An Appraisal Of Administrator Preservice Training Programs Conducted By School Districts

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN APPRAISAL OF ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAMS CONDUCTED
BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
by
John F e rris McGrew
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
(Educational Administration)
January 1966
This dissertation, written tinder the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Com m ittee and approved by all members of the
Com m ittee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of D octor of Education.
D ate ......................................................................1* 66-
Dcan
Guidance• Com m ittee
Chairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................... iv
Chapter
I. THE SETTING AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . . 1
Introduction
The Problem
Definitions of T erm s
Need for the Study
Organization of the Rem ainder of the Study
II. THE LITERATURE ON ADMINISTRATOR
PRESERVICE TRAINING................................................ 14
Selection Procedures
Program Content
Internal or External Advancement
III. PROCEDURE............................................................................... 45
Identification of D istricts Sponsoring
A dm inistrator P reservice Training
Program s
The Survey Instrum ent
Processing the Questionnaire
IV. A DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS OPERATED BY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE PRESERVICE
TRAINING OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 56
V. ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TRAINING
PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY SCHOOL
D IS T R IC T S ....................................................................... 87
A dm inistrative Aspects
The Selection Process
Program Operation
ii
C h a p te r Page
VI. AN EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
PRESERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS ....................... 116
Organization
Selection Procedures
Program Content
Administrative Placement
General Comments on the Survey
VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 129
The Purpose and the Procedure
Summary of the Survey Findings
Developing an Effective Administrator
Preservice Training Program Conducted
by School D istricts
Conclusions
Recommendations
- BIBLIOGRAPHY 159
APPENDIXES ......................................... 168
APPENDIX A ............................................... ......................................... 169
APPENDIX B ............................................... ......................................... 172
APPENDIX C ............................................... ......................................... 174
APPENDIX D ............................................... ......................................... 180
APPENDIX E ............................................... ......................................... 182
APPENDIX F .......................................................................................... 184
APPENDIX G ....................... .................................................................. 186
APPENDIX H .......................................................................................... 189
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................ .......................... 191
APPENDIX
J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
........................................... 199
iii
LIST OF TABLES
T a b le Page
1. Number of School D istricts Involved in the
Study and Percentage of Participation ........................ 88
2. Program Titles Utilized by School D istricts
Conducting A dm inistrator P reservice
Training P ro g ra m s............................................................... 90
3. Descriptive Titles Given to Personnel Being
T rained in School D istrict-Sponsored Admin
is tra to r P reservice Training Program s .................... 91
4. Length of Tim e a School D istrict A dm inistrator
P reservice Training Program Has Been
Conducted ............................................................................. 92
5. Y ears of Teaching Experience Required by
School D istricts for Admission to A dm inistrator
P reservice Training Program s .................................. 99
6. Estim ate of Importance of Selection C rite ria by
School D istricts Conducting A dm inistrator
P reservice Training P ro g r a m s ........................................ 101
7. The Importance of C ertain A dm inistrator Training
A reas as Reported by School D istricts Conducting
A dm inistrator P reservice Training Program s . . . 107
8. Number of Y ears Teaching Experience Recommended
by Respondents Prior to A dm inistrator P lacem ent. 113
9. Titles of Jobs Considered Adm inistrative by School
D istricts Sponsoring A dm inistrator Preservice
Training P ro g ra m s................................................................. 114
iv
CHAPTER I
THE SETTING AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The provision of well trained adm inistrators for the schools
in the United States is an important responsibility facing our con
tem porary educational scene. Increasing numbers of students will
continue to enroll at A m erica’s schools. The trend toward urban
living and the effort to consolidate or unify school districts assu re the
continuing development of large school system s and large schools.
Competent school adm inistrators will be urgently needed to provide
qualified leadership.
School adm inistration has come of age since its embryonic
stage--over one hundred years ago. The twentieth century has seen
impetus given to the profession of educational adm inistration. Since
the turn of the century, a large body of professional literature has
been established. In the first two or three decades of the century the
theme was scientific management (71:20). However, in the past few
decades a human relations approach to adm inistration has been in the
ascendancy.
1
Early efforts at training or developing school adm inistrators
generally concerned two techniques. The first approach asserted
that if a good man were assigned to the job, the trial and e rro r
process would eventually engender a good school adm inistrator. This
in-service concept has many strong points. A second approach led to
the development of many college training courses in theory (71:21).
With enough theory, a competent person supposedly could handle a
school administrative assignment.
Research in educational adm inistration has been spearheaded
by the Cooperative Program in Educational Administration and the
National Conference of Professors of Educational Administration. The
general problem of the preparation of adm inistrative leaders has been
focused through many positive aspects. Included have been the
recruitm ent and selection of students, evaluation of existing pro
gram s, development of new curriculum patterns, establishment of
cooperative relationships with school system s, and provision of
significant field experiences (71:23). Increasing study has been
given to adm inistrative theories, inter-disciplinary studies, role
concepts, and group processes in preparation program s. The latter
half of the twentieth century will introduce a new era in the p rep ara
tion of administrative leadership for education (4:23).
In recent years school districts have indirectly sought an
am algamation of the "in-service" and "theory" concepts. An expand
ing development has been the establishm ent of school district-
sponsored adm inistrator preservice training program s for outstand
ing d istrict teachers.
The concept of preservice training for those selected for
adm inistrative assignm ents has been utilized by business and
industry for many years. Personnel experts a s s e rt that educational
adm inistration has not kept abreast the trends of modern personnel
adm inistration (5). Private business firm s spend large amounts of
time and money identifying men with executive potential, training
them for future leadership ro les, and then placing them in logical
positions for developing responsibility. Academic training is p ro
vided in business adm inistration in college, but the real heart of
leadership training is undertaken by the firm and prior to selection
for an executive job (5). School adm inistrator training program s
conducted by school d istricts utilize this approach.
Education m ust join in and preferably lead in the competition
for executive talent. Educational adm inistration has reached
m aturity, but now it m ust m eet the vital challenge of providing
educational impetus for our society in the critical years ahead.
4
The Problem
The prim ary purpose of this study was to investigate pro
grams established by school districts for developing administrative
leadership. An objective was to appraise current practices in the
development and operation of school adm inistrator preservice train
ing programs conducted by districts. A second objective was to
determine sound procedures for the development of potential leaders
within school districts as an internal function of the district.
Statement of the problem
The study was designed (a) to ascertain the common charac
teristics of successful current programs of adm inistrator preservice
training conducted by school districts in the United States, and (b) to
propose a recommended program which would combine appropriate
characteristics. Specifically, the study sought to answer the
following questions:
1. Does school district size influence the establishment
of adm inistrator preservice training programs?
2. What organizational patterns were commonly utilized
in adm inistrator training programs?
3. What selection criteria are most frequently used by
districts sponsoring adm inistrator preservice training?
4. How are adm inistrator preservice training programs
operated by sponsoring school districts?
5. What is the structural content of the adm inistrator
training programs?
6. Do adm inistrator preservice training program s have
collateral value as in-service training for participat
ing adm inistrators?
7. In school districts that conduct adm inistrator p re
service training program s, are administrative
appointments provided-for successful graduates of
the program s?
Scope of the study
Certain basic steps have evolved for training future school
leaders. The majority of states list specific requirem ents for the
certification of school adm inistrators. Generally these include
course requirem ents at institutions of higher education above req u ire
ments for the teaching certificate (48). Field work in school
administration is often required in conjunction with cooperating
schools. Field work provides an element of on-the-job experience
that is lacking from classroom theory.
In recent years there has been strong interest in an intern
concept whereby the university and the school district pool resources
and create a special assignment for a future adm inistrator. Excellent
creativity has been shown in this area, but some unique problems
have also arisen. Some districts complete the refining process for
adm inistrators through an in-service program as the individual
functions (if not struggles) in an adm inistrative assignment. In
recent years an increasing number of school districts have established
district-sponsored training program s for teachers interested in
becoming school adm inistrators. It is this area of consideration that
this study has specifically probed. These training programs have
been intended to provide insight and experience for the potential
adm inistrator.
Administrator development program s generally follow or
accompany graduate work in administration completed for adm inis
trative certification. Tasks often completed for institutional-
required field work may be, but need not necessarily be, the same
as suggested in the district-sponsored adm inistrator training
program for teachers. Since the adm inistrator training program
would precede adm inistrative assignment, adm inistrative in-service
training has not been considered, per s e , although this may be an
indirect benefit in the program for functioning adm inistrators
responsible for training the new candidates. Furtherm ore, since
most intern programs are college-sponsored or cosponsored, they
have not been covered in this study other than as related to district
program s.
Delimitations
There is an overlapping in the approach to administrative
development which has resulted in a confusion of term s and difficulty
in locating pure program s. Although some reference to related
program s has appeared in the study, intern and college-sponsored
field work programs have not been explored unless in close associa
tion with the topic. Likewise adm inistrator in-service projects were
not examined other than as corelated to the study at hand.
No attempts were made to differentiate the program s in
relation to differing school district organizations, a-lthough classifi
cation of districts by organizational type was established by response
to the survey instrument.
Limitations
All program s reported w ere and are under continuing r e
appraisal. Therefore, the latest innovations may have been omitted
due to reference availability and tim e and sampling limitations.
8
Definitions of T erm s
A dm inistrator preservice training. - -The preparation of
individuals to serve in school adm inistrative and supervisory
capacities prior to an actual appointment to such positions is the
definition of adm inistrator preservice training.
Internship. - -The position of an individual in a training
assignm ent for school adm inistration jointly sponsored by a school
d istrict and a college or university training institution is defined as
an internship.
T rain ee. --A student participant in an adm inistrative training
program is a trainee.
Cadet. --A person in an adm inistrator training position is
also called a cadet.
Apprentice. - -Another title for a person in a training position
in an adm inistrator preservice training program is apprentice.
C ertification. - -The process by which one is certified to have
met the requirem ents for a position is certification. In this study,
certification refers to the process of being endor s ed through w ritten
statem ent to be qualified to serve as a teacher or ad m in istrato r--
depending on the nature of the training and certificate.
Selection. - -The procedure for choosing from applicants a
person or persons to participate in an activity is the definition for
selection as used in this study. It specifically re fe rs to the method
by which trainees for an.adm inistrative training program a re chosen
from among various candidates.
Field w ork. --A program designed to m eet adm inistrator
certification requirem ents whereby a candidate completes school
adm inistrative assignm ents for college or university credits is the
definition of field work. Although this study did not specifically
appraise field work, there necessarily is som e corelation with
adm inistrator development program s.
Need for the Study
The 1959 Am erican Association of School A dm inistrator's
Yearbook, Educational Administration in a Changing Community,
seriously indicted the profession for failing to agree upon the basic
nature of the preparatory program for adm inistrators (6:186).
Although recent energy has been expended in defining the profession
of school adm inistration, much re se arch m ust still be done. The
Cooperative Program for Educational Adm inistration has been an
effective catalyst for research in the field of school adm inistration,
and the Am erican Association of School A dm inistrators has also been
active in defining the adm inistrative job and recruiting personnel for
school adm inistration.
10
In 1963 the A. A. S. A. reported that "local school systems
must share responsibility for the identification and development of
future adm inistrators. School districts should budget funds to
support such procedures as developmental leave, testing programs,
local sem inars, and released time for initial try-out performance"
(43). They have also reported in subsequent action guides that
professional preparation programs for educational adm inistrators
should include both the study and practice of school administration.
The program should be designed and operated to help students develop
concepts consistent with the realities of administration and to help
them learn how people, ideas, and m aterials are brought together
through administrative processes for the effective operation of the
schools.
Lepick's unpublished dissertation on Personal and Profes
sional Characteristics of Elementary School Principals recommended
that school districts should develop system atic training program s for
prospective adm inistrators which should include a variety of teaching
and administrative experiences (58).
Other studies furthered the concept that trainees for
administration should be permitted to spend an extended period of
time in their school systems working on as many activities as
possible (68). It was also pointed out that good school adm inistrators
11
can be developed, but first they have to be identified by performance
appraisal, then trained for and assigned to positions that are clearly
described and for which they are qualified (6).
There has been too much hit or m iss subjectivity associated
with the selection of school adm inistrators. In many cities once
carelessly selected, adm inistrators are allowed to grow not unlike
Topsy with little attention to their care and nurture. Although limited
excellent studies are available and major organizations such as the
Educational Testing Service have spent much time in developing and
refining tests to aid in the selection process, there has been minimal
effort to sum m arize and promulgate positive efforts in research.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter II of the study reviews the literature on adm inistra
tor preservice training program s conducted by school districts.
Statements pertinent to the need for preservice training are explored,
as are selection procedures and program content. The external-
internal promotion thesis is then reviewed.
Chapter III details the procedure followed in this normative
survey. The initial challenge of identifying school districts in the
United States which have adm inistrator development program s has
been pursued by requesting the assistance of state school
12
superintendents, executive secretaries of state educational organiza
tions, and professors of educational administration. Details in the
development of a questionnaire are explained and then the methods by
which questionnaires were processed are mentioned.
A description of functioning adm inistrator training program s
conducted by reporting districts is considered as Chapter IV. Most of
the information was provided by enclosures accompanying returned
questionnaires, although some reviews were sum m aries of articles
reported in the professional literature.
The analysis of preservice training program s conducted by
the fifty districts which responded to the questionnaire is reported in
Chapter V. Many of these findings were tabulated by the computer,
although certain "open-end” responses were hand-tallied.
Chapter VI provides evaluation of preservice training
program s. This represents an interpretation based on survey results
along with the viewpoint of many responding adm inistrators who are
responsible for training program s.
Chapter VII presents the summ ary, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study. Included in the summary is the
proposed criteria for the organization of an effective adm inistrator
preservice training program conducted by school districts.
The working bibliography is listed and the appendixes include
13
pertinent areas of correspondence, lists of school districts surveyed,
the survey questionnaire, and suggested content areas for adm inistra
tor training at the school and district level.
CHAPTER II
THE LITERATURE ON ADMINISTRATOR
PRESERVICE TRAINING
The need for preservice training
for adm inistrative candidates
The American Association of School A dm inistrators in
recent years has expressed deep concern at the uncoordinated p ro
grams in operation for the recruitm ent, selection, and training of
potential school adm inistrators (6:186). F urther harsh commentary
on the situation was provided by Paul Kirsch who stated in the
Clearing House:
There is, perhaps, one part of education which has not
expanded with the vigor of the whole. This is in the area of
leadership training, the in-service recognition of talent
possessed by the professional staff. T here has been much
talk about leadership in professional circles, but its em erg
ence has been left largely to chance.
Chance alone should not govern roles in leadership;
recruitm ent is necessary for the development of potential
talent. This talent needs cultivation for two reasons: many
teachers possess great capabilities for varied service to a
school district; and leadership training, itself, makes for a
better classroom teacher. (31:87)
Numerous other comments testify to the need for positive
program s in identifying and training future adm inistrators. One
14
15
critic, Ralph Kimbrough of the University of Florida, has stated
that this is an age-old problem that has plagued boards and superin
tendents for years. When faced with the task of selecting a specific
adm inistrator from a large group of applicants, superintendents
often find themselves in a complete state of indecision. A number of
applicants appear equally good on paper and a final subjective choice
often results in the selection of a person ill-fitted for the position
(30:337). Such erro rs may subsequently result in strained staff
m orale, poorly educated youngsters, and a waste of already strained
and limited funds.
The ultimate need for school adm inistrators is staggering.
Population growth in the United States, stronger retentive trends,
and the development of new administrative positions to strengthen the
educational program result in an increased need for school admin
istrators. James B. Conant reported in his American High School
Today that there were then some 21,000 public high schools that
offer diplomas (although 14,000 had 100 or less students in their
graduating class) (4:327). An updated estim ate of functioning
adm inistrators in 1965 places the figure at 250,000. Turnover rates
in school administration are rather high with a 10 per cent figure
reported for the school superintendency (20:66).
Notwithstanding the significant need for school leaders, little
16
effort is being made to recruit outstanding high school students to
consider school adm inistration as a long-range goal. Fisk reported:
School adm inistrators have received alm ost no formal
preparation. Very few in our society deliberately plan
early in life on a career in school adm inistration. A survey
of the undergraduate student body of a m ajor university
revealed not a single person who looked toward the superin -
tendency as his major life work. Apparently one becomes a
teacher and then by a fortuitous chain of events and with a
minimum of preparation--that necessary for certification--
drifts into an adm inistrative capacity. (20:66)
There has recently been a brightening of the prospects for
recruiting school adm inistrators; however, deployment is a problem
as is training. A report to the 1964 convention of the National
Association of Secondary School Principals revealed that
although there is substantial background for confidence
regarding the identification and development of the adm inis
trative and supervisory staff, there is no sim ilar basis for
confidence regarding deployment. Frankly, careful and
organized research in this area is notably lacking insofar as
American secondary education is concerned. Deployment, of
course, is preceded by selection . . . selection, it is
regretted, is apparently related to a host of irrelevant
factors in too many cases.
In larger system s, included with the encouragement
through executive training program s and other in-service
activities, is the long-range filling of future needs. (16:57)
The American Association of School A dm inistrators issued a
definitive statem ent for steering adm inistrative training trends with
their report of the Committee for the Advancement of School Admin
istration in 1958. In effect, they specifically charged local school
districts with the responsibility for identifying and developing future
17
school adm inistrators. The A. A. S. A. called for regular budgetary
commitment to developmental leaves, testing program s, local
sem inars, and released time for initial tryout perform ance in adm in
istrative duties (21:52).
The action of the A. A. S. A. gave specific impetus to the
development of adm inistrator preservice training program s. Some
districts have been working with such program s for years, but for
many school districts it was the rallying cry to begin the experiment.
Significant research information also added to the movement.
Bailey's study on field training experiences (49) supported the conten
tion that on-the-job training which would be the key to the adm inis
trato r preservice training program provided a significantly higher
percentage of favorable experiences than other types of activity. In
effect, he stated that actual participation in adm inistrative activities
would be the key to the program; however, many areas of adm inis
trative experience have been neglected.
An early dimension of adm inistrative training has been
described as the layer proposal. It represented the theory that if you
give a man a liberal education, add a layer of professional knowledge,
and then add techniques, you would have an adm inistrator (37:9).
Actual adm inistrative procedures have been the stumbling
block in numerous schools of education graduate program s (12:70).
18
Many changes have been made in graduate training programs for
school adm inistrators, and one of chief advancements is the accept
ance of the mutual responsibility of college officials and school
adm inistrators for finding and training future leaders for the educa
tion profession (12:22).
The proposal to involve functioning adm inistrators in the
training program was thoroughly backed by Hurlburt (28) who
recommended that directed practical experience under competent
supervision should become a vital part of preparing adm inistrators.
The state and the college or university should share responsibility
for certification.
Selection Procedures
The literature reported two basic problems which must be
faced by the teacher who is interested in becoming an adm inistrator.
F irst he must meet the certification requirements of the state in
which he is employed. Then he must actually receive an appointment
from a school district to serve as an adm inistrator. Both of these
areas have been examined with greater emphasis placed on the
second, since it is more-closely aligned with adm inistrator p re
service training conducted by school districts. The same criteria for
selection as an adm inistrator should generally be applicable for
19
selection to an adm inistrator training program .
In meeting the crite ria for state certification, a student must
take course work at a university in the area of adm inistration and
supervision. Many believe (12) that the university is the institution
which should be charged with issuing certificates rath e r than the state
departm ents. Sincere efforts are being made by college departments
of educational adm inistration to place greater emphasis on the
admission of individuals who have strong adm inistrative potential.
The A. A. S. A. report on Studies in School Administration
states:
Only a few colleges and universities have reported to the
professional literature any of their recent moves toward the
establishment of selection procedures and recruitm ent
devices. Yet, finding selection c rite ria is an alm ost universal
concern. Progress with this problem can perhaps be su m m ar
ized with these points:
1. Universities all over the country a re awakening to the
problem of a m ore defensible basis for selection of school
adm inistrators which does not re stric t one's personal am bi
tion, yet which tends to shuttle into the profession the best
talent possible.
2. Supply-and-demand studies have shown that far m ore
people have taken courses in adm inistration and a re legally
certified as adm inistrators than there will ever be jobs for.
3. Colleges have turned, in m ost cases, to a selection
process either based on recommendations or on standardized
tests.
4. So far there is little agreem ent as to which of the
recognized tests are most useful for prognosis of success in
school adm inistration.
5. In view of nationwide manpower problem s, in the
future the field of school adm inistration is likely to face stiffer
competition than ever in attracting talented young people.
20
6. While we continue to insist on an administrator
reaching the superintendency through a series of other admin
istrative jobs such as elementary and high school principal-
ships, this is sometimes a negative factor in attracting
students who are interested in the superintendency but who
do not want to go through the procession of lesser jobs to get
it. (Particularly since this usually involves moving from one
community to another several tim es.)
7. Ideally, local school districts have as much part to
play in the selection processes as the universities do,
although the role is a different one. (12:64-5)
A circular role is therefore cast. The schools will be
responsible for recommending prospective adm inistrator candidates
for admission to certification-oriented programs at the universities
and colleges. The candidates, when credentialed through the uni
versity, must then return to the school cycle for administrative
selection and placement.
A major influence on the problem of developing educational
adm inistrators has been the Cooperative Program in Educational
Administration which is backed by the Kellogg Foundation. This
particular program was intended to (1) improve the adm inistrator
training program, (2) refine standards of selection for potential
adm inistrators, and (3) promote wider participation in the activities
of the profession of school administration. A basic recommendation
was that colleges and universities should have a greater responsibility
in the selection process for school leaders (42:144).
The final decision of who will move into which administrative
21
job rem ains with the school district, although for the higher level
adm inistrative jobs screening com mittees whose m em bers are often
selected from the ranks of professors of educational adm inistration
are frequently established. Making m ore objective the basically
subjective process to find the top candidate is a m ajor challenge.
Newell claim s that "too many mediocre and even weak people are
being appointed to leadership positions." He suggests the importance
of concern with the "whole” individual applicant. "Real and sim u
lated experiences should be utilized as a means of appraising
individual capabilities" (32:179).
Newell goes further and specifically commends the more
recent "in-basket technique" for actual case development as one
method that may prove the most effective means for final selection.
He also suggests the workshop approach which leads to a district-
sponsored preservice training program .
In the midst of recommendations for selection techniques are
continual expressions of concern such as that of Kavila (57) who
claimed in his doctoral study on adm inistrative selection in Hawaii
that ultimate success standards and universally applicable selection
criteria for school adm inistrators a re not available.
Bronfield (51) reported that the following steps a re generally
made in the selection and appointment of elem entary school principals
22
in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (1) establishm ent of qualifica
tions desired in the new principal by the supervising principal and
board of education, (2) recruitm ent of candidates, (3) evaluation of
professional credentials, (4) evaluation of personal qualifications,
(5) selection of leading candidates, (6) recom mendations of the su p e r
vising principals, and (7) approval of the school board.
A key phase in selection is the establishm ent of c rite ria for
the job. Steward (67) reported that there must be enough commonality
of practice in school system s to establish minimum c rite ria for
selection of adm inistrators at their point of entry to school adm in
istration. Mahoney (61) also affirm ed that good school adm inistrators
can be found and/or developed, but first they have to be identified by
perform ance appraisal, then trained for and assigned to positions
that a re clearly described and for which they a re qualified.
In approaching the problem with a clinical procedure,
St. Clair concluded:
A human predictor, arm ed with a number of types of inform a
tion regarding a candidate, can predict, with beyond-chance
accuracy, certain specific behaviors and practices which the
candidate will exhibit on the job as a school leader. Such a
predictor will be m ore accurate if he is personally acquainted
with the candidate's behavior in a preservice training p ro
gram . (65)
Hall and McIntyre studied recruitm ent and selection p ro
gram s in institutions teaching educational adm inistration. They
23
indicated that a real beginning had been made toward the development
of recruitm ent and selection techniques. However, "the wide variety
of techniques in use testified to the primitive stage of knowledge in
the area" (24:348).
Testing
Perhaps no m ore controversial area of consideration exists
in the selection and rating process than in that of testing, according
to the literature. Michael Nunnery (33) claimed that the arbitrary
use of standardized psychology test scores for the selection of
potential school adm inistrators seem s to be a highly questionable
practice. Extensive research in the area of preservice testing for
administrative potential was undertaken at the University of
Tennessee from 1952 to 1958. Results were basically negative. The
University of Tennessee research group expressed the concern that
there was a tremendous need for "usable devices" to assist in
administrative selection (33:349).
The specific tests appraised in the Tennessee study included
the Allport-Vernon Scale of Values, an Attitude Questionnaire
(unpublished), the Rorschach Test, and the Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal.
The Educational Testing Service (69) has in recent years
24
expanded its adm inistrator selection testing services. In 1954, ten
school system s employed E .T .S . tests as an aid in evaluating
approximately 900 candidates for promotion. In 1958, thirty-seven
school system s tested m ore than 2,600 such candidates. By 1960-61
some fifty school system s examined 2,974 candidates.
Dr. Arthur L. Benson, D irector of the Teacher Examinations
Section of the Educational Testing Service, reported that school
system s using adm inistrative and supervisory examinations with
experienced staff m em bers usually indicated one of two prim ary
purposes they expect the tests to serve. The first would be for the
obvious purpose of selecting from among staff m em bers for prom o
tion to the adm inistrative ranks. Candidates would necessarily have
satisfied certification and local standards for the adm inistrative posts
they desire. These test scores are usually considered supplementary
data in conjunction with other evidence such as degrees earned, job
perform ance, and the quantity and quality of graduate work completed.
In effect, these tests might be said to verify evidence available in
other areas (69).
A rapidly developing subsidiary service applies to the
adm inistrator development program . Some school system s use these
tests to aid in the identification and encouragement of the future
adm inistrative talent of the district. The E .T .S . test series are of a
25
different structure than the placement style tests. They a re broader
in scope and designed to sam ple the candidate's knowledge of general
professional information. F urther information revealed includes the
candidate’s general approach to problems requiring adm inistrative or
supervisory skill in dealing with others, and his aw areness of cultural
developments affecting contem porary affairs. E .T .S . states "such
testing is usually only an early phase in a leadership development
program , the ultimate objective of which is the efficient identification
and nurture of the leadership resources available” (69).
In effect, E .T .S . suggests three advantages in implementing
a testing program which include (1) the initial screening of qualified
applicants, (2) putting promotion on a professional basis and reducing
nonprofessional influences on appointments, and (3) identifying
talented teachers who should participate in leadership training p ro
gram s.
Of continuing in terest and concern is the appraisal of r e li
ability and validity for the various screening devices used to place
trainees in adm inistrator development program s. The Educational
Testing Service has done extensive work in evaluating their tests. As
a resu lt they state that reliability coefficients for the various form s
of these tests in adm inistration and supervision cluster about the
upper eighties. E .T .S . has reported:
26
Since practically all school systems using these tests
employ them in conjunction with other examinations of at
least equal reliability, and frequently compute Composite
Scores derived by judgement weighting of the tests in the
entire battery, their judgements with respect to the written
examination results are usually based on m easures which
have estimated reliabilities in the mid-nineties or higher . . .
a good deal of research confirms that reliability of this sort
is rarely, if ever, attained by interview ratings, graduate
school performance, or evaluations of experience--all of
which usually enter into the final decisions concerning p ro
motions .
As for the validity of the tests in administration and
supervision, you are doubtlessly aware of the difficulties in
formulating criteria?against which scores on these tests, or
any other m easures, may be validated. . . .
A much sm aller, but not irrelevant, investigation of the
comparative validities of interviews, field ratings, essay
m arks, and an earlier form of the School Administration and
Supervision test was conducted by the Cincinnati Public Schools
some five o r ten years ago. While the results of this small
study in one school district may not be considered highly sig
nificant, it recognized one often neglected issue. It questioned
whether any of the traditional techniques (interviews, credential
evaluations, and the like) w ere valid, and did not focus on
demonstrating limited validity for objective tests. As a result,
Cincinnati discovered that for predicting its subjective criterion
of on-the-job administrative performance, the single objective
test score not only made a highly significant contribution, it
was the best single predictor of the criterion. (69)
The Hemphill, Griffiths, and Frederiksen study reported in
Administrative Performance and Personality probed into the areas of
criteria deemed effective for adm inistrative success. Corelations
with criteria were developed with various pencil and paper tests. The
problem of validity was a real one since few districts have the same
specific criteria for selection. F or example, Hemphill reported that
a school district that wants to employ principals who are proficient in
27
maintaining organizational relationships would be interested in the
personality factors: (1) friendly, socially responsive; (2) lively and
enthusiastic; (3) bold, warmhearted, and spontaneous; (4) self-
confident and accepting; and (5) free from worry and anxiety. How
ever, the district that required principals to be responsive to out
siders would want men whose personality would include (1) subm is
siveness, modesty, and obedience; (2) simple sentimental naivete;
(3) lack of enthusiasm; (4) shyness and timidity; (5) persistence and
stability; and (6) lack of anxiety (8:337-38).
Therefore, a battery of tests intended to select potential
adm inistrators should include personality tests only when a district
can describe closely its needs in term s of factors of administrative
performance.
Research studies have de-emphasized the importance of
personality tests for screening. The American Association of School
A dm inistrator's, Professional Administrators for A m erica's Schools,
claims:
Another set of traits which undeniably bear some relation
ship to leadership is most often lumped under the portmanteau
term "personality. " There are several objective-type, paper-
and-pencil inventories which purport to m easure traits, and
these instruments are all available, even though they require
an analyst for interpretation. As yet, no convincing case can •
be made for their use in selection, other than in screening out
extrem e deviates. (13:156)
Personality tests have also been negated in the Selection of
Management Personnel with these comments:
. . . personality tests have generally proved less valid
than tests of abilities o r aptitudes.
Even if we could m easure personality traits accurately,
there is certainly room for doubt that we know what the ideal
"personality" is for an accountant, a salesm an, a lawyer, a
m anager, or even a president. R esearch studies have shown
that often men with entirely different personalities have been
successful in the same positions. (5:437)
The latter point was substantiated in F red erick Bewley’s
appraisal of C haracteristics of Successful School Superintendents
(50).
T here may be some advantage to paper and pencil tests in
personality according to Griffiths in term s of a secondary screening
phase. The first phase would be directed to testing for mental
ability and professional knowledge. Then a personality inventory
might be utilized to further separate those who meet the first hurdle
successfully (24:337).
Griffiths also specifically stated that "no one test can be
recom mended that will unerringly choose a successful principal"
(24:339).
Another comment on the utilization of tests was made by
Waggoner who concluded in his doctoral study that the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule, Public Opinion Questionnaire, and
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory may be helpful in discrim inating
- between principals with staffs whose m orale is high and those of
29
lower m orale. Several such doctoral studies were completed at
Stanford University as part of the Southwest Regional Center for the
Cooperative Program in Educational Administration. These were
intended to standardize a test battery for initial screening and for
identification of potential adm inistrators. Used by Boyce were the
Miller Analogies Test, the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory,
the F-Scale, the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, and the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Boyce recommended that
selection procedures should be directed at situational factors which
may affect both performance and criteria determination. Ebert also
confirmed the usefulness of the above-mentioned tests in his parallel
study at Stanford (54).
Professional training
Another criterion for adm inistrative selection which was
reported as generally considered in selecting trainees for a lead er
ship development program was education. Consolidation of opinion
considered the m aster of arts degree as the minimum level of
academic accomplishment with which to enter the training program.
The majority of states now include the M. A. as requisite for an
adm inistrative certificate (48).
Specific course work is also generally or at least partially
dictated through certification requirem ents.
3 0
A recent progress report to the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (25:220) indicated that the median teach
ing experience for secondary school principals in the United States
was eight years. However, 37 per cent had six years or less, and
4 per cent had one year or less. Also, 86 per cent had their
m a ste r's degree, and 2 per cent had an earned doctorate. In
California 10. 6 per cent of secondary school principals have their
earned doctorates.
Hemphill, Griffiths, and Frederickson indicated that the
corelation of years of preparation with su p e rio rs', te ach e rs', and
s c o re rs' ratings is zero. They reported that there was no evidence
suggesting that longer academ ic preparation in school adm inistration
enables a principal to do a better job, from any point of view from
which one examines their data (8:341).
Teaching experience
Most states require three years of teaching experience prior
to the granting of an adm inistrative certificate (48). This experience
base matched the recommendations of re se a rc h e rs in the field such
as Hurlburt (28). However, the Committee of the California Council
on T eacher Education recom m ended the increase from two years
(form erly required in California) to five years (the new requirem ent)
teaching experience as a prerequisite for the adm inistration-
31
supervision credential. They recommended the additional time to
allow for the development of a workable philosophy of education; an
insight into the many types of school problems; an understanding of
the way in which leadership develops; and a knowledge of adm inistra
tive procedures and techniques (42:143).
Although the N .A .S.S.P. survey revealed that secondary
principals have a median teaching experience of eight years, a
dissertation study by Lepick (58) reported that of 799 elementary
principals he surveyed, the median teaching experience for male
principals was 4. 3 years and 11.1 years for women principals. The
average for all was 4.9 years.
Some diverse studies questioned the value of lengthy teaching
service for selection into administration. The Jenkins-Blackman
study indicated that "advance chronological age o r long experience in
teaching are not necessary to adm inistrative effectiveness. Actually
it may be more difficult for teachers of long experience to shift from
teaching to the adm inistrative role" (17:30).
Porter also raised a serious question whether, in a business
administration parallel, adm inistrators should be selected from the
ranks at all. He found that line w orkers and managers develop
different self-expectations as leaders and followers. Adjustment to
a subordinate role may im pair future development to a superior role
(34:106).
32
The sum m ary of recom m endations of the Assembly Interim
Committee on Education of the state of California in its January, 1965
rep o rt included this statem ent:
It is recommended that present requirem ents for an
adm inistrative credential be reviewed so that other avenues
of entrance for qualified individuals into school adm inistration
may be developed, in addition to the present exclusive avenue
of classroom teaching. The com m ittee believes that the best
and most qualified individuals m ust be found to adm inister the
school system whether from within the ranks of teachers or
without. (70:11)
Sex
Boards of education seemingly display a m arked preference
for men, both at the secondary and elem entary level. Although
m ales com prise but 7 per cent of the elem entary teaching force, they
account for 59 per cent of the principalships (34:106).
Certification
In 1961-62, thirty-nine states granted som e type of adm in
istrative certificate. Twenty-six states granted elem entary
principals' certificates, five states provided general principals'
certificates, thirty-one states issued superintendents' certificates,
and seven states granted one general adm inistrative certific.ate
(3:369).
Thirty-tw o of the fifty states require three years teaching
experience as prerequisite for the adm inistrative certificate,
33
beginning level (48). Six states did not specify teaching experience
other than possession of a valid teaching credential, six states
required two years, two states listed four years as prerequisite, and
four states expect five years teaching experience including California
which raised its requirem ent from two to five years effective in the
1964-65 academic year. The trend is to require more teaching
experience (48).
Likewise, the trend reported in the literature was for a
stronger educational background. In twenty-one states the m aster of
arts degree is required for certification as an elementary principal.
Twenty-eight states require the M. A. for secondary principalship
certification, and thirty-six states list the m aster of a rts degree as
necessary for the superintendency (3:370).
Program Content
R esearchers have attempted to break down the adm inistra
tive job into components. Seawell (66) recommended that the first
emphasis be placed on developing skills, values, and concepts in the
critical task areas of community-school leadership and instruction
and curriculum development. His second emphasis was on the
development of technical proficiency in the areas of school plant,
staff personnel, pupil personnel, and organization and structure.
34
His third emphasis was relegated to school transportation and school
finance and business management.
Studies have been made attempting to equate progressive
techniques in business and industrial personnel administration with
educational administration. Ramsey (63) reported that business
management emphasized five areas including (1) leadership theory
and the process of ’’being an executive," (2) business management,
(3) personnel relations,(4) public relations and communications, and
(5) personnel development and improvement.
In further examining the leadership training programs and
executive development methods of business organizations, Ramsey
noted that most programs were based on the previous technical
efficiency of the candidate. Furtherm ore, there was much individual
autonomy in the programs with resultant variation in these leadership
program s. A number of the projections stressed the candidate's
personal and social development.
As a result of his research, Ramsey included the following
points in a program for the preparation of elementary school
principal candidates:
1. Flexibility in design and execution to provide for a
wide range of individual abilities, patterns of experience, and
uniqueness of school situations.
2. Abundant use of the total resources of the preparation
institution and surrounding community.
3. Diversity of teaching-learning experiences with
35
ample opportunity for practical application of acquired
skills and learning.
4. Continual in nature, with perpetual opportunity for
in-service professional improvement and advancement.
Ram sey's investigation underlined the continuity aspect of
individual development. A broad based development program m ust tie
in multiple aspects of personal capacity, background experiences of
the individual and worthwhile total exposure to the entire spectrum of
potential adm inistrative problems. In effect, some tailoring m ust be
done in every program to emphasize strengths and buoy up areas of
weakness.
In the study by Wicke (68) this sam e theme was reiterated.
He described the need for making adm inistrator preparation program s
m ore applicable to tasks encountered on the job. The best place to
encounter them, logically enough, is on the job. His findings
included:
1. Trainees would be perm itted to spend an extended
period of time in their school system s working on as many of
the activities as possible.
2. Trainees would be given maximum responsibility in
some situations and minimum responsibility in others.
3. Trainees would be perm itted to work through the
full scope of adm inistrative experience most of the time.
4. T rainees would be granted most opportunity in
situations concerning procedures and the preparation of
m aterials and information relative to situations involving
a c tiv itie s with teachers, central office staff, and junior and
senior high school principals and less opportunity in situa
tions concerned with leadership of groups and discussion
with students, teachers, and parents.
36
Wicke's findings represented a partial rejection of the theory that
administrative behavior is most often concerned with people.
This would represent a contradictory approach, since
current adm inistrative trends reported clearly point to democratic
involvement of staff and others in decision-making. The interpersonal
relationships aspect of the training program sponsored by districts
and emphasizing actual on-the-job experiences is keyed in the human
being. College courses, though able to offer commentary on the
human relationships theme, obviously can provide neither the direct
experience of first-hand observation nor decision-making responsi
bility.
Hollis Moore stated in his Studies in School Administration,
. . administration is a job prim arily of action and that
while action must be based on essential knowledge, more of
our training in the future must center on successful behavior
on the part of adm inistrators. Training people to deal with
situations, not just know about them, is the crux of the
m a tte r.” (12:66)
An important fringe benefit which was reported from the
establishment of adm inistrator development programs was better
understanding of the adm inistrative process. There is a positive
point to the goal of having every teacher receive at least minimal
exposure to such an adm inistrator training program . Instructional
personnel would be better teachers if they understood the pressures
and problems facing adm inistrators, and communication almost
37
necessarily would be advanced. Since most adm inistrators have been
teachers, the mutual appreciation of school problems would be
enchanced.
Administration would also be strengthened by giving potential
adm inistrators "battle" experience before actual assignment. The
National Association of Secondary School Principals (46) reported a
strong percentage of school principals indicated they would seek
another career if they could sta rt over. The removal of candidates
whose adm inistrative aspirations are not grounded in reality would be
a distinct service to the profession and those individuals concerned.
Callahan (52) investigated teacher attitudes toward school
adm inistrations and his survey results would be excellent reading for
the "uncertain" as to whether the adm inistrative area is truly a
mecca of easy effort and overpay. Teachers reported such negative
inducements toward entering adm inistration as lack of tenure; longer
work day; shorter vacation periods; tense, hectic atmosphere; the
expectation of moves for career advancement; being away from the
family; exposure to public criticism ; and the responsibilities of
leadership.
Ambellan claimed that a training program should accomplish
two things. F irs t he mentioned that it should heighten self-aw are
ness, sensitivity, diagnostic ability, and an understanding of
38
interpersonal and group situations. Finally, and of equal im port
ance, was the development of leadership and m em bership skills
necessary to keep pace with growing self-aw areness and sensitivity
(15:27).
Another method of approach is the determ ination of needed
topics for inclusion in an adm inistrator development program .
R am sayer's rep o rt listed as areas needing improvement:
1. The relative lack of adm inistrative preparation in
the fields of child development, curriculum , and human
relations.
2. The lack of adm inistrative experience and p re p a ra
tion in elem entary education.
3. The inadequacy of adm inistrator understanding of
certain sociological aspects of community life which have a
bearing upon development of an adequate educational program .
4. The lack of adm inistrator skill in working with staff
and community groups.
5. The apparent confusion of the roles of adm inistrators,
supervisors, the professional staff, the school board, the
laymen of the community and the state.
6. The need for teachers to grow in understanding of the
professional responsibility in dem ocratic adm inistration.
7. The need for leadership in d istrict organization.
8. The inadequacy of c rite ria for the selection of school
adm inistration.
9. The inflexibility of graduate program s, especially the
lack of adequate provisions for adm inistrator in-service.
10. The lack of understanding of the relative ro les of the
State Department of Education, the professional organizations,
the universities as basic leadership groups for g reater p ro
fessionalization of educational adm inistration. (35:299)
The aforementioned critical points w ere raised in a survey
returned by 70 per cent of the superintendents, elem entary, and
secondary school principals in Ohio as part of the Cooperative
39
Program in Educational Administration.
Professor Robert W. Frederick of New York State University
issued an interesting commentary on the broad range of talents that
must be honed to sharpness for full effectiveness as a school admin
istrator. His article on the "Seven R's for Educating Administrators"
established these pertinent points:
1. Read--widely and basically, in all those who have
written about life and education.
2. Reflect - -analyze, compare, evaluate, to build a
solid base for your philosophy.
3. Reconnoiter--observe, watch how an expert admin
istrator performs his many duties.
4. Record--w rite, put your thoughts down on paper and
make sense; be literate if not literary.
5. Relate--speak, exchange ideas; for as writing makes
an exact man, speaking makes a ready man.
6. React--do, practice perform; take responsibility
under the eye of a successful practitioner.
7. Recreate--leave, enjoy life and learn about many
important if peripheral things. (22:50)
The ever important personal relationships approach to
selecting adm inistrators was the object of a study completed by
Albert Thomas at Florida State University (53). Candidates were
subjected to a forty-eight item test which simulated problems involv
ing personal interaction with clearly discernible emotional overtones.
Here the trainee-principal was involved with parents, students,
faculty, local m inisters, school bus drivers, cafeteria staff,
custodians, law enforcement agencies, officials of P. T. A. , county
administrative and supervisory personnel, school board m embers,
40
and members of the press. This form of simulated direct challenge
is also the basis of the in-basket technique for the training of admin
istrators.
Gray (55) made a candid observation of the importance of
the interpersonal approach in adm inistrator preparation. He
reported,
If one observes the circumstances of administration always
operating with an interpersonal or social relationship, then
the nature of this relationship becomes a crucial factor in
the administrative process. The principal must be con
tinually alert to the role expectations as defined by his
teachers so that he may reconcile these with his own percep
tions of their role expectations.
The literature reported differences between the processes of
training principals and training superintendents exist. However,
there is enough of a common core of information that can be reason
ably covered in a single district leadership development program to
w arrant minimum concern over the differences. Unruh suggested
that in-service development might cover the later stages of training
for an advanced administrative position (40:376).
Ranniger's study (64) at the University of Oregon sum
marized sixteen doctoral studies, twelve publications of state
elementary principals1 associations, fourteen job descriptions of
large city districts, and nine textbooks published between 1950 and
1959. The research enabled him to propose broad categories for
41
inclusion in a training program including administration, parent
and community relations, supervision, curriculum development and
improvement, pupil personnel services, and professional responsi
bility.
Another summ ary of topics in school administration as
listed by Stuart (39) includes:
1. American and world influences in education.
2. Appraisal and research.
3. Buildings and grounds.
4. Curriculum --planning and development.
5. Finance and business management.
6. Growth and development.
7. In-service training.
8. Legals aspects.
9. Management.
10. Personnel administration.
11. School-community relations.
12. Special services; guidance, health, transportation,
handicapped training.
Still another list of proper topics for such a leadership
development program was propounded by Hunt and Pierce. They
included for administrative planning and action:
1. Curriculum --instructional principles and practices.
2. Pupil growth and development.
3. Administrative principles and procedures.
4. Application of principles in solving school problems.
5. School-community relations.
6. Evaluation and research techniques.
7. Human relations principles and action.
8. School finance and business procedures.
9. School plant construction and operation.
10. Professional writing and speaking.
11. Cooperative in-service training of staff. (9:510)
Internal or External Advancement
42
A significant problem was the ultim ate placement of trainees
as adm inistrators. Most program s reported in the literatu re w ere
developed with the understanding that there a re no absolute guarantees
that a participant will ever become an adm inistrator, and yet there is
an obvious aspiration generally associated with such candidacy.
T hree eventual courses are open to the person who completes such an
adm inistrator training program . He will receive an adm inistrative
appointment in the district in which he was trained; he will obtain one
in another district; or he will rem ain a classroom teacher who has
seen the added dimension of adm inistrative training. As a result of
adm inistrator training the continuing teacher may be somewhat
frustrated through lack of adm inistrative placement, or may become
a m ore tolerant and informed teaching m em ber of the educational
team (31:41).
The problem of internal versus external promotion into
school adm inistration has been apparent for some time. The adm in
istrativ e training program m erely heightens and calls m ore dram atic
attention to the paradox. Historically the adage "fam iliarity breeds
contempt" may have been applied by screening groups to the d is
couragement of local talent. F urtherm ore, the concern labeled
"inbreeding" has been raised repeatedly.
43
This concern was detailed in Campbell's Introduction to
Educational Administration as "the major danger in the process of
promotion from within is inbreeding. If all new adm inistrators in a
system are products of the same training program, new ideas and
new approaches in educational administration may be scarce" (3:378).
Corbally’s Educational Administration: The Secondary
School offered further comments on the problem of hiring from with
out and the potential hazard of inbreeding in administrative develop
ment programs. "External promotion will likely continue to be the
most prevalent route to secondary school administration, often
because of the real or imagined harmful effects of inbreeding. Ex
perience often enables an adm inistrator to bring a fresh viewpoint to
a school unhampered by resident biases and custom" (4:334).
Campbell further reported that if all things are equal, the
opportunity should be given to the home product, however (3:378).
The pace of things to come may best be described by Wetzler
who commented on advancing to administration from within the school
district.
To develop outstanding adm inistrators, two conditions
must exist within the system: (a) there must be policies
which clearly support the "advancement from within" idea,
and (b) the responsibilities, requirements, and selection
procedures must be clearly written in a form available to all
personnel.
If these conditions exist, the prim ary job responsibilities
of adm inistrators become: to establish a climate in which the
most capable candidates feel encouraged to apply for high-
level positions, and to develop a system for identifying
these candidates. (41:45)
The trend to promote from within has reportedly been
stronger for elementary schools. Lepick's study (58) of 799
elem entary school principals stated that 84 per cent had been
promoted from within the district.
C H A PT ER III
PROCEDURE
A survey of the literatu re revealed that a detailed study has
not been made on adm inistrator p reserv ice training program s con
ducted by school d istric ts. The problem of assim ilating information
on this topic then becam e one of (1) identifying school d istricts in the
United States that sponsor adm in istrato r p reserv ice training p ro
g ram s, (2) ascertaining the content of effective program s, and
(3) projecting a desirable program based on the consolidation of
strong points of reporting d istric ts.
Identification of D istricts Sponsoring A dm inistrator
P reserv ice T raining P rogram s
An intensive study of the re se a rc h investigations in the are a
of adm inistrator p reserv ice training program s conducted by school
d istric ts revealed the locations of many school d istric ts that have
developed program s.
F u rth e rm o re , a listing by the Educational T esting Service of
d istric ts in which its adm inistrator and supervisor tests have been
45
46
utilized identified areas where some positive implementation of
adm inistrator development program s could be underway (45).
However, there was the concern that many good program s,
especially those of a more recent vintage, were not reported in the
literature. Therefore, it was desirable to initiate a survey to
identify school districts in the United States that have adm inistrator
development program s. The basic criteria as established in the
first chapter of this report were followed.
An advanced sem inar in research at the University of
Southern California explored methods by which this information
might best be procured. Further recommendations were made by
professors of education at the University of Southern California.
It was decided that locating school districts in the United
States which conduct preservice adm inistrator training would best be
accomplished by enlisting the cooperation of state school superin
tendents, executive secretaries of state adm inistrator organizations,
and chairmen of departments of educational administration at
colleges and universities in the United States which have a department
of educational administration. Delimitations on the survey and
definitions of term s were established as detailed in Chapter I of this
study. It was also believed that greater authenticity and impetus for
the total project would be established if organizational endorsement
47
could be obtained for the first phase identification of qualified d is
tricts.
The problem of research support was then pursued. L etters
were dispatched to the California Association of School A dm inistra
tors, the California Association of Secondary School A dm inistrators,
and the A m erican Association of School A dm inistrators asking whether
they endorse such studies. The Executive S ecretary of the American
Association of School A dm inistrators stated in a letter that A. A. S. A.
does not endorse studies in which it does not actively participate.
The California Association of Secondary School A dm inistrators does
not provide endorsem ents. The California Association of School
A dm inistrators expressed in terest in the study and dispatched a
statem ent of procedures to be followed in securing C. A. S. A. en
dorsem ent of studies.
The research com m ittee of C. A. S. A. investigated the
project and agreed to back the request for identification of school
districts conducting adm inistrator training program s. This was a
key phase of the total research project.
Decision was reached to survey the three national groups
for their aid in locating school districts that would qualify under the
lim ited definition of this rese arch project. Names and addresses of
state school superintendents w ere obtained from the United States
48
Office of Education, Education Directory: State Governments (1).
Executive secretaries of state adm inistrator organizations were
found in the Office of Education, Education Directory: Education
Associations (2). Identification of the forty-five colleges and uni
versities which maintain a Department of Educational Administration
was obtained through referral to Harlan Norton Levich's unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Basic Course in School Administration
(59:240).
L etters (Appendix A) were dispatched to the state school
superintendents of the fifty states (1), to executive secretaries of
adm inistrator organizations (2), and to professors of educational
adm inistration (59). A cover letter of endorsement by the California
Association of School A dm inistrators was enclosed (Appendix B).
Responses from the three groups were integrated and
ultimately the list of school d istric ts where such adm inistrator
development program s w ere tentatively identified in the United
States was refined to 107 (Appendix C). No attempt to follow up the
initial request for information was made to those addressees who did
not respond.
49
The Survey Instrument
Purpose
It was decided that a normative survey would provide the
best technique by which adm inistrator preservice training program s
might be critically appraised. By ascertaining what existing p ro
gram s encompassed and whether they were considered successful,
recommendations could then be made for the projection of an optimum
program for adm inistrator development.
Preparation
The process of preparing a questionnaire was underway
during the return period for response to the initial request for
district identification. The literature and the recommendations for
further study by those who have worked in this area were appraised
for the determination of salient survey points. A draft questionnaire
was then prepared and submitted to a research sem inar of educators
at the University of Southern California.
Major areas included
The questionnaire was developed in four major sections:
(1) Administrative Aspects, (2) Trainee Selection Process, (3) Pro
gram Operation, and (4) Selection of Administrators.
50
Under A dm inistrative Aspects it was im perative to establish
whether or not the districts tentatively identified as sponsoring
adm inistrative preservice training program s actually w ere so
involved. An early question in the questionnaire covered this point.
The size, type, and number of schools in the district w ere also
encompassed as well as program and personnel titles. Two other
im portant questions were asked concerning the number of teaching
personnel interested in adm inistration and whether the d istrict
considered the program as an in -serv ice training program for
incumbent adm inistrators. The district was also asked to rate its
program effectiveness. Open-end sections w ere provided and
supplem entary comment was encouraged throughout the questionnaire.
The open-end aspect was often initiated as a request for recom m end
ations for a specific program .
In effect, the survey was developed on a ’'what a re you
doing?--what would you recom m end?” basis.
The T rainee Selection Process section considered the basic
c rite ria for selection including sex, testing, teaching experience,
time in the district, educational background, certification, and
interviewing. A special a re a of concern was whether the districts
did initial hiring of teachers with future adm inistration in mind.
The responding districts w ere asked which tests they used
51
for screening. Respondents were also requested to list the order of
priority of selection c rite ria from seven categories.
Under Program Operation several check-off areas w ere
offered including a listing of activities in the program and techniques
utilized. Optional extensions were provided for the addition of extra
categories. An extensive list of adm inistrative training areas was
presented with a three point scale suggested: (1) top level of priority,
(2) fairly important, and (3) not too important. Twenty item s were
suggested.
Other questions covered program costs, a possible tie-in
with adm inistrative field work, the duration of the training program ,
frequency of district and school level meetings, and the name of the
program adm inistrator. F urtherm ore, inquiry was made as to
whether trainees a re given authority in the program and how they are
evaluated.
Another special area of concern included the question as to
how the districts heightened interpersonal experiences.
In the final Selection of A dm inistrators section a question
probed the recommendation for teaching experiences prior to adm in
istrative service. The districts w ere then asked to check off the
actual adm inistrative job categories available in their districts.
A key area was then considered. Specifically the policy and
52
practice of naming adm inistrators from within the district, from the
training program, and outside the district was explored.
General comments were then invited on the adm inistrator
training program. Districts were encouraged to send written pro
gram descriptions and information as available.
Refinement
When first phase editing had been completed, other practic
ing adm inistrators who were interested in adm inistrator programs
were asked for their comments on the questionnaire toward its
improvement. This field group was comprised of superintendents,
assistant superintendents (personnel), principals of elementary and
high schools, assistant principals, and administrative trainees who
were actually embarked in adm inistrator training programs as well
as teachers who aspired toward inclusion in such a program
(Appendix J).
The final preparation of the questionnaire incorporated their
recommendations (Appendix D).
Processing the Questionnaire
Distribution
The questionnaires and a cover letter (Appendix E) were
mailed to the 107 school districts believed to have adm inistrator
53
preservice training program s. The districts were located in thirty
states of the United States. The mailing was dispatched October 16,
1964.
In three weeks returns from fifty-seven school districts had
been received for a 53. 3 per cent response. Since broad coverage
was needed, a follow-up mailing (Appendix F) was sent to the thirty-
six districts that had not responded by November 12 to the first
mailing (Appendix G). A technique was utilized to suggest an
immediate need. The follow-up letter listed all the school districts
that reported adm inistrator training program s as well as the total
percentage response to that date which was favorable. This tech
nique proved to be effective, for further returns brought a total of
ninety-three responses for an 87 per cent reply to the questionnaire
mailing. Usable questionnaires were returned from fifty school
districts which indicated they sponsored adm inistrator preservice
training programs (Appendix H).
Analysis of response
The 87 per cent response involving ninety-three school
districts was considered an adequate number for survey purposes.
The fifty districts which reported having programs were located in
twenty-one states of the United States.
54
The October-November mailing period apparently r e p re
sented good timing. Possibly the rush of hiring and commencing the
school year had subsided, and the efforts in staffing for the following
year had not begun. Since m ost of the reports were filled out by the
superintendents personally or by the chief personnel officer, O ctober-
November may represent an ideal period for survey work.
Only one d istrict replied that it had inadequate time and too
many demands to provide survey information. Certainly interest in
the program , encouragement, and a desire for information was the
prevalent attitude in response. In addition to completion of the
questionnaires, twenty-six districts sent m aterials further describing
their program s. Some district officials who did not believe their
district met the technical limitations prescribed in the request for
information did express strong interest in the results.
T here was a hazy area in university-school district relation
ships that may have brought hesitation on the part of a few districts.
F urtherm ore, some districts responded which w ere actually closely
involved in the university-backed intern program . Findings and
conclusions of this report comment on this joint level approach to
training future school adm inistrators from the teaching ranks.
A ssistance in the technical processing of the questionnaire
was obtained through a non-funded grant by the Computer Sciences
55
Laboratory of the University of Southern California. Computer time
expedited and facilitated the handling of the objective aspects of the
questionnaire, and the Fortran System was used. Rank order
responses were tabulated as well as zero responses and percentage
of zero responses. Means were computed in addition to the sum of
squares and standard deviations.
Tallying of open-end responses was completed manually as
was the determination of the median.
The statistical results from the survey are related in
Chapter V of the study.
CHAPTER IV
A DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS OPERATED BY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR THE PRESERVICE
TRAINING OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
Program s for the preservice training of school adm inistra
tors are being conducted by many school districts in the United
States. Each program is directly concerned with the needs of the
school district it serv es, but parallel threads a re synonomous with
most program s. A description of some distinctive district program s
as provided by the school districts through their published m aterials
is included in this study.
The Leadership Training Program ,
Riverside, California
The Riverside City School D istrict finds itself in a period of
dynamic growth. The city is growing in pupil enrollm ent at the
annual rate of 5 to 10 per cent. This is not atypical of the Southern
California growth pattern nor unlike the trend in other areas of the
United States that have shown spectacular population increase.
Riverside is on the fringe of the Los Angeles metropolitan area,
56
57
about fifty m iles from the Los Angeles Civic Center.
P rior to 1957, adm inistrators had been selected by the
superintendent who had perform ed final screening after nominations
from d istrict principals and other staff m em bers. In the fall of
1957, the superintendent, Bruce M iller, recognizing the need for a
m ore system atic approach to the selection of new adm inistrators,
initiated The L eadership Training Program . A unique feature of the
R iverside program is that teachers interested in advancing into
adm inistration and functioning adm inistrators who wish to advance to
m ore responsible positions are enrolled in the sam e program . In
this five-year period of 1957 to 1962 forty-four of forty-six open
adm inistrative positions were filled by m em bers of The Leadership
Training Program.
Selection c rite ria for trainees include three years of
successful teaching or adm inistrative experience, one of which must
have been completed in Riverside. The m aster of arts degree or
its equivalent is required, or the applicant must be within one year
of completing requirem ents for the m aster of a rts degree. F u rth e r
m ore, the candidate m ust be within one year of fulfilling the
certification requirem ent for the position for which he hopes to
qualify.
In January, all top-rated (by principals or other adm inis-
58
trators) candidates are called together for a meeting with the
superintendent. At this time the program is detailed in scope and
objectives. The point is emphasized that there are no guarantees of
placement associated with participation in the program. Next, a
series of written examinations including the Miller Analogies Test
and the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory.are given to
m easure each applicant's aptitude, attitude, and general qualifica
tions for leadership. Candidates are then interviewed by the super
intendent, assistant superintendent, and by one or more adm inistra
tors at the level at which the trainee will work. In determining
results of the testing and interviewing, special concern is oriented
to the basic intelligence and the attitude of the candidates rather than
any specific skills.
Answers are sought to such questions as: What is the
candidate's understanding of the basic philosophy of the district?
Does he work well with others? Is he autocratic or democratic? Is
he willing to assume responsibility and to carry it out to completion?
Can he work well under pressure? Does he communicate well?
Final selection of successful candidates, about twelve or
fourteen a year, is made and announced in May.
A broad program of developmental experiences is then
given to each trainee. This program is in addition to a trainee's
59
regular duties within the Riverside City Schools. Some special on-
the-job experiences are provided either at the trainee's school or in
the district office. Leadership exploration in different settings is
desired rather than m astery of certain specific skills. A dm inistra
tors in the program are given broader range responsibilities.
In addition to the regular program the opportunity for
visitation is considered an important adjunct to the program . Other
schools or departm ents in the central office are often included in the
visitation detail.
Perhaps the heart of the program is the district-sponsored
sem inar series of which sixteen are provided each year. These
commence at 4:00 P. M. and feature a dinner session in a local
restaurant, expenses absorbed by the district. Special consultants
of national renown are invited to participate as well as local
specialists in adm inistrative areas. The meetings vary from highly
structured to completely unstructured where freedom of discussion
is encouraged.
Each Leadership Training Group carrie s a group problem
for the year as a special challenge. An example of this was a
thorough study of the channels of communication throughout the
district. As a result of the study, and as a fringe benefit to the
district, numerous practical suggestions w ere developed and
60
implemented to improve district communications.
Culmination of the year’s activities in The Leadership
Training Program comes when participants gather for a two-day
retreat at a nearby mountain conference center. During this period
the group reviews the year's work, socializes together in a friendly
informal setting, and prepares an evaluation of the group's accomp
lishments. The program for the following year is aided by a review
of these recommendations.
Modifications and improvements in the program are evolving
continually, and Riverside has made a major contribution to the
development of school adm inistrators through its effective p re
service training program.
The Broadening Experience Program,
Cleveland, Ohio
Cleveland Public Schools established The Broadening
Experience Program to help teachers strengthen professional skills
by engaging in a variety of public school assignments. Although no
implication or promise of an administrative assignment is associated
with the program in theory, Cleveland gives double promotion
points toward administrative placement for the teaching experience
of those who have completed The Broadening Experience Program.
Teachers may qualify for The Broadening Experience
61
Program after two years of teaching in the Cleveland Public Schools.
All personnel a re eligible to apply for the program , and assistant
superintendents in charge of each division, principals, and su p er
visors are asked to give their recommendations for trainees. A
teacher may also submit his own name to the selection committee.
The elem entary and secondary divisions then name com mittees to
complete the selection process for trainees. Action on the com
mittee recommendations is then taken by the assistant superintendent
in charge of the elem entary and secondary division. C riteria for
selection include:
1. Evidence of proven perform ance as a classroom
teacher.
2. Evidence of ability to plan, organize, and
successfully implement activities.
3. Evidence of ability to work with other people
both as a leader and follower.
4. Evidence of ability to assum e responsibility.
5. Evidence of possessing professional insights
and practices related to sound educational
procedures.
6. Evidence of continuous professional growth
related to study, techniques, and m aterials.
A program of c a re e r experiences is then tailored for each
of the trainees by the appropriate assistant superintendent. Annual
evaluations on the perform ance of each broadening experience
teacher is made. Reassignment of any trainee who is not doing an
adequate job to his original assignm ent occurs.
62
Cleveland studied in detail the adm inistrative selection
procedure of thirty-four cities prior to compiling their own req u ire
ments in September of 1963. Cleveland established a 100 point
composite selection scale for their adm inistrative candidates with
weights of sixty points assigned to the evaluation of credentials
(featuring twenty each for professional preparation perform ance, and
variety and extent of experience where The Broadening Experience
Program influences decision), twenty points for the testing program
(the adm inistrator's examination prepared by The Educational Testing
Service), and twenty points for the oral interview. Cleveland also
establishes an eligibility based on composite scores although the
superintendent is not restricted to exact position on the list when
making recommendations to the board for adm inistrative assignment.
The Administrative Training Program ,
Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia, a city of 100,000, was faced with a big
building program in the fall of 1959. An $8,000,000 bond issue was
passed, insuring the development of two new high schools that would
be patterned after the school within a school concept (which usually
demands extra adm inistrators) and seven elem entary schools of from
eight to fourteen classroom s each. D istrict school officials realized
that a strong program for the development of adm inistrators would be
necessary, so they initiated The Administrative Training Program.
School principals recommended seventy-five candidates
from the teaching staff and fifty were selected from all levels. The
m aster of arts degree was required. The program was considered
as a two-year development.
In the fall of 1959 a general orientation to the Roanoke
schools was featured, and in the spring of 1960 a seminar on
district problem s--as selected in the fall--was conducted.
The ten-week fall orientation program covered these areas
1. Introduction of the program and participants.
2. The instructional program.
3. Instructional program continued.
4. Educational planning.
5. Personnel division.
6. Personnel continued.
7. Financing theschools.
8. Business management.
9. Guidance.
10. Maintenance and operation of the school plant.
The spring program was broken into elementary and
secondary sections. The secondary phase covered such problem
areas as scheduling, teacher orientation, administration, super
vision of instruction, guidance, innovations in curriculum and
instruction, and activities and student organization.
In the fall, 1960 section of the Roanoke Administrative
Training Program,consultants from the University of Virginia led a
64
sem inar on characteristics of cooperative leadership. The sem inar
emphasized basic human factors to be found in group m em bers,
basic human factors of successful leaders, and the leadership role
in interpreting the school program to the community.
The fourth quarter of the two-year program was considered
an internship phase. Here the trainees spent at least one hour a day
for one week working with an adm inistrator. In a six-week period
they were associated with six different adm inistrators. Finally they
spent a full day with a principal to experience the full cycle of a day’s
operation.
At the completion of the two-year program (in academic
year 1961-62), seventeen m em bers of the program initiated in 1959
had been placed in adm inistrative assignments. Included among the
adm inistrative assignees were six deans of the two new high schools,
one senior high school principal, two junior high school principals,
and six elementary school adm inistrators. At the beginning of the
1962-63 school year twenty-four leadership positions had been filled
by trainees in The Administrative Training Program. In addition,
five form er mem bers were employed as adm inistrators in other
districts.
In the fall of 1961, the second Roanoke Administrative
Training Program was initiated, and the general reaction to the
65
program was positive.
Significant factors were a willingness to promote from
within and numerous opportunities for leadership due to the expand
ing school program.
The Educational Leadership Develop
ment Program, Schenectady, New York
One of the oldest and most renowned administrative develop
ment plans sponsored by a school district in the United States was
initiated in Schenectady in 1944. Ostensibly the program was
projected with three goals:
1. To give people with talent and ambition encourage
ment and opportunity of in-service training.
2. To enlarge the reservoir of trained competent
leaders in the field of education.
3. To provide a ready source of personnel for assum
ing leadership responsibilities in Schenectady.
The selection criteria for the program include possession
of the m aster of arts degree and four years of teaching experience.
Also scrutinized are the applicant's personality, human relation
ships potential, professional training, outlook, and experience.
There is no specific age limitation. An interview is required for
admission to the program which is customized to the trainee. There
is no guarantee of administrative promotion and the competition
ultimately includes candidates from outside the district.
66
Apprentices in the program complete the following assign
ments:
1. Teach at various levels to get the "feel" of the
overall curriculum .
2. Develop programs for educational television.
3. Represent the district at meetings.
4. A ssist the school principals.
5. Work in specialized areas of education including
attendance, testing, research and accounting, child
guidance, public information, business, audio-visual, and
other areas of special education.
6. Chair or be a member of school committees.
7. Be a speaker at community affairs.
8. Prepare articles and brochures on all phases of
the educational program.
9. Visit outside school system s.
The apprentices are evaluated on their acceptance of new
ideas, flexibility, objectivity, realistic judgement, relations with
staff, personal growth, responsibility, training, and experience.
The actual length of training varies with the candidates.
Thus far, graduates of the program have been placed as
district superintendent, deputy superintendent, two assistant super
intendents, one high school principal, two junior high school
principals, and eleven elem entary school principals.
The Administrative Training Program,
South Bend, Indiana
The program in South Bend, Indiana, celebrated its tenth
anniversary in 1965. The program shows unusual depth, for future
adm inistrative possibilities are considered at the time a teacher is
67
first employed. South Bend realized that many of the current p ra c
tices in personnel leadership development have been very wasteful
in tim e and human resources.
A list of eligible trainees is developed by the district. Each
trainee is given an assignm ent in the area of his interest. He
receives supplem entary pay for the extra tim e that he will be
expected to utilize in the program . His assignm ent includes a
variety of experiences typical of those that will be encountered on
the job (although he will not be expected to render final decisions in
adm inistrative problems). Examples of participation include pupil
accounting experiences, fee collections, pupil discipline, parent
conferences, staff m eetings, and communications problem s.
The trainee is assigned to a "m aster" adm inistrator who
m ust be a successful, patient, understanding c a re e r adm inistrator
capable of transm itting know-how and able to give help and direction
t
to the candidate.
Perhaps the key theme in the training program is to keep
the trainee in a situation long enough for him to grasp the problem,
but not long enough to bog down in trivia. The district also expects
a sharing of experiences at district-sponsored training sessions.
Evaluations on trainees a re completed regularly and their
strengths and weaknesses a re appraised. The training program
68
extends for a varied length of time, usually between one and four
sem esters. Candidates may withdraw at any time.
South Bend adds a vital corollary to their program . If at
all feasible, when the trainee has completed the program , advance
him.
The Administrative Selection and
Training Program, Phoenix,
Arizona
The purpose of the Phoenix Administrative Selection and
Training Program is to identify potential adm inistrative personnel
and to train prospective adm inistrators for the Phoenix Union High
School D istrict. T rainees will then be given consideration for
adm inistrative positions when appointments are made.
Phoenix has specified that all candidates must evidence
sincere interest in becoming adm inistrators, be between thirty and
forty-five years of age (although age requirem ents may be waived
for those who have previous adm inistrative experience and, at the
lower age range, for those with tenure in the Phoenix district), and
pass a rigid physical examination. In addition, the applicants must
pay for their testing fee ($20. 00) and must score at a predeterm ined
level on the intellective tests in addition to satisfactory perform ance
.in other required tests. The m a ster's degree is required along with
five years of teaching experience, at least one of which has been
with the Phoenix district.
Applicants a re screened by a selection com m ittee com prised
of the personnel m anager, two principals, and one or two university
representatives. An application blank is completed and then a
confidential evaluation form filled out on the applicant by each
applicant’s principal and assistant principal. An adm inistrative
test battery, developed at Arizona State University, is adm inistered
and requires approximately seven hours to complete. Individual
counseling is made available to applicants upon request concerning
the test results.
The applicant is then interviewed by the com m ittee p rio r to
final decision. The Phoenix program , initiated in 1961, allows for
the placement of sixteen trainees into the program every two years.
The actual program , Phase I , is com prised of five two-
hour sem inars in which consultants work with the trainees.
Simulated adm inistrative experiences are used including in-basket
techniques, case studies, and problem situations.
The trainees are then evaluated on:
1. Skill in perceiving the problem s.
2. Skill in decision-making.
a. Identification of all reasonable alternative
solutions.
b. Deductive reasoning in determ ining approp
riate course of action (the "best" solution).
3. Skill in organizing the procedure for solving the
problem.
4. Skill in human relations, diplomacy, pervading
optimism, acceptance of self and others, and tolerance of
ideas of others.
5. Empathetic skill, sense of humor.
Phase II then consists of sixteen sessions of two hours or
more scheduled throughout both sem esters of the school year.
Trainees are expected to enroll for university credit through the
extension division. The total cost of the Phase II program is shared
by the trainees, the district,-and the university. An area of in-
service training for incumbent adm inistrators is provided through
their involvement in the total program and through their participation
in the orientation session.
Phase 1 1 1 then extends through one or two sem esters during
which trainees are dispatched to specific jobs in various schools of
the district and in central administrative offices. Trainees are
responsible to administrative personnel in charge of the job area
being emphasized. Periodically, substitutes are employed to
release trainees for a full day's participation. Candidates are also
expected to spend time outside their normal work day in the
program without extra compensation. University consultants
continue to work with the trainees and administrative personnel
concerning the intern experiences. Meetings are scheduled at
regular intervals with the trainees to provide guidance, suggested
reading, research area projections,and other information.
71
Phase IV consists of the tim e made available to those
trainees elected to full adm inistrative position prior to their actual
assumption of full responsibility. Normally it is a full sem ester
which enables them to have time for phasing into the job with ensuing
planning details reasonably organized. University consultants
continue to follow these trainee-adm inistrator designates into their
Phase IV program .
The Cooperative Program in Educational
Administration, Fresno, California
The Fresno, California, adm inistrative trainee program is
based on three separate but coordinated tracks. The first track is
basically the encouragement to c a rry on a program of advanced
study at a university. The second is the cooperative program
adm inistered jointly by Stanford University and the Fresno schools.
An early conference for the second track is held on the Stanford
campus and subsequently monthly meetings a re scheduled throughout
the school year in Fresno. All trainees in the program observe
carefully-prepared program s structured by m aster teachers at all
levels of the grades. The third track represents a school-level
effort to coordinate the program of the trainee under the supervisory
leadership of his principal.
F resno has a structured program with detailed check
72
sheets to enable the supervising principal and head teacher to insure
that the trainees a re exposed to a broad total program .
An enterprising in-basket technique is utilized as a culm inat
ing effort by which the trainee is exposed to a range of problem s
typically facing a firs t year principal.
The A dm inistrative L eadership Develop
m ent Program , Dade County, Florida
Dade County, F lorida, has initiated its leadership program
to provide an infusion of w ell-trained personnel into adm inistrative
ranks. The three fundamental categories for recruitm ent, initial
screening, and examinations apparently have not seen form alized
addition of training as a final facet for development.
The Dade County recru itm en t effort includes gaining
recom m endations from institutions of higher learning, announcement
of availability through routine d istric t publications, encouragem ent
through other news m edia, enlistm ent of nominations from incumbent
ad m in istrato rs in the d istric t, and active recruitm ent of qualified
candidates both within and outside the d istrict. Most d istricts
re s tric t their training candidates from within the d istrict, but Dade
County considers outside applicants as well.
The m a s te r’s degree is essential for placem ent in adm in
istration and the proper certification is also needed. T hree years of
73
instructional service is listed as a prerequisite as well as the
completed comprehensive application form. National Teacher Exam
inations must be completed (and paid for by the applicant) and
minimum scores met. Furtherm ore, adm inistrative examinations
must also be completed, a physical passed, and a detailed oral
examination undergone.
The first three years of service as an assistant principal
are considered part of the broad training program and an in-service
program has been established.
The Intern Training Program,
Fort Wayne, Indiana
The Fort Wayne, Indiana, Community School District
Intern Training Program is a semiformalized program that comes
immediately prior to the assumption of adm inistrative duties and
after an agreement has been reached that the candidate will probably
be asked to assum e the adm inistrative assignments. The intern
position is full-time, and the training period extends from six months
to two years. -There is a reservation clause, however, that states
that there is still no guarantee of final adm inistrative placement for
the interns. The trainees are encouraged to enroll in a college
course for credit. The program is informally coordinated with
professors from one of the state colleges.
74
Prior to acceptance in the formal intern program , an
applicant m ust complete an inform al training program . Anyone
interested in an adm inistrative position may apply if they have a
minimum of three years of teaching experience, and have som e
graduate work in the appropriate area of twelve to fifteen questions
selected by the Executive Board. The Educational Testing Service
adm inisters The National Teacher Examination. The Educational
Testing S ervice's Adm inistration and Supervision T ests are also
given. Finally, a personal interview is required. F o rt Wayne
elim inates no candidates because of low test scores. A probability
report is then completed for each candidate.
Candidates who show prom ise as future adm inistrators have
their placement and assignm ent changed occasionally to give them a
variety of teaching experience. The supervising principal works
closely with each candidate and subm its a report to the superintendent
on the candidate twice a year concerning the candidate’s character,
abilities, personality, attitude, and general fitness for an adm inis
trative assignm ent.
The L eadership Sem inar,
Des Moines, Iowa
The Des Moines, Iowa, L eadership Sem inar features a
monthly meeting in which contem porary adm inistrative challenges
75
are discussed by outstanding area educators. All participants sub
sequently react in small groups to key discussion points.
Des Moines lists as its purposes:
1. Identification of issues and problems in the Des
Moines school system and exploration of effective means of
coping with them.
2. Establishment of better definitions of the leader
ship positions and description of the interpersonal and
interposition relationships desirable for effective teamwork.
3. Improvement of communications between m em ber
ship and leadership.
4. Increased understanding on the part of staff mem bers
of the system-wide policies and practices.
5. Stimulation of professional outlook and skills of
present adm inistrators.
6. Encouragement for emerging leadership from the
teaching staff.
7. Inspiration of even greater efforts from an already
outstanding school system .
The Internship Program,
Framingham, Mass.
In 1962 when the Framingham, M assachusetts, School
Department faced the problem of adm inistrative staffing of several
new schools, the district administration became aware of the fact
that the problem of screening and evaluating candidates was becoming
increasingly difficult. The district decided that a program of
administrative internship would not only give them a better knowledge
of their more able potential adm inistrators, but also would aid them
in screening out those whose adm inistrative capacity would appear
limited.
76
The Fram ingham Internship Program selects and trains
prospective school adm inistrators on a one-sem ester, full-tim e
basis, after which they m ust compete with qualified applicants from
the outside for adm inistrative positions.
The program is adm inistered by the associate superintendent
of schools with the assistance of an A dm inistrator Training Com
m ittee. The A dm inistrator Training Committee is composed of the
associate superintendent of schools, a principal and teacher from the
senior high, junior high and elem entary levels, and two consultants.
The consultants, representing elem entary and secondary education,
a s sist in organizing the program and participate in the selection,
training, and evaluation of trainees.
Interns a re selected in a seven-phase application and
screening process. Initially, they take a se rie s of tests including the
T est of Contem porary A ffairs, The M iller Analogy-Scholastic
Aptitude Test, Watson G laser C ritical Thinking Appraisal, and the
Cooperative English T est. Subsequently, a detailed application is
completed and evaluation reports on past perform ance reviewed. The
candidate then is interviewed and an in-basket exercise completed.
Group problem -solving sessions a re utilized as well as shared
social experiences during which the applicant receives final phase
evaluation.
77
The Framingham Internship Program consists of arranging
released time for the sem ester during which the intern receives full
pay at his teaching level salary. A job checklist insures well-rounded
experience. Trainees are rotated among the schools, and advisors--
assigned each trainee--carefully follow their progress. Evaluation is
a continuing process with the principal required to evaluate period
ically, the associate superintendent monthly, and the consultants bi
weekly.
The program has been refined in its three years of opera
tion, and apparently one degree of refinement consisted of the
changed program title and title assigned individuals in the program.
The adm inistrator development originated as the Framingham
Administrator Training Program.
The Cadet Principalship Program,
Canton, Ohio
The Canton, Ohio, Cadet Principalship Program has been
successfully operated for seventeen years since its inception in 1948.
Nominations may be made by school principals or individuals.
Basic crite ria include broad teaching experience in the Canton
Schools with at least some experience in the elementary grades. No
age maximum is listed, although pointed reference is made to the
fact that sufficient years of service should remain to provide useful
78
educational leadership to the Canton Public Schools. The m aster's
degree should be in progress if not earned, and the applicant must be
willing to continue his formal education during the period immediately
following appointment.
The cadet principal serves for two years if he is not
appointed to a full principalship prior to the conclusion of the two-
year period. He subsequently may be assigned back to regular
classroom teaching. His cadet assignment includes three or more
elementary schools for at least three months of service each during
the first year. Subsequently a short tour of duty at the district
administration building is included. The school principal is in
charge of his direct training.
His orientation includes the following phases of school
administration:
1. Development of the school philosophy and obligations--
especially as they relate to child growth and development.
2. The management of the school--especially as it
relates to reports, supplies, and building maintenance.
3. Instructional supervision as related to conferences,
study groups, classroom visitation, and counseling and
guiding of children.
4. Interpreting the school program to the community
through contact with individual parents, parent organiza
tions, and other community agencies.
The Internship Program,
Livonia, Michigan
The Livonia, Michigan, Public Schools have developed an
79
internship program more closely associated with the university.
Candidates for The Intern Program may be nominated by
principals and supervisors, or by direct individual application.
Minimum qualifications include the m aster's degree, five
years of outstanding teaching experience with at least a portion of
this in the Livonia schools, reasonable breadth of experience at
different levels or in different capacities, and demonstrated leader
ship qualities. Because of the program expense which lim its the
number of participants, further screening is done in term s of
examining recommendations, transcripts of credits, experience,
and the results of a comprehensive written examination (The Educa
tional Testing Service series). Final selection is made by a system -
wide internship committee.
One important aspect is the fact that all nominees, whether
selected or not, are invited to discuss their current and future
status. They may be reconsidered for the intern program at a
future date.
A leadership team is appointed for each intern by the
general internship committee. The team consists of the intern's
most recent principal, a member of the central administration, the
local adm inistrator or supervisor with whom the intern will be
working, and the university coordinator who serves as an ex officio
80
m em ber.
When the program is completed, the intern m ust also
compete with outside applicants for any adm inistrative openings.
The Adm inistrative Cadet Program ,
Columbus, Ohio
The Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools A dm inistrative Cadet
Program has been functioning efficiently since 1952.
Each candidate for adm inistrative cadet must hold a
m a ste r’s degree in school adm inistration or in som e closely related
field, and have a principal’s certificate. He should be under forty-
five years of age, but superior candidates over this age a re con
sidered. He must have three or m ore years of teaching experience
in Columbus, Ohio, two of which should be at the level of the
position he expects to hold.
All applicants are given a w ritten examination. L ater they
a re interviewed by a com m ittee of five adm inistrators and teachers.
This com mittee selects a list of candidates to be presented to the
superintendent for his consideration in making recom m endations to
the board of education for assignm ents as adm inistrative cadets.
However, the superintendent is not lim ited to this list in making his
recom mendation. The list expires at the end of the school year.
Although an adm inistrative cadet may be assigned to an
81
adm inistrative position at any time, at least one y ear's service as a
cadet is desirable.
During the one-year training period the adm inistrative cadet
is provided a wide range of activities by which he may make objective
analysis of school problem s. Cadets work at all school levels. The
program features visitation, discussion, and participation. F u rth e r
m ore, a weekly district level meeting conducted by the assistant
superintendent for adm inistration gives the cadets further opportunity
to share field experiences, raise questions, discuss trends, develop
philosophies, explore problem situations, and hear policies explained.
The Leadership Training Program ,
Granite School D istrict,
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Granite City School D istrict, Salt Lake City, Utah, has
committed its training program to close association with the
University of Utah, although it is not a structured intern program .
Applicants for adm inistrative training must be within one
year of receiving their m a ste r's degree, have three years of su c
cessful teaching experience, qualify for an adm inistrative ce rtifi
cate, and must not be over forty-five years of age.
College professors of educational adm inistration and chief
adm inistrators in the four school districts com prising the Salt Lake
City area offer a ten-week sem inar at the University of Utah which
form s the basic training program .
Trainees are also expected to read extensively in the areas
of adm inistrative case problem s, conceptual problems, and in-basket
m aterials. Supervising principals also follow a job experience check
sheet.
The Administrative Training Program,
Edwards School D istrict No. 15,
Lynwood, Washington
Edwards School D istrict No. 15, Lynwood, Washington,
describes its Administrative Training Program as a two-phase
approach at providing competent future adm inistrators for the
district. The first phase represents a form al course and the second
phase is the on-the-job training aspect. Both are considered very
important for the success of the program .
The course aspect is coordinated by a district principal.
The trainee group meets every two weeks for a three-hour session
for twelve sessions. The curriculum is established, but the instruc
tional techniques may vary. Outside experts are often called in, and
discussion and role-playing are typical of the methods employed.
Individualized professional reading is also considered a vital
dimension for the program.
The training internship runs concurrently with the course
phase, but extends throughout the entire academic year. The
83
building program is responsible for this part of the development.
Requirements for entry to the program include three years
of teaching and direct application through the principal. After an
interview with the candidate the principal relates his reaction and
recommendation to the superintendent who makes the final selection.
The trainee must register for the course and pays an in-service fee
of $3.00 per credit for the three credits awarded upon successful
completion of the course.
The actual course structure has been well-developed, and
its outline is as follows:
Session #1 Organization and orientation.
Session #2 Staff Relations--
Principal's role in selection, supervising,
evaluating his staff, maintaining good
building morale.
Session #3 Public Relations--
Opportunities and responsibilities of
principal in area of public relations.
Session #4 Administrative M anagement--
Cafeteria, business, secretarial.
Session #5 Administrative M anagement--
Library, audio-visual, maintenance,
custodial.
Session #6 Curriculum --
Effecting change, texts, experimental
program s, role of helping teacher, use
of tests.
Session #7 Guidance--
Records, referra l procedures, all
services related, guidance at all levels.
Session #8 State's Role in Education--Constitutionally--
Expanding State organization, curriculum
work, accreditation, consolidation.
84
Session #9 Building C onstruction--
State specifications, local specifications,
request changes affecting our d istrict,
principal's involvement in new construc
tion.
Session #10 School Law--
Discussion of laws affecting us daily,
what is our authority, liability,
exam ples, etc.
Session #11 F in an ce--
Revenue sources, figuring the budget,
principal's role in applying the budget,
incumberance system .
Session #12 School Board and Superintendent--
Interrelationships with principals, their
role in setting philosophy for d istrict,
staff involvement in adm inistrative
decisions, stru ctu re of school building
meeting, discussion of board visitation.
The Principal's Training Program ,
M oses Lake, Washington
The Moses Lake, Washington, Principal's Training Program
projects a three-phase program with som e unique features. The
d istrict specifically states that one of the advantages to the program
is that they can actually encourage good teachers to come to Moses
Lake with the positive inducement of adm inistration in mind. The
Moses Lake program consists of eligibility, screening, and training.
The screening in itself is actually a developmental process that
extends over a substantial period of tim e and resu lts in the selection
of three potential adm inistrators for the final training phase. Moses
Lake also maintains an open door policy for outside adm inistrators,
85
and district trainees must compete with other applicants for admin
istrative positions.
Moses Lake requires three years of teaching experience,
including one year at Moses Lake. Candidates must be close to the
m aster's degree if they do not hold the principal's credential. The
applicant must have a broad experience in grade levels.
Included as criteria for the supervising principal's recom
mendation are:
1. General attitude of applicant.
2. Personality and appearance.
3. Moral values and behavior.
4. Status with fellow teachers.
5. Knowledge of philosophy of education.
6. Ability to work with students.
7. Evidence of strong teaching ability.
8. Evidences of leadership.
a. At school
b. In the community
c. Professional growth
The screening process begins in October with a meeting of
all candidates and the training committee. A year's screening
program includes attendance at monthly sem inars, special projects,
and other written work.
The actual training program enables the trainee to be
relieved from his classroom teaching situation three days a month.
He is expected to work with at least three different principals.
Moses Lake suggests special concern be given to the trainee and
86
that the total staff be fam iliar with the status and responsibilities of
the training program .
CH A PTER V
ANALYSIS OF PRESERVICE TRAINING
PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
A dm inistrative Aspects
Fifty school districts of the 107 contacted replied affirm
atively to a questionnaire inquiring whether they sponsor an
adm inistrator training program (see Table 1). The student popula
tions of the d istricts varied tremendously from Philadelphia with
274,000 students and Miami with 197,206 students to the much
sm aller d istricts of Joint School D istrict #1, W isconsin Heights,
W isconsin, with an enrollm ent of 1,300 and Yankton, South Dakota,
with 2, 400 enrolled. The mean enrollm ent for d istricts reporting
was 39,865, but the median size was 21,468. These w ere broken
down by the types of schools in the various d istric ts. The largest
d istrict reporting, Philadelphia, listed twenty-two high schools,
twenty-eight junior high schools, and 199 elem entary schools. At
the other population extrem e was Joint School D istrict #1, Wisconsin
87
88
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN THE
STUDY AND PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPATION
Number Per Cent
School districts initially identified as
probably conducting adm inistrator
preservice training programs 107
School districts responding to the survey 93
D istricts responding 86.92
School districts actually conducting
adm inistrator preservice training
program s 50
Initial survey list conducting adm inistra
tor preservice training programs 46. 73
Responding districts conducting
adm inistrator preservice training
programs 53. 76
Heights, Wisconsin, with one high school and two elementary
schools. The mean number of schools in districts reporting was
thirty-four elementary schools, nine junior high schools, and five
high schools. The median number of schools in reporting districts
was nineteen elementary schools, five junior high schools, and
three high schools.
A variety of district organizations were encountered
89
including union high school, unified, elem entary, common admin
istration, special, suburban, county-unit, township independent,
joint school system , large urban independent, and common.
A broad variation in program titles was likewise encountered.
Many districts had not assigned an official title to the program . Some
districts had changed the names from the initial title at the inception
of the program . Table 2 lists the categories of titles in use.
T here was also a large number of names suggested by the
fifty districts for those participants in the adm inistrator training
program . The most common names were intern and trainee. Titles
involved (including their frequency of mention) a re listed in Table 3.
Some districts did not have a specific title for their
trainees and others actually referred to them by varying titles in the
reports the districts disseminated.
Five of the fifty districts had initiated an adm inistrator
training program in 1964-65, while others w ere veterans of over a
decade of refinement in program . The oldest reported program was
The Apprentice Leadership Training Program of Schenectady, New
York, which was started in 1944. The mean age reported was 6. 15
years (see Table 4). In all districts continuing investigation of ways
to improve the program was a common concern. A few districts,
especially those with a sm aller enrollment, did not c a rry on an
90
TABLE 2
PROGRAM TITLES UTILIZED BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAMS
Administrative Intern Program 7
Administrative Training Program 8
Administrative In-Service Training Program 1
Leadership Training Program 1
In-Service Program of Administrative Competence 1
Administrative Leadership Training Program 1
County School Administrative Leadership Development
Program 1
Cooperative Program of Internship 1
C areer Development Program 1
Future Administrators Club 1
Administrative Screening Program 1
Leadership Seminar 1
(Elementary) Principal Trainee Program 2
Internship Program 1
Administrator Development Program 1
Administrative Training and Selection Process 1
Administrative Workshop 1
Apprentice Leadership Training Program 1
Cadet Principalship Program 2
Administrative Cadet Training Program 1
Cadet Training Program 1
Prospective Elementary School Principals Program 1
Leadership Development Program 1
Preparation Program for Administrators 1
Administrative Intern Development Program 1
Administrative Seminar 1
91
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTIVE TITLES GIVEN TO PERSONNEL BEING
TRAINED IN SCHOOL DISTRICT-SPONSORED
ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAMS
Intern 13
Trainee 11
Cadet Principal 3
Candidates 2
Administrator Cadets 2
Future Administrator 1
Apprentice in Leadership 1
annual program and a few have actually limited them or closed them
out. The critical dimension seemed to be a need brought about by
growth problems and a quality control desire.
Responsible agency
Most responding districts reported that the adm inistrator
development program s were a joint school and district function, ~
although the chief responsible officer for their development was
generally a district official. Likewise, the main training officer was
the school principal from the point of view of school-level training.
92
TA B LE 4
LENGTH OF TIME A SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAM HAS
BEEN CONDUCTED
Year Initiated Number of Y ears Number of D istricts
1944 21 • 1
1948 17 1
1950 15 2
1952 13 1
1953 12 3
1954 11 1
1955 10 2
1956 9 1
1957 8 3
1958 7 2
1959 6 3
1960 5 2
1961 4 8
1962 3 9
1963 2 4
1964 1 5
N = 48
Mean age of program s 6.15 years
Median age of program s 4 years
93
Superintendents were reported in charge of the training
program in nineteen districts; assistant superintendents in eleven
districts; personnel directors or assistant superintendents for
personnel were responsible in nine program s; assistant superintend
ents for instruction in eleven districts; assistant or associate
superintendents in five districts; and in individual districts a college
professor, a director of extended service and special services.
Degree of teacher interest
One of the more difficult survey questions for an accurate
response on the part of the districts was to estimate the percentage
of teachers, male and female, who actually have administrative
aspirations. A wide range of answers was reported. The mean
response from the survey was 6. 24 per cent for men and 2. 30 per
cent for women. Medians were 5 per cent for men and 1 per cent
for women.
Adm inistrator training
program s rating
The question on rating adm inistrator training programs
precipitated responses that showed a strong critical concern on the
part of the sponsoring districts. The ultimate or ideal program for
the functioning districts has not been found, and areas of disappoint
ment from theory were not uncommon. Nevertheless, the responses
94
on program success were generally positive and the districts believed
they were making a proper approach. The conservative development
has portended more serious consideration than for occasional new
ideas that flash across the educational sky and precipitate a stampede
of e rro r before logical analysis either throws out the concept com
pletely or refines it to usable dimensions.
In 26.1 per cent of the responding districts, the adm inistra
tor preservice training programs were judged extremely effective.
The more guarded, yet highly positive, "very effective" rating was
given by 43. 5 per cent. "Satisfactory” was indicated by 28. 3 per
cent, while 2. 2 per cent (one district) reacted in term s of "minimal
assistance."
Program use as in-service training
for adm inistrators
Response by districts to the query as to whether they
utilized adm inistrator development programs as in-service training
for adm inistrators was obfuscated by the paucity of open-end
amplification. Generally if the programs were so considered,
open-end answers suggested it was apparently an after thought.
In formal response thirty-six districts (78. 3 per cent)
reported they consider their program as an in-service training
experience for participating adm inistrators. Another ten school
95
d istricts (21. 7 per cent) indicated that they did not so consider such
a corollary function.
The Selection Process
Responsibility for trainee selection
The district office chose the trainees in twenty-two rep o rt
ing program s (48.9 per cent), and no district indicated final selection
by the schools involved. Joint decision was responsible for naming
final trainees in thirteen districts (28.9 per cent), while committees
made the choice for ten program s (22. 2 per cent).
It was apparent from the districts reporting their program s
for selection in detail that the selection aspect was considered the
key to the entire program . Great energy and involvement was
detailed by the districts in procuring the best prospects for the
training. Without exception the program s w ere open to men and
women, although several districts indicated they have had no women
in the program .
Procurement of teachers with
adm inistrative potential
Many districts (thirty-four, or 70.9 per cent) indicated that
they hired teachers with the long-range thought of good future
adm inistrators. Since there is little reference to such personnel
96
planning in the literature or in the district-sponsored m aterials,
there is an indication that the questionnaire may have structured the
answer because of its logical implication.
Testing programs as a
screening technique
Objective tests were used by twenty-eight districts (58. 3
per cent) for screening purposes.
The area of testing as a screening device for the adm inistra
tor training program represented a broader range of thinking and
action than any other reported. Some districts reported almost no
testing for placement in their program s. Others relied strongly on
testing. A few used testing as a culminating activity. Some tested
and did not use the tests as a predictive m easure whatsoever. A few
completely belittled the idea as possessing any worth, although the
Educational Testing Service has reported significant accomplishment
with their adm inistrator testing programs (44). Generally testing
programs must be tailored to the needs of each district.
D istrict reaction to testing programs in the survey was
mixed, with six districts (22. 2 per cent) considering their work
extremely effective, twelve programs (44.4 per cent) responding as
effective, and nine districts (33. 3 per cent) considering the testing
program as satisfactory.
97
Many reporting districts used the Educational Testing
Service for the testing programs. Others relied on program s that
had been structured by a university. Included among tests actually
administered in approximate order of use were:
Educational Testing Service Series (generally including
the National Teacher Examination and School
Administration and Supervision)
M iller Analogies Test (often used in association with
Stanford-Kellogg Series)
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
Kuder Occupational Inventory
Cooperative English Test
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
Strong Vocational Inventory
Public Opinion Scale
Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Scale of Values
W atson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Graduate Record Exam
Test of Professional Information
Cooperative Test on Contemporary Affairs
Bernreuter Personality Inventory
Cattell Personality Factors
Project for Leadership Development
District-created tests
Teaching and district time require
ments for program entry
Another consideration investigated by the survey was the
actual requirement of years of teaching experience prior to being
placed in the program. Furtherm ore, the question whether there
was a specific period of time mandated in district service prior to
selection for adm inistrator training produced some interesting
concepts.
Requiring a predeterm ined minimum teaching experience
w ere thirty-four districts (68 per cent). The mean years of
experience required was 3.735 years (N=34). Table 5 reports the
breakdown by years of experience. The number of program s
requiring tim e in the d istrict prior to entry was thirty-three (66 per
cent), with the mean suggested time 1.523 years (N=44).
Certification requirem ents toward
selection as trainees
The proper relationship of certification in the development
of adm inistrators was difficult to assess. Whether a candidate for
adm inistrative training should be expected to be fully certificated for
a situation from which he may be completely eliminated was a genuine
concern. Most districts felt some course work toward certification
was important. D istricts w ere aware that prior to adm inistrative
placement certification requirem ents must be met. The relationship
of the district-sponsored adm inistrator training program to the field
work in adm inistration often required for certification was another
area where some answer need be found in som e states. Survey
results show thirty-three districts (70. 2 per cent) required
completion of o r parallel course work with the program . Moreover,
twenty-two districts (50 per cent) required the appropriate
99
TABLE 5
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE REQUIRED
BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR ADMISSION
TO ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAMS
Number of Years Teaching Number of Districts with
Experience Required this Requirement
1 1
2 3
3 14
4 2
5 14
N = 34
Mean teaching experience required 3.735 years
Median teaching experience required 3 years
administrative credential.
Degree requirements for selection
as administrative trainees
Most school districts considered the m aster's degree as a
minimum degree for the school adm inistrator. A few still have no
real requirement in the degree area. Few considered the doctorate
mandatory, while some districts recommended it.
100
The survey showed 61.7 per cent of the responding districts
(twenty-nine out of forty-seven) required the m aster of a rts degree
as prerequisite to the training program . F urtherm ore, twelve of
forty-two (28. 6 per cent) considered the doctorate or work toward it
important for planning purposes.
The interview for adm inistrative
trainee placement
The critical phase for most trainee selection program s
comes with the personal interview. Most districts involved the
district-level staff in final selection interviews. In some districts
an adm inistrator training committee sponsored the interview. Often
the superintendent was directly involved. The survey results
reported that 61 per cent of the applicants were personally inter
viewed by the superintendent, 72. 5 per cent by the personnel
director, and 58.1 per cent by the school principal involved.
Final selection crite ria
Selection crite ria were established in the questionnaire with
an open-end option. Respondents were asked to list seven criteria
in the order of importance. The seven in the order of their rank
(with the mean response figure shown) are listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6
ESTIMATE OF IMPORTANCE OF SELECTION CRITERIA BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS
Districts listed in rank order the importance of the criteria with 1 the highest choice through
7 the lowest choice.
Rank Selection Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean Response
1. Subjective estimate of administra
tive potential 17 9 4 5 4 0 3 2o 571
2. Principal's recommendation 17 7 3 7 6 1 1 2.643
3. Teaching performance 9 11 8 5 2 4 0 2.795
4. Interpersonnel relationships 4 6 10 10 6 3 0 3.436
5. Grade on test 3 5 1 5 5 4 5 4.286
6. Master of arts degree or higher 5 1 6 3 2 10 6 4.515
7. References from colleges or
other personnel 3 0 4 2 8 9 10 5.194
102
Number of trainees selected
The number of trainees selected was closely related to the
size of the districts and the incumbent growth patterns. A common
reported pitfall was the selection of substantially m ore trainees than
could be ultimately accommodated, even after allowing for reason
able perform ance attrition. Some districts w ere cutting back their
program s and a few districts have placed their program s on an every-
other-year or an as-needed basis. Whether placing a teacher through
the program when there is little practical hope of his adm inistrative
placement leads to the loss of a good teacher, the teacher's fru s tra
tion, or the teacher's better understanding of adm inistrative
problems rem ains a fundamental problem. Expressions of concern
w ere stated for the differing potential outcomes.
The mean number of trainees per program was 14.3 with
the median number 10. The largest program s involved sixty, fifty,
and forty-five trainees, while several districts worked with a single
trainee.
The survey attempt to ascertain a selection ratio between
men and women applicants for the training program com pared to
numbers selected was not successful due to a lim ited response to the
questionnaire. The few that did respond reported that a selection
ratio for men of one trainee to 7.015 applicants prevailed (mean
103
figure with a 1 to 4 ratio indicated as a median figure). For women
the mean ratio was 1 to 6.9 and the median ratio 1 to 4. However,
little attempt has been made to utilize these random numbers other
than for a broad reference framework. Perhaps a study to explore
those who are expressedly interested in administration as against
those who apply for district-sponsored training programs might be
of interest. Furtherm ore, this survey ascertained reasons for
selection to such district-sponsored programs, but a research,
survey might profitably be made to ascertain expressed reasons for
candidate rejection.
Program Operation
The program schedule
The length of the district-conducted adm inistrator develop
ment programs varied perceptibly among the districts. The mean
length of time was 11.3 months, with a maximum reported program
of thirty months. The shortest program extended only three months.
The median length was ten months, or one school year. Some
districts, moreover, extended the option of repeating the admin
istrative training cycle.
v
104
Division of program time
The typical program featured both district-level and school-
level operation. Traditionally the district-level approach was
through meetings, although often a phase assignment for actual
operational experience was mentioned. The school principals
carried the heaviest training responsibility, since their phase
represented functional on-the-job training. A variation reported by
many districts was training duty rotation through several schools and
under several different adm inistrators. In effect, responding
districts reported that 42. 59 per cent of the training time was
allocated at the district level, with the preponderant 57.41 per cent
of time spent at the schools.
Financing the programs
Strong budgets w ere not listed as one of the major points of
most of the district program s. Some districts underwrote expenses
in a substantial investment, but this was a rarity . Many did invest
indirectly through released time for participation in adm inistrative
duties. The concept of a set schedule of days off from teaching
assignments for adm inistrative duty seemed popular with certain
districts. Generally no extra reim bursem ent was given m em bers of
the adm inistrative trainee group. Many districts assessed the
candidates the costs of testing by which trainee selection was made.
105
F u rtherm ore, in those d istricts requiring concurrent enrollm ent in
college educational adm inistration courses, the trainee was expected
to handle tuition responsibilities.
The mean figure listed as program cost was $13, 572 in the
eighteen districts responding, which ranged from $300 to $80,000.
The median figure was $6,000. However, total finances generally
did not include the time and m aterial costs that w ere budgeted to
other categories of operation.
Methodology of training
Many techniques were reported by the responding districts
for the conduct of their training sessions. Most recom mended was
directed participation. Others checked included lecture, discussion,
”in -b a sk e t," assigned projects, com m ittee work, panels, practical
dem onstrations, use of log books, and case studies.
Activities mentioned in the reporting program s w ere
m eetings, conferences, visitations, question and answ er panels,
encam pm ents, supervision of teachers, work shops, special
reporting, guided professional reading, interviewing effective
adm inistrators, public relations work, and community resource
utilization.
106
Administrative training areas
The questionnaire listed a series of commonly supported
administrative areas of operation, and respondents were asked to
rank these in three broad categories which were: (1) top level of
priority, (2) fairly important, and (3) not too important. Several
respondents objected to the semantics of title in the last category
believing that all topics suggested were of importance. In effect,
their stated response then was to M of lesser importance" for the third
category considering the problem of analysis in a relative way.
Administrative training areas considered in the order of
their mention (including the reporting mean) are listed in Table 7.
Relationship with universities
Of districts queried, ten (25 per cent) replied that their
programs were coordinated with universities in field work develop
ment. Another twelve (30 per cent) gave a negative report, while
eighteen (45 per cent) reported that they were not necessarily so
structured. A hazy area was indicated, for some districts were
pending the establishment of a coordinated program with the colleges,
and others were exploring closer relationships. Many programs had
been structured initially by the colleges and universities, and many
were still closely associated with the universities. There apparently
was an inescapable involvement with the intern concept which
TABLE 7
THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING AREAS AS
REPORTED BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS CONDUCTING ADMINISTRATOR
PRESERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS
Areas were listed in three categories: (1) top level of priority, (2) fairly important, (3) not
too important. Number of Districts Reporting
Rank Area 1 2 3 Mean Response
1. Curriculum development 35 6 1 1.190
-
Supervision of instruction 35 6 1 1.190
3. Child growth and development 31 10 0 1.244
4. Interpersonal relationships 32 8 2 1.286
5. District philosophy 28 10 3 1.390
6. School organization 26 15 1 1.402
-
Public Relations 26 15 1 1.402
8. Personnel administration 19 18 2 1. 5464
9. In-service training 21 13 6 1.625
10. Orientation procedures 20 12 7 1.667
TABLE 7 -- Continued
Areas were listed in three categories: (1) top level of priority, (2) fairly important, (3) not
too important.
Number of Districts Reporting
Rank Area 1 2 3 Mean Response
11. General management 16 21 4 1.750
12. Discipline 17 16 6 1.718
13. Counseling program 12 26 2 1.750
14. Co-curriculum 11 20 8 1.923
15. Scheduling students and staff 9 25 6 1.925
16. Controversial issues 10 20 10 2.000
17. Budgeting (business administration) 8 21 10 2.071
18. Attendance procedures 7 22 10 2.077
19. Buildings and grounds 7 19 13 2.154
20. Legal aspects 4 21 13 2.237
109
operates at various levels of definition.
When asked whether an effort was being made to coordinate
the program further with field work o r intern program s, the d istrict
answ ers varied widely. In a sim ple "yes-no" response, twenty-
seven M yes" answ ers w ere given (65. 9 per cent) and fourteen "no"
replies w ere recorded (34. 1 per cent).
The answ ers to the "open-end" question on participation
w ere revealing. Many d istricts that w ere situated near colleges and
universities w ere amicably associated in coordinated program s.
Other school districts w ere seeking closer ties with higher educa
tion, especially in the search for supervisory assistance. Sem inar
experiences provided by the colleges have given positive rew ards for
school adm inistrator training program s.
The nature of the relationship between colleges and districts
that sponsor adm inistration development program s generally
consisted of supervision, consultant assistan ce, district or college-
centered sem inar work, and in increasing num b ers--d irected intern
participation.
Authority for the trainee
Responses to the inquiry whether the trainees w ere given
direct authority for their function in the program varied. Form ally,
twenty school d istricts listed "yes" answ ers, and twenty-two replied
110
in the negative. The open-end comments expressed a m easure of
the philosophical approach and legal interpretation.
The traditional concern of responsibility without authority
was raised. T rainees w ere often given as much authority as they
legally could be to support their assigned duties. One district
emphasized the m erit of having trainees possess an adm inistrative
credential so they could unequivocally act for the principal if so
assigned. A few districts w ere reluctant to give too much authority
to a provisional trainee. The rationale was that it is unwise to
extend authority to a person whom you are admittedly examining to
determ ine whether or not he can assum e authority.
A predictable concern was the supervisory role of the
trainee in relation to his contem poraries in the teaching ranks.
Careful structuring, defining, and clear-cut communication explain
ing the adm inistrator training program details to the staff alleviated
teacher criticism .
Although participation and action w ere reported as signifi
cant parts of most program s, a minority sentiment proposed
’’observation only" as the answer to the responsibility versus
authority question.
In reality, the trainees appeared to be given as much
responsibility and concomitant authority as the supervising principal
I l l
would sanction for the occasion.
Heightening interpersonal experiences
Reactions to the questionnaire section on interpersonal
experiences established that this could be the "everyone is talking
about it and nobody is doing much about it” category in contemporary
adm inistrator training programs.
Included in comments on heightening interpersonal experi
ences were:
Frequent conferences
Provision of day-to-day contacts in school operation
Discussion of problem situations
Emphasis of the importance of this aspect of education
Frequent use of demonstration teaching
Participation
Opportunities for the intern to interact with personnel
Assignment of specified positions and promotion of
work with people
Development of joint projects involving the intern with
teachers, chairmen and adm inistrators
Normal exposure in the administrative training program
Planned assignments and experiences
Role playing
Exposure to personnel in the field
Introduction of trainee to new and challenging situations
Rotation of trainees through various positions
Chairmanship responsibility on committees
Evaluation and analysis of actual situations that
arise while assigned in the program
Clear-cut recommendations were obscured by generalities.
The category of enriching and training in interpersonal relationships
may be advanced by broader research.
112
Experience in teaching as a criteria
for selection of administrators
Notwithstanding current state requirem ents for the ce rtifi
cation of adm inistrators in term s of prerequisite teaching experience,
respondents were asked to state their opinion on the subject. The
mean teaching time suggested before adm inistrator placement was
four years, and the median tim e four years. Responses varied from
one to ten years, as reported in Table 8.
Administrative jobs
D istricts were asked to list the job titles that w ere con
sidered adm inistrative in their d istricts. Replies are listed in
Table 9. Chief district adm inistrators w ere eliminated from the
survey, although some indication of responses for the various titles
such as "director" may have included district personnel.
Priority of adm inistrative assignm ent
for district trainees
The m ajority of districts responding (forty-one of forty-six)
indicated that they hired adm inistrators from the "outside" and
"inside." A key phase in the description of most adm inistrator
training program s was that no guarantee was to be given for
adm inistrative placement, and generally trainees would necessarily
compete with outside applicants. Some districts, such as Riverside,
113
TABLE 8
NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE
RECOMMENDED BY RESPONDENTS PRIOR
TO ADMINISTRATOR PLACEMENT
Years of Experience Number of Respondents
1 3
2 1
3 13
4 6
5 17
6 1
10 1
N = 42
Mean years teaching experience recommended 4.0 years
Median years teaching experience recommended 4.0 years
114
TABLE 9
TITLES OF JOBS CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVE
BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS SPONSORING
ADMINISTRATOR PRESERVICE
TRAINING PROGRAMS
Principal 48
A ssistant Principal 42
Vice Principal 20
Unit A dm inistrator 12
Child W elfare and Attendance Officer 15
D irector 41
Guidance Counselor 15
Subject M atter Consultant 14
Deans 11
Adm inistrative A ssistant 1
Supervisor 1
Helping T eacher 11
Coordinators 11
115
California, have in recent years placed the substantial m ajority of
their new adm inistrators from within the program , and five other
districts stated they promoted from the inside only.
However, on an all-things-equal basis, traditionally the
extra consideration was given to the internal applicant who has been
through the training program . Of forty-six responding districts,
forty-two (91.3 per cent) reported they do give such extra considera
tion.
In recent adm inistrator placements of responding districts,
80.14 per cent (mean response) were hired from within the district.
A reported 68. 90 per cent of those placed in adm inistrative positions
w ere from the training group. Outside applicants were hired for
19.86 per cent of the adm inistrative positions.
CHAPTER VI
AN EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
PRESERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS
One answer to the increasing national concern for the identi
fication and training of future school adm inistrators certainly could
be the school district-sponsored adm inistrator preservice training
program. This survey ascertained that adm inistrator development
program s were considered worthwhile and that such program s under
a range of operational criteria could be readily established by school
system s.
School districts in the United States which have conducted
adm inistrator preservice training program s definitely favor such a
developmental approach for providing a competent adm inistrator
corps. Numerous variations in the organizational format of existing
program s were noted; yet a basic structure consonant in all programs
could be identified. The degree of enthusiasm for adm inistrator
training program s differed from district to district, although all
reports were in a positive area.
116
117
This chapter draws together the varying threads of adm in
istra to r training program s as reported by school districts which
sponsor adm inistrator development program s. The experience of
the districts has ranged from the first year effort of five districts to
the seasoned experience of over two decades reported by the most
veteran school district. Examination of the recommendations of the
school districts and findings reported through survey resulted in the
projection of desirable points for inclusion in an adm inistrator p re
service training program as part of Chapter VII.
The evaluation of the findings considered the organization,
selection procedures, program content, and adm inistrative place
ment. Constructive comments on the success of their program w ere
made on the questionnaire by many school districts and are reported
as part of the evaluation.
Organization
A ssistance in the organization of adm inistrator preservice
training program s was often provided by colleges and universities.
Phoenix mentioned the excellent cooperation of Arizona State
University. Atlanta also coordinated closely with area colleges as
did the Evanston, Illinois, Livonia, and Syracuse, New York districts.
Many school districts indicated an optional arrangem ent whereby
118
required field work could be completed in conjunction with the
adm inistrator training program.
A concern of the Prescott, Arizona, Administrative Trainee
Program was adequate financing. The questionnaire from the San
Juan School District in Carmichael, California, also stated that
sufficient funds must be provided in order to afford the trainees
ample on-the-job experience. However, the program costs reported
by the responding districts covered a wide range, and the variety of
information and details provided obfuscated a conclusive and con
sistent evaluation.
The often reported responsibility for trainees to meet many
of their own costs in the program certainly should be questioned.
Testing fees often were covered by applicants which would have a
tendency to discourage otherwise qualified personnel. One admin
istrator commented that a slight extra salary stipend would have
allowed a better program. At times he felt there was a limit as to
how much extra time and duty the trainees should be expected to
invest even though they may have been expressly willing (or at least
willing at the time of initial application) to dedicate the extra hours
as well as certain funds.
Both district-level and school-level training were reported
significant for successful program operation. Districts whose
119
stated programs were well-organized also appeared to have the more
successful results.
Program titles were varied and some effort to consolidate
vocabulary in the field of adm inistrator training would be desirable.
The frequently-used term ’’intern" lacks broad definition and was
often assigned to m em bers of the adm inistrator training program
even when the program was completely self-contained with no
assistance from a university. A growing national definition involves
this term with joint program s conducted by school districts and the
universities. Apparently there is no national body for adjudging
titles.
The majority of districts replied that they consider their
adm inistrator preservice training program s an in-service experience
for incumbent adm inistrators. However, there was little open-end
comment to substantiate and detail such a learning experience for
adm inistrative participants. Nevertheless, the in-service aspect
might be a dimension of real significance. The districts that do
involve large numbers of adm inistrators in conducting the program
expressed their strong interest in the in-service training prospects.
Although formal in-service training program s for active adm inistra
tors were not technically considered in the survey, per se, the
belief was expressed by responding districts that adm inistrator
120
training program s can and should be used as stimulation for function
ing adm inistrators as an adjunct to preservice adm inistrator develop
ment.
Selection Procedures
An a re a that the survey approached superficially and one
that was revealed to have many further implications for educational
adm inistration was the determ ination of the number of teachers who
are interested in becoming adm inistrators. The figures of 6. 24 per
cent of m ale faculty m em bers and 2. 30 per cent of the female faculty
m em bers may be somewhat misleading. Initially, there was a wide
range of answ ers given. Then there was little to suggest that an
accurate determ ination based on in trad istrict survey work had ever
been completed. In 1960 an inform al request for such information
as to what part of the total faculty had adm inistrative aspirations in
the Anaheim, California, Union High School D istrict brought su b
stantially over a 50 per cent response. The current questionnaire
was not developed to probe this point in depth. The dimensions of
area growth, section of the country, and other variables could
properly be explored in further survey work. Another im portant
dimension that the survey did not reveal was how positive w ere
recruiting program s to identify potentially strong adm inistrators on
121
teaching faculties toward encouraging their application for adminis -
trato r development.
The influence of salaries as a motivating factor in adm in
istrato r interest was not probed. Salary factors undoubtedly shade
reported teacher interest, since salary is the first reason given for
adm inistrative aspiration according to the yearbook of the American
Association of School Administrators (13).
Although adm inistrator preservice training program s
reported by the responding school districts were open to m en and
women, it was clear that men were the predominant enrollees.
Although not pursued in the survey, some open-end answers to the
questionnaire pointed out that the subject of women in school
adm inistration and the future need for such personnel would be a
worthy topic for further study.
A fundamental problem for selection in adm inistrator
development program s was concern for hiring teachers with
adm inistrator potential. Although many replies to the questionnaire
indicated such preliminary hiring, corroborative statements in the
open-end section were disappointing. M r. Bruce Miller, Superin
tendent of the Riverside, California, Unified School D istrict was
asked for follow-up amplification on the subject. He directly con
firm ed the importance attached to early recognition of adm inistrative
122
potential. In a personal interview, M r. M iller stated that the
Riverside program had achieved great success in the long-range
planning departm ent for adm inistrative staffing.
One of the m ajor program s for many industries and business
concerns is hiring toward executive training. The infusion of large
numbers of potentially good adm inistrators would create a positive
aspect to the supply-demand situation clearly existing in the person
nel area of education as well as industry. T here is a negative factor
h ere as in the entire concept of training for future adm inistrators.
This could be expressed as the frustration of the otherw ise strong
teacher by encouraging him toward adm inistration and then not
placing him in adm inistration because of talent o r num bers lim ita
tions. This, as faced by industry, m ust be a calculated risk in the
personnel area as pointed out by several survey respondents.
Attempting to make the selection process m ore objective
was a goal of many school d istricts which conducted adm inistrator
development program s. However, when the final listing was
recorded on the actual basis for selection to the program , the age-
old subjective estim ate of adm inistrative potential received the top
standing. Grades on a perform ance potential test w ere listed as
fifth place following the subjective estim ate and principal’s reco m
mendation, teaching perform ance, and interpersonal relationships.
123
Although most districts use testing as one facet of rating,
the results were not considered distinguished. Undoubtedly the
major reason for the questionable rating status came with difficulty
in establishing criteria for validity determination. The literature
previously reported the problems inherent in utilizing personality
type tests as a selection criterion. Many districts expressed the
hope that greater research effort in the testing area might enhance
this area for selection consideration.
Comments were made regarding the criteria of adm inistra
tive certification, teaching experience, and educational background.
In most states certification requires three to five years of teaching
experience as well as appropriate educational training. The con
sideration was expressed that a trainee should be capable through
proper certification of assuming an administrative job at the
completion of the adm inistrator training program. Districts also
expected the applicants for trainee status to have adequate time
within the district for a reasonable performance estimate based on
the district’s educational program.
Program Content
The adm inistrator training programs revealed that a variety
of activities and techniques are used in presenting information to
124
trainees. Directed participation of the trainees was clearly the
preponderant choice of reporting districts. Phoenix emphasized the
need for a broad variety of techniques in the training approach as did
the Fresno, California, school district.
The rank order listing of adm inistrative training areas as
determined by respondents to the survey appeared in Chapter V of
this study. Certainly the curriculum and growth and development
areas show a fundamental concern for the educative process. The
relative high ranking of interpersonal relationships pointed out the
marked importance of this emerging area of educational concern.
Unfortunately the high ranking of interpersonal relationships
was not matched with extensive commentary in the open-end section
as to how this is best effected. Some areas for the interchange of
human to human expression and thinking were mentioned, but there
was also concern that greater research could positively be imple
mented in this area.
A detailed listing of topics for inclusion in an adm inistrator
preservice training program conducted by school districts is
included in Appendix I of this survey. This was determined by an
appraisal of the literature and responses to the survey.
125
Adm inistrative Placement
Many comments w ere made in the literatu re and on the
survey reports on the placement of graduate adm inistrator trainees.
Most d istricts w ere reluctant to place total reliance on their
program s for the provision of all adm inistrator needs. The fear of
inbreeding was a real one. However, reporting d istricts would
favor their internal candidates on an "all things equal" basis.
The Riverside program has not been hesitant in requiring
completion of its adm inistrator training program as prerequisite for
adm inistrative placement. Superintendent M iller reported alm ost
complete dependence on the program for placement of adm inistrators
through building principals. A few assistan t superintendents have
been hired from the outside. Riverside has expressed great con
fidence and success in their approach.
General Comments on the Survey
An overview to school district-sponsored adm inistrator
training program s is provided in district sum m ary statem ents.
Phoenix Union High School System,
Phoenix, Arizona
We feel our A dm inistrator Training Program is working
very nicely. It does take a lot of time for the personnel
m anager. However, we feel the program is going to give us
126
a better selection of adm inistrators, plus the fact that they
will have had some in-service training to better fit them for
the adm inistrative position. We have found the neighboring
university very helpful to us in preparing bibliographies and
keeping up on the reading which the ordinary working adm in
istrator does not have time for.
Jefferson Union School District,
San Jose, California
Selection criteria is the most crucial factor in a trainee
program .
San Juan Unified School District,
Carmichael, California
A solid training program can be a tremendous asset in the
selection of adm inistrative personnel and can eliminate to a
great degree the political aspect of selection. The training
program cannot be handled in a 'namby-pamby' manner. This
approach m erely builds false hopes which in effect, compounds
your problem. A district must be as forthright and as objec
tive as humanly possible in evaluating the trainees regardless
of the fact that some current adm inistrators could not pass
the scrutiny of the program.
Jefferson County Schools,
Denver, Colorado
It is a must. Colleges and universities do not provide the
forward thrust needed for educational leaders.
DeKalb County Schools,
Decatur, Georgia
Our program is basically one of identifying potential admin
istrato rs from within our own ranks, providing courses for
them, encouraging them to plan doctoral program s, providing
orientation to our philosophy, and providing experiences for
them that will aid their training. These persons perform these
127
duties in addition to their regular assignm ent.
Columbus City Schools,
Columbus, Ohio
We have two objectives in our cadet training program :
(1) to broaden views of the trainee from one school to the
entire city system , and (2) to enlighten the cadet on the
operating procedures of the central office.
W arren City Schools,
W arren, Ohio
The Cadet Training Program is a good program as long as
good m aterial is available. However, the elem entary source
is drying up, due to scarcity of men going into elem entary
education. The program always leaves a backlash of d is
gruntled people. They should be told frankly why they a re not
suggested.
Tredyffrin-Easttow n Elem entary
Schools and Paoli A rea High
School, Berwyn, Pa.
This program has become a firm part of our ad m in istra
tive practices. It has enabled us to determ ine the potential
within our ranks and has given the staff a constructive and
positive basis for professional advancement.
Yankton Public Schools,
Yankton, South Dakota
Our idea is to select good staff m em bers--w atch them.--
keep ahead of our need and begin giving "jobs” to prospective
candidates and see how they respond.
128
Roanoke Schools,
Roanoke, Virginia
The program was fine in-service training experience for
our teachers. It gave them valuable experiences and enabled
those responsible for employing them an opportunity to see
them in many situations. Our system is not large enough to
need this program every year.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Purpose and the Procedure
Statement of the purpose
The study was designed to ascertain the common character
istics of successful current program s of adm inistrator preservice
training conducted by school districts in the United States and to
propose a recommended program which would combine appropriate
characteristics. Specifically, the study sought to answer the
following questions:
1. Does school district size influence the establish
ment of adm inistrator preservice training programs?
2. What organizational patterns are commonly utilized
in adm inistrator training program s?
3. What selection criteria are most frequently used by
districts sponsoring adm inistrator preservice
training?
129
130
4. How are adm inistrator preservice training
programs operated by sponsoring school
districts?
5. What is the structural content of administrator
training programs?
6. Do adm inistrator preservice training programs
have collateral value as in-service training for
participating adm inistrators?
7. In school districts conducting adm inistrator
preservice training program s, are administrative
appointments provided for successful graduates of
the programs?
Procedure
The normative survey design by which this study was
effected necessitated the identification of school districts in the
United States that conduct adm inistrator training program s on a
structured basis. It was also necessary to develop a survey instru
ment by which common characteristics of the training programs
could be compared and evaluated.
School districts involved in such adm inistrator development
work were located by:
1. A survey of the literature which identified many
districts occupied with creative program s for
training school adm inistrators.
2. Reference to those districts which have been
utilizing the Educational Testing Service adm in
istrato r and supervisor test series.
3. Directing a letter requesting such information to:
(a) professors of educational adm inistration at
universities having departments of educational
adm inistration, (b) executive se cretaries of
adm inistrator organizations of the various states,
and (c) state superintendents of education in the
fifty states.
This phase of inquiry was assisted by the California
Association of School A dm inistrators.
A questionnaire was prepared with assistance of professors
at the University of Southern California, students in a graduate
sem inar at the University of Southern California, and active school
adm inistrators whose work has placed them in position to have
special knowledge in this area.
The survey instrum ent was sent to the 107 districts
identified as possibly qualifying under the definitions established for
the study. A response of 87 per cent was realized from the first
132
letter and one follow-up request for assistance. A total of fifty usable
responses was received from school districts which sponsor admin
istrator preservice training programs.
The Computer Sciences Laboratory at the University of
Southern California assisted in processing the responses under a non
funded research grant. Data excluding open-end information were
subjected to machine tabulation and computation.
On the basis of the answers provided through the survey
instrument, recommended guidelines were developed for adm inistra
tor training programs conducted by school districts.
Summary of the Survey Findings
Administrative aspects
1. The mean enrollment of the fifty reporting districts
which have adm inistrator training programs was
39,865; however, effective programs were reported
in small districts as well as major metropolitan
centers. The mean number of schools in the dis
tricts included thirty-four elementary schools,
nine junior high schools, and five high schools.
2. The several organizational patterns reported have
been analyzed and reviewed in previous chapters
133
of this study. No particular type was considered
best as far as adm inistrator training program s
are concerned, although districts reporting adm in
istrator training committees were among the more
successful.
3. A variety of program titles was reported although
Adm inistrator Training Program and Administrative
Intern Program were most common. Altogether
twenty-six different titles were indicated by the
fifty districts reporting names for participants,
although the most common were intern and trainee.
4. The mean length of time for program operation
reported was 6. 25 years.
5. The chief responsible officer for the development
and control of adm inistrator training program s was
usually a district official, but the main training
officer was the school principal.
6. Respondents reported that 6. 24 per cent of the men
in the total teaching force and 2. 30 per cent of the
women a re interested in school administration.
7. The program s were judged "extrem ely effective” by
i
26.1 per cent of the responding districts, "very
134
effective” by 43. 5 per cent, "satisfactory” by 28.3
per cent, while only one district indicated the
program was of "m inim al a s sista n c e .”
8. Of responding d istricts, thirty-six (78.3 per cent),
indicated they consider their program an in -serv ice
training experience for participating adm inistrators.
T rainee selection process
1. T rainees w ere norm ally selected by d istrict officials
in twenty-two d istricts (48.9 per cent of those
responding), while a joint decision between the d is
tric t and school-level officials was reported by
thirteen d istricts (28.9 per cent). Committee
decision was the determ ining factor in ten districts
(22. 2 per cent).
2. Hiring of teachers with strong adm inistrative potential
and toward possible long-range adm inistrative assig n
ments was reported by thirty-four d istricts (70.9 per
cent).
3. Objective tests w ere used by twenty-eight d istricts
(58.3 per cent) for screening purposes.
4. An "extrem ely effective” rating was given by six
districts (22. 2 per cent) as their im pression of their
135
testing program. Another twelve programs
(44.4 per cent) were adjudged "effective," and
nine districts (33. 3 per cent) considered their
programs "satisfactory."
5. A wide variety of tests was reported in use,
including many district-developed forms.
6. Teaching experience of 3. 735 years (mean figure)
was required by the thirty-six districts that
responded to this question on the survey form.
Teaching in the district prior to selection for the
adm inistrator development program was mandated
in thirty-three districts with a mean required
district teaching experience of 1.523 years.
7. Candidates for the adm inistrator training program
were expected to have, or be taking, parallel admin
istrator course work at college in thirty-three
districts (70. 2 per cent). Fifty per cent of the
reporting districts required candidates to hold the
appropriate administrative credential.
8. The m aster of arts degree was required by twenty-
nine of forty-seven answering districts (61.7 per cent),
136
while of twelve of forty-two (28. 6 per cent) indicated
that the doctorate or work toward it was important
for planning purposes. Applicants were interviewed
in 61 per cent of the reporting districts by superin
tendents, in 72. 5 per cent of the districts by the
personnel officer, and in 51.8 per cent of the
districts by the school principal.
9. Selection criteria in order of rank (based on a seven
point scale with the mean response figure listed)
included: subjective estim ate of adm inistrative
potential (2.571), principal's recommendation (2.643),
teaching performance (2.795), interpersonal relation
ships (3. 436), grade on test (4. 286), m aster of arts
degree o r higher (4. 515), references from college
instructors or other personnel (5. 194).
10. The m ean number of trainees selected for district-
sponsored adm inistrator training program s was 14. 3
with a median indicated of ten trainees. The largest
training program s included sixty, fifty, and forty-five
trainees, respectively, while several school district
program s operated with a single trainee.
137
Program operation and content
1. The mean length of time for the preservice adm inistra
tor training program operation was 11.3 months. A
range was reported from a minimum of three months
to a maximum of thirty months.
2. The trainee spent 42. 59 per cent of his time at the
district level of operation and 57.41 per cent at the
schools.
3. The calculation of program cost proved a difficult
problem. Rough estimates for the total program
expenses yielded a mean cost figure of $13, 572 in
the eighteen districts responding with a range of from
$300 to $80,000. The more meaningful median
figure was $6,000.
4. Administrative areas of operation were rated on a
"three" point scale with "one” the top rating. Response
listed (with mean posted):
a. Curriculum development (1. 190)
b. Supervision of instruction (1.190)
c. Interpersonal relationships (1. 286)
d. District philosophy (1. 390)
e. Child growth and development (1. 244)
f. School organization (1.402)
g-
Public relations (1.402)
h. Personnel adm inistration (1.5464)
i . In-service training (1. 667
j •
Orientation procedures (1. 667)
k. General management (1.707)
1 . Discipline (1. 718)
m. Counseling program (1.750)
n. Co-curriculum (1.923)
o. Scheduling students and staff (1.925)
P-
C ontroversial issues (2.000)
q.
Budgeting (business adm inistration) (2.071)
r. Attendance procedures (2.071)
s. Buildings and grounds (2. 154)
t . Legal aspects (2. 237)
Most of the reporting school districts have an
unstructured relationship with colleges in term s
of meeting the field work requirem ent for admin
istra to r certification.
The m ajority of responding school districts were
responsive to the concept of g reater cooperation
with colleges and universities in the field work
139
program . (There w ere "yes" answ ers for g reater
cooperation from twenty-seven d is tric ts - -65.9 per
cent of those responding.)
7. Many d istricts w ere reluctant to give authority to
trainees com m ensurate with assigned tasks. Veiled
legal im plications and m orale problem s seem ed to
deter action in this area.
8. A wide range of techniques w ere described for height
ening interpersonal relationships although little
objective information appeared available as to how
this might best be done.
9. The m ajority of d istric ts, 78.3 per cent, consider
their active adm inistrators supervising the program
as receiving in -serv ice growth.
Selection of adm inistrators
1. Respondents suggested a mean teaching experience
time of four years p rio r to selection as an adm in
istra to r. The median response was four years, and
the range was from one to ten years of experience.
2. Principal and assistan t principal were the m ost
common adm inistrative jobs reported by school
districts and would appear the logical a re a s for
140
concentration in adm inistrator development program s.
3. An overwhelming majority (forty-one of forty-six
districts) reported they obtain adm inistrators both from
"without" and "within" the district.
4. On an alb things-equal basis, forty-two of forty-six
districts (91.3 per cent) indicated they would advance
personnel to adm inistration from within the school
district.
5. School districts reported that 80.14 per cent of the
newly assigned adm inistrators were advanced from
within the district, while 68.90 per cent of those
placed in adm inistrative positions had been mem bers
of the adm inistrator training group. Outside applicants
were hired for 19. 86 per cent of the adm inistrative
jobs.
Developing an Effective Adm inistrator Preservice
Training Program Conducted by School Districts
The following findings are sum m arized so as to constitute
a guide for the establishment of an adm inistrator training program by
school districts for teachers interested in becoming school admin
istrators.
Purpose
A statem ent of purpose appears essential to the successful
development of a tailored adm inistrator development program .
Normally the purpose might include:
1. The identification of teaching personnel predicted to
have potential as school adm inistrators.
2. Training toward an understanding of the functions of
school adm inistration in the school district.
3. The development of a strong technical efficiency in
school adm inistration.
4. The elimination of teaching personnel adjudged of
lim ited adm inistrative potential from the training
program .
5. The development of strong educational adm inistrators
not only for the school district, but also for the total
profession.
6. The in-service development of select adm inistrators
who function in a supervisory capacity in the adm in
istrato r training program .
7. Promotion in the d istrict teaching staff of better
understanding the role of the school adm inistrator.
8. Effecting a better working relationship with a
142
neighboring institution of higher education whose
personnel would a ssist with the program.
9. Improving public awareness in and promulgating
information pertinent to the profession of educa
tional administration.
10. Continuing evaluation of the adm inistrative structure
of the district.
Organizational details
The school district should establish basic rules of operation
supporting the purpose. The length of the training program need be
ascertained as well as criteria for selection. The number of
trainees is of paramount consideration. The experience of districts
which successfully sponsor an adm inistrator preservice training
program indicates that two or three trainees should be selected for
each predictable opening the following year in the administrative
ranks of the district. If a large number of adm inistrative openings
are projected, an appropriate number would be two, while a sm aller
district, to reach any efficiency level, should schedule three
trainees per predicted opening.
The concept should be clearly established that trainees
would be expected to compete with outside applicants for ultimate
selection as adm inistrators, although they would be given every
143
consideration and preference on an all-things-equal basis.
A long-range executive development approach should be
implemented through the initial hiring of teachers with administrative
potential. Procuring teachers may be aided through the development
of a structured interview form, a section of which could be relegated
to probing questions that would establish interest in and aptitude for
administration. An objective test for teacher placement should be
screened with administrative aptitude in mind. An indirect benefit
may be obtained in the exclusion of some teacher applicants who may
possess anti-adm inistrator attitudes. A statement of the district
philosophy for administrative development and placement as well as
a detailed explanation of the adm inistrator training program should
be made available to all teachers in the district. Certainly the
training of the teacher to understand the role of adm inistrators should
begin with the initial hiring.
The personnel office has the responsibility of making
available to interested teachers information on the requirements for
the administrative credential and where courses required for the
administrative credential may be completed.
Responsible officials
The organizational details should specify the responsible
official for the development of the program and for *its continuing
144
operation. The d istrict personnel director would be closely involved
and is the logical person to develop and operate the program .
Records of the trainees should be maintained in the personnel office.
The personnel director also should be the best inform ed as to which
district adm inistrators might be the m ost effective as supervising
adm inistrators. F u rth erm o re, the in -serv ice development of adm in
istra to rs would be a function of the personnel officer.
The findings indicate, however, that a com m ittee approach
is the m ost effective form of organization to handle the total program
of planning, selecting, training, and evaluating. T herefore, a stand
ing com m ittee for adm inistrator training should be named. The
chairm an should be the personnel d irecto r and the com m ittee might
consist of the training principals, d istric t staff people, and possibly
a college consultant-advisor. Three to seven m em bers a re suggested
as m ost effective.
An adequate budget should be established for the operation of
the program , and much latitude is offered in this a rea . A certain
amount of released tim e should be made available to the trainees who
would continue to function in their teaching assignm ent. The released
tim e would enable them to visit other schools, perform adm inistrative
assignm ents, and visit the district office. An extra pay stipend,
m odest in nature, would partially com pensate the trainee for some
145
overtim e commitment and time involvement prior to and subsequent
to the school year.
M aterial and supply needs would be minimal, but a dinner
meeting program and a final conference should properly represent
areas for at least partial district contribution. Also some funds
would be necessary to meet testing costs. A budget of $300 to $500
per trainee would be a good range for planning. Costs of the program
including district personnel time should be estim ated for an accurate
cost development. Personnel time, however, would not necessarily
result in increased cost to the district other than as a reallocation of
the time of existing personnel.
Administrative aspects
An appropriate title would be the school district A dm inistra
tor Training Program, and teachers in the program should be
identified as trainees. The term intern should be reserved for pro
gram s sponsored by colleges and universities with adjunct assistance
from the school districts.
Selection criteria
The findings report that the key to the program is in the
accurate determination of the best possible personnel for tra in e e s--
in effect, the selection process. C riteria are clearly critical.
146
G eneral c rite ria . - -The program norm ally should be open
to both m en and women. An appropriate age lim it should be con
sid ered , and the range of tw enty-eight to fifty y ears of age is
suggested through analysis of survey resp o n se, with som e option for
special reaso n s. The minim um age should allow for adequate te ach
ing experience and perhaps other significant experiences such as the
arm ed fo rc es, post-graduate w ork, and business o r professional
experience. The m axim um age is suggested because the train ee
should have enough teaching c a re e r tim e to make a significant con
tribution to the d istric t as an ad m in istrato r p rio r to retirem en t.
The teaching experience req u ired may be dictated by sta te
law in te rm s of the req u isite for certificatio n as an ad m in istra to r.
The re se a rc h findings suggest that personnel should be certificated
for adm inistration p rio r to acceptance in the program , o r be
eligible for certificatio n by the close of the training period. In
addition, four y ears of successful teaching experience including at
le a st one y ear in the school d istric t should be req u ired for candidacy
in the program . S ince applications should be made in the sp rin g for
a program that would com m ence in the fall, application may be made
in the spring of the f irs t y ear in the d istric t.
The m a ste r of a rts degree should be the m inim um educa
tional standard with preferen ce given those with a doctorate o r
147
adm itted to a doctoral program .
The ad m in istrato r training com m ittee would then consider
each applicant based on the objective evaluation of the following
item s:
1. Application form
2. References (from the appropriate building principal,
d istric t officials, and outside personnel)
3. Evaluation of teaching su ccess
4. Grade tra n sc rip ts (establishing m a ster of a rts
degree plus reasonable academ ic success)
5. R esults of ad m in istrato r aptitude tests
6. Perform ance on a stru ctu red interview arran g ed
by the com m ittee
7. Evidence of pro p er certification _ _
8. Evaluation of placem ent file (if available)
Application fo rm . - -The application form should consist of
appropriate data including:
Name
A ddress and phone num ber
Age
M arital statu s, including fam ily
Sum m ary of educational background
Y ears and location of teaching experience, and subjects
taught
M ajors and m inors
C ertification inform ation
Professional organizations
Outside organizations
Honors and aw ards
Hobbies and special in terests
A reas of special professional in te re sts ( i . e . , w riting,
audio-visual, public relatio n s, e tc .)
A b rief statem ent o f ’ explanation as to why candidate
d esires to participate in the ad m in istrato r training
program
A b rief self-evaluation of a re a s in which applicant could
contribute as a school ad m in istrato r
148
A brief statem ent of personal educational philosophy
including the candidate's perceptions of the
ad m in istrato r's role
Testing. - -Candidates for The A dm inistrator Training
Program should be required to take an adm inistrative aptitude test
such as the eighty-m inute School A dm inistration and Supervision T est
developed by The Educational Testing Service. If tim e is available
and a m ore detailed investigation of the candidate's background is
deem ed desirable, the 200-minute National T eacher Examination,
"Common Exam inations," of The Educational Testing Service o r a
sim ila r test, should also be adm inistered. The la tte r test provides
inform ation on general professional knowledge, w ritten English
expression, and cultural background inform ation.
O peration
The experience of d istricts m aintaining successful adm in
is tra to r p reserv ice training program s suggests that the ad m in istra
tive training program consist of two basic sections. The first
rep resen ts school-level training under the direction of a supervising
principal. Fundamental categories of school adm inistration would
be covered by the supervising principal, and p rescrib ed ad m in istra
tive areas would be explored by an established calendar date to dove
tail with d istrict-lev el m eetings. However, the general ad m in istra
tive points may be properly explored as they a rise in the norm al
149
co u rse of school operation. F u rth e rm o re , the length of tim e o r
em phasis of any adm inistrative point should be determ ined by the
su p ervising principal and should be based on im portance in that school
scene as well as on the background and experience of the train ee.
V arious techniques should be utilized and a guide book of
reso u rc e m a terials and techniques m ade available to the supervising
principal. This guide book could appropriately be developed by the
A dm inistrative T raining C om m ittee.
Since a teacher is assigned to eith er an elem entary o r a
secondary school, the ad m in istrativ e training area s should be
refined to: (1) those a re a s that a re approxim ately the sam e re g a rd
le ss of grade-level, and (2) those that a re specific to eith er
elem entary o r secondary school-level. Findings suggest that it is
d esirab le to expose the train ee not only to his own ad m in istrativ e
g rad e-lev el, but also to details pertinent to the other level. This can
best be done through tem porary assignm ent to a supervising principal
at the other g rad e-lev el.
M ethods and techniques
Having established fundam ental a re a s of adm inistration that
should be encom passed at the school-level and d istric t-le v e l through
an ap p raisal of the lite ra tu re on the subject and survey rep o rts (see
Appendix I), it is d esirab le to a sc e rta in the m ore effective techniques
150
and m ethods by which these a re a s m ay be b est p resen ted . Many
v ariab les n ec essitate the individual tailo rin g of m ethods, but broad
recom m endations a re listed .
A m onthly program is one suggestion for d is tric t-le v e l
p resen tatio n . Since dinner m eetings offer an excellent opportunity
for the prom otion of group identification, som e m eetings should be
developed as dinner se ssio n s.
An overnight encam pm ent is one technique fo r an im p ressiv e
culm inating activity w here m ore tim e may be made available for
su m m arizin g accom plishm ents of the individuals and the group.
Recognition of the tra in e es and the personnel resp o n sib le for the
train in g program is highly recom m ended by survey respondents.
T echniques and m ethods fo r the d istric t-le v e l p resen tatio n s
m ight also include:
L ectu re
D iscussion
C om m ittee reporting
Panel discussions
P rojects
’T n-basket"
S chool-level. - -D irected p articip atio n was co n sid ered the
best train in g technique by the m ajo rity of rep o rtin g d is tric ts .
151
Undoubtedly the m ost re a listic form of training com es in actual p a r
ticipation on the adm inistrative job. Since many training areas lend
them selves to d irect participation, such guided perform ance should
be the cornerstone of the training program . The trainee should be
given responsibility and com m ensurate authority for the job. P reced
ing such involvem ent, especially w here human relations and in te r
personal action is involved, an inform ation program should be
effected to in su re that all personnel are aw are of the function of the
program and the role of the trainee therein. The promotion of
interpersonal understanding, key to adm inistration, should be
heightened in the adm inistrative training p ro g ram --n o t threatened.
A ssignm ents whereby the train ee w orks closely with teach ers as
individuals and in com m ittees a re generally considered essen tial
for proper training, the findings disclose.
O bservation of the ro le of the principal also can re su lt in
positive inform ation for the train ee. The train ee should be made an
ex officio m em ber of as many com m ittees and groups as possible.
He should work with student organizations and adult support groups.
R esearch reveals that com m unication is another m ajor
block in the path of otherw ise effective ad m in istrato rs. The trainee
should be exposed to as much w riting as can be assigned realistically
toward the advancem ent of com m unications training. The trainee
152
should also be assigned to the ad m in istrativ e council o r cabinet to
p articip ate in planning the school operation. A s p irit of open inquiry
should prevail.
The train ee should be assigned to observe the close function
of other su b ad m in istrato rs, departm ent chairm en, and classified
personnel to savor the total p ictu re of school operation.
Periodic conferences should be arran g ed with the supervising
principal. Both the principal and train ee should w ork to in su re that
a broad rep resen tativ e training program is offered.
Evaluation
The findings indicate evaluation should be a continuing part
of the A dm inistrator T raining P rogram . A perm anent ad m in istrato r
training file for the train ee is suggested. Initially it would be the
recep tacle for the various m a te rials asso ciated with the selection
p ro cess. Subsequently, it should house botfi, thd tra in e e 's logs and
the supervising p rin cip al’s rep o rts as well as^evaluations com pleted
by o th er m em bers of the d istric t staff.
The train ee should subm it a self-evaluation rep o rt and log
after each section of the basic school program . He would detail his
experiences and lis t the area w here he believed special w ork should
be scheduled. The supervising principal should com plete an '
evaluation sum m ary, perhaps q u arte rly , on each train ee as w ell as
153
initial the train ee's report indicating mutual evaluation of pro g ress.
At the end of the year, part of a concluding conference
should be allocated to a sum m ary report on the program by the
trainee and the supervising principal. The d irecto r of personnel
should then prepare a final evaluation on each trainee in conjunction
with the A dm inistrator Training Com m ittee. This would become
part of the train e e's perm anent personnel file.
A final m eeting of the trainee and A dm inistrator Training
Com mittee should be held to discuss the training rating, areas of x
strength and weakness, and some prognosis as to ultim ate adm in
istrativ e placem ent.
Advancement
Respondents to the survey and the literatu re suggest that
since the basic goal of the program is to develop w ell-trained future
ad m in istrato rs, the program will only be successful if the trainees
are given every opportunity and encouragem ent toward adm inistrative
placem ent. The trainee should know where he stands.
Conclusions
1. School d istricts can im prove the caliber of future
adm inistrators by establishing a stru ctu red adm in
istra to r training program . The size of the d istrict
does not seem to be a lim iting factor; however,
d istric ts have a m ore p ressin g need for a strong
program when rapid expansion is involved.
Any of a number of organizational patterns have
resu lted in productive program s; however, d istric ts
reporting the use of ad m in istrato r training com
m ittees appear to develop g reater efficiency and to
involve m ore personnel.
Positive recru itm en t of teachers with future adm in
istra tiv e potential, although technically done, is an
extrem ely casual or subjective consideration.
F u rth erm o re, it is doubtful that d istric ts a re really
aw are of how many of th eir teaching personnel with
adm inistrative potential a re or could be in terested
in school adm inistration.
A c ritic a l aspect of a positive program of adm in
is tra to r training is the selection p ro cess. It is
possible to develop an objective system through
testing, references,and stru ctu re d interview s to
strengthen the calib er of adm inistrative train ee.
Successful teaching background is also a vital p re
req u isite for train e es. However, the subjective
155
judgem ent of key ad m in istra tiv e personnel c a rrie s
the g re a te st w eight in the selectio n p ro cess.
5. E ducational stan d ard s in te rm s of advanced degrees
req u ired for particip atio n in ad m in istra to r p re -
se rv ic e train in g p ro g ram s a r e continually in creasin g .
A m inim um developing sta n d ard is the m a s te r of
a rts degree and the doctorate is being advanced as
a d esira b le goal.
6. T h ere often is a confused relatio n sh ip between
colleges and school sy stem s in the training of
future a d m in istra to rs . School d is tric ts appear
anxious to develop m ore sp ecific coordination with
higher education units. How ever, the colleges m ay
n e c e ssa rily be req u ired to lead in the detailing of a
b e tter organized relatio n sh ip .
7. School d is tric ts generally req u ire the ap p ro p riate
ad m in istrativ e cred en tial o r co u rse w ork tow ard the
cred en tia l for th e ir train e e applicants.
8. The typical a d m in istra to r train in g program la s ts a
y e a r, and is organized by the d is tric t with a d is tric t
perso n in ch arg e. H ow ever, the train e e spends m ost
of the tim e at the sch o o l-lev el and under the su p e r-
vision of the principal. The m ore form alized the
program , the g reater the involvement of the school
d istric t office.
9. Budgetary com m itm ents a re rath er vague and much
of the actual program cost is veiled in other ca te
gories. A reasonable program need not be expensive,
and money invested is returned through the p ro cu re
ment of a stro n g er school adm inistrator (and the
identification and elim ination of the potentially weak
t
adm inistrator).
10. The content of ad m in istrato r p reserv ice training
program s conducted by school d istric ts places
p rio rity on the c u rricu la r and human aspects of
education, and less em phasis on the technical
adm inistrative aspects.
11. Although ostensibly m ost d istric ts consider their
adm inistrator development program s an appropriate
in -serv ic e experience for participating ad m in istra
to rs, little positive em phasis o r proper organization
has been expended in this area.
12. T here is little statistica l evidence to support the
minimum teaching tim e needed p rio r to adm inistrative
157
certification. Several sta tes have varying re q u ire
m ents. A common range is th ree to five y ears with
the cu rre n t trend tow ard in creasin g p rereq u isite
teaching serv ice.
13. School d istric ts a re sin cerely in tere sted in advancing
their best qualified ad m in istrativ e candidates, but
generally p refer to keep an open door for outstanding
outside talent. As the ad m in istrato r training p ro
gram s prove m ore efficient, g re a te r num bers will
be prom oted from within, but th e re is a genuine
concern against "in b reed in g ."
Recom m endations
1. School d istric ts facing growth problem s o r with
strong ad m in istrato r needs should consider the
advantages of establishing ad m in istrato r develop
ment program s.
2. School d istric ts conducting ad m in istrato r p re se rv ic e
training program s should prom ote re se a rc h to
im prove procedures for identifying potential adm in
is tra to rs , selection c rite ria , in -se rv ic e relationships
for participating ad m in istra to rs, and ad m in istrato r
placem ent.
Adequate trainee selection procedures should
include appropriate testing, structured interview
ing, and an appraisal of teaching success and
references.
School d istric ts should coordinate with colleges
and universities to organize and define properly
the appropriate role of each institution in the
adm inistrator training process.
B IB L IO G R A P H Y
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Public Documents
1. U. S. D epartm ent of Health, Education, and W elfare. Office of
Education. Education D irectory: State G overnm ents,
1963-64.
2. U. S. D epartm ent of Health, Education, and W elfare. Office of
Education. Education D irectory: Education A ssociations,
1963-64.
Books
3. Campbell, Roald F. , John E. Corbally, J r ., and John A.
R am seyer. Introduction to Educational A dm inistration.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1962.
4. Corbally, John E. , J r . , T. J. Jensen, and W. F red erick Staub.
Educational A dm inistration: The Secondary School.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1961.
5. Dooher, M. J. , and Elizabeth M artinez. Selection of
M anagement Personnel. New York: A m erican M anagement
A ssociation, 1957.
6. Educational A dm inistration in a Changing Community. T h irty -
seventh Yearbook of the A m erican A ssociation of School
A dm inistrators. Washington, D. C .: A m erican A ssocia
tion of School A d m inistrators, 1959.
7. The E lem entary School P rincipalship. T hirty-seventh Yearbook
of the D epartm ent of E lem entary School Principals.
W ashington, D. C .: D epartm ent of E lem entary School
P rincipals, 1958.
160
161
8. Hemphill, John K ., Daniel E. G riffiths, Norman F rederiksen,
and others. A dm inistrative Perform ance and P ersonality.
New York: T eachers College, Columbia U niversity, 19o2.
9. Hunt, H erald C. and Paul R. Pierce. The Practice of School
A dm inistration: A Cooperative Professional E n terp rise.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, C o ., 1958.
10. In -serv ice Education for School A dm inistration. Report of
the A m erican A ssociation of School A dm inistrators
Com m ission on In -serv ice Education for School Admin
istratio n . Washington, D. C .: A m erican A ssociation of
School A dm inistrators, 1963.
11. L aFranchi, Edward H. A Guide for D irected Field E xperi
ence in School A dm inistration and Supervision. Los
Angeles: U niversity of Southern California, 1964.
12. M oore, Hollis A. , Jr. Studies in School A dm inistration.
Report of the A m erican A ssociation of School Admin
istra to rs Committee for the Advancement of School
A dm inistration. Washington, D. C. : Am erican
A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, 1957.
13. Professional A dm inistrators for A m erica's Schools. T hirty-
eighth Yearbook of the A m erican A ssociation of School
A dm inistrators. W ashington, D. C. : A m erican
A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, 1960.
14. T aylor, Jack W. How to Select and Develop L eaders.
New York: M cGraw-Hill, 1962.
A rticles and Periodicals
15. Ambellan, F red. "Human Relations T raining for Admin
is tra to rs ," Educational Executive Overview, 3:27,
November, 1962.
16. Austin, David B. "Tackling the Big Problem of A dm inistrative
and Supervisory Staffing," Bulletin of the National
A ssociation of Secondary School Principals, 48:47-59,
A pril, 1964.
162
17. C am pbell, Roald F . "R esearch and the Selection and
P reparation of School A d m in istra to rs," Educational
R esearch Bulletin, 35:29-33, F eb ru ary , 1956.
18. C ooper, Dan H. "P rep aratio n of School A d m in is tra to rs,"
Review of E ducational R esearch , 22:338-344, O ctober,
1952.
19. D rew ry, Galen N. and M ichael Y. N unnery. "The Place of
R esearch in School A d m in istrato r P re p a ra tio n ,"
Phi D elta Kappan, 43:248-250, M arch, 1962.
20. F isk , R o b e rts . "The P rep aratio n of A d m in istrato rs, "
School E xecutive, 73:65-67, January, 1954.
21. Fow lkes, John Guy. "E p ic Document on T rain in g and
Selecting A d m in is tra to rs," Nation's Schools, 61:52-53,
May, 1958.
22. F re d e ric k , R obert W. "Seven R 's for Educating Adm in
is tr a to r s ," School E xecutive, 76:50-53, O ctober, 1956.
23. F reed m an , Ira . "C ultivate Y our Own Back Y a rd ,"
School E xecutive, 76:45-47, N ovem ber, 1956.
24. G riffith s, Daniel B. and Iannaccone, L aurence.
"A dm inistrative T heory, R elationships and P re p a ra tio n ,"
Review of E ducational R esearch , 28:334-347,
O ctober, 1958.
25. H em phill, J. K. "P ro g ress R eport: A Study of the
Secondary School P rin c ip alsh ip ," Bulletin of the National
A ssociation of Secondary School P rincipals, 48:217-230,
A pril, 1964.
26. Holloway, G eorge B. , J r. "A d m in istrato r T raining: A T h re e
pronged A pproach," School E xecutive, 77:92-93,
May, 1958.
27. Hughes, D. P atrick. "A d m in istrativ e W orkshop: A Blueprint
for In -se rv ic e P rom otion," C learing House, 37:42-44,
Septem ber, 1962.
163
28. H urlburt, Allan S. " L e t's Make A dm inistrator C ertification
M eaningful," School Executive, 79:59-61, Septem ber,
1959.
29. Jardine, Alex. "Staff T raining for A d m in istra to rs," Nation's
Schools, 62:69, O ctober, 1958.
30. Kimbrough, Ralph B. "Behaviorial C h aracteristics of
Effective Educational A d m in istrato rs," Educational
A dm inistration and Supervision, 45:337, 348, Novem ber,
1959.
31. K irsch, Paul E. "Developing Educational L e a d e rs ," C learing
House. 34:87-89, O ctober, 1959
32. Newell, C larence A. "Selection for L ea d ersh ip ," Educational
L eadership, 20:179:181, D ecem ber, 1962.
33. Nunnery, M ichael Y. "How Useful A re Standardized Psycho
logical T ests in the Selection of School A dm inistrators?"
Educational A dm inistrator and Supervision, 45:349-356,
November, 1959.
34. P o rter, Lyman W. "D ifferential Self-Perceptions of M anage
ment Personnel and Line W o rk ers," A m erican Sociological
Review, 42:105-200, A pril, 1958.
35. R am seyer, John A. "A dm inistration Program D evelopm ent,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 37:299-303, A pril, 1956.
36. Rudman, H erbert C. "Preparation of Soviet School Admin
is tra to rs ." National E lem entary Principal, 38:43-45,
A pril, 1959.
37. Shaw, A rchibald B . "P reparing A d m in istrato rs," O verview ,
3:9, August, 1952.
38. Smith, F risb y D. "A System P repares L eaders; A dm inistrator
T raining P ro g ram ," Educational L eadership, 20:175-178,
D ecem ber, 1962.
39. Stuart, Alden T. "W hat About the A dm inistrators Professional
Growth and Development?" School Executive, 76:55-56,
July, 1952.
164
40. U nruh, Adolph. "A d m in istrato rs Look at T h eir P rep aratio n ,
Phi Delta Kappan, 38:376-78, June, 1957.
41. W etzler, W ilson F. "Advancing from W ith in ," O verview ,
3:45-56, June, 1962.
42. W illiam s, Stanley W. "T rain in g of Educational A d m in istra
to rs ," C alifornia Journal of Secondary E ducation,
33:143-145, M arch, 1958.
R eports
43. A m erican A ssociation of School A d m in istra to rs. The Education
of a School Superintendent. W ashington, D. C. : A m erican
A ssociation of School A d m in istra to rs, 1963.
44. Educational T estin g S ervice. The National T each er E xam ina
tio n s. A Handbook for School and College O fficials.
Princeton: E ducational T estin g S ervice, 1961.
45. Educational T estin g S ervice. School System s U sing Confidential
T e sts P rep ared by E ducational T estin g S erv ice in S electing
and R etaining T ea c h ers and in E valuating Q ualifications of
Prom otional C andidates. Princeton: E ducational T estin g
S ervice, 1963.
46. N ational A ssociation of Secondary School P rin cip als. D esign
for L eadership: A Pilot P rogram . W ashington, D. C. :
The N ational A ssociation of Secondary School P rin cip als,
1963.
47. N ational Beta Club. 1963-1964 C ollege F acts C hart.
S partanburg, S .C . : The National Beta Club, 1963.
48. W oellner, E lizabeth H. , and A urilla M. Wood. R equirem ents
fo r C e rtific a tio n --T e a c h e rs, C ounselors, L ib ra ria n s ,
and A d m in istra to rs. Chicago: The U niversity of Chicago
P re ss, 1963.
165
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.-
56.
Unpublished M aterial
Bailey, C harles W. "Effective P ractices in Field Training
E xperiences for E lem entary A dm inistrators in C alifornia."
Unpublished d issertatio n , U niversity of Southern C alifornia,
Los Angeles, 1958.
Bewley, F red erick W. "C h aracteristic s of Successful School
Superintendents." Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n ,
U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Los A ngeles, 1960.
Bronfield, Jack W illiam . ""A Study to Identify C rite ria U tilized
in the Selection and Appointment of F u ll-tim e E lem entary
School Principals in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , The Pennsylvania State
U niversity, U niversity Park, 1962.
Callahan, Robert Louis. "T ea ch e rs' Attitude and T heir
Relationship to A dm inistrative A sp iratio n s." Unpublished
doctoral d issertatio n , Stanford U niversity, Palo Alto,
1962.
C raig, A lbert Thom as. "The Development and Validation of a
T est for Empathy as a P artial Basis for Selecting Public
School Principals in Pinellas County, F lo rid a." Un
published doctoral d issertatio n , Florida State U niversity,
T allahassee, 1959.
E bert, F rancis John. "An E m pirical Evaluation of Five T ests
for the Selection of E lem entary School Principals. "
Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , Stanford U niversity,
Palo Alto, 1960.
Gray, M artin. "A Role A nalysis of the School P rin cip alsh ip ."
Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , U n iv e rs ity of
W isconsin, Madison, 1961.
H older, Lyal Em ory. "A Com parison of the C ritical R equire
ment for the E lem entary School, Junior High School and
Senior High School P rin cip alsh ip s." Unpublished doctoral
dissertatio n , Colorado State College, G reeley, 1962.
166
57. Kavila, Alvin C. "School Superintendents and P rin cip als- -
Selection and A ppointm ent." Unpublished doctoral
d issertatio n , Stanford U niversity, 1963.
58. L epick, John A ndres, Jr. "P ersonal and P rofessional C h ar
a c te ristic s of E lem entary School P rin cip als." Unpublished
doctoral d issertatio n , U niversity of Southern C alifornia,
Los A ngeles, 1961-.
59. Levich, H arlan Norton. "The Basic C ourse in Secondary
School A d m in istratio n .” Unpublished doctoral d is s e rta
tion, U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Los A ngeles, 1963.
60. Luckenback, Leon Rodney. "The Effect of a P rin cip al's In-
se rv ic e L eadership T raining C ourse Upon His O perational
Behavior Pattern and Upon A ttitudes of T ea ch ers, Pupils,
and P aren ts." Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n ,
U niversity of F lo rid a, G ainesville, 1957.
61. Mahoney, Leo G erald. "Position A nalysis for A dm inistrative
Personnel in Public School S y stem s.” Unpublished
doctoral d issertatio n , U niversity of Houston, Houston,
1963.
62. M arshall, S tuart A rthur. "D ifferential Perceptions of the
C rite ria Used for the Selection of A dm inistrative
P ersonnel." Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , Stanford
U niversity, Palo Alto, 1959.
63. Ram sey, C urtis Paul. "Some Im plications of L ead ersh ip
Studies and M anagem ent Developm ent P rojects for a
P reparation Program for the E lem entary School P rincipal-
s h ip ." Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , George Peabody
College, N ashville, 1959.
64. R a n n ig e r , Billy Jay. "A Sum m ary Study of the Job R esponsi
bilities of the E lem entary School P rin cip al." Unpublished
doctoral d issertatio n , U niversity of O regon, Eugene, 1962.
65. St. C lair, Jam es Kenneth. "An Evaluation of a C linical
Procedure for Predicting O n-The-Job A dm inistrative
Behaviours of E lem entary School P rin c ip als." Unpublished
doctoral d issertatio n , U niversity of T exas, A ustin, 1962.
167
66. Seaw ell, W illiam H unter. "Bases of an In -se rv ice Preparation
Program for School Superintendents in V irginia."
Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n , U niversity of V irginia,
C harlottesville, 1963.
67. Stew art, Harold G illingham . ’'C rite ria Used by Superintendents
in the Selection of Beginning Building Principals in C ertain
W isconsin S chools." Unpublished doctoral d issertatio n ,
U niversity of W isconsin, M adison, 1963.
68. W icke, Robert F ra n cis. "An Evaluation of Possible C om m it
m ents for F ield E xperiences in a T raining Program for
School A d m in istra to rs." Unpublished doctoral d is s e rta
tion, U niversity of K ansas, L aw rence, 1961.
O ther Sources
69. Educational T esting S ervice. Personal le tte r from A rthur L.
Benson, D irecto r, T eacher Exam inations, Educational
T esting S ervice, June 29, 1964.
70. A ssem bly of the State of C alifornia. R eport of the A ssem bly
Interim C om m ittee on E ducation, Vol. X, No. 18,
January, 1965.
71. Encyclopedia of Educational R e sea rc h ,
by C hester W. H a rris.
3rd edition. Edited
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO STATE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIES OF ADMINISTRATOR
ORGANIZATIONS, AND CHAIRMEN OF DEPART
MENTS OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AT
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HAVING SUCH A
DEPARTMENT.
170
COPY
August 10, 1964
Fellow Educator:
To com plete re se a rc h on ad m in istrato r developm ent p ro g ram s,
I am anxious to identify school d istric ts which have a form al d is tric t-
sponsored ad m in istrato r p reserv ice training program .
Such a program may be defined briefly as one established by
d istric ts for teach ers who want to p rep are them selves to be adm in
is tra to rs . This is in co n trast with in -se rv ic e program s for p erso n
nel already in adm inistration. It also is in co n trast with internships
o r o th er w ork offered by u n iv ersities for the preparation of school
a d m in istra to rs.
I am assum ing that you o r som eone on your staff may be
fam iliar with som e of the school d istric ts in your sta te which provide
such a program , and I would appreciate your sending m e the nam es
of the d istric ts.
Sincerely,
John F. M cGrew, Principal
D uarte High School
1565 E ast C entral Avenue
D uarte, C alifornia 91010
C O P Y
171
COPY
It is believed the following school d is tric ts have a stru c tu re d
p ro g ram for developing th eir school a d m in istra to rs:
You m ay w ish to consider the following in conjunction with
re s e a rc h on a d m in istra to r p re se rv ic e train in g p ro g ram s conducted by
school d is tric ts .
Person com pleting re p o rt
A ddress
C O P Y
APPENDIX B
ENDORSING LETTER OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS
FOR INITIAL SURVEY TO IDENTIFY DIST
RICTS CONDUCTING SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR
TRAINING PROGRAMS.
173
California Association of School Administrators
1 7 0 5 M urchison D riv e * Burlingam e, C a lifo rn ia * O X fo rd 7 - 2 4 1 0
August 3, 1964
The California Association of School Administrators has endorsed
a doctoral research on school district conducted administrator
training programs. The study will be made by John F. McGrew,
Principal of the Duarte, California, High School. It has been
approved by the Research Committee of CASA in the belief that the
results can make a distinct contribution to school administration.
The project is concerned with meeting America’s need for future
administrators through a school district backed administrator
development program. It will supplement and parallel research on
administrative internships, university sponsored administrative
field work and administrator in-service studies. Of particular
interest will be selection criteria for trainees and the operation
of such programs.
Your cooperation with the study by identifying appropriate school
districts as requested by Mr. McGrew will oe very much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Glenn E. Murdock
President
GEM:be
G lenn E. Murdock Robert E. Jenkins N orm an B. Scharer Jam es W . Dent Don aid M. Roderick
President President Elect Vice President Past President G overnor
Louise W . Seyler H . Lawson Smith G e o rg e H. G ey er D. Russell Parks Jam es H. Corson M artha S. Clar
G overnor G overnor G overnor G overnor Executive Secretary Office M anage
APPENDIX C
LIST OF DISTRICTS REPORTED
AS CONDUCTING SCHOOL ADMIN
ISTRATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS.
DISTRICTS IDENTIFIED BY A NATIONAL SURVEY AS HAVING
ADMINISTRATOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Cipy and State
Birmingham, Alabama
Mobile, Alabama
Anchorage, Alaska
Glendale, Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona
Prescott, Arizona
Scottsdale, Arizona
Tem pe, Arizona
L ittle Rock, Arkansas
Campbell, California
Covina, California
F resno, California
Santa Clara', California
Napa, California
Oakland, California
Pomona, California
R iverside, California
San Bernardino, California
'- j
C/l
School D istricts
Jefferson County School D istrict
Mobile County School D istrict
Anchorage G reater Borough School D istrict
Glendale Union High School D istrict
Phoenix Union High School D istrict
Prescott Public School D istrict
Scottsdale Public School D istrict
Tempe E lem entary School D istrict
L ittle Rock City School D istrict
Campbell Elem entary School D istrict
Covina Valley Unified School D istrict
F resno City School D istrict
Jefferson Union Elem entary School D istrict
Napa Union High School D istrict
Oakland Public School D istrict
Pomona Unified School D istrict
R iverside Unified School D istrict
San Bernardino City School D istrict
School D is tric ts C ity and S tate
San Juan Unified School D istrict
T orrance Unified School D istrict
Boulder Valley Re2 School D istrict
Colorado Springs School D istrict #11
Denver Public School D istrict
Jefferson County Schools
Pueblo City School D istrict #60
City of H artford School D istrict
Newark School D istrict
A lfred I. duPont School D istrict #7
W ilmington School D istrict
Dade County School D istrict
Palm Beach County School D istrict
Pinellas County School D istrict
Atlanta City School D istrict
DeKalb County School D istrict
Fulton County School D istrict
Muscogee County School D istrict
Boise Independent School D istrict #1
Idaho F alls City School D istrict
Carm ichael, California
T orrance, California
Boulder, Colorado
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Denver, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Pueblo, Colorado
H artford, Connecticut
Newark, Delaware
Wilmington, Delaware
Wilmington, Delaware
M iami, Florida
Palm Beach, Florida
C learw ater, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
D ecatur, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
Columbus, Georgia
Boise, Idaho ^
Idaho F alls, Idaho o
School D is tric ts C ity and S tate
Champaign Community Unit Schools
Chicago Public Schools
D ecatur Public Schools
Evanston Township High School
Lincoln-W ay County School D istrict
Richwoods Community High School D istrict
Evansville City School D istrict
Floyd County School D istrict
F o rt Wayne City School D istrict
Indianapolis Public School D istrict
M arion City School D istrict
M etropolitan School D istrict—Washington Township
New Albany Community School D istrict
Des Moines Public Schools
Fram ingham School Departm ent
W orcester Public School D istrict
Champaign, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
D ecatur, Illinois
Evanston, Illinois
New Lenox, Illinois
Peoria Heights, Illinois
Evansville, Indiana
New Albany, Indiana
F o rt Wayne, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
M arion, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
New Albany, Indiana
Des Moines, Iowa
Fram ington, M assachusetts
W orcester, M assachusetts
Birmingham Public School D istrict
D etroit Public School D istrict
Grand Rapids Public School D istrict
Livonia Public School System
Pontiac Public School D istrict
Jackson Public School System
Birmingham, Michigan
D etroit, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Livonia, Michigan .
Pontiac, Michigan
Jackson, M ississippi
^ 4
School D is tric ts C ity and S tate
Lincoln Public School D istrict Lincoln, Nebraska
Omaha Public School D istrict Omaha, N ebraska
W estside Community School D istrict (via Omaha) Omaha, Nebraska
C lark County School D istrict Las Vegas, Nevada
Washoe County School D istrict Reno, Nevada
Liverpool Central School D istrict Liverpool, New York
Niskayuna C entral School D istrict Niskayuna, New York
North Syracuse C entral School D istrict North Syracuse, New York
Schenectady City School D istrict Schenectady, New York
Charlotte-M ecklenburg School D istrict C harlotte, North Carolina
Akron City School D istrict Akron, Ohio
Canton City School D istrict Canton, Ohio
Columbus City School D istrict 1 Columbus, Ohio
Cuyahoga F alls City School D istrict Cuyahoga F alls, Ohio
M ansfield City School D istrict M ansfield, Ohio
M assillon City School D istrict M assillon, Ohio
Sylvania City School D istrict Sylvania, Ohio
W arren City School D istrict W arren, Ohio
B artlesville City School D istrict Bartlesville, Oklahoma
Enid City School D istrict Enid, Oklahoma
Lawton City School D istrict Lawton, Oklahoma
Oklahoma City School D istrict Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
School D is tric ts C ity and S tate
Ponca City School D istrict
Tulsa City School D istrict
Beaverton Public Schools
Eugene Public School D istrict
Portland Public School D istrict
School D istrict of Philadelphia
Tredyffrin-Eastow n School D istrict
Aberdeen School D istrict
Lead City School D istrict
Rapid City School D istrict
Sioux F alls City School D istrict
V erm illion City School D istrict
W atertown School D istrict
Yankton City School D istrict
G ranite School D istrict
City of Chesapeake School D istrict
City of Roanoke School D istrict
Bellevue School D istrict
Edmonds School D istrict #15
M oses Lake School D istrict #161
Seattle Public School D istrict
Tacom a School D istrict #10
Joint School D istrict #1
Unified School D istrict #1
W isconsin Heights Public Schools
Ponca City, Oklahoma
T ulsa, Oklahoma
Beaverton, Oregon
Eugene, Oregon
Portland, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Paoli, Pennsylvania
Aberdeen, South Dakota
Lead City, South Dakota
Rapid City, South Dakota
Sioux F alls, South Dakota
V erm illion, South Dakota
Watertown, South Dakota
Yankton, South Dakota
Salt Lake City, Utah
Chesapeake, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
Bellevue, Washington
Alderwood M anor, Washington
Moses Lake, Washington
Seattle, Washington
Tacom a, Washington
Appleton, W isconsin > - j
Racine, W isconsin '•o
Black E arth, W isconsin______________
APPENDIX D
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Information Survey
I ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS
District_____________________________________ Superintendent__________________________
Type of District___________________________________________Estimated Enrollment 1964-65,
Number of schools: Elementary
Junior High________
Senior High________
Do you sponsor an administrator development program In your district? Yes_________No,
If yes, what is the official program title?____________________________________________
When was it Initiated?__________________________________________
Do you have a special name for your trainees? (I.e., apprentice, trainee)________________
Is your administrator development program a: District function__________________
School function _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Joint function __________________
Who is in charge of the program: (Name)______________________________ (Position)_______________
APPROXIMATELY WHAT PER CENT OF YOUR TEACHING STAFF ARE INTERESTED IK BECCKING ADMINISTRATORS? Male
Female
Do you consider your administrator training program: Extremely effective__
Very effective __
Satisfactory __
Of minimal assistance
Unaatlafactory __
Is the program considered as an in-service training experlance for participating adminlatrators? Yea
No'
RECOMMENDATIONS
II TRAINEE SELECTION PR0CE88
Who selects the trainees? District Office__________________
School __________________
Joint decision __________________
Committee __________________
Other:
Is the training program open to both men and women? Yes_________ No_________
Do you make any effort In the Initial hiring of teachera to recognise admlnletratlve potential? Yes
RECOMMENDATIONS OR EXPLANATION:_______________________________________________________________
Do you use an objective test as part of the Initial screening process? Yaa^________ no,
(If yes, which tests)
Do you consider your testing progrsmt Very effective
Effective
8stlefectory
Week
Foor
TOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR TESTING:
Do you hsve e minimum teschlng experience criterion? Tes Wo (If so, how long?___________)
yesrs
TOUR RECOMMENDATION__________________________________________________________________________________
Do you hsve s minimum service time requirement In your District:__Tea_________No (How long?________)
years
TOUR RECOMMENDATION:___________________________________________________________________________________
Do you expect applicants to be taking course work In administration? Tea_________No________
Do you expect applicants to hold an administrative credential? Tes No
TOUR RECGMMENDATIONSj__________________________________________________________________________________
When Is the Initial application made by the candidates?,
TOUR RECOMMENDATION:________________________________
When are the trainees selected?
May e candidate repeat the program? Tes_________No_________Comment:_____
Do you require the M.A. degree for candidacy in the program? Tes_________No,
Is the Doctorate Important in your planning? Tes_______ No_
TOUR DEGREE RECOMMENDATION:______________________________________________
Is a personal interview with the superintendent Involved In selection? Tes________ No,
Is a personal interview with the personnel director Involved? Tes________ No_
Is a personal Interview with the school principal Involved? Tes________ No
TOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR PERSONAL INTERVIEWS:_______________________________________________
On what priority are your selection criteria established? - Please list in order of priority by numbers 1 through 7.
Grede on test _________ Interpersonal relationships _________
Principal's recommendation _________ M.A. degree or higher_______ _________
Teaching performance________________ References from colleges or
Subjective estimate of other personnel _________
administrative potential _________ Other:_______________________________
TOUR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approximately how many are selected ennually for the trelnlng program?______________________
TOUR RECOMMENDATION: ________________________________________________________________
Approximately what Is your selection ratio of trainees selected to applicants for the program?
Male___________ to__________
Female__________ to__________
All eligible personnel may participate___________
Whan do you d im the successful trainee candidates for tha program?.
Rata your program b ability to Identify and anllat atroug potential administrators froa the teaching Tankas
Very effective ____________
Effective ____________
Satlafactory ____________
Weak ____________
Poor__________ ___________
III PROGRAM OPERATION
Who develop* the admlniatratlon training program in your dlatrlct? (Tltle)_
(Name)_
To whom la thla person directly responalble?____________________________
What actlvltlea are included In your program? (Pleaae check)
District level meetings.
Directed on-the-job tralnlng_
Conferences
School level meetings.
Vlaltation of schools.
Other
Other_
Other_
Other
What techniques ere used?.
Lecture___________
Discussion
"Inbasket"-
Asalgned projects.
Committee work___
Directed participation.
Other.
Other_
Other”
Which techniques are recoaaaended as most effective?.
Frequency of Dlatrlct level meetings?__________________________________________________________
Frequency of school level meetings?
How la time allotted in the training program? District_______________X School_______________%
RECOMMENDATIONS: _____________________________________________________________________________
What la the duration of the training period?_______________________________________
Are funds budgeted for the program? Yea_________ No________. How much annually7 $ .
Are the trainees given any extra reimbursement for their tla»e7 Yes________ . No______
If yes, how are they reimbursed, how much and how is It financed?.._______________
YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS 3
Is there a tie-in with administrative field work as required for certification? Yes No Not necessarily__
Please rank administrative training areas or experience In your program In terms of their Importance. Use a three
point scale: 1. Top level of priority. 2. Fairly Important. 3. Not too Important.
School organization
Supervision of Instruction
Curriculum development
Budgeting (business administration)
District philosophy
Legal aspects
.Child growth and development
Controversial Issues
General management
Discipline
.Counseling program
Scheduling students and staff
Co-curriculum
.In-service training
Orientation procedures
.Inter-personal relationship
.Public relations
Buildings and grounds
.Personnel administration
Attendance procedures
Is direct authority given to the trainee? Yes Mo Explains
YOUR RECOMMENDATION:
How do you heighten Inter-personal experiences In training?.
How are your trainees evaluated?
YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS:
Is an effort being made to coordinate the program with college field work or Intern programs? Yes No
(If so, how?)__________________________ ‘
IV SELECTION OF ADMINISTRATORS
In your opinion, how many years experience should a teacher have before reaching the first phase of administration?
(Please Ignore current certification requirements In your state.) years.
Check the positions that you consider administrative and have In your District.
_________Principal Guidance Counselors
_________Assistant Principal Subject matter consultants_________
_________Vlce-Prlnclpal Other:_______________
_________Unit Administrator ________________________________
_________Child welfare and Attendance Officer __________________________
_________Director
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
Is extra consideration given to administrator development trainees when Jobs are open? Yes No
Does your district hire administrators: Prom the "Inside only"? Yes No__.
From the "outside" and "Inside". Yes No _.
What per cent of your administrators named In the past year (or few years) have been:
From the "Inside^_____________%
From the training group_______ X
From the "outside"____________X
YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS______________________________
GENERAL COMMENTS ON AJQMXNISTRATOR TRAINING:
Name of peraon completing report:____________________________________________________________
Please send me any written description of your program as available. Thank you for your cooperation.
John F, McGrew
Principal
Duarte High School
Duarte, Californle
10-16-64
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO COVER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
183
COPY
October 16, 1964
Fellow Educator:
Your school d istrict has been identified as one of relatively
few d istricts in the United States that may have an exem plary district-
sponsored program for training future adm inistrators from the teach
ing ranks. Identification of such d istricts was made by State School
Superintendents, professors of educational adm inistration at out
standing colleges and universities, Executive S ecretaries of State
A dm inistrative and Education organizations and references in pro
fessional literatu re.
The survey to identify d istricts conducting adm inistrator
development program s was endorsed by the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIA
TION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.
The enclosed questionnaire will be utilized to determ ine
what is being done nationally in this relatively new program for pre-
training adm inistrators. D istrict-conducted program s are contrasted
with intern program s (usually university co-sponsored) and university
sponsored field work program s often required for certification. How
ever, the degree of coordination in d istric t program s with colleges
should be of interest.
Your assistance in filling out this questionnaire will:
(1) help sum m arize existing program s, and (2) aid in the projection
of recom mended guide lines for a strong adm inistrator development
program .
If you have w ritten m aterial that answ ers som e of the
questions, please enclose and answer questions not so covered. Also
some questions require subjective answ ers. Please approxim ate
answ ers where necessary.
Sincerely,
John F. McGrew
Principal
Duarte High School
JFMCG/ch
COPY
APPENDIX F
FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO ENCOURAGE
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE
185
COPY
November 12, 1964
Fellow Educator:
A few weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire by which ad m in istra
to r training program s may be appraised. The response has been
excellent, and in te re st very high. O ver a 60 per cent response,
including d istric ts who do not have a program (many of which a re
projecting such program s) has been recorded.
In the event that your questionnaire was m isplaced, another is
being enclosed. A stam ped self-ad d ressed envelope was sent.
Your assistan ce is sin cerely appreciated.
JFM cG /ch
As an interim rep o rt the following school d istric ts have replied
to the questionnaire indicating they have ad m in istrato r developm ent
program s:
An additional th irty -th ree d istric ts ac ro ss the nation rep lied that
they had no stru ctu red program , w ere developing one, o r had a
p artial program .
John F. McGrew
Principal, D uarte High School
Anchorage, A laska
Glendale, Arizona
P rescott, A rizona
Scottsdale, Arizona
Tem pe, Arizona
F resn o , C alifornia
San Bernardino, C alifornia
San Juan, C alifornia
Santa C lara, C alifornia
T o rran ce, C alifornia
Boulder, Colorado
Lakewood, Colorado
Newark, D elaw are
M iam i, F lorida
D ecatur, Georgia
Evanston, Illinois
F o rt Wayne, Indiana
Des M oines, Iowa
Fram ington, M assachusetts
Livonia, M ichigan
Lincoln, N ebraska
Omaha, N ebraska
Schenectady, New Y ork
Canton, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Cuyahoga F a lls, Ohio
M ansfield, Ohio
W arren, Ohio
Paoli, Pennsylvania
Yankton, South Dakota
Salt Lake City, Utah
Chesapeake, V irginia
Alderwood M anor, Washington
M oses Lake, W ashington
Black E arth, W isconsin
COPY
APPENDIX G
LIST OF DISTRICTS SENT THE
FOLLOW-UP LETTER
QUESTIONNAIRE R E -SE N T TO THE FOLLOW ING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, NOVEMBER 12, 1964
School D istrict City and State
Jefferson County School D istrict
Phoenix Union High School D istrict
Napa Union High School D istrict
Pomona Unified School D istrict
Colorado Springs D istrict #11
Pueblo City School D istrict #60
Alfred I. duPont School D istrict #7
Palm Beach County School D istrict
Pinellas County School D istrict
Atlanta City School D istrict
Fulton County School D istrict
Idaho F alls City School D istrict
Evansville City School D istrict
Floyd County School D istrict
M etropolitan School D istric t--
Washington Township
Birmingham, Alabama
Phoenix, Arizona
Napa, California
Pomona, California
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Pueblo, Colorado
Wilmington, Delaware
Palm Beach, Florida
C learw ater, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Atlanta, Georgia
Idaho F alls, Idaho
Evansville, Indiana
New Albany, Indiana
New Albany, Indiana
School D istric t C ity and S tate
Birmingham Public School D istrict
D etroit Public School D istrict
Grand Rapids Public School D istrict
Pontiac Public School System
C lark County School D istrict
Washoe County School D istrict
North Syracuse Central School D istrict
Liverpool Central Schools
Charlotte-M ecklenburg School D istrict
Akron City School D istrict
Sylvania City School D istrict
Enid City School D istrict
Oklahoma City School D istrict
Tulsa City School D istrict
Beaverton Public School D istrict
Eugene Public School D istrict
School D istrict of Philadelphia
City of Roanoke School D istrict
Bellevue School D istrict
Joint School D istrict #1
Birmingham, Michigan
D etroit, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Pontiac, Michigan
Las Vegas, Nevada
Reno, Nevada
North Syracuse, New York
Liverpool, New York
Charlotte, North Carolina
Akron, Ohio
Sylvania, Ohio
Enid, Oklahoma
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
T ulsa, Oklahoma
Beaverton, Oregon
Eugene, Oregon
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Roanoke, Virginia
Bellevue, Washington
Appleton, Wisconsin 0 0
i
APPENDIX H
FIFTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS RESPONDING
TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND INDICATING
THEY HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING
PROGRAM.
190
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Inform ation Survey
1. Anchorage, Alaska 26. Birmingham, Michigan
2. Phoenix, Arizona 27. D etroit, Michigan
3. P rescott, Arizona 28. Livonia, Michigan
4. Scottsdale, Arizona 29. Lincoln, Nebraska
5. Glendale, Arizona 30. Omaha, N ebraska
6. Tem pe, Arizona 31. Las Vegas, Nevada
7. F resno, California 32. Liverpool, New Y ork
8. Napa, California 33. Schenectady, New York
9. R iverside, California 34. North Syracuse, New York
10. San Bernardino, California 35. Canton, Ohio
11. San Jose, California 36. Columbus, Ohio
12. C arm ichael, California 37. Cuyahoga F alls, Ohio
13. T orrance, California 38. M ansfield, Ohio
14. Boulder, Colorado 39. Sylvania, Ohio
15. D enver, Colorado 40. W arren, Ohio
16. Newmark, Delaware 41. Berwyn, Pennsylvania
17. Wilmington, Delaware 42. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
18. Dade County, Florida 43. Yankton, South Dakota
19. Pinellas County, Florida 44. Salt Lake City, Utah
20. Atlanta, Georgia 45. Chesapeake, V irginia
21. D ecatur, Georgia 46. Roanoke, Virginia
22. Evanston, Illinois 47. Edmonds, Washington
23. F o rt Wayne, Indiana 48. M oses Lake, Washington
24. Des M oines, Iowa 49. Seattle, Washington
25. Fram ingham , M assachusetts 50. W isconsin Heights, W isconsin
APPENDIX I
SUGGESTED CONTENT AREAS FOR
ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING AT
SCHOOL-AND DISTRICT-LEVEL.
192
SCHOOL-LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING AREAS
1. Interpersonal Relationships
School personnel policies
Staff com fort
Com munications development
Effective m eetings
Equipment needs
E sp rit de corps
Com mendation efforts
E stablishm ent of secu rity
Social activities
C ertificated evaluation
D epartm ent chairm anships
II. Staff Relationships
Job descriptions
C lassified staff ratios
C lassified staff work schedules
Positive evaluation program s
In -se rv ic e training
III. Instructional Program
Adequate course descriptions
C ourse reso u rce guides
C urriculum developm ent
L esson planning
Student rapport
G rading techniques
Homework policies
Display b o ard s--ro o m environm ent
Student involvement
V ariation of methods
U tilization of audio-visual techniques
C lassroom control
Supervision of instruction
193
IV. School M anagem ent
Schedule of facilities use--school and community
C lassroom utilization
Budget development
Requisitioning procedures
Inventory
Key control
C afeteria operation and prom otion
Em ergency d rills and procedures
Bus transportation problem s
Supply issuance and control
School form s inventory and re-exam ination
School plant inspection for cleanliness, safety, and
m aintenance
V. Attendance and Pupil W elfare
Attendance accounting procedures
Parent contacts and conferences
Tardy policy
W elfare problem s
Truancy control
Work perm its
VL Pupil Personnel Services
N u rse's office operation
School counseling program .
Student orientation
Pupil reco rd s
Testing
Adm ission and tran sfer
Scheduling of students
Child growth and development study
Scholarship development —
Follow -up studies--dropout surveys
Vocational inform ation
194
VII. D iscip lin e
Routine discipline cases
D iscipline code
D ress code
C itizenship reporting system s
Adjustm ent tra n sfe r policies
Suspension, exclusion, expulsion proceedings
Parent conferences
Student courts and student proctors
VIII. C o -cu rricu lar A ctivities
M aster calendar development
Supervision assignm ents
Club sponsor assignm ents
School insurance program s
School photos
Student government
Assem bly program s
Student orientation
Student handbook
Clubs and organizations
Athletic program s, scheduling, and arrangem ents
Student publications
Student body finance and student body cards
Intram ural athletics
Class' organization
Pep activities
IX. School Schedules
Construction of school schedule of classes
Assignm ent of teachers
Student schedules
M aster calendar
Community calendar coordination
Campus supervision and control
Enrollm ent projections
195
X. Publications and R eports
T e a c h e r's handbook
School board re p o rts
School policies handbook
A ccreditation rep o rts
XI. Public R elations and School Inform ation
School publicity program
Daily bulletin developm ent
Parent T each ers A ssociation
Com munity organizations coordination
Open house
School surveys
E ducation-business -in d u stry coordination
Booster Clubs o r parent clubs
XII. O ther A reas
School lib ra ry
A udio-visual se rv ic e s
New school planning
C urriculum articu latio n m eetings
Opening and closing school activ ities
Human relatio n s activ ities
Professional organizations
Com m encem ent activ ities
DISTRICT-LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING ACTIVITIES
I. Introduction of the A dm inistrator T raining
P ro g ram --T h e Superintendent
D istric t philosophy and goals
School d istric t organization
D istric t ad m in istrativ e p erso n n el--in tro d u ctio n
Introduction of the train ees
The ro le of the superintendent
D istric t growth p a tte rn s--a d m in istra tiv e opportunity
196
II. Personnel A dm inistration- -A ssistan t
Superintendent o r D irecto r of Personnel
R ecruitm ent, selection, and placem ent of personnel
O rientation
Personnel policies and reco rd s
Salary schedules and fringe benefits
T ra n sfe rs and prom otions
Job analysis and classifications
Evaluation procedures
T erm ination, re tirem en t, and turnover
A dm inistrative developm ent and opportunities
III. Instructional S erv ices--A ssistan t
Superintendent o r D irecto r of Instruction
C urriculum developm ent and articulation
In -se rv ice training of certificated staff
Instructional supplies and equipm ent
Textbook adoption
Innovations in education
C urriculum lib ra ry and m aterials cen ter
R esearch and publications
C ourses of study and reso u rce guides
IV. Business A dm inistration-- A ssistant
Superintendent o r Business M anager
Business departm ent organization
Budgeting
F inancial regulations
Purchasing procedures
Requisitioning
W arehouse
Bookkeeping and accounting
Payroll
Cash collections
Auditing
Attendance accounting
Insurance and bonding
Food se rv ic e
197
Pupil transportation
Elections
Community use of facilities
V. Plant A dm inistration
M aintenance of buildings
Grounds supervision and development
Custodial personnel training
Safety and inspection
School plant adequacy
VI. Pupil Personnel Services
O rganization and coordination
Guidance services
Testing
Pupil personnel records
Attendance and w elfare
Exceptional children
Gifted
Retarded
Educationally handicapped
Physically handicapped
Home instruction
R esearch and surveys
Health services
Community coordination—health and w elfare
VII. New Schools Development
Surveys and m aster planning
Enrollm ent projections and saturation
Site selection and development
Educational specifications
A rchitect selection
Standard equipment lists
Financial planning
Bidding procedures
Construction program
198
VIII. Public Relations
Policies
Planning and coordination
C itizens advisory com m ittees
News re le a s e s --p re s s , radio and television
Publications
Superintendent's annual rep o rt
News lette r
House publications
Special reports
Surveys
Community coordination and reso u rces
Personnel involvement in community affairs
Business-education coordination
School program s and exhibits
IX. The School Board
Policies, regulations, and procedures
Developing agendas
Coordination and planning
Protocol and boardsm anship
Minutes
Publicity and p ress relations
Involvement of v isitors
Staff communications
Instructional reporting
APPENDIX J
ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORS WHO REVIEWED
THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUGGESTED TRAIN
ING PROGRAM.
200
D r. P alm er G. Campen
Superintendent
D uarte Unified School D istrict
M r. Sam A. Chicas
Principal
Savanna High School
M r. Elwin S. C lem m er
Principal
La Canada High School
M r. B. Wayne Gaw
A dm inistrative T rainee
D uarte High School
M r. R obert Manning
D irecto r of Personnel
D uarte Unified School D istrict
M r. Bruce M iller
Superintendent
R iverside Unified School D istric t
M r. W illiam B. M oorhead
A ssistan t Superintendent
Anaheim Union High School
D istrict
M r. John Schaeffer
Principal
Valley View E lem entary School
M r. C harles T e rre ll
Principal
Azusa High School
M r. R obert Welty
Principal
A ndres D uarte E lem entary
School
M r. R obert L. White
A ssistan t Principal
D uarte High School
D r. Stanley W. W illiam s
P ro fesso r of Educational
A dm inistration, C alifornia
S tate Collegp at Long Beach

Asset Metadata

Creator Mcgrew, John Ferris (author)

Core Title An Appraisal Of Administrator Preservice Training Programs Conducted By School Districts

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor LaFranchi, Edward H. (committee chair), Brackenbury, Robert L. (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-187573

Unique identifier UC11359718

Identifier 6603824.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-187573 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6603824.pdf

Dmrecord 187573

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mcgrew, John Ferris

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses