Western University ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

12-1989

Perceptions and Evaluations of University Principal Preparation Programs by Michigan Public School Principals

Linda Berk Voit Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Educational Leadership Commons

Recommended Citation Voit, Linda Berk, "Perceptions and Evaluations of University Principal Preparation Programs by Michigan Public School Principals" (1989). Dissertations. 2143. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2143

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PERCEPTIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF UNIVERSITY PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

by

Linda Berk Voit

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan December 1989

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PERCEPTIONS AND EVALUATIONS OF UNIVERSITY PRINCIPAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Linda Berk Voit, Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1989

In this study, Michigan public school principals reported their

evaluative perceptions regarding: (a) the degree to which 9 of the

12 generic skills were developed in their university administrator

programs, (b) the frequency and effectiveness of the instructional

modes used to develop these generic skills, and (c) the ideal in­

structional modes which are most effective for developing these

skills.

Both this replicated study with revisions and the completed

Texas A&M University project (Witters-Churchill, 1988) were based

upon recommendations made by the National Association of Secondary

School Principals' Performance-Based Consortium.

The population of this study, 3,202 principals from Michigan

public schools, were potential participants for a survey used to

gather the data. A stratified sampling procedure was used to select

347 practicing public school administrators. The number of surveys

mailed out were 116, 116, and 115 (n = 347) on surveys A, B, and C,

respectively.

For the purposes of validation, a follow-up telephone interview

of 10% of the actual respondents was conducted. This "informed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. subsample" verified and provided a reliability check of the data

obtained from the sample, as well as enriching written data. The low

return rate (48%) was a source of concern for the interpretation of

findings. Data were analyzed and the patterns of responses were

similar to the Witters-Churchill (1988) study. The findings are

reported but should be interpreted with caution.

Principals reported moderate development of four of the nine

generic skills (judgment, leadership, organizational ability, and

problem analysis). Three skills were slightly developed (decisive­

ness, sensitivity, and written communication). Principals perceived

two skill areas (oral communication and stress tolerance) as not

developed.

Lecture and discussion was the most frequently used instruc­

tional mode. Most of the rated instructional modes used were re­

ported as moderately effective.

Principals preferred the internship as the ideal instructional

mode. The respondents recommended an improved and increased require­

ment of field-based experiences (internship, externship, and cohort

opportunities). Respondents also asked for a practical curriculum

delivered by professors having credible, first-hand, educational

knowledge and experience.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9015285

Perceptions and evaluations of university principal preparation programs by Michigan public school principals

Voit, Linda Berk, Ed.D.

Western Michigan University, 1989

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION

To my parents, Arthur and Doris Berk, my first teachers, and to

my husband, Larry, and step-daughter, Sara, I dedicate this work.

Because of their encouragement, support, understanding, and love, I

was able to complete this project.

Linda Berk Voit

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To my doctoral committee chairperson, Dr. Edgar A. Kelley, for

his diagnosis and guidance of my strengths. Dr. Kelley continues to

be a mentor, professional resource, and friend and is responsible for

introducing me to: NASSP Performance-Based Consortium; Dr. Laurie

Witters-Churchill, Texas A&M University, who designed the original

study and assisted me; and mirrors— so all I have to do is look to

myself for the answers.

To Drs. George DePillo and David Cowden, members of my doctoral

committee, for their guidance and support in this project.

To my cohorts at Western Michigan University and Chippewa Valley

Schools for their continued help, encouragement, and friendship.

To Dr. Thomas Coleman, Wayne State University, who led and

encouraged me in 1981 to continue to "become."

Linda Berk Voit

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

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

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Premise ...... 1

Purpose of Study ...... 3

Conceptual Definitions ...... 3

Methods and Procedures ...... 4

Population ...... 5

Instrumentation ...... 5

Procedures ...... 6

Assumptions, Strengths, and Limitations of the Design ...... 8

Assumptions ...... 8

Strengths...... 9

Limitations...... 10

II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...... 14

Literature Overview ...... 14

Selection Practices ...... 17

Theoretical Elements for Principals ...... 18

Strengths and Limitations of Theories ...... 21

Administrative Development ...... 22

Principal Selection ...... 24

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continued

CHAPTER

Generic Skills and Assessment ...... 27

Certification and State Agencies ...... 33

III. M E T H O D S ...... 35

Population and S a m p l e ...... 35

D e s i g n ...... 38

Obtaining the Generic Skills ...... 39

Questionnaires ...... 41

Instrumentation ...... 42

Data Collection Procedures ...... 42

Informed Subsample ...... 4 4

Analysis of Questionnaire Responses ...... 46

Close-Ended Questions ...... 46

Open-Ended Questions ...... 46

IV. FINDINGS OF THE S T U D Y ...... 48

Written Questionnaire ...... 48

Reporting the Findings ...... 49

Written Questionnaire Responses: By Cluster G r o u p s ...... 55

Extent Developed ...... 55

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 56

Ideal M o d e s ...... 58

Generic Skill 1: Problem Analysis ...... 58

Problem An a l y s i s ...... 59

Extent Developed ...... 59

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continued

CHAPTER

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 62

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 63

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 63

Generic Skill 2: Written Communication ...... 64

Written Communication ...... 65

Extent Developed ...... 65

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 65

Ideal Instructional M o d e s ...... 69

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 70

Generic Skill 3: Sensitivity ...... 70

Sensitivity ...... 71

Extent Developed ...... 71

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 74

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 75

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 76

Generic Skill 4: Judgment ...... 76

J u d g m e n t ...... 77

Extent Developed ...... 77

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 80

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 81

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 81

Generic Skill 5: Oral Communication ...... 82

Oral Communication...... 86

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continued

CHAPTER

Extent Developed ...... 86

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 8 6

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 86

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 87

Generic Skill 6 : Stress Tolerance ...... 87

Stress Tolerance ...... 91

Extent Developed ...... 91

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 92

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 92

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 93

Generic Skill 7: Decisiveness ...... 93

Decisiveness ...... 94

Extent Developed ...... 94

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 97

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 98

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 98

Generic Skill 8 : Organizational Ability ...... 99

Organizational Ability ...... 103

Extent Developed ...... 103

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 103

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 104

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 104

Generic Skill 9: Leadership ...... 105

vi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continued

CHAPTER

Leadership...... 109

Extent Developed ...... 109

Frequency and Effectiveness ...... 109

Ideal Instructional Modes ...... 110

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 110

Informed Subsample: Responses to Extended Q u e s t i o n s ...... Ill

People Category ...... 116

Knowledge Category ...... 116

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 118

The Telephone I n t e r v i e w ...... 119

Field-Based Training ...... 121

Provide Current Instruction ...... 122

Provide Practical Course Content ...... 122

Develop Job-Related Generic Skills ...... 123

D i s c u s s i o n ...... 124

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 125

Conclusions ...... 126

Related Findings ...... 127

Further Studies ...... 128

Recommendations ...... 129

APPENDICES ...... 132

A. Survey Components...... 133

B. Complete Chart Essays for Nine Generic Skills ...... 168

vii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continue

C. Alphabetical Summary Modal Values ...... 188

D. Informed Subsample Identification ...... 194

E. Telephone Script ...... 196

F. Distribution of Michigan Public School Districts and School Campuses by Intermediate School District .... 198

G. Human Subjects Review Board Approval of Protocol . . . 273

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 275

viii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

1. Daily Activities of an Administrator...... 28

2. Most Advanced Degree ...... 51

3. Years of Teaching Experience Prior to Principalship . . . 51

4. Administrative Years ...... 52

5. Job T i t l e s ...... 53

6 . Area of Concentration (University Study) ...... 54

7. Number of Students in District...... 56

8 . Problem Analysis Developed ...... 59

9. Problem A n a lysis...... 60

10. Ideal Instructional Modes for Problem Analysis Skills . . 62

11. Written Communication Developed ...... 64

12. Written Communication ...... 66

13. Ideal Instructional Modes for Written Communication S k i l l s ...... 68

14. Sensitivity Developed ...... 71

15. Sensitivity ...... 72

16. Ideal Instructional Modes for Sensitivity Skills ...... 74

17. Judgment Developed ...... 77

18. Judgment ...... 78

19. Ideal Instructional Modes for Judgment Skills...... 80

20. Oral Communication Developed...... 82

21. Oral Communication...... 83

22. Ideal Instructional Modes for Oral Communication Skills . 85

ix

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Tables— Continued

23. Stress Tolerance Developed ...... 88

24. Stress Tolerance ...... 89

25. Ideal Instructional Modes for Stress Tolerance Skills . . 91

26. Decisiveness Developed ...... 94

27. Decisiveness...... 95

28. Ideal Instructional Modes for Decisiveness Skills .... 97

29. Organizational Ability Developed ...... 99

30. Organizational Ability ...... 100

31. Ideal Instructional Modes for Organizational Ability S k i l l s ...... 102

32. Leadership Developed ...... 105

33. Leadership...... 106

34. Ideal Instructional Modes for Leadership Skills ...... 108

35. Administrator University Training Program Preparation . . 112

36. Experiences in the Preparation of Other Administrators . . 113

37. Principals' Views on Which Courses or Instructional Areas Were Most H e l p f u l ...... 115

38. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Ways Which the Informed Subsample Believed Their University Preparation Programs Were G o o d ...... 117

39. Frequency and Percentage Distribution on Responses by the Informed Subsample Regarding the Single Most Important Way to Improve Graduate Instruction in Educational Administration ...... 119

40. Problem A n a l y s i s ...... 170

41. Written Communication ...... 172

42. Sensitivity ...... 174

43. Decisiveness...... 176

x

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. List of Tables— Continued

44. Organizational Ability ...... 178

45. Leadership...... 180

46. Judgment...... 182

47. Oral Communication...... 184

48. Stress Tolerance ...... 186

xi

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Premise

The nation's most valuable resources are children, and the

quality of their educational opportunities must be insured to be both

appropriate and meaningful. Those responsible for the children's

instructional supervision in a school setting are principals; whether

or not the educational opportunities are effective depends upon those

leaders (Doggett, 1987; Goodlad, 1984; Murphy, 1986). The need for

systematically preparing and selecting administrative candidates for

the principalship becomes a national educational priority and a basis

for this study.

The concept of educational leadership begins as an individual,

innate potentiality which, if left untapped or undeveloped, remains

dormant or unactualiaed (Boles & Davenport, 1983; Burns, 1978; Peters

& Austin, 1985; Sergiovanni & Carver, 1980). Opportunities during

the course of life may enhance and contribute to leadership develop­

ment. These opportunities may come in the forms of experience and

education and may, therefore, be identified and, through systematic

and performance-based training, be developed and applied to the work­

place .

Literature supports the premise that effective schools are con­

tingent upon seven school characteristics (Daniel & Grobe, 1981):

1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (a) safe and orderly environment, (b) clear mission, (c) principal's

instructional leadership, (d) high expectations for achievement, (e)

student time on task, (f) frequent monitoring of progress, and (g)

supportive home-school relations.

Effective schools are the result of effective leaders (Goodlad,

1984; Lipman, Rankin, & Hoeh, 1985; McCurdy, 1983; Sizer, 1984).

School responsibilities may be classified into three groups: primary

(fulfilled by the school alone), shared (fulfilled in conjunction •

with other agencies), and supportive (fulfilled through helping other

groups that provide education) (Governor's Task Force on Effective

Schooling, 1981). Principal preparation programs involving school

districts, universities, state agencies, and professional organiza­

tions may be key components in effective leadership development.

The quality of principal selection and principal preparation

programs has been a concern among educators, law makers, school

boards, principals, and university professors (Fauske & Ogawa, 1983;

Goodlad, 1984; National Association of Secondary School Principals

[NASSP], 1986; Tursman, 1981). In a 1987 report of the National

Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration, several sig­

nificant recommendations for the improvement of educational leader­

ship included: the redefining of educational leadership, the estab­

lishment of a national policy board on educational administration, at

least 300 colleges and universities should stop preparing educational

administrators, and public schools need to become full partners in

administrator preparation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

Educational leadership concerns led to the creation of the

Consortium for the Performance-Based Preparation of Principals of the

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). The

organization's purpose is to build a framework for the improvement of

a more experience-based training program for principal preparation

(NASSP, 1985).

Purpose of Study

In this study, practicing public school principals from Michigan

reported their evaluative perceptions regarding: (a) the degree to

which 9 of the 12 generic skills included in the NASSP Assessment

Center were developed in their university administrator programs,

(b) the frequency and effectiveness of the instructional modes used

to develop those skills, and (c) the ideal instructional modes which

are effective for developing these skills.

This is a replicated study, with revisions, of a study completed

at Texas A&M University (Witters-Churchill, 1988) and is based upon

recommendations made by the National Association of Secondary School

Principals' Performance-Based Consortium.

Conceptual Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the following definitions apply

(Witters-Churchill, 1988):

Assessment center: A process (not a location) employing simula­

tion techniques to identify and measure a wide variety of administra­

tive job skills (NASSP, 1985).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

Informed subsample: A group of survey respondents who demon­

strate interest and knowledge in the topics of interest through

extended responses on the survey.

Nine generic skills: Skills required for the performance of

various roles which are not unique to any one role (NASSP, 1985).

Nine of the 12 NASSP Assessment Center skills have been selected as

the foci of this study. The skills are: decisiveness, organiza­

tional ability, leadership, problem analysis, written communication,

sensitivity, judgment, oral communication, and stress tolerance.

Preparation program: The formal administrator preparation pro­

gram provided by a college or university in which the principal

received his primary training.

Principal: The leading administrator in a public elementary,

middle, or high school.

Instructional modes: Nine delivery systems which can be used as

processes or methods of teaching students (more detailed explanation

of clinical study, computer-assisted instruction, games and simula­

tions, group process training, individual and team research, intern­

ship, instructional modules, lecture and discussion, and tutorials

and seminars are found in Appendix A).

Methods and Procedures

A survey approach was used for gathering and reporting the

findings of this report. The use of this method was to provide a

systematic and accurate description of facts and characteristics of

the population of interest (Isaac & Michael, 1985). The purpose of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. this study was to obtain substantive information about the percep­

tions of practicing principals in Michigan regarding their own uni­

versity administrator preparation programs and to allow these admin­

istrators to recommend strategies for improving the instructional

delivery systems.

Population

The population for this study was practicing Michigan public

school principals from elementary, middle, and high schools. The

sample was obtained from the 1987 edition of the Michigan Education

Directory and Buyer's Guide (Michigan Education Directory, 1987).

Stratified sampling procedures were used to select randomly 347 prin­

cipals from the 1,971 elementary, 61 middle, and 615 high schools in

the state of Michigan. A sample of this size enabled the researcher

to obtain a confidence level of 95% with an error of estimation of

+5% (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

Instrumentation

A validated sampling plan and questionnaire were designed

(Witters-Churchill, 1988) and presented to the NASSP Consortium for

their approval and acceptance. Input from the Congress of Principals

at Texas A&M University's Principals' Center was used for this pur­

pose. The process resulted in nine generic skills identified for

this study: decisiveness, organizational ability, leadership, prob­

lem analysis, written communication, sensitivity, judgment, oral

communication, and stress tolerance.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A postal survey and telephone interview questionnaires were con­

structed by Witters-Churchill (1988). The questionnaires were devel­

oped from the members of the Consortium and the Congress of Princi­

pals. The questionnaires were designed to represent the interest of

the Consortium in the training of the nine generic skills.

The survey instrument was pilot tested on 15 principals and

assistant principals (Witters-Churchill, 1988) selected from Harris

County, Texas. The instrument was submitted to the stated group in

order to assess the construct validity and to estimate the expected

response rate.

Procedures

This study was conducted during 1988. A cover letter, a survey

fact sheet with answers to basic questions about the study and a

glossary of terms, and a self-addressed stamped envelope accompanied

the survey instrument. Each respondent received questions pertaining

to three of the nine generic skills under question. The nine generic

skills were divided into three logical groupings, for which a panel

of educational administration professors provided guidance of this

classification process (Witters-Churchill, 1988). The 347 principals

were divided randomly into three groups; each group received one set

of three generic skills.

Two weeks after the survey was distributed, each nonrespondent

was contacted by mail to request completion of the survey. Each

nonrespondent was offered a second copy of the survey packet (see

Appendix A).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Based upon responses received from the survey, an informed sub­

sample of approximately 10 % of the principals sampled was identified.

These individuals were selected based upon their elaborative re­

sponses to the open-ended questions. Only respondents who indicated

willingness to participate were contacted.

Each administrator identified as a member of the "informed sub­

sample" was contacted by telephone and requested to participate in a

10 to 20 minute telephone interview. The purpose of this interview

was to elicit elaborations to written responses. Respondents were

encouraged to make recommendations regarding the improvement of uni­

versity administrator preparation programs. A telephone interview

script was prepared in advance for this purpose (Witters-Churchill,

1988), with modifications from the original study.

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to report the

findings of the survey. These were reported in the form of numerical

table presentations for each generic skill. Findings were summarized

in the form of a chart essay, as described by Haensly, Lupkowski,

and McNamara (1988). A classification scheme was designed to report

systematic responses to the open-ended questions; a data-based debate

strategy was used for this purpose (McNamara, Fetsco, & Barona,

1986). Summaries and recommendations obtained from the open-ended

responses were reported with the findings (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Assumptions, Strengths, and Limitations of the Design

Assumptions

The survey is a widely used educational technique used for

gathering attitude and opinion information (Isaac & Michael, 1985).

Information generated from surveys may be used to answer questions,

assess needs, set goals, or to "establish baselines against which

future comparisons can be made, to analyze trends across time and to

describe what exists, in what amount and in what context" (Isaac &

Michael,- 1985, p. 128). The assumption is made that the respondents

to a survey have characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and other

information which pertains to the topic survey and, therefore, would

offer needed data for the subject of topic being examined (Isaac &

Michael, 1985). However, there was no method to determine if the

respondents completed a preplanned administrative preparation program

or merely enrolled and passed a collection of courses.

The 1987 edition of the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's

Guide (Michigan Education Directory, 1987) was used to design a

stratified population of practicing public school principals in the

state of Michigan. The directory lists each school alphabetically

with the name of the appropriate Intermediate School District (ISD)

placed in parentheses next to the listing. The school districts

listed were reorganized by ISD's (see Appendix F), as opposed to the

directory, alphabetical listing by school district. Next to each

district listing within the ISD category, the number of elementary,

junior high, and high schools are listed for the district, as well as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

a sum total of each per district, per ISD. A sum total of each cate­

gory and grand total of public schools for the state of Michigan were

also given.

The stratified, systematic process was designed to insure appro­

priate and representative data collection (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

Based upon the 1987 listing of Michigan schools, 62% of the 3,202

campuses in Michigan are elementary schools, 19% are middle schools,

and 19% are high schools. A stratified random sample reflecting the

figures determined the following sampling frame:

Elementary school respondents 215 62%

Middle school respondents 66 19%

High school respondents 66 19%

Total number of sample respondents 347 10 0 %

Strengths

The study was replicated with revisions. A mailed questionnaire

is the single most widely used technique in education (Isaac &

Michael, 1985). The components and the process of this survey had

not only been pretested, but also had been administered in the origi­

nal study. Members of the NASSP Consortium had input into the survey

design to avoid wordiness, ambiguity, and leading questions, as well

as to insure objective-type responses and anonymity. For follow-up

purposes, each potential survey respondent was assigned a number

(e.g., JMI-B-22-177). The first group of letters identified to which

level of educational administration the principal respondents were

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10

assigned: elementary, junior high-middle-intermediate, or high

school. The next letter identified which survey the respondent was

sent: either Survey A = problem analysis, written communication, and

sensitivity questions; B = decisiveness, organizational ability, and

leadership questions; or C = judgment, oral communication, and stress

tolerance questions. The third grouping was the nominal or identi­

fying number for the given school level (e.g., the 22nd member out of

66 of the sample population for JMI category). The last group of

numbers represented the random number obtained from the statistical

table of random numbers.

Limitations

Surveys have built-in limitations which include the soliciting

of "reactive information" (Isaac & Michael, 1985, p. 129) and, as a

result, this survey tapped respondents who were willing to take the

time to fill out and return the questionnaire. In addition, those

who volunteered to participate in the informed subsample survey may

be biased either for or against the subject and these responses may

not accurately represent the population (Isaac & Michael, 1985). The

low response rate of 48% may not be a true representation of the

perceptions and recommendations of the principals from Michigan and,

therefore, would be inappropriate to conclude that these findings

should be generalized to other populations.

Ordinately, percentages under 20 percent can be reasonably ignored. Percentages over 20 percent, however, raise in­ creasingly serious questions about the "hold-outs" and what they are withholding. A common sampling bias arises when persons having a good program are more likely to respond

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

than persons having a poor program. An effective correc­ tions technique is to select randomly a small sample of the nonrespondents and personally interview them to obtain the missing information. (Isaac & Michael, 1985, p. 135)

Personal interviews can be time consuming, inconvenient, and expen­

sive.

The time of year this survey was conducted may have been a

factor in such a low response. Survey work done in the spring of a

school year may have been in conflict to other pertinent school-

related, end-of-the-year activities, causing respondents to place a

survey aside and perhaps forget about answering the questions.

There was a risk that the respondent may have believed he or she

was unique and this may have produced slanted responses (Isaac &

Michael, 1985). Survey respondents are also susceptible to over­

rater or under-rater bias (Isaac & Michael, 1985). Respondents tend

to rate question items either very high or very low. In addition,

there was no assurance that the respondents read all of the instruc­

tions -clearly and carefully or understood the questions, nor is there

a guarantee that the respondents were, indeed, the principals to whom

the survey was addressed (Isaac & Michael, 1985).

The generalization of the study may only be applicable to the

public school principals in Michigan. Only principals from regular

public elementary, middle, and high schools were selected for the

sample. Special schools for handicapped students, ungraded schools,

and other unique settings were excluded from the sampling frame. In

addition, the nine skills under investigation in this study may not

represent all the generic skills required and performed by principals

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

(Witters-Churchill, 1988).

This replication differed in the following ways from the origi­

nal, Texas study design.

1. Only principals from Michigan public schools were surveyed

because only principals' names were listed in the Michigan Education

Directory and Buyer's Guide (Michigan Education Directory, 1987).

2. Weighted data, not just raw data, were used to report the

survey findings.

3. Since Michigan's administrator certification process was

being implemented at the time of the study, Question 1 during the

telephone interview was changed from "What type of administrative

certificate . . ." to "What type of teaching certificate do you

hold?"

4. The last three questions of each survey asked for open-ended

responses. The answers tended to fall within the four general cate­

gories classified in the original study (Witters-Churchill, 1988),

therefore, making it unnecessary to arrange for an expert panel to

construct a data-based debate using content analysis rules.

5. Due to the element of time, the first 100 surveys which

responded "yes" to the question of selection for a follow-up inter­

view to make future recommendations were sorted by this researcher

and not an expert panel. However, the original criteria (Witters-

Churchill, 1988) were used in selecting the informed subsample.

6. Due to fiscal constraints, the personalized letter of intro­

duction was not initially sent and surveys were mailed out in April

and May only.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

7. Some demographic data were obtained and reported, based upon

recommendations made in the Texas study.

8. A lower confidence coefficient was obtained due to: (a) a

lower response rate (48%) and (b) three surveys (A, B, and C) were

reported as being the instruments used, not one survey with aggre­

gated reporting of returned surveys.

The purpose of this study was to report the evaluative percep­

tions of principals regarding their university administrator training

program. Using a survey method, 347 practicing Michigan principals

were mailed a questionnaire packet. Despite a low return rate (48%),

findings from this replicated and revised study were not only paral­

lel to the original Texas study (Witters-Churchill, 1988), but also

may be useful for future principal programs in Michigan, provided

appropriate and necessary caution is used.

In Chapter II, a literature review can be found relating to the

subject of principal preparation, while specific processes and proce­

dures are described in Chapter III. The findings of the study are

presented in the fourth chapter; and in Chapter V, conclusions and

recommendations are made.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to report the evaluative percep­

tions of Michigan public school principals regarding their university

preparation programs. Using a survey approach, respondents were

asked to rate their university program of study for the development

of generic skills, to indicate the frequency and perceived effective­

ness of specific instructional modes, and to report the most ideal

instructional method for each generic skill.

In this chapter, a review of literature related to the purpose

of this study is found. The chapter is divided into nine specific

sections: literature overview, selection practices, theoretical ele­

ments for principals, strengths and limitations of theories, adminis­

trative development, principal selection, generic skills and assess­

ment, certification, and state agencies. The purpose in this chapter

is to report other findings, studies, concerns, and practices of

principal preparation.

Literature Overview

During a "Swap Shop" session at the 1987 National Association of

Secondary School Principals' convention in San Antonio, Texas, school

administrators in attendance were asked to identify the skills needed

to perform their roles or tasks (Erlandson, 1987). Some of the

14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. responses included: (a) the ability to think and act under stress,

using logic, not emotive reaction; (b) the ability to communicate;

(c) to possess commitment to programming and instruction; (d) to

possess human relations skills and to understand the dynamics of

people; and (e) the ability to model teaching techniques in relation­

ship to the ongoing effort to develop and evaluate instructional

staff.

While the 1987 NASSP conveners were articulating these needs,

the National School Board Association, in Virginia, directed judges

to evaluate and select candidates for the annual recognition of the

top 100 executive educators from the United States. Some of the

criteria for selection included the demonstration of the following

(Downey, 1987): (a) administrative success and competence in con­

ceiving, implementing, maintaining, and improving the academic

achievement of all students; (b) leadership in the development of

staff; (c) excellence in community, human relations, administrative

team, and school board communication; and (d) excellence in antici­

pating and analyzing emerging problems or opportunities.

Educational reform movements and commission reports profess the

need of the school principal to display certain administrative be­

haviors. Some of these include: a manager (Boyer, 1983; Goodlad,

1984), technological-visionary (Peters & Austin, 1985), humanitarian

(Couture, 1985; Leithwood, Stanley, & Montgomery, 1984), instruc­

tional leader (Cornett, 1983), politician (National Association of

Elementary School Principals [NAESP], 1986; Peters & Austin, 1985),

change-agent (Manasse, 1983), staff development leader (Daresh, 1987;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

Doggett, 1987), and mentor (Michaels, 1987; Sherwood, 1987).

Principals have reported, however, that they have been uncertain

about their roles or confused about their vague job descriptions

(Chase & Kane, 1983; Snyder & Johnson, 1984). Paradoxical findings

concluded that principals spend little time in organizing instruc­

tional leadership activities but that they were active in goal

attainment for the organization (Crowson & Morris, 1982). Contrary

to what has been believed about the lack of communication between •

central office and principals, the organization is more tightly

coupled than has been thought. The conclusion made by the research­

ers is that the operative goals are not developing the curriculum and

provision of instruction but rather include managing environmental

uncertainty, maintaining an organizational mythology, and rewarding

the employees. The principal who achieves the system's operative

goals is considered effective and makes contributions to the profes­

sion (Crowson & Morris, 1982).

The length of service in the role of principal, the school level

assignment, and gender are factors which have no difference in per­

formance frequency of leadership tasks (Guzzetti & Martin, 1984).

However, veteran principals having 17 years or more experience were

found spending more time on instructional leadership in their schools

(Guzzetti & Martin, 1984). Effective principals seem to perform

effective organizational activities and have vision when creating and

delivering high standards of instruction (Chase & Kane, 1983).

Much confusion and disequilibrium have resulted from the advice

and recommendations from experts in the profession. "The way out of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

our current confusion is to reconstruct education so that the cur­

riculum, the learner, and our highest and widest social aims are

ordered in vital, harmonic interdependence" (Turner, 1986, p. 15).

Professional activities, cited literature, and the interdepen­

dence of educational organizations are validating an educational

mission of the 1980s and beyond to systematically train and select

school leaders. The vision needs to include a performance-based,

comprehensive, and collaborative education for principal preparation.

Are universities the only place where identification and skill

development takes place? Local school districts have potential can­

didates within their organizations and oftentimes they are perhaps

overlooked or selected based upon criteria which are not performance-

based. "Superintendents and board members too often are unable to

transcend considerations of potential loyalty and the absence of

boat-rocking tendencies in return for the greater assets of intelli­

gence, creativity, and courage" (Goodlad, 1984, pp. 306-307).

Selection Practices

Investigated 1980s selection practices of randomly sampled,

geographically dispersed school districts with enrollments of 10,000

or more students were found to use three selection processes:

(a) assessment centers; (b) district operated internships; and (c)

conventional, yet exemplary, selection systems which include vacancy

announcements, selection criteria, applicant pools, screening, and

employment decisions (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983). The selection prac­

tices alone do not guarantee the best choice. Processes using these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

selection "tools" need to be determined and validated so that

appointments are made based upon merit rather than contingencies

(Baltzell & Dentler, 1983).

Prior to 1960, the interview process was the most widely used,

yet least reliable and most invalid, method of selecting personnel

(Mayfield, 1964; Thornton & Byham, 1982). However, the more struc­

tured the interview, the more trained the interviewers, and the more

measurable the dimensions and the scored responses, the greater the

reliability (Thornton & Byham, 1982). Yet, school districts since

the 1950s have used an interview process for principal selection.

Business, industry, and government have used the assessment

center concept since the 1950s (Wendel & Kelley, 1983) as a component

to their selection process. This process uses and rates a prescribed

set of multiple activities and on-the-job simulations (Thornton &

Byham, 1982). An assessment center can give validated predictions of

management performance (Thornton & Byham, 1982); and educators are

taking steps to design, deliver, implement, and evaluate this tool

for principal selection and development.

Theoretical Elements for Principals

The principal may possess a personal mission statement which

includes continued personal and professional growth and development.

In order to expect students and teachers to grow or develop, the

instructional leader must exemplify continued learning.

Additional elements necessary for school leadership are both the

understanding of the organization's purpose in order to transmit

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

goals and objectives to others, as well as possessing the understand­

ing of people. Knowledge of subjects or situations and the capacity

for individual, motivational, and achievement needs may result in the

accurate assessment, evaluation, decision, or placement of talent,

needs, and interest (Boles & Davenport, 1983).

A principal, one who influences or directs the school activities

of others, must have power. Power does not always come from position

or a predesigned title established by an organization and recognized

by others as having the authority to carry out specified tasks. This

right by virtue of a position or role may be the most familiar or

recognized by a society but is the lowest form of power (Kelley,

1985). French and Raven (1960) described expert or authoritative

power as being visible and residual where previously defined goals

are achieved and recognized by others. Goal development is based

upon previous knowledge with intended, higher-level results. There

is no guarantee, however, that the position or role, alone, will

produce intended outcomes.

A principal may need to display authenticity of "that degree of

human existence to which one participates in social exchange without

negating the cumulative values that he or she has acquired" (Boles &

Davenport, 1983, p. 266). This behavior is easily recognized by

followers since a principal is called upon by others for direction.

Behavior is observable. This behavior, like power, is based upon

outcomes. Inner values and convictions can be seen by observing an

individual's behavior. These are unintended outcomes. Therefore, an

authentic person doesn't have to remember how to act; authenticity is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

natural. This can be a positive factor in building a base of trust

and rapport with people.

Authentic behavior is a beginning to moral leadership, "the

level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leaders and

led" (Burns, 1978, p. 20). With moral leadership, an organization is

then free to evaluate, free to create and achieve higher goals which

further produces an even more effective school.

A principal may display two different types of leadership pat­

terns. Burns (1978) professed transactional leadership, contracted

exchanges for valued things, and transformational leadership, "a

relationship of mutual stimulation and evaluation that converts fol­

lowers into leaders [which] may convert [principals] into moral

agents" (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Both patterns are developmental and may

be achieved through education and experience.

An effective principal may also have vision for the future of

his or her school. In creating this vision, a principal must evalu­

ate life outside of the organization. Factors such as labor force,

demographic changes, family patterns, technology, population, poli­

tics, and the job market (Cetron, 1985) must be considered when plan­

ning long range or higher goals for the school. The external envi­

ronment will directly affect the environment within the organization

(Sergiovanni & Carver, 1980). Therefore, the skill of vision must

include the ability to conduct research, evaluate data, and apply the

findings to the internal environment (Kelley, 1985; Sergiovanni &

Carver, 1980).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

Strengths and Limitations of Theories

All practicing principals do not possess or have been trained to

have a personal mission statement which ultimately will transfer to

others for the good of the organization. Some may possess a personal

mission statement which encompasses the fulfillment of a personal

want using power or position to obtain political, social, or economi­

cal prestige not relevant to the recipients' needs or values of the

organization (Burns, 1978).

Ideally, principals need to make decisions by searching for

strategies until all alternatives are identified, weighted, and

ranked. The best possibilities may be determined using this system.

However, time constraints cause the principal to make workable, not

necessarily the best, decisions (Sergiovanni & Carver, 1980).

Expert power is enhanced by not only knowledge and experience

but also by the mission a principal possesses. One who is dedicated

to a moral purpose reflected by the goals of the schools a living

example of that which is professed as well as obtained.

To further a purpose, accurate vision may be a catalyst. This

vision needs to be legitimate and moral to carry the principal and

the followers to a higher level of thinking, acting, and carrying out

predetermined goals. The concept of mutual dependency and mutual

fulfillment from a leader and his or her followers can be readily

seen by the residual effects of satisfied human behavior and achieved

organizational goals (Boles & Davenport, 1983).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

Political, social, and economic rewards are given to those who

cooperatively support those in a higher position within the organiza­

tion. This concept has legitimate use in the organization as long as

coercive or absolute power is not used (Burns, 1978). If only abso­

lute power is used, then moral leadership and authenticity dimin­

ishes. Respect for self and others is lost and trust disappears. An

organization may function, but the effectiveness is questionable and

short-termed. Authenticity does not evolve or develop rapidly. An

individual does not learn to be authentic by taking classes, only.

Course work, training, time, and experience can be the polish for an

innate tendency of authenticity.

For some schools, a series of successful transactions may no

longer be applicable in order to carry the organization through the

challenges and conflicts ahead. Transformational leaders may need to

raise the level of the followers' thinking, acting, measuring, and

evaluating the standards for the organization. Each school has

particular needs and a principal must be hired with those needs in

mind (Manasse, 1983).

Can this theoretical foundation be consolidated, instructionally

designed, delivered, and applied to principal identification and the

development of generic skills? Are there other organizations that

should help in this process?

Administrative Development

During the late 1920s, Charters (cited in NASSP, 1985) proposed

and built a university performance-based curriculum designed for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

educators, which included specific competencies, evaluative criteria,

and prescribed experiences resulting in criterion-references out­

comes. By the mid-1950s, management and educational administration

analyzed the training needs and role performance of administrators in

their respective fields. "Unfortunately, rigid approaches to train­

ing, the problems inherent in handling masses of data, and an over­

emphasis on endless lists of behaviors stalled wide application of

these ideas" (NASSP, 1985, p. 1).

Educational improvement studies of 1983-1984 (Achilles, 1984)

continued to emphasize the need for strong principal preparation. A

1984 proposal submitted at the annual meeting for the National Con­

ference of Professors of Educational Administration proposed a four-

category process which included the recruitment of recipients with a

strong liberal arts degree; selection of those persons committed to

an 11-month preparatory program to which districts contribute fiscal

support and a mentor-supervisor; three-phase training for "expert

power"; and retention-pay reforms, which was linking salaries to

adult development stages rather than to length of service (Achilles,

1984).

A program designed and implemented by the Department of Educa­

tional Management at New Mexico State University recruited 32 Ameri­

can Indian teachers to become elementary school principals during

five 1-year cycles. These participants held bachelor's degrees from

accredited universities, taught 3 years at an elementary school, and

showed career commitment to administration of Indian elementary edu­

cation. The program included course requirements for a master of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24

arts in educational administration and courses in communication,

fiscal responsibility, and staff development. Internships at six

state schools with large Indian populations was another component to

the program. Surveys were administered to the program participants

at the end of the preparation process. Of the 18 respondents, 57%

were employed in administrative positions, 39% found employment in

education-related fields, and 4% were working in fields not related

to education. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated the

preparation program as very good to excellent. The program's

strengths included course selection and diversity, internships, pro­

gram personnel, and peer group relations. Some of the weaknesses

included course content in Indian education, general education, ad­

ministration, and job placement services (Lujan, 1985). Systematic

administrative training programs are beginning to include criterion

for entry into programs and soliciting student feedback to make

further program changes and improvements for future training.

Principal Selection

Nearly half of the nation's principals of the 1980s are between

the ages of 55 and 65 and will retire in the next 2 decades (Baltzell

& Dentler, 1983). Potential principal candidates are met with cer­

tain selection practices and obstacles. Interviewing, which does not

predict future behavior (McIntyre, 1974), is the single most commonly

used method of selection. This approach, in theory, is unbiased and

honest, yet often becomes a public relations process school districts

use in 7 out of 10 cases when superintendents and school boards have

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

selected their candidates before the selection procedure has been

activated (Howes, 1978).

Other factors identified as having no validity in predicting

future success, yet used in selection criteria include: length of

previous teaching experience, number of undergraduate and graduate

courses completed, sex, marital status, and age of the candidates

(Newberry, 1977). In 1928, 55% of the elementary principals were

women. Only 18% of the nation's elementary principalships are held

by women in the 1980s (Rosser, 1980). Without a mentor or knowledge

of how the selective system works, women have difficulty breaking

into the "old boys network," which began after the Great Depression

and the return of the veterans to the work force following World War

II (Rosser, 1980; NASSP, 1980).

Since the 1960s, federal laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, age discrimination in the Employment Act of 1967, Title IX

of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Rehabilitation Act of

1973) have provided the standards for equal employment in the United

States (Schustereit, 1980). "These laws prohibit employment dis­

crimination on the basis of religion, race or national origin, age,

sex or non-related handicaps" (Breed, 1985, p. 26). To support and

further the intentions of these laws, Supreme Court decisions (e.g.,

Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 1971) requires employers to show sta­

tistically or rationally the relationship between selection criteria

and job positions and to record and document selection processes

(Harlan, Klemp, & Schaalman, 1980).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

In an effort to improve selection practices, school boards of

the 1980s usually use one of four techniques for selecting educa­

tional administrators. Unfortunately, none has any validity when

used alone (Tesolowski & Morgan, 1980):

1. Personal preference— selection based on a feeling by board

biases, prejudices, and values.

2. Background approach— work histories of potential managers

are evaluated and analyzed to see how similar they are to the histo­

ries of successful managers.

3 and 4. Internal characteristics approach and skills approach

are tests of aptitudes and skills which are used to predict future

performance.

Ideally, a principal should be selected on the basis of not only

qualifications but also on specific needs of the school assignment.

Selection should include a preliminary screening process, based upon

the school's goals and the described role of that future principal,

as well as specific human and professional competencies that appli­

cants should possess. In the final selection stages, a written nar­

rative, compiled by the selection committee, specifying the basis for

recommendation of the finalist(s) should be submitted to and used by

the superintendent (Lund, 1977). "When the criteria are fitted to a

particular vacancy, they achieve their highest level of intrinsic

validity. . . . Unfortunately, too many changes in assignments lie

ahead to make this a feasible, and more comprehensive, general stan­

dards must be developed" (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, p. 53). If a set

of requirements becomes too general, then the vague criteria may

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

detract from the ritualistic selection process often comprised of

school district's senior administrators who lose the ability to

correct the judgment and perceptions of their colleagues (Baltzell &

Dentler, 1983). Therefore, the need for additional validated evi­

dence must become part of the selection process.

Generic Skills and Assessment

A principal's day consists of many sporadic activities (Chase &

Kane, 1983), which may be a factor contributing to the vague princi­

pal job descriptions. Kmetz and Willower's (1982) study found that

school principals average 14.7 activities per hour with a new ac­

tivity occurring every 4 minutes. Of the approximate 400 separate

interactions per day, 90% of these activities last less than 10

minutes each (Hersey, 1987). A specific breakdown of some of the

normal activities of a day of a principal may look as presented in

Table 1.

Applicable and generic to all principals are skills which may

link school leadership theory to practice regarding general manage­

rial performance (Hersey, 1977; Moses & Byham, 1980; Thornton &

Byham, 1982). The fragmentation and complexity of an administrator's

tasks support the need for comprehensive training and development to

bridge the gap between educational theory and effective application

(Barth, 1985; Cornett, 1983; Leithwood et al., 1984; Manasse, 1983;

Peterson, 1985).

The NASSP has developed an assessment center where a set of 12

generic skills pertaining to principals and assistant principals are

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

Table 1

Daily Activities of .an Administrator

Elementary Secondary Task principal principal

Desk work 18.6% 16.0%

Phone calls 8.0% 5.8%

Scheduled meetings 10.3% 17.3%

Unscheduled meetings 32.5% 27.5%

Verbal exchanges 6.0% 9.0%

Monitoring (bus, lunch) 4.4% 5.5%

Trips 5.4% 2.2%

Tours (walking) 4.2% 7.7%

Teacher observation 2.5% 2.4%

Personal (time alone) 3.6% 5.1%

Announcements 0.7% 0.7%

Teaching 1.9% 0.1%

Support Chores 1.9% 0.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Note. From Find the Best, Motivate the Rest, Stand the Test by P. W. Hersey, February 25, 1989, assessment center workshop presented at the convention of the National Association of Secondary School Prin­ cipals, New Orleans.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

identified. These skills have been clustered to address the varied

duties, tasks, and responsibilities educational leaders must perform

on the job (Hersey, 1987).

1. Problem analysis: Ability to seek out relevant data and

analyze complex information to determine the important elements of a

problem situation; searching for information with a purpose.

2. Judgment: Ability to reach logical conclusions and make

high quality decisions based on available information; skill in

identifying educational needs and setting priorities; ability to

evaluate critically written communications.

3. Organizational ability: Ability to plan, schedule, and

control the work of others; skill in using resources in an optimal

fashion; ability to deal with a volume of paperwork and heavy demands

on one's time.

4. Decisiveness: Ability to recognize when a decision is re­

quired (disregarding the quality of the decision) and to act quickly.

5. Leadership: Ability to get others involved in solving

problems; ability to recognize when a group requires direction, to

interact with a group effectively, and to guide them to the accom­

plishment of the task.

6. Sensitivity: Ability to perceive the needs, concerns, and

personal problems of others; skill in resolving conflicts; tact in

dealing with persons from different backgrounds; ability to deal

effectively with people concerning emotional issues; knowing what

information to communicate and to whom.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

7. Stress tolerance: Ability to perform under pressure and

during opposition; ability to think on one's feet.

8. Oral communication: Ability to make clear oral presenta­

tion of facts or ideas.

9. Written communication: Ability to express ideas clearly in

writing; to write appropriately for different audiences— students,

parents, teachers, and others.

10. Range of interest: Competence to discuss a variety of

subjects— educational, political, current events, economic, etc.;

desire to actively participate in events.

11. Personal motivation: Need to achieve in.all activities

attempted; evidence that work is important to personal satisfaction;

ability to be self-policing.

12. Educational values: Possession of a well-reasoned educa­

tional philosophy; receptiveness to new ideas and change.

An assessment center brings together people, events, and time.

Participating candidates have the structured opportunity to function

in simulations of administrative roles, intrapersonal skills, oral

and written skills, and educational values while being observed and

evaluated by trained assessors. Since there are no studies which

have shown a strong correlation between what people think and how

they will actually perform, nor is one activity, alone, a good pre­

dictor for success (Breed, 1985; Hersey, 1987); the assessment center

has designed and validated the sequence of activities and simulations

to produce high correlative findings. The candidate is observed by

different assessors during each exercise. A team consensus is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

reached on overall scores through the multi-rater approach. The

goals are: to provide a profile report of skill strengths and areas

in need of development; to analyze potential candidates and give the

employer data which may be used to predict outcomes of employee per­

formance; and to provide decision-makers with more information about

a successful candidate not previously available in standard applica­

tion and interview processes.

If a correlative strength or degree of a relationship exists

between assessment center performance and what is required for a

principal's job performance, then an employer can make certain esti­

mates or predictions from the assessment center's results. The

higher the correlation obtained, the more accurate the prediction

(Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1985). Caution must be used on the results

of assessment center data. The results do not replace steps in the

screening function. Application recommendations and previous per­

formance interviews are among other tools to use in selection

(Hersey, 1987; Michaels, 1987).

NASSP has more than 54 assessment centers operating in approxi­

mately 40 states, Australia, Canada, and West Germany (Hersey, 1989).

While they all share the same objective of a multi-rater assessment

of potential administrator skills, some offer additional components.

As of September 1, 1987, the state of Missouri required "all

prospective school administrators to pass a special assessment center

before being eligible for their professional certificates" (NASSP,

1987, p. 4). The importance of this process was to model new admin­

istrator preparation programs for Missouri colleges and universities.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

The Michigan Academy for Principal Preparation (MAPP) is a

unique NASSP assessment center project, which not only assesses

individuals in preservice preparation programs but also assesses

present administrators- The profile results may be used to design a

practicing administrator's professional development plan (Kelley,

1986).

The University of Nebraska's Assessment Center analyzes poten­

tial candidates while working on degrees in educational administra­

tion (Cornett, 1983). Results of the student's profile are used to

determine appropriate course work to enhance strengths and develop

limitations.

Florida's Dade County Public Schools uses an assessment center

as part of their Executive Training Program to prepare new principals

(Michaels, 1987). In addition to a 10-month training program for

preparing assistant principals for a formal appointment as a school

principal, interns use the results of the assessment center to de­

velop their self-assessed professional development plan while working

with their assigned training support team.

Conversely, the University of Pennsylvania believes educational

leadership is

rooted in the fundamental enlightenment of thought . . . and after a long struggle . . . made fundamental changes in the doctoral program for administrators. Creativity and intelligence are not "skills" and thus constitute something that the bony finger of an "assessment center" cannot find. Five required courses constitute the core . . . their content is drawn from philosophy, history, social science and the classic works in education . . . [these courses] develop a critical perspective on learning-teaching, schools as social institutions, and significant issues of practice. (Gibboney, 1987, p. 28)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Again, caution needs to be exercised in the assessment center's

use as a means for principal identification and assessment. An

assessment center is recognized as being a tool for this process, not

a solution.

Certification and State Agencies

By July 1988, all states in the United States had administrative

certification required for all practicing school administrators

(Bittle, 1987; Hersey, 1987). A certificate is a qualifier or a set

of social conditions which must be met in an area of fitness or

competency (Urdang, 1968). Administrative certification is a social

condition or a way to determine whether a person has met college or

university requirements for administrative preparation. This licen­

sure or certification is designed to protect the public, to be fair

to those who already have a certificate, to improve the quality of

the profession, and to limit the number of people who practice in a

given profession (Haberman, 1986). State certification standards can

be too lax and too vague to serve as criteria for effectiveness

(Cornett, 1983). Certification usually requires continued training

or more university course work. The states' solution to effective­

ness appears to point only in the direction of more education for

certification requirements. Certification, like the assessment cen­

ter, should be used as a tool, not a solution.

The role of a certification board or state agency may be to en­

courage public schools, professional organizations, and universities

to combine their efforts to improve the profession. Specific

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

licensure may include approved programming, the demonstration and the

practicing of performance skills, professional program recommenda­

tions, teaching, and experience with a licensing-renewal process

based upon successful performance. Therefore, continued collabora­

tive effort must be made with universities, school districts, and

state agencies for the updating or redesigning of certification

requirements.

In summary, efforts to improve the selection and development of

school administrators are becoming more performance-based and ac­

countable (Steller, 1984). State and professional organizations

recognize the need to work cooperatively with state universities and

school districts and assist in the development of selection practices

that are fair, objective, and valid to identify school administrators

(Jeswald, 1977).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III

METHODS

The purpose of this study was to report the perceptions of

Michigan principals regarding their university preparation programs

and to make specific recommendations for improving university princi­

pal preparation instruction and programs. A survey process was used

to obtain and report data. This chapter describes the procedures

used to (a) identify the population and sample; (b) present the ques­

tionnaire; and (c) collect, code, and analyze the data.

Population and Sample

The subjects of this study were practicing public school princi­

pals from the state of Michigan. The names of these principals were

obtained from the 1987 edition of the Michigan Education Directory

and 3uyer's Guide (Michigan Education Directory, 1987). The popula­

tion was grouped by their designated intermediate school district,

alphabetized by district, and clustered according to the school clas­

sification of either high school, junior high-intermediate-middle

school, or elementary school. Using the table of random numbers (Ary

et al., 1985, pp. 430-434), 347 principals from the 1,971 elementary

schools, 616 junior high-intermediate-middle schools, and 615 high

schools from the state were chosen to represent the sample, in order

to retain a confidence level of 95% with an error of estimation of

35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

+5%. For the estimated total population of 3,202, a sample size of

347 was required according to Krejcie and Morgan (cited in Banach,

1984). Sampling allocations were determined by selecting the propor­

tional percentages from each of the three levels, elementary, middle

school, and high school. Therefore, since 62% of the campuses or

operating public schools in Michigan are elementary schools, then 62%

of the sample were elementary principals. Nineteen percent of middle

school and 19% of high school campuses comprise the Michigan school

campus populations. Therefore, the sample had 19% each represented

by middle school and high school administrators. The original

stratification (E, JMI, S) was primarily intended to obtain a true

representative sample.

Because three clusters of skill domain surveys were sent to

three randomly selected groups of the 347 principals (A, B, C), the

sample size was split into thirds, 115-116 principals per cluster.

Only 48% of the sample population returned the surveys. Therefore, a

lower confidence rate was initially calculated as 92.4%. /P x Q N - n n - 1 N

.5 x .5 3202 - 165

165 - 1 3202

B = 2 {.0015244 x .9484697

B = 2 \j . 0014458

B = 2 x .0380243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. B = .0760486

B = 7.6%

(A modified probability sampling process, selecting 10 extra

random numbers, was used in case surveys were sent to the directory-

listed principals who retired or were no longer working at a building

after the sample selection process was implemented.)

The rationale for acceptance of this admittedly small return on

surveys in this study is supported in the review of literature. In

many educational research projects, small samples can be more appro­

priate than large samples. A study that probes deeply into the

characteristics of a small sample may provide more knowledge than a

study that attacks the same problem by collecting only shallow infor­

mation on a large sample (Borg & Gall, 1983).

The numbers of surveys given out were 116, 116, and 115 (1* =

347) on Surveys A, B, and C, respectively. The return of unspoiled

surveys were 54, 62, and 49 on Surveys A, B, and C, respectively.

Principal respondents appeared to represent a random geographical

segment of the state, though no formal reporting of this was part of

the study. The majority of principal respondents (61%) served in

districts where the student population was 3,000 or less (see Table 7

in Chapter IV).

Each group of surveys posed three different sets of questions

and should have been identified and used as three different instru­

ments. Therefore, an even lower confidence rate of 85.7% was calcu­

lated using the lowest number (49) of returned, unspoiled surveys

from Survey Group C.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

.5 x .5 3202 - 49 B = 2 / ------x------V 49-1 3202

/T25 JET B_ = 2 / --- x----- v 48 3202

B = 2 y .0052083 x .984697

B = 2 V .0051285

B_ = 2 x .0716135

B_ = .143227

B = 14.3%

In essence, this study had three different instruments, not one

instrument. Initially, during the planning for replication stages,

this was not noticed and concludes with an even lower confidence

coefficient. Caution needs to be used in the interpretation of the

findings from this study because of such a low confidence rate. Such

caution may also need to be exercised in the Texas study (Witters-

Churchill, 1988) because the three surveys were used, computed, and

interpreted with one instrument.

Design

Descriptive research is designed to systematically describe the

characteristics of a given population of interest area in an accurate

and factual process (Isaac & Michael, 1985). The design does not

"necessarily seek or explain relationships, test hypotheses, make

predictions, or get at meanings and implications" (Isaac & Michaels,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

p. 46). Rather, this design reported the perceptions of Michigan

public school administrators regarding their own university prepara­

tion programs which may benefit the profession in "making future

plans and decisions" (Isaac & Michaels, p. 46) regarding principal

preparation programs in the state of Michigan. Findings are dis­

played in chart essay tables or graphs with percentages given for

each item. Separate pages for each of the nine skills gave a visual

and written summary for each skill domain question (extent developed,

instructional modes frequently used and their effectiveness, and

recommended instructional modes) (Witters-Churchill, 1988), with raw

data available (see Appendix B) and weighted scores used in final

presentation and for discussion purposes. Qualitative responses from

Items 8, 9, and 10 from the questionnaire were determined by data-

based debate results obtained from the original Texas study (Witters-

Churchill, 1988).

Obtaining the Generic Skills

Nine of the 12 generic skills defined and assessed by the NASSP

Assessment Center project were used in this study. The definitions

of the 12 generic skills served as the premise (Bishop, 1983). The

24 definitions derived from the 12 skills (2 per skill) were pre­

sented to the NASSP University Consortium in October 1986 for discus­

sion, and members suggested that the list be shortened or changed to

reflect a narrow focus with higher quality (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

The executive summary of the criterion-related and the content va­

lidity of the NASSP Assessment Center was reviewed to identify the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

skills of greatest internal and external validity. A list of 33

assessment center skills (Thornton & Byham, 1982) for assessment

centers and managerial performance was reviewed (Witters-Churchill,

1988) and these skills were compared to the 12 NASSP generic skills.

Members of the Texas Congress of Principals, a group of 25 "scholar

practitioners," identified from the Thornton and Byham list those

skills they considered "most important" in their day-to-day function­

ing as principals and those skills which they considered "least

important" (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

The findings (Bishop, 1983), which reflected the 12 NASSP

skills, were ranked as the most important by practicing principals

and reviewed (Witters-Churchill, 1988). The validity study (Bishop,

1983) and the input of the practicing principals (Witters-Churchill,

1988) were used to identify 11 generic skills. The 11 skills repre­

sented those of greatest importance as perceived by practicing prin­

cipals and those of greatest validity. Two skills, delegation and

integrity, were eliminated from the original study, with recommenda­

tion and support from the members of the Texas Congress of Princi­

pals, for ease in grouping the skills.

Three hundred and twenty-three competency statements were ab­

stracted from literature (Witters-Churchill, 1988) and used to iden­

tify functional activities which illustrate the formal definitions of

the generic skills provided by National Association of Secondary

School Principals (1985) and Thornton and Byham (1982). At least one

statement was taken directly from or modeled after these statements

to illustrate each skill. Each skill was formally defined with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. accompanying examples (Witters-Churchill, 1988). Members of the

Texas Congress of Principals evaluated these statements and created

additional statements which would illustrate the day-to-day applica­

tion of the generic skills (Witters-Churchill, 1988). This input was

used to generate functional definitions for each skill responded to

in the questionnaire.

Questionnaires

Because of the length of the survey instrument, the 347 sampled

respondents were randomly divided into three groups to receive a

group of three skill domain questionnaires. Group A was surveyed for

training perceptions in problem analysis, written communication, and

sensitivity (see Appendix A); Group B was surveyed for training

perceptions in decisiveness, organizational ability, and leadership

(see Appendix A); Group C was surveyed for training perceptions in

judgment, oral communication, and stress tolerance (see Appendix A).

In addition, respondents are asked to recommend strategies for im­

proving the instructional delivery systems of principal preparation

programs.

Each survey package contained a glossary of terms for the skill

domains being assessed. Specific task examples accompanied the defi­

nitions to clarify the generic skill (Witters-Churchill, 1988). In

addition, the package contained nine defined modes of instruction to

assist the respondent in answering the survey questions (Witters-

Churchill, 1988).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

Instrumentation

Each survey package contained 10 questions, 3 questions per

skill domain, with 7 profile and open-ended questions. Each survey

package included an invitation to participate in a follow-up tele­

phone interview (Witters-Churchill, 1988). The respondents were

asked to consider the specific skill domain and rate the extent to

which their university administrator preparation program developed

that skill: not developed, slightly developed, moderately developed,

or highly developed. If the skill in question was rated other than

not developed, the respondent was then asked to identify no more than

three modes of instruction used at their university. The respondent

was then asked to write out, in the three provided boxes, the most

frequently used mode, followed by the next frequently used mode, and

the third most frequently used instructional mode to develop the

skill in question.

Data Collection Procedures

This survey was conducted during the spring of 1988. Due to a

limited expense account, no personalized letter of introduction was

initially sent to the sample participants. Instead, the prospective

respondents were sent a survey packet on April 7, 1988, which in­

cluded: (a) a generic, "Dear Colleague," letter of introduction ex­

plaining the purpose and process of the survey and study; (b) a survey

fact sheet with answers to basic questions about the study (Witters-

Churchill, 1988); (c) a glossary of terms (Witters-Churchill, 1988);

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

(d) a postage-paid, addressed envelope which included the identifica­

tion code of the respondent on the bottom left-hand side; and (e) the

survey instrument (Witters-Churchill, 1988) with demographic ques­

tions included.

Each packet of materials was mailed in a large manila envelope.

Each packet was addressed with a computerized mailing label which had

to be carefully coordinated with the computerized identification code

label which was placed on each return envelope in each packet. The

computerized mailing label also had the identification code printed

above the principal's name to facilitate this packaging and mailing

process. As the respondent returned the completed questionnaire, a

special coding was entered into the data mail program so that when

new computer labels were printed, those respondents who had already

returned their questionnaires did not receive another mailing. In

addition, a letter of endorsement was included in this second mailing

(see Appendix A).

Within 3 weeks of the initial mailing, only 23%, or 80 respon­

dents, had returned their questionnaires. Two respondents sent the

entire packet back with a refusal to take part in the project. On

May 6, a second mailing went out, similar to the first. The cover

letter had been changed to show that the packet was a second mailing.

Within a 5-week period of time, an additional 25%, or 85 principals,

returned the completed surveys. No additional mailing were conducted

due to financial constraints and, therefore, a 48% return rate of

usable questionnaire responses comprised the data for this study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

Informed Subsample

The first 100 completed surveys which responded "yes" to the

question of "Would you like to be selected for a follow-up interview

to make future recommendations?" were initially selected. The limi­

tation of using volunteers is that they may be biased either for or

against the subject and these responses may not accurately represent

the population. In addition, there were no checking procedures used

to determine similarities or differences between the first 100 com-'

pleted surveys and the 65 additional returned surveys.

The following criteria were used to determine the 34 surveys to

be used in the follow-up telephone interviews (Witters-Churchill,

1988):

1. Respondent identified a specific area for improvement and

provided elaboration.

2. Respondent answered each question accurately and completely,

according to directions given.

3. Respondent had been involved in the formal training of other

administrators or had taught one or more graduate courses in educa­

tional administration.

The questions asked during the telephone interview were

(Witters-Churchill, 1988):

1. What type of teaching certificate do you hold?

2. What could your administrator preparation program have done

better to help prepare you for your present professional role? (If

necessary, please explain or elaborate.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45

3. In your postal questionnaire you identified ( ) as the

single most important way educational administration departments

could improve preparation of principals. In what ways could or

should this suggestion be implemented? (If necessary, please explain

or elaborate.)

4. How should principal preparation programs change to meet the

future needs of practicing professionals?

5. The information you have shared in this interview will be

used to direct program planning for university administration prepa­

ration. With this in mind, is there anything else you would like to

suggest?

6. May I call you again, as a resource? (Whether this question

was asked depended upon the type of conversation which had occurred.)

The 34 principals who were contacted by telephone had agreed to

participate in the telephone interview which took place during the

second week of May 1988. Despite the hectic end of the year activi­

ties to which each principal was attending, the respondents took

ample time to participate in the interview. The responses were

recorded rapidly on an individual question sheet for each principal.

Each response was then placed into the appropriate and corresponding

classification scheme as designed for use in the Texas study

(Witters-Churchill, 1988); the findings of this analysis are provided

in Chapter V.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Analysis of Questionnaire Responses

Close-Ended Questions

Close-ended responses on 165 written questionnaires were hand

coded and recorded (see Chapter IV). Most responses were easily

tallied, yet some questions were not appropriately marked. The

following decision rules were used for coding and tallying purposes

(Witters-Churchill, 1988, p. 117):

1. If "not developed" was circled, but instructional modes were

identified, the instructional modes were ignored.

2. If two rankings of development or effectiveness were se­

lected, the lower one was used.

3. If more than three instructional modes were circled, only

the modes written on the blank lines were used.

4. If more than one "ideal" mode was selected, it was coded as

"other." If the respondent said that a combination of modes was the

"ideal" mode, it was coded as "other."

Each chart essay was checked and double checked by having a

horizontal total column and vertical "no response needed" column (see

Chapter IV and chart essays in the appendices). Each sum total

column had to balance to be accepted.

Open-Ended Questions

Open-ended answers tended to fall into the classification sys­

tems designed by Witters-Churchill (1988). Therefore, no formal

data-based debate teams were called together for this lengthy

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. procedure. The findings of this classification process is discussed

in Chapter V.

In summary, methods of this study included: (a) a replication,

with revisions, of the Texas survey (Witters-Churchill, 1988); (b) a

modified mailing schedule; (c) data collection procedures similar to

the Texas study; and (d) use of the Texas classification schemes for

open-ended responses to written questionnaire and telephone interview

responses from the informed subsample. The findings from this study

are found in Chapter IV, and the conclusions and recommendations are

in Chapter V.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Written Questionnaire

The purpose of this study was to gather and record the percep­

tions and evaluations of Michigan public school principals regarding

their university administrator preparation programs. The findings of

this study are reported in Chapter IV. Three skill domains per ques­

tionnaire were asked of each respondent (see Appendix A). Each sub­

section is arranged to answer four specific questions per skill:

1. To what extent were Group A — problem analysis, written com­

munication, and sensitivity leadership; Group B— decisiveness and

organizational ability; and Group C— judgment, oral communication,

and stress tolerance developed in the university administrator prepa­

ration programs of Michigan principals?

2. What instructional modes were used to develop Group A—

problem analysis, written communication, and sensitivity leadership;

Group B— decisiveness and organizational ability; and Group C— judg­

ment, oral communication, and stress tolerance in the university

preparation programs of Michigan principals?

3. How effective were the instructional modes used to develop

Group A— problem analysis, written communication, and sensitivity

leadership; Group B— decisiveness and organizational ability; and

Group C— judgment, oral communication, and stress tolerance in the

48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

university administrator preparation programs of Michigan principals?

4. What instructional modes do Michigan principals believe

should be used to develop Group A — problem analysis, written communi­

cation, and sensitivity leadership; Group B— decisiveness and organi­

zational ability; and Group C— judgment, oral communication, and

stress tolerance skills?

Reporting the Findings

Demographic information of all respondents, not divided by

generic group clusters, is presented in this section. Accompanying

the chart essays (Haensly et al., 1984) illustrating the findings of

the written questionnaire responses, will be a written analysis of

the findings. To help understand the chart essays, four areas of

explanation are given: (a) extent developed, (b) frequency and

perceived effectiveness, (c) ideal instructional modes, and (d) dis­

cussion.

The next section of this chapter reports the findings from the

extended section of the written questionnaire and from the telephone

interviews. The extended section on each questionnaire was used to

select potential informed subsample participants. The informed sub­

sample administrators were then telephoned for extended questioning

regarding principal preparation program improvements.

Pellicer, Anderson, Keefe, Kelley, and McCleary (1988) reported

descriptive demographic characteristics of high schools in the United

States and included data regarding formal education completed by

principals, years of teaching experience prior to the first

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

principalship, and the number of years served as a principal. Demo­

graphic data for most advanced degree, prior teaching experience, and

years in the principalship of Michigan principals in this study are

compared to data of secondary principals in the 1987 NASSP study

(Pellicer et al, 1988).

Most Advanced Degrees

Ninety-nine percent of the respondents from this study held at

least a master's degree (see Table 2). This factor compares with the

national study where "respondents . . . and comparable data for 1977

and 1965 . . . report virtually all principals, 99%, possess at least

a master's degree" (Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 53). In Michigan, 30%

of the principals held an education specialist's degree or higher and

nationally this figure was 29% in 1977, and increased to 38% in 1987

(Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 53). Michigan appears to be lower than

the national percentage of formal training yet compares to the na­

tional finding that "the master's degree is the entry-level degree

for the principalship" (Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 53).

Teaching Experience

More than half of the Michigan respondents, 61%, had 10 or less

years of prior teaching experience before becoming a principal (see

Table 3). Thirty-six percent of these respondents had 6-10 years of

teaching experience. Twelve percent of the Michigan respondents had

16-21 or more teaching years before becoming a public school adminis­

trator.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

Table 2

Most Advanced Degree

National— 1987 Michigan— -1989

Level n % ri %

BS/BA 1 1 1 1

MS/MA 61 61 112 68

Ed.S. 16 16 29 18

Ph.D./Ed.,D. 21 21 19 12

Other/NR 1 1 4 2

Total 100 100 165 100a

aRounded to nearest 100%.

Table 3

Years of Teaching Experience Prior to Principalship

Years n. %

0-5 yrs. 41 25

6-10 yrs. 60 36

11-15 yrs. 33 20

16-20 yrs. 14 8

21+ yrs. 7 4

No response 10 6 A)

Total 165 o o

aRounded to nearest 100%.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

Administrative Experience

Nationally, more than half of the principals served in an admin­

istrative position for 10-14 years (Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 58).

In Michigan, 58% of the respondents have served from 11-21 or more

years as a principal (see Table 4). In both studies, "the principal­

ship is a significant career role for the majority of those selected"

(Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 58) and support the national concern for

principal replacement due to retirement.

Table 4

Administrative Years

Years n %

0-5 yrs. 36 22

6-10 yrs. 27 16

11-15 yrs. 39 24

16-20 yrs. 32 19

21+ yrs. 25 15

No response 6 4

Total 165 100

This following section will elaborate on the remaining demo­

graphic tables from the Michigan study. These areas will include

(a) job titles, (b) areas of university study (most advanced de­

grees), and (c) number of students per district.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

Job Titles

The majority of the principal respondents, 52%, were elementary

school administrators (see Table 5). Twenty-two percent were high

school administrators and 19% were junior high, middle, or inter­

mediate school principals. Seven respondents, or 4%, had different

level combination responsibilities such as elementary-middle school'

principal, middle-high school principal, or K-12 administrator.

Three percent did not respond to this demographic question.

Table 5

Job Titles

Job title _n %

Elementary principal 85 52

Junior high, middle, or intermediate principal 32 19

High school 36 22

Level combinations 7 4

No response 5 3

Total 165 100

Areas of University Study

Almost three fourths of the principals participating in this

study, 73%, majored either in educational leadership or educational

administration (see Table 6). Twenty-two percent majored in other

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

Table 6

Area of Concentration (University Study)

Area of concentration n %

Education leadership or education administration 120 73

Other: 37 22

Biology-science 2

Counseling 6

Curriculum 11

Education (early) 9

Personnel 1

Public relations 1

Special education 1

Physical education 2

Mathematics 2

Reading 2

No response 8 5

Total 165 100

areas, such as: (a) curriculum— 11 respondents, (b) education— 9 re­

spondents, (c) counseling— 6 respondents, (d) mathematics— 2 respon­

dents, (e) physical education— 2 respondents, (f) reading— 2 respon­

dents, (g) biology-science— 2 respondents, (h) personnel— 1 respon­

dent, (i) public relations— 1 respondent, and (j) special education—

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

1 respondent. Eight respondents, or 5%, did not answer this demo­

graphic question.

Number of Students per District

The majority of principals, 61%, served in districts ranging

from 0 to 3,000 pupils (see Table 7). Eighteen percent of the re­

spondents worked in districts which ranged from 3,001 to 8,000 stu­

dents. Twelve percent of the principals served in districts which

served 10,000 or more children. Six percent of the respondents did

not answer this demographic question, and 3% of the respondents

worked in a district which had 8,001 to 9,000 students.

Written Questionnaire Responses: By Cluster Groups

To help follow the findings of the written questionnaire, chart

essays are used to illustrate responses from the questionnaire per

cluster of generic skills.

Extent Developed

Four columns of numbers represent the following:

1. Numerical charting of all respondents who returned the

survey asking specific generic questions. The responses range from

"no response" (NR) to "not developed."

2. The next column is the numerical finding (1), rounded to the

nearest percentage.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

Table 7

Number of Students in District

Number of students _n %

0-1,000 29 18

1,001-2,000 45 27

2,001-3,000 27 16

3,001-4,000 10 6

4,001-5,000 11 6

5,001-6,000 5 3

6,001-7,000 2 1

7,001-8,000 4 2

8,001-9,000 3 3

9,001-10,000 0 0

10,000+ 19 12

No response 10 6

Total 165 100

3 and 4. The last two columns are numerical and percentage

findings of those principals who completed the entire survey. All

"no response" items were not considered as an actual response.

Frequency and Effectiveness

The frequency and effectiveness section reports the top ranked

3-5 instructional modes and the frequency and effectiveness findings,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

per generic area. (A more detailed chart essay displaying the find­

ings from all instructional modes, per generic area, is found in

Appendix B). The first column lists the specific instructional modes

generally found in university programs. The last item in that column

is a "no response needed." This was listed because respondents were

instructed to list or to choose no more than three instructional

modes used in their university preparation program and some respon­

dents listed less than three. This column serves as an explanation

as to why there may be some discrepancies in some of the totals.

1. Frequency: The next eight columns are the frequency find­

ings beginning with the most frequently used instructional mode (sec­

ond column) to the third most frequently used mode (sixth column).

In between each frequency column, a weighted score column is added

(ws x3, x2, and xl, columns 3, 5, and 7, respectively) to more

accurately report and compare the raw data. Both a frequency core

total and a weighted score total are listed (columns 8 and 9).

2. Effectiveness: The next 11 columns display the perceived

effectiveness findings. The 10th column begins the range of re­

sponses from "not effective" (not) to highly effective (high). In

between these columns (11, 13, 15, and 17) are, again, weighted score

findings (ws xl, x2, x3, and x4, columns 12, 14, 16, and 18, respec­

tively) which are included to more accurately report and compare the

raw score data. (A more detailed chart comparison of both the raw

scores and weighted scores per generic skill are found in Appendix

B.) Both the effectiveness raw and weighted scores' totals are

listed (columns 20 and 21).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

Ideal Modes

The last section of each generic skill discussion area will

chart the ideal modes of instruction.

1. The first column lists 10 instructional modes, including an

"other" which gave the respondent another choice if the desired mode

was not already listed. In addition, a "no response" category is

part of the ideal modes column if the respondent did not choose to

select any ideal mode(s) of instruction.

2. and 3. The last four columns display the numerical and

percentage findings of each ideal mode:

2. All respondents (with "no response" calculated into the

findings).

3. Those respondents who completed all questions of the survey

(without "no response" calculated into the findings).

Generic Skill 1: Problem Analysis

Question 1: To what extent was problem analysis developed in

the university administrator preparation programs of Michigan princi­

pals? (See Table 8.)

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

problem analysis skills in the university preparation programs of

Michigan principals? (See Table 9.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop problem analysis skills in the university prepa­

ration programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 9.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

Table 8

Problem Analysis Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 54) On = 53) developed

n % n %

Not 9 17 9 17

Slightly 18 33 18 34

Moderately 23 43 23 43

Highly 3 6 3 6

No response 1 2

Note. Percentages are rounded.

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of problem analysis skills?

(See Table 10.)

Problem Analysis

Extent Developed

The majority, 77%, of the principals who responded to the com­

plete survey reported their university administrator program had

slightly (34%) to moderately (43%) developed the generic skills of

problem analysis. Seventeen percent of the respondents reported this

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 9

Problem Analysis (n = 54)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Group process training 5 15 7 14 10 10 22 39 0 0 12

Internship 6 18 5 10 3 3 14 31 0 0 1

Lecture and discussion 23 69 7 14 6 6 36 89 1 1 13

Research 8 24 5 10 2 2 15 36 0 0 5

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS ws Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total :al Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

59 0 0 12 24 8 24 2 8 0 22 56

51 0 0 1 2 7 21 6 24 0 14 47

59 1 1 13 26 20 60 2 8 0 36 142

56 0 0 5 10 7 21 2 8 1 15 39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 10

Ideal Instructional Modes for Problem Analysis Skills

All Actual responses responses3 (n = 54) (n = 51) Ideal modes

n % n %

Clinical study 8 15 8 16

Computer-assisted instruction 1 2 1 2

Games and simulations 5 9 5 10

Group process training 7 13 7 14

Instructional modules 1 2 1 2

Internship 17 32 • 17 33

Lecture and discussion 2 4 2 4

Research 2 4 2 4

Tutorials and seminars 4 7 4 8

Other 4 7 4 8

No response 3 6

3Completed the entire survey.

skill as not having been developed, while 6% of the respondents rated

their problem analysis development as being high.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Lecture and discussion was the most frequently used instruc­

tional mode (raw score: 46, weighted score: 89), followed by group

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

process training (raw score: 15, weighted score: 36). Though

internship ranked fourth in the frequency category (raw score: 14,

weighted score: 31), the inode's effectiveness weighted score ranked

third (raw score: 14, weighted score: 47) and was reported as a

highly effective method of instruction (raw score: 6, weighted

score: 25). Lecture and discussion and research were both consid­

ered moderately effective (raw score: 2, weighted score: 8), while

group process training, though the second most frequently used form

of instruction, was considered minimally to moderately (weighted

score: 24) effective.

Ideal Instructional Modes

According to the actual respondents (ti = 51), 33% believed

internship was the most ideal mode for developing problem analysis

skills. The next most ideal mode was reported as clinical study

(16%), followed by group process training (14%), games and simula­

tions (10%), tutorials-seminars tied with other (8%), lecture-discus-

sion tied with research (4%), concluding with tied computer-assisted

instruction and instructional modules (2%).

Discussion

Though the majority (77%) of the responding principals reported

that their university preparation programs slightly to moderately

prepared their problem analysis skills by using the lecture and dis­

cussion method, most frequently followed by group process training

and research, these methods were not considered the most ideal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

methods of instruction. Conversely, responding principals reported

the fourth most frequently used instructional mode, internship, as

the third and the fourth most effectively used method (weighted score

and raw score, respectively), yet this mode was considered the most

ideal according to respondents. One possible explanation may be that

although it was not the most frequent nor the most effectively used

mode, compared to the others, this mode was considered highly effec­

tive when used.

Generic Skill 2: Written Communication

Question 1: To what extent was written communication developed

in the university preparation programs of Michigan principals? (See

Table 11.)

Table 11

Written Communication Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 54) (n = 51) developed

n % ti %

Not 16 30 16 31

Slightly 17 32 17 33

Moderately 14 26 14 27

Highly 4 7 4 8

No response 3 6

aCompleted the entire survey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question 2: What instructional inodes were used to develop

written communication skills in the university preparation programs

of Michigan principals? (See Table 12.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop written communication skills in the university

preparation programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 12.)

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of written communication

skills? (See Table 13.)

Written Communication

Extent Developed

More than half of the actual respondents, 60%, reported that

their principal preparation programs slightly (33%) to moderately

(70%) developed their written communication skills. Almost one-

third, or 31%, of the respondents, however, reported that their

university administrator training had not developed this generic

skill. Only four respondents, or 8%, indicated that this skill had

been highly developed.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Individual-team research and lecture-discussion were tied for

the most frequently used instructional mode (raw score: 23). How­

ever, when the scores were weighted, research (weighted score: 66)

was more frequently used than lecture-discussion (weighted score:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

Table 12

Written Coirmnrication (n = 54)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Most WS Next WS Ihird WS WS WS Mini used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Instructional modules 13360049001

Internship 1 3 3 6 0 0 4 9 0 0 0

Lecture and discussion 15 45 5 10 3 3 23 58 2 2 9

Research 20 60 3 6 0 0 23 66 0 0 5

Tutorials and seminars 1 3 4 8 3 3 8 14 0 0 3

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 ible 12 tommmication l = 54)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total ll Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

. 0 0 1 2 3 9 0 0 0 4 11

1 0 0 0 0 3 9 1 4 0 4 13

1 2 2 9 18 9 27 1 4 2 23 51 i 0 0 5 10 11 33 7 28 0 23 71

0 0 3 6 4 12 1 4 0 8 22 ►

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

Table 13

Ideal Instructional Modes for Written Communication Skills

All Actual a responses responses (n = 54) (n = 52) Ideal modes

n % n %

Clinical study 3 6 3 6

Computer-assisted instruction 1 2 1 • 2

Games and simulations 7 13 7 13

Group process training 6 11 6 12

Instructional modes 7 13 7 13

Internship 9 17 9 17

Lecture and discussion 1 2 1 2

Research 8 15 8 15

Tutorials and seminars 5 9 5 10

Other 5 9 5 10

No response 2 3

aCompleted the entire survey.

58). Tutorials and seminars was the next most frequently used method

of instruction (raw score: 8, weighted score: 14). Instructional

modes tied with internship for the next most frequently used mode of

instruction (raw score: 4, weighted score: 9). All four modes

mentioned, with the exception of lecture-discussion which tied for

minimally and moderately, were considered moderately effective with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. both the raw and weighted scores.

Raw scores for research and lecture-discussion were tied for

most effective (23). However, the weighted score results were:

research (71), lecture-discussion (51), tutorials and seminars (22),

internship (13), and instructional modules (11). Instructional mod­

ules and internship's weighted score results were tied for fourth

place frequency, yet instructional modules was considered more effec­

tive than the internship, the mode responding principals chose for

the most ideal method of instruction.

Ideal Instructional Modes

Seventeen percent of the actual respondents (ii = 52) reported

internship as the method of instruction which should be used by uni­

versity administrator preparation programs in Michigan. Eight prin­

cipals, or 15%, believe research is the ideal mode for instructing

this generic skill. Games-simulations and instructional modes tied

for the third most ideal method of instruction, according to 13%, or

seven respondents. Group process training was selected by six prin­

cipals, 12%, as the most ideal instructional method. Third from the

last place tied tutorials-seminars and-other (10%) as the most ideal

method. Three respondents, or 6%, reported clinical study to be

their choice for written communication study. Tied for last place

were computer-assisted instruction and lecture-discussion which had a

following of one principal each (2%).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

Discussion

Though lecture and discussion ranked in either first or second

place (raw and weighted, respectively) as the most frequently and

most effectively used method of instruction for written communica­

tion, the principals reported that this method is the least ideal

mode of instruction (2%). Internship was reported as being the most

ideal method of instruction, yet not only did this process receive

only a moderate rating for frequency and effectiveness but the

internship was also tied for raw score third place as the most fre­

quently used method. For the weighted score results, this mode tied

for fourth place. Even when used, the internship was considered

moderately effective yet the one which was ideally recommended.

Generic Skill 3: Sensitivity

Question 1: To what extent was sensitivity developed in the

university administrator programs of Michigan principals? (See Table

14.)

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

sensitivity skills in the university preparation programs of Michigan

principals? (See Table 15.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop sensitivity skills in the university preparation

programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 15.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

Table 14 -- Sensitivity Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (ri = 54) (n = 48) developed

n % n %

Not 15 28 15 31

Slightly 17 32 17 35

Moderately 11 20 11 23

Highly 5 9 5 10

No response 6 11

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of sensitivity skills?

(See Table 16.)

Sensitivity

Extent Developed

Slightly more than half (58%) of the actual principal respon­

dents (ri - 48) reported that their university preparation programs

only moderately or slightly developed the generic skill of sensi­

tivity. Five respondents, 10%, reported that this skill was highly

developed and 15 principals, or 31%, reported that this skill had not

at all been developed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 15

Sensitivity On = 54)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Games and simulations 4 12 4 8 5 5 13 25 0 0 2

Group process training 13 39 5 10 2 2 20 51 0 0 5

Lecture and discussion 11 33 2 4 0 0 13 37 0 0 0

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

Table 15 nsitivity (n = 54)

Effectiveness

No WS fs ws Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total >tal Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

25 0 0 2 4 8 24 3 12 0 13 40

51 0 0 5 10 10 30 5 20 0 20 60

37 0 0 0 16 3 9 2 8 0 13 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

Table 16

Ideal Instructional Modes for Sensitivity Skills

All Actual responses responses3 (n = 54) (_n = 46) Ideal modes

n X n X

Clinical study 6 11 6 13

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 7 13 7 15

Group process training 17 32 17 40

Instructional modes 0 0 0 0

Internship 12 22 12 26

Lecture and discussion 0 0 0 0

Research 1 2 1 2

Tutorials and seminars 1 2 1 2

Other 2 4 2 4

No response 8 15

aCompleted the entire survey.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the scores were weighted or not, three instructional

modes were reported as being the most frequent and most effective.

Their order varied, depending upon the raw or the weighted data. Raw

data ranking for most frequent and most effective were as follows:

(a) group process training and (b) games and simulations tied with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

lecture and discussion.

However, with the scores weighted, the same modes ranked in the

top three positions, but in this order: (a) group process training,

(b) lecture and discussion, and (c) games and simulations.

Lecture-discussion, whether in raw score or weighted score data,

was considered minimally effective. Group process training and

games-simulations were both reported as being moderately effective.

Though lecture-discussion was more frequently used than games-simula­

tions, the games-simulations mode was considered to be more effective

than lecture-discussion.

Ideal Instructional Modes

Forty percent, or 17 principals, reported group process training

as being the most ideal instructional mode to teach sensitivity

skills. Twelve respondents, or 26%, believed internship was the best

method. Seven actual respondents, or 15%, rated games and simula­

tions as the most ideal instructional method, followed by a 13%

choice, or six respondents, for clinical study. Two respondents, 4%,

reported other instructional modes, usually a combination of methods,

were best used to develop sensitivity skills. In last place,

tutorials-seminars and research tied (one respondent each or 2% per

category). Computer-assisted instruction, instructional modules, and

lecture-discussion each received no recommendation as an ideal mode

of instruction.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

Discussion

Group process training was one of the top instructional modes

used to develop sensitivity and was also considered one of the most

effective methods of instruction. Even though there was a consistent

finding of group process training being used most frequently and

effectively and ideally, more than one-third of the principal respon­

dents reported this skill had only slightly been developed during

their administrator preparation program. In addition, respondents

rated the skill as moderately, not highly, effective. Yet, the

principals chose this method over any other as being the best or most

ideal way to develop sensitivity.

Generic Skill 4: Judgment

Question 1: To what extent was judgment developed in the uni­

versity administrator preparation programs of Michigan principals?

(See Table 17.)

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

judgment skills in the university preparation programs of Michigan

principals? (See Table 18.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop judgment skills in the university preparation

programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 18.)

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of judgment skills? (See

Table 19.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

Table 17

Judgment Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 62) (n = 57) developed

n % n %

Not 9 15 9 16

Slightly 20 32 20 35

Moderately 22 36 22 39

Highly 6 10 6 11

No response 5 8

aCompleted the entire survey.

Judgment

Extent Developed

Almost three-fourths, 74%, of the actual respondents reported

their university preparation program had either slightly (35%) or

moderately (39%) developed their judgment skills. Nine respondents,

16%, reported judgment had not been developed in their program, while

11%, or six principals, reported that this generic skill had been

highly developed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

Table 18

Judgment (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Group process training 4 12 12 24 6 6 22 42 1 1 4

Lecture and discussion 30 90 7 14 4 4 41 108 0 0 23

Research 4 12 9 18 5 5 18 35 0 0 4

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini- WS Mbder- WS WS response Total total .1 Not Cxi) mal (x2) ate (x3) High Cx4)

1 1 4 8 14 42 3 12 0 22 63

0 0 23 46 17 51 1 4 0 41 101

0 0 4 8 12 36 2 8 0 18 52

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80

Table 19

Ideal Instructional Modes for Judgment Skills

All Actual responses responses (n = 62) (n = 55) Ideal modes

n % n_ %

Clinical study 3 5 3 5

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 4 7 4 7

Group process training 7 11 7 13

Instructional modes 2 3 2 4

Internship 28 45 28 51

Lecture and discussion 3 5 3 6

Research 5 8 5 9

Tutorials and seminars 2 3 2 4

Other 1 2 1 2

No response 7 11

aCompleted the entire survey.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the scores were raw or weighted, lecture-discussion (raw

score: 41, weighted score: 108), group process training (raw score:

22, weighted score: 42), and individual-team research (raw score:

18, weighted score: 35) were ranked in first, second, and third

place, respectively, for both frequency and perceived effectiveness.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

Lecture-discussion, however, was rated minimally effective when the

raw score findings were used. The other modes, including all three

of the weighted score modes, were rated as moderately effective.

Ideal Instructional Modes

More than half, 51%, of the actual respondents rated the intern­

ship as an ideal instructional mode to develop judgment. Group

process training was considered the second most ideal mode (13%).

Five principals, or 9%, believed research was the most ideal method

of instruction for this mode, followed by four principals, or 7%, who

reported games and simulations as being the best method. Lecture and

discussion (6%), clinical study (5%), and instructional modules tied

with tutorials and seminars (4%) were the next three ranked instruc­

tional modes for developing judgment. One respondent chose "other"

as the most ideal method, but did not define or elaborate upon this

selection. No one chose computer-assisted instruction as the most

ideal instructional mode.

Discussion

While more than half of the responding principals selected

internship as the most ideal instructional method to develop judg­

ment, this mode did not rank in the top three findings for being

either or both a frequent or effective method of instruction. How,

then, was this conclusion reached by over half of the principal

respondents as being the most ideal method of instruction for this

generic skill? Perhaps one conclusion was that respondents did not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

all share the same definition or experience of the internship. Per­

haps some respondents had not experienced an internship, therefore,

perceived this mode of instruction as ideal.

Generic Skill 5: Oral Communication

Question 1: To what extent were oral communication skills

developed in the university administrator preparation programs of

Michigan principals? (See Table 20.)

Table 20

Oral Communication Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 62) (_n = 56) developed

n % n %

Not 20 32 20 36

Slightly 16 26 16 29

Moderately 13 21 13 23

Highly 7 11 7 13

No response 6 10

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop oral

communication skills in the university preparation programs of Michi­

gan principals? (See Table 21.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 21

Oral Corcmunication (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Ihird WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Games and simulations 3 9 6 12 3 3 12 24 0 0 4

Group process training 8 24 4 8 7 7 19 39 0 0 5

Lecture and discussion 14 42 7 14 1 1 22 57 0 0 10

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

’able 21 tommunication n = 62)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total al Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High Cx4)

4 0 0 4 8 5 15 3 12 0 12 ‘ 35

>9 0 0 5 10 30 30 4 16 0 19 56

7 0 0 10 20 8 24 4 16 0 22 60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop oral communication skills in the university

preparation programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 21.)

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of oral communication

skills? (See Table 22.)

Table 22

Ideal Instructional Modes for Oral Communication Skills

All Actual responses responses3 (n = 62) (n = 54) Ideal modes

n % n %

Clinical study 1 2 1 2

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 4 7 4 7

Group process training 21 34 21 39

Instructional modes 2 3 2 4

Interns:: Lp 15 24 15 28

Lecture and discussion 4 7 4 7

Research 0 0 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 3 5 3 6

Other 4 7 4 7

No response 8 13

aCompleted the entire survey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Oral Communication

Extent Developed

More than one-third, 36%, of the principal respondents, reported

that their oral communication skills had not been developed by their

university administrator preparation program. More than half, how­

ever, 52%, reported that this generic skill had either been slightly

developed (29%) or moderately developed (23%). Seven principals

reported this skill as being highly developed during their adminis­

trator training (13%).

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the scores were raw or weighted, lecture-discussion (raw

score: 2, weighted score: 57), group process training (raw score:

19, weighted score: 39), and games-simulations (raw score: 12,

weighted score: 24) ranked in first, second, and third place, re­

spectively, for both frequency and effectiveness. Lecture-discus­

sion, however, was rated minimally effective when the raw score

findings were used. The remaining raw score modes and all three of

the weighted score modes were considered moderately effective.

Ideal Instructional Modes

Group process training was considered the most ideal instruc­

tional mode, 39%, according to the responding principals. Fifteen

respondents, or 28%, chose internship as the most ideal instructional

method. From this point, opinion drops to four principals each (7%)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

for a three-way tied third choice for ideal instructional modes of

games-simulation, lecture-discussion, and other. Three principals,

6%, reported tutorials and seminars to be ideal; and two principals,

4%, reported instructional modules as being best. Only one respon­

dent reported that a clinical study was the most appropriate mode for

developing oral communication skills (2%). No one reported computer-

assisted instruction or research as being appropriate for developing

this generic skill.

Discussion

Respondents reported group process training as the most ideal

method of instruction for the development of oral communication

skills. This generic skill ranked second in both the frequency and

effectiveness mode, yet was considered a moderately effective method.

Lecture-discussion ranked first in both frequency and effectiveness,

yet tied for third place for the ideal instructional mode question.

Tutorials-seminars could be considered similar to lecture-discussion

modes and was ranked fourth for the ideal instructional mode. Two

modes which may not require any verbal interaction, computer-assisted

instruction and research, did not receive any support for the ideal

mode question.

Generic Skill 6: Stress Tolerance

Question 1: To what extent was stress tolerance developed in

the university administrator preparation programs of Michigan princi­

pals? (See Table 23.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 23

Stress Tolerance Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 62) (n = 54) developed

n % n %

Not 39 63 39 72

Slightly 9 15 9 17

Moderately 3 5 3 6

Highly 3 5 3 6

No response 8 13

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

stress tolerance skills in the university preparation programs of

Michigan principals? (See Table 24.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop stress tolerance skills in the university prepa­

ration programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 24.)

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of stress tolerance skills?

(See Table 25.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 24

Stress Tolerance (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Internship 2 6 2 4 1 1 5 11 0 0 1

Lecture and discussion 7 21 1 2 3 3 ' 11 26 1 1 5

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 0 0 1 1 4 10 0 0 0

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total tota! al Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

1 0 0 1 2 2 6 2 8 0 5 16

6 1 1 5 10 4 12 1 4 o' 11 27

0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 4 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91

Table 25

Ideal Instructional Modes for Stress Tolerance Skills

All Actual responses responses3 (n_ = 62) (n = 52) Ideal modes

11 % n %

Clinical study 2 3 2 4 Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 12 19 12 23

Group process training 7 11 7 14

Instructional modes 0 0 0 0

Internship 22 36 22 42

Lecture and discussion 0 0 0 0

Research 2 3 2 4

Tutorials and seminars 3 5 3 6

Other 4 7 4 8

No response 10 16

aCompleted the entire survey.

Stress Tolerance

Extent Developed

Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported the generic

skill of stress tolerance was not developed during their administra­

tor training program. Seventeen percent reported their university

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

preparation only slightly prepared them for this skill. Twelve

percent, or six principals, reported their programs moderately or

highly prepared them for stress tolerance.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the data were in raw scores or in weighted scores,

lecture-discussion was rated as the most frequently used instruc­

tional mode, followed by internship and tutorials-seminars: (a)

lecture-discussion: frequency— raw score, 11, weighted score, 26,

and effectiveness— raw score, 11, weighted score, 27; (b) internship:

frequency— raw score, 5, weighted score, 11, and effectiveness— raw

score, 5, weighted score, 16; and (c) tutorials-seminars: fre­

quency— raw score, 4, weighted score, 10, and effectiveness— raw

score, 4, weighted score, 12.

Lecture-discussion raw score was reported to be a minimally

effective method of instruction; yet when the score was weighted, the

mode was moderately effective. The raw score for the internship mode

tied between moderate and highly effective, while the weighted score

of this mode was rated highly effective.

Ideal Instructional Modes

Almost half of the respondents, 42%, reported that the intern­

ship was the most ideal method for instructing stress tolerance.

Twelve principals, or 23%, reported that games-simulations was the

best method, while seven respondents, or 14%, rated group process

training as the most ideal mode. Eight percent had other opinions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

including "experience is the best teacher," followed by four respond­

ing principals, or 6%, who reported tutorials and seminars was the

best instructional method. Clinical study and research tied for last

place as two respondents each, or 4%, believed these methods were

best. No one selected either lecture and discussion or computer-

assisted instruction as being the best method to develop stress

tolerance.

Discussion

Lecture-discussion was reported as the most frequently used

method of instruction by the respondents and the most effective.

Yet, this mode received not one vote as being the most ideal form of

instructing stress tolerance. The majority of respondents, 72%, did

report that the generic skill of stress tolerance was not developed

in their university administrator preparation program.

Generic Skill 7: Decisiveness

Question 1: To what extent was decisiveness developed in the

university administrator preparation programs of Michigan principals?

(See Table 26.)

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop de­

cisiveness skills in the university preparation programs of Michigan

principals? (See Table 27.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop decisiveness skills in the university prepara­

tion programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 27.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

Table 26

Decisiveness Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 49) (n = 48) developed

n % n %

Not 7 14 7 15

Slightly 21 43 21 44

Moderately 18 37 18 38

Highly 2 4 2 4

No response 1 2

3Completed the entire survey.

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of decisiveness skills?

(See Table 28.)

Decisiveness

Extent Developed

More than half, 59%, of the principal respondents reported their

university preparation programs either slightly, 44%, or did not

develop, 15%, the generic skill of decisiveness. Less than half,

42%, reported decisiveness as either being moderately developed, 38%,

or highly developed, 4%, during their principal preparation program.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

Table 27

Decisiveness (n = 49)'

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mi used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) n

Group process training 5 15 6 12 5 5 16 32 0 0

Lecture and discussion 23 69 4 8 8 8- 35 85 1 1 1

Research 3 9 9 18 3 3 15 30 0 0

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total tota tal Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

32 0 0 2 4 13 39 0 0 1 16 43

35 1 1 12 24 21 63 1 4 0 . 35 ' 92

30 0 0 5' 10 8 24 2 8 0 15 42

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

Table 28

Ideal Instructional Modes for Decisiveness Skills

All Actual responses responses3 (n. = 49) (ii = 47 ) Ideal modes ______

ii % n %

Clinical study 4 8 4 9

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 6 12 6 13

Group process training 7 14 7 15

Instructional modes 0 0 0 0

Internship 21 43 21 45

Lecture and discussion 0 0 0 0

Research 4 8 4 9

Tutorials and seminars 1 2 1 2

Other 4 8 4 9

No response 2 4

aCompleted the entire survey.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the data were reported in raw scores or in weighted

scores, lecture-discussion was reported as the most frequently used

instructional mode (raw score: 35, weighted score: 85). Group

process training was rated as the next most frequently used mode (raw

score: 16, weighted score: 32), followed by individual-team

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

research (raw score: 15, weighted score: 30). All three modes,

whether raw or weighted scores, were reported as being moderately

effective instructional modes: (a) lecture-discussion— raw score:

21, weighted score: 63; (b) group process training— raw score: 13,

weighted score: 39; and (c) research— raw score: 8, weighted score:

14.

Ideal Instructional Modes

Not quite half, 45%, of the principal respondents believed the

internship was the ideal instructional mode for developing decisive­

ness. Seven respondents, or 15%, reported group process training as

being the most ideal mode, followed by 13% of the principals who re­

ported games and simulations was the best mode. Three instructional

modes tied for the fourth place ideal teaching method to develop

decisiveness: clinical study, research, and other each reported a 9%

response, or four principals. Only one respondent, 2%, reported

tutorials and seminars would be an ideal way to develop decisiveness,

while no respondents reported lecture-discussion or computer-assisted

instruction should be considered as appropriate delivery systems for

developing decisiveness.

Discussion

The principal respondents reported lecture and discussion should

not be used as an ideal method to develop the generic skill of

decisiveness, yet the majority of respondents not only reported this

mode as being the most frequently used method, but also rated the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

method as moderately effective. However, 59% of the principal re­

spondents reported that decisiveness was either slightly or not

developed in their university training programs.

Generic Skill 8: Organizational Ability

Question 1: To what extent was organizational ability developed

in the university administrator preparation programs of Michigan

principals. (See Table 29.)

Table 29

Organizational Ability Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 49) (n = 47) developed

n % n %

Not 14 29 14 30

Slightly 9 18 9 19

Moderately 17 35 17 36

Highly 7 14 7 15

No response 2 4

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

organizational ability skills in the university preparation programs

of Michigan principals? (See Table 30.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 30

Organizational Ability (n = 49)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Mast WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Group process training 5 15 4 8 2 2 11 25 0 0 3

Lecture and discussion 17 51 7 14 2 2 26 67 0 0 8

Research 5 15 5 10 2 2 12 27 0 0 0

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS s WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total tota tal Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

25 0 0 3 6 515 312 0 11 33

67 0 0 8 16 14 42 3 12 1 26 70

27 0 0 0 0 8 24 4 16 0 12 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop organizational ability skills in the university

preparation programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 30.)

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of organizational ability

skills? (See Table 31.)

Table 31

Ideal Instructional Modes for Organizational Ability Skills

All Actual responses responses * (n = 49) (n = 47) Ideal modes

n % ii %

Clinical study 1 2 1 2

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 0 0 0 0

Group process training 5 10 5 11

Instructional modes 2 4 2 4

Internship 19 39 19 40

Lecture and discussion 1 2 1 2

Research 7 14 7 15

Tutorials and seminars 4 8 4 9

Other 8 16 8 17

No response 2 4

aCompleted the entire survey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

Organizational Ability

Extent Developed

Respondents were almost equally divided when asked to what

extent was organizational ability developed in their university ad­

ministrator preparation programs. Fifty-one percent reported this

skill as either being highly developed, 15%, or moderately developed,

36%. Conversely, 19% of the principal respondents reported this •

skill as being slightly developed, and 30% reported this skill as

being not at all developed.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Whether the data were reported in raw scores or in weighted

scores, lecture-discussion was reported as the most frequently used

instructional mode (raw score: 26, weighted score: 67).

Individual-team research was reported as the next most frequently

used mode (raw score: 12, weighted score: 27), followed by group

process training (raw score: 1, weighted score: 25). All three

modes, whether raw or weighted scores, were reported as being moder­

ately effective instructional modes: (a) lecture-discussion— raw

score: 14, weighted score: 42; (b) group process training— raw

score: 8, weighted score: 24; and (c) research— raw score: 5,

weighted score: 15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

Ideal Instructional Modes

Forty percent of the actual respondents reported internship as

the most ideal instructional mode for developing organizational

ability. Respondents chose other modes, mostly combinations of the

listed ideal modes, as the second most appropriate method for ideal

instruction of organizational ability (17%). Seven principals, or

15%, reported research as being the best mode, while five believed

group process training was ideal (11%). Nine percent reported tuto­

rials and seminars was the most ideal, followed by 4% who reported

instructional modules as their choice. One principal, 2%, rated lec­

ture and discussion as being the ideal mode for developing organiza­

tional ability. No one chose either computer-assisted instruction or

games and simulations as being ideal instructional modes.

Discussion

Only one principal respondent reported lecture and discussion as

being an ideal instructional mode, yet the majority of principals not

only reported that this mode was the most frequently used, but also

reported that the method was moderately effective. More than half,

51%, also reported that this generic skill had either been moderately

to highly developed during their university administrator preparation

program.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

Generic Skill 9: Leadership

Question 1: To what extent was leadership developed in the

university administrator preparation programs of Michigan principals?

(See Table 32.)

Table 32

Leadership Developed

All Actual responses responses3 Extent (n = 49) (n = 46) developed

n % n %

Not 9 18 9 20

Slightly 10 20 10 22

Moderately 17 35 17 37

Highly 10 20 10 22

No response 3 6

aCompleted the entire survey.

Question 2: What instructional modes were used to develop

leadership skills in the university preparation programs of Michigan

principals? (See Table 33.)

Question 3: How effective were the instructional modes which

were used to develop leadership skills in the university preparation

programs of Michigan principals? (See Table 33.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 33

Leadership (n = 49)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Group process training 9 27 4 8 3 3 16 38 0 0 1

Internship 3 9 3 6 6 6 12 21 0 0 1

Lecture and discussion 17 51 5 10 4 4 26 65 1 1 14

Research 4 12 7 14 2 2 13 28 0 0 4

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total il Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4) i 0 0 1 2 12 36 3 12 0 16 50

L 0 0 1 2 5 15 6 24 0 12 ■ 41

> 1 1 14 28 8 24 2 8 1 26 60

5 0 0 4 8 7 21 2 8 0 13 37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

Question 4: What instructional modes do Michigan principals

believe should be used in the instruction of leadership skills? (See

Table 34.)

Table 34

Ideal Instructional Modes for Leadership Skills

All Actual responses responses (n = 49) (n = 47) Ideal modes

n % n %

Clinical study 2 4 2 4

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 3 6 3 6

Group process training 8 16 8 17

Instructional modes 1 2 1 2

Internship 17 35 17 36

Lecture and discussion 2 4 2 4

Research 2 4 2 4

Tutorials and seminars 5 10 5 11

Other 7 14 7 15

No response 2 4

aCompleted the entire survey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

Leadership

Extent Developed

More than half, 57%, of the actual principal respondents re­

ported that their university preparation program had either moder­

ately (37%) or highly developed (20%) the generic skill of leader­

ship. Less than half of the principal respondents reported their

preparation programs had either slightly prepared them (22%) or the

programs had not developed (20%) the generic skill of leadership.

Frequency and Effectiveness

Lecture-discussion was the most frequently used instructional

mode (raw score: 26, weighted score: 65), yet whether raw or

weighted data were used, this mode was reported as minimally effec­

tive, according to the principal respondents. Group process training

was the second most frequently used instructional mode for developing

leadership (raw score: 16, weighted score: 38) and was considered

moderately effective in both raw and weighted scores. Individual-

team research ranked as the third most frequently used instructional

mode and was rated moderately effective. However, when the data were

weighted, internship, rated as a highly effective mode of instruc­

tion, ranked as the third most effective instructional mode (fre­

quency— raw score: 12, weighted score: 21 and effectiveness— raw

score: 6, weighted score: 24), while the raw score data ranked

research as the third most effective method of leadership development

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

(frequency— raw score: 23, weighted score: 28 and effectiveness—

raw score: 2, weighted score: 8).

Ideal Instructional Modes

Internship was rated the most ideal instructional mode by more

than one-third of the actual principal respondents (36%) for develop­

ing the generic skill of leadership. Seventeen percent of the re­

spondents rated group process training as the ideal mode. Fifteen

percent of the principals reported other combinations or experiences

as being the best methods of leadership instruction. Five princi­

pals, or 11%, reported tutorials and seminars as the ideal instruc­

tional mode. Six percent, three principals, reported games and

simulations as the best mode; and two principals each, or 4% per

mode, tied when lecture-discussion, clinical study, and research were

reported as being the best method. One principal (2%) rated instruc­

tional modules as the most appropriate mode for developing leader­

ship. No one chose the computer-assisted instruction mode.

Discussion

Research ranked third as the most frequently used instructional

mode yet was rated less effective than the fourth ranked internship

mode. Internship, when used, was reported as highly effective and

rated the most ideal method of leadership development, according to

36% of the principal respondents. Most frequently used was the

lecture-discussion method, yet only two of the principal respondents

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill

reported that this method should be used as an ideal instructional

method.

Informed Subsample: Responses to Extended Questions

The following questions made up the extended section to the

written questionnaire. The questions were designed to gather recom­

mendations by the respondents for the improvement of principal prepa­

ration. The primary intent of these questions was to identify mem­

bers of a knowledgeable group— the informed subsample. Only those

members identified and selected were analyzed and reported (Witters-

Churchill, 1988).

1. How well did your university training prepare you for your

current position?

2. Have you recently been involved in the training of other

administrators?

3. Have you ever taught a graduate course in educational admin­

istration?

4. What two courses or instructional areas in your administra­

tor training program were most helpful for you to meet the demands of

your job?

5. In your opinion, in what way was your administrator training

particularly good?

6. What is the single most important way to improve graduate

instruction in educational administration departments?

The first four questions were analyzed using frequency counts

and percentages (Witters-Churchill, 1988). The last two questions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

sought opinions from administrators who were especially informed

through experience in the formal training of administrators (Witters-

Churchill, 1988).

Generally, more than half of the informed subsample, 53%, re­

ported their university program prepared them fairly to very well for

their present administrative position. An almost equal number, how­

ever, 47%, reported that their university program did not adequately

prepare them for their administrative duties. Shown in Table 35 are

the responses by one informed subsample reporting on the question,

How well did your administrator university training program prepare

you for your current position?

Table 35

Administrator University Training Program Preparation

Preparation n %

Very well 5 15

Fairly well 13 38

Not too well 11 32

Not well at all 5 15

Total 34 100

More than half, 68%, of the informed subsample, had not been

involved in the training of other administrators. Thirty-two percent

of the subsample had conducted administrator workshops or had been

involved in training. Table 36 provides a summary of the responses

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

to the question, Have you recently been involved in the training of

other administrators?

Four respondents out of 34, or 12%, had taught courses in educa­

tional administration, while 88%, the majority, had not taught gradu­

ate students in this study. Table 36 provides a summary of the

responses to the question, Have you ever taught a graduate course in

educational administration?

Table 36

Experiences in the Preparation of Other Administrators

Experience n %

Recently involved in training of other administrators

Yes 11 32

No 23 68

Taught a graduate course in educational administration

Yes 4 12

No 30 88

The respondents were also asked to choose two courses from their

administrator program which were most helpful to meet the demands of

their job. Sixty-two selections were made. "School law" was listed

by 10 respondents and was the most frequently chosen course, nation­

ally (Byrne et al., 1978; Witters-Churchill, 1988). Conversely,

internship, the most frequently identified ideal instructional mode

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

chosen by the written questionnaire respondents in Michigan, was not

listed as a course or instructional area which was most helpful.

However, internship, when used, was considered highly effective, yet

was neither rated as a first or second most frequently used method of

principal instruction and, therefore, may account for the method not

being listed on the chart.

Six respondents, each, chose the "principalship and curriculum"

as being very helpful courses in their professional development,

followed closely by five respondents, each, who considered topic

"seminars" and "administrative theory and practice" as being helpful

course work. Four respondents, each, reported "public-human rela­

tions," "administrative extern program," and "personnel-negotiating"

were helpful to meet the demands of the job. Seven principals re­

ported none of their course work was helpful. The remaining re­

sponses illustrate the individual interests and perceived needs (see

Table 37) in reply to the question, What two courses or instructional

areas in your administrator training program were most helpful for

you to meet the demands of your job?

The last two questions completed by and analyzed for the in­

formed subsample were, open-ended questions asking opinions from the

principal respondents about how to improve university administrator

preparation programs. Using the classification groupings from the

Texas data-based debate (Witters-Churchill, 1988), open-ended re­

sponses were placed into the following generalizations: people and

knowledge (Witters-Churchill, 1988). People responses included field

experience (self), practitioners, instructors, and peers. Knowledge

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115

Table 37

Principals' Views on Which Courses or Instructional Areas Were Most Helpful

Course or instructional area ri

School law 10

Principalship (elementary or secondary orrole of) 6

Curriculum (elementary, middle, or secondary) 6

Seminars on various topics (ITIP, Administrative Action series) 5

Theory and practice in administration 5

Public relations/human relations 4

Administrative extern program 4

Personnel/negotiating 4

Finance/business management 2

School administration (elementary or secondary)

Instructional leadership

Evaluation of educational resources

Counseling

Working as an assistant principal

Combination of courses (no particular one)

Collegiality (working and sharing common experiences)

Politics of education

Educational assessment center

None

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

responses included formal academic training (theoretical) and

problem-solving (practical experience).

In addition, a third category is included, other, to accommodate

a small number of responses which could not fit into the people or

knowledge category. These responses included "my administrator

training program did not prepare me at all for my position and I'm

glad to have the opportunity to say so" and "my training was so long

ago . . . I just can't remember."

People Category

Seven respondents reported peer interaction as a meaningful

component to their administrator training (21%), followed by a 17%

response of having instructors with practical experience. Nine per­

cent, or three respondents, reported the availability of practition­

ers as resources was a very good way to help train principals. Only

one respondent, 3%, reported his own field experience was helpful.

Responses to the following question are reported in Table 38: In

your opinion, in what way was your administrative training program

particularly good?

Knowledge Category

Thirty-two percent of the respondents (11) reported theoretical,

formal, academic training were particularly good. Only two respon­

dents, 6%, reported problem solving or practical experience of their

university program was good. Table 38 gives a chart representation

of the responses.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

Table 38

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Ways Which the Informed Subsample Believed Their University Preparation Programs Were Good

Responses _n %

Category 1: People

Peer interaction 7 21

Instructors with practical experience 6 ■17

Practitioners as resources 3 9

Field experience (self) 1 3

Total 17 50

Category 2: Knowledge

Formal academic training (theoretical) 11 32

Problem solving (practical experience) 2 6

Total 13 38

Category 3: Other

Other 4 12

Grand Total 34 100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Discussion

Principals reported their administrator training programs as

being good because of both knowledge and people. Peer interaction,

instructors with practical experiences to share and discuss, practi­

tioners as resources, theoretical knowledge, and practical experience

were among those ways the informed subsample believed their univer­

sity preparation program was particularly good.

The last open-ended question asked of the informed subsample

respondents was for ways to improve graduate instruction in educa­

tional administration departments. The recommendations were classi­

fied into the following areas based on recommendations from the

respondents (Witters-Churchill, 1988).

1. Improve and extend opportunities for field-based experience

(15 responses), "have principal experiences similar to the practice

of student teaching," and "have an opportunity to apply the general

skills." Some principals reported longer or better internship oppor­

tunities as being the key components to this recommendation.

2. Improve and/or increase instruction of specific job-related

skills (8 responses). Principals asked for real life situations such

as budgeting, evaluations, and building a schedule.

3. Provide practice-oriented university staff (7 responses).

"Professors should be more practice-oriented . . . should keep cur­

rent by field experience." Respondents believed more practicing

principals should be teaching administrative courses.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

4. Improve and/or increase instruction of generic skills

(4 responses). Principals believed administrative skills such as

leadership, problem solving, stress tolerance, and judgment should be

developed during university training.

Table 39 illustrates the informed subsample responses to this

question.

Table 39

Frequency and Percentage Distribution on Responses by the Informed Subsample Regarding the Single Most Important Way to Improve Graduate Instruction in Educational Administration

Recommendation n %

Improve opportunities for experience in the field 15 44

Improve instruction of specific job-related skills 8 23

Provide practice-oriented university staff 7 21

Improve instruction of generic skills 4 12

Total 34 100

The Telephone Interview

Witters-Churchill (1988) designed the telephone interview for

the Texas study for the purpose of elaborating upon the written

responses, in particular, ways to improve university preparation

programs for administrators.

"One of three possible outcomes was expected from these interviews: (a) The interview would be an . . . extension and amplification of the written open-ended responses; (b)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

the interview would be an amplification and extension of one subset of open-ended responses; or (c) the interview would draw [upon] some elements of open-ended responses, but would gain predominantly new information." (Witters- Churchill, 1988, pp. 198-199)

In general, the following questions were asked of the 34 Michi­

gan respondents:

1. What could your administrator preparation program have done

better to help prepare you for your present professional role?

2. In your postal questionnaire you identified ( ) as the

single most important way educational administration departments

could improve the preparation of principals. In what ways could or

should this be implemented? (Please elaborate or tell me more about

this.)

3. How should principal preparation programs change to meet the

future needs of practicing principals?

4. The information you've shared in this interview will be used

to direct program planning for university administrator preparation.

With this in mind, is there anything else you would like to suggest?

5. May I call you again to verify the accuracy of what you have

said?

The Texas study (Witters-Churchill, 1988) had six questions; the

first one asked the type of administrator certificate held by the

respondent. This question was not used for the Michigan study be­

cause at the time of the telephone interview process, April and May

of 1988, the Michigan Administrator Certification Code had yet to be

implemented. Instead, the interviewer asked what type of teaching

certificate was held by the respondent (e.g., permanent, continuing).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

This information was later judged as having little relevance to the

study and, subsequently, was not reported.

The majority of elaborations, as in the Texas study (Witters-

Churchill, 1988), centered around the recommendations for improvement

of principal preparation programs. These responses are classified

into four themes or categories (Witters-Churchill, 1988): (a) more

opportunities for field-based training, (b) provide current instruc­

tion, (c) provide practical course content, and (d) develop job-

related generic skills.

Field-Based Training

This was the strongest and most frequently made suggestion which

emerged from the respondents of the telephone interview. The sugges­

tions are categorized into a three-phased design:

1. Pretraining or recruiting: Twelve respondents reported this

phase can include soliciting, accessing, and prescreening existing

administrative skills held by potential principal candidates.

2. On-the-job training: Principals reported that internships

(6 week to 1 year) or assistant principal positions could be avail­

able while potential candidates and school districts collaboratively

work with university principal preparation programs to deliver appro­

priate, performanced-based curriculum. The necessary learning can

take place both in a classroom and on-the-job, for the theory and

application components to occur simultaneously.

3. Mentoring: Seven respondents asked for individual mentors,

externships, processes, networking groups, or seminars as a system

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122

for getting together with other colleagues to share common problems

and expertise. Three respondents from Michigan's upper peninsula

were particularly isolated and "out of touch" due to geographical

distance and would appreciate a coordination of programs to accommo­

date rural administrators.

Provide Current Instruction

Ten respondents insisted that courses be taught by practicing

principals, while four administrators recommended that university

professors should have more contact with public K-12 schools. One

respondent suggested that university professors should spend more

time "shadowing, . . . interviewing, . . . [and] observing" princi­

pals prior to designing university courses. Then, these educational

experiences would be more "tailor made" to the needs of administra­

tive students.

Two respondents reported that their professors expected too

little from them as students enrolled in graduate and postgraduate

work. Generally, the respondents asked for less textbook and educa­

tional theory and history lessons, but more practical application

experiences in the form of simulations and in-basket exercises.

Provide Practical Course Content

Practicing administrators insisted that courses include present­

ing "practical, everyday, on-the-job problems" principals face and

how to solve them. They also asked for instruction on practical

aspects of running a building: discipline procedures, staffing,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. scheduling, teaching to objectives, research on effective teaching

and learning (ITIP), teacher evaluation, and effective school in­

struction. Seven respondents specifically insisted that school law

be part of the course content. Three principals believed that

courses in public relations, negotiations, and curriculum should be

required.

Develop Job-Related Generic Skills

While only two respondents used the term "assessment center" in

their responses, some generic skills training requests emerged from

the interview. Practicing principals wanted specific training in the

following:

Principals* training request Assessment center skills

Conflict resolution Problem analysis, judgment, and decisiveness

Memo writing Written communication

Group and individual problem Stress tolerance, problem analysis, solving judgment, decisiveness, and leader­ ship

Community needs assessment and Oral communication, problem analy- delivery of services sis, judgment, decisiveness, and leadership

One respondent summed up our interview saying: "We somehow must

get across to not only the universities but also to the potential

administrative candidates that school leadership is not just adminis­

tration! Present university course work has little to do with to­

day's educational problems."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124

Discussion

Since the inception of NASSP's Assessment Center concept, 9,787

participants have been evaluated by 5,428 trained assessors. Within

this 6-year period, 51% of the assessment center participants have

been men and 49% have been women. One-third of the participants have

been promoted to higher level positions (Hersey, 1989).

In 1982, NASSP delivered the first skill development program,

"Springfield." This program is designed to improve the administra­

tive generic skills identified at the assessment center. Since

"Springfield," two more developmental programs have emerged: "Leader

1, 2, and 3," which teaches instructional leadership, and "From the

Desk of," which develops the oral and written communication skills

identified in the assessment center process (Hersey, 1989). In

addition, the NASSP is working on the fourth developmental program,

"Mentoring and Coaching." All of these specialized training programs

were developed as responses to questions directed by the question

raised to NASSP by administrators who wanted to know "If you can

identify [generic] skills necessary for the principalship, then why

can't you develop them?"

The skills and course requirements suggested by the principals

during the telephone interview may be best developed not by specific

university courses, only. Perhaps, collaborative processes involving

the university, NASSP, and school districts can be the training and

certification process.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study, Michigan public school principals reported their

evaluative perceptions regarding (a) the degree to which 9 of the 12

generic skills were developed in their university administrator pro­

grams, (b) the frequency and perceived effectiveness rates of the

instructional- modes used to develop those generic skills, and (c) the

ideal instructional modes which are most effective for developing

these skills.

This study was a replication, with revisions, of the Texas study

(Witters-Churchill, 1988). The population of this study was 3,202

principals from Michigan public schools. A stratified sampling pro­

cedure was used to select 347 practicing public school administra­

tors. .

A low return rate (48%) of survey responses was a source of

concern for the interpretation of findings. A follow-up telephone

interview of 10% of the actual respondents was conducted to validate

the findings, despite the low percentage of return. The patterns of

responses were similar to the Witters-Churchill (1988) study, yet the

findings should be interpreted with caution.

Three conclusions from the findings are presented in the order

the questions were asked. They are divided into three separate con­

cluding sections: (a) generic skills— extent developed, (b) generic

125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

skills— frequency and generic skills— effectiveness, and (c) generic

skills— most ideal mode of instruction.

Conclusions

1. Generic skills— extent developed: Four generic skills were

developed to a moderate extent in the university administrator prepa­

ration program of Michigan principals: judgment, leadership, organi­

zational ability, and problem analysis. Three generic skills, de­

cisiveness, sensitivity, and written communication, were slightly

developed and two generic skills, oral communication and stress

tolerance, were not developed.

2. Generic skills— frequency: The instructional mode most

frequently used to develop generic skills in the university adminis­

tration programs of Michigan principals was lecture and discussion.

Group process training and individual and team research were the next

most frequently used methods of instruction.

Generic skills— perceived effectiveness: The instructional

modes most frequently used to develop the nine generic skills in the

preparation programs of Michigan administrators were, for the most

part, considered moderately effective, both in raw and weighted

scores.

3. Generic skills— ideal mode of instruction: For 78% of the

generic skills (7/9), principals said the internship was the most

ideal mode for developing generic skills. Group process training was

chosen as the most ideal mode for developing oral communication and

sensitivity in the university administrator preparation programs of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

Michigan principals.

Respondents reported peer interaction, instructors with practi­

cal experience, and internships were among the "people" factors which

contributed to their successful administrator training programs.

Principals also believed that both theoretical and practical

knowledge-based experience were important components to their univer­

sity training.

The majority of principal respondents recommended that intern­

ships or field-based experiences should be improved or in some cases,

extended. They wanted a meaningful, structured opportunity to apply

the generic skills. Course work needed to have real job opportuni­

ties such as scheduling, teacher evaluations, and negotiating stress­

ful conflicts between people. Principals believed the professors and

instructors should either be practicing principals or have had recent

contact with public schools. Principals believed most university

professors lacked the credibility or are out of touch with the needs

and demands of the profession.

Finally, principal respondents specifically asked for training

and development opportunities for improvement in coping with and

managing stress on the job, use of appropriate judgment, how to solve

problems, and leadership.

Related Findings

Witters-Churchill (1988) found similar findings in her study of

Texas administrators. Stress tolerance was the only generic skill

reported as not being developed in Texas. The remaining generic

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

skills were reported as being moderately developed. Lecture and

discussion was the most frequently used method of instructional

delivery. In addition, the Texas administrators reported that their

university preparation programs were moderately effective. They also

believed that the most ideal method of developing all nine of the

generic skills was by the use of the internship mode.

Engel (1989) made similar conclusions in his study of university

programs in Michigan when he concluded that: (a) Preparation pro­

grams did not develop either performance or generic skills; (b) the

dominant method of program instruction was lecture and discussion;

(c) internships, though rated as both essential and effective, were

neither required nor frequently used in Michigan university programs

for principals; and (d) universities tended to emphasize generic

skills more than specific, performance skills.

Further Studies

Educational researchers may wish to consider further studies in

the area of principal preparation. These studies may include:

1. A replication of this study for Michigan may be used to

support or refute these findings. Using a t_ test, a researcher may

wish to compare the data from the respondents of this study with data

of nonrespondent practitioners.

2. A researcher may choose to use the same instrumentation and

compare the respondents who are enrolled in specific, preplanned

administration preparation programs to those persons who are enrolled

in courses only.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

3. A researcher may take a smaller group of principals and give

each of them all three questionnaires to include their perceptive

evaluations of all nine generic skills. Comparing and contrasting

these findings with the findings from this study could be used to

further the improvement of principal preparation programs.

Recommendations

School districts, universities, and state boards of education

must collaboratively commit to working together, not independently of

each other, for the continued development and improvement of princi­

pal preparation programs. Monies from all levels must be set aside

for individual yet appropriate field-based experiences (simulations,

internships, practicum, etc.), and ethical preparation programs must

be adopted, monitored, and shared in order to replace retiring prin­

cipals with fully qualified and prepared public school administra­

tors. Universities must first determine the specific, yet generic

needs of their present and potential administrative students and

design appropriate curricula. Such programs must be responsive to

changing demands of the profession. Persons selected and retained to

deliver instruction to university students must keep up-to-date with

standards and practices of the profession, using individual methods

to obtain this goal, in order to obtain and maintain credibility.

Though the use of lecture and discussion was the most frequently used

instructional mode and was considered somewhat effective, this prac­

tice must be balanced with additional simulated activities to better

prepare practitioners, especially to work under stress. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

assessment center concept might be well used for not only diagnostic

purposes, but results could be used to individually design intern­

ships and practicum experiences. The concept may also be used to

measure outcomes of newly acquired or remediated skills. To accom­

plish any or all of these standards and practices, collaborative

commitments— human or fiscal— must be designed, delivered, and evalu­

ated for a needs-based program.

Perceived effectiveness of university programs may need further

investigation and evaluation. The State Board of Education may need

to mandate accountability practices for universities to evaluate

whether or not their preparation programs for principalships are

effective. This agency needs to validate the perceived effectiveness

or ineffectiveness of present university preparation programs.

The National Policy Board for Educational Administration (1989)

has released the report, Improving the Preparation of School Adminis­

trators: An Agenda for Reform, and suggested that "prospective

school administrators should: complete a rigorous preparation pro­

gram, earn a doctorate in educational administration, [and] pass a

national exam before being licensed" (p. 1).

To implement these recommendations, state boards and universi­

ties should require field-based experiences so that potential admin­

istrative candidates or practitioners can apply and master the

generic skills learned in formal, content area classes. School

districts could become partners with universities by providing on-

the-job, practical experiences, perhaps in the form of exchange

programs. Supervision of internships and practica need to include

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

mentoring and coaching both during and after these experiences.

Ongoing, performance-based workshops for practicing administra­

tors could include a diagnostic analysis of present skills. The

practitioner may need an enhancement, a remediation, or initial

instruction in generic skills necessary for the principalship. The

practitioner needs to also demonstrate understanding, application,

and mastery of these skills before certification or credit for work­

shops is given.

Principals need an informal network of colleagues to continue

their professional development. From this resource, sharing of expe­

riences or mentorships can occur (LaRose, 1987).

Finally, practitioners themselves must make a commitment to this

improvement, too. Individuals must commit themselves to taking any

and all necessary steps towards constant, consistent, professional

improvement and keep demanding such from any and all professional

organizations, school districts, and universities. No matter how

long an individual has been in the profession or in an educational

leadership position, an administrator should never report that it has

been so long since being enrolled in a principals' preparation pro­

gram, that there is no recollection about what was good or bad about

the program. If principals are instructional leaders, then princi­

pals ought to model continued, life-long learning.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES

132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A

Survey Components

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

Raw Data

Sample Size Considerations

- Required sample size— 347 respondents

- Sampling error 5%— in either direction

- Confidence coefficient— 95%

Michigan school campuses (as of 1987 Michigan Directory and Buyer's Guide ---

- Elementary school campuses 1,971 62%

- Middle school campuses 616 19%

- High school campuses 615 19%

All Michigan campuses 3,202

Allocation of sampling units

- Elementary school respondents 215 62%

- Middle school respondents 66 19

- High school respondents 66 19

Total

Actual returned surveys:

Returned

- Survey A 116 54

- Survey B 116 62

- Survey C 115 49

Total 165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

Actual responses Mailed and returns

- Elementary school respondents 215 = 62% 85 = 24%

- Middle school respondents 66 = 19% 32 = 9%

- High school respondents 66 = 19% 36 = 10%

Level combinations 7=2%

Level— no response 5=1%

Incomplete surveys (7) 0=2%

Total number of sample respondents

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Linda Berk Motchall 45571 Ledgewood Drive M t Clemens, Michigan 48044 136

(313) 247-0328 (Home) (313) 465-4519 (Work)

April, 1988

Dear Colleague:

The National Association of Secondary School Principals CNASSP) is interested in the needs of practicing school principals. Of particular interest is the effectiveness of university administrator preparation programs. Accordingly, an NASSP university consortium has arranged for a survey to be conducted in Texas and Michigan.

As a practicing public school administrator and a doctoral student at Western Michigan University, I have chosen to partially replicate the Texas-designed study. I am hoping that you will take a moment to help me with this project

You are one of 347 Michigan principals selected for participation in this survey. Your name was identified through a random sampling process using the MICHIGAN DIRECTORY AND BUYER’S GUIDE (1987). This sampling procedure ensures that each public school principal has an equal chance of being selected.-In order for the results of this study to be truly representative of the opinions of all Michigan principals, it is essential that each person in the sample return his or her questionnaire.

Responding principals have indicated that no more than 10 minutes is needed to complete the enclosed questionnaire. A glossary of terms is provided to assist you; a fact sheet responding to frequently asked questions is enclosed for your information. Please complete and return the four sheets of survey questions by MAY 1,1988.

You may be assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for follow-up purposes only. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire or identified in any part of the report

Thanking you in advance for your contribution to this study and assisting me in my dissertation project.

Sincerely, „

Linda Berk Motchall

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

CHIPPEWA VALLEY SCHOOLS 19120 Cass Avenue, Mt. Clemens, Ml 48044 286-7600

Dr. G eorge D eP illo Superintendent

May, 1988

Veax Colleague, and Fellow Adminibtxatox:

Linda Bexk Motbchall hob bexved the. Chippewa. Valley Schools iox the peat iiiteen ye a n an both a teachex and an adminibtxatox. An bupexintendent it nan been a pleabuxe to watch hex pxoiebbional growth and development.

Linda ib pxebently completing he*, doctoxal xequixementb. Hex dibbextation topie, Pexceptionb and Evaluation oi Univexbity Adminibtxatox Vxogxamb, ib paxt oi an HpSSP btudy. Pleabe take bome time, no rroxe tnan id - 15 minuteb, to complete the enclobed buxvey to inbuxe xeliable xebultb and appxopxiate xecomrendationb. To centime to brpxove the quality oi education at all levelb ib a goal we all bhaxe and I commend Linda iox choobing buck a timely and applicable pxoje&t.

Thank you in advance iox youx abbibtance.

Sincexely youxb,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Linda Berk Motschall 45571 Ledgewood Drive M t Clemens, Michigan 48044

(313) 247-0328 (Home) (313)465-4519 (Work)

May, 1988

Dear Colleague:

About one month ago, I wrote to you seeking your opinion on two issues: (1) your previous administrator training, and (2) your recommendations for how to improve future training. As of today, I have not yet received your completed questionnaire. If it is in the mail, please accept my sincere thanks.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals has arranged for this study through Western Michigan University so that practicing principals could be given the opportunity to improve university programs for administrators.

I am writing to you again because of the significance each questionnaire has for the usefulness of this study. Your name was identified through a random sampling procedure in which every principal in Michigan has an equal chance of being selected. In order for the results of this study to be truly representative of the opinions of all Michigan principals, it is essential that each person in the sample return his or her questionnaire.

Responding principals have indicated that no more than 10 minutes is needed to complete this questionnaire. In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Linda Berk Motschall

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 NASSP SURVEY OF MICHIGAN PRINCIPALS

Thank you for your response. Please detach the cover letter (white sheet), the glossary (green sheet), and this page (yellow sheet) which has survey information that you may wish to keep for your records. Please return pages 1 - 8 (the four blue pages).

I A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience. It should be forwarded to:

f LINDA BERK MOTSCHALL 45571 LEDGEWOOD DRIVE MT. CLEMENS, Ml 48044

WHAT THE RESPONDENT MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS SURVEY:

What Is the purpose of the survey?

The purpose of this survey is to study opinions of principals regarding (1) your previous administrator training, and (2) your recommendations for how to improve preparation programs.

Who was selected for this survey?

You are one of 347 public school elementary, middle, or high school principals randomly selected from the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide (1987).

How is confidentialitytreated in this survey?

The survey procedures follow the ethical guidelines for survey research put forward by the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Accordingly, confidentiality win be maintained at all times. Respondents' names will not appear on questionnaire response sheets. Moreover, all the results will be released in such a way so that no single principal can ever be identified. Response sheets will be numbered so that follow-up can be maintained.

How accurate are the results?

The communication of findings will follow the standard scientific practice of reporting the margin of error associated with the estimates. For a sample of 347 principals one can be confident the survey results should differ by no more than five percentage points in either direction from what would have been obtained by polling all Michigan principals.

How will the findings be released?

The findings will be presented in the form of a report to NASSPs Consortium for the Performance-Based Preparation of Principals, and in a monograph for principals to be disseminated by Western Michigan University.

Who will use the findings?

The results will be of interest to those involved in principal preparation, state certification officials, and practicing principals.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140

INSTRUCTIONAL MODES

CLINICAL STUDY: Experiences requiring the application of knowledge to the tasks and functions of a role in the field.

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION: Use of computers for gathering data, problem-solving, or engaging in application-level simulations.

GAMES AND SIMULATIONS: Structured activities that require rule learning and rule-following behaviors that approximate conditions faced in actual settings. Activities may be structured for problem solving through the use of case studies, in-baskets, or critical incidents.

GROUP PROCESS TRAINING: Organized instruction involving participation in various types of groups: e.g., human relations training groups, problem-solving groups, discussion groups, and task groups.

INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM RESEARCH: Activities directed toward investigation of a problem that require application of established research methodologies, either working alone or as a member of a research team.

INTERNSHIP: A full-time, field-based experience calling for application of various generic skills and a range of specific skills related to the principalship. Direction is provided by a college/university supervisor or site mentor.

INSTRUCTIONAL MODULES: Programmed content presented sequentially on a given topic to assist learners in developing understanding and skills for later application.

LECTURE/DISCUSSION: A teacher-directed instructional methodology that emphasizes presentation of information and discussion of academic content.

TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS: A methodology that engages one or more instructors with one or more students in an examination of academic content.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

PROBLEM ANALYSIS: Ability to seek out relevant data and analyze complex information to determine the important elements of a problem situation; searching for information with a purpose.

Examples:

* Investigates the reasons behind declining student test scores.

* Seeks to identify the major personnel problems needing solution.

* Identifies and prioritizes facts and information necessary to solve personnel conflicts.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Ability to express ideas dearly in writing; to write appropriately for different audiences-students, teachers, parents, et. al.

Examples:

* Composes and sends accurate memos to superiors and subordinates.

* Corresponds productively and promptly with parents regarding the behavior of their children.

* Effectively uses building goal statements to communicate with the central office.

SENSITIVITY: Ability to perceive the needs, concerns, and personal problems of others; skill in resolving conflicts, tact in dealing with people from different backgrounds; ability to deal effectively with people concerning emotional issues; knowing what information to communicate and to whom.

Examples:

* Schedules ample time for interaction with students in such a way that provides opportunities for all students.

* Listens to parents as they express themselves concerning emotional issues without interjecting comments.

* Considers the interests of individual teachers when making assignments.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NASSP SURVEY OF MICHIGAN PRINCIPALS

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Circle below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your PROBLEM ANALYSIS SKILLS.

If you circled NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

If the skill was devebped in your program, identify the modes of instructbn that were used. Circle no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify): .

Select from those you have just circled the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your PROBLEM ANALYSIS SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most.frequently used mode

Circle bebw the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY '-4"" I I I

If you circled more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2

Next most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1 I 1 I EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you circled three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that bast represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1 I ■

EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most affective in developing your PROBLEM ANALYSIS SKILLS. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Think about your university administrator preparation program. Circle below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

MODERATELY

K you circled N O T D EVE LO PE D, proceed to Box4 .

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Circle no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just circled the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you circled more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY ■ 1 J. ■ I 1 EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you circled three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion. _NOT | ----- MINIMALLYj------MODERATELY1----- HIGHLY(- EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your WRITTEN COMMUNICATION SKILLS. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question Three:

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Cirde below the categoiy that best represents the extent to which that program developed your SENSITIVITY.

If you drded NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box4.

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Cirde no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just drded the instrudional mode most frequently used to develop your SENSITIVITY. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

if you drded more than one instrudional mode, seled the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. K you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY —I------1------1------1- EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

if you cirded three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY —I------1------1------1—

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your SENSITIVITY. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 Question Four:

Job Title: Elementary Principal ______Middle/Junior High Principal___ Secondary Principal ______

Number of years as a K-12 school teacher: ___

Number of years as a K-12 school administrator.

Your most advanced degree: BS/BA ______MS/MA______Ed. S. ______Ed.DJPh.D.____

Area of concentration in most advanced degree:

Number of students in school district:______

We are planning to invite 10% of the survey respondents to participate in a follow-up telephone interview. The interviews will be conducted at your convenience within the next three weeks. This interview will give you a chance to make recommendations for the future. Please indicate below if you would like to be selected. [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER]

1 YES 2 NO

IF YES, please answer questions five through ten. IF NO, your questionnaire is complete. Thank you for your response.

Question Five:

How well did your university administrator training program prepare you for your current position? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 VERY WELL 2 FAIRLY WELL 3 NOTTOOWELL 4 NOT WELL AT ALL

Question Six:

Have you recently been involved in the formal training of other administrators? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

Question Seven:

Have you ever taught a graduate course in educational administration? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER]

1 YES 2 NO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149

Question Eight:

What two courses or instructional areas in your administrator training program were most helpful for you to meet the demands of your job?

2______

Question Nine:

In your opinion, in what way was your administrator training program particularly good?

Question Ten:

What is the single most important way to improve graduate instruction in educational administration departments?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE. PLEASE RETURN THE FOUR BLUE PAGES IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

DECISIVENESS: Ability to recognize when a decision is required and to act quickly.

Examples:

* Makes and implements decisions about instructional materials and equipment.

* Makes and implements decisions regarding changes in personnel assignments.

* Makes and implements decisions regarding parental concerns.

ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY: Ability to plan, schedule, and control the work of others; skill in using resources in an optimal fashion; ability to deal with a volume of paperwork and heavy demands on one’s time.

Examples:

* Formulates a plan of action to deal with teacher absences.

* Schedules non-instructional activities for teachers (e.g., school assemblies, money collection, lunch and hall duty, special events, etc.) to facilitate efficient operation of the school.

* Develops a plan to delegate appropriate tasks in response to heavy demands on one’s time.

LEADERSHIP: Ability to get others involved in solving problems; ability to recognize when a group requires direction, to interact with a group effectively, and to guide them to the accomplishment of a task.

Examples:

* Uses teacher ideas to build support for new curricula.

* Leads a committee to accomplish its assigned task.

* Uses group interaction to match the skills of teachers to particular curriculum and instruction problems.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NASSP SURVEY OF MICHIGAN PRINCIPALS 151

Question One:

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Circle below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your DECISIVENESS SKILLS.

If you circled NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

if the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Circle no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION • SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just circled the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your DECISIVENESS SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

If you circled more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT . MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY a I I 1 EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you cirded three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effediveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1 0 1 1 ■ EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your DECISIVENESS SKILLS. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL ■ LECTUREAND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Cirde below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY.

If you drded NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Cirde no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just drded the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effediveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY ■""fr I I I

If you drded more than one instructional mode, seled the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY —I----1— ---1----h- EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

— a— — — '1 n — — J If you drded three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1 1

EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes d instruction feted at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom d the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Question Three:

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Circle below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your LEADERSHIP SKILLS.

If you drded NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Cirde no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND .MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just drded the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your LEADERSHIP SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY -I---- 1---- 1----h-

If you drcled more than one instrudional mode, seted the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2 156

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY I 1 I 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you circled three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY

II 1 B EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your LEADERSHIP SKILLS. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157

Question Four:

Job Title: Elementary Principal __ Middle/Junior High Principal __ Secondary Principal ______

Number of years as a K-12 school teacher: ___

Number of years as a K-12 school administrator:

Your most advanced degree: BS/BA ______MS/MA______Ed. S. ______Ed.DJPh.D.____

Area of concentration in most advanced degree:

Number of students in school district:______

We are planning to invite 10% of the survey respondents to participate in a foilow-up telephone interview. The interviews will be conducted at your convenience within the next three weeks. This interview will give you a chance to make recommendations for the future. Please indicate below if you would like to be selected. [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

IF YES, please answer questions five through ten. IF NO, your questionnaire is complete. Thank you for your response.

Question Five:

How well did your university administrator training program prepare you for your current position? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 VERY WELL 2 FAIRLY WELL 3 NOTTOOWELL 4 NOTWELLATALL

Question Six:

Have you recently been involved in the formal training of other administrators? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

Question Seven:

Have you ever taught a graduate course in educational administration? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158

Question Eight:

What two courses or instructional areas in your administrator training program were most helpful for you to meet the demands of your job?

2______

Question Nine:

In your opinion, in what way was your administrator training program particularly good?

Question Ten:

What is the single most important way to improve graduate instruction in educational administration departments?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE PLEASE RETURN THE FOUR BLUE PAGES IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

JUDGMENT: Ability to reach logical conclusions and make high quality decisions based on available information; skill in identifying educational needs and setting priorities; ability to evaluate critically written communications.

Examples:

* Uses a variety of data and techniques to assess the effectiveness of teaching methods.

* Makes decisions about instructional materials and equipment within the limits imposed by student abilities, and budgetary, time, and personnel constraints.

* Decides to invoke a dismissal of a veteran teacher and provides sufficient documentation.

ORAL COMMUNICATION: Ability to make clear oral presentations of facts or ideas.

Examples:

* Effectively uses examples and visual aids in presentations to parents, the local community, and central office staff.

* Clearly communicates to teachers the results of classroom observations.

* Presents ideas convincingly at staff meetings.

STRESS TOLERANCE: Ability to perform under pressure and during opposition; ability to think on one's feet.

Examples:

* Reacts appropriately when faced with emergency situations.

* Attends to numerous problems while maintaining composure.

* Maintains tactful and courteous relations with teachers and students while receiving personal and occupational pressure.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Think about your university administrator preparation program. Cirde below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your JUDGMENT SKILLS.

SLIGHTLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1 - —I------H—

If you drded NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4 .

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Cirde no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just drded the instructional mode most frequently used to devebp your JUDGMENT SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

EFFECTIVE

If you drded more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL M ODE

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box2

Next most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY

E 1 " 1 1 EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you circled three Instructional modes, Insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY ■ 1 I EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your JUDGMENT SKILLS. List this mode on the blank tine at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL- LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Think about your university administrator preparation program. Cirde below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

if you drded NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Cirde no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTUREAND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):.

Select from those you have just drded the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS. List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion. NOT I " MINIMALLY 1 MODERATELY 8 HIGHLY I EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

K you drded more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY 1

EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you cirded throe instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY ■ H ------1------1------!— EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164

Question Three:

Think about your university administrator preparation program. Circle below the category that best represents the extent to which that program developed your STRESS TOLERANCE

DEVELOPED

If you circled NOT DEVELOPED, proceed to Box 4.

If the skill was developed in your program, identify the modes of instruction that were used. Circle no more than three modes.

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMES AND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH

INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND TUTORIALS AND MODULES DISCUSSION SEMINARS

OTHER (Specify):

Select from those you have just circled the instructional mode most frequently used to develop your STRESS TOLERANCE List this mode in Box 1 below.

Most frequently used mode

Circle below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY — 4------S------1------1—

If you circled more than one instructional mode, select the next most frequently used mode and complete Box 2. If you only identified one mode, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Box 2

Next most frequently used mode

Cirde below the categoiy that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NCJT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY

V ■ I I EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

If you cirded three instructional modes, insert the third mode in Box 3. If you identified less than three modes, skip to IDEAL INSTRUCTIONAL MODE.

Box 3

Third most frequently used mode

Cirde below the category that best represents the effectiveness of this mode in your opinion.

NOT MINIMALLY MODERATELY HIGHLY

EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE

IDEAL iNSTRUCTiONAL MODE

Up to this point the questions have asked you to respond in terms of your previous university preparation program. This item allows you to offer recommendations for training in the future. From the modes of instruction listed at the top of Box 4, select the mode you believe would be most effective in developing your STRESS TOLERANCE. List this mode on the blank line at the bottom of the box.

Box 4

CLINICAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED GAMESAND STUDY INSTRUCTION SIMULATIONS

GROUP PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AND INTERNSHIPS TRAINING TEAM RESEARCH TUTORIALS AND SEMINARS INSTRUCTIONAL LECTURE AND MODULES DISCUSSION OTHER (Specify)

Most Effective:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166

Question Four:

Job Title: Elementaiy Principal ______Middle/Junior High Principal ___ Secondary Principal ______

Number of years as a K-12 school teacher. ___

Number of years as a K-12 school administrator:

Your most advanced degree: BS/BA ______MS/MA______Ed. S. ______Ed.DVPh.D._____

Area of concentration in most advanced degree: .

Number of students in school district:______

We are planning to invite 10% of the survey respondents to participate in a follow-up telephone interview. The interviews will be conducted at your convenience within the next three weeks. This interview will give you a chance to make recommendations forthe future. Please indicate below if you would like to be selected. [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

IF YES, please answer questions five through ten. IF NO, your questionnaire is complete. Thank you for your response.

Question Five:

How well did your university administrator training program prepare you for your current position? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 VERY WELL 2 FAIRLY WELL 3 NOTTOOWELL 4 NOTWELLATALL

Question Six:

Have you recently been involved in the formal training of other administrators? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

Question Seven:

Have you eyer taught a graduate course in educational administration? [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER.]

1 YES 2 NO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167

Question Eight:

What two courses or instructional areas in your administrator training program were most helpful for you to meet the demands of your job?

2______

Question Nine:

In your opinion, in what way was your administrator training program particularly good?

Question Ten:

What is the single most important way to improve graduate instruction in educational administration departments?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE PLEASE RETURN THE FOUR BLUE PAGES IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A p p e n d i x B

Complete Chart Essays for Nine Generic Skills

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169

Sample Unit Selection for the NASSP Survey of Michigan Principals

Sample Size Considerations

- Required sample size is 347 respondents.

- Sampling error is 5% (in either direction).

- Confidence coefficient is 95%.

Michigan School Campuses

- Elementary school campuses 1,971 62%

- Middle school campuses 616 19%

- High school campuses 615 19%

All Michigan campuses 3,202 100%

Allocation of Sampling Units

- Elementary school respondents 215 62%

- Middle school respondents 66 19%

- High school respondents 66 19%

Total number of respondents 347 100%

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 40

Problem Analysis (n = 54)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS M: used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) i

Clinical study 3 9 2 4 3 3 8 16 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Games and simulations 1 3 6 12 4 4 11 19 0 0

Group process training 5 15 7 14 10 10 22 39 0 0

Instructional modules 1 3 4 8 0 0 5 11 0 0

Internship 6 18 5 10 3 3 14 31 0 0

Lecture and discussion 23 69 7 14 6 6 36 89 1 1

Research 8 24 5 10 2 2 15 36 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 2 6 0 0 4 4 6 10 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

No response needed 5 17 21 43

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ible 40 m Analysis i = 54)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini- WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total il Not (xl) (x2) ate (x3) High (x4) i 0 0 3 6 3 9 1 4 1 8 19

! 0000 13000 13 l 0 0 3 6 4 12 4 16 0 11 34

0 0 12 24 8 24 2 8 0 22 56

0 0 3 6 2 6 0 0 0 5 12

0 0 1 2 7 21 6 24 0 14 47

1 1 13 26 20 60 2 8 0 36 142

0 0 5 10 7 21 2 8 1 15 39

0 0 0 0 5 15 1 4 0 6 19

0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 Table 41

Written Communication (n = 54)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mil used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) m

Clinical study 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Games and simulations 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 3 0 0

Group process training 0 0 2 4 4 4 6 8 1 1

Instructional modules 1 3 3 6 0 0 4 9 0 0

Internship 1 3 3 6 0 0 4 9 0 0 1

Lecture and discussion 15 45 5 10 3 3 23 58 2 2 !

Research 20 60 3 6 0 0 23 66 0 0 :

Tutorials and seminars 1 3 4 8 3 3 8 14 0 0

Other 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 (

No response needed 15 32 43 90

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 4

1 1 4 8 1 3 0 0 0 6 12

0 0 1 2 3 9 0 0 0 4 11

0 0 0 0 3 9 1 4 0 4 13

2 2 9 18 9 27 1 4 2 23 51

0 0 5 10 11 33 7 28 0 23 71

0 0 3 6 4 12 1 4 0 8 22

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 42

Sensitivity (n = 54)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS* Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Clinical study 1 3 2 4 1 1 4 8 0 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gaines and simulations 4 12 4 8 5 5 13 25 0 0 2

Group process training 13 39 5 10 2 2 20 51 0 0 5

Instructional modules 0 0 3 6 2 2 5 8 1 1 3

Internship 1 3 1 2 2 2 4 7 0 0 2

Lecture and discussion 11 33 2 4 0 0 13 37 0 0 0

Research 1 3 2 4 1 1 4 8 0 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 3 6 1 1 7 16 0 0 3

Other 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0

No response needed 18 32 40 90

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 ble 42 itivity . = 54)

Effectiveness

No WS WS' Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total .1 Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

; o 0 0 0 2 6 2 8 0 4 14

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 4 8 24 3 12 0 13 40

0 0 5 10 10 30 5 20 0 20 60 i l 1 3 6 1 3 0 0 0 5 10

0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 1 4 7

0 0 0 16 3 9 2 8 0 13 33 i 0 • 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 1 4 9

0 0 3 6 3 9 1 4 0 7 19 i 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 2 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176

Table 43

Decisiveness (n = 49)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS M used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) 1

Clinical study 0 0 5 10 3 3 8 13 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gaines and simulations 3 9 5 10 3 3 11 22 0 0

Group process training 5 15 6 12 5 5 16 32 0 0

Instructional modules 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0

Internship 2 6 5 10 4 4 11 20 0 0

Lecture and discussion 23 69 4 8 8 8 35 85 1 1

Research 3 9 9 18 3 3 15 30 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 4 8 2 2 9 19 0 0

Other 1 3 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 0

No response needed 7 11 20 38

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. le 43 iveness = 49)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini- WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total Not (xl) (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

0 0 5 10 2 6 1 4 0 8 20

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 4 8 7 21 0 0 0 11 29

0 0 2 4 13 39 0 0 1 16 43

0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 6

0 0 0 0 5 15 6 24 0 11 39

1 1 12 24 21 63 1 4 0 35 92

0 0 5 10 8 24 2 8 0 15 42

0 0 1 2 6 18 1 4 1 9 24

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 2 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 44

Organizational Ability (n = 49)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Clinical study 0 0 1 2 3 3 4 5 0 0 2

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 1 3 0 0 3 3 4 6 0 0 2

Group process training 5 15 4 8 2 2 11 25 0 0 3

Instructional modules 2 6 2 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 3

Internship 3 9 5 10 1 1 9 20 0 0 0

Lecture and discussion 17 51 7 14 2 2 26 67 0 0 8

Research 5 15 5 10 2 2 12 27 0 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 2 6 4 8 4 4 10 18 0 0 2

Other 1 3 0 0 2 2 3 5 0 0 0

No response needed 13 21 30 64

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 e 44 nal Ability 49)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

0 0 2 4 1 3 0 0 1 4 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 4 2 6 0 0 0 4 10

0 0 3 6 5 15 3 12 0 11 33

0 0 3 6 1 3 0 0 0 4 19

0 0 0 0 5 15 4 16 0 9 31

0 0 8 16 14 42 3 12 1 26 70

0 0 0 0 8 24 4 16 0 12 40

0 0 2 4 6 18 2 8 0 10 30

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 3 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 45

Leadership (n = 49)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Min used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) ma

Clinical study 0 0 1 2 4 4 5 6 0 0 2

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 2 6 3 6 1 1 6 13 0 0 0

Group process training 9 27 4 8 3 3 16 38 0 0 1

Instructional modules 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Internship 3 9 3 6 6 6 12 21 0 0 1

Lecture and discussion 17 51 5 10 4 4 26 65 1 1 14

Research 4 12 7 14 2 2 13 28 0 0 4

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 4 8 1 1 8 18 0 0 C

Other 1 3 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0

No response needed 10 22 27 59

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 ile 45

.ership = 49)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

0 0 2 4 2 6 1 4 0 5 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 00 412 28 0 520

0 0 1 2 1236 312 0 16 50

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 2 5 15 6 24 0 12 41

1 1 14 28 8 24 2 8 1 26 60

0 0 4 8 721 2 8 0 13 37

0 0 0 0 5 15 3 12 0 8 27

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 2 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

Table 46

Judgment (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Clinical 3 9 1 2 2 2 6 13 0 0 1

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 2 6 5 10 6 6 13 22 0 0 3

Group process training 4 12 12 24 6 6 22 42 1 1 4

Instructional modules 1 3 5 10 2 2 8 15 0 0 4

Internship 2 6 2 4 2 2 6 12 0 0 0

Lecture and discussion 30 90 7 14 4 4 41 108 0 0 23

Research 4 12 9 18 5 5 18 35 0 0 4

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 3 6 5 5 11 20 0 0 2

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No response needed 13 18 30 61

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 able 46 idgraent i = 62)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total il Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

5 0 0 1 2 4 12 1 4 0 6 ■ 18

) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 3 6 618 312 1 13 36

2 1 1 4 8 14 42 3 12 0 22 63

5 0 0 4 8 3 9 0 0 1 8 17

2 0 0 00 26 416 0 622

3 0 0 23 46 17 51 1 4 0 41 101

5 0 0 4 8 12 36 2 8 0 18 52

) 0 0 2 4 6 18 3 12 0 11 34

) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 Table 47

Oral Conmunication (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional inodes Most WS Next WS Third WS WS WS Mini­ used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) mal

Clinical study 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Games and simulations 3 9 612 3 3 1224 0 0 4

Group process training 8 24 4 8 7 7 19 39 0 0 5

Instructional modules 1 3 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 1

Internship 2 6 2 4 1 1 5 11 0 0 0

Lecture and discussion 14 42 7 14 1 1 22 57 0 0 10

Research 3 9 5 10 1 1 9 20 0 0 5

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 1 2 0 0 4 11 0 0 2

Other 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0

No response needed 26 36 49 111

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nnunication = 62)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total 1 Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High (x4)

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 4 8 5 15 3 12 0 12 35

0 0 5 10 30 30 4 16 0 19 56

0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 5

0 0 0 0 3 9 2 8 0 5 17

0 0 10 20 8 24 4 16 0 22 60

0 0 5 10 3 9 1 4 0 9 23

0 0 2 4 2 6 0 0 0 4 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

Table 48

Stress Tolerance (n = 62)

Frequency

Instructional modes Most WS Next WS third WS WS WS Min used (x3) used (x2) used (xl) Total total Not (xl) ma

Clinical study 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Computer-assisted instruction 00000000000

Games and simulations 1 3 2 4 0 0 3 7 0 0

Group process training 2 6 1 2 0 0 3 8 0 0

Instructional modules 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Internship 2 6 2 4 1 1 5 11 0 0

Lecture and discussion 7 21 1 2 3 3 11 26 1 1

Research 1 3 1 2 0 0 2 5 0 0

Tutorials and seminars 3 9 0 0 1 1 4 10 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No response needed 46 54 57 157

Note. WS = weighted score.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 able 48 s Tolerance n = 62)

Effectiveness

No WS WS Mini­ WS Moder­ WS WS response Total total al Not (xl) mal (x2) ate (x3) High Cx4)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 8 0 3 10

8 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 3 5

2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

1 0 0 1 2 2 6 2 8 0 5 16

6 1 1 5 10 4 12 1 4 0 11 27

5 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 0 2 6

0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 4 12

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C

Alphabetical Summary Modal Values

188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Internship Internship Internship Internship Internship Group Process Training Internship Group Process Training tie 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 2) 1 3 2 2> 2 3 Moderately Moderately OF OF MODES RANK Moderately Minimally Moderately Moderately Minimally Moderately Moderately Minimally Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Minimally Minimally Moderately Moderate/High tie (Raw Score Ranking) ALPHABETICAL SUMMARY MODAL VALUES Individual & Team Research Lecture A Discussion Lecture & Discussion Indivudal A Team Research Group Process Training Lecture & Discussion Individual & Team Research Individual & Team Research Lecture & Discussion Group Process Training Group Prdcess Training Lecture & Discussion Lecture A Discussion Individual A Team Research Group Process Training Games & Simulations Group Process Training Group Process Training Lecture A Discussion) Group Process Training Internship Games A Simulations) Lecture A Discussion Tutorials A Seminars 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 RANK MODES USED SKILL DEVELOPED ModeratelyNot 1 Developed Moderately Moderately Developed Not -.KILL -.KILL EXTENT FREQUENCY INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS IDEAL MODE Decisiveness Slightly Judgment Moderately Leadership Ability Oral Communication Problem Sensitivity Slightly Organizational Stress Tolerance

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 FROM RAW SCORE OATA None less less effective than 4th moderately effective with ranked Internship. weighted score data. rated minimally effective with raw score data and weighted score data. moderately effective with None 1 2 1 Lecture & Discussion was 1 2 RANK EFFECTIVENESS TRENDS WHICH DIFFER OF MODES Moderately Moderately Moderately 4 mode, yet was considered Moderately 3 Moderately EFFECTIVENESS (Weighted Score Rankings) ALPHABETICAL SUMMARY MODAL VALUES MODES USED Group Process Training Group Process Training Moderately 2 rated minimally effective Internship High 3 Group Process Training Moderately 2 Games & Simulations Research Moderately Group Process Training Moderately 3 1 Lecture & Discussion 2 3 Research Moderately 3 2 3 Research Moderately 3 with raw score data and 23 Group Process Training Research Moderately 2 used as an Instructional 4 3 3 RANK INSTRUCTIONAL FREQUENCY FREQUENCY OF SKILL EXTENT DEVELOPED Slightly Moderately 1 Lecture & Discussion Moderately 1 Lecture & Discussion was Moderately 1 Lecture & Discussion Minimally 1 Research was more frequently Developed 2 SKILL Decisiveness Judgment Leadership Oral Not 1 Lecture & Discussion Moderately Communication Organizational Moderately 1 Lecture & Discussion Ability 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. tie 3) Minamally/ tie EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS tie tie (Raw Score Ranking) ALPHABETICAL SUMMARY MODAL VALUES Instructional Modules) Moderately Internship) Moderately 3> 1 Individual & Team Research> Moderately) 1> 1 Lecture & D1scuss1on> Moderate) 1> 23 3 Tutorials * Somlnars Moderately 2 Communication written SIightly

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix D

Informed Subsample Identification

194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

Informed Subsample Identification

EB 52 870 JMI 21 591 c HA 10 224

EC 41 922 JMI 42 430 C H B 65 252

E A 216 947 JMI 56 48 B H A 1 112

E A 6 181 JMI 24 61 c H A 67 92

E B 163 650 JMI 66 196 C H A 43 70

E A 111 448 JMI 1 55 A H A 31 324

E B 19 192 JMI 50 106 B H A 22 144

E B 187 653 JMI 14 53 B

E B 25 404 JMI 65 600 B H TOTAL 7

EB 55 491 JMI 4 47 A

E B 76 805Q JMI 13 88 A

E c . 23 1,837 JMI 60 71 c

E A 102 841

EA 171 543 JMI TOTAL 12

EB 190 923

E TOTAL 15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix E

Telephone Script

196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197

Telephone Script

These questions were used as a general guide, but each interview was permitted to follow its own path. The interviewer tried to re­ late each interview specifically to what the respondent had written on his or her questionnaire and probed accordingly. These questions were used as a guide and to keep the interviews on the proper course.

Question 1: What type of teaching certification do you hold?

Note. If midmanagement, ask "Is it temporary or professional?"

Question 2: What could your administrator preparation program have done better to help prepare you for your current professional role?

Note. Probe— if, for example, the answer was "have less theory," ask the respondent "what would you cut out?"

Question 3: In your postal questionnaire you identified ______as the single most important way educational administration depart­ ments could improve preparation of principals. In what ways could/ should this suggestion be implemented? (and/or) Please elaborate, (and/or) Tell me about this.

Note. Probe for specifics based upon what they are talking about.

Question 4 : [Use this for a prompt if needed.] How should principal preparation programs change to meet the future needs of practicing professionals?

Question 5: The information you have shared in this interview will be used to direct program planning for university administrator preparation. With this in mind, is there anything else you would like to suggest?

Note. At this time the interviewer explained that NASSP and the Principals' Center are working together on this study.

Question 6: [Member checks: When appropriate.] Can I call you again to verify the accuracy of what you have said.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix F

Distribution of Michigan Public School Districts and School Campuses by Intermediate School District

198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199

DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL CAMPUSES

BY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT

compiled by

LINDA BERK MOTSCHALL

Submitted to the Educational Leadership Department of

Western Michigan University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

JULY, 1987

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 0

INFORMATION REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL

DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL CAMPUSES BY INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Sources

The 1987 edition of the Michigan Education Directory and Buyer's Guide

was used to obtain ISD, school district, elementary school, junior

high, and high school data. The directory lists each school

alphabetically with the name of the appropriate ISD placed in

parenthesis next to the listing. Intermediate School Districts (ISD)

having separate campuses for specific special education programs were

obtained from the 1987 Statewide Communication & Dissemination System

(SCADS) booklet.

Strengths

The compiled information has been organized by ISD, as opposed to an

alphabetical listing by school district. This may allow a researcher

to draw from a stratified population. Next to each district listing

within the ISD category, the researcher is able to see the number of

elementary, junior high, and high schools there are in district as

well as a sum total of each per district and per ISD. A sum total of

each catagory and grand total of public schools for the state of

Michigan are found on Table 1.

Limitations

When more than one ISD was listed in the directory for a given school

district, this researcher used the first one given. Citation was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 1

given under each school district having multiple ISD listings. Eight

school districts had no ISD listed next to their name. Therefore, a

"No ISD" page and table catagory was created.

The directory's campus symbols of S, J-M-I, E were used to

represent HIGH SCHOOL, JUNIOR HIGH-MIDDLE SCHOOL-INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL,

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL respectively, on each ISD page. In some cases,

school districts having special education schools, community education

buildings, community centers, day treatment centers, early childhood

development centers, skill centers, adult education centers,

alternative centers, vocational education centers, learning centers,

were flushed left at the end of the elementary listings. This

researcher listed these as OTHER using the symbol "0". The "0"

catagory was added to the "NHS" catagory for Table 1. In other cases,

school districts having these special types of facilities listed them

in either the S, J-M-I, or E catagory. Caution and reference to

the directory o*r other sources are advised if future research is to be

obtained for these special programs or facilities.

In some cases, school districts having one building site or

administrator for the K-12 program were referenced as "S-M-E" for the

district. In those cases, the district was credited with "1" in the

total column. This reference was tabulated on Table 1 under the "NHS"

column, credited for high school.

On one occassion, a "K-8" reference was made for a school district.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 2

The district was credited with an "Elen.", elementary catagory and

tabulated on Table 1 under the "NELEM" column.

To determine the number of separate ISD special education schools,

this researcher used the SCADS booklet. This informational

publication lists the ISD and district personnel responsible for

special education programs, projects, or services. To determine the

number of special education schools NOT associated with individual

school districts, this researcher counted each Intermediate Supervisor

listed per ISD as a campus. These numbers are listed at the end of

each ISD data sheet and are NOT counted in the total cumpuses on

Table 1. In some cases, there were no Intermediate Supervisors. If

no Intermediate Supervisors were listed, then no credit was given for

having a separate special education campus. Again, caution and

additional research needs to be conducted for future projects

involving ISD or state-wide special education data.

Included with the ISD school district pages is a separate list of

school districts listed in the directory which has neither an ISD nor

names of campus listing. Further investigation or research may need

to be done before using this data. This information was not included

in the formation of Table 1.

Table 1

This model replicates the Texas Distribution of Public School

Districts and School Campuses by Region. The substitution of ISD for

Region was used for the State of Michigan. The first column is an

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203

alphabetical listing of ISD’s for Michigan, according to the

listing in the directory (ISD). The next column is the number of

school districts per ISD (ND). The third column is the number of

elementary schools or campuses per ISD (NELEM). The fourth column is

the number of junior highs, middle schools, intermediate schools or

campuses per ISD (NMID). The fifth column is the number of high school

campuses per ISD (NHS). The sixth column is the number of separate

special education campuses per ISD (NSPE). The last column is a total

of NELEM, NMID, and NHS per ISD. At the end of Table 1 is a total of

each column as well as a grand total of NELEM, NMID, and NHS.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204

Allegan County ISD

DISTRICT

Allegan Public Schools

Fennville Public Schools

Hamilton Community Schools

Hopkins Public Schools

Martin Public Schools

Otsego Public Schools

Plainwell Commmunity Schools

Saugatuck Public Schools

Wayland Union Schools

TOTAL 9

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

Alpena-Montmorency ISD

DISTRICT

Alpena Public Schools

Atlanta Community Schools

Hillman Community Schools

Lincoln Alcona Community Schools

TOTAL 4

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206

Barry ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Delton Kellogg Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Hastings Area Schools 1 1 4 0 6 (Also listed under Calhoun)

Middleville Thornapple Kellogg Schools 1 1 2 0 4

TOTAL 3 3 3 7 0 13

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207

Bay-Arenac ISD

DISTRICT

Augres-Sims School District

Bay City Public Schools

Bay City Bangor Twp. School District

Essexville Hampton Public Schools

Pinconning Area Schools (also listed under Gladwin)

Standish Sterling Community Schools

Twining Arenac Eastern Schools

TOTAL 7

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208

DISTRICT j

Benton Harbor Area Schools

Berrien Springs Public Schools

Bridgman Public School District

Buchanan Community Schools

Coloma Community Schools

Eau Claire Public Schools

Galien Twp. Schools

New Buffalo Area Schools

Niles Community Schools

Niles Brandywine Public Schools (also listed under Cass)

St. Joseph Public Schools

Stevensville Lakeshore Public Schools

Three Oaks River Valley Schools

Watervliet Public Schools

TOTAL 14

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Branch ISD

DISTRICT

Bronson Community Schools

Coldwater Community Schools

Quincy Community Schools

Union City Community Schools (also listed under Calhoun)

TOTAL 4 4 4 9 0 17

Special Education Campus (ISD) 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Calhoun ISD

DISTRICT S]

Albion Public Schools

Athens Area Schools

Battle Creek Public Schools

Battle Creek P.O. Harper Creek Schools

Battle Creek P.O. Lakeview Schools

Battle Creek P.O. Pennfield Schools

Homer Community Schools

Marshall Public Schools

Marshall P.O. Mar Lee Schools

Tekonsha Public Schools

TOTAL 10

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 11

Cass ISD

DISTRICT

Dowagiac Union Schools

Edwardsburg Public Schools

Marcellus Community Schools

TOTAL 3

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 2

Charlevoix-Emmet ISD

DISTRICT

Alanson-Littiefield Schools

Boyne City Public Schools

Boyne Falls Public Schools

Charlevoix Public Schools

East Jordan Public Schools

Harbor Springs Public Schools

Pellston Public Schools

Petoskey

St. James Beaver Island Community Schools

TOTAL 9

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Cheboygan-Otsego-Presque Isle ISD

DISTRICT

Cheboygan Area Schools

Gaylord Public Schools

Indian River Inland Lakes Schools

Johannesburg Lewiston Area Schools

Mackinaw City Public Schools (also listed under Emmet)

Onaway Area Schools

Posen Consolidated Schools

Rogers City Area Schools

Vanderbilt Area Schools

Wolverine Community Schools

TOTAL 10

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chippewa-Luce-Mackinaw Eastern UP ISD

Brimley Area Schools

Cedarville Les Cheneaux Community Schools

Detour Village Area Schools

Engadine Consolidated Schools

Mackinaw Island School District

Newberry Tahquamenon Area Schools

Paradise Whitefish Schools

Pickford Public Schools

Rudyard Area Schools

St. Ignace Area Schools

St. Ignace Moran Twp. Schools

Sault Ste. Marie

TOTAL 12 11 7 19 2 39

Special Education Campus (ISD) 2

Special Education Campus (Eastern Upper Peninsula) 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215

Clare-Gladwin ISD

DISTRICT

Beaverton Rural Schools

Clare Schools.

Farvell Area Schools

Gladwin Community Schools

Harrison Community Schools

TOTAL 5

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216

Clinton County ISD

DISTRICT

Bath Community Schools

Dewitt Public Schools

Elsie Ovid-Elsie Area Schools

Fowler Public Schools

Pewamo Westphalia Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217

Delta-Schoolcraft ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Cooks Big Bay de Noc School District 1 1 1 0 3

Escanaba Area Public Schools 1 1 9 0 11

Gladstone Area Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Manistique Area Schools 1 1 5 0 7

Rapid River Public Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Rock Mid Peninsula <-- S— M— E------> 0 1

TOTAL 6 6 4 19 0 29

Special Education Campus (ISD) 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dickinson-Iron ISD

Crystal Falls

Iron Mountain Public Schools <---- S— M— E—

Kingsford Breitung Twp. Schools

Norway Vulcan Area Schools

Stambaugh West Iron Co. Public Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 Eaton ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Bellevue Community Schools 1 1 .1 o 3

Charlotte Public Schools 1 1 A 0 6

Eaton Rapids Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5 (also listed under Ingham)

Grand Ledge Public Schools 1 2 6 0 9 (also listed under: Ionia/Clinton/ Roxand/Oneida)

Olivet Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Potterville Public Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Vermontville Maple Valley Schools <— S— M— > 3 0 4

TOTAL 7 7 6 19 0 32

Special Education Campus (ISD) 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 0

Genesee ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Burton Atherton Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Burton Bendle Schools 1 1 4 0 6

Burton Bentley Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Clio Area Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Davison Community Schools 1 1 5 0 7

Fenton Area Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Fenton Lake Fenton Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Flint Community Schools 7 6 38 0 51

Flint P.O. Beecher Community Schools 1 2 4 0 7

Flint P.O. Carman-Ainsworth 1 1 6 0 8 Community Schools

Flint P.O. Kearsley Community Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Flint P.O. Westwood Heights Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Flushing Community Schools 1 1 4 0 6

Genesee Public Schools 1 1 0 3

Goodrich Area Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Grand Blanc Community Schools 1 1 4 0 6

continued next pag

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 1

Genesee ISD (continued from previous page)

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Linden Community Schools 1 1 2 0 A

Montrose Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Mt. Morris Consolidated Schools 1 1 4 0 6

Otisville Lakeville Community Schools 1 1 4 0 6 (also listed under Lapeer)

Swartz Creek Community Schools 1 2 5 0 8

TOTAL 21 27 28 97 0 152

Special Education Campus (ISD) 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 2

Gogebic-Ontonagon ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Bergland Community Schools 0 0 10 1

Bessemer City School District 1 0 10 2

Even Trout Creek School 0 0 2 0 2 (also listed under Houghton)

Ironwood Area Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Marenisco Public Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Ontonagon Area Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Ramsay Bessemer Tvp. Schools 0 0 0 0 0

Wakefield Tvp. Schools 1 0 10 2

Watersmeet Tvp. Schools 1 1 1 0 3

White Pine Public Schools 1 0 0 0 1

TOTAL 10 7 4 12 0 23

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Grand Traverse-Antrim-Benzie-Kalkaska-Leelanau ISD

DISTRICT SI

Alba Public Schools

Bellaire Public Schools

Benzonia Benzie Co. Central Schools

Central Lake Public Schools

Elk Rapids Public Schools

Ellsworth Community Schools

Fife Lake Forest Area Schools

Frankfort Area Schools

Kalkaska Public Schools

Kingsley Area Schools

Leland Public Schools

Mancelona Public Schools

Maple City Glen Lake Community Schools

Morenci Area Schools

Northport Public Schools

Suttons Bay

Traverse City Public Schools

TOTAL 17

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224

Gratiot-Isabella ISD

DISTRICT

Alma Public Schools

Ashley Community Schools

Breckenridge Community Schools

Ithaca Public Schools

Mt. Pleasant Public Schools

Mt. Pleasant P.O. Beal City Schools

St. Louis Public Schools

Shepherd Public Schools

TOTAL 8

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

Hillsdale ISD

DISTRICT

Camden-Frontier Schools

Hillsdale Community Schools

Jonesville Community Schools

Litchfield Community Schools (also listed under Jackson/Calhoi Branch)

North Adams Jerome Schools

Reading Community Schools

Waldron Area Schools

TOTAL 7

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

Houghton-Baraga-Keewanaw Copper Country ISD

Baraga Area Schools

Calumet, Lauriem, ant Public Schools

Chassel Twp. Schools

Dollar Bay Osceola Twp. Schools

Hancock Public Schools

Houghton Portage Twp. Schools

L'Anse Area Schools

Lake Linden-Hubbell Schools

Painesdale Adams Twp. School District

TOTAL 9 9

Special Education Campus (Copper Country)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227

DISTRICT

Bad Axe Public Schools

Caseville Public Schools

Harbor Beach Community Schools

Kinde North Huron Schools

Owendale Gagetown Area Schools

Pigeon Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Schools

Port Hope Community Schools

Ubly Community Schools

TOTAL 8

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228

Ingham ISD

Dansville Agricultural Schools

East Lansing Public Schools (also listed under Clinton)

Haslett Public Schools

Holt Public Schools (also listed under Eaton)

Lansing Public Schools

Lansing P.O. Waverly Community Schools (also listed under Eaton/Clinton)

Leslie Public Schools

Mason Public Schools

Okemos Public Schools

Stockbridge Community Schools

Webberville Community Schools

Williamston Community Schools

TOTAL 12

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229

Ionia County ISD

DISTRICT

Belding Area Schools

Ionia Public Schools

Lake Odessa-Lakewood Public Schools

Palo Community Schools

Portland Public Schools

Saranac Community Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230

Iosco ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

East Tavas Area Schools 112 0 4

Hale Area Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Oscoda Area Schools 1 1 4 0 6 (also listed under Alcona)

Whitteraore Prescott Area Schools 1 1 2 0 4

TOTAL 4 4 3 9 0 16

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jackson ISD

DISTRICT

Brooklyn Columbia School District

Concord Community Schools

Grass Lake Community Schools

Hanover-Horton School District

Jackson Public Schools

Jackson P.O. East Jackson Schools

Jackson P.O. Northwest School District

Jackson P.O. Vandercook Lake Schools

Michigan Center Public Schools

Napoleon Community Schools

Parma P.O. Western School District

TOTAL 11

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 Kalamazoo Valley ISD

DISTRICT

Climax Scotts Community Schools

Comstock Public Schools

Galesburg-Augusta Community Schools

Kalamazoo Public Schools

Parchment School District

Portage Public Schools

Richland Gull Lake Community Schools

Schoolcraft Community Schools

TOTAL 8

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 Kent ISD

DISTRICT ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Byron Center Public Schools 5 0 7

Caledonia Community Schools 3 0 5

Cedar Springs Public Schools 2 0 4

Comstock Public Schools 2 0 4

Grand Rapids Public Schools 43 0 52

Grand Rapids P.O. East Grand Rapids 3 0 5

5 0 9

Grand Rapids P.O. Kelloggsville 4 0 6 Public Schools

4 0 6

7 0 10

3 0 6

Grandville Public Schools 6 0 8

Kent City Community Schools 2 0 4

Lowell Area Schools 3 0 5

continued on next page

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kent ISD (continued from previous page)

DISTRICT SEi

Rockford Public Schools

Sparta Area Schools

Wyoming Public Schools

Wyoming P.O. Godfrey Lee Public Schools

Wyoming P.O. Godwin Heights Public Schools

TOTAL 19

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235

Lapeer County ISD

DISTRICT

Almont Community Schools

Dryden Community Schools

Imlay City Community Schools

Lapeer Community Schools

North Branch Area Schools

TOTAL 5

Special Education Campus

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

Lenawee ISD

DISTRICT

Addison Community Schools

Adrian Public Schools

Adrian P.O. Madison School District

Blissfield Community Schools

Britton-Macon Area Schools

Clinton Community Schools

Deerfield Public Schools

Hudson Area Schools

Onsted Community Schools

Sand Creek Community Schools

Tecumseh Public Schools

TOTAL 11

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

Livingston ISD

DISTRICT

Brighton Area Schools

Fowlerville Community Schools

Howell Public Schools

Pinckney Community Schools (also listed under Washtenau)

TOTAL 4

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238

Macomb ISD

Armada Area Schools (also listed under St. Clair)

Centerline Public Schools

East Detroit Public Schools

Fraser Public Schools

Mt. Clemens Community Schools

Mt. Clemens P.O. Clintondale Community Schools

Mt. Clemens P.O. L ’Anse Community Schools

New Baltimore P.O. Anchor Bay Schools

New Haven Community Schools

Richmond Community Schools (also listed under St. Clair)

Romeo Community Schools

Roseville Community Schools

St. Clair Shores P.O. Lake Shore Community Schools

continued on next page

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Macomb ISD (continued from previous page)

Utica Community Schools

Warren Consolidated Schools

Warren P.O. Fitzgerald Public Schools

Warren P.O. Van Dyke Public Schools

Warren P.O. Warren Woods Public Schools

TOTAL 21

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Manistee ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Bear Lake Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Brethren Kaleva Norman Dickson School 1 0 2 0 3 District

Manistee Area Schools 1 .1 3 0 5

Onekama Consolidated Schools 1 1 2 0 4

TOTAL 4 4 2 8 0 14

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241

Marquette-Alger

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Big Bay Powell Twp. Schools 0 1 10 2

Eben Junction Rock River-Limestone 1 0 10 2 Twp. Schools

Grand Marais Burt Twp. Schools 1 0 0 0 1

Gwinn Area Community Schools 1 1 A 0 6

Ishpeming Public Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Ishpeming P.O. Nice Common School 1 2 2 0 5 District

Marquette Area Public Schools 2 2 6 0 10

Neguanee Public Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Republic Michigamme Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Trenary Mathias Twp. Schools <-- 3— M— E---- > 0 1

TOTAL 10 10 9 19 0 38

Special Education Campus (ISD) 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242

Mason Lake ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Baldwin Community Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Custer Mason County Eastern Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Freesoil Community Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Ludington Area Schools 1 1 6 0 8

Scottville Mason County Central Schools 1 1 1 0 3

TOTAL 5 5 4 11 0 20

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243

Mecosta-Osceola ISD

Big Rapids Public Schools (also listed under Newaygo)

Evart Public Schools (also listed under Clare)

Leroy Pine River Area Schools

Marion Public Schools (also listed under Clare)

Morley Stanwood Community Schools

Reed City Public Schools

Remus Chippewa Hills School District

TOTAL 7

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244

Menominee County ISD

DISTRICT

Carney-Nadeau Public Schools

Harris Bark River-Harris Schools

Menominee Area Public Schools

Powers North Central Area Schools

Stephenson Area Schools

TOTAL 5

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 Midland ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Coleman Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Midland Public Schools 3 3 13 1 20

Midland P.O. Bullock Creek School 1 1 3 0 5 District

Sanford Meridan Public Schools 1 1 4 0 6

TOTAL 4 6 6 21 1 34

Special Education Campus (ISD) 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246

Monroe County ISD

DISTRICT

Carlton Airport Community Schools

Dundee Community Schools

Erie Mason Consolidated Schools

Ida Public Schools ■

Monroe Public Schools

Monroe P.O.

Petersburg

Temperance Bedford Public Schools

TOTAL 9

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247

Montcalm Area ISD

Carson City Crystal Area (also listed under Gratiot/Ionia/ Clinton)

Greenville Public Schools

Howard City Tri-County Area Schools

Lakeview Community Schools

Stanton Central Montcalm Public Schools

Vickburg Community Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Muskegon Area ISD

Fruitport Community Schools (also listed under Ottawa)

Holton Public Schools

Montague Area Public Schools

Muskegon Public Schools

Muskegon Mona Shores Schools

Muskegon Oakridge Public Schools

Muskegon Orchard View Public Schools

Muskegon Reeths-Puffer Schools

•Muskegon Heights Public Schools

North Muskegon Public Schools

Ravenna Public Schools

Whitehall School District

TOTAL 12

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249

DISTRICT

Freemont Public Schools

Grant Public Schools

Hesperia Community Schools

Newaygo Public Schools

White Cloud Public Schools

TOTAL 5

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250

Oakland ISD

DISTRICT ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Berkley School District 5 0 8

Birmingham Public Schools 10 0 16

Bloomfield Hills Public Schools 7 0 12.

Clarkston Community Schools 5 1 9

Clawson School District 2 0 4

Farmington Public Schools 11 0 18

Ferndale School District 8 0 11

Hazel Park Public Schools 8 0 12

Holly Area Public Schools 3 0 5

Lake Orion Community Schools 5 0 8

3 0 5

Madison Heights P.O. Lamphere Schools 4 0 6

. Milford Huron Valley Schools 8 1 14

Novi Community Schools 4 0 6

Oak Park Public Schools 4 0 6

Ortonville Brandon Schools 2 1 5

continued on next page

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

Oakland ISD (continued from previous page)

Oxford Community Schools

Pontiac School District

Rochester Community Schools (also listed under Macomb)

Royal Oak Public Schools

Southfield Public Schools

South Lyon Community Schools

Troy School District

Walled Lake Consolidated Schools

Waterford School District

West Bloomfield Public Schools

TOTAL 26 191 16 306

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Hart Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Pentwater Public Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Shelby Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Walkerville Rural Community Schools 1 0 1 0 2

TOTAL 4 4 3 8 0 15

Special Education Campus (ISD) 0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

Ottawa Area ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Allendale Public Schools 1 0 10 2

Coopersville Public Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Grand Haven Public Schools 1 1 9 0 11

Holland Public Schools 1 2 9 0 12

Holland P.O. West Ottawa Schools 1 1 7 0 9

Hudsonville Public Schools 1 1 6 0 8

Jenison Public Schools 1 1 6 0 8

Spring Lake Public Schools 1 0 2 0 3

Zeeland Public Schools 2 1 4 0 7

TOTAL 9 10 8 45 0 63

Special Education Campus (ISD) 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254

Roscommon-Crawford-Ogemaw-Oscoda Coor ISD

DISTRICT

Fairview Area Schools

Grayling Crawford Au Sable Schools

Houghton Lake Community Schools

Mio Au Sable Schools

Roscommon Gerrish-Higgins Schools

West Branch Rose City Area Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (Coor)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255

DISTRICT

Birch Run Area Schools

Bridgeport Spaulding Community Schools

Chesaning Union Schools

Frankenmuth School District

Freeland Community District

Hemlock Public Schools

Merrill Community Schools

Saginaw Public Schools

Saginaw Buena Vista School District

Saginaw Twp. Community Schools

Saginaw Swan Valley School District

St. Charles Community Schools

TOTAL 12

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256

DISTRICT

Algonac Community Schools

Capac Community Schools

Marine City East China Public Schools

Marysville Public Schools

Memphis Community Schools (also listed under Macomb)

Port Huron Area Schools

Yale Public Schools

TOTAL 7

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. St. Joseph ISD

DISTRICT

Burr Oak Community Schools

Centreville Public Schools

Colon Community Schools

Constantine Public Schools

Mendon Community Schools

Sturgis Public Schools

Sturgis Nottava Community Schools

Three Rivers Community Schools

White Pigeon Community Schools

TOTAL 9

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258

Sanilac ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Brown City Community Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Carsonville Port Sanilac Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Croswell Lexington School District 1 1 3 0 5

Deckerville Community Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Marlette Community Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Peck Community Schools 1110 3

Sandusky Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

TOTAL 7 7 4 10 0 21

Special Education Campus (ISD) 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259

Shiawassee ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Byron Area Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Corunna Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Durand Area Schools 1 1 4 0 6

Lainsburg Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Morrice Area Schools 1 0 1 0 2

New Lothrop Area Schools 1 0 1 0 2 •(also listed under Saginaw)

Owosso Public Schools 1 l 6 0 8

Perry Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

TOTAL 8 8 6 20 0 34

Special Education Campus (ISD) 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 Tuscola ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Caro Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Cass City Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Fairgrove Akron-Fairgrove Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Kingston Community Schools 1 0 1 0 2

Marysville Community Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Millington Community Schools 1 1 1 1 4

Reese Public Schools 1 1 1 0 3

S'ebewaing Unionville-Sebewaing Schools 1 1 1 0 3

Vassar Public Schools 1 1 2 0 4

TOTAL 9 9 8 12 1 30

Special Education Campus (ISD) 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261

Van Buren ISD

Bangor Public Schools

Bloomingdale Public Schools (also listed under Allegan)

Covert Public Schools

Decatur Public Schools

Gobles Public Schools

Hartford Public Schools

Lawrence Public Schools

Lawton Community Schools

Mattawan Consolidated Schools

Paw Paw Public Schools

South Haven Public Schools

TOTAL 11

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262

Washtenaw ISD

Ann Arbor Public Schools

Chelsea School District

Dexter Community Schools (also listed under Livingston)

Manchester Community Schools

Milan Area Schools (also listed under Monroe)

Saline Area Schools

Whitmore Lake Public Schools

Ypsilanti School District

Ypsilanti Lincoln Consolidated Schools

Ypsilanti P.O. Willow Run Community Schools

TOTAL 10

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wayne ISD

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-IELEM. 0 TOTAL

Allen Park Public Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Belleville Van Buren Public Schools 1 2 6 0 9 (also listed under Washtenaw)

Dearborn Public Schools 4 3 18 0 25

Dearborn Heights School District 1 1 3 0 5

Dearborn Heights Crestwood Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Detroit Public Schools 22 56 157 26 261

Ecorse Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Flat Rock Community Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Flat Rock Woodhaven School District 1 1 5 0 7

Garden City Public Schools 1 1 7 0 9

Grosse lie Twp. Schools 1 1 • 3 0 5

Grosse Pointe Public Schools 2 3 9 0 14

Hamtramck Public Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Harper Woods School District 1 0 2 0 3

Highland Park Public Schools 2 3 5 0 10

Inkster Public Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wayne ISD (continued from previous page)

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Inkster P.O. Westwood Community Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Lincoln Park Public Schools 1 0 10 0 11-

Livonia Public Schools 3 4 21 3 31

Melvindale-Northern Allen Park Schools 1 1 4 0 6

New Boston Huron Schools 1 1 2 0 4

Northville Public Schools 1 1 3 3 8

Plymouth Canton Community Schools 2 5 12 0 19 (also listed under Washtenaw)

Redford South Redford Schools 1 1 4 0 6

Redford Union Schools 1 1 6 2 10

River Rouge School District 1 0 4 0 5

Riverview Community Schools 1 1 3 0 5

Rockwood Gibraltar School District 1 1 5 0 7

Romulus Community Schools 1 1 6 0 8

Southgate Community Schools 2 1 5 0 8

Taylor Public Schools 5 3 15 0 23

Trenton Public Schools 1 1 4 1 7

continued on next page

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265

Wayne ISD (continued from previous page)

DISTRICT SENIOR J-M-I ELEM. 0 TOTAL

Westland Wayne-Westland Community 3 4 21 2 30 Schools

Wyandotte Public Schools 1 1 8 0 10

TOTAL 34 70 105 365 37 577

Special Education Campus (ISD) 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266

Wexford-Missaukee ISD

DISTRICT

Buckley Community Schools

Cadillac Area Schools

Lake City Area Schools

Manton Consolidated Schools

McBain Rural Agriculture Schools

Mesick Consolidated Schools

TOTAL 6

Special Education Campus (ISD)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267

DISTRICT

Atlantic Mine Stanton Tvp. Schools

Auburn Hills Avondale School District

Battle Creek Lakeview School District

Carrollton Public Schools

Cassopolis Public Schools

Edmore Montabella Community Schools

Falmouth Elementary School District

Pittsford Area Schools

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268

School districts listed as having neither an ISD nor listing of schools:

Arnold Wells Twp. School District

Bad Axe, Church School District

Bad Axe, Colfax Twp. School District

Bad Axe, Sheridan Twp. School District

Bad Axe, Siegel Twp. School District

Bad Axe, Verona Road Bloomfield Twp. School District

Bad Axe, Verona Twp. School District

Big Rapids, Pineview School District

Copper Harbor, Grand Twp. Schools

Cross Village School District

Deerton Autrain-Onota Public Schools

Glenn Ganges School District

Grand Ledge, Oneida Twp. School District

Harbor Beach, Sigel Twp. School District 4

Harbor Beach, Sigel Twp. School District 6

Ionia Twp. School District 2, Route 3

Ionia Twp. School District 5, Route 1

continued on next page

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

Ionia Berlin Twp. School District 3, Route 4

Ionia Easton Twp. School District 6, Route 3

Ionia Verlin Twp. School District 5, Route 4

Kalkaska Excelsior District 1, Route 1

Marquette Twp. School District

Montabella Schools (formerly Six Lakes, now Edmore)

Milliken Roxand Twp. School District 12, Route 1

Muskegon Duck Creek Schools

Orleans Twp. District 9

Orleans Twp. School District 10, Route 1

Paris Big Jackson School District, Route 1

Pointe Aux Pins Bois Blanc Pine Schools

Port Hope P.O. Bloomfield No. 1 School District

Port Hope P.O. Bloomfield Twp. School District 4

St. Ignace Twp. School District Star, Route 1

Sidnaw Covington School District

Skanee Arvon Twp. School District

Sodus Twp. School District 5

Toivola Elm River Twp. School District T0TAL=36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270

ISD ND NELEM NMID NSPE CAMPUSES

*Allegan

♦Alpena-Montmorency

♦Barry

♦Bay-Arenac

♦Berrien

♦Branch

♦Calhoun

♦Cass

♦Charlevoix/Emmet

♦Cheboygan/Otsego/ Presque Isle

♦Chippewa/Luce/Mackinaw/ Eastern UP

♦Clare/Gladwin

♦Clinton County

♦Delta/Schoolcraft

♦Dickinson/Iron

♦Eaton

♦Genesee

♦Gogebic/Ontonagon

♦Grand Traverse/Antrim/ Benzie/Kalkaska/Leelanau

♦Gratiot/Isabella

♦Hillsdale

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271

ISP ND NELEM NMID NHS NSPE CAMPUSES

♦Houghton/Baraga/ 9 11 3 9 1 23 Keeweenaw Copper Country

♦Huron 8 11 6 8 1 25

♦Ingham 12 68 17 14 7 99

♦Ionia County 6 16 7 5 1 28

♦Iosco 4 9 3 4 0 16

♦Jackson 11 27 9 12 5 48

♦Kalamazoo Valley 8 40 13 11 6 64

♦Kent 19 115 27 24 1 166

♦Lapeer County 5 17 3 6 1 26

♦Lenawee 11 .24 11 11 3 46

♦Livingston 4 14 6 4 4 24

♦Macomb 21 132 40 32 11 204

♦Manistee 4 8 2 4 0 14

♦Marquette/Alger 10 19 9 10 2 38

♦Mason Lake 5 11 4 5 0 20

♦Mecosta/Osceola 7 18 4 7 0 29

♦Menominee County 5 7 2 5 0. 14

♦Midland 4 21 6 6 2 33

♦Monroe County 9 24 10 9 7 43

♦Montcalm Area 6 16 6 6 0 28

♦Muskegon Area 12 38 13 13 5 64

♦Newaygo 5 8 A 5 3 17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272

ISP ND NELEMNMID NHSNSPECAMPUS

♦Oakland 26 191 60 39 9 290

♦Oceana 4 8 3 4 0 15

♦Ottawa Area 9 45 8 10 3 63

♦Roscoramon/Crawford/Ogemaw/ 6 11 4 6 1 21 Oscoda/Coor

♦Saginaw 12 53 15 14 0 82

♦St. Clair 7 31 11 9 2 51

♦St. Joseph 9 22 5 8 1 35

♦Sanilac 7 10 4 . 7 1 21

♦Shiawassee 8 20 6 8 3 34

♦Tuscola 9 12 8 9 3 29

♦Van Buren 11 19 8 11 4 38

♦Washtenaw 10 44 14 14 4 72

♦Wayne 34 365 105 70 12 540

♦Wexford/Missaukee 6 10 4 6 1 20

♦No ISP 8 15 5 6 0 26

TOTALS

58 529 1971 616 615 133 3202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix G

Human Subjects Review Board Approval of Protocol

273

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-3899

H um an Subjects Institutional Review Board

TO: Linda Berk Motschall Edgar Kelley

FROM: Ellen Page-Robin, Chair

RE: Research Protocol

DATE: August 28, 1987

This letter will serve as confirmation that your research protocol, "Perceptions and Evaluations of University Preparation Programs of Michigan Public School Administrators" has been approved with exempt status by the HSIRB.

If you have any further questions, please contact me at 383-4917.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achilles, C. M. (1984). A proposal for excellence in educational administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national conference of Professors of Educational Administration, Orono, ME.

Allen, C., Pellicer, L., & Boardman, G. (1984). Model for adminis­ trator training, development uses both theory and practice. NASSP Bulletin, 68(468), 14-19.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Razavieh, A. (1985). Introduction to research in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1989). Tougher standards urged for school administrators. Update, 31(4), 1-3.

Baltzell, D. C., & Dentler, R. A. (1983). Selecting American school principals: A sourcebook for educators. Cambridge, MA: Abt.

Banach, W. (1984). Survey processes and components. Lecture pre­ sented for SANG IV, Western Michigan University, Mt. Clemens.

Bard, P. (1984). Instructional leadership at the middle level (Report No. ISBN 0276 4482). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Barth, R. S. (1985). Outside looking in— inside looking in. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(5),

Bishop, D. A. (1983). Perceptions of public school principals re­ garding the importance of NASSP1s Assessment Center dimensions in their role. Unpublished pilot study, Texas A& M University, Department of Educational Administration, College Station.

Bittle, J. (1987). Swap shop. A convention session at the annual convention of the National Association of Secondary School Princi­ pals, San Antonio, TX.

Boles, H. W., & Davenport, J. A. (1983). Introduction to educa­ tional leadership. New York: University Press of America.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research. New York: Longman.

Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school. New York: Harper & Row.

275

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Breed, R. (1985). Concurrent validity of two administrator selec­ tion procedures (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 2864A.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Buttram, J., & Carlson, R. (1983). Effective school research: Will it play in the country? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Cetron, M. (1985). School of the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chase, C., & Kane, M. (1983). The principal as instructional leader: How much more time before we act? Denver: Educational Commission of the States.

Cornett, L. M. (1983). The preparation and selection of school principals. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Couture, J. (1985). The principal as leader. NASSP Bulletin, 69_(479), 94-95.

Crowson, R., & Morris, V. C. (1982, March 19-23). The principal's role in organizational goal-attainment: Discretionary manage­ ment at the school site level. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Daniel, G. S., & Grobe, R. P. (1981). Variables associated with effective schooling. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 107 221)

Daresh, J. C. (1987). Staff development: Guidelines for the prin­ cipal. NASSP Bulletin, _71(497)> 20-23.

Doggett, M. (1987). Staff development: Eight leadership behaviors for principals. NASSP Bulletin, 71(497), 1-10.

Downey, G. W. (1987). Wanted: One hundred of the best executive educators to watch. The Executive Educator, 9(2), 7-13.

Engel, T. (1989). An analysis of the content and methods of instruction at Michigan institutions that prepare principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Erlandson, D. (1987). Swap shop. A convention session at the annual convention of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, San Antonio, TX.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277 Fauske, J., & Ogawa, R. (1983). The succession of a school princi­ pal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson Hole, WY.

Gibboney, R. A. (1987). Education of administrators: "An American tragedy." Education Week, ^(29), 29.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Governor's Task Force on Effective Schooling. (1981). Effective schooling practices. Juneau, AK: Author.

Guzzetti, B., & Martin, M. (1984). A comparative analysis of ele­ mentary and secondary principals' instructional leadership behav­ ior. Unpublished research study. (ERIC Document Reproduction- Service No. ED 245 399)

Haberman, M. (1986). Licensing teachers: Lessons from other pro­ fessions. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 719-722.

Haensly, P. A., Lupkowski, A. E. & McNamara, J. F. (1987). The chart essay: A strategy for communicating research findings to policymakers and practitioners. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, £(1), 63-75.

Harlan, A., Klemp, G., & Schaalman, W. (1980). The assessment of occupational competence: I. Competence assessment in personnel selection: Current practices and trends. Boston: McBer. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 192165)

Hersey, P. W. (1977). NASSP's assessment center: From concept to practice. NASSP Bulletin, 61(410), 74-76.

Hersey, P. W. (1982). NASSP assessment center project: Validation, new developments. Washington, DC: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Hersey, P. W. (1987, March 2-7). [Assessment center training semi­ nar for the MAPP project], Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Hersey, P. W. (1989, February 25). Find the best, motivate the rest, stand the test. Assessment center workshop presented at the convention of the National Association of Secondary School Princi­ pals, New Orleans.

Howes, K. L. (1978). The hidden agenda. NASSP Bulletin, 62(416), 100-106. —

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1985). Handbook in research and evalu­ ation. San Diego: EDITS.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278

Jenkins, J. M. (1984). Instructional leadership handbook (Report No. ISBN 0-88210-16l-7>. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Jeswald, T. (1977). A new approach to identifying administrative talent. NASSP Bulletin, 6H405), 79-83.

Kelley, E. A. (1985). Leadership functions. Unpublished manu­ script, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Kelley, E. A. (1986a). [MAP? proposal to the W. K. Kellogg Founda­ tion.] Unpublished manuscript, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Kelley, E. A. (1986b). Michigan academy for principal preparation (MAPP). (Proposal submitted and accepted to the NASSP.) Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Kelley, E. A. (1987). The principalship. Unpublished manuscript, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Kmetz, J. R., & Willower, D. J. (1982). Elementary school princi­ pals* work behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

LaRose, L. (1987). Professional development for new assistant prin­ cipals. Educational Leadership, 45(1), 49-51.

Leithwood, K. A., Stanley, K., & Montgomery, D. J. (1984). Training principals for school improvement. Education and Urban Society, .17(1), 49-71.

Lipman, J. M., Rankin, R. E., & Hoeh, J. A. (1985). The principal­ ship: Concept, competencies and cases. New York: Longman.

Lujan, H. (1985). An elementary principal preparation program for American Indian trainees: Final report. Las Cruces: Bureau of Educational Research.

Lund, D. R. (1977). Selecting a principal. NASSP Bulletin, 6H413), 59-61.

Manasse, A. L. (1983). Improving conditions for principal effec­ tiveness: Policy implications of research on effective princi­ pals. Washington, DC: Dingle.

Mayfield, E. C. (1964). The selection interview: A re-evaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 17, 239-260.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279

McCleary, L. E. (1980). Field based preparation: Toward a defen­ sible preparation program. Salt Lake City: University of Utah. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 045)

McCleary, L. E., & McIntyre, K. E. (1972). Competency development and university methodology. NASSP Bulletin, 56(362), 53-68.

McCurdy, J. (1983). The role of the principal in effective schools. Sacramento: American Association of School Administrators.

McIntyre, K. E. (1974). The way it was: Is Chatauqua '74 the remaking of the principalship viewing the selection process. National Elementary Principal, 165(4), 30-34.

McNamara, J. F., Fetsco, T. G., & Barona, A. (1986). Data-based debates: A strategy for constructing classification systems to • report questionnaire data. Public Administration Quarterly, 10, 336-359.

Michaels, K. (1987, March). Date County Public Schools management assessment center. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, New Orleans.

Michigan Education Directory. (1987). Michigan education directory and buyer's guide. Lansing: Author.

Michigan Institute for Educational Management. (1985). The Michigan Institute for Educational Management assessment center program. Paper presented at the annual Michigan School Testing Conference, Ann Arbor.

Millward, R., & Cronk, C. (1987, February). A performance based training program for principals. Paper presented at the 71st annual convention of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, San Antonio, TX.

Moses, J. L., & Byham, W. C. (1980). Applying the assessment center method (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.

Moses, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (1986). The Springfield link: Ten reasons Springfield works. NASSP Bulletin, 70(486), 36-38.

Murphy, S. D. (1986). Selecting and training educational leaders to be facilitators of school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

NASSP's Assessment Center (A six-article special feature). (1980). NASSP Bulletin, 64(438), 87-117.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280

National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1986). Pro­ ficiencies for principals. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1985). Per­ formance-based preparation of principals: A framework for im­ provement. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1986). An agenda for excellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (1987). Missouri to require administrator assessment. NASSP Newsleader, 34(9), 5.

National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for America's schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.

Newberry, A. J. H. (1977). What not to look for in an elementary school principal. National Elementary Principal, 56(4), 41-44.

Nunnery, M. Y. (1982). Reform of K-12 educational administrator preparation: Some basic questions. Journal of Research and de­ velopment in Education, 15(2), 44-52.

Orton, A. (1987, June). Leadership: New thoughts on an old prob­ lem. Training, pp. 28-33.

Pellicer, L. 0., Anderson, L. W., Keefe, J. W., Kelley, E. A., & McCleary, L. E. (1988). High school leaders and their schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Peters, T., & Austin, N. (1985). The passion for excellence: The leadership difference. New York: Random House.

Peterson, K. D. (1985). Obstacles to learning from experience and principal training. The Urban Review, 17(3), 189-200.

Rosser, P. (1980). Women fight "Old Boys" for school administrator jobs. Learning, 8(7), 31-32.

Schmit, N., Merrit, R., Fitzgerald, M. P., & Noe, R. A. (1982). The NASSP assessment center: A validity report. NASSP Bulletin, 66(455), 134-142.

Schustereit, R. (1980). Feeling secure in an employment interview. Phi Delta Kappan, 6J., 403-404.

Sergiovanni, T. J., & Carver, F. D. (1980). The new school execu­ tive. New York: Harper & Row.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281

Sherwood, J. (1987). Executive training program. Miami: Human Resource Management Development.

Sizer, T. (1984). Horace*s compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Snyder, K., & Johnson, W. (1984). Instructional leadership effec­ tiveness: A research analysis and strategy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa­ tion, New Orleans.

Steele, D. (1982). Getting out from under the gun. Educational Leadership, 39(4), 266-267.

Steller, A. (1984). Chart a course for selecting new principals. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 245 314)

Tesolowski, D. G., & Morgan, T. E. (1980). Selecting educational administrators: The assessment center technique. NASSP Bulletin, 64(433), 107-115.

Thornton, G. C., & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assessment centers and managerial performance. New York: Academic Press.

Turner, D. (1986). Rethinking reform: The principal's dilemma. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Tursman, C. (1981). Good schools: What makes them work (Education USA Special Report). Arlington, VA: National School Public Rela­ tions Association.

Urdang, L. (Ed.). (1968). The Random House dictionary of English language (College Edition). New York: Random House.

Valentine, J. W. 91984). A national study of schools in the middle: Perspectives on five issues. NASSP Bulletin, 68(473), 12-18.

Wendel, F. C., & Kelley, E. A. (1983). Use of assessment center process: A review of literature. Unpublished manuscript, Univer­ sity of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Willover, D. J. (1983). Evolution in the professorship: Past, philosophy, future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19(3), 179-200.

Witters-Churchill, L. (1988). University preparation of the school administrator: Evaluations by Texas principals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1342A. (University Microfilms No. • 88-15,938)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yukl, G. (1982). Managerial leadership and the effective principal. In S. D. Thomson (Ed.), The effective principal: A research sum­ mary (pp. 1-13). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.