers.

Apart from the candidate's research, much of the researchted by the various colleges and univer. ities is conducted

joMtly with the- state department of education, the state'sESPA, or as a result of private contracts with local publicschool districts. Where such research is not confidential,dissemination usually occurs through the ESPA journals,

lad

17G

the Phi l)c/La )r lii the u: i ':crsi tvs catah )g or re--search builetins.

\\ here individual laculty menihers are involved in re-search efforts, (lissemination of findings typically takes place

11)sec-went courses taught by these same staff members,in _ized speeches they deliver, or in journal articles.ln one college all research results are published under thename of the dean of the School Of Education.

One university with a definite research emphasis hasplaced its faculty members on a merit system : they receivemerit points or ratings based on the number of articles theyget published. -Merit points also are given for any profes-sional services Conducted by a faculty member in a localschool district.

Various justtficatons are given by college and un ver-s tv representatives for t le limited amount of research beingconducted on the university level. These reasons include:(a-) the university has failed to recognize the ultimate im-portance of its research function ; consequently, the univer--_ y has not provided the necessary amount of released timefor faculty to pursue research activities; (b) only enough

culty exist to carry on a basic instructional program, thusresearch is virtually impossible; and (c) the basic researchcompetencies of many university personnel are limited. Asa result, research often is not conducted even in settingswhere research is possible.

COOPERATIVE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Only six schools (7 percent) indicated they have cooperatedwith other colleges and universities in the development ofthe elementary administration training program. The re-

)1 1 ro/rcz;I!s

maining ci ghtv-one schools percent) stated di at no co-operatioi had either heen received or requested in the de-velopment of their preparatory programs.

While reasons for such a lack of cooperation often wereleft unspecilied, several college and university oHia1s didcomment. Une representative stated:

It seems that every professor is on his own withiii thentent. 1.-Ve Toni even have an association of school administ_ :orsin this state. Perhaps we are just uncooperative by nature.

An official in another state respondedThe ava Thlity of federal money seems to have created a lack

ust between the various colleges in this state. One schoolwill often fail to confer with other universities regarding any newprogranlming effort because they fear, and often justifiably, thattheir ideas will be stolen or incorporated into another univer-sity's program without professional credit being given.

Ia.. addition to these responses, a college faculty memberconcluded:

There is no communication between higher educational institu-,tions ill this state. I personally believe this is a tragedy. The StateLegislature has, however, formed a coordinating board forhigher education in an attempt to bring the schools together.As of yet, there has been no action since the Legislature has notprovided funds so that the board may functiorh

Aside from cooperative efforts in the area of programdevelopment, seven universities (8 percent) indicated thatthey are functioning members of the University Councilof Educational Administration (UCEA). One universityis affiliated with the Congress of School Administrators

_-.rgelv as a result of a lack of any affinity with this state'seducational association.''

11?

In -i.ddition to these cooperative ellorts, thirteen collegesand universities I .71 percent have some form of reciprocalarranL2r-e111e11t with other schools to either oiler joint cotirsc-work occasionally 01 to accept the credits of a tl.ansfer stu-dent -from a 1)eills1W university with no It )55 in the candidate'sn-raduate -tn arrtn<rement (Yenerilly e\ ists- ---Nvhere two schools lie in close geographical prON iiiiitv. ()DCuniversity indiyated that his school and another col-lege cooperated through the supervision of each otherint,Tns.

ne ttilivCisitv hits tried vith three other col-_,-es and universities in the state under a Ford Foun-

dation grant to cooperatively develop an interuniversitv in-ternship program in educational administration. While eachschool has an internship program, this cooperation repre-sents the first effort to combine resources and personnel in

a single program thrust. An official interviewed doubted,however, whether such an effort would have been made hadit not been for the special grant received to support the pro-gram.

CONTEMPLATED CiTANGES

On this particular topic many of the ccinterviewed gave more than a s

a result, a total of 113 specific res lses wereall Percentages indicated are based on this figuron th 87 total res ts

itv

()use. /Is?rded and

rather than

Twenty-seven responses (24 percent ) indicated that no newchanges are being contemplated in present elementary ad-ministration programs. While it is extremely difficult tocreneralize the exact mearn s response, t vo possible

illS 129

reasons olten were ( a thife is general sati tc-tioll with the existing training program and no change isneeded: or h ) any changes that might be considered aredependent on either additional faculty- or increased financialaSSistaucc, making anY or all possible changes unlikely.

I;evond these two primary reasons for ChlOOSing to main-tain the cx 51 in;:,)- preparatory prorant, one university offi-cial indicated hesitancy to elr,inge until -major philosophicalissues regarding the iwincipalship are resol ved :

Presently there is an issue hi tl-is state over whether we wantprincipals to be instruc_ onal leaders or plant managers. Whenthis decision is finally determined, then certainly there will haveto be major changes in our present preservice program.

In addi to these i spouses, sevynteen school repre-sentati yet, percent) suggested that changes are beingconsidered in their existing programs, but that such changesare still being discussed in comrnittee meetings or by facultymembers in informal discussions.

Eight college and university officials (7 ent) sug-gested that ,heir existing training programs are designedon an individual basis for each candidate. As a result of thisinherent flexibility, changes within each of these pr'.)gramsseem to occur continuously: although as one representativeIllentioncd, "the overall focus of the iwogram does notchange measurably.

Of those college an 1_ or university officials who indica _edmore specific changes are being contemplated in their ele-mentary administration training programs, a total of nineresponses (8 percent) suggests that such changes will takethe form of an inclusion of new courses or modified courses.

13

'e plan to c lvert rno f otir course.. a systemsapproach, perhaps utilizing the university's computer terminalfacilities to actually simulate an entire school district_ I -sing sucha simulo ed district, our candidates will be able to work Out allsorts of administrative problems.

second universi tv faculty meml- rovided a ro ghdraft of t IIC\V cht.!-:s to be incorporated into the cistingprogram :

Education 562, Thc -ipalship: this course includes topicson the social forces inficencing the administration of the elemen-tary schools, the administrative roles and functions of the princi-pal, poi: formation through the group pfocess, the relationshipof the chief school administra;-or to building principal. the guid-ance program, staff selection and orientation, evaluation, super-vision, and improvement of instruction, problems of facultymotivation, and morale. In addition, several books will be re-quired and special projects will be assigned.

Clearly, the proposed content of this single course is as ex-tensive as the entire content of many university training pro-grams. The feasibility of such an omnibus course may,haps, be subject to question.

F-sovrteen college and university officials (12 percent) sug-gested that new common cores of courscwork will be incor-porated into the existing preservice program. Seven of theserepresentatives indicated that their schools plan to developau interdisciplinary appfoach to public school administra-tion through the addition of coursework in the social sci-ence area.

The remaining seven administrative officials (6 percent)plan to revise their existing programs to include a behavioralscience core of classes and group sensitivity training ses-sions within the foundations area.

Hits 131

liege and I till yers percent indicatedthat they intend t develop or add 1 variety of simulationexperiences "providin;ir a curriculum which is more orientedto problem solving rather than so totally theoretical. Thisopinion was expressed by an official

Our program has yecently undergone some major revisions.1)resentiv we are more concerned with making variations in ourpresentatiolml tedmiques rather than making further changesin the actual imture of the program. We plan to use far moresimulation and 'inhasket' materials than we have in the past,

'I'he devi_lopment Of resea,:ch competencies among candi-dates Nvas a concern expressed hy six college and universityrepresentatives (5 percent ). C.)ne college official, 'IC/Weyer,expressed an opposite ponit of view "We are not now aresearch-oriented institution. We function more to helpcandidates become practitioners."

Four college and university administrators indicated thatthey intend to add an internship and/or field experience totheir existing curricula for elementary school administra-tors. Two other officials stated that their schools are dis-cussing the feasibility of extending an existing internshiptraining experience. One such representative mentioned thatthis is essential increase the relevancy" of the presentprogram.

Five college and universio representatives (4 percent)mentioned that any contemplated changes in their existingtraining program will undoubtedly occur in the general areaof selection, screening, and retention of the candidates forelementary administration. One college representative com-mented:

This program will undoubtedly undergo a great transition in the

12

next several rs. Emphasis will be placed upon getting morerigor into the training \vhilc, at the same time, trying to advanceto c.indi(Licy only the most qualill(:d indiykluzds.

Such emphasis SC-Feefi anl etent ion alsc

scrihed by a second university representative:

e are (hiscuss ing the possibility of renovating our screeningprocedures. We plan to use the Graduate Record Examinationexclusively ; throwing out the Ohio State: Psychological Exami-nation and the Minnesota Multi-Phasic. We are also raising ourgrade point average requirements for adinission to a 3,00 froma 2.50. Every candidate will be admitted on a provisional basisdependent upon his comi)etencies in writing, oral expression,field work, and a research project,

In this general area of candidate screening, an additic nalnment was given by a collqre administrator :

Crow( ed conditions within this department make it necessaryto reduce the actual HU Fiber of candidates we will accept into ourtraining program. It is perhaps unfortunate that this is tix..but until our facilities are Unproved, we will have to be morestringent in our screening- procedures.

plan to drc pecifie coul-sc\vork front the adnuistrative traIning prog-ram was nlentlone(l by four schoolrepresentatives (4 percent). The specific courses mentionedwere: (a) courses in the reading methods area: (b) philos-ophy ot education ; and (c) courses designed to meet theuniversity's foreign-language requirement.

Four college and unIversity representatives 4 percenindicated that they would like to change their traininggram by making the elementary achninistrative preparatoryprogram more autonomous through the development of an"educational-specialist" degree program. Thee school offi-

fl Proil 133

cials ( erCelli) s1.i ested a I7utui 'us in the area ofgeneral a dininist rat c progra minint. One of these repre-sentatives mentioned :

We aro trN ii«,) get ax\-a:.- from the notion that a person can lieprepared to he an )ClliltiOilal specialist rather than an adminis-trative generalist. Ow: of the major problems in lcniciitarvadministration is OUI false assumption that a principal t bean expert in all areas; we don t need general experts, teedexpert generalists

`.1.'NVO university s 2 percen entioned tIle needfor reducing the number of elementary a(liu iiijstratioii 7an-didates admitted into the university's training prc In-adequate facilities and numbers of instructional staff arethe reasons given for these decisions. Two additional col-lege. representatives, however, suggested that their respec-tive schools are contemplating the relaxation of their admis-sions procedures to enable younger and "more energe ccandidates to be admitted into their training programs.

Of tile remaining five responses, three university and col-lege represer atiyes stated that any future changes hopefullywill improv. the coordination between their master's degreeprogram and their doctoral progratth One college officialtated that his future preservice program will include smaller

seminar classes and greater amounts of independent studytillIC. The last respondent suggested the introduction of for-malized followup procedures for all of his elementary ad-ministration graduates.

PRINCIPALS' PERCEPTIONS OF TRAINING

What factors within existing preservice training programsfor elementar- school administration are regarded as mi-

134

portant by practicing elementary school principals ? Do prin-cipals in dill-el-cm geographicil sO.ings, inetropolitulcenters or rural conimunitis, feel differently toward thesig-nificance of standard experiences OF standard COIIISC of-ferings illCorporatCa Within training. programs Are theseexperiences that principals generally feel should be neces-sary prior to becoming an elementary school principal ?

While all these questions could not be directly asked inthe course of this study, principals were asb-ed to commenton the relevancy- ot their own college and/or university pre-service traiMng in relationship to their actual pi-incipalshp.Concurrently, these same principals were asked to makerecommendations regarding changes they felt would resultill improvements in the nal tire of college or university train-in!.!,- for the elementary school principal.

Based on 253 responses, principals in this study indicatedthat the experiences in table 1 3 are significant to the de-wentary school principalship.

Based on these principals re:-,powes, i\\U :ffilign SceinI:car ( a ) there is little distinction between how the respond-ents responded and the category of principal, and (b) prin-cipals (ITC clearly in favor of actual involvement in a schoolsetting as a significant portion of their principalshir train-ing. One principal's comment that his training was "load- dwith theory and theoretical administrative models" was fre-quently supported by other principals. The need for moreinvolvement in some type of internship training programwas regarded by practicing principals as an important al-ternative to the preponderance of theory in present pre-service training programs.

;4 42

YUI)IS 135

T \TILE 15

SIGN1FICANT 1 RAINING l'-,XPERI NNCESHwED By I

EXPE:',IENCEFrequenc oi e by

Catq2:01-v of principal

TotalRc-

Per-cent-age

1 4 5

Internship 19 17 16 17 93 115 45

Vice or assist-ilia principal 1 17 7

Apprentice-on-job r 0 27 11

Inservice 4 4 13 5

Teachingexperience 28 11

Elementaryteachino.experience 4 4 34 13

Degree 0 3 2 10 4Workshops 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 2

Case study 1 0 2 0 5 2

TOTALS 39 .33 39 42 42 253 100

Principals who indicated that the internship experiencewould add measurablv to the relevance o_ any administrativetraining program gave little indication as to how such aprogram should be financed or administered, Similarly, noprincipal indicated the optimum len0h of an internship ex-perience. Aside from this, principals frequently indicatedthat the internship program should be conducted in an in-novative elementary school under the supervision of a quali-fied an I successful elementary school principal,

1143

o

Ot the six_v-tw elementary sehool principals who indi-cated that prior teaching experience is important, thirty-four principals speci_ncally stated that this teaching experi-elle': he on the elem ,tary school level. He remaining twen-ty-eight respondents made no indication as to the level ofany prior teaching. A majority of the principals, however,did indicate that live years of successful teaching prior tothe principalship should be a prerequisite for admission into

administrative preservice program. Additionally, prin-cipals -frequently mentioned the importance of teaching ex-perience on more than one grade level before assuming therole of the elementary school principalship.

By clustering individual college and/or university courinto general course categories, the principals interviewedwere able to identify generalized course areas as being -.-r-nificant or important for the training of an elementary -chprincipal (see table 16).

The fact that elementary school principals identifiedcourses in the general area of interpersonal relations W'Rsnot only,substantiated in this portion of the study, but alsowas reaffirmed lw additional comments made by these sameprincipals regarding factors of personal weakness.

One hundred twenty-three responses made by practicingelementary school principals indicated that interpersonal re-lations characteristics, e.g., innexiouny, lack of empathy,and autocratic behavior were areas of personal weakness.It appears that principals are concerned about their per-sonal characteristics and the way these characteristics ham-per them professionally. Principals appear to visualize a"golden mean" regarding certain personality variables andmany of them see themselves as falling- significantly above

144

l'rcparation Profp-arlls 137

TMILE

ICN FR:ANT -NSF \Vmk ny Pk I NCI PALsToud Per=

Re- cent=sponses ;tge

COL IZSE

THA N I N; I N1:ropiencv of Response hy

Categorv

Child growth &development 0

Psycholovy(learning)

Guidance &counseling

Interpersonalrelations 10

General schooladministratkin 1

Elementaryschooladministration 0

Administrativefieldexperiencepracticum

Organization &

4

4 2 0

1

8

10

1

0

managementPublic relations

relationS

6

5 4Curriculum 4Supervision &

evaluation 2 4Sociology 3 0 1

Communicatiw I 2 0A subject area 0 5 1

Subject reading 0 1 3

Negotiations 0 1 1

TOTALS 55 52

14,

9

3

9

6

1

2

5

4

3

0

00

o

1

1 3

0

1 3 11 4

4 4 30 19

6 39 14

0 2

3 4 14 5

14

30 11

79 11,

5 42 1 3

0 0 3 1

1 1 M 3

1 0 5 21 4 3

39 47 270 100

1 38

or below that mean- far enough above or below that thereis a feeling that these weaknesses are disruptive to theirefIucl as a principal.

'1'0 the extcllt thw the SOCial Si1CVICCS can help a humanhemp,- Iuiicti ii, he factors identilied by cicmciltary schoolprincipals, coupled with the indication that courtiOS jii th0general area of interpersonal relations should be incorpo-rated into preservice programming, should be of import-ance to those responsible for the training of el-inentaryschool principals.

While course work in the areas of general school admin--tration, public and/or community relations, curriculum,11(1 supervision and evaluation of classroom instruction

were mentioned consistently as being imporLant phases ofcollege and university preservicc and inservice prog-ram-ming-, practicing- elementary school principals concludedtheir comments by voicing the concern that college and uni-versity instructors he people \vith experience in the areasthey are teaching. and that the professor be current incontext of the material being presented.

Several principals indicated that whenever possible, prac,-tieing principals should be called in to teach college and uni-versity courses norrnallv taught by professors. This prac-tice, then, would free college and university instructors ona part-tinte basis to work in the cleiiieiitarv school.

148

Foresee-ble Problems

r MAJOR= Of principals interviewed In this studyj. foresee social changes within the next ten years that

will greatly affect the role of the elementary school in society1 the role of the elementary principal in the educational

system. And these social changes arc judged to be the initialcauses of future problems. Population growth, changes inthe socio=econonlic level of the comnumity served by theschool district, z-Ind the elfects these changes will have onthe school are the most frequently mentioned areas of con-Cern.

COMM UNITY PROBLEMS

lixtul renewal and iu1(lustrial growth are just two rea-for some of the expected ch

makeup of the commtinitv.

In this district there will he a shift in population becaus, of theurban renewal. This building may not even be here at the endof this period. lf the population stays there will lie a need foradditional space to house the students. They will need more ex-perienced teachers in working with the disadvantaged child, andthe teachers nmst be recognized so they will have tenure in thisdistrict. There will be a need for, i;tirOroved attitude on the partof parents to encourage children to learn.

-Iges in the socio-economic

139

147

SIX

1 =4-0

1 ahuninum plant goes in. a thousand people will lie empl wed:old these people will be of an unshilled nature, I see these peopleas low-aspiration people zind children from homes will alsoreflect these low-aspiration levels. \\ will have a real joh tüintegrate these people into the conimul tv ;old the school.

lla ..iilcltsi iularitv ot apartment livl1it and the_inued IlloVellient ol people f.nr'l the cities into sub ban

. .

areas will cause a nuctuaticm in a lIected districts.Tile town is turning over completely. There is a migration ofpeople. 'Hie largest school district is becoming the smallest interms of numbers of students and the smallest is becoming thelargest. There is little change in the total population ni (Ourcity but there is a laia4e shin: of population from one side ofthe town to the other.

ln Ftiia 1 areas, however, district pop lations generallyare stable or decreasing: consequently, the principals in theseareas predict that many of their districts \\ill he fOrced toconsolidate in the future.in portions of the countr iere sci.arate schools aremaintained for minority groups, the forced iilt,,gration ofpublic schools bv the federal government is seen as the ma-jor proNcin in the near future, Elementary school princi-uals expect difficulty in meeting the needs of children fromdiffering social classes. The principals also foresee prohlemsin getting their teaching stalfs and their communities toaccept an integrated school system.I see integration immediately by the ten of April because thismust be done the state has been told by the con rts to integratetheir schools. So a tremendous public relations job has to bedone here to sell the people and the teachers that this is some-thing that is going to be done and \Oil be done and how it mustbe done.

Prollents 1St t

There Nv ill he ;t in the cliente IL of (II [T IL I I roni one ol

a moderate middle-class to a low soci Howie area vi Ii result=ing racial problems and poverty cases. Another problem prob-ably resulting irom this will be increased inihlic apathy towardthe performance ot _students attending this NCIIMUL -Al ore spe-

cineally, I als, see lxtcntrtl racial problemshere,

tile school district

There needs to be more of a desire on the part of teachers n _rive

Nvarnith to the children, especially to the disailyantag-ed. Theymust he able to forget about ,-;kin color. Thee must he able toignore socio-Cconomic backgrounds in the future.

n areas where principals expect to see ;_ downw; 1 shi ft

in the socio-economic makeup of their communities the,cliools arc lorescen as havinij,, to assume more parental re-sponsibilities in the ernoti mai and moral development otelementary school children

Working mothers will increase our responsibilities. Childrenare left alone more at home and also many homes are breakingup through divorces. 'Fhi6 ci-eates more emotional problemsamong our children. We vill have to deal with these problemsin the future.

I:\ lam- of tl e inci s_ [led a concern f the grow-ing numbers of disadvantaged children in their districtsforesee the introduction of broader Community welfare i-n-o-gi-ams within the school system in the form of health-carecenters and meal programs. One principal, for example,predicted :

Schools are going to have to do more to overcome poverty inour society. In order to do this. we must keep the student long-anCl more resources are needed to accomplish this tasl . if wecould put -ill the monev that is being Spoilt to overcome P--

166

and sup] rt ssista1ce 1car()I 11111-1.

The time is for forthiaght, hold. and

hat iS ex] 2cted

acdevelop the strategies to resolve the crisis will take largeallocations ol time, money, and the hest proiessional ednca-ti(tnal resources that can he allocated to the task. This is thechallenge to the L.S. Ullice of Education, to Cop.gress. tothe public, and to the educational proCession hichliii response is essential. Acti( n 11111st he tak -n to:

1. I )evclop criteria that will explicitly deline the role()I the elementary school principal and that willprovide a nt,2ans ot measuring= performance

2. Revise preservice training- programs and certili-cation standards to provide the principal with thespecific knowledge and skills necessary forquality lcaderslij in the elementary school

3. Strengthen resource ag-encies and improve theirenectiven.Hs in supplying principals with the as-sistance they need in maintaining modern, ef-fective, instructional programs m the. elementaiNschool

1 le following- specilic reconunendations are presentedt -icier each of these general areas of action to he consi(leredby the various dgencies for implementation.

ROLE 1_ EFINITION

. Efforts sh uld be made through st _ departmentsof education and local school districts to improvepublic understanding of the essential role and im-portance of elementary education.

114

)1(Iaf 167

H. -ation sliuId stil)l)ort atask force lenne t ut the eleinenta

n1ç he mos capahle professional re--ces avadalde in the Country t This task

Ii FCC 5110111d study the cv lence availahle, analyzethe leaderThip ic=! elementary schools,recommend the hasic lint erils of leadership mostpromisingschools, an define the essential jilç re(llcnts ofprograms for the

principals

3. Lonf2:itudinal tiiit tudies On administrator ef-fectiveness should be conducted to Obtain clinicalevidence that would serve to improve the identi-fication, selection, and screening processes and--iteria for administrative preparation anei ap-pointment.

4. Indepth research should be colducted on whatkes a school a "beacon of brilliance" or a "pot-

hole of pestilence." Definite characteristics shouldhe identified and criteria established for the pur-pose of creating- more "beacon schools.

the future improvement of the

and inseiTice educa-

PRFPARITION- 1)10(;RAMS

1. Preparatory institutions should evaluate and re-vise their programs. The institutions should main-tain better communication with the field and at-tempts should be made to bridge the gulf betweentbe field and the institution. Programs should (Ie-vote less emphasis toward the academic study of

I 08

adniiisLratoii ani greater emphasis on the de-Vel6pillelit SidllS, 111 IMMIZICH:111, and experiences

essential tor successful practice.

Preservice programs for elementa FV school prin-cipals should be developed and inip1ciientedthrough the combined efforts of colleges and LIM-

, stat,:_ departments of cdticaregional education laboratories, and any Otheragencies appropriate for this task. It seems nolonger appropriate tor college and university- of-ficials to design ;Hid implement training programs

the injudicious analysis of already outdatedcollege catalogs.

Preservice preparation programs for elemen arvschool principals should include an internship ex-perience. College and universities can no longerignore the internship as a vital part of the pre-service preparation programs of school adminis-trators.`I'n facilitate the (level pnient of '1eld-orientedpreparation programs, colleges and universitiesmust develop formulas for faculty work-load as-signments ; i.e., supervision of interns, field re-search, classroom teaching, and professional con-sultation. f any college and university officials arerigidly attached to classroom assignments as thesole basis of determining faculty work load.Competencies and personal characteristics shouldbe taken into consideration to a greater extentthan is presently apparent in the sc ehling,

1.7C

tion, retention, and placen potential lxin-cipals.

RES01:RCH" ;V;ENCIES

I S1 pp()It 1M1 thc 1 continu-inservice education pn >grams related to the

basic needs ot elementary school principals shouldbe provided immediately. Priority should be givento tile establishment of consorts that Will involvethe naticmial and state elementary principal as-

ciations, slate departments of education, and

All federal Ads should be authorized at least onefull year in advance to allow time for planning andinvolvement in the project's inception at the locallevel. All funding should preferably be accom-plished by May 1.

3. Title proposals should be e _uated on the basis ofpotential impact rather than 011 Li ic basis 01 dielOcale or specific setting of the schotl to assuremore equitable allocation of title funds.

4. Some provisions must he made that will (level -)

and maintain a national interest in and concern forthe particular needs of elementary schools. Someag-enev within the U.S. Office of Education shouldhe concerned with the continuous, systematicstudy of elementary education, providing infor-mation, analysis of needs, dissemination of newdevelopments, and proposals for iinprovement

leasures must he taken to increase he effective-

177

172

Urn vcisi ties siould -1 perati( -ith slatcdepartments of e(lUCati(1i, local school district.and principals I ociatoiis in utilizing their re=

--incredit kinds if inservice educationprogran tfl dis of specialists who understand theproblems ot adult learning- as well as the educa=

,nal needs of the field should be secured to super-vise ;rind develop inseryice education programs.Universities should employ personnel whose solefunction is to conduct inservice education pro-

Regional educational lahoratoric should he cim-sidered zt vital future resourCe for elementaryschool principals the SO F. should maintain fi-nancial support so that the laboratories will haveadequate time to test their products.

9. The position of State Superintendent of I -ublicSchools should he removed from the )oliticalsphere and made an appointive rather than anelective position.

Only after these recoinincuidations are I ceded an( niple=mented will the country enjoy an increase in the nun her of_s "beacons of hrilliance" and 0 corresponding decrease in

the number of its "potholes of pestilence."

A _ endix

"T of 291 principals Interviewed, 2i0 comp eted qucs

--inzures The foll :ing tables have been (leve o -)ed)rn thee respondents,

C -acteristics of I'; ou izI ParticiAge

eN

C leracterislics,by Principal Participants

Grades in ri wipalshipSchool Enrollment-Number of Teachers UnderStudent/Teacher RatioNumber of AitiesNumher of Admini, trativeSchool 1_ Arict Oro-ini7ai_

173

-malship

ktan_

TILE

45

67

89

174

Trainin,, of Princ is

Certification .I ield at 'rime of Interview 10Certification Required for Present 1Hsitio1I 11.

1\110 A uthoHzed Certificate 12\Vho Issued Certificate 13Adequacy of Trainit-::. IndRed )rincipal 14Dales 01 Degicus (.:ertilicationType of First CartiIcation Earned 1nPrincipals Certified Prior to First Pri'icipalsliip 17

Ouestionnairc 1S

/Yndix 1 75

ACEN UM RER OFPRI NCI PALS

Less tnnn 30IS30 - 34

40 - 44 0045 - 49 3050 54 4?

59(-)(,) - 1805 - almve

No Response 3

TOTAL ?:70

SEX

SEX

AraleFemaleNo Response

TOTAL

NUMBER OFPRINCIPALS

21350

1

270

190

1

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

1. What are the problems whicil you presently face as principal oelementary school ?1.1 List problems12 R ank in order the three (3 ) most significant problen_ --as you

_ (card )1.3 What are the pnmary causes ?1.4 What stands in the way of resolving these causes ?

PROBE: What are the barriers to their solution ?In what manner might you alleviate :luse causalfactors ?

2. What resources are available to ass st you with these problems ?

2.1 List resources within district2.2 List resources outside district2.3 PROBE : State Dept. of Education, DESP, USOE, Colleges and

Universities, Regional Labs, Intermediate Educa-tion Dist.

2.4 How adequate are each (point scale)2.5 How extensively used (point s(ale)2.6 How might the above resources be more helpful ?

3. What new or changing problems do you feel the elementary principalof this school must face within the next 10 years ?3.1 List problems3.2 How will this affect the prituipal's role and responsibi es ?

3.3 What programs and resources would you suggest to assist youwith these problems ?

4. What do you consider to be the fundamental changes which haveoccurred in elementary education within the last five (5) years ?4.1 List changes4.2 What are some of the unique characteristics of your present

program which reflect your belief about these changes ?PROBE : What do you consider to be the strengths of your

present program ?What do you consider to be its weaknesses ?

Appendix B 191

5 Within the past two (2 ) years have you been contacted by any orga-nization regarding improving preparatory programs for elementaryschool principals training ?5A No__ Yes_5.2 Describe

6. As an elementary school principal, what do you conside_ to be your :6.1 Greatest strength6.2 Greatest weakness6.3 Greatest success6.4 Greatest failure

2

PRESIDENTS OF PRINCIPALS ASSOCIATIONS

1. What are the problems which elementary principals have in thisstate ?1.1 List problems1.2 Rank in order the three ( ) most significant problemsas you

see it (card)1.3 What are the primary causes ?1 4 What stands in the way of resolving these causes ?

PROBE : What are the barriers to their solution ?In what manner might you alleviate these causalfactors ?

2. What programs are you presently conducting which are of assist-ance to elementary school principals ?2.1 Describe2.2 How adequate are each ? scale)2.3 How extensively used ? (scale)

3. What specific methods do you use in the dissemination of informationto elementary school principals ?3.1 Describe3.2 How successful have these been ?

4. What are some of the barriers to the development of yo r programwhich assist elementary school pr incipais ?4.1 Describe4.2 What suggestions do you have to attack these barriers ?

192

3

STATE DEPARTMENT PERSON NEL

1. What problems are elementary school principals presently _acing onthe job ?1.1 List problems1.2 Rank in order the three (3) most significant problemsas you

see it (card)1.3 What are the primary causes ?1.4 Do you have a systematic program for identifying major

problems ?

2 What assistance do you offer practicing elementary school principalsin developimg approaches to these problems ?2.1 List programs2.2 How adequate do you consider each to be ? (Point scale)2.3 What suggestions do you have for improvement ?

3. What resources are available to elementary school principals indeveloping approaches to present problems ?3.1 List resources within the state department3.2 List resources outside the state department3.3 PROBE : Colleges and Universities, DESP, USOE, Regional

Labs, TED3.4 How adequate are each ? ( Point scale)3.5 How extensively used ? (Point scale3.6 How might the above be more helpful ?

4. Does the state department have a ,program for constant review andimprovement of preparation programs ?4.1 No Yes Describe.4.2 How do they evaluate programs for approval and accreditation ?

5. What new problems do you sei emerging within the next 10 years ?5.1 List problems5.2 What programs would you suggest for developing resources to

assist elementary school principals to deal with these probleins ?

2 0

Appc

4UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL.

dix B 193

1. Describe your present progran in prepanng elei entary school pr n-cipals.1.1 Pre-service

PROBE : Screening procedures upon entry into programProcedures for systematic evaluation of candidateswhile in program

1.2 In-service1.3 ResearchD issemination1.4 Are you contemplating any changes in this program ?1.5 Do you work with other universities in program development ?

Describe.2. What are the problems that practicing ele enta y school principals

presently face on the job ?2.1 List problems2.2 Rank in order the three (3) most significant problemsas you

see it : most pressing : (card)2.3 What are the primary causes ?2.4 Do you have a systematk program for identifying problems ?

3. What resources are available to elementary school principals to assistwith these problems ?3.1 List resources within college or umversity3.2 List resources outside college or university3.3 PROBE : State Department of Education, DESP, USOE,

Regional Labs, IED3.4 How adequate are each ? (point scale)3.5 How extensively used ? (point scale)3.6 How might the above resources be more helpful ?

4. Does the state department have a program for constant review andimprovement of preparation programs ?4.1 No Describe.4.2 How do they evaluate programs for approval and accreditation ?

5. What new or changing problems do you feel the elementary princi-pals of this state will face in the next 10 years ?5.1 List problems5.2 How will this effect the princiPai's 'rbie and responsib es r

201

194

5

RESOU RCE AGENCIES

1. What programs are you presently conducting which a.e of assistanceto elementary school principals ?1.1 Describe1.2 How adequate are each ? cale)1.3 How extensively used ? scale)

2. What specific methods do you use in the uissmination of informa-tion to elementaf y school principals ?2.1 Describe2.2 How successful have these been ?

3. What are some of the barriers to the development of potwhich assist elementary school principals ?3.1 ancribe3.2 What suggestions do you have to attack these barriers

pI

Appendix C

Correspondence

Letter sent to Elementary SchoolPrincipals Associat on Presidents

Nominee Report Form

uggested Guidelines

Letter to Elementary School Principals

Acceptance Form

203,195

TAB

1

2

3

4

5

1%

LETTER SENT TO ESPA PR SIDENTS

The following is an example of the letters sent to preside ts of princi-pals' associations, state department of education o cials, and universitypersonnel asking them for principalnominees.

Oregon State University has been contracted by the United StatesOffice of Edncation to conduct a study of the issues and problems inelementary school administration. This study will analyze and describethe problems of administering the elementary schools as perceived byelementary school principals in all fifty states. Principals will be inter-viewed to determine their perceptions of their problems, and programsof colleges and universities approved for preparing elementary schoolprincipals will be studied to determine their relevance for the types ofproblems principals identify. Programs of state departments of educa-tion and the United States Office of EJucation will also be studied todetermine the nature of the assistance which principals can receive insearching for solutions to their problems.

Our previous studv of the issues and problems confronting school super-intendents revealed that superintendents are faced with problems forwhich they feel they need additional training and assistance. As super-intendents investigated the available resources to assist them in solvingthese problems they were dismayed at the existing void. Realizing thatelementary school principals are key figures in implementing the overallgoals of the educational program it is imperative that the issues andproblems facing principals be identified and analyzed in order thatappropriate steps can be taken to strengthen leadership in elementauschools.

We are asking the Elementary Principals Associations of each state,State Departments of Education, and selected major institutions whichhave approved programs for the certification of elementary school prin-cipals to assist us in this study by (1) suggesting names of practicingelementary school principals who represent varying sizes and kinds ofschools and are willing to present their views openly and effectivelyand (2) participating in scheduled interviews, whereby, detailed infor-mation will be obtained relative to programs which relate to the prob-lems of the elementary schools.

204

ndix C 197

As president of the state Elementary Principals Association we con-sider you to be in a position to make discriminatory choices of candi-dates which will most adequately represent the elementary principalsof your state. It is essential that all categories of schools be representedin the study, therefore, we ask you to nominate two or more individualsin each of the six categories listed on the enclosed nomination form.Criteria are enumerated on the form as suggestions to assist you in yourselection.

Please return your list of nominees in the enclosed envelope at yourearliest convenience. Upon completion of this study the final report offindings and recommendations as presented to the United States Officeof Education will be available to all interested parties.

Sincerely,

Keith GoldhammerDirector

Gerald L. BeckerAssociate Director

2 5

198

2

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSNOMINEE REPORT FORM

A limited number of elementary school principals will be interviewed inthis study ; therefore, we suggest that you select individuals who :

(a) actively participate in professional activities outside theirown school and are recognized for their leadership withintheir locale

(b) will be able to verbalize their points of view effectively(c) are representative of the kind of school in which they

function(d) have had at least three y ars experIence as a full time ele-

mentary school principal

Please list two or more names in each of the school categories described :

Category /---Administers a school in the inner-core of a metropolitancenterNAME SCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Category Administers a school in tl e outer-core of a metropolitancenterNAME SCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Category I -Administers a school in a suburban school districtNAME SCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Category IVAdiuinisters a school in an intermedia e size city schooldistrictNAME SCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Category VAdminiNAME

s a school in a small city school districtSCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Category VIAdministers a school in a rural school diStrietNAME SCHOOL CITY ZIP CODE

Name of person completing form Position Address

Appendix C 199

3

SUGGESTED GUIDELINES

Because we wish to attain some degree of basic uniformity related tothe demographic selection of principals and the communities in whichthey are performing principalship responsibilities, we are providing abasic definition of community size which will assist you in determiningthe categorization of principal nominees.

Category : An inner-core of a metropolitan center should mostoften refer to a city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, ant:in particular, the center portion of that metropolitanarea.An outer-core of a metropolitan center refers to theperipheral districts within a city of 50,000 inhabitants,or more, not to include the inner-core.A suburban area should most often refer to a city of25,00 to 50.000 inhabitants outside of a standard metro-politan area.An intermediate size district is a district within an areabetween 15,000 to 25,000 inhabitants.A small school district would include districts within anarea of between 2,500 to 15,000 inhabitants.A rural district refers to a school within a populationarea of less than 2,500.

Category 11 :

Category III :

Category IV :

Category V :

Category VI :

4LETTER TO ELEMEN TARY

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Oregon State University has been contracted by the United StatesOffice cf Education to conduct a study of the issues and problems facingelementary school administration. This study will analyze and describethe problems of administg ring the elementary schools as perceived byelementary school principals in all fifty states. Principals will be inter-viewed to determine their perceptions of their problems. At the sametime, programs of colleges and universities approved for preparingelementary school principals will be studied to determine their rele-vance for the types of problems principals identify. Programs of statedepartments of education, the United States Office of Education, and

207

200

other regional or local agencies will also be studied to determine thenature and applicability of the assistance which principals can receivein searching for solutions to their problems.Our previous study of the issues and problems confronting school super-intendents revealed that superintendents are faced with problems forwhich they feel they need additional training and assistance. As super-intendents investigated the availability of resources to assist them insolving these problems, they were dismayed by many apparent voids.Realizing that elementary principals are key figures in implementingthe overall goals of the educational program, it is imperative that theissues and problems facing principals be identified and analyzed inorder that more appropriate steps can be taken to both strengthenleader3hip in the elementary schools and also generate more adequateresources to assist elementary school principals toward the solution oftheir problems.Educators in your state have suggested, through nomination, that you,as an elementary school principal, could most adequately present viewson the issues and problems facing elementary school administrators.We ask for your consent to be included in our national sample of ele-mentary principals and to share your perceptions with our researchteam. Your participation will involve a two-hour, uninterrupted, inter-view with one of our research team members and the completion of aquestionnaire which will be sent to you in advance of the actual inter-view.Your puticipation in this study will greatly assist in analyzing thepresent :problems facing elementary school principals and in formulat-ing strategies and programs which will affect those changes most ap-propriate for improving the leadership in our elementary schools. Tothe extent that this can be accomplished, the schools will more closelyserve the needs of our children and our society.It is our hope that you will participate in this study. Please completethe enclosed form and return it in th envelop provided at your earliestconvenience.

Sincerely.

Gerald L. BeckerAssociate DirectorNational Elementary Principals Study

208

AppcndLr C 201

5

PRINCIPAL ACCEPTANCE FORM

PLEASE RETURN REGARDLESS OF CHOICE

NAME SCHOOL

CITY SI ATE

I am willing to participate in this study of the elementary princi-pal. (Complete infurmation below

I will be unable to participate. (Disregard information below

To facilitate advanced travel scheduling of our interview team, we havetentat.. ely scheduled an appointment with you (subject to your con-firmation of willingness to participate) forin your office.This time will be satisfactory. Yes NoA more satisfactory time would be

PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION FOR YOUR SCHOOL :

I. A school in an inner-core of a metropolitan center(50.0J0 inhabitants or more).

II. A school in an outer-core of a metropolitan center(50,000 inhabitants or more).

III A school in a suburban area (25,000 to 50,000 inhabi-tants on the fringe of a metropolitan area).

IV. A school in an intermediate size populati area(15,000 to 25,000 inhabitants

A school in a small population center 2,500 to 15,000habitants).

VI A school in a rural population area (less than 2,500inhabitants

209