INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted.

The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th a t should no t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the m aterial being photographed, a definite m ethod o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations th a t cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent.

5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

Uni

International300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8518957

H ite, R o b e r t R a lp h

PERCEPTIONS OF OHIO’S PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND BOARDS O F EDUCATION PRESIDENTS REGARDING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

The Ohio State University PH.D. 1985

UniversityMicrofilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1985

by

Hite, Robert Ralph

All Rights Reserved

PERCEPTIONS OF OHIO’S PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND

BOARDS OF EDUCATION PRESIDENTS REGARDING THE CHARACTERISTICS

OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Robert Ralph Hite, B.S. in Ed., M.A.

The Ohio State University

1985

Reading Committee:

Dr. Elsie Alberty

Dr. Frederick Cyphert

Dr. Lillabelle Holt

Approved by

Jr. ireaencl Advisor Department of Educational Theory and Practice-

Copyrighted by

Robert Ralph Hite

1985

Extensive quotes from A Place Called School (copyrighted 1984) by John I. Goodlad, The Effective School Report (November 1983), and "One State's Approach: Ohio's EffectiveSchool Program" (October 1983) by Robert W. Evans are used with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company, KELWYNN Inc., and the National Association of Secondary School Principals, respectively.

This dissertation is dedicated to

my './ife, Elizabeth Anne;

my children, Peter Jonathan and Jennifer Christine;

my late mother, Olvia A. Hite;

my late grandmother, Lura D. Taylor; and

my late father-in-law, John W. Buser

- all who have enriched my life.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made possible through the assistance,

cooperation, encouragement, and understanding of many indi­

viduals. While not all can be adequately recognized, the

author of this dissertation wishes to express sincere thanks

and appreciation to the following:

Dr. Frederick R. Cyphert, advisor, for his inspiration

and leadership; for his patience, guidance, encouragement,

and support; and for his allowing the author to be himself.

Dr. Elsie Alberty and Dr. Lillabelle Holt, members of

the author’s reading committee, for their suggestions,

encouragement, and support.

Betty Logan, the author's secretary, for her dedicated

assistance and.understanding.

Ralph and Janice Hite, the author’s father and step­

mother, and Nettie P. Buser, the author's mother-in-law,

for their support and understanding.

Elizabeth Anne Hite, the author's wife, and Peter

Jonathan Hite and Jennifer Christine Hite, the author's

children, for their assistance, patience, devotion, under­

standing, encouragement, and sacrifices, without which this

study would have been impossible.

iii

VITA

August 30, 1945......... Born - Newark, Ohio

1963 ..................... High School Diploma, WatkinsMemorial High School, Pataskala, Ohio

1967 ..................... B.S. in Ed., Capital University,Columbus, Ohio

1967 - 1971 ............. Mathematics Teacher, NewarkSenior High School, Newark, Ohio

1 9 7 1 ................ M.A., The Ohio State University,Columbus, Ohio

1971 - 1973............. Assistant Principal, Heath HighSchool, Heath, Ohio

1973 - 1980.-............ Elementary Principal, .Newark CitySchools, Newark, Ohio

1980 - 1983............. Director of Staff Development,Newark City Schools, Newark, Ohio

198,3 - .............. Assistant Superintendent, NewarkCity Schools, Newark, Ohio

i v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageDEDICATION.................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... iii

VITA..................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES.......................................... ix

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1

Problem Statement.............................. 5Definitions of T e r m s ..........................• 11Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 15Delimitations of the S t u d y ................... 16Significance of the. Study..................... 18

II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E RATURE................; . . 22

An Effective School Defined.................. 25The Nature of the Research on Ef-fective

Schools....................-................... 28An Overview of the Characteristics of

Effective Schools............................ 29Strong Leadership.............................. 33An Instructional F o c u s ............. . . . . 40School Learning Climate....................... 47High Expectations....................... 56Monitoring of Student Progress and Parent

and Community Involvement.................. 59A Summary of the Characteristics of

Effective Schools............................ 61A Research Study Directed Toward Perceptions

of School Personnel.......................... 66Conclusions. . .............................. 68

v

III. PROCEDURES 70

Research Design................................ 70Subject Selection.............................. 73Outcome Measures .............................. 77Data Collection................................ 79Data Analysis................................... 83

IV. RESULTS OF THE S T U D Y .......................... 92

The Samples..................................... 92Representativeness of the Samples............ 94Reliability..................................... 95Missing D a t a ................................... 96Descriptions of the Samples.................. 98Research Question One......................... 105Research Question Two......................... IllResearch Question Three...................... 116Research Question Four ...................... 123Research Question F i v e .......... 128Research Question Six. . .................. 141Research Question Seven....................... 147Research Question Eight.................... . 15.0Research Question N i n e .................... . 157Research Question Ten......................... 161

V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.......................... 170

Summary......................... 170Conclusions..................................... 180Recommendations . 188

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................ 192

APPENDIXES

A. Letter to State Department of EducationRequesting Letter of Endorsement ......... 199

B. Letter to Buckeye Association of SchoolAdministrators Requesting Letter ofEndorsement................................... 201

C. Letter to Ohio School Boards AssociationRequesting Letter of Endorsement ......... 203

D. Letter of Endorsement from State Departmentof Education . ............................. 205

vi

E. Letter of Endorsement from BuckeyeAssociation of School Administrators . . . 207

F. Letter of Endorsement from Ohio SchoolBoards Association ......................... 209

G. Initial Superintendent Field Test Letter . . 211

H. Initial School Board President Field TestL e t t e r ....................................... 213

■I. First Field Test Questionnaire EvaluationForm for Superintendent Questionnaire. . . 215

J. First Field Test Questionnaire EvaluationForm for School Board PresidentQuestionnaire................................ 218

K. Second Field Test Superintendent Letter. . . 221

L. Second Field Test School Board PresidentL e t t e r ....................................... 223

M. Second Field Test Questionnaire EvaluationF o r m . . '.................................... 225

N. Introductory Letter to SuperintendentS u b j e c t s ..................................... 227

0. Introductory Letter to School BoardPresident S u b j e c t s . • . 229

P. Questionnaire Cover Letter to SuperintendentS u b j e c t s ....................... 231

Q. Questionnaire for Superintendent Subjects. . 233

R. Questionnaire Cover Letter to School BoardPresident Subjects ......................... 242

S. Questionnaire for School Board PresidentS u b j e c t s ..................................... 244

T. Follow-Up Cover Letter to Non-Respondents. . 253

U. Cover Letter to Respondents Having MissingD a t a .......................................... 255

vii

V. Means for Early and Late Respondents Regarding the Importance of the Characteristics of Effective Schools (TABLE 1 5 ) ..................................... 257

W. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Superintendents' Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics (TABLE 16) . . 260

X. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Board Presidents' Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics (TABLE 17) . . 262

Y. Means for Early and Late Respondents Regarding the Extent to Which the Characteristics of Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio (TABLE 1 8 ) ............................ 264

Z. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Superintendents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio '(TABLE 19)........ 267

AA. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Board Presidents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio (TABLE 20)........ 269

viii

LIST OF.TABLES

Table Page

1. The Representativeness of the Sample of Superintendents...................• ............ 94

2. The Representativeness of the Sample ofSchool Board Presidents. . .................. 95

3. Description of the Sample of Superintendent Respondents............................... 99

4. Description of the Sample of Board President Respondents............................... 102

5. Percentages and Means of Superintendents'Perceptions Regarding the Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools . . . . 106

6. Analysis of Variance: Superintendents'Perceptions, Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools......................... 113

7. Percentages and Means of Board Presidents'Perceptions Regarding the Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools . . . . 117

8. Analysis of Variance: Board Presidents'Perceptions, Importance of Characteristics of . Effective Schools......................... 126

9. Means for Questions 1 - 22, Collectively: Superintendents/Board Presidents -Perceptions of Importance............... 130

10. Percentages and Means of Superintendents'Perceptions Regarding the Extent to WhichCharacteristics of Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio. . . 142

11. Analysis of Variance: Superintendents'Perceptions, Extent to Which CharacteristicsWere Practiced in O h i o .................. 148

ix

12. Percentages and Means of Board Presidents'Perceptions Regarding the Extent to Which Characteristics of Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio. . . 151

13. Analysis of Variance: Board Presidents'Perceptions, Extent to Which CharacteristicsWere Practiced in O h i o ....................... 159

14. Means for Questions 1 - 21, Collectively: Superintendents/Board Presidents -Perceptions of Practice....................... 162

15. Means for Early and Late Respondents Regarding the Importance of theCharacteristics of Effective Schools . . . . 257

16. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Superintendents' Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics. . . . . . . . 260

17. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Board Presidents' Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics................ 262

18. Means for Early and Late Respondents Regarding the Extent to Which the Characteristics of Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio. . . 264

19. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Superintendents' Perceptions -Extent Practiced in O h i o ..................... 267

20. Analysis of Variance: Early and LateRespondents, Board Presidents' Perceptions -Extent Practiced in O h i o ..................... 269

x

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preemi­

nence in commerce, industry, science and technological inno­

vation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the

world" (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983). "Current economic woes indicate serious problems.

The downturns of our economy are not storms to be weathered,

but rather are omens of new uncharted seas to be sailed.

Technology is making us producers of ideas instead of

things. A work force that cannot adjust to mental, rather

than manual, labor will exacerbate the problem of recovery

and economic stability" (Evans, October 1983).

While the American people "can take justifiable pride

in what our schools and colleges have historically accom­

plished and contributed to the United States and the well­

being of its people, the educational foundations of our so­

ciety are presently being eroded by a rising tide of medioc­

rity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a peo­

ple" (The National Commission on Excellence in Education,

1983). "Schools that produce students who are unable to

1

2

function in the changing economy are counterproductive to

economic survival" (Evans, October 1983).

The American public is calling for excellence in educa­

tion! They are calling for effective schools! The fortieth

President of these United States, Ronald Reagan, captured

the essence of education in America when he stated, " 'Cer­

tainly there are few areas of American life as important to

our society, to our people, and to our families as our

schools...' " (The National Commission on Excellence in Edu­

cation, 1983). Though the need for schooling is believed to

be very important, confidence in publ'ic education has not

been strong. The 16th Annual Gallup Poll Of the Public's

Attitudes Toward The Public Schools reports less than one-

third of those polled thought the schools deserved a grade

of A or B for the job they were doing (Gallup, 1984).

Though the "greatest overall educational deficiency in

the United States...(is the) absence of clear, compelling

and widely agreed-upon goals for improving educational per­

formance" (Task Force on Education for Economic Growth,

1983), "faith in America's future... rests more on developing

the best educational system in the world than on developing

the best industrial system or the strongest military force"

(Gallup, September 1982). "The need for effective schools

is supported by the research. Studies by Edmonds, Brook-

over, Rutter, Brophy, Bloom, Goodlad, and others indicate"

(Evans, October 1983) effective schools do exist! The call

3

has been issued "to all who care about America and its fu­

ture..." (The National Commission on Excellence in Educa­

tion, 1983), including "those working at all levels of the

educational system" (Goodlad, 1984), to ensure that schools

throughout the Nation are effective. The public's view of

the Nation's schools has set the stage for identifying ef­

fective school components in an effort to achieve education­

al excellence throughout the country (The Effective School

Report. November 1983).

The authors of A Nation At Risk recommended "that citi­

zens across the Nation hold educators and elected officials

responsible for providing the leadership necessary to ■

achieve" the reforms needed to establish more schools that

are effective (The National Commission on Excellence in Edu­

cation, 1983). "The success of school improvement efforts

depends, to a great extent, on the quality of leadership

provided by the board of education and superintendent"

(Eaker, January 1984). Superintendents are responsible for

providing the leadership required to insure school and com­

munity support for school reforms, boards of education must

provide the support needed for superintendents to effective­

ly carry out their leadership responsibilities, and "school

boards must consciously develop leadership skills at the

school and district levels if the reforms...are to be

achieved" (The National Commission on Excellence in Educa­

tion, 1983) .

4

While superintendents "play a crucial role in determin­

ing the quality of education provided" (Ohio Commission on

Educational Excellence, 1983), boards of education are held

accountable for appraising "the effectiveness with which the

schools are achieving the educational purposes of the board"

(Campbell, Corbally, and Ramseyer, 1966). "The superinten­

dent, working with the local board of education, must make a

commitment to tomorrow" (Marks, Autumn 1981) in the achieve­

ment of educational excellence through creating more effec­

tive schools.

The movement directed toward making schooling more ef­

fective "is here and is being implemented all over the coun­

try" (The Effective School Report, November 1983) . Superin­

tendents and boards of education "want to believe that (the

movement) will make a difference" (The Effective School Re­

port. November 1983). The essential elements needed to re­

form the American educational system already exist, but they

need to be placed in action through the effective leader­

ship of superintendents and school board members (The Na­

tional Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The

perceptions held by superintendents and school board mem­

bers, regarding the characteristics of effective schools,

strongly influence the quality of their leadership perfor­

mance and can make the difference in the successes achieved

through the effective school movement (Gordon,. 1.977)!

5

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study was to describe the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school superintendents and boards of

education presidents regarding the characteristics of effec­

tive schools. As noted, "the success of school improvement

efforts depends, to a great extent, on the quality of lead­

ership provided by the board of education and superinten­

dent" (Eaker, Januaiy 1984). The perceptions of superinten­

dents and board presidents were also noted as strongly in­

fluencing the success of their leadership efforts (Gordon,

1977). Thus, this study was an attempt to determine the

perceptions held by superintendents and board 'presidents,

regarding the characteristics of effective schools, which

may influence the leadership these individuals provide in

the achievement of educational excellence.

The perceptions of superintendents and board presidents

were investigated from two standpoints: (1) perceptions re­

garding the importance of specific characteristics identi­

fied in the research on effective schools and (2) percep­

tions regarding the extent to which those specific charac­

teristics identified in the research we.re practiced in

grades K - 12 in the public schools of Ohio.

Research questions examined in the study were:

1. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

superintendents regarding the importance of specific

6

characteristics of effective schools, individually and col­

lectively, in the achievement of educational excellence?

2. Do significant differences exist in the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the

importance of these characteristics of effective schools in

the achievement of educational excellence according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?- '

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) initial level of teaching certification?

(L) the number of years of experience as a cla.ss-

room teacher?

(M) the number of years of experience as a build­

ing principal?

(N) the number of years of experience in the

superintendency?

3. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

boards of education presidents regarding the importance of

7

specific characteristics of effective schools, individually

and collectively, in the achievement of educational excel­

lence?

4. Do significant differences exist in the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school boards of education presidents

regarding the importance of these characteristics of effec­

tive schools in the achievement of educational excellence

according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) the number of years of experience as a board

member ?

(L) those board presidents having had public

school teaching experience?

(M) those board presidents having had public

school administrative experience?

8

5. What similarities and differences exist between

the perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents and

the perceptions of Ohio's public school boards of education

presidents regarding the importance of specific characteris­

tics of effective schools in the achievement of educational

excellence according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) .ethnic group?

• (F) political preference?

(G) type of school district community?

(H) type of school district?

(I) size of school district?

6. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

superintendents regarding the extent to which specific char­

acteristics of effective schools are practiced in the public

schools of Ohio?

7. Do significant differences exist in the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the

extent to which these characteristics of effective schools

are practiced in the public schools of Ohio according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

9

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) initial level of teaching certification?

(L) the number of years of experience as a class­

room teacher?

(M) the number of years of experience as a build­

ing principal?

(N) the number of years of experience in the

superintendency?

8. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

boards of education presidents regarding the extent to which

specific characteristics of effective schools are practiced

in the public schools of Ohio?

9. Do significant differences exist in the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school boards of education presidents

regarding the extent to which these characteristics of ef­

fective schools are practiced in the public schools of Ohio

according to:

(A) sex?

10

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) the number of years of experience as a board

member?

(L) those board presidents having had public

school teaching experience?

(M) those board presidents having had public

school administrative experience?

10. What similarities and differences exist between

the perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents and

the perceptions of Ohio's public school boards of education

presidents regarding the extent to which specific character­

istics of effective schools are practiced in the public

schools of Ohio according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

11

(D) whether they do have or have had children of

their own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) type of school district community?

(H) type of school district?

(I) size of school district?

Definitions of Terms

For clarification of their use in this study, defini­

tions of the following terras are provided.

AGE was self-reported as the number of years since birth, at

time the questionnaire was completed, in one of the follow­

ing intervals: 30 or younger, 31 - 40, 41 - 50, 51 - 60, or

61 or older.

CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL was self-reported as hav­

ing or having had children enrolled in public school, grades

K - 12, or not having or riot having had children enrolled in

public school, grades K - 12, at time the questionnaire was

completed.

ETHNIC GROUP was self-reported as white (non-Hispanic) ,

black (non-Hispanic), Chicano/Hispanic, Native American (In­

dian, Eskimo), Asian/Pacific Islander, or Other (specify).

12

INITIAL LEVEL OF TEACHING CERTIFICATION was self-reported as

the initial level of teaching certification by superinten­

dents in terms of: elementary, secondary, or elementary and

secondary.

LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT was self-reported as the

highest diploma or degree earned, at time the questionnaire

was completed, by superintendents in terms of: bachelor

degree, master degree, specialist degree, or doctoral degree

and by board presidents in terras of: less than a high

school diploma, high school diploma,, associate degree,

bachelor degree, master degree, or doctoral degree.

MARITAL STATUS was self-reported as single, married, di­

vorced/separated, or widowed at time the questionnaire was

completed.

PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANCE were the numerical values assign­

ed as responses to questions on the questionnaire regarding

the importance of specific characteristics of effective

schools, individually and collectively, in the achievement

of educational excellence in terms of: very high impor­

tance,. high importance, moderate importance, minimal im­

portance, or no importance.

PERCEPTIONS OF PRACTICE were the numerical values assigned

as responses to questions on the questionnaire regarding the

extent to. which specific characteristics of effective

13

schools were practiced in the public schools of Ohio in

terms of: practiced to a very high level, practiced to a

high level, practiced to a moderate level, practiced to a

minimal level, or not practiced.

POLITICAL PREFERENCE was self-reported as Democrat, Inde­

pendent, Republican, or other (specify).

PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE was self-reported by

board presidents as having had public school administrative

experience or not having had public school administrative

experience.

PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE was self-reported by board .

presidents as having had public school teaching experience

or not having had public school teaching experience.

SEX was self-reported gender.

SIZE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT was reported’as the current enroll­

ment in each subject's school district, at time the ques­

tionnaire was completed, in one of the following intervals:

less than 300; 300 - 999; 1,000 - 2,999; 3,000 - 4,999;

5,000 - 9,999; 10,000 - 24,999; 25,000 - 49,999; 50,000 -

99,999; or 100,000 or more.

TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT was the classification of each sub­

ject's district as a city, exempted village, or local school

district.

14

TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY was the category which

best described the type of community in which each subject's

school district was located in terms of: large urban center

/city, rural, suburban city in a metropolitan area, or town/

small city.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A BOARD MEMBER was self-reported by

board presidents as the number of years completed as a mem­

ber of a board of education, at time the questionnaire was

completed, in one of the following intervals: 0, 1 - 3, 4 -

6, 7 - 9, 10 - 12, 13 - 15, or 16 or more.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A CLASSROOM TEACHER was self-report­

ed by superintendents as the number of years e.mployed as a

classroom teacher, at time the questionnaire was completed,

in one of the following intervals: 0, 1 - 5, 6 - 10, 11 -

15, 16 - 20, or 21 or more.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A BUILDING PRINCIPAL was self-report­

ed by superintendents as the number of years employed as a

building principal, at time the questionnaire was completed,

in one of the following intervals: 0, 1 - 5, 6 - 10, 11 -

15, 16 - 20, or 21 or more.

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN SUPERINTENDENCY was self-reported by

superintendents as the number of years employed as a super­

intendent, excluding the current school year, at time the

questionnaire was completed, in one of the following

15

intervals: 0, 1 - 5, 6 - 10, 11 - 15, 16 - 20, or 21 or

more.

Limitations of the Study

The following is a summary of limitations of the study.

These limitations may have negatively affected the results

or may negatively affect the generalizability of the

results.

The focus of the study was limited to investigating the

perceptions of respondents. Such perceptions may vary from

one time to another, often dependent upon intrasession his­

tory. The data gathered in the study through the use of

questionnaires provided information taken during one slice

of time. Using questionnaires to obtain the data may have

limited the quality of the responses sought.

The findings of the study were likely affected by the

ability and willingness of respondents to recall information

and to respond candidly to questions. Though the validity,

reliability, and utility of the questionnaires were estab­

lished, the findings were probably affected by the respon­

dents' understanding of the questions asked on the question­

naires and the extent to which the questionnaires obtained

the information sought. The examination of perceptions is

subjective in nature, as opposed to the gathering of objec­

tive information, due to perceptions being built upon

16

attitudes and beliefs rather than concrete data.

Questions asked to 'obtain perceptions were developed

from the characteristics of effective schools as identified

and summarized from the research of others by this research­

er. There may have been other questions which should have

been asked to obtain a complete view of the perceptions of

those involved in the study. The data for the foundation

of the study were essentially generated from the research on

effective schools rather than from research concerning su­

perintendents and board presidents.

The study was descriptive in nature and did not estab­

lish cause and effect relationships. The findings of the

study are not generalizable to superintendents and boards of

education presidents throughout the Nation. The findings

are limited to those within Ohio. In addition, the findings

are only generalizable to superintendents and board presi­

dents of public schools, not private or parochial. Like­

wise, the findings are limited to superintendents and board

presidents, not other officials of a school district.

Delimitations of the Study

The study was descriptive research investigating the

perceptions of superintendents and presidents of boards of

education of Ohio's city, exempted village, and local public

school districts. The study focused only on these two

17

positions and these types of districts. The only percep­

tions examined in the study were those related to the impor­

tance of the characteristics of effective schools, as iden­

tified in the research, and the extent to which those char­

acteristics were practiced in the public schools of Ohio.

The study was not designed to generate hypotheses to be con­

firmed or denied, bu.t to describe what was.

In order to gather relevant data for the study, ques­

tionnaires were used. It was assumed that (1) perceptions

can be measured, (2) respondents understood directions given

to them on the questionnaires, (3) statements on the ques­

tionnaires had the same meanings for all respondents, (4)

respondents were conscientious and .thoughtful'in completing

the questionnaires, and (5) the questionnaires developed

were appropriate measures for the study.

Data collected were analyzed in terms of perceptions of

superintendents, perceptions of boards of education presi­

dents, significant differences within each group according

to various variables, and the similarities and differences

of the perceptions between the two groups according to var­

ious variables. Data were analyzed in terms of information

gathered, at the time the questionnaires were completed,

regarding respondents' sex, age, marital status, whether or

not they had or had had children enrolled in public school,

ethnic group, political preference, level of educational at­

tainment, type of school district community, type of school

18

district, and size of school district. Analysis was also

made of the perceptions of superintendents according to ini­

tial level of teaching certification, number of years of ex­

perience as a classroom teacher, number of years of experi­

ence as a building principal, and number of years of experi­

ence in the superintendency. Likewise, the data regarding

boards of education presidents were analyzed in terms of the

number of years of • experience as a board member and in terms

of those board presidents having had public school teaching

and/or administrative experience as opposed to those with no

such experience. Such characteristics will allow others to

generalize the results of the study to their particular set­

tings.

Significance of the Study

The study of those characteristics which make an effec­

tive school is cyclical in nature. A rash of -studies on

school effectiveness, similar in substance to those reviewed

in Chapter Two of this study, appeared in the mid-sixties.

The status of public schools has once again come to the

forefront and "the public is (again) demanding visible im­

provements in education...” (Cookingham, February 1984).

Superintendents and presidents of boards of education

are the chief officials of a school district. The percep­

tions they hold regarding the characteristics of effective

19

schools may strongly influence the degree to which school

improvements become reality.

The study was an attempt to generate new knowledge re­

garding the perceptions of superintendents and board presi­

dents concerning the importance of the characteristics of

effective schools, as identified in the research, and the

extent to which those characteristics were practiced in the

public schools of Ohio. The gathering together of the re­

search and reviews of literature, in Chapter Two of this

study, provides a significant summary of available knowledge

pertaining to the characteristics of effective schools.

Data collected from' the study is available for use by

other school personnel, citizens, community groups, and

others interested in the school improvement movement. The

data allow these individuals to determine the degree to

which the perceptions of superintendents and board presi­

dents are congruent with the expectations they hold for in­

dividuals in such leadership roles.

The process of asking superintendents and board presi­

dents to express their perceptions should have stimulated

them to become more thoughtful and reflective about the

characteristics of effective schools., their own perceptions

regarding those characteristics, and their leadership roles

in the movement toward the achievement of educational excel­

lence. The findings of the study enable members of these

two groups to compare their perceptions with colleagues

20

throughout the State. In particular, the study provides

data to those entering the superintendency and those recent­

ly elected to boards of education to assess their percep­

tions in relation to the perceptions of others.

The study also allows teachers, principals, and those

responsible for the improvement of instruction and curricu­

lum development to assess the nature of the attitudes'of the

leadership personnel with whom they need to work as they at­

tempt to accomplish the tasks of their respective positions.

Likewise, those responsible for preservice teacher education

programs may use the data with preservice students as they

explore classroom and school life in an effort to develop

skills fo-r working within the school environment. In addi­

tion, the findings of the study provide data from which

graduate schools of educational administration may develop a

strand of their curriculum as they prepare individuals for

the superintendency. Findings may also be used by the Ohio

Department of Education, the Buckeye Association of School

Administrators (BASA), and the Ohio School Boards Associa­

tion (OSBA) as a component of needs assessments in planning

conferences and continuing education programs and in provid­

ing educational leadership.

Current concerns about the achievement of educational

excellence in the Nation's schools have made the issue an

educational, cultural, political, and emotional one. Though

the issue may be transitory in nature, it is a very real one

21

and conclusions developed from the study provide perspec­

tives about "what should be" and "what was" as plans and im­

provements are made for the schools of tomorrow. Investiga­

tion findings should serve as a foundation for future study

as educational excellence is achieved throughout the State

of Ohio by improving the effectiveness of schools.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

"The release of the Coleman Report in 1966, and other

similar studies, generated serious doubts about the effec­

tiveness of schools" (MacPhail-Wilcox and Guth, October

1983). Coleman insisted "schools bring little influence to

bear on a child’s achievement..." (Coleman et al., 1966)

that is independent of family background. Christopher

Jencks paralleled Coleman's beliefs when he concluded "that

school reform could do little to reduce the extent of cogni­

tive inequality among students. He ...explain(ed) differ­

ences in attainment among individuals... by socio-economic

status and IQ. What the child brings into the classroom

largely determines his or her performance there" (Goodlad,

1984). More recently, Goodlad has noted that "children come

to school with varying degrees of readiness to learn. This

readiness is significantly and differentially influenced by

the economic and educational level of parents. Subsequent

attainment is influenced by the advantages children carry

into school from their homes" (Goodlad, 1984). He has also

suggested that "the school,, with its small percentage of

22

23

time available, can seek realistically only to modify or

shape slightly the areas of home dominance and to be of

greater influence in just a few selected areas" (Goodlad,

1984) .

Other researchers, such as Gordan (1923), Green et al.

(1966), and Wheeler (1942), have reported a "dramatic dif­

ference (does exist) in cognitive gain between children who

attend s.chool as compared to those who do not...as a group,

children who go to school get a good deal 'smarter' than

those who do not" (Edmonds, 1979). Peter Mortimore of Lon­

don has noted that "despite the overwhelming relationships

we know exist between school attainment and social class,

the -individual school can be effective for students of all

social groups" (Brandt, May 1981). Recent studies conducted

regarding effective schools have "shown that schools can

make a substantial difference in the educational achievement

of students in spite of family, background" (MacPhail-Wilcox

and Guth, October 1983).

Coleman further suggested that going to a particular

school did not make a difference. He believed one school

was about as unsuccessful as another. On the other hand,

Lezotte has noted that "there are schools that effectively

serve all the children attending them" (The Effective School

Report, November 1983). Likewise, "Mayeske et a l . (1972),

State of New York Office of Education (1974), Weber (1971),

Averch et a l . (1972), Rist (1970), Brophy and Good (1970)

24

and many others" (Edmonds, 1979) have concluded that going

to a particular school makes a significant difference!

"After two decades of back seat status, schools today

are center stage. Education clearly has captured the inter­

est of the entire country" (Thomson, March 1984). Issues

regarding the effectiveness of schools and significant

changes in the American way of life have stimulated studies

designed to improve'the quality of education throughout the

Nation (MacPhail-Wilcox and Guth, October 1983). The ad­

dressing of these issues has come to be known as the effec­

tive school movement. Fortenberry has written, "if school

systems are to be effective, the-total school culture has to-

be addressed simultaneously. None of the- reform efforts',

except the Effective School Movement, has been that compre­

hensive. Nothing short of such a comprehensive thrust will

result in much improvement in most school systems" (Forten­

berry, April 1984). It has also been suggested by Goodlad

that a school must be viewed as a total institution and can­

not be perceived as composed of individual unrelated ele­

ments. "The school is where all the elements...come togeth­

er, where they can be observed and treated with some all-

encompassing perspective" (Goodlad, 1979). He has further

stated that "efforts at improvement must encompass the

school as a system of interacting parts, each affecting the

others" (Goodlad, 1984).

25

"Although there has been marked disagreement about edu­

cational aims and the methods of achieving those aims, there

is general agreement upon the need for improving the effec­

tiveness and efficiency of our educational system" (Curran,

October 1983). "In the 13 years since Silberman jolted us

...there have been significant advancements in the quality

of instruction and life in individual classrooms and

schools" (King, April 1983). Goodlad .has written, "as our

understanding of schooling increases, both the pressure and

our ability to improve schools will become greater" (Wig­

gins, April 1983). State leaders, enthusiastic about ef­

forts being made to improve the Nation’s schools, have

stressed that the momentum of the effective school movement

must be maintained (Bridgman, 1984).

An Effective School Defined

What is an effective school? "The research on this

question addresses a broad set of concerns" (Rogus, January

1983). According to the .American Association of School Ad­

ministrators and the Far West Laboratory for Educational Re­

search and Development, an effective school exists and edu­

cational excellence is achieved "when the instructional sys­

tem is able to provide the individual learner with an appro­

priate level of challenge and a realistic opportunity to

succeed on a frequent and continual basis for each

26

instructional goal in the program" (Spady and Marx, 1984).

C. M. Bernd, of Arizona's Glendale Public Schools, has stat­

ed, "an effective school is one in which all of the students

learn the intended curriculum regardless of factors in their

background which have 'ordinarily' been identified as those

which prevent such learning. An effective school overcomes

impediments to student learning through the systematic ap­

plication of practices that are known to work" (Bernd, Sep­

tember 1984). The late Ronald Edmonds suggested "an effec­

tive school bring(s) the children of the poor to those mini­

mal masteries of basic school skills that now describe mini­

mally successful pupil performance for the children of the

middle-class" (Edmonds, 1979). Robert W. Evans, formerly

with the Ohio Department of Education, has reported:

"The Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, Ohio Department of Education, has defined effective schools, for its purpose, as those schools which obtain signifi­cant increases in student achievement for economically disadvantaged pupils. Other important and meaningful outcomes may occur, but increased academic achievement for a targeted student population is the prime descrip­tor. An effective school program is one that provides the target group of students with those skills which allow successful access to the next level of learning.The program provides for student success at the same or a similar ratio for both economically and noneconomic- ally disadvantaged students. An effective school will not allow students to fall below certain minimum stan­dards of academic attainment due to race, gender, or social class. An effective school is one which adjusts itself to provide the necessary educational program to obtain the desired goals and objectives. It is a school that will discard ineffective programs and adopt new methods and strategies for success" (Evans, October1983) .

27

According to Tyler, an effective school "has a quality

that .strongly influences the learning of its students and

the attitudes of teachers and parents" (Tyler, April 1983).

Lezotte has noted that "for a school to be defined as effec­

tive two standards must be met: (1) the level of achieve­

ment to which students rise must be high and (2) the distri­

bution of that high achievement cannot vary substantially

across the major subsets (boys vs. girls, socioeconomic

status groups, racial-ethnic groups) of the student popula­

tion" (Lezotte, February 1984). It has been concluded by

Serow and Jackson that schools which "provide tangible indi­

cators of student worth and schools that encourage emotion­

al, physical,.social, as well as academic growth are, by any

reasonable judgment, more effective than schools that simply

receive students, process them, and send them on their way"

(Serow and Jackson, October 1983).

Goodlad, in A Study of Schooling, wrote, truly effec­

tive schools are concerned about the "development of a love

of learning, the ability to use and evaluate knowledge and

to solve problems, the development of aesthetic tastes and

concerns, the development of qualities such as curiosity and

creativity, learning for the sake of learning, the effective

use of leisure time, the development of satisfactory rela­

tions with others...and the understanding of differing value

systems" (Rogers, April 1983). In addition, Goodlad has

noted that "schools must do the educating not consciously

28

done elsewhere in society. This includes providing system­

atic encounters with all the major domains of knowledge, en­

counters designed to inform, enlighten, and stimulate

thought" (Goodlad, 1984). Dr. Rufus Young, Jr. has declared

"we must begin by defining and redefining the mission (of

schools). Make no mistake, schools are about learning and

teaching. Make it clear to parent., community, the public,

government officials, corporations, students, and every

single solitary soul that school is for learning and basic

skills are the priority" (The Effective School Report, Jan­

uary 1984) .

• The Nature of the Research on Effective Schools

The following is a review of the research and litera­

ture regarding characteristics of effective schools. Numerr

ous studies have been conducted which identify such charac­

teristics. In reviewing the literature, one must be cogni­

zant that the research on effective schools has been criti­

cized because of a lack of consistency among the various

studies.

The research on effective schools has been gathered by

identifying and studying the behaviors, events, and activi­

ties occurring in schools in which students appear to be

learning regardless of socio-economic class or innate abili­

ty. Most studies have relied on high student performance on

29

basic skills, reading and mathematics, and/or standardized

achievement tests as the basis for identifying schools as

effective in promoting student learning. Many of the stud­

ies conducted have focused on a specific and narrow age

group (i.e. elementary, middle/junior high school, or senior

high school) or grade level. The characteristics of effec­

tive schools which have been identified are a description of

"what is" rather than the establishment of cause and effect

relationships (Stefanich, 1983).

An Overview of the Characteristics of Effective Schools

In 1979, Ronald Edmonds identified five elements he be­

lieved to be characteristics of effective schools. Those

elements were "leadership which gives substantial attention

to the instructional process, an instructional focus which

is understood by the teaching staff, a climate which is safe

and conducive to teaching and learning, teachers who have

high expectations for all students, and the use of standard

measures of pupil achievement" (The Effective School Report,

November 1983). Studies conducted by Curran cite the fol­

lowing characteristics as components of effective schools:

(1) a visible principal who provides active leadership and

who is knowledgeable about all the affairs of a school; (2)

a positive school climate in which teachers can teach and

students can learn; (3) discipline policies and procedures

30

which are firm, fair, and consistent and which are develop­

ed, communicated, and implemented by the entire school

family; (4) teachers who have high expectations for students

and for student achievement and who accept the responsibil­

ity for teaching students effectively in order that students

may achieve expected objectives; (5) parents who are in­

volved in the educational process and who are encouraged to

take an active role in the education of their children; (6)'

a planned process for ongoing evaluation of the school cur­

riculum; (7) efficient methods for evaluating teacher per­

formance to ens.ure effective instruction is occurring; (8)

procedures for promoting and evaluating student academic

growth through a variety of techniques and- materials direct­

ed toward meeting the unique learning styles and diverse

needs of students; (9) a realistic philosophy of education

which holds the entire school family responsible for provid­

ing students with an educational program that enables stu­

dents to function at their fullest potential in'a variety of

areas; (10) an extensive and adequate student services pro­

gram; and (11) personnel in student services who listen to

students, develop student self-awareness, and provide oppor­

tunities for students to explore a wide-range of options

(Curran, October 1983).

Weber, an early contributor to the literature on school

effectiveness, found strong leadership; high expectations

for all students; an orderly, relatively quiet, and pleasant

31

atmosphere; and a strong emphasis on pupil acquisition of

basic skills as determinants of achievement in his 1971

study of instructionally effective inner-city schools

(Edmonds, 1979). The March 1984 issue of The Effective

School Report lists five school practices and policies which

appear to occur in more effective schools. They are: (1) a

strong academic emphasis, (2) a well-maintained and orderly

environment, (3) clearly articulated grade level objectives

and minimum standards in each subject area, (4) a schoolwide

homework policy which holds all students responsible for

completing daily homework assignments, and (5) schoolwide

policies designed to provide instructional time-on-task and

prevent unnecessary di-sruptions and distractions (McCormack-

Larkin, March 1984).

Fortenberry has suggested that equity and equal access

to school programs; a belief that all students can and are

expected to learn; and a systematic approach for translating

expectations into programs which help all students learn,

are components of effective schools. He has also reported a

strong district-wide commitment to inservice teacher educa­

tion programs which provide staff members with the skills

necessary to insure all children learn; a clear understand­

ing of the curriculum so teachers know what is expected to

be taught and students know what is expected to be learned;

a system for monitoring student achievement to allow correc­

tive measures to be made on an ongoing basis when it is

32

determined any student is not achieving; and a structure

which allows the staff and parents to relate to each other

on the basis of each other's interests and expertise are es­

sential elements of an effective school (Fortenberry, Apr.il

1984).

Longitudinal and case studies conducted in Delaware,

Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania identified specific

characteristics regarding effective schools. The findings

of these studies included the need for strong leadership on

the part of the principal; principal participation in class­

room instructional programs; actual classroom teaching by

the principal; and high expectations for students and teach­

ers. It was also reported that principals of effective

schools believed they had control over their schools, the

curriculum and school programs, and their staffs. Teachers

in effective schools were reported to be warmer, more re­

sponsive, and showed more emphasis on cognitive development.

They expected children to graduate from high school, to go

to college, to become good readers, and to become good citi­

zens. They tried new ideas and were free to choose teaching

methods and techniques in response to individual student

needs. Teachers in effective schools felt their relation­

ships with parents were positive. They relied heavily on

teacher-made tests and teacher judgments of student achieve­

ment for evaluation purposes. Students had more positive

self-concepts and a feeling of control over their own

33

destiny. More effective schools reported a longer instruc­

tional school day (Austin, October 1979).

Other studies reinforce and extend these lists of char­

acteristics. As one reviews such studies, one must remember

that the research on school effectiveness is "correlational,

and effective schools may vary in their effects on students

from year to year" (Good and Brophy, 1984).

Strong Leadership

A review of the literature allows one to suggest that

strong principal leadership is a major characteristic of ef­

fective schools. Studies identify the principal as the in­

dividual responsible for the achievement of educational ex­

cellence in a school (Goodlad, 1979). The principal is re­

garded as the person responsible for establishing the condi­

tions which allow for efficient and effective instruction to

take place (Venezky and Winfield, 1979). Findings of stud­

ies indicate that effective schools are led by principals

who expect teachers to teach and students to learn

(Salganik, 1980). "According to researcher Edward Kelly of

the University of Nebraska, regardless of leadership behav­

iors, the principal is the individual in the school who is

most responsible for the outcomes of productivity and satis­

faction attained by students and staff. Leadership is the

key. Without it, a school faculty is nothing more than a

34

handful of employees. With effective leadership... there is

no limit to what a group of teachers can accomplish" (The

Effective School Report, November 1983).

It is reported in the literature that effective school

principals find time and devote effort to interacting with

teachers regarding classroom activities, for classroom ob­

servations and follow-up conferences with teachers to dis­

cuss methods of and suggestions for improvement, and for

providing instructional leadership for the school.in addi­

tion to handling routine administrative responsibilities on

a daily basis (The Effective School Report, November 1983).

In Stefanich's review of the literature, he suggested that

principals of effective schools exhibit .strong leadership

through communicating well-stated personal philosophies. He

summarized that effective principals show concern about in­

struction, frequently observe classes, actively participate

in classroom instruction by occasionally teaching, allow for

flexibility, are knowledgeable about curriculum, employ

shared decision making, and provoke new ideas and challenges

(Stefanich, 1983).

Larkin, in his review of the literature, suggested that

effective school principals are assertive in nature, estab­

lishing specific goals which provide a sense of direction

and mission for an entire school. They focus their time,

energy, and resources on student learning. Larkin found ef­

fective principals to be active instructional leaders,

35

assisting teachers with the improvement of instruction and

establishing procedures for ongoing evaluation of curricu­

lum, teacher effectiveness, and. student learning. In addi­

tion, it was found that effective principals involve the en­

tire staff in those decisions which concern school related

matters (Larkin, September 1984).

In his book, Making Schools Work, Robert Benjamin iden­

tified a set of characteristics, which he summarized from

research studies, regarding the principals of effective

schools. Benjamin noted that principals of effective

schools identify and communicate specific goals and priori­

ties for their schools. They are in charge of their schools

and do not allow the operation of the school, to become sim­

ply a routine process. Effective principals hold themselves

and teachers personally accountable for student achievement

of basic skills. Each has a clear understanding of the to­

tal educational program in his/her school. They give prior­

ity to their instructional leadership role and communicate

their emphasis on instruction to their staffs. Benjamin

found principals of effective schools to be highly visible

in the classrooms and hallways of the buildings for which

they are responsible. They give more emphasis to the aca­

demic progress of the students in their schools than they do

to developing staff relationships. Principals of effective

schools become actively involved in the recruitment and se­

lection of the personnel for their schools. They place

36

pressure on incompetent staff to leave the profession and

reward outstanding teachers for their performance. Benjamin

found effective principals to hold high expectations for

both students and staff (Hager and Scarr, February 1983).

The January 1984 issue of The Effective School Report

identified a set of leadership qualities essential for prin­

cipals of effective schools. The author suggested such

qualities call for the principal to take responsibility for

setting goals and then communicating those goals to the

staff, students, and community. The report recorded that an

effective principal sets high, expectations and standards;

coordinates the school curriculum; supervises, monitors, and

evaluates instruction;- provides a variety of different ar­

rangements to allow for various opportunities for student

learning to occur; and provides and promotes inservice

teacher education programs. The author also noted that the

leadership style of the effective principal creates a feel­

ing within the school which is perceived as positive, sup­

portive of others, and success oriented. The leadership

style facilitates shared and consensus decision making with

one's staff. He/she is "people" centered; has a strong de­

sire to help students, staff, and parents learn and grow;

and provides opportunities for such growth. Teachers in an

effective school are visibly recognized by their principal

for personal and professional accomplishments and their per­

formance related to the mission of the school. The author

37

reported that principals of effective schools are efficient

planners and organizers and demonstrate a high degree of

self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-worth, continually

seeking responsibility and control. The effective principal

is confident and decisive, giving directions to others and

taking action as needed. Leadership qualities call for ex­

cellent communication skills, including listening to the

thoughts, feelings, and body language of others. The effec­

tive principal projects possible reactions and outcomes as

decisions are made and events occur; receives personal sat­

isfaction from successes; and is willing to take the risks

necessary to effectively administer the school and to be

creative in solving problems and planning new.programs. He/

she develops a process for assessing personal performance

which assists in correcting mistakes and re-thinking proce-.

dures used in making decisions and taking action. The ef­

fective principal takes pride in developing and introducing

new ideas and accepts the responsibility for testing to

their fullest those concepts introduced (The Effective

School Report, January 1984).

A study of effective Title I schools in Chicago cited

successful principals provide specific, clearly stated, and

well-defined curricular goals and objectives; hold high ex­

pectations and standards of performance for teachers, stu­

dents, and parents; and initiate, plan, and coordinate need­

ed school improvements and educational changes. In

38

addition, findings of the study identified effective princi­

pals as individuals willing to make and implement decisions;

oversee and evaluate the personnel of a school; and review,

develop, and revise curriculum. They are also capable of

motivating teachers and students and they recognize those

individuals for their accomplishments and successes. The

study found that principals of effective schools are highly

visible throughout their schools and they are knowledgeable

about the strengths and weaknesses of their staffs and pro­

vide instructional assistance and support to classroom

teachers ("School Effectiveness"). The effective school

principal encourages staff members to participate in inser­

vice teacher education activities (Block, 1983).

MacPhail-Wilcox and Guth reported that:

"the principal has an important role in setting.the tone of the school as an orderly, purposeful, organ­ized, relatively quiet, and pleasant place to be.The principal transmits to the staff...that the school holds high performance expectations. Princi­pals of the more effective schools have clearly con­ceptualized goals for their school, are able to transmit that vision to the school faculty, and are able to engage the faculty in the active attainment of those goals. Principals in the more effective schools do not experience confusion about the dual nature of their jobs as manager and instructional leaders. They are committed to an active role in the management of instruction as well as the manage­ment of building, materials, and financial resources. These principals maintain high visibility as instruc­tional leaders by initiating and participating in de­cisions about instructional programs and strategies, and they spend a large percentage of time on instruc­tional and disciplinary matters in the school. These principals are perceived by faculty and students to have expert power..." (MacPhail-Wilcox and Guth, Oc­tober 1983) .

39

The April 1984 issue of The Effective School Report

stated, "administrators need to re-emphasize instructional

leadership probably at the expense of some business manage­

ment. They need to set high, child-centered achievement

goals" (Mann and Lawrence, April 1984).

Goodlad has written, "the power for improving each

school lies with the principal" (Goodlad, 1984). "The prin­

cipal is central to development of a sense of mission, uni­

ty, and pride in the school. The principal is a person with

a strong sense of personal worth and potency, who takes a .

position on issues, who is loyal to the system but not a

pawn of the superintendent, and who is not cowed by strong

individuals or groups within the community" (Goodlad, 1979).

"Effective principals are symbolic leaders who pay attention

to small, but important, cultural details" (Deal and Ken­

nedy, February 1983). "The principal can make a fundamental

difference in the performance of a school by involving staff

members in school improvement planning, specific teacher and

program development, and careful assessment. Schools can

produce the levels and kinds of learning that society ex­

pects as principals become increasingly more skilled at or­

ganizing teachers in various permanent and temporary ar­

rangements to work toward specific goals. Raising achieve­

ment norms depends on knowledgeable leadership and planned

collective action" (Snyder, February 1983).

40

An Instructional Focus

Another major characteristic of an effective school ap­

pears to be the presence of an instructional focus which is

understood and given emphasis to by the entire teaching

staff of a school. Cookingham has reported, "one condition

that has been identified frequently in equitably effective

schools is a clear statement of instructional purpose that

is known and understood by all members of the school commun­

ity. In an effective school building a survey of adminis­

trators, teachers, service staff, parents, and other resi­

dents having any interest in the school would show substan­

tial agreement on what the purposes of schooling in that

building are and what the priorities are for different in­

structional activities... the purposes and priorities will be

known by most of the adults associated with the building"

(Cookingham, February 1984). "The presence of a commonly

understood goal is vital to the development of the school.

With a common goal in hand, the organization is more cohe­

sive, a common focus is present, and the systematic approach

to decision making can be used. A common goal also allows

the organization to run more smoothly. The point is that

any organization is more cohesive if all parties understand

its major purpose" (The Effective School Report, November

1983) .

41

"At the core of the instructional focus is the curric­

ulum. While there are many goals that a school strives to

achieve, strengthening its curriculum ranks as a top priori­

ty. It is important that a strong, well-defined, uniform

curriculum be" (The Effective School Report, November 1983)

in place because of the high rate of student mobility in to­

day's society. Such a curriculum allows students who move

from one school to another to face similar instructional

programs and the opportunity to acquire the same basic

skills and knowledge. A uniform curriculum provides a sys­

tematic process for measuring student mastery of basic

skills and a data base for future curriculum development.

Frymier et al., in One Hundred Good Schools, have reported,

"goals are being addressed in personal, social, and voca­

tional areas, as well as in the intellectual area" (Frymier

et al ., 1984).

The effective school must have a set of clearly defined

goals made known to all administrators, teachers, and staff.

The set of goals serves as the foundation for developing a

uniform curriculum within a school. A school with a set of

clearly defined goals and a uniform curriculum can be a set­

ting in which student achievement can be fostered (The Ef­

fective School Report, November 1983).

Stefanich has reinforced the notion that a consensus

exists on curricular goals in effective schools. He has

summarized the literature by sharing that a clear focus on

42

academic goals appears to exist in effective schools. Cur­

riculum objectives and programs are developed through the

combined efforts of teachers, administrators, and community

members. Furthermore, the staff of an effective school

takes ownership for the stated philosophy of the school and

they know and understand the goals and mission statements of

the school. Stefanich has also reported that "basic skills

tend to be a primary focus area within the curricular pro­

gram: teachers assume responsibility for teaching basic

skills and are committed to doing so and pupil acquisition

of the basic school skills (are) given precedence over other

school activities" (Stefanich, 1983). Lezotte has empha­

sized, that in effective schools, teachers believe all chil­

dren can learn a set. of essential skills expected of them,

believe they can teach all children those essential skills

they expect them to learn, believe society expects students

to learn a set of essential skills, and develop a business­

like atmosphere which conveys a sense of importance to stu­

dents that the set of essential skills needs to be learned

(Lezotte, April 1984).

In a 1977 study in Michigan conducted by W. B. Brook-

over and L. W. Lezotte, it was found that "improving schools

are clearly different from the declining schools in the em­

phasis their staff place on the accomplishment of the basic

reading and mathematics objectives" (Edmonds, 1979). A 1980

California State Department of Education study of early

43

childhood education found schools that appeared to have a

sense of educational purpose and direction, coupled with

concepts and the knowledge needed for implementing strong

instructional programs geared to accomplishing the purposes,

maintained higher test scores (Purkey and Smith, March

1983). In an examination of schools with unusally effective

reading programs, Trisraan et al. (1976) found a clear focus

on basic skills to be an important characteristic (Purkey

and Smith, March 1983).

"At the secondary school level, a planned, purposeful program of courses seems to be ac-ademically more bene­ficial than an approach that offers many electives and few requirements. If students are expected to learn science, math, and/or U.S. history, then they need to take those courses ‘(Goleraan et al. 1976; Walker and Schaffarzick 1974). If elementary school students are ’expected to acquire basic and complex skills, the cur­riculum must focus on these skills (Armor et al. 1976; Glenn 1981; Trisman et al. 1976; Venezky and Winfield 1979; Weber 1971-), they must receive sufficient time for instruction in those skills (Fisher et al. 1980), and those skills must be coordinated across grade lev­els (Levine and Stark 1981) and pervade the entire cur­riculum (California State Department of Education 1980; New York State Department of Education 1974b)" (Purkey and Smith, March 1983).

In providing an instructional focus, a schoolwide rec­

ognition program directed at academic success appears to be

important. "A school's culture is partially reflected in

its ceremonies, its symbols, and the accomplishments it

chooses to recognize officially. Schools that make a point

of publicly honoring academic achievement and stressing its

importance through the appropriate use of symbols, ceremon­

ies, and the like encourage students to adopt similar norms

44

and values (Brookover et al. 1979; Brookover and Lezotte

1979; Coleman et al. 1981; Wynne 1980)" (Purkey and Smith,

March 1983).

Goodlad reported that an important characteristic of an

effective school is that it assumes responsibility for the

quality of every component of the school and it is respon­

sive to the needs of the community served. "The healthy

school has a sense of mission, unity, identity, and whole­

ness that pervades every aspect of its functioning"

(Goodlad, 1979). It has a staff who are dissatisfied with

existing conditions and who want to work toward continuous

instructional improvements (Edmonds, 1979).

While the instructional focus throughout the school

setting is important, specific characteristics related to

the instructional activities within classrooms of effective

schools are of equal importance. Goodlad has noted that

"successful teachers orchestrate a dozen or more elements in

their instruction in order to assure student success and

satisfaction" (Goodlad, 1979). These elements include mak­

ing sure students understand directions before starting a

task, "maintaining momentum, keeping students involved, us­

ing positive reinforcement and reasonable praise, varying

instructional techniques, alternating the length of learning

episodes, (and) providing regular and consistent feedback"

(Goodlad, 1979).

45

Shreeve et a l . indicate:

"Studies have clearly shown that the most effective teachers in terms of student achievement are those people-oriented individuals who inspire their stu­dents to love learning and to reach for excellence.A summary of 17 research projects by Michigan State University education professor Jere Brophy found that effective teachers consistently: (1) Displayhigh expectations for student achievement; (2) Take an active role in student learning opportunities;(3) Expect students to master a given skill before proceeding to more difficult tasks; (4) Modify les­sons to suit student competence and/or grade level; and (5) Create supportive learning environments.These teachers not only understand the subject mat­ter they teach, but they also communicate their en­thusiasm for knowledge and learning" (Shreeve et al., March 1984) .

McCormack-Larkin and Kritek, in their look at Milwau­

kee’s Project Rise, identified several elements they viewed

to be essential to effective instruction. Those elements

included structured classroom environments which facilitate

appropriate classroom management and high amounts of allo­

cated academic instructional time spent on appropriate aca­

demic tasks. Also included were the employment of teacher

instructional strategies which provide for daily review, the

checking of assigned homework, meaningful structured les­

sons, guided practice and supervised seatwork, and related

and relevant homework assignments. The concept of direct

instruction was the key pedagogical approach to classroom

instructional activities. The elements identified by McCor­

mack-Larkin and Kritek also included the "use of the accel­

erated learning approach (planning for more than one year's

growth) and reading, math, and language instruction

46

beginning at the kindergarten level" (McCorraack-Larkin and

Kritek, December 1982). A summary of the research findings

by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop­

ment based upon interpretations of research by Ronald

Edmonds, Peter Mortimore, Barak Rosenshine, and others rein­

forced these characteristics by citing several components of

effective instruction. The summary of the findings indi­

cated effective teachers are well organized. Such organiza­

tion prevents problems from occurring and allows classroom

tasks to become routine, not requiring much time to accomp­

lish, and thus allowing students more time to work on aca­

demic tasks. Effective teachers teach the class as a whole

or in large groups, giving little independent seatwork.

They give emphasis to academic achievement and expect all

students to achieve. Classroom activities are teacher-

selected and teacher-directed. Teachers in effective

schools work to have students master one unit of study prior

to moving on to the next unit. They assign tasks designed

to allow students to have high rates of success. They are

knowledgeable of the subject matter they are assigned to

teach and they possess skills for presenting concepts to be

taught so that they are clearly understood by students. Ef­

fective teachers continuously monitor the progress of stu­

dents by circulating around the classroom while observing

student work and asking questions. They provide immediate

feedback to students so they know what they have learned and

47

what they still need to learn. They have methods for teach­

ing students how to work with one another and for taking re­

sponsibility for their assigned work. They get students in­

volved in classroom activities by directing questions to

specific students rather than relying upon volunteers to

carry the class discussion and answer questions asked. They

use additional guides and probing questions when students

are unable to respond to questions. Effective teachers fo­

cus on appropriate behaviors and manage inappropriate behav­

iors. They do not grade papers, socialize, or allow stu­

dents to socialize during class. They take all effort to

make sure nothing interrupts classroom instructional time

and activities (Association for.Supervision and Curriculum

Development, 1981). The effectiveness of classroom instruc­

tion is vital to providing an instructional focus school-

wide!

School Learning Climate

In reviewing the literature, school learning climate

surfaces as another characteristic of effective schools.

School learning climate "is generally referred to by re­

searchers as a safe, orderly environment conducive to teach­

ing and learning. Judith Lawrence at Teachers College,

Columbia University, defines it as the qualities of the

school and the people in the school which affect how people

48

feel and learn. Researchers Wilbur Roosevelt and Larry

Lezotte define school climate as the- norms, beliefs, and at­

titudes reflected in the instructional patterns and behavior

practices that enhance or impede student learning" (The Ef­

fective School Report. November 1983). Frymier et al., in

their book, One Hundred Good Schools, reported that the cli­

mates of the schools they sampled were "friendly, good-

humored, busy, and members of the school faculty and staff

generally regard their work as challenging and satisfying"

(Frymier et al., 1984). "Edgar Kelly of the University of

Nebraska refers to climate as 'the prevailing or normative

conditions which are relatively enduring over time and which

can be used to distinguish one environment from another.'

It is the presence of a good school climate that allows the

educational process to grow and gain strength without imped^

iraent" (The Effective School Report, February 1984).

In order to develop a good school learning climate, it

is important that positive feelings are nurtured among stu­

dents regarding their ability to learn. It is essential for

students to feel their teachers have confidence in them, for

such feelings help to create self-confidence which in turn

develops higher levels of achievement. It is mandatory that

all teachers take responsibility for all students at all

times if a positive school learning climate is to exist.

"According to research/reformer Dr. Ronald Edmonds 'We've

all seen schools in which some teachers walk through the

49

building ignoring everything they see because they disclaim

any activity outside their classroom. One of the reasons

that effective schools are so quiet is that all teachers

take responsibility for all students, all the time, every­

where in the.school' " (The Effective School Report, Novem­

ber 1983).

An essential element in the development of a good

school learning climate is the presence of an effective pro­

cedure for handling disciplinary concerns. In their writ­

ing, Characteristics of Schools with Good Discipline, Thomas

Lashley and William W. Watson noted, " ’good discipline is a

melting pot of positive factors including high rates of stu­

dent success and strong principal leadership.' According to

Lashley and Watson, there are five basic characteristics

which constitute good disciplinary procedures" (The Effec­

tive School Report. February 1984). Those characteristics

include:

(1) The entire school family, including the staff and

students, must be involved in solving school related prob­

lems. Whenever a problem occurs, the entire school family

must work together to develop a solution for it. Discipline

policies in effective schools are usually effective because

the individuals for whom they are designed are involved in

their development. Effective schools first search for ways

to prevent problems from ever occurring. They then find so­

lutions to problems, rather than dwell on the students

50

involved in a problem and the methods of punishment to be

administered.

(2) Effective schools strive to create high rates of stu­

dent academic and social success. The premise adhered to is

success breeds positive student self-esteem, which in turn

develops positive student behavior.

(3) Problems are dealt with by focusing on causes rather

than symptoms. The causes of specific problems are identi­

fied and remedied in order to prevent problems from reoccur-

ring. Unacceptable behavior is considered to be a result of

other unresolve-d problems.

(4) Emphasis is given to positive behavior and the pre­

vention of problems. Attention is given to recognizing stu­

dents for acceptable behavior rather than focusing on the

administration of punishment for unacceptable behavior.

(5) The principal plays a significant role in discipline

and positive behavior is developed in an atmosphere of coop­

eration and respect.

Effective discipline procedures allow positive interac­

tions to occur among students, teachers, and administrators.

The key elements of an effective discipline program are:

(1) stressing rewards rather than punishments, (2) identify­

ing and remedying the causes of problems, and (3) working to

prevent problems from ever occurring (The Effective School

Report, February 1984). Likewise, findings from the One

Hundred Good Schools report acknowledge rewards rather than

51

punishments as characteristics of those schools sampled.

The report indicated, "punishment is used by teachers and

administrators as a last resort, and only after rules and

procedures are clearly communicated to students. The

schools do not concentrate their efforts on formal rule en­

forcement; rather, they use awards, positive messages to

parents, and special assemblies to recognize student accom­

plishments" (Frymier et al., 1984).

"School districts all across the country are trying to

tie the research on effective schools to behavior and prac­

tices that work" (The Effective School Report, January

1984). Officials of the Bellflower United School District

in California identified a set of practices related to the

improvement of effective 'discipline, classroom control, at­

tendance, and school management, all of which are components

of an effective school learning climate. The set of prac­

tices was developed from a review of the research. The set

of practices calls for academic programs to exist which pos­

itively represent all cultures and account for the various

learning styles of children and for a program of activities

to be in place which allows each student to develop an in­

school interest and the opportunity to participate in it.

In addition, the practices indicate that a written and

clearly understood discipline policy, designed to teach and

promote positive behavior, as well as provide consequences

for inappropriate behavior, must be present, shared, and

52

discussed with all students, parents, and staff members; the

entire staff must fairly, firmly, and consistently follow

the established discipline policies and procedures; individ­

ual classroom discipline plans must be developed by teach­

ers, supported by principals, and shared with students; and

immediate attention must be given to the identification and

remediation of behavioral problems. Likewise, an effective

school learning climate is characterized by high and achiev­

able expectations held for students in individual classrooms

and throughout the school, with the staff modeling expected

student behavior, and by students who are held accountable

for their own behavior in classrooms and throughout the

school. In an effective school learning climate, capable

students are encouraged to particiapte in the more rigorous

academic courses, staff members handle students with sensi­

tivity when resolving behavioral problems, and a program is

in .place which gives recognition to those students with reg­

ular school attendance. Inservice teacher education pro­

grams are designed in effective schools to assist staff mem­

bers in understanding the concepts involved in developing a

positive school learning climate. The set of practices sug­

gests that effective schools are characterized by staff mem­

bers who work together and who take ownership for identify­

ing specific objectives needed to develop and improve the

learning climate of schools (The Effective School Report,

March 1984).

53

Lawrence W. Lezotte has identified six dimensions of

school learning climate which he believes characterize the

climates of effective schools. Lezotte emphasized that it

is these dimensions functioning together and interacting

with each other which seem to shape the institutional pat­

terns and behavioral practices of an effective school.

Lezotte noted that teachers in effective schools believe all

children can learn a set of essential skills expected of

them. They believe they can teach all children those essen­

tial skills they expect them to learn. In addition, they

believe society expects students to learn a set of essential

skills, they allocate time and resources needed for students

to learn the skills, and they are willing to be held respon­

sible for teaching the skills and for students learning

them. Teachers in effective schools make sure that their

individual efforts of having students learn the set of

skills are a part of an overall instructional plan. They

look to building principals for instructional leadership,

coordination, and support and they develop a business-like

atmosphere which conveys a sense of importance to students

that the set of essential skills needs to be learned.

Again, it is these elements working together, rather

than independent of each other, which Lezotte has reported

as setting the tone for a positive school learning climate

(Lezotte, April 1984).

54

Wynne has suggested that coherence is a key element of

good schools (Effective Schools: A Summary, of Research.

1983). McCormack-Larkin and Kritek, in their study of Mil­

waukee Schools, identified a "strong sense of academic mis­

sion, high expectations conveyed to students, (a) strong

sense of student identification/affiliation, (a) high level

of professional collegiali.ty among staff, (and) recognition

of personal/academic excellence" (McCormack-Larkin and

Kritek, December 1982) as components of an effective school

learning climate. Stefanich, in his review of the research,

suggested that schools with effective learning climates have

administrators whom students do not perceive as arbitrary;

staff members who have positive attitudes toward students;

students who are "given responsibility and are treated as

mature individuals; a high proportion of students (who)

hold positions of responsibility in the school; staff and

pupils (who) share in activities, including out-of-school

activities; and a broad base of recognition for students"

(Stefanich, 1983). Stefanich further characterized effec­

tive schools as providing learning conditions for students

that are pleasant, i.e. "rooms are colorfully decorated;

direct praise and approval are the prevalent means for

classroom feedback; and teachers are readily available to be

consulted by children about problems, and many children are

observed to consult with teachers" (Stefanich, 1983). Ed­

monds stated that " 'the school must avoid tangible evidence

55

of institutional neglect. It isn't so much whether schools

get windows broken; it's how long the windows stay broken.'

Developing a good school climate largely involves cultivat­

ing respect - students gaining respect for the teacher as

well as the teacher gaining respect for the students. Addi­

tionally, respect for the building and grounds of the school

as well as a respect for the institution itself is essen­

tial" (The Effective School Report, November 1983).

"Schools are more different, it seems, in the somewhat

elusive qualities making up their ambience - the ways stu­

dents and teachers relate to one another, the school's ori­

entation to academic concerns, the degree to which students

are caught up in peer-group interests other than academic,,

the way principals and teachers regard one another, the de­

gree of autonomy possessed by principals and teachers in

conducting their work, the nature of the relationship be­

tween the school and its parent clientele, and so on" (Good­

lad, 1984). "Staff members of the more effective schools

are described as open, accepting, and honest. They appear

to have caring relationships with one another and with stu­

dents that are built on mutual trust and respect" (MacPhail-

Wilcox and Guth, October 1983). An Educational Research

Service Brief suggests a cooperative environment in which a

friendly and constructive relationship exists among teach­

ers, administrators, and students is an important aspect of

school climate. Elements of staff harmony, staff morale,

56

and school spirit appear to characterize effective schools

(Effective Schools: A Summary of Research, 1983). In a

study of effective schools conducted by Goodlad, he reported

"students (in effective schools) viewed both, school and

classroom climate positively. Teachers had a positive view

of their workplace - the principal's leadership, the quality

of the problem-solving process, staff cohesiveness, their

power and influence over schoolwide decisions, and their

control over planning and teaching decisions. They viewed

themselves as spending more time on instruction and rela­

tively less on routines and controlling behavior" (Goodlad,

1984). He further characterized an effective school as:

"a nurturing, caring place. The parents.... want their children to be seen as individuals - persons and learners - and to be safe. Their children want to be known as persons as well as students.. .Many little things add up to a classroom.climate perceived by stu­dents to be more or less satisfying...the environment of the classroom conveys important meanings to the student...a little show of teacher concern, the absence of teacher favoritism, the presence of peer esteem...It appears that a positive affective tone of the classroom - the absence of dissonance between teachers and students and among students - is a vital element of climate" (Goodlad, 1984).

High Expectations

A fourth characteristic of effective schools which ap­

pears to be prevalent in the literature is the high expecta­

tions teachers hold for all students. Teachers surveyed by

Frymier et al. in the Good Schools Report were identified as

57

having high expectations for their students (Frymier et al.,

1984). Tyler has noted that studies show students in more

effective schools perceive teachers "as 'caring' and as con­

fident that the children could learn what was being taught.

Teachers set high, but clearly attainable goals. They en­

courage their students to try and try again if the student

had difficulty with the learning tasks" (Tyler, April 1983).

Evans stated, "to make a school effective, the administra­

tors and a majority of the teachers must believe that all

youngsters can learn. They must embrace the philosophy, as

cited by Bloom, that all students can learn what any student

can learn, given the appropriate teaching-learning environ­

ment. Effective schools expect t'o be effective schools"

(Evans, October 1983)! In the November 1983 issue of The

Effective School Report it was written:

"teachers in effective schools are firm believers that all children should be expected to attain at least min­imal mastery of a given subject. An attitude of this type, if maintained by the teacher, will insure a high­er level of achievement by the student...It is also im­portant that the school... acknowledge the fact that all students should be capable of mastering basic objectives. According to research, the school staff that takes this attitude generally reports higher levels of student achievement. In addition, the staff of effective schools holds decidedly higher levels of expectation with regard to the accomplishments of their students" (The Effective School Report, November 1983).

Stefanich has reported that the research findings on

effective schools lead one to conclude that teachers and

principals in effective schools have high expectations.

Principals have positive interactions and relationships with

58

teachers, principals perceive staff members as effective

teachers, and teachers perceive students as capable of

learning that which is taught (Stefanich, 1983). A 1980

California State Department of Education Study identified

high expectations for student learning as a characteristic

of schools in which third-grade reading scores were improv­

ing (Purkey and Smith, March 1983). In a 1977 study of

eight Michigan schools, Brookover and Lezotte found that the

staffs of more effective schools tended to believe that all

students are capable of mastering a set of essential skills.

They also found that those staffs perceived their principals

as sharing that same belief. In addition, it was found that

the staffs of effective schools held significantly higher

levels of expectations with regard to the educational accom­

plishments of their students, they assumed responsibility

for and were committed to teaching a set of essential

skills, and they gave precedence to teaching those essential

skills over Other school activities (Edmonds, 1979). Brook­

over et al. have reinforced the notion that effective

schools -are characterized by high expectations held for stu­

dent achievement. Likewise, Trisman et al. have reported

the same characteristic as a component of effective schools

(Purkey and Smith, March 1983).

59

Monitoring of Student Progress and

Parent and Community Involvement

The characteristics of strong principal leadership, an

instructional focus, a positive school learning climate, and

high expectations for student achievement consistently ap­

pear in the literature regarding effective schools. Though

these elements appear to be the major components, other ser­

ious characteristics have been identified in those schools

considered to be effective. While the thrust of providing

an instructional focus is to assure the existence of clearly

defined curricular goals which are understood by the entire

staff, the monitoring of student progress toward the

achievement of those instructional goals appears to have

like importance. Effective schools give special attention

to test results (Salgainik, 1980). The characteristic of

monitoring student progress is considered by many to be

critical to the overall effectiveness of a school

(Stefanich, 1983)! Stefanich has reported that in effective

schools there is ongoing evaluation of student progress via

"an evaluation system based on each child's mastery of

learning, rather than one based on comparisons with class­

mates' achievement" (Stefanich, 1983). Effective schools

develop procedures for identifying students not performing

at grade level (Wynne, 1981). The November 1983 issue of

The Effective School Report cited the need for criterion

60

measures of mastery in order that individual analyses may be

made of student progress so as to allow measurement results

to be compared to a norm that all students are expected to

achieve (The Effective School Report, November 1983) . Ed­

monds suggested "that there must be some means by which pu­

pil progress can be frequently monitored. These means may

be as traditional as classroom testing on the day's lesson

or as advanced ‘as criterion referenced systemwide standard­

ized measures. The point is that some means must exist in

the school by which the principal and the teachers remain

constantly aware of pupil progress in relationship to in­

structional objectives" (Edmonds, 1979).

McCormack-Larkin and Kritek have cited evaluation as an

essential element of effective schooling. They have listed

"frequent assessment of student progress on a routine basis,

(a) precise and informative report card with emphasis on ac­

quisition of basic school skills, (a) serious attitude to­

wards test-taking as an affirmation of individual accomp­

lishment, and test-taking preparation and skills" (McCormack

-Larkin and Kritek, December 1982) as components of an ef­

fective monitoring system. If specific instructional objec­

tives are to be taught, it is essential that assessment be

made in order to determine whether that which is planned is

actually achieved!

Another characteristic which often appears on lists

identifying components of effective schools is parent and

61

community involvement and support. McCormack-Larkin and

Kritek list "regular and consistent communication with par­

ents, (a) clearly defined homework policy which is explain­

ed to students and parents, (an) emphasis upon the impor­

tance of regular school attendance, clear communication to

parents regarding the school's expectations related to be­

havioral standards, (and) increasing awareness of community

services available to reinforce and extend student learning"

(McCormack-Larkin and Kritek, December 1982) as essential

elements of effective schooling. Armor et al. (1976), Cole­

man et al. (1981), Levine and Stark (1981), and New York

State Department of Education (,1974b) have reported parent

involvement and support are essential to pupil achievement.

Purkey and Smith have suggested that while parent and com­

munity involvement and support may positively influence

achievement, they do not cause achievement in and of them­

selves (Purkey and Smith, March 1983).

A Summary of the Characteristics of Effective Schools

Brookover and Lezotte (1979), Rutter and others (1979),

Duckett and others (1980), Edmonds (1981), and the Associa­

tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1981) have

summarized the characteristics of effective schools. Though

many of the characteristics identified are similar in na­

ture, they do vary from one researcher to another. The

62

following provides a summary of the characteristics as sug­

gested by the researchers responsible for the above named

studies.*

A 1981 publication of the Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development provides a set of 12 characteris­

tics of effective schools based upon findings of research

conducted by Ronald Edmonds, Peter Mortiraore, Barak Rosen-

shine, and others. Research findings listed in the ASCD

publication include the need for strong administrative lead­

ership to be present in order for a school to be effective.

Brookover and Lezotte (1979) reported that effective schools

have principals who diligently serve as instructional lead­

ers and assertive disciplinarians. A summary of the charac­

teristics of effective schools was gathered by Duckett and

others .in 1980. The findings of Duckett et al. suggested

that the behaviors of leadership personnel are crucial to

school success. In 1981, Edmonds reported that the admini­

strative leadership of an effective school must be strong

and that without such leadership the disparate elements of

good schooling can neither be brought together nor kept to­

gether .

According to Brookover and Lezotte, the staff of an ef­

fective school accept and emphasize the importance of and

are committed to mastering the basic skills. The staff as­

sume the responsibility for making sure the basic skills are

taught by providing the amount of time needed in instruction

63

in order to achieve basic skills objectives. They also ac­

cept- the responsibilty of assuring students learn the basic

skills. The Duckett et a l . summary characterized successful

schools as having clearly stated curricular goals and objec­

tives while Edmonds reported that the staff of an effective

school clearly understand that pupil acquisition of basic

school skills takes precedence over all other school activi­

ties. Included in the ASCD list of characteristics were the

findings that effective schools give priority to learning,

the entire staff understand this focus on learning, and em­

phasis is given to this priority throughout the school.

Also reported in the ASCD publication was the finding that

effective schools provide adequate time-on-task and the op­

portunity for students to learn expected skills. In addi­

tion, the staff of an effective school are committed to hav­

ing each student master the subject matter under study by

mastering one unit prior to moving on to the next.

Edmonds found that the staff of an effective school

hold expectations that no children are permitted to fall be­

low specific minimum levels of achievement. Rutter et al.

(1979) suggested that schools in which teachers expect all

students to achieve are schools in which outcomes are bet­

ter. Findings from the Brookover and Lezotte study noted

that the entire staff of an effective school, including the

principal, believe all students can master the basic skills

and are capable of continuing their education beyond high

64

school. The ASCD publication noted that within an effective

school are the expectations for all students to learn and

for the entire staff to perform well. The Duckett et al.

study reported that high expectations on the part of leader­

ship personnel are essential if a school is to be effective.

Pleasant working conditions for students and immediate

direct praise and approval were noted by Rutter et al. as

being prevalent in effective schools. They also reported

that schools in which teachers serve as role models for stu­

dents, by demonstrating the same expectations which the

staff have for students, are schools which appear to have

better outcomes. Effective schools appear to have a high

proportion of the students holding some kind of position of

responsibility. They also noted that school climate is af­

fected by the cohesiveness of the staff and students within

a building and by the consistency with which achievements

are made throughout the school. Student behavior is posi­

tively affected in schools which provide opportunities for

students and staff to consult with each other. The Duckett

et al. summary suggested a structured learning environment

is a component of an effective school while Edmonds reported

that a learning climate is present in effective schools that

is orderly, quiet, and conducive to the instructional pro­

cess without being rigid or oppressive. The ASCD publica­

tion indicated that effective schools have pleasant, order­

ly, and business-like classrooms where instructional

65

activities are teacher-selected and teacher-directed; re­

wards, rather than punishments, are stressed; and a consis­

tency exists among teachers in the manner in which they

treat students.

Edmonds noted that a process exists in successful

schools by which pupil progress can be frequently monitored.

The ASCD publication reported that, in effective schools,

pupil progress is carefully monitored and test results are

reported and used to improve classroom teaching and student

learning.

The Brookover and Lezotte study found that though par­

ent involvement is less in more effective schools, there is

greater parent-initiated contact and involvement in such

schools. The Duckett et al. summary suggested that effec­

tive schools are characterized by having a high degree of

parent contact and involvement with the school and school

activities.

Brookover and Lezotte noted that teachers in effective

schools are not very complacent about the status quo, for

they want to make the best better. The ASCD publication

noted that effective school leadership personnel encourages

and facilitates opportunities for teachers to visit the

classrooms of other teachers to observe instructional tech­

niques and time-on-task. An effective school conducts a

yearly self-evaluation, involving the entire staff, for the

purpose of identifying strengths and weaknesses. The

66

summary provided by Duckett et al. suggested that specific

inservice teacher education programs directed toward assist­

ing teachers to realize stated goals are a component of ef­

fective schools. Student/teacher ratios; individualized in­

struction; and federal, state, and local support were also

noted as having an impact on the effectiveness of a school.

The Duckett, et al. summary made special note that manipulat­

ing resources and facilities alone are insufficient to

affect school outcomes (Assodiation for Supervision and

Curriculum Development, 1981 and D'Amico, 1982).

A Research Study Directed Toward Perceptionsof

School Personnel

In reviewing the literature, only one study was found

which directly related to the research explicated in this

volume. That study was conducted by Garmelo V. Sapone of

Niagara University. Sapone identified 18 major character­

istics he believed to be important determinants of academic

excellence after reviewing the effective schools literature.

He then sought the opinions of teachers, principals, super­

intendents, and school board members in regard to whether

each characteristic should ideally be included in a local

school and whether each component was realistic as far as

actually being implemented in a local school. The following

67

is a listing of Sapone's 18 identified characteristics:

"(1) Strong Administrative/Principal Leadership(2) High Positive School Community Relationships(3) Establishment of High Performance Standards for

Staff and Students(4) Administrative/Staff/Student Involvement in the

Goal Setting Process(5) Open Communication System(6). Ongoing Professional/Inservice Growth Plan(7) Strong Extracurricular Program for All Students(8) Effective Supervision/Appraisal and Evaluation

Plan in Operation(9) High Staff Morale

(10) Comprehensive Curricular Programs in Operation(11) Continued Program/Curricular Evaluation(12) Democratic Decision-Making Process(13) Administrative/Teacher Support Systems in Place(14) Utilization of Appropriate Instructional Tech­

nologies(15) Increased Parental Involvement in Schools(16) Open and Healthy School Climate(17) Staff is in Control of Their Own School Environ­

ment(18) Humanism Principles in Operation in Total School"(Sapone, October 1983).

For each of the 18 characteristics, the mean score for

the "ideal" was higher than the mean score for the "realis­

tic". In comparing the rankings of superintendents and

school board members, the two groups significantly differed

ideally on five of the major components and realistically on

four of the characteristics. The "ideal" differences were

on administrative/staff/student involvement in the goal set­

ting process, utilization of appropriate instructional tech­

nologies, increased parental involvement in schools, an open

and healthy school climate, and humanism principles in oper­

ation in the total school. "Realistic" differences occurred

on high positive school community relationships, open

68

communication system, effective supervision/appraisal and

evaluation plan in operation, utilization of appropriate

instructional technologies, and an open and healthy school

climate. Findings of the research study were not reported

in terms of variables, such as age, sex, and ethnic group,

identified in this study (Sapone, October 1983).

Conclusions

This review of the literature regarding effective

schools has delineated a multitude of characteristics.

Though these characteristics were identified, no 'extensive

data were available concerning the perceptions of superin­

tendents and school board presidents regarding the charac­

teristics, especially within the State of Ohio. It is con­

ceivable that not all of the characteristics will work in

all schools all of the time. In some situations, they may

even be counterproductive. It is likely that the interac­

tion of the characteristics working together, rather than in

isolation, makes the difference (Purkey and Smith, March

1983). To quote the late Ronald Edmonds, "We can whenever,

and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children

whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more

than we need, to do what (has been) said. Whether or not we

do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that

we haven’t so far" (Edmonds, 1979).

69

This review of the literature was used to develop the

questionnaires (Appendixes Q and- S) for this study. Though

not all of the characteristics identified in the review were

incorporated in tire questionnaires, those which appeared as

common strands throughout research studies, reviews of re­

search studies, and reviews of reviews of research studies

were used as components for the questionnaires. Chapter III

provides a description of the procedures used to address the

research questions posed.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

Research Design

The study was descriptive research of a survey type.

Its purpose was to gain insights into and accurately portray

the perceptions of Ohio's superintendents and school board

presidents regarding the characteristics of effective

.schools at a time when the achievement of educational -excel­

lence had been placed in the forefront by the Nation's Pres­

ident, Ronald Reagan, and the country as a whole. The study

focused on the status quo, looking at those perceptions held

at the time the questionnaires (-Appendixes Q and S) were

completed by the subjects involved in the study.

In order to assure that the data collected were valid,

effort was made to reduce measurement errors as follows:

(1) Questionnaires were designed with clear and con­

cise instructions and questions and were printed on ivory-

colored paper.

(2) The layout of the questionnaires was attractive,

neat, and orderly with sections and items numbered.

70

71

(3) Questionnaires were a reasonable length, ques­

tions were short, and questionnaires were easy to .complete.

(4) Questions used to obtain data regarding personal

characteristics were placed at the end of each question­

naire .

(5) Data were collected from superintendents and

school board presidents, the appropriate sourc.es of informa­

tion for the study.

(6) Validity, utility, and reliablility were estab­

lished for each questionnaire.

(7) The questionnaires were administered in early Oc­

tober after the school year had begun and pr.ior to the addi­

tional responsibilities called for in preparation for a .new

calendar year.

(8) In order to give greater credibility to the

study, endorsements of the State Department of Education of

the State of Ohio, the Buckeye Association of School Admini­

strators, and the Ohio School Boards Association were sought

and received.

To allow generalizability back to the target popula­

tions, threats to external validity were addressed in the

following ways:

(1) SAMPLING ERROR - A proportional stratified sample

was used, allowing every member of each target population

the same chance of being chosen as subjects for the study.

72

(2) FRAME ERROR - An up-to-date list of city, exempt­

ed village, and local school districts was secured from the

Ohio Educational Directory, 1983 - 1984 published by the

State Department of Education of Ohio. The accuracy of the

list was reviewed with the office of the appropriate Assis­

tant Superintendent, State Department of Education. Up-to-

date lists of superintendents and school board presidents

were secured from the Ohio School Boards Association. Week­

ly updates were also received from this Association from the

time the frames were received until they were used.

(3) SELECTION ERROR - All three lists were purged to

assure no district or individual was listed more than once

orr the frames.

(4) NON-RESPONSE ERROR - The survey was designed and

conducted to achieve as high a response rate as possible. A

second copy of the appropriate questionnaire was sent to

non-respondents. After the deadline for the return of the

second copies of the questionnaires mailed, a follow-up ran­

dom sample of the remaining non-respondents of each stratum

was conducted by phone. Effort was then made to obtain data

missing from returned questionnaires. In addition, the data

of early respondents were compared with the data of late re­

spondents in order to estimate the nature of the biases of

non-respondents and to estimate whether a significant dif­

ference might exist between respondents and non-respondents.

73

The schematic design below illustrates the sampling

flow involved in the study.

TARGET AND ACCESSIBLE POPULATIONS (Ohio superinten­dents and school board presidents)

\ /PROPORTIONAL STRATIFIED SAMPLES (city, exempted vil­lage, and local districts)

\ /ACCEPTING SAMPLES (those subjects who returned com­pleted questionnaires)

\ /DATA SAMPLES (those subjects who supplied usable data )

Subject Selection

Two different groups served as the target populations

for the study. One group was the superintendents of Ohio’s

city, exempted village, and local school districts and the

other group was the presidents of the boards of education of

Ohio's city, exempted.village, and local school districts.

These populations were appropriate for the study for it was

data regarding the perceptions of the individuals who were

members of these two groups that were to be gathered. The

accessible populations were the same as the target popula­

tions. The frames of city, exempted village, and local

school districts were secured from a publication of the De­

partment of Education of the State of Ohio. The frames of

74

superintendents and school board presidents were obtained

from the Ohio School Boards Association. Information col­

lected from these two bodies was the most accurate data

available, thus avoiding frame error.

A proportional stratified sampling procedure was em­

ployed. The basis for stratification was city, exempted

village, and local school districts. The proportional

stratified sampling procedure enabled each stratum to be

represented in exact proportion to its frequency in the re­

spective target population. The procedure guaranteed repre­

sentation of the defined groups in the populations and per­

mitted conclusions to be made regarding each stratum

(Ary et al., 1979).

There were in existence a total of 616 city, exempted

village, and local public school districts in the State of

Ohio. There were 191 city districts, 49 exempted village

districts, and 376 local districts. Thus, 31.006% of the

districts were city, 7.955% were exempted village, and

61.039% were local. According to Ary et al. (1979), 10 to

20 percent of an accessible population is a suggested sample

size for descriptive research. In order to allow for a 30%

non-return of questionnaires and yet maintain a 20% sam­

pling, 30% of the target populations was used as the sample

size. In this study, each target and accessible population

had a frame of 616 elements. Using a 30% sample size, 185

districts (30% of 616) were selected from each population.

75

Using a proportional stratified sampling procedure, 57 mem­

bers were randomly selected from each city district frame,

15 from each exempted village district frame, and 113 from

each local district frame. Subjects were selected using a

table of random numbers. Districts which were to represent

superintendents were randomly selected first. Districts

which were to represent school board presidents were then

randomly selected. Once the districts were selected, they

were matched with the names of the respective superinten­

dents and school board presidents.

Upon selection, data were immediately available regard­

ing the type of school district represented by each subject.

Respondents provided data on the questionnaires regarding

their sex, age, marital status, whether individuals had or

had had children enrolled in public school, ethnic group,

level of educational attainment, political preference, type

of .school district community, and size of school district.

Additional data concerning superintendents were collected in

terms of initial level of teaching certification, number of

years of experience as a classroom teacher, number of years

of experience as a building principal, and number of years

in the superintendency. Likewise, data regarding boards of

education presidents were gathered in terms of the number of

years of experience as a board member and in terms of those

board members having had public school teaching and/or ad­

ministrative experience. Data regarding these

76

characteristics were gathered in order to make comparisons

between and among the characteristics. Some of the charac­

teristics were those normally reported in a study of this

nature. Other characteristics were directly related to the

educational, cultural, emotional, and political issues cen­

tered about the nature of the charcteristics of effective

schools. A summary of the data regarding the personal char­

acteristics of the subjects involved in the study is report­

ed in Chapter IV.

Procedures for collecting data were designed to obtain

as high a rate as possible in the number of questionnaires

returned. A second copy of the appropriate questionnaire

was sent to non-respondents.. Once the deadline was reached

for the return of second questionnaires, a 30% random sample

of each stratum was conducted by phone with the remaining

non-respondents. In addition, records were maintained of

the dates questionnaires were returned in order to compare

early respondents with late respondents. This permitted

estimates to be made of the nature of the biases of non­

respondents and as to whether a significant difference might

exist between respondents and non-respondents. Letters were

sent to respondents whose questionnaires were returned with

missing data. Enclosed with the letters were post cards

with the questions of the missing data on them. Subjects

were asked to respond to the questions and return the post

cards. For those post cards not returned, an estimate of

77

the missing data was made by plugging the mean of the re­

spective stratified group for the unanswered questions into

each of the cells containing missing data (Borg and Gall,

1979). Phone calls were made to obtain missing data regard­

ing personal characteristics. A summary of those question­

naires having missing data is reported in Chapter IV.

Outcome Measures

Initial questionnaires were designed for the study. In

order to establish validity, utility, and reliability for

each instrument, initial questionnaires were field tested by

using a proportio.nal stratified sampling procedure with 5%

of the target populations. Questionnaires were sent to 10

individuals from each city district frame, 2 from each ex­

empted village district frame, and 19 from each local dis­

trict frame. Elements were selected using a table of random

numbers after the units were selected for the study itself.

Appendixes G and H are copies of letters which were

individually addressed using PFS-Write and PFS-File in the

Apple H E Computer. The letters were sent with the ques­

tionnaires field tested and requested individuals to comment

on the clarity, structure, and appropriateness of the in­

struments, whether they believed the instruments measured

what they purported to measure, and whether the instruments

78

were free from bias. Field test respondents were also asked

to identify deficiencies and potential problems with the in­

struments and to make suggestions for improving the ques­

tionnaires. Questionnaires were then revised based upon in­

formation gathered from the field tests. Appendixes I and J

are copies of the Questionnaire Evaluation Forms used to

gather comments and suggestions.

In order to further establish validity, utility, and

reliability, a second field test was conducted after the

questionnaires were revised. The second field test was sent

to respondents who returned the first field test question­

naires. Respondents were again asked to make, suggestions

for improving the questionnaires. The questionnaires were

again revised using the information obtained from the second

field tests. Appendixes K and L are copies of the cover

letters individually addressed for the second field tests

conducted.. Appendix M is a copy of the Questionnaire Evalu­

ation Form used with the second field-tests.

Ary et al. (1979) suggested, that in order to maintain

validity, respondents not be asked to place their names on

questionnaires. Questionnaires were coded with a number.

The purpose for coding each questionnaire was to determine

which elements did not respond in order that a follow-up

might be conducted and comparisons made between early and

late respondents. Instructions on the questionnaires

79

explained that the code was for record-keeping purposes.

The Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 was used to determine

reliability coefficients for both field tests and the study

questionnaires. It should be noted that this formula gener­

ally yields "a lower reliability coefficient than would be

obtained by using other methods" (Borg and Gall, 1979).

Thus, the coefficients of reliability established for the

questionnaires should be considered minimum estimates of

reliability (Borg and Gall, 1979).

The following is a listing of tasks completed in the

collection of data and the completion dates for each task.

Respondents completed field tests and study questionnaires

at a time and place of their own choosing within the frame­

work of the following timeline.

Data Collection

COMPLETION DATES TASKS COMPLETED

July 19, 1984 1. Endorsements of the State Departmentof Education, the Buckeye Associa­tion of School Administrators, and the Ohio School Boards Association were sought (Appendixes A, B, and

August 13, 1984 2. Written endorsements from the State Department of Education, the BuckeyeAssociation-of School Administra­tors, and the Ohio School Boards Association were obtained (Appen­dixes D , E , and F) .

80

August 23, 1984

August 25, 1984

August 29, 1984

September 12, 1984

September 15, 1984

September 21, 1984

3. School district frames from the State Department of Education and superintendent and school board president frames from the Ohio School Boards Association were received.

4. Proportional stratified samples for the study and field tests were conducted.

5. First field tests were mailed. The mailing included a cover letter, the questionnaire, Questionnaire Evalua­tion Form, a stamped addressed re­turn envelope, and an Ohio State University pencil as an incentive to return the questionnaire. A copy of the endorsement letter from the Buckeye Association of School Admin­istrators was sent to superinten­dents and a copy of the endorsement letter from the Ohio School Boards Asssociation was sent to school board presidents.

6. First field test questionnaires were returned by 71% of the superinten­dents and by 45% of the school board presidents. Using the Kuder- Richardson Formula 21, a reliability coefficient of .7477 was established for the superintendent questionnaire and a reliability coefficient of .7337 for the school board president questionnaire.

7. Questionnaires were revised to im­prove validity on basis of first field test information.

8. Second field tests were mailed to 8 city superintendents, 1 exempted village superintendent, 13 local superintendents, 4 city school board presidents, and 10 local school board presidents. The mailing in­cluded a cover • letter, the question­naire, a Questionnaire Evaluation Form, a stamped addressed return envelope, and an Ohio State

Univerisity scratch pad as an incen­tive to return the questionnaires.

October 3, 1984

October 4, 1984

October 5, 1984

October 12, 1984

October 31, 1984

9. Second field test questionnaireswere returned by 95% of the superin­tendents and by 79% of the school board presidents. Using the Kuder- Richardson Formula 21, a reliability coefficient of .7600 was established for the superintendent questionnaire and a reliability coefficient of .7159 for the school board presi­dent questionnaire.

10. Questionnaires were revised to im­prove validity and utility on basis of second field test information gathered.

11. Individually addressed introductory letters (Appendixes N and 0) were mailed to subjects to inform them about the study and that the ques­tionnaires would be mailed October

• 12.

12. Questionnaires (Appendixes Q and S) were mailed to the 370 subjects se­lected for the study. Individually addressed cover letters (Appendixes P and R) were enclosed. Question­naires were printed on ivory paper and were mailed flat in envelopes. Envelopes were hand-stamped. A stamped addressed envelope was en­closed for returning questionnaires. An Ohio State University pencil was enclosed as an incentive to return the questionnaires. Questionnaires for superintendents were mailed to their offices. Questionnaires for school board presidents were mailed to their homes.

13. Questionnaires were returned by 81% of the superintendents and 65% of the school board presidents. Each questionnaire was dated upon return and its code checked off of the master list of subjects.

82

October 31, 1984 14. Non-respondents were determined. Asecond questionnaire was mailed to the remaining 35 superintendents and 63 school board presidents who had not responded. The mailing included an individually addressed cover let­ter (Appendix T ) , the questionnaire, and another stamped addressed enve­lope. A "Penny For Your Thoughts" was rubber cemented to the letter as an incentive to return the question­naire .

November 10, 1984 15,

November 10, 1984

Questionnaires from the second mail­ing were returned. A total of 88% of the superintendents and 78% of the school board presidents had re­sponded .

16. A 30% random sample of each stratum of non-respondents for each frame was conducted.

NQvember 20, 1984 17,

November 28, 1984

Phone calls were made to each sub­ject within the 30%.random sample of non-respondents (7 superintendents and 13 school board presidents). Questionnaires were either completed over the phone or subjects who did not wish to complete the question­naire via phone were encouraged to immediately return the questionnaire by mail.

18. 91% of the 185 superintendent ques­tionnaires and 85% of the 185 school board president questionnaires had been returned.

November 28, 1984 19. Individually addressed letters (Ap­pendix U) were sent to those sub­jects who had returned question­naires with missing data. Letters were sent to fifteen superintendents and twenty board presidents. Ques­tions not answered on the question­naires were printed on post cards to be returned with a response. Phone calls were made to gather missing data regarding personal characteris­tics .

83

December 13, 1984 20. Post cards were returned by fourteenof the fifteen superintendents and by fourteen of the twenty school board presidents.

Data Analysis

Percentages of returns, a summary of missing data, and

and a description of the samples are reported in Chapter IV.

A Chi Square Test of Significance at the probability level

of p = .05 was used to determine if respondents were repre­

sentative of each stratification used in the study. The

Kuder-Richardson test of reliability, Formula 21, was used

with data collected in the study to derive measures of reli­

ability for each questionnaire.

Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used

to address the research questions posed. Three different

statistical techniques were employed. Those were percent­

age, mean, and simple analysis of variance. Percentages

were used to indicate the percent of respondents selecting

each alternative for each item. This also allowed similar­

ities and differences between populations to be investigated

by comparing percentages. The mean is the arithmetic aver­

age of numerical values and takes into account each and

every numerical value and is definitely affected by extreme

scores. The mean was used to measure central tendency for

items on the questionnaires, individually and collectively,

84

and also allowed similarities and differences between popu­

lations to be investigated. The means of those subjects re­

sponding on or prior to October 31', 1984 were compared with

those responding after October 31, 1984 in order to deter­

mine the nature of the biases of non-respondents. In addi­

tion, simple, or one-way, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

used to determine whether a significant difference existed

between the means of those subjects responding on or before

October 31, 1984 and those responding after October 31, 1984

at the probability level of p = .05 (Gay, 1979). Simple

analysis of variance was also used to determine whether sig­

nificant differences existed between the means of the vari­

ous variables within the group .of superintendents and within

the group of school board presidents at the probability lev­

el of p = .05 (Gay, 1979). The Appleworks Computer Program

was used in an Apple H E computer to make calculations.

Data gathered in Section II of the questionnaires, re­

garding the most important characteristics of those identi­

fied as being of very high importance, were tabulated. An

average was then calculated for all items mentioned. Those

at or above the calculated average were then reported in Re­

search Questions 1 and 3. Data gathered in Section III,

characteristics which should be added to the list, and Sec­

tion V, thoughts concerning the extent to which characteris­

tics were practiced in the public schools of Ohio, were re­

ported in Research Questions 1 and 3 and Research Questions

85

6 and 8 respectively. These data were reported in statement

format with statements paraphrased from those sections of

the questionnaires.

The following identifies the statistical technique(s)

employed with each of the research questions:

QUESTION 1 : What were the perceptions of Ohio's public

school superintendents regarding the importance of specific

characteristics of effective schools, individually and col­

lectively, in the achievement of educational excellence?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 1: Percentages were calculated

for each item and means were calculated for items, individu­

ally and collectively.

QUESTION 2 ;• Did significant differences exist in the per­

ceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents regarding

the importance of these characteristics of effective schools

in the achievevment of educational excellence according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

86

(J) size of school district?

(K) initial level of teaching certification?

(L) the number of years of experience as a class­

room teacher?

(M) the number of years of experience as a building

principal?

(N) the number of years of experience in the super­

intendency?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 2 : Simple analysis of variance

was used to determine if significant differences existed for

each variable at the p = .05 level.

QUESTION 3 : What were the perceptions of Ohio's public

school boards of education presidents regarding the impor­

tance of specific characteristics of effective schools, in­

dividually and collectively, in the achievement of educa­

tional excellence?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 3 : Percentages were calculated

for each item and means were calculated for items, individu­

ally and collectively.

QUESTION 4 : Did significant differences exist in the per­

ceptions of Ohio's public school boards of education presi­

dents regarding the importance of these characteristics of

effective schools in the achievement of educational excel­

lence according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

87

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district;?

(J) size of school district?

(K) the number of years of experience as a board

member ?

(L) those board presidents having had public school

teaching experience?

(M) those board presidents having had public school

administrative experience?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 4 : Simple analysis of variance

was used to determine if significant differences existed for

each variable at the p = .05 level.

QUESTION 5 : What similarities and differences existed be­

tween the perceptions of Ohio's public school superinten­

dents and the perceptions of Ohio's boards of education

presidents regarding the importance of specific character­

istics of effective schools in the achievement of education­

al excellence according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

88

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) type of school district community?

(H) type of school district?

(I) size of school district?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 5 : Similarities and differences

were investigated using percentages and means calculated for

the variables.

QUESTION 6 : What were the perceptions of Ohio's public

school superintendents regarding the extent to which specif­

ic characteristics of effective schools were practiced in

the public schools of Ohio?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 6: Percentages were calculated

for each item and means were calculated for items, individu­

ally and collectively.

QUESTION 7 : Did significant differences exist in the per­

ceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents regarding

the extent to which these characteristics of effective

schools were practiced in the public schools of Ohio accord­

ing to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

89

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) initial level of teaching certification?

(L) the number of years of experience as a

classroom teacher?

(M) the number of years of experience as a building

principal?

(N) the number of years of experience in the

superintendency?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 7 : Simple analysis of variance

was used to determine if significant differences existed for

each variable at the p = .05 level.

QUESTION 8 : What were the perceptions of Ohio's public

school boards of education presidents regarding the extent

to which specific characteristics of effective schools were

practiced in the public schools of Ohio?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 8 : Percentages were calculated

for each item and means were calculated for items, individu­

ally and collectively.

90

QUESTION 9 : Did significant differences exist in the per­

ceptions of Ohio's public school boards of education presi­

dents regarding the extent to which these characteristics of

effective schools were practiced in the public schools of

Ohio according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) level of. educational attainment?

(H) type of school district community?

(I) type of school district?

(J) size of school district?

(K) the number of years of experience as a board

member?

(L) those board presidents having had public school

teaching experience?

(M) those board presidents having had public school

administrative experience?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 9 : Simple analysis of variance

was used to determine if significant differences existed for

each variable at the p = .05 level.

91

QUESTION 10: What similarities and differences existed be­

tween the perceptions of Ohio's public school superinten­

dents and the perceptions of Ohio's public school boards of

education presidents regarding the extent to which specific

characteristics of effective schools were practiced in the

public schools of Ohio according to:

(A) sex?

(B) age?

(C) marital status?

(D) whether they had or had had children of their

own enrolled in public school?

(E) ethnic group?

(F) political preference?

(G) type of school district community?

(H) type of school district?

(I) size of school district?

DATA ANALYSIS for QUESTION 10: Similarities and differences

were investigated using percentages and means calculated for

the variables.

The design of the questionnaires, the selection of sub­

jects, and the procedures used in collecting data provided

an astoundingly high return of questionnaires with usuable

data from each population. The high percentage of returns

provided credibility for the analysis of results presented

in the next chapter.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The Samples

Questionnaires were mailed to 185 Ohio superintendents

on October 12, 1984. This was a 30% sampling of the target

population. The sampling procedure employed was a propor­

tional stratified method with 57 questionnaires sent to city

superintendents, 15 to exempted village superintendents, and

113 to local superintendents. As of October 31, 1984, the

first deadline for the return of questionnaires, 150 or 81%

of -the questionnaires had been returned. A follow-up let­

ter, with a second questionnaire enclosed, was sent to non­

respondents. By November 10, 1984, 164 or 88% of the ques­

tionnaires had been returned. After November 10, 1984, con­

tacts were made by phone with a 30% random sample of e-.ch

stratum of non-respondents. With those subjects who re­

sponded to phone calls and with the receipt of question­

naires from other non-respondents, 169 or 91% of the initial

185 questionnaires were completed. Of the 169 subjects in

the accepting sample, 53 were city superintendents, 15 were

92

93

exempted village superintendents, and 101 were local super­

intendents. This return of questionnaires represented 92%

of the subjects in the city district stratum, 100% of the

subjects in the exempted village district stratum, and 89%

of the subjects in the local district stratum. This return

also represented 27.4% of the target population.

In addition to the questionnaires sent to superinten­

dents, 185 were also sent to Ohio school board presidents.

This was again a 30% sampling of the target population with

the same proportional stratified sampling procedure employ­

ed. The same quantities of questionnaires were mailed to

city, exempted village, and local school board presidents as

wer£ mailed to the respective groups -of superintendents. By

the October 31 deadline, 122 or 65% of the questionnaires

had been returned. As with superintendents, a follow-up

letter, with a second questionnaire enclosed, was then mail­

ed to non-respondents. By November 10, 1984, 145 or 78% of

the questionnaires had been received. Contacts were then

made by phone with a 30% random sample of each stratum of

non-responding school board presidents. With those subjects

who responded to phone calls and with the receipt of ques­

tionnaires from other non-respondents, 158 or 85% of the

initial 185 questionnaires were completed. Of the 158 sub­

jects in the accepting sample of school board presidents, 47

were city district presidents, 12 were exempted village

presidents, and 99 were school board presidents of local

94

districts. This return of school board president question­

naires represented 82% of the subjects in the city district

stratum, 80% of the subjects in the exempted village dis­

trict stratum, and 87% of the subjects in the local district

stratum. This return also represented 25.6% of the target

population.

Representativeness of the Samples

A Chi Square Test of Significance at the probability

level of p = .05 was used to determine if respondents were

representative of each stratum in the study. Tables 1 and

2 present the data from the Chi Square tests. The tests

conducted for both superintendents and school board presi­

dents showed no significant differences between the observed

and expected frequencies for the types of school districts

represented in the study.

TABLE 1

The Representativeness of the Sample of Superintendents

Type of District

Number ofObservedFrequencies

Number of Expected Freq uencies

2X

City 53 57Exempted Village 15 15 1.5550Local 101 113

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05

95

TABLE 2

The Representativeness of the Sample of

School Board Presidents

Type of District

Number ofObservedFrequencies

Number ofExpectedFrequencies

2X

City 47 57Exempted Village 12 15 4.0888Local 99 113

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05

Reliability

The Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 was used to determine

reliability coefficients for the questionnaires used with

both groups of subjects. The reliability coefficient for

the questionnaire used with superintendents was .7712 and

the reliability coefficient for the questionnaire used with

school board presidents was .8870. It should be noted that

Formula 21 generally yields a "lower reliability than would

be obtained by using other methods" (Borg and Gall, 1979).

Thus, the coefficients of reliability for the questionnaires

should be considered minimum estimates of reliability (Borg

and Gall, 1979) and, according to Davis,, these coefficients

should be considered to be very high (Miller, 1983).

96

Missing Data

Effort was made to obtain missing data by sending let­

ters to subjects whose questionnaires were returned without

responses provided for each question. Post cards with the

questions of missing data were enclosed with the letters.

Subjects were asked to respond to the questions and return

the post cards.

Sixteen of the superintendent questionnaires had miss­

ing data. Thirteen had one question from Section I of the

questionnaire not answered, one had one question from Sec­

tion IV not answered, and one had two questions from Section

IV not answered. One subject did not respond to any of the

questions in Section IV of the questionnaire. No letter was

sent to this subject. Fourteen of the fifteen post cards

mailed were returned with responses. One was not returned.

For the one post card not returned, which was to have pro­

vided the response to'one question, an estimate of the miss­

ing data was made by plugging in the mean of the respective

stratified group.for the unanswered question (Borg and Gall,

1979). Estimates were not made for the one subject who did

not respond to any of the questions in Section IV of the

questionnaire. The data sample for superintendents then

represented 169 subjects or 91% of the sample for Research

Questions 1, 2, and 5 and 168 subjects or 90% of the sample

for Research Questions 6, 7, and 10.

97

Phone calls yielded no additional personal data for su­

perintendents. One subject did not'provide information re­

garding marital status, whether or not she had or had had

children of her own enrolled in public school, ethnic group,

and political preference. Another subject did not respond

to personal characteristics about marital status and politi­

cal preference,. Four additional respondents did not provide

information concerning political preference.

Twenty-three of the school board president question­

naires had missing data. Fourteen of the subjects did not

respond to one question, two to two questions, one to four

questions, and one to eight questions. One subject did not

respond to one question in Section I nor to any of the ques­

tions in Section IV. Another subject did not respond to two

questions in Section I nor to any of the questions in Sec­

tion IV. Three subjects responded to all questions in Sec­

tion I, but to none of the questions in Section IV.

Letters were sent to all subjects whose questionnaires-

had missing data except for the three who responded to all

of the questions in Section I, but to none of the questions

in Section IV. The two subjects who had one and two ques­

tions without responses in Section I and no responses in

Section IV were sent letters, but were asked only to provide

responses to the unanswered questions in Section I. Of the

twenty letters sent, post cards were returned by fourteen

subjects. Again, estimates were made by plugging in the

98

respective stratified group mean for the respective unan­

swered questions for the six subjects who did not return

post cards. Estimates were not made for the five subjects

who did not respond to any of the questions in Section IV of

the questionnaire. The data sample for school board presi­

dents then represented 158 subjects or 85% of the sample for

Research Questions 3 - 5 and 153 subjects or 82% of the sam­

ple for Research Questions 8 - 10.

Complete data regarding personal characteristics were

gathered for all but three subjects within the group of

board of education presidents. One respondent did not pro­

vide information relative to age and two did not provide in­

formation concerning political preference.

Descriptions of the Samples

Perceptions regarding the characteristics of effective

schools were investigated using several different variables

for each population studied. Tables 3 and 4 provide de­

scriptions of each data sample for each of the variables in

the study. The tables include data regarding the personal

characteristics of respondents for both Section I of the

questionnaires, perceptions regarding the importance of the

characteristics of effective schools, and Section IV of the

questionnaires, perceptions regarding the extent to which

the characteristics of effective schools were practiced in

99

the public schools of Ohio at the time the study was con­

ducted .

TABLE 3

Description of the Sample of Superintendent Respondents

Variables Number of Number ofRespondents Respondents(Section I) (Section II)

ACCORDING TO SEX

Female 7 6Male 162 162Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO AGE

30 years or younger 0 031 - 40 years 31 3141 - 50 years 91 9051 - 60 years 44 4461 years or older 3 3Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Single 1 1Married 164 164Divorced/Separated 2 2Widowed 0 0(Did not provide information) . (2). (1)Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD CHILDREN ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Yes 148 148No 20 20(Did not provide information) (1) (0)Total 169 168

100

TABLE 3 (continued)

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

White (non-Hispanic) 164 164Black (non-Hispanic) 2 2Chican o/Hispanic 0 0Native American (Indian, Eskimo) 1 1Asian/ Pacific Islander 0 0Other 1 1(Did not provide information) (1) _..(0)Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Democrat 41 41Independent 47 47Republican 74 74Other 1 1(Did not provide information) _<6) (5)Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT________

Bachelor Degree 0 0Master Degree 99 99Specialist Degree 23 23Doctoral Degree 47 46Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

Large urban center/city 7 7Rural 86 85Suburban city in a metropolitan area 31 31Town/small city 45 45Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOLDISTRICT

City 53 53Exempted Village 15 15Local 101 100Total 169 168

101

TABLE 3 (continued)

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT_____________________

Less than 300 0 0300 - 999 30 301,000 - 2,999 94 933,000 - 4,999 19 195,000 - 9,999 20 2010,000 - 24,999 4 425,000 - 49,999 2 250,000 - 99,999 0 0100,000 or more 0 0Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO INITIAL LEVEL OF TEACHING CERTIFICATION____

ElementarySecondaryElementary and Secondary Total

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS OF CLASSROOM TEACHING EXPERIENCE

0 years 0 01 - 5 years 63 626 - 1 0 years 68 6811 - 15 years 23 2316 - 20 years 7 721 or more years 8 8Total 169 168

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A BUILDING PRINCIPAL

0 years 23 231 - 5 years 67 666 - 1 0 years 59 5911 - 15 years 17 . 1716 - 20 years 3 321 or more years 0 0Total 169 168

35 35108 10826 25

169 168

102

TABLE 3 (continued)

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS INTHE SUPERINTENDENCY

0 years 13 131 - 5 years 69 696 - 1 0 years 42 4111 - 15 years 25 2516 - 20 years 10 1021 or more years 10 10Total 169 168

TABLE 4

Description of the Sample of Board President Respondents

Variables Number of Number ofRespondents Respondents(Section I) (Section II)

ACCORDING TO SEX

Female 31 30Male 127 123Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO AGE

30 years or y'ounger 1 131 - 40 years 37 3741 - 50 years 57 5551 - 60 years 53 5161 years or older 9 9(Did not provide information) (1) _(0).Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Single 0 0Married 151 146Divorced/Separated 3 3Widowed 4 4Total 158 153

103

TABLE 4 (continued)

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HADCHILDREN ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Yes 149 144No 9 9Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

White (non-Hispanic) 155 150Black (non-Hispanic) 2 2Chicano/Hispanic 0 0Native American (Indian, Eskimo) 1 1Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0Other 0 0Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Democrat 33 33Independen-t 26 25Republican 93 90Other 4 3(Did not provide information) - L I ) - L I )Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT________

Less than a high school diploma 1 1High school diploma 53 52Associate Degree 21 21Bachelor Degree 42 41Master Degree 25 24Doctoral Degree 16 14Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

Large urban center/city 2 2Rural . 77 77Suburban city in a metropolitan area 23 20Town/small city 56 54Total 158 153

TABLE A (continued)

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ___________________

City 47 43Exempted Village 12 12Local 99 98Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICTENROLLMENT

Less than 300 1 1300 - 999 34 331,000 - 2,999 85 833,000 - 4,999 21 215,000 - 9,999 13 1110,000 - 24,999 3 325,000 - 49,999 1 150,000 - 99,999 0 0100,000 or more 0 0Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A MEMBER OF A BOARD OF EDUCATION

0 years 1 11 - 3 years 48 474 - 6 years 29 257 - 9 years 42 4210 - 12 years 15 1513 - 15 years 11 1116 or more years 12 12Total 158 153

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHING EXPERIENCE

105

TABLE 4 (continued)

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

3 3155 150158 153

YesNoTotal

Research Question One

The first research question posed for this study con­

cerning the perceptions of Ohio's public school superinten­

dents and boards of education presidents regarding the char­

acteristics of effective schools was: "What are the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the

importance of specific characteristics of effective schools,

individually and collectively, in the achievement of educa­

tional excellence?". Table 5 provides the percent of sub­

jects who selected each alternative for each question in

Section I of the questionnaire and the mean for each ques­

tion in Section I of the questionnaire. The numerals 5, 4,

3, 2, and 1 were numerical values assigned by respondents to

indicate whether the stated characteristics were perceived

as being "of very high importance, of high importance, of

moderate importance, of minimal importance, or of no impor­

tance", respectively. The initial question posed in Section

I of the questionnaire was: "If educational excellence is

106

to be achieved within a school, how important do you per­

ceive each of the characteristics to be?".

TABLE 5

Percentages and Means of Superintendents' Perceptions

Regarding the Importance of Characteristics of

Effective Schools

Characteristics Perc<5

snt fo 4

r Each 3

Alteri2

lative 1

Mean

1 . Strong instruc­tional leadership 84.0 15.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 4.834

2. Principal be a disciplinarian 28.4 45.6 24.8 0.6 0.6 4.006

3. High expectations for staff 84.6 14.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.834

4. Clearly stated goals 66.9 29.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 4’. 627

5. Orderly/business­like atmosphere 47.3 42.6 10.1 0.0 0.0 4.373

6. Consistency in treating students 56.8 37.9 4.7 0.6 0.0 4.509

7. Opportunity tolearn/time-on-task 42.o’ 45.6 10.6 1.2 0.6 4.272

8. Principal has con­trol of school 32.5 50.9 15.4 1.2 0.0 4.148

9. Principal visible: ha11s/classrooms 38.5 40.8 18.3 1.8 0.6 4.148

10.High expectations for students 74.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.740

11.Master a set of essential skills 26.0 46.1 21.9 3.6 2.4 3.899

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 41.4 51.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 4.343

13.Rewards stressed/ not punishments 27 .2 61.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 4.154

14.Structured learn­ing environment 32.0 46.8 16.5 4.1 0.6 4.054

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 40.2 50.3 8.3 0.6 0.6 4. 290

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 27.2 63.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 4.178

17.Parent/community involvement 24.3 56.2 19.5 0.0 0.0 4.047

107

TABLE 5 (continued)

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 36.1 58.0 5.9 oo 0.0 4.305

19.Inservice program for staff 39.1 49.7 11.2 0.0 0.0 4. 278

20.Master one unit before moving on 12.4 59.8 25.4 1.2 1.2 3.811

21. Educational plan based on research 24.3 48.5 22.5 3.5 1.2 3.911

22.All of the above must be present 27.2 62.1 8.3 1.8 0.6 4. 136

The highest percentage for six of the twenty-two char­

acteristics was "of very high importance" and the highest

percentage for the remaining sixteen characteristics was "of

high importance". Approximately 84% of the respondents con­

sidered characteristic number one, there be strong instruc­

tional leadership on the part of the principal, and charac­

teristic number three, the principal hold high expectations

for the staff to be outstanding teachers, to be "of very

high importance". Characteristic number 17, parents and

community members be involved in the activities of the

school, and characteristic number 21, the principal have a

plan based upon research for achieving educational excel­

lence, were regarded as being "of very high importance" by

only 24.3% of the subjects. Likewise, only 12.4% of the re­

spondents perceived characteristic number 20, students mas­

ter one unit of instruction before moving on to the next

unit, to be "of very high importance".

108

The mean for questions 1 - 22, collectively, was 4.268.

Five of the characteristics had means of 4.500 or above.

Those characteristics were considered to be viewed by re­

spondents as being "of very high importance". Those charac­

teristics were strong instructional leadership, high expec­

tations for the staff, clearly stated goals, consistency in

the treatment of students, and high expectations for stu­

dents. The remaining characteristics had means between

4.499 and 3.500 and were considered to be regarded by sub­

jects as being "of high importance".

Appendix V provides a summary of the means regarding

early and late respondents. The mean for questions 1 - 22,

collectively, for early respondents was 4.266 and the mean

for questions 1 - 22, collectively, for late respondents was

4.285. Appendix W presents data showing no significant dif­

ference existed between the means of early and late respon­

dents at the probability level of p = .05.

Section II of the questionnaire asked respondents to

identify whether some of the characteristics they listed as

being "of very high importance" were more important than

others. One hundred twenty-two of the 169 superintendent

subjects responded to this section of the questionnaire.

Five of the 122 subjects indicated no one characteristic was

more important than any other characteristic. The charac­

teristics identified by the remaining 117 subjects were tab­

ulated and averaged. Five characteristics were at or above

109

average. Those characteristics at or above the average

were: (1) strong instructional leadership on the part of

the principal, (2) high expectations on the part of the

principal for staff to be outstanding teachers, (3) the

presence of a set of clearly stated goals for the school

which the entire staff emphasizes, (4) the presence of an

orderly and business-like atmosphere, and (5) high expecta­

tions on the part of teachers and the principal for all

students to learn a set of essential skills. Those charac­

teristics perceived to be the least important of those char­

acteristics considered to be "of very high importance" were:

(1) the principal have control of the school and the school

program, (2) rewards be stressed rather .than punishments,

(3) there be a structured learning environment based on

courses of study in which instructional activities are

teacher-selected and teacher-directed, (4) there be pleasant

working conditions for students, and (5) students master one

unit of instruction before moving on to the next unit.

In Section III of the questionnaire, 61 of the 169 su­

perintendent respondents provided comments regarding charac­

teristics they believed should have been added to the list

of characteristics on the questionnaire. A prevalent theme

throughout the comments appeared to be the need for collab­

orative planning among administrators, teachers, and parents

in setting educational goals to be accomplished by a school

and timelines for insuring such goals are accomplished. The

110

need for ongoing interaction and support from such groups

was viewed as necessary, as was communication with the pub­

lic about the goals of a school.

Another theme was the need for greater financial sup­

port for school programs in order that necessary materials

and supplies might be purchased and quality teachers at­

tracted. The resolution of labor issues that existed

throughout the country at the time of the study was viewed

as vital.

Respondents emphasized the need for a strong management

team in which the superintendent and board of education of a

district are supportive of their schools. Longevity in

leadership was perceived as important. Some subjects ex­

pressed the need for an atmosphere to exist within a school

which allows creativity and innovation to occur, respect for

each other to be prevalent, a sense of caring to be present,

and high morale to be developed.

Comments made by subjects also suggested that a strong

core curriculum be present as well as a career oriented pro­

gram. The teaching of skills necessary for students to de­

velop strong social relationships was viewed as fundamental.

The need for a strong guidance program was stressed.

It was also proposed that principals need to grow aca­

demically and that inservice should be provided for princi­

pals to develop the skills required for implementing a

strong curriculum. The need for board of education members

Ill

to be provided with inservice experiences was also stated.

Emphasis was placed on the need for a community to val­

ue an education, to foster academic excellence, and to rein­

force the efforts of a school. It was also urged that time

be taken to determine how a community perceives the concept

of excellence.

Some subjects felt that teachers should pass a compe­

tency test prior to employment and should place greater em­

phasis on student welfare. A call was issued for teachers

to be more professional if effective schools are to exist.

Research Question Two

The second research question developed at the onset of

the study was: "Do significant differences exist in the

perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents regard­

ing the importance of these characteristics of effective

schools in the achievement of educational excellence accord­

ing to: (A) sex? (B) age? (C) marital status? (D) whether

they had or had had children of their own enrolled in public

school? (E) ethnic group? (F) political preference? (G) lev­

el Of educational attainment? (H) type of school district

community? (I) type of school district? (J) size of school

district? (K) initial level of teaching certification? (L)

the number of years of experience as a classroom teacher?

(M) the number of years of experience as a building

112

principal? (N) the number of years of experience in the su­

perintendency?". Table 6 presents data from the analysis of

variance completed to determine if significant differences

existed for each variable listed in the research question.

The analysis of variance was completed at the probability

level of p = .05.

The only variable for which a significant difference

was found for superintendents' perceptions regarding the im­

portance of the characteristics of effective schools was the

level of educational attainment of the respondents. The

mean for questions 1 - 22, collectively, was 4.302 for sub­

jects with master degrees, 4.330 for subjects with special­

ist degrees, and 4.166 for respondents with doctoral de­

grees. The highest percentage of subjects holding doctor­

ates perceived the characteristics, an orderly and business­

like atmosphere and consistency in the treatment of stu­

dents, to be "of high importance" while the highest percent­

age of subjects with master and specialist degrees perceived

these to be "of very high importance". The highest percent­

age of subjects with master degrees regarded the character­

istic, the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task,

to be "of very high importance". The highest percentage of

the members in the other two groups perceived the same char­

acteristic to be "of high importance". The characteristic,

principal visibility, was perceived by the highest percent­

age of respondents with master degrees to be "of very high

113

importance" and by the highest percentage of subjects with

specialist degrees as being "of high importance". The high­

est percentages for respondents with doctorates were evenly

divided between "of high importance" and "of moderate impor­

tance" for this same characteristic. The highest percentage

of subjects holding specialist degrees perceived the charac­

teristic, there be a sense of cohesiveness among the stu­

dents, the teachers, and the principal of a school, to be

"of very high importance" while the highest percentage of

the other two groups perceived the characteristic to be "of

high importance". The characteristic, a process exists for

monitoring the mastery of a set of essential skills, was

percei-ved by the highest percentage of subjects with master

degrees as being "of very high importance" while the high­

est percentage of the members of the other two groups con­

sidered the characteristic to be "of high importance".

TABLE 6

Analysis of Variance: Superintendents' Perceptions

Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools

Source of Variance

Sum of Degrees ofSq uar es'_____ Freedom

Mean Sq uare

F

ACCORDING TO SEX

BetweenWithinTotal

26.2738,241.2618,267.534

1167168

26.27349.348

0.532

114

TABLE 6 (continued)

ACCORDING TO AGE

Between 288.510 3 96.170 1.989Within 7,979.024 165 48.357Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Between 95.853 2 47.926 0.964Within 8,156.399 164 49.734Total 8,252.252 166

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Between 24.085 1 24.085 0.486Within 8,228.173 166 49.567Total 8,252.258 167

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

Between 6.779 3 2.259 0.045Within 8,245.479 164 50.277Total 8,252.258 167

.

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

BetweenWithinTotal

322.6297,632.7027,955.331

3159162

107.54348.004

2.240

ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

BetweenWithinTotal

336.0097,931.5258,267.534

2166168

168.00447.780

3.516*

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

BetweenWithinTotal

52.552 8,214.982 8,267.534

3165168

17.51749.787

0.352

115

TABLE 6 (continued)

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT

Between 17.561 2 8.780 0.177Within 8.249.973 166 49.698Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT

Between 227.072 5 45.414 0.921Within 8,040.462 163 49.327Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO INITIAL LEVEL OF CERTIFICATION

Between 60.966 2 30.483 0.617Within 8,206.568 166 49.437Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A CLASSROOM TEACHER

Between 406.972 4 101.743 2.123Within 7,860.562 164 47.930Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A BUILDING PRINCIPAL

Between 237.512 4 59.3-78 1.213Within 8,030.022 164 48.963Total 8,267.534 168

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE SUPERINTENDENCY

Between 142.018 5 28.403 0.570Within 8.125.516 163 49.849Total 8,267.534 168

* Significant Difference at p = .05

Research Question Three

The third research question for the study, originally

identified in Chapter I, was: "What are the perceptions of

Ohio's public school boards of education presidents regard­

ing the importance of specific characteristics of effective

schools, individually and collectively, in the achievement

of educational excellence?". Table 7 provides the percent

of board president respondents who selected each alternative

for each question in Section I of the questionnaire and the

mean for each question in Section I of the questionnaire.

The numerals 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 were numerical values again

used by subjects to indicate whether*the stated characteris­

tics were perceived as being "of very high importance, of

high importance, of moderate importance, of minimal impor­

tance, or of no importance", respectively. The initial

question posed in Section I of the questionnaire was the

same as that asked of superintendents: "If educational ex­

cellence is to be achieved within a school, how important do

you perceive each of the characteristics to be?".

117

TABLE 7

Percentages and Means of Board Presidents' Perceptions

Regarding the Importance of Characteristics of

Effective Schools

Characteristics Perc5

ent foi 4

r Each 3

Alteri 2

lative 1

Mean

1. Strong instruc­tional leadership 63.3 29.1 7.6 0.0 0.0 4.557

2. Principal be a disciplinarian 38.6 36; 1 23.4 0.6 1.3 4.101

3. High expectations for staff 74.05 24.05 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.722

4. Clearly stated goals 58.2 31.7 8.2 1.9 0.0 4.462

5. Orderly/business- like atmosphere 30.4 51.9 16.4 1.3 0.0 4.114

6. Consistency in treating students 56.3 33.6 10.1 0.0 0.0 4.462

7. Opportunity tolearn/time-on-task 20.9 46.9 •29.1 2.5 0.6 3.853

8. Principal has con­trol of school 44.3 37.4 15.2 2.5 0.6 4.226

9. Principal visible: ha11s/classrooms 29.1 33.6 30.4 6.3 0.6 3.842

10.High expectations for students 55.1 40.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.506

11.Master a set of essential skills 29.1 39.3 28.5 2.5 0.6 3.943

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 33.5 . 45.0 20.9 0.6 0.0 4.114

13.Rewards stressed/ not punishments 34.2 43.0 17.7 3.8 1.3 4.051

14.Structured learn­ing environment 17.1 42.4 29.1 9.5 1.9 3.642

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 36.1 48.7 13.9 1.3 0.0 4.198

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 31.65 48.1 18.35 1.9 0.0 4.095

17.Parent/community involvement 41.8 44.9 12.0 1.3 0.0 4.272

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 53.8 38.6 7.0 0.6 0.0 4.456

19.Inservice program for staff 36.7 46.2 13.9 1.9 1.3 4.152

20.Master one unit before moving on 22.1 49.4 24.7 2.5 1.3 3.886

118

TABLE 7 (continued)

21.Educational plan based on research 34.8 36. 1 20.9 6.3 1.9 3.962

22.All of the above must be present 25.9 55.1 13.3 4.4 1.3 4.007

The highest percentage-for eight of the twenty-two

characteristics was "of very high importance" and the high­

est percentage for the remaining fourteen characteristics

was "of high importance". The characteristic, the principal

hold high expectations for the staff to be outstanding

teachers, was perceived by 74.05% of the respondents as be­

ing "of very high importance". The characteristic, there be

strong instructional leadership on the part of the princi­

pal, was perceived to be at the same level of importance by

63.3% of the subjects. Only. 22.1% of the subjects consid­

ered the characteristic, the mastery of one unit of instruc­

tion before moving on to the next unit of instruction, as

being "of very high importance" while only 20.9% of the re­

spondents perceived the opportunity to learn a set of essen­

tial skills by emphasizing tirae-on-task as being "of very

high importance".

The mean for questions 1 - 22, collectively, was 4.165.

Three of the characteristics had means at or above 4.500.

These characteristics were considered to be viewed as being

"of very high importance". The characteristics were strong

instructional leadership, high expectations for the staff

119

to be outstanding teachers, and high expectations for stu­

dents to learn a set of essential skills. The remaining

characteristics had means between 4.499 and 3.500 and were

considered to be regarded by subjects as being "of high im­

portance" .

Appendix V provides a summary of the means regarding

early and late superintendent and board of education respon­

dents. The mean for questions 1 - 22, collectively, for

early board president subjects was 4.150 and the mean for

questions 1 - 22, collectively, for late board president

subjects was 4.213. Appendix X presents data showing no

significant difference existed between the means of early

and late board subjects at the probability level of p = .05.

Like Section II of the questionnaire given to superin­

tendents, Section II of the questionnaire given to board

presidents asked subjects to identify whether some of the

characteristics they listed as being "of. very high impor- ■

tance" were more important than others. One hundred thirty

of the 158 board presidents participating in the survey re­

sponded to this section of the questionnaire. Six of the

130 subjects who responded indicated no one characteristic

was more important than any other characteristic. The char­

acteristics noted by the remaining 124 respondents were tab­

ulated and averaged. Eight characteristics were at or above

the average. Those eight characteristics were: (1) strong

instructional leadership on the part of the principal, (2)

120

the need for the principal to be a disciplinarian, (3) high

expectations on the part of the principal for the staff to

be outstanding teachers, (4) the presence of a set of clear­

ly stated goals for the school which the entire staff empha­

sizes, (5) the need for teachers to maintain consistency in

the treatment of students, (6) high expectations on the part

of teachers and the principal for all students to learn a

set of essential skills, (7) the involvement of parents and

community members in the activities of the school, and (8)

the existence of an ongoing program designed to recognize

students for their accomplishments. Those characteristics

perceived to be the least important of those characteris­

tics considered to be "of very hi'gh importance" were: (1)

students be given the opportunity to learn by emphasizing

time-on-task, (2) there be a structured learning environment

based on courses of study in which instructional activities

are teacher-selected and teacher-directed, and (3) the prin­

cipal have a plan based upon research for achieving educa­

tional excellence.

Section III of the questionnaire requested respondents

to add any characteristics to the list which they believed

to be important for an effective school to exist, but were

not included in Section I of the questionnaire. Eighty-

eight of the subjects responded to this section. Ten of the

88 subjects indicated the list was very adequate and that no

additional characteristics should be added. The remaining

121

78 respondents provided a variety of comments.

A theme found throughout the comments made was the need

for board of education members, administrators, teachers,

staff members, parents, community members, and students to

cooperatively work together in establishing goals, evaluat­

ing programs, providing support for each other, maintaining

open communications, and developing a sense of mutual re­

spect for each other. Such an arrangement was viewed as im­

portant in.order that the various sectors mentioned take

ownership for the school program and maintain and strengthen

local control of a school district. It was suggested that

the values held within a school should complement those of

the home and community since the school is an extension of

those two units. Furthermore, parents need to develop high

expectations for their children to achieve if academic ex­

cellence is to be.come a reality. It was also implied that

board members need to be actively involved in developing

clearly defined policiesfor a district, but should refrain

from becoming involved with the daily operation of schools

which is the responsibility of the school administration.

Some subjects viewed strong leadership on the part of

the superintendent, local board of education, county super­

intendent, state board of education, and professional organ­

izations as basic for effective schools. The need for lead­

ership which brings consistency throughout a district was

considered essential.

122

Other comments focused on students. Some emphasized

the need for students to be the focal point of a school in

which individual attention is given to all students regard­

less of ability. The need for students to develop a sense

of self-worth was stressed. Staff members were urged to

model expected behaviors in order to develop student respect

for staff and other adult members of society. A sense of

empathy within a friendly atmosphere was perceived as a

characteristic.

A theme also appeared to center around teachers. It

was believed teachers must be professional, more dedicated,

open to change, willing to update their knowledge-, have a

strong desire to teach, and like children if' schools are to

be effective. It was suggested teachers should pass a com­

petency examination prior to employment and there should be

ongoing teacher evaluation and less interference from labor

groups. Several comments expressed concern about tenure

while merit pay for teachers was offered as an alternative.

Teacher recognition as well as student recognition was per­

ceived as an important characteristic of effective schools.

Comments made in Section III also suggested that extra­

curricular programs played an integral role in an effective

school as did an effective guidance program which addressed

drug problems in particular. Motivation of students and

staff was viewed as essential. Smaller schools and smaller

class sizes were prescribed by some. The return of the

123

right of the school to handle discipline matters was viewed

as vital along with building principals who back school

rules.

Some board subjects viewed public relations as an im­

portant characteristic of an effective school, believing the

educational accomplishments of a school must have high visi­

bility in a community. Accountability was regarded as es­

sential. It was proposed that school administrators should

be acquainted with- the business practices of the private

sector and that better utilization and maintainance should

be made of facilities and equipment. The need was seen for

th.e free enterprise system to be taught to all students

along with more emphasis on thinking skills; Dollars were

regarded as vital while a caution was issued for the person­

nel of schools not to attempt to be all things to all people

if schools are to be effective.

Research'Question Four

The fourth research question posed at the beginning of

the study was: "Do significant differences exist in the

perceptions of Ohio's public school boards of education

presidents regarding the importance of these characteristics

of effective schools in the achievement of educational ex­

cellence according to: (A) sex? (B) age? (C) marital stat­

us? (D) whether they had or had had children of their own

124

enrolled in public school? (E) ethnic group? (F) political

preference? (G) level of educational attainment? (H) type of

school district community? (I) type of school district? (J)

size of school district? (K) the number of years of experi­

ence as a board member? (L) those board presidents having

had public school teaching experience? (M) those board pres­

idents having had public school administrative experience?".

Table 8 presents data from the analysis of variance complet­

ed to determine if significant differences existed for each

variable listed in the research question. The analysis of

variance was completed at the probability of p = .05. Sig­

nificant differences existed for four of the thirteen varia­

bles. Those variables for which significant differences

were found were sex, age, marital status, and whether the

subjects had or had had children of their own enrolled in

public school.

The variable of sex was also significant.'at p = .001.

The mean for female respondents was 4.410 and the mean for

male subjects was 4.105. The highest percentage of female

board presidents perceived nine of the characteristics to be

"of very high importance" while their male counterparts per­

ceived the same characteristics to be only "of high impor­

tance". Those nine characteristics were: (1) the opportun­

ity for students to learn by emphasizing time-on-task, (2)

the visibility of principals in hallways and classrooms, (3)

a sense of cohesiveness among students, teachers, and the

125

principal of a school, (4) rewards stressed rather than pun­

ishments, (5) the monitoring of the mastery of a set of es­

sential skills, (6) pleasant working conditions for stu­

dents, (7) parent and community involvement in the activi­

ties of a school, (8) inservice teacher education programs

for staff members, and (9) the presence of a plan based upon

research for achieving educational excellence. For the

characteristic, principals should be disciplinarians, the

two groups reversed their levels of perceptions. Only four

of the characteristics were perceived by some female board

presidents as being "of minimal or no importance" while 18

of the characteristics were considered by some male board

presidents as being "of minimal or no importance".

The distribution of respondents was skewed for the var­

iable of age. Only one subject was 30 years or younger and

only nine subjects were in the age range of 61 years or old­

er . The means for these two groups were 4.318 and 4.485 re­

spectively while the mean was 4.065 for the 31 - 40 age

group, 4.131 for the 41 - 50 age group, and 4.198 for the

51 - 60 age group.

The distribution of subjects in the variable of marital

status was also skewed with only three subjects divorced/

separated and four subjects widowed while the remaining 151

respondents were married. The mean was 4.159 for married

subjects, 3.970 for divorced/separated subjects, and 4.523

for widowed respondents.

126

Like the distribution of respondents in the variables

of age and marital status, the distribution was also skewed

according to whether subjects had or had had children of

their own enrolled in public school. One hundred fifty-nine

respondents had or had had children enrolled in public

school while only nine subjects did not nor had not. The

mean for those subjects having or having had children in

public schools was 4.152 while the mean for the other group

was 4.379.

TABLE 8

Analysis of Variance: Board Presidents' Perceptions

Importance of Characteristics of Effective Schools

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares

DegreesFreedom

of MeanSquare

F

ACCORDING TO SEX

BetweenWithinTotal

1,124.0736,565.0967,689.169

1156157

1 ,124.073 42.083

26.711*

ACCORDING TO AGE

BetweenWithinTotal

694.6246.690.6387,385.262

4152156

173.65644.017

3.945*

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

BetweenWithinTotal

305.7197,383.4507,689.169

2155157

152.85947.635

3.209*

127

TABLE 8 (continued)

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Between 211.807 1 211.807 4.419*Within 7,477.362 156 47.931Total 7,689.169 157

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

Between 128.391 2 64.195 1.316Within 7,560.778 155 48.779Total 7,689.169 157

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Between 128.363 3 42.787 0.872Within 7,462.517 152 49.095Total 7,590.880 155

ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

BetweenWithinTotal

255.976 7,433.193 7,689.169

5152157

51.19548.902

1.047

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

BetweenWithinTotal

177.437 7,511.732 7,689.169

3154157

59.14548.777

1.213

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT

BetweenWithinTotal

103.5597,585.6107,689.169

2155157

51.77948.939

1.058

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT

BetweenWithinTotal

354.955 7,334.214 7,689.169

6151157

59.15948.570

1.218

128

TABLE 8 (continued)

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A BOARD MEMBER

BetweenWithinTotal

249.7727,439.3977,689.169

6 41.628 151 49.267 157

0.845

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD TEACHING EXPERIENCE

BetweenWithinTotal

35.470 7,653.699 7,689.169

1 35.470156 49.062157

0.723

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

BetweenWi-thinTotal

17.289 7,.671. 880 7,689.169

1 17.289156 49.178157

0.352

* Significant Difference at p = .05

Research Question Five

The fifth research question was developed to look at

the two populations, superintendents and school board presi­

dents, in relation to each other. The question posed was:

"What similarities and differences exist between the percep­

tions of Ohio's public school superintendents and the per­

ceptions of Ohio's boards of education presidents regarding

the importance of specific characteristics of effective

schools in the achievement of educational excellence accord­

ing to: (A) sex? (B) age? (C) marital status? (D) whether

they had or had had children of their own enrolled in public

129

school? (E) ethnic group? (F) political preference? (G) type

of school district community? (H) type of school district?

(I) size of school district?".

Both populations were the same size, 616 elements in

each. A 30% proportional stratified sample was taken of

each population with 169 superintendents and 158 board pres­

idents responding. The mean for superintendents on ques­

tions 1 - 22, collectively, in Section I of the question­

naire was 4.268 and the mean for school board presidents on

the same set of questions was 4.165. No significant differ­

ence was found between early and late respondents for either

population. Significant differences were found for various

variables within each population. A significant difference

in the means was found for superintendents according to lev­

el of educational attainment and significant differences in

the means were found for school board presidents according

to sex, age, marital status, and whether the subjects had or

had had children of their own enrolled in public school.

Table 9 is a listing of the means for questions 1 - 22, col­

lectively, in Section I of the questionnaire for each popu­

lation according to each of the variables investigated in

the research question posed.

130

TABLE 9

Means for Questions 1 - 22, Collectively

Superintendents/Board Presidents-Perceptions of Importance

Variables Superinten-1 dents 1

BoardPresidents

ACCORDING TO SEX

FemaleMale

4.182 4.272

4.4104.105

ACCORDING TO AGE

30 years or younger No Respond. 4.31831 - 40 years 4.317 4.06541 - 50 years 4.217 4.13151 - 60 years 4.325 4.19861 years or older 4.485 4.485

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Single 4.545 No Respond.Married 4.270 4.159Divorced/Separated 4.023 3.970Widowed No Respond. 4.523

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HADCHILDREN ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Yes 4.263 4.152No 4.316 4.379

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

White (non-Hispanic) 4.268 4.159Black (non-Hispanic) 4.318 4.364Native American (Indian, Eskimo) 4.273

A n £ A4.591

Other 4.364 No Respond.

131

TABLE 9 (continued)

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Democrat 4.323 4.197Independent 4.175 4.096Republican 4.305 4.165Other 4.455 4.330

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

Large urban center/city 4.305 4.341Rural 4.276 4.136Suburban city in a metropolitan area 4.295 4.111Town/small city 4.228 4.220

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOLDISTRICT

City 4.311 4.195Exempted Village 4.218 4.045Local 4.253 4.165

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICTENROLLMENT

Less than 300 No Respond. 3.955300 - 999 4.217 4.1201,000 - 2,999 4.267 4.1653,000 - 4,999 4.373 4.2035,000 - 9,999 4.227 4.30910,000 - 24,999 4.443 3.84825,000 - 49,999 4.159 4.136

Though not included in any of the tables, percentages

and means were calculated by this researcher for the various

variables posed in research question five. It was surmised

from the calculations made that the highest percentage of

subjects in each population perceived each of the

132

characteristics to be "of very high importance", "of high

importance", or "of moderate importance".

The highest percentage of female board presidents per­

ceived six of the characteristics to be "of very high impor­

tance" while the highest percentage of female superinten­

dents considered the characteristics to be "of high impor­

tance". Those characteristics were: (1) rewards stressed

rather than punishments, (2) monitoring the mastery of a set

of essential skills, (3) pleasant working conditions for

students, (4) parent and community involvement in school

activities, (5) recognition programs for' students, and (6)

inservice education programs for staff members. The highest

percentage of female superintendents perceived the need for_

an orderly and business-like atmosphere as being "of very

high importance" while the highest percentage of female

board presidents perceived this characteristic to be only

"of high importance". The characteristic, the principal

have control over the school and school program, was per­

ceived by the highest percentage of female board presidents

to be "of very high importance" and by the highest percent­

age of female superintendents to be only "of moderate impor­

tance". The perceptions of male superintendents and male

board presidents were more similar in nature than were those

of their female counterparts. While the highest percentage

of male board presidents perceived the characteristics, the

need for the principal to be a disciplinarian, the need for

133

the principal to have control over the school and the school

program, and the need for a recognition program for stu­

dents, to be "of very high importance", the highest percent­

age of male superintendents perceived these same character­

istics to be "of high importance". Likewise, while the

highest percentage of male superintendents perceived an or­

derly and business-like atmosphere to be "of very high im­

portance", the highest percentage of male school board pres­

idents viewed the characteristic to be "of high-importance".

When data were reviewed for the variable of age, more

board presidents perceived some of the characteristics to be

"of minimal or no importance" than did superintendents.

While the highest percentage of superintendents, age 31 -

40, perceived the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-

on-task to be "of very high importance", the highest per­

centage of board presidents, age 31 - 40, viewed this char­

acteristic to be "of high importance". Likewise, while the

highest percentage of board presidents in this same age

group perceived the characteristics, the principal be visi­

ble in hallways and classrooms and there be a plan based up­

on research for achieving educational excellence, to be "of

very high importance", the highest percentage of superinten­

dents in the age group considered them to be only "of high

importance". The characteristic, principals be disciplinar­

ians, was perceived by board presidents, age 41 - 50, to be

"of very high importance" and by superintendents of that age

134

group to be "of high importance". The characteristics, an

orderly and business-like atmosphere and principal visibili­

ty, were perceived to be "of very high importance" by the

highest percentage of superintendents and to be "of high im­

portance" by the highest percentage of school board presi­

dents in that same age group. Perceptions of respondents in

the 51 - 60 age range varied more than those in the previous

two groups. While the highest, percentage of board presi­

dents perceived the principal to be a disciplinarian, the

principal to have control over the school and school pro­

gram, and a plan based upon research for achieving educa­

tional excellence to be "of very high importance", the high­

est percentage of their superintendent counterparts consid­

ered these characteristics to be "of high importance". The

visibility of the principal and the mastery of a set of es­

sential skills were perceived by superintendents in the same

age range to be "of high importance" and by board presidents

to be "of moderate importance". The highest percentage of

superintendents, age 51 - 60, perceived emphasizing time-on-

task to be "of very high•importance" while the highest per­

centage of board presidents in the same age group viewed the

characteristic as evenly divided between "of high impor­

tance" and "of moderate importance".

The vast majority of respondents in each population

were married. While the need for the principal to serve as

a disciplinarian and for the principal to have control over

135

the school and the school program were perceived by the

highest percentage of married school board presidents to be

"of very high importance", the highest percentage of married

superintendents viewed the characteristics to be "of high

importance". The two groups reversed perceptions on the

characteristic, an orderly and business-like atmosphere.

As with marital status, the majority of subjects had or

had had children of their own enrolled in public school.

Three characteristics, the principal be a disciplinarian,

the principal have control over the school and the school

program, and the presence of a recognition program for stu­

dents, were perceived by the highest percentage of board

presidents who had or .had had children enrolled in public

school to be "of very high importance". These characteris­

tics were considered "of high importance" by the highest

percentage of their superintendent counterparts. The lev­

els of importance were reversed between the two groups for

the characteristic, an orderly and business-like atmosphere.

The distribution of respondents in each population on

the variable of ethnic group was skewed with the majority

of subjects being white. The highest percentage of white

superintendents perceived the need for principals to serve

as disciplinarians, for principals to have control over

their schools and school programs, and for an ongoing recog-

tion program for students to be "of very high importance"

while the highest percentage of white board presidents

136

perceived the same characteristics to be only "of high im­

portance". Levels of importance reversed between the two

groups regarding an orderly and business-like atmosphere.

An analysis of the data regarding political preference

revealed the highest percentage of Democratic superinten­

dents perceived the visibility of the principal to be "of

very high importance" while the highest percentage of Demo­

cratic board presidents perceived the characteristic to be

"of moderate importance". Principal control, parent and

community involvement, and the presence of a recognition

program for students were perceived to be "of very high im­

portance" by the highest percentage of Democratic board

presidepts and to be "of high importance" by the highest

percentage of their superintendent counterparts. Levels of

importance were reversed between the two groups regarding an

orderly and business-like atmosphere. The highest percent­

age of Independent superintendents considered principal con­

trol to be "of high importance" while the highest percentage

of Independent school board presidents regarded the charac­

teristic to be "of moderate importance". The need for the

principal to have a plan based upon research for achieving

educational excellence was perceived by the highest percent­

age of Independent board presidents to be "of very high im­

portance" while their superintendent counterparts viewed the

characteristic to be "of high importance". Greater varia­

tions existed within the group of Republican respondents.

137

The highest percentage of Republican board presidents per­

ceived the principal as a disciplinarian, principal control,

and a student recognition program to be "of very high impor­

tance" while the highest percentage of Republican superin­

tendents viewed these characteristics to be "of high impor­

tance". An orderly and business-like atmosphere, the oppor­

tunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task, principal visi­

bility, and the monitoring of the mastery of a set of essen­

tial skills were considered to be "of very high importance"

by Republican superintendents and to be "of high importance"

by Republican board presidents.

Data were also analyzed in terms of the type of commun­

ity in which the school districts of respondents were locat­

ed. The highest percentage of rural board presidents viewed

an orderly and business-like atmosphere and high expecta­

tions for students as being "of very high importance" while

the highest percentage of rural superintendents considered

the characteristics to be "of high importance". The levels

of importance were reversed between the two groups for the

need to have a recognition program for students and a plan

based upon research for achieving educational excellence.

The highest percentage of suburban city board presidents

considered principal control over the school and school pro­

gram, parent and community involvement in school activities,

and the presence of student recognition programs as being

"of very high importance" while the highest percentage of

138

their superintendent counterparts perceived these character­

istics to be "of high importance". The levels of importance

were again reversed between the groups for an orderly and

business-like atmosphere, the monitoring of the mastery of a

set of essential skills, and a plan based upon research for

achieving educational excellence. The highest percentage of

suburban superintendents viewed the need for the principal

to be a disciplinarian to be "of high importance" and the

highest percentage of suburban board presidents considered

the characteristic to be "of moderate importance". The

highest percentage of those school board presidents whose

school districts were located in town/small city communities

perceived the principal as a disciplinarian, principal con­

trol over the school and school program, and the presence of

a student recognition program to be "of very high impor­

tance" while their superintendent counterparts considered

the same characteristics to be "of high importance".

The design of the study called for a proportional

stratified sample of each population based on types of

school districts. The highest percentage of city board

presidents perceived the principal as a disciplinarian,

principal control over the school and school program, and

the presence of student recognition programs to be "of very

high importance" while city superintendents perceived them

to be "of high importance". The monitoring of a set of es­

sential skills, an orderly and business-like atmosphere,

139

the visibility of the principal, the opportunity to learn by

emphasizing time-on-task, and the existence of inservice ed­

ucation programs were perceived by the highest percentage of

city superintendents to be "of very high importance" while

the highest percentage of city board presidents perceived

them to be "of high importance". The highest percentage of

exempted village board presidents considered principal con­

trol over the school and school program to be "of very high

importance" while the highest percentage of exempted village

superintendents perceived the characteristic to be "of high

importance". The highest percentage of exempted village su­

perintendents viewed the stressing of rewards rather than

punishments to be "of high importance" while their board

president counterparts perceived the characteristic to be

"of moderate importance". These levels of importance were

reversed between the groups for a plan based upon research

to be present for achieving educational excellence. The

highest percentage of local board presidents perceived prin­

cipal control over the school and school program and the

presence of student recognition programs to be "of very high

importance" and the highest percentage of local superinten­

dents perceived them to be only "of high importance". The

levels of importance were reversed between the two groups on

the need for an orderly and business-like atmosphere.

The last variable to be compared in research question

five was that of school district enrollment. While the

1 AO

highest percentage of board presidents from districts with

enrollments of 300 - 999 students perceived the need for a

plan based upon research for achieving educational excel­

lence to be "of very high importance", the highest percent­

age of superintendents from districts with like enrollments

perceived the characteristic to be only "of high impor­

tance". The levels of importance were reversed between the

two groups regarding the characteristic of high expectations

for students to learn a set of essential skills. The high­

est percentage of board presidents from districts with en­

rollments of 1,000 - 2,999 students perceived the principal

as a disciplinarian, principal control over the school and

school program, parent and community involvement in the ac­

tivities of a school, and the presence of an ongoing recog­

nition program for students to be "of very high importance".

Their superintendent counterparts perceived these same char­

acteristics to be only "of high importance". The reverse

was true for an orderly and business-like atmosphere. This

characteristic, along with the opportunity to learn by em­

phasizing time-on-task, a sense of cohesiveness within a

school, a structured learning environment based upon courses

of study in which activities are teacher-selected and

teacher-directed, and the presence of an inservice teacher

education program were perceived to be "of very high impor­

tance" by the highest percentage of superintendents from

districts with enrollments of 3,000 - 4,999 students and to

141

be "of high importance" by board presidents from districts

of the same size.

It was surmised from the data that though variations

existed in the perceptions of superintendents and board

presidents for each of the various variables, those varia­

tions were limited in number to a few of the same character­

istics across the variables and they were mainly limited to

to the levels "of very high importance" and "of high impor­

tance". The characteristics about which perceptions appear­

ed to vary throughout the variables were: (1) the need for

the principal to be a disciplinarian, (2) an orderly and

business-like atmosphere, (3) the opportunity to learn by

emphasizing time-on-task, (4) the principal have control

over the school and school program, (5) principal visibili­

ty, (6) parent and community involvement in the activities

of a school, and (7) the presence of an ongoing recognition

program for students.

Research Question Six

The sixth research question to be investigated in the

study was: "What are the perceptions of Ohio's public

school superintendents regarding the extent to which specif­

ic characteristics of effective schools are practiced in the

public schools of Ohio?". Table 10 presents the percent of

superintendents who selected each alternative for each

142

question in Section IV of the questionnaire and the mean for

each question in Section IV of the questionnaire. The nu­

merals 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 were numerical,values used by sub­

jects to indicate whether stated characteristics were per­

ceived to be "practiced to a very high level, practiced to a

high level, practiced to a moderate level, practiced to a

minimal level, or not practiced", respectively. The initial

question posed in Section IV of the questionnaire was: "To

what extent do you perceive the following characteristics to

be practiced in the public schools of Ohio?".

• TABLE 10

Percentages and Means of Superintendents' Perceptions

Regarding the Extent to Which Characteristics of Effective

Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio

Characteristics Percent for Each Alternative Mean5 4 3 2 1

1. Strong instruc­tional leadership 4.8 19.0 68.5 7.7 0.0 3.208

2. Principal is a disciplinarian 16.1 51.8 32.1 0.0 0.0 3.839

3. High expectations for staff 3.0 28.0 57.1 11.3 0.6 3.214

4. Clearly stated goals 1.2 12.5 53.0 30.9 2.4 2.792

5. Orderly/business­like atmosphere 4.2 39.9 50.6 5.3 0.0 3.429

6. Consistency in treating students 0.0 14.3 62.5 22.6 0.6 2.905

7. Opportunity tolearn/time-on-task 1.8 16.7 60.7 19.6 1.2 2.982

8. Principal has con­trol of school 4.8 37.5 47.0 10.1 0.6 3.357

9. Principal visible: halls/classrooms 3.0 26.8 58.9 11.3 0.0 3.214

143

TABLE 10 (continued)

10.High expectations for students 0.6 21.4 64.3 . 13.7 0.0 3.089

11.Master a set of essential skills 0.6 18.4 53.6 26.8 0.6 2.917

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 1.2 23. 2 55.9 17.9 1.8 3.042

13.Rewards stressed/ not punishments 0.6 19.6 59.5 17.9 2.4 2.982

14.Structured learn­ing environment 1.8 32.1 51.2 14.3 0.6 3. 202

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 0.0 17.8 50.0 29.2 3.0 2.827

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 3.0 36.9 55.9 4.2 0.0 3.387

17.Parent/community involvement 0.0 23.2 51.8 25.0 0.0 2.982

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 5.9 28.6 54.8 10.7 0.0 3.298

19.Inservice program for staff 0.6 19.6 54.8 21.4 3.6 2.923

20.Master one unit before moving on 0.0 16.0 53.6 28.0 2.4 .2.833

21.Educational plan based on research 1.2 4.2 44.6 43.4 6.6 2.500

The highest percentage for one of the twenty-one char­

acteristics was "practiced to a high level" and the highest

percentage for the remaining twenty characteristics was

"practiced to a moderate level". The characteristic per­

ceived to be "practiced to a high level", by 51.8% of the

sample, was that principals serve as disciplinarians. This

characteristic was considered to be "practiced to a very

high level" by only 16.1% of the sample. While approximate­

ly 84% of the superintendents sampled viewed strong instruc­

tional . leader ship on the part of the principal and high ex­

pectations on the part of the principal for the staff to be

144

outstanding teachers to be "of very high importance", only

4.8% believed principals served as strong instructional

leaders and only 3% believed principals held high expecta­

tions for their staffs to be outstanding teachers. No su­

perintendents perceived consistency in the treatment of stu­

dents, the monitoring of the mastery of a set of essential

skills, parent and community involvement in the activities

of a school, and the mastery of one unit of instruction be­

fore moving on to the next unit as being "practiced to a

very high level".

The mean for questions 1 - 21, collectively, was 3.092.

A review of the means indicates that clearly stated goals,

the monitoring of the mastery of a set of essential skills,

the mastery of one unit of instruction before moving on to

the next unit, and a plan based upon research for achieving

educational excellence were perceived as being practiced the

least of all the characteristics.

Appendix Y provides a summary of the means regarding

early and late respondents. The mean for questions 1 - 21,

collectively, for early respondents was 3.091 and the mean

for questions 1 - 21, collectively, for late respondents was

3.093. Appendix Z presents data showing no significant dif­

ference existed between the means of early and late respon­

dents at the probability level of p = .05.

Section V of the questionnaire asked respondents to

share any additional thoughts they may have had concerning

145

the extent to which the characteristics listed were prac­

ticed in the public schools of Ohio. Forty-seven subjects

of the 168 respondents made comments under this section of

the questionnaire. Some subjects felt schools were on the

move toward making improvements and believed new state mini­

mum standards for the State of Ohio adopted in December 1982

and the emphasis on excellence by the State of Ohio Superin­

tendent for Public Instruction, Dr. Franklin Walter, were

setting the scene for effectiveness.

Other comments noted that the quality of teachers was

improving and that teachers had a renewed interest in inser­

vice education and in taking additional course work. Other

respondents indicated teachers simply tend ’to teach as they

were taught. Comments also included the belief that it was

difficult to apply the listed characteristics at both the

elementary and secondary levels and that the characteristics

were probably practiced more at the elementary level than at

the secondary.

A lack of dollars was viewed as a deterrent in accom­

plishing all that needs to be and should be done to imple­

ment the characteristics. Others saw the strained relation­

ships between teacher associations and administrative staffs

as making it difficult to achieve effectiveness. In addi­

tion, it was implied that school personnel react to the

needs of teachers, but not to the needs of students.

146

Some respondents believed principals were not adequate­

ly prepared to perform the task of being an instructional

leader. They believed principals were prepared to handle

discipline, not curriculum; activities, not academics.

Others felt the tasks and responsibilities of principals

were too vast and time consuming for them to be effective

leaders and to put theory into practice. It was suggested

that principals know what effectiveness is, but do not know

how to communicate the charcateristics of effectiveness toI

teachers.

Some subjects proposed that the extent to which the

characteristics were practiced in the public schools of Ohio

depended upon the size of the school district, individual

boards of education, and a public's attitude about a school

district. It was suggested that schools vary in quality and

that they lack depth and consistency in applying the charac­

teristics. A need to re-educate boards of education, boost­

er clubs, parents, and students as to what the number one

priority of a school should be was viewed as essential.

One subject proposed that the implementation of the

characteristics would be difficult for they were based on

research which is not viewed highly by most practitioners.

The respondent believed most practitioners were self-

satisfied with what they were doing and not readily open to

change.

Research Question Seven

The seventh research question posed for the study was:

"Do significant differences exist in the perceptions of

Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the extent to

which these characteristics of effective schools are prac­

ticed in the public schools of Ohio according to: (A) sex?

(B) age? (C) marital status? (D) whether they had or had had

children of their own enrolled in public school? (E) ethnic

group? (F) political preference? (G) level of educational

attainment? (H) type of school district community? (I) type

of school district? (J) size of school district?’ (K) initial

level,of teaching certification? (L) the number of years of ’

experience a^ a classroom teacher? (M) the number of years

of experience as a building principal? (N) the number of

years in the superintendency?". Table 11 provides data from

the analysis of variance completed to determine if signifi­

cant differences existed for each variable listed in the re­

search question. The analysis of variance was completed at

the probability level of p = .05. The only variable for

which a significant difference was found for superinten­

dents' perceptions regarding the extent to which the charac­

teristics of effective schools were practiced in the public

schools of Ohio was ethnic group. It must be noted that

though a significant difference was found for this variable,

the distribution of respondents was extremely skewed with

148

164 members of the sample being white, 2 being black, 1

being Native American, and 1 being "other". No significant

differences were found for the other variables identified in

the research question.

TABLE 11

Analysis of Variance: Superintendents' Perceptions

Extent to Which Characteristics Were Practiced in Ohio

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares

DegreesFreedom

of MeanSquare

F

ACCORDING TO SEX

Be tweenWithinTotal

26.85212.369.14212,395.994

1166 167

26.85274.512

0.360

ACCORDING TO AGE

BetweenWithinTotal

237. 120 12,158.874 12,395.994

3164167

79.04074.139

‘ 1.066

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Be tweenWithinTotal

104.85611.925.01312,029.869

2164166

52.428 0.721 72.713

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Between 4.054 1 4.054 0.054WithinTotal

12,391.940 12,395.994

166167

74.650

149

TABLE 11 (continued)

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

BetweenWithin

874.463 11 .521.531

3164

291.48770.253

4.149*

Total 12,395.994 167

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

BetweenWithinTotal

17.466 11,766.657 11 ,784.123

3159162

5.82274.004

0.079

ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

BetweenWithin

295.93912,100.055

2165

147.96973.333

2.018

Total 12,395.994 167

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

Between 36.396 3 12.132 0.161Within 12,359.598 164 ' 75.363Total 12,395.994 167

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOL -DISTRICT

BetweenWithin

1.31912,394.675

2165

0.65975.119

0.009

Total 12,395.994 167

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL, DISTRICT ENROLLMENT

BetweenWithinTotal

244.89512,151.09912,395.994

5162167

48.97975.006

0.653

ACCORDING TO INITIAL LEVEL OF CERTIFICATION

BetweenWithin

30.31412,365.680

2165

15.15774.943

0.202

Total 12,395.994 167

150

TABLE 11 (continued)

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A CLASSROOM TEACHER

Between 621.366 Within 11,774.628 Total 12,395.994

4163167

155.341 2.150 72.236

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A BUILDING PRINCIPAL

Between 125.383 Within 12,270.611 Total 12,395.994

4163167

31.345 0.416 75.279

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE SUPERINTENDENCY

Between 511.665 Within 11,884.329 Total 12,395.994

5162167

102.333 1.395 ' 73.360

* Significant Difference at p = .05

Research Question Eight

Research question eight was: "What are the perceptions

of Ohio's public school boards of education presidents re­

garding the extent to which specific characteristics of ef­

fective schools are practiced in the public schools of

Ohio?". Table 12 includes the percent of board presidents

who selected each alternative for each question in Section

IV of the questionnaire and the mean for each question in

Section IV of the questionnaire. Like Section IV of the su­

perintendents' questionnaire, the numerals 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1

were numerical values used by respondents to indicate

151

whether stated characteristics were perceived to be "prac­

ticed to a very high level, practiced to a high level, prac­

ticed to a moderate level, practiced to a minimal level, or

not practiced", respectively. The initial question posed in

Section IV of the questionnaire was: "To what extent do you

perceive the following characteristics to be practiced in

the public schools of Ohio?".

TABLE 12

Percentages and Means of Board Presidents' Perceptions

Regarding the Extent to Which Characteristics of Effective

Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools of Ohio

Characteristics Per c< 5

ant fo] 4

: Each 3

Alteri2

lative1

Mean

1. Strong instruc­tional leadership 6.5 19.0 65.4 9.1 0.0 3.229

2. Principal is a disciplinarian 9.8 36.0 46.4 6.5 1.3 3.464

3. High expectations for staff 3.3 35.9 52.3 8.5 0.0 3.340

4. Clearly stated goals 5.2 21.6 51.6 19.6 2.0 3.085

5. Orderly/business­like atmosphere 4.6 29.4 53.6 9.8 2.6 3.235

6. Consistency in treating students 3.3 19.6 50.3 20.9 5.9 2.938

7. Opportunity tolearn/time-on-task 2.6 17.65 63.4 15.7 0.65 3.059

8. Principal has con­trol of school 5.9 32.7 47.0 13.1 1.3 3. 291

9. Principal visible: ha11s/classrooms 5.9 26.1 49.0 18.3 0.7 3. 183

10.High expectations for students 5.2 28.8 50.3 15.0 0.7 3.229

11.Master a set of essential skills 2.6 17.0 59.5 19.6 1.3 3.003

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 1.3' 23.5 50.3 22.9 2.0 2.997

152

TABLE 12 (continued)

13.Rewards stressed/ not punishments 3.3 23.5 52.9 19.0 1.3 3.085

14.Structured learn­ing environment 4.6 31.4 48.4 15.0 0.6 3.246

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 5.9 24.8 45.8 22.2 1.3 3.118

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 5.9 39.2 47.7 7.2 0.0 3.441

17.Parent/community involvement 4.6 26.1 41.8 25.5 2.0 3.059

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 6.5 36.6 42.5 14.4 0.0 3.353

19.Inservice program for staff 6.5 34.0 39.2 19.0 1.3 3.256

20.Master one unit before moving on 2.0 15.7 54.2 24.2 3.9 2.882

21.Educational plan based on research 3.3 24. 2 41.8 27.4 3.3 2.968

. The highest percentage for all twenty-one characteris-

tices was alternative 3, "practiced to a moderate level".

While 74.05% of the board president respondents perceived

the need for the principal to hold high expectations for the

staff to be outstanding teachers as being "of very high im­

portance", only 3.3% perceived the characteristic to be

"practiced to a very high level". Likewise, 63.3% of the

subjects perceived the need for strong instructional leader­

ship to exist on the part of the principal as being "of very

high importance", but only 6.5% perceived the characteristic

to be "practiced to a very high level". Each characteristic

was perceived by some board presidents as being "practiced

to a very high level", but no more than 9.8% of the sample

on any one of the characteristics. The characteristic

153

perceived to be "practiced to a very high level" by 9.8% of

board, president respondents was principals serve as disci­

plinarians .

The mean for questions 1 - 21, collectively, was 3.165.

A review of the means indicates that consistency in the

treatment of students, a sense of cohesiveness within a

school, the mastery of one unit of instruction before moving

on to the next unit of instruction, and a plan based upon

research for achieving educational excellence were perceived

to be practiced the least of all the characteristics.

Appendix Y provides .a summary of the means for both

early and late respondents for superintendents and board

presidents regarding Section IV of the questionnaires. The

mean for questions 1 - 21, collectively, for early board

president respondents was 3.198 and the mean for late board

president respondents was 3.050. Appendix AA presents data

showing no significant difference existed between the means

of early and late board president respondents at the proba­

bility level of p = .05.

As in Section V of the superintendents' questionnaire,

Section V of the board presidents' questionnaire sought any

additional thoughts respondents had to share regarding the

extent to which the characteristics of effective schools, as

listed in Section IV of the questionnaire, were practiced in

the public schools of Ohio at the time the study was con­

ducted. Seventy-four of the 153 subjects who responded to

154

Section IV of the questionnaire made comments under Section

V.

Several subjects indicated they believed the public

schools of Ohio were making improvements in practicing the

characteristics as listed in Section IV though there would

always be room for improvements to be made. One subject im­

plied that while the characteristics were practiced, they

were not consistently practiced throughout the State.

Another respondent proposed that schools have taken a "bum

rap" due to the negative focus on schools and other such

agencies by the.news media. Other thoughts centered on the

need for schools to emphasize academics rather than athlet­

ics and to hire teachers to teach rather than to coach.

Strong leadership on the part of the principal was con­

sidered to be essential, but it was suggested that princi­

pals were not prepared to be effective leaders. It was

believed some principals get "stuck in a rut" and perpetuate

ineffectiveness, that they get "bogged" down with paperwork,

and that they spend more time on extra-curricular activities

than they do on academics. One subject suggested that prin­

cipals had become public relations directors and figureheads

rather than educational and instructional leaders. It was

even suggested that some were mere puppets of superinten­

dents.

Comments made suggested teachers need to be more pro­

fessional and more knowledgeable of their subject matter.

155

They need to perceive inservice as an important growth op­

portunity for themselves rather than as a "day off". Dis­

cipline, unions, and management were viewed as current focal

points of schools rather than the education of children.

One subject suggested that teachers must police their own

ranks while another subject viewed tenure as a critical

problem in public education.

The achievement of excellence was seen as requiring a

total team effort on the part of certificated staff, classi­

fied staff, the administration, the board of education, the

community, and students. It was felt, that for improvements

to take place, boards must verbalize their desires for ex­

cellence to be achieved and demand more of administrators

and certificated staff members through board policies. One

respondent suggested that achievements toward excellence are

hindered when boards of education overstep their b.ounds.

One subject believed education had become too political and

that the State Board of Education had surpassed its advisory

role and was interfering with local control. It was be­

lieved that such a setting inhibited the characteristics of

effective schools from being fully implemented. Another

subject implied that State mandated courses of study reduced

the capabilities of teachers to teach what children should

be taught, especially at the primary level. It was felt

that the State should set guidelines rather than mandates

and that if mandates are to be made they should be funded.

156

Pride, self-image, and the value of hard work were sug­

gested as critical elements to be taught. In addition, one

subject urged schools to be careful so as not to program

students, but rather to develop individual thoughts, goals,

and ambitions - characteristics which have kept our Nation

strong and growing. It was proposed that rules are empha­

sized rather than positive reinforcement, that social promo­

tion is too prevalent., and that too little emphasis is givenl

to educating the child of average ability.

Though Ohio schools were viewed as being on the road to

improvement, apathy on the part of all sectors of the school

public was considered to be a stumbling block. It was sug­

gested that plans need to be made for achieving excellence

and the talents of people and the putting into practice the

characteristics of effective schools must be energized. It

was felt that people who are a part of something "good" will

diligently work to make it better if they are led. Teachers

were criticized for feeling overworked and underpaid rather

than feeling proud of what was being achieved in Ohio's

schools. One subject warned that schools must be careful

not to constantly be jumping from one theme to another and

questioned if excellence in education was not just another

one of those themes waving in the wind.

Characteristics of effective schools were viewed by one

respondent as being practiced by higher-level administra­

tors, but that respondent felt the results of applying the

157

characteristics at that level were never realized by stu­

dents in classrooms. ' A conscious and concentrated effort

with a recommitment to the achievement of excellence was

viewed as vital to improvements being made in Ohio's

schools. Decisions made by the public regarding what the

outcomes of a public education should be were viewed as im­

portant while parents were charged with the task of monitor­

ing the education of their own children.

Research Question Nine

The ninth research question investigated in the study

was: "Do significant differences exist in the perceptions •

of Ohio's public school boards of education presidents re­

garding the extent to which these characteristics of effec­

tive schools are practiced in the public schools of Ohio ac­

cording to: (A) sex? (B) age? (C) marital status? (D)

whether they had or had had children of their own enrolled

in public school? (E) ethnic group? (F) political prefer­

ence? (G) level of educational attainment? (H) type of

school district community? (I) type of school district? (J)

size of school district? (K) the number of years of experi­

ence as a board member? (L) those board presidents having

had public school teaching experience? (M) those board pres­

idents having had public school administrative experience?".

Table 13 presents data from the analysis of variance

158

completed to determine if significant differences existed

for each variable identified in the research question. The

analysis of variance was completed at the probability level

of p = .05. The only variable for which a significant dif­

ference was found in board presidents' perceptions regarding,

the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools

were practiced in the public schools of Ohio was political

preference. The mean for questions 1 - 21, collectively,

was 2.991 for Democratic respondents, 3.035 for Independent

subjects, 3.236 for Republican subjects, and 3.810 for "oth­

er" respondents. The distribution of subjects across the

variables was balanced except for being extremely skewed for

"other" subjects with only three respondents iri that catego­

ry. The highest percentage of Democratic, Independent, and

Republican subjects essentially regarded the characteristics

to be "practiced to a moderate level". The highest percent­

age of Democratic board presidents perceived principals as

having plans based upon research for achieving educational

excellence to only be "practiced to a minimal level" and the

highest percentage of Republican subjects viewed pleasant

working conditions for students and the presence of recogni­

tion programs to be "practiced to a high level". The three

"other" respondents perceived 17 of the characteristics to

be at or above "practiced to a high level". No significant

differences were found for the other variables investigated.

159

TABLE 13

Analysis of Variance: Board Presidents' Perceptions

Extent to Which Characteristics Were Practiced in Ohio

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares

DegreesFreedom

of MeanSquare

F

ACCORDING TO SEX

BetweenWithinTotal

234.47915,462.31715,696.796

1151152

234.479102.399

2.290

ACCORDING TO AGE

BetweenWithinTotal

276.42615,420.37015,696.796

4148152

69.106 104.191

0.663

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

BetweenWithinTotal

120.88015,575.91615,696.796

2150152

60.440103.839

0.582

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

BetweenWithinTotal

52.75815,644.03815,696.796

1• 151 152

52.758103.602

0.509

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

BetweenWithinTotal

14.506 15,682.290 15,696.796 •

2150152

7.253104.548

0.069

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Between 1,374.826Within 14,107.294Total 15,482.120

3147150

458.27595.967

4.7.75*

160

TABLE 13 (continued)

ACCORDING TO LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

BetweenWithinTotal

683.418 15,013.378 15,696.796

5147152

136.683102.131

1.338

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

BetweenWithinTotal

211.36915.485.42715,696.796

3149152

70.456103.929

0.678

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT

BetweenWithinTotal

144.88615,551.91015,696.796

2150152

72.443103.679

0.699

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT

Between 373.846 6 62.307 0.594Within 15.322.950 146 104.951Total 15,696.796 152

ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF YEARS AS A BOARD MEMBER

Between 932.089 6 155.348 1.536Within 14,764.707 146 101.128Total 15,696.796 152 '

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Between 42.100Within 15,654.696Total 15,696.796

1151152

42.100 0.406103.673

161

TABLE 13 (continued)

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE

BetweenWithin

60.86815,635.928

1151

60.868103.549

0.588

Total 15,696.796 152

* Significant Difference at p = .05

Research Question Ten

The last research question posed for this study on the

perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents and

boards of education presidents regarding the characteristics

of effective schools was: "What similarities and differ­

ences exist between, the perceptions of Ohio's public school

superintendents and the perceptions of Ohio's boards of edu­

cation presidents regarding the extent to which specific

characteristics of effective schools are practiced in the •

public schools of Ohio according to: (A) sex? (B) age? (C)

marital status? (D) whether they had or had had children of

their own enrolled in public school? (E) ethnic group? (F)

political preference? (G) type of school district community?

(H) type of school district? (I) size of school district?".

As noted earlier, both populations were the same size, 616

elements in each. A 30% proportional stratified sample was

conducted. Data samples of 168 superintendents and 153

school board presidents were obtained for Section IV of the

162

questionnaires. The mean for superintendents on questions

1 - 21, collectively, in Section IV of the questionnaire was

3.092. The mean for school board presidents on the same set

of questions was 3.165. No significant difference was found

between early and late respondents for either population.

A significant difference was found for one variable within

each population. A significant difference existed in the

means for the variable, ethnic group, in the superintendent

investigation and a significant difference existed in the

means for the variable, political preference, in the board

of education president study. Table 14 is a listing of the

means for questions 1 - 21, collectively, in Section IV of

the questionnaire for each population according to the vari­

ables identified in the research question.

TABLE 14

Means for Questions 1 - 21, Collectively

Superintendents/Board Presidents-Perceptions of Practice

Variables Superinten­ Boarddents Presidents

ACCORDING TO SEX

FemaleMale

3.1903.088

3.284 3. 136

163

TABLE 14 (continued)

ACCORDING TO AGE

30 years or younger No Respond. 3.47631 - 40 years 2.998 3.06241 - 50 years 3.096 3.17751 - 60 years 3.131 3.20761 years or older 3.349 3.233

ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS

Single 2.667 No Respond.Married 3.087 3.161Divorced/Separated 3.262 3.048Widowed No Respond. 3.405

ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS HADCHILDREN ENROLLED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Yes 3.094 3.172No . 3.071 3.053

ACCORDING TO ETHNIC GROUP

White (non-Hispanic) 3.085 3.167Black (non-Hispanic) 3.238 3.048Native American (Indian, Eskimo) 2.571 3.095Other 4.381 No Respond .

ACCORDING TO POLITICAL PREFERENCE

Democrat 3.098 2.991Independent 3.063 ■ 3.035Republican 3.085 3.236Other 3.190 3.810

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF COMMUNITY

Large urban center/city 3.041 3.214Rural 3.109 3.163Suburban city in a metropolitan area 3.098 3.033Town/small city 3.062 3.214

164

TABLE 14 (continued)

ACCORDING TO TYPE OF SCHOOLDISTRICT

City 3.097 3.162Exempted Village 3.095 3.010Local 3.088 3.185

ACCORDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICTENROLLMENT

Less than 300 No Respond. 2.810300 - 999 2.950 3.1401,000 - 2,999 3.112 3.1913,000 - 4,999 3.085 3.2045,000 - 9,999 3.069 3.02210,000 - 24,999 2.738 2.92125,000 - 49,999 3.143 3.619

Though not included in any of the tables, calculations

were performed by this researcher to address the variables

posed in research question ten. From the calculations made,

it was surmised that the highest percentage of respondents

from each population perceived each of the characteristics

to be "practiced to a moderate level", though variations ex­

isted. Perceptions regarding the extent the characteristics

were practiced were more similar in nature among the varia­

bles than were perceptions regarding the importance of the

characteristics.

With the exception of exempted village superintendents

and superintendents never having had children enrolled in

public school, the highest percentage of superintendents

165

perceived the characteristic, principals serve as discipli­

narians, to be "practiced to a high level" across the varia­

bles. The highest percentage of board presidents perceived

this same characteristic to only be "practiced to a moderate

level".

The highest percentage of female board presidents per­

ceived principals having control of the school and school

program and rewards stressed rather than punishments to be

"practiced to a moderate level". The highest percentage of

their superintendent counterparts perceived these character­

istics to be "practiced to a high level".

The variable of. age did not vary from the perception,

"practiced to a moderate level", except for the characteris­

tic, principals serve as disciplinarians, and the age range

of 61 years or older. The highes.t percentage of superinten­

dents in this age bracket viewed clearly stated goals,

structured learning environments, the monitoring of the mas­

tery of a set of essential skills, parent and community in­

volvement, and the mastery of one unit of instruction before

moving on to the next unit as "practiced to a high level".

The highest percentage of board presidents in this same age

range perceived high expectations for staff to be outstand­

ing teachers, the mastery of a set of essential skills,

pleasant working conditions for students, and the existence

of inservice teacher education programs as being "practiced

to a high level".

166

Though the number of divorced/separated subjects rep­

resented in each population was small in number, perceptions

within this variable varied from the perception, "practiced

to a moderate level". All divorced/separated superintend­

ents perceived an orderly and business-like atmosphere,

principal visibility, structured learning environments, and

pleasant working conditions for students to be "practiced to

a high level". The highest -percentage of their board presi­

dent counterparts considered high expectations for staff to

be outstanding teachers and pleasant working conditions for

students to be "practiced to a high level".

The highest percentage of Democratic superintendents

perce’ived principals having a plan based upon research for

achieving educational excellence as "practiced to a moderate

level", but the highest percentage of Democratic board pres­

idents perceived the characteristic to only be "practiced to

a minimal level". Variations also existed between Republi­

can superintendents and Republican board presidents. While

the highest percentage of Republican superintendents per­

ceived pleasant working conditions for students and the ex­

istence of student recognition programs to be "practiced to

a moderate level", the highest percentage of Republican

board members perceived these characteristics to be "prac­

ticed to a high level".

Deviations from the perception, "practiced to a moder­

ate level", were found in the variable, type of school

167

community in which school district was located. The highest

percentage of large urban superintendents perceived the op­

portunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task and inservice

teacher education programs to be "practiced to a high lev­

el". They also considered the monitoring of the mastery of

a set of essential skills as "practiced to a minimal level".

The highest percentage of superintendents from town/small

city communities also considered the opportunity to learn by

emphasizing time-on-task as being "practiced to a high lev­

el". Inservice education programs were perceived by the

highest percentage of rural board presidents to be "prac­

ticed to a high level" and the highest percentage of board

presidents from town/small city communities perceived pleas­

ant working conditions and ongoing recognition programs to

be "practiced to a high level".

Two variations from the perception, "practiced to a

moderate level", were found for the variable, type of school

district. The highest percentage of city district superin­

tendents considered the principal has control of the school

and the school program to be "practiced to a high level" and

the highest percentage of city district board presidents

perceived student recognition programs as "practiced to a

high level".

Other deviations from the perception, "practiced to a

moderate level", were found according to school district en­

rollment. The highest percentage of superintendents from

168

districts with enrollments of 300 - 999 perceived an orderly

and business-like atmosphere as "practiced to a high level"

while the highest percentage of their board president coun­

terparts considered pleasant working conditions for students

and a plan based upon research for achieving educational ex­

cellence as "practiced to a high level". Likewise, the

highest percentage of superintendents from districts with

enrollments of 3,000 - 4,999 viewed an orderly and .business­

like atmosphere and the principal has control over the

school and the school program as "practiced to a high lev­

el". ' The highest percentage of board presidents from dis­

tricts of the same size perceived principals having control,

student recognition programs, and inservice teacher educa­

tion activities at the same level of practice. The highest

percentage of board presidents from districts with enroll­

ments of 10,000 - 24,999 considered student recognition pro­

grams to be "practiced to a high level".

It is surmised from the data that though variations ex­

isted in the perceptions of superintendents and board presi­

dents for each of the variables, those variations were very

limited. Variations were not as great regarding the extent

to which the characteristics were practiced as they were re­

garding the importance of the characteristics. The charac­

teristics for which variations occurred the most were: (1)

principals serve as disciplinarians, (2) principals have

control over their schools and school programs, (3) pleasant

169

working conditions exist for students, (4) orderly and

business-like atmospheres exist, and (5) effective inservice

teacher education programs are available for staff members.

Chapter IV has provided a description of the results of

the study conducted. Each of the research questions ini­

tially posed has been addressed. The following chapter pro­

vides a discussion of these results, including a summary of

and conclusions regarding the study and recommendations for

future investigation.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Summary

The study was concerned with the perceptions of Ohio's

public school superintendents and boards of education presi­

dents regarding the characteristics of effective schools.

The purpose of the study was to gain insights into and accu­

rately portray the perceptions of superintendents and board

presidents at the time the study was conducted. Specifical­

ly, answers to the following research questions were sought

in the study:

1. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school su­

perintendents regarding the importance of specific

characteristics of effective schools, individually and

collectively, in the achievement of educational excel­

lence?

2. Do significant differences exist in the perceptions of

Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the im­

portance of these characteristics of effective schools

in the achievement of educational excellence according

to various variables?

170

171

3. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

boards of education presidents regarding the impor­

tance of specific characteristics of effective

schools, individually and collectively, in the

achievement of educational excellence?

4. Do significant differences exist in the perceptions of

Ohio's public school boards of education presidents

regarding the importance of these characteristics of

effective schools in the achievement of educational

excellence according to various variables?

5. What similarities and differences exist between the

perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents

and the perceptions of Ohio's boards of education

presidents regarding the importance of specific char­

acteristics of effective schools in the achievement of

educational excellence according to various variables?

6. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school su­

perintendents regarding the extent to which specific

characteristics of effective schools are practiced in

the public schools of Ohio?

7. Do significant differences exist in the perceptions of

Ohio's public school superintendents regarding the ex­

tent to which these characteristics of effective

schools are practiced in the public schools of Ohio

according to various variables?

172

8. What are the perceptions of Ohio's public school

boards of education presidents regarding the extent to

which specific characteristics of effective schools

are practiced in the public schools of Ohio?

9. Do significant differences exist in the perceptions of

Ohio's public school boards of education presidents

regarding the extent to which these characteristics of

effective schools are practiced in the public schools

of Ohio according to various variables?

10. What similarities and differences exist between the

perceptions of Ohio's public school superintendents

and the perceptions of Ohio's boards of education

presidents re'garding the extent to which specific

characteristics of effective schools are practiced in

the public schools of Ohio according to various varia­

bles?

The study was descriptive research of a survey type.

In order to answer the research questions, a proportional

stratified sampling procedure was employed with stratifica­

tion based on city, exempted village, and local school dis­

tricts. Target and accessible populations were the same

with each population consisting of 616 elements. Question­

naires regarding the importance of characteristics of effec­

tive schools and the extent to which those characteristics

were practiced in the public schools of Ohio were mailed to

185 superintendents and 185 school board presidents

173

throughout the State of Ohio. Respondents completed ques­

tionnaires at a time and place of their own choosing within

the framework of the timeline developed for the study. Sec­

ond questionnaires were mailed and phone calls were made to

non-respondents. One hundred sixty-nine or 91% of the ques­

tionnaires mailed to subjects in the sample of superinten­

dents were returned. This represented 27.4% of the target

population. One hundred fifty-eight or 85% of the question­

naires distributed to subjects in the sample of school board

presidents were returned. This represented 25.6% of the

target population.

The focus of the study was limited to investigating the

perceptions of respondents. Data gathered in the study

through the use of questionnaires provided information taken

during one slice of time. The study was descriptive in na­

ture and did not establish cause and effect relationships.

Findings of the study were limited to superintendents and

school board presidents of public schools in the State of

Ohio.

Percentages and means were calculated for each question

in Section I of the questionnaires to answer Research Ques­

tions 1 and 3 and percentages and means were calculated for

each question in Section IV of the questionnaires to answer

Research Questions 6 and 8. Data was also gathered from

Sections II and III of the questionnaires to answer Research

Questions 1 and 3 and from Section V of the questionnaires

174

to answer Research Questions 6 and 8. In order to determine

if significant differences existed according to the various

variables identified and to determine the generalizability

of the findings, analysis of variance tests were conducted

for each of the variables in Research Questions 2, 4, 7, and

9. A comparison was made of the percentages and means cal­

culated for Research Questions 1 and 3 to answer Research

Question 5 and a comparison was made of the percentages and

means calculated for Research Questions 6 and 8 to answer

Research Question 10.

Major findings of the study were:

1. The highest percentage for six of the twenty-two char­

acteristics, regarding superintendents' perceptions of

the importance of the characteristics, was "of very

high importance". Strong instructional leadership on

the part of the principal, high expectations held on

the part of the principal for staff to be outstanding

teachers, and high expectations held on the part of

teachers and the principal for all students to learn

a set of essential skills were perceived to be the

most important characteristics. The highest percentage

for the remaining sixteen characteristics was "of high

importance". With a "very high importance" of 5 and a

"no importance" of 1, the mean for all questions re­

garding the importance of the characteristics was

4.268. The mastery of a set of essential skills, the

175

mastery of one unit of instruction before moving on to

the next unit, and the need for a plan based upon re­

search for achieving educational excellence were con­

sidered to be the least important. No significant

difference was found between early and late respon­

dents .

2. The only significant difference found for the percep­

tions of superintendents regarding the importance of

the characteristics of effective schools was for the

level of educational attainment o'f respondents. The

greatest difference appeared to be between subjects

with specialist degrees and subjects with doctoral de­

grees-. Differences among the groups appeared regard­

ing the need for an orderly and business-like atmos­

phere, consistency in the treatment of students, the

opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task, a

sense of cohesiveness within a school, and the moni­

toring of the mastery of a set of essential skills.

3. The highest percentage for eight of the twenty-two

characteristics, regarding board presidents' percep­

tions of the importance of the characteristics, was

"of very high importance". Strong instructional lead­

ership on the part of the principal, high expectations

held on the part of the principal for staff to be out­

standing teachers, a set of clearly stated goals which

an entire staff emphasizes, and consistency in the

176

treatment of students were perceived to be the most

important characteristics. The highest percentage for

for the remaining fourteen characteristics was "of

high importance". The mean for all questions was

4.165. The opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-

on-task, principal visibility in hallways and class­

rooms, and structured learning environments based on

courses of study in which activities are teacher-

selected and teacher-directed were viewed as the least

important characteristics. No significant difference

was found between early and late respondents.

4. Significant differences were found for board presi­

dents’ perceptions regarding 'the importance of charac­

teristics of effective schools for the variables of

sex, age, marital status, and'whether the subjects had

or had had children of their own enrolled in public

school. Though significant differences were found for

age, marital status, and whether subjects had or had

had children of their own enrolled in public school,

the distribution of respondents was skewed within each

variable. The variable of sex was significant at p =

.001. Variations were found for the variable of sex

for emphasizing time-on-task, principal visibility, a

a sense of cohesiveness, rewards stressed rather than

punishments, monitoring of a set of essential skills,

pleasant working conditions for students, parent and

177

community involvement in the activities of a school,

inservice teacher education programs, and a plan based

upon research for achieving educational excellence.

Female board presidents perceived these characteris­

tics to be more important than did their male counter­

parts .

5. When both superintendents and school board presidents

were asked if any of the characteristics they noted as

being "of very high importance" were more important

than others, both groups of respondents identified

strong instructional leadership on the part of the

principal, high expectations on the part of the prin-

cipal for staff to b'e outstanding teachers, the pres­

ence of a set of clearly stated goals for the school

which the entire staff emphasizes, and the need for

teachers and the principal to hold high expectations

for all students to learn a set of essential skills.

6. The highest percentage for one of the twenty-one char­

acteristics, regarding superintendents' perceptions of

the extent to which the characteristics were practiced

in the public schools of Ohio, was "practiced to a

high level". That characteristic was principals serve

as disciplinarians. The highest percentage for the

remaining twenty characteristics was "practiced to a

moderate level". Within this group of characteris­

tics, an orderly and business-like atmosphere,

178

principal control over the school and the school pro­

gram, and pleasant working conditions for students

were perceived to be practiced the most. The charac­

teristic which called for principals to have a plan

based upon research for achieving educational excel­

lence was perceived to be practiced the least. The

mgan for all questions regarding the extent to which

the characteristics were practiced was 3.092. No sig­

nificant difference was found between early and late

respondents.

7. The only significant difference found for the percep­

tions of superintendents regarding the extent to which

the characteristics of effective schools were prac­

ticed in the public schools of Ohio was among ethnic

groups of subjects. Though a significant difference

was found, the distribution of respondents was ex­

tremely skewed within the variable.

8. The highest'percentage for all twenty-one characteris­

tics, regarding board presidents' perceptions of the

extent to which the characteristics were practiced in

the public schools of Ohio, was "practiced to a moder­

ate level". Those characteristics perceived to be

practiced the most were: (1) principals serve as dis­

ciplinarians, (2) pleasant working conditions exist

for students, and (3) ongoing programs exist to recog­

nize students for their accomplishments. The mean for

179

all questions was 3.165. The characteristics of mas­

tering one unit of instruction before moving on to the

next unit, consistency in the treatment of students,

and principals have plans based upon research for

achieving educational excellence were viewed as being

practiced the least. No significant difference was

found between early and late respondents.

9. The only significant difference found for school board

presidents' perceptions regarding the extent to which

the characteristics of effective schools were prac­

ticed in the public schools of Ohio was for the polit­

ical preferences of respondents. Though a significant

difference was found, the distribution of respondents

was skewed. Basic differences were found for the fol­

lowing characteristics: (1) principals have plans

based upon research for achieving educational excel­

lence, (2) pleasant working conditions exist for stu­

dents, and (3) ongoing programs are present to recog­

nize students for their accomplishments. The first

characteristic was perceived to be "practiced to a

minimal level" by Democrats and the last two charac­

teristics were perceived to be "practiced to a high

level" by Republicans.

180

Conclusions

While a broad scope of characteristics of effective

schools was summarized in Chapter II from the research, five

correlates in particular, as identified by the late Ronald

Edmonds, came to the surface. Those five correlates were:

"(1) leadership which gives substantial attention to the in­

structional process, (2) an instructional focus which is un­

derstood .by the teaching staff, (3) a climate which is safe

and conducive to teaching and learning, (4) teachers who

have high expectations for all students and (5) the use of

standard measures of pupil achievement as a basis of the. ef­

fective school program"- (The Effective School .Report, Novem­

ber 1983). From the findings of this study, it was conclud­

ed that superintendents of Ohio's public schools perceived

the following five characteristics to be "of very high im­

portance" for a school to be considered as effective: (1)

strong instructional leadership on the part of the princi­

pal, (2) high expectations on the part of the principal for

the staff to be outstanding teachers, (3) high expectations

on the part of teachers and the principal for all students

to learn a set of essential skills, (4) the presence of a

set of clearly stated goals for the school which the entire

staff emphasizes, and (5) consistency on the part of teach­

ers in the treatment of students. These characteristics

closely resembled those identified by Edmonds; however, the

181

characteristics of an orderly and business-like atmosphere,

the existence of pleasant working conditions for students,

and the presence of a process for monitoring the mastery of

a set of essential skills, which paralleled Edmonds' third

and fifth correlates, were perceived by Ohio's superinten­

dents as being only "of high importance" for a school to be

effective. When superintendent subjects were asked to indi­

cate which of the characteristics they perceived as being

"of very high importance" were more important than others,

they included the need for an orderly and business-like

atmosphere.

In a study conducted by Carmelo V. Sapone, strong ad-

ministrative/pr.incipal leadership, high positive school com- •

munity relationships, establishment of high performance

standards for staff and students, the utilization of appro­

priate instructional technologies, the presence of an effec­

tive supervision/appraisal and evaluation plan, and high

staff morale were identified by superintendents as the major

characteristics of effective schools (Sapone, October 1983).

Superintendent respondents in this current study identified

strong leadership and high standards as being "of very high

importance". When superintendents were asked to identify

characteristics which were not listed in Section I of the

questionnaire, but which should be added to the list, high

morale and school community relations were mentioned. In­

formation from Table 5 would indicate that Ohio

182

superintendents, as a group, perceived parent and community

involvement in the schools as being "of high importance".

A finding of the study unanticipated by this research­

er was that three of the characteristics had means below

4.000 as perceived by superintendents. Those characteris­

tics were: (1) the top priority of a school should be the

mastery of a set of essential skills which takes precedence

over all other school activities, (2) students should master

one. unit of instruction before moving on to the next unit,

and (3) the principal should have a plan based upon research

for achieving educational excellence. This researcher be­

lieved superintendents with their educational background and

educational and leadership responsibilities would perceive

these characteristics to be more important than indicated.

Findings of the study regarding perceptions of superin­

tendents about the importance of the characteristics of ef­

fective schools should be generalizable to public school su­

perintendents throughout the State of Ohio except with re­

gard to their levels of educational attainment. Data in Ta­

ble 6 led one to conclude that a hypothesis that no differ­

ence existed among superintendents according to degree level

must be rejected.

Sapone, in his research on the perceptions of charac­

teristics of effective schools, identified strong adminis­

trative/principal leadership, establishment of high perfor­

mance standards for staff and students, high staff morale,

183

high positive school community relationships, and an effec­

tive supervision/appraisal and evaluation plan as those

characteristics perceived as important on the part of school

board members. It was surmised from the findings of the

current study that board presidents perceived only strong

instructional leadership on the part of the principal, high

expectations on the part of the principal for the staff to

be outstanding teachers, and high expectations on the part

of teachers and the principal for all students to learn a

set of essential skills to be "of very high importance".

The need for a set of clearly stated goals for a school

which the en.tire staff emphasizes, teacher consistency in

the treatment of students, and an ongoing program designed

to recognize students for their accomplishments followed

closely in importance. These again resembled those charac­

teristics identified by Edmonds with the exception of a pro­

cedure for monitoring the progress of students. Board pres­

idents perceived that characteristic to be "of high impor­

tance". When board presidents were asked to identify char­

acteristics which should be added to the list provided on

the questionnaire, school community relations, teacher eval­

uation, and staff morale were suggested.

An unexpected finding in the study was six of the char­

acteristics had means below 4.000 as perceived by board

presidents. Those six characteristics were: (1) the need

for the principal to have a plan based upon research for

184

achieving educational excellence, (2) the top priority of a

school be the mastery of a set of skills that takes preced-

dence over all other activities, (3) the need for students

to master one unit of instruction before moving on to the

next unit, (4) students be given the opportunity to learn by

emphasizing time-on-task, (5) the principal be highly visi­

ble in hallways and classrooms, and (6) there be a struc­

tured learning environment based on courses of study in

which instructional activities be teacher-selected and

teacher-directed. Again, this researcher had expected board

presidents to per.ceive these as more important than they

did.

Perceptions of school board presidents -regarding the

importance of characteristics of effective schools as deter­

mined in this study should be generalizable to public school

board presidents throughout the State of Ohio except when

analyzed according to sex, age, marital status, and whether

the subjects had or had had children of theiu: own enrolled

in public school. The analysis of variance reported in Ta­

ble 8 allowed one to conclude that a hypothesis that no

differences existed within each of these variables must be

rejected.

It was surmised from the findings that the perceptions

of superintendents and school board presidents regarding the

importance of the characteristics of effective schools were

relatively the same. The only noticeable difference was

185

between the means of superintendents and school board presi­

dents of districts with enrollments of 10,000 - 24,999 stu­

dents as reported in Table 9. This difference may only

appear due to the small number of respondents included in

these specific catagories in each population. It was im­

plied from some research studies that the characteristics

collectively make the difference. Both superintendents and

school board presidents perceived the collectiveness of the

characteristics to be "of high importance".

In general, the research summarized in Chapter II led

one to conclude that all of the characteristics listed, on

the questionnaire should be considered very important com­

ponents of an effective school. While some subjects within

each population perceived some characteristics as being "of

no importance" and others perceived those same characteris­

tics as being "of very high importance", both groups per­

ceived, as groups, that there was a similar set of compon­

ents which appears to characterize a school as effective.

In addition to superintendent and board president sub­

jects being asked about the importance of the characteris­

tics of effective schools in this study, they were also

asked to what extent they perceived the characteristics to

be practiced in the public schools of Ohio. From the find­

ings of the study, it was surmised that, entirely different

perceptions existed on the part of both populations regard­

ing the extent to which the characteristics were practiced

186

than their perceptions about the importance of the charac­

teristics .

The means for superintendents' perceptions regarding

the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools

were practiced in the public schools of Ohio ranged from

3.839, "practiced to a high level", down to 2.500, "prac­

ticed to a moderate level". The characteristic perceived to

be practiced the most was that principals serve as discipli­

narians. The remaining twenty characteristics had means of

3.429 or below and were surmised to have been perceived by

superintendent respondents, as a group, as being "practiced

to a moderate level". The characteristic perceived to be

practiced the least was that principals have a plan based

upon research for achieving educational excellence. Com­

ments made by some respondents suggested that they perceived

the characteristics of effective schools to be practiced

throughout the State, but without any consistency.

Findings of the study regarding the perceptions of su­

perintendents about the extent to which the characteristics

were practiced should be generalizable to all superinten­

dents throughout the State except when considered in terms

of ethnic group. The analysis of variance test for this

variable makes one reject a hypothesis that no difference

existed among the means according to ethnic group.

The perceptions of school board presidents regarding

the extent to which the characteristics of effective schools

187

were practiced in the public schools of Ohio were similar in

nature to those of superintendent respondents. The means

for all twenty-one characteristics in Section IV of the

board president questionnaire were 3.464 or below and were

surmised to have been perceived by school board presidents,

as a group, to be "practiced to a moderate level". Means

ranged from 3.464 down to 2.882. Like superintendent re­

spondents, the characteristic that principals serve as dis­

ciplinarians was perceived by school board presidents to be

practiced the most. The mastery of one unit of instruction

before moving on to the next unit of instruction was per­

ceived to be practiced the least.

Findings of the study regarding board presidents' per­

ceptions about the extent to which the characteristics were

practiced should be generalizable to board presidents

throughout Ohio except when reviewed in terms of political

preferences. A hypothesis that no difference existed among

board presidents according to political preference must be

rejected on the basis of analysis of variance tests conduct­

ed .

Comments made by respondents in both populations led

one to surmise that superintendents and school board presi­

dents throughout the State of Ohio perceived the character­

istics of effective schools were only "practiced to a moder­

ate level" on a statewide basis. Comments made also allowed

one to suggest that they perceived improvements were being

188

made in Ohio's schools, but additional dollars, greater col­

laboration on the part of the various sectors of schools and

communities, more effective leadership on the part of build­

ing principals, and a higher degree of professionalism on

the part of teachers were mandatory conditions for any sig­

nificant improvements to be made.

Recomraenda tions

The findings of this study have implications for the

future of education in the.State of Ohio. Five specific

recommendations are described below which should be given

serious consideration.

1. A collaborative process should be established within

school districts throughout the State in an effort to

determine what the specific missions of schools and

the specific outcomes of schooling should be within

each district. Members of the various sectors of

schools and communities must be reflective and

thoughtful about what they want their schools to be.

Clear public policies, concepts of excellence, need to

be established in order to determine whether schools

are achieving what they are expected to achieve and in

order to determine whether they are effective or not.

The State Department of Education, supported by vari­

ous educational and community organizations and

189

agencies, should take the leadership responsibility

for insuring such a process is provided and policies

are developed. Once the missions and outcomes are de­

termined, effective schools may then be identified and

studied.

2. Researchers should strive to develop more precise low

inference instruments to be used in those schools

which are determined to be effective, on the basis of

the public policies developed, for the purpose of con­

firming or rejecting the characteristics which are

currently believed to be essential for an effective

school to exist and for the purpose of discovering any

characteristics which are yet unborn. Studies should

be made to determine if there are effective schools

which exist that do not possess these characteristics

and whether there are schools needed that are not yet

conceived. In addition, research studies should be

made to confirm or reject the concept that it is the

collectiveness of the characteristics which makes the

difference as well as determining if characteristics

of effectiveness may vary from one school to another

and from one community to another.

3. The concepts of this current study should be extended

to studying the perceptions of principals, teachers,

and other school personnel regarding the importance of

the characteristics of effective schools and the

190

extent to which those characteristics are practiced in

the public schools of Ohio. Such a study should fol­

low the development of clear public policies regarding

the missions and outcomes of schools and a confirma­

tion of characteristics in order that the perceptions

gathered may be compared with the characteristics con­

firmed .

4. Viable strategies need to be developed which enhance

clear understandings of, explore implications of, and

investigate implementation procedures for the charac­

teristics of effective schools. These should then be

available for.use by teacher education and graduate

school personnel responsible ’for preparing teachers

and administrators and by the State Department of Edu­

cation, school districts, and professional organiza­

tions providing inservice education programs for

teachers, administrators, and school board presidents.

This would allow the perceptions of practitioners to

be refocused so they are congruent with the research

gathered confirming the characteristics of effective

schools and for progress to be made in putting theory

into practice.

5. Research studies should be extended to colleges of

teacher education and higher education in general to

determine whether the same components are characteris­

tics of those programs and institutions. Clear

191

policies would first need to be developed regarding

the missions and outcomes of each. The results of

such investigations would lead to studies focusing on

further redesigns of teacher education and higher ed­

ucation .

In conclusion, it is recognized that this study is by

no means conclusive. It is a description of what was at the

time the study was conducted. It was surmised from the

findings of the study that the perceptions of Ohio's public

school superintendents and school board presidents were sim­

ilar in nature regarding the importance of the characteris­

tics of effective schools and the extent to which those

characteristics were practiced in the. public schools of

Ohio. It was further surmised that the perceptions of each

population varied distinctly between perceptions of impor­

tance and perceptions of practice. Many of the findings re­

garding the importance of the characteristics were congruent

with those identified from the literature on effective

schools. Comments of respondents reflected confidence that

improvements were being made toward the achievement of ex­

cellence in the public schools of Ohio. It is believed this

investigation of the perceptions of both superintendents and

board presidents in the State of Ohio, addressed from the

two perspectives of importance and extent of practice, adds

a new dimension to the body of knowledge regarding the char­

acteristics of effective schools.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arys, Donald; Jacobs, Lucy Cheser; and Razavieh, Asghar. Introduction to Research in Education. 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Leader Guide: Teacher and School Effectiveness. Alexan­dria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, 1981.

Austin, Gilbert R. "Exemplary Schools and the Search for Effectiveness." Educational Leadership, Vol. 37, No. 1, (October 1979), pp. 10-14.

Bernd, C.M. "For Superintendents." The Effective School Report, Vol. 2, No. 9, (September 1984), p. 4.

Bernd, C.M. "For Superintendents." The Effective School Report, Vol. 3, ‘No. 1, (January 1985), pi 4.

Block, Alan W. Effective Schools: A Summary of Research,Arlington, Virginia: Educational Research Service, Inc.,1983.

Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith Damien. Educational Re­search: An Introduction, 3rd Ed. New York: Longman Inc.,1979.

Brandt, Ron. "On School Effectiveness: A Conversation withPeter Mortimore." Educational Leadership, Vol. 38, No. 8, (May 1981), pp. 642-645.

Brewer, Jim. "An Interview With Wilbur B. Brookover." The Effective School Report, Vol. 2, No. 3, (March 1984), p. 4.

Bridgman, Anne. "State Leaders Praise Reform Efforts, Urge Action at Local Level." Education Week, Vol. 3, Nos. 39 and 40, (August 22, 1984), pp. 6; 38.

Brookover, Wilbur et al. Creating Effective Schools: AnIn-Service Program for Enhancing School Learning Climate and Achievement. Holmes Beach, Florida: Learning Publications,Inc. , 1982 .

193

Campbell, Roald F.; C o r b a l l y J o h n E., Jr.; and Ramseyer, John A. Introduction to Educational Administration. 3rd Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966.

Clauset, Karl H., Jr. and Gaynor, Alan K. "A Systems Per­spective on Effective Schools." Educational Leadership.Vol. 40, No. 3, (December 1982), pp. 54-59.

Coleman, J.S. et al. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, National Centerfor Educational Statistics, 1966.

Cookingham, Frank G. "Tell It Like It Is! But How Is It Really? Communication in Effective Schools." The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 2, (February 1984), pp.l; 4.

Cox, Pat L. "Complementary Roles in Successful Change." Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, No. 3, (November 1983), pp. 10-13.

Crandall, David P. "The Tdacher's Role in School Improve­ment." Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, No. 3, (November1983), pp. 6-9.

Cuban, Larry. "Effective Schools: A Friendly But Caution­ary Note." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 64, No. 10, (June 1983), pp. 695-696.

Curran, Thomas J. "Characteristics of the Effective School - A Starting Point for Self-Evaluation." National Associa­tion of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 67. No. 465, (October 1983), pp. 71-73.

D'Araico, Joseph. "Each Effective School May Be One of a Kind." Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 3, (December1982) , pp.’ 60-62.

Deal, Terrence E. and Kennedy, Allan A. "Culture and School Performance." Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 5, (Feb­ruary 1983), pp. 14-15.

Dodge, Harold. "Determining Appropriate Goals For Secondary Schools: The Precursor of Effectiveness." National Associ­ation of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 465, (October 1983), pp. 16-19.

Eaker, Robert. "Research Into Practice: A ComprehensiveApproach to Instructional Improvement." The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 1, (January 1984), p. 1.

194

Edmonds, Ronald. "A Discussion of the Literature and Issues Related to Effective Schooling." Paper prepared for the Na­tional Conference on Urban Education, St. Louis, Missouri, 1979.

Edmonds, Ronald. "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor." Educational Leadership. Vol. 37, No. 1, (October 1979), pp. 15-23.

Edmonds, Ronald. "Programs of School Improvement: An Over-view." Educational Leadership, Vol 40, N o . 3, (December1982), pp. 4-11.

The Effective School Report. Vol. 1, No. 1, (November1983), pp. 1-4.

The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, N o . 1, (January 1984),pp. 1-4.

The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 2, (February1984), pp. 1-4.

The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 3, (March 1984),pp. 1-4.

Eubanks, Eugene and Levine, Daniel U. "A First Look At Ef-fective Schools Projects in New York City and Milwaukee."Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 64, No. 10, (June 1983), pp. 697-702.

Evans, Robert W. "One State's Approach: Ohio's EffectiveSchool Program." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 465, (October 1983), pp. 74-76.

Fortenberry, Robert N. "Implementation of Effective School Research as a Means for Instructional Improvement." The Effective School Report, Vol. 2., No. 4, (April 1984), pp. 1-2 .Frymier, Jack et al. One Hundred Good Schools: A Report ofthe Good Schools Project. West Lafayette, Indiana: KappaDelta Pi, 1984.

Gallup, George H. "The 14th Annual Gallup Poll of the Pub­lic's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kap­pan , Vol. 64, No. 1, (September 1982), pp. 37-50.

Gallup, George H. "The 16th Annual Gallup Poll of the Pub­lic's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kap­pan , Vol. 66, No. 1, (September 1984), pp. 23-38.

195

Gay, L.R. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysisand Application. 2nd Ed. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Mer­rill Publishing Company, 1981.

Good, Thomas L. and Brophy, Jere E. Looking In Classrooms,3rd Ed. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1984.

Goodlad, John I. A Place Called School: Prospects For TheFuture. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984.

Goodlad, John I. What Schools Are For. Phi Delta Kappa.Ed­ucational Foundation, 1979.

Gordon, Thomas. Leader Effectiveness Training. New York: Peter H. Wyden, Publisher, 1977.

Hager, James L. and Scarr, L.E. "Effective Schools - Effec­tive Principals: How to Develop Both." Educational Leader­ship. Vol. 40, No. 5, (February 1983), pp. 38-40.

Huberman, A. Michael. "School Improvement Strategies That Work: Some Scenarios." Educational Leadership, Vol. 41,No. 3, (November 1983), pp. 22-27.

King, Matthew. "What Abo-ut Successes?" Educational Leader­ship . Vol. 40, No. 7, (April 1983), p. 23.

Larkin, Ronald. "Achievement Directed Leadership." The Ef­fective School Report, Vol. 2, No. 9, (September 1984), p.3 .

Loucks, Susan F. and Zacchei, David A. "Applying Our Find­ings to Today's Innovations." Educational Leadership, Vol. 41, No. 3, (November 1983), pp. 28-31.

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Dimensions of School Learning Cli­mate." The Effective School Report, Vol. 2, No. 4, (April1984), p. 2.

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "Just A Reminder!" The Effective School Report, Vol. 2, No. 2, (February 1984), p. 3.

Lezotte, Lawrence W. "What We Want to Accomplish." The Ef­fective School Report, Vol. 1, No. 1, (November 1983), p. 2.

MacPhail-Wilcox, Betty and Guth, Jim. "Effectiveness Re­search and School Administration - Both Sides of the Coin." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulle­tin, Vol. 67, No. 465, (October 1983), pp. 3-8.

196

Mann, Dale and Lawrence, Judith. "A Delphi Analysis of the Instructionally Effective School." The Effective School Re­port , Vol. 2, No. 4, (April 1984), pp. 3-4.

Marks, Walter L. "The Superintendent as Societal Archi­tect." Theory Into Practice, (Autumn 1981), pp. 255-259.

McCormack-Larkin, Maureen. "Insights Into the School Effec­tiveness Process." The Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 3, (March 1984), pp. 1; 4.

McCormack-Larkin, Maureen and Kritek, William J. "Milwau­kee's Project RISE." Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No.3, (December 1982), pp. 16-21.

Miller, Larry E. Class Lecture. The Ohio State University, Winter Quarter, 1983.

The National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Na­tion At Risk: The Imperative For Educational Reform.Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov­ernment Printing Office, 1983.

Ohio Commission on Educational Excellence. Responsibile Re­form: Focusing On The Future. Columbus, Ohio: The StateDepartment of Education, 1983.

Ohio Educational Directory, 1983 - 1984. Columbus, Ohio: State Department of Education, 1983.

Purkey, Stewart C. and Smith, Marshall S. "Effective Schools: A Review." The Elementary School Journal, Vol.83, No. 4, (March 1983), pp. 427-452.

Purkey, Stewart C. and Smith, Marshall S. "Too Soon To Cheer? Synthesis of Research on Effective Schools." Educa­tional Leadership. Vol. 40, No. 3, (December 1982), pp. 64- 69.

Ralph, John H. and Fennessey, James. "Science or Reform: Some Questions About the Effective Schools Model." Phi Del­ta Kappan. Vol. 64, No. 10, (June 1983), pp. 689-694.

Rogers, Vincent. "Exceedingly 'Effective' Schools." Educa­tional Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 7, (April 1983), p. 21.

Rogus, Joseph F. "How Principals Can Strengthen School Per­formance." National Association of Secondary School Princi­pals Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 459, (January 1983), pp. 1-7.

197

Salganik, M. .William. "Researchers Team With Reporter to Identify Schools That Work." Educational R & D Report. Vol. 3, (Winter 1980), pp. 2-7.

Sapone, Carmelo V. "A Research Review - Perceptions on Characteristics of Effective Schools." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. Vol. 67, No. 465, (October 1933), pp. 66-70.

"School Effectiveness: What Factors Account for the Differ­ence Between More Effective and Less Effective Schools?" Unpublished paper. California, pp. 1-20.

Serow, Robert C. and Jackson, Henry L. "Using•Standardized Test Data To Measure School Effectiveness." National Assoc­iation of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 465, (October 1983), pp. 20-25.

Shreeve, William et al. "Citizens and' Educators Should As­sess Local Strengths in View of National Reports." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin. Vol. ■ 68, No. 470, (March 1984), pp. 30-36.

Snyder, Karolyn J. "Instructional Leadership for Productive S.chools." ' Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 5, (February1983), pp. 32-37.

Spady, William G. and Marx, Gary.. Excellence In Our Schools: Making It Happen. Arlington, Virginia and San Francisco, California: American Association of School Admin­istrators and The Far West Lab for Educational Research and Development, 1984.

Stefanich, Gregory. "The Relationship of Effective Schools Research to School Evaluation." The North Central Associa­tion Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3, (Winter 1983), pp. 343-349.

Task Force on Education For Economic Growth. Action for Ex­cellence. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of theStates, 1983.

Thomson, Scott D. "America Rediscovers Its Schools: WhyNow? Is the Boost Transitory?" National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, Vol. 68, No. 470, (March 1984), pp. 1-5.

Tyler, Ralph W. "The Contribution of 'A Study of Schooling' to Educational Research." Educational Leadership, Vol. 40, No. 7, (April 1983), pp. 33-34.

198

Venezky, Richard L. and Winfield, Linda. "Schools That Suc­ceed Beyond Expectations in Teaching Reading." University of Delaware Studies in Education. Newark: University ofDelaware, 1979.

Walberg, Herbert J. and Rasher, Sue Pinzur. "The Ways Schooling Makes A Difference." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 58, No. 9, (May 1977), pp. 703-707.

Wiggins, Sara P. "A View of A Place Called School." Educa­tional Leadership. Vol. 40, No. 7, (April 1983), pp. 35-37.

Wynne, Edward A. "Looking in Good Schools." Phi Delta Kap­pan , Vol. 62, No. 5, (January 1981), pp. 377-381.

Young, Rufus, Jr. "It Takes Courage." The' Effective School Report. Vol. 2, No. 1, (January 1984), pp. 2-3.

APPENDIX A

Letter to State Department of Education

Requesting Letter of Endorsement

199

200

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OR 43055July 17, 1984

Robert W. Evans Assistant Superintendent State Department of Education Ohio Departments Building 65 S. Front Street Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Dr. Evans:

Thank you for your willingness to give consideration to endorsing my doctoral dissertation study, Perceptions of Ohio's Public School Superintendents and Boards of EducationPresidents Regarding the Characteristics of EffectiveSchools. Enclosed are copies of the following documents taken from my dissertation proposal:

(1) Cover Page(2) Problem Statement(3) Significance of Study(4) Subject Selection(5) Questionnaire for Superintendents(6) Questionnaire for Board Presidents

A letter which may be shared with subjects stating that the study is endorsed by the State Department of Education would be greatly appreciated. Findings of the study would willingly be shared with the Department.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this re­quest.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX B

Letter to Buckeye Association of School Administrators

Requesting Letter of Endorsement

201

202

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055July 17, 1984

John Hauck Executive DirectorBuckeye Association of School Administrators 750 Brooksedge Boulevard Westerville, OH 43081

Dear Mr. Hauck:

Thank you for your willingness to give consideration to endorsing my doctoral dissertati-on study, Perceptions of Ohio's Public School Superintendents and Boards of_Education Presidents Regarding the Characteristics of Effective Schools. Enclosed are copies of the following documents taken from my dissertation proposal:

(1) Cover Page(2) Problem Statement(3) Significance of Study(4) Subject Selection(5) .Questionnaire for Superintendents

A letter which may be shared with subjects stating that the study is endorsed by the Buckeye Association of School Administrators would be greatly appreciated. Findings of the study would willingly be shared with the Association.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this re­quest.

Sincerely.

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX C

Letter to Ohio School Boards Association

Requesting Letter of Endorsement

203

204

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055July 19, 1984

Joseph Rogers, DirectorEducational ServicesOhio School Boards Association700 Brooksedge Boulevard, P.O. Box 231Westerville, OH 43081

Dear Mr. Rogers:

Thank you for your willingness to give consideration to endorsing my doctoral dissertation study, Perceptions of Ohio's Public School Superintendents and Boards of Education Presidents Regarding the Characteristics of Effective Schools♦ Enclosed are copies of the following documents taken from my dissertation proposal:

(1) Cover Page(2) Problem Statement(3) Significance of Study(4) Subject Selection(5) Questionnaire for Board Presidents

A letter which may be shared with subjects stating that the study is endorsed by the Ohio School Boards Association would be greatly appreciated. Findings of the study would willingly be shared with the Association.

Again, thank you for your consideration of this re­quest .

Sincerely ,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX D

Letter of Endorsement

from

State Department of Education

205

206

STATE OF OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

COLUMBUS 43215

July 25, 1984

Mr. Robert Hite Assistant Superintendent Administrative Servic.e Center East Main at First Street

Dear Mr. Hite:

The State Department of Education, Division of Equal Educational Opportunities, is actively involved in assisting Ohio school districts in developing, implementing and evalu­ating effective schools program concepts. At this time, over three hundred and fifty school buildings in the state are actively involved in implementing the program.

The Department has been involved with assisting dis­tricts since 1981. During this initial three year period, the impact of effective schools program implementation has demonstrated some success in raising the academic achieve­ment of students. However, hard data is not available at this time to demonstrate the ultimate impact of effective schools program implementation.

After reviewing your dissertation prospectus: Percep­tions of Ohio’s Public School Superintendents and Boards of- Education Presidents Regarding the Characteristics of Effec­tive Schools, it appears that the information gathered will assist the Department in providing .additional hard data in regard to the impact of effective schools program implemen­tation in Ohio.

This letter may be used to request information from Ohio school districts.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Evans, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent

RWE:nt

APPENDIX E

Letter of Endorsement

from

Buckeye Association of School Administrators

207

208

Buckeye Association of School Administrators 750 Brooksedge Boulevard Westerville, OH 43081

July 20, 1984

To Whom It May Concern:

I have just finished reviewing Robert R. Hite's doctoral dissertation study.and I want to encourage you to respond to his request. I believe that the information that he at­tempts to collect will have considerable value immediately and in the future. The response will require some of your valuable time. I believe that the giving of your time will bring usable data and have a positive impact for use by school leaders.

Your response will be appreciated not. only by Mr. Hite, but by innumerable others who use the results in planning in their school districts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John G. Hauck Executive Director

JGH:eg

APPENDIX F

Letter of Endorsement

from

Ohio School Boards Association

209

210

Ohio School Boards Association P.O. Box 231 - Westerville, Ohio 43081 - 614-891-6466

August 10, 1984

To Whom It May Concern:

Mr. Robert R. Hite is Assistant Superintendent of Newark City School District and a doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University.

Mr. Hite's dissertation is entitled Perceptions of Ohio's Public School Superintendents and Boards of Education Presi­dents Regarding the Characteristics of Effective Schools.M r . Hite has asked OSBA's endorsement of this project as he will be forwarding questionnaires to board members randomly selected throughout the state.

The purpose of this letter is to indicate that his project has been reviewed and is considered worthy of your attention and cooperation. I recommend that you participate by com­pleting the questionnaire enclosed with this mailing.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Craig Gifford Executive Vice President

C G : af

APPENDIX G

Initial Superintendent Field Test Letter

211

212

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055August 29, 1984

Dear :

The purpose of this letjter is to request your assis­tance in finalizing the enclosed questionnaire for use with a proportional stratified sample of superintendents through­out the State of Ohio. The purpose of the questionnaire will be to obtain the perceptions of superintendents regard­ing the importance of various characteristics of schools in the achievement of educational excellence and their percep­tions regarding the extent to which those characteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio. This doctoral study has been endorsed by the State Department of Educa­tion, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and the Ohio School Boards Association.

Your assistance in completing the questionnaire and responding to the questions on the Questionnaire Evaluation Form will be greatly appreciated. Complete respondent con­fidentiality is assured. Enclosed is an Ohio State Univer­sity pencil, a very small token of appreciation for your assistance with the study.

The data collected from this study should provide in­formation that agencies and organizations throughout the State may use as continued emphasis is placed on school im­provement projects. Should you be interested in receiving a copy of the results of the study, please indicate such on the Questionnaire Evaluation Form.

Please return the completed questionnaire and the Ques­tionnaire Evaluation Form in the enclosed envelope by Sep­tember 12, 1984. Again, your willingness to assist with this task is sincerely appreciated.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX H

Initial School Board President Field Test Letter

213

214

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055August 29, 1984

Dear :

The purpose of this letter is to request your assis­tance in finalizing the enclosed questionnaire for use with a proportional stratified sample of school board presidents throughout the State of Ohio. The purpose of the "question­naire will be to obtain the perceptions of board presidents regarding the importance of various characteristics of schools in the achievement of educational excellence and their perceptions regarding the extent to which those char­acteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio.This doctoral study has been endorsed by the State Depart­ment of Education, the Ohio School Boards Association, and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators.

Your assistance in completing the questionnaire and re­sponding to the questions on the Questionniare Evaluation Form will be greatly appreciated. Complete respondent con­fidentiality is assured. Enclosed is an Ohio State Univer­sity pencil, a very small token of appreciation for your assistance with the study.

The data collected from this study should provide in­formation that agencies and organizations throughout the State may use as continued emphasis is placed on school im­provement projects. Should you be interested in receiving a copy of the results of the study, please indicate such on the Questionnaire Evaluation Form.

Please return the completed questionnaire and the Ques­tionnaire Evaluation Form in the enclosed envelope by Sep­tember 12, 1984. Again, your willingness to assist with this task is sincerely appreciated.

Thank you!

Sincerely

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX I

First Field Test Questionnaire Evaluation Form

for Superintendent Questionnaire

215

QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION FORM

ARE THERE ITEMS' OR SECTIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH NEED TO BE MADE CLEARER? IF SO, PLEASE IDENTIFY THEM AND OFFER SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT.

CAN THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE BE IMPROVED? IF SO, HOW?

IS THE- QUESTIONNAIRE APPROPRIATE .FOR USE WI T H ’ SUPERINTENDENTS? HOW MIGHT IT BE IMPROVED TO USE WITH SUPERINTENDENTS?

DO YOU BELIEVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL OBTAIN THE PERCEP­TIONS OF SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF VAR­IOUS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE? HOW MIGHT THE GATHERING OF DATA ABOUT THOSE PERCEPTIONS BE IMPROVED?

217

5. DO YOU BELIEVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL OBTAIN THE PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERINTENDENTS REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS ARE PRACTICED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO? HOW MIGHT THE GATHERING O F ’DATA ABOUT THESE PERCEPTIONS BE IMPROVED?

6. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE BIASES WITHIN THE QUESTIONNAIRE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY?

7.'ARE THERE OTHER DEFICIENCIES OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY?

THANK YOU! Would you like to receive a copy of the finalresults of the study? YES_____ NO______

APPENDIX J

First Field Test Questionnaire Evaluation Form

for School Board President Questionnaire

218

219

QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION FORM

1. ARE THERE ITEMS OR SECTIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH NEED TO BE MADE CLEARER? IF SO, PLEASE IDENTIFY THEM AND OFFER SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT.

2.. CAN THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE BE IMPROVED? IF SO, HOW?

3. IS THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPROPRIATE FOR USE WITH SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS? HOW MIGHT IT BE IMPROVED TO USE WITH SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS?

4. DO YOU BELIEVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL OBTAIN THEPERCEPTIONS OF BOARD PRESIDENTS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF EDUCA­TIONAL EXCELLENCE? HOW MIGHT THE GATHERING OF DATA ABOUT THOSE PERCEPTIONS BE IMPROVED?

220

5. DO YOU BELIEVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL OBTAIN THEPERCEPTIONS OF BOARD PRESIDENTS REGARDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS ARE PRACTICED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO? HOW MIGHT THE GATHERING OF DATA ABOUT THESE PERCEPTIONS BE IMPROVED?

6. DO YOU BELIEVE THERE ARE BIASES WITHIN THE QUESTIONNAIRE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY?

7. ARE THERE OTHER DEFICIENCIES OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY?

THANK YOU! Would you like to receive a copy of the finalresults of the study? YES_____ NO______

APPENDIX K

Second Field Test Superintendent Letter

221

222

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055September 21, 1984

Dear :

Thank you for your recent assistance with the enclosed questionnaire. On the basis of comments received, the questionnaire has been revised. In order to establish re­liability, you are again asked to complete sections I, II, and V of the questionnaire. Should you have additional suggestions for improvement, please complete the Question­naire Evaluation Form.

Enclosed is an Ohio State University note pad, a small tpken of appreciation for your assistance with this doctoral study. You are reminded the questionnaire will soon be used with a proportional stratified sample of superintendents throughout the State of Ohio to obtain their perceptions regarding the importance of various characteristics of schools in the achievement of educational excellence and their perceptions regarding the extent to which those characteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio.

Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope by October 3, 1984 along with the Questionnaire Evaluation Form if you have additional suggestions to offer. Complete respondent confidentiality is assured.

Again, your willingness to assist with this task is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX L

Second Field Test School Board President Letter

223

224

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055September 21, 1984

Dear :

Thank you for your recent assistance with the enclosed questionnaire. On the basis of comments received, the questionnaire has been revised. In order to establish re- ■ liability, you are again asked to complete sections I, II, and V of the questionnaire. Should you have additional suggestions for improvement, please complete the Question­naire Evaluation Form.

Enclosed is an Ohio State University note pad, a small token of appreciation for your assistance with-this doctoral- study. You are reminded the questionnaire will soon be used with a proportional stratified sample of school board presi­dents throughout the State of Ohio to obtain their percep­tions regarding the importance of various characteristics of schools in the achievement of educational excellence and their perceptions regarding the.extent to which those characteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio.

Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope by October 3, 1984 along with the Questionnaire Evaluation Form if you have additional suggestions to offer. Complete respondent confidentiality is assured.

Again, your willingness to assist with this task is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX M

Second Field Test Questionnaire Evaluation Form

225

226

QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION FORM

Please list any additional suggestions you may have for improving the questionnaire. THANK YOU!

APPENDIX N

Introductory Letter to Superintendent Subjects

227

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055October 5, 1984

Dear :

On October 12, 1984, a questionnaire will be mailed to you seeking your participation in a doctoral study concern­ing the characteristics of effective schools. You have been selected from among superintendents throughout the State of Ohio to share your perceptions regarding the importance of various characteristics of schools in the achievement of ed­ucational excellence and your perceptions regarding the ex­tent to which those characteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio.

The study has been endorsed by the State Department of Education, the Buckeye Association -of School Administrators, and the Ohio School Boards Association. The results of the study should prove significant as school improvement pro­jects continue to be an area of interest and focus through­out the State.

Your immediate attention to the completion of the ques­tionnaire upon receipt will be greatly appreciated. Com­plete respondent confidentiality will be assured.

Your assistance will be most helpful. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX 0

Introductory Letter to School Board President Subjects

229

230

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055October 5, 1984

Dear :

On October 12, 1984, a questionnaire will be mailed to you seeking your participation in a doctoral study concern­ing the characteristics of effective schools. You have been selected from among school board presidents throughout the State of Ohio to share your perceptions regarding the impor­tance of various characteristics of schools in the achieve­ment of educational excellence and your perceptions regard­ing the ext’ent to which those characteristics are practiced in the public schools of Ohio.

The study has been endorsed by the State Department of Education, the Ohio School Boards Association, and the Buck­eye Association of School Administrators. The results of the study should prove significant as school improvement projects continue to be an area of interest and focus throughout the State.

Your immediate attention to the completion of the ques­tionnaire upon receipt will be greatly appreciated. Com­plete respondent confidentiality will be assured.

Your assistance will be most helpful. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX P

Questionnaire Cover Letter to Superintendent Subjects

231

232

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055October 12, 1984

Dear :

On October 5, 1984, a letter was sent to you seeking your participation in a doctoral study concerning the characteristics of effective schools. The study has been endorsed by the State Department of Education, the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and the Ohio School Boards Association.

Your immediate attention to completing the question­naire and, returning it in the enclosed envelope p;rior to October 26 will be greatly appreciated. Complete respon­dent confidentiality is assured.

An Ohio State University pencil is enclosed as a very small token of appreciation for your willingness to partici­pate in the study. Thank you for your assistance!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX Q

Questionnaire for Superintendent Subjects

233

234

A RESEARCH STUDY OF SUPERINTENDENTS' PERCEPTIONS

DIRECTIONS

Your questionnaire is identified by a code number to simpli­fy record-keeping and follow-up procedures. In reporting the results, no individual identity will be divulged. Only group statistical responses will be cited. Respondent con­fidentiality is assured.

Please answer every question, making sure each answer is candid and sincere. In the event none of the alternatives provided for a question correspond exactly to your position or opinion, you are asked to select that alternative which comes closest to the answer you would like to give.

Circle the number of the proper alternative using either pen or pencil. If you change a response, please be sure the change is legible and clear in order to facilitate the pro­cessing of data.

Mail your completed questionnaire in the envelope provided. Your cooperation and assistance with this significant study are greatly appreciated.

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS

If educational excellence is to be achieved within a school, how important do you perceive each of the fol­lowing characteristics to be? Use the following code to indicate your perceptions:

5 = of very high importance 4 = of high importance 3 = of moderate importance 2 = of minimal importance 1 = of no importance

IF EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE IS TO BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A SCHOOL, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT:

5 4 3 2 1 (1) there be strong instructional leader­ship on the part of the principal?

5 4 3 2 1 (2) the principal be a disciplinarian?

235

(3) the principal hold high expectations for the staff to be outstanding teachers?

5 4

5 4

4

4

5 4

(4) there be a set of clearly stated goals for the school which the entire staff emphasizes?

(5) the atmosphere of the school be or­derly and business-like?

(6) teachers maintain consistency in the treatment of students?

(7) students be given the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task?

(.8) the principal have control of the school and the school program?

(9) the principal be highly visible in hallways and classrooms?

. \

(10) teachers and the principal hold high expectations for all students to learn a set of essential skills?

(11) the top priority of a school be the mastery of a set of essential skills that takes precedence over all other activities?

(12) there be a se.nse of cohesiveness among the s'tiidents, the teachers, and the principal of the school?

(13) rewards be stressed rather than pun­ishments?

(14) there be a structured learning envi­ronment based on courses of study in which instructional activities are teacher-selected and teacher- directed?

5 4

1 (15) a process exists for monitoring themastery of a set of essential skills?

1 (16) there be pleasant working conditions for students?

236

5 4 3 2 1 (17) parents and community members be in­volved in the activities of the school?

5 4 3 2 1 (18) there be an ongoing program designedto recognize students for their ac­complishments?

5 4 3 2 1 (19) effective inservice teacher educationprograms be provided for the staff?

5 4 3 2 1 (20) students master one unit of instruc­tion before moving on to the next unit?

5 4 3 2 1 (21) the principal have a plan based uponresearch for achieving educational excellence ?

5 4 3 2 1 (22) all of the above characteristics bepresent?

II. ARE SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH YOU NOTED AS BEING '"OF VERY HIGH IMPORTANCE" MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS?IF SO. WHICH OWES ARE THEY AND WHY?

III. ARE THERE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS WHICH YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST? IF SO. WHATARE THEY AND WHY?

237

IV. THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHARACTERISTICS ARE PRACTICED

To what extent do you perceive the following character­istics to be practiced in the public schools of Ohio? Use the following code to indicate your perceptions:

5 = practiced to a very high level4 = practiced to a high level3 = practiced to a moderate level2 = practiced to a minimal level1 = not practiced

IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO, TO WHAT EXTENT:

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

4 3

4 3

4 3

3

3

3

2

2

(1) are principals serving as strong in­structional leaders?

(2) are principals disciplinarians?

(3) do principals hold high expectations for their staffs to be outstanding teachers?

(4) do schools have a set of clearly • stated goals which an entire staff emphasizes?

(5) are atmospheres of schools orderly and business-like?

(6) do teachers within a building main­tain consistency in the treatment of students?

(7) are students given the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task?

(8) do principals have control of their schools and their school programs?

(9) are principals highly visible in hallways and classrooms?

1 (10) do teachers and principals hold high expectations for all students to learn a set of essential skills?

238

5 4 3 2 1 (11) is the top priority of schools themastery of a set of essential skills that takes precedence over all other activities?

5 4 3 2 1 (12) is there a sense of cohesivenessamong the students, the teachers, and the principal within schools?

5 4 3 2 1 (13) are rewards rather than punishmentsstressed?

5 4 3 2 1 (14) are there structured learning envi­ronments based on courses of study in which instructional activities are teacher-selected and teacher- directed?

5 4 3 2 1 (15) is there a process for monitoring themastery of a set of essential skills?

5 4 3 2 1.(16) do pleasant working conditions forstudents exist?

5 4 3 2 1 (17) are parents and community members in­volved in the activities of schools?

5 4 3 2 1 (18) do schools have, ongoing recognitionprograms for student accomplishments?

5 4 3 2 1 (19) are effective inservice teacher edu­cation programs provided for staff members?

5 4 3 2 1 (20) do students master one un-it of in­struction before moving on to the next unit?

5 4 3 2 1 (21) do principals have plans based uponresearch for achieving educational excellence?

PLEASE SHARE ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS YOU MAY HAVE CON-CERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THESE CHARACTERISTICS AREPRACTICED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO

239

VI. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. What is your sex?

1. Female2. Male

2. What is your age?

3. 30 years or younger4. 31 - 40 years5. 41 - 50 years6. 51 - 60 years7. 61 years or older

3. What is your present marital status?

8. Single9. Married

10. Divorced/Separated11. Widowed

4. Do you have or have you had children of your own en­rolled in public school, grades K-12?

12. Yes13. No

5. With which ethnic group would you identify yourself?

14. White (non-Hispanic)15. Black (non-Hispanic)16. Chicano/Hispanic17. Native American (Indian, Eskimo)18. Asian/Pacific Islander19. Other (specify)_____________________________

6. Politically, which of the following do you consider yourself to be?

20. Democrat21. Independent22. Republican23. Other (specify)_________ :___________________

240

7. Which is your highest level of educational attain­ment?

24. Bachelor Degree25. Master Degree26. Specialist Degree27. Doctoral Degree

8. In what type of community is your school district lo­cated?

28. Large urban center/city29. Rural30. Suburban city in a metropolitan area31. Town/small city

9. Which of the following represents your type of school district?

32. City33. Exempted Village34. Local

10. What is the current enrollment of your school dis­trict?

35. Less than 30036. 300 - • 99937. 1,000 - 2,99938. 3,000 - 4,99939. 5,000 - 9,99940. 10,000 - 24,99941. 25,000 - 49,99942. 50,000 - 99,99943. 100,000 or more

11. What was your initial level of teaching certifica­tion?

44. Elementary45. Secondary46. Elementary and Secondary

241

12. How many years of experience have you had as a class­room teacher?

47. 0 years48. 1 - 5 years49. 6 - 1 0 years50. 11 - 15 years51. 16 - 20 years52. 21 or more years

13. How many years of experience have you had as a build­ing principal?

53. 0 years54. 1 - 5 years55. 6 - 1 0 years56. 11 - 15 years57. 16 - 20 years58. 21 or more years

14. How many years of experience have you had in the su­perintendency, excluding the current school year?

59; 0 years60. 1 - 5 years61. 6 - 10 years62. 11 - 15 years63. 16 - 20 years64. 21 or more years

THANK YOU! Would you like to receive a copy of the finalresults of the study? YES_____ NO______

APPENDIX R

Questionnaire Cover Letter to

School Board President Subjects

242

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055October 12, 1984

Dear :

On October 5, 1984, a letter was sent to you seeking your participation in a doctoral study concerning the characteristics of effective schools. The study has been endorsed by the State Department of-Education, the Ohio School Boards Association, and the Buckeye Association of School Administrators.

Y.our immediate attention to. completing the question­naire and returning it in the enclosed envelope prior to October 2'6 will be greatly appreciated. Complete respon­dent confidentiality is assured.

An Ohio State University pencil is enclosed as a very small token of appreciation for your willingness to partici­pate in the study. Thank you for your assistance!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX S

Questionnaire for School Board President Subjects

244

245

A RESEARCH STUDY OF THE

PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENTS

DIRECTIONS

Your questionnaire is identified by a code number to simpli­fy record-keeping and follow-up procedures. In reporting the results, no individual identity will be divulged. Only group statistical responses will be cited. Respondent con­fidentiality is assured.

Please answer every question, making sure each answer is candid and sincere. In the event none of the alternatives provided for a question correspond exactly to your position or opinion, you are asked to select that alternative which comes closest to the answer you would like to give.

Circle the number of the proper alternative using either pen or pencil. If you change a response, please be sure the change is legible and clear in order to facilitate the pro­cessing of data.

Mail y.our completed questionnaire in the envelope provided. Your cooperation and assistance with this significant study are greatly appreciated.

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS

If educational excellence is to be achieved within a school, how important do you perceive each of the fol­lowing characteristics to be? Use the following code to indicate your perceptions:

5 = of very high importance4 = of high importance3 = of moderate importance 2 = of minimal importance 1 = of no importance

IF EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE IS TO BE ACHIEVED WITHIN A SCHOOL, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT:

5 4 3 2 1 (1) there be strong instructional leader­ship on the part of the principal?

5 4 3 2 1 (2) the principal be a disciplinarian?

246

5 4

5

5

4

4 3

3

4

4 3

3

4 3

5 4 3

2

2

2

(3) the principal hold high expectations for the staff to be outstanding teachers?

(4) there be a set of clearly stated goals for the school which the entire staff emphasizes?

(5) the atmosphere of the school be or­derly and business-like?

(6) teachers maintain consistency in the treatment of students?

(7) students be given the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task?

(8) the principal have control of the school and the school program?

(9) the principal be highly visible in hallways and classrooms?

(10) teachers and the principal hold high expectations for all .students to learn a set of essential skills?

(11) the top priority of a school be the mastery of a set of essential skills that takes precedence over all other activities?

(12) there be a sense of cohesiveness among the students, the teachers, and the principal of the school?

(13) rewards be stressed rather than pun­ishments?

(14) there be a structured learning envi­ronment based on courses of study in which instructional activities are teacher-selected and teacher- directed?

4

4

1 (15) a process exists for monitoring themastery of a set of essential skills?

1 (16) there be pleasant working conditions for students?

247

5 4 3 2 1 (17) parents and community members be in­volved in the activities of the school?

5 4 3 2 1 (18) there be an ongoing program designedto recognize students for their ac­complishments?

5 4 3 2 1 (19) effective inservice teacher educationprograms be provided for the staff?

5 4 3 2 1 (20) students master one unit of instruc­tion before moving on to the next unit?

5 4 3 2 1 (21) the principal have a plan based uponresearch for achieving educational excellence?

5 4 3 2 1 (22) all of the above characteristics bepresent?

II. ARE SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH YOU NOTED AS BEING "OF VERY HIGH IMPORTANCE" MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS?IF SO. WHICH ONES ARE THEY AND WHY?

III. ARE THERE CHARACTERISTICS OF EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS WHICH YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST? IF SO. WHAT ARE THEY AND WHY?

248

IV, THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHARACTERISTICS ARE PRACTICED

To what extent do you perceive the following character­istics to be practiced in the public schools of Ohio? Use the following code to indicate your perceptions:

5 = practiced to a very high level4 = practiced to a high level3 = practiced to a moderate level2 = practiced to a minimal level1 = not practiced

IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO, TO WHAT EXTENT:

5

5

4

4

4

4

5 4

3

3

2

2

3 • 2

(1) are principals serving as strong in­structional leaders?

(2) are principals disciplinarians?

(3) do principals hold high expectations for their staffs to be outstanding teachers?

(4) do schools have a set of clearly stated goals which an entire staff emphasizes?

(5) are atmospheres.of schools orderly and business-like?

(6) do teachers within a building main­tain consistency in the treatment of students?

(7) are students given the opportunity to learn by emphasizing time-on-task?

(8) do principals have control of their schools and their school programs?

(9) are principals highly visible in hallways and classrooms?

(10) do teachers and principals hold high expectations for all students to learn a set of essential skills?

249

5 4 3 2 1 (11) is the top priority of schools themastery of a set of essential skills that takes precedence over all other activities?

5 4 3 2 1 (12) is there a sense of cohesivenessamong the students, the teachers, and the principal within schools?

5 4 3 2 - 1 (13) are rewards rather than punishmentsstressed?

5 4 3 2 1 (14) are there structured learning envi­ronments based on courses of study in which instructional activities are teacher-selected and teacher- directed?

5 4 3 2 1 (15) is there a process for monitoring themastery of a set of essential skills?

5 4 3 2 1 (16) do pleasant working conditions forstudents exist?

5 4 3 2 1 (17) are par'ents and community members in­volved in the activities of schools?

5 4 3 2 1 (18) do schools have ongoing recognition •programs for student accomplishments?

5 4 3 2 1 (19) are effective inservice teacher edu­cation programs provided for staff members ?

5 4 3 2 1 (20) do students master one unit of in­struction before moving on to the next unit?

5 4 3 2 1 (21) do principals have plans based uponresearch for achieving educational excellence?

V. PLEASE SHARE ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS YOU MAY HAVE CON­CERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THESE CHARACTERISTICS AREPRACTICED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF OHIO

250

VI. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

1. What is your sex?

1. Female2. Male

2. What is your age?

3. 30 years or younger4. 31 - 40 years5. 41 - 50 years6. 51 - 60 years7. 61 years or older

3. What is your present marital status?

8. Single9. Married

10. Divorced/Separated11. Widowed

4. Do you have or have you had children enrolled in in public school, grades K-12?

12. Yes13. No

5. With which ethnic group would you identify yourself?

14. White (non-Hispanic)15. Black (non-Hispanic)16. Chicano/Hispanic17. Native American (Indian, Eskimo)18. Asian/Pacific Islander19 . Other (specify)_________ ___________________

6. Politically, which of the following do you consider yourself to be?

20. Democrat21. Independent22. Republican23. Other (specify)_____________________________

251

7. Which is your highest level of educational attain­ment?

24. Less than a high school diploma25. High school diploma26. Associate Degree27. Bachelor Degree28. Master Degree29. Doctoral Degree

8. In what type of community is your school district lo­cated?

30. Large urban center/city31. Rural32. Suburban city in a metropolitan area33. Town/small city

9. Which of the following represents your type of school district?

34. City35. Exempted Village36. Local

10. What is the current enrollment of your- school dis­trict?

37. Less than 30038. 300 - 99939. 1,000 - 2,99940. 3,000 - 4,99941. 5,000 - 9,99942. 10,000 - 24,99943. 25,000 - 49,99944. 50,000 - 99,99945. 100,000 or more

11. How many years have you completed as a member of a board of education?

46. 0 years47. 1 - 3 years48. 4 - 6 years49. 7 - 9 years50. 10 - 12 years51. 13 - 15 years52. 16 or more years

252

12. Have you had public school teaching experience?

53. Yes54. No

13. Have you had public school administrative experience?

55. Yes56. No

THANK YOU! Would you like to receive a copy of the finalresults of the study? YES_____ NO______

APPENDIX T

Follow-Up Cover Letter to Non-Respondents

253

254

"A PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS"

803 Craig Parkway Newark, OH 43055 October 31, 1984

Dear :

YOUR INPUT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! A copy of the enclosed questionnaire was mailed earlier. Since your completed questionnaire has not been received, a second copy is enclosed.

Completing the questionnaire and returning it in the envelope provided, by November 9 , will be truly appreciated. Complete respondent confidentiality is assured.

Thank you for your assistance with this study!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX U

Cover Letter to Respondents Having Missing Data

255

803 Craig ParkwayNewark, OH 43055November 28, 1984

Dear :

Earlier this fall you participated in a research study on the Characteristics of Effective Schools. Your assis­tance was greatly appreciated! The data is now being com­piled. The question on the enclosed post card had no re­sponse given on your questionnaire. In order to have com­plete data, it would be most helpful if you would respond to the question on the post card and then return the post card in tomorrow's mail.

Your response will be most valuable and will allow the study to be completed. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Robert R. Hite

APPENDIX V

Means for Early and Late Respondents

Regarding the Importance of the Characteristics

of Effective Schools

TABLE 15

257

258

TABLE 15

Means for Early and Late Respondents

Regarding the Importance of the Characteristics

of Effective Schools

Characteristics SuperinlEarly

LendentsLate

Board Pr< Early

ssidentsLate

1. Strong instruc­tional leadership 4.840 4. 790 4.508 4.722

2. Principal be a disciplinarian 4.000 4.053 4.148 3.944

3. High expectations for staff 4.833 4.842 4.705 4.778

4. Clearly stated goals 4.627 4.632 4.434 4.556

5. Orderly/business- like atmosphere ■ 4.380 4.316 4.123 4.083

6. Consistency in treating students 4.520 4.421 4.475 4.417

7. Opportunity tolearn/time-on-task 4.300 4.053 3.836’ 3.911

8. Principal has con­trol of school 4.147 4. 158 4.223 4.236

9. Principal visible: halls/classrooms 4.120 4.368 3.844 3.833

10.High expectations for students 4.733 4.790 4.500 4.528

11.Master a set of essential skills 3.873 4. 105 3.967 3.861

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 4.347 4.316 4.098- 4.167

13.Rewards stressed/ not punishments 4.153 4.158 4.016 4.167

14.Structured learn­ing environment 4.040 4. 158 3.638 3.657

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 4.273 4.421 4.142 4.389

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 4.173 4.211 4.091 4.111

17.Parent/communi ty involvement 4.067 3.895 4.230 4.417

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 4.290 4.421 4.443 4.500

19.Inservice program for staff 4.273 4.316 4.139 4.194

20.Master one unit before moving on 3.813 3.790 3.861 3.972

259

TABLE 15 (continued)

21.Educational planbased on research 3.900 4.000 3.902 4.166

22.All of the above must be present 4.147 4.053 3.988 4.071

APPENDIX W

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Superintendents' Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics

TABLE 16

260

261

TABLE 16

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Superintendents’ Perceptions - Importance of Characteristics

Source of Variance

Sum of Squares

Degrees of Freedom

Mean Sq uare

F

Between 2.873 1 2.873 0.058Within 8.264.661 167 49.488Total 8,267.534 168

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05

APPENDIX X

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late

Board Presidents’ Perceptions-Importance o

TABLE 17

Respondents

Characteristics

262

263

TABLE 17

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Board Presidents' Perceptions-Iraportance of Characteristics

Source of Variance

Sura of Squares

Degrees of Freedom

MeanSquares

F

Between 52.126 1 52.126 1.065Within 7,637.043 156 48.955Total 7,689.169 157

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05

APPENDIX Y

Means for Early and Late Respondents

Regarding the Extent to Which the Characteristics of

Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools

of Ohio

TABLE 18

264

265

TABLE 18

Means for Early and Late Respondents

Regarding the Extent to Which the Characteristics of

Effective Schools Were Practiced in the Public Schools

of Ohio

Characteristics Superin Early

:endents • Late

Board Pr Early

asidentsLate

1. Strong instruc­tional leadership 3.228 3.053 3.277 3.059

2. Principal is a disciplinarian 3.832 3.895 3.521 3.265

3. High expectations for staff 3.228 3. 105 3.361 3.265

4. Clearly stated goals 2.779 2.895 3.160 2.824

5. Orderly/business- like atmosphere 3.450 3.263 3.261 3.147

6. Consistency in treating students 2.893 3.000 2.983 2.779

7. Opportunity to' learn/tirae-on-task 2.987 2.947 3.118 2.854

8. Principal has con­trol of school 3.336 3.526 3.298 3.265

9. Principal visible: halls/classrooms 3.208 3. 263 3.177 3.206

10.High expectations for students 3.087 3. 105 3.235 3.206

11.Master a set of essential skills 2.913 2.947 3.008 2.986

12.Sense of cohesive­ness within school 3.040 3.053 3.025 2.897

13.Rewards stressed not punishments 2.966 3.105 3.109 3.000

14.Structured learn­ing environment 3.188 3.316 3.271 3.156

15.Monitor the mas­tery of skills 2.812 2.947 3.143 3.029

16.Pleasant condi­tions for students 3.389 3.368 3.487 3.279

17.Parent/community involvement 2.993 2.895 3.101 2.912

18.Recognition pro­gram for students 3.289 3.368 3.412 3.147

19.Inservice program for staff 2.960 2.632 3.279 3.177

266

TABLE 18 (continued)

20.Master one unitbefore moving on 2.832 2.842 2.924 2.735

21.Educational plan based on research 2.510 2.421 3.000 2.854

APPENDIX Z

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Superintendents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio

TABLE 19

267

268

TABLE 19

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Superintendents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio

Source of Variance

Sura of Squares

Degrees of Freedom

MeanSquare

F

Between 0.012 1 0.012 0.0001Within 12.395.982 166 74.674Total 12,395.944 167

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05

APPENDIX AA

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Board Presidents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio

TABLE 20

269

270

TABLE 20

Analysis of Variance: Early and Late Respondents

Board Presidents' Perceptions - Extent Practiced in Ohio

Source of Variance

Sum of Sq uar es

Degrees of Freedom

MeanSquare

F

Between 255.914 1 255.914 2.503Within 15.440.882 151 102.257Total 15,696 .-796 152

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE at p = .05