Western Michigan 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. Jefferson Schools
Petersburg Summerfield Schools
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.