R Epor T Resumes

R EPOR TRESUMES

ED 0!! 085 24 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSAND EFFECTIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS. BY- OTTO, HENRY J. VELDMAN, DONALD J. TEXAS UNIV., AUSTIN REPORT NUMBER CRF-S-350 PUB DATE 66 REPORT NUMBER BR-5-8126 ERRS PRICE MF-$0.09HC-$2.32 58F.

DESCRIPTORS- SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION, *PRINCIPALS,*FUVLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS, *ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS,COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, *ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, 'TEACHERADMINISTRATOR RELATIONSHIP, DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE, MCLEOD CONTROL STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE, AUSTIN

THE CONTROL STRUCTURE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSYSTEMS WAS RELATED TO THE DIMENSIONS OF ORGANIZATIONALCLIMATE BY INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIPS OF ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS'AND TEACHERS' SCORES ON TWO MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS.THE HALPIN-CROFT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE DESCRIPTIONQUESTIONNAIRE AND fHE MCLEOD CONTROL STRUCTURE DESCRIPTIONQUESTIONNAIRE WERE ADMINISTERED TO 38 PRINCIPALS AND684 TEACHERS. THE LATTER TEST CONTAINED 80 PROBLEM SITUATIONSDISTRIBUTEn EQUALLY INTO THE FOUR FUNCTIONALAREAS OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM, DEVELOPING PERSONNEL, MANAGING THESCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS. IT WAS FOUND THAT THEREWERE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AND AMONG THE PRINCIPALS' ALLOCATIONS OF SCORES ON BOTH TESTS AND THE TEACHERS'ALLOCATIONS OF SCORES ON BOTH TESTS. THE GENERAL CONCLUSION, HOWEVER,WAS THAT PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS DO NOT USE A COMMONFRAME OR REFERENCE FOR VIEWING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO EACHOTHER, AND THEY SEE DECISION MAKING AND SCHOOL CLIMATE FROMDISSIMILAR VANTAGE POINTS. (GD) f,rnl'i.VVTION AND WELFARE irhisdocum,s,, cerSori Cr Y.y = r roceivedfrom the A,. Stated 00nt,, cf viewcr opinions position or c.riiciJ Officeof Education

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLSIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AND EFFECTIVE WORKINGRELATIONSHIPS

Cooperative Resear e t Bureau Numb 81

Henry J. Otto, PrinoipalInvestigator and Donald J. Ifeldman The University ofTexas Austin, Texas

June 15, 1965 to May 31,1966

The research reportedherewith was supported by the CooperativeResearch Program of the Office of Education,U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Table of Contents

Topic Page

1. Problem 1

2. Rationale and Hypotheses 3

3. General Information Data 6

4. Testing the Hypotheses 20

5. Concluding Observations 33

6. Bibliography 41

7. Appendix A 42

8. Vignette Instrument II 45

ii List of Tables Page 1. Vignette Decision Scores: School SystemA . . 7 2. Vignette Influence Scores: School SystemA . 8 3. Correlations betweenDecision Scores and Influence Scores 9 4. Correlations betweenTeachers' Mean Self- Assigned DecisionScores and Principals' Decision ScoresAssigned to Teachers;and between Teachers'Mean Self-Assigned Influence Scoresand Principals'Influence Scores Assigned toTeachers 15 5. Correlations betweenPrincipals Self,..Assigned Decision Scoresand Teachers' MeanDecision Scores Assignedto Principals; andbetween Principals'Self-Assigned InfluenceScores and Teachers' MeanInfluence Scores Assigned to Principals 16 6. Canonical Analysis:Principals'vs. Teachers' Decision Allocation 17 7. Canonical Analysis:Principals'vs. Teachers' OCDQ Scores 19

8. Correlations betweenPrincipals' Self-Assigned Decision Scores and Principals' OCDQ Scores . . 25 9. Correlations betweenPrincipals' Decision Scores Assigned toTeachers and Principals' OCDQ Scores 26 10. Canonical Analysis:Principal OCDQvs. Principal Decision Allocation . 28 11. Correlations betweenTeachers' Self-Assigned Decision Scores and Teachers' OCDQScores . . 30

iii 12. Correlations betweenTeachers' Decision Scores Assigned toPrincipals and Teachers' OCDQ Scores 31 13, Canonical Analysis:Teacher OCDQvs. Teacher Decision Allocation ... . , . 32 Problem

The object of the study reportedherewith was

to relate the controlstructure in public school systems

as perceived by elementary schoolprincipals and tea-

chers in four types of schoolproblem areas to the

dimensions of theorganizational climate of the schools

as perceived by principals andteachers. The project

included 38 elementary schoolswith 698 teachers in six

school systems of differentsize in,Texas. Usable re-

sponses were obtained from 38 principalsand 684

teachers. Two instrumentswere administered to all

teachers and the principalin each of the 38 schools.

The instrumentswere the Halpin-Croft 2rganizational

Climate DescriptionQuestionnaire (hereafter called 3 OCDQ) and the McLeod ControlStructure Description 6 Questionnaire. The latter, also calledthe Vignette

Instrument, contained 80problem situations distributed

equally into four functionalareas as follows:

Functions No. of items

1. Educational Program 20

2. Developing personnel 20

3. Managing the school 20

4. Community relations 20

Total 80

1 2

The Vignette Instrument (acopy of which is

appended to this report) directed eachperson to respond

twice to each item. The response sheet containedseven

columns labeled Teacher(s), Principal(s), Cur. Dir.(s),

Supervisor(s), Business Manager, Superintendent,and

School Board. The respondent's first taskwas to place

an xin the column representing theperson (position)

in the organization who the respondent thought madethe

final decisionon each item. The second task was to place a value of 1 to 5 under thename or names of per-

sons who influenced the decision; the total influence values so allocated couldnever exceed 5 but could be distributed among asmany.as 5 diff6rent persons or could all be assigned to the final decision-maker ifhe arrived at the decision by himself without influence from anyone else. The number ofx's assigned to a person provided the decision score (size of the decision domain) and thesum of the influence values assigned to a person provided his influencescore. The

OCDQ was scored in accordance with directionsprovided by Halpin and Croft; allraw scores were converted to standard scores with amean of 50 and a standard devia- tion of 10 using statistics published by Halpin and

Croft. 3

The number of elementary school teachers in

the six school systems ranged from 56 to 389. In the

three largest school systems only six schoolswere in-

eluded in the study but thesewere chosen so that they

ranged from the smallest to the largest school in each

system.

Rationale and Hypotheses

In this study control structurewas defined

as the organization for decision-making. In the formal

organization role assignments (usually identified by

position titles and sometimes accompanied by job de-

scriptions) invariably include the authority tomake 2 decisions on certain matters. Fogarty and Greggused

the phrase "locus of decision points" toidentify who

in the school system'was primarily responsible for

making a particular decision. The formal structure for

decision-making may be highly centralizedor highly de-

centralized; in the lattercase it may be said to be

diffuse, with many types of decision made bypersons

at different levels in the scalar chain ofcommand.

A school system in which thestructure for decision- making is diffuse elementary school principalsand

teachers may havea large decision domain. 4

It was assumed thatprincipals and teachers

were professionals and as a result wouldenjoy a high

degree of autonomy in theirwork, would be happy with

a large decision and influence domain,and that those

who assigned themselves highdecision and influence

scores would manifest asense of personal satisfaction

and accomplishment intheir work and hence wouldrate organizational climateas high in esprit, thrust, and

consideration and low indisengagement, hindrance,and

aloofness. For teachers thisassumption would bepar-

ticularly true with referenceto the educationalpro-

gram (Blau and Scottl pp. 61-68 and 209).Peabody?in

studying the types ofauthority relations ina welfare

organization, a policedepartment, anda public elementary

school found the moststriking contrast between these

three public serviceagencies to be the relativeimpor-

tance attached to authorityof professional competence in the elementary school.

A complicatingfactor in using decisiondo-

main aloneas an index against which to relateviews of organizational climateis the fact that decision

point and influenceon the 'decision do not alwaysagree.

A teachermay rate his own professional autonomyas

k 5 high if theteacher knows that his viewsare thesdeter- mining factor even though the finaldecision is madeby the principal or someone even higherup in the administrative hierarchy. This possibilitywas gii.en strong support in Kimbroughls4 report ofdecision-making in individual schools.

The following hypotheseswere formulated and tested:

Hypotheses No.1. Thereare significant

relationships betweenprincipals' allocation of decision scores and principals'scores in the eightdimensions of 0C D Q.

Hypotheses No.2. There are significant relationships between teachers'allocation of decision scores and teachers'scores in the eight dimensionsof 0 C D Q.

The precedinghypothesesare stated in general terms and ignore the factthat teachersas well as principals could assign decisionand influence'scores to supervisors, curriculum directors,superintendent, business manager, and school board. The present study focused specifically upon relationships inelementary schools; hencethe decision and influenceassignments to levels above the principalare treated only inci-

dentally in the discussion of thefindings. The phraseology

of the hypotheses also overlooksthe fact that the rela-

tionships might differ for thefour functionalareas; these,

too, will be treated in thediscussion of the findings.a

General Information Data

To assist the reader inunderstanding more

easily the data presented laterin testing the hypotheses,

certain general information ispresented in this section.

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate (forSchool System A) the way

in which teachers and principalsdistributed the de-

cision and influencescores. Decision point and in-

fluence on the decisionseem to go together (Table 3).

If you wish to knowwho exerts the greatest influenceon the decision, find out whomakes the final decision.

The fact that decision pointand influence seem to go together does not necessarilymean that

a. Donald J. Veldman directedthe tie atment of data, wrote the computerprograms, and assisted in the interpretation of data. The formulas and statistical tables usedmay be found in Robert K. Young and Donald J. Veldman. Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1965, and in DonaldJ. Veldman Fortran Pro- graming for the Behavioral Sciences,Holt, Rinehart & Winston (in pmss). TABLE I Scores Vignette Decision Scores School System A Development Managing Functional Areas Community 1. Teachers a. By PrincipalsAssigned to EucationalProgramd 7.800 Personnel 2.000 of 1.800School the Relations 1.200 Total 12.800 2. Principals b.a.b. By By teachers PrincipalsTeachers 7.3577.4007.472 7.8427.2001.885 12.90013.000 1.937 5.4255.6002.113 33.52333.200t13.407 3. Curriculum Direc. a. B . y Principals_eachers 2.600 1.600 1.000 1.400 6.600 5.4. Supt.Supervisors & Busi. Mgr. b.a. B By Principals Teachers 3.063 .247.400 0.0001.105 .260 .548.600.790 0.000 .087.910 1.1421.0005.868 6. School Board a.b.a. ByB By Principals Principals Teachers 0.0001.5451.800 7.4158.200 3.2002.635 6.4959.000 18.09022.200 aPrincipals'wereprincipalsb.follows: Bydecisionaveraged Teachers ain meanover the wasschools.school computed system. for scores used in.317 this table are the teachersTeachers'1.4931.000 in decisioneach school and then these 1.190 .400 scores were computed as average scores for 4.9702.800 7.9704.200 means 'Vignette Influence Scores School System A TABLE 2 Assigned Scores mote Educational Development of Managing the Functional Areas Community 2.1. PrincipalsTeachers b.a. BBy Principals to Teachers 44.33744.200Program Personnel 12.53713.400 13.94315.600School Relations 15.02314.600 Total 85.84087.800 3. Curriculum Direc. a.bat11111119ipals B Bar Teachers Principals 10.80035.35738.400 43.95540.800 9.400 61.79760.600.4.600 31.99031.600 4.600 173.098171.400 29.400 5.4. Supt.Supervisors & Busi. Mgr. b.a. ByBy PrtaciptaL7.Teachers Teachers__,_ 11.725 1.4533.800 4.0006.793 4.6004.2972.880 1.1583.0006.407 15,40029.222 8.115 6. School Board a.b. By PrincipalsTeachers 6.0602.600 .200 31.40029.683 1.000 13.59713.600 1.000 11.00035.20029.823 13.20079.16382.800 aPrincipals'wereprincipalsfollows: influenceaveraged ina meanoverthe schoolschools.b. system.By Teachers was computed for teachers in each school scores used in this table1.068 Teachers' influence 4.406 are3.487 the average scores for scores were computed as and then these means15.598 24.562' 9

TABLE 3

Correlations between Decision Scores

and Influence Scoresa

Principal Source Teacher Source

TeacherPrincipal Teacher Principal Object Object Object Object Functional Area

1. Educational Program .56 .61 .78 .86

2. Development of Personnel .49 .55 .79 .87

3. Managing the School .43 .82 .68 .88

4. Community Relations .42 .79 .58 .86-

5. Total .48 .87 .71 .87

...... 11,

aAll correlations in thistable are significant at the 1 percent level. 10

teachers and principalsagree on the distribution of

these assignmentswithin the fourfunctional areas. To

ascertain whatdifferences, ifany, existed, analysis

of variance tests*were applied to the relationships

between principal andteacher allocation ofthese

scores. The results ofthese analysesare summarized below.

Decision Allocationto Teachers

(1) Educational Program: no significant effects

(2) Personnel Development:A significant systems

effect (p.= .0042) One systemwas very much

below the other 5in allocation by bothprin- cipals and teachersin its 11 schools.

(3) Managing the School:no significant effects

* A technicaldescription of theanalysis of variance design used to studyeach of the 28 variableslisted here and ina later section of this reportmay be found in Appendix A. In brief, the"sources" effect refers to teacher-principal differences, the "systems"effect refers to differences among the 6 school systemscon- cerned, and the "interaction" effectindicates the degree to which teacher-principal differences varyacross the six schoolsystems. The "sources" effectis of primary interest inLhis report. "p" coefficientsare the probabilities that the observeddifferenceswere due only to chance. 11 (4) Community Relations:a significantsources effect (p= .0001) Principals allocatedless power to teachers than the teachersdid to themselves in thisarea. (5) Totalof all 4 Areas: A significantsources effect fp= .0132) Principals allocateless

decision-makingpower to teachers thanthe teachers allocateto themselves.

Decision Allocationto Principals (1) Educational Program: Asignificantsources effect (p = .0205) Principals allocatemore power to themselves than teachersallocate to them.

A significant systems effect (p= .0516): Substantial differences existamong the 6

systems in amountof powerallocated to principals.

(2) Development of Personnel:A significantsystems effect (p = .0050): Systemsvary considerably in amount of power allocated toprincipals. (3) Manaqing the School: Asignificant systems effect (p = .0003) Systemsvary considerably in amount of power allocated toprincipaJo 12

A significant interaction effect (p = .0216): 2

of the 6 systems showed lower allocation by

principals than by teachers.

(4) Community Relations: A significant sources effect

(p = .0083) Teachers allocated more power to the

principal than he did to himself in most of the

38 schools.

(5) Total of all 4 Areas: A significant systems effect

(p = .0008) A considerable degree of variation

was found among school systems in allocation of

power to principals.

Influence Attributed to Teachers

(1) Educational_ Program: systems were significantly

different from one another (p = .00005)

(2) Development of Personnel: systems were signiri-

cantly different from one another (p = .0266)

(3) Managing the School: no significant effects

(4) Community Relations: no significant effects

(5) Total of all 4 Areas: systems were significantly

different in the influence attributed to teachers

(p = .0038) 13

lrfl.-?.nce Attributedto Principals (1) Educational Program: systemswere significantly

different generally(p= .0361), and principals

attributedmore influence tothemselves than

their teachersdid to them (p= .0125) (2) Development of Personnel: systemswere sig-

nificantly different(p= .0001) (3) Managing the School: systemswere significantly

different ingeneral (p= .0017) and a significant interaction (p= .0481) indicated that2

of the 6 systemshad higheraverages by principals than byteachers. (4) Community Relations:,systems weresignificantly different (p = .0038). Teachers attributedmore

influence to theprincipals than theydid to themselves (p = .0252), and a significantinteraction (p = .0094) was due to 2 ofthe 6 systemswhere

principalsgave themselvesmore influence than did theirteachers. (5) Total of all 4 Areas: Systemswere significantly different in attribution ofinfluence to principals (p= .00005). 14 The extentto which teachers andprincipals agree on theallocation of decision andinfluencescores to each other was tested in twoways. Tables 4 and 5 contain ProductMoment correlations. The major disa- greementsappear to arise in connection withdevelop- ment ofpersonnel and in decisionscores in thearea of communityrelations (Table 4). The degreeof agreement is tenuousin regard to theprincipal's rolein the educational program as-perceivedby the twogroups (Table 5). ahe second treatment of thedata wasa canonical analysisof the relationshipsbetween principals' and teachers'decision score allocation (Table6). The relationshipbetween principals' and teachers'allocations ofdecision-making may be adequatelysummarized withone composite dimension. The commonpattern is for principals-tosee themselves involved inDevelopment of Personneland Managing the School andtheir teachers as concerned with Development ofPorsonnel and the EducationalProgram. The teachers,however,see them- selvesas involved only with theEducationallrogram and theirprincipals as concerned withthis evenmore strongly, along with Developmentof Personnel. 15

TABLE 4

Correlations between Teachers' Mean Self Assigned Decision Scores and Principals' Decision Scores Assigned to Teachers; and between Teachers' Mean Influence Scores Assigned to Themselves and Principals' Influence Scores Assigned to Teachers

Decision Influence Functional Areas Scores Scores

1. Educational Program .42a .54a

2. Development of Personnel .19 .12

3. Managing the School .33 .39

4. Community Relations .26 .30

5. Total* .40 .40

a Correlations below .30 are not significant; those between .30 and .39 are significant at the 5 percent level; those over .39 are significant at the 1 percent level. 16

TABLE 5

Correlations between Principals'Self-assigned Decision Scoresand Teachers'Mean Decision Scores Assignedto Principal;and between Principals'Self-assignedInfluence Scores Teachers' Mean and Influence ScoresAssigned to Principals

Decision Functional Areas Influence Scores Scores

1. EducationalProgram .35a .23a 2. Development of Personnel .35 .51 3. Managing the School .36 .55 4. Community Relations .35 .42 5. Total .45 .55

aCorrelationsbelow .30are not significant; between .30 and those .39 are significantat the 5per- cent level;those over .39 are significantat the 1 percentlevel.

I 17

TABLE 6

--:Canonical Anal sis: Principals' vs. Teachers' Decision Allocation

Correlations with Canonical Variable

Area P-T Correlation P-C T-C Teacher Decision

Educ. Program .42** .30 .38

Dev. Personnel .19 .56 .08

Manage School .33* -.01 -.08

Comm. Relate .26 -.04 -.01

Principal Decision

Educe Program .35* .26 .59

Dev. Personnel .35* .46 .36

Manage School ,36* .37 .28

Comm. Relate .35* .12 .05

One significant canonicalfunction 2= 49.75,

df = 15, p= ..0001) canonical r = .90 18 There is considerabledisagreement between

teachers and principalsregarding most of themeasured

aspects of theorganizational climatesof their schools (Table 7), but one underlying consistency didemerge from the canonical analysis. The relationship ofprin-

cipals' to teachers'OCDQ descriptionsof their school

climatesmay be summarized adequatelywith one composite dimension. From. the principals'viewpoint climate is primarily a function of Esprit and ProductionEmphasis, while the teacherssee climate as a function of Esprit and (non) Aloofness.

Analyses of variance*in which principals' OCDQ scores, teachers' OCDQscores, and school systems

were interrelated producedne following results: Climate Description

(1) Disengagement: no significant effects

(2) Hindrance: no significant effects

(3) Esprit: a significant interactioneffect (p =.0034): In 1 of the 6 school systems, the principalsreported a lower level of espritthan did the teachers.

* See Appendix Afor a technicaldescription of the design used. 19

TABLE 7

Canonical Analysis: Principals'vs.

Teachers' OCDQ Scores

Correlations with Canonical Variable

Scale P-T Correlation P-C T-C

Disengagement ,16 .00 .04

MI Hindrance .35* .02 -.10

Esprit .58** ,64 .44

Intimacy .06 .38 .08

Aloofness .02 .10 -.68

Prod. Emphasis .18 .55 .18

Thrust .39* .30 .10

Consideration .03 -.24 -.20

One significant canonical function (X2= 25.6,

df = 15, p = .04) canonicalr = .76 20

(4) Intimacy: a significant interactioneffect

(p = .0018): In 1 of the 6 school systems, the

principals reported a lower level ofintimacy than

did the teachers.A significantsources effect

(p = .0001): principals reporteda higher level of intimacy than did teachers.

(5) Aloofness: no significomt effects

(6) Production Emphasis:a significant interaction effect

(p = .0088): Thiswas reported higher by principals

than by teachers in 3 of the6 school systems.

(7) Thrust: a significant interactioneffect (p = .0410):

In 2 systems the principalsand teachers saw itas

equal, but the other 4 systems hadhigher scores by

teachers than by principals. A significantsources

effect (p = .0025): teachersgenerally saw this as higher than did their principals.

(8) Consideration: no significant differences

Testing the Hypotheses

To assist the reader in followingthe method used in testing the hypotheseswe have reproduced the descriptions of the eightdimensions of organizational climate as stated by Halpinand Croft. 21 The EightDimensions of theOCDQ

Teacher's Behavior

1. Disengagement refers to theteachers' tendency to be "not with it." This dimensiondescribes a group which is "going through themotions," a group that is "not in gear" withrespect to the task at hand. It correspondsto themore

general concept ofanomie as firstdescribed by Durkheim.a In short, thissubtest focussesupon the teachers' behavior ina task-oriented situa- tion.

2. Hindrance refers to the teachers'feeling that the principal burdens them withroutine duties,

committee demands,and otherrequirements which

the teachersconstrueas unnecessary busy-work. The teachers perceive that theprincipal is

hindering ratherthan facilitatingtheir work.

a. Emile Durkheim, Le Suicide (Paris:Librarie Felix Alcan, 1930),p. 277.Anomie describes in living, a planlessness a method of livingwhich defeatsitself because achievementhas no longer value; happiness any criterion of always lies beyondany present achievement. Defeat takesthe form ofultimate dis- illusion-- a disgust with the futility pursuit. of endless 22 3, Esprit refers to "morale." The teachers feelthat

their social needsare being satisfied, and that

they are, at the same time, enjoyinga sense of

accomplishment in theirjob.

4. Intimacy refers tothe teachers'enjoyment of

friendly socialrelations with eachother. This

dimension describesa social-needs satisfaction

which is notnecessarily associatedwith.task- accomplishment. Princiall's Behavior

5. Aloofness refersto behavior by theprincipal which is characterizedas formal and impersonal.

He "goes by thebook" and prefersto be guided

by rules andpolicies rather than todeal with

the teachers inan informal, face-to-face sit-

uation. His behavior, inbrief, is universal-

istic rather thanparticularistic; nomothetic

rather thanidiosyncratic. To maintain this

style, he keepshimself- at least, "emotionally"

at a distancefrom his staff.

6. Production Emphasisrefers to behavior bythe

principal which ischaracterized by closesuper- vision of the staff. He is highly directive, 23

and plays the role of a "straw boss." His

communication tends to go in only one direction,

and he is not sensitive to feedback from the

staff.

7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal

which is characterized by his evident effort in

trying to "move the organization.""Thrust"

behavior is marked not by close supervision,

but by the principal's attempt to motivate the

teachers through the example which he personally

sets. Apparently, because he does not ask the

teachers to give of themselves any more than he

willingly gives of himself, his behavior, though

starkly task-oriented, is nonetheless viewed

favorably by the teachers.

8. Consideration refers to behavior by the princi-

pal which is characterized by an inclination to

treat the teachers "humanly," to try to do a

little something extra for them in human terms.

The two hypotheses were tested by application of two complementary statistical procedures, productmoment correlation and canonical analysis, which extracts composite summary dimensions from the basic intercorrela- tions of two sets of variables. 24

As indicatedin Tables 4, 5,and 6, and

particularly in Table7, substantialdisagreement appeared between principals and the teachers intheir schools with

regard to theappropriate allocationof decision-making

power and influence and withregard to most of thedi- mensions of organizational climate in the 38schools concerned. For this reason, relationships betweenclimate

descriptions anddecision-influence allocationwere ex-

amined only from theprincipals' point ofview and the

teachers' point ofview separately. No attemptswere made to relateprincipals' views ofclimate to teachers'

decision-influcencescores or vice versa. Because of the strong correlations foundbetween influence and decisionscores, as indicated in Table3, canonical correlation analyseswere computed between climate

(OCDQ) profilesand decision-profilesonly.

All correlationalquestions were answeredby computing coefficientsfrom 38 principals'scores and/or 38 means of the scores obtained from teachersin the same schools.

Table 8 containsthe correlationsbetween principals' self-assigneddecisionscores and principals' OCDQscores. Table 9 portraysthe correlationsbetween I , CorrelationsDecision between Scores Principals' and Principals' Self-Assigned OCDQ Scores TABLE 8 Functional Areas ....ipmr Dimensions of Organizational Climate 1. Educational Program.... Decision Scores .09 D -.13 H Principals' OCDQ.16 ScoresE .19 I -47 A .45 P .42 T .28 C 4.3. 2.Community Managing Development Relations....the School....of Personnel -.15 .13.11 -.26-.11-.29 .34.16.23 .24.25.13 .02.26.04 .30.28.19 .35.28.21 -.02-.26 .99 5. Total.. H D- Hindrance - Disengagement .08 -.30 .34 .31 PA - Production EmphasisAloofness .33 .49 .50 .06 E Note:-I Esprit- IntimacyCorrelations under .30 are not significant; those from cantare.30 significanttoat .39the 1 percent at the level. 5 percent level; those over .39 are signifi- CT - Consideration - Thrust

1 TABLE 9 Correlationsassigned to betweenTeachers Principals' and Principals' Decision OCDQ Dimensions of Organizational Climate Scores 1. Educational Program Functional DecisionAreas Scores ..., -.07 D -.15 H -.09rincipals'CcoresE -.23 I -.32 A -.35 P -.37 T -.51 C 3.4.2. Managing CommunityDevelopment the Relations Schoolof Personnel -.06 ,.03.08 -.25 .26 -.11 ,18.01 -.16 .20 -.05-.33 -.21-.20 -.09-.31 -.28-.27 5. Total . ... 1111=.110 -.03 -.11-.05 -.04 -.15-.09 -.28 .02 -.35-.19 -.36-.17 -.52-.36 EH D- Espiit. - HindranceDisengagement TAP - AloofnessProduction Emphasis Note:I Correlations under- Intjmacy .30 significant.39 are significant at the 1 percent at the level.5 percent are not significant; those between 30 and C - ThrustConsiderationlevel; those over .39 are 27

principals' decision scores assigned to teachers and

principals' OCDQ scores. Table 10 contains the canonical

analysis data in which principals' decision allocation

to themselves and to their teachersare compared to the

dimensions of climate description by these principals.

The relationships between principals' OCDQ profiles and their allocation of decisionsmay be summarized with two independent composite dimensions. The

first dimension lihksa climate marked by high Esprit and low Hindrance with the principals' decisionpower

in Community Relations and Development ofPersonnel and teachers' decisionpower in Managing the School. The

second dimension linksa climate marked by high Thrust,

Aloofness, Production Emphasis, Considerationand Intimacy with principal's decisionpower over Educational Program at the expense of teachers, low teacherpower in Devel- opment of Personnel, and strong principal control in managing the school. The first dimensionseems to iden- tify the decision structure ofa high-esprit, low- hindrance climate while the second dimension describes the decision structure associated witha principal- dominated school. 28 TABLE 10

Canonical Analysis: OCDQ vs. Principal Decision Allocation

Canonical Function'(X2= 37.97,df = 15, p= .0013) canonicalr = 85..

Correlationswith OCDQ Canonical VariaLleDecision Allocation

Disengagement .07 .32 Ed. Prog.

Hindrance -.48 .05 Dev. Pers. To Teachers Esprit .48 .42 Man. Sch.

Intimacy .33 .25 Com. Rel.

Aloofness .07 .08 Ed. Prog.

Prod.Emphasis .25 .57 Dev. Pers. To Principals Thrust .34 .27 Man. Sch.

Consideration -.39 .70 Comm. Rel.

Canonical Function II ()(2= 28.22,df = 13, p= .0092) canonical r = .78

Disengagement .09 -.87 Ed. Prog.

Hindrance -.09 -.57 Dev. Pers. To Teachers Esprit .29 -.30 Man. Sch.

Intimacy .48 -.32 Comm. Rel.

Aloofness .61 .44 Ed. Prog.

Prod. Emphasis .54 .03 Dev. Pers. To Principals Thrust .60 .49 Man. Sch.

Consideration .51 .17 Comm. Rel. 29

Hypothesis No 1 is therefore supported.

The way in which principals perceive theirown and

their teachers' decision domain produces two distinct

patterns in which the significant correlations inone

pattern differ appreciably from the significant rela-

tionships in the other. The data for testing Hypothesis

No. 2 are found in Tables 11, 12, and 13. In Table 11

there is only one significant relationship with Educa-

tional Program and two with Development of Personnel.

Table 12 has only two significant relationships,both with Development of Personnel. Table 13 contains the

canonical analysis of interrelationships. The relation-

ship of teachers' OCDQ profiles to their allocation of

decisions may be summarized with two independent composite

dimensions. The first dimension links low Aloofness with principals' power over Development of Personnel. The

second dimension is more complex, linkinga climate marked by Hindrance, Aloofness, and Consideration with decision power of teachersover Development of Personnel and principals over ManagingtheLhpol.

Hypothesis No. 2 is supported since therewere

significant relationships between teachers' allocation of decision scores and teachers' views of the dimensions of CorrelationsDecision between Scores Teachers' and TABLE 11Teachers' OCDQ Scores Self-Assigned Functional Areas Decision Scores D H Dimensions of drganizational Teachers' OCDQ ScoresE I A P ClimateT C 3.2.1. Managing DevelopmentEducational the SchoolofProgram Personnel .a.16. 33 -.10 .22.26 -.01 .05.03 -.16 .15.24 -.29-.09 .02 .04.07.02 -.16-.23 .34.15 5.4. TotalCommunity Relations .. 05 -.17 .09 .06 .25 .22 -.08 .19 -.02 .18 HED - EspritHindranceDisengagement 32 .14 .04 .15 AP - AloofnessProduction Emphasis-.08 .08 -.17 .20 Note:I - Intimacy significantCorrelations.39 are significant at below the 1 percent.30 are at level.not the significant; 5 percent level; thoseCT - -Consideration Thrust those between .30 and over k39 are assigned toCorrelations Principals between TABLE 12Teachers' andDecision Teachers' OCDQ Scores Scores Functional Areas D H Dimensions of E I Organizational Climate A P T C 2.1. EducationalDecision ScoresProgram...... 04 .08 Teachers' OCD.13 .01 -.17 Scores .13 .01 .11 5.4.3. Total..CommunityManagingDevelopment theRelations..... Schools....of Personnel ...... -.05 .06.11 -.01-.13 .20 -.02 .37 -.05-.16 .25 -.11-.53 .23 .09.21.01 .04.11.08 .11.21.24 EHD - -EspritHindrance Disengagement .06 .06 .18 .02 PA - AloofnessProduction Emphasis-.22 .17 .09 .26 Note:I Correlations- Intimacy significant.39 are significant at the 1 at under .30 percent level. theare 5not percent significant; level; those CT - ThrustConsideration those over .39 between .30 and are 32 TABLE 13

Canonical Analysis:Teacher OCDQvs. Teacher DecisionAllocation

Canonical Function I ( X2= 33i05, df= 15, p = .0054) canonicalr = .82

Correlations with OCDQ Canonical Variable Decision Allocation Disengagement .32 .40 Ed. Prog. Hindrance .09 .39 Dev. Pers. Esprit To Teachers .30 .38 Man. Sch. Intimacy .26 -.26 Comm. Rel. /

Aloofness -.75 .32 Ed. Prog. Prod. Emph6.sis-.12 .77 Dev. Pers. Thrust To Principals -.21 -.14 Man. Sch. Consideration .21 .15 Comm. Rel.

CanonicalFunction II ()(2= 24.03, df= 13, p = .0320) canonicalr = .75

Disengagement .24 .27 Ed. Prog. Hindrance .58 .55 Dev. Pers. Esprit To Teachers -.03 -.33 Man. Sch. Intimacy .12 .00 Comm. Rel.

Aloofness .47 .13 Ed. Prog. Prod. Emphasis .23 -.10 Dev. Pers. Thrust To Principals -.09 .57 Man. Sch. Consideration .53 .07 Comm. Rel.

ik 33 organizationalclimate of their schools. It must be admitted thatthe small number ofsignificantrelation- ships cameas a surprise. It was assumedthat teachers as professionalswould reveal a more extensivepattern of consistent relationshipsbetween their perceived decision domain and organizationalclimate. The fact that thecanonical analysis did notindicate central involvement ofthe Educational Program dimensionin either compositedimension is especiallysurprising.

11. ConcludingObservations

When thisstudy was planned, controlstructure in school systemswas definedas th'e organization fordecision-making. Decision-makingmay be centralized or decentralized. When it is decentralized itmay be said to bediffuse, allocatingconsiderable amountsof decision-makingto persons in lowerpositions in the chain ofcommand. Thus, elementaryschool principals and teacherswould have a large decisiondomain ina decentralizedor diffuse decision-makingstructure. It was assumedthat teachers and principalswere professionals andwould enjoy a high degree ofautonomy in theirwork. If they felt that they hada large decision domainthey wouldrate organizationalclimate 34 of schools as high in esprit,thrust, and consideration, low in disengagement, hindrance,and aloofness, and average in intimacy and production emphasisas a general pattern with variations under selectedcircumstances.

The canonical analysis made itpossible to relate principals' OCDQscores conjointly with their allocation of decisionscores to themselves and to their teachers. In other words, the principals' perception of the total decision picture intheir schools was related to their OCDQscores. This produced two independent composite dimensionsas stated earlier. The correlations shown in Tables 8 and 9 revealspecifically that principals with high self-assigneddecision scores view organizational climateas high in aloofness, production emphasis, and thrust in theEducational Program area and high in esprit, production emphasis, and thrust in Community Relations (Table 8). Principals who assigned teachers high decisionscores viewed organizational climateas low in aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, and consideration in theEducational

Program and low in aloofness andthrust in the Develop- ment of Personnel (Table 9). r

The second canonical functional relationship

between principals' views of climate and decision allo-

cation is clearly principal-oriented at the expenseof

teachers. Especially noteworthy here is the fact that

principal contro' of decision making is associatedwith

high scores on all of the principal-oriented(last 4)

scales of the OCDQ. In psychological terms, it appears

that narcissism is a concomitant of dominating behavior.

The first canonical functional relationship

specifies a more precisely-defined association between

a principal's concern with communityrelations and

personnel development on the one hand and his view of

his school's morale and his teachers' freedom to pursue

their professional duties on the other. If value-loaded

terms are permissible, this second functional relation-

ship is the "good" pattern -- the more enlightened or

person-oriented. In contrast, the first canonical

relationship seems to reflect the classic paternalistic

authoritarian pattern, with a rather interestingminor

theme which suggests the notion that teachers arepri-

marily interested in their own social group.

The canonical relationships isolated in the

analysis of teacher data rather precisely describetwo 36 quite different aspects of the teachers' views of school climate and decision making. The first pattern is one in which the principal focuses on personnel development, and his relationships with teachers are quite informal and personalized. The second pattern has the teachers involved in personnel matters while the principal focuses on managing the school. The climate is marked by preponderant routine and rules, although the principal attempts to consider the teachers' individual needs.

It must be noted here that while the analyses of principals' scores were derived from 38 individuals, the teachers' analyses represent donsistencies among the test behaviors of 38 groups of individuals. For this reason alone, one might expect a generally lower order of association between the climate dimensions and those concerning decision allocation w7ertwe turn from principals

to teacl. . Even so, two significant canonical relationships emerged in each analysis.

The emergent climate-decision patterns are far from equivalent in the two analyses, but without much imagination one can recognize in each the echo of the other. Principals pattern I and teacheit pattern I both reflect a principals' concern with personnel 37

development, while both of the secondcanonical functions suggesta more formalistic authoritarian frame- work for principal-teacher relationships. The fact thrt

these two patternsseem to be present in both analyses, yet with strikingly differentspecific characteristics,

reinforces the general conclusionthat principals and teachers simply do notuse a common frame of reference for viewing their relationshipsto each other; theysee decision making and schoolclimate from quite dissimilar vantage points.

Probably the most striking contrastbetween the climatedecision analysisof principals and that of teachers is the absence ofany clear relationship between teachers evaluation ofclimate and their view of their own general autonomy. Fr principals such a general relationshipappears quite blatantly in the second canonical pattern This is certainly not true for the teachers' analysis whereneither canonical pattern can be construed as a general teacher-power dimension.

What emerges instead isa definite split of functions between teachers and principals-- personnel development to the teachers and schoolmanagement to the principals. 38 The most interesting and puzzling aspectof the data concerns the lack ofany strong relationships between teachers autonomy in theEducational Program area and their view of the schoolclimate. If teachers are true professionals, this wouldseem to be a crucial aspect of the relationship betweenclimate estimates and decision-making power. There must be-someunrecog- nized factor here. Perhaps the unrecognizeditem is the nature of the teachers' professionaldomain. Stinch-Combe compared,bureaucraticpractices inmass production and 8 construction industries. Administra- tion in the construction industry pends upona highly professionalized manual labor force. Contracts

contain specificationsof the goals ofwork and prices and are usually accompanied by blueprints;they do not contain actual directivesof work; the latter does not have to be therebecause theywere already incorporated in the professionalized cultureof the workers. Is there a parallel here betweenthe role of the teacher and the role of thecarpenteror elec- trician or plumber? school system thecontrol structure may be comparable to thecontractualarrange- ments and blueprints in the constructionindustry and 39

the classroom teacher isexpected to manifestpro- fessional competence comparableto the construction

worker. Whatever decisions and policiesare made by

the administrative hierarchyare known to the teacher;

the teacher then proceedswith his work and judges his

own professional autonomy within the contractualframe- work. Decision points above the teacher'sposition

in the hierarchy havelittle bearingupon the teacher's perceptions of the work situationunless the teacher's welfare (salary, tenure, etc.)are involved. It is likely that the VignetteInstrument used in this study was overweighted with items which could justas well be decided bysomeone superordinate to the teacher without altering the teacher'sperceptions of organizational climate. The notions projected aboveseem to fall in line with Peabody's7findings which high- light the importance attachedto authority ofpro- fessional competence in theelementary school.

The notion that the teacher'sdecision domain may be comparable tothat of the construction worker hassome support from Lortie's5analysis of the teacher and the authoritysystem. All of the schools included in the presentstudy operated under 40 an organization for instruction knownas the self- contained classroom. Lortie hypothesized that the authority teacherspossess stems from the spatial work arrangements found in most school andfrom the informal rules thatare connected with those work arrangements. The self-contained classroom organization is more thana physical reality; it is also a social system in which the teacheris separated from immediate supervision, protectedagainst intrustion by others while teaching, and isconsidered and treatedas an equal by others. Lortie called this "the autonomy.- equality pattern."It may be that this pattern has more to do with the teacher's perception of organizational climate than the decision domaintapped in the present study. One must recognizea conflict, however, between

Lortie's statement of thesource of the teacher's authority under the technically competentemployee concept.

Lortie stated that the type ofauthority teacherspossess under the autonomy-equalitypattern is not the kindwe associate with the prestige termprofessional. 41

Bibliography

1. Blau, Peter M., and Scott, W. Richard, Formal Organiza- tions: A Comparative Approach, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962.

2. Fogarty, Bryce M., and Gregg,Russell T., "Centraliza- ticn of Decision Makingand Selected Characteris- tics of Superintendentsof Schools." Educational

Administration Quarterly, 2:62-72. Winter 1966.

3. Halpin, Andrew W., and Croft, Don B., The Organizational Climate of Schools. Chicago: Midwest Administra- tion Center, The University of Chicago, 1963.

4. Kimbrobigetisi=laugpogtiPolitical andEducational

1964, Chap. 12, "Decision-Making in Individual Schools."

5. Lortie, Dan C., "The Teacher and Team Teaching: Suggestions for Long-Range Research." Chap. 9 in Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr., editors, Team Teaching. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

6. McLeod, Mack E., Domain for Decisions: A Studzoi Organizational Structure through Development and Allocation of Problems for Decision. Austin, Texas: Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas, 1965.

7. Peabody, Robert L., "Perceptions of Organizational Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:463-82, March 1962.

8. Stinchcombe, Arthur L., "Bureaucratic and Craft Administration of Production: A Comparative Study." Administrative Science Quarterly, 4:168-87. Sept. 1959. 0,

Appendix A. Analysis of Variance Design

Twenty-eight dependent variables were analyzed by use of the design dicribed below. These variables were the 8 OCDQ scales, 4 decision area-scores and their total

for Principal as object (5 scores), and for Teacher as object (5 scores), and 4 influence area-scores and their total for Principal as object (5 scores), and for Teacher as object (5 scores).

The two-way analysis of variance design simul- taneously answers the following questions about a given dependent variable:

Do reliable (statistically significant) differences exist

(a) between the average scores given by the 38 principals

and the average of the mean-scores from the 38

corresponding groups of teachers? (This is the

"sources" effect.)

(b) among the average scores of all teachers and princi-

pals in the 6 school systems represented by the 38

schools? (This is the "systems" effect.)

teacher differences? (This is the "interaction"

effect.) 43 The analysis of variancedesign isa between- within design, sometimes calleda subject-groups (system) by treatments(principal vs. teacher-mean)design, and is diagrammed below.

School System Principa161,DataTeachers' Data

A (5 schools) 5 scores 5 means B (11 schools) 11 scores 11 means' C (4 schools) 4 scores 4 means D (6 schools) 6 scores 6 means E (6 schools) 6 scores 6 means F (6 schools) 6 scores 6 means Total= 38 schools

The teacherdata ("treatment"two) were entered into the design as 38 single numberswhichwere the means of the teachersin the 38 schools concerned. Thus the breakdown of thetotal of 75 available degreesof fre.edom was:

Between Schools df 37 Systems 5 Error (B) 32 44

Within Schools 38

Sources (principal- teachers) l

Interaction (systems by sources) 5

Error (W) 32

F-ratios were computed for Systems(using error B), and for Sources and Interaction(using error W). From these

F-ratios exact probabilities were computed forthe chance occurrence of the observed differencesfor each effect. VIGNETTE INSTRUMENT II

The Vignette Instrument attached heretocontains a brief description of 80 problem

situations similar to those found in theoperation of the elementary schools ofyour

school district. Consider each problem as a representative sample ofa number of

problems similar to it.

1. Approval of the suggested listof unitsto be taught in 4th grade social studies for the s.hool district.

2. Approve /r. Stokes daily teaching schedule.

3. Datermira the content of the eight hallway bulletin boardsinHillcrest School which t(achers takecare of.

4. Select he films to be used by Mrs. Sloan for her3rd grade Indian unit.

5. That Hillcrist School wil dismiss fc-malclasses today at 1:30 fora "field day" in wh;ch only Hillcrest studentscomate in track and field activities under thesuper- vision of the Hillcrest teachers.

6. That Miss Stokes,a 2nd grade teacher at Hillcrest, will be excused at 2:45 today in order to make a dental appointment.

7. The number of reading groups in Miss Jones'3rd grade class at Hillcrest.

8. The reading group in which Jane Carson should beplaced in Miss Henson's 1st grade room at Hillcrest.

9. That Jimmy Kone, a new student to HillcrestSchool, will be placed in Mrs. Jenning's 4th grade class.

10. That Johnny Holmes will receive "D" in arithmeticthis 6-weeks reporting period.

11. That Bonny Martinez, in Miss Harper's firstgrade class,is to be retained next year in first grade.

12. That no student is to be retainedmore than two years in elementary school.

13. Determine the person to administer make-uptests at Hillcrest to children absent during the regular achievement testing time.

14. That achievement test resultsare to be reported to the Central office of the school district.

15. From the approved list, what workbook will be usedby Mrs. Hager's 4th grade arithmetic class.

16. Determine that Mrs. Stokes' 5th grade classshould finish their reading workbook by April 15th.

17. If students may be usedas aids in the library.

18. Which students will be selectedis aides. 19. Select books and materials for the library according to established criteria.

20. Selection of damaged books to be sent to the bindery for repair.

21. To offer Miss Stokes a teaching contract with intentions of assigning her toa 5th grade at Hillcrest School.

22. To assign Miss Stokes, a newly hired teacher, to Hillcrest School.

23. To transfer Mr. Sloan from a 5th grade assignment at Jefferson School toa 6th grade assignment at Hillcrest School.

24. To transfer Miss Brown from a 2nd grade assignment in Hillcrest toa 1st grade assignment in Hillcrest Schools.

25. To assign Mrs. James a combination of 2nd and 3rd grades in Hillcrest School.

26. To determine the total number of teachers to be assigned to Hillcrest School.

27. To designate teachers responsible for these extra-curricular duties: safety patrol, supervise P. E. equipment, before school and after school "grounds" duty.

28. To select Hillcrest School representatives to Professional organizations suchas: ACE1, Faculty Club, Classroom teachers.

29. The assignment of teachers to classrooms in Hillcrest School.

30. To set the number of days that Hillcrest teachers shall attend the district wide inservice program in August.

31. Select and hire a person as librarian at Hillcrest school.

32. That Miss Wentworth should be given some assistance in controlling the rowdy behavior of her 5th grade class.

33. To plan a remedial reading program for a slow learning group in Miss Jones' 5th grade classroom.

34. To determine what unit Mr. Stokes will teach next in his 6th grade social studies class.

35. That a formal evaluation of teachers shall be made yearly and the information placed in the teachers' personnel folders.

36. That Mrs. Hallmark must receive six additional hours credit in Elementary

Education by Sept. 1 if she is to retain her teaching position.

37. To call a special faculty meeting for Hillcrest School.

38. If Mrs. Johns should stay for the faculty meetingas she is recuperating from the flu and is in a generally "run-down" condition.

39. To "call-off" a faculty meeting as there is a Halloween carnival at Hillcrest School the same day beginning at 6:30 p.m. -3-

40. To approve a request by the Director of ElementaryEducation to speak briefly at the facelty meeting.

41. Where textbooks not inuse shall be stored in Hillcrest School,

42. Who shall have access to the bookroom.

43. When books may be taken from the bookroom.

44. To issue Jim Smith, a 5th grade student,a particular supplementary reader.

45. The percentage of membershipon which the allotted number of supplementary readers is based.

46. If Mrs. Smith should go to the bookroomand get a set of basal readers fora group of her second graders who have completedthe first set.

41. That four custodians will be assignedto Hillcrest School.

48. That Mr. Jones, a custodian at Hillcrest, willbe responsible for allrooms on the north wing.

49. That two teraporary buildings should bemoved to the Hillcrest Schoolcampus.

50. That the grass on the front lawn at Hillcrestis to be watered this morning.

51. Select and hire a replacement worker for thecafeteria kitchen.

52. Assign custodians to cafeteria dutiesat Hillcrest.

53. That the Hillcrest lunchroommay be decorated for a 6th grade social on Friday night.

54. To allot the teaching supply fundsto the Hillcrest teachers.

55. Final approval of items requested by teachersfor purchase (teaching supplies).

56. To keep records (make entries,get totals, balances, etc.) of the funds of Hillcrest School.

57. To issue to Mrs. Smith,a 1st grade teacher, some paste and newsprintpaper.

58. To do the figuring of the six weeksattendance report of Hillcrest School to be sent to the Central office.

59. To make out a Dank deposit slip forthe money collected from children the first day of school.

60. To count the money collected from the pencilmachine at Hillcrest School.

61. Approve use after school of the Hillcrest schoolplayground for "little league" practice.

62. To have the Hillcrest school east boundarymoved two blocks west for nextyear to relieve crowded conditions. 63. To approve the transfer of Mike Sloan, a 4th grade student from another elementary school zone in the districtto Hillcrest because his'mother works nearby.

64. File charges in a Justice of the Peace Court against a parent in a chronic truancy case.

65. Select the songs to be sung at P.T.A. meeting by the upper grades choir.

66. Whether or not tickets for the Shrine Circus may be sold in the office at Hillcrest School.

67. A Baptist Church group would like to use the Hillcrest cafetorium as a temporary meeting place Sunday mornings for about three months.

68. Determine if Jimmy Comander should be given a certificate to receive a pair of shoes from the Salvation Army.

69. To set the date for the P.T.A. "back-to'school" night meeting at Hillcrest.

70. To approve participation of the school band in a Sunday afternoon city-wide music festival at City Auditorium.

71. That the school day will be extended 15 minutes throughout the district.

72. That Hillcrest school will dismiss at 2:30 today so that parents who so desire may take their children to the "Frontier Day" parade, an elaborate all-city affair which begins at 3:00.

73. That the report card symbos for primary grades in Hillcrest school shall be "E, S, N, and U."

74. That report cards will be sent out every six weeks at Hillcrest.

75: That Anita Bohmer will be given a make-up test over the 6th grade science unit. She was absent 3 days prior to the test and did poorly, getting a "C" on her report card. Her Inther made the request to the principal.

76. That children who will be six years old by Nov.1 will be admittedto 1st grade at Hillcrest School.

77. That "graduation exercises" will be held at night near the end of the year at Hillcrest School.

78. That the new wing to be constructed at Hillcrest School will be air-conditioned.

79. Call Mrs. Jones, a mother, about her son's cafeteria debt of $1.05.

80. Set the macimum amount of money that may be collected from any child for shcool supplies. Please fill in this personalinformation. 2. Your city Your School Date 2. Your present position (gradeor subjects) 3. Years of teaching experience (including this year) Marital status 4. College work completed: Less than Bachelor's Bachelor's Master's Doctor's

VIGNETTE RESPONSE SHEET

Directions: You,are asked to make two responses to each item in the VignetteInstrument. This is how youare to proceed: 1 1. Read the item carefully. Then turn to this response sheet. Place an X in the boxunder the name of the person who makes the final decision regardingthis problem. 2. Place a value of 1 to 5 under the name ornames of persons who influence the decision: if you (or any of the teachers) make the decision yourselfwithout being influenced byany one else, you place a 5 in the box under teacher. If the superintendentmakes the decision but lie is influenced strongly by what the principalsays and to a minor degree by the views of the businessmanager, you would place a 1 in the box under businessmanager, a 1 in the box under superintendent and a5in the box under the principal. The total points you allocate can never exceed 5, but they may be distributed among asmany as five different persons. See example (Ex.), top line.

Vignette School Number Teachers) Principals) Curr.Dir( ) Suprvsr( ) Bus. Mgr. Supt. Board

Ex. 3 1 X 1

.15

17 ....._...... _...... _......

Vignette School Number Teacher(s) Principals) Curr.Dir( ) Suprvsr( ) Bus.Mgr. Supt. Board 48

, 54

77 Vlgnette School Number Teacher(s) ap...erruiP Principal(S) Curr.Dir(s) Suprvsr(s) Bus.Mgr. Supt. Board