University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Decentralization And Decision-Making: An Analysis Of The Perceptions Of High School Principals And Central Office Administrators

(USC Thesis Other)

Decentralization And Decision-Making: An Analysis Of The Perceptions Of High School Principals And Central Office Administrators

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DECENTRALIZATION AND DECISION MAKING: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Clarke Raymond Stone August 1973 INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 73- 31,677 STONE, Clarke Raymond, 1923- DECENTRALIZATION AND DECISION MAKING: AN ANALYSIS } OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND ' CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1973 Education, administration I University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan ! THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. 1 *""" n . >,« ■' I ,H .in,, mT,, I,, 11II III,, I.............. This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, 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 September., ...1973.................... ..... Dean Guidantfe'Committi Otis* Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE ............ Introduction Background of the Problem The Problem Importance of the Study Delimitations Statement of Hypotheses Assumptions Limitations Definition of Terms Accountability Authority Central Office Administrator Centralization Community Control Curriculum Decentralization Degree of Authority/Control Organization Personnel Students Organization of the Remainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... Introduction Historical Background Summary III. RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE............ Selecting the Sample Population Development of the Decision Analysis Chart Data Collection and Recording Statistical Analysis IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .............. Introduction Chapter Analysis of Preliminary Questionnaire Analysis of Data of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators Analysis of Data of Responses Analysis of the Chi-Square Tests Interpretation of the Findings Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 76 Procedure Findings Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... $7 APPENDIX ......................................... 93 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number and Percent of Questionnaires Mailed and Returned............................. 37 2. Listing of Statements from Decision Analysis Chart................................... 42 3. Information Regarding Districts Selected for Study............................... 47 4. Decentralized Categories in Districts Responding to Preliminary Questionnaire. . 52 5. Tabulation of Districts that Responded to the Preliminary Questionnaire as to Decentralization ....................... 54 6. Frequency of Responses Regarding Categories of Decentralization by Decentralized Districts............................ 53 7. Chi-Square Test for Perceptions of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators in the Category of Budget . 57 S. Chi-Square Test for Perceptions of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators in the Category of Community............................ 59 iv Table Page 9. Chi-Square Test for Perceptions of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators in the Category of Personnel........................ 61 10. Chi-Square Test for Perceptions of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators in the Category of Curriculum...................... 63 11. Chi-Square Test for Perceptions of High School Principals and Central Office Administrators in the Category of Students ............................. 64 12. Rank Order of Percentage of Responses on Decentralized Perception by Category. . . 72 13. Frequency of Total Responses to Decision Analysis Chart Statements ............... 73 14* Comparison of Percentages of Sample Districts' Responses with Percentages of Preliminary Questionnaire Responses ... 74 v LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page 1. Percentage of Decentralized Responses to Items in Decision Analysis Chart in Category of Budget...................... 66 2. Percentage of Decentralized Responses to Items in Decision Analysis Chart in Category of Community................... 66 3. Percentage of Decentralized Responses to Items in Decision Analysis Chart in Category of Personnel ................... 63 4. Percentage of Decentralized Responses to Items in Decision Analysis Chart in Category of Curriculum................... 63 5. Percentage of Decentralized Responses to Items in Decision Analysis Chart in Category of Students ............................... 70 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE inS.Egaiictj.gn Authorities in management have pointed out that it has been consistently demonstrated that participation in the decision-making process results in positive changes in both the affective and instrumental behavior of partici pants . When an individual is consulted before a decision is made about his working conditions, he will act and react in a more favorable and positive manner than when a decree complete with instructions is handed down from above. (6:162) Today's organizations operate in a new and differ ent environment, according to Peter Drucker. This environ ment not only makes new and different demands on the exec utive— it also gives him new and different opportunities. Ultimately, it requires that the individual make decisions to get the right things done. (2:196) Leavitt proposed that the idea of responsibility corresponding with decision-making power seems to be the best answer to management accountability. (5:372) Thus, 1 it is necessary to have participation at all levels when making decisions, and when the responsibility is placed upon a person he should have authority if he is to be held accountable. It is virtually impossible to hold someone accountable for progress made or not made if that indivi dual was not involved in making the decision. Decentralization of decision making has been one of education's answers to accountability. One of the principal reasons for decentralization of decision-making powers, according to Laverne Cunningham, Dean of the College of Education at Ohio State, is to build a more effective means of solving educational problems. (15:6) Another major premise for decentralization in education is the involvement of greater numbers of people in the decision-making process, which results in more defensible and supportive decisions. (15:6) One way decentralization is taking place is by dividing large urban school districts into smaller dis tricts. Los Angeles and New York City both reflect this pattern of decentralization, although the two plans have major differences. Los Angeles delegates decision-making powers to area administrators and uses advisory boards, whereas New York has semi-autonomous sub-districts with administrators and boards delegated certain decision-making powers at the sub-district level. The primary reasons for large city decentralization 3 has been to attempt to answer pressing integration problems and to personalize large school districts whose central offices controlled schools and students too far removed from the organization where decisions were made. Decen tralization has also been utilized in school districts by giving the building principal authority to make decisions about his school which were formerly made at the central office level. This administrative decentralization of decision making authority shift to high school principals from central office administrators is the focus of this research. This study, then, is concerned with adminis trative decentralization, i.e., the shifting of authority and decision-making power from the central office to the high school principal. Background of the Problem It is economically beneficial for the masses of society*s people to be well educated. Public education merits and receives wide public support. Political office- seekers, traditionally, have promoted money for education and have found it a safe, strong issue on which to help gain election. This environment has facilitated the growth of education all over the United States. But an important change has taken place in what Americans expect of their public schools. The optimism 4 about the value of education is still strong, but doubts have arisen about the public school system's ability to do what it has promised. Taxes for education and bond issues for new school buildings are being vetoed in large numbers all over the country. The public is showing huge interest in where and how taxes for public education are being spent. What this means is that more and more the demand is growing for publicly supported institutions for educa tion— kindergarten through twelfth grade— to be held accountable for the money they spend. The Gallup poll, as reported in the September, 1971, Phi Delta Kappan. revealed that 70 per cent of our citizens were calling for accountability. Accountability has to do with the results of education. So we ask— is the educational system fulfilling its general goals? Are students achieving at their highest level of personal, social, intellectual and vocational development? Are we determining the effectiveness of an institution and its programs in terms of attainment of established learner goals and objectives? Control and accountability have been the tasks or responsibilities of the upper level management, the owner of the business, or in public school— the central office. Their statements of accountability were based on facts and figures collected over a period of time based on experi ence. Public schools would purchase supplies, hire staffs, order educational equipment and purchase textbooks on an equal basis in order for each child from the school to have the same opportunities. Curriculum guides were written so that each teacher would present the same pro gram throughout the district. This ’ 'centralization” or the concept of the same opportunity for education for all students has not worked. Equal education is more than each student receiving the same supplies, equipment, curriculum materials, and staff support. To answer this problem school districts are delegating much of the decision making back to the indi vidual school. This decentralization is a major issue in education. The Legislature of the State of California passed legislation in 1969 that would place every school district in the state on a Planned Program Budgeting System, (P.P. B.S.), by 1974* In addition to this, the Stull Act, which was also passed by the California State Legislature, and effectuated in the 1972-73 school year, places accounta bility for academic growth as a part of the appraisal system of teachers. Traditionally, control and accountability have been the responsibilities of the upper level management in business and in public schools. With the passage of P.P. B.S. and the Stull Act, decentralization is being attempted at all levels of education, and many school systems are stating that they are decentralized. To what degree this decentralization is being actually accomplished in the eyes of those most involved should be of interest to the profession as a whole and particularly to those who make decisions in education. The .grofelfim The purpose of this study was to analyze the decision-making powers of the high school principal in dis tricts practicing decentralization as perceived by high school principals and by central office administrators. This study compared the degree of decision-making power high school principals believe they possess with the degree of decision-making power central office administrators believe high school principals possess. It also attempted to determine if high school principals perceive their decision-making power in certain areas within decentralization to be identifiably different than the perceptions of central office administrators in districts practicing decentralization. The study sought answers to the following five questions: 1. In the category of budget, what is the degree of decision-making power as perceived by high school prin cipals compared with central office administrators? 2. In the category of personnel, what is the degree of decision-making power as perceived by high school principals compared with central office adminis trators? 3* In the category of curriculum, what is the degree of decision-making power as perceived by high school principals compared with central office administrators? 4* In the category of students, what is the degree of decision-making power a3 perceived by high school principals compared with central office adminis trators? 5. In the category of community, what is the degree of decision-making power as perceived by high school principals compared with central office administrators? Secondary questions to which answers were sought were: 1. What is the extent of decentralization in school districts in the State of California? 2. What areas or categories in decentralization (of decision making) are being practiced in the school dis tricts in the state of California? Importance of the Study The pressures being placed on educators for accountability and local school control have come from many directions— the legislature, parents, students, teachers, local school administrators, boards of education— all asking for more accountability. (3:13) The California State Department of Education, in its publication, Guidelines for Early Childhood Education, calls for school districts to develop a master plan for an education pro gram based on the needs of the district. Funds for this program are being allocated directly to the individual school's budget and call for a line item audit for each school involved. This has placed decision making at the school level by state mandate. Industry discovered, as the transition was made from a highly centralized system into decentralization of decision-making powers, that a continuity was lost between levels of management as to the responsibility for the mak ing of decisions. Administrative decentralization in education, in which decision-making authority is shifted from central office administrators to local area adminis trators or individual school principals may or may not lose this continuity, but this study does not attempt to answer that question. This study is concerned with the perceptions of the high school principal and the central office administrators, which should not only contribute to the knowledge we have of decentralization, but should give us new areas to study and guidelines to follow in setting up decentralized organizations. It is hypothesized that the identification of these perceptions will shed light on the means by which better decentralization and accountability organizations may be structured to achieve their goals. Delimitations, The criteria for selection of the population for the study were: 1. This study was limited to high school prin cipals and central office administrators. 2. This study was limited to selected school dis tricts in Orange County and Los Angeles County where decentralization of decision making was being utilized. 3. This study was limited to school districts 10,000 to 60,000 enrollment that had undergone some degree of decentralization by the school year 1972-73* These delimitations were based on the need to exclude the extremes of too small or too large school dis tricts, to assure a sufficient sample size for high school principals and to allow the researcher to be able to visit randomly selected high school principals and central office administrators in southern California. Statement of Hypotheses The following null hypotheses have been selected for testing in this investigation: 1. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision-making power between high school principals and central office administrators in the 10 area of budget. 2. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision-making power between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of personnel. 3. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision-making power between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of curriculum. 4. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision-making power between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of students, (activities and services). 5. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision-making power between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of community affairs. Assumptions The following assumptions were basic to the study and are to be considered a part of the study when evalu ating the findings: 1. The definition of decentralization is the same for all groups participating in the study. 2. Decentralization delegates a greater degree of decision making and accountability to the individual school. 3. Decentralization has been utilized in education for a sufficient period so that a study can be made. 4. The sample of high school principals and central office administrators in the study is adequate to reflect the respective population. 1. Some central office administrators and high . school principals have greater experience in decentraliza tion and accountability. 2. Some administrators and districts have greater experience in management training. Definition of Terms Accountability.— The quality or state of being responsible for something to someone. Authority.— The sum of power and rights assigned to a position. Central Office Administrator.— The person at the district or central office level who has the authority to give greater degrees of control to the administrator at the school level. Centralization.— The systematic and consistent 12 reservation of authority and decision making to top levels of the organization. Comwninitv.— All individuals within a school area or boundaries. Control.— Having a direct influence or degree of power in decision making. Curriculum.— The program being used in a high school based on philosophy of the school, district and school goals, and community expectations. Decentralization.— The systematic and consistent delegation of authority and decision making to the local school level. Degree of Authority/Control.— The level of authority that an administrator perceives he has in making a decision. O r g a n i z a t i o n . —The five sub-areas or categories of budget, students, curriculum, personnel and community. Personnel.— All individuals, certificated and classified, that are members of the staff and paid by the district. Students.— All students who are registered and qualify for attendance at the school. 13 Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter I has provided an overview of the study. An introduction} background and general purpose of the study were presented. The problem, the delimitations, hypotheses, assumptions and limitations were developed. The definition of terms was presented. Chapter II reviews the literature that pertains to decentralization, organizational control and accountability as is pertinent to the study. Chapter III outlines the method of study as well as procedures used in the selection of the research popu lation, the construction of the instruments, and the processing of the data. Chapter IV contains the findings and the statisti cal treatment of the data obtained from the decision analysis chart. Chapter V contains the summary of findings, con clusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Chapter I outlined the purpose and importance of this study, gave the background, indicated the procedure and limitations, stated the hypotheses and delineated the organization for the balance of the presentation. This chapter contains a review of the literature concerned with decentralization, decision making, and accountability. A large amount of research and literature exists in the area of accountability— so much in fact that most educational publications in the fall and winter of 1972-73 included at least one article on accountability. The subject of decentralization was also covered exten sively; however most of what was written concerning decen tralization dealt with the problems of large school dis tricts . The definition of decentralization for this study is "the systematic and consistent delegation of authority and decision making to the local school level." Therefore, the term decentralization as used in this study is one in which decision-making authority is shifted from central administrators to individual school principals— not that 14 15 of huge school districts being carved up into smaller units. Historical Background At one time most of the school districts in the United States operated from a centralized decision-making structure rather than a decentralized one. There is still a need for centralization as well as decentralization on a metropolitan or state basis in planning certain aspects of financial support, curriculum, tenure, retirement, and racial integration. This need for partial centralization also exists in some districts today because they are too small to be educationally efficient and must use centralization in some areas of school operation and decentralization in other areas. David Tyack, concerned with the organizational patterns of city schools at the turn of the century, wrote: The drive towards centralization of urban educa tion at the turn of the century largely succeeded in reshaping the formal structure of control of the schools. In the cities with over 100,000 population in 1910, the average size of the school board dropped from approximately sixteen in 1895 to nine in 1915. Chicago, one of the largest locations, in 1917> reduced the size of the board from twenty-one to eleven members, and the board was appointed by the mayor. Accompanying these changes in structure of the school boards, in most cases, were substantial enlargements of the power of the superintendents in hiring and firing of the staff, curriculum, and other professional and fiscal matters. (48) For forty years after 1920, there was virtually no change in the accepted notions of good school administra tion for the cities. They stood the test of financial problems during the depression and during the war. In 1950, however, changes in urban population expanded the areas of low income residents in the central cities, which created black ghettos and pushed middle income families to the outskirts of the cities and into the suburbs. Schools in the cities and suburbs became more homogeneous in terms of family income and race. From 1920 to I960, then, there was a pattern of governance of city schools that was centralized. About this time, the poor people of the cities and the minorities who suffered from discrimination began to protest. Robert J. Havighurst, in his report, "The Reorganization of Education in Metropolitan Areas,” remarked that the frustration of these groups found a natural solution to their problems by decentralization of local community control of the schools. (22:354) William R. Manning supports this thesis for decentralization. He stated that as an educator and observer of the social scene, he takes the position that the public school system in our urban centers is failing. The proof for this, stated Manning, is the fact that the inner city school children are not being educated to take a meaning ful place in society. He said this in spite of the fact that the educational program today is better than it has 17 ever been. His report is also concerned with community control and community participation. Manning reported: We must remember that the basic unit for communi cation between the school system and the community is the single school. If we are to establish within each school unit strong relationships with the community and a spirit of cooperative concern for the needs of children, we may be able to avoid the power struggle which seems in so many instances to be avoidable. (25:116) Manning further stated that decision making should be made at the level of those it will affect. Local community forces, based on individual schools and their communities, must be brought together to create a community school system to provide a relevant education and to provide an education which will restore a sense of community responsibility. One of the pioneer experiments in community control and education was the Morgan Community School in Washington, D.C. This school has an elective school board which was granted responsibility for deter mining the priorities for expenditure of funds allocated to the school and for determining the number and kind of personnel that would be hired. It was also given the responsibility for curriculum formation and instruction aided by colleges it had selected as consultants. (25:122) Manning's treatise on decentralization is not the decentralization as defined and used in this study. As indicated in the definition of terms, decentralization for this study is the systematic and consistent delegation of IS authority and decision making to the local school level, i.e., administrative decentralization— in which decision making authority is shifted from central administrators to local area administrators or individual school principals. This administrative decentralization, then, is the subject of this study rather than the process going on in large city school systems which are bring broken up into smaller units for control and administrative government. Wilson Riles, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, in a foreword to Parent Advisory Committees, stated: Federal and state guidelines for Elementary and Secondary Act, Title I programs require that community parent advisory groups be established in schools and school districts to help plan and operate compensatory education projects. School-community relations are not one-way streets. Too often school officials think in terms of the need to transmit information to parents to improve the parents * understanding of school activi ties. There is an equal need for a structure whereby school officials can improve their understanding of the poverty area community they are serving and the perceptions of parents as to the educational needs of their children. The advisory committees and other parent involvement activities are based on the recognition that educators cannot hope to improve the classroom performance of children from low-income backgrounds without involving their parents in the process. (37:iii) State legislation for the State of California, enacted in the spring of 1973> specifically mandates that certain district funding for Early Childhood Education goes directly to the school site budget. Central services 19 are to be provided only if requested by the parent advisory group of the school. (36:3) Jack Meisberg reported that the U. S. Office of Education has undertaken a project that goes far beyond simple involvement of parents in the process of decision making. This project provides funds directly to local school neighborhoods where parents and teachers are collaborating in an effort to improve the educational services to children. The plan was referred to as "power equalization" and again emphasized decentralization and decision-making power to the local school level. (26:531) One of the most noted authorities on decentraliza tion is Laverne Cunningham, Dean of the College of Education at Ohio State. Cunningham stated that while decentralization may bring peace to troubled city schools, there is little to indicate that it will lead automatically to improved education. He feels that decentralization is, by itself, no more of a panacea than other alleged cure-alls of longer standing such as smaller classes and compensatory programs. Indeed, if misused, he believes that it could likely result in reduced service levels in particular areas of some school systems. Cunningham goes on to say that the transfer of responsibility from the upper levels of government to lower levels implies a shift of power. Decentralizing a large structure may not mean a loss of power or shifting as much as it may mean an 20 increase in the total supply of power in the system. He stressed that the principal reason for decentralization is to build a more effective means of solving educational problems. Cunningham summarized by saying: Persons involved in decentralization must avoid getting unnecessarily uptight about where the power is. Boards and downtowners must let some of it go; lower echelons must receive and accept it. Citizens, students, and teachers must understand what is occurring and learn to deal with the new locations of authority and responsibility. All affected by such changes must be patient and allow altered power relationships a chance to settle and rearrange them selves. A decentralized system at its creation does not have instant potency. Its attributes will need refinement. Its capacities will require development. (15:4) Frederick Pallotta conducted a study explaining the relationship between the school organization members' perceptions of influence on decision makers and the decentralization of decision making in the school system. Pallotta used an input instrument covering primarily the same criteria that were used in this study, e.g., business management, curriculum, pupil personnel, community rela tions, and personnel. He examined these areas through teachers, boards of education, local public, non-local sources, administrative 3taff and members of the non professional staff. This dessertation discovered that there was little or no support to be found for the need of Pallotta's major hypothesis, which was that decision makers in purely centralized districts are perceived by teachers and administrators as being relatively less influenced by 21 input .from internal sources than a decision maker in a relatively decentralized school district. However, there were significant negative relationships between perceived degrees of teaching staff influence, primarily in the area of business management and curriculum. In substance, Pallotta found that in business management there were perceptual differences among the seven different publics that he examined as to the degree of centralization/ decentralization going on in the particular schools he studied. (45) S. M. Brownell, consultant on urban education at Yale University reported that: One's attitude toward decentralization relates, in part, to the extent of his belief in peoples' ability to govern themselves. One with strong faith will tend to want authority and responsibility for civic decision making to reside with individuals in grassroot groupings. He will favor organization which provides that larger groupings and extension of powers will be by grant of authority from indi viduals in smaller units with the power of with drawing centralized authority retained by those who have made the grant. One with little faith in man's ability to exercise good judgment will tend to want a few people selected to exercise authority. (13:286) Possible effects of decentralization in school staffing patterns are worrisome to some teachers and to some citizens according to Brownell. Teachers recall the long, hard road traveled by teacher organizations to gain security of tenure and protection against unjust dismissals. This is recalled by citizens as well. It is a concern that decentralization could, if misused, return school staffing 22 patterns and practices to the days of ward political con trol of the schools or to the freedom of local school boards to hire and fire at will or because of pressure. Brownell stated that a decentralized school system would differ from a centralized school system in the following manner: 1. greater citizen participation in determining policies for individual schools and constellations of schools within the total system; 2. removal of most present responsibilities for city school operating decisions from the city-wide school board and administrative offices; 3. allocation of decision-making powers to persons and groups who conduct school operations; 4. encouragement of parent and citizen partici pation in the school serving that area; 5. city-wide school board responsibilities for determining city-wide policies and holding sub districts accountable for conducting schools in compliance with these policies; 6. protection of minority and majority interests. Decentralized districts would include a cross section of the city population racially, socio-economically, and politically; 7. protection of school employees' rights to exercise their professional judgment for the benefit of pupils even when this may not be in accord of a parent or a pressure group. 3. encouragement of innovation and cooperative programs as an outcome of decentralization. (13:2SS) Charles Kenney, Superintendent of Santa Ana, California Unified School District, in a position paper on decentralization, presented this concept: 23 Differentiation is a primary characteristic of a participative type of future oriented district organi zation. Its result is to make schools functional units under themselves while still receiving guidance and services from the district. This differentiated approach begins by recognizing the individual quali ties of the student and his consequent need for instruction designed to develop his full potential. To this end, it provides for schools that will be as variegated as the requirements of their student popu lations in local communities, within the bounds of the overall educational policies of the district as established by the Board of Education and the super intendent and his staff. (40) Kenney presented the following characteristics as essential in a differentiated-decentralized structure: 1. Participation, which must decentralize the decision-making and involve instructional and administrative' personnel at all levels. 2. Differentiated-decentralization, which must recognize each school as a functional unit. 3. Centralized service, which must give direction and the help of special resources to the local school. 4. Philosophy of education and operational P rocedures, which must be clearly stated on the general evel by the Board, understood by all personnel, and used as a framework for decisions by local school staffs. 5. Objectives, which must be determined in indi vidual schools in accordance with District policy. 6. Priorities, which must be rationally established so that resources can be used with maximum effectiveness. 7. Variety, which must spring from schools' variable responses to local needs. £. Flexibility, which refers to loose linkages of the schools with one another and with the adminis tration, and which should enable problems to be solved and ideas to be introduced in a maimer of ways. 9. Adaptability, involving readiness to grow, 24 develop, and adjust in a pragmatic manner to cir cumstances as they present themselves. 10. Professional pride or a sense of pro fessional integrity for principals and teachers, which should spring from their opportunities to try out new approaches to their work and their accountability for results. 11. Evaluation, which must be carried out at all levels. (40) Alvin Aho at the University of Wisconsin made a study similar to this in that, his goal was to determine the extent of congruency among central office representa tives*, secondary principals*, and secondary teachers' perceptions of the secondary principals' role within a program of decentralization in the Milwaukee Public School System. It differs from this study in that the extent of congruency in these perceptions was compared with the principals' effectiveness as rated by the central office representatives. This study did not attempt to rate the effectiveness of the high school principal nor was his effectiveness examined or discussed. Aho found that perceptions among secondary prin cipals and among secondary teachers regarding the principal's role were significantly related at the .01 level. There was no significant relationship (at the .05 level) between the extent of congruency in perceptions among secondary principals, secondary teachers, and central office representatives regarding the principal's 25 role and the principal's effectiveness as rated by the central office representatives. The number of teachers per school and the amount of the principal's college training were not significantly related (at the .05 level) to the principal's effectiveness ratings. However, there was a significant inverse relationship (at the .01 level) between the secondary principal's effectiveness ratings and his total years of experience as a head principal. In general, the role of the secondary principal was perceived by respondent groups primarily as one of educational maintenance. Businessmen, popular authors and social scientists also have studied decentralization of decision making. Industry has found that the principle of decentralization levels of decision making has gained a great deal of acceptance over the past twenty-five years. In fact, some have even carried the process too far and have had to "recentralize." General Motors was one of the first major companies to utilize decentralization, but discovered that they needed to find a principle of coordination without losing the advantages of decentralization, and did this by keeping some of the decision-making controls central ized. Industries have discovered that decentralization of decision making, as an organizational change, is achieved at its highest level when members of management teams have participated in the decisions. (39) Leonard R. Sayles, in his book Human Behavior in Organizations, discussed the major companies in industry that have had success with decentralization and those who have tried decentralization and then moved away from this organizational pattern. He stated: "There is evidence that American industry is moving in the direction of greater decentralization." (9:460) Alvin Toffler, in his best seller, Future Shock, stressed the importance of the decision-making power being at the level of the administrator. With the emphasis on time, decisions cannot wait for the leisurely climb up and down the ladder of hierarchy. Lower level management must make the decisions in direct consultation with the workers and the technicians. (10:126) Toffler continued by saying that decentralization of decision making makes possible greater regional diversity, and helps local authority alter curricula, student regulations and admin istrative practices. He identified the issue of decen tralization as the main reason for the teacher strike of the New York City Schools in 1969-70. This pressure for decentralization has spread to Detroit, Washington, Milwaukee and other major cities in the United States, and is not an issue to improve the education of the minorities, but to totally destroy the idea of the centralized city- wide school policies. Toffler believed that, without the diversity that can come with decentralization, a movement 27 will lead to a great growth of alternative educational opportunities outside of the school system. Education, a major cultural force in our society, is being forced to diversify or decentralize its output, exactly as the economy is doing and in many of the same patterns that industry has preceded the schools in doing. (10:242) J. L. Jones, who at the time of his writing was a mid-career fellow at the Institute of Social Science at Yale, wrote about decentralization as a management tool. He said: The management process does not differ from the leadership process. There is no conflict between the words leader and manager. Management is simply broader than leadership. In a different way we may say that management is a style of leadership that produces change at maximum benefit for those affected by the change. (23:33) Jones also stated that school leaders should view the management process as the negotiators view the negotiations process. The aim is to obtain change by agreement. The ability and the responsibility to manage is necessary in each management position— superintendent, associate or assistant superintendent, director, prin cipal, or assistant principal. Each level of management must be able to manage without massive red tape and delaying protocol. The management function should be exercised at the level at which the problem or change desired exists. Management exists at all levels. Jones went on, however, to point out that the 23 superintendent of schools is one of the most difficult positions in our society— the average tenure of the large city school superintendent in the State of California being only three or four years. Superintendents are most secure and effective when principals are doing their job— it is the principal and his expertise which makes the system go. The principal is the day-to-day manager, the one on the firing line, the communicator, the organizer, the commander. Jones stated: 1. Strong principals with widespread support are the most vital asset that a superintendent can have. The principal, thus, is central to decision making, to the resolution of problems, and to effective school-community relations. 2. Problems occur at the building level and are usually resolved there. 3. It is the individual buildings that provide direct services to parents, teachers, and students. 4* The principal usually knows more about his building than anyone else. (23:36-7) Jones further stated that survival for school principals is related to their ability to deal with con flict. Survival is possible if schools are managed in a decentralized way; if principals, rather than a super intendent, become the major conflict managers. The superintendent is far away from the problems and diffi culties that are faced day by day. Jones summarized by saying: 29 Decisions are judgments. They are choices from among many alternatives. At best, the choice is between what may be right and what may be wrong. Rarely is the choice between right and wrong. In most cases, the right or wrong concept is not involved. Solutions to problems must satisfy the needs of the participants, and must reduce the need for future conflict. As a constructive consequence, conflict may increase that motivation and energy available to do tasks required by the school system. (23:39) Decentralization is one of the current answers to the public's demand for accountability and for reporting on how their education tax money was spent and what results were obtained. .George Gallup, who has now conducted four annual surveys of "The Public's Attitude Toward Public Schools," reported that accountability for teachers and administra tors has been one of the top ten concerns of the public in each poll. He stated that: With the cost of maintaining the public schools rising year by year, the public's demand for some kind of measurement of student progress is certain to grow. There are obviously many factors that cannot be taken fully into account in the rating of schools. However, the argument that communities differ so greatly and that home environment of students varies so much that comparisons are impossible can be answered to a large extent by present research techniques which permit the matching of samples. The computer can overcome many of the earlier problems of comparing one community with another and one school system with another. (13:101) Gallup discovered, in the 1970 survey, that over 63 percent of the total sample favored the question: 30 "Would you favor or oppose a system that would hold teachers and administrators more accountable for the progress of students?" (Id:106) A like question, asked on the 1971 survey, saw the percentage in favor to move up to over 70 percent. Gallup stated at this time that: Many educators insist that educational achievement is difficult to measure, that communities vary to such an extent that comparisons are meaningless, and that a testing program puts undue pressures on both teachers and students to get high scores. But here again the burden of proof rests with those who oppose. The public wants some proof that their schools are good, that they are getting their money's worth. In the absence of other evidence, they will most certainly accept performance on national tests. (19:37) The concerns for accountability found in the public surveys has been expressed strongly by educators as well as the general public. Leon M. Lessinger, former Associate Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education in the U. S. Office of Education felt that there are two choices, accountability or the voucher system. He said: "The commitment to accountability is a powerful catalyst for reform and renewal of the school system, because accountability requires fundamental change." (23:96) Jacob Landers, Assistant Superintendent of Schools, New York City, expressed his positive views on accountabil ity by writing: 31 I believe that the current concept of account ability, as defined to emphasize educational results, the allocation of responsibility for results, and the consequences to those held responsible, represents a powerful force for positive educational change. In my judgment, it is more an idea to be developed than a rallying cry for revolution. (24:540) The move for accountability has been made by the state legislatures in several states. Colorado passed an Educational Accountability Act in 1971* The act required every school district of the state to adopt an account ability program for the 1972-73 school year. Six other states are working with Colorado on a project called the Cooperative Accountability Project. This group of states is comprised of Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. (31:96) The State of California passed legislation in 1969 requiring all districts to implement a Planned Program Budgeting System (PPBS) by the school year 1972-73* (36:1) School districts have been granted a postponement in order to initiate later legislation which was to be implemented during the school year of 1972-73. In addition to the PPBS legislation, laws known as the Stull Act affect all certificated personnel in every public school district in the state. The Stull Act holds accountability for student academic growth as a part of the appraisal system for certificated personnel. The Act states: 32 Education Code Article 5.5, Section 13437 The governing board of each school district shall develop and adopt specific evaluation and assessment guidelines which shall include but shall not neces sarily be limited in contact to the following ele ments : Student Progress a. The establishment of standards of expected student progress in each area of study and of techniques for the assessment of that progress. Personnel Evaluation b. Assessment of certification personnel competence as it relates to the established standards. Adjunctive Duties c. Assessment of other duties normally required to be performed by certificated employees as an adjunct to their regular assignments. Proper Control-Learning Environment d. The establishment of procedures and techniques for ascertaining that the certificated employee is maintaining proper control and is preserving a suitable learning environment. (34) The teaching profession and the teaching organiza tions have expressed strong feelings towards accountabil ity. A president of the National Educational Association has stated: It is pure myth that a classroom teacher can even be held accountable, with justice, under existing conditions. The classroom teacher has either too little control or no control over the factors which might render accountability either feasible or fair. (12:413) Thus, the thrust for accountability and decentrali- zation is involving not only industry, but all facets of 33 education— students, teachers, parents, and professional organizations as well as administrators. Summary Most of which has been written concerning decen tralization has concentrated on the big city or large school district problems, not on administrative decen tralization— an organizational pattern that delegates authority and decision making to the local school level. School districts have been structured historically with the decision-making power residing in the central office. This centralization pattern was the accepted concept up to the late I960's. Then, because of the problems that erupted, other patterns began to emerge brought on by the poor and the minorities of the cities, teacher militancy, student unrest, the question of the relevancy of curriculum, and the public's growing lack of faith in the schools. Parent organizations and/or advisory groups at the local school level became mandatory for schools involved with certain federal projects. Principals discovered that they were in a role of crisis management and did not have the time to wait for decisions to be handed down from another level of management. Failures of tax overrides and bond issues displayed still further lack of faith by the taxpayer on how monies 34 were being spent and led to the demand for greater accountability on both the part of teachers and adminis trators. This demand took the form of legislation which was enacted in several states calling for measurable accountability and in decentralization, or placing greater power of decision making at the local school level. This decision-making power at the level of the school principal permits him to alter curriculum, student regulations and administrative practices as the needs arise. The public has mandated accountability. Decen tralization of decision making is one of the profession's attempts to be accountable and respond to this mandate. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD AND PROCEDURE This study was a companion study on decentraliza tion and decision making done at the University of Southern California. One study (Burroughs, 40) analyzed the degree » of decision-making powers of the elementary school prin cipal as perceived by the principal and central office administrators in districts practicing decentralization. This study analyzed the decision-making powers of the high school principal as perceived by the principal and central office administrators. Since the two studies together were concerned with both levels, kindergarten through twelfth grade, the decision was made to survey school districts of a given size in the state of California to discover and identify districts undergoing decentralization. Specifically, there were three purposes for the survey, as follows: 1. To determine if decentralization was a method of organization used in California schools. 2. To determine what areas or categories of decision making were practiced in decentralization. 3. To provide a list of districts that were 35 involved in decentralization. The preliminary questionnaire was limited to school districts in the state of California having 10,000 - 60,000 enrollment as listed in the 1971 California Public School Directory. This included all types of dis tricts and district organizations, including elementary, kindergarten through sixth grade; elementary, kindergarten through eighth grade; high school districts, grades seven through twelve; high school districts, grades nine through twelve, and joint union high school districts. The 60,000 enrollment maximum limitation excluded the six largest school districts in California and also eliminated hundreds of small districts having a listed enrollment of less than 10,000. The introductory letter explaining the purpose of the survey and also containing the questionnaire was mailed to 112 districts in California. Of these twenty-three were elementary dis tricts, eleven were high school districts and seventy- eight were unified districts. The questionnaire was mailed to the superintendents of the districts in December of 1972. The cut-off date of January 15» 1973 was established for the return of the data. Of the 112 questionnaires mailed, ninety-four were returned as indicated below. Identification of districts was limited to a three type basis— (1) elementary, (2) high 37 school, and (3) unified. The high school districts con taining grades seven through twelve or containing grades nine through twelve were all categorized together under the title, high school district. TABLE 1 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED AND RETURNED Type of District Number Mailed Number Returned Percent Elementary 23 20 67 High School 11 a 72.a Unified 7a. 66 a4.6_. Total 112 94 a3.9 The total response of S3.9 percent was somewhat larger than usually expected. This may have been due to the concise structure of the questionnaire, enabling quick responses to objective questions and requiring checks in the columns only. Other factors which may have caused such a large percentage of completed returns could be that the questionnaire was mailed directly to the superintendent of the districts and that the time of year the question naire was mailed may have been favorable. After studying the preliminary questionnaire 3d results, it was decided that an adequate sample population could be obtained in Orange and Los Angeles counties. To assure as much uniformity as possible among the districts selected for study, the following criteria were established to govern the selection of the districts: 1. The districts shall have undergone some degree of decentralization by the school year 1972-73. 2. The districts shall have an enrollment of 10,000 - 60,000. Since a number of school districts, both unified and high school had indicated in the preliminary ques tionnaire that they were undergoing decentralization practices and met the above criteria, it became necessary to identify districts which had under way a quality program of decentralization. The districts for the sample population were to be four or five in number, depending upon the size of the districts and the number of respondents which was to con sist of from twenty-five to thirty-five high school prin cipals and twenty-five to thirty-five central office administrators. To identify these participating districts a number of educators noted for their expertise in this area were consulted. These six authorities were: an assistant executive director of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), a superintendent of a large unified district, a superintendent of a large 39 high school district, a professor of school administration at the University of Southern California, a professor of secondary education at the University of Southern California, and a director of research and development in a large unified school district. These authorities were contacted personally. As a result of these conferences, four school districts to be included in the sample popula tion were identified. All four districts had a bonafide program of administrative decentralization of decision making in progress. The four districts identified included a large high school district in Los Angeles County, a large unified district in Los Angeles County, a large high school district in Orange County, and a large unified district in Orange Comity. Development of the Decision Auaiyaig, Chgyt The instrument designed to determine the percep tions of the high school principals and central office administrators was developed over a series of weeks with questions being reworded, restructured, added and elimi nated as the instrument developed. As a result of the preliminary questionnaire the five categories of budget, community, curriculum, personnel and students were decided upon to be the best subject indicators to determine how the principals and central office administrators would perceive the principals' freedom to make a decision. The first draft of the Decision Making Analysis Chart was constructed with seven questions in each of the five categories of budget, curriculum, community, personnel and students. This construction aspect of the chart remained virtually the same from its inception, although the individual questions were changed often as they were reworded, discarded and added to as a result of the pilot study and close examination. The degrees of authority were originally seven in number. They were subsequently reduced to five. The original seven categories were perceived in the pilot study as being relatively too close to each other in meaning and could conceivably cause confusion by having too many degree selections from which to choose. The categories eliminated were near the middle of the five degrees of authority and muddled the selection process. The elimination of these two selections finalized the Decision Analysis Chart's structure. Table 2 lists the questions from the Decision Analysis Chart in each of the five categories. The five degrees of decision-making authority as finalized were established on a continuum ranging from complete authority to make decisions to no authority, as follows: A. Principal has complete authority to act or decide. 41 B. Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office. C. Principal and Central Office mutually make decision. D. Principal consulted and/or involved in decision made by Central Office. £. Principal not involved in decision made by Central Office. Since there are few women high school principals (only two in the twenty-eight high schools in this study and none in the thirty central office positions), and since age and years in administration were not found to be significant at either the .01 or .05 levels of other researchers (Burroughs-Aho), it was decided not to include those items in this study. The pilot study was done in a unified district which had been decentralized for three years. The dis trict met the criteria of those to be selected for the study. These criteria were: 1. The district had undergone some degree of decentralization by the school year 1972-73* 2. The district had an enrollment between 10,000 - 60,000. Six central office administrators and four high school principals completed the Decision Analysis Chart for the pilot study. A careful study of the respondents' 42 Decision Analysis Charts led to reevaluating a number of the questions and eventually changing six of them. TABLE 2 LISTING OF STATEMENTS FROM DECISION ANALYSIS CHART Item Number Category Statements 1. Budget Establish an unrestricted account for discretionary use. 2. Budget Determine how monies in your school budget will be allocated during budget preparation. 3. Budget Have candy sale to purchase new band uniforms. 4. Budget Withhold part of a teacher's salary for failure to follow administrative regulation of mandatory attendance at open house. 5. Budget Hire substitute for teachers visiting or observing other schools. 6. Budget Keep school buildings lighted at night. 7. Budget Grant overtime for classified employees. S. Community Schedule open house. 9. Community Release a public relations state ment to news media. 10. Community Request a crossing guard. 11. Community Schedule Teen Challenge for an assembly. 43 TABLE 2— Continued Item Category Statements Numbar 12. Community Set up parent advisory groups. 13. Community Schedule a minimum day for all students. 14. Community Give a citizen, not a parent, group test results. 15. Personnel Initiate the hiring of para- professionals in lieu of certificated staff as allocated. 16. Personnel Permit night custodians to attend Friday night football game if time and work is made up on Saturday. 17. Personnel Release head football coach of his coaching duties. IS. Personnel Initiate involuntary teacher transfers between schools. 19. Personnel Assign counselors to semi- administrative duties. 20. Personnel Screen and make recommendations for certificated employment. 21. Personnel Excuse administrator to attend a two day workshop. 22. Curriculum Set up new grading procedures, e.g., pass-fail. 23. Curriculum Schedule a local field trip for three art classes. 24. Curriculum Offer a unit on venereal disease in a course. IO vn • Curriculum Schedule a new course in ethnic studies. TABLE 2— Continued Item Number Category Statements 26. Curriculum Organize a graduate follow-up study. 27. Curriculum Group students by ability for instruction and/or implement on ungraded program. 26. Curriculum Decide to administer stan dardized tests to determine achievement. 29. Students Organize a Mecha Club or BSU. 30. Students Suspend a student for five days. 31. Students Schedule a ditch day or student body picnic. 32. Students Call police to arrest a recalcitrant student. 33. Students Cancel golf team's schedule and eliminate the team. 34. Students Grant student's request for school time observance of a special event. The questions were constructed to cover various aspects of each of the five categories of budget, curricu lum, community, personnel, students, in the study, e.g., in the curriculum category, questions concerned grading, grouping, testing, follow-up studies, debatable courses, and scheduling field trips. In the student category, the questions concerned school clubs, suspension, ditch days, calling police, cancelling athletic team schedules, 45 releasing students from school and scheduling assemblies. The questions were deemed to be important and descriptive of the specific category according to the pilot study respondents. The questions themselves had their genesis in the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) booklets for high school accreditations, district policies, the Education Code and interviews with business managers, directors of curriculum, personnel directors, high school principals and superintendents. Data Collection and Recording After the Decision Analysis Charts were finalized, and the districts identified, personal contact was made with each superintendent and/or a ranking member of his administrative staff to request permission to undertake the survey in that particular school district. This contact resulted in permission to visit each district and give the questionnaire to the high school principals and the central office cabinet. The superin tendents of each of the districts selected not only answered the questionnaire but participated in the meeting with the cabinet when the questionnaire was given. At these meetings the purpose and method of study were presented. Participants were instructed to respond as the instruction on the Decision Analysis Chart indi cated, i.e., "Please check in the appropriate columns your perception of the principals' authority in the situations as stated below." The participants were told to respond as they perceived the situations as they existed— not as they should be nor as they wished them to be. The pilot study had indicated that the first two questions were harder to answer than many of the other questions, so the investigator suggested to all groups that they start in reverse order on the first page of the questionnaire. This "mind set" made the first questions much easier to cognate when they returned to them and resulted in less frustration than had been noted in the pilot study. The cabinet of the first district visited listened to the investigator give the directions for taking the questionnaire and all members completed the questionnaire at that time. A subsequent meeting was held with the high school principals in that district where the same activity was repeated. At two of the districts the investigator gave the questionnaire at a head administrators' meeting where both high school principals and superintendents' cabinets were present. This resulted in the return of all questionnaires at one sitting except for the personnel who were absent in each district. A subsequent administration of the test was necessary to complete each districts' high school principals' and central office administrators' question naires . 47 The fourth district was a repetition of the first— i.e., a cabinet presentation and a high school principal presentation. The composition of the population of the districts is listed in Table 3 below. TABLE 3 INFORMATION REGARDING DISTRICTS SELECTED FOR STUDY High School Central Office District Type Enrollment Principals Administrators A Unified 34,000 6 9 B High School 15,000 S 10 C High School 15,000 10 5 D Unified 2S,000 -Jk~ 6 Total 2d 30 The number of the Central Office Administrators from each district who were included in the survey was selected by the superintendent or his delegate and the investigator. The groups were usually composed of the superintendent, a deputy superintendent and/or associate superintendents and/or assistant superintendents, an administrative assistant and in two of the districts, a director. The criteria used to determine which central office administrators would participate were that he be on the superintendent's cabinet or in a decision-making group or office close to the superintendent, and that he be an administrator knowing the composition of the school district and cognizant of the duties of the high school principals. Statistical Analysis The five degrees of authority in the Decision Analysis Chart were set up as a continuum from complete authority to make decisions (A) to no authority (E). The definition of decentralization for this study was , r the systematic and consistent delegation of authority and decision making to the levels where the work is performed." A response in columns A or B was interpreted as a decen tralized response, i.e., a check in column A (the principal has complete authority to act or decide) or in column B (principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults central office) was accepted as an indication that the decision-making power was at the school level— hence decentralized. Columns C, D, and £ were interpreted as being centralized. This resulted in a dichotomy— the decision-making power was perceived to be either decen tralized or centralized. It was determined upon advice of statistical experts and by analyzing Guilford's Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, that the statistical treatment of the data could best be accomplished by using the chi- 49 square test. The data obtained from the Decision Analysis Charts were then computerized. The high school principals and the central office administrators were coded and each question was also coded for individual analysis to deter mine the validity of the null hypothesis in each of the five sub-areas and in each of the thirty-five questions. The program designed set up the chi-square values from the observed and expected frequencies and the chi-square value was computed to determine whether the null hypothesis was accepted or rejected at the .05 level. The .10 and .01 levels of significance were also computed. All statistical procedures were performed on a Burroughs 3500 computer. 1 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ; i iatraluctip .Q I This chapter reports the findings from the pre liminary questionnaire, and the analysis of high school principals1 and central office administrators' perceptions of decision-making powers of the principal. The research findings as they were received from the computer are included in the chapter complete with a number of tables which show in a graphic manner the statistical analysis as derived from the Decision Analysis Charts. These tables include the numbers of responses by the principals and central office administrators to the statements in each of the categories of budget, community, personnel, j curriculum, and students. They depict the percentage of centralized/decentralized responses for both high school ! principals and central office administrators for each of i the statements and supplement and amplify the explanation j ! of the survey. I The findings are related to the hypotheses listed in Chapter I— a comparison of the perceptions of high school principals and central office administrators as to j ! the degree of decision-making power of the high school j ... -.50.............. J 51 principals in the areas of budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. The tables include the computed chi-square from the observed and expected frequencies and their significance at the .05 level for each of the state ments in the instrument. The participants' responses were analyzed for the chi-square test by grouping columns one and two as decentralized, and columns three, four and five as centralized. Analysis of P r e l i m i n a r y Of the original 112 districts which were mailed preliminary questionnaires, ninety-four participated in the initial survey. Computer percentages revealed that of the ninety-four districts responding, 76.6 percent reported they had undergone some phase of decentralization. The categories where this decentralization was taking place and being practiced were budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. Table 5 gives the tabulation of districts that responded to the preliminary questionnaire. The parameters of this study did not include elementary districts nor did they differentiate between high school districts and unified districts in the findings! of the Decision Analysis Charts, but it is interesting to note that of the eight high school districts responding to the preliminary questionnaire, all eight indicated they were decentralized or were in the process of 52 decentralization. A total of forty-eight or 72.7 percent of the unified districts reported that they were decen tralized while sixteen elementary districts out of twenty such districts or SO percent reported that they were decen tralized. An analysis of the table further reveals that in all three district organizations, the category of stu dents was listed as the most decentralized area. The unified districts’ personnel category was the lowest of all categories for all levels, (56.3 percent). Table 4 also indicates that in the responding dis tricts all of the five categories of budget, curriculum, community, personnel and students were part of a decen tralized structure. The rank, order and percentage of categories was as follows. TABLE 4 DECENTRALIZED CATEGORIES IN DISTRICTS RESPONDING TO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE Category Number of Districts Percent 1. Students 63 33.9 2. Community 60 33.3 3. Budget 59 31.9 4. Curriculum 57 79.2 5. Personnel 43 66.3 Thus, the preliminary questionnaire responses indicated that 76.6 percent of the districts answering the question naire considered themselves as decentralized or were in 53 the decentralization process and that the student category was the area where most of the districts were decentral ized (SB.9 percent of responding districts), and that personnel was the least decentralized of the listed categories (66.3 percent of responding districts). Analysis of Data of High School grincjpala.,.aftfl,, Cgfl£r»l Office Administrators The analysis of the data as reported in this section includes charts which indicate the decentraliza tion/centralization emphasis in each of the categories of budget, curriculum, community, personnel and students. The Decision Analysis Chart was designed to be able to assess the degree of decision-making power for high school principals as perceived by the principals and by central office personnel. A check in column A (Principal has complete authority to act or decide) or in column B (Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office) was tabulated as an indication that the decision-making power belonged to the principal and was thus decentralized. Checkmarks in columns C, D, and £ were accepted as an indication that the decision making power or control was centralized in an operational sense. The charts show in a graphic manner each question in the category and whether or not it was significant. 54 TABLE 5 TABULATION OF DISTRICTS THAT RESPONDED TO THE PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE AS TO DECENTRALIZATION Type of District Number of Districts Decentralized Yes No Elementary 20 16 4 High School B B 0 Unified __66 4B IB Total Number 94 72 22 Percent 76.6 23.4 Analysis of Data of Responses The tables display the statement number in each of the categories, the number of respondents, the variable (high school principal or central office administrator) and the number of variables who perceive the question as decentralized or centralized. In addition the last column depicts the chi-square significance. The statement "none" indicates that there were no significant differences in perception of the decision-making role of high school principals between the principals and central office r administrators on that particular question. The statement "none” also indicates that the null hypothesis was supported at the .05 level of significance. In the ques tion where the null hypotheses were not supported, the TABLE 6 FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES REGARDING CATEGORIES OF DECENTRALIZATION BY DECENTRALIZED DISTRICTS Type of District Decentralized Budget Decentralized by Categories Program or Students Curriculum Personnel Community Elementary 16 12 14 12 13 14 High School S 6 a 6 a a Unified AS 41 41 39 _ 27 _ _ 3 a Total 72 59 63 57 46 60 Percent Bl.9 aa.9 79.2 66.a 63.3 Vn 56 column notes "yes, at the .05 level or .01 level where applicable. The responses to the categories were as follows: Budget The high school principals marked 40.4 percent of their responses in the columns designated to show the decision-making power as being decentralized and 59.6 percent as centralized. Only two of the seven statements were marked by the majority of the principals as being decisions they had the authority to make. This category was perceived by the principals as being the least decen tralized and the most centralized of all categories. The central office administrators marked 44*2 percent of their responses in the Decision Analysis Charts in the decentralized columns and 55*6 percent in the centralized columns. Four of the seven statements in the budget category were marked by the majority of central office administrators in the columns designating the decision-making power to the principal. This category was perceived by the central office administrator or by the principals as being the least decentralized of all the categories. Community The high school principals marked 65.3 percent of their responses in the columns designated to show the TABLE 7 CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CATEGORY OF BUDGET Statement Number of Respondents. Variable _ Decentralized.Centralized. Significance 1 25 High School Principal 7 18 None 1 27 Central Office Administrator 3 19 2 2 8 High School Principal 14 14 None 2 30 Central Office Administrator 20 10 3 26 High School Principal 13 3 None 3 29 Central Office Administrator 22 7 4 25 High School Principal 3 22 None 4 26 Central Office Administrator 0 26 5 23 High School Principal 7 21 Yes 5 30 Central Office Administrator 17 13 at .05 Level 6 23 High School Principal 16 12 None 6 29 Central Office Administrator 13 16 7 23 High School Principal 11 17 None 7 30 Central Office Administrator 19 11 -O 5d decision-making power as being decentralized and 34*7 percent as centralized. Five of the seven statements were marked by the majority of principals as being decisions they had the authority to make. This category was perceived by the principals as being third in rank order of the five categories of decentralization. The central office administrators marked 73*1 percent of their responses in the Decision Analysis Charts in the decentralized columns and 26.9 percent in the centralized columns. Four of the seven statements in the community category were marked by the majority of central office administrators in the columns designating the decision-making power to the principal. This category was perceived by the central office administrators as the second in rank order of the categories of decentraliza tion. Personnel The high school principals marked 55*4 percent of their responses in the columns designated to show the decision-making power as being decentralized and 44*6 percent as centralized. Four of the seven statements were marked by the majority of the principals as being decisions they had the authority to make. This category was perceived by principals as being next to budget as the least decentralized of the categories. TABLE 8 CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CATEGORY OF COMMUNITY Number of Statement Respondents___________ Variable________ Decentralized Centralized Significance 1 28 High School Principal 22 6 None 1 30 Central Office Administrator 27 3 2 28 High School Principal 26 2 None 2 30 Central Office Administrator 27 3 3 24 High School Principal d 16 None 3 24 Central Office Administrator 10 14 4 2S High School Principal 28 0 None 4 29 Central Office Administrator 27 2 5 2d High School Principal 24 4 None 5 30 Central Office Administrator 2d 2 6 2d High School Principal 1 27 Yes 6 30 Central Office Administrator 14 16 at .01 Level 7 26 High School Principal 15 11 None 7 2d Central Office Administrator 14 14 Vi N O 60 The central office administrators marked 54-6 percent of their responses on the Decision Analysis Charts in the decentralized columns and 45*4 percent in the centralized columns. Four of the seven statements in the personnel category were marked by the majority of central office administrators in the columns designating the decision-making power to the principal. This category was perceived by the central office administrators as by the principals as being next to least decentralized of all the categories. Curriculum The high school principals marked 65.3 percent of their responses in the columns designated to show the decision-making power as being decentralized and 34*7 percent as centralized. Four of the seven statements were marked by the majority of the principals as being decisions they had the authority to make. This category was perceived by principals as the second in rank order of the categories of decentralization. The central office administrators marked 62.7 percent of their responses on the Decision Analysis Charts in the decentralized columns and 37<3 percent in the centralized columns. Four of the seven statements in the curriculum category were marked by the majority of central office administrators in the columns designating the TABLE 9 CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CATEGORY OF PERSONNEL Number of Statement Respondents_________ Variable_________Decentralized Centralized Significance 1 27 High School Principal 11 16 None 1 30 Central Office Administrator 13 17 2 26 High School Principal 10 16 None 2 28 Central Office Administrator 13 15 3 28 High School Principal 24 4 Yes 3 30 Central Office Administrator 17 13 at .03 Level 4 28 High School Principal 10 18 None 4 30 Central Office Administrator 10 20 5 28 High School Principal 19 9 None 5 30 Central Office Administrator 23 7 6 28 High School Principal 17 11 None 6 30 Central Office Administrator 20 10 7 28 High School Principal 16 12 None 7 29 Central Office Administrator 17 12 decision-making power to the principal. This category was perceived by the central office administrators as being third in rank order of the five categories in the decen tralisation order. Students The high school principals marked £6.9 percent of their responses in the columns designated to show the decision-making power as being decentralized and 13.1 percent as centralized. All seven statements were marked by the majority of the principals as being decisions they had the authority to make. This category was perceived by principals as the area where they were the most decen tralized and the least centralized of all the categories. The central office administrators marked £3 percent of their responses on the Decision Analysis Charts in the decentralized columns and 15 percent in the centralized columns. All seven of the statements in the students category were marked by the majority of central office administrators in the columns designating the decision making power to the principal. This category was perceived by the central office administrators as by the principals as being the most decentralized and least centralized of all the categories. TABLE 10 CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CATEGORY OF CURRICULUM J J y j j j J j g J , Statement Respondents Variable Decentralized Centralized Significance 1 23 High School Principal 12 16 None 1 29 Central Office Administrator 7 22 2 23 High School Principal 26 2 None 2 30 Central Office Administrator 30 0 3 23 High School Principal 14 14 None 3 23 Central Office Administrator 13 15 4 23 High School Principal 12 16 None 4 29 Central Office Administrator 11 IS 5 23 High School Principal 22 6 None 5 23 Central Office Administrator 24 4 6 23 High School Principal 22 6 Mnna 6 30 Central Office Administrator 25 5 liwllC 7 23 High School Principal 20 S None 7 30 Central Office Administrator IS 12 O' V O TABLE 11 CHI-SQUARE TEST FOR PERCEPTIONS OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CATEGORY OF STUDENTS Number of Statement Respondents Variable Decentralized Centralized Significance 1 28 High School Principal 24 4 None 1 30 Central Office Administrator 30 0 2 28 High School Principal 28 0 None* 2 30 Central Office Administrator 30 0 All Same Response 3 25 High School Principal 14 11 None 3 28 Central Office Administrator 17 11 4 28 High School Principal 28 0 None* 4 30 Central Office Administrator 30 0 All Same Response 5 27 High School Principal 23 4 None 5 30 Central Office Administrator 26 4 6 27 High School Principal 23 4 None 6 30 Central Office Administrator 29 1 7 28 High School Principal 26 2 None 7 29 Central Office Administrator 23 6 O' ■ P - 65 Analysis of the Chi-SguareJTasts The null hypotheses as stated in Chapter I that there are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the categories of budget, community relations, personnel, curriculum and students are examined in the light of the foregoing statistics and by the following chi-square statements and computations. The hypotheses are examined in each of the five categories. Budget An analysis of the chi-square test for the category of budget indicated the null hypothesis was accepted at the .05 level of significance for all items except item number five where it was rejected. Item number five stated: “Hire substitute for teachers visiting or observing other schools." Seven principals indicated their perception of this item number five budget statement as being decentral ized and twenty-one indicated it was centralized. Seven teen central office administrators perceived item number five in the budget category as being decentralized, thirteen perceived it as being centralized. PERCENTAGE OF DECENTRALIZED RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN DECISION ANALYSIS CHART IN CATEGORY OF BUDGET / s - . 3 V * S ~ ( , 7 P o P C H t O M SC//JOL. PXivcfPAI.S C a = C a n /r p A t o f n e t ; a o a i/ h ' s s t x a t o P s Chart 1 PERCENTAGE OF DECENTRALIZED RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN DECISION ANALYSIS CHART IN CATEGORY OF COMMUNITY P = HtoH - school / > , r/vc/pACS C o b C s m r P A t. O FFIC E A O A f/lV /ST X A T O P S Chart 2 67 Community An analysis of the chi-square test for the category of community indicated the null hypothesis was accepted at the .05 level of significance for all state ments except number six where it was not only rejected at that level but there was a significant difference at the .01 level as well. Item number six in the category stated: "Schedule a minimum day for all students." Only one principal perceived his decision-making power to include this statement while fourteen of thirty central office administrators perceived that the principal did have the power to make that decision. Personnel An analysis of the chi-square test for the category of personnel indicated the null hypothesis was accepted at the .05 level of significance for all items except item number three where it was rejected. Item number three stated: "Release head football coach of his coaching duties." Twenty-four principals responded that they felt it was within the parameter of their responsibility to make such a decision. Seventeen central office administrators perceived this personnel item number three as being decen tralized while thirteen perceived it as centralized. PERCENTAGE OF DECENTRA! IZED RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN DECISION ANALYSIS CHART IN CATECORY OF PERSONNEL / 2 - 3 • f - > S - ( , 7 P c Co a H t D H -5C//OOL ■A5f//P<V/V)C5 ce/vnfM office / i c / i / i w s r * : / ! n/!s Chart 3 PERCENTAGE OF DECENTRALIZED RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN DECISION ANALYSIS CHART IN CATEGORY OF CURRICULUM P * Hton Scs/ ool. / ’ FtHcipnt.5 C o ‘ Cc n /r F ti o f f ic e . ra P s Chart 4 69 Curriculum An analysis of the chi-square test for the category of curriculum indicated the null hypothesis was accepted for all items in the category. The null hypothe sis stated that there are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of curriculum. Students An analysis of the chi-square test for the category of students indicated the null hypothesis was accepted for all items in the category. The null hypothe sis stated that there are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of students. Two statements were discarded in this category since all principals and all central office administrators perceived that the statements should be categorized as being decentralized. These statements were: "Suspend a student for five days." "Call police to arrest a recalcitrant student." Total agreement on these items in the area of discipline may reflect knowledge and experience in this area by both principals and central office administrators. PERCLHLAGE or DECENTRALIZED RESPONSES TO ITEMS IN DECISION ANALYSIS CHART IN CATEGORY OF STUDENTS f s- 3 t f - s ’ (, 7 P * HtaH -sc/taoL f, F i w c i f > f l L S C o m C s / v n f s t OFFICE A C * t/tV /S T F A n F S Chart 5 71 Interpretation of the Findings The preliminary questionnaire responses indicated that 76.6 percent of the districts answering the question naire considered themselves as decentralized or in the decentralization process. All eight high school districts responding stated they were in this category while 73 percent of the high school districts and 75 percent of the elementary districts also indicated they were decentraliz ing. Districts reported the most decentralization in the category of students with community, budget, curriculum and personnel in that order— the category of personnel being least decentralized or most centralized of all the categories. Since fifteen more districts reported being decentralized in the student category than they were in the personnel category, it was evident that concomitant with authority over the students goes the responsibility. The same may be said in the personnel category but certainly not as positively. The Decision Analysis Chart as completed by the sample population reflected the category of students as most decentralized with curriculum, community, personnel and budget following in that order. The districts answering the questionnaire reported that the student category was 9 decentralized which was almost identical with the sample population percentage of BB.2 percent. The student category, was, however, the only one of the 72 five categories that had percentages close to each other. The biggest difference between the ninety-four districts responding to the preliminary questionnaire and the fifty-eight principals and central office adminis trators who completed the Decision Analysis Charts was in the category of budget where the districts' 31.9 percent almost doubled the sample districts' representatives' responses, (42.2 percent). The comparison is indicated in Table 14* TABLE 12 RANK ORDER OF PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES ON DECENTRALIZED PERCEPTION BY CATEGORY Rank Order High School Principals Percent Central Office Administrators Percent 1 Students 36.9 Students 65 2 Curriculum 65.3 Community 73.1 3 Community 65.26 Curriculum 62.7 4 Personnel 55.4 Personnel 54.6 5 Budget 40.4 Budget 44.2 TABLE 13 FREQUENCY OF TOTAL RESPONSES TO DECISION ANALYSIS CHART STATEMENTS High School Principals Central Office Administrators Category Decentralized Centralized Total No. Decentralized Centralized Total No. Budget 76 112 188 89 102 201 Community 124 66 190 147 54 201 Personnel 107 86 193 113 94 207 Curriculum 128 68 196 128 76 204 Students 166 25 191 185 22 207 ^3 VjJ TABLE 14 COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF SAMPLE DISTRICTS’ RESPONSES WITH PERCENTAGES OF PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Category Responses of Principals and Central Office Administrators Responses of Districts Responding to Preliminary Questionnaire 1. Students SS.2# SB. 9# 2. Community 69.3# $3.3# 3. Curriculum 64-1# 79.2# 4- Personnel 55.1# 66.3# 5. Budget 42.2# SI. 9# - v 3 Analysis of the chi-square test indicated that the null hypotheses as stated in Chapter 1 are accepted at the .05 level of significance. Of the thirty-five statements, two in the students category were discarded because all of the respondents gave the same response. One statement in each of the categories of budget, community and personnel were found to have a level of significance at .05 and one of these at the .01 level. All other statements supported the null hypotheses in all categories. The perceptions of high school principals and central office administrators were remarkably the same. S u m m a - r y This chapter reported the results of the analysis of the preliminary questionnaire, and a documentation of the statistics involved with the respondents1 answers to the Decision Analysis Chart. The chi-square test indi cated clearly that the null hypotheses: There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administration in the areas of (1) budget, (2) personnel, (3) curriculum, (4) students, and (5) community were supported in all areas. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The literature in education now has many articles concerning accountability, which is defined as the state of being responsible for something to someone. This accountability in education is being demanded by the public. One of the responses of educators to this demand for accountability has been to shift the decision-making power from school district central offices to building site administrators— a process which is called decentralization. Decentralization operates on the thesis that decision making should be done at the level of those it will affect most, i.e., make the local authority responsible and accountable for his decisions. Decentralization is being utilized in two major ways in American education; (1) the division of large urban school districts into smaller districts, and (2) administrative decentralization, which is defined as the systematic and consistent delegation of authority and decision making to the local school level. This study was designed to analyze the decision making powers of the high school principal in districts 76 77 I i practicing decentralization as perceived by high school ! principals and central office administrators. Specifically the following null hypotheses were selected for testing in this study. 1. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of budget. 2. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of personnel. 3. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of curriculum. 4. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of students, (activities and services). 5. There are no significant differences in the perception of degrees of decision making between high school principals and central office administrators in the area of community affairs. Procedure A preliminary questionnaire was mailed to all school districts in the state of California with an enrollment of 10,000 - 60,000 according to the 1971 California Public School Directory. This questionnaire requested information from these school districts concern ing their decentralization status and in what areas they were decentralizing. The results of the preliminary questionnaire identified districts practicing decentralization and helped to define categories to be used in the Decision Analysis Chart. The Decision Analysis Chart was designed to elicit comparisons between high school principals’ and central office administrators’ perceptions of the prin cipals' decision-making powers. The instrument consisted of five possible responses to seven statements in each of the categories of budget, curriculum, personnel, students and community. The seven statements in each of the five categories were based upon Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ (WASC) booklets for high school accredi tations, district policies, the Education Code and inter views with business managers, directors of curriculum, personnel directors, high school principals and super intendents. The statements were revised after review of the pilot study which was held in a unified district where 79 decentralization had been practiced for three years. These responses to the statements were analyzed for the chi-square test by classifying them as either decentral ized or centralized. With the help of educators knowledgeable in the field and staying within the delimitations of the study, the four participating districts were selected. The high school principals and central office administrators (the superintendents' cabinet or persons designated by him) were administered the Decision Analysis Chart. Each participant was asked to mark what he believed the decision-making power of the high school principal to be. Twenty-eight high school principals and thirty central office administrators in four large districts completed the charts. Following the advice of experts in statistics and measurement, the chi-square test was used to determine if the null hypotheses were accepted or rejected at the .03 level. Findings Ninety-four districts (10,000 - 60,000) of 112 in the state of California responded to the preliminary questionnaire. Districts of all organizational types indicated they were decentralizing. All high school dis tricts, and the majority of elementary and unified do districts responding to the preliminary questionnaire indicated not only that they were decentralizing but the majority of all types of districts responded that they were decentralizing in all the categories of budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. A number of district representatives replied on the preliminary questionnaire form that they were not decentralized as yet but were hoping to be soon. No responding districts stated or gave any evidence that any were heading towards a more centralized type of organiza tion. Analysis of the data from the Decision Analysis Charts indicated that there were no significant differ ences in the perception of high school principals and central office administrators in the broad categories of budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. Analysis of the chi-square test indicated one item in budget, one item in community and one item in personnel rejected the null hypotheses at the .05 level and in the community item the null hypothesis was rejected at the .01 level as well. Each of these categories had seven items to be responded to however, and since in six of the seven items in each category the null hypothesis was accepted, it could appropriately be stated that the null hypothesis was accepted in each case in the broad category. The null hypotheses were accepted in all fourteen &L items in the categories of curriculum and students. Therefore, since in all but three of the thirty-five statements the null hypotheses were accepted, it can be stated that there were no significant differences in the perceptions of high school principals and central office administrators in the categories of budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. The category of budget is the only area in the study where principals and central office administrators in the sample districts perceived the decision-making power to be at the central office level. Even in this category, however, only two of the seven statements were perceived by both principals and central office adminis trators as being situations where decisions were made at the central office level. Analysis of the data further showed that principals and central office administrators agreed that budget was the least decentralized/most centralized category and that personnel was the next least decentralized/most centralized of the five categories. High school principals and central office administrators also agreed in their perception of the category of students as being the most decentralized. The perception of high school principals and central office administrators were remarkably the same. 82 Conclusions School districts of 10,000 - 60,000 in California are decentralizing. Many districts are just beginning the process, but a substantial number are actively involved in decentralization. Comments on replies to the preliminary questionnaire for this study revealed that many districts not decentralized soon hoped to be or were "thinking about it." The research did not discover any districts going from decentralization towards centralization. All of the studies indicated that districts are most decentralized in the student activities area. This may be due to the day-to-day involvement with students which gives the principal an awareness of them— their needs, desires and frustrations. Conversely, this may also be the area where central office administrators are most willing to delegate the decision-making power. High school principals and central office adminis trators see the decision-making power level in a similar manner. Most situations described find these two levels of decision makers sharing the same idea as to who should make that decision. Not having discovered any identifiable differences in the perceptions of degrees of decision making at these two levels, it could be assumed the transition to decentralization may be easier in school districts because of this perception agreement. On the basis of the findings of this study the S3 following conclusions were drawn: 1. Administrative decentralization was growing in California school districts. 2. The majority of California school districts are now somewhat involved in decentralization. 3. All.types of school districts reported decen tralization trends. 4. Few if any districts were moving from decen tralization towards centralization. 3. The budget category was the area in which the least decentralization was taking place in districts which consider themselves decentralized. 6. The student category was the area in which districts were the most decentralized. 7. Administrative decentralization was a more effective way of solving educational problems than having school decisions made at the central office level. 3. High school principals and central office administrators in decentralized districts perceived no identifiable differences in the degrees of decision-making power in the categories of budget, community, personnel, curriculum and students. The perceptions of high school principals and central office administrators were remarkably the same. d4 Rycoynmftnflations The following recommendations were based on the findings and conclusions of this study. They are offered for consideration and analysis. 1. Further investigation needs to be done by school districts as they move into the arena of decen tralization. 2. Studies of smaller sahool districts (below 10,000 enrollment) should be made to discover if their principals and central office administrators perceive decentralization as administrators in larger districts do. 3. School districts going into decentralization should use the Decision Analysis Chart to check their administratorsf perceptions of the decision-making power level. 4. Studies similar to this should be undertaken with the variables expanded, e.g., teachers, students and school communities should respond to decentralization instruments such as the Decision Analysis Chart. 5. Studies should be made to ascertain what changes were evolving in the places where decision-making power was at the school level. 6. Districts should move into decentralization in the broad category of students (activities and concerns) first. ...............................f*5 7. Administrative decentralization should be considered as a more effective way of solving local school problems than having the decision-making power concentrated at the central office level. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books 1. Carton, Patrick W. and Goodwin, Harold I. The Collective Dilema: Negotiations in Education• Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 19o9 • 2. Drucker, Peter F. The Age of Discontinuity. New York: Harper and Row, 1969* 3. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965• 4. Isaac, Stephen. Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Publishers, 1972. 5. Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial Psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970. 6. Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19o7. 7. McGregor, Douglas. Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19o0• £. Rosenthal, Allen. Pedagogues and Power: Teacher Groups in School Politics. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1969* 9. Sayles, Leonard R. and Strauss, George. Human Behavior in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. 10. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. 11. Townsend, Robert. Up the Organization. New York: Fawcett World Library, 1971* 67 $$ Articles and Periodicals 12. Bain, Helen. "Self Government Must Come First, Then Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (April, 1970), 413. 13. Brownell, S. M. "Desirable Characteristics of Decentralized School Systems." Phi Delta Kappan, LII (January, 1971), 2$6-357~ 14• Campbell, Robert £. "Accountability and Stone Soup." Phi Delta Kappan, LIII (November, 1971), 176-7$. 15. Cunningham, Laverne. "The Magnificent Pandora of Decentralization." The School Administrator. June, 1970, pp. 4-$. 16. Darland, D. D. "The Profession’s Quest for Responsibility and Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan, LII (September, 1970), 41-4* 17. Elam, Stanley, "The Age of Accountability Dawns in Texarcana." Phi Delta Kappan. LI (June, 1970), 509. 1$. Gallup, George. "The Second Annual Survey of the Public’s Attitude Toward Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (October, 1970), 97-112. 19. Gallup, George. "The Third Annual Survey of the Public’s Attitude Toward Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, LIII (September, 1971), 33-4$. 20. Gallup, George. "The Fourth Annual Survey of the Public’s Attitude Toward Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (September, 1972), 33-46. 21. Harlacher, Ervin L. and Roberts, Eleanor. "Accountability for Student Learning," Junior College Journal. XLI (March, 1971), 26-30. 22. Havighurst, Robert J. "The Reorganization of Education in Metropolitan Areas." Phi Delta Kappan, LII (February, 1971), 354-5©! 23. Jones, J. L. "Decentralization as a Management Tool." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Administrators. LV (December, 1971), $3-9$. 39 24. Landers, Jacob. "Accountability and Progress by Nomenclature: Old Ideas in New Bottles." Phi Delta Kappan. LIV (April, 1973), 539-41* 25. Manning, William R. "Decentralization: Problems and Promises." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Administrators. LV (October, 1969), 116-23• 26. Meisburg, Jack. "The Urban/Rural School Development Program." Phi Delta Kappan. LIV (April, 1973), 331. 27. Porter, John H. "The Accountability Story of Michigan." Phi Delta Kappan. LIV (October, 1972), 93-9. 23. Thomson, Scott D. "The Span of Accountability." Thrust for Educational Leadership. ACSA, I (May, 1972), 11-4. 29* Vasconcelles, John. "Educational Goals and Evaluation, Two Perspectives." Thrust for Educational.Leadership, ACSA, I (May, 1972), 15. 30. Wynne, Edward. "Administrators and Innovation." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (October, 1972), 506. 31. Woodington, Donald D. "Accountability from the Viewpoint of a State Commissioner of Education." Phi Delta Kappan, LIV (October, 1972), 95-7. Publications of the Government. Learned Societies, and Professional Organizations 32. Beaubier, Edward W. and Tahyer, Arthur N. Participative Management Decentralized Decision Making Working Models. Association of California School Administrators, 1973* 33* Lopate, Carol and others. Some Effects of Parent and Community Participation on Public Education. Urban Disadvantage Series, 1971. 34* California Education Code. 1971. California State Department of Education, 1971* 90 35* California Public School Directory. 1971. Bureau of Publications} State Department of Publishers, Education Code, Article 5.5, Section 134^7, State of California, 1971* 36. Guidelines for Early Childhood Education* State Department of Education, February, 1973* 37* Guidelines for Parent Advisory Committees. State Department of Education, 1972. 36. Planned Programming, Budgeting System Manual. California State Department of Education, 1970. Unpublished Materials 39. Aho, Alvin Andrews. "Urban School Decentralization and The Role of the Junior and Senior High School Principal." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971. 40. Burroughs, Robert. "Decentralization and Decision Making: An Analysis of Elementary School Principals' and Central Office Administrators' Perceptions." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1973* 41. Kenney, Charles F. "Decentralization of the Santa Ana Schools." Santa Ana Unified School District, February, 1972. 42. King, Kenneth Douglas. "Attitudes on School Decentralization in New York's Three Experimental School Districts." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1971. 43* Kirkpatrick, Donald Lee. "A Study of the Leadership Process in the Implementation of Organizational Change in Four Selected School Systems." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971* 44* Nicolai, Renato C. "The Administrative Behavior of the Superintendent of Schools as Perceived by High School Principals." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1972. 91 45. Paige, Larry Fuller. "Local School District Reorganization in Michigan: Centralization and Decentralization." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971* 46. Polatta, Frederick P. "Internal and External Influence on Administrative Decision Making in School Systems." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1970. 47. Rossier, Barbara. "Student Perceptions of Institutional Environment and Counseling Services at Selected Community Colleges, Utilizing Centralized and Decentralized Systems. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. 4$. Strick, Thomas L. "An Investigation into the Status of the Role of the Elementary Principal Within a Decentralized Program." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971. 49. Tyack, David. "Centralization of Control in City Schools at the Turn of the Century." 1970. Unpublished manuscript. APPENDIX 92 1405 French Street Santa Ana, California 92701 30 November 1972 Enclosed is a preliminary questionnaire for a contemplated doctoral study concerning decentralization, decision making, and accountability. The four questions should take you just a moment to complete and will furnish us with the preliminary informa tion needed to proceed with the study. Also enclosed is a stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience in returning the questionnaire. Thank you. /s/ Clarke R. Stone /s/ Robert E. Burroughs Clarke R. Stone Robert E. Burroughs Associate Superintendent Principal CRS:hb encl. 93 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE ON STUDY OF DECENTRALIZATION, DECISION MAKING, AND ACCOUNTABILITY 94 Decentralization for this questionnaire is defined as delegation of control and/or authority to the local school level. ves no 1. Using the above definition, do you feel your district is decentralized or in the process of decentraliza tion? 2. If "yes” to No. 1, indicate in which of the following listed areas you are decentralized and the number of years you have been* decentralized. No. of vrs. A. Budget B. Community Affairs C. Personnel D. Curricula E. Student Affairs F. Other (list) 3* If "yes” to No. 1, has your district provided inservice training for decentralized decision making? 4. If "yes" to No. 3, was inservice program presented by (A) district personnel, (B) by other educational personnel, or (C) by management consultants? (A)___ (B)___ (C)___ D E C I S I O N A N A L Y S I S C H A R T INSTRUCTIONS: Please check in the a p p ro p ria te column your p erception of th e p r i n c i p a l 's a u th o rity in th e s itu a tio n s as s ta te d below. Degree of Auth A ori ty B C D E PLEASE CHECK ONE: 0 School P rin cip al 1 I Central O ffice A dm inistrator BUDGET Principal has complete authority to act or decide. Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office. Principal and Central Office mutually make decision. Principal consulted S/or involved in decision made by Central Office. Principal not Involved In decision made by Central Office. 1. E stab lish an u n re stric te d account fo r d is c re tio n a ry use. 2. Determine how monies in your school budget w ill be a llo c a te d during budget prep aratio n . j . Have candy sa le to purchase new band un i forms. 4. Withhold p a rt of a te a c h e r 's sa la ry for f a ilu r e to follow ad m in istrativ e reg u latio n of mandatory attendance a t open house. b. Hire s u b s titu te fo r teach ers v i s i ti n g or observing o th er schools 6 . Keep school bu ild in g s lighted a t n ight. 7. Grant overtime fo r c la s s if i e d employees. D E C I S I O N A N A L Y S I S C H A R T INSTRUCTIONS: Please check in th e a p p ro p ria te column your percep tio n of the p r i n c i p a l 's a u th o rity in th e s it u a t i o n s as s ta te d below. Degree of Autt A ori ty B C D E PLEASE CHECK ONE: O School P rin cip al [~ ~ 1 C entral O ffice A dm inistrator COM M UNITY Principal has complete authority to act or decide. Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office. Principal and Central Office mutual1y make decision. Principal consulted 6/or Involved In decision made by Central Office. Principal not Involved In decision made by Centrat Office. 1. Schedule open house. 2. Release a public r e la tio n s statem ent to news med i a . j. Request a c ro ssin g guard. k. Schedule Teen Challenge fo r an assembly. . 5. Set up parent advisory group. 6 . Schedule a minimum day fo r a ll stu d en ts. 7. Give a c it i z e n , not a p aren t, group t e s t r e s u lts . D E C I S I 0 N A N A L Y S I S C H A R T INSTRUCTIONS: Please check in the a p p ro p ria te column your percep tio n of th e p r i n c i p a l 's a u th o rity in the s itu a tio n s as sta te d below. Degree of Auth A o r ity B C D E PLEASE CHECK ONE: C3 School P rin cip al [~1 Central O ffice A dm inistrator PERSONNEL Principal has complete authority to act or decide. Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office. Principal and Central Office mutually make decision. Principal consulted t/or Involved in decision made by Central Office. Principal not Involved In decision madi by Central Office. 1. I n i ti a te the h irin g of p a ra-p ro fe ssio n a ls in lie u of c e r t if i c a t e d s t a f f as a llo c ated . * 2. Permit night custodians to attend Friday night fo o tb all game if time and work is made up on Saturday. j . Release head fo o tb all coach of his coaching d u tie s. 4. I n i ti a te involuntary teach er tra n s fe rs between schools. 5. Assign counselors to sem i-adm inistrative d u tie s. 6 . Screen and make recommendations fo r c e r t if i c a t e d employment. 7. Excuse a d m in istrato r to a tte n d a two day workshop. D E C I S I O N A N A L Y S I S C H A R T INSTRUCTIONS: Please check in th e a p p ro p ria te column your perception of the p r i n c i p a l 's a u th o rity in the s i tu a tio n s as s ta te d below. Degree of Auth A ori ty B C D E PLEASE CHECK ONE: 0 School P rin cip al 1 1 Central O ffice A dm inistrator CURRICULUM Principal has complete authority to act or decide. Principal has authority to act or decide but i nforms or consults Central Office. Principal and Central Office mutually make decision. Principal consulted S/or involved In dec!sion made by Central Office. Prlncioal not 'n.o'ved In dec i sI on made by Central Off ice. 1. Set up new grading procedures, e .g . p a s s - f a i 1. 2. Schedule a local f ie ld t r i p for three a r t c la ss e s . 3. Offer a u n it on venereal d isease in a course. 4. Schedule a new course in e th n ic stu d ie s. 5. Organize a graduate follow-up study. 6 . Group stu d en ts by a b i l i t y fo r in stru c tio n and/or implement on ungraded program fo r your sch o o l. 7. Decide to adm inister standardized t e s ts to determine achievement. D E C I S I O N A N A L Y S I S C H A R T Degree of A uthority INSTRUCTIONS: Please check In the a p p ro p ria te column your percep tio n of th e p r i n c i p a l 's a u th o rity in the s itu a tio n s as s ta te d below. A B C D E PLEASE CHECK ONE: CD School P rin cip al I | Central O ffice A dm inistrator STUDENTS Principal has complete authority to act or decide. Principal has authority to act or decide but informs or consults Central Office. Principal and Central Office mutually make decision. Principal consulted 6/or involved In decision made by Centra 1 Office. Principal not Involved In decision made by Central Office. 1. Organize a Hecha Club or BSU. 2. Suspend a student fo r fiv e days. 3. Schedule a d itc h day or stu d en t body p icn ic. Call p o lice to a r r e s t a r e c a lc itr a n t stu d en t. 5. Cancel g olf team 's schedule and elim in ate the team. 6 . Grant s tu d e n t's request fo r school time observance of a sp ecial event. 7. Drop an 18 year old stu d en t. CHI-S8UARE0 ANALYSIS OF CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION ITEM OBSERVED FREQUENCIES PRINCIPALS CENT. OFF. DEC CENT N DEC CENT N 1 7 18 25 a 19 27 2 14 14 28 20 10 30 3 18 8 26 22 7 29 4 3 22 25 0 26 26 5 7 21 28 17 13 30 6 16 12 28 13 16 29 7 11 17 28 19 11 30 a 22 6 28 27 3 30 9 26 2 28 27 3 30 10 8 16 24 10 14 24 u 28 0 28 27 2 29 12 24 4 28 28 2 30 13 1 27 28 14 16 30 14 15 11 26 14 14 28 15 1 1 16 27 13 17 30 16 10 16 26 13 15 28 17 24 4 28 17 13 30 18 10 18 28 10 20 30 19 19 9 28 23 7 30 20 17 1 1 28 20 10 30 21 16 12 28 17 12 29 22 12 16 28 7 22 29 23 26 2 28 30 0 30 24 14 14 28 13 15 28 25 12 16 28 1 1 18 29 26 22 6 28 24 4 28 27 22 6 28 25 5 30 28 20 8 28 18 12 30 29 24 4 28 30 0 30 30 28 0 28 30 0 30 31 14 11 25 17 1 1 28 32 28 '0 28 30 0 30 33 23 4 27 26 4 30 34 23 4 27 29 1 30 35 26 2 28 23 6 29 EXPECTED FREOUENCIES PRINCIPALS CENT. OFF. DEC CENT DEC CENT 7 21 17 79 7 79 19 21 16 41 1 1 59 17 59 12 41 18 91 7 09 21 09 7 91 1 47 23 53 1 53 24 47 11 59 16 41 12 41 17 59 14 25 13 75 14 75 14 25 14 48 13 52 15 52 14 48 23 66 4 34 25 34 4 66 25 59 2 41 27 41 2 59 9 00 15 00 9 00 15 00 27 02 0 98 27 98 1 02 25 10 2 90 26 90 3 10 7 24 20 76 7 76 22 24 13 96 12 04 15 04 12 96 11 37 15 63 12 63 17 37 11 07 14 93 11 93 16 07 19 79 8 21 21 21 8 79 9 66 18 34 10 34 19 66 20 28 7 72 21 72 8 28 17 86 10 14 19 14 10 86 16 21 11 79 16 79 12 21 9 33 18 67 9 67 19 33 27 03 0 97 28 97 1 03 13 SO 14 50 13 50 14 50 11 30 16 70 11 70 17 30 23 00 5 00 23 00 5 00 22 *9 5 31 24 31 5 69 18 34 9 66 19 66 10 34 26 07 1 93 27 93 2 07 28 00 0 00 30 00 0 00 14 62 10 38 16 38 11 62 28 00 0 00 30 00 0 00 23 21 3 79 25 79 4 21 24 63 2 37 27 37 2 63 24 07 3 93 24 93 4 07 STUDY COMPUTED CH1-S8UARE0 VALUE CHI-2 SISNlFICANT AT .10 .05 .01 0.0167 NO NO NO 1.6584 NO NO NO 0.3039 NO NO NO 1.5018 NU NO NO 5.9871 YES YES NO 0.8644 NO NO NO 3.3540 YES NO NO 0.7028 NO NO NO 0.0065 NO NO NO 0.3555' NO NO NO 0.4826 NO NO NO 0.2711 NO NO NO 11.8707 YES YES YES 0.3208 NO NO NO 0.0391 NO NO NO 0.3499 NO NO NO 4.5792 YES YES NO 0.0363 NO NO NO 0.5626 NO NO NO 0.2221 NO NO NO 0.0127 NO NO NO 2.2463 NO NO NO 0.5924 NO NO NO 0.0715 NU NO NO 0.1436 NO NO NO 0.1217 NO NO NO 0.2136 NO NO NO 0.8372 NO NO NO 2.6471 NO NO NO ••••••• ... 0.1208 NO NO NO *••«*•* *** 0.0488 NO NO NO 1.1259 NO NO NO 1.1894 NO NO NO f i l l ‘ Ufncis H o o ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 IT 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ZT 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 CHI-SQUARED ANALYSIS OF CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION SIUQY OBSERVED FREQUENCIES EXPECTED FREQUENCIES PRINCIPALS cent. off. PRINCIPALS CENT. OFF. EC CENT n DEC cent n DEC CENT DEC CENT 0 5 5 4 5 9 1.43 3.57 2.57 6.43 2 4 6 5 4 9 2.80 3.20 4.20 4.80 5 0 5 9 0 9 5.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0 5 S 0 8 8 0<00 5.00 0.00 8.00 0 6 6 0 9 9 0.00 6.00 0.00 9.00 2 4 6 4 4 a 2.57 3.43 3.43 4.57 0 6 6 7 2 9 2.80 3.20 4.20 4.80 2 4 6 7 2 9 3.60 2.40 5.40 3.60 5 1 6 8 1 9 5.20 0.80 7.80 1.20 1 4 S 4 5 9 1.79 3.21 3.21 5.79 6 0 6 7 1 8 5.57 0.43 7.43 0.57 3 3 6 9 0 9 4.80 1.20 7.20 1.80 6 6 3 6 9 1.20 4.80 1.80 7.20 1 4 5 3 5 8 1.54 3.46 2.46 5.54 4 6 5 4 9 2.80 3.20 4.20 4.80 4 2 6 6 2 8 4.29 1.71 5.71 2.29 5 1 6 4 5 9 3.60 2.40 5.40 3.60 4 2 6 2 7 9 2.40 3.60 3.60 5.40 3 3 6 8 1 9 4.40 1.60 6.60 2.40 4 2 6 6 3 9 4.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 5 1 6 8 1 9 5.20 0.80 7.80 1.20 4 6 1 8 9 1.20 4.80 1.80 7.20 4 2 6 9 0 9 5.20 0.80 7.80 1.20 4 2 6 6 2 8 4.29 1.71 5.71 2.29 3 3 6 6 3 9 3.60 2.40 5.40 3.60 6 0 6 7 1 8 5.57 0.43 7.43 0.57 6 0 6 8 1 9 5.60 0.40 8.40 0.60 1 6 7 2 9 4.80 1.20 7.20 1.80 4 2 6 9 0 9 5.20 0.80 7.80 1.20 6 0 6 9 0 9 6.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 3 3 6 6 3 9 3.60 2.40 5.40 3.60 6 ,0 6 9 0 9 6.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 6 0 6 8 1 9 5.60 0.40 8.40 0.60 6 0 6 9 0 9 6.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 5 1 6 5 3 8 4.29 1.71 5.71 2.29 COMPUTED CHI-SUUARED VALUE CHI*2 SIONIFICANT AT .10 .05 .01 1.3144 NO NO NO 0.1004 NO NO NO ....... • •* **• • ** ••••••• • ** *** ** * ******* *** *** ** * 0.0060 NO NO NO 5.9040 YES YES NO 1.4004 NO NO NO 0.2163 NO NO NO 0.1106 NO NO NO 0.0224 NO NO NO 2.9340 YES NO NO 0.8506 NO NO NO 0.0022 NO NO NO 0.1004 NO NO NO 0.0656 NO NO NO 0.9375 NO NO NO 1.4004 NO NO NO 1.1505 NO NO NO 0.3125 NO NO NO 0.2163 NO NO NO 0.1562 NO NO NO 1.1778 NO NO NO 0.0656 NO NO NO 0.0115 NO NO NO 0.0224 NO NO NO 0.0446 NO NO NO 0.1562 NO NO NO 1.1778 NO NO NO ******* *** *** *** 0.0115 NO NO NO ******* *•* • ** *•• 0.0446 NO NO NO •*•**•• • •• • •* *** 0.0656 NO NO NO 3>nfad* A CHI-SQUARED ANALYSIS I TEH OBSERVED PRINCIPALS FREQUENCIES CENTt OFF. DEC CENT N DEC CENT N 1 1 5 6 2 5 7 2 5 3 8 8 2 10 3 4 3 7 7 2 9 4 0 8 8 0 9 9 5 4 4 8 8 2 10 6 3 5 8 5 5 10 7 7 1 8 2 10 B 8 0 8 10 0 10 9 8 0 8 10 0 10 10 2 4 6 2 4 6 1 1 8 0 8 10 0 10 12 8 0 8 9 1 10 13 0 8 8 5 5 10 14 5 3 8 4 5 9 15 6 2 8 5 5 10 16 4 4 8 3 7 10 17 8 0 8 6 4 10 18 1 7 8 2 8 10 19 3 5 8 9 1 10 20 3 8 7 3 10 21 4 4 8 7 2 9 22 4 4 8 3 6 9 23 0 8 10 0 10 24 6 2 8 4 5 9 25 4 4 8 0 9 9 26 7 1 8 8 1 9 27 7 1 8 9 1 10 28 5 3 8 4 6 10 29 0 8 10 0 10 30 8 0 8 10 0 10 31 3 3 6 6 3 9 32 8 '0 8 10 0 10 33 6 1 7 9 1 10 34 6 1 7 10 0 10 35 8 0 8 10 0 10 OF CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION STUDY EXPECTEO FREQUENCIES COMPUTED CHI-SQUARED VALUE PRINCIPALS CENT. OFF, CHI-2 SIGNIFICANT AT DEC CENT DEC CENT .10 • 05 • 01 1.38 4.62 1.62 5.38 0.0232 NU NO NO 5.78 2.22 7.22 2.78 0.0865 NO NO NO 4.81 2.19 6.19 2.81 0.1154 NO NO NO 0.00 8.00 0.00 9.00 ******* • •• • •• *•« 5.33 2.67 6.67 3.33 0.7031 NO NO NO 3.56 4.44 4.44 5.56 0.0028 NO NO NO 6.67 1.33 8.33 1.67 0.0450 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 ••**••• • •• • •• 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 ******* **• *** 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 0.3750 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0,00 ******* *•* • •• 7.56 0.44 9.44 0.56 0.0132 NO NO NO 2.22 5.78 2.78 7.22 3.3265 YES NO NO 4.24 3.76 4.76 4.24 0.0664 NO NO NO 4.89 3.11 6.11 3.89 0.3535 NO NO NO 3.11 4.89 3.89 6.11 0.1431 NO NO NO 6.22 1.78 7.78 2.22 2.1254 NO NO NO 1.33 6.67 1.67 8.33 0.0450 NO NO NO 5.33 2.67 6.67 3.33 3.4031 YES NO NO 5.33 2.67 6.67 3.33 0.0281 NO NO NO 5.18 2.82 5.82 3.18 0.4731 NO NO NO 3.29 4.71 3.71 5.29 0.0413 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 ******* 4.71 3.29 5.29 3.71 0.6147 NO NO NO 1.88 6.12 2.12 6.88 3.4338 YES NO NO 7.06 0.94 7.94 1.06 0.4427 NO NO NO 7.11 0.89 8.89 1.11 0.3445 NO NO NO 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 0.2250 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 •*••*•• *** *** *** 8.00 0.00 10.00 0,00 ******* **• • ** 3.60 2.40 5.40 3.60 0.0115 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 ******* • •• **• 8.18 0.82 8.82 1.18 0.2448 NO NO NO 6.59 0.41 9.41 0.59 0.0341 NO NO NO 8.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 ******* • •• • *• 2 . CHl-SQUAREO ANALYSIS OF CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION SlUUY ITEM OBSERVEO FREQUENCIES PRINCIPALS CENT, OFF, EXPECTED PRINCIPALS FREQUENCIES CENT, OFF, dec cent N DEC cent N DEC CENT DEC CENT 1 3 7 10 1 4 5 2.67 7.33 1.33 3.67 2 3 7 10 3 2 5 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 3 5 5 10 2 3 5 4.67 5.33 2,33 2.67 4 1 7 8 0 3 3 0,73 7.27 0,27 2.73 5 1 9 10 3 2 5 2.67 7.33 1.33 3.67 6 6 2 10 2 3 5 6.67 3.33 3,33 1.67 7 3 7 10 3 2 5 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 0 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0,00 5,00 0.00 9 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0.00 5,00 0.00 10 3 6 9 0 3 3 2.25 6.75 0.75 2.25 1 1 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0.00 5,00 0.00 12 9 1 10 5 0 5 9.33 0.67 4,67 0.33 13 1 9 10 5 0 5 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 14 6 3 9 3 2 5 5.79 3.21 3,21 1.79 IS 0 9 9 0 5 5 0.00 9.00 0.00 5.00 16 0 8 8 1 3 0.67 7.33 0.33 3.67 IT T 3 10 3 2 5 6.67 3.33 3.33 1.67 IB 2 a 10 1 4 5 2.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 19 9 1 10 2 3 5 7.33 2.67 3,67 1.33 20 7 3 10 2 3 5 6.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 21 5 5 10 1 4 5 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 22 3 7 10 1 4 S 2.67 7.33 1.33 3.67 23 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0.00 5,00 0.00 24 2 a 10 1 4 5 2.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 25 3 7 10 2 3 5 3.33 6.67 1.67 3.33 26 6 4 10 4 1 5 6.67 3.33 3.33 1.67 2T 5 5 10 3 2 5 5.33 4.67 2.67 2.33 2D 7 3 10 2 3 5 6.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 29 8 2 10 5 0 5 8.67 1.33 4,33 0.67 30 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 31 7 2 9 3 1 4 6.92 2.08 3.08 0.92 32 10 , 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 33 7 3 10 5 0 5 8.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 34 8 2 10 5 0 5 8.87 1.33 4,33 0.67 35 10 0 10 5 0 5 10.00 0,00 5.00 0.00 cohputeo chi-squared value CHI-2 SIGNIFICANT AT ,10 ,05 .01 0 0426 NO NO NO 0 3125 NO NO NO 0 0334 NO NO NO 0 2864 NO NO NO 2 0880 NO NO NO 0 9375 nd NO NO 0 3125 NO NO NO *. .... 444 444 *4* ** .... 444 444 *4* 0 1481 NO NO NO 4* .... 444 4a* *4* 0 1339 NO NO NO 7 8125 YES YES YES 0 1106 NO NO NO *• 4444 444 44. *4* 0 1363 NO NO NO 0 0375 NO NO NO 0 4687 NO NO NO 2 0880 NO NO NO 0 3125 NO NO NO 0 3125 NO NO NO 0 0426 NO NO NO 4* *•>• 444 44* *4* 0 4687 NO NO NO 0 0375 NO NO NO 0 0375 NO NO NO 0 0334 NO NO NO 0 3125 NO NO NO 0 0721 NO NO NO .. 4**4 444 44* *4* 0 3641 NO NO NO 44 4444 444 44* *4* 0 4687 NO NO NO 0 0721 NO NO NO .. 4444 444 *4* *4* C 103 CHI-SOUARED ANALYSIS OF CENTRALIZATION / DECENTRALIZATION ITEM OE 1 3 1 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 2 2 5 2 2 6 3 1 7 1 3 8 2 2 9 3 1 10 2 2 1 1 4 0 12 4 0 13 0 4 14 3 1 15 3 1 16 2 2 17 4 0 IS 3 1 19 4 0 20 1 3 21 2 2 22 3 1 23 4 0 24 2 2 25 2 2 26 3 1 27 4 0 26 3 1 29 4 0 30 4 0 31 1 3 32 4 /O 33 4 0 34 3 1 35 3 1 OBSERVED RINCIPALS CENT N FRE OE UENCIES ENT. UFF. EXPECTED PRINCIPALS FREQUENCIES CENT. OFF. cent n OEC CENT DEC CENT 5 6 1.60 2.40 2.40 3.60 2 6 3.20 0.80 4.80 1.20 2 6 3.20 0.80 4.80 1.20 6 6 0.80 3.20 1.20 4.80 0 6 3.20 0.80 4.80 1.20 4 6 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3 6 0.80 3.20 1.20 4.80 1 6 2. 80 1.20 4,20 1.80 2 6 2*80 1.20 4,20 1.80 2 6 2.40 1.60 3.60 2.40 1 6 3*60 0.40 5.40 0.60 1 6 3.60 0.40 5.40 0.60 5 6 0.40 3.60 0.60 5.40 2 6 2.80 1.20 4,20 1.80 3 6 2.40 1.60 3.60 2.40 3 6 2.00 2.00 3,00 3.00 2 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 1 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 2 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 1 6 2.40 1.60 3,60 2.40 5 6 1.20 2.80 1.80 4.20 4 6 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0 6 4.00 0.00 6.00 0,00 4 6 1.60 2.40 2.40 3.60 3 6 2.00 2.00 3,00 3.00 1 6 3.20 0.80 4.80 1.20 1 6 3.60 0.40 5,40 0.60 1 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 0 6 4.00 0.00 6,00 0.00 0 6 4.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 4 6 1.20 2.80 1.80 4.20 0 6 4.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 2 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 1 6 3.20 0.80 4,80 1.20 3 6 2.40 1.60 3.60 2.40 STUDY COMPUTED CH1-SGUAREU VALUE CHI-2 SIGNIFICANT AT .10 .05 .01 1.4062 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 1.2760 NO NO NO 1.2760 NO NO NO 0.4166 NU NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.1785 NU NO NO 0.1785 NO NO NO 0.0173 NO NO NO 0.0462 NO NO NO 0.0462 NO NO NO 0.0462 NO NO NO 0.1785 NO NO NO 0.0173 NO NO NO 0.4166 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.2343 NU NO NO 1.4062 NU NO NO 0.1785 NO NO NO 0.4166 NO NO NO ....... **• • •• • ** 0.0173 NO NO NO 0.4166 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.0462 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO ******* *•* *•* *** ******* **• *** *** 0.1785 NO NO NO ******* • *• • ** *•• 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.2343 NO NO NO 0.0173 NO NO NO I - * o I I ) 01 ST P/CO BUDGET COMMUNITY 123456712345671 PERSONNEL 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 cup. siculuh 2 3 4 STUDENTS 10 A cu B A 11 A CO c A 12 A cu B B 13 A CO c A 14 A cu c 0 15 A CO u 0 1/ A A 28 8 B u IS A CU A C IV A p E A 20 A p u E 21 A p c U 22 A p u E 23 A p • A 24 A p c C 25 B CO * B 26 r t CO * 0 27 H CU c C 28 B cu u C 2Y B cu 5 B 30 H CU V A 31 H CO c B . 32 B CO f t B 33 B CO c B 34 B CO B B 35 H p u A 36 B p * B 37 H p c A 38 B p D A 3V B p * C 40 R p c C 41 H p t C 42 a p A A 43 c CO u B 44 C CU 0 0 45 C CU E 8 46 c cu c C 47 c cu B B 40 c p 8 C 4 V c p u 0 50 c p t 0 51 c p t E 52 c p 0 C 53 c p E B 54 c p B C 55 c p c B 56 c p E E 57 c p A B 58 s p A A 5v s p C A 60 s p A A 61 5 p A B 62 s CO U B 63 s CO c C 64 s CU C R 65 s Cu E 0 66 s C A 67 s CO A A A A A a A A A B A B B U B D D 0 C C D C 2 2 B A * A A B E A C B * B A B A A C • C C A C c B B C A C B C B A C E A C A A A B C B 2 i A C A E D B A A U B B A 22 A A A C 0 E A 0 A a A 0 B A A . . a B A A A A C C A C C C B U B C A A A B A A A A A B A B A A B B A A A A A B A A C B U B B B B B C B A A a o c 2 B C B C C 2 A A A C C B C 2 2 C A §2 A E ■ A B E A B a B C 0 £ 2 C E A A C B A B B E A 2 2 2 2 ' E C C C c c e m A C 0 C C A A B 2 2 A E B C B B B B E A AAA AAA B B B ABA B B B A C A 0 * C A B 2 8 B B C D 2 C c B 0 C B B B C * • A C 0 a c A c A C A C C C C B 2 c B B B C C B C C 0 2 12 A C B B B 0 C B C B B B B 0 C A B B • G 8 2 B A C C B E 21 c c i 2 A C C C C C C C • * A C . C C B C A C C B A C B B A B C A E C c 0 A 2 2 A C C C 22 2 2 B B C B 5 6 7 1 i 3 4 5 6 7 A A B B k A A A A B A A B A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A C A A A A A C A B A A A B B B A c A B A C A A A A A A A A A A A 8 0 B A c A A A A C B B B A 8 A C B C * B C A 7 A A A A « A A B A A B A A A A 8 A A A 7 A A A A A B A A C f c A B A A 4 2 0 B e C B B d C A A A B ; ; B A A B A 3 B a C 6 C B B A B A A A A A C A A A A A A c A A C 7 .t .A A S A B B A C A A A A A B 0 A A A A A A C C c A A A A C A £ B B c A A A A A A B * B c A A B A B A B A B B A A * A A A A B B B A e B B B A B B B c A A B A A A A A A c B A C A E A A C A B A A * A * • A A A A B A’E & A A A B A A B C A A C A A C C B A * A C A A A A A B A B A B A A A A B A A B A B A A A A C A A A A A A A B B C A A E A B B A E A A 7 .A A A B A A A C A A A B A B A 8 A c C B A A A B B & B B C A A • A A A B A C B B A C A B A A B C B B A B B C A A A C B B A C B A A A C B B A A B A A A A c B C B A B A B C A c L <B C A B A B B A A A C A A A A B A A 0 B A C A A A C C A A C A A A A A A A A B C C A A • A C A B A B A A A A A B A A 0 A B A A E A A A A 0 A C A A C 3 A C C A 0 B B A C A A A B A C 8 A A A A B A C A A A A A C A A A C C B C B A A A B C A B A B B A C A C A B A A A A A E A C A C B A A B A C A B A B 105

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Decentralization And Decision-Making: An Analysis Of Elementary School Principals' And Central Office Administrators' Perceptions

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Preparation And Experience To The Appraisal Of Classroom Effectiveness By The Principal

PDF

The Administrative Behavior Of The Junior High School Principal

PDF

The Causes Of Turnover And Change Of Position Among Principals Of California Public High Schools

PDF

An Examination Of Opinions Of School Board Members, Administrators, And Teachers In California Public School Districts On Selected Aspects Of The Winton Act And Scope Of Negotiations

PDF

Assessing The Value Systems Of Teachers And Parents And Their Relationship To The Administration Of The Elementary School

PDF

An Investigation Of Graduate Student Perceptions Of Campus Environment

PDF

Legislator Perceptions Of The Role And Performance Of Elementary School Principals In California

PDF

Interrelationships Between School Districts And Vendors In The State Of California

PDF

An Analysis And Evaluation Of A Multidisciplinary Community Planning And Decision-Making Process: The Educational Facilities Charrette

PDF

Administrative Considerations In The Utilization Of Paraprofessionals In The Teaching-Learning Process

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

An Evaluative Study Of A Pontoon Transitional Design

PDF

Organization And Operation Of Certificated Employee Councils In Community College Districts Of California, 1965-1971

PDF

An Evaluation Of The United States Air Force Flying Safety Officer Courseat The University Of Southern California

PDF

Change Among Selected College Student Groups In Awareness Regarding The Nature Of Prejudice

PDF

Self-Perceptions Of Teacher Competence And Other Characteristics Of Enrollees And Nonenrollees In University Extension Courses In Professional Education

PDF

An Analysis Of The Effects Of Decentralization Upon Groups Of Affected People In The Compton Unified School District

PDF

The Development Of Higher Education In An Emergent Country: Malawi, Africa, 1960-1967

PDF

An Investigation Of Student Attitudes Toward Business

Asset Metadata

Creator Stone, Clarke Raymond (author)

Core Title Decentralization And Decision-Making: An Analysis Of The Perceptions Of High School Principals And Central Office Administrators

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor DeSilva, Lionel (committee chair), Nelson, D. Lloyd (committee member), Wilbur, Leslie (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-868641

Unique identifier UC11363579

Identifier 7331677.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-868641 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7331677

Dmrecord 868641

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Stone, Clarke Raymond

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